1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{emulateapj}
3:
4:
5: \newcommand{\MBH}{{\rm M}_\bullet}
6: \newcommand{\ML}{\Upsilon}
7: \newcommand{\MSun}{{\rm M}_\odot}
8: \newcommand{\kms}{km s$^{-1}$}
9: \newcommand{\Vcor}{$V_{\rm corr}$}
10: \newcommand{\NIRcor}{NIR$_{\rm corr}$}
11: \newcommand {\pc}{\mbox{pc}}
12:
13: %\slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ in June 2004.}
14:
15: \shorttitle{NGC 4258 Black Hole Mass}
16: \shortauthors{Siopis et al.}
17:
18: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
19: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
20: %version edited july/aug 08
21:
22: \begin{document}
23:
24: \title{A Stellar Dynamical Measurement of the Black Hole Mass \\
25: in the Maser Galaxy NGC 4258}
26:
27: \author{Christos Siopis\altaffilmark{1,2},
28: Karl Gebhardt\altaffilmark{3},
29: Tod R.\ Lauer\altaffilmark{4},
30: John Kormendy\altaffilmark{3},
31: Jason Pinkney\altaffilmark{5},
32: Douglas Richstone\altaffilmark{1},
33: S.\ M.\ Faber\altaffilmark{6},
34: Scott Tremaine\altaffilmark{7},
35: M.\ C.\ Aller\altaffilmark{1},
36: Ralf Bender\altaffilmark{8},
37: Gary Bower\altaffilmark{9},
38: Alan Dressler\altaffilmark{10},
39: Alexei V.\ Filippenko\altaffilmark{11},
40: Richard Green\altaffilmark{12},
41: Luis C.\ Ho\altaffilmark{10}, and
42: John Magorrian\altaffilmark{13}}
43:
44: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy, University of Michigan, Ann
45: Arbor, MI 48109-1042; siopis@umich.edu, maller@umich.edu,
46: dor@umich.edu}
47:
48: \altaffiltext{2}{Institut d'Astronomie et d'Astrophysique,
49: Universit\'e Libre de Bruxelles, CP 226, Boulevard du Triomphe,
50: 1050 Bruxelles, Belgium; christos.siopis@ulb.ac.be}
51:
52: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy, University of Texas,
53: RLM 15.308, Austin, TX 78712; gebhardt@astro.as.utexas.edu,
54: kormendy@astro.as.utexas.edu}
55:
56: \altaffiltext{4}{National Optical Astronomy Observatories, P. O. Box
57: 26732, Tucson, AZ 85726; lauer@noao.edu}
58:
59: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Ohio Northern
60: University, 525 S Main St, Ada, OH 45810; j-pinkney@onu.edu}
61:
62: \altaffiltext{6}{UCO/Lick Observatory, University of California,
63: Santa Cruz, CA 95064; faber@ucolick.org}
64:
65: \altaffiltext{7}{School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced
66: Study, Einstein Drive, Princeton, NJ 08540; tremaine@ias.edu}
67:
68: \altaffiltext{8}{Universit\"ats-Sternwarte, Scheinerstra\ss e 1,
69: M\"unchen 81679, Germany; bender@usm.uni-muenchen.de}
70:
71: \altaffiltext{9}{Computer Sciences Corporation, Space Telescope Science
72: Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive, Baltimore, MD 21218; bower@stsci.edu}
73:
74: \altaffiltext{10}{The Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of
75: Washington, 813 Santa Barbara St., Pasadena, CA 91101;
76: dressler@ociw.edu, lho@ociw.edu}
77:
78: \altaffiltext{11}{Department of Astronomy, University of California,
79: Berkeley, CA 94720-3411; alex@astro.berkeley.edu}
80:
81: \altaffiltext{12}{Large Binocular Telescope Observatory, 933
82: N. Cherry, Tucson, AZ 85721-0065; rgreen@as.arizona.edu}
83:
84: \altaffiltext{13}{Rudolf Peierls Centre for Theoretical Physics,
85: University of Oxford, Keble Road,
86: Oxford, OX1 3RH, UK; j.magorrian1@physics.ox.ac.uk}
87:
88: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
89: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
90:
91:
92:
93: \begin{abstract}
94:
95: We determine the mass of the black hole at the center of the spiral
96: galaxy NGC 4258 by constructing axisymmetric dynamical models of the
97: galaxy. These models are constrained by high spatial resolution
98: imaging and long-slit spectroscopy of the nuclear region obtained
99: with the {\em Hubble Space Telescope}, complemented by ground-based
100: observations extending to larger radii. Our best mass estimate is
101: $\MBH = (3.3 \pm 0.2) \times 10^7 \MSun $ for a distance of 7.28 Mpc
102: (statistical errors only). This is within 15\% of $ (3.82\pm 0.01)
103: \times 10^7 \MSun$, the mass determined from the kinematics of water
104: masers (rescaled to the same distance) assuming they are in
105: Keplerian rotation in a warped disk. The construction of accurate
106: dynamical models of NGC 4258 is somewhat compromised by an
107: unresolved active nucleus and color gradients, the latter caused by
108: variations in the stellar population and/or obscuring
109: dust. Depending on how these effects are treated, as well as on
110: assumptions about the ellipticity and inclination of the galaxy, we
111: obtain black hole masses ranging from $2.4 \times 10^7 \MSun$ to
112: $3.6\times10^7 \MSun$. This spread is mainly due to uncertainties in
113: the stellar mass profile inside the central 2\arcsec\ ($\sim$70 pc).
114: Obscuration of high-velocity stars by circumnuclear dust (possibly
115: associated with the masing disk) could lead to an underestimate of
116: the black hole mass which is hard to correct. These problems are not
117: present in the $\sim 30$ other black hole mass determinations from
118: stellar dynamics that have been published by us and other groups;
119: thus, the relatively close agreement between the stellar dynamical
120: mass and the maser mass in NGC 4258 enhances our confidence in the
121: black hole masses determined in other galaxies from stellar dynamics
122: using similar methods and data of comparable quality.
123:
124:
125: \end{abstract}
126:
127: \keywords{galaxies: spiral --- galaxies: individual (NGC 4258) --- galaxies: kinematics and dynamics --- galaxies: nuclei}
128:
129: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
130: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
131:
132: \section{INTRODUCTION}
133:
134: The characterization of massive dark objects (hereafter ``black
135: holes'') at the centers of nearby galaxies has advanced considerably
136: in the past decade. Nonetheless the dynamical modeling of both
137: stellar and gas kinematics remains subject to uncertainties. These can
138: arise from, among other things, systematic uncertainties and noise
139: amplification in the deprojection of the observables from two to three
140: dimensions, the presence of dust that can affect both the
141: mass-to-light ratio ($M/L$) and the observed kinematics, variations in
142: $M/L$ due to stellar population gradients, and the presence of
143: nonstellar point and/or continuum sources in the central galactic
144: regions which may swamp the light from the surrounding stars or
145: gas. Gas kinematics can also be affected by nongravitational forces,
146: random velocities and pressure support, which are difficult to model
147: accurately, while the complex phase-space structure of stellar orbits
148: can make it difficult to properly sample initial conditions and the
149: phase-space density distribution of the orbits in (stellar) galactic
150: equilibria. Reverberation mapping presents a third possibility for
151: determining black hole masses but comes with its own set of
152: limitations \citep[e.g.,][]{BlaMcK82,Pet93,NetPet97,GebEtal00b}.
153:
154: It is therefore desirable to test the reliability of these
155: methods. Unfortunately, comparing stellar dynamical estimates to
156: gas dynamical estimates of black hole masses is not usually
157: possible, as few galaxies have properties that permit more than one
158: method to be applied with confidence. Even in those cases
159: where it is possible, a detailed comparison is not always
160: illuminating due to uncertainties in the measurements. One case where
161: gas dynamical and stellar dynamical mass measurements are available
162: for the same galaxy is not reassuring: the gas dynamical mass for the
163: black hole in IC 1459 is a factor of $\sim 5$ smaller than the
164: stellar dynamical mass \citep{VerEtal00,CapEtal02}. Better
165: agreement, within a factor of $\sim 2$, was found between the mass
166: estimate of the black hole in Centaurus A by \cite{SilEtal05} from
167: stellar dynamics, and by \cite{MarEtal06} from gas dynamics. Even in
168: the case of the supermassive black hole in the nucleus of our own
169: Milky Way Galaxy, the mass estimates from individual
170: stellar orbits \citep{GheEtal05} and from a
171: statistical analysis of radial velocities and proper motions
172: \citep{ChaSah01} differ by about a factor of two.
173:
174: NGC 4258 presents a unique opportunity to test the reliability of
175: black hole mass estimators. \citet{MiyEtal95} and \citet{HerEtal99}
176: used the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) to observe water maser
177: emission in a thin, warped, and nearly edge-on gas annulus located at
178: 0.16--0.28 pc from the center of this galaxy, and determined that a
179: central black hole with a mass $\MBH = (3.9\pm0.1) \times 10^7 \MSun$
180: is needed to account for the observed velocity profile, proper
181: motions, and accelerations. This black hole mass is thought to be
182: quite reliable for several reasons. (i) The maser emission lines are
183: both strong and narrow, lending themselves to VLBA observations of
184: much higher resolution than possible with the {\slshape Hubble Space
185: Telescope (HST)} or ground-based telescopes. (ii) The masers seem to
186: lie in a disk that is very thin (height/radius $\approx 0.02$), so
187: the corrections to the rotation curve due to pressure or random
188: velocities are negligible. (iii) Most importantly, the maser velocities
189: scale very nearly as $v(r) \propto r^{-1/2}$ with distance $r$ from
190: the center, so that they exhibit an almost perfect Keplerian motion,
191: which makes the deduction of the black hole mass easy and almost free
192: of assumptions. (iv) Finally, the measurements of the mass and
193: distance from the radial velocities, proper motions, and accelerations
194: of the masers are all consistent. More recently, \citet{HerEtal05},
195: using a maximum likelihood analysis of the maser positions and
196: velocities, quantified the deviation from Keplerian motion.
197: A number of different models that can explain
198: this discrepancy yield central masses in the range (3.59--3.88)
199: $\times 10^7 \MSun$ rescaled to a distance of 7.28 Mpc. The
200: warped disk model, which the
201: authors consider the most probable, implies $\MBH = (3.82 \pm 0.01)
202: \times 10^7 \MSun$ at this distance.
203:
204: In this paper, we estimate the mass of the central black hole of NGC
205: 4258 via modeling of the stellar dynamics of the galaxy. This is
206: accomplished using the orbit superposition tools developed by our
207: collaboration (the ``Nuker'' team)
208: \citep{GebEtal00a,BowEtal01,GebEtal03,ThoEtal04}. Alternative orbit
209: superposition tools have been developed by \cite{MarEtal98},
210: \cite{CreEtal99}, and \cite{ValEtal04}. Because the maser black hole
211: mass estimate seemed very accurate, we intended this to be a thorough,
212: end-to-end test of the accuracy of our method, at least for this
213: galaxy. Unfortunately, we encountered a number of problems that
214: hindered our ability to determine unambiguously the mass density
215: profile in the central region of the galaxy. In particular, (i) it was
216: not possible to accurately subtract the light of the unresolved active
217: galactic nucleus (AGN) at the center of the galaxy to recover the
218: underlying stellar luminosity profile; (ii) it was not possible to
219: reliably determine the stellar $M/L$ profile within $\sim$2\arcsec\ of
220: the nucleus due to a color gradient, presumably caused by diffuse dust
221: and/or a spatial variation in the stellar population; and (iii) it was
222: not possible to estimate the extinction caused by a compact dust patch
223: near the nucleus, which may be obscuring light from fast-moving stars
224: very close to the black hole, thus causing a systematic underestimate
225: of the black hole mass.
226:
227: Despite these difficulties, our ``most trusted'' estimate, $\MBH =
228: (3.3 \pm 0.2) \times 10^7 \MSun$, is in reasonable agreement with the
229: maser mass estimate. The quoted error margin corresponds to the
230: ``1$\sigma$'' confidence band, and reflects statistical errors
231: only. Uncertainties in the mass profile discussed in the previous
232: paragraph widen the error margin to $2.4 \times 10^7 \MSun < \MBH <
233: 3.6 \times 10^7 \MSun$. This range still does not include the
234: potential effect of obscuring circumnuclear dust, which cannot be
235: easily estimated, or any other systematic effects such as deviations
236: from axisymmetry that cannot be properly treated by our dynamical
237: modeling method. These factors are discussed in detail in the
238: following sections.
239:
240: \citet{past07} estimate the mass of the black hole in NGC 4258 using
241: gas kinematics, but their 95\% confidence intervals span a factor of
242: ten in mass so this is not a strong test of the reliability of
243: black-hole mass estimates.
244:
245:
246: For this work, we use 7.28 Mpc for the distance to NGC 4258
247: \citep{TonEtal01}, which is in excellent agreement with the
248: maser-derived distance of 7.2 Mpc. At that distance, $1\arcsec \simeq
249: 35$ pc.
250:
251: In \S\ref{obs} we present the photometric and kinematic datasets,
252: which consist of {\em HST} WFPC2 and NICMOS imaging and STIS
253: spectroscopy, complemented by ground-based imaging and long-slit
254: spectroscopy that extend data coverage to larger radii. We discuss the
255: large-scale morphology of the galaxy in \S\ref{ObsMorph}, mainly as it
256: pertains to the determination of the contribution of the stars to the
257: gravitational potential. In \S\ref{VarML} we consider the consequences
258: of the color gradient in the central 2\arcsec. \S\ref{DynMod} presents
259: the dynamical models. We conclude in \S\ref{discussion}.
260:
261: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
262: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
263:
264: \section{OBSERVATIONS AND REDUCTION} \label{obs}
265:
266: \subsection{Photometry} \label{phot}
267:
268: Here we describe the acquisition and reduction of the
269: photometric data, which are needed mainly to determine the stellar
270: mass distribution and the kinematic tracer profile, in the way
271: described in \S\ref{DynMethod} and \S\ref{AmbigP}.
272:
273: A journal of the imaging observations, from which the surface
274: photometry was derived, is shown in Table \ref{PhotoDataTable}. A wide
275: variety of data are available in different colors, both from {\slshape
276: HST} and from the ground. For reasons explained in
277: \S\ref{VarMLga01}, we produced three luminosity profiles. (i) The
278: near-infrared (NIR) profile was created by combining ground-based and
279: {\slshape HST} $J$, $H$, and $K$-band images, as described in
280: \S\ref{RedNIRData}. (ii) The $V$-band profile was generated from
281: images in the $V$ band ({\slshape HST}) and in the $R$ band
282: (ground-based), as described in \S\ref{RedVIData}. (iii) The $I$-band
283: profile was created from the {\slshape HST} $I$-band image, as
284: described in \S\ref{RedVIData}. Although this image was saturated in
285: the nucleus, it was useful to consult for the luminosity weighting
286: (normalization) of the line-of-sight velocity distributions (LOSVDs),
287: as it identifies the kinematic tracer population (\S\ref{AmbigP}).
288:
289:
290: \subsubsection{Reduction of the $J$, $H$, and $K$-Band
291: Data} \label{RedNIRData} The 2MASS $J$, $H$, and $K$-band images
292: (Figure \ref{GroundImages-NIR}, top row) were kindly provided to us by
293: Tom Jarrett \citep{JarEtal03}, and extend out to $R \approx 8\farcm6$
294: from the center\footnote{Throughout the paper, $R$ refers to distance
295: from the center of the galaxy, while $r$ refers to distance along the
296: isophotal semimajor axis.}. For the morphological study of the
297: large-scale properties of the galaxy (\S\ref{ObsMorph}), the
298: signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) was boosted by constructing a composite
299: $J$+$H$+$K$ image, which was then smoothed with a Gaussian
300: point-spread function (PSF) having full width at half maximum (FWHM)
301: of 7\arcsec\ for $r \leq 60\arcsec$ and FWHM = 11\arcsec\ for $r >
302: 60\arcsec$. The 2MASS $K$-band image was reduced in a manner similar
303: to that of the $J$+$H$+$K$ image. It proved to have sufficiently high
304: S/N to give a reasonably adequate measurement of the outer disk. A
305: comparison of the $K$-band and $J$+$H$+$K$-band photometry provides an
306: estimate of the uncertainties; these are dominated by the effects of
307: patchy star formation and other irregularities, not by photon
308: statistics. Therefore, we decided to discard the $J$+$H$+$K$-band
309: profile as a tracer of stellar mass in the dynamical modeling, and to
310: use the $K$-band profile instead, as being less affected by these
311: irregularities.
312:
313: The KPNO 2.1-m telescope $K$-band image extends out to $R \approx
314: 3\arcmin$ from the center (Figure \ref{GroundImages-NIR}, bottom
315: row). Comparison of the 2MASS $K$-band profile with the KPNO $K$-band
316: profile, which has a higher spatial resolution, showed that the 2MASS
317: profile is affected by smoothing only at $r < 32\arcsec$, so the 2MASS
318: profile was truncated inside this radius. Thus, the KPNO profile
319: was used for $2\arcsec\ < r < 32\arcsec$ and the 2MASS profile
320: at $r \ge 32\arcsec$.
321:
322:
323: \citet{ChaEtal00} obtained {\slshape HST} NICMOS images of NGC 4258 in
324: bandpasses that approximate $J$, $H$, and $K$. Eric Becklin and Ranga
325: Chary kindly made the reduced images available to us (Figure
326: \ref{HSTImages-NIR}), along with the corresponding PSF images. Details
327: of the reductions can be found in \citet{ChaEtal00}. The {\slshape
328: HST} WFPC2 $V$-band image (\S\ref{RedVIData}) shows extensive dust
329: at $r \gtrsim 2\arcsec$ on the SW side of the center and a few thinner
330: dust patches on the NE side. There is also a scatter of faint sources
331: in the bulge, apparently associated with some ongoing star
332: formation. In the NICMOS $K$-band image, these faint sources are not
333: visible, and the dust patches on the NE side are essentially invisible
334: as well. However, the dust on the SW side, although less conspicuous
335: in $K$ than in $V$, remains a substantial problem that we had to
336: correct. After considering a number of alternatives, we chose the
337: strategy of creating a symmetrized image of the galaxy, whereby the SW
338: side was replaced with the NE side flipped (not rotated) across the
339: major axis. As a check, the profiles from
340: both the symmetrized and the unsymmetrized $K$-band image were
341: compared and found to agree extremely well at $r \la
342: 2\arcsec$. Therefore, this symmetrization is not a factor in the $V-K$
343: color gradient discussed in \S\ref{VarMLga01}. We applied the same
344: procedure to the $J$- and $H$-band images, as well.
345:
346: The nucleus of NGC 4258 emits broad permitted lines \citep{HoEtal97},
347: and is classified as a Type 1.9 Seyfert. The AGN at the center is very
348: red \citep{ChaEtal00} and, in the $K$ band, it appears as a bright,
349: unresolved point source that clobbers the central brightness
350: distribution of the stars and needs to be subtracted. Unfortunately,
351: the PSF provided by \citet{ChaEtal00} was determined using the TinyTim
352: routine and not from actual images taken at the same time as the
353: galaxy observations. It proves to be a mediocre match to the AGN at $r
354: < 0\farcs2$, in the sense that there is a residual diffraction pattern
355: no matter how the PSF is scaled. We applied the following procedure to
356: improve the quality of the PSF subtraction (cf.\ Figure
357: \ref{PSF}). Using {\tt VISTA} \citep{Lau83}, we scaled the TinyTim PSF
358: image by various factors and measured the resulting surface brightness
359: profiles in the residual image using the unsymmetrized galaxy
360: image. We also examined the residual images to see which ones had the
361: small-scale structure, illustrated in the top left image of Figure
362: \ref{PSF}, optimally subtracted. Most of the weight in the choice of
363: the final PSF scale factor came from how well the first diffraction
364: ring of the AGN was subtracted. The scale factor that we finally
365: adopted in this way yields ellipticity and position angle profiles
366: that are both smooth and well behaved, which is reassuring. This is
367: not the case with scale factors that differ by more than $\pm10\%$
368: from the adopted value. However, ultimately no value of the scale
369: factor allows both a convincing subtraction of the first diffraction
370: ring and a smooth profile at $r < 0\farcs2$ that follows the power law
371: seen at larger radii. This is probably a result of the imperfect match
372: of the TinyTim-generated PSF to the $K$-band data. It is unlikely that
373: a real galaxy feature is involved, considering that no such feature is
374: detectable in the higher-resolution $V$-band image in the radial range
375: $0\farcs05<r<0\farcs2$ (cf.\ \S\ref{RedVIData}).
376:
377: We also applied forty iterations of Lucy deconvolution
378: \citep{Luc74,Ric72} to the {\slshape HST} NICMOS $J$, $H$, and
379: $K$-band images using the PSFs from \citet{ChaEtal00}. Because the
380: PSFs are not ideal, we applied the deconvolution to images with the
381: PSF of the AGN subtracted as explained above. Still, the deconvolved
382: $K$-band image showed bad ``ringing,'' so we truncated it inside $r =
383: 0\farcs46$. The $J$-band profile appeared better behaved, at least
384: partly since the AGN is much dimmer at this bluer wavelength,
385: although there was also some sign of a residual AGN at $r <
386: 0\farcs1$. The $J$, $H$, and $K$-band deconvolved profiles agree very
387: well at $r \ga 0\farcs5$, where the AGN is not a problem, and the
388: ellipticity profiles are all well behaved.
389:
390: Based on the preceding analysis, we decided (i) to use the original
391: (not deconvolved) $K$-band photometry for $r \geq 2\farcs8$ (KPNO data
392: at $2\farcs8 \le r < 32\arcsec$, and 2MASS data at $32\arcsec \le r
393: \le 560\arcsec$), (ii) to average the deconvolved NICMOS $K$-band and
394: $J$-band photometry for $0\farcs2 \leq r < 2\farcs8$, and (iii) to use
395: deconvolved $J$-band data for $0\farcs038 \leq r < 0\farcs2$ in order
396: to avoid the AGN as much as possible. The resulting profile is shown
397: in Figure \ref{CumPhotom}. However, even in $J$, the points at $r <
398: 0\farcs11$ are probably still affected by the AGN. We
399: elaborate on this point in \S\ref{VarMLla01}.
400:
401:
402: \subsubsection{Reduction of the $V$ and $I$-Band
403: Data} \label{RedVIData} We used the MDM 1.3-m telescope to obtain an
404: image of the galaxy in the $R$ band (Figure \ref{GroundImages-R}). The
405: image was reduced and dust-clipped in the usual way. The luminosity
406: profile was then extracted and matched to the $V$-band {\slshape HST}
407: profile, discussed below, in the range $5\arcsec \la r \la 7\arcsec$,
408: using a $V$-band zeropoint. There were no significant color,
409: ellipticity, or position angle (PA) gradients between the $V$-band and
410: $R$-band profiles over the radial range in which they were
411: matched. Henceforth, we will refer to this composite profile, made by
412: stitching together the {\slshape HST} $V$-band profile with the
413: $R$-band profile shifted by a constant offset, as the $V$-band
414: profile. It extends out to $r \approx 150\arcsec$.
415:
416: We obtained {\slshape HST} WFPC2 images of the NGC 4258 nucleus
417: through the F547M filter under program GO--8591. The F547M filter was
418: selected to exclude any bright emission lines associated with the
419: AGN; it is roughly equivalent to a narrow $V$-band filter, and is
420: referred to as such in the remainder of this paper. The galaxy was
421: centered in the PC1 chip and dithered in a $2\times2$ square raster of
422: $\sim$0.5 pixel steps over four separate 400~s exposures to
423: maximize the spatial resolution of the complete data set. The four
424: dithered images were combined into a single Nyquist-sampled ``super
425: image" using the algorithm of \cite{Lau99a}, which provides for the
426: optimal combination of undersampled images without any associated
427: degradation of the resolution. This final image has a pixel scale of
428: $0\farcs0228,$ twice as fine as that of the original images. However,
429: the Nyquist image remains modulated by the {\slshape HST} PSF;
430: thus, it was deconvolved prior to further analysis using 80 iterations
431: of the \cite{Luc74} and \cite{Ric72} algorithm. The PSF was estimated
432: using the TinyTim package, but incorporates the WFPC2 pixel-response
433: function recovered by \cite{Lau99b}. The final deconvolved $V$-band
434: image of NGC 4258 is shown in Figure \ref{HSTImages-V}.
435:
436: The $V$-band surface brightness profile of NGC 4258, shown in Figure
437: \ref{CumPhotom}, was estimated from the F547M Nyquist image using a
438: combination of the high spatial resolution algorithm of \cite{Lau85}
439: and the least-squares estimator of \cite{Lau86}. The patchy dust seen
440: throughout the bulge of NGC 4258 complicates measurement of the
441: brightness profile; as is visible in Figure \ref{HSTImages-V}, there
442: is a compact dust feature just slightly offset from the nuclear source
443: that was especially problematic. For all dust features other than the
444: central patch, pixels affected by dust could simply be excluded from
445: the least-squares profile estimator. In practice, this was done
446: iteratively by comparing the image to a model reconstructed from the
447: profile to isolate faint dust absorption that may have been missed
448: during the initial inspection of the image. Unfortunately, pixels
449: could not be masked out of the high-resolution profile algorithm,
450: which is used in preference to the least-squares estimator for
451: $r<0\farcs5,$ so the nuclear dust patch was first filled in with an
452: estimated correction provided by the lower-resolution least-squares
453: algorithm. This initial correction was then refined by replacing it
454: with an improved estimate provided by a model reconstructed by the
455: high-resolution profile.
456:
457: Figure \ref{HSTImages-V} shows the central portion of the $V$-band
458: image divided by a model reconstructed from the final brightness
459: profile. Apart from the nuclear dust patch, the residuals are flat,
460: showing that the brightness profile extracted is faithful to the
461: central structure of NGC 4258. The nuclear dust patch, itself, is
462: clearly compact, affecting only a single quadrant of the nucleus,
463: which again allowed it to be isolated from the profile estimation. As
464: a ``sanity check'' on the brightness profile, we compared the profile
465: to an intensity trace taken along the bulge semimajor axis on
466: the side of the nucleus opposite the nuclear dust patch. The two
467: measures agreed extremely well, showing that the final profile is not
468: strongly affected by any residual dust features or the pixels excluded
469: from the analysis.
470:
471: In addition to the {\slshape HST} F547M data, we also analyzed two
472: archival PC1 F791W ($I$ band) images obtained by \cite{CecEtal00}
473: under program GO--6563. Unfortunately, both images were saturated at
474: $r<0\farcs09$ from the nucleus, and thus provide information only at
475: somewhat larger radii. The images were combined and deconvolved;
476: however, without a full accounting of the light contributed by the
477: nucleus, the $I$-band profile should be regarded with caution for
478: $r<0\farcs5$.
479:
480: Using the F547M and the F791W images, we created a F547M/F791W color
481: map of the nuclear region of the galaxy, approximating $V-I$ (Figure
482: \ref{ColorMap}). The color map shows more clearly the distribution of
483: dust in the center, and will be further discussed in
484: \S\ref{VarMLga01}. A larger-scale view of the central region of the
485: galaxy is shown in Figure \ref{HSTImages-color}, which is a composite
486: color image created by combining the F547M and the F791W images along
487: with an archival F300W ($U$-band) image, also obtained by
488: \cite{CecEtal00}.
489:
490:
491: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
492:
493: \subsection{Spectroscopy} \label{Spectr}
494:
495: We used the \ion{Ca}{2} triplet absorption line (8498~\AA, 8542~\AA,
496: 8662~\AA; hereafter CaT) to determine the stellar LOSVDs at the center
497: of NGC 4258, and at various positions along the major axis (out to $R
498: = 18\farcs18$) as well as along the minor axis (out to $R =
499: 11\farcs69$). The spectra were obtained from the ground as well as
500: with the {\slshape HST} Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph
501: (STIS). Spectrograph configurations are shown in Table
502: \ref{SpectrConfigsTable}.
503:
504: In particular, we made 24 cosmic-ray-split exposures of NGC 4258 with
505: STIS to obtain high-quality nucleus-centered CaT spectra along the
506: major axis of the galaxy, out to $R=0\farcs80$. The STIS slit was
507: placed at PA = 140\arcdeg\ instead of directly on the major axis (PA =
508: 150\arcdeg) because of guide-star constraints. Our reduction procedure
509: closely followed that of \citet{PinEtal03}. The procedure bypasses the
510: pipeline (``Calstis'') reduction so that we can employ ``self-darks,''
511: i.e., dark frames that are constructed by combining our dithered
512: datasets with the galaxy light rejected. Our method works best if all
513: of the exposures are taken within a short period of time because of
514: the rapidly changing dark pattern on the STIS CCD. This was not quite
515: the case here, since the exposures were taken on March 12 and 21,
516: 2001. Nevertheless, a single self-dark worked well.
517:
518: There is one small difference between our STIS reduction procedure and
519: that described by \citet{PinEtal03}: the initial dark subtraction was
520: done with an archival, ``weekly'' dark rather than by a sum of the
521: galaxy frames with a region around the galaxy masked out. This created
522: a smoother dark on which to begin further iterations using the same
523: ``self-dark'' strategy.
524:
525: We also used the Modspec spectrograph on the MDM 2.4-m telescope to
526: obtain ground-based CaT spectra along both the major and minor
527: axes at larger radii. The configuration is again shown in Table
528: \ref{SpectrConfigsTable}. The seeing varied between 1\arcsec\ and
529: 1\farcs5 (FWHM). Kinematic parameters were extracted out to $R =
530: 18\farcs18$ and $R = 11\farcs69$ along the major and minor axis,
531: respectively. Again, the reduction procedure followed closely that
532: described by \citet{PinEtal03}.
533:
534: Figures \ref{SpectraHST} and \ref{SpectraGround} show spectra
535: extracted at several radial positions from the STIS and the
536: ground-based data, respectively. The emission-line feature visible
537: near 8620~\AA\ (rest frame) in the nuclear STIS spectrum in Figure
538: \ref{SpectraHST} is most probably the \ion{Fe}{2} 8618~\AA\ line, and
539: had to be removed before the LOSVD fitting could be done. Consequently,
540: there was a concern that the central (or central few) LOSVDs would be
541: less reliable, but it proved easy to interpolate under the line (see
542: Figure \ref{SpectraHST}), so in the end this was not a problem.
543:
544: We decided to discard the central ground-based LOSVD along the major
545: axis, because of concerns about template mismatch and AGN
546: contamination. In retrospect, the central ground-based LOSVD on both
547: the major and minor axes should have been dropped since the STIS
548: data had comparable statistical quality and much better understood
549: PSFs. In fact, we used the minor axis central LOSVD, except in one
550: experiment, where its exclusion had no effect (see \S\ref{AmbigK}).
551:
552: In a dust-free axisymmetric galaxy that also exhibits symmetry about
553: the equatorial plane, such as assumed by our modeling method,
554: kinematic quantities also manifest symmetries about the center. This
555: entitles us to ``symmetrize,'' with respect to the center of the
556: galaxy, the LOSVDs along the major and minor axes, for both STIS and
557: Modspec. This process helps alleviate potential biases in the
558: extraction of the velocity profile. \citet{GebEtal03} provide more
559: details on how this was done. Unfortunately, NGC 4258 contains
560: substantial quantities of dust, especially near the dynamically
561: important central region (Figures \ref{HSTImages-V}, \ref{ColorMap}),
562: which calls into question the validity of this assumption. Potential
563: implications are discussed in \S\ref{discussion}.
564:
565: We used the maximum penalized likelihood method (MPL), as described by
566: \citet{PinEtal03}, to derive LOSVDs from all the CaT spectra. A
567: nonparametric form of the LOSVDs, rather than Gauss-Hermite moments,
568: was used for the dynamical modeling. Each LOSVD was represented by 13
569: equally spaced velocity bins, with the uncertainty in each bin
570: determined from Monte Carlo simulations.
571:
572: Figure \ref{VSigmaH3H4} illustrates $V, \sigma, H3$, and $H4$, the
573: fitting parameters from the truncated Gauss-Hermite series expansions
574: of the LOSVDs \citep{Ger93,MarFra93}, along the major and minor axes
575: of the galaxy, both from STIS and from the ground. The same parameters
576: in tabular form can be found in Table \ref{SpectrTable}. We stress
577: again that a nonparametric form of the LOSVDs was actually used for
578: the dynamical modeling. We anticipate our best fitting model
579: discussed in \S 5.1 by illustrating its projected Gauss-Hermite
580: moments here.
581:
582: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
583: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
584:
585: \section{THE LARGE-SCALE MORPHOLOGY} \label{ObsMorph}
586:
587:
588: NGC 4258 is a typical oval-disk galaxy \citep{Kor82}, classified as
589: SAB(s)bc. Morphologically, the disk consists of two nested regions of
590: slowly varying surface brightness: the ``inner oval'' component (PA
591: $\simeq$ 156\arcdeg) is much brighter than the ``outer oval''
592: component (PA $\simeq$ 150\arcdeg), and both have relatively sharp
593: outer edges, at $R \simeq 200\arcsec$ and $R \simeq 560\arcsec$,
594: respectively (Figure \ref{GroundImages-NIR}). Embedded in the inner
595: oval component is a bulge (PA $\simeq$ 146\arcdeg) which remains
596: important out to $r \simeq 40\arcsec$, as well as a weak bar (PA
597: $\simeq$ 11\arcdeg) extending out to $R \simeq 150\arcsec$. These
598: components can also be identified using the profiles in Figure
599: \ref{CumPhotom}.
600:
601: We are interested in the large-scale morphological properties of NGC
602: 4258 primarily to establish that there are no major deviations from
603: the assumption of axial symmetry, which is built into our modeling
604: method (\S\ref{DynMethod}). Deviations from axisymmetry can be
605: important for two reasons. First, orbits in a non-axisymmetric
606: potential do not conserve any component of the angular
607: momentum. Therefore, the orbital structure of a non-axisymmetric
608: system can be considerably different from that of an axisymmetric
609: one. Second, non-axisymmetric deviations can induce kinematic
610: signatures in the radial velocity profile similar to those created by
611: a central mass concentration. Either effect can bias a black hole mass
612: estimate made under the assumption of axisymmetry.
613:
614: The ellipticity profiles in $V$ and in the NIR are
615: quite different in the innermost 0\farcs2, but they agree rather well
616: further out. We consider the ellipticity profile in $V$ to be overall
617: more reliable than that in the NIR due to the higher resolution in
618: $V$. It becomes progressively flatter from the center out to $r \simeq
619: 5\arcsec$, and then it remains approximately constant between $r
620: \simeq 5\arcsec$ and 12\arcsec. The ellipticity starts dropping again
621: out to $r \simeq 40\arcsec$, but this is probably caused by the weak
622: bar, which adds extra light in the minor-axis direction while probably
623: having no effect on the major-axis profile. The onset of the dominance
624: of the disk is signified by the increasing ellipticity outward of $r
625: \simeq 40\arcsec$.
626:
627: If we wanted to rigorously test these morphological characterizations,
628: we would have to perform a full bulge-bar-disk photometric
629: decomposition. However, such a decomposition would be very uncertain
630: because of parameter coupling: the bar is very weak, and trading light
631: between the components while correspondingly changing their isophote
632: shapes would provide considerable freedom to tinker with the bulge
633: ellipticity.
634:
635: In the absence of extinction, the projected isophotes of a galaxy that
636: has emissivity constant on coaxial and similar spheroids
637: (as assumed in our dynamical modeling) are concentric, coaxial, and
638: similar ellipses \citep{Con56,Fis61}. The absence of any strong
639: isophote twists out to $r \simeq 40\arcsec$, the beginning of the weak
640: bar, indicates that, to a good approximation, NGC 4258 is axisymmetric
641: out to that radius. Furthermore, the fact that the PA of the bulge and
642: of the outer disk agree quite well is evidence against a triaxial
643: bulge. However, there \emph{does} exist a strong isophote twist
644: between 40\arcsec\ and 150\arcsec, caused by the bar, while Figure
645: \ref{VSigmaH3H4} shows some minor-axis rotation in the bulge, outside
646: $R \simeq 10\arcsec$, which could be indicative of triaxiality at
647: intermediate radii.
648:
649: Even though our current algorithm cannot model triaxial components,
650: the dynamical effect of the bar on the measured value of the black
651: hole mass is probably small, for at least three reasons: (i)
652: $M_\bullet$ is mostly determined from the dynamics near the center,
653: where triaxial deviations are least significant; (ii) bars generally
654: have relatively little effect on the kinematics --- for example, even
655: the much stronger bar of NGC 936 has little effect on the
656: velocity dispersion of that galaxy \citep{Kor83,Kor84};
657: (iii) and finally
658: the velocities of bar stars that cross the slit, while probably
659: somewhat bigger than the local circular velocity (a $\sim$5--10\%
660: effect), are seen moving nearly perpendicular to the line-of-sight
661: because the bar is strongly inclined
662: to the major axis, and hence they probably do not signicantly affect
663: the observed kinematics.
664:
665:
666: In summary, NGC 4258 contains non-axisymmetric structures which
667: probably {\it do} affect the kinematics, and hence the black hole mass
668: estimate, but probably only in a minor way.
669:
670:
671: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
672: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
673:
674: \section{VARIATIONS IN ${M/L}$ RATIO} \label{VarML}
675:
676: Stellar population gradients, dust extinction, and contamination by an
677: AGN can all induce variations in the $M/L$ ratio, which have to be
678: taken into account when deriving the stellar mass density profile from
679: the luminosity density profile. We first discuss variations in $M/L$
680: far from the AGN-dominated nuclear region, and then we describe the
681: complications due to the AGN.
682:
683: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
684:
685: \subsection{The Stellar ${M/L}$ Ratio Far from the AGN Point Source} \label{VarMLga01}
686: Color gradients in the outer disk of NGC 4258 are small, even between
687: the $R$ and $K$ bands (Figure \ref{CumPhotom}), implying that the
688: $M/L$ ratio in the disk is not seriously affected by star formation or
689: dust. However, inside $\sim$2\arcsec\ from the nucleus, the $V$-band
690: profile ``peels off'' from the NIR profile and becomes flatter. This
691: color gradient can be seen in Figure \ref{CumPhotom}, but becomes more
692: apparent in Figure \ref{CumPhotomCenter} which shows the inner
693: 10\arcsec\ of the surface brightness profile. Also, the color map
694: shown in Figure \ref{ColorMap} clearly identifies the color gradient
695: as a ``red,'' diffuse area surrounding the nucleus out to $r \approx
696: 2$\arcsec\ ($R \approx 1\arcsec - 2\arcsec$). This is an issue for the
697: dynamical modeling because it takes place in the dynamically important
698: central region, which affects the entire model: we must determine
699: which, if either, of the two profiles ($V$-band or NIR) traces stellar
700: mass.
701:
702: Could the color gradient be caused by variations in the stellar
703: population? The strongest evidence {\em against} variations in the
704: stellar population is the absence of any marked color gradient between
705: the $J$ and $K$ profiles, which should be present if the central NIR
706: brightening were caused by either a metallicity gradient or red
707: supergiant stars. Furthermore, although some traces of scattered star
708: formation can be seen on the $V$-band image (Figure \ref{HSTImages-V})
709: as well as on the color map (Figure \ref{ColorMap}), they are absent
710: in the NIR images (Figure \ref{HSTImages-NIR}), even after accounting
711: for the different FWHM of the PSFs.
712:
713: More information can be obtained from the equivalent width (EW)
714: profiles of the three CaT line components, which we computed from the
715: STIS spectra extending out to $1\farcs5$ from the center (Figure
716: \ref{EW}). A decreasing EW profile would be evidence of a young
717: stellar population or of a brightening $I$-band nonthermal
718: continuum. A drop is seen in the central $0\farcs3$, and is discussed
719: in the next subsection. Here we are concerned with possible trends
720: beyond that radius. For $r > 0\farcs3$, there is a hint of a slow
721: increase in the EW away from the center, but the data are also
722: consistent with a flat profile. However, the datapoints at $r >
723: 0\farcs8$ suffer from the low S/N of the originating spectra, and we
724: have no data as far out as $\sim$2\arcsec, where the $V$-band profile
725: begins to peels off.
726:
727: The other possible explanation is the presence of diffuse dust, which
728: would produce a small gradient in $J-K$ but a larger one in $V-J$,
729: just as observed. The observed smoothness in the $V-J$ color gradient
730: would then imply a similarly smooth increase in the projected density
731: of diffuse dust toward the center.
732:
733: In the end, we were unable to determine unequivocally whether the
734: origin of the color gradient is a variation in the stellar population
735: or the presence of a diffuse dust component. We decided to construct
736: models for both of these possibilities, and investigate the
737: uncertainties induced on the black hole mass (\S\ref{AmbigP}).
738:
739: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
740:
741: \subsection{The Stellar ${M/L}$ Ratio Near the AGN Point
742: Source} \label{VarMLla01}
743:
744: Dynamical modeling only strongly constrains the {\em total} mass,
745: $M_{\rm tot}(r_0) = \MBH + M_*(r_0)$, inside a small radius $r_0$
746: around the center, where $M_*(r_0)$ is the enclosed stellar mass, and
747: $r_0$ is comparable to the spatial resolution of the nuclear spectrum
748: ($\sim$0\farcs1). Therefore, there is a degeneracy between $\MBH$ and
749: $M_*(r_0)$, which can be resolved only if we know $M_*(r_0)$
750: separately, i.e., only if we know the luminosity profile and the
751: stellar $M/L$ ratio inside $r_0$. The latter is assumed to be constant
752: throughout the galaxy and is predominantly constrained by the
753: dynamical model at large radii (\S\ref{DynMethod}). In essence, $\MBH
754: = M_{\rm tot}(r_0) - M_*(r_0)$ corresponds to the ``excess'' dynamical
755: mass inside $r_0$ after subtraction of the mass due to
756: stars. Therefore, we must again determine which, if either, of the two
757: luminosity profiles ($V$ band or NIR) traces stellar mass, $M_*$.
758:
759: The $V$-band profile, which is well determined down to $r \simeq
760: 0\farcs011$, manifests a progressively more shallow slope for $r \la
761: 0\farcs15$, interrupted by a peak within 0\farcs04 of the
762: nucleus. Although the cause of the peak is not entirely clear, it is
763: unlikely that it is due to light from an old stellar population. The
764: CaT EW profile (Figure \ref{EW}) shows a $\sim$30\% decline within
765: 0\farcs2 of the nucleus, which strongly suggests contamination by a
766: continuum source, possibly OB stars or a nonthermal AGN.
767:
768: Notwithstanding the uncertain origin of the peak, it seems unlikely
769: that it traces stellar mass. Therefore, we replaced the innermost
770: three $V$-band datapoints in a way that extrapolates inward the
771: profile at $0\farcs04 \la r \la 0\farcs15$ (Figure
772: \ref{CumPhotomCenter}; \S\ref{AmbigP}). However, we also created
773: models {\em with} the central peak, to investigate its effect on
774: $\MBH$. Not surprisingly, the effect was negligible because the light
775: in the peak corresponds to a very small mass (\S\ref{AmbigP}).
776:
777: In \S\ref{RedNIRData} we saw that, at $r \la 0\farcs11$, the $J$-band
778: profile begins to show signs of contamination by AGN light, and the
779: PSF of the AGN could not be subtracted reliably. We also saw earlier
780: that the central depression in the CaT EW profile begins at $r \simeq
781: 0\farcs2$, and implies a brightening of the CaT continuum, which lies
782: in the $I$ band, inside that radius. The AGN is red, so it seems
783: likely that the $J$-band profile is even more affected by the AGN
784: continuum radiation than the $I$-band profile. While luminous AGNs normally
785: have a blue featureless continuum, low-luminosity AGNs such as NGC
786: 4258 tend to have emission spectra that peak in the mid-infrared
787: \citep{Ho99}, probably as a consequence of their low accretion rates
788: \citep{Ho08}. Taking all these
789: considerations into account, we decided that the $J$-band profile
790: inward of $r \simeq 0\farcs2$ cannot be trusted to trace mass (i.e.,
791: the old stellar population). Accordingly, inside $r \simeq 0\farcs2$
792: we replaced it with a profile that follows the $V$-band profile {\it
793: without} the central peak. As explained above, this profile is
794: presumably not affected by the AGN. The related dynamical models are
795: discussed in \S\ref{AmbigP}.
796:
797: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
798: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
799:
800: \section{DYNAMICAL MODELING} \label{DynMod}
801:
802: \subsection{The Method} \label{DynMethod}
803:
804: A detailed account of our dynamical modeling method is provided in the
805: Appendix. Here we present a short description with emphasis on NGC
806: 4258.
807:
808: The first step involves a deprojection of the surface photometry to
809: obtain the three-dimensional luminosity density. This is done under
810: the assumption that emissivity is constant on similar, coaxial
811: spheroids. The deprojection is
812: performed via a nonparametric Abel inversion \citep[cf.][]{GebEtal96}
813: assuming a value for the inclination angle ($i = 72 \arcdeg$ in the
814: base model).
815: The gravitational
816: potential can then be recovered by specifying a central point mass
817: (``black hole'') $\MBH$ and the stellar $M/L$ ratio, $\ML$, assumed
818: constant throughout the galaxy. The dynamical models for NGC 4258
819: extend out to $r=100\arcsec$.
820:
821: The dynamical models are constructed for a grid of $(\MBH,\ML)$
822: values. Each model consists of a superposition of representative
823: orbits, appropriately weighted to match the observed kinematics,
824: subject to constraints that force the stellar density distribution to
825: match the luminous density distribution of the galaxy.
826: Each model is computed using $N_o \approx 7000$
827: orbits. Orbits are integrated for about 100 crossing times.
828:
829: Self-consistency is enforced by requiring that the model satisfy
830: exactly the photometric constraints on a polar grid of 15 radial
831: shells as described in the appendix, each subdivided into 4 bins in
832: polar angle. The grid used to solve Poisson's equation is 4X finer
833: than the grid used to bin the kinematic results. For most orbits
834: energy is conserved to much better than 1\%.
835:
836: For each model, the orbit weights that best fit the observed
837: kinematics are determined by minimizing
838: \begin{equation}
839: \chi^2 = \sum_k
840: \left[ l_{k,o} -
841: \sum m_{ik} w_i
842: \right]/
843: {\sigma_k^2} \,\, ,
844: \label{chi2}
845: \end{equation}
846: where $l_{k,o}$ is the light at a specific
847: position and velocity (the index $k$ runs over both position and
848: velocity) with uncertainty $\sigma_k$, and where $m_{ik}$ is the mass
849: deposited by the $i^{th}$ orbit weighted by $w_i$ in the $k^{th}$
850: projected position and velocity bin; cf.\ \S\ref{Spectr}). We use a
851: maximum-entropy technique as described in the Appendix to minimize $\chi^2$
852: using non-negative orbit occupation numbers.
853:
854: For each dataset, we determine $\chi^2(\MBH,\ML)$. The minimum
855: determines the best (most probable)
856: combination of $\MBH$ and $\ML$ for the galaxy. The $\Delta\chi^2=1$
857: contour on the $(\MBH,\ML)$ plane, where $\Delta\chi^2 \equiv
858: \chi^2-\chi^2_{\min}$, determines the nominal ``1$\sigma$''
859: uncertainty ranges for $\MBH$ and $\ML$.
860:
861: The process of converting observational quantities to model input
862: entails assumptions and systematic uncertainties that have to be taken
863: into account when determining the uncertainty of the ``best'' $\MBH$,
864: which may be larger than the nominal ``1$\sigma$'' confidence band on
865: the $(\MBH,\ML)$ plane. Therefore, the previous steps must be repeated
866: for a number of plausible parameter choices (other than $\MBH$ and
867: $\ML$) in order to determine the overall uncertainty. We cannot afford
868: to make an exhaustive exploration of the parameter space because of
869: the time required to create the models. Instead, we opt to construct a
870: base model corresponding to our ``best guess'' for the parameter
871: values and investigate the effect on $\MBH$ of varying each parameter
872: independently.
873:
874: The results from the dynamical modeling are summarized in Table
875: \ref{ModelTable}, and the corresponding $\chi^2$ contour maps are
876: shown in Figure \ref{ModelPlots}. The black hole mass for the base
877: model, which uses the $V$-band profile {\it without} the central peak
878: for both the mass and the kinematic tracer profiles, is $\MBH =
879: 3.31^{+0.22}_{-0.17} \times 10^7 \MSun$ with a total ({\em not} per
880: degree of freedom) $\chi^2_{\min} \approx 290$.
881:
882: The total number of parameters is 27 (LOSVDs) times 13 (velocity
883: bins), which is 351. Typically, the reduced $\chi^2$ is 0.3 to 0.5 in
884: our models \citep{GebEtal03}, which is less than the expected value of
885: unity because of covariance in the LOSVD components. For NGC 4258, the
886: reduced $\chi^2$ is near unity, but most of the contribution to
887: $\chi^2$ comes from the minor axis. The velocity centroid on the minor
888: axis varies much more than the stated uncertainties (see Figure 11),
889: whereas an axisymmetric model would have zero velocity along the minor
890: axis. Regardless of whether this contribution is due to
891: underestimated uncertainties or real non-axisymmetric motion, it is the main
892: cause for the inflated $\chi^2$. Along the major axis, the reduced
893: $\chi^2$ is about 0.4, which is typical for the orbit-based models.
894:
895:
896: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
897:
898: \subsection{Ambiguities in the Deprojection Parameters} \label{AmbigD}
899:
900: \subsubsection{Isophotal Ellipticity $(\epsilon)$} \label{DynModEll}
901: The (projected) ellipticity profile of NGC 4258 is discussed in
902: \S\ref{ObsMorph}. The profile varies with radius, but the origin of
903: the variation (disk, weak bar, genuine variations in the axis ratios
904: of the bulge isodensity spheroids) is not clear. Therefore, although
905: it is possible to incorporate an arbitrary ellipticity profile
906: $\epsilon(r)$ in our modeling algorithm, we preferred instead to make
907: models with a constant ellipticity profile, and examine the extent to
908: which $\MBH$ is affected by the adopted value.
909:
910: For the base model we used $\epsilon=0.35$, corresponding to the mean
911: ellipticity in the radial range $2\arcsec \la r \la 65\arcsec$. The
912: effect of varying $\epsilon$ was examined in model D1, for which we
913: used $\epsilon=0.45$. We obtain $\MBH = 3.48^{+0.42}_{-0.38} \times
914: 10^7 \MSun$, a slightly higher mass but within the same ``1$\sigma$''
915: confidence as the base model.
916:
917: Nonetheless, the assumption of constant ellipticity is clearly
918: problematic because the ellipticity profile varies between $\sim$0.1
919: and $\sim$0.6.
920:
921:
922: \subsubsection{Disk Inclination Angle $(i)$} \label{DynModIncl}
923: We need to know the inclination of the disk to deduce the intrinsic
924: ellipticity of the isophotes from their projected ellipticity, under
925: the assumption that the equatorial plane of the bulge of the galaxy is
926: coplanar with the galactic disk.
927:
928: The outer disk (beyond $r \approx 200\arcsec$) has average and maximum
929: ellipticities of $\epsilon=0.62$ and $0.64$, respectively. If this
930: disk is infinitesimally thin, the corresponding inclination angles are
931: $i=69\arcdeg$ and $70\arcdeg$, respectively, where edge-on corresponds
932: to $i=90\arcdeg$. If this disk were thick with an intrinsic axis ratio
933: of 0.25 \citep{SanFreSto70}, then the corresponding inclinations would
934: be $i=73\arcdeg$ and $75\arcdeg$, respectively. At large radii, the
935: optical PA is 150\arcdeg. \Citet{Alb80}, using H I kinematic
936: observations, derives the same PA and $i=72\arcdeg$, which is
937: consistent with the photometrically derived inclination given the
938: uncertainty in the intrinsic thickness of the disk.
939:
940: We therefore adopted $i=72\arcdeg$ for the base model, but we also
941: examined the sensitivity of $\MBH$ to variations in $i$. Model D2 is
942: identical to the base model except $i=62\arcdeg$, a value close to the
943: lowest inclination angles that we found in the literature. We obtained
944: a $\sim$10\% higher mass, $\MBH = 3.62^{+0.38}_{-0.49} \times 10^7
945: \MSun$ which is consistent with a $\MBH \propto (\sin i)^{-1}$
946: dependence. This would be expected in a rotationally supported
947: system. It appears from our models that the inner part of the galaxy
948: is rotating quite rapidly. For this model, $\chi^2_{\min} = 303$,
949: which is greater than 280, the $\chi^2_{\min}$ for the base
950: model. This could be interpreted as evidence that the base model is
951: more likely to be true, at least within the framework of assumptions
952: of the modeling method.
953:
954: We did not attempt to obtain a better estimate for the errors due to
955: deprojection (by running models for more combinations or $i$ and
956: $\epsilon$) because the uncertainties in the luminosity profiles
957: (\S\ref{AmbigP}) dominate the errors.
958:
959: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
960:
961: \subsection{Ambiguities in the Kinematic Data} \label{AmbigK}
962:
963: In \S\ref{Spectr} we mentioned that the presence of an emission line
964: near the CaT in the nuclear STIS spectrum may have affected the
965: reliability of the LOSVD extraction. In fact, the next two STIS
966: spectra (at $R = 0\farcs05$ and 0\farcs10) show (weaker) signatures of
967: the same emission line, as well. We also mentioned that we have some
968: concerns about the quality of the central LOSVD along the minor axis,
969: in the ground-based data. In this section we remove the suspect LOSVDs
970: from the $\chi^2$ fit, and examine the effect on $\MBH$.
971:
972: In models K1 and K2 we isolate the uncertainty introduced to $\MBH$ by
973: the potentially unreliable LOSVD extraction. Model K1 is identical to
974: the base model, except the nuclear STIS LOSVD is not included as a
975: constraint. In model K2, the three innermost STIS LOSVDs are not
976: included. In model K1, the effect on $\MBH$ is very small. This is
977: reassuring, since it is the nuclear spectrum that would have been
978: affected the most. Model K2 yields a significantly lower $\MBH =
979: 2.20^{+0.54}_{-0.31} \times 10^7 \MSun$ but with a much higher
980: uncertainty, which overlaps with the base model at the
981: $\sim$1.5$\sigma$ level.
982:
983: An interesting question is whether {\slshape HST} spectroscopy is
984: required to find evidence for a black hole. Using ground-based
985: kinematic data alone should, of course, yield a black hole mass
986: consistent with the mass obtained by also including {\slshape HST}
987: data, albeit with larger uncertainties, depending primarily on the
988: angular size of the radius of influence of the black hole on the
989: sky. We address this question for NGC 4258 with model K3, which is
990: identical to the base model, except only ground-based kinematic data
991: are used. It turns out that the stellar $M/L$ ratio can be constrained
992: quite well, but the black hole mass, $\MBH = 1.03^{+1.00}_{-0.28}
993: \times 10^7 \MSun$, is very uncertain. This is not surprising,
994: considering that the radius of influence for the black hole in the
995: base model is $G\MBH/\sigma_e^2 \approx 0\farcs32$, where
996: $\sigma_e=105$ \kms\ is the velocity dispersion in the main body of
997: the bulge. This is substantially smaller than the spatial resolution
998: of the ground-based kinematic data, for which FWHM =
999: 1\arcsec--1\farcs5. Therefore, {\slshape HST} kinematic data are
1000: critical for a well-constrained estimate of the black hole mass in
1001: this galaxy. {\slshape HST} photometric data are also critical for
1002: galaxies where the luminosity profile near the center cannot be
1003: reliably extrapolated from the profile farther out, as is also the
1004: case with this galaxy (unfortunately, it is still not possible to
1005: determine unambiguously the inner mass profile, as discussed in
1006: \S\ref{AmbigP}).
1007:
1008: We also constructed model K4, which uses all kinematic data
1009: (STIS+Modspec) except the central ground-based LOSVD along the minor
1010: axis (the central ground-based LOSVD along the major axis was not
1011: included in {\em any} model). We find that $\MBH$
1012: is essentially identical to that of the base model.
1013:
1014:
1015: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1016:
1017: \subsection{Ambiguities in the Mass and Kinematic Tracer
1018: Profiles} \label{AmbigP}
1019:
1020: In \S\ref{VarML} we saw that stellar population gradients and/or dust
1021: extinction in the innermost $\sim$2\arcsec\ of the galaxy, as well as
1022: light from the unresolved AGN, can induce variations in the measured
1023: stellar $M/L$ ratio near the center of the galaxy. These have to be
1024: taken into account to determine which, if any, of the available
1025: luminosity profiles traces the mass density profile, and which, if
1026: any, corresponds to the luminosity profile of the kinematic tracer
1027: population. The latter profile is needed for the luminosity weighting
1028: (normalization) of the LOSVDs. Unfortunately, we were unable to make
1029: these determinations convincingly, for the reasons explained in
1030: \S\ref{VarML}.
1031:
1032: Consequently, we decided to identify three possible luminosity
1033: profiles, and to make models that use them as either mass or kinematic
1034: tracer profiles. The expectation is that these three profiles
1035: correspond to limiting cases, and that the true profiles lie somewhere
1036: in between. Then, the spread in $\MBH$ that we obtain from these
1037: limiting cases would be a good indication of the $\MBH$ uncertainty
1038: caused by our inability to determine the true profiles.
1039:
1040: The profiles, which are depicted in Figure \ref{CumPhotomCenter}, are
1041: the following:
1042:
1043: (1) {\slshape The $V$ profile:} This is identical to the $V$-band
1044: profile as measured.
1045:
1046: (2) {\slshape The \Vcor\ profile:} This is identical to the $V$
1047: profile, with the three innermost points replaced by a shallower
1048: core, as explained in \S\ref{VarMLla01}.
1049:
1050: (3) {\slshape The \NIRcor\ profile:} For $r > 0\farcs2$, this is
1051: identical to the spliced $J$, $J$+$K$, and $K$ profiles in the top
1052: panel of Figure \ref{CumPhotom}. Inward of 0\farcs2, that profile
1053: is replaced by one that parallels (shows no color gradient with
1054: respect to) the \Vcor\ profile, for the reasons mentioned in
1055: \S\ref{VarMLla01}.
1056:
1057: If the observed color gradient is mostly or entirely due to the
1058: presence of diffuse dust or metallicity, then the \NIRcor\ profile is
1059: a better tracer of mass than the $V$ or the \Vcor\ profiles. However,
1060: the $V$-band profile has higher intrinsic resolution and a dimmer AGN,
1061: and the WFPC2 is better understood photometrically than NICMOS. For
1062: these reasons, we try all three versions as stellar mass profiles.
1063:
1064: The kinematic tracer population was observed in the CaT wavelength,
1065: which lies in the $I$ band. It would thus be natural to use the
1066: $I$-band profile as the kinematic tracer profile. However, we saw in
1067: \S\ref{RedVIData} that the $I$-band image is saturated in the central
1068: 0\farcs09, and thus cannot be deconvolved. The NIR profile shares the
1069: same slope with the $I$-band profile at larger radii (where $I$ is not
1070: saturated), and could arguably be used instead. Unfortunately, it is
1071: also ill-determined near the center due to the AGN and reduced
1072: resolution (\S\ref{VarMLga01}). Consequently, we decided to again test
1073: both \NIRcor\ and \Vcor\ as the kinematic tracer profile, and examine
1074: the induced uncertainty in $\MBH$. For the base model we adopted
1075: \Vcor\ because of its higher resolution and smaller AGN
1076: contamination. This is somewhat arbitrary, but the choice of the
1077: kinematic tracer profile turns out to have a very small effect on
1078: $\MBH$, as we will see below.
1079:
1080: These scenarios were tested in models P1 through P4. Models P1--P3
1081: substitute \NIRcor\ for \Vcor\ in the mass and/or kinematic tracer
1082: profiles, and show that the choice of the stellar mass profile matters
1083: much more than the choice of the tracer profile. When \Vcor\ is used
1084: for the mass profile (base model and P2), $\MBH = 3.31^{+0.22}_{-0.17}
1085: \times 10^7 \MSun$ or $\MBH = 3.33^{+0.18}_{-0.17} \times 10^7 \MSun$,
1086: depending on whether \Vcor\ or \NIRcor\ is used, respectively, for the
1087: tracer profile. These numbers become $2.49^{+0.09}_{-0.10} \times 10^7
1088: \MSun$ and $2.43^{+0.21}_{-0.30} \times 10^7 \MSun$, respectively,
1089: when \NIRcor\ is used for the mass profile (models P1 and P3). The
1090: relative insensitivity to the choice of the tracer profile is not
1091: surprising, considering that, e.g., for a spherical system, the tracer
1092: profile $\nu(r)$ affects mass $M(r)$ within radius $r$ only via
1093: $d\ln\nu/d\ln r$, which by construction is nearly identical for both
1094: \Vcor\ and \NIRcor\ near the center of the galaxy.
1095:
1096: Model P4 substitutes $V$ for \Vcor\ in the mass profile. It yields
1097: $\MBH = 3.25^{+0.22}_{-0.14} \times 10^7 \MSun$, very similar to the
1098: base model, reflecting the fact that the only difference between P4
1099: and the base model is the small luminosity excess within 0\farcs04 of
1100: the nucleus, well below the spatial resolution of the kinematic data
1101: ($\sim$0\farcs1). The stellar $M/L$ ratio is constrained at larger
1102: radii, so that the only difference in the stellar mass profile,
1103: $M_*(r)$, between P4 and the base model is due to this small
1104: luminosity excess. From the $\MBH - M_*(r_0)$ degeneracy, discussed in
1105: \S\ref{VarMLla01}, the only option for the modeling algorithm is to
1106: reduce $\MBH$ by a (small) amount equal to the difference in stellar
1107: mass inside $r_0 \approx 0\farcs1$ between P4 and the base model.
1108:
1109: This point is illustrated in Figure \ref{MassProfile}, which shows the
1110: stellar mass profile, $M_*(r)$, and the total mass profile, $\MBH +
1111: M_*(r)$, for the base model and for models P1 and P4. The mass
1112: profiles of these models correspond to the three profile choices
1113: (\Vcor, \NIRcor, and $V$, respectively) discussed above. It is clear
1114: that dynamic modeling assigns black hole masses to P4 and to the base
1115: model such that they both contain the same total mass inside $r
1116: \simeq 0\farcs04$ (since both models are constrained by the same
1117: kinematic data and the same $V$-band mass profile beyond $r \simeq
1118: 0\farcs04$). This is not the case with model P1 which, although again
1119: constrained by the same kinematic dataset, is characterized by a
1120: different mass profile (\NIRcor) outside of $\sim0\farcs1$, the
1121: spatial resolution of the kinematic data.
1122:
1123:
1124: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1125:
1126: \section{DISCUSSION} \label{discussion}
1127:
1128: The determination of the central black hole mass in NGC 4258 from
1129: stellar dynamics proved harder than anticipated. The main source of
1130: difficulty (and uncertainty in $\MBH$) comes from the presence of a
1131: $V-J$ color gradient in the central $\sim$2\arcsec\ of the galaxy,
1132: which prevents us from determining the stellar mass profile near the
1133: center with confidence. The model that we trust most (``base model''
1134: in Table \ref{ModelTable}) yields $\MBH = 3.31^{+0.22}_{-0.17} \times
1135: 10^7 \MSun$ and assumes that the stellar mass is traced by the
1136: ``corrected'' $V$-band profile, or \Vcor\ (Figure
1137: \ref{CumPhotomCenter}). This is identical to the $V$-band profile
1138: except for the removal of a small luminous ``bump'' in the central
1139: $\sim$0\farcs04, which we attribute to the AGN. Using the uncorrected
1140: $V$-band profile yields a very similar $\MBH = 3.25^{+0.22}_{-0.14}
1141: \times 10^7 \MSun$ (model P4 in Table \ref{ModelTable}). This small
1142: black hole mass ``deficit,'' compared to the base model, corresponds
1143: approximately to the mass of stars in the luminosity ``bump'' and is a
1144: consequence of the degeneracy between stellar mass and black hole mass
1145: very near the center (\S\ref{VarMLla01}; Figure \ref{MassProfile}).
1146:
1147: Using the steeper $J$-band (NIR) profile as the mass tracer (model P1),
1148: we obtain $\MBH = 2.49^{+0.09}_{-0.10}\times10^7 \MSun$, a factor of
1149: 25\% lower than in the base case. Although $V$-band light is more
1150: likely to be compromised as an indicator of the stellar mass
1151: distribution than $J$-band light, due to extinction and metallicity
1152: gradients, we have greater confidence in the base model because (i)
1153: the $V$-band profile is better determined near the center owing to
1154: the higher resolution of the $V$ images, (ii) the AGN is considerably
1155: fainter in $V$ than in $J$, making it easier to subtract, and (iii) the
1156: minimum $\chi^2$ for the base model is 280, significantly less than
1157: the minimum $\chi^2$ for the P1 model using $J$-band data (which was
1158: 303).
1159:
1160: The spread in $\MBH$ introduced by uncertainties in the deprojection
1161: parameters (models D1 and D2) is only of order 10\%, so it is the
1162: uncertainties in the stellar mass profile that dominate the errors.
1163:
1164: After all these sources of error are taken into account, our black
1165: hole mass determination is $\sim$15\% lower than the ``preferred''
1166: maser determination $[(3.82\pm0.01) \times 10^7 \MSun$] and only 7\%
1167: lower than the lowest maser determination $[(3.59\pm0.01) \times 10^7
1168: \MSun]$ (rescaled to our distance for the galaxy). We view this level
1169: of agreement (2$\sigma$) as evidence that stellar dynamical mass
1170: determinations using similar methods to those in this paper, and with
1171: data of comparable quality, are accurate at the 2$\sigma$ level or
1172: better. Our previous work has sought to avoid galaxies with dusty
1173: centers such as NGC 4258. In this case obscuration of high-velocity
1174: stars by the compact nuclear dust patch (\S\ref{RedVIData}), possibly
1175: associated with the masing disk, could be responsible for an
1176: underestimate of the black hole mass in our work. To these problems
1177: should be added possible systematic effects due to deviations from
1178: axisymmetry, which cannot be properly treated by our axisymmetric
1179: modeling code. We also note that the discrepancy between the mass
1180: determination from stellar dynamics and the maser mass determination
1181: in NGC 4258 is smaller than the discrepancy between the stellar
1182: dynamical mass determination and the mass determination from
1183: individual orbits for our own Galaxy, which amounts to about a factor
1184: of two \citep{ChaSah01,GheEtal05}. Most concerns about black hole
1185: mass estimates from stellar dynamics have stressed the likelihood that
1186: the masses are overestimated, whereas here the stellar dynamical mass
1187: is smaller than the maser mass.
1188:
1189: Finally, although we regard the maser mass in NGC 4258 as the gold
1190: standard in black hole masses, it is conceivable, however unlikely,
1191: that some unrecognized effect has led to an overestimate of the mass
1192: determined from maser kinematics.
1193:
1194: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1195:
1196: \acknowledgments
1197:
1198: We are grateful to Eric Becklin and Ranga Chary for providing the
1199: {\slshape HST} NICMOS images, and to Tom Jarrett for providing the
1200: 2MASS images before publication. We thank the referee, Tim de Zeeuw,
1201: for comments that improved the manuscript. C.\ S.\ is grateful to
1202: Seppo Laine and Ranga Chary for useful discussions. Support for
1203: proposal GO--8591 was provided by the National Aeronautics and Space
1204: Administration (NASA) through a grant from the Space Telescope Science
1205: Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for
1206: Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555. Support
1207: for this research was also provided by NASA grant NAG 5-8238 to the
1208: University of Michigan. A.V.F. is grateful for the support of NSF
1209: grant AST--0607485. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC
1210: Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion
1211: Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with
1212: NASA.
1213:
1214:
1215: \appendix
1216:
1217:
1218: \section{Description of the Orbit-Superposition Method}
1219:
1220: For over two decades, orbit-superposition methods have been used to
1221: study the dynamics of galaxies. Originally invented to construct a
1222: model of a triaxial galaxy \citep{sch}, the methods have become the
1223: tool of choice for interpreting data in terms of equilibrium galaxy
1224: models. The most important feature of orbit-superposition models is
1225: that they provide a constructive proof that a given set of photometric
1226: and kinematic data can (or cannot) be reproduced by an equilibrium
1227: stellar system in a specified gravitational field. The computer code
1228: described in this appendix has been used to estimate black hole masses
1229: in galaxies \citep{GebEtal03} and to determine the relative
1230: contributions of dark and luminous matter in elliptical galaxies
1231: \citep{ThoEtal04,ThoEtal05}. It is a descendant of the spherical
1232: program described in \cite{richs88}, but improved in two major
1233: respects: it treats the galaxy as axisymmetric rather than spherical,
1234: and it matches the full LOSVD of the galaxy at specified positions on
1235: the sky, rather than the second moment only. Similar programs have
1236: been developed by \cite{MarEtal98}, \cite{CreEtal99}, and
1237: \cite{ValEtal04}.
1238:
1239: A number of preliminary steps must be taken to convert the reduced
1240: data into inputs for the orbit-superposition method. These include
1241: the deprojection of the observed surface brightness to construct a light
1242: distribution in three-dimensional space and the reduction of spectra
1243: at different locations on the sky to projected velocity
1244: distributions. Both of these activities require additional assumptions
1245: or choices. We normally deproject under the assumption that level
1246: surfaces in stellar density are coaxial spheroids \citep{GebEtal96}
1247: and we normally use a penalized maximum-likelihood estimator to
1248: construct the LOSVDs \citep{GebEtal00a,PinEtal03}. Next we compute the
1249: gravitational field from the three-dimensional light distribution
1250: under the assumption that the mass consists of a black hole of mass
1251: $\MBH$ and stars having a $M/L$ ratio independent of
1252: position. Dark matter can be incorporated into such a model, but we
1253: have not done so here.
1254:
1255:
1256: Once the preliminaries are complete, the calculation of a dynamical
1257: model by this method consists of two steps. First, a library of orbits
1258: is constructed using initial conditions that cover all possible
1259: locations in phase space. Each orbit's contribution to the surface
1260: brightness and projected velocities is logged. Second, the orbits are
1261: combined to match the light distribution and LOSVDs of the galaxy as
1262: well as possible (using $\chi^2$ parameter to assess the goodness of
1263: fit). This procedure is repeated for a set of black hole masses, and
1264: limits on the latter are set from $\chi^2$ as a function of
1265: $\MBH$. Note that although different orbit libraries are required for
1266: each different ratio of $M/L$ to $\MBH$, a single library can be used
1267: for various values of $\MBH$ so long as $M/L$ scales with $\MBH$.
1268:
1269:
1270: \subsection{The Orbit Library}
1271:
1272: We construct the model on a grid in coordinates $r, \eta$ where $r$ is
1273: the radius and $\eta$ is the latitude. We restrict ourselves to
1274: potentials (and mass distributions) symmetric about the equator. The
1275: grid is evenly spaced in $\nu = \sin(\eta)$ from $\nu = 0$ to $1$, and
1276: in $r$ in even intervals in $k$ defined by
1277: \begin{equation}
1278: k = {1 \over a} \log \left( 1 + {a \over b } r \right).
1279: \end{equation}
1280: Bins in $(r,\eta)$ are bounded by the grid points. Below we also use
1281: standard cylindrical coordinates ($\varpi, z$). It is essential to
1282: explore the phase space of orbits with a resolution at least as fine
1283: as the resolution used to construct the models.
1284:
1285: Orbits in axisymmetric potentials always have two isolating integrals,
1286: the energy $E$, and the $z$-axis angular momentum $J_z$.
1287: Regardless of
1288: the possible presence of a third integral, conservation of $E$ and
1289: $J_z$ confine the orbit within a region of $(\varpi, z)$ space
1290: defined by a boundary where the orbits' velocities are zero:
1291: \begin{equation}
1292: \Phi(\varpi,z) + {J_z^2 \over 2 \ \varpi^2} < E.
1293: \end{equation}
1294: \noindent
1295: The allowed volume intersects the equator only over a limited range
1296: in radius with an upper and lower limit. We choose $(E, J_z)$ pairs
1297: so that there is an orbit with upper and lower limits in the middle of
1298: each radial bin. We associate an area with each grid point $(\Delta
1299: E \times \Delta J_z)$ by halving the distance to adjacent grid
1300: points. For each specified $(E, J_z)$, the section of allowed phase
1301: space (we ignore $\phi$ because of the conservation of $J_z$) that
1302: lies on the equator is a two-dimensional surface with coordinates
1303: $\varpi$ and $v_\varpi$ (a surface of section). A regular orbit is
1304: defined by a curve on this surface. We systematically tile this
1305: surface in the manner invented by \cite{ThoEtal04}, launching an
1306: orbit from the center of each bin and assigning a phase space volume
1307: to each orbit by
1308: \begin{equation}
1309: \Delta \Omega =
1310: \Delta E \, \Delta J_z \int T (\varpi, v_\varpi)
1311: d\varpi \times d v_\varpi,
1312: \label{AppdOmega}
1313: \end{equation}
1314: based on the work of \cite{Bin85}, where $T$ is the time between
1315: successive crossings of the equatorial plane.
1316:
1317: The procedure above gives a starting position for each orbit in the
1318: equatorial plane of the model with a well-defined $\varpi$,
1319: $v_\varpi$, $E$, and $J_z$. We use $E$ to determine $v_z$, and we
1320: integrate the motion of the orbit in the $(\varpi, z)$ plane. Assuming
1321: that all orbits cross the equator, it is a complete survey of orbits. We
1322: follow the orbits of stars in spherical coordinates, to take advantage
1323: of the near sphericity of the mass distribution in the region where a
1324: black hole may dominate the gravitational field. Using $r$ as the
1325: radial coordinate, $\eta$ as the equatorial angle, and $\phi$ as the
1326: axial angle, the equations of motion are
1327: \begin{eqnarray}
1328: \frac{dv_r}{dt} & = &
1329: {v_\eta^2 + v_\phi^2 \over r} -
1330: {\partial \Phi \over \partial r}, \\
1331: \frac{dv_\eta}{dt} & = &
1332: -{ v_r v_\eta \over r}
1333: - \tan\eta \, {v_\phi^2 \over r}
1334: - {1 \over r} {\partial \Phi \over \partial \eta}, ~{\rm and} \\
1335: v_\phi & = &
1336: {l_z \over r \cos\eta}.
1337: \end{eqnarray}
1338:
1339: The first two equations are integrated using a standard fourth-order
1340: Runge-Kutta method with variable timestep, and $v_\phi$ is recovered
1341: at each timestep from equation (A6). We obtained good energy
1342: conservation by letting $dt = \epsilon r/v_{circ}(r)$, where $v_{circ}$
1343: is the velocity of a circular orbit at that radius, with $\epsilon$
1344: between 0.01 and 0.1. Orbits are followed for about $100$ crossing
1345: times. We terminate the calculation of an orbit if its energy error exceeds
1346: 1\%. Typical energy errors are 0.1\%.
1347: The potential is set equal to zero at $\infty$.
1348:
1349: The accelerations for the orbit integrations are determined by
1350: decomposing the assumed galaxy density distribution in spherical harmonics.
1351: Specializing immediately to axisymmetry gives
1352: \begin{equation}
1353: \Phi({\bf x}) =
1354: - 4 \pi G \sum_{l=0}^{l_{max}}
1355: \left( A_l r^{-(l+1)}
1356: + B_l r^l \right)
1357: P_l (\nu),
1358: \label{AppPhi}
1359: \end{equation}
1360: with
1361: \begin{eqnarray}
1362: A_l &= &
1363: \int_0^r \left[ \int_0^1 \rho(s,\nu) P_l(\nu) d \nu \right]
1364: s^l s^2 ds, \\
1365: B_l &= &\int_r^\infty \left[ \int_0^1 \rho(s,\nu) P_l(\nu) d \nu \right]
1366: s^{-(l+1)} s^2 ds,
1367: \end{eqnarray}
1368: and where $\nu = \sin\eta$. The gravitational acceleration on the
1369: orbit is determined by differentiating equation \ref{AppPhi} with
1370: respect to $r$ and $\eta$.
1371:
1372: We tested our
1373: expansion in a Kuzmin-Kutusov model \citep{DejDez88} with $a/c=0.5$,
1374: which corresponds to a very flat galaxy (about E5). This model
1375: has analytic density, potential, and accelerations. Truncating the
1376: expansion at $P_6$ accurately reproduces the exact accelerations to
1377: 1\% or better everywhere in the galaxy, so we set $l_{max} = 6$ in
1378: equation (A7).
1379:
1380: The additional acceleration from a mass point is straightforward to
1381: add to the radial component of the accelerations above. We store and
1382: model the galaxy in the angular range $0^\circ \le \eta \le
1383: 90^\circ$. We store the three lowest-order internal moments in each
1384: bin for each orbit (mass $m$, $m {\mathbf v}$, $m{{\mathbf v}{\mathbf
1385: v}}$) for later use.
1386:
1387: Simultaneously, the projected line-of-sight velocities are binned in a
1388: three-dimensional grid in projected radius $R$, angle $\beta$
1389: (measured from the major axis of the galaxy on the plane perpendicular
1390: to the line of sight), and velocity $v$. The
1391: spacing in $R$ and $\beta$ is defined as above. Since the orbits are
1392: being followed in $r$ and $\eta$, $\phi$ is not defined. At each
1393: timestep, in order to project the orbit onto the line of sight, we
1394: choose 100 values of $\phi$, evenly spaced from 0 to $\pi$.
1395:
1396:
1397:
1398: \subsection{Matching the Light Distribution and Observed Dynamics }
1399:
1400: The next step is to find the superposition of orbits consistent with
1401: the stellar mass distribution that best matches the observed LOSVDs.
1402: \cite{richs88} provide an efficient method to match the mass
1403: distribution that can be augmented to minimize $\chi^2$.
1404: Their method maximizes an objective function
1405: \begin{equation}
1406: F = - \sum_i C_i(x_i)
1407: \end{equation}
1408: while satisfying a set of constraints
1409: \begin{equation}
1410: Y_j = \sum_i m_{ij} x_i.
1411: \end{equation}
1412:
1413: We choose to maximize the objective function
1414: \begin{equation}
1415: S - \alpha \, \chi^2 =
1416: - \sum_{i=1}^{N_{orb}}
1417: w_i \log \left({w_i \over \Delta \Omega_i} \right)
1418: - \alpha \sum_{k=1}^{N_d} {(l_k - l_{k,o})^2 \over \sigma_k^2},
1419: \end{equation}
1420: where $w_i$ is the weight of the $i^{th}$ orbit and $l_k$ is the light in
1421: the $k^{th}$ bin in the {\em observational} phase space composed of
1422: the position on the sky and the line of sight velocity. The more
1423: familiar LOSVD is the distribution of light in line of sight velocity
1424: at a single position on the sky. Thus the index $k$ identifies a
1425: small range in both projected velocity and projected position. The
1426: variable $\alpha$ is an adjustable parameter discussed further below.
1427: There are $N_{orb}$ orbits in the orbit library, and $k$ varies from
1428: $1$ to $N_d$, where $N_d$ is the number of positions at which the
1429: LOSVD has been measured times the number of velocity intervals at each
1430: measurement. The first sum in equation (A12) is an entropy,
1431: and the second is a $\chi^2$ that measures the goodness of fit of the
1432: model LOSVDs to the observed LOSVDs. The sum of the orbits must also
1433: match the deprojected (3D) light distribution in the $N_{bin}$ bins:
1434: \begin{equation}
1435: M_j
1436: = \sum_{i=1}^{N_{orb}} m_{ij} w_i \ {\rm for} \ j = 1, N_{bin},
1437: \label{AppL}
1438: \end{equation}
1439: where $m_{ij}$ is the mass contribution of the $i^{th}$ orbit to the
1440: $j^{th}$ bin.
1441:
1442: In order to put equation (A12) in the form of equations (A10) and
1443: (A11), we make the following substitutions and identifications.
1444: First, we define $x_i = w_i$ for $i = 1, N_{orb}$, and add an
1445: additional set of variables that measure the error in the light
1446: projected into each LOSVD bin $x_{N_{orb} + k} = l_k - l_{k,o}$ for $k
1447: = 1, N_d$. Since the light in each bin of the model LOSVDs is
1448: given by the contribution of each orbit to that
1449: {\em projected} velocity and position
1450: there is an additional set of constraint equations
1451: of the form the form
1452: \begin{equation}
1453: l_{k,o} = \sum_{i = 1}^{N_{orb}} m_{ij} w_i - x_j
1454: \ {\rm for} \ j = N_{bin} + 1, N_{bin} + N_d,
1455: \end{equation}
1456: where $k = j - N_{orb}$ and
1457: $m_{ij}$ is the contribution of the $i^{th}$ orbit to the
1458: $k^{th}$ component of the set of LOSVDs.
1459:
1460: Then we have
1461: \begin{eqnarray}
1462: C_i = &
1463: x_i \log \left({x_i / \Delta \Omega_i} \right)
1464: & {\rm for ~} i \le N_{orb} \nonumber \\
1465: C_i = & \alpha x_i^2 / \sigma^2_{i - N_{orb}}
1466: & {\rm for ~} N_{orb} < i \le N_{orb} + N_d
1467: \end{eqnarray}
1468: corresponding to equation (A10) and equations (A13) and (A15)
1469: correspond to equation (A11). Note that for $i > N_{orb}$, $-C_i$ is
1470: maximized at $x_i = 0$. The first set of $C_i$ (for $i \le N_{orb}$)
1471: effectively keep the orbit weights positive. The second set (for $ i >
1472: N_{orb}$) minimizes the components of $\chi^2$. We then use the
1473: method described by \cite{richs88} to iteratively solve the equations.
1474:
1475: An important feature of this problem is the choice of the parameter
1476: $\alpha$. Although we have not devised a method to specify
1477: appropriate values of this parameter in advance, if the quantity
1478: $\chi^2$ reflects a satisfactory accounting of the estimates of
1479: errors in the recovery of the LOSVDs of the target galaxy, then the
1480: choice of $\alpha$ and interpretation of the results is reasonably
1481: straightforward. A small $\alpha$ will generally produce a solution.
1482: Increasing $\alpha$ slowly decreases $\chi^2$ but not beyond some
1483: limit. In practice, we start with $\alpha = 0$ and increase it slowly
1484: until the change in $\chi^2$ is less than 0.02 in a single iteration.
1485:
1486:
1487:
1488: \subsection{A Test with a Black Hole}
1489:
1490: In this case we specify a dynamical model with a
1491: gravitational potential and a distribution function (DF)
1492: for the stars (the starlight need not, and does not,
1493: determine the mass in this model). The gravitational potential is
1494: \begin{equation}
1495: \Phi(r) = v_{\rm circ}^2 \log(r) - {G \MBH \over r}.
1496: \end{equation}
1497: This potential includes a point mass and a flat
1498: circular-velocity curve (with velocity $v_{\rm circ}$) at large $r$.
1499: We investigated Michie-like DFs of the
1500: form
1501: \begin{equation}
1502: f = A \exp \left\{ - \left[ {E + J_z^2/(2 \varpi_a^2)
1503: \over \sigma^2}
1504: \right] \right\}
1505: J_z^{2N}
1506: \sqcap (E_1, E, E_2),
1507: \end{equation}
1508: where $A$ is normalization, $E$ and $J_z$ are energy and angular
1509: momentum, $w
1510: \varpi_a$ (an anisotropy distance), $N$, and $\sigma$ (a velocity
1511: dispersion-like quantity) are model parameters, and $E_1$ and $E_2$ are
1512: upper and lower limits on the energy. The function $\sqcap$
1513: is defined by
1514: \begin{equation}
1515: \sqcap (E_1,E, E_2) =
1516: \left\{
1517: \begin{array}{ll}
1518: 1 & \mbox{if ~~} E_1 \le E \le E_2 \\
1519: 0 & \mbox{otherwise} .
1520: \end{array}
1521: \right.
1522: \end{equation}
1523: The DF can be rewritten as
1524: \begin{equation}
1525: f = \pi A \varpi^{2N} \exp (- \Phi/\sigma^2)
1526: \sqcap(v_1, v_\phi, v_2)
1527: v_\phi^{2N}
1528: \exp(-v_\phi^2/(2 \tilde \sigma^2))
1529: \exp(-t^2/(2 \sigma^2))
1530: d t^2 dv_\phi,
1531: \end{equation}
1532: where $t^2 = v_\varpi^2 + v_z^2$, $\tilde \sigma^2 =
1533: \sigma^2 (\varpi_a^2/(\varpi_a^2 + \varpi^2))$ and
1534: $v_i = \sqrt{2(E_i - \Phi)}$. This function has a number of
1535: interesting properties: $N > 0$ tends to create $v_\phi$ enhanced
1536: anisotropy and a flattened density distribution; $\tilde \varpi_a <
1537: \infty$ tends to depress $v_\phi$ and create a prolate density
1538: distribution. The cutoffs in energy avert a divergence in the
1539: luminous matter distribution near the black hole.
1540:
1541:
1542: The density is
1543: \begin{equation}
1544: \rho = 2 \pi \sigma^2 A
1545: \varpi^{2N} \exp (- \Phi/\sigma^2)
1546: \int _{v_1}^{v_2} v_\phi^{2N}
1547: \exp(-v_\phi^2/(2 \tilde \sigma^2))
1548: [\exp(-t_1^2/(2 \sigma^2)) - \exp(-t_2^2/(2 \sigma^2))]
1549: dv_\phi,
1550: \end{equation}
1551: where $t_2 = v_2^2 - v_\phi^2$ and $t_1 = \max(v_1^2 - v_\phi^2,0)$.
1552:
1553:
1554: Note that the distribution functions with different choices of
1555: parameters can be added to each other (in the same potential) and
1556: similarly the densities and density-weighted moments are additive.
1557: A Monte Carlo realization of the model is constructed by sampling each
1558: density distribution and choosing the velocities
1559: randomly from the velocity distribution. Note that we have the
1560: additional freedom of choosing an arbitrary fraction of the $\phi$
1561: velocities in the positive sense, and hence setting the spin of any
1562: model between a maximum amount and zero. The total number of random
1563: variates chosen sets the normalization.
1564:
1565: For the test here, we adopted a potential with $v_{\rm circ} = 220
1566: \,\mbox{\kms}$ and $\MBH = 1.126 \times 10^8 \MSun$. We added two
1567: DFs. The first had $\sigma = 160 \,\mbox{\kms}$, $\varpi_a = 600
1568: \,\pc$, $N = 0$, $E_1 = \Phi(10 \,\pc)$, $E_2 = \Phi(1000 \,\pc)$,
1569: with equal numbers of the $\phi$ velocities chosen in the positive and
1570: negative sense. The second DF had $\sigma = 120 \,\mbox{\kms}$, $w_a
1571: = 200 \,\pc$, $N = 2$, $E_1 = 10\, \pc$, $E_2 = 1000\, \pc$ and $3/4$ of
1572: the $\phi$ velocities were chosen positive. Each DF was assigned $
1573: 1/2 \times 10^9$ random points, so they had equal mass. The second
1574: DF, featuring a moderately spinning disky structure, dominates the
1575: model near the center of the galaxy, but declines rapidly. The first
1576: DF, a mildly prolate structure with no net spin dominates further out.
1577: No stars are found beyond a radius of $1000\, \pc$ from the center of
1578: the model. The $10^9$ random points each are converted to projected
1579: positions and velocities (we assumed the galaxy was edge on), and
1580: binned into ``observations'' mimicing our combined HST and ground-based data,
1581: and also producing data mimicing data that would be obtained with an
1582: integral field unit. For the example below we used the IFU data with
1583: a resolution of $10 \pc$ at the center, and lower resolution data
1584: extending to a distance of $800\, \pc$ from the center. At each
1585: location the projected velocity variates were binned at a resolution
1586: of $20 \,\mbox{\kms}$. Gaussian noise was added to the data, in a
1587: series of 20 realizations. These datasets were then fed into the
1588: modeling program, which produced (in each case) a $\chi^2$ map in
1589: $v_{\rm circ}$ and $\MBH$.
1590:
1591: Marginalizing over each variable in turn produced the determinations
1592: of $\MBH$ and $v_{\rm circ}$ illustrated in Figure 17. Each dataset had
1593: LOSVDs at 32 positions with 15 velocity bins, a product of 480. For
1594: each realization of this set, the best-fit model had a $\chi^2$ near
1595: $500$. Since the velocity bins are uncorrelated in these datasets
1596: this is about the expected $\chi^2$. For the presentation in Figure
1597: 17 the plots of $\chi^2$ against black hole mass and $v_{\rm circ}$ were
1598: arbitrarily shifted to a minimum of $500$. The error bars judged from
1599: the individual $\chi^2$ profiles are about $20 \%$ smaller than the
1600: error (above) determined from the spread in minima. The mean values
1601: of $\MBH$ and $v_{\rm circ}$ from these experiments were $(1.15 \pm 0.03)
1602: \times 10^8 \MSun$ and $222 \pm 5 \,\mbox{\kms}$, in excellent
1603: agreement with the target values.
1604:
1605: An earlier version of the code suffered from a units conversion error
1606: that led to an underestimate of black hole masses (and $M/L$). All
1607: black hole masses obtained with this program published in or prior
1608: to 2003 should be multiplied by $1.09$.
1609:
1610:
1611: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1612: % BIBLIOGRAPHY
1613: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1614:
1615: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1616:
1617: \bibitem[Binney, Gerhard, \& Hut(1985)]{Bin85} Binney, J., Gerhard, O. E., \& Hut, P. 1985, \mnras, 215, 59
1618: \bibitem[Blandford \& McKee(1982)]{BlaMcK82} Blandford, R. D., \& McKee, C. F. 1982, \apj, 255, 419
1619: \bibitem[Bower et al.(2001)]{BowEtal01} Bower, G. A., et al. 2001, \apj, 550, 75
1620: \bibitem[Cappellari et al.(2002)]{CapEtal02} Cappellari, M., et al. 2002, \apj, 578, 787
1621: \bibitem[Cecil et al.(2000)]{CecEtal00} Cecil, G., Greenhill, L. J., DePree, C. G., Nagar, N., Wilson, A. S., Dopita, M. A.. P\'erez-Fournon, I., Argon, A. L., \& Moran, J. M. 2000, \apj, 536, 675
1622: \bibitem[Chakrabarty \& Saha(2001)]{ChaSah01} Chakrabarty, D., \&
1623: Saha, P. 2001, \apj, 122, 232
1624: \bibitem[Chary et al.(2000)]{ChaEtal00} Chary, R., et al. 2000, \apj, 531, 756
1625: \bibitem[Contopoulos(1956)]{Con56} Contopoulos, G. 1956, Zeitschrift f\"ur Astrophysik, 39, 126
1626: \bibitem[Cretton et al.(1999)]{CreEtal99} Cretton, N., de Zeeuw, P. T., van der Marel, R. P., \& Rix, H.-W. 1999, \apjs, 124, 383
1627: \bibitem[Dejonghe \& de Zeeuw(1988)]{DejDez88} Dejonghe, H., \& de Zeeuw, P. T. 1988, \apj, 333, 90
1628: \bibitem[Fish(1961)]{Fis61} Fish, R. A. 1961, \apj, 134, 880
1629: \bibitem[Gebhardt et al.(1996)]{GebEtal96} Gebhardt, K., et al. 1996,
1630: \aj, 112, 105
1631: \bibitem[Gebhardt et al.(2000a)]{GebEtal00a} Gebhardt, K., et
1632: al. 2000a, \aj, 119, 1157
1633: \bibitem[Gebhardt et al.(2000b)]{GebEtal00b} Gebhardt, K., et
1634: al. 2000b, \apjl, 538, 5
1635: \bibitem[Gebhardt et al.(2003)]{GebEtal03} Gebhardt, K., et al. 2003,
1636: \apj, 583, 92
1637: \bibitem[Gerhard et al.(1993)]{Ger93} Gerhard, O. E. 1993, \mnras, 265, 213
1638: \bibitem[Ghez et al.(2005)]{GheEtal05} Ghez, A. M., et al. 2005,
1639: \apjl, 620, 744
1640: \bibitem[Herrnstein et al.(1999)]{HerEtal99} Herrnstein, J. R., et
1641: al. 1999, \nat, 400, 539
1642: \bibitem[Herrnstein et al.(2005)]{HerEtal05} Herrnstein, J. R., et al. 2005, \apj, 629, 719
1643: \bibitem[Ho(1999)]{Ho99} Ho, L. C. 1999, \apj, 516, 672
1644: \bibitem[Ho(2008)]{Ho08} Ho, L. C. 2008, \araa, 46, 475
1645: \bibitem[Ho et al.(1997)]{HoEtal97} Ho, L. C., Flippenko, A. V., \& Sargent, W. L. W. 1997, \apjs, 112, 315
1646: \bibitem[Jarrett et al.(2003)]{JarEtal03} Jarrett, T. H., Chester, T.,
1647: Cutri, R., Schneider, S., \& Huchra, J. 2003, \aj, 125, 525
1648: \bibitem[Kormendy(1982)]{Kor82} Kormendy, J. 1982, in Morphology and Dynamics of Galaxies, ed. L. Martinet \& M. Mayor (Sauverny: Geneva Observatory), p. 113
1649: \bibitem[Kormendy(1983)]{Kor83} Kormendy, J. 1983, \apj, 275, 529
1650: \bibitem[Kormendy(1984)]{Kor84} Kormendy, J. 1984, \apj, 286, 132
1651: \bibitem[Kormendy \& Richstone(1992)]{Kor92} Kormendy, J., \& Richstone, D. 1992, \apj, 393, 559
1652: \bibitem[Kormendy \& Richstone(1995)]{Kor95} Kormendy, J., \& Richstone, D. 1995, \araa, 33, 581
1653: \bibitem[Lauer, Stover, \& Terndrup(1983)]{Lau83} Lauer, T. R., Stover,
1654: R. J., \& Terndrup, D. M. 1983, The VISTA User's Guide (Lick
1655: Observatory Tech. Rept. No. 34).
1656: \bibitem[Lauer(1985)]{Lau85} Lauer, T. R. 1985, \apjs, 57, 473
1657: \bibitem[Lauer(1986)]{Lau86} Lauer, T. R. 1986, \apj, 311, 34
1658: \bibitem[Lauer(1999a)]{Lau99a} Lauer, T. R. 1999a, \pasp, 111, 227
1659: \bibitem[Lauer(1999b)]{Lau99b} Lauer, T. R. 1999b, \pasp, 111, 1434
1660: \bibitem[Leitherer et al.(2001)]{LeiEtal01} Leitherer, C., et al. 2001, STIS Instrument Handbook, Version 5.1 (Baltimore: STScI)
1661: \bibitem[Lucy(1974)]{Luc74} Lucy, L. B., 1974, \aj, 79, 745
1662: \bibitem[Magorrian \& Binney(1994)]{Mag94} Magorrian, J., \& Binney,
1663: J. 1994, \mnras, 271, 949
1664: \bibitem[Marconi et al.(2006)]{MarEtal06} Marconi, A., et al. 2006,
1665: \aap, 448, 921
1666: \bibitem[Miyoshi et al.(1995)]{MiyEtal95} Miyoshi, M., et al. 1995,
1667: \nat, 373, 127
1668: \bibitem[Netzer \& Peterson(1997)]{NetPet97} Netzer, H., \& Peterson, B. M. 1997, in Astronomical Time Series, ed. D. Maoz, A. Sternberg \& E. M. Leibowitz (Dordrecht: Kluwer), p. 85
1669: \bibitem[Pastorini et al.(2007)]{past07} Pastorini, G. 2007, \aap,
1670: 469, 405
1671: \bibitem[Peterson(1993)]{Pet93} Peterson, B. M. 1993, \pasp, 105, 247
1672: \bibitem[Pinkney et al.(2003)]{PinEtal03} Pinkney, J., et al. 2003, \apj, 2003, \apj, 596, 903
1673: \bibitem[Richardson(1972)]{Ric72} Richardson, W. H. 1972, J. Opt. Soc. A., 62, 52
1674: \bibitem[Richstone \& Tremaine(1988)]{richs88} Richstone, D. O., \& Tremaine, S. D. 1988, \apj, 327, 82
1675: \bibitem[Sandage, Freeman, \& Stokes(1970)]{SanFreSto70} Sandage, A., Freeman, K. C., \& Stokes, N. R. 1970, \apj, 160, 831
1676: \bibitem[Schwarzschild(1979)]{sch} Schwarzschild, M. 1979, \apj, 232, 236
1677: \bibitem[Seigar et al.(2002)]{SeiEtal02} Seigar, M., Carollo, C. M., Stiavelli, M., de Zeeuw, P. T., \& Dejonghe, H. 2002, \aj, 123, 184
1678: \bibitem[Silge \& Gebhardt(2003)]{SilGeb03} Silge, J. D., \& Gebhardt, K. 2003, \aj, 125, 2809
1679: \bibitem[Silge et al.(2005)]{SilEtal05} Silge, J. D., Gebhardt, K., Bergmann, M., Richstone, D. 2005, \aj, 130, 406
1680: \bibitem[Thomas et al.(2004)]{ThoEtal04} Thomas, J., et al. 2004, \mnras, 353, 391
1681: \bibitem[Thomas et al.(2005)]{ThoEtal05} Thomas, J., et al. 2005, \mnras, 360, 1355
1682: \bibitem[Tonry et al.(2001)]{TonEtal01} Tonry, J. L., et al. 2001, \apj, 546, 681
1683: \bibitem[Tremaine et al.(1994)]{etamod} Tremaine, S., et al. 1994, \aj, 107, 634
1684: \bibitem[Valluri et al.(2004)]{ValEtal04} Valluri, M., Merritt, D., \& Emsellem, E. 2004, \apj, 602, 66
1685: \bibitem[van Albada(1980)]{Alb80} van Albada, G. D. 1980, \aap, 90, 123
1686: \bibitem[van der Marel et al.(1998)]{MarEtal98} van der Marel, R. P., Cretton, N., de Zeeuw, P., \& Rix, H.-W. 1998, \apj, 493, 613
1687: \bibitem[van der Marel \& Franx(1993)]{MarFra93} van der Marel, R. P., \& Franx, M. 1993, \apj, 407, 525
1688: \bibitem[Verdoes Kleijn et al.(2000)]{VerEtal00} Verdoes Kleijn, G. A., van der Marel, R. P., Carollo, C. M., \& de Zeeuw, P. T. 2000, \aj, 120, 1221
1689: \end{thebibliography}
1690:
1691: \clearpage
1692:
1693: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1694: % FIGURES
1695: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1696: % Fig GroundImages-NIR
1697:
1698: \begin{figure}
1699:
1700:
1701: \caption{Ground-based NIR images of NGC 4258 identifying
1702: large-scale morphological characteristics of the galaxy: The bulge
1703: (PA $\simeq$ 146\arcdeg), which is embedded in the inner oval disk
1704: (PA $\simeq$ 156\arcdeg); the weak bar (PA $\simeq$ 11\arcdeg); and
1705: the outer oval disk (PA $\simeq$ 150\arcdeg).
1706: {\slshape Top
1707: left:} 2MASS composite $J$+$H$+$K$ image. Intensity is
1708: proportional to the square root of surface brightness to illustrate
1709: the bulge and the small bar. The scale is 1\arcsec\ pixel$^{-1}$ and
1710: the image size is $17\farcm1 \times 17\farcm1$. {\slshape Top
1711: right:} As before, but intensity is proportional to surface
1712: brightness; the inner oval disk is now saturated and the outer oval
1713: disk becomes more prominent. {\slshape Bottom left:} $K$-band image
1714: using SQUID on the KPNO 2.1-m telescope. Intensity is proportional
1715: to the square root of surface brightness to illustrate the
1716: bulge. The scale is 0\farcs69~pixel$^{-1}$ and the image size is
1717: $5\farcm9 \times 5\farcm9$. {\slshape Bottom right:} As before, but
1718: intensity is proportional to surface brightness to illustrate the
1719: weak bar. \label{GroundImages-NIR}}
1720:
1721: \end{figure}
1722:
1723:
1724: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1725: % Fig HSTImages-NIR
1726:
1727: \begin{figure}
1728:
1729: \begin{center}
1730: \plottwo{f2a.eps}{f2b.eps}
1731: \end{center}
1732:
1733: \caption{{\slshape HST} NICMOS images of NGC 4258 in the $J$ band
1734: (F110W) (left) and in the $K$ band (F222M) (right), from
1735: \citet{ChaEtal00}. In both images, the scale and size are
1736: $\sim$0\farcs038 pixel$^{-1}$ and $\sim21\arcsec \times
1737: 21\arcsec$, respectively. The images are not deconvolved. Intensity is
1738: proportional to the square root of surface brightness. A band of data
1739: is missing on the right side of the $K$-band image. For the extraction
1740: of stellar mass profiles from these images, the dust on the SW side
1741: was corrected by replacing the SW side of the galaxy with the NE side
1742: flipped across the major axis. \label{HSTImages-NIR}}
1743:
1744: \end{figure}
1745:
1746:
1747: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1748: % Fig PSF
1749:
1750: \begin{figure}
1751:
1752: \begin{center}
1753: \includegraphics[scale=0.2]{f3a.eps}
1754: \includegraphics[scale=0.2]{f3b.eps}
1755:
1756: \includegraphics[scale=0.2]{f3c.eps}
1757: \includegraphics[scale=0.2]{f3d.eps}
1758: \end{center}
1759:
1760: \caption{{\slshape HST} NICMOS $K$-band images of the central
1761: $5\farcs7 \times 5\farcs7$ of NGC 4258, adapted from the images
1762: provided by \citet{ChaEtal00}. North is up, and East is to the
1763: left. {\slshape Top left:} The TinyTim model PSF shown at a
1764: nonlinear stretch (higher contrast at lower surface brightnesses) to
1765: emphasize the small-scale features. {\slshape Top right:} Same as
1766: before, but now scaled to the galaxy image and at the same linear
1767: stretch as in bottom row. {\slshape Bottom left:} The galaxy before
1768: PSF subtraction; the AGN is evident. {\slshape Bottom right:} The
1769: adopted PSF-subtracted galaxy image that was used to provide the
1770: central brightness profile in the $K$ band. In the end, the AGN
1771: could not be subtracted well enough in $K$, and the $J$-band profile
1772: was used for $r<0\farcs2$. \label{PSF}}
1773:
1774: \end{figure}
1775:
1776:
1777: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1778: % Fig CumPhotom
1779:
1780: \begin{figure}
1781:
1782: \begin{center}
1783: \plotone{f4.eps}
1784: \end{center}
1785:
1786: \caption{NGC 4258 major-axis surface photometry {\em after}
1787: subtraction of prominent dust lanes, and correction for the AGN. The
1788: radius ($r$) is measured along the major axis. All {\slshape HST}
1789: profiles are deconvolved for $r<3\arcsec$. {\slshape Top:} NIR ($J$,
1790: $J$+$K$, $K$) and optical ($V$, $R$) surface brightness
1791: profiles. The $R$-band profile is calibrated using the {\slshape
1792: HST} $V$-band zeropoint between $r \simeq 5\arcsec$ and
1793: 7\arcsec. The NIR profiles are scaled to match the optical profile
1794: at large radii to illustrate the absence of major color gradients in
1795: the disk. The almost power-law profile at $r \la 40\arcsec$ belongs
1796: to the bulge. Only data out to $r \approx 150\arcsec$ are used for
1797: the dynamical modeling. {\slshape Middle:} The ellipticity as a
1798: function of radius. {\slshape Bottom:} The position angle of the
1799: major axis as a function of radius. \label{CumPhotom}}
1800:
1801: \end{figure}
1802:
1803:
1804: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1805: % Fig GroundImages-R
1806:
1807: \begin{figure}
1808:
1809:
1810: \caption{Ground-based image of NGC 4258 in the $R$ band taken with the MDM 1.3-m McGraw Hill telescope. The square is centered on the nucleus, and is 8\arcsec\ on a side. The scale of the CCD was 0\farcs508 pixel$^{-1}$. A logarithmic stretch has been applied, and set to prevent ``overexposure'' of the bulge region. \label{GroundImages-R}}
1811:
1812: \end{figure}
1813:
1814:
1815: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1816: % Fig HSTImages-V
1817:
1818: \begin{figure}
1819:
1820: \begin{center}
1821: \plotone{f6.eps}
1822: \end{center}
1823:
1824: \caption{{\slshape HST} WFPC2 image of NGC 4258. The large panel shows
1825: the central $256 \times 256$ pixels of the deconvolved F547M
1826: Nyquist-sampled image. It corresponds to $128 \times 128$ PC1
1827: pixels, or $5\farcs84 \times 5\farcs84$. An arbitrary logarithmic
1828: stretch has been applied. The small upper-right panel is the central
1829: $1\farcs48 \times 1\farcs48$ ($64 \times 64$ subpixels) of the same
1830: image, magnified by a factor of 2 compared to the larger panel. Again a
1831: logarithmic stretch has been applied, but with greater contrast over
1832: the nuclear region. The bottom-right panel shows the same region
1833: divided by a model reconstructed from the surface photometry. North
1834: is up and East to the left. \label{HSTImages-V}}
1835:
1836: \end{figure}
1837:
1838:
1839: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1840: % Fig ColorMap
1841:
1842: \begin{figure}
1843:
1844:
1845: \caption{Color map of the nuclear region of NGC 4258. It corresponds
1846: approximately to $V-I$, and was created from the ratio of the F547M
1847: image to the F791W image. Darker is redder. The map size is
1848: $8\farcs0 \times 7\farcs2$. The F791W image had each pixel resampled
1849: into 4 pixels to match the F547M image, and was then
1850: boxcar-smoothed. The central blue spike is not accurate because the
1851: center is saturated in the F791W data, and the F547M and F791W
1852: images are not perfectly aligned. \label{ColorMap}}
1853:
1854: \end{figure}
1855:
1856:
1857: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1858: % Fig HSTImages-color
1859:
1860: \begin{figure}
1861:
1862:
1863: \caption{Color composite image of NGC 4258. Red corresponds to F791W, green to F656W, and blue to F300W. The image has a size of $476 \times 526$ pixels, with a scale of 0.0455\arcsec~pix$^{-1}$. North is up, and East to the left. \label{HSTImages-color}}
1864:
1865: \end{figure}
1866:
1867:
1868: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1869: % Fig SpectraHST
1870:
1871: \begin{figure}
1872:
1873: \begin{center}
1874: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f9.eps}
1875: \end{center}
1876:
1877: \caption{Sample STIS spectra extracted from the central and two outer
1878: spatial bins on the approaching (SE) side of the galaxy, as well as
1879: of the template star HR 7615 which was used for the LOSVD
1880: deconvolution. The smooth solid lines superimposed on the galaxy
1881: spectra are the template stellar spectra convolved with the derived
1882: LOSVDs. The emission-line feature (probably Fe II) in
1883: the nuclear spectrum (dotted) was subtracted before the LOSVD
1884: analysis was performed. \label{SpectraHST}}
1885:
1886: \end{figure}
1887:
1888:
1889: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1890: % Fig SpectraGround
1891:
1892: \begin{figure}
1893:
1894: \begin{center}
1895: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f10.eps}
1896: \end{center}
1897:
1898: \caption{As Figure \ref{SpectraHST} but for the ground-based spectra
1899: obtained with Modspec at MDM. \label{SpectraGround}}
1900:
1901: \end{figure}
1902:
1903:
1904: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1905: % Fig VSigmaH3H4
1906:
1907: \begin{figure}
1908:
1909: \begin{center}
1910: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f11.eps}
1911: \end{center}
1912:
1913: \caption{Gauss-Hermite moments of the symmetrized LOSVDs as a function
1914: of position for the data and one model. Black filled circles are
1915: from the STIS data on the major axis. Red open circles are ground-based
1916: major axis data. Green triangles are ground-based
1917: minor axis data. The solid lines represent the analogous quantities
1918: derived from the LOSVDs of the base model described in \S 5.1.
1919: \label{VSigmaH3H4}}
1920:
1921: \end{figure}
1922:
1923:
1924: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1925: % Fig CumPhotomCenter
1926:
1927: \begin{figure}
1928:
1929: \begin{center}
1930: \plotone{f12.eps}
1931: \end{center}
1932:
1933: \caption{NGC 4258 major-axis surface photometry: the central
1934: 10\arcsec. Photometric calibration is as in Figure
1935: \ref{CumPhotom}. For $r \la 2\arcsec$ there is a color gradient
1936: between the $V$ and the NIR ($J$, $J$+$K$, and $K$ spliced together)
1937: profiles. The \Vcor\ profile is identical to $V$ except the inner
1938: three points are replaced with an arbitrary ``core'' profile. The
1939: \NIRcor\ profile is created from NIR by replacing the points inward of
1940: $r=0\farcs2$ with points that follow the \Vcor\ profile, shifted by an
1941: amount equal to the color difference between NIR and \Vcor\ at
1942: $r=0\farcs2$. All profiles extend to $r>10\arcsec$ as shown in Figure
1943: \ref{CumPhotom}. In the \NIRcor\ and \Vcor\ plots, only the points
1944: that differ from the NIR and $V$ profiles, respectively, are
1945: shown. \NIRcor\ and \Vcor\ are used to probe the effect of an
1946: unresolved AGN on the black hole mass, as discussed in \S\ref{AmbigP};
1947: they are meant to represent limiting cases, \emph{not} accurate
1948: corrections to the AGN contamination. \label{CumPhotomCenter}}
1949:
1950: \end{figure}
1951:
1952:
1953: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1954: % Fig EW
1955:
1956: \begin{figure}
1957:
1958: \begin{center}
1959: \plotone{f13.eps}
1960: \end{center}
1961:
1962: \caption{Equivalent width (EW) profiles along the major axis for each component of the \ion{Ca}{2} triplet (CaT) line, and for the sum of their EWs. All data points are computed from the STIS spectrum. The subtraction of the emission line near the center (see Figure \ref{SpectraHST}) may have affected the EW estimate for the 8662 \AA\ component. The 8498 \AA\ component, although furthest away from the emission line, has a low S/N and hence its EW profile may be less reliable. Furthermore, the S/N of the spectra drops rapidly with increasing radius. Nevertheless, the summed profile shows clearly that the spectrum within $r < 0\farcs2$ is contaminated at the $\sim 30\%$ level by some source of smooth, lineless continuum light, such as an AGN or OB stars. The positive-$r$ direction corresponds to the approaching (SE) side of the galaxy. \label{EW}}
1963:
1964: \end{figure}
1965:
1966: \clearpage
1967:
1968: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1969: % Fig Models
1970:
1971: \begin{figure}
1972:
1973: \begin{center}
1974: \plotone{f14a.eps}
1975: \plotone{f14b.eps}
1976: \end{center}
1977:
1978: \caption{{\slshape Left:} Contour maps of $\chi^2(\MBH,\ML)$ for the
1979: dynamical models bearing the parameters listed in Table
1980: \ref{ModelTable}. Model names are as in Table \ref{ModelTable}. The
1981: stellar $M/L$ ratio ($\ML$) refers to the $V$ band. Each dot
1982: represents a model, and dot size is proportional to the value of
1983: $\chi^2$ for that model. The symbol ``+'' corresponds to the
1984: ``best'' model ($\chi^2_{\rm min}$). The symbol ``X''
1985: corresponds to the minimum interpolated $\chi^2$.
1986: The contour levels are drawn for
1987: $\Delta\chi^2 \equiv \chi^2-\chi^2_{\rm min;int} =$ 1.0 (dashed),
1988: 2.71, 4.0, and 6.63, corresponding to confidence levels of 68\%,
1989: 90\%, 95\%, and 99\%, respectively, for one degree of freedom. The
1990: horizontal and vertical solid lines indicate the nominal
1991: ``1$\sigma$'' one-dimensional uncertainties. The vertical dashed line
1992: indicates the maser mass. {\slshape Right:} Values of $\chi^2_{\rm
1993: min;int}$ marginalized over the $\ML$ axis. The horizontal dashed
1994: line indicates the $\Delta\chi^2=1$ level.
1995: \label{ModelPlots}}
1996:
1997: \end{figure}
1998:
1999: \begin{figure}
2000: \figurenum{\ref{ModelPlots}}
2001: \begin{center}
2002: \plotone{f14c.eps}
2003: \plotone{f14d.eps}
2004: \end{center}
2005: \caption{Continued}
2006: \end{figure}
2007:
2008: \begin{figure}
2009: \figurenum{\ref{ModelPlots}}
2010: \begin{center}
2011: \plotone{f14e.eps}
2012: \plotone{f14f.eps}
2013: \end{center}
2014: \caption{Continued}
2015: \end{figure}
2016:
2017: \begin{figure}
2018: \figurenum{\ref{ModelPlots}}
2019: \begin{center}
2020: \plotone{f14g.eps}
2021: \plotone{f14h.eps}
2022: \end{center}
2023: \caption{Continued}
2024: \end{figure}
2025:
2026: \begin{figure}
2027: \figurenum{\ref{ModelPlots}}
2028: \begin{center}
2029: \plotone{f14i.eps}
2030: \plotone{f14j.eps}
2031: \end{center}
2032: \caption{Continued}
2033: \end{figure}
2034:
2035: \begin{figure}
2036: \figurenum{\ref{ModelPlots}}
2037: \begin{center}
2038: \plotone{f14k.eps}
2039: \end{center}
2040: \caption{Continued}
2041: \end{figure}
2042:
2043: \clearpage
2044:
2045:
2046: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2047: % Fig moments
2048:
2049: \begin{figure}
2050:
2051: \begin{center}
2052: \plotone{f15.eps}
2053: \end{center}
2054:
2055: \caption{
2056: Internal moments of the baseline model in the equatorial plane.
2057: The red line illustrates the mean rotational velocity
2058: $\langle v_\phi \rangle$ and the dotted line is the
2059: velocity dispersion in the $\phi$ direction
2060: $\sigma_\phi = \sqrt{ \langle v_\phi^2 \rangle -
2061: \langle v_\phi \rangle ^2}$.
2062: The solid line is the radial dispersion $\sigma_r$
2063: and the dashed line is $\sigma_\theta$.
2064: \label{Internalmoments}}
2065:
2066: \end{figure}
2067:
2068:
2069: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2070: % Fig mass profile
2071: \begin{figure}
2072:
2073: \begin{center}
2074: \plotone{f16.eps}
2075: \end{center}
2076:
2077: \caption{The enclosed stellar mass $M_*$ (top row), and the sum of the
2078: black hole mass and the enclosed stellar mass $\MBH+M_*$ (bottom
2079: row), as a function of model radius. The base model and model P4 are
2080: constrained by the same kinematic dataset, and they share the same
2081: mass $V$-band profile for $r > 0\farcs04$ (see Table
2082: \ref{ModelTable}). Because of the degeneracy between $\MBH$ and
2083: $M_*$ within a small radius $r_0 \approx 0\farcs1$ from the center,
2084: comparable to the spatial resolution of the kinematic data, the
2085: modeling algorithm can only constrain the total mass inside that
2086: radius. As a result, model P4 is assigned a slightly lower $\MBH$ to
2087: compensate for the excess mass contained in the central ``bump'' of
2088: its mass profile. Model P1 is characterized by the \NIRcor\ mass
2089: profile, which differs from that of both P4 and the base model at
2090: $r > r_0$. \label{MassProfile}}
2091:
2092: \end{figure}
2093:
2094:
2095: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2096:
2097: \begin{figure}
2098:
2099:
2100: % Fig Appendix MCtest
2101:
2102: \begin{center}
2103: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.7]{f17.eps}
2104: \end{center}
2105:
2106: \caption{$\chi^2$ profiles of orbit-based models of the Monte Carlo
2107: model described in the Appendix A.3. The left panel illustrates the
2108: recovery of the circular velocity of the potential for 20 different
2109: realizations of its LOSVDs. The right panel illustrates the
2110: recovery of the black hole mass from the same set of
2111: realizations. The plots in each panel are marginalized over the
2112: variable in the other panel. The mean of the derived black hole
2113: masses is $1.15 \times 10^8 \MSun$, consistent with the model
2114: mass. \label{MCtest}}
2115:
2116: \end{figure}
2117:
2118: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2119: % TABLES
2120: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2121: % Table PhotoDataTable
2122:
2123: \begin{deluxetable}{lccl}
2124: \tablewidth{0pt}
2125: \tablecaption{\sc Journal of Imaging Observations of NGC 4258 \label{PhotoDataTable}}
2126: \tablehead{
2127: \colhead{Instrument} &
2128: \colhead{Filter/Band} &
2129: \colhead{Radial Range} &
2130: \colhead{Source}
2131: }
2132: \startdata
2133: {\slshape HST} NICMOS\tablenotemark{a} & F110W, F160W, F222M\tablenotemark{b} & $r < 9\arcsec$ & \citet{ChaEtal00} \\
2134: KPNO\tablenotemark{c} \, 2.1-m & $K$ & $2\arcsec \leq r < 32\arcsec$ & This paper \\
2135: 2MASS\tablenotemark{d} & $J$, $H$, $K$ & $r \ge 32\arcsec$ & \citet{JarEtal03} \\
2136: {\slshape HST} WFPC2\tablenotemark{e} & F791W\tablenotemark{f} & $r < 9\arcsec$ & \cite{CecEtal00} \\
2137: MDM 1.3-m & $R$ & $r \ge 9\arcsec$ & This paper \\
2138: {\slshape HST} WFPC2 & F547M\tablenotemark{g} & $r < 9\arcsec$ & This paper \\
2139: \enddata
2140: \tablenotetext{a}{Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer.}
2141: \tablenotetext{b}{Corresponding, approximately, to the $J$, $H$, and $K$ bandpasses, respectively.}
2142: \tablenotetext{c}{Kitt Peak National Observatory.}
2143: \tablenotetext{d}{Two Micron All Sky Survey.}
2144: \tablenotetext{e}{Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2.}
2145: \tablenotetext{f}{Corresponding, approximately, to the $I$ bandpass.}
2146: \tablenotetext{g}{Corresponding, approximately, to the $V$ bandpass.}
2147: \end{deluxetable}
2148:
2149:
2150: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2151: % Table SpectrConfigsTable
2152:
2153: \begin{deluxetable}{llllccc}
2154: \tablewidth{0pt}
2155: \tablecaption{\sc Long-Slit Spectrograph Configurations \label{SpectrConfigsTable}}
2156: \tablehead{
2157: \colhead{Instrument \tablenotemark{a}} &
2158: \colhead{Slit size} &
2159: \colhead{$\lambda_{\mbox{cen}}$ \tablenotemark{b}} &
2160: \colhead{$\lambda$-range \tablenotemark{b}} &
2161: \colhead{Disp$^{-1}$ \tablenotemark{c}} &
2162: \colhead{Comp.\ line $\sigma$ \tablenotemark{d}} &
2163: \colhead{Scale \tablenotemark{e}} \\
2164: \colhead{+ grating} &
2165: \colhead{$\arcsec \times \arcsec$} &
2166: \colhead{\AA} &
2167: \colhead{\AA} &
2168: \colhead{\AA\ pix$^{-1}$} &
2169: \colhead{\AA\ (\kms)} &
2170: \colhead{\arcsec ~pix$^{-1}$}
2171: }
2172: \startdata
2173: STIS + G750M & \phn52$\times$0.1 & 8561 & 8275--8847 & 0.554 & 0.45 (12.4) & 0.051 \\
2174: Wilbur + 831g/mm & 540$\times$0.9 & 8500 & 8100--9020 & 0.90\phn & 0.9 (32) & 0.37\phn \\
2175: Echelle + 831g/mm & 540$\times$0.9 & 8500 & 8100--9020 & 1.46\phn & 0.9 (32) & 0.59\phn
2176: \enddata
2177: \tablenotetext{a}{Wilbur and Echelle are two of the CCDs used on the
2178: Modspec instrument at the MDM 2.4-m telescope.}
2179: \tablenotetext{b}{Central wavelength and wavelength range. STIS values
2180: taken from the STIS Instrument Handbook \citep[pp.\ 231,
2181: 234]{LeiEtal01}. For Modspec, we show the range extracted.}
2182: \tablenotetext{c}{Reciprocal dispersion was measured using our own
2183: wavelength solutions. The distribution of dispersion solutions for a
2184: given dataset had a $\sigma \approx 0.00015$~\AA\ pix$^{-1}$. The
2185: average dispersion given in the Handbook for G750M is 0.56~\AA\
2186: pix$^{-1}$.} \tablenotetext{d}{Instrumental line widths measured by
2187: fitting Gaussians to emission lines on comparison lamp
2188: exposures. This gives an estimate of the instrumental line width for
2189: {\em extended} sources. We use $\sim$5 lines per exposure, and at
2190: least 5 measurements per line. All of the G750M observations used an
2191: unbinned 1024$\times$1024 pixel CCD. \citet{LeiEtal01} (p.\ 300)
2192: give an instrumental line width for {\em point} sources of
2193: $\sigma$=13.3 \kms\ for the STIS + G750M configuration.}
2194: \tablenotetext{e}{The spatial scale along the slit is constant, but it
2195: varies across the slit from one grating to the next. It is
2196: 0\farcs05597 pix$^{-1}$ for G750M at 8561~\AA\ and 0\farcs05465
2197: pix$^{-1}$ for G750M at 6581~\AA\ (STIS ISR 98-23).}
2198: \tablecomments{Some numbers for the CCDs Wilbur and Echelle on Modspec
2199: are calculated by the program ``modset'' by J.\ Thorstensen. The
2200: slit width, spectral resolution, and spatial resolution varied for
2201: the Modspec observations; typical measured values are shown here.}
2202: \end{deluxetable}
2203:
2204:
2205:
2206: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2207: % Table SpectrTable
2208:
2209: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrrr}
2210: %\tablewidth{0pt}
2211: \tablecolumns{5}
2212: \tablecaption{\sc Kinematic Parameter Profiles of NGC 4258
2213: \label{SpectrTable}}
2214: \tablehead{
2215: \colhead{$R$ (\arcsec)} &
2216: \colhead{$V$} &
2217: \colhead{$\sigma$} &
2218: \colhead{$H3$} &
2219: \colhead{$H4$}
2220: }
2221: \startdata
2222: \sidehead{{\slshape HST}\, STIS -- Major axis profile
2223: (PA = 140\arcdeg) }
2224: \tableline
2225: 0.00 & 20 $\pm$ 14 & 159 $\pm$ 17 & 0.05 $\pm$ 0.08 & -0.02 $\pm$ 0.07 \\
2226: 0.05 & 42 $\pm$ \phn 6 & 142 $\pm$ \phn 8 & -0.10 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.00 $\pm$ 0.04 \\
2227: 0.10 & 60 $\pm$ \phn 4 & 133 $\pm$ \phn 5 & -0.05 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.09 $\pm$ 0.02 \\
2228: 0.17 & 59 $\pm$ \phn 4 & 122 $\pm$ \phn 5 & -0.01 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.07 $\pm$ 0.02 \\
2229: 0.30 & 56 $\pm$ \phn 6 & 112 $\pm$ \phn 7 & -0.11 $\pm$ 0.05 & -0.04 $\pm$ 0.04 \\
2230: 0.50 & 57 $\pm$ \phn 7 & 85 $\pm$ \phn 6 & -0.01 $\pm$ 0.04 & -0.05 $\pm$ 0.02 \\
2231: 0.80 & 53 $\pm$ \phn 8 & 96 $\pm$ 10 & -0.03 $\pm$ 0.05 & -0.03 $\pm$ 0.03 \\
2232: \sidehead{Ground-based (MDM 2.4-m with ModSpec) -- Major axis profile}
2233: %(PA = 150\arcdeg)}
2234: \tableline
2235: 0.37 & 15 $\pm$ \phn 3 & 107 $\pm$ \phn 6 & 0.00 $\pm$ 0.04 & -0.01 $\pm$ 0.02 \\
2236: 0.74 & 26 $\pm$ \phn 3 & 93 $\pm$ \phn 6 & -0.04 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.04 $\pm$ 0.02 \\
2237: 1.30 & 45 $\pm$ \phn 2 & 92 $\pm$ \phn 5 & -0.05 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.03 $\pm$ 0.02 \\
2238: 2.04 & 60 $\pm$ \phn 2 & 94 $\pm$ \phn 4 & -0.13 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.05 $\pm$ 0.03 \\
2239: 3.15 & 75 $\pm$ \phn 3 & 93 $\pm$ \phn 2 & -0.14 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.00 $\pm$ 0.03 \\
2240: 4.82 & 83 $\pm$ \phn 3 & 91 $\pm$ \phn 4 & -0.16 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.04 $\pm$ 0.04 \\
2241: 7.42 & 81 $\pm$ \phn 5 & 104 $\pm$ \phn 4 & -0.22 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.10 $\pm$ 0.04 \\
2242: 11.69 & 77 $\pm$ \phn 7 & 97 $\pm$ \phn 5 & -0.19 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.03 $\pm$ 0.06 \\
2243: 18.18 & 70 $\pm$ \phn 8 & 74 $\pm$ \phn 7 & -0.08 $\pm$ 0.06 & -0.05 $\pm$ 0.03 \\
2244: \sidehead{Ground-based (MDM 2.4-m with ModSpec) -- Minor axis profile}
2245: %(PA = 60\arcdeg)}
2246: \tableline
2247: 0.00 & -4 $\pm$ 18 & 97 $\pm$ \phn 6 & 0.02 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.06 $\pm$ 0.01 \\
2248: 0.37 & 1 $\pm$ \phn 3 & 103 $\pm$ \phn 5 & 0.01 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.06 $\pm$ 0.02 \\
2249: 0.74 & 3 $\pm$ \phn 2 & 103 $\pm$ \phn 5 & -0.02 $\pm$ 0.04 & -0.07 $\pm$ 0.02 \\
2250: 1.30 & 7 $\pm$ \phn 2 & 96 $\pm$ \phn 4 & -0.02 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.03 $\pm$ 0.02 \\
2251: 2.04 & 14 $\pm$ \phn 2 & 105 $\pm$ \phn 5 & 0.00 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.02 $\pm$ 0.03 \\
2252: 3.15 & 4 $\pm$ \phn 3 & 109 $\pm$ \phn 4 & 0.11 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.05 $\pm$ 0.03 \\
2253: 4.82 & 6 $\pm$ \phn 3 & 107 $\pm$ \phn 4 & 0.01 $\pm$ 0.04 & -0.09 $\pm$ 0.03 \\
2254: 7.42 & 14 $\pm$ \phn 5 & 125 $\pm$ \phn 6 & 0.06 $\pm$ 0.06 & -0.21 $\pm$ 0.06 \\
2255: 11.69 & -6 $\pm$ \phn 5 & 128 $\pm$ \phn 6 & 0.07 $\pm$ 0.07 & -0.17 $\pm$ 0.07 \\
2256: 18.18 & -58 $\pm$ 11 & 58 $\pm$ 14 & -0.01 $\pm$ 0.05 & -0.07 $\pm$ 0.03 \\
2257: \enddata
2258: \end{deluxetable}
2259:
2260: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2261: % Table ModelTable
2262:
2263: \begin{deluxetable}{cllcccccccc}
2264: \tablewidth{0pt}
2265: \tablecaption{\sc Dynamical Models \label{ModelTable}}
2266: \tablehead{
2267: \colhead{} &
2268: \colhead{Mass\tablenotemark{a}} &
2269: \colhead{Tracer\tablenotemark{a}} &
2270: \colhead{Kinem.\tablenotemark{b}} &
2271: \colhead{$i$\tablenotemark{c}} &
2272: \colhead{} &
2273: \colhead{$\MBH$\tablenotemark{e}} &
2274: \colhead{} &
2275: \colhead{} \\
2276: \colhead{Model} &
2277: \colhead{Profile} &
2278: \colhead{Profile} &
2279: \colhead{Dataset} &
2280: \colhead{(\arcdeg)} &
2281: \colhead{$\epsilon$ \tablenotemark{d}} &
2282: \colhead{($10^7 \MSun$)} &
2283: \colhead{$\ML$\tablenotemark{e}} &
2284: \colhead{\S}
2285: }
2286: \startdata
2287: Base & \Vcor & \Vcor & S+G & 72 & 0.35 & $3.31^{+0.22}_{-0.17}$ & $3.6^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ & \ref{DynMethod} \\
2288: D1 & \Vcor & \Vcor & S+G & 72 & 0.45 & $3.48^{+0.42}_{-0.38}$ & $3.7^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ & \ref{DynModEll} \\
2289: D2 & \Vcor & \Vcor & S+G & 62 & 0.35 & $3.62^{+0.38}_{-0.49}$ & $3.8^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ & \ref{DynModIncl} \\ \hline
2290: K1 & \Vcor & \Vcor & S$_1$+G & 72 & 0.35 & $3.25^{+0.21}_{-0.13}$ & $3.6^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ & \ref{AmbigK} \\
2291: K2 & \Vcor & \Vcor & S$_3$+G & 72 & 0.35 & $2.20^{+0.54}_{-0.31}$ & $3.6^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ & \ref{AmbigK} \\
2292: K3 & \Vcor & \Vcor & G & 72 & 0.35 & $1.03^{+1.00}_{-0.28}$ & $3.7^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ & \ref{AmbigK} \\
2293: K4 & \Vcor & \Vcor & S+G$_1$ & 72 & 0.35 & $3.33^{+0.21}_{-0.19}$ & $3.7^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ & \ref{AmbigK} \\ \hline
2294: P1 & \NIRcor & \Vcor & S+G & 72 & 0.35 & $2.49^{+0.09}_{-0.10}$ & $3.5^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ & \ref{AmbigP} \\
2295: P2 & \Vcor & \NIRcor & S+G & 72 & 0.35 & $3.33^{+0.18}_{-0.17}$ & $3.6^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ & \ref{AmbigP} \\
2296: P3 & \NIRcor & \NIRcor & S+G & 72 & 0.35 & $2.43^{+0.21}_{-0.30}$ & $3.5^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ & \ref{AmbigP} \\
2297: P4 & $V$ & $V$ & S+G & 72 & 0.35 & $3.25^{+0.22}_{-0.14}$ & $3.6^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ & \ref{AmbigP} \\ \hline
2298: \enddata
2299: \tablenotetext{a}{Mass and tracer profiles named as in Figure \ref{CumPhotomCenter} (cf.\ \S\ref{AmbigP}).}
2300: \tablenotetext{b}{S = All STIS kinematic data listed in Table \ref{SpectrTable}. \\
2301: \hspace{4mm} S$_1$ = As in S but without the central kinematic datapoint. \\
2302: \hspace{4mm} S$_3$ = As in S but without the 3 central kinematic datapoints.\\
2303: \hspace{4mm} G = All ground-based (Modspec) kinematic data listed in Table \ref{SpectrTable}. \\
2304: \hspace{4mm} G$_1$ = As in G but without the central minor-axis datapoint.}
2305: \tablenotetext{c}{Disk inclination (cf.\ \S\ref{DynModIncl}). Edge-on corresponds to $i=90\arcdeg$.}
2306: \tablenotetext{d}{Isophote ellipticity, assumed constant throughout the galaxy (cf.\ \S\ref{DynModEll}).}
2307: \tablenotetext{e}{Black hole mass and stellar $M/L$ ratio ($\ML$), assumed constant throughout the galaxy (cf.\ \S\ref{DynMethod}). Uncertainty values correspond to the nominal ``1$\sigma$'' one-dimensional uncertainties from the contour maps (Figure \ref{ModelPlots}). The $M/L$ ratio calibration is in the $V$ band.}
2308: \end{deluxetable}
2309:
2310: \end{document}
2311:
2312:
2313: