An expanded Mbh–σ diagram, and a new calibration of active galactic nuclei masses

By Alister W. Graham, C. Onken, E. Athanassoula, F. Combes. 2010

355 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We present an updated and improved Mbh–σ diagram containing 64 galaxies for which Mbh measurements (not just upper limits) are available. Because of new and increased black hole masses at the high-mass end, and a better representation of barred galaxies at the low-mass end, the ‘classical’ (all morphological type) Mbh–σ relation for predicting black hole masses is log (Mbh/M⊙) = (8.13 ± 0.05) + (5.13 ± 0.34)log [σ/200 km s−1], with an rms scatter of 0.43 dex. Modifying the regression analysis to correct for a hitherto overlooked sample bias in which black holes with masses <106 M⊙ are not (yet) detectable, the relation steepens further to give log (Mbh/M⊙) = (8.15 ± 0.06) + (5.95 ± 0.44)log [σ/200 km s−1]. We have also updated the ‘barless’ and ‘elliptical-only’Mbh–σ relations introduced by Graham and Hu in 2008 due to the offset nature of barred galaxies. These relations have a total scatter as low as 0.34 dex and currently define the upper envelope of points in the Mbh–σ diagram. They also have a slope consistent with a value 5, in agreement with the prediction by Silk & Rees based on feedback from massive black holes in bulges built by monolithic collapse. Using updated virial products and velocity dispersions from 28 active galactic nuclei, we determine that the optimal scaling factor f– which brings their virial products in line with the 64 directly measured black hole masses – is 2.8+0.7−0.5. This is roughly half the value reported by Onken et al. and Woo et al., and consequently halves the mass estimates of most high-redshift quasars. Given that barred galaxies are, on average, located ∼0.5 dex below the ‘barless’ and ‘elliptical-only’Mbh–σ relations, we have explored the results after separating the samples into barred and non-barred galaxies, and we have also developed a preliminary corrective term to the velocity dispersion based on bar dynamics. In addition, given the recently recognized coexistence of massive black holes and nuclear star clusters, we present the first ever (Mbh+Mnc)–σ diagram and begin to explore how galaxies shift from their former location in the Mbh–σ diagram.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7004862a49d822d3e036370183a5490922876697

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

1. D. M. Alexander
2. P. Hopkins
3. L. Hernquist
4. H. Netzer
5. Jenny E. Greene
6. R. Hickox
7. W. N. Brandt
8. Luis C. Ho

Citations in the corpus

• Selection bias in dynamically measured supermassive black hole samples: its consequences and the quest for the most fundamental relation (2016, methodology): “…normalization of the intrinsicMbh-σ relation will serve as a more secure base for calibrating virial estimators of black hole mass for reverberation mapping-based scalingrelations (e.g., Onken et al. 2004; Woo et al. 2010; Graham et al. 2011; Park et al. 2012a; Grier et al. 2013; Ho & Kim 2015).”
• The current status of galaxy formation (2012, background): “The Current Status of Galaxy Formation 13”
• BAT AGN Spectroscopic Survey. I. Spectral Measurements, Derived Quantities, and AGN Demographics (2017, methodology): “We note, however, that these two methods are tied to reproduce similar masses for systems where both are applicable (e.g., Graham et al. 2011; Woo et al. 2013), so it is likely that the subsample of Seyfert 1.9 explored here is not representative.”
• Black Hole Growth to z = 2 - I: Improved Virial Methods for Measuring M_BH and L/L_Edd (2012, methodology): “• 19 SDSS sources atz ≃ 0.36 from the study of (McGill et al. 2008, Mc08 in the present paper) for which the MgII and Hβ lines were observed in a dedicated Keck/LRIS campaign (Woo et al. 2006).”
• REVERBERATION MAPPING RESULTS FOR FIVE SEYFERT 1 GALAXIES (2012, result): “This factor allows for easy comparison with previous results, but is about a factor of two larger than the value of 〈f〉 computed by Graham et al. (2011).”
• Faint high-redshift AGN in the Chandra deep field south: the evolution of the AGN luminosity function and black hole demography (2011, background): “However, we know that, at least at low redshift, the SMBH-bulge mass relation is unlikely to be universal (Mathur et al. 2001, 2011; Graham et al. 2011, and references therein).”
• THE LICK AGN MONITORING PROJECT 2011: SPECTROSCOPIC CAMPAIGN AND EMISSION-LINE LIGHT CURVES (2015, background): “…the overall normalization of the AGN black hole mass scale (Onken et al. 2004; Peterson et al. 2004; Collin et al. 2006; Woo et al. 2010; Graham et al. 2011; Park et al. 2012b; Grier et al. 2013b; Ho & Kim 2014), we include in the following sections a descriptionof simulations which may…”
• STELLAR VELOCITY DISPERSION MEASUREMENTS IN HIGH-LUMINOSITY QUASAR HOSTS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE AGN BLACK HOLE MASS SCALE (2013, methodology): “Currently, 〈f〉 is calculated with the assumption that AGNs follow the same MBH–σ∗ relation as quiescent galaxies (Onken et al. 2004; Woo et al. 2010; Graham et al. 2011; Park et al. 2012; Woo et al. 2013).”
• The evolution of massive black holes and their spins in their galactic hosts (2012, background): “1; see also Graham (2008); Graham et al. (2011); Hu (2008)), and theMbh − Mb relation has been established in Häring & Rix (2004) using a sample of 30 mostly elliptical galaxies.”
• The Mass Relations between Supermassive Black Holes and Their Host Galaxies at 1 < z < 2 with HST-WFC3 (2019, background): “…known as scaling relations) may indicate a connection between nuclear activity and galaxy formation and evolution(e.g., Magorrian et al. 1998; Ferrarese & Merritt 2000; Gebhardt et al. 2001; Marconi & Hunt 2003; Häring & Rix 2004; Gültekin et al. 2009; Graham et al. 2011; Beifiori et al. 2012).”
• COMPARING SINGLE-EPOCH VIRIAL BLACK HOLE MASS ESTIMATORS FOR LUMINOUS QUASARS (2012, methodology): “The unknown geometry of the BLR is absorbed in a constant virial coefficient f , which is calibrated (e.g., Onken et al. 2004; Woo et al. 2010; Graham et al. 2011) to bring the products of RV 2/G into average agreement with those predicted from the local scaling relation between BH mass and bulge…”
• DRIVING OUTFLOWS WITH RELATIVISTIC JETS AND THE DEPENDENCE OF ACTIVE GALACTIC NUCLEUS FEEDBACK EFFICIENCY ON INTERSTELLAR MEDIUM INHOMOGENEITY (2012, result): “The dashed gray lines in the figure represent a different M–σ relation of MBH ∝ σ 5, which is more in agreement with the recent results by Graham et al. (2011), especially for core galaxies (Graham 2012).”
• AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO MEASURING REVERBERATION LAGS IN ACTIVE GALACTIC NUCLEI (2010, background): “Similarly, there is still active discussion about the mean value of the scaling factor 〈f〉 (e.g., Onken et al. 2004; Labita et al. 2006; Woo et al. 2010; Graham et al. 2011) that is beyond the scope of this contribution.”
• Enhanced star formation rates in AGN hosts with respect to inactive galaxies from PEP-Herschel observations (2012, background): “…(stellar mass, velocity dispersion, etc.) in the local Universe (e.g. Gebhardt et al. 2000; Ferrarese & Merritt 2000; Marconi & Hunt 2003; Kormendy & Bender 2009; Gültekin et al. 2009; Graham et al. 2011) and are also tracedto higher redshift (e.g. Merloni et al. 2010; Bennert et al. 2011).”
• Modelling reverberation mapping data – II. Dynamical modelling of the Lick AGN Monitoring Project 2008 data set (2013, methodology): “Values of 〈fσ 〉 from the literature include log10〈fσ 〉 = 0.74+0.12−0.17 (Onken et al. 2004), log10〈fσ 〉 = 0.72+0.09−0.10 (Woo et al. 2010), log10〈fσ 〉 = 0.45 ± 0.09 (Graham et al. 2011), log10〈fσ 〉 = 0.71 ± 0.11 (Park et al. 2012a), log10〈fσ 〉 = 0.77 ± 0.13 (Woo et al. 2013), and log10〈fσ 〉 = 0.64+0”