Paper detail

Probing black hole accretion tracks, scaling relations and radiative efficiencies from stacked X-ray active galactic nuclei

The masses of supermassive black holes at the centres of local galaxies appear to be tightly correlated with the mass and velocity dispersions of their galactic hosts. However, the local Mbh-Mstar relation inferred from dynamically measured inactive black holes is up to an order-of-magnitude higher than some estimates from active black holes, and recent work suggests that this discrepancy arises from selection bias on the sample of dynamical black hole mass measurements. In this work we combine X-ray measurements of the mean black hole accretion luminosity as a function of stellar mass and redshift with empirical models of galaxy stellar mass growth, integrating over time to predict the evolving Mbh-Mstar relation. The implied relation is nearly independent of redshift, indicating that stellar and black hole masses grow, on average, at similar rates. Matching the de-biased local Mbh-Mstar relation requires a mean radiative efficiency ~0.15, in line with theoretical expectations for accretion onto spinning black holes. However, matching the "raw" observed relation for inactive black holes requires a mean radiative efficiency around 0.02, far below theoretical expectations. This result provides independent evidence for selection bias in dynamically estimated black hole masses, a conclusion that is robust to uncertainties in bolometric corrections, obscured active black hole fractions, and kinetic accretion efficiency. For our fiducial assumptions, they favour moderate-to-rapid spins of typical supermassive black holes, to achieve a mean radiative efficiency ~0.12-0.20. Our approach has similarities to the classic Soltan analysis, but by using galaxy-based data instead of integrated quantities we are able to focus on regimes where observational uncertainties are minimized.

preprint2019arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.