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

2: % last edition : July 10 by Crocce

3: %%\usepackage{emulateapj5}

4: %%\usepackage{epsf}

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

6: %%\usepackage{emulateapj5}

7: %%\usepackage{epsf}

8: %%\documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}

9: %\usepackage{apjfonts}

10: %\usepackage{natbib}

11: 

12: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}

13: \usepackage{apjfonts}

14: 

15: %\usepackage{natbib}

16: 

17: \newcommand{\etal}{et~al.\ }

18: \newcommand{\kms}{\hbox{km~s$^{-1}$}}

19: \newcommand{\cmsq}{\hbox{cm$^{-2}$}}

20: \newcommand{\cc}{\hbox{cm$^{-3}$}}

21: \newcommand{\flux}{\hbox{erg~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$}}

22: \newcommand{\lumin}{\hbox{ergs~s$^{-1}$}}

23: \newcommand{\persec}{\hbox{s$^{-1}$}}

24: \newcommand{\aox}{$\alpha_{\rm ox}$}

25: \newcommand{\nh}{\hbox{${N}_{\rm H}$}}

26: \newcommand{\h}{$h_{70}^{-1}$}

27: 

28: \newcommand{\CIV}{C~{\sc iv}}

29: \newcommand{\chandra}{{\emph{Chandra}}}

30: \newcommand{\cxo}{{\emph{Chandra X-ray Observatory}}}

31: \newcommand{\xmm}{\emph{XMM-Newton}}

32: \newcommand{\asca}{{\emph{ASCA}}}

33: \newcommand{\rosat}{\emph{ROSAT}}

34: \newcommand{\hst}{\emph{HST}}

35: \newcommand{\msun}{$M_{\odot}$}

36: 

37: \begin{document}

38: 

39: \def\sarc{$^{\prime\prime}\!\!.$}

40: \def\arcsec{$^{\prime\prime}$}

41: \def\arcmin{$^{\prime}$}

42: \def\degr{$^{\circ}$}

43: \def\seco{$^{\rm s}\!\!.$}

44: \def\ls{\lower 2pt \hbox{$\;\scriptscriptstyle \buildrel<\over\sim\;$}}

45: \def\gs{\lower 2pt \hbox{$\;\scriptscriptstyle \buildrel>\over\sim\;$}}

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

47: \def\mh{$M$\ }

48: %\def\sis{$\sigma_{\rm star}$\ }

49: \def\sis{$\sigma$\ }

50: \def\vvir{$V_{\rm vir}$\ }

51: 

52: \title{On the radiative efficiencies, Eddington ratios, and duty cycles of luminous high-redshift quasars}

53: 

54: \author{Francesco Shankar\altaffilmark{1}, Martin Crocce\altaffilmark{2}, Jordi

55: Miralda-Escud\'{e}\altaffilmark{3,2,4}, Pablo Fosalba\altaffilmark{2},

56: and David H. Weinberg\altaffilmark{1}} \altaffiltext{1}{Astronomy

57: Department, Ohio State University,

58:     140 W. 18th Ave., Columbus, OH-43210, U.S.A.}

59:     \altaffiltext{2}{Institut de Ci\`{e}ncies de l'Espai (IEEC-CSIC),

60: Campus UAB, Bellaterra, Spain}

61:     \altaffiltext{3}{Instituci\'o Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avan\c cats,

62: Barcelona, Spain}

63: \altaffiltext{4}{Institut de Ci\`{e}ncies del Cosmos, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona Spain}

64: 

65: \begin{abstract}

66: We investigate the characteristic radiative efficiency $\epsilon$,

67: Eddington ratio $\lambda$, and duty cycle $P_0$ of high-redshift

68: active galactic nuclei (AGN), drawing on measurements of the AGN

69: luminosity function at $z=3-6$ and, especially, on recent

70: measurements of quasar clustering at $z=3-4.5$ from the Sloan

71: Digital Sky Survey. The free parameters of our models are

72: $\epsilon$, $\lambda$, and the normalization, scatter, and redshift

73: evolution of the relation between black hole mass \mbh and halo

74: virial velocity $V_{\rm vir}$.  We compute the luminosity function

75: from the implied growth of the black hole mass function and the

76: quasar correlation length from the bias of the host halos. We test

77: our adopted formulae for the halo mass function and halo bias

78: against measurements from the large N-body simulation developed by

79: the MICE collaboration. The strong clustering of AGNs observed at

80: $z=3$ and, especially, at $z=4$ implies that massive black holes

81: reside in rare, massive dark matter halos. Reproducing the observed

82: luminosity function then requires high efficiency $\epsilon$ and/or

83: low Eddington ratio $\lambda$, with a lower limit (based on

84: $2\sigma$ agreement with the measured $z=4$ correlation length)

85: $\epsilon\ga 0.7\lambda/(1+0.7\lambda)$, implying $\epsilon \ga

86: 0.17$ for $\lambda > 0.25$. Successful models predict high duty

87: cycles, $P_0\sim 0.2, 0.5$, and $0.9$ at $z=3.1, 4.5$ and $6$,

88: respectively, and they require that the fraction of halo baryons

89: locked in the central black hole is much larger than the locally

90: observed value. The rapid drop in the abundance of the massive and

91: rare host halos at $z>7$ implies a proportionally rapid decline in

92: the number density of luminous quasars, much stronger than simple

93: extrapolations of the $z=3-6$ luminosity function would predict. For

94: example, our most successful model predicts that the highest

95: redshift quasar in the sky with true bolometric luminosity $L >

96: 10^{47.5}\, {\rm erg\, s^{-1}}$ should be at $z \sim 7.5$, and that

97: all quasars with higher apparent luminosities would have to be

98: magnified by lensing.

99: \end{abstract}

100: 

101: \keywords{cosmology: theory -- black hole: formation -- galaxies:

102: evolution -- quasars: general}

103: 

104: %\begin{doublespace}

105: 

106: \section{INTRODUCTION}

107: \label{sec|intro}

108: 

109: The masses of the central black holes in local galaxies are

110: correlated with the luminosities, stellar and dynamical masses, and

111: velocity dispersions of the galaxies in which they reside (e.g.,

112: Magorrian et al. 1998; Ferrarese \& Merritt 2000; Gebhardt et al.

113: 2000; McLure \& Dunlop 2002; Marconi \& Hunt 2003; H\"{a}ring \& Rix

114: 2004; Ferrarese \& Ford 2005; Greene \& Ho 2006; Graham 2007;

115: Hopkins et al. 2007b; Graham 2008). The

116: \mbh-\sis relation, together with the observed correlation between

117: outer circular velocity and central velocity dispersion measured by

118: several groups (e.g., Ferrarese 2002; Baes et al. 2003; Pizzella et

119: al. 2005; Buyle et al. 2006), implies a mean correlation between

120: black hole mass and the mass or virial velocity of the host galaxy's

121: dark matter halo, although with a possibly large scatter (e.g., Ho

122: 2007a,b). Recent observational studies have attempted to constrain

123: the evolution of the black holes and their host galaxies, by

124: measuring the \mbh-\sis relation at $0< z \lesssim 3$, finding only

125: tentative evidence for larger black holes at fixed velocity

126: dispersion or stellar mass (e.g., McLure et al. 2006; Peng et al.

127: 2006; Shields et al. 2006; Treu et al. 2007; Shankar et al. 2009b)

128: with respect to what is observed locally. However, such an evolution

129: is difficult to detect given the limited sampling and bias effects

130: involving these measurements (e.g., De Zotti et al. 2006; Lauer et

131: al. 2007; Ho 2007a). Probing this evolution becomes even more

132: difficult at $z>2$ because luminous AGNs substantially outshine

133: their hosts.

134: 

135: Another way to probe the evolution of black holes and their host

136: galaxies comes from clustering. Since more massive halos exhibit

137: stronger clustering bias (Kaiser 1984; Mo \& White 1996), the

138: clustering of quasars provides an indirect diagnostic of the masses

139: of halos in which they reside (Haehnelt et al. 1998;

140: Haiman \& Hui 2001; Martini \& Weinberg 2001; Wyithe \& Loeb 2005),

141: which in turn can provide information on black hole space densities,

142: on duty cycles and lifetimes, and, indirectly, on the physical

143: mechanisms of black hole feeding. Measuring the clustering as a

144: function of redshift and quasar luminosity probes the relation

145: between AGN luminosity and host halo mass, thus constraining the

146: distributions of Eddington ratios and radiative efficiencies which

147: govern the accretion of black holes at different epochs and in

148: different environments. The strong clustering of quasars at $z>3$

149: recently measured by Shen et al. (2007; hereafter S07) in the Sloan

150: Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; York et al. 2000) quasar catalog (Richards

151: et al. 2002; Schneider et al. 2007) implies that the massive black

152: holes powering these quasars reside in massive, highly biased halos.

153: 

154: The classical modeling of quasar clustering by Haiman \& Hui (2001)

155: and Martini \& Weinberg (2001) assumes a mean value for the duty

156: cycle and derives the relation between quasar luminosity and host

157: halo mass by monotonically matching their cumulative distribution

158: functions. White, Martini \& Cohn (2008; hereafter WMC) have applied

159: this method to the S07 measurements, concluding that the strong

160: clustering measured at $z\sim 4$ can be understood only if quasar

161: duty cycles are high and the intrinsic scatter in the

162: luminosity-halo relation is small. In this paper, we take a further

163: step by jointly considering the evolution of the black hole-halo

164: relation and the black hole mass function, as constrained by the

165: observed AGN luminosity function and clustering. We examine

166: constraints on the host halos, duty cycles, radiative efficiencies,

167: and mean Eddington ratios of massive black holes at $z>3$, imposed

168: by the clustering measurements of S07 and by a variety of

169: measurements of the quasar luminosity function at $3 \le z \le 6$

170: (e.g., Kennefick et al. 1994; Pei 1995; Fan et al. 2001, 2004;

171: Barger et al. 2003; Wolf et al. 2003; Hunt et al. 2004; Barger \&

172: Cowie 2005; La Franca et al. 2005; Nandra et al. 2005; Cool et al.

173: 2006; Richards et al. 2006a; Bongiorno et al. 2007; Fontanot et al.

174: 2007; Shankar \& Mathur 2007; Silverman et al. 2008; Shankar et al. 2010a,b).

175: 

176:   Our method of incorporating luminosity function constraints is simple.

177: We assume the existence of a relation between black hole mass \mbh and halo virial velocity \vvir at high redshift and assume that the slope of this relation is the same as observed locally, but leave its normalization, redshift evolution and scatter as adjustable parameters.

178: Since the halo mass function is predicted from theory at

179: every redshift, the evolution of the black hole mass function

180: follows once the \mbh-\vvir relation is specified. This growth of

181: black holes is then used to predict the AGN luminosity function, in

182: terms of the assumed radiative efficiency

183: $\epsilon/(1-\epsilon)=L/\dot{M}_{\rm BH}c^2$ and Eddington ratio

184: $\lambda=L/L_{\rm Edd}$ of black hole accretion, which can be

185: compared to observations. This method inverts the ``continuity

186: equation'' approach to quasar modeling, in which one uses the

187: observed luminosity function to compute the implied growth of the

188: black hole mass function (e.g., Cavaliere et al. 1971; Small \&

189: Blandford 1992; Yu \& Tremaine 2002; Steed \& Weinberg 2003; Marconi

190: et al. 2004; Shankar et al. 2004; Yu \& Lu 2004; Shankar, Weinberg,

191: \& Miralda-Escud\'{e} 2009a, hereafter SWM; Shankar 2009).

192: 

193: We make no specific hypothesis about the mechanisms that trigger

194: high-redshift quasar activity. Our model simply assumes that a

195: relation between \mbh and \vvir exists and that it is maintained by

196: mass accretion that produces luminous quasar activity, assuming no significant

197: time delay between the two. As detailed below,

198: simultaneously matching the observed luminosity function and the S07

199: clustering measurements, especially their $z=4$ correlation length,

200: is in general quite difficult. Moderately

201: successful models must share the common

202: requisites of having low intrinsic scatter in the \mbh - \vvir relation and a

203: high value of the ratio $\epsilon/\lambda$. %For example our

204: %``reference model'' (see \S~\ref{subsec|bestfitmodel} below) has

205: %$\epsilon=0.15$ and $\lambda=0.25$ and underpredicts the $z=4$

206: %correlation length by about $2\sigma$; raising the correlation

207: %length while maintaining the luminosity function requires higher

208: %$\epsilon$ and/or lower $\lambda$.

209: %, which implies radiative efficiencies of

210: %$\epsilon \gtrsim 0.25$ if black holes are accreting close to their

211: %Eddington limit at high redshifts.

212: Although these findings are affected by the model adopted to compute

213: the halo bias factor, we will show that they do not otherwise depend on the details of

214: our modeling and can be understood in simple, general terms. %Strong

215: %clustering implies that massive black holes reside in massive,

216: %highly biased halos and are therefore rare. Reproducing the observed

217: %quasar population with a low black hole mass density requires a high

218: %radiative efficiency (So{\l}tan 1982). Alternatively, one can assume

219: %a low Eddington ratio, in which case the inferred black hole mass

220: %for a given luminosity is higher, boosting the inferred black hole

221: %mass density and lowering the required radiative efficiency. We note

222: %that high radiative efficiencies are at odds with the value

223: %$\epsilon \lesssim 0.1$ obtained by matching the observed quasar

224: %luminosity function to the $z=0$ black hole mass function (e.g.,

225: %Marconi et al. 2004; Shankar et al. 2004; SWM). We discuss possible

226: %ways to resolve this tension in \S~\ref{sec|conclu}.

227: 

228: The mass function and clustering bias of rare, massive halos at high

229: redshift are crucial inputs for our modeling. We therefore test

230: existing analytic formulae for these quantities against measurements

231: from the large N-body simulation developed by the MICE

232: collaboration, which uses $10^9$ particles to model a comoving

233: volume of $768\, h^{-1}\, {\rm Mpc}$ on a side. %Our measurements

234: %favor the Sheth et al. (2001) bias formula over the higher (by

235: %$\sim$ 20\%) bias factor of Jing (1998).

236: %We reach similar conclusions to WMC about the duty cycles and scatter in the

237: %luminosity-halo relation, though our use of the Sheth et al. (2001)

238: %bias factors instead of the Jing (1998) bias factors makes it harder

239: %to reproduce the $z=4$ clustering results of S07.

240: 

241:   Throughout this paper the following cosmological parameters have

242: been used, consistent with the best-fit model to WMAP5 data (Spergel

243: et al. 2007): $\Omega_m=0.25$, $\Omega_L=0.75$, $\sigma_8=0.8$,

244: $n=0.95$, $h\equiv H_0/100\, {\rm km\, s^{-1}\, Mpc^{-1}}=0.7$,

245: $\Omega_b=0.044$.

246: 

247: \section{MODEL}

248: \label{sec|method}

249: 

250: \subsection{AGN BIAS AND LUMINOSITY FUNCTION}

251: \label{subsec|AGN}

252: 

253: In the local universe, the masses of black holes are tightly

254: correlated with the velocity dispersion \sis of their parent bulges

255: (e.g., Ferrarese \& Merritt 2000; Gebhardt et al. 2000; Tremaine et

256: al. 2002; Shankar \& Ferrarese 2009). This relation has been

257: recently re-calibrated by Tundo et al. (2007) as

258: \begin{equation}

259: \log \left(\frac{\bar{M}_{\rm BH}}{M_{\odot}}\right)=8.21+3.83\log

260: \left(\frac{\sigma}{200\, {\rm km\, s^{-1}}}\right)\, .

261:     \label{eq|MbhSigma}

262: \end{equation}

263: where we denote the average black hole mass at a fixed $\sigma$

264: as $\bar{M}_{\rm BH}$. The bulge velocity dispersions are in turn correlated with large

265: scale circular velocities (Ferrarese 2002; see also Baes et al. 2003

266: and Pizzella et al. 2005):

267: \begin{equation}

268: \log V_c=(0.84\pm 0.09)\log \sigma+(0.55\pm 0.19)\, ,

269:     \label{eq|sigVvir}

270: \end{equation}

271: with \sis and $V_c$ measured in ${\rm km\, s^{-1}}$. For a flat

272: rotation curve, the disk circular velocity is equal to the halo

273: virial velocity \vvir. Departures from isothermal halo profiles,

274: gravity of the stellar component, and adiabatic contraction of the

275: inner halo can alter the ratio \vvir$/V_c$, but the two quantities

276: should remain well correlated nonetheless (e. g., Mo et al. 1998; Mo

277: \& Mao 2004 and references therein). Thus, the

278: correlations~(\ref{eq|MbhSigma}) and (\ref{eq|sigVvir}) imply a

279: correlation between black hole mass and halo virial velocity,

280: although we should expect the \mbh-\vvir relation to have a larger

281: scatter than the observed \mbh-\sis relation (e.g., Ho 2007b).

282: 

283: As mentioned in \S~\ref{sec|intro}, the models we shall construct

284: assume that black holes at $z>3$ lie on an \mbh-\vvir relation of

285: similar form. We parameterize this relation as

286: \begin{equation}

287: \bar{M}_{\rm BH}=\alpha \left(\frac{V_{\rm vir}}{300\, {\rm km\,

288: s^{-1}}}\right)^{4.56}\left(\frac{1+z}{4.1}\right)^{\gamma}\times

289: 1.5\times 10^{8}\, M_{\odot}\, ,

290:     \label{eq|MbhVvirRelation}

291: \end{equation}

292: which corresponds to equations~(\ref{eq|MbhSigma}) and

293: (\ref{eq|sigVvir}) with \vvir replacing $V_c$. We define $\alpha$ as

294: the normalization of the \mbh-\vvir relation at $z=3.1$, which

295: corresponds to the mean redshift in the lower subsample of S07. The

296: factor $\alpha$ allows both for an offset between the $z=3.1$ and

297: $z=0$ relations and for a ratio \vvir$/V_c\neq 1$ at $z=0$. For

298: example, typical disk galaxy models (e.g., Mo et al. 1998; Seljak

299: 2002; Dutton et al. 2007; Gnedin et al. 2007) have

300: $V_c/$\vvir$\approx 1.4-1.8$ at $z=0$, which would imply

301: normalizations $\alpha \approx 5-15$ for

302: equation~(\ref{eq|MbhVvirRelation}) at $z=0$ because of the steep

303: power of velocity. Note that none of our results depend on

304: the $z=0$ normalization of the $\bar{M}_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation

305: because we use only high redshift data in this paper. In

306: addition, we allow redshift evolution in the \mbh-\vvir relation at

307: $z>3.1$ through the index $\gamma$.

308: 

309: The relation between the halo virial velocity \vvir and the halo

310: virial mass $M$ is

311: \begin{eqnarray}

312: V_{\rm vir}=\left(\frac{GM}{R_{\rm

313: vir}}\right)^{1/2}=228\left(\frac{M}{10^{12}\, {\rm

314: M_{\odot}}}\right)^{1/3}\times \nonumber\\

315: \left[\frac{\Omega_m}{0.25}\frac{1}{\Omega_m^z}\frac{\Delta}{18\pi^2}\right]^{1/6}\left(\frac{1+z}{4.1}\right)^{1/2}\,

316: {\rm km\, s^{-1}}\, , \label{eq|Vvir}

317: \end{eqnarray}

318: where the mean density contrast (relative to critical) within the

319: virial radius $R_{\rm vir}$ is $\Delta=18\pi^2+82d-39d^2$, with

320: $d\equiv \Omega_m(z)-1$, and

321: $\Omega_m(z)=\Omega_m(1+z)^3/\left[\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{\Lambda}\right]$

322: (Bryan and Norman 1998; Barkana \& Loeb 2001). In terms of halo

323: mass, equation~(\ref{eq|MbhVvirRelation}) corresponds to

324: \begin{eqnarray}

325: \bar{M}_{\rm BH}=\alpha \left(\frac{M}{10^{12}\, {\rm

326: M_{\odot}}}\right)^{1.52}\left[\frac{\Omega_m}{0.25}\frac{1}{\Omega_m^z}\frac{\Delta}{18\pi^2}\right]^{0.76}\times\nonumber\\

327: \left(\frac{1+z}{4.1}\right)^{\gamma+2.28}\times 4.3\times 10^{7}\,

328: M_{\odot}\, .

329:     \label{eq|MbhMhalo}

330: \end{eqnarray}

331: We assume the presence of a scatter about this mean relation, with a

332: log-normal distribution and a dispersion $\Sigma$ in the logarithm

333: of black hole mass at fixed \vvir.

334: 

335: Given the theoretically known halo mass function, we

336: compute the black hole mass function via the convolution

337: \begin{eqnarray}

338: \Phi_{\rm BH}(M_{\rm BH},z)=\int

339: \Phi_h(M,z)(2\pi\Sigma^2)^{-1/2}\times \nonumber\\

340: \exp \left[-\frac{(\log \bar{M}_{\rm BH}[M,z]-\log M_{\rm BH})^2}

341: {2\Sigma^2}\right]d\log M \, ,

342:     \label{eq|FMBH}

343: \end{eqnarray}

344: with

345: \begin{equation}

346: \Phi_s(x,z)=n_s(x,z)x \ln(10)\, ,

347:     \label{eq|PhibhLog}

348: \end{equation}

349: where $\Sigma$ is the log-normal scatter in \mbh at fixed halo mass,

350: $x=$\mbh$\,$ or $M$, and $n_s(x,z)dx$ is the comoving number

351: density of black holes/halos (for subscript $s={\rm BH}$ or $s=h$)

352: in the mass range $x\rightarrow x+dx$, in units of ${\rm Mpc^{-3}}$

353: for $H_0=70\, {\rm km\, s^{-1}\, Mpc^{-1}}$. The units of $\Phi_s$

354: are comoving ${\rm Mpc^{-3}}$ per decade of mass. We convert to

355: these units in order to compare with the data on the AGN luminosity

356: function.

357: 

358:   The quasar luminosity function $\Phi(L,z)$, expressed in

359:   the same units as $\Phi_s(x,z)$,

360:   is modeled according to a simple

361: prescription where black holes can be in only two possible states:

362: active or inactive. All black holes that are active accrete with a

363: single value of the radiative efficiency, $\epsilon$, and of the

364: Eddington ratio, $\lambda = L/L_{\rm Edd}$, where $L$ is the

365: bolometric luminosity and

366: \begin{equation}

367: L_{\rm Edd}=1.26\times 10^{38}\, {\rm erg\, s^{-1}}

368: \left(\frac{M_{\rm BH}}{{\rm M_{\odot}}}\right) =

369: l\left(\frac{M_{\rm BH}}{{\rm M_{\odot}}}\right) ~,

370:     \label{eq|Lbol}

371: \end{equation}

372: is the Eddington luminosity (Eddington 1922). The growth rate of an

373: active black hole of mass \mbh is $\dot{M}_{\rm BH}=$\mbh$/t_{\rm

374: ef}$, where the \emph{e}-folding time is (Salpeter 1964)

375: \begin{equation}

376: t_{\rm ef}=4\times 10^8\left(\frac{f}{\lambda}\right)\, {\rm yr} \,

377: ,

378:     \label{eq|tefold}

379: \end{equation}

380: where $f=\epsilon/(1-\epsilon)$, and the radiative efficiency is

381: $\epsilon=L(1-\epsilon)/[\dot{M}_{\rm BH}c^2]$. (Radiative

382: efficiency $\epsilon$ is conventionally defined with respect to the

383: mass inflow rate $\dot{M}$, and the black hole mass growth rate

384: $\dot{M}_{\rm BH}$ is smaller by a factor $1-\epsilon$ because of

385: radiative losses).

386: 

387: Once the parameters $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ of the \mbh-\vvir relation

388: are specified, the growth of $\Phi_{\rm BH}(M_{\rm BH},z)$ is

389: determined by the (theoretically calculable) evolution of the halo

390: mass function $n_h(M,z)$. We compute the AGN luminosity function

391: assuming that this growth is produced by accretion with radiative

392: efficiency $\epsilon$ and Eddington ratio $\lambda$. This method

393: inverts a long-standing approach to modeling AGN and black hole

394: evolution in which one calculates the growth of the black hole mass

395: function implied by the observed luminosity function using a

396: ``continuity equation''$\,$,

397: \begin{equation}

398: \frac{\partial n_{\rm BH}(M_{\rm BH},t)}{\partial

399: t}=-\frac{1}{t_{\rm ef} \ln(10)^2 M_{\rm BH}}\frac{\partial

400: \Phi(L,z)}{\partial \log L}\,

401:     \label{eq|continEq}

402: \end{equation}

403: (see, e.g., Cavaliere et al. 1971; Small \& Blandford 1992; Yu \&

404: Tremaine 2002; Marconi et al. 2004; SWM).

405: Here we ignore the impact of black hole mergers in the evolution of the black hole mass function, because the black hole mass growth via mergers is relatively small, as we show in detail in the Appendix.

406: 

407: Knowing $\Phi_{\rm BH}(M_{\rm BH},z)$, we can invert

408: equation~(\ref{eq|continEq}) to obtain the luminosity function

409: \begin{eqnarray}

410: \Phi(L,z)=\, -\, \ln(10)t_{\rm ef}\int_{\log M_{\rm BH}}^{\infty}

411: \frac{\partial \Phi_{\rm BH}(M'_{\rm BH},z)}{\partial

412: z}\frac{dz}{dt}\times \nonumber\\

413: \left|\frac{d\log L}{d\log M'_{\rm BH}}\right|d\log M'_{\rm BH}\, .

414:     \label{eq|continEqInv}

415: \end{eqnarray}

416: In practice, we integrate equation~(\ref{eq|continEqInv}) up to

417: black hole masses of $\log M_{\rm BH}/M_{\odot}=11$.

418: Equation~(\ref{eq|continEqInv}) assumes a strictly monotonic,

419: scatter-free relation between AGN luminosity and black hole mass.

420: Therefore in our models the only source of scatter between AGN

421: luminosity and halo mass is the scatter in the \mbh-\vvir relation.

422: However, provided that the $L$-\vvir scatter is fairly small (as we

423: find it must be to explain the observed clustering), we expect that

424: it makes little difference whether it arises from scatter in

425: \mbh$\,$ or scatter in $\lambda$.

426: 

427: The average growth rate of all black holes

428: (active and inactive) of mass \mbh is

429: $\langle \dot{M}_{\rm BH}\rangle=P_0 M_{\rm BH}/t_{\rm ef}$,

430: where the duty cycle $P_0$ is the probability that a black hole is

431: in the active state. In models with a single value of $\lambda$, the

432: duty cycle is simply the ratio of the luminosity function to the

433: mass function,

434: \begin{equation}

435: P_0(M_{\rm BH},z)=\frac{\Phi(L,z)}{\Phi_{\rm BH}(M_{\rm BH},z)}\,

436:     \label{eq|P0general}

437: \end{equation}

438: where $L=\lambda \, l\, \frac{M_{\rm BH}}{{\rm M_{\odot}}}$. A physically consistent model must have $P_0\le 1$ for all \mbh and $z$, and can be directly computed from

439: equations~\ref{eq|FMBH} and \ref{eq|continEqInv}.

440: 

441: In addition to the AGN luminosity function, we test our models

442: against the clustering measurements of S07, specifically their

443: reported values of the AGN correlation length $r_0$. We calculate

444: these correlation lengths from the condition

445: \begin{equation}

446: \bar{b}^2(z)D^2(z)\xi(r_0)=1\, ,

447:     \label{eq|r0}

448: \end{equation}

449: where $\xi(r_0)$ is the Fourier transform of the linear power

450: spectrum, $D(z)$ is the linear growth factor of perturbations, and

451: $\bar{b}(z)$ is the mean clustering bias of AGN shining above a

452: luminosity threshold $L_{\rm min}$ at redshift $z$, given by (Haiman

453: \& Hui 2001)

454: \begin{equation}

455: %\={b}(z)=\frac{\int_{M_{h,min}}^{\infty}n(M,z)b(M,z)dM}{\int_{M_{h,min}}^{\infty}n(M,z)dM}

456: \bar{b}(z)=\frac{\int_{L_{\rm min(z)}}^{\infty}\Phi(L,z)b(L,z)d\log

457: L}{\int_{L_{\rm min}(z)}^{\infty}\Phi(L,z)d\log L}\, .

458:     \label{eq|bias}

459: \end{equation}

460: The minimum luminosity $L_{\rm min}(z)$ in equation~(\ref{eq|bias})

461: is a bolometric quantity, while the S07 bias is measured above a

462: redshift dependent, $K$-corrected $M_i$ magnitude. To convert from

463: magnitudes to bolometric luminosities, we first convert to $B$

464: magnitudes assuming $M_B=M_i(z=2)+0.804$ (Richards et al. 2006b),

465: and then adopt an average bolometric correction of $C_B=10.4$, with

466: $L=C_B L_B\nu_B$, where $\nu_B$ is the frequency at the center of

467: the $B$-band (at wavelength $4400$ {\AA}). Because our models assume

468: a single Eddington ratio $\lambda$, $b(L,z)$ is just equal to the

469: bias $b(M_{\rm BH},z)$ of black holes of mass $M_{\rm

470: BH}=L/l\lambda$. The latter is computed from the $b(M,z)$ of

471: \emph{halos} of mass $M$ using the model relation between \mbh and

472: $M(z)$ (equation~[\ref{eq|MbhMhalo}]). Including the log-normal

473: scatter of width $\Sigma$, the black hole bias is

474: \begin{eqnarray}

475: b(M_{\rm BH},z)=\left[\Phi_{\rm BH}(M_{\rm BH},z)\right]^{-1}\int

476: b(M,z)\Phi_h(M,z)\times \nonumber\\

477: (2\pi\Sigma^2)^{-1/2} \exp \left[-\frac{(\log \bar{M}_{\rm

478: BH}[M,z]-\log M_{\rm BH})^2} {2\Sigma^2}\right]d\log M \, .

479:     \label{eq|biasL}

480: \end{eqnarray}

481: We discuss our choice of $b(M,z)$ in \S~\ref{subsec|comparesimul}.

482: 

483: In summary, the free parameters of our model are:

484: \begin{itemize}

485:   \item the normalization constant $\alpha$ in the \mbh-\vvir

486:   relation,

487:   \item the parameter $\gamma$ which regulates the redshift evolution

488:   $[(1+z)/4.1]^{\gamma}$ of this relation,

489:   \item the mean Eddington ratio $\lambda$ of active black holes,

490:   \item the log-normal scatter $\Sigma$ in \mbh at fixed \vvir,

491:   \item the radiative efficiency $\epsilon$ of black hole accretion.

492: \end{itemize}

493: The predicted bias in these models is completely independent of the

494: assumed radiative efficiency (when other parameters are held fixed),

495: since the efficiency does not affect the relation between luminosity

496: and halo mass.

497: 

498: \begin{figure}[ht!]

499: \epsscale{1.1} \plotone{fig1.eps} \caption{Halo mass function:

500: comparison between N-body measurements and analytic fits. {\it Upper

501: panel :} Measured mass functions for FoF halos identified at

502: redshifts 3 (\emph{filled circles}), 4 (\emph{filled squares}), 5

503: (\emph{open triangles}) and 6 (\emph{open circles}) in our

504: simulation are in better agreement with Sheth \& Tormen (1999)

505: (\emph{discontinuous} lines) rather than the Jenkins et al. (2001)

506: (\emph{solid} lines) analytic fits. Fits are displayed for the same

507: redshifts as measurements in the simulation: from $z=3$

508: (\emph{upper} lines) to $z=6$ (\emph{bottom} lines). {\it Lower

509: panel :} Fractional deviations of the measured mass functions

510: (symbols as in upper panel) and the Sheth \& Tormen predictions

511: (\emph{discontinuous} lines as above) with respect to the Jenkins et

512: al. fit (\emph{solid} line).} \label{fig|simulMF}

513: \end{figure}

514: 

515: \subsection{MASS FUNCTION AND HALO BIAS}

516: \label{subsec|comparesimul}

517: 

518: The high redshift quasars used by S07 and our study are believed to

519: reside in very rare halos with ${\rm M}\sim 10^{12-13} h^{-1}\,{\rm

520: M_{\odot}}$ at redshifts $z=3$ to $6$. While extensive work has been

521: done to determine the abundances and clustering of halos at $z<3$,

522: testing the accuracy of simple analytic formulae against predictions

523: from cosmological numerical simulations of structure formation, this

524: work has not been extended to the high-redshift ($z\sim 3-6$), rare

525: massive halos we are interested in here (but see Reed et al. 2007,

526: 2008).

527: 

528:   We perform this test here, using a large N-body simulation from the

529: MICE collaboration (Fosalba et al.\ 2007) with $1024^3$ particles

530: and cubic volume of side $L_{\rm box}=768\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}$, for

531: the cosmological parameters listed in \S~\ref{sec|intro}. The

532: initial conditions were set at $z=50$ using the Zel'dovich

533: approximation, with an input linear power spectrum given by the

534: analytic fit of Eisenstein and Hu (1999). The subsequent

535: gravitational evolution was followed using the Tree-SPH code

536: Gadget-2 (Springel et al. 2005). Halos were identified using the

537: Friends-of-Friends algorithm (Davis et al.\ 1985), with linking

538: length equal to $0.164$ times the mean interparticle density.

539: %separation

540: %(FROM JORDI: is this right? note $b$ is already used for bias!)

541: The minimum halo mass resolved in the simulation is ${\rm M}_{\rm

542: min}=6\times 10^{11} h^{-1}\, {\rm M_{\odot}}$, with a minimum of 20

543: particles per halo.

544: 

545: The halo mass function from the simulation is shown as solid symbols

546: in Figure~\ref{fig|simulMF} (filled circles, filled squares, open

547: triangles and open circles indicate the abundances of halos at

548: redshifts $z=$3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively). We plot the quantity

549: $f(M,z)=n_h(M,z)dM$, where $n_h(M,z)dM$ is the number of halos per

550: comoving volume at redshift $z$ with mass between $M$ and $M+dM$.

551: The dashed and solid lines are the analytical models from Sheth \&

552: Tormen (1999; ST hereafter) and Jenkins et al. (2001; their equation

553: B2), respectively, plotted at the same redshifts. To better display

554: the difference between simulations and models, the lower panel of

555: Figure~\ref{fig|simulMF} shows the fractional deviation with respect

556: to the Jenkins et al. (2001) fit, with all the lines and symbols as

557: in the upper panel.

558: 

559: Overall, we find that the ST model fits the simulations in the range

560: $z=3$ to $5$ within $15\%$ accuracy, while for $z=6$ the error is

561: about $20\%$ in the range $\log(M/M_{\odot}\,  h^{-1})=12-13$. We

562: use the ST model in the rest of the paper, because the Jenkins et

563: al. (2001) formula is clearly a worse fit to the simulation results

564: in the regime of interest.

565: 

566: As mentioned before, the halos we are interested in are rare, and

567: studying their clustering properties is therefore difficult. This

568: ``rarity'' can be quantified by means of the peak height $\nu =

569: \delta_c / \sigma(M,z)$, which characterizes the amplitude of

570: density fluctuations from which a halo of mass $M$ forms at a given

571: redshift $z$ (here, $\delta_c=1.686$, and $\sigma(M,z)$ is the

572: linear overdensity variance in spheres enclosing a mean mass $M$).

573: 

574:  Gao et al.\ (2005) computed the halo bias using the Millenium

575: simulation (Springel 2005) at redshifts $z=0-5$, but only for halos

576: collapsing from fluctuations up to $3\sigma$. Angulo et al.\ (2008)

577: measured the bias of $\sim 4.5\sigma$ halos, but only for $z\le 3$.

578: In the context of the reionization of the universe, Reed et al

579: (2008) studied the bias of $< 4\sigma$ halos at redshift $z > 10$.

580: Additional work on halo bias is presented in Seljak \& Warren

581: (2004), Cohn \& White (2008), Basilakos et al.\ (2008), and

582: references therein. In this section we extend these studies to the

583: regime of our interest, namely $3-5\sigma$ halos at $z=3-6$.

584: 

585: \begin{figure*}[ht!]

586: %\epsscale{0.47} \plotone{SMTvsMass.eps}

587: %\epsscale{0.47} \plotone{b.vs.nu.eps}

588: \centering \epsscale{1.1} \plotone{fig2.eps} \caption{Halo bias

589: estimated from $\xi_{hm}/\xi_{mm}$ on scales $8-38\, h^{-1}\, {\rm

590: Mpc^{-1}}$. The symbols represent the results from a MICE simulation

591: for different redshifts and halo masses as labeled (see text for

592: details). In the \emph{left} panel we show halo bias vs. mass and

593: the corresponding prediction of Sheth, Mo \& Tormen (2001). The

594: \emph{right} panel shows bias vs. peak height $\nu=\delta_c/\sigma$

595: and includes the Jing (1998) fit (which mostly coincides with Mo \&

596: White [1996] expression at these values of $\nu$). The Sheth et al.

597: (2001) bias works well overall, but it underestimates the results

598: from the simulation at high redshifts. Jing's fit, on the other

599: hand, overpredicts the measurements for all masses and redshifts

600: studied by as much as $15-20\%$.} \label{fig|simul}

601: \end{figure*}

602: 

603:   We computed the bias factor of halos from simulation outputs at

604: $z=3,4,5,5.5$ and $6$. At each output we divided the halo catalogue

605: into three mass bins of equal separation in $\log M$,

606: $\log(M/M_{\odot} h^{-1})=11.75-12.25, 12.25-12.75$, and

607: $12.75-13.25$. We then measured the ratio of correlation functions

608: $b=\xi_{hm}(r)/\xi_{mm}(r)$ at $10$ bins of equal width in $\log r$

609: in the range $8\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}\le r \le 38\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}$

610: (where $\xi_{hm}$ is the two-point halo-matter correlation and

611: $\xi_{mm}$ the matter-matter correlation function). The bias was

612: computed as the mean of these values, and their variance was used as

613: a rough estimate of the error. We warn that this error indicator may

614: be underestimating the true uncertainty in our measurements, since

615: the correlation function errors are correlated in neighboring radial

616: bins (although this effect is less severe in the presence of shot

617: noise).

618: 

619:   We analyze halo bias from $\xi_{hm}$ instead of $\sqrt{\xi_{hh}}$ to

620: overcome the intrinsic noise in the latter quantity due to low halo

621: abundance (see also Cohn \& White 2008). The two definitions may

622: differ owing to stochasticity in the halo-matter relation. However,

623: we have tested that both measures yield consistent results (within

624: error bars), while the variance among different bins is reduced by

625: about $50\%$ when using $\xi_{hm}$ (details of this comparison are

626: given in the Appendix).

627: 

628: In addition to the $8-38\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}$ measurements, we have

629: computed bias using the $\xi_{\rm 20}$ measure adopted by S07 and

630: using the range $30-60\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}$. These results are

631: reported in the Appendix. We find no evidence for scale dependence

632: of the halo bias outside our statistical uncertainties, but the

633: issue deserves further investigation in future work (Reed et al.

634: 2009).

635: 

636: In Figure~\ref{fig|simul} we show the results for the halo bias at

637: high redshift as obtained from the MICE simulation (with symbols

638: corresponding to different redshifts as labeled in the figure). The

639: left panel depicts the bias as a function of halo mass for various

640: redshifts; the lines are predictions from the ellipsoidal collapse

641: formula of Sheth, Mo \& Tormen (2001),

642: \begin{eqnarray}

643: b_{SMT}&=&1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{a}\delta_c}\left[\sqrt{a}(a\nu^2)+\sqrt{a} b (a\nu^2)^{1-c} \right. \nonumber \\

644: &&\left. -\frac{(a\nu^2)^c}{(a\nu^2)^c+b(1-c)(1-c/2)}\right],

645: \label{SMT01}

646: \end{eqnarray}

647: where $a=0.707$, $b=0.5$, $c=0.6$, $\nu=\delta_c/\sigma(M,z)$ and

648: $\delta_c=1.686$. The right panel shows instead the bias as a

649: function of peak height $\nu$, in terms of which the predictions for

650: all redshifts coincide (equation~[\ref{SMT01}]). In addition to

651: equation~(\ref{SMT01}), we also include in this figure the fitting

652: formula derived by Jing (1998; see also Mo \& White 1996).

653: 

654: Figure ~\ref{fig|simul} shows that Jing's (1998) fit overestimates

655: the bias at all redshifts and masses studied at the $15-20\%$ level.

656: The Sheth, Mo, \& Tormen (2001) prescription is in good agreement

657: with the simulation for the lower fluctuations ($\nu \leq 4$) that

658: correspond to halos of mass $3\times 10^{12}\,h^{-1}\,{\rm

659: M_{\odot}}$ at $z \le 5$, but it underestimates the bias of the

660: rarest halos of $\nu > 4$ by up to $10\%$. As noted by Crocce,

661: Pueblas \& Scoccimarro (2006), transients from the Zel'dovich

662: dynamics generally used to set up the initial conditions lead to

663: systematically high values for halo bias. This effect manifests

664: itself more strongly in rare halos, so the discrepancy with Sheth et

665: al. (2001) in this regime could be a numerical artifact rather than

666: inaccuracy of the analytic model. Our conclusions are in good

667: agreement with existing work on halo bias covering slightly

668: different regimes (and mentioned at the beginning of this section).

669: Therefore, we will use the Sheth et al. (2001) model for the bias

670: and discuss in \S~\ref{subsec|bestfitmodel} the impact that adopting

671: Jing's (1998) bias formula would have on our conclusions.

672: 

673: 

674: \begin{figure*}[ht!]

675: \epsscale{1.1} \plotone{fig3.eps} \caption{\emph{Upper left panel}:

676: Model predictions for the quasar correlation length $r_0$ as a

677: function of redshift for different values of the input parameters,

678: as labeled, computed above the luminosity threshold taken from

679: Figure 1 of Richards et al. (2006a). The \emph{diamonds} and

680: \emph{triangles} are the Shen et al. (2007) clustering measurements,

681: corrected to $H_0=70\, {\rm km\, s^{-1}\, Mpc^{-1}}$, calibrated on

682: their ``good'' and total sample, respectively (see Shen et al. for

683: details). \emph{Upper right panel}: model predicted luminosity

684: functions at $z=3.1$, for the same set of models; the data are the

685: collection from Shankar et al. (2009a) and

686: Shankar \& Mathur (2007), to which we refer the reader for details.

687: \emph{Lower left panel}: model predicted luminosity functions at

688: $z=4.5$. \emph{Lower right panel}: model predicted luminosity

689: functions at $z=6.0$. The \emph{open} and \emph{filled} circles in

690: the last three panels represent the AGN luminosity function before

691: and after obscuration correction, respectively (see text for

692: details). The vertical, thick, dotted lines in this and the following Figures mark the bolometric luminosity of $L=8\times

693: 10^{46}\, {\rm erg\, s^{-1}}$, taken as the approximate luminosity threshold

694: of the clustering measurements. Only data in the luminosity function above this threshold have been taken into account in the $\chi^2$-fitting.} \label{fig|r0z}

695: \end{figure*}

696: 

697: \section{RESULTS}

698: \label{sec|results}

699: 

700: \subsection{COMPARISON TO OBSERVATIONAL DATA}

701: \label{subsec|models}

702: 

703: \subsubsection{The data}

704: \label{subsubsec|data}

705: 

706: In this section we compare our model predictions with the available

707: data on quasar clustering and the AGN luminosity function. This

708: comparison is made in Figure 3, where the upper left panel shows

709: results for the AGN correlation length and the other three panels

710: show the luminosity function at three different redshifts: $z=3.1$,

711: $z=4.5$ and $z=6$.

712: 

713:   The data on

714: the clustering are taken from S07, who have recently extended beyond

715: $z\sim 3$ previous measurements of the quasar clustering at lower

716: redshifts from the Two Degree Field Quasar Redshift Survey (Porciani

717: et al. 2004; Croom et al. 2005; Porciani and Norberg 2006; da

718: \^{A}ngela et al. 2006; Mounthrichas et al. 2008) and SDSS (e.g.,

719: Myers et al. 2007; Strand et al. 2008; Padmanabhan et al. 2008). All

720: the symbols in the upper left panel of Figure~\ref{fig|r0z}

721: represent the SDSS measurements averaged over sources with redshifts

722: $2.9\le z \le 3.5$ and $z\ge 3.5$. The diamonds and triangles refer

723: to the S07 results extracted for the ``good'' and whole samples,

724: respectively.\footnote{S07 in their clustering analysis remove the

725: ``bad'' fields, i.e. those which do not fully satisfy their

726: photometric criteria of completeness, but also report clustering

727: measurements performed on the whole sample. We presume throughout

728: this paper that the ``good'' measurements (shown with diamonds) are

729: more reliable and the ones that any successful model must reproduce;

730: however, following S07, we will always report both sets of data in

731: the Figures. The smaller number of pairs at small separations in the

732: ``good'' sample could lead to systematic errors in the correlation

733: length estimate as well as larger statistical uncertainties (Y.

734: Shen, private communication).} Following S07, we take $z=3.1$ and

735: $z=4.0$ as the effective measurement redshifts for the two redshift

736: bins.

737: 

738: The S07 clustering measurements are for optically identified AGNs

739: only. However, the growth of black holes is connected to the total

740: luminous output of the AGN population, not that of obscured or

741: unobscured sources alone. We consider obscuration here as a random

742: variable not linked with the large scale clustering of AGNs, so that

743: the correlation length of obscured AGNs is the same as that of

744: unobscured ones of the same bolometric luminosity. This assumption

745: is plausible regardless of whether obscuration is principally a

746: geometrical effect or an evolutionary phase.

747: 

748: Following SWM, we take the AGN luminosity function at the mean

749: redshifts of $z=3.1$, $4.5$, and $6$, where most of the high

750: redshift optical and X-ray data sets collected in SWM and Shankar \&

751: Mathur (2007; and references therein) are concentrated. We then

752: adopt\footnote{We also insert a Jacobian correction factor in their

753: equation (4) between observed $B$-band and bolometric luminosities.}

754: equation~(4) of Hopkins et al. (2007a) to re-normalize the

755: luminosity function to include obscured sources, assuming the

756: obscuration is independent of redshift. However, because the

757: obscuration correction may suffer from significant uncertainties,

758: even up to a factor of a few (e.g., Ueda et al. 2003; La Franca et

759: al. 2005; Tozzi et al. 2006; Gilli et al. 2007; Hopkins et al.

760: 2007a), when comparing model predictions to the bolometric

761: luminosity function we will also include uncertainty in the

762: obscuration correction as a source of systematic error to be added

763: to the statistical error of the luminosity function measurements. In

764: Figure~\ref{fig|r0z} the filled and open circles show the luminosity

765: function with and without obscuration corrections, respectively.

766: 

767: \subsubsection{General properties of the models}

768: \label{subsubsec|generalproperties}

769: 

770: Figures~\ref{fig|r0z} and \ref{fig|scatter} illustrate the

771: dependence of model predictions on the adopted parameters. In

772: general terms, we can understand the interplay between the different

773: parameters by combining equations~(\ref{eq|MbhMhalo}),

774: (\ref{eq|tefold}) and (\ref{eq|continEqInv}). Before examining the

775: impact of individual parameter changes, we should note that there is

776: one exact degeneracy within our family of models, if the luminosity

777: function and correlation length are the only constraints. If we

778: lower the Eddington ratio by a factor of $\Gamma$ but raise the

779: \mbh-\vvir normalization $\alpha$ by the same factor, then the host

780: halo mass at a given quasar \emph{luminosity} is unchanged, so the

781: predicted clustering is unchanged. All black hole masses are larger

782: by a factor $\Gamma$, and so are their average growth rates required

783: to match the evolving halo mass function, but if we lower the

784: efficiency factor $f=\epsilon/(1-\epsilon)$ by the same factor

785: $\Gamma$, then the luminosity function implied by this growth is

786: unchanged. Our analysis therefore cannot constrain $\lambda$ and $f$

787: individually, but it can provide interesting constraints on the

788: \emph{ratio} $f/\lambda$.

789: 

790: In Figure~\ref{fig|r0z}, all models have evolution parameter

791: $\gamma=1.0$ and a tight correlation between \mbh and $M$, with

792: $\Sigma=0.1$ dex. Solid lines in each panel show the predictions of

793: a ``reference model'' with radiative efficiency $\epsilon=0.15$,

794: Eddington ratio $\lambda=0.25$, and a normalization of the

795: \mbh-\vvir relation $\alpha=1.1$. This model matches the S07 value

796: of $r_0$ at $z=3.1$. At $z=4$, it is consistent with S07's

797: measurement from the full quasar sample, but it falls below the

798: ``good'' sample measurements by about $2\sigma$. This model is in

799: fairly good overall agreement with the bright end of the AGN

800: luminosity function at all redshifts, though it is somewhat low at

801: $z=4.5$.

802: 

803: In general all our models tend to overpredict the faint end of the

804: AGN luminosity function below $L\sim 10^{46}\, {\rm erg\, s^{-1}}$

805: at $z=3.1$ and, more severely, at $z=4.5$. These behaviors suggest

806: that one or more of the model assumptions break down at lower

807: luminosities. For example, the assumption of a constant $\lambda$

808: and $\epsilon$ may not be valid. Alternatively, the assumed

809: monotonic relation between black hole mass and halo mass could break

810: down in this regime (see, e.g., Tanaka \& Haiman 2008). However,

811: these hypotheses cannot be tested with the present data because the

812: bias measurements by S07 do not probe luminosities fainter than

813: $L\le 10^{47}\, {\rm erg\, s^{-1}}$, which is where our models start

814: diverging from the data. We therefore do not attempt to reproduce

815: the faint end of the AGN luminosity function with our models in this

816: work.

817: 

818:  We now examine the consequences of varying each of the five model

819: parameters, as listed at the end of \S~\ref{subsec|AGN}. We first

820: consider lowering the Eddington ratio to $\lambda=0.1$, keeping the

821: other parameters fixed. Since the black hole abundances and their

822: growth rates are fixed by their correspondence to halos, the duty

823: cycles must increase as the inverse of $\lambda$ to compensate for

824: the lower accretion rates during the active phase, thereby keeping

825: the average volume emissivity from quasars constant. The results for

826: this case are shown as the dotted line in Figure~\ref{fig|r0z}. A

827: better match to the high observed clustering amplitude is clearly

828: achieved, because the observed quasars correspond to more massive

829: black holes and rarer halos. However, the fit to the luminosity

830: function is worse because the abundance of the most luminous quasars

831: is underpredicted. Low values of the Eddington ratio are also

832: disfavored by other observational (e.g., McLure \& Dunlop 2004;

833: Vestergaard et al. 2004; Bentz et al. 2006; Kollmeier et al. 2006;

834: Kurk et al. 2007; Netzer \& Trakhtenbrot 2007; Shen et al. 2008) and

835: theoretical studies (Shankar et al. 2004; Lapi et al. 2006;

836: Volonteri et al. 2006; Li et al. 2007; SWM; Di Matteo et al. 2008).

837: 

838:  When the \mbh-\vvir normalization $\alpha$ is lowered (dashed curve in

839: Figure~\ref{fig|r0z}), the effect is simply to lower the black hole

840: masses and quasar luminosities at fixed abundance. At fixed quasar

841: luminosity, the clustering increases owing to the greater mass of

842: the associated halos, but the decrease in abundance prevents a good

843: match to the data. The dot-dashed curve illustrates the triple

844: degeneracy described at the beginning of this section: a different

845: set of ($\lambda$,$\alpha$,$\epsilon$) values whose predictions are

846: nearly identical to those of the reference model.

847: 

848: Figure~\ref{fig|scatter} shows the effect of varying the scatter

849: $\Sigma$ or the evolution parameter $\gamma$ of the \mbh-\vvir

850: relation. A low scatter maximizes the bias for a given set of other

851: parameters, so low scatter is favored to reproduce the high values

852: measured for $r_0$ at these redshifts (see also WMC). On the other

853: hand, semi-empirical studies and AGN theoretical modeling support a

854: significant intrinsic scatter for the \mbh-$M$ relation at redshifts

855: $z\lesssim 3$ (e.g., Lapi et al. 2006; Haiman et al. 2007; Myers et

856: al. 2007; Gultekin et al. 2009). Increasing the scatter to $\Sigma=0.3$ (dotted lines),

857: boosts the AGN luminosity function by increasing the number of

858: massive black holes, but it depresses clustering because more

859: quasars at a given $L$ reside in less massive halos. It also

860: slightly flattens the dependence of the predicted $r_0$ on redshift.

861: We then need to lower $\alpha$ or $\lambda$ to restore the

862: luminosity function and increase $r_0$. However, lowering $\lambda$

863: or $\alpha$ would also require higher radiative efficiencies to keep

864: the match to the luminosity function. We also find that models with

865: $\Sigma=0.3$, $\epsilon \gtrsim 0.25$, and $\alpha \lesssim 0.7$

866: predict more AGNs than black holes, yielding the unphysical

867: condition of $P_0>1$ at $z>4$.

868: 

869: %

870: \begin{figure*}[ht!]

871: \epsscale{1.1} \plotone{fig4.eps} \caption{Impact of changing the

872: scatter $\Sigma$ or evolution parameter $\gamma$ of the \mbh-\vvir

873: relation. The format is as in Figure~\ref{fig|r0z}, and the adopted

874: model parameters are labeled in the upper left panel. Increasing

875: scatter worsens the match to the clustering data, and lowering

876: $\gamma$ worsens the match to luminosity function evolution.}

877: \label{fig|scatter}

878: \end{figure*}

879: %

880: 

881: The parameter $\gamma$ regulates the amplitude of the model AGN

882: luminosity function at high redshifts relative to that at $z=3.1$.

883: Dashed lines in Figure~\ref{fig|scatter} show a model with evolution

884: index $\gamma=0$ and other parameters the same as those of the

885: reference model. Lowering $\gamma$ maps the same $L$ to higher mass,

886: more biased halos at higher redshifts, steepening the $r_0-z$

887: relation and bringing it closer to the observed trend. However, more

888: massive halos are rarer at higher redshifts, so the predicted AGN

889: luminosity function drops significantly below the data at $z=4.5$

890: and, especially at $z=6$. %While the \mbh-\vvir relation at $z=3$ is

891: %similar to what found locally being $\alpha=1.1$, in agreement with

892: %independent results (e.g., Shankar et al. 2008b),

893: %($\gamma=-0.5$, see eq.~\ref{eq|Vvir})

894: Reproducing the observed luminosity evolution requires positive

895: evolution ($\gamma

896: >0$) of the \mbh-\vvir relation.

897: 

898: \subsubsection{A closer comparison}

899: \label{subsubsec|chi2}

900: 

901: Figure~\ref{fig|Chi2} presents a more systematic view of the

902: dependence of clustering and luminosity function predictions on

903: model parameters. Because none of our models reproduce all aspects

904: of the data, and because observational errors may in some cases be

905: dominated by systematic rather than statistical uncertainties, we

906: have taken only a semi-quantitative route to comparing models and

907: measurements. The upper left panel shows models with $\lambda=0.25$,

908: $\Sigma=0.1$, and $\gamma=1$, defining the contour levels of acceptable

909: models on a grid of

910: ($\alpha$, $\epsilon$) values.

911: The blue and red areas define the regions

912: where the $\chi^2_{\rm dof}$ for the luminosity is below 3 and 1.5,

913: respectively. Here $\chi^2_{\rm dof}=\chi^2/N$, where $N=45$ is the number of points in

914: the luminosity function, which include only those points

915: (from Figure~\ref{fig|r0z}) with $L\ge 8\times

916: 10^{46}\, {\rm erg\, s^{-1}}$, the approximate luminosity threshold

917: of the clustering measurements, marked with vertical, thick, dotted lines in the Figures. For comparison, note that the models shown by the

918: dashed and dotted lines in Figure~\ref{fig|r0z} have $\chi^2/N=5.41$

919: and $18.13$, respectively, while the reference model has

920: $\chi^2/N=1.37$. If the data points were independent, then even

921: $\chi^2/N=1.37$ for $N=45$ would be an enormous statistical

922: discrepancy, but the systematic uncertainty in the obscuration

923: correction, at least, is highly correlated among points at a given

924: redshift, motivating our rather loose criterion for ``agreement''.

925: We assign observational errors to

926: each data point equal to the reported statistical error (usually

927: derived from the Poisson error on counts in the bin) summed in

928: quadrature with 50\% of the difference between the obscuration

929: corrected and uncorrected luminosity function estimates. This

930: procedure is \emph{ad hoc}, but it captures the reasonable

931: expectation that the uncertainty on the obscuration correction is of

932: the same order as (but smaller than) the correction itself, and the

933: fact that the scatter among data sets visible in

934: Figure~\ref{fig|r0z} is comparable to the difference between open

935: and filled symbols.

936: 

937: The double-hatched and hatched

938: areas define the regions where $\chi^2=(r_{\rm 0, obs}-r_{\rm 0,

939: pred})^2/\sigma_{\rm obs}^2$, with the S07 value of $(r_{\rm

940: 0, obs}, \sigma_{\rm obs})=(24.3, 2.4)h^{-1}$ at $z=4.0$, is above 6 (i.e., a $\gtrsim 2.5\sigma$ discrepancy) and 4, respectively.

941: Note that the contour plots for the clustering are vertical,

942: given that the predicted clustering strength is independent

943: of the values for the radiative efficiency (see \S~\ref{sec|method}).

944: We find the constraints from the S07 clustering measurement of $(r_{\rm 0,

945: obs}, \sigma_{\rm obs})=(16.9, 1.7)h^{-1}$ at $z=3.1$ not

946: to be very constraining given that almost all models

947: explored in Figure~\ref{fig|Chi2} are consistent with

948: such data at the $\lesssim 2\sigma$ level.

949: It is clear from Figure~\ref{fig|Chi2} that the acceptable models

950: are in general places in the upper-left corner of the ($\alpha$, $\epsilon$) plane,

951: characterized by higher radiative efficiencies and

952: lower values of $\alpha$ for the same quasar luminosity/black hole mass,

953: which implies higher halo masses (equation~[\ref{eq|MbhMhalo}])

954: and corresponding clustering amplitude.

955: 

956: 

957: \begin{figure*}[ht!]

958: \epsscale{1.1} \plotone{fig5.eps} \caption{The $\chi^2_{\rm dof}$

959: per degree of freedom as a function of the radiative efficiency

960: $\epsilon$ and  $\alpha$, the normalization of the \mbh-\vvir

961: relation, with other parameters fixed at the values listed on top of

962: each panel. The blue and red areas define the regions in the $\epsilon$-$\alpha$ plane

963: where the $\chi^2_{\rm dof}$ for the luminosity is below 3 and 1.5,

964: respectively. For the

965: luminosity function we have used only the data with $L\ge 8\times 10^{46}\,

966: {\rm erg\, s^{-1}}$, which is the luminosity threshold above which

967: clustering measurements are available. The double-hatched and hatched

968: areas define the regions where the $\chi^2_{\rm dof}$

969: for the correlation length at $z=4$ is above 6 and 4, respectively.

970: The \emph{circle} in the

971: upper left panel marks the parameters of our reference model.}

972: \label{fig|Chi2}

973: \end{figure*}

974: 

975: Examination of Figure~\ref{fig|Chi2} reinforces the generality of

976: the points made in our discussion of Figures~\ref{fig|r0z} and

977: \ref{fig|scatter}. The circle in the upper left panel marks our

978: reference model with $\alpha=1.1$, $\gamma=1.0$, $\Sigma=0.1$,

979: $\lambda=0.25$, $\epsilon=0.15$. Note that our reference model is

980: \emph{not} the best-fit model, as some models characterized by

981: higher radiative efficiency and lower $\alpha$ have an overall lower

982: $\chi^2$. However, we preferred to adopt as working models those

983: defined by not too extreme values of the radiative efficiency. Also,

984: the reference model already predicts $P_0\approx 1$ at $z=6$ (see

985: Figure~\ref{fig|dutycycle} below), and lowering $\alpha$ reduces the

986: black hole space density and pushes $P_0$ above unity. Other models

987: with the same $\alpha$ but different $\epsilon$ have

988: identical clustering, but the match to the observed luminosity

989: function becomes worse for $\epsilon \le 0.1$ and $\epsilon \ge 0.25$.

990: Lowering $\alpha$ at fixed $\epsilon$ improves the clustering

991: agreement but quickly makes the luminosity function agreement worse.

992: Raising $\alpha$ to 1.2 or 1.3 slightly improves the luminosity

993: function agreement but worsens the clustering agreement. Raising

994: $\lambda$ to 0.5 (upper right panel) worsens the agreement with the

995: $z=4$ clustering if $\epsilon$ and $\alpha$ are held fixed. However,

996: because of the 3-way degeneracy noted at the beginning of this

997: section, a model with $\lambda=0.5$, $\epsilon=0.25$, and

998: $\alpha=0.5$ makes very similar predictions to a model with

999: $\lambda=0.25$, $\epsilon=0.15$, $\alpha=1.0$ (which has $f/\lambda$

1000: smaller by a factor of $\approx 2$), and we disfavor the higher

1001: $\lambda$ models only on physical grounds because of the high

1002: required efficiency. Models with $\Sigma=0.3$ (lower left) yield

1003: consistently worse agreement with the $z=4$ correlation length

1004: unless lower values of $\alpha$ are adopted, but low-$\alpha$ models

1005: produce $P_0>1$ at high redshifts and require high radiative

1006: efficiencies to match the luminosity function. Models with

1007: $\gamma=0.0$ (lower right) yield consistently worse agreement with

1008: the luminosity function.

1009: 

1010: Our reference model underpredicts the S07 $z=4$ correlation length

1011: (the value for ``good'' fields) by $2.2\sigma$, and it slightly

1012: underpredicts the observed luminosity function in the luminosity

1013: range corresponding to the S07 quasar sample. If we take these

1014: discrepancies as a maximal allowed level of disagreement, then our

1015: reference model effectively defines a lower limit on the allowed

1016: value of $f/\lambda$, at $f/\lambda$=0.7. This conclusion does not

1017: depend on our adopted bolometric correction. If we assumed a

1018: bolometric correction higher by a factor $\Gamma$, then we would

1019: require higher $\lambda$ (by the same factor) for fixed black hole

1020: masses to match our revised estimate of the bolometric luminosity

1021: function. We would also require higher $f$, again by a factor

1022: $\Gamma$, to reproduce the observed luminosity function history

1023: while building the same black hole population. For observationally

1024: estimated Eddington ratios $\lambda\gtrsim 0.25$ (Kollmeier et al.

1025: 2006; Shen et al. 2008) our limit on $f/\lambda$ implies

1026: $\epsilon\gtrsim 0.15$, significantly higher than the radiative

1027: efficiency $\epsilon\approx 0.1$ expected for the disk accretion

1028: onto a non-rotating black hole.

1029: 

1030: \subsubsection{Varying the bias}

1031: \label{subsubsec|varyingbias}

1032: 

1033: These constraints would be much looser if we adopted the Jing (1998)

1034: bias function instead of the Sheth et al. (2001) formula that fits

1035: our N-body data. As already discussed in the previous sections, the

1036: Jing (1998) formula predicts a significantly higher value of the

1037: bias. Therefore, a much larger family of models can match the $z=4$

1038: S07 clustering measurements, with no strict requirement for a high

1039: $f/\lambda$ ratio. For example, Figure~\ref{fig|JingModel} compares

1040: the predictions of the reference model to two alternatives, one with

1041: $\epsilon =0.065$ ($f/\lambda\approx 0.28$) and one with

1042: $\lambda=0.5$ ($f/\lambda\approx 0.22$), with $r_0$ calculated using

1043: the Jing (1998) formula in all models. The luminosity function

1044: predictions of the reference model are unchanged, and all three

1045: models yield acceptable agreement with the $z=4$ clustering

1046: measurement. The low $\epsilon$ model underpredicts the luminosity

1047: function, but the $\lambda=0.5$ model overpredicts it, and lowering

1048: $\epsilon$ to $\sim 0.1$ in this case would yield acceptable

1049: agreement. All three models overpredict the $z=3.1$ correlation

1050: length. With optimal choices of $\alpha$ and $\lambda$, one could

1051: find models that graze the top of the $z=3.1$ error bar and the mean

1052: of the $z=4$ correlation length while acceptably matching the bright

1053: end of the luminosity function (e.g., $\lambda=0.3$,

1054: $\epsilon=0.06$, $\gamma=1$, $\alpha=2.3$, $\Sigma=0.1$).

1055: Alternatively, one could adopt any of the models shown in

1056: Figure~\ref{fig|JingModel} but drive down the $z=3.1$ clustering by

1057: assuming that the scatter $\Sigma$ grows substantially between $z=4$

1058: and $z=3$.

1059: 

1060: \begin{figure*}[ht!]

1061: \epsscale{1.1} \plotone{fig6.eps}

1062: \caption{Same format as Figure~\ref{fig|r0z}, but Jing's (1998) bias

1063: formula has been adopted instead of the Sheth et al. (2001) one, and

1064: we consider models with lower values of $\epsilon/\lambda$ in

1065: addition to the reference model (\emph{solid} line). In the upper

1066: left panel, the \emph{solid} line overwrites the \emph{dot-dashed}

1067: line because the two models have the same black hole mass-halo mass

1068: relation.} \label{fig|JingModel}

1069: \end{figure*}

1070: %

1071: 

1072: \subsection{BIAS AND DUTY CYCLE PREDICTIONS FOR THE REFERENCE MODEL}

1073: \label{subsec|bestfitmodel}

1074: 

1075: 

1076: %

1077: Here we discuss further properties and predictions of a model that

1078: simultaneously matches the observed luminosity function and (at the

1079: $2\sigma$ level) the clustering. For simplicity all the results

1080: presented below are obtained from the reference model, which has

1081: ($\alpha$, $\Sigma$, $\gamma$, $\lambda$, $\epsilon$)=(1.1, 0.1,

1082: 1.0, 0.25, 0.15). Figure~\ref{fig|bLz} shows the predicted bias

1083: $b(L,z)$ as a function of $B$-band magnitude; the solid, dashed and

1084: dotted lines correspond to $z=3.1$, 4.5 and 6, respectively. Note

1085: that $b(L,z)$ now refers to bias at a given luminosity rather than

1086: above a given luminosity. The predicted bias increases significantly with

1087: luminosity, at variance with what has been observed at lower

1088: redshifts $z\lesssim 2$, where evidence for a much flatter behavior

1089: of the bias against luminosity has been found (e.g., da \^{A}ngela

1090: et al. 2006; Myers et al. 2007; Porciani \& Norberg 2006; Coil et

1091: al. 2007; Mountrichas et al. 2008; Padmanabhan et al. 2008). Note

1092: that our prediction applies only to the very bright end of the AGN

1093: luminosity function, with $L \gtrsim 8\times 10^{46}\, {\rm erg\,

1094: s^{-1}}$; there are no available clustering measurements below this

1095: luminosity at $z>3.5$.

1096: 

1097: \begin{figure}[ht!]

1098: \epsscale{1.1} \plotone{fig7.eps}

1099: \caption{Predicted bias for our reference model as a function of

1100: $B$-band magnitude at different redshifts, as labeled.}

1101: \label{fig|bLz}

1102: \end{figure}

1103: %

1104: 

1105: We compute the effective halo mass that corresponds to the quasar

1106: hosts at the S07 luminosity thresholds via the relation $b(M_{\rm

1107: eff},z)=\bar{b}(z)$. Our reference model yields $M_{\rm eff}\sim

1108: 1.1\times 10^{13}\, {\rm h^{-1}\, M_{\odot}}$, nearly constant

1109: within $3\le z\le 6$. This mass scale is in marginal agreement with

1110: what has been inferred from the clustering analysis of large

1111: AGN-galaxy surveys at lower redshifts (e.g., Myers et al. 2007;

1112: Mountrichas et al. 2008), supporting a roughly constant host halo

1113: mass for luminous quasars at all times. Our reference model

1114: underpredicts the S07 correlation length at $z=4$, so if we used

1115: their measured bias we would obtain a somewhat higher $M_{\rm eff}$

1116: at this redshift. In fact, S07 find an effective host halo mass for

1117: quasars at $z\gtrsim 3.5$ that is a factor of two higher than the

1118: host halo mass for quasars with $2.9\le z \le 3.5$. Their mean

1119: values are $M_{\rm eff}=2.5\times 10^{12}\,h^{-1}\, {\rm M_{\odot}}$

1120: and $5\times 10^{12}\,h^{-1}\, {\rm M_{\odot}}$ in the low and high

1121: redshift bins, respectively, significantly lower than our quoted

1122: value, owing to their use of the Jing (1998) bias formula, which

1123: yields lower halo masses at fixed bias.

1124: 

1125: Francke et al. (2008) have recently measured the clustering of 58

1126: X-ray selected AGNs at $z\sim 3$ in the Extended Chandra Deep Field

1127: South, cross correlating them with a sample of 1385 luminous blue

1128: galaxies at the similar redshifts. Their quoted bias is $b=4.7\pm

1129: 1.7$ corresponding to halos of mass $\log

1130: M/M_{\odot}=12.6^{+0.5}_{-0.8}$, in line with the previous findings

1131: by Adelberger \& Steidel (2005) derived from optical quasar samples

1132: at similar redshifts and luminosities. These studies probe AGNs about 6

1133: magnitudes fainter than those probed by S07, and they seem to

1134: support a significant decrease of the bias at lower luminosities.

1135: These results would then be in qualitative agreement with our model

1136: predictions, but at variance with the flat dependence of quasar

1137: clustering on luminosity found at lower redshifts (e.g., Myers et

1138: al. 2007; Coil et al. 2007; Padmanabhan et al. 2008). Larger surveys

1139: of low-luminosity quasars are needed to reduce the errors on the

1140: clustering measurements.

1141: 

1142: \begin{figure}[ht!]

1143: \epsscale{1.1} \plotone{fig8.eps}

1144: \caption{Predicted duty cycle for our reference model as a function

1145: of black hole mass at different redshifts, as labeled. The vertical

1146: \emph{dot-dashed} line marks the point below which the results

1147: should be treated with caution, since there are no clustering

1148: constraints below this limit and the model overpredicts the

1149: luminosity function.} \label{fig|dutycycle}

1150: \end{figure}

1151: %

1152: 

1153: Figure~\ref{fig|dutycycle} shows the duty cycle $P_0$ as a function

1154: of black hole mass and redshift (eq.~\ref{eq|P0general}). Results

1155: below $\sim 6\times 10^8\, {\rm M_{\odot}}$, marked with a vertical

1156: dot-dashed line in the Figure, should be treated with caution, since

1157: there are no clustering constraints in this regime and the model

1158: overpredicts the luminosity function. Above this limit the predicted

1159: duty cycles are roughly constant with mass, with values of $P_0\sim

1160: 0.28, 0.52$ and 0.95 at $z=3.1$, $4.5$ and $6$, respectively. We are

1161: using the \emph{model} luminosity function to compute these duty

1162: cycles via equation~(\ref{eq|P0general}), but the agreement with the

1163: observed $\Phi(L,z)$ is good enough (Figure~\ref{fig|r0z}) that we

1164: can consider this a smooth proxy for the observational data.

1165: 

1166: \section{PREDICTIONS FOR $z>6$}

1167: \label{sec|predictionszgt6}

1168: 

1169: The high duty cycle inferred at $z=6$ has profound implications for

1170: the evolution of the luminosity function at still higher redshifts.

1171: Between $z=3$ and $z=6$, the decreasing abundance of halos

1172: with increasing redshift is partly compensated by the factor of

1173: three increase in duty cycle. However, duty cycles cannot exceed

1174: unity by definition, so at $z>6$ the fast drop of the massive and

1175: rare host halos implies an equally rapid decline in the number

1176: density of luminous quasars. At the same time, the implied mass of

1177: quasar hosts moves even further out on the exponential tail of the

1178: halo mass function. Our models thus predict a decline in high

1179: redshift quasar numbers much steeper than expected from simple

1180: extrapolations of the $z=3-6$ luminosity function.

1181: 

1182: \begin{figure}[ht!]

1183: \epsscale{1.1} \plotone{fig9.eps}

1184: \caption{Number counts of AGNs per square degree per unit redshift

1185: as predicted by our reference model (\emph{thick} lines) as a

1186: function of redshift, above the labeled luminosity thresholds.

1187: \emph{Thin} lines refer to extrapolations of the Fan et al. (2004)

1188: luminosity function at the same redshifts and luminosities. The

1189: large \emph{open squares} indicate the number density per unit

1190: redshift corresponding to one single observable quasar in the whole

1191: sky.} \label{fig|Predictions}

1192: \end{figure}

1193: 

1194: Figure~\ref{fig|Predictions} demonstrates this point, showing the

1195: reference model predicted number counts of AGNs per square degree

1196: per unit redshift as a function of redshift, above luminosity

1197: thresholds of $\log L/{\rm erg\, s^{-1}}=47, 47.5,$ and $48$, as

1198: labeled. Evolution is more rapid for higher luminosity AGN because

1199: their host halos are further out on the tail of the mass function.

1200: The thin lines refer to extrapolations of the Fan et al. (2004)

1201: luminosity function at the same redshifts and luminosities. The

1202: latter is a power law $\Phi(L)\propto L^{-3.1}$ that describes the

1203: statistics of optical quasars in the range $\log L/{\rm erg\,

1204: s^{-1}}\gtrsim 47$ and $5.5\lesssim z \lesssim 6.5$; we do not apply

1205: any obscuration correction. Fan et al. (2004) find that a good

1206: representation of the data requires redshift evolution

1207: $\Phi(L,z)\propto 10^{-0.48\, z}$. It is evident from

1208: Figure~\ref{fig|Predictions} that our reference model predicts a

1209: decrease in AGN number density much faster than the one expected by

1210: naively extrapolating the Fan et al. (2004) trend to $z\gtrsim 6$.

1211: The open squares in Figure~\ref{fig|Predictions} indicate the number

1212: density per unit redshift corresponding to one single observable

1213: quasar in the whole sky. According to this model, the highest-$z$

1214: quasar in the sky with true $L> 10^{47.5}\, {\rm erg\, s^{-1}}$

1215: should be at $z \sim 7.5$ in our model; all quasars detected with

1216: higher apparent luminosities by future surveys would have to be

1217: magnified by lensing (see also Richards et al. 2004).

1218: 

1219: As recently discussed by Fontanot et al. (2007), the surface density

1220: inferred from the luminosity function of Fan et al. (2004) and

1221: Shankar \& Mathur (2007) predicts that only a few luminous sources

1222: will be detected in the field of view of even the largest and

1223: deepest future surveys such as JWST, and EUCLID. Our predictions

1224: suggest that these detections will be even rarer than

1225: simple empirical extrapolations predict.

1226: While the predictions of Figure~\ref{fig|Predictions} are specific

1227: to our adopted model parameters, this conclusion is likely to apply

1228: more generally to models that reproduce the strong $z=4$ clustering

1229: found by S07. This clustering implies high host halo masses and

1230: hence high duty cycles at $z=4$, so the declining black hole mass

1231: function cannot continue to be compensated by higher duty cycles

1232: towards higher redshifts (though rapid evolution of the \mbh-\vvir

1233: relation or rapidly increasing $\lambda$ values could compensate in

1234: principle). Very similar results are found with the $\epsilon=0.1$

1235: model of Figure~\ref{fig|r0z}.

1236: 

1237: Because the host halos of high redshift quasars are so highly

1238: biased, the predicted clustering remains strong at $z>6$. For the

1239: $\epsilon=0.15$ reference model, the predicted correlation length

1240: $r_0$ as a function of $B$-band luminosity and redshift can be well

1241: approximated by the relation $r_0(M_B,z)\simeq

1242: 27\times[(1+z)/7]^{0.3}(-26.5+M_B)^{0.5}$ Mpc, valid in the range

1243: $-29\lesssim M_B \lesssim -26.5$ and $6\lesssim z\lesssim 9$.

1244: 

1245: Local observations imply a ratio \mbh/$M_{\rm STAR}\approx 1.6\times

1246: 10^{-3}$ between the mass of the black hole and the stellar mass of

1247: its host bulge (e.g., Marconi \& Hunt 2003, H\"{a}ring \& Rix 2004).

1248: As discussed above, our reference model predicts increasing black

1249: hole masses at fixed virial velocity ($\gamma>1$) at $z>3$ as

1250: required to match the number density of very luminous quasars of

1251: $z=6$. However, with the assumption that the baryon fraction within

1252: a halo is universal, this implies that an increasing fraction of the

1253: baryons must be locked up into the central black hole. We show this

1254: in Figure~\ref{fig|fbar}, which plots the black hole-to-baryon

1255: fraction as a function of redshift predicted by our reference model.

1256: The baryonic mass fraction within any halo is set to be $M_{\rm

1257: BAR}/M=f_b=0.17$ (e.g., Spergel et al. 2007; Crain et al. 2007).

1258: Given that the stellar mass $M_{\rm STAR}$ in the local universe is

1259: unlikely to exceed $f_b$, and is more typically $\lesssim f_b/3$ in

1260: massive galaxies (e. g., Shankar et al. 2006), this implies that the

1261: black hole mass is $\lesssim 1.6\times 10^{-3}/3$ the mass of the

1262: total baryons in the host halo. This local ratio between black hole

1263: and baryonic mass is shown as a horizontal dotted line in

1264: Figure~\ref{fig|fbar}. The fraction of baryons locked in the central

1265: black hole increases at higher redshifts following the increase of

1266: virial velocity at fixed halo mass (Eq.~[\ref{eq|Vvir}]) and the

1267: increase of black hole mass at fixed virial velocity proportional to

1268: $(1+z)^{\gamma}$ (Eq~[\ref{eq|MbhVvirRelation}]). For our reference

1269: model, the \mbh/$M_{\rm BAR}$ ratio grows rapidly at high redshifts

1270: and exceeds the local value by nearly an order of magnitude at

1271: $z\gtrsim 6$ for \mbh$\ge 10^9\, {\rm M_{\odot}}$. Note that even a

1272: model with $\gamma=0$ still produces an increase of the $M_{\rm

1273: BAR}/M$ ratio with redshift, driven by the redshift dependence in

1274: equation~(\ref{eq|Vvir}), although it is just a factor of a few in

1275: this case.

1276: 

1277: \begin{figure}[ht!]

1278: \epsscale{1.1} \plotone{fig10.eps} \caption{Ratio between black hole

1279: and baryon mass within the halo, the latter computed as $M_{\rm

1280: BAR}=0.17\times M$, for three values of the black hole mass, as

1281: labeled. This ratio at $z\gtrsim 4$ gets higher than the local value

1282: between black hole and bulge mass of $(1/3)\times 1.6\times 10^{-3}$

1283: (\emph{dotted} line; see text), implying that at fixed stellar mass,

1284: a larger fraction of the baryons in high mass halos is locked in the

1285: central black hole at early times.} \label{fig|fbar}

1286: \end{figure}

1287: %

1288: 

1289: Therefore, we conclude that the relation between black hole and

1290: spheroidal stellar mass determined locally cannot continue to hold

1291: at very high redshifts if the large clustering strength reported at

1292: $z=4$ is to be matched, and that a much larger fraction of baryons

1293: in galaxies must accrete to the nuclear black holes at $z\gtrsim 4$.

1294: 

1295: \section{COMPARISON TO CONSTANT DUTY CYCLE MODELS}

1296: \label{sec|soltan}

1297: 

1298: The results in \S~\ref{sec|results} show that matching the high

1299: clustering signal measured by S07 requires a high duty cycle $P_0$,

1300: which corresponds to quasars preferentially residing in high mass,

1301: less abundant halos. This result has also been discussed by S07 and

1302: by WMC, following the method outlined by Martini \& Weinberg (2001)

1303: and Haiman \& Hui (2001). The model described in \S~\ref{sec|method}

1304: assumes an \emph{a priori} relation between luminosity $L$ and halo

1305: mass $M$. Since this model also predicts the AGN luminosity function

1306: from the equation governing the growth of black holes, it implicitly

1307: predicts the duty cycle required to assign an AGN luminosity to a

1308: halo mass and match their abundances. Martini \& Weinberg (2001) and

1309: WMC instead define the relation between $L$ and $M$ \emph{a

1310: posteriori}, i.e., from the cumulative matching between the

1311: \emph{observed} AGN luminosity function and the halo mass function,

1312: once an input duty cycle has been specified. Since both methods

1313: assume a (nearly) monotonic relation between luminosity and halo

1314: mass, they should yield a similar connection of duty cycle and

1315: clustering in cases where the \emph{a priori} model matches the

1316: observed luminosity function.

1317: 

1318: %

1319: \begin{figure*}[ht!]

1320: \epsscale{1.1} \plotone{fig11.eps}

1321: \caption{Correlation between black hole mass and halo virial

1322: velocity implied by the cumulative matching between the halo and

1323: black hole mass functions, the latter derived from the reference

1324: model luminosity function and a constant input duty cycle $P_0$. The

1325: different lines refer to different values of the duty cycle, as

1326: labeled, while the \emph{solid} line is the \mbh-\vvir relation

1327: corresponding to our reference model. The left and right panels show

1328: the resulting relations at redshifts $z=3.1$ and $z=4$,

1329: respectively.} \label{fig|MbhVvir}

1330: \end{figure*}

1331: 

1332: 

1333: To compare the two approaches in detail, we compute the relation

1334: between black hole mass and virial velocity for fixed duty cycle via

1335: the equation

1336: \begin{equation}

1337: \Phi_{\rm BH}(>M_{\rm BH},z)=\frac{\Phi(>L,z)}{P_0}=\Phi_h(>V_{\rm

1338: vir},z)\, ,

1339:     \label{eq|NumberMatching}

1340: \end{equation}

1341: where $\Phi(>L,z)$ is the model predicted

1342: AGN luminosity function, and $\Phi_h(V_{\rm vir},z)$ is derived from the halo mass function

1343: and the \vvir-\mh relation of equation~(\ref{eq|Vvir}). We assume

1344: $\lambda=0.5$ to convert from \mbh$\,$ to $L$.

1345: Figure~\ref{fig|MbhVvir} plots the relations implied by

1346: equation~(\ref{eq|NumberMatching}) at redshifts $z=3.1$ and $z=4$.

1347: Curves from top to bottom show the \mbh-\vvir relation assuming a

1348: constant duty cycle $P_0=0.1, 0.2, 0.3$ and $0.5$. Higher $P_0$

1349: corresponds to rarer halos, hence higher \vvir and stronger

1350: clustering. The solid curves in the two panels represent the output

1351: \mbh-\vvir relation for our reference model, which predicts a duty

1352: cycle of $P_0(z=3.1)\sim 0.30$ and $P_0(z=4.0)\sim 0.50$ at the high

1353: mass end. As expected, the \mbh-\vvir relation of our reference

1354: model is similar at high masses to that model with similar duty

1355: cycle. At lower masses, our model does not perfectly match the

1356: observed luminosity function and does not predict a constant duty

1357: cycle.

1358: 

1359: We compute the average bias for the constant duty cycle model via

1360: \begin{equation}

1361: \bar{b}(z)=\frac{\int_{M_{\rm

1362: min}(z)}^{\infty}b(M,z)\Phi_h(M,z)d\log M}{\int_{M_{\rm

1363: min}(z)}^{\infty}\Phi_h(M,z)d\log M}\, ,

1364:     \label{eq|biasCum}

1365: \end{equation}

1366: where $M_{\rm min}(z)$ is the halo mass corresponding to $L_{\rm

1367: min}(z)$ via equations~(\ref{eq|Vvir}) and

1368: (\ref{eq|NumberMatching}). Because the relation between $L$ and

1369: \vvir is determined by matching space densities, the predicted bias

1370: is independent of $\lambda$. Figure~\ref{fig|r0zDuty} plots the

1371: corresponding correlation length $r_0$, computed through

1372: equation~(\ref{eq|r0}), as a function of $P_0$ at $z=3.1$ and $4.0$.

1373: Solid and dashed lines show the results of using the Sheth et al.

1374: (2001) and Jing (1998) formulas, respectively, for the bias $b(M,z)$

1375: in equation~(\ref{eq|biasCum}). Shaded regions show the $1\sigma$

1376: range of the S07 measurements. As expected the clustering strength

1377: strongly increases with increasing duty cycle. In agreement with

1378: WMC, we find that a duty cycle $P_0\gtrsim 0.2$ is required to

1379: reproduce S07's $z=4$ measurement with the Jing (1998) bias formula.

1380: However, our N-body results favor the Sheth et al. (2001) bias

1381: formula, and in this case we cannot match the S07 ``good''

1382: measurement within $1\sigma$ at $z=4$ even for a maximal duty cycle

1383: $P_0=1$.

1384: 

1385: As shown in \S~\ref{sec|results}, models with high duty cycles

1386: require high $f/\lambda$ ratios to reproduce the observed luminosity

1387: function. This connection can be simply understood from

1388: equation~(\ref{eq|continEqInv}): increasing the duty cycle decreases

1389: the number density of halos that host AGNs, which in turn need to

1390: increase their \emph{e}-folding time $t_{\rm ef}$ to maintain the

1391: same observed luminosity density. Figure~\ref{fig|Soltan} shows this

1392: effect in detail. We first integrate our reference model luminosity

1393: function from $z=6$ down to a given redshift $z$ as

1394: \begin{equation}

1395: \rho_{\rm BH}(>\log L,z)=\frac{1-\epsilon}{\epsilon c^2}\int_{z}^6

1396: dz'\int_{\log

1397: L}^{\infty}\Phi(L',z')L'\left|\frac{dt}{dz'}\right|d\log L'\, .

1398:     \label{eq|soltan}

1399: \end{equation}

1400: We consider only luminous AGNs that shine with luminosity $\log

1401: L/{\rm erg\, s^{-1}}\ge 45$, corresponding to black hole masses

1402: above \mbh$\sim 10^7\,M_{\odot}$, which ensures that we are properly

1403: tracking the accretion histories of the most massive black holes. It

1404: is evident from equation~(\ref{eq|soltan}) that the accreted mass

1405: density does not depend on the black hole Eddington ratio

1406: distribution but only on the radiative efficiency. Our results are

1407: shown as stripes in Figure~\ref{fig|Soltan} for three different

1408: values of the radiative efficiency $\epsilon=0.10, 0.15$ and $0.25$,

1409: from top to bottom. The left and right panels of

1410: Figure~\ref{fig|Soltan} show the integrated mass density at $z=3.1$

1411: and $4$, respectively. Note that these are the black hole mass

1412: densities implied by the So{\l}tan (1982) argument given an input

1413: luminosity function that is a good match to observations.

1414: 

1415: Alternatively, by assuming an average duty cycle $P_0(z)$ at a given

1416: redshift $z$ we can convert the AGN luminosity function into a black

1417: hole mass density via

1418: \begin{equation}

1419: \rho'_{\rm BH}(>\log L,z)=\int_{\log L}^{\infty} \frac{L'}{\lambda

1420: P_0 l}\Phi(L',z)d\log L'\, .

1421:     \label{eq|rhoBHatgivenz}

1422: \end{equation}

1423: The latter estimate\footnote{Note that we do not consider any

1424: scatter between black hole mass and AGN luminosity in

1425: equation~(\ref{eq|rhoBHatgivenz}), as the luminosity function has

1426: been derived from the continuity equation in

1427: equation~(\ref{eq|continEqInv}), which requires a strictly monotonic

1428: relation between black hole and halo mass.} depends inversely on the

1429: Eddington ratio $\lambda$ because of the mapping of $L$ to \mbh, but

1430: it does not depend on the radiative efficiency. We plot $\rho'_{\rm

1431: BH}$ as a function of the duty cycle $P_0$ for $\lambda=0.25$, 0.5,

1432: and 1.0, with solid, dashed, and dotted lines, respectively. Results

1433: for the $z=3.1$ and $z=4$ accreted mass density are shown in the

1434: left and right panels of Figure~\ref{fig|Soltan}, respectively. It

1435: is noteworthy that the high radiative efficiency of $\epsilon=0.15$,

1436: as used in our reference model, is consistent with $P_0(z=3.1)\sim

1437: 0.28$ and $P_0(z=4)\sim 0.50$, in perfect agreement with our

1438: findings presented in Figure~\ref{fig|dutycycle}.

1439: 

1440: \begin{figure*}[ht!]

1441: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{fig12.eps} \caption{Predicted clustering

1442: correlation length $r_0$ computed above the minimum survey

1443: sensitivity as a function of duty cycle and adopting the luminosity

1444: function derived from our reference model. The \emph{solid} and

1445: \emph{long-dashed} lines refer to the $r_0$ implied by using Jing's

1446: (1998) and Sheth et al.'s (2001) bias formula, respectively. The

1447: left and right panels show our results at redshifts $z=3.1$ and

1448: $z=4$, respectively. Dark and light shaded bands show the $1\sigma$

1449: range of the S07 measurements at these redshifts, from ``good

1450: fields'' and ``all fields'', respectively. Maximal values of the

1451: duty cycle predict a clustering strength only marginally consistent

1452: with the data at $z=4$.} \label{fig|r0zDuty}

1453: \end{figure*}

1454: 

1455: Overall, we find evidence for a general rule of thumb: if black

1456: holes accrete at a significant fraction of the Eddington luminosity

1457: ($\lambda \gtrsim 0.25$) and possess high duty cycles as derived

1458: from their strong clustering (Figure~\ref{fig|r0zDuty}), then they

1459: must also radiate at \emph{high} radiative efficiencies

1460: ($\epsilon\gtrsim 0.15$) to match the AGN luminosity function and

1461: its evolution with redshift. This conclusion from constant duty

1462: cycle models is entirely consistent with our conclusions from

1463: \mbh-\vvir models discussed

1464: in \S\S~\ref{sec|method}-\ref{sec|predictionszgt6}.

1465: 

1466: %

1467: 

1468: \section{DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS}

1469: %\label{sec|discu}

1470: \label{sec|conclu}

1471: 

1472: We have investigated constraints on the host halos, radiative

1473: efficiencies and active duty cycles of high redshift black holes

1474: that are implied by recent measurements of the AGN luminosity

1475: function at $3\le z \le 6$ and of optical quasar clustering at

1476: $z\approx 3$ and $z\approx 4$. In this work we have derived the

1477: predicted AGN luminosity function implied by a model black hole mass

1478: function. The latter is built from the dark matter halo mass

1479: function at each redshift by applying a model relation between black

1480: hole mass and halo virial velocity, motivated by local observations.

1481: Our models are parameterized by the high-redshift normalization

1482: $\alpha$ and redshift evolution index $\gamma$ of the mean

1483: \mbh-\vvir relation (equation~[\ref{eq|MbhVvirRelation}]), by the

1484: log-normal scatter $\Sigma$ about this relation (in dex), and by the

1485: Eddington ratio $\lambda$ and radiative efficiency $\epsilon$ of

1486: black hole accretion.

1487: 

1488: A reference model with $(\alpha, \gamma, \Sigma, \lambda,

1489: \epsilon)=(1.1, 1.0,0.1,0.25,0.15)$ provides a good fit to the $z=3$

1490: correlation length $r_0$ and a reasonable fit to the bright end of

1491: the luminosity function ($L\gtrsim 10^{46.5}\, {\rm erg\, s^{-1}}$)

1492: at $z=3-6$. It overpredicts the faint end of the luminosity

1493: function, probably indicating that our assumption of a constant

1494: $\lambda$ or power-law \mbh-\vvir relation breaks down in this

1495: regime. More significantly, the model prediction is below S07's

1496: estimate of $r_0$ for luminous quasars at $z=4$, by about $2\sigma$.

1497: While lowering $\alpha$ or $\lambda$ raises the predicted $r_0$, it

1498: lowers the predicted luminosity function below the observations,

1499: unless we allow efficiencies greater than $\epsilon=0.15$.

1500: Increasing the scatter $\Sigma$ reduces the predicted clustering,

1501: making the overall fit to the data worse.  If we use S07's ``all

1502: field'' estimate of $r_0$ instead of their ``good field'' estimate,

1503: then the discrepancy at $z=4$ is under $1\sigma$.  The reference

1504: model predicts substantial luminosity and redshift dependence of the

1505: quasar correlation length at $z>3$ (Figure~\ref{fig|bLz}), with $r_0

1506: \approx 27\times[(1+z)/7]^{0.3}(-26.5+M_B)^{0.5}$ Mpc for $6 \leq z

1507: \leq 9$.

1508: 

1509: Models that successfully match the high redshift bias at $z\gtrsim

1510: 3$ require luminous AGNs to reside in massive and therefore rare

1511: halos, implying high duty cycles, $P_0 \sim 0.2,$ 0.5, 0.9 at

1512: $z=3.1$, 4.5, 6.0 in our reference model. Note that, although this

1513: model is consistent with the $z=4$ clustering only at the $2\sigma$

1514: level, it already produces a duty cycle close to unity at high

1515: redshifts. Raising the predicted correlation requires putting

1516: quasars in more massive, less numerous halos, and thus tends to push

1517: the required duty cycle above unity.

1518: 

1519: To simultaneously reproduce the observed luminosity function and

1520: bias, models must have $f/\lambda \gtrsim 0.7$, where $f =

1521: \epsilon/(1-\epsilon)$, so that the mass density of black holes in

1522: these rare halos corresponds to the cumulative emissivity of the

1523: luminous AGN. These findings are robust against uncertainties in the

1524: obscured fraction of AGNs or in the precise value of the mean

1525: bolometric correction (see discussion in \S~\ref{subsubsec|chi2}).

1526: The underlying physics that leads to these findings is easy to

1527: understand.  The strong observed clustering at $z=4$ implies a high

1528: duty cycle and thus a low space density of massive black holes.

1529: Reproducing the observed AGN emissivity with the low total mass

1530: density in black holes requires a high radiative efficiency.

1531: Lowering the assumed Eddington ratio implies a higher mass density (because

1532: each black hole is more massive) and a proportionally lower $f$.

1533: As shown in the Appendices, mergers are expected to have little

1534: impact on the BH mass function at these redshifts, but

1535: to the extent they do have an impact they raise the

1536: limit on $f/\lambda$ by adding mass without associated luminosity.

1537: 

1538: For any choice of the mean Eddington ratio, our successful models

1539: require positive evolution of the \mbh-\vvir relation ($\gamma > 0$)

1540: at $z>3$ to reproduce the evolving bright end of the luminosity

1541: function. Evolution of the Eddington ratio itself (higher $\lambda$

1542: at higher $z$) could in principle yield similar evolution.

1543: 

1544: It is beyond the purposes of the current

1545: work to extrapolate the simple model

1546: outlined here to lower redshifts. First of all, the basic

1547: treatment presented by SWM has shown that the large scale

1548: clustering of quasars can be simply matched by

1549: accretion models which evolve the black hole mass function

1550: assuming reasonable values

1551: of the radiative efficiency and Eddington ratios,

1552: which satisfy Soltan (1982)'s constraint. Moreover,

1553: at lower redshifts, several additional physical inputs

1554: need to be added to the model (e.g., the fraction

1555: of active satellites, mass-dependent Eddington ratios, AGN feedback) to

1556: reproduce the full quasar clustering at all luminosities, scales, and redshifts (e.g., Wyithe \& Loeb 2003; Scannapieco \& Ho 2004; Hopkins et al. 2008; Bonoli et al. 2009a; Thacker et al. 2009).

1557: 

1558: Previous work that attempted to simultaneously match the quasar

1559: luminosity function and bias has yielded somewhat different results

1560: from ours. Wyithe \& Loeb (2003, 2005; see also Rhook \& Haehnelt

1561: 2006) developed a model aimed at reproducing both the bias and the

1562: AGN luminosity function at several redshifts. They expressed the

1563: relation between the luminosity and halo mass via some AGN

1564: feedback-motivated models for the black hole-halo relation, and they

1565: assumed that black holes grow at the Eddington limit and radiative

1566: efficiency of $\epsilon=0.1$. Their values of $f/\lambda$ would then

1567: be lower by a factor of several with respect to ours. These

1568: differences are due to a different AGN bolometric luminosity

1569: function used (ours being a factor of a few higher) and the absence

1570: of the SDSS bias measurements at $z>3$. In brief, we do not think

1571: that these models would reproduce the observational data considered

1572: in this paper.

1573: 

1574: Our lower limit on $f/\lambda$ translates to a lower limit on

1575: radiative efficiency $\epsilon \ga 0.7\lambda/(1+0.7\lambda)$.  With

1576: observationally estimated values $\lambda \approx 0.3$ for the

1577: Eddington ratios of luminous high-redshift quasars (Kollmeier et

1578: al.\ 2006; Shen et al.\ 2008), this limit implies $\epsilon \ga

1579: 0.17$. Using a different approach that links the observed AGN

1580: luminosity function to the local black hole mass function via the

1581: continuity equation, a differential generalization of So{\l}tan's

1582: (1982) cumulative emissivity argument, SWM estimate an average

1583: radiative efficiency $\epsilon \approx 0.05-0.10$.  Other authors

1584: pursuing similar approaches and adopting similar bolometric

1585: corrections have reached similar conclusions (e.g., Salucci et al.

1586: 1999; Marconi et al. 2004; Shankar et al. 2004; Hopkins et al.

1587: 2007a; Yu \& Lu 2008; see SWM for further discussion). As discussed

1588: in detail by SWM, uncertainties in the local black hole mass

1589: function, bolometric corrections, and obscured fractions still leave

1590: significant range in the inferred value of $\epsilon$, but these

1591: uncertainties would have to be pushed to their extremes to

1592: accommodate $\epsilon \ga 0.17$.

1593: 

1594: One possible resolution of this tension is that the typical

1595: radiative efficiency is higher at $z>3$ than it is at the lower

1596: redshifts that dominate the overall growth of the black hole

1597: population.  However, the similarity of quasar spectral energy

1598: distributions at low and high redshifts (e.g., Richards et al.

1599: 2006b) argues against a systematic change in accretion physics.  We

1600: should therefore examine the loopholes in the argument for high

1601: efficiency presented here, noting that it is above all the $z=4$

1602: clustering measurement from S07 that drives our models to massive,

1603: rare halos and thus to high efficiencies to reproduce the luminosity

1604: function. Adopting the Jing (1998) bias formula instead of the Sheth

1605: et al. (2001) formula would allow us to match the clustering with

1606: less massive halos, but our numerical simulation results show that

1607: the Sheth et al. (2001) formula is more accurate in the relevant

1608: range of halo mass and redshift.

1609: 

1610: \begin{figure*}[ht!]

1611: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{fig13.eps} \caption{\emph{Left} panel: the

1612: \emph{horizontal stripes} show the integrated black hole mass

1613: density above $L=10^{45}\, {\rm erg\, s^{-1}}$ and $3.1<z<6$ derived

1614: from our reference model luminosity function for three different

1615: values of the radiative efficiency, as labeled; \emph{triple dot-

1616: dashed}, \emph{solid}, \emph{long-dashed}, and \emph{dot-dashed}

1617: lines indicate the black hole mass density implied by the luminosity

1618: function at $z=3.1$ integrated over mass assuming a mean Eddington

1619: ratio $\lambda=0.1,0.25,0.5,1$, respectively, as a function of duty

1620: cycle $P_0$. \emph{Right} panel: same as left panel but integrating

1621: the luminosity function over the redshift range $4<z<6$. For

1622: acceptable combinations of $\lambda$, $\epsilon$, and $P_0$, the

1623: line corresponding to $\lambda$ should intersect the band

1624: corresponding to $\epsilon$ at duty cycle $P_0$. High duty cycles

1625: require high radiative efficiencies or low Eddington ratios to

1626: reconcile the cumulative AGN emissivity with the black hole mass

1627: density in rare halos (see text).} \label{fig|Soltan}

1628: \end{figure*}

1629: 

1630: Our conclusion is insensitive to the specific assumption of a

1631: one-to-one power-law relation between black hole mass and halo

1632: virial velocity: monotonically matching luminosity functions and

1633: halo mass functions leads to a similar conclusion

1634: (\S\ref{sec|soltan}; WMC), and adding scatter, while plausible on

1635: physical grounds, only reduces clustering and thus exacerbates the

1636: underlying tension.  Because the implied characteristic halo mass is

1637: already well above $M_*$, halos hosting two or more quasars should

1638: be far too rare to significantly alter the large scale bias. Small-scale clustering studies of large $z>3$ quasar samples (Hennawi et al. 2009; Shen et al. 2009), will set more definite constraints

1639: on the actual fraction of active subhalos.

1640: 

1641: Our modeling does assume that halos hosting quasars have the same bias

1642: as average halos of the same mass, while Wechsler et al.\ (2006)

1643: find that the youngest 25\% of high redshift, high $M/M_*$ halos

1644: have a correlation length $\sim 13\%$ higher than the average

1645: correlation length of halos at the same mass and redshift.

1646: Clustering could be slightly boosted if active quasars

1647: preferentially occupy these younger halos, but the high duty cycle

1648: required in our models effectively closes this loophole, implying

1649: that the quasar host population includes the majority of massive

1650: halos rather than a small subset. Wyithe \& Loeb (2009) suggest that

1651: the strong $z=4$ clustering could be explained by tying quasar

1652: activity to recently merged halos, which might have stronger bias

1653: (see also Furlanetto \& Kamionkowski 2006; Wetzel, Cohn, \& White 2009).

1654: However, we suspect that halos with substantial

1655: excess bias might be too rare

1656: to satisfy duty cycle constraints,

1657: %and/or that the amount of necessary ``excess'' bias

1658: %required by Wyithe \& Loeb (2009; a factor of $\sim 1.5$) to be too high with respect to average,

1659: and a recent study by Bonoli et al. (2009b) uses outputs from the

1660: Millennium Simulation (Springel et al. 2005) to show that no excess

1661: bias is present in recently merged massive halos.

1662: 

1663: Perhaps the most plausible loophole in our conclusion is simply that

1664: the S07 $z=4$ correlation length is overestimated (or its

1665: statistical error underestimated), since it is the first measurement

1666: of its kind and there is a significant difference between the S07

1667: values for ``all fields'' and ``good fields'' (even though only 15\%

1668: of fields are excluded from the latter sample). Even the central

1669: value of the (lower) ``all fields'' measurement requires high

1670: $\epsilon$ or low $\lambda$ when combined with luminosity function

1671: constraints, but the lower $1\sigma$ value can be reconciled with

1672: $\epsilon \approx 0.1$ and $\lambda \approx 0.25$. The DR7 SDSS

1673: quasar sample should afford substantially better statistics than the

1674: DR5 sample analyzed by S07, allowing stronger conclusions about the

1675: host halo population.

1676: 

1677: In these models, the rapid decline in the number of luminous quasars

1678: between $z=3$ and $z=6$ is driven by the rapidly declining abundance

1679: of halos massive enough to host them.  However, the drop in halo

1680: abundance is partly compensated by a rise in the duty cycle over

1681: this interval, from $\sim 0.2$ to $\sim 0.9$ in our reference model.

1682: Since duty cycles cannot exceed one by definition, this compensation

1683: cannot continue much beyond $z=6$, and the decline in host halo

1684: abundance accelerates because these halos are far out on the

1685: exponential tail of the mass function.  The predicted evolution of

1686: the quasar population at $z>6$ is therefore much more rapid than

1687: simple extrapolations of the observed $z=3-6$ behavior.  This break

1688: to more rapid evolution at $z>6$ should be a generic prediction of

1689: models that reproduce the strong observed clustering at $z=4$,

1690: though in principle it could be softened by a rapid increase of

1691: Eddington ratios at $z>6$ or by a sudden change in evolution of the

1692: \mbh-\vvir relation.  Surveys from the next generation of wide-field

1693: infrared instruments will have to probe to low luminosities to

1694: reveal the population of growing black holes at $z>7$.

1695: 

1696: %\end{doublespace}

1697: 

1698: \begin{acknowledgements}

1699: We thank Yue Shen and Paul Martini for useful discussions and

1700: comments. This work was supported by NASA Grant NNG05GH77G. MC

1701: acknowledges support from the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y

1702: Tegnologia (MEC) through a Juan de la Cierva program,  and grant

1703: AYA2006-06341. PF acknowledges support from the Spanish MEC through

1704: a Ramon y Cajal fellowship, and grants AYA2006-06341, 2005SGR-00728.

1705: We acknowledge the use of simulations from the MICE Consortium

1706: (www.ice.cat/mice) developed at the MareNostrum supercomputer

1707: (www.bsc.es) and stored at the PIC (www.pic.es).

1708: \end{acknowledgements}

1709: 

1710: 

1711: \begin{appendix}

1712: \section{Halo Bias at high redshift}

1713: 

1714: In this Appendix we provide additional details of our bias analysis

1715: from the N-body simulation introduced in

1716: \S~\ref{subsec|comparesimul}, in particular the difference between

1717: using quasi-linear scales (e.g. $8-38\,\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}$ as

1718: reported) or larger ones. We also comment on the distinction between

1719: deriving the bias from the halo autocorrelation $\xi_{hh}$ or the

1720: halo-matter correlation function $\xi_{hm}$. We finish by comparing

1721: our results with those of S07.

1722: 

1723: The simulation used was provided by the MICE collaboration (Fosalba

1724: et al. 2008) and contains $1024^3$ particles in a cubic volume of

1725: side $L_{\rm box}=768\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}$, with cosmological

1726: parameters $\Omega_m=0.25$, $\Omega_L=0.75$, $\sigma_8=0.8$,

1727: $n=0.95$, $h\equiv H_0/100\, {\rm km\, s^{-1}\, Mpc^{-1}}=0.7$ and

1728: $\Omega_b=0.044$. Halos were identified in the comoving outputs at

1729: $z=3,4,5,5.5$ and $6$ using the friends-of-friends algorithm with

1730: linking length $b=0.164$. Finally, at each redshift the

1731: corresponding halo catalogue was divided in three non-overlapping

1732: sub-samples of halo masses in the ranges $[5.6-17.7]\times 10^{11}

1733: M_{\odot}$, $[1.7-5.6]\times 10^{12} M_{\odot}$ and

1734: $[5.6-17.7]\times 10^{12} M_{\odot}$ respectively (i.e. bins of

1735: equal width in $\log M$).

1736: 

1737: We have obtained the halo bias from the ratio of correlation

1738: functions $\xi_{hm}(r)/\xi_{mm}(r)$ averaged over $10$ bins of equal

1739: length in $\log r$ in the radial range $8\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}\le r

1740: \le 38\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}$. We also implemented the same

1741: measurements in the radial range $28\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}\le r \le

1742: 60\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}$ in order to test for any dependence of the

1743: bias on scale. In Fig.~\ref{fig|Small.vs.Large} we show the ratio

1744: $\xi_{hm}/\xi_{mm}$ at both ranges for all redshifts and mass bins

1745: studied.  On the one hand, this figure indicates that within the

1746: intrinsic scatter there is no significant scale dependence of the

1747: bias at smaller separations. On the other hand, the values of the

1748: measured bias rise by only $2-3\,\%$ when using

1749: $8-38\,\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}$ instead of $28-60\,\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}$,

1750: but this difference is within the variance of the simulation.

1751: 

1752: In order to overcome the shot noise due to the low abundance of rare

1753: halos we decided to measure the bias from cross correlating the halo

1754: distribution to that of the dark matter. This allowed us to extend

1755: the measurements to cases where the halo-halo correlation is too

1756: noisy to define a meaningful bias. In Table 1 we report the bias

1757: results for $\sqrt{\xi_{hh}/\xi_{mm}}$ (left table) and for

1758: $\xi_{hm}/\xi_{mm}$ (right table). In both cases we measured at

1759: scales in the range $8\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}\le r \le 38\,h^{-1}\,{\rm

1760: Mpc}$. The reported error corresponds to the variance among

1761: different bins (which might be taken as a rough representation of

1762: the true error of the measurement with the caveat that different

1763: bins are correlated). We find consistent results for the values of

1764: the bias derived from the two methods in those bins of mass and

1765: redshift where a reliable estimate can be obtained.

1766: 

1767: \begin{table}[ht!]

1768: \begin{center}

1769: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}

1770: \hline

1771: $\log({\rm M}/{\rm M}_{\odot})=$    & $ 11.75 - 12.25$    & $12.25 - 12.75$    & $12.75-13.25  $  \\

1772:                                     &                     &                    &                  \\

1773: $z=3$                                & $ b=3.95 \pm 0.07 $ & $

1774: b=5.3\pm 0.17 $  & $ b=7.8 \pm 0.69$\\ \hline z=4

1775: & $ b=5.97 \pm 0.22 $ & $ b=8.1 \pm 0.57 $ &                  \\

1776: \hline $z=5$                                 & $ b=8.44 \pm 0.61 $ &

1777: $b=11.6\pm 2.78 $  &                  \\ \hline z=5.5

1778: & $ b=10.1 \pm 1.1  $ &                    &                  \\

1779: \hline $z=6$                                 & $ b=12.3 \pm 1.6  $ &

1780: &                  \\ \hline

1781: \end{tabular}

1782: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}

1783: \hline

1784: $\log({\rm M}/{\rm M}_{\odot})=$    & $ 11.75 - 12.25$    & $12.25 - 12.75$     & $12.75-13.25  $   \\

1785:                                     &                     &                     &                   \\

1786: $z=3$                                 & $ b=3.97 \pm 0.06 $ & $

1787: b=5.27\pm 0.09 $  & $ b=7.38 \pm 0.2$ \\ \hline z=4

1788: & $ b=5.9  \pm 0.13 $ & $ b=7.88 \pm 0.22 $ & $ b=11.52\pm0.54$ \\

1789: \hline $z=5$                                 & $ b=8.25 \pm 0.27 $ &

1790: $b=11.44\pm 0.5  $  &                   \\ \hline z=5.5

1791: & $ b=9.53 \pm 0.39 $ & $ b=12.78\pm 1.4$   &                   \\

1792: \hline $z=6$                                 & $ b=10.96\pm 0.69 $ &

1793: &                   \\ \hline

1794: \end{tabular}

1795: \end{center}

1796: \caption{Halo bias obtained from $b=\sqrt{\xi_{hh}/\xi_{mm}}$

1797: (\emph{left} table) or $b=\xi_{hm}/\xi_{mm}$ (\emph{right} table).

1798: The values are consistent with each other within the bin-to-bin

1799: scatter, which is reported as the corresponding error.}

1800: \label{tab|bias}

1801: \end{table}

1802: 

1803: 

1804: Finally, we  compare our results to those of S07, who obtained the

1805: halo bias from $b=\sqrt{\xi^{hh}_{20}/\xi^{mm}_{20}}$ with,

1806: \begin{equation}

1807: \xi_{20}=\frac{3}{r^3_{\rm max}}\int_{r_{\rm min}}^{r_{\rm max}}

1808: \xi(r) r^2 dr\, ,

1809: \end{equation}

1810: where $r_{\rm min}=5\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}$ and $r_{\rm

1811: max}=20\,h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$. Using all halos more massive than $M_{\rm

1812: min}=2 \times 10^{12}\,h^{-1}\,M_{\odot}$, S07 finds $b_{\rm

1813: eff}(z=3)=6.2$ and $b_{\rm eff}(z=4)=10.2$ (respectively $17\%$ and

1814: $5\%$ lower than Jing's [1998] prediction). Using a similar mass-cut

1815: to S07 and measuring the bias in the same way (i.e. from $\xi_{20}$)

1816: we obtain $b_{\rm eff}(z=3)= 6.07$ and $b_{\rm eff}(z=4)= 9.35$

1817: (where we have included a $6\%$ correction due to the difference in

1818: the assumed cosmology). These values are in good agreement (within

1819: $8\%$). However, and contrary to S07, we have chosen Sheth, Mo \&

1820: Tormen (2001) expression as our primary bias prediction for reasons

1821: already outlined in \S~\ref{subsec|comparesimul}.

1822: 

1823: \begin{figure}

1824: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{fig14.eps} \caption{Halo bias as a function

1825: of scale. \emph{Right} panels: the ratio $\xi_{hm}/\xi_{mm}$ at

1826: large scales for different halo masses and redshifts, as labeled.

1827: \emph{Left} panels: the same ratio at smaller separations, that

1828: encompass the scales where AGN clustering has being measured by S07.

1829: At smaller separations there is not significant scale dependence

1830: while the scatter of the measurement is lower than for large

1831: separations. The measured bias is higher by $2-3\,\%$ in the left

1832: hand panels, but this difference is within the scatter.}

1833: \label{fig|Small.vs.Large}

1834: \end{figure}

1835: % END NEW

1836: 

1837: \section{The contribution of BH mergers to mass accretion}

1838: 

1839: In this Appendix we compute the expected contribution

1840: from mergers to the overall mass growth of the central black hole

1841: of a halo with mass $M_0\sim 1-2\times 10^{13}$\msun\ at $z\sim 3-4$,

1842: typical of the $z>3$ quasar hosts studied in this paper.

1843: 

1844: We trace the average mass growth history $M(z)$

1845: of a such halos at any redshift $z$ by

1846: imposing the number density conservation within a comoving volume

1847: \begin{equation}

1848: n[M(z),z]=n[M_0,z=3]\, .

1849: \label{eqApp|NumberConser}

1850: \end{equation}

1851: The result is shown with a long dashed line in the left panel of Figure~\ref{fig|MergersAppendix},

1852: which shows that such halos grow, on average, by about a factor of $\sim 6$ within

1853: the redshift range $3\le z \le 6$.

1854: 

1855: We then compute the expected growth

1856: of such halos due to halo and subhalo mergers. To such purpose we estimate

1857: the average number of mergers per unit redshift $dN/dz$ experienced by a given halo of mass $M(z)$ at redshift

1858: $z$ by integrating the halo merger rates

1859: \begin{equation}

1860: \frac{dN}{dz}[M(z),z]=\int_{\xi_{\rm min}}^{\xi_{\rm max}}\frac{B[M(z),\xi,z]}{n[M(z),z]}d\xi \, ,

1861: \label{eqApp|FakMa}

1862: \end{equation}

1863: with $\xi_{\rm min}=0.1$ and $\xi_{\rm max}=1$. We take the halo merger rates per unit

1864: halo $B[M(z),\xi,z]/n[M(z),z]$

1865: from Fakhouri \& Ma (2008), given as empirical fits to the Millennium Simulation, with $n[M(z),z]$

1866: the number density of halos of mass $M(z)$ at redshift $z$. The quantity $B[M(z),\xi,z]$ is the instantaneous merger rate at redshift $z$ of halos with mass

1867: $M(z)$ in units of $\,\, h^4 {\rm \, \, Mpc^{-3}\, dz^{-1}\, d\xi^{-1}}\, M_{\odot}^{-1}$, with $\xi=M_1/M_2$ the mass ratio between the masses of the progenitor merging halos with total mass $M(z)=M_1+M_2$.

1868: The total mass accreted $\Delta M(z)$ on the halo of mass $M(z)$ at each timestep $\Delta z$ during the evolution is then

1869: \begin{equation}

1870: \Delta M(z)=\Delta z \int_{\xi_{\rm min}}^{\xi_{\rm max}}\frac{dN}{dz}[M(z),\xi,z] \times \left[\frac{\xi}{1+\xi} M(z)\right] d\xi\,

1871: \label{eqApp|HaloGrowth}

1872: \end{equation}

1873: with $\xi/(1+\xi) M(z)$ the mass of the (smaller) merging halo.

1874: The solid line in the left panel of Figure~\ref{fig|MergersAppendix} is the total

1875: mass accreted in mergers. As clear from

1876: the bottom panel, which shows the ratio between the cumulative mass grown by

1877: mergers and the total one derived from equation~(\ref{eqApp|NumberConser}), mergers with $0.1<\xi<1$ can account for most ($\sim 65\%$) of the average growth of halos.

1878: \footnote{We note here that the exact value of the adopted $\xi_{\rm min}$

1879:  does not alter our overall conclusions. For example,

1880:  setting $\xi_{\rm min}=0.01$, increases the growth of the parent halo via mergers to $90-95\%$, but it has a negligible impact on the mass growth of the central black hole.}

1881: 

1882: It is then natural to ask how much

1883: of the central black hole mass is actually contributed by

1884: mergers.

1885: The long-dashed line in the upper right panel of Figure~\ref{fig|MergersAppendix} shows

1886: the total growth of the central black hole derived by assuming

1887: that at each $z$ the black hole has, on average, a mass as given

1888: by equation~(\ref{eq|MbhMhalo}).

1889: In order to estimate the contribution of black hole mergers we, however, cannot naively use equation~(\ref{eqApp|HaloGrowth}). We need to in fact take into

1890: account that when the smaller halo enters the virial radius

1891: of the larger halo, it takes about a dynamical friction

1892: timescale to sink to the center allowing for the central galaxies

1893: (and their black holes) to actually merge.

1894: 

1895: We therefore follow Shen (2009), and compute the central

1896: galaxy merger rates as

1897: $B_{\rm gal}[M(z),\xi,z]=B[M(z),\xi,z_e]\frac{dz_e}{dz}$, being

1898: $z$ the redshift of the actual merger with the central galaxy and $z_e$ the redshift at which the smaller halo first entered the virial radius of the larger halo. We use the Shen (2009) analytical fit to the function $z_e(z,\xi)$, which reproduces the Jiang et al. (2008) merger timescales well in the range $0.1\le \xi \le 1$. Adopting the results by Jiang et al. (2008) is particularly meaningful for this paper. Their subhalo merger timescales were in fact derived for a suite of high-resolution numerical simulations performed on halos with masses $M>5\times 10^{12}\, h^{-1}$\msun, in the range of interest for our paper, and with a virial mass definition equal to that used in this paper (see \S~\ref{sec|method}). The study by

1899: Boylan-Kolchin et al. (2008), for example, yields somewhat different merging timescales with respect to those found by Jiang et al. (2008; see also Shen 2009). However,

1900: their results were based on parent halos about an order of magnitude less massive

1901: than the ones of interest here, and with a significantly different definition

1902: of virial mass.

1903: 

1904: The solid line in the upper right panel of Figure~\ref{fig|MergersAppendix} shows the total mass accreted onto the central black hole via mergers. It is clear that subhalo mergers are not the dominant source of growth for massive black holes at high

1905: redshift, as also independently found by several other groups (e.g., Volonteri et al. 2005). The cumulative fraction of black hole mass at $z=3$ grown via mergers is only $\sim 7\%$, reducing to just a few percent at $4<z<4.5$ where most of the tightest constraints from clustering come from (see \S~\ref{sec|results}). Adopting

1906: the Boylan-Kolchin et al. (2008) merging timescales would increase the contribution from mergers by just a factor of $\lesssim 2$.

1907: Note, also, that our estimate is actually an upper limit. In fact, this calculation assumes that all the incoming dark matter substructures actually contain a black hole as massive as what predicted from equation~(\ref{eq|MbhMhalo}) that efficiently merges with the central black hole. Moreover, we have not considered that the delay time for black hole mergers is even longer than those of galaxies (see, e.g., Merritt \& Milosavljevic 2005 for a review), a correction which would further drop the contribution of black hole mergers.

1908: 

1909: In the lower right panel of Figure~\ref{fig|MergersAppendix} we also show

1910: the predictions of the same model when no delay is considered between halos and central

1911: black hole mergers. In this model, satellite black holes instantly merge

1912: with the central black hole of the parent halo just after the merging

1913: of their host halos. Although this assumption is obviously too simplistic, as it neglects

1914: any dynamical friction time delay, it can be safely regarded

1915: as a secure \emph{upper} limit to the contribution of mergers to

1916: the overall black hole growth. As shown in the right panel

1917: of Figure~\ref{fig|MergersAppendix}, in this extreme model the growth of black hole

1918: mass via mergers is comparable to that via accretion, accounting for about 50-60\%

1919: of the final black hole at $z\sim 3$.

1920: 

1921: From the study undertaken in this section, we conclude that,

1922: in the physically

1923: plausible case that

1924: a significant dynamical friction time-delay is present between

1925: host halo and central black hole mergers,

1926: it is a good approximation to neglect black hole growth via mergers

1927: in the continuity equation model discussed in \S~\ref{sec|method}.

1928: However, the same is not true for quasar activations. The model

1929: discussed in \S~\ref{sec|method} holds in reproducing both the

1930: quasar luminosity function and quasar clustering

1931: only in the hypothesis that black hole growth via accretion

1932: parallels that of the host dark matter halo with no

1933: time delay between the two. The latter assumption was also

1934: adopted by several other groups

1935: to boost and thus facilitate the match to the high-$z$,

1936: luminous quasar number counts (e.g., Wyithe \& Loeb 2003; Scannapieco \& Ho 2004; Lapi et al. 2006; Shen 2009).

1937: 

1938: For completeness, however, we present in the next section

1939: the results of a fully self-consistent model that evolves the black hole mass function

1940: through a continuity equation with accretion and mergers, with \emph{no} delay in any of its components.

1941: We will discuss how the outcome of such

1942: a model strengthens our general conclusions.

1943: 

1944: \begin{figure}

1945: \epsscale{1.0} \plottwo{fig15a.eps}{fig15b.eps} \caption{\emph{Left}: Growth history

1946: of halos with final mass $\sim 1-2\times 10^{13}$\msun, as derived from

1947: the halo mass function (\emph{long-dashed} line), compared to the growth

1948: history as predicted by integrating the merger rates of halos with

1949: progenitors mass ratios in the range $0.1<\xi<1$ (\emph{solid} line). \emph{Right}: the \emph{long-dashed} line shows the total growth in the central black hole as derived from the long-dashed line in the left panel and using equation~(\ref{eq|MbhMhalo}); the \emph{solid} line is instead the black hole growth derived by integrating the central galaxy merger rates. The \emph{dot-dashed} line

1950: in the lower panel corresponds to black hole growth

1951: when no delay is considered. Mergers contribute by only $\lesssim 7\%$ to the overall growth of the central black hole, at the most, if the delay due to dynamical friction is taken into account. See text for details.}

1952: \label{fig|MergersAppendix}

1953: \end{figure}

1954: 

1955: \section{Models with accretion plus mergers}

1956: 

1957: Inserting mergers in the continuity equation of equation~(\ref{eq|continEq})

1958: implies a format of the type

1959: \begin{equation}

1960: \frac{\partial n_{\rm BH}(M_{\rm BH},t)}{\partial

1961: t}=-\frac{1}{t_{\rm ef} \ln(10)^2 M_{\rm BH}}\frac{\partial

1962: \Phi(L,z)}{\partial \log L} + S_{\rm in} - S_{\rm out}\,

1963: \label{eqApp|contEqMergers}

1964: \end{equation}

1965: where

1966: \begin{eqnarray}

1967: S_{\rm in}=\frac{1}{2}\, \int_{\xi_{\rm min}}^{1} d\xi \left( \frac{P_{\rm merg,z}}{\Delta t}(\xi, M)n_h \left[M \left(M_{\rm BH}'=\frac{\xi M_{\rm BH}}{1+\xi}, z \right),z \right]\frac{dM}{dM_{\rm BH}'}\frac{dM_{\rm BH}'}{dM_{\rm BH}} \right) + \\ \nonumber

1968: d\xi \left(\frac{P_{\rm merg,z}}{\Delta t}(\xi, M)n_h \left[M \left(M_{\rm BH}''=\frac{M_{\rm BH}}{1+\xi}, z \right),z \right]\frac{dM}{dM_{\rm BH}''}\frac{dM_{\rm BH}''}{dM_{\rm BH}}  \right)\, ,

1969: \label{eqApp|Sin}

1970: \end{eqnarray}

1971: and

1972: \begin{eqnarray}

1973: S_{\rm out}=\frac{1}{2}\, \int_{\xi_{\rm min}}^{1} d\xi \left( \frac{P_{\rm merg,z}}{\Delta t}(\xi, M)n_h \left [M \left(M_{\rm BH}'=\frac{1+\xi}{\xi}M_{\rm BH}, z \right),z \right]\frac{dM}{dM_{\rm BH}'}\frac{dM_{\rm BH}'}{dM_{\rm BH}} \right) + \\ \nonumber d\xi \left(\frac{P_{\rm merg,z}}{\Delta t}(\xi, M)n_h \left[M \left(M_{\rm BH}''=(1+\xi)M_{\rm BH}, z \right),z \right]\frac{dM}{dM_{\rm BH}''}\frac{dM_{\rm BH}''}{dM_{\rm BH}}  \right)\, ,

1974: \label{eqApp|Sout}

1975: \end{eqnarray}

1976: are, respectively, the merger rate of incoming smaller mass black holes with

1977:  mass $M_{\rm BH}'=M_{\rm BH}\xi/(1+\xi)$ and $M_{\rm BH}''=M_{\rm BH}/(1+\xi)$ that

1978:  merge into a black hole of final mass $M_{\rm BH}$, and the merger rate of black holes with initial mass $M_{\rm BH}$ that merge into more massive black holes of mass

1979:  $M_{\rm BH}'=M_{\rm BH}(1+\xi)/\xi$ and $M_{\rm BH}''=M_{\rm BH}(1+\xi)$ (in both Eqs.~[C2] and [C3] we set $\xi_{\rm min}=0.1$, and add the factor

1980: of $1/2$ to avoid double counting).

1981: 

1982: If we assume that no delay is present between

1983: the mergers of the black holes and their parent halos, the probability of black hole

1984: mergers per unit time is simply given by the

1985: halo merger rate adopted above, i.e.,

1986: \begin{equation}

1987: \frac{P_{\rm merg,z}}{\Delta t}(\xi, M)n_h [M (M_{\rm BH}, z),z]=B_h[M,\xi(z),z]\, .

1988: \label{eqApp|ratemergers}

1989: \end{equation}

1990: By simply knowing, at each timestep, the mapping between infalling halo mass and its central black hole (given by Eq.~[\ref{eq|MbhMhalo}]), we can then compute the expected average rate

1991: for any black hole merger event.

1992: By further assuming the AGN luminosity function to be known from observations (we here adopt the analytical derivation by SWM),

1993: we can simply integrate the right-hand side of equation~(\ref{eqApp|contEqMergers}) and derive

1994: the black hole function at all redshifts.

1995: 

1996: The result is shown in Figure~\ref{fig|ContinuityWithMergers}, the left panel of which shows the integrated black hole mass density $\rho(M_{\rm BH}>10^8 M_{\odot},z)$, in the mass and redshift range of interest here, for the reference model ($\lambda =0.25$, $\alpha=1$, $\epsilon=0.15$) with

1997: no mergers (long-dashed lines), and with mergers (solid lines), as labeled, while the right panel

1998: compares the resulting black hole mass functions for the two models at three different redshifts, from bottom to top, $z=6, 4, 3$. The two filled circles in the left panel mark the expected black hole mass

1999: density at $z=3$ and $z=4$ expected from equation~(\ref{eq|rhoBHatgivenz}), adopting a duty cycle

2000: of $P_0=0.25$ and $P_0=0.5$, respectively, for a model consistent with the measured quasar clustering (see Figure~\ref{fig|r0zDuty}). As above, we here neglect any source of scatter in the relation between luminosity and halo mass to maximize the predicted clustering for a given model.

2001: We find that, irrespective of the differences in the AGN luminosity function adopted here and in the main text, the results for the pure accretion model match those presented in Figures~\ref{fig|r0zDuty}. When mergers are included, the estimated black hole mass density above $10^8 M_{\odot}$ is larger by a factor of $\gtrsim 2$, than the one from accretion alone.

2002: We should emphasize that we consider this factor of two to be an

2003: extreme upper limit on the impact of mergers, since it ignores even the

2004: effects of dynamical friction delay, which we have shown in the

2005: previous Appendix to drastically reduce the black hole merger growth.

2006: More importantly, however, any growth of the black hole mass function

2007: via mergers {\it exacerbates} the tension we have highlighted

2008: between high-redshift quasar clustering and the luminosity function.

2009: Mergers add mass to the black hole population without associated luminosity,

2010: so reproducing the observed luminosity function with the black

2011: hole population implied by the black hole-halo relation requires a still

2012: higher radiative efficiency.

2013: 

2014: %To reconcile the evolved mass density with the one

2015: %implied by simply dividing the luminosity function by the duty cycle, it therefore implies either to proportionally lower the duty cycle, which would be inconsistent with the clustering measurements, or to further increase the radiative efficiency, thus further supporting the main conclusions of this paper.

2016: %

2017: \begin{figure}

2018: \epsscale{1.0} \plottwo{fig16a.eps}{fig16b.eps} \caption{\emph{Left}: accreted black hole mass density above $\log M_{\rm BH}/M_{\odot} > 8$ as a function of redshift, for the reference model characterized by $\lambda=0.25$ and $\epsilon=0.15$, with no mergers (\emph{long-dashed} line), and with mergers (\emph{solid} line); the solid, filled circles are the $z=3$ and $z=4$ black hole mass density obtained via Eq.~[\ref{eq|rhoBHatgivenz}] by assuming a duty cycle

2019: of $P_0=0.25$ and $P_0=0.5$, respectively, as in the reference model (Figs.~\ref{fig|dutycycle} and \ref{fig|r0zDuty}).  \emph{Right}: comparison between the resulting black hole mass functions for the no-merger (\emph{long-dashed}) and merger (\emph{solid}) models, at three different redshifts, from bottom to top, $z=6, 4, 3$.}

2020: \label{fig|ContinuityWithMergers}

2021: \end{figure}

2022: 

2023: \end{appendix}

2024: 

2025: \newpage

2026: \begin{thebibliography}{}

2027: \bibitem{} Adelberger, K. L., \& Steidel, C. C. 2005, ApJ, 630, 50

2028: \bibitem{} Angulo, R. E., Baugh, C. M.\& Lacey, C. G. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 921

2029: \bibitem{} Baes, M., Buyle, P., Hau, G. K. T., \& Dejonghe, H. 2003, MNRAS, 341, L44

2030: \bibitem{} Barger, A. J. et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 632

2031: \bibitem{} Barger , A. J., \& Cowie, L. L. 2005, ApJ, 635, 115

2032: \bibitem{} Barkana, R., \& Loeb, A. 2001, PhR, 349, 125

2033: \bibitem{} Basilakos, S., Plionis, M., \& Ragone-Figueroa, C. 2008, ApJ, 678, 627

2034: \bibitem{} Bentz, M. C., Peterson, B. M., Pogge, R. W., Vestergaard, M., \& Onken, C. A. 2006, ApJ, 644, 133

2035: \bibitem{} Bond, J. R., Cole, S., Efstathiou, G., \& Kaiser, N. 1991, ApJ, 379, 440

2036: \bibitem{} Bongiorno, A., et al. 2007, A\&A, 472, 443

2037: \bibitem{} Bonoli, S., Marulli, F., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Branchini, E., \& Moscardini, L. 2009a, MNRAS, 396, 423

2038: \bibitem{} Bonoli, S., Shankar, F., White, S. D. M., Springel, V., \& Wyithe J. S. B. 2009b, MNRAS, submitted, arXiv:

2039: \bibitem{} Boylan-Kolchin, M., Ma, C. P., \& Quataert, E. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 93

2040: \bibitem{} Bryan, G. L., \& Norman, M. L. 1998, ApJ, 495, 80

2041: \bibitem{} Buyle, P., Ferrarese, L., Gentile, G., Dejonghe, H., Baes, M., \& Klein, U. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 700

2042: \bibitem{} Cattaneo, A., Dekel, A., Devriendt, J., Guiderdoni, B., \& Blaizot, J. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1651

2043: \bibitem{} Cavaliere, A., Morrison, P.,\& Wood, K. 1971, ApJ, 170, 223

2044: \bibitem{} Cohn, J., \& White, M. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 2025

2045: \bibitem{} Coil, A. L., et al. 2007, ApJ, 654, 115

2046: \bibitem{} Cool, R. J., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 823

2047: \bibitem{} Crain, R. A., Eke, V. R., Frenk, C. S., Jenkins, A., McCarthy, I. G., Navarro, J. F., \& Pearce, F. R. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 41

2048: \bibitem{} Crocce, M., Pueblas, S. \& Scoccimarro, R. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 369

2049: \bibitem{} Croom, S. M., Boyle, B. J., Shanks, T., Smith, R. J., Miller, L., Outram, P. J., Loaring, N. S., Hoyle, F., \& da \^{A}ngela, J. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 415

2050: \bibitem{} da \^{A}ngela, J., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 565

2051: \bibitem{} Davis, M., Efstathiou, G., Frenk, C. S., \& White, S. D. M. 1985, ApJ, 292, 371

2052: \bibitem{} De Zotti, G., Shankar, F., Lapi, A., Granato, G. L.,

2053: Silva, L., Cirasuolo, M., Salucci, P., \& Danese, L. 2006, MmSAIt, 77, 661

2054: \bibitem{} Di Matteo, T., Colberg, J., Springel, V., Hernquist, L., \& Sijacki, D. 2008, ApJ, 676, 33

2055: \bibitem{} Dutton, A. A.; van den Bosch, F. C., Dekel, A., \& Courteau, S. 2007, ApJ,

2056: 654, 27

2057: \bibitem{} Eddington, A. S. 1922, MNRAS, 83, 32

2058: \bibitem{} Eisenstein, D. J., \& Hu, W. 1999, ApJ, 511, 5

2059: \bibitem{} Fakhouri, O., \& Ma, C. P. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 577

2060: \bibitem{} Fan, X., et al. 2001, AJ, 121, 54

2061: \bibitem{} Fan, X., et al. 2004, ApJ, 128, 515

2062: \bibitem{} Ferrarese, L., \& Merritt, D. 2000, ApJ, 539, L9

2063: \bibitem{} Ferrarese, L. 2002, ApJ, 578, 90

2064: \bibitem{} Ferrarese, L., \& Ford,

2065: H. 2005, SSRv, 116, 523

2066: \bibitem{} Fontanot, F., Cristiani, S.,

2067: Monaco, P., Nonino, M., Vanzella, E., Brandt, W. N., Grazian, A., \&

2068: Mao, J. 2007, A\&A, 461, 39

2069: \bibitem{} Fosalba, P., Gaztanaga, E.,

2070: Castander, F., \& Manera, M. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 435

2071: \bibitem{} Furlanetto, S. R., \& Kamionkowski, M. 2006, MNRAS, 366,

2072: 529

2073: \bibitem{} Francke, H., Gawiser, E., Lira, P., Treister, E.,

2074: Virani, S., Cardamone, C., Urry, C. M., van Dokkum, P., \& Quadri,

2075: R. 2008, ApJ, 673, 13

2076: \bibitem{} Gao, L., Springel, V., \& White,

2077: S. D. M. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 66

2078: \bibitem{} Gebhardt, K., et al. 2000, ApJ, 539, 13

2079: \bibitem{} Gilli, R., Comastri, A., \& Hasinger, G. 2007, A\&A,

2080: 463, 79

2081: \bibitem{} Gnedin, O. Y., Weinberg, D. H., Pizagno, J.,

2082: Prada, F., Rix, H.-W. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1115 ;\bibitem{} Graham, A. W.

2083: 2007, MNRAS, 379, 711

2084: \bibitem{} Graham, A. W. 2008, ApJ, submitted, arXiv:0801.1548

2085: \bibitem{} Greene, J. E., \& Ho, L. C. 2006, ApJ, 641, 21

2086: \bibitem{} Gultekin, K., et al. 2009, ApJ, arXiv:0903.4897

2087: \bibitem{} Haehnelt, M. G., Natarajan, P., \& Rees, M. J. 1998,

2088: MNRAS, 300, 817

2089: \bibitem{} Haiman, Z., \& Hui, L. 2001, ApJ, 547,

2090: 27

2091: \bibitem{} Haiman, Z., Jimenez, R., \& Bernardi, M. 2007, ApJ,

2092: 658, 721

2093: \bibitem{} H\"{a}ring, N., \&  Rix, H. W. 2004, ApJ, 604,

2094: 89

2095: \bibitem{} Hennawi, J. F., et al. 2009, ApJ, submitted, arXiv:0908.3907

2096: \bibitem{} Ho, L. C. 2007a, ApJ, 669, 821

2097: \bibitem{} Ho, L. C. 2007b, ApJ, 668, 94

2098: \bibitem{} Hopkins, P. F., Richards, G. T., Hernquist, L.

2099: 2007a, ApJ, 654, 731

2100: \bibitem{} Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox,

2101: T. J., Robertson, B., \& Krause, E. 2007b, ApJ, 669, 67

2102: \bibitem{} Hopkins, P.~F. Hernquist, L., Cox, T.~J., \& Kere{\v s}, D. 2008, ApJs, 175, 356

2103: \bibitem{}

2104: Hunt, M. P., Steidel, C. C., Adelberger, K. L., \& Shapley, A. E.

2105: 2004, ApJ, 605, 625

2106: \bibitem{} Jenkins, A., Frenk, C. S., White, S.

2107: D. M., Colberg, J. M., Cole, S., Evrard, A. E., Couchman, H. M. P.,

2108: \& Yoshida, N. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 372

2109: \bibitem{} Jiang, C. Y., Jing, Y. P., Faltenbacher, A., Lin,W. P., \& Li, C. 2008, ApJ, 675, 1095

2110: \bibitem{} Jing, Y. P. 1998,

2111: ApJ, 503, L9

2112: \bibitem{} Kaiser, N. 1984, ApJ, 284, 9

2113: \bibitem{} Kennefick, J. D., Djorgovski, S. G., \& de Carvalho, R.

2114: R. 1995, AJ, 110, 2553

2115: \bibitem{} Kollmeier, J. A., et al. 2006,

2116: ApJ, 648, 128

2117: \bibitem{} Kurk, J. D., Walter, F., Fan, X., Jiang,

2118: L., Riechers, D. A., Rix, H. W., Pentericci, L., Strauss, M. A.,

2119: Carilli, C., \& Wagner, S. 2007, ApJ, 669, 32

2120: \bibitem{} La Franca,

2121: F., et al. 2005, ApJ, 635, 864

2122: \bibitem{} Lapi, A., Shankar, F.,

2123: Mao, J., Granato, G. L., Silva, L., De Zotti, G., \& Danese, L.

2124: 2006, ApJ, 650, 42

2125: \bibitem{} Lauer, T. R., \& Tremaine, S.,

2126: Richstone, D., \& Faber S. M. 2007, ApJ, 670, 249

2127: \bibitem{} Li, Y., et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 187

2128: \bibitem{} Magorrian, J., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285

2129: \bibitem{} Marconi, A., \&

2130: Hunt, L. 2003, ApJL, 589, L21

2131: \bibitem{} Marconi, A., Risaliti, G.,

2132: Gilli, R., Hunt, L. K., Maiolino, R., \& Salvati, M. 2004, MNRAS,

2133: 351, 169

2134: \bibitem{} Martini, P., \& Weinberg, D. H. 2001, ApJ, 547,

2135: 12

2136: \bibitem{} McLure, R. J., Dunlop., J. S. 2002, MNRAS, 331, 795

2137: \bibitem{} McLure, R. J., Jarvis, M. J., Targett, T. A., Dunlop, J.

2138: S., \& Best, P. N. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 1359

2139: \bibitem{} Merritt, D., Milosavljevic, M., 2005, Living Reviews in Relativity 8, 8

2140: \bibitem{} Mo, H. J., \& White, S. D. M. 1996, MNRAS, 282,347

2141: \bibitem{} Mo, H. J., \& Mao, S. J. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 829

2142: \bibitem{} Mo, H. J., Mao, S., \& White, S. D. M. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 319

2143: \bibitem{} Mountrichas, G., Shanks, T., Croom, S. M., Sawangwit, U., Schneider, D. P., Myers, A. D., \& Pimbblet, K. 2008, ApJ, submitted, arXiv: 0801.1816

2144: \bibitem{} Myers, A. D., Brunner,

2145: R. J., Nichol, R. C., Richards, G. T., Schneider, D. P., \& Bahcall,

2146: N. A. 2007, ApJ, 658, 85

2147: \bibitem{} Nandra, K., Laird, E. S., \& Steidel, C. C. 2005, MNRAS, 360, L39

2148: \bibitem{} Netzer, H., Trakhtenbrot, B. 2007, ApJ, 654, 754

2149: \bibitem{} Padmanabhan, N., White, M., Norberg, P., \&

2150: Porciani, C. 2008, MNRAS, submitted, arXiv:0802.2105

2151: \bibitem{} Pei, Y. C. 1995, ApJ, 438, 623

2152: \bibitem{} Peng, C. Y., Impey, C. D., Rix, H. W., Kochanek, C. S.,

2153: Keeton, C. R., Falco, E. E., Leh\'{a}r, J., \& McLeod, B. A. 2006,

2154: ApJ, 649, 616

2155: \bibitem{} Pizzella, A., Corsini, E. M., Dalla Bontà,

2156: E., Sarzi, M., Coccato, L., \& Bertola, F. 2005, ApJ, 631, 785

2157: \bibitem{} Porciani, C., Magliocchetti, M., \& Norberg, P. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 1010

2158: \bibitem{} Porciani, C., \& Norberg, P. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1824

2159: \bibitem{} Reed, D. S., Bower, R., Frenk, C. S., Jenkins, A., \& Theuns, T. 2007, MNRAS, 374, 2

2160: \bibitem{} Reed, D. S., Bower, R., Frenk, C. S., Jenkins, A., \& Theuns, T. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 624

2161: \bibitem{} Richards, G. T., et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 2945

2162: \bibitem{} Richards, G. T., et al. 2004, AJ, 127, 1305

2163: \bibitem{} Richards, G. T., et al. 2006a, AJ, 131, 2766

2164: \bibitem{} Richards, G. T., et al. 2006b, ApJS, 166, 470

2165: \bibitem{} Rhook, K. J., \& Haehnelt, M. G. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 623

2166: \bibitem{} Salpeter, E. E. 1964, ApJ, 140, 796

2167: \bibitem{} Scannapieco, E., \& Oh, S.~P. 2004, ApJ, 608, 62

2168: \bibitem{} Schneider, D. P., et al. 2007, AJ, 134, 102

2169: \bibitem{} Seljak, U. 2002, MNRAS, 334, 797

2170: \bibitem{} Seljak, U., \& Warren, M. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 129

2171: \bibitem{} Shankar, F., Salucci, P., Granato, G. L., De Zotti, G., \& Danese, L. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 1020

2172: \bibitem{} Shankar, F., Lapi, A., Salucci, P., De Zotti, G., \& Danese, L. 2006, ApJ, 643, 14

2173: \bibitem{} Shankar, F., \& Mathur, S. 2007, ApJ, 660, 1051

2174: \bibitem{} Shankar, F., Weinberg, D. H., \& Miralda-Escud\'{e}, J. 2009a, \apj, 690, 20 (SWM)

2175: \bibitem{} Shankar, F., Bernardi, M., \& Haiman, Z. 2009b, \apj, 694, 867

2176: \bibitem{} Shankar, F. 2009, New Astronomy Reviews, 53, 57

2177: \bibitem{} Shankar, F., Weinberg, D. H., \& Shen, Y. 2010a, MNRAS, submitted

2178: \bibitem{} Shankar, F., et al. 2010b, in preparation

2179: \bibitem{} Shen, Y., et al. 2009, ApJ, submitted, arXiv:0908.3908

2180: \bibitem{} Shen, Y. 2009, ApJ, in press, arXiv:0903.4492

2181: \bibitem{} Shen, Y., et al. 2007, AJ, 133, 2222 (S07)

2182: \bibitem{} Shen, Y., Greene, J. E., Strauss, M. A., Richards, G. T., \& Schneider, D. P. 2008, ApJ, 680, 169

2183: \bibitem{} Sheth, R. K., \& Tormen, G. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 119

2184: \bibitem{} Sheth, R., Mo, H. J., \& Tormen, G. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 1

2185: \bibitem{} Shields, G. A., Menezes, K. L., Massart, C. A., \& Vanden Bout, P. 2006, ApJ, 641, 683

2186: \bibitem{} Silverman, J. D., et al. 2008, ApJ, 679, 118

2187: \bibitem{} Small, T. A., \& Blandford, R. D. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 725

2188: \bibitem{} So\l tan, A. 1982, MNRAS, 200, 115

2189: \bibitem{} Spergel, D. N., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 377

2190: \bibitem{} Springel, V. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105

2191: \bibitem{} Strand, N. E., Brunner, R. J., \& Myers, A. D. 2008, ApJ, 688, 180

2192: \bibitem{} Tanaka, T., \& Haiman, Z. 2009, ApJ, 696, 1798

2193: \bibitem{} Thacker, R. J., Scannapieco, E., Couchman, H. M. P., \& Richardson, M. 2009, ApJ, 693, 552

2194: \bibitem{} Tozzi, P., et al. 2006, A\&A, 451, 457

2195: %\bibitem{} Treister, E., \& Megan, U. C. 2006, ApJ, 652, 79

2196: \bibitem{} Tremaine, S., et al. 2002, ApJ, 574, 740

2197: \bibitem{} Treu, T., Woo, J.-H., Malkan, M. A., \& Blandford, R. D. 2007, ApJ, 667, 117

2198: \bibitem{} Tundo, E., Bernardi, M., Hyde, J. B., Sheth, R. K., \& Pizzella, A. 2007, ApJ, 663, 53

2199: \bibitem{} Ueda, Y., Akiyama, M., Ohta, K., \& Miyaji, T. 2003, ApJ, 598, 886

2200: \bibitem{} Volonteri, M., Madau, P., Quataert, E., \& Rees, M. J.

2201: 2005, ApJ, 620, 69

2202: \bibitem{} Volonteri, M., \& Rees, M. J. 2006, ApJ, 650, 669

2203: \bibitem{} Wechsler, R. H., Bullock, J. S., Primack, J. R., Kravtsov, A. V., Dekel, A. 2002, ApJ, 568, 52

2204: \bibitem{} Wetzel, A. R., Cohn, J. D., \& White, M. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 2182

2205: \bibitem{} White, M., Martini, P., \& Cohn, J. D. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 1179

2206: \bibitem{} Wolf, C., et al., 2003, A\&A, 408, 499

2207: \bibitem{} Wyithe, J. S. B., \& Loeb, A., 2003, ApJ, 595, 614

2208: \bibitem{} Wyithe, J. S. B., \& Loeb, A., 2005, ApJ, 621, 95

2209: \bibitem{} Wyithe, J. S. B., \& Loeb, A., 2009, MNRAS, 395, 1607

2210: \bibitem{} York, D. G., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579

2211: \bibitem{} Yu, Q., \& Tremaine, S., 2002, MNRAS, 335, 965

2212: \bibitem{} Yu, Q., \& Lu, Y., 2004, ApJ, 602, 603

2213: \end{thebibliography}

2214: 

2215: %;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

2216: 

2217: 

2218: 

2219: \end{document}

2220: 

2221: