1: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib,usegraphicx]{mn2e}
2:
3: \title[Supermassive black hole mass functions at intermediate
4: redshifts]{Supermassive Black Hole Mass Functions at Intermediate
5: Redshifts from Spheroid and AGN Luminosity Functions}
6:
7: \author[N. Tamura, K. Ohta, \& Y. Ueda]{Naoyuki
8: Tamura$^{1}$\thanks{E-mail:naoyuki.tamura@durham.ac.uk}, Kouji
9: Ohta$^{2}$, \& Yoshihiro Ueda$^{2, 3}$\\ $^{1}$Department of Physics,
10: University of Durham, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK\\ $^{2}$Department
11: of Astronomy, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan\\ $^{3}$Institute
12: of Space and Astronautical Sciences, 3-1-1 Yoshinodai, Sagamihara-shi,
13: Kanagawa 229-8510, Japan}
14:
15: \begin{document}
16:
17: \date{}
18:
19: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2005}
20:
21: \maketitle
22:
23: \label{firstpage}
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26:
27: Redshift evolution of supermassive black hole mass functions (BHMFs) is
28: investigated up to $z \sim 1$. BHMFs at intermediate redshifts are
29: calculated in two ways. One way is from early-type galaxy luminosity
30: functions (LFs); we assume an $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ correlation at
31: a redshift by considering a passive evolution of $L_{\rm sph}$ in the
32: local relationship. The resultant BHMFs (spheroid-BHMFs) from LFs of red
33: sequence galaxies indicates a slight decrease of number density with
34: increasing redshift at $M_{\rm BH} \geq 10^{7.5-8} M_{\odot}$. Since a
35: redshift evolution in slope and zeropoint of the $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm
36: sph}$ relation is unlikely to be capable of making such an evolution in
37: BHMF, the evolution of the spheroid-BHMFs is perhaps due mainly to the
38: decreasing normalization in the galaxy LFs. We also derive BHMFs from
39: LFs of morphologically selected early-type galaxies. The resultant BHMFs
40: are similar to those from the red sequence galaxies, but show a small
41: discrepancy at $z \sim 1$ corresponding to an increase of SMBH number
42: density by $\sim$ 0.3 dex. We also investigate how spheroid-BHMFs are
43: affected by uncertainties existing in the derivation in detail.
44:
45: The other way of deriving a BHMF is based on the continuity equation for
46: number density of SMBHs and LFs of active galactic nucleus (AGN). The
47: resultant BHMFs (AGN-BHMFs) show no clear evolution out to $z = 1$ at
48: $M_{\rm BH} \geq 10^8 M_{\odot}$, but exhibit a significant decrease
49: with redshift in the lower mass range. Interestingly, these AGN-BHMFs
50: are quite different in the range of $M_{\rm BH} \leq 10^8 M_{\odot}$
51: from those derived by Merloni (2004), where the fundamental plane of
52: black hole activity is exploited.
53:
54: Comparison of the spheroid-BHMFs with the AGN-BHMFs suggests that at
55: $M_{\rm BH} \geq 10^{8} M_{\odot}$, the spheroid-BHMFs are broadly
56: consistent with the AGN-BHMFs out to $z \sim 1$. Although the decrease
57: of SMBH number density with redshift suggested by the spheroid-BHMFs is
58: slightly faster than that suggested by the AGN-BHMFs, we presume this to
59: be due at least partly to a selection effect on the LFs of red sequence
60: galaxies; the colour selection could miss spheroids with blue colours.
61: The agreement between the spheroid-BHMFs and the AGN-BHMFs appears to
62: support that most of the SMBHs are already hosted by massive spheroids
63: at $z\sim 1$ and they evolve without significant mass growth since then.
64:
65: \end{abstract}
66:
67: \begin{keywords}
68: black hole physics - galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD ---
69: galaxies: evolution.
70: \end{keywords}
71:
72: \section{INTRODUCTION}
73:
74: Recent observations provide evidence that a mass of a supermassive black
75: hole (SMBH) in a galactic nucleus is tightly correlated with a mass or
76: luminosity of a spheroid component of its host galaxy (e.g., Magorrian
77: et al. 1998; Marconi \& Hunt 2003, MH03 hereafter). The tight
78: correlation suggests the presence of strong evolutionary link between
79: SMBH and spheroid component. Using the relation, an SMBH mass function
80: (BHMF) can be derived from local galaxy luminosity function (LF) or
81: velocity dispersion function. Meanwhile, a local BHMF can also be
82: calculated from cosmological evolution of LFs of active galactic nuclei
83: (AGNs) by integrating the continuity equation for number density of
84: SMBHs, where mass accretion onto a SMBH is assumed to power an AGN and
85: grow the central SMBH (e.g., Cavaliere, Morrison \& Wood 1971; Small \&
86: Blandford 1992; Marconi et al. 2004; Shankar et al. 2004). BHMFs derived
87: by this method can now be more reliable than before thanks to updated
88: LFs of hard X-ray selected AGNs (Ueda et al. 2003), which is more
89: complete to obscured AGNs. Marconi et al. (2004) and Shankar et
90: al. (2004) demonstrate that the local densities of SMBHs and BHMFs
91: derived with these two ways agree with each other, if one adopts
92: reasonable values for accretion efficiency and Eddington ratio.
93: Furthermore, Marconi et al. (2004) indicate that the cosmic history of
94: mass accretion rate density delineates that of star-formation rate
95: density, and the ratio of the latter to the former is about 4000, which
96: agrees with the mass ratio of a spheroid to a central SMBH, again
97: strongly suggesting the co-evolution of SMBHs and spheroids.
98:
99: In studying the co-evolution of SMBHs and host spheroids in further
100: detail, one approach is to investigate redshift evolution of BHMF and
101: correlation between black hole mass ($M_{\rm BH}$) and spheroid
102: luminosity ($L_{\rm sph}$) or mass. While $M_{\rm BH}$ has been measured
103: for a substantial number of high redshift QSOs (e.g., Shields et
104: al. 2003; McLure \& Dunlop 2004), it is technically challenging to
105: directly measure dormant SMBHs at cosmological distances. However, BHMFs
106: at high redshifts can be computed using AGN LFs and the continuity
107: equation in the same way as in the local universe. Also, we are now in a
108: reasonable position to be able to study BHMFs at intermediate redshifts
109: by using LFs of early-type galaxies. Early-type galaxy LFs have recently
110: been derived out to $z \sim 1$ with good statistics from intensive
111: imaging surveys such as COMBO-17 (Wolf et al. 2003; Bell et al. 2004b).
112: Consequently, one can compare BHMFs from the galaxy LFs with those from
113: AGN LFs, which may provide clues to understand the co-evolution of AGNs
114: and host spheroids.
115:
116: In this paper, we will derive BHMFs at intermediate redshifts from
117: galaxy LFs and AGN LFs and investigate the redshift evolutions. When
118: converting galaxy LFs to BHMFs, a correlation between $M_{\rm BH}$ and
119: $L_{\rm sph}$ is utilized. Although a correlation between $M_{\rm BH}$
120: and bulge effective stellar velocity dispersion ($\sigma_e$) is claimed
121: to be tighter than that between $M_{\rm BH}$ and $L_{\rm sph}$
122: (Ferrarese \& Merritt 2000; Gebhardt et al. 2000), measuring $\sigma_e$
123: at cosmological distance is very hard and we thus adopt the $M_{\rm BH}
124: - L_{\rm sph}$ relation in this work. It should also be emphasized that
125: MH03 show the $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation is as tight as that
126: between $M_{\rm BH}$ and $\sigma_e$ if only SMBHs whose masses are
127: securely determined are used in the analysis. In addition, MH03 suggest
128: that the intrinsic scatter of the relation in $B$-band is as small as in
129: NIR bands. One should be aware that the derivation of a BHMF from galaxy
130: LFs contains several processes which may give significant uncertainties
131: to resultant BHMFs. Quantifying uncertainties in BHMFs when calculated
132: from galaxy LFs is also aimed at in this paper.
133:
134: The layout of this paper is as follows. In the next section
135: (\S~\ref{sphbhmf}), we describe the procedure to derive a BHMF from an
136: early-type galaxy LF and calculate BHMFs from early-type galaxy LFs up
137: to $z \sim 1$. We also investigate how BHMFs are affected by
138: uncertainties and unconstrained parameters existing in this derivation.
139: In \S~\ref{agnbhmf}, we derive BHMFs from AGN LFs and examine its
140: redshift evolution. In \S~\ref{discussion}, we compare the BHMFs from
141: early-type galaxy LFs with those from AGN LFs and discuss the results.
142: Throughout this paper, we adopt the cosmological model with $H_0 = 70$
143: km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_M = 0.3$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.7$
144: unless otherwise stated.
145:
146: \section{BHMF FROM EARLY-TYPE GALAXY LF}\label{sphbhmf}
147:
148: \subsection{Derivation of BHMF}
149:
150: In this paper, we mainly use the LFs obtained by Bell et al. (2004b)
151: from the COMBO-17 survey. The large survey area with the moderate depth
152: brings a large number of galaxies, and the multi-band photometry
153: covering from 3640 \AA~ to 9140 \AA~with the 17 broad- and medium-band
154: filters allows one to accurately determine the photometric redshifts.
155: Both of these aspects are important to derive luminosity functions with
156: good accuracy and the large survey area is especially useful to estimate
157: its cosmic variance. They firstly investigated the rest-frame $U-V$
158: vs. $M_V$ colour-magnitude diagram of galaxies at a certain redshift and
159: found the red sequence consistent with the colour-magnitude relation
160: well established for the early-type galaxy population. They select
161: galaxies on the red sequence and derive their rest-frame $B$-band LFs at
162: redshifts from 0.25 to 1.05. Bell et al. (2004b) also derived the
163: $B$-band LF of the local red sequence galaxies using the SDSS EDR data
164: (Stoughton et al. 2002) by transforming the SDSS $ugr$ system to the
165: standard $UBV$ system. We use the Schechter functions fitted to these
166: LFs in the following analyses. A part of the survey area of the COMBO-17
167: was imaged with the HST/ACS and most of the galaxies on the red sequence
168: ($\sim 85$ \%) indeed show early-type morphology (Bell et al. 2004a). It
169: should be noted that the colour selection based on the red sequence is
170: presumed to exclude blue ellipticals with star formation activity and/or
171: young stellar population. In addition, small bulges in late-type
172: galaxies can be missed, which perhaps results in a deficiency of the
173: light part of a BHMF.
174:
175: In order to convert these LFs to BHMFs, firstly the total galaxy
176: luminosities need to be transformed to the spheroid luminosities using
177: bulge-to-total luminosity ratios ($B/Ts$). $B/T$s of early-type galaxies
178: at intermediate redshifts are, however, not well constrained
179: observationally. Im et al. (2002) selected morphologically early-type
180: galaxies at intermediate redshifts (most of the galaxies are at $z = 0.2
181: - 1.0$) from the HST/WFPC2 data for DEEP Groth-Strip Survey (DGSS) based
182: on $B/T$s ($> 0.4$), which are estimated by fitting radial surface
183: brightness profiles with $r^{1/4}$ spheroid and exponential disk.
184: According to their catalog, the morphologically selected early-type
185: galaxies have a $B/T$ of 0.7 on average, although there is a substantial
186: scatter. The $B/T$s do not depend on redshift or luminosity in their
187: sample. Therefore we adopt $B/T = 0.7$ in this study, independently of
188: redshift and galaxy luminosity.
189:
190: Once LFs of spheroidal components are calculated from the early-type
191: galaxy LFs, they can be transformed to BHMFs using an $M_{\rm BH} -
192: L_{\rm sph}$ relation. In this study, we use those derived by MH03 for
193: their galaxies in Group 1, for which measurements of $M_{\rm BH}$ and
194: $L_{\rm sph}$ are considered to be reliable. The relation is derived for
195: $L_{\rm sph}$ in the $B$, $J$, $H$, and $K$ bands. Although the relation
196: in $K$-band is generally preferred because $K$-band luminosity is
197: considered to be the most reliable indicator of the stellar mass of a
198: galaxy, MH03 show the intrinsic scatter of the relation is almost
199: independent of the bands for the galaxies in Group 1. Since we will
200: mainly use the $B$-band LFs by Bell et al. (2004b), we adopt the
201: $B$-band relation described as follows:
202:
203: \begin{equation}
204: \log M_{\rm BH}=(1.19 \pm 0.12)(\log L_{\rm sph}-10.0)+(8.18 \pm 0.08). \label{eq:bs}
205: \end{equation}
206:
207: \noindent
208: %
209: In applying the $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation to an LF, the
210: intrinsic scatter of the relation needs to be considered; we adopt
211: $\Delta \log M_{\rm BH} = 0.32$ according to MH03.
212:
213: In calculating a BHMF from a spheroid LF at a high redshift, an
214: evolution of the $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation needs to be
215: considered. In this study, we basically consider only the effect of
216: passive evolution in $L_{\rm sph}$. It should be noted that if all
217: spheroid components evolve only passively (with no growth of SMBHs),
218: then the BHMF at the intermediate redshift does not change from that at
219: $z = 0$. In fact, it is not obvious that all spheroids evolve passively
220: at intermediate redshifts. Any other evolutions in galaxy LFs and the
221: $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation would cause the disagreement between
222: BHMFs from galaxy LF and AGN LF, which will be discussed in
223: \S~\ref{discussion}. We describe the passive luminosity evolution as
224: $M_B(z) = M_B(z=0) - Qz$ and assume $Q$ to be 1.4. This is evaluated
225: using PEGASE Ver 2.0 (Fioc \& Rocca-Volmerange 1997) for a stellar
226: population with the solar metallicity formed at $z = 4$ (the age at $z =
227: 0$ is 12 Gyr) in a single starburst with an $e$-folding time of 1
228: Gyr. This $Q$ value is consistent with the evolution of characteristic
229: luminosity in the COMBO-17 LFs ($z \geq 0.25$).
230:
231: \subsection{BHMFs from early-type galaxy LFs up to $z \sim 1$}
232:
233: \begin{figure}
234: \centering \includegraphics[width=7cm,keepaspectratio,clip]{ntamurafig01.ps}
235: \caption{{\it Upper panel}: The correlation between $M_{\rm BH}$ and
236: $B$-band spheroid luminosity. Black solid line indicates the relation
237: at $z=0$ (equation (\ref{eq:bs})) fitted to the data points by MH03 for
238: their galaxies in Group 1. Grey solid, black dashed, and dotted line is
239: the relation expected at $z = 0.25, 0.65$ and 1.05, respectively, when
240: a passive evolution of spheroid luminosity is considered. {\it Lower
241: panel}: BHMFs transformed from the COMBO-17 LFs at redshifts of 0.25,
242: 0.65, and 1.05 are indicated with shaded regions, of which widths show
243: the errors in $M_{B}^{\ast}$ and $\phi^{\ast}$ (Bell et al. 2004b). The
244: lower mass cutoff of these BHMFs corresponds to the lowest luminosity
245: of the data points in the original LF. The characteristic $M_{\rm BH}$
246: corresponding to $M_{B}^{\ast}$ at each redshift is indicated by arrow
247: with the same colour as of the BHMF.} \label{relevo}
248: \end{figure}
249:
250: Figure \ref{relevo} shows the BHMFs calculated using the COMBO-17 LFs
251: with the prescription described above. In the upper panel, the $B$-band
252: $L_{\rm sph}$ of the galaxies in Group 1 by MH03 is plotted against
253: $M_{\rm BH}$. Black solid line indicates the best-fitting regression
254: line to the data (i.e., the relation at $z = 0$). Grey solid, black
255: dashed, and black dot-dashed line is the relation expected at $z = 0.25,
256: 0.65$ and 1.05, respectively, when the passive luminosity evolution is
257: considered. In the lower panel, BHMFs transformed from the COMBO-17 LFs
258: in the rest-frame $B$ band at these redshifts are indicated with shaded
259: regions. The envelope of each BHMF shows the errors of $M_{B}^{\ast}$
260: and $\phi^{\ast}$ in the Schechter function fit to the data (Bell et al.
261: 2004b); the upper and lower bound is defined by a BHMF with the largest
262: and smallest $L_{B}^{\ast}$ and $\phi^{\ast}$ within the fitting error,
263: respectively. The uncertainty in $\phi^{\ast}$ is dominated by cosmic
264: variance (Bell et al. 2004b) and we adopt the larger value of the two
265: different estimates by Bell et al. (2004b). Each BHMF is indicated down
266: to the black hole mass corresponding to the lowest luminosity among the
267: data points in the LF. The characteristic $M_{\rm BH}$ corresponding to
268: $M_{B}^{\ast}$ at each redshift is indicated by arrow with the same
269: colour as the BHMF.
270:
271: The BHMFs in Figure \ref{relevo} exhibit a redshift evolution. Since
272: the characteristic $M_{\rm BH}$ does not largely change with redshift,
273: this evolution is perhaps due to a density evolution of BHMFs
274: corresponding to the decreasing normalization of the red sequence galaxy
275: LFs (Bell et al. 2004b). We will discuss other possibilities in
276: \S~\ref{evorel}.
277:
278: Currently, the COMBO-17 survey provides one of the largest and most
279: useful databases to study galaxies out to $z \sim 1$ and the derived
280: early-type galaxy LFs are therefore considered to be the most reliable
281: so far. Nevertheless it is worth investigating the evolution of BHMF
282: using LFs determined with other data sets, in particular to see whether
283: the result is sensitive to selection criterion for early-type
284: galaxy. Since early-type galaxies are selected from the colour-magnitude
285: diagram in COMBO-17, we investigate the BHMFs derived from LFs of
286: morphologically selected early-type galaxies by Im et al. (2002; the
287: HST/WFPC2 data for DGSS are used) and by Cross et al. (2004; the data
288: were taken with the HST/ACS in the guaranteed time observations). In
289: these studies, early-type galaxies are selected based on the analyses of
290: radial surface brightness profiles. In Im et al. (2002), the rest-frame
291: $B$-band LFs are derived in the two redshift bins: $0.05 < z < 0.6$ and
292: $0.6 < z < 1.2$, while in Cross et al. (2004), they are obtained at $0.5
293: < z < 0.75$ and $0.75 < z < 1.0$.
294:
295: \begin{figure}
296: \centering
297: \includegraphics[width=7cm,keepaspectratio,clip]{ntamurafig02.ps}
298: \caption{The BHMFs converted from the early-type galaxy LFs in the DGSS
299: (Im et al. 2002) are indicated with shaded regions, whose widths
300: represent the uncertainties of the BHMFs due to the fitting errors of
301: $M_{B}^{\ast}$ and $\phi^{*}$ in the LFs. The pair of solid lines
302: describes the BHMF from COMBO-17 at similar redshifts and the
303: separation of the two lines indicates the uncertainty of the BHMF. The
304: low mass cutoff of the BHMF corresponds to the lowest luminosity among
305: the data points in the LF.} \label{im}
306: \end{figure}
307:
308: \begin{figure}
309: \centering
310: \includegraphics[width=7cm,keepaspectratio,clip]{ntamurafig03.ps}
311: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{im}, but for the BHMFs converted from the
312: early-type galaxy LFs computed by Cross et al. (2004) using the HST/ACS
313: data.} \label{cross}
314: \end{figure}
315:
316: In Figures \ref{im} and \ref{cross}, the BHMFs converted from the LFs of
317: morphologically selected early-type galaxies by Im et al. (2002) and
318: Cross et al. (2004), respectively, are presented by shaded regions,
319: showing the uncertainties due to the fitting errors of $M_{B}^{\ast}$
320: and $\phi^{*}$ in the LFs. Again these BHMFs are calculated by assuming
321: $B/T = 0.7$ and using the $B$-band $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation
322: by MH03 corrected for passive luminosity evolutions. The low mass cutoff
323: of the BHMF corresponds to the lowest luminosity among the data points
324: in the original LF. The BHMF from the COMBO-17 LF at a similar redshift
325: is also indicated with solid lines, showing the upper and lower bounds
326: defined by considering the errors of $M_{B}^{\ast}$ and $\phi^{\ast}$ in
327: the LF. These comparisons demonstrate that the BHMFs from the
328: morphologically selected early-type galaxy LFs are consistent with those
329: from the COMBO-17 survey. It should be mentioned that the BHMFs obtained
330: from COMBO-17 LFs tend to lie below those from the morphologically
331: selected early-type galaxy LFs at the higher redshifts; the discrepancy
332: in number density of SMBHs at a given $M_{\rm BH}$ is estimated to be
333: $\sim$ 0.3 dex. This may indicate that the contribution of blue
334: spheroids which are not included in the COMBO-17 LFs becomes larger
335: towards $z \sim 1$.
336:
337: \subsection{Source of uncertainty in the derivation of a BHMF}
338: \label{uncertainty}
339:
340: In the previous subsections, we showed the procedure to convert galaxy
341: LFs to BHMFs at intermediate redshifts and presented the resultant BHMFs
342: up to $z \sim 1$. However, there are several sources of uncertainty in
343: the derivation. Some of them are related to the $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm
344: sph}$ relation such as fitting error of the relation to the data points,
345: uncertainty of its intrinsic scatter, and choice of $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm
346: sph}$ relations. Others are due to the fact that $B/T$ value and passive
347: luminosity evolution are not well constrained. In what follows, we will
348: investigate how BHMFs are affected by these uncertainties. Unless
349: otherwise noted, we will begin all the calculations to derive BHMFs with
350: the LF of red sequence galaxies at $z = 0$ (Bell et al. 2004b, the SDSS
351: EDR data are used). We call this input LF ``iLF'' hereafter.
352:
353: \subsubsection{Fitting error and uncertainty of intrinsic scatter in
354: $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation} \label{fitandscat}
355:
356: \begin{figure}
357: \centering
358: \includegraphics[width=7cm,keepaspectratio,clip]{ntamurafig04.ps}
359: \caption{{\it Top panel}: The $M_{\rm BH}$s and $L_{\rm sph}$s of the
360: galaxies in Group 1 by MH03 are plotted and the best-fitting regression
361: line to the data points is indicated by solid line. Dashed (dotted)
362: line shows the relation which results in a BHMF most (least) biased
363: towards the massive end within the 1 $\sigma$ fitting errors,
364: respectively, when applied to an LF. {\it Middle panel}: BHMFs are
365: computed from iLF with the $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relations
366: demonstrated above and they are indicated with the same line styles as
367: in the top panel. The intrinsic scatter of the relation ($\Delta \log
368: M_{\rm BH} = 0.32$; MH03) is considered to derive the BHMFs. {\it
369: Bottom panel}: BHMFs are calculated for several values of intrinsic
370: scatter of the relation; 0 (grey solid line), 0.2 (dotted line), 0.3
371: (black solid line), and 0.4 (dashed line).} \label{fitting}
372: \end{figure}
373:
374: In Figure \ref{fitting}, the fitting error in the $B$-band $M_{\rm BH} -
375: L_{\rm sph}$ relation estimated by MH03 is demonstrated in the top
376: panel. Three relations are shown here: One is the best-fitting
377: regression line (solid line), and the other two are those which result
378: in the most massive or least massive BHMFs within the $\pm 1 \sigma$
379: fitting error. The BHMF using either of the three relations is indicated
380: in the middle panel. In calculating the BHMFs, the intrinsic scatter
381: $\Delta \log M_{\rm BH} = 0.32$ (MH03) is taken into account. This shows
382: that the part of a BHMF at $M_{\rm BH} \geq 10^{8.5} M_{\odot}$ is
383: affected by this uncertainty.
384:
385: We also calculate BHMFs for several values of intrinsic scatter of the
386: relation and show the results in the bottom panel; 0 (grey solid line),
387: 0.2 (dotted line), 0.3 (black solid line), and 0.4 (dashed line). This
388: affects again the massive end of a BHMF ($M_{\rm BH} \geq 10^{8.5}
389: M_{\odot}$). It is suggested by MH03 to be between 0.3 and 0.4 (see also
390: McLure \& Dunlop 2002), but we note that if observational errors in
391: $M_{\rm BH}$ are underestimated, the intrinsic scatter would be smaller.
392:
393: \subsubsection{$M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relations in $B$ band and $K$
394: band} \label{colourcorr}
395:
396: \begin{figure}
397: \centering
398: \includegraphics[width=7cm,keepaspectratio,clip]{ntamurafig05.ps}
399: \caption{{\it Upper panel}: $B$-band $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$
400: relations. Black solid line is the $B$-band $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$
401: relation by MH03 and the other lines indicate those obtained by
402: correcting the $K$-band relation for A-CMR (grey solid line), T-CMR
403: (dotted line), and the average $B-K$ colour (dashed line). {\it Lower
404: panel}: BHMFs calculated from iLF using the above $B$-band relations
405: are indicated.} \label{cmr}
406: \end{figure}
407:
408: We will compare BHMFs derived from iLF using the $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm
409: sph}$ relations calculated by MH03 either in the $B$ band or $K$ band.
410: In order to apply the $K$-band relation to iLF ($B$ band), we need to
411: convert the $K$-band relation to a $B$-band relation by correcting it
412: for $B-K$ colour. This can be performed by using the average colour of
413: early-type galaxy population (e.g., Marconi et al. 2004; McLure \&
414: Dunlop 2004; Shankar et al. 2004). We adopt $B-K = 3.75$ estimated by
415: Girardi et al. (2003) for local elliptical and S0 galaxies in field and
416: group environments. This colour is similar to that used in Marconi et
417: al. (2004), where $M_Z - K$ = 4.1 for ellipticals and 3.95 for S0s
418: ($M_Z$ is Zwicky magnitude) are used in applying the $K$-band $M_{\rm
419: BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation to the LFs from the CfA survey (Marzke et
420: al. 1994). These colours are based on actual measurements by Kochanek et
421: al. (2001) and they are converted to $B-K$ = 3.59 and 3.44,
422: respectively, by using the equation $B = M_Z - 0.51$ given by Aller \&
423: Richstone (2002).
424:
425: However, this correction ignores the colour-magnitude relation (CMR). In
426: fact, Bell et al. (2004b) suggest that the red sequence galaxies in the
427: COMBO-17 survey are on the CMR which is consistent with those found for
428: E/S0s both in clusters (Bower, Lucey, \& Ellis 1992; Terlevich, Caldwell
429: \& Bower 2001) and fields (Schweizer \& Seitzer 1992). Therefore, we
430: attempt to take this into account. Since CMRs in $B-K$ have rarely been
431: investigated, we model a CMR using a population synthesis code (Kodama
432: \& Arimoto 1997) so as to reproduce an observed CMR in a certain set of
433: filters and we then derive a CMR in $B-K$ and $M_B$ using the model. In
434: this modelling calculation, we follow the recipe by Kodama et al.
435: (1998), where they modeled the CMR ($V-K$ and $M_V$) measured in the
436: Coma cluster (Bower et al. 1992) based on the galactic wind scenario.
437:
438: It needs to be mentioned that, while a CMR is normally defined using
439: colours within a metric aperture, the one using total colours suits
440: better for this study. Total colours in more luminous (larger) galaxies
441: are presumed to be systematically bluer than those measured within an
442: aperture due to more severe effects of the colour gradients (e.g.,
443: Peletier et al. 1990; Tamura \& Ohta 2003); a given aperture can sample
444: only the reddest part of a luminous (large) galaxy, but it can include
445: the total light of a faint (small) galaxy. The slope of a CMR using
446: total colours (T-CMR hereafter) is therefore expected to be flatter than
447: that using colours within an aperture (A-CMR hereafter). This aperture
448: effect on the CMR in the Coma cluster (Bower et al. 1992) has been
449: investigated by Kodama et al. (1998) and the slope of the T-CMR at $M_V
450: \leq -20$ mag is estimated to be $\sim$ 30\% flatter. Hence we consider
451: a CMR with a slope flatter by 30\% than the A-CMR by Bower et al. (1992)
452: as a T-CMR.\footnote{In Kodama et al. (1998), $H_0 = 50$ km s$^{-1}$
453: Mpc$^{-1}$ is assumed and hence the slope of a T-CMR would be less flat
454: in our cosmology ($H_0 = 70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$). But here we aim at
455: seeing how BHMFs vary by considering the CMRs and precise determination
456: of the slope is beyond our scope. We note that colours of ellipticals
457: less luminous than $M_V = -20$ mag are considered to be robust to the
458: aperture correction and the actual T-CMR therefore has a break at $M_V
459: \sim -20$ mag (see Figure 3 in Kodama et al. 1998). We ignore this and
460: determine the zeropoint of the T-CMR so as to reproduce the total
461: colours of the ellipticals with $M_V \leq -20$ mag. Although this
462: indicates that the T-CMR gives too red colours to less luminous
463: ellipticals, the impact of this on a BHMF is very small and does not
464: affect the following discussions.}
465:
466: In Figure \ref{cmr}, the $B$-band $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relations
467: are shown in the upper panel. Black solid line is the $B$-band $M_{\rm
468: BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation by MH03 and the other lines indicate those
469: obtained by correcting the $K$-band relation for the average $B-K$
470: colour, A-CMR, and T-CMR. In the lower panel, BHMFs calculated from iLF
471: using these $B$-band relations are indicated with the same line styles
472: as above.
473: %
474: It is indicated that the $K$-band relation is not fully transformed to
475: the $B$-band relation by MH03 even if a CMR is taken into account, and
476: the BHMFs come towards the less massive end than the case where the
477: $B$-band relation by MH03 is applied to iLF. This may imply that, while
478: the tightness of the $B$-band $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation is
479: nearly the same as that of the $K$-band relation, the relations are not
480: equivalent to each other. One possible reason for this discrepancy may
481: be that $B$ band luminosity is less good indicator of stellar mass due
482: to effects of dust extinction and/or young stellar population for some
483: of the galaxies used in the analysis of the $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$
484: relations.
485: %
486: It should be noted that the BHMF comes towards the less massive end when
487: the average $B-K$ colour is used than when a CMR is considered because
488: the adopted average colour is bluer than colours of luminous early-type
489: galaxies. Consequently, their $B$-band luminosities are overestimated
490: and therefore smaller values of $M_{\rm BH}$ are assigned to spheroids
491: with a certain $B$-band luminosity. For the same reason, the BHMF also
492: depends on choice of A-CMR or T-CMR, but the difference turns out to be
493: very small.
494:
495: \subsubsection{Choice of $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relations from
496: different authors} \label{diffrel}
497:
498: \begin{figure}
499: \centering
500: \includegraphics[width=7cm,keepaspectratio,clip]{ntamurafig06.ps}
501: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{cmr}, but $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$
502: relations by different authors and BHMFs derived using them are
503: compared. {\it Upper panel}: Black solid line, grey solid line, dotted
504: line, and dashed line indicates the $B$-band $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$
505: relation by MH03, FM00, MF01, and MD02, respectively. In MD02 and MF01,
506: the relation is originally derived in the $V$ and $R$ band,
507: respectively, and they are converted to the $B$-band relations using
508: T-CMR (see text for details). {\it Lower panel}: BHMFs derived by
509: applying the above $B$-band relations to iLF are indicated. The
510: intrinsic scatter of the $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation is assumed
511: to be 0.32 (MH03) in all the calculations of the BHMFs.}
512: \label{authors}
513: \end{figure}
514:
515: Next we will compare BHMFs derived using the $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$
516: relations by different authors: Ferrarese \& Merritt (2000, FM00),
517: Merritt \& Ferrarese (2001, MF01), McLure \& Dunlop (2002,
518: MD02)\footnote{Strictly speaking, since about half of the sample
519: consists of QSOs at $0.1 < z < 0.5$ in MD02, the $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm
520: sph}$ relation is not allowed to be used here because some evolutionary
521: effects may already be incorporated. In practice, however, the $M_{\rm
522: BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation derived using only the local inactive
523: galaxies in MD02 is the same as that from the whole sample.}, and
524: MH03. For FM00, we adopt the relation for their Sample A. In MF01 and
525: MD02, the relation is obtained in the $V$ band and $R$ band,
526: respectively, and they are converted to $B$-band relations using T-CMRs
527: modeled in the same way as explained earlier. Also, the zeropoints of
528: the relations by MF01 and MD02 are shifted by the amounts due to the
529: differences in $H_0$ from the value we adopt. These $B$-band relations
530: are shown in the upper panel of Figure \ref{authors} with the $B$-band
531: relation by MH03. They are applied to iLF and the BHMFs obtained are
532: shown in the lower panel. The intrinsic scatter of 0.32 around the
533: relation is assumed in all the calculations. These BHMFs suggest that
534: $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation depends on sample data set and
535: consequently there is a substantial variation among the BHMFs.
536:
537: \subsubsection{Bulge-to-total luminosity ratio} \label{btr}
538:
539: \begin{figure}
540: \centering
541: \includegraphics[height=7cm,keepaspectratio,angle=-90,clip]{ntamurafig07.ps}
542: \caption{BHMFs for three $B/T$s are shown. These BHMFs are obtained
543: from iLF and the $B$-band $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation by MH03.}
544: \label{bt}
545: \end{figure}
546:
547: $B/T$ at intermediate redshift is only loosely constrained from
548: observations at the moment and we have to await for future works to see
549: the validity of the current assumption ($B/T = 0.7$ for all the red
550: sequence galaxies). It is therefore worth demonstrating BHMFs for a
551: range of $B/T$ to keep it in mind as uncertainty. In Figure \ref{bt},
552: BHMFs for $B/T =$ 0.5, 0.7, and 0.9 are compared. These BHMFs are
553: obtained from iLF and the $B$-band $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm bulge}$ relation
554: by MH03. This indicates that a BHMF is affected by choice of $B/T$s at
555: $M_{\rm BH} \geq 10^8 M_{\odot}$.
556:
557: \subsubsection{Model of passive luminosity evolution} \label{pemodel}
558:
559: \begin{figure}
560: \centering \includegraphics[width=7cm,keepaspectratio,clip]{ntamurafig08.ps}
561: \caption{{\it Top panel}: The $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relations at
562: $z = 0.55$ are calculated considering passive evolution of $L_{\rm
563: sph}$ and are compared with the relation at $z = 0$ by MH03 (black
564: solid line). We consider three models for passive luminosity evolution
565: of old stellar population: $z_f = 10$ (dashed line), 4 (grey solid
566: line) and 3 (dotted line). {\it Bottom panel}: BHMFs at $z = 0$ and
567: 0.55 derived using the above relations are indicated with the same line
568: styles. Note that all the BHMFs (including that at $z = 0$) are
569: calculated from the COMBO-17 LF at $z = 0.55$ (not iLF).} \label{pe05}
570: \end{figure}
571:
572: \begin{figure}
573: \centering \includegraphics[width=7cm,keepaspectratio,clip]{ntamurafig09.ps}
574: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{pe05}, but for $z = 1.05$.} \label{pe10}
575: \end{figure}
576:
577: We consider a passive luminosity evolution of an old stellar population
578: which formed at $z = 4$ with a starburst of which e-folding time is 1
579: Gyr. In this case, the luminosity evolution in the $B$ band is described
580: as $M_B (z) = M_B (z = 0) - Qz$ and $Q = 1.4$. The $Q$ value can be
581: estimated using other models of stellar populations and its dependency
582: on choice of parameters may need to be treated as uncertainty of BHMF at
583: high redshift. Since formation redshift ($z_f$) of a stellar population
584: is probably the most important parameter upon which the $Q$ value
585: largely depends, we consider two other cases: $z_f = 10$ and 3. The $Q$
586: value is estimated to be 1.2 and 1.6, respectively. Using these $Q$
587: values including 1.4 for $z_f = 4$, we derive passively evolved $B$-band
588: $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relations at $z = 0.55$ and apply these
589: relations to the COMBO-17 LF at this redshift (not iLF). The results are
590: displayed in Figure \ref{pe05}. We also calculate BHMFs at $z = 1.05$
591: using the LF and the passively evolved $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$
592: relation at this redshift and show the results in Figure \ref{pe10}.
593:
594: \subsubsection{Summary of the uncertainties}\label{unsum}
595:
596: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{2mm}
597: \begin{table}
598: \centering
599: %\begin{minipage}{160mm}
600: \begin{tabular}{cccccccc} \hline\hline
601: $\log M_{\rm BH}$ & \multicolumn{7}{c}{$\Delta \log \phi_M$} \\ \cline{2-8}
602: & (1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) & (6) & (7) \\ \hline
603: 7.5 & 0.08 & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.11 & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.16 \\
604: 8.0 & 0.04 & 0.02 & 0.07 & 0.26 & 0.09 & 0.04 & 0.20 \\
605: 8.5 & 0.10 & 0.01 & 0.27 & 0.37 & 0.27 & 0.15 & 0.28 \\
606: 9.0 & 0.37 & 0.14 & 0.57 & 0.50 & 0.53 & 0.32 & 0.41 \\
607: 9.5 & 0.80 & 0.45 & 0.99 & 0.96 & 0.88 & 0.54 & 0.58 \\ \hline
608: \end{tabular}
609: \caption{Summary of uncertainties in a BHMF at the five BH masses.
610: Each number shows the possible range of logarithmic SMBH mass density
611: ($\Delta \log \phi_M$) at a given $M_{\rm BH}$ caused by each source
612: of uncertainty: (1) the $1 \sigma$ fitting error of the $B$-band
613: $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation (see the middle panel of Figure
614: \ref{fitting}), (2) the uncertainty of intrinsic scatter ($0.3 - 0.4$)
615: in the $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation (the bottom panel of Figure
616: \ref{fitting}), (3) choice of filter bands ($B$ or $K$) of $M_{\rm BH}
617: - L_{\rm sph}$ relation (Figure \ref{cmr}), (4) choice of the $M_{\rm
618: BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relations by different authors (Figure
619: \ref{authors}), (5) $B/T$ (0.5 $-$ 0.9; Figure \ref{bt}), (6) choice
620: of passive evolution models ($z_f = 3 - 10$; $\Delta \log \phi_M$ is
621: calculated at $z = 1.05$ (Figure \ref{pe10})), and (7) errors of
622: characteristic luminosity and normalization in a COMBO-17 LF (the
623: errors of the LF at $z = 0.65$ are considered here; see the lower
624: panel of Figure \ref{relevo}). In calculating $\Delta \log \phi_M$ for
625: (3), we compare a BHMF computed with the $B$-band $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm
626: sph}$ relation obtained by correcting the $K$-band relation for the
627: average $B-K$ colour (i.e., CMR is not considered) with a BHMF derived
628: with the $B$-band relation by MH03. In (4), the largest and smallest
629: SMBH number densities are taken at each $M_{\rm BH}$.}
630: \label{errorsum}
631: %\end{minipage}
632: \end{table}
633:
634: Table \ref{errorsum} shows a summary of uncertainties in a BHMF
635: investigated earlier. In each column, the possible range of logarithmic
636: SMBH number density ($\Delta \log \phi_M$) caused by each source of
637: uncertainty is indicated at the five BH masses: $\log M_{\rm BH} =$ 7.5,
638: 8.0, 8.5, 9.0 and 9.5. The error sources investigated are arranged in
639: the columns (1) $-$ (6) as follows: (1) the $1 \sigma$ fitting error of
640: the $B$-band $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation (see the middle panel
641: of Figure \ref{fitting}), (2) the uncertainty of intrinsic scatter ($0.3
642: - 0.4$) in the $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation (the lower panel of
643: Figure \ref{fitting}), (3) choice of filter bands ($B$ or $K$) of
644: $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation (Figure \ref{cmr}), (4) choice of
645: the $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relations by different authors (Figure
646: \ref{authors}) (5) $B/T$ (0.5 $-$ 0.9; Figure \ref{bt}), and (6) choice
647: of passive evolution models ($z_f = 3 - 10$; $\Delta \log \phi_M$ is
648: calculated for BHMFs at $z = 1.05$ (Figure \ref{pe10})). In calculating
649: $\Delta \log \phi_M$ for (3), we compare a BHMF computed with the
650: $B$-band $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation obtained by correcting the
651: $K$-band relation for the average $B-K$ colour (i.e., CMR is not
652: considered) with a BHMF derived with the $B$-band relation by MH03. In
653: (4), the largest and smallest SMBH number densities are taken from the
654: BHMFs in Figure \ref{authors}. In addition to these, $\Delta \log
655: \phi_M$ due to the errors of characteristic luminosity and normalization
656: in a COMBO-17 LF is shown for comparison in the column (7). The errors
657: in the LF at $z = 0.65$ are adopted to calculate $\Delta \log \phi_M$
658: here, but the errors in a BHMF are similar if LFs at other redshifts are
659: used (see the lower panel of Figure \ref{relevo}).
660:
661: This table demonstrates that most of the uncertainties are negligible at
662: $M_{\rm BH} \leq 10^8 M_{\odot}$, while they are significant in the
663: range of $M_{\rm BH} \geq 10^8 M_{\odot}$. The uncertainty related to
664: the photometric band selection and colour correction and that related to
665: selection of the $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relations by different
666: studies are the most serious and they amount to an order of magnitude at
667: the massive end. Those due to the fitting error of the $B$-band $M_{\rm
668: BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation and the possible uncertainty in $B/T$ also
669: appear to be substantial.
670:
671: \section{BHMF FROM AGN LF}\label{agnbhmf}
672:
673: In this section, we investigate the cosmological evolution of BHMFs
674: derived from AGN LFs (AGN-BHMFs hereafter). The results will be compared
675: with those from COMBO-17 LFs (spheroid-BHMFs hereafter) in
676: \S~\ref{discussion}. By assuming that only mass accretion grows the
677: central SMBH at a galactic centre and galaxy mergers are not important
678: in its growth history, the time evolution of a BHMF $\phi_{\rm M}(M_{\rm
679: BH},t)$ can be described by the continuity equation:
680:
681: \begin{equation}
682: \frac{\partial \phi_{\rm M}(M_{\rm BH}, t)}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial}{\partial M_{\rm BH}}[\phi_{\rm M}(M_{\rm BH}, t)\langle\dot{M}(M_{\rm BH}, t)\rangle] = 0,
683: \label{eq:continuity1}
684: \end{equation}
685:
686: \noindent
687: %
688: where $\langle \dot{M}(M_{\rm BH},t) \rangle$ represents the mean mass
689: accretion rate at a given SMBH mass $M_{\rm BH}$ and at a cosmic time
690: $t$. Furthermore, if we assume a constant radiative efficiency
691: $\epsilon$ ($\equiv L/\dot{M}c^2$, where $L$ and $\dot{M}$ is the
692: bolometric luminosity and the mass accretion rate, respectively) and a
693: constant Eddington ratio $\lambda$ ($\equiv L/L_{\rm Edd}$, where
694: $L_{\rm Edd}$ is the Eddington luminosity) for all the AGNs, the second
695: term of the above equation can be simply related to a (bolometric)
696: luminosity function of AGNs. This finally reduces the continuity
697: equation to:
698:
699: \begin{equation}
700: \frac{\partial \phi_M(M_{\rm BH}, t)}{\partial t} = - \frac{(1-\epsilon)\lambda^2 c^2}{\epsilon t_{\rm Edd}^2 \ln 10} \left[ \frac{\partial \psi(L,t)}{\partial L} \right]_{L = \lambda M_{\rm BH} c^2/t_{\rm Edd}},\label{eq:continuity2}
701: \end{equation}
702:
703: \noindent
704: %
705: where $t_{\rm Edd}$ is the Eddington time and $\psi(L, t)$ is the AGN LF
706: (for details, see Marconi et al. 2004). We note that $\psi(L, t)$ is the
707: number of AGNs per ${\rm d} \log L$, while $\phi_M(M_{\rm BH}, t)$ is
708: the number of SMBHs per ${\rm d} M_{\rm BH}$. Hence, once the form of an
709: AGN LF is known as a function of redshift, one can integrate this
710: equation to obtain BHMFs at any redshifts starting from the initial
711: condition, either in time decreasing order (from a high redshift to
712: $z=0$) or the inverse (from $z=0$ to higher redshifts).
713:
714: Following the procedure adopted by Marconi et al. (2004), here we derive
715: AGN-BHMFs at intermediate redshifts starting from a BHMF at $z=3$ as the
716: initial condition (it is assumed that all the SMBHs at $z=3$ were
717: shining as AGNs). In the calculation, we use the hard X-ray AGN LF
718: (HXLF) by Ueda et al. (2003, U03 hereafter), which is described by a
719: luminosity-dependent density evolution model (LDDE model; see their
720: \S~5.2 for details). To take into account the contribution of
721: ``Compton-thick'' AGNs to the total mass accretion rate, we multiply a
722: correction factor of 1.6 independently of the AGN luminosity. The
723: luminosity-dependent bolometric correction described in Marconi et al.
724: (2004) is adopted. The Eddington ratio and the radiative efficiency are
725: assumed to be constant, $\lambda =1.0$ and $\epsilon =0.1$,
726: respectively, also based on the study by Marconi et al. (2004). The
727: results are shown in Figure \ref{u03only}, indicating that while the
728: BHMFs in the range of $M_{\rm BH} \geq 10^8 M_{\odot}$ hardly change out
729: to $z \sim 1$, they exhibit a clear redshift evolution at $M_{\rm BH}
730: \leq 10^8 M_{\odot}$. That is, almost all SMBHs with a mass larger than
731: $10^8 M_{\odot}$ formed at $z \ga 1$, while lighter SMBHs grow later,
732: suggesting a downsizing of SMBH evolution.
733:
734: It needs to be pointed out that there are several uncertainties in the
735: AGN-BHMFs thus far derived as follows:
736:
737: \begin{enumerate}
738:
739: \item There are ranges of values in Eddington ratio and radiative
740: efficiency which give a reasonable fit of an AGN-BHMF to the
741: spheroid-BHMF at $z = 0$. The $\chi^{2}$ distribution studied by
742: Marconi et al. (2004) suggests a possible range of $\lambda = 0.1
743: - 2.0$ and $\epsilon = 0.04 - 0.15$ within 1 $\sigma$
744: uncertainty. In Figure \ref{agnbhmferr}, we exemplify AGN-BHMFs
745: at $z = 0$ and 0.65 for five sets of $\lambda$ and $\epsilon$;
746: either of $\lambda$ or $\epsilon$ is fixed to the adopted value
747: ($\lambda = 1.0$ or $\epsilon = 0.1$) and the largest or smallest
748: value within the uncertainty is chosen for the other parameter.
749: This plot indicates that, as expected from equation
750: (\ref{eq:continuity2}), the normalization of an AGN-BHMF is
751: altered and the AGN-BHMF is shifted along the $M_{\rm BH}$ axis
752: by changing $\lambda$, while only the normalization is affected
753: by changing $\epsilon$. In the following analysis, AGN-BHMFs will
754: be calculated for a number of pairs of $\lambda$ and $\epsilon$
755: on the 1 $\sigma$ contour provided by Marconi et al. (2004; see
756: their Figure 7) and the envelope of these AGN-BHMFs that gives a
757: possible range of SMBH density at a given $M_{\rm BH}$ will be
758: adopted as uncertainty of AGN-BHMF.
759:
760: \item The assumption of constant Eddington ratio and radiative
761: efficiency for all the AGNs is perhaps too simple. Although
762: Marconi et al. (2004) claim that the local spheroid-BHMF can be
763: well reproduced by the AGN-BHMF with a constant $\lambda \simeq
764: 1.0$ and $\epsilon \simeq 0.1$, the solution only gives a
765: sufficient condition to the limited constraints at $z=0$.
766: %
767: Furthermore, Heckman et al. (2004) claim that AGNs have various
768: Eddington ratios and the ratios seem to depend on $M_{\rm BH}$
769: Kawaguchi et al. (2004) also propose that super-Eddington
770: accretion is essential for a major growth of SMBH.
771:
772: \item There is ambiguity in the continuity equation itself; if a
773: merging process should be added as a source term in the equation,
774: a resultant BHMF would change.
775:
776: \item Although the HXLF by U03 accounts for all the Compton-thin AGNs
777: including obscured AGNs, the uncertainties in the estimate of
778: Compton-thick AGNs directly affect the resulting BHMFs.
779:
780: \end{enumerate}
781:
782: Quantifying all of these uncertainties but (1) requires substantial
783: theoretical works and/or new observational data and is beyond the scope
784: of this paper, but one must keep them in mind.
785:
786: \begin{figure}
787: \centering
788: \includegraphics[height=7cm,keepaspectratio,angle=-90,clip]{ntamurafig10.ps}
789: \caption{AGN-BHMF at a redshift of 0, 0.4, 0.8, 1.2 and 2.0 is plotted
790: with open circles, solid circles, triangles, squares, and crosses,
791: respectively. These AGN-BHMFs are calculated with the continuity
792: equation and the HXLFs by U03 (see text for details).}\label{u03only}
793: \end{figure}
794:
795: \begin{figure}
796: \centering
797: \includegraphics[width=7cm,keepaspectratio,clip]{ntamurafig11.ps}
798: \caption{AGN-BHMFs at $z = 0$ (upper panel) and those at $z = 0.65$
799: (lower panel) for five sets of $\lambda$ and $\epsilon$ as shown in the
800: upper panel.}\label{agnbhmferr}
801: \end{figure}
802:
803: \begin{figure}
804: \centering
805: \includegraphics[width=7cm,keepaspectratio,clip]{ntamurafig12.ps}
806: \caption{AGN-BHMFs at a redshift of 0.1, 0.6, and 1.2 obtained in this
807: study by integrating the continuity equation starting from $z = 3$ are
808: plotted with solid circles in the top, middle and bottom panel,
809: respectively. The error bars represent the upper and lower bounds of
810: SMBH density at a given $M_{\rm BH}$ that are calculated from AGN-BHMFs
811: for the values of $\lambda$ and $\epsilon$ within the 1 $\sigma$
812: uncertainty. Asterisks show AGN-BHMFs obtained by Merloni (2004).}
813: \label{u03m04}
814: \end{figure}
815:
816: It may be intriguing to compare these AGN-BHMFs with those recently
817: obtained by Merloni (2004), where a new method is employed to
818: investigate the redshift evolution. They introduce a conditional
819: luminosity function (CLF), which is the number of active black holes per
820: unit comoving volume per unit logarithm of radio ($L_{\rm R}$) and X-ray
821: ($L_{\rm X}$) luminosity and is defined so that by integrating a CLF
822: over the range of $L_R$ or $L_X$, the radio LF (RLF) or X-ray LF (XLF)
823: of AGNs is obtained, respectively. In order to relate $L_{\rm R}$ and
824: $L_{\rm X}$ of AGN to $M_{\rm BH}$ without any assumptions on accretion
825: rate, they use an empirical relation among $L_{\rm R}$, $L_{\rm X}$, and
826: $M_{\rm BH}$ (fundamental plane of black hole activity; Merloni, Heinz
827: \& Di Matteo 2003). A CLF also needs to satisfy a constraint that the
828: number density of SMBHs with a certain mass is obtained by integrating a
829: CLF over the ranges of $L_R$ and $L_X$ which are determined by the
830: fundamental plane. Consequently, once a BHMF is obtained at a redshift
831: of $z$, a CLF can be computed using RLF, XLF, and BHMF as
832: constraints.\footnote{In this calculation, the fundamental plane of
833: black holes is assumed to be independent of redshift.} Note that RLFs
834: and XLFs from observations are available up to high redshifts; the RLFs
835: obtained by Willott et al. (2001) and the HXLF by U03 are used in
836: Merloni (2004). Given a functional form of accretion rate\footnote{In
837: Merloni (2004), $L_{\rm X}/L_{\rm Edd} = f(M, \dot{m})$ where $\dot{m}
838: \equiv \varepsilon_{\rm acc} \dot{M}c^2/L_{\rm Edd}$ is adopted
839: ($\varepsilon_{\rm acc}$ is accretion efficiency).}, a mean accretion
840: rate can also be calculated as a function of $M_{\rm BH}$. Using a BHMF
841: and a mean accretion rate at $z$, a BHMF at $z + dz$ can be derived from
842: the continuity equation. Likewise, BHMFs at higher redshifts can
843: successively be calculated and hence RLF, XLF, and BHMF at $z = 0$ are
844: firstly needed. In Merloni (2004), the local BHMF is obtained using LFs
845: of galaxies with different morphologies by Marzke et al. (1994) and the
846: empirical relationships among spheroid luminosity, velocity dispersion,
847: and $M_{\rm BH}$.
848:
849: Figure \ref{u03m04} shows the comparison of AGN-BHMFs at redshifts of
850: 0.1, 0.6, and 1.2 calculated in the two different methods: (I) BHMFs
851: derived by integrating the continuity equation from $z=3$ to lower
852: redshifts using the U03 HXLF with $\lambda = 1.0$ and $\epsilon = 0.1$.
853: The error bars represent the upper and lower bounds of SMBH density at a
854: given $M_{\rm BH}$ that is calculated from AGN-BHMFs for a number of
855: pairs of $\lambda$ and $\epsilon$ on the 1 $\sigma$ contour provided by
856: Marconi et al. (2004). (II) Those obtained by Merloni (2004), which are
857: integrated from $z=0$ to higher redshifts using the CLF with the
858: fundamental-plane relation. This comparison indicates that while the
859: agreement of the AGN-BHMFs is good in the massive end, the discrepancy
860: at $M_{\rm BH} \leq 10^{7.5} M_{\odot}$ is substantial at all
861: redshifts. There could be several reasons for this disagreement. One
862: possibility may be related to the choice of an initial spheroid-BHMF; we
863: note that the BHMF at $z=0.1$ in Merloni (2004) has a normalization
864: $\sim$ 10 times smaller at $M_{\rm BH} \sim 10^{6} M_{\odot}$ than the
865: local BHMF independently estimated by Marconi et al. (2004, see their
866: Figure 2).
867: %
868: Another reason could be the different estimate for the mean mass
869: accretion rate. In fact, we find that the second term of the equation
870: (\ref{eq:continuity1}) averaged between $z = 0.9$ and $z = 0.1$
871: calculated in method I is significantly larger than that in method II in
872: the range of $M_{\rm BH} \leq 10^{7.5} M_{\odot}$.
873: %
874: We just point out the facts in this paper and leave further discussions
875: for future studies. In the next section, we adopt the AGN-BHMFs
876: calculated by method I for comparison with the spheroid-BHMFs.
877:
878: \section{DISCUSSIONS}\label{discussion}
879:
880: \subsection{Comparison of Spheroid-BHMFs with AGN-BHMFs}\label{sphvsagn}
881:
882: \begin{figure*}
883: \centering
884: \includegraphics[width=16cm,keepaspectratio,clip]{ntamurafig13.ps}
885: \caption{The spheroid-BHMFs transformed from the COMBO-17 LFs at
886: redshifts of 0, 0.25, 0.45, 0.65, 0.85, and 1.05 are indicated with
887: shaded regions, whose widths are determined by considering not only the
888: errors of $M_{B}^{\ast}$ and $\phi^{\ast}$ but also the uncertainties
889: associated with band transformation in the derivation of a BHMF (see
890: text for details). The spheroid-BHMF at $z = 0$ was derived from the LF
891: of the red sequence galaxies in the SDSS EDR (see Appendix of Bell et
892: al. 2004b). The low mass cutoff of the shaded region corresponds to the
893: lowest luminosity among the data points in the original LF. In the
894: lower mass range than the cutoff, the upper- and lower-bound BHMFs are
895: indicated by dashed lines. The characteristic $M_{\rm BH}$
896: corresponding to $M_{B}^{\ast}$ at each redshift is indicated by arrow.
897: Two arrows are shown in each panel; the one at the more massive end
898: shows the characteristic $M_{\rm BH}$ of the upper-bound BHMF, and the
899: other is of the lower-bound BHMF. Solid curve indicates a BHMF at $z =
900: 0.25$ calculated with a $B$-band $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation
901: converted from the $K$-band relation by correcting for T-CMR. This BHMF
902: is displayed in all the panels as a fiducial of comparison. The
903: AGN-BHMFs calculated with the continuity equation and the HXLFs by U03
904: at the same redshifts as those of the spheroid-BHMFs are overplotted
905: with open circles. The error bars indicate the upper and lower bounds
906: of SMBH density allowing for the 1 $\sigma$ uncertainty of $\lambda$
907: and $\epsilon$ as in Figure \ref{u03m04}.} \label{passive}
908: \end{figure*}
909:
910: In Figure \ref{passive}, spheroid-BHMFs are compared with AGN-BHMFs up
911: to $z \sim 1$. The spheroid-BHMFs transformed from the COMBO-17 LFs at
912: redshifts of 0., 0.25, 0.45, 0.65, 0.85, and 1.05 are indicated with
913: shaded regions (the BHMF at $z = 0$ was derived from the LF of the red
914: sequence galaxies in the SDSS EDR; see Appendix in Bell et al. 2004b).
915: The widths of the shaded regions are determined by considering not only
916: the errors of $M_{B}^{\ast}$ and $\phi^{\ast}$ but also the uncertainty
917: associated with band transformation between $B$ and $K$ of the $M_{\rm
918: BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation, which is the most significant uncertainty
919: among those investigated (see \S~\ref{uncertainty}). The upper bound of
920: the shaded region is the BHMF derived by applying the $B$-band $M_{\rm
921: BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation by MH03 to an LF with the largest values of
922: characteristic luminosity and normalization within the errors. To
923: determine the lower bound, a $B$-band $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$
924: relation calculated by correcting the $K$-band relation for the average
925: $B-K$ colour of early-type galaxies is applied to an LF with the
926: smallest values of characteristic luminosity and normalization within
927: the errors. The transformation of the $K$-band relation to $B$ band is
928: performed only at $z = 0$ and the $B$-band relations at high redshifts
929: are then obtained by correcting it for passive luminosity evolution in
930: the $B$ band. The spheroid-BHMF is depicted with shaded region down to
931: the mass corresponding to the lowest luminosity among the data points in
932: the LF. At the masses lower than this cutoff, the upper- and lower-bound
933: BHMFs are indicated by dashed lines. The characteristic $M_{\rm BH}$
934: corresponding to $L_{B}^{\ast}$ at each redshift is indicated by
935: arrow. Two arrows are shown in each panel; the one at the more massive
936: end shows the characteristic $M_{\rm BH}$ of the upper-bound BHMF, and
937: the other is of the lower-bound BHMF. The solid curve, which goes
938: through the middle of the upper- and lower-bound BHMFs at $z = 0.25$,
939: indicates the BHMF at $z = 0.25$\footnote{We adopt the BHMF not at $z =
940: 0$ but at $z = 0.25$ just for consistency; the LFs at $z \geq 0.25$ are
941: calculated with the data from the COMBO-17 survey, while the LF at $z =
942: 0$ is from the SDSS data.} calculated with a $B$-band $M_{\rm BH} -
943: L_{\rm sph}$ relation converted from the $K$-band relation by correcting
944: for T-CMR. This BHMF is plotted in all the panels as a fiducial of
945: comparison. The AGN-BHMFs calculated with the continuity equation and
946: the HXLFs by U03 at the same redshifts as the spheroid-BHMFs are
947: overplotted with open circles. The error bars indicate the upper and
948: lower bounds of SMBH density allowing for the 1 $\sigma$ uncertainty of
949: $\lambda$ and $\epsilon$.
950:
951: From Figure \ref{passive}, it is suggested that at $M_{\rm BH} \geq
952: 10^{8} M_{\odot}$, the spheroid-BHMFs\footnote{In Figure \ref{passive},
953: the spheroid-BHMF at $z = 0.25$ appears to exceed that at $z = 0$. This
954: is because of the large increase of characteristic luminosity in the
955: COMBO-17 LF from $z = 0$ to 0.25. This increase is significantly larger
956: than that predicted for passive evolution, while the rate of luminosity
957: evolution at $z \geq 0.25$ is fully consistent with passive evolution
958: out to $z \sim 1$. The origin of the large luminosity increase at the
959: low redshift is currently unknown.} are broadly consistent with the
960: AGN-BHMFs out to $z \sim 1$. This agreement between the spheroid-BHMFs
961: and the AGN-BHMFs appears to support that most of the SMBHs are hosted
962: by massive spheroids already at $z \sim 1$ and they evolve without
963: significant mass growth since then.
964: %
965: The discrepancy at $M_{\rm BH} \leq 10^{7.5} M_{\odot}$ between the
966: spheroid-BHMFs and the AGN-BHMFs is presumed to be due at least partly
967: to the fact that small bulges in late-type galaxies tend to be excluded
968: in selecting the red sequence galaxies and thus their contributions are
969: not expected to be included in the COMBO-17 LFs or the
970: spheroid-BHMFs. In fact, galaxy LFs are not well constrained down to
971: such low luminosities and future observations therefore need to be
972: awaited for any further discussions on the discrepancies in the light
973: end of BHMF.
974: %
975: It is interesting to point out that while the AGN-BHMFs at $M_{\rm BH}
976: \geq 10^8 M_{\odot}$ do not significantly evolve out to $z \sim 1$, the
977: spheroid-BHMFs exhibit a slight redshift evolution (see also Figure
978: \ref{relevo} and Figure \ref{u03only}). We note that the uncertainties
979: of the spheroid-BHMFs considered in Figure \ref{passive} are larger than
980: those in Figure \ref{relevo}, where the evolution in spheroid-BHMF may
981: look clearer. One possible reason for the difference in evolution
982: between the spheroid-BHMFs and the AGN-BHMFs is a selection effect on
983: the red sequence galaxy LFs; if there are more blue spheroids with
984: on-going star formation and/or young stellar population towards $z = 1$
985: then their contribution is more likely to be missed from the red
986: sequence galaxy LF and the spheroid-BHMF at higher redshifts. In fact,
987: as mentioned earlier, the BHMFs obtained from morphologically selected
988: early-type galaxy LFs tend to exceed those from the COMBO-17 LFs at $z
989: \sim 1$ (Figures \ref{im} and \ref{cross}).
990:
991: \subsection{Does the correlation between $M_{\rm BH}$ and host spheroid
992: mass evolve with redshift?} \label{evorel}
993:
994: An alternative interpretation of the possible difference in evolution
995: between the spheroid-BHMFs and the AGN-BHMFs may be a difference at high
996: redshift between the actual $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation and our
997: assumption. In other words, there may be an evolution of the $M_{\rm BH}
998: - L_{\rm sph}$ relation other than the passive luminosity evolution of
999: spheroid. In order to see whether this can be the case, it is worth
1000: examining how a BHMF can be affected by changing the $M_{\rm BH} -
1001: L_{\rm sph}$ relation.
1002:
1003: Here, we consider a simple case where, in the $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$
1004: relation ($\log M_{\rm BH} = p \log L_{\rm sph} + q$), the coefficient
1005: of $p$ or $q$ varies. Figures \ref{pe05} and \ref{pe10} demonstrate the
1006: effect on BHMF of an evolution of $q$; a BHMF is shifted mostly in
1007: parallel to the $M_{\rm BH}$ axis. The effect of changing $p$ on a BHMF
1008: is similar, although it can be a modification in shape of BHMF rather
1009: than a lateral shift. Therefore, changing neither $p$ nor $q$ moves the
1010: BHMF along the axis of the number density of SMBH. On the other hand,
1011: the redshift evolution of the actual spheroid-BHMFs seems to be
1012: dominated by that along the number density axis, suggesting that it is
1013: difficult to explain the slight difference in evolution between the
1014: spheroid-BHMF and the AGN-BHMF by changing $p$ and $q$ with redshift.
1015:
1016: \begin{figure}
1017: \centering
1018: \includegraphics[width=7cm,keepaspectratio,clip]{ntamurafig14.ps}
1019: \caption{{\it Upper panel}: The $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relations at
1020: $z = 0$ (MH03; black line) and 0.35 (grey line) are shown. For the
1021: relation at $z = 0.35$, passive evolution of $L_{\rm sph}$ is taken
1022: into account. The data points indicate the galaxies observed by T04
1023: (see text for details). {\it Lower panel}: Shaded region indicates a
1024: spheroid-BHMF and its uncertainty obtained from the COMBO-17 LF at $z =
1025: 0.35$ and the $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation at $z = 0$, which
1026: seems to be followed by the T04 galaxies. Solid lines show a BHMF at $z
1027: = 0.25$ obtained with a $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation considering
1028: a passive luminosity evolution between $z = 0$ and 0.25. The upper and
1029: lower bounds are determined in the same way as those in Figure
1030: \ref{passive}. The AGN-BHMF at $z = 0.35$ is overplotted with open
1031: circles. The error bars are calculated in the same way as those in
1032: Figure \ref{u03m04}.} \label{treu}
1033: \end{figure}
1034:
1035: Recently, a possible offset from the local relationship between $M_{\rm
1036: BH}$ and central velocity dispersion ($\sigma_0$) has been found at $z
1037: \sim 0.37$ by investigating spectra of the central regions of galaxies
1038: hosting type 1 AGNs (Treu, Malkan \& Blandford 2004, T04 hereafter). It
1039: is interesting to see a spheroid-BHMF at this redshift derived with the
1040: offset found by T04. In order to apply the relation at $z = 0.37$ to a
1041: COMBO-17 LF at $z = 0.35$, the $M_{\rm BH} - \sigma_0$ relation needs to
1042: be converted to a $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation. One possible way
1043: is to estimate spheroid luminosities of the galaxies observed by T04
1044: from their central velocity dispersions\footnote{According to T04, the
1045: velocity dispersions within an aperture used by T04 ($\sigma_{ap}$) are
1046: converted to the central velocity dispersions ($\sigma_0$) as $\sigma_0
1047: = 1.1 \sigma_{ap}$.} with the Faber-Jackson relation at $z \sim 0.4$ in
1048: the rest-frame $B$ band (Ziegler et al. 2005) and plot them against
1049: $M_{\rm BH}$. The results are shown with solid circles in the upper
1050: panel of Figure \ref{treu}. Although the sample size is small and there
1051: is a substantial scatter, the distribution of the data points suggests
1052: that the actual $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation followed by these
1053: spheroids lies closer to the local relationship than that allowing for a
1054: passive evolution of $L_{\rm sph}$ between $z = 0$ and 0.37.
1055: %
1056: In the lower panel of Figure \ref{treu}, a BHMF derived from the
1057: COMBO-17 LF at $z = 0.35$ using the $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation
1058: at $z = 0$, which seems to be followed by the T04 galaxies, is indicated
1059: with shaded region. This BHMF is compared with that at a lower redshift
1060: ($z = 0.25$) derived with a $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation
1061: considering a passive luminosity evolution between $z = 0$ and 0.25. The
1062: latter BHMF is indicated with solid lines. The uncertainties of these
1063: spheroid-BHMFs are indicated with the width of the shaded region or the
1064: separation of the lines; the upper and lower bounds are defined in the
1065: same way as those in Figure \ref{passive}. The AGN-BHMF at $z = 0.35$ is
1066: overplotted with open circles. The error bars are calculated in the same
1067: way as those in Figure \ref{u03m04}. Although the uncertainties of the
1068: BHMFs are large, this comparison suggests that the BHMF obtained with
1069: the $M_{\rm BH} - L_{\rm sph}$ relation followed by the T04 galaxies is
1070: slightly more biased to the massive end. This trend could be seen more
1071: clearly when the BHMF is compared with that at $z = 0$. This apparently
1072: suggests a growth of SMBH towards {\it higher} redshift, which is
1073: unlikely in practice (see also Robertson et al. 2005). More galaxies
1074: need to be investigated to examine the correlation between $M_{\rm BH}$
1075: and $\sigma_e$ or $L_{\rm sph}$ at high redshift.
1076:
1077: \subsection{Future perspective}
1078:
1079: If much fainter end of early-type galaxy LF was determined from
1080: observations, BHMF could be probed further down to the low mass end
1081: ($M_{\rm BH} \ll 10^8 M_{\odot}$). Since a redshift evolution of
1082: AGN-BHMF is suggested to be fast at intermediate redshifts in this mass
1083: range (Figure \ref{u03only}; see also Merloni 2004), it would be
1084: interesting to look at the counterpart in spheroid-BHMFs in order to put
1085: much stronger constraints on the co-evolution of AGN and spheroid,
1086: particularly down-sizing effects of their evolutions. Currently, galaxy
1087: LFs are not well constrained down to such low luminosities, especially
1088: at cosmological distances. Even at low redshifts, the faint end slope of
1089: an LF tends to be fixed to a certain value in fitting a Schechter
1090: function to the data and deriving $L^{\ast}$ and $\phi^{\ast}$. Much
1091: deeper data (e.g., $\sim$ 2 mag deeper than the COMBO-17 limit) are
1092: essential to address the faint end of LF out to $z \sim 1$. Keeping a
1093: survey area similar to or even wider than COMBO-17 is the key to
1094: deriving reliable LFs and to estimate cosmic variance. Multi-band
1095: photometry would be required to obtain photometric redshifts in good
1096: accuracy down to the faint end. In addition, high spatial resolution
1097: images would enable one to directly measure spheroid luminosities of
1098: galaxies. Although it is highly expensive to take data sets satisfying
1099: all these requirements, one promising candidate for this challenge is
1100: the COSMOS survey: a 2 square degree field is surveyed with the HST/ACS
1101: in the $I_{814}$ band down to 27.8 mag ($5 \sigma$) in the AB magnitude
1102: (cf. galaxies with $R \leq 24$ mag are used to study LFs in COMBO-17)
1103: and also with Subaru/Suprime-Cam in the
1104: $BVr^{\prime}i^{\prime}z^{\prime}$ bands (Taniguchi et al. 2005).
1105:
1106: \section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
1107:
1108: We are grateful to the anonymous referee for helpful comments to improve
1109: this paper. This research was partly supported by a Grant-in-Aid for
1110: Scientific Research from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
1111: (17540216).
1112:
1113: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1114: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Aller \& Richstone}{2002}]{aller}
1115: Aller M. C., Richstone D., 2002, AJ, 124, 3035
1116:
1117: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bell et al.}{2004a}]{bell_gems}
1118: Bell E. F., et al., 2004a, ApJ, 600, L1
1119:
1120: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bell et al.}{2004b}]{bell_lf}
1121: Bell E. F., et al., 2004b, ApJ, 608, 752
1122:
1123: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bower, Lucey \& Ellis}{1992}]{ble}
1124: Bower R. G., Lucey J. R., Ellis R. S., 1992, MNRAS, 254, 601
1125:
1126: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cavaliere, Morrison \& Wood}{1971}]{cavaliere}
1127: Cavaliere A., Morrison P., Wood K., 1971, ApJ, 170, 223
1128:
1129: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cross et al.}{2004}]{cross}
1130: Cross N. J. G., et al., 2004, AJ, 128, 1990
1131:
1132: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ferrarese \& Merritt}{2000}]{fm00}
1133: Ferrarese L., Merritt D., 2000, ApJ, 539, L9 (FM00)
1134:
1135: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Fioc \& Rocca-Volmerange}{1997}]{fiocrocca}
1136: Fioc M., Rocca-Volmerange B., 1997, A\&A, 326, 950
1137:
1138: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gebhardt et al.}{2000}]{gebhard}
1139: Gebhardt, K., et al., 2000, ApJ, 539, L13
1140:
1141: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Girardi et al.}{2003}]{girardi}
1142: Girardi M., Mardirossian F., Marinoni C., Mezzetti M., Rigoni E., 2003,
1143: A\&A, 410, 461
1144:
1145: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Heckman et al.}{2004}]{heckman}
1146: Heckman T. M., Kauffmann G., Brinchmann J., Charlot S., Tremonti C.,
1147: White S. D. M., 2004, ApJ, 613, 109
1148:
1149: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Im et al.}{2002}]{im}
1150: Im M., et al., 2002, ApJ, 571, 136
1151:
1152: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kawaguchi et al.}{2004}]{kawaguchi}
1153: Kawaguchi T., Aoki K., Ohta K., Collin S., 2004, A\&A, 420, L23
1154:
1155: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kochanek et al. }{2001}]{kochanek}
1156: Kochanek C. S., et al., 2001, ApJ, 560, 566
1157:
1158: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kodama \& Arimoto}{1997}]{ka97}
1159: Kodama T., Arimoto N., 1997, A\&A, 320, 41
1160:
1161: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kodama et al.}{1998}]{kodama98}
1162: Kodama T., Arimoto N., Barger A. J., Arag\'{o}n-Salamanca A., 1998,
1163: A\&A, 334, 99
1164:
1165: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Magorrian et al.}{1998}]{mago98}
1166: Magorrian J., et al., 1998, AJ, 115, 2285
1167:
1168: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Marconi \& Hunt}{2003}]{marconi03}
1169: Marconi A., Hunt L. K., 2003, ApJ, 589, L21 (MH03)
1170:
1171: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Marconi et al.}{2004}]{marconi04}
1172: Marconi A., Risaliti G., Gilli R., Hunt L. K., Maiolino R., Salvati M.,
1173: 2004, MNRAS, 351, 169
1174:
1175: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Marzke et al.}{1994}]{marzke94}
1176: Marzke R. O., Geller M. J., Huchra J. P., Corwin H. G., 1994, AJ, 108,
1177: 437
1178:
1179: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{McLure \& Dunlop}{2002}]{md02}
1180: McLure R. J., Dunlop J. S., 2002, MNRAS, 331, 795 (MD02)
1181:
1182: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{McLure \& Dunlop}{2004}]{md04}
1183: McLure R. J., Dunlop J. S., 2004, MNRAS, 352, 1390
1184:
1185: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Merloni}{2004}]{merloni04}
1186: Merloni A., 2004, MNRAS, 353, 1035
1187:
1188: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Merloni, Heinz \& Di Matteo}{2003}]{merloni03}
1189: Merloni A., Heinz S., Di Matteo T., 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1057
1190:
1191: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Merritt \& Ferrarese}{2001}]{mf01}
1192: Merritt D., Ferrarese L., 2001, MNRAS, 320, L30 (MF01)
1193:
1194: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Peletier et al.}{1990}]{peletier}
1195: Peletier R. F., Davies R. L., Illingworth G. D., Davis L. E., Cawson
1196: M., 1990, AJ, 100, 1091
1197:
1198: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Robertson et al.}{2005}]{robertson}
1199: Robertson B., Hernquist L., Cox T. J., Di Matteo T., Hopkins P. F.,
1200: Martini P., Springel V., 2005, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph/0506038)
1201:
1202: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Schweizer \& Seitzer}{1992}]{schsei}
1203: Schweizer F., Seitzer P., 1992, AJ, 104, 1039
1204:
1205: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Shankar et al.}{2004}]{shankar04}
1206: Shankar F., Salucci P., Granato G. L., De Zotti G., Danese L., MNRAS, 354, 1020
1207:
1208: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sheilds et al.}{2003}]{shields03}
1209: Shields G. A., Gebhardt K., Salviander S., Wills B. J., Xie B.,
1210: Brotherton M. S., Yuan J., Dietrich M., 2003, ApJ, 583, 124
1211:
1212: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Small \& Blandford}{1992}]{small}
1213: Small T. A., Blandford R. D., 1992, MNRAS, 259, 725
1214:
1215: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Stoughton et al.}{2002}]{sdssedr}
1216: Stoughton, C., et al., 2002, AJ, 123, 485
1217:
1218: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Tamura \& Ohta}{2003}]{tamura}
1219: Tamura N., Ohta K., 2003, AJ, 126, 596
1220:
1221: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Taniguchi et al.}{2005}]{cosmos}
1222: Taniguchi Y., et al., 2005, in the Proceedings of the 6th East Asian
1223: Meeting on Astronomy, JKAS, 39, in press (astro-ph/0503645)
1224:
1225: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Terlevich et al.}{2001}]{terlevich}
1226: Terlevich A. I., Caldwell N., Bower, R. G., 2001, MNRAS, 326, 1547
1227:
1228: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Treu, Malkan \& Blandford}{2004}]{treu04}
1229: Treu T., Malkan M. A., Blandford R. D., 2004, ApJ {\it Letters}, 615,
1230: L97 (T04)
1231:
1232: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ueda et al.}{2003}]{ueda03}
1233: Ueda Y., Akiyama M., Ohta K., Miyaji T., 2003, ApJ, 598, 886 (U03)
1234:
1235: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Willott et al.}{2001}]{willott01}
1236: Willott C. J., Rawlings S., Blundell K. M., Lacy M., Eales S. A., 2001,
1237: MNRAS, 322, 536
1238:
1239: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wolf et al.}{2003}]{wolf03}
1240: Wolf C., Meisenheimer K., Rix H.-W., Borch A., Dye S., Kleinheinrich M.,
1241: 2003, A\&A, 401, 73
1242:
1243: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ziegler et al.}{2005}]{z05}
1244: Ziegler B. L., Thomas D., B\"{o}hm A., Bender R., Fritz A., Maraston C.,
1245: 2005, A\&A, 433, 519
1246:
1247: \end{thebibliography}
1248:
1249: \label{lastpage}
1250:
1251: \end{document}
1252: