Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We present new constraints on the ratio of black hole (BH) mass to total galaxy stellar mass at 0.3 < z < 0.9 for a sample of 32 type-1 active galactic nuclei (AGNs) from the XMM-COSMOS survey covering the range M BH ~ 107.2 - 8.7 M sun. Virial M BH estimates based on Hò are available from the COSMOS Magellan/IMACS survey. We use high-resolution Hubble Space Telescope (HST) imaging to decompose the light of each type-1 AGN and host galaxy, and employ a specially built mass-to-light ratio to estimate the stellar masses (M *). The M BH-M * ratio shows a zero offset with respect to the local relation for galactic bulge masses, and we also find no evolution in the mass ratio M BH/M *vprop(1 + z)0.02 ñ 0.34 up to z ~ 0.9. Interestingly, at the high-M BH end there is a positive offset from the z = 0 relation, which can be fully explained by a mass function bias with a cosmic scatter of ÃÆÃ¼ = 0.3, reaffirming that the intrinsic distribution is consistent with zero evolution. From our results we conclude that since z ~ 0.9 no substantial addition of stellar mass is required: the decline in star formation rates and merger activity at z < 1 support this scenario. Nevertheless, given that a significant fraction of these galaxies show a disk component, their bulges are indeed undermassive. This is a direct indication that for the last 7 Gyr the only essential mechanism required for these galaxies to obey the z = 0 relation is a redistribution of stellar mass to the bulge, likely driven by secular processes, i.e., internal instabilities and minor merging. Based on observations with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by AURA Inc., under NASA Contract NAS 5-26555; the XMM-Newton, an ESA science mission with instruments and contributions directly funded by ESA Member States and NASA; and on data collected at the Magellan Telescope, which is operated by the Carnegie Observatories.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cisternas et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: