1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}
3: \usepackage{rotating}
4: \usepackage{lscape}
5: %\usepackage{apjfonts}
6: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
7:
8: %% \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
9:
10: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
11:
12: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
13:
14: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
15: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
16: %% use the longabstract style option.
17:
18: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
19:
20: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
21: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
22: %% the \begin{document} command.
23: %%
24: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
25: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
26: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
27: %% for information.
28:
29: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
30: \newcommand{\myemail}{silverma@phys.ethz.ch}
31:
32: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
33:
34: \slugcomment{To appear in The Astrophysical Journal}
35:
36: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
37: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
38: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
39: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
40: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
41: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
42:
43: \shorttitle{Star formation in AGN host galaxies}
44: \shortauthors{Silverman et al.}
45:
46: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
47: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
48:
49: \begin{document}
50:
51: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
52: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
53: %% you desire.
54:
55: \title{Ongoing and co-evolving star formation in zCOSMOS galaxies
56: hosting Active Galactic Nuclei}
57:
58: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
59: %% author and affiliation information.
60: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
61: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
62: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
63: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
64:
65: \author{
66: J.~D.~Silverman\altaffilmark{1},
67: F.~Lamareille\altaffilmark{5},
68: C.~Maier\altaffilmark{1},
69: S.~Lilly\altaffilmark{1},
70: V.~Mainieri\altaffilmark{3},
71: M.~Brusa\altaffilmark{2},
72: N.~Cappelluti\altaffilmark{2},
73: G.~Hasinger\altaffilmark{2},
74: G.~ Zamorani\altaffilmark{4},
75: M.~ Scodeggio\altaffilmark{8},
76: M.~Bolzonella\altaffilmark{4},
77: T.~Contini\altaffilmark{5},
78: C. M.~Carollo\altaffilmark{1},
79: K.~Jahnke\altaffilmark{19}
80: J.-P.~ Kneib\altaffilmark{7},
81: O.~ Le F\`{e}vre\altaffilmark{7},
82: A.~Merloni\altaffilmark{2,16},
83: S.~Bardelli\altaffilmark{4},
84: A.~Bongiorno\altaffilmark{2},
85: H.~Brunner\altaffilmark{2},
86: K.~Caputi\altaffilmark{1},
87: F.~Civano\altaffilmark{15},
88: A.~Comastri\altaffilmark{4},
89: G.~ Coppa\altaffilmark{4},
90: O.~ Cucciati\altaffilmark{6},
91: S.~ de la Torre\altaffilmark{7},
92: L.~ de Ravel\altaffilmark{7},
93: M.~Elvis\altaffilmark{15},
94: A.~Finoguenov\altaffilmark{2},
95: F.~Fiore\altaffilmark{13},
96: P.~ Franzetti\altaffilmark{8},
97: B.~ Garilli\altaffilmark{8},
98: R.~Gilli\altaffilmark{4},
99: A.~ Iovino\altaffilmark{6},
100: P.~ Kampczyk\altaffilmark{1},
101: C. ~Knobel\altaffilmark{1},
102: K.~ Kova\v{c}\altaffilmark{1},
103: J.-F.~ Le Borgne\altaffilmark{5},
104: V.~ Le Brun\altaffilmark{7},
105: M.~ Mignoli\altaffilmark{4},
106: R.~ Pello\altaffilmark{5},
107: Y.~ Peng\altaffilmark{1},
108: E.~ Perez Montero\altaffilmark{5},
109: E.~ Ricciardelli\altaffilmark{12},
110: M.~ Tanaka\altaffilmark{3},
111: L.~ Tasca\altaffilmark{7},
112: L.~ Tresse\altaffilmark{7},
113: D.~ Vergani\altaffilmark{4},
114: C.~Vignali,\altaffilmark{9},
115: E.~ Zucca\altaffilmark{4},
116: D.~ Bottini\altaffilmark{8},
117: A.~ Cappi\altaffilmark{4},
118: P.~ Cassata\altaffilmark{7},
119: M.~ Fumana\altaffilmark{8},
120: R.~Griffiths\altaffilmark{18},
121: J.~ Kartaltepe\altaffilmark{20},
122: C.~ Marinoni\altaffilmark{10},
123: H.~ J. McCracken\altaffilmark{11},
124: P.~ Memeo\altaffilmark{8},
125: B.~ Meneux\altaffilmark{2,17},
126: P.~ Oesch\altaffilmark{1},
127: C.~ Porciani\altaffilmark{1},
128: M.~Salvato\altaffilmark{14},
129: }
130:
131: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
132: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
133: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
134: %% affiliation.
135:
136: \altaffiltext{1}{Institute of Astronomy, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH H\"onggerberg), CH-8093, Z\"urich, Switzerland.}
137: \altaffiltext{2}{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur extraterrestrische Physik, D-84571 Garching, Germany}
138: \altaffiltext{3}{European Southern Observatory, Karl-Schwarzschild-Strasse 2, Garching, D-85748, Germany}
139: \altaffiltext{4}{INAF Osservatorio Astronomico di Bologna, via Ranzani 1, I-40127, Bologna, Italy}
140: \altaffiltext{5}{Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Toulouse-Tarbes, Universit\'{e} de Toulouse, CNRS, 14 avenue Edouard Belin, F-31400 Toulouse, France}
141: \altaffiltext{6}{INAF Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera, Milan, Italy}
142: \altaffiltext{7}{Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille, Marseille, France}
143: \altaffiltext{8}{INAF - IASF Milano, Milan, Italy}
144: \altaffiltext{9}{Dipartimento di Astronomia, Universit\'a di Bologna, via Ranzani 1, I-40127, Bologna, Italy}
145: \altaffiltext{10}{Centre de Physique Theorique, Marseille, Marseille, France}
146: \altaffiltext{11}{Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, UMR 7095 CNRS, Universit\'e Pierre et Marie Curie, 98 bis Boulevard Arago, F-75014 Paris, France.}
147: \altaffiltext{12}{Dipartimento di Astronomia, Universita di Padova, Padova, Italy}
148: \altaffiltext{13}{INAF, Osservatorio di Roma, Monteporzio Catone (RM), Italy}
149: \altaffiltext{14}{California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA.}
150: \altaffiltext{15}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA, 02138}
151: \altaffiltext{16}{Excellence Cluster Universe, Boltzmannstrasse 2, D-85748, Garching beu Muenchen, Germany}
152: \altaffiltext{17}{Universitats-Sternwarte, Scheinerstrasse 1, D-81679 Muenchen, Germany}
153: \altaffiltext{18}{Department of Physics, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213}
154: \altaffiltext{19}{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astronomie, K\"onigstuhl 17, D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany}
155: \altaffiltext{20}{Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii, 2680 Woodlawn Drive, Honolulu, HI, 96822}
156:
157: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
158: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
159: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
160: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
161: %% editorial office after submission.
162:
163: \begin{abstract}
164:
165: We present a study of the host galaxies of AGN selected from the
166: zCOSMOS survey to establish if accretion onto Supermassive Black Holes
167: (SMBHs) and star formation are explicitly linked up to $z\sim1$. We
168: identify 152 galaxies that harbor AGN, based on their X-ray emission
169: ($L_{0.5-10~{\rm keV}}>10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$) detected by $XMM-Newton$
170: observations of 7543 galaxies ($i_{acs}<22.5$). Star formation rates
171: (SFRs), including those weighted by stellar mass, of a subsample are
172: determined using the [OII]$\lambda$3727 emission-line luminosity,
173: corrected for an AGN contribution based on the observed
174: [OIII]$\lambda$5007 strength or that inferred by their hard (2-10 keV)
175: X-ray luminosity. We find that an overwhelming majority of AGN host
176: galaxies have significant levels of star formation with a distribution
177: spanning $\sim1-100$ M$_\sun$ yr$^{-1}$; their average SFR is higher
178: than that of galaxies with equivalent stellar mass ($M_*>
179: 4\times10^{10}$ M$_{\sun}$). The close association between AGN
180: activity and star formation is further substantiated by an increase in
181: the fraction of galaxies hosting AGN with the youthfulness of their
182: stars as indicated by the rest-frame color (U-V) and spectral index
183: $D_n(4000)$; we demonstrate that a mass-selected sample is required to
184: alleviate an artifical peak in the AGN fraction falling in the
185: transition region due to the fact that many 'blue cloud' galaxies have
186: low mass-to-light ratios in luminosity-limited samples. We also find
187: that the SFRs of AGN hosts evolve with cosmic time in a manner that
188: closely mirrors the overall galaxy population and naturally explains
189: the low SFRs in AGNs ($z<0.3$) from the SDSS. We conclude that the
190: conditions most conducive for AGN activity are a massive host galaxy
191: and a large reservoir of gas. Furthermore, a direct correlation
192: between mass accretion rate onto SMBHs and SFR is shown to be weak
193: although the average ratio ($\sim10^{-2}$) is constant with redshift,
194: effectively shifting the evidence for a co-evolution scenario in a
195: statistical manner to smaller physical scales (i.e., within the same
196: galaxies). The order-of-magnitude increase in this ratio compared to
197: the locally measured value of $M_{BH}/M_{bulge}$, is consistent with
198: an AGN lifetime substantially shorter than that of star formation.
199: Our findings illustrate an intermittent scenario with underlying
200: complexities regarding fueling over vastly different physical (and
201: temporal) scales yet to be firmly determined.
202:
203: \end{abstract}
204:
205: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
206: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
207: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
208: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
209:
210: %% Authors who wish to have the most important objects in their paper
211: %% linked in the electronic edition to a data center may do so in the
212: %% subject header. Objects should be in the appropriate "individual"
213: %% headers (e.g., quasars: individual, stars: individual, etc.) with the
214: %% additional provision that the total number of headers, including each
215: %% individual object, not exceed six. The \objectname{} macro, and its
216: %% alias \object{}, is used to mark each object. The macro takes the object
217: %% name as its primary argument. This name will appear in the paper
218: %% and serve as the link's anchor in the electronic edition if the name
219: %% is recognized by the data centers. The macro also takes an optional
220: %% argument in parentheses in cases where the data center identification
221: %% differs from what is to be printed in the paper.
222:
223: \keywords{quasars: general, galaxies: active, galaxies: evolution,
224: X-rays: galaxies, quasars: emission lines}
225:
226: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
227: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep
228: %% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
229: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
230: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have
231: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus
232: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for
233: %% each reference.
234:
235: \section{Introduction}
236:
237: The remarkable similarity between the evolution of the star formation
238: history of galaxies and the emissivity of AGN from $z\sim1$ to the
239: present \citep[e.g., ][]{bo98,fr99,me04,sh07,si08b} suggests a common
240: mechanism that regulates their growth. Major mergers of galaxies
241: \citep{mi96} and secular evolution \citep{ko04,hop06} can both
242: potentially funnel gas to the nuclear region that can then power
243: concurrent star formation and accretion onto supermassive black holes.
244: Fully consistent with this scheme, young stellar populations are known
245: to be prevalent within the bulges of nearby Seyfert galaxies
246: \citep[e.g.,][]{te90,go01,wh03} and luminous quasars
247: \citep[]{ja04a,let07}. Enhanced levels of ongoing star formation are
248: also evident in nearby Seyfert 2s \citep{gu06} and the hosts of some
249: mid-infrared selected quasars \citep{la07} although are not high
250: enough to put them in the same class as the Ultraluminous Infrared
251: Galaxies \citep{st06}. On the other hand, the lack of star formation
252: based on [OII] emission in the hosts of a significant sample of PG
253: quasars \citep{ho05} and type 1 AGN \citep{ki06} from the Sloan
254: Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) may indicate an elevated role for AGN in
255: suppressing star formation \citep[][]{gr04,sp05,cr06,cav07,hop08a}.
256: However, there do appear to be high levels of star formation in the
257: hosts of PG quasars when considering their far-infrared emission
258: \citep{sc06,ne07}, and type 2 quasars from the SDSS
259: \citep[$0.3<z<0.8$; ][]{za03,ki06} that may hint at an underlying
260: evolutionary sequence (i.e., a modification to the unified model with
261: a correlation between star formation and nuclear obscuration) or the
262: systematic increase in the global star formation history of galaxies
263: \citep[e.g., ][]{li95,ho06,no07,tr07,zh07}. These seemingly
264: discrepant results highlight the complexity in determining if a casual
265: relationship between star formation and AGN activity exists. This is
266: most likely due to the challenges in measuring the host galaxy
267: properties under the glare of a bright AGN, widely varying selection
268: methods, and inadequate control samples.
269:
270: The ability to study the host galaxies of AGN selected from a large
271: parent sample of galaxies has dramatically improved in the last few
272: years. The SDSS has generated an unprecedented sample of galaxies to
273: select large numbers of low redshift ($z<0.3$) narrow-line AGN
274: \citep{ka03b,ke06,sta06,he06,wild07} to cleanly study their host
275: properties. Powerful AGN have been clearly shown to reside in
276: bulge-dominated galaxies with young stellar populations \citep{ka03b}.
277: In conjunction with GALEX observations, AGN have optical-ultraviolet
278: colors placing them in an intermediate region \citep {ma07,sa07,sch07}
279: between the red and blue galaxy populations thus stirring interest in
280: their relation to transitional galaxies \citep{hop07}. Remarkably,
281: \citet{ka07} find a strong correlation between the mass accretion rate
282: onto SMBHs and the presence of young stars in the bulge that is
283: typically accompanied by a star-forming outer disk that may be
284: supplying the nuclear fuel. It is imperative to extend such studies
285: to epochs closer to the peak ($z\sim1$) of the cosmic AGN and star
286: formation history since AGNs may have an impact on the gas content of
287: galaxies and their subsequent demise.
288:
289: X-ray emission is a unique probe of AGN activity due to its ability to
290: penetrate a moderately obscuring medium ($N_H \lesssim 10^{24}$
291: cm$^{-2}$), the lack of confusion with stellar sources, and because it
292: allows a more direct probe of the mass accretion rate \citep[see][for
293: a review]{br05}. Selection of narrow line AGN (i.e., obscured; type
294: 2) by X-rays \citep[e.g., ][]{ba03,sz04,si05,br07} can compensate for
295: the deficiencies of optical selection based on emission line ratios at
296: $z>0.3$. X-ray observations with both $Chandra$ and XMM-$Newton$ are
297: being exploited to cleanly study the host galaxies of X-ray selected
298: AGN \citep{gr05,na07,pi07,ga08}. Recently, \citet{si08a} show that the
299: bulge-dominated hosts of X-ray selected AGN in the Extended $Chandra$
300: Deep Field - South have rest-frame colors that are bluer with
301: increasing redshift, possibly related to the star formation history of
302: galaxies. In a related study, the mean star formation rate based on
303: broad-band photometry of 58 X-ray selected AGN ($z\sim0.5-1.4$) in the
304: 1 Msec CDF-S has been shown to be similar to IRAC-selected galaxies in
305: an equivalent mass regime \citep{ah07}. To date, few studies using a
306: significant sample of AGN selected from a large parent sample of
307: galaxies with optical spectroscopy have been undertaken at these
308: higher redshifts ($z>0.3$).
309:
310: To do so, we utilize the rich multiwavelength observations of the
311: COSMOS field \citep{sc07} to carry out such a study at $0.5 \lesssim z
312: \lesssim1.0$. The COSMOS survey is roughly a 2 square degree region
313: of the sky selected to be accessible from all major observatories both
314: from the ground (e.g., Subaru, VLT) and space (e.g., $HST$, $Spitzer$,
315: XMM-$Newton$, $Chandra$). The zCOSMOS survey \citep{lilly07} targets
316: objects for optical spectroscopy with the VLT in two separate
317: observing programs. A bright sample ($i<22.5$) is observed with a red
318: grism to provide a wavelength coverage of $5500-9500$ {\rm \AA}
319: ideal for identifying galaxies ($L_*$) up to $z \sim 1.2$. A deep
320: program, not utilized in the present study, targets faint galaxies
321: ($B<25$), selected to be in the redshift range $1.5\lesssim z\lesssim
322: 2.5$, using a blue grism with a wavelength coverage of
323: $3600<\lambda<6700$ {\rm \AA}. Here, we select a sample of galaxies
324: based on their stellar mass with reliable spectroscopic redshifts from
325: the zCOSMOS bright program. Those that host AGN are identified by
326: their X-ray emission as detected by XMM-$Newton$ \citep{ha07,cap07}.
327: We measure the strength of emission lines (i.e., [OII]$\lambda$3727,
328: [OIII]$\lambda$5007), using our automated pipeline
329: \citep["platefit\_vimos";][]{lam08} to determine star formation rates
330: for the entire galaxy sample including those hosting AGN. An
331: additional spectral indicator ($D_n4000$) enables us to discern the
332: age of the stellar populations on longer timescales. X-ray
333: luminosities of the AGN give us a handle on their bolometric output,
334: less affected by obscuration, to infer mass accretion rates and
335: determine any trends with star formation rate and redshift. Finally,
336: we point out that a companion paper \citep{si08c} based on the zCOSMOS
337: 10k catalog expands on the current study by investigating the
338: environmental impact on AGN activity and their host galaxy properties.
339:
340: Throughout this work, we assume $H_0=70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$,
341: $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.75$, and $\Omega_{\rm{M}}=0.25$.
342:
343: \section{Data and derived broad-band properties}
344:
345: \subsection{Parent galaxy sample and AGN identification}
346:
347: We use the zCOSMOS 10k spectroscopic 'bright' catalog to construct a
348: well-defined sample of galaxies including those hosting X-ray selected
349: AGN up to $z\sim1$. Specifically, we identify 7543 galaxies with a
350: selection magnitude $i_{ACS} \leq 22.5$ and high quality spectra hence
351: reliable redshifts up to $z=1.02$. A galaxy is included in our sample
352: if the redshift has a quality flag 2.0 or higher that amounts to a
353: confidence of $\sim99\%$ for the overall sample. The redshift success
354: rate is not strongly dependent on galaxy color over $0.5\lesssim z
355: \lesssim1.0$ given the quality of the spectra and presence of strong
356: features (i.e., 4000 \AA~break; Ca H+K, [OII]). Full details on data
357: acquisition, reduction, redshift measurements and quality assurance
358: can be found in \citet{lilly07,lilly08}.
359:
360: We use the catalog of X-ray sources \citep{cap07} generated from the
361: uniform XMM-$Newton$ coverage ($\sim50$ ks depth) of the COSMOS field
362: \citep{ha07} to identify galaxies within our parent sample that harbor
363: AGN. The X-ray catalog includes 1848 point--like sources detected
364: above a given threshold using a maximum likelihood method in either
365: the soft (0.5--2 keV), hard (2--10 keV) or ultra-hard (5--10 keV)
366: bands down to a limiting flux of 5$\times 10^{-16}$, 2$\times
367: 10^{-15}$ and 5$\times 10^{-15}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ in the
368: respective band. The adopted threshold ($Likelihood > 10$)
369: corresponds to a probability $\sim 4.5\times10^{-5}$ that a source is
370: a background fluctuation. An additional 26 faint XMM sources
371: coincident with diffuse emission (Finoguenov et al. in preparation)
372: were excluded. Both the soft (0.5-2.0 keV) and hard band (2.0-10.0
373: keV) detections comprise our AGN sample in order to include the
374: low-to-moderate luminosity and/or absorbed sources. The higher
375: sensitivity of the XMM-$Newton$ observations in the soft band enables
376: us to probe lower luminosity AGN ($log~L_X\sim43$) with $0.8\lesssim z
377: \lesssim 1.0$ not sufficiently represented in the hard-band catalog.
378:
379: Optical and near-infrared counterparts to the XMM-$Newton$ X-ray
380: sources are found using a maximum-likelihood method \citep{br07}.
381: Most X-ray sources (84\%) have reliable counterparts while the
382: remaining are uncertain due to the presence of multiple objects within
383: the X-ray error box that have similar probababilities of being the
384: true counterpart. We use the $Chandra$ observations (Elvis et al. in
385: preparation; Civano et al. in preparation) that cover the central 1
386: square degree to further refine our identifications. We elect to
387: include counterparts with lower confidence given that $\sim50\%$ of
388: them are likely to be correct based on the overlap between
389: XMM-$Newton$ and $Chandra$ identifications (M. Brusa, private
390: communication). All results presented here are confirmed based on the
391: slightly smaller catalog of highly reliable counterparts.
392:
393: The zCOSMOS 'Bright' program provides optical spectra for 357 of the
394: 1093 optical counterparts to X-ray sources having $i<22.5$. Reliable
395: spectroscopic redshifts are available for 90\% of which 164 have
396: redshifts between $0<z<1.02$. Higher redshift AGN up to $z\sim4$ have
397: been identified by the zCOSMOS 'Bright' program but are not the focus
398: of this study. Since a high fraction of the zCOSMOS galaxies with
399: associated X-ray emission have detections in the hard 2-10 keV band
400: (84\%), we do not expect the inclusion of soft-selected sources to
401: induce any significant bias. A subset (54\%) of the X-ray sources has
402: been designated as 'Compulsory' targets when designing the VIMOS masks
403: which essentially lessens their randomness and results in a 71.9\%
404: sampling rate compared to the current rate of 29.8\% for galaxies. We
405: set priority to these sources since they were not included in the
406: spectroscopic followup program using Magellan \citep{trump07}. Since
407: the number of AGNs is not overwhelmingly large, we chose to not select
408: a smaller pseudo-random sample but rather incorporate correction
409: factors applied to derived measurements where applicable.
410:
411: \begin{figure}
412:
413: \epsscale{1.2}
414:
415: \plotone{f1.eps}
416: \caption{X-ray luminosity (0.5-10 keV) versus redshift for 152 AGN
417: (large symbols). Filled circles are AGN primarily characterized by
418: narrow emission lines while open symbols denote those with at least one
419: broad optical emission line falling within the observed spectral
420: range. The upper limit to the broad-band X-ray luminosity for each
421: zCOSMOS galaxy is shown by the small grey dots. The solid horizontal
422: line is the minimum X-ray luminosity that we enforce to measure the
423: fraction of galaxies hosting AGN to ensure a significant underlying
424: galaxy population. The dotted line shows our chosen upper limit to
425: avoid AGN contamination.}
426:
427: \label{lx_z}
428: \end{figure}
429:
430: Moderate-luminosity AGN ($L_X\sim10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$), detected in
431: medium-to-deep X-ray observations, have been shown to be ideal
432: laboratories for the study of their host galaxies due to their low
433: optical brightness which in many cases is due to their nuclear
434: obscuration \citep[e.g.,][]{to06,main07}. Our AGNs predominately have
435: luminosities below that of typical QSOs ($L_X>10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$)
436: but are the dominant contributor to the Cosmic X-ray Background
437: \citep{gi07}. In specific cases, we further select AGN based on their
438: X-ray luminosity ($42.0 < log~L_{0.5-10.0~{\rm keV}}<43.7$), as done
439: in \citet{si08a}, to isolate a sample for which we can cleanly
440: determine their host properties (i.e., stellar masses, rest-frame
441: $U-V$, $D_n4000$). \citet{ga08} have demonstrated that the optical
442: emission from a nearly equivalent AGN sample in COSMOS is primarily
443: attributed to their host galaxies; AGN dominated galaxies are
444: preferentially at $z>0.8$ due to the fact that their X-ray
445: luminosities are typically above our cutoff ($L_X\sim10^{43.7}$ erg
446: s$^{-1}$). We conclude that the derived properties of the host
447: galaxies of AGN in zCOSMOS are likely to be reliable. Where feasible,
448: we include higher luminosity AGN (QSOs; 16 with $L_{0.5-10~{\rm
449: keV}}>10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$), since we can measure their stellar
450: properties (i.e., [OII] strength) even under the glare of an
451: intrinsically, bright AGN (see Section~\ref{sfr_measure} for details).
452: For these cases, we refrain from analyses based on their host
453: properties such as mass-weighted SFR or rest-frame color. One caveat
454: of our luminosity-selected sample is a potential bias towards specific
455: accretion modes such as the "Seyfert mode" \citep{hop06} or specific
456: evolutionary stages in their fueling such as pre- or post-mergers.
457: Fortunately, we can test the later since merger-driven models
458: \citep{hop08a} predict vastly different properties (i.e., SFRs,
459: morphology) of the hosts of AGNs before and after the coalescence of
460: massive disk galaxies.
461:
462: We list in Table~\ref{sample} the statistics of the parent galaxy
463: sample and those hosting X-ray selected AGN. The redshift and X-ray
464: luminosity distribution of the full AGN sample (152) is shown in
465: Figure~\ref{lx_z} up to $z=1.02$. Symbols denote their optical
466: spectral properties with 82\% lacking broad ($FWHM>1000$ km s$^{-1}$)
467: emission lines and most characterized as narrow emission-line
468: galaxies. As further detailed in subsequent sections, we isolate
469: various subsamples based on redshift, galaxy mass, and AGN luminosity
470: to optimize our analyses. For instance, as described above, we
471: enforce an upper limit to the X-ray luminosity
472: ($log~L^{max}_{X}=43.7$) of the AGN when measuring a quantity with
473: respect to its host galaxy. Also, we slightly increase our minimum
474: X-ray luminosity ($log~L^{min}_{X}$=42.48) when determining the
475: fraction of galaxies hosting AGN to ensure that a significant parent
476: sample of zCOSMOS galaxies are capable of detecting each AGN to avoid
477: effects based on limited statistics\footnote{Specifically, an
478: overabundance of AGN at $z\sim0.35$ falling at the flux limit of the
479: $XMM$-Newton observations, seen in Figure~\ref{lx_z}, have an adverse
480: effect on our determination of the fraction of galaxies hosting an
481: AGN, due to the limited sample of zCOSMOS galaxies capable of
482: detecting AGN with $L_X\sim10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$, that disappears when
483: implementing a slightly higher selection on luminosity.}.
484:
485: \subsection{Stellar mass measurements}
486:
487: Stellar masses, including rest-frame absolute magnitudes (AB system;
488: $M_U$, $M_V$), are derived from fitting stellar population synthesis
489: models from the library of \citet{bc03} to both the broad-band optical
490: \citep[CFHT: $u$, $i$, $K_s$; Subaru: $B$, $V$, $g$, $r$, $i$,
491: $z$;][]{capak07} and near-infrared \citep[$Spitzer$/IRAC: $3.6 \mu $,
492: $4.5 \mu $;][]{sand07} photometry using a chi-square minimization for
493: each galaxy. The measurement of stellar mass (M$_{*}$) includes (1)
494: the assumption of a Chabrier initial mass function, (2) a star
495: formation history with both a constant rate and an additional
496: exponentially declining component covering a range of time scales
497: ($0.1 < \tau < 30$ Gyr), (3) extinction ($0<A_V<3$) following
498: \citet{ca00}, and (4) solar metallicities. Further details on mass
499: measurements can be found in \citet{bo08} and \citet{me08}. For
500: compatibility with the star formation rate calibration of \citet{mo06}
501: implemented in subsequent sections, we convert all masses to an
502: equivalent based upon a Salpeter IMF by applying a multiplicative
503: factor of 1.7 \citep{po07}. We show the mass distribution for the
504: parent galaxy population, including those harboring X-ray selected
505: AGN\footnote{It is worth mentioning that there may be a potential
506: problem that galaxies with even moderate-luminosity AGN may have
507: inaccurate mass estimates; a bluer continuum will essentially reduce
508: the stellar age and hence lower the mass measurements since the
509: derived mass-to-light ratio depends strongly on the spectrum.} with
510: $log~L_{0.5-8.0~{\rm keV}}>42.0$, as both a function of redshift
511: (Figure~\ref{selection}) and rest-frame color ($U-V$;
512: Figure~\ref{color_mass}). All masses are expressed in solar units
513: (M$_{\sun}$) throughout this work.
514:
515: \begin{figure}
516: \epsscale{1.2}
517:
518: \plotone{f2.eps}
519: \caption{Stellar-mass versus redshift for 7543 zCOSMOS galaxies (small
520: grey circles). The box marks the mass-selected subsample of galaxies
521: ($log~M>10.6$; $0.48<z<1.02$) for which (specific) star formation
522: rates are determined using [OII]$\lambda$3727. Galaxies hosting X-ray
523: selected AGN are further marked by a larger black circle (filled:
524: $42.0<log~L_{0.5-10~{\rm keV}}<43.7$; open: $log~L_{0.5-10~{\rm
525: keV}}>43.7$).}
526:
527: \label{selection}
528: \end{figure}
529:
530: \begin{figure*}
531: \includegraphics[angle=90,scale=0.75]{f3.eps}
532:
533: \caption{Rest-frame color $U-V$ versus stellar mass split into three
534: redshift intervals for galaxies and AGN with symbols described in
535: Figure~\ref{selection}. The vertical line marks our imposed mass
536: limit.}
537:
538: \label{color_mass}
539: \end{figure*}
540:
541: We determine a minimum mass threshold that all galaxies must satisfy
542: up to $z\sim 1.0$. The mass limit is set in order to ensure a fairly
543: complete representation of both blue and red galaxies at all redshifts
544: considered. In Figure~\ref{color_mass}, it is clearly evident that
545: the mass limit of $log~M=10.6$ is essentially imposed by the red
546: galaxy population at $z\gtrsim0.8$ (rightmost panel). The lack of red
547: galaxies below this limit is due to our initial selection on apparent
548: magnitude. \citet{me08} estimate based on a series of mock catalogs
549: from the Millennium simulation that the zCOSMOS 'Bright sample' is
550: essentially complete for galaxies with $log~M\approx10.6$ at $z=0.8$
551: while the completeness drops to $\sim50\%$ at $z=1$. In total, we
552: have a sample of 2540 galaxies ($0.1<z<1.02$) above this mass limit of
553: which 105 host X-ray selected AGN (see Table~\ref{sample} for
554: statistics regarding subsamples employed herein.).
555:
556:
557:
558: \section{[OII] as a star-formation rate indicator and the AGN contribution}
559: \label{sfr_measure}
560:
561: Our primary aim is to use the emission line [OII]$\lambda$3727 to
562: measure the SFRs of a well-defined sample of galaxies including those
563: hosting AGN, as commonly used for star-forming galaxies at these
564: redshifts \citep[e.g., ][]{ke04,co07}. The availability of [OII]
565: within the spectral window of the zCOSMOS 'bright' program requires
566: our sample of galaxies to fall within redshift range $z=0.48-1.02$.
567: The [OII] line is one of a suite of spectral features (e.g.,
568: H$\alpha$$\lambda$6563, H$\beta$$\lambda$4861, [OIII]$\lambda$5007)
569: measured by an automated routine "platefit\_vimos" \citep{lam08} that
570: simultaneously fits all lines with a gaussian function to determine
571: line flux and equivalent widths for the entire zCOSMOS 10k sample.
572: Emission line fluxes are corrected for slit loss based on a comparison
573: of their spectroscopic and photometric ($i_{ACS}$) magnitudes. Line
574: measurements with a significance less than 1.15$\sigma$ are quoted
575: here as upper limits.
576:
577: An assessment of the AGN contribution to the [OII] emission line is
578: required even though the production of this low ionization line has
579: been shown to be relatively weak. \citet{cr02} postulate, based on a
580: comparison of the equivalent width of [OII] in the composite 2dF QSO
581: spectrum to that in a composite 'normal' galaxy spectrum, that [OII]
582: is mainly produced by star-formation in the host galaxies of AGN over
583: a wide range of absolute magnitude. The [OII] strength has been
584: observed to be $\sim10-30\%$ of the [OIII]$\lambda$5007 emission line
585: flux \citep{fe86,ho05,ki06}. \citet{ho05} has explored the
586: feasibility of using [OII] as an indicator of ongoing star formation
587: for a sample of PG quasars that in many cases provided only an upper
588: limit. Upon further investigation using emission line ratio
589: diagnostics, \citet{ki06} conclude based on a sample of $\sim3600$
590: type 1 AGN ($z<0.3$) selected from the SDSS that [OII] emission is
591: mainly attributed to AGN photoionization and does not have a strong
592: HII component.
593:
594: The aforementioned results do not rule out the potential effectiveness
595: of using [OII] as a SFR indicator for different samples of AGNs such
596: those having higher luminosities, significant intrinsic obscuration or
597: being at higher redshifts. For example, the stellar populations of
598: 'strong' type 2 AGN from the SDSS have young ages similar to
599: late-type galaxies \citep{ka03b} based on the age indicator $D_n4000$.
600: We illustrate that this is likely related to the presence of ongoing
601: star formation. In Figure~\ref{emlines}, we show the [OII]/[OIII]
602: ratio for type 1 (panel $a$) and type 2\footnote{The luminosity
603: selection of type 2 AGNs from the SDSS is equivalent to the
604: definition of 'strong' AGN ($L>10^7$ L$_{\sun}$) given in
605: \citet{ka03b}. This luminosity selection, based on
606: extinction-corrected values, guarantees that the sample is dominated
607: by Seyfert galaxies comparable to the luminosities of the zCOSMOS
608: AGN.} (panel $b$;$L_{\rm [OIII]}>10^{40.58}$ erg s$^{-1}$) AGNs from
609: the SDSS having $z<0.3$. The data for 25000 type 2 AGNs is taken
610: from the high level products available from MPA based on the SDSS DR4
611: release; we require a $S/N>3$ detection for [OII], H$\beta$, [OIII]
612: and H$\alpha$. First of all, it is worth highlighting that the
613: best-fit linear relation to the type 1 AGN (panel $a$) illustrates a
614: scenario where [OII] emission scales with [OIII] ($log~L_{\rm
615: [OII]}\propto 0.36\times L_{\rm [OIII]}$) but not with a one-to-one
616: correspondence. Even without correcting for extinction, we see that
617: there is evidence (Fig.~\ref{emlines}$b$) for elevated [OII]/[OIII]
618: for type 2 AGNs as seen by the flatter slope of the best-fit relation
619: (slanted dashed line; $log~L_{\rm [OII]}\propto 0.58\times L_{\rm
620: [OIII]}$) compared to that of the type 1 AGNs. The change in slope
621: appears to signify that the strength of an additional component to
622: [OII] (i.e., star formation) increases with AGN luminosity possibly
623: related to the results of \citet{ka07} where a decline in stellar age
624: is seen for AGNs with higher mass accretion rates. Finally, we see
625: conclusively that the AGN host galaxies in zCOSMOS, while having
626: higher [OIII] luminosities, have elevated [OII]/[OIII] ratios compared
627: to type 1 AGNs (panel $a$), and exhibit a similar slope to the type 2
628: AGNs in the SDSS and slightly further enhanced [OII] emission.
629:
630: \begin{figure*}
631:
632: \includegraphics[angle=90,scale=0.75]{f4.eps}
633:
634: \caption{Emission-line properties of AGN. ($a$) Observed (i.e., no
635: extinction correction) line ratio [OII]/[OIII] versus [OIII]
636: luminosity for zCOSMOS galaxies ($log~M>10.6$; small green points) and
637: those hosting AGN shown by larger red circles. For comparison,
638: emission line properties of type 1 AGN from the SDSS \citep[$z<0.3$;
639: ][]{ki06} are marked by the small black dots that are further
640: characterized by the best fit linear relation (solid line) and mean
641: ratio $<[OII/[OIII]>=0.27$ (open white square). The dashed horizontal
642: line denotes our single assumption for the value of a purely AGN
643: dominated [OII]/[OIII] ratio (see text for further details). ($b$)
644: Same as panel $a$ but with type 1 AGNs replaced by type 2 AGNs from
645: \citet{ka03b}. The slanted lines are the best fit linear relation to
646: type 1 (solid) and type 2 (dashed) AGNs. ($c$) Histogram of the
647: extinction-corrected [OII]/[OIII] distribution for the type 1/2 AGN
648: (short dash/long dash) from the SDSS and our zCOSMOS sample (solid)
649: all having $log~L_{\rm [OIII]}>41.3$.}
650:
651: \label{emlines}
652: \end{figure*}
653:
654: When correcting for internal extinction based on the Balmer
655: decrements, we find that the type 2 AGNs have a significantly higher
656: distribution of [OII]/[OIII] than the type 1s (Fig.~\ref{emlines}$c$).
657: This further suggests that star formation is more prevalant in the
658: type 2 AGN population compared to those with an observable broad line
659: region; such a hypothesis has been put forth by \citet{ki06} to
660: explain the [OII] emission ($<[OII]/[OIII]>=-0.12$) evident in the
661: more luminous, type 2 QSOs \citep{za03}. To further justify our use
662: of [OII], we demonstrate in Figure~\ref{type2_sdss} that a correlation
663: between total [OII] emission (HII+AGN) and the spectral index
664: $D_n4000$ exists and is in agreement with significant levels of
665: ongoing star formation seen in the hosts of type 2 AGN \citep{gu06,yan06}.
666:
667: \begin{figure}
668: \epsscale{1.0}
669: \plotone{f5.eps}
670:
671: \caption{Relation between $D_n4000$ and (a) [OII] luminosity and (b)
672: [OII]/[OIII] ratio for 4609 luminous($L_{\rm [OIII}> 10^7$
673: L$_{\sun}$), type 2 AGN from the SDSS. In panel $b$, the median
674: [OII]/[OIII] ratio is shown (large red circles) in bins of $D_n4000$
675: having a width of 0.1.}
676: \label{type2_sdss}
677: \end{figure}
678:
679: For our purpose, we use the higher ionization line [OIII]$\lambda5007$
680: when present in our spectra, and an empirical relation between [OII]
681: and [OIII] to statistically remove the component of the detected [OII]
682: line that can be attributed to the AGN. This entails an assumption
683: that the [OIII] line is purely of AGN origin \citep{ka03b} that may
684: lead us to underestimate SFRs due to a significant stellar
685: contribution but only in very few cases since the [OIII] luminosities
686: of Seyfert galaxies in SDSS, and also zCOSMOS AGN hosts (see
687: Figure~\ref{emlines}$a$), are substantially higher than that of
688: typical HII galaxies \citep{ke06}. \citet{ki06} find that the median
689: value of the observed [OII]/[OIII] ratio is 0.27 with significant
690: dispersion (see Fig.~\ref{emlines}$a$). We chose to use a slightly
691: lower ratio ([OII]/[OIII]=0.21) that is the mean value for type 1 AGN
692: in the SDSS sample (M. Kim private communication) with
693: $log~L_{[OIII]}> 41.5$, a luminosity regime similar to our zCOSMOS AGN
694: sample. This higher luminosity cut guarantees that the ratio best
695: reflects that produced by the AGN, while effectively minimizing a
696: contribution from HII regions. This results in slightly higher SFRs
697: for our AGN sample than if we chose to use the mean of the entire type
698: 1 SDSS sample but our final results in this study are consistent using
699: either value. We make no attempt to use a luminosity-dependent
700: correction, as inferred by the SDSS type 1 AGN, since a simple linear
701: relation may not be evident at higher luminosities
702: ($log~L_{[OIII]}>42$). Also, there is no need to correct this
703: relation for extinction given the low levels of dust attenuation
704: \citep[$A_V\approx0.2$ mag;][]{ki06} observed in these type 1 AGN. We
705: strongly note, given the high dispersion in the [OII]/[OIII] ratio for
706: type 1 SDSS AGN, that this is only a statistical correction applied to
707: the population as a whole to infer the global or mean properties of
708: the sample; the individual measurements of [OII] strength associated
709: with star formation in a particular galaxy are expected to be
710: inaccurate. We further note that even with this correction the more
711: luminous AGN tend to have higher SFRs as evident by the best-fit
712: relation for type 2 AGNs in the SDSS (Fig~\ref{emlines}$b$;
713: $log~L_{\rm [OII]}\propto 0.37\times L_{\rm [OIII]}$). In addition,
714: we assess the impact of the dispersion in the [OII]/[OIII] ratio for
715: type 1 SDSS AGNs by assuming a normal distribution of the line ratio
716: ($<log [OII]/[OIII]>=-0.69$; $\sigma=0.25$) and perform many
717: iterations in our determination the distribution of SFR.
718:
719: We consider extinction due to dust as an important factor in
720: determining the component of the observed [OII] emission attributed to
721: AGN photoionization given that our sample is predominantly composed of
722: type 2 AGN (see Fig.~\ref{lx_z}). An extinction-corrected [OIII]
723: luminosity is found for each zCOSMOS AGN with detected [OIII] line
724: emission using $A_V=0.8$. Since most of our sample does not have
725: H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ within our observed spectral window, we chose
726: to implement a level of extinction\footnote{This amount of optical
727: attenuation is similar to that of X-ray selected AGN; we find a median
728: $A_V$ of 0.98 based on the Balmer decrements of 20 AGN in our sample
729: with significant $H\alpha$ and $H\beta$ line measurements (Mainieri et
730: al. in preparation).} based on the mean Balmer decrement of type 2
731: Seyferts in SDSS \citep{ke06}. This same level of attenuation is then
732: reapplied to the inferred AGN component to [OII], based on the
733: empirical relation mentioned above, and subtracted from the observed
734: (i.e. no dust correction) [OII] emission line luminosity to provide an
735: estimate free of any AGN contribution. We are confident that this
736: method is applicable to the zCOSMOS sample given that the [OII]
737: luminosities of AGN hosts are all systematically higher
738: ($\sim3-4\times$) than that expected from gas photoionized by an AGN
739: as indicated by the SDSS type 1 AGN (Fig.~\ref{emlines}$c$) of similar
740: luminosities ($log~L_{\rm [OIII]}>41.3$). Also, we highlight that the
741: enhancement of [OII] relative to [OIII] for our zCOSMOS AGN is not
742: purely induced by our extinction corrections as evident in observed
743: relation (i.e., no extinction correction; Fig.~\ref{emlines}$a,b$).
744:
745: \begin{figure}
746: \epsscale{1.15}
747: \plotone{f6a.eps}
748: \epsscale{1.05}
749: \plotone{f6b.eps}
750:
751:
752: \caption{($a$) Extinction-corrected [OIII]$\lambda$5007 luminosity
753: versus X-ray luminosity (2-10 keV) for AGN. A clear correlation is
754: evident as shown by the best-fit linear relation to these data (solid
755: line) and local Seyferts \citep[dotted line; ][]{pa06}. ($b$)
756: Fraction of the [OII] line luminosity attributed to an AGN and split
757: by the method of determining the AGN contribution. The number
758: distribution of galaxies with detected [OIII] emission, used to
759: estimate the amount of [OII] due to AGN activity, is given by the
760: solid histogram. Galaxies without [OIII] detections are indirectly
761: assessed by their hard X-ray luminosity (dashed histogram). There is
762: no evidence for a systematic offset between both methods.}
763:
764: \label{o3_lx}
765: \end{figure}
766:
767:
768: For AGN host galaxies at $z\gtrsim0.8$, we need to modify our method
769: since [OIII] is no longer within our observed spectral window.
770: Fortunately, we can utilize the strong correlation between hard X-ray
771: (2-10 keV) and [OIII] luminosity \citep{he05,pa06} to estimate the AGN
772: contribution for these cases. It is important to highlight that our
773: AGN are X-ray selected by the 0.5-10 keV band thus limiting the
774: inclusion of more heavily absorbed type 2 AGN such as the
775: Compton-thick population \citep{fi08}, for which this correlation is
776: less evident if the X-ray luminosities are not corrected for X-ray
777: absorption \citep{he05} as is the case here. In
778: Figure~\ref{o3_lx}$a$, we plot the [OIII] line luminosity, corrected
779: for extinction as done in the previous paragraph, as a function of the
780: rest-frame 2-10 keV luminosity for AGN in the zCOSMOS sample with
781: redshifts over a larger baseline ($0.2<z<1.0$). We use these lower
782: redshift AGN in order to provide higher statistics to measure the
783: best-fit linear relation between these two quantities. We determine
784: the best fit $L_X-L_{[OIII]}$ relation (Equation~\ref{lx-o3}) for our
785: sample by implementing a bivariate linear regression (EM) algorithm
786: with ASURV \citep[Survival Analysis for Astronomy package Rev. 1.2;
787: ][]{la92} that considers limits as well as detections.
788:
789: \begin{equation}
790: log~L_{[OIII]}=(0.729\pm0.101)~log~L_{2-10~keV}+(10.307\pm4.381)
791: \label{lx-o3}
792: \end{equation}
793:
794: \noindent This relation (Fig.~\ref{o3_lx}$a$), as shown by the solid
795: line, is similar to previous studies based on a sample of low redshift
796: AGN \citep[e.g.,][]{pa06} shown by the dotted line. We find a nearly
797: equivalent slope although a higher normalization (i.e., larger values
798: of $L_{{\rm [OIII]}}$ for a given $L_{2-10~{\rm keV}}$). The strong
799: linear relation (Pearson correlation coefficient $r=0.63$) strengthens
800: our assumption that most of the [OIII] line luminosity is due to AGN
801: photoionization. Any significant contribution from stars to the
802: [OIII] luminosity would increase our derived star formation rates in
803: AGN hosts. In Figure~\ref{o3_lx}$b$, we demonstrate that there are no
804: systematic offsets by introducing this indirect probe of the [OIII]
805: line luminosity; both methods essentially remove a similar fraction
806: ($\lesssim 60\%$) of the [OII] luminosity attributed to AGN
807: photoionization.
808:
809: We determine SFRs using the empirical calibration of \citet{mo06}.
810: This relation considers interdependent factors (i.e., dust extinction,
811: metallicity, and ionization) to provide a SFR tracer that is
812: applicable to samples for which these quantities are inadequately
813: known. To derive the following empirical relation, we fit a linear
814: relation to the bright end ($log~L(B)>9.5$) of the dependence of SFR
815: on absolute $B$-band magnitude \citep[$M_B$; see Figure 19 of
816: ][]{mo06}:
817:
818: \begin{equation}
819: log~SFR({\rm [OII]})=log~L_{{\rm [OII]}}-41-0.195 \times M_{B}-3.434
820: \label{eq:sfr}
821: \end{equation}
822:
823: \noindent The AGN component to the emission line luminosity
824: $L_{[OII]}$ is removed as described above and no correction for dust
825: extinction is applied that is in essence an assumption that star
826: formation is external to a dusty NLR and circumvents the potential
827: problem that extinction of the nuclear region may differ from that of
828: HII regions \citep[see][]{gu06}. We do not attempt to adjust (i.e.,
829: lower) the upper limits on nondetections by considering the
830: contribution of an AGN. It is worth noting that an additional caveat
831: of our method is that there is an underlying assumption that the
832: metallicity and extinction of galaxies with or without AGN are
833: similar.
834:
835: \section{Physical properties of AGN host galaxies}
836:
837: \subsection{Stellar masses}
838: \label{mass}
839:
840: \begin{figure}
841: \epsscale{1.1}
842: \plotone{f7.eps}
843: \caption{Stellar mass distribution of galaxies hosting AGN in the
844: redshift range $0.1<z<0.5$. Fifty-two galaxies ($log~M_*>9.5$) with
845: X-ray selected AGN ($42<Log~L_{0.5-10~{\rm keV}}<43.7$) are shown by
846: the solid histogram. The observed parent distribution of 3356
847: galaxies (dotted histogram) is renormalized to match the AGN
848: distribution. The data points represent the AGN fraction
849: ($42.48<Log~L_{0.5-10~{\rm keV}}<43.7$; scale on the right hand
850: vertical axis) in fixed mass intervals (shown by the horizontal bars
851: centered on each data point) with $1\sigma$ error bars.}
852:
853: \label{mass_frac}
854: \end{figure}
855:
856: We measure the fraction of galaxies that host X-ray selected AGN as a
857: function of their stellar mass to determine the characteristic mass
858: above which AGN activity is most prevalent. First of all, it is
859: apparent in Figure~\ref{selection} that galaxies hosting X-ray
860: selected AGN are preferentially massive ($log~M\gtrsim10.5$) as
861: evident over the full redshift range and in agreement with most
862: studies to date \citep[e.g.,][]{ka03b,bu08}. For this exercise, we
863: consider the redshift interval $0.1<z<0.5$ for which we have a high
864: degree of completeness for galaxies over a wide mass baseline ($log~M
865: \gtrsim 9.5$). We follow the technique discussed in $\S$~3.1 of
866: \citet{le07} to determine the AGN fraction of our parent population of
867: galaxies that accounts for the spatially varying sensitivity limits of
868: the {\it XMM} observations of the COSMOS field \citep[see Fig.~17
869: of][]{cap07}. The necessity of this approach is demonstrated in
870: Figure~\ref{lx_z}, which shows the limiting X-ray luminosity as a
871: function of redshift for the entire galaxy sample. Even though the
872: sensitivity of the $XMM$ coverage is remarkably uniform, some
873: dispersion is present as shown by the relatively narrow distribution
874: of the X-ray upper limits at each redshift. To properly account for
875: the luminosity-redshift relation, we determine the contribution of
876: each AGN separately to the total fraction. The AGN fraction ($f$; see
877: equation{~\ref{fraction} below) is determined by summing over the full
878: sample of AGN ($N$) with $N_{\rm gal,i}$ representing the number of
879: galaxies in which we could have detected an AGN with X-ray luminosity
880: $L^{i}_{\rm X}$. The different sampling rates, based soley on slit
881: placement, of the galaxies ($S_{gal}$) and AGN (i.e., X-ray
882: sources\footnote{In many cases, X-ray sources have redshifts based on
883: a random placement of a slit for which the sampling reflects the
884: overall galaxy population ($S_x=S_{gal}$)}, $S_x$) are taken into
885: account in equation~\ref{fraction}. We estimate the associated
886: 1$\sigma$ error (equation~\ref{fraction_error}) using binomial
887: statistics where $N^{eff}_{agn}$ is the number of AGN that would be
888: detected if all galaxies have the same limiting X-ray sensitivity and
889: the sample of AGN was randomly selected. Here, we only consider AGN
890: with $42.48<log~L_{0.5-10 {\rm keV}}<43.7$. As previously mentioned,
891: the lower limit ensures that we have a statistically significant
892: sample of parent galaxies ($\gtrsim700$) that could host each AGN
893: while the upper limit restricts the sample to low-to-moderate
894: luminosities thus securing the accuracy of their host-galaxy masses.
895: We refer the reader to \citet{si08a} for further details and results
896: employing this method.
897:
898: \begin{equation}
899: f=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{1/S_x}{N_{\rm gal,i}/S_{gal}}
900: \label{fraction}
901: \end{equation}
902:
903: \begin{equation}
904: \sigma^2=N^{eff}_{agn}\times(N_{gal}-N^{eff}_{agn})/N^3_{gal}
905: \label{fraction_error}
906: \end{equation}
907:
908: In Figure~\ref{mass_frac}, we plot the fraction of galaxies that host
909: AGN and the number distribution (Table~\ref{sample}; Sample A) of both
910: galaxies and those with AGN over a slightly wider luminosity interval
911: ($42.0<log~L_{0.5-10 {\rm keV}}<43.7$). The absolute fraction is low
912: ($\sim1-4\%$) due to our restrictions on X-ray luminosity.
913: \citet{ka03b} measure a fraction $\sim5\times$ higher although they
914: include in their sample AGN $\sim80\times$ fainter. The difference in
915: these fractions is mainly due to the steep faint-end slope of the
916: luminosity function at low redshifts \citep{sh06}. Here, we are
917: mainly interested in the relative change of the AGN fraction with
918: galaxy mass. Clearly, we see that the fraction of galaxies that host
919: AGN monotonically increases with stellar mass similar to results based
920: on obscured \citep{ka03b} and radio-loud \citep{be05} AGN in the SDSS.
921:
922: \subsection{Star formation rates}
923:
924: In Figure~\ref{sfr1}, we show the SFRs for 1820 zCOSMOS galaxies
925: (Table~\ref{sample}: Sample B\footnote{The sample is slightly smaller
926: than that given in Table~\ref{sample}; four AGNs have [OII] falling
927: outside the observed spectral window that can vary slightly from
928: slit-to-slit.}) including 43 of them that host moderate-luminosity AGN
929: ($42.0<log~L_{0.5-10.0~{\rm keV}}<43.7$). The results are presented
930: before (panels a and b) and after (panels c and d) the correction for
931: the AGN contribution to the [OII] luminosity based on a single-value
932: (0.21) of the observed, median [OII]/[OIII] ratio of type 1 AGNs in
933: the SDSS. First of all, we see that 88\% of AGNs have detectable
934: [OII] emission\footnote{The fraction of AGN with detected [OII]
935: emission is 68\% ($S/N>2$) and 61\% ($S/N>3$) depending on the given
936: line significance. We have confirmed our results based on the lower
937: S/N ratio (1.15) with those based on these smaller, high confidence
938: samples of AGN.} (panel $a$). It is apparent by comparing the SFR
939: distribution for AGN hosts in panels $b$ and $d$ that a significant
940: shift in the distribution occurs when removing the AGN contribution to
941: the [OII] emission line. Even so, we find that the SFRs of AGN host
942: galaxies are almost exclusively between 1-100 M$_\sun$ yr$^{-1}$
943: (Fig.~\ref{sfr1}$c$,$d$), a range consistent with analytic models of
944: AGN hosts with star-forming disks \citep{bal08} and supportive of
945: constraints on the cosmic IR background \citep{bal07}.
946:
947: \begin{figure*}
948: \epsscale{0.9}
949: \plotone{f8.eps}
950:
951: \caption{Star formation rates ($M_{\sun}$ yr$^{-1}$) versus stellar
952: mass for galaxies ($0.48<z<1.02$; $log~M_*>10.6$) before (a) and after
953: (c) the removal of the AGN contribution. Measurements are shown by
954: either a small black (emission-line galaxy) or large red (AGN;
955: $42.0<log~L_{0.5-10~{\rm keV}}<43.7$) circle. Upper limits are shown
956: as an arrow with their color descriptive of the type as given above.
957: ($b$, $d$) For ease of comparison, the distributions, including those
958: with upper limits, are shown by either a solid (AGN hosts) or dashed
959: (all galaxies) histogram with the full galaxy sample scaled down to
960: match the AGNs.}
961:
962: \label{sfr1}
963: \end{figure*}
964:
965: To quantitatively test whether the SFR distribution of AGN hosts
966: differs from that of the underlying galaxy population, we have
967: determined the SFR distribution, including those with upper limits,
968: while also considering the dispersion in the AGN contribution to the
969: observed [OII] emission-line luminosity. We assume a log normal
970: distribution of the [OII]/[OIII] ratio with parameters given in
971: Section~\ref{sfr_measure}. Based on one thousand iterations, we
972: determine the mean SFR distribution and perform statistical tests on
973: each individual iteration compared to the parent galaxy population.
974: The results of this exercise are shown in Figure~\ref{sfr2} for two
975: AGN samples of differing luminosities. First, we consider AGN, as
976: done above, that fall within the luminosity interval $42<log~L_X<43.7$
977: for which we have high confidence in our well-matched, mass-selected
978: parent sample of galaxies. Based on this limited sample of AGNs, we
979: cannot significantly discriminate between the two distributions
980: (Fig.~\ref{sfr2}$a$) given the results of the individual K-S tests
981: (panel $b$). Although, we do find that the median SFRs shown in panel
982: $c$ are for the most part higher than that of the full galaxy sample
983: (4.7 M$_\sun$ yr$^{-1}$) in each iteration.
984:
985: We are able to use a less restrictive sample that includes higher
986: luminosity AGN ($log~L_X>43.7$) thus improving our statistics although
987: at the expense of maintaining reliable stellar masses across our
988: sample. In Figure~\ref{sfr2}$d-f$, we present the equivalent analysis
989: for AGNs with $log~L_X>42$. Based on this larger sample, we see that
990: the SFR distribution of AGN hosts is shifted to higher values than the
991: overall population (panel $d$). The K-S tests on the individual
992: distributions now reject the null hypothesis (i.e., distributions are
993: equivalent) at the $\sim99\%$ level ($>2.5\sigma$) in essentially all
994: iterations (panel $e$). Moreover, the median SFRs are all
995: systematically higher ($SFR\sim9.5$ M$_\sun$ yr$^{-1}$) than that of
996: the full galaxy sample. We further point out that the SFR
997: distribution of AGN hosts while being elevated in comparison to the
998: underlying massive galaxy population is essentially equivalent to
999: those forming stars (i.e., emission-line galaxies). Therefore, we
1000: conclude that a plentiful gas reservoir is a necessary ingredient for
1001: the fueling of AGN as indicated by the presence of significant star
1002: formation with rates reaching up to $\sim100$ M$_\sun$ yr$^{-1}$.
1003:
1004: \begin{figure*}
1005:
1006: \includegraphics[angle=90,scale=0.75]{f9.eps}
1007:
1008: \caption{Star formation rates of AGN hosts with dispersion in the
1009: applied correction for the AGN contribution. The two rows are given
1010: for AGN spanning a different luminosity range: ($a-c$)
1011: $42<log~L_X<43.7$, ($d-f$) $log~L_X>42$. The left panels ($a$, $d$),
1012: equivalent to those in Figure~\ref{sfr1}, show the mean distribution
1013: of SFR, including upper limits, based on 1000 iterations. The middle
1014: panels ($b$, $e$) give the probability distribution based on a KS
1015: tests that the two samples are equivalent. The right panels ($c$,
1016: $d$) display the distribution of the median SFR for each iteration
1017: with the median SFR (4.73 $M_{\sun}$ yr$^{-1}$) of all galaxies
1018: depicted by the vertical dashed line.}
1019:
1020: \label{sfr2}
1021: \end{figure*}
1022:
1023:
1024: We investigate how star formation in galaxies hosting AGN is evolving
1025: compared to that of the parent galaxy population. In
1026: Figure~\ref{sfr_evol}, we show SFR as a function of redshift for
1027: galaxies with $log~M>10.6$ and those hosting AGN (Table~\ref{sample};
1028: Sample B). A systematic shift of the distribution of zCOSMOS galaxies
1029: towards higher SFRs with increasing redshift is clearly evident with
1030: those hosting AGN exhibiting a similar behavior. Therefore, we find
1031: that the SFRs of AGN hosts are dictated by that of the underlying
1032: galaxy population thus solidifying similar evidence based on the color
1033: evolution of AGN hosts in the E-CDF-S \citep{si08a}. As a
1034: consequence, ongoing star formation is most likely responsible for the
1035: significant population of AGN hosts over the redshift range
1036: $0.5\lesssim z \lesssim 1.4$ having blue rest-frame colors
1037: \citep{sa04,bo07,na07} with evidence for such a trend remaining in
1038: place for quasar hosts at higher redshifts $1.8<z<2.8$ \citep{ja04b}.
1039:
1040: It is illuminating to compare the SFRs from zCOSMOS to AGN at lower
1041: redshifts. For consistency with zCOSMOS, we measure SFRs of the type
1042: 2 AGN from SDSS \citep[$z<0.3$;][]{ka03b} using the [OII]$\lambda3727$
1043: and [OIII]$\lambda5007$ emission line fluxes from \citet{br04} to
1044: determine an AGN-corrected [OII] luminosity. We further select only
1045: those galaxies having stellar masses above our zCOSMOS limit
1046: ($log~M_*>10.6$) based on the conversion factor (Kroupa to Salpeter
1047: IMF) given in \citet{br04}. Here, we use the calibration of
1048: \citet{ke04} to derive SFRs\footnote{We have confirmed that the
1049: \citet{mo06} relation gives the same results.} in order to have
1050: consistency with the SFRs measured for the type 1 SDSS sample
1051: \citep{ki06}. Initially, we demonstrate that the ongoing SFRs shown
1052: in Figure~\ref{sfr_evol} are in agreement with the findings of
1053: \citet{ka03b} based on $D_n(4000)$: weak AGNs ($L_{[OIII]}< 10^7
1054: L_{\sun}$; blue points) have low SFRs ($\sim$0.2 M$_\sun$ yr$^{-1}$)
1055: while strong AGN ($L_{[OIII]}> 10^7 L_{\sun}$; small red points) are
1056: more actively forming stars ($\sim$1 M$_\sun$ yr$^{-1}$). For ease of
1057: visualization, we show the best-fit relation $log~SFR \propto
1058: log(1+z)$ for only the zCOSMOS galaxies with significant [OII]
1059: emission (upper limits are not considered; black curve) and those
1060: hosting AGN (red curve). Remarkably, we further find that the SDSS
1061: AGN may be the low redshift analogs of the AGNs in the zCOSMOS survey
1062: given their close proximity to an extrapolation of the evolution of
1063: zCOSMOS galaxies. In addition, the low-to-moderate levels of star
1064: formation ($\approx 0.5-3$ M$_\sun$ yr$^{-1}$) in type 1 SDSS AGN
1065: \citep[shown roughly by the green triangle in
1066: Fig.~\ref{sfr_evol};][]{ki06} are in agreement with the type 2 AGN
1067: from SDSS and the aforementioned passive evolutionary scenario. In
1068: light of these results from the SDSS that effectively extend our
1069: redshift baseline, we reiterate our conclusion that the SFRs of AGN
1070: host galaxies are reflective of the overall star formation history of
1071: galaxies and provide no indication of the suppression or truncation
1072: due to a mechanism related to the AGN itself.
1073:
1074: \begin{figure*}
1075: \epsscale{0.8}
1076: \plotone{f10.eps}
1077:
1078: \caption{Cosmic evolution of star formation. At $z>0.48$, we show the
1079: SFR-$z$ distribution for all zCOSMOS galaxies with $log~M>10.6$ (small
1080: black circles and crosses) and those hosting AGN with $log ~L_X>42$
1081: (73; large red circles and arrows). The best-fit linear relation for
1082: the emission-line objects is shown for both zCOSMOS populations
1083: (black: galaxies; red: AGN hosts) with an extrapolation to lower
1084: redshifts (dashed lines). For comparison, we plot SFRs of AGN hosts
1085: from the SDSS with an equivalent selection on stellar mass; obscured
1086: AGN (type 2) from the sample of \citet{ka03b} are shown with strong
1087: AGN ($log~L_{OIII}>40.5$) in red and those of lower luminosity in
1088: blue. A large green triangle marks the mean value of the SFR for SDSS
1089: type 1 AGN \citep{ki06}.}
1090:
1091: \label{sfr_evol}
1092: \end{figure*}
1093:
1094: \subsection{Stellar ages}
1095:
1096: To complement our study of the ongoing SFRs of AGN hosts, we use the
1097: spectral index $D_n(4000)$ \citep{ba99}, determined by our
1098: "platefit\_vimos" routine for each galaxy in the zCOSMOS sample to
1099: infer the age of the overall stellar population on longer timescales
1100: ($>0.1$ Gyr). This index is the ratio of the average flux density
1101: $F_{\lambda}$ in the continuum bands 3850-3950 {\rm \AA} and
1102: 4000-4100 {\rm \AA}. This is essentially a measure of the strength
1103: of the 4000-{\rm \AA} break with galaxies having experienced a
1104: recent episode of star formation exhibiting a smaller index due to the
1105: presence of young stars. In Figure~\ref{age}, we show the values of
1106: $D_n(4000)$ for galaxies with respect to their specific SFR. We
1107: implement two mass limits ($log~M>10.6$: panels $a$, $b$;
1108: $log~M>11.1$: panels $c$, $d$) in order to check for consistency when
1109: the underlying $D_n(4000)$ distribution of galaxies is significantly
1110: different: the higher mass cut results in a distribution dominated by
1111: more evolved galaxies as evident by its peak at $D_n(4000)\sim1.8$.
1112: Initially, it is apparent (Fig.~\ref{age}$a$) that there is a good
1113: correspondence between $D_n(4000)$ and specific SFR for all galaxies
1114: including those with AGNs. We then use the relation given in
1115: \citet{ka03a} that assumes an instantaneous burst model of
1116: solar-metallicity to infer stellar age from the value of $D_N(4000)$
1117: as given by the scale bar in Figure~\ref{age}a; this relation provides
1118: us with a rough assessment of the actual ages since many of the
1119: zCOSMOS galaxies including those with AGN may have had a more sedative
1120: existence in their recent past. As a result, we find that most
1121: galaxies with AGN contain a young stellar component since 70\% have
1122: $D_n(4000)<1.6$ ($age \lesssim 2~ Gyr$; Fig~\ref{age}a, c).
1123: Furthermore, we measure the fraction of galaxies hosting an AGN as a
1124: function of $D_n(4000)$ and demonstrate (Fig.~\ref{age}$b$, $d$) that
1125: a galaxy is more likely to have an accreting SMBH if there is a
1126: sufficient supply of gas, fully consistent with the mass measurements
1127: of HI \citep{ho08} and CO \citep{sco03} in AGN hosts, given the higher
1128: rate of occurance in galaxies with younger ages. These results
1129: effectively extend such studies based on $D_n(4000)$ at low redshift
1130: \citep{ka03b} up to $z\sim1$.
1131:
1132: \begin{figure*}
1133: \epsscale{1.0}
1134:
1135: \plotone{f11.eps}
1136:
1137: \caption{($a$) Specific SFR versus the stellar age indicator
1138: D$_n$(4000). Symbols are equivalent to those in Figure~\ref{sfr1}a.
1139: An approximate age scale is given based on Figure 2 of
1140: \citet{ka03a}. ($b$) Number distribution and the fraction of galaxies
1141: hosting an AGN as a function of $D_n(4000)$. (c, d) The equivalent
1142: plots are shown for a higher mass cut as given. AGN activity is
1143: primarily associated with young stellar populations over a broad range
1144: in host galaxy mass.}
1145:
1146: \label{age}
1147: \end{figure*}
1148:
1149:
1150: There is a noteable discrepancy between our claim for a higher level
1151: of AGN activity for star-forming galaxies and the location of AGN
1152: hosts on the color-magnitude diagram. Both X-ray selected
1153: \citep{na07,si08a} and optically-selected AGN \citep{ma07} exhibit a
1154: low AGN fraction along the red sequence, enhanced activity in the
1155: intermediate region (i.e., "green valley") between the blue and red
1156: galaxy populations, and a dropoff towards very blue galaxies. On the
1157: contrary, the mass-selected AGN sample of \citet{ka03b} clearly have
1158: stellar properties very similar to late-type galaxies (see their
1159: Fig. 14) and, thus a low fraction of AGN within the 'blue cloud'
1160: reported by the aforementioned studies is surprising. Interestingly,
1161: \citet{le08} find that the fraction of the stacked X-ray signal of
1162: late-type galaxies attributed to AGN emission continuously rises with
1163: SFR.
1164:
1165: To investigate this further, we measure the fraction of galaxies
1166: hosting AGN as a function of their rest-frame optical color ($U-V$)
1167: for both a luminosity and mass-selected sample
1168: (Figure~\ref{color_mag_mass}$a$, $b$). Since we are not constrained
1169: by the use of [OII] for this exercise, we have extended the redshift
1170: baseline $0.1<z<1.02$ to improve the statistics. In the first panel,
1171: we find that the fraction of galaxies with X-ray selected AGN is
1172: strongly peaked in the "green valley" for the luminosity-selected
1173: sample (panel a) thus agreeing with the results of \citet{si08a}. In
1174: contrast, the mass-selected sample, behaves similarly for colors
1175: $U-V>1.4$, but does not have a decline towards bluer colors $U-V<1.4$.
1176: This is easily understood since blue galaxies are known to have lower
1177: mass-to-light ratios and the AGN fraction rises substantially with
1178: host galaxy mass as demonstrated in Section~\ref{mass}. We conclude
1179: that blue, star forming galaxies do have enhanced levels of AGN
1180: activity and there is no evidence for a significant delay in the
1181: emergence of nuclear activity with respect to the onset of star
1182: formation. This result is consistent with the recent findings of
1183: \citet{si08a}, based the morphology of the host galaxy, that blue
1184: ($U-V<0.7$), bulge-dominated ($n_{sersic}>2.5$) galaxies have the
1185: highest incidence (21.3\%) of AGN activity, and the blue rest-frame
1186: colors of low redshift ($z<0.2$) quasars irrespective of their
1187: morphology \citep{ja04a}. However, there remains the possibility that
1188: the lower fraction of red galaxies hosting AGN is due to some form of
1189: self-regulating feedback that effectively reduces the AGN luminosity
1190: below our flux limit. Nonetheless, these results lend no support for
1191: a simple model prescription that attributes the truncation of star
1192: formation or the color evolution of galaxies to AGN feedback and bring
1193: into question whether studies based on the optical emission line
1194: diagostics of AGN activity miss a significant number of those residing
1195: in star-forming galaxies \citep[see][for a discussion on this
1196: topic]{sch07}.
1197:
1198: \begin{figure*}
1199: \epsscale{1.0}
1200:
1201: \plotone{f12.eps}
1202:
1203: \caption{Rest-frame color distribution $U-V$ of galaxies
1204: ($0.1<z<1.02$) and the fraction hosting AGN. We show the distribution
1205: for 58 galaxies (solid histogram) selected by optical luminosity
1206: ($M_V<-21.5$; panel a) and 65 galaxies above a fixed mass limit
1207: ($log~M>10.6$; panel b) that host AGN. For comparison, the
1208: distribution for the parent galaxy population (dashed histogram) is
1209: normalized to match the AGNs in each panel. The decline in the AGN
1210: fraction towards the bluest colors (panel a) appears to be due to the
1211: inclusion of galaxies with low mass-to-light ratios that are not
1212: present in the mass-selected sample (panel b).}
1213:
1214: \label{color_mag_mass}
1215: \end{figure*}
1216:
1217: \section{AGN-star formation connection and co-evolution}
1218:
1219: Having established an association between AGN activity and star
1220: formation, we are motivated to determine how closely these phenomena
1221: are related on a case-by-case basis that can potentially signify an
1222: underlying causal connection. The existence of such a relationship
1223: may be realized given the recent findings that AGN accretion power as
1224: probed by [OIII] luminosity is higher for galaxies with younger
1225: stellar populations \citep{ka07}. Ideally, we would like to
1226: investigate such a relation using a quantity more closely associated
1227: with the accretion process, namely X-ray emission, known to originate
1228: closer to the black hole and an indicator of the instantaneous star
1229: formation rate.
1230:
1231: To do so, we have plot in Figure~\ref{agn_gal_relations}a the SFRs of
1232: our AGN sample, as measured by [OII] strength, versus hard X-ray
1233: luminosity (2-10 keV) and inferred mass accretion rate while
1234: implementing a bolometric correction as given in \citet{ma04} and an
1235: accretion efficiency of 0.1. We find that a weak correlation exists
1236: based upon a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.17 and a linear fit
1237: that has a shallow slope with significant dispersion in its value
1238: ($0.28\pm0.22$). We conclude that underlying complexities such as the
1239: efficiency of transferring gas to nuclear region over kiloparsec
1240: scales, and varying duty cycles for star formation and accretion may
1241: contribute to the large dispersion in these relations.
1242:
1243: \begin{figure}
1244:
1245: \plotone{f13.eps}
1246: %\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.8]{f13.eps}
1247:
1248: \caption{AGN-galaxy relations: ($a$) SFR versus hard X-ray luminosity
1249: and mass accretion rate including the best fit relation. Absorbed AGN
1250: with detected star formation are further highlighted by an open box.
1251: ($b$) Ratio of mass accretion to SFR versus redshift. The horizontal
1252: dashed line marks the median ratio. Measurements are shown by
1253: a solid circle in both panels while limits either upper ($a$) or lower
1254: ($b$) are given by an arrow.}
1255:
1256: \label{agn_gal_relations}
1257:
1258: \end{figure}
1259:
1260: There have been some recent claims that an obscured phase, coupled
1261: with enhanced star formation, may represent an early stage in the
1262: subsequent evolution of AGN
1263: \citep[e.g.,][]{pa04,al05,ki06,hop08a,po08}. To test this scenario,
1264: we have marked those AGN in Figure~\ref{agn_gal_relations}a that have
1265: excessive X-ray absorption ($N_{\rm H} \gtrsim 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$)
1266: based on their hardness ratio [$HR=(H-S)/H+S)> -0.2$] determined by
1267: the X-ray counts in the soft (S: 0.5-2.0 keV) and hard (H: 2-10 keV)
1268: bands assuming a powerlaw spectrum with a photon index of 1.9 at an
1269: effective redshift of $z\sim0.7$. We find that the absorbed sources
1270: span the same range of SFR as the unabsorbed sources. A KS test give
1271: a probability of 65\% that both absorbed and unabsorbed AGN could be
1272: drawn from the same parent population. These results are not
1273: dependent on the chosen division in hardness ratio. Therefore, we
1274: conclude that an amendment, such as the aforementioned evolutionary
1275: scenario, to the unification model \citep{an93} for these
1276: moderate-luminosity AGNs is not supported by our findings. Although,
1277: there remains substantive evidence that enhanced star formation may be
1278: associated with nuclear obscuration for the more luminous QSOs
1279: \citep[e.g.,][]{pa04,la07,za08} possibly due to different physical
1280: mechanisms for triggering mass accretion on SMBHs.
1281:
1282: It is of much interest to determine the relative growth rate of a
1283: galaxy and its central SMBH as a function of redshift in light of the
1284: well-established local relation
1285: $M_{BH}/M_{bulge}\approx1.5\times10^{-3}$ \citep[e.g.,][]{mc02,ha04}.
1286: We plot in Figure~\ref{agn_gal_relations}b the ratio of mass accretion
1287: rate onto a SMBH to the SFR as a function of redshift. The median
1288: value ($1.9\times10^{-2}$) is roughly an order-of-magnitude higher
1289: than the local ratio $M_{BH}/M_{bulge}$. This difference is likely
1290: due to the varying timescales between SMBH accretion and star
1291: formation $\Delta t_{BH}/\Delta t_{gal}\approx M_{BH}/M_{bulge} \times
1292: SFR/dM_{accr} dt^{-1}\approx 0.1$. We note that our SFR measurements
1293: most likely include a significant disk component thus a more rigorous
1294: assessment is required and beyond the scope of this work.
1295: Nonetheless, by assuming that star formation occurs over rougly a
1296: dynamical timescale $\Delta t_{gal}\approx10^9$ yr, the duty cycle for
1297: AGN activity ($\approx10^8$ yr) is consistent with the
1298: luminosity-dependent model predictions of \citet{hop08b} for SMBHs
1299: with $M_{BH}\sim10^8$ M$_{\sun}$ and accreting above an Eddington
1300: ratio of 0.01, both within a physical regime spanned by our sample
1301: assuming these AGNs have already settled on a SMBH - bulge relation at
1302: their respective redshifts. Alternatively, if we assume a timescale
1303: for galaxy growth to be the inverse of their sSFRs as shown in
1304: Figure~\ref{age}, the AGN lifetimes can reach up to $\sim10^{10}$ yr
1305: that fully illustrates that these AGNs and their host galaxies are
1306: close to being fully matured although have SMBH growth times at least
1307: an order-of-magnitude less than those in the SDSS \citep{he04}.
1308: Furthermore, we find that there is no dependence of the ratio
1309: ($dM_{accr} dt^{-1}/SFR$) on redshift thus supporting a
1310: co-evolutionary scenario where both the average SFR and mass accretion
1311: rates onto SMBHs are rapidly declining with equivalent rates from
1312: $z\sim1$ to the present possibly due to diminishing fuel supplies.
1313:
1314: These comparisons suggest that beyond the local universe the $M_{BH} -
1315: M_{bulge}$ relation should display higher intrinsic dispersion given
1316: the large spread over two orders of magnitude ($10^{-3}-10^{-1}$) in
1317: the relation between accretion rate and SFR
1318: (Fig.~\ref{agn_gal_relations}$b$). \citet{ro06} point out that AGN
1319: samples at high redshift may have larger intrinsic scatter in the
1320: velocity dispersion of their hosts due to their immature dynamical
1321: state. The observational situation is so far unclear: limited AGN
1322: samples at higher redshifts \citep{wo06,wo08} show preferentially
1323: higher black hole masses relative to that expected by the local $M -
1324: \sigma$ relation, while other studies of low redshift AGNs, undergoing
1325: substantial rates of accretion ($L_{Bol}/L_{Edd}>0.1$), have black
1326: hole masses lower than that of inactive galaxies of equivalent host
1327: mass \citep{ho08} or luminosity \citep{ki08}. Notwithstanding the
1328: large observational biases \citep{lau07}, it is possible that the
1329: coeval growth of galaxies and their SMBHs may be intermittent with
1330: either stars or SMBHs growing somewhat faster or slower than each
1331: other, as indicated by our findings exemplified in
1332: Figure~\ref{agn_gal_relations}$b$, while still resulting in a tight
1333: black hole-bulge mass relation for inactive galaxies at $z=0$ as
1334: suggested by \citet{wo06}.
1335:
1336: \section{Summary and conclusions}
1337:
1338: We have utilized the zCOSMOS 10k catalog of galaxies with reliable
1339: spectroscopic redshifts to investigate the properties of those that
1340: host AGN. X-ray observations with $XMM$-Newton enable us to identify
1341: 152 AGN, from a parent sample of 7543 zCOSMOS galaxies, that include
1342: those with significant obscuration and of low optical luminosity. The
1343: derived properties of the full zCOSMOS sample such as stellar mass,
1344: rest-frame colors, and spectral properties (i.e., emission line
1345: strength, $D_n4000$) enable us to determine the prevalence of AGN
1346: activity as a function of galaxies with the aforementioned
1347: characteristics.
1348:
1349: Specifically, we measure the SFR of galaxies using the
1350: [OII]$\lambda$3727 line luminosity. We account for the contribution
1351: from the underlying AGN component most likely arising from the narrow
1352: line region by using the [OIII]$\lambda$5007 luminosity and the
1353: typical [OII]/[OIII] ratio found from previous studies of AGN and
1354: quasars \citep{ho05,ki06}. The [OIII] line luminosity is measured
1355: directly from our spectra if present. For the subsample with [OIII]
1356: outside our observed spectral bandpass, we infer the [OIII] strength
1357: from the hard (2--10 keV) X-ray luminosity and the well known
1358: correlation between these two quantities.
1359:
1360: Overall, we find that the two main requirements for a galaxy to host
1361: an actively, accreting SMBH are (1) its stellar mass and (2) a
1362: significant amount of gas content as inferred by the observed levels
1363: of star formation and the age of their stellar populations. These
1364: findings essentially extend those of the SDSS \citep{ka03b} out to
1365: $z\sim1$.
1366:
1367: We particularly draw the following conclusions:
1368:
1369: \begin{itemize}
1370:
1371: \item We confirm with many previous studies that the fraction of
1372: galaxies hosting AGN rises with increasing mass with most host
1373: galaxies having $M_*>4\times10^{10}$ $M_{\sun}$.
1374:
1375: \item The host galaxies of AGN have ongoing star formation with a
1376: broad range of rates ($\approx1-100$ $M_{\sun}$ yr$^{-1}$) higher than
1377: that of the overall massive ($log~M>10.6$) galaxy population and
1378: essentially equivalent to those forming stars (i.e., emission-line
1379: galaxies). The association of AGN activity and young stellar
1380: populations is further substantiated by an observed increase in the
1381: fraction of galaxies harboring AGN at low values of the spectral index
1382: $D_n(4000)$ and blue rest-frame color $U-V$.
1383:
1384: \item The enhancement of AGN in young, star-forming galaxies with
1385: $1.0<D_n(4000)<1.4$ and $0.8<U-V<1.5$ lessens the evidence for AGN
1386: prefering to reside in galaxies of intermediate colors and their role
1387: in galaxy evolution. We demonstrate that previous studies based on
1388: luminosity-selected samples are misleading due to the inclusion of
1389: galaxies with low mass-to-light ratios that are less likely to harbor
1390: AGN given their lower masses.
1391:
1392: \item The SFRs of AGN hosts evolves with redshift in an equivalent
1393: manner to the overall star-forming galaxy population. This
1394: essentially brings the evidence for a co-evolution scenario between
1395: accretion onto SMBHs and the star-formation history of galaxies to a
1396: closer physical scale (i.e., within the same galaxies).
1397:
1398: \item A direct relationship between the consumption of gas into stars
1399: and that accreted onto SMBHs is weak, suggesting that additional
1400: physical complexities or varying timescales may be inherent. On
1401: average, a co-evolution scenario for the overall population is clearly
1402: evident given the constancy of the ratio ($\sim10^{-2}$) between mass
1403: accretion rate onto SMBHs and SFR with redshift possibly indicative of
1404: depleting gas reservoirs from $z\sim1$ to the present. The
1405: order-of-magnitude increase in this ratio compared to the locally
1406: measured value of $M_{BH}/M_{bulge}$, is consistent with an AGN
1407: lifetime substantially shorter than that of star formation.
1408: Furthermore, the significant dispersion in this ratio may be
1409: indicative of larger scatter in the BH-bulge relations at higher
1410: redshift.
1411:
1412: \end{itemize}
1413:
1414: Our results put important constraints on physical models of AGNs and
1415: their evolution. The considerable rates of star formation ($\sim10$
1416: M$_\sun$ yr$^{-1}$) in their hosts, coupled with the lack of
1417: structural signs of galaxy interactions \citep{gr05,ga08} and
1418: timescales for accretion, indicate that a "Seyfert mode" of accretion,
1419: driven by secular processes, is more likely than merger-driven models
1420: for this class of moderate-luminosity AGN. In particular, there is no
1421: indication of the suppression or truncation of star formation at
1422: levels expected from models implementing AGN feedback. Therefore, we
1423: find no conclusive evidence that AGNs, undergoing this mode of
1424: accretion, are a key factor in the evolution of galaxies.
1425:
1426: \acknowledgments
1427:
1428: We are most grateful to the referee for providing a critical review
1429: that significantly improved the paper and to Minjin Kim for allowing
1430: us to use his emission line measurements of SDSS AGNs and fielding
1431: subsequent communications. This work is fully based on observations
1432: undertaken at the European Southern Observatory (ESO) Very Large
1433: Telescope (VLT) under the Large Program 175.A-0839 (P.I., Simon
1434: Lilly).
1435:
1436: {\it Facilities:} \facility{XMM}, \facility{VLT:Melipal (VIMOS)}
1437:
1438: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1439: \bibitem[Alexander et al.(2005)]{al05} Alexander, D. M., Smail, I., Bauer, F. E., Chapman, S. C., Blain, A. W., Brandt, W. N., Ivison, R. J. 2005, \nat, 434, 738
1440: \bibitem[Alonso-Herrero et al.(2007)]{ah07} Alonso-Herrero, A., P\'{e}rez-Gonz\'{a}lez, P. G., Rieke, G., Alexander, D. M., Rigby, J. R., Papovich, C., Donley, J., Rigopoulou, D. 2007, arXiv:0712.3121
1441: \bibitem[Antonucci(1993)]{an93} Antonucci, R. 1993, ARA\&A, 31, 473
1442: %\bibitem[Babic et al.(2007)]{ba07} Babic, A., Miller, L., Jarvis, M. J., Turner, T. J., Alexander, D. M., Croom, S. M. 2007, A\&A, 474, 755
1443: \bibitem[Bahcall et al.(1997)]{ba97} Bahcall, J. N., Kirhakos, S., Saxe, D. H., Schneider, D. P. q1997, \apj, 479, 642
1444: \bibitem[Ballantyne \& Papovich(2007)]{bal07} Ballantyne, D. R., \& Papovich, C. 2007, \apj, 660, 988
1445: \bibitem[Ballantyne(2008)]{bal08} Ballantyne, D. R. 2008, \apj, in press, arXiv:0806.2863
1446: \bibitem[Balogh et al.(1999)]{ba99} Balogh, M. L., Morris, S. L., Yee, H. K. C., Carlberg, R. G., Ellingson, E. 1999, \apj, 527, 54
1447: \bibitem[Barger et al.(2003)]{ba03} Barger, A.J. et al. 2003, AJ, 126,632
1448: \bibitem[Best et al.(2005)]{be05} Best, P. N., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., Ivezi\'{c}, \v{Z} 2005, \mnras, 362, 25
1449: \bibitem[B\"{o}hm et al.(2007)]{bo07} B\"{o}hm, A., Wisotzki, L. 2007, ASP conference Series, 379, 185
1450: \bibitem[Bolzonella et al.(2008)]{bo08} Bolzonella, M. et al. 2008, A\&A, in preparation
1451: \bibitem[Boyle \& Terlevich(1998)]{bo98} Boyle, B. J. \& Terlevich, R. J. 1998, MNRAS, 293, L49
1452: \bibitem[Bundy et al.(2008)]{bu08} Bundy, K., Georgakais, A., Nandra, K. et al. 2008, \apj, 681, 931
1453: \bibitem[Brandt \& Hasinger(2005)]{br05} Brandt, W. N., Hasinger, G. 2005, ARA\&A, 43, 827
1454: \bibitem[Brinchmann et al.(2004)]{br04} Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., Tremonti, C., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T., Brinkmann, J. 2004, \mnras, 351, 1151
1455: \bibitem[Bruzual \& Charlot(2003)]{bc03} Bruzual, G., Charlot, S. 2003, \mnras, 344, 1000
1456: \bibitem[Brusa et al.(2007)]{br07} Brusa, M., Zamorani, G., Comastri, A. et al. 2007, \apjs, 172, 353
1457: \bibitem[Calzetti et al.(2000)]{ca00} Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., Kinney, A. L., Koornneef, J., Storchi-Bergmann, T. 2000, \apj, 533, 682
1458: \bibitem[Capak et al.(2007)]{capak07} Capak, P. et al. 2007, \apjs, 2007, 172, 99
1459: \bibitem[Cappelluti et al.(2007)]{cap07} Cappelluti, N., Hasinger, G. et al., Brusa, M. et al. 2007, \apjs, 172, 341
1460: \bibitem[Cavaliere \& Menci(2007)]{cav07} Cavaliere, A. \& Menci, N. 2007, \apj, 664, 47
1461: \bibitem[Cooper et al.(2007)]{co07} Cooper, M. C. et al. 2007, \mnras, arXiv:0706.4089
1462: \bibitem[Croom et al.(2002)]{cr02} Croom, S. M., Rhook, K., Corbett, E. A. et al. 2002, \mnras, 337, 275
1463: \bibitem[Croton et al.(2006)]{cr06} Croton, D. J., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., De Lucia, G., Frenk, C. S., Gao, L., Jenkins, A., Kauffmann, G., Navarro, J. F., Yoshida, N. /mnras, 365, 11
1464: \bibitem[Croton et al.(2008)]{cr08} Croton, D., Farrar, G. R. 2008, arXiv:0801.2771
1465: \bibitem[Daddi et al.(2007)]{da07} Daddi, E., Alexander, D., Dickinson, M. 2007, \apj, 670, 173
1466: \bibitem[Ferland \& Osterbrock(1986)]{fe86} Ferland, G. J., Osterbrock, D. E. 1986, \apj, 300, 658
1467: \bibitem[Fiore et al.(2008)]{fi08} Fiore, F., Puccetti, S., Brusa, M. et al. 2008, arXiv:0810.0720
1468: \bibitem[Franceschini et al.(1999)]{fr99} Franceschini, A., Hasinger, G., Miyaji, T., Malquori, D. 1999, MNRAS, 310, L5
1469: \bibitem[Gabor et al.(2008)]{ga08} Gabor, J., Impey, C., Jahnke et al. 2008, \apj, in press, arXiv:0809.0309
1470: \bibitem[Gonz\'{a}lez Delgado et al.(2001)]{go01} Gonz\'{a}lez Delgado, R. M., Heckman, T., Leitherer, C. 2001, \apj, 546, 845
1471: \bibitem[Gilli et al.(2007)]{gi07} Gilli, R., Comastri, A., Vignali, C., Hasinger, G. 2007, A\&A, 463, 79
1472: \bibitem[Granato et al.(2004)]{gr04} Granato, G. L., De Zotti, G., Silva, L., Bressan, A., Danese, L. 2004, \apj, 600, 580
1473: \bibitem[Grogin et al.(2005)]{gr05} Grogin, N. A. et al. 2005, \apj, 627, 97
1474: \bibitem[Gu et al.(2006)]{gu06} Gu, Q., Melnick, J., Fernandes, R. C. et al. 2006, \mnras, 366, 480
1475: \bibitem[Haering \& Rix(2004)]{ha04} Haering, N. \& Rix, H.-W. 2004, \apj, 604, 89
1476: \bibitem[Hasinger et al.(2007)]{ha07} Hasinger, G., Cappelluti, N., Brunner, H. et al. 2007, 172, 29
1477: \bibitem[Heckman et al.(2004)]{he04} Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., Tremonti, C., White, S. D. M. 2004, \apj, 613, 109
1478: \bibitem[Heckman et al.(2005)]{he05} Heckman, T. M., Ptak, A., Hornschemeier, A., Kauffmann, G. 2005, \apj, 634, 161
1479: \bibitem[Heckman et al.(2006)]{he06} Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G. 2006, NewAR, 50, 677
1480: \bibitem[Ho (2005)]{ho05} Ho, L. 2005, \apj, 629, 680
1481: \bibitem[Ho et al.(2008)]{ho08} Ho, L., Darling, J., Green, J. 2008, arXiv:0803.1952
1482: \bibitem[Hopkins \& Beacom(2006)]{ho06} Hopkins, A. M., Beacom, J. F. 2006, \apj, 651, 142
1483: \bibitem[Hopkins \& Hernquist(2006)]{hop06} Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L. 2006, \apjs, 166, 1
1484: \bibitem[Hopkins et al.(2007)]{hop07} Hopkins, P. F., Bundy, K., Hernquist, L., Ellis, R. S. 2007, \apj, 659, 976
1485: \bibitem[Hopkins et al.(2008a)]{hop08a} Hopkins, P. F., Cox, T. J., Keres, D., Hernquist, L. 2008, \apjs, 175, 390
1486: \bibitem[Hopkins et al.(2008b)]{hop08b} Hopkins, P. F. \& Hernquist, L. 2008, arXiv:0809.3789
1487: \bibitem[Jahnke et al.(2004a)]{ja04a} Jahnke, K., Kuhlbrodt, B., Wisotzki, L. 2004, \mnras, 352, 399
1488: \bibitem[Jahnke et al.(2004b)]{ja04b} Jahnke, K. et al. 2004, \apj, 614, 568
1489: \bibitem[Kauffmann et al.(2003a)]{ka03a} Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T., White, S. D. M. et al. 2003, \mnras, 341, 33
1490: \bibitem[Kauffmann et al.(2003b)]{ka03b} Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T., Tremonti, C. et al. 2003, \mnras, 346, 1055
1491: \bibitem[Kauffmann et al.(2007)]{ka07} Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T., Budav\'{a}ri, T. et al. 2007, \apjs, 173, 357
1492: \bibitem[Kewley et al.(2004)]{ke04} Kewley, L. J., Geller, M. J., Jansen, R. A. 2004, \aj, 127, 2002
1493: \bibitem[Kewley et al.(2006)]{ke06} Kewley, L J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. 2006, \mnras, 372, 961
1494: \bibitem[Kim et al.(2006)]{ki06} Kim, M., Ho, L., Im, M. 2006, \apj, 642, 702
1495: \bibitem[Kim et al.(2008)]{ki08} Kim, M., Ho, L., Peng, C.. Y., Barth, A. J., Im, M., Martini, P., Nelson, C. H. 2008, arXiv:0807.1337
1496: \bibitem[Kormendy \& Kennicutt(2004)]{ko04} Kormendy, J., Kennicutt, R. C. 2004, ARA\&A, 42, 603
1497: \bibitem[LaValley et al.(1992)]{la92} LaValley, M., Isobe, T., Feigelson, E. D. 1992, ADASS, 1, 245
1498: \bibitem[Lamareille et al.(2004)]{la04} Lamareille, F., Mouhcine, M., Contini, T., Lewis, I., Maddox, S. 2004, \mnras, 350, 396
1499: \bibitem[Lacy et al.(2007)]{la07} Lacy, M., Sajina, A., Petric, A. O., Seymour, N., Canalizo, G., Ridgway, S. E., Armus, L., Storrie-Lombardi, L. J. 2007, \apj, 669, 61L
1500: \bibitem[Lamareille et al.(2008)]{lam08} Lamareille, F. Brinchmann, J., Contini, T., Walcher, C. J. et al. 2008, A\&A, submitted
1501: \bibitem[Lauer et al.(2007)]{lau07} Lauer, T. R., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., Faber, S. M. 2007, \apj. 670, 249
1502: \bibitem[Lehmer et al.(2007)]{le07} Lehmer, B. D. et al. 2007, \apj, 657, 681
1503: \bibitem[Lehmer et al.(2008)]{le08} Lehmer, B. D. et al. 2008, \apj, in press, arXiv:0803.3620
1504: \bibitem[Letawe et al.(2007)]{let07} Letawe, G., Magain, P., Courbin, F., Jablonka, P., Jahnke, K., Meylan, G., Wisotzki, L. 2007, \mnras, 378, 83
1505: \bibitem[Lilly et al.(1995)]{li95} Lilly, S. J., Tresse, L., Hammer, F., Crampton, D., Le F\`{e}vre, O., 1995, \apj, 455, 108
1506: \bibitem[Lilly et al.(2007)]{lilly07} Lilly, S. J. et al. 2007, \apjs, 172, 70
1507: \bibitem[Lilly et al.(2008)]{lilly08} Lilly, S. J. et al. 2008, \apjs, in preparation
1508: \bibitem[Marconi et al.(2004)]{ma04} Marconi, A., Risaliti, G., Gilli, R., Hunt, L. K., Maiolino, R., Salvati, M. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 169
1509: %%\bibitem[Martini(2004)]{martini04} Martini, P. 2004, in Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, ed. L. C. Ho, 169
1510: \bibitem[Mainieri et al.(2007)]{main07} Mainieri et al. 2007, \apjs, 172, 368
1511: \bibitem[Martin et al.(2007)]{ma07} Martin, D. C., Wyder, T. K., Schiminovich, D. et al. 2007, \apjs, 173, 342
1512: \bibitem[McLure \& Dunlop(2002)]{mc02} McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S. 2002, \mnras, 331, 795
1513: \bibitem[Meneux et al.(2008)]{me08} Meneux, B. et al. 2008, A\&A, in preparation
1514: \bibitem[Merloni et al.(2004)]{me04} Merloni, A., Rudnick, G., Di Matteo, T. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 37
1515: \bibitem[Mihos \& Hernquist(1996)]{mi96} Mihos, C. J., Hernquist, L. 1996, \apj, 464, 641
1516: \bibitem[Moustakas et al.(2006)]{mo06} Moustakas, J. Kennicutt, R. C., Tremonti, C. A. 2006, 642, 775
1517: \bibitem[Nandra et al.(2007)]{na07} Nandra, K. et al. 2007, \apj, 660, L11
1518: \bibitem[Netzer et al.(2007)]{ne07} Netzer, H., Lutz, D., Schweitzer, M. et al. 2007, \apj, 666, 806
1519: \bibitem[Noeske et al.(2007)]{no07} Noeske, K. G. et al. 2007, \apj, 660, L43
1520: \bibitem[Page et al.(2004)]{pa04} Page, M. J., Stevens, J. A., Ivison, R. J., Carrera, F. J. 2004, \apj, 611, L85
1521: \bibitem[Panessa et al.(2006)]{pa06} Panessa, F., Bassani, L., Cappi, M., Dadina, M., Barcons, X., Carrera, F. J., Ho, L. C., Iwasawa, K. 2006, A\&A, 455, 173
1522: \bibitem[Pierce et al.(2007)]{pi07} Pierce, C. et al. 2006, \apj, 660, L19
1523: \bibitem[Polletta(2008)]{po08} Polletta, M. 2008, A\&A, in press, arXiv:0810.2518
1524: \bibitem[Pozzetti et al.(2007)]{po07} Pozzetti, L., Bolzonella, M., Lamareille, F. et al. 2007, A\&A, 474, 443
1525: \bibitem[Robertson et al.(2006)]{ro06} Robertson, B., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., Di Matteo, T., Hopkins, P. F., Martini, P., Springel, V. 2006, \apj, 641, 90
1526: \bibitem[Salim et al.(2007)]{sa07} Salim, S., et al. 2007, \apjs, 173, 267
1527: \bibitem[Sanchez et al.(2004)]{sa04} Sanchez, S. F. et al. 2004, \apj, 614, 586
1528: \bibitem[Sanders et al.(2007)]{sand07} Sanders, D. et al. 2007, \apjs, 172, 86
1529: \bibitem[Schawinski et al.(2007)]{sch07} Schawinski, K. et al. 2007, 382, 1415
1530: \bibitem[Schweitzer et al.(2006)]{sc06} Schweizer, M. Lutz, D., Sturm, E., Contursi, A., Tacconi, L. J., Lehnert, M., Dasyra, K., Genzel, R. 2006, \apj, 649, 79
1531: \bibitem[Scoville et al.(2003)]{sco03} Scoville, N., Frayer, D. T., Schinnerer, E., Christopher, M. 2003, \apj, 585, L105
1532: \bibitem[Scoville et al.(2007)]{sc07} Scoville, N., Aussel, H., Brusa, M. et al. 2007, \apjs, 172, 1
1533: \bibitem[Shankar et al.(2007)]{sh07} Shankar, F., Weinberg, D. H., Miralda-Escude, J.. 2007, arXiv:0710.4488
1534: \bibitem[Shinozaki et al.(2006)]{sh06} Shinozaki, K., Miyaji, T., Ishisaki, Y. Ueda, Y., Ogasaka, Y. 2006, \aj, 131, 2843
1535: \bibitem[Silverman et al.(2005)]{si05} Silverman, J. D., Green, P.J., Barkhouse, W. A. et al. 2005, \apj, 618, 123
1536: \bibitem[Silverman et al.(2008a)]{si08a} Silverman, J. D., Mainieri, V., Lehmer, B. D. et al. 2008a, \apj, 675, 1025
1537: \bibitem[Silverman et al.(2008b)]{si08b} Silverman, J. D., Green, P.J., et al. 2008b, \apj, 679, 118
1538: \bibitem[Silverman et al.(2008c)]{si08c} Silverman, J. D., Kovac, K, Knobel, C., Lilly, S. et al. 2008c, \apj, submitted
1539: \bibitem[Springel et al.(2005)]{sp05} Springel, V., Di Matteo, T., Hernquist, L. 2005, \apj, 620, 79
1540: \bibitem[Sturm et al.(2006)]{st06} Sturm, E., Hasinger, G., Lehmann, I., Mainieri, V., Genzel, R., Lehnert, M. D., Lutz, D., Tacconi, L. J. 2006, ApJ, 642, 81
1541: \bibitem[Stasi\'{n}ska et al.(2006)]{sta06} Stasi\'{n}ska, G., Cid Fernandes, R., Mateus, A., Sodr\'{e}, L. Jr. 2006, \mnras, 371, 972
1542: \bibitem[Szokoly et al.(2004)]{sz04} Szokoly, G. P., et al. 2004, \apjs, 155, 271
1543: \bibitem[Terlevich et al.(1990)]{te90} Terlevich, E., Diaz, A. I., Terlevich, R. 1990, \mnras, 242, 271
1544: \bibitem[Tozzi et al.(2006)]{to06} Tozzi, P., et al. 2006, A\&A, 451, 457
1545: \bibitem[Tresse et al.(2007)]{tr07} Tresse, L., Ilbert, O., Zucca, E. et al. 2007, A\&A, 472, 403
1546: \bibitem[Trump et al.(2007)]{trump07} Trump, J., Impey, C. D., McCarthy, P. J. 2007, \apjs, 172, 383
1547: \bibitem[Whittle \& Nelson(2003)]{wh03} Whittle, M., Nelson, C. 2003, ASPC, 297, 433
1548: \bibitem[Wild et al.(2007)]{wild07} Wild, V., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T., Charlot, S., Lemson, G., Brinchmann, J., Reichard, T., Pasquali, A. 2007, \mnras, 381, 543
1549: \bibitem[Woo et al.(2006)]{wo06} Woo, J.-H., Treu, T., Malkan, M. A., Blandford, R. 2006, \apj, 645, 900
1550: \bibitem[Woo et al.(2008)]{wo08} Woo, J.-H., Treu, T., Malkan, M. A., Blandford, R. 2008, arXiv:0804.0235
1551: \bibitem[Yan et al.(2006)]{yan06} Yan, R., Newman, J. A., Faber, S. M. et al. 2006, \apj, 648, 281
1552: \bibitem[Zakamska et al.(2003)]{za03} Zakamska, N. L. et al. 2003, \aj, 126, 2125
1553: \bibitem[Zakamska et al.(2008)]{za08} Zakamska, N. L., Gomez, L., Strauss, M., Krolik, J. H. 2008, arXiv:0808.1893
1554: \bibitem[Zheng et al.(2007)]{zh07} Zheng, X. Z., et al. 2007, \apj, 661, L41
1555: \end{thebibliography}
1556:
1557: \begin{deluxetable}{llccll}
1558: \tabletypesize{\small}
1559: \tablecaption{Galaxy and AGN sample\label{sample}}
1560: \tablehead{\colhead{Sample}&\colhead{Redshift}&\colhead{log mass}&\colhead{\# galaxies}&\colhead{\# AGN}&\colhead{Purpose}\\
1561: &range&\colhead{(M$_*$)}&&\colhead{($log~L_{0.5-10~{\rm keV}}$)}}
1562: \startdata
1563: -&0.1-1.02&-----&7543&152 ($>42.0$)\\
1564: -&0.1-1.02&$>10.6$&2540&105 ($>42.0$)\\
1565: A&0.1-0.50&-----&3356&52 ($42.0-43.7$)&Host galaxy mass distribution\\
1566: &&&& 32 (42.48-43.7)&Mass-dependent AGN fraction\\
1567: B&0.48-1.02&$>$10.6&1820&73 ($>42.0$)&SFRs\\
1568: &&&&47 ($42.0-43.7$)&Mass-dependent SFRs\\
1569: \enddata
1570: \end{deluxetable}
1571:
1572: \end{document}
1573: