4.7 Article

The most luminous, merger-free AGNs show only marginal correlation with bar presence

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stad966

关键词

galaxies: active; galaxies: bar; galaxies: disc; galaxies: star formation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The role of large-scale bars in fuelling AGNs is still debated. This study investigates whether large-scale galactic bars are a good candidate for merger-free AGN fuelling. The results suggest that while bars may trigger AGN activity, they have no further, unique effect on a galaxy's stellar mass or star formation rate.
The role of large-scale bars in the fuelling of active galactic nuclei (AGNs) is still debated, even as evidence mounts that black hole growth in the absence of galaxy mergers cumulatively dominates and may substantially influence disc (i.e. merger-free) galaxy evolution. We investigate whether large-scale galactic bars are a good candidate for merger-free AGN fuelling. Specifically, we combine slit spectroscopy and Hubble Space Telescope imagery to characterize star formation rates (SFRs) and stellar masses of the unambiguously disc-dominated host galaxies of a sample of luminous, Type-1 AGN with 0.02 < z < 0.24. After carefully correcting for AGN signal, we find no clear difference in SFRs between AGN hosts and a stellar mass-matched sample of galaxies lacking an AGN (0.013 < z < 0.19), although this could be due to small sample size (n(AGN) = 34). We correct for SFR and stellar mass to minimize selection biases, and compare the bar fraction in the two samples. We find that AGNs are marginally (-1.7 s) more likely to host a bar than inactive galaxies, with AGN hosts having a bar fraction, f(bar) = 0. 59 (+0. 08) (-0.09) and inactive galaxies having a bar fraction, f(bar) = 0.44 + (0. 08) (-0.09). However, we find no further differences between SFR-and mass-matched AGNs and inactive samples. While bars could potentially trigger AGN activity, they appear to have no further, unique effect on a galaxy's stellar mass or SFR.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据