1. The Observed Evolution of SMBH- Host Relations to High Redshifts Benny Trakhtenbrot ETH Zürich With: Meg Urry, Francesca Civano, Stefano Marchesi (Yale), David Rosario (MPE), Martin Elvis (CfA), Hyewon Suh (Hawaii IfA / CfA), Kevin Schawinski (ETH), Angela Bongiorno (INAF Rome), and Brooke Simmons (Oxford)

2. SMBH-Host Relations in the Local Universe Kormendy & Ho (2013) Sani et al. (2011) Strong relations between BH mass and host properties M * ~ 200  M BH (500? 700??)

3. Models for the Evolution of SMBH-Host Relations Sijacki et al. (2007) different models, different evolutionary paths … Di Matteo et al. (2008) Croton (2006)

4. Models for the evolution of SMBH-Host Relations Jahnke & Maccio (2011) Correlation does not imply causation …

5. Observational Challenges un-obscured – “Type I” SED is dominated by accretion disk (power law) BH properties can be obtained: M BH, L bol, L/L Edd The host is barely resolved, and M * & SFR are (almost) not available, challenging obscured – “Type II” SED is dominated by stellar light Host properties can be obtained: M *, SFR → sSFR, (morphology? σ * ?) Only L bol is observed, but M BH cannot be estimated The only direct probes of SMBHs at z>0 are AGN – the actively growing population

6. M BH can be reliably estimated from broad emission lines at z>0, we use empirical calibrations, based on reverberation mapping Woo et al. (2013)Kaspi et al. (2005) Measuring BH Masses and Growth Rates M BH = f G -1 R BLR V BLR 2

7. Indirect arguments for rising M BH /M Host z~6.2 Willott+10, Kurk+07 z~4.8 Trakhtenbrot+2011 z~3.3 Netzer+07,Shemmer+04 z~2.4 [ Netzer+07, Shemmer+04] z<2 SDSS; Trakhtenbrot & Netzer (2012) faint surveys zCOSMOS, VVDS Schulze et al. (2014) Z =1 Z =2 High-mass BHs at z~2 → extremely high-mass hosts? Trakhtenbrot & Netzer (2012)

8. Indirect arguments for rising M BH /M Host Local mas ratio + hosts MF + QLF → super-Eddington AGN? Caplar, Lilly & Trakhtenbrot (2015)

9. Most studies suggest that M BH /M * rises: Hosts should over-grow their SMBHs by factors of ~2-3 (or more?), since z~2 ? Bennert et al. (2011) Decarli et al. (2010)Merloni et al. (2010) Direct evidence for rising M BH /M Host

10. Most studies suggest that M BH /M * grows: Hosts should over-grow their SMBHs by factors of ~2-3 (or more?), since z~2 ? [comparison at const. M BH ? see BT & Netzer (2010) ] What happens beyond z~2? Direct evidence for rising M BH /M Host

11. Masters et al. (2012) COSMOS-MOSFIRE Campaign: Probing “typical” AGN at z > 2 Faint, X-ray selected AGN in COSMOS (Civano et al. 2012 +XVP…) Number density is higher by ~100 compared to SDSS-like AGN Lower AGN luminosity allows to study hosts

12. Faint, X-ray selected AGN in COSMOS (Civano et al. 2012 +XVP…) Number density is higher by ~100 compared to SDSS-like AGN Lower AGN luminosity allows to study hosts K-band spectroscopy with Keck/MOSFIRE (6 nights) Host information is available from COSMOS Trakhtenbrot et al. (in prep.) COSMOS-MOSFIRE campaign: Probing “typical” AGNs at z > 2

13. Broad Hβ, FWHM ~13000 km/s → high mass: M BH  7  10 9 M  comparable to M87 (Gebhardt+11) Low Eddington ratio L/L Edd  0.02 lower by x10 than other high-mass AGN at z~3 (Shemmer+04,Netzer+07) Had to accrete faster in the past to explain high mass Trakhtenbrot et al. (2015), Science, 349, 168 CID-947: an Over-Massive BH at z ~ 3.3  → Final stages of SMBH growth, AGN “feedback”?

14. Host SED - UV-to-IR FIR - mm – UltraVISTA DR2, Herschel (PEP), JMCT (AzTEC, 1 mm) – Decomposition: AGN (+torus),stellar and dust components M * ~ 6  10 10 M  SFR ~ 400 M  / yr Consistent with an M * SF galaxy, on the MS (Ilbert+13) CID-947: an Over-Massive BH at z ~ 3.3 (Ilbert+13 ; Lee+11, Bouwens+12,… see Speagle+14)

15. Extremely high BH-to- host mass ratio: M BH / M * ~ 0.1 Compared with 0.002-0.005 (Kormendy & Ho 2013) Trakhtenbrot et al. (2015) CID-947: an Over-Massive BH at z ~ 3.3

16. SMBH is in final stages of growth → M BH ~10 10 M  Host still forming stars → M * ~2  10 11 -10 12 M  Mass ratio will remain extreme → M BH / M * > 0.01 Progenitor of systems like NGC 1277? (M/M~1/7) CID-947: Subsequent Evolution of BH & host Consistent with Caplar model (Kormendy & Ho 2013 data)

17. Broad Absorption lines (BALQSO) – in SiIV, CIV, … → AGN-driven outflow, with v max ~ 12,000 km/s Observed in ~20% of QSOs, R~0.1-1 kpc, dM/dt~100 M  / yr Under reasonable assumptions, this outflow requires L/L Edd > 0.2 Trakhtenbrot et al. (2015) CID-947: AGN-driven outflow, “feedback”? (Hamman 98, Misawa+07)

18. 10 AGN with safe M BH estimates (6+4) More sources with high M BH / M *, but large scatter Most conservative stellar masses still show sources with M BH / M * > 0.01 but also some with no evolution Trakhtenbrot et al. (in prep.) COSMOS-MOSFIRE campaign: Preliminary Results for “typical” AGNs at z > 2

19. Summary 1.Forced to focus on (small) samples of un-obscured AGNs at z > 2 with reliable M BH and L/L Edd estimates. 2.A dedicated Keck campaign in COSMOS to probe “typical” AGN at z ~ 3 – 4. Host properties from SED. 3.CID-947: an over-massive BH in a normal SF galaxy – Extreme mass ratio of ~1/10 ; expected to remain extreme – No signs of quenching, despite AGN-driven outflow – Follow up observations: scale and impact of outflow 4.Extreme mass ratios not uncommon, large scatter, including objects with no evolution …(preliminary) → depends on SF “state”? Herschel is not deep enough…

20. Thank you!

21. Measuring BH Masses and Growth Rates 1.Observe either the Hβ or MgII(2800Å) broad emission lines Measure their width and the adjacent continuum Estimate the distance to the line-eitting region - R BLR ~(L λ ) γ (e.g., Kaspi et al. 2000, 2005; Peterson et al. 2004; …) 2.Combine observables to a virial product, for example: 3.Accretion rate: f Bol ~ 3.5-6 (decreases with L ) McLure & Dunlop (2004)

22. Measuring BH Masses and Growth Rates 1.Observe either the Hβ or MgII(2800Å) broad emission lines - other lines are unreliable (Baskin & Laor 2005; Netzer et al. 2007; Shen et al. 2008; Trakhtenbrot & Netzer 2012)  Optical surveys (SDSS, 2QZ, …) can cover z < 2  Higher redshifts must be observed in restricted NIR bands z ~ 2.4, 3.3, 4.8, 6.2

23. Kormendy & Ho (2013) Observed Evolution of scaling relations? log M *, total /M  Problems above z~2: CIV line is unreliable probe of M BH CO/CII-based M dyn of host galaxies

24. When did the most massive BHs accumulate most of their mass? A local relic population of extremely massive SMBHs ( M BH > 10 9 M  ) At z < 0.5 only the less massive BHs are still growing (significantly) SMBHs with M BH ~ 10 10 M  are already in place at z ~ 2-3.5 Trakhtenbrot & Netzer (2012) M BH = 4  10 7 4  10 8 1.5  10 9 z ~ 2.5-3.5 Shemmer et al. (2004), Netzer et al. (2007) also: Marziani et al. (2009), Dietrich et al. (2009)

25. A Sequence of Growing M BH We focus on the most luminous QSOs and the most massive SMBHs at z > 2 Similar luminosities  M BH increases with time  L/L Edd decreases with time The z~4.8 sample is a benchmark for testing high-z SMBH evolution scenarios z~6.2 Willott+10, Kurk+07 z~4.8 Trakhtenbrot+2011 z~3.3 Shemmer+04,Netzer+07 z~2.4 Shemmer+04,Netzer+07

26. Observed Evolution of scaling relations? Merloni+2010: 1 < z < 2, COSMOS, 89 AGN ( MgII + SED) M BH / M * increases with redshift M BH / M * ~ (1+ z ) 0.68 M BH / M * at z = 3 is higher by x2 than local (=HR04) Merloni et al. (2010)

27. Observed Evolution of scaling relations? Cisternas+2011: 0.3 < z < 1, COSMOS, 32 AGN ( Hβ + SED) no evolution in M BH / M * Cisterns et al. (2011)

28. Observed Evolution of scaling relations? Jahnke+2009: 1 < z < 2, COSMOS, 10 AGN ( MgII + HST) no evolution in M BH / M * but some evolution in M BH / M bulge Jahnke et al. (2009)

29. Observed Evolution of scaling relations? Decarli+2010: 1 < z < 3, 96 BLAGN (all lines, M/L) M BH / M * increases with z: M BH / M * ~ (1+ z ) 0.68 M BH / M * at z=3 is higher by ~ x7 than local (=HR04) Decarli et al. (2010)

30. Observed Evolution of scaling relations? Bennert+2011: 1 < z < 2, 11 BLAGN (MgII, M/L from HST) M BH / M * increases with z: M BH / M * ~ (1+ z ) 1.15 M BH /M bulge shows stronger evolution, with M BH / M bulge ~ (1+ z ) 2 Bennert et al. (2011)

31. Observed Evolution of scaling relations? Shen+2015: z < 1, SDSS-RM (but SE), 88 BLAGN (Hbeta ) no evolution in M BH - σ * to z ~ 1 Shen et al. (2015)

32. Trakhtenbrot et al. (2015) CID-947: re-sampling simulations Re-sampling the data with various S/N levels Fitting a full model to each data set. Including a broad component for [OIII] 5007 100 iterations

33. SMBH Evolution – The Bigger Picture z~6.2 Willott+10, Kurk+07 z~4.8 Trakhtenbrot+2011 z~3.3 Shemmer+04,Netzer+07 z~2.4 Shemmer+04,Netzer+07 z<2 SDSS; Trakhtenbrot & Netzer (2012) Z =1 Z =2

34. Overall Evolution of M BH z~6.2 Willott+10, Kurk+07 z~4.8 Trakhtenbrot+2011 z~3.3 Netzer+07,Shemmer+04 z~2.4 [ Netzer+07, Shemmer+04] z<2 SDSS; Netzer & Trakhtenbrot (2007) Trakhtenbrot in prep. 34 faint surveys 2QZ, 2SLAQ, VVDS, zCOSMOS homogeneous analysis in Trakhtenbrot, in prep. Z =1 Z =2 2QZ 2SLAQ zCOSMOS VVDS