1: % !iTeXMac(typeset): simpdftex latex --keep-psfile ${iTMInput}

2: % !iTeXMac(compile): "./local Command"

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

4: \documentclass{emulateapj}

5: \usepackage{apjfonts}

6: \bibliographystyle{apj}

7: 

8: 

9: %\newcommand{\scaleup}{}

10: %\newcommand{\scaleupp}{}

11: %\newcommand{\plotter}{\includegraphics[scale=0.70]}

12: %\newcommand{\plotterr}{\includegraphics[scale=0.40]}

13: %\newcommand{\breaker}{\clearpage}

14: %\newcommand{\longtabler}{}

15: %\newcommand{\tableast}{\ast}

16: %\newcommand{\appendixcolumns}{}

17: \newcommand{\scaleup}{\epsscale{1.1}}

18: \newcommand{\scaleupp}{\epsscale{1.15}}

19: \newcommand{\plotter}{\plotone}

20: \newcommand{\plotterr}{\plotone}

21: \newcommand{\breaker}{}

22: \newcommand{\tableast}{$\ast$}

23: \newcommand{\longtabler}{\LongTables}

24: \newcommand{\appendixcolumns}{\twocolumngrid}

25: 

26: \newcommand{\tableset}{deluxetable}

27: \newcommand{\tableclear}{\clearpage}

28: \newcommand{\Mdot}{\dot{M}}

29: \newcommand{\mdot}{\lambda}

30: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.}

31: \newcommand{\mbh}{M_{\rm BH}}

32: \newcommand{\mstar}{M_{\ast}}

33: \newcommand{\msun}{M_{\sun}}

34: \newcommand{\lstar}{L_{\ast}}

35: \newcommand{\phistar}{\phi_{\ast}}

36: \newcommand{\pstar}{\phistar}

37: \newcommand{\reducedchi}{\chi^{2}/\nu}

38: \newcommand{\qeos}{q_{\rm eos}}

39: \newcommand{\fgas}{f_{\rm gas}}

40: \newcommand{\mdyn}{M_{\rm dyn}}

41: \newcommand{\re}{R_{\rm e}}

42: \newcommand{\fsb}{f_{\rm sb}}

43: \newcommand{\paperone}{Paper \textrm{I}}

44: \newcommand{\papertwo}{Paper \textrm{II}}

45: \newcommand{\dmu}{\sigma_{\mu}}

46: \newcommand{\lbol}{L_{\rm bol}}

47: \newcommand{\ergsec}{{\rm erg\,s^{-1}}}

48: \newcommand{\dtdlogl}{{\rm d}t/{\rm d}\log{L}}

49: \newcommand{\dtdlogL}{\dtdlogl}

50: \newcommand{\tq}{t_{Q}}

51: 

52: 

53: \shorttitle{Testing Quasar Lifetime Models}

54: \shortauthors{Hopkins \&\ Hernquist}

55: \slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ, September 8, 2008}

56: \begin{document}

57: 

58: \title{Quasars Are Not Light-Bulbs: Testing Models of Quasar 

59: Lifetimes with the Observed Eddington Ratio Distribution}

60: \author{Philip F. Hopkins\altaffilmark{1,2} 

61: \&\ Lars Hernquist\altaffilmark{1}

62: }

63: \altaffiltext{1}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 

64: 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}

65: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy, University of California 

66: Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720} 

67: 

68: \begin{abstract}

69: 

70: We use the observed distribution of Eddington ratios as a function of supermassive 

71: black hole (BH) mass to constrain models of quasar/AGN lifetimes and lightcurves. 

72: Given the observed (well constrained) AGN luminosity function, a 

73: particular model 

74: for AGN lightcurves $L(t)$ or, equivalently, the distribution of AGN lifetimes 

75: (time above a given luminosity $t(>L)$) translates directly and 

76: uniquely (without further assumptions) to a predicted distribution of Eddington 

77: ratios at each BH mass. Models for self-regulated BH growth, 

78: in which feedback produces a self-regulating ``decay'' or ``blowout'' phase 

79: after the AGN reaches some peak luminosity/BH mass and begins to 

80: expel gas and shut down accretion, make specific predictions for 

81: the lightcurves/lifetimes, distinct from e.g.\ the expected distribution if 

82: AGN simply shut down by gas starvation (without feedback) and very different 

83: from the prediction of simple phenomenological ``light bulb'' 

84: scenarios. 

85: We show that the present observations of the Eddington ratio distribution, 

86: spanning nearly 5 orders of magnitude in Eddington ratio, 3 orders of 

87: magnitude in BH mass, and redshifts $z=0-1$, agree well with the 

88: predictions of self-regulated models, and rule out phenomenological 

89: ``light bulb'' or pure exponential models, as well as gas starvation 

90: models, at high significance ($\sim5\,\sigma$). We also compare with 

91: observations of the  

92: distribution of Eddington ratios at a given AGN luminosity, and find similar 

93: good agreement (but show that these observations are much less constraining). 

94: We fit the functional form 

95: of the quasar lifetime distribution and provide 

96: these fits for use, and show how the Eddington ratio distributions 

97: place precise, tight limits on the AGN lifetimes at various luminosities, 

98: in agreement with model predictions.  We compare with  

99: independent estimates of episodic lifetimes and use this to 

100: constrain the shape of the typical AGN lightcurve, and 

101: provide simple analytic fits to these for use in other analyses. Given these 

102: constraints, the average local BH must have gained its mass in no more than a couple of 

103: bright, near peak-luminosity episodes, in agreement with models of 

104: accretion triggering in interactions and mergers. 

105: 

106: \end{abstract}

107: 

108: \keywords{galaxies: evolution --- cosmology: theory --- galaxies: active --- quasars: general}

109: 

110: \section{Introduction}

111: \label{sec:intro}

112: 

113: Quasars and active galactic nuclei (AGN) 

114: are among the most luminous, energetic, and distant 

115: objects in the Universe. Simple integral arguments 

116: \citep{soltan82} make it clear that the supermassive black hole (BH) 

117: population was grown primarily through accretion in luminous 

118: AGN phases, and that the accretion luminosity released in these 

119: phases dominates the X-ray background and constitutes a large

120: fraction of the bolometric energy production of the Universe. 

121: Comparison of e.g.\ the clustering \citep{croom:clustering,porciani2004,

122: hopkins:clustering} and host galaxy properties 

123: \citep{bahcall:qso.hosts,canalizostockton01:postsb.qso.mergers,

124: dunlop:qso.hosts,hopkins:red.galaxies,zakamska:qso.hosts,

125: zakamska:mir.seds.type2.qso.transition.at.special.lum} of 

126: high and low redshift AGN and galaxies demonstrates that 

127: AGN are the progenitors of modern-day spheroids.

128:  

129: Moreover, with the discovery of tight correlations 

130: between the masses of black holes and the velocity dispersion 

131: \citep{FM00,Gebhardt00}, masses \citep{magorrian}, and 

132: perhaps most fundamentally binding energy or potential 

133: well depth \citep{hopkins:bhfp.obs,hopkins:bhfp.theory,aller:mbh.esph} 

134: of the host demonstrates a 

135: fundamental link between the growth of supermassive black holes 

136: and galaxy formation. A number of models have been developed

137: arguing that the energy or momentum released 

138: from an accreting supermassive black hole, even if only a small fraction 

139: couples to the surrounding ISM, is sufficient to 

140: halt further accretion onto the black hole and drive away gas, 

141: self-regulating growth by shutting off 

142: the quasar\footnote{In what follows, we use the term ``quasar'' somewhat loosely, 

143: as a proxy for high-Eddington ratio accretion activity, rather than as a reference 

144: to specific optical properties. We use the term AGN to refer to BH 

145: accretion at all levels.} 

146: and quenching star formation in 

147: the galaxy and therefore allowing it to redden rapidly 

148: \citep[see e.g.][]{ciottiostriker:cooling.flow.selfreg.1,

149: ciottiostriker:cooling.flow.selfreg.2,silkrees:msigma,burkertsilk:msigma,

150: dimatteo:msigma,hopkins:lifetimes.letter,hopkins:qso.all,

151: murray:momentum.winds,sazonov:radiative.feedback, springel:models,springel:red.galaxies}. 

152: 

153: One of the most basic aspects of black hole growth, and a

154: powerful test of these self-regulating models for AGN evolution, is the

155: quasar/AGN lifetime. Given a sufficiently well-known 

156: lifetime distribution (lifetime as a function of 

157: e.g.\ luminosity, black hole mass, and other properties), the 

158: well-constrained quasar luminosity function (QLF) can be 

159: empirically translated (without invoking any models or 

160: additional assumptions) into the triggering rate of AGN as a function of e.g.\ 

161: luminosity, BH/host galaxy/dark matter halo mass, redshift, and other properties, 

162: as well as the active BH mass function, Eddington ratio and 

163: duty cycle distributions, and differential (mass-dependent) rate of buildup of 

164: the BH mass function. 

165: 

166: Observations generally constrain {\em quasar} lifetimes to

167: the range $\approx 10^{7}-10^{8}$ yr \citep[for a review,

168: see][]{martini04}.  These estimates are primarily based on demographic

169: or integral arguments which combine observations of the present-day

170: population of supermassive black holes and accretion by the

171: high-redshift quasar population

172: \citep[e.g.,][]{soltan82,haehnelt:bh.synthesis.model,yutremaine:bhmf,yulu:bhmf,

173: haiman:bhmf,marconi:bhmf,shankar:bhmf}, or incorporate quasars into

174: models of galaxy evolution \citep[e.g.,][]{kh00,wyitheloeb:sam,

175: dimatteo:cosmo.bh.growth.sim.1,dimatteo:qso.host.metals,

176: dimatteo:cosmo.bhs,granato:sam,scannapieco:sam,lapi:qlf.sam,

177: hopkins:qso.all,hopkins:groups.qso,sijacki:radio} 

178: or reionization of HeII \citep{sokasian:heII.reion.epoch,

179: sokasian:heII.reion,faucher:heII.reion.qso.constraints,faucher:ion.background.evol,

180: mcquinn:helium.reionization.model}. 

181: Results from clustering in quasar surveys

182: \citep[e.g.,][]{porciani2004,grazian:local.qso.clustering,

183: croom:clustering,myers:clustering.old,myers:clustering,

184: lidz:clustering,porciani:clustering,shen:clustering,

185: daangela:clustering,hopkins:clustering}, the proximity effect in the

186: Ly$\alpha$ forest \citep{bajtlik:gunnpetersen.qso.age.est,

187: haiman:gunnpetersen.qso.age.est,yulu:stromgren,faucher:proximity}

188: \citep[but see also][]{lidz:proximity}, 

189: and the transverse proximity effect 

190: \citep{jakobsen:heII.ion.transverse.proximity,schirber:transverse.proximity,

191: worseck06:indirect.transverse.proximity,worseck07:indirect.transverse.proximity,

192: goncalves:transverse.proximity}  similarly suggest

193: lifetimes $\sim{\rm a\ few}\,\times 10^{7}\,$yr.

194: 

195: These observations, however, pertain in particular to the {\em quasar} lifetime -- 

196: i.e.\ the characteristic time spent at high Eddington ratios/accretion rates, 

197: where much of the mass of a BH is accreted. Unsurprisingly, 

198: the observations suggest a lifetime similar to the \citet{salpeter64} 

199: time (the $e$-folding time for Eddington-limited black hole growth) 

200: $t_{S}=4.2\times10^{7}\,(\epsilon_{r}/0.1)\,$yr for accretion

201: with radiative efficiency $\epsilon_{r}=L/\dot{M}_{\rm BH} c^{2}\sim0.1$. 

202: AGN, however, are not a homogeneous population, and so 

203: the lifetime is not a single number -- in general, 

204: it should be a function of luminosity and other parameters such as 

205: BH or host mass and (possibly) various physical effects. As 

206: advocated by \citet{hopkins:lifetimes.letter,hopkins:lifetimes.methods}, 

207: the AGN lifetime should properly be thought of as a 

208: {\em luminosity-dependent lifetime} distribution -- i.e.\ some 

209: time $t(>L)$ as a function of $L$ or differential $\dtdlogL$. 

210: 

211: \citet{hopkins:lifetimes.letter,hopkins:lifetimes.methods,

212: hopkins:qso.all,hopkins:faint.slope,hopkins:seyferts} study this luminosity-dependent 

213: lifetime/duty cycle distribution in hydrodynamic simulations and analytic models 

214: of feedback-regulated BH growth, and show that such self-regulation 

215: leads to a generic and unique predicted form for the lifetime distribution. 

216: After some initial trigger that fuels gas inflows 

217: \citep[such as e.g.\ major and minor mergers or disk instabilities; 

218: for discussion see][]{dimatteo:msigma,hopkins:seyferts,

219: hopkins:cusps.mergers,hopkins:cusps.ell,hopkins:cores,hopkins:cusps.fp,

220: hopkins:cusps.evol,hopkins:disk.survival,hopkins:seyfert.limits,younger:minor.mergers}, 

221: AGN grow in approximately Eddington-limited fashion

222: until reaching some critical mass where, if some small fraction of the radiant 

223: energy/momentum can couple to the surrounding ISM, the feedback is sufficient to halt 

224: inflows and/or expel gas and shut down future accretion. This ``upper limit'' to 

225: growth is essentially an Eddington limit effective at the scales where the 

226: host galaxy, rather than the BH, dominates the gravitational potential, and 

227: therefore is set not by the details of fueling mechanisms, but instead

228: by (relatively generic) global parameters of the accretion physics

229: such as the host galaxy mass and AGN luminosity. 

230: 

231: That the resulting lifetime distribution is independent of fueling mechanism 

232: (i.e.\ is not specifically related to, for example, merger-induced fueling, but 

233: is a generic consequence of models where BH growth is self-regulated by feedback) 

234: has been demonstrated in the 

235: nearly identical lifetime distributions obtained by models of fueling in 

236: major mergers, minor mergers, flyby events, 

237: bar instabilities, and random ``stochastic'' encounters with 

238: nuclear molecular clouds, under similar feedback-regulated 

239: conditions \citep{hopkins:qso.all,hopkins:faint.slope,hopkins:seyferts,

240: johansson:mixed.morph.mbh.sims,

241: younger:minor.mergers}. These various fueling mechanisms do result in 

242: other important differences (in e.g.\ host properties and spectral properties of 

243: observed AGN), and they will lead to different evolution of BHs in a cosmological 

244: sense (global triggering rates and their evolution varying significantly

245: for the mechanisms above) and produce BHs of different masses 

246: (to the extent that they produce bulges across a large range

247: of masses, their self-regulating

248: nature and the existence of the BH-host correlations ensures this to be

249: the case). 

250: These are discussed in more detail in other papers \citep[see e.g.][]{hopkins:seyfert.limits}, 

251: but the important point is that, for a given triggering rate at some redshift 

252: and BH mass interval (set by some cosmological or galactic processes), 

253: self-regulated models predict a similar 

254: effective Eddington limit and lightcurve.

255: 

256: Just as growth at the 

257: traditional Eddington limit leads to a self-similar solution for the AGN lightcurve -- 

258: exponential growth -- the expulsion of gas in this analogous limit leads to 

259: a self-similar lightcurve once the gas begins to be removed from 

260: the vicinity of the BH -- a power-law decay of the form 

261: $L\propto t^{-(1.5-2.0)}$. In turn, this translates into a lifetime distribution 

262: $\dtdlogL$ with a characteristic faint-end (low-$L$) power-law like behavior: 

263: i.e.\ the time spent above a given luminosity/Eddington ratio (at fixed final 

264: BH mass) scales $\propto L^{-\beta}$ with a $\beta\sim0.6$ at low-$L$, with 

265: a cutoff near the Eddington limit/peak luminosity of the system. 

266: The normalization is set by the characteristic timescales of the system -- 

267: the Salpeter time and the (very similar) characteristic dynamical times 

268: in the central regions of the galaxy -- naturally yielding a robust prediction of the 

269: observed quasar lifetime as well as the complete AGN lifetime distribution. 

270: 

271: This is significantly different from what is assumed in commonly adopted 

272: phenomenological models, as well as other physical prescriptions. Quasars 

273: are often treated crudely

274: as ``light-bulbs'' -- i.e.\ assumed to be ``on'' for a 

275: fixed time (the ``quasar lifetime'') at fixed luminosity or Eddington ratio, 

276: and otherwise ``off.'' In 

277: such a case, the lifetime/Eddington ratio distribution does not 

278: increase towards lower luminosities, but instead is strongly peaked 

279: about a characteristic high Eddington ratio/luminosity (strictly speaking, a 

280: $\delta$-function; or in a Schechter-function parameterization with some 

281: scatter, $\beta\ll 0$). Similar results are obtained if one assumes 

282: that quasar 

283: lightcurves are pure exponentials (corresponding to growth at 

284: fixed Eddington ratio with either an instantaneous

285: cutoff or time-mirrored 

286: exponential luminosity decay), which yields equal time spent per 

287: logarithmic interval in luminosity (i.e.\ a luminosity-independent lifetime, 

288: or $\beta=0$ Schechter function). 

289: 

290: More physically motivated but distinct models 

291: make their own predictions for the lifetime distribution.  For example, 

292: if one assumes that the quasar accretion is regulated by a standard 

293: \citet{shakurasunyaev73} thin disk, and the fuel supply is immediately

294: removed but there is no feedback (i.e.\ a gas starvation scenario), 

295: one obtains a similarity solution for the accretion rate versus time 

296: that yields a lifetime distribution more akin to, but still significantly 

297: distinct from that predicted in self-regulated models \citep[see e.g.][]{yu:mdot.dist}. 

298: 

299: A number of indirect tests have been proposed to break the degeneracies 

300: between these models and constrain the quasar lifetime distribution, 

301: and the observations in these scenarios have thus far supported 

302: the predictions of self-regulated models. 

303: These include: the dependence of quasar clustering on 

304: luminosity \citep{lidz:clustering,hopkins:clustering}, where observations finding 

305: e.g.\ a weak dependence of clustering amplitude on luminosity (at fixed 

306: redshift) support lifetime models with more time spent at lower $L$ 

307: \citep{adelbergersteidel:lifetimes,coil:agn.clustering,

308: myers:clustering,daangela:clustering}; the shape of the active BH mass function in various 

309: luminosity-selected samples \citep{hopkins:lifetimes.interp,

310: hopkins:qso.all,hopkins:groups.qso}, 

311: including more massive systems at lower $L$ (in extreme cases even being 

312: peaked) rather than tracing an identical shape to the QLF 

313: \citep{heckman:local.mbh,greene:active.mf}; the evolution in the faint-end QLF 

314: slope with redshift \citep{hopkins:faint.slope}, flattening (weakly) with 

315: redshift \citep{ueda03:qlf,hasinger05:qlf,lafranca:hx.qlf,silverman:hx.spacedensity.ldde,

316: hopkins:bol.qlf,fontanot:highz.qlf,silverman:hx.lf,siana:z3.swire.qlf}

317: as predicted in some self-regulated models owing to a (weak) dependence of 

318: quasar lifetime distributions on BH mass/peak luminosity; the 

319: shape of the distribution in quasar host galaxy masses/luminosities 

320: \citep{hamilton:qso.host.lf,hopkins:merger.lfs}, similar in nature to the active 

321: BH mass function as a test of lifetime models; the mass functions and 

322: clustering as a function of mass of quasar ``remnants'' 

323: \citep[i.e.\ bulges/spheroids, 

324: given the observed $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation; see][]{hopkins:red.galaxies,

325: hopkins:groups.ell,hopkins:transition.mass,bundy:mtrans,haiman:qlf.from.ell.ages,

326: shankar:implied.msig.from.gal.ages,yulu:lightcurve.constraints.from.bhmf.integration}; 

327: and the relation between 

328: observed luminosity functions in different bands and active BH 

329: masses \citep{hopkins:lifetimes.obscuration,shankar:bol.qlf,

330: merloni:synthesis.model,bundy:agn.lf.to.mf.evol,yulu:lightcurve.constraints.from.bhmf.integration}. 

331: 

332: Although these observations are consistent with the predictions from 

333: self-regulated models, they are indirect, and as such are not able to 

334: rule out alternative interpretations (in the case of e.g.\ clustering or 

335: the evolution of the faint-end QLF slope) 

336: or depend on additional (albeit observationally and physically-motivated) 

337: assumptions. Moreover, many are restricted to relatively bright Seyfert/quasar 

338: populations, where the models are all similar (near these luminosities, 

339: they all predict that the entire population must be dominated by relatively massive 

340: BHs at high Eddington ratios $\sim 0.1-1$, and given the rapid growth 

341: at these Eddington ratios, the lifetime in this regime must be similar, comparable to 

342: the \citet{salpeter64} time). Biases introduced (selecting for specific Eddington ratios, 

343: for example) will also be important in samples selected by e.g.\ broad emission lines 

344: or optical/UV/IR colors/spectral shape \citep[see][]{hopkins:seyfert.bimodality}. 

345: 

346: The observed Eddington ratio distributions -- specifically, the complete 

347: distribution of Eddington ratios for {\em all} BHs of a given mass (obscured 

348: or unobscured, luminous or under-luminous), however, represent a direct and 

349: powerful test of these models, with the predicted behavior at lower Eddington ratios/luminosities 

350: being strongly divergent. Given the QLF, a lifetime model directly and uniquely 

351: translates (without any additional assumptions) into a distribution of 

352: Eddington ratios at each BH mass, and vice versa. The requirements 

353: are demanding: breaking these degeneracies necessitates large samples, complete to 

354: all objects of a given BH mass, in a large volume (to constrain rare high-Eddington ratio 

355: objects), but sufficiently deep to measure even faint levels of AGN activity in those 

356: objects. Furthermore, a probe of AGN activity such as X-ray or narrow-line emission, 

357: robust to obscuration effects (or the possible disappearance of the broad-emission line 

358: region and/or thin disk at low Eddington ratios) is important both to obtain a complete 

359: census of AGN activity and to avoid biases from e.g.\ luminosity or Eddington ratio-dependent 

360: obscuration/dilution/SED shapes. Fortunately, with the advent of wide area 

361: spectroscopic surveys such as the SDSS, it has become possible to constrain the 

362: Eddington ratio distribution at low redshifts, over a sufficiently large dynamic 

363: range to break the degeneracies between these models, as a function of 

364: various AGN and galaxy properties. 

365: 

366: Here, we combine a large number of observations of AGN Eddington ratio 

367: distributions as a function of BH and host galaxy mass, AGN luminosity, and 

368: redshift, in order to test these models and tightly constrain critical quantities 

369: such as the quasar lifetime as a function of luminosity, and show how the 

370: present observations are already sufficient to rule out, at high significance, a 

371: wide variety of alternative, simplified physical and phenomenological AGN 

372: lifetime/lightcurve models. 

373: 

374: In \S~\ref{sec:compare.dist} we compare these model predictions with observations 

375: of the Eddington ratio distribution measured directly at $z=0$ over a range of 

376: BH mass, and inferred indirectly at $z=0-1$. In \S~\ref{sec:compare.L} we 

377: similarly compare with Eddington ratio distributions measured not at fixed BH mass, 

378: but at fixed AGN luminosity, again over the range $z=0-1$. 

379: In \S~\ref{sec:compare.models} we show how these observations tightly constrain 

380: physical and phenomenological models for the quasar lifetime/accretion 

381: rate distribution, relate to a possible dependence of quasar feedback 

382: efficiency on mass, and rule out a number of alternative lifetime/lightcurve models. We 

383: show how the observations tightly constrain even general, parameterized lifetime 

384: models to a narrow range about the physical models, and can directly be converted 

385: to yield the cosmologically integrated AGN lifetime and $z=0$ duty cycles 

386: as a function of Eddington ratio. In \S~\ref{sec:lightcurves} we translate these 

387: Eddington ratio/lifetime distribution constraints to limits on the form of the 

388: ``typical'' AGN lightcurve, and discuss constraints on the ``episodic'' quasar lifetime 

389: and how, combined with the duty cycle constraints, this can give a bound on the 

390: number of accretion episodes per AGN and shape of the typical lightcurve. 

391: In \S~\ref{sec:implications} we demonstrate the constraints from these observations on how 

392: much mass present-day BHs accreted in various intervals in Eddington ratio and 

393: luminosity. 

394: Finally, in \S~\ref{sec:discussion} we discuss our results, 

395: the implications of the observations for a broad range of 

396: AGN properties, and the prospects for 

397: future observational tests. 

398: 

399: For ease of comparison, we convert all observations 

400: to bolometric luminosities given the appropriate bolometric corrections 

401: from \citet{hopkins:bol.qlf} \citep[see also][]{elvis:atlas,richards:seds}. 

402: We adopt a $\Omega_{\rm M}=0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$,

403: $H_{0}=70\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$ cosmology and normalize all 

404: observations and models appropriately \citep[note that this generally affects only 

405: the exact normalization of quantities here, not the qualitative conclusions, 

406: and differences are negligible within the range of cosmologies allowed by 

407: present constraints; e.g.][]{komatsu:wmap5}. 

408: 

409: 

410: \section{Comparing With Complete Eddington Ratio Distributions} 

411: \label{sec:compare.dist}

412: 

413: Given the QLF $\Phi(L\,|\,z)$ and some model for the quasar 

414: lifetime or differential time at different Eddington ratios: 

415: \begin{equation}

416: \frac{{\rm d}t}{{\rm d}\log{L}}(L\,|\,M_{\rm BH}) \equiv 

417: \frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}\log{L}}{\Bigl [} t(L^{\prime} > L\, |\, M_{\rm BH}) {\Bigr ]}, 

418: \label{eqn:dtdlogl.defn}

419: \end{equation}

420: it is straightforward to de-convolve and determine the Eddington ratio 

421: distribution. For example, if quasars were ``light bulbs'' that shine either 

422: at some fixed high Eddington ratio 

423: \begin{equation}

424: %\mdot\equiv \frac{\dot{M}}{\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}} = \frac{L_{\rm bol}}{M_{\rm BH}\,\times ?}

425: \mdot\equiv \frac{L}{L_{\rm Edd}} = \frac{L_{\rm bol}}{1.3\times10^{38}\,{\rm erg\,s^{-1}}\,

426: (M_{\rm BH}/\msun)}

427: \label{eqn:lambda.defn}

428: \end{equation}

429: with $\mdot_{\rm on}\sim1$ in an ``on'' state for a time 

430: $\tq$ and $\mdot\ll1$ in an ``off'' state at other times, then 

431: the implied lifetime distribution $\dtdlogl$ is a delta-function at 

432: $\mdot_{\rm on}$. The observed QLF in such a case is, of course, a linear 

433: translation of the active BH mass function (with $\mdot_{\rm on}$ determining the 

434: re-normalization or shift in the horizontal axis, from $M_{\rm BH}$ to $L$, and 

435: the absolute value of the quasar lifetime $\tq$ determining the abundance/vertical 

436: axis). So, at a given $M_{\rm BH}$, the Eddington ratio distribution will 

437: be a delta-function at $\mdot_{\rm on}$ with a normalization/fractional 

438: abundance at this $\mdot_{\rm on}$ determined by the number of active 

439: quasars (of the corresponding luminosity) at the observed redshift. 

440: 

441: In general, in fact, so long as the quasar lifetime at a given $L$ is short 

442: compared to the Hubble time (i.e.\ cosmological evolution in e.g.\ triggering 

443: rates can be ignored in the constraint), then the Eddington ratio distribution 

444: at a given $M_{\rm BH}$ will be $\dtdlogl$ (modulo a normalization reflecting 

445: the ``on'' fraction or $\tq/t_{H}$, where 

446: $t_{H}$ is the Hubble time at the given redshift) -- i.e.\ we can trivially 

447: translate to a ``duty cycle'' distribution (fractional population at each $L$ or 

448: $\mdot$):\footnote{The translation between the distribution in $\log L$ and $\log{\lambda}$ is trivial 

449: in terms of observations at a given BH mass; in terms of converting model predictions 

450: between one and the other, although the relation is not completely trivial, we find 

451: in practice that the two are nearly equivalent, especially at Eddington ratios $\lesssim0.2$ where 

452: most of the data with which we will compare lie, since some initial 

453: $M_{\rm BH}$ does not change much as a model system moves through a low Eddington ratio 

454: phase. We will therefore use the two interchangeably in this paper as is proper for the 

455: observations, but have converted all physical models to the appropriate representation.}

456: \begin{equation}

457: \frac{{\rm d}\delta}{{\rm d}\log{\lambda}}=

458: \frac{{\rm d}\delta}{{\rm d}\log{L}} \approx \frac{1}{t_{H}(z)}\,\frac{{\rm d}t}{{\rm d}\log{L}}\ \ \ \ (t\ll t_{H}).

459: \label{eqn:duty.cycle.translation}

460: \end{equation}

461: By definition of the duty cycle, of course, this directly relates to the actual number density function of 

462: BHs at a given mass and luminosity or accretion rate 

463: \begin{equation}

464: \Phi(\lambda\,|\,M_{\rm BH}) \equiv \frac{{\rm d}n(\lambda,\,M_{\rm BH})}{{\rm d}\log{\lambda}}

465: = n(M_{\rm BH})\,\frac{{\rm d}\delta}{{\rm d}\log{\lambda}}\ . 

466: \label{eqn:numberdensity}

467: \end{equation}

468: The shape of the observed Eddington 

469: ratio distribution, therefore, contains information about the shape of 

470: $\dtdlogL$ independent of either normalization, and vice versa. Such observations 

471: hence provide a useful and direct probe of quasar accretion rate 

472: distributions. 

473: 

474: If the AGN population (e.g.\ triggering rates or number of bright objects) 

475: is relatively constant for systems of a given mass over the redshift range of interest (i.e.\ if 

476: the population is still growing, at least in a statistical sense, around the observed redshifts) 

477: and the lifetime is short relative to the Hubble time, then Equation~\ref{eqn:duty.cycle.translation} 

478: is applicable, and the observed Eddington ratio distribution, independent of 

479: any other constraints, can be directly translated to the lifetime distribution. 

480: When the triggering rate evolves strongly with redshift and/or the characteristic lifetime 

481: is long compared to the Hubble time (e.g.\ for massive systems at low redshift, where 

482: their growth is dominated by higher-redshift periods), the Eddington ratio distribution at a 

483: given $z$ is 

484: still uniquely predicted by a given $\dtdlogL$ model, but this must be convolved over 

485: the redshift distribution of activity (i.e.\ given the observed QLF and $\dtdlogL$, we integrate over 

486: time to determine the predicted ${\rm d}{\rm \delta}/{\rm d}\log{\lambda}$). Even this, in practice, 

487: does not significantly change the direct mapping between the shape of 

488: the observed Eddington ratio distribution and $\dtdlogl$; it mainly amounts to deriving 

489: a more correct effective ``duty cycle'' (normalization) than multiplying by $\sim1/t_{H}$.

490: For more discussion and details of the relevant equations, 

491: we refer to \citet{yulu:bhmf,hopkins:lifetimes.methods,

492: hopkins:qso.all,hopkins:faint.slope}; for now, we note that the 

493: observed QLF $\Phi(L\,|\,z)$ is well-constrained at all the luminosities and 

494: redshifts of interest (since the relevant observations are primarily at low 

495: redshifts $z\lesssim1$), and so any given model for $\dtdlogl$ 

496: {\em uniquely} translates to an Eddington 

497: ratio distribution as a function of BH mass or AGN luminosity.  We wish to

498: compare these distributions to the observations. 

499: 

500: In order to do so, we want to begin with a complete distribution of BH accretion 

501: rates at a given BH mass. It is important to do so -- in models where e.g.\ systems 

502: of a given mass can have a broad range of Eddington ratios, the 

503: distribution of Eddington ratios at a given BH mass can be {\em qualitatively} 

504: very different from the distribution at a given luminosity (see \S~\ref{sec:compare.L}). 

505: Moreover, if what is desired 

506: is a distribution at all possible Eddington ratios, then there is no useful definition 

507: of an ``active'' AGN: what we really desire is to begin with a complete census of all 

508: BHs of a given mass (active or inactive at any level), and to measure the Eddington ratio 

509: distribution within this sample. 

510: 

511: Fortunately, the existence of a tight correlation between 

512: host galaxy luminosity/stellar mass/velocity dispersion and BH mass 

513: makes this possible: \citet{heckman:local.mbh} and 

514: \citet{yu:mdot.dist} select complete samples of all SDSS galaxies with a 

515: narrow range in velocity dispersion $\sigma$ (and corresponding narrow range in 

516: BH mass), and then examine this sample to a limiting depth for narrow equivalent width 

517: AGN features \citep[following the methodology and 

518: classifications in][]{kauffmann:qso.hosts,kewley:agn.host.sf}. 

519: Given a bolometric correction, this allows a complete 

520: census of all activity at a given BH mass down to some well-known limit in $\mdot$. 

521: 

522: Moreover, the use of narrow lines is helpful for three reasons, as opposed to e.g.\ use of 

523: optical broad lines or an optical/IR color cut in identification of AGN and 

524: determination of their bolometric luminosities. 

525: First, it can probe very faint AGN and does not introduce much bias in terms of e.g.\ the risk of 

526: the host light in brighter systems diluting the AGN. Second, 

527: it allows us to include the obscured/Type 2 population \citep[the abundance of which 

528: may depend on luminosity; see e.g.][]{ueda03:qlf,

529: simpson:type1.frac,lafranca:hx.qlf,barger:qlf,beckmann:very.hx.qlf,bassani:integral.qlf,

530: gilli:obscured.fractions,hasinger:absorption.update}. 

531: Third, it should 

532: enable us to identify quasars even in states of moderate radiative inefficiency: there is 

533: growing evidence that AGN at low Eddington ratios may transition to a radiatively 

534: inefficient state characterized by the absence of a thin disk.  Such objects 

535: are still accreting but appear primarily as X-ray (because a hot corona survives 

536: this transition) and narrow-line sources, rather than broad-line or optical continuum sources 

537: \citep[see e.g.][]{NY94,nym95,nym96,meier:jets.in.adaf,maccarone:agn.riaf.connection,

538: xbongs,jester:riaf.test,mcclintock:xrb.review,cao:riaf.constraints}. 

539: We discuss these distinctions in more detail in a companion paper 

540: \citep{hopkins:seyfert.bimodality}, and 

541: outline how they can influence e.g.\ the Eddington ratio distribution determined 

542: via various selection criteria. For our purposes here, however, the data adopted 

543: either avoid these uncertainties owing to their selection/identification 

544: methodology, or cover a luminosity range where these concerns are not important 

545: \citep[see also][]{heckman:local.mbh,kauffmann:qso.hosts}. 

546: 

547: \begin{figure*}

548:     \centering

549:     %\scaleup

550:     %\plotone{mdot_dist_yuluk_1.ps}

551:     \plotone{f1.ps}

552:     \caption{Distribution of Eddington ratios at a given BH mass (at $z<0.2$). 

553:     We compare the observed distribution from SDSS narrow-line objects 

554:     \citep[][black circles with error bars and orange diamonds, respectively]{yu:mdot.dist,

555:     heckman:local.mbh} 

556:     to the distribution predicted by the lightcurve/lifetime models in 

557:     \citet[][lines]{hopkins:qso.all,hopkins:faint.slope,hopkins:bol.qlf}. Solid red line is the simplest 

558:     model prediction for a population of 

559:     single triggers with $t_{\rm Q}\ll t_{H}$; black lines integrate over a complete 

560:     cosmological history of triggering events in the model (constrained to match the observed 

561:     AGN luminosity functions). Dashed and dotted lines bracket the model uncertainty. 

562:     The lines are {\em predictions} -- there are {\em no} free parameters fitted or tuned to 

563:     match the observed $\lambda$ distributions. 

564:     \label{fig:yulu.1}}

565: \end{figure*}

566: 

567: \begin{figure*}

568:     \centering

569:     %\scaleup

570:     %\plotone{mdot_dist_yuluk_2.ps}

571:     \plotone{f2.ps}

572:     \caption{As Figure~\ref{fig:yulu.1}, continued to higher BH masses. 

573:     The lower right panel shows the Eddington ratio distribution calculated in 

574:     \citet{hopkins:old.age} from the observed samples of \citet{marchesini:low.mdot.sample} and 

575:     \citet{ho:radio.vs.mdot}, 

576:     with a less tightly constrained BH mass range ($M_{\rm BH}\sim10^{7.5}-10^{8.5}\,\msun$) 

577:     but extending to lower Eddington ratios. Corrections for various changes in radiative 

578:     efficiency with Eddington ratio change the observed points and models within the 

579:     plotted error bars \citep[see][]{hopkins:old.age}. Note that the apparent discrepancy in 

580:     the models at the highest masses comes from extrapolation to unobservably small 

581:     space densities. 

582:     \label{fig:yulu.2}}

583: \end{figure*}

584: 

585: Figures~\ref{fig:yulu.1}-\ref{fig:yulu.2} show this analysis. We plot the Eddington 

586: ratio distribution determined in \citet{yu:mdot.dist} 

587: and \citet{heckman:local.mbh} \citep[see also][]{kauffmann:new.mdot.dist}, 

588: and compare to the theory of 

589: \citet{hopkins:qso.all,

590: hopkins:faint.slope,hopkins:bol.qlf}. We consider three versions of the 

591: estimates to show the 

592: range of theoretical uncertainty inherent in the model, but the differences are, 

593: for the most part, minimal. First, we plot the \citet{hopkins:faint.slope} fitted $\dtdlogl$ distribution 

594: to their typical $\sim M_{\ast}$ BH simulations, multiplied by the number density of 

595: active BHs at each mass (the effective duty cycle, 

596: discussed in \S~\ref{sec:compare.models}) 

597: and divided by the Hubble time (since we are considering the 

598: fraction of active BHs at each $\mdot$; this is shown as a the solid red line). This 

599: is an accurate approximation to a much more complete cosmological calculation 

600: so long as the quasar lifetime is short compared to the Hubble time and 

601: provided that 

602: there is not some strong feature in the redshift history of triggering (i.e.\ so long 

603: as the cosmological evolution around the redshift of interest is relatively weak). 

604: At low $\mdot$, this is simply a power-law; inevitably, the point where 

605: the lifetime nears the Hubble time will be reached, and more ful cosmological 

606: models will turn over.

607: 

608: Second, we adopt the fits from \citet{hopkins:bol.qlf} to the observed bolometric 

609: QLF as a function of redshift, using the lifetime distributions as a function of BH 

610: mass fitted in \citet{hopkins:faint.slope}, and integrate these over redshift. 

611: In \citet{hopkins:bol.qlf} the authors quantify the range of fits allowed given both the 

612: uncertainty in the lifetime model and the observed QLF; we show two lines that 

613: bracket this range (the dotted and dashed lines in Figures~\ref{fig:yulu.1}-\ref{fig:yulu.2}). 

614: Again, these use the same model lightcurves \citep[the power-law like fits to the 

615: lightcurve shape as a function of BH mass, from][]{hopkins:faint.slope} 

616: and are matched to the same QLF \citep[the data compiled in][]{hopkins:bol.qlf}. 

617: However, there remain uncertainties in the data and degeneracies in the fit -- the 

618: models shown bracket the range in the 

619: $\mdot$ distribution allowed by this set of models and data. 

620: The predicted distributions turn over at low $\mdot$ in both cases (albeit at 

621: slightly different $\mdot$, reflecting these degeneracies in fitting the low-luminosity 

622: population), as the lifetime nears the Hubble time (obviously, in a full cosmological 

623: model, they must turn over, so that the ``duty cycle'' of a given BH across all 

624: Eddington ratios integrates to unity). 

625: 

626: The theoretical predictions all agree well, and agree remarkably well with the observations. 

627: We stress that these are {\em predictions}; no quantity has been fitted to the data points 

628: (both the shape and normalization of the model curves are entirely predicted by the 

629: papers above). 

630: 

631: The theoretical curves also agree with one another. This is because, at most of the 

632: luminosities of interest, the lifetime is well below the Hubble time and 

633: the (especially low-mass) BHs are still growing as a population 

634: \citep[see e.g.][]{hasinger05:qlf}, so subtleties of 

635: cosmological evolution are irrelevant (the only quantity of interest is $\dtdlogl$). 

636: Moreover at low redshifts $z\lesssim2$ the observed QLF is well-constrained, so there 

637: is little freedom given a $\dtdlogl$ model in what the distribution can be. 

638: The only differences appear at the highest masses -- this is because, in a complete 

639: cosmological calculation, most of the triggering of these systems occurred preferentially at high 

640: redshifts, so there is some pile-up at low Eddington ratios (precisely below where the 

641: condition of $\tq\sim t_{H}$ begins to be satisfied, as expected). 

642: 

643: Figure~\ref{fig:yulu.2} also compares the Eddington ratio distribution determined 

644: in \citet{hopkins:old.age} from the combined observed samples of \citet{marchesini:low.mdot.sample} 

645: and \citet{ho:radio.vs.mdot}. The range in BH mass in this sample is less narrowly constrained, 

646: $M_{\rm BH}\sim 10^{7.5}-10^{8.5}\,\msun$, but the data survey extremely faint systems in 

647: the radio and X-rays, and allow us to extend the observed Eddington ratio distribution from 

648: the already deep $\mdot\sim10^{-4}-10^{-3}$ in the \citet{yu:mdot.dist} and 

649: \citet{heckman:local.mbh} samples 

650: by another two orders of magnitude. (Note in \citet{hopkins:old.age} the authors consider 

651: possible corrections for varying radiative efficiencies and bolometric corrections 

652: at these luminosities, but the resulting change is for our purposes here within the error bars 

653: shown.)  Again, the agreement is good over the entire range.

654: 

655: \begin{figure*}

656:     \centering

657:     %\scaleup

658:     %\plotone{mdot_dist_merloni.ps}

659:     \plotone{f3.ps}

660:     \caption{As Figure~\ref{fig:yulu.1}, but comparing the model predictions with 

661:     the observationally inferred Eddington ratio distribution from the combination of 

662:     observed X-ray, radio, and optical luminosities in \citet{merloni:synthesis.model,

663:     merloni:mdot.dist.fits.prep} and the 

664:     statistical correlation between e.g.\ radio-loudness and accretion 

665:     rates \citep[for a review see][]{fender:radio.mdot.review}.

666:     The results are shown over the plotted mass bins, at 

667:     each labeled redshift. The sharp kinks in the \citet{merloni:mdot.dist.fits.prep} distributions are 

668:     somewhat model-dependent. 

669:     \label{fig:merloni}}

670: \end{figure*}

671: 

672: At higher redshifts, analogous measurements are not, at present, available. However, 

673: we can compare with an alternative, albeit indirect, observational estimator. 

674: It has been argued that the combination of radio, X-ray, and optical luminosities 

675: can be used to constrain the Eddington ratios of BHs, in a manner like that

676: well-established for accreting X-ray binaries.

677: Indeed, it is increasingly 

678: established that radio-loudness of AGN appears to be a function (on average) of 

679: Eddington ratio \citep[][for a review see \citet{fender:radio.mdot.review}]{nym95,nym96,

680: falcke:radio.vs.mdot,meier:jets.in.adaf,

681: ho:radio.vs.mdot,merloni:bhfp.radio,marchesini:low.mdot.sample,

682: maccarone:agn.riaf.connection,falcke04:radio.vs.mdot,

683: merloniheinz.bhfp.radio,greene:radio.vs.edd}, so if this is true at higher redshift it can be used as at 

684: least a statistical estimator of Eddington ratio. \citet{merloni:synthesis.model} adopt these observations,

685: combined with the measured X-ray, radio, and optical luminosity distributions of 

686: observed quasars, to constrain the Eddington ratio distribution as a bivariate function of 

687: BH mass and redshift. Their methodology allows for intrinsic scatter in these correlations, so 

688: it should be reasonably robust as long as there is some physical relationship between 

689: Eddington ratio and X-ray-radio-optical spectral shape over a wide baseline in Eddington ratio 

690: (from $\sim10^{-5}-1$). 

691: 

692: Figure~\ref{fig:merloni} compares their inferred Eddington ratio distributions 

693: \citep[A.\ Merloni, private communication; for details see][]{merloni:mdot.dist.fits.prep}

694: to the same predictions, at $z=0$ and $z=1$ (at higher redshifts, 

695: \citet{merloni:synthesis.model,merloni:mdot.dist.fits.prep} 

696: do infer Eddington ratio distributions, but the radio luminosity function 

697: is not directly measured and the X-ray luminosity function is increasingly unconstrained as 

698: well, so this relies on extrapolation of the low-redshift trends, and 

699: is not a direct measurement/estimate). Note that the kink in the \citet{merloni:synthesis.model} 

700: Eddington ratio distributions around $\mdot\sim10^{-2}$ is 

701: sensitive to the particular assumptions about the form of the QLF 

702: shape and SED shape as a 

703: function of luminosity; other attempts to infer this distribution have, however, 

704: seen similar features \citep[e.g.][]{marchesini:low.mdot.sample}, so it may reflect a 

705: real change in accretion properties not modeled here. In any case, the 

706: inferred distributions, where they overlap with the measurements from 

707: the observations above, agree reasonably well, giving some confidence in this 

708: methodology, and the agreement with theoretical predictions is good.

709: 

710: As discussed in \S~\ref{sec:intro}, although the particular models shown 

711: were fitted from simulations of galaxy mergers, the results are comparable regardless of 

712: fueling mechanism, given a similar self-regulation from local AGN feedback. 

713: In fact, the predictions and their agreement with 

714: observations in Figures~\ref{fig:yulu.1}-\ref{fig:merloni} 

715: rely on {\em no} information regarding fueling mechanisms -- 

716: they simply follow from assuming a given lightcurve shape 

717: and matching the observed quasar luminosity function. 

718: 

719: 

720: \section{Eddington Ratio Distributions as a Function of Luminosity} 

721: \label{sec:compare.L}

722: 

723: At a given luminosity (as opposed to a given BH mass), the 

724: differences in the Eddington ratio distribution between various models 

725: are greatly suppressed. The reasons for this are obvious: at a given 

726: $L$ and $M_{\rm BH}$, there is only a narrow range of $\mdot$, and given the 

727: declining number density of high-mass BHs, at high-$L$, one will increasingly 

728: be limited to the population of near-Eddington systems. However, over a sufficiently 

729: large baseline in $L$, differences are apparent, and (especially at high 

730: redshifts) luminosity-limited samples are more easily constructed 

731: than $M_{\rm BH}$-limited samples. We therefore consider the Eddington ratio 

732: distribution predicted as a function of luminosity at different redshifts. 

733: 

734: \begin{figure}

735:     \centering

736:     %\scaleup

737:     %\plotone{mdot_dist_at_l.ps}

738:     \plotone{f4.ps}

739:     \caption{Predicted distribution of Eddington ratios at $z\sim1$ in a narrow 

740:     range of bolometric luminosity. Note that, because of the cut at a given luminosity 

741:     (as opposed to reflecting all $\lambda$ at a given $M_{\rm BH}$ as in 

742:     Figure~\ref{fig:yulu.1}), 

743:     the distributions are much more narrow and turn over at low $L_{\rm bol}$. 

744:     The distributions are reasonably approximated as log-normal, with some 

745:     weakly luminosity-dependent skewness. 

746:     \label{fig:mdot.at.L}}

747: \end{figure}

748: 

749: \begin{figure*}

750:     \centering

751:     %\scaleup

752:     %\plotone{mdot_dist_vs_L_z.ps}

753:     \plotone{f5.ps}

754:     \caption{Median Eddington ratio $\lambda$ and $1\,\sigma$ dispersion 

755:     in Eddington ratios at a given narrow range in bolometric AGN luminosity 

756:     (as in Figure~\ref{fig:mdot.at.L}, assuming a lognormal distribution). 

757:     We compare the \citet{hopkins:qso.all,hopkins:faint.slope,hopkins:bol.qlf} 

758:     model predictions (solid lines; colors denote redshift as labeled)

759:     with the observed distributions inferred from the distribution of 

760:     X-ray to host luminosities in optically obscured AGN 

761:     \citep[][red diamonds]{fiore:type2.lx.vs.lhost,hasinger:absorption.update,

762:     hickox:bootes.obscured.agn,hickox:multiwavelength.agn} (translating host luminosity to 

763:     average BH mass given the observed correlations), and 

764:     from the distribution fitted to broad-line optical samples 

765:     in \citet{fine:broadline.distrib} from the 2dF and \citet{kollmeier:mdot} from AGES, using 

766:     the optical virial (line-width) BH mass estimators. 

767:     We also compare with the predictions for pure exponential 

768:     AGN lightcurves (constant Eddington ratio or exponential decay in $L$ 

769:     after some peak) and ``light-bulb'' models (where AGN are ``on'' or 

770:     ``off'' with a mass-independent narrow $\lambda$ distribution when on), 

771:     forced to obey the (necessary) constraint of matching the observed AGN 

772:     luminosity functions. 

773:     The \citet{hopkins:faint.slope} models agree well with the observations, the other 

774:     models are ruled out at low-L. High-L optical samples are not ideal for 

775:     breaking the degeneracies between these models, although with 

776:     sufficiently large dynamic range such as that in \citet{fine:broadline.distrib} 

777:     the distinction can be seen. 

778:     \label{fig:mdot.by.L}}

779: \end{figure*}

780: 

781: Figures~\ref{fig:mdot.at.L} \&\ \ref{fig:mdot.by.L} shows the results. 

782: Figure~\ref{fig:mdot.at.L} demonstrates that at a given luminosity (unlike at a 

783: given BH mass), the Eddington ratio distribution is expected to be something like a 

784: lognormal distribution (more so if typical observational errors are included), albeit 

785: with some non-negligible skewness \citep[as seen 

786: in e.g.][]{fine:broadline.distrib}.\footnote{The skewness 

787: originates because the distribution of host BHs is not flat in mass, but increases 

788: to lower masses (following the Schechter galaxy/spheroid mass function). With respect 

789: to the median Eddington ratio/BH mass contributing to the observed 

790: population at a given luminosity, one therefore expects (if Eddington ratio distributions at a given 

791: BH mass do not change rapidly with mass) that there will be a somewhat larger population 

792: of low-mass BHs at high Eddington ratio rather than high-mass BHs (an exponentially 

793: vanishing population) at low Eddington ratio.} 

794: This is because, 

795: at extremely low $\mdot$, arbitrarily high-$M_{\rm BH}$ BHs would be implied (in a bin 

796: of fixed $L$), but the possible population of such systems is vanishing. 

797: We therefore find it convenient to approximate the predicted distributions as lognormal, 

798: and quantify the median $\mdot$ and $1\,\sigma$ dispersion (technically based 

799: on the IPV width to prevent bias from outliers or skewness) 

800: in the lognormal as a function of luminosity, at redshifts $z=0-2$. 

801: 

802: We compare these with several observational estimates. In \citet{fine:broadline.distrib}, the 

803: authors consider the Type 1 quasar population near $z\approx1$ 

804: in the 2dF survey, and estimate the distribution of BH masses in narrow bins 

805: of luminosity employing the commonly adopted 

806: virial BH mass estimators \citep[based on the broad-line 

807: widths and the radius-luminosity relations inferred from reverberation mapping 

808: of nearby AGN; see e.g.][and references therein]{vestergaardpeterson:virial.corr.review}. 

809: This allows them to consider the distribution of 

810: BH masses via this proxy as a function of luminosity down to near Seyfert luminosities. 

811: Because the width of the distribution can be determined without relying on the 

812: (systematically still uncertain) absolute normalizations of these calibrators, the 

813: authors decline to estimate absolute Eddington ratios (although a rough estimate 

814: suggests they lie between $\sim0.1-1$, as predicted here). 

815: \citet{kollmeier:mdot} use the same technique over a narrow luminosity range 

816: of Type 1 AGN in the AGES survey. 

817: 

818: At lower luminosities, these indicators 

819: are less useful (and the observations suggest the population is both more 

820: obscured and diluted by host galaxy light, making the virial mass estimators 

821: inaccessible). However, X-ray observations can probe Type 2 objects in this 

822: regime, where the optical light is dominated by the host galaxy and

823: therefore a host galaxy stellar mass \citep[and corresponding BH mass, 

824: adopting the observed $M_{\rm BH}-M_{\ast}$ relation from][]{marconihunt} 

825: can be estimated.

826: It is well-established that in this regime the optical luminosity/stellar 

827: mass of the galaxy is approximately constant while the X-ray luminosity changes, 

828: implying that at lower-$L$ the X-ray luminosity function becomes increasingly 

829: a sequence in Eddington ratio. 

830: 

831: We plot the implied Eddington ratios and 

832: distribution in Eddington ratios as a function of luminosity from the 

833: sample of \citet{hasinger:absorption.update}, where the optical $R$-band luminosity is converted to 

834: a stellar mass based on the age and mass-dependent observed mean $M/L$ 

835: ratios in \citet{belldejong:disk.sfh} and \citet{bell:mfs}. We have re-calculated these 

836: comparisons using e.g.\ the samples of \citet{fiore:type2.lx.vs.lhost} and 

837: \citet{hickox:bootes.obscured.agn,hickox:multiwavelength.agn} and 

838: obtain the same result (various multiwavelength surveys have 

839: reached similar conclusions regarding this correlation), 

840: and find that changing the assumed host $M/L$ within 

841: uncertainties makes little difference \citep[for more 

842: discussion, see][]{hopkins:seyfert.bimodality}. For convenience to

843: the comparison here, we convert all 

844: the observed AGN luminosities to bolometric luminosities using the bolometric 

845: corrections in \citet{hopkins:bol.qlf} \citep[using instead those in][makes no 

846: difference]{elvis:atlas,marconi:bhmf,richards:seds}.

847: 

848: In addition to the theoretical predictions from the models in \S~\ref{sec:compare.dist}, 

849: we contrast the results from a simple light-bulb AGN lifetime

850: (in which both the mean Eddington ratio and dispersion are constant) 

851: and a pure exponential model (in which $\dtdlogl$ is constant at $\mdot\ll1$, 

852: which, when the sample is cut by luminosity, does introduce some dependence 

853: on $L$, but much weaker than that predicted by the models in \S~\ref{sec:compare.dist}). 

854: The observations clearly prefer the steeper dependence of the 

855: more realistic lifetime models. Note that a large baseline in luminosity is 

856: needed to see the difference at high significance -- at least $\sim2-3$ orders of 

857: magnitude in $L$ below $L_{\ast}$ (ideally more like $\sim4-5$ orders of magnitude). 

858: This explains e.g.\ the weak dependence seen in the sample of \citet{kollmeier:mdot}, 

859: who note the weak dependence of mean Eddington ratio and width of the distribution on 

860: $L$, but have a relatively narrow range in $L$ and are concentrated near 

861: and above $\sim L_{\ast}$. Their observations are in fact entirely consistent with the 

862: model predictions and other observations (over larger baselines) that do see 

863: such a dependence. 

864: 

865: 

866: \section{Comparison with Models: What Degeneracies Are Broken?} 

867: \label{sec:compare.models}

868: 

869: We now ask how unique these predictions are: in other words, can the observations 

870: distinguish between different models for the Eddington ratio/quasar lifetime distribution?

871: 

872: \begin{figure*}

873:     \centering

874:     %\scaleup

875:     %\plotone{mdot_dist_demo.ps}

876:     \plotone{f6.ps}

877:     \caption{As Figure~\ref{fig:yulu.1}, but comparing the consequences of 

878:     different lightcurve/lifetime models for the observed Eddington ratio distribution 

879:     (generally parameterized by Equation~\ref{eqn:schechterfit}, with power-law like slope 

880:     $-\beta$ at low $\lambda$). We compare our previous model examples 

881:     (red solid, with median $\beta\sim0.6$) and the exponential 

882:     (green dot-dashed, $\beta=0$) and light-bulb (blue dotted, $\beta\ll0$, reflecting a 

883:     log-normal or $\delta$-function distribution) models. We also show the effective 

884:     physical upper limit (dark blue dashed, $\beta=1$; $\beta>1$ would result in BH 

885:     growth that is divergent towards low-$\lambda$). The models are all normalized 

886:     to give the same number of objects at $\lambda\gtrsim0.1$; this is required

887:     in order to match the observed quasar luminosity function where it is well-constrained 

888:     ($L \gtrsim 10^{45}\,{\rm erg\,s^{-1}}$). Even freeing this normalization (i.e.\ allowing the 

889:     AGN luminosity function to be significantly different from that observed), however, still 

890:     does not allow the exponential or light-bulb models to match the observations. 

891:     \label{fig:model.compare}}

892: \end{figure*}

893: 

894: Figure~\ref{fig:model.compare} compares the data and several simple models for the 

895: lifetime distribution. There are a number of commonly adopted forms

896: for quasar lifetimes and lightcurves in the 

897: literature, including the light-bulb, 

898: pure exponential growth (corresponding to growth at fixed Eddington ratio and 

899: then either instantaneous decline or similar decay), and self-regulated 

900: decay models. The range of 

901: possibilities can be generally approximated 

902: by a Schechter fitting function: 

903: \begin{equation}

904: \frac{{\rm d}t}{{\rm d}\log{L}} = t_{0}\,

905: {\Bigl(}\frac{L}{L_{\rm peak}}{\Bigr)}^{-\beta}\,

906: \exp{(-L/L_{\rm peak})}

907: \label{eqn:schechterfit.0}

908: \end{equation}

909: where $L_{\rm peak}\equiv\eta\,L_{\rm Edd}$ with some $\eta\sim1$. 

910: Equivalently, we can fit: 

911: \begin{equation}

912: \frac{{\rm d}t}{{\rm d}\log{\mdot}}(M_{\rm BH}) = t_{0}\,

913: {\Bigl(}\frac{\mdot}{\eta}{\Bigr)}^{-\beta}\,

914: \exp{(-\mdot/\eta)}.

915: \label{eqn:schechterfit}

916: \end{equation}

917: 

918: This allows for the fact that there must be some physical (and observed) 

919: cutoff in the Eddington ratio distribution above $\mdot=1$, but permits

920: an arbitrary power-law like behavior at lower Eddington ratios 

921: (which can approximate any near-similarity solution for self-regulated 

922: lightcurve decay, or a power-law-like spectrum of triggering 

923: activity, as well as a rapid/exponential rise fall and even sufficiently rapid 

924: rise similar to a light-bulb). In practice, we find that fitting 

925: an equation of the form of Equation~\ref{eqn:schechterfit} to the 

926: data in e.g.\ Figures~\ref{fig:yulu.1}-\ref{fig:merloni} provides a 

927: useful and statistically good description of the data. 

928: 

929: In all mass intervals, we 

930: find a similar best-fit $\eta\approx0.2-0.4$ -- the exact value 

931: reflects the particular choice of functional 

932: form, but the general value describes the 

933: observed and expected cutoff in the $\mdot$ distribution at 

934: $\mdot\sim1$. We discuss variations in $\eta$ below, but find that 

935: it cannot vary widely: much lower $\eta$ exponentially suppresses 

936: the number of bright sources, 

937: and much higher $\eta$ implies no Eddington limit, both 

938: in conflict with AGN luminosity functions and direct observations of 

939: the distribution of accretion rates in bright, broad-line systems 

940: \citep[see e.g.][]{kollmeier:mdot,greene:active.mf}. In what follows, 

941: we find statistically identical results fitting the observations with 

942: a free $\eta$ or fixed $\eta=0.4$ (the degeneracy between e.g.\ $\eta$ 

943: and $\beta$, within the range allowed by observations, is not strong). 

944: 

945: As a consequence, 

946: the shape of the distribution is primarily contained in the slope $\beta$. 

947: Various lightcurve models make differing specific predictions for 

948: this slope: 

949: \\

950: 

951: {$\bullet$ \bf Light-Bulb Models:} Strictly speaking, 

952: in such a model $\dtdlogl$ is a delta function at the characteristic 

953: $\mdot_{\rm on}$; allowing for some finite width or measurement errors in 

954: $\mdot$, this can be approximated as e.g.\ a lognormal distribution or a 

955: Schechter distribution with $\beta \ll 0$ (i.e.\ a large {\em negative} $\beta$). 

956: 

957: {$\bullet$ \bf Exponential Models:} For pure exponential models (e.g.\ accretion at a constant 

958: Eddington ratio or exponential decay), 

959: one obtains $\dtdlogl\approx$constant, or $\beta=0$. 

960: 

961: {$\bullet$ \bf Maximal low-$\lambda$ Accretion:} 

962: At the opposite extreme, there is a physical limit $\beta < 1$; because the fractional contribution 

963: to BH mass growth from a range in $\log(\mdot)$ 

964: goes roughly as $\mdot\times\dtdlogl$.  For $\beta\ge1$, the total growth is 

965: both formally divergent and (even if there is some cutoff at low-$\mdot$)

966: weighted towards the lowest-$\mdot$ values. 

967: Constraints from the observed BH mass function and the 

968: \citet{soltan82} argument \citep[see e.g.][]{yutremaine:bhmf,

969: salucci:bhmf,shankar:bhmf,marconi:bhmf}, as well as other 

970: indirect constraints \citep{hopkins:old.age} imply that most BH growth cannot 

971: occur in extremely low Eddington ratio states. 

972: 

973: {$\bullet$ \bf Self-Regulated Models:} In feedback-regulated models, 

974: the energy coupled to the ISM which halts quasar accretion leads 

975: to a nearly self-similar power-law like decay of the quasar lightcurve, 

976: $L\propto t^{-1/\beta}$. Hydrodynamic simulations of 

977: quasars in galaxy mergers \citep{hopkins:faint.slope}  

978: suggest values $\beta\sim0.6$ for typical $\sim L_{\ast}$ 

979: galaxies, with a weak mass dependence. Analytic calculations 

980: in \citet{hopkins:seyferts} demonstrate that for a range of assumptions 

981: regarding the fueling 

982: mechanisms (for e.g.\ stochastic or secular AGN fueling 

983: mechanisms), feedback coupling mechanism, timescale, efficiency, and 

984: gas properties around the BH, a range of $\beta\approx0.3-0.8$ is possible; 

985: but simulations of these non-merger scenarios \citep{younger:minor.mergers} 

986: suggest a similar, relatively narrow range of $\beta$ independent of 

987: fueling mechanism. 

988: 

989: {$\bullet$ \bf Isolated Accretion Disk/Gas Starvation Models:} \citet{yu:mdot.dist,yulu:lightcurve.constraints.from.bhmf.integration} show 

990: that a similar power-law decay is expected 

991: for a thin $\alpha$-disk \citep{shakurasunyaev73} abruptly 

992: cut off from any future fuel supply, when there is no feedback. 

993: The disk therefore slowly starves as gas exhausts by 

994: a combination of accretion and (possibly) star formation. 

995: The solution should be mass and host galaxy independent, with $\beta\approx0.80-0.84$. 

996: The exact solution depends (weakly) in detail on e.g.\ how 

997: the opacity and viscosity of the disk vary as a function of density and temperature, but the 

998: authors show that the entire set of solutions (corresponding to the allowed 

999: range for observationally reasonable $\alpha$-disks) lie within this narrow 

1000: interval in $\beta$. In Figure~\ref{fig:model.compare}, we omit this 

1001: model for clarity, but the result lies between the self-regulated 

1002: model and the physically maximal ($\beta=1$) model. 

1003: 

1004: {$\bullet$ \bf BHs Trace Stellar Evolution:} It is possible that many low-luminosity 

1005: systems are fueled by stellar mass loss from aging nuclear stellar populations. 

1006: If the BH simply linearly traced this evolution (i.e.\ grew in this fueling-limited 

1007: background with no feedback), the late-time accretion rate evolution would 

1008: follow the stellar mass loss rate, giving a similar power-law 

1009: solution with a steeper $\beta\approx0.9-1.0$ \citep[e.g.][]{norman:stellar.wind.fueling,

1010: starburst99,BC03,ciottiostriker:recycling}. \\

1011: 

1012: 

1013: 

1014: \begin{figure}

1015:     \centering

1016:     \scaleup

1017:     %\plotone{mdot_dist_pwrlaw.ps}

1018:     \plotter{f7.ps}

1019:     \caption{Slope $\beta$ of the lifetime/lightcurve/Eddington ratio distribution 

1020:     fitted to the observations in Figures~\ref{fig:yulu.1}-\ref{fig:yulu.2} with a 

1021:     general Schechter-function parameterization (Equation~\ref{eqn:schechterfit}). 

1022:     {\em Top:} Points are the maximum likelihood 

1023:     fit results for each mass bin, where the fits are 

1024:     constrained such that the observed quasar luminosity function must 

1025:     be reproduced. We repeat our fits using the quoted error bars 

1026:     in the observed Eddington ratio distributions (black) and 

1027:     allowing for an additional $\sim0.3$\,dex intrinsic uncertainty (red). 

1028:     We compare with the model predictions from \citet{hopkins:faint.slope}, 

1029:     determined from simulations 

1030:     allowing for a mass-dependent typical lifetime distribution or 

1031:     assuming a constant (mass-independent) lifetime distribution ($\beta\approx0.6$). 

1032:     {\em Bottom:} Fits repeated, but removing the constraint that the observed 

1033:     luminosity function must be reproduced (magenta star is the fit to the 

1034:     observations in the lower-right panel of Figure~\ref{fig:yulu.2}, which span a 

1035:     wider mass and $\mdot$ interval). The results are consistent, 

1036:     but less constrained. 

1037:     The results agree well with the model predictions, and if a match to the 

1038:     observed luminosity function is required, specifically favor the 

1039:     full mass-dependent model. In either case, an exponential ($\beta=0$) or 

1040:     light-bulb ($\beta\ll0$) model is ruled out at high significance.  

1041:     \label{fig:pwrlaw}}

1042: \end{figure}

1043: 

1044: 

1045: 

1046: Fitting each BH mass bin in Figures~\ref{fig:yulu.1}-\ref{fig:yulu.2} to 

1047: an arbitrary 

1048: function of the form in Equation~\ref{eqn:schechterfit} (free $t_{0}$, $\eta$, $\beta$), we 

1049: obtain the constraints on $\beta$ shown in Figure~\ref{fig:pwrlaw}. 

1050: In fact, the constraints can be made stronger. Any fitted $\lambda$ distribution, 

1051: convolved with the BH mass function \citep[implicit in 

1052: Figures~\ref{fig:yulu.1}-\ref{fig:yulu.2}, or taken from observations 

1053: following e.g.][]{marconi:bhmf} must reproduce the observed AGN luminosity 

1054: functions. In practice, this ``anchors'' the number density at high $\lambda\gtrsim0.1$ 

1055: (which dominate the QLF). Re-fitting the observed $\lambda$ distribution, with the 

1056: fit constrained to also reproduce the observed QLF 

1057: \citep[taken here from the compilation of a large number of observations in][but 

1058: the results are not sensitive to the specific choice]{hopkins:bol.qlf}, we obtain the 

1059: constraints in the top panel of Figure~\ref{fig:pwrlaw} (note that the errors  

1060: shown in this case are not independent). 

1061: 

1062: Parametrically, if we assume $\beta$ is independent of $M_{\rm BH}$ 

1063: (or consider a range near $\sim L_{\ast}$), we obtain 

1064: $\beta \approx 0.6\pm 0.05$, in good agreement with the theoretical predictions 

1065: from the simulations of \citet{hopkins:faint.slope}. 

1066: If we allow for a dependence of $\beta$ on $M_{\rm BH}$, parameterized 

1067: for convenience as 

1068: \begin{equation}

1069: \beta = \beta_{7.5} + \beta^{\prime}\,\log{(M_{\rm BH}/10^{7.5}\,\msun)}, 

1070: \label{eqn:beta.vs.mbh}

1071: \end{equation}

1072: we obtain $\beta_{7.5}=0.63\pm0.04$ and $\beta^{\prime}=-0.29\pm0.08$ if we 

1073: include the constraints from the observed QLF, and 

1074: $\beta_{7.5}=0.63\pm0.04$ and $\beta^{\prime}=-0.11\pm0.09$ if 

1075: we do not (the observed $\lambda$ distributions themselves are insufficient 

1076: to determine if $\beta$ depends weakly on BH mass). 

1077: 

1078: 

1079: 

1080: 

1081: \begin{figure}

1082:     \centering

1083:     \scaleup

1084:     %\plotone{mdot_dist_vs_rho_pred.ps}

1085:     \plotone{f8.ps}

1086:     \caption{Illustration of how the observational constraints on $\beta$ can 

1087:     discriminate between different physical and phenomenological quasar 

1088:     lifetime models. Blue shaded range shows the allowed slope $\beta$ from 

1089:     the fits to the observations taken cumulatively, either assuming it 

1090:     is invariant (independent of $M_{\rm BH}$) or allowing it to depend on 

1091:     $M_{\rm BH}$ as in Figure~\ref{fig:pwrlaw}. Black lines compare different 

1092:     models for the self-regulating growth seen in hydrodynamic simulations 

1093:     \citep[where e.g.\ the gas density profiles, ISM equation of state and phase 

1094:     breakdown, and prescriptions for feedback and BH accretion are varied; for details 

1095:     see][]{hopkins:faint.slope,hopkins:seyferts}; these predictions agree well with the observations 

1096:     and are relatively independent of the detailed assumptions. If we include 

1097:     the constraint that the QLF must be reproduced simultaneously, the observations 

1098:     rule out mass-independent $\beta$ (corresponding to slightly 

1099:     more simplified analytic self-regulated 

1100:     models, described in the text). 

1101:     The $\beta$ corresponding to pure exponential or phenomenological ``light-bulb'' 

1102:     models are also shown, as is the region ruled out by the \citet{soltan82} and other 

1103:     physical arguments. An alternative physical model, of a thin $\alpha$-disk where 

1104:     the entire fuel supply is instantaneously provided from larger radii then cut off 

1105:     (i.e.\ large-scale gas inflows and feedback are excluded), is shown 

1106:     \citep[this yields $\beta\approx0.8$ as the 

1107:     accretion disk consumes gas; see][]{yu:mdot.dist}. Although a better description than the simplified 

1108:     phenomenological models, the observations can rule out such strictly ``isolated'' 

1109:     accretion disk exhaustion at $\gtrsim3\,\sigma$ (the constraints are even stronger, 

1110:     $\sim5\,\sigma$ at high masses, if we also force the solution to match the observed QLF). 

1111:     Likewise, assuming BH accretion simply traces stellar mass loss from evolving 

1112:     stellar populations (without feedback to regulate growth more efficiently) 

1113:     is ruled out ($\beta\approx0.9-1.0$). 

1114:     \label{fig:beta.models}}

1115: \end{figure}

1116: 

1117: Figure~\ref{fig:beta.models} summarizes the predictions of the 

1118: different models above. 

1119: The observations prefer a narrow range of slopes: it is 

1120: not possible to match the observed Eddington ratio 

1121: distribution in light-bulb or exponential models (ruled out at $\gg 5\,\sigma$), 

1122: and simple stellar wind models are ruled out at $\sim4\,\sigma$. 

1123: 

1124: The isolated accretion disk model fares somewhat better: 

1125: \citet{yu:mdot.dist} show that it is consistent with the $\lambda$ distribution observed 

1126: for low-mass BHs, a result we confirm here, but it is inconsistent with 

1127: the observations of typical $\sim L_{\ast}$ and more massive 

1128: BHs at $>4\,\sigma$. 

1129: \citet{yulu:lightcurve.constraints.from.bhmf.integration} 

1130: show that such a model 

1131: does improve upon the light-bulb model in simultaneously reproducing 

1132: the observed QLF and BH mass function. However, as noted before, the QLF is 

1133: primarily a tracer of high-$\lambda$ activity, and given that such activity dominates 

1134: the accretion history of BHs \citep{soltan82}, these observational constraints 

1135: alone cannot break the degeneracy between similar, but slightly different 

1136: lightcurve models $L\propto t^{-1/\beta}$ ($\beta\sim0.6$ and $\beta\sim0.8$ 

1137: corresponding to the self-regulated and isolated accretion disk models, respectively). 

1138: \citet{hopkins:qso.all,hopkins:bol.qlf,hopkins:groups.qso,hopkins:groups.ell} 

1139: demonstrate that similar solutions for the QLF and BH mass function exist for 

1140: the self-regulated model (unsurprisingly, the two yield very similar growth histories 

1141: and $\lambda\gtrsim0.1$ activity). As a consequence 

1142: the low-$\lambda$ distribution represents an important 

1143: means to break these degeneracies, and disfavor 

1144: the isolated accretion disk models. We do emphasize, however, that 

1145: while the isolated disk model is

1146: ruled out at high formal significance, the absolute 

1147: difference between it and self-regulated models

1148: is not large. That modest difference may reflect the inclusion of a small, 

1149: but physically important term, for example outflows or winds 

1150: from the accretion disk that cause it to gas-exhaust slightly more 

1151: steeply in time than otherwise. 

1152: 

1153: Feedback-regulated models agree well with observations. Distinguishing 

1154: between feedback-regulated models, however, is difficult. In Figure~\ref{fig:beta.models} 

1155: we compare several sub-classes: all follow a 

1156: similar behavior and reflect the basic scalings in \citet{silkrees:msigma}. 

1157: The models are derived in \citet{hopkins:seyferts} treating feedback-driven 

1158: outflows as similarity solutions for expanding winds/blastwaves; the solutions 

1159: adopt various equations of state and make different assumptions for the 

1160: feedback coupling (whether e.g.\ feedback instantaneously couples to 

1161: the ISM or continues to couple continuously throughout the event). Others \citep{menci:sam,

1162: granato:sam} have obtained similar conclusions in different feedback models. 

1163: We also compare the fits to the hydrodynamic simulations in \citet{hopkins:faint.slope} and 

1164: \citet{younger:minor.mergers} -- the simulations give similar results for typical 

1165: spheroids, but break the strict (analytically assumed) self-similarity: they predict a weak 

1166: mass dependence (more massive galaxies being more gas poor and bulge-dominated, 

1167: and having somewhat more violent resonant angular momentum transport and 

1168: therefore more sharply peaked quasar/starburst activity as a 

1169: consequence). The mass dependence amounts to a predicted 

1170: $\beta^{\prime}\approx-0.25$ in Equation~\ref{eqn:beta.vs.mbh}. 

1171: The observations favor the self-regulated class of models, and may weakly favor 

1172: the mass dependence predicted in simulations. 

1173: 

1174: Some space of self-regulated models is ruled out. For example, 

1175: \citet{hopkins:seyferts} argue that if accretion grows primarily out of cold instabilities 

1176: ``falling out of'' the expanding feedback-driven blastwave (in an adiabatic 

1177: gas with Bondi-like spherical accretion), then very steep $\beta\sim31/19$ 

1178: at early times is expected (only decaying to the $\beta\sim0.5-0.6$ 

1179: seen in simulations in the late-time limit). Such a steep $\beta$ (shallow 

1180: lightcurve decay) is not allowed. 

1181: 

1182: 

1183: 

1184: 

1185: \section{Constraints on AGN Lifetimes} 

1186: \label{sec:compare.lifetimes}

1187: 

1188: These fits also allow us to quantify the quasar lifetime. 

1189: There are, in fact, three different ``quasar lifetimes'' to which we could refer, 

1190: which are constrained to varying degrees by the observations. 

1191: 

1192: {\bf (1) ``Effective'' Lifetimes}: This is the lifetime defined in terms of the duty 

1193: cycle -- i.e.\ we define the effective quasar lifetime (at a given Eddington 

1194: ratio $\mdot$ at a given BH mass $M_{\rm BH}$) by the duty cycle 

1195: ${\rm d}\delta(\mdot\,|\,M_{\rm BH})/{\rm d}\log{\lambda}$. 

1196: Specifically, we invert Equation~\ref{eqn:duty.cycle.translation} to obtain

1197: \begin{equation}

1198: \frac{{\rm d}t_{\rm eff}(\lambda\,|\,M_{\rm BH})}{{\rm d}\log{\lambda}}\equiv

1199: t_{H}(z)\,\frac{{\rm d}\delta}{{\rm d}\log{\lambda}}, 

1200: \label{eqn:teff.defn}

1201: \end{equation}

1202: or in terms of the integrated duty cycle above $\lambda$ ($\delta[>\lambda]$), 

1203: we have $t_{\rm eff}(>\lambda)\equiv t_{H}(z)\,\delta(>\lambda)$. 

1204: This is directly determined by the observed Eddington ratio distributions 

1205: at any redshift $z$, and is what is often referred to as the 

1206: implied ``AGN lifetime'' from various observed statistics.\footnote{In

1207: standard parlance, $t_{\rm eff}$ is {\em defined} in terms of the 

1208: Hubble time $t_{H}$. However, strictly speaking $t_{\rm eff}$ has 

1209: physical meaning (i.e.\ represents the time systems spend ``on'' at 

1210: some $\lambda$ at a given redshift) only if two conditions are met: 

1211: $t_{\rm eff}\ll t_{H}$ (the duty cycle $\delta\ll 1$) and 

1212: host properties/triggering rates are varying on a timescale $\gg t_{\rm eff}$ 

1213: (of order $t_{H}$). Both of these are satisfied at low redshift, for all 

1214: but the lowest-$\lambda$ populations, but may not be true at high redshifts 

1215: (imagine, for example, all hosts are ``just formed'' at some high redshift 

1216: and are also all ``on'' -- then $t_{\rm eff}=t_{H}$, but the real lifetime 

1217: can be significantly shorter).} 

1218: 

1219: {\bf (2) ``Integrated'' Lifetimes}: Recall, Equation~\ref{eqn:duty.cycle.translation} 

1220: is only approximate. 

1221: If one could view a BH or 

1222: appropriate BH sub-population of final (remnant $z=0$) mass $M_{\rm BH}$ over 

1223: its complete history, then the {\em true} ``integrated'' lifetime or duty cycle 

1224: at a given Eddington ratio or luminosity would be given by the appropriate 

1225: integral 

1226: \begin{equation}

1227: t_{\rm int}(>\lambda) = \int{\delta(>\lambda\,|\,z)}\,\frac{{\rm d}t}{{\rm d}z}\,{\rm d}z.

1228: \label{eqn:tint.defn}

1229: \end{equation}

1230: It is immediately clear by comparison with Equation~\ref{eqn:teff.defn} that 

1231: the integrated lifetime is equal to the effective lifetime if 

1232: the duty cycle $\delta(>\lambda\,|\,z)$ is relatively constant over the 

1233: redshift range of interest. In practice, so long as $\delta(>\lambda\,|\,z)$ has evolved 

1234: relatively weakly between the time when most BHs of mass $M_{\rm BH}$ 

1235: were formed and the observed redshift, one will obtain $t_{\rm eff}\approx t_{\rm int}$. 

1236: This is seen to be the situation for relatively low-mass 

1237: BHs corresponding to e.g.\ low-luminosity broad-line AGN \citep[which both 

1238: are observed to have relatively constant number densities and duty cycles and 

1239: are still growing, so their observed growth corresponds to that during their ``growth 

1240: epoch''; see e.g.][and references therein]{ueda03:qlf,hasinger05:qlf,

1241: hopkins:bol.qlf,shankar:bol.qlf}. For more massive BHs, however, where $\delta$ is 

1242: significantly lower today than at high redshift, the two will not be the same. 

1243: 

1244: Nevertheless, the integrated lifetime is completely determined by the $z=0$ 

1245: Eddington ratio distributions for most reasonable physical models. 

1246: The reason is that this is an integral constraint, and the total accretion needs 

1247: to sum appropriately to produce a $z=0$ BH of mass $M_{\rm BH}$. 

1248: This is trivial to see if we temporarily consider the differential lifetime in terms of luminosity 

1249: (rather than Eddington ratio) for a 

1250: BH of final mass $M_{\rm BH}$: if we have some reasonable approximation

1251: to the {\em shape} of the lifetime 

1252: function (Equation~\ref{eqn:schechterfit.0}) -- then the total $M_{\rm BH}$ 

1253: must be given by the integral: 

1254: \begin{equation}

1255: M_{\rm BH} = \int{L\,{\rm d}t} = \int{L\,\frac{{\rm d}t}{{\rm d}\log{L}}\,{\rm d}\log{L}} .

1256: \label{eqn:continuity}

1257: \end{equation}

1258: In detail, we should truncate the lifetime function in Equation~\ref{eqn:schechterfit.0} 

1259: at some minimum $L$ where the integrated lifetime $t\rightarrow t_{H}$ -- we do so 

1260: but note 

1261: in practice for the typical $\beta\approx0.6$ this lower 

1262: $L$ is sufficiently small that the integral 

1263: has already converged. 

1264: If we assume $\beta(M_{\rm BH})$ and $\eta$ are relatively constant (and whatever 

1265: physics sets them appears, at least in simulations, to be local to the AGN and 

1266: redshift independent), then solving this equation yields a normalization $t_{0}$ 

1267: appropriate for determining the {\em integrated} quasar lifetime above each $L$ 

1268: \citep[for a more detailed derivation, see][]{hopkins:qso.all}. 

1269: 

1270: It is straightforward (although the continuity equations become somewhat more 

1271: cumbersome and have to be solved numerically) 

1272: to rewrite this derivation in terms of the Eddington ratio distribution 

1273: (Equation~\ref{eqn:schechterfit}), and the solution is similar\footnote{In doing so, 

1274: one is implicitly referring to the time spent at a given Eddington ratio 

1275: {\em near the final BH mass} as observed at the appropriate redshift. 

1276: There is no way to determine from the observations here, 

1277: for example, if a $10^{9}\,\msun$ BH spent many Salpeter times 

1278: growing in near-Eddington limited fashion from a small $\sim1\,\msun$ seed 

1279: at very high redshifts, or formed directly as a $\sim10^{5}\,\msun$ seed BH. 

1280: More rigorously we could write this as $t[> L/L_{\rm Edd}(M_{\rm BH,\,f})]$. 

1281: However in terms of the Eddington ratio distribution that would be measured 

1282: at any epoch in a relatively narrow range of BH mass, the two are identical.}.

1283: Performing 

1284: this exercise, we can approximate the integrated lifetimes 

1285: at each logarithmic range in $\mdot$ by the same 

1286: Equation~\ref{eqn:schechterfit} (with $\eta\approx0.4$), but with an ``integrated'' 

1287: normalization $t_{0}$ 

1288: whose constrained value can be roughly approximated 

1289: as $1.26\,(1-1.8\,[\beta-0.6])\times10^{8}\,$yr (near a 

1290: constant $\sim10^{8}\,$yr, i.e.\ 

1291: $\approx2-3$ Salpeter times, appropriate 

1292: for growing a BH by an order of magnitude in mass). Integrating 

1293: Equation~\ref{eqn:schechterfit} from some minimum $\lambda$ to $\lambda=1$ 

1294: with this normalization, we obtain the required integrated lifetime in each 

1295: $\lambda$ range. 

1296: 

1297: {\bf (3) ``Episodic'' Lifetimes}: This is the lifetime of an individual AGN/quasar 

1298: ``event'' or some effective width in each peak in the quasar lightcurve. 

1299: If AGN are excited to high Eddington ratio by some sort of trigger, then the 

1300: time they spend in a given range of $L$ or $\mdot$ as a consequence of 

1301: just that trigger is the appropriate episodic lifetime. The duty cycle at a given 

1302: redshift is (to lowest order) the product of the triggering rate and 

1303: episodic lifetime: for a fixed episodic lifetime, 

1304: if the triggering rate is doubled, the effective lifetime doubles 

1305: as well. Recall, it is the duty cycle (volume-averaged fraction) of BHs at a 

1306: given Eddington ratio/luminosity that is observationally constrained by what 

1307: we consider here. Therefore, based on the observations discussed thus far, we 

1308: can only place an upper limit on the episodic lifetime (it cannot, of course, be 

1309: longer than the integrated lifetime). We discuss the degeneracies this implies 

1310: and possibilities for direct constraints and complimentary lower limits to 

1311: the episodic lifetime in \S~\ref{sec:lightcurves}. 

1312: 

1313: \begin{figure}

1314:     \centering

1315:     \scaleup

1316:     %\plotone{mdot_dist_t0.ps}

1317:     \plotter{f9.ps}

1318:     \caption{Effective quasar lifetime (black circles) above a given 

1319:     Eddington ratio $\lambda$, i.e.\ the duty cycle $\delta(>\lambda)$ times 

1320:     the Hubble time, fitted as a function of BH mass to the data in 

1321:     Figures~\ref{fig:yulu.1}-\ref{fig:yulu.2}. The data are at low redshift, so this 

1322:     should be thought of as the average lifetime for objects whose luminosity 

1323:     function is similar to that observed at low-$z$ (see text). 

1324:     Dashed blue lines compare the 

1325:     model predictions, integrating over the cosmological 

1326:     history of triggering. 

1327:     The integrated quasar lifetime (red squares) determined by integrating over the 

1328:     best-fit lifetime distribution to the observations in each bin of $M_{\rm BH}$ 

1329:     (applying the appropriate mass conservation equation) is shown for 

1330:     comparison. 

1331:     Dotted orange lines are the predicted integrated quasar lifetimes -- reflecting the total time 

1332:     at each $\lambda$ (integrated over any arbitrary cosmological history) 

1333:     required by continuity to produce a BH at $z=0$ with the observed mass. 

1334:     The two lifetimes are similar 

1335:     for BHs at lower masses $M_{\rm BH}\lesssim10^{7.5}\,\msun$ (at which masses 

1336:     observations suggest the duty cycle/volume density of quasars has been relatively 

1337:     constant since $z\sim1-2$), but different at the highest masses 

1338:     (where there has been a steep drop-off in quasar activity since $z\sim2$; 

1339:     i.e.\ the systems did most of their growth preferentially at high redshifts and 

1340:     have lower average integrated lifetimes at higher $\lambda$ today). 

1341:     \label{fig:t0}}

1342: \end{figure}

1343: 

1344: Figure~\ref{fig:t0} compares the effective and integrated lifetimes determined 

1345: from our fitting as a function of BH mass and minimum $\lambda$. 

1346: The effective lifetime, being essentially a duty cycle, can be determined 

1347: directly from the Eddington ratio distributions where they cover the necessary 

1348: dynamic range. The results are as expected -- roughly constant at 

1349: low BH masses, with a steep fall in duty cycles/effective lifetimes 

1350: at high-$M_{\rm BH}$. The integrated lifetimes are determined 

1351: from the fitted lifetime distributions (Equation~\ref{eqn:schechterfit}), 

1352: given the continuity requirement. They are also as expected -- 

1353: for $\lambda\gtrsim0.1$, for example, this gives an expectation that 

1354: most BHs spent $\sim$ a few Salpeter times at high Eddington ratio, 

1355: a requirement in any self-consistent Eddington-limited model. They are 

1356: much more weakly mass-dependent -- since 

1357: $\mdot$ is dimensionless and BH growth at fixed $\mdot$ exponential, 

1358: we would expect that (to lowest order) systems of different masses should 

1359: have spent similar time at $\mdot$ over the course of their evolution. 

1360: At high $\mdot$, this is true by definition; as noted above the time at a given 

1361: $\mdot$ refers to time near that $\mdot$ near the final BH mass -- 

1362: if the Eddington limit is applicable, all systems must spend a similar time in 

1363: this regime.

1364: 

1365: Comparing the integrated and effective lifetimes yields an 

1366: effective ratio of duty cycles: 

1367: \begin{equation}

1368: \frac{t_{\rm eff}}{t_{\rm int}} = \frac{\delta(>\lambda\,|\,z_{\rm obs})}

1369: {\langle \delta(>\lambda\,|\,z>z_{\rm obs}) \rangle}, 

1370: \label{eqn:duty.cycle.ratio}

1371: \end{equation}

1372: where $\langle \delta(>\lambda\,|\,z>z_{\rm obs}) \rangle$ is an 

1373: appropriate weighted average $\delta$ (weighting over the 

1374: time integral in Equation~\ref{eqn:tint.defn} and by the relative fraction of 

1375: systems with mass $M_{\rm BH}$ at $z_{\rm obs}$ formed around 

1376: each $z$). Roughly speaking, this yields the ratio of the duty cycle 

1377: at the observed redshift $z_{\rm obs}$ to that during the epoch in which 

1378: most BHs of the given mass were actively growing. For local low-mass 

1379: BHs, this ratio is near unity; for high-mass BHs, is falls steeply to somewhere 

1380: between $\sim1-10\%$ of its high-redshift value, consistent with 

1381: the now-standard picture of ``downsizing'' in BH growth. 

1382: 

1383: 

1384: Note that the lifetimes in Figure~\ref{fig:t0} are not directly analogous to those 

1385: in previous works \citep[e.g.][]{yutremaine:bhmf,salucci:bhmf,shankar:bhmf,marconi:bhmf}, 

1386: because those assume a simplified light-bulb model, rather than a continuous distribution 

1387: of accretion rates. 

1388: 

1389: Also, these models usually quote the total time 

1390: at high Eddington ratio at all BH masses since some adopted initial condition 

1391: (not the time at some Eddington ratio in a narrow range of BH mass, constrained 

1392: directly by observations here); as such, the comparison requires matching the 

1393: boundary conditions for seed BHs in the light-bulb models.\footnote{Specifically, 

1394: we show in Figure~\ref{fig:t0} the average time spend in a given $\mdot$ 

1395: range for individual BHs with a given $z=0$ mass. Some other 

1396: definitions adopted in the literature reflect the {\em total} time for 

1397: all BHs that are in or passed through a given BH mass interval 

1398: (e.g.\ massive $z=0$ BHs when they were, earlier, at this mass). 

1399: The latter lifetime definition will be higher at lower masses, 

1400: since it includes the time local, more massive systems spent ``on'' 

1401: at earlier times getting to their present-day masses.}

1402: Also, $\delta$ here is the duty cycle above some $\lambda$, and is not 

1403: directly comparable to the ``AGN fraction'' often defined observationally. 

1404: 

1405: For example, \citet{heckman:local.mbh} point out (as seen here in the same data) 

1406: that $\delta(>\lambda)$ decreases strongly with $M_{\rm BH}$; however, 

1407: \citet{kauffmann:qso.hosts} and \citet{kewley:agn.host.sf} argue from the 

1408: same data that the ``AGN fraction'' increases with galaxy mass. 

1409: This apparent contradiction owes to a number of well-known trends: bulge-to-disk ratios 

1410: and velocity dispersions drop rapidly in low-mass galaxies, so the span of 

1411: BH mass and galaxy mass are not the same at low masses; specific star formation 

1412: rates also increase rapidly in low-mass galaxies, so for the same fractional Eddington 

1413: luminosity low-mass systems will be less AGN-dominated; and most such samples 

1414: are AGN luminosity-limited, and so probe more massive hosts to lower 

1415: Eddington ratios. Modeling these selection effects is non-trivial and quite sensitive 

1416: to the specific selection effects and wavelengths of each observed sample -- we 

1417: therefore do not attempt a direct comparison here. We do note, however, that 

1418: the comparison of the \citet{heckman:local.mbh,kauffmann:new.mdot.dist} and 

1419: \citet{kauffmann:qso.hosts,kewley:agn.host.sf} samples indicates the consistency 

1420: of these different indicators; in \citet{hopkins:groups.qso} the authors attempt to 

1421: model similar selection effects to compare the self-regulated 

1422: lightcurves considered here with AGN fractions in the samples observed 

1423: by \citet{kauffmann:qso.hosts} at low redshift and \citet{erb:lbg.gasmasses,

1424: kriek:qso.frac} at high redshift 

1425: \citep[see also][and references therein]{silverman:qso.hosts}, and find consistent results. 

1426: 

1427: 

1428: 

1429: \section{Translation to AGN Lightcurves: Episodic versus Integrated Lifetimes}

1430: \label{sec:lightcurves}

1431: 

1432: 

1433: Given the quasar lifetime distribution, we can ask how this relates to 

1434: some ``average'' quasar lightcurve $L(t\, | \, M_{\rm BH})$. 

1435: {\em If the average lightcurve were monotonic}, this would be trivial: 

1436: inverting $\dtdlogL$ and integrating defines $L(t)$. 

1437: For the Schechter function in Equation~\ref{eqn:schechterfit} this is numerically 

1438: straightforward but tedious; we find a statistically identical 

1439: answer with the convenient analytic representation of the lightcurve 

1440: \begin{equation}

1441: \mdot = {\Bigl[}1 + (t/t_{Q})^{1/2} {\Bigr]}^{-2/\beta}

1442: \label{eqn:lightcurve}

1443: \end{equation}

1444: where $\beta$ is the same fitted to the lifetime distribution in Equation~\ref{eqn:schechterfit} 

1445: and 

1446: \begin{equation}

1447: t_{Q} = t_{Q}^{\rm max} \equiv t_{0}\,\frac{\eta^{\beta}}{\beta\,\ln{10}}

1448: \label{eqn:lightcurve.tQ}

1449: \end{equation}

1450: relative to the $t_{0}$ fitted in Equation~\ref{eqn:schechterfit} (the zero-point in $t$ 

1451: in Equation~\ref{eqn:lightcurve} is obviously arbitrary and here is fixed to 

1452: the time when the lightcurve is at maximum). For the 

1453: median $\beta\approx0.6$, this gives $t_{Q}\approx5.3\times10^{7}\,$yr, 

1454: similar to the Salpeter time and characteristic dynamical times in the 

1455: central regions of galaxies. 

1456: It is straightforward to see that the lifetime distribution yielded by this lightcurve is 

1457: statistically a good match to the Schechter function fits and observations in 

1458: \S~\ref{sec:compare.dist}, and it is convenient for analytic models of quasar evolution. 

1459: If $t_{Q}\rightarrow t_{Q}/2$ and $t\rightarrow | t |$, it is trivial to treat this as 

1460: time-symmetric about some peak, and a nearly identical 

1461: lifetime distribution is obtained if one assumes exponential growth up 

1462: to a peak luminosity followed by a ``decay phase'' given by 

1463: Equation~\ref{eqn:lightcurve}. 

1464: 

1465: Equation~\ref{eqn:lightcurve} is a good match to the decline or 

1466: blowout phase of quasar evolution in feedback-regulated 

1467: simulations \citep{hopkins:faint.slope}. The assumption of monotonicity 

1468: need not be exact, 

1469: provided that the (average) fractional amplitude of variation in the quasar 

1470: luminosity is small (factor $\lesssim 2-3$) on timescales shorter than the 

1471: integrated quasar lifetime at the luminosity of interest. At some point 

1472: as the quasar lifetime approaches the Hubble time this is almost certainly not 

1473: true; however, for the short, high-$L$ periods 

1474: this is reasonable. 

1475: 

1476: 

1477: \begin{figure}

1478:     \centering

1479:     \scaleup

1480:     %\plotone{mdot_dist_democurv.ps}

1481:     \plotone{f10.ps}

1482:     \caption{Examples of different quasar lightcurves that match the observed 

1483:     quasar lifetime distribution (Equation~\ref{eqn:schechterfit}). The models are distinguished

1484:     by different {\em episodic} quasar lifetimes and frequency of triggering. 

1485:     The integrated quasar lifetime/duty cycle and average post-peak decay 

1486:     are the same (required to match the observed $\mdot$ distributions) -- the events decay 

1487:     after each peak following Equation~\ref{eqn:lightcurve}. 

1488:     Different observations, for example probing the transverse proximity effect, are required 

1489:     to break the degeneracies between these models. Constraints from these observations 

1490:     at present appear to rule out the model in the lower right panel, but the others, with an 

1491:     episodic lifetime $\sim0.3-1$ times the effective/integrated lifetime, are allowed. 

1492:     \label{fig:lightcurves}}

1493: \end{figure}

1494: 

1495: What if, however, there were two such episodes (each compressed in 

1496: duration and separated by a cosmological interval $\gtrsim$Gyr)? 

1497: Figure~\ref{fig:lightcurves} shows a few such 

1498: models (arbitrarily re-normalized to produce the same 

1499: final BH mass).  First, a monotonic or single event case (for convenience, we assume the 

1500: rise and fall about each ``event'' are symmetric). 

1501: Second, a superposition of three such events, each with shorter duration 

1502: so that the sum $\dtdlogl$ is conserved.  

1503: Third, a superposition of a couple of bright events and a larger number of lower-peak luminosity 

1504: events, with a power spectrum 

1505: following $\dtdlogl$.  And fourth, a superposition of such events with effectively short episodic 

1506: lifetimes ($t_{Q}\ll t_{\rm eff}$), or equivalently large-amplitude variability 

1507: on short timescales added according to a power-law spectrum with slope $\beta$. 

1508: 

1509: All of these model lightcurves reproduce the same lifetime distribution $\dtdlogl$, and 

1510: given $\dtdlogl$ and the observed Eddington ratio distribution, the observed 

1511: QLF will necessarily be the same. Moreover, they can all be normalized to 

1512: give the same final BH mass (although for this final BH mass, they may correspond 

1513: to different initial BH masses; but this is much smaller than the final mass 

1514: and so not constrained by the observations considered). 

1515: Measurements of the Eddington ratio distribution cannot 

1516: uniquely determine the average lightcurve; only $\dtdlogl$. 

1517: 

1518: In physical and observable terms, this is because the Eddington ratio distribution and 

1519: corresponding $\dtdlogl$ yield only the {\em effective} and {\em integrated} quasar lifetimes 

1520: -- i.e.\ the duty cycle and total lifetime -- 

1521: at some $L$, not the {\em episodic} lifetime. Averaged over some redshift 

1522: interval, the time $t(L)$ determined from 

1523: $\dtdlogl(L)$ is the {\em total} time that an object will be active at that $L$ in the 

1524: interval. Whether that time came continuously -- in a single episode -- or in some 

1525: large number of shorter episodes, cannot be inferred from the observations 

1526: considered thus far. 

1527: 

1528: The episodic lifetime is of particular 

1529: interest because it relates to the triggering 

1530: rate of quasars. If quasars are triggered at a rate $\dot{n}$ 

1531: and have an episodic lifetime (i.e.\ a duration around luminosity $L$ per peak or 

1532: triggering episode) of $t_{i}$ ($\sim t_{Q}$ if the event is similar to the description of 

1533: Equation~\ref{eqn:lightcurve}), then the number density observed is 

1534: $n=\dot{n}\,t_{i}$. If we know the observed number density and the effective lifetime $t_{\rm eff}$, 

1535: then attempting to infer the triggering rate we can only obtain

1536: \begin{equation}

1537: \dot{n} \approx \frac{n}{t_{\rm eff}}\,{\Bigl(}\frac{t_{\rm eff}}{t_{i}}{\Bigr)}, 

1538: \end{equation}

1539: i.e.\ we are limited by some guess for the ratio $t_{i}/t_{\rm eff}$. 

1540: The statement that $t_{i}=t_{\rm eff}$ is equivalent to the assumption that every 

1541: object at a given $L$ has had only one triggering episode in recent time. 

1542: But if $t_{i}$ were smaller than $t_{\rm eff}$ by some ratio $N$ ($t_{i}=t_{\rm eff}/N$), then 

1543: the implied triggering rate for the same number of observed systems 

1544: is higher by a factor $N$. 

1545: 

1546: Assuming a physical model for what triggers quasars, we can use observations of 

1547: quantities such as e.g.\ the galaxy merger rate to determine $\dot{n}$, 

1548: and doing so for the case of galaxy mergers gives the result that 

1549: $t_{i}\sim t_{\rm eff}$ (i.e.\ there are typically $\sim1$ triggers per unit Hubble time). If 

1550: we wish to determine $\dot{n}$ 

1551: without reference to a specific quasar fueling model, then we need 

1552: the episodic lifetime $t_{i}$. 

1553: 

1554: The observed rate of 

1555: evolution of the quasar luminosity function places an upper limit $t_{i}\lesssim 10^{9}\,$yr 

1556: at high luminosities \citep{martini04}, but this is already larger than the integrated 

1557: lifetime at these luminosities. Lower limits can be derived from the sizes of narrow 

1558: line regions \citep{bennert:nlr.structure}, but these are short 

1559: ($t_{i}>3\times 10^{4}\,$yr), so are not especially constraining 

1560: ($t_{i}\ll t_{\rm eff}$ is unlikely, as it requires extremely high rates of triggering, on 

1561: timescales faster than the relevant dynamical times). Indirect 

1562: measures relying on matching 

1563: the observed BH mass function and QLF 

1564: \citep{yutremaine:bhmf,salucci:bhmf,shankar:bhmf,marconi:bhmf} 

1565: and halo occupation models which compare 

1566: clustering data \citep{porciani2004,croom:clustering,

1567: fine:mbh-mhalo.clustering,porciani:clustering,daangela:clustering} 

1568: constrain only the effective lifetimes. 

1569: 

1570: One probe of episodic lifetimes is the 

1571: transverse proximity effect -- 

1572: if individual episodes are short, the sizes of 

1573: ionized bubbles around quasars should be smaller

1574: than if individual episodes are long.

1575: Preliminary constraints from non-detections  

1576: \citep[see e.g.][for a review]{schirber:transverse.proximity,martini04} suggest 

1577: lifetimes $t_{i} > 10^{7}\,$yr (with a strong limit $t_{i}\gg 10^{6}\,$yr)

1578: at high luminosities ($\lambda\gtrsim0.1$) where the observations are possible. More recently, 

1579: potential detections \citep{jakobsen:heII.ion.transverse.proximity,

1580: goncalves:transverse.proximity} and indirect proximity effects 

1581: \citep{worseck06:indirect.transverse.proximity,worseck07:indirect.transverse.proximity} 

1582: in a few objects suggest 

1583: $t_{i}\approx 2.5-5\times10^{7}\,$yr

1584: (almost exactly $t_{i}=t_{\rm eff}\sim t_{Q}^{\rm max}$ for $\mdot \gtrsim 0.1-0.2$). 

1585: Similar analysis of the Gunn-Peterson effect around high-redshift ($z>6$) 

1586: quasars suggests comparable episodic 

1587: lifetimes \citep{bajtlik:gunnpetersen.qso.age.est,haiman:gunnpetersen.qso.age.est,

1588: yulu:stromgren}, but is more subject to uncertainties in the structure of the 

1589: surrounding gas \citep{lidz:proximity}. 

1590: 

1591: The lengths of relativistic jets and radio lobes also imply episodic lifetimes, but it is 

1592: not clear that the lifetime of radio loud activity or large-scale jet formation is 

1593: the same as (or even correlated with) the lifetime for specific bolometrically 

1594: luminous activity. These observations 

1595: \citep[see e.g.][]{scheuer:radio.jet.size.lifetimes,

1596: blundell:radio.jet.size.lifetimes} suggest lower-limits for 

1597: $t_{i}\gtrsim$ a few $10^{8}\,$yr, but it is important to note that the observed 

1598: systems with large jets in these samples are primarily at lower Eddington ratio 

1599: $\sim0.01$, so this is comparable to or a factor of a few smaller than the total lifetime 

1600: at these luminosities. For more luminous FR II sources, a lifetime similar 

1601: to that from the transverse proximity effect, $\approx 2\times10^{7}\,$yr, 

1602: has been estimated \citep{bird:bright.jet.lifetimes} \citep[although see 

1603: also][]{reynolds.begelman:radio.source.sizes,merloniheinz.bhfp.radio}.

1604: 

1605: These observations, although tentative, seem to suggest an episodic lifetime 

1606: similar to the total lifetime, in the range 

1607: $t_{i}/t_{\rm eff}\approx 0.3 - 1$ over reasonably high luminosity ranges $\mdot\sim0.01-1$. 

1608: This is consistent with simulations and cosmological models, and similar to the 

1609: characteristic timescales of the problem 

1610: (the Salpeter time for the growth of the BH, $4.2\times10^{7}\,$yr, 

1611: and characteristic dynamical/free-fall times in galaxy centers, 

1612: $\sim10^{7}-10^{8}\,$\,yr). Improved constraints would permit the 

1613: extension of this comparison to lower Eddington ratios and enable observations to 

1614: uniquely determine the {\em triggering rates} 

1615: of AGN as a function of BH mass, luminosity, and redshift. 

1616: 

1617: 

1618: 

1619: \section{Redshift Evolution: Quenching and Downsizing}

1620: \label{sec:z.evol}

1621: 

1622: Most of the observations considered here are at low redshift. 

1623: Some redshift evolution 

1624: in Eddington ratio distributions {\em must} occur, as indicated in Figure~\ref{fig:t0}: 

1625: $t_{\rm eff}\ll t_{\rm int}$ for massive BHs at low redshift, so there must have been 

1626: some point at higher redshift where the duty-cycle of high-mass BHs was greater 

1627: (when they accreted most of their mass, around $z\sim2$). 

1628: Constraints on this evolution can be obtained from the evolution of 

1629: the quasar luminosity function -- 

1630: however, as discussed above, the QLF is primarily sensitive (especially 

1631: at high redshifts, where the faint end is less well-constrained) to high 

1632: luminosities $\lambda\gtrsim0.1$; likewise integral constraints from the 

1633: shape of the BH mass function (and the requirement that the integrated 

1634: luminosity yield the appropriate final BH mass) primarily relate to 

1635: these Eddington ratios, where most mass is gained. 

1636: 

1637: As a consequence, the QLF constrains only the appropriate combination 

1638: of $\beta$, $t_{0}$, and $\eta$ in Equation~\ref{eqn:schechterfit} such that 

1639: the duty cycle at high Eddington ratio is reproduced. 

1640: As noted earlier, the duty cycle is equivalent to the effective lifetime 

1641: $t_{\rm eff}$ ($t_{\rm eff}(\lambda>0.1)/t_{H}(z)$ being the 

1642: high-$\mdot$ duty cycle). If the lifetime/duty cycle is parameterized 

1643: in the form of Equation~\ref{eqn:schechterfit}, then it is straightforward to 

1644: show that this duty cycle of interest is 

1645: \begin{equation}

1646: t_{\rm eff}(\lambda>0.1) \approx t_{0}\,\eta\,\exp{(-0.1/\eta)}, 

1647: \end{equation}

1648: essentially independent of the slope parameter $\beta$ (that 

1649: affecting the lifetime only at lower $\mdot$) and only weakly 

1650: dependent on $\eta$; for the reasonable physical range 

1651: $\eta\sim0.4-1$, $t_{\rm eff}$ changes by a factor $\sim2-3$ 

1652: ($\eta$ cannot decrease much below this with 

1653: redshift, or the number density of bright objects, observed to rise, 

1654: would be exponentially suppressed). 

1655: Various observations and synthesis models have been 

1656: used to constrain this duty cycle -- since this is just 

1657: the high-$\mdot$ duty cycle, ``light bulb'' and more sophisticated models 

1658: yield nearly identical results here \citep[see e.g.][]{haehnelt:bh.synthesis.model,yutremaine:bhmf,yulu:bhmf,

1659: haiman:bhmf,marconi:bhmf,shankar:bhmf}. 

1660: From the fits of these synthesis models to the QLF, or from 

1661: constructing an analogous simple model (assuming the lightcurves here, 

1662: but fitting to the observed QLF from \citet{hopkins:bol.qlf} and 

1663: integrating the continuity equations as in the synthesis models above), 

1664: it can be seen that the duty cycle at fixed BH mass increases with 

1665: redshift (at least from $z\sim0-2$) in approximate power-law fashion, 

1666: i.e.\ as 

1667: \begin{equation}

1668: t_{\rm eff}(\lambda>0.1)  \propto (1+z)^{\alpha}

1669: \label{eqn:z.evol}

1670: \end{equation}

1671: with a maximum $t_{\rm eff}=t_{\rm int}\approx 10^{8}\,$yr for this $\lambda$ (obviously 

1672: $t_{\rm eff}$ cannot increase beyond this point -- and indeed 

1673: this reproduces the ``flattening'' in duty cycles at $z\gtrsim2$).

1674: 

1675: Clearly, the duty cycle of high-mass systems must increase 

1676: more quickly with redshift than that of low-mass systems. 

1677: From the comparison with observations in the various synthesis models above, 

1678: we note that the needed evolution can be crudely approximated as 

1679: \begin{equation}

1680: \alpha = \ln{{\Bigl[}1 + \frac{M_{\rm BH}}{10^{7}\,\msun} {\Bigr]}}\ .

1681: \label{eqn:z.evol.alpha}

1682: \end{equation}

1683: This is not a rigorous derivation; it simply provides a useful interpolation 

1684: formula that approximately reproduces the QLF evolution. 

1685: At lowest order, this power-law increase in the duty cycle of 

1686: high-$\mdot$ activity simply reflects the evolution in the observed number 

1687: density of quasars at a given $L=L_{\rm Edd}(M_{\rm BH})$ 

1688: \citep[see e.g.][]{hasinger05:qlf}. Second order corrections come from e.g.\ the 

1689: evolving number density of BHs, but these depend only weakly on the 

1690: lightcurve model in this $\mdot$ range. 

1691: 

1692: Given this, the simplest possible model is indeed consistent 

1693: with the observations: a model in which quasar lightcurves 

1694: ($\beta$ and $t_{Q}$, in Equation~\ref{eqn:lightcurve}) are 

1695: redshift-independent. Effectively this means $\beta$ and $\eta$ in Equation~\ref{eqn:schechterfit} 

1696: are fixed, as is the episodic lifetime of quasars -- all physics local to AGN 

1697: evolution are redshift-independent, only the triggering rate (hence the 

1698: duty cycle and corresponding $t_{\rm eff}$ and $t_{0}$ in Equation~\ref{eqn:schechterfit}) 

1699: evolve. This is demonstrated in models that adopt this assumption 

1700: \citep{hopkins:qso.all,hopkins:bol.qlf,hopkins:groups.qso,

1701: hopkins:groups.ell}, but the form of the constraints in Equation~\ref{eqn:z.evol} 

1702: makes it implicit. 

1703: 

1704: It is clearly important to obtain 

1705: direct constraints on the Eddington ratio distributions 

1706: at high redshift, particularly constraints on the low-$\lambda$ population, 

1707: in order to break the degeneracies between this redshift-independent model 

1708: and one in which quasar lightcurves evolve. If there is some evolution, 

1709: it may indicate a difference in fueling or feedback modes: one could imagine 

1710: different lightcurves resulting if the bright, high-redshift 

1711: population is fueled by violent mergers where the low-redshift population 

1712: is fueled by stochastic mechanisms, bar-induced inflows, or minor 

1713: mergers; or if feedback is not important in some populations -- at high redshift, 

1714: feedback may act efficiently as the systems of interest are more bulge-dominated 

1715: (leading to more sharply peaked lightcurves), whereas at low redshift, with 

1716: activity in primarily low-$M_{\rm BH}$ systems with large, gas-rich disks, feedback 

1717: may be ineffective at expelling gas content and suppressing inflows on 

1718: large scales. 

1719: 

1720: 

1721: \begin{figure}

1722:     \centering

1723:     \scaleup

1724:     %\plotone{mdot_dist_vs_tquench.ps}

1725:     \plotter{f11.ps}

1726:     \caption{{\em Top:} Distribution of Eddington ratios (arbitrary units) predicted 

1727:     for populations with the same lightcurve (Equation~\ref{eqn:lightcurve}, 

1728:     with $\beta=0.6$) but different toy model triggering histories. Triggering 

1729:     rises with time in the same manner until a redshift $z_{\rm Quench}$, when 

1730:     the systems are shut down (a roughly Gaussian rise/fall motivated by observations). 

1731:     For all still-active/young systems (low $z_{\rm Quench}$), the distributions asymptote to a 

1732:     single distribution given by the ratio of $t(>L)/t_{H}$ for a single lightcurve/event 

1733:     (Equations~\ref{eqn:dtdlogl.defn}-\ref{eqn:duty.cycle.translation}; 

1734:     with a turnover once $t(>L)\sim t_{H}$). 

1735:     For quenched/inactive systems (high $z_{\rm Quench}$), the distributions ``pile up'' 

1736:     in the long power-law tail of decayed luminosities since the epoch of triggering. 

1737:     {\em Bottom:} Observed distributions from \citet{kauffmann:new.mdot.dist} at 

1738:     fixed BH mass ($\sim10^{7}-10^{8}\,\msun$) as a function of stellar population 

1739:     age (the parameter $D_{n}$; $D_{n}\lesssim 1.5-1.6$ corresponding to star-forming/still 

1740:     active systems, $D_{n}\sim2$ corresponding to ``red and dead'' systems with 

1741:     stellar population ages $\sim t_{H}$). The observed distribution reflects the predicted 

1742:     trend: a single (redshift-independent) lightcurve is consistent with the observed 

1743:     dependence of $\mdot$ on age/star-forming classification. The ``log-normal'' behavior 

1744:     in young populations simply reflects the universal nature of the lightcurve and 

1745:     inevitable turnover when $t_{\rm eff}(>\lambda)\sim t_{H}$; allowed to 

1746:     decay after quenching, this becomes the power-law-like tail in old populations.  

1747:     \label{fig:mdot.vs.age}}

1748: \end{figure}

1749: 

1750: There are some constraints on $\beta$ and $t_{Q}$ that can be obtained 

1751: from low-redshift observations. As discussed above, if a population is 

1752: still growing (i.e.\ there is no sharp feature in the redshift history of 

1753: triggering/growth) then the $\mdot$ distribution today simply reflects 

1754: typical low-redshift lightcurves. However, if there are distinct differences in the 

1755: redshift history of triggering -- if one population (at the same BH mass) 

1756: is ``quenched'' (ceases growth/new triggering) at a different time than another -- 

1757: then the resulting Eddington ratio distribution (for the same quasar lightcurves) 

1758: will not be the same at $z=0$. 

1759: 

1760: Figure~\ref{fig:mdot.vs.age} demonstrates this 

1761: with a very simple toy model. Assume that AGN lightcurves are universal and 

1762: redshift-independent, given 

1763: by Equation~\ref{eqn:lightcurve} with $t_{Q}=5\times10^{7}\,$yr and $\beta=0.6$. 

1764: Objects have luminosity $L=0$ 

1765: until ``triggered'' at some time, then follow this simple lightcurve decay 

1766: ($t$ in Equation~\ref{eqn:lightcurve} is the time since the trigger). 

1767: The probability of a ``trigger'' as a function of time we arbitrarily 

1768: parameterize as a Gaussian in cosmic time, rising from high redshift 

1769: ($z\sim6$) to some peak 

1770: at the ``quenching redshift'' $z_{\rm Quench}$ and then declining to $z=0$ 

1771: Specifically, 

1772: \begin{equation}

1773: P({\rm trigger}\,|\,z) \propto \exp{{\Bigl\{} 

1774: \frac{t_{H}(z)}{t_{H}(z=6)} - {\Bigl [}\frac{t_{H}(z)}{t_{H}(z_{\rm Quench})} {\Bigr ]}^{2} {\Bigr\}}}\ .

1775: \end{equation}

1776: This is roughly chosen to correspond to the shape of the evolution in the 

1777: observed AGN luminosity density, but we emphasize that it 

1778: is just for illustrative purposes. 

1779: Figure~\ref{fig:mdot.vs.age} shows the resulting $z=0$ distribution in 

1780: $\mdot$, for a set of Monte Carlo populations evolved in this toy model, but 

1781: with a different quenching redshift $z_{\rm Quench}$ for each. 

1782: 

1783: Populations that quench early (high $z_{\rm Quench}$) have 

1784: all decayed for a long time, to pile up at low $\mdot$ and form a 

1785: power-law distribution in $\mdot$ above some very low minimum $\mdot$. 

1786: (The power-law {\em must} turn over at some sufficiently low $\mdot$, 

1787: such that the duty cycle integrated over all Eddington ratios is unity; 

1788: the specific turnover around $\mdot\sim10^{-4}$ in Figure~\ref{fig:mdot.vs.age} 

1789: reflects the specific lightcurve and triggering functional forms assumed 

1790: here, together with the age of the Universe. Adjusting the late-time lightcurve behavior 

1791: or early-time triggering rates can shift this to lower $\mdot$.)

1792: 

1793: Populations that 

1794: quench late (low $z_{\rm Quench}$) -- i.e.\ approach the limit of continuous growth 

1795: still occurring today -- show a power-law behavior at high-$\lambda$ 

1796: that directly traces the quasar lightcurve (as discussed above, with duty cycles 

1797: simply given by $t_{\rm eff}\sim t_{\rm int}$), with a turnover where 

1798: $t_{\rm eff}\rightarrow t_{H}$. The resulting distribution looks roughly log-normal, 

1799: and asymptotes to the same distribution for all low-$z_{\rm Quench}$ (all still-active 

1800: populations). 

1801: 

1802: Note that the details in Figure~\ref{fig:mdot.vs.age} are somewhat arbitrary -- 

1803: we have just chosen a toy model triggering history to highlight the 

1804: dependence on models with strong features in that history; it is easy to construct others. 

1805: It is possible to tune these histories such that, for example, the high-$z_{\rm Quench}$ 

1806: predictions continue their power-law like behavior to lower $\mdot$ or 

1807: shift the ``turnover'' in the lognormal (low-$z_{\rm Quench}$) 

1808: regime. But the {\em qualitative} results are insensitive to the precise 

1809: parameterization of the triggering history, provided there is a significant feature/shutdown 

1810: after a given time. 

1811: 

1812: Recently, \citet{kauffmann:new.mdot.dist} expanded upon the Eddington ratio distributions 

1813: measured by \citet{heckman:local.mbh} and \citet{yu:mdot.dist}, and quantified 

1814: the $\lambda$ distribution as a function of stellar population age (specifically the 

1815: observable parameter $D_{n}$, which is a tracer of activity: $D_{n}\lesssim1.5$ 

1816: systems being still active or $\lesssim 3\,$Gyr old, in mean stellar population age, 

1817: whereas $D_{n}\rightarrow2$ systems are quenched with ages $\sim t_{H}$). 

1818: Figure~\ref{fig:mdot.vs.age} compares the $\lambda$ distribution measured 

1819: as a function of stellar population properties (for BHs with fixed mass $10^{7}-10^{8}\,\msun$) 

1820: at $z=0$. The trends are very similar to those predicted (and it is not hard to 

1821: imagine more detailed star formation history models, 

1822: more precisely tuned to yield quantitative agreement). 

1823: 

1824: This is already interesting: \citet{kauffmann:new.mdot.dist} interpret the observed 

1825: trend as an indicator of two independent accretion modes (a ``power-law'' mode, 

1826: in old systems, and a ``log-normal'' mode, in young ones). This could still be the case, 

1827: but the comparison here demonstrates that the observed trend is also the natural 

1828: expectation of a model in which all AGN lightcurves are identical, but there 

1829: are simply differences in the triggering rate corresponding to when different galaxies/BH 

1830: populations were ``quenched'' or slowed their growth. The uniformity of the Eddington 

1831: ratio distribution in the ``log-normal'' regime is not surprising in this case -- it simply 

1832: reflects the fact that quasar lightcurves are similar and that all populations in this 

1833: regime of stellar population age are ``still active'' (i.e.\ are continuously growing, in a 

1834: population-averaged sense; they do not have a sharp feature of higher-redshift activity 

1835: that dominated their growth); the ``power-law'' regime is simply the ``log-normal'' population 

1836: allowed to decay to lower luminosities as triggering rates decline with redshift. 

1837: 

1838: 

1839: \begin{figure}

1840:     \centering

1841:     \scaleup

1842:     %\plotone{mdot_dist_vs_tquench.ps}

1843:     \plotone{f12.ps}

1844:     \caption{As Figure~\ref{fig:mdot.vs.age}, but in models where the median lightcurve 

1845:     (parameterized by lifetime slope $\beta$ and episodic lifetime $t_{Q}$; 

1846:     Equation~\ref{eqn:lightcurve}) evolves with redshift. 

1847:     {\em Top:} Lightcurves become more shallow/extended with increasing 

1848:     redshift ($\beta\propto(1+z)^{0.2}$, $t_{Q}\propto(1+z)^{0.5}$). 

1849:     It is not possible to match the observed trends from 

1850:     Figure~\ref{fig:mdot.vs.age} with such evolution. 

1851:     {\em Bottom:} Lightcurves become more sharply peaked with increasing 

1852:     redshift ($\beta\propto(1+z)^{-0.5}$, $t_{Q}\propto(1+z)^{-0.5}$). 

1853:     Such evolution is consistent with the observed trends (and $z\sim1$ observations 

1854:     in Figure~\ref{fig:merloni}). The trend of $\lambda$ distribution with 

1855:     age/triggering history puts significant constraints on lightcurve evolution: 

1856:     evolution towards more ``quiescent'' models (including stellar wind or isolated accretion 

1857:     disk modes) is disallowed; no evolution or weak evolution towards more 

1858:     violent/efficient feedback modes are consistent with observations. 

1859:     \label{fig:mdot.vs.age.evol}}

1860: \end{figure}

1861: 

1862: 

1863: Moreover, these observed trends place significant constraints on lightcurve 

1864: evolution. Figure~\ref{fig:mdot.vs.age.evol} considers the same model predictions, 

1865: but in models where the lightcurve 

1866: parameters in Equation~\ref{eqn:lightcurve} evolve with the 

1867: ``triggering redshift.'' For 

1868: convenience we parameterize the evolution simply as 

1869: $\beta \propto (1+z)^{\beta^{\prime}_{z}}$ and $t_{Q} \propto (1 + z)^{t^{\prime}_{z}}$, 

1870: where $z$ here refers to the redshift where a given trigger occurs. 

1871: For $\beta^{\prime}_{z}=-0.5$ or $t^{\prime}_{z}=-0.5$, the predictions are similar 

1872: to the no-evolution case, consistent with the observations. 

1873: Again, we stress that the exact mapping to observations depends on the precise 

1874: redshift evolution of the triggering distribution, and more importantly 

1875: on how star formation histories in detail evolve relative to AGN triggering 

1876: histories, needed to predict observed quantities such as $D_{n}$ -- however, 

1877: as long as the observed qualitative features are intact, it is always possible to 

1878: find models where those assumptions are adjusted to give a more 

1879: precise quantitative match to the observations. 

1880: However, for $\beta^{\prime}_{z}=0.2$ or $t^{\prime}_{z}=0.5$, 

1881: the results are qualitatively much different -- they do not resemble the observations. 

1882: The sense of the implied evolution in this case would be that lightcurves 

1883: become more shallow/extended with 

1884: redshift: as a consequence, quenched systems would not decay sufficiently 

1885: relative to observations. In these cases, where the features of the predicted distributions 

1886: are qualitatively different from the observations, we find that 

1887: no tuning of the triggering rate distributions is able to ``fix'' the disagreement 

1888: with observations. 

1889: 

1890: This comparison constrains the allowed range: 

1891: \begin{eqnarray}

1892: \nonumber - 0.5\, &\le \beta^{\prime}_{z} \le& 0.05 \\ 

1893: - 0.7\, &\le t^{\prime}_{z} \le& 0.25\ .

1894: \label{eqn:z.evol.constraints}

1895: \end{eqnarray}

1896: These are not error bars; rather, they represent the allowed 

1897: range in which solutions exist that can reproduce 

1898: the observed trends from \citet[][]{kauffmann:new.mdot.dist}. 

1899: Within this range, the results are also consistent with the 

1900: observationally inferred Eddington ratio distributions from 

1901: \citet{merloni:mdot.dist.fits.prep} at $z=1$. 

1902: The constraints are non-trivial: redshift evolution must be 

1903: relatively mild, and the form of evolution allowed is such that 

1904: lightcurves become more sharply peaked at higher redshifts -- 

1905: the sense that might be 

1906: expected if triggering events are more violent and/or 

1907: feedback is more efficient. Evolution in the opposite sense 

1908: (evolution towards the predictions of the stellar wind fueling 

1909: or isolated accretion disk models discussed in \S~\ref{sec:compare.models}, 

1910: or towards less efficient feedback) is ruled out. 

1911: Together with the constraints above regarding evolution in the 

1912: duty cycle, $\delta\equiv t_{\rm eff}/t_{H} \sim t_{Q}\times{\rm d}N/{\rm d}t$, 

1913: the constraints on evolution in $t_{Q}$ imply corresponding constraints 

1914: on the triggering rate of independent AGN events, ${\rm d}N/{\rm d}t$. 

1915: 

1916: 

1917: 

1918: 

1919: \section{Implications for the Integrated Growth of Black Holes}

1920: \label{sec:implications}

1921: 

1922: 

1923: \begin{figure}

1924:     \centering

1925:     \scaleup

1926:     %\plotone{mdot_dist_growth.ps}

1927:     \plotone{f13.ps}

1928:     \caption{Contribution from different Eddington ratios to the integrated 

1929:     BH growth, given the observationally constrained typical quasar lifetime distribution 

1930:     (Equation~\ref{eqn:schechterfit}). {\em Top:} Differential contribution to the integrated 

1931:     BH mass from each logarithmic interval in Eddington ratio $\lambda$, 

1932:     shown with a linear ({\em left}) and logarithmic ({\em right}) y-axis scale. 

1933:     {\em Bottom:} Cumulative contribution from all Eddington ratios less than 

1934:     the given $\lambda$. From the observations, the BH growth is dominated 

1935:     by moderate/large Eddington ratios $\sim0.2$. The contribution from 

1936:     low Eddington ratios that may be radiatively inefficient ($\lambda\lesssim0.01$) 

1937:     is small ($\sim20\%$), but non-negligible, in agreement with 

1938:     various independent constraints \citep[see][]{hopkins:old.age}. 

1939:     \label{fig:growth}}

1940: \end{figure}

1941: 

1942: Given the observationally constrained AGN lifetime distribution, Figure~\ref{fig:growth}  

1943: uses it to infer how different Eddington ratios contribute to integrated 

1944: black hole growth. Essentially this amounts to assuming that the shape of 

1945: the Eddington ratio distribution is well-described by Equation~\ref{eqn:schechterfit}, 

1946: and integrating over the time at each Eddington ratio to determine the 

1947: fractional contribution to the final BH mass from each range in $\mdot$. 

1948: Recall from \S~\ref{sec:compare.models}, the total mass accreted must add to 

1949: the total BH mass, and so in fractional terms the absolute 

1950: normalization of the lifetimes can be factored out. Also as noted above, 

1951: it makes little difference (because little mass growth is contributed by such low accretion 

1952: rates) whether we truncate the distribution at some sufficiently low $\mdot$ or 

1953: integrate down to $\mdot\rightarrow0$. For simplicity, we consider the median 

1954: best-fit lifetime distribution with $\beta\approx0.6$, the dependence on mass 

1955: that may be present is sufficiently weak that the results are similar in the observed range. 

1956: 

1957: Figure~\ref{fig:growth} shows the fractional contribution to the final BH mass 

1958: from each logarithmic interval in $\mdot$ (as well as the cumulative 

1959: contribution from all Eddington ratios $<\mdot$). Given the observations, 

1960: BH growth is dominated 

1961: by moderate/large Eddington ratios $\sim0.2$. 

1962: The contribution from 

1963: low Eddington ratios that may be radiatively inefficient ($\lambda\lesssim0.01$) 

1964: is small ($\sim20\%$), but it is worth noting that it is 

1965: not entirely negligible, and this fraction is sufficient that such populations could 

1966: be a significant contributor to the growth in some low-luminosity AGN populations 

1967: \citep[for more detailed comparison, we refer to][]{hopkins:seyfert.bimodality}. 

1968: These expectations are in good agreement with various independent 

1969: constraints, integral arguments \citep{soltan82}, 

1970: and models for the fueling of AGN and buildup of the 

1971: BH mass function \citep[for a review of these constraints and discussion of 

1972: the contribution of radiatively inefficient sources, see][and references therein]{hopkins:old.age}. 

1973: 

1974: For this reason, it is easy to construct models matching both the observed 

1975: QLF and the $z=0$ BH mass function with a ``universal'' lightcurve within the 

1976: constraints developed here. 

1977: For the specific lightcurve models discussed here, 

1978: \citet{hopkins:bol.qlf} show this explicitly (see their Figure~10, 

1979: comparing the predicted BH mass function from fitting the compiled QLF 

1980: data with the same set of light curves as those considered here). 

1981: Similar conclusions are reached by \citet{yulu:lightcurve.constraints.from.bhmf.integration}. 

1982: 

1983: 

1984: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}

1985: \label{sec:discussion}

1986: 

1987: 

1988: \subsection{Overview}

1989: \label{sec:discussion:overview}

1990: 

1991: We have compared observations of the Eddington ratio distribution 

1992: as a function of BH mass, redshift, 

1993: and luminosity with various theories. 

1994: We find good agreement between the observations and the 

1995: predictions of the self-regulated feedback models for BH growth and 

1996: evolution from \citet{hopkins:lifetimes.letter,hopkins:lifetimes.methods,

1997: hopkins:lifetimes.interp,hopkins:qso.all,hopkins:faint.slope,hopkins:seyferts}. 

1998: The agreement covers the entire observed dynamic range, with 

1999: observations extending down $5-6$ orders of 

2000: magnitude in Eddington ratio ($L/L_{\rm Edd} \sim 10^{-6}-1$), 

2001: over three orders of magnitude in BH mass 

2002: ($M_{\rm BH}\sim10^{6}-10^{9}\,\msun$), corresponding to 

2003: $\sim8$ orders of magnitude in luminosity, and 

2004: (given indirect observational constraints) from redshifts $z\sim0-1$. 

2005: The models are not fitted to these observations -- there are no free parameters 

2006: adjustable, and the range of uncertainty between different versions of the 

2007: models constrained to reproduce the observed quasar luminosity function 

2008: is small (within the observational error bars). 

2009: 

2010: The lifetime -- already as constrained in a purely empirical 

2011: sense from the observations, is clearly {\em not} a delta function -- i.e.\ quasars are 

2012: not ``light bulbs'' -- rather, it is a smooth, continuous, 

2013: and relatively steep function of luminosity/Eddington 

2014: ratio, with more time spent at lower luminosities/Eddington ratios. 

2015: 

2016: We also show

2017: agreement with observed Eddington ratio distributions as a function of AGN 

2018: luminosity, but these 

2019: are less constraining,

2020: because of the inherent Eddington ratio limits 

2021: implied by the selection \citep[wavelength-dependent effects further 

2022: complicate comparisons; discussed in][]{hopkins:seyfert.bimodality}. 

2023: 

2024: 

2025: 

2026: \subsection{Implied AGN Lifetimes and Growth Histories}

2027: \label{sec:discussion:constraints}

2028: 

2029: The observationally implied lifetime distribution can be generally parameterized 

2030: (in model-independent fashion) as a Schechter function, 

2031: with a characteristic normalization lifetime, a turnover at Eddington ratios 

2032: near $\sim1$ (reflecting a physical limit around the Eddington limit), 

2033: and a faint-end slope $\beta$ (such that the luminosity-dependent 

2034: lifetime $t(>\mdot)\propto \mdot^{-\beta}$ at small $\mdot$). 

2035: The observations favor a best-fit $\beta\approx0.6\pm0.05$ (in agreement 

2036: with feedback-regulated models, discussed below) for typical 

2037: $\sim L_{\ast}$ galaxies and BHs. Combined with constraints from the 

2038: quasar luminosity function, there is evidence for weak BH mass-dependence 

2039: of $\beta$, as predicted by hydrodynamic simulations \citep{hopkins:faint.slope}. 

2040: 

2041: The observations directly yield quasar duty cycles and lifetimes as a 

2042: function of Eddington ratio and BH mass. In terms of the 

2043: integrated time at a given Eddington ratio interval (around some final BH mass), 

2044: the ``quasar'' lifetime -- i.e.\ lifetime at high Eddington ratios $\gtrsim0.1$, is similar 

2045: to that expected from the \citet{salpeter64} time and other observational 

2046: constraints, $\sim10^{8}\,$yr. However, the time at lower Eddington ratios rises 

2047: rapidly -- with $t(\mdot\gtrsim0.01)\sim 0.5-1\,$\,Gyr 

2048: and $t(\mdot \gtrsim 0.001)\sim1-5\,$Gyr.

2049: 

2050: This allows us to quantify the fractional contribution to 

2051: present-day BH mass from various intervals in $\mdot$; growth is 

2052: dominated by large $\mdot\sim0.2$, with a small -- but non-negligible -- contribution 

2053: $\sim20\%$ from accretion at low Eddington ratios $\mdot\lesssim0.01$, 

2054: in agreement with integral arguments \citep{soltan82} and various independent 

2055: constraints \citep[][and references therein]{hopkins:old.age}.

2056: 

2057: Comparison of these integral constraints with the $z=0$ observations 

2058: (comparing ``integrated'' and ``effective'' AGN lifetimes/duty cycles) reflects 

2059: the increasingly established AGN downsizing trend: the low-mass BH population 

2060: is still growing today, the high-mass population has shut down since its earlier 

2061: epoch of peak activity. 

2062: 

2063: 

2064: \subsection{Constraints on Models of Lightcurves and Lifetimes}

2065: \label{sec:discussion:models}

2066: 

2067: There is enormous constraining power in the 

2068: Eddington ratio distribution at low $\mdot$ in BH mass-limited samples. 

2069: Already, the observations at $z=0$ are sufficient to limit the 

2070: Eddington ratio/quasar lifetime distribution to a narrow range around the 

2071: theoretical predictions from recent hydrodynamic simulations incorporating a 

2072: self-consistent model for accretion and feedback. 

2073: Those models predict that the self-regulated 

2074: nature of BH accretion should lead to a relatively self-similar decay phase in 

2075: AGN luminosity or Eddington ratio (regardless of e.g.\ triggering mechanisms, 

2076: or the exact details of feedback physics), $L\propto t^{-(1.5-2.0)}$, 

2077: which gives rise to the observed power-law-like faint behavior 

2078: in the lifetime distribution with predicted slope $\beta\approx0.6$. 

2079: 

2080: The observations strongly rule out (at $>5\,\sigma$ significance) 

2081: simplified models for quasar lightcurves, including: ``light-bulb'' models in which quasars 

2082: turn ``on'' for some time at a fixed or relatively narrow range of 

2083: accretion rates, or ``exponential'' models in which AGN 

2084: grow at fixed Eddington ratio and then ``shut off'' rapidly. 

2085: 

2086: Models where BH accretion simply traces stellar mass loss are also ruled 

2087: out ($\gtrsim4\,\sigma$). Stellar mass loss may still be a fuel source; however, 

2088: the observations argue that some process must further regulate AGN activity, 

2089: shutting down accretion more efficiently than the simple slow starvation expected 

2090: if BH growth directly traced stellar mass loss. 

2091: 

2092: At $\sim3-5\,\sigma$ significance, 

2093: the observations also rule out isolated accretion disk models 

2094: \citep[][and references therein]{yu:mdot.dist} - i.e.\ accretion disks 

2095: fueled rapidly but then cut off from a future gas supply, without 

2096: feedback (such that they evolve by gas exhaustion). These are a 

2097: considerable improvement on the light bulb model, but are still 

2098: ruled out formally -- with the sense again that some process must 

2099: shut down growth more efficiently (possibly the addition of even 

2100: mild outflows to the isolated disk solution) -- especially for 

2101: high-mass BH populations. 

2102: 

2103: Local observations of the Eddington ratio distribution alone do not strongly 

2104: constrain the mass or redshift dependence of these properties. Combining 

2105: the observations here with constraints from the quasar luminosity function, 

2106: observations do favor a weak mass-dependence in the shape of the 

2107: lifetime distribution, with the sense that $\beta$ decreases with 

2108: increasing BH mass ($\beta\sim0.6 - 0.2\{\log{[M_{\rm BH}/10^{7}\,\msun]}\}$). 

2109: This is equivalent to the statement that more massive 

2110: systems ``shut off'' more abruptly than low-mass systems; a trend 

2111: predicted by hydrodynamic models, as quasar feedback 

2112: becomes relatively more dominant (and bulge-to-disk ratios increase 

2113: while global disk gas fractions decrease) in more massive systems. 

2114: 

2115: Recently, \citet{kauffmann:new.mdot.dist} have shown that the $\lambda$ distribution 

2116: depends on the stellar population age of the system. 

2117: We show that the observed trends naturally arise from a {\em single} lightcurve 

2118: of the form constrained here, as a consequence of different triggering histories. 

2119: Systems which are still active/growing (i.e.\ have not ``quenched'' their gas supply, 

2120: BH growth, or star formation) remain at higher accretion rates reflecting the 

2121: median lightcurve directly, while systems which quenched at some earlier 

2122: epoch have decayed down to the lower $\lambda$ power-law-like tail of the 

2123: lightcurve distribution. The existence of these trends, and observational 

2124: constraints on the Eddington ratio distribution at $z=1$ 

2125: \citep{merloni:mdot.dist.fits.prep}, set some constraints on the evolution of 

2126: typical lightcurves with redshift. 

2127: 

2128: We find that $\beta$ 

2129: and the episodic quasar lifetime $t_{Q}$ cannot evolve strongly 

2130: (parameterized as $\beta\propto(1+z)^{\beta^{\prime}_{z}}$ 

2131: and $t_{Q}\propto(1+z)^{t^{\prime}_{z}}$; the allowed range is 

2132: $-0.5\le \beta^{\prime}_{z} \le 0.05$, $-0.7\le t^{\prime}_{z} \le 0.25$). 

2133: Evolution towards a stellar wind or isolated accretion disk solution is 

2134: strongly ruled out -- rather, the sense of (mild) evolution allowed is 

2135: towards more sharply peaked lightcurves at higher redshift, which 

2136: may be expected if 

2137: fueling is more violent and/or feedback is more efficient in this regime. 

2138: The evolution of duty cycles (and correspondingly 

2139: ``effective'' AGN lifetimes) at the high-luminosity end ($\lambda\gtrsim0.1$) 

2140: is directly constrained 

2141: by evolution of the quasar luminosity function -- this limits the 

2142: combination of $t_{0}$ and $\eta$ (but not the faint-end slope $\beta$), 

2143: and (given some constraint on the evolution of episodic lifetimes $t_{Q}$) 

2144: the triggering rate of quasars to evolve according to 

2145: Equations~\ref{eqn:z.evol}-\ref{eqn:z.evol.alpha}, increasing with redshift 

2146: more rapidly in higher-mass BHs. 

2147: 

2148: These constraints on the AGN can be transformed into 

2149: constraints on the average AGN lightcurve, suggesting a characteristic 

2150: power-law like decay ($L\propto t^{-(1.5-2.0)}$) similar to that predicted 

2151: in models, after rapid growth to some peak luminosity. The observations 

2152: of the Eddington ratio distribution tightly limit the shape of 

2153: such lightcurves, but only weakly constrain the characteristic 

2154: timescale for a single such ``event'' (i.e.\ the width in time of a single ``peak'') -- 

2155: the episodic AGN lifetime -- by setting an upper limit. 

2156: 

2157: Observational constraints from e.g.\ the 

2158: proximity effect in bright quasars can independently set lower limits on the 

2159: episodic lifetime, however, and suggest that (at least over the observed 

2160: range for the proximity effect, namely quasar activity with 

2161: $\mdot\sim0.1-1$) the episodic lifetime is comparable to the integrated 

2162: lifetime, in the range $t_{Q}\sim0.3-1.0\,t_{\rm int}$. This implies that {\em the typical 

2163: massive BH has experienced no more 

2164: than $\sim$ a couple of bright, high Eddington ratio quasar episodes while 

2165: near its current ($z=0$) mass}. This is in agreement with predictions from 

2166: cosmological models that associate the brightest quasar activity with fueling in violent 

2167: major mergers \citep{hopkins:groups.qso}, for which there are only a couple of 

2168: events expected since high redshift. 

2169: Improved constraints on the episodic lifetime will allow the observed quasar 

2170: luminosity function to be more robustly translated into the distribution of 

2171: AGN triggering rates as a function of BH and host mass. 

2172: Extending the observational constraints on the episodic lifetime 

2173: to lower luminosities/Eddington ratios is also important, as one might expect 

2174: that although a typical object only experiences a couple of triggers to 

2175: near-peak activity, it could have many more triggers for lower-level activity. 

2176: 

2177: 

2178: \subsection{Other Tests and Future Work}

2179: \label{sec:discussion:future}

2180: 

2181: Our findings agree with other (less direct) independent 

2182: constraints. Recently, for 

2183: example, \citet{yulu:lightcurve.constraints.from.bhmf.integration} showed that 

2184: the joint evolution of AGN luminosity functions with redshift

2185: favors similar lightcurves. These results (from the QLF and/or BH mass

2186: function and integral/continuity arguments) provide independent support 

2187: for the constraints here, but are primarily sensitive to luminous 

2188: (high-$\lambda$) behavior and cannot distinguish between similar 

2189: lightcurves (with slightly different $\beta$), such as the isolated 

2190: accretion disk or feedback-regulated predictions. The lightcurve shape 

2191: can also be probed by the dependence of AGN clustering on luminosity 

2192: and shape of the QLF or ``active'' BH mass function in deep samples; 

2193: the observations at present appear to favor 

2194: feedback-regulated models over simplified 

2195: light-bulb or exponential lightcurve models \citep[see][]{adelbergersteidel:lifetimes,

2196: myers:clustering,greene:active.mf,daangela:clustering}, but again deeper 

2197: observations are needed to distinguish between 

2198: the proposed physically motivated models. 

2199: 

2200: Extending the observations of the Eddington ratio distribution to higher redshift 

2201: will greatly improve these constraints as well as limit possible 

2202: redshift evolution in quasar light curves. More massive black holes will be closer to their 

2203: peak growth at higher redshifts, allowing observations to probe the times 

2204: of greatest interest. At $z\sim1-3$, the $\mdot\gtrsim0.1$ end of the 

2205: distribution, in broad-line luminous quasars, is already constrained by the 

2206: observed QLF and application of the virial BH mass estimators 

2207: \citep{kollmeier:mdot,fine:broadline.distrib}. 

2208: Combined with these constraints, smaller volume but deep redshift surveys 

2209: can be used to construct samples which are complete to a given BH/bulge mass, 

2210: and similar narrow-line searches in these hosts could limit the Eddington ratio 

2211: distribution at much lower ratios. If 

2212: coverage is sufficient, X-ray data can be used in the same manner. 

2213: At $z\ge2$, complete, large-volume spectroscopic or X-ray samples are not available 

2214: at present. Here, indirect tests will remain important for the near future, 

2215: but improved constraints on 

2216: what (if any) evolution is seen at lower 

2217: redshifts in the shape of the lifetime distributions 

2218: will considerably inform future models and observational efforts. 

2219: 

2220: 

2221: \acknowledgments We thank 

2222: Josh Younger, T.~J.\ Cox, and Guinevere Kauffmann 

2223: for helpful discussions. This work

2224: was supported in part by NSF grants ACI 96-19019, AST 00-71019, AST 02-06299, 

2225: and AST 03-07690, and NASA ATP grants NAG5-12140, NAG5-13292, and NAG5-13381. 

2226: Support for PFH was provided by the Miller Institute for Basic Research 

2227: in Science, University of California Berkeley.

2228: 

2229: \bibliography{/Users/phopkins/Documents/lars_galaxies/papers/ms}

2230: 

2231: 

2232: 

2233: 

2234: \end{document}

2235: 

2236: