Paper detail

Empirical Constraints on the Evolution of the Relationship between Black Hole and Galaxy Mass: Scatter Matters

I investigate whether useful constraints on the evolution of the relationship between galaxy mass and black hole (BH) mass can be obtained from recent measurements of galaxy stellar mass functions and QSO bolometric luminosity functions at high redshift. I assume a simple power-law relationship between galaxy mass and BH mass, as implied by BH mass measurements at low redshift, and consider only evolution in the zero-point of the relation. I argue that one can obtain a lower limit on the zero-point evolution by assuming that every galaxy hosts a BH, shining at its Eddington rate. One can obtain an upper limit by requiring that the number of massive BH at high redshift does not exceed that observed locally. I find that, under these assumptions, and neglecting scatter in the BH-galaxy mass relation, BH must have been a factor of about 2 times larger at z=1 and 5 to 6 times more massive relative to their host galaxies at z=2. However, accounting for intrinsic scatter in the BH-galaxy mass relationship considerably relaxes these constraints. With a logarithmic scatter of 0.3 to 0.5 dex in black hole mass at fixed galaxy mass, similar to estimates of the intrinsic scatter in the observed relation today, there are enough massive BH to produce the observed population of luminous QSOs at z=2 even in the absence of any zero-point evolution. Adopting more realistic estimates for the fraction of galaxies that host active BH and the Eddington ratios of the associated quasars, I find that the zero-point of the BH-galaxy mass relation at z=2 cannot be much more than a factor of two times larger than the present-day value, as the number of luminous quasars predicted would exceed the observed population.

preprint2009arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 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.

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.