1. Local SMBH and Galaxy Correlations M bul / M BH  800 M BH -σ* relation (Gebhardt et al. 2000, Ferrarese & Merritt 2000) (e.g. Kormendy & Richstone 1995, Magorrian et al. 1998, Haering & Rix 2004) Barth et al. (2004, 2005), Greene & Ho (2005) Marconi & Hunt 2003 McLure and Dunlop (2001) z ≲ 0.2 QSOs Low z High z

2. The Coevolution of SMBHs & Galaxies out to z=4.5 (Using Gravitationally Lensed Quasar Hosts) Chien Peng (STScI) Hans-Walter Rix (MPIA) Chuck Keeton (Rutgers) Emilio Falco (CfA) Chris Impey (Steward) Chris Impey (Steward) Chris Kochanek (OSU) Chris Kochanek (OSU) Joseph Lehár (CfA) Joseph Lehár (CfA) Brian McLeod (CfA) Brian McLeod (CfA)

3. How does the M BH /M bulge ratio change as we look to very high redshift (z > 1, observations only)?  z  = M BH / M bulge (z) relative to today

4. Road Map: how to get BH & bulge mass Black Hole mass: Virial technique of Type 1 AGN using C IV (z > 1.5), Mg II (0.8 1.5), Mg II (0.8 < z < 1.5), H . Bulge mass: Inferred from host luminosity GALFIT (Peng et. al. 2002) or other sim tech LENSFIT Peng et al. (2006) Deblend AGN/host w./ 2-Dimensional Parametric image fitting Non-lensed Lensed

5. Quasar Host Galaxies: low z (< 0.5-ish) Data Host Resid McLeod & McLeod (2001)

6. z  2-3 Radio Quiet Quasar Hosts (RQQ) Ridgway et al. (2001) Deep images: 4-7 orbits each (30 total) Quasar subtracted images, HST/NICMOS H-band (restframe V)

7. Road Map: how to get BH & Bulge mass Bulge mass: Inferred from host luminosity GALFIT (Peng et. al. 2002) or other sim tech LENSFIT Peng et al. (2006) Deblend AGN/host w./ 2-Dimensional Parametric image fitting Non-lensed Lensed Black Hole mass: Virial technique of Type 1 AGN using C IV (z > 1.5), Mg II (0.8 1.5), Mg II (0.8 < z < 1.5), H .

8. LENSFIT: A New, Parametric, Way to Solve the Lens Equation While Image Fitting Peng et al. (2006, in prep) The simplest model has a minimum of 22 free parameters (no maximum), all simultaneously adjusted to reduce pixel  2. Most params have small covariance: 1.Objs. well resolved 2.(x,y) accurate 3.Shapes very different ⇒ params well constrained. N = number of comps. (light + deflector), unrestricted. Light profiles (analogous to GALFIT): Deflection models: 1.Foregound galaxy: Sérsic profile (x, y), mag, Re, n, q, PA (7N free parameters) 2.Lensed host galaxy: Sérsic Profile (x, y), mag, Re, n, q, PA (7N free params) 3.Lensed quasar: point source (x, y), mag (3N free params) 1.Softened Isothermal Ellipsoids (SIE): (x, y), mass, Rc, q, PA (6N free parameters) 2.External “shear”: γ, PA (2 free params)

9. Host: n ∼ 4 r e  2 kpc H = 20.4 ⇒ M V = -22.5 Lenses: 1 SIE + 2 SIS M BH = 1 x 10 9 M ☉ (expect r e ∼ 10 kpc if host fully formed, passively evolving)

10. Host: n ∼ 1.5 r e  2.3 kpc H = 20.6 ⇒ M V = -23.5 M BH = 2 x 10 9 M ☉ (expect r e ∼ 15 kpc if host fully formed, passively evolving)

11. Host: n ∼ 1.6 r e  3 kpc H = 21.3 ⇒ M V = -22.1 Edge-on spiral galaxy lens + face on barred spiral external perturber (SIE + γ). M BH = 1 x 10 8 M ☉ (expect r e  3 kpc if host fully evol.)

12. Host: r e  kpc H = 22.3 ⇒ M V  -25 Highest redshift host in lensed sample M BH = 1 x 10 9 M ☉ (expect r e  10 kpc if host fully evol.)

13. Road Map: how to get BH & Bulge mass Bulge mass: Inferred from host luminosity GALFIT (Peng et. al. 2002) or other sim tech LENSFIT Peng et al. (2006) Deblend AGN/host w./ 2-Dimensional Parametric image fitting Non-lensed Lensed Black Hole mass: Virial technique of Type 1 AGN using C IV (z > 1.5), Mg II (0.8 1.5), Mg II (0.8 < z < 1.5), H .

14. Black Hole - Bulge Coevolution @ z ≳ 2 Peng et al. (2006) Mass (modulo M/L)

15. Black Hole - Bulge Coevolution Peng et al. (2006)

16. Black Hole / Bulge Mass Ratio at z ≳ 1  z  = M BH / M bulge (z) relative to today

17. 1.z  2 hosts almost follow the M BH vs. restframe R- band luminosity of z  0. 2.The M BH vs. M Bulge is 3-6 times higher at z > 2 than at z=0, so galaxies may gain mass by a factor of  3-6 since z  2. 3.At z ≳ 2, the r e of hosts are 1/2 to 1/5 the size expected of fully formed, passively evolving E/S0s. 4.Systematics issues (dust, BH mass normalization, normalization dependence on z) remain to be checked. Conclusion:

18. Future: What can Weaken Conclusions Significantly? 1.Dust can’t be ruled out (but, locally, at least, star formation wins over dust extinction.) Will do rest-frame IR imaging of lensed hosts, resolved IFU kinematics of lensed hosts at z > 1. 2.Black hole masses over-estimated by a factor of 2-3 (evolution of the virial relation?, Dep. on L/L edd ?)? Will estimate M BH using H  linewidth. But fundamentally, the limitation on the normalization is the small size of the reverberation mapped sample and redshift regime.