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

2: \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}

3: \usepackage{emulateapj5}

4: \usepackage{apjfonts}

5: \usepackage{natbib}

6: \usepackage{epsfig}

7: \input psfig.tex

8: 

9: %Luis's definitions

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

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

12: \def\aj{{AJ}}

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

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

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

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

17: \def\apj{{ApJ}}

18: \def\apjs{{ApJS}}

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

20: \def\baas{{BAAS}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28: \def\farcm{\hbox{$.\mkern-4mu^\prime$}}

29: \def\farcs{\hbox{$.\mkern-4mu^{\prime\prime}$}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45: \def\mnras{{MNRAS}}

46: \def\nat{{Nature}}

47: \def\pasp{{PASP}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

69: \def\feii{\ion{Fe}{II}}

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

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

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

73: \def\mlb{$M_{\rm BH}-L_{\rm{bul}}$}

74: \def\mlt{$M_{\rm BH}-L_{\rm{host}}$}

75: \def\msig{$M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_\star$}

76: \def\edd{$L_{{\rm bol}}$/{$L_{{\rm Edd}}$}}

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

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

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

80: \def\bnr{$L_{\rm bul}/L_{\rm nuc}$}

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

82: \def\nsn{$S/N_{\rm nuc}$}

83: \def\rbulge{$M_{R,{\rm bul}}$}

84: \def\mbulge{{$M_{\rm bul}$}}

85: \def\mhost{{$M_{\rm host}$}}

86: 

87: 

88: \slugcomment{To Appear in {\it

89: The Astrophysical Journal}.}

90: \shorttitle{Black Hole Mass vs. Bulge Luminosity Relation}

91: \shortauthors{KIM et al.}

92: 

93: \begin{document}

94: 

95: \title{The Origin of the Intrinsic Scatter in the Relation 

96: Between Black Hole Mass and Bulge Luminosity for Nearby Active Galaxies

97: \altaffilmark{1}}

98: \author{Minjin Kim\altaffilmark{2,3}, Luis C. Ho\altaffilmark{2}, Chien Y.

99: Peng\altaffilmark{4}, Aaron J. Barth\altaffilmark{5},  

100: Myungshin Im\altaffilmark{3}, Paul Martini\altaffilmark{6}, and

101: Charles H. Nelson\altaffilmark{7}}

102: 

103: \altaffiltext{1}{Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA  {\it Hubble 

104: Space Telescope}, obtained from the Data Archive at the Space Telescope 

105: Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for 

106: Research in Astronomy (AURA), Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555. These 

107: observations are associated with program AR-10969 and GO-9763.}

108: 

109: \altaffiltext{2}{The Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, 

110: 813 Santa Barbara Street, Pasadena, CA 91101; mjkim@ociw.edu, lho@ociw.edu.}

111: 

112: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Frontier Physics 

113: Research Division (FPRD), Seoul National

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

115: 

116: \altaffiltext{4}{NRC Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, 5071 West Saanich 

117: Road, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V9E2E7; cyp@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca.}

118: 

119: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of 

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

121: barth@uci.edu.}

122: 

123: \altaffiltext{6}{Center for Cosmology and AstroParticle Physics,

124: The Ohio State University, 

125: 191 West Woodruff Avenue, OH 43210; martini@astronomy.ohio-state.edu}

126: 

127: \altaffiltext{7}{Physics and Astronomy Department, Drake University, 2507 

128: University Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50311; charles.nelson@drake.edu}

129: 

130: \begin{abstract}

131: We investigate the origin of the intrinsic scatter in the correlation between 

132: black hole mass (\mbh) and bulge luminosity (\lbul) in a sample of 45 massive, 

133: local ($z$ \lax\ 0.35) type~1 active galactic nuclei (AGNs).  We derive \mbh\ 

134: from published optical spectra assuming a spherical broad-line region, and 

135: \lbul\ from detailed two-dimensional decomposition of archival optical 

136: {\it Hubble Space Telescope}\ images.  AGNs follow the \mlb\ relation of 

137: inactive galaxies, but the zero point is shifted by an average of $\Delta \log 

138: M_{\rm BH} \approx -0.3$ dex.  We show that the magnitude of the zero point 

139: offset, which is responsible for the intrinsic scatter in the \mlb\ relation, 

140: is correlated with several AGN and host galaxy properties, all of which are 

141: ultimately related to, or directly impact, the BH mass accretion rate.  At a 

142: given bulge luminosity, sources with higher Eddington ratios have lower \mbh.  

143: The zero point offset can be explained by a change in the normalization of the 

144: virial product used to estimate \mbh, in conjunction with modest BH growth 

145: ($\sim$10\%--40\%) during the AGN phase.  Galaxy mergers and tidal 

146: interactions appear to play an important role in regulating AGN fueling in 

147: low-redshift AGNs.

148: \end{abstract}

149: 

150: \keywords{galaxies: active --- galaxies: bulges --- galaxies: fundamental 

151: parameters --- galaxies: photometry --- quasars: general}

152: 

153: \section{Introduction}

154: 

155: Early-type galaxies commonly contain a central black hole (BH) whose mass

156: strongly correlates with the bulge luminosity (Kormendy \& Richstone 1995;

157: Magorrian et al. 1998) and stellar velocity dispersion (Gebhardt et al. 2000; 

158: Ferrarese \& Merritt 2000).  Lower-mass BHs found in late-type spirals and 

159: spheroidal galaxies follow a similar \msig\ relation (Barth et al. 2005; 

160: Greene \& Ho 2006a) but apparently a different \mlb\ relation 

161: (Greene et al. 2008).  The BH-host scaling relations suggest that BHs play  

162: an important role in galaxy formation and evolution (e.g., Granato et al. 2004; 

163: Di~Matteo et al. 2005; Robertson et al. 2006).  Understanding the mechanism by 

164: which BHs coevolve with their hosts impacts current models of cosmological 

165: structure formation (e.g., Bower et al. 2006; Croton et al. 2006). 

166: 

167: A key, unanswered question is how the BH-host scaling relations originated.  

168: This issue can be addressed by extending the BH-host scaling 

169: relations to {\it active}\ galaxies---wherein, the BH, by selection, is 

170: currently still growing---and by tracking the scaling relations to higher 

171: redshift to see when and possibly how they were established.  BH masses in 

172: type~1 (broad-line, unobscured) active galactic nuclei (AGNs) now can be 

173: routinely estimated to reasonable accuracy ($\sim 0.3-0.5$ dex), from the 

174: ``virial method'' using single-epoch ultraviolet or optical spectra (e.g., 

175: Kaspi et al. 2000; McLure \& Dunlop 2001; Vestergaard 2002; Greene \& Ho 

176: 2005).  More challenging to obtain are reliable measurements of the underlying 

177: host galaxy, particularly of the bulge component, which is maximally affected 

178: by the bright AGN core (e.g., McLure et al. 1999; Floyd et al. 2004; Nelson 

179: et al. 2004; Greene \& Ho 2006b; Kim et al. 2007), although 

180: substantial progress has been made.

181: 

182: Recent studies present tantalizing evidence that the BH-host scaling relations 

183: for active galaxies evolve with redshift, even by $z \approx 0.4$ (Woo et al. 

184: 2006; Treu et al. 2007) and as far back as $z \approx 4$ (Peng et al. 2006a, 

185: 2006b; Shields et al. 2006; Ho 2007).  Compared to local, inactive systems, 

186: the sense of the evolution is that for a given host galaxy mass or 

187: gravitational potential, higher redshift AGNs have a larger BH mass than 

188: similar systems at low redshift.  Taken at 

189: face value, this suggests that the growth of the BH precedes, or at least 

190: outpaces, the growth of the galaxy at higher redshifts.  On the other hand, 

191: local ($z \approx 0$) AGNs seem to behave quite differently. McLure \& Dunlop 

192: (2002) studied a sample of 72 nearby AGNs and find that they roughly follow 

193: the same \mlb\ relation defined by inactive galaxies, albeit with a somewhat 

194: greater scatter.  In the \msig\ relation of AGNs, highly accreting AGNs 

195: seem to have a different normalization in the sense that they tend to have a 

196: lower \mbh\ for a given $\sigma_\star$ (Greene \& Ho 2006b; Shen et al. 2008).

197: A similar trend is seen by Ho et al. (2008), using H~I line widths to constrain 

198: the gravitational potential of the underlying host galaxy. 

199: %

200: %At the moment, it is unclear whether the difference is due to an actual 

201: %difference in \mbh\ or a difference in the normalization factor.

202: 

203: As a concrete step toward establishing a robust $z=0$ baseline for comparison 

204: with high-$z$ studies, this series of papers (Kim et al. 2007, 2008; M. Kim 

205: et al., in preparation) focuses on quantifying the local \mlb\ 

206: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

207: \psfig{file=f1.eps,width=8.5cm,angle=0}

208: \figcaption[fig1.ps]

209: {Distribution of \mbh\ vs. Eddington ratio. Radio-loud and radio-quiet objects 

210: are denoted by filled and open symbols, respectively.

211: \label{fig1}}

212: \vskip 0.3cm

213: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

214: \noindent

215: relation for 

216: active galaxies.  Among nearby 

217: inactive galaxies, BH mass 

218: correlates only marginally less tightly with bulge luminosity or mass than with bulge stellar 

219: velocity dispersion (Marconi \& Hunt 2003; H\"aring \& Rix 2004; Novak et al. 2006).  

220: Moreover, the \mlb\ relation for active galaxies shows no large systematic 

221: differences from that of inactive galaxies (McLure \& Dunlop 2002).  This 

222: suggests 

223: that the \mlb\ relation can be used as a useful substitute for the 

224: \msig\ relation, being an especially effective observational tool 

225: to track the cosmological evolution of the BH-galaxy connection 

226: (Peng et al. 2006a, 2006b; Treu et al. 2007).  Whereas stellar velocity 

227: dispersions are difficult, if not impossible, to measure for distant quasars, 

228: for example, photometric measurements of quasar hosts continue to be feasible 

229: even out to high redshifts, either through direct imaging (e.g., Kukula et al. 

230: 2001; Ridgway et al. 2001) or through strong lensing magnification (Peng et 

231: al. 2006b).  In a companion paper, Kim et al. (2008) demonstrate that the 

232: bulge luminosity of type~1 AGNs can be measured to a reasonable accuracy

233: ($\sim 0.5$ mag) in {\it Hubble Space Telescope (HST)}\ images, even in the 

234: regime when the active nucleus far outshines the galaxy.

235: 

236: Instead of characterizing the full \mlb\ relation for AGNs, this paper 

237: restricts itself to only one important aspect: the origin of the intrinsic 

238: scatter. By choosing a sample  for which we can estimate reliable BH masses 

239: and for which we can derive robust measurements of bulge luminosity from \hst\ 

240: images, our objective is to quantify the true intrinsic scatter of the 

241: relation and to characterize possible variations of the scatter with physical 

242: properties of the AGN, host galaxy, or environment.  By elucidating the 

243: physical drivers that influence the scatter of the \mlb\ relation, we hope to 

244: gain insights on how the BH-host galaxy relations were established.

245: 

246: This paper is structured as follows. We describe the sample selection in 

247: \S{2}. We present the image-fitting procedure for measuring bulge

248: luminosities and our image decomposition results in \S{3}.

249: We investigate the \mlb\ relation for type~1 AGNs in \S 4.

250: Finally, Section 5 discusses the origin of

251: the intrinsic 

252: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

253: \psfig{file=f2.eps,width=8.5cm,angle=0}

254: \figcaption[fig2.ps]

255: {Distribution of redshifts for our sample.  The open histogram shows the total

256: sample; the hatched histogram shows the objects with low Eddington ratio

257: (\edd $\leq 0.1$); the dashed histogram shows the radio-loud objects.

258: \label{fig2}}

259: \vskip 0.3cm

260: \noindent

261: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

262: scatter in the \mlb\ relation, ending with a summary in \S6.  

263: Throughout we adopt the following cosmological 

264: parameters: $H_0 = 100\,h = 71 \, $\kms~Mpc$^{-1}$,

265: $\Omega_m = 0.27$, and $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.75$ (Spergel et al. 2003).

266: 

267: \section{Sample Selection}

268: 

269: Our initial selection begins with all AGNs known to possess broad emission

270: lines (type~1 objects), and have reasonably deep, and non-highly

271: saturated optical images in the \hst\ public archive. 

272: Since we are interested in establishing the local 

273: \mlb\ relation, we only consider sources with $z$ \lax\ 0.35.

274: Next, we carefully search the literature for published measurements 

275: of broad emission-line widths (either H$\alpha$ or H$\beta$), which are needed 

276: for calculating \mbh.  Although this step is necessarily somewhat subjective, 

277: we try to be consistent in selecting only objects that have line widths with 

278: published error bars \lax 10\%. The availability of spectrophotometric 

279: measurements is not essential for us because our BH masses ultimately make use 

280: of the nuclear luminosities from our photometric decomposition of the nucleus 

281: (\S 3.3).  The above screening process yields approximately 200 objects.  

282: 

283: Since the principal aim of this work is to study the intrinsic scatter of the 

284: \mlb\ relation, it is imperative that we choose objects for which we can 

285: obtain the most reliable estimates of the two primary quantities of interest, 

286: \mbh\ and \lbul.  Guided by this overriding goal, we purposely restrict our

287: sample to the upper end of the \mbh\ distribution.  All else being equal, this 

288: selection criterion biases the sample toward more luminous, more massive, 

289: earlier-type hosts for which we can derive more reliable bulge parameters 

290: because the structural decomposition will be less complicated than in 

291: later-type systems.  An added benefit of this mass selection is that our 

292: sample will consist of close analogs of 

293: higher-redshift quasars.  For concreteness, we choose sources

294: with \mbh\ $> 10^{7.8}$ \solmass.  This limit\footnote{Our BH masses assume a 

295: smaller geometrical factor than that used in Onken et al. (2004), by a factor 

296: of 1.8. Thus, \mbh\ = $10^{7.8}$ \solmass\ on our scale is equivalent to \mbh\ 

297: = $10^8$ \solmass\ on the scale of Onken et al.  We note that that our main 

298: conclusions do not rely on the geometrical factor. This issue is discussed in 

299: \S 5.2.} is admittedly somewhat 

300: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

301: %BoundingBox: 10 10 610 790

302: \begin{figure*}[t]

303: \centerline{\psfig{file=table1_p1.ps,height=0.99\textheight,angle=0}}

304: \end{figure*}

305: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

306: \clearpage

307: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

308: %BoundingBox: 10 10 610 790

309: \begin{figure*}[t]

310: \centerline{\psfig{file=table1_p2.ps,height=0.99\textheight,angle=0}}

311: \end{figure*}

312: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

313: \clearpage

314: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

315: %BoundingBox: 10 10 610 790

316: \begin{figure*}[t]

317: \centerline{\psfig{file=table2_p1.ps,height=0.99\textheight,angle=0}}

318: \end{figure*}

319: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

320: \clearpage

321: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

322: %BoundingBox: 10 10 610 790

323: \begin{figure*}[t]

324: \centerline{\psfig{file=table2_p2.ps,height=0.99\textheight,angle=0}}

325: \end{figure*}

326: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

327: \clearpage

328: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

329: \psfig{file=table3_p1.ps,height=9.5in,angle=0}

330: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

331: \clearpage

332: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

333: %\hskip 0.0truein

334: \psfig{file=table3_p2.ps,height=9.5in,angle=0}

335: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

336: \clearpage

337: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

338: \psfig{file=table4.ps,height=9.5in,angle=0}

339: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

340: \clearpage

341: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

342: \psfig{file=f3.eps,width=8.5cm,angle=0}

343: \figcaption[fig3.ps]

344: {Distribution of the differences in host galaxy magnitudes from the 2-D

345: imaging-fitting simulations of Kim et al. (2008).  Artificial images of AGN

346: host galaxies with a range of input parameters were generated, and GALFIT was

347: used to recover the input parameters.  The open histograms denote the errors

348: for idealized conditions in which the fitting was done with the same PSF as

349: used for making the input images.  The hatched histograms give the errors

350: for the more realistic situation that accounts for PSF mismatch (see Kim et

351: al. 2008 for details).  PSF mismatch causes significant systematic errors.

352: \label{fig3}}

353: \vskip 0.3cm

354: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

355: %

356: \noindent

357: arbitrary, but it yields a sizable sample of 45 objects. Our objects

358: (Table 1) span $\sim 2$ orders of magnitude in accretion rate (Eddington 

359: ratio) over a relatively narrow range ($\sim 1$ dex) in \mbh\ (Fig.~1) and 

360: redshift (Fig.~2).  From radio data assembled from the literature, 

361: 33\% (15/45) of the sample 

362: is radio-loud, defined by $R \geq 10$, where

363: $R \equiv f_\nu({\rm 6~cm})/f_\nu(4400$~\AA) (Kellermann et al. 1989).

364: 

365: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

366: %%BoundingBox: 0 27 595 347

367: \begin{figure*}

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

369: \figurenum{4}

370: \figcaption[fig4.ps]

371: {Examples of non-interacting and interacting objects, based on the strength

372: of the first Fourier mode ($a_1$) measured with GALFIT.  From left to right, the

373: six objects are arranged in the order of increasing $a_1$.  The first three, with

374: $a_1$ \lax\ 0.1, show essentially no signs of perturbation.  The last three, with

375: $a_1$ \gax\ 0.1, are increasingly disturbed morphologically.  In each column, we

376: show, from top to bottom, the original image, model, and residual. The units

377: of the images are in arcseconds.

378: \label{fig4}}

379: \end{figure*}

380: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

381: %\clearpage

382: 

383: 

384: \section{Analysis}

385: 

386: \subsection{Structural Decomposition}

387: 

388: 

389: Our companion paper (Kim et al. 2008) discusses in detail our technique for 

390: decomposing the \hst\ images of AGN host galaxies.  We performed extensive 

391: simulations to quantify the performance of the two-dimensional (2-D) 

392: image-fitting code GALFIT (Peng et al. 2002) under conditions typically 

393: encountered in AGN host galaxy images contained in the \hst\ archive, similar 

394: to those analyzed in this study.  We paid particular attention to quantifying 

395: systematic uncertainties in estimating the photometric parameters of the 

396: bulge component and devised strategies for mitigating them.

397: 

398: In the regime where the bright, unresolved active nucleus dominates over the 

399: light of the host galaxy, our ability to extract the bulge luminosity 

400: depends sensitively on the properties of the point-spread function (PSF).

401: PSF mismatch systematically biases the derived bulge luminosities to high 

402: values, by as much as 0.5--1 mag (Fig.~3).  PSF mismatch occurs as a result of 

403: variations in time, location on the detector, and, to a lesser extent, 

404: differences in the spectral energy distribution between the PSF star and the

405: science target.  The dominant effect, however, comes from the fact that 

406: {\it HST}\ PSFs are undersampled.  Because the PSFs are not Nyquist-sampled, 

407: it is impossible to shift by a sub-pixel unit to perfectly align the PSF star 

408: with the AGN core.  Kim et al. (2008) show that this fundamental problem 

409: outweighs most other concerns, including the choice of actually observed 

410: (stellar) or synthetic (TinyTim; Krist 1995) PSFs.  They demonstrate 

411: that the undersampling problem can be significantly alleviated by broadening 

412: both the science image and the PSF image to critical sampling [full width at 

413: half maximum (FWHM) $\sim 2$ pixels].  This is the strategy we adopt here. 

414: Although the choice of real versus synthetic PSFs is secondary, 

415: we use observed PSF stars whenever possible.  When these are 

416: not available, we use TinyTim PSFs.

417: 

418: As in our companion paper, we use an updated version of GALFIT 

419: (C.~Y. Peng et al., in preparation)\footnote{{\tt http://www.ociw.edu/$\sim$peng/work/galfit/newfeatures.html}}.  The code simultaneously fits multiple 

420: components to model the host galaxy, with the freedom to use Fourier modes to 

421: accommodate complex, nonaxisymmetric features such as tidal distortions or even 

422: spiral arms.  These improvements allow us to obtain a more accurate 

423: decomposition of the structural components of the host, an important 

424: consideration for our aim of deriving robust bulge luminosities.

425: 

426: We model the active nucleus with a synthetic PSF and the host galaxy with 

427: ellipses represented by a \ser\ (1968) function:

428: 

429: \begin{equation}

430: I(r) = I_e~{\rm exp} \left[ -b_n \left(\frac{r}{r_e}\right)^{1/n}-1 \right],

431: \end{equation}

432: \noindent

433: where $r_e$ is the effective radius, $I_e$ is the

434: intensity at $r_e$, $n$ is the \ser\ index, and $b_n$ satisfies

435: 

436: \begin{equation}

437: \int_0^{\infty}I(r) 2 \pi r dr = 2 \int_0^{r_e} I(r) 2 \pi r dr.

438: \end{equation}

439: 

440: \noindent

441: The \ser\ function reduces to an exponential profile for $n=1$ and a 

442: de~Vaucouleurs (1948) profile for $n=4$.

443: 

444: Several different fits are done for each object.  We determine the sky value 

445: from a growth curve analysis of the image.  We begin with the simplest 

446: possible option of modeling the host with a single \ser\ component, allowing 

447: the index $n$ to be free as well as fixing it to $n=1$ and $n=4$. Our 

448: simulations show that when the AGN is much brighter than the bulge allowing 

449: $n$ to be free can sometimes lead to spurious results.  In these situations, 

450: it is better to fix $n$ to specific values in the fit and then empirically 

451: bracket the resulting host luminosity from the range of acceptable models, 

452: as judged from the relative change of $\chi^2$ and visual examination of 

453: the model residuals.  With the \ser\ index fixed, the program solves for the 

454: following free parameters: for the host galaxy, these are the position, 

455: effective radius $R_e$, surface brightness $\mu_e$ at $R_e$, axis ratio, and 

456: position angle; for the AGN, these are the position and nuclear magnitude, 

457: $m_{\rm nuc}$.  Figure~56 gives an example of a single-component fit for 

458: PKS 2355$-$082.

459: 

460: We perform two-component (bulge+disk) fits to objects that clearly have 

461: a disk component in the original image or that show significant extended 

462: structure in 

463: the residual image after subtraction of a single-component model.  We try 

464: three cases: (1) $n=4$ for bulge and $n=1$ for disk; (2) $n$ = free for bulge 

465: and $n=1$ for disk; and (3) $n$ = free for bulge and $n$ = free for disk. 

466: We permit the bulge to have $n < 4$ to allow for the possibility of 

467: pseudobulges (Kormendy \& Kennicutt 2004), and the disk can deviate from a 

468: pure exponential profile if it is severely distorted, if it has bar or 

469: ring-like structures, or if it represents tidal features and arcs.  

470: In most cases when a disk is present, it tends to have a smaller \ser\ $n$, 

471: a larger $R_e$, and often a smaller axial ratio than the bulge.

472: The disk component adds four additional free 

473: parameters, namely position, $R_e$, $\mu_e$, axis ratio, and  position angle.

474: Figure~24 gives an example of a bulge+disk fit for MS 1059.0+7302.

475: 

476: The choice between a single-component and a double-component fit for the host 

477: galaxy is not always clear.  Adding 

478: extra free parameters obviously yields a 

479: better fit.  The question is whether the extra component is clearly required 

480: and physically meaningful.  For example, when PSF mismatch is 

481: particularly 

482: severe, the extra component might simply be attempting to account for the 

483: large residuals from the poor PSF model.  In such situations the 

484: ``extra'' component tends to have 

485: unusual properties such as suspiciously 

486: tiny $R_e$ or extreme values of $n$.  In practice, complicated fits often 

487: require some degree of judgment call, but we have tried to err on the side of 

488: caution and generally invoke extra components only when they are absolutely 

489: needed.  In most cases, we admit an additional component only if it is 

490: clearly visible in the original image or in the residual image.

491: 

492: A disk component may be present but undetectable in shallow images (e.g., 

493: Bennert et al. 2008). It is thus very useful to place an upper limit on the 

494: disk component even if no disk is required by the best-fit model of the \hst\ 

495: image.  For objects with no directly detected disks, we derive upper limits 

496: for the disk component by placing artificial (face-on) disks covering a wide 

497: range of luminosity on the science image, assuming that the host galaxy 

498: follows the relation between bulge-to-total light ratio ($B/T$) and the ratio 

499: of disk size to bulge effective radius derived from nearby early-type galaxies 

500: (de~Jong et al. 2004).  We then fit the simulated images with two-component 

501: (bulge+disk) models.  The disk luminosity at which the program fails to 

502: recover the input value gives an estimate of the upper limit for the disk 

503: component.  We did not attempt to derive disk upper limits for systems that 

504: are exceptionally complicated (e.g., highly distorted, close companions, etc.).

505: 

506: The updated version of GALFIT also has the ability to model spiral

507: arms in the disk.  The spiral structure is created by a hyperbolic tangent 

508: rotation function with the following parameters: bar length, outer spiral 

509: radius, rotation rate, sky inclination, and position angle.  The details of 

510: the spiral structures are created by high-order Fourier modes.  

511: Figure~41 shows the fit for PG 1411+442, whose disk component shows two 

512: prominent spiral arms.

513: 

514: A unique aspect of our analysis is that we attempt to quantitatively 

515: estimate the degree to which the host galaxy exhibits nonaxisymmetric 

516: distortions.  Morphological disturbances may be signatures of recent mergers 

517: or tidal interactions, which might trigger or enhance AGN fueling.

518: While a variety of techniques have been devised to characterize morphological 

519: asymmetry in inactive galaxies (e.g., Conselice et al. 2000; Lotz et al.

520: 2004), they cannot be readily extended to galaxies containing bright AGNs

521: because the central point source can dominate the asymmetry signal.  The 

522: latest version of GALFIT implements 

523: asymmetry parameters as an integral part of the image-fitting process.  This 

524: is accomplished by introducing higher-order Fourier modes to change the shape 

525: of the host galaxy from axisymmetric ellipses into more complicated shapes.  

526: All the while the light profile of the host galaxy model would still decline 

527: as a \ser\ profile in every direction from the peak.  In this scheme, the 

528: strength of an external perturbation on the host galaxy would sensitively 

529: register as high-amplitude Fourier modes, with phase angles that reflect the 

530: direction of the perturbation.

531: 

532: If the residual image shows significant nonaxisymmetry, we adopted a Fourier 

533: component to fit it.  The Fourier mode has the following form:

534: 

535: \begin{equation}

536: r(x,y)=r_0(x,y) \left[1+\sum^{N}_{m=1}a_m {\rm cos}(m(\theta+\pi_m))\right].

537: \end{equation}

538: 

539: \noindent

540: In this expression, $\theta= {\rm arctan}[(y-y_c)/(x-x_c)q]$, where 

541: ($x_c,y_c$) is the centroid of the ellipse, $q$ is the axis ratio, $r_0(x,y)$ 

542: is the generalized ellipse, $a_m$ is the amplitude for mode $m$, and $\pi_m$ 

543: is the phase angle for mode $m$.  The Fourier mode is always coupled with a 

544: general single (e.g., \ser) component and shows how much a component is 

545: perturbed from the perfect ellipsoid. Thus, the Fourier mode allows us to

546: {\it quantify}\ the degree of asymmetry.  In principle, we can use an infinite 

547: number of Fourier modes, but in practice we find that four modes ($m=1,3,4,5$) 

548: are enough to fit the asymmetrical structures encountered in our sample. 

549: Figure~4 illustrates a series of objects with increasing strengths in 

550: $a_1$.  Sources with $a_1$ \lax\ 0.1 show little to no obvious signs of 

551: morphological perturbation, whereas those with $a_1$ \gax\ 0.1 appear 

552: increasingly disturbed.

553: 

554: Despite the significant new features of the updated version of GALFIT, we 

555: note that the derived values of many standard parameters (e.g., size and 

556: luminosity) are not substantially different between the original and new 

557: versions of the code.  In situations where there are differences,

558: the new features of the code allow for better convergence, especially when it 

559: comes to multi-component decompositions.  The updated version of GALFIT 

560: has been tested extensively by us, but for the sake of brevity we defer 

561: a full discussion of the technical details to an upcoming paper 

562: (C. Y. Peng et al., in preparation).

563: 

564: Table 2 summarizes the results of the structural decomposition.  For each 

565: object, we list the best-fit nuclear and photometric parameters for the 

566: bulge, disk or tidal feature, and for the overall host galaxy; the parameter 

567: $a_1$ is also tabulated.

568: 

569: \subsection{Bulge Luminosities}

570: 

571: The error bars on the bulge measurements are influenced by a number of 

572: systematic uncertainties.  Using the simulations in Kim et al. (2008) 

573: as a guide, the final error budget on the bulge luminosity was estimated 

574: as follows.  For sources with \bnr\ $\geq 0.2$, $\sigma \approx 

575: \pm 0.3\,{\rm mag}$, whereas $\sigma \approx \pm 0.4\,{\rm mag}$ if \bnr\ 

576: $< 0.2$.  On top of these values, additional uncertainties are introduced if 

577: bulge-to-disk decomposition is required ($\sim 0.1\,{\rm mag}$), if saturation 

578: occurs ($\sim 0.2\,{\rm mag}$), or if the image contains substantial inner 

579: fine structure ($\sim 0.3\,{\rm mag}$). 

580: We also determine the error of the host luminosity ($m_{\rm host}$) 

581: from the simulations at a given \hnr. According to Kim et al., the error on 

582: the nucleus magnitude is $\sim \pm 0.1$ mag.

583: 

584: Because of the complexity of the GALFIT decomposition, it is worthwhile to 

585: cross-check our 2-D parametric fits with a nonparametric estimate of the 

586: host luminosity (see, e.g., Greene et al. 2008).  To perform this test, we 

587: remove the nucleus from each source simply by subtracting a shifted, scaled 

588: PSF model from the peak of the AGN core.  After masking out obvious companions 

589: and foreground stars, we sum up the remaining flux to estimate the total host 

590: galaxy magnitude.  As a separate test, we compute the host galaxy flux after 

591: subtracting the PSF component derived from the best-fitting GALFIT model 

592: for the entire image.  These two tests give the range of values tabulated 

593: as $m_{\rm aper}$ in Table~2.  Comparison of these estimates with the host 

594: magnitudes obtained from the parametric fits ($m_{\rm host}$) shows reasonably 

595: good agreement for the majority of the sources.  The few cases in 

596: which $m_{\rm aper}$ is substantially brighter than $m_{\rm host}$ can be 

597: attributed to large residuals from PSF mismatch and contamination from 

598: neighboring sources.

599:  

600: A significant number of the sources in our sample overlap with those studied 

601: by Dunlop et al. (2003), affording an independent, external check of our 

602: analysis.  Dunlop et al. also performed 2-D decomposition of their sample, but 

603: they fitted the host galaxies with only a single component, modeled as either 

604: a classical de~Vaucouleurs ($n=4$) bulge or an exponential ($n=1$) disk.  

605: After accounting for differences in the adopted cosmological parameters, we 

606: find, not surprisingly, that for bulge-dominated sources our bulge magnitudes 

607: generally agree well (to within 0.1 mag) with those given by Dunlop et al. 

608: The exceptions are objects with large, nearby neighbors and sources with 

609: multiple components.  Whereas we perform 

610: a simultaneous 2-D fit of all nearby sources that could potentially affect 

611: our target of interest, Dunlop et al. simply masked them out.  This 

612: could lead to systematic errors in the derived properties of the primary host.

613: 

614: A particularly striking example is PG~1012+008, 

615: which is an obviously interacting system consisting of three galaxies.  

616: Simultaneously accounting for the subcomponents, including an off-centered 

617: disk, our best-fit model yields a 

618: bulge with $m_{\rm bul}$ = 17.1 (F675W) and an effective radius of 

619: $R_e$ = 2\farcs 96, or 9.3 kpc.  By contrast, Dunlop et al. obtain 

620: $m_{\rm bul}$ = 16.4 mag and $R_e$ = 5\farcs75, which corresponds to 

621: 18 kpc using our assumed distance of 896 Mpc.  For sources that clearly 

622: contain both a bulge and a disk (e.g., PKS~2349$-$01), our two-component fits 

623: yield more robust bulge luminosities.  Lastly, for completeness, 

624: we note that our final nuclear magnitudes (Table~3), converted to the $R$ 

625: band, are systematically brighter by 0.4 mag compared to those given in Dunlop 

626: et al.  This difference can be traced to the different assumptions used 

627: for calculating the $k$-correction.  Dunlop et al. assumed that the AGN 

628: spectrum can be represented by a single power law ($f_\nu \propto \nu^{-2}$), 

629: whereas we use the empirical quasar composite spectrum of Vanden Berk et al. 

630: (2001).

631: 

632: Five of our objects (MS 0754.6+3928, MS 1059.0+7302, MS 1545.3+0305, 

633: PG 1416$-$129, and PG 1426+015) overlap with the sample studied by Schade et 

634: al. (2000), who also performed 2-D fits to derive photometric parameters for 

635: the host galaxies.  The two studies show significant difference in the sense 

636: that Schade et al. tend to underestimate the nuclear magnitudes on average 

637: by 0.2 mag and to overestimate the bulge magnitudes by $\sim$0.7 mag. Some

638: objects show particularly striking disagreement.  In our analysis, the host 

639: galaxy of MS 1059.0+7302 is well described by a 

640: bulge+disk model.  Our best fit yields the $m_{\rm bul} = 17.02$ mag and 

641: $R_e$ = 0\farcs38 for the bulge and $m_{\rm disk} = 15.89$ mag and 

642: $R_e$ = 2\farcs76 for the disk.  By contrast, Schade et al. find 

643: $m_{\rm bul} = 15.53$ mag and $R_e$ = 3\farcs47 for the bulge and 

644: $m_{\rm disk} = 16.68$ mag and $R_e$ = 1\farcs28 for the disk.

645: We attribute the discrepancy between our results and those of Schade et al. 

646: to a difference in methodology.  Schade et al. fitted the \hst\ images 

647: simultaneously with ground-based images.  Although the ground-based images 

648: are deeper, they have a much broader and less stable PSF than the \hst\ 

649: images; it is difficult to know how this effect impacts the fitting results.

650: Other differences stem from the model adopted in the fit.  In our work,  

651: PG 1426+015 is best fit 

652: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

653: %%BoundingBox: 0 375 595 652

654: \psfig{file=f5.eps,width=8.5cm,angle=0}

655: \figurenum{5}

656: \figcaption[fig5.ps]

657: {Correlation between BH mass and absolute $R$-band magnitude for the bulge.  

658: The BH masses are derived from reverberation mapping ({\it red circles}) or 

659: from single-epoch spectra 

660: ({\it blue stars}), and the bulge luminosities are based on

661: the GALFIT decomposition.  The values of \mbh\ estimated

662: from single-epoch spectra are assumed to have a systematic uncertainty of

663: 0.2 dex.  The best fit is plotted as a solid line, and the intrinsic scatter is 

664: denoted by the dashed lines. 

665: The \mlb\ relation for inactive galaxies is shown by the thick hatched line.

666: \label{fig5}}

667: \vskip 0.3cm

668: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

669: \noindent

670: with a two-component bulge+disk model with a 

671: significant $a_1$ Fourier mode, whereas Schade et al. employed only a 

672: single-component bulge for the host. If we adopt a single-component model, 

673: our results agree well with those of Schade et al.

674: 

675: The bulge magnitudes listed in Table~2 were derived from images taken in 

676: different filters.  For our subsequent analysis, we need to convert the 

677: magnitudes to a single standard bandpass at $z$ = 0.  For ease of comparison

678: with the \mlb\ relation of inactive galaxies (Bettoni et al. 2003), we

679: choose the $R$ band as the reference.  

680: We perform the color conversion of the observed magnitude in the various

681: \hst\ filters to the $R$ band and 

682: apply $k$-correction using galaxy template spectra

683: from Calzetti et al. (1994) and Kinney et al. (1996). We assume that the bulge 

684: component has the spectrum of an elliptical galaxy and 

685: that the disk 

686: component is approximated by a late-type (Sc) galaxy. For the images taken in 

687: the F814W filter, we employ the template spectrum of a starburst galaxy for the 

688: disk component because the template spectrum of a late-type galaxy is 

689: unavailable in this wavelength regime.

690: The final $R$-band absolute magnitudes are given in Table~3.

691: 

692: 

693: \subsection{Black Hole Masses}

694: 

695: The BH masses for type~1 AGNs can be estimated from the virial product \mbh\

696: $\approx f R v^2/G$, where $R$ is the radius of the broad-line region (BLR),

697: $v$ is the line width of the BLR gas represented by FWHM$_{\rm H\beta}$, the 

698: FWHM of the broad H$\beta$ line, and $f$ is a factor of order unity that 

699: depends on the structure, dynamics, and inclination angle of the BLR.  

700: Direct measurements of $R$ through reverberation mapping are available only 

701: for a small number of sources (Peterson et al. 2004), but fortunately this 

702: quantity can be estimated from the correlation between $R$ and luminosity 

703: (Kaspi et al. 2000, 2005).  The virial product is, however, uncertain by the 

704: normalizing factor $f$.  Assuming that the BLR is spherical and has an 

705: isotropic velocity field, $f = 0.75$, and the latest radius-luminosity 

706: relation from Bentz et al. (2006) yields,

707: 

708: \begin{equation}

709: M_{\rm BH} = 5.5 \times 10^6 \, M_{\odot}\,

710: \left(\frac{\lambda L_{5100}} {10^{44} \, {\rm ergs\,s^{-1}}}\right)^{0.52} 

711: \left(\frac{{\rm FWHM}_{\rm H\beta}}{10^3 \, {\rm km \, s^{-1}}}\right)^{2.0},

712: \end{equation}

713: 

714: \noindent

715: where $\lambda L_{5100}$ is the continuum luminosity at 5100 \AA\ 

716: (see Greene \& Ho 2007b for details).  

717: 

718: The continuum luminosity can be estimated either through spectrophotometry or

719: through our image analysis.  Spectrophotometry has the advantage that the

720: specific continuum flux at the desired wavelength can be directly measured

721: without making assumptions about the spectral shape.  On the other hand,

722: accurate absolute spectrophotometry is nontrivial to achieve and is rarely

723: available for most objects in the literature.  Moreover, ground-based

724: apertures invariably blend the nucleus with at least part of the host.  By

725: contrast, our careful image decomposition yields a clean, unambiguous

726: measurement of the nuclear continuum.  Our nuclear magnitudes have a typical

727: uncertainty (dominated by systematic effects from PSF mismatch) of $\sim$0.1

728: mag.  We need to assume a spectrum (we choose the quasar template from

729: Vanden~Berk et al. 2001) in order to estimate the continuum luminosity at 5100

730: \AA, but the amount of extrapolation for our filters is minimal.  A more

731: significant uncertainty comes from temporal variability between our

732: photometric measurements and the literature-based spectral observations used

733: to obtain FWHM$_{\rm H\beta}$.  Nevertheless, AGNs of the luminosity

734: considered here usually vary by only $\sim 0.13$ mag on long timescales

735: (e.g., Giveon et al.  1999).  The widths of broad emission lines in type~1 AGNs

736: typically have an uncertainty of $\sim10\%$ (e.g., Marziani et al. 2003). 

737: Taking all of these factors into consideration, we estimate that they 

738: introduce a measurement uncertainty of only $\sim$0.2 dex in \mbh.  The 

739: largest source of uncertainty for the single-epoch masses, however, probably 

740: comes from the intrinsic scatter of the radius-luminosity relation, which is 

741: estimated to be $\sim 0.4$ dex (Bentz et al. 2006).

742: According to Peterson et al. (2004), the values of \mbh\ derived

743: from reverberation mapping are accurate to $\sim 30$\%, or 0.1 dex.

744: We note that there is an additional uncertainty on the geometrical factor

745: ($f$). For instance, Collin et al. (2006) argued that $f$ might be dependent

746: on the accretion rate. We visit this issue in \S{5.2}.

747: 

748: 

749: \section{The \mlb\ Relation for Type 1 AGNs}

750: 

751: Figure 5 shows the \mlb\ relation for our sample of type~1 AGNs. Objects 

752: with \mbh\ derived from reverberation mapping are encoded separately from 

753: those based on single-epoch spectra.  We assume that the \mlb\ relation 

754: follows a log-log relation 

755: 

756: \begin{equation}

757: \log (M_{\rm BH}/M_\odot) = \alpha + \beta M_{R,{\rm bul}}. 

758: \end{equation}

759: 

760: \noindent

761: The thick hatched line represents the \mlb\ relation for inactive galaxies 

762: from Bettoni et al. (2003). Converted to our cosmology (see Peng et al. 

763: 2006a), the best-fitting relation for inactive galaxies is described 

764: by $\alpha = -2.6$ and $\beta = -0.5$, with a scatter of 0.4 dex.

765: 

766: We estimate $\alpha$ and $\beta$ for the active sample by minimizing $\chi^2$, 

767: defined as

768: 

769: \begin{equation}

770: \chi^2 \equiv \sum^{N}_{i=1} \frac

771: {(y_i-\alpha-\beta x_i)^2}{\epsilon^2_{yi}+\beta^2\epsilon^2_{xi}},

772: \end{equation}

773: 

774: \noindent

775: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

776: \psfig{file=f6.eps,width=8.5cm,angle=0}

777: \figurenum{6}

778: \figcaption[fig6.ps]

779: {Dependence of the \mlb\ relation on Eddington ratio.  Blue stars and

780: solid line represent the correlation and the best fit for high-Eddington ratio

781: objects (\edd $\geq 0.1$). Red circles and dashed line represent

782: low-Eddington ratio objects (\edd $< 0.1$).  We fixed the slope to $-0.5$,

783: as derived for the inactive galaxies, whose relation is denoted by the thick

784: hatched line.  Measurement uncertainties of 0.1 and 0.2 dex are

785: adopted for \mbh\ estimated from reverberation mapping and single-epoch 

786: spectra, respectively.

787: \label{fig6}}

788: \vskip 0.3cm

789: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

790: \noindent

791: where $y= \log (M_{\rm BH}/M_\odot)$, $x=M_{R,{\rm bul}}$, and $\epsilon_{yi}$ 

792: and $\epsilon_{xi}$ are the measurement errors of $y$ and $x$, respectively 

793: (Tremaine et al. 2002).  

794: This method treats both $x$ and $y$ as independent 

795: variables and accounts for asymmetric uncertainties for each.

796: 

797: The estimation of the \mlb\ relation depends on $\epsilon_{yi}$, 

798: the choice of errors for \mbh.  If we adopt an uncertainty of 0.4 dex for the 

799: masses based on single-epoch spectra, the $\chi^2$ value is practically 

800: dominated by the 

801: reverberation-mapped objects because their uncertainties are a factor of 4 

802: smaller, resulting in a \mlb\ relation strongly biased toward the 

803: reverberation-mapped subsample.  

804: For concreteness, we assume that uncertainties on the single-epoch masses

805: are 0.2 dex, which is a typical measurement error (\S{3.3}).

806: As Figure 5 shows, our sample 

807: of AGNs cluster around the fiducial \mlb\ relation of inactive galaxies 

808: with significant scatter.  The formal fit for the AGNs has 

809: a slope of $\beta = -0.26\pm0.05$, flatter than for inactive galaxies 

810: ($\beta = -0.5$), 

811: but because of the limited 

812: dynamic range in \mbh, we do not regard the AGN fit to be robust.  A more 

813: meaningful exercise is to fix the slope of the relation to the value 

814: for inactive galaxies and then examine the offset and scatter of the AGN 

815: sample.  Fixing $\beta$ to $-0.5$, the AGN sample has 

816: $\Delta \alpha = -0.3$ and an rms scatter of 0.4 dex.

817: 

818: \subsection{Dependence on Eddington Ratio}

819: 

820: To understand the physical origin of the intrinsic scatter in the \mlb\ 

821: relation, we divide the sample into two bins in Eddington ratio, at \edd\ = 

822: 0.1.  The Eddington luminosity is defined as $L_{\rm Edd} = 1.26\times 10^{38} 

823: (M_{\rm BH}/M_\odot)$ \lum, and the bolometric luminosity is estimated assuming

824: $L_{\rm bol} = 9 \, \lambda L_{5100}$ (Kaspi et al. 2000). 

825: Figure 6 shows a clear offset between the two subsamples.

826: At a given \mbh, objects with high Eddington ratios tend to be hosted by more 

827: luminous bulges, or, alternatively, at a given bulge luminosity they tend to 

828: have less massive BHs.  In order to quantify the offset between the two 

829: subsamples, we fix the slope to that of the \mlb\ relation for inactive 

830: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

831: \psfig{file=f7.eps,width=8.5cm,angle=0}

832: \figurenum{7}

833: \figcaption[fig7.ps]

834: {Similar to Figure 6, except that here we show the dependence on galaxy

835: morphology: elliptical galaxies ($B/T = 1$; {\it blue stars and solid line}),

836: bulge-dominated systems ($0.5 \leq B/T < 1$; {\it green squares and dash-dotted

837: line}), and disk-dominated systems ($B/T < 0.5$; {\it red circles and 

838: dashed line}).

839: \label{fig7}}

840: \vskip 0.3cm

841: \noindent

842: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

843: galaxies.  At a fixed \rbulge, the offset in \mbh\ is $\sim

844: -0.6$ dex; at a 

845: fixed \mbh, the offset in \rbulge\ is $\sim 1.2$ mag.  We note that these 

846: offsets are much larger than the measurement errors.  Performing a 

847: Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to evaluate how \rbulge\ in the two subsamples is 

848: distributed, we find that the null hypothesis that the two subsamples are 

849: drawn from the same parent population can be rejected with a probability of 

850: 97.3\%.  As discussed in \S 5.2, the segregation between the two subsamples

851: really do reflect intrinsic differences in Eddington ratios rather than 

852: uncertainties in the determination of BH mass.

853: 

854: \subsection{Dependence on Morphological Type}

855: 

856: The availability of robust structural decomposition gives us an opportunity to 

857: examine possible trends with morphological type.  Using the  measured values 

858: of bulge-to-total luminosity ratio ($B/T$; Table 2) and the correlation 

859: between morphological type and $B/T$ in normal, inactive galaxies (Simien \& 

860: de~Vaucouleurs 1986), we divide the 

861: sample into three subgroups: $B/T = 1$ (ellipticals), $0.5 \leq B/T < 1$ 

862: (bulge-dominated), and $B/T < 0.5$ (disk-dominated).  Figure 7 (see also Table 

863: 4) shows that the zero point of the \mlb\ relation, and possibly scatter, may 

864: depend on $B/T$, although given the limited statistics we regard the evidence 

865: as tentative.  Ellipticals and early-type, bulge-dominated galaxies appear 

866: virtually indistinguishable, but later-type, disk-dominated systems 

867: ($B/T < 0.5$) appear distinctly offset to {\it larger}\ \mbh\ (by $\sim 

868: 0.4-0.6$ dex) at a fixed \rbulge.  The magnitude of the offset is much larger 

869: than possible systematic biases in bulge luminosities resulting from 

870: uncertainties in bulge-to-disk decomposition ($\sim 0.2$ mag; see Fig. 14 in 

871: Kim et al. 2008).  As discussed in \S5.1, in many instances 

872: our two-component fits may not correspond strictly to a bulge+disk 

873: decomposition but rather to a bulge+tidal feature decomposition. 

874: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

875: \psfig{file=f8.eps,width=8.5cm,angle=0}

876: \figurenum{8}

877: \figcaption[fig8.ps]

878: {Similar to Figure 6, except that here we show the dependence on the degree of

879: interaction.  Non-interacting or mildly interacting objects ($a_1 < 0.3$) are 

880: denoted by blue stars and the solid line, while strongly interacting systems 

881: ($a_1 \geq 0.3$), with their names labeled, are denoted by red circles and the 

882: dashed line.  Four sources with probable minor companions are marked

883: as filled blue stars.  The \mlb\ relation for inactive galaxies is shown 

884: by the thick hatched line.

885: \label{fig8}}

886: \vskip 0.3cm

887: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

888: 

889: \subsection{Dependence on Tidal Interaction}

890: 

891: We make use of the quantitative measure of galaxy asymmetry, $a_1$, to study 

892: the possible effect of tidal interaction.  Given our small sample size, we 

893: simply divide it into two bins according to the value of $a_1$.  As shown

894: in Figure 4, $a_1 \approx 0.1$ seems to provide a useful empirical boundary 

895: between objects that are disturbed morphologically ($a_1 \geq 0.1$) 

896: from those that are not ($a_1 < 0.1$).  With this threshold for $a_1$, 

897: however, the two populations show no obvious segregation in the \mlb\ plane.

898: But with the boundary set at a higher threshold of $a_1 = 0.3$, Figure 8 

899: illustrates that four out of the 

900: six objects in our sample with the clearest signs of morphological disturbance 

901: do preferentially seem to lie among the most extreme negative outliers in the

902: \mlb\ relation.

903: 

904: \subsection{Dependence on Radio Properties}

905: 

906: The physical drivers responsible for the generation of jets and radio emission 

907: in AGNs are still unclear.  Suggestions have included BH mass (e.g., Laor 

908: 2000), accretion rate (e.g., Ho 2002), and host galaxy morphology, which might 

909: ultimately be linked to BH spin (Sikora et al. 2007).  Figure 9 shows that a 

910: clear separation exists between radio-loud objects and radio-quiet objects.

911: Radio-loud sources lie preferentially below the \mlb\ relation of inactive 

912: galaxies and radio-quiet sources.

913: 

914: \subsection{Dependence on Redshift}

915: 

916: The redshift range of our objects is small ($0 < z < 0.35$), and our sample 

917: was not designed to test for evolutionary effects.  Nevertheless, even by 

918: $z = 0.36$ Woo et al. (2006) and Treu et al. (2007) have claimed that AGNs 

919: already show evidence of evolution in the BH-host galaxy scaling relations.  

920: Dividing the sources into two bins in redshift (Fig. 10), it appears that the 

921: two subsamples are offset from each other in 

922: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

923: \psfig{file=f9.eps,width=8.5cm,angle=0}

924: \figurenum{9}

925: \figcaption[fig9.ps]

926: {Similar to Figure 6, except that here we show the dependence on radio

927: emission: radio-loud sources are marked with blue stars and solid line, and 

928: radio-quiet sources are marked with red circles and dotted line.  The 

929: \mlb\ relation for inactive galaxies is shown by the thick hatched line.

930: \label{fig9}}

931: \vskip 0.3cm

932: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

933: \noindent 

934: the sense that lower-redshift 

935: sources have a higher \mbh\ at a given \rbulge.   This trend, however, is 

936: probably a selection effect because low-Eddington ratio, later-type galaxies 

937: tend to be closer.  Indeed, the $z \leq 0.15$ subsample 

938: has $\langle L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd} \rangle = 0.11$ and $\langle B/T \rangle 

939: = 0.71$, to be compared with $\langle L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd} \rangle = 0.24$ 

940: and $\langle B/T \rangle = 0.94$ for the $z > 0.15$ subsample.

941: 

942: \section{Discussion}

943: 

944: \subsection{Which is the Primary Variable?}

945: 

946: We have assembled a sample of local massive type~1 AGNs with reliable 

947: spectroscopic data and host galaxy photometric measurements to investigate the 

948: origin of 

949: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

950: \psfig{file=f10.eps,width=8.5cm,angle=0}

951: \figurenum{10}

952: \figcaption[fig10.ps]

953: {Similar to Figure 6, except that here we show the dependence on redshift:

954: low-redshift sources are marked with red circles and dashed line, and 

955: high-redshift sources are marked with blue stars and solid line.  The 

956: \mlb\ relation for inactive galaxies is shown by the thick hatched line.

957: \label{fig10}}

958: \vskip 0.3cm

959: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

960: \noindent

961: the intrinsic scatter in 

962: the correlation between BH mass and bulge 

963: luminosity.  Assuming a geometrical factor of $f = 0.75$ for the BLR, we find 

964: that the AGNs in our sample lie systematically below the \mlb\ relation of 

965: inactive galaxies by an average offset of $\Delta \alpha \approx -0.3$ dex.  

966: Moreover, we have shown that the magnitude of the offset correlates with 

967: secondary parameters connected with the AGN (Eddington ratio and degree of 

968: radio-loudness) and host galaxy (redshift, bulge-to-disk ratio, and 

969: signs of morphological disturbance).

970: 

971: 

972: Among the several variables that correlate with the offset in the \mlb\

973: relation, the only one that appears unphysical is that related to redshift.

974: As we noted in \S4.5, the apparent dependence on redshift most likely reflects 

975: the selection effect that higher redshift sources tend to be biased toward 

976: higher Eddington ratios (e.g., Boyle et al.  2000) and more luminous, earlier 

977: Hubble types.  If we divide the sample into two at $z = 0.15$, the \mlb\ 

978: relation for both the nearby and distant halves continue to exhibit the 

979: dependence on \edd\ and $B/T$ that we see for the full sample.

980: 

981: Still, among the rest of the variables that correlate with the zero point 

982: offset in the 

983: \mlb\ relation, which is the primary one?  Given that many galaxy and AGN 

984: parameters are mutually correlated, this is not a trivial question to answer.  

985: We propose that the primary physical driver is the mass accretion rate, as 

986: reflected in the Eddington ratio.  We argue that the host morphology and 

987: degree of tidal disturbance directly affect the AGN accretion rate, and that 

988: the accretion rate, in turn, is linked to the radio-loudness parameter.

989: 

990: Although our 2-D fits indicate that the hosts of many of our AGNs have a 

991: non-zero disk component apart from a bulge, it is important to recognize that, 

992: with few exceptions (Fairall 9,  HE 0306$-$3301, MS 1059.0+7302, PG 2130+99), 

993: most of the sources in our sample do not have regular, normal disks.  The 

994: vast majority of the sample---by construction when we imposed the \mbh\ 

995: cut---is decisively bulge-dominated.  Many of the features that we attribute 

996: to a ``disk,'' in fact, are simply diffuse, extended features above and beyond 

997: the dominant bulge component, which we have parameterized using a single 

998: S\'ersic function.  There is no a priori reason why the bulge should be 

999: defined in such a manner, that it cannot have a more complex light 

1000: distribution, especially at large radii.  In other instances, the extra-bulge 

1001: component is highly disturbed and almost certainly of tidal origin.  With 

1002: few exceptions (Bennert et al. 2008), these

1003: features have generally never been measured before quantitatively in AGN host 

1004: galaxies.  However, it is entirely debatable whether any of these structures 

1005: truly belongs to or will ever settle into a normal disk component.   Instead, 

1006: we surmise that many of the tidal tails and extended, distorted features, in 

1007: fact, should be considered as part of the {\it bulge in formation}.  They are 

1008: reminiscent of morphological signatures attributed to the late, advanced 

1009: stages of gas-rich mergers (e.g., Barnes \& Hernquist 1996; Lotz et al. 2008) 

1010: or possibly even gas-poor (``dry'') mergers (e.g., van~Dokkum 2005; Naab et 

1011: al. 2006).  Plausible examples of this phenomenon in our sample include [HB89] 

1012: 0316$-$346 (Fig. 15), HE 1434$-$1600 (Fig. 19), and PG 1012+008 (Fig. 32).  In 

1013: support of this hypothesis, Figure 11{\it b}\ illustrates that the 

1014: morphological segregation seen in the \mlb\ relation (Fig. 7) essentially 

1015: disappears when the bulge luminosity is replaced with the {\it total}\ 

1016: luminosity of the host.  The scatter also goes down slightly, from 0.40 dex 

1017: to 0.36 dex in the \mlt\ relation.  The dependence on Eddington 

1018: ratio, however, remains (Fig. 11{\it a}).

1019: 

1020: The above interpretation offers a plausible explanation for the apparent link 

1021: between morphological type and accretion rate, which otherwise is somewhat 

1022: perplexing.  Within our sample it is the apparently earlier-type, more 

1023: bulge-dominated systems that actually have {\it higher}\ accretion rates.  

1024: This runs counter to the trend normally seen in nearby AGNs (e.g., Heckman et 

1025: al.  2004; Greene \& Ho 2007a) and the general tendency for present-day 

1026: early-type galaxies to be more gas-poor than late-type galaxies.  However, if 

1027: high-mass, luminous AGNs 

1028: result from the aftermath of gas-rich galaxy-galaxy mergers (e.g., Sanders et 

1029: al. 1988; Hopkins et al. 2006), our results imply that it is during the most 

1030: advanced stages of the merger that accretion on the central BH attains its

1031: maximum rate.  Some of the most highly accreting objects (those with large 

1032: \edd) in our sample, which coincide among those with the largest offset in the 

1033: \mlb\ relation, also happen to be among the ones that show the most conspicuous 

1034: morphological signatures of tidal perturbations, as measured by the  Fourier 

1035: parameter $a_1$ (see Fig. 8).  These include HE 0354$-$5500 (\edd = 0.57; 

1036: $a_1 = 0.33$), PG 1012+008 (\edd = 0.32; $a_1 = 0.32$), PG 1613+658 (\edd = 

1037: 0.44; $a_1 = 0.40$), and PG 1700+518 (\edd = 0.71; $a_1 = 0.39$).  However, 

1038: not every object with a high \edd\ has a large value of $a_1$.  This may imply

1039: that not all quasar episodes 

1040: are triggered by major galaxy interactions, or that 

1041: accretion can proceed at a substantial rate even after the tidal features have 

1042: disappeared.   To the extent that the peak star formation rate in the merger 

1043: has already subsided during this phase, our scenario offers an additional 

1044: explanation for why type~1 AGNs contain intermediate-age stars (Kauffmann et 

1045: al.  2003) but generally not much concurrent star formation (Ho 2005; Kim 

1046: et al. 2006).

1047: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1048: %%BoundingBox: 0 375 595 652

1049: \begin{figure*}

1050: \psfig{file=f11.eps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

1051: \figurenum{11}

1052: \figcaption[fig11.ps]

1053: {Correlation between BH mass and absolute $R$-band magnitude for the

1054: {\it total}\ emission from the host galaxy.  ({\it a}) The symbols are the 

1055: same as in Figure 6; the dependence on Eddington ratio still remains.  

1056: ({\it b}) The symbols are the same as in Figure 7; the dependence on galaxy 

1057: morphology is much weaker. The relation between \mbh\ and bulge luminosity for 

1058: inactive galaxies is denoted by the thick hatched line.

1059: \label{fig11}}

1060: \end{figure*}

1061: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1062: %\noindent

1063: 

1064: Within our sample, four AGNs have compact sources---plausibly small 

1065: accreted companions---projected close to the primary host galaxy.  These may 

1066: be examples of minor mergers.  None has a large value of $a_1$. Two of the 

1067: four lie exactly on the \mlb\ relation of inactive galaxies (Fig. 8) and have 

1068: relatively low Eddington ratios (\edd\ = 0.05 for PG 1426+015 and \edd\ = 0.06 

1069: for PKS 2135$-$14).  The other two lie offset below the relation, but only 

1070: PG 1302$-$102 has a large \edd\ (0.4); PHL 1093 has \edd\ = 0.03.  Thus, within

1071: our limited statistics, we have no evidence that minor mergers play a 

1072: significant role in elevating the accretion rate in AGNs.

1073: 

1074: Within this backdrop, we can offer a tentative explanation for the zero point 

1075: difference between radio-loud and radio-quiet sources (Fig. 9), one that 

1076: ultimately links the generation of powerful radio jets to the BH accretion 

1077: rate and/or host galaxy morphology.  But first we 

1078: should clarify some terminology.  There are two popular definitions of 

1079: ``radio-loud'' AGNs in the literature, and it is important not to confuse them.

1080: One common usage of this term refers to sources that are classified solely by 

1081: their radio-to-optical flux ratio ($R$) as defined by Kellermann et al. 

1082: (1989)\footnote{Terashima \& Wilson (2003) advocated a closely related 

1083: radio-loudness parameter $R_{\rm X}$ based on the radio-to-X-ray flux ratio.}, 

1084: regardless of their radio power.  On this basis, the vast majority of AGNs in 

1085: the local Universe (Ho 2008), most with extremely low luminosities, qualify as 

1086: being radio-loud, with the degree of radio-loudness increasing with 

1087: {\it decreasing}\ \edd\ (Ho 2002; Terashima \& Wilson 2003; Greene et al. 

1088: 2006).  The radio emission in most of these low-power sources is largely 

1089: dominated by a compact core, and any jet-like features are confined to 

1090: sub-galactic scales.  The host galaxies encompass all morphological types, 

1091: including spiral galaxies (Ho \& Peng 2001).  The Milky Way's Sgr~A$^\star$ is 

1092: a familiar example.  The second commonly used definition of radio-loudness 

1093: is less clear-cut, but it involves some combination of relative ($R \gg 10$)

1094: and absolute ($P_{\rm rad}$ \gax\ $10^{23-24}$ W Hz$^{-1}$) measures of radio 

1095: power.  When detected, the radio jets have super-galactic dimensions and are 

1096: highly collimated.  The radio-loud sources in this study, with median $R = 

1097: 820$ and $P_{\rm 6cm}^{\rm tot} = 7\times10^{25}$ W Hz$^{-1}$, belong to this 

1098: second category.  Strong radio sources of this variety invariably reside in 

1099: early-type galaxies (e.g., McLure et al. 1999) and are associated with 

1100: {\it high}\ accretion rates (e.g., Maccarone et al. 2003; K\"{o}rding et al. 

1101: 2006).  Nevertheless, only a minority of highly accreting AGNs in massive, 

1102: early-type host galaxies are radio-loud.  There is no universally accepted 

1103: explanation for this longstanding quandary.  One possibility is that a 

1104: necessary ingredient for the generation of powerful, collimated jets is the 

1105: existence of a BH with a large spin (e.g., Sikora et al. 2007), which is more 

1106: easily attained in merger-driven accretion events during the formation of 

1107: giant elliptical galaxies than in disk or spiral galaxies (Volonteri et al. 

1108: 2007).  

1109: 

1110: \subsection{Physical Interpretation}

1111: 

1112: The principal conclusions of our study are that the zero point of the \mlb\ 

1113: relation for AGNs is offset from that of inactive galaxies and that the 

1114: magnitude of the offset correlates with several physical properties of the AGN 

1115: and host ultimately connected to the accretion rate.  These effects account 

1116: for the bulk of the observed intrinsic scatter in the AGN \mlb\ relation.

1117: 

1118: Interestingly, other studies of nearby AGNs using different probes of the host 

1119: galaxy have independently arrived at very similar conclusions.  Onken et al. 

1120: (2004; see also Nelson et al. 2004), analyzing a small sample of type~1 AGNs

1121: with available stellar velocity dispersions and BH masses determined through

1122: reverberation mapping, concluded that the active systems lie offset below

1123: the \msig\ relation of inactive galaxies by $\sim 0.2$ dex 

1124: if one assumes a spherical BLR.   Greene \& Ho

1125: (2006b) obtained an almost identical result using a much larger sample

1126: of type~1 AGNs with measured $\sigma_\star$ and \mbh\ estimated from

1127: single-epoch spectra.  These conclusions have been reaffirmed by Shen et al.

1128: (2008) in their analysis of composite AGN spectra derived from the

1129: Sloan Digital Sky Survey.  A different approach was taken by Ho et al. (2008)

1130: through 21~cm H~I observations. Using the maximum rotational velocity and

1131: total dynamical mass of the galaxy as new variables to represent the

1132: gravitational potential of the host, they find that both quantities strongly

1133: correlate with \mbh.  In qualitative agreement with the results from this

1134: study, Ho et al. find that the zero point in the scaling relations depends

1135: primarily on the accretion rate in the sense that, at a given galaxy rotation

1136: velocity and especially dynamical mass, AGNs with higher Eddington ratios

1137: have systematically lower \mbh\ than those with lower Eddington ratios.

1138: 

1139: These trends can be interpreted in one of two ways.  In the first instance, 

1140: we note that AGNs, by selection, have actively growing BHs.  We can envision 

1141: that, at a fixed bulge potential (velocity dispersion, luminosity, mass), 

1142: active galaxies have less massive BHs than inactive galaxies {\it if}\ the 

1143: bulk of the star formation precedes, and is not well synchronized with, a major 

1144: accretion event.  This particular time sequence, which is required in order to 

1145: imprint a net negative offset in the \mbh\ versus host galaxy relations, seems 

1146: to be supported by the prevalence of post-starburst signatures 

1147: (Canalizo \& Stockton 2001; Kauffmann et al. 2003) 

1148: as well as the low levels of ongoing star formation (Ho 2005; Kim 

1149: et al. 2006) found in type~1 AGNs.  If the AGN phase lasts, say, for 

1150: $\sim 10^8$ yrs, which is near the upper end of the currently estimated 

1151: lifetimes (Martini 2004), then a $10^8$ \solmass\ BH would increase its mass 

1152: by a factor of 2 ($\sim 0.3$ dex) if it is radiating at \edd\ = 0.5 with 

1153: a radiative efficiency of 0.1.  This example is merely illustrative.  In 

1154: reality, the AGNs in our sample span a wider range of \edd\ and the AGN 

1155: lifetimes may be shorter.  Nevertheless, on average we expect luminous AGNs to 

1156: lie systematically below inactive galaxies on the \mlb\ relation.  Moreover, 

1157: our study, as do those of Ho et al. (2008) and Shen et al. (2008), further 

1158: shows that the magnitude of the zero point offset depends on the Eddington 

1159: ratio: the BH masses of high-Eddington ratio AGNs have more catching up to

1160: do than the BH masses of lower-Eddington ratio AGNs.  Such a systematic trend 

1161: can only come about if the accretion rate directly relates to the evolutionary

1162: phase of the accretion event.  This seems plausible, in light of the apparent 

1163: association between accretion rate and the degree of tidal perturbation.

1164: 

1165: Instead of the BH being undermassive, perhaps it is actually the bulge that is 

1166: overluminous, by  $\Delta M_{R,{\rm bul}} \approx 0.5-0.6$ mag.  First, we 

1167: dismiss the possibility that the luminosity enhancement could be due to 

1168: contamination from nebular emission from the narrow-line region.  Although the 

1169: spatial extent of the narrow-line region in quasars can reach several kpc 

1170: (Bennert et al. 2002), substantially overlapping with the bulge, the typical 

1171: \oiii\ luminosities in our sample ($\langle L_{\rm [O III]} \rangle = 10^{42}$ 

1172: ergs s$^{-1}$) contribute less than 3\% to the luminosity of the bulge 

1173: ($\langle$\rbulge$\rangle=-22.75$ mag).  Given the evidence outlined in \S 5.1 

1174: that the most extreme outliers in the \mlb\ seem to have undergone a recent 

1175: merger or tidal interaction, a more likely possibility is that

1176: the bulge luminosity may be moderately enhanced by the latest episode of 

1177: central star formation.  Indeed, for a small sample of reverberation-mapped 

1178: Seyfert 1 galaxies with stellar velocity dispersion and bulge luminosity 

1179: measurements, Nelson et al. (2004) have shown that these objects are somewhat 

1180: brighter ($\sim 0.4$ mag) than inactive galaxies at a given velocity 

1181: dispersion.  They attributed this offset in the Faber-Jackson (1976) relation 

1182: to younger stellar populations in AGNs.  Boosting the $R$-band luminosity by 

1183: 0.5 mag requires $\sim 15$\% of the stellar mass to come from a 1 Gyr 

1184: population with solar metallicity (Nelson et al. 2004).  While this offers a 

1185: plausible explanation for the offset in the \mlb\ relation seen in our sample, 

1186: it cannot account for the fact that the most recent and largest samples of 

1187: nearby type 1 AGNs, statistically at least, show negative offsets (with 

1188: respect to inactive galaxies) when \mbh\ is compared to {\it all}\ bulge or 

1189: host galaxy parameters (stellar velocity dispersion, bulge luminosity, total 

1190: galaxy dynamical mass).  The direction of the offset is the same (at a given 

1191: galaxy parameter, \mbh\ is lower), and the magnitude of the offset is also 

1192: similar ($\sim 0.2-0.3$ dex).  Although this clearly needs to be verified with 

1193: a large sample that has reliable measurements of both velocity dispersion and 

1194: bulge luminosities, the most recent studies suggest, contrary to Nelson et al. 

1195: (2004), that local type 1 AGNs actually do not depart from the standard 

1196: Faber-Jackson (1976) relation.  Furthermore, for a large sample of sources with 

1197: measurements of rotational velocity and total galaxy luminosity, Ho et al. 

1198: (2008) show that type 1 AGNs show no obvious deviations from the Tully-Fisher 

1199: (1977) relation of inactive galaxies.  In light of these considerations, we 

1200: favor the view that the negative offset in the \mlb\ relation represents 

1201: a deficit in \mbh\ rather than an excess in \lbul.

1202: 

1203: Alternatively, we can assert that both active and inactive galaxies 

1204: intrinsically should obey the {\it same}\ BH mass versus host scaling 

1205: relations. From this standpoint, the zero point offset between AGNs and inactive

1206: galaxies, as well as the variations of the offset with \edd, can be viewed as a 

1207: systematic {\it underestimate}\ of the true value of \mbh.  Recall that our BH

1208: masses are based on a virial product assuming a spherical distribution of BLR 

1209: clouds with isotropic velocities, for which the geometric factor is $f = 0.75$.

1210: If, for example, the BLR (or at least the portion of it that predominantly 

1211: emits the Balmer lines) has a flattened, disk-like geometry with kinematics 

1212: dominated by rotation, and on the scale of the BLR type~1 sources happen to be 

1213: preferentially more face-on to our line of sight, then we systematically 

1214: underestimate the deprojected rotation velocity and hence \mbh.  Wu \& Han 

1215: (2001) invoked this line of reasoning to interpret the offset of type~1 AGNs 

1216: on the \msig\ relation and concluded that on average their BLRs are inclined by 

1217: $\langle i \rangle \approx 36$\deg.  The same argument can, in principle, be 

1218: applied to the observed offset in the \mlb\ relation.  While the effect of 

1219: inclination probably enters at some level (see also Collin et al. 2006), it 

1220: cannot account for the fact that the magnitude of the offset depends on \edd.  

1221: The latter is not a trivial consequence of the mass being underestimated 

1222: because sources with high \edd\ truly {\it do}\ exhibit characteristically 

1223: distinct X-ray, optical, and radio properties (Boller et al. 1996; Boroson 

1224: 2002; Greene et al. 2006).  Whatever the physical origin of the offset (Onken 

1225: et al. 2004; Collin et al. 2006; Marconi et al. 2008), we can empirically 

1226: adjust the normalization factor of the virial product by forcing the AGN 

1227: sample to agree with the fiducial reference of inactive galaxies.  To remove 

1228: the zero point offset of $\Delta \alpha \approx -0.2$ to $-0.3$ dex, then, the 

1229: normalization should be increased by a factor of $\sim 1.6-2$, from 

1230: $f = 0.75$ to $f \approx 1.2-1.5$.  For the most extreme offsets of 

1231: $\Delta \alpha \approx -0.6$, $f$ increases to $\sim 3$.

1232: 

1233: Without additional information, unfortunately, the above two alternative

1234: explanations---an undermassive \mbh\ versus an underestimated $f$ factor---are

1235: degenerate. It is easy to imagine that both effects must operate jointly.

1236: On the one hand, the BHs in AGNs are, after all, gaining mass.  On the 

1237: other hand, as discussed in Collin et al. (2006), there are multiple 

1238: reasons to believe that the BLR has a nonspherical geometry and that the

1239: Eddington ratio may influence its structure and dynamics.   The only way

1240: to resolve this degeneracy is to obtain independent estimates of \mbh\ 

1241: for AGNs that do not rely on the BLR virial technique.  To date, efforts 

1242: to apply resolved stellar dynamical techniques to reverberation-mapped AGNs 

1243: have yielded very rough estimates of \mbh\ for only a couple of sources 

1244: (NGC 3227: Davies et al. 2006; Hicks \& Malkan 2008; NGC 4151: Onken et al. 

1245: 2007), and thus attempting to cross-calibrate the two techniques is still 

1246: far too premature.  BH mass estimators based on X-ray variability seem 

1247: more promising.  Gierli\'nski et al. (2008; see also Hayashida et al. 1998) 

1248: find that, for accreting BHs in their hard spectral state, the amplitude of 

1249: their high-frequency X-ray variability scales inversely with \mbh\ over a very 

1250: wide range of masses.  For a small subset of nearby type~1 AGNs, the 

1251: X-ray-derived masses show rough agreement with \mbh\ obtained through 

1252: reverberation mapping assuming $f \approx 1.2$.  A very similar conclusion was 

1253: reached by Niko\l ajuk et al. (2006).  From comparison of \mbh\ for 

1254: reverberation-mapped sources with masses obtained using the X-ray excess 

1255: variance method, these authors estimate $f = 1.06\pm 0.26$, which, 

1256: interestingly, lies in between the values of the $f$ factor for the two 

1257: extreme alternatives discussed above.  

1258: 

1259: Assuming that the X-ray-derived normalization factor truly does represent the 

1260: correct normalization factor for the virial masses, then the inferred growth 

1261: rates for \mbh\ in luminous AGNs are much more modest, from typically as 

1262: little as 10\%--40\% (0.05--0.15 dex) to at most 280\% (0.45 dex).  

1263: 

1264: Still, we note that the tendency for BHs in local AGNs to be less massive than 

1265: the BHs in inactive galaxies of similar type runs counter to the trend 

1266: observed at higher redshift.  Already by $z=0.36$, type~1 AGNs begin to depart 

1267: from the local \msig\ and \mlb\ relations (Woo et al. 2006; Treu 

1268: et al. 2007), but in the {\it opposite}\ direction as that seen at lower 

1269: redshifts: at a given $\sigma_\star$ or \lbul, AGNs are offset compared to 

1270: local inactive systems by $\Delta \log M_{\rm BH} \approx +0.5$ dex.

1271: This trend has now been extended by 

1272: Woo et al. (2008) out to $z = 0.57$ using stellar velocity dispersion 

1273: measurements.  At even higher redshifts, direct $\sigma_\star$ measurements 

1274: are no longer feasible, but surrogate estimates of $\sigma_\star$ using narrow 

1275: emission lines (Salviander et al. 2007) as well as probes of the host galaxy 

1276: using imaging (Peng et al. 2006a, b) and CO emission lines (Shields et al. 

1277: 2006; Ho 2007) support the notion that the growth of the BHs in AGNs have 

1278: been decoupled from, and outpaced, the underlying host.  

1279: 

1280: \section{Summary}

1281: 

1282: We performed two-dimensional structural decomposition of a sample of 45 

1283: nearby ($z$ \lax\ 0.35) type~1 AGNs with available archival optical \hst\ 

1284: images and published spectroscopic data.  We calculated virial BH masses 

1285: assuming a spherical BLR with isotropic velocities.  Using a new 

1286: version of the versatile code GALFIT, we derived detailed fits to the 

1287: structural components of the host galaxies, yielding not only robust

1288: measurements of the bulge luminosities with realistic error bars but also, 

1289: for the first time, quantitative estimates of nonaxisymmetric features such 

1290: as extended disks and tidal arms.  

1291: 

1292: Our principal aim is to understand the origin of the intrinsic scatter in the 

1293: \mlb\ of active galaxies over a restricted range of BH masses (\mbh\ 

1294: $\approx\,10^{8.5\pm0.5}$ \solmass).  While AGNs closely follow the \mlb\ 

1295: relation of inactive galaxies, we find that the intrinsic scatter is 

1296: substantial (0.40 dex) and that the zero point of the relation is shifted by 

1297: an average of $\Delta \log M_{\rm BH} \approx -0.3$ dex.  The magnitude of the 

1298: zero point offset in the \mlb\ relation depends on properties of the AGN 

1299: (Eddington ratio and radio-loudness parameter) and the host galaxy 

1300: (morphological type and degree of tidal perturbation).  We argue that the 

1301: principal physical parameter responsible for the variation in zero point is 

1302: the BH accretion rate, as reflected in the Eddington ratio.  We suggest that 

1303: galaxy mergers and tidal interactions play a substantial role in boosting the 

1304: accretion rate in this sample of AGNs.  A significant fraction of the zero 

1305: point offset in the \mlb\ relation can be explained if the virial BH masses 

1306: have been underestimated, as indicated from comparison with independent masses 

1307: derived from X-ray variability techniques.  After accounting for this change 

1308: in the normalization of the virial BH mass scale, we estimate that BHs during 

1309: the AGN phase experience a modest growth of $\sim$10\%--40\% in mass.

1310: 

1311: \acknowledgements

1312: 

1313: We are grateful to the referee for providing a timely and helpful review.

1314: We thank James Dunlop and Ross McLure for useful discussions.  This work was

1315: supported by the Carnegie Institution of Washington and by NASA through grants

1316: HST-AR-10969 and HST-GO-9763 from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which 

1317: is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, 

1318: Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555).  M.K. and M.I. acknowledge the support 

1319: of the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) through the 

1320: Astrophysical Research Center for the Structure and Evolution of the Cosmos 

1321: (ARCSEC).  C.Y.P. is grateful for support through the Plaskett Fellowship 

1322: program of Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics and the STScI Institute 

1323: Fellowship program.  Research by A.J.B. was also supported by by NSF grant 

1324: AST-0548198.

1325: 

1326: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1327: 

1328: \bibitem[]{}

1329: Barnes, J.~E., \& Hernquist, L.~E. 1996, \apj, 471, 115

1330: 

1331: \bibitem[]{}

1332: Barth, A. J., Greene, J. E., \& Ho, L. C. 2005, \apj, 619, L151 

1333: 

1334: \bibitem[]{}

1335: Barvainis, R., \& Antonucci, R. 1989, \apjs, 70, 257

1336: 

1337: \bibitem[]{}

1338: Becker, R. H., White, R. L., \& Edwards, A. L. 1991, \apjs, 75, 1 

1339: 

1340: \bibitem[]{}

1341: Becker, R. H., White, R. L., \& Helfand, D. J. 1995, \apj, 450, 559

1342: 

1343: \bibitem[]{}

1344: Bennert, N., Canalizo, G., Jungwiert, B., Stockton, A., Schweizer, F., Peng, 

1345: C. Y., \& Lacy, M. 2008, \apj, 677, 846

1346: 

1347: \bibitem[]{}

1348: Bennert, N., Falcke, H., Schultz, H., Wilson, A.~S., \& Wills, B.~J. 2002,

1349: \apj, 574, L105

1350: 

1351: \bibitem[]{}

1352: Bennett, C. L., Lawrence, C. R., Burke, B. F., Hewitt, J. N., \& Mahoney, J. 

1353: 1986, \apjs, 61, 1

1354: 

1355: \bibitem[]{}

1356: Bentz, M. C., Peterson, B. M., Pogge, R. W., Vestergaard, M., \& Onken, C. A. 

1357: 2006, \apj, 644, 133

1358: 

1359: \bibitem[]{}

1360: Bettoni, D., Falomo, R., Fasano, G., \& Govoni, F. 2003, \aa, 399, 869

1361: 

1362: \bibitem[]{}

1363: Boller, T., Brandt, W.~N., \& Fink, H. 1996, \aa, 305, 53

1364: 

1365: \bibitem[]{}

1366: Boroson, T.~A. 2002, \apj, 565, 78

1367: 

1368: \bibitem[]{}

1369: ------. 2005, \aj, 130, 381

1370: 

1371: \bibitem[]{}

1372: Bower, R. G., et al. 2006, \mnras, 370, 645

1373: 

1374: \bibitem[]{}

1375: Boyle, B. J., Shanks, T., Croom, S. M., Smith, R. J., Miller, L., Loaring, N., 

1376: \& Heymans, C. 2000, \mnras, 317, 1014

1377: 

1378: \bibitem[]{}

1379: Calzetti, D., Kinney, A.L. \& Storchi-Bergmann, T. 1994, \apj 429, 582

1380: 

1381: \bibitem[]{}

1382: Canalizo, G., \& Stockton, A. 2001, \apj, 555, 719

1383: 

1384: \bibitem[]{}

1385: Collin, S., Kawaguchi, T., Peterson, B. M., \& Vestergaard, M. 2006, \aa, 456,

1386: 75

1387: 

1388: \bibitem[]{}

1389: Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., Yin, Q. F., Perley, R. A., 

1390: Taylor, G. B., \& Broderick, J. J. 1998, \aj, 115, 1693

1391: 

1392: \bibitem[]{}

1393: Conselice, C.~J., Bershady, M.~A., \& Jangren, A. 2000, \apj, 529, 886

1394: 

1395: \bibitem[]{}

1396: Croton, D. J., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11

1397: 

1398: \bibitem[]{}

1399: Davies, R. I., et al. 2006, \apj, 646, 754

1400: 

1401: \bibitem[]{}

1402: de Jong, R. S., Simard, L., Davies, R. L., Saglia, R. P., Burstein, D., Colless,

1403: M., McMahon, R., \& Wegner, G. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 1155

1404: 

1405: \bibitem[]{}

1406: de Vaucouleurs, G. 1948, Ann. d'Astrophys., 11, 247

1407: 

1408: \bibitem[]{}

1409: Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., \& Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604

1410: 

1411: \bibitem[]{}

1412: Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J., Kukula, M. J., Baum, S. A., O'Dea, C. P., 

1413: \& Hughes, D. H. 2003, \mnras, 340, 1095

1414: 

1415: \bibitem[]{}

1416: Eracleous, M., \& Halpern, J. P. 1994, ApJS, 90, 1

1417: 

1418: \bibitem[]{}

1419: Faber, S.~M., \& Jackson, R.~E. 1976, \apj, 204, 668

1420: 

1421: \bibitem[]{}

1422: Ferrarese, L., \& Merritt, D. 2000, \apj, 539, L9

1423: 

1424: \bibitem[]{}

1425: Floyd, D. J. E., Kukula, M. J., Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J., Miller, L., 

1426: Percival, W. J., Baum, S. A., \& O'Dea, C. P. 2004, \mnras, 355, 196

1427: 

1428: \bibitem[]{}

1429: Gebhardt, K., et al.  2000, \apj, 539, L13

1430: 

1431: \bibitem[]{}

1432: Gierli\'nski, M., Niko\l ajuk, M., \& Czerny, B. 2008, \mnras, 383, 741

1433: 

1434: \bibitem[]{}

1435: Giveon, U., Maoz, D., Kaspi, S., Netzer, H., \& Smith, P.~S. 1999, \mnras,

1436: 306, 637

1437: 

1438: \bibitem[]{}

1439: Granato, G.~L., De Zotti, G., Silva, L., Bressan, A., \& Danese, L. 2004, 

1440: \apj, 600, 580

1441: 

1442: \bibitem[]{}

1443: Greene, J. E., \& Ho, L. C. 2005, ApJ, 630, 122

1444: 

1445: \bibitem[]{}

1446: ------. 2006a, \apj, 641, L21

1447: 

1448: \bibitem[]{}

1449: ------. 2006b, \apj, 641, 117

1450: 

1451: \bibitem[]{}

1452: ------. 2007a, \apj, 667, 131

1453: 

1454: \bibitem[]{}

1455: ------. 2007b, \apj, 670, 92

1456: 

1457: \bibitem[]{}

1458: Greene, J. E., Ho, L. C., \& Barth, A. J. 2008, \apj, in press

1459: 

1460: \bibitem[]{}

1461: Greene, J. E., Ho, L. C., \& Ulvestad, J. S. 2006, \apj, 636, 56

1462: 

1463: \bibitem[]{}

1464: Griffith, M. R., Wright, A. E., Burke, B. F., \& Ekers, R. D. 1994, \apjs,

1465: 90, 179

1466: 

1467: \bibitem[]{}

1468: ------. 1995, \apjs, 97, 347

1469: 

1470: \bibitem[]{}

1471: Grupe, D., Wills, B. J., Leighly, K. M., \& Meusinger, H. 2004, \aj, 127, 156

1472: 

1473: \bibitem[]{}

1474: H\"aring, N., \& Rix, H.-W. 2004, \apj, 604, L89

1475: 

1476: \bibitem[]{}

1477: Hayashida, K., Miyamoto, S., Kitamoto, S., Negoro, H., \& Inoue, H. 1998, \apj,

1478: 500, 642

1479: 

1480: \bibitem[]{}

1481: Heckman, T.~M., Kauffmann, G., Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., Tremonti, C., 

1482: \& White, S. D. M. 2004, \apj, 613, 109

1483: 

1484: \bibitem[]{}

1485: Hicks, E.~K. S., \& Malkan, M.~A. 2008, \apjs, 174, 31

1486: 

1487: \bibitem[]{}

1488: Ho, L. C. 2002, \apj, 564, 120

1489: 

1490: \bibitem[]{}

1491: ------. 2005, \apj, 629, 680

1492: 

1493: \bibitem[]{}

1494: ------. 2007, \apj, 669, 821

1495: 

1496: \bibitem[]{}

1497: ------. 2008, \annrev, in press (astro-ph/0803.2268)

1498: 

1499: \bibitem[]{}

1500: Ho, L. C., Darling, J., \& Greene, J. E. 2008, \apj, in press (arXiv:0803.1952)

1501: 

1502: \bibitem[]{}

1503: Ho, L.~C., \& Peng, C.~Y. 2001, \apj, 555, 650

1504: 

1505: \bibitem[]{}

1506: Hopkins, P., Hernquist, L, Cox, T. J., Di Matteo, T., Robertson,

1507: B., \& Springel, V. 2006, \apjs, 163, 1

1508: 

1509: \bibitem[]{}

1510: Kaspi, S., Maoz, D., Netzer, H., Peterson, B. M., Vestergaard, M., \&

1511: Jannuzi, B. T. 2005, \apj, 629, 61

1512: 

1513: \bibitem[]{}

1514: Kaspi, S., Smith, P. S., Netzer, H., Maoz, D., Jannuzi, B. T., \& Giveon, U.

1515: 2000, \apj, 533, 631

1516: 

1517: \bibitem[]{}

1518: Kauffmann, G., et al. 2003, \mnras, 346, 1055

1519: 

1520: \bibitem[]{}

1521: Kellermann, K. I., \& Pauliny-Toth, I. I. K. 1973, \aj, 78, 828

1522: 

1523: \bibitem[]{}

1524: Kellermann, K. I., Sramek, R., Schmidt, M., Shaffer, D. B., \& Green, R.

1525: 1989, \aj, 98, 1195

1526: 

1527: \bibitem[]{}

1528: Kim, M., Ho, L. C., \& Im, M. 2006, \apj, 642, 702

1529: 

1530: \bibitem[]{}

1531: Kim, M., Ho, L. C., Peng, C. Y., Barth, A. J., \& Im, M. 2008, \apjs, in press

1532: 

1533: \bibitem[]{}

1534: Kim, M., Ho, L. C., Peng, C. Y., \& Im, M. 2007, \apj, 658, 107

1535: 

1536: \bibitem[]{}

1537: Kinney, A.L., Calzetti, D., Bohlin, R.C., McQuade, K., Storchi-Bergmann, T.

1538:  \& Schmitt, H.R. 1996, \apj, 467, 38

1539: 

1540: \bibitem[]{}

1541: K\"{o}rding, E. G., Jester, S., \& Fender, R. P. 2006, \mnras, 372, 1366

1542: 

1543: \bibitem[]{}

1544: Kormendy, J., \& Kennicutt, R. C., Jr. 2004, ARA\&A, 42, 603

1545: 

1546: \bibitem[]{}

1547: Kormendy, J., \& Richstone, D.~O. 1995, \annrev, 33, 581

1548: 

1549: \bibitem[]{}

1550: Krist, J. 1995, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and

1551: Systems IV, ed. R. A. Shaw, H. E. Payne, \& J. J. E. Hayes 

1552: (San Francisco: ASP), 349

1553: 

1554: \bibitem[]{}

1555: Kukula, M., Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J., Miller, L., Percival, W. J., 

1556: Baum, S. A., \& O'Dea, C. P. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 1533

1557: 

1558: \bibitem[]{}

1559: Laor, A. 2000, \apj, 543, L111

1560: 

1561: \bibitem[]{}

1562: Letawe, G., Courbin, F., Magain, P., Hilker, M., Jablonka, P., 

1563: Jahnke, K., \& Wisotzki, L. 2004, \aa, 424, 455

1564: 

1565: \bibitem[]{}

1566: Letawe, G., Magain, P., \& Courbin, F. 2008, \aa, 480, 69

1567: 

1568: \bibitem[]{}

1569: Lotz, J. M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T. J., \& Primack, J. R. 2008, \mnras, submitted

1570: (astro-ph/0805.1246)

1571: 

1572: \bibitem[]{}

1573: Lotz, J. M., Primack, J., \& Madau, P. 2004, \aj, 128, 163

1574: 

1575: \bibitem[]{}

1576: Maccarone, T. J., Gallo, E., \& Fender, R. 2003, \mnras, 345, L19

1577: 

1578: \bibitem[]{}

1579: Magorrian, J., et al.  1998, \aj, 115, 2285

1580: 

1581: \bibitem[]{}

1582: Marconi, A., Axon, D.~J., Maiolino, R., Nagao, T., Pastorini, G., Pietrini, 

1583: P., Robinson, A., \& Torricelli, G. 2008, \apj, 678, 693

1584: 

1585: \bibitem[]{}

1586: Marconi, A., \& Hunt, K. L. 2003, \apj, 589, L21

1587: 

1588: \bibitem[]{}

1589: Martini, P. 2004, in Carnegie Observatories Astrophysics Series, Vol. 1:

1590: Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, ed. L. C. Ho (Cambridge: Cambridge

1591: Univ. Press), 170

1592: 

1593: \bibitem[]{}

1594: Marziani, P., Sulentic, J. W., Zamanov, R., Calvani, M., Dultzin-Hacyan, D., 

1595: Bachev, R., \& Zwitter, T. 2003, \apjs, 145, 199

1596: 

1597: \bibitem[]{}

1598: Mauch, T., Murphy, T., Buttery, H. J., Curran, J., Hunstead, R. W., 

1599: Piestrzynski, B., Robertson, J. G., \& Sadler E. M. 2003, \mnras, 342, 1117

1600: 

1601: \bibitem[]{}

1602: McLure, R. J., \& Dunlop, J. S. 2001, \mnras, 327, 199

1603: 

1604: \bibitem[]{}

1605: ------. 2002, \mnras, 331, 795

1606: 

1607: \bibitem[]{}

1608: McLure, R. J., Kukula, M. J., Dunlop, J. S., Baum, S. A., O'Dea, C. P., 

1609: \& Hughes, D. H. 1999, \mnras, 308, 377

1610: 

1611: \bibitem[]{}

1612: Naab, T., Khochfar, S., \& Burkert, A. 2006, \apj, 636, L81

1613: 

1614: \bibitem[]{}

1615: Nelson, C. H., Green, R. F., Bower, G., Gebhardt, K., \& Weistrop, D. 2004, 

1616: \apj, 615, 652

1617: 

1618: \bibitem[]{}

1619: Niko\l ajuk, M., Czerny, B., Ziolkowski, J., \& Gierli\'nski, M. 2006, 

1620: \mnras, 370, 1534

1621: 

1622: \bibitem[]{}

1623: Novak, G. S., Faber, S. M., \& Dekel, A. 2006, \apj, 637, 96

1624: 

1625: \bibitem[]{}

1626: Onken, C.~A., et al. 2007, \apj, 670, 105

1627: 

1628: \bibitem[]{}

1629: Onken, C. A., Ferrarese, L., Merritt, D., Peterson, B. M., Pogge, R. W., 

1630: Vestergaard, M., \& Wandel, A. 2004, ApJ, 615, 645

1631: 

1632: \bibitem[]{}

1633: Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., \& Rix, H.-W. 2002, \aj, 124, 266

1634: 

1635: \bibitem[]{}

1636: Peng, C. Y., Impey, C. D., Ho, L. C., Barton, E. J., \& Rix, H.-W. 2006a, \apj, 

1637: 640, 114

1638: 

1639: \bibitem[]{}

1640: Peng, C. Y., Impey, C. D., Rix, H.-W., Kochanek, C. S., Keeton, C. R., Falco, 

1641: E. E., Leh\'{a}r, J., \& McLeod, B. A. 2006b, \apj, 649, 616

1642: 

1643: \bibitem[]{}

1644: Peterson, B. M., et al. 2004, \apj, 613, 682

1645: 

1646: \bibitem[]{}

1647: Ridgway, S. E., Heckman, T. M., Calzetti, D., \& Lehnert, M. 2001, \apj, 550, 122

1648: 

1649: \bibitem[]{}

1650: Robertson, B., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., Di Matteo, T., Hopkins, P. F., 

1651: Martini, P., \& Springel, V. 2006, \apj, 641, 90

1652: 

1653: \bibitem[]{}

1654: Salviander, S., Shields, G. A., Gebhardt, K., \& Bonning, E. W. 2007, 

1655: \apj, 662, 131

1656: 

1657: \bibitem[]{}

1658: Sanders, D. B., Soifer, B. T., Elias, J. H., Madore, B. F., Matthews, K., 

1659: Neugebauer, G., \& Scoville, N. Z. 1988, ApJ, 325, 74

1660: 

1661: \bibitem[]{}

1662: Schade, D.~J., Boyle, B.~J., \& Letawsky, M. 2000, \mnras, 315, 498

1663: 

1664: \bibitem[]{}

1665: S\'{e}rsic, J. L. 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes (C\'ordoba: Obs. Astron.,

1666: Univ. Nac. C\'ordoba)

1667: 

1668: \bibitem[]{}

1669: Shen, J., Vanden Berk, D. E., Schneider, D. P., \& Hall, P. B. 2008, \aj, 

1670: 135, 928

1671: 

1672: \bibitem[]{}

1673: Shields, G. A., Menezes, K. L., Massart, C. A., \& Vanden Bout, P. 2006, 

1674: \apj, 641, 683

1675: 

1676: \bibitem[]{}

1677: Sikora, M., Stawarz, L., \& Lasota, J.-P. 2007, \apj, 658, 815

1678: 

1679: \bibitem[]{}

1680: Simien, F., \& de Vaucouleurs, G. 1986, \apj, 302, 564

1681: 

1682: \bibitem[]{}

1683: Spergel, D. N., et al. 2003, \apjs, 148, 175

1684: 

1685: \bibitem[]{}

1686: Terashima, Y., \& Wilson, A.~S. 2003, \apj, 583, 145

1687: 

1688: \bibitem[]{}

1689: Tremaine, S., et al. 2002, ApJ, 574, 740

1690: 

1691: \bibitem[]{}

1692: Treu, T., Woo., J.-H., Malkan, M. A., \& Blandford, R. D. 2007, \apj, 667, 117

1693: 

1694: \bibitem[]{}

1695: Tully, R.~B., \& Fisher, J.~R. 1977, \aa, 54, 661

1696: 

1697: \bibitem[]{}

1698: Vanden Berk, D. E., et al. 2001, \aj, 122, 549

1699: 

1700: \bibitem[]{}

1701: van Dokkum, P.~G. 2005, \aj, 130, 2647

1702: 

1703: \bibitem[]{}

1704: Vestergaard, M. 2002, \apj, 571, 733

1705: 

1706: \bibitem[]{}

1707: Vestergaard, M., \& Peterson, B. M. 2006, \apj, 641, 689

1708: 

1709: \bibitem[]{}

1710: Volonteri, M., Sikora, M., \& Lasota, J.-P. 2007, \apj, 667, 704

1711: 

1712: \bibitem[]{}

1713: Woo, J.-H., Treu, T., Malkan, M. A., \& Blandford, R. D. 2006, \apj, 645, 900

1714: 

1715: \bibitem[]{}

1716: ------. 2008, \apj, in press (astro-ph/0804.0235)

1717: 

1718: \bibitem[]{}

1719: Wu, X.-B., \& Han, J.~L. 2001, \apj, 561, L59

1720: 

1721: \bibitem[]{}

1722: Zheng, X. Z., Xia, X. Y., Mao, S., Wu, H., \& Deng, Z. G. 2002, \aj, 124, 18

1723: 

1724: \end{thebibliography}

1725: 

1726: \appendix

1727: 

1728: \section{Notes on Individual Objects}

1729: 

1730: Comments on the fitting results for individual objects are given here.

1731: 

1732: \bigskip

1733: 

1734: {\it 3C 59} (Fig. 12) --- \ \ 

1735: The host can be fit with classical bulge represented by

1736: a de~Vaucouleurs ($n=4$) profile.

1737: 

1738: {\it E 1821+643} (Fig. 13) --- \ \

1739: The best fit shows that the bulge is slightly disturbed ($a_1=0.17$). 

1740: There is no evidence of a disk.

1741: 

1742: {\it Fairall 9} (Fig. 14) --- \ \

1743: The host requires a bulge and a disk.  A ring-like structure, which we do not 

1744: model, is also seen in the residuals.  The bulge appears be quite compact, 

1745: with an effective radius of 1.6 pixels, although it is not well decomposed 

1746: from the nucleus.  Thus, the bulge luminosity might be highly uncertain. 

1747: 

1748: {\it [HB89] 0316$-$346} (Fig. 15) --- \ \

1749: Highly disturbed object with prominent tidal features. We fit the host

1750: with an $n=4$ bulge and two disk components with Fourier 

1751: modes.  One of the disk components is not centered on the nucleus.

1752: 

1753: {\it [HB89] 2201$+$315} (Fig. 16) --- \ \

1754: This object was observed in two different filters (F555W and F702W), but both 

1755: images are saturated in the core. The bulge luminosities derived from the two 

1756: different images (corrected to the $R$ band) differ by 0.7 mag. We fit the 

1757: host with a single $n=4$ bulge in both images. The residual image from the 

1758: long (2700~s) exposure shows possible signs of an extended disk. 

1759: 

1760: {\it HE 0306$-$3301} (Fig. 17) --- \ \

1761: The best-fit result shows an elongated bulge component ($b/a \approx 0.45$) 

1762: and a disk with a spiral arm. 

1763: The signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) of the observed PSF star is lower than 

1764: that of the science image.

1765: 

1766: {\it HE 0354$-$5500} (Fig. 18) --- \ \

1767: This appears to be a merging system. We fit the host galaxy with a bulge

1768: ($n=4$) and an off-centered tidal-like feature with a high-amplitude Fourier 

1769: mode ($a_1=0.33$).

1770: The S/N of the observed PSF star is lower than that of the science image.

1771: 

1772: {\it HE 1434$-$1600} (Fig. 19) --- \ \

1773: We fit the host with only a single bulge component ($m_{\rm bul} \approx 

1774: 17.5$ mag), although the residual image shows evidence for arcs and ripples, 

1775: which may be evidence of a recent collision (Letawe et al. 2004). 

1776: Alternatively, if the host is fit with two components, the bulge magnitude

1777: becomes 18.6 mag. 

1778: The S/N of the observed PSF star is lower than that of the science image.

1779: 

1780: {\it MC 1635+119} (Fig. 20) --- \ \

1781: We fit the host with a single bulge component ($n=4$).

1782: 

1783: {\it MRK 1048} (Fig. 21) --- \ \

1784: This object has a close companion and an extremely large but faint, off-center 

1785: tidal feature.  However, neither of these has a large effect on the fitting 

1786: result.  We fit the host with a classical bulge ($n=4$) and a tidal tail.

1787: 

1788: {\it MS 0244.8+1928} (Fig. 22) --- \ \

1789: The host is reasonably well represented by an $n$ = 4 bulge, although the 

1790: residuals indicate that there might be an additional faint, outer envelope.

1791: 

1792: {\it MS 0754.6+3928} (Fig. 23) --- \ \

1793: The host is reasonably well represented by an $n$ = 4 bulge, although the 

1794: residuals indicate that there might be an additional faint, outer envelope.

1795: 

1796: {\it MS 1059.0+7302} (Fig. 24) --- \ \

1797: The best-fitting model requires a bulge and a disk.  

1798: There is a ring-like structure in the residual image.

1799: 

1800: {\it MS 1545.3+0305} (Fig. 25) --- \ \

1801: The best fit requires a bulge ($n=4$) and a disturbed exponential disk.  A 

1802: ring-like structure is prominent in the original and residual images.

1803: 

1804: {\it OX 169} (Fig. 26) --- \ \

1805: There are significant residuals after subtracting the best-fit observed PSF, 

1806: which might be due to PSF mismatch. The fit with the TinyTim PSF results in 

1807: a brighter AGN by 0.1 mag. The host contains a bulge ($n=3.9$) and a 

1808: prominent, extended, asymmetric structure that is fit with a S\'ersic 

1809: component with a small $n$ ($\sim 0.2$).  

1810: 

1811: {\it PG 0052+251} (Fig. 27) --- \ \

1812: It appears to have a tidally disturbed spiral arm, which may be related to 

1813: the two small galaxies in its vicinity. We fit this object with a classical 

1814: bulge ($n=4$) and a truncated disk with a small $n$ ($\sim 0.2$). 

1815: 

1816: {\it PG 0804+761} (Fig. 28) --- \ \

1817: There appears to be a faint central feature that resembles a bar or highly 

1818: inclined disk-like structure. 

1819: The bulge luminosity, however, is hardly affected by the bar component.

1820: 

1821: {\it PG 0923+201} (Fig. 29) --- \ \

1822: The host is fit with a single bulge component ($n=4$).   There are three 

1823: nearby companions that were fit simultaneously.

1824: 

1825: {\it PG 0953+414} (Fig. 30) --- \ \

1826: The host is fit with a single bulge component ($n=4$), which appears 

1827: slightly disturbed based on the amplitude of the Fourier mode ($a_1=0.12$).

1828: 

1829: {\it PG 1004+130} (Fig. 31) --- \ \

1830: The host is fit with a single bulge component ($n=4$).  The residual image 

1831: shows significant PSF mismatch, which might affect the fitting result. 

1832: 

1833: {\it PG 1012+008} (Fig. 32) --- \ \

1834: The image of the host shows clear evidence of interaction with a spiral galaxy 

1835: and a smaller, compact neighbor. The primary host can be fit with a single 

1836: bulge component ($n=4$), but the residual image shows significant structure.

1837: 

1838: {\it PG 1116+215} (Fig. 33) --- \ \

1839: The residual image indicates that the central core is slightly affected by PSF 

1840: mismatch.  The host galaxy, however, is well-represented by a single-component 

1841: bulge with $n$ fixed to 4.  If we allow $n$ to be free, the best-fitting 

1842: value of $n=1.84$ yields a bulge luminosity that is 0.3 mag fainter.

1843: 

1844: {\it PG 1202+281} (Fig. 34) --- \ \

1845: This source has a number of nearby galaxies, the brightest and nearest of 

1846: which we fit simultaneously.  The primary host is well described by a 

1847: single-component bulge ($n=4$).

1848: 

1849: {\it PG 1211+143} (Fig. 35) --- \ \

1850: Like PG 0804+761, there appears to be a faint central feature that resembles 

1851: a bar or highly inclined disk-like structure.  It is unclear if this is 

1852: an artifact due to PSF mismatch. Depending on whether this extra component is

1853: included, the bulge luminosity ranges 

1854: between 16.7 and 17.2 mag, with a best-fit value of 16.9 mag.

1855: 

1856: {\it PG 1226+023} (Fig. 36) --- \ \

1857: Because of the strong bleeding regions from the saturated core, we did not 

1858: perform nonparametric aperture photometry. 

1859: The host is reasonably well fit with a single bulge component ($n=4$). The 

1860: residual image shows the well-known jet of this source (3C 273), as well

1861: as some diffuse, extended emission.  The box-like imprint in the residual 

1862: image results from the PSF image being smaller than the science image.

1863: 

1864: {\it PG 1302$-$102} (Fig. 37) --- \ \

1865: This object was observed in two different filters (F606W and F702W), but both

1866: images are saturated in the core.  The image contains two compact sources 

1867: superposed on the main host, which we fit simultaneously.  The host can 

1868: be fit with a single bulge component, although significant structure on large

1869: scales remain in the residual image.  The fits from both filters 

1870: are in good agreement to within the uncertainty.   

1871: 

1872: {\it PG 1307+085} (Fig. 38) --- \ \

1873: Although the core of the image is saturated, the host is well-described by a 

1874: single bulge component ($n=4$).

1875: 

1876: {\it PG 1309+355} (Fig. 39) --- \ \

1877: The core of the image is saturated.  We fit the host with a single 

1878: bulge component ($n=4$).  The residual image shows evidence of spiral-like 

1879: substructure, but we did not attempt to model it.

1880: 

1881: {\it PG 1351+640} (Fig. 40) --- \ \

1882: This is an almost face-on system with spiral arms. The fit is done with a 

1883: classical bulge ($n=3.8$) and an exponential disk.

1884: 

1885: {\it PG 1411+442} (Fig. 41) --- \ \

1886: This is an extremely disturbed object that appears to have a nearby companion.

1887: We fit this object with a classical bulge ($n=4$) and a spiral disk 

1888: with Fourier modes.

1889: 

1890: {\it PG 1416$-$129} (Fig. 42) --- \ \

1891: The host is well-described by a single bulge component ($n=4$).

1892: 

1893: {\it PG 1426+015} (Fig. 43) --- \ \

1894: This object has a tidal tail and a small companion. The best-fitting

1895: model for the host consists of a pseudobulge ($n=2.1$) and a disk with Fourier 

1896: modes. Modeling the host with only a single component yields a much

1897: brighter bulge (14.2 vs. 16.08 mag), but the residuals of the fit are 

1898: significantly worse than those of the two-component fit.

1899: 

1900: {\it PG 1444+407} (Fig. 44) --- \ \

1901: The host is fit with a bulge ($n=4$) and a somewhat disturbed disk 

1902: component ($n=0.31$, $a_1 = 0.10$).

1903: The residuals suggest that a ring-like component might be present.

1904: 

1905: {\it PG 1613+658} (Fig. 45) --- \ \

1906: This is a highly disturbed object in a merging system. The fit is ambiguous.

1907: The best-fitting model for the host consists of a classical bulge ($n=4$) and a

1908: disturbed disk ($n=1$) with Fourier modes. The bulge is $\sim$0.7 mag fainter

1909: than the best-fitting case if the fit is done with a single bulge component 

1910: ($n=4$), but the residuals of the fit are 

1911: significantly worse than those of the two-component fit.

1912: 

1913: {\it PG 1617+175} (Fig. 46) --- \ \

1914: Although the best-fitting model for the host contains a bulge and a disk, 

1915: a single-component model also works reasonably well.

1916: In the two-component fits, the bulge luminosities range from 17.7 mag 

1917: ($n=4$) to 17.9 mag ($n=1$).

1918: 

1919: {\it PG 1700+518} (Fig. 47) --- \ \

1920: The host is well-represented by a single bulge component ($n=4$) plus a tidal

1921: tail, which is fit with Fourier modes.

1922: 

1923: {\it PG 2130+099} (Fig. 48) --- \ \

1924: This object is very similar to PG 0052+251; both have ring-like spiral disk.

1925: Since the central few pixels are saturated, the fit is slightly uncertain.

1926: The model for the host consists of a pseudobulge ($n=0.44$) 

1927: and a disk ($n=0.33$) with Fourier modes.

1928: 

1929: {\it PHL 909} (Fig. 49) --- \ \

1930: The host is fit with a classical bulge ($n=4$), but the residual image shows

1931: a faint central feature that resembles a tiny bar or highly inclined disk-like 

1932: structure.  The host galaxy is slightly disturbed.

1933: 

1934: {\it PHL 1093} (Fig. 50) --- \ \

1935: The host is well fit with a single bulge component ($n=4$).  Three small 

1936: nearby companions are included in the fit simultaneously.

1937: 

1938: {\it PKS 0736+01} (Fig. 51) --- \ \

1939: The host is well fit with a single bulge component ($n=4$).  There are several

1940: faint blobs nearby, but it is unclear whether these are associated with the 

1941: primary host.

1942: 

1943: {\it PKS 1020$-$103} (Fig. 52) --- \ \

1944: A single bulge component ($n=4$) is enough to describe the host. 

1945: 

1946: {\it PKS 1217+02} (Fig. 53) --- \ \

1947: The host is well fit with a single bulge component ($n=4$).

1948: 

1949: {\it PKS 2135$-$14} (Fig. 54) --- \ \

1950: We fit the host with a single bulge component ($n=4$).  Two nearby objects 

1951: are included simultaneously in the fit.

1952: 

1953: {\it PKS 2349$-$01} (Fig. 55) --- \ \

1954: There are two curved tidal tails. The best-fit model for the host consists of 

1955: a classical bulge ($n=4$) and a highly distorted disk with $n\approx 0.88$.

1956: 

1957: {\it PKS 2355$-$082} (Fig. 56) --- \ \

1958: The host is well fit with a single bulge component ($n=4$).

1959: 

1960: \clearpage

1961: \begin{figure}

1962: \figurenum{12}

1963: \epsscale{0.9}

1964: \plotone{f12.eps}

1965: \caption{

1966: GALFIT decomposition for 3C 59.

1967: ({\it a}) Azimuthally averaged profile, showing the original data

1968: ({\it open circles}), the best fit ({\it solid line}), and the sub-components

1969: (PSF and bulge; {\it dashed lines}). The residuals are plotted on the

1970: {\it bottom}.  We present the 2-D image of the original data ({\it b}), the

1971: best-fit model for the host (the AGN is excluded to better highlight the

1972: host), with the amplitude of the first Fourier mode ($a_1$) labeled ({\it c}),

1973: and the residuals ({\it d}).  The units of the images are in arcseconds. All

1974: images are on an asinh stretch.

1975: }

1976: \end{figure}

1977: 

1978: \clearpage

1979: \begin{figure}

1980: \figurenum{13}

1981: \epsscale{0.9}

1982: \plotone{f13.eps}

1983: \caption{

1984: GALFIT decomposition for E 1821+643; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

1985: }

1986: \end{figure}

1987: 

1988: \clearpage

1989: \begin{figure}

1990: \figurenum{14}

1991: \epsscale{0.9}

1992: \plotone{f14.eps}

1993: \caption{

1994: GALFIT decomposition for Fairall 9; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

1995: }

1996: \end{figure}

1997: 

1998: \clearpage

1999: \begin{figure}

2000: \figurenum{15}

2001: \epsscale{0.9}

2002: \plotone{f15.eps}

2003: \caption{

2004: GALFIT decomposition for [HB89] 0316$-$346; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2005: }

2006: \end{figure}

2007: 

2008: \clearpage

2009: \begin{figure}

2010: \figurenum{16}

2011: \epsscale{0.9}

2012: \plotone{f16.eps}

2013: \caption{

2014: GALFIT decomposition for [HB89] 2201+315 (PC/F555W); symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2015: }

2016: \end{figure}

2017: 

2018: \clearpage

2019: \begin{figure}

2020: \figurenum{17}

2021: \epsscale{0.9}

2022: \plotone{f17.eps}

2023: \caption{

2024: GALFIT decomposition for HE 0306$-$3301; symbols and conventions as in 

2025: Figure 12.

2026: }

2027: \end{figure}

2028: 

2029: \clearpage

2030: \begin{figure}

2031: \figurenum{18}

2032: \epsscale{0.9}

2033: \plotone{f18.eps}

2034: \caption{

2035: GALFIT decomposition for HE 0354$-$5500; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2036: }

2037: \end{figure}

2038: 

2039: \clearpage

2040: \begin{figure}

2041: \figurenum{19}

2042: \epsscale{0.9}

2043: \plotone{f19.eps}

2044: \caption{

2045: GALFIT decomposition for HE 1434$-$1600; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2046: }

2047: \end{figure}

2048: 

2049: \clearpage

2050: \begin{figure}

2051: \figurenum{20}

2052: \epsscale{0.9}

2053: \plotone{f20.eps}

2054: \caption{

2055: GALFIT decomposition for MC 1635+119; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2056: }

2057: \end{figure}

2058: 

2059: \clearpage

2060: \begin{figure}

2061: \figurenum{21}

2062: \epsscale{0.9}

2063: \plotone{f21.eps}

2064: \caption{

2065: GALFIT decomposition for MRK 1048; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2066: }

2067: \end{figure}

2068: 

2069: \clearpage

2070: \begin{figure}

2071: \figurenum{22}

2072: \epsscale{0.9}

2073: \plotone{f22.eps}

2074: \caption{

2075: GALFIT decomposition for MS 0244.8+1928; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2076: }

2077: \end{figure}

2078: 

2079: \clearpage

2080: \begin{figure}

2081: \figurenum{23}

2082: \epsscale{0.9}

2083: \plotone{f23.eps}

2084: \caption{GALFIT decomposition for MS 0754.6+3928; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2085: }

2086: \end{figure}

2087: 

2088: \clearpage

2089: \begin{figure}

2090: \figurenum{24}

2091: \epsscale{0.9}

2092: \plotone{f24.eps}

2093: \caption{GALFIT decomposition for MS 1059.0+7302; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2094: }

2095: \end{figure}

2096: 

2097: \clearpage

2098: \begin{figure}

2099: \figurenum{25}

2100: \epsscale{0.9}

2101: \plotone{f25.eps}

2102: \caption{GALFIT decomposition for MS 1545.3+0305; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2103: }

2104: \end{figure}

2105: 

2106: \clearpage

2107: \begin{figure}

2108: \figurenum{26}

2109: \epsscale{0.9}

2110: \plotone{f26.eps}

2111: \caption{GALFIT decomposition for OX 169; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2112: }

2113: \end{figure}

2114: 

2115: \clearpage

2116: \begin{figure}

2117: \figurenum{27}

2118: \epsscale{0.9}

2119: \plotone{f27.eps}

2120: \caption{GALFIT decomposition for PG 0052+251; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2121: }

2122: \end{figure}

2123: 

2124: \clearpage

2125: \begin{figure}

2126: \figurenum{28}

2127: \epsscale{0.9}

2128: \plotone{f28.eps}

2129: \caption{GALFIT decomposition for PG 0804+761; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2130: }

2131: \end{figure}

2132: 

2133: \clearpage

2134: \begin{figure}

2135: \figurenum{29}

2136: \epsscale{0.9}

2137: \plotone{f29.eps}

2138: \caption{GALFIT decomposition for PG 0923+201; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2139: }

2140: \end{figure}

2141: 

2142: \clearpage

2143: \begin{figure}

2144: \figurenum{30}

2145: \epsscale{0.9}

2146: \plotone{f30.eps}

2147: \caption{GALFIT decomposition for PG 0953+414; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2148: }

2149: \end{figure}

2150: 

2151: \clearpage

2152: \begin{figure}

2153: \figurenum{31}

2154: \epsscale{0.9}

2155: \plotone{f31.eps}

2156: \caption{

2157: GALFIT decomposition for PG 1004+130; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2158: }

2159: \end{figure}

2160: 

2161: \clearpage

2162: \begin{figure}

2163: \figurenum{32}

2164: \epsscale{0.9}

2165: \plotone{f32.eps}

2166: \caption{

2167: GALFIT decomposition for PG 1012+008; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2168: }

2169: \end{figure}

2170: 

2171: \clearpage

2172: \begin{figure}

2173: \figurenum{33}

2174: \epsscale{0.9}

2175: \plotone{f33.eps}

2176: \caption{GALFIT decomposition for PG 1116+215; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2177: }

2178: \end{figure}

2179: 

2180: \clearpage

2181: \begin{figure}

2182: \figurenum{34}

2183: \epsscale{0.9}

2184: \plotone{f34.eps}

2185: \caption{

2186: GALFIT decomposition for PG 1202+281; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2187: }

2188: \end{figure}

2189: 

2190: \clearpage

2191: \begin{figure}

2192: \figurenum{35}

2193: \epsscale{0.9}

2194: \plotone{f35.eps}

2195: \caption{

2196: GALFIT decomposition for PG 1211+143; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2197: }

2198: \end{figure}

2199: 

2200: \clearpage

2201: \begin{figure}

2202: \figurenum{36}

2203: \epsscale{0.9}

2204: \plotone{f36.eps}

2205: \caption{

2206: GALFIT decomposition for PG 1226+023; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2207: }

2208: \end{figure}

2209: 

2210: \clearpage

2211: \begin{figure}

2212: \figurenum{37}

2213: \epsscale{0.9}

2214: \plotone{f37.eps}

2215: \caption{

2216: GALFIT decomposition for PG 1302$-$102 (PC/F702W); symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2217: }

2218: \end{figure}

2219: 

2220: \clearpage

2221: \begin{figure}

2222: \figurenum{38}

2223: \epsscale{0.9}

2224: \plotone{f38.eps}

2225: \caption{

2226: GALFIT decomposition for PG 1307+085; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2227: }

2228: \end{figure}

2229: 

2230: \clearpage

2231: \begin{figure}

2232: \figurenum{39}

2233: \epsscale{0.9}

2234: \plotone{f39.eps}

2235: \caption{

2236: GALFIT decomposition for PG 1309+355; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2237: }

2238: \end{figure}

2239: 

2240: \clearpage

2241: \begin{figure}

2242: \figurenum{40}

2243: \epsscale{0.9}

2244: \plotone{f40.eps}

2245: \caption{

2246: GALFIT decomposition for PG 1351+640; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2247: }

2248: \end{figure}

2249: 

2250: \clearpage

2251: \begin{figure}

2252: \figurenum{41}

2253: \epsscale{0.9}

2254: \plotone{f41.eps}

2255: \caption{

2256: GALFIT decomposition for PG 1411+442; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2257: }

2258: \end{figure}

2259: 

2260: \clearpage

2261: \begin{figure}

2262: \figurenum{42}

2263: \epsscale{0.9}

2264: \plotone{f42.eps}

2265: \caption{

2266: GALFIT decomposition for PG 1416$-$129; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2267: }

2268: \end{figure}

2269: 

2270: \clearpage

2271: \begin{figure}

2272: \figurenum{43}

2273: \epsscale{0.9}

2274: \plotone{f43.eps}

2275: \caption{

2276: GALFIT decomposition for PG 1426+015; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2277: }

2278: \end{figure}

2279: 

2280: \clearpage

2281: \begin{figure}

2282: \figurenum{44}

2283: \epsscale{0.9}

2284: \plotone{f44.eps}

2285: \caption{GALFIT decomposition for PG 1444+407; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2286: }

2287: \end{figure}

2288: 

2289: \clearpage

2290: \begin{figure}

2291: \figurenum{45}

2292: \epsscale{0.9}

2293: \plotone{f45.eps}

2294: \caption{

2295: GALFIT decomposition for PG 1613+658; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2296: }

2297: \end{figure}

2298: 

2299: \clearpage

2300: \begin{figure}

2301: \figurenum{46}

2302: \epsscale{0.9}

2303: \plotone{f46.eps}

2304: \caption{

2305: GALFIT decomposition for PG 1617+175; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2306: }

2307: \end{figure}

2308: 

2309: \clearpage

2310: \begin{figure}

2311: \figurenum{47}

2312: \epsscale{0.9}

2313: \plotone{f47.eps}

2314: \caption{

2315: GALFIT decomposition for PG 1700+518; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2316: }

2317: \end{figure}

2318: 

2319: \clearpage

2320: \begin{figure}

2321: \figurenum{48}

2322: \epsscale{0.9}

2323: \plotone{f48.eps}

2324: \caption{

2325: Example of GALFIT decomposition for PG 2130+099; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2326: }

2327: \end{figure}

2328: 

2329: \clearpage

2330: \begin{figure}

2331: \figurenum{49}

2332: \epsscale{0.9}

2333: \plotone{f49.eps}

2334: \caption{GALFIT decomposition for PHL 909; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2335: }

2336: \end{figure}

2337: 

2338: \clearpage

2339: \begin{figure}

2340: \figurenum{50}

2341: \epsscale{0.9}

2342: \plotone{f50.eps}

2343: \caption{

2344: GALFIT decomposition for PHL 1093; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2345: }

2346: \end{figure}

2347: 

2348: \clearpage

2349: \begin{figure}

2350: \figurenum{51}

2351: \epsscale{0.9}

2352: \plotone{f51.eps}

2353: \caption{

2354: GALFIT decomposition for PKS 0736+01; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2355: }

2356: \end{figure}

2357: 

2358: \clearpage

2359: \begin{figure}

2360: \figurenum{52}

2361: \epsscale{0.9}

2362: \plotone{f52.eps}

2363: \caption{

2364: GALFIT decomposition for PKS 1020$-$103; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2365: }

2366: \end{figure}

2367: 

2368: \clearpage

2369: \begin{figure}

2370: \figurenum{53}

2371: \epsscale{0.9}

2372: \plotone{f53.eps}

2373: \caption{

2374: GALFIT decomposition for PKS 1217+02; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2375: }

2376: \end{figure}

2377: 

2378: \clearpage

2379: \begin{figure}

2380: \figurenum{54}

2381: \epsscale{0.9}

2382: \plotone{f54.eps}

2383: \caption{

2384: GALFIT decomposition for PKS 2135$-$14; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2385: }

2386: \end{figure}

2387: 

2388: \clearpage

2389: \begin{figure}

2390: \figurenum{55}

2391: \epsscale{0.9}

2392: \plotone{f55.eps}

2393: \caption{

2394: GALFIT decomposition for PKS 2349$-$01; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2395: }

2396: \end{figure}

2397: 

2398: \clearpage

2399: \begin{figure}

2400: \figurenum{56}

2401: \epsscale{0.9}

2402: \plotone{f56.eps}

2403: \caption{

2404: GALFIT decomposition for PKS 2355$-$082; symbols and conventions as in Figure 12.

2405: }

2406: \end{figure}

2407: 

2408: \end{document}

2409: