1: %version 0: 4/Nov, 2005 JMW at Dietersheim bei Munich

2: %version 1: 21/Jan, 2006 JMW

3: %version 2: 27/Jan, 2006 LCH

4: %version 3: 14/Mar, 2006 JMW

5: %version 4: 21/Mar, 2006 LCH

6: %

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

8: \documentclass{aastex}

9: \usepackage{emulateapj5}

10: \usepackage{apjfonts}

11: \usepackage{psfig}

12: %\usepackage{lscape}

13: 

14: 

15: \slugcomment{Accepted by the Astrophysical Journal Letters}

16: \shorttitle{Black Holes: Spins and Evolution}

17: \shortauthors{Wang, Chen, Ho \& McLure} 

18: 

19: 

20: 

21: \def\kms{\ifmmode {\rm km~ s^{-1}} \else {\rm km~s^{-1}}\ \fi}

22: \def\mbh{M_{\bullet}}

23: \def\mbhc{M_{\bullet}^{\rm c}}

24: \def\mgii{\ifmmode Mg {\sc ii} \else Mg {\sc ii}\ \fi}

25: \def\rhobh{\rho_{\bullet}}

26: \def\rmd{{\rm d}}

27: \def\rg{R_{\rm G}}

28: \def\sunm{M_{\odot}}

29: 

30: \def\lax{{$\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}}$}}

31: \def\gax{{$\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}}$}}

32: 

33: 

34: 

35: 

36: \begin{document}

37: 

38: %\title{Black Holes in Quasars from Sloan Digital Sky Survey: Spin and Its Evolution}

39: \title{Evidence for Rapidly Spinning Black Holes in Quasars}

40: 

41: \author{Jian-Min Wang\altaffilmark{1}, Yan-Mei Chen\altaffilmark{1,2}, Luis C. Ho\altaffilmark{3} 

42: and Ross J. McLure\altaffilmark{4} }

43: 

44: \altaffiltext{1}{Key Laboratory for Particle Astrophysics, Institute of High Energy Physics, 

45:                  Chinese Academy of Sciences, 19B Yuquan Road, Beijing 100049, China}

46: 

47: \altaffiltext{2}{Graduate School, Chinese Academy of Science, 19A Yuquan Road, Beijing 100049, China}

48: 

49: \altaffiltext{3}{The Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, 813 Santa Barbara Street, Pasadena, CA 91101, USA}

50: 

51: \altaffiltext{4}{Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Royal Observatory, Edinburgh EH9 

52:                  3HJ, UK} 

53: 

54: 

55: \begin{abstract}

56: It has long been believed that accretion onto supermassive black holes powers 

57: quasars, but there has been relatively few observational constraints on the 

58: spins of the black holes.  We address this problem by estimating the average

59: radiative efficiencies of a large sample of quasars selected from the 

60: Sloan Digital Sky Survey, by combining their luminosity function and their 

61: black hole mass function.  Over the redshift interval $0.4<z<2.1$, we find that

62: quasars have average radiative efficiencies of $\sim 30\% - 35\%$, strongly 

63: suggesting that their black holes are rotating very fast, with specific 

64: angular momentum $a \approx 1$, which stays roughly constant with redshift.  

65: The average  radiative efficiency could be reduced by a factor of $\sim$2, 

66: depending on the adopted zeropoint for the black hole mass scale.

67: The inferred large spins and their lack of significant evolution are in 

68: agreement with the predictions of recent semi-analytical models of 

69: hierarchical galaxy formation if black holes gain most of their mass through 

70: accretion.

71: \end{abstract}

72: \keywords{accretion, accretion disks --- black hole physics --- galaxies: active --- galaxies: nuclei --- quasar: general} 

73:  

74: \section{Introduction}

75: Supermassive black holes are generally believed to be the power sources in 

76: quasars and other active galactic nuclei (Rees 1984), and in recent years 

77: there has been tremendous progress not only in measuring their masses but also

78: in linking them to the global properties of their host galaxies (see reviews 

79: in Ho 2004).  Apart from the mass, the other fundamental property of 

80: astrophysical black holes is the spin. However, to date there have been 

81: relatively few observational constraints.  A handful of Seyfert galaxies, 

82: the most notable being MCG~$-$6-30-15 (Wilms et al. 2001; Fabian et al. 2002), 

83: show a relativistically broadened, highly redshifted iron K$\alpha$ line that 

84: can be most plausibly be interpreted as arising from a compact region around 

85: a rapidly rotating black black hole.  

86: %The broad iron  K$\alpha$ line, on the other hand, for reasons that are not 

87: %yet fully clear, is now know to be a relatively rare feature in Seyfert 

88: %galaxies (e.g., Bianchi et al. 2004).   

89: The quasi-periodic variability detected in Sgr A*, both in the near-infrared 

90: and in the X-rays, can also be interpreted as evidence for a large spin for 

91: the Galactic Center black hole (Genzel et al. 2003; Ashenbach et al. 2004). 

92: Spectral fitting of the broad-band X-ray spectrum of active galaxies 

93: has achieved particular success by invoking ionized reflection disk models 

94: with inner disk radii sufficient compact to suggest maximally rotating black 

95: holes (Crummy et al. 2006).  Lastly, mild evidence for rotating black holes

96: has come from integral constraints derived for global populations of active 

97: galaxies.  Yu \& Tremaine (2002), applying So\l tan's (1982) argument to a 

98: sample of $z\approx 0-5$ quasars, concluded that their high average radiative 

99: efficiency ($\bar{\eta}$ \gax\ 0.1) implies that their black holes

100: are spinning.  Elvis et al. (2002) applied a similar calculation to the cosmic 

101: X-ray background and concluded that $\bar{\eta}$ \gax\ 0.15.

102: 

103: Theoretical considerations do not provide a clear prediction of the 

104: observational expectation.  While gas accretion inevitably increases the 

105: spin of the black hole, as do mergers of comparable-mass black holes under 

106: most circumstances (Volonteri et al. 2005), minor mergers tend to have the 

107: opposite effect (Hughes \& Blandford 2003; Gammie et al. 2004; Volonteri et 

108: al. 2005).  Thus, the spin of the black hole of any given galaxy at any 

109: particular time depends on its specific merger history up to that point.

110: 

111: In this Letter, we attempt to constrain the spins of supermassive black holes 

112: by estimating the average radiative efficiency of a large sample of quasars 

113: with redshifts $z=0.4-2.1$.  The underlying assumption of our method is that 

114: black holes attain most of their mass through accretion.  We find that quasars

115: radiate with a high efficiency ($\bar{\eta} \approx 0.3-0.35$), from 

116: which we infer that their black holes are rapidly rotating.  Throughout, our 

117: calculations assume the following cosmological parameters: 

118: $H_0=70~{\rm Mpc^{-1}~km~s^{-1}}$, $\Omega_{\rm M}=0.3$, and 

119: $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$.

120: 

121: \begin{figure*}

122: {\vbox

123: {\hbox{

124: \psfig{figure=fig1a.ps,angle=270,width=8cm}

125: \hskip+0.2in

126: \psfig{figure=fig1b.ps,angle=270,width=8cm}

127: }

128: }}

129: \vglue 0.15cm

130: \caption{\footnotesize 

131: ({\it Left}) The global incompleteness of the sample as a function of apparent 

132: magnitude.  Note that the sample becomes increasingly incomplete for 

133: $m_{\rm B}$ \gax $19.5 - 19.6$ mag.  ({\it Right}) Test of the completeness of 

134: each of the three samples, for different redshift bins. The bins $z_1$ and 

135: $z_2$ poorly match the SDSS quasar luminosity function of Richards et al. 

136: (2006). This can be attributed to the inhomogeneity of the McLure \& Dunlop 

137: (2004) sample in the redshift interval $z=0.117-0.4$; these two bins are 

138: excluded from the analysis.  The other redshift bins have a completeness level 

139: of at least 98\%.  

140: }

141: \label{fig1}

142: \end{figure*}

143: 

144: 

145: \section{Accretion-growth Equation and Radiative Efficiency }

146: If quasar light derives from accretion of matter onto a black hole, then the 

147: radiative efficiency is $\eta\approx \Delta \epsilon/\Delta \rhobh c^2$, where 

148: the black hole mass density increase $\Delta \rhobh$ in a redshift interval 

149: $\Delta z$ at $z$ results in an increase of the radiative energy density 

150: $\Delta \epsilon$.  In practice, $\Delta \epsilon$ can be derived from the 

151: quasar luminosity function and $\Delta \rhobh$ can be obtained from the mass 

152: distribution function.  Thus, we can estimate the radiative efficiency at any 

153: redshift, and hence place a strong constraint on the average spin of black 

154: holes, since $\eta$ varies as a function of spin ($\sim 0.06$ and 0.42 for a 

155: non-rotating and a maximally rotating black hole, respectively).  If black 

156: hole masses are known for a quasar sample, we can define their mass 

157: distribution function as 

158: %

159: \begin{equation}

160: \Phi(\mbh,z)=\frac{\rmd^2 N}{\rmd\mbh\rmd V}, 

161: \end{equation}

162: where $\mbh$ is the black hole mass, $\rmd N$ is the number of quasars within the comoving volume 

163: element $\rmd V$ and mass interval $\rmd \mbh$.  Then the integrated mass density of black holes 

164: with $\mbh\ge \mbhc$ at a redshift $z$ is given by 

165: %

166: \begin{equation}

167: \rhobh(z)=\int_z^{\infty}\rmd z\int_{\mbhc}^{\infty}\mbh \Phi(\mbh,z)\rmd\mbh,

168: \end{equation}

169: %

170: where $\mbhc$ is a lower limit set by the flux limit of the survey.

171: 

172: Accretion of matter onto a black hole generates radiation and increases 

173: the mass of the hole.  The relationship between the radiated energy and the 

174: accumulated mass density in black holes can be expressed by the 

175: accretion-growth equation as

176: %

177: \begin{equation}

178: \rhobh(z) = \int_z^{\infty}\frac{\rmd t}{\rmd z} \rmd z\int_{L_{\rm min}(z)}^{\infty}

179:             \frac{(1-\eta)}{\eta} \frac{L_{\rm bol}}{c^2}\Psi(L,z)\rmd L,

180: \end{equation} 

181: %

182: where $L_{\rm min}(z)$ is the minimum luminosity of the survey at redshift 

183: $z$, $c$ is the speed of light, $L_{\rm bol}$ is the bolometric luminosity, 

184: $\Psi(L,z)$ is the luminosity function of the quasar sample, $L$ is the 

185: specific luminosity, and the radiative efficiency $\eta$ varies with redshift. 

186: Equation (3) involves a relation between the bolometric and specific 

187: luminosities.  We convert the $B$-band luminosity $L_{\rm B}$ into the 

188: bolometric luminosity via $L_{\rm bol}=C_{\rm B} L_{\rm B}$, where 

189: $C_{\rm B}\approx 6-7$ is the $B$-band bolometric correction factor for 

190: quasars brighter than $L_{\rm bol}\approx 10^{11.5}\,L_{\odot}$ (Marconi et 

191: al. 2004); we adopt $C_{B}=6.5$.  Since the spectral energy distributions of 

192: quasars show little evidence for redshift evolution (Shemmer et al. 2005; 

193: Strateva et al. 2005; Steffen et al. 2006), we assume that $C_{\rm B}$ does 

194: not vary with redshift.  With $\Phi(\mbh,z)$ and $\Psi(L,z)$, the average 

195: radiative efficiency $\bar{\eta}(z)$ at each redshift bin follows from the 

196: differential version of Equation (3): 

197: %

198: \begin{equation}

199: \bar{\eta}(z)=\frac{\Delta\epsilon}{\Delta \epsilon+\Delta\rhobh c^2},

200: \end{equation}

201: %

202: where 

203: %

204: \begin{equation}

205: \Delta \epsilon=\Delta z~\frac{\rmd t}{\rmd z}\int_{L_{\rm min}(z)}^{\infty}L_{\rm bol}\Psi(L,z)\rmd L

206: \end{equation}

207: %

208: and 

209: %

210: \begin{equation}

211: \Delta\rhobh=\Delta z\int_{\mbhc}^{\infty}\mbh\Phi(\mbh,z)\rmd \mbh.

212: \end{equation}

213: %

214: Assuming that the innermost stable circular orbit is the inner radius of the 

215: accretion disk (Bardeen et al. 1972), the inferred radiative efficiency yields 

216: an estimate of the black hole spin.  

217: 

218: Equation (4) constrains the radiative efficiency at {\em any} redshift,

219: provided the black hole mass function is known. It should be stressed that 

220: both sides of Equation (3) only include the actively black holes (i.e. 

221: quasars), and thus the radiative efficiency from Equation (4) does not rely on 

222: the lifetime of quasars. This method is also independent of obscured sources, 

223: which is an important complicating factor in estimation of the radiative 

224: efficiency using So\l tan's method (Elvis et al. 2002; Yu \& Tremaine 2002).

225: 

226: \section{Application to SDSS Quasars}

227: \subsection{Estimation of black hole masses}

228: 

229: The large database provided by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; York et al. 

230: 2000) affords us an excellent opportunity to examine this problem.  

231: Reverberation mapping of local active galaxies has resulted in empirical 

232: scaling relations based on quasar luminosity and broad emission line width 

233: (Kaspi et al. 2000; McLure \& Jarvis 2002; Vestergaard 2002) that enable 

234: ``virial'' black hole masses to be obtained, and hence the distribution 

235: function for the black hole masses of a sample of quasars can be estimated 

236: independently from their luminosity function.   Because the profile of the 

237: C~{\sc iv} line is complex and may be strongly affected by outflows (Baskin 

238: \& Laor 2005), we only consider objects with broad H$\beta$ and \mgii\ lines 

239: detected in SDSS.  This limits the maximum redshift of the present sample to 

240: $z\le 2.1$.  For quasars with $z\le 0.7$, we obtain the virial black hole 

241: masses using the FWHM of the H$\beta$ line ($V_{\rm H\beta}$) following the 

242: empirical relation\footnote{This relation for H$\beta$ is based on the 

243: original work of Kaspi et al. (2000), which has since been recalibrated 

244: (Onken et al. 2004; Kaspi et al. 2005). The new calibration increases the 

245: zeropoint of the mass scale by roughly a factor of 2.  However, the new 

246: zeropoint has not been established with great statistical certainty (Nelson et 

247: al. 2004; Greene \& Ho 2006), and for the current application we will retain 

248: the original zeropoint of Kaspi et al.  (2000), on which the masses derived by 

249: McLure \& Dunlop (2004) are based.}

250: %

251: \begin{equation}

252: \mbh=4.7\times10^6\left(\frac{L_{5100}}{10^{37}{\rm W}}\right)^{0.61}

253: \left(\frac{V_{\rm H\beta}}{10^3~{\rm km}~{\rm s}^{-1}}\right)^2 \, \sunm, 

254: \end{equation}

255: %

256: where $L_{5100}$ is the specific continuum luminosity at 5100 \AA. For higher 

257: redshift quasars ($0.7<z\le 2.1$), we use the FWHM of Mg~{\sc ii} 

258: ($V_{\rm Mg~II}$) to estimate the black hole mass, using the calibration 

259: (McLure \& Dunlop 2004) 

260: %

261: \begin{equation}

262: \mbh=3.2\times10^6\left(\frac{L_{3000}}{10^{37}{\rm W}}\right)^{0.62}

263: \left(\frac{V_{\rm Mg~II}}{10^3~{\rm km}~{\rm s}^{-1}}\right)^2 \, \sunm, 

264: \end{equation}

265: %

266: where $L_{3000}$ is the specific continuum luminosity at 3000 \AA. The scatter 

267: of these relations has been estimated to be $\sim$0.4 dex (McLure \& Dunlop 

268: 2004). 

269: 

270: 

271: \subsection{Samples}

272: Our analysis is based on black hole masses calculated by McLure \& Dunlop 

273: (2004) for 12,698 quasars in the redshift range $0.1\le z\le 2.1$, for which 

274: good-quality spectra are available from the quasar catalog of the First Data 

275: Release (DR1) of SDSS (Schneider et al. 2003).  This sample, however, is 

276: neither complete nor homogeneous.  To evaluate its completeness, we compare it 

277: to the quasar luminosity function recently determined for the Third Data 

278: Release (DR3) of SDSS (Richards et al. 2006). After dividing the sample into 

279: $n_z=12$ redshift bins, we evaluate the two parameters 

280: %

281: \begin{equation}

282: {\cal R}_i=\frac{N_{\rm bin}^i-N_{\rm LF}^i}{N_{\rm LF}^i};~~~~~

283: {\cal I}=\sum_{i=1}^{n_z}{\cal R}_i^2, 

284: \end{equation}

285: % 

286: where $N_{\rm bin}^i$ is the number of quasars within the redshift bin $z_i$ 

287: and $z_i+\Delta z$ and $N_{\rm LF}^i$ is the number of quasars calculated from 

288: the luminosity function. The parameter ${\cal R}_i$ measures the degree of 

289: incompleteness of the sample at each redshift bin $z_i$, and ${\cal I}$ 

290: indicates the global incompleteness of the sample.  By adjusting the apparent 

291: magnitude $m_{B}$, we can define subsamples with different levels of 

292: completeness.  As illustrated in Figure 1 ({\it left}), the sample 

293: incompleteness begins to be noticeable for $m_{\rm B}$ \gax 19.5--19.6 mag.  

294: Furthermore,  Figure 1 ({\it right}) shows that the number of quasars in the 

295: first two redshift bins matches poorly with the predictions based on 

296: the luminosity function of Richards et al. (2006). We thus restrict our 

297: attention to the redshift range $0.4\le z\le 2.1$, and consider only three 

298: subsamples, $S_1$, $S_2$ and $S_3$, which correspond to apparent magnitude 

299: limits $m_{\rm B}<19.4$, 19.2, and 19.0 mag, respectively. The completeness 

300: level of these subsamples is \gax 98\%.

301: 

302: \subsection{Results}

303: We show the differential black hole mass density ($\rmd \rhobh/\rmd z$) as a 

304: function of redshift in Figure 2{\it a}. We find that the black hole density 

305: is very sensitive to the limit magnitudes of the samples.  The quasar 

306: luminosity function from SDSS DR3, as given by Richards et al. (2006), is 

307: %

308: \begin{equation}

309: \Psi=\Psi_*10^{A_1\left[M_i-\left(M_i^*+B_1\xi+B_2\xi^2+B_3\xi^3\right)\right]},

310: \end{equation}

311: %

312: where $M_i$ is $i-$band magnitude, 

313: $\xi=\log\left[(1+z)/(1+z_{\rm ref})\right]$, $A_1=0.84$, $B_1=1.43$, 

314: $B_2=36.63$, $B_3=34.39$, $M_i=-26$, $z_{\rm ref}=2.45$ and 

315: $\Psi_*=10^{-5.7}$.  Inserting the luminosity function and the mass 

316: distribution function into Eq. (4), we immediately arrive at the radiative 

317: efficiency plotted in Figure 2{\it b}. Independent of the chosen subsample, we 

318: find that quasars radiate at a high efficiency, with $\eta \approx 0.3-0.35$, 

319: roughly independent on redshift from $z\approx 0.4$ to  $z\approx 2$. 

320: The average radiative efficiency we obtain is significantly higher than that 

321: corresponding to the maximum spin ($a\approx 0.9$) achieved by a 

322: magnetohydrodynamic thick disk (Gammie et al. 2004), $\eta\approx 0.2$, but is 

323: consistent with 

324: the efficiency of Thorne's (1974) limit of $a=0.998$ ($\eta=0.32$), as well 

325: as that of extreme Kerr rotation $a=1$ ($\eta=0.42$).  A similar conclusion 

326: has been reached by other studies, based on models of hierarchical galaxy 

327: formation (Volonteri et al. 2005) and considerations of the cosmic X-ray 

328: background radiation (Elvis et al. 2002).  We should note that Elvis et al.  

329: (2002) only gave a lower limit on the efficiency ($\eta>0.15$), and no 

330: detailed information at any given redshift. The observed high value and 

331: constancy of $\eta$ suggests the spin angular momentum of most or all black 

332: holes in quasars have saturated at their maximum value and undergo no 

333: evolution from $z\approx 2$ to $z\approx 0.4$. Our results are consistent with

334: the conclusions of Volonteri et al. (2005).

335: 

336: \figurenum{2}

337: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig2.ps,angle=270,width=7.5cm}}

338: \vglue 0.2cm

339: \figcaption{\footnotesize The black hole mass density ({\it a}) and the

340: radiative efficiency ({\it b}) as a function of redshift for three quasar

341: samples ($S_1$, $S_2$ and $S_3$) from the SDSS DR1. The error bars

342: on $\rmd \rho_{\bullet}/\rmd z$ and $\eta$ are dominated by the uncertainty  

343: in the black hole masses.}

344: \label{fig2}

345: 

346: \section{Discussion and Summary}

347: 

348: We have estimated the average radiative efficiency, and hence the spin, of 

349: supermassive black holes by combining the luminosity and black hole mass 

350: function of a large sample of SDSS quasars selected over the redshift interval 

351: $0.4<z<2.1$.  With find that the average radiative efficiency is very high, 

352: $\bar{\eta} \approx 0.3-0.35$, which implies that the black holes are

353: rotating very fast, with $a\approx 1$.  No noticeable evolution is seen over 

354: this range of redshifts; it would be very interesting to extend this study 

355: to higher redshifts (\gax 2) in order to establish the epoch over which the 

356: black hole spins were imprinted.  We note that our conclusions are only 

357: based on the accretion-growth equation, which makes no reference to whether 

358: the black mass was gained principally through accretion or mergers.  An 

359: advantage of the present approach is that the result does not depend on the 

360: lifetime of quasars. 

361: 

362: The large spins deduced for the black holes in quasars may arise quite 

363: naturally as a consequence of major (nearly equal-mass) galaxy mergers.  

364: Massive, gas-rich mergers account not only for most of the star formation in 

365: the Universe at $z\approx 2-3$ (e.g., Conselice et al. 2003), but they are 

366: probably also responsible for triggering major episodes of quasar activity 

367: (Di~Matteo et al.  2005).  When galaxies merge, so, too, do their black holes 

368: (if they exist in the parent galaxies), at least in principle.  The spin 

369: angular momentum of black holes newly born from mergers is expected to be 

370: high, with $a>0.8$, its exact value depending on the orbit of the original 

371: binary (Gammie et al.  2004).  Subsequent accretion at an Eddington-limited 

372: rate will further increase the spin on a timescale shorter than the Salpeter 

373: time ($\tau=0.45$ Gyr) (Volonteri et al. 2005). 

374: % XX you originally referenced Thorne 1974 here.  What is this in reference to?

375: % is it the Salpeter time (which is trivial, and required no reference) or

376: % is it for the statement that accretion further increases the spin on a short

377: % timescale?  If the latter, should not the proper reference be Volenteri?

378: The newborn holes can thus rapidly evolve into Kerr holes, consistent with 

379: our results.

380: 

381: The high radiative efficiency prolongs the lifetime of a quasar's 

382: accretion. Following Shapiro (2005), the mass of an accreting black hole 

383: at time $t$ with an initial mass $M_0$ is given by

384: %

385: \begin{equation}

386: \mbh(t)=M_0\exp\left[\frac{\dot{m}(1-\eta)}{\eta}\frac{t}{\tau}\right],

387: \end{equation}  

388: where $\dot{m}=\dot{M}_{\rm acc}c^2/L_{\rm Edd}$, $\dot{M}_{\rm acc}$ is the 

389: accretion rate, and $L_{\rm Edd}$ is the Eddington luminosity. The anticipated 

390: lifetime of an $e-$fold accretion-growth is then $t_{\rm QSO}\approx\eta 

391: \tau/\dot{m}(1-\eta)\approx (0.4-0.7)\tau \approx 0.2-0.3$ Gyr 

392: %

393: %XX you originally had 0.5-0.7; I think it should be 0.4-0.7

394: %

395: for $\eta=0.3-0.4$ if the hole is accreting at the Eddington rate 

396: ($L_{\rm Edd}/c^2$). This lifetime lies within the range of values currently 

397: estimated for quasars (Martini 2004), but is uncomfortably long for the 

398: highest-redshift quasars known ($z$ \gax 6.4), whose large masses 

399: ($\mbh \approx 10^9\, \sunm$), if grown from much smaller seeds, would 

400: have required much more rapid growth rates (Shapiro 2005).

401: 

402: One major caveat affects the actual numerical value of $\bar{\eta}$.  We noted 

403: in \S 3.1 that our black hole mass scale is based on the original zeropoint of 

404: Kaspi et al. (2000), whose accuracy is currently still a subject of debate.

405: If the zeropoint in fact should be increased by a factor of $\sim$2, as 

406: suggested by some recent studies, then the radiative efficiency would 

407: {\it decrease}\ by the same factor, to $\bar{\eta} \approx 0.2$.   This lower 

408: value of $\bar{\eta}$ would help alleviate the conflict with the growth rate

409: of the highest-redshift quasars (Shapiro 2005), would be consistent with the

410: theoretical expectation of magnetohydrodynamic thick disks (Gammie et al. 

411: 2004), and would bring it in better agreement with

412: the independent estimates of radiative efficiencies derived from So\l tan-type

413: arguments.  The analysis of optically selected quasars by Yu \& Tremaine 

414: (2002) obtains $\bar{\eta}$ \gax 0.1 assuming a bolometric correction 

415: of $C_B=11.8$.  If $C_B=6.5$ had been adopted, as suggested by Marconi et al. 

416: (2004), Yu \& Tremaine's value of $\bar{\eta}$ would be lower by a factor of 

417: $\sim 2$.  On the other hand, this type of estimate is seriously affected 

418: by uncertainties in the contribution from obscured active galaxies, which is 

419: currently poorly known (Martinez-Sansigre et al. 2005).  Estimates of the 

420: average radiative efficiency using an energy density based on the cosmic 

421: X-ray background, which is less affected by obscuration, yield values of 

422: $\bar{\eta}$ (\gax 0.15; Elvis et al. 2002) that are more consistent with our 

423: results.

424: 

425: \acknowledgements{We thank the referee for helpful comments on 

426: the manuscript.  J. M. W. acknowledges support from a Grant for Distinguished 

427: Young Scientist from NSFC (NSFC-10325313, NSFC-10233030, NSFC-10521001), L. C. H. from 

428: NASA and the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and R. J. M from the Royal 

429: Society.}

430: 

431: \begin{thebibliography}{}

432: \bibitem{}Aschenbach, B., Grosso, N., Porquet, D., \& Predehl, P. 2004, \aap, 417, 71

433: \bibitem{}Bardeen, J. M., Press, W. H., \& Teukolsky, S. A. 1972, \apj, 178, 347

434: \bibitem{}Baskin, A., \& Laor, A. 2005, \mnras, 356, 1029

435: %\bibitem{}Bianchi, S., Matt, G., Balestra, I., Guainazzi, M., \& Perola, G. C. 2004, \aa, 422, 65

436: \bibitem{}Conselice, C.~J., Chapman, S. C., \& Windhorst, R. A. 2003, \apj, 596, L5

437: \bibitem{}Crummy, J., Fabian, A. C., Gallo, L., \& Ross, R. R. 2006, \mnras, 365, 1067 

438: \bibitem{}Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., \& Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604

439: %\bibitem{}Elvis, M., et al.  1994, \apjs, 95, 1

440: \bibitem{}Elvis, M., Risaliti, G., \& Zamorani, G. 2002, \apj, 565, L75

441: \bibitem{}Fabian, A. C., et al. 2002, \mnras, 335, L1

442: \bibitem{}Gammie, C. F., Sharpiro, S. L., \& McKinney, J. C. 2004, \apj,  602, 312

443: \bibitem{}Genzel, R., Sch\"odel, R., Ott, T., Eckart, A., Alexander, T., Lacombe, F., Rouan, D., \& Aschenbach, B. 2003, Nature, 425, 934

444: \bibitem{}Greene, J. E., \& Ho, L. C. 2006, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0512461)

445: \bibitem{}Ho, L. C., ed. 2004, Carnegie Observatories Astrophysics Series, Vol. 1: Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)

446: \bibitem{}Hughes, S. A.,  \& Blandford, R. D. 2003, ApJ, 585, L101

447: \bibitem{}Kaspi, S., Maoz, D., Netzer, H., Peterson, B. M., Vestergaard, M., \&

448: Jannuzi, B. T. 2005, \apj, 629, 61

449: \bibitem{}Kaspi, S., Smith, P. S., Netzer, H., Maoz, D., Jannuzi, B. T., \& Giveon, U. 2000, \apj, 533, 631

450: \bibitem{}Marconi, A., Risaliti, G., Gilli, R., Hunt, L. K., Maiolino, R., \& Salvati, M. 2004, \mnras, 351, 169

451: \bibitem{}Martinez-Sansigre, A., Rawlings, S., Lacy, M., Fadda, D., Marleau, F. R., Simpson, C., Willott, C. J., \& Jarvis, M. J. 2005, Nature, 436, 666

452: \bibitem{}Martini, P. 2004, in Carnegie Observatories Astrophysics Series, Vol. 1: Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, ed. L. C. Ho (Cambridge: Cambridge

453: Univ. Press), 170

454: \bibitem{}McLure, R. J., \& Dunlop, J. S. 2004, \mnras, 352, 1390

455: \bibitem{}McLure, R.~J., \& Jarvis, M.~J. 2002, \mnras, 337, 109

456: \bibitem{} Nelson, C.~H., Green, R. F., Bower, G., Gebhardt, K., \& Weistrop, D. 2004, \apj, 615, 652

457: \bibitem{}Onken, C.~A., Ferrarese, L., Merritt, D., Peterson, B.~M., Pogge, R. W., Vestergaard, M., \& Wandel, A. 2004, \apj, 615, 645

458: \bibitem{}Rees, M. J. 1984, \araa, 22, 471

459: \bibitem{}Richards, G. T., et al. 2006, \aj, in press (astro-ph/0601434)

460: \bibitem{}Schneider, D. P., et al. 2003, \aj, 126, 2579

461: \bibitem{}Shapiro, S. L. 2005, ApJ, 620, 59

462: \bibitem{}Shemmer, O., Brandt, W. N., Vignali, C., Schneider, D. P., Fan, X.,

463: Richards, G. T., \& Strauss, M. A. 2005, \apj, 630, 729

464: \bibitem{}So\l tan, A. 1982, \mnras, 200, 115 

465: \bibitem{}Steffen, A. T., Strateva, I., Brandt, W. N., Alexander, D. M., Koekemoer, A. M., Lehmer, B. D., Schneider, D. P., \& Vignali, C. 2006, \aj, in press (astro-ph/0602407)

466: \bibitem{}Strateva, I. V., Brandt, W. N., Schneider, D. P., Vanden Berk, D. G., \& Vignali, C. 2005, \aj, 130, 387

467: \bibitem{}Thorne, K. S. 1974, \apj, 191, 507

468: \bibitem{}Vestergaard, M. 2002, \apj, 571, 733

469: \bibitem{}Volonteri, M., Madau, P., Quataert, E., \& Rees, M. J. 2005, \apj, 620, 69 

470: \bibitem{}Wilms, J., Reynolds, C.~S., Begelman, M.~C., Reeves, J., Molendi, S.,

471:  Stuabert, R., \& Kendziorra, E. 2001, \mnras, 328, L27

472: \bibitem{}York, D. G., et al. 2000, \aj, 120, 1579

473: \bibitem{}Yu, Q., \& Tremaine, S. 2002, \mnras, 335, 965

474: \end{thebibliography}

475: 

476: \end{document}

477: