Co-evolution of black hole accretion and star formation in ... · Co-evolution of black hole...
Transcript of Co-evolution of black hole accretion and star formation in ... · Co-evolution of black hole...
Co-evolution of black hole accretion and star formation in galaxies at 0.1<z<3.5
Rosamaria Carraroa
P. Cassatab, G. Rodighierob, M. BrusacaUniversidad de Valparaíso, Chile; bUniversità degli Studi di Padova, Italy; cUniversità degli Studi di Bologna, Italy.
References [1] Rodighiero, G. et al. 2015, ApJL, 800L, 10[2] Mullaney et al. 2012a, ApJL, 753, L30[3] Laigle, C. et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 24[4] Gruppioni, C. et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 23G[5] Sargent, M. T. et al. 2012, ApJL, 747, L31
Acknowledgements CONICYT/FONDECYT Regular/1150216CONICYT-PCHA/Doctorado Nacional/2016-21161487CONICYT/Anillo/ACT172033
Question Galaxy growth and black hole growth both need cold gas in order to happen, but very different scales are involved. Local relations and their density evolution seem to point at a common evolution of star formation and black hole accretion. Just like the main sequence of star forming galaxies, is there a relation between the black hole accretion rate and stellar mass? How does it evolve? What about galaxies in the other life phases?
This work We perform a statistical study on the COSMOS field in order to constrain the history and the co-evolution of star formation (SF) and black hole (BH) accretion in star forming, quiescent and starburst galaxies.We select a mass complete sample from the COSMOS 2015 catalog [3], classifying normal star forming and quiescent galaxies through the NUV-r/r-J color-color diagram. We select a starburst sample from the Gruppioni et al. (2013) catalog [4] with SFR=4 x SFRMS. We perform X-ray stacking analysis to estimate average X-ray luminosity and therefore average BHAR. We estimate SFR from FIR stacking and UV SED fitting.
1x100
1x101
1x102
1x103
1x100
1x101
1x102
1x103
SFR
(MO • y
r-1)
0.1<z<0.650.65<z<1.31.3<z<2.252.25<z<3.5
0.1<z<0.650.65<z<1.31.3<z<2.252.25<z<3.5
0.1<z<0.650.65<z<1.31.3<z<2.252.25<z<3.5
0.1<z<0.650.65<z<1.31.3<z<2.252.25<z<3.5
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
BHAR
(MO • y
r-1)
10.0 10.5 11.010-5
10-4
10-3
BHAR
/SFR
Star forming
10.0 10.5 11.0
Quiescent
10.0 10.5 11.0
Starburst
log10(M*/MO •)
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0.001
0.010
0.100
1.000
10.000
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0.001
0.010
0.100
1.000
10.000
sBH
AR
(G
yr−
1)
abcd
a
b
c
d
abcd
a
b
c
d
9.5<log10(M*/MO •)<10.010.0<log10(M*/MO •)<10.510.5<log10(M*/MO •)<11.011.0<log10(M*/MO •)<12.0
9.5<log10(M*/MO •)<10.0
10.0<log10(M*/MO •)<10.5
10.5<log10(M*/MO •)<11.0
11.0<log10(M*/MO •)<12.0
9.5<log10(M*/MO •)<10.010.0<log10(M*/MO •)<10.510.5<log10(M*/MO •)<11.011.0<log10(M*/MO •)<12.0
9.5<log10(M*/MO •)<10.0
10.0<log10(M*/MO •)<10.5
10.5<log10(M*/MO •)<11.0
11.0<log10(M*/MO •)<12.0
9.0<log10(M*/MO •)<10.2510.25<log10(M*/MO •)<10.7510.75<log10(M*/MO •)<11.5
9.0<log10(M*/MO •)<10.25
10.25<log10(M*/MO •)<10.75
10.75<log10(M*/MO •)<11.5
9.0<log10(M*/MO •)<10.2510.25<log10(M*/MO •)<10.7510.75<log10(M*/MO •)<11.5
9.0<log10(M*/MO •)<10.25
10.25<log10(M*/MO •)<10.75
10.75<log10(M*/MO •)<11.5
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0.001
0.010
0.100
1.000
10.000
sSF
R (
Gyr
-1)
∝ (1+z)2.8 (Sargent et al. 2012)
∝ (1+z)2.8 (Sargent et al. 2012)
Redshift
SF
∝ (1+z)2.8 (Sargent et al. 2012)
∝ (1+z)2.8 (Sargent et al. 2012)
Redshift
Q
∝ (1+z)2.8 (Sargent et al. 2012)
∝ (1+z)2.8 (Sargent et al. 2012)
Redshift
SB
Comparison between SFR and BHAR and their evolution in time Left column, star forming galaxies:• We find a robust correlation between BHAR and
stellar mass (M∗) which simulates that of the SFR at all considered redshifts, with a similar evolution. We also see a bending of the BHAR at high stellar masses.
• More efficient BH accretion at higher stellar masses.• By integrating the relation between BHAR/SFR and M∗,
we see that the black hole mass (MBH) has a superlinear dependence on M∗: MBH∝M∗1.45.
Central column, quiescent galaxies:• BHAR has a strong evolution with redshift but weak
dependence on stellar mass.• BHAR has high values, close to those of star forming
galaxies.• BHAR/SFR flat with stellar mass and is compatible with
a constant ratio at all redshifts. An integration of the BHAR/SFR and M∗ relation shows that the value is close to that of the local relation MBH=10-3Mspheroid
Right column, starburst galaxies:• BHAR has weak evolution with redshift.• BHAR comparable to star forming galaxies at the
highest redshift.• BHAR/SFR ratio flat with mass but evolution in
normalization with redshift.
Evolution with redshift of sBHAR and sSFR We define
We estimate MBH from the integration of the relation between the ratio BHAR/SFR and the M∗ in the above figure.
We see a very similar trend of both sBHAR and sSFR with redshift of the three galaxy types:• Increasing trend with redshift, compatible with ∝(1+z)2.8 as in Sargent et
al. (2012) [5]. • The splitting in stellar mass is a hint of downsizing - more massive
galaxies accreted most of their stellar/BH mass at earlier times.• Different normalization of relations tells us the mass-doubling time-
scale of galaxy/BH is shorter for starbursts than for star forming galaxies, and longer for the quiescent ones.
• Higher normalization of sBHAR than sSFR for star forming and quiescent galaxies, while starbursts have same normalization.
X-ray stacking The introduction of X-ray stacking allowed to study average properties o f m a s s c o m p l e t e samples of ga laxies , including low accretion AGN. Preliminary studies using X-ray stacking [1][2] showed that black hole accretion seems to m i m i c t h e s t a r formation.
sBHAR =BHARMBH
and sSFR =SFRM�
<latexit sha1_base64="HHrxha+j8f0y8/fMETYeuMwL608=">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</latexit><latexit sha1_base64="HHrxha+j8f0y8/fMETYeuMwL608=">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</latexit><latexit sha1_base64="HHrxha+j8f0y8/fMETYeuMwL608=">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</latexit><latexit sha1_base64="HHrxha+j8f0y8/fMETYeuMwL608=">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</latexit>
Black Hole Accretion Rate
(BHAR) traced by
X-ray luminosity
Star Formation Rate (SFR)
traced by
FIR + UV luminosity
Conclusions
• We find host galaxy and black hole co-evolution at all redshifts and in all galaxy life phases.
• The bulk of the black hole mass seems to be accreted in galaxies in the main sequence phase through secular processes, where more massive galaxies are more efficient at accreting the black hole.
• Quiescent galaxies have BHARs comparable to those of star forming galaxies. The BHAR for starburst galaxies shows almost no evolution with redshift.
• The BH accretion is faster (shorter mass-doubling time-scales) than galaxy accretion in star forming and quiescent galaxies, while they grow at the same pace in starburst galaxies.