The assembly of supermassive black holes at $z<1$ in early-type galaxies from scaling relations

TL;DR

This study compares the black hole-stellar mass relation in local and z~0.8 early-type galaxies, revealing biases and potential SMBH growth mechanisms affecting their co-evolution over cosmic time.

Contribution

It provides a bias-corrected comparison of SMBH and stellar mass relations at different redshifts, highlighting uncertainties and the importance of bias correction in understanding galaxy evolution.

Findings

The z~0.8 relation is higher than local AGN but lower than local ETGs.

Uncertainties in bias corrections can reach 0.6 dex in SMBH mass.

Results suggest SMBH growth and selection biases influence observed relations.

Abstract

The assembly of supermassive black hole (SMBH) mass ($M_{\bullet}$) and stellar mass ($M_{*}$) in galaxies can be studied via the redshift evolution of the $M_{\bullet}-M_{*}$ relation, but the ways in which selection bias and physical assembly channels affect this evolution are uncertain. To address this, we compare the $M_{\bullet}-M_{*}$ relation for local massive ($M_{*}>10^{10.5}$M$_{\odot}$) quiescent early-type galaxies (ETGs) to that for massive ETGs hosting active galactic nuclei (AGN) at $z\sim0.8$. The restrictions on stellar mass and galaxy type limit the assembly channels that may connect the two relations. For the local sample we find $\log(M_{\bullet}) = 8.80 + 1.10(\log{M_{*}-11})$, in line with prior work. For the $z\sim0.8$ sample we find a bias-corrected relation: $\log(M_{\bullet}) = 7.80 + 1.25(\log{M_{*}-11})$. We show, however, that this relation depends on the stellar and SMBH mass functions used to compute the selection bias, the virial relation, the virial factor, and the active fraction, which together introduce uncertainty of up to $\sim0.6$\,dex in the $z\sim0.8$ relation. Adopting reasonable choices of these parameters then our $z\sim0.8$ relation lies above that for $z\sim0$ AGN by $\sim0.5$\,dex, but below our $z\sim0$ ETG relation by $0.4-1$\,dex in SMBH mass. We discuss possible sources of this offset, including further bias corrections, `downsizing" in SMBH mass assembly, and preferential SMBH growth. Our results highlight the need to reduce uncertainties from selection and measurement bias in SMBH and stellar masses at all redshifts.