1: \documentclass[apjl]{emulateapj}
2: \usepackage{mathptmx}
3:
4: \newcommand{\ltsim}{\raisebox{-.5ex}{$\;\stackrel{<}{\sim}\;$}}
5: \newcommand{\gtsim}{\raisebox{-.5ex}{$\;\stackrel{>}{\sim}\;$}}
6: \newcommand{\kms}{\ifmmode {\rm km\ s}^{-1} \else km s$^{-1}$\fi}
7: \newcommand{\vFWHM}{\ifmmode V_{\mbox{\tiny FWHM}} \else
8: $V_{\mbox{\tiny FWHM}}$\fi}
9: \newcommand{\msun}{$M_{\odot}$}
10: \newcommand{\et}{et al.\ }
11: \newcommand{\Cfour}{C {\sc iv}}
12: \newcommand{\hb}{H$\beta$}
13: \newcommand{\mbh}{$M_{\rm BH}$}
14: \newcommand{\lledd}{$L/L_{\rm Edd}$}
15: \newcommand{\lbol}{$L_{\rm bol}$}
16: \newcommand{\aox}{$\alpha_{\rm ox}$}
17: \newcommand{\nh}{$N_{\rm H}$}
18: \newcommand{\Ka}{\hbox{Fe K$\alpha$}}
19: \newcommand{\xmm}{{\hbox{\sl XMM-Newton}}}
20: \newcommand{\chandra}{{\sl Chandra}}
21: \newcommand{\xray}{\hbox{X-ray}}
22:
23: \journalinfo{The Astrophysical Journal, 682:???--???, 2008 July 20}
24: \slugcomment{Received 2007 September 24; accepted 2008 April 03}
25:
26: \shorttitle{HARD X-RAY SPECTRUM AS A PROBE TO BH GROWTH}
27: \shortauthors{SHEMMER ET AL.}
28:
29: \begin{document}
30:
31: \title{The Hard X-ray Spectrum as a Probe for Black-Hole Growth in
32: Radio-Quiet \\ Active Galactic Nuclei}
33:
34: \author{
35: Ohad Shemmer,\altaffilmark{1}
36: W.~N. Brandt,\altaffilmark{1}
37: Hagai Netzer,\altaffilmark{2}
38: Roberto Maiolino,\altaffilmark{3}
39: and Shai Kaspi\altaffilmark{2,4}
40: }
41:
42: \altaffiltext{1} {Department of Astronomy \& Astrophysics,
43: Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA;
44: ohad@astro.psu.edu.}
45:
46: \altaffiltext{2} {School of Physics \& Astronomy, Raymond and Beverly
47: Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv
48: 69978, Israel.}
49:
50: \altaffiltext{3} {INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma, via di
51: Frascati 33, 00040 Monte Porzio Catone, Italy.}
52:
53: \altaffiltext{4} {Physics Department, Technion, Haifa 32000, Israel.}
54:
55: \begin{abstract}
56: We study the hard-\xray\ spectral properties of ten highly luminous
57: radio-quiet (RQ) active galactic nuclei (AGNs) at $z=1.3-3.2$,
58: including new \xmm\ observations of four of these sources. We find a
59: significant correlation between the normalized accretion rate
60: (\lledd) and the hard-\xray\ photon index ($\Gamma$) for 35
61: moderate--high luminosity RQ AGNs including our ten highly luminous
62: sources. Within the limits of our sample, we show that a measurement
63: of $\Gamma$ and $L_{\rm X}$ can provide an estimate of \lledd\ and
64: black-hole (BH) mass (\mbh) with a mean uncertainty of a factor of
65: \ltsim3 on the predicted values of these properties. This may
66: provide a useful probe for tracing the history of BH growth in the
67: Universe, utilizing samples of \xray-selected AGNs for which \lledd\
68: and \mbh\ have not yet been determined systematically. It may prove
69: to be a useful way to probe BH growth in distant Compton-thin type~2
70: AGNs. We also find that the optical--\xray\ spectral slope (\aox)
71: depends primarily on optical--UV luminosity rather than on \lledd\
72: in a sample of RQ AGNs spanning five orders of magnitude in
73: luminosity and over two orders of magnitude in \lledd. We detect a
74: significant Compton-reflection continuum in two of our highly
75: luminous sources, and in the stacked \xray\ spectrum of seven other
76: sources with similar luminosities, we obtain a mean relative Compton
77: reflection of $R=0.9^{+0.6}_{-0.5}$ and an upper limit on the
78: rest-frame equivalent width of a neutral \Ka\ line of 105\,eV. We do
79: not detect a significant steepening of the \xray\ power-law spectrum
80: below rest-frame 2\,keV in any of our highly luminous sources,
81: suggesting that a soft-excess feature, commonly observed in local
82: AGNs, either does not depend strongly on \lledd, or is not
83: accessible at high redshifts using current \xray\ detectors. None of
84: our highly luminous sources displays \xray\ flux variations on
85: timescales of $\sim$1\,hr, supporting the idea that the timescale of
86: \xray\ variability depends inversely on \mbh\ and does not depend on
87: \lledd.
88: \end{abstract}
89:
90: \keywords{galaxies: active -- galaxies: nuclei -- X-rays: galaxies --
91: quasars: emission lines}
92:
93: \section{Introduction}
94: \label{sec_introduction}
95:
96: The \xray\ spectrum of an unobscured, radio-quiet (RQ) AGN in the
97: \hbox{$\sim$2--100\,keV} energy band is best characterized by a single
98: power-law continuum of the form $N(E)\propto E^{-\Gamma}$, where
99: $\Gamma$, hereafter the photon index in the \hbox{$\sim$2--100\,keV}
100: energy band, typically lies in the range $\sim$1.5--2.5. A corona of
101: hot electrons is assumed to produce the hard-\xray\ emission via
102: Compton upscattering of UV--soft-\xray\ photons from the accretion
103: disk, and $\Gamma$ is predicted to be only weakly sensitive to large
104: changes in the electron temperature and the optical depth in the
105: corona (e.g., Haardt \& Maraschi 1991; Zdziarski \et 2000; Kawaguchi
106: \et 2001).
107: %
108: The relatively narrow range of $\Gamma$ values in RQ AGNs has been
109: reported in numerous studies (e.g., Nandra \& Pounds 1994, Reeves \&
110: Turner 2000; Page \et 2005; Shemmer \et 2005; Vignali \et 2005; Just
111: \et 2007), and typically no strong dependence of $\Gamma$ on redshift
112: or luminosity has been detected across the widest possible ranges of
113: these parameters.
114: %
115: On the other hand, a strong anticorrelation between $\Gamma$ and the
116: full width at half-maximum intensity (FWHM) of the broad emission-line
117: region (BELR) component of \hb\ has been found, first by Brandt \et
118: (1997).
119:
120: The remarkable dependence between \xray\ and optical spectroscopic
121: properties has been suggested to arise from a more fundamental
122: correlation between $\Gamma$ and the accretion rate (e.g., Brandt \&
123: Boller 1998; Laor 2000). A high accretion rate is expected to soften
124: (steepen) the hard-\xray\ spectrum by increasing the level of disk
125: emission, resulting in the production of softer photons, which
126: increase the Compton cooling of the corona.
127: %
128: Using recent scaling relations for the BELR size, luminosity, and the
129: width of the broad \hb\ emission line from reverberation-mapping
130: studies, it is clear that the normalized accretion rate (i.e.,
131: \lbol/$L_{\rm Edd}$, hereafter \lledd, where \lbol\ is the bolometric
132: luminosity) is proportional to FWHM(\hb)$^{-2}$, at least for
133: low--moderate luminosity AGNs in the local universe (e.g., Kaspi \et
134: 2000).
135:
136: Subsequent \xray\ studies of nearby ($z$\ltsim0.5) unobscured RQ AGNs
137: have confirmed the Brandt \et (1997) \hbox{$\Gamma$-FWHM(\hb)}
138: anticorrelation (e.g., Leighly 1999; Reeves \& Turner 2000; Porquet
139: \et 2004; Piconcelli \et 2005; Brocksopp \et 2006), and others have
140: found significant correlations between $\Gamma$ and \lledd\ (e.g., Lu
141: \& Yu 1999; Porquet \et 2004; Wang \et 2004; Bian 2005). However, all
142: these studies were not able to disentangle the strong
143: \hbox{FWHM(\hb)-\lledd} dependence. Recently, Shemmer \et (2006;
144: hereafter S06) have suggested that this degeneracy can be removed if
145: highly luminous sources are included in the analysis. This can be
146: achieved by obtaining high-quality near-IR spectroscopy of the \hb\
147: spectral region, to obtain \lledd\ (e.g., Shemmer \et 2004), as well
148: as accurate measurements of $\Gamma$ using \xmm\ and \chandra\ for
149: highly luminous AGNs found at 1\ltsim$z$\ltsim3.
150:
151: Within the limits of their sample of 30 sources, spanning three orders
152: of magnitude in luminosity, S06 have shown that $\Gamma$ does not
153: depend on luminosity or black-hole (BH) mass (\mbh). They have also
154: shown that the $\Gamma$ values of the five highly luminous sources in
155: their sample, while consistent with the values expected from their
156: normalized accretion rates (\lledd), are significantly higher than
157: expected from the widths of their broad \hb\ emission lines. This has
158: enabled, for the first time, breaking of the FWHM(\hb)-\lledd\
159: degeneracy and has provided evidence that $\Gamma$ depends primarily
160: on the accretion rate. However, the number of highly luminous sources
161: was small, and as explained below, some uncertainties remained.
162:
163: In this work, we double the number of highly luminous sources at high
164: redshift and reinforce the S06 results. We show that $\Gamma$ can be
165: considered a reliable accretion-rate indicator for moderate--high
166: luminosity RQ AGNs, and that the combination of $\Gamma$ and \xray\
167: luminosity may provide a useful probe for tracing the history of BH
168: growth in the Universe. We also discuss the \xray\ spectral and
169: temporal properties of luminous, high-accretion rate AGNs at high
170: redshift as well as the dependence of the optical--\xray\ spectral
171: energy distribution (SED) on luminosity and \lledd.
172: %
173: In \S\,\ref{sec_observations} we describe our sample selection, and
174: present the new observations and their analysis. Our results are
175: presented and discussed in \S\,\ref{sec_results}, where we focus on
176: the correlation between the hard-\xray\ photon index and the
177: normalized accretion rate in RQ AGNs and its implications for probing
178: BH growth in the Universe. A summary of our main findings is given in
179: \S\,\ref{sec_conclusions}.
180: %
181: Throughout this work we consider only RQ AGNs to avoid any
182: contribution from jet-related emission to the \xray\ spectra.
183: %
184: Luminosity distances are computed using the standard cosmological
185: model with $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, $\Omega_{M}=0.3$, and
186: $H_{0}=70$\,\kms\,Mpc$^{-1}$.
187:
188: \section{Sample Selection, Observations, and Data Analysis}
189: \label{sec_observations}
190:
191: \subsection{Sample Selection}
192: \label{sec_sample}
193:
194: Our sample is composed of the 30 sources studied in S06 as well as
195: five highly luminous sources ($46\ltsim \log [\nu L_{\nu}
196: (5100~\mbox{\AA})] \ltsim 48$) whose hard-\xray\ spectra are analyzed
197: in this work for the first time. Motivated by the S06 hypothesis that
198: only highly luminous AGNs may break the \hbox{FWHM(\hb)-\lledd}
199: degeneracy, we have primarily searched for highly luminous AGNs that
200: have high-quality \hb\ and hard-\xray\ spectroscopy. Our search of the
201: literature and archive yielded ten such sources, five which were
202: studied in S06 and five that are analyzed below. Our new core sample
203: of 35 sources includes unabsorbed, type~1 RQ AGNs with $44\ltsim \log
204: [\nu L_{\nu} (5100~\mbox{\AA})] \ltsim 48$ (i.e., a moderate--high
205: luminosity range; see Fig.~\ref{fig_hist}). Rest-frame optical data
206: for this sample was obtained from Neugebauer \et (1987), Boroson \&
207: Green (1992), Nishihara \et (1997), McIntosh \et (1999), Shemmer \et
208: (2004), and Sulentic \et (2006). Hard-\xray\ data were obtained from
209: Page \et (2004b), Piconcelli \et (2005), S06, and from this work (see
210: below). All of our sources were selected to have high-quality \xmm\
211: hard-\xray\ spectra (except for HE~0926$-$0201 that was
212: serendipitously observed with \chandra). We have intentionally limited
213: our sample to the moderate--high luminosity range in order to minimize
214: potential effects of optical and \xray\ variability (since the optical
215: and \xray\ data are not contemporaneous) as well as potential spectral
216: complexities due to Compton reflection, as discussed further below
217: (see also S06 for more details). In light of our selection criteria,
218: we caution that our sample is neither complete nor fully
219: representative of the AGN population as a whole; our main results may
220: therefore be subject to selection biases over the wide range of AGN
221: properties, which were not fully explored in this work.
222:
223: \begin{figure}
224: \centering
225: \plotone{f1.eps}
226: \caption{Luminosity histogram of our core sample of 35 AGNs. The
227: shaded region marks the ten highly luminous sources at $z=1.3-3.2$
228: (the 25 moderate-luminosity sources are at $z<0.5$).}
229: \label{fig_hist}
230: \end{figure}
231:
232: \begin{deluxetable*}{lcccccccc}
233: \tablecolumns{9}
234: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
235: \tablewidth{0pc}
236: \tablecaption{{\sl XMM-Newton} Observation Log \label{tab_obs_log}}
237: \tablehead
238: {
239: \colhead{} &
240: \colhead{} &
241: \colhead{} &
242: \colhead{} &
243: \colhead{} &
244: \colhead{{\sc Observation}} &
245: \multicolumn{3}{c}{{\sc Net Exposure Time (ks) / Source Counts}} \\
246: \colhead{{\sc AGN}} &
247: \colhead{{\sc RA (J2000.0)}} &
248: \colhead{{\sc DEC (J2000.0)}} &
249: \colhead{$z$\tablenotemark{a}} &
250: \colhead{$N_{\rm H}$\tablenotemark{b}} &
251: \colhead{{\sc Start Date}} &
252: \colhead{MOS1} &
253: \colhead{MOS2} &
254: \colhead{{\sc pn}}
255: }
256: \startdata
257: %
258: LBQS\,0109$+$0213 & 01 12 16.91 & $+$02 29 47.6 & 2.349 &
259: 3.25 & 2007 Jan 8 & 33.7 / 211 & 33.8 / 218 & 26.3 / 554 \\
260: %
261: 2QZ\,J023805.8$-$274337 & 02 38 05.80 & $-$27 43 37.0 & 2.471 &
262: 1.73 & 2006 Dec 22 & 34.6 / 206 & 34.0 / 183 & 23.9 / 586 \\
263: %
264: Q\,1318$-$113 & 13 21 09.38 & $-$11 39 32.0 & 2.306 & 2.80 & 2006 Dec
265: 28 & 47.7 / 853 & 46.9 / 876 & 33.2 /
266: 2621 \\
267: %
268: SBS\,1425$+$606 & 14 26 56.18 & $+$60 25 50.9 & 3.202 &
269: 1.58 & 2006 Nov 12 & 20.6 / 232 & 20.9 / 255 & 7.0 / 304
270: %
271: \enddata
272: \tablecomments{The net exposure time represents the {\sc livetime}
273: following the removal of flaring periods. The net source counts are
274: in the 0.2--10.0~keV band.}
275: %
276: \tablenotetext{a}{Systemic redshift measured from the optical emission
277: lines and obtained from Shemmer \et (2004).}
278: %
279: \tablenotetext{b}{Neutral Galactic absorption column density in units
280: of $10^{20}$\,cm$^{-2}$ obtained from Dickey \& Lockman (1990).}
281: \end{deluxetable*}
282:
283: \subsection{New \xmm\ Observations}
284: \label{sec_xmm}
285:
286: We have performed \xray\ spectral imaging observations of four new
287: sources from the Shemmer \et (2004) sample with \xmm\ (Jansen \et
288: 2001); a log of these observations is presented in
289: Table\,\ref{tab_obs_log}. These sources were selected for \xmm\
290: observations for being luminous, high-accretion rate sources,
291: predicted to have high \xray\ fluxes, and having relatively low
292: Galactic column densities.
293: %
294: The data were processed using standard \xmm\ Science Analysis
295: System\footnote{http://xmm.esac.esa.int/sas} v6.5.0 tasks. The event
296: files of all the observations were filtered to remove periods of
297: flaring activity in which the count rates of each MOS (pn) detector
298: exceeded 0.35 (1.0) counts~s$^{-1}$ for events having $E>10$\,keV.
299: The time lost due to flaring in each observation varied between
300: \hbox{1\%--70\%} of the entire observing time; the net exposure times
301: in Table\,\ref{tab_obs_log} reflect the filtered data. The \xray\
302: spectra of the quasars were extracted from the images of all three
303: European Photon Imaging Camera (EPIC) detectors using apertures with
304: radii of 30\arcsec. Local background regions were at least as large as
305: the source regions. The spectra were grouped with a minimum of 20
306: counts per bin, except for the spectrum of Q~1318$-$113 which was
307: grouped with a minimum of 50 counts per bin. Joint spectral fitting of
308: the data from all three EPIC detectors for each source was performed
309: with {\sc xspec} v11.3.2 (Arnaud 1996). We employed Galactic-absorbed
310: power-law models at rest-frame energies \gtsim2\,keV, corresponding to
311: \gtsim0.5--0.6\,keV in the observed frame of the sources, where the
312: underlying power-law hard-\xray\ spectrum is less prone to
313: contamination due to any potential soft excess emission or
314: absorption. In each fit, the photon indices in the spectra of all
315: three EPIC detectors were tied to a single value, while the
316: normalizations were free to vary.
317: %
318: The best-fit $\Gamma$ values, power-law normalizations, and $\chi^2$
319: values from these fits are given in columns (2), (3), and (4) of
320: Table\,\ref{tab_properties}, respectively, and the data, their joint,
321: best-fit spectra, and residuals appear in Fig.\,\ref{fig_spectra}.
322:
323: We also searched for intrinsic absorption in each source by jointly
324: fitting the spectra with a Galactic-absorbed power law model including
325: an intrinsic (redshifted) neutral-absorption component with solar
326: abundances in the same energy range quoted above.
327: %
328: No significant intrinsic absorption was detected in any of the
329: sources; upper limits on intrinsic \nh\ values appear in column (5) of
330: Table\,\ref{tab_properties}. Each panel of Fig.\,\ref{fig_spectra}
331: includes a \hbox{$\Gamma$-\nh} confidence-contour plot from this
332: fitting for each source. By applying $F$-tests between the models
333: including intrinsic absorption and those that exclude it, we found
334: that none of the spectra require an intrinsic absorption component.
335: %
336: The remarkably flat hard-\xray\ spectrum of LBQS~0109$+$0213 (with
337: $\Gamma=1.23$; see Table~\ref{tab_properties}) motivated an
338: alternative modeling, searching for an indication of partial
339: covering. We found that when the spectrum is fitted with a redshifted
340: partial-covering fraction absorber ({\sc zpcfabs} model in {\sc
341: XSPEC}) and a Galactic-absorbed power law, the covering fraction is
342: consistent with zero and the fit is not improved with respect to a
343: Galactic-absorbed power law model. Therefore, the unusually flat
344: hard-\xray\ spectrum of LBQS~0109$+$0213 cannot be explained as being
345: due to partial covering.
346:
347: \begin{figure*}
348: \centering
349: \epsscale{0.7}
350: \plotone{f2.eps}
351: \caption{Data, best-fit spectra, and residuals of our new \xmm\
352: observations. Open circles, filled squares, and open squares
353: represent the EPIC pn, MOS1, and MOS2 data, respectively. Solid
354: lines represent the best-fit model for each spectrum, and the thick
355: line marks the best-fit model for the pn data. The data were fitted
356: with a Galactic-absorbed power-law model above a rest-frame energy
357: of $\sim$2\,keV, and then extrapolated to 0.3\,keV in the observed
358: frame. The $\chi$ residuals are in units of $\sigma$ with error bars
359: of size 1. The insets show 68\%, 90\%, and 99\% confidence contours
360: for $\Gamma$ and \nh, when the data are fitted with an additional
361: neutral intrinsic-absorption component.}
362: \label{fig_spectra}
363: \end{figure*}
364:
365: \subsection{The \chandra\ Spectrum of HE~0926$-$0201}
366: \label{sec_chandra}
367:
368: HE~0926$-$0201 is a highly luminous RQ AGN at $z=1.682$ for which
369: near-infrared spectroscopy of the \hb\ region is presented in Sulentic
370: \et (2006).
371: %
372: This source is serendipitously detected in an 8.8\,ks \chandra/ACIS-S
373: observation from 2002 February 20 (ID~3139) with 126 source counts in
374: the 0.5--8~keV observed-frame band. We analyzed the \chandra\
375: observation using standard {\sc ciao\footnote{\chandra\ Interactive
376: Analysis of Observations. See http://asc.harvard.edu/ciao/} v3.2}
377: routines.
378: %
379: The spectrum was extracted using {\sc psextract} from a circular
380: aperture with a radius of eight pixels, corresponding to $\sim$4$''$,
381: and the events were grouped to have a minimum of 10 counts per bin
382: (the extremely low \chandra\ background was determined from a
383: source-free annular region with inner and outer radii of 10$''$ and
384: 25$''$, respectively, centered on the source).
385: %
386: The spectrum was fitted over the $\gtsim2$\,keV rest-frame energy band
387: using {\sc xspec} with a model including a power law and a
388: Galactic-absorption component with a column density of \nh=3.17$\times
389: 10^{20}$~cm$^{-2}$.
390: %
391: The data were also fitted with an additional intrinsic-absorption
392: component, similar to the procedure described above for the \xmm\
393: observations, and we found that the data do not warrant any additional
394: absorption.
395: %
396: The best-fit spectral parameters as well as the upper limit on the
397: intrinsic absorption are included in Table~\ref{tab_properties}, and
398: the \chandra\ spectrum and best-fit model appear in
399: Fig.~\ref{fig_HE0926_chandra_spec}.
400:
401: \section{Results and Discussion}
402: \label{sec_results}
403:
404: \subsection{Spectral and Temporal Properties}
405: \label{sec_properties}
406:
407: \subsubsection{Optical Luminosities and FWHM(\hb)}
408: \label{sec_L5100_Hb}
409:
410: Basic optical spectroscopic properties of the new high-redshift sample
411: are given in Table\,\ref{tab_properties}. The monochromatic luminosity
412: at a rest-frame wavelength of 5100\,\AA\ [$\nu L_{\nu}
413: (5100\,\mbox{\AA})$] is given in column (6), and FWHM(\hb) is given in
414: column (7); except for HE\,0926$-$0201, for which the optical data
415: were obtained from Sulentic \et (2006), these data were obtained from
416: Netzer \et (2007), who recently presented new and improved
417: spectroscopic measurements for all the Shemmer \et (2004) sources.
418: %
419: The \mbh\ and \lledd\ values in columns (8) and (9), respectively,
420: were determined as in S06, using the $\nu L_{\nu} (5100\,\mbox{\AA})$
421: and FWHM(\hb) values given in columns (6) and (7), respectively, and
422: based on the recent reverberation-mapping results of Peterson \et
423: (2004) and the Kaspi \et (2005; hereafter K05) BELR size-luminosity
424: relation (see also Kaspi \et 2000); the general expression we use for
425: \lledd\ is of the form \lledd$\propto L^{0.3} {\rm
426: FWHM(H}\beta)^{-2}$. We note that the K05 relation relies on a
427: sample of AGNs having luminosities up to \hbox{$\nu L_{\nu}
428: (5100\,\mbox{\AA})$ $\approx$10$^{46}$\,ergs\,s$^{-1}$}, and
429: extrapolating it to higher luminosities, such as those of ten of the
430: sources presented here, is somewhat uncertain; a reverberation-mapping
431: effort is underway to test the validity of such extrapolations (see
432: e.g., Kaspi \et 2007).
433: %
434: In addition, Bentz \et (2006, 2007) have recently suggested that
435: subtraction of host-galaxy starlight from the AGN optical continuum
436: may result in a somewhat flatter slope (e.g., $\alpha=0.54$ compared
437: with $\alpha=0.69$ in K05) for the BELR size-luminosity relation
438: across the entire K05 luminosity range. We test the possibility of
439: using a flatter slope below, but we note that the Bentz \et
440: measurements were performed for sources with $\nu L_{\nu}
441: (5100\,\mbox{\AA}) \ltsim$10$^{44}$\,ergs\,s$^{-1}$, while all the
442: sources studied here have $\nu L_{\nu} (5100\,\mbox{\AA})
443: \gtsim$10$^{44}$\,ergs\,s$^{-1}$ (with a median luminosity of $\nu
444: L_{\nu} (5100\,\mbox{\AA}) \sim$10$^{45}$\,ergs\,s$^{-1}$;
445: Fig.~\ref{fig_hist}). We also expect a much smaller fractional amount
446: of host contamination in the most luminous sources in our sample. In
447: light of all this, we have computed \mbh\ values using the K05 slope
448: across our entire luminosity range. Moreover, since in this work we
449: employ nonparametric statistical ranking tests, our main results are
450: not significantly sensitive to the precise value of the slope of the
451: BELR size-luminosity relation in the range $\alpha=0.54-0.69$.
452: %
453: To derive the normalized accretion rates, we have employed the
454: luminosity-dependent bolometric correction method of Marconi \et
455: (2004); the bolometric correction factor for the monochromatic
456: luminosity at 5100\,\AA\ [i.e., \lbol/$\nu L_{\nu}$(5100\,\AA)] is
457: \hbox{$\sim6-8$} \hbox{($\simeq5$)} for the moderate-luminosity
458: $z<0.5$ (high-luminosity $z=1.3-3.2$) sources in this work (see S06
459: for more details).
460:
461: \subsubsection{Optical--X-ray Spectral Slopes}
462: \label{sec_aox_data}
463:
464: The optical--\xray\ spectral slopes (\aox) in column (10) of
465: Table~\ref{tab_properties} are defined as \\ \aox$=\log(f_{\rm
466: 2\,keV}/f_{2500\mbox{\rm\,\scriptsize\AA}})/ \log(\nu_{\rm
467: 2\,keV}/\nu_{2500\mbox{\rm\,\scriptsize\AA}})$, where $f_{\rm
468: 2\,keV}$ and $f_{2500\mbox{\rm~\scriptsize\AA}}$ are the flux
469: densities at 2\,keV and 2500\,\AA, respectively. The \aox\ values were
470: derived using the photon indices and fluxes in columns (2) and (3),
471: respectively, and the optical luminosities in column\,(6), assuming a
472: UV continuum of the form $f_{\nu}\propto \nu^{-0.5}$ (Vanden Berk \et
473: 2001). The \aox\ values for all of our sources are consistent with the
474: expected values, given their optical luminosities (e.g., Steffen \et
475: 2006).
476:
477: \subsubsection{Compton Reflection and \Ka\ Emission}
478: \label{sec_compton}
479:
480: The relatively high redshifts of our sources allowed us to search for
481: a Compton-reflection continuum as well as \Ka\ emission in their \xmm\
482: spectra. A Compton-reflection continuum may be observed in AGNs within
483: the rest-frame $\sim7-60$\,keV energy range, peaking at rest-frame
484: $\sim$30\,keV, and it presumably originates from reflection of
485: hard-\xray\ photons off the relatively colder outskirts of the
486: accretion disk and/or the torus. We also searched for signatures of a
487: neutral narrow \Ka\ emission line at rest-frame 6.4\,keV, as this is
488: expected to appear in conjunction with a Compton-reflection
489: continuum. The search for continua reflected from neutral material was
490: carried out by fitting all our \xmm\ spectra in the \gtsim2\,keV
491: rest-frame energy range with {\sc xspec}, employing a
492: Galactic-absorbed power-law and a Compton-reflection continuum model
493: (i.e., the {\sc pexrav} model in {\sc xspec}; Magdziarz \& Zdziarski
494: 1995) simultaneously with a redshifted Gaussian emission line model
495: (using the {\sc zgauss} model in {\sc xspec}); the Gaussian rest-frame
496: energy and width were fixed at $E=6.4$\,keV and $\sigma=0.1$\,keV,
497: respectively. We also included in the analysis the five luminous,
498: high-redshift sources from S06 that have \xmm\ spectra and \hb\
499: spectroscopy, namely PG\,1247$+$267, Q\,1346$-$036, PG\,1630$+$377,
500: PG\,1634$+$706, and HE\,2217$-$2818; the luminosities and accretion
501: rates of these sources are comparable to those of the sources
502: presented in this work.
503: %
504: Table~\ref{tab_compton} lists the best-fit parameters from these
505: fits. Column (3) gives the rest-frame equivalent width (EW; throughout
506: the paper, EWs refer to rest-frame values) of the \Ka\ emission line
507: and column (4) gives the relative-reflection component ($R$) of the
508: Compton-reflection continuum expressed as $R=\Omega/2\pi$, where
509: $\Omega$ is the solid angle subtended by the continuum source.
510:
511: \begin{figure}
512: \centering
513: \plotone{f3.eps}
514: \caption{The \chandra\ spectrum of HE~0926$-$0201. The solid line
515: represents the best fit Galactic-absorbed power law model. The
516: $\chi$ residuals are in units of $\sigma$ with error bars of size
517: 1. The inset shows 68\%, 90\%, and 99\% confidence contours for
518: $\Gamma$ and \nh, when the data are fitted with an additional
519: neutral intrinsic-absorption component.}
520: \label{fig_HE0926_chandra_spec}
521: \end{figure}
522:
523: Except for the cases of PG\,1247$+$267 and PG\,1634$+$706, $F$-tests
524: carried out between the results of the {\sc pexrav}+{\sc zgauss} fits
525: and the Galactic-absorbed power-law fits (\S\,\ref{sec_xmm}) have
526: indicated that the new (reflection) model did not improve the fits
527: with respect to the corresponding Galactic-absorbed power-law fits.
528: Table~\ref{tab_compton} shows that, except for PG\,1630$+$377, we have
529: not detected any neutral \Ka\ emission in any of the sources, and
530: instead, we have placed upper limits on the EWs of such emission.
531: Although the EW(\Ka) for PG\,1630$+$377 has a nonzero lower limit, and
532: the EW value we found is consistent with the one found for this source
533: by Jim{\'e}nez-Bail{\'o}n \et (2005), we argue that the \xmm\ data for
534: PG\,1630$+$377 do not warrant the existence of a reflection spectrum
535: based on the $F$-test described above.
536:
537: We have also tested whether the \xmm\ spectra of our sources exhibit
538: hard-\xray\ emission reflected from ionized material. This was
539: performed by employing the same {\sc xspec} fitting routine described
540: above for the case of reflection from neutral material, except that
541: the {\sc pexrav} model was replaced with the {\sc pexriv} model
542: (Magdziarz \& Zdziarski 1995), and the energy of the \Ka\ line was
543: free to vary in the 6.7--6.97 rest-frame energy range to account for
544: an ionized iron line. The results of these fits, i.e., $R$ parameters
545: and EW(\Ka) values, are consistent with those presented in
546: Table~\ref{tab_compton} for the case of reflection from neutral
547: material (even though the energies of the \Ka\ lines were required to
548: be somewhat higher).
549:
550: The non-detections of \Ka\ emission lines in the highly luminous
551: sources under study are in accord with previous studies claiming that
552: the strength of such emission lines decreases with increasing
553: luminosity (aka the `\xray\ Baldwin Effect'; e.g., Iwasawa \&
554: Taniguchi 1993; Page \et 2004a; Zhou \& Wang 2005; Bianchi \et
555: 2007). However, the relatively high upper limits we obtain for our
556: EW(\Ka) values cannot rule out the possibility that such an `\xray\
557: Baldwin Effect' is very weak or does not even exist (e.g.,
558: Jim{\'e}nez-Bail{\'o}n \et 2005; Jiang \et 2006). Given the high
559: luminosities of our sources, the expected EW(\Ka) values from such an
560: EW-$L$ relation are of order $\sim$50\,eV, while in most cases, our
561: upper limits are considerably higher (see Table~\ref{tab_compton} and
562: e.g., Bianchi \et 2007).
563:
564: We detect statistically significant Compton-reflection continua only
565: in PG\,1247$+$267 and PG\,1634$+$706 (Table~\ref{tab_compton}). The
566: $R$ value we find for the first of these sources is consistent with
567: the one found by Page \et (2004b) for the same \xmm\
568: spectrum. However, in contrast with our results, Page \et (2004b) have
569: not detected a significant Compton-reflection feature in the same
570: \xmm\ spectrum of PG\,1634$+$706 that we have analyzed, while the
571: upper limit we obtain on the EW(\Ka) for the source is consistent with
572: their finding; we also note that Nandra \et (1995) have not detected
573: any reflection features in an {\sl ASCA} spectrum of the source. In
574: addition, Page \et (2004b) {\em have} detected an \Ka\ line in
575: PG\,1247$+$267 while we have not. Interestingly, inspection of Fig.~1
576: of Page \et (2004b) suggests the existence of a reflection component
577: in both sources. An alternative spectral fitting, including a thermal
578: component and a power-law spectrum for each source, was recently
579: employed by Ruiz \et (2007); their study finds a soft excess and no
580: reflection component in both sources.
581: %
582: These partial discrepancies may be a consequence of the different
583: modelings and different energy ranges used in the different
584: studies. The apparently non-physical $R$ values we obtain for
585: PG\,1247$+$267 and PG\,1634$+$706 (i.e., $\Omega>4\pi$ steradians) may
586: be due to the effects of general relativistic light bending (e.g.,
587: Fabian \et 2002; Fabian \& Vaughan 2003).
588:
589: To improve our ability to detect or constrain the strengths of any
590: reflection features, we jointly fitted the \xmm\ spectra of our nine
591: high-redshift sources from Table~\ref{tab_compton}. In the joint
592: fitting, we used the {\sc pexrav}+{\sc zgauss} models as before and
593: tied all the $R$ values and normalizations to a single value (the flux
594: level of each source was controlled by assigning to it a scaling
595: factor that was allowed to vary freely, and the photon index for each
596: source was also free to vary). We ran the joint fitting process four
597: times. In the first run, all nine sources were considered. In the
598: second run, we removed the two sources from Table~\ref{tab_compton} in
599: which a significant Compton-reflection continuum was detected. In the
600: third run, we removed all sources in which a non-zero $R$ value was
601: detected, and in the fourth run we removed PG\,1630$+$377 in which an
602: \Ka\ line was detected.
603:
604: The best-fit values of EW(\Ka) and $R$ from the joint-fitting process
605: appear in Table~\ref{tab_compton_joint_fit} where we also provide the
606: total number of counts used in the fit and the mean redshift of the
607: sources considered in each run. By comparing the results in
608: Table~\ref{tab_compton_joint_fit} with those in
609: Table~\ref{tab_compton}, one can see that when all sources are
610: considered (run\,I), a large value of $R$ is detected, while a tight
611: constraint is placed on the mean EW(\Ka); this result is dominated by
612: the properties of PG\,1247$+$267 and PG\,1634$+$706 that comprise
613: $\sim$60\% of the counts. In run\,II, one can see that despite the
614: removal of all sources in which a Compton-reflection continuum was
615: detected, a mean reflection component is detected, although with a
616: relatively small value of $R$. In run\,III, the \Ka\ detection is
617: probably due to the fact that PG\,1630$+$377 comprises $\sim$30\% of
618: the total counts; no significant Compton reflection is detected in
619: this case. In the final run, no significant mean reflection emission
620: is detected; the constraint on $R$ is relatively tight while the
621: constraint on EW(\Ka) is rather weak.
622:
623: \begin{deluxetable*}{lccccccccc}
624: \tablecolumns{10}
625: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
626: \tablewidth{0pc}
627: \tablecaption{Best-Fit X-Ray Spectral Parameters and Optical
628: Properties \label{tab_properties}}
629: \tablehead{
630: \colhead{} &
631: \colhead{} &
632: \colhead{} &
633: \colhead{} &
634: \colhead{} &
635: \colhead{$\log \nu L_{\nu}(5100\,\mbox{\AA})$} &
636: \colhead{FWHM(\hb)} &
637: \colhead{$\log M_{\rm BH}$} &
638: \colhead{} &
639: \colhead{} \\
640: \colhead{{\sc AGN}} &
641: \colhead{{\sc $\Gamma$}} &
642: \colhead{$f_{\nu}$(1\,keV)\tablenotemark{a}} &
643: \colhead{$\chi^{2}/\nu$} &
644: \colhead{\nh\tablenotemark{b}} &
645: \colhead{(ergs\,s$^{-1}$)} &
646: \colhead{(\kms)} &
647: \colhead{(\msun)} &
648: \colhead{\lledd} &
649: \colhead{\aox} \\
650: \colhead{(1)} &
651: \colhead{(2)} &
652: \colhead{(3)} &
653: \colhead{(4)} &
654: \colhead{(5)} &
655: \colhead{(6)} &
656: \colhead{(7)} &
657: \colhead{(8)} &
658: \colhead{(9)} &
659: \colhead{(10)}
660: }
661: \startdata
662: %
663: LBQS\,0109$+$0213 & $1.23^{+0.12}_{-0.12}$ & $6.1^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$ &
664: 70/53 & $\le1.46$ & 46.8 & 7959 & 10.4 & 0.1 &
665: $-$1.89 \\
666: %
667: 2QZ\,J023805.8$-$274337 & $2.13^{+0.16}_{-0.15}$ & $7.8^{+0.8}_{-0.8}$
668: & 47/39 & $\le3.71$ & 46.6 & 3403 & 9.5 & 0.5 &
669: $-$1.66 \\
670: %
671: Q\,1318$-$113 & $1.96^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$ & $24.8^{+1.2}_{-1.2}$ & 70/62
672: & $\le0.38$ & 46.9 & 4665
673: & 10.0 & 0.3 & $-$1.64 \\
674: %
675: SBS\,1425$+$606 & $1.76^{+0.14}_{-0.13}$ & $13.6^{+1.7}_{-1.7}$ &
676: 38/39 & $\le2.33$ & 47.4 & 4964 & 10.4 & 0.4
677: & $-$1.82 \\
678: %
679: HE\,0926$-$0201 & $2.28^{+0.36}_{-0.34}$ & $21.8^{+3.8}_{-3.8}$ & 2/10
680: & $\le1.72$ & 47.0\tablenotemark{c} & 5100\tablenotemark{c} & 10.1 &
681: 0.3 & $-$1.80
682: \enddata
683: %
684: \tablecomments{The best-fit photon index, normalization, and $\chi^2$
685: were obtained from a Galactic-absorbed power-law model. Errors
686: represent 90\% confidence limits, taking one parameter of interest
687: ($\Delta \chi^{2}=2.71$). The optical data in columns 6 and 7 were
688: obtained from Shemmer \et (2004) and Netzer \et (2007) except for
689: HE\,0926$-$0201.}
690: %
691: \tablenotetext{a}{Power-law normalization given as the flux density at
692: an observed-frame energy of 1\,keV with units of
693: 10$^{-32}$\,ergs\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$\,Hz$^{-1}$; except for
694: HE\,0926$-$0201, this refers to the pn data, taken from joint
695: fitting of all three EPIC detectors with the Galactic-absorbed
696: power-law model.}
697: %
698: \tablenotetext{b}{Intrinsic column density in units of
699: 10$^{22}$\,cm$^{-2}$. Upper limits were computed with the
700: intrinsically absorbed power-law model with Galactic absorption, and
701: represent 90\% confidence limits for each value.}
702: %
703: \tablenotetext{c}{Obtained from Sulentic \et (2006).}
704: \end{deluxetable*}
705:
706: These results do not provide a clear picture for the dependence of the
707: reflection spectrum on luminosity or the accretion rate. Most of our
708: high-redshift sources do not exhibit significant reflection
709: components, as might be expected given their very high
710: luminosities. Only two of these sources show a significant Compton
711: `hump', and a strong \Ka\ line is detected in another. In addition,
712: significant detections of Compton humps are not accompanied by
713: corresponding detections of \Ka\ lines.
714: %
715: The results of the joint-fitting process also portray a mixed picture
716: for the average reflection spectrum of luminous, high-accretion rate
717: RQ AGNs as a class. The relatively weak constraints on the mean
718: reflection properties of this class do not allow us to either confirm
719: or rule out the existence of an `\xray\ Baldwin Effect', regardless of
720: whether the \xray\ luminosity or the accretion rate drives the
721: anticorrelation with EW(\Ka) (e.g., Zhou \& Wang 2005; Bianchi \et
722: 2007).
723:
724: \subsubsection{Soft Excesses}
725: \label{sec_soft_excess}
726:
727: By extending the \xray\ spectral fitting to the entire EPIC energy
728: range (0.2--10\,keV), we checked whether any of our nine high-redshift
729: sources with \xmm\ spectra (including the five high-redshift sources
730: from S06) shows evidence for excess soft-\xray\ emission, frequently
731: observed in lower-redshift AGNs (e.g., Comastri \et 1992; Reeves \&
732: Turner 2000; Piconcelli \et 2005). While the physical nature of the
733: soft excess is uncertain its presence is more pronounced among local
734: high-accretion rate AGNs, i.e., narrow-line Seyfert~1 (NLS1) galaxies
735: (e.g., Vaughan \et 1999a; Boller \et 2002; Czerny \et 2003; Vignali
736: \et 2004); hence it is of interest to search for its existence in our
737: luminous high-accretion rate sources at high redshift. We extrapolated
738: the best-fit Galactic-absorbed power-law model obtained for rest-frame
739: energies \gtsim2\,keV (see \S\,\ref{sec_xmm} and
740: Table~\ref{tab_properties}) to the 0.2--10~keV observed-frame energy
741: range and no signature of soft excess emission was detected in any of
742: the sources (i.e., no systematic residuals were present for the
743: extrapolated fits).
744:
745: This result is not unexpected given the relatively high redshifts of
746: our sources and the low-energy cutoff (0.2\,keV) of the EPIC cameras.
747: %
748: For example, Porquet \et (2004) have found that the effective
749: temperatures of the soft excess-components in a sample of
750: moderate-luminosity sources at $z<0.5$ are of the order of
751: $\sim0.2-0.3$~keV. For our ten sources with $z\sim2$, such
752: temperatures shift to observed-frame values of
753: $\sim0.1$~keV. Furthermore, since the soft-excess component in most
754: type~1 AGNs is typically observed below a rest-frame energy of
755: $\sim0.7$~keV (except for some high \lledd\ NLS1s, in which this
756: component may extend up to 1.5~keV; e.g., Vaughan \et 1999b), the
757: detection of such a component with \xmm\ is challenging even for
758: sources with $z\sim1$. Nevertheless, we have placed upper limits on
759: the strength of a potential soft-excess component in two of our ten
760: luminous sources that have the lowest redshifts, namely PG\,1630$+$377
761: and PG\,1634$+$706 (with $z=1.476$ and $z=1.334$, respectively). In
762: these two cases, the extension of the energy range to 0.2\,keV has
763: increased the number of photons in the fit by $\sim50$\%. The
764: constraint on the data-to-model ratio in the \ltsim2\,keV rest-frame
765: band, as a result of the extrapolation of the best-fit slope to the
766: entire EPIC energy range, is \ltsim2.0 and \ltsim1.5, respectively.
767: %
768: Finally, we note that the non-detection of soft-excess emission in
769: PG\,1247$+$267, PG\,1630$+$377, and PG\,1634$+$706 is consistent with
770: previous studies of their \xmm\ spectra (Page \et 2004b; Piconcelli
771: \et 2005).
772:
773: \subsubsection{X-ray Variability}
774: \label{sec_variability}
775:
776: Two of our sources, SBS\,1425$+$606 and LBQS\,0109$+$0213, were
777: previously detected by the {\sl ROSAT} PSPC and HRI, respectively. For
778: the first of these, we measured an unabsorbed flux of
779: $4.7\times10^{-14}$\,ergs\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$ in the 0.5--2.0\,keV
780: observed-frame band from our \xmm\ data, which is somewhat higher
781: than, but consistent (within the errors) with the {\sl ROSAT} flux
782: (see also Just \et 2007). Similarly, we measured for the second source
783: an unabsorbed flux of $2.0\times10^{-14}$\,ergs\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$
784: in the 0.5--2.0\,keV observed-frame band, which is a factor of $\sim3$
785: lower than the value calculated from the {\sl ROSAT} count rate. In
786: both cases, we assumed that the photon index we measured from the
787: \xmm\ observations at rest-frame energies of $\gtsim 2$\,keV also
788: extends to the {\sl ROSAT} bandpass (i.e., down to energies of
789: 0.1\,keV in the observed frame), based on the lack of detectable soft
790: excesses in these sources (\S~\ref{sec_soft_excess}).
791: %
792: Although highly luminous RQ AGNs such as those presented here are not
793: expected to exhibit pronounced \xray\ variations even on timescales of
794: several years (e.g., Lawrence \& Papadakis 1993), the case of
795: LBQS\,0109$+$0213 is not unique, since several other luminous sources
796: at high redshifts have displayed \xray\ variations with similar
797: amplitudes (e.g., Paolillo \et 2004; Shemmer \et 2005).
798:
799: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
800: \tablecolumns{4}
801: \tablewidth{0pc}
802: \tablecaption{Compton Reflection and Iron
803: Emission \label{tab_compton}}
804: \tablehead
805: {
806: \colhead{} &
807: \colhead{} &
808: \colhead{EW(\Ka)\tablenotemark{a}} &
809: \colhead{} \\
810: \colhead{AGN} &
811: \colhead{$z$} &
812: \colhead{(eV)} &
813: \colhead{$R$\tablenotemark{b}}
814: }
815: \startdata
816: %
817: LBQS\,0109$+$0213 & 2.349 & $\leq252$ & $3.3^{+39.0}_{-3.0}$ \\
818: %
819: 2QZ\,J023805.8$-$274337 & 2.471 & $\leq375$ & $\leq1.4$ \\
820: %
821: PG\,1247$+$267\tablenotemark{c} & 2.038 & $\leq188$ & $2.9^{+38.8}_{-2.0}$ \\
822: %
823: Q\,1318$-$113 & 2.306 & $\leq52$ & $1.4^{+3.0}_{-1.2}$ \\
824: %
825: Q\,1346$-$036 & 2.370 & $\leq298$ & $\leq7.2$ \\
826: %
827: SBS\,1425$+$606 & 3.202 & $\leq613$ & $\leq1.9$ \\
828: %
829: PG\,1630$+$377 & 1.476 & $458^{+384}_{-374}$ & $\leq6.7$ \\
830: %
831: PG\,1634$+$706\tablenotemark{c} & 1.334 & $\leq49$ & $3.0^{+3.2}_{-1.3}$ \\
832: %
833: HE\,2217$-$2818 & 2.414 & $\leq233$ & $\leq1.6$
834: %
835: \enddata
836: %
837: \tablecomments{Best-fit parameters of fitting each spectrum at the
838: \gtsim2\,keV rest-frame energy range with a model consisting of a
839: Galactic-absorbed power-law, a Compton-reflection component, and a
840: neutral \Ka\ emission line. Errors represent 90\% confidence limits,
841: taking one parameter of interest ($\Delta \chi^{2}=2.71$).}
842: %
843: \tablenotetext{a}{Rest-frame equivalent width of a neutral \Ka\
844: emission line at rest-frame $E=6.4$\,keV and a fixed width of
845: $\sigma=0.1$\,keV.}
846: %
847: \tablenotetext{b}{Relative Compton-reflection parameter; see text for
848: details.}
849: %
850: \tablenotetext{c}{$F$-test indicates that the {\sc pexrav}+{\sc
851: zgauss} model results in an improved fit with respect to a
852: power-law model.}
853: %
854: \end{deluxetable}
855:
856: We also searched for rapid (on timescales of $\sim$1\,hr in the rest
857: frame) \xray\ variations in the \xmm\ and \chandra\ data of our five
858: new sources by applying Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests to the lists of
859: photon arrival times from the event files, but no significant
860: variations were detected. Together with the results of S06, this
861: suggests that high accretion rates do not necessarily lead to faster
862: and higher-amplitude \xray\ flux variations, as has been previously
863: expected based on \xray\ variability properties of some NLS1s, hence
864: spoiling the analogy between NLS1s and luminous, high-redshift AGNs
865: (e.g., Grupe \et 2006). On the other hand, our results are consistent
866: with the idea that more massive BHs lead to longer timescales and
867: smaller amplitudes of \xray\ flux variations (e.g., O'Neill \et 2005).
868:
869: \subsection{The Hard-X-ray Power-Law Photon Index}
870: \label{sec_hardX}
871:
872: \subsubsection{Breaking the FWHM(\hb)-\lledd\ Degeneracy}
873: \label{sec_degeneracy}
874:
875: In Fig.\,\ref{fig_GE} we plot $\Gamma$ versus FWHM(\hb) and \lledd\
876: for our core sample of 35 AGNs. Twenty five of these sources are
877: Palomar Green (PG) quasars (Schmidt \& Green 1983) at $z<0.5$ with
878: $44\ltsim \log [\nu L_{\nu} (5100~\mbox{\AA})] \ltsim 46$, and ten are
879: at $z=1.3-3.2$ with $46\ltsim \log [\nu L_{\nu} (5100~\mbox{\AA})]
880: \ltsim 48$.
881: %
882: In S06, it was shown that both FWHM(\hb) and \lledd\ are significantly
883: correlated with $\Gamma$ when only the 25 moderate-luminosity
884: ($z<0.5$) sources are considered (in agreement with Porquet \et 2004;
885: Piconcelli \et 2005; see also Table~\ref{tab_corr_coeff}).
886: %
887: This FWHM(\hb)-\lledd\ degeneracy emerges as a consequence of
888: considering only sources with a relatively narrow luminosity range,
889: i.e., $44\ltsim \log [\nu L_{\nu} (5100~\mbox{\AA})] \ltsim 46$ (see
890: also \S\,\ref{sec_L5100_Hb} and S06).
891: %
892: When the ten highly luminous AGNs at \hbox{$z=1.3-3.2$} are introduced
893: to the analysis, both FWHM(\hb) and \lledd\ remain significantly
894: correlated with $\Gamma$ (with $>99$\% confidence); however, the
895: significance (in terms of chance probability) of the
896: $\Gamma$-FWHM(\hb) correlation drops considerably while the
897: significance of the $\Gamma$-\lledd\ correlation increases
898: (Table~\ref{tab_corr_coeff}). The results of the $\Gamma$-\lledd\
899: correlation do not significantly change when a constant bolometric
900: correction factor of 7 (which is the average correction factor for the
901: luminosity range of our sample; see \S\,\ref{sec_L5100_Hb}) is used to
902: derive \lledd\ values; in this case, the significance of the
903: correlation increases with the chance probability dropping from
904: $p=1.6\times 10^{-3}$ to $p=4\times 10^{-4}$.
905: %
906: As suggested in S06, the extension of the luminosity range of the
907: sample to high luminosities has allowed us to break the degeneracy
908: between the $\Gamma$-FWHM(\hb) and $\Gamma$-\lledd\ correlations and
909: show that \lledd\ drives the correlation with $\Gamma$.
910:
911: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}
912: \tablecolumns{6}
913: \tablewidth{0pc}
914: \tablecaption{Compton Reflection and Iron
915: Emission - Joint Fitting \label{tab_compton_joint_fit}}
916: \tablehead
917: {
918: \colhead{Run} &
919: \colhead{No. of} &
920: \colhead{No. of} &
921: \colhead{} &
922: \colhead{EW(\Ka)\tablenotemark{a}} &
923: \colhead{} \\
924: \colhead{No.} &
925: \colhead{Sources} &
926: \colhead{photons} &
927: \colhead{$\left < z \right >$} &
928: \colhead{(eV)} &
929: \colhead{$R$}
930: }
931: \startdata
932: %
933: I\tablenotemark{b} & 9 & 39,173 & 2.22 & $\leq27$ & $2.2^{+1.1}_{-0.8}$ \\
934: %
935: II\tablenotemark{c} & 7 & 15,307 & 2.37 & $\leq114$ & $0.9^{+0.9}_{-0.6}$ \\
936: %
937: III\tablenotemark{d} & 5 & 9,814 & 2.39 & $150^{+133}_{-109}$ & $\leq1.4$ \\
938: %
939: IV\tablenotemark{e} & 4 & 7,112 & 2.61 & $\leq300$ & $\leq1.1$
940: %
941: \enddata
942: %
943: \tablecomments{Best-fit parameters of joint fitting the spectra at the
944: \gtsim2\,keV rest-frame energy range with a model consisting of a
945: Galactic-absorbed power-law, a Compton-reflection component, and a
946: neutral \Ka\ emission line. Errors represent 90\% confidence limits,
947: taking one parameter of interest ($\Delta \chi^{2}=2.71$).}
948: %
949: \tablenotetext{a}{The EW(\Ka) corresponds to a rest-frame at the
950: given $\left < z \right >$.}
951: %
952: \tablenotetext{b}{All sources from Table~\ref{tab_compton}.}
953: %
954: \tablenotetext{c}{All sources from Table~\ref{tab_compton}, excluding
955: PG\,1247$+$267 and PG\,1634$+$706.}
956: %
957: \tablenotetext{d}{All sources from Table~\ref{tab_compton}, excluding
958: PG\,1247$+$267, PG\,1634$+$706, LBQS\,0109$+$0213, and
959: Q\,1318$-$118.}
960: %
961: \tablenotetext{e}{All sources from Table~\ref{tab_compton}, excluding
962: PG\,1247$+$267, PG\,1630$+$377, PG\,1634$+$706, LBQS\,0109$+$0213,
963: and Q\,1318$-$118.}
964: %
965: \end{deluxetable}
966:
967: We have also repeated the Mann-Whitney (MW) nonparametric rank test
968: performed in S06 on all sources with FWHM(\hb) values that lie in the
969: range 3400$<$FWHM(\hb)$<$8000\,\kms\ [which is the FWHM(\hb) interval
970: of the ten luminous sources in our sample]. We find a significant
971: deviation (with $>99.5$\% confidence) between the $\Gamma$ values of
972: the ten luminous sources and the nine moderate-luminosity
973: \hbox{($z<0.5$)} sources in this range.
974: %
975: In contrast, when the MW test is performed in the
976: 0.1\ltsim\lledd\ltsim0.5 range, the $\Gamma$ values of the two groups
977: of AGNs are not significantly different (as can be seen clearly from
978: Fig.\,\ref{fig_GE}b). These results reinforce the S06 argument that
979: $\Gamma$ depends primarily on \lledd.
980:
981: We note that in the case of two of our luminous sources,
982: LBQS~0109$+$0213 and SBS~1425$+$606, the $\Gamma$ values are
983: consistent with the expected values of both FWHM(\hb) and \lledd, and
984: hence they do not assist in removing the FWHM(\hb)-\lledd\
985: degeneracy. The first of these sources has a remarkably flat
986: hard-\xray\ spectral slope (with $\Gamma=1.23$; see \S~\ref{sec_xmm}
987: and Table~\ref{tab_properties}), which was not expected given its
988: original \lledd\ determination from Shemmer \et (2004; see their
989: Table~2).
990: %
991: Owing to the new and improved spectroscopic measurements of Netzer \et
992: (2007) for LBQS~0109$+$0213 (SBS~1425$+$606), FWHM(\hb) has increased
993: from 5781\,\kms\ to 7959\,\kms\ (3144\,\kms\ to 4964\,\kms), and hence
994: \lledd\ has decreased from 0.2 to 0.1 (0.9 to 0.4). For the other
995: Shemmer \et (2004) sources used in this work, the Netzer \et (2007)
996: FWHM(\hb) measurements are consistent with those of Shemmer \et
997: (2004). The optical data presented in Table~\ref{tab_properties} are
998: based on the new Netzer \et (2007) measurements.
999:
1000: \begin{figure*}
1001: \epsscale{1.0}
1002: \centering
1003: \plotone{f4.eps}
1004: \caption{The hard-\xray\ photon index vs. FWHM(\hb) ({\it a}) and
1005: \lledd\ ({\it b}). Circles mark sources at $z<0.5$ with $\nu
1006: L_{\nu}$(5100\AA)$<10^{46}$\,ergs\,s$^{-1}$ from the Piconcelli \et
1007: (2005) sample. Squares mark luminous sources at $z=1.3-3.2$ with
1008: $\nu L_{\nu}$(5100\AA)$>10^{46}$\,ergs\,s$^{-1}$. Error bars on
1009: $\Gamma$ are shown at the 90\% confidence level.}
1010: \label{fig_GE}
1011: \end{figure*}
1012:
1013: Our result that $\Gamma$ depends more strongly on \lledd, rather than
1014: on FWHM(\hb), may also serve as a partial vindication for the use of
1015: the reverberation-mapping based method to determine \lledd\ (see
1016: \S\,\ref{sec_L5100_Hb}). From a pure mathematical point of view, in
1017: the tests described above, we essentially multiplied one observational
1018: parameter, FWHM(\hb), with another, $\nu L_{\nu} (5100~\mbox{\AA})$,
1019: and yet the dependence of $\Gamma$ on the product of the two
1020: parameters (i.e., \lledd) turned out to be stronger than the
1021: dependence on the single parameter. If the product of the two
1022: parameters had no physical significance, then there would be no
1023: apparent reason to expect this result.
1024:
1025: \subsubsection{The $\Gamma$-\lledd\ Correlation}
1026: \label{sec_GE_corr}
1027:
1028: We use the significant correlation we find between $\Gamma$ and
1029: \lledd\ to derive a linear relationship between the two parameters
1030: employing a variety of statistical methods. Hereafter, we take the
1031: error bars on $\Gamma$ at the 1\,$\sigma$ level. A standard $\chi^2$
1032: minimization method weighted by the errors on $\Gamma$ yields the
1033: following relation (with 1~$\sigma$ errors):
1034: %
1035: \begin{equation}
1036: \label{eq_Gamma_lledd}
1037: %
1038: \Gamma = (0.31\pm0.01) \log \left ( L/L_{\rm Edd} \right ) + (2.11\pm0.01).
1039: \end{equation}
1040: %
1041: The best-fit coefficients of this relation are consistent with those
1042: obtained by Wang \et (2004) and Kelly (2007) who find a similar
1043: correlation in low--moderate luminosity sources. However, the
1044: $\chi^{2}$ value obtained by this minimization
1045: \hbox{($\chi^{2}/\nu=980/33$)} suggests that either the data are not
1046: well represented by a linear model, the error bars on $\Gamma$ are
1047: underestimated, or there is additional intrinsic scatter in the data.
1048: %
1049: Following the methods outlined in Tremaine \et (2002) and K05, and by
1050: assuming a $\chi^{2}/\nu=33/33$ (i.e., a reduced $\chi^{2}=1$), we
1051: obtain an estimate of the additional potential scatter of $\Delta
1052: \Gamma \sim0.1 \times \Gamma$ in the dependent parameter; this scatter
1053: is larger than the typical measurement errors on $\Gamma$.
1054:
1055: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
1056: \tablecolumns{4}
1057: \tablewidth{0pc}
1058: \tablecaption{Correlation Coefficients and
1059: Significance \label{tab_corr_coeff}}
1060: \tablehead
1061: {
1062: \colhead{Correlation} &
1063: \colhead{$r_{\rm S}$} &
1064: \colhead{$p$} &
1065: \colhead{$N$}
1066: }
1067: \startdata
1068: %
1069: $\Gamma$-FWHM(\hb) & $-0.61$ & $1.2 \times 10^{-3}$ & 25 \\
1070: $\Gamma$-FWHM(\hb) & $-0.44$ & $8.4 \times 10^{-3}$ & 35 \\
1071: $\Gamma$-\lledd\ & \phm{--}$0.60$ & $1.5 \times 10^{-3}$ & 25 \\
1072: $\Gamma$-\lledd\ & \phm{--}$0.55$ & $6.0 \times 10^{-4}$ & 35
1073: %
1074: \enddata
1075: \tablecomments{The last three columns represent the Spearman-rank
1076: correlation coefficient, chance probability, and number of sources
1077: for each correlation, respectively.}
1078: %
1079: \end{deluxetable}
1080:
1081: The observed intrinsic scatter may be induced by the uncertainty in
1082: the BH-mass estimate, and/or additional unknown physical properties,
1083: such as the optical depth in the corona, orientation, and BH spin,
1084: that vary from source to source. An additional potential source for
1085: this scatter may be attributed to variability; for example,
1086: variability may seem to have a significant contribution to the scatter
1087: since the \xray\ data and the rest-frame optical data (used for
1088: obtaining \lledd) are not contemporaneous.
1089: %
1090: However, as discussed in S06, variability (i.e., changes in both
1091: $\Gamma$ and \lledd) is not expected to dominate the observed scatter
1092: in this correlation (see also K05; Steffen \et 2006; Wilhite \et
1093: 2007); its effects are expected to be even less significant in this
1094: case, since our sources are mostly luminous and thus have smaller
1095: amplitudes of \xray\ and optical flux variations (e.g., Lawrence \&
1096: Papadakis 1993; Kaspi \et 2007).\footnote{We note that some
1097: low-luminosity AGNs are known to exhibit large \xray\ flux
1098: variations (with amplitudes of factors of $\sim$10 or more) and
1099: corresponding \xray\ spectral slope variations (with $\Delta \Gamma
1100: \sim 0.4$) that are often due to changing spectral contributions
1101: from reflection and/or absorption (e.g., Taylor \et 2003; Krongold
1102: \et 2007; Grupe \et 2008). Such changes have not been observed for
1103: moderate--high luminosity sources such as those under study in this
1104: work.}
1105:
1106: To test whether $\Gamma$ can serve as an accretion-rate indicator we
1107: switched the roles of $\Gamma$ and \lledd, allowing the first to serve
1108: as the independent variable. To account for the scatter in the
1109: \hbox{$\Gamma$-\lledd} correlation, we performed a linear-regression
1110: analysis using the Bivariate Correlated Errors and Scatter method
1111: (BCES; Akritas \& Bershady 1996) on the data. For this purpose, we
1112: assumed that typical uncertainties on the determination of \mbh\ are a
1113: factor of $\sim~2$ (e.g., Kaspi \et 2000), and therefore assigned
1114: homoscedastic (i.e., uniform variance), $1\sigma$ errors of 0.3~dex on
1115: $\log$(\lledd). The best-fit linear relation using the BCES bisector
1116: result (with 1~$\sigma$ errors) is
1117: %
1118: \begin{equation}
1119: \label{eq_lledd_Gamma}
1120: %
1121: \log (L/L_{\rm Edd}) = (0.9\pm0.3) \Gamma - (2.4\pm0.6).
1122: %
1123: \end{equation}
1124: %
1125: A linear regression based on $\chi^2$ minimization using the FITEXY
1126: routine (Press \et 1992) gives consistent results to those obtained
1127: with BCES with $\chi^{2}/\nu=34.24/33$. In addition, we also performed
1128: a linear-regression analysis on the data using the maximum-likelihood
1129: estimate (MLE) of Kelly (2007). The results of the different linear
1130: fits are presented in Table~\ref{tab_linear_fits}, and are shown in
1131: Fig.~\ref{fig_GE_yx}. In all three linear-regression methods outlined
1132: above, the average scatter on the predicted value of $\log$(\lledd) is
1133: $\sim0.35$ dex.
1134: %
1135: This is only slightly higher than the typical uncertainty, $\sim0.3$
1136: dex, associated with $\log$(\lledd) determinations using the
1137: reverberation-mapping based \mbh\ determinations.
1138:
1139: \begin{figure*}
1140: \centering
1141: \plotone{f5.eps}
1142: \caption{{\it Left:} the \lledd-$\Gamma$ correlation ({\it top}) and
1143: residuals from the BCES fit ({\it bottom}). Symbols are identical to
1144: those in Fig.\,\ref{fig_GE}. Errors bars are at the $1\sigma$ level.
1145: The solid line, dashed line, and dotted line mark the best-fit
1146: linear relation from the BCES, FITEXY, and MLE methods,
1147: respectively, outlined in the text (note that the three lines are
1148: almost overlapping; see Table~\ref{tab_linear_fits}). {\it Right:}
1149: distribution of the $\log$(\lledd) residuals from the BCES fit for
1150: the entire sample.}
1151: \label{fig_GE_yx}
1152: \end{figure*}
1153:
1154: We have also computed \lledd\ values using the Bentz \et (2007) slope
1155: for the BELR size-luminosity relation (see
1156: \S\,\ref{sec_L5100_Hb}). This flatter slope ($\alpha=0.54$) results in
1157: \mbh\ values that are smaller by a factor of $\sim0.7$, on average,
1158: and hence \lledd\ values that are larger, on average, by the same
1159: factor. This has no noticeable effect on the strength of the
1160: \hbox{$\Gamma$-\lledd} correlation (as expected for a nonparametric
1161: correlation) or on its slope; only the intercept (i.e., $\alpha$
1162: values in Table~\ref{tab_linear_fits}) is affected, and it increases
1163: slightly within the current uncertainty on its value. We conclude that
1164: the $\Gamma$-\lledd\ relation is not significantly affected by small
1165: deviations from the K05 slope.
1166:
1167: \begin{deluxetable*}{cccccc}
1168: \tablecolumns{6}
1169: \tablewidth{0pc}
1170: \tablecaption{Linear Regression Coefficients for the \lledd-$\Gamma$
1171: correlation \label{tab_linear_fits}}
1172: \tablehead
1173: {
1174: \multicolumn{2}{c}{BCES bisector} &
1175: \multicolumn{2}{c}{FITEXY} &
1176: \multicolumn{2}{c}{MLE \tablenotemark{a}} \\
1177: \colhead{$\beta$} &
1178: \colhead{$\alpha$} &
1179: \colhead{$\beta$} &
1180: \colhead{$\alpha$} &
1181: \colhead{$\beta$} &
1182: \colhead{$\alpha$}
1183: }
1184: \startdata
1185: %
1186: $0.93\pm0.31$ & $-2.44\pm0.63$ & $0.94\pm0.21$ & $-2.46\pm0.42$ &
1187: $0.97\pm0.26$ & $-2.50\pm0.50$
1188: %
1189: \enddata
1190: \tablecomments{The slope and intercept for each method are represented
1191: by $\beta$ and $\alpha$, respectively. Errors are at 1~$\sigma$
1192: confidence levels.}
1193: %
1194: \tablenotetext{a}{See Kelly (2007) for more details.}
1195: \end{deluxetable*}
1196:
1197: Based on our high-quality sample of 35 sources, we conclude that the
1198: hard-\xray\ power-law spectral slope can predict the value of the
1199: normalized accretion rate in RQ AGNs, across four orders of magnitude
1200: in AGN luminosity, with an acceptable uncertainty level of a factor of
1201: \ltsim3. This may offer a useful new tool to probe the history of BH
1202: growth, based almost exclusively on the availability of high-quality
1203: hard-\xray\ spectra of RQ AGNs; we discuss this in more detail in
1204: \S\,\ref{sec_BHgrowth} below. Although not unexpected, and previously
1205: predicted by several studies (see \S\,\ref{sec_introduction}), our
1206: result is by far the most reliable indication that the shape of the
1207: hard-\xray\ power-law spectrum is largely controlled by \lledd. As
1208: mentioned in \S\,\ref{sec_introduction}, a possible explanation is
1209: that the corona acts as a `thermostat' by cooling more efficiently
1210: when the disk emission increases, manifested by a steepening of the
1211: hard-\xray\ spectrum.
1212:
1213: In this context, it is also interesting to note that our result may
1214: readily explain the narrow ranges observed for the values of both
1215: $\Gamma$ and \lledd\ in optically selected moderate--high luminosity,
1216: type~1 RQ AGNs. While \lledd\ is relatively narrowly distributed
1217: around a value of $\sim$0.3 (0.28 in our sample of 35 sources), with a
1218: typical dispersion of a factor of $\sim$5 around that value (e.g.,
1219: McLure \& Dunlop 2004; Kollmeier \et 2006; Netzer \et 2007; Shen \et
1220: 2008), $\Gamma$ values for such sources typically lie in the narrow
1221: range of \hbox{$\sim$1.5--2.5} (1.2--2.6 for our sample of 35 sources;
1222: see also Vignali \et 2005).
1223: %
1224: These ranges in \lledd\ and $\Gamma$ may be different for lower
1225: luminosity sources. In particular, for sources with $\nu
1226: L_{\nu}$(5100\AA)$\ltsim 10^{42}$\,ergs\,s$^{-1}$, a possible
1227: difference may, in part, be attributed to a difference in their
1228: accretion mode as compared with the moderate--high luminosity sources
1229: studied in this work.
1230: %
1231: Finally, we point out that a possible dependence of the bolometric
1232: correction for $L_{\rm 2-10\,keV}$ on \lledd, recently reported by
1233: Vasudevan \& Fabian (2007), may, in part, be reflected by our results.
1234:
1235: \subsection{What Determines the Optical--X-ray SED?}
1236: \label{sec_SED}
1237:
1238: The \aox\ parameter is known to have a strong anticorrelation with
1239: optical--UV luminosity at 2500\,\AA\ [hereafter $L_{\nu}
1240: (2500\,\mbox{\AA})$], and it shows no significant dependence on
1241: redshift (e.g., Vignali \et 2003; Strateva \et 2005; Steffen \et 2006;
1242: Just \et 2007; but see also Kelly \et 2007).
1243: %
1244: This is equivalent to a non-linear relation between \xray\ and
1245: optical--UV luminosity of the form \hbox{$L_{\nu} (2\,{\rm keV})
1246: \propto L_{\nu} (2500\,\mbox{\AA})^{\alpha}$}, where $\alpha<1$ (see
1247: Eq.\,7 of Just \et 2007 who find \hbox{$\alpha=0.709\pm0.010$}).
1248: %
1249: This relation still lacks a sound physical interpretation and, in
1250: particular, it is not clear what mechanism controls the proportion of
1251: reprocessed hard-\xray\ emission from the corona with respect to the
1252: UV emission from the disk.
1253:
1254: In order to test whether \aox\ depends on \lledd, we selected 81
1255: sources from the Steffen \et (2006) sample with available FWHM(\hb)
1256: measurements (all these have $z\ltsim0.75$ and they include the 25
1257: sources with $z<0.5$ from our core sample; \S\,\ref{sec_degeneracy}),
1258: and complemented this sample with the ten luminous sources at
1259: $z=1.3-3.2$ from S06 and this work. For about half of the Steffen \et
1260: (2006) sub-sample, FWHM(\hb) values were obtained from Boroson \&
1261: Green (1992), and for the rest we used FWHM(\hb) measurements from
1262: Netzer \& Trakhtenbrot (2007), kindly provided by B.~Trakhtenbrot,
1263: 2007, private communication. For each source we determined the value
1264: of \lledd\ following the procedure outlined in
1265: \S~\ref{sec_properties}. Following the arguments made in
1266: \S~\ref{sec_GE_corr}, the non-simultaneous \xray\ and optical
1267: observations are not expected to affect our analysis considerably (see
1268: also \S\,3 of Steffen \et 2006).
1269:
1270: We find that \aox\ is significantly correlated with both $L_{\nu}
1271: (2500\,\mbox{\AA})$ and \lledd; however, the correlation with
1272: luminosity is considerably tighter (see Fig.~\ref{fig_aox}).
1273: %
1274: Even when a constant bolometric correction factor of 7 is used to
1275: determine \lledd\ values (as performed in \S\,\ref{sec_degeneracy}),
1276: the \hbox{\aox-$L_{\nu} (2500\,\mbox{\AA})$} correlation is
1277: considerably tighter than the \hbox{\aox-\lledd} correlation, although
1278: the significance of the latter correlation has increased (the chance
1279: probability has dropped from \hbox{$p=1.3 \times 10^{-3}$} to
1280: \hbox{$p=1.3 \times 10^{-4}$}).
1281: %
1282: By investigating this further, we find that the \aox-\lledd\
1283: correlation disappears when the \hbox{\aox-$L_{\nu}
1284: (2500\,\mbox{\AA})$} correlation is taken into account; i.e., the
1285: difference between the observed \aox\ and the expected \aox\ [based on
1286: the $L_{\nu} (2500\,\mbox{\AA})$ values of the sources and the most
1287: recent \hbox{\aox-$L_{\nu} (2500\,\mbox{\AA})$} relation from Just \et
1288: 2007] is not correlated with \lledd.
1289: %
1290: In another test, we divided the data into sources that have \lledd\
1291: values either above or below the median value of \lledd$=0.22$.
1292: %
1293: In both sub-samples we detect a strong \hbox{\aox-$L_{\nu}
1294: (2500\,\mbox{\AA})$} correlation (and no \hbox{\aox-\lledd}
1295: correlation). These tests suggest that the \hbox{\aox-$L_{\nu}
1296: (2500\,\mbox{\AA})$} correlation is persistent and that \aox\ does
1297: not depend primarily on \lledd.
1298: %
1299: In this scenario, the (relatively weak) \hbox{\aox-\lledd} correlation
1300: may be a consequence of the inherent dependence of \lledd\ on $L_{\nu}
1301: (2500\,\mbox{\AA})$, and the relative weakness of this correlation
1302: compared with the strong \hbox{\aox-$L_{\nu} (2500\,\mbox{\AA})$}
1303: correlation may be due to the additional uncertainty introduced by
1304: determining \lledd\ (see, for example, the typical error bars in
1305: Fig.~\ref{fig_aox}). Subsequently, if \aox-$L_{\nu}
1306: (2500\,\mbox{\AA})$ is the fundamental correlation, then the inclusion
1307: of the FWHM(\hb) parameter to produce \lledd\ adds substantial scatter
1308: resulting in a rather weak \aox-\lledd\ correlation. It is also of
1309: interest to point out that we find no correlation between \aox\ and
1310: $\Gamma$ (that depends on \lledd) in our core sample of 35 sources
1311: discussed in \S~\ref{sec_GE_corr}.
1312:
1313: We also checked whether the \aox-$L_{\nu} (2500\,\mbox{\AA})$
1314: correlation is induced by luminosity-dependent obscuration (e.g.,
1315: Lawrence 1991; Gaskell \et 2004). In a first test, we found a strong
1316: correlation between \aox\ and $L_{\nu} (5100\,\mbox{\AA})$ for our
1317: sample, with similar coefficients as in the \aox-$L_{\nu}
1318: (2500\,\mbox{\AA})$ correlation. We note that the fluxes at 5100\,\AA\
1319: were obtained independently from the fluxes at 2500\,\AA, i.e., no
1320: extrapolations have been made between the flux densities in these two
1321: wavelengths. In a second test, we redefined \aox\ by changing the
1322: optical--UV continuum threshold from 2500\,\AA\ to 5100\,\AA; the
1323: correlations between this modified \aox\ and both $L_{\nu}
1324: (5100\,\mbox{\AA})$ and $L_{\nu} (2500\,\mbox{\AA})$ for our sample
1325: returned similar correlation coefficients as in the \aox-$L_{\nu}
1326: (2500\,\mbox{\AA})$ case.
1327: %
1328: We conclude that, within the limits of our sample, it is unlikely that
1329: the \aox-$L_{\nu} (2500\,\mbox{\AA})$ correlation is induced by
1330: potential reddening effects.
1331:
1332: The fact that $L_{\nu} (2500\,\mbox{\AA})$ appears as the underlying
1333: parameter determining the slope of the \hbox{optical--\xray} SED
1334: instead of \lledd\ is puzzling, since \lledd\ indicates the relative
1335: AGN power and significantly affects the SED of the disk.
1336: %
1337: One possibility is that our empirical expression for \lledd\ (see S06)
1338: is inaccurate or more complicated. This, however, is not supported by
1339: the fact that $\Gamma$ {\em does} depend on \lledd\ as defined here
1340: and not on $\nu L_{\nu} (5100\,\mbox{\AA})$ (see
1341: \S\,\ref{sec_introduction} and \S\,\ref{sec_degeneracy}; S06). We have
1342: also considered the possibility that the \hbox{\aox-$L_{\nu}
1343: (2500\,\mbox{\AA})$} correlation is induced by selection effects
1344: (e.g., Green \et 2006), but this is highly unlikely given the fact
1345: that the correlation spans over five orders of magnitude in luminosity
1346: (see, e.g., Just \et 2007). Indeed, future correlations between \aox,
1347: $L_{\nu} (2500\,\mbox{\AA})$, and \lledd\ should involve \lledd\
1348: determinations for \xray-selected sources (see \S\,\ref{sec_BHgrowth}
1349: below).
1350:
1351: An alternative approach to interpreting the non-dependence of \aox\ on
1352: \lledd\ stems from the recent results of Vasudevan \& Fabian
1353: (2007). These authors confirm the strong dependence of \aox\ on
1354: $L_{\nu} (2500\,\mbox{\AA})$ in their AGN sample, but they do not find
1355: an \aox-\lledd\ correlation. Utilizing far-UV, as well as optical,
1356: near-UV, and \xray\ spectra for a sample of AGN with known \mbh\ and
1357: \lledd, they argue that the reason for the non-dependence of \aox\ on
1358: \lledd\ lies in the choice of the optical--UV and \xray\ continuum
1359: thresholds (i.e., 2500\,\AA\ and 2\,keV) for the \aox\
1360: definition. While they find dramatic differences between the
1361: optical--\xray\ SED of sources with different \lledd\ values, the
1362: ratio between the flux densities at 2500\,\AA\ and 2\,keV remains
1363: almost constant as \lledd\ changes. The most pronounced differences
1364: between the optical--\xray\ SEDs of different sources are expected to
1365: be concentrated in the $\approx0.01-0.1$\,keV spectral region (i.e.,
1366: the `big blue bump'), which cannot be traced effectively using the
1367: current optical--UV and \xray\ thresholds of \aox. In this context,
1368: the \aox\ parameter, given its current definition, while providing
1369: useful information on the $L_{\rm UV}$-$L_{\rm X}$ connection, cannot
1370: be used as an accretion-rate indicator.
1371: %
1372: By inspection of Fig.\,13 of Vasudevan \& Fabian (2007), one may
1373: expect a strong dependence of \aox\ on \lledd\ if, for instance, the
1374: optical--UV threshold is shifted from 2500\,\AA\ to as close as
1375: possible to $\sim250$\,\AA, although this is observationally
1376: challenging and may not be practical.
1377: %
1378: When using modified definitions for \aox, there also remains the
1379: question of which correlation, \aox-\lledd\ or \aox-$L_{\rm UV}$, is
1380: stronger than the other. In general, the choice of optical--UV and
1381: \xray\ thresholds should likely depend upon the scientific question of
1382: interest.
1383:
1384: \begin{figure*}
1385: \centering
1386: \plotone{f6.eps}
1387: \caption{Correlations between \aox\ and ({\it a}) $L_{\nu}
1388: (2500\,\mbox{\AA})$ and ({\it b}) \lledd. Symbols are similar to
1389: those in Fig.~\ref{fig_GE}, although the low--moderate luminosity
1390: sources were obtained from Steffen \et (2006). The solid line marks
1391: the best-fit relationship between \aox\ and $L_{\nu}
1392: (2500\,\mbox{\AA})$ from Just \et (2007), and the cross marks the
1393: typical uncertainties on \aox\ and \lledd. Spearman-rank correlation
1394: coefficients and chance probabilities are indicated in each panel.}
1395: \label{fig_aox}
1396: \end{figure*}
1397:
1398: \subsection{The AGN Hard-X-ray Spectrum as a Probe for BH Growth}
1399: \label{sec_BHgrowth}
1400:
1401: In \S\,\ref{sec_GE_corr} we have shown that $\Gamma$ may serve as an
1402: \lledd\ indicator in unabsorbed, moderate--high luminosity RQ AGNs
1403: with an acceptable mean uncertainty level on \lledd\ of a factor of
1404: \ltsim3.
1405: %
1406: Therefore, in principle, given a high-quality \xray\ spectrum in the
1407: \gtsim2\,keV rest-frame band of a RQ AGN, one can empirically estimate
1408: \lledd\ and \mbh\ for the source. Accurate measurements of $\Gamma$
1409: and $L_{\rm X}$ (in the 2--10\,keV rest-frame band, for example) may
1410: provide \lledd\ and \lbol\ using our Eq.\,\ref{eq_lledd_Gamma} and
1411: Eq.\,21 of Marconi \et (2004),\footnote{Vasudevan \& Fabian (2007)
1412: claim that the bolometric correction factor required to transform
1413: $L_{\rm 2-10~keV}$ into \lbol\ depends on \lledd, while Marconi \et
1414: (2004) have used the Vignali \et (2003) \aox-$L_{\nu}
1415: (2500\,\mbox{\AA})$ correlation (which is not significantly
1416: different from the most recent correlation of this type given by
1417: Just \et 2007) to derive bolometric corrections that depend on
1418: \lbol. Accurate measurements of $\Gamma$ (that provides \lledd) and
1419: $L_{\rm X}$ will enable comparisons of \lbol\ values obtained from
1420: these two methods.} respectively, and thus provide an estimate of
1421: \mbh.
1422: %
1423: We note that the Marconi \et (2004) determination of \lbol\ (whether
1424: from $L_{\rm opt}$ or $L_{\rm X}$) relies, in part, on the very strong
1425: and non-linear $L_{\rm X}$-$L_{\rm UV}$ dependence (see
1426: \S\,\ref{sec_SED}).
1427: %
1428: The observed (luminosity-dependent) rms errors on that relation are
1429: given in Table\,5 of Steffen \et (2006); these represent typical
1430: deviations of up to $\sim0.15$ from the mean \aox\ [i.e., a factor of
1431: $\sim2.5$ uncertainty on $(f_{\rm
1432: 2\,keV}/f_{2500\mbox{\rm~\scriptsize\AA}})$] for our luminosity
1433: range.
1434: %
1435: This scatter is inherent in the \lledd-$\Gamma$ correlation as it
1436: reflects uncertainties in determining \lbol\ from $\nu L_{\nu}
1437: (5100\,\mbox{\AA})$ and potential \xray-optical variability.
1438: %
1439: For example, when \mbh\ values for our core sample of 35 sources are
1440: recovered from \lledd\ using the bolometric corrections for $L_{\rm
1441: 2-10\,keV}$, the ratio between these \mbh\ values and the original
1442: \mbh\ values obtained in \S\,\ref{sec_L5100_Hb} is 1, on average, with
1443: a dispersion of a factor of 2.
1444: %
1445: In an additional test, we used the $\Gamma$ and $L_{\rm 2-10\,keV}$
1446: values of six nearby sources from our sample to recover their \mbh\
1447: values and compare them with the most recent, direct
1448: (reverberation-mapping based) \mbh\ measurements from Peterson \et
1449: (2004). The six sources, namely PG~0804$+$761, PG~0844$+$349,
1450: PG~0953$+$414, PG~1211$+$143, PG~1307$+$085, and PG~1613$+$658,
1451: comprise $\sim40$\% of all the RQ AGNs with $\nu
1452: L_{\nu}$(5100\AA)$\gtsim 10^{44}$\,ergs\,s$^{-1}$ in the Kaspi \et
1453: (2000) sample (i.e., the PG quasar sample) that have direct \mbh\
1454: measurements. We find that the ratio between the recovered \xray-based
1455: masses and the corresponding \mbh\ measurements from Peterson \et
1456: (2004) is 0.8, on average, with a dispersion of a factor of 1.9; we
1457: also find that the mass recovered for each individual source is
1458: consistent with the measured value, given the uncertainties from
1459: Eq.~\ref{eq_lledd_Gamma} and those from the reverberation-mapping
1460: measurements.
1461:
1462: High-quality \xray\ spectra may thus be useful for estimating the
1463: accretion rates and BH masses for moderate--high luminosity type~1, RQ
1464: AGNs and, in particular, for \xray-selected sources. This method may
1465: allow tracing the history of BH growth in the Universe by utilizing
1466: large AGN datasets (see e.g., Brandt \& Hasinger 2005) in which BH
1467: growth cannot be determined effectively using existing methods [i.e.,
1468: reverberation-mapping based methods (aka single-epoch methods), e.g.,
1469: K05, and host-AGN type relations, e.g., Marconi \& Hunt (2003)],
1470: either due to the faintness of the sources in the optical--near-IR
1471: bands, or that the required spectroscopic features are either not
1472: accessible or cannot be modeled reliably. One advantage of the
1473: \xray-based method is the ability to obtain \lledd\ and \mbh\ by
1474: measuring broad spectroscopic properties (i.e., $\Gamma$) as opposed
1475: to detailed spectroscopy for obtaining the width of an emission line
1476: (e.g., \hb\ or \ion{Mg}{2}; this involves, for example, careful
1477: decontamination of \ion{Fe}{2} emission features from the UV--optical
1478: spectra). Moreover, measurements of the hard-\xray\ power-law spectral
1479: slope are typically not limited to specific redshift ranges, such as
1480: those dictated by atmospheric transmission bands (and detector
1481: bandpass) for ground-based spectroscopy. These advantages offer a way
1482: to obtaining many \lledd\ and \mbh\ estimates, economically, in
1483: contrast with more complicated (and redshift-restricted) spectroscopic
1484: measurements for individual sources done with existing
1485: methods. Nevertheless, we caution that the \xray\ measurements of
1486: $\Gamma$ and $L_{\rm X}$ should be done carefully to account for
1487: potential complex absorption and Compton reflection.
1488:
1489: The \xray-based method for estimating \lledd\ and \mbh\ may prove to
1490: be even more rewarding in cases where a source is either optically
1491: faint and/or the broad-emission lines are too weak to measure if, for
1492: example, these lines are overwhelmed by host-galaxy continuum (e.g.,
1493: Moran \et 2002; provided the source is not radio loud and that the
1494: redshift can be determined). In particular, this method may be the
1495: best way to determine \lledd\ and \mbh\ directly in obscured (i.e.,
1496: optical type\,2), moderate--high luminosity AGNs. Provided the \xray\
1497: absorption column density is not too high
1498: (\nh\ltsim$10^{23}$\,cm$^{-2}$) and can be modeled accurately, the
1499: intrinsic hard-\xray\ power-law spectrum can, in principle, provide
1500: \lledd\ and \mbh\ as outlined above. Examples of such sources with
1501: high-quality \xray\ spectra are given in e.g., Civano \et (2005),
1502: Mateos \et (2005), and Mainieri \et (2007). Since Compton-thin type~2
1503: AGNs comprise a significant fraction of the AGN population, tracing
1504: the growth of the supermassive BHs in their centers using the
1505: \xray-based method is crucial for testing models of the evolution of
1506: BH growth and accretion luminosity in the Universe in an unbiased way.
1507:
1508: \section{Conclusions}
1509: \label{sec_conclusions}
1510:
1511: We present \xray\ spectroscopy for five highly luminous RQ AGNs at
1512: $z=1.3-3.2$, with accurate FWHM(\hb) measurements that allow
1513: determinations of their \mbh\ and \lledd\ values. Analysis of the
1514: \xray\ spectra provided measurements of the hard-\xray\ photon index
1515: in the rest-frame \gtsim2\,keV band and \aox. We have combined these
1516: data with the S06 sample of 30 moderate--high luminosity sources with
1517: similar properties, while doubling the number of highly luminous
1518: sources in their sample. Our main goal was to test the S06 claim that
1519: $\Gamma$ can serve as an accretion-rate indicator in RQ AGNs. We have
1520: also tested whether any additional \xray\ properties of our highly
1521: luminous sources depend on \lledd. Our main results are summarized as
1522: follows:
1523:
1524: \begin{enumerate}
1525:
1526: \item{Our new highly luminous sources with FWHM(\hb) measurements have
1527: allowed us to break the degeneracy between the dependence of
1528: $\Gamma$ on FWHM(\hb) and on \lledd, suggesting that the accretion
1529: rate largely determines the hard-\xray\ spectral slope across four
1530: orders of magnitude in AGN luminosity (i.e., $44\ltsim \log [\nu
1531: L_{\nu} (5100~\mbox{\AA})] \ltsim 48$).}
1532:
1533: \item{We found a significant correlation between \lledd\ and $\Gamma$
1534: with a best-fit line of the form $\log (L/L_{\rm Edd}) =
1535: (0.9\pm0.3) \Gamma - (2.4\pm0.6)$, and an acceptable uncertainty
1536: of a factor of \ltsim3 on a predicted value of \lledd.}
1537:
1538: \item{Utilizing a sample of 91 sources from Steffen \et (2006) and
1539: this work, we find that \aox\ depends strongly on optical--UV
1540: luminosity and only weakly on \lledd; the (weak) correlation with
1541: \lledd\ is probably due to the strong \hbox{$L$-\lledd}
1542: dependence. We discuss possible explanations for this result
1543: including the possibility that \aox\ cannot be used as an
1544: accretion-rate indicator based on its current definition.}
1545:
1546: \item{We find a significant Compton-reflection feature in two of our
1547: sources, and the mean relative reflection for seven other sources
1548: is $R=0.9^{+0.9}_{-0.6}$. By setting rather loose constraints on
1549: the strengths of \Ka\ emission lines in our highly luminous
1550: sources, we can neither confirm nor rule out a suggested
1551: anticorrelation between EW(\Ka) and either luminosity or \lledd;
1552: the upper limit on the mean rest-frame EW(\Ka) for seven of these
1553: sources that do not show Compton-reflection features is 105\,eV.}
1554:
1555: \item{We have not detected any signature of a soft-excess component in
1556: any of our highly luminous sources, including two sources at
1557: $z\sim1.4$ where our rest-frame coverage extends to
1558: $\sim0.7$\,keV, suggesting that the soft excess does not depend
1559: strongly on the accretion rate.}
1560:
1561: \item{Although one of our highly luminous sources, LBQS\,0109$+$0213,
1562: exhibits long-term (i.e., on timescales of years) \xray\
1563: variations, rapid \xray\ variations on timescales of $\sim$1\,hr
1564: have not been detected in any of our highly luminous (and
1565: high-\mbh) sources, supporting the idea that \xray\ variability
1566: timescale depends inversely on \mbh\ and does not depend on
1567: \lledd.}
1568:
1569: \end{enumerate}
1570:
1571: The strong correlation between $\Gamma$ and \lledd\ may serve as a
1572: useful probe for tracing the history of BH growth in the universe. It
1573: may provide \lledd\ and \mbh\ estimates for \xray-selected AGNs, with
1574: the possibility of estimating these properties for Compton-thin
1575: type\,2 AGNs for the first time.
1576:
1577: \acknowledgments
1578:
1579: This work is based on observations obtained with \xmm, an ESA science
1580: mission with instruments and contributions directly funded by ESA
1581: Member States and the USA (NASA). We thank an anonymous referee for a
1582: helpful report that assisted in improving the presentation of this
1583: work. We are also grateful to Franz Bauer, George Chartas, Brandon
1584: Kelly, and Aaron Steffen for useful comments and fruitful
1585: discussions. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of NASA
1586: grants \hbox{NNG05GP00G} and \hbox{NNX07AE77G} (O.\,S, W.\,N.\,B),
1587: NASA LTSA grant \hbox{NAG5-13035} (O.\,S, W.\,N.\,B), and the Zeff
1588: Fellowship at the Technion (S.\,K). This work is supported by the
1589: Israel Science Foundation grant 232/03.
1590:
1591: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1592:
1593: \bibitem[Akritas \& Bershady(1996)]{1996ApJ...470..706A} Akritas,
1594: M.~G., \& Bershady, M.~A.\ 1996, \apj, 470, 706
1595:
1596: \bibitem[Arnaud(1996)]{1996ASPC..101...17A} Arnaud, K.~A.\ 1996, ASP
1597: Conf.~Ser.~101: Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V,
1598: 101, 17
1599:
1600: \bibitem[Bentz et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...644..133B} Bentz, M.~C.,
1601: Peterson, B.~M., Pogge, R.~W., Vestergaard, M., \& Onken, C.~A.\
1602: 2006, \apj, 644, 133
1603:
1604: \bibitem[Bentz et al.(2007)]{2007ASPC..373..380B} Bentz, M.~C.,
1605: Denney, K.~D., Peterson, B.~M., \& Pogge, R.~W.\ 2007, Astronomical
1606: Society of the Pacific Conference Series, 373, 380
1607:
1608: \bibitem[Bian(2005)]{2005ChJAA...5S.289B} Bian, W.-H.\ 2005, Chinese
1609: Journal of Astronony and Astrophysics, 5, 289
1610:
1611: \bibitem[Bianchi et al.(2007)]{2007A&A...467L..19B} Bianchi, S.,
1612: Guainazzi, M., Matt, G., \& Fonseca Bonilla, N.\ 2007, \aap, 467,
1613: L19
1614:
1615: \bibitem[Boller et al.(2002)]{2002MNRAS.329L...1B} Boller, T., et al.\
1616: 2002, \mnras, 329, L1
1617:
1618: \bibitem[Boroson \& Green(1992)]{1992ApJS...80..109B} Boroson, T.~A.,
1619: \& Green, R.~F.\ 1992, \apjs, 80, 109
1620:
1621: \bibitem[Brandt \& Hasinger(2005)]{2005ARA&A..43..827B} Brandt, W.~N.,
1622: \& Hasinger, G.\ 2005, \araa, 43, 827
1623:
1624: \bibitem[Brandt et al.(1997)]{1997MNRAS.285L..25B} Brandt, W.~N.,
1625: Mathur, S., \& Elvis, M.\ 1997, \mnras, 285, L25
1626:
1627: \bibitem[Brandt \& Boller(1998)]{1998AN....319..163B} Brandt, N., \&
1628: Boller, T.\ 1998, Astronomische Nachrichten, 319, 163
1629:
1630: \bibitem[Brocksopp et al.(2006)]{2006MNRAS.366..953B} Brocksopp, C.,
1631: et al.\ 2006, \mnras, 366, 953
1632:
1633: \bibitem[Civano et al.(2005)]{2005MNRAS.358..693C} Civano, F.,
1634: Comastri, A., \& Brusa, M.\ 2005, \mnras, 358, 693
1635:
1636: \bibitem[Comastri et al.(1992)]{1992ApJ...384...62C} Comastri, A.,
1637: Setti, G., Zamorani, G., Elvis, M., Wilkes, B.~J., McDowell, J.~C.,
1638: \& Giommi, P.\ 1992, \apj, 384, 62
1639:
1640: \bibitem[Czerny et al.(2003)]{2003A&A...412..317C} Czerny, B.,
1641: Niko{\l}ajuk, M., R{\'o}{\.z}a{\'n}ska, A., Dumont, A.-M., Loska,
1642: Z., \& Zycki, P.~T.\ 2003, \aap, 412, 317
1643:
1644: \bibitem[Dickey \& Lockman(1990)]{1990ARA&A..28..215D} Dickey, J.~M.,
1645: \& Lockman, F.~J.\ 1990, \araa, 28, 215
1646:
1647: \bibitem[Fabian \& Vaughan(2003)]{2003MNRAS.340L..28F} Fabian, A.~C.,
1648: \& Vaughan, S.\ 2003, \mnras, 340, L28
1649:
1650: \bibitem[Fabian et al.(2002)]{2002MNRAS.331L..35F} Fabian, A.~C.,
1651: Ballantyne, D.~R., Merloni, A., Vaughan, S., Iwasawa, K., \& Boller,
1652: T.\ 2002, \mnras, 331, L35
1653:
1654: \bibitem[Gaskell et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...616..147G} Gaskell, C.~M.,
1655: Goosmann, R.~W., Antonucci, R.~R.~J., \& Whysong, D.~H.\ 2004, \apj,
1656: 616, 147
1657:
1658: \bibitem[Green et al.(2006)]{2006AAS...209.5202G} Green, P.~J.,
1659: Barkhouse, W.~A., Aldcroft, T.~L., Kim, D., Mossman, A., Richards,
1660: G., Weinstein, M., \& ChaMP Collaboration 2006, Bulletin of the
1661: American Astronomical Society, 38, 965
1662:
1663: \bibitem[Grupe et al.(2006)]{2006AJ....131...55G} Grupe, D., Mathur,
1664: S., Wilkes, B., \& Osmer, P.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 55
1665:
1666: \bibitem[Grupe et al.(2008)]{2008arXiv0803.2516G} Grupe, D., Komossa,
1667: S., Gallo, L.~C., Fabian, A.~C., Larsson, J., Pradhan, A.~K., Xu,
1668: D., \& Miniutti, G.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 803, arXiv:0803.2516
1669:
1670: \bibitem[Haardt \& Maraschi(1991)]{1991ApJ...380L..51H} Haardt, F., \&
1671: Maraschi, L.\ 1991, \apjl, 380, L51
1672:
1673: \bibitem[Iwasawa \& Taniguchi(1993)]{1993ApJ...413L..15I} Iwasawa, K.,
1674: \& Taniguchi, Y.\ 1993, \apjl, 413, L15
1675:
1676: \bibitem[Jansen et al.(2001)]{2001A&A...365L...1J} Jansen, F., et al.\
1677: 2001, \aap, 365, L1
1678:
1679: \bibitem[Jiang et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...644..725J} Jiang, P., Wang,
1680: J.~X., \& Wang, T.~G.\ 2006, \apj, 644, 725
1681:
1682: \bibitem[Jim{\'e}nez-Bail{\'o}n et al.(2005)]{2005A&A...435..449J}
1683: Jim{\'e}nez-Bail{\'o}n, E., Piconcelli, E., Guainazzi, M., Schartel,
1684: N., Rodr{\'{\i}}guez-Pascual, P.~M., \& Santos-Lle{\'o}, M.\ 2005,
1685: \aap, 435, 449
1686:
1687: \bibitem[Just et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...665.1004J} Just, D.~W., Brandt,
1688: W.~N., Shemmer, O., Steffen, A.~T., Schneider, D.~P., Chartas, G.,
1689: \& Garmire, G.~P.\ 2007, \apj, 665, 1004
1690:
1691: \bibitem[Kaspi et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...533..631K} Kaspi, S., Smith,
1692: P.~S., Netzer, H., Maoz, D., Jannuzi, B.~T., \& Giveon, U.\ 2000,
1693: \apj, 533, 631
1694:
1695: \bibitem[Kaspi et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...629...61K} Kaspi, S., Maoz, D.,
1696: Netzer, H., Peterson, B.~M., Vestergaard, M., \& Jannuzi, B.~T.\
1697: 2005, \apj, 629, 61 (K05)
1698:
1699: \bibitem[Kaspi et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...659..997K} Kaspi, S., Brandt,
1700: W.~N., Maoz, D., Netzer, H., Schneider, D.~P., \& Shemmer, O.\ 2007,
1701: \apj, 659, 997
1702:
1703: \bibitem[Kawaguchi et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...546..966K} Kawaguchi, T.,
1704: Shimura, T., \& Mineshige, S.\ 2001, \apj, 546, 966
1705:
1706: \bibitem[Kelly(2007)]{2007ApJ...665.1489K} Kelly, B.~C.\ 2007, \apj,
1707: 665, 1489
1708:
1709: \bibitem[Kelly et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...657..116K} Kelly, B.~C.,
1710: Bechtold, J., Siemiginowska, A., Aldcroft, T., \& Sobolewska, M.\
1711: 2007, \apj, 657, 116
1712:
1713: \bibitem[Kollmeier et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...648..128K} Kollmeier,
1714: J.~A., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 648, 128
1715:
1716: \bibitem[Krongold et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...659.1022K} Krongold, Y.,
1717: Nicastro, F., Elvis, M., Brickhouse, N., Binette, L., Mathur, S., \&
1718: Jim{\'e}nez-Bail{\'o}n, E.\ 2007, \apj, 659, 1022
1719:
1720: \bibitem[Lawrence(1991)]{1991MNRAS.252..586L} Lawrence, A.\ 1991,
1721: \mnras, 252, 586
1722:
1723: \bibitem[Lawrence \& Papadakis(1993)]{1993ApJ...414L..85L} Lawrence,
1724: A., \& Papadakis, I.\ 1993, \apjl, 414, L85
1725:
1726: \bibitem[Laor(2000)]{2000NewAR..44..503L} Laor, A.\ 2000, New
1727: Astronomy Review, 44, 503
1728:
1729: \bibitem[Leighly(1999)]{1999ApJS..125..317L} Leighly, K.~M.\ 1999,
1730: \apjs, 125, 317
1731:
1732: \bibitem[Lu \& Yu(1999)]{1999ApJ...526L...5L} Lu, Y., \& Yu, Q.\ 1999,
1733: \apjl, 526, L5
1734:
1735: \bibitem[Magdziarz \& Zdziarski(1995)]{1995MNRAS.273..837M} Magdziarz,
1736: P., \& Zdziarski, A.~A.\ 1995, \mnras, 273, 837
1737:
1738: \bibitem[Mainieri et al.(2007)]{2007ApJS..172..368M} Mainieri, V., et
1739: al.\ 2007, \apjs, 172, 368
1740:
1741: \bibitem[Marconi \& Hunt(2003)]{2003ApJ...589L..21M} Marconi, A., \&
1742: Hunt, L.~K.\ 2003, \apjl, 589, L21
1743:
1744: \bibitem[Marconi et al.(2004)]{2004MNRAS.351..169M} Marconi, A.,
1745: Risaliti, G., Gilli, R., Hunt, L.~K., Maiolino, R., \& Salvati, M.\
1746: 2004, \mnras, 351, 169
1747:
1748: \bibitem[Mateos et al.(2005)]{2005A&A...444...79M} Mateos, S.,
1749: Barcons, X., Carrera, F.~J., Ceballos, M.~T., Hasinger, G., Lehmann,
1750: I., Fabian, A.~C., \& Streblyanska, A.\ 2005, \aap, 444, 79
1751:
1752: \bibitem[McIntosh et al.(1999)]{1999ApJ...514...40M} McIntosh, D.~H.,
1753: Rieke, M.~J., Rix, H.-W., Foltz, C.~B., \& Weymann, R.~J.\ 1999,
1754: \apj, 514, 40
1755:
1756: \bibitem[McLure \& Dunlop(2004)]{2004MNRAS.352.1390M} McLure, R.~J.,
1757: \& Dunlop, J.~S.\ 2004, \mnras, 352, 1390
1758:
1759: \bibitem[Moran et al.(2002)]{2002ApJ...579L..71M} Moran, E.~C.,
1760: Filippenko, A.~V., \& Chornock, R.\ 2002, \apjl, 579, L71
1761:
1762: \bibitem[Nandra \& Pounds(1994)]{1994MNRAS.268..405N} Nandra, K., \&
1763: Pounds, K.~A.\ 1994, \mnras, 268, 405
1764:
1765: \bibitem[Nandra et al.(1995)]{1995MNRAS.276....1N} Nandra, K., Fabian,
1766: A.~C., Brandt, W.~N., Kunieda, H., Matsuoka, M., Mihara, T.,
1767: Ogasaka, Y., \& Terashima, Y.\ 1995, \mnras, 276, 1
1768:
1769: \bibitem[Netzer \& Trakhtenbrot(2007)]{2007ApJ...654..754N} Netzer,
1770: H., \& Trakhtenbrot, B.\ 2007, \apj, 654, 754
1771:
1772: \bibitem[Netzer et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...671.1256N} Netzer, H., Lira,
1773: P., Trakhtenbrot, B., Shemmer, O., \& Cury, I.\ 2007, \apj, 671,
1774: 1256
1775:
1776: \bibitem[Neugebauer et al.(1987)]{1987ApJS...63..615N} Neugebauer, G.,
1777: Green, R.~F., Matthews, K., Schmidt, M., Soifer, B.~T., \& Bennett,
1778: J.\ 1987, \apjs, 63, 615
1779:
1780: \bibitem[Nishihara et al.(1997)]{1997ApJ...488L..27N} Nishihara, E.,
1781: et al.\ 1997, \apjl, 488, L27
1782:
1783: \bibitem[O'Neill et al.(2005)]{2005MNRAS.358.1405O} O'Neill, P.~M.,
1784: Nandra, K., Papadakis, I.~E., \& Turner, T.~J.\ 2005, \mnras, 358,
1785: 1405
1786:
1787: \bibitem[Page et al.(2004)]{2004MNRAS.347..316P} Page, K.~L., O'Brien,
1788: P.~T., Reeves, J.~N., \& Turner, M.~J.~L.\ 2004a, \mnras, 347, 316
1789:
1790: \bibitem[Page et al.(2004)]{2004MNRAS.353..133P} Page, K.~L., Reeves,
1791: J.~N., O'Brien, P.~T., Turner, M.~J.~L., \& Worrall, D.~M.\ 2004b,
1792: \mnras, 353, 133
1793:
1794: \bibitem[Page et al.(2005)]{2005MNRAS.364..195P} Page, K.~L., Reeves,
1795: J.~N., O'Brien, P.~T., \& Turner, M.~J.~L.\ 2005, \mnras, 364, 195
1796:
1797: \bibitem[Paolillo et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...611...93P} Paolillo, M.,
1798: Schreier, E.~J., Giacconi, R., Koekemoer, A.~M., \& Grogin, N.~A.\
1799: 2004, \apj, 611, 93
1800:
1801: \bibitem[Peterson et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...613..682P} Peterson, B.~M.,
1802: et al.\ 2004, \apj, 613, 682
1803:
1804: \bibitem[Piconcelli et al.(2005)]{2005A&A...432...15P} Piconcelli, E.,
1805: et al.\ 2005, \aap, 432, 15
1806:
1807: \bibitem[Porquet et al.(2004)]{2004A&A...422...85P} Porquet, D.,
1808: Reeves, J.~N., O'Brien, P., \& Brinkmann, W.\ 2004, \aap,\,422,\,85
1809:
1810: \bibitem[Press et al.(1992)]{1992nrfa.book.....P} Press, W.~H.,
1811: Teukolsky, S.~A., Vetterling, W.~T., \& Flannery, B.~P.\ 1992,
1812: Cambridge: University Press, |c1992, 2nd ed.,
1813:
1814: \bibitem[Reeves \& Turner(2000)]{2000MNRAS.316..234R} Reeves, J.~N.~\&
1815: Turner, M.~J.~L.\ 2000, \mnras, 316, 234
1816:
1817: \bibitem[Ruiz et al.(2007)]{2007A&A...471..775R} Ruiz, A., Carrera,
1818: F.~J., \& Panessa, F.\ 2007, \aap, 471, 775
1819:
1820: \bibitem[Schmidt \& Green(1983)]{1983ApJ...269..352S} Schmidt, M., \&
1821: Green, R.~F.\ 1983, \apj, 269, 352
1822:
1823: \bibitem[Shemmer et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...614..547S} Shemmer, O.,
1824: Netzer, H., Maiolino, R., Oliva, E., Croom, S., Corbett, E., \& di
1825: Fabrizio, L.\ 2004, \apj, 614, 547
1826:
1827: \bibitem[Shemmer et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...630...729S} Shemmer, O.,
1828: Brandt, W.~N., Vignali, C., Schneider, D.~P., Fan, X., Richards,
1829: G.~T., \& Strauss, M.~A.\ 2005, ApJ, 630, 729
1830:
1831: \bibitem[Shemmer et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...646L..29S} Shemmer, O.,
1832: Brandt, W.~N., Netzer, H., Maiolino, R., \& Kaspi, S.\ 2006, \apjl,
1833: 646, L29 (S06)
1834:
1835: \bibitem[Shen et al.(2007)]{2007arXiv0709.3098S} Shen, Y., Greene,
1836: J.~E., Strauss, M., Richards, G.~T., \& Schneider, D.~P.\ 2007,
1837: ArXiv e-prints, 709, arXiv:0709.3098
1838:
1839: \bibitem[Steffen et al.(2006)]{2006AJ....131.2826S} Steffen, A.~T., et
1840: al.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 2826
1841:
1842: \bibitem[Strateva et al.(2005)]{2005AJ....130..387S} Strateva, I.~V.,
1843: Brandt, W.~N., Schneider, D.~P., Vanden Berk, D.~G., \& Vignali, C.\
1844: 2005, \aj, 130, 387
1845:
1846: \bibitem[Sulentic et al.(2006)]{2006A&A...456..929S} Sulentic, J.~W.,
1847: Repetto, P., Stirpe, G.~M., Marziani, P., Dultzin-Hacyan, D., \&
1848: Calvani, M.\ 2006, \aap, 456, 929
1849:
1850: \bibitem[Taylor et al.(2003)]{2003MNRAS.342L..31T} Taylor, R.~D.,
1851: Uttley, P., \& McHardy, I.~M.\ 2003, \mnras, 342, L31
1852:
1853: \bibitem[Tremaine et al.(2002)]{2002ApJ...574..740T} Tremaine, S., et
1854: al.\ 2002, \apj, 574, 740
1855:
1856: \bibitem[Vanden Berk et al.(2001)]{2001AJ....122..549V} Vanden Berk,
1857: D.~E., et al.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 549
1858:
1859: \bibitem[Vasudevan \& Fabian(2007)]{2007MNRAS.381.1235V} Vasudevan, R.~V.,
1860: \& Fabian, A.~C.\ 2007, \mnras, 381, 1235
1861:
1862: \bibitem[Vaughan et al.(1999)]{1999MNRAS.308L..34V} Vaughan, S.,
1863: Pounds, K.~A., Reeves, J., Warwick, R., \& Edelson, R.\ 1999b,
1864: \mnras, 308, L34
1865:
1866: \bibitem[Vaughan et al.(1999)]{1999MNRAS.309..113V} Vaughan, S.,
1867: Reeves, J., Warwick, R., \& Edelson, R.\ 1999a, \mnras, 309, 113
1868:
1869: \bibitem[Vignali et al.(2003)]{2003AJ....125..433V} Vignali, C.,
1870: Brandt, W.~N., \& Schneider, D.~P.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 433
1871:
1872: \bibitem[Vignali et al.(2004)]{2004MNRAS.347..854V} Vignali, C.,
1873: Brandt, W.~N., Boller, T., Fabian, A.~C., \& Vaughan, S.\ 2004,
1874: \mnras, 347, 854
1875:
1876: \bibitem[Vignali et al.(2005)]{2005AJ....129.2519V} Vignali, C.,
1877: Brandt, W.~N., Schneider, D.~P., \& Kaspi, S.\ 2005, \aj, 129, 2519
1878:
1879: \bibitem[Wang et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...607L.107W} Wang, J.-M., Watarai,
1880: K.-Y., \& Mineshige, S.\ 2004, \apjl, 607, L107
1881:
1882: \bibitem[Wilhite et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...669..791W} Wilhite, B.~C.,
1883: Brunner, R.~J., Schneider, D.~P., \& Vanden Berk, D.~E.\ 2007, \apj,
1884: 669, 791
1885:
1886: \bibitem[Zdziarski et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...542..703Z} Zdziarski,
1887: A.~A., Poutanen, J., \& Johnson, W.~N.\ 2000, \apj, 542, 703
1888:
1889: \bibitem[Zhou \& Wang(2005)]{2005ApJ...618L..83Z} Zhou, X.-L., \&
1890: Wang, J.-M.\ 2005, \apjl, 618, L83
1891:
1892: \end{thebibliography}
1893:
1894: \end{document}
1895: