2015
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637x/802/1/14
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evolution in the Black Hole–galaxy Scaling Relations and the Duty Cycle of Nuclear Activity in Star-Forming Galaxies

Abstract: We measure the location and evolutionary vectors of 69 Herschel -detected broad-line active galactic nuclei (BLAGNs) in the M BH −M * plane. BLAGNs are selected from the COSMOS and CDF-S fields, and span the redshift range 0.2 ≤ z < 2.1. Black-hole masses are calculated using archival spectroscopy and single-epoch virial mass estimators, and galaxy total stellar masses are calculated by fitting the spectral energy distribution (subtracting the BLAGN component). The mass-growth rates of both the black hole and … Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

23
75
3

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 82 publications
(101 citation statements)
references
References 127 publications
23
75
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Our interpretation of the observed σ − M * BH,vir relation at high z is therefore fundamentally different from Woo et al, in that we believe the differences seen between high-z and low-z samples are mainly not due to real evolution, but largely caused by selection biases and BH mass uncertainties in luminositythreshold quasar samples, as emphasized in several recent studies (e.g., Lauer et al 2007;Salviander et al 2007;Jahnke et al 2009;Shen & Kelly 2010;Schulze & Wisotzki 2011, 2014Salviander & Shields 2013;Schramm & Silverman 2013;Shen 2013;Matsuoka et al 2014;Sun et al 2015). Indeed, Figure 7.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 69%
“…Our interpretation of the observed σ − M * BH,vir relation at high z is therefore fundamentally different from Woo et al, in that we believe the differences seen between high-z and low-z samples are mainly not due to real evolution, but largely caused by selection biases and BH mass uncertainties in luminositythreshold quasar samples, as emphasized in several recent studies (e.g., Lauer et al 2007;Salviander et al 2007;Jahnke et al 2009;Shen & Kelly 2010;Schulze & Wisotzki 2011, 2014Salviander & Shields 2013;Schramm & Silverman 2013;Shen 2013;Matsuoka et al 2014;Sun et al 2015). Indeed, Figure 7.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 69%
“…Sun et al (2015) also find general co-evolution of galaxies and their black holes, which is consistent with no deviation in the MBH/M * ratio from z = 2 → 0. However, they specifically find that low-z disk black holes appear to grow faster than their galaxies, often with sṀBH > 10 −9 yr −1 .…”
Section: Smbh Growth Rates In Star-forming Galaxiessupporting
confidence: 78%
“…Recent work shows that disk-dominated galaxies host lowluminosity AGN, which is critical for our hypothesis since COS-Halos star-forming galaxies are disk galaxies. Sun et al (2015) compiled an X-ray-selected, Herschel cross-matched sample of disk-dominated galaxies with AGN calculating a duty cycle of ≈ 10% with an average λ Edd ∼ 0.1.…”
Section: Agn Luminosities and Duty Cycles In Star-forming Galaxiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As discussed above, observations of SMGs support this scenario. Some studies of high-redshift quasars find higher M BH /M * ratios than the local values, not expected in our scheme (e.g., Ho 2007; Merloni et al 2010; but also see, e.g., Jahnke et al 2009;Sun et al 2015). However, the M BH /M * measured from quasars might be biased and not representative for the majority of galaxies (e.g., Lauer et al 2007).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 48%
“…The SEDs of broad-line AGNs often have significant accretion disk emission besides their starlight. Their SFR and M * measurements from SED fitting have potential large uncertainties (e.g., Bongiorno et al 2012;Sun et al 2015). Thus, we exclude the 19 broadline AGNs reported in the literature (e.g., Mignoli et al 2005;Ravikumar et al 2007;Silverman et al 2010) and discuss the effects of their exclusion in Section 3.5.1.…”
Section: Sample Selectionmentioning
confidence: 99%