1: \documentclass{article}
2: \usepackage{emulateapj,apjfonts}
3: \input psfig
4:
5: \def\nd{\nodata}
6: \def\here{}
7: \def\hered{}
8: \def\Deg{\hbox{${}^\circ$\llap{.}}}
9: \def\Min{\hbox{${}^{\prime}$\llap{.}}}
10: \def\Sec{\hbox{${}^{\prime\prime}$\llap{.}}}
11: \def\hr{\hbox{${}^{\hbox{\sevenrm h}}$}}
12: \def\mn{\hbox{${}^{\hbox{\sevenrm m}}$}}
13: \def\deg{\hbox{${}^\circ$}}
14: \def\min{\hbox{${}^{\prime}$}}
15: \def\sec{\hbox{${}^{\prime\prime}$}}
16: \def\kms{km s$^{-1}$}
17: \def\an{\AA}
18: \def\ma{$^{-1}$~}
19: \def\mb{$^{-2}$~}
20: \def\ha{H$\alpha$}
21: \def\mh{M_{\bullet}}
22: \def\ms{\mh-\sigma}
23: \def\msun{M_{\odot}}
24: \def\fun#1#2{\lower3.6pt\vbox{\baselineskip0pt\lineskip.9pt
25: \ialign{$\mathsurround=0pt#1\hfil##\hfil$\crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}
26: \def\lap{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun <}}
27: \def\gap{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun >}}
28:
29:
30: \lefthead{Merritt \& Ferrarese}
31: \righthead{$\mh-\sigma$ Relation}
32:
33: \begin{document}
34:
35: \title{The $\mh-\sigma$ Relation for Supermassive Black Holes}
36:
37:
38: \author{David Merritt and Laura Ferrarese}
39: \affil{Rutgers University, Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, New Brunswick, NJ, 08854}
40: \authoraddr{Department of Physics and Astronomy, 136 Frelinghuysen Road,
41: Piscataway, NJ 08854}
42:
43: \begin{abstract}
44: We investigate the differences in the $\ms$ relation derived recently
45: by Ferrarese \& Merritt and by Gebhardt and collaborators. The
46: shallower slope found by the latter authors ($3.75$ vs. $4.8$) is due
47: partly to the use of a regression algorithm that ignores measurement
48: errors, and partly to the value of the velocity dispersion adopted for
49: a single galaxy, the Milky Way. A steeper relation is shown to
50: provide a better fit to black hole masses derived from reverberation
51: mapping studies. Combining the stellar dynamical, gas dynamical, and
52: reverberation mapping mass estimates, we derive a best-fit relation
53: $\mh = 1.30 (\pm 0.36) \times 10^8\msun(\sigma_c/200\ {\rm km\
54: s}^{-1})^{4.72(\pm 0.36)}$.
55: \end{abstract}
56:
57: \keywords{black hole physics --- galaxies: kinematics and dynamics --- methods: data analysis}
58:
59:
60: \section{Introduction}
61:
62: Ferrarese \& Merritt (2000; FM00; Paper I) demonstrated a tight
63: correlation between the masses of supermassive black holes (BHs) and
64: the velocity dispersions of their host bulges,
65: $\mh\propto\sigma^{\alpha}$, $\alpha=4.8\pm 0.5$. The scatter in the
66: relation was found to be consistent with that expected on the basis
67: of measurement errors alone; in other words, the underlying
68: correlation between $\sigma$ and $\mh$ is essentially perfect. The
69: relation is apparently so tight that it surpasses in predictive
70: accuracy what can be achieved from detailed dynamical modelling of
71: stellar kinematical data in most galaxies. As an example, FM00
72: showed that the BH mass estimates of Magorrian et al. (1998), derived
73: from ground-based optical observations, lie systematically above the
74: $\ms$ relation defined by galaxies with secure BH masses, some by as
75: much as two orders of magnitude.
76:
77: The $\ms$ relation of Paper I was based on central velocity
78: dispersions $\sigma_c$, corrected to an effective aperture of radius
79: $r_e/8$, with $r_e$ the half-light radius. Central velocity
80: dispersions are easily measured and available for a large number of
81: galaxies (Prugniel et al. 1997). An alternative form of the $\ms$
82: relation was investigated by Gebhardt et al. (2000a; G00) who used
83: $\sigma_e$ as the independent variable; $\sigma_e$ was defined as the
84: spatially-averaged, rms, line-of-sight stellar velocity within the
85: effective radius $r_e$. Computing $\sigma_e$ requires knowledge of
86: the stellar rotation and velocity dispersion profiles at all radii
87: within $r_e$, as well as information about the inclination of the
88: rotation axis with respect to the line of sight. These data are
89: available for a smaller number of galaxies; on the other hand,
90: $\sigma_e$ might be expected to reflect the depth of the stellar
91: potential well more accurately than $\sigma_c$.
92:
93: The versions of the $\mh-\sigma$ relation derived by FM00 and by G00
94: differ in two important ways. The latter authors found a
95: significantly smaller slope ($\alpha=3.75\pm 0.3$ vs. $4.8\pm 0.5$) as
96: well as a greater vertical scatter -- greater both in an absolute
97: sense, and relative to measurement errors in $\mh$. G00 estimated
98: that approximately $40\%$ of the scatter in $\mh$ about the mean line
99: was intrinsic and the remainder due to measurement errors. FM00 found
100: no evidence for an intrinsic scatter in $\mh$.
101:
102: The $\ms$ relation is currently our best guide to BH demographics, and
103: it is important to understand the source of these differences. That
104: is the goal of this paper. In addition to using different measures
105: of the velocity dispersion, FM00 and G00 analyzed different galaxy
106: samples, and used different algorithms for fitting regression lines
107: to the data. We find that regression algorithms that account
108: correctly for errors in the measured variables always give a steeper
109: slope than that found by G00. We also show that the steeper relation
110: derived by FM00 provides a better fit to galaxies with BH masses
111: computed by reverberation mapping.
112:
113:
114: \section{Data}
115:
116: Table 1 gives the data used here. The first 12 galaxies (Sample 1)
117: are ``Sample A'' from Paper I, consisting of those galaxies with
118: published BH mass estimates that were deemed reliable -- roughly
119: speaking, galaxies in which the sphere of influence of the BH has been
120: resolved. Five of these masses are derived from stellar kinematics
121: and seven from gas dynamics. All of these galaxies were included in
122: the G00 sample as well, with the exception of NGC 3115; for this
123: galaxy, we assume $\sigma_e=\sigma_c$. The second part of Table 1
124: contains the additional 15 galaxies included by G00 (Sample 2).$^1$
125: \footnotetext[1]{The error bars plotted in Fig. 2 of G00 do not always
126: correspond to the values listed in their Table 1 (e.g. NGC 4291 and
127: NGC 5845). We used the tabulated values.} Most of the BH mass
128: estimates for these galaxies are based on unpublished STIS data. In
129: addition, G00 included M31 and NGC 1068, which were excluded from
130: Paper I on the grounds that their BH masses were deemed unreliable.
131: We computed distances for the G00 galaxies in Table 1 in the same way
132: as in Paper I and corrected the BH masses accordingly. We also
133: computed aperture-corrected central dispersions $\sigma_c$ for the G00
134: galaxies.
135:
136: At this point, we are already in a position to test the idea, proposed
137: by G00, that the steeper slope of the $\mh-\sigma_c$ relation in Paper
138: I is due to spuriously high values of $\sigma_c$ for the more nearby
139: galaxies. This idea is rejected based on Figure 1, which shows that
140: there is remarkably little difference on average between $\sigma_c$
141: and $\sigma_e$. This is presumably due to the flatness of galaxy
142: rotation and velocity dispersion profiles, and to the fact that even
143: $\sigma_c$ is measured on a large enough scale that it is essentially
144: unaffected by the presence of the BH. The mean ratio of $\sigma_e$ to
145: $\sigma_c$ is $1.01$; the correlation coefficient of $\log\sigma_e$ vs
146: $\log\sigma_c$ is $0.97$.
147:
148: \hskip -2.55in\psfig{file=tab1.ps,width=18.0cm,angle=0}
149: \vskip -4.3in
150:
151: However, we notice that $\sigma_e$ and $\sigma_c$ differ significantly
152: for one particular galaxy, the Milky Way. G00 adopted a value of
153: $\sigma_e =$ 75 \kms for the Galaxy based on the velocity dispersion
154: between 50 and 500 arcsec (Kent 1992; Genzel et al. 2000). They
155: apparently neglected to account for the contribution of the rotational
156: velocity, which in the same region is 103$\pm$15 \kms (Kent 1992).
157: More importantly, 500 arcsec corresponds to a projected radius of 20
158: pc at the Galactic center, more than two orders of magnitude smaller
159: than the effective radius of the Galactic bulge ($\sim 2.7$ kpc;
160: cf. Gilmore, King \& van der Kruit 1990). The bulge velocity
161: dispersion has been measured by several authors at various
162: Galactocentric distances within 4 kpc, all giving values between 75
163: and 110 \kms, with a tendency for $\sigma$ to increase slowly toward
164: the center (e.g. Kent 1992; Tiede \& Terndrup 1997, 1999; Minniti
165: 1996; C\^ot\'e 1999; Zhao et al. 1996). The rotational velocity in
166: the inner 1.5 kpc is well approximated by a solid body curve with $v
167: \sim 65 - 87$ \kms kpc$^{-1}$ (e.g. Tiede \& Terndrup 1997, 1999;
168: Morrison \& Harding 1993; Menzies 1990; Kinman, Feast \& Lasker 1988).
169: In view of these results, we question the choice of $\sigma_e = 75$
170: \kms for the Milky Way. FM00 adopted $\sigma_c = 100$ \kms; in what
171: follows we will perform regression analyses assuming values of both 75
172: \kms and 100 \kms for $\sigma_e$. We will show that the slope of the
173: $\mh-\sigma_e$ relation depends significantly on which value is used.
174:
175: G00 assumed constant errors on log$\mh$ and zero measurement errors in
176: $\sigma_e$ when carrying out their least-square fits. However,
177: ignoring measurement errors in the independent variable is well known
178: to bias the slope downwards (e.g Jefferys 1980). Even when high
179: signal-to-noise data are used, measurement errors on the velocity
180: dispersions are easily at the 10\% level (e.g.
181:
182: \psfig{file=figure1.epsi,width=8.8cm,angle=0} \figcaption{Comparison
183: of $\sigma_c$ (the central velocity dispersion) and $\sigma_e$ (the
184: rms velocity within one effective radius) for the galaxies in Table
185: 1. The solid line has a slope of one.}
186: \vskip 0.3in
187:
188:
189: \noindent van der Marel et
190: al. 1994), and cannot be neglected. Unfortunately, the data used by
191: G00 to compute $\sigma_e$ are mostly unpublished, and the authors do
192: not give error estimates in their paper. Therefore, in the regression
193: analyses described below we will make various assumptions about the
194: measurements uncertainties in $\sigma_e$.
195:
196: To understand how the different galaxy samples used by FM00 and by G00
197: may have affected their respective conclusions about the $\ms$
198: relation, we analyze Sample 1 (the 12 galaxies from Paper I) and
199: Sample 2 (the additional 15 galaxies from G00) separately. The BH
200: masses in Sample 2 are significantly less accurate than those in
201: Sample 1, with an rms uncertainty of $0.28$ dex, compared to $0.18$
202: dex for Sample 1. We also present results from the analysis of the
203: entire set of 27 galaxies, called the ``combined sample'' below.
204:
205: \section{Analysis}
206:
207:
208:
209:
210: We assume a relation of the form
211: \begin{equation}
212: Y_i = \alpha X_i + \beta + \epsilon_i
213: \end{equation}
214: between the measured variables, where $Y$ is $\log\mh$ and $X$ is
215: either $\log\sigma_c$ or $\log\sigma_e$. Units are solar masses for
216: $\mh$ and \kms for $\sigma$. The $\epsilon_i$ describe measurement
217: errors as well as intrinsic scatter in the relation, if any. A large
218: number of regression algorithms are available for recovering estimates
219: $\hat\alpha$ and $\hat\beta$ of the slope and intercept and their
220: uncertainties, given ($X_i$, $Y_i$) and their estimated errors
221: ($\sigma_{Xi},\sigma_{Yi}$). These algorithms differ in the degree of
222: generality of the model that is assumed to underly the data. The
223: following four algorithms were used here.
224:
225: {\it Ordinary Least-Squares} (OLS). All of the error is assumed to lie
226: in the dependent variable (i.e. $\log\mh$) and the amplitude of the
227: error is assumed to be the same from measurement to measurement. This
228: is the algorithm adopted by G00. We use the implementation {\tt
229: G02CAF} from the NAG subroutine library. The OLS estimator is biased
230: if there are measurement errors
231:
232: \hskip -4.7in\psfig{file=tab2.ps,width=17.5cm,angle=0}
233: \vskip -3.0in
234:
235: \noindent in the independent variable, or if the errors in the
236: dependent variable vary from data point to data point (e.g. Jefferys
237: 1980).
238:
239: {\it General Least-Squares} (GLS). All of the error is still assumed
240: to reside in the dependent variable, but the amplitude of the error
241: may vary from point to point. Press et al. (1989) implement this
242: model in their routine {\tt fit}, which we use here.
243:
244: {\it Orthogonal Distance Regression} (ODR). The underlying variables
245: are assumed to lie exactly on a straight line, i.e. to have no
246: intrinsic scatter, but the observed quantities are allowed to have
247: measurement errors in both $X$ and $Y$, which may differ from point to
248: point. This model is incorporated in the routines {\tt fitexy} of
249: Press et al. (1989) and {\tt fv} of Fasano \& Vio (1988). We use the
250: former routine here; the latter was found to give essentially
251: identical results. The ODR estimator may be biased if the true
252: variables exhibit intrinsic scatter about the linear relation, in
253: addition to measurement errors (e.g. Feigelson \& Babu 1992).
254:
255: {\it Regression with Bivariate Errors and Intrinsic Scatter} (BRS).
256: As in ODR, the data are permitted to have measurement errors in both
257: $X$ and $Y$ that differ from point to point. In addition, the
258: underlying variables are allowed to have an intrinsic scatter about
259: the regression line. We use the routine BCES($Y|X$) of Akritas \&
260: Bershady (1996), the same routine used in Paper I.
261:
262: \hskip -0.6in\psfig{file=tab3.ps,width=17.5cm,angle=0}
263: \vskip -3.0in
264:
265: Tables 2 and 3 give estimates of the slope and intercept, $\hat\alpha$
266: and $\hat\beta$, and their uncertainties as computed by each of the
267: four algorithms, using $\sigma_c$ and $\sigma_e$ as independent
268: variables. Values in parentheses correspond to setting $\sigma_e=100$
269: \kms for the Milky Way, as discussed above. The results are
270: summarized below and in Figure 2.
271:
272: 1. Accounting for errors in one or both variables increases the slope
273: of the relation, whether expressed in terms of $\sigma_c$ or
274: $\sigma_e$. Ignoring measurement errors biases the slope too low, for
275: two reasons. The BH masses in Sample 2 are significantly more
276: uncertain than those in Sample 1 and, as a group, exhibit a shallower
277: slope (particularly when expressed in terms of $\sigma_c$); routines
278: like OLS that weight all data equally therefore underestimate the true
279: slope. Second, ignoring measurement errors in the independent
280: variable ($\log\sigma$) {\it always} yields spuriously low slopes
281: (e.g. Jefferys 1980). We find that the shallowest slope for every
282: sample is returned by OLS, the routine used by G00. All other
283: algorithms give slopes in the range $4\lap\hat\alpha\lap 5$ for the
284: combined sample.
285:
286: 2. The slope inferred for the $\mh-\sigma_e$ relation using ODR and
287: BRS depends somewhat on the assumed errors in $\sigma_e$. Increasing
288: the assumed error from $5\%$ to $20\%$ increases the BRS slope of the
289: combined sample from $3.9$ to $4.8$.
290:
291: \newpage
292:
293: \vspace*{-2.95in}
294: \hskip -0.5in \psfig{file=figure2.epsi,width=20.8cm,angle=0}
295: \vskip -2.0in
296:
297: 3. Even when the appropriate fitting routines are used, the
298: $\mh-\sigma_c$ relation tends to have a steeper slope than the
299: $\mh-\sigma_e$ relation. This difference, however, is driven by one
300: galaxy only: when $\sigma_e$ for the Milky Way is increased from 75
301: \kms~(used by G00) to a more appropriate -- in our opinion -- value of
302: 100 \kms, both relations have a best-fit slope of $\sim 4.5\pm
303: 0.5$ for the combined sample (assuming a plausible 10\% - 15\% error
304: on $\sigma_e$).
305:
306: 4. Adding the galaxies of Sample 2 (from G00) has little impact on the
307: results, as long as measurement errors are taken into account by the
308: fitting routine and $\sigma_e = \sigma_c = 100$ \kms~is used for the
309: Galaxy: the regression lines for Sample 1 (from Paper I) and for the
310: combined sample are essentially the same. In other words, the BH
311: masses added by G00 are too uncertain to significantly alter the fit
312: determined by the galaxies from Sample 1 alone.
313:
314: We conclude that the different slopes found by G00 and FM00 ($3.75$ vs
315: $4.8$) are due partly to the neglect of measurement errors by the
316: former authors, and partly to the difference between $\sigma_e$ and
317: $\sigma_c$ for a single data point, the Milky Way. If we use the
318: more appropriate value of $\sigma_e=100$ \kms for the Milky Way, and a
319: plausible 10\% - 15\% error on $\sigma_e$, the $\mh-\sigma_c$ and
320: $\mh-\sigma_e$ relations have essentially the same slope, $\sim 4.5$.
321: The data points added by G00, based mostly on unpublished
322:
323:
324: \noindent
325: \vspace*{5.625in}
326: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
327:
328: \noindent modelling of stellar kinematical data from STIS, appear to contain
329: little information about the $\ms$ relation that was not already
330: contained in the more accurate masses from Paper I.
331:
332: We next address the scatter in the $\ms$ relation.
333: The $\chi^2$ merit function for a linear fit to data with errors
334: in both variables is
335: \begin{equation}
336: \tilde\chi^2 = {1\over N-2}\sum_{i=1}^N
337: {\left(Y_i-\hat\alpha X_i-\hat\beta_i\right)^2\over
338: \sigma_{Y,i}^2 + \hat\alpha^2\sigma_{X,i}^2}
339: \end{equation}
340: (e.g. Press et al. 1989),
341: where, in our case, $Y=\log\mh$ and $X=\log\sigma$.
342: A good fit has $\tilde\chi^2\lap 1$.
343: Since measurement uncertainties $\sigma_{X,i}$ are not available
344: for the $\sigma_e$,
345: we computed $\tilde\chi^2$ only for the $\mh-\sigma_c$ relation.
346: We are also interested in the absolute scatter in $\log\mh$,
347: which we define as
348: \begin{equation}
349: \Delta_{\bullet} = \sqrt{{1\over N}\sum_{i=1}^N\left(Y_i-\hat\alpha X_i
350: -\hat\beta_i\right)^2}.
351: \end{equation}
352: We computed $\tilde\chi^2$ and $\Delta_{\bullet}$ using the
353: fits given by the BRS regression algorithm (Table 2).
354: The results are:
355:
356: \setcounter{figure}{2}
357: \psfig{file=figure3.epsi,width=8.8cm,angle=0}
358: \figcaption{Reverberation mapping masses for seven galaxies.
359: Solid line is the $\mh-\sigma_c$ relation from
360: Ferrarese \& Merritt (2000);
361: dashed line is the $\mh-\sigma_e$ relation from
362: Gebhardt et al. (2000a).}
363: \vskip 0.3in
364:
365: \begin{eqnarray}
366: {\rm Sample\ 1:}\ \ \tilde\chi^2 & = & 0.74 \ \ \ \ \ \ \Delta_{\bullet}=0.26
367: \nonumber \\
368: {\rm Sample\ 2:}\ \ \tilde\chi^2 & = & 1.67 \ \ \ \ \ \ \Delta_{\bullet}=0.35
369: \nonumber \\
370: {\rm Combined\ sample:}\ \ \tilde\chi^2 & = & 1.20 \ \ \ \ \ \ \Delta_{\bullet}=0.34
371: \nonumber
372: \end{eqnarray}
373: The Sample 2 galaxies exhibit a larger scatter in $\log\mh$ than the
374: galaxies in Sample 1 ($0.35$ dex vs. $0.26$ dex), consistent with
375: their greater measurement uncertainties (Table 1). Furthermore the 12
376: galaxies from Paper I define a significantly tighter correlation, as
377: measured by $\tilde\chi^2$, than the 15 galaxies added by G00
378: ($\tilde\chi^2=0.74$ vs. $\tilde\chi^2=1.67$), or than the combined
379: sample. Thus we confirm the conclusion of G00 that the scatter in
380: their data about the best-fit linear relation exceeds that expected on
381: the basis of measurement error alone. The large $\tilde\chi^2$ for
382: Sample 2 may indicate that the measurement uncertainties quoted by G00
383: are too small.
384:
385: \section{Reverberation Mapping Masses}
386:
387: A long-standing discrepancy exists between BH masses determined from
388: stellar kinematics and from reverberation mapping; the latter
389: technique uses emission lines in active galactic nuclei (AGN) to probe
390: the virial mass within the broad-line region (Netzer \& Peterson
391: 1997). Since there are currently no galaxies with BH masses
392: determined independently by the two techniques, any comparison must be
393: statistical. The standard approach (e.g. Wandel 1999) has been to
394: compare the average BH mass at a given bulge luminosity as computed
395: from reverberation mapping with the mass predicted by the Magorrian et
396: al. (1998) relation; the latter is based on stellar kinematical data,
397: mostly of low spatial resolution. The discrepancy is a factor of
398: $\sim 20$ in the sense that the reverberation-mapping masses are too
399: low (Wandel 1999). This discrepancy has most often been attributed to
400: some unspecified, systematic error in the reverberation mapping masses
401: (e.g. Richstone et al. 1998; Faber 1999; Ho 1999).
402:
403: FM00 showed that the Magorrian et al. masses fall systematically above
404: the $\mh-\sigma_c$ relation defined by galaxies with more secure BH
405: mass estimates, some by as much as two orders of magnitude. The
406: offset is strongly correlated with distance suggesting a systematic,
407: resolution-dependent error in the Magorrian et al. modelling. Much
408: or all of the discrepancy with the reverberation mapping masses might
409: therefore be due to systematic errors in the Magorrian et al. masses,
410: contrary to the usual assumption. Gebhardt et al. (2000b) tested this
411: idea by plotting seven AGN BH masses against their $\mh-\sigma_e$
412: relation.$^2$ \footnotetext[2]{The velocity dispersions plotted by
413: Gebhardt et al. (2000b) are labelled $\sigma_e$ even though they are
414: central values.} We reproduce that plot here, as Figure 3. The fit
415: is reasonable, although the points tend to scatter below the line.
416: We also plot in Figure 3 the steeper $\mh-\sigma_c$ relation derived
417: in Paper I (given here, in Table 2, as the BRS regression fit on
418: $\sigma_c$ for Sample 1). The steeper relation of Paper I is clearly
419: a better fit.
420:
421: We stress that several of the AGN data points lie at the low-mass end
422: of the distribution where the $\ms$ relation is strongly affected by
423: uncertainties in the slope. Nevertheless, there would no longer
424: appear to be any {\it prima facie} reason for believing that the
425: reverberation mapping masses are systematically in error.
426: Furthermore the scatter in these masses about the $\ms$ relation
427: appears to be comparable to that of the Sample 2 data from G00. We
428: therefore carried out regression fits combining the reverberation
429: mapping masses with Sample 1 and Sample 2, for a total of 34 galaxies.
430: We assumed $50\%$ measurement errors in the AGN $\mh$ and $15\%$
431: errors in the $\sigma_c$. The results (using the BRS regression
432: routine) were:
433: \begin{equation}
434: \hat\alpha = 4.72 \pm 0.36, \ \ \ \ \ \ \hat\beta = -2.75 \pm 0.82,
435: \end{equation}
436: very close to the parameters derived in Paper I using Sample 1 alone.
437: This fit has $\tilde\chi^2 = 1.11$ and $\Delta_{\bullet}=0.35$, about
438: as good as obtained using the galaxies in Table 1.
439:
440:
441: \section{Summary}
442:
443: We investigated the differences in the $\ms$ relation as derived by
444: Ferrarese \& Merritt (2000) and by Gebhardt et al. (2000a). The
445: latter authors found a shallower slope ($3.75$ vs. $4.8$) and a
446: greater vertical scatter, larger than expected on the basis of
447: measurement errors alone. Three possible explanations for the
448: differences were explored: different galaxy samples; different
449: definitions of the velocity dispersion, central ($\sigma_c$) vs
450: integrated ($\sigma_e$); and different routines for carrying out the
451: regression. The shallower slope of the G00 relation was found to be
452: due partly to the use of a regression algorithm that does not account
453: properly for measurement errors, and partly to the adoption of a
454: value of $\sigma_e$ for the Milky Way which is, in our opinion,
455: implausibly low. The greater scatter seen by G00 is due to larger
456: uncertainties associated with the additional BH masses included by
457: them, mostly from unpublished STIS data. When measurement
458: uncertainties are properly accounted for, the parameters of the
459: best-fit relation derived from the combined samples of FM00 and G00
460: are essentially identical to those derived from the sample of FM00
461: alone. The steeper relation derived by FM00 also provides a better
462: fit to BH masses obtained from reverberation mapping. A regression
463: fit to the combined sample of 34 galaxies, including stellar
464: dynamical, gas dynamical, and reverberation mapping masses, yields:
465:
466: \begin{equation}
467: \mh = 1.30 (\pm 0.36) \times 10^8\msun\left({\sigma_c\over 200\ {\rm
468: km\ s}^{-1}}\right)^{4.72(\pm 0.36)}.
469: \end{equation}
470:
471: The scientific implications of Equation (4) are discussed briefly
472: by FM00, and extensively in Merritt \& Ferrarese (2000).
473: This relation is essentially identical to the one derived in Paper I.
474: We suggest that there is no longer any reason to assume, as a number
475: of authors (Richstone et al. 1998; Faber 1999; Ho 1999) have done,
476: that the reverberation mapping masses are less accurate than masses
477: derived from stellar kinematics (Magorrian et al. 1998).
478:
479: We stress that the current sample of galaxies with reliable BH mass
480: estimates is likely affected by severe selection biases, which are
481: very difficult to quantify. Our results highlight the need for
482: accurate BH masses if the $\ms$ relation is to be further refined.
483: Only a handful of galaxies observed with STIS are likely to yield mass
484: estimates as accurate as those already available for the galaxies in
485: Paper I. Uncertainties in the reverberation mapping masses are
486: probably comparable to those obtained from HST data in most galaxies;
487: however the number of galaxies with reverberation mapping masses is
488: large ($\sim 35$) and growing. Furthermore, many of these galaxies
489: are in the critical, low mass range, $10^6\lap\mh\lap 10^8 \msun$. An
490: aggressive campaign to measure stellar velocity dispersions in AGN
491: might be the best route toward refining the $\ms$ relation.
492:
493: \bigskip
494: \acknowledgments
495:
496: LF acknowledges grant NASA NAG5-8693, and DM acknowledges grants NSF
497: AST 96-17088 and NASA NAG5-6037. We thank Brad Peterson for useful
498: discussions.
499:
500: \begin{references}
501:
502: Akritas, M. G. \& Bershady, M. A. 1996, ApJ, 470, 706
503:
504: C\^ot\'e, P. 1999, AJ, 118, 406
505:
506: Faber, S. M. 1999, Advances in Space Research, 23, 925
507:
508: Fasano, G. \& Vio, R. 1988, Bulletin d'Inf. Cent. Donnees Stellaires no. 35, 191
509:
510: Feigelson, E. D. \& Babu, G. J. 1992, ApJ, 397, 55
511:
512: Ferrarese, L. \& Merritt, D. 2000, ApJL, 539, L9 (FM00; Paper I)
513:
514: Gebhardt, K., et al. 2000a, ApJL, 539, L13 (G00)
515:
516: Gebhardt, K., et al. 2000b, astro-ph/0007123
517:
518: Genzel, R., et al. 2000, astroph/0001428 (Ge00)
519:
520: Gilmore, G., King, I. R., \& van der Kruit, P. C. 1990, The Milky Way
521: as a Galaxy (Mill Valley: University Science Books)
522:
523: Ho, L. C. 1999, in Observational Evidence for Black Holes
524: in the Universe, ed. S. K. Chakrabarti (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 157
525:
526: Jefferys, W. H. 1980, AJ, 85, 177
527:
528: Kent, S. 1992, ApJ, 387, 181
529:
530: Kinman, T.D., Feast, M. W., \& Lasker, B. M. 1988, AJ, 85, 804
531:
532: Magorrian, J. et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285
533:
534: Menzies, J. W. 1990, in ESO/CTIO Workshop on Bulges of Galaxies,
535: ed. B.J. Jarvis \& D.N. Terndrup (Garching: ESO), 115
536:
537: Merritt, D., \& Ferrarese, L. 2000, ApJL, submitted.
538:
539: Minniti, D. 1996, ApJ, 459, 579
540:
541: Morrison, H. L., \& Harding, P. 1993, PASP, 105, 977
542:
543: Netzer, H. \& Peterson, B. M. 1997, in Astronomical Time Series,
544: ed. D. Maoz, A. Sternberg \& E. M. Leibowitz
545: (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 85
546:
547: Press, W. H., Flannery, B. P., Teukolsky, S. A. \& Vetterling, W. T.
548: 1989, Numerical Recipes: the Art of Scientific Computing
549: (New York: Cambridge University Press)
550:
551: Prugniel, Ph., Zasov, A., Busarello, G. \& Simien, F. 1987, A\& A Suppl.,
552: 127, 117
553:
554: Richstone, D. O. et al. 1998, Nature, 395, A14
555:
556: Tiede, G. P., \& Terndrup, D. M. 1997, AJ, 113, 321
557:
558: Tiede, G. P., \& Terndrup, D. M. 1999, AJ, 118, 895
559:
560: van der Marel, R. P. 1994, MNRAS, 268, 521
561:
562: Wandel, A. 1999, ApJ, 519, L49
563:
564: Zhao, H., Rich, M. R., \& Biello, J. 1996, ApJ, 470, 506
565:
566:
567: \end{references}
568:
569:
570: \end{document}
571:
572:
573:
574:
575: