Paper detail

Assessing the redshift evolution of massive black holes and their hosts

Motivated by recent observational results that focus on high redshift black holes, we explore the effect of scatter and observational biases on the ability to recover the intrinsic properties of the black hole population at high redshift. We find that scatter and selection biases can hide the intrinsic correlations between black holes and their hosts, with 'observable' subsamples of the whole population suggesting, on average, positive evolution even when the underlying population is characterized by no- or negative evolution. We create theoretical mass functions of black holes convolving the mass function of dark matter halos with standard relationships linking black holes with their hosts. Under these assumptions, we find that the local MBH - sigma correlation is unable to fit the z = 6 black hole mass function proposed by Willott et al. (2010), overestimating the number density of all but the most massive black holes. Positive evolution or including scatter in the MBH - sigma correlation makes the discrepancy worse, as it further increases the number density of observable black holes. We notice that if the MBH - sigma correlation at z = 6 is steeper than today, then the mass function becomes shallower. This helps reproducing the mass function of z = 6 black holes proposed by Willott et al. (2010). Alternatively, it is possible that very few halos (of order 1/1000) host an active massive black hole at z = 6, or that most AGN are obscured, hindering their detection in optical surveys. Current measurements of the high redshift black hole mass function might be underestimating the density of low mass black holes if the active fraction or luminosity are a function of host or black hole mass. Finally, we discuss physical scenarios that can possibly lead to a steeper MBH - sigma relation at high redshift.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.