Local supermassive black holes, relics of active galactic nuclei and the X-ray background

By A. Marconi, G. Risaliti, R. Gilli, L. Hunt, R. Maiolino, M. Salvati. 2003

1,268 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We quantify the importance of mass accretion during AGN phases in the growth of supermassive black holes (BH) by comparing the mass function of black holes in the local universe with that expected from AGN relics, which are black holes grown entirely with mass accretion during AGN phases. The local BH mass function (BHMF) is estimated by applying the well-known correlations between BH mass, bulge luminosity and stellar velocity dispersion to galaxy luminosity and velocity functions. We find that different correlations provide the same BHMF only if they have the same intrinsic dispersion. The density of supermassive black holes in the local universe which we estimate is ρBH = 4.6 +1.9 −1.4 h 2.7 × 10 5 M⊙ Mpc −3 . The relic BHMF is derived from the continuity equation with the only assumption that AGN activity is due to accretion onto massive BH’s and that merging is not important. We find that the relic BHMF at z = 0 is generated mainly at z 10 9 M⊙ but can become as large as ∼ 10 9 yr for the lowest acceptable ǫ and λ values.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1af50b29da47f8838465bd67eb5839f1e2e32ac6

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

In Instrumentation

Citations in the corpus

A 158 μm [C ii] LINE SURVEY OF GALAXIES AT z ∼ 1–2: AN INDICATOR OF STAR FORMATION IN THE EARLY UNIVERSE (2010, result): “This scenario is consistent with both deep surveys, and models of AGN activity that place the peak of the AGN density and supermassive black hole growth slightly before the peak of star formation activity in the universe (e.g., Giavalisco et al. 2004; Marconi et al. 2004; Silverman et al. 2005).”
The evolution of the broad-line region among SDSS quasars (2005, background): “…SED effects on the results: one is a SED with a strong UV thermal bump which matches the quasar template of Scott et al. 2004, and the other is with a weak UV thermal bump which matches the HST quasar templates (Zheng et al. 1998; Telfer et al. 2002; see also Marconi et al. 2004 for more details).”
Assisted inspirals of stellar mass black holes embedded in AGN discs: solving the ‘final au problem’ (2016, neutral): “Specifically, ρ̇•(z ≈ 0) ≈ 3× 10−6M Mpc−3 yr−1 (Marconi et al. 2004).”
A Theoretical Interpretation of the Black Hole Fundamental Plane (2007, background): “The fact that the distribution ofσ cuts off more steeply thanM∗ is compensated by the fact that the intrinsic scatter inMBH −σ is slightly larger than inMBH − M∗ (see also Marconi et al. 2004).”
Piecing together the X-ray background : bolometric corrections for active galactic nuclei (2007, methodology): “The bolometric corrections of Elvis et al. (1994), which include the IR emission in the bolometric luminosity, effectively count part of theemission twice and the resulting bolometric corrections would be toohigh (Marconi et al. 2004), and would overestimate the accretionluminosity.”
Tracing the cosmic growth of supermassive black holes to z ∼ 3 with Herschel (2014, background): “13, our local BH mass density is ρbh,0 = 3.1 +1.0 −0.8 × 10 5 M Mpc −3 (8) which is consistent with previous estimates.”
A unified model for AGN feedback in cosmological simulations of structure formation (2007, result): “This implies that our models are consistent with the Soltan argument (Soltan, 1982; Yu & Tremaine, 2002; Marconi et al., 2004; Merloni, 2004; Hopkins et al., 2006b), and shows that merger-driven quasar activity is still dominating the black hole assembly in our unified model for AGN feedback.”
Resolving the mid-infrared cores of local Seyferts (2009, methodology): “Right (b): In this plot,LBol (and hencersub) is determined according to the bolometric corrections of Marconi et al. (2004).”
BAT AGN Spectroscopic Survey. I. Spectral Measurements, Derived Quantities, and AGN Demographics (2017, methodology): “First, we divide the 14–195 keV luminosity by 2.67 to convert to the intrinsic 2–10 keV luminosity, following Rigby et al. (2009) which is based on scaling the Marconi et al. (2004) templates to higher X-ray energies.”
Enhanced star formation rates in AGN hosts with respect to inactive galaxies from PEP-Herschel observations (2012, background): “Finally, AGN growth seems to be mostly due to matter accretion from the host galaxies during the active phases of the AGN (although mergers of black holes may be responsible for part of the growth, Marconi et al. 2004).”
Fueling Low-Level AGN Activity through Stochastic Accretion of Cold Gas (2006, methodology): “Our prediction, in terms of the bolometric luminosity, is converted to a B-band luminosity function using bolometric corrections following Marconi et al. (2004), based on optical through hard X-ray observations (e.g., Elvis et al. 1994; George et al. 1998; Vanden Berk et al. 2001; Perola et al.…”
The X-ray to optical-UV luminosity ratio of X-ray selected type 1 AGN in XMM-COSMOS (2009, background): “It is also a first step towards an estimate of the AGN bolometric luminosity function (Hopkins et al. 2007) and the mass function of Supermassive Black Holes (SMBHs) (e.g. Marconi et al. 2004), and towards the understanding ofthe structure of the AGN accretion disk and X-ray corona.”
SELF-CONSISTENT MODELS OF THE AGN AND BLACK HOLE POPULATIONS: DUTY CYCLES, ACCRETION RATES, AND THE MEAN RADIATIVE EFFICIENCY (2007, methodology): “…et al. 1973; Small & Blandford 1992; Salucci et al. 1999; Cavaliere & Vittorini 2000; Yu & Tremaine 2002; Steed & Weinberg 2003, hereafter SW03; Hosokawa 2004; Yu & Lu 2004; Marconi et al. 2004; S04; Merloni 2004; Vittorini, Shankar & Cavaliere 2005; Tamura 2 et al. 2006; Hopkins et al. 2007).”
Multiwavelength Study of Massive Galaxies at z ~ 2. II. Widespread Compton-thick Active Galactic Nuclei and the Concurrent Growth of Black Holes and Bulges (2007, background): “This is consistent with the timescales inferred by Marconi et al (2004).”
Black Holes in Galaxy Mergers: Evolution of Quasars (2005, methodology): “Using Lbol = ǫrṀc2, we model the form of the intrinsic quasar continuum SED following Marconi et al. (2004), based on optical through hard X-ray observations (e.g., Elvis et al. 1994; George et al. 1998; Vanden Berk et al. 2001; Perola et al. 2002; Telfer et al. 2002; Ueda et al. 2003; Vignali et…”
The cosmic evolution of massive black holes in the Horizon-AGN simulation (2016, methodology): “For instance, Kormendy & Ho (2013) suggest that the ratio between BH and bulge mass previously used in benchmark calculations (e.g. Marconi et al. 2004; Shankar et al. 2004) should be increased, based on their updated sample, leading to a total mass density higher by a factor of almost 2.”
A synthesis model for AGN evolution: supermassive black holes growth and feedback modes (2008, methodology): “(21) of Marconi et al. (2004).”
A Fundamental Relation between Compact Stellar Nuclei, Supermassive Black Holes, and Their Host Galaxies (2006, background): “Furthermore, the existence of SBHs in all bright galaxies is required to reconcile the local and AGN SBH mass functions (e.g. Marconi et al. 2004; Shankar et al. 2004).”
Supermassive Black Holes in Galactic Nuclei: Past, Present and Future Research (2004, methodology): “…of magnitude to account for the AGNs energetics, ms.tex; 2/02/2008; 14:25; p.96 SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES IN GALACTIC NUCLEI 97 although the relative contribution of high redshift optical QSOs and local obscured AGNs remains somewhat uncertain (Marconi et al. 2004; Shankar et al. 2004; Table 10).”
Rapid Growth of High-Redshift Black Holes (2005, background): “Yu & Tremaine (2002), Elvis, Risaliti, & Zamorani (2002), and Marconi et al. (2004), compared the local MBH mass density to the mass density accreted by luminous quasars, showing that quasars have a mass-to-energy conversion efficiency ǫ ∼> 0.1 (an argument originally proposed by Soltan 1982).”