Co-evolution of black hole accretion and star formation in galaxies at 0.1<z<3.5

Rosamaria Carraroa

rosamaria.carraro@postgrado.uv.cl

P. Cassatab, G. Rodighierob, M. BrusacaUniversidad de Valparaíso, Chile; bUniversità degli Studi di Padova, Italy; cUniversità degli Studi di Bologna, Italy.

References [1] Rodighiero, G. et al. 2015, ApJL, 800L, 10[2] Mullaney et al. 2012a, ApJL, 753, L30[3] Laigle, C. et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 24[4] Gruppioni, C. et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 23G[5] Sargent, M. T. et al. 2012, ApJL, 747, L31

Acknowledgements CONICYT/FONDECYT Regular/1150216CONICYT-PCHA/Doctorado Nacional/2016-21161487CONICYT/Anillo/ACT172033

Question Galaxy growth and black hole growth both need cold gas in order to happen, but very different scales are involved. Local relations and their density evolution seem to point at a common evolution of star formation and black hole accretion. Just like the main sequence of star forming galaxies, is there a relation between the black hole accretion rate and stellar mass? How does it evolve? What about galaxies in the other life phases?

This work We perform a statistical study on the COSMOS field in order to constrain the history and the co-evolution of star formation (SF) and black hole (BH) accretion in star forming, quiescent and starburst galaxies.We select a mass complete sample from the COSMOS 2015 catalog [3], classifying normal star forming and quiescent galaxies through the NUV-r/r-J color-color diagram. We select a starburst sample from the Gruppioni et al. (2013) catalog [4] with SFR=4 x SFRMS. We perform X-ray stacking analysis to estimate average X-ray luminosity and therefore average BHAR. We estimate SFR from FIR stacking and UV SED fitting.

1x100

1x101

1x102

1x103

1x100

1x101

1x102

1x103

SFR

(MO • y

r-1)

0.1<z<0.650.65<z<1.31.3<z<2.252.25<z<3.5

0.1<z<0.650.65<z<1.31.3<z<2.252.25<z<3.5

0.1<z<0.650.65<z<1.31.3<z<2.252.25<z<3.5

0.1<z<0.650.65<z<1.31.3<z<2.252.25<z<3.5

10-5

10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

BHAR

(MO • y

r-1)

10.0 10.5 11.010-5

10-4

10-3

BHAR

/SFR

Star forming

10.0 10.5 11.0

Quiescent

10.0 10.5 11.0

Starburst

log10(M*/MO •)

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

sBH

AR

(G

yr−

1)

abcd

a

b

c

d

abcd

a

b

c

d

9.5<log10(M*/MO •)<10.010.0<log10(M*/MO •)<10.510.5<log10(M*/MO •)<11.011.0<log10(M*/MO •)<12.0

9.5<log10(M*/MO •)<10.0

10.0<log10(M*/MO •)<10.5

10.5<log10(M*/MO •)<11.0

11.0<log10(M*/MO •)<12.0

9.5<log10(M*/MO •)<10.010.0<log10(M*/MO •)<10.510.5<log10(M*/MO •)<11.011.0<log10(M*/MO •)<12.0

9.5<log10(M*/MO •)<10.0

10.0<log10(M*/MO •)<10.5

10.5<log10(M*/MO •)<11.0

11.0<log10(M*/MO •)<12.0

9.0<log10(M*/MO •)<10.2510.25<log10(M*/MO •)<10.7510.75<log10(M*/MO •)<11.5

9.0<log10(M*/MO •)<10.25

10.25<log10(M*/MO •)<10.75

10.75<log10(M*/MO •)<11.5

9.0<log10(M*/MO •)<10.2510.25<log10(M*/MO •)<10.7510.75<log10(M*/MO •)<11.5

9.0<log10(M*/MO •)<10.25

10.25<log10(M*/MO •)<10.75

10.75<log10(M*/MO •)<11.5

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

sSF

R (

Gyr

-1)

∝ (1+z)2.8 (Sargent et al. 2012)

∝ (1+z)2.8 (Sargent et al. 2012)

Redshift

SF

∝ (1+z)2.8 (Sargent et al. 2012)

∝ (1+z)2.8 (Sargent et al. 2012)

Redshift

Q

∝ (1+z)2.8 (Sargent et al. 2012)

∝ (1+z)2.8 (Sargent et al. 2012)

Redshift

SB

Comparison between SFR and BHAR and their evolution in time Left column, star forming galaxies:• We find a robust correlation between BHAR and

stellar mass (M∗) which simulates that of the SFR at all considered redshifts, with a similar evolution. We also see a bending of the BHAR at high stellar masses.

• More efficient BH accretion at higher stellar masses.• By integrating the relation between BHAR/SFR and M∗,

we see that the black hole mass (MBH) has a superlinear dependence on M∗: MBH∝M∗1.45.

Central column, quiescent galaxies:• BHAR has a strong evolution with redshift but weak

dependence on stellar mass.• BHAR has high values, close to those of star forming

galaxies.• BHAR/SFR flat with stellar mass and is compatible with

a constant ratio at all redshifts. An integration of the BHAR/SFR and M∗ relation shows that the value is close to that of the local relation MBH=10-3Mspheroid

Right column, starburst galaxies:• BHAR has weak evolution with redshift.• BHAR comparable to star forming galaxies at the

highest redshift.• BHAR/SFR ratio flat with mass but evolution in

normalization with redshift.

Evolution with redshift of sBHAR and sSFR We define

We estimate MBH from the integration of the relation between the ratio BHAR/SFR and the M∗ in the above figure.

We see a very similar trend of both sBHAR and sSFR with redshift of the three galaxy types:• Increasing trend with redshift, compatible with ∝(1+z)2.8 as in Sargent et

al. (2012) [5]. • The splitting in stellar mass is a hint of downsizing - more massive

galaxies accreted most of their stellar/BH mass at earlier times.• Different normalization of relations tells us the mass-doubling time-

scale of galaxy/BH is shorter for starbursts than for star forming galaxies, and longer for the quiescent ones.

• Higher normalization of sBHAR than sSFR for star forming and quiescent galaxies, while starbursts have same normalization.

X-ray stacking The introduction of X-ray stacking allowed to study average properties o f m a s s c o m p l e t e samples of ga laxies , including low accretion AGN. Preliminary studies using X-ray stacking [1][2] showed that black hole accretion seems to m i m i c t h e s t a r formation.

sBHAR =BHARMBH

and sSFR =SFRM�

<latexit sha1_base64="HHrxha+j8f0y8/fMETYeuMwL608=">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</latexit><latexit sha1_base64="HHrxha+j8f0y8/fMETYeuMwL608=">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</latexit><latexit sha1_base64="HHrxha+j8f0y8/fMETYeuMwL608=">AAAC8XicbZFNbxMxEIa9y1dJ+UjhyMUiQiqoinYRElxA5UO0B5AKJW2lbBRNvJNgxetd7DFKtdofwg1x5Rch/gzezVZKUuY0ft7xvPbMpFDSUhT9CcIrV69dv7F1s7N96/adu92deyc2d0bgQOQqN2cTsKikxgFJUnhWGIRsovB0Mn9b66ff0ViZ6y90XuAog5mWUymAPBp3XUK4oNK+OXz9uXqZTA2IcokaUrWHj9X4glYVT745SPkSgE7XgT1+v9GpBiuNnlR83O1F/agJfjmJ26TH2jga7wRpkubCZahJKLB2GEcFjUowJIXCqpM4iwWIOcxw6FMNGdpR2cyn4o+cBcp5gYZLxRuIqzdKyKw9zya+MgP6aje1Gv5PGzqavhiVUheOUIvaiKTCxsgKI/3gkafSIBHUL0cuNRdggAiN5CCEh85vorPm2PgUKNZ+VS6cliJPcYMqWpABDy1SBlJPc03lgVSKH4O2F9w3rIXdd3Imye598J5678Agzh+vFvu9xJtbuJycPO3HUT/+9Ky3/6rd0BZ7wB6yXRaz52yfHbIjNmCC/Q2CoBNshzb8Ef4Mfy1Lw6C9c5+tRfj7H9eI8hc=</latexit><latexit sha1_base64="HHrxha+j8f0y8/fMETYeuMwL608=">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</latexit>

Black Hole Accretion Rate

(BHAR) traced by

X-ray luminosity

Star Formation Rate (SFR)

traced by

FIR + UV luminosity

Conclusions

• We find host galaxy and black hole co-evolution at all redshifts and in all galaxy life phases.

• The bulk of the black hole mass seems to be accreted in galaxies in the main sequence phase through secular processes, where more massive galaxies are more efficient at accreting the black hole.

• Quiescent galaxies have BHARs comparable to those of star forming galaxies. The BHAR for starburst galaxies shows almost no evolution with redshift.

• The BH accretion is faster (shorter mass-doubling time-scales) than galaxy accretion in star forming and quiescent galaxies, while they grow at the same pace in starburst galaxies.