1: % Revised by L. Jiang
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3:
4: \begin{document}
5:
6: \title{The Radio-Loud Fraction of Quasars is a Strong Function of Redshift and
7: Optical Luminosity}
8: \author{Linhua Jiang\altaffilmark{1}, Xiaohui Fan\altaffilmark{1},
9: \v{Z}eljko Ivezi\'{c}\altaffilmark{2}, Gordon T. Richards\altaffilmark{3,4},
10: Donald P. Schneider\altaffilmark{5}, Michael A. Strauss\altaffilmark{3},
11: and Brandon C. Kelly\altaffilmark{1}}
12: \altaffiltext{1}{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, 933 North Cherry
13: Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85721}
14: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy, University of Washington, Box
15: 351580, Seattle, WA 98195}
16: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Peyton Hall, Princeton,
17: NJ 08544}
18: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins
19: University, 3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218}
20: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pennsylvania
21: State University, 525 Davey Laboratory, University Park, PA 16802}
22:
23: \begin{abstract}
24:
25: Using a sample of optically-selected quasars from the Sloan Digital Sky
26: Survey, we have determined the radio-loud fraction (RLF) of quasars as a
27: function of redshift and optical luminosity. The sample contains more than
28: 30,000 objects and spans a redshift range of $0<z\leqslant5$ and a luminosity
29: range of $-30\leqslant M_{i}<-22$. We use both the radio-to-optical flux ratio
30: ($R$ parameter) and radio luminosity to define radio-loud quasars. After
31: breaking the correlation between redshift and luminosity due to the
32: flux-limited nature of the sample, we find that the RLF of quasars decreases
33: with increasing redshift and decreasing luminosity. The relation can be
34: described in the form of log(RLF/(1--RLF))
35: $=b_0+b_z \log(1+z)+b_M (M_{2500}+26)$, where $M_{2500}$ is the absolute
36: magnitude
37: at rest-frame 2500 {\AA}, and $b_z$, $b_M<0$. When using $R>10$ to define
38: radio-loud quasars, we find that $b_0=-0.132\pm0.116$, $b_z=-2.052\pm0.261$,
39: and $b_M=-0.183\pm0.025$. The RLF at $z=0.5$ declines from 24.3\% to 5.6\% as
40: luminosity decreases from $M_{2500}=-26$ to $M_{2500}=-22$, and the RLF at
41: $M_{2500}=-26$ declines from 24.3\% to 4.1\% as redshift increases
42: from 0.5 to 3, suggesting that the RLF is a strong function of both redshift
43: and luminosity. We also examine the impact of flux-related selection effects
44: on the RLF determination using a series of tests, and find that the dependence
45: of the RLF on redshift and luminosity is highly likely to be physical, and the
46: selection effects we considered are not responsible for the dependence.
47:
48: \end{abstract}
49:
50: \keywords{galaxies: active --- quasars: general --- radio continuum: galaxies}
51:
52: \section{Introduction}
53:
54: Although quasars were first discovered by their radio emission
55: \citep[e.g.][]{mat63,sch63}, it was soon found that the majority of quasars
56: were radio-quiet \citep[e.g.][]{san65}. Quasars are often classified into two
57: broad categories, radio-loud and radio-quiet, based on their radio properties.
58: There is mounting evidence that the distribution of radio-to-optical flux
59: ratio for optically-selected quasars is bimodal
60: \citep[e.g.][]{kel89,mil90,vis92,ive02}, although the existence of the
61: bimodality has been questioned \citep[e.g.][but see also \citet{ive04a} for a
62: response]{cir03}. Radio-loud and radio-quiet quasars are probably
63: powered by similar physical mechanisms \citep[e.g.][]{bar89,urr95}, and their
64: radio properties are also correlated with host galaxy properties, central
65: black hole masses, black hole spins, and accretion rates
66: \citep[e.g.][]{bau95,urr95,bes05}. Radio-loud quasars are likely to reside in
67: more massive galaxies \citep[e.g.][]{pea86,bes05}, and harbor more massive
68: central black holes \citep[e.g.][]{lao00,lac01,mcl04}, than do radio-quiet
69: quasars.
70:
71: Roughly 10\%$-$20\% of all quasars are radio-loud
72: \citep[e.g.][]{kel89,urr95,ive02}. However, the radio-loud fraction (RLF) of
73: quasars may depend on redshift and optical luminosity. Some studies have
74: found that the RLF tends to drop with increasing redshift
75: \citep[e.g.][]{pea86,mil90,vis92,sch92} and decreasing luminosity
76: \citep[e.g.][]{pad93,gol99,cir03}, or evolves non-monotonically with redshift
77: and luminosity \citep[e.g.][]{hoo95,bis97}, while others showed that the RLF
78: does not differ significantly with redshift \citep[e.g.][]{gol99,ste00,cir03}
79: or luminosity \citep[e.g.][]{bis97,ste00}.
80:
81: From a sample of 4472 quasars from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
82: \citep[SDSS;][]{yor00}, \citet{ive02} found that the RLF is independent of
83: both redshift and optical luminosity when using marginal distributions of the
84: whole sample; however, they noted that the approximate degeneracy between
85: redshift and luminosity in the SDSS flux-limited sample may cause individual
86: trends in redshift and luminosity to appear to cancel.
87: By stacking the images of the Faint Images of the Radio Sky at Twenty-cm
88: survey \citep[FIRST;][]{bec95}, \citet{whi06} were able to probe the radio
89: sky into nanoJansky regime. They found that the median radio loudness of
90: SDSS-selected quasars is a declining function with optical luminosity.
91: After correcting for this effect, they claimed that the median radio loudness
92: is independent of redshift. In this paper we use a
93: sample of more than 30,000 optically-selected quasars from the SDSS, and break
94: the redshift-luminosity dependence to study the evolution of the RLF. We will
95: find that there are indeed strong trends in redshift and luminosity, and that
96: they do in fact roughly cancel in the marginal distributions.
97:
98: In $\S$2 of this paper, we present our quasar sample from the SDSS. In $\S$3
99: we derive the RLF of quasars as a function of redshift and optical
100: luminosity. We examine the effects of K corrections and sample incompleteness
101: in $\S$4, and we give the discussion and summary in $\S$5 and $\S$6,
102: respectively. Throughout the paper we use a $\Lambda$-dominated flat cosmology
103: with H$_0$ = 70 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_{m}$ = 0.3, and
104: $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ = 0.7 \citep[e.g.][]{spe06}.
105:
106: \section{The SDSS quasar sample}
107:
108: The SDSS \citep{yor00} is an imaging and spectroscopic survey of the sky
109: using a dedicated wide-field 2.5m telescope \citep{gun06}. The imaging is
110: carried out in five broad bands, $ugriz$, spanning the range from 3000 to
111: 10,000 {\AA} \citep{fuk96,gun98}. From the resulting catalogs of objects,
112: quasar candidates \citep{ric02} are selected for spectroscopic follow-up.
113: Spectroscopy is performed using a pair of double spectrographs with coverage
114: from 3800 to 9200 {\AA}, and a resolution $\lambda/\Delta \lambda$ of
115: roughly 2000. The SDSS quasar survey spectroscopically targets quasars
116: with $i<19.1$ at low redshift ($z\leqslant3$) and $i<20.2$ at high redshift
117: ($z\geqslant 3$). The low-redshift selection is performed in $ugri$ color
118: space, and the high-redshift selection is performed in $griz$ color space.
119: In addition to the optical selection, a SDSS object is also considered to be
120: a primary quasar candidate if it is an optical point source located within
121: $2\farcs0$ of a FIRST radio source. All SDSS magnitudes mentioned in this
122: paper have been corrected for Galactic extinction using the maps of
123: \citet{sch98}.
124:
125: The sample we used is from the SDSS Data Release Three
126: \citep[DR3;][]{aba05}. The quasar catalog of the DR3 consists of 46,420
127: objects with luminosities larger than $M_{i}=-22$ \citep{sch05}. The area
128: covered by the catalog is about 3732 deg$^2$. We reject 4683 objects that are
129: not covered by the FIRST survey,
130: and we only use the quasars which were selected on their
131: optical colors (i.e., the quasars with one or more of the following target
132: selection flags: QSO\_HIZ, QSO\_CAP and QSO\_SKIRT; see Richards et al. 2002)
133: to avoid the bias introduced by the FIRST
134: radio selection. The final sample consists of 31,835 optically-selected
135: quasars from the SDSS DR3 catalog, and covers a redshift range of
136: $0<z\leqslant5$ and a luminosity range of $-30\leqslant M_{i}<-22$.
137:
138: To include both core-dominated (hereafter FR1) and lobe-dominated (hereafter
139: FR2) quasars, we match our sample to the FIRST catalog \citep{whi97}
140: with a matching radius 30$\arcsec$.
141: For the quasars that have only one radio source within 30$\arcsec$, we match
142: them again to the FIRST catalog within 5$\arcsec$ and classify the matched
143: ones as FR1 quasars. The quasars that have multiple entries within
144: 30$\arcsec$ are classified as FR2 quasars. The sample contains 2566
145: FIRST-detected quasars, including 1944 FR1 quasars and 622 FR2 quasars.
146:
147: We use the integrated flux density ($f_{int}$) in the FIRST catalog to
148: describe the 20 cm radio emission. The total radio flux density of each FR2
149: quasar is determined using all of the radio components
150: within 30$\arcsec$. We note that we have excluded those FR2 quasars whose
151: separations between lobes are greater than 1$\arcmin$. In fact, FR2 quasars
152: represent a small fraction of the SDSS DR3 catalog, and FR2 quasars
153: with diameters greater than 1$\arcmin$ are even rarer \citep{dev06}.
154: These numbers are too small to affect the statistics below. Therefore
155: we do not use more sophisticated procedures \citep[e.g.][]{ive02,dev06} to
156: select FR2 quasars.
157:
158: \section{RLF of quasars as a function of redshift and optical luminosity}
159:
160: We define a radio-loud quasar based on its $R$ parameter, the rest-frame
161: ratio of the flux density at 6 cm (5 GHz) to the flux density at 2500 {\AA}
162: \citep[e.g.][]{sto92}. For a given quasar, we calculate its observed flux
163: density $f_{6cm}$ at rest-frame 6 cm from $f_{int}$ (if detected) assuming
164: a power-law slope of $-0.5$ \citep[e.g.][]{ive04b}; and we determine its
165: observed flux density $f_{2500}$ at rest-frame 2500 {\AA} by fitting a model
166: spectrum to the SDSS broadband photometry \citep{fan01,jia06,ric06}.
167: The model spectrum is a power-law continuum ($f_{\nu}=A{\nu}^{\alpha}$) plus
168: a series of emission lines extracted from the quasar composite spectrum
169: \citep{van01}. We integrate the model spectrum over the redshifted SDSS
170: bandpasses to compare with the observed magnitudes.
171: The parameters $\alpha$ and $A$ are
172: determined by minimizing the differences between the model spectrum
173: magnitudes $m^{model}$ and the SDSS photometry $m^{obs}$:
174: \begin{equation}
175: {\chi}^2=\sum\left(\frac{m^{model}_i-m^{obs}_i}{\sigma^{obs}_i}\right)^2,
176: \end{equation}
177: where $\sigma^{obs}_{i}$ is the estimated SDSS photometry error in the
178: $i^{\rm th}$ SDSS filter. We constrain $\alpha$ to be in the range
179: $-1.1<\alpha<0.1$, and only use the bands that are not dominated by Lyman
180: forest absorption systems. Finally $f_{2500}$ is computed from the power-law
181: continuum using the best-fit values of $\alpha$ and $A$, and the radio
182: loudness $R$ is obtained by
183: \begin{equation}
184: R=f_{6cm}/f_{2500}.
185: \label{eq:loudness}
186: \end{equation}
187: The absolute magnitude $M_{2500}$ at rest-frame 2500 {\AA} is calculated
188: from $f_{2500}$.
189:
190: The FIRST survey has a 5$\sigma$ peak flux density limit of about 1.0 mJy
191: \citep{bec95}, although this limit is not perfectly uniform across the sky.
192: For a quasar detected by FIRST, we
193: determine the relevant limit directly from the FIRST catalog, while for
194: a quasar undetected by FIRST, we measure the limit at the position of the
195: nearest radio source (usually within $10\arcmin$). We find that the median
196: value of the limits is 0.98 mJy, which has already included the effect of
197: ``CLEAN bias'' \citep{bec95,whi97}. Only $\sim4$\% of the quasars have limits
198: above 1.1 mJy, so we use 1.1 mJy as the FIRST detection limit for our sample.
199:
200: Many sources in the FIRST images are resolved. The resolution effect causes
201: FIRST to become more incomplete for extended objects near the detection limit
202: \citep{bec95,whi97}. Furthermore, FR2 quasars are more incomplete than FR1
203: quasars for integrated flux densities. For example, a double-lobe radio
204: source with two identical components suffers from incompleteness twice as
205: high as a single-component source of the same total flux density. Figure 1
206: (provided by R. L. White, private communication) shows the FIRST completeness
207: as a function of integrated flux density. The completeness is computed using
208: the observed size distribution and rms values of integrated flux densities
209: from the FIRST survey for SDSS quasars, and has included all effects
210: mentioned above. Quasars with $f_{int}>5$ mJy have a completeness fraction
211: $g_{comp}\approx 1$ (100\%); while for a quasar with 1.1 mJy $<f_{int}<$ 5
212: mJy, its $g_{comp}$ is measured from the curve. To correct for sample
213: incompleteness, we use the weight of $1/g_{comp}$ when we calculate the
214: numbers of radio-loud quasars.
215:
216: When quasars with $R>10$ are defined as radio-loud
217: \citep[e.g.][]{kel89}, FIRST is able to detect radio-loud quasars down to
218: $i\approx 18.9$ based on Equation~\ref{eq:loudness}, the K corrections we
219: applied and the FIRST detection limit of 1.1 mJy. The left panel of Figure 2
220: shows the redshift and absolute magnitude distribution of our sample.
221:
222: In flux-limited surveys, redshift and luminosity are artificially correlated,
223: making it difficult to separate the dependence of the RLF on redshift or
224: luminosity. To break this degeneracy, we divide the $M_{2500}$--$z$ plane
225: into small grids. RLFs in individual $M_{2500}$--$z$ grids are calculated and
226: presented as squares in the right panel of Figure 2, where the square
227: for each subsample is located at the median values of $M_{2500}$ and $z$ in
228: that subsample. The RLF declines with
229: increasing redshift and decreasing luminosity. One can see the trend more
230: clearly in Figure 3, in which we plot the RLF in three small redshift ranges
231: and three small magnitude ranges.
232:
233: We assume a simple relation to model the RLF as a function of redshift and
234: absolute magnitude,
235: \begin{equation}
236: \log \left(\frac{RLF}{1-RLF} \right)=b_0+b_z \log(1+z)+b_M (M_{2500}+26),
237: \label{eq:fracrl}
238: \end{equation}
239: where $b_0$, $b_z$ and $b_M$ are constants. We use the RLFs calculated from
240: the grids that include more than one radio-loud quasar, and use median values
241: of $z$ and $M_{2500}$ in each grid. Statistical uncertainties are estimated
242: from Poisson statistics. The best fitting results found by regression fit are,
243: $b_0=-0.132\pm0.116$, $b_z=-2.052\pm0.261$, and $b_M=-0.183\pm0.025$. This
244: implies that when RLF $\ll1$, RLF $\propto (1+z)^{-2.052} L_{opt}^{0.458}$,
245: where $L_{opt}$ is the optical luminosity. The $\chi^{2}$ of this fit is 52.8
246: for 47 degrees of freedom (DoF), and the confidence levels of $b_z$ and $b_M$
247: are shown in Figure 4. The null hypothesis that $b_z=0$ and $b_M=0$ is
248: rejected at $>5\sigma$ significance. The results
249: are projected onto two-dimensional plots in the left panels of Figure 5, where
250: filled circles are the RLFs calculated from individual grids in Figure 2 and
251: dashed lines are the best fits. The upper panel shows the RLF as a function
252: of redshift after correcting for the luminosity dependence. At $M_{2500}=-26$,
253: the RLF drops from $\sim$24.3\% to $\sim$4.1\% as the redshift increases from
254: 0.5 to 3. The lower panel shows the RLF as a function of luminosity after
255: correcting for the redshift dependence. At $z=0.5$, the RLF decreases rapidly
256: from $\sim$24.3\% to $\sim$5.6\% as the luminosity decreases from
257: $M_{2500}=-26$ to $M_{2500}=-22$. Therefore the RLF of quasars is a strong
258: function of both redshift and optical luminosity.
259:
260: To probe whether the trend seen in Equation~\ref{eq:fracrl} is related to the
261: radio-loud criterion adopted, we define a radio-loud quasar if $R$ is greater
262: than 30 instead of 10. In this case FIRST is able to detect radio-loud
263: quasars down to $i\approx 20.0$. We calculate RLFs for the quasars with
264: $i<20.0$ using the same method illustrated in Figure 2, and model the RLF
265: with Equation~\ref{eq:fracrl}. The best fitting parameters are given in
266: Table 1 and the confidence levels of $b_z$ and $b_M$ are shown in Figure 4.
267: Figure 5 shows the RLF as a function of redshift and luminosity. The relation
268: gives similar results for both radio-loud criteria. We note that the sample
269: of $i<20.0$ at $z<3$ is not complete since some bins in $M_{2500}$--$z$ space
270: are not sampled by SDSS. However, this incompleteness does
271: not bias our results because we are considering the RLF for optically-selected
272: quasars. Another definition of a radio-loud quasar is based on the radio
273: luminosity of an object \citep[e.g.][]{pea86,mil90,hoo95,gol99}. As we do for
274: the $R$-based RLF, we use two criteria to define radio-loud quasars: $L_r$
275: (luminosity density at rest-frame 6 cm) $>10^{32}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ Hz$^{-1}$ and
276: $L_r>10^{32.5}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ Hz$^{-1}$. In the two cases, FIRST is able
277: to detect radio-loud quasars up to $z\sim2.1$ and 3.5, respectively. We model
278: the RLF using Equation~\ref{eq:fracrl} and repeat the analysis. The best
279: fitting results are shown in Table 1, and Figures 4 and 6. The RLF based on
280: $L_r$ is correlated with $z$ and $M_{2500}$ in the same manner as the
281: $R$-based criteria.
282:
283: \section{Effects of the K corrections and sample incompleteness}
284:
285: When applying the K corrections, we assumed that the slope of the radio
286: continuum is $-0.5$ and used a model spectrum to determine the optical
287: continuum slope. To investigate the effect of the K corrections, we performed
288: several experiments. First, for a given quasar at $z$, we calculated its
289: $f_{2500}$ and $M_{2500}$ from the magnitude in the SDSS band whose effective
290: wavelength is closest to $2500(1+z)$ {\AA} assuming a slope of $-0.5$
291: (Test 1). As before, we corrected for the contribution from emission lines.
292: Because the SDSS $ugriz$ photometry covers a wavelength range of 3000 to
293: 10,000 \AA, the K corrections for $z<3$ require no extrapolation.
294: Second, we assumed two extreme cases for the radio and optical slopes: in
295: Test 2, we took the optical slope to be 0.0 and the radio slope as $-1.0$,
296: while in Test 3, the optical slope was $-1.0$ and the radio slope was 0.0.
297: The results of the fit to Equation~\ref{eq:fracrl} are listed in Table 1. The
298: values of $b_z$ and $b_M$ recalculated under these tests differ by less
299: than 2$\sigma$ from the original values, and the null hypothesis that
300: $b_z=0$ and $b_M=0$ is rejected at $>5\sigma$ significance in all these
301: tests. Therefore the effect of the K corrections on our conclusions is small.
302:
303: We investigated the reliability of the relation described by
304: Equation~\ref{eq:fracrl} for different definitions of radio loudness and for
305: luminosities in different optical bands. For example, we defined the $R$
306: parameter as the rest-frame ratio of the flux density at 6 cm to the flux
307: density at 4400 {\AA} \citep[e.g.][]{kel89} instead of 2500 {\AA}, and we
308: repeated the analysis in $\S$3 (Test 4). In Test 5, we determined the RLF as
309: a function of $z$ and $M_i$ (instead of $M_{2500}$). $M_i$ is the absolute
310: magnitude in the
311: rest-frame $i$ band, and was calculated using the method described in $\S$3.
312: The results are listed in Table 1. In these cases
313: the RLF is still strongly dependent on redshift and luminosity, and the
314: relation described by Equation~\ref{eq:fracrl} is not sensitive to the
315: details of how radio loudness is defined.
316:
317: When examining the dependence of the RLF on $M_{2500}$ and $z$, we note that
318: contours of constant RLF in Figure 2 roughly coincide with contours of
319: constant apparent magnitude. This is illustrated in Figure 7(a), which shows
320: that for different redshift bins, the relation between the RLF and
321: {\em apparent i magnitude} is independent of redshift at $i>17.5$.
322: The RLF does decrease with redshift at $i<17.5$, although with large error
323: bars. This ``conspiracy'' of strong dependence of the RLF on apparent
324: magnitude raises the concern that our results have been affected by
325: flux-dependent selection effects. In this paper we are considering the RLF
326: for optically-selected quasars, and the SDSS color selection is highly
327: complete at $z<2.2$ \citep{ric06}, so optical selection effects are not
328: likely to seriously affect
329: the RLF determination. However, the SDSS quasar selection becomes
330: increasingly incomplete for objects with very red intrinsic colors
331: \citep[$\alpha<-1.5$,][]{fan01,ric02}, especially at high redshift.
332: \citet{whi06} found a strong correlation between radio loudness and optical
333: color using the SDSS sample. We reproduce this dependence in the upper panel
334: of Figure 8. The RLF rises with increasing $\Delta(g-i)$, which is the
335: difference between the observed $g-i$ and the median $g-i$ color of quasars
336: at that redshift, following \citet{hop04}. To examine
337: whether this RLF-color dependence affects the relation in
338: Equation~\ref{eq:fracrl}, we divide the quasar sample into several
339: $\Delta(g-i)$ bins, and calculate the RLF as a function of $M_{2500}$ and
340: $z$ for each bin of {\em intrinsic} quasar colors.
341: We find that although the average RLF increases toward redder continuum,
342: the RLF is still a strong function of $M_{2500}$ and $z$ within each bin,
343: similar to the relation shown in Equation~\ref{eq:fracrl}. The lower panel of
344: Figure 8 gives an example for the bin of $-0.1<\Delta(g-i)<0.1$. Note that
345: more than 80\% of the quasars in the sample lie in the range of
346: $-0.3<\Delta(g-i)<0.2$, within which the RLF-color
347: relation is relatively flat. Therefore, although we can not determine
348: accurately the RLF evolution for the reddest few percent of quasars where
349: SDSS is incomplete, the strong correlation between the RLF and both
350: redshift and luminosity is not strongly affected by the RLF-color relation
351: over the color range in which the SDSS selection is essentially complete.
352:
353: In order to examine radio selection effects, we performed the following tests.
354: \begin{enumerate}
355: \item Did we miss FR1 quasars due to the 5$\arcsec$ radio catalog matching?
356: We used a 10$\arcsec$ matching instead, and found that the number of FR1
357: quasars increases by only 3.7\%. We also found that these additional
358: sources increase the RLF by similar factors at both high and low redshift
359: and both high and low luminosity, and thus have little effect on $b_z$ or
360: $b_M$.
361: \item Did we measure the radio fluxes of FR2 quasars correctly? We compared
362: FIRST with the NRAO VLA Sky Survey \citep[NVSS;][]{con98}, which has a
363: resolution of 45$\arcsec$. The FIRST and NVSS fluxes of most FR2 quasars are
364: in good agreement. FIRST has a resolution of 5$\arcsec$ and may overresolve
365: radio sources larger than about 10$\arcsec$. These sources are rare and very
366: bright in radio (usually $>50$ mJy), well above the radio-loud division in
367: our analysis.
368: \item Were there quasars detected by NVSS but not by FIRST? We matched our
369: sample to the NVSS catalog within 15$\arcsec$. We found that about 6\% of the
370: matched quasars were not detected by FIRST, and 80\% of these additional
371: sources are FR1 sources with offsets more than 5$\arcsec$ from the SDSS
372: positions. They increase the RLF by similar factors at both high and
373: low redshift and both high and low luminosity, and thus do not significantly
374: change the trend in the RLF.
375: \item How did the incompleteness of FIRST at the detection limit affect our
376: results? In Section 3 we use 1.1 mJy as the FIRST detection limit, and we
377: correct for the incompleteness caused by the resolution effect. Here
378: we set two tests to examine the incompleteness near the FIRST limit. In Test 6
379: we use a limit of 1.5 mJy (the corresponding $i\sim18.6$) to determine the
380: RLF for $R>10$; while in Test 7 we use a limit of 3 mJy (the corresponding
381: $i\sim18.9$) to calculate the RLF for $R>30$. Note that the FIRST completeness
382: measured from the completeness curve in Figure 1 is 75\%
383: at 1.5 mJy and 95\% at 3 mJy. The results of the tests are given
384: in Table 1, and they show the similar trend of the RLF on redshift and
385: optical luminosity as we obtained above.
386:
387: \end{enumerate}
388: Therefore, based on these tests we conclude that the strong dependence of the
389: RLF on $M_{2500}$ and $z$ is highly likely to be physical, and the radio
390: incompleteness and selection effects we have considered are not responsible
391: for the dependence, though we cannot rule out other unexplored selection
392: effects.
393:
394: \section{Discussion}
395:
396: Most of the previous studies of the RLF are based on samples of tens to
397: hundreds of quasars. Considering that the RLF is only $\sim10$\% on average,
398: these samples are not large enough to study the two-dimensional distribution
399: of the RLF on $M_{2500}$ and $z$. This makes it difficult to uncover the
400: relation of Equation~\ref{eq:fracrl} using only the marginal distribution of
401: the RLF. We calculate the marginal RLF as a function of $M_{2500}$ and $z$
402: for our sample,
403: which is shown in Figures 7(b) and 7(c). One can see the marginal RLF is
404: roughly independent of both $M_{2500}$ and $z$, because the dependence on
405: $M_{2500}$ and $z$ roughly cancel out due to the $M_{2500}$--$z$ degeneracy.
406: This result is in quantitative agreement with the marginal RLF derived by
407: \citet{ive02}.
408:
409: It has been suggested that high-redshift quasars show little difference
410: in their rest-frame UV/optical and X-ray properties from those of low-redshift
411: quasars. Their emission-line
412: strengths and UV continuum shapes are very similar to those of low-redshift
413: quasars \citep[e.g.][]{bar03,pen03,fan04}, the emission line ratios indicate
414: solar or supersolar metallicity in emission-line regions as found in
415: low-redshift quasars \citep[e.g.][]{ham99,die03,mai03}, and the
416: optical-to-X-ray flux ratios and X-ray continuum shapes show little evolution
417: with redshift \citep[e.g.][]{str05,ste06,she06}. These measurements suggest
418: that most quasar properties are not sensitive to the cosmic age. However,
419: Figure 2 shows that the RLF evolves strongly with redshift, thus the evolution
420: of the RLF places important constraints on models of quasar
421: evolution and the radio emission mechanism.
422:
423: Equation~\ref{eq:fracrl} implies a strong correlation between the RLF and
424: optical luminosity. Using a large sample of low-redshift ($0.03<z<0.3$)
425: AGNs, \citet{bes05} find that radio-loud AGNs tend to reside in old, massive
426: galaxies, and that the fraction of radio-loud
427: AGNs is a strong function of stellar mass or central black hole mass (e.g.,
428: the fraction increases from zero at a stellar mass of $10^{10}$M$_{\sun}$ to
429: 30\% at a stellar mass of $5\times10^{11}$M$_{\sun}$). Assuming that optical
430: luminosity is roughly proportional to black hole mass \citep{pet04}, their
431: radio-loud fraction of AGNs is also a strong function of optical luminosity.
432: This is in qualitative agreement with Equation~\ref{eq:fracrl}, although our
433: quasars are more luminous than their low-redshift AGNs.
434:
435: Equation~\ref{eq:fracrl} also shows that the RLF is a strong function of
436: redshift. By stacking FIRST images of SDSS-selected quasars, \citet{whi06}
437: recently found that the median $R$ is a declining function
438: with optical luminosity. After correcting for this effect, they claimed that
439: the median $R$ is independent on redshift, which seems inconsistent with
440: our result that the RLF is a strong negative function of redshift. However,
441: the median $R$ and the RLF are not identical. The median $R$ is determined by
442: the majority of quasars with low $R$ values (i.e. radio-quiet quasars); while
443: the RLF is the fraction of quasars exceeding a threshold in $R$, and therefore
444: corresponds to the behavior of the small fraction of quasars with high $R$
445: values (i.e. radio-loud quasars).
446: There are two natural ways to interpret the evolution of the RLF
447: with redshift \citep[e.g.][]{pea86}: (1) This may be due to the cosmological
448: evolution of quasar radio properties, such as $R$ and $L_r$. For instance,
449: a decreasing $R$ results in a decreasing RLF for increasing redshift. (2) This
450: could be simply caused by the density evolution of different populations of
451: quasars (e.g. radio-loud and radio-quiet quasars). The results of
452: \citet{whi06} may have ruled out the first explanation and leave the second
453: one: the different density evolution behaviors for the two classes of
454: quasars. For instance, there are more radio-loud quasars at low redshift, but
455: the fraction of radio-loud quasars is small, so they do not change the
456: median $R$, which is still dominated by radio-quiet quasars.
457: This claim is based on stacked FIRST images. To distinguish between
458: the two explanations, one needs to determine the radio luminosity function
459: of quasars in different redshift ranges, including the radio-quiet population,
460: going to radio fluxes much fainter than those probed by FIRST.
461: Deep surveys such as the Cosmic
462: Evolution Survey \citep{sch04} that cover a wide redshift range and reach
463: low luminosity in both optical and radio wavelengths are needed to
464: interpret the evolution of the RLF.
465:
466: \section{Summary}
467:
468: In this paper we use a sample of more than 30,000 optically-selected quasars
469: from SDSS to determine the RLF of quasars as a function of redshift and
470: optical luminosity. The sample covers a large range of redshift and
471: luminosity. We study the RLF using different criteria to define radio-loud
472: quasars. After breaking the degeneracy between redshift and luminosity, we
473: find that the RLF is a strong function of both redshift and optical
474: luminosity: the RLF decreases rapidly with increasing redshift and decreasing
475: luminosity. The relation can be described by a simple model, given by
476: Equation~\ref{eq:fracrl}. We have done a series of tests to examine the
477: impact of flux-related selection effects, and find that the dependence of the
478: RLF on redshift and luminosity is highly likely to be physical.
479:
480: The RLF is one of a few quasar properties that
481: strongly evolve with redshift, so the evolution of the RLF places important
482: constraints on models of quasar evolution and the radio emission mechanism.
483: By comparing our results with the behavior of the median $R$ derived from
484: stacked FIRST images, we find that the evolution of the RLF with redshift
485: could be explained by the different density evolution for radio-loud
486: and radio-quiet quasars.
487: Substantially deeper wide-angle radio surveys which obtain fluxes
488: for the radio-quiet population are needed to fully understand the physical
489: nature of this evolution.
490:
491: \acknowledgments
492:
493: We acknowledge support from NSF grant AST-0307384, a Sloan Research Fellowship
494: and a Packard Fellowship for Science and Engineering (L.J., X.F.), and
495: NSF grant AST-0307409 (M.A.S). We thank R. L. White and R. H. Becker for
496: helpful discussions.
497:
498: Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan
499: Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation,
500: the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space
501: Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the
502: Higher Education Funding Council for England.
503: The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/.
504: The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the
505: Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the American
506: Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, University of
507: Basel, Cambridge University, Case Western Reserve University, University of
508: Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the
509: Japan Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for
510: Nuclear Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and
511: Cosmology, the Korean Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences
512: (LAMOST), Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for
513: Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico
514: State University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, University
515: of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory, and
516: the University of Washington.
517:
518: \begin{thebibliography}{}
519: \bibitem[Abazajian et al.(2005)]{aba05} Abazajian, K., et al. 2005,
520: \aj, 129, 1755
521: \bibitem[Baum et al.(1995)]{bau95} Baum, S. A., Zirbel, E. L., \& O'Dea, C. P.
522: 1995, \apj, 451, 88
523: \bibitem[Barth et al.(2003)]{bar03} Barth, A. J., Martini, P., Nelson, C. H.,
524: \& Ho, L. C. 2003, \apj, 594, L95
525: \bibitem[Barthel(1989)]{bar89} Barthel, P. D. 1989, \apj, 336, 606
526: \bibitem[Becker, White, \& Helfand(1995)]{bec95} Becker, R. H., White, R. L.,
527: \& Helfand, D. J. 1995, \apj, 450, 559
528: \bibitem[Best et al.(2005)]{bes05} Best, P. N., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M.,
529: Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., Ivezi\'{c}, \v{Z}., \& White, S. D. M. 2005,
530: \mnras, 362, 25
531: \bibitem[Bischof \& Becker(1997)]{bis97} Bischof, O. B., \& Becker, R. H.,
532: \aj, 113, 2000
533: \bibitem[Cirasuolo et al.(2003)]{cir03} Cirasuolo, M., Magliocchetti, M.,
534: Celotti, A., \& Danese, L. 2003, \mnras, 341, 993
535: \bibitem[Condon et al.(1998)]{con98} Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen,
536: E. W., Yin, Q. F., Perley, R. A., Taylor, G. B., \& Broderick, J. J. 1998,
537: \aj, 115, 1693
538: \bibitem[de Vries, Becker, \& White(2006)]{dev06} de Vries, W. H., Becker,
539: R. H., \& White, R. L. 2006, \aj, 131, 666
540: \bibitem[Dietrich et al.(2003)]{die03} Dietrich, M., Hamann, F., Appenzeller,
541: I., \& Vestergaard, M. 2003, \apj, 596, 817
542: \bibitem[Fan et al.(2001)]{fan01} Fan, X., et al. 2001, \aj, 121, 31
543: \bibitem[Fan et al.(2004)]{fan04} Fan, X., et al. 2004, \aj, 128, 515
544: \bibitem[Fukugita et al.(1996)]{fuk96} Fukugita, M., Ichikawa, T., Gunn,
545: J. E., Doi, M., Shimasaku, K., \& Schneider, D. P. 1996, \aj, 111, 1748
546: \bibitem[Goldschmidt et al.(1999)]{gol99} Goldschmidt, P., Kukula, M. J.,
547: Miller, L., \& Dunlop, J. S. 1999, \apj, 511, 612
548: \bibitem[Gunn et al.(1998)]{gun98} Gunn, J. E., et al. 1998, \aj, 116, 3040
549: \bibitem[Gunn et al.(2006)]{gun06} Gunn, J. E., et al. 2006, \aj, 131, 2332
550: \bibitem[Hamann \& Ferland(1999)]{ham99} Hamann, F., \& Ferland, G. 1999,
551: \araa, 37, 487
552: \bibitem[Hooper et al.(1995)]{hoo95} Hooper, E. J., Impey, C. D., Foltz, C. B.,
553: \& Hewett, P. C. 1995, \apj, 445, 62
554: \bibitem[Hopkins et al.(2004)]{hop04} Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2004, \aj,
555: 128, 1112
556: \bibitem[Ivezi\'{c} et al.(2002)]{ive02} Ivezi\'{c}, \v{Z}., et al. 2002,
557: \aj, 124, 2364
558: \bibitem[Ivezi\'{c} et al.(2004a)]{ive04a} Ivezi\'{c}, \v{Z}., et al. 2004,
559: in {\it AGN Physics with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey}, eds. G. T.
560: Richards and P. B. Hall, ASP Conference Series, Vol. 311, p. 347
561: (also astro-ph/0310569)
562: \bibitem[Ivezi\'{c} et al.(2004b)]{ive04b} Ivezi\'{c}, \v{Z}., et al. 2004,
563: in {\it Multiwavelength AGN Surveys}, eds. R. Mujica and R. Maiolino, World
564: Scientific Publishing Company, Singapore, p. 53 (also astro-ph/0403314)
565: \bibitem[Jiang et al.(2006)]{jia06} Jiang, L., et al.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 2788
566: \bibitem[Kellermann et al.(1989)]{kel89} Kellermann, K. I., Sramek, R.,
567: Schmidt, M., Shaffer, D. B., \& Green, R. 1989, \aj, 98, 1195
568: \bibitem[Lacy et al.(2001)]{lac01} Lacy, M., Laurent-Muehleisen, S. A.,
569: Ridgway, S. E., Becker, R. H., \& White, R. L. 2001, \apj, 551, L17
570: \bibitem[Laor(2000)]{lao00} Laor, A. 2000, \apj, 543, L111
571: \bibitem[Maiolino et al.(2003)]{mai03} Maiolino, R., Juarez, Y., Mujica, R.,
572: Nagar, N. M., \& Oliva, E. 2003, \apj, 596, L155
573: \bibitem[Matthews \& Sandage(1963)]{mat63} Matthews, T. A., \& Sandage, A. R.
574: 1963, \apj, 138, 30
575: \bibitem[McLure \& Jarvis(2004)]{mcl04} McLure, R. J., \& Jarvis, M. J. 2004,
576: \mnras, 353, L45
577: \bibitem[Miller, Peacock, \& Mead(1990)]{mil90} Miller, L., Peacock, J. A.,
578: \& Mead, A. R. G. 1990, \mnras, 244, 207
579: \bibitem[Padovani(1993)]{pad93} Padovani, P. 1993, \mnras, 263, 461
580: \bibitem[Peacock, Miller, \& Longair(1986)]{pea86} Peacock, J. A., Miller, L.,
581: \& Longair M. S. 1986, \mnras, 218, 265
582: \bibitem[Pentericci et al.(2003)]{pen03} Pentericci, L., et al. 2003, \aap,
583: 410, 75
584: \bibitem[Peterson et al.(2004)]{pet04} Peterson, B. M., et al. 2004, \apj,
585: 613, 682
586: \bibitem[Richards et al.(2002)]{ric02} Richards, G. T., et al. 2002, \aj,
587: 123, 2945
588: \bibitem[Richards et al.(2006)]{ric06} Richards, G. T., et al. 2006, \aj,
589: 131, 2766
590: \bibitem[Sandage(1965)]{san65} Sandage, A. 1965, \apj, 141, 1560
591: \bibitem[Schlegel, Finkbeiner, \& Davis(1998)]{sch98} Schlegel, D. J.,
592: Finkbeiner, D. P., \& Davis, M. 1998, \apj, 500, 525
593: \bibitem[Schinnerer et al.(2004)]{sch04} Schinnerer, E., et al. 2004, \aj,
594: 128, 1974
595: \bibitem[Schmidt(1963)]{sch63} Schmidt, M. 1963, Nature, 197, 1040
596: \bibitem[Schneider et al.(1992)]{sch92} Schneider, D. P., van Gorkom, J. H.,
597: Schmidt, M., \& Gunn, J. E. 1992, \aj, 103, 1451
598: \bibitem[Schneider et al.(2005)]{sch05} Schneider, D. P., et al. 2005,
599: \aj, 130, 367
600: \bibitem[Shemmer et al.(2006)]{she06} Shemmer, O., et al. 2006, \apj,
601: 644, 86
602: \bibitem[Spergel et al.(2006)]{spe06} Spergel, D. N., et al. 2006, submitted
603: to ApJ (astro-ph/0603449)
604: \bibitem[Steffen et al.(2006)]{ste06} Steffen, A. T., et al. 2006, \aj,
605: 131, 2826
606: \bibitem[Stern et al.(2000)]{ste00} Stern, D., Djorgovski, S. G.,
607: Perley, R. A., de Carvalho, R. R., \& Wall, J. V. 2000, \aj, 119, 1526
608: \bibitem[Stocke et al.(1992)]{sto92} Stocke, J. T., Morris, S. L., Weymann,
609: R. J., \& Foltz, C. B. 1992, \apj, 396, 487
610: \bibitem[Strateva et al.(2005)]{str05} Strateva, I. V., Brandt, W. N.,
611: Schneider, D. P., Vanden Berk, D. G., \& Vignali, C. 2005, \aj, 130, 387
612: \bibitem[Urry \& Padovani(1995)]{urr95} Urry, C. M., \& Padovani P. 1995,
613: \pasp, 107, 803
614: \bibitem[Vanden Berk et al.(2001)]{van01} Vanden Berk, D. E., et al. 2001,
615: \aj, 122, 549
616: \bibitem[Visnovsky et al.(1992)]{vis92} Visnovsky, K. L., Impey, C. D.,
617: Foltz, C. B., Hewett, P. C., Weymann, R. J., \& Morris, S. L. 1992, \apj,
618: 391, 560
619: \bibitem[White et al.(1997)]{whi97} White, R. L., Becker, R. H., Helfand, D.
620: J., \& Gregg, M. D. 1997, \apj, 475, 479
621: \bibitem[White et al.(2006)]{whi06} White, R. L., Helfand, D. J., Becker, R.
622: H., Glikman, E., \& de Vries, W. 2006, \apj, in press (astro-ph/0607335)
623: \bibitem[York et al.(2000)]{yor00} York, D. G., et al. 2000, \aj,
624: 120, 1579
625: \end{thebibliography}
626:
627: \clearpage
628: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccc}
629: \rotate
630: \tablecaption{Results of fits to Equation~\ref{eq:fracrl}}
631: \tablewidth{0pt}
632: \tablehead{
633: \colhead{Sample} & \colhead{$\chi^{2}$} & \colhead{DoF} & \colhead{$b_0$} &
634: \colhead{$b_z$} & \colhead{$b_M$} & \colhead{Cov($b_z$,$b_M$)\tablenotemark{a}}}
635: \startdata
636: $R>10$ & 52.8 & 47 & $-0.132\pm0.116$ & $-2.052\pm0.261$ & $-0.183\pm0.025$ & 0.0059 \\
637: $R>30$ & 50.7 & 45 & $-0.218\pm0.110$ & $-2.096\pm0.240$ & $-0.203\pm0.023$ & 0.0050 \\
638: $\log L_r>32$ & 30.3 & 35 & $-0.053\pm0.122$ & $-2.214\pm0.277$ & $-0.307\pm0.024$ & 0.0055 \\
639: $\log L_r>32.5$ & 45.2 & 41 & $-0.216\pm0.118$ & $-2.088\pm0.260$ & $-0.333\pm0.025$ & 0.0055 \\
640: Test 1 ($R>10$) & 62.1 & 48 & $-0.328\pm0.115$ & $-1.639\pm0.259$ & $-0.141\pm0.024$ & 0.0058 \\
641: Test 2 ($R>10$) & 64.4 & 46 & $-0.292\pm0.116$ & $-1.693\pm0.259$ & $-0.165\pm0.024$ & 0.0058 \\
642: Test 3 ($R>10$) & 57.0 & 46 & $-0.308\pm0.114$ & $-1.722\pm0.261$ & $-0.123\pm0.024$ & 0.0058 \\
643: Test 4 ($R>10$) & 53.6 & 46 & $-0.142\pm0.120$ & $-2.115\pm0.268$ & $-0.194\pm0.025$ & 0.0063 \\
644: Test 5 ($R>10$) & 78.9 & 46 & $0.120\pm0.102$ & $-2.924\pm0.258$ & $-0.254\pm0.022$ & 0.0054 \\
645: Test 6 ($R>10$) & 51.9 & 41 & $-0.104\pm0.148$ & $-2.137\pm0.347$ & $-0.185\pm0.032$ & 0.0106 \\
646: Test 7 ($R>30$) & 49.2 & 45 & $-0.213\pm0.128$ & $-2.115\pm0.286$ & $-0.202\pm0.027$ & 0.0071 \\
647: \enddata
648: \tablenotetext{a}{Covariance between $b_z$ and $b_M$.}
649: \end{deluxetable}
650:
651: \clearpage
652: \begin{figure}
653: \plotone{f1.eps}
654: \caption{The FIRST completeness as a function of integrated flux density
655: (provided by R. L. White, private communication). The completeness is
656: computed using the observed size distribution of SDSS quasars and rms values
657: of integrated flux densities from the FIRST survey.}
658: \end{figure}
659:
660: \clearpage
661: \begin{figure}
662: \plotone{f2.eps}
663: \caption{Left panel: Redshift and absolute magnitude distribution for 20,473
664: quasars with $i<18.9$ in our sample. The $M_{2500}$--$z$ plane is divided into
665: small grids to break the redshift-luminosity dependence. RLFs of quasars are
666: calculated in individual grids. Right panel: The $R$-based RLFs in individual
667: $M_{2500}$--$z$ bins. The square for each subsample is positioned at the
668: median values of $M_{2500}$ and $z$ in that subsample. The RLF of quasars
669: declines with increasing redshift and decreasing luminosity.}
670: \end{figure}
671:
672: \clearpage
673: \begin{figure}
674: \plotone{f3.eps}
675: \caption{
676: RLF in three small redshift ranges and three small magnitude ranges.
677: Dotted lines are the best model fits.}
678: \end{figure}
679: \clearpage
680: \begin{figure}
681: \plotone{f4.eps}
682: \caption{
683: $1\sigma$, $2\sigma$ and $3\sigma$ confidence regions for $b_z$ vs. $b_M$.}
684: \end{figure}
685:
686: \clearpage
687: \begin{figure}
688: \epsscale{0.8}
689: \plotone{f5.eps}
690: \caption{The $R$-based RLF as a function of $z$ and $M_{2500}$. The upper
691: panels show the RLF as a function of redshift after correcting for the
692: luminosity dependence and the lower panels show the RLF as a function of
693: luminosity after correcting for the redshift dependence. Filled circles are
694: RLFs calculated from individual $M_{2500}$--$z$ grids and dashed lines are
695: the best model fits. Poisson errors are also given in the figure.}
696: \end{figure}
697:
698: \clearpage
699: \begin{figure}
700: \plotone{f6.eps}
701: \caption{The $L_r$-based RLF as a function of $z$ and $M_{2500}$. The upper
702: panels show the RLF as a function of redshift after correcting for the
703: luminosity dependence and the lower panels show the RLF as a function of
704: luminosity after correcting for the redshift dependence. Filled circles are
705: RLFs calculated from individual $M_{2500}$--$z$ grids and dashed lines are
706: the best model fits. Poisson errors are also given in the figure.}
707: \end{figure}
708:
709: \clearpage
710: \begin{figure}
711: \plotone{f7.eps}
712: \caption{(a): RLF as a function of apparent magnitude $i$ for five redshift
713: bins. The RLF declines with increasing $i$, and the curves for different
714: redshift bins follow the same RLF--$i$ dependence. (b) and (c): Marginal RLF
715: as a function of redshift and luminosity for our sample. The marginal RLF is
716: roughly independent of both redshift and luminosity due to the $M_{2500}$--$z$
717: degeneracy.}
718: \end{figure}
719:
720: \clearpage
721: \begin{figure}
722: \plotone{f8.eps}
723: \caption{Upper panel: RLF as a function of $\Delta(g-i)$. The RLF rises with
724: increasing $\Delta(g-i)$ at $z<2.2$. Lower panel: RLF as a function of $z$
725: and $M_{2500}$ in a small color range of $-0.1<\Delta(g-i)<0.1$.}
726: \end{figure}
727: \end{document}
728: