4.7 Article

No evidence for a significant AGN contribution to cosmic hydrogen reionization

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stx2887

关键词

galaxies: evolution; galaxies: high-redshift; quasars: general; dark ages, reionization, first stars; cosmology: theory

资金

  1. University of Edinburgh
  2. NASA [NAS5-26555, 1407]
  3. ESO programme [092.A-0472]
  4. STFC [ST/R000972/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We reinvestigate a claimed sample of 22 X-ray detected active galactic nuclei (AGN) at redshifts z > 4, which has reignited the debate as to whether young galaxies or AGN reionized the Universe. These sources lie within the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey-South (GOODS-S)/Cosmic Assembly Near-Infrared Deep Extragalactic Legacy Survey (CANDELS) field, and we examine both the robustness of the claimed X-ray detections (within the Chandra 4Ms imaging) and perform an independent analysis of the photometric redshifts of the optical/infrared counterparts. We confirm the reality of only 15 of the 22 reported X-ray detections, and moreover find that only 12 of the 22 optical/infrared counterpart galaxies actually lie robustly at z > 4. Combining these results we find convincing evidence for only seven X-ray AGN at z > 4 in the GOODS-S field, of which only one lies at z > 5. We recalculate the evolving far-ultraviolet (1500 A) luminosity density produced by AGN at high redshift, and find that it declines rapidly from z similar or equal to 4 to z similar or equal to 6, in agreement with several other recent studies of the evolving AGN luminosity function. The associated rapid decline in inferred hydrogen ionizing emissivity contributed by AGN falls an order-of-magnitude short of the level required to maintain hydrogen ionization at z similar or equal to 6. We conclude that all available evidence continues to favour a scenario in which young galaxies reionized the Universe, with AGN making, at most, a very minor contribution to cosmic hydrogen reionization.

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