1: \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}

2: \usepackage{emulateapj5}

3: \usepackage{apjfonts}

4: \usepackage{natbib}

5: \usepackage{epsfig}

6: \input psfig.tex

7: 

8: %Luis's definitions

9: \def\aa{{A\&A}}

10: \def\aas{{ A\&AS}}

11: \def\aj{{AJ}}

12: \def\al{$\alpha$}

13: \def\bet{$\beta$}

14: \def\amin{$^\prime$}

15: \def\annrev{{ARA\&A}}

16: \def\apj{{ApJ}}

17: \def\apjs{{ApJS}}

18: \def\asec{$^{\prime\prime}$}

19: \def\baas{{BAAS}}

20: \def\cc{cm$^{-3}$}

21: \def\deg{$^{\circ}$}

22: \def\ddeg{{\rlap.}$^{\circ}$}

23: \def\dsec{{\rlap.}$^{\prime\prime}$}

24: \def\cc{cm$^{-3}$}

25: \def\e#1{$\times$10$^{#1}$}

26: \def\etal{{et al. }}

27: \def\flamb{ergs s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ \AA$^{-1}$}

28: \def\flux{ergs s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$}

29: \def\fnu{ergs s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ Hz$^{-1}$}

30: \def\hal{H$\alpha$}

31: \def\hb{H$\beta$}

32: \def\hst{{\it HST}}

33: \def\kms{km s$^{-1}$}

34: \def\lamb{$\lambda$}

35: \def\lax{{$\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}}$}}

36: \def\gax{{$\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}}$}}

37: \def\simlt{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}}

38: \def\simgt{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}}

39: \def\lum{ergs s$^{-1}$}

40: %\def\mbh{{$M_{\bullet}$}}

41: \def\mbh{{$M_{\rm BH}$}}

42: \def\micron{{$\mu$m}}

43: \def\mnras{{MNRAS}}

44: \def\nat{{Nature}}

45: \def\pasp{{PASP}}

46: \def\perang{\AA$^{-1}$}

47: \def\percm2{cm$^{-2}$}

48: \def\peryr{yr$^{-1}$}

49: \def\pp{\parshape 2 0truein 6.1truein .3truein 5.5truein}

50: \def\reference{\noindent\pp}

51: \def\refindent{\par\noindent\parskip=2pt\hangindent=3pc\hangafter=1 }

52: \def\solum{$L_\odot$}

53: \def\solmass{$M_\odot$}

54: %\def\ion#1#2{\setcounter{ctr}{#2}#1$\;${\small\rm\Roman{ctr}}\relax}

55: \def\oii{[\ion{O}{2}]}

56: \def\heii{\ion{He}{2}}

57: \def\hi{\ion{H}{1}}

58: \def\hii{\ion{H}{2}}

59: \def\oiii{[\ion{O}{3}]}

60: \def\ni{[\ion{N}{1}]}

61: \def\oi{[\ion{O}{1}]}

62: \def\nii{[\ion{N}{2}]}

63: \def\hei{\ion{He}{1}}

64: \def\sii{[\ion{S}{2}]}

65: \def\siii{[\ion{S}{3}]}

66: \def\caii{\ion{Ca}{ii}{K}}

67: \def\lhal{$L_{{\rm H}\alpha}$}

68: \def\lbol{$L_{{\rm bol}}$}

69: \def\ledd{$L_{{\rm Edd}}$}

70: \def\mlb{$M_{\bullet}-L_{\rm{bul}}$}

71: \def\lbul{$L_{\rm bul}$}

72: \def\mbul{$M_{\rm bul}$}

73: \def\ser{S\'{e}rsic}

74: \def\hnr{$L_{\rm host}/L_{\rm nuc}$}

75: \def\vel{$\sigma_{*}$}

76: \def\nsn{$(S/N)_{\rm nuc}$}

77: 

78: \slugcomment{To Appear in {\it

79: The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series}.}

80: \shorttitle{Decomposition of AGN Host Galaxies}

81: \shortauthors{KIM et al.}

82: 

83: \begin{document}

84: 

85: \title{Decomposition of the Host Galaxies of Active Galactic Nuclei Using 

86: {\it Hubble Space Telescope}\ Images}

87: \author{Minjin Kim\altaffilmark{1,2}, Luis C. Ho\altaffilmark{1}, Chien Y.

88: Peng\altaffilmark{3}, Aaron J. Barth\altaffilmark{4}, and

89: Myungshin Im\altaffilmark{2}}

90: 

91: \altaffiltext{1}{The Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington,

92: 813 Santa Barbara Street, Pasadena, CA 91101; mjkim@ociw.edu, lho@ociw.edu.}

93: 

94: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Frontier Physics

95: Research Division (FPRD), Seoul National

96: University, Seoul, Korea; mim@astro.snu.ac.kr.}

97: 

98: \altaffiltext{3}{NRC Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, 5071

99: West Saanich Road, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V9E2E7;

100: cyp@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca.}

101: 

102: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of

103: California at Irvine, 4129 Frederick Reines Hall, Irvine, CA 92697-4575;

104: barth@uci.edu.}

105: 

106: \begin{abstract}

107: Investigating the link between supermassive black hole and galaxy evolution

108: requires careful measurements of the properties of the host galaxies. We

109: perform simulations to test the reliability of a two-dimensional 

110: image-fitting technique to decompose the host galaxy and the active galactic 

111: nucleus (AGN), especially on images obtained using cameras onboard the 

112: {\it Hubble Space Telescope (HST)}, such as the Wide-Field Planetary Camera 2, 

113: the Advanced Camera for Surveys, and the Near-Infrared Camera and Multi-Object 

114: Spectrometer.  We quantify the relative importance of spatial, temporal, and 

115: color variations of the point-spread function (PSF).  To estimate uncertainties 

116: in AGN-to-host decompositions, we perform extensive simulations that span a 

117: wide range in AGN-to-host galaxy luminosity contrast, signal-to-noise ratio, 

118: and host galaxy properties (size, luminosity, central concentration).  We find 

119: that realistic PSF mismatches that typically afflict actual observations

120: systematically lead to an overestimate of the flux of the host galaxy.  Part 

121: of the problem is caused by the fact that the {\it HST}\ PSFs are 

122: undersampled.  We demonstrate that this problem can be mitigated by broadening 

123: both the science and the PSF images to critical sampling without loss of 

124: information.  Other practical suggestions are given for optimal analysis of 

125: \hst\ images of AGN host galaxies.

126: \end{abstract}

127: 

128: \keywords{galaxies: active --- galaxies: photometry --- 

129: technique: image processing}

130: 

131: \section{Introduction}

132: 

133: The mass of supermassive black holes (BHs) is strongly correlated with the

134: luminosity (\lbul; Kormendy \& Richstone 1995; Magorrian et al. 1998) and the 

135: stellar velocity dispersion (\vel; Gebhardt et al. 2000; Ferrarese \& Merritt 

136: 2000) of the bulge of the host galaxy.  These scaling relations are often 

137: interpreted to be evidence that central BHs and their host galaxies are 

138: closely connected in their evolution (see reviews in Ho 2004).  The empirical 

139: correlations between BH mass and host galaxy properties can even be used 

140: as tools to track the progress of mass assembly during galaxy evolution 

141: (Peng et al. 2006a, 2006b; Woo et al. 2006; Ho 2007b).  

142: The central BH mass correlates most strongly with the bulge component of a 

143: galaxy rather than with its total mass or luminosity.  This has motivated 

144: detailed bulge-to-disk decompositions of the host galaxies to better quantify 

145: the intrinsic scatter of the \mbh-\mbul\ and \mbh-\lbul\ relations in the local 

146: Universe (Marconi \& Hunt 2003; H\"{a}ring \& Rix 2004).  

147: 

148: To probe when the BH-host galaxy relations were established and how they 

149: evolved, it is of paramount importance to extend similar studies out to higher 

150: redshifts.  However, direct measurement of BH mass based on spatially resolved 

151: stellar or gas kinematics is unfeasible for all but the nearest galaxies with 

152: low levels of nuclear activity.  Accessing BHs and their host galaxies at 

153: cosmological distances requires a different approach---one that relies on 

154: active galactic nuclei (AGNs).  The masses of BHs in type~1 (unobscured, 

155: broad-line) AGNs can be readily estimated with reasonable accuracy using the 

156: virial technique with single-epoch optical or ultraviolet spectra (Ho 1999; 

157: Wandel et al. 1999; Kaspi et al.  2000; Greene \& Ho 2005b; Peterson 2007).  

158: Quantitative measurements of the host galaxies with active nuclei, on the 

159: other hand, are less straightforward to obtain because the presence of the AGN 

160: introduces significant practical difficulties, as well as potential biases.  

161: This is especially problematic for the bulge component of the host, which is 

162: maximally affected by the bright AGN core.  A variety of techniques have 

163: been employed, both kinematical (e.g., Nelson et al. 2004; Onken et al. 2004; 

164: Barth et al. 2005; Greene \& Ho 2005a, 2006; Ho 2007; Salviander et al. 2007; 

165: Ho et al. 2008; Shen et al. 2008) and photometric (e.g., McLure \& Dunlop 

166: 2002; Peng et al. 2006b; Greene et al. 2008).

167: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

168: %\noindent

169: %%%BoundingBox: 0 250 595 522

170: \begin{figure*}

171: \psfig{file=table1.ps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

172: \vskip -0.4cm

173: \end{figure*}

174: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

175: 

176: The main challenge for photometric studies of active galaxies lies in 

177: separating the central AGN light from the host galaxy. While 

178: structural decomposition can be done by fitting analytic functions to the 

179: one-dimensional (1-D) light distribution, two-dimensional (2-D) analysis makes 

180: maximal use of all the spatial information available in galaxy images 

181: (Griffiths et al. 1994; Byun \& Freeman 1995; de~Jong 1996; Wadadekar et al. 

182: 1999; Peng et al. 2002; Simard et al. 2002; de~Souza 

183: et al. 2004) and thus provides the most general and most robust method to 

184: decouple image subcomponents.  This flexibility proves to be especially 

185: important in the case of active galaxies, where the contrast between the 

186: central dominant point source and the underlying host can be very high.  In 

187: this regime, achieving a reliable decomposition requires knowing the 

188: point-spread function (PSF) to high accuracy.  

189: 

190: This paper discusses the complications and systematic effects involved in 

191: photometric decomposition of AGN host galaxies, especially as it applies to 

192: images taken with the {\it Hubble Space Telescope (HST)}.  Although numerous 

193: {\it HST} studies of AGN hosts have been published, very few have explicitly 

194: investigated the systematic uncertainties or practical limitations of host 

195: galaxy decomposition.  We make use of an updated version of the 2-D 

196: image-fitting code GALFIT (Peng et al. 2002) to generate an extensive 

197: set of simulated images of active

198: galaxies that realistically mimic actual 

199: {\it HST} observations.  We then apply the code to fit the artificial images 

200: and quantify how well we can recover the input parameters for the AGN and for 

201: the host galaxy.  Our strategy resembles those employed in the quasar host 

202: galaxies studies by Jahnke et al. (2004) and S\'{a}nchez et al. (2004), except 

203: that we have optimized our simulations to be applicable to nearby bright AGNs, 

204: a regime of most interest to us (Kim et al. 2008).  

205: Nearby bright AGN hosts observed using coarse pixels and low exposure time can

206: be equally challenging to analyze as high-z AGNs observed with high resolution

207: and signal-to-noise.  In other words, fundamentally, the difficulty of the

208: analysis depends only on the following 3 relative conditions: angular

209: resolution of the detector vs. the object being studied (i.e. object scale

210: size in pixels), AGN-to-host contrast, and overall object signal-to-noise.

211: Since we cover a wide range of parameter space the simulations described here

212: should be applicable to most {\it HST}\ imaging studies of AGN hosts,

213: including distant quasars.

214: We hope that the results of this study can serve as a guide to other 

215: investigators working with similar data.

216: 

217: We describe the details of PSF variations in \S{2}. In \S{3}, we present the

218: simulation procedure and our results from fitting artificial images using

219: PSF models with varying degrees of realism.  A discussion and 

220: summary of the main results are given in \S{4}.

221: 

222: 

223: \section{GENERAL PSF CONSIDERATIONS}

224: 

225: Our primary simulations are designed to test observations using the Wide Field 

226: (WF) camera of the the Wide-Field and Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) onboard \hst.

227: The largest studies to date of AGN hosts have been done with the WF (e.g., Bahcall 

228: et al. 1997; McLure et al. 1999; Floyd et al. 2004).  While we concentrate on 

229: understanding observations made with the WF, we also consider the other main 

230: imaging instruments onboard \hst\ (\S{3.7}).  As we will see, the behavior for 

231: the other cameras is both qualitatively and quantitatively similar.

232: 

233: First and foremost, accurate decomposition of AGN host galaxies requires the 

234: analysis PSF to be stable and well-matched to the science image.  The 

235: stability of the PSF depends on

236: a number of instrumental and environmental factors.  For instance, the PSF

237: shape may depend sensitively on the telescope focus, detector temperature,

238: optical distortion, relative alignments of the telescope optics, and telescope

239: jitter.  Therefore, changes in atmospheric conditions or focus

240: drifts may cause the PSF to vary with time.  Optical distortions in the 

241: telescope optics can also cause the PSF shape to change subtly 

242: across the field of view of the detector.  

243: Ground-based observations are most susceptible to these effects.

244: 

245: In most respects, the \hst, in the near absence of terrestrial environmental 

246: effects, produces the most stable PSF of all current optical/near-infrared 

247: telescopes.  It thus has been an incomparable choice for studying AGN host 

248: galaxies (e.g., Bahcall et al.  1997; Boyce et al.  1998; McLure et al.  1999; 

249: Schade et al.  2000; Dunlop et al.  2003).  Nevertheless, subtle changes in 

250: the telescope structure and instruments, such as plate-scale ``breathing'' or 

251: focus changes due to out-gassing of the telescope structure, do cause the 

252: PSF to vary slowly with time (e.g., Jahnke et al.  2004; S\'{a}nchez et al. 

253: 2004; Kim et al. 2007).  The shape of the PSF also changes because the PSF 

254: is undersampled (this issue is discussed in detail in \S{2.2}). 

255: 

256: PSF variability, which produces a mismatch between the science data and the

257: analysis PSF, is the leading cause for systematic measurement errors in AGN 

258: image analysis.  When PSFs are fitted to AGNs,

259: mismatches produce residuals in 

260: the image that do not obey Poisson statistics.  If the AGN is sufficiently

261: bright, the systematic residuals exceed the random noise and may rival the

262: light from the host galaxy beneath.

263: 

264: To study the effects of PSF mismatch on real data, we will first identify the

265: most important causes for PSF mismatches and then quantify their relative

266: importance.  We use two types of PSF images.  The first are synthetic PSFs 

267: from TinyTim\footnote{http://www.stsci.edu/software/tinytim/tinytim.html} (Krist 1995).  We use this 

268: program to create several non-oversampled PSF images, each of size $50 \times 

269: 50$ pixels, an area large enough to include $>$99\% of the total flux. The PSF 

270: is exactly centered on a pixel, and we do not introduce jitter into the model, 

271: which has the same practical effect as PSF mismatch that we discuss later. 

272: In addition, we also use PSF images derived from actual observations of five

273: stars contained in the \hst\ archive (Table 1).

274: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

275: %%BoundingBox: 0 390 595 662

276: \begin{figure*}

277: \psfig{file=f1.eps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

278: \figcaption[fig1.ps]

279: {

280: PSF variation as a function of spectral type.  ({\it Left})

281: PSFs in the F606W filter created by TinyTim with different SEDs: O5 star ({\it

282: black line}, the reference PSF), A0 star ({\it blue line and circles}),

283: F8 star ({\it green line and crosses}), $F_{\nu} \propto \nu^{0}$ power law

284: ({\it magenta line and diamonds}), and $F_{\nu} \propto \nu^{-1}$ power law

285: ({\it red line and squares}).  The top panel shows the normalized surface

286: brightness profiles (each offset by 0.7 units in the ordinate for clarity) as

287: a function of semi-major axis.  The bottom panel shows the residuals of the

288: surface brightness profiles between the reference PSF and the other PSFs.

289: ({\it Right}) Residual images of each PSF image after fitting it to the

290: reference PSF.  The size of each box is 50$\times$50 pixels

291: ($\sim 5$\asec$\times$5\asec).  All images are on a linear gray scale.

292: The variation is almost negligible.

293: \label{fig1}}

294: \vskip 0.3cm

295: \end{figure*}

296: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

297: %\noindent

298: %

299: %\vskip 0.3cm

300: 

301: \subsection{PSF Variation}

302: 

303: PSF variations in \hst\ images can be broadly separated into three categories:

304: color differences due to the spectral energy distribution (SED) of an 

305: astronomical object, spatial changes due to optical distortions across the 

306: field of view, and temporal changes due to gradual movements of the telescope 

307: optical system. 

308: 

309: 

310:  We first compare these three effects to see which of them 

311: produces the largest PSF changes.

312: 

313: {\it Color variability} \ \ \ \ \ 

314: The PSF used in the analysis (e.g., a star) often has a different color than 

315: the science target (e.g., an AGN).  The color differences may translate into 

316: PSF mismatches because \hst\ produces diffraction-limited images.  To study 

317: this effect, we can use TinyTim PSFs because chromatic differences of light 

318: propagation through the telescope optics should be fairly accurately known.  

319: We create several non-oversampled PSFs with different SEDs in the F606W filter,

320: which is the widest filter and will have the strongest chromatic PSF variation. 

321: 

322: Figure 1 summarizes our results in terms of the average 1-D surface brightness 

323: profiles of the models, extracted using the IRAF\footnote{IRAF (Image 

324: Reduction and Analysis Facility) is distributed by the National Optical 

325: Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by AURA, Inc., under cooperative 

326: agreement with the National Science Foundation.} task {\it ellipse}.  The 

327: variation due to SED is less than 10\% at 

328: all radii, which is negligible compared to that due to position difference 

329: (see below).  We also perform the same test with different filters 

330: (e.g., F555W and F814W) and find the variation to be still minimal.  These 

331: results should be robust to the extent that the filter traces and detector 

332: responses are well known.  We caution, however, that the differences may be 

333: more prominent if the filters suffer from red or blue light leaks, such as 

334: that seen in the ACS/HRC F850LP filter (Sirianni et al. 2005).  Furthermore, 

335: we do not suggest that the color effect should be ignored when it is possible 

336: to mitigate it in the observations.  Its relative importance, however, is small

337: compared to spatial and temporal variability. In general, white dwarf standards

338: like EGGR102 are a reasonable color match to quasar nuclei. 

339: 

340: {\it Spatial variability} \ \ \ \ \ We create several PSFs, located at

341: different positions on the WF3 detector on WFPC2, again using TinyTim.  The one

342: located at the center of the chip, at pixel position ($x,y$) = (400,400), is

343: used as the point of reference.  The others are generated at other image 

344: positions, with otherwise the same conditions as the reference PSF.  

345: It is known that the 

346: TinyTim software may not perfectly model real stellar images, in absolute 

347: terms, due to light scattering, spacecraft jitter, focus, and other effects.  

348: However, external factors largely affect the PSF across the detector 

349: uniformly, whereas it is the differential optical distortions due to geometric 

350: optics (center vs. outskirts of the field) that concern us here.  In 

351: general, global field distortions due to geometric optics are both very well 

352: known and stable.  Even if otherwise, we need not have high accuracy for our 

353: purposes.  Therefore, the TinyTim synthetic PSFs more than suffice for our 

354: goals.

355: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

356: %%BoundingBox: 0 390 595 662

357: \begin{figure*}

358: \psfig{file=f2.eps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

359: \figcaption[fig2.ps]

360: {

361: Similar to left panel of Fig. 1, except here we show PSF variations due to

362: position changes.  The reference PSF ({\it black line}) is located at the

363: center, ($x,y$) = (400,400) of the WF3 detector on WFPC2. The other PSFs are

364: created at different locations, with the following pixel offsets with respect

365: the reference PSF.  ({\it Left}) ($x,y$) = (0,100) ({\it blue line and

366: circles}), ($-$100,0) ({\it green line and crosses}), and ($-$100,$-$100)

367: ({\it red line and diamonds}).  ({\it Right}) ($x,y$) = (100,100) ({\it blue

368: line and circles}), ($-$300,300) ({\it green line and crosses}), and

369: ($-$300,$-$300) ({\it red line and diamonds}).  As the position offset

370: increases, the discrepancy between the PSFs increases.

371: \label{fig2}}

372: \end{figure*}

373: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

374: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

375: \begin{figure*}

376: \psfig{file=f3.eps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

377: \figcaption[fig3.ps]

378: {

379: Comparison of the reference PSF with the other PSFs located at different

380: positions described in Fig. 2. We show the 2-D residual images

381: after fitting each PSF to the reference PSF.  The pixel offsets with respect

382: to the reference PSF are ({\it a}) (0,100), ({\it b}) ($-$100,0), ({\it c})

383: ($-$100,$-$100), ({\it d}) (100,100), ({\it e}) ($-$300,300), and ({\it f})

384: ($-$300,$-$300). The size of each box is 50$\times$50 pixels

385: ($\sim 5$\asec$\times$5\asec).  All images are on a linear gray scale.

386: The PSF variation due to position changes is

387: substantial.

388: \label{fig3}}

389: \end{figure*}

390: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

391: 

392: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

393: %%BoundingBox: 0 390 595 662

394: \begin{figure*}

395: \psfig{file=f4.eps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

396: \figcaption[fig4.ps]

397: {

398: ({\it Left}) Similar to Fig. 1, except that here we show PSF variation as a

399: function of time.  The reference PSF ({\it black line}) was

400: observed on 1995 October 1 with the WF3 detector and the F606W filter.  The

401: other PSFs were observed with the same filter and detector 32 days

402: ({\it blue line and circles}), 154 days ({\it green line and

403: crosses}), 167 days ({\it magenta line and diamonds}), and 2084 days

404: ({\it red line and squares}) later. We also compare another PSF made with

405: TinyTim ({\it dotted line and asterisks}).

406: ({\it Right}) Residual images resulting from fitting each PSF with the

407: reference PSF. The size of each box is 60$\times$60 pixels.  These results show

408: that temporal variations of the PSF are larger than variations due to spectral

409: changes. All images are on a linear gray scale.

410: \label{fig4}}

411: \end{figure*}

412: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

413: 

414: Figure 2 shows that the degree of variation grows with

415: increasing distance from the center of the chip.  Spatial variations, at

416: distances separated by less than 100 pixels, affect the wings, but not much

417: the core.  In fact, the core appears stable to within 10\%, whereas the wings

418: can vary by up to 30\%.  On the other hand, for PSFs separated by more than 100

419: pixels, the differences are large both in the wings and in the core, by as

420: much by 30\%--50\%.  Figure 3 visually shows the residuals between each of the

421: PSFs relative to the reference.  In light of the systematics observed in

422: Figure 2, it is clear that even if no host galaxy light is detected beneath an

423: AGN, sometimes it is possible to misconstrue its presence, especially in 1-D

424: surface brightness profiles.  In 2-D it can be seen that much of the excess

425: flux in the wings at larger radii is due to an imperfect match in the

426: diffraction spikes, which make up a high fraction of the flux locally.  From

427: this experiment we conclude that to minimize PSF systematics, it is crucial to

428: find PSF stars that are observed to well within 100 pixels from the reference

429: position of the science target.

430: 

431: {\it Temporal variability} \ \ \ \ \ To quantify temporal variability, the

432: PSFs need to be observed in different orbits, so TinyTim is not suitable for

433: this experiment.  To obtain PSFs separated in time, we searched in the \hst\ 

434: Archive

435: %PSF Library Archive\footnote{For WFPC2, available at {\tt

436: %http://www-int.stsci.edu/instruments/wfpc2/Wfpc2\_psf/wfpc2-psf-form.html}}

437: for stars observed with the same detector (WF3) and same filter (F606W), but

438: in different orbits.  Our requirement is that they have sufficiently high 

439: signal-to-noise ratio ($S/N$) in the wings while being not so bright that they 

440: are saturated in the core, and that they are located close to the same chip 

441: locations.  There are only five stellar images that meet these criteria in the 

442: \hst\ Archive.  And, while four of the PSF stars were observed in the same 

443: \hst\ 

444: program and located at the same position, the fifth was placed 90 pixels away.

445: Furthermore, while the observations were done within 5 months for four images, 

446: the last one was obtained 6 years later. Therefore, we can test both the short- 

447: and the long-timescale variations with these five PSF stars.

448: 

449: We fit all the stars to the reference star, defined here to be that observed 

450: at the earliest epoch. We subtracted the sky value for all images before the 

451: fit was done. The fit, performed in a region of size $60 \times 60$ pixels, 

452: contains two 

453: free parameters, namely the position and the magnitude of the star.  To 

454: achieve a PSF image with high dynamic range, we combined a short exposure of 

455: the unsaturated core with a long exposure that achieves good $S/N$ in the 

456: wings.  This procedure still leaves some bleeding columns from the saturated 

457: core.  The bleeding regions, however, cover only $\sim 1\%$ of the fitting 

458: region, and the amplitude of the corrupted pixels is less than $10^{-5}$ (12.5 

459: mag) of the maximum value of the stellar core. Thus, these regions have no 

460: quantitative effect on the fit.  

461: 

462: Figure 4 shows the 1-D surface brightness profiles and the residual images.  

463: In comparison to spatial variations and chromatic issues, the temporal 

464: variation is significantly larger and affects the entire PSF, in both the core 

465: and the wings.  The variation on short timescales ($\sim$ 1 month, {\it

466: circles} in Fig.~4) is less than $\pm$0.2 mag, which is slightly less than 

467: that in 5 months ({\it crosses} and {\it diamonds}). However, the star 

468: observed 6 years apart ({\it squares}) deviates from the reference star by 

469: $\pm 0.6$ mag in the full range.  

470: Comparing also the TinyTim PSF ({\it asterisks}), it is 

471: obvious that TinyTim does not do well at modeling either the core or the 

472: wings; in particular, it underestimates the flux in the wings.  The residual 

473: images from the 2-D fit also show that the profile shape systematically 

474: changes with time. We note that the PSF star observed $\sim$6 years apart is 

475: affected not only by temporal variations but also by spatial variation, being 

476: separated by $\sim$90 pixels from the reference star.

477: 

478: \subsection{Undersampling of the PSF}

479: 

480: In addition to the considerations above, an important issue to bear in mind is

481: that most of images obtained using \hst\ are undersampled from optical

482: wavelengths up to $\sim 1.6\, \mu$m (when observed with the NIC2 camera on 

483: NICMOS).  The effect of undersampling is most severe for the WF CCDs on 

484: WFPC2.  Undersampling of the PSF is a problem in high-contrast imaging because 

485: fitting the AGN requires matching its centroid to that of PSF image, which 

486: involves subpixel interpolation to reassign flux across pixel boundaries.  

487: When a PSF is not Nyquist-sampled, the interpolation fundamentally does not 

488: have a unique solution, so that subtracting one unresolved source from another 

489: introduces a large amount of numerical noise,

490: which severely hampers high-contrast imaging.  Lastly, image

491: convolution cannot be performed correctly because of frequency-aliasing in

492: taking the Fourier transforms of the PSF and the host galaxy model.

493: 

494: In the WF camera of WFPC2, the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the PSF is 

495: undersampled at 1.5 pixels in $V$.  Therefore, it is not possible to preserve 

496: the original shape of the PSF when shifting by a fraction of a pixel.

497: The program GALFIT uses a tapered sinc + bicubic kernel

498: in order to maintain the intrinsic width of the PSF under subpixel

499: interpolation.  This method is used because it preserves flux and is

500: significantly superior to linear and spline interpolation in regimes

501: especially near Nyquist-sampling frequencies.  However, when an image is 

502: undersampled, complications can arise because subpixel interpolation can

503: significantly change both the amplitude {\it and}\ the width of the unresolved

504: flux, while the wings of the PSF, being much better sampled, do not change

505: much.  This problem exists independently of, and affects all, the

506: interpolation techniques.  The changing of the core-to-wing ratio of the PSF

507: then becomes numerically degenerate with the profile of the host galaxy

508: component beneath.

509: 

510: To illustrate the problem of subpixel shifting qualitatively, we shifted two

511: empirical PSF images by a subpixel unit, here arbitrarily chosen to be 0.3 

512: pixels.  As 

513: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

514: %%BoundingBox: 0 390 595 662

515: \begin{figure*}

516: \psfig{file=f5.eps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

517: \figcaption[fig5.ps]

518: {

519: Variation of the PSF from subpixel shifts of the undersampled PSF.  Two

520: PSFs are shown, each arbitrarily shifted by 0.3 pixels. ({\it a}) Difference

521: between the original PSF and the shifted one for two observed PSFs.  Large

522: variations are seen in the central region.  The top panel shows the normalized

523: surface brightness profiles (each offset by 0.7 units in the ordinate for

524: clarity) as a function of semi-major axis.  ({\it b}) We broaden the PSFs

525: using a Gaussian kernel with a FWHM of 2 pixels.  The effect of the subpixel

526: shift is now significantly reduced.

527: \label{fig5}}

528: \end{figure*}

529: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

530: %\noindent

531: shown in Figure 5{\it a}, while both the width and the flux in the wings do not 

532: change much, the central value changes by 20\%--30\%.  In the outskirts 

533: ($>$10 pixels), small differences remain due to the fact that the diffraction 

534: spikes are also not Nyquist-sampled.  Figure 5{\it b}\ shows the same PSFs 

535: when they are broadened to Nyquist sampling.  Small differences necessarily 

536: remain because the PSF images are shifted first before being broadened, but 

537: the agreement is much better.  While superficially there appears to be a 

538: resolution loss by broadening the PSF in such a way, fundamentally, according 

539: to sampling theory, there is no more information content in Figure 5{\it a}\ 

540: than there is in Figure 5{\it b}\ if they are used or analyzed as {\it single}\

541: images.  Information content is there to achieve ``super''-resolution only 

542: when subpixel dithering is used to construct the final images.  Figure 

543: 5{\it a}\ indicates that even if the PSF image is taken during the same orbit 

544: as the host galaxy image, additional errors could be introduced by subpixel 

545: interpolation no matter how sophisticated is the method of interpolation.  

546: These figures suggest a way to alleviate the problem, which will be discussed 

547: in Section 3.4.

548: 

549: \bigskip

550: 

551: In summary, the shape of the PSF is sensitive to changes that occur 

552: in time and dependent on the position on the detector, but to a much lesser

553: degree on the SED of the source.  More importantly, in terms of temporal

554: variability, these results, with caveats about small number statistics,

555: suggest that even though the telescope cameras undergo refocusing from time to

556: time, cumulative effects build up through time that may not be fully removed

557: by refocusing of the camera alone.

558: 

559: For the remainder of the discussion on the simulations, we will pick two 

560: observed PSF stars: the reference PSF star and another that is taken 1 month 

561: later and located within 100 pixels of the reference.  For these two PSF stars,

562: the difference near the peak is 15\% of the maximum, and while systematic 

563: differences in the residuals are small, the variance in the central 50 pixels 

564: is 4\% of the peak value, as seen in Figure~4.  Later on, we will also fit the 

565: simulations with a TinyTim PSF, to contrast with the results obtained through 

566: using observed PSF stars.

567: 

568: \section{SIMULATIONS}

569: 

570: In the previous section, we identified the factors that most influence the

571: shape of the PSF.  We find that it is possible to reduce the systematic

572: differences of the PSFs if certain precautions are taken during the

573: observational stage.  Nevertheless, even under the most extreme care, 

574: systematic differences will still propagate into the analysis due to 

575: the aforementioned effects.  For realistic \hst\ observations, it is often

576: impractical to observe PSF stars ideal for all the science data in hand.  

577: Therefore, in this section, we seek to quantify the extent that observations 

578: are typically affected by performing image-fitting simulations under 

579: {\it realistic}\ observational conditions, to the extent that it is possible 

580: to mitigate the PSF mismatches a priori.  We use GALFIT (Peng et al. 2002) 

581: to conduct the simulations.  GALFIT is designed to perform 2-D profile fitting 

582: and allows us to fit a galaxy image with multiple components convolved with a 

583: PSF.  Although other 2-D fitting programs exist (e.g., McLure et al. 1999; 

584: Schade et al. 2000), the results of this study are sufficiently general that 

585: the main conclusions should be broadly applicable to AGN imaging studies 

586: in general.

587: 

588: \hst\ observations of AGNs have been obtained using various exposure times, 

589: sensitivities, instruments, and filters.  The simulations below are intended 

590: to be broadly useful for a wide range of past studies using \hst\ as well as 

591: future studies, where the image sampling is close to Nyquist sampling.  For 

592: this reason, we adopt the following strategy in producing the simulations:  

593: the simulations are first and foremost referenced to the $S/N$ of the AGN 

594: nucleus (defined below). The $S/N$ of the unresolved nucleus is often the 

595: easiest parameter to measure in luminous AGNs, and is more general than the 

596: luminosity 

597: parameter.  Secondly, at a given \nsn\ in the simulation, the host galaxy flux 

598: normalization is referenced to that of the AGN---a quantity that we call the 

599: ``luminosity contrast'' (\hnr)---instead of using the absolute luminosity of 

600: the galaxy.  Luminosity contrast is often the factor that determines the 

601: reliability of host galaxy detection:  when \hnr\ is low, it is hard to detect 

602: the host galaxy, whereas when \hnr\ is high, the AGN is harder to measure.  

603: Both low and high \hnr\ are considered to be high contrast.  The strategy of 

604: using \nsn\ and \hnr\ makes irrelevant information about the exposure time and 

605: intrinsic luminosity when quantifying parameter uncertainties of the AGN and 

606: the host.  Therefore, once the \nsn\ and \hnr\ parameters are 

607: measured, uncertainties in the measurement parameters can be estimated by 

608: referring to the appropriate figure for a given \nsn.

609: 

610: The $S/N$ of the unresolved nucleus is calculated, without loss of generality, 

611: by defining that all the flux is concentrated within a single pixel.  Thus,

612: 

613: \begin{equation}

614: (S/N)_{\rm nuc}= \frac{F_{\rm nuc}}{\sqrt{F_{\rm nuc}+Rd^2+Sky+Dark}},

615: \end{equation}

616: 

617: \noindent where $F_{\rm nuc}$ is the total flux of the unresolved AGN nucleus, 

618: $Rd$ is the readout noise, $Sky$ is the sky value, $Dark$ is the dark current, 

619: and all quantities are in units of electrons.  The $S/N$ for the nucleus 

620: calculated in this manner is slightly larger than the value obtained from that 

621: accounting for the fact that the point source has a finite width.  However, 

622: since the unresolved core is not in the read-noise or sky-dominated regime, 

623: and most of the

624: flux is contained within 1 to 2 pixels, the noise of the core hardly depends on 

625: the exact area. The advantage of our definition is that it can be easily 

626: renormalized to other areas in lower $S/N$ regimes.  We note that the main 

627: results of this paper are actually not very sensitive to the exact value of 

628: \nsn.

629: 

630: 

631: \subsection{Creation of the Simulation}

632: 

633: The reference simulation models were produced using a single reference PSF to 

634: represent the AGN nucleus and for image convolution.  The light profile of the 

635: host galaxy was parameterized as a single-component \ser\ (1968) profile,

636: convolved with the reference PSF.  We made 10,000 reference images, by varying

637: the following parameters:  (1) $S/N$ of the nucleus [$50 \leq (S/N)_{\rm nuc} 

638: \leq 5000$] on a logarithmic scale, (2) luminosity ratio between galaxy and 

639: nucleus ($0.01 \leq L_{\rm host}/L_{\rm nuc} \leq 100$) on a logarithmic 

640: scale, (3) effective radius ($ 1 \ {\rm pixel} \leq R_{e} \leq 50 \ {\rm 

641: pixel}$) on a logarithmic scale, (4) axis ratio ($0.7 \leq b/a\leq 1$) on a 

642: linear scale, and (5) \ser\ index ($n=1$, equivalent to an exponential 

643: profile, {\rm or} $n=4$, equivalent to a de~Vaucouleurs profile).  The values 

644: were randomly selected in these ranges.  The range of values for the host 

645: galaxy parameters ($R_{e}$, $b/a$, and $n$) was determined by the typical 

646: range seen in actual observations. The size of each simulated image is 

647: $\sim$10 times larger than $R_e$.  To maximize efficiency for the simulations, 

648: we use a convolution size of $50 \times 50$ pixels for the PSF image; we 

649: verified that enlarging the convolution size to $100 \times 100$ pixels has no 

650: noticeable impact on the results.

651: 

652: To cast the simulations into more concrete terms, the foregoing parameters,

653: translated to single-orbit, 3000-second \hst\ images, mean that the range of 

654: \nsn\ corresponds to $15 \leq m_{\rm F606W} \leq 25$, with the host 

655: galaxies spanning $\pm 5$ magnitudes around that range.  This sufficiently 

656: covers most of the data contained in the \hst\ archive, and the dynamic range 

657: is large enough for most practical observations. 

658: 

659: The simulations below examine the most typical circumstances encountered in

660: high-contrast images.  During the fit, we allow the following sets of 

661: parameters to be 

662: free: (1) position, luminosity, effective radius, axis ratio, position angle, 

663: and S\'{e}rsic index for the galaxy; (2) position and luminosity for the 

664: nucleus; and (3) sky value.

665: 

666: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

667: \begin{figure*}

668: \psfig{file=f6.eps,width=17cm,angle=0}

669: \figcaption[fig6.ps]

670: {

671: Simulation results under idealized conditions. We fit artificial images with

672: the same PSF as that used for generating the input images. The upper part of

673: the figure shows residuals in the magnitude of the host ($M_{\rm host}$),

674: magnitude of the nucleus ($M_{\rm nuc}$), effective radius ($R_e$), and \ser\

675: index ($n$) as a function of input luminosity ratio between the host and the

676: nucleus (\hnr) and input signal-to-noise ratio of the nucleus [\nsn].  Host

677: galaxies of different effective radii are marked in ({\it green}, $R_e < 4$

678: pixel), ({\it blue}, $4 < R_e < 20$ pixel), and ({\it red}, $20 < R_e < 50$

679: pixel).  Here, we only

680: show the results for $10^{2.8} \leq$ \nsn\ $\leq 10^{3.2}$, which is typical

681: of most actual objects observed with {\it HST}.  The plots for other values

682: of \nsn\ are presented in the Appendix.

683: We plot only 25\% of the data points to avoid crowding; this subset of

684: points adequately represents the overall trends.

685: The solid lines represent the median

686: value for the simulated sample, while the dashed lines demarcate the region

687: that encloses the central 70\% of the sample.  The lower portion of the figure

688: shows examples of the artificial and residual images as a function of

689: increasing \hnr\ (from left to right). All images are on an asinh stretch.

690: \label{fig6}}

691: \end{figure*}

692: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

693: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

694: \begin{figure*}

695: \psfig{file=f7.eps,width=18cm,angle=0}

696: \figcaption[fig7.ps]

697: {Similar to Fig. 6, except that here we fit the artificial image with a PSF 

698: different from the one used for generating the input image.  The conditions of 

699: the simulation are more realistic than those in Fig. 6. This test 

700: shows that PSF mismatch is the main culprit for the systematic uncertainty. 

701: \label{fig7}}

702: \end{figure*}

703: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

704: %\noindent

705: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

706: %%PageBoundingBox: 21 321 597 777

707: \begin{figure*}

708: \psfig{file=f8.eps,width=18cm,angle=0}

709: \figcaption[fig8.ps]

710: {Similar to Fig. 6, except that here the fits were done with the TinyTim PSF, 

711: which was not oversampled. The conditions of the simulations are more 

712: realistic than those in Fig. 6.  This test suggests that the scatter for the 

713: host parameters is due to PSF mismatch, but the systematics, except for the 

714: nuclear magnitude, seem to be better controlled than in Fig. 7.

715: \label{fig8}}

716: \end{figure*}

717: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

718: %\noindent

719: %\section{result}

720: \subsection{Idealized Simulations}

721: 

722: As a point of reference, our first set of simulations is designed to be highly

723: idealized: we fit the artificial images with the same PSF used to create them.

724: Although this simulation does not account for PSF mismatch, it gives us a

725: ``zero point'' expectation for how well we can extract the host galaxy

726: parameters in the photon limit. The simulation results are summarized in

727: Figure 6, where we show the residual of galaxy luminosity, nucleus luminosity,

728: effective radius, and \ser\ index as a function of the luminosity contrast.

729: The \nsn\ of $\sim 1000$ in Figure 6 corresponds to a point source magnitude

730: of 18.5 mag in the F606W filter, for a single \hst\ orbit.  In the 

731: Appendix, we show plots of other \nsn\ regimes. 

732: In Figure 6, when the luminosity of the AGN is more than 10 times the host

733: luminosity, the underlying galaxy tends to be dominated by the noise of the

734: nucleus.  In this case, GALFIT tries to extract the host galaxy component from

735: the nucleus itself, which leads to the \ser\ component having a smaller size

736: and a higher \ser\ index.  The size of the galaxy is also important. When $R_e$ 

737: is small ({\it green dots}) and difficult to distinguish from the

738: nucleus, or large ({\it red dots}) and has low surface brightness,

739: the scatter in all morphology parameters is large.  However, we find that the

740: scatter is not very dependent upon the \ser\ index of the host galaxy.

741: Most importantly, when the AGN is brighter than 20:1, the host galaxy

742: detection becomes quite difficult even under ideal conditions.  This is

743: similar to findings in nearly all quasar host galaxy studies where the hosts

744: are often not much fainter than 3 magnitudes compared to the AGN.  Under

745: certain situations it is possible to detect quasar hosts that have a higher

746: contrast with the AGN, such as when the host has a high ellipticity (and thus 

747: a high surface brightness).  In these limits, the fluxes of even real host

748: detections are likely to be biased systematically high.

749: 

750: \subsection{Testing PSF Mismatches}

751: 

752: To test PSF mismatches we fit the simulated data with a different PSF from

753: the one that was used to

754: create them.  We first test the results by fitting with a stellar PSF, and

755: next with a model PSF generated by TinyTim.

756: 

757: {\it Stellar PSF.}\ \ \ \ \ In this simulation the analysis PSF (FWHM $\approx

758: 1.6$ pixels) was observed one month apart from that (FWHM $\approx1.5$ pixels) 

759: used to generate the 10,000 reference data models.  This experiment is more 

760: realistic because most AGN observations do not have concurrently observed 

761: PSFs; they rely instead on PSFs in the archive or TinyTim models.  

762: 

763: The simulations (Fig. 7) show that even when the PSF matches are fairly

764: good, as seen in the residual images, the systematic errors can be quite large.

765: When the contrast is high, the effective radius and \ser\ index plots show

766: that GALFIT may try to reduce the PSF mismatch by using the host galaxy \ser\

767: component, the result of which is to push the concentration index to either

768: extreme and to make the galaxy size small.  The host galaxy luminosity robs

769: light from the quasar itself in the process.  For compact galaxies, the

770: systematic errors start to increase around \hnr $\approx 1$.  For low-surface 

771: brightness galaxies ($R_{e} > 20$ pixels), the errors occur at higher \hnr.

772: We note that GALFIT does not permit \ser\ indices larger than $20$, 

773: which is why the ratio of the \ser\ indices saturates at a value of 5 [when 

774: $n$(in) = 4] or 20 [when $n$(in) = 1].

775: 

776: We further find that the systematic trend is slightly dependent on the \ser\ 

777: index, in the sense that the hosts with $n$(in) = 1 is better recovered than 

778: those with $n$(in) = 4, but less so when \nsn\ \gax\ 250. When the host has 

779: an $n=4$ profile, the recovered flux from the host can be easily buried under 

780: the structure of the PSF mismatch.  Thus, it is hard to accurately detect an 

781: AGN host with a high \ser\ index (central concentration) and small size. At 

782: moderate to high \nsn, there is only a small dependence on \nsn\ because the 

783: systematics are dominated by the PSF mismatch. 

784: 

785: As seen in Figure 7, there is a clear offset ($\sim 0.1 $ mag) in the

786: luminosity of the nucleus. As explained above (\S{2.2}), and as shown later in

787: \S{3.4}, this effect is caused by the undersampling of the PSF, so that the

788: cores cannot be adequately sampled and modeled.  This then leads to an

789: overestimate or underestimate of the halo of the PSF, which results in 

790: erroneous inferences on the host galaxy properties when the galaxy is faint. 

791: In our case, the underestimate of the nuclear flux boosts the flux of either 

792: the sky or the host luminosity.  We discuss later in \S{3.4} how this 

793: systematic error can be reduced.

794: 

795: \bigskip

796: {\it TinyTim PSF.}\ \ \ \ \ In addition to fitting the artificial images with

797: an actually observed PSF star, we also tried using a PSF generated with 

798: TinyTim (Fig.  8).  When there is no stellar PSF observation, this is an 

799: often-used strategy in the literature.  We create a 1$\times$ sampled PSF for 

800: this analysis.  Figure 8

801: shows that the fit with this synthetic PSF is less accurate compared to the

802: previous two simulations using an observed star.  In particular, if the size

803: of the host galaxy is small, the parameter recovery is quite poor, {\it even if

804: the residuals may not indicate there to be an obvious sign of a PSF mismatch},

805: especially at low \hnr.  This point cannot be over-emphasized.

806: 

807: Since the TinyTim PSF is sharper than the stellar PSF, the mismatch in the 

808: central few pixels is more problematic due to undersampling.  As in the previous

809: simulation, when \hnr\ is large, the AGN flux is measured to be too luminous,

810: even though the host luminosity is not affected much. Therefore it is hard to

811: get accurate fits for both the host and the nucleus simultaneously at the

812: extreme ends of the luminosity contrast if one uses a non-oversampled TinyTim

813: PSF. 

814: 

815: We also fit the simulated images with a $4\times$ oversampled TinyTim PSF. 

816: When an oversampled PSF is created by the TinyTim program, it is not

817: convolved with a charge diffusion kernel. We manually convolved the 

818: oversampled PSF with the charge diffusion kernel.

819: We find no significant differences from the fits with a non-oversampled 

820: TinyTim PSF.

821: 

822: \subsection{Broadening the PSF and Science Images} 

823: 

824: To minimize interpolation errors, we need to model both the gradient and the

825: curvature of the PSF, which is not possible when the PSF is undersampled.  As 

826: discussed in \S~2.2, interpolation errors necessarily occur when an 

827: undersampled PSF is shifted by a fraction of a pixel, regardless of the 

828: algorithm used in the interpolation.  To see if this crucial problem can be 

829: reduced, we repeated the same simulations by slightly broadening both the PSF 

830: star and the simulated images as they are observed.  To 

831: achieve Nyquist-sampling, we want the final PSF to have a FWHM of 2 pixels.

832: Since the FWHM of the original PSF is $1.5-1.6$ pixels, we use a 

833: Gaussian kernel with FWHM = 1.45 pixels for broadening.

834: 

835: As shown in Figures 9 and 10, the results improve considerably.  While the

836: behavior of the systematic errors on the host galaxy luminosity is consistent

837: with previous results in Figures 7 and 8, the upturn point (\hnr $\approx 0.5$)

838: where GALFIT begins to overestimate the host galaxy luminosity is a factor of

839: 2 less than previously (\hnr $\approx 1.0$).  This experiment also recovers 

840: the luminosity of the nucleus much better than before, even if the host galaxy 

841: is small.  In addition, the artificial offset in the residual of the AGN

842: luminosity is virtually eliminated.  Lastly, the scatter in the fitted

843: parameters has, in all cases, decreased quite substantially.

844: 

845: Interestingly, the improvements for a broadened TinyTim PSF are more dramatic

846: (compare Fig. 10 with Fig. 8), such that a TinyTim PSF {\it can} sometimes work

847: better than a real star.  The latter fact is probably just a coincidence and

848: not likely to be true in general due to the temporal variability of real PSFs.

849: Nevertheless, the improvement does suggest that if there is no stellar PSF

850: observed, TinyTim can be an acceptable substitute, if both the PSF and the

851: data images are oversampled in the same way.  Comparing Figure 10 with 

852: Figure 9, in which the fit was done with the broadened stellar PSF, we can

853: conclude that the recovery for host magnitude is reasonable, but the AGN

854: luminosity may still be somewhat biased when the host galaxy is much more

855: luminous.

856: 

857: In summary, the results of these tests indicate that image decomposition

858: should be performed only on images that are Nyquist-sampled.  If both the PSF

859: and the data are not sampled adequately, one can simply convolve both images

860: with the same Gaussian kernel.  Alternatively, dithering can be used 

861: to achieve Nyquist sampling when

862: observing the data and the PSF images.

863: 

864: \subsection{Holding the S\'ersic Parameter Fixed}

865: 

866: When the host galaxies are faint and hard to deblend from their central AGN,

867: one common technique used in the literature is to hold the \ser\ index $n$ 

868: fixed, while allowing other parameters to converge (e.g., Jahnke et al.  2004; 

869: S\'{a}nchez et al.  2004).  We perform similar experiments to test how reliably 

870: we can extract the host parameters by using such a prior. We create artificial

871: images for \nsn\ $= 1000$, varying $n$ from 0.8 to 6.8.  We only

872: run simulations in the regime where \hnr $\approx 0.3$ and $R_{e}=7$ pixels,

873: as this is the part of the host galaxy parameter space where the systematic

874: uncertainties are largest.  Fits are performed in four different ways: fixing 

875: $n$ = $1$, fixing $n$ = $4$, fixing $n$ to the input value, and allowing $n$ 

876: to be free.

877: 

878: Figure 11 summarizes the results.  For simulated galaxies where the input

879: \ser\ indices are $n\ge2$, the luminosity can be recovered to better than 0.3

880: mag by simply holding the fitted profile to $n=4$ ({\it filled blue circles}).

881: This is considerably better than the results that allow the \ser\ index to be 

882: free ({\it stars}).  In addition, if the intrinsic \ser\ index of the host is 

883: $n < 2$, then holding the fit to $n=1$ also produces a result that agrees 

884: to better than 0.3 mag.  Therefore, like previous studies, we find that by

885: using a correct prior, the recovery of other host galaxy parameters can

886: dramatically improve.  The caveat, however, is that the prior may be hard to

887: determine when the host is not well-resolved.  Nevertheless, as the bimodality

888: decision is quite coarse, the decision about which prior to make can in some

889: cases be simply based on selecting the lower of the two $\chi^2$ values.

890: 

891: % In order to assign the PSF mismatch to the host component with a high sersic 

892: % index, GALFIT may possibly misunderstand sky values particularly when

893: % the host is faint. Thus one can expect fits can be improved by fixing sky 

894: % value. We perform fits for simulated images (\nsn\ $\approx 1000$ and \hnr\ $\leq 

895: % 1.0$) with fixing sky value. However, it turns out that fixing sky value does 

896: % not help to fit simulated images (Fig. 12). 

897: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

898: \begin{figure*}

899: \psfig{file=f9.eps,width=18cm,angle=0}

900: \figcaption[fig9.ps]

901: {Similar to Fig. 7, except that here we generated the artificial image

902: with an empirical PSF broadened by a Gaussian with FWHM = 2 pixels, and the 

903: fits were done with a different, similarly broadened PSF. The input parameters, 

904: especially the AGN luminosity, are recovered better than in Fig. 7.

905: \label{fig9}}

906: \end{figure*}

907: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

908: %\noindent

909: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

910: \begin{figure*}

911: \psfig{file=f10.eps,width=18cm,angle=0}

912: \figcaption[fig10.ps]

913: {Similar to Fig. 9, except that here we generated the images with a 

914: broadened empirical PSF and fitted them with a broadened TinyTim PSF.  

915: The recovery of 

916: the parameters, especially the AGN luminosity, is substantially improved 

917: compared to Fig. 8.  

918: \label{fig10}}

919: \end{figure*}

920: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

921: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

922: \begin{figure*}

923: \psfig{file=f11.eps,width=18cm,angle=0}

924: \figcaption[fig11.ps]

925: {Fitting results with the \ser\ index fixed. After we created artificial 

926: images with $n$ varying from 0.8 to 6.8, we fit them in four different 

927: ways: fixing $n$ = 1 ({\it open red circles}), fixing $n$ = 4 ({\it filled blue

928: circles}), fixing $n$ to the input value ({\it green squares}), and allowing 

929: $n$ to be free ({\it stars}). For $n>2$, fixing $n$ = 4 better recovers the 

930: input parameters.

931: \label{fig11}}

932: \end{figure*}

933: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

934: %\noindent

935: 

936: \subsection{Reversing the Role of the PSFs}

937: 

938: Previously, our simulation models were created using a single PSF that has 

939: FWHM $\approx$ 1.5 pixels, but which is then fitted using another with FWHM

940: $\approx$ 1.6 pixels.  This resulted in systematic biases on the host and AGN

941: parameters in a certain direction.  A natural follow-up is to reverse the role

942: of the PSFs to see how the systematic trends may change.  As in Figures

943: 7--10, we only show results for $R_{e} < 20$ pixels and

944: $10^{2.8}<$\nsn$<10^{3.2}$.  Figure 12 shows the results of this set of

945: simulations.  We again find that the recovered hosts appear slightly

946: overluminous, but the systematic errors are smaller than the original

947: experiment.  Just like before, we find that hosts with $n=1$ and $R_{e} > 4$ 

948: pixels tend to be recovered well, and the scatter of both the nuclear luminosity

949: and host luminosity are larger when the hosts are small.  Even though the

950: degree of systematics is slightly changed, reversing the roles of the PSFs

951: does not affect the systematic error offsets in exactly the opposite

952: direction.

953: 

954: 

955: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

956: \begin{figure*}

957: \psfig{file=f12.eps,width=18cm,angle=0}

958: \figcaption[fig12.ps]

959: {Similar to Fig. 7, except that here we switched the role of the two PSFs used 

960: for generating the artificial image and for doing the fit. For simplicity, we 

961: only simulate galaxies having $R_e < 20$ pixels. 

962: The overall trends are very similar to those in Fig. 7.

963: \label{fig12}}

964: \end{figure*}

965: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

966: %\noindent

967: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

968: \begin{figure*}

969: \figurenum{13{\it a}}

970: \centerline{\psfig{file=f13a.eps,width=18cm,angle=0}}

971: \figcaption[fig13a.ps]

972: {

973: Simulation results for the ACS/HRC. The overall trends are 

974: quite similar to those for WF3 on WFPC2. See Fig. 6 for details.

975: %

976: \label{fig13a}}

977: \end{figure*}

978: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

979: \begin{figure*}

980: \figurenum{13{\it b}}

981: \centerline{\psfig{file=f13b.eps,width=18cm,angle=0}}

982: \figcaption[fig13b.ps]

983: {Simulation results for ACS/WFC. The overall trends are  

984: quite similar to those for WF3 on WFPC2. See Fig. 6 for details.

985: %%

986: \label{fig13b}}

987: \end{figure*}

988: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

989: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

990: \begin{figure*}

991: \figurenum{13{\it c}}

992: \centerline{\psfig{file=f13c.eps,width=18cm,angle=0}}

993: \figcaption[fig13c.ps]

994: {Simulation results for NICMOS/NIC2. The overall trends are  

995: quite similar to those for WF3 on WFPC2. See Fig. 6 for details.

996: \label{fig13c}}

997: %

998: \end{figure*}

999: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1000: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1001: \begin{figure*}

1002: \figurenum{13{\it d}}

1003: \centerline{\psfig{file=f13d.eps,width=18cm,angle=0}}

1004: \figcaption[fig13d.ps]

1005: {Simulation results for the WFPC2/PC. The overall trends are  

1006: quite similar to those for WF3 on WFPC2. See Fig. 6 for details.

1007: %

1008: \label{fig13d}}

1009: \end{figure*}

1010: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1011: 

1012: 

1013: \vspace*{+0.3cm}

1014: 

1015: \subsection{Simulating Other Detectors Onboard HST}

1016: 

1017: Different detectors onboard \hst\ have different characteristics, and so we 

1018: further perform simulations for each of them.  As before, for each detector we 

1019: use two different stellar PSFs to account for the PSF mismatch.  For 

1020: simplicity, the simulations are done with 1000 samples for 

1021: $10^{2.8}<$\nsn$<10^{3.2}$.  The detectors assumed are the Planetary Camera 

1022: (PC) of WFPC2, the High Resolution Camera (HRC) of the Advanced Camera for 

1023: Surveys (ACS), the Wide-Field Camera (WFC) on ACS, and NIC2 of Near-Infrared 

1024: Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS).  These are the most often-used 

1025: detectors for AGN imaging.  Figure 13 illustrates that, although the results 

1026: for the various detectors are slightly different, the overall trends are 

1027: similar to those of WF3.  As shown in the previous experiments (Fig.  7), at 

1028: \hnr$<1$ the host luminosities are systematically overestimated due to the PSF 

1029: mismatch, and the nuclear luminosities tend to be underestimated due to the 

1030: undersampled PSF.  Not surprisingly, the nuclear luminosities are well 

1031: recovered in the experiments with NIC2 because it has the least undersampled 

1032: PSF (FWHM $\approx$ 2 pixels).  We also perform the same test with reversing 

1033: the role of PSFs as discussed in \S{3.6}. The overall trends barely 

1034: change, although the scatter is slightly affected by this test.

1035: 

1036: \subsection{Complications}

1037: 

1038: In addition to the situations presented above, additional complications

1039: involve extracting hosts beneath saturated AGNs or performing bulge-to-disk

1040: decomposition on AGN hosts.  However, characterizing parameter uncertainties 

1041: in these situations, with considerably larger parameter spaces, is beyond the

1042: scope of this study.  Nevertheless, we conduct a brief simulation to test how

1043: well the parameters can be recovered under very specific circumstances

1044: corresponding to single-orbit, WF3 data, with \nsn\ $\approx 1000$.  The 

1045: simulations below are otherwise created exactly like previous ones, 

1046: with the reference PSFs being different than the one used to fit the model 

1047: images, which are Nyquist-sampled. 

1048: 

1049: \bigskip

1050: {\it Saturated AGN.}\ \ \ \ \ To test instances when the AGN is saturated, we

1051: mask out the central few saturated pixels in the artificial images.  We create 

1052: a set of artificial images with the \ser\ indices of the host varying from 

1053: $n = 1$ to $n = 6$. 

1054: %We fit the images in two ways---with and without masking 

1055: %out the central few saturated pixels.  

1056: With the nucleus masked out, there is 

1057: little leverage to reliably determine the host galaxy central concentration. 

1058: We thus hold the \ser\ index of the host galaxy fixed to $n = 4$ to fit the 

1059: images.  In so doing, we find that the resultant luminosity extracted for the 

1060: host galaxy has a scatter that is 0.2 mag larger compared to the unsaturated 

1061: cases. However, with the exception of the scatter, the overall distributions 

1062: from both tests are in good agreement. 

1063: 

1064: One can achieve high-dynamic range imaging of AGN hosts without saturating the 

1065: core by combining a short exposure of the center with a long exposure of the 

1066: outskirts of the galaxy.  In this circumstance, however, the noise properties

1067: across the image will not be uniform, a situation not captured in our 

1068: simulations.  Nevertheless, as we have shown, the systematic errors of the 

1069: fits are almost always dominated by PSF mismatch rather than by Poisson noise.

1070: 

1071: \bigskip

1072: {\it Bulge-to-disk-to-AGN Decomposition.}\ \ \ \ \ Characterizing measurement

1073: uncertainties of bulge-to-disk-to-AGN (B/D/A) decomposition involves an

1074: additional 7 free parameters, if the bulge is a \ser\ profile and is an

1075: independent component.  This set of simulations again corresponds to \nsn\

1076: $\approx 1000$; B/D/A decompositions can only be done on objects with high 

1077: $S/N$.  In the interest of characterizing the uncertainties in measuring the 

1078: bulge component in isolation, we create two sets of artificial images. The 

1079: first corresponds to a set of

1080: pure bulges that we define as the control sample, for which we only do a

1081: bulge-to-AGN (B/A) decomposition.  The second set takes the same bulges,

1082: around which we assign an exponential disk.  In so doing, uncertainties in

1083: bulge measurements from the B/D/A decomposition can be directly compared with

1084: the control sample of B/A decomposition.  

1085: 

1086: For the bulge components, the \ser\ indices lie in the range $1 \leq n \leq 6$.

1087: The reference disk models are pure exponentials and have the following 

1088: parameters:  disk scalelength $(1.5-6)\,R_{e}$ and disk luminosities

1089: $(0.2-7)\,L_{\rm bul}$.

1090: %

1091: To fit the model images, we fix $n=4$ for the bulge and $n=1$ for the disk. In 

1092: so doing, we find that the measurement errors for the bulge luminosity for both

1093: samples are comparable (Fig. 14) when the bulges have intrinsic \ser\ indices

1094: $n\gtrsim2$.  On the other hand, if the spheroid is inherently a pseudobulge 

1095: (Kormendy \& Kennicutt 2004), where $n$ is smaller than 2, the extracted bulge 

1096: luminosity is significantly overestimated by roughly 0.4 mag. Also, this test 

1097: sometimes leaves substantial outliers ($\geq 0.5$ mag). The overall scatter in 

1098: the bulge luminosity is 0.18 mag for the control sample of pure bulge 

1099: systems, whereas the scatter grows to 0.28 mag for the later-type galaxies 

1100: that have both a bulge and a disk. Thus, we conclude that the 

1101: measurement error for the bulge luminosity increases by 0.1 mag in cases 

1102: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1103: \psfig{file=f14.eps,width=8.5cm,angle=0}

1104: \figurenum{14}

1105: \figcaption[fig14.ps]

1106: {

1107: Distribution of residuals for the bulge magnitudes. Here we show the fitting

1108: results for pure bulge systems ({\it hatched histogram}) with the median value

1109: marked with a {\it dotted line}.  The later-type galaxies that contain both a

1110: bulge and a disk are plotted as an {\it open histogram}, and their

1111: corresponding median value is marked with a {\it dashed line}.

1112: \label{fig14}}

1113: \vskip 0.3cm

1114: \noindent

1115: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1116: where B/D/A decomposition is required.  

1117: 

1118: \section{Discussion}

1119: 

1120: In this study, we performed 2-D image-fitting simulations of AGN

1121: hosts to illustrate how systematics in the PSF mismatch may affect the

1122: deblending of the AGN and the host galaxy components.  Based on these 

1123: simulations, we suggest practical strategies for how to observe and analyze 

1124: host galaxies with bright active nuclei.

1125: 

1126: As seen in Figures 6--7, careful determination of the PSF is needed to extract

1127: very high-contrast subcomponents accurately.  This point was also underscored 

1128: in the study of Hutchings et al. (2002).  We find that the three factors

1129: that most affect PSF structures are spatial distortion, temporal changes,

1130: and pixel 

1131: %

1132: undersampling.  The SED of the PSF matters to a much lesser degree,

1133: but it is worthwhile to match it when possible.  The spatial variation can be

1134: reduced by observing a stellar PSF at the same position as the science images.

1135: However, the temporal variance is trickier to avoid without observing PSFs

1136: concurrently with the science data, which is observationally expensive and 

1137: rarely done in practice.  Even

1138: then, some temporal variability may happen even within a single orbit.

1139: Nevertheless, as there is evidence that PSF mismatch grows over time, and

1140: may not be completely periodic in nature, it is important to obtain a stellar

1141: PSF as close in time as possible to the science images.  

1142: From our tests (\S{2.1}), we recommend that stellar PSF images be taken 

1143: within a month of the science images.  In the absence of a well-matched 

1144: stellar PSF, synthetic PSFs generated with TinyTim are adequate substitutes 

1145: (compare Fig. 10 to Fig. 7 and Fig. 9).

1146: 

1147: In all scenarios, whether using stellar or TinyTim PSFs, both the science

1148: image and the PSF image should be oversampled to reduce errors caused by pixel

1149: undersampling and subpixel shifting.  This can be accomplished by observing the 

1150: science image and the PSF star using a four-point ``dither'' pattern to recover

1151: finer pixel sampling.  Or, if this option is not available, then 

1152: simply broadening the images through convolution during the analysis stage is 

1153: an acceptable alternative solution, and certainly better than no treatment at 

1154: all (\S{3.4} and Fig. 10).  

1155: 

1156: 

1157: %

1158: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1159: %%PageBoundingBox: 0 390 595 662

1160: \begin{figure*}

1161: \figurenum{15}

1162: \psfig{file=f15.eps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

1163: \figcaption[fig15.ps]

1164: {Distribution of residuals for the magnitudes of the host for ({\it left}) 

1165: \hnr $\geq 0.2$ and ({\it right}) \hnr $< 0.2$.  After producing artificial 

1166: images by varying $n$ between 2 and 6, we fit them with  $n$ fixed to 4.  This 

1167: simulation gives an estimate of the measurement error for the bulge luminosity. 

1168: \label{fig15}}

1169: \end{figure*}

1170: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1171: %\noindent

1172: 

1173: When the host galaxies are faint and difficult to fit, it may be useful to

1174: hold the \ser\ index fixed to a constant value of either $n=1$ or $n=4$.  The

1175: decision about what value to use might be based on visual morphology, or by

1176: comparing $\chi^2$ values of the bimodal priors.  A similar conclusion was

1177: reached by McLure et al. (1999), Jahnke et al.  (2004), and S\'{a}nchez et 

1178: al.  (2004) in their analysis of quasar host galaxies.  By varying the \ser\ 

1179: index between $n$ = 2 and $n$ = 6, we find that the scatter is $\sigma \approx 

1180: 0.3 $ mag for \hnr $\geq 0.2$ and \nsn\ $\approx 1000$ (Fig. 15).  At higher 

1181: contrast, \hnr $\leq 0.2$, the scatter increases to $\sigma \approx 0.4 $ mag.

1182: 

1183: Lastly, we briefly conducted a three-component bulge/disk/AGN decomposition to

1184: characterize uncertainties in estimating the bulge component.  We find that

1185: when the $S/N$ is high, the contrast is sufficiently low, and the bulges are

1186: sufficiently well-resolved, then a B/D/A decomposition can yield reliable

1187: bulge luminosity measurements.  These simulations are fully compatible with

1188: images of $z\lesssim 0.3$ quasar host galaxies (e.g., McLure \& Dunlop 1999). 

1189: Our tests suggest that, when three-component decomposition is required, 

1190: the uncertainty in the bulge luminosity increases

1191: by an additional $\sim$0.1 mag compared to fits without a disk component.

1192: 

1193: Finally, we note in passing that our simulations allow the sky value 

1194: to vary during the fitting.  For the current application, this choice makes

1195: little difference because the images have a large sky area and the 

1196: profiles are idealized.  However, in real science images, the 

1197: situation will be different.  From prior experience with actual \hst\ data, 

1198: keeping the sky value fixed prevents the \ser\ index from going up

1199: to extremely high values in situations where the light profile of the

1200: galaxy is not well represented by the \ser\ function.  Thus, we recommend

1201: keeping the sky parameter fixed to a well-determined value whenever possible.

1202: 

1203: \acknowledgements

1204: 

1205: This work was supported by the Carnegie Institution of Washington and by NASA 

1206: grants HST-AR-10969, HST-GO-10149, and HST-GO-10395 from the Space Telescope 

1207: Science Institute (operated by AURA, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555).

1208: M.K. and M.I. acknowldege the support of the Korea Science  and Engineering 

1209: Foundation (KOSEF) through the Astrophysical Research  Center for the 

1210: Structure and Evolution of the Cosmos (ARCSEC).

1211: C.Y.P. was supported through the Institute/Giacconi Fellowship (STScI) and the

1212: Plaskett Fellowship (NRC-HIA, Canada). Research by A.J.B. is supported by NSF 

1213: grant AST-0548198. 

1214: We acknowledge the useful suggestions of the referee.

1215: We thank Paul Martini for helpful comments on the 

1216: manuscript.

1217: 

1218: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1219: 

1220: \bibitem[]{}

1221: Bahcall, J. N., Kirhakos, S., Saxe, D. H., \& Schneider, D. P. 1997, 

1222: \apj, 479, 642

1223: 

1224: \bibitem[]{}

1225: Barth, A.~J., Greene, J. E., \& Ho, L.~C. 2005, \apj, 619, L151

1226: 

1227: \bibitem[]{}

1228: Boyce, P. J., et al. 1998, \mnras, 298, 121

1229: 

1230: \bibitem[]{}

1231: Byun, Y. I., \& Freeman, K. C. 1995, \apj, 448, 563

1232: 

1233: \bibitem[]{}

1234: de Jong, R.~S. 1996, \aas, 118, 557

1235: 

1236: \bibitem[]{}

1237: de Souza, R.~E., Gadotti, D. A., \& dos Anjos, S. 2004, \apjs, 153, 411

1238: 

1239: \bibitem[]{}

1240: Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J., Kukula, M. J., Baum, S. A., O'Dea, C. P., 

1241: \& Hughes, D. H. 2003, \mnras, 340, 1095

1242: 

1243: \bibitem[]{}

1244: Ferrarese, L., \& Merritt, D. 2000, \apj, 539, L9

1245: 

1246: \bibitem[]{}

1247: Floyd, D. J. E., Kukula, M. J., Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J., Miller, L., 

1248: Percival, W. J., Baum, S. A., \& O'Dea, C. P. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 196

1249: 

1250: \bibitem[]{}

1251: Gebhardt, K., et al.  2000, \apj, 539, L13

1252: 

1253: \bibitem[]{}

1254: Graham, A. W., \& Driver, S. P. 2007, \apj, 655, 77

1255: 

1256: \bibitem[]{}

1257: Greene, J. E., \& Ho, L. C. 2005a, ApJ, 627, 721

1258: 

1259: \bibitem[]{}

1260: ------. 2005b, ApJ, 630, 122

1261: 

1262: \bibitem[]{}

1263: ------. 2006, ApJ, 641, 117

1264: 

1265: \bibitem[]{}

1266: Greene, J. E., Ho, L. C., \& Barth, A. J. 2008, \apj, in press

1267: 

1268: \bibitem[]{}

1269: Griffiths, R. E., et al. 1994, \apj, 437, 67

1270: 

1271: \bibitem[]{}

1272: H\"{a}ring, N., \& Rix, H.-W. 2004, \apj, 604, L89

1273: 

1274: \bibitem[]{}

1275: Ho, L. C. 1999, in Observational Evidence for Black Holes in the Universe, 

1276: ed. S. K. Chakrabarti (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 157

1277: 

1278: \bibitem[]{}

1279: ------. 2004, ed., Carnegie Observatories Astrophysics Series, Vol. 1:

1280: Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)

1281: 

1282: \bibitem[]{}

1283: ------. 2007, \apj, 669, 821

1284: 

1285: \bibitem[]{}

1286: Ho, L.~C., Darling, J., \& Greene, J. E. 2008, \apj, in press (arXiv:0803.1952)

1287: 

1288: \bibitem[]{}

1289: Hutchings, J. B., Frenette, D., Hanisch, R., Mo, J., Dumont, P. J., Redding, D. C., \& Neff, S. G. 2002, \aj, 123, 2936

1290: 

1291: \bibitem[]{}

1292: Jahnke, K., et al. 2004, \apj, 614, 568

1293: 

1294: \bibitem[]{}

1295: Kaspi, S., Smith, P. S., Netzer, H., Maoz, D., Jannuzi, B. T., \& Giveon, U.

1296: 2000, \apj, 533, 631

1297: 

1298: \bibitem[]{}

1299: Kim, M., Ho, L. C., Peng, C. Y., Barth, A. J., Im, M., Martini, P., \&

1300: Nelson, C. H. 2008, \apj, in press

1301: 

1302: \bibitem[]{}

1303: Kim, M., Ho, L. C., Peng, C. Y., \& Im, M. 2007, \apj, 658, 107

1304: 

1305: \bibitem[]{}

1306: Kormendy, J., \& Gebhardt, K. 2001, in 20th Texas Symposium on Relativistic 

1307: Astrophysics, ed. H. Martel \& J. C. Wheeler (Melville: AIP), 363

1308: 

1309: \bibitem[]{}

1310: Kormendy, J., \& Kennicutt, R. C.  2004, \annrev, 42, 603

1311: 

1312: \bibitem[]{}

1313: Kormendy, J., \& Richstone, D.~O. 1995, \annrev, 33, 581

1314: 

1315: \bibitem[]{}

1316: Krist, J. 1995, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, ed. R. 

1317: A. Shaw, H. E. Payne, \& J. J. E. Hayes (San Francisco: ASP), 349

1318: 

1319: \bibitem[]{}

1320: Magorrian, J., et al.  1998, \aj, 115, 2285

1321: 

1322: \bibitem[]{}

1323: Marconi, A., \& Hunt, L. K. 2003, \apj, 589, L21

1324: 

1325: \bibitem[]{}

1326: McLure, R.~J., \& Dunlop, J.~S. 2002, \mnras, 331, 795

1327: 

1328: \bibitem[]{}

1329: McLure, R. J., Kukula, M. J., Dunlop, J. S., Baum, S. A., O'Dea, C. P., 

1330: \& Hughes, D. H. 1999, \mnras, 308, 377

1331: 

1332: \bibitem[]{}

1333: Nelson, C. H., Green, R. F., Bower, G., Gebhardt, K., \& Weistrop, D. 2004,

1334: \apj, 615, 652

1335: 

1336: \bibitem[]{}

1337: Onken, C. A., Ferrarese, L., Merritt, D., Peterson, B. M., Pogge, R. W.,

1338: Vestergaard, M., \& Wandel, A. 2004, ApJ, 615, 645

1339: 

1340: \bibitem[]{}

1341: Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., \& Rix, H.-W. 2002, \aj, 124, 266

1342: 

1343: \bibitem[]{}

1344: Peng, C. Y., Impey, C. D., Ho, L. C., Barton, E. J., \& Rix, H.-W. 2006a, \apj, 

1345: 640, 114

1346: 

1347: \bibitem[]{}

1348: Peng, C. Y., Impey, C. D., Rix, H.-W., Kochanek, C. S., Keeton, C. R., Falco, 

1349: E. E., Leh\'{a}r, J., \& McLeod, B. A. 2006b, \apj, 649, 616

1350: 

1351: \bibitem[]{}

1352: Peterson, B.~M. 2007, in The Central Engine of Active Galactic Nuclei,

1353: ed. L. C. Ho \& J.-M.  Wang (San Francisco: ASP), 3

1354: 

1355: %\bibitem[]{}

1356: %Rix, H.-W., et al. 2004, \apjs, 152, 163

1357: 

1358: \bibitem[]{}

1359: Salviander, S., Shields, G. A., Gebhardt, K., \& Bonning, E. W. 2007, 

1360: \apj, 662, 131

1361: 

1362: \bibitem[]{}

1363: S\'{a}nchez, S. F., et al. 2004, \apj, 614, 586

1364: 

1365: \bibitem[]{}

1366: S\'{e}rsic, J. L. 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes (C\'ordoba: Obs. Astron.,

1367:  Univ. Nac. C\'ordoba)

1368: 

1369: \bibitem[]{}

1370: Schade, D. J., Boyle, B. J., \& Letawsky, M. 2000, \mnras, 315, 498

1371: 

1372: \bibitem[]{}

1373: Shen, J., Vanden Berk, D. E., Schneider, D. P., \& Hall, P. B. 2008, \aj, 

1374: 135, 928

1375: 

1376: \bibitem[]{}

1377: Simard, L., et al. 2002, \apjs, 142, 1

1378: 

1379: \bibitem[]{}

1380: Sirianni, M., et al. 2005, PASP, 117, 1049

1381: 

1382: \bibitem[]{}

1383: Wadadekar, Y., Robbason, B., \& Kembhavi, A. 1999, \aj, 117, 1219

1384: 

1385: \bibitem[]{}

1386: Wandel, A., Peterson, B. M., \& Malkan, M. A. 1999, \apj, 526, 579

1387: 

1388: \bibitem[]{}

1389: Woo, J.-H., Treu, T., Malkan, M. A., \& Blandford, R. D. 2006, \apj, 645, 900

1390: 

1391: \end{thebibliography}

1392: 

1393: \appendix

1394: \section{Simulation Results as a Function of \nsn}

1395: Here we examine how the fitting results depend on the $S/N$ of the nucleus. 

1396: Figures 16--18 show the simulation results as a function of \nsn. We divide 

1397: the sample into 6 bins in \nsn\ and 3 bins according to the PSF used for the 

1398: fit.

1399: 

1400: \clearpage

1401: 

1402: \begin{figure*}

1403: \figurenum{16{\it a}}

1404: \psfig{file=f16a.eps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

1405: \figcaption[fig16a]

1406: {

1407: Simulation results for the idealized situation in which the fitting PSF is

1408: identical to that used for generating the input images; see Fig. 6 for

1409: details. We display $10^{1.6} \leq$ \nsn\ $\leq 10^{2.0}$.  

1410: \label{fig16a}}

1411: \end{figure*}

1412: 

1413: \begin{figure*}

1414: \figurenum{16{\it b}}

1415: \psfig{file=f16b.eps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

1416: \figcaption{

1417: Simulation results for $10^{2.0} \leq$ \nsn\ $\leq 10^{2.4}$.

1418: }

1419: \end{figure*}

1420: 

1421: \begin{figure*}

1422: \figurenum{16{\it c}}

1423: \psfig{file=f16c.eps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

1424: \figcaption{

1425: Simulation results for $10^{2.4} \leq$ \nsn\ $\leq 10^{2.8}$.

1426: }

1427: \end{figure*}

1428: 

1429: \begin{figure*}

1430: \figurenum{16{\it d}}

1431: \psfig{file=f16d.eps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

1432: \figcaption{

1433: Simulation results for $10^{2.8} \leq$ \nsn\ $\leq 10^{3.2}$.

1434: }

1435: \end{figure*}

1436: 

1437: \begin{figure*}

1438: \figurenum{16{\it e}}

1439: \psfig{file=f16e.eps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

1440: \figcaption{

1441: Simulation results for $10^{3.2} \leq$ \nsn\ $\leq 10^{3.6}$.

1442: }

1443: \end{figure*}

1444: 

1445: \begin{figure*}

1446: \figurenum{16{\it f}}

1447: \psfig{file=f16f.eps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

1448: \figcaption{

1449: Simulation results for $10^{3.6} \leq$ \nsn\ $\leq 10^{4.0}$.

1450: }

1451: \end{figure*}

1452: 

1453: 

1454: \begin{figure*}

1455: \figurenum{17{\it a}}

1456: \psfig{file=f17a.eps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

1457: \figcaption[fig16a]

1458: {

1459: Similar to Fig. 16{\it a}, except that here we fit the artificial images

1460: with a PSF different from the one used for generating the input images;

1461: see Fig. 6 for details. We display $10^{1.6} \leq$ \nsn\ $\leq 10^{2.0}$.

1462: \label{fig17a}}

1463: \end{figure*}

1464: 

1465: \begin{figure*}

1466: \figurenum{17{\it b}}

1467: \psfig{file=f17b.eps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

1468: \figcaption{

1469: Simulation results for $10^{2.0} \leq$ \nsn\ $\leq 10^{2.4}$.

1470: }

1471: \end{figure*}

1472: 

1473: \begin{figure*}

1474: \figurenum{17{\it c}}

1475: \psfig{file=f17c.eps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

1476: \figcaption{

1477: Simulation results for $10^{2.4} \leq$ \nsn\ $\leq 10^{2.8}$.

1478: }

1479: \end{figure*}

1480: 

1481: \begin{figure*}

1482: \figurenum{17{\it d}}

1483: \psfig{file=f17d.eps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

1484: \figcaption{

1485: Simulation results for $10^{2.8} \leq$ \nsn\ $\leq 10^{3.2}$.

1486: }

1487: \end{figure*}

1488: 

1489: \begin{figure*}

1490: \figurenum{17{\it e}}

1491: \psfig{file=f17e.eps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

1492: \figcaption{

1493: Simulation results for $10^{3.2} \leq$ \nsn\ $\leq 10^{3.6}$.

1494: }

1495: \end{figure*}

1496: 

1497: \begin{figure*}

1498: \figurenum{17{\it f}}

1499: \psfig{file=f17f.eps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

1500: \figcaption{

1501: Simulation results for $10^{3.6} \leq$ \nsn\ $\leq 10^{4.0}$.

1502: }

1503: \end{figure*}

1504: 

1505: 

1506: \begin{figure*}

1507: \figurenum{18{\it a}}

1508: \psfig{file=f18a.eps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

1509: \figcaption[fig16a]

1510: {

1511: Similar to Fig. 16{\it a}, except that here we fit the images with the TinyTim

1512: PSF; see Fig. 6 for details. We display $10^{1.6} \leq$ \nsn\ $\leq 10^{2.0}$.

1513: \label{fig18a}}

1514: \end{figure*}

1515: 

1516: \begin{figure*}

1517: \figurenum{18{\it b}}

1518: \psfig{file=f18b.eps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

1519: \figcaption{

1520: Simulation results for $10^{2.0} \leq$ \nsn\ $\leq 10^{2.4}$.

1521: }

1522: \end{figure*}

1523: 

1524: \begin{figure*}

1525: \figurenum{18{\it c}}

1526: \psfig{file=f18c.eps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

1527: \figcaption{

1528: Simulation results for $10^{2.4} \leq$ \nsn\ $\leq 10^{2.8}$.

1529: }

1530: \end{figure*}

1531: 

1532: \begin{figure*}

1533: \figurenum{18{\it d}}

1534: \psfig{file=f18d.eps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

1535: \figcaption{

1536: Simulation results for $10^{2.8} \leq$ \nsn\ $\leq 10^{3.2}$.

1537: }

1538: \end{figure*}

1539: 

1540: \begin{figure*}

1541: \figurenum{18{\it e}}

1542: \psfig{file=f18e.eps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

1543: \figcaption{

1544: Simulation results for $10^{3.2} \leq$ \nsn\ $\leq 10^{3.6}$.

1545: }

1546: \end{figure*}

1547: 

1548: \begin{figure*}

1549: \figurenum{18{\it f}}

1550: \psfig{file=f18f.eps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

1551: \figcaption{

1552: Simulation results for $10^{3.6} \leq$ \nsn\ $\leq 10^{4.0}$.

1553: }

1554: \end{figure*}

1555: 

1556: \end{document}

1557: