Low accretion rates at the AGN cosmic downsizing epoch

59Citations
Citations of this article
28Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Context. X-ray surveys of Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) indicate "cosmic downsizing", with the comoving number density of high-luminosity objects peaking at higher redshifts (z ∼ 2) than low-luminosity AGN (z < 1). Aims. We test whether downsizing is caused by activity shifting towards low-mass black holes accreting at near-Eddington rates, or by a change in the average rate of accretion onto supermassive black holes. We estimate the black hole masses and Eddington ratios of an X-ray selected sample of AGN in the Chandra Deep Field South at z < 1, probing the epoch where AGN cosmic downsizing has been reported. Methods. Black hole masses are estimated both from host galaxy stellar masses, which are estimated from fitting to published optical and near-infrared photometry, and from near-infrared luminosities, applying established correlations between black hole mass and host galaxy properties. Both methods give consistent results. Comparison and calibration of possible redshift-dependent effects is also made using published faint host galaxy velocity dispersion measurements. Results. The Eddington ratios in our sample span the range ∼10-5-1, with median log(Lbol/LEdd) = -2.87, and with typical black hole masses MBH ∼ 108 M⊙. The broad distribution of Eddington ratios is consistent with that expected for AGN samples at low and moderate luminosity. We find no evidence that the CDF-S AGN population is dominated by low-mass black holes accreting at near-Eddington ratios and the results suggest that diminishing accretion rates onto average-sized black holes are responsible for the reported AGN downsizing at redshifts below unity. © ESO 2007.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Babić, A., Miller, L., Jarvis, M. J., Turner, T. J., Alexander, D. M., & Croom, S. M. (2007). Low accretion rates at the AGN cosmic downsizing epoch. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 474(3), 755–762. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20078286

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free