4.6 Article

Low accretion rates at the AGN cosmic downsizing epoch

Journal

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
Volume 474, Issue 3, Pages 755-762

Publisher

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078286

Keywords

accretion; accretion disks; galaxies : active

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Context. X-ray surveys of Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) indicate cosmic downsizing, with the comoving number density of high-luminosity objects peaking at higher redshifts (z similar to 2) than low-luminosity AGN (z < 1). Aims. We test whether downsizing is caused by activity shifting towards low-mass black holes accreting at near-Eddington rates, or by a change in the average rate of accretion onto supermassive black holes. We estimate the black hole masses and Eddington ratios of an X-ray selected sample of AGN in the Chandra Deep Field South at z < 1, probing the epoch where AGN cosmic downsizing has been reported. Methods. Black hole masses are estimated both from host galaxy stellar masses, which are estimated from fitting to published optical and near-infrared photometry, and from near-infrared luminosities, applying established correlations between black hole mass and host galaxy properties. Both methods give consistent results. Comparison and calibration of possible redshift- dependent effects is also made using published faint host galaxy velocity dispersion measurements. Results. The Eddington ratios in our sample span the range similar to 10(-5)-1, with median log(L-bol/L-Edd) = -2.87, and with typical black hole masses M-BH similar to 10(8) M circle dot. The broad distribution of Eddington ratios is consistent with that expected for AGN samples at low and moderate luminosity. We find no evidence that the CDF-S AGN population is dominated by low-mass black holes accreting at near-Eddington ratios and the results suggest that diminishing accretion rates onto average-sized black holes are responsible for the reported AGN downsizing at redshifts below unity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available