1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: %\documentclass[twocolumn]{emulateapj}

3: %\documentstyle[epsfig]{revtex}

4: \usepackage{graphics, enumerate, graphicx, color}

5: \usepackage{psfig, epsfig}

6: \usepackage{alltt}

7: \usepackage{natbib}

8: %\emulateapj

9: 

10: % Text Sizes

11: %\textwidth  6.5 in

12: %\textheight 9.0 in

13: %\topmargin     -0.50in

14: %\oddsidemargin  0.00in

15: %\evensidemargin 0.00in

16: % Text Sizes

17: 

18: %\bibliographystyle{plain}

19: 

20: \newcommand{\bearr}{\begin{eqnarray}}

21: \newcommand{\eearr}{\end{eqnarray}}

22: \definecolor{titlecol}{rgb}{0,0,1}

23: \definecolor{titledark}{rgb}{0,0,0.8}

24: \definecolor{hilit}{rgb}{0,0,1}

25: \definecolor{hilitdark}{rgb}{0,0,0.8}

26: \font\sbf=cmssbx10 at 32.28pt %big font for headers

27: \font\nbf=cmssbx10 at 12.28pt %big font for headers

28: 

29: \def\degr               {^{\circ}}

30: \def\note		{\color{titlecol} \nbf}

31: \def\csq			{$\chi^2$}

32: \def\mcsq		{\chi^2}

33: \def\csqnu              {$\chi^2_{\nu}$}

34: \def\mcsqnu             {\chi^2_{\nu}}

35: \def\sigr		{\sigma_{r_e} / r_e}

36: \def\angst                    {\hbox{\small$\mathring{A}$\normalsize}}

37: \newcommand{\eqnstart}   {\begin{equation}}

38: \newcommand{\eqnend}     {\end{equation}}

39: 

40: \def\ga		{}

41: %\def\BT		{$\left(\mbox{B}/\mbox{Tot}\right)$}

42: \def\mBTlet	{\left(\mbox{B}/\mbox{Tot}\right)}

43: \def\BT		{bulge-to-total}

44: %\def\mBT	{(\mbox{bulge}/\mbox{total})}

45: \def\mBT	{(L_B/L_{tot})}

46: \def\zpr	{z^{\prime}}

47: \def\vmi	{(V-I)}

48: \def\lcontr  {\log{\left( L_{\mbox{\small{host}}}/L_{\mbox{\small{PS}}} \right)}}

49: \def\contr  {\left( L_{\mbox{\small{host}}}/L_{\mbox{\small{PS}}} \right)}

50: \def\CR		{host-to-PS}

51: \def\mlum       {\mbox{ erg s}^{-1}}

52: \def\lum        {erg s$^{-1}$}

53: 

54: \def\marleau  {Marleau \& Simard 1998}

55: \def\conselice {Conselice 2003}

56: \def\giavalisco {Giavalisco et al. 2004}

57: \def\peng     {Peng et al. 2002}

58: \def\sanchez  {S\'anchez et al. 2004}

59: \def\koekemoer {Koekemoer et al. 2002}

60: \def\sersic   {S\'ersic 1968}

61: \def\bertin   {Bertin \& Arnouts 1996}

62: \def\binney   {Binney \& Merrifield 1998}

63: \def\spergel  {Spergel et al. 2003}

64: \def\ballo    {Ballo et al. 2007}

65: \def\grogin   {Grogin et al. 2005}

66: 

67: %

68: % /Zeljko's commands

69: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

70: %%% author-defined commands

71: \newcommand\about     {\hbox{$\sim$}}

72: \newcommand\x         {\hbox{$\times$}}

73: \newcommand\othername {\hbox{$\dots$}}

74: 

75: 

76: 

77: %\footskip 27pt

78: %\parindent 0em

79: %\parskip 1.5ex

80: 

81: \slugcomment{Accepted for publication in Ap. J.}

82: 

83: \shorttitle{Recovery of AGN Host Galaxy Morphologies}

84: \shortauthors{Simmons \& Urry}

85: 

86: \begin{document}

87: 

88: \title{The Accuracy of Morphological Decomposition of AGN Host Galaxies}

89: 

90: % Possible alternative titles:

91: % Parametric Recovery of AGN Host Galaxy Morphologies: Simulations

92: % Morphological Decomposition of AGN Host Galaxies: Accuracy of Recovered Parameters

93: % Accuracy of Morphological Parameter Determination for AGN Host Galaxies in Deep HST Imaging

94: 

95: \author{B. D. Simmons and C. M. Urry}

96: \affil{Astronomy Department, Yale University, New Haven, CT USA}

97: 

98: \email{simmons@astro.yale.edu}

99: 

100: \begin{abstract}

101: In order to assess the accuracy with which we can determine the

102: morphologies of AGN host galaxies, we have simulated more than 50,000

103: ACS images of galaxies with $z < 1.25$, using image and noise

104: properties appropriate for the GOODS survey. We test the effect of

105: central point-source brightness on host galaxy parameter recovery with

106: a set of simulated AGN host galaxies made by adding point sources to

107: the centers of normal galaxies. We extend this analysis and also

108: quantify the recovery of intrinsic morphological parameters of AGN

109: host galaxies with a set of fully simulated inactive and AGN host

110: galaxies.

111: 

112: We can reliably separate good from poor fit results using a

113: combination of reasonable error cuts, in the regime where $\contr >

114: 1:4$. 

115: We give quantitative estimates of parameter errors as a function

116: of host-to-point-source ratio.  

117: In general, we separate host and point-source magnitudes reliably

118: at all redshifts; point sources are well recovered more than 90\% of

119: the time, although spurious detection of central point sources can be

120: as high as 25\% for bulge-dominated sources.

121: %Our uncertainty in recovered S\'ersic index

122: %is less than the morphological separation between bulge- and

123: %disk-dominated galaxies, so we can distinguish bulge- and

124: %disk-dominated morphologies with confidence even when the central

125: %point source is as bright as the host galaxy. 

126: We find a general correlation between S\'ersic index and intrinsic

127: bulge-to-total ratio, such that a host galaxy with S\'ersic $n < 1.5$

128: generally has at least 80\% of its light from a disk

129: component. Likewise, ``bulge-dominated'' galaxies with $n > 4$

130: typically derive at least 70\% of their total host galaxy light from a

131: bulge, but this number can be as low as 55\%. Single-component

132: S\'ersic fits to an AGN host galaxy are statistically very reliable to

133: $z < 1.25$ (for ACS survey data like ours). In contrast,

134: two-component fits involving separate bulge and disk components tend

135: to over-estimate the bulge fraction by $\sim 10$\%, with uncertainty

136: of order 50\%.

137: 

138: \end{abstract}

139: 

140: \keywords{methods: data analysis --- galaxies: active --- galaxies: nuclei --- galaxies: bulges --- galaxies: fundamental parameters}

141: 

142: \pagebreak

143: 

144: \section{Introduction}

145: Morphological analysis of two-dimensional light profiles of galaxies

146: in large data surveys provides detailed information about galaxy

147: populations and their evolution \citep[\emph{e.g.,}][]{simard99,

148: ravindranath04, jogee04, sheth08}. Simulations of both large and small

149: galaxy samples show that two-dimensional parametric and non-parametric

150: morphological analysis of normal galaxies is extremely robust

151: \citep{marleau98, graham01a, conselice03, trujillo04, haussler07}.

152: 

153: Studies of active galactic nucleus (AGN) host galaxies give us the

154: opportunity to study not just the galaxies themselves, but also the

155: well-established connection between galaxies and central supermassive

156: black holes \citep{kormendy95, magorrian98, ferrarese00, gebhardt00,

157: mclure02, marconi03}. In cases where central black hole masses are

158: independently determined, accurate decompositions of AGN host galaxies

159: from their central point-source light contributions allow for the

160: direct study of how galaxy light distribution relates to black hole

161: properties. Alternatively, when time-intensive observations of black

162: hole mass are not available, we can use established bulge-black hole

163: relations to determine the black hole masses from bulge luminosities.

164: 

165: However, two-dimensional morphological fitting of AGN host galaxies is

166: more complicated than that of ``normal'' (or ``inactive'') galaxies

167: because of the presence of a central point source, which is often

168: quite bright. In order to extract host galaxy properties from a source

169: comprised of a host plus a central AGN, spatial resolution is

170: critical. Thus the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) on the

171: \emph{Hubble Space Telescope} (\emph{HST}) is the instrument of choice

172: for many AGN host galaxy studies to date \citep{sanchez04,

173: alonsoherrero08, ballo07}.

174: 

175: 

176: Of the large multi-wavelength surveys currently available, the Great

177: Observatories Origins Deep Survey \citep[GOODS;][]{giavalisco04}

178: provides some of the deepest multicolor ACS data. AGN identification

179: is possible because of deep X-ray imaging with \emph{Chandra}, as well as

180: ground-based optical and infrared spectroscopic follow up. \emph{Spitzer}

181: data provide additional information on total light but insufficient

182: spatial resolution to separate the galaxy from the active nucleus.  We

183: performed detailed morphological analysis on the GOODS ACS data

184: set using GALFIT \citep{peng02}, the results of which are presented in

185: a forthcoming paper (B. D. Simmons et al. 2008, in preparation, hereafter S08).  In

186: order to understand the accuracy of those results -- in particular, to

187: probe the well-known effects of surface brightness dimming and

188: dependence of physical resolution on redshift in the presence of a

189: central point source whose size does not change with redshift -- 

190: extensive simulations of host galaxy morphology are required.

191: 

192: Previously, \citet{sanchez04} simulated 1880 single-component host

193: galaxies with point sources fainter than the host galaxy.  Here we

194: present a full treatment of over 50,000 simulated AGN host galaxies in

195: the redshift range $0.1 < z < 1.1$, with both single-component and

196: two-component bulge-plus-disk morphologies, and central point sources

197: that are both brighter and fainter than the host galaxy. Results of

198: these simulations are intended to inform data analysis of AGN host

199: morphologies, to better infer intrinsic host galaxy shapes from fitted

200: morphological parameters in the presence of a central point source.

201: 

202: 

203: We discuss the data from which we draw our noise properties and

204: simulated sample in Section 2. The detailed fit procedures and the

205: simulation parameter space are presented in Section 3, and we assess

206: the ability of our fitting procedure to recover accurate host galaxy

207: and point-source parameters from GOODS-like images of AGN host

208: galaxies in Section 4.

209: 

210: \section{Data}

211: \subsection{HST ACS Data}

212: The GOODS fields each cover an area of approximately $10^{\prime}

213: \times 16^{\prime}$ with a total of 398 \emph{HST} orbits in both

214: fields. The ACS has a resolution of $0^{\prime \prime}.05$

215: pixel$^{-1}$, and observations were taken in the F435W, F606W, F775W,

216: and F850LP ACS bands, hereafter referred to as $B$, $V$, $I$, and

217: $\zpr$, respectively. Data acquisition and reduction are detailed in

218: \citet{giavalisco04} and \citet{koekemoer02}. Each of the five epochs

219: of data was processed via the basic ACS pipeline and a further

220: processing task called multidrizzle, which finds an astrometric

221: solution for all 5 epochs in order to correct for geometric

222: distortion, and at the same time removes cosmic rays from the image

223: \citep{koekemoer02}. The final images have resolution of $0^{\prime

224: \prime}.03$ pixel$^{-1}$, and the magnitude limits for extended sources

225: are $B < 28.4$ mag, $V < 28.4$ mag, $I < 27.7$ mag, and $z < 27.3$

226: mag.

227: 

228: From the reduced data, we randomly selected 450 inactive galaxies with

229: stellarity class less than 0.8 (\emph{i.e.,} objects that are not

230: point sources) and magnitude $\zpr < 24.0$ mag

231: for use in those of our simulations that include real data (\S3.3).

232: Since the majority of AGN host galaxies selected for morphological

233: analysis in current surveys using \emph{HST} have redshifts 

234: such that their $I$-band data lie in the rest-frame $B$ band ($0.575 <

235: z < 0.9$), we performed simulations using the $I$-band images and

236: noise properties.

237: 

238: \subsection{Noise Properties}

239: For fully simulated galaxies (described in \S3.4), noise appropriate

240: to the GOODS-ACS fields was added. The task of simulating the noise in

241: the GOODS-ACS fields is complicated by the dithering process, which

242: correlates the noise among nearby pixels. We therefore use actual

243: noise pixels (i.e., source-free pixels) from the final GOODS-N

244: and GOODS-S images rather than statistical models. We sampled 150

245: sub-sections of the GOODS images that contained no sources, 75 in the

246: North field and 75 in the South, for a total of over 2.5 million noise

247: pixels. Each of these sub-sections was cut into tiles of size $50

248: \times 50$ pixels; this resulted in 1042 tiles. These were then used

249: to create 500 noise images of the same size as our data images by

250: arranging random mosaics of the $50 \times 50$ noise tiles. We have

251: verified that these new noise mosaics have the same overall noise

252: properties (distribution of pixel intensities) as the original

253: noise-only subsections of the GOODS images (Figure \ref{noisehist}).

254: 

255: We also tested noise mosaics created from $10 \times 10$ tiles of

256: background noise but found that the distribution of pixel intensities was

257: shifted compared to the correlated noise properties of the dithered

258: ACS images. We thus used only the $50 \times 50$ pixel noise images to

259: create our final noise mosaics. The noise value distributions of the $50

260: \times 50$ and $10 \times 10$ noise mosaics are compared to the actual 

261: GOODS noise distribution in Figure \ref{noisehist}.

262: 

263: \begin{figure}

264: \plotone{f1.eps}

265: %\centerline{\epsfig{figure=noise_compare_2.eps,width=6in}}

266: \caption{

267: Histograms of pixel intensities for GOODS noise (solid), noise mosaics

268: using a $50 \times 50$-pixel sampling of the GOODS noise (dashed), and

269: using a $10 \times 10$-pixel sampling of the GOODS noise (blue, dot-dashed). The

270: histogram for the mosaic using $10 \times 10$-pixel tiles is

271: significantly different from the intrinsic noise distribution. The

272: distribution of pixel intensity of the $50 \times 50$ noise mosaic is

273: nearly indistinguishable from that of the intrinsic GOODS noise

274: distribution.   }

275: \label{noisehist}

276: \end{figure}

277: 

278: 

279: \section{Creation and Morphological Fitting of Simulated Samples}

280: 

281: 

282: We performed two distinct sets of simulations to test the accuracy of

283: derived morphological parameters. First, we used a sample of 450 real

284: galaxies from the GOODS fields and added point sources to their

285: centers. This allowed us to test the ability of GALFIT to extract

286: point sources from the centers of real galaxies. It also informed our

287: choice of parameters and galaxy types for the second, more extensive,

288: set of simulations. In the latter set of simulations, we created a

289: sample of 12,592 completely simulated GOODS galaxies, in order to

290: additionally test the recovery of a wide range of host galaxy

291: parameters. We fitted all of our simulated galaxies with our

292: batch-fitting algorithm (described below).  We also simulated the

293: redshifting of these galaxies to quantify redshift-dependent effects,

294: and we added noise taken directly from real GOODS data.

295: 

296: 

297: \subsection{Fit Procedure}

298: We performed morphological analysis in two dimensions using GALFIT,

299: which can simultaneously fit an arbitrary number of components to an

300: image \citep{peng02}. The program uses a \csq\ minimization method to

301: determine the best-fit parameters. We used the S\' ersic profile,

302: which models the light distribution of a galaxy as an exponential

303: function with a variable half-light radius, $r_e$, and an exponential

304: parameter, $n$, called the S\'ersic index \citep{sersic68}. When $n$

305: is fixed at a value of 1, the S\'ersic profile is equivalent to an

306: exponential disk; when $n=4$, the S\'ersic profile is equivalent to a

307: de Vaucouleurs bulge. Each of our simulated galaxies was fitted twice:

308: once using a single S\'ersic function with a variable index, and once

309: with two S\'ersic functions with fixed $n=4$ and $n=1$ (bulge +

310: disk). We also simultaneously fitted point-source (PS) components

311: using the point-spread function (PSF) of the data, determination of

312: which is based on GOODS field stars and is described in S08.

313: 

314: 

315: We developed a batch-fitting algorithm to fit AGN host galaxies in

316: GALFIT (described in detail in S08), which we use here on our

317: simulated galaxies. The batch-fitting algorithm uses a series of

318: initial guesses to execute a first-pass fit of the central region of

319: each AGN host galaxy, fitting the individual centroid positions of

320: each component (S\'ersic plus point source, or de Vaucouleurs bulge plus

321: exponential disk plus point source). The second fit iteration zooms

322: out to include the full extended galaxy and fits the central point-source magnitude and AGN host galaxy parameters (S\'ersic index or

323: bulge/disk decomposition, half-light radius, axial ratio,

324: etc.). Finally, a third iteration is performed where all parameters

325: are allowed to vary (except $n$ in cases of a bulge + disk fit).

326: 

327: It is important to note that, while these simulations include

328: thousands of AGN host galaxies, even the largest (current) galaxy

329: surveys using ACS data provide no more than hundreds of AGN host

330: galaxies that can be reasonably fitted with GALFIT. We can therefore (as

331: in S08) follow up the batch fits by hand, using the results of the

332: batch-mode fitting as initial guesses to further constrain the results

333: for each AGN host galaxy. Due to the size of the simulated galaxy

334: sample in this paper, we did not do this final hand-fitting step.

335: Thus our conclusions about the fraction of cases for which accurate

336: morphological parameters are recovered should be considered

337: conservative when compared to a sample of galaxies whose fits are

338: adjusted and verified individually.

339: 

340: 

341: \subsection{Determination of Initial Parameter Guesses}

342: For our real host galaxy sample, we use magnitude, flux radius, and

343: position angle from the GOODS catalogs, which were created using

344: SExtractor \citep{bertin96}. Our simulated galaxies do not have a

345: SExtractor catalog, but we simulated initial parameter guesses by

346: introducing random errors into the true values.

347: 

348: Specifically, when determining initial guesses for parameters that can

349: be measured from a data image, we assume that the guess value is accurate

350: to within the following: $\pm (2.0,2.0)$ pixels in position, $\pm 0.5$

351: in total magnitude, $10\%$ in $r_e$ and $b/a$, and $10 \degr$ in

352: position angle. We assumed no \emph{a priori} knowledge of the

353: S\'ersic index $n$ of each simulated galaxy, nor of whether each

354: simulated galaxy was a two-component bulge plus disk system, or a

355: system with either a pure bulge or disk. Our initial guess for the

356: S\'ersic index (or indices) of each fit is $n=2.5$.

357: 

358: In the case of a multi-component fit, we assume that the total

359: magnitude is split evenly among the components (i.e., that we have no

360: prior knowledge of host:PS contrast ratio or \BT\ ratio), and we

361: additionally assume that the measured position angle and axial ratio

362: are the average of the actual values for each separate component after

363: adding the random fluctuation to the sum.

364: 

365: 

366: 

367: \subsection{Real Galaxies with Added Point Sources}

368: 

369: 

370: In order to test whether we can recover central point sources from

371: galaxies, we selected 450 $I$-band images of normal galaxies (i.e.,

372: not X-ray detected) from the GOODS-North and GOODS-South fields. The

373: selection was performed so the sample has the same magnitude

374: distribution as the full sample of galaxies in each of the GOODS

375: fields, but was otherwise random. We assumed no knowledge of redshifts

376: within the sample.

377: 

378: 

379: We fitted each of these galaxies with a single S\'ersic profile in order to

380: determine the baseline set of morphological parameters for each

381: galaxy. These fit parameters (S\'ersic $n$, magnitude, half-light

382: radius $r_e$, etc.) were taken to be the ``actual'' galaxy

383: parameters. 

384: 

385: We then made nine copies of each galaxy, adding one point source to

386: each, centered on the central pixel of the galaxy. The added point

387: sources ranged in $I$-band magnitude from 21 to 29, in increments of 1

388: mag. This gave us a total of 4050 simulated AGN from the original 450

389: galaxies, with a large range of host galaxy-to-point-source contrast

390: ratios, from $\sim$1000:1 to 1:100. These provide a straightforward

391: means of assessing the effect of a central point source on the

392: recovered parameters of a real galaxy.

393: 

394: Our convergence rate for the fitting routine depends on the magnitude

395: of the added central point source. Of the models with $I_{PS} = 21$,

396: 88\% converge, whereas 64\% of models with $I_{ps} = 29$

397: (significantly below the flux limit of our $I$-band sample)

398: converged. This is due to the fitting program being unable to converge

399: to a value for the central point-source magnitude. Examples of fit

400: results for typical galaxies in our sample are shown in Figure

401: \ref{psfadd_gals}.

402: 

403: \begin{figure}

404: %\plotone{dmhost_dCR_dmpavg_all.eps}

405: \plotone{f2.eps}

406: \caption{Example fit results for two AGN hosts simulated from real

407: galaxies. For each galaxy, the top row shows the original GOODS galaxy

408: (from left to right: galaxy, fit, residual). Each row below shows the

409: host+fit+residual for added central point sources of magnitudes

410: $I_{AB} = 22$, 24, 26, and 28, with the faintest point source in the

411: bottom row.   \emph{Note:} These cutouts are zoomed-in to show the galaxies;

412: the actual fitting regions are significantly larger.}

413: \label{psfadd_gals}

414: \end{figure}

415: 

416: \subsection{Simulated Galaxies}

417: 

418: 

419: The simulated hosts described in \S3.3 provide information on how the

420: presence of a central point source changes the fitted host galaxy

421: parameters, but they do not allow us to explore redshift effects or

422: quantify the absolute accuracy of the fit parameters. This can only be

423: accomplished with a set of simulations for which we know the intrinsic

424: properties of each simulated galaxy.

425: 

426: To that end, we simulated three kinds of galaxies with a range of

427: parameters: pure de Vaucouleurs bulge (B) galaxies with fixed S\'ersic

428: $n=4$, pure exponential disk (D) galaxies with $n=1$, and composite

429: galaxies with both bulge and disk (B+D) components in varying

430: proportions. The galaxy parameters were chosen to be typical of

431: bright, local galaxies \citep{binneymerrifield} and placed at

432: $z=0.125$. Redshifted samples were developed from these, as described

433: below.

434: 

435: 

436: For the B and D type galaxies, the component parameters occupy a grid

437: of four values for each parameter across the ranges $16.9 \leq I_{AB}

438: \leq 20.4$ and $1.5 \leq r_e \leq 6.0$ kpc (for bulges); $4.0 \leq r_e

439: \leq 10.0$ kpc (for disks), with axis ratios $0.25 \leq b/a \leq

440: 1.0$. For the single-component fits, the position angle was fixed at

441: $45.0 \degr$. This results in 64 B and 64 D galaxies, each of which is

442: ``inactive'', i.e., without a central point source. We create

443: simulated AGN host galaxies by adding point sources to these. We used

444: five values between $16.5 \leq I_{AB} \leq 24$ for the central point

445: source, resulting in 320 B-type and 320 D-type AGN host galaxies, with

446: contrast ratios ranging from $-1.3 \leq \lcontr \leq 2.8$. Lastly, in

447: order to ensure enough galaxies for statistical analysis after binning

448: the fitted single-component sample, we made four copies of each B and

449: D inactive galaxy and two copies of each B and D AGN host galaxy. This

450: resulted in a total of 256 B and 256 D inactive single-component

451: galaxies, and 640 B and 640 D AGN host galaxies.

452: 

453: For the B+D type galaxies, the parameter space includes more

454: magnitudes so as to provide 20 input \BT\ ratios with $0.028 \leq

455: \mBTlet \leq 0.97$ [plus the single-component B and D fits, which have

456: $\mBTlet = 1$ and 0, respectively]. In addition, the position angles

457: of the individual components were allowed to vary such that some of

458: the simulated B+D galaxies have components that are slightly ($\leq

459: 15^{\circ}$) off-axis with respect to each other. The axis ratios

460: between bulges and disks were also allowed to vary with respect to

461: each other. These changes significantly increase the total number of

462: double-component galaxies created; thus the number of radius, $b/a$,

463: and point-source magnitude parameters used was decreased in order to

464: keep the total number of galaxies from being prohibitively large from

465: a computational perspective. This resulted in the creation of 2700

466: inactive double-component (B+D) galaxies, and 8100 B+D AGN host

467: galaxies. Table \ref{sersic_param_table} gives the parameter values

468: used to create the entire local suite of 12,592 simulated single- and

469: double-component galaxies.

470: 

471: Since we are also interested in distinguishing the effects of

472: redshifting galaxies from the effects of evolving galaxies, the

473: initial sample was defined to lie at $z= 0.125$, and three additional

474: samples were placed at $z=0.413, 0.738$, and 1.075, corresponding to

475: the redshifts at which the centers of each of our GOODS filters

476: (F435W, F606W, F775W, and F850LP) are in the rest-frame $B$ (F435W)

477: band.

478: 

479: To redshift each galaxy, we used a concordance cosmology with

480: $\Omega_{tot} = 1$, $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.73$, and $H_0 = 71$ km

481: s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ \citep{spergel03} to calculate the cosmological

482: dimming and loss of resolution corresponding to each redshift. Because

483: the size of the ACS PSF does not change with redshift, we assume that

484: the size of AGN central point sources will also stay fixed with

485: redshift, unlike the host galaxy. We therefore created the redshifted

486: AGN by redshifting the model host galaxy (in flux and size) separately

487: from the central point source (in flux only) and adding them together

488: before convolving with the ACS PSF and adding noise to the image.  The

489: redshifting of each of the 12,592 galaxies produced another 12,592

490: galaxies at each final redshift, for a total of 50,368 fully simulated

491: galaxies located at four different redshifts from $0.125 < z < 1.075$.

492: 

493: We fit each using our batch-fitting algorithm. Each galaxy was fit

494: twice: once with a generalized S\'ersic profile plus a point-source

495: component, and once with a combination of de Vaucouleurs bulge,

496: exponential disk, and point source. Inactive galaxies were also fit

497: without point-source components. Examples of fit results for typical

498: galaxies in our sample are shown in Figure \ref{sim_gals}.

499: 

500: \begin{figure}

501: %\plotone{dmhost_dCR_dmpavg_all.eps}

502: \plotone{f3.eps}

503: \caption{Example fit results for four fully simulated galaxies at four

504: different redshifts. Each row shows one galaxy. The first two columns

505: show the image of the galaxy at $z=0.125$ and residual. Each

506: successive pair of columns from left to right shows galaxy and

507: residual for $z=0.4125, 0.7375$, and 1.075, respectively. \emph{Note:}

508: These cutouts are zoomed-in to show the galaxies; the actual fitting

509: regions are significantly larger.}

510: \label{sim_gals}

511: \end{figure}

512: 

513: 

514: \input{tab1.tex}

515: 

516: \section{Results And Discussion}

517: 

518: \subsection{Existing Galaxies with Added Point Sources}

519: 

520: We are interested mainly in three properties of these models: how well

521: they recover the input point-source magnitude, how well they recover

522: the baseline host galaxy parameters, and how the accuracy of the host

523: galaxy parameters relates to the point-source magnitude and/or the

524: contrast ratio between central point source and host galaxy.

525: 

526: \subsubsection{AGN (Point Source) Recovery}

527: 

528: Figure \ref{m2m0_all} shows the degree of recovery of the central

529: point-source magnitude for input point sources. As expected, brighter

530: point sources are more accurately recovered.  At all values of input

531: point-source magnitude, the fitted value of the point-source magnitude

532: tends to either converge to the true input magnitude \emph{or} remain

533: at the input guess magnitude.

534: 

535: In all cases, we can easily separate these two groups with a simple

536: reduced \csqnu\ cut ($\mcsqnu < 2.0$). After the cut, the number of

537: remaining poor fits is very low, as is the number of good fits removed

538: by the cut: both are less than 5\%, even in the limiting cases

539: of very high and very low input point-source magnitude. This level of

540: contamination/excess removal of good fits is not strongly dependent on

541: the value at which we choose to cut $\mcsq$, nor is it strongly

542: dependent on the input point-source magnitude.

543: 

544: The rms uncertainties of the recovered point-source magnitudes for

545: each input point-source value are shown in Table

546: \ref{rms_params}. These values reflect the systematic uncertainties in

547: the fitted parameters, and should be added to the statistical error in

548: fitted point-source magnitude returned by GALFIT.

549: 

550: \begin{figure}

551: \plotone{f4.eps}

552: %\centerline{\epsfig{figure=m2m0_all.eps,width=6in}}

553: \caption{ Recovery of magnitude of a point source added to real galaxy

554: images, for: input point-source magnitudes of 22, 24, 26, and 28 mag.

555: The fitting recovers the point-source magnitude nicely after making a

556: simple $\mcsqnu < 2.0$ cut (black crosses), with a larger spread for

557: fainter values of the input point source, as expected. Fits with a

558: large value of $\mcsqnu$ are shown as green open circles; $N_{conv}$

559: indicates the number of fits (out of 450) that converged automatically

560: for this input point-source magnitude. The dashed horizontal line

561: shows $m_{\mbox{\tiny out}} = m_{\mbox{\tiny in}}$, so fits falling on

562: this line perfectly recover the actual point-source magnitude. The

563: dotted line shows $m_{\mbox{\tiny out}} = m_{\mbox{\tiny guess}}$:

564: fits on this line converged to their initial guess point-source

565: magnitude, and the final fitted magnitude is wrong; nearly all of

566: these fits are removed by the $\mcsqnu$ cut.  }

567: 

568: \label{m2m0_all}

569: \end{figure}

570: 

571: \subsubsection{Host Galaxy Parameter Recovery}

572: 

573: Figure \ref{m0mp_all} shows the correlation between the fitted model's

574: host galaxy magnitude and the actual host magnitude (as determined

575: before the addition of the central point source). The percent

576: completeness of the low-error sample compared to the full sample

577: varies greatly across a range of contrast ratios between host galaxy

578: and central point source. For very faint central point

579: sources, the host galaxy magnitude is very well recovered, whereas for

580: very bright point sources the fraction of host galaxies with

581: well-recovered parameters is very low ($\sim 15$\%).

582: 

583: 

584: \begin{figure}

585: \plotone{f5.eps}

586: %\centerline{\epsfig{figure=m0mp_all.eps,width=6in}}

587: \caption{

588: Fitted host galaxy magnitude versus actual galaxy magnitude for fits

589: to actual galaxies with added point sources. Excluding high $\mcsqnu$

590: values and effective radii with large fractional errors ensures a high

591: fraction of good fits, with moderate uncertainties. Green open circles

592: indicate fits with high $\mcsqnu$ values. Cyan open squares indicate

593: fits with excessive errors on the effective radius fit parameter

594: ($\sigma_{r_e} \geq 0.8 \times r_e$). Purple open triangles represent

595: fits with both high $\mcsqnu$ and high $\sigma_{r_e}$. The dotted line

596: represents equal input and recovered magnitudes (i.e., perfect

597: recovery). The error cut removes some of the fits that do lie on the

598: 1:1 line, regardless of the precise value for the $\sigma_{r_e}$ cut.

599: }

600: \label{m0mp_all} 

601: \end{figure}

602: 

603: Our simulations show that the reduced \csqnu\ parameter is generally

604: not sufficient to distinguish good from poor host galaxy fits. If we

605: also limit the relative error of the effective radius parameter,

606: however, the fraction of selected galaxies that recover the true

607: magnitude of the host galaxy improves significantly. With the

608: combination of \csqnu \ and $\sigma_{r_e} / r_e$ parameters, we remove

609: more than 85\% of the fits with magnitude differences of 0.5 dex or

610: more from the actual galaxy magnitudes. The number of well-fitted

611: galaxies that are also removed from the sample ranges from 5\% to

612: 20\%, depending primarily on how conservatively we choose our relative

613: $\sigma_{r_e}$ cut. Figure \ref{m0mp_all} reflects a cutoff value of

614: $\left( \sigr \right) = 0.8 $, which removes 88\% of poor fits and

615: 12\% of the good fits from the $I_{\mbox{\small PS}} = 24$ sample.

616: 

617: Figure \ref{dnpm} shows how well we recover the S\'ersic index,

618: $n$. The same error cuts (\csqnu\ and $\sigr$) efficiently reject the

619: inaccurate fits. The fraction of models whose fitted $n$ values

620: deviate by more than $\Delta n = 2$ compared to the $n$ values of the

621: unaltered galaxies increases significantly with increasing

622: point-source flux. That is, a very bright central point source can

623: easily be confused with a concentrated (high-$n$) S\'ersic

624: value.  For all values of the added point-source magnitude, however,

625: the same combination of \csqnu\ and relative $r_e$ error is sufficient

626: to remove 88\% of the inaccurate fits from the data, while removing

627: less than 15\% of the well-fitted models.

628: 

629: \begin{figure}

630: \plotone{f6.eps}

631: %\centerline{\epsfig{figure=dnpm_all.eps,width=6in}}

632: \caption{Change in S\'ersic indices of host galaxies after adding

633: point sources with original host magnitude. Excluding high $\mcsqnu$

634: and $\sigr$ yields the correct S\'ersic index (a proxy for

635: morphological type). The color-coding of the points is the same as in

636: Figure \ref{m0mp_all}: green open circles for high $\mcsqnu$, cyan

637: open squares for high relative $\sigma_{r_e}$, and purple open

638: triangles for both high $\mcsqnu$ and relative $\sigma_{r_e}$. The

639: dotted lines at $\Delta n = 0$ indicate perfect recovery of the

640: S\'ersic index. As expected, the bright-point-source fits return

641: mostly unreliable host galaxy parameters, in contrast to the

642: faint-point-source fits, which return mostly reliable host galaxy

643: parameters. }

644: \label{dnpm}

645: \end{figure}

646: 

647: \input{tab2.tex}

648: 

649: 

650: \input{tab3.tex}

651: 

652: \subsubsection{Dependence of Parameters on Host:AGN Contrast Ratio}

653: 

654: Figure \ref{contr_mn} shows the relation of fitted host galaxy

655: parameters to the contrast ratio between the host galaxy and the added

656: central point source, for the 1491 (of 4050) sources that are not

657: eliminated by the combination of $\mcsqnu$ and $\sigr$ cuts. These

658: include galaxies with all possible values of input point-source magnitude. 

659: 

660: 

661: \begin{figure}

662: %\centerline{\epsfig{figure=contour_dmdn.eps,width=6in}}

663: \plotone{f7.eps}

664: \caption{ Accuracy of the host galaxy magnitude (left) and S\'ersic

665: index (right) as a function of the ratio of intrinsic galaxy

666: luminosity to the added point-source luminosity.  In both figures,

667: contour plots are overlaid on the data points. Weighted least-squares

668: fits to all data points (dashed lines) indicates that the recovery of

669: galaxy magnitude and S\'ersic index is very slightly correlated with

670: host-to-PS contrast ratio. Excluding points with $\lcontr < -0.6$, the

671: weighted least-squares fit (solid lines) is consistent with zero slope

672: (i.e., no correlation between Host-to-PS contrast ratio) for

673: both plots.  }

674: \label{contr_mn}

675: \end{figure}

676: 

677: The left panel of Figure \ref{contr_mn} shows the difference between

678: the fitted host galaxy magnitude and original galaxy magnitude for the

679: PS-added models. The recovered magnitudes are no different on average

680: than the correct parameters. For galaxies with contrast ratios of at

681: least $\lcontr <-0.6$, the host galaxy magnitude is well recovered,

682: such that a weighted least-squares fit to those data with contrast

683: ratios $\contr$ greater than 1:4 has a slope within 1\% of zero,

684: indicating no correlation between contrast ratio and recovered host

685: galaxy magnitude.  The scatter in the plot indicates that, while the

686: sample as a whole is well-recovered, individual galaxies may have

687: large differences in recovered parameters due to the presence of a

688: point source.  We see this result again in the right panel, which

689: shows the difference between fitted and original S\'ersic index as a

690: function of host-to-PS contrast ratio. The inaccuracy in S\'ersic

691: index is larger when the added central point source is more than 4

692: times as bright as the host galaxy: the slope of the weighted

693: least-squares fit is 6\% for $\Delta I_{AB}$ and 11\% for $\Delta

694: n$. With proper error cuts, and for galaxies brighter than $1/4$ of

695: the point-source magnitude, our host galaxy fits are not significantly

696: contaminated by the central point source. However, the presence of a

697: point source increases the uncertainty in fit parameters.

698: 

699: Figure \ref{n_m_avg} shows the median change in fitted parameters with

700: input point-source magnitude. For very bright added point sources

701: $\left( I_{AB} = 21\mbox{, }\left<\mbox{Host:PS} \right> \approx

702: 1:11\right)$, all fit parameters deviate from their

703: initially-determined values. The median S\'ersic index is low by

704: approximately $\Delta n = 1.75$, indicating that on average, galaxies

705: with such bright point sources could be classified as disk-dominated

706: even if they have more bulge-dominated intrinsic morphologies. The

707: distribution is also very wide in the brightest-point-source bin: for

708: such low host-to-PS contrast ratios, the S\'ersic index is essentially

709: completely uncertain. For fainter point-source magnitudes, recovery of

710: the S\'ersic index is far more reliable, although the uncertainty

711: (indicated by the width of the distribution in each bin) is

712: considerably larger than that reported by the fitting routine.

713: 

714: The ratio of host and point-source luminosities is also incorrect at

715: the brightest point-source magnitudes: in these situations the typical

716: fitted point-source magnitude is very close to the input value, and

717: the fitted host magnitude is too low (bright) by approximately 1.45

718: dex. Interestingly, the deviations in magnitude do not add to zero:

719: because bright point-sources are also slightly too bright, the total

720: magnitude is also underestimated (too bright) in the presence of a

721: very bright central point source.

722: 

723: For point sources brighter than $I_{AB} = 24$, the distribution of

724: recovered host galaxy magnitude is wide, such that the 68\% confidence

725: intervals span more than 1 dex in all bins. For those point sources

726: with magnitudes fainter than 24 (which is approximately equal to the

727: average magnitude of our initial galaxy sample), on the other hand,

728: the model's host galaxy magnitude is well recovered.

729: 

730: Since the faintest point-source magnitudes ($I_{AB} = 28$, $29$) are

731: below the $10\sigma$ point-source detection limit of our band, the

732: fitted point-source magnitude for these cases is often at least 1 mag

733: brighter than the input point-source magnitude, with 68\% confidence

734: intervals larger than 1 mag.

735: 

736: The S\'ersic indices for the host galaxies are within $\Delta n =

737: 0.25$ on average for most values of the added point-source

738: magnitude. Since disks are generally more extended than bulges, the

739: S\'ersic parameter is lower (on average) when the central point source

740: is so bright that the central portion of the host galaxy is dwarfed by

741: the light in the wings of the central point source.  In all but the

742: brightest cases, however, the median difference between the model

743: S\'ersic index and the no-point-source index is smaller than the size

744: of the morphological bins discussed for a typical AGN sample

745: (e.g., \citet{sanchez04,ballo07}, S08), so it is unlikely that

746: a significant fraction has been mis-classified as disk-like or

747: bulge-like due to the presence of a central point source.

748: 

749: The rms values of the recovered S\'ersic indices and recovered host

750: magnitudes for each input point-source magnitude are given in Table

751: \ref{rms_params}.

752: 

753: 

754: \begin{figure}

755: %\centerline{\epsfig{figure=dn_dm_dmpavg_21-29.eps,width=6in}}

756: \plotone{f8.eps}

757: \caption{Median change in S\'ersic index $n$ (upper), host magnitude

758: (middle), and point-source magnitude (lower) versus input point-source

759: magnitude. Each point represents the median value of all the galaxies

760: with the given input point-source magnitude whose fits pass the

761: \csqnu\ and $\sigr$ cut described in the text. The host S\'ersic

762: indices (top panel) are generally well-recovered for all but the

763: brightest input point sources. The host magnitudes (middle panel) are

764: also well-recovered in all but the brightest input point-source bin,

765: with the error bars (representing the width of the distribution

766: encompassing 68\% of sources) increasing with increasing point-source

767: strength. Point-source magnitudes (bottom panel) are recovered well

768: until the input magnitude is fainter than the published $10\sigma$

769: point-source detection limit of the data. }

770: \label{n_m_avg}

771: \end{figure}

772: 

773: 

774: 

775: %\clearpage

776: 

777: \subsection{Fully Simulated Galaxies}

778: 

779: \subsubsection{Input Parameter Recovery}

780: 

781: For our 12,592 fully simulated GOODS galaxies, we apply the error cut

782: determined above, using a combination of \csqnu\ and $\sigr$ to

783: distinguish good fits from poor fits.  Within the single component

784: galaxies, this error cut results in 706 of 896 B type galaxies with

785: ``good'' fits and 708 of 896 D type galaxies with ``good'' fits.

786: 

787: The recovery of the S\'ersic index for both of these types of galaxy

788: models is shown for the $z=0.125$ sample in Figure \ref{B_D_hist}. If

789: we classify galaxies as bulge-dominated when their fitted $n > 2.0$

790: and disk-dominated when their fitted $n < 2.0$, the level of

791: misclassification based on these simulations is less than 15\% for AGN

792: host disk galaxies and less than 10\% for AGN host bulge

793: galaxies. Fewer than 10\% of inactive disks are misclassified as bulges

794: using the above cut; no inactive bulges are misclassified as

795: disks. For any local sample of single-component galaxies (the simplest

796: possible case), then, the S\'ersic parameter is a very reliable

797: indicator of morphological type.

798: 

799: \begin{figure}

800: %\centerline{\epsfig{figure=B_D_hist_1.eps,width=6in}}

801: \plotone{f9.eps}

802: \caption{Recovery of S\'ersic index $n$ for the single-S\'ersic fits

803: to simulated single-component B and D AGN host galaxies (blue, top)

804: and inactive galaxies (black, bottom). For the bulge-dominated B

805: galaxies (solid histograms), the average fitted S\'ersic index is

806: slightly higher than the input $n=4$ in both AGN and inactive

807: galaxies; however, these are unambiguously classified as

808: bulge-dominated galaxies, with fewer than 10\% of bulge host galaxies

809: mis-classified as disk-dominated galaxies and no bulge inactive

810: galaxies mis-classified as disks.  For the disk-dominated D galaxies

811: (dot-dash histogram), the recovery of the input $n=1$ is also

812: excellent, with 13\% of D host galaxies and 9\% of D inactive galaxies

813: having $n > 2.0$.  The separation between the typical fitted $n$ for B

814: and D galaxies is robust and indicates that we can use the S\'ersic

815: index as a strong indicator of galaxy morphology for single-component

816: local galaxies with and without central point sources.  }

817: \label{B_D_hist}

818: \end{figure}

819: 

820: 

821: \begin{figure}

822: %\centerline{\epsfig{figure=BDrat_hist_L.eps,width=6in}}

823: \plotone{f10.eps}

824: \caption{ Recovery of input \BT\ ratio for the fully-simulated

825: two-component galaxies. We define $\Delta \mBTlet > 0$ to mean the

826: fit was more bulge-like than the input galaxy. A Gaussian fit to the

827: Host galaxy distribution gives $\sigma_{BT} = 0.04$, but there is a

828: large asymmetric tail on each distribution indicating that the samples

829: are skewed toward more bulge-like fits than the intrinsic

830: distribution. 36\% of host galaxies and 21\% of inactive galaxies have

831: $\Delta \mBTlet > 0.15$.}

832: \label{BDrat_hist}

833: \end{figure}

834: 

835: The recovery of the $z=0.125$ sample of two-component (B+D) galaxies

836: is shown in Figure \ref{BDrat_hist}. The fitted \BT\ light ratio,

837: B/Tot $= L_B/\left(L_B + L_D\right)$, is within $\left| \Delta \mBTlet

838: \right| \leq 0.15$ for 50\% of our AGN host sample and 66\% of our

839: inactive sample. A Gaussian fit to the data in Figure \ref{BDrat_hist}

840: gives an estimate of uncertainty in the \BT\ parameter of

841: $\sigma_{\mbox{\tiny B/Tot}} = 0.04$. However, the contamination from

842: very deviant fits (i.e., the wings of the histogram in Figure

843: \ref{BDrat_hist}) is large. Approximately 14\% and 13\% of host and

844: inactive galaxies remaining in the sample after our error cut have

845: $\Delta \mBTlet < -0.15$, and 36\% of host galaxies and 21\% of

846: inactive galaxies have $\Delta \mBTlet > 0.15$.

847: 

848: Figure \ref{fBT_CR} shows the ratio of fitted-to-input \BT\ flux ratio

849: as a function of the intrinsic contrast ratio between the host galaxy

850: and the central point source. The median and 1$\sigma$ error bars

851: (defined here as the values encompassing 68\% of the points in each

852: bin) for the distribution of simulated galaxies without central point

853: sources are plotted for comparison at a value of $L_{host}/L_{PS} =

854: 3$. In general, the presence of a central point source skews the fits

855: to slightly high values of the \BT\ ratio. For galaxies where the

856: central point source is very bright, the spread is higher, such that a

857: galaxy may fit to a \BT\ ratio twice the intrinsic value and still be

858: within 1$\sigma$ of the median value. Based on this, one could attempt

859: to correct the \BT\ ratio for the presence of a central point source,

860: but a \BT\ ratio fitted to a host galaxy could be overestimated by as

861: much as 100\%.

862: 

863: \begin{figure}

864: %\plotone{fBT_CR_in_z1.eps}

865: \plotone{f11.eps}

866: \caption{Ratio of fitted-to-input \BT\ vs. input host-to-PS contrast

867: ratio.  Points plotted are the median values in each bin, with error

868: bars marking the range of values containing the central 68\% of the

869: points in each bin. The open circle shows simulated galaxies with no

870: added point source; this bin recovers input \BT\ ratio closely, with a

871: tail of high \BT\ values. For simulated host galaxies, the recovered

872: \BT\ ratio is generally high by 10-20\%, and the distribution of

873: points in each bin is wider for galaxies where the central point

874: source is at least as bright as the host galaxy.  }

875: \label{fBT_CR}

876: \end{figure}

877: 

878: 

879: This large tail of high fitted \BT\ values has several causes. The

880: radius of the bulge may converge to an unphysically high value; this

881: causes the luminosity \BT\ ratio to skew high.  This appears to be

882: slightly more common when the intrinsic luminosity of the galaxy is

883: disk-dominated, i.e., with $\mBTlet \leq 0.3$. In addition, if

884: the total source magnitude is not well-conserved during the fit, the

885: \BT\ ratio typically deviates from the input value by at least 10\%

886: (high or low). This is more likely to occur when the bulge and disk

887: components have approximately equal luminosity, or the bulge is slightly

888: brighter [$0.45 \leq \mBTlet \leq 0.7$].

889: 

890: About 18\% of the two-component AGN host fits result in either a bulge

891: or disk half-light radius that is unphysically low given the input

892: sizes of both in our sample. These fits span the entire range of

893: $\Delta \mBTlet$ values, and are far more common when the central

894: point source is intrinsically bright. For the locally-defined sample,

895: 79\% of B+D bulge components and 63\% of B+D disk components with

896: fitted $r_e < 5.0$ pixels are those with the brightest central point

897: source; this comprises 26\% of all two-component sources with the

898: brightest central point source. It is worth noting that these fits

899: typically show residuals that clearly indicate a poor fit, and they

900: can therefore be removed from the well-fitted sample on visual

901: inspection, or followed up with individual fitting to improve the fit.

902: 

903: \begin{figure}

904: %\plotone{rdiff_all_z1.eps}

905: \plotone{f12.eps}

906: \caption{ Histograms of the change in half-light radius for pure bulge

907: (top left), pure disk (top right), B+D bulge (bottom left) and B+D

908: disk (bottom right) fits to simulated AGN hosts. The majority of fits

909: converge to a value that is equal to or greater than the input value

910: of the half-light radius for that source or source component. The

911: small discrete peaks at negative $\Delta r_e$ values are comprised

912: mostly of fits for which $r_e$ converged to an unphysical value for

913: our sample, $r_e < 5$ pixels. Single-S\'ersic fits typically recover

914: the sizes of pure bulges and pure disks with about the same level of

915: success. However, the local sample of two-component galaxies indicates

916: that bulge component radii are more likely to converge to a value that

917: is at least 50 pixels too high, or at least twice the intrinsic

918: radius. Local disk components are more likely to be underestimated,

919: with a lower $\sigma$ for the high-$\Delta r_e$ distribution than for

920: B+D bulges. }

921: \label{rdiff_hist}

922: \end{figure}

923: 

924: 

925: The recovery of bulge and disk sizes in our sample is shown in Figure

926: \ref{rdiff_hist}. The distribution of $\Delta r_e$ for

927: single-component galaxies (pure bulges and disks) is sharply peaked at

928: a value of $\Delta r \approx 0$ (in pixels). A total of 66\% of pure

929: bulges and 65\% of pure disks recover their input radii within $-1

930: \leq \Delta r_e \leq 12$ pixels. The discrete peaks at negative

931: $\Delta r_e$ represent those fits that converged to unphysically low

932: values ($r_e < 5.0$ pixels for the local sample). Less than 5\% of

933: single-component fits converged to extremely large radii ($\Delta r_e

934: > 150$ pixels).

935: 

936: The radius parameter converges to extremely high values far more

937: frequently for the two-component fits, and with higher frequency for

938: the bulge components of two-component galaxies (20\%, B+D bulges) than

939: for the disk components of two-component galaxies (13\%, B+D

940: disks). The high-$\Delta r_e$ tail for B+D bulges is a result of

941: confusion with the central point source of the simulated AGN host. Not

942: only are bulges more compact than disks within our B+D galaxies (and

943: typically within real galaxies as well), but the slope of their light

944: profile more closely resembles the light profile of the ACS PSF than

945: does an exponential disk profile. This can lead to uncertain bulge

946: radii and magnitudes, especially when the intrinsic luminosity of the

947: bulge is similar to that of the central point source. Disk components

948: of B+D galaxies are not as readily confused with the central point

949: source: their fit typically fails when the surface brightness of the

950: disk component is too low compared to the bulge and point source

951: components.

952: 

953: 

954: \begin{figure}

955: %\plotone{dCR_dBD_divmr.eps}

956: \plotone{f13.eps}

957: \caption{ Deviation from input host-to-PS contrast ratio versus

958: deviation in \BT\ ratio. Fits located at (0, 0) perfectly recovered

959: the input \BT\ ratio and the Galaxy-AGN luminosity ratio

960: $\contr$. Requiring that the difference between the half-light radii

961: of the host be no more than 90 pixels larger than that observed for

962: the entire source ($\Delta r_e \leq 90$), that the total source

963: magnitude luminosity be conserved to better than $\left|\Delta

964: m_{tot}\right| \leq 0.5$ mag, and that the radii of neither the bulge

965: nor the disk component be less than 5 pixels (typically indicative of

966: a poor fit) cuts 81\% of sources with $\left|\Delta

967: \left(\mbox{B}/\mbox{Tot}\right)\right| > 0.15$, and retains 83\% of

968: sources with $\left|\Delta \left(\mbox{B}/\mbox{Tot}\right)\right|

969: \leq 0.15$.}

970: \label{dCR_dBT}

971: \end{figure}

972: 

973: Figure \ref{dCR_dBT} demonstrates a possible method of separating good

974: from poor two-component fits. After removing those fits where either

975: the bulge or disk converged to $r_e < 5.0$ pixels, additionally

976: requiring that the total source magnitude be conserved to within

977: $\left|\Delta m_{tot}\right| < 0.5$ (determined by comparing the

978: fitted total source magnitude with a measured, aperture-corrected

979: magnitude), and/or that the flux-weighted effective radius of the fit

980: be no more than 90 pixels larger than the measured half-light source

981: radius\footnote{This value was chosen because it is twice the observed

982: radius of the largest source in our sample.}  removes 81\% of sources

983: with $\left|\Delta \mBTlet\right| > 0.15$ and retains 83\% of sources

984: within 0.15 of the input \BT\ ratio. This also constrains the fitted

985: host-to-PS contrast ratio to within 8\% of the input value for 95\% of

986: the remaining ``good'' sample. However, this selection biases the

987: remaining sample toward sources with faint central nuclei and

988: preferentially retains bulge-dominated sources with intrinsic $\mBTlet

989: > 0.7$. In general, the result of two-component fits should be used

990: with caution, even for a local, well-understood sample.

991: 

992: \subsubsection{Detection of Central Point Sources}

993: 

994: We established in \S 4.1.1 that central point sources can be recovered

995: on average for a sample of simulated host galaxies created from the

996: addition of a central point source to a real GOODS inactive galaxy,

997: although the fraction of recovered point sources varies depending on the

998: luminosity of the added point source. Using the \csqnu\ cut previously

999: determined from this sample, we now examine the recovery of point

1000: sources with redshift and intrinsic morphological type. Figure

1001: \ref{PSfrac_all} shows the fraction of fits in which the central point

1002: source was detected for our entire sample of fully simulated

1003: galaxies. In this case, our criteria for a ``detected'' point source

1004: is simple: the point source is considered undetected only if the

1005: magnitude parameter converged to a value considerably fainter than the

1006: detection limit of our simulated data ($m_{PS} = 27.1$ for our sample;

1007: \citet{giavalisco04}). Thus Figure \ref{PSfrac_all} shows the fraction

1008: of fits for which any point-source magnitude was recovered, rather

1009: than those fits for which the magnitude is close to the intrinsic

1010: magnitude.

1011: 

1012: Figure \ref{PSfrac_all} indicates that the point source is detected

1013: within the fit at least 90\% of the time for all values of input

1014: $\lcontr$. The fraction is lowest when the point source and host

1015: galaxy have about equal luminosity. The detection fraction increases

1016: to more than 95\% at the highest values of input $\lcontr$, even for

1017: cases in which the point source is 100 times fainter than its host

1018: galaxy.  This is due to the fact that the convergence fraction is

1019: lower for these bins; fits where the central point source may not have

1020: been detected are less likely to converge, driving the detection

1021: fraction higher for those fits that did converge.

1022: 

1023: 

1024: \begin{figure}

1025: %\plotone{PSfrac_CRbin_all_1panel.eps}

1026: \plotone{f14.eps}

1027: \caption{ Fraction of point sources recovered for single-component

1028: fits to all simulated AGN host galaxies. The fraction of recovered

1029: point sources is slightly lower when the with input $\lcontr$ is near

1030: zero ($L_{PS} \approx L_{host}$ or slightly fainter). However, even in

1031: these cases, the fits detect at least 90\% of point sources.

1032: }

1033: \label{PSfrac_all}

1034: \end{figure}

1035: 

1036: 

1037: While we are primarily interested in the recovery of host galaxy

1038: parameters and optical detection of central AGNs, we also want to

1039: characterize the fraction of spurious optical point-source

1040: identifications. Thus, Figure \ref{PSp0_hist} shows the results of a

1041: S\'ersic + PS fit to \emph{inactive} galaxies with no intrinsic

1042: central point source. We find a significant difference in the number

1043: of false point-source detections between pure disk and pure bulge

1044: galaxies. Only $\sim 1$\% of pure disk inactive galaxies

1045: detect\footnote{We define ``detected'' as having been fit with a

1046: magnitude brighter than the published $10\sigma$ point-source

1047: detection limit of the GOODS survey (from which we take our noise

1048: properties).} a central point source when none are present. However, we

1049: find a point source nearly one-quarter of the time when the simulated

1050: galaxy is a pure bulge. Because our total sample is composed of equal

1051: numbers of pure bulge and pure disk galaxies, this gives an overall

1052: false detection of a central point source in 12\% of inactive

1053: galaxies. However, this effect is strongly dependent on morphology:

1054: fits to elliptical galaxies are far more likely to detect a faint

1055: point source when none are present than fits to disk galaxies. Host

1056: galaxy studies estimating the uncertainty in the fraction of hosts

1057: with detected optical point sources should therefore consider the

1058: morphological composition of their data sample: if the sample contains

1059: mostly elliptical galaxies, the number of false detections could be as

1060: high as 25\%.

1061: 

1062: \begin{figure}

1063: %\plotone{PSp0_hist_z_all_cut.eps}

1064: \plotone{f15.eps}

1065: \caption{ Distribution of fitted point-source magnitude for simulated

1066: \emph{inactive} galaxies. Only 1\% of pure disk inactive galaxies

1067: (blue dashed histogram) recovers point-source magnitudes brighter than the

1068: $10\sigma$ detection limit (dotted line) for the GOODS survey (from

1069: which our noise properties are taken). When the galaxy is a pure bulge

1070: (black histogram), however, a point source is found above the

1071: $10\sigma$ threshold in approximately 25\% of fits. The overall

1072: percentage of fits where a point-source is found when none exists is

1073: 12\% (for both pure bulges and pure disks combined), but this number

1074: is strongly dependent on intrinsic morphology.  }

1075: \label{PSp0_hist}

1076: \end{figure}

1077: 

1078: 

1079: \subsubsection{Redshift Effects on AGN Host Galaxies}

1080: 

1081: At higher redshifts, surface-brightness dimming causes loss of

1082: extended components, and an unresolved central AGN corresponds to a

1083: larger fraction of a galaxy's central region at high redshift for

1084: fixed spatial resolution. Because our GOODS data sample (S08), as well

1085: as those of others \citep{sanchez04,grogin05,ballo07,alonsoherrero08},

1086: extends to $z \approx 1$, we consider the quantitative effects of

1087: redshift on morphological classification.

1088: 

1089: \begin{figure}

1090: %\plotone{nvz_B_D.eps}

1091: \plotone{f16.eps}

1092: \caption{ 

1093: Dependence of galaxy classification on redshift for

1094: simulated bulge galaxies ($n_{\mbox{\tiny in}}=4$; top, solid lines)

1095: and disk galaxies ($n_{\mbox{\tiny in}}=1$; bottom, dot-dashed lines)

1096: with (blue) and without (black) central point sources. The y-axis is

1097: the fraction of galaxies correctly identified as bulges or disks given

1098: a threshold of $n>2.0$ for bulge-dominated classification and $n<2.0$

1099: for a galaxy with a significant disk. Although we have here adopted a

1100: cutoff of $n=2.0$, the results change by less than 5\% when we change

1101: the cutoff to values between $1.5 < n < 3$.

1102: }

1103: \label{nvz_B_D}

1104: \end{figure}

1105: 

1106: After applying data cuts requiring $\Delta r_e \leq 90$ pixels and

1107: $\left|\Delta m_{tot}\right| \leq 0.5$ to our results at all

1108: redshifts, we assess the reliability of using the S\'ersic index to

1109: classify single-component galaxies at different redshifts in Figure

1110: \ref{nvz_B_D}. We have ``classified'' a galaxy as bulge-dominated if

1111: it has $n > 2.0$ and disk-dominated if it has $n < 2.0$. Figure

1112: \ref{nvz_B_D} then shows the fraction of correctly classified B- and

1113: D-type galaxies at each redshift. In general, the classification of

1114: pure bulges and pure disks is highly reliable for AGN host galaxies

1115: and point sources. At all redshifts, disks and bulges are correctly

1116: classified at least 90\% of the time using these data cuts. Without

1117: these cuts, the misidentification rate increases to as much as 15\%.

1118: 

1119: \begin{figure}

1120: %\plotone{rpeak_zavg_all.eps}

1121: \plotone{f17.eps}

1122: \caption{ Recovery of input radii for pure and B+D bulges (top panel)

1123: and disks (bottom panel). Each point represents the peak of the

1124: distribution of single-component (black, solid lines) and

1125: two-component (green, dashed lines) $\Delta r_e$ at each redshift. The

1126: numbers next to each point indicate the percentage of completed fits

1127: with $r_e > 5$ and $\Delta r_e \leq 90$ pixels, so that the fit

1128: converged to a physical value and would not be rejected by eye based

1129: on the fit residuals. While median fitted bulge and disk sizes are

1130: generally accurate to within 1 kpc at all redshifts, the presence of a

1131: central point source increases the spread in the distribution by up to

1132: a factor of 3. In addition, the majority of bulge fits within B+D

1133: galaxies at $z \approx 1$ are not able to converge to a sensible value

1134: for the bulge radius.}

1135: \label{rpeak_zavg}

1136: \end{figure}

1137: 

1138: The average recovery of input half-light radius for all our simulated

1139: galaxies (pure bulges and disks as well as B+D bulges and disks) is

1140: shown in Figure \ref{rpeak_zavg}. Each point represents the peak of

1141: the distribution of $\Delta r_e$ values for a single galaxy

1142: type/component in each redshift bin. The error bars give the limits of

1143: the central 68\% of data points; the peak of each distribution is

1144: generally not coincident with the numerical ``center'' of each

1145: bin. Single-component S\'ersic fits to pure bulges and disks recover

1146: the radius reliably at all redshifts. Fitted radii to bulge and

1147: disk components in B+D hosts recover the intrinsic radius of the

1148: component to within 1 kpc on average; however, the errors are larger

1149: and these fits are more uncertain. For example, the width (containing

1150: 68\% of sources) of the $\Delta r_e$ distribution of $z \approx 1$

1151: pure disks is less than 1 kpc, whereas the width of the $z \approx 1$

1152: distribution of $\Delta r_e$ for disk components in B+D hosts is

1153: approximately 3 kpc. Although the average recovery of bulge and disk

1154: component radii in B+D galaxies is accurate to within 1 kpc,

1155: individual radii are highly uncertain.

1156:  

1157: The percentage of sources remaining after removing fits with incorrect

1158: total magnitudes and unphysically low or high values of $r_e$, as

1159: previously discussed, is also shown for each bin in Figure

1160: \ref{rpeak_zavg}. The number of fits for which the fitted $r_e < 5$

1161: pixels remains relatively constant with redshift, but the number of

1162: fits for which the fitted $r_e$ value diverges increases with

1163: redshift, more dramatically so for bulges than for disks. In the $z

1164: \approx 1$ sample, fewer than 40\% of bulges within two-component fits

1165: have fitted radii within a reasonable physical range. This is likely

1166: due not just to the presence of the additional disk component, but

1167: also to the fact that the bulge is much smaller at higher redshift

1168: compared to the size of the central point source. In these cases, the

1169: bulge and the point source can be confused, often resulting in a

1170: divergent bulge fit. This happens less frequently for disks for two

1171: reasons: first, disks are generally more extended than bulges, and

1172: second, the radial profile of the ACS PSF more closely resembles that

1173: of a de Vaucouleurs bulge than an exponential disk.

1174: 

1175: Because different fractions of galaxies are removed from the sample at

1176: different redshifts (and for different bulge sizes), the morphological

1177: composition of a galaxy sample may be altered from its intrinsic

1178: composition simply by applying a reasonable cut on the morphological

1179: fit parameters, even if this cut is applied evenly (as it is in Figure

1180: \ref{rpeak_zavg}).

1181: 

1182: \begin{figure}

1183: %\plotone{nclass_all_z.eps}

1184: \plotone{f18.eps}

1185: \caption{ Fraction of galaxies classified as bulges with

1186: redshift. Blue circles represent simulated AGN hosts, and black

1187: triangles represent simulated inactive galaxies (error bars determined

1188: using Poisson statistics). Because the initial simulation contains

1189: equal numbers of pure bulges and disks, the actual bulge fraction is

1190: 0.5 for both samples. At the lowest redshift bin, these fractions are

1191: recovered to within 1\% for both samples. The sample of simulated AGN

1192: host galaxies is mis-classified by up to 2\% (0.02), and the inactive

1193: sample is mis-classified by up to 5\%. Uncertainties are higher for

1194: inactive galaxies due to lower numbers of galaxies in the inactive

1195: sample, but in both cases the recovered fractions are consistent with

1196: the correct fraction within the uncertainties.}

1197: \label{nclass_zavg}

1198: \end{figure}

1199: 

1200: Figure \ref{nclass_zavg} thus shows the fitted morphological fraction

1201: of bulges with redshift of our simulated sample of pure bulges and

1202: disks for both AGN hosts and inactive galaxies. After applying the

1203: radius and magnitude cuts above (i.e., removing only unphysical

1204: fit results from the sample), we calculate the fraction of galaxies in

1205: each redshift bin that would be classified as bulge-dominated

1206: according to an $n > 2$ cut. For a perfectly-recovered sample, this

1207: fraction would be $N(n>2.0)/N_{tot} = 0.5$ at all redshifts because

1208: we simulated equal numbers of bulges and disks. However, the

1209: convergence rate for pure bulge and disk fits is slightly different at

1210: each redshift, and even our set of reasonable and conservative error

1211: cuts removes different fractions of bulge and disk galaxies at each

1212: redshift. While this does affect the morphological composition of the

1213: sample at each redshift, its effect is small: the morphological

1214: fraction of $n>2$ galaxies for AGN hosts is typically within 2\% of

1215: the intrinsic fraction at all redshifts. The inactive galaxy

1216: morphological fraction is within 5\% of the intrinsic fraction at all

1217: redshifts; both samples are consistent within their uncertainties with

1218: the intrinsic fraction.

1219: 

1220: \begin{figure}

1221: %\plotone{n_BDavg_z.eps}

1222: \plotone{f19.eps}

1223: \caption{Fitted S\'ersic index vs. input \BT\ ratio, for simulated

1224: normal galaxies (black triangles) and galaxies with added point

1225: sources (blue circles). At all redshifts (low to high, top to bottom)

1226: the fit correctly finds disks ($n=1$) at $\mBT = 0$ and bulges ($n=4$)

1227: at $\mBT = 1$. However, some galaxies fit to S\'ersic values of $n

1228: \geq 4$ despite having up to 30\% of their intrinsic light from a

1229: disk. Galaxies with intermediate values of $n$ ($2 < n < 4$) likely

1230: have bulges that contribute between 20\% and 70\% of the total galaxy

1231: light. Points plotted are the median of each bin's distribution; error

1232: bars mark the widths of each distribution enclosing the central 68\%

1233: of sources in the bin.}

1234: \label{n_BDavg_z}

1235: \end{figure}

1236: 

1237: For the two-component B+D galaxies, the dependence of fitted S\'ersic

1238: index on input \BT\ ratio is shown in Figure \ref{n_BDavg_z}. We see a

1239: general dependence of fitted $n$ on the intrinsic \BT\ ratio. The

1240: relation changes somewhat as the sample is redshifted, but at all

1241: redshifts the S\'ersic index indicates that galaxies may be fitted

1242: with a S\'ersic index indicative of a pure bulge ($n=4$) even in cases

1243: where a disk is present and contributing up to 45\% of the total

1244: galaxy light. However, a fitted S\'ersic index consistent with an

1245: exponential disk ($n=1$) typically indicates very little bulge

1246: contribution ($< 10$\%); galaxies fitted with $n<1.5$ have $\mBT <

1247: 0.2$. Intermediate values of the S\'ersic parameter, $1.5<n<3$,

1248: generally indicate a galaxy with both bulge and disk, but the \BT\

1249: ratio may vary between $0.2 \leq \mBT \leq 0.65$, indicating that it

1250: is impossible to determine with a single-component fit whether a host

1251: galaxy with an intermediate S\'ersic index is intrinsically bulge- or

1252: disk-dominated. Given that two-component B+D fits are also uncertain

1253: in the presence of a central point source, we conclude that

1254: determination of the \BT\ ratio is uncertain by at least 20\% in AGN

1255: host galaxies, with a higher uncertainty for hosts with intermediate

1256: S\'ersic indices and/or fitted $\mBT$.

1257: 

1258: 

1259: Figure \ref{mp_mhost_CR} shows the recovery of detected input

1260: point sources, hosts, and \CR\ contrast ratios for our simulated

1261: galaxies (B, D, and B+D) at all redshifts. Again we see that for the

1262: local sample, the recovery is excellent: not only are point sources

1263: detected at least 95\% of the time, but the recovered magnitude is

1264: typically within at least $0.1\pm 0.12$ dex of the intrinsic

1265: magnitude. In fact, point-source recovery is very good at all

1266: redshifts: the recovered magnitude is within 0.5 dex of the input

1267: magnitude for all redshifts and input point-source magnitudes.

1268: 

1269: The dispersion in recovered values for the host galaxy magnitude is

1270: higher than that of point-source magnitude values for all

1271: redshifts. While in the local redshift bin the median recovered host

1272: magnitude is within 0.1 dex of the input magnitude, the central 68\%

1273: of values has a larger spread. At higher redshifts, the host galaxy is

1274: more likely to converge to magnitudes that are too bright compared to

1275: the input magnitude. This effect is more pronounced for sources with a

1276: brighter input point source, as expected. For sources with a bright

1277: point source compared to the host, the difference is $\Delta m_{host}

1278: = 0.6$ for $z > 0.7$. For $z \approx 1$, the distribution of $\Delta

1279: m_{host}$ has an extended tail to negative (too-bright) values: a

1280: significant fraction of high-redshift sources overestimates the host

1281: brightness by up to 1.8 dex regardless of the \CR\ contrast ratio. For

1282: $z < 1$, this tail also exists for all \CR\ values. However, when the

1283: input point source is faint compared to the host, the host magnitude

1284: is fitted to within $-0.8 < \Delta m_{host} < 0.3$ ($1\sigma$) for

1285: these redshifts.

1286: 

1287: 

1288: \begin{figure}

1289: %\plotone{dmhost_dCR_dmpavg_all.eps}

1290: \plotone{f20.eps}

1291: \caption{ Effects of redshift on recovery of input point sources

1292: (top), input host magnitudes (middle), and \CR\ contrast ratio, shown

1293: for all our simulated host galaxies. Each panel shows the fitted

1294: quantity versus the input point-source magnitude. Each line in

1295: a panel represents a different redshift bin: $z = 0.125$ (blue,

1296: circles), $z = 0.4125$ (green, squares), $z=0.7375$ (orange,

1297: triangles), and $z=1.075$ (red, stars). }

1298: \label{mp_mhost_CR}

1299: \end{figure}

1300: 

1301: 

1302: 

1303: 

1304: \section{Summary and Conclusions}

1305: 

1306: We simulated 54,418 GOODS ACS galaxy images of inactive and AGN host

1307: galaxies at redshifts $0.125 < z < 1.25$, the largest sample of simulated

1308: two-dimensional galaxy morphologies to date.

1309: 

1310: Using a robust initial guess routine followed by batch-fitting, we

1311: performed single-component and bulge-disk host galaxy fits on these

1312: simulated galaxies, while also extracting the central point-source

1313: components of the AGN.

1314: 

1315: For batch-fit galaxies with central point-source components, typically

1316: 60\%-70\% of the fits converge successfully and pass our error cuts. This

1317: percentage can be significantly increased by follow-up case-by-case

1318: fitting, starting from the results of the batch fitting routines. 

1319: 

1320: We reliably extract central point-source magnitudes for the simulated

1321: AGNs using a simple \csqnu\ cut on the recovered fits. Using a

1322: combination $\mcsqnu < 2$ and relative effective radius error cut of

1323: $\left( \sigma_{r_e} / r_e \right) = 0.8 $ removes 88\% of the poor

1324: host galaxy fits while excluding 12\% of good host galaxy fits. The

1325: accurate extraction of AGN and host galaxy parameters does not depend

1326: on the host:AGN contrast ratio $\contr$, as long as it is greater

1327: than 1:4.

1328: 

1329: Galaxy size is recovered to within $\Delta r_e < 1$ kpc for

1330: single-component galaxies. For individual bulges and disks within

1331: two-component bulge + disk host galaxy fits, the distribution of

1332: recovered radii peaks within $\Delta r_e < 1$ kpc at all redshifts,

1333: but the large width of the distributions indicates that individual

1334: fits to bulges and disks within two-component galaxies are highly

1335: uncertain.

1336: 

1337: The average recovered morphological fraction of our sample is within

1338: 5\% of the true fraction, even at $z \approx 1$. Of course, this

1339: number should be regarded as a lower limit since actual data samples

1340: of two-dimensional AGN host galaxy morphologies are likely to be

1341: significantly smaller than our simulations, and thus suffer from more

1342: uncertain statistics.  We recover the correct morphology 99\% of the

1343: time for inactive galaxies out to $z = 1.25$.

1344: 

1345: The average \BT\ ratios are within 10\% of the true ratio at all

1346: redshifts, but with large scatter ($\sim 50$\%). This means that

1347: values for individual hosts are unreliable at the 50\% level, but

1348: statistical population averages are more accurate. Thus, uncertainties

1349: in individual black hole masses determined using $L_{bulge}-M_{BH}$

1350: relations \citep{mclure02, marconi03, ferrarese05} are higher when

1351: using fitted bulge luminosities of AGN host galaxies than those of

1352: inactive galaxies, and may be systematically overestimated due to the

1353: presence of central point sources.

1354: 

1355: Galaxies with S\'ersic $n < 1.5$ are generally disk-dominated, with at

1356: least 80\% of their total light coming from a disky

1357: component. Galaxies with intermediate $1.5 < n < 3$ have larger bulge

1358: components (occupying from 20\% to 65\% of the total galaxy

1359: light). Galaxies that appear to be bulge-dominated, i.e., with

1360: $n \geq 3$, may derive as little as 45\% (depending on redshift) of

1361: their total light from a bulge component; for $n=4$, typically $\sim

1362: 70$\% of the galaxy light comes from the bulge.

1363: 

1364: In fully simulated AGN host galaxies, the central point source is

1365: correctly detected over 90\% of the time, with only weak dependence on

1366: the intrinsic contrast ratio between the host galaxy and point source

1367: or the host morphology. This indicates that a sample of AGN host

1368: galaxy fits to ACS data with $z < 1.25$ is at least 90\%

1369: complete in its detection of central point sources.

1370: 

1371: However, we also detect spurious point sources in simulated galaxies

1372: where no central point source is present, for as little as 1\% or as

1373: high as 25\% of the galaxies, depending on the morphological

1374: composition of the sample. Fits to bulge-dominated galaxies are far

1375: more likely to detect a point source when none are present than fits to

1376: disk-dominated galaxies.

1377: 

1378: \input{tab4.tex}

1379: 

1380: We have used these simulations to evaluate the robustness of our

1381: results for AGN host galaxies observed with ACS. This is important for

1382: assessing the accuracy of recovered host morphologies, as well as the

1383: evolution of AGN host morphology with redshift. All of our results

1384: that can be quantitatively applied to a sample of real AGN host

1385: galaxies are also presented in tabular format (Tables

1386: \ref{rms_params}, \ref{rms_params_CR2}, and \ref{res_summ}).

1387: 

1388: We have performed these simulations using the image depths and noise

1389: properties of GOODS, but they may also be used for other ACS surveys

1390: such as GEMS \citep{rix04}, COSMOS \citep{scoville07}, and AEGIS

1391: \citep{davis07}. The extent to which these simulations are directly

1392: applicable or provide limits on the accuracy of AGN host galaxy

1393: morphological fits for other ACS data depends on the relative depth of

1394: observations in each survey.

1395: 

1396: It is important to note that these results apply to redshifts where

1397: the ACS bands are observing rest-frame optical data, e.g. $z <

1398: 1.25$. As we move into the era of newer telescopes such as the

1399: \emph{James Webb Space Telescope} and observing rest-frame optical

1400: wavelengths at very high resolution becomes possible for higher

1401: redshifts, an understanding of the effects of a central point source

1402: on high-redshift morphologies will become crucial. Simulations to

1403: probe these effects have begun on small scales \citep{dasyra08}, but

1404: more such work is needed.

1405: 

1406: 

1407: 

1408: %{\note Grant acknowledgment: COSMOS and GOODS}

1409: 

1410: \acknowledgments

1411: 

1412: The authors wish to thank C. Conselice, L. Moustakas, P. Natarajan,

1413: S. Ravindranath, and the entire GOODS team for helpful discussions

1414: that improved this work. Thanks especially to C. Peng for making

1415: GALFIT publicly available and for many enlightening discussions. We

1416: acknowledge support from NASA through grants HST-AR-10689.01-A,

1417: HST-GO-09425.13-A and HST-GO-09822.09-A from the Space Telescope

1418: Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of

1419: Universities for Research in Astronomy under NASA contract NAS

1420: 5-26555.

1421: 

1422: \bibliographystyle{apj}

1423: \bibliography{refs}

1424: \end{document}

1425: % LocalWords:  Urry AGN ACS Spitzer GALFIT kpc BD PSF

1426: