4.7 Article

THE BLACK HOLE-BULGE MASS RELATION OF ACTIVE GALACTIC NUCLEI IN THE EXTENDED CHANDRA DEEP FIELD-SOUTH SURVEY

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 767, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/13

Keywords

galaxies: active; galaxies: evolution

Funding

  1. World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present results from a study to determine whether relations-established in the local universe-between the mass of supermassive black holes (SMBHs) and their host galaxies are in place at higher redshifts. We identify a well-constructed sample of 18 X-ray-selected, broad-line active galactic nuclei (AGNs) in the Extended Chandra Deep Field-South Survey with 0.5 < z < 1.2. This redshift range is chosen to ensure that Hubble Space Telescope (HST) imaging is available with at least two filters that bracket the 4000 angstrom break, thus providing reliable stellar mass estimates of the host galaxy by accounting for both young and old stellar populations. We compute single-epoch, virial black hole (BH) masses from optical spectra using the broad Mg II emission line. For essentially all galaxies in our sample, their total stellar mass content agrees remarkably well, given their BH masses, with local relations of inactive galaxies and active SMBHs. We further decompose the total stellar mass into bulge and disk components separately with full knowledge of the HST point-spread function. We find that similar to 80% of the sample is consistent with the local M-BH-M-*,M-Bulge relation even with 72% of the host galaxies showing the presence of a disk. In particular, bulge-dominated hosts are more aligned with the local relation than those with prominent disks. We further discuss the possible physical mechanisms that are capable of building up the stellar mass of the bulge from an extended disk of stars over the subsequent 8 Gyr.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available