1: \documentclass{emulateapj}

2: 

3: \shorttitle{AGN X-ray Emission and Black Holes}

4: \shortauthors{Kelly et al.}

5: 

6: \begin{document}

7: 

8:   \title{Observational Constraints on the Dependence of Radio-Quiet

9:     Quasar X-ray Emission on Black Hole Mass and Accretion Rate}

10: 

11: \author{Brandon C. Kelly, Jill Bechtold, Jonathan R. Trump, Marianne Vestergaard\altaffilmark{1}}

12: \affil{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, 933 N Cherry Ave., 

13:   Tucson, AZ 85710}

14: \email{bkelly@as.arizona.edu}

15: \and

16: \author{Aneta Siemiginowska}

17: \affil{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, 

18:   Cambridge, MA 02138}

19: \altaffiltext{1}{Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Robinson Hall, Tufts University, 

20:   Medford, MA 02155 (present address)}

21: 

22: \begin{abstract}

23: In this work we use a sample of 318 radio-quiet quasars (RQQ) to

24: investigate the dependence of the ratio of optical/UV flux to X-ray

25: flux, $\alpha_{\rm ox}$, and the X-ray photon index, $\Gamma_X$, on

26: black hole mass, UV luminosity relative to Eddington, and X-ray

27: luminosity relative to Eddington. Our sample is drawn from the

28: literature, with X-ray data from \emph{ROSAT} and \emph{Chandra}, and

29: optical data mostly from the SDSS; 153 of these sources have estimates

30: of $\Gamma_X$ from \emph{Chandra}. We estimate $M_{BH}$ using standard

31: estimates derived from the H$\beta$, Mg II, and C IV broad emission

32: lines. Our sample spans a broad range in black hole mass ($10^6

33: \lesssim M_{BH} / M_{\odot} \lesssim 10^{10}$), redshift ($0 < z <

34: 4.8$), and luminosity ($10^{43} \lesssim \lambda L_{\lambda}

35: (2500$\AA$) [{\rm erg\ s^{-1}}] \lesssim 10^{48}$). We find that

36: $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ increases with increasing $M_{BH}$ and $L_{UV} /

37: L_{Edd}$, and decreases with increasing $L_X / L_{Edd}$. In addition,

38: we confirm the correlation seen in previous studies between $\Gamma_X$

39: and $M_{BH}$ and both $L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$ and $L_X / L_{Edd}$; however,

40: we also find evidence that the dependence of $\Gamma_X$ of these

41: quantities is not monotonic, changing sign at $M_{BH} \sim 3 \times

42: 10^8 M_{\odot}$. We argue that the $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ correlations

43: imply that the fraction of bolometric luminosity emitted by the

44: accretion disk, as compared to the corona, increases with increasing

45: accretion rate relative to Eddington, $\dot{m}$. In addition, we argue

46: that the $\Gamma_X$ trends are caused by a dependence of X-ray

47: spectral index on $\dot{m}$. We discuss our results within the context

48: of accretion models with comptonizing corona, and discuss the

49: implications of the $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ correlations for quasar

50: feedback. To date, this is the largest study of the dependence of RQQ

51: X-ray parameters on black hole mass and related quantities, and the

52: first to attempt to correct for the large statistical uncertainty in

53: the broad line mass estimates.

54: \end{abstract}

55: 

56: \keywords{accretion disks --- galaxies: active --- quasars: general

57:   --- ultraviolet: galaxies --- X-rays: galaxies}

58: 

59: \section{INTRODUCTION}

60: 

61: \label{s-intro}

62: 

63: The extraordinary activity associated with quasars involves accretion

64: onto a supermassive black hole (SMBH), with the UV/optical emission

65: arising from a geometrically thin, optically thick cold accretion disk

66: \citep{shakura73}, and the X-ray continuum arising from a hot,

67: optically thin corona that Compton upscatters the disk UV photons

68: \citep[e.g.,][]{haardt91}. In highly accreting objects, like quasars

69: \citep[$0.01 \lesssim L_{bol} / L_{Edd} \lesssim 1$,

70: e.g.,][]{woo02,vest04,mclure04,koll06}, the X-ray plasma geometry is

71: expected to be that of a hot, possibly patchy, ionized `skin' that

72: sandwiches the cold disk

73: \citep[e.g.,][]{bis77,liang77,nayak00}. However, the evidence for this

74: is not conclusive, and relies on data from X-ray binaries and low-$z$

75: sources \citep[e.g., see the dicussion by ][]{czerny03}. Other

76: geometries are possible, including an accretion disk that evaporates

77: into a hot inner flow \citep[e.g.,][]{shap76,zdz99}, or a combination

78: of a hot inner flow and a corona that sandwiches the disk

79: \citep[e.g.,][]{pout97,sob04a}. Furthermore, radiation pressure can

80: drive an outflow from the disk into the corona if the two are

81: cospatial, thus altering the physics of the corona

82: \citep{proga05}. Investigations of how quasar X-ray parameters depend

83: on black hole mass, $M_{BH}$, and accretion rate relative to

84: Eddington, $\dot{m}$, offer important constraints on models of the

85: disk/corona system.

86: 

87: There have been attempts to link the evolution of SMBHs to analytic

88: and semi-analytic models of structure formation

89: \citep[e.g.,][]{kauff00,hatz03,bromley04}, where black holes grow by

90: accreting gas funneled towards the center during a galaxy merger until

91: feedback energy from the SMBH expels gas and shuts off the accretion

92: process \citep[e.g.,][]{silk98,fabian99,wyithe03,begel05}. This

93: `self-regulated' growth of black holes has recently been successfully

94: applied in smoothed particle hydrodynamics simulations

95: \citep{dimatt05,spring05}. Within this framework, the AGN or quasar

96: phase occurs during the episode of significant accretion that follows

97: the galaxy merger, persisting until feedback from the black hole

98: `blows' the gas away \citep[e.g.,][]{hopkins06}. Hydrodynamic

99: calculations have shown that line pressure is more efficient than

100: thermal pressure at driving an outflow \citep{proga07}, and therefore,

101: the efficiency of AGN feedback depends on the fraction of energy

102: emitted through the UV/disk component as compared to the X-ray/corona

103: component. If the fraction of energy emitted in the UV as compared to

104: the X-ray depends on $M_{BH}$ or $\dot{m}$, then it follows that the

105: efficiency of AGN feedback will also depend on $M_{BH}$ and

106: $\dot{m}$. This has important consequences for models of SMBH growth,

107: as the SMBH may become more or less efficient at driving an outflow

108: depending on its mass and accretion rate. Studies of the dependence of

109: quasar X-ray/UV emission on black hole mass and accretion rate are

110: therefore important as they allow us to constrain a $M_{BH}$- or

111: $\dot{m}$-dependent feedback efficiency.

112: 

113: Numerous previous studies have searched for a luminosity and redshift

114: dependence of $\alpha_{ox} = -0.384 \log L_X / L_{UV}$, the ratio of

115: X-ray to UV/optical flux

116: \citep[e.g.,][]{avni82,wilkes94,yuan98,vig03b,strat05,steffen06,kelly07c},

117: and $\Gamma_X$, the X-ray spectra slope

118: \citep[e.g.,][]{reeves00,bech03,dai04,ris05,grupe06}. Most studies

119: have found a correlation between $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ and UV luminosity,

120: $L_{UV}$, while the existence of a correlation between $\alpha_{\rm

121: ox}$ and $z$ is still a matter of debate

122: \citep[e.g.,][]{bech03,vig03b,steffen06,just07,kelly07c}. In addition,

123: studies of $\Gamma_X$ have produced mixed results. Some authors have

124: claimed a correlation between $\Gamma_X$ and luminosity

125: \citep[e.g.,][]{bech03,dai04} or redshift \citep[e.g.,][]{reeves97,

126: vig99, page03}, while, others find no evidence for a correlation

127: between $\Gamma_X$ and $L_{UV}$ or $z$

128: \citep[e.g.,][]{vig05,ris05,kelly07c}.

129: 

130: A correlation between $\Gamma_X$ and the $FWHM$ of the H$\beta$ line

131: has also been found \citep[e.g.,][]{boller96,brandt97}, suggesting a

132: correlation between $\Gamma_X$ and black hole mass or Eddington ratio

133: \citep[e.g.,][]{laor97,brandt98}. Recently, it has become possible to

134: obtain estimates of $M_{BH}$ for broad line AGN by calibrating results

135: from reverberation mapping \citep{peter04,kaspi05} for use on

136: single-epoch spectra

137: \citep{wand99,vest02,mclure02,vest06,kelly07b}. This has enabled some

138: authors to confirm a correlation between $\Gamma_X$ and either

139: $M_{BH}$ or $L_{bol} / L_{Edd}$

140: \citep[e.g.,][]{lu99,gier04,porquet04,picon05,shemmer06}, where the

141: X-ray continuum hardens with increasing $M_{BH}$ or softens with

142: increasing $L_{bol} / L_{Edd}$. In addition, previous work has also

143: found evidence for quasars becoming more X-ray quiet as $M_{BH}$ or

144: $L_{bol} / L_{Edd}$ increase \citep{brunner97,wang04}; however,

145: studies involving the dependence of $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ on $M_{BH}$ or

146: $L_{bol} / L_{Edd}$ have remained rare compared to studies of

147: $\Gamma_X$. It is important to note that the correlations inferred in

148: previous work generally employ broad line mass estimates in

149: combination with a constant bolometric correction. Therefore, most of

150: the correlations found in previous work are, strictly speaking,

151: between $\Gamma_X$ or $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ and the estimates $M_{BH}

152: \propto L_{\lambda}^{\gamma} FWHM^2$ and $L_{bol} / L_{Edd} \propto

153: L_{\lambda}^{1 - \gamma} FWHM^{-2}$, where $\gamma \sim 0.5$.

154: 

155: In this work, we investigate the dependence of $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ and

156: $\Gamma_X$ on black hole mass, optical/UV luminosity relative to

157: Eddington, and X-ray luminosity relative to Eddington. We combine the

158: main Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) sample of \citet{strat05} with

159: the sample of \citet{kelly07c}, creating a sample of 318 radio-quiet

160: quasars (RQQ) with X-ray data from \emph{ROSAT} and \emph{Chandra},

161: and optical spectra mostly from the SDSS; 153 of these sources have

162: estimates of $\Gamma_X$ from \emph{Chandra}. Because the X-ray

163: emission in radio-loud sources can have an additional component from

164: the jet \citep[e.g.,][]{zam81,wilkes87}, we focus our analysis on the

165: radio-quiet majority. Our sample has a detection fraction of $87\%$

166: and spans a broad range in black hole mass ($10^6 \lesssim M_{BH} /

167: M_{\odot} \lesssim 10^{10}$), redshift ($0 < z < 4.8$), and luminosity

168: ($10^{43} \lesssim \lambda L_{\lambda} (2500$\AA$) [{\rm erg\ s^{-1}}]

169: \lesssim 10^{48}$), enabling us to effectively look for trends

170: regarding $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ and $\Gamma_X$.

171: 

172: The outline of this paper is as follows. In \S~\ref{s-sample} we

173: describe the construction of our sample, and in \S~\ref{s-specfits} we

174: describe the procedure we used to fit the optical continuum and

175: emission lines. In \S~\ref{s-mbhredd_est} we describe how we obtain

176: broad line mass estimates, our bolometric correction, and argue that a

177: constant bolometric correction provides a poor estimate of the

178: bolometric luminosity. In \S~\ref{s-alfox_bh} we describe the results

179: from a regression analysis of $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ on $M_{BH}, L_{UV} /

180: L_{Edd},$ and $L_X / L_{Edd}$, and in \S~\ref{s-gamx_bh} we report

181: evidence for a non-monotonic dependence of $\Gamma_X$ on either

182: $M_{BH}, L_{UV} / L_{Edd},$ and $L_X / L_{Edd}$. In

183: \S~\ref{s-discussion} we discuss our results within the context of AGN

184: disk/corona models, and we discuss the implications for a dependence

185: of quasar feedback efficiency on black hole mass or accretion rate. In

186: \S~\ref{s-summary} we summarize our main results.

187: 

188: We adopt a cosmology based on the the WMAP best-fit parameters

189: \citep[$h=0.71, \Omega_m=0.27, \Omega_{\Lambda}=0.73$,][]{wmap}. For

190: ease of notation, we define $L_{UV} \equiv \nu L_{\nu} (2500$\AA$),

191: L_X \equiv \nu L_{\nu} (2\ {\rm keV}), l_{UV} \equiv \log \nu L_{\nu}

192: (2500 $\AA$),$ and $m_{BH} \equiv \log M_{BH} / M_{\odot}$.

193: 

194: \section{SAMPLE CONSTRUCTION}

195: 

196: \label{s-sample}

197: 

198: In this analysis we combine 169 RQQs from \citet[][hereafter

199: K07]{kelly07c} with 149 RQQs from the main SDSS sample of

200: \citet[][hereafter S05]{strat05} to create a sample of 318 RQQs. Out

201: of these 318 sources, 276 ($86.8\%$) are detected in the X-rays. The

202: $z \lesssim 4$ sources from the K07 sample were selected by

203: cross-correlating the SDSS DR3 quasar catalogue \citep{dr3qsos} with

204: the {\it Chandra} public archive as of 2005 February 22. The $z

205: \gtrsim 4$ sources from the K07 sample consist of targeted

206: \emph{Chandra} RQQs taken from the literature

207: \citep{bech03,vig01,vig03a}, and new observations reported by K07. The

208: sources taken from S05 were selected from the SDSS to be contained

209: within the inner $19'$ of \emph{ROSAT} PSPC pointings with exposure

210: times $> 11$ ksec. The X-ray data for both samples are as reported by

211: S05 and K07.

212: 

213: Both the S05 and K07 samples consist only of radio-quiet quasars. We

214: focus our analysis on the radio-quiet majority because the radio-loud

215: sources have an additional component of X-ray emission arising from

216: the jet \citep[e.g.,][]{zam81,wilkes87,worrall87}. In addition, both

217: S05 and K07 omitted BAL QSOs when possible. It is necessary to remove

218: the BAL QSOs because their high column density gives them the

219: appearance of being X-ray weak \citep[e.g.,][]{green01, gall02,

220: gall06}, potentially biasing our analysis. However, neither S05 nor

221: K07 were able to remove the high-ionization BAL quasars for $z < 1.5$,

222: as their identification requires observations of the C IV line. In

223: addition, low-ionization BALs can be identified at $0.45 < z < 2.25$

224: based on Mg II absorption. \citet{reich03} found the fraction of BALs

225: in the SDSS to be $\sim 14\%$, and therefore we expect there to be $25

226: \pm 5$ BALs in our sample at $z < 1.5$. This number may be higher if

227: one relaxes the definition of a BAL quasar \citep{trump06}.

228: 

229: We exclude five sources from the S05 sample due to significant

230: intrinsic narrow UV absorption or obvious host galaxy contamination:

231: Source SDSS J103747.4-001643.9 ($z=1.500$) had significant C IV

232: absorption, and sources SDSS J124520.7-002128.1 ($z=2.354$) and SDSS

233: J103709.8+000235.2 ($z=2.679$) had significant absorption in both C IV

234: and L$\alpha$. These three sources were omitted because the absorption

235: prohibits obtaining an accurate line width measurement, necessary for

236: broad line mass estimates, and to ensure that the X-ray emission under

237: study is not effected by the absorption. Sources SDSS

238: J230440.6-082220.8 ($z = 0.201$) and SDSS J023306.0+003856.4 ($z =

239: 0.244$) have a significant host-galaxy component in their spectra. In

240: addition, we exclude source SDSS J144340.8+585653.2 ($z = 4.278$) from

241: the K07 sample because it has significant UV absorption. We removed

242: source SDSS J142414.1+421400.1 ($z=1.608$) from the K07 sample and

243: source SDSS J170441.4+604430.5 (PG 1704+608, $z=0.372$) from the S05

244: sample, as both sources are radio-loud.

245: 

246: We could not estimate black hole masses for sources SDSS

247: J083206.0+524359.3 ($z=1.573$), SDSS J144231.7+011055.3 ($z=4.507$),

248: and PC 0910+5625 ($z=4.035$). All three of these sources are from the

249: K07 sample. The region containing the Mg II emission line for SDSS

250: J083206.0+524359.3 was missing from the SDSS spectrum, the emission

251: lines are too weak for SDSS J144231.7+011055.3, and an optical

252: spectrum was not available for PC 0910+5625.

253: 

254: \section{OPTICAL/UV SPECTRAL FITS}

255: 

256: \label{s-specfits}

257: 

258: Optical spectra were obtained for most sources from the SDSS. We also

259: obtained spectra for some of the high redshift quasars from

260: \citet{and01}, \citet{peroux01}, and \citet{const02}. The values of

261: $L_{UV}$ and $\alpha, L_{\nu} \propto \nu^{-\alpha}$, for the K07

262: sources are taken from K07. We processed the optical spectra for the

263: S05 sources in the same manner as for the K07 sources. We do this for

264: consistency and because S05 did not correct for quasar iron emission.

265: 

266: \subsection{Continuum Fitting}

267: 

268: \label{s-contfit}

269: 

270: As described by K07, we corrected the optical spectra for Galactic

271: absorption using the $E(B-V)$ values taken from \citet{schlegel}, as

272: listed in the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED), and the

273: extinction curve of \citet{ccm89}, assuming a value of $A_V / E(B-V) =

274: 3.1$. We model the continuum as a power law of the form $f_{\nu}

275: \propto \nu^{-\alpha}$, and the Fe emission as a scaled and broadened

276: iron template extracted from I Zw I. The optical iron template was

277: extracted by \citet{optfe}, and the UV iron template was extracted by

278: \citet{uvfe}. The continuum and iron emission were fit simultaneously

279: using the Levenberg-Marquardt method for nonlinear

280: $\chi^2$-minimization. Continuum flux densities were then estimated

281: using the power law parameters.

282: 

283: We were not able to use a power-law fit to calculate $L_{UV}$ for the

284: $z \lesssim 0.4$ sources, as the SDSS spectral range for these sources

285: does not contain the rest-frame UV continuum.  Instead, we use the

286: luminosity of the broad component of the H$\beta$ emission line,

287: $L_{{\rm H}\beta}$, as a proxy for $L_{UV}$. It is preferable to use

288: the broad H$\beta$ emission line luminosity over, say, the optical

289: continuum luminosity as a proxy for $L_{UV}$ because the broad

290: H$\beta$ emission line is not contaminated by emission from the host

291: galaxy, and thus should provide an approximately unbiased estimate of

292: $L_{UV}$. Host-galaxy contamination is likely negligible for all $z >

293: 0.4$ sources, as $\nu L_{\nu}^* \sim 10^{44} {\rm\ ergs\ s^{-1}}$ at

294: $2500$\AA\ for galaxies \citep{bud05}. We fit a power-law relationship

295: between $L_{UV}$ and $L_{{\rm H}\beta}$ using the 44 sources at $0.4 <

296: z < 0.9$ for which a measurement of both quantities if available. We

297: used the linear regression method of \citet{kelly07a}, which allows

298: for measurement errors in both variables, and find

299: \begin{equation}

300:   \frac{\lambda L_{\lambda} (2500\mbox{\AA})}{10^{44}{\rm \ ergs\ s^{-1}}} = 

301:   (1.556 \pm 0.282) \left( \frac{L_{{\rm H}\beta}}{10^{42}{\rm \ ergs\ s^{-1}}} 

302:   \right)^{0.768 \pm 0.086}.

303:   \label{eq-luv_lhb}

304: \end{equation}

305: The intrinsic scatter about this relationship is $\approx 0.179$ dex,

306: implying a potential uncertainty in $l_{UV}$ inferred from this

307: relationship of the same magnitude. There was no trend in the

308: residuals with either $z$ or $L_{{\rm H}\beta}$, implying that

309: Equation (\ref{eq-luv_lhb}) should give unbiased estimates of $l_{UV}$

310: for the $z < 0.4$ sources. Values of $L_{UV}$ were estimated using

311: Equation (\ref{eq-luv_lhb}) for both the K07 and S05 $z < 0.4$

312: sources, a total of 42 sources.

313: 

314: The distributions of $L_{UV}$ and $L_X$ as a function of

315: redshift are shown in Figure \ref{f-lum_z_dist}. We calculate the

316: ratio of optical to X-ray flux \citep{tan79} as

317: \begin{equation}

318:   \alpha_{\rm ox} = -0.384 \log (f_{\rm 2keV} / f_{2500}),

319:   \label{eq-alfox}

320: \end{equation}

321: where $f_{\rm 2keV}$ and $f_{2500}$ are the rest-frame flux densities at 2 keV

322: and $2500$\AA, respectively. If the flux density from $2500$\AA\ to 2

323: keV is a simple power law, then $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ is the spectral

324: slope of this continuum, and thus $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ may be thought of

325: as a crude estimate of the shape of the ionizing continuum. The

326: parameter $\alpha_{ox}$ is an important parameter for model

327: comparison, as it summarizes the amount of energy emitted in the X-ray

328: region (most likely a Comptonized component), compared with that

329: emitted in the optical-UV (accretion disk component). The distribution

330: of $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ as a function of $L_{UV}$ and $z$ are also

331: shown in Figure \ref{f-lum_z_dist}.

332: 

333: The error on $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ is the result of measurement errors on

334: the UV and X-ray flux, as well as error caused by quasar variability

335: over the different epochs for the UV and X-ray observations. In

336: general, the measurement errors on $l_{UV}$ are negligible compared to

337: the error on $l_X$. S05 estimates a error on the X-ray flux of $\sim

338: 0.23$ dex, including both the contributions from measurement error and

339: variability. Typical long-term X-ray variability for Seyfert 1s is

340: $20\%$--$40\%$ with no obvious trend with luminosity \citep{grupe01,

341: uttley02, mark03}. The measurement errors in $l_X$ for the K07 sample

342: are typically $\sim 0.07$ dex. Assuming X-ray variability amplitudes

343: of $30\%$, this implies typical uncertainties in the X-ray luminosity

344: of $\sim 0.15$ dex. Therefore, we estimate the uncertainty on

345: $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ to be $\sim 0.06$ for the K07 sources and $\sim

346: 0.09$ for the S05 sources.

347: 

348: \subsection{Line Profile Extraction and Fitting}

349: 

350: \label{s-lineprof}

351: 

352: We extracted the H$\beta$, Mg II, and C IV emission lines in order to

353: use their widths in our black hole mass estimates

354: \citep[e.g.,][]{vest02,mclure02,vest06}. These line were extracted by

355: first subtracting the continuum and Fe emission, interpolating over

356: any narrow absorption features, and modelling all lines within the

357: extraction region as a sum of Gaussian functions. Any nearby lines

358: were then subtracted, leaving only the broad emission line profile. In

359: all cases the line profile extraction was done interactively and every

360: line fit was inspected visually.

361: 

362: For H$\beta$, we extracted the region within $\pm 2 \times 10^4 \ {\rm

363: km \ s}^{-1}$ of $4861$\AA, where we use the standard convention that

364: negative velocities are blueward of a given wavelength. The H$\beta$

365: profile was modeled as a sum of 2--3 Gaussian functions. The [O III]

366: $\lambda 4959$\AA\ and [O III] $\lambda 5007$\AA\ lines were modeled

367: as a sum of 1--2 Gaussian functions, depending on the signal-to-noise

368: of the lines. A sum of two Gaussian functions was used for the higher

369: $S/N$ lines because the [O III] line profiles are not exactly a

370: Gaussian function; the individual Gaussian components are not

371: considered to be physically distinct components. The widths of the

372: narrow Gaussian functions for H$\beta$ and [O III] lines were fixed to

373: be equal to eachother. The [O III] lines and the narrow component of

374: the H$\beta$ line were then subtracted, leaving the broad component of

375: H$\beta$.

376:   

377: For Mg II, we extracted the region within $\pm 2 \times 10^4 \ {\rm km

378: \ s}^{-1}$ of $2800$\AA. There are no nearby non-iron emission lines

379: that Mg II is blended with, so the extraction is trivial after

380: removing the Fe and continuum emission.

381: 

382: For C IV, we extracted the region within $-2 \times 10^4 \ {\rm km \

383: s}^{-1}$ and $3 \times 10^4 \ {\rm km \ s}^{-1}$ of $1549$\AA. The C

384: IV line was modeled as a sum of 2--3 Gaussian functions, and He II $\lambda

385: 1640$ and O III] $\lambda 1665$ were modeled as a sum of 1--2

386: Gaussian functions each. After obtaining estimates of the He II and O III]

387: profiles, we subtracted these components. We did not model the N IV]

388: $\lambda 1486$ emission line as this line is typically weak and lost

389: in the C IV wings.

390: 

391: In order to estimate $M_{BH}$, it is necessary to measure the $FWHM$

392: of the emission lines. After extracting the line profiles, we estimate

393: the $FWHM$ for the H$\beta$, Mg II, and C IV emission lines by fitting

394: them to a sum of 1--5 Gaussian functions, enabling us to obtain a

395: smooth representation of each line. In contrast to our profile

396: extraction technique, we choose the number of Gaussian functions to

397: minimize the Bayesian Information Criterion \citep[$BIC$,][]{bic}. The

398: $BIC$ is a common criterion to use for selecting the number of

399: parameters in a model \citep[e.g., see][]{hastie01}; the model that

400: minimizes the $BIC$ is approximately the model that is most supported

401: by the data. For Gaussian errors, as assumed in this work, the BIC is

402: simply a modification to the standard $\chi^2$ statistic:

403: \begin{equation}

404:   BIC = \chi^2 + 3K \ln n,

405:   \label{eq-bic}

406: \end{equation}

407: where $K$ is the number of Gaussian functions used, $3K$ is the number

408: of free parameters, and $n$ is the number of data points used in the

409: fit. Using the $BIC$ to `fit' the number of Gaussian functions thus allows us

410: more flexibility in obtaining a smooth representation of the line

411: profile, as we are not choosing the number of Gaussian functions

412: arbitrarily. Once a smooth representation is obtained, we

413: automatically measure the $FWHM$ directly from the best fit line

414: profile.

415: 

416: The standard errors on $FWHM$ are estimated using a bootstrap

417: method. We simulated 100 `observed' emission lines by adding random

418: Gaussian noise to the best fit line profile with standard deviation

419: equal to the noise level of the spectrum, including the propagated

420: errors from the continuum and iron emission fitting. We then fit each

421: of the simulated emission lines, keeping the number of Gaussian

422: functions fixed at the number found from fitting the original profile,

423: and measured the $FWHM$ for each simulated line. The standard error on

424: $FWHM$ was then estimated as the standard deviation of the $FWHM$

425: values measured from the simulated line profiles.

426: 

427: \section{ESTIMATING $M_{BH}$}

428: 

429: \label{s-mbhredd_est}

430: 

431: Recently, reverberation mapping studies of broad line AGN

432: \citep[e.g.,][]{peter04} established a correlation between the broad

433: line region (BLR) size, $R$, and the continuum luminosity \citep[the

434: $R$--$L$ relationship, e.g.,][]{kaspi05,bentz06}. This has made it

435: possible to estimate black hole virial mass $M_{BH} = f v^2 R / G$ for

436: individual sources, where the BLR velocity $v$ is estimated from the

437: width of an emission line

438: \citep[e.g.,][]{wand99,vest02,mclure02,vest06}. We choose the

439: proportionality constant to give broad line mass estimates consistent

440: with the $M_{BH}$--$\sigma$ relationship \citep{gebh00,merr01,trem02},

441: $f = 1.4 \pm 0.45$ \citep{onken04}. An estimate of the Eddington

442: luminosity can be computed as $L_{Edd} = 1.3 \times 10^{38} M_{BH} /

443: M_{\odot}\ {\rm erg\ s^{-1}}$.

444: 

445: \subsection{Black Hole Mass Estimates from H$\beta$, Mg II, and C IV}

446: 

447: \label{s-mbhest}

448: 

449: In this work we estimate $M_{BH}$ from the H$\beta$, Mg II, and C IV

450: emission lines. We use the relationship of \citet{vest06} to estimate

451: $M_{BH}$ from the H$\beta$ and C IV emission lines, and the datails of

452: the Mg II calibration will be discussed in a forthcoming paper

453: \citet[][in preparation]{vest08}. The calibration for the Mg II mass

454: estimates was calculated to ensure that they are consistent with the

455: mass estimates based on H$\beta$ and C IV. We have 49 sources with

456: both H$\beta$ and Mg II mass estimates, and 73 sources with both C IV

457: and Mg II mass estimates. Both samples show consistent mass estimates

458: between the different emission lines, within the intrinsic uncertainty

459: in the broad line mass estimates ($\sim 0.4$ dex).

460: 

461: We will denote the broad line mass estimates as $\hat{M}_{BL}$, and

462: $\hat{m}_{BL} \equiv \log \hat{M}_{BL} / M_{\odot}$. It is important

463: to distinguish between $\hat{M}_{BL}$ and $M_{BH}$, as $\hat{M}_{BL}

464: \propto L^{\gamma} FWHM^2, \gamma \sim 0.5,$ is an estimate of

465: $M_{BH}$ derived from reverberation mapping, and thus in general

466: $\hat{M}_{BL} \neq M_{BH}$. The statistical uncertainty needs to be

467: taken into account when analyzing correlations involving derived

468: quantities like $\hat{M}_{BL} \propto L^{\gamma} FWHM^2$, as they can

469: bias the results \citep{kelly07b,kelly07a}.

470: 

471: The uncertainty in $f$ increases the formal statistical uncertainty in

472: the broad line estimates of $M_{BH}$ to $\sim 0.46$ dex. Our adopted

473: formal uncertainty of $\sim 0.46$ dex is merely statistical, and

474: additional systematic uncertainties in reverberation mapping may

475: contribute \citep{krolik01,collin06}. Because our adopted uncertainty

476: of $\sim 0.46$ describes the scatter in broad line mass estimates

477: about the reverberation mapping estimates, as calibrated via the

478: $M_{BH}$--$\sigma$ relationship, the regression results found in this

479: work should be understood as results that could have been obtained if

480: we had reverberation-based $M_{BH}$ for the sources in this

481: work. However, instead of reverberation-based mass estimates, we have

482: broad line mass estimates with `measurement error' equal to $\sim

483: 0.46$ dex with respect to the reverberation-based mass estimates, thus

484: increasing the uncertainty from the regression analysis.

485: 

486: For most sources, measurement errors on $FWHM$ and $L_{\lambda}$ did

487: not significantly contribute to the uncertainty on $M_{BH}$. If there

488: were two emission lines in the same spectrum we averaged the two mass

489: estimates, where the average was weighted by the uncertainties in the

490: two estimates. The distribution of $M_{BH}$ as a function of $z$ for

491: our sample is shown in Figure \ref{f-mbh_vs_z}. The broad line masss

492: estimates for the sources in our sample are reported in Table

493: \ref{t-sample}.

494: 

495: \subsection{Eddington Ratio Estimates}

496: 

497: \label{s-eddrat}

498: 

499: A constant bolometric correction has been used in most previous

500: studies involving the AGN Eddington ratio. However, recent work by

501: \citet{vasud07} has suggested that bolometric corrections show a large

502: spread with no obvious dependence on luminosity. Furthermore, these

503: authors found evidence that the bolometric correction depends on the

504: Eddington ratio. This implies that the error in the bolometric

505: correction is correlated with Eddington ratio, which therefore implies

506: that the error in the estimated Eddington ratio is correlated with the

507: actual Eddington ratio. An Eddington ratio-dependent error in the

508: bolometric correction my cause problems when using the estimated

509: Eddington ratios to infer correlations.

510: 

511: Further difficulties with a constant bolometric correction are

512: illustrated with Figure \ref{f-alfox_redd}. In \ref{f-alfox_redd} we

513: plot $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ as a function of $L_{UV} / \hat{L}_{Edd}$ and

514: $L_X / \hat{L}_{Edd}$, where we estimate the Eddington luminosity from

515: the broad line mass estimates as $\hat{L}_{Edd} = 1.3 \times 10^{38}

516: \hat{M}_{BL} / M_{\odot}\ {\rm erg\ s^{-1}}$. As with $\hat{M}_{BL}$,

517: we use the notation $\hat{L}_{Edd}$ to emphasize that $\hat{L}_{Edd}$

518: is an estimate of the true $L_{Edd}$ based on the broad line mass

519: estimates, and therefore $\hat{L}_{Edd} \propto L^{\gamma}

520: FWHM^2$. Constant bolometric corrections are often applied to either

521: the optical/UV or X-ray luminosity. If a constant bolometric

522: correction was valid for both $L_{UV}$ and $L_X$, then we would expect

523: that $L_{UV} / \hat{L}_{Edd} \propto L_X / \hat{L}_{Edd} \propto

524: L_{bol} / L_{Edd}$. However, while a correlation between $\alpha_{\rm

525: ox}$ and both $L_{UV} / \hat{L}_{Edd}$ and $L_X / \hat{L}_{Edd}$ is

526: apparent, they are of opposite sign. Because the correlations are of

527: opposite sign, it cannot be true that both $L_{UV} / \hat{L}_{Edd}$

528: and $L_X / \hat{L}_{Edd}$ are proportional to the Eddington ratio,

529: $L_{bol} / L_{Edd}$.

530: 

531: Because of the current significant uncertainty regarding RQQ

532: bolometric corrections, we take the conservative approach and merely

533: compare $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ and $\Gamma_X$ with $L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$ and

534: $L_X / L_{Edd}$. The estimated values of $L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$ and $L_X /

535: L_{Edd}$ for the sources in our sample are reported in Table

536: \ref{t-sample}. We can write $L_{UV} / L_{Edd} \propto f_{UV} L_{bol}

537: / L_{Edd}$ and $L_X / L_{Edd} \propto f_X L_{bol} / L_{Edd}$, where

538: $f_{UV}$ and $f_X$ are the inverses of the bolometric corrections for

539: $L_{UV}$ and $L_X$, respectively. The quantities $f_{UV}$ and $f_X$

540: are proportional to the fraction of the bolometric luminosity emitted

541: at 2500\AA\ and 2 keV. Then, correlations between either $\alpha_{\rm

542: ox}$ or $\Gamma_X$ and $L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$ will result if $\alpha_{\rm

543: ox}$ or $\Gamma_X$ is correlated with $f_{UV}$, the Eddington ratio,

544: or both, and likewise for $f_X$.

545: 

546: While we do not use an estimate of the Eddington ratio in our

547: analysis, it is helpful to estimate the distribution of Eddington

548: ratios probed by our sample. We assume the bolometric correction

549: described in \citet{hopkins07} for the $z < 1.5$ sources, and constant

550: bolometric described in \citet{vest04} of $L_{bol} = 4.62 \lambda

551: L_{\lambda}(1350$\AA$)$ at $z > 1.5$. In Figure \ref{f-mbh_vs_z} we

552: also show the distribution of estimated Eddington ratios as a function

553: of $z$. Because the distribution of estimated $L_{bol} / L_{Edd}$ is

554: the true distribution of $L_{bol} / L_{Edd}$ broadened by the

555: distribution of errors in the estimates, our sample likely probes a

556: smaller range in Eddington ratio than that inferred from Figure

557: \ref{f-mbh_vs_z}. Therefore, at most our sample probes RQQs with

558: Eddington ratios $0.03 \lesssim L_{bol} / L_{Edd} \lesssim 2$.

559: 

560: \section{DEPENDENCE OF $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ ON $M_{BH}, L_{UV} / L_{Edd},$ and $L_X / L_{Edd}$}

561: 

562: \label{s-alfox_bh}

563: 

564: We used our sample of 318 sources with estimates of $M_{BH}$ to

565: investigate the dependence of $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ at a given black hole

566: mass, $L_{UV} / L_{Edd},$ and $L_X / L_{Edd}$. We use linear

567: regression analysis in order to understand how $\alpha_{\rm ox}$

568: varies with respect to these parameters. We use the method of

569: \citet{kelly07a} to estimate the regression parameters. The method of

570: \citet{kelly07a} accounts for measurement errors, non-detections, and

571: intrinsic scatter. In addition, \citet{kelly07a} adopts a Bayesian

572: approach, computing the posterior probability distribution of the

573: parameters, given the observed data. Thus the uncertainties on the

574: regression coefficients have a straight-forward interpretion, and do

575: not rely on large-sample approximations. Many other methods, such as

576: traditional maximum-likelihood, assume that the errors in the

577: regression parameters follow a Gaussian distribution, which is valid

578: as the sample size approaches infinity. However, this assumption is

579: not necessarily valid for our finite sample size, especially in the

580: presence of censoring (i.e., presence of upper/lower limits) and

581: significant measurement error. The method of \citet{kelly07a} directly

582: estimates the probability distribution of the regression parameters,

583: and is therefore preferred.

584: 

585: We assess the simple 2-dimensional correlations between $\alpha_{\rm

586: ox}$ and $M_{BH}, L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$, and $L_X / L_{Edd}$, and compare

587: with the $\alpha_{\rm ox}$--$L_{UV}$ correlation. The results from the

588: regressions are

589: \begin{eqnarray}

590:   \alpha_{\rm ox} & = & -3.91^{+1.04}_{-1.01} + (0.12^{+0.02}_{-0.02}) \log L_{UV}, 

591:     \ \ \sigma_{\alpha_{\rm ox}} = 0.14^{+0.02}_{-0.01}, \nonumber \\

592:     & & \rho =  0.57^{+0.09}_{-0.10} \label{eq-alfox_luv} \\

593:   \alpha_{\rm ox} & = & 0.05^{+0.39}_{-0.42} + (0.17^{+0.05}_{-0.04}) \log M_{BH},

594:     \ \ \sigma_{\alpha_{\rm ox}} = 0.14^{+0.02}_{-0.02}, \nonumber \\

595:     & & \rho = 0.53^{+0.12}_{-0.13} \label{eq-alfox_mbh} \\

596:   \alpha_{\rm ox} & = & 2.90^{+0.71}_{-0.43} + (0.99^{+0.50}_{-0.31}) \log L_{UV} / L_{Edd},

597:     \ \ \sigma_{\alpha_{\rm ox}} = 0.05^{+0.05}_{-0.03}, \nonumber \\

598:     & & \rho = 0.95^{+0.04}_{-0.16} \label{eq-alfox_uvedd} \\

599:   \alpha_{\rm ox} & = & -0.03^{+0.25}_{-0.34} - (0.57^{+0.09}_{-0.12}) \log L_X / L_{Edd},

600:     \ \ \sigma_{\alpha_{\rm ox}} = 0.03^{+0.04}_{-0.03}, \nonumber \\

601:     & & \rho = -0.98^{+0.06}_{-0.02} \label{eq-alfox_xedd}

602: \end{eqnarray}

603: where $\sigma_{\alpha_{\rm ox}}$ is the intrinsic dispersion in

604: $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ at a given $L_{UV}, M_{BH}, L_{UV} / L_{Edd},$ or

605: $L_X / L_{Edd}$, $\rho$ is the linear correlation coefficient for

606: $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ and the respective independent variables, and the

607: errors are quoted at the $95\%$ $(2\sigma)$ level. All four

608: relationships are significant, with RQQs becoming more X-ray quiet as

609: $L_{UV}, M_{BH},$ or $L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$ increases, and more X-ray loud

610: as $L_X / L_{Edd}$ increases. Because we have attempted to correct for

611: the intrinsic statistical scatter in the broad line mass estimates,

612: Equations (\ref{eq-alfox_luv})--(\ref{eq-alfox_xedd}) refer to the

613: intrinsic relationships involving $M_{BH}$, barring any systematic

614: errors in reverberation mapping, and are not simply correlations

615: between $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ and the broad line mass estimates. The

616: estimated distributions of $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ as a function of $L_{UV},

617: M_{BH}, L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$, and $L_X / L_{Edd}$ are shown in Figure

618: \ref{f-alfox_reg}, along with the regression results.

619: 

620: The intrinsic dispersion in $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ quantifies the magnitude

621: of scatter in $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ at a given $L_{UV}, M_{BH}, L_{UV} /

622: L_{Edd},$ or $L_X / L_{Edd}$. Because we have attempted to account for

623: contribution to the scatter in $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ resulting from

624: measurement error and variability, $\sigma_{\alpha_{\rm ox}}$

625: represents the dispersion in the real physical scatter in $\alpha_{\rm

626: ox}$ over the population of RQQs. This `residual' scatter represents

627: the amount of variation in $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ that is not `explained'

628: by variations in $L_{UV}, M_{BH}, L_{UV} / L_{Edd},$ or $L_X /

629: L_{Edd}$, respectively. This intrinsic scatter in $\alpha_{\rm ox}$

630: may be due to variations in accretion rate, viscosity, column density,

631: and other quantities not included in our regression.

632: 

633: In \S~\ref{s-sample} we estimate that there are $25 \pm 5$ BAL quasars

634: in our sample at $z < 1.5$. Because these objects have the appearance

635: of being X-ray weak, and because redshift is artificially correlated

636: with luminosity and $M_{BH}$ in a flux limited sample, we expect that

637: the presence of unidentified BALs at $z < 1.5$ will produce an excess

638: of X-ray weak objects at low $L_{UV}$ and $M_{BH}$, thus flattening

639: the inferred slopes. Inspection of the plot of $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ and

640: $z$ in Figure \ref{f-lum_z_dist} suggests an excess of X-ray weak

641: objects at $z < 1.5$ and $\alpha_{\rm ox} \gtrsim 1.8$, implying these

642: objects are BAL quasars. We removed these 10 objects and refit the

643: regressions. Omission of these objects resulted in a steepening of the

644: slopes for the $L_{UV}$ and $M_{BH}$ regression, and a flattening of

645: the slope for the $L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$ regression. In addition, the

646: intrinsic dispersion in $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ decreased for the $L_{UV}$

647: and $M_{BH}$ regressions, while it remained the same for the $L_{UV} /

648: L_{Edd}$ regression. These changes were small ($\sim 10\%$) and have

649: no effect on our conclusions. There was no difference in the results

650: for the $L_X / L_{Edd}$ regression.

651: 

652: Once can use Equation (\ref{eq-alfox}) to express the regression

653: results (Eq. [\ref{eq-alfox_luv}]--[\ref{eq-alfox_xedd}]) in the

654: alternate form

655: \begin{eqnarray}

656:   \frac{L_{\nu}(2500\mbox{\AA})}{L_{\nu}(2\ {\rm keV})} & = &

657:     1.17^{+0.08}_{-0.07} \times 10^4 

658:     \left( \frac{\nu L_{\nu} (2500\mbox{\AA})}{10^{46} {\rm erg s}^{-1}} \right)^{0.31 \pm 0.03},

659:     \label{eq-lumrat_luv} \\

660:   \frac{L_{\nu}(2500\mbox{\AA})}{L_{\nu}(2\ {\rm keV})} & = &

661:     9.81^{+0.65}_{-0.63} \times 10^3 

662:     \left( \frac{M_{BH}}{10^{9} M_{\odot}} \right)^{0.43 \pm 0.06},

663:     \label{eq-lumrat_mbh} \\

664:   \frac{L_{\nu}(2500\mbox{\AA})}{L_{\nu}(2\ {\rm keV})} & = &

665:     3.51^{+15.6}_{-2.58} \times 10^7

666:     \left( \frac{\nu L_{\nu}(2500\mbox{\AA})}{L_{Edd}} \right)^{2.57 \pm 0.45},

667:     \label{eq-lumrat_uvredd} \\

668:   \frac{L_{\nu}(2500\mbox{\AA})}{L_{\nu}(2\ {\rm keV})} & = &

669:     0.85^{+1.02}_{-0.52} \left( \frac{\nu L_{\nu}(2\ {\rm keV})}{L_{Edd}}

670:     \right)^{-1.48 \pm 0.14},

671:     \label{eq-lumrat_xredd}

672: \end{eqnarray}

673: where the intrinsic dispersion in $\log L_{UV} / L_{X}$ at a given

674: $L_{UV}, M_{BH}, L_{UV} / L_{Edd},$ and $L_X / L_{Edd}$ is $\sim

675: 0.356, 0.375, 0.133,$ and $0.089$ dex, respectively. In contrast to

676: Equations (\ref{eq-alfox_luv})--(\ref{eq-alfox_xedd}), we quote the

677: $68\%$ ($1\sigma$) uncertainties on the constants of proportionality,

678: and the posterior standard deviations on the exponents. Equations

679: (\ref{eq-lumrat_luv})--(\ref{eq-lumrat_xredd}) may be more physically

680: interpretable and allow easier comparison with models.

681: 

682: \section{NONMONOTONIC DEPENDENCE OF $\Gamma_X, L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$, and $L_X / L_{bol}$}

683: 

684: \label{s-gamx_bh}

685: 

686: Recent work has suggested a correlation between quasar X-ray spectral

687: slope, $\alpha_X = \Gamma_X - 1, f_{\nu} \propto \nu^{-\alpha_X},$ and

688: quasar Eddington ratio as inferred from broad line mass estimates

689: based on the H$\beta$ emission line

690: \citep[e.g.,][]{porquet04,picon05,shemmer06}. The \citet{kelly07c}

691: sample contains measurements of $\Gamma_X$ for 157 sources, and we

692: were able to estimate black hole masses for 153 of them. In this

693: section we use these 153 RQQs to investigate the dependence of

694: $\Gamma_X$ on $M_{BH}, L_{UV} / L_{Edd},$ and $L_X / L_{Edd}$.

695: 

696: \subsection{Regression Analysis}

697: 

698: \label{s-gamx_reg}

699: 

700: The distributions of $\Gamma_X$ as a function of estimated black hole

701: mass, $L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$, and $L_X / L_{Edd}$ are shown in Figure

702: \ref{f-gamx_vs_bh} for the entire sample, and in Figure

703: \ref{f-gamx_vs_bh_eline} seperately for each emission line. While

704: there does not appear to be a monotonic trend between $\Gamma_X$ and

705: $M_{BH}, L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$, or $L_X / L_{Edd}$ when using the entire

706: sample, there is evidence for a trend between $\Gamma_X$ and these

707: quantities when using the H$\beta$ line, and an opposite trend between

708: $\Gamma_X$ and these quantities when using the C IV line.

709: 

710: We performed a linear regression of $\Gamma_X$ on $\log M_{BH}, \log

711: L_{UV} / L_{Edd},$ and $\log L_X / L_{Edd}$ seperately for each

712: emission line. As before, we used the method of \citet{kelly07a} when

713: performing the regression in order to correct for the intrinsic

714: statistical uncertainty in the broad line estimates of $M_{BH}$. The

715: results for $M_{BH}$ are

716: \begin{eqnarray}

717:   \Gamma_X & = &  5.69^{+7.32}_{-4.29} - \left(0.44^{+0.53}_{-0.91}\right) \log M_{BH},\ \

718:     \sigma = 0.43^{+0.17}_{-0.17}, \nonumber \\

719:     & & \rho = -0.45^{+0.53}_{-0.44},\ {\rm (H\beta)} \label{eq-gamxmbh_hbeta} \\

720:   \Gamma_X & = &  -19.0^{+46.0}_{-68.0} - \left(1.92^{+7.73}_{-5.18}\right) \log M_{BH},\ \ 

721:     \sigma = 0.27^{+0.12}_{-0.20}, \nonumber \\

722:     & & \rho = -0.62^{+1.23}_{-0.36},\ {\rm (Mg II)} \label{eq-gamxmbh_mgii} \\

723:   \Gamma_X & = & -2.79^{+5.22}_{-10.8} + \left(0.52^{+1.17}_{-0.56}\right) \log M_{BH},\ \

724:     \sigma = 0.22^{+0.11}_{-0.14}, \nonumber \\

725:     & & \rho = 0.53^{+0.42}_{-0.58}, {\rm (CIV)} \label{eq-gamxmbh_civ}

726: \end{eqnarray}

727: the results for $L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$ are

728: \begin{eqnarray}

729:   \Gamma_X & = &  3.96^{+2.28}_{-1.15} + \left(1.23^{+1.48}_{-0.75}\right) \log L_{UV} / L_{Edd},\ \

730:     \sigma = 0.26^{+0.23}_{-0.21}, \nonumber \\

731:     & & \rho = 0.87^{+0.13}_{-0.50},\ {\rm (H\beta)} 

732:     \label{eq-gamxreddu_hbeta} \\

733:   \Gamma_X & = &  5.13^{+10.8}_{-14.4} + \left(2.14^{+7.28}_{-9.94}\right) \log L_{UV} / L_{Edd},\ \ 

734:     \sigma = 0.28^{+0.12}_{-0.22}, \nonumber \\

735:     & & \rho = 0.54^{+0.44}_{-1.40},\ {\rm (Mg II)} \label{eq-gamxreddu_mgii} \\

736:   \Gamma_X & = & 0.85^{+0.78}_{-2.00} - \left(0.95^{+0.65}_{-1.69}\right) \log L_{UV} / L_{Edd},\ \

737:     \sigma = 0.17^{+0.13}_{-0.13}, \nonumber \\

738:     & & \rho = -0.81^{+0.53}_{-0.18}, {\rm (CIV)} \label{eq-gamxreddu_civ}

739: \end{eqnarray}

740: and the results for $L_X / L_{Edd}$ are

741: \begin{eqnarray}

742:   \Gamma_X & = &  4.24^{+2.58}_{-1.43} + \left(0.85^{+1.01}_{-0.56}\right) \log L_X / L_{Edd},\ \

743:     \sigma = 0.33^{+0.19}_{-0.21}, \nonumber \\

744:     & & \rho = 0.76^{+0.22}_{-0.46},\ {\rm (H\beta)} \label{eq-gamxreddx_hbeta} \\

745:   \Gamma_X & = &  7.26^{+16.2}_{-7.13} + \left(1.97^{+5.96}_{-2.71}\right) \log L_X / L_{Edd},\ \ 

746:     \sigma = 0.23^{+0.15}_{-0.18}, \nonumber \\

747:     & & \rho = 0.77^{+0.22}_{-0.90},\ {\rm (Mg II)} \label{eq-gamxreddx_mgii} \\

748:   \Gamma_X & = & -0.54^{+4.05}_{-5.69} - \left(0.96^{+1.52}_{-2.17}\right) \log L_X / L_{Edd},\ \

749:     \sigma = 0.21^{+0.13}_{-0.15}, \nonumber \\

750:     & & \rho = -0.65^{+0.90}_{-0.34} {\rm (CIV)}. \label{eq-gamxreddx_civ}

751: \end{eqnarray}

752: In these equations we have quoted the errors at $95\%$ $(2\sigma)$

753: confidence. The probability distributions of the slope and intrinsic

754: dispersion are shown in Figure \ref{f-hbciv_reg}. The larger

755: uncertainty in the results for the Mg II sample is likely caused by

756: the more narrow range in $L_{UV}, L_X,$ and $M_{BH}$ probed.

757: 

758: There are formally no significant linear correlations for the

759: $\Gamma_X$--$M_{BH}$ relationship. However, there is a statistically

760: significant difference between the H$\beta$ and C IV slopes, with

761: $\approx 99.3\%$ of the posterior probability at $\beta_m^{\rm CIV} >

762: \beta^{\rm H\beta}_m$, where $\beta_m$ denotes the $\Gamma_X$--$\log

763: M_{BH}$ regression slope. The probability distribution for the

764: difference in slopes from the $M_{BH}$ regression is shown in Figure

765: \ref{f-regdiff}. The significant difference in the slope for the

766: H$\beta$ and C IV sample implies a nonlinear relationship between

767: $\Gamma_X$ and $m_{BH}$, in spite of the fact that the H$\beta$ and C

768: IV correlations themselves are not `statistically

769: significant'. Results similar to the $\Gamma_X$--$\log M_{BH}$

770: regressions were found for the $\Gamma_X$--$L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$ and

771: $\Gamma_X$--$L_X / L_{UV}$ regressions, but with opposite sign and

772: higher statistical significance.

773: 

774: We performed monte carlo simulations as a consistency check on our

775: inferred non-monotonicity of the $\Gamma_X$ relationships. While we

776: have attempted to account for the significant statistical uncertainty

777: on the broad line mass estimates, we employ these monte carlo

778: simulations to ensure that the observed non-monotonic behavior is not

779: a spurious result caused by the uncertainty on $M_{BH}$. We performed

780: $10^5$ simulations under two null hypotheses: (1) that $\Gamma_X$ is

781: independent of $L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$, and (2) that $\Gamma_X$ depends

782: linearly on $\log L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$. For both cases we simulated black

783: hole mass estimates derived from H$\beta$ and C IV seperately. We

784: first simulated `true' values of $M_{BH}$ for each emission line from

785: a normal distribution with means equal to the observed mean of the two

786: respective subsamples, and variances equal to the difference between

787: the observed variance of the subsamples and the average intrinsic

788: variance in the broad line mass estimates. To simulate the uncertainty

789: in the mass estimates, we added random Gaussian errors to these `true'

790: values of $M_{BH}$ with standard deviation equal to the uncertainty in

791: the mass estimates, $\sim 0.4$ dex. For the case where $\Gamma_X$ was

792: assumed to be independent of $L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$, we simulated values

793: of $\Gamma_X$ from a normal distribution with mean equal to the sample

794: mean of $\Gamma_X$ and variance equal to the difference between the

795: observed variance in $\Gamma_X$ and the average of the variance in the

796: measurement errors. For the case where $\Gamma_X$ was assumed to

797: depend linearly on $\log L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$, we simulated values of

798: $\Gamma_X$ according to our best fit relationship to the H$\beta$

799: subsample, given by Equation (\ref{eq-gamxreddu_hbeta}). Finally, for

800: both cases we added random Gaussian errors to the simulated values of

801: $\Gamma_X$ by randomly reshuffling the dispersions in the measurement

802: errors in $\Gamma_X$.

803: 

804: For each of the $10^5$ simulated samples, we selected those samples

805: that displayed a non-monotonic trend, i.e., those sample where the

806: slope for the H$\beta$-based regression had a different sign from the

807: slope of the C IV-based regression. Under the hypothesis that

808: $\Gamma_X$ is independent of $L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$, only 3 of the $10^5$

809: simulated samples had both a non-monotonic trend and an absolute value

810: of the difference in slopes between the H$\beta$ and C IV regression

811: that were larger than that observed for our actual sample. Under the

812: hypothesis that $\Gamma_X$ depends linearly on $\log L_{UV} /

813: L_{Edd}$, none of the $10^5$ simulated samples exhibited a

814: non-monotonic trend. Therefore, the observed non-monotonic trend in

815: $\Gamma_X$ with Eddington ratio is not a spurious result caused by the

816: statistical uncertainty in the broad line mass estimates, in agreement

817: with our Bayesian regression results.

818: 

819: In order to investigate whether the non-monotonicity in the dependence

820: of $\Gamma_X$ on Eddington ratio depends on $M_{BH}$, we performed a

821: linear regression of $\Gamma_X$ simultaneously on $\log L_{UV} /

822: L_{Edd}$ and $\log M_{BH}$. This also allows us to quantify whether

823: the Eddington ratio is the driver behind the $\Gamma_X$--$M_{BH}$

824: relationship. In particular, the $\Gamma_X$--$M_{BH}$ relationship is

825: weak compared to the Eddington ratio relationships, and therefore it

826: is reasonable to conclude that Eddington ratio is the primary driver

827: in these relationships. We applied the multiple regression technique

828: of \citet{kelly07a} seperately to both the H$\beta$ and C IV

829: subsamples. The results are:

830: \begin{eqnarray}

831:   \Gamma_X & = &  2.58^{+4.81}_{-3.80} + 

832:   \left(0.18^{+0.60}_{-0.61}\right) \log M_{BH} + \nonumber \\

833:   & & \left(1.32^{+1.45}_{-0.80}\right) \log L_{UV} / L_{Edd},\ \

834:     \sigma = 0.28^{+0.22}_{-0.22}, \ {\rm (H\beta)} 

835:     \label{eq-gamxreddu_hbeta2} \\

836:   \Gamma_X & = & -4.26^{+6.45}_{-15.6} + 

837:   \left(0.56^{+1.44}_{-0.61}\right) \log M_{BH} - \nonumber \\

838:   & & \left(0.84^{+0.75}_{-2.16}\right) \log L_{UV} / L_{Edd},\ \

839:   \sigma = 0.17^{+0.14}_{-0.14},\ {\rm (CIV)} 

840:   \label{eq-gamxreddu_civ2}

841: \end{eqnarray}

842: Here, we have quoted the errors at $95\%$ significance. There is no

843: statistically significant evidence that $\Gamma_X$ depends on $M_{BH}$

844: at a given $L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$, and therefore we conclude that the

845: primary driver in the $\Gamma_X$ relationships is Eddington

846: ratio. However, this does not rule out the possibility that the

847: non-monotonic trends with Eddington ratio are the result of a

848: discontinuous change in the slopes at a `critical' $M_{BH}$, as

849: discussed in the next two sections.

850: 

851: \subsection{Is the Sign Change in the Correlations Caused by the Different 

852:   Emission Lines Used to Estimate $M_{BH}$?}

853: 

854: \label{s-eline_test}

855: 

856: The opposite correlations for H$\beta$ and C IV are intriguing but may

857: represent problems with the broad line mass estimates. In particular,

858: it is possible that the error in the broad line mass estimates is

859: correlated with $\Gamma_X$, but in opposite ways for H$\beta$ and C

860: IV. The most likely source of such a spurious correlation would be a

861: correlation between $\Gamma_X$ and the scatter about the $R$--$L$

862: relationship for H$\beta$ and C IV, respectively. For example, if one

863: were to systematically overestimate $R$ with increasing $\Gamma_X$ for

864: the C IV emitting region, then one would infer a larger $M_{BH}$ from

865: C IV, and thus one would infer a spurious correlation between $M_{BH}$

866: and $\Gamma_X$. However, the H$\beta$ line is only available at $z

867: \lesssim 0.8$ and the C IV line is only available at $z \gtrsim 1.6$,

868: and thus the change in sign for the $\Gamma_X$--$M_{BH}$ correlations

869: could be due to different spectral components shifting into or out of

870: the observable X-ray spectral region (0.3--7.0 keV). In Figure

871: \ref{f-mbh_vs_z2}, we show the distribution of $M_{BH}$ as a function

872: of $z$ for the H$\beta$ and C IV samples. As is clear from Figure

873: \ref{f-mbh_vs_z2}, the C IV line is probing sources with $M_{BH}

874: \gtrsim 3 \times10^8 M_{\odot}$, while the H$\beta$ line is probing

875: sources with $M_{BH} \lesssim 3 \times 10^8 M_{\odot}$. Therefore, the

876: change in sign for the $\Gamma_X$ correlations could also be due to

877: something more physically interesting, such as a change in the

878: structure of the corona that occurs at some critical black hole mass

879: or accretion rate.

880: 

881: We can test if the change in sign for the $\Gamma_X$ correlations is

882: the result of problems with the mass estimates for either H$\beta$ or

883: C IV, or if it is the result of the differences in $z$ and $M_{BH}$

884: probed by the two lines. While the $\Gamma_X$--$M_{BH}$ relationship

885: is weak compared to the Eddington ratio dependencies, we can use the

886: $\Gamma_X$--$M_{BH}$ relationship to test whether the non-monotonic

887: dependency of $\Gamma_X$ on Eddington ratio is a spurious result

888: caused by systematic difference in the broad line mass estimates. This

889: is because the Eddington ratios are inferred from the broad line mass

890: estimates, and any systematic differences between the Eddington ratio

891: inferred from H$\beta$ as compared to C IV should also manifest

892: themselves in the weaker $\Gamma_X$--$M_{BH}$ relationship. This is

893: true irregardless of whether the difference in slopes between the

894: H$\beta$ and C IV $\Gamma_X$--$M_{BH}$ relationships is `statistically

895: significant' or not.

896: 

897: We compiled five sources from the literature at $z > 1.3$ with

898: H$\beta$-based mass estimates of $M_{BH} > 5 \times 10^9

899: M_{\odot}$. In addition, we compiled five more sources from the

900: literature at $z < 0.2$ and C IV-based mass estimates of $M_{BH} <

901: 10^8 M_{\odot}$. This `test sample' of 10 sources is listed in Table

902: \ref{t-test}. Then, we test whether the H$\beta$ test sources are

903: better described by the H$\beta$ regression or by the C IV regression,

904: and likewise for the C IV test sources. If the change in sign for the

905: $\Gamma_X$ correlations is due to problems with the broad line mass

906: estimates, then we would expect the H$\beta$-based mass estimates to

907: be better described by the H$\beta$ regression. However, if the change

908: in sign is due to the difference in redshift and $M_{BH}$ probed by

909: the two regressions, then we would expect the H$\beta$ test sources to

910: be better described by the C IV regression, as the H$\beta$ test

911: sources are at high-$z$ and have high-$M_{BH}$. A similar argument

912: applies to the C IV test sources, since they are at low-$z$ and have

913: low black hole masses.

914: 

915: Figure \ref{f-test1} compares $\Gamma_X$ and $M_{BH}$ for H$\beta$ and

916: C IV for both the sources in our main sample and the test sources, as

917: well as the best fit regression lines for the H$\beta$ and C IV

918: samples, respectively. The high-$z$, high-$M_{BH}$ H$\beta$ test

919: sources appear to be better described by the high-$z$, high-$M_{BH}$ C

920: IV-based regression, and likewise the low-$z$, low-$M_{BH}$ C IV test

921: sources appear to be better described by the low-$z$, low-$M_{BH}$

922: H$\beta$-based regression.

923: 

924: We can quantify this result by calculating the probability that the

925: H$\beta$ test sources `belong' to the H$\beta$-based regression, as

926: compared to the probability that the H$\beta$ test sources `belong' to

927: the C IV-based regression. Assuming that the test sources are as

928: equally likely to belong to either regression \emph{a priori}, this

929: ratio of probabilities is simply the ratio of the likelihood functions

930: of the test sources for each regression relationship, where the

931: likelihood functions are given by Equation (24) in \citet{kelly07a};

932: this ratio is called the `Bayes Factor' \citep[e.g.,][]{congdon06}. In

933: order to incorporate our uncertainty in the regression parameters, we

934: use the value of the likelihood function averaged over the probability

935: distribution of the regression parameters. We find that the H$\beta$

936: test sources are $\approx 250$ times more likely to `belong' to the C

937: IV-based regression, and that the C IV test sources are $\approx 140$

938: times more likely to `belong' to the H$\beta$-based

939: regression. Because the test sources are independent, it follows that

940: the test sources are $\gtrsim 10^4$ times more likely to be described

941: by the regression fit using the opposite emission line sample. This is

942: further evidence that $\Gamma_X$ and $M_{BH}$ are not statistically

943: independent; if $\Gamma_X$ and $M_{BH}$ were independent, then the

944: test sources would not show a strong preference for either

945: regression. Based on this analysis, we conclude that the change in

946: sign of the $\Gamma_X$ correlations is not due to problems associated

947: with the use of the H$\beta$ and C IV emission lines, but rather due

948: to the different range of $z$ and $M_{BH}$ probed by the two

949: subsamples.

950: 

951: \subsection{Is the Sign Change in the Correlations Caused by the Different 

952:   Redshift Ranges Probed?}

953: 

954: \label{s-ztest}

955: 

956: While it appears that $\Gamma_X$ has a nonmonotonic dependence on

957: $M_{BH}, L_{UV} / L_{Edd},$ and $L_X / L_{Edd}$, it is unclear as to

958: whether the sign change in the correlations is dependent on $z$ or

959: $M_{BH}$. However, we can test this in the same manner as was used to

960: test if the sign change is due to problems with the H$\beta$- or C

961: IV-based mass estimates. In this case, we need a sample of high-$z$,

962: low-$M_{BH}$ sources in order to break the degeneracy between $M_{BH}$

963: and $z$. If the sign change in the correlation is redshift dependent,

964: then we would expect the test sources to be better described by the

965: high-$z$, high-$M_{BH}$ C IV-based regression; but, if the sign change

966: is black hole mass dependent, then we would expect the test sources to

967: be better described by the low-$z$, low-$M_{BH}$ H$\beta$-based

968: regression.

969: 

970: Our test sample consists of nine $z > 1, \hat{M}_{BL} < 3 \times 10^8

971: M_{\odot}$ quasars from the Cosmic Evolution Survey

972: \citep[COSMOS,][]{cosmos}, with optical spectra from Magellan

973: \citep{trump07} and X-ray spectra from XMM-Newton

974: \citep{mainieri07}. Black hole masses for these objects \citep[][in

975: preparation]{trump08} were estimated from the Mg II and C IV emission

976: lines in the same manner as above. The objects are summarized in Table

977: \ref{t-cosmos}, and their location in the $M_{BH}$--$z$ plane are

978: shown in Figure \ref{f-mbh_vs_z_cosmos}. The COSMOS sources break the

979: degeneracy between $M_{BH}$ and $z$ present in our SDSS sample, and

980: are therefore adequate to test for a redshift dependence in the slope

981: of the $\Gamma_X$--$M_{BH}$ relationship. In Figure \ref{f-test2} we

982: compare the COSMOS test sources with the H$\beta$- and C IV-based

983: regressions. As can be seen, the high-$z$, low-$M_{BH}$ COSMOS sources

984: are better described by the low-$z$, low-$M_{BH}$ regression. We can

985: quantify this in the same manner as described in \S~\ref{s-eline_test}

986: by averaging the likelihood function of the test sources over the

987: posterior probability distribution. We find that the COSMOS test

988: sources are $\gtrsim 10^5$ times more likely to be better described by

989: the H$\beta$-$\Gamma_X$ regression, and thus the sign change in the

990: $\Gamma_X$ correlations is not due to the difference in redshifts

991: probed by the H$\beta$ and C IV samples.

992: 

993: \section{DISCUSSION}

994: 

995: \label{s-discussion}

996: 

997: Previous work has found evidence for a correlation between

998: $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ and both $M_{BH}$ \citep{brunner97} and $L_{bol} /

999: L_{Edd}$ \citep{wang04}, and for a correlation between $\Gamma_X$ and

1000: both $M_{BH}$ \citep[e.g.,][]{porquet04,picon05} and $L_{bol} /

1001: L_{Edd}$ \citep[e.g.,][]{lu99,gier04,shemmer06}, in aggreement with

1002: the results found in this work. However, our study differs from

1003: previous work in that we study a large sample of RQQs (318 sources

1004: with $\alpha_{\rm ox}$, 153 with $\Gamma_X$) over a broad range in

1005: black hole mass ($10^6 \lesssim M_{BH} / M_{\odot} \lesssim 10^{10}$)

1006: and redshift $0 < z < 4.8$; to date, this is the largest study of the

1007: dependence of the X-ray properties of RQQs on $M_{BH}, L_{UV} /

1008: L_{Edd},$ and $L_X / L_{Edd}$. In addition, this the first study of

1009: its kind to correct for the intrinsic statistical uncertainty in broad

1010: line mass estimates when quantifying the \emph{intrinsic} trends

1011: between the X-ray emission and $M_{BH}, L_{UV} / L_{Edd},$ and $L_X /

1012: L_{Edd}$.

1013: 

1014: Currently, there are two main types of geometries being considered for

1015: the comptonizing corona. The first of these is that of a `slab'-type

1016: geometry, possibly patchy, that sandwiches the disk

1017: \citep[e.g.,][]{bis77,gal79,nayak00,sob04b}, and the second is that of

1018: a hot spherical inner advection dominated flow

1019: \citep[e.g.,][]{shap76,zdz99}; hybrids between the two geometries have

1020: also been considered \citep[e.g.,][]{pout97,sob04a}. There is a

1021: growing body of evidence that the advection dominated hot inner flow

1022: does not exist in objects with Eddington ratios $L_{bol} / L_{Edd}

1023: \gtrsim 0.01$, as inferred from the existence of a relativistically

1024: broadened iron line \citep[e.g.,][]{mineo00,lee02,fabian02},

1025: relativistically broadened reflection of ionized material

1026: \citep{janiuk01}, and by analogy with galactic black holes

1027: \citep[e.g.,][]{esin97,nowak02}. The range in Eddington ratios probed

1028: by our study is at most $0.03 \lesssim L_{bol} / L_{Edd} \lesssim 2$,

1029: with a mean of $L_{bol} / L_{Edd} \sim 0.25$. Therefore, the RQQs in

1030: our study are likely to have disks that extend approximately down to

1031: the last marginally stable orbit, and thus should only have the `slab'

1032: type geometries.

1033: 

1034: \subsection{Dependence of $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ on $M_{BH}$}

1035: 

1036: \label{s-alfox_mbh}

1037: 

1038: In this work we have found that RQQs become more X-ray quiet as

1039: $M_{BH}$ increases, and confirmed the well-established relationship

1040: between $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ and $L_{UV}$. Because $L_{UV}$ increases

1041: with $M_{BH}$ and the accretion rate relative to Eddington, $\dot{m}$,

1042: the well-known $\alpha_{\rm ox}$--$L_{UV}$ correlation is likely

1043: driven by the $\alpha_{\rm ox}$--$M_{BH}$ and $\alpha_{\rm

1044: ox}$--$\dot{m}$ correlations. A correlation between $\alpha_{\rm ox}$

1045: and $M_{BH}$ is expected even if the fraction of the bolometric

1046: luminosity emitted by the disk is independent of $M_{BH}$, as the

1047: effective temperature of the disk depends on $M_{BH}$. As $M_{BH}$

1048: increases, the effective temperature of the disk decreases, thus

1049: shifting the peak of the disk emission toward longer

1050: wavelengths. Because the flux density at $2500$\AA\ lies redward of

1051: the peak in the disk SED over most of the range $M_{BH}$ probed by our

1052: study, this shift in the disk SED toward longer wavelengths produces

1053: an increase in $L_{UV}$ relative to $L_X$.

1054: 

1055: We can use the standard thin disk solution to assess the evidence that

1056: the fraction of energy emitted by the corona depends on $M_{BH}$. We

1057: assume a simple model where the spectrum for the disk emission is that

1058: expected for an extended thin accretion disk, and the spectrum for the

1059: corona emission is a simple power-law with exponential cutoffs at the

1060: low and high energy end. According to \citet{wandel00}, the spectrum

1061: from a radially extended thin accretion disk can be approximated as

1062: \begin{equation}

1063:   f^{D}_{\nu} \approx A_{D} \left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_{co}}\right)^{-1/3} e^{-\nu / \nu_{co}}, 

1064:   \label{eq-thindisk}

1065: \end{equation}

1066: where $A_{D}$ is the normalization and $\nu_{co}$ is the cut-off

1067: frequency. In this work, we choose the normalization to ensure that

1068: Equation (\ref{eq-thindisk}) integrates to unity, and therefore

1069: $f^D_{\nu}$ gives the shape of the disk emission. For a Kerr black

1070: hole, \citet{malkan91} finds that the cut-off frequency is related to

1071: $M_{BH}$ as

1072: \begin{equation}

1073: h \nu_{co} = (6 {\rm eV}) \dot{m}^{1/4} (M_{BH} / 10^8 M_{\odot})^{-1/4}.

1074: \label{eq-cutoff}

1075: \end{equation}

1076: We assume that the X-ray emission from the corona can be described by

1077: a simple power law with an exponential cutoff at the high and low end:

1078: \begin{equation}

1079:   f^{C}_{\nu} = A_C \nu^{-(\Gamma_X - 1)} e^{-\nu / \nu_{high}} e^{-\nu_{low} / \nu}.

1080:   \label{eq-corona}

1081: \end{equation}

1082: Here, $A_C$ is the corona spectrum normalization, $\nu_{high}$ is the

1083: high energy cutoff, and $\nu_{low}$ is the low energy cutoff. We

1084: choose the low energy cutoff to be $\nu_{low} = 20\ {\rm eV}$, and we

1085: choose the high energy cutoff to be $\nu_{high} = 200\ {\rm keV}$

1086: \citep[e.g.,][]{gilli07}. As with Equation (\ref{eq-thindisk}), we

1087: choose the normalization in Equation (\ref{eq-corona}) to be equal to

1088: unity.

1089: 

1090: Denoting $f_D$ to be the fraction of bolometric luminosity emitted by

1091: the disk, our model RQQ spectrum is then

1092: \begin{equation}

1093:   L_{\nu} \approx L_{bol} \left[f_D f^D_{\nu} + (1 - f_D) f^C_{\nu} \right].

1094:   \label{eq-modelspec}

1095: \end{equation}

1096: We computed Equation (\ref{eq-modelspec}) assuming a value of $\dot{m}

1097: = 0.2$ and $f_D = 0.85$. We chose the value of the $\dot{m} = 0.2$

1098: because it is representative of the RQQs in our sample, and we chose

1099: the value $f_D = 0.85$ because it gives values of $\alpha_{\rm ox}$

1100: typical of the RQQs in our sample. We vary $M_{BH}$ but keep $f_D$ and

1101: $\dot{m}$ constant because we are interested in investigating whether

1102: there is evidence that assuming independence between $M_{BH}$ and both

1103: $f_D$ and $\dot{m}$ is inconsistent with our $\alpha_{\rm ox}$

1104: results.

1105: 

1106: We compute Equation (\ref{eq-modelspec}) for two forms of the

1107: dependence of $\Gamma_X$ on $M_{BH}$. For the first model, we assume a

1108: constant value of $\Gamma_X = 2$. For the second model, we assume that

1109: $\Gamma_X$ depends on $M_{BH}$ according to our best fit regression

1110: results, where $\Gamma_X$ depends on $M_{BH}$ according to Equation

1111: (\ref{eq-gamxmbh_hbeta}) for $M_{BH} \lesssim 3 \times 10^8

1112: M_{\odot}$, and $\Gamma_X$ depends on $M_{BH}$ according to Equation

1113: (\ref{eq-gamxmbh_civ}) for $M_{BH} \gtrsim 3 \times 10^8

1114: M_{\odot}$. We ignore the intrinsic dispersion in $\Gamma_X$. In

1115: Figure \ref{f-modelspec} we show the spectra computed from Equation

1116: (\ref{eq-modelspec}) for RQQs with $M_{BH} / M_{\odot} = 10^7, 10^8,

1117: 10^9,$ and $10^{10}$. The dependence of the location of the peak in

1118: the disk emission on $M_{BH}$ is clearly illustrated.

1119: 

1120: In Figure \ref{f-alfox_model} we compare the $\alpha_{\rm

1121: ox}$--$M_{BH}$ regression results with the dependence of $\alpha_{\rm

1122: ox}$ on $M_{BH}$ expected from Equation (\ref{eq-modelspec}) for both

1123: $\Gamma_X$--$M_{BH}$ models. Under the thin disk approximation, a

1124: correlation is expected between $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ and $M_{BH}$, even

1125: if the fraction of bolometric luminosity emitted by the disk is

1126: independent of $M_{BH}$. However, our data are inconsistent with the

1127: assumption that $f_D$ and $M_{BH}$ are independent, given the thin

1128: disk approximation. Under the assumption that $f_D$ and $M_{BH}$ are

1129: independent, the $\alpha_{\rm ox}$--$M_{BH}$ correlation is too flat,

1130: and a increase in the fraction of bolometric luminosity emitted by the

1131: disk with increasing $M_{BH}$ is needed to match the steeper observed

1132: dependence of $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ on $M_{BH}$. Alternatively, if $f_D$

1133: increases with increasing $\dot{m}$, as we argue in

1134: \S~\ref{s-alfox_mdot}, then a steeper $\alpha_{\rm ox}$--$M_{BH}$

1135: correlation also results if $M_{BH}$ and $\dot{m}$ are correlated. In

1136: this case, if $f_D$ increases with increasing $\dot{m}$, and if

1137: $M_{BH}$ increases with increasing $\dot{m}$, then $f_D$ will also

1138: increase with increasing $M_{BH}$, thus producing a steeper observed

1139: $\alpha_{\rm ox}$--$M_{BH}$ correlation.

1140: 

1141: To the extant that Equations (\ref{eq-thindisk})--(\ref{eq-modelspec})

1142: accurately approximate the spectral shape of RQQs, our data imply that

1143: either the fraction of bolometric luminosity emitted by the disk

1144: increases with increasing $M_{BH}$, that $M_{BH}$ and $\dot{m}$ are

1145: correlated, or both. Some theoretical models have suggested that the

1146: fraction of bolometric luminosity emitted by the disk should depend on

1147: $\dot{m}$, but be relatively insensitive to $M_{BH}$

1148: \citep[e.g.,][]{czerny03,liu03}. Therefore, while a significant

1149: dependence of $f_D$ on $M_{BH}$ is not predicted by these disk/corona

1150: models, these models are still consistent with the interpretation that

1151: a $M_{BH}$--$\dot{m}$ correlation is driving the steeper $\alpha_{\rm

1152: ox}$--$M_{BH}$ correlation. Unfortunately, without accurate estimates

1153: of $\dot{m}$ we are unable to distinguish between these two

1154: possibilities.

1155: 

1156: A shift in the peak of the disk SED with $M_{BH}$ may also explain the

1157: dependence of $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ on redshift observed by K07. K07

1158: speculated that the observed hardening of $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ with

1159: increasing $z$ at a given $L_{UV}$ may be due to a correlation between

1160: $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ and $M_{BH}$, manifested through a $M_{BH}$--$z$

1161: correlation. At a given $L_{UV}$, an increase in $M_{BH}$ will result

1162: in an increase in $L_X$ relative to $L_{UV}$, assuming that $\dot{m}$

1163: is not strongly correlated with $M_{BH}$. This is because an increase

1164: in $M_{BH}$ decreases the temperature of the disk, shifting the peak

1165: in the disk SED toward the red, and thus increasing the luminosity at

1166: 2500\AA. However, since K07 investigated the dependence of

1167: $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ on $z$ at a given $L_{UV}$, the luminosity at

1168: 2500\AA\ is held constant. Therefore, the overall disk emission must

1169: decrease in order to keep the luminosity at 2500\AA\ constant despite

1170: the increase in $M_{BH}$. As a result, an increase in $M_{BH}$ at a

1171: given $L_{UV}$ will result in an increase in the X-ray luminosity

1172: relative to the luminosity at 2500\AA. Because $M_{BH}$ and $z$ are

1173: correlated in our flux limited sample (e.g., see Figure

1174: \ref{f-mbh_vs_z}), an increase in $z$ will probe RQQs with higher

1175: $M_{BH}$. As a result, RQQs will become more X-ray loud with

1176: increasing $z$, at a given 2500\AA\ luminosity. Consequently, deeper

1177: surveys that probe a greater range of $M_{BH}$ should not see as

1178: strong of a correlation between $M_{BH}$ and $z$, thereby reducing the

1179: magnitude of a $\alpha_{\rm ox}$--$z$ correlation. Indeed,

1180: investigations based on samples that span a greater range in

1181: luminosity do not find evidence for a correlation between $\alpha_{\rm

1182: ox}$ and $z$ \citep[e.g.,][]{steffen06,just07}, qualitatively

1183: consistent with our interpretation of a $\alpha_{\rm ox}$--$z$

1184: correlation.

1185: 

1186: \subsection{Dependence of $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ on $\dot{m}$}

1187: 

1188: \label{s-alfox_mdot}

1189: 

1190: We have found that $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ increases with increasing $L_{UV}

1191: / L_{Edd}$, and decreases with increasing $L_X / L_{Edd}$. The mere

1192: existence of these correlations is not particularly interesting, as we

1193: would expect that the ratio of optical/UV luminosity to X-ray

1194: luminosity would increase as the fraction of optical/UV luminosity

1195: relative to Eddington increases, and vice versa for an increase in

1196: $L_X / L_{Edd}$. However, the relative magnitude of these dependencies

1197: carries some information regarding the dependence of $\alpha_{\rm ox}$

1198: on $\dot{m}$. A correlation between $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ and $L_{UV} /

1199: L_{Edd}$ implies that $L_{UV} / L_X$ increases as the quantity $f_{UV}

1200: \dot{m}$ increases, where $f_{UV}$ is the fraction of bolometric

1201: luminosity emitted at 2500\AA. Likewise, an anti-correlation between

1202: $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ and $L_X / L_{Edd}$ implies that $L_{UV} / L_X$

1203: decreases as the quantity $f_X \dot{m}$ increases, where $f_X$ is the

1204: fraction of bolometric luminosity emitted at 2 keV. If the fraction of

1205: the bolometric luminosity emitted by the disk, as compared to the

1206: corona, increases with increasing $\dot{m}$, then we would expect a

1207: strong increase in $L_{UV} / L_X$ with the product $f_{UV} \dot{m}$,

1208: resulting from the dual dependency of $L_{UV} / L_X$ on $f_{UV}$ and

1209: $\dot{m}$. Furthermore, because the fraction of bolometric luminosity

1210: emitted by the disk should decrease with increasing $f_X$, then, if

1211: the fraction of bolometric luminosity emitted by the disk increases

1212: with increasing $\dot{m}$, we would expect a weaker dependence of

1213: $L_{UV} / L_X$ on the quantity $f_X \dot{m}$. This is because an

1214: increase in $\dot{m}$ causes an increase in the disk emission relative

1215: to the corona emission, which will then work against the decrease in

1216: disk emission relative to the corona that results from an increase in

1217: $f_X$. The end result is a weaker dependence of $L_{UV} / L_X$ on the

1218: product $f_X \dot{m}$. Indeed, this is what we observe, where $L_{UV}

1219: / L_X \propto (L_{UV} / L_{Edd})^{2.5}$ and $L_{UV} / L_X \propto (L_X

1220: / L_{Edd})^{-1.5}$. Therefore, we conclude that the disk emission

1221: relative to the corona emission increases with increasing

1222: $\dot{m}$. This is in agreement with some models of corona with a slab

1223: geometry \citep[e.g.,][]{czerny97,janiuk00,merloni02,liu03}, where the

1224: $\alpha_{\rm ox}$--$\dot{m}$ correlation arises due to a dependency of

1225: the size of the corona on $\dot{m}$.

1226: 

1227: Our result that $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ is correlated with $L_{UV} /

1228: L_{Edd}$ and anti-correlated with $L_X / L_{Edd}$ is inconsistent with

1229: a constant bolometric correction to both the optical/UV and X-ray

1230: luminosities. Instead, an increase in $L_{UV} / L_X$ with increasing

1231: $\dot{m}$ implies that the bolometric correction depends on

1232: $\dot{m}$. Because we conclude that the fraction of bolometric

1233: luminosity emitted by the disk increases with increasing $\dot{m}$,

1234: this implies that the bolometric correction to the optical/UV

1235: luminosity decreases with increasing $\dot{m}$, while the bolometric

1236: correction to the X-ray luminosity increases with increasing

1237: $\dot{m}$. The direction of this trend is consistent with the results

1238: of \citet{vasud07}, who find that the bolometric correction to the

1239: X-ray luminosity increases with increasing $L_{bol} /

1240: L_{Edd}$. Similarly, we have found evidence that the fraction of

1241: bolometric luminosity emitted by the disk depends on $M_{BH}$,

1242: therefore implying that the bolometric correction also depends on

1243: $M_{BH}$. Even if the fraction of bolometric luminosity emitted by the

1244: disk is independent of $M_{BH}$, the bolometric correction will still

1245: depend on $M_{BH}$ because the location of the peak in the disk

1246: emission will shift toward longer wavelengths as $M_{BH}$

1247: increases. As $M_{BH}$ varies, the luminosity at 2500\AA\ probes a

1248: different region of the quasi-blackbody disk emission, thereby

1249: producing a dependence of bolometric correction on $M_{BH}$.

1250: 

1251: \subsection{Implications for Black Hole Feedback}

1252: 

1253: A significant amount of recent work suggests that radiative and

1254: mechanical feedback energy from AGN plays an important part in galaxy

1255: and supermassive black hole coevolution

1256: \citep[e.g.,][]{fabian99,wyithe03,hopkins05}. Within the context of

1257: these models, a nuclear inflow of gas, possibly the result of a galaxy

1258: merger, feeds the SMBH, thus igniting a quasar. The SMBH grows until

1259: feedback energy from the quasar is able to drive out the accreting

1260: gas, thus halting the accretion process. Hydrodynamic calculations of

1261: accretion flows have shown that the efficiency of the quasar in

1262: driving an outflow depends on the fraction of energy emitted through

1263: he UV/disk component as compared to the X-ray/corona component

1264: \citep{proga07}. The disk component produces luminosity in the UV,

1265: which is responsible for driving an outflow via radiation pressure on

1266: lines, whereas the corona component produces luminosity in the X-rays,

1267: which is responsible for driving an outflow via thermal

1268: expansion. Calculations by \citet{proga07} have shown that radiation

1269: driving produces an outflow that carries more mass and energy than

1270: thermal driving. If the efficiency of black hole feedback depends on

1271: the quasar SED, any dependence on $M_{BH}$ and $\dot{m}$ of the

1272: fraction of AGN energy emitted in the UV as compared to the X-ray has

1273: important consequences for models of black hole growth.

1274: 

1275: Because we have found evidence that the fraction of bolometric

1276: luminosity emitted by the disk increases with increasing $\dot{m}$ and

1277: $M_{BH}$, this implies that black holes becomes more efficient at

1278: driving an outflow with increasing $\dot{m}$ and $M_{BH}$. However,

1279: the $\alpha_{\rm ox}$--$M_{BH}$ correlation may be due to the

1280: combination of both a correlation between $M_{BH}$ and $\dot{m}$, and

1281: a dependence of the location peak in the disk SED on $M_{BH}$. If the

1282: fraction of energy emitted by the disk only depends weakly on

1283: $M_{BH}$, as some theoretical models have suggested

1284: \citep[e.g.,][]{czerny03,liu03}, the fraction of energy emitted in the

1285: UV will still decrease with increasing $M_{BH}$ becuase the peak of

1286: the disk emission will shift away from the UV. In this case, at a

1287: given $\dot{m}$ we would expect that black holes will become less

1288: efficient at driving an outflow with increasing $M_{BH}$.

1289: 

1290: \subsection{Dependence of $\Gamma_X$ on $M_{BH}$ and $\dot{m}$}

1291: 

1292: In this work we have also found evidence that $\Gamma_X$ and $M_{BH},

1293: L_{UV} / L_{Edd},$ and $L_X / L_{Edd}$ are not statistically

1294: independent. Moreover, the dependence of $\Gamma_X$ on black hole mass

1295: or Eddington ratio appears to follow a non-monotonic form, although

1296: the $\Gamma_X$--$M_{BH}$ trend is weak compared to the dependency of

1297: $\Gamma_X$ on Eddington ratio. For the $\Gamma_X$--$M_{BH}$

1298: relationship, the X-ray continuum hardens with increasing black hole

1299: mass until $M_{BH} \sim 3 \times 10^8 M_{\odot}$, after which the

1300: X-ray continuum softens with increasing black hole mass. The opposite

1301: is true for the $\Gamma_X$--$L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$ and $\Gamma_X$--$L_X /

1302: L_{Edd}$ trends, and further work is needed to confirm this

1303: result. Previous studies have not seen this non-monotonic trend

1304: because they have only employed the H$\beta$ emission line, and

1305: therefore their samples have been dominated by low-$z$, low-$M_{BH}$

1306: sources.

1307: 

1308: \subsubsection{Selection Effects}

1309: 

1310: \label{s-seleff}

1311: 

1312: It is unlikely that the dependence of $\Gamma_X$ on $M_{BH}, L_{UV} /

1313: L_{Edd},$ or $L_X / L_{Edd}$ is due to redshifting of the observable

1314: spectra range. If this were the case, then as $M_{BH}$ increases, so

1315: does $z$ due to selection effects, and thus we would observe a

1316: decrease in $\Gamma_X$ as the `soft excess' shifts out of the observed

1317: 0.3--7 keV spectral range, while the compton reflection component

1318: shifts into the observed spectral range. However, there are lines of

1319: evidence that suggest that the $\Gamma_X$ correlation are not due to

1320: redshifting of the observable spectral region, and that at least some

1321: of the observed dependency of $\Gamma_X$ on $M_{BH}, L_{UV} /

1322: L_{Edd},$ and $L_X / L_{Edd}$ is real. First, in \S~\ref{s-ztest} we

1323: tested whether a sample of nine $z > 1$ test sources with $M_{BH}

1324: \lesssim 3 \times 10^8 M_{\odot}$ were better described by a

1325: regression fit using the $z > 1.5, M_{BH} \gtrsim 3 \times 10^8

1326: M_{\odot}$ sources, or by a regression fit using the $z < 1, M_{BH}

1327: \lesssim 3 \times 10^8 M_{\odot}$ sources. We found that the test

1328: sources were better fit using the regression of similar $M_{BH}$, and

1329: therefore that the difference in the $\Gamma_X$--$M_{BH}$ correlations

1330: primarily depends on $M_{BH}$. Second, similar trends at low redshift

1331: between $\Gamma_X$ and $M_{BH}$ or $L_{bol} / L_{Edd}$ have been seen

1332: in other studies that only analyze the hard X-ray spectral slope

1333: \citep[typically 2--12 keV, e.g.,][]{picon05,shemmer06}, and thus

1334: these studies are not effected by the soft excess. Third, the compton

1335: reflection hump is unlikely to shift into the observabable spectral

1336: range until $z \sim 1$. However, the contribution to the inferred

1337: $\Gamma_X$ from compton reflection at $z \gtrsim 1$ is likely weak, if

1338: not negligible, as our $z \gtrsim 1$ sources have $M_{BH} \gtrsim 10^8

1339: M_{\odot}$ and are highly luminous, and therefore are expected to only

1340: have weak reflection components \citep{mineo00,ball01,bianchi07}.

1341: 

1342: There are two scenarios in which the non-monotonic behavior of

1343: $\Gamma_X$ with $M_{BH}$ or Eddington ratio may be artificially caused

1344: by selection. We will focus on the Eddington ratio dependency, as it

1345: is the strongest; however, our argument also applies to

1346: $M_{BH}$. First, the intrinsic dependency of $\Gamma_X$ on Eddington

1347: ratio could be linear with increasing intrinsic scatter at high

1348: $L_{bol} / L_{Edd}$. Then, an inferred non-monotonic trend would occur

1349: if we were to systematically miss quasars with high $L_{bol} /

1350: L_{Edd}$ and steep X-ray spectra. Alternatively, there could be no

1351: intrinsic dependency of $\Gamma_X$ on Eddington ratio. In this case,

1352: we would infer a non-monotonic trend if we were to systematically miss

1353: quasars with steep X-ray spectra at low and high $L_{bol} / L_{Edd}$,

1354: and quasars with flat X-ray spectra at moderate $L_{bol} / L_{Edd}$.

1355: 

1356: We do not consider it likely that the observed non-monotonic

1357: dependence of $\Gamma_X$ on Eddington ratio is due solely to selection

1358: effects. K07 describes the sample selection for sources with

1359: $\Gamma_X$. With the exception of some of the $z > 4$ quasars, all

1360: sources from K07 were selected by cross-correlating the SDSS DR3

1361: quasars with public \emph{Chandra} observations. Almost all SDSS

1362: sources in K07 had serendipitious \emph{Chandra} observations, and

1363: therefore were selected without regard to their X-ray properties. K07

1364: estimated $\Gamma_X$ for all sources that were detected in X-rays at

1365: the level of $3\sigma$ or higher. Therefore, the only additional

1366: criterion beyond the SDSS selection imposed by K07 is the requirement

1367: that the source had to be detected in X-ray, which was fulfilled by

1368: $90\%$ of the quasars; the undetected sources were slightly more

1369: likely to be found at lower redshift, probably due to the presence of

1370: unidentified BAL quasars. As a result, the K07 sample selection

1371: function is essentially equivalent to the SDSS quasar selection

1372: function. Because the SDSS selects quasars based on their optical

1373: colors, the most likely cause of selection effects is the optical

1374: color selection. There is evidence that $\Gamma_X$ is correlated with

1375: the slope of the optical continuum, where the X-ray continuum flattens

1376: (hardens) as the optical continuum steepens (softens)

1377: \citep[][K07]{gall05}. The SDSS selection probability is lower for red

1378: sources \citep{rich06}, so we might expect to systematically miss

1379: sources with smaller $\Gamma_X$. However, for the two scenarios

1380: described above, this is opposite the trend needed to explain the

1381: $\Gamma_X$--$L_X / L_{Edd}$ relationship, where we need to at least

1382: systematically miss sources with larger $\Gamma_X$. Furthermore, the

1383: drop in SDSS selection efficiency with optical spectral slope only

1384: occurs at $2 < z < 4$ \citep{rich06}, thus we would expect a redshift

1385: dependence for this selection effect. As we have argued above, and in

1386: \S~\ref{s-ztest}, the non-monotonic trends for $\Gamma_X$ cannot be

1387: completely explained as the result of different redshift ranges being

1388: probed.

1389: 

1390: \subsubsection{Implications for Accretion Physics}

1391: 

1392: \label{s-accphys}

1393: 

1394: The dependence of $\Gamma_X$ on $L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$ and $L_X / L_{Edd}$

1395: is likely due to a dependence of $\Gamma_X$ on $\dot{m}$. If these

1396: $\Gamma_X$ correlations were due to a dependence of $\Gamma_X$ on

1397: $f_{UV}$ or $f_X$, then we would expect opposite trends for $L_{UV} /

1398: L_{Edd}$ and $L_X / L_{Edd}$, as $f_{UV}$ and $f_X$ should be

1399: anti-correlated. The fact that the regression results for the

1400: $\Gamma_X$--$L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$ and $\Gamma_X$--$L_X / L_{Edd}$

1401: relationships are similar implies that $\Gamma_X$ depends on

1402: $\dot{m}$, and at most only weakly on $f_{UV}$ or $f_X$.

1403: 

1404: A non-monotonic dependence of $\Gamma_X$ on $\dot{m}$ is predicted

1405: from the accreting corona model of \citet{janiuk00}, as well as a

1406: non-monotonic dependence of $\Gamma_X$ on the viscosity

1407: \citep{bech03}. In addition, $\Gamma_X$ is expected to steepen with

1408: increasing optical depth

1409: \citep[e.g.,][]{haardt91,haardt93,czerny03}. One could then speculate

1410: that the dependence of $\Gamma_X$ on $M_{BH}$ or $\dot{m}$ is due to a

1411: non-monotonic dependence of the corona optical depth on $\dot{m}$,

1412: which may indicate a change in the structure of the disk/corona system

1413: at $\sim 3 \times 10^8 M_{\odot}$ or some critical $\dot{m}$. Recent

1414: work also suggests a non-monotonic dependence of the optical/UV

1415: spectral slope, $\alpha_{UV}$, on $\dot{m}$

1416: \citep{bonning07,davis07}. From this work, it has been inferred that

1417: the optical/UV continuum becomes more red with increasing $\dot{m}$

1418: until $L_{bol} / L_{Edd} \approx 0.3$, after which the optical/UV

1419: continuum becomes more blue with increasing $\dot{m}$. Assuming the

1420: bolometric corrections described in \S~\ref{s-eddrat}, the turnover in

1421: the $\Gamma_X$--$L_{bol} / L_{Edd}$ relationship also occurs at

1422: $L_{bol} / L_{Edd} \approx 0.3$. \citet{bonning07} suggested that the

1423: turnover in spectral slope at $L_{bol} / L_{Edd} \sim 0.3$ may be due

1424: to a change in accretion disk structure, where the inner part of the

1425: accretion disk becomes thicker due to increased radiation pressure

1426: \citep{abram88}. \citet{bonning07} performed a simple approximation to

1427: this `slim disk' solution and found that it is able to produce a

1428: non-monotonic trend between optical color and Eddington ration. If the

1429: inner disk structure changes at high $\dot{m}$, this change could

1430: alter the corona structure, producing the observed trend between

1431: $\Gamma_X$ and Eddington ratio.

1432: 

1433: Unfortunately, current models for corona geometry make a number of

1434: simplifying assumptions, and do not yet predict a specific

1435: relationship between $\alpha_{\rm ox}, \Gamma_X, M_{BH},$ and

1436: $\dot{m}$. Ideally, full magneto-hydrodynamic simulations

1437: \citep[e.g.,][]{devill03,turner04,krolik05} that include accretion

1438: disk winds \citep[e.g.,][]{murray95,proga04} should be used to

1439: interpret the results found in this work. However, MHD simulations

1440: have not advanced to the point where they predict the dependence of

1441: $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ and $\Gamma_X$ on quasar fundamental parameters, but

1442: hopefully recent progress in analytical descriptions of the

1443: magneto-rotational instability \citep{pessah06,pessah07} will help to

1444: overcome some of the computational difficulties and facilitate further

1445: advancement.

1446: 

1447: \section{SUMMARY}

1448: 

1449: \label{s-summary}

1450: 

1451: In this work we have investigated the dependence of $\alpha_{\rm ox}$

1452: and $\Gamma_X$ on black hole mass and Eddington ratio using a sample

1453: of 318 radio-quiet quasars with X-ray data from \emph{ROSAT}

1454: \citep{strat05} and \emph{Chandra} \citep{kelly07c}, and optical data

1455: mostly from the SDSS; 153 of these sources have estimates of

1456: $\Gamma_X$ from \emph{Chandra}. Our sample spans a broad range in

1457: black hole mass ($10^6 \lesssim M_{BH} / M_{\odot} \lesssim 10^{10}$),

1458: redshift ($0 < z < 4.8$), and luminosity ($10^{43} \lesssim \lambda

1459: L_{\lambda} (2500$\AA$) [{\rm erg\ s^{-1}}] \lesssim 10^{48}$). To

1460: date, this is the largest study of the dependence of RQQ X-ray

1461: parameters on $M_{BH}, L_{UV} / L_{Edd},$ and $L_X / L_{Edd}$. Our

1462: main results are summarized as follows:

1463: \begin{itemize}

1464: \item

1465:   We show that $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ is correlated with $L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$

1466:   and anti-correlated with $L_X / L_{Edd}$. This result is

1467:   inconsistent with a constant bolometric correction being applicable

1468:   to both the optical/UV luminosity and the X-ray luminosity. This

1469:   result, when taken in combination with recent work by

1470:   \citet{vasud07}, implies that constant bolometric corrections can be

1471:   considerably unreliable and lead to biased results. Instead, we

1472:   argue that $L_{UV} / L_X$ increases with increasing $\dot{m}$ and

1473:   increasing $M_{BH}$, therefore implying that the bolometric

1474:   correction depends on $\dot{m}$ and $M_{BH}$.

1475: \item

1476:   We performed a linear regression of $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ on luminosity,

1477:   black hole mass, $L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$, and $L_X / L_{Edd}$, and found

1478:   significant evidence that $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ depends on all four

1479:   quantities: $L_{UV} / L_{X} \propto L_{UV}^{0.31 \pm 0.03}, L_{UV}

1480:   / L_{X} \propto M_{BH}^{0.43 \pm 0.06}, L_{UV} / L_{X} \propto

1481:   (L_{UV} / L_{Edd})^{2.57 \pm 0.45},$ and $L_{UV} / L_X \propto

1482:   L_{X} / L_{Edd}^{-1.48 \pm 0.14}$. The dependence of $\alpha_{\rm

1483:   ox}$ on $L_{UV}$ may be due to the dual dependence of $\alpha_{\rm

1484:   ox}$ on $M_{BH}$ and $\dot{m}$. Because we have attempted to correct

1485:   for the statistical uncertainties in $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ and the broad

1486:   line estimates of $M_{BH}$, these results refer to the

1487:   \emph{intrinsic} relationships involving $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ and

1488:   $M_{BH}$, and are not merely the relationships between $\alpha_{\rm

1489:   ox}$ and the broad line mass estimates, $\hat{M}_{BL} \propto

1490:   L^{\gamma} FWHM^2$.

1491: \item

1492:   A correlation between $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ and $M_{BH}$ is expected

1493:   from the fact that the peak in the disk emission will shift to

1494:   longer wavelengths as $M_{BH}$ increases, even if the fraction of

1495:   the bolometric luminosity emitted by the disk does not change with

1496:   $M_{BH}$. Using a simple model for RQQ spectra, we argue that the

1497:   observed $\alpha_{\rm ox}$--$M_{BH}$ correlation is steeper than

1498:   that expected if both $\dot{m}$ and the fraction of bolometric

1499:   luminosity produced by the disk are independent of $M_{BH}$. The

1500:   observed $\alpha_{\rm ox}$--$M_{BH}$ relationship therefore implies

1501:   that either the fraction of bolometric luminosity emitted by the

1502:   disk increases with increasing $M_{BH}$, that $M_{BH}$ is correlated

1503:   with $\dot{m}$, or both.

1504: \item

1505:   A correlation between $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ and $\dot{m}$ is predicted

1506:   from several models of `slab'-type corona. We argue that the weaker

1507:   dependence of $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ on $L_X / L_{Edd}$ implies that

1508:   $L_{UV} / L_X$ increases with increasing $\dot{m}$. Considering that

1509:   the efficiency of quasar feedback energy in driving an outflow may

1510:   depend on the ratio of UV to X-ray luminosity, a correlation between

1511:   $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ and both $M_{BH}$ and $\dot{m}$ has important

1512:   consequences for models of black hole growth. In particular, if

1513:   supermassive black holes become more X-ray quiet at higher

1514:   $\dot{m}$, they will become more efficient at driving away their

1515:   accreting gas, thus halting their growth.

1516: \item

1517:   Because of a possible nonlinear dependence of $\Gamma_X$ on $M_{BH},

1518:   L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$, or $L_X / L_{Edd}$, we performed seperate

1519:   regressions for the black hole mass estimates obtained from each

1520:   emission line. We confirmed the significant dependence of $\Gamma_X$

1521:   on $L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$ and $L_X / L_{Edd}$ seen in previous studies

1522:   as inferred from the broad line mass estimates based on the H$\beta$

1523:   line; however, we also find evidence that the $\Gamma_X$

1524:   correlations change direction when including the C IV line. In

1525:   particular, for the H$\beta$ sample, the X-ray continuum hardens

1526:   with increasing $M_{BH}$, while for the C IV sample, the X-ray

1527:   continuum softens with increasing $M_{BH}$. Similar but opposite

1528:   trends are seen with respect to $L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$ and $L_X /

1529:   L_{Edd}$, and we conclude that these relationships can be

1530:   interpreted as resulting from a correlation between $\Gamma_X$ and

1531:   $\dot{m}$. Results obtained from the Mg II line were too uncertain

1532:   to interpret. We analyzed two test samples to argue that this

1533:   non-monotonic behavior is not due to the different redshifts probed

1534:   by the two samples, or to problems with the estimates of $M_{BH}$

1535:   derived from the two lines; the different trends may be due to the

1536:   difference in $M_{BH}$ probed by the two samples. A non-monotonic

1537:   dependence of $\Gamma_X$ on $M_{BH}$ and/or $\dot{m}$ may imply a

1538:   change in the disk/corona structure, although a non-monotonic

1539:   dependence of $\Gamma_X$ on $\dot{m}$ and the viscosity is predicted

1540:   by some models of `slab'-type coronal geometries.

1541: \end{itemize}

1542: 

1543: \acknowledgements

1544: 

1545: We would like to thank the anonymous referee for a careful reading and

1546: comments that contributed to the improvement of this paper. This

1547: research was funded in part by NSF grant AST03-07384, NASA contract

1548: NAS8-39073, and Chandra Award Number G05-6113X issued by the Chandra

1549: X-ray Observatory Center. Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been

1550: provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating

1551: Institutions, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of

1552: Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the

1553: Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher

1554: Education Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web Site is

1555: http://www.sdss.org/.

1556: 

1557: The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the

1558: Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the

1559: American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam,

1560: University of Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve

1561: University, University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the

1562: Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns

1563: Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the

1564: Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean

1565: Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos

1566: National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA),

1567: the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State

1568: University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh,

1569: University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States

1570: Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.

1571: 

1572: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1573: \begin{scriptsize}

1574: 

1575: \bibitem[Abramowicz et al.(1988)]{abram88} Abramowicz, M.~A., Czerny,

1576:   B., Lasota, J.~P., \& Szuszkiewicz, E.\ 1988, \apj, 332, 646

1577: \bibitem[Akritas \& Bershady(1996)]{bces} Akritas, M.~G., \& 

1578:   Bershady, M.~A.\ 1996, \apj, 470, 706 

1579: \bibitem[Anderson et al.(2001)]{and01} Anderson, S.~F., et 

1580:   al.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 503 

1581: \bibitem[Avni \& Tananbaum(1982)]{avni82} Avni, Y., \& Tananbaum, H.\

1582:   1982, \apjl, 262, L17

1583: \bibitem[Ballantyne et al.(2001)]{ball01} Ballantyne, D.~R., Ross,

1584:   R.~R., \& Fabian, A.~C.\ 2001, \mnras, 327, 10

1585: \bibitem[Bechtold et al.(2003)]{bech03} Bechtold, J., et

1586: al.\ 2003, \apj, 588, 119

1587: \bibitem[Begelman \& Nath(2005)]{begel05} Begelman, M.~C., \& Nath,

1588: B.~B.\ 2005, \mnras, 361, 1387

1589: \bibitem[Bentz et al.(2006)]{bentz06} Bentz, M.~C., Peterson, B.~M.,

1590:   Pogge, R.~W., Vestergaard, M., \& Onken, C.~A.\ 2006, \apj, 644, 133

1591: \bibitem[Bian(2005)]{bian05} Bian, W.-H.\ 2005, Chinese Journal of

1592:   Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement, 5, 289

1593: \bibitem[Bianchi et al.(2007)]{bianchi07} Bianchi, S., Guainazzi, M.,

1594:   Matt, G., \& Fonseca Bonilla, N.\ 2007, \aap, 467, L19

1595: \bibitem[Bisnovatyi-Kogan \& Blinnikov(1977)]{bis77} Bisnovatyi-Kogan,

1596:   G.~S., \& Blinnikov, S.~I.\ 1977, \aap, 59, 111

1597: \bibitem[Boller et al.(1996)]{boller96} Boller, T., Brandt, W.~N., \&

1598:   Fink, H.\ 1996, \aap, 305, 53

1599: \bibitem[Bonning et al.(2007)]{bonning07} Bonning, E.~W., Cheng, L.,

1600:   Shields, G.~A., Salviander, S., \& Gebhardt, K.\ 2007, \apj, 659,

1601:   211

1602: \bibitem[Brandt et al.(1997)]{brandt97} Brandt, W.~N., Mathur, S., \&

1603:   Elvis, M.\ 1997, \mnras, 285, L25

1604: \bibitem[Brandt \& Boller(1998)]{brandt98} Brandt, N., \& Boller, T.\

1605:   1998, Astronomische Nachrichten, 319, 163

1606: \bibitem[Brocksopp et al.(2006)]{brock06} Brocksopp, C., 

1607:   Starling, R.~L.~C., Schady, P., Mason, K.~O., Romero-Colmenero, E., \& 

1608:   Puchnarewicz, E.~M.\ 2006, \mnras, 366, 953 

1609: \bibitem[Bromley et al.(2004)]{bromley04} Bromley, J.~M., Somerville,

1610:   R.~S., \& Fabian, A.~C.\ 2004, \mnras, 350, 456

1611: \bibitem[Brunner et al.(1997)]{brunner97} Brunner, H., Mueller, C.,

1612:   Friedrich, P., Doerrer, T., Staubert, R., \& Riffert, H.\ 1997, \aap,

1613:   326, 885

1614: \bibitem[Budav{\'a}ri et al.(2005)]{bud05} Budav{\'a}ri, T., 

1615:   et al.\ 2005, \apjl, 619, L31 

1616: \bibitem[Cardelli et al.(1989)]{ccm89} Cardelli, J.~A., 

1617:   Clayton, G.~C., \& Mathis, J.~S.\ 1989, \apj, 345, 245

1618: \bibitem[Collin et al.(2006)]{collin06} Collin, S., Kawaguchi, T.,

1619:   Peterson, B.~M., \& Vestergaard, M.\ 2006, \aap, 456, 75

1620: \bibitem[Congdon(2006)]{congdon06} Congdon, P.\ 2006, Bayesian

1621:   Statistical Modelling (2nd. Ed.; West Sussex:John Wiley \& Sons

1622:   Ltd.)

1623: \bibitem[Constantin et al.(2002)]{const02} Constantin, A., Shields,

1624:   J.~C., Hamann, F., Foltz, C.~B., \& Chaffee, F.~H.\ 2002, \apj, 565,

1625:   50

1626: \bibitem[Czerny et al.(2003)]{czerny03} Czerny, B., Niko{\l}ajuk, M.,

1627:   R{\'o}{\.z}a{\'n}ska, A., Dumont, A.-M., Loska, Z., \& Zycki, P.~T.\

1628:   2003, \aap, 412, 317

1629: \bibitem[Czerny et al.(1997)]{czerny97} Czerny, B., Witt, H.~J., 
\&

1630:   Zycki, P.\ 1997, The Transparent Universe, 382, 397

1631: \bibitem[Dai et al.(2004)]{dai04} Dai, X., Chartas, G., Eracleous, M.,

1632:   \& Garmire, G.~P.\ 2004, \apj, 605, 45

1633: \bibitem[Davis et al.(2007)]{davis07} Davis, S.~W., Woo, J.-H., \&

1634:   Blaes, O.~M.\ 2007, \apj, 668, 682

1635: \bibitem[Dempster, Laird, \& Rubin(1977)]{em} Dempster, A., Laird, N.,

1636:   \& Rubin, D.\ 1977, J.~R. Statist. Soc. B., 39, 1

1637: \bibitem[De Villiers et al.(2003)]{devill03} De Villiers, J.-P.,

1638:   Hawley, J.~F., \& Krolik, J.~H.\ 2003, \apj, 599, 1238

1639: \bibitem[Di Matteo et al.(2005)]{dimatt05} Di Matteo, T., Springel,

1640:   V., \& Hernquist, L.\ 2005, \nat, 433, 604

1641: \bibitem[Elvis et al.(2002)]{elvis02} Elvis, M., Risaliti, G., \&

1642:   Zamorani, G.\ 2002, \apjl, 565, L75

1643: \bibitem[Elvis et al.(1994)]{elvis94} Elvis, M., et al.\ 1994, \apjs,

1644:   95, 1

1645: \bibitem[Esin et al.(1997)]{esin97} Esin, A.~A., McClintock, J.~E., \&

1646:   Narayan, R.\ 1997, \apj, 489, 865

1647: \bibitem[Fabian(1999)]{fabian99} Fabian, A.~C.\ 1999, \mnras, 308, L39

1648: \bibitem[Fabian et al.(2002)]{fabian02} Fabian, A.~C., et al.\ 2002,

1649:   \mnras, 335, L1

1650: \bibitem[Fox(1997)]{fox97} Fox, J.\ 1997, Applied Regression

1651:   Analysis, Linear Models, and Related Methods (Thousand Oaks:Sage

1652:   Publications, Inc.)

1653: \bibitem[Fuller(1987)]{fuller87} Fuller, W.~A.\ 1987, Measurement

1654:   Error Models (New York:John Wiley \& Sons)

1655: \bibitem[Galeev et al.(1979)]{gal79} Galeev, A.~A., Rosner, R., \&

1656:   Vaiana, G.~S.\ 1979, \apj, 229, 318

1657: \bibitem[Gallagher et al.(2002)]{gall02} Gallagher, S.~C., Brandt,

1658:   W.~N., Chartas, G., \& Garmire, G.~P.\ 2002, \apj, 567, 37

1659: \bibitem[Gallagher et al.(2005)]{gall05} Gallagher, S.~C., 

1660:   Richards, G.~T., Hall, P.~B., Brandt, W.~N., Schneider, D.~P., \& Vanden 

1661:   Berk, D.~E.\ 2005, \aj, 129, 567 

1662: \bibitem[Gallagher et al.(2006)]{gall06} Gallagher, S.~C., Brandt,

1663:   W.~N., Chartas, G., Priddey, R., Garmire, G.~P., \& Sambruna, R.~M.\

1664:   2006, \apj, 644, 709

1665: \bibitem[Gebhardt et al.(2000)]{gebh00} Gebhardt, K., et al.\ 

1666:   2000, \apjl, 539, L13 

1667: \bibitem[Gierli{\'n}ski \& Done(2004)]{gier04} Gierli{\'n}ski, M., \&

1668:   Done, C.\ 2004, \mnras, 349, L7

1669: \bibitem[Gilli et al.(2007)]{gilli07} Gilli, R., Comastri, A., \&

1670:   Hasinger, G.\ 2007, \aap, 463, 79

1671: \bibitem[Green et al.(2001)]{green01} Green, P.~J., Aldcroft, T.~L.,

1672:   Mathur, S., Wilkes, B.~J., \& Elvis, M.\ 2001, \apj, 558, 109

1673: \bibitem[Grupe et al.(2006)]{grupe06} Grupe, D., Mathur, S., 

1674:   Wilkes, B., \& Osmer, P.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 55 

1675: \bibitem[Grupe et al.(2001)]{grupe01} Grupe, D., Thomas, H.-C., 

1676:   \& Beuermann, K.\ 2001, \aap, 367, 470 

1677: \bibitem[Haardt \& Maraschi(1991)]{haardt91} Haardt, F., \& Maraschi,

1678:   L.\ 1991, \apjl, 380, L51

1679: \bibitem[Haardt \& Maraschi(1993)]{haardt93} Haardt, F., \&

1680:   Maraschi, L.\ 1993, \apj, 413, 507

1681: \bibitem[Hastie, Tibshirani, \& Friedman(2001)]{hastie01} Hastie, T.,

1682:   Tibshirani, R., \& Friedman, J.\ 2001, The Elements of Statistical

1683:   Learning (New York:Springer-Verlag)

1684: \bibitem[Hatziminaoglou et al.(2003)]{hatz03} Hatziminaoglou, E.,

1685:   Mathez, G., Solanes, J.-M., Manrique, A., \& Salvador-Sol{\'e}, E.\

1686:   2003, \mnras, 343, 692

1687: \bibitem[Hopkins et al.(2005)]{hopkins05} Hopkins, P.~F.,

1688:   Hernquist, L., Cox, T.~J., Di Matteo, T., Martini, P., Robertson, B.,

1689:   \& Springel, V.\ 2005, \apj, 630, 705

1690: \bibitem[Hopkins et al.(2006)]{hopkins06} Hopkins, P.~F.,

1691:   Hernquist, L., Cox, T.~J., Di Matteo, T., Robertson, B., \& Springel,

1692:   V.\ 2006, \apjs, 163, 1

1693: \bibitem[Hopkins et al.(2007)]{hopkins07} Hopkins, P.~F.,

1694:   Richards, G.~T., \& Hernquist, L.\ 2007, \apj, 654, 731

1695: \bibitem[Janiuk \& Czerny(2000)]{janiuk00} Janiuk, A., \& Czerny, B.\

1696:   2000, New Astronomy, 5, 7

1697: \bibitem[Janiuk et al.(2001)]{janiuk01} Janiuk, A., Czerny, B., \&

1698:   Madejski, G.~M.\ 2001, \apj, 557, 408

1699: \bibitem[Just et al.(2007)]{just07} Just, D.~W., Brandt, 

1700:   W.~N., Shemmer, O., Steffen, A.~T., Schneider, D.~P., Chartas, G., \& 

1701:   Garmire, G.~P.\ 2007, \apj, 665, 1004 

1702: \bibitem[Kaspi et al.(2005)]{kaspi05} Kaspi, S., Maoz, D., 

1703:   Netzer, H., Peterson, B.~M., Vestergaard, M., \& Jannuzi, B.~T.\ 2005, 

1704:   \apj, 629, 61 

1705: \bibitem[Kauffmann \& Haehnelt(2000)]{kauff00} Kauffmann, G., \&

1706:   Haehnelt, M.\ 2000, \mnras, 311, 576

1707: \bibitem[Kelly(2007)]{kelly07a} Kelly, B.~C.\ 2007, \apj, 665, 

1708:   1489 

1709: \bibitem[Kelly \& Bechtold(2007)]{kelly07b} Kelly, B.~C., \& 

1710:   Bechtold, J.\ 2007, \apjs, 168, 1 

1711: \bibitem[Kelly et al.(2007)]{kelly07c} Kelly, B.~C., Bechtold, 

1712:   J., Siemiginowska, A., Aldcroft, T., \& Sobolewska, M.\ 2007, \apj, 657, 

1713:   116 (K07)

1714: \bibitem[Kollmeier et al.(2006)]{koll06} Kollmeier, J.~A., et al.\

1715:   2006, \apj, 648, 128

1716: \bibitem[Krolik(2001)]{krolik01} Krolik, J.~H.\ 2001, \apj, 551, 72

1717: \bibitem[Krolik et al.(2005)]{krolik05} Krolik, J.~H., Hawley, J.~F.,

1718:   \& Hirose, S.\ 2005, \apj, 622, 1008

1719: \bibitem[Laor et al.(1997)]{laor97} Laor, A., Fiore, F., Elvis, M.,

1720:   Wilkes, B.~J., \& McDowell, J.~C.\ 1997, \apj, 477, 93

1721: \bibitem[Lee et al.(2002)]{lee02} Lee, J.~C., Iwasawa, K., Houck,

1722:   J.~C., Fabian, A.~C., Marshall, H.~L., \& Canizares, C.~R.\ 2002,

1723:   \apjl, 570, L47

1724: \bibitem[Liang \& Price(1977)]{liang77} Liang, E.~P.~T., \& Price,

1725:   R.~H.\ 1977, \apj, 218, 247

1726: \bibitem[Liu et al.(2003)]{liu03} Liu, B.~F., Mineshige, S., \&

1727:   Ohsuga, K.\ 2003, \apj, 587, 571

1728: \bibitem[Lu \& Yu(1999)]{lu99} Lu, Y., \& Yu, Q.\ 1999, \apjl, 526, L5

1729: \bibitem[Mainieri(2007)]{mainieri07} Mainieri, V.\ 2007, in press at

1730:   ApJS (astro-ph/0612361)

1731: \bibitem[Malkan(1991)]{malkan91} Malkan, M.\ 1991, IAU Colloq.~129:

1732:   The 6th Institute d'Astrophysique de Paris (IAP) Meeting:

1733:   Structure and Emission Properties of Accretion Disks, 165

1734: \bibitem[Markowitz et al.(2003)]{mark03} Markowitz, A., Edelson, R.,

1735:   \& Vaughan, S.\ 2003, \apj, 598, 935

1736: \bibitem[Mathur(2000)]{mathur00} Mathur, S.\ 2000, \mnras, 314, 

1737:   L17 

1738: \bibitem[McIntosh et al.(1999)]{mcint99} McIntosh, D.~H., Rieke, M.~J., 

1739:   Rix, H.-W., Foltz, C.~B., \& Weymann, R.~J.\ 1999, \apj, 514, 40

1740: \bibitem[McLure \& Dunlop(2004)]{mclure04} McLure, R.~J., \& Dunlop,

1741:   J.~S.\ 2004, \mnras, 352, 1390

1742: \bibitem[McLure \& Jarvis(2002)]{mclure02} McLure, R.~J., \& 

1743:   Jarvis, M.~J.\ 2002, \mnras, 337, 109 

1744: \bibitem[Merloni \& Fabian(2002)]{merloni02} Merloni, A., \&

1745:   Fabian, A.~C.\ 2002, \mnras, 332, 165

1746: \bibitem[Merritt \& Ferrarese(2001)]{merr01} Merritt, D., \& 

1747:   Ferrarese, L.\ 2001, \apj, 547, 140 

1748: \bibitem[Mineo et al.(2000)]{mineo00} Mineo, T., et al.\

1749:   2000, \aap, 359, 471

1750: \bibitem[Murray et al.(1995)]{murray95} Murray, N., Chiang,

1751:   J., Grossman, S.~A., \& Voit, G.~M.\ 1995, \apj, 451, 498

1752: \bibitem[Nandra et al.(1997)]{nandra97} Nandra, K., George, I.~M.,

1753:   Mushotzky, R.~F., Turner, T.~J., \& Yaqoob, T.\ 1997, \apj, 477, 602

1754: \bibitem[Nayakshin(2000)]{nayak00} Nayakshin, S.\ 2000, \apj, 534, 718

1755: \bibitem[Nishihara et al.(1997)]{nishi97} Nishihara, E., Yamashita,

1756:   T., Yoshida, M., Watanabe, E., Okumura, S.-I., Mori, A., \& Iye, M.\

1757:   1997, \apjl, 488, L27

1758: \bibitem[Nowak et al.(2002)]{nowak02} Nowak, M.~A., Wilms, J., \&

1759:   Dove, J.~B.\ 2002, \mnras, 332, 856

1760: \bibitem[O'Neill et al.(2005)]{oneill05} O'Neill, P.~M., Nandra, 

1761:   K., Papadakis, I.~E., \& Turner, T.~J.\ 2005, \mnras, 358, 1405 

1762: \bibitem[Onken et al.(2004)]{onken04} Onken, C.~A., Ferrarese, 

1763:   L., Merritt, D., Peterson, B.~M., Pogge, R.~W., Vestergaard, M., \& Wandel, 

1764:   A.\ 2004, \apj, 615, 645 

1765: \bibitem[Page et al.(2004)]{page04} Page, K.~L., Reeves, 

1766:   J.~N., O'Brien, P.~T., Turner, M.~J.~L., \& Worrall, D.~M.\ 2004, \mnras, 

1767:   353, 133 

1768: \bibitem[Page et al.(2003)]{page03} Page, K.~L., Turner, M.~J.~L.,

1769:   Reeves, J.~N., O'Brien, P.~T., \& Sembay, S.\ 2003, \mnras, 338,

1770:   1004

1771: \bibitem[P{\' e}roux et al.(2001)]{peroux01} P{\' e}roux, C., 

1772:   Storrie-Lombardi, L.~J., McMahon, R.~G., Irwin, M., \& Hook, I.~M.\ 2001, 

1773:   \aj, 121, 1799 

1774: \bibitem[Pessah et al.(2006)]{pessah06} Pessah, M.~E.,

1775:   Chan, C.-K., \& Psaltis, D.\ 2006, \mnras, 372, 183

1776: \bibitem[Pessah et al.(2007)]{pessah07} Pessah, M.~E., Chan, C.-k., \&

1777:   Psaltis, D.\ 2007, in press at \apj (arXiv:0705.0352)

1778: \bibitem[Peterson et al.(2004)]{peter04} Peterson, B.~M., et al.\ 2004, 

1779:   \apj, 613, 682 

1780: \bibitem[Piconcelli et al.(2005)]{picon05} Piconcelli, E., 

1781:   Jimenez-Bail{\'o}n, E., Guainazzi, M., Schartel, N., 

1782:   Rodr{\'{\i}}guez-Pascual, P.~M., \& Santos-Lle{\'o}, M.\ 2005, \aap, 432, 

1783:   15 

1784: \bibitem[Porquet et al.(2004)]{porquet04} Porquet, D., Reeves, J.~N.,

1785:   O'Brien, P., \& Brinkmann, W.\ 2004, \aap, 422, 85

1786: \bibitem[Poutanen et al.(1997)]{pout97} Poutanen, J., Krolik, J.~H.,

1787:   \& Ryde, F.\ 1997, \mnras, 292, L21

1788: \bibitem[Proga(2005)]{proga05} Proga, D.\ 2005, \apjl, 630, L9

1789: \bibitem[Proga(2007)]{proga07} Proga, D.\ 2007, \apj, 661, 693

1790: \bibitem[Proga \& Kallman(2004)]{proga04} Proga, D., \&

1791:   Kallman, T.~R.\ 2004, \apj, 616, 688

1792: \bibitem[Reeves \& Turner(2000)]{reeves00} Reeves, J.~N., \& 

1793:   Turner, M.~J.~L.\ 2000, \mnras, 316, 234 

1794: \bibitem[Reeves et al.(1997)]{reeves97} Reeves, J.~N., Turner,

1795:   M.~J.~L., Ohashi, T., \& Kii, T.\ 1997, \mnras, 292, 468

1796: \bibitem[Reichard et al.(2003)]{reich03} Reichard, T.~A., et al.\

1797:   2003, \aj, 126, 2594

1798: \bibitem[Richards et al.(2006)]{rich06} Richards, G.~T., et al.\ 2006,

1799:   \aj, 131, 2766

1800: \bibitem[Risaliti \& Elvis(2005)]{ris05} Risaliti, G., \& Elvis, M.\

1801:   2005, \apjl, 629, L17

1802: \bibitem[Schlegel et al.(1998)]{schlegel} Schlegel, D.~J., Finkbeiner,

1803:   D.~P., \& Davis, M.\ 1998, \apj, 500, 525

1804: \bibitem[Schneider et al.(2005)]{dr3qsos} Schneider, D.~P., et al.\

1805:   2005, \aj, 130, 376

1806: \bibitem[Schwartz(1979)]{bic} Schwartz, G.\ 1979, Ann.~Statist., 6, 461

1807: \bibitem[Scoville(2007)]{cosmos} Scoville, N.~Z., et al.\ 2007, in

1808:   press at \apjs (astro-ph/0612305)

1809: \bibitem[Shakura \& Syunyaev(1973)]{shakura73} Shakura, N.~I., \&

1810:   Syunyaev, R.~A.\ 1973, \aap, 24, 337

1811: \bibitem[Shapiro et al.(1976)]{shap76} Shapiro, S.~L., Lightman,

1812:   A.~P., \& Eardley, D.~M.\ 1976, \apj, 204, 187

1813: \bibitem[Shemmer et al.(2006)]{shemmer06} Shemmer, O., Brandt, 

1814:   W.~N., Netzer, H., Maiolino, R., \& Kaspi, S.\ 2006, \apjl, 646, L29 

1815: \bibitem[Silk \& Rees(1998)]{silk98} Silk, J., \& Rees, M.~J.\ 1998,

1816:   \aap, 331, L1

1817: \bibitem[Sobolewska et al.(2004a)]{sob04a} Sobolewska, M.~A.,

1818:   Siemiginowska, A., \& \.{Z}ycki, P.~T.\ 2004a, \apj, 608, 80

1819: \bibitem[Sobolewska et al.(2004b)]{sob04b} Sobolewska, M.~A.,

1820:   Siemiginowska, A., \& \.{Z}ycki, P.~T.\ 2004b, \apj, 617, 102

1821: \bibitem[Spergel et al.(2003)]{wmap} Spergel, D.~N., et al.\ 

1822:   2003, \apjs, 148, 175 

1823: \bibitem[Springel et al.(2005)]{spring05} Springel, V., Di Matteo, T.,

1824:   \& Hernquist, L.\ 2005, \apjl, 620, L79

1825: \bibitem[Stapleton \& Young(1984)]{stap84} Stapleton, D.~C. \& Young,

1826:   D.~J.\ 1984, Econometrica, 52, 737

1827: \bibitem[Steffen et al.(2006)]{steffen06} Steffen, A.~T., 

1828:   Strateva, I., Brandt, W.~N., Alexander, D.~M., Koekemoer, A.~M., Lehmer, 

1829:   B.~D., Schneider, D.~P., \& Vignali, C.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 2826

1830: \bibitem[Storrie-Lombardi et al.(1996)]{storr96} Storrie-Lombardi,

1831:   L.~J., McMahon, R.~G., Irwin, M.~J., \& Hazard, C.\ 1996, \apj, 468,

1832:   121

1833: \bibitem[Strateva et al.(2005)]{strat05} Strateva, I.~V., Brandt,

1834:   W.~N., Schneider, D.~P., Vanden Berk, D.~G., \& Vignali, C.\ 2005,

1835:   \aj, 130, 387 (S05)

1836: \bibitem[Tananbaum et al.(1979)]{tan79} Tananbaum, H., et 

1837:   al.\ 1979, \apjl, 234, L9 

1838: \bibitem[Turner(2004)]{turner04} Turner, N.~J.\ 2004, \apjl, 605, L45

1839: \bibitem[Tremaine et al.(2002)]{trem02} Tremaine, S., et al.\ 

1840:   2002, \apj, 574, 740 

1841: \bibitem[Trump et al.(2006)]{trump06} Trump, J.~R., et

1842:   al.\ 2006, \apjs, 165, 1

1843: \bibitem[Trump et al.(2007)]{trump07} Trump, J., Impey, C., et al.\

1844:   2007, in press at \apjs (astro-ph/0606016)

1845: \bibitem[Trump et al.(2008)]{trump08} Trump, J., Impey, C., et al.\

1846:   2008, in preparation

1847: \bibitem[Uttley et al.(2002)]{uttley02} Uttley, P., McHardy, I.~M., \&

1848:   Papadakis, I.~E.\ 2002, \mnras, 332, 231

1849: \bibitem[Vasudevan \& Fabian(2007)]{vasud07} Vasudevan, R.~V., \&

1850:   Fabian, A.~C.\ 2007, in press at \mnras, (arXiv:0708.4308)

1851: \bibitem[V{\' e}ron-Cetty et al.(2004)]{optfe} V{\' 

1852:   e}ron-Cetty, M.-P., Joly, M., \& V{\' e}ron, P.\ 2004, \aap, 417, 515 

1853: \bibitem[Vestergaard(2002)]{vest02} Vestergaard, M.\ 2002, \apj, 571,

1854:   733

1855: \bibitem[Vestergaard(2004)]{vest04} Vestergaard, M.\ 2004, \apj, 601,

1856:   676

1857: \bibitem[Vestergaard et al.(2008)]{vest08} Vestergaard, M., et al.\ 2007, in

1858:   preparation

1859: \bibitem[Vestergaard \& Peterson(2006)]{vest06} Vestergaard, 

1860:   M., \& Peterson, B.~M.\ 2006, \apj, 641, 689 

1861: \bibitem[Vestergaard \& Wilkes(2001)]{uvfe} Vestergaard, M., \&

1862:   Wilkes, B.~J.\ 2001, \apjs, 134, 1

1863: \bibitem[Vignali et al.(2001)]{vig01} Vignali, C., Brandt, W.~N., Fan,

1864:   X., Gunn, J.~E., Kaspi, S., Schneider, D.~P., \& Strauss, M.~A.\

1865:   2001, \aj, 122, 2143

1866: \bibitem[Vignali et al.(2003a)]{vig03a} Vignali, C., Brandt, W.~N.,

1867:   Schneider, D.~P., Garmire, G.~P., \& Kaspi, S.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 418

1868: \bibitem[Vignali et al.(2003b)]{vig03b} Vignali, C., Brandt, W.~N., \&

1869:   Schneider, D.~P.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 433

1870: \bibitem[Vignali et al.(2005)]{vig05} Vignali, C., Brandt, W.~N.,

1871:   Schneider, D.~P., \& Kaspi, S.\ 2005, \aj, 129, 2519

1872: \bibitem[Vignali et al.(1999)]{vig99} Vignali, C., Comastri, A.,

1873:   Cappi, M., Palumbo, G.~G.~C., Matsuoka, M., \& Kubo, H.\ 1999, \apj,

1874:   516, 582

1875: \bibitem[Wandel(2000)]{wandel00} Wandel, A.\ 2000, New Astronomy

1876:   Review, 44, 427

1877: \bibitem[Wandel et al.(1999)]{wand99} Wandel, A., Peterson, 

1878:   B.~M., \& Malkan, M.~A.\ 1999, \apj, 526, 579

1879: \bibitem[Wang et al.(2004)]{wang04} Wang, J.-M., Watarai, K.-Y., \&

1880:   Mineshige, S.\ 2004, \apjl, 607, L107

1881: \bibitem[Wilkes \& Elvis(1987)]{wilkes87} Wilkes, B.~J., \& 

1882:   Elvis, M.\ 1987, \apj, 323, 243 

1883: \bibitem[Wilkes et al.(1994)]{wilkes94} Wilkes, B.~J., Tananbaum, H.,

1884:   Worrall, D.~M., Avni, Y., Oey, M.~S., \& Flanagan, J.\ 1994, \apjs,

1885:   92, 53

1886: \bibitem[Woo \& Urry(2002)]{woo02} Woo, J., \& Urry, C.~M.\ 2002,

1887:   \apj, 579, 530

1888: \bibitem[Worrall et al.(1987)]{worrall87} Worrall, D.~M., 

1889:   Tananbaum, H., Giommi, P., \& Zamorani, G.\ 1987, \apj, 313, 596 

1890: \bibitem[Wyithe \& Loeb(2003)]{wyithe03} Wyithe, J.~S.~B., \& Loeb,

1891:   A.\ 2003, \apj, 595, 614

1892: \bibitem[Yuan et al.(1998)]{yuan98} Yuan, W., Siebert, J., \& 

1893:   Brinkmann, W.\ 1998b, \aap, 334, 498 

1894: \bibitem[Zamorani et al.(1981)]{zam81} Zamorani, G., et al.\ 

1895:   1981, \apj, 245, 357 

1896: \bibitem[Zdziarski et al.(1999)]{zdz99} Zdziarski, A.~A., 

1897:   Lubinski, P., \& Smith, D.~A.\ 1999, \mnras, 303, L11 

1898: 

1899: \end{scriptsize}

1900: 

1901: \end{thebibliography}

1902: 

1903: \begin{figure}

1904:   \begin{center}

1905:     \scalebox{0.6}{\rotatebox{90}{\plotone{f1.ps}}}

1906:     \caption{The $(L_{UV}, L_X, z)$ distribution of our

1907:       sample. Non-detections are denoted by red

1908:       arrows. \label{f-lum_z_dist}}

1909:   \end{center}

1910: \end{figure}

1911: 

1912: \begin{figure}

1913:   \begin{center}

1914:     \scalebox{0.6}{\rotatebox{90}{\plotone{f2.ps}}}

1915:     \caption{The distributions of estimated $M_{BH}, L_{bol},$ and

1916:     $L_{bol} / L_{Edd},$ as a function of $z$ for our sample. The data

1917:     points with error bars in the left two plots are fictitious data

1918:     points illustrating the typical error in $\hat{M}_{BL}$ and

1919:     $\hat{L}_{bol} / \hat{L}_{Edd}$. \label{f-mbh_vs_z}}

1920:   \end{center}

1921: \end{figure}

1922: 

1923: \begin{figure}

1924:   \begin{center}

1925:     \includegraphics[scale=0.33,angle=90]{f3a.ps}

1926:     \includegraphics[scale=0.33,angle=90]{f3b.ps}

1927:     \caption{The distribution of $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ as a function of

1928:     $L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$ (left) and $L_X / L_{Edd}$ (right). The

1929:     opposite dependence of $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ on $L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$ and

1930:     $L_X / L_{Edd}$ suggests that at least one of these quantities is

1931:     not proportional to $L_{bol} / L_{Edd}$. As such, we do not employ

1932:     bolometric corrections in this work, and instead compare directly

1933:     with $L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$ and $L_X / L_{Edd}$.

1934:     \label{f-alfox_redd}}.

1935:   \end{center}

1936: \end{figure}

1937: 

1938: \begin{figure}

1939:   \begin{center}

1940:     \scalebox{0.6}{\rotatebox{90}{\plotone{f4.ps}}}

1941:     \caption{Ratio of optical/UV to X-ray flux as a function of

1942:     $L_{UV}, M_{BH}, L_{UV} / L_{Edd},$ and $L_{X} / L_{Edd}$. The

1943:     solid lines denote the best fit, and the shaded regions contain

1944:     $95\%$ ($2\sigma$) of the probability on the regression line. The

1945:     data points with error bars in the plots of $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ as a

1946:     function of $M_{BH}, L_{UV} / L_{Edd},$ and $L_X / L_{Edd}$ are

1947:     fictitious and illustrate the typical errors in each direction.

1948:     \label{f-alfox_reg}}

1949:   \end{center}

1950: \end{figure}

1951: 

1952: \begin{figure}

1953:   \begin{center}

1954:     \includegraphics[scale=0.33,angle=90]{f5a.ps}

1955:     \includegraphics[scale=0.33,angle=90]{f5b.ps}

1956:     \caption{Posterior probability distributions for the absolute

1957:     value of the correlation coefficients between $\alpha_{\rm ox}$

1958:     and $\log L_{UV}, \log M_{BH}, \log L_{UV} / L_{Edd},$ and $\log

1959:     L_X / L_{Edd}$ (left) and for the intrinsic dispersion in

1960:     $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ at a given $L_{UV}, M_{BH}, L_{UV} / L_{Edd},$

1961:     or $L_X / L_{Edd}$ (right). The thick solid line denotes the

1962:     probability distribution for the two quantities with respect to

1963:     $L_{UV}$, the dashed line for the two quantities with respect to

1964:     $M_{BH}$, the dashed-dotted line for the two quantites with

1965:     respect to $L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$, and the thin solid line for the two

1966:     quantities with respect to $L_X / L_{Edd}$.

1967:     \label{f-alfox_corr}}

1968:   \end{center}

1969: \end{figure}

1970: 

1971: \begin{figure}

1972:   \begin{center}

1973:     \scalebox{0.6}{\rotatebox{90}{\plotone{f6.ps}}}

1974:     \caption{Distribution of the X-ray photon index as a function of

1975:     estimated $M_{BH}$, $L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$, and $L_X / L_{Edd}$. For

1976:     clarity, error bars are only shown on $\Gamma_X$, and we cut-off

1977:     the one data point with estimated $\Gamma_X > 4$. While no obvious

1978:     trends between $\Gamma_X$ and $M_{BH}, L_{UV} / L_{Edd},$ or $L_X

1979:     / L_{Edd}$ exist for the whole sample, there is evidence of

1980:     opposite trends in $\Gamma_X$ for the H$\beta$ and C IV samples.

1981:     \label{f-gamx_vs_bh}}.

1982:   \end{center}

1983: \end{figure}

1984: 

1985: \begin{figure}

1986:   \begin{center}

1987:     \scalebox{0.6}{\rotatebox{90}{\plotone{f7.ps}}}

1988:     \caption{Distribution of the X-ray photon index as a function of

1989:     estimated $M_{BH}$, $L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$, and $L_X / L_{Edd}$ for

1990:     the individual emission lines. For clarity, error bars have been

1991:     omitted, and we omit the one data point with estimated $\Gamma_X >

1992:     4$. While no obvious trends exist for the whole sample, there is

1993:     evidence of opposite trends for the H$\beta$ and C IV samples.

1994:     \label{f-gamx_vs_bh_eline}}.

1995:   \end{center}

1996: \end{figure}

1997: 

1998: \begin{figure}

1999:   \begin{center}

2000:     \scalebox{0.6}{\rotatebox{90}{\plotone{f8.ps}}}

2001:     \caption{Posterior probability distributions of the slope (top)

2002:     and intrinsic dispersion (bottom) from a linear regression of

2003:     $\Gamma_X$ on $\log M_{BH}, \log L_{UV} / L_{Edd}$, and $\log L_X

2004:     / L_{Edd}$. The solid lines mark the posterior for the regression

2005:     using the H$\beta$ sample, the dashed-dotted lines mark the

2006:     posterior for the regression using the Mg II sample, and the

2007:     dashed lines mark the posterior for the regression using the C IV

2008:     sample.

2009:     \label{f-hbciv_reg}}

2010:   \end{center}

2011: \end{figure}

2012: 

2013: \begin{figure}

2014:   \begin{center}

2015:     \includegraphics[scale=0.6,angle=90]{f9.ps}

2016:     \caption{Posterior distribution for the difference in slopes

2017:     between the C IV and H$\beta$ regressions of $\Gamma_X$ on

2018:     $m_{BH}$. While there is no significant evidence that either the

2019:     H$\beta$ or C IV regression slope is different from zero, there

2020:     \emph{is} significant evidence that they are not the same,

2021:     implying a nonmonotonic trend between $\Gamma_X$ and $M_{BH}$.

2022:     \label{f-regdiff}}.

2023:   \end{center}

2024: \end{figure}

2025: 

2026: \begin{figure}

2027:   \begin{center}

2028:     \scalebox{0.6}{\rotatebox{90}{\plotone{f10.ps}}}

2029:     \caption{Distribution of estimated $M_{BH}$ as a function of $z$

2030:     for the H$\beta$ sample (stars) and the C IV sample (open

2031:     diamonds). The H$\beta$ sample probes sources with lower $M_{BH}$

2032:     and $z$, while the C IV sample probes sources with higher $M_{BH}$

2033:     and $z$. To break the degeneracy between emission line, $M_{BH}$,

2034:     and $z$, we have collected a sample of H$\beta$ test sources (red

2035:     asterisks) at high $M_{BH}$ and $z$, and a sample of C IV test

2036:     sources (open blue triangles) at low $M_{BH}$ and $z$.

2037:     \label{f-mbh_vs_z2}}

2038:     \end{center}

2039: \end{figure}

2040: 

2041: \begin{figure}

2042:   \begin{center}

2043:     \scalebox{0.6}{\rotatebox{90}{\plotone{f11.ps}}}

2044:     \caption{X-ray photon index as a function of estimated $M_{BH}$

2045:     for low-$z$ sources with $M_{BH}$ derived from the H$\beta$ line,

2046:     high-$z$ test sources with $M_{BH}$ derived from the H$\beta$

2047:     line, low-$z$ test sources with $M_{BH}$ derived from the C IV

2048:     line, and high-$z$ sources with $M_{BH}$ derived from the C IV

2049:     line. The symbols are the same as in Figure

2050:     \ref{f-mbh_vs_z2}. Also shown is the best fit regression using the

2051:     H$\beta$ sample (solid line) and the C IV sample (dashed

2052:     line). The high-$z$ H$\beta$ sources are better described by the

2053:     high-$z$ C IV regression, and the low-$z$ C IV sources are better

2054:     described by the low-$z$ H$\beta$ regression, implying that the

2055:     difference in slopes between the H$\beta$ and C IV samples is not

2056:     due to systematic differences in mass estimates derived from

2057:     either line.

2058:     \label{f-test1}}

2059:   \end{center}

2060: \end{figure}

2061: 

2062: \begin{figure}

2063:   \begin{center}

2064:     \scalebox{0.6}{\rotatebox{90}{\plotone{f12.ps}}}

2065:     \caption{Same as Figure \ref{f-mbh_vs_z2}, but for the lower

2066:     $M_{BH}$ and higher $z$ test sources from COSMOS. These test

2067:     sources help break the degeneracy between the $M_{BH}$ and $z$

2068:     present in our main sample.

2069:     \label{f-mbh_vs_z_cosmos}}

2070:     \end{center}

2071: \end{figure}

2072: 

2073: \begin{figure}

2074:   \begin{center}

2075:     \scalebox{0.6}{\rotatebox{90}{\plotone{f13.ps}}}

2076:     \caption{Same as Figure \ref{f-test1}, but for a sample of

2077:     high-$z$, low-$M_{BH}$ test sources from \emph{COSMOS} (red

2078:     asterisks with error bars). The \emph{COSMOS} sources are better

2079:     described by the low-$z$, low-$M_{BH}$ regression, implying that

2080:     the difference in slopes between the H$\beta$ and C IV samples is

2081:     due to the difference in $M_{BH}$ probed by the two samples, and

2082:     not due to the redshift differences.

2083:     \label{f-test2}}

2084:   \end{center}

2085: \end{figure}

2086: 

2087: \begin{figure}

2088:   \begin{center}

2089:     \includegraphics[scale=0.33,angle=90]{f14a.ps}

2090:     \includegraphics[scale=0.33,angle=90]{f14b.ps}

2091:     \caption{Model RQQ spectra computed from Equations

2092:     (\ref{eq-thindisk})--(\ref{eq-modelspec}), assuming $\Gamma_X = 2$

2093:     (left) and a varying $\Gamma_X$ with $M_{BH}$ (right). The spectra

2094:     are computed for a RQQ with $M_{BH} / M_{\odot} = 10^7$ (thick

2095:     solid line), $10^8$ (dashed line), $10^9$ (dashed-dotted line),

2096:     and $10^{10}$ (thin solid line). In all cases we assume $\dot{m} =

2097:     0.2$ and that $f_D = 85\%$ of the bolometric luminosity is emitted

2098:     by the disk. The vertical lines mark the locations of 2500\AA\

2099:     and 2 keV. The dependence of the location of the peak in the disk

2100:     emission on $M_{BH}$ is apparent, producing a correlation between

2101:     $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ and $M_{BH}$ even if the fraction of bolometric

2102:     luminosity emitted by the disk is independent of $M_{BH}$.

2103:     \label{f-modelspec}}.

2104:   \end{center}

2105: \end{figure}

2106: 

2107: \begin{figure}

2108:   \begin{center}

2109:     \scalebox{0.6}{\rotatebox{90}{\plotone{f15.ps}}}

2110:     \caption{Dependence of $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ on $M_{BH}$ computed from

2111:     Equations (\ref{eq-thindisk})--(\ref{eq-modelspec}), assuming

2112:     $\Gamma_X = 2$ (blue dashed line) and a varying $\Gamma_X$ with

2113:     $M_{BH}$ (blue dot-dashed line). As with Figure \ref{f-modelspec},

2114:     we compute Equations (\ref{eq-thindisk})--(\ref{eq-modelspec})

2115:     assuming $\dot{m} = 0.2$ and $f_D = 0.85$. The predictions from

2116:     the model RQQ spectra are compared with our observed data and the

2117:     regression results, where the symbols and lines have the same

2118:     meaning as in Figure \ref{f-alfox_reg}. The $\alpha_{\rm

2119:     ox}$--$M_{BH}$ relationships predicted from assuming that $f_D$ is

2120:     independent of $M_{BH}$ are inconsistent with the observed

2121:     $\alpha_{\rm ox}$--$M_{BH}$ relationship.

2122:     \label{f-alfox_model}}

2123:   \end{center}

2124: \end{figure}

2125: 

2126: %\clearpage

2127: 

2128: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}

2129:   \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

2130:   \tablecaption{Black Hole Parameters of the Sample\label{t-sample}}

2131:   \tablewidth{0pt}

2132:   \tablehead{

2133:     \colhead{$\alpha$ (J2000)} 

2134:     & \colhead{$\delta$ (J2000)} 

2135:     & \colhead{$z$}

2136:     & \colhead{$\log \hat{M}_{BL} / M_{\odot}$} 

2137:     & \colhead{$\log L_{X} / \hat{L}_{Edd}$\tablenotemark{a}} 

2138:     & \colhead{$\log L_{UV} / \hat{L}_{Edd}$\tablenotemark{b}} 

2139:   }

2140:   \startdata

2141:   00 02 30.7 & +00 49 59.0 & 1.352 & $9.20 \pm 0.45$ & $-2.43 \pm 0.45$ & $-1.44 \pm 0.45$  \\

2142:   00 06 54.1 & -00 15 33.4 & 1.725 & $9.08 \pm 0.29$ & $-2.58 \pm 0.30$ & $-1.07 \pm 0.29$  \\

2143:   00 22 10.0 & +00 16 29.3 & 0.574 & $7.96 \pm 0.32$ & $-2.73 \pm 0.32$ & $-1.11 \pm 0.32$  \\

2144:   00 27 52.4 & +00 26 15.7 & 0.205 & $7.35 \pm 0.45$ & $-2.42 \pm 0.46$ & $-1.26 \pm 0.49$  \\

2145:   00 31 31.4 & +00 34 20.2 & 1.735 & $9.17 \pm 0.29$ & $-2.66 \pm 0.29$ & $-1.31 \pm 0.29$  \\

2146:   00 50 06.3 & -00 53 19.0 & 4.331 & $9.61 \pm 0.41$ & $-2.89 \pm 0.42$ & $-1.19 \pm 0.41$  \\

2147:   00 57 01.1 & +14 50 03.0 & 0.623 & $8.66 \pm 0.32$ & $-3.79 \pm 0.32$ & $-1.66 \pm 0.32$  \\

2148:   00 59 22.8 & +00 03 01.0 & 4.178 & $9.21 \pm 0.38$ & $-2.28 \pm 0.41$ & $-0.74 \pm 0.38$  \\

2149:   01 06 19.2 & +00 48 22.0 & 4.437 & $9.18 \pm 0.38$ & $-1.96 \pm 0.39$ & $-0.46 \pm 0.38$  \\

2150:   01 13 05.7 & +15 31 46.5 & 0.576 & $9.39 \pm 0.32$ & $-3.47 \pm 0.32$ & $-2.46 \pm 0.32$  \\

2151:   01 13 09.1 & +15 35 53.6 & 1.806 & $9.19 \pm 0.29$ & $-2.32 \pm 0.29$ & $-1.13 \pm 0.29$  \\

2152:   01 15 37.7 & +00 20 28.7 & 1.275 & $9.25 \pm 0.45$ & $-2.75 \pm 0.45$ & $-1.81 \pm 0.45$  \\

2153:   01 26 02.2 & -00 19 24.1 & 1.765 & $8.96 \pm 0.29$ & $-2.58 \pm 0.29$ & $-1.01 \pm 0.29$  \\

2154:   \enddata

2155:   

2156:   \tablecomments{The complete version of this table is in the

2157:     electronic edition of the Journal. The printed edition contains

2158:     only a sample.}

2159:   \tablenotetext{a}{Logarithm of the ratio of $\nu L_{\nu}$ [2 keV] to

2160:     $\hat{L}_{Edd}$, where $\hat{L}_{Edd}$ is calculated from the broad

2161:     emission line estimate of $M_{BH}, \hat{M}_{BL}$.}

2162:   \tablenotetext{b}{Logarithm of the ratio of $\nu L_{\nu}$ [2500\AA] to

2163:     $\hat{L}_{Edd}$, where $\hat{L}_{Edd}$ is calculated from the broad

2164:     emission line estimate of $M_{BH}, \hat{M}_{BL}$.}

2165:   

2166: \end{deluxetable}

2167: 

2168: %\clearpage

2169: 

2170: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccc}

2171:   \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

2172:   \tablecaption{Sources with H$\beta$ and C IV Used for Testing the $\Gamma_X$--$M_{BH}$ 

2173:     Correlations \label{t-test}}

2174:   \tablewidth{0pt}

2175:   \tablehead{

2176:     \colhead{Quasar Name} & \colhead{$\alpha$} & \colhead{$\delta$} & \colhead{$z$} & \colhead{Line} & 

2177:     \colhead{$\log \hat{M}_{BL}$} & \colhead{$\hat{L}_{bol} / \hat{L}_{Edd}$} & Opt. Ref.\tablenotemark{a} & 

2178:     $\Gamma_X$ & X-ray Ref.\tablenotemark{b} \\

2179:     \colhead{} & \colhead{(J2000)} & \colhead{(J2000)} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{$M_{\odot}$} &

2180:     \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{}

2181:   }

2182:   \startdata

2183:   PG 0026+129      & 00 29 13.7 & +13 16 03.8 & 0.142 & C IV     & 7.789 & 1.768 & 1 & 1.96\tablenotemark{c} & 5 \\

2184:   Fairall 9        & 01 23 45.7 & -58 48 21.8 & 0.046 & C IV     & 7.760 & 0.265 & 1 & $1.83 \pm 0.06$ & 6 \\

2185:   PG 1202+281      & 12 04 42.2 & +27 54 12.0 & 0.165 & C IV     & 7.855 & 0.359 & 1 & $1.76 \pm 0.07$ & 7 \\

2186:   PG 1211+143      & 12 14 17.7 & +14 03 12.3 & 0.080 & C IV     & 7.559 & 1.380 & 1 & $2.06 \pm 0.05$ & 8 \\

2187:   PG 1247+267      & 12 50 05.7 & +26 31 07.7 & 2.038 & H$\beta$ & 10.41 & 0.379 & 2 & $2.23 \pm 0.10$ & 9 \\

2188:   Q1346-036        & 13 48 44.1 & -03 53 25.0 & 2.370 & H$\beta$ & 9.946 & 0.609 & 3 & $2.02 \pm 0.17$ & 3 \\

2189:   MRK 478          & 14 42 07.5 & +35 26 22.9 & 0.077 & C IV     & 7.890 & 0.498 & 1 & $2.41 \pm 0.07$ & 7 \\ 

2190:   PG 1630+377      & 16 32 01.1 & +37 37 50.0 & 1.476 & H$\beta$ & 9.762 & 0.569 & 4 & $2.20 \pm 0.30$ & 10 \\

2191:   PG 1634+706      & 16 34 28.9 & +70 31 33.0 & 1.334 & H$\beta$ & 10.27 & 0.734 & 4 & $2.19 \pm 0.05$ & 10 \\

2192:   HE 2217-2818     & 22 20 06.8 & -28 03 23.9 & 2.414 & H$\beta$ & 10.12 & 0.807 & 3 & $1.97 \pm 0.06$ & 3

2193:   \enddata

2194: 

2195:   \tablenotetext{a}{Reference for the rest frame optical/UV data.}

2196:   \tablenotetext{b}{Reference for the X-ray data.}

2197:   \tablenotetext{c}{\citet{oneill05} do not report an error on $\Gamma_X$.}

2198: 

2199:   \tablerefs{

2200:     (1) \citet{kelly07b} (2) \citet{mcint99} (3) \citet{shemmer06} (4) \citet{nishi97}

2201:     (5) \citet{oneill05} (6) \citet{nandra97} (7) \citet{brock06} (8) \citet{reeves00}

2202:     (9) \citet{page04} (10) \citet{picon05}

2203:   }

2204: 

2205: \end{deluxetable}

2206: 

2207: %\clearpage

2208: 

2209: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccc}

2210:   \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

2211:   \tablecaption{Test Sources from COSMOS \label{t-cosmos}}

2212:   \tablewidth{0pt}

2213:   \tablehead{

2214:     \colhead{$\alpha$} & \colhead{$\delta$} & \colhead{$z$} & \colhead{Line} & 

2215:     \colhead{$\log \hat{M}_{BL}$} & \colhead{$\hat{L}_{bol} / \hat{L}_{Edd}$} & $\Gamma_X$ \\

2216:     \colhead{(J2000)} & \colhead{(J2000)} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{$M_{\odot}$} &

2217:     \colhead{} & \colhead{}

2218:   }

2219:   \startdata

2220:   09 58 48.8 & +02 34 42.3 & 1.551 & C IV  & 8.276 & 0.131 & $2.01 \pm 0.11$ \\

2221:   09 59 02.6 & +02 25 11.8 & 1.105 & Mg II & 7.612 & 0.025 & $2.17 \pm 0.28$ \\

2222:   09 59 49.4 & +02 01 41.1 & 1.758 & C IV  & 8.108 & 0.719 & $2.51 \pm 0.16$ \\

2223:   10 00 50.0 & +02 05 00.0 & 1.235 & Mg II & 7.692 & 0.501 & $2.50 \pm 0.13$ \\

2224:   10 00 51.6 & +02 12 15.8 & 1.829 & Mg II & 7.807 & 0.131 & $2.14 \pm 0.17$ \\

2225:   10 00 58.9 & +01 53 59.5 & 1.559 & C IV  & 8.346 & 0.172 & $2.04 \pm 0.17$ \\

2226:   10 02 19.6 & +01 55 36.9 & 1.509 & C IV  & 8.333 & 0.177 & $2.19 \pm 0.23$ \\

2227:   10 02 34.4 & +01 50 11.5 & 1.506 & C IV  & 7.991 & 0.941 & $2.25 \pm 0.12$ \\

2228:   10 02 43.9 & +02 05 02.0 & 1.234 & Mg II & 7.817 & 0.303 & $1.97 \pm 0.29$ \\

2229:   \enddata

2230: 

2231: \end{deluxetable}

2232: 

2233: \end{document}

2234: