Paper detail

Concordance between observations and simulations in the evolution of the mass relation between supermassive black holes and their host galaxies

We carry out a comparative analysis of the relation between the mass of supermassive black holes (BHs) and the stellar mass of their host galaxies at $0.2<z<1.7$ using well-matched observations and multiple state-of-the-art simulations (e.g., Massive Black II, Horizon-AGN, Illustris, TNG and a semi-analytic model). The observed sample consists of 646 uniformly-selected SDSS quasars ($0.2 < z < 0.8$) and 32 broad-line active galactic nuclei (AGNs; $1.2<z<1.7$) with imaging from Hyper Suprime-Cam (HSC) for the former and Hubble Space Telescope (HST) for the latter. We first add realistic observational uncertainties to the simulation data and then construct a simulated sample in the same manner as the observations. Over the full redshift range, our analysis demonstrates that all simulations predict a level of intrinsic scatter of the scaling relations comparable to the observations which appear to agree with the dispersion of the local relation. Regarding the mean relation, Horizon-AGN and TNG are in closest agreement with the observations at low and high redshift ($z\sim$ 0.2 and 1.5, respectively) while the other simulations show subtle differences within the uncertainties. For insight into the physics involved, the scatter of the scaling relation, seen in the SAM, is reduced by a factor of two and closer to the observations after adopting a new feedback model that considers the geometry of the AGN outflow. The consistency in the dispersion with redshift in our analysis supports the importance of both quasar- and radio-mode feedback prescriptions in the simulations. Finally, we highlight the importance of increasing the sensitivity (e.g., using the James Webb Space Telescope), thereby pushing to lower masses and minimizing biases due to selection effects.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access10 authors1 topic

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.

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.