1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}
3: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{amsart}
4: %\usepackage{natbib}
5: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}
6: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
7: %\usepackage{lscape}
8: %\usepackage{rotcapt}
9: %\usepackage{rotating}
10: %\usepackage[hang,small,bf]{caption}
11: %\setlength{captionmargin}{20pt}
12: \usepackage{apjfonts}
13: %\usepackage{natbib}
14: %\shorttitle{} \shortauthors{ }
15:
16: \begin{document}
17:
18: %\topmargin 0.5in
19:
20: \newcommand{\CIV}{C~{\sc iv}}
21: \def\sarc{$^{\prime\prime}\!\!.$}
22: \def\arcsec{$^{\prime\prime}\, $}
23: \def\arcmin{$^{\prime}$}
24: \def\kms{${\rm km\, s^{-1}}$}
25: \def\degr{$^{\circ}$}
26: \def\seco{$^{\rm s}\!\!.$}
27: \def\ls{\lower 2pt \hbox{$\;\scriptscriptstyle \buildrel<\over\sim\;$}}
28: \def\gs{\lower 2pt \hbox{$\;\scriptscriptstyle \buildrel>\over\sim\;$}}
29:
30: \def\mbh{$M_{\rm BH}$}
31: \def\mstar{$M_{\rm STAR}$}
32: \def\sis{$\sigma$}
33: \def\vvir{$V_{\rm vir}$}
34: \def\ms{$M_{\rm STAR}$}
35: \def\rhoz{$\rho_{\bullet}(z)$}
36: \def\rhovdf{$\rho_{\rm VDF}(z)$}
37:
38: \def\gsim{\;\rlap{\lower 2.5pt
39: \hbox{$\sim$}}\raise 1.5pt\hbox{$>$}\;}
40: \def\lsim{\;\rlap{\lower 2.5pt
41: \hbox{$\sim$}}\raise 1.5pt\hbox{$<$}\;}
42:
43: \title{The Evolution of the \mbh-\sis$\,$ relation Inferred from the Age Distribution of\\Local Early-Type Galaxies and AGN Evolution}
44:
45: \author{Francesco Shankar\altaffilmark{1}, Mariangela Bernardi\altaffilmark{2}, and Zolt\'{a}n Haiman\altaffilmark{3}}
46: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210; shankar@astronomy.ohio-state.edu}
47: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pennsylvania, 209 South 33rd St, Philadelphia, PA 19104; bernardm@physics.upenn.edu}
48: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy, Columbia University, 550 West 120th Street, New York, NY 10027; zoltan@astro.columbia.edu}
49:
50: %\begin{doublespace}
51:
52: \begin{abstract}
53: We utilize the local velocity dispersion function (VDF) of
54: spheroids, together with their inferred age--distributions, to
55: predict the VDF at higher redshifts ($0<z\lsim 6$), under the
56: assumption that (i) most of the stars in each nearby spheroid formed
57: in a single episode, and (ii) the velocity dispersion \sis\ remained
58: nearly constant afterward. We assume further that a supermassive
59: black hole (BH) forms concurrently with the stars, and within $\pm$
60: 1 Gyr of the formation of the potential well of the spheroid, and
61: that the relation between the mass of the BH and host velocity
62: dispersion maintains the form $M_{\rm BH} \propto \sigma^{\beta}$
63: with $\beta\approx 4$, but with the normalization allowed to evolve
64: with redshift as $\propto (1+z)^{\alpha}$. We compute the BH mass
65: function associated with the VDF at each redshift, and compare the
66: accumulated total BH mass density with that inferred from the
67: integrated quasar luminosity function (LF; the so--called So\l tan
68: argument). This comparison is insensitive to the assumed duty cycle
69: or Eddington ratio of quasar activity, and we find that the match
70: between the two BH mass densities favors a relatively mild redshift
71: evolution, with $\alpha\sim 0.26$, with a positive evolution as
72: strong as $\alpha\gtrsim 1.3$ excluded at the 99\% confidence level.
73: A direct match between the characteristic BH mass in the VDF--based
74: and quasar LF--based BH mass functions also yields a mean Eddington
75: ratio of $\lambda\sim 0.5-1$ that is roughly constant within
76: $0\lesssim z \lesssim 3$. A strong positive evolution in the
77: \mbh-\sis\ relation is still allowed by the data if galaxies
78: increase, on average, their velocity dispersions since the moment of
79: formation, due to dissipative processes.
80: %ZH3: why would ``star formation activity'' increase the velocity dispersion?
81: %prolonged star formation activity and/or major wet mergers.
82: If we assume that the
83: mean velocity dispersion of the host galaxies evolves as
84: %$\sigma(z)=\sigma(0)\times(1+z)^{-\beta}$, we find an upper limit of
85: %ZH3: beta was used above already
86: $\sigma(z)=\sigma(0)\times(1+z)^{-\gamma}$, we find a lower limit of
87: $\gamma\gtrsim 0.23$ for $\alpha\gtrsim 1.5$. The latter estimate
88: represents an interesting constraint for galaxy evolution models and
89: can be tested through hydro simulations. This dissipative model,
90: however, also implies a decreasing $\lambda$ at higher $z$, at
91: variance with several independent studies.
92: \end{abstract}
93:
94: \keywords{: black hole physics -- galaxies: evolution -- galaxies:
95: active}
96:
97: \section{Introduction}
98: \label{sec|intro}
99:
100: It has now been assessed that most, if not all, local galaxies have a
101: supermassive black hole (BH) at their center, the mass of which is
102: tightly correlated with the velocity dispersion \sis$\,$ and other bulk
103: properties of the host
104: galaxy (e.g., Ferrarese \& Merritt 2000; Gebhardt et al. 2000).
105: However, the sample of local galaxies for which the BH sphere of
106: influence has been resolved amounts to only $\sim 30$. It is not
107: clear how representative this small sample is of the whole BH population,
108: and whether the correlations seen in the sample already held in the past.
109: %ZH3: I changed the above
110: %It is therefore
111: %hard to understand on statistical grounds if all local BHs follow
112: %similar correlations as the ones constrained so far, and it is even
113: %more difficult to understand if BHs have always followed similar
114: %correlations also in the past.
115:
116: Peng et al. (2006) have collected a sample of 31 lensed and 18
117: non-lensed Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) at redshifts $z>1.7$. They
118: measured rest-frame $R$-band luminosities from $H$-band fluxes and
119: BH masses by applying virial relations based on emission line
120: widths. They found that the BH-to-host galaxy luminosity at $z\sim
121: 2$ is about the same as the one at $z\sim 0$. Therefore, once the
122: observed rest-frame luminosity is dimmed through passive evolution
123: to $z\sim 0$, at fixed BH mass the ratio BH-to-host luminosity grows
124: significantly,
125: %ZH**: what does this correction refer to?
126: %ZH3: so I still don't understand the above. If galaxies dim with time,
127: % this goes the wrong way (Mbh / Lgal would increase towards low redshift).
128: % You must have meant something else? Please clarify.
129: and the resulting BH-luminosity normalization is several times
130: higher than the local one. Similar results were derived by McLure et
131: al. (2006), who measured the BH-to-host galaxy mass ratio in a
132: sample of radio-loud AGNs in the redshift range $0<z<2$ finding
133: \mbh/\ms$\propto (1+z)^2$. Shields et al. (2006) found that the CO
134: emission lines in a sample of $z>3$ quasars is very narrow,
135: suggesting bulge mass about an order of magnitude lower than
136: measured in the local universe, at fixed BH mass (see also Coppin et
137: al. 2008). Treu et al. (2007) found that the BH masses in a sample
138: of 20 Seyferts galaxies at $z=0.36$ are offset by an amount of
139: $\Delta \log$\mbh$\sim 0.5$ at fixed velocity dispersion, which
140: implies an evolution of \mbh/\ms$\propto (1+z)^{1.5\pm 1.0}$,
141: consistent with that derived by the previous works.
142:
143: On the other hand, Lauer et al. (2007) have discussed several
144: possible biases which may seriously affect these findings. At high
145: redshifts a sample will be biased toward the most luminous AGNs and
146: more massive BHs. Given the observed scatter in the local relations,
147: especially significant in the \mbh-host luminosity relation, these
148: massive BHs will be preferentially associated with the less massive,
149: but more numerous galaxies, yielding a false sign of evolution. When
150: the cumulative mass density of AGNs is taken into account, several
151: authors (e.g., Haiman et al. 2004; Marconi et al. 2004; Silverman et
152: al. 2007; Shankar et al. 2008a, hereafter SWM) have shown that once
153: rescaled by a simple constant, it provides a good match to the
154: cosmological star formation rate density. De Zotti et al. (2006) and
155: SWM have shown that the galaxy stellar mass function at $z\sim 2$,
156: mostly composed of massive early-type galaxies (e.g., Drory et al.
157: 2005), converted into a BH mass density assuming a \mbh/\ms$\,$
158: ratio 3-5 times higher than in the local universe, would imply a BH
159: mass density already close, if not higher, than that inferred in the
160: local universe, leaving no room for further accretion at $z\lesssim
161: 2$, where, in fact, a significant fraction of the total AGN energy
162: output is produced. Recently, Ho et al. (2008) compiled a sample of
163: 154 nearby ($z<0.1$) active galaxies showing substantial ongoing BH
164: growth in the most actively accreting AGNs, where BH growth appears
165: to be delayed with respect to the assembly of the host galaxy.
166:
167: In this paper, we propose a simple, yet robust, way to constrain the
168: degree of redshift evolution in the \mbh-\sis$\,$ relation, that is
169: relatively insensitive to assumptions that relate the SMBH
170: population to quasars. We combine the measured velocity dispersion
171: function (VDF) of local spheroids with a postulated power--law
172: redshift--dependence of the \mbh-\sis$\,$ relation. By comparing the
173: resulting total BH mass density at each redshift with the same
174: quantity inferred from integration of the active galactic nuclei
175: (AGN) luminosity function (see So\l tan 1982), we find the degree of
176: evolution required in the \mbh-\sis$\,$ relation to match these two
177: independent estimates. This approach yields results based on the
178: ``bulk'' of the active BHs at all redshifts, and is therefore
179: relatively insensitive to possible biases which may affect studies
180: performed on small samples of high--redshift luminous quasars (e.g.,
181: Lauer et al. 2007). After describing the sample used in our
182: computations in \S~\ref{sec|data}, we proceed to derive our main
183: results in \S~\ref{sec|results}. These results are discussed further
184: in \S~\ref{sec|conclu}, where we also offer our conclusions.
185: Throughout this paper we use the cosmological parameters
186: $\Omega_m=0.30$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.70$, and $h\equiv H_0/100\, {\rm
187: km\, s^{-1}\, Mpc^{-1}}=0.7$, consistent with the three-- (Spergel
188: et al. 2007) and five--year (Dunkley et al. 2008) data from the {\it
189: Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)}.
190:
191: \section{DATA}
192: \label{sec|data}
193:
194: We have used the sample of early-type galaxies obtained by Bernardi
195: et al. (2006). The sample, extracted from the Sloan Digital Sky
196: Survey (York et al. 2000), contains over 40,000 early-type galaxies,
197: selected for having an apparent magnitude $14.5\lesssim M_r \lesssim
198: 17.75$, extending over a redshift range $0.013 < z < 0.25$, which
199: corresponds to a maximum lookback time of 3 Gyr. The ages of
200: galaxies are computed in two different ways, discussed in detail by
201: Jimenez et al. (2007), from (i) single stellar population spectral
202: fitting, using the MOPED algorithm (Heavens et al. 2000) to
203: determine the full star--formation history of the galaxies, and (ii)
204: using the published ages by Bernardi et al. (2006) which were
205: obtained by fitting the Thomas et al. (2005) $\alpha$-enhanced
206: models to the Lick index absorption features measured from stacked
207: spectra of galaxies with similar properties. The age--distributions
208: at fixed velocity dispersion $\sigma$ are generally broad, but tend
209: to be narrower and centered on older ages for higher values of
210: $\sigma$. Such effects are more marked for age distributions
211: inferred from MOPED (see Figure 1 in Haiman et al. 2007). We will
212: compare results obtained by adopting either the MOPED or the
213: Lick-index age distribution in \S~\ref{sec|results}.
214:
215: The analysis presented in Bernardi et al. (2006) and Haiman et al.
216: (2007) probe velocity dispersions within $2.05\lesssim \log(\sigma/{\rm km\, s^{-1}}) \lesssim 2.45$.
217: Here we extend such
218: analysis including the age distributions of galaxies with velocity
219: dispersion $2.45\lesssim \log(\sigma/{\rm km\, s^{-1}})\lesssim
220: 2.55$. We find that galaxies within this last bin are even older
221: than the oldest galaxies probed by Haiman et al. (2007), confirming
222: and extending the general trend of increasing age for larger
223: $\sigma$. Instead of considering one single bin with mean velocity
224: dispersion $\log(\sigma/{\rm km\, s^{-1}})=2.5$, we have treated the
225: bin as two distinct bins with $\log(\sigma/{\rm km\, s^{-1}})=2.45$
226: and $2.55$ which we have assumed share the same age distributions as
227: the total bin. We have also included an additional bin with
228: $\log(\sigma/{\rm km\, s^{-1}})=2.60$, which we have again assumed to have
229: an age distribution equal\footnote{a more appropriate choice would
230: be to assign older ages to the galaxies with extreme velocity
231: dispersions, given the general trend of older ages for higher
232: $\sigma$, however this would pose even stronger evidence for the
233: downsizing discussed below further strengthening our general
234: conclusions.} to the one with $\log(\sigma/{\rm km\, s^{-1}})=2.45$
235: and $2.55$ (a direct estimate of the ages for these galaxies with
236: the techniques discussed above is highly limited by the low
237: Signal-to-Noise of the spectra). As will be shown in
238: \S~\ref{sec|results} (Figure~\ref{fig|VDF}), this binning in $\log
239: \sigma$ enables us to better probe the statistical evolution of the
240: VDF even at large velocity dispersions, and it has a negligible
241: effect in the resulting cumulative black hole mass density and on
242: our general results.
243:
244: \begin{figure*}[th]
245: %\epsscale{1.}
246: %\plottwo{fig1_1.eps}{fig1_2.eps}
247: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=2.]{fig1.eps}
248: \centering \caption{Velocity dispersion function (VDF) at
249: different redshifts, as labeled, obtained by combining the local VDF
250: with the age distribution of local galaxies
251: (equation~[\ref{eq|VDFz}]). \emph{Left panel}: VDF obtained using
252: the ages computed from Lick indexes; \emph{Right panel}: VDF
253: obtained using the ages computed from the MOPED algorithm (see text
254: for details).} \label{fig|VDF}
255: \end{figure*}
256:
257: \section{RESULTS}
258: \label{sec|results}
259:
260: We first estimate the VDF as a function of redshift $z$. At any $z$,
261: the VDF in a given bin of velocity dispersion $\sigma_i$ is given by
262: all the galaxies which have formed prior to $z$. Therefore to
263: compute $\Phi(\sigma_j,z)$ we subtract from the local census of
264: galaxies with velocity dispersion $\sigma_i$ those galaxies that
265: have an age $\tau$ lower then the lookback time $\tau_j(z)$,
266: %
267: \begin{equation}
268: \Phi(\sigma_i,z)=\left[1-\sum_{\tau<\tau_j}p(\tau_j(z)|\sigma_i)\right]\times
269: \Phi(\sigma_i)\, . \label{eq|VDFz}
270: \end{equation}
271: %
272: Note that $p(\tau_j(z)|\sigma_i)$ refers to the fraction of galaxies
273: with velocity dispersion $\sigma_i$ which have an age of
274: $\tau_j(z)\pm$ 1 Gyr. Therefore $\Phi(\sigma_i,z)$ includes in the
275: $\sigma_i$ bin all galaxies whose ages are within $\pm 1$ Gyr of
276: $\tau_j(z)$. The VDF at $z=0$ is taken from Sheth et al. (2003) and
277: includes the contribution of bulges of spirals. We therefore assume
278: that bulges of spirals and local spheroids within the same bin of
279: velocity dispersion share similar age distributions. However, as
280: discussed in \S~\ref{sec|conclu} below, our results would still hold
281: even if the contribution from spirals were neglected. The
282: statistical uncertainties associated with $\Phi(\sigma,z)$ are
283: computed from equation~(\ref{eq|VDFz}) through error propagation
284: including uncertainties in $p(\tau_j(z)|\sigma)$, given by Haiman et
285: al. (2007; see their Figure 1) and $\Phi(\sigma)$, given by Sheth et
286: al. (2003).
287:
288: Figure~\ref{fig|VDF} shows the VDF obtained from
289: equation~(\ref{eq|VDFz}). The different curves in both panels show
290: $\Phi(\sigma,z)$ at different redshifts, as labeled. At fixed
291: redshift, the symbols indicate the position of the mean in the bin
292: of $\log \sigma$ considered, for which reliable age distributions
293: $p(\tau_j(z)|\sigma_i)$ have been computed. In the left panel of
294: Figure~\ref{fig|VDF}, the $p_{ji}$ distributions have been derived
295: from the Lick--indices method, while the right panel shows the
296: results with the MOPED-based $p_{ji}$ distributions. In our analysis
297: below, we will adopt the $\Phi(\sigma,z)$ implied by the $p_{ji}$
298: derived from Lick indices. However, we will discuss the consequences
299: of the alternate choice on our results in \S~\ref{sec|conclu}. In
300: both cases, we reproduce the conclusion of previous work (e.g.,
301: Trager et al. 2000; Thomas et al. 2005; Bernardi et al. 2006;
302: Jimenez et al. 2007; Haiman et al. 2007) -- that is, we find strong
303: evidence for \emph{downsizing}: on average, galaxies with larger
304: velocity dispersion are formed earlier. This behavior is expected
305: from basic galaxy formation theory: high--redshift galaxies form in
306: a denser universe and therefore preferentially form out of baryonic
307: clumps collapsed in denser, gas rich environments which in turn,
308: induce more dissipation, more compact remnants and higher velocity
309: dispersions. At fixed velocity dispersion, the MOPED ages are higher
310: than inferred from Lick indices, producing a less pronounced
311: evolution in the VDF at $0\lesssim z \lesssim 3$. Theoretical models
312: in which the galaxy velocity dispersion is linked with the virial
313: velocity of the host halo (e.g., Ferrarese 2002) predict similar
314: trends for the VDF as a function of time (Cirasuolo et al. 2005; see
315: also Loeb \& Peebles 2003).
316:
317: \begin{figure*}[th]
318: \epsscale{1.} \centering
319: %\plottwo{fig2_1.eps}{fig2_2.eps}
320: \plotone{fig2.eps} \caption{Comparison between the accreted mass
321: density at each redshift obtained from $\Phi(\sigma,z)$, convolved
322: with the local \mbh-\sis$\,$ relation (\emph{solid} curve and
323: \emph{solid} squares) and the mass density inferred from integration
324: of the Shankar et al. (2008a) AGN luminosity function (\emph{long
325: dashed} curve) and a radiative efficiency of $\epsilon=0.080$; the
326: grey area represents the uncertainty at each time $t$ associated to
327: the mass accreted within $t \pm 1$ Gyr; the \emph{dot-dashed} line
328: is the predicted accreted mass using the Hopkins et al. (2007) AGN
329: luminosity function and a radiative efficiency of
330: $\epsilon=0.104$. The \emph{left panel} shows
331: % $\rho_{\bullet}(t)$ predicted from the VDF assuming that the
332: %ZH3: you must mean rho_VDF here:
333: \rhovdf\ predicted from the VDF assuming that the
334: \mbh-\sis$\,$ relation is independent of redshift, while the
335: \emph{right panel} shows the predictions for the best-fit
336: %ZH3: and here too:
337: % $\rho_{\bullet}(t)$ when the normalization of the \mbh-\sis\
338: \rhovdf\ when the normalization of the \mbh-\sis\
339: relation evolves as $\propto(1+z)^{0.26}$.}
340: \label{fig|rhoBHz}
341: \end{figure*}
342:
343: %Figure~\ref{fig|Number} shows the cumulative number of spheroids
344: %with velocity dispersion greater than a given limit, as labeled. The
345: %left panel shows the results of integrating $\Phi(\sigma,z)$ derived
346: %from the Lick indices, while the right panel shows the integral of
347: %$\Phi(\sigma,z)$ from MOPED. We find that the evolution of the
348: %cumulative number density above the minimum velocity dispersion
349: %derived from the Lick indices of our sample of early-type galaxies,
350: %i.e., $\log(\sigma/{\rm km\,s^{-1}})\sim 2.1$, is in good agreement
351: %with the density evolution of early-type galaxies within $0\lesssim
352: %z \lesssim 1$ inferred from \emph{DEEP2} (Faber et al. 2007, shown
353: %for reference as solid points).
354:
355: The BH mass function implied by the VDF at any time is given by
356: converting $\Phi(\sigma,z)$ to a BH mass function through the
357: \mbh-\sis$\,$ relation and a convolution with a Gaussian with
358: intrinsic scatter of $0.22$ dex.
359: We assume here that $\log$\mbh\ at fixed $\log$\sis\ is given by a
360: Gaussian distribution, with a mean of
361: %
362: \begin{equation}
363: \log \left(\frac{M_{\rm BH}}{M_{\odot}}\right)=8.21+3.83\log
364: \left(\frac{\sigma}{200\, {\rm km\, s^{-1}}}\right)+\alpha
365: \log(1+z)\, ,
366: \label{eq|Mbhz}
367: \end{equation}
368: %
369: and a standard deviation of $\eta=0.22$. This latter value represents
370: the intrinsic scatter as given by Tundo et al. (2007) and as recently
371: confirmed by Shankar \& Ferrarese (2008). By integrating the resulting
372: BH mass function at all times, we derive the total BH mass density
373: \rhovdf, corresponding to BHs in the range of \sis\ and BH mass probed
374: by our sample at each redshift.
375:
376: %Figure~\ref{fig|sigAve} shows the average velocity dispersion as a
377: %function of redshift $\bar{\sigma}(z)$, computed by integrating
378: %$\Phi(\sigma,z)\sigma$ over the range of velocity dispersions probed
379: %by our sample. In both cases, we find that the average velocity
380: %dispersion is almost constant with time, increasing at most by 13\% in
381: %our reference sample and only $\sim 7$\% in the MOPED catalogue.
382: %
383: We then compare \rhovdf$\,$ with the BH mass density obtained by
384: direct integration of the AGN luminosity function $\Phi(L,z)$ from
385: $z=6$ up to redshift $z$. The latter quantity is given by
386: %
387: \begin{equation}
388: \rho_{\bullet}(>\log L_{\rm min},z)=\frac{1-\epsilon}{\epsilon
389: c^2}\int_{z}^6 dz'\int_{\log L_{\rm
390: min}}^{\infty}\Phi(L,z')L\frac{dt}{dz'}d\log L\, .
391: \label{eq|soltan}
392: \end{equation}
393: %
394: Here $\epsilon$ represents the radiative efficiency, and for our
395: numerical calculation, we adopt the bolometric AGN luminosity
396: function $\Phi(L,z)$ from SWM (using the LF from Hopkins et al. 2007
397: gives similar results as discussed below).
398: At each redshift, we integrate equation~(\ref{eq|soltan}) above the
399: minimum luminosity, corresponding to the minimum BH mass probed by
400: the velocity dispersion distribution in our sample via
401: equation~(\ref{eq|Mbhz}), which is $M_{\rm BH, min}\sim 10^7\,
402: M_{\odot}$, in the reference model.
403: The minimum luminosity is then taken to be the Eddington (1922) luminosity corresponding to this BH mass.
404: %computed as $L_{\rm min}=L_{\rm Edd,
405: %min}=1.26\times 10^{38}\, M_{\rm BH, min}/{\rm M_{\odot}}\,\, {\rm
406: %erg\, s^{-1}}$, where $L_{\rm Edd}$ is the Eddington (1922)
407: %luminosity.
408: %ZH**: L_edd should be 1.44e38 (the mean weight per electron is mu_e = 1.15 for the cosmic H+He mix)
409: %ZH3: I just deleted the numerical value from the text. I understand that a 15 percent change in the
410: % Lmin would make no difference to the final conclusions, but I'd still rather not quote an
411: % explicitly wrong value for L_edd here.
412: As we discuss in \S~\ref{sec|conclu} below, the exact choice of the
413: lower limit in the integral of equation~(\ref{eq|soltan}) does not
414: alter our conclusions.
415:
416: The growth rate of an active black hole of mass \mbh$\,$ is then
417: $\dot{M}_{\rm BH}=$\mbh$/t_{\rm ef}$, where the \emph{e}-folding
418: time is (Salpeter 1964)
419: %
420: \begin{equation}
421: t_{\rm ef}=4\times
422: 10^7\left[\frac{\epsilon(1-\epsilon)^{-1}}{0.1}\right]\lambda^{-1}\, {\rm yr},
423: \label{eq|tefold}
424: \end{equation}
425: %
426: %ZH3: lambda was not defined here...
427: where $\lambda$ is the ratio of the luminosity $\epsilon \dot M_{\rm
428: BH} c^2$ to the Eddington luminosity. Figure~\ref{fig|rhoBHz}
429: compares the two independent estimates of BH mass densities. The
430: accreted mass density at each redshift obtained from
431: $\Phi(\sigma,z)$ and the \mbh-\sis$\,$ relation is shown with a
432: solid curve. The solid squares show the redshifts where the mass
433: density was computed. The long-dashed curve represents the mass
434: density inferred from integration of the SWM AGN bolometric
435: luminosity function. Given that the ages of galaxies in the sample
436: have a median associated uncertainty of $\pm$ 1 Gyr, at any time
437: $t(z)$ the BH mass density from AGNs to be compared to \rhovdf$\,$
438: is systematically uncertain by the mass accreted within $t \pm 1$
439: Gyr, which we show as the gray area.\footnote{Note that the $t \pm
440: 1$ Gyr uncertainty is for \rhovdf. However, in our calculations,
441: assigning the uncertainty to $\rho_{\bullet}(z)$ or \rhovdf$\,$
442: makes no difference. If the time of formation of the galaxies is
443: uncertain by $\pm 1$ Gyr, then statistically the \rhovdf at the time
444: $t$ can be compared with the cumulative mass accreted at any time
445: $t\pm$ 1 Gyr.}
446: %ZH**: I am confused why you put the grey area around the LF-inferred rho_BH.
447: % It's really rho_VDF that has this intrinsic uncertainty, so I'd put the grey zone around that curve.
448: %ZH3: I put a footnote remark here for clarity:
449: We choose a constant mean radiative efficiency of $\epsilon=0.080$,
450: which provides a good match to the BH mass density at $z=0$
451: (e.g. Haiman et al. 2004, SWM). It can be immediately inferred from
452: the left panel, which assumes an unevolving \mbh-\sis\ relation, that
453: \rhovdf$\,$ and \rhoz$\,$ are consistent with each other within
454: errors, and therefore a strong evolution with redshift in the
455: \mbh-\sis\ relation is not required. Very similar results are found if
456: we adopt the bolometric luminosity function from Hopkins et al.(2007),
457: shown as the dot-dashed curve in the same Figure. In this case, we use
458: a slightly higher radiative efficiency of $\epsilon=0.104$ to
459: renormalize the total $z=0$ accreted mass density to the local value,
460: due to the fact that the bolometric corrections used by Hopkins et
461: al. (2007) are about $30\%$ higher then those adopted by
462: SWM. Nevertheless, even in this case we find that \rhoz$\,$ well
463: matches \rhovdf$\,$ at all times.
464:
465: Joint confidence levels on the two parameters $\epsilon$ and $\alpha$,
466: inferred from a $\chi^2$ analysis are shown in
467: Figure~\ref{fig|Chi2}. The cross marks the best--fit model with
468: $\epsilon=0.08$ and $\alpha=0.26$ (corresponding to the minimum
469: $\chi^2_{\rm min}\sim 2.6$ for 8 degrees of freedom), which is shown
470: in the right panel of Figure~\ref{fig|rhoBHz}. Once a constant
471: radiative efficiency is fixed to match the $z=0$ local and accreted
472: mass densities, it is evident that the available data favor a
473: relatively mild redshift evolution of the \mbh-\sis$\,$ relation with
474: $\alpha\lesssim 0.3$, while a strong evolution with $\alpha\gtrsim
475: 1.3$ is ruled at 99\% confidence level. Likewise, negative evolution
476: with $\alpha\lsim -1$ is ruled out for any choice of $\epsilon$. We
477: note that values of $\alpha\gtrsim 0.8$, in fact, yield the unphysical
478: result that the absolute total BH mass density \emph{increases} from
479: $z=0$ to $z\gtrsim 0.7$, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig|rhoBHz2}. The
480: confidence contours shown in Figure~\ref{fig|Chi2} may therefore
481: overestimate the maximum allowed value of $\alpha$.
482:
483: It is clear from equation~(\ref{eq|soltan}) that the accreted BH
484: mass density does not depend on the assumed duty cycle or Eddington
485: ratio distribution $\lambda$(\mbh,$z$), apart from a weak dependence
486: on the latter through the lower limit of the integration. The
487: strongest dependencies are on the radiative efficiency and on the
488: bolometric corrections (see also Figure 9 in SWM). On the other
489: hand, the Eddington ratio distribution and its evolution with
490: redshift, can be constrained by comparing the AGN-based and
491: VDF$(z)$-based differential BH mass functions (rather than comparing
492: only the integrated quantities). The $\Phi(\sigma,z)$ convolved with
493: the \mbh-\sis\ relation (equation~\ref{eq|Mbhz}) in fact, predicts
494: the shape of the BH mass function for \mbh$\gsim M_{\rm BH, min}$.
495: On the other hand, as extensively discussed in the literature (see
496: SWM, and related work by, e.g. Cavaliere et al. 1982; Small \&
497: Blandford 1992; Salucci et al. 1999; Yu \& Tremaine 2002; Marconi et
498: al. 2004; Shankar et al. 2004), if a mean Eddington ratio
499: $\lambda=L/L_{\rm Edd}$ is assumed for the active BHs, then through
500: a continuity equation and an assumed initial condition, the AGN
501: luminosity function can be directly mapped into a BH mass function
502: at all times. The ``break'' in the predicted BH mass function will
503: then approximately reflect the break $L^*(z)$ in the observed AGN
504: luminosity function, i.e., \mbh$^*(z)\propto L^*/\bar\lambda$, where
505: $\bar\lambda$ is the mean Eddington ratio. Following So{\l}tan
506: (1982) and Salucci et al. (1999), SWM (see also, e.g., Yu \&
507: Tremaine 2002) showed that constraints on the mean radiative
508: efficiency and Eddington ratio of BHs can be gained by comparing the
509: directly measured and the accreted BH mass functions. However, the
510: BH mass function has been directly measured only locally, so this
511: comparison can be performed only at $z=0$, and can not be used to
512: glean information on the evolution of these two parameters.
513:
514: The left panel of Figure~\ref{fig|MFz} compares the BH mass function
515: predicted from the combination of $\Phi(\sigma,z)$ and the mildly
516: evolving best--fit \mbh-\sis\ relation with a normalization
517: $\propto(1+z)^{0.26}$ (shown as thick curves, with their uncertainty
518: shown in gray), and the mass function predicted from the AGN
519: luminosity function of SWM assuming a mean $\bar\lambda=0.6$ (shown
520: as thin curves).\footnote{Note that we assumed an initial duty cycle
521: of 0.5 at $z=6$; however the BH mass function at $z\lesssim 3.5$
522: becomes independent of this assumption. See SWM for further
523: details.}
524: %ZH2**: didn't you have assume a duty cycle to compute the thin curves on this plot?
525: % If so, what value did you use? This method must also determine the duty cycle
526: % (not just lambda).
527: %ZH3: please see footnote I added:
528:
529: Figure~\ref{fig|MFz} shows that up to $z\lesssim 3$, a
530: \emph{constant} (non--evolving) mean Eddington ratio of $\bar
531: \lambda=0.6$ provides a good match between the shapes of the
532: accreted BH mass function and the one computed from the VDF. At the
533: low--mass end, the VDF-based BH mass function starts being
534: incomplete, while at the high mass end, a higher intrinsic scatter
535: in the \mbh-\sis$\,$ relation and/or a more complicated Eddington
536: ratio distribution may improve the match. Fully matching the two BH
537: mass functions is beyond the scope of this paper (see SWM for
538: further analysis). Our aim here is merely to demonstrate that our
539: simple approach also provides hints on the mean Eddington ratio and
540: its redshift evolution. Similar results are found switching to the
541: Hopkins et al. (2007) luminosity function. The right panel of
542: Figure~\ref{fig|MFz} shows that a good match between the BH mass
543: functions is recovered on adopting a constant $\lambda=1.0$.
544: Although systematic uncertainties in the bolometric AGN luminosity
545: function preclude tighter constraints on the mean Eddington ratio
546: (see SWM for further discussions on these issues), it is remarkable
547: that simple models with $0.5\lesssim \lambda \lesssim 1.0$ constant
548: with redshift, can provide a reasonable match with the VDF-based BH
549: mass functions. An independent way to constrain the Eddington ratio
550: distribution and its evolution with redshift can be derived by
551: matching the halo clustering implied by the redshift dependent model
552: BH mass function and the observed AGN clustering (Shankar et al., in
553: preparation). We have also checked that the same values of $\lambda$
554: provide a good match even at $z\gtrsim 3$, however the large
555: uncertainties associated to the VDF at these high redshifts prevent
556: any firm conclusion.
557:
558: \begin{figure}[t]
559: \epsscale{1.} \centering
560: %\plottwo{fig2_1.eps}{fig2_2.eps}
561: \plotone{fig3.eps} \caption{Confidence levels of 90\% and 99\%
562: computed assuming $\chi^2=\chi^2_{\rm min}+2.30$ and
563: $\chi^2=\chi^2_{\rm min}+9.21$, respectively, for two parameters in
564: the model, the radiative efficiency $\epsilon$ and the exponent
565: $\alpha$, where the normalization of the \mbh-\sis\ relation evolves
566: as $\propto(1+z)^{\alpha}$. The cross marks the best--fit values of
567: $\epsilon=0.08$ and $\alpha=0.26$ corresponding to the minimum
568: $\chi^2_{\rm min}\sim 2.6$ (for 8 degrees of freedom). It is evident
569: that a strong redshift evolution in the \mbh-\sis$\,$ relation is
570: ruled out at a high confidence level, if the radiative efficiency is
571: constant in time.} \label{fig|Chi2}
572: \end{figure}
573:
574: A somewhat different version of the above exercise was performed by
575: Haiman et al. (2007). Under the assumption that the duty cycle of
576: quasar activity is short, Haiman et al. (2007) matched the
577: instantaneous quasar LF at each redshift to the LF predicted from
578: \rhovdf, plus an assumed constant (non--evolving) duty--cycle and
579: Eddington--ratio distribution. This approach neglects the BH mass
580: accreted during the luminous quasar phases (or at least any
581: corresponding variation of the ``quasar light--curve'' caused by the
582: growth in BH mass), and places a constraint directly on the relation
583: between quasar luminosity $L$ and host velocity dispersion $\sigma$.
584: While the $L-\sigma$ relation is essentially a convolution of the
585: Eddington ratio distribution with the \mbh-\sis\ relation, this
586: approach cannot be used to study these two relations separately.
587: Nevertheless, Haiman et al. (2007) found no evidence for any
588: evolution in the $L-\sigma$ relation with redshift; their fits to
589: the quasar LF are consistent with a constant $0.3\lsim \bar\lambda
590: \lsim 0.5$ combined with a non-evolving \mbh-\sis\ relation. Since
591: the \mbh-\sis\ relation is indeed found here, independently, to be
592: non--evolving, this breaks the degeneracy in the result of Haiman et
593: al. (2007) and also requires that the evolution in the Eddington
594: ratio distribution be modest.
595:
596: \begin{figure}[th]
597: \epsscale{1.} \centering
598: %\plottwo{fig2_1.eps}{fig2_2.eps}
599: \plotone{fig4.eps} \caption{Same format as Figure~\ref{fig|rhoBHz},
600: with parameters $\alpha=1$ and $\epsilon\sim 0.08, 0.10$ for the SWM
601: and Hopkins et al. (2007) luminosity functions, respectively.}
602: \label{fig|rhoBHz2}
603: \end{figure}
604:
605: \section{DISCUSSIONS}
606: \label{sec|conclu}
607:
608: \subsection{VARYING THE MODEL ASSUMPTIONS}
609: \label{subsec|modelassumptions}
610:
611: We have studied more complicated scenarios where we also allow for
612: the scatter and/or the slope of the \mbh-\sis\ relation to increase
613: with redshift. For example, steadily increasing the slope from 3.83
614: to, say, 5.5, at fixed scatter of 0.22 dex, still implies
615: $\alpha\sim 0.30$. The left panel of Figure~\ref{fig|ScatterRhoBH}
616: shows instead the comparison between the \rhoz\ and the \rhovdf,
617: assuming the scatter increases with redshift
618: from $\eta=0.22$ at $z=0$ to $\eta=0.40$ at $z=5.7$, the highest
619: redshifts probed by our sample. It can be seen that the best-fit
620: model requires $\alpha=0.15$, even lower than what reported in
621: Figure~\ref{fig|rhoBHz}. This is expected as these models tend to
622: increase the BH mass density associated with the VDF at a given
623: redshift, implying an even milder degree of evolution in the
624: \mbh-\sis\ normalization. The right panel of
625: Figure~\ref{fig|ScatterRhoBH} compares the implied mass functions
626: predicted by the same $\eta(z)$-model and by the AGN luminosity
627: function. Similarly to the best-fit model discussed in
628: \S~\ref{sec|results}, a good match can be recovered assuming a
629: constant $\lambda=0.6$. Moreover, steadily increasing the intrinsic
630: scatter from 0.22 to 0.4 dex significantly improves the match
631: between the VDF- and AGN-based BH mass functions at both the high
632: and low-mass ends.
633:
634: We have also explored different models for the redshift evolution in
635: the \mbh-\sis\ relation. For example, a model in which a quadratic
636: term of the type $\delta\times\log(1+z)^2$ is added in
637: equation~(\ref{eq|Mbhz}) (see Wyithe 2004 for a similar test applied
638: to the local \mbh-\sis\ relation), produces a good match between
639: \rhovdf\ and \rhoz\ if $\alpha\sim \delta \sim 0.1$, with
640: $\chi^2\sim 2.5$, comparable to our best-fit model. We therefore
641: conclude that although the choice for the redshift evolution model
642: in equation~\ref{eq|Mbhz} is not unique, alternative solutions will
643: still provide similar constraints on the net amount of allowed
644: evolution.
645:
646: \subsection{THE SCATTER IN THE $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ RELATION}
647: \label{subsec|mbhsigmaScatter}
648:
649: At each redshift, our approach assumes that new BHs are formed with
650: a mass that is tightly imposed by the velocity dispersion of the
651: host galaxy. Increasing the normalization and/or scatter of the
652: \mbh-\sis\ relation at high redshift therefore induces in the local
653: universe a finite spread in BH mass at fixed velocity dispersion.
654: If the evolution is steep, this can exceed the observed scatter
655: $\eta \lesssim 0.22$ dex. Each panel in Figure~\ref{fig|ScatterBins}
656: plots as solid lines the median BH mass distribution of 100 Monte
657: Carlo simulations
658: %ZH3*: I am not sure why Monte Carlo was necessary (this BH-mass distribution
659: % is an analytic convolution....)...?
660: corresponding to a given bin of velocity dispersion, as labeled. The
661: BH masses are derived from the redshift-dependent \mbh-\sis\
662: relation where the redshifts are randomly extracted from the age
663: distribution $p_{ij}(\sigma)$ competing to each velocity dispersion.
664: The long-dashed lines refer to the Gaussian distribution with
665: $\eta=0.22$ measured by Tundo et al. (2007). Both our models with
666: constant (upper panels) or evolving (lower panels) scatter still
667: produce at $z=0$ BH mass distributions at fixed velocity dispersion
668: comparable to what is observed.
669: %ZH3*: I would have expected the Mbh-scatter to be larger for smaller sigma,
670: % since the age-spread is broader at low sigma. Do you understand why
671: % such an effect is not showing up in the figures?
672: The small off-set in the Gaussian
673: distributions predicted by our simulations with respect to those
674: observed is induced by the sampling of higher redshift, more massive
675: BHs. Models characterized by stronger redshift evolution with
676: $\alpha \gtrsim 0.3$ will then evidently predict a scatter in the
677: local \mbh-\sis\ relation much larger than what is actually
678: observed. Mergers are then required to be a significant component in the
679: evolution of the BH population in these models, as the Monte Carlo
680: simulations performed by Peng (2007) show that random BH mergers
681: will tighten the relations between BH and host galaxy masses at late
682: times. However, frequent mergers may, on the other hand, predict too
683: many massive BHs with respect to those seen in the local universe
684: (see Figure 13 in SWM).
685:
686: \subsection{SYSTEMATIC UNCERTAINTIES IN THE METHOD}
687: \label{subsec|systematic}
688:
689: The main result of this paper is shown in the right panel of
690: Figure~\ref{fig|rhoBHz}, which demonstrates that a good match
691: between \rhovdf$\,$ and \rhoz$\,$ can be achieved by assuming a mild
692: redshift evolution in the \mbh-\sis$\,$ relation with
693: $\alpha\lesssim 0.3$. These results are based on the age
694: distributions $p_{ji}$ derived from Bernardi et al. (2006). However,
695: MOPED-based galaxy ages are, on average, larger at fixed velocity
696: dispersion, predicting a flatter dependence $\Phi(\sigma,z)$ as a
697: function of redshift $z$ (see Figure~\ref{fig|VDF}). This will
698: correspondingly flatten \rhovdf$\,$ {\it vs} redshift, and decrease
699: the best-fit $\alpha$, therefore requiring an even milder redshift
700: evolution in the \mbh-\sis$\,$ relation. A null evolution in the
701: \mbh-\sis\ relation is expected in basic AGN feedback models (e.g.,
702: Silk \& Rees 1998), in which a tight correlation derives by imposing
703: equilibrium between the energy released by the central BH, and the
704: gas binding energy, linked to the velocity dispersion.
705:
706: Bernardi et al. (2007), Graham (2007), and Shankar \& Ferrarese
707: (2008) have discussed selection biases in the available sample of
708: BHs that may induce systematic uncertainties in the determination of
709: the local BH mass function. However, our conclusions are not
710: affected by these uncertainties, because a change in the local BH
711: mass density would be absorbed in the radiative efficiency
712: $\epsilon$ (i.e. $\epsilon$ would be modified, to match \rhovdf$\,$
713: and \rhoz$\,$ at $z=0$, but $\alpha$ would not change). By the same
714: token, our results are only weakly dependent on whether or not the
715: bulges of spirals are included in the estimate of the local BH mass
716: function (a weak dependence arises only because the addition of the
717: spiral bulges slightly skews the age--distribution of the total
718: population to younger ages; this becomes increasingly less important
719: toward higher redshifts, where a progressively smaller fraction of
720: the total BH mass density is contributed by the low--$\sigma$
721: galaxies).
722:
723: Likewise, uncertainties in redshift--independent bolometric
724: corrections do not alter our conclusions. The bolometric correction
725: adopted in SWM is lower by $\sim$ 30\% with respect to the one used
726: by Hopkins et al. (2007), but the sole effect of this difference is
727: to yield a proportionally smaller value of the mean radiative
728: efficiency to recover the match between \rhovdf$\,$ and \rhoz$\,$ at
729: $z=0$ (see left panel of Figure~\ref{fig|rhoBHz}). Moreover, the
730: break luminosity and bright-end slopes of the SWM and Hopkins et al.
731: (2007) luminosity functions are somewhat different (see Figure 4 in
732: SWM). Nevertheless, within uncertainties, the resulting BH accretion
733: histories obtained from the two luminosity functions have a similar
734: behavior with redshift, both placing the same constraint $\alpha
735: \lesssim 0.3$ for the evolution in the normalization of the
736: \mbh-\sis\ relation.
737:
738: On similar grounds, if we assume that the BHs in our sample radiate
739: at even lower luminosities than the $L_{\rm min}$ considered in the
740: integral of equation~(\ref{eq|soltan}), our results do not change.
741: For example, lowering the minimum luminosity to $\log L_{\rm
742: min}/{\rm erg\, s^{-1}}=42$, the cumulative emissivity of AGNs
743: increases by about $\sim 30\%$ at all redshifts yielding a very
744: similar behavior with time. Therefore, a proportionally higher
745: radiative efficiency plugged into equation~(\ref{eq|soltan}) keeps
746: the good match with the \rhovdf\, and specifically we find that the
747: value of $\alpha=0.16$ yields a $\chi^2\sim 2.4$ for 8 degrees of
748: freedom.
749:
750: Our conclusions about the (lack of) evolution in the normalization
751: of the \mbh-\sis\ relation, in general, are more dependent on
752: redshift--dependent effects. For example, if the bolometric
753: correction increased to high $z$ (or, e.g., if obscuration were more
754: significant at higher redshift), this would again further decrease
755: our favored mild positive redshift evolution in the \mbh-\sis\
756: normalization. Likewise, evolution in the mean radiative efficiency
757: and/or the assumed scatter in the \mbh-\sis\ relation would modify
758: our results, in the sense that our predicted evolution would be
759: milder if either increased toward high $z$. In principle, to allow
760: for a stronger evolution in the \mbh-\sis\ relation the radiative
761: efficiency must significantly decrease at $z\gtrsim 3$ to boost the
762: accreted mass density at fixed AGN luminous density. However, we
763: have checked that $\epsilon$ must then rapidly increase at lower
764: redshifts in order not to overproduce the local BH mass density.
765: More quantitatively, if we set $\epsilon\sim 0.05$ at $z\gtrsim 3$,
766: then it must be that $\epsilon\gtrsim 0.05\times[7/(1+z)]^{0.5}$ at
767: lower redshifts. Such an evolution in $\epsilon$ is not enough to
768: allow for a strong variation in the \mbh-\sis\ relation. We found
769: that \rhovdf\ can match the \rhoz\ implied by the
770: $\epsilon(z)$-model if $\alpha\sim 0.3$, which is close to our
771: best-fit model. On other grounds, as recently shown by Shankar et
772: al. (2008b), a too low radiative efficiency at high redshifts seems
773: to be disfavored by BH accretion models which simultaneously
774: reproduce the strong quasar clustering measured at $z=3-4$ in SDSS
775: by Shen et al. (2007a), the mean Eddington ratio of $\lambda \gtrsim
776: 0.5$, measured by Shen et al. (2007b) for the same quasar sample,
777: and the high redshift quasar luminosity function (e.g., Richards et
778: al. 2006; Fontanot et al. 2007; Shankar \& Mathur 2007).
779:
780: \begin{figure*}[t!]
781: \epsscale{1.} \centering
782: %\plottwo{fig2_1.eps}{fig2_2.eps}
783: \plotone{fig5.eps} \caption{Comparison between the mass functions
784: predicted from $\Phi(\sigma,z)$ convolved with the \mbh-\sis\
785: relation whose normalization evolves as $\propto(1+z)^{0.26}$ (thick
786: curves, with the uncertainty shown shaded in grey), and the mass
787: function predicted from the AGN luminosity functions of Shankar et
788: al. (2008; \emph{left panel}) and Hopkins et al. (2007; \emph{right
789: panel}). A constant Eddington ratio of
790: $\lambda=0.6, 1.0$ has been assumed for computing the accreted mass functions
791: in the left and right panels, respectively.
792: It can be seen that the choice of a single constant Eddington
793: ratio provides a good match to the velocity dispersion-based
794: black hole mass functions, at least around the peak of the distributions. A good match is also found
795: extending the comparison up to $z\gtrsim 3$, however the large uncertainties at these redshifts prevent any
796: firm conclusion.}
797: \label{fig|MFz}
798: \end{figure*}
799:
800: \subsection{EVOLVING THE MAGORRIAN RELATION}
801: \label{subsec|magorrian}
802:
803: Most of the results from other groups discussed in
804: \S~\ref{sec|intro} focus on the ratio between black hole mass and
805: stellar \emph{mass}. The latter may settle on longer timescales with
806: respect to the galaxy velocity dispersion, the amplitude of which is
807: linked to the central potential well which grows faster than the
808: overall evolution of the halo (Zhao et al. 2003). In order to get
809: some hints on the actual evolution of the \mbh-\mstar\ relation with
810: redshift, we have converted the galaxy stellar mass function into a
811: BH mass function assuming the \mbh-\mstar\ ratio evolving as
812: $(1+z)^{\zeta}$. We have used the recent near-infrared stellar mass
813: function by P\'{e}rez-Gonz\'{a}lez et al. (2008), well constrained
814: within $0\lesssim z \lesssim 3$ and $10\lesssim \log
815: M_{\star}/M_{\odot}\lesssim 12$. We have then converted the latter
816: into a BH mass function by assuming that, on average, about
817: $0.7\times 10^{-3}(1+z)^{\zeta}$ (e.g., Magorrian et al. 1998;
818: Marconi \& Hunt 2003) of the total stellar mass is locked up in
819: spheroids and is associated to the central black hole, with a
820: Gaussian scatter around the mean of 0.3 dex (e.g., H\"{a}ring \& Rix
821: 2004). In this case, we find that $\zeta \lesssim 0.3$ is a
822: necessary condition for the BH mass density to be consistent with
823: the accreted mass from AGNs, the latter derived assuming a fixed
824: value of the radiative efficiency. This result is in agreement with
825: the degree of evolution discussed in \S~\ref{sec|results} found by
826: evolving the \mbh-\sis\ relation. Although these results are in
827: reasonable agreement with other works (Marconi et al. 2004; Merloni
828: et al. 2005; De Zotti et al. 2006; SWM; Merloni \& Heinz 2008),
829: uncertainties on the lower limit of the stellar mass function and/or
830: on the true fraction of stellar mass associated to BH growth at any
831: time, make this method less reliable than the one based on velocity
832: dispersion, and we therefore do not pursue it further.
833:
834: \subsection{THE IMPACT OF MERGERS}
835: \label{subsec|mergers}
836:
837: So far we have neglected mergers in our calculations. Major mergers
838: between massive galaxies do occur, although recent work has
839: suggested the galaxy merger rate may be lower than previously
840: thought. Drory \& Alvarez (2008) compared the time variation in the
841: stellar mass function with the evolution implied by the star
842: formation rate alone, concluding that galaxies with stellar masses
843: above $10^{11}\, M_{\odot}$ undergo at most one major merger since
844: $z\sim 1.5$, in agreement with the results of Bell et al. (2007).
845: Lotz et al. (2006) find evidence for an even lower merger rate since
846: $z\sim 1$ from the DEEP2 survey. Most importantly, however, a
847: significant rate of major mergers would strengthen our conclusions.
848: In velocity dispersion space, collisionless major mergers do not
849: significantly affect the final $\sigma$. For example, in a dry
850: merger of comparable--mass galaxies with mass $M_1$ and $M_2$ and
851: corresponding velocity dispersions $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$, the
852: resulting galaxy will have a velocity dispersion $\sigma^2\sim
853: [M_1\sigma_1^2+M_2\sigma_2^2]/(M_1+M_2)\lesssim {\rm
854: max}(\sigma_1^2,\sigma_2^2)$ (e.g., Ciotti et al. 2007). Therefore,
855: if the masses of the two galaxies are comparable, the final $\sigma$
856: will be close to the velocity dispersion of the progenitors.
857:
858: \begin{figure*}[t!]
859: \epsscale{1.} \centering
860: %\plottwo{fig2_1.eps}{fig2_2.eps}
861: \plotone{fig6.eps} \caption{\emph{Left} panel: comparison between
862: the \rhoz\ and the \rhovdf\ computed for a model in which the
863: $\Phi(\sigma,z)$ is convolved with a \mbh-\sis\
864: relation the scatter of which increases with redshift from $\eta=0.22$ to 0.40 . \emph{Right} panel:
865: comparison between the mass functions predicted from the same model
866: and from the AGN luminosity functions with $\lambda=0.6$.}
867: \label{fig|ScatterRhoBH}
868: \end{figure*}
869:
870: Dry mergers would then double the number of galaxies we predict at
871: fixed $\sigma$. Every dry major merger would in fact ``split'' the
872: galaxy into two (going back in time), adding an extra galaxy with
873: the same $\sigma$, compared to our present predictions (which
874: neglect mergers). In turn, this implies that the merger--free VDF
875: $\Phi(\sigma,z)$ computed above for $z>0$ is a \emph{lower} limit to
876: the true abundance of galaxies with velocity dispersion $\sigma$ at
877: redshift $z$. The associated BH mass density $\rho_{\bullet}(z)$
878: will consequently also be underestimated at redshift $z$. The
879: inclusion of any
880: %ZH3: see change below. ``evolution'' can be negative or positive...
881: %mergers would require even less evolution in the \mbh-\sis$\,$ to
882: mergers then predicts a larger BH mass density at fixed $\sigma$; to
883: compensate for this increase, a lower normalization of the
884: \mbh-\sis\ relation at $z=1-2$ is then required, which strengthens
885: our conclusions that large $\alpha$ values are excluded by the match
886: between \rhovdf$\,$ and \rhoz$\,$ (see the left panel in
887: Figure~\ref{fig|rhoBHz}).
888:
889: %ZH3: 'wet activity' sounds strange. You must mean dissipation...
890: %However, if a prolonged \emph{wet} activity characterized the star
891: %formation history of the host galaxy, due to late or recurrent star
892: %formation episodes, frequent satellite accretion events, or wet
893: %major mergers,
894: However, if dissipation played a non--negligible role during the
895: evolution of the galaxy (either as a result of mergers, or in isolation),
896: then the velocity dispersion may increase with time
897: from the epoch of first collapse. To mimic such effects, we allow
898: %all velocity dispersions to decrease with time as
899: %ZH3: you mean ``increase'':
900: all velocity dispersions to increase at higher redshifts as
901: $\sigma(z)=\sigma(0)\times(1+z)^{-\gamma}$. Most probably this
902: evolution is mass and/or velocity-dependent, nevertheless this
903: approach will be able to set interesting constraints on the mean
904: variation of $\sigma$. Also, any estimate for $\gamma$ should here
905: be considered as a lower limit to the actual evolution of $\sigma$,
906: as we neglect the still poorly understood increase in galaxy number
907: density due to possible galaxy mergers. In Figure~\ref{fig|wet} we
908: show the main results for a model with $\gamma=0.23$ and
909: $\alpha=1.5$. Note that with the adopted scaling $M_{\rm BH}\propto
910: \sigma^\beta$ with $\beta\approx 4$, we expect, a degeneracy between
911: $\gamma$ and $\alpha$ given approximately by $\gamma \approx
912: \alpha/\beta \approx \alpha/4$ (although the degeneracy is modified
913: slightly by the assumed scatter and age--spread of BHs at a given
914: $z$ and $\sigma$).
915: %ZH3: please make sure you agree with the sentence above.
916: We find that the downsizing evolution in this case is canceled out
917: (upper left panel), as all galaxies are now pushed to lower and
918: lower $\sigma$ at higher redshifts.
919:
920: \begin{figure*}[t!]
921: \epsscale{1.} \centering
922: %\plottwo{fig2_1.eps}{fig2_2.eps}
923: \plotone{fig7.eps} \caption{In each panel the solid histograms show
924: the mean of a set of Monte Carlo simulations which compute from our
925: models the expected distribution of black hole masses at fixed
926: velocity dispersion, as labeled (see text for details). The
927: long-dashed lines refer to the Gaussian distribution with
928: $\eta=0.22$ measured by Tundo et al. (2007). Both our models with
929: constant (upper panels) or evolving (lower panels) scatter still
930: produce at $z=0$ black hole mass distributions at fixed velocity
931: dispersion comparable to what is observed. Models characterized by
932: stronger redshift evolution will then evidently predict a scatter in
933: the local \mbh-\sis\ relation much larger than what is observed.}
934: \label{fig|ScatterBins}
935: \end{figure*}
936:
937: The evolving number density in this model, shown in the upper right
938: panel of Figure~\ref{fig|wet}, seems to be at variance with the
939: number density evolution of early-type galaxies within $0\lesssim z
940: \lesssim 1$ inferred from DEEP2 by Faber et al. (2007; solid points
941: in the same Figure). However, lacking a clear understanding of how
942: the $\Phi(\sigma,z)$ should evolve in the presence of mergers, this
943: model cannot be ruled out, although some inconsistencies can already
944: be pointed out. From the Figure it can be seen that the number
945: density of the massive red galaxies in DEEP2 at the intermediated
946: redshifts of $0.5<z<1$, should be matched with galaxies
947: characterized by a velocity dispersion $\sigma\lesssim 100\, {\rm
948: km\, s^{-1}}$. Alternatively, the DEEP2 number densities could be
949: matched with the number density of galaxies with larger velocity
950: dispersions if mergers were a significant component in the evolution
951: of these galaxies, thus significantly increasing their number
952: density at higher redshifts. However, the latter hypothesis may
953: contradict independent results (e.g., Lotz et al. 2006). The
954: dissipative model described here also predicts a mean velocity
955: dispersion about flat out to $z\sim 2$ and slightly decreasing at
956: higher redshifts, as shown in the lower left panel of
957: Figure~\ref{fig|wet}.
958:
959: The main achievement of this model is the good match between
960: \rhovdf\ and \rhoz\ even if a strong evolution in the \mbh-\sis\
961: relation has been assumed ($\alpha=1.5$), as shown in the lower
962: right panel of Figure~\ref{fig|wet}. This model is characterized by
963: a significant dissipative phase in the evolution of typical
964: early-type galaxies, which could represent an interesting constraint
965: for galaxy evolution models and it can in principle be tested
966: through hydrodynamical simulations, which we plan to do in future
967: work.
968:
969: On the other hand, a major problem with the dissipative model is
970: represented by its implied Eddington ratio distribution. We in fact
971: find that the strong increase in the \mbh-\sis\ normalization at
972: higher redshifts requires a significant \emph{decrease}, by up to a
973: factor of a few, in the mean Eddington ratio $\bar{\lambda}(z)$ to
974: keep the match between the BH mass functions at $z\gtrsim 2$ shown
975: in Figure~\ref{fig|MFz}. The latter behavior of $\bar{\lambda}(z)$
976: is at variance with several works which actually claim an almost
977: constant or probably increasing $\bar{\lambda}(z)$ at higher
978: redshifts (e.g., McLure \& Dunlop 2004; Shankar et al. 2004;
979: Vestergaard 2004; Kollmeier et al. 2006; Netzer \& Trakhtenbrot
980: 2007; SWM; Shen et al. 2008b; Shankar et al. 2008b).
981:
982: \subsection{COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS WORKS}
983: \label{subsec|previousworks}
984:
985: The relatively mild \mbh-\sis\ redshift evolution inferred from our
986: approach may seem in apparent disagreement with some recent
987: independent studies. As briefly mentioned in \S~\ref{sec|intro},
988: Treu et al. (2007) and Woo et al. (2008) have randomly compiled from
989: the SDSS Data Release 4 a sample of about 20 Seyferts galaxies in
990: the redshift range $0.37\lesssim z \lesssim 0.57$. Their results,
991: shown as open circles in Figure~\ref{fig|MbhSigmaz}, are compared
992: with those of Shen et al. (2008, shown as filled circles), who
993: estimated the \mbh-\sis\ relation for a larger sample of active
994: galaxies up to $z=0.452$. While the latter claim that no significant
995: evolution in the \mbh-\sis\ relation is detectable from their
996: sample, Woo et al. (2008) confirm the results by Treu et al. (2007)
997: that a significant increase of $\sim 0.2$ dex in BH mass at fixed
998: velocity dispersion must occur within $z=0$ and $z\sim 0.5$. Our
999: best-fit model, shown at redshifts $z=0$ and $z=0.5$ with
1000: long-dashed and solid lines respectively, shows no strong evolution
1001: within this redshift range and it is in reasonable agreement with
1002: both samples. A significant discrepancy is noticeable with respect
1003: to the Woo et al. (2008) results for velocity dispersions $\log$
1004: \sis$/$\kms$\lesssim 2.3$. However, systematic uncertainties may
1005: affect these estimates; for example as also discussed by Woo et al.
1006: (2008), especially in galaxies with lower BH mass, the host galaxy
1007: contribution to the 5100{\AA} luminosity may lead to an
1008: overestimation of the true BH mass. Overall, given the systematics
1009: and biases which affect these kind of studies (e.g., Lauer et al.
1010: 2007), we do not find strong evidence for a disagreement between
1011: these works and our results. For the same reasons, we do not attempt
1012: comparisons with the results obtained from higher redshift studies.
1013:
1014: \begin{figure*}[t!]
1015: \epsscale{1.} \centering
1016: %\plottwo{fig2_1.eps}{fig2_2.eps}
1017: \plotone{fig8.eps} \caption{Results for a model in which we allow
1018: the mean galaxy velocity dispersion to decrease at higher redshifts
1019: to mimic the effects of prolonged wet activity in the host galaxies
1020: since their formation epoch. We assume an evolution of the type
1021: $\sigma(z)=\sigma(0)\times(1+z)^{-\gamma}$ with $\gamma=0.23$. The
1022: downsizing effect is canceled out (\emph{upper left}) and the match
1023: with DEEP2 number density evolution is significantly worsen
1024: (\emph{upper right}). At variance with our previous results this
1025: model predicts a mean velocity dispersion about flat out to $z\sim
1026: 2$ (\emph{lower left}) and, more important, a good match between
1027: \rhovdf\ and \rhoz\ with $\alpha=1.5$ (\emph{lower right}).}
1028: \label{fig|wet}
1029: \end{figure*}
1030:
1031: Merloni et al. (2004) compared the accreted BH mass density in AGNs
1032: with the cosmological global star formation rate density (see also
1033: Haiman et al. 2004). Although their conclusions depend on additional
1034: assumptions about the fraction of the star forming galaxies which
1035: are linked to BH growth at a given redshift, irrespective of the
1036: adopted value of the radiative efficiency their best-fit relation
1037: yields $\alpha\approx 0.5$, somewhat higher, but still consistent,
1038: with the value found here, and they also rule out $\alpha\gtrsim
1039: 1.2$ at a high confidence level. Hopkins et al. (2006) also describe
1040: a model-independent integral constraint that defines an upper limit
1041: to the allowed degree of evolution in the ratio of BH mass to host
1042: galaxy luminosity or mass, as a function of redshift. By comparing
1043: the AGN density with the luminosity and mass functions in different
1044: bands from redshifts $z=0-2$, they rule out at $\gtrsim 6\sigma$ a
1045: BH-host galaxy mass ratio significantly larger at high redshifts
1046: than locally. Cattaneo \& Bernardi (2003) combined a relation
1047: between mean age and velocity dispersion, derived from a sample of
1048: SDSS local early-type galaxies, with the Sheth et al. (2003) local
1049: VDF. By assuming a redshift independent mean Eddington ratio,
1050: radiative efficiency and obscuration correction, they were then able
1051: to reproduce the AGN optical and X-ray luminosity functions. As
1052: mentioned above, similar calculations have been performed recently
1053: by Haiman et al. (2007), whose results imply, assuming a
1054: non--evolving \mbh-\sis\ relation, that in order to reproduce the
1055: bolometric quasar luminosity function, the quasars must shine at a
1056: mean sub-Eddington regime of $\lambda=0.5$ that is approximately
1057: constant with time. This conclusion was confirmed by the
1058: independent estimates of SWM. However, the works by Cattaneo \&
1059: Bernardi (2003) and Haiman et al. (2007) can only constrain the {\it
1060: combination} of the Eddington ratio distribution and the \mbh-\sis\
1061: relation, while our approach here can simultaneously constrain the
1062: mean accretion histories of BHs and their host galaxies, and the
1063: mean Eddington ratio of BHs at all times. A further difference is
1064: that the analysis of Haiman et al. (2007) can constrain the quasar
1065: lifetime, while the results here rely on the comparison between
1066: time--integrated quantities, and are strictly independent of the
1067: quasar lifetime.
1068:
1069: \begin{figure}[t!]
1070: \epsscale{1.} \centering
1071: %\plottwo{fig2_1.eps}{fig2_2.eps}
1072: \plotone{fig9.eps} \caption{Our best-fit model for the \mbh-\sis\
1073: relation is plotted at $z=0$ and $z=0.5$, as labeled, and compared
1074: with recent data from Treu et al. (2007) and Woo et al. (2008),
1075: shown with \emph{open} symbols, and Shen et al. (2008), shown with
1076: \emph{filled} symbols.} \label{fig|MbhSigmaz}
1077: \end{figure}
1078:
1079: \section{CONCLUSIONS}
1080: \label{sec|conclu}
1081:
1082: In this work we combined the local VDF with the stellar age
1083: distributions estimated by Bernardi et al. (2006), to compute the
1084: VDF at higher redshifts, $\Phi(\sigma,z)$. In agreement with
1085: previous work, we find statistical evidence for downsizing, whereby
1086: the stellar populations in galaxies with higher velocity dispersions
1087: formed earlier, irrespective of the specific model we adopt for
1088: computing the galactic ages. We then computed the BH mass function
1089: associated with $\Phi(\sigma,z)$ at each redshift $z$, through a BH
1090: mass -- velocity dispersion relation whose normalization was allowed
1091: to evolve with redshift as $\propto (1+z)^{\alpha}$. Our main
1092: underlying assumptions are that most of the growth of the central BH
1093: occurs simultaneously (within $\pm$ 1 Gyr) with the formation of the
1094: host's potential well, and that the measured stellar ages represent
1095: this formation time to within a similar accuracy. The BH mass
1096: density \rhovdf$\,$ inferred from the VDF can then be compared with
1097: the accumulated BH mass density implied by the time--integral of the
1098: AGN luminosity function, \rhoz$\,$. We find significant evidence
1099: that the match between \rhovdf$\,$ and \rhoz$\,$ implies a
1100: relatively mild redshift evolution, with $\alpha\lesssim 0.30$, and
1101: with values of $\alpha\gtrsim 1.3$ excluded at 99\% confidence. If a
1102: positive redshift evolution stronger than $\alpha\gtrsim 1$ were to
1103: be confirmed independently in the future, then this would be a
1104: robust indication that dissipative processes played a significant
1105: role in galaxy evolution, resulting in an increase in the velocity
1106: dispersion of the spheroid components of individual galaxies with
1107: cosmic time. However, we also find evidence that a dissipative model
1108: predicts a mean Eddington ratio decreasing with increasing redshift,
1109: at variance with several independent studies.
1110: %ZH3: see change in last sentence above.
1111:
1112:
1113: \acknowledgements This work was supported by NASA grants
1114: GRT000001640 (to FS), NNG04GI88G and NNX08AH35G (to ZH) and LTSA-NNG06GC19G (to
1115: MB). ZH also acknowledges support by the Pol\'anyi Program of the
1116: Hungarian National Office of Technology. FS thanks David H. Weinberg
1117: for interesting discussions.
1118:
1119: %\end{document}
1120:
1121: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1122: \bibitem{bell07} Bell, E. F., Zheng, X. Z., Papovich, C., Borch,A., Wolf, C., \& Meisenheimer, K. 2007, ApJ, 663, 834
1123: \bibitem{bernardi06} Bernardi, M., Nichol, R. C., Sheth, R. K., Miller, C. J., \& Brinkman, J. 2006,AJ, 131, 1288
1124: \bibitem{bernardi07} Bernardi, M., Sheth, R. K., Tundo, E., \& Hyde, J. B. 2007, ApJ, 660, 267
1125: \bibitem{cattaneo03} Cattaneo, A., \& Bernardi, M. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 45
1126: \bibitem{cavaliere82} Cavaliere, A., Giallongo, E., Vagnetti, F., \& Messina, A. 1982, A\&A, 114, 1
1127: \bibitem{ciotti07} Ciotti, L., Lanzoni, B., \& Volonteri, M. 2007, ApJ, 658, 65
1128: \bibitem{cirasuolo05} Cirasuolo, M., Shankar, F., Granato, G. L., De Zotti, G., \& Danese, L. 2005,ApJ, 629, 816
1129: \bibitem{coppin08} Coppin, K., et al. 2008, MNRAS, submitted,
1130: arXiv:0806.0618
1131: \bibitem{dezotti06} De Zotti, G., Shankar, F., Lapi, A., Granato, G. L., Silva, L., Cirasuolo, M., Salucci, P., \& Danese, L. 2006, MmSAIt, 77, 661
1132: \bibitem{drory05} Drory, N., Salvato, M., Gabasch, A., Bender, R., Hopp, U., Feulner, G., \& Pannella, M. 2005, ApJ, 619, 131
1133: \bibitem{dunkley08} Dunkley, J., et al. 2008, \apjs, submitted, arXiv.org:0803.0586
1134: \bibitem{eddington22} Eddington, A. S. 1922, MNRAS, 83, 32
1135: \bibitem{faber07} Faber, S. M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 265
1136: \bibitem{fan04} Fan, X., et al. 2004, ApJ, 128, 515
1137: \bibitem{ferrarese00} Ferrarese, L., \& Merritt, D. 2000, ApJ, 539, L9
1138: \bibitem{ferrarese02} Ferrarese, L. 2002, ApJ, 578, 90
1139: \bibitem{fontanot07} Fontanot, F., Cristiani, S., Monaco, P., Nonino, M.,
1140: Vanzella, E., Brandt, W. N., Grazian, A., \& Mao, J. 2007, A\&A,
1141: 461, 39
1142: \bibitem{gebhardt00} Gebhardt, K., et al. 2000, ApJL, 539, 13
1143: \bibitem{graham07} Graham, A. W. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 711
1144: \bibitem{haiman04} Haiman, Z., Ciotti, L., \& Ostriker, J. P. 2004, ApJ, 606, 763
1145: \bibitem{haiman07} Haiman, Z., Jimenez, R., \& Bernardi, M. 2007, ApJ, 658, 721
1146: \bibitem{heavens00} Heavens, A. F., Jimenez, R., \& Lahav, O. 2000, MNRAS, 317, 965
1147: \bibitem{ho08} Ho, L. C., Darling, J., \& Greene, J. E. 2008, ApJ, accepted, arXiv:0803.1952
1148: \bibitem{hopkins06} Hopkins, P. F., Robertson, B., Krause, E., Hernquist, L., \& Cox, T.
1149: J. 2006, ApJ, 652, 107
1150: \bibitem{hopkins07} Hopkins, P. F., Richards, G. T., Hernquist, L. 2007, ApJ, 654, 731
1151: \bibitem{jimenez07} Jimenez, R., Bernardi, M., Haiman, Z., Panter, B., \& Heavens, A. F. 2007, ApJ, 669, 947
1152: \bibitem{kollmeier06} Kollmeier, J. A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 648, 128
1153: \bibitem{lauer07} Lauer, T. R., \& Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., \& Faber S. M. 2007, ApJ, 670, 249
1154: %\bibitem{} Lauer, T. R., Faber, S. M., Richstone, D., Gebhardt, K., Tremaine, S., Postman, M., Dressler, A., Aller, M. C., Filippenko, A. V., Green, R., Ho, L. C., Kormendy, J., Magorrian, J., \& Pinkney, J. 2006, ApJ, 670, 249
1155: \bibitem{loeb03} Loeb, A., \& Peebles, P. J. E. 2003, ApJ, 589, 29
1156: \bibitem{lotz06} Lotz, J. M., et al. 2006, ApJ, submitted, arXiv:astroph/0602088
1157: \bibitem{marconi04} Marconi, A., Risaliti, G., Gilli, R., Hunt, L. K., Maiolino, R., \& Salvati, M. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 169
1158: \bibitem{mclure04} McLure, R. J., Dunlop., J. S. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 1390
1159: \bibitem{mclure06} McLure, R. J., Jarvis, M. J., Targett, T. A., Dunlop, J. S., \& Best, P. N. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 1359
1160: \bibitem{merloni05} Merloni, A., Rudnick, G., \& Di Matteo, T. 2005, MNRAS, 354,
1161: 37
1162: \bibitem{merloni08} Merloni, A., \& Heinz, S. 2008, MNRAS, accepted,
1163: arXiv:0805.2499
1164: \bibitem{netzer07} Netzer, H., Trakhtenbrot, B. 2007, ApJ, 654, 754
1165: \bibitem{peng06} Peng, C. Y., Impey, C. D., Rix, H. W., Kochanek, C. S., Keeton, C. R., Falco, E. E., Leh\'{a}r, J., \& McLeod, B. A. 2006, ApJ, 649, 616
1166: \bibitem{richards06} Richards, G. T., et al. 2006, ApJS, 166, 470
1167: \bibitem{salpeter64} Salpeter, E. E. 1964, ApJ, 140, 796
1168: \bibitem{shankar04} Shankar, F., Salucci, P., Granato, G. L., De Zotti, G., \& Danese,
1169: L. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 1020
1170: \bibitem{shankar07} Shankar, F., \& Mathur, S. 2007, ApJ, 660, 1051
1171: \bibitem{shankar08a} Shankar, F., Weinberg, D. H., \& Miralda-Escud\'{e}, J. 2008a, \apj, submitted, arXiv/0710.4488 [SWM]
1172: \bibitem{shankar08b} Shankar, F., et al. 2008b, \apj, submitted
1173: \bibitem{shankar08} Shankar, F., \& Ferrarese, L. 2008, \apj, submitted
1174: \bibitem{shen08} Shen, J., Vanden Berk, D. E., Schneider, D. P., \& Hall, P.
1175: B. 2008, 135, 928
1176: \bibitem{sheth03} Sheth, R. K., et al. 2003, ApJ, 594, 225
1177: \bibitem{shields06} Shields, G. A., Menezes, K. L., Massart, C. A., \& Vanden Bout, P. 2006, ApJ, 641, 683
1178: \bibitem{silverman07} Silverman, J. D., et al. 2007, ApJ, submitted, arXiv:0710.2461
1179: \bibitem{small92} Small, T. A., \& Blandford, R. D. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 725
1180: \bibitem{soltan82} So\l tan, A. 1982, MNRAS, 200, 115
1181: \bibitem{spergel07} Spergel, D. N., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 377
1182: \bibitem{thomas05} Thomas, D., Maraston, C., Bender, R., \& Mendes de Oliveira,
1183: C. 2005, ApJ, 621, 673
1184: \bibitem{trager07} Trager, S. C., Faber, S. M., Worthey, Guy, \& Gonz\'{a}lez, \& J.
1185: Jes\'{u}s 2000, AJ, 119, 1645
1186: \bibitem{tremaine02} Tremaine, S., et al. 2002, ApJ, 574, 740
1187: \bibitem{tundo07} Tundo, E., Bernardi, M., Hyde, J. B., Sheth, R. K., \& Pizzella, A. 2007, ApJ, 663, 53
1188: \bibitem{vestergaard04} Vestergaard, M. 2004, ApJ, 601, 676
1189: \bibitem{woo08} Woo, J. H., Treu, T., Malkan, M. A.,
1190: \bibitem{wyithe04} Wyithe, J. S. B. 2004, MNRAS, 1082, 1098
1191: \& Blandford, R. 2008, ApJ, in press, arXiv:0.804.0235
1192: \bibitem{york00} York, D. G., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579
1193: \bibitem{yt2002} Yu, Q., \& Tremaine, S. 2002, MNRAS, 335, 965
1194: \end{thebibliography}{}
1195:
1196: %\begin{figure}[ht!]
1197: %\epsscale{1.}
1198: %%%%\plottwo{fig2_1.eps}{fig2_2.eps}
1199: %\plotone{fig2.eps} \caption{Cumulative number density of spheroids
1200: % with velocity dispersion greater than a given limit, as labeled.
1201: % \emph{Left panel}: Abundance computed from $\Phi(\sigma,z)$ using
1202: % the Lick indexes. \emph{Right panel}: Abundance computed from
1203: % $\Phi(\sigma,z)$ using MOPED ages. We find that the evolution of
1204: % early-type galaxies in the former case better tracks the density
1205: % evolution as inferred from \emph{DEEP2} (\emph{solid}
1206: % point).} \label{fig|Number}
1207: %\end{figure}
1208: %
1209: %\begin{figure}[ht!]
1210: %\epsscale{1.}
1211: %%%%\plottwo{fig2_1.eps}{fig2_2.eps}
1212: %%%%ZH**: Is the overall value of <sigma> smaller in the right panel just because
1213: %%%% the MOPED fits exclude the largest galaxies (log sigma > 2.5) ? If so, we should say that.
1214: %%%%ZH3: see above comment from earlier..
1215: %\plotone{fig3.eps} \caption{Average velocity dispersion as a function
1216: % of redshift $\sigma(z)$ computed from $\Phi(\sigma,z)$ obtained
1217: % using the Lick indexes (\emph{left panel}) and MOPED (\emph{right
1218: % panel}). In either case the increase in $\sigma(z)$ is marginal,
1219: % $\sim 13\%$ in the former case and just $\sim 7\%$ in the latter
1220: % case.} \label{fig|sigAve}
1221: %\end{figure}
1222:
1223: %\end{doublespace}
1224:
1225: \end{document}
1226: