1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass{aastex}
3: %\usepackage{natbib,psfig}
4: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}
5: %\usepackage{emulateapj5,apjfonts,natbib,psfig}
6: % aa.dem
7: %\usepackage{mathptmx}
8:
9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
10: %
11: \newcommand \todo {{\Huge$\bullet$}}
12:
13: \newcommand \kms {\ifmmode {\rm km\,s}^{-1} \else km\,s$^{-1}$\fi}
14: \newcommand \cc {\hbox{cm$^{-3}$}}
15: \newcommand \cmii {\hbox{cm$^{-2}$}}
16: \newcommand \ergs {\ifmmode {\rm ergs\,s}^{-1} \else ergs s$^{-1}$\fi}
17: \newcommand \ergcms {\ifmmode {\rm ergs\,cm}^{-2}\,{\rm s}^{-1}
18: \else ergs\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$\fi}
19: \newcommand \ergcmsA {\ifmmode{\rm ergs\,cm}^{-2}\,{\rm s}^{-1}\,{\rm\AA}^{-1}
20: \else ergs\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$\,\AA$^{-1}$\fi}
21: \newcommand \ergcmsHz {\ifmmode{\rm ergs\,cm}^{-2}\,{\rm s}^{-1}\,{\rm Hz}^{-1}
22: \else ergs\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$\,Hz$^{-1}$\fi}
23: \newcommand \phcms {\ifmmode {\rm ph\,cm}^{-2}\,{\rm s}^{-1}
24: \else ,ph\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$\fi}
25: \newcommand \phcmsA {\ifmmode {\rm ph\,cm}^{-2}\,{\rm s}^{-1}\,{\rm\AA}^{-1}
26: \else ph\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$\,\AA$^{-1}$\fi}
27: \newcommand{\mbh}{$M_{\rm BH}$}
28: \newcommand{\MBH}{$M_{\rm BH}$}
29: \newcommand{\BH}{${\rm BH}$}
30: %
31: % Common multiple units
32: %
33: \def\micron{\ifmmode \mu{\rm m} \else $\mu$m\fi}
34: \def\kms{\ifmmode {\rm km\,s}^{-1} \else km\,s$^{-1}$\fi}
35: \def\Hubble{\ifmmode {\rm km\,s}^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}
36: \else km\,s$^{-1}$\,Mpc$^{-1}$\fi}
37: \def\ergsec{\ifmmode {\rm ergs\;s}^{-1} \else ergs s$^{-1}$\fi}
38: \def\ergscm{\ifmmode {\rm ergs\,s}^{-1}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}
39: \else ergs\,s$^{-1}$\,cm$^{-2}$\fi}
40: \def\ergscmA{\ifmmode {\rm ergs\,s}^{-1}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}\,{\rm \AA}^{-1}
41: \else ergs\,s$^{-1}$\,cm$^{-2}$\,\AA$^{-1}$\fi}
42: \def\ergscmHz{\ifmmode {\rm ergs\,s}^{-1}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}\,{\rm Hz}^{-1}
43: \else ergs\,s$^{-1}$\,cm$^{-2}$\,Hz$^{-1}$\fi}
44: %
45: % Solar units
46: %
47: \def\Msun{\ifmmode M_{\odot} \else $M_{\odot}$\fi}
48: \def\Lsun{\ifmmode L_{\odot} \else $L_{\odot}$\fi}
49: %
50: % Cosmological parameters
51: %
52: \def\qo{\ifmmode q_{0} \else $q_{0}$\fi}
53: \def\Ho{\ifmmode H_{0} \else $H_{0}$\fi}
54: \def\ho{\ifmmode h_{0} \else $h_{0}$\fi}
55: \def\qo{\ifmmode q_{0} \else $q_{0}$\fi}
56: \def\ao{\ifmmode a_{0} \else $a_{0}$\fi}
57: \def\to{\ifmmode t_{0} \else $t_{0}$\fi}
58: %
59: % Approximately less than and greater than signs
60: %
61: \def\ltsim{\raisebox{-.5ex}{$\;\stackrel{<}{\sim}\;$}}
62: \def\gtsim{\raisebox{-.5ex}{$\;\stackrel{>}{\sim}\;$}}
63: %
64: % Line designations
65: %
66: \def\Halpha{\ifmmode {\rm H}\alpha \else H$\alpha$\fi}
67: \def\Hbeta{\ifmmode {\rm H}\beta \else H$\beta$\fi}
68: \def\hb{\ifmmode {\rm H}\beta \else H$\beta$\fi}
69: \def\Hgamma{\ifmmode {\rm H}\gamma \else H$\gamma$\fi}
70: \def\Hdelta{\ifmmode {\rm H}\delta \else H$\delta$\fi}
71: \def\Lya{\ifmmode {\rm Ly}\alpha \else Ly$\alpha$\fi}
72: \def\Lyb{\ifmmode {\rm Ly}\beta \else Ly$\beta$\fi}
73: \def\hi{\ifmmode \mbox{{\rm H}\,{\sc i}} \else H\,{\sc i}\fi}
74: \def\hii{H\,{\sc ii}}
75: \def\hei{He\,{\sc i}}
76: \def\heii{He\,{\sc ii}\,$\lambda1640$}
77: \def\heiiop{He\,{\sc ii}\,$\lambda4686$}
78: \def\ci{C\,{\sc i}}
79: \def\cii{C\,{\sc ii}}
80: \def\ciii{\ifmmode {\rm C}\,{\sc iii} \else C\,{\sc iii}\fi}
81: \def\civ{C\,{\sc iv}\,$\lambda1549$}
82: \def\ni{N\,{\sc i}}
83: \def\nii{N\,{\sc ii}}
84: %
85: \def\lnii_ha{L([N\,{\sc ii}])/L(H$_{\alpha}$) }
86: \def\loiii_hb{L([O\,{\sc iii}])/L(H$_{\beta}$) }
87: \def\niii{N\,{\sc iii}}
88: \def\niv{N\,{\sc iv}}
89: \def\nv{N\,{\sc v}\,$\lambda1240$}
90: \def\oi{O\,{\sc i}}
91: \def\oii{[O\,{\sc ii}]\,$\lambda3727$}
92: \def\oiii{[O\,{\sc iii}]\,$\lambda5007$}
93: \def\oiv{O\,{\sc iv}}
94: \def\ov{O\,{\sc v}}
95: \def\ovi{O\,{\sc vi}\,$\lambda1035$}
96: \def\nev{Ne\,{\sc v}}
97: \def\mgi{Mg\,{\sc i}}
98: \def\mgii{Mg\,{\sc ii}}
99: \def\siIV{Si\,{\sc iv}}
100: \def\si{S\,{\sc i}}
101: \def\sii{S\,{\sc ii}}
102: \def\siii{S\,{\sc iii}}
103: \def\caii{Ca\,{\sc ii}}
104: \def\feii{Fe\,{\sc ii}}
105:
106: \def\aliii{Al\,{\sc iii}}
107: \def\o5007{[O\,{\sc iii}]\,$\lambda5007$}
108: \def\oivIR {[O\,{\sc iv}]\,$25.9 \mu$m}
109: \def\nevIR {[Ne\,{\sc v}]\,$14.3 \mu$m}
110: \def\pahIR {PAH\,$7.7 \mu$m}
111: \def\nevIRB {[Ne\,{\sc v}]\,$24.3 \mu m$}
112: \def\ne212m {[Ne\,{\sc ii}]\,$12.8 \mu m$}
113:
114: \def \Lop{$L_{5100}$}
115: \def \L5100{$L_{5100}$}
116: \def \Ledd{$L/L_{\rm Edd}$}
117: \def \LOLX{L$_{[OIII]}$/L$_{2-10}$}
118: %%%%%%%%%%%end Brad's LaTeX definitions%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
119: %
120: \def \Rin {\hbox{$ {R_{\rm in}} $}}
121: \def \Rout {\hbox{$ {R_{\rm out}} $}}
122: \def \RBLR {\hbox{$ {R_{\rm BLR}} $}}
123: \def \RNLR {\hbox{$ {R_{\rm NLR}} $}}
124: \def \Vin {\hbox{$ {V_{\rm in}} $}}
125: \def \Vout {\hbox{$ {V_{\rm out}} $}}
126: \def \Ne {\hbox{$ {N_{\rm e}} $}} % electron density
127: \def \nh {\hbox{$ {n_{\rm H}} $}} % hydrogen density
128: \def \Ncol {\hbox{$ {N_{\rm col}} $}} % column density
129: %
130: \def \vs {{\it vs.} }
131: \def \eg {{\rm e.g.}}
132: %
133: \def \kms {\hbox{km s$^{-1}$}} % kilometers per sec
134: \def \ergs {\hbox{ergs s$^{-1}$}} % erg/sec
135: \def \ergsHz {\hbox{ergs s$^{-1}$ Hz$^{-1}$}} % erg/sec/Hz
136: \def \cc {\hbox{cm$^{-3}$}}
137:
138: \def \cmii {\hbox{cm$^{-2}$}}
139: \def \cms {\hbox{cm s$^{-1}$}} % cm / sec
140: \def \mic {$\mu$m}
141: %
142: \def \vs {{\it vs.} }
143: \def \etal {{\rm et al.}}
144: %
145: \def \La {\ifmmode {\rm Ly}\alpha \else Ly$\alpha$\fi}
146: \def \Ka {\ifmmode {\rm K}\alpha \else K$\alpha$\fi}
147: \def \Lb {\ifmmode {\rm L}\beta \else L$\beta$\fi}
148: \def \Ha {\ifmmode {\rm H}\alpha \else H$\alpha$\fi}
149: \def \Hb {\ifmmode {\rm H}\beta \else H$\beta$\fi}
150: \def \Pa {\ifmmode {\rm P}\alpha \else P$\alpha$\fi}
151: \def \CIIIb {\ifmmode {\rm C}\,{\sc iii]}\,\lambda1909
152: \else C\,{\sc iii]}\,$\lambda1909$\fi}
153: \def \CIV {\ifmmode {\rm C}\,{\sc iv}\,\lambda1549
154: \else C\,{\sc iv}\,$\lambda1549$\fi}
155: \def \MgII {\ifmmode {\rm Mg}\,{\sc ii}\,\lambda2798
156: \else Mg\,{\sc ii}\,$\lambda2798$\fi}
157: \def \OVI {\ifmmode {\rm O}\,{\sc vi}\,\lambda1035
158: x
159: \else O\,{\sc vi}\,$\lambda1035$\fi}
160: %
161: \def \chandra {{\it Chandra}}
162: \def \xmm {{\it XMM-Newton}}
163: \def \spitzer {{\it Spitzer}}
164: \def \ISO {{\it ISO}}
165: \def \IRAS {{\it IRAS}}
166: \def \IRS {{\it IRS}}
167:
168: \shorttitle{Black-Hole Mass and accretion rate}
169: \shortauthors{Netzer}
170:
171: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
172: \begin{document}
173: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
174:
175: \title{Radiation pressure force and black hole mass determination
176: in low redshift type-I and type-II active galactic nuclei}
177:
178: \author{
179: Hagai Netzer,\altaffilmark{1}
180: }
181:
182: %
183: \altaffiltext{1} {School of Physics and Astronomy and the Wise
184: Observatory, The Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact
185: Sciences, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel}
186: %
187:
188: \begin{abstract}
189:
190: The distributions of L(\oiii), black hole (BH) mass and \Ledd\ in two large
191: samples of type-I and type-II
192: active galactic nuclei (AGNs) are compared in order to test the suggestion
193: that radiation pressure force is affecting the gas velocity in the broad
194: line region and hence the BH mass determination.
195: The samples are drawn from the SDSS archive
196: and are modified to represent the same parent distribution
197: at $0.1 \leq z \leq 0.2$. BH masses
198: in type-I sources are calculated in two different ways,
199: one using a simple
200: virial mass assumption and the other by taking into account the
201: effect of radiation pressure force on the gas.
202: The simple virial mass estimate results in good agreement with the $\sigma_*$-based
203: BH mass and \Ledd\ estimates in type-II sources.
204: In contrast, there is a clear disagreement in the \Ledd\ distributions when
205: radiation pressure-based estimates are used. This
206: indicates that radiation pressure force
207: is not important in $0.1 \leq z \leq 0.2$ AGNs with
208: \Lop=$10^{42.8-44.8}$ \ergs. This has important implications to the physics of
209: the gas producing the broad emission lines in AGNs, in particular the
210: existence of extremely
211: large column density ($\sim 10^{24}$ \cmii) clouds.
212:
213:
214: \end{abstract}
215: \keywords{Galaxies: Active -- Galaxies: Black holes -- Galaxies: Nuclei -- Galaxies: Quasars:
216: Emission Lines}
217:
218: \section{Introduction}
219:
220: Black hole (BH) masses in thousands of type-I active galactic nuclei (AGNs) can now be
221: obtained by combining measurements and understanding of the gas in
222: the broad line region (BLR) of such sources.
223: Information on the gas kinematics in the BLR is obtained
224: from the study of emission line profiles which leads to the conclusion that, in
225: many sources, the motion is virialized and completely dominated by the BH gravity
226: (e.g. Onken and Peterson 2002). This provides a simple way of estimating the mean Keplerian motion
227: of the gas e.g. from measured FWHMs of broad emission lines.
228: Size measurements of the BLR are the result of reverberation mapping (RM)
229: in a small ($\sim 35$) number of low redshift ($z < 0.3$) AGNs.
230: This provides a scaling relationship between the BLR size and the source luminosity.
231: The combination of BLR size and mean gas velocity is the basis for the so-called
232: ``virial'' (or ``single epoch'')
233: method (Vestergaard and Peterson 2006 and references therein) for obtaining
234: BH masses (\MBH) from spectroscopic observations of type-I AGNs.
235:
236:
237: The accuracy of the virial method depends on various assumptions about the
238: RM method, the source luminosity
239: and the line profiles.
240: Detailed discussion of RM and its limitations, and
241: listing of the available data, are given in Kaspi et al. (2000, hereafter K00)
242: and Kaspi et al. (2005; hereafter K05). Improvements and additions to
243: the K00 sample are described in Bentz et al. (2008; hereafter B08) where full
244: account of the host galaxy contribution to the observed flux is included.
245: Errors and uncertainties are
246: discussed in Peterson and Bentz (2006) and various other publications
247: and are estimated to be a factor of $\sim2$ on \MBH. This is a combination of the
248: uncertain host galaxy flux
249: in low luminosity AGNs, the uncertainties on the
250: measured time lags, and uncertainties in the conversion of observed
251: broad line profiles (in this work FWHM(\hb)) to a ``mean gas velocity''.
252:
253:
254: An important recent development is the suggestion by Marconi et al.
255: (2008; hereafter M08)
256: that radiation pressure force operating on the
257: BLR gas can play an important role in determining the gas dynamics. Such
258: force results in a reduced effective gravity which
259: is translated to a larger \MBH\ for a given observed FWHM.
260: The treatment of radiation pressure depends on the assumed gas distribution
261: in the BLR. It is straightforward in the case of the ``cloud model'' where the gas
262: is assumed to be distributed in large column density condensations (clouds) or filaments
263: (e.g. Netzer 1990 and references therein). It is more complicated
264: in other models e.g. the ``locally optimally emitting clouds (LOCs)'' scenario
265: (Baldwin et al. 1995; Korista et al. 1997) where
266: many different components with different density, column density and level of ionization occupy
267: the same volume of space. The M08 suggestion is not relevant to those models where
268: the material is assumed to be driven away from a central disk in form of a clumpy wind
269: (e.g. Everett 2005; Elitzur \& Shlosman 2006). In such cases the virial assumption breaks down and the line profiles
270: cannot be used in the estimate of \MBH\
271: In the following I will only consider the cloud model which is the focus of
272: the M08 paper.
273:
274:
275: The effect of radiation pressure force is most noticeable in high luminosity sources where
276: the radiation pressure acceleration can be very large.
277: This is illustrated in the recent analysis by Marconi et al. (2008b) who applied
278: their corrected (i.e. after applying the radiation pressure force term, see below)
279: mass estimates to the large AGN sample of Shen et al. (2008). A clear signature of the correction
280: is seen in the distribution of the normalized accretion
281: rate, \Ledd, which is narrower and hardly ever exceeds 0.1 (Marconi et al. 2008b Fig.\,1).
282: In contrast,
283: the simple virial method results in a substantial fraction of sources with \Ledd$\simeq 1$.
284:
285: This paper proposes a novel method to test the M08 suggestion by comparing two
286: large samples of type-I and type-II AGNs drawn from the
287: Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; York et al. 2000). The assumption that the two
288: are drawn from the same parent distribution enables the comparison of BH masses that are
289: obtained by two independent methods. This provides
290: a direct test of the importance of radiation pressure force in accelerating the BLR gas.
291: In \S2 I describe the two samples and their selection.
292: \S3 compares the mass and accretion rate distributions
293: and contrast them with the M08 suggestion.
294: Finally, \S4 gives a short discussion of the uncertainties and the implications to
295: higher redshift higher luminosity AGNs.
296:
297: \section{Black hole mass and accretion rate distributions}
298:
299: \subsection{Low redshift type-I and type-II AGN samples}
300:
301: The present work is based on the analysis of two samples of type-I and type-II
302: AGNs that cover
303: the same range in redshift and luminosity. The type-I sample is the one described in
304: Netzer and Trakhtenbrodt (2007; hereafter NT07). It includes all SDSS Data Release Five (DR5) type-I
305: AGNs with $z \le 0.75$. The redshift limit is dictated by the need to measure
306: the broad \hb\ line, the optical continuum luminosity ($\lambda L_{\lambda}$ at
307: 5100\AA; hereafter \Lop) and the \oiii\ narrow emission line in the SDSS spectra.
308: The extraction, line and continuum fitting,
309: and luminosity and \MBH\ determinations are explained
310: in NT07. The values of \Lop\ and \MBH\
311: are very similar to the ones listed in the recent compilation
312: of Shen et al. (2008). Radio laud (RL) AGNs are excluded
313: from the present work (see below) but their inclusion changes nothing in the
314: type-I type-II comparison.
315:
316: The type-II sample is an extension of the SDSS/DR1 sample
317: discussed in Kauffmann et al. (2003) and Heckman et al. (2004).
318: It is based on the DR4 release (Adelman-McCarthy et al., 2006) and
319: is publicly available on the MPA site\footnote{www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/SDSS/DR4/}.
320: For each source it includes redshift, stellar velocity
321: dispersion measured through the 3\arcsec\ SDSS fiber, L(\oiii)
322: with and without reddening correction, \loiii_hb, \lnii_ha\ and various other
323: properties that are not relevant to the present work.
324:
325: The above two samples are different in two major ways:\\
326: {\bf 1. AGN type:} While the type-I sample includes only broad line AGNs,
327: the type-II sample contains both high excitation (Seyfert and QSO)
328: and low excitation line (LINER) AGNs (starburst galaxies have
329: been removed using
330: standard line ratio diagrams; see Kauffmann et al. 2003).
331: It is therefore important to identify similar ionization and excitation ranges and to
332: remove the LINERs from the type-II sample prior to the comparison.
333: The separation is done by applying two criteria:
334: \loiii_hb$>1.4$ (the lowest value in the NT07 sample) and
335: %
336: \begin{equation}
337: \log L([N\,II])/L(H_{\alpha}) \leq
338: \log L([O\,III])/L(H_{\beta}) - 0.4 \,\, .
339: %\log \lnii_ha \leq 0.5[\log \loiii_hb -0.4] \,\, .
340: \label{eq:ration}
341: \end{equation}
342: %
343: %log(\lnii_ha)$\leq$0.5[log(\loiii_hb) -0.4]. Inspection of the remaining Seyferts and QSOs
344: The resulting type-II sub-sample is in good agreement with other work of this type (e.g.
345: Kauffmann et al. 2003; Groves et al. 2006) and its mean excitation level is in agreement with the NT07 sample.
346:
347: {\bf 2. Flux limit and redshift distribution:}
348: While the original type-II sample of Kauffmann et al. (2003) and Heckman et al. (2004)
349: is selected from the flux limited SDSS galaxy sample, the extended DR4 catalog
350: used here is defined in a different way and includes all sources classified
351: as galaxies. These are further classified according to the emission line intensities,
352: in particular \oiii.
353: This selection reaches
354: very low L(\oiii) at low redshift.
355: The type-I selection is a combination of SDSS colors in a flux limited
356: ($i$=19.1 mag) sample and the detection
357: of broad emission lines.
358: This results in a noticeable difference between low
359: and high redshift sources.
360: For high redshift type-I sources that are dominated by the AGN continuum,
361: the flux limit is the determining factor. For low redshifts low luminosity AGNs,
362: contamination by the host galaxy makes the detection of broad emission lines
363: more difficult and,
364: in many cases, becomes the limiting selection factor.
365: Inspection of the \Lop\ distribution in the NT07 sample
366: suggests that the detection of broad emission lines
367: is the limiting factor for all
368: $z \le 0.1$ AGNs.
369: This corresponds to \Lop$ \simeq 10^{42.8}$ \ergs\ for the faintest sources
370: at $z=0.1$.
371: For $z \geq 0.15$, the distribution of
372: \Lop\ is consistent with the
373: flux limit of the sample. Thus, at $ z \sim 0.1$,
374: the type-II sample is deeper
375: in terms of L(\oiii) and the type-I sample is incomplete.
376:
377: The distribution of L(\oiii) in type-I AGNs was studied in various
378: papers including Kauffmann et al (2003), Zakamska et al. (2003) and Netzer et al. (2006).
379: The space distribution of all AGNs, based on L(\oiii), is studied in other recent
380: publications (Reyes et al. 2008 and references therein).
381: Netzer et al. (2006) show a weak dependence of L(\oiii)/\Lop\ on redshift
382: and a stronger dependence on \Lop\
383: within different redshift intervals. For $ z \sim 0.1$, the mean and the
384: median values in the NT07 sample are similar and suggest
385: \Lop/L(\oiii)$\simeq 340$.
386: This ratio, which is not corrected for reddening (see below), is assumed to represent
387: all sources in the present work.
388:
389: To produce two samples that are compatible in redshift and in L(\oiii),
390: I chose a flux limit for the type-II sources that corresponds to
391: \Lop$=10^{42.8}$ \ergs\ at $z=0.1$, very close to the flux of the
392: lowest luminosity type-I
393: AGNs at this redshift.\footnote{Standard cosmology
394: with H$_0$=70 km/sec/Mpc, $\Omega_m=0.3$
395: and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, is used throughout.}
396: The resulting type-II sample shows a clear lack of sources
397: at $z \ge 0.2$; a behavior that has been
398: noted in several SDSS-based publications.
399: Given the deficiency of type-I sources at $z \leq 0.1$,
400: and the incompleteness of the type-II population at
401: $z \geq 0.2$, the compromise chosen here is to focus on
402: the $0.1 \leq z \leq 0.2$ range. In this range $10^{42.8} \leq$\Lop$ \leq 10^{44.8}$ \ergs.
403:
404: Fig.\,1 compares the
405: L(\oiii) distributions of the two samples in two redshift intervals,
406: 0.1--0.15 and 0.15--0.2.
407: There are 4197 type-II and 1331 type-I sources in the chosen
408: luminosity and redshift ranges and the ratio is close
409: to the expected 4:1 (note
410: that the type-II sources are from DR4 and the type-I from DR5).
411: The type-I sources in the histogram are all radio quiet (RQ) and
412: are the same objects discussed in NT07.
413: This choise is consistent with the SDSS AGN-detection
414: algorithms that select radio detected AGNs for spectroscopy regardless of their
415: color.
416: Tests show that a distribution that includes also RL sources is
417: almost indistinguishable from the one shown here.
418: All comparisons described below were carried out, separately,
419: for the above two redshift bins and
420: all show the same results. Given this, the rest of the paper addresses the entire
421: $0.1 \leq z \leq 0.2$ range.
422:
423: \begin{figure}
424: \plotone{f1.eps}
425: \caption{L(\oiii) distributions for type-I (black) and type-II (red) AGNs in
426: two redshift intervals, as marked, using the flux limits defined in the paper.}
427: \label{fig:Loiii}
428: \end{figure}
429:
430:
431: The similarity of the type-I and type-II L(\oiii) distributions
432: (note the shift between the two redshift bins due to the changing flux limit)
433: suggests that they are drawn from the same parent
434: population. The somewhat different slope at the low L(\oiii) end is due to
435: the more complete type-II sample at $z \sim 0.15$ compared with
436: type-I AGNs that are still affected by host galaxy contamination.
437: The small deviation on the high L(\oiii) side is either due to the chosen
438: flux limit or to reddening of the \oiii\ line. This is discussed in \S4.
439:
440:
441: \subsection{Mass and accretion rate distributions}
442:
443: BH masses for the modified type-II sample were obtained by applying the
444: Tremaine et al. (2002) expression to the measured $\sigma_*$ (e.g. Heckman et al. 2004).
445: There are uncertainties in such mass estimates related to the
446: host type (spheroid dominated, disk dominated,
447: etc.). However, type-II AGNs reside almost exclusively in massive galaxies
448: (Kauffmann et al. 2003) and the above procedure is the only one available for such sources.
449:
450: For the type-I sources I used the following expression,
451: %
452: \begin{equation}
453: {\rm M_{BH}}= 10^a L_{44}^{0.6} \left[ \frac{FWHM(H_{\beta})}{1000 \,\, {\rm km \, s^{-1}}} \right ] ^2
454: \,\, \Msun \, \, ,
455: \label{eq:HN}
456: \end{equation}
457: %
458: where $L_{44}$=\Lop/$10^{44}$ \ergs\ and $a=6.7$.
459: The factors in this expression are adopted from the recent work of B08
460: that study the {\it intrinsic} R$_{\rm BLR}$ vs. \Lop\ correlation in
461: the K00 sample by using more accurate
462: host galaxy subtraction. The subtraction of the host light affects the slope and the
463: normalization of the relationship
464: which are thus different from the ones given in K05.
465: The best intrinsic slopes found by B08 are between 0.52 and 0.55,
466: depending on the fitting procedure with an
467: uncertainty of order 10\%. The B08 expression cannot be used here since
468: the values of \Lop\ are obtained from SDSS fluxes measured through the 3\arcsec\ fibers
469: that include the host galaxy flux. This can be significant in low luminosity
470: AGNs.
471:
472: Eq.~\ref{eq:HN} takes the galaxy contribution into account by estimating a 3\arcsec\ host
473: flux for each of the B08 sources using data listed in
474: that paper. These fluxes were added to the intrinsic B08 AGN fluxes
475: and the best R$_{\rm BLR}$-\Lop\ relationship was found by using a fitting procedure identical to the one
476: used in that paper. The results are based on fitting only those RM
477: sources with \Lop$> 10^{42.5}$ \ergs\ since these are
478: the ones studied in the present work. The uncertainties on the slope (0.6) and
479: the normalization ($a$) are about 10\% and their exact combination is of
480: little significance over the limited luminosity range used here.
481:
482: M08 suggested that radiation pressure force plays an important
483: role in changing the velocity of BLR clouds with column density of
484: $\sim 10^{23}$ \cmii\ or smaller. In the cloud model, the column density of BLR clouds are estimated
485: to be of this order because of various considerations
486: involving the emitted spectrum (Netzer 1990 and references therein). For example, low ionization
487: lines of FeII and MgII are observed to be very strong yet they cannot originate from the
488: highly ionized, illuminated part of the clouds whose column density approaches $10^{22}$ \cmii.
489: Thus a more extended low ionization part of the clouds is inferred.
490: There is no clear upper limit to the total column density, only
491: to the part which is ionized enough to produce emission lines.
492: The expression adopted for the present calculations is the
493: one presented in Marconi et al. (2008b),
494: %
495: \begin{equation}
496: {\rm M_{BH}}= 10^{a_{rad}} L_{44}^{0.5} \left [ \frac{FWHM(H_{\beta})}{1000 \,\, {\rm km \, s^{-1}}} \right ] ^2
497: + 10^b \frac{L_{44}}{N_{23}} \,\, \Msun \, \, ,
498: \label{eq:M}
499: \end{equation}
500: %
501: where $N_{23}$ is the hydrogen column density in units of 10$^{23}$ \cmii.
502: All calculations shown below assume $N_{23}=1$.
503:
504: M08 analyzed a small sample of type-I AGNs with both RM-based and
505: $\sigma_*$-based \MBH. Minimizing the scatter between the two methods
506: they derived the following values for the virial and radiation pressure force terms:
507: $a_{rad}\simeq 6.13$ and $b \simeq 7.7$.
508: An estimate of $b$ can also be obtained from simple estimates
509: of the radiation pressure
510: force operating on BLR clouds exposed to a standard AGN
511: continuum.
512: This value is in good agreement with the value obtained from the minimization procedure.
513: Note that the difference
514: between $a$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:HN}) and $a_{rad}$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:M}) amounts to a factor of
515: $\sim 4$ in \MBH.
516: Most results discussed in this paper
517: use these values and \S4 addresses the possibility of a larger $a_{rad}$.
518:
519:
520: The above assumptions and expressions have been used
521: to obtain \MBH\ for all sources. There is one
522: estimate for each of the type-II sources, based on the \MBH-$\sigma_*$
523: relationship, and two for each of the type-I sources, one that assumes
524: Eq.~\ref{eq:HN} and one that assumes Eq.~\ref{eq:M}.
525: The histograms of all three \MBH\ estimates are shown in Fig.\,2.
526:
527: \begin{figure}
528: \plotone{f2.eps}
529: \caption{\MBH\ distributions of type-I (thick black line) and type-II (thin red
530: line) $0.1 \leq z \leq 0.2$ AGNs. \MBH\
531: estimates that include a radiation pressure force term
532: (Eq.~\ref{eq:M})
533: are drawn with a dotted black line}
534: \label{fig:M}
535: \end{figure}
536: %
537:
538:
539: I used several statistical tests to compare the histograms.
540: Since the KS test is not very useful for
541: comparing very large samples, I have adopted a practical alternative based on
542: a realization procedure. It involves
543: choosing, in a random way, a small fraction (2--10\%) of the two
544: populations and applying the KS test to the two partial samples.
545: This was done a large number of times and the range of the resulted
546: KS-p probability was examined.
547: The result is a high probability
548: that all \MBH\ distributions are consistent with each other.
549: For example, when testing the virial mass estimate in type-I sources
550: vs. the $\sigma_*$
551: mass estimate in type-II sources,
552: using 3\% of the objects in each realization, I find
553: 50\% of the cases to be in the range
554: $0.07 \leq p \leq 0.5$, i.e. consistent with the
555: assumption of the same parent distribution.
556: A very similar range of KS-p is obtained when replacing the
557: virial assumption with the M08 assumption.
558: I have also used the Mann-Whitney U-test, in a similar realization
559: manner, to check for differences in
560: the medians of the various populations.
561: The results for the comparison of the \MBH\ distributions are similar
562: to those of the KS test.
563:
564: I have computed \Ledd\ for all sources where $L$ is the
565: bolometric luminosity. Since only L(\oiii) are available
566: for estimating L in type-II sources, this
567: was used to obtain L in in type-I objects.
568: For this purpose I assumed a simple bolometric correction factor (BC) to convert \Lop\
569: to $L$ with the conversion factor given earlier (340) to convert L(\oiii)
570: to \Lop. The factor BC
571: is similar to the one used by Marconi et al. (2004)
572: and various other recent publications\footnote{Note that some recent papers,
573: including Shen et al. (2008) and Hopkins et al. (2007), give larger bolometric corrections. This is
574: the result of the double counting of the mid-Infrared part of the spectrum
575: that includes mostly processed radiation.} and the form adopted here is,
576: %
577: \begin{equation}
578: BC= 9- \log L_{44} \,\, .
579: \end{equation}
580: %
581: Fig.\,3 shows three \Ledd\ distributions corresponding to the three
582: \MBH\ distributions of Fig.\,2. Inspection of Fig.\,3 shows
583: good agreement between
584: the virial \Ledd\ distribution for type-I sources and the $\sigma_*$ \Ledd\
585: distribution for type-II
586: sources. This is also confirmed by the KS realization tests
587: ($0.07 < p < 0.48$ in 50\% of all realizations).
588: The distribution of \Ledd\ based on Eq.~\ref{eq:M}
589: is clearly different showing
590: a large peak near \Ledd$\sim 0.1$ and almost no source close to \Ledd=1.
591: For example, the range $ 0.05 \le$\Ledd$ \le 0.2$ contains 30\% of all type-I
592: sources assuming Eq.~\ref{eq:HN}
593: and 74\% of type-I sources assuming Eq.~\ref{eq:M}.
594: The KS realization tests confirm this result showing
595: that 50\% of all realizations produce
596: $10^{-4} \leq p \leq 10^{-5}$; i.e extremely small probability for similar
597: parent distributions.
598: Unfortunately, the Mann-Whitney test is not very useful in this case since
599: all distributions have similar mean \Ledd\ (Fig.\,3)
600: despite their very different shapes.
601: \begin{figure}
602: \plotone{f3.eps}
603: \caption{\Ledd\ distributions for type-I and type-II sources
604: (symbols as in Fig.\,2). Note the highly peaked distribution and
605: the lack of large \Ledd\ sources when radiation pressure force is included.}
606: \label{fig:Ledd}
607: \end{figure}
608:
609:
610:
611:
612: \section{Discussion}
613:
614: The aim of the present paper is to investigate the mass
615: and accretion rate distributions in AGNs
616: hence it is crucial to understand the differences between the
617: type-I and type-II samples.
618: As explained in \S2, the difficulties in defining two identical samples are
619: related to the incompleteness of the type-I sample at $z \le 0.1$
620: and the deviation from a pure flux limited sample of type-II sources at
621: $z>0.2$. The chosen redshift interval of 0.1--0.2
622: is a compromise which is by no means perfect.
623: For example, the matching of the two L(\oiii) distributions shown in the
624: left panel of Fig.\,1 ($1 \leq z \leq 0.15$ sources) is
625: improved if the flux limit (\S2)
626: is increased by 0.1-0.2 dex. However, there is no obvious physical reason for such
627: an arbitrary scaling.
628:
629: Reddening of the \oiii\ line is perhaps a more plausible explanation
630: for the differences seen in Fig.\,1.
631: This issue has been discussed
632: extensively in Netzer et al. (2006; see \S3.2)
633: where references to earlier works are
634: given. According to that paper,
635: a comparison of L(\oiii) with L(2--10 keV)
636: (assumes to
637: be orientation independent) in type-I and type-II AGNs indicates more extinction in type-II
638: sources. The typical difference is of order 0.2--0.3 dex
639: but the number is highly uncertain since it is derived from a mixture of
640: sources that include optically selected and X-ray selected AGNs (note that
641: the above factor represents the {\it difference} in extinction, not the extinction
642: itself which is directly measured in most type-II samples
643: and is typically larger).
644: More support for differences in reddening can
645: be found in the comparison of the L(\oiii)-based luminosity functions of
646: type-I and type-II AGNs (e.g. Reyes et al. 2008) and in the comparison of optical and
647: mid-IR emission lines
648: (Mel{\'e}ndez et al.2008).
649: Applying such a correction to the type-II sample used here brings the
650: L(\oiii) distributions shown in Fig.\,1 into a better agreement
651: with the equivalent type-I distribution.
652: The correction
653: does not affect the type-II BH mass distribution
654: (which is based on
655: $\sigma_*$) but increase the deduced \Ledd\ for type-II AGNs.
656: This improves the (already good)
657: agreement shown in Fig.\,3.
658:
659: I have also investigated the possibility that most of the
660: differences between the two methods used to derive \MBH\ in type-I sources stem from the
661: difference between $a$ and $a_{rad}$. This is in accord with a new work by Marconi
662: and collaborators who are studying this idea in samples of higher redshift type-I sources
663: (A. Marconi, private communication).
664: To test this idea I chose a larger value, $a_{rad} =6.5$, in Eq.~\ref{eq:M} and
665: calculated new \MBH\ and \Ledd\ distributions. The result is a somewhat better agreement with the type-II
666: \MBH\ distribution
667: but the \Ledd\ distribution changed only slightly and shows
668: the same typical deficiency of \Ledd$\sim 1$ sources shown in Fig.\,3.
669: To illustrate this more clearly, I show in Fig.\,4 the two dimensional distributions
670: of \MBH\ vs. \Ledd\ in all three cases: one for type-II sources (red points) and two for the
671: type-I AGNs, the virial method (black points) and the M08 expression with $a_{rad}=6.5$ (blue points).
672: The very clear deviations of the Eq.~\ref{eq:M}-based estimates are evident.
673:
674: \begin{figure}
675: \plotone{f4.eps}
676: \caption{\Ledd\ vs. \MBH\ for type-II sources (red points) and for two assumptions about
677: type-I sources: simple virial assumption (black points) and modified estimates
678: (Eq.~\ref{eq:M}) that include
679: radiation pressure force term with $a_{rad}=6.5$ (blue points). Note the reduced ranges in \MBH\ and
680: \Ledd\ and the very different distribution compared with type-II sources,
681: when the modified estimate is used.
682: }
683: \label{fig:M_Ledd}
684: \end{figure}
685:
686:
687: Finally, I have also experimented
688: with changing the slope in Eq.~\ref{eq:M} to
689: 0.6, similar to the one used in Eq.~\ref{eq:HN}. This had negligible effect
690: on the results.
691: There are other potential complications, e.g. the possibility that the L(\oiii)/\Lop\
692: ratio is itself a function of \Ledd, the suggestion that the bolometric correction factor,
693: BC, depends on \Ledd, and more. The data used here do not support the first and there is no
694: information to test the latter.
695:
696: The main result of the present work is the significantly
697: different \Ledd\ distribution
698: of low luminosity low redshift
699: type-I AGNs compared with type-II sources under the assumption that radiation pressure force
700: plays an important role in affecting the BLR gas velocity.
701: The differences almost completely
702: disappear when a ``standard'' virial mass estimate (Eq.~\ref{eq:HN}) is
703: used. Eq.~\ref{eq:M} shows that the radiation pressure force term is negligible if
704: the column densities
705: of the \hb\ producing BLR clouds are significantly larger than 10$^{23}$ \cmii, perhaps
706: as large as $10^{24}$ \cmii. Radiation
707: pressure force bounds to have some
708: effect on optically thick gas thus the results shown here
709: can be viewed as an indication for large column density BLR clouds. As explained, all this relates
710: only to the cloud model of
711: the BLR.
712:
713: The existence of extremely large column density clouds can change some aspects of present
714: AGN models.
715: For example, it limits the possibility of escaping BLR gas and increases the chance of
716: eventual accretion onto the central BH. It also suggests a large column of neutral gas at the
717: back of such clouds and a more hospitable environment for molecules and dust
718: formation and survival. The
719: physical scale of the clouds must be larger too compared with previous estimates with possible implications
720: for cloud-cloud collisions.
721: Regarding high redshift sources, the Marconi et al. (2008b) mass calculations
722: is based on the observation of the \civ\ line. Since
723: the column densities of \hb\ producing and \civ\ producing clouds are not
724: necessarily the same (e.g. Kaspi and Netzer 1999) this would
725: complicate the comparison with low redshift samples.
726:
727:
728: Finally, the present work applies to AGNs with $10^{42.8} \leq$\Lop$\leq 10^{44.8}$ \ergs\
729: in the 0.1--0.2 redshift interval. I have also tested the \Ledd\ distribution
730: in somewhat higher luminosity higher redshift ($\sim 0.25$) type-II sources from the
731: DR4 archive. I found several
732: cases with \Ledd$\sim 1$, beyond the limit obtained by using Eq.~\ref{eq:M}.
733: As for a similar test for higher redshift, more
734: luminous sources, the situation is less clear. First it is hard to find overlapping
735: type-I and type-II samples where a similar analysis can be applied.
736: Moreover, the applicability of the \MBH-$\sigma_*$ relationship
737: has only been demonstrated at low redshift.
738: The current understanding of the co-evolution of massive BHs and their hosts at high redshift
739: does not allow such a test at the present time.
740:
741:
742: \acknowledgments I am grateful to Alessandro Marconi, Benny Trakhtenbrot and
743: Guinevere Kauffmann for useful discussions.
744: Funding for this work has been provided by the Israel Science
745: Foundation grant 364/07.
746:
747: Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan
748: Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation,
749: the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space
750: Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society,
751: and the Higher Education Funding Council for England.
752: The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/.
753:
754: The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the
755: Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the
756: American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam,
757: University of Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve University,
758: University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the Institute for
759: Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University,
760: the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute for
761: Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean Scientist Group, the Chinese
762: Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos National Laboratory, the
763: Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for
764: Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, Ohio State University,
765: University of Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University,
766: the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
767:
768:
769: \begin{thebibliography}
770:
771: \bibitem[Baldwin et al.(1995)]{1995ApJ...455L.119B} Baldwin, J., Ferland,
772: G., Korista, K., \& Verner, D.\ 1995, \apjl, 455, L119
773: \bibitem []{}Adelman-McCarthy, et al., 2006, \apjs, 162, 38.
774: \bibitem[Bentz]{2008} Bentz, M., Peterson, B.M., Netzer, H., Pogge, R.W.,
775: \& Vestergaard, M, 2008 (submitted to ApJ)
776: \bibitem[Elitzur
777: \& Shlosman(2006)]{2006ApJ...648L.101E} Elitzur, M., \& Shlosman, I.\ 2006, \apjl, 648, L101
778: \bibitem[Everett(2005)]{2005ApJ...631..689E} Everett, J.~E.\ 2005, \apj,
779: 631, 689
780: \bibitem[Groves et al.(2006)]{2006NewAR..50..743G} Groves, B., Kewley, L.,
781: Kauffmann, G., \& Heckman, T.\ 2006, New Astronomy Review, 50, 743
782: \bibitem[Heckman et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...613..109H} Heckman, T.~M.,
783: Kauffmann, G., Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., Tremonti, C.,
784: \& White, S.~D.~M.\ 2004, \apj, 613, 109
785: \bibitem[Korista et al.(1997)]{1997ApJS..108..401K} Korista, K., Baldwin,
786: J., Ferland, G., \& Verner, D.\ 1997, \apjs, 108, 401
787: \bibitem[Hopkins et al.(2007)]{} Hopkins, P.~F.,Richards, G and Humanist, L,
788: 2007, \apj 654, 731
789: \bibitem[Kaspi \& Netzer(1999)]{1999ApJ...524...71K} Kaspi, S., \& Netzer, H.\ 1999, \apj, 524, 71
790: \bibitem[Kaspi et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...533..631K} Kaspi, S., Smith,
791: P.~S., Netzer, H., Maoz, D., Jannuzi, B.~T., \& Giveon, U.\ 2000,
792: \apj, 533, 631 (K00)
793: \bibitem[Kaspi et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...629...61K} Kaspi, S., Maoz, D.,
794: Netzer, H., Peterson, B.~M., Vestergaard, M., \& Jannuzi, B.~T.\
795: 2005, \apj, 629, 61 (K05)
796: \bibitem[Kauffmann et al.(2003)]{2003MNRAS.346.1055K} Kauffmann, G., et
797: al.\ 2003, \mnras, 346, 1055
798: %\bibitem[Kollmeier et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...648..128K} Kollmeier,
799: % J.~A., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 648, 128 (K06)
800: \bibitem[Marconi et al.(2004)]{2004MNRAS.351..169M} Marconi, A.,
801: Risaliti, G., Gilli, R., Hunt, L.~K., Maiolino, R., \& Salvati, M.\
802: 2004, \mnras, 351, 169
803: \bibitem[Marconi et al.(2008)]{2008ApJ...678..693M} Marconi, A., Axon,
804: D.~J., Maiolino, R., Nagao, T., Pastorini, G., Pietrini, P., Robinson, A.,
805: \& Torricelli, G.\ 2008a, \apj, 678, 693, (M08)
806: \bibitem[Marconi et al.(2008)]{2008arXiv0809.0390M} Marconi, A., Axon, D.,
807: Maiolino, R., Nagao, T., Pietrini, P., Robinson, A.,
808: \& Torricelli, G.\ 2008b, arXiv:0809.0390
809: \bibitem[Mel{\'e}ndez et al.(2008)]{2008ApJ...682...94M} Mel{\'e}ndez, M.,
810: et al.\ 2008, \apj, 682, 94
811: \& Torricelli, G.\ 2008b, arXiv:0809.0390
812: %\bibitem[McLure \& Dunlop(2004)]{2004MNRAS.352.1390M} McLure, R.~J.,
813: % \& Dunlop, J.~S.\ 2004, \mnras, 352, 1390
814: \bibitem[Netzer]{1990} Netzer, H., 1990, in {\it Active Galactic Nuclei}, SAAS-FEE advanced course 20
815: \bibitem[Netzer \& Trakhtenbrot(2007)]{2007ApJ...654..754N} Netzer,
816: H., \& Trakhtenbrot, B.\ 2007, \apj, 654, 754 (NT07)
817: \bibitem[Netzer et
818: al.(2006)]{2006A&A...453..525N} Netzer, H., Mainieri, V., Rosati, P., \& Trakhtenbrot, B.\ 2006, \aap, 453, 525
819: %\bibitem[Netzer ]{2007}Netzer, H, Lira, P., Trakhtenbrod, B., Shemmer., O
820: % \& Cury, I, 2007, \apj 671, 1256
821: \bibitem[Onken
822: \& Peterson(2002)]{2002ApJ...572..746O} Onken, C.~A., \& Peterson, B.~M.\ 2002, \apj, 572, 746
823: \bibitem[Peterson
824: \& Bentz(2006)]{2006NewAR..50..796P} Peterson, B.~M., \& Bentz, M.~C.\ 2006, New Astronomy Review, 50, 796
825: \bibitem[Reyes et al.(2008)]{2008arXiv0801.1115R} Reyes, R., et al.\ 2008,
826: arXiv:0801.1115
827: \bibitem[Shen et al.(2008)]{2008ApJ...680..169S} Shen, Y., Greene, J.~E.,
828: Strauss, M.~A., Richards, G.~T., \& Schneider, D.~P.\ 2008, \apj, 680, 169
829: \bibitem[Tremaine et al.(2002)]{2002ApJ...574..740T} Tremaine, S., et al.\
830: 2002, \apj, 574, 740
831: \bibitem[Vestergaard \& Peterson(2006)]{2006ApJ...641..689V}
832: Vestergaard, M., \& Peterson, B.~M.\ 2006, \apj, 641, 689
833: %\bibitem[Vestergaard et al.(2008)]{2008ApJ...674L...1V} Vestergaard, M.,
834: %Fan, X., Tremonti, C.~A., Osmer, P.~S.,
835: %\& Richards, G.~T.\ 2008, \apjl, 674, L1
836: \bibitem []{}York, et al., 2000, \aj, 120, 1579
837: \bibitem[Zakamska et al.(2003)]{2003AJ....126.2125Z} Zakamska, N.~L., et
838: al.\ 2003, \aj, 126, 2125
839:
840: \end{thebibliography}
841:
842: \end{document}
843:
844: