2017年6月7日@大阪大学
第４回銀河進化研究会

SHELLQs-ALMA: submm
properties of galaxies hosting
less-luminous quasars at z > 6
泉拓磨 (NAOJフェロー)& SHELLQs-collaboration
1© ESO/M. KornmesserMm/submm Follow-up of
HSC-detected z > 6 Quasars• 初期かつ一般的なクエーサーの発現環境・母銀河の特徴付け→ SFR, Mdyn, Mgas, Mdust• 始原的な共進化関係の探査• 宇宙初期天体の金属量進化• 母銀河・周辺環境へのAGN feedback

2© ESO/M. KornmesserMm/submm Follow-up of
HSC-detected z > 6 Quasars• 初期かつ一般的なクエーサーの発現環境・母銀河の特徴付け→ SFR, Mdyn, Mgas, Mdust• 始原的な共進化関係の探査• 宇宙初期天体の金属量進化• 母銀河・周辺環境へのAGN feedback

2© ESO/M. Kornmesser

[CII] & FIR properties of z > 6 luminous QSOs

The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 751:L25 (5pp), 2012 June 1

Dust

ysical Journal, 773:44 (10pp), 2013 August 10[CII]

Vel. field

Wang et al.

[CII] 158 μm

ULAS J1120+0641
z = 7.084

Venemans et al. 2012, ApJ, 751, L25

Wang et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 44 w/ ALMA

Figure 1. Plateau de Bure Interferometer spectrum of J1120+0641 of the redshifted [C ii] 158 µm line. The channels have a width of 20 MHz (∼25 km s−1 ).
The noise per bin is 1.09 mJy beam−1 and is shown in the upper-left corner.
The published redshift of z = 7.085 (derived from rest-frame UV lines of thequasar; Mortlock et al. 2011) has been taken as the zero point of the velocity
scale. The red, solid curve is a Gaussian fit to the spectrum andsun
shows that faintcontinuum emission is also detected in the quasar host. The residuals of the fit
are plotted below the spectrum. The dotted lines represent +σ and −σ , with σsungas
the noise per binof 1.09 mJy beam−1 .
(A color version of this figure is available in the online journal.)

Param.

• ULIRG/SMG-class!!
• Question: Do all (z > 6) quasars reside insuch vigorously star forming monsters?
- characterize their surrounding environ.

Typical value

SFR~100 - 1000 M

M~a few x E10 M

Mdust~a few x E8 Msun/yrsource at Mz = 7.085 of DL~a= few
70.0 Gpc,
a spatial
scale of
x
E9
M
sun
BH−1
5.2 kpc arcsec . The age of the universe at z = 7.085 is
740 Myr.
e.g., Wang et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 699
3

2. OBSERVATIONSMBH [Msun]

achieve unique insights on their formation processe
both SMBHs and their hosts over cosmic time.
Primordial co-evolution at z > 6 quasars?
Mm/subm
1E10
high-z can pevolutions ohave shown t
1E9dust (∼108 M(e.g., Wangz ~ 6-7
massive quasars
2016; Willot
近傍M -σ 関係
local M -σ
The star for
1E8 *Uncertainty in M
is not stated in therest-frame fa
references, but it isservations a
typically ~0.3 dex*These
result1E7
100
200
300 400of such quasσbulgeσ[CII][km/s][km/s]
ies and SMB
1: M− σbulgearerelation
for z ∼ 6 − However, we
z >BH
6 quasars
overmassive
BH of luminous• MFigure9−10→
Nosynchronisation
with the clearly
hosts? biase
7 SMBHquasarsearlier,with galaxies
large Mlater?
(∼
10M⊙ ) compiled
BH
from the literature. The shaded
regiondenotesthequasars espe
4
BH

BH

*
BH

*

Infering the intrinsic BH–bulge relation
Selection bias to probehigh-z objects?3423
Therefore, we are facing the problem that even if we are able toobtain reasonably large AGN samples with individual black holeNoof themean? the intermass estimates andhostoﬀset
galaxy property
measurements,
pretation of such results in terms of evolution or non-evolution ischallenging due to the sample selection effects. In this paper we
present a practical solution to this dilemma. We build on the framework presented in SW11 and give a quantitative assessment of, anda correction procedure for sample selection effects on observationsof the M• –bulge relations. We outline a maximum likelihood fitting
approach that directly incorporates information on the selection
function into the fitting. We also restrict prior knowledge of the underlying distribution functions to a minimum. The method is able
to reconstruct the true unbiased M• –bulge relation for an observed
sample and thus largely overcomes the limitations imposed by the
Schulze et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 3422
sample selection.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we present thegeneral maximum likelihood fitting method and its application to
the M• –bulge relation for AGN. In Section 3 we verify the robustnessFigure
and uncertainties
of the method
Monte
Carlo M
simulations.
8. Redshift evolutionof the via
inferred
intrinsic• –bulge relation
Sectionillustratescompared
the method
its application
to representative(filled4 symbols),
to theby
apparent
relation (opensymbols). We here
previous
studiesand discusses
itsetramifications
for=theevolutionofstudiedthe samples
by Cisternasal. (2011b) at ⟨z⟩
0.56(blue diamond),
Merloniet al.
(2010) atWe⟨z⟩conclude= 1.5 (red incircle),Targett
relation.
Section
5. et al. (2012) at ⟨z⟩ = 4.2
the M• –bulge

Bias Correction• High-z quasars could be biased to luminous (= massive) objects• No evolution in co-evolutionary relations once we account for the bias?

Figure 1. Compilation of results obtained from previous studies on theapparent offset in black hole mass at a given galaxy mass from the local
relation from Häring & Rix (2004). Overall, an apparent trend of an increasing M• /M∗ ratio is suggested. However, sample selection effects need to beconsidered(e.g.,
to reconstruct
the intrinsic
Schulzeetoffset.
al. 2014; Lauer et al. 2007) (green triangle) and Wang et al. (2010) at z ∼ 6 (magenta square). The error
bars indicate the statistical uncertainty of the best fit, including uncertainties
in the underlying distributions. The dashed dotted line indicates a evolution
2 TmodelH E with
M EγT =
H 0.5.
OD(e.g. McLure & Jarvis 2002; Vestergaard & Peterson 2006). The
main challenge for these studies is to determine the properties of the
AGN host galaxy, targeting either the velocity dispersion (Shields
et al. 2003; Salviander et al. 2007; Woo et al. 2008; Canalizo et al.
2012; Hiner et al. 2012; Salviander & Shields 2013), the galaxy luminosity (Peng et al. 2006; Bennert et al. 2010; Decarli et al. 2010;
Targett, Dunlop & McLure 2012) or the stellar mass (McLure et al.

We need high-z less-luminous
quasars→fit inHSC
ALMA!
2.1 Maximum
likelihood
consideration

find an intrinsic offset that is fully consistent with a non-evolvingof aM
selection–bulge function
relation out to z ∼ 6. However, we note that at z > 2•

relationstill
substantial
thetheuncertainties
M• –bulge
Whilemain goal ofonthethe
methodpresented
hereareis to
study
the M• – andfutureworkitinin thistoredshift
regimecases.
is necessary
to obtain
bulge
relation,is particularalso applicable
more general
Identifying
5 and robust
results. For
referencebetween
we alsotwo
indicatethe case
γ = 0.5,
characterizing
correlations
observables
is aoffunda-Submm follow-up observations toward
HSC-detected high-z quasars with ALMA
Izumi et al. in prep.
Based on: ALMA Cycle 4 (#2016.1.01423.S; Izumi+)

6

Targets@Cycle 4
Quasar

zopt

M1450

Deliver(JST)

DL (Mpc)

Scale(kpc/“)

LBol (Lsun)

BAL

J0859+0022

6.39-23.56

Feb 1562086.1

5.51

3.9E+12N

J1152+0055

6.37-24.91

Feb 1461860.8

5.52

1.4E+13N

J2216-0016

6.10-23.56

Feb 1158827.4

5.66

3.9E+12YJ1202-0057

5.93-22.44

May 1256925.2

5.75

1.4E+12N

The Astrophysical Journal, 828:26 (14pp), 2016 September 1

Matsuoka et al.

From SHELLQs quasars (Matsuoka et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 26)

To detect [CII] and FIR continuum→ higher resolution, other lines@future ALMA cycles?
7Spatial distribution (color: [CII], contour: FIR Cont.)
J0859

J1152

θ = 0.64” x 0.47”

θ = 0.52” x 0.47”

J2216

J1202

θ = 0.54” x 0.43”

θ = 0.79” x 0.71”
8Band 6 spectrum(J2216)

g

r

z

y

i

HSC image[CII]~0.18 mJy @dV = 50 km/s
(on-source time ~ 1.7h)

9

[CII] spectrum (J2216)
z = 6.0962 +/- 0.0003

1.5” aperture

Peak = 2.79 +/- 0.22 mJy/beam
Centroid: 267.8259 +/- 0.0124 GHz
FWHM: 355.57 +/- 32.72 km/s

10

[CII] spectrum (J2216)
196

1470.0003
z = 6.0962 +/-94

1.5” aperture

41

-11

-64

-117

-168

-221

Peak = 2.79 +/- 0.22 mJy/beam
Centroid: 267.8259 +/- 0.0124 GHz
FWHM: 355.57 +/- 32.72 km/s

[CII]: Red contour = 3,5,7σ; 1σ = 0.183 mJy/beam@dV~50 km/s
Band 6 continuum: Black contour = 3,4,5,6,7σ; 1σ = 13.2μJy/beam
10

[CII] spectrum (J2216)
196

1470.0003
z = 6.0962 +/-• Spatially more extended than94

the continuum emission.

1.5” aperture

41

-11

-64

-117

-168

-221

Peak = 2.79 +/- 0.22 mJy/beam
Centroid: 267.8259 +/- 0.0124 GHz
FWHM: 355.57 +/- 32.72 km/s

[CII]: Red contour = 3,5,7σ; 1σ = 0.183 mJy/beam@dV~50 km/s
Band 6 continuum: Black contour = 3,4,5,6,7σ; 1σ = 13.2μJy/beam
10

[CII] spectrum (J2216)
196

1470.0003
z = 6.0962 +/-• Spatially more extended than94

the continuum emission.

1.5” aperture

41

-11

• Every channel has the same
centroid at the AGN position→ indication of outflows??
→ recall this is a BAL quasar-64• Or a signature of a past merger?
-117

-168

-221

Peak = 2.79 +/- 0.22 mJy/beam
Centroid: 267.8259 +/- 0.0124 GHz
FWHM: 355.57 +/- 32.72 km/s

[CII]: Red contour = 3,5,7σ; 1σ = 0.183 mJy/beam@dV~50 km/s
Band 6 continuum: Black contour = 3,4,5,6,7σ; 1σ = 13.2μJy/beam
10

[CII] spectrum (J2216)
196

1470.0003
z = 6.0962 +/-• Spatially more extended than94

the continuum emission.

1.5” aperture

41

-11

• Every channel has the same
centroid at the AGN position→ indication of outflows??
→ recall this is a BAL quasar-64• Or a signature of a past merger?
-117

-168

-221

Peak = 2.79 +/- 0.22 mJy/beam
Centroid: 267.8259 +/- 0.0124 GHz
FWHM: 355.57 +/- 32.72 km/s

[CII]: Red contour = 3,5,7σ; 1σ = 0.183 mJy/beam@dV~50 km/s
Band 6 continuum: Black contour = 3,4,5,6,7σ; 1σ = 13.2μJy/beam
10

©ESO

FIR properties of the HSC-quasars
S[CII](Jy km/s)

L[CII](1E8 Lsun)

B6 continuum
LFIR
Mdust
SFR[CII](μJy)(1E11 Lsun) (1E7 Msun) (Msun/yr)

J0859

0.45 +/- 0.09

4.6 +/- 0.9

157 +/- 23

3.4 +/- 0.5 2.4 +/- 0.4

31

J1152

0.37 +/- 0.12

3.8 +/- 1.2

189 +/- 32

4.1 +/- 0.7 2.9 +/- 0.5

26

J2216

1.06 +/- 0.13

10.2 +/- 1.3

136 +/- 27

2.7 +/- 0.6 2.0 +/- 0.4

68

J1202

0.67 +/- 0.06

7.3 +/- 0.6

246 +/- 12

4.8 +/- 0.2 3.4 +/- 0.2

49

Td = 47 K, β = 1.6; integrated over FIR = 42.5 - 122.5 μm
SFR (Msun/yr) = 1.0E-7 * (L[CII]/Lsun)0.98; De Looze et al. (2011) for LFIR < 1E12 Lsun (Kroupa IMF)

• LIRG to weak ULIRG-class objects even @ z > 6 !
- c.f., SFR = 100-1000 Msun/yr for luminous SDSS quasars @ z > 6• These FIR values could be still upper limits (recall these are low-luminosity quasars)
110.21±0.04
0.20±0.04

5.1
4.9

>22.1a>22.1a>21.6a>21.6aWhat kind of galaxies are they? (1/2)[CII]-deficit?

aper
the
r to
as a
of
that
wing
d in
sing
that
t al.
FIR
GN.
ntral
C II]

the
ared
the
ctral
mJy)
ures

log (L[CII]/LFIR)

log

Venemans et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 37

log (LFIR/Lsun)

Figure 5. Ratio of [C II] luminosity to FIR luminosity as a function of FIR
luminosity. Plotted are values for local star-forming 12
and starburst galaxies(open stars), local AGNs (open circles), and local composite galaxies (ﬁlled

Similar to local
LIRG-class objects→ They would have
similar gas density,
radiation field, etc.as well?

0.21±0.04
0.20±0.04

5.1
4.9

>22.1a>22.1a>21.6a>21.6aWhat kind of galaxies are they? (1/2)
log

the
ared
the
ctral
mJy)
ures

log (L[CII]/LFIR)

aper
the
r to
as a
of
that
wing
d in
sing
that
t al.
FIR
GN.
ntral
C II]

Local starburst(z < 1)[CII]-deficit?

Venemans et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 37

log (LFIR/Lsun)

Figure 5. Ratio of [C II] luminosity to FIR luminosity as a function of FIR
luminosity. Plotted are values for local star-forming 12
and starburst galaxies(open stars), local AGNs (open circles), and local composite galaxies (ﬁlled

Similar to local
LIRG-class objects→ They would have
similar gas density,
radiation field, etc.as well?

0.21±0.04
0.20±0.04

5.1
4.9

>22.1a>22.1a>21.6a>21.6aWhat kind of galaxies are they? (1/2)
log

the
ared
the
ctral
mJy)
ures

log (L[CII]/LFIR)

aper
the
r to
as a
of
that
wing
d in
sing
that
t al.
FIR
GN.
ntral
C II]

Local starburst(z < 1)[CII]-deficit?

Local AGN+starburst(z < 1)

Venemans et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 37

log (LFIR/Lsun)

Figure 5. Ratio of [C II] luminosity to FIR luminosity as a function of FIR
luminosity. Plotted are values for local star-forming 12
and starburst galaxies(open stars), local AGNs (open circles), and local composite galaxies (ﬁlled

Similar to local
LIRG-class objects→ They would have
similar gas density,
radiation field, etc.as well?

0.21±0.04
0.20±0.04

5.1
4.9

>22.1a>22.1a>21.6a>21.6aWhat kind of galaxies are they? (1/2)
log

the
ared
the
ctral
mJy)
ures

log (L[CII]/LFIR)

aper
the
r to
as a
of
that
wing
d in
sing
that
t al.
FIR
GN.
ntral
C II]

Local starburst(z < 1)[CII]-deficit?

Local AGN+starburst(z < 1)ULIRGs & Quasars

Venemans et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 37

log (LFIR/Lsun)

Figure 5. Ratio of [C II] luminosity to FIR luminosity as a function of FIR
luminosity. Plotted are values for local star-forming 12
and starburst galaxies(open stars), local AGNs (open circles), and local composite galaxies (ﬁlled

Similar to local
LIRG-class objects→ They would have
similar gas density,
radiation field, etc.as well?

What kind of galaxies are they? (2/2)
A&A 581, A54 (2015)

Our work
Watson et al. 2015 (z = 7.5)

Main sequence?
The Astrophysical Journal, 828:26 (14pp), 2016 September 1

Fig. 1. SFR–M⋆ relation for VUDS starforming galaxies. Points are colour-coded depending on the spectroscopic redshift of eachgalaxy as indicated in the inset. A clear evolution of the SFG main sequence is observed in
Matsuoka
et al.redshifts
2016, ApJ, 828, 26
the VUDS sample
up to the highestz ≃ 5. This is confirmed to z ∼ 2 when comparTasca et al. 2015, A&A, 581, A54
ing VUDS data to the main sequence measured
from the SDSS at z ∼ 0.2 (Peng et al. 2010; full(Values from SED fittings)line),
MS at z functions∼ 1 byofElbaz
al.LBGs(2007;
Figurethe
2. Luminosity
quasarsetandat z∼6 (left) and z∼7 (right), taken fromlightblue),
Bouwensetal.
(2015,
lightgreen),
andBowlerdashed line), and the MS of Daddi et al. (2007; et al. (2015, dark green). The corresp
indicatedline)on theaxis.
the VUDS
luminosity
functions are poorly constrained in the ran
dottedat upperz ∼ 2.
AtAlthoughz > 2 thedata
apparent magnitudes fainter than ∼24 mag.
appear to lie significantly above the Daddi et al.
(2007) main sequence.
with color and extendedness cuts (see Section 3.2). Although
The valithis may not be the case for LBGs at z  6, we do not model
evaluatepoint is the dispersion in the relation between line strength and of z ∼ 1 Elbaz et al. (2007),
while
intermediatemassgalaxies
this population at present because (i) they are hard to
future w
SFR, and the evolution of this relation with redshift. While re- 8.5 < log(M⋆ ) < 9.5
arein
between
the
MS
from
SDSS
distinguish from high-z quasars by colors alone and (ii) theirSincecent studies have provided some complex means of taking into (Brinchmann et al. 2004;
Peng
et
al.
2010)
and
the
z
∼
1
MS
surface density at <24 mag is still poorly understood (seeyet (Secaccount the main emission lines (e.g. de Barros et al. 2014), the of Elbaz et al. (2007) Figures
as expectedin
thisredshift
bin.
At
z
∼
1
or yAB<
1 and 2).
simple approach used by Le Phare significantly limits the sen- our data are slightly above
in
SFR
(or
less
massive)
than
in
the
for Pr (dFor a detected source with the observed quantities d , theB
sitivity of the derived stellar mass and SFR to the presence of Elbaz et al. (2007) relation.
The
diﬀerence
between
our
data
and
13at z=0
Bayesian probability PQ of being a quasar is given by:bright q
emission lines in the most important rest-frame bands.
data in the literature is ∼0.1 dex and could be the result of diﬀer-

Not above the MS at z ~ 5: clear contrast to luminous quasars→ Almost “on” or “slightly below” the MS@z=5→ Interesting targets to study primordial co-evolution?

Early co-evolution for low-luminosity QSOs
FWHM
(km/s)

Vcirc(km/s)

Size(“, PA), (kpc)

inclination
(°)

Mdyn
(1010 Msun)

MBH(108 Msun)

J0859

345.9 +/- 45.1 354.7 +/- 46.2

(0.66 x 0.45, -6.0),(3.64 x 2.48)

47

4.3 +/- 0.8

1.2

J1152

192.1 +/- 45.4 173.8 +/- 41.1

(0.75 x 0.42, 66.8),(4.14 x 2.32)

56

1.1 +/- 0.3

4.3

J2216

355.6 +/- 32.8 302.1 +/- 27.9

(1.05 x 0.50, -14.7),(5.94 x 2.83)

62

4.3 +/- 0.6

1.2

J1202

335.1 +/- 24.0 296.4 +/- 21.1

(0.57 x 0.30, 64.4),(3.27 x 1.71)

58

2.4 +/- 0.2

0.43

To keep a consistency with previous works (e.g., Wang et al. 2013; Venemans et al. 2016)- Vcirc = 0.75 * FWHM / sin(i) (Ho 2007, ApJ, 669, 821)
- Disk diameter = 1.5 * deconvolved diameter- i = cos-1(amin/amaj)- MBH: Eddington limit (assumption for the lower limit → Onoue et al. in prep.)- Mdyn/Msun = 230 * (r/pc) * (Vcirc/km/s)2

MBH is unknown! (and really hard to meaure; Onoue-san’s talk)→ JWST!!!
14

The Astrophysical Journal, 816:37 (15pp), 2016 January 1

Early co-evolution for low-luminosity
Peng et al. 2006;QSOs
Shields et al. 2006
Our work•

SMBH mass (Msun)

Willott et al. (2015)

J1152

•
J0859, J2216
n

io
t
la
e
lr

J1202

a
c
o

L

Venemans et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 37
Izumi et al. in prep.

Host galaxy dynamical mass (Msun)

Figure 12. Black hole mass plotted against the dynamical mass of z6 quasar
host galaxies and the bulge mass of local galaxies. The black diamonds arevalues obtained for local galaxies (taken from Kormendy & Ho152013). The•

Merloni et al. 2010; Targett et al. 2012)(believeyour) hole–b
redshift
evolution
of M
theBH
black
MBH Mbulge = (MBH Mbulge )z = 0 ´ (1 +In etstark
contrast
to themostal. 2006;
Merloniet al.
2010; Bennet al. 2012), then weﬁnd for(e.g.,
the z6
massive/luminous
quasarsβ=0.7 and a median of β=0.5, again
SDSS),
low-luminosity quasars
literature.
lie close
to investigatedthe local relation!
We alsothe MBH–σ reladispersion σevolution?
from the→velocity(quasi-)synchronizedlog (vcirc ) = (0.84 0.09) log (s ) + (0.5
Demonstrate
the importanceese 2002). However,it remainsofunclea
betweenlow-luminosity
vcirc and σ can quasars
be applied
probingto her(2013) argue that the tight correlation be
reduceselection
biasgalaxies(e.g.,
might thebe valid
only forthat cLauer
et al.is2007)(whichunknown in these quasar hoz6 data points are on average ab
I support
ideatothat
relation, an
similarthe previouslypoints in Figure
dispersion
by simply
detected
quasars
are converting
indeed the FW[C II] tolinemassive-end
to a σ (σ=FWHM/(2 2biasedquasar hosts are smaller than those comppoints are even further away from the l
Finally, we can estimate in which dFigure 12 are moving with cosmic time.
question whether, over time, the SFRs
quasar hosts will move the host galax
Mbulge relation. From the bolometric lu

?
n
i
a

h
t
pa

m
e

h
t
e

b
y
a

M

?
16

©NASA, A. Felld (STScI)Note: Nearby Overmassive SMBH…?
NGC 1277
8 kpc~60% Mbulge~10% Mbulge• Do we really need to believe that, ALLgalaxies finally converge to the coevolutionary relations…??

17

Summary••

ALMA follow-up of HSC-detected low-luminosity quasars at z > 6.

•

SHELLQs quasars basically have LIRG-like FIR properties in their hosts.
- LFIR, L[CII], Mdust- Level of [CII] deficit- Likely to be on/below a MS at z ~ 6- No companion within Rproj < 75 kpc…?

•

These are clear contrasts to those of the previously discovered quasar-hosts(~ULIRG/SMG)•

Low-luminosity quasars lie roughly on the local MBH-Mdyn (Mbulge) relation!
- Less-biased, low-mass SMBHs will synchronically evolve with their hosts?
- This would be the reference for galaxy evolution

FIR properties of the hosts are being studied.
- Cold dust mass, dynamical mass, (and will gas mass?)

18