1: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib]{mn2e}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3: \bibliographystyle{mn2e}
4: \citestyle{mn2e}
5: \input{macro2}
6: \topmargin-1cm
7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8:
9: \title[Halo masses of AGN]
10: {Halo masses for optically-selected and for radio-loud AGN from clustering
11: and galaxy-galaxy lensing}
12: \author[Mandelbaum et al.]
13: {
14: Rachel Mandelbaum$^{1}$\thanks{E-mail: rmandelb@ias.edu, Hubble Fellow},
15: Cheng Li$^{2,3}$\thanks{E-mail: leech@mpa-garching.mpg.de},
16: Guinevere Kauffmann$^{2}$\thanks{E-Mail: gamk@mpa-garching.mpg.de},
17: Simon D.~M. White$^{2}$\\
18: $^{1}$Institute for Advanced Study,
19: Einstein Drive, Princeton NJ 08540, USA\\
20: $^{2}$Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics,
21: Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 1, D-85741 Garching, Germany \\
22: $^{3}$MPA/SHAO Joint Center for Astrophysical Cosmology
23: at Shanghai Astronomical Observatory,
24: Nandan Road 80, Shanghai 200030, China
25: }
26:
27: \begin{document}
28:
29: \date{Accepted ........ Received ........; in original form ........}
30:
31: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2008}
32:
33: \maketitle
34:
35: \label{firstpage}
36:
37: \begin{abstract}
38: We compute two-point correlation functions and measure the shear
39: signal due to galaxy-galaxy lensing for 80~000 optically identified
40: and 5~700 radio-loud AGN from Data Release 4 (DR4) of the Sloan
41: Digital Sky Survey. Halo occupation models are used to estimate halo
42: masses and satellite fractions for these two types of AGN. The large
43: sample size allows us to separate AGN according to the stellar mass of
44: their host galaxies. We study how the halo masses of optical and radio
45: AGN differ from those of the parent population at fixed $M_\ast$. Halo
46: masses deduced from clustering and from lensing agree satisfactorily.
47: Radio AGN are found in more massive halos than optical AGN: in our
48: samples their mean halo masses are $1.6\times 10^{13}$ and
49: $8\times10^{11} h^{-1} M_{\odot}$, respectively. Optical AGN follow
50: the same relation between stellar mass and halo mass as galaxies
51: selected without regard to nuclear properties, but radio-loud AGN
52: deviate significantly from this relation. The dark matter halos of
53: radio-loud AGN are about twice as massive as those of control galaxies
54: of the same stellar mass. This boost is independent of radio
55: luminosity, and persists even when our analysis is restricted to field
56: galaxies. The large-scale gaseous environment of the galaxy clearly
57: plays a crucial role in producing observable radio emission. The dark
58: matter halo masses that we derive for the AGN in our two samples are
59: in good agreement with recent models in which feedback from radio AGN
60: becomes dominant in halos where gas cools quasi-statically.
61: \end{abstract}
62:
63: \begin{keywords}
64: galaxies: active -- galaxies: haloes -- galaxies: formation --
65: gravitational lensing -- dark matter --large-scale structure of Universe
66: \end{keywords}
67:
68: \section{Introduction}\label{S:introduction}
69:
70: It is now widely accepted that galaxies form by the cooling and
71: condensation of baryons within a merging hierarchy of dark matter
72: halos \citep{White-Rees-78}. Processes other than cooling also
73: influence the relationship between galaxies and their halos.
74: ``Feedback,'' both from supernova explosions and from energy liberated
75: during the accretion of material onto a central supermassive black
76: hole, is currently under considerable scrutiny and debate, because it
77: is believed to play a very important role in regulating the fraction
78: of available baryons that end up in galaxies.
79:
80: Over the past few years, considerable effort has been devoted to
81: obtaining quantitative constraints on the relationship between
82: galaxies and their dark matter halos using a variety of different
83: methods. Models that describe the evolved, non-linear dark matter
84: distribution in terms of its halo building blocks
85: \citep[so-called halo models, e.g.][]{Peacock-Smith-00, Seljak-00,
86: Berlind-Weinberg-02, Cooray-Sheth-02, Yang-03} or direct N-body
87: simulations \citep[e.g.][]{Kauffmann-Nusser-Steinmetz-97,
88: Jing-Mo-Boerner-98, Kauffmann-99, Benson-00a, Yang-03}, can be used in
89: conjunction with the measured clustering amplitude of galaxies to
90: constrain the relationship between the galaxies and their host halos.
91: These constraints should be regarded as indirect, in part because of
92: the need for a cosmology-dependent conversion from galaxy bias to halo
93: mass.
94:
95: Weak lensing around galaxies (or galaxy-galaxy lensing, hereafter g-g
96: lensing) provides a {\it direct} probe of the dark matter that
97: surrounds galaxies \citep[for a review, see][]{2001PhR...340..291B}.
98: Gravitational lensing induces tangential shear distortions of
99: background galaxies around foreground galaxies, allowing direct
100: measurement of the galaxy-mass correlation function around galaxies.
101: The individual distortions are small (of order 0.1 per cent), but by
102: averaging over all foreground galaxies within a given subsample, we
103: obtain high signal to noise in the shear as a function of angular
104: separation from the galaxy. If we know the lens redshifts, the shear
105: signal can be related to the projected mass density as a function of
106: proper distance from the galaxy. Thus we can observe the averaged DM
107: distribution around any given galaxy sample.
108:
109: These techniques have been applied to study how galaxies with
110: different properties such as luminosity, stellar mass, colour,
111: spectral type and morphology populate dark matter halos of different
112: masses
113: \citep{2005ApJ...635...73H,2006MNRAS.371L..60H,2006MNRAS.368..715M}. The
114: derived relations serve as important constraints on models of galaxy
115: formation, but they do not directly constrain the physical processes
116: that are responsible for creating the relations in the first place.
117:
118: For example, \citet{Yang-05} use the occupation statistics of a group
119: catalogue to show that the mean luminosity of halo central galaxies
120: scales with halo mass as $L_c \propto M^{2/3}$ for halos less massive
121: than $10^{13} h^{-1}M_{\odot}$ , and flattens to a much shallower
122: relation ($L_c \propto M^{1/4}$) for more massive halos. It has been
123: proposed that this characteristic scale reflects the imprint of
124: feedback from radio-loud AGN, which heat the gas in massive halos and
125: prevent it from cooling and condensing onto the central galaxy. In the
126: models of \citet{Croton-06} and \citet{Bower-06}, this ``radio mode''
127: feedback operates in halos with masses greater than $\sim 3
128: \times 10^{11} h^{-1}M_{\odot}$, where cooling times are long compared to
129: the free-fall time and gas cools quasi-hydrostatically. On the other
130: hand, the work of \citet{Springel-DiMatteo-Hernquist-05} and
131: \citet{Hopkins-05a, Hopkins-05b} has focused on the role of optically
132: luminous AGN in expelling gas from galaxies and regulating the rate at
133: which they are able to form stars. In these
134: models, the major growth phases of black holes and the triggering of
135: optically luminous AGN occur when two galaxies that contain sufficient
136: cold gas merge with each other. The triggering thus does not depend
137: {\it directly} on the mass of surrounding dark matter halo.
138:
139: In order to constrain the importance of these processes, it is
140: important to understand how the AGN themselves are related to the
141: surrounding dark matter distribution. The large-scale clustering
142: amplitude of luminous quasars has been accurately measured using tens
143: of thousands of such objects drawn from the 2dF and Sloan Digital Sky
144: Survey. \citet{Croom-05} use a sample based on the 2dF to conclude
145: that quasars from $0.5<z<2.5$ inhabit
146: dark matter halos with a characteristic mass of $\sim 3 \times 10^{12}
147: h^{-1}M_{\odot}$, and that this mass does not depend on redshift or on
148: quasar luminosity. \cite{2007ApJ...658...85M} use a
149: photometrically-identified quasar sample from SDSS over a similar redshift range
150: to estimate a typical mass of $\sim 5\times 10^{12}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$,
151: without a robust detection of luminosity-dependent bias at fixed
152: redshift (for which there is only a marginal detection in the 2dF
153: sample, \citealt{2006MNRAS.371.1824P}). Several studies
154: \citep{2006AJ....131....1H,2007ApJ...658...99M,2008ApJ...678..635M}
155: have also
156: probed the very small-scale clustering of quasars, using pairs of
157: binary quasars, which are a probe of how the local environment affects
158: quasar activity, though no clear consensus arises from these studies.
159: The \citet{Croom-05} results about halo masses were recently extended
160: to redshifts $z>3$ by \citet{Shen-07} and $z<0.6$ by
161: \citet{2008arXiv0802.2105P}.
162: The lack of evolution of the halo
163: masses from the $\sim 10^{12}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$ scale is all the more
164: remarkable considering that the nonlinear mass evolves by well over a
165: factor of ten over the full redshift range probed by these studies.
166:
167: Clustering measurements of radio-loud AGN have been considerably less
168: accurate because many fewer redshifts have been available. Studies of
169: the angular clustering of radio sources drawn from the wide-area
170: surveys such as the NRAO VLA Sky Survey (NVSS) or the Faint Images of
171: the Radio Sky at Twenty-centimetres (FIRST) survey show that
172: radio-loud AGN are considerably more strongly clustered than quasars.
173: The estimated halo masses are typically around $10^{13} -10^{14}
174: M_{\odot}$ \citep{Overzier-03}. \citet{Magliocchetti-04} computed the
175: redshift-space correlation function for 820 nearby radio sources with
176: redshifts from the 2dF, and derived a characteristic halo mass of
177: $10^{13.4} M_{\odot}$. No difference was found in the clustering
178: properties of AGN with different radio luminosities.
179:
180: This paper focuses on a sample of 80~000 optically identified AGN and
181: 5~700 radio-loud AGN drawn from the Data Release 4 (DR4) of the Sloan
182: Digital Sky Survey. We compute two-point correlation functions and
183: measure the shear signal due to g-g lensing for these two samples.
184: The large sample size allows us to split the AGN into different bins
185: in stellar mass and study how the dark matter halo masses of optical
186: and radio AGN differ at a fixed value of $M_*$. Nearby radio-loud AGN
187: have been shown to have significantly higher stellar masses than
188: optically-identified AGN at the same redshift \citep{Best-05a}, so it
189: is important to understand whether the derived halo masses simply
190: track this difference or whether the dark matter halo affects either
191: the ability of an accreting black hole to produce a jet or the
192: detectability of the jet at radio wavelengths.
193:
194: We also create control samples of non-AGN that are matched in stellar
195: mass, redshift and morphology, and we use these control samples to
196: investigate whether the halo masses of active galaxies differ from
197: those of their counterparts chosen irrespective of their
198: level of nuclear activity. Finally, the fact
199: that the clustering and weak lensing analyses are carried out on the
200: same set of galaxies allows us to evaluate the consistency of our
201: constraints on dark matter halo mass obtained using the two methods.
202:
203: We begin by outlining the theory behind the lensing and clustering
204: measurements in section~\ref{S:theory}. We then describe the data
205: used for the analysis, and the analysis procedure, in
206: section~\ref{S:data}. The results for optical and radio-loud AGN are
207: presented in section~\ref{S:results}, including lensing and clustering
208: separately, followed by a joint analysis. We then summarize the key
209: results and discuss their implications in sections~\ref{S:summary}
210: and~\ref{S:implications}, respectively.
211:
212: \section{Theory}\label{S:theory}
213:
214: \subsection{Galaxy-galaxy lensing}\label{S:gglensing}
215:
216: Galaxy-galaxy weak lensing provides a simple way to probe the
217: connection between galaxies and matter via their cross-correlation
218: function
219: \begin{equation}
220: \xi_{gm}(\vec{r}) = \langle \delta_g (\vec{x})
221: \delta_{m}(\vec{x}+\vec{r})\rangle
222: \end{equation}
223: where $\delta_g$ and $\delta_{m}$ are overdensities of galaxies and
224: matter, respectively, and in practice the mean is taken over some
225: survey volume (in theory it is the average over a whole distribution,
226: but we can only estimate its value using the fixed volumes that are available
227: in reality). We will interchangably express correlation functions as
228: functions of vectors ($\vec{r}$) and scalars ($r$) because of the
229: assumption of statistical isotropy.
230:
231: This cross-correlation can be related to the
232: projected surface density
233: \begin{equation}\label{E:sigmar}
234: \Sigma(R) = \overline{\rho} \int \left[1+\xi_{gm}\left(\sqrt{R^2 + \chi^2}\right)\right] d\chi
235: \end{equation}
236: (for $r^2=R^2+\chi^2$), where we ignore the radial window, which is
237: much broader than the typical extent of the lens. This surface
238: density is then related to the observable
239: quantity for lensing,
240: \begin{equation}\label{E:ds}
241: \ds(R) = \gamma_t(R) \Sigma_c= \overline{\Sigma}(<R) - \Sigma(R),
242: \end{equation}
243: where the second relation is true only for a matter distribution that
244: is axisymmetric along the line of sight. This observable quantity can
245: be expressed as the product of two factors, a tangential shear
246: $\gamma_t$ and a geometric factor, the critical surface density
247: \begin{equation}\label{E:sigmacrit}
248: \Sigma_c = \frac{c^2}{4\pi G} \frac{D_S}{D_L D_{LS}(1+z_L)^2}
249: \end{equation}
250: where $D_L$ and $D_S$ are angular diameter distances to the lens and
251: source, $D_{LS}$ is the angular diameter distance between the lens
252: and source, and the factor of $(1+z_L)^{-2}$ arises due to our use of
253: comoving coordinates. For a given lens redshift,
254: $\Sigma_c^{-1}$ rises from zero at $z_s = z_L$ to an asymptotic value
255: at $z_s \gg z_L$; that asymptotic value is an increasing function of
256: lens redshift.
257:
258: In practice, we measure the g-g weak lensing signal around a stacked
259: sample of lenses to obtain the average $\Delta\Sigma(R)$ for the whole
260: sample. This stacked lensing signal can be split into two terms that
261: dominate on different scales. The 1-halo or Poisson term, which is
262: determined by the dark matter halo in which the galaxy lives,
263: dominates on scales typically below $\sim 1h^{-1}$Mpc. The halo-halo
264: term, which is determined by correlations between the galaxy and other
265: dark matter halos, dominates on larger scales. The 1-halo term can be
266: further split into two contributions. For central galaxies, which
267: reside at the peak density of a dark matter halo that is not contained
268: within another halo (a host halo), the Poisson term is simply
269: determined by the matter density of that host halo, $\rho(r)$. For
270: satellite galaxies, which reside in dark matter subhalos, there is a
271: contribution from the density of the dark matter subhalo, but there is
272: also a term on hundreds of kiloparsec scales due to the
273: cross-correlation between the galaxy position and the {\em host} dark
274: matter halo. Consequently, the lensing signal on $<\sim 0.3
275: h^{-1}$Mpc\
276: scales tells us about the dark matter halo in which the galaxy
277: resides; the signal from $\sim 0.3$ -- $1$\hmpc\ reveals the
278: local environment of the galaxy; and the signal on larger scales
279: indicates the large-scale correlations of the galaxy sample.
280:
281: We interpret the lensing signal statistically using a halo model,
282: which allows us to
283: determine both the typical halo mass $M_{cent}$ for central galaxies
284: in our galaxy sample, and also the satellite fraction $\alpha$ (the
285: fraction of the sample located in subhalos within some more massive
286: host dark matter halo). In
287: this simple formulation of the halo model, we assume that all central
288: galaxies in our sample have a single halo mass $M_{cent}$, and that all
289: satellite galaxies are distributed in halos with $M>3M_{cent}$ with
290: the number in a halo of given mass above this threshold $\propto M$.
291: Tests of this halo
292: model formulation using the lensing signal from N-body simulations
293: \citep{2005MNRAS.362.1451M} clearly indicate that the best-fitting
294: $M_{cent}$ and $\alpha$ recover the true values to within $\sim 10$
295: per cent, provided that the distribution of central halo masses is
296: relatively narrow (FWHM typically a factor of 6 or less). For a
297: broader distribution of central halo masses, the best-fitting
298: $M_{cent}$ lies between the median and the mean of the distribution,
299: but may differ from either one by as much as a factor of two. For
300: more details of this halo model and its assumptions, see
301: \cite{2005MNRAS.362.1451M}. In this work, we use this halo model
302: without applying any correction for the (unknown) scatter between
303: galaxy stellar mass and dark matter halo mass, but we will discuss the
304: extent to which our assumptions about the width of the central halo
305: mass distribution are likely to be correct.
306:
307: \subsection{Galaxy clustering}\label{S:gclustering}
308:
309: The clustering of galaxies is usually quantified using the two-point
310: correlation function \citep[2PCF, e.g.][]{Peebles-80}, defined by
311: \begin{equation}
312: d P_{12} = \bar{n}^2[1+\xi(\vec{r})]dV_1dV_2.
313: \end{equation}
314: Here $\bar{n}$ is the mean number density of galaxies, and $dV_1$ and
315: $dV_2$ are the volumes of two infinitesimally small spheres centered
316: at $\vec{x}_1$ and $\vec{x}_2$ with distance of
317: $\vec{r}=\vec{x}_2-\vec{x}_1$. By definition, $d P_{12}$ is the joint
318: probability that a galaxy lies in each of the spheres, and so the 2PCF
319: $\xi(r)$ represents the excess probability of finding two galaxies
320: separated by a distance $\vec{r}$, compared with the result obtained
321: for a uniform random distribution. If $\xi(r)>0$, then galaxies are
322: said to be clustered. In galaxy redshift surveys, the 2PCF is
323: measured in redshift space and usually expressed as functions of
324: separations perpendicular ($r_p$) and parallel ($\pi$) to the line of
325: sight. In many cases, the projected two-point correlation function,
326: $w_p(r_p)$, is the more useful quantity, because it does not suffer
327: from redshift-space distortions, and is thus directly related to the
328: real-space correlation function. The 2PCF is also simple to compute
329: and can be easily compared with the predictions of theoretical
330: models.
331:
332: The amplitude of the correlation function on scales larger than a few
333: Mpc provides a direct measure of the mass of the dark matter halos
334: that host the galaxies through the halo mass - bias relation. As shown
335: in \citet{Li-08a, Li-08b}, the amplitude of the correlation function
336: on scales $\la$ 100 kpc can serve as a probe of physical processes
337: such as mergers and interactions. On intermediate scales, the shape of
338: the correlation function is sensitive to how galaxies are distributed
339: {\em within} their dark matter halos.
340:
341: The clustering signal must also be interpreted using some form of halo
342: model. Following the approach adopted in our previous work, we
343: interpret clustering results using the models of \citet{Li-06a} and
344: \citet{Wang-06} which are based on direct N-body simulations. We have
345: constructed a set of 100 mock galaxy catalogues from the Millennium
346: Simulation \citep{Springel-05} with exactly the same observational
347: selection effects as the SDSS DR4. The Millennium Simulation uses
348: $10^{10}$ particles to follow the dark matter distribution in a cubic
349: region 500$h^{-1}$ Mpc on a side. The cosmological parameters assumed
350: are $\Omega_m=0.25$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.75$, $\sigma_8=0.9$ and
351: $h=0.73$. We adopted the positions and velocities of the galaxies
352: given in the catalogue of \citet{Croton-06}, who implemented a
353: semi-analytic model in order to track the formation and evolution of
354: galaxies in the simulation. Physical properties of the galaxies, such
355: as stellar masses and AGN status, are not taken from the semi-analytic
356: model, however, but instead are assigned to each model galaxy using
357: parametrized functions. The main such function relates the stellar
358: mass of the galaxy to the mass of the halo at the epoch when the
359: galaxy was last the central dominant object in its own halo, including
360: scatter in that relation. Tests
361: have shown that this procedure allows us to match accurately both the
362: stellar mass function of SDSS galaxies and the shape and amplitude of
363: their two-point correlations as a function of stellar mass
364: \citep{Li-06a, Wang-06}.
365:
366: In \citet[][hereafter L06]{Li-06c}, we adapted this halo model to
367: interpret the clustering of optically-identified AGN. In that paper,
368: we computed the correlation functions of AGN and of control samples of
369: {\em inactive} galaxies that had the same redshift and stellar mass
370: distribution as the active galaxies. We found that on scales between
371: 100 kpc and 1 Mpc, AGN are clustered more weakly than the inactive
372: sample. We then introduced a simple model in which the probability of
373: a galaxy of given stellar mass to be an AGN is enhanced if it is the
374: central galaxy of its own halo, and showed that this model could
375: provide a good fit to the data. In the best-fitting model, 84 per cent
376: of all optical AGN are located at the centres of their own dark matter
377: halos (i.e., $f_{cen}=0.84$), whereas this is true for only 73 per
378: cent of inactive galaxies.
379:
380: We emphasize that while in principle, it
381: would be easy to assume that $\alpha$ derived from the lensing
382: analysis is simply $1-f_{cen}$ from the clustering analysis, the
383: relationship is not as straightforward as this. The clustering
384: analysis starts from the assumption that the AGN and control samples
385: derive from a parent population which matches the statistical
386: properties of galaxies as a function of stellar mass (i.e., the
387: stellar mass function and the clustering as a function of mass). Any
388: halo model parameters such as $f_{cen}$ are then introduced as a way
389: of matching the observed AGN clustering by modifying the probability
390: that each galaxy in the parent population is an AGN. In
391: contrast, the lensing analysis does not assume that the AGN and
392: control samples stem from identical parent populations. In future
393: analyses with larger datasets, we will jointly model clustering and
394: lensing with the same assumptions at the outset; here, we simply use
395: pre-existing analysis pipelines that output quantities that should be
396: reasonably (but not exactly) comparable. Even in the absence of a
397: completely unified approach to modeling, there are many valuable
398: conclusions that can be drawn from the lensing and
399: clustering signals (e.g., if both the clustering and lensing signals for a
400: particular sample are comparable to the signals for the controls, or
401: if they are both quite different from the signals for the controls).
402:
403: \section{Data and signal measures}\label{S:data}
404:
405: \subsection{Overview of SDSS}
406: The data used here are obtained from the SDSS
407: \citep{2000AJ....120.1579Y}, an ongoing survey to image roughly $\pi$
408: steradians of the sky, and follow up approximately one million of the
409: detected objects spectroscopically \citep{2001AJ....122.2267E,
410: 2002AJ....123.2945R,2002AJ....124.1810S}. The imaging is carried out
411: by drift-scanning the sky in photometric conditions
412: \citep{2001AJ....122.2129H, 2004AN....325..583I}, in five bands
413: ($ugriz$) \citep{1996AJ....111.1748F, 2002AJ....123.2121S} using a
414: specially-designed wide-field camera
415: \citep{1998AJ....116.3040G}. These imaging data are used to create the
416: source catalogue that we use in this paper. In addition, objects are
417: targeted for spectroscopy using these data \citep{2003AJ....125.2276B}
418: and are observed with a 640-fiber spectrograph on the same telescope
419: \citep{2006AJ....131.2332G}. All of these data are processed by
420: completely automated pipelines that detect and measure photometric
421: properties of objects, and astrometrically calibrate the data
422: \citep{2001ASPC..238..269L,
423: 2003AJ....125.1559P,2006AN....327..821T}. The SDSS has had seven major
424: data releases \citep{2002AJ....123..485S, 2003AJ....126.2081A,
425: 2004AJ....128..502A, 2005AJ....129.1755A, 2004AJ....128.2577F,
426: 2006ApJS..162...38A, 2007ApJS..172..634A,2008ApJS..175..297A}. In this
427: paper we use data from the fourth of these
428: releases\citep[DR4;][]{2006ApJS..162...38A}.
429:
430: \subsection{The AGN and control samples}
431:
432: \subsubsection{Optically-identified AGN}\label{SS:optagn}
433:
434: The sample of optically-identified AGN is the same as that analyzed in
435: L06 and \citet{Li-08b}, in which the clustering of AGN on a variety of
436: different scales was studied.
437:
438: The base sample is composed of $\sim 4\times 10^5$ objects for which
439: data are publicly available through DR4 and which have been
440: spectroscopically confirmed as galaxies with $r$-band magnitudes in
441: the range $14.5<r<17.6$, redshifts in the range $0.01<z<0.3$, and
442: absolute magnitudes in the range $-23 < M_{0.1_{r}}< -17$. Here $r$
443: is the $r$-band Petrosian apparent magnitude corrected for foreground
444: extinction, and $M_{^{0.1}r}$ is the $r$-band absolute magnitude
445: corrected to its $z=0.1$ value using the $k$-correct code of
446: \cite{Blanton-03b} and the luminosity evolution model of
447: \cite{Blanton-03c}. A sample of $\sim 80,000$ AGN are selected from
448: the subset of these galaxies with $S/N>3$ in the four emission lines
449: [O {\sc iii}]$\lambda$5007, H$\beta$, [N {\sc ii}]$\lambda$6583 and
450: H$\alpha$, following the criteria proposed by \citet{Kauffmann-03}.
451: In the following analysis, we occasionally divide our sample into
452: ``weak'' and ``powerful'' AGN using the quantity $L$[OIII]$/M_{bh}$,
453: where $L$[OIII] is the extinction-corrected [OIII] line luminosity of
454: the AGN and M$_{bh}$ is the black hole mass estimated from the
455: velocity dispersion of the galaxy using the relation given in
456: \citet{Tremaine-02}. As discussed in \citet {Heckman-04}, this
457: quantity can be viewed as a measure of the accretion rate onto the
458: black hole relative to the Eddington rate.
459:
460: We have also constructed two sets of 20 different control samples from
461: the full parent sample of galaxies by matching a number of physical
462: parameters regardless of nuclear activity. For the first set, four
463: physical parameters are matched: redshift ($z$), stellar mass
464: ($M_\ast$), concentration ($R_{90}/R_{50}$), and stellar velocity
465: dispersion ($\sigma_\ast$). For the second set, the 4000 \AA\ break
466: strength ($D_{4000}$) is also matched. The matching tolerances are
467: $\Delta cz<500$ km s$^{-1}$, $\Delta\log M_\ast<0.1$,
468: $\Delta\sigma_\ast<20$ km s$^{-1}$, $\Delta R_{90}/R_{50}<0.1$ and
469: $\Delta D_{4000}<0.05$.\footnote{This procedure is identical to that
470: in L06, except that the control galaxies are selected from the full
471: parent sample, rather than from the subset of inactive galaxies.} In
472: the first case, 28 per cent of the control galaxies are also included
473: in the AGN sample; in the second case, the overlap fraction is higher,
474: 37 per cent. In both cases, the match fraction is a slightly
475: increasing function of stellar mass.
476:
477: \subsubsection{Radio-loud AGN}
478:
479: The National Radio
480: Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) Very Large Array (VLA) Sky Survey
481: \citep[NVSS;][]{Condon-98} and the Faint Images of the Radio Sky at
482: Twenty centimeters (FIRST) survey \citep{Becker-95} are two radio
483: surveys that have been carried out in recent years using the
484: VLA radio synthesis telescope at a frequency of 1.4 GHz.
485: \citet{Best-05a} identified radio-emitting galaxies within the
486: main spectroscopic sample of the SDSS data release 2 (DR2) by
487: comparing these galaxies with a combination of these two surveys.
488: The use of two radio surveys allowed a radio sample to be constructed
489: that was both reasonably complete ($\sim$95 per cent) and highly
490: reliable (it is estimated that $\sim$99 per cent of the sources
491: in the catalogue are genuine radio galaxies rather than false
492: matches). In this paper, we use an updated catalogue of 5~712
493: radio galaxies based on the SDSS data release 4 (DR4).
494: The sample spans the same redshift range as the
495: sample of optically-selected AGN, and the radio luminosities
496: of the AGN range from $10^{23}$ to $10^{26}$ W Hz$^{-1}$ (i.e.,
497: they are mainly FRI type systems).
498:
499: We have used the parent galaxy catalogue to construct a set of five
500: control samples that are closely matched in redshift, stellar mass and
501: stellar velocity dispersion. The matching tolerances are the same as
502: used to construct the optical AGN control samples. We do not
503: additionally match in D$_{4000}$, because almost all galaxies at the
504: relevant stellar masses are red, with a strong 4000 \AA\ break. Of
505: the control sample, 10.3 per cent of the galaxies are radio-loud AGN;
506: for our higher stellar mass subsample ($\log{(M_*/M_{\odot})}\ge 11.44$),
507: the radio-loud AGN fraction is 16 per cent, whereas for the lower
508: $M_*$ subsample, it is 7 per cent.
509:
510: \begin{figure*}
511: \includegraphics[width=6in,angle=0]{agn.split.ps}
512: \caption{\label{F:gg-optagn}The galaxy-galaxy lensing signal for
513: optical AGN (top) and control galaxies (bottom) as a function of
514: transverse separation. Points are the data, and lines are the
515: best-fitting halo models. The left panels show the sample split by
516: stellar mass as follows: $\log{M_*}<10.6$ (black solid),
517: $10.6\le\log{M_*}<11$ (red dotted), $\log{M_*}\ge 11$ (blue dashed).
518: The right panels show the sample split by $L$[OIII]$/M_{bh}$ into the
519: lower half of the sample (black solid) and upper half (red
520: dotted).}
521: \end{figure*}
522:
523:
524: \subsection{Lensing analysis}
525:
526: \subsubsection{Lensing source catalogue}
527:
528: The source sample used for the lensing analysis is the same as that
529: originally described in \cite{2005MNRAS.361.1287M}. This source
530: sample includes over 30 million galaxies from the SDSS imaging data
531: with $r$-band model magnitude brighter than 21.8, with shape
532: measurements obtained using the REGLENS pipeline, including PSF
533: correction done via re-Gaussianization \citep{2003MNRAS.343..459H} and
534: with cuts designed to avoid various shear calibration biases. In
535: addition to these, there are also uncertainties due to photometric
536: redshifts and/or redshift distributions of background galaxies, as
537: well as due to other issues affecting the calibration of the lensing
538: signal, such as the sky subtraction uncertainties, intrinsic
539: alignments, magnification bias, star-galaxy separation, and
540: seeing-dependent systematics. The overall calibration uncertainty was
541: estimated to be eight per cent \citep{2005MNRAS.361.1287M}, though the
542: redshift calibration component of this systematic error budget has
543: recently been decreased due to the availability of more spectroscopic
544: data \citep{2008MNRAS.386..781M}. With a total estimated lensing
545: calibration uncertainty of $\sim 5$ per cent, this systematic is
546: subdominant compared to the statistical error and to the uncertainty
547: derived from the model used to interpret the lensing signal.
548:
549: \subsubsection{Lensing signal computation}
550:
551: Here we briefly describe the computation of the lensing signal; for
552: more detail, see~\cite{2005MNRAS.361.1287M}. For each lens, we
553: identify sources within 46 logarithmically-spaced annuli around the
554: lens (in comoving transverse separation) from 20 $h^{-1}$kpc to 2
555: $h^{-1}$Mpc. The tangential ellipticity of the source relative to the
556: lens is measured, in order to estimate the tangential shear.
557: Lens-source pairs are assigned weights according to the
558: error on the shape measurement via
559: \begin{equation}
560: w_{ls} = \frac{\Sigma_c^{-2}}{\sigma_s^2 + \sigma_{SN}^2}
561: \end{equation}
562: where $\sigma_{SN}^2$ is the intrinsic shape noise and $\sigma_s$ is
563: the measurement error on the source galaxy ellipticity. The factor of
564: $\Sigma_c^{-2}$ optimally weights the signal by the noise in
565: $\Delta\Sigma$ rather than in the shear.
566:
567: Once we have computed these weights, we compute the lensing signal in
568: each radial bin as
569: a summation over lens-source pairs via:
570: \begin{equation}
571: \ds(R) = \frac{\sum_{ls} w_{ls} e_t^{(ls)} \Sigma_c}{2 {\cal
572: R}\sum_{ls} w_{ls}}
573: \end{equation}
574: where the factor of 2 and the shear responsivity ${\cal R}$ relate our
575: definition of ellipticity to the
576: shear, using the formalism in \cite{2002AJ....123..583B}. In practice, ${\cal
577: R}\approx 1-e_{rms}^2 \approx 0.86$.
578:
579: There are several additional procedures that must be done when
580: computing the signal (for more detail, see
581: ~\citealt{2005MNRAS.361.1287M}). First, the signal computed around
582: random points must be subtracted from the signal around real lenses to
583: eliminate contributions from systematic shear. In practice, this
584: correction is negligible for the scales used in this work. Second,
585: the signal must be boosted, i.e. multiplied by $B(R) =
586: n(R)/n_{rand}(R)$, the ratio of the number density of sources relative
587: to the number around random points, in order to account for dilution
588: by sources that are physically associated with lenses, and therefore
589: not lensed.
590:
591: To determine errors on the lensing signal, we divide the survey area
592: into 200 bootstrap subregions, and generate 2500 bootstrap-resampled
593: datasets. These bootstrap-resampled datasets are also crucial for
594: determining the statistical significance of differences between
595: correlated subsamples of galaxies, because fitting the signal to the
596: halo model on each resampled dataset allows us to determine
597: how much any overlap between two galaxy samples leads to a correlation between the best-fitting halo model
598: parameters for the two samples.
599:
600: The lensing signal is presented in comoving coordinates, with angular
601: diameter distances computed assuming a flat $\Lambda$CDM universe with
602: $\Omega_m=0.3$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$. The halo model used to
603: interpret the lensing signal assumes $\sigma_8=0.9$. In the units
604: used, $H_0$ scales out of everything, so our results are independent
605: of this quantity. The central halo mass definition for this paper is
606: the mass within which the spherical overdensity is $200\rho_{crit}$,
607: which is roughly
608: 35 per cent lower than the mass definition used for
609: previous lensing analyses using this halo model formalism
610: \citep{2005MNRAS.362.1451M,2006MNRAS.368..715M}. This change in halo
611: mass definition
612: was made to match the mass definition for the clustering analysis.
613:
614: \subsection{Clustering analysis}
615:
616: \subsubsection{The reference galaxy sample}
617:
618: In this paper, the clustering of AGN (or control galaxies) is
619: quantified by the projected two-point cross-correlation function
620: (2PCCF), $w_p(r_p)$, which is estimated by cross-correlating the AGN
621: (or control) samples described above with a reference sample of
622: galaxies.\footnote{We use the notation $r_p$ for the transverse
623: separation in the clustering analysis, and the notation $R$ for the
624: same quantity in the lensing analysis. The main reason is to maintain
625: notational consistency within previous work.} The reference galaxies
626: are selected from {\tt sample dr4} of the New York University Value
627: Added Galaxy Catalogue (NYU-VAGC), which is based on SDSS DR4,
628: publicly available at http://sdss.physics.nyu.edu/vagc/, and is
629: described in detail in \citet{Blanton-05}. The reference sample
630: contains 292,782 objects that are identified as galaxies from the Main
631: sample and have $0.01\leq z\leq 0.3$, $14.5<r<17.6$ and
632: $-23<M_{^{0.1}r}<-17$. This sample has formed the
633: basis of our recent investigations of the clustering properties of
634: different classes of galaxies \citep[L06, ][]{Li-07,Li-08a,Li-08b}.
635:
636: \subsubsection{Clustering measures}
637:
638: Our methodology for computing correlation functions has also been
639: described in detail in our previous papers. Random samples are
640: constructed with the same selection function as the reference
641: sample, as described in detail in \citet{Li-06a} (but note the
642: slight differences mentioned here in \S\ref{SS:optagn}). The
643: redshift-space 2PCCF $\xi(r_p,\pi)$ between AGN (or control galaxies)
644: and the reference sample is then calculated using the estimator
645: presented in L06,
646: \begin{equation}
647: \xi(r_p,\pi) = \frac{N_R}{N_D} \frac{QD(r_p,\pi)}{QR(r_p,\pi)} -1,
648: \end{equation}
649: where $r_p$ and $\pi$ are the separations perpendicular and parallel
650: to the line of sight; $N_D$ and $N_R$ are the number of galaxies in
651: the reference sample and in the random sample, with $N_R/N_D=10$
652: throughout this paper; $QD(r_p,\pi)$ and
653: $QR(r_p,\pi)$ are the cross pair counts between AGN/control and the
654: reference sample, and between AGN/control and the random sample,
655: respectively. Finally, the redshift-space projected 2PCCF $w_p(r_p)$
656: is estimated by integrating $\xi(r_p,\pi)$ along the line-of-sight
657: direction:
658: \begin{equation}
659: w_p(r_p)=\int_{-\pi_{max}}^{+\pi_{max}}\xi(r_p,\pi)d\pi=
660: \sum_i\xi(r_p,\pi_i)\Delta\pi_i.
661: \end{equation}
662: Here $\pi_{max}=40 h^{-1}$ Mpc, and the summation for computing
663: $w_p(r_p)$ runs from $\pi_1 = -39.5 $
664: h$^{-1}$ Mpc to $\pi_{80} = 39.5$ h$^{-1}$ Mpc, with $\Delta\pi_i = 1$
665: h$^{-1}$ Mpc. We have also corrected carefully for the effect of fibre
666: collisions; a description and tests of the method can be found in
667: L06. As will be described in more detail in
668: \S~\ref{S:radioAGN_gclustering}, error estimates
669: come from the variance in $w_p(r_p)$ between 100 mock catalogues.
670:
671: The clustering computation assumes the same flat $\Lambda$CDM universe
672: with $\Omega_m=0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$ and $\sigma_8=0.9$ as for
673: the lensing analysis. Our results are presented in units of $h^{-1}$
674: Mpc with $h=1$.
675:
676:
677: \section{Results}\label{S:results}
678:
679: \subsection{Optical AGN}\label{S:opticalAGN}
680:
681: Results and interpretation for the galaxy clustering signal of the
682: optical AGN have been presented in L06, and are also briefly described in
683: \S\ref{S:gclustering}. Consequently, here we present only the
684: galaxy-galaxy lensing signal and its interpretation for this sample.
685: In section~\ref{S:summary}, we compare the halo masses and satellite
686: fractions estimated through lensing with the same quantities estimated
687: through clustering.
688:
689: In Fig.~\ref{F:gg-optagn}, we show the g-g lensing signal for the
690: optical AGN sample split by stellar mass and by the accretion rate per
691: unit black hole mass ($L$[OIII]$/M_{bh}$). Results are shown for both
692: the AGN and the control samples; results for the control samples with
693: the same distribution of $D_{4000}$ are not shown, because they are
694: statistically consistent with the results for the control samples
695: where $D_{4000}$ is not matched.
696:
697: There are several clear trends in this figure. First, the g-g lensing
698: signal on small scales ($<0.3$\hmpc) shows that the halo mass for
699: central galaxies increases with stellar mass and decreases with
700: $L$[OIII]$/M_{bh}$. This conclusion is true for both the AGN and for
701: the control samples. Second, the g-g lensing signal for AGN and
702: controls in a particular subsample is quite similar; any differences
703: are not statistically significant.
704:
705: We now consider the halo model interpretation of these results,
706: represented by the best-fitting central halo mass and satellite
707: fraction for each sample. These quantities are plotted for the
708: optical AGN and the two control samples in
709: Fig.~\ref{F:gg-optagn-hmfits} as a function of stellar mass. For
710: reference, they are tabulated for all optical AGN and control
711: subsamples, including the splits by $L$[OIII]$/M_{bh}$, in
712: Table~\ref{T:gg-optagn-hmfits}.
713:
714: \begin{figure}
715: \includegraphics[width=3.2in,angle=0]{AGNsmtrends.ps}
716: \caption{\label{F:gg-optagn-hmfits}The best-fitting central halo
717: masses $M_{cent}$ (top) and satellite fractions $\alpha$ (bottom) as
718: a function of stellar mass for the optical AGN and the two control
719: samples as labelled on the plot.}
720: \end{figure}
721:
722: \begin{figure}
723: \includegraphics[width=3.2in,angle=0]{halo_mass_of_mock_agn.ps}
724: \caption{\label{F:mcentdist-optagn}The distributions of central halo
725: mass in the mock catalogues that are able to reproduce the clustering
726: signal in \protect\cite{Li-06c} in our three stellar
727: mass bins.}
728: \end{figure}
729:
730: \begin{table*}
731: \caption{\label{T:gg-optagn-hmfits}Best-fitting halo model parameters for
732: fits to the optical AGN g-g weak lensing signal, with 68 per cent CL errors.}
733: \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
734: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Optical AGN} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Controls} &
735: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Controls with $D_{4000}$} \\
736: Sample & $M_{cent}$ & $\alpha$ & $M_{cent}$ & $\alpha$ & $M_{cent}$ & $\alpha$ \\
737: & $10^{12} h^{-1}M_{\odot}$ & & $10^{12} h^{-1}M_{\odot}$ & & $10^{12} h^{-1}M_{\odot}$ & \\
738: \hline
739: \hline
740: $\log{M_*/M_\odot} < 10.6$, $\langle M_*/(10^{10}M_\odot)\rangle=2.3$
741: & $0.13\pm 0.08$ & $0.26\pm 0.04$ & $0.31\pm 0.16$ & $0.27\pm 0.05$ &
742: $0.29\pm 0.15$ & $0.33\pm 0.05$ \\
743: $10.6\le \log{M_*/M_\odot} < 11$, $\langle
744: M_*/(10^{10}M_\odot)\rangle=6.5\!\!\!\!\!$ & $0.86\pm 0.21$ & $0.18\pm 0.04$ &
745: $0.77\pm 0.20$ & $0.22\pm 0.05$ & $0.79\pm 0.21$ & $0.19\pm 0.05$ \\
746: $\log{M_*/M_\odot} \ge 11$, $\langle M_*/(10^{10}M_\odot)\rangle=15.4$
747: & $2.3\pm 0.4$ & $0.19\pm 0.04$ & $3.0\pm 0.5$ & $0.20\pm 0.04$ &
748: $2.8\pm 0.6$ & $0.21\pm 0.05$ \\
749: Lower half, $L$[OIII]$/M_{bh}$ & $1.1\pm 0.2$ & $0.25\pm 0.03$ &
750: $1.5\pm 0.2$ & $0.25\pm 0.03$ & $1.1\pm 0.2$ & $0.30\pm 0.03$ \\
751: Upper half, $L$[OIII]$/M_{bh}$ & $0.47\pm 0.13$ & $0.16\pm 0.03$ &
752: $0.39\pm 0.14$ & $0.22\pm 0.03$ & $0.52\pm 0.16$ & $0.17\pm 0.03$ \\
753: \hline
754: \hline
755: \end{tabular}
756: \end{table*}
757:
758: A few trends are evident from the plot and table. First, for the
759: samples split by stellar mass, the differences in halo model
760: parameters for the AGN and control samples are not statistically
761: significant, as expected from Fig.~\ref{F:gg-optagn}. However, the
762: central halo mass shows a strong trend with stellar mass, consistent
763: with the lensing results for the general galaxy population discussed
764: in \cite{2006MNRAS.368..715M}. If we compare against the results in
765: that paper after accounting for the different halo mass definitions,
766: we conclude that for the lower and middle stellar mass
767: bins, the best-fitting central halo mass is consistent (within the
768: noise) with the results for both early and late type galaxies, which
769: have similar mean halo masses below stellar masses $\sim 10^{11}M_{\odot}$. For the
770: highest stellar mass bin, our best-fitting central halo mass is more
771: consistent with the results for late-type galaxies (lower by a factor
772: of a few than that for early-type galaxies). This result is consistent
773: with the general tendency of these narrow-line AGN to be associated
774: with galaxies with ongoing star formation.
775:
776: The satellite fractions decrease slightly from the lowest to middle
777: stellar mass bin. Consistent with the results from L06, we find
778: slightly lower satellite fractions for the optical AGN than for the
779: control samples. Unlike for the galaxy clustering signal, this
780: difference is not statistically significant.
781:
782: There is clearly a significant difference in the mean central halo
783: mass and satellite fraction for the samples split at the median value
784: of $L$[OIII]$/M_{bh}$. However, this quantity is itself correlated
785: with stellar mass, so some of the trend derives from that correlation.
786: For the lower half of the sample in OIII luminosity, the mean stellar
787: mass is $\langle M_*\rangle = 9.1\times 10^{10}M_{\odot}$; for the
788: upper half, it is $7.3\times 10^{10}M_{\odot}$. The results for the
789: control samples with the same stellar mass distribution suggest that
790: the difference in best-fitting central halo masses can be explained
791: solely by this difference in stellar mass distributions.
792:
793: Finally, we discuss the broadness of the central halo mass
794: distribution. As we have already noted, a broad central halo mass
795: distribution would lead to the best-fitting central halo masses being
796: an overestimate of the median mass, and underestimate of
797: the mean mass. To assess whether this may be the case, we use the
798: halo occupation models of L06 for optical AGN (see
799: \S\ref{S:gclustering}) which can be used to derive a central halo mass
800: distribution. This plot is shown in Fig.~\ref{F:mcentdist-optagn}. As
801: shown, the FWHM of the distribution for the two lower stellar mass
802: bins is within the factor of $\sim 6$ needed for accurate estimation
803: of the mean central halo mass. However, the distribution is
804: sufficiently broad for the highest stellar mass bin that our estimate
805: from the lensing signal is likely an underestimate of the mean,
806: possibly by as much as 50 per cent. We do not apply a correction to
807: determine the mean central halo mass for either the AGN or the
808: controls in this bin, since there is significant systematic
809: uncertainty in the correction factor itself.
810:
811: \subsection{Radio AGN}\label{S:radioAGN}
812:
813: \subsubsection{Galaxy Clustering}\label{S:radioAGN_gclustering}
814: \begin{figure*}
815: \centerline{\psfig{figure=wrp_model_0.74_12.75.ps,clip=true,width=\textwidth}}
816: \caption{Projected cross-correlation function $w_p(r_p)$ for radio AGN
817: (green filled circles) in different stellar mass ranges compared to
818: results for control samples selected without regard to AGN properties
819: (black open symbols). Results for the best-fitting model
820: are indicated as red (AGN) and blue (controls) shaded regions, where the width of the
821: shaded regions corresponds to the $1-\sigma$ variance between 200 mock
822: catalogues. Errorbars are significantly correlated ($>10$ per cent) between radial
823: bins above $\sim 1h^{-1}$Mpc.}
824: \label{fig:wrp_model_B}
825: \end{figure*}
826:
827: \begin{figure*}
828: \centerline{\psfig{figure=det_contour_whole.200.ps,clip=true,width=\textwidth}}
829: \caption{Determinant of the covariance matrix of $w_p(r_p)$ (see Eq. \ref{eqn:cov_matrix}),
830: on the grid of the two model parameters, $f_{cen}$ and $M_h^{min}$.
831: $f_{cen}$ is the fraction of radio AGN that are hosted by the central
832: galaxy of their own dark matter halo, and $M_h^{min}$ is the minimum
833: mass for the halos that can host radio AGN. The contour levels are
834: indicated at the right-hand side.
835: }
836: \label{fig:det_contour_whole}
837: \end{figure*}
838:
839: \begin{figure*}
840: \centerline{\psfig{figure=lambda_contour_whole.200.ps,clip=true,width=\textwidth}}
841: \caption{$\Lambda$, defined by Eq.(\ref{eqn:lambda}) and derived by comparing
842: the projected 2PCCF $w_p(r_p)$ for the whole sample of radio AGN as predicted by the halo
843: occupation model and as measured from the SDSS data, is plotted with
844: respect to the minimum value $\Lambda_{min}$, in the
845: grid of the two model parameters, $f_{cen}$ and
846: $M_h^{min}$.
847: %$f_{cen}$ is the fraction of radio AGN that are hosted by the central
848: %galaxy of their own dark matter halo, and $M_h^{min}$ is the minimum
849: %mass for the halos that can host radio AGN.
850: The contour levels, as
851: indicated at the right-hand side, are chosen to cover the full range
852: of $\Lambda$ produced by all the models. The 68.3\%, 90\% and 95.4\%
853: confidence levels are plotted as solid, dashed and dotted black lines.
854: }
855: \label{fig:lambda_contour_whole}
856: \end{figure*}
857:
858: We have measured the projected 2PCCF $w_p(r_p)$ of the radio AGN with
859: respect to the reference galaxies, and compared this to the average
860: result of the five control samples. The results are shown in
861: Fig.~\ref{fig:wrp_model_B} for the whole sample (circles in the
862: left panel) and for two different ranges in stellar mass
863: $M_\ast$.
864:
865: Radio AGN are more strongly clustered than control galaxies on all
866: scales. The difference in $w_p(r_p)$ amplitude is a constant factor on scales
867: smaller than $\sim$ 1 Mpc, then rises slightly on larger scales. %,
868: %and then is constant again above 10 Mpc.
869: Fig.~\ref{fig:wrp_model_B} also shows that the clustering
870: amplitude of radio AGN increases with the stellar mass of the host
871: galaxy. This result is consistent with the fact that more massive galaxies
872: are more strongly clustered \citep{Li-06a}. We have also tested
873: whether there is a dependence of the clustering amplitude on the radio
874: luminosity of the AGN, and we find that at fixed $M_*$, there is no
875: significant effect. This finding is consistent with the recent results of
876: \citet{Kauffmann-Heckman-Best-08}, who show that radio-loud AGN are in
877: denser environments than control radio-quiet galaxies, but that there
878: is no dependence of local density on the radio luminosity of the AGN.
879:
880: We now use our mock catalogues (see \S\ref{S:data}) to model the
881: observed clustering measurements of radio AGN. We first tried to vary
882: the fraction of radio AGN assigned to central versus satellite
883: galaxies (as was done for the optical AGN). We found that if radio
884: AGN are preferentially found in satellite galaxies, we can fit the
885: data on scales smaller than a few Mpc, but the model then
886: underpredicts the clustering amplitude on larger scales. As we have
887: discussed, the amplitude of the correlation function on scales larger
888: than a few Mpc provides a direct measure of the mass of the dark
889: matter halos hosting the radio AGN. Motivated by the models of
890: \citet{Croton-06} and \citet{Bower-06}, we impose a lower threshold in
891: halo mass, $M_h^{min}$, as a second free parameter of the model. In
892: other words, radio-loud AGN are only found in dark matter halos more
893: massive than $M_h^{min}$. The probability of a galaxy to be a
894: radio-loud AGN depends not only on whether it is a central or
895: satellite system, but also on the mass of its dark matter halo.
896: However, the probability that a particular galaxy is an AGN does not
897: depend on the AGN status of its neighbors. While
898: this step function in mass is undoubtedly an over-simplification, we
899: adopt it as a first attempt at modeling to see if it is close enough
900: to reality that the observations can be modeled in this way.
901:
902: We have generated a grid of 322 models by
903: varying the two parameters, $f_{cen}$ and $M_h^{min}$, with $f_{cen}$
904: ranging from 0.40 to 0.84 with a step size of 0.02, and
905: $\log(M_h^{min}/h^{-1}M_\odot)$ ranging from 10.0 to 13.25 with a step size of
906: 0.25. We have constructed 200 mock catalogues of radio
907: AGN for each of the models.
908: We measure $w_p(r_p)$ and its covariance matrix $\mathbf{C}$ at each grid point,
909: and we compare the measurements to the SDSS results.
910: In order to identify the best-fit model, we first calculate the likelihood
911: of each parameter set, $L(f_{cen},M_h^{min})$, by
912: \begin{equation}
913: L(f_{cen},M_h^{min}) = \frac{\left(2\pi\right)^{-m/2}}{\det[\mathbf{C}(f_{cen},M_h^{min})]}
914: e^{-0.5\chi^2(f_{cen},M_h^{min})},
915: \end{equation}
916: where
917: \begin{equation}
918: \chi^2(f_{cen}, M_h^{min})=
919: \mathbf{X}^T\mathbf{C}^{-1}\mathbf{X}.
920: \end{equation}
921: Here $\mathbf{X}=\{X_{j}\}\ (j=1,...,m)$ is an $m\times 1$ vector
922: with
923: \begin{equation}
924: X_{j} = \left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} w_{p,i}(r_{p,j})_{model}\right) - w_p(r_{p,j})_{SDSS},
925: \end{equation}
926: where $n=200$ is the number of mock catalogues, $m$ is the number of
927: radial bins over which $w_p(r_p)$ is measured, $w_p(r_{p,j})_{SDSS}$ is the
928: clustering amplitude at the $j^{th}$ radial bin as measured from the SDSS,
929: and $w_{p,i}(r_{p,j})_{model}$ is the result at the $j^{th}$ radial bin
930: as measured with the $i^{th}$ mock catalogue.
931: The $m\times m$ matrix $\mathbf{C}=\{C_{ij}\}\ (i,j=1,...,m)$ is the
932: covariance matrix of the measurements from the 200 mock catalogues, given by
933: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:cov_matrix}
934: C_{i,j} = \frac{1}{n-1}\left[\sum_{k=1}^n\left( Y_{ki}-\langle
935: Y_i\rangle \right)\left(Y_{kj}-\langle Y_j\rangle \right)\right]
936: \end{equation}
937: where
938: \begin{equation}
939: Y_{k,i} = w_{p,k}(r_{p,i})_{model}
940: \end{equation}
941: is the measurement at the $i^{th}$ radial bin from the $k^{th}$ mock
942: catalogue, and
943: \begin{equation}
944: \langle Y_i \rangle = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^{n} w_{p,k}(r_{p,i})_{model}
945: \end{equation}
946: is the mean measurement at the $i^{th}$ radial bin over all mock
947: catalogues.
948:
949: We define the best-fit model to be the one
950: giving a minimum $\Lambda$ computed as follows:
951: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:lambda}
952: &&\Lambda(f_{cen},M_h^{min}) = -2\ln L(f_{cen},M_h^{min}) \\
953: &&= \chi^2(f_{cen},M_h^{min})+2\ln\{\det[\mathbf{C}(f_{cen},M_h^{min})]\}+m\ln(2\pi).\nonumber
954: \end{eqnarray}
955: Note that this maximum likelihood estimate differs from the simple
956: minimum of $\chi^2$ if the determinant of the covariance matrix
957: $\det[\mathbf{C}]$ varies with the parameters. This variation is
958: demonstrated in Figure \ref{fig:det_contour_whole}, where we plot
959: $\ln[\det(\mathbf{C})]$ in the grid of the two model parameters,
960: $f_{cen}$ and $M_h^{min}$. As can be seen, the determinant of the
961: covariance matrix does vary systematically from model to model. This
962: variation is due to the fact that the covariance depends on the two-
963: and four-point functions of the galaxy distributions, which clearly
964: differ across the grid due to the different ways the halos are
965: populated with AGN. However, the variation is relatively smooth,
966: indicating that we have used enough mock catalogues at each grid point
967: (200) to determine the covariance matrix with a sufficiently small
968: noise level.
969:
970: We compare the measured $w_p(r_p)$ with the models in four radial bins
971: centered at $r_p=$ 0.21, 0.65, 2.1 and 6.5 $h^{-1}$Mpc, with a step
972: size of $\Delta\log r_p = 0.5$ (larger than the radial bins shown in
973: the plots). The choice of 4 radial bins was motivated by tests showing
974: that the covariance matrices evaluated from the mock catalogues were
975: well-behaved in this case, whereas using a significantly larger number
976: of radial bins causes the covariance matrices (a) to be noisier, and
977: (b) to have peculiar patterns of correlations between bins suggestive
978: of edge effects (in particular, strong correlations between certain adjacent
979: pairs of radial bins that are not representative of the overall
980: pattern of correlations). These particular radial bins were chosen to sample separate
981: parts of the HOD, namely the central 1-halo term, the satellite 1-halo term, the
982: transition between the 1- and 2-halo terms, and the 2-halo term
983: (respectively). The minimum radius was chosen because the
984: data at smaller separations are rather noisy.
985:
986: Fig.~\ref{fig:lambda_contour_whole} plots the contours of
987: $\Delta\Lambda=\Lambda-\Lambda_{min}$ in the grid of the two
988: parameters, when using the $w_p(r_p)$ measurements for the full
989: radio-loud AGN sample (left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:wrp_model_B}). The
990: $1,2,$ and $3 \sigma$ confidence regions, computed for $m=4$ and 2
991: parameters, are indicated using solid, dashed and dotted black
992: lines. We have explicitly checked the distribution of $\chi^2$ values
993: for the individual mock catalogs to ascertain that the Gaussian
994: approximation for the likelihood is valid, and found that the
995: cumulative distribution of $\chi^2$ matches the expected distribution
996: at extremely high confidence (using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test) at
997: all points on the grid.
998: Consequently, the
999: method we have used to determine confidence regions is valid. The
1000: minimum $\Lambda_{min}$, appears at $f_{cen}=0.74$
1001: and $M_h^{min}=10^{12.75}h^{-1}M_\odot$ with $\chi^2/d.o.f.=0.5$,
1002: indicating that the fit is
1003: acceptable.
1004:
1005: However, there is a strong degeneracy between the two
1006: parameters in the sense that models with smaller $f_{cen}$ and lower
1007: $M_h^{min}$ can also provide a reasonable fit to the data.
1008: While this minimum is the preferred solution at the $1$-$\sigma$
1009: level, there is a banana-shaped degeneracy region extending down to
1010: $(0.60, 10.0)$ that is allowed at the $2$-$\sigma$ level. The slight
1011: saddlepoint at $(0.60, 11.75)$ that appears to divide this region does
1012: not have a sufficiently large $\Delta\Lambda$ relative to the minimum
1013: that we can robustly consider it is being real. As shown in
1014: Fig.~\ref{fig:sigma_contour_whole}, the residual noise in $\Lambda$
1015: due to the use of finite $N_{mock}$ for the modeling is comparable to
1016: the size of $\Delta\Lambda$ that creates this apparent saddlepoint.
1017: The noise in $\Lambda$ was determined by bootstrapping the
1018: (roughly independent) $N_{mock}$ to make many new sets of mock
1019: catalogs and determining the variance between $\Lambda$ for these
1020: sets of $N_{mock}$.
1021: However, the size of $\Delta\Lambda$ that distinguishes this
1022: degeneracy region from the rest of the plane in $(f_{cen}, M_h^{min})$
1023: is significantly larger than the noise in $\Lambda$.
1024: The reason that we are able to fit the data reasonably
1025: well at other points in this degeneracy region, despite the very
1026: different halo model parameters, is that the
1027: higher satellite fraction places more AGN as satellites in very
1028: massive halos, offsetting the lower bias for central AGN due to the
1029: lower $M_h^{min}$.
1030:
1031: We now use the center and right panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:wrp_model_B}
1032: to evaluate whether the model that best fits the data for the full
1033: sample can also describe the data for the sample split into two
1034: stellar mass bins. We have repeated the above analysis
1035: with two samples of radio AGN with $\log M_\ast<11.44$ and $\log
1036: M_\ast\ge 11.44$. We evaluate the correlation function
1037: using the same radial bins for 200 mock catalogues. We see that while
1038: the model is able to describe the data for the lower stellar mass bin
1039: quite well, including the significant separation in signal between
1040: radio AGN and controls, there is some tension between the observations
1041: and the model for the higher
1042: stellar mass bin. As shown, the observed signals still have a significant
1043: offset, but the model signals are nearly the same for the radio AGN and
1044: for the controls. This is not surprising, since at these high stellar
1045: masses, essentially all halos are above $M_h^{min}$. Consequently,
1046: the apparent failure of the model at high stellar mass most likely
1047: results from the fact that a step-function model for the radio AGN
1048: probability is overly simplistic. A probability that is a function of
1049: mass would allow for a better description, but unfortunately the data
1050: quality do not justify adding additional halo model parameters at this
1051: time, so we defer such an analysis to future work with more data.
1052: \begin{figure}
1053: \centerline{\psfig{figure=sigma_lambda_nmock.ps,clip=true,width=\columnwidth}}
1054: \caption{Noise in contour plot of $\Lambda$,
1055: Figure~\ref{fig:lambda_contour_whole}, due to finite $N_{mock}$, as
1056: determined from bootstrap
1057: resampling of the 200 mock catalogs. The noise as a function of
1058: $N_{mock}$ is shown for three different points on the grid: the
1059: global minimum, and two other points in the degeneracy region.}
1060: \label{fig:sigma_contour_whole}
1061: \end{figure}
1062:
1063:
1064: \subsubsection{Galaxy-galaxy lensing}\label{S:radioAGN_gglensing}
1065: Here we present the galaxy-galaxy weak lensing signal for the radio-loud
1066: AGN sample, along with the halo model fits. These results are shown
1067: in Fig.~\ref{F:gg-rAGN} for the full
1068: radio-loud AGN and control samples (upper left); a stellar mass subsample containing
1069: the lower $2/3$ of the sample in stellar mass (lower left); the remaining upper
1070: $1/3$ of the sample in stellar mass (upper right); and the radio-loud
1071: AGN split by
1072: $\log{(P/M_{bh})}$ (lower right).
1073: \begin{figure*}
1074: \includegraphics[width=6in,angle=0]{rAGN.multi.ps}
1075: \caption{\label{F:gg-rAGN}The galaxy-galaxy lensing signal for
1076: the radio-loud AGN and control galaxies split into subsamples as
1077: indicated on the plot. Points show the measured signal and lines show the
1078: best-fitting halo model.}
1079: \end{figure*}
1080: % rAGN.multi.sm --> rAGN.multi.ps
1081:
1082: \begin{figure*}
1083: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth,angle=0]{hist_hmass_rAGN_0.74_12.75.ps}
1084: \caption{\label{F:mcentdist-ragn}The distributions of halo
1085: mass in the mock catalogues that are able to reproduce the clustering
1086: signal for radio-loud AGN in the full sample and our two stellar
1087: mass bins. Results are shown for the full sample (black lines),
1088: central galaxies only (red lines), and satellites only (blue
1089: lines).}
1090: \end{figure*}
1091:
1092: A number of trends are evident in
1093: Fig.~\ref{F:gg-rAGN}. First, we see that the lensing signal is higher
1094: on all scales ($R<2h^{-1}$Mpc) for the radio-loud AGN than for the control sample.
1095: Second, this trend persists in the different stellar mass subsamples. Third, the
1096: lensing signal increases with stellar mass, as expected. Finally, the
1097: lensing signal for the two bins in $\log{(P/M_{bh})}$ are not markedly
1098: different from each other. For the lower and higher bins in this
1099: quantity, the mean
1100: stellar masses are $2.45$ and $2.75\times 10^{11}M_{\odot}$,
1101: respectively, a difference of only 10 per cent, much less than the
1102: difference between the mean stellar masses for the two stellar mass
1103: bins, so this near equivalence is not surprising.
1104:
1105: Next, we present the halo model interpretation of these results.
1106: Table~\ref{T:radio-gg-hmfits} gives the best-fitting halo model parameters
1107: for each of the subsamples shown in Fig.~\ref{F:gg-rAGN}.
1108: \begin{table*}
1109: \caption{\label{T:radio-gg-hmfits}Best-fitting halo model parameters for
1110: fits to the radio-loud AGN g-g weak lensing signal, with 68 per cent
1111: CL errors (in each case, marginalized over the other HOD parameter).}
1112: \begin{tabular}{lccccc}
1113: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Radio-Loud AGN} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Controls} & \\
1114: Sample & $M_{cent}$ & $\alpha$ & $M_{cent}$ & $\alpha$ &
1115: $p(M_{cent}^{(AGN)} > M_{cent}^{(control)})$ \\
1116: & $[10^{13} h^{-1}M_{\odot}]$ & & $[10^{13} h^{-1}M_{\odot}]$ & & \\
1117: \hline
1118: \hline
1119: Full & $1.6\pm 0.4$ & $0.22\pm 0.11$ & $0.91^{+0.12}_{-0.10}$ &
1120: $0.13\pm 0.05$ & $0.97$ \\
1121: $\log{(M_*/M_\odot)} < 11.44$ & $0.8^{+0.4}_{-0.5}$ &
1122: $0.31^{+0.30}_{-0.16}$ & $0.56^{+0.11}_{-0.09}$ &
1123: $0.10^{+0.05}_{-0.07}$ & $0.71$ \\
1124: $\log{(M_*/M_\odot)} \ge 11.44$ & $4.9^{+0.7}_{-0.9}$ &
1125: $0.01^{+0.15}_{-0.01}$ & $2.5\pm 0.4$ & $0.16\pm 0.10$ & $0.99$ \\
1126: $\log{(P/M_{bh})} < 15.7$ & $1.8\pm 0.4$ & $0.13^{+0.15}_{-0.13}$ & - & - & - \\
1127: $\log{(P/M_{bh})} \ge 15.7$ & $1.4^{+0.4}_{-0.9}$ & $0.40^{+0.40}_{-0.15}$ & - & - & - \\
1128: \hline
1129: \hline
1130: \end{tabular}
1131: \end{table*}
1132: We focus on the results for central halo masses, because the satellite
1133: fractions are quite noisy. For the full sample, the best-fitting
1134: central halo mass $M_{cent}$ is 80 per cent higher for the radio-loud AGN
1135: than for the control sample at fixed stellar mass and redshift.
1136: When accounting for statistical correlations between the two samples
1137: using the bootstrap method, we find that the central radio-loud AGN
1138: have higher mass than the controls at the 97 per cent
1139: confidence level. For the lower stellar mass bin, this conclusion is
1140: less statistically significant (50 per cent higher mass, with
1141: $p(M_{cent}^{(AGN)}>M_{cent}^{(controls)}) =0.71$) but for the higher
1142: stellar mass bin, it is more significant than for the full sample
1143: (factor of two higher mass, with
1144: $p(M_{cent}^{(AGN)}>M_{cent}^{(controls)}) =0.99$). This result is
1145: in sharp contrast to the results for central optical AGN,
1146: which appear to have the same halo mass as the optical control
1147: galaxies.
1148:
1149: When comparing the amplitude of the central halo masses to those
1150: for the general galaxy population studied via lensing in
1151: \cite{2006MNRAS.368..715M}, we find that the
1152: results for the control sample are consistent with that paper once we
1153: account for the different halo mass definitions,
1154: {\it provided} that we compare
1155: to the early type galaxy sample (which has higher mean central
1156: halo mass than the late type sample for $M_*>10^{11}M_{\odot}$).
1157:
1158: Given the high mean halo mass inferred for central radio-loud AGN, we
1159: must check our modeling assumption that the range of halo masses is
1160: narrow. Fig.~\ref{F:mcentdist-ragn} shows a plot of the halo mass
1161: distribution for model B described in
1162: section~\ref{S:radioAGN_gclustering} which is able to reproduce the
1163: radio AGN clustering results. As discussed, this HOD includes a
1164: minimum halo mass cutoff of $10^{12.5}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$. As can be
1165: seen, the central halo mass distributions are indeed broader than the
1166: factor of $\sim 6$ that we need for the $M_{cent}$ derived from
1167: lensing to be physically meaningful. As before, we do not apply a
1168: correction factor, due to the uncertainty in determining it. We
1169: merely note that since the AGN are more likely than the controls to
1170: reside in clusters (a claim that we will back up via direct comparison
1171: with a cluster catalogue), the correction factor to get the mean
1172: central halo mass should be {\em higher} for the AGN than for the
1173: controls. Thus, the size of the central halo mass difference between
1174: radio-loud AGN and control galaxies is in fact underestimated by our
1175: neglect of these corrections.
1176:
1177: To avoid uncertainties in the best-fitting halo masses caused by the
1178: cluster membership of some galaxies, we have cross-correlated our
1179: radio-loud AGN and control samples with a pre-existing SDSS sample of
1180: galaxy clusters. We can then compare halo masses for radio-loud AGN
1181: and control galaxies in the field (i.e. excluding cluster members).
1182: For this sample, the distribution of halo masses will no longer have a
1183: tail extending to very high masses.
1184:
1185: Since the radio-loud AGN sample is predominantly ($85$ per cent) in
1186: the redshift range $0.1<z<0.3$, the natural choice of cluster catalogue
1187: is the SDSS MaxBCG catalogue \citep{2007ApJ...660..221K,2007ApJ...660..239K},
1188: which contains clusters in the redshift range
1189: $0.1<z<0.3$ that are selected based
1190: on the existence of a red sequence.
1191:
1192: We select radio-loud AGN and control galaxies in this redshift range
1193: and check whether they are within
1194: $1h^{-1}$Mpc (physical projected separation) of a cluster, and within
1195: $\Delta z=\pm 0.04$ of the cluster BCG. We note that the choice of redshift
1196: separation is a factor of ten larger than the velocity dispersion
1197: of even the very largest galaxy clusters. The motivation
1198: for this choice comes from the typical
1199: photometric redshift error of the galaxies in the maxBCG catalogue,
1200: and ensures that 95 per cent of true cluster members would be
1201: found. For reference, the minimum mass of the public maxBCG catalogue,
1202: with scaled richness $\ge 10$, is $\sim 6 \times 10^{13}
1203: h^{-1}M_{sun}$ (defined using $M_{200\overline{\rho}}$,
1204: \citealt{2008arXiv0802.2365R}).
1205: We also determined whether the radio-loud AGN or control is the cluster
1206: BCG or a satellite. These statistics are presented for radio-loud AGN and
1207: controls for both the full sample and for subsamples selected
1208: according to stellar mass in
1209: Table~\ref{T:maxbcgmatch}.
1210:
1211: \begin{table*}
1212: \caption{\label{T:maxbcgmatch}Results of matching the radio-loud AGN and
1213: control samples with $0.1<z<0.3$ against the maxBCG cluster
1214: catalogue. Quantities presented in the table are defined in
1215: Equations~\ref{E:deffclust} and~\ref{E:deffbcg}.}
1216: \begin{tabular}{lcccc}
1217: Sample & $\fclust$ (AGN) & $\fclust$ (controls) & $\fbcg$ (AGN) & $\fbcg$ (controls) \\
1218: \hline
1219: \hline
1220: Full & $0.24$ & $0.16$ & $0.14$ & $0.09$ \\
1221: $\log{M_*} < 11.44$ & $0.20$ & $0.12$ & $0.08$ & $0.05$ \\
1222: $\log{M_*} \ge 11.44$ & $0.36$ & $0.29$ & $0.31$ & $0.23$ \\
1223: \hline
1224: \hline
1225: \end{tabular}
1226: \end{table*}
1227: The numbers presented there for each sample are defined as follows:
1228: \begin{equation}\label{E:deffclust}
1229: \fclust = \frac{\mbox{Number in sample that are in a
1230: cluster}}{\mbox{Number in sample}}
1231: \end{equation}
1232: and
1233: \begin{equation}\label{E:deffbcg}
1234: \fbcg = \frac{\mbox{Number in sample that are
1235: BCG of a cluster}}{\mbox{Number in sample}}
1236: \end{equation}
1237:
1238: Based on this table, we note a few interesting trends. First, for all
1239: subsamples we considered, $\fclust$ and $\fbcg$
1240: are higher for the radio-loud AGN than for the controls. This difference
1241: is most pronounced for the lower stellar mass bin, with a
1242: factor of two difference between radio-loud AGN and controls. For the
1243: higher stellar mass bin, the differences are at the $\sim 20$ per cent
1244: level. These results are broadly in agreement with those of
1245: \cite{2007MNRAS.379..894B}.
1246:
1247: Second, if we compare these two numbers for a given sample, we
1248: can determine the fraction of those {\it in clusters} that are BCGs,
1249: where the rest are satellites. For the full radio-loud AGN and
1250: the control samples, this
1251: number is 60 per cent. Thus, on average, the distribution of
1252: centrals versus satellites for those that are cluster members is the
1253: same for radio-loud AGN and control galaxies. For the lower and higher stellar mass samples,
1254: we again find consistency between the radio-loud AGN and controls, with BCG
1255: fractions of those that are in clusters of 40 per cent and 85 per
1256: cent, respectively.
1257:
1258: It is apparent that the halo mass distributions of both the radio-loud AGN
1259: and control samples may have significant contributions from cluster
1260: BCG and satellite galaxies, which will skew the halo mass distribution
1261: to the high mass end. Consequently, we repeat the weak lensing analysis
1262: using only those galaxies in the redshift range
1263: $0.1<z<0.3$ that are not within any maxBCG
1264: cluster. This cuts down the size of the sample significantly at the
1265: high stellar mass end, so we
1266: only analyze the full sample,
1267: without any divisions in stellar mass or radio power.
1268:
1269: The lensing signal for these ``field samples'' is shown in
1270: Fig.~\ref{F:gg-rAGNfield}, along with the
1271: best-fitting halo model. We initially used the same halo model as before,
1272: but found that the satellite fractions
1273: were all consistent with zero within the noise (as one would expect
1274: given the sample design). Thus, we redid the fits with fixed
1275: $\alpha=0$, fitting for central halo mass only.
1276:
1277: \begin{figure}
1278: \includegraphics[width=3.3in,angle=0]{rAGNfield.ps}
1279: \caption{\label{F:gg-rAGNfield}The galaxy-galaxy lensing signal for
1280: the radio-loud AGN and control galaxies located in the field with
1281: $0.1<z<0.3$. Points show the measured signal and lines show the
1282: best-fitting halo model.}
1283: \end{figure}
1284: % AGNfieldone.sm makes rAGNfield.ps
1285:
1286: The mean stellar mass for these field samples is
1287: $2.1\times 10^{11}M_{\odot}$. The reduction in best-fitting
1288: central halo mass going from the full radio-loud AGN and control samples,
1289: to the field subsamples, is roughly 15 per cent. This reduction is
1290: expected, since we have excluded the AGN in clusters, which have
1291: typical halo masses of $> 10^{14} M_{\odot}$. In both cases,
1292: however, for the full samples and for the field subsamples, the best-fitting
1293: central halo mass for the radio-loud AGN sample is roughly twice that of
1294: the control samples. We have already explored this result for the
1295: full sample; for the field sample, we find best-fitting central halo
1296: masses of $(1.5\pm 0.3)$ and
1297: $(0.76\pm 0.14)\times 10^{13} h^{-1}M_{\odot}$ (radio AGN and controls,
1298: respectively). The
1299: difference between the two masses is
1300: thus significant at the 97 per cent CL.
1301:
1302: \subsection{Joint constraints on halo masses and satellite fractions of radio AGN}
1303: \label{S:joint_constraints}
1304:
1305:
1306: \begin{figure}
1307: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,angle=0]{model_pars_smass_new.ps}
1308: \caption{\label{fig:model_pars_smass}
1309: Mean halo mass for central radio AGN (upper panels) and satellite
1310: fraction of all radio AGN (lower panels) are plotted as function of
1311: stellar mass. In each panel, the red thick line shows the
1312: best-fitting model determined by the clustering measurements of radio
1313: AGN, and the blue thick line shows the result for control
1314: galaxies. The thin lines show the $1-\sigma$ variance between 200 mock
1315: catalogues. The results determined by the g-g lensing
1316: analyses are plotted as magenta circles for radio AGN and as green
1317: triangles for control galaxies; horizontal errorbars indicate the
1318: widths of the stellar mass bins.}
1319: \end{figure}
1320:
1321: In section~\ref{S:radioAGN_gclustering}, we presented a
1322: best-fitting HOD model that well reproduced the clustering
1323: signal of radio AGN and the control sample. In this section, we
1324: compare the results of the model to the results obtained from the
1325: lensing analysis.
1326:
1327: In Fig.~\ref{fig:model_pars_smass}, we plot the mean halo mass of
1328: the central radio-loud AGN and the fraction of satellite AGN, as predicted
1329: by the best-fitting model describing the clustering results, as a
1330: function of stellar mass.
1331: The results from the lensing analyses are also plotted.
1332: As discussed in the previous section,
1333: the lensing analysis finds a higher mean halo mass for radio AGN
1334: at slightly more than $2\sigma$,
1335: which persists even when radio AGN residing in clusters
1336: are excluded from the analysis. This difference is even more
1337: significant, at the 99 per cent CL, for the higher mass subsample.
1338:
1339: As shown, the model that best describes the clustering results is
1340: consistent with the g-g lensing results in the sense that different
1341: mean masses are predicted for the controls and the radio AGN. As
1342: already discussed, the fact that the same masses are predicted for the
1343: two samples in the higher mass bin is a consequence of
1344: overly-simplistic modeling. While the g-g lensing estimates of the
1345: satellite fraction are fairly noisy, they are also consistent with the
1346: model that describes the clustering. It would be valuable to confirm our conclusions using larger
1347: radio AGN samples that will be available in the future. This is
1348: particularly true at very low stellar masses ($<10^{11}M_{\odot}$),
1349: where a measurement with
1350: lensing was not at all possible and where we would be most sensitive
1351: to the difference between radio AGN and controls. When samples are
1352: available with significantly
1353: better statistics, the data quality will warrant a more careful
1354: analysis using the mocks to compare against both the clustering and
1355: lensing signal, and possibly more sophisticated halo modeling than
1356: that which was attempted here.
1357:
1358: \section{Summary}\label{S:summary}
1359:
1360:
1361: \begin{figure*}
1362: \centerline{
1363: \psfig{figure=avg_hmass_abc_new.ps,clip=true,width=\textwidth}
1364: }
1365: \caption{{\em Left}: Average central halo mass derived from galaxy-galaxy lensing
1366: is plotted as function of stellar mass, for three subsamples of optical AGN
1367: (cyan) and two subsamples of radio AGN (green). Filled symbols show results
1368: for the AGN samples, whole open symbols show results for the control
1369: samples. The stellar mass bin widths are indicated with horizontal
1370: errorbars.
1371: {\em Middle}: Average central halo mass derived from the clustering analysis
1372: is plotted as a function of stellar mass for optical (blue) and
1373: radio (magenta) AGN, and for the control galaxies
1374: (black dashed line for optical and red dashed for radio).
1375: {\em Right}: The results from the lensing and the clustering analyses are
1376: plotted on top of each other for comparison.
1377: }
1378: \label{fig:avg_hmass}
1379: \end{figure*}
1380:
1381: We now present a comparison of the inferred halo masses and satellite
1382: fractions of both optical and radio-loud AGN, from both the clustering
1383: and g-g lensing techniques.
1384:
1385: In the left panel of
1386: Fig.~\ref{fig:avg_hmass}, we plot the inferred central halo masses
1387: of optical AGN (cyan) and radio AGN (green) from the lensing analysis as
1388: a function of stellar mass. The solid symbols give results for the
1389: AGN, while the open symbols give results for the control samples.
1390:
1391: In the middle panel, we plot the inferred central halo masses of
1392: optical (blue) and radio AGN (red) from the clustering analysis. The
1393: results are from the published model of \citet{Li-06c} for the optical
1394: AGN, and the magenta lines show our best-fitting model for
1395: the radio AGN presented in section~\ref{S:radioAGN_gclustering}. The
1396: halo mass as a function of stellar mass is plotted as solid lines for
1397: the AGN and as dashed lines for the control galaxies. As can be seen,
1398: the clustering technique allows us to extend the halo mass
1399: measurements over a significantly larger range in stellar masses. We
1400: have experimented with subsamples with even lower stellar masses and
1401: we found that we are able to derive a (noisy) clustering measurement
1402: for radio galaxies with stellar masses less than $10^{11} M_{\odot}$,
1403: but there are too few objects to permit a lensing analysis to be
1404: carried out. Lensing measurements at lower stellar mass with larger,
1405: future datasets may be critical for reducing the modeling uncertainty
1406: indicated in this figure. Note that the convergence of the curves at
1407: high stellar mass is a consequence of our very simple model which has
1408: little or no flexibility to adjust the clustering of high mass stellar
1409: mass objects, the great majority of which are central galaxies and
1410: live in massive halos.
1411:
1412: Finally, in the right-hand panel, we superimpose the clustering and lensing
1413: results. We see that the agreement between the results for these
1414: two completely independent techniques is satisfactory, once we take
1415: into account the fact that (a) there is some modeling uncertainty in the
1416: best-fitting central halo masses from lensing due to the assumption of
1417: a narrow central halo mass distribution, and (b) the halo masses from
1418: the lensing analysis are relatively independent of the assumed
1419: $\sigma_8$ (which to lowest order only affects the best-fit $\alpha$),
1420: but the halo masses from the clustering analysis are tied to
1421: $\sigma_8=0.9$ from the Millennium simulation through the large-scale
1422: bias - halo mass connection. In the latter case, we can estimate the
1423: effect of lowering $\sigma_8$ from $0.9$, as in the mocks, to $0.8$
1424: (as in the WMAP 5-year results, \citealt{2008arXiv0803.0586D}) at fixed $\Omega_m=0.25$.
1425: Using the mass function from \cite{2008arXiv0803.2706T}
1426: at the typical redshift of radio AGN, and translating to
1427: our halo mass definition, we find that the requirement that the
1428: stellar mass function be matched, which is essentially an abundance
1429: constraint, would lead to the masses from the clustering analyses be
1430: lowered by $\sim 15$ per cent at $10^{13}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$, or $\sim
1431: 25$ per cent at $3\times 10^{13}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$. While this
1432: difference is significant, it can only partially account for the
1433: differences shown in the figures. However, the modeling uncertainty due to
1434: the simple HOD used for the lensing analysis can lead to significant
1435: additional uncertainty in those masses, typically leading to
1436: underestimation (i.e., the sign of the apparent discrepancy) by
1437: several tens
1438: of per cent when the central halo mass distributions are
1439: quite broad \citep{2005MNRAS.362.1451M}, as is the case for several of
1440: our stellar mass subsamples (Figs.~\ref{F:mcentdist-optagn} and~\ref{F:mcentdist-ragn}).
1441:
1442: Putting the lensing and the clustering results together leads us to
1443: the following major conclusions:
1444: \begin {itemize}
1445: \item Radio AGN are hosted by galaxies with higher stellar masses than optical
1446: AGN, and are also in more massive dark matter halos. The mean stellar
1447: mass of the optical AGN sample is $8\times 10^{10}M_{\odot}$ and the
1448: corresponding mean central
1449: halo mass deduced from galaxy-galaxy lensing is $(8.0\pm 1.5)\times
1450: 10^{11}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$.
1451: The mean stellar mass of the radio AGN sample is $2.5\times
1452: 10^{11}M_{\odot}$ and the mean
1453: halo mass deduced from galaxy-galaxy lensing is $(1.6\pm 0.4)\times
1454: 10^{13}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$. Thus, the mean stellar mass and mean central
1455: halo mass for the radio AGN are $\sim 3$ and $\sim 20$ times the
1456: corresponding values for the optical AGN.
1457:
1458: \item At {\em fixed} stellar mass, radio-loud AGN inhabit more massive dark matter
1459: halos than optical AGN. This is seen both in the clustering and
1460: and in the galaxy-galaxy lensing analyses.
1461: Note that for the g-g lensing analysis, the highest stellar mass
1462: bin for the optical AGN and the lowest bin for the radio-loud
1463: AGN have the same mean stellar mass. Fig.~\ref{fig:avg_hmass} shows
1464: that these two samples have very different halo masses. While the
1465: halo masses are also different for the control galaxies due to the
1466: morphology-dependence of halo mass at fixed stellar mass
1467: $>10^{11}M_{\odot}$ \citep{2006MNRAS.368..715M}, the difference is
1468: even more pronounced for the optical and radio-loud AGN samples.
1469:
1470: \item At {\em fixed} stellar mass, optical AGN inhabit dark matter
1471: halos of similar mass as galaxies of the same stellar mass selected
1472: without regard to AGN properties.
1473:
1474: \item At {\em fixed} stellar mass, radio-loud AGN inhabit more massive
1475: dark matter halos than galaxies of the same stellar mass selected
1476: without regard to AGN properties. We emphasize that despite the
1477: difficulty in representing this offset using our simple clustering
1478: model, it is present observationally at high significance in both the
1479: clustering data (Fig.~\ref{fig:wrp_model_B}) and the lensing data
1480: (Figs.~\ref{F:gg-rAGN} and~\ref{F:gg-rAGNfield}) both for the full
1481: samples and for the two stellar mass subsamples.
1482:
1483: \item The clustering and lensing analyses together favour a model in which radio-loud AGN are not
1484: found in dark matter halos with masses less than about $3 \times 10^{12} h^{-1}
1485: M_{\odot}$, though the preference for this over a model with a minimum
1486: mass a factor of $10$ smaller is only a $2\sigma$ difference given the
1487: size of current datasets.
1488:
1489: \end{itemize}
1490:
1491: One unresolved point in the reconciliation between the modeling of the
1492: clustering and its comparison with the lensing analysis is that the
1493: lensing analysis found the most significant difference between the central
1494: halo masses for radio AGN and controls at the high stellar mass end,
1495: whereas the clustering modeling suggests the largest difference should
1496: occur for lower stellar mass. This point is simply an artifact of
1497: overly simplistic modeling of a strict mass threshold, and may
1498: therefore be resolved with more
1499: sophisticated modeling involving a probability that is a function of
1500: mass; however, the introduction of more model
1501: parameters is not justified by the achievable $S/N$ of the data at
1502: this time.
1503:
1504: In Fig. ~\ref{fig:avg_fsat}, we compare the satellite fractions
1505: inferred by the two techniques.
1506: The results are broadly consistent with each
1507: other. The clustering analysis yields bigger differences in the
1508: inferred satellite fractions, particularly for AGN with low
1509: stellar masses. Optical AGN with low stellar masses are predicted
1510: to be quite strongly biased to central galaxy hosts,
1511: whereas radio AGN with low stellar masses are predicted to be
1512: located more frequently in satellite galaxies.
1513: The lensing analysis gives some weak
1514: indications of trends in the same direction, but the results are far
1515: from conclusive.
1516:
1517:
1518: \section{Implications of this work}\label{S:implications}
1519:
1520: Perhaps the most important finding of this work is that optical
1521: AGN largely follow the same relation between stellar mass and halo mass
1522: as ``ordinary'' galaxies, but that radio-loud AGN deviate significantly
1523: from it (by a factor of $\sim 2$). This statement is true at the 97 per
1524: cent CL even if we restrict the analysis to those radio-loud AGN and
1525: control galaxies in the field (excluding those in massive groups and
1526: clusters).
1527:
1528: This result implies that the large-scale halo environment plays an
1529: important role in understanding the radio AGN phenomenon. Previous
1530: work \citep[e.g.][]{Best-05b} has shown that the fraction of radio AGN
1531: increases strongly for more massive galaxies, suggesting that radio
1532: jets are more readily triggered in galaxies with more massive black
1533: holes. However, when we compare radio AGN with control galaxies of
1534: the same stellar mass selected without regard for nuclear activity, we
1535: find that the radio AGN reside in dark matter halos that are a factor
1536: of two more massive on average. This boost in halo mass appears to be
1537: {\em largely independent of luminosity of the radio source.} This
1538: demonstrates that black hole mass is not the only parameter that
1539: controls the radio AGN phenomenon -- some aspect of the larger-scale
1540: environment of the galaxy must play a crucial role in regulating when
1541: the jet is switched on or when it is visible at radio wavelengths.
1542:
1543: Recent semi-analytic models have assumed that feedback from radio AGN
1544: only becomes important in halos in which gas is cooling quasi-statically,
1545: i.e. halos above a mass of a few $\times 10^{11} -10^{12} M_{\odot}$
1546: \citep{Croton-06, Bower-06, Cattaneo-06}.
1547: Our clustering results strongly support this idea.
1548: Our two best-fitting HOD models both invoke a minimum halo mass
1549: close to these values, below which
1550: radio AGN are no longer found. If we do not impose a minimum mass,
1551: our models are not able to fit the observation correlation amplitude
1552: of radio-loud AGN on large scales.
1553:
1554: Finally, the fact that the optical AGN in our sample follow the same
1555: $M_\ast-M_{halo}$ relation as the general galaxy population, implies
1556: that the optical AGN phenomenon is largely decoupled from the host
1557: halo. For the highest stellar mass bin, the best-fitting central halo
1558: mass derived from galaxy-galaxy lensing is more consistent with
1559: published results for late-type galaxies. This result is consistent
1560: with the general tendency of narrow-line AGN to be associated with
1561: galaxies with ongoing star formation and by extension, a cold
1562: interstellar medium.
1563:
1564: \begin{figure}
1565: \centerline{
1566: \psfig{figure=avg_fsat_new.ps,clip=true,width=0.5\textwidth}}
1567: \caption{Satellite fraction as a function of stellar mass. Symbols and lines are the same as in the previous figure.}
1568: \label{fig:avg_fsat}
1569: \end{figure}
1570:
1571:
1572: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1573: R.M. is supported by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant
1574: \#HST-HF-01199.02-A awarded by the Space Telescope Science Institute,
1575: which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in
1576: Astronomy, Inc., for NASA, under contract NAS 5-26555. C.L. is
1577: supported by the Joint Postdoctoral Programme in Astrophysical
1578: Cosmology of Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics and Shanghai
1579: Astronomical Observatory, and by NSFC (10533030, 10643005, 10633020)
1580: and 973 Program (No.2007CB815402). R.M., C.L. and G.K. would like to
1581: thank the hospitality and stimulating atmosphere of the Aspen Center
1582: for Physics where this work was initiated. We also
1583: thank Philip Best
1584: for providing the DR4 radio dataset before its publication, and for
1585: useful comments on a draft of this manuscript. Finally, we thank the
1586: anonymous referee for the many helpful comments.
1587:
1588: Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred
1589: P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National
1590: Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National
1591: Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the
1592: Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council for
1593: England. The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/.
1594:
1595: The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the
1596: Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the
1597: American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam,
1598: University of Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve
1599: University, University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the
1600: Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns
1601: Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the
1602: Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean
1603: Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos
1604: National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA),
1605: the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State
1606: University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh,
1607: University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States
1608: Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
1609:
1610: \bibliography{cheng,rachel}
1611:
1612: \bsp
1613: \label{lastpage}
1614:
1615: \end{document}
1616:
1617: