Co-evolution of massive black holes and their host galaxies at high redshift: discrepancies from six cosmological simulations and the key role of JWST
Melanie Habouzit, Masafusa Onoue, Eduardo Banados, Marcel Neeleman,, Daniel Angles-Alcazar, Fabian Walter, Annalisa Pillepich, Romeel Dave, Knud, Jahnke, Yohan Dubois

TL;DR
This paper compares six cosmological simulations to understand black hole and galaxy co-evolution at high redshift, emphasizing the potential of JWST observations of faint quasars to constrain models and improve our understanding of early universe black hole growth.
Contribution
It highlights discrepancies among simulations regarding black hole mass offsets at high redshift and emphasizes the importance of JWST observations of faint quasars to constrain these models.
Findings
Simulations disagree on whether black holes are overmassive or undermassive at high redshift.
Faint quasars observed by JWST can reveal the true nature of black hole growth at z>4.
Results are consistent across different local scaling relations used in the simulations.
Abstract
The James Webb Space Telescope will have the power to characterize high-redshift quasars at z>6 with an unprecedented depth and spatial resolution. While the brightest quasars at such redshift (i.e., with bolometric luminosity L_bol> 10^46 erg/s) provide us with key information on the most extreme objects in the Universe, measuring the black hole (BH) mass and Eddington ratios of fainter quasars with L_bol= 10^45-10^46 erg/s opens a path to understand the build-up of more normal BHs at z>6. In this paper, we show that the Illustris, TNG100, TNG300, Horizon-AGN, EAGLE, and SIMBA large-scale cosmological simulations do not agree on whether BHs at z>4 are overmassive or undermassive at fixed galaxy stellar mass with respect to the M_BH-M_star scaling relation at z=0 (BH mass offsets). Our conclusions are unchanged when using the local scaling relation produced by each simulation or…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
