1: % AA vers. 6.1, LaTeX class for Astronomy & Astrophysics
2: % demonstration file
3: % (c) Springer-Verlag HD
4: % revised by EDP Sciences
5: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
6: %
7: %\documentclass[a4paper,oldversion,referee]{aa} % for a referee version
8: \documentclass[a4paper,oldversion]{aa}
9: %\documentclass[onecolumn]{aa} % for a paper on 1 column
10: %\documentclass[longauth]{aa} % for the long lists of affiliations
11: %\documentclass[rnote]{aa} % for the research notes
12: %\documentclass[letter]{aa} % for the letters
13: %
14: %\documentclass[structabstract]{aa}
15: %\documentclass[traditabstract]{aa} % for the abstract without structuration
16: % (traditional abstract)
17: %
18: %\documentclass[oldversion,longauth]{aa}
19:
20: \topmargin=-10mm
21:
22: \usepackage{graphicx}
23: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
24: \usepackage{txfonts}
25: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
26: %
27: \begin{document}
28: %
29:
30: \title{The spatial clustering of X-ray selected AGN\\ in the
31: XMM-COSMOS field}%$^\star$
32:
33: \author{
34: R. Gilli\inst{1},
35: G. Zamorani\inst{1},
36: T. Miyaji\inst{2},
37: J. Silverman\inst{3},
38: M. Brusa\inst{4},
39: V. Mainieri\inst{5},
40: N. Cappelluti\inst{4},
41: E. Daddi\inst{6},
42: C.~Porciani\inst{3},
43: L.~Pozzetti\inst{1},
44: %%% XMM
45: F. Civano\inst{7},
46: A. Comastri\inst{1},
47: A. Finoguenov\inst{4},
48: F. Fiore\inst{8},
49: M. Salvato\inst{9},
50: C. Vignali\inst{10},
51: %%% PI
52: G. Hasinger\inst{4},
53: S. Lilly\inst{3},
54: C. Impey\inst{11},
55: J. Trump\inst{11},
56: %%% I-band PI
57: P. Capak\inst{9},
58: H. McCracken\inst{12},
59: N. Scoville\inst{9},
60: Y. Taniguchi\inst{13},
61: %%% enablers
62: C.~M.~Carollo\inst{3},
63: T.~Contini\inst{14},
64: J.-P.~Kneib\inst{15},
65: O. Le~Fevre\inst{15},
66: A.~Renzini\inst{16},
67: M. Scodeggio\inst{17},
68: %%% coreA
69: S.~Bardelli\inst{1},
70: M.~Bolzonella\inst{1},
71: A.~Bongiorno\inst{4},
72: K.~Caputi\inst{3},
73: A.~Cimatti\inst{10},
74: G.~Coppa\inst{10},
75: O.~Cucciati\inst{18},
76: S.~de~la~Torre\inst{15},
77: L.~de~Ravel\inst{15},
78: P.~Franzetti\inst{17},
79: B.~Garilli\inst{17},
80: A.~Iovino\inst{18},
81: P.~Kampczyk\inst{3},
82: C.~Knobel\inst{3},
83: K.~Kova\v{c}\inst{3},
84: F.~Lamareille\inst{14},
85: J.-F.~Le~Borgne\inst{14},
86: V.~Le~Brun\inst{15},
87: C.~Maier\inst{3},
88: M.~Mignoli\inst{1},
89: R.~Pell\`o\inst{14},
90: Y.~Peng\inst{3},
91: E.~Perez~Montero\inst{14},
92: E.~Ricciardelli\inst{16},
93: M.~Tanaka\inst{5},
94: L.~Tasca\inst{15},
95: L.~Tresse\inst{15},
96: D.~Vergani\inst{1},
97: E.~Zucca\inst{1},
98: %%% coreB
99: U.~Abbas\inst{15},
100: D.~Bottini\inst{17},
101: A.~Cappi\inst{1},
102: P.~Cassata\inst{15},
103: M.~Fumana\inst{17},
104: L.~Guzzo\inst{18},
105: A.~Leauthaud\inst{19},
106: D.~Maccagni\inst{17},
107: C.~Marinoni\inst{20},
108: P.~Memeo\inst{17},
109: B.~Meneux\inst{4},
110: P.~Oesch\inst{3},
111: R.~Scaramella\inst{8},
112: J.~Walcher\inst{12}
113: }
114:
115: \authorrunning{R. Gilli et al.}
116: \titlerunning{The spatial clustering of AGN in the XMM-COSMOS field}
117:
118: \offprints{R. Gilli \\email:{\tt roberto.gilli@oabo.inaf.it}}
119: %$^\star$ Based on observations made at the European Southern
120: %Observatory, Paranal, Chile.
121:
122: \date{Received ... ; accepted ...}
123:
124: \institute{
125: %1
126: INAF -- Osservatorio Astronomico di Bologna, Via Ranzani 1, 40127
127: Bologna, Italy
128: \and %2
129: Instituto de Astronom\'ia, Universidad Nacional Aut\'onoma de
130: M\'exico, Ensenada, M\'exico (mailing address: PO Box 439027, San
131: Ysidro, CA, 92143-9027, USA)
132: %Instituto de Astronomia, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de
133: %Mexico-Ensenada, Km 103 Carretera Tijuana-Ensenada, BC 22860, Mexico
134: \and %3
135: Institute of Astronomy, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH
136: H\"onggerberg), CH-8093, Z\"urich, Switzerland
137: \and %4
138: Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur extraterrestrische Physik, Postfach 1312,
139: D-85741 Garching, Germany
140: \and %5
141: European Southern Observatory, Karl-Schwarzschild-Strasse 2, Garching,
142: D-85748, Germany
143: \and %6
144: Laboratoire AIM, CEA/DSM - CNRS -
145: Universit\'e Paris Diderot, DAPNIA/SAp, Orme des Merisiers, 91191
146: Gif-sur-Yvette, France
147: \and %7
148: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
149: Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
150: \and %8
151: INAF -- Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma, Via di Frascati 33,
152: 00040 Monte Porzio Catone (Roma), Italy
153: \and %9
154: California Institute of Technology, MC 105-24, 1200 East California
155: Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA
156: \and %10
157: Dipartimento di Astronomia, Universit\`a degli Studi di Bologna,
158: Via Ranzani 1, 40127 Bologna, Italy
159: \and %11
160: Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
161: \and %12
162: Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, 98 bis Boulevard Arago, F-75014
163: Paris, France
164: \and %13
165: Research Center for Space and Cosmic Evolution, Ehime
166: University, Bunkyo-cho 2-5, Matsuyama 790-8577, Japan
167: \and %14
168: Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Toulouse-Tarbes, Universit\'e de
169: Toulouse, CNRS, 14 avenue E. Belin, F-31400 Toulouse, France
170: \and %15
171: Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille, CNRS-Universit\'e
172: de Provence, Traverse du Siphon, BP 8, 13012 Marseille, France
173: \and %16
174: Dipartimento di Astronomia, Universit\`a di
175: Padova, Vicolo Osservatorio 2, 35122 Padova, Italy
176: \and %17
177: INAF -- Istituto di Astrofisica
178: Spaziale e Fisica Cosmica, Via Bassini 15, I-20133, Milan, Italy
179: \and %18
180: INAF -- Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera, I-23807, Merate (LC), Italy
181: \and %19
182: University of California, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
183: 1 Cyclotron Rd, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
184: \and %20
185: Centre de Physique Th\'eorique, UMR 6207 CNRS-Universit\'e de
186: Provence, Case 907, 13288 Marseille, France}
187:
188: \abstract{
189:
190: We study the spatial clustering of 538 X-ray selected AGN in the 2
191: deg$^2$ XMM-COSMOS field that are spectroscopically identified with
192: $I_{AB}<23$ and span the redshift range $z=0.2-3.0$. The median
193: redshift and luminosity of the sample are $z = 0.98$ and
194: $L_{0.5-10}=6.3\times 10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$, respectively. A strong
195: clustering signal is detected at $\sim 18\sigma$ level, which is the
196: most significant measurement obtained to date for clustering of X-ray
197: selected AGN. By fitting the projected correlation function $w(r_p)$
198: with a power law on scales of $r_p=0.3-40\,h^{-1}$ Mpc, we derive a
199: best-fit comoving correlation length of $r_0 = 8.6\pm0.5\,h^{-1}$ Mpc
200: and slope of $\gamma=1.88\pm0.07$ (Poissonian errors; bootstrap errors
201: are about a factor of 2 larger). An excess signal is observed in the
202: range $r_p\sim5-15\,h^{-1}$ Mpc, which is due to a large-scale
203: structure at $z\sim 0.36$ containing about 40 AGN, a feature which is
204: evident over many wavelengths in the COSMOS field. When removing the
205: $z\sim 0.36$ structure or computing $w(r_p)$ in a narrower range
206: around the peak of the redshift distribution (e.g. $z=0.4-1.6$), the
207: correlation length decreases to $r_0 \sim 5-6\,h^{-1}$ Mpc, which is
208: consistent with what is observed for bright optical QSOs at the same
209: redshift.
210:
211: We investigate the clustering properties of obscured and unobscured
212: AGN separately, adopting different definitions for the source
213: obscuration. For the first time, we are able to provide a significant
214: measurement for the spatial clustering of obscured AGN at $z\sim 1$.
215: Within the statistical uncertainties, we do not find evidence that AGN
216: with broad optical lines (BLAGN) cluster differently from AGN without
217: broad optical lines (non-BLAGN).
218: %Similarly, the clustering properties
219: %of AGN with X-ray column density $N_H$ above $10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ do
220: %not differ significantly from those of AGN with $N_H<10^{22}$
221: %cm$^{-2}$.
222: Based on these results, which are limited by object statistics,
223: however, obscured and unobscured AGN are consistent with inhabiting
224: similar environments.
225:
226: The evolution of AGN clustering with redshift is also investigated. No
227: significant difference is found between the clustering properties of
228: XMM-COSMOS AGN at redshifts below or above $z=1$.
229:
230: The correlation length measured for XMM-COSMOS AGN at $z\sim 1$ is
231: similar to that of massive galaxies (stellar mass $M_\star\gtrsim
232: 3\times 10^{10} \; M_{\odot}$) at the same redshift. This suggests
233: that AGN at $z\sim 1$ are preferentially hosted by massive galaxies,
234: as observed both in the local and in the distant ($z\sim 2$)
235: Universe. According to a simple clustering evolution scenario, we find
236: that the relics of AGN are expected to have a correlation length as
237: large as $r_0 \sim 8\,h^{-1}$ Mpc by $z=0$, and hence to be hosted by
238: local bright ($L\sim L_\star$) ellipticals.
239:
240: We make use of dark matter halo catalogs from the Millennium
241: simulation to determine the typical halo hosting moderately luminous
242: $z\sim 1$ AGN. We find that XMM-COSMOS AGN live in halos with masses
243: $M\gtrsim 2.5\times 10^{12}\;M_{\odot}\; h^{-1}$. By combining the
244: number density of XMM-COSMOS AGN to that of the hosting dark matter
245: halos we estimate the AGN duty cycle and lifetimes. We find lifetimes
246: approximately of 1 Gyr for AGN at $z\sim 1$, which are longer than
247: those estimated for optically bright QSOs at the same redshift. These
248: longer lifetimes mainly reflect the higher number density of AGN
249: selected by X-ray samples.
250:
251: \keywords{Surveys -- Galaxies: active -- X-rays: general --
252: Cosmology: large-scale structure of Universe} }
253:
254:
255: \maketitle
256:
257: \section{Introduction} \label{introduction}
258:
259:
260: Several pieces of evidence point towards an intimate correlation
261: between the evolution of galaxies and the accretion and growth of
262: supermassive black holes (SMBHs) at their centers, indicating that
263: most galaxies in the Universe spent a fraction of their lifetimes as
264: active galactic nuclei (AGN). In the local Universe, most galaxy
265: bulges indeed host a supermassive black hole (see e.g. Ferrarese \&
266: Ford, \cite{ff05} for a review), whose mass scales with the bulge mass
267: and stellar velocity dispersion (Ferrarese \& Merritt 2000, Gebhart et
268: al. 2000). Furthermore, the growth of SMBHs during active accretion
269: phases, which is traced by the cosmological evolution of the AGN
270: luminosity function (Ueda et al. 2003, Hasinger et al. 2005, La Franca
271: et al. 2005, Silverman et al. 2008a), has been shown to eventually
272: match the mass function of SMBHs in the local Universe (e.g. Marconi et
273: al. \cite{marconi}; Yu \& Tremaine \cite{yu}, Shankar et al. 2004).
274:
275: While the SMBH vs galaxy co-evolution is now an accepted scenario, the
276: details of this joint evolution are not fully understood yet. Nuclear
277: activity in bright QSOs is thought to be induced by major mergers or
278: close encounters of gas-rich galaxies in the context of hierarchical
279: structure formation (e.g. Kauffmann \& Haehnelt 2000, Cavaliere \&
280: Vittorini 2002, Hopkins et al. 2006). Alternatively, nuclear activity
281: can be simply related to the physical processes (e.g. star formation)
282: going on in a single galaxy, without being induced by mergers or
283: interactions with neighboring objects (e.g. Granato et al. 2004).
284: Overall, the role played by the environment in triggering both nuclear
285: activity and star formation is still a matter of debate.
286:
287: Just like local ultraluminous infrared galaxies (Sanders \& Mirabel
288: 1996), the population of bright submillimeter sources at $z\sim 2$
289: (Chapman et al. 2003) is hosting both star formation and nuclear
290: activity (Alexander et al. 2005), as a result of galaxy interactions
291: (Tacconi et al. 2008).
292: %At the same epoch, however, a significant
293: %population of undisturbed, passively evolving galaxies hosting an
294: %active nucleus is observed (Mignoli et al. 2004, Pozzi et
295: %al. 2007).
296: However, the majority of $z\sim 2$ AGN selected at faint X-ray fluxes
297: seem to be hosted by galaxies with a spectral energy distribution
298: typical of passively evolving objects (Mainieri et al. 2005). The
299: concurrent growth of black holes and stellar mass has been observed in
300: IR galaxies at $z\sim 2$ by Daddi et al. (2007), who suggested a
301: long-lived ($>0.2$ Gyr) AGN plus starburst phenomenon, unlikely to be
302: triggered by rapid merger events. In the local galaxies observed by
303: the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS, York et al. 2000), nuclear activity
304: does not appear to be correlated to the presence of close companions,
305: while star formation does (Li et al. 2008). A common merger origin for
306: both phenomena cannot be ruled out, however, provided they occur at
307: different times (see Li et al. 2008).
308:
309: % bennert et al. 07: qso in ellipticals which underwent past mergers
310:
311: The relation between nuclear activity and the environment can be
312: studied via clustering techniques in the context of large-scale
313: structure formation, in which the growth of baryonic structures is
314: supposed to follow the formations of dark matter halos (DMHs).
315:
316: %However, while the
317: %formation and the evolution of dark matter structures is relatively
318: %well understood via N-body simulations (e.g. Jenkins et
319: %al. \cite{jenkins}; Springel et al. \cite{springel}) and analytical
320: %approximations (e.g. Peacock \& Dodds \cite{pd96}), baryon cooling and
321: %galaxy formation within DMHs is still matter of debate.
322:
323: The comparison between the clustering properties of AGN and those of
324: DMHs predicted by cold dark matter (CDM) models can be used to
325: evaluate the typical mass of the DMHs in which AGN form and reside as
326: a function of cosmic time. The most recent measurements have shown
327: that bright QSOs in the redshift range 0-3 reside into DMHs of mass
328: $M>10^{12} \: M_{\odot}$ (Grazian et al. \cite{grazi04}; Porciani et
329: al. 2004, Croom et al. \cite{croom05}; but see Padmanabhan et al. 2008
330: for lower mass estimates at $z\sim0.3$).
331: %Since the average mass of the DMHs grows with
332: %cosmic time, objects residing in similar halos at different redshifts,
333: %are expected to evolve to different environments by $z=0$. As an
334: %example, objects at $z\sim 1$ in the 2QZ are expected to be located in
335: %the progenitors of local galaxy groups, while QSO at higher redshifts
336: %are expected to be located in the progenitors of local galaxy
337: %clusters.
338: In addition, the ratio between the AGN space density and the
339: space density of host DMHs may provide an estimate of the AGN lifetime
340: (e.g. Martini \& Weinberg \cite{mw01}). Current estimates are largely
341: uncertain, constraining the AGN lifetime in the range of a few $\times
342: 10^6 - 10^8$ yr (Grazian et al. \cite{grazi04}; Porciani et
343: al. \cite{porc04}). Finally, the comparison between the clustering
344: properties of different galaxy types and AGN can be used to estimate
345: AGN hosts and to estimate the descendant and progenitors of
346: AGN at any given redshifts.
347: %The recent availability of large X-ray source samples optically
348: %identified is providing solid grounds for investigating the
349: %clustering properties of X-ray selected AGN. The excellent arcsec
350: %resolution of Chandra and XMM has allowed a fast and robust
351: %optical identification followup.
352: %One of the most commonly used statistics to measure the clustering of
353: %a population of sources is the two-point correlation function
354: %$\xi(r)$, which measures the excess probability of finding a pair of
355: %objects at a separation $r$ with respect to a random distribution and
356: %is usually approximated by a power law
357: %$\xi(r)=(r/r_0)^{-\gamma}$. Under simple assumptions, the amplitude of
358: %the AGN correlation function can be used to estimate the typical mass
359: %of the dark matter halos in which AGN reside (Grazian et
360: %al. \cite{grazi04}, Magliocchetti et al. \cite{maglio04}) and the
361: %typical AGN lifetimes (Martini \& Weinberg \cite{marti01}).
362:
363: AGN clustering has been traditionally studied by means of the
364: two-point correlation function applied to optically selected QSO
365: samples (e.g. Shanks et al. \cite{shank87}, La Franca et
366: al. \cite{lafra98}). The most recent and solid results of these
367: analyses come from the two largest QSO surveys to date, namely the 2dF
368: QSO Redshift Survey (2QZ, e.g. Croom et al. \cite{croom05}), and the
369: SDSS. The 2QZ is based on a sample of more than 20000 objects with
370: redshifts $0.2\lesssim z \lesssim 3.0$. When calculating the
371: correlation function in real space and approximating it with a
372: power law $\xi(r)=(r/r_0)^{-\gamma}$, the QSO correlation length and
373: slope were found to be $r_0=5.0 \pm 0.5 \:h^{-1}$ Mpc and
374: $\gamma=1.85\pm 0.13$ at a median redshift of $\bar z=1.5$ (Da Angela
375: et al. \cite{daa05}). Some evidence of a flattening towards smaller
376: scales was also reported, with $\gamma=1.45$ at projected scales below
377: $10\: h^{-1}$ Mpc (Da Angela et al. \cite{daa05}). The clustering
378: level of 2QZ QSOs is similar to that of early type galaxies at the
379: same redshift (Coil et al. 2004, Meneux et al. 2006), suggesting they
380: reside in environments of similar density. A tentative detection of
381: $z\sim 1$ AGN residing preferentially in the same environment of blue
382: rather than red galaxies has been reported by Coil et al. (2007). The
383: QSO clustering is observed to be a strong function of redshift (Croom
384: et al. 2005, Porciani \& Norberg 2006), with the correlation length of
385: luminous QSOs at $z\sim 4$ being as high as $r_0=24\,h^{-1}$ Mpc (Shen
386: et al. 2007). This suggests that luminous, early QSOs are hosted by
387: the most massive and rare DMHs and hence form in the highest density
388: peaks of the dark matter distribution. The evidence of luminosity
389: dependent clustering is, on the contrary, still marginal (Porciani \&
390: Norberg 2006).
391:
392: The above results are mostly based on AGN selected by means of their
393: blue optical colors and broad optical lines; i.e., they essentially
394: refer to unobscured, type 1 AGN. With the notable exception of the
395: measurement performed by the SDSS on a local sample of narrow-line AGN
396: (Li et al. 2006), to date there has been no information on the clustering
397: properties of obscured AGN, which, based on the results from deep
398: X-ray surveys (Brandt \& Hasinger 2005, Tozzi et al. 2006) and X-ray
399: background synthesis models (e.g. Gilli, Comastri \& Hasinger 2007a),
400: are found to be a factor of $\gtrsim 4$ more numerous than unobscured
401: ones; i.e., they are the most abundant AGN population in the Universe,
402: dominating the history of accretion onto SMBHs (e.g. Fabian 1999). If
403: the unified model strictly applies, i.e. the nuclear obscuration is
404: just an orientation effect, one should not expect differences in the
405: clustering properties of obscured and unobscured AGN. However, several
406: exceptions to the strict unified model are known. Source obscuration
407: is in many cases related to the gas content and evolutionary stage of
408: the host galaxy, rather than to a small-scale torus intercepting the
409: line of sight (Malkan et al. 1998). Models have been proposed in which
410: the onset of nuclear activity starts embedded in an envelope of gas
411: and dust, which is later on swept out by the QSO radiation (see
412: e.g. Hopkins et al. 2006). If this were the case, obscured and
413: unobscured AGN would be just two subsequent stages along a galaxy
414: lifetime. The different durations of these two stages and their
415: relation with the environment may produce different clustering
416: properties between obscured and unobscured AGN.
417:
418: One obvious way to obtain samples of obscured AGN is through X-ray
419: observations. Besides reducing the obscuration bias dramatically,
420: especially in the hard 2-10 keV band, X-ray selection also has the
421: advantage of being effective in selecting distant low-luminosity AGN,
422: whose optical light is diluted by the host galaxy emission and
423: therefore missed by color-based optical surveys.
424:
425: %As an example, the most recent QSO optical luminosity functions by
426: %Croom et al. (\cite{croom04} do not include objects with
427: %$M_B<M_{gal}$, where $M_{gal}\sim-21$ is the characteristic B-band
428: %absolute magnitude of the galaxy luminosity function. On the contrary,
429: %the most recently determined X-ray luminosity functions (e.g. Ueda et
430: %al. \cite{ueda03}, Hasinger et al. \cite{hasi05}) include objects well
431: %beyond this limit.
432:
433: In the past years the limited sample size of X-ray selected AGN
434: prevented clustering analyses as detailed as for optically selected
435: objects. In particular, the lack of dedicated optical follow-up
436: programs of X-ray sources providing large samples with spectroscopic
437: measurements, has not allowed accurate estimates of the spatial
438: clustering of X-ray selected AGN, limiting most studies to angular
439: clustering. Numerous investigations of the two point angular
440: correlation function of X-ray sources have indeed appeared in the
441: literature, but the results suffer from rather large
442: uncertainties. Early attempts to measure the angular clustering of
443: X-ray selected sources were performed by Vikhlinin et al. (1995) and
444: Carrera et al. (1998) based on ROSAT pointings. More recent results
445: based on Chandra and XMM data have been obtained by Basilakos et
446: al. (2004), Gandhi et al. (2006), Puccetti et al. (2006), Miyaji et
447: al. (2007), Carrera et al. (2007), Plionis et al. (2008), and Ueda et
448: al. (2008). In particular, Miyaji et al (2007) and Gandhi et
449: al. (2006) have computed the angular correlation function over
450: contiguous areas of a few square degrees (the 2 deg$^2$
451: COSMOS field and the $\sim$4 deg$^2$ XMM-LSS field, respectively),
452: which should reduce the impact of cosmic variance. In the COSMOS field,
453: Miyaji et al. (2007) measured a correlation length of about $10\pm
454: 1\;h^{-1}$ Mpc, while only a loose constraint ($r_0=3-9\;h^{-1}$) Mpc
455: was obtained in the XMM-LSS by Gandhi et al. (2006). Very recently an
456: attempt to measure the angular clustering of high-redshift ($z\sim 3$),
457: X-ray selected AGN has been done by Francke et al. (2008).
458: %Although it has been proposed that the observed differences depend on
459: %the different limiting fluxes of the observed samples (Plionis et
460: %al. 2007), still the results appear contradictory. [describe]
461:
462: The few examples of spatial clustering of X-ray selected sources
463: appeared in the literature are limited by low statistics. Based on a
464: sample of $\sim 220$ QSOs at $z\sim 0.2$ found in the 80 deg$^2$ ROSAT
465: North Ecliptic Pole survey (NEP, Gioia et al. \cite{gioia03}), Mullis
466: et al. (\cite{mullis04}) were able to measure a correlation signal to
467: $\gtrsim 3\sigma$ level. By fixing the correlation slope to
468: $\gamma=1.8$, they found a best-fit correlation length of
469: $r_0=7.4^{+1.8}_{-1.9}\:h^{-1}$ Mpc. Because of the relatively short
470: exposures in the NEP survey and the limited ROSAT sensitivity and
471: bandpass (0.1-2.4 keV), only bright, luminous, unobscured QSOs have been
472: detected in this sample (median $L_{0.5-2{\rm keV}}\sim 9\times
473: 10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$, corresponding to $L_{0.5-10{\rm keV}}\sim
474: 2\times 10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$ for a spectral slope of
475: $\alpha=0.9$). Later, by analyzing data from the {\it Chandra} Deep
476: Field South (CDFS, Rosati et al. \cite{rosati02}) and Chandra Deep
477: Field North (CDFN, Alexander et al. \cite{alex03}), Gilli et
478: al. \cite{gilli05} were able to detect clustering at $>7\sigma$ level
479: for $z\sim 0.7$ AGN with $L_{0.5-10{\rm keV}}\sim 10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$.
480: %While the slope of the AGN correlation function was found to be flat
481: %in both fields (1.4-1.5 on scales below $10\:h^{-1}$ Mpc),
482: However, the best-fit correlation length was found to vary by a factor
483: of $\sim 2$ between the two fields ($r_0=10\,h^{-1}$ Mpc in the CDFS,
484: $r_0=5\,h^{-1}$ Mpc in the CDFN), revealing strong cosmic variance
485: over these small, 0.1 deg$^2$ each, sky areas. Although with limited
486: significance ($\sim 3\sigma$), in the CDFs, it was also possible to
487: determine the clustering properties of obscured AGN only, which did
488: not show significant differences with respect to those of unobscured
489: ones within the uncertainties (Gilli et al. \cite{gilli05}). The most
490: recent measurement is the one performed in the larger, 0.4 deg$^2$
491: field covered by the CLASXS (Yang et al. 2006). A correlation length
492: of $\sim 5.7\,h^{-1}$ Mpc was found for X-ray selected AGN at $z\sim
493: 1.2$, with average luminosity of $L_{0.5-10{\rm keV}}\sim 6\times
494: 10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$.
495:
496: A large number of X-ray surveys are ongoing and are expected to
497: provide larger samples of sources over wide sky areas and with
498: different limiting fluxes. They will allow studies of clustering of
499: AGN in different redshift and luminosity regimes. A few examples of
500: such surveys are X-Bootes (Murray et al. 2005), XMM-LSS (Pierre et
501: al. 2007), Extended CDFS (Lehmer et al 2005), AEGIS (Nandra et
502: al. 2005), and XMM-COSMOS (Hasinger et al. 2007). One of these
503: samples, the XMM survey in the 2 deg$^2$ COSMOS field (XMM-COSMOS),
504: has been specifically designed to study with the best statistics the
505: clustering of X-ray selected AGN. One of the main goals of XMM-COSMOS
506: was indeed to provide the best measurement to date of the correlation
507: function of X-ray selected AGN and to allow a reliable measurement of
508: the correlation function of obscured AGN at $z>0$ for the first time.
509:
510: The optical spectroscopic identification of the 1822 pointlike X-ray
511: sources detected by XMM-COSMOS continues. In this paper we present the
512: results based on the first third of the objects. The paper is
513: organized as follows. In Sect. 2 we summarize the X-ray and optical
514: follow-up observations of the XMM-COSMOS sample and present the source
515: catalog used in our analysis. In Sect. 3 we describe the methods of
516: estimating the correlation function of X-ray selected sources. In
517: Sect. 4 several safety checks are performed to validate the adopted
518: techniques. The results of our analysis are presented in Sect. 5. In
519: Sect. 6 the results are discussed and interpreted. The conclusions and
520: prospects for future work are finally presented in Sect. 7.
521:
522: Throughout this paper, a flat cosmology with $\Omega_m=0.25$ and
523: $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.75$ is assumed (Spergel et
524: al. \cite{spergel}). For comparison with previous measurements we
525: refer to correlation lengths and distances in units of $h^{-1}$ Mpc
526: comoving, where $H_0=100\;h$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. Masses of dark
527: matter halos are also expressed in units of $h^{-1} \; M_{\odot}$ for
528: consistency with the Millennium simulation, and AGN and halo space
529: densities are expressed in units of $h^3$ Mpc$^{-3}$. AGN luminosities
530: and lifetimes are calculated using $h=0.7$.
531:
532: \begin{figure}[t]
533: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{skydist.ps}
534: \caption{Distribution on the sky of the 1822 pointlike sources detected by XMM
535: (crosses). Spectroscopically identified objects are shown as
536: filled circles. The area covered by spectroscopic observations is also
537: shown: the large circles show the 16 Magellan IMACS pointings, while the
538: polygon represents the area presently covered by zCOSMOS observations.}
539: \label{sky}
540: \end{figure}
541:
542: \section{The sample} \label{xray}
543:
544: The XMM-COSMOS survey is part of the COSMOS legacy project (see
545: Scoville et al. 2007a for an overview of the survey), an extensive
546: multiwavelength campaign to observe a $1.4\times 1.4$ deg equatorial
547: field centered at $(RA,DEC)_{J2000}=(150.1083, 2.210)$. A number of
548: large programs with the major observing facilities have been already
549: performed or are ongoing, including HST (Scoville et al. 2007b), VLT
550: (Lilly et al. 2007), SUBARU (Taniguchi et al. 2007), VLA (Schinnerer
551: et al. 2007), XMM (Hasinger et al. 2007), Chandra (Elvis et al. in
552: preparation) Spitzer (Sanders et al. 2007), and GALEX (Zamojski et
553: al. 2007; Schiminovich et al. in preparation).
554:
555: XMM-COSMOS is a mosaic made of 53 partially overlapping XMM pointings
556: that cover the entire 2 deg$^2$ COSMOS field. The XMM observations were
557: allocated across two announcements of opportunities (AO-4 and AO-5)
558: and performed in two different passes\footnote{We do not consider here
559: two additional pointings performed separately in AO-6.}, for a total of
560: 1.4 Ms exposure time. Each pass was arranged into a regular grid of
561: $\sim 30$ ks pointings separated by 8 arcmin each to cover the full 2
562: deg$^2$ field. In the second pass the grid pattern was shifted by 1
563: arcmin with respect to the first pass to ensure maximum uniformity in
564: the sensitivity over the final mosaic. The limiting fluxes reached in
565: the regions of maximum exposure are $5\times 10^{-16}$, $3\times
566: 10^{-15}$, $6\times 10^{-15}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ in the 0.5-2,
567: 2-10, and 5-10 keV, respectively, while the entire 2 deg$^2$ area is
568: covered down to $2.4\times 10^{-15}$, $1.5\times 10^{-14}$, $2\times
569: 10^{-14}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ in the same bands. In total 1822
570: pointlike sources have been detected in at least one band down to a
571: likelihood threshold of 10 (see Cappelluti et al. 2007 for the source
572: detection process). The final catalog will be presented in a
573: forthcoming paper (Cappelluti et al. in preparation). A number of
574: results concerning the first pass (0.8 Msec total exposure) have been
575: published by Cappelluti et al. (2007), Miyaji et al. (2007), and Mainieri
576: et al. (2007).
577:
578: The optical identification of XMM sources is currently in progress
579: (see Brusa et al. 2007 for the initial results based on the first 12
580: XMM pointings). Unique optical and/or infrared counterparts for most
581: ($\sim$88\%) of the XMM sources have now been recognized. Thanks to
582: the Chandra observations in the central COSMOS square deg (Elvis et
583: al. in prep), a number of formerly ambiguous identifications have now
584: been made secure (Brusa et al. in preparation). The main dedicated
585: spectroscopic follow-up programs of XMM sources are being conducted
586: with the IMACS instrument at the 6m Magellan telescope (Trump et
587: al. 2007) and with VIMOS at the VLT within the zCOSMOS program
588: (e.g. Lilly et al. 2007). A number of spectroscopic redshifts were also
589: obtained by cross-correlating the XMM catalog with published
590: spectroscopic catalogs like the SDSS. About 46\% of the total
591: spectroscopic sample were obtained with only IMACS observations,
592: 25\% with only zCOSMOS, and another 24\% has been observed in both
593: programs. The remaining 5\% were obtained by cross-correlation
594: with public catalogs. Quality flags were assigned to the
595: redshifts measured by IMACS and zCOSMOS. We considered here only the
596: 621 X-ray pointlike sources with highest quality flags, which have been
597: identified as extragalactic objects. By considering the 150 duplicated
598: redshifts (i.e. those objects observed by both IMACS and VIMOS) the
599: accuracy in the redshift measurements is verified to be
600: $\sigma_z<0.002$.
601:
602: Since we combine measurements obtained with different optical
603: instruments by different groups, which adopt somewhat different
604: spectral classification criteria, it is not easy to obtain a uniform
605: classification scheme for the optical counterparts of XMM sources. The
606: only class with a common definition in the various catalogs is
607: that of objects showing broad emission lines (FWHM$\gtrsim 2000$
608: km/s). Therefore, in the following, as far as optical classification
609: is concerned, we simply divide the sample into objects with and
610: without broad optical lines, referring to them as broad line AGN
611: (BLAGN) and non-BLAGN, respectively (see also Brusa et al. 2007).
612:
613: \begin{figure}[t]
614: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{lxz.ps}
615: \caption{Soft X-ray luminosity vs redshift relation for the
616: spectroscopically identified sources in XMM-COSMOS. Broad line AGN
617: (BLAGN) and non broad line AGN (non-BLAGN) are shown as blue open
618: circles and red filled circles, respectively. Only objects in the
619: redshift range $z=0.2-3$ (vertical dashed lines) have been considered
620: for the clustering analysis.}
621: \label{lxz}
622: \end{figure}
623:
624: \begin{figure}[t]
625: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{iz.ps}
626: \caption{I-band magnitude vs redshift distribution of the optical
627: counterparts of XMM sources. Objects with spectroscopic redshift
628: or only photometric redshift are shown as filled circles or
629: crosses, respectively. The dashed horizontal line shows the
630: $I_{AB}=23$ magnitude limit considered for the clustering analysis
631: (see text).}
632: \label{iz}
633: \end{figure}
634:
635: The 0.5-2 keV X-ray luminosity vs redshift distribution of BLAGN and
636: non-BLAGN, is shown in Fig.~\ref{lxz}. BLAGN are on average observed
637: at higher redshift and at luminosities above $10^{42.5}$ erg s$^{-1}$,
638: while non-BLAGN are observed down to very low X-ray luminosities and
639: may therefore include a significant fraction of normal galaxies. To
640: exclude from the sample those objects that are not likely to be AGN, we
641: then considered only those sources at a redshift higher than 0.2. As
642: shown in Fig.~\ref{lxz}, this cut essentially removes most
643: low-luminosity objects, leaving in the sample only objects with
644: $L_{0.5-2}\gtrsim 10^{41.5}$ erg s$^{-1}$. \footnote{We verified that
645: adopting a luminosity cut at $L_{0.5-10}>10^{41.5}$ erg s$^{-1}$
646: produces similar results as adopting a redshift cut at z=0.2.} In
647: addition we considered for our analysis only objects at redshifts
648: below 3, since beyond this limit the source density becomes extremely
649: low and the selection function is very uncertain (see Sect. 3).
650:
651: By exploiting the large multiwavelength database available in
652: COSMOS, Salvato et al. (2008) are able to estimate a photometric
653: redshift for $\sim 85\%$ of the XMM sources. For the remaining 15\% of
654: the sample, the main reason for not attempting a photometric redshift
655: estimate was the ambiguity in the correct association with the
656: optical/IR counterpart (see Brusa et al. 2007). This issue, however,
657: is not expected to introduce any bias related to source
658: distances. Therefore the redshift distribution estimated using
659: photometric redshifts should be very close to that of the entire XMM
660: sample. On the contrary, spectroscopic redshifts have been measured
661: for a minority ($\sim36\%$) of the total XMM sample (including 34
662: stars), making it possible that objects with measured
663: spectroscopic redshift are not a fair representation (i.e. a random
664: sampling) of the total AGN population detected by XMM. The I-band
665: magnitude vs redshift distribution of the objects with spectroscopic
666: redshifts and only photometric redshifts is shown in
667: Fig.~\ref{iz}. Objects only with photometric redshift are on average
668: optically fainter and at higher redshift than objects with
669: spectroscopic redshifts. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test performed on the
670: redshifts distribution of objects with and without spectroscopic
671: redshift indicates that they differ at $>3\sigma$ level; i.e., the
672: spectroscopic sample is not a fair representation of the entire AGN
673: population detected by XMM. We therefore impose a magnitude cut at
674: $I_{AB}<23$, which excludes only a small fraction ($<3\%$) of
675: spectroscopically identified objects but increases the spectroscopic
676: completeness to about 60\%. The redshift distribution of objects
677: brighter than $I_{AB}=23$ with and without spectroscopic redshifts are
678: statistically indistinguishable. Therefore, we conclude that, for
679: objects with $I_{AB}<23$, the spectroscopic selection does not include
680: any bias against high-redshift objects.
681:
682: In the following we consider the sample of 538 XMM objects with
683: $I_{AB}<23$ and spectroscopic redshift in the range $z=0.2-3.0$ as our
684: reference sample. The average redshift and X-ray luminosity of this
685: sample are $z=0.98$ and $L_{0.5-10}=6.3\times 10^{43}$ erg/s,
686: respectively. The redshift distribution of the sample sources is shown
687: in Fig.~\ref{zdist}. A number of redshift structures are observed, the
688: most prominent of which is at $z\sim 0.36$, also observed at other
689: wavelengths in COSMOS (Lilly et al. 2007).
690:
691: %The envelope
692: %corresponding to the XMM limiting flux is also plotted as a solid
693: %line. In addition the limiting flux for the Chandra-COSMOS survey is
694: %also plotted, which shows how identification of Chandra sources will
695: %allow to measure the clustering of sources a factor of a few less
696: %luminous.
697:
698: %The correspondence between optical class and X-ray absorption seems
699: %less tigth for the XMM-COSMOS sources than for the deep field sources
700: %(see also Tozzi et al. \cite{tozzi05}). In particular narrow line AGN
701: %appear to be distributed almost along the whole HR range, while in the
702: %standard unification scenario they are expected to have preferentially
703: %hard X-ray spectra, i.e. high HR values. [check if AGN with weak broad
704: %lines may have been misidentified as narrow line AGN and populate the
705: %lower HR part of our diagram, or discuss X-ray spectral complexities
706: %(e.g. soft components) that may screw up HR as absorption indicator]
707:
708:
709: \begin{figure}[t]
710: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{zdist.cosmos.538.ps}
711: \caption{Redshift distribution for the 538 X-ray sources in the
712: reference sample in bins of $\Delta z = 0.01$. The solid curve is
713: obtained by smoothing the observed redshift distribution with a
714: Gaussian with $\sigma_z=0.3$ and is used to generate the random
715: control sample in the correlation function estimate.}
716: \label{zdist}
717: \end{figure}
718:
719: \begin{figure}[t]
720: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{rov.cosmos.548.ps}
721: \caption{{\it Upper panel:} projected correlation function $w(r_p)$
722: computed at different $r_p$ scales (see label) as a function of the
723: integration radius $\pi_{max}$. From {\it top middle} to {\it bottom
724: panels} the correlation length $r_0$, slope $\gamma$, and amplitude
725: $r_0^{\gamma}$ are shown as a function of $\pi_{max}$, respectively.}
726: \label{rov}
727: \end{figure}
728:
729: \section {Analysis techniques}
730:
731: The basic statistics commonly used to measure the clustering
732: properties of galaxies is the two point correlation function $\xi(r)$,
733: defined as the excess probability over random of finding a pair with
734: one object in the volume $dV_1$ and the second in the volume $dV_2$,
735: separated by a distance $r$ (Peebles \cite{peeb80}):
736:
737: \begin{equation}
738: dP = n^2[1+\xi(r)]dV_1dV_2,
739: \end{equation}
740: where $n$ is the mean object space density. In our calculations we
741: always refer to comoving distances and volumes. In a flat
742: Universe one can simply estimate the comoving distance between two
743: objects at redshifts $z_1$ and $z_2$ separated on the sky by an angle
744: $\theta$ with the cosine rule (see e.g. Osmer et al. \cite{osmer81}):
745:
746: \begin{equation}
747: s=\sqrt{{d_1}^2+{d_2}^2-2d_1d_2\rm{cos}\theta},
748: \end{equation}
749: where $d_i$ is the radial comoving distance to object $i$, which, again
750: in a flat universe, reads as
751:
752: \begin{equation}
753: d_i = {c\over{H_0}}\int_0^{\,z_i}dz\,[\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{\Lambda}]^{-1/2}.
754: \end{equation}
755:
756: However, a well known feature of Eq. 2 in measuring pair separations
757: is that it is affected by redshift space distortions since peculiar
758: velocities combine with the source distance to produce the measured
759: redshift. (This is the same effect which in redshift surveys transforms
760: galaxy clusters into fingers-of-God). The net effect of peculiar
761: velocities is to shift pairs from smaller to larger radial
762: separations, thus shifting the clustering power towards higher
763: scales. In particular a flatter slope with respect to the real space
764: correlation function is generally observed.% [check].
765: A similar effect is also produced by the uncertainties in the redshift
766: measurements.
767:
768: To overcome these problems one can resort to the so-called projected
769: correlation function:
770:
771: \begin{equation}
772: w(r_p) = \int_{-\pi_{max}}^{\pi_{max}} \xi(r_p, \pi)d\pi,
773: \label{wdef}
774: \end{equation}
775: where $\xi(r_p, \pi)$ is the two-point correlation function expressed
776: in terms of the separations perpendicular ($r_p$) and parallel ($\pi$)
777: to the line of sight as defined in Davis \& Peebles (\cite{dp83}) and
778: applied to comoving coordinates:
779:
780: \begin{equation}
781: \pi = |d_1 - d_2|\:,\: r_p=(d_1+d_2)\rm{tan}{\theta\over2}\:.
782: \end{equation}
783:
784: Since $w(r_p)$ is an integral along the radial coordinate, it is
785: independent of peculiar velocity effects and can therefore be used as
786: an estimate of the true, real-space correlation function. In
787: particular, if the real space correlation function can be approximated
788: by a power law of the form $\xi(r)=(r/r_0)^{-\gamma}$ and $\pi_{max}=
789: \infty$, then the following relation holds (Peebles \cite{peeb80}):
790:
791: \begin{equation}
792: w(r_p) =A(\gamma) r_0^{\gamma} r_p^{1-\gamma},
793: \label{wpow}
794: \end{equation}
795: where $A(\gamma)=\Gamma(1/2)\Gamma[(\gamma-1)/2]/\Gamma(\gamma/2)$
796: and $\Gamma(x)$ is the Euler's gamma function. Then, $A(\gamma)$
797: increases from 3.05 when $\gamma=2.0$ to 7.96 when $\gamma=1.3$.
798:
799: An integration limit $\pi_{max}$ has to be chosen in Eq.~\ref{wdef} to
800: maximize the correlation signal. Indeed, one should avoid $\pi_{max}$
801: values that are too high, since they would mainly add noise to the
802: estimate of $w(r_p)$. On the other hand, scales that are too small,
803: comparable to the redshift uncertainties and to the pairwise
804: velocity dispersion (i.e. the dispersion in the distribution of the
805: relative velocities of source pairs), should also be avoided since
806: they would not allow the whole signal to be recovered.
807:
808: The typical uncertainty in the redshift measurements
809: ($\sigma_z<0.002)$ corresponds to comoving scales below $6.0\:h^{-1}$
810: Mpc at all redshifts. The pairwise velocity dispersion measured in the
811: local Universe ($500-600$ km $s^{-1}$; Marzke et al. \cite{marzke95},
812: Zehavi et al. \cite{zehavi02}) is expected to decrease by $\sim 15\%$
813: at $z\sim1.0$ (see e.g. the $\Lambda$CDM simulations by Kauffmann et
814: al. \cite{kauff99}), thus corresponding to $\sim 3\:h^{-1}$ Mpc. To
815: search for the best integration radius $\pi_{max}$, we measured
816: $w(r_p)$ for the XMM-COSMOS reference sample for different $\pi_{max}$
817: values ranging from 3 to $220\:h^{-1}$ Mpc. In Fig.~\ref{rov} (upper
818: panel), we show the increase of $w(r_p)$ with the integration radius
819: $\pi_{max}$ at those projected scales where most of the clustering
820: signal is coming from ($r_p=5-20\,h^{-1}$ Mpc). The $w(r_p)$ values
821: appear to converge for $\pi_{max}\gtrsim 40\,h^{-1}$ Mpc. Similarly,
822: the amplitude of the spatial correlation function $B=r_0^\gamma$
823: (Fig.~\ref{rov} bottom panel) or the amplitude of the projected
824: correlation function $C=A(\gamma)r_0^\gamma$ (not shown) is converging
825: for $\pi_{max}\gtrsim 40\,h^{-1}$ Mpc.\footnote{Since $A(\gamma)$
826: varies only by $\sim 16\%$ in the range of the measured slopes, $B$
827: and $C$ show almost exactly the same behaviour with $\pi_{max}$.} The
828: correlation length $r_{0}$ and slope $\gamma$ are strongly correlated:
829: when $r_0$ increases, $\gamma$ decreases. The correlation length
830: appears to reach a maximum at $\pi_{max}\sim 80\,h^{-1}$ Mpc, while
831: $\gamma$ is constant in the range $\pi_{max}=40-200\,h^{-1}$
832: Mpc. Based on these considerations, we adopt $\pi_{max}=40\:h^{-1}$
833: Mpc in the following analysis, which is the minimum $\pi_{max}$ value
834: at which the correlation function converges, and returns the
835: smaller errors on the best-fit correlation parameters $r_0,\gamma$ and
836: $r_0^\gamma$. We note that with this choice $r_0$ is smaller by
837: $\sim10\%$ than the maximum value measured at
838: $\pi_{max}\sim 80\,h^{-1}$ Mpc, but we do not try to correct for this
839: small bias.
840: %[do we correct for this?]
841: %The here adopted value for $\pi_{max}$ is four times larger than that
842: %used for the same analysis in the Chandra Msec Fields. This is likely
843: %due to the shallower nature of the XMM-COSMOS survey which samples
844: %more luminous and therefore less abundant AGN. To recover most of the
845: %AGN correlated pairs one has then to increase the integration radius
846: %$\pi_{max}$.
847:
848: %We verified that our results agree within the errors by assuming
849: %$\pi_{max}$ in the range $10-30\:h^{-1}$ Mpc. In more detail, we found
850: %that at larger $\pi_{max}$ values the correlation length slightly
851: %increases but also the associated errors increase, as also observed by
852: %Carlberg et al. (2000). Furthermore, when using $\pi_{max}=10\:h^{-1}$
853: %Mpc, we measured slightly steeper $\gamma$ values, since the
854: %clustering signal at large scale is not fully recovered.
855:
856: To measure $\xi(r_p, \pi)$ we created random samples of sources in our
857: fields and measured the excess of pairs at separations $(r_p, \pi)$
858: with respect to the random distribution. We used the minimum variance
859: estimator proposed by Landy \& Szalay (\cite{ls93}), which is found to
860: have a nearly Poissonian variance and to outperform other popular
861: estimators, especially on large scales (e.g., see Kerscher et
862: al. 2000):
863:
864: \begin{equation}
865: \xi(r_p, \pi)=\frac{[DD]-2[DR]+[RR]}{[RR]},
866: \end{equation}
867: \noindent
868: where [DD], [DR] and [RR] are the normalized data-data, data-random and
869: random-random pairs, i.e.
870:
871: \begin{equation}
872: [DD]\equiv DD(r_p, \pi)\frac{n_r(n_r-1)}{n_d(n_d-1)}
873: \end{equation}
874:
875: \begin{equation}
876: [DR]\equiv DR(r_p, \pi)\frac{(n_r-1)}{2 n_d}
877: \end{equation}
878:
879: \begin{equation}
880: [RR]\equiv RR(r_p, \pi),
881: \end{equation}
882: \noindent
883: where $DD$, $DR$, and $RR$ are the number of data-data, data-random, and
884: random-random pairs at separations $r_p \pm \Delta r_p$ and $\pi \pm
885: \Delta \pi$, and $n_d$ and $n_r$ are the total number of sources in
886: the data and random sample, respectively.
887:
888: \begin{figure*}[t]
889: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{cosmos.538.ref.23000.s03.vi40.obs.11bin.ps}
890: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{cosmos.cfr.ref.538.496.349.23000.s03.vi40.obs.11bin.ps}
891: \caption{{\it Left panel:} projected correlation function for the
892: XMM-COSMOS AGN reference sample (538 objects with $z=0.2-3.0$ and
893: $I_{AB}<23$, see Table~1). In this and in the following $panel$, errors
894: are $1\sigma$ Poisson confidence intervals and the best-fit power law
895: is shown as a dashed line. {\it Right panel:} projected correlation
896: function of the full sample computed including (open circles) and
897: excluding (filled circle) the 42 objects in the large-scale structure
898: at $z\sim 0.36$: it is evident that the $z\sim 0.36$ structure is
899: largely responsible for the signal excess on scales
900: $r_p\sim5-15\:h^{-1}$ Mpc. The projected correlation function for the
901: $z=0.4-1.6$ sample is also shown (filled triangles). For display
902: purposes, the $w(r_p)$ datapoints of the different samples have been
903: slightly shifted on the $r_p$ axis.}
904: \label{sall}
905: \end{figure*}
906:
907: Since both the redshift and the coordinate $(\alpha, \delta)$
908: distributions of the identified sources are potentially affected by
909: observational biases, special care has to be taken in creating the
910: sample of random sources. This has been extensively discussed by Gilli
911: et al. (\cite{gilli05}) for the Chandra Msec Fields (see. e.g. their
912: Sect. 4.2) where similar problems have been encountered. In that paper
913: we showed that extracting the coordinates of the random sources from
914: the coordinate ensemble of the real sample and using the observed
915: redshifts to create a smoothed redshift distribution for the random
916: sample is a sufficiently accurate procedure. As in Gilli et
917: al. (\cite{gilli05}), we assumed a Gaussian smoothing length $\sigma_z
918: = 0.3$, which is a good compromise between scales that are too small,
919: which would suffer from local density variations, and those that are
920: too large, which would oversmooth the distribution. We nonetheless
921: verified that our results do not change significantly when using a
922: smoothing length in the range $\sigma_z = 0.2-0.4$. The smoothed
923: redshift distribution adopted for our simulations is shown in
924: Fig.~\ref{zdist}. The adopted procedure, if anything, would slightly
925: reduce the correlation signal, since it removes the effects of angular
926: clustering. Each random sample is built to contain more than 20000
927: objects.
928:
929: We binned the source pairs in intervals of $\Delta{\rm log}\,r_p$=0.2
930: and measured $w(r_p)$ in each bin. The resulting datapoints were then
931: fitted by a power law of the form given in Eq.~\ref{wpow}, and the
932: best-fit parameters $\gamma$ and $r_0$ were determined via $\chi^2$
933: minimization. Given the small number of pairs that fall into some
934: bins (especially on the smallest scales), we used the formulae of
935: Gehrels (\cite{gehre86}) to estimate the 68\% confidence interval
936: (i.e. $1\sigma$ errorbars in Gaussian statistics).
937:
938:
939: \section{Safety checks and error estimates}
940:
941: A possible concern related to the analysis methods presented in the
942: previous section is the random-sample generation. Indeed, placing the
943: random sources at the coordinates of the real sources completely
944: removes the contribution to the signal due to angular clustering. This
945: procedure could therefore underestimate the true correlation length.
946:
947: We try to quantify this effect by considering a random sample
948: simulated according to the XMM-COSMOS sensitivity maps (see e.g Miyaji
949: et al. 2007 and Cappelluti et al. 2007). Briefly, each simulated
950: source is extracted from a reference input logN-logS, placed at random
951: in the XMM-COSMOS field, and kept in the random sample if its flux is
952: above the sensitivity map value at that position. It is evident that
953: this method is producing a random sample that only accounts for the
954: varying X-ray sensitivity along the COSMOS field, but does not account
955: for the positional biases related to the optical follow-up
956: program.
957: %Therefore, it is likely to provide an upper limit to the
958: %correlation length.
959: The result of this test is that the measured correlation length
960: increases by $\sim 15\%$ with respect to the former case.
961:
962: An additional test was performed prompted by the X-ray flux
963: distribution of objects with spectroscopic redshift being different
964: from that of the total XMM sample. In particular, the fraction of
965: objects with spectroscopic redshift $Frac$ is constant (about 70\%)
966: for X-ray fluxes $f_{0.5-2 keV}>1.6\times 10^{-14}$ erg cm$^{-2}$
967: s$^{-1}$, while it decreases towards fainter fluxes, reaching 0.0 at
968: $f_{0.5-2 keV}<7\times10^{-16}$. Objects with spectroscopic redshifts
969: may therefore undersample the regions of maximum X-ray sensitivity, in
970: which the X-ray source density is higher, producing a more regular
971: distribution on the sky than the total XMM sample. We therefore
972: created a new random sample by first placing sources on the field
973: according to the X-ray sensitivity map as discussed in the previous
974: paragraph and then keeping only a fraction of them, with a
975: flux-dependent ``keeping" probability given by the observed relation
976: $Frac$ vs flux described above. When computing the projected
977: correlation function using this new random sample, we find a result
978: similar to what was obtained in the previous test, i.e. a $\sim 16\%$
979: higher $r_0$ value than obtained when placing random objects exactly
980: at the coordinates of real objects.
981:
982: Again, this new random sample unfortunately also does not fully
983: account for the positional biases related to the optical follow-up
984: programs. Indeed, given the very complex optical follow-up that
985: combines results from different programs, it is impossible for us to
986: estimate the correct selection function of our sample, but it is
987: likely that the selection of the masks used for optical spectroscopy,
988: which cover the COSMOS field unevenly, leaving some patches of the
989: field poorly covered, while covering other patches rather extensively,
990: is causing the main positional bias. This can be for instance
991: appreciated in Fig.~1, in which 3 of the 4 inner circles representing
992: Magellan IMACS pointings (16 pointings in total) have a higher density
993: of objects with spectroscopic redshift (cyan dots) than all the
994: remaining pointings. We therefore believe that the systematic upward
995: shift of $15-16\%$ in $r_0$ that we obtained with these tests is
996: likely to be an upper limit. Also, we note that, when performing error
997: analysis considering bootstrap errors (see next paragraph), a
998: difference of $15-16\%$ is within the total error budget. Given this
999: limited difference, we are confident that our results are not strongly
1000: affected by the method used to generate the random source sample.
1001:
1002: While many of the correlation function estimators used in the
1003: literature have a variance substantially larger than Poisson (because
1004: source pairs in general are not independent, i.e. the same objects
1005: appear in more than one pair), the estimator used here was shown to
1006: have a nearly Poissonian variance (Landy \& Szalay \cite{ls93}). It
1007: has, however, to be noted that the Landy \& Szalay (\cite{ls93})
1008: estimator was originally tested in the approximation of weak
1009: clustering, so that Poisson errorbars may in our case underestimate
1010: the true uncertainties. Bootstrap resampling has often been used to
1011: estimate the uncertainties in the correlation function best-fit
1012: parameters (e.g. Mo, Jing \& B\"orner \cite{mo92}), but this technique
1013: may return an overestimate of the real uncertainties (Fisher et
1014: al. 1994). We tested bootstrap errors by randomly extracting 100
1015: samples of 538 sources each from our total sample, allowing for
1016: repetitions. The {\it rms} in the distribution of the best-fit
1017: correlation lengths and slopes is a factor of $\sim 2.8$ and $\sim 2$
1018: greater than the Poisson errorbars, respectively. In the following we
1019: simply quote $r_0$ and $\gamma$, together with their $1\sigma$
1020: Poisson errors, bearing in mind that the most likely uncertainty is
1021: about a factor of 2 higher.
1022:
1023:
1024:
1025: \section {Results}
1026:
1027: We first measured the projected correlation function $w(r_p)$ of all
1028: the 538 spectroscopically identified sources in our XMM-COSMOS
1029: reference sample ($I_{AB}<23$ and $z=0.2-3$) regardless of their
1030: optical classification. The correlation function was measured on
1031: projected scales $r_p=0.3-40\:h^{-1}$ Mpc. Here and in the following
1032: samples, a simple power law is fit to the data, using standard
1033: $\chi^2$ minimization techniques to get the best-fit parameters. The
1034: best-fit correlation length and slope are found to be $r_0 = 8.65\pm
1035: 0.45\; h^{-1}$ Mpc $\gamma=1.88\pm 0.07$, respectively. Based on the
1036: error on $r_0$ from this two-parameter fit, we estimate the
1037: clustering signal to be detected at $\gtrsim 18 \sigma$ level, which
1038: is the most significant clustering measurement to date for X-ray
1039: selected AGN. The measured correlation length appears to be in good
1040: agreement with what is estimated by Miyaji et al. (2007) on the first
1041: pass on XMM-COSMOS through angular clustering and Limber's
1042: inversion. As shown in Fig.~\ref{sall}a, a signal excess above the
1043: power-law fit is observed in the scale range $r_p\sim 5-15\:h^{-1}$
1044: Mpc, which deserves further investigation. As shown in
1045: Fig.~\ref{zdist}, a significant fraction of XMM-COSMOS sources are
1046: located within a large-scale structure at $z\sim 0.36$: overall, 42
1047: objects are located at $z=0.34-0.38$, with sky coordinates distributed
1048: all over the 2 deg$^2$ field.\footnote{Another $\sim 25$ X-ray
1049: selected objects belonging to this structure are found using
1050: photometric redshifts (see Fig.~\ref{iz} and Salvato et al. 2008).} We
1051: verified that, when sources in the $z=0.34-0.38$ redshift range are
1052: excluded, the signal excess at $r_p\sim 5-15\:h^{-1}$ Mpc actually
1053: disappears\footnote{We note that, because of this excess due to
1054: the $z\sim 0.36$ structure, a simple power law is a very poor fit to the
1055: $w(r_p)$ of our full reference sample and of the $z<1$ AGN subsample
1056: (see Sect. 5.3 and Table~1). In contrast, a simple power law
1057: provides statistically acceptable fits for all the other subsamples
1058: analyzed in this work.} (see Fig.~\ref{sall}b). This has the effect
1059: of reducing the correlation length to $r_0=6.1\pm 0.8$ (see
1060: Table~1). We also verified the effects of restricting the redshift
1061: interval around the peak of the redshift distribution and computing
1062: $w(r_p)$ in that interval. For XMM-COSMOS AGN in the range $z=0.4-1.6$,
1063: we found a correlation length of $r_0\sim 5.2\pm1.0\:h^{-1}$ Mpc (see
1064: Table~1). Similar results are found when the redshift interval is
1065: restricted to $z=0.5-1.5$.
1066:
1067: We are repeating our angular auto-correlation function analysis
1068: using the full three-year data (55 pointings instead of the first-year
1069: 23 pointings used in Miyaji et al. 2007). We plan to use the accurate
1070: ($\approx 2\%$) photometric redshifts presented by Salvato et
1071: al. (2008) to calculate the angular correlation function of XMM AGNs
1072: selected by redshift. Preliminary results show $r_0=9.7\pm 2.2 h^{-1}$
1073: Mpc for the $z>0$ sample, which is fully consistent with the
1074: measurement presented in Miyaji et al. (2007), while the correlation
1075: length is reduced to $r_0=8.9\pm 2.5 h^{-1}$ Mpc (1$\sigma$ errors)
1076: for the sample obtained by excluding objects in the redshift range
1077: $z=0.34-0.36$. These values are consistent within the errors with
1078: those obtained with the present analysis, despite being systematically
1079: higher. The angular analysis results, however, still vary with the
1080: angular scale range used for fitting, as well as with error estimation
1081: methods. A more detailed discussion of the comparison of the results
1082: presented in this paper with those obtained through the study of the
1083: angular auto-correlation function and cross-correlation function with
1084: galaxies will be presented in a future paper (Miyaji et al., in
1085: prep).
1086:
1087: \begin{figure}
1088: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{xi.subsamples.spike.nospike.ps}
1089: \caption{Projected correlation function for different XMM-COSMOS AGN
1090: subsamples.{\it Upper panel:} broad line AGN (open circles) vs
1091: non-broad line AGN (filled circles). {\it Middle panel:} X-ray
1092: unabsorbed ($HR<-0.2)$ AGN (open squares) vs X-ray absorbed
1093: ($HR\geq-0.2$) AGN (filled circles). Since the $z=0.36$ redshift
1094: structure is mainly populated by X-ray unabsorbed objects (see
1095: Fig.\ref{nhz} {\it right panel}), we also plotted the projected
1096: correlation function obtained for X-ray unabsorbed AGN after removing
1097: objects at $z\sim 0.36$ (open circles). {\it Lower panel:} AGN at
1098: $z>1$ (open circles) vs AGN at $z<1$ (filled circles). In all panels
1099: errors are $1\sigma$ Poisson confidence intervals and the best fit
1100: power laws are shown as dashed lines.}
1101: \label{xis}
1102: \end{figure}
1103:
1104: %Indeed, CDFS/N ~ 9? CLASXS ~ 6?NEP ~ 3? BOOTES ~ ??
1105: %we do not expect any bias against pairs with small angular
1106: %separations. In addition we checked if there is any bias against close
1107: %pairs because e.g. of the positioning of the masks used for optical
1108: %spectroscopy. At any given separation we then computed the ratio
1109: %between the number of pairs in which both sources have robust
1110: %spectroscopic redshift and the total number of pairs at the same
1111: %angular separation. In fact, at separations above 30 arcsec as
1112: %considered here, this ratio is constant within 10\%. Therefore, no
1113: %significant effects on the overall best fit $\gamma$ value are
1114: %expected. The projected correlation function of the total XMM-COSMOS
1115: %sample is shown in Fig.~\ref{sall}.
1116: %We checked the possibility that the flat slope we measure is due to
1117: %{\it Chandra} inability to resolve close pairs, thus lowering the
1118: %correlation signal at low scales. A comoving separation of
1119: %$r_p=0.03\:h^{-1}$ Mpc corresponds to an angular separation $\theta>1$
1120: %arcsec at $z<4$. This would be sufficient to separate close pairs in
1121: %the center of the field of view where the FWHM of the {\it Chandra} Point
1122: %Spread Function (PSF) is of the order of $\sim 1$ arcsec. However, the
1123: %PSF increases with off-axis angle: as an example, at 8 arcmin off-axis
1124: %the PSF broadens by a factor of 5 and only pairs at $z<0.5$ can be
1125: %separated at our lowest scales of $r_p=0.03\:h^{-1}$ Mpc. If we limit
1126: %our calculations to $r_p>0.16\:h^{-1}$ Mpc, we get that in the inner 8
1127: %arcmin of the field of view, where 87\% of our X-ray sources reside,
1128: %close pairs can be resolved up to a redshift of 4. We then repeated
1129: %the fit excluding the two bins at lowest scales and obtained the same
1130: %results as above. This might be expected since at our lowest scales
1131: %the correlation function has large uncertainties due to the small
1132: %number of pairs per bin (one or two pairs at most), and the fit is
1133: %therefore dominated by points at higher scales, where the number of
1134: %pairs per bin is larger. In the following we will conservatively
1135: %calculate and show the spatial correlation function at
1136: %$r_p>0.16\:h^{-1}$ Mpc.
1137:
1138:
1139: \subsection{AGN clustering as a function of optical type}
1140:
1141: It is interesting to investigate the projected correlation function
1142: for different source subsamples. For each subsample we placed the
1143: sources of the random sample $only$ at the positions of the sources in
1144: that subsample. The projected correlation function was then fitted
1145: both leaving the slope free and fixing it to $\gamma=1.8$, the
1146: standard value measured in most galaxy samples, which is also similar
1147: to the slope of 1.88 measured for the total XMM-COSMOS sample. Fixing
1148: the slope allows a more direct comparison between the correlation
1149: lengths of the different subsamples when a two-parameter fit is poorly
1150: constrained.
1151:
1152:
1153: %\begin{figure*}
1154: %\includegraphics[width=9cm]{hrz.ps}
1155: %\includegraphics[width=9cm]{cosmos.cfr.hru.hra.ref.361.187.24000.s03.vi40.obs.11bin.ps}
1156: %\caption{{\it Left panel:} hardness ratio (HR) vs redshift relation
1157: %for the XMM-COSMOS sample considered in this work. Broad line and
1158: %non-broad line AGN are shown as red and blue points, respectively. The
1159: %HR values above (below) the solid line correspond to column densities
1160: %above (below) $N_H=10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ assuming a spectral index of
1161: %$\alpha=0.7$. {\it Right panel:} projected correlation function for
1162: %the XMM-COSMOS sources with column density below and above $10^{22}$
1163: %(filled and open circles, respectively).}
1164: %\label{wnh}
1165: %\end{figure*}
1166:
1167:
1168: We investigated the clustering properties of sources optically
1169: classified as broad line AGN (BLAGN) or non-BLAGN. The class of
1170: non-BLAGN is admittedly a mixed bag, which may include obscured AGN,
1171: weak unobscured AGN, whose optical emission is diluted by the host
1172: galaxy light, and normal galaxies. The cut at $z>0.2$ (roughly
1173: corresponding to $L_{0.5-2}>10^{41.5}$ erg s$^{-1}$), however, should
1174: guarantee that the non-BLAGN sample is mostly populated by AGN in
1175: which the absence of broad optical lines is solely due to nuclear
1176: obscuration. Therefore, investigating the clustering properties of
1177: BLAGN and non-BLAGN should be a proxy to investigate the clustering
1178: properties of unobscured vs obscured AGN. For the sample of 305 BLAGN,
1179: we measured a correlation correlation length of
1180: $r_0\sim7.7\pm0.9\:h^{-1}$ Mpc and a slope of $\gamma\sim2.0\pm0.2$,
1181: while for the 229 non-BLAGN we measured a similar correlation length,
1182: $r_0\sim7.0\pm1.0\:h^{-1}$ Mpc, and a somewhat flatter slope
1183: $\gamma\sim1.6\pm0.1$. The projected correlation functions of BLAGN
1184: and non-BLAGN AGN are shown in Fig.~\ref{xis} {\it (upper panel)}.
1185: %Although this difference is not statistically
1186: %significant, it is worth noting that it is systematic when measuring
1187: %the clustering properties of BLAGN and non-BLAGN in different sky
1188: %fields. We will return on this in the Discussion.
1189: It should be noted that a proper comparison between the clustering
1190: properties of BLAGN and non-BLAGN should take possible redshift
1191: effects into account, since BLAGN are generally observed at higher
1192: redshift than non-BLAGN (median $z=1.5$ vs $z=0.7$, see Table~1). In
1193: principle, the correlation length of a given AGN and galaxy population
1194: is expected to change with redshift, being intimately related to the
1195: evolution of the hosting dark matter halos, and one should therefore
1196: compare source populations at the same redshift to establish whether
1197: they reside in the same environment or not. We will return to this in
1198: the discussion.
1199:
1200: \begin{table*}
1201: \begin{center}
1202: \caption{Summary of best-fit clustering parameters.}
1203: \begin{tabular}{lrcccccc}
1204: \hline \hline
1205: Sample& $N^a$& $z$ range& $\bar z^b$& ${\rm log}L_{0.5-10}^c$& $r_0$~~~~~~& $\gamma$& $r_0(\gamma=1.8)$\\
1206: &&&&&[$h^{-1}$ Mpc]&&[$h^{-1}$ Mpc]\\
1207: \hline
1208: All AGN & 538 & 0.2-3.0 & 0.98 & 43.8& $8.65^{+0.41}_{-0.48} $& $1.88^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$ & $8.39^{+0.41}_{-0.39}$ \\
1209: No z=0.36 spike & 496 & 0.2-3.0 & 1.03 & 43.9& $6.12^{+0.64}_{-0.89} $& $1.74^{+0.13}_{-0.14}$ & $6.32^{+0.53}_{-0.49}$ \\
1210: \vspace{0.2truecm}
1211: $z\sim 1$ AGN & 349 & 0.4-1.6 & 0.94 & 43.7& $5.17^{+0.80}_{-1.14} $& $1.72^{+0.17}_{-0.18}$ & $5.44^{+0.62}_{-0.58}$ \\
1212: BLAGN & 305 & 0.2-3.0 & 1.45 & 44.3& $7.66^{+0.81}_{-1.04} $& $1.98^{+0.17}_{-0.18}$ & $7.03^{+0.96}_{-0.89}$ \\
1213: \vspace{0.2truecm}
1214: non-BLAGN & 229 & 0.2-1.3 & 0.70 & 43.2& $7.03^{+0.87}_{-1.18} $& $1.60^{+0.13}_{-0.14}$ & $7.75^{+0.62}_{-0.59}$ \\
1215: %log$N_H<22$ & 361 & 0.2-3.0 & 0.99 & 43.8& $10.36^{+0.48}_{-0.50}$& $1.99^{+0.07}_{-0.08}$ & $9.84^{+0.55}_{-0.50}$ \\
1216: %log$N_H\geq 22$ & 187 & 0.2-3.0 & 0.99 & 43.8& $6.02^{+1.21}_{-2.23} $& $2.13^{+0.90}_{-0.65}$ & $5.64^{+1.62}_{-1.34}$ \\
1217: %X-unabs. & 220 & 0.2-3.0 & 1.16 & 44.0& $10.60^{+0.82}_{-0.93}$& $1.97^{+0.13}_{-0.14}$ & $10.17^{+0.93}_{-0.90}$\\
1218: %$z\sim1 $ X-unabs& 140 & 0.4-1.6 & 1.02 & 43.9& $6.24^{+1.17}_{-1.56} $& $1.97^{+0.29}_{-0.28}$ & $5.72^{+1.34}_{-1.17}$ \\
1219: $HR<-0.2$ & 428 & 0.2-3.0 & 1.15 & 44.0& $9.56^{+0.42}_{-0.45} $& $1.98^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$ & $9.05^{+0.48}_{-0.45}$ \\
1220: $HR<-0.2,\,z<1.3$ & 250 & 0.2-1.3 & 0.79 & 43.5& $9.96^{+0.48}_{-0.50}$& $1.93^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$ & $9.68^{+0.48}_{-0.50}$ \\
1221: $HR<-0.2$,no spike& 218 & 0.2-1.3 & 0.79 & 43.5& $6.72^{+0.72}_{-0.88}$& $1.87^{+0.18}_{-0.18}$ & $6.56^{+0.75}_{-0.68}$ \\
1222: \vspace{0.2truecm}
1223: $HR\geq-0.2$ & 102 & 0.2-1.3 & 0.73 & 43.4& $5.07^{+1.58}_{-1.73} $& $2.38^{+0.85}_{-0.51}$ & $4.97^{+1.93}_{-1.49}$ \\
1224: $z<1$ & 276 & 0.2-1.0 & 0.68 & 43.3& $7.97^{+0.48}_{-0.52} $& $1.80^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$ & $7.97^{+0.43}_{-0.41}$ \\
1225: $z<1$ no spike & 234 & 0.2-1.0 & 0.73 & 43.4& $5.16^{+0.71}_{-0.99} $& $1.81^{+0.20}_{-0.21}$ & $5.14^{+0.66}_{-0.61}$ \\
1226: $z>1$ & 262 & 1.0-3.0 & 1.53 & 44.3& $6.68^{+1.19}_{-1.98} $& $1.86^{+0.27}_{-0.30}$ & $6.40^{+0.94}_{-0.86}$ \\
1227: \hline
1228: \end{tabular}
1229:
1230: $^a$Number of objects in each sample. $^b$Median redshift. $^c$Median
1231: X-ray luminosity in the 0.5-10 keV band in units of erg
1232: $s^{-1}$. Errors are $1\sigma$ Poisson confidence levels. Bootstrap
1233: errors are a factor of $\sim 2$ larger.
1234:
1235: \end{center}
1236: \end{table*}
1237:
1238: \begin{figure*}[t]
1239: \includegraphics[width=16cm]{hrnhz.ps}
1240: \caption{{\it Left panel}. Column density $N_H$ vs hardness ratio
1241: distribution for the 290 objects in our reference sample with more
1242: than 200 photons in the 0.5-10 keV band, for which an accurate $N_H$
1243: measurement can be performed through X-ray spectral fitting. Objects
1244: that do not show absorption have been plotted at log$N_H$=20.4,
1245: i.e. at the Galactic value. Broad line AGN and non-broad line AGN are
1246: shown as blue open and red filled symbols, respectively. Circles refer
1247: to objects detected in both soft and hard X-ray bands, for which an HR
1248: value is directly measured. Upward (downward) pointing triangles
1249: represent upper (lower) limits to the hardness ratios. It is evident
1250: that most objects above the dotted line at $HR=-0.2$ are absorbed by
1251: column densities $logN_H>21.6$. {\it Right panel}. Hardness ratio vs
1252: redshift plot for the 538 sources in our reference sample. Symbols are
1253: as in the {\it left panel}. The dotted line at $HR=-0.2$ marks the
1254: adopted dividing line between X-ray absorbed and unabsorbed AGN.}
1255:
1256: \label{nhz}
1257: \end{figure*}
1258:
1259: \subsection{AGN clustering as a function of X-ray absorption}
1260:
1261: To investigate the clustering properties of obscured vs
1262: unobscured AGN further, we also considered the column density measurements
1263: obtained from the spectral analysis of XMM data. We considered here
1264: the measurements performed by Mainieri et al. (2007 and in prep.), who
1265: performed X-ray spectral fits for those objects with more than 100
1266: counts in the 0.3-10 keV band and found absorption in excess of the
1267: Galactic value in about 25\% of their sample (see details in Mainieri
1268: et al. 2007). We considered here only objects with more than 200
1269: counts in the 0.3-10 keV band, for which the determination of the
1270: column density is more reliable. By matching the Mainieri et
1271: al. objects with more than 200 counts with our reference sample, we end
1272: up with 290 objects for which a column density has been estimated: 70
1273: of these do show absorption in excess of the galactic value. We note
1274: that 21 out of the 190 broad line AGN with measured column density
1275: have absorption in excess of the Galactic value, which is consistent
1276: with the 10\% fraction of X-ray absorbed broad line AGN found in other
1277: X-ray selected samples (see e.g. Tozzi et al. 2006, Brusa et
1278: al. 2003). A few words of caution should, however, be spent on these
1279: sources. First, simulations run on input X-ray unabsorbed spectra show
1280: that, especially for sources at high redshift and relatively low
1281: photon statistics, the spectral fit may return spurious positive
1282: values for the absorption (see e.g. Tozzi et al. 2006). Second, the
1283: fraction of X-ray absorbed sources might be related to the
1284: significance threshold used to assess the presence of X-ray
1285: absorption. In particular, Mainieri et al. consider an X-ray source as
1286: absorbed if the addition of a photoelectric cut off in the spectral fit
1287: improves it a a level of more than 90\% as assessed by an F-test. One
1288: would then expect that, in about 7 out of 70 absorbed sources (either
1289: BLAGN or non-BLAGN), the measured column density is spurious. At any
1290: rate, results do not change significantly if we include those 21
1291: candidate X-ray absorbed BLAGN in the total X-ray absorbed sample or
1292: not.
1293:
1294: We first verified that the projected correlation function of the 290
1295: objects with X-ray spectroscopy is consistent with that of our full
1296: reference sample and then tried to measure the projected correlation
1297: function for absorbed and unabsorbed sources
1298: separately. Unfortunately, the small number statistics prevent us from
1299: getting a significant clustering signal for the 70 X-ray absorbed AGN,
1300: while for the 220 X-ray unabsorbed objects we found a correlation
1301: length of $r_0=10.6\pm0.9$, somewhat higher than that measured for the
1302: subsample of BLAGN. When restricting the analysis to the redshift
1303: range z=0.4-1.6, i.e. around the peak of the redshift distribution,
1304: which also excludes the redshift structure at z=0.36, the correlation
1305: length of the X-ray unabsorbed objects decreases to $r_0=6.2\pm1.4$,
1306: consistent with what is measured for the full reference sample in the
1307: same redshift interval.
1308:
1309: To overcome the limitations due to the small size of the sample of
1310: objects with reliable $N_H$ measurements, we tried to calibrate a
1311: relation between the X-ray column density $N_H$ and the hardness ratio
1312: (HR), defined as the difference between the source X-ray photons
1313: detected in the 2-10 keV band and those detected in the 0.5-2 keV
1314: band, normalized to the sum of the photons in the two
1315: bands.\footnote{Upper (lower) limits to the hardness ratio for objects
1316: that are not detected in the soft (hard) band have been computed
1317: assigning 40 counts in the non-detection band to each source. The
1318: distribution of the counts of the detected sources indeed shows a
1319: turnover at this value, which therefore appears as the average count
1320: threshold for source detection.} The distribution of the column
1321: density vs hardness ratio for objects with more than 200 counts is
1322: shown in Fig.~\ref{nhz} ({\it left panel}): most of the objects with
1323: $HR>-0.2$ do show absorption in excess of log$N_H=21.6$, therefore we
1324: adopt a rough threshold at $HR=-0.2$ to divide X-ray absorbed from
1325: X-ray unabsorbed AGN (see also Hasinger 2008 and Fig.~11 in Mainieri
1326: et al. 2007). The HR distribution as a function of redshift for the
1327: 538 objects in the reference sample is shown in Fig.~\ref{nhz} ({\it
1328: right panel}). Most BLAGN fall below the HR=--0.2 line, while
1329: non-BLAGN AGN do show higher HR values on average. The poorly
1330: populated upper-right corner of the figure, i.e. the high-HR - high-z
1331: region, suffers from obvious selection effects due to i) the bias
1332: against faint (distant and absorbed) magnitude targets in the optical
1333: spectroscopy follow-up (see also Fig.~4 in Brusa et al. 2007) and ii)
1334: the K-correction effects that make high-redshift absorbed spectra to
1335: appear softer in the X-ray bandpass (i.e. lower HR values). It is
1336: noted that BLAGN form a sort of horizontal sequence at $HR\sim-0.5$,
1337: which is indeed the hardness ratio value expected by a canonical power
1338: law spectrum with photon index $\Gamma=1.7$ and no absorption. Since
1339: we consider all objects with $HR<-0.2$ as unabsorbed sources, the
1340: adopted cut conservatively accounts for any dispersion in the photon
1341: index distribution of BLAGN. We measured $w(r_p)$ for absorbed and
1342: unabsorbed objects separately. At projected scales below
1343: $r_p\sim1\;h^{-1}$ Mpc, absorbed and unabsorbed AGN are similarly
1344: correlated, while absorbed AGN appear less correlated on larger
1345: scales. This results in absorbed AGN formally having a lower
1346: correlation length ($r_0= 5.1\pm1.7\;vs\;9.6\pm0.4\;h^{-1}$ Mpc) and a
1347: steeper slope ($\gamma= 2.4\pm0.7\;vs\;2.0\pm0.1$) than unabsorbed
1348: objects. The projected correlation function for unabsorbed AGN does
1349: not change significantly if we restrict the analysis to the redshift
1350: range 0.2-1.3, i.e. the same range as used for absorbed AGN (see
1351: Table~1). The projected correlation function of unabsorbed and
1352: absorbed AGN in the same z=0.2-1.3 redshift interval are shown in
1353: Fig.~\ref{xis} ({\it middle panel}). The larger correlation length
1354: measured for unabsorbed objects is essentially due to most objects in
1355: the z=0.36 structure having $HR<-0.2$ (see Fig.~\ref{nhz}, {\it right
1356: panel}). Indeed, when removing this structure, the correlation length
1357: for X-ray unabsorbed AGN decreases to $r_0=6.7\pm0.8$ (see
1358: Fig.~\ref{xis}, {\it middle panel}), which, given the large errorbars,
1359: is not significantly different from that of X-ray absorbed objects. To
1360: summarize, from our analysis we cannot claim that X-ray absorbed and
1361: X-ray unabsorbed AGN possess different clustering properties.
1362:
1363: \subsection{AGN clustering as a function of redshift}
1364:
1365: The study of AGN clustering as a function of redshift provides several
1366: pieces of information about the formation and evolution of the AGN
1367: population.
1368:
1369: Because of the limited sample size, we simply split the XMM-COSMOS AGN
1370: sample in two subsamples of objects below and above redshift 1. The
1371: correlation functions of the 276 AGN at $z<1$ and of the 262 AGN at
1372: $z>1$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{xis} {\it lower panel}. The best-fit
1373: correlation parameters for objects at $z<1$ are found to be $r_0\sim
1374: 8.0\pm0.5\:h^{-1}$ Mpc and $\gamma\sim1.8\pm0.1$, while for objects at
1375: $z>1$ the best-fit parameters are $r_0\sim 6.7\pm1.6\:h^{-1}$ Mpc and
1376: $\gamma\sim1.9\pm0.3$. When removing the $z=0.36$ structure, the
1377: correlation length of objects at $z<1$ decreases to $r_0\sim
1378: 5.2\pm0.8\:h^{-1}$ Mpc (see Table~1). In Sect. 6.3. we discuss the
1379: correlation lengths of the various XMM-COSMOS redshift subsamples as
1380: compared to those of other optical and X-ray selected samples at
1381: different redshifts.
1382:
1383: \subsection{AGN clustering as a function of luminosity}
1384:
1385: We finally investigated the dependence of the AGN clustering
1386: parameters on the X-ray luminosity, since this may reveal whether
1387: objects shining with different luminosities reside in dark matter
1388: halos with different masses, hence constraining the distribution of
1389: the AGN Eddington ratios (see eg. Lidz et al. 2006, Marulli et
1390: al. 2008 and the discussion in Sect. 6.3). Again, because of the
1391: limited size of the sample, we simply divided it into two almost
1392: equally populated subsamples, the dividing line being at $L_{0.5-10
1393: keV}=10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (corresponding to $L_{0.5-2
1394: keV}\sim10^{43.5}$ erg s$^{-1}$ for a typical AGN X-ray spectrum). As
1395: shown in Fig.~\ref{lxz}, splitting the sample at this luminosity is
1396: almost equal to splitting the sample at a redshift of $z\sim
1397: 1$. Indeed, when computing the clustering parameters of the higher
1398: (lower) luminosity sample, these are very similar to the $z>1$ ($z<1$)
1399: sample, and therefore are not reported here.
1400:
1401: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1402: % CHECK ON ANGULAR CLUSTERING: DO WE WANT THIS?
1403: %
1404: %As a further estimate of the clustering properties of XMM-COSMOS AGN
1405: %at $z>1$ we also measured the angular correlation function $w(\theta)$
1406: %for objects with either photometric or spectroscopic redshifts above
1407: %1. As shown in Fig.~\ref{iz}, most photometric redshifts are at
1408: %relatively large redshift, which allows to enlarge the sample of
1409: %objects at $z>1$ by a factor of $\sim 3$. We limited our computations
1410: %to the range $z=1-2$, which corresponds to the peak in the
1411: %distribution of photometric redshifts (see Fig.~\ref{iz})... [first
1412: %results on $w(\theta)$ uncertain, careful measurements have still to
1413: %be performed]
1414: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1415:
1416: %The angular correlation function for XMM-COSMOS AGN with $z=1.0-2.0
1417: %is shown in Fig.~\ref{acf}. When inverting the measured correlation
1418: %angle of 4 arsec with Limber's equation we found $r_0\sim 8\:h^{-1}$
1419: %Mpc.
1420:
1421: %Objects at $z>1.0$ appear to have higher correlation length and
1422: %steeper slope ($r_0=7.2 \pm 1.2 \:h^{-1}$ Mpc, $\gamma=1.94\pm0.22$)
1423: %than those at lower redshifts ($r_0=6.3 \pm 0.6 \:h^{-1}$ Mpc,
1424: %$\gamma=1.64\pm0.10$).
1425:
1426: %\begin{figure}
1427: %\includegraphics[width=9cm]{ang.cosmos.zphot.1020.ps}
1428: %\caption{Angular correlation function for the 592 XMM-COSMOS sources
1429: %with photometric (and spectroscopic) redshift in the redshift range
1430: %$z=1.0-2.0$. The best fit angular correlation lenght is $\theta_0=4$
1431: %arcsec, which translates into a spatial correlation length of
1432: %$r_0\sim 8\:h^{-1}$ Mpc (see text).
1433: %}
1434: %\label{acf}
1435: %\end{figure}
1436:
1437: \section{Discussion} \label{discussion}
1438:
1439: \subsection{Comparison with other $z\sim 1$ AGN and galaxy samples}
1440:
1441: The galaxy and AGN census in the $z\sim 1$ Universe has been recently
1442: enlarged by a number of surveys with different areas and
1443: sensitivities, which allowed investigation of the spatial distribution
1444: of different populations. The comparison between the clustering
1445: properties of AGN and galaxies allows to first approximation to infer
1446: which galaxy population is hosting any given AGN population, under the
1447: simple hypothesis that AGN activity at a given redshift is randomly
1448: sampling the host galaxy population. The comparison between $z\sim1$
1449: AGN samples obtained from surveys with different sensitivities may
1450: also reveal any dependence of AGN clustering on luminosity. As far as
1451: X-ray selected AGN are concerned, a correlation length of
1452: $r_0=5.7^{+0.8}_{-1.5}\,h^{-1}$ Mpc has been measured for $\sim 230$
1453: objects in the 0.4 deg$^2$ CLASXS survey (Yang et al. 2006). Objects
1454: in the CLASXS have redshift and luminosity distributions very similar
1455: to those of our sample, and therefore they should trace the AGN
1456: population sampled by XMM-COSMOS almost exactly. To check whether the
1457: different techniques used for the clustering analysis may introduce
1458: significant differences, we analyzed the CLASXS sample using the same
1459: techniques as were used in this work finding best-fit clustering
1460: parameters in very good agreement with the Yang et al. (2006)
1461: values. The difference between the $r_0$ values measured in XMM-COSMOS
1462: and in CLASXS full samples (8.6 vs 5.7 $h^{-1}$ Mpc, respectively)
1463: therefore appears to be inherent to the two fields considered. While a
1464: prominent redshift spike is observed at z=0.36 in XMM-COSMOS, no such
1465: similar structures are found in the CLASXS field. Indeed, when
1466: removing the structure at $z=0.36$, the correlation length of
1467: XMM-COSMOS AGN decreases to $\sim6.3\,h^{-1}$ Mpc, in good agreement
1468: with the value measured in CLASXS. Moreover, when restricting the
1469: analysis to XMM-COSMOS AGN in the redshift range $z=0.4-1.6$, the
1470: correlation length ($\sim5.2\,h^{-1}$ Mpc) is very similar to what is
1471: measured in CLASXS. One therefore may wonder about the frequency with
1472: which prominent large-scale structures are sampled in X-ray surveys of
1473: different sky areas, i.e. the effects of cosmic variance. Indeed,
1474: based on simulated galaxy mock catalogs over 2 deg$^2$ fields
1475: (Kitzbichler \& White 2006), some evidence exists that the COSMOS
1476: field has some excess of structures with respect to the average.
1477:
1478: The correlation length of XMM-COSMOS AGN can be compared to that of
1479: different galaxy populations at $z\sim 1$. Coil et al.\ (2004) find
1480: $r_0=3.2\pm0.5\,h^{-1}$ Mpc for emission line galaxies in the DEEP2
1481: survey, while Meneux et al.\ (2006) find $r_0=2.5\pm0.4\,h^{-1}$ Mpc
1482: for star-forming blue galaxies in the Vimos-VLT Deep Survey (VVDS, Le
1483: Fevre et al. 2004). The populations of red absorption-line galaxies
1484: in the same surveys have instead larger correlation lengths:
1485: $r_0\sim6.6\,h^{-1}$ Mpc for absorption line galaxies in the DEEP2
1486: (Coil et al. 2004) and $r_0=4.8\pm0.9\,h^{-1}$ Mpc for red, early type
1487: galaxies in the VVDS (Meneux et al. 2006). Recently, a correlation
1488: length as large as $r_0=5.1\pm0.8\,h^{-1}$ Mpc has been measured for
1489: luminous infrared galaxies (LIRG, $L_{IR}>10^{11}\,L_{\odot}$) at
1490: $z\sim 0.8$, which are forming stars at high rates ($SFR>17 M_{\odot}$
1491: yr$^{-1}$; see Gilli et al. 2007b). Since at $z\sim 1$ star formation
1492: is closely related to galaxy mass (Noeske et al. 2007, Elbaz et
1493: al. 2007), even LIRGs, as well as $z\sim 1$ early type galaxies, are
1494: massive objects with stellar mass $M_\star\gtrsim 3\times 10^{10} \;
1495: M_{\odot}$. The fact that XMM-COSMOS AGN show similar correlation
1496: length to these systems (see Fig.~\ref{nr0}), suggests that, similar
1497: to what is observed at $z=0$ (Kauffmann et al. 2004) and at $z\sim 2$
1498: (Daddi et al. 2007), at $z\sim 1$ nuclear activity is hosted by
1499: the more massive galaxies (see also Georgakakis et al. 2007). This is
1500: in good agreement with the analysis by Silverman et al. (2008b), who
1501: investigated the occurrence of nuclear activity on a sample of $\sim
1502: 8000$ galaxies selected from the zCOSMOS spectroscopic catalog,
1503: finding that the fraction of galaxies hosting an AGN increases towards
1504: large stellar masses at $z\lesssim 1.0$. In particular, most ($\sim
1505: 80\%$) AGN at $z\sim 1$ reside in galaxies with stellar mass $M_\star
1506: > 3\times 10^{10} \; M_{\odot}$, in agreement with the conclusions
1507: from our clustering analysis.
1508:
1509: % [expand; mention daddi+overzier eros and
1510: %radiogalaxies $r_0=13$; compare with DEEP2 AGN vs galaxy cross
1511: %correlation at z=1 (Coil et al. 2007)].
1512:
1513: %Assuming a standard QSO SED (Elvis et al. \cite{elvis94}), the characteristic
1514: %absolute magnitude of 2QZ QSOs at $z=0.9$, $M_{b_j}\sim-24.15$
1515: %(derived from the 2QZ luminosity function of Croom et al. \cite{croom04}), can
1516: %be converted into an X-ray luminosity of
1517: %log$L_{0.5-10}=44.7$. Similarly, the average 0.5-10 keV luminosity of
1518: %QSO in the AERQS sample is about log$L_{0.5-10}=44.4$. The median
1519: %0.5-10 keV luminosity of the NEP AGN (converted from the 0.5-2 keV
1520: %luminosity by assuming a spectrum with photon index 2) is
1521: %log$L_{0.5-10}=44.4$, while in the Chandra Msec fields one finds
1522: %log$L_{0.5-10}=43$.
1523:
1524: %The AERQS and the 2QZ data have been compared
1525: %with QSO clustering evolution models (Matarrese et al. \cite{mata97},
1526: %Moscardini et al. \cite{mosc98}) based on the Press-Schechter
1527: %formalism for the evolution of the dark matter halo mass function. In
1528: %fact, Grazian et al. (\cite{grazi04}) and Croom et
1529: %al. (\cite{croom01}) derive a minimum mass for the dark matter halos
1530: %where QSO reside of $M_{DMH}\sim 10^{13}\:h^{-1}$ $M_\odot$.
1531:
1532: \subsection{The connection with dark matter halos}
1533: \label{halomass}
1534:
1535: While on small scales, comparable to the dimensions of dark matter
1536: halos, AGN and galaxy clustering are difficult to predict because of
1537: merging and interactions that can trigger a number of physical
1538: processes, on larger scales (e.g., $>1\;h^{-1}$ Mpc), where
1539: interactions are rare, the AGN correlation function should follow that
1540: of the hosting dark matter halos.
1541:
1542: An interesting consequence is that one can estimate the masses of the
1543: typical halos hosting an AGN population by simply comparing their
1544: clustering level. According to the standard $\Lambda$CDM hierarchical
1545: scenario, dark matter halos of different mass cluster differently,
1546: with the more massive halos more clustered for any given epoch,
1547: and it is straightforward to compute the correlation function for
1548: halos above a given mass threshold. It is worth noting that, since less
1549: massive halos are more abundant, the correlation function of halos
1550: above a given mass threshold is very similar to the clustering of
1551: halos with mass close to that threshold. Also, it is important to note
1552: that, as far as our measurements are concerned, the best-fit clustering
1553: parameters are obtained from datapoints mostly on large scales
1554: ($r_p>1\;h^{-1}$ Mpc; see Fig.~\ref{sall}). Therefore the measured
1555: $r_0$ and $\gamma$ values are essentially due to the clustering signal
1556: on large scales, where the AGN correlation function follows that of
1557: the dark matter, allowing a meaningful comparison with the clustering
1558: expected for dark matter halos.
1559:
1560: We considered the dark matter halo catalogs available for the
1561: Millennium simulation\footnote{see {\tt
1562: http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/millennium}.}(Springel et
1563: al. 2005). Halo catalogs are available at different time steps along
1564: the simulation. Here we considered those at $z\sim1$ (parameter {\tt
1565: stepnum=41} in the simulation). In total there are about $1.6\times
1566: 10^7$ halos with mass above $10^{10}\;h^{-1}\;M_{\odot}$ in a cubic
1567: volume of 500$\;h^{-1}$ Mpc on a side. We computed the correlation
1568: function and the space density of halos above 7 mass thresholds
1569: ranging from log($M/M_{\odot}$)=10.8 to 13.2 in steps of 0.4. Here we
1570: use as halo mass estimator the simulation parameter {\tt m\_Crit200},
1571: defined as the mass within the radius where the integrated halo
1572: overdensity is 200 times the critical density of the simulation. The
1573: halo correlation length was estimated by fitting with a power law
1574: the halo correlation functions on scales above $r=1\;h^{-1}$ Mpc. The
1575: results are shown in Fig.~\ref{nr0}, where it is clear that
1576: more massive halos are more clustered and less numerous.
1577: %The halo region plotted in Fig.~\ref{nr0} takes
1578: %into account the fluctuations in the halo space density..[check] due
1579: %to cosmic variance on volumes equal to the Millennium volume (see
1580: %Section~\ref{varsec} and Somerville et al.\ 2004 for a description of
1581: %the methods to derive the fluctuations in the source counts from the
1582: %clustering parameters).
1583:
1584: We computed the space density of AGN in XMM-COSMOS as expected from
1585: published X-ray luminosity functions (see details in Sect. 6.5) and
1586: compared the $r_0$ and density values of our population with those of
1587: other AGN and galaxy populations at $z\sim1$ and with those of dark
1588: matter halos at $z\sim1$ as computed above. We considered the
1589: XMM-COSMOS AGN in the redshift range $z=0.4-1.6$, i.e. around the peak
1590: of the selection function and excluding the redshift structure at
1591: $z=0.36$. The comparison is shown in Fig.~\ref{nr0}.
1592:
1593: %Conservative uncertainties of
1594: %50\% have been considered in the galaxy space densities, which should
1595: %take into account the fluctuations due to cosmic variance as well as
1596: %the uncertainties in the volume effectively spanned by the considered
1597: %galaxy populations.
1598:
1599: \begin{figure}
1600: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{n_r0_cosmos.ps}
1601: \caption{Space density vs correlation length for the XMM-COSMOS AGN
1602: compared to that of other AGN and galaxy populations at $z\sim 1$, as
1603: labeled. The trend for the Millennium dark matter halos at $z\sim1$
1604: above different mass thresholds is also shown as a shaded region. More
1605: massive halos (log of the threshold mass is labeled) are less abundant
1606: and more clustered than less massive ones. The XMM-COSMOS AGN
1607: datapoint (big filled circle) refers to the z=0.4-1.6 sample. Solid
1608: and dotted errorbars correspond to Poissonian and bootstrap
1609: uncertainties, respectively.}
1610: \label{nr0}
1611: \end{figure}
1612:
1613: By comparing the halo and the galaxy $r_0$ values, XMM-COSMOS AGN
1614: appear to be hosted by halos with masses $\gtrsim 2.5\times
1615: 10^{12}\;M_{\odot}$, similar to absorption line galaxies and LIRGs,
1616: which indeed show similar correlation lengths. However, while
1617: absorption line galaxies and LIRGs appear to be more abundant than the
1618: hosting halos (with an average of 2-4 such galaxies per halo),
1619: XMM-COSMOS AGN appear to be a factor of $\gtrsim 5$ less abundant than
1620: the hosting halos, suggesting that nuclear activity is present in
1621: about $\sim 15-20\%$ of halos of that mass. Considerations about the
1622: duty cycle and lifetimes of XMM-COSMOS AGN will be presented in
1623: Sect. \ref{life}.
1624:
1625: \begin{figure}
1626: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{roz.ps}
1627: \caption{Correlation length vs redshift for XMM-COSMOS AGN compared to
1628: that of other AGN samples. The big blue filled circle refers to the
1629: z=0.4-1.6 XMM-COSMOS sample. Big red filled circles refer to the $z<1$
1630: and $z>1$ samples. The big open circle refers to the $z<1$ sample when
1631: excluding the z=0.36 spike. Solid and dotted errorbars correspond to
1632: Poissonian and bootstrap uncertainties, respectively. The filled
1633: square at $z\sim0.1$ refers to the AERQS QSO sample (Grazian et
1634: al. 2004). Filled circles at $z\sim0.2, 0.7, 0.9$ refer to the NEP
1635: (Mullis et al. 2004), CDFS and CDFN samples (Gilli et al. 2005),
1636: respectively. Filled triangles refer to the CLASXS sample (see eg Yang
1637: et al. 2006). Open squares refer to optically selected QSOs in the 2QZ
1638: sample (Croom et al. 2005). The solid curves show the correlation
1639: length vs redshift relations expected for dark matter halos in the
1640: Millennium simulation above different mass thresholds as labeled.}
1641: \label{roz}
1642: \end{figure}
1643:
1644: \subsection{Evolution of AGN clustering}
1645:
1646: To investigate the evolution of the AGN clustering properties with
1647: redshift we combined the results from XMM-COSMOS with recent findings
1648: from other X-ray and optical surveys. When necessary, the results were
1649: corrected to the cosmology adopted here. The values of the correlation
1650: lengths reported in this section were usually calculated by fixing
1651: $\gamma$ to 1.8, therefore allowing a consistent comparison. When
1652: different slopes were measured/adopted, we discuss the case and verify
1653: the effects of assuming $\gamma=1.8$. Only results from spatial
1654: clustering analysis are considered.
1655:
1656: As for the X-ray surveys we considered the results from the ROSAT NEP
1657: survey and from the Chandra Msec fields. In the NEP survey, Mullis et
1658: al. (\cite{mullis04}) found a correlation length of
1659: $r_0\sim7.4\pm1.8\:h^{-1}$ Mpc on scales of $5-60\:h^{-1}$ Mpc for
1660: source pairs at a median redshift $\bar z = 0.22$. In the CDFS and
1661: CDFN, the correlation length measured by Gilli et al. \cite{gilli05} is
1662: $r_0=10.3\pm 1.7\:h^{-1}$ Mpc and $r_0=5.5\pm 0.6\:h^{-1}$ Mpc,
1663: respectively. Although the best-fit slopes in the Chandra Msec fields
1664: are rather flat ($\gamma=1.3-1.5$), the best-fit correlation lengths
1665: increase by only $\sim15\%$ if the slope is fixed to 1.8 (Gilli et
1666: al. \cite{gilli05}).
1667:
1668: As for optically selected AGN, we considered the results of Croom et
1669: al. (\cite{croom05}) based on more than 20000 objects in the final
1670: catalog of the 2dF QSO Redshift Survey (2QZ), where the QSO
1671: correlation length is found to increase significantly from $z\sim 1$
1672: to $z\sim 2.5$, and very flat slopes ($\gamma\sim1.1-1.2$) have been
1673: measured. As discussed by Croom et al. (\cite{croom05}), these flat
1674: slopes stem from redshift-space distortions that are relevant when the
1675: correlation function is measured down to small scales in redshift
1676: rather than in real space. The real-space clustering for the total 2QZ
1677: sample has instead been measured by Da Angela et al. (\cite{daa05})
1678: via the projected correlation function. On the same scales as
1679: considered by Croom et al. (\cite{croom05}) and when approximating
1680: $\xi(r)$ by a single power law, they found that, while the slope of
1681: the total 2QZ sample steepens significantly from $\gamma=1.20\pm0.10$
1682: to $\gamma=1.85\pm0.13$, the correlation length only marginally
1683: decreases by 10\% (from $r_0=5.5\pm0.5\:h^{-1}$ Mpc to
1684: $r_0=5.0\pm0.5\:h^{-1}$ Mpc). In the following we therefore simply
1685: consider the values as measured by Croom et al. (\cite{croom05}) for
1686: the 2QZ correlation lengths in different redshift bins. These results
1687: are consistent with those obtained by Porciani et al. (2004) using 2dF
1688: QSOs in a narrower redshift range. In the local Universe ($z\sim 0.07$),
1689: the clustering of bright optical QSOs ($B<15$ mag) has been recently
1690: determined by Grazian et al. (\cite{grazi04}) by means of the
1691: Asiago-ESO/RASS QSO survey (AERQS). These authors measured $r_0=8.6
1692: \pm 2.0 \:h^{-1}$ Mpc at a median redshift of $z\sim0.1$ on comoving
1693: scales $1-30 \: h^{-1}$ Mpc by fixing the correlation slope to
1694: $\gamma=1.56$. Given the above considerations for the Chandra Msec
1695: fields and the 2QZ and given the rather large uncertainties we have to
1696: deal with, we consider the value quoted by Grazian et al. (2004) as if
1697: obtained by fixing $\gamma$ to 1.8. All the measurements discussed above
1698: are shown in Fig.~\ref{roz}.
1699:
1700: %With the exception of the CDFS, all the points are distributed along a
1701: %concave shape with a minimum at about $z\sim1$. As discussed by Gilli
1702: %et al. \cite{gilli05}, the high correlation measured in the CDFS seems
1703: %is mostly due the two prominent redshift structures caught in this
1704: %small field.
1705:
1706: Unfortunately, it is not possible to perform a completely unbiased
1707: comparison between the various samples because different redshifts
1708: generally sample different luminosities, and AGN clustering may be a
1709: function of AGN luminosity if the latter correlates with the mass of
1710: the hosting dark halo (e.g. Kauffmann \& Haehnelt \cite{kauff02}).
1711:
1712: In Fig.~\ref{roz}, sources at $z<0.3$ and $z>2$ appear to be the most
1713: clustered ones, and these also correspond to the most luminous AGN. At
1714: $z<0.3$ the median 0.5-10 keV luminosity of the AGN in the AERQS and
1715: NEP samples is about log$L_x=44.4$ (see Mullis et al. \cite{mullis04}
1716: and Gilli et al. \cite{gilli05}). At $z>2$ the median absolute B-band
1717: luminosity of the 2QZ QSOs corresponds to a median 0.5-10 keV
1718: luminosity of log$L_x=44.7$ (assuming a standard QSO SED, e.g. Elvis
1719: et al. \cite{elvis94}). The less clustered sources are found at $z\sim
1720: 1$, but these have lower luminosities (log$L_x=43-44$). In general, a
1721: clear dependence of clustering amplitude on AGN luminosity has not
1722: been observed yet. On the contrary, the available evidence, if any,
1723: points towards a similar clustering for sources at the same redshift
1724: but with different luminosities. Croom et al. (\cite{croom05}) and
1725: Porciani \& Norberg (2006) could not find any significant evidence of
1726: luminosity dependent clustering in the 2QZ. From a cross-correlation
1727: analysis between galaxies and AGN, Adelberger \& Steidel (\cite{as05})
1728: claim that AGN at $z\sim 2$ cluster similarly within a 10 mag
1729: luminosity range. From a theoretical point of view, one would expect
1730: little clustering dependence on the observed AGN luminosity if this is
1731: not directly related to the host halo mass; i.e., if, at any given
1732: redshift, objects that reside in halos within a narrow mass range have
1733: very different luminosities (eg. Lidz et al. 2006). For instance, even
1734: assuming a dependence of black hole (and host galaxy) mass on the
1735: hosting halo mass, a wide spread in the distribution in the Eddington
1736: ratios would make BH of similar masses radiate at very different
1737: luminosities. Indeed, although the average Eddington ratio of SDSS
1738: QSOs has been shown to increase towards high luminosities, the spread
1739: in the distribution is wide (McLure \& Dunlop 2004). Moreover, it has
1740: been recently suggested (Gavignaud et al. 2008) that the dispersion in
1741: the black hole mass--luminosity increases even more for lower AGN
1742: luminosities. Finally, in the local Universe, Constantin \& Vogeley
1743: (2006) find that low-luminosity LINERs are more clustered than higher
1744: luminosity Seyfert galaxies, showing that the relation between AGN
1745: luminosity and clustering may even be reversed for low-luminosity AGN
1746: with respect to the expectations based on a monotonically increasing
1747: relation between luminosity and black hole mass. Large statistical
1748: samples, beyond the reach of the data presented in this work, are
1749: needed to firmly establish any dependence of AGN clustering on
1750: luminosity (see eg. Porciani \& Norberg 2006).
1751:
1752: Overall, when removing the redshift structure at z=0.36, the
1753: clustering of XMM-COSMOS AGN appear in good agreement with what is
1754: measured for optical and X-ray selected AGN at different redshifts. A
1755: larger correlation length is instead found for objects at $z<1$ if the
1756: redshift structure is not removed.
1757:
1758: To interpret our clustering measurements at different redshifts, we
1759: considered the halo catalogs in the Millennium simulation and computed
1760: their correlation function above different halo mass thresholds and at
1761: different redshifts. We essentially repeated the computation presented
1762: in Sect. 6.2 for halos at $z=0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0,$ and 3.0. The $r_0$
1763: vs redshift curves for halos above different mass thresholds are shown
1764: in Fig.~\ref{roz}. Both our $z\sim 1$ and $z>1$ AGN samples seem to be
1765: hosted by halos with mass above $log(M/M_{\odot})>12.4$. For
1766: XMM-COSMOS AGN at $z<1$ the minimum mass of the host halos varies from
1767: 12.4 to 12.8 depending on whether the z=0.36 structure is excluded or
1768: included from the computation of $r_0$.
1769: %[comment on halos of abs/unabs agn and compare with local narrow line agn results by Li]
1770:
1771: \begin{figure}
1772: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{broz_cosmos.ps}
1773: \caption{Expected redshift evolution of the bias and correlation
1774: length of different XMM-COSMOS AGN samples according to a {\it
1775: conserving scenario}. The evolution curves are normalized to the
1776: observed datapoints. Blue filled circle: $z=0.4-1.6$ sample. Red
1777: circles: $z<1$ and $z>1$ samples. The open circle shows the result for
1778: the $z<1$ sample when the $z=0.36$ structure is excluded. Solid and
1779: dotted errorbars correspond to Poissonian and bootstrap uncertainties,
1780: respectively.}
1781: \label{broz}
1782: \end{figure}
1783:
1784: \subsection{Descendants of $z\sim1$ AGN}\label{evol}
1785:
1786: As shown in the previous sections, under simple assumptions, it is
1787: possible to use the spatial clustering of an extragalactic source
1788: population measured at a given epoch to estimate the typical dark
1789: matter halos in which these objects reside. Furthermore, it is also
1790: possible to estimate their past and future history by following the
1791: halo evolution in the cosmological density field. A useful quantity
1792: for such analyses is the bias factor, defined as
1793: $b^2(r,z,M)=\xi_A(r,z,M)/\xi_m(r,z)$, where $\xi_A(r,z,M)$ and
1794: $\xi_m(r,z)$ are the correlation function of the considered AGN or
1795: galaxy population and that of dark matter, respectively. In general
1796: the bias parameter can be a function of scale $r$, redshift $z$, and
1797: object mass $M$. For simplicity we adopt the following definition
1798: here:
1799: \begin{equation}
1800: b^2(z)=\xi_A(8,z)/\xi_m(8,z)
1801: \label{bb}
1802: \end{equation}
1803: in which $\xi_A(8,z)$ and $\xi_m(8,z)$, are the galaxy and dark matter
1804: correlation functions evaluated at 8 $h^{-1}$ Mpc, respectively. The
1805: AGN correlation function has been measured directly in this work,
1806: while the dark matter correlation function can be estimated using the
1807: following relation (e.g., Peebles 1980):
1808: \begin{equation}
1809: \xi_m(8,z)=\sigma_8^2(z)/J_2
1810: \end{equation}
1811: where $J_2=72/[(3-\gamma)(4-\gamma)(6-\gamma)2^\gamma]$, and
1812: $\sigma_8^2(z)$ is the dark matter mass variance in spheres of 8
1813: $h^{-1}$ Mpc comoving radius, which evolves as
1814: %\begin{equation}
1815: $\sigma_8(z)=\sigma_8(0)D(z)$.
1816: %\end{equation}
1817: Also, $D(z)$ is the linear growth factor of perturbations, while
1818: $\sigma_8(0)$ is the $rms$ dark matter fluctuation at the present
1819: time, which we fix to $\sigma_8=0.8$ in agreement with the recent
1820: results from WMAP3 (Spergel et al.\ 2007).\footnote{Only small
1821: differences arise if we assume $\sigma_8=0.9$ as in the Millennium
1822: simulation. The other relevant cosmological parameters assumed in this
1823: work are the same as in the Millennium simulation.} While in an
1824: Einstein - De Sitter cosmology the linear growth of perturbations is
1825: simply described by $D_{EdS}(z)=(1+z)^{-1}$, the growth of
1826: perturbations is slower in a $\Lambda$-dominated cosmology. We
1827: consider here the so-called growth suppression factor
1828: $g(z)=D(z)/D_{EdS}(z)$ as approximated analytically by Carroll, Press
1829: \& Turner (1992). The resulting bias for the AGN in the XMM-COSMOS
1830: field is $b(1.0)=2.0\pm0.2$.
1831:
1832: Once the bias of the AGN population at its median redshift has been
1833: estimated using the above relations, it is possible to follow the time
1834: evolution of the bias with models that rely on simple assumptions.
1835: Two popular scenarios that encompass two extreme hypotheses are the
1836: {\it conserving model}, in which objects do not merge at all (Nusser
1837: \& Davis 1994, Fry 1996) and the {\it merging model} in which objects
1838: merge continuously (e.g. Moscardini et al. 1998). In the first
1839: hypothesis the number of objects is conserved in time, and galaxies
1840: behave as test particles whose spatial distribution simply evolves
1841: with time under the gravitational pull of growing dark matter
1842: structures. In the second hypothesis, object merging follows the
1843: continuous merging of the hosting dark matter halos, in such a way
1844: that only those objects and halos which have just merged are
1845: observable at any given epoch.
1846:
1847: From an observational point of view, the fraction of galaxies in
1848: mergers appears to be a very debated issue. Recent works suggest that
1849: close galaxy pairs (merger candidates) are a strong function of
1850: redshift, evolving as $(1+z)^{3-4}$ (Kartaltepe et al. 2007, Kampzyck
1851: et al. 2007). By extrapolating the current estimates, at $z\sim 2$
1852: about 50\% of luminous galaxies are expected to be found in close
1853: pairs/mergers. However, at $z\sim 1$ the fraction of galaxies in close
1854: pairs is still $\sim 8\%$ and decreases to $\sim 0.1\%$ at $z\sim
1855: 0.1$.
1856: %In addition, there is a number of theoretical arguments
1857: %suggesting that at $z<1$ the frequency of galaxy mergers is very low
1858: %(Ciotti +).
1859: % check merger fraction on LCDM models - D'Onghia et al. 2008
1860: %
1861: %On the other hand.. [quote lin et al. 0802.3004 on deep2, expand this
1862: %point].
1863: In the following we will consider the non merging {\it conserving
1864: model} as a fairly adequate representation of the bias evolution of
1865: $z\sim 1$ XMM-COSMOS AGN towards lower redshifts; i.e., it will be used
1866: to estimate the likely descendants of XMM-COSMOS AGN. On the contrary,
1867: since merging is expected to be significant towards higher redshift, we
1868: will not try to estimate their high-z progenitors.
1869:
1870: In the {\it galaxy conserving model}, the bias evolution can be
1871: approximated by
1872: \begin{equation}
1873: b(z)=1+[b(0)-1]/D(z)
1874: \end{equation}
1875: where $b(0)$ is the population bias at $z=0$ (Nusser \& Davis 1994,
1876: Fry 1996, Moscardini et al. 1998). Once $b(z)$ is determined, the
1877: evolution of $\xi_A(8,z)$ and hence of $r_0(z)$ can be obtained by
1878: inverting Eq.~\ref{bb}. A value of $\gamma\sim 1.8$ for the slope is
1879: assumed in the above relations. Little difference arises when using
1880: $\gamma=1.9$.
1881:
1882: In Fig.~\ref{broz} we show the evolution of $b(z)$ and $r_0(z)$ for
1883: various XMM-COSMOS AGN samples, including the $z=0.4-1.6$ sample, the
1884: sample at $z>1$ and the sample at $z<1$ with or without the structure
1885: at $z=0.36$. By $z=0$ the correlation length of XMM-COSMOS AGN should
1886: evolve to $r_0\gtrsim 6\,h^{-1}$ Mpc, which is typical of passive,
1887: early type galaxies in the local Universe (Colless et al. 2001, Zehavi
1888: et al. 2004). The correlation slope of the local early type population
1889: $\gamma\sim1.8-2.0$ also appears consistent with that of XMM-COSMOS
1890: AGN at $z\sim 1$. In principle, the evolution curves shown in
1891: Fig.~\ref{broz} can also be used to predict which $r_0$ value a given
1892: XMM-COSMOS subsample should have as a function of redshift, allowing
1893: a proper comparison between measurements obtained at different
1894: redshifts. Indeed, the correlation length of AGN in the $z>1$ sample
1895: (median $z\sim1.5$) is expected to evolve to $r_0\sim7.5\;h^{-1}$ Mpc
1896: by $z\sim0.7$, i.e. the median redshift of the $z<1$ sample, whose
1897: correlation length has been measured as varying between 8.0 and 5.2
1898: $h^{-1}$ Mpc, depending on the inclusion of the $z=0.36$
1899: structure. Given this uncertainty and the large errorbars in
1900: Fig.~\ref{broz}, it is still difficult to claim that objects at
1901: redshift greater or smaller than 1 are sampling different environments.
1902:
1903:
1904: \subsection{Estimating the AGN lifetime}\label{life}
1905:
1906: Under simple assumptions it is possible to put limits on the AGN
1907: lifetime at any given redshift. Following Martini \& Weinberg
1908: (\cite{mw01}), we assumed that the AGN in our sample reside within
1909: halos above a given mass threshold and that each halo hosts at most
1910: one active AGN at a time. The AGN lifetime $t_Q$ can then be estimated
1911: with the following relation:
1912:
1913: \begin{equation}
1914: \Phi(z) = \int_{M_{min}}^{\infty}dM\frac{t_Q}{t_H(M,z)}n(M,z),
1915: \label{tq}
1916: \end{equation}
1917: where $\Phi(z)$ is the comoving space density of AGN above a given luminosity,
1918: $M_{min}$ the minimum mass of the halos hosting an AGN, $n(M,z)$ the
1919: comoving space density of halos of mass $M$ at redshift $z$,
1920: and $t_H(M,z)$ is the lifetime of halos of mass $M$ at redshift $z$.
1921:
1922: The definition of halo lifetime is somewhat ambiguous since halos are
1923: continuously accreting matter. Martini \& Weinberg (\cite{mw01})
1924: defined $t_H(M,z)$ as the median time interval for a halo of mass M to
1925: be incorporated into a halo of mass 2M and used the extended
1926: Press-Schechter formalism to calculate it. To a first approximation
1927: $t_H(M,z)\sim t_U(z)$, where $ t_U(z)$ is the Hubble time at redshift
1928: $z$. With these approximations Eq.~\ref{tq} can be rewritten as
1929:
1930: \begin{equation}
1931: t_Q(z)=t_u(z)\frac{\Phi(z)}{\Phi_H(z)},
1932: \label{tq2}
1933: \end{equation}
1934: where $\Phi_H(z)=\int_{M_{min}}^{\infty}dM\;n(M,z)$ is the comoving
1935: space density of halo with mass above $M_{min}$.
1936:
1937: Since $M_{min}$ is known from the comparison between the halo and the
1938: AGN correlation length, it is straightforward to estimate $\Phi_H(z)$
1939: from the number of halos with $M>M_{min}$ within the Millennium
1940: simulation box. For halos with $M>2.5 \times 10^{12} \; h^{-1} \;
1941: M_{\odot}$, where XMM-COSMOS AGN at $z\sim 1$ reside, the space
1942: density is $\Phi_H(z)= 10^{-3}\;h^3$ Mpc$^{-3}$ (see
1943: Fig.~\ref{nr0}). For the cosmology adopted here the Hubble time at
1944: $z=1$ is $\sim 6.3$ Gyr.
1945:
1946: The comoving space density of XMM-COSMOS AGN has been estimated by
1947: considering literature X-ray luminosity function of AGN selected in
1948: the 2-10 keV band, which should therefore include unobscured, as well
1949: as moderately obscured, objects as the objects populating our
1950: sample. Once accounting for band effects\footnote{an X-ray photon
1951: index of $\Gamma=1.9$ is assumed}, the median luminosity of our
1952: $z\sim 1$ sample (logL=43.7 in the 0.5-10 keV band; see Table~1)
1953: translates into a 2-10 keV luminosity of logL$\sim 43.5$. At these
1954: luminosities, $z\sim 1$ AGN in the La Franca et al. (2005) XLF have a
1955: space density of $\sim 3\times 10^{-4}\;h^3$ Mpc$^{-3}$. A similar
1956: value for the AGN density is obtained when using the XLF by Ueda et
1957: al. (2003).
1958: %%%%%%%% silverman %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1959: %while a 2.5 times lower value is obtained when using the
1960: %XLF by Silverman et al. (2008a), which includes only objects with a
1961: %magnitude limit of $I<24$, and therefore might be more appropriate to
1962: %be compared with our reference sample for which an optical cut has
1963: %also been imposed ($I<23$).
1964: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1965: Therefore, by considering an AGN density of $\sim 1.8\times 10^{-4}\;h^3$
1966: Mpc$^{-3}$ (obtained by rescaling the La Franca et al. space density
1967: by the fraction of objects with $I_{AB}<23$, as is the case for our
1968: selection), a duty cycle $t_Q/t_H$ of 0.18 is obtained, which
1969: translates into an AGN lifetime of $\sim 1.1$ Gyr.
1970: %For comparison, using the observed space density of AGN in our $z\sim 1$
1971: %sample ($\sim 5\times 10^{-5}\;h^3$ Mpc$^{-3}$; see Fig.~\ref{nr0})
1972: %returns a factor of $\sim 2$ shorter lifetime.
1973:
1974: This estimated lifetime is more than one order of magnitude longer than
1975: that estimated by Porciani et al. (2004) for bright optical QSOs at
1976: $z\sim 1$ in the 2QZ survey. The difference in the measured lifetime
1977: is essentially due to the difference between the space density of
1978: XMM-COSMOS AGN and 2QZ QSOs at $z\sim 1 \;(\approx 2\times 10^{-4}\;
1979: \rm{vs}\;\approx 10^{-5}\;h^3$ Mpc$^{-3}$, see Table~1 in Porciani et
1980: al. 2004). Such a difference is, on the other hand, expected given the
1981: relatively bright limiting magnitude ($m_B\sim 20.8$) of the 2QZ
1982: sample that, in addition, does not include obscured AGN. The
1983: estimated lifetime for XMM-COSMOS AGN is significantly shorter than
1984: the $\sim 8$ Gyr time span between $z=1$ and $z=0$. This, in
1985: combination with the estimate that XMM-COSMOS AGN will cluster with
1986: $r_0=8$ at $z=0$, depicts a consistent scenario in which XMM-COSMOS AGN
1987: will switch off by $z=0$, leaving relic (dormant) supermassive black
1988: holes in local elliptical galaxies.
1989:
1990: %%%%% grazian %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1991: %Since local QSOs in the AERQS and
1992: %in the NEP survey also cluster with $r_0=7-8 \; h^{-1}$ Mpc, and have
1993: %a short lifetime of $\sim 10^7$ yr (see Grazian et al. 2004), it is
1994: %likely that nuclear activity is restarted in a small fraction of these
1995: %ellipticals.
1996: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1997:
1998: \section{Conclusions}
1999:
2000: We have studied the clustering properties of 538 moderately luminous
2001: AGN at $z=0.2-3$ in the 2 deg$^2$ COSMOS field, selected in the X-rays
2002: and spectroscopically identified to $I_{AB}<23$. Our main results can
2003: be summarized as follows:\\
2004:
2005: 1. The projected correlation function $w(r_p)$ on scales
2006: $r_p=0.3-40\;h^{-1}$ Mpc can be approximated by a power law with
2007: correlation length $r_0=8.6\pm0.5 \;h^{-1}$ and slope
2008: $\gamma=1.9\pm0.1$ (Poisson errors; bootstrap errors are a factor of
2009: $\sim 2$ larger). This represents the most significant measurement of
2010: clustering of X-ray selected AGN to date.\\
2011:
2012: 2. Part of the signal, in particular an excess on projected scales
2013: $r_p=5-15\;h^{-1}$ Mpc, is due to a large scale structure at
2014: $z=0.36$. When excluding this structure or computing $w(r_p)$ for
2015: objects in a narrower redshift interval around $z\sim 1$, the
2016: correlation length decreases to $r_0=5-6\;h^{-1}$ Mpc, similar to what
2017: is observed in large samples of optically selected QSOs at the same
2018: redshift.\\
2019:
2020: 3. Objects with different absorption properties do not show
2021: significant evidence for different clustering properties. Broad line
2022: AGN are consistent with inhabiting the same environments of non-broad
2023: line AGN. Similar results are obtained when considering X-ray absorbed
2024: and X-ray unabsorbed AGN.\\
2025:
2026: 4. No significant difference is found in the clustering properties of
2027: objects at redshifts below or above 1.\\
2028:
2029: 5. The correlation length measured for XMM-COSMOS AGN at $z\sim 1$ is
2030: similar to that of early type galaxies and luminous infrared galaxies
2031: at the same redshift. This, in agreement with other studies, suggests
2032: that $z\sim 1$ moderately luminous AGN are found preferentially in
2033: massive ($M\gtrsim3\times10^{10}\;M_{\odot}$) galaxies.\\
2034:
2035: 6. By using public halo catalogs from the Millennium simulation, we
2036: estimated XMM-COSMOS AGN to reside within dark matter halos of mass
2037: $M\gtrsim2.5\times10^{12}\;h^{-1}\;M_{\odot}$.\\
2038:
2039: 7. According to a simple {\it conserving scenario} for clustering
2040: evolution, the relics of $z\sim 1$ AGN are expected to be hosted by
2041: local bright $L\sim L_\star$ ellipticals by z=0.\\
2042:
2043: 8. By combining the number density of XMM-COSMOS AGN with that of the
2044: hosting dark matter halos, we estimated an AGN duty cycle of 0.1, which
2045: translates into an AGN lifetime of $\sim 1$ Gyr. The estimated
2046: lifetime is more than one order of magnitude longer than
2047: estimated for optically bright QSOs at the same redshift. This is
2048: mainly due to the higher number density of AGN found in X-ray selected
2049: samples.\\
2050:
2051: \acknowledgements
2052:
2053: This work is based on observations obtained with XMM-Newton, an ESA
2054: Science Mission with instruments and contributions directly funded by
2055: ESA Member States and the USA (NASA). We gratefully acknowledge the
2056: contribution of the entire COSMOS collaboration ({\tt
2057: http://www.astro.caltech.edu/\~cosmos}). In Italy, the XMM-COSMOS
2058: projects is supported by ASI-INAF and PRIN/MIUR under grants
2059: I/023/05/00 and 2006-02-5203. The zCOSMOS ESO Large Program Number
2060: 175.A-0839 is acknowledged. RG thanks Carlo Nipoti, Federico Marulli,
2061: Enzo Branchini, and Lauro Moscardini for stimulating discussions. The
2062: referee is acknowledged for providing useful comments. The Millennium
2063: Simulation databases used in this paper and the web application
2064: providing online access to them were constructed as part of the
2065: activities of the German Astrophysical Virtual Observatory.
2066:
2067:
2068: \begin{thebibliography}{}
2069:
2070: \bibitem[2005]{as05} Adelberger, K.L. \& Steidel, C.C. 2005, ApJ, 630, 50
2071:
2072: \bibitem[2003]{alex03} Alexander, D.M., Bauer, F.E., Brandt, W.N., et
2073: al. 2003, AJ, 126, 539
2074:
2075: \bibitem[2005]{alex03} Alexander, D.M., et al. 2005, Nature, 434, 738
2076:
2077: \bibitem[2004]{basil04} Basilakos, S., et al. 2004, ApJ, 607, L79
2078:
2079: \bibitem[2005]{bh05} Brandt, W.N., Hasinger, G. 2005, ARA\&A, 43, 827
2080:
2081: \bibitem[2003]{brusa03} Brusa, M., Comastri, A., Mignoli, M., et
2082: al. 2003, A\&A, 409, 65
2083:
2084: \bibitem[2007]{brusa07} Brusa, M., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 353
2085:
2086: \bibitem[2007]{cap07} Cappelluti, N., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 341
2087:
2088: \bibitem[1998]{carrera98} Carrera F.J., Barcons, X., Fabian, A.C.,
2089: Hasinger, G., Mason, K.O., McMahon, R.G., Mittaz, J.P.D., Page, M.J.
2090: 1998, MNRAS, 299
2091:
2092: \bibitem[2007]{carrera07} Carrera F.J., et al. 2007, A\&A, 469, 27
2093:
2094: \bibitem[1992]{carroll92} Carroll, S.M., Press, W.H,. Turner, E.L. 1992,
2095: ARA\&A, 30, 499
2096:
2097: \bibitem[2000]{cv00} Cavaliere, A., Vittorini, V., 2000, ApJ, 543, 599
2098:
2099: \bibitem[2003]{chapman03} Chapman, S.C., et al. 2003, Nature, 422, 695
2100:
2101: \bibitem[2004]{coil04} Coil, A.L., Davis, M., Madgwick, D.S., et
2102: al. 2004, ApJ, 609, 525
2103:
2104: \bibitem[2007]{coil07} Coil, A.L., Hennawi, J.F., Newman, J.A., et
2105: al. 2007, ApJ, 654, 115
2106:
2107: \bibitem[2001]{colless} Colless, M.M., Dalton G.B., Maddox S.J., et
2108: al. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 1039
2109:
2110: %\bibitem[2004]{croom04} Croom, S.M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 1397
2111:
2112: \bibitem[2006]{anca} Constantin, A. \& Vogeley, M.S. 2006, ApJ, 650, 727
2113:
2114: \bibitem[2005]{croom05} Croom, S.M., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 415
2115:
2116: \bibitem[2005]{daa05} Da Angela, J., Outram, P.J., Shanks, T., et
2117: al. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 1040
2118:
2119: \bibitem[2007]{daddi07} Daddi, E., Alexander, D.M., Dickinson, M., et
2120: al. 2007, ApJ, 670, 173
2121:
2122: \bibitem[1983]{dp83} Davis, M., \& Peebles, P.J.E. 1983, ApJ, 267, 465
2123:
2124: \bibitem[2007]{elbaz} Elbaz, D., Daddi, E., Le Borgne, D., et
2125: al. 2007, A\&A, 468, 33
2126:
2127: \bibitem[1994]{elvis94} Elvis, M., et al. 1994, ApJS, 95, 1
2128:
2129: \bibitem[1999]{fabian99} Fabian, A.C. 1999, MNRAS, 308, L39
2130:
2131: \bibitem[2000]{fm00} Ferrarese, L. \& Merritt, D., 2000, ApJ, 539, L9
2132:
2133: \bibitem[2005]{ff05} Ferrarese, L. \& Ford, H. 2005, SSRv, 116, 523
2134:
2135: \bibitem[1994]{fisher94} Fisher, K., Davis, M., Strauss, M.A., Yahil,
2136: A., Huchra, J. 1994, MNRAS, 266, 50
2137:
2138: \bibitem[2008]{francke08} Francke, H., et al. 2008, ApJ, 673, L13
2139:
2140: \bibitem[1996]{fry} Fry, J.N. 1996, ApJ, 461, L65
2141:
2142: \bibitem[2006]{gandhi06} Gandhi, P., et al. 2006, A\&A, 457, 393
2143:
2144: \bibitem[2008]{gavi} Gavignaud, I., et al. 2008, A\&A, in press
2145: [arXiv:0810.2172]
2146:
2147: \bibitem[2000]{gebh} Gebhardt, K., Bender, R., Bower, G., et al. 2000, ApJ,
2148: 539, L13
2149:
2150: \bibitem[1986]{gehre86} Gehrels, N. 1986, ApJ, 303, 336
2151:
2152: \bibitem[2007]{geo07} Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., Laird., E.S., et
2153: al. 2007, ApJ, 660, L15
2154:
2155: \bibitem[2005]{gilli05} Gilli, R., Daddi, E., Zamorani G., et al. 2005,
2156: A\&A, 430, 811
2157:
2158: \bibitem[2007]{gch07} Gilli, R., Comastri, A., Hasinger, G. 2007,
2159: A\&A, 463, 79
2160:
2161: \bibitem[2007]{gilli07} Gilli, R., Daddi, E., Chary, R., et al. 2007,
2162: A\&A, 475, 83
2163:
2164: \bibitem[2003]{gioia03} Gioia, I., Henry, J.P., Mullis, C.R., et
2165: al. 2003, ApJS, 149, 29
2166:
2167: \bibitem[2004]{granato04} Granato, G., De Zotti, G., Silva, L.,
2168: Bressan, A., Danese, L. 2004, ApJ, 600 ,580
2169:
2170: \bibitem[2004]{grazi04} Grazian, A., Negrello, M., Moscardini, L., et
2171: al. 2004, AJ, 127, 592
2172:
2173: \bibitem[2005]{hasi05} Hasinger, G., Miyaji, T., Schmidt, M., 2005,
2174: A\&A, 441, 417
2175:
2176: \bibitem[2007]{hasinger07} Hasinger, G., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 29
2177:
2178: \bibitem[2008]{hasinger08} Hasinger, G., et al. 2008, A\&A, in press
2179: [arXiv:0808.0260]
2180:
2181: \bibitem[2006]{hopkins06} Hopkins, P.F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T.J., et
2182: al. 2006, ApJS, 163, 1
2183:
2184: \bibitem[2007]{kamp} Kampczyk, J.S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 329
2185:
2186: \bibitem[2007]{karta} Kartaltepe, J.S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 320
2187:
2188: \bibitem[1999]{kauff99} Kauffmann, G., et al. 1999, MNRAS, 307, 529
2189:
2190: \bibitem[2000]{kauff00} Kauffmann, G., \& Haehnelt, M.G. 2000, MNRAS,
2191: 311, 576
2192:
2193: \bibitem[2002]{kauff02} Kauffmann, G., \& Haehnelt, M.G. 2002, MNRAS,
2194: 332, 529
2195:
2196: \bibitem[2004]{kauff04} Kauffmann, G., White, S.D.M., Heckman, T.M.,
2197: et al. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 713
2198:
2199: \bibitem[2000]{kerscher00} Kerscher, M., Szapudy, I., \& Szalay,
2200: A. 2000, ApJ, 535, L13
2201:
2202: \bibitem[2007]{kw07} Kitzbichler, M. \& White, S. 2006, MNRAS, 2007,
2203: 376, 2
2204:
2205: \bibitem[1998]{lafra98} La Franca, F., Andreani, P., \& Cristiani, S.,
2206: 1998, ApJ, 497, 529
2207:
2208: \bibitem[2005]{lafra05} La Franca, F., Fiore, F., Comastri, A., et
2209: al. 2005, ApJ, 635, 864
2210:
2211: \bibitem[1993]{ls93} Landy, S.D., \& Szalay, A.S. 1993, ApJ, 412, 64
2212:
2213: \bibitem[2005]{lehmer05} Lehmer, B.D., et al. 2005, ApJS, 161, 21
2214:
2215: %\bibitem[1996]{lefev96} Le Fevre, O., Hudon, D., Lilly, S. J.,
2216: %Crampton, David, Hammer, F., Tresse, L. 1996, ApJ, 461, 534
2217:
2218: \bibitem[2004]{lefevre04} Le Fevre, O., et al. 2004, A\&A, 417, 839
2219:
2220: \bibitem[2006]{li06} Li, C., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 457
2221:
2222: \bibitem[2008]{li08} Li, C., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1915
2223:
2224: \bibitem[2006]{lidz} Lidz, A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 641, 41
2225:
2226: \bibitem[2007]{lilly} Lilly S.J., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 70
2227:
2228: \bibitem[2005]{mainieri05} Mainieri, V. et al. 2005, A\&A, 437, 805
2229:
2230: \bibitem[2007]{mainieri07} Mainieri, V. et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 368
2231:
2232: \bibitem[1998]{malkan98} Malkan, M.A., Gorjian, V., \& Tam, R. 1998,
2233: ApJS, 117, 25
2234:
2235: \bibitem[2004]{marconi} Marconi, A., Risaliti, G., Gilli, R., Hunt, L. K.,
2236: Maiolino, R., Salvati, M. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 169
2237:
2238: \bibitem[2001]{mw01} Martini, P., \& Weinberg, D.H. 2001, ApJ, 547,
2239: 12
2240:
2241: \bibitem[2008]{marulli08} Marulli, F., et al. 2008, MNRAS, submitted
2242:
2243: \bibitem[1995]{marzke95} Marzke, R.O., Geller, M.J., Da Costa, L.N.,
2244: Huchra, J.P. 1995, AJ, 110, 477
2245:
2246: \bibitem[2004]{mclure} McLure, R.J. \& Dunlop, J.S. 2004, MNRAS, 352,
2247: 1390
2248:
2249: \bibitem[2006]{meneux} Meneux, B., Le F\`evre, O., Guzzo, G., et
2250: al. 2006, A\&A, 452, 387
2251:
2252: %\bibitem[2004]{mignoli} Mignoli, M., et al. 2004, A\&A, 418, 827
2253:
2254: \bibitem[2007]{miyaji} Miyaji, T., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 396
2255:
2256: \bibitem[1992]{mo92} Mo, H.J., Jing, Y.P., \& B\"orner, G. 1992, ApJ,
2257: 392, 452
2258:
2259: \bibitem[1998]{moscardini} Moscardini, L., Coles, P., Lucchin, F.,
2260: Matarrese, S. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 95
2261:
2262: \bibitem[2004]{mullis04} Mullis, C.R., Henry, J.P., Gioia, I.M., et
2263: al. 2004, ApJ, 617, 192
2264:
2265: \bibitem[2005]{murray05} Murray, S., et al. 2005, ApJS, 161, 1
2266:
2267: \bibitem[2005]{nandra05} Nandra, K., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 568
2268:
2269: \bibitem[2007]{noeske} Noeske, K.G., Weiner, B.J., Faber, S.M., et
2270: al. 2007, ApJ, 660, L43
2271:
2272: \bibitem[1994]{nusser} Nusser, A., Davis, M. 1994, ApJ, 421, L1
2273:
2274: \bibitem[1981]{osmer81} Osmer, P.S., 1981, ApJ, 247, 762
2275:
2276: \bibitem[2008]{padma08} Padmanabhan, N., et al. 2008, MNRAS, submitted
2277: [arXiv:0802.2105]
2278:
2279: \bibitem[1980]{peeb80} Peebles, P.J.E. 1980, The Large Scale
2280: Structure of the Universe (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press)
2281:
2282: \bibitem[2007]{pierre07} Pierre, M., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 279
2283:
2284: \bibitem[2008]{plionis08} Plionis, M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 674, L5
2285:
2286: \bibitem[2004]{porc04} Porciani, C., Magliocchetti, M. \& Norberg,
2287: P. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 1010
2288:
2289: \bibitem[2006]{porc06} Porciani, C., Norberg, P. 2006, MNRAS, 371,
2290: 1824
2291:
2292: %\bibitem[2007]{pozzi} Pozzi, F., et al. 2007, A\&A, 468, 603
2293:
2294: \bibitem[2006]{puccetti} Puccetti, S., et al. 2006, A\&A, 457, 501
2295:
2296: \bibitem[2002]{rosati02} Rosati, P., Giacconi, R., Gilli, R.,
2297: Hasinger, G., Kewley, L., Mainieri, V., Nonino, M., Norman, C.,
2298: Szokoly, G., Wang, J. X., Zirm, A., Bergeron, J., Borgani, S.,
2299: Gilmozzi, R., Grogin, N., Koekemoer, A., Schreier, E., Zheng, W. 2002,
2300: \apj, 566, 667
2301:
2302: \bibitem[2008]{salvato08} Salvato, M., Hasinger, G., Ilbert, O., et
2303: al. 2008, ApJ, in press [arXiv:0809.2098]
2304:
2305: \bibitem[1996]{sm96} Sanders, D.B., \& Mirabel, I.F. 1996, ARA\&A, 34,
2306: 749
2307:
2308: \bibitem[2007]{sanders} Sanders, D.B., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 86
2309:
2310: \bibitem[2007]{schinnerer} Schinnerer, E., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 46
2311:
2312: \bibitem[2007]{scova} Scoville, N., et al. 2007a, ApJS, 172, 1
2313:
2314: \bibitem[2007]{scovb} Scoville, N., et al. 2007b, ApJS, 172, 38
2315:
2316: \bibitem[1987]{shank87} Shanks, T., Fong, R., Boyle, B.J., Peterson,
2317: B.A. 1987, MNRAS, 277, 739
2318:
2319: \bibitem[2004]{shankar} Shankar, F., Salucci, P., Granato, G. L., De
2320: Zotti, G., Danese, L. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 1020
2321:
2322: \bibitem[2007]{shen07} Shen, Y., et al. 2007, AJ, 133, 2222
2323:
2324: \bibitem[2008]{silverman} Silverman, J.D., Green, P.J., Barkhouse,
2325: W.A., et al. 2008a, ApJ, 679, 118
2326:
2327: \bibitem[2008]{silverman} Silverman, J.D., et al. 2008b, ApJ, submitted
2328:
2329: %\bibitem[2004]{some04} Somerville, R.S., Lee, K., Ferguson, H.C., et
2330: %al. 2004, ApJ, 600, L171
2331:
2332: \bibitem[2007]{spergel} Spergel, D.N., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 377
2333:
2334: \bibitem[2005]{springel} Springel, V., White, Simon, D.M., Jenkins, A,
2335: et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 629
2336:
2337: %\bibitem[2004]{szoko04} Szokoly, G., Bergeron, J., Hasinger, G., et
2338: %al. 2004, ApJS, in press (astro-ph/0312324)
2339:
2340: \bibitem[2008]{tacconi08} Tacconi, L.J., Genzel, R., Smail, I., et
2341: al. 2008, ApJ, 680, 246
2342:
2343: \bibitem[2007]{tani} Taniguchi, Y., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 9
2344:
2345: \bibitem[2006]{tozzi06} Tozzi, P., Gilli, R., Mainieri, V., et
2346: al. 2006, A\&A, 451, 457
2347:
2348: \bibitem[2007]{trump} Trump, J.R., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 383
2349:
2350: \bibitem[2003]{ueda03} Ueda, Y., Akiyama, M., Ohta, K., Miyaji,
2351: T. 2003, ApJ, 598, 886
2352:
2353: \bibitem[2008]{ueda08} Ueda Y., et al. 2008, ApJS, in press
2354: [arXiv:0806.2846]
2355:
2356: \bibitem[1995]{vikh95} Vikhlinin, A., Forman, W. 1995, ApJ, 455, L109
2357:
2358: \bibitem[2006]{yang06} Yang, Y., et al. 2006, ApJ, 645, 68
2359:
2360: \bibitem[2000]{york00} York, D.C., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579
2361:
2362: \bibitem[2002]{yu} Yu, Q. \& Tremaine, S. 2002, MNRAS, 335, 965
2363:
2364: \bibitem[2007]{zamo} Zamojski, M.A., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 468
2365:
2366: \bibitem[2002]{zehavi02} Zehavi, I., Blanton, M.R., Frieman, J.A., et
2367: al. 2002, ApJ, 571, 172
2368:
2369: \bibitem[2004]{zehavi04} Zehavi, I., Weinberg, D.H., Zheng, Z., et
2370: al. 2004, ApJ, 608, 16
2371:
2372: \end{thebibliography}
2373:
2374: %\clearpage
2375:
2376: \end{document}
2377:
2378: