Black Hole and Galaxy Coevolution in Moderately Luminous Active Galactic Nuclei at z~1.4 in SXDF
Kenta Setoguchi, Yoshihiro Ueda, Yoshiki Toba, Masayuki Akiyama
DDraft version January 28, 2021
Typeset using L A TEX twocolumn style in AASTeX63
Black Hole and Galaxy Coevolution in Moderately Luminous Active Galactic Nuclei at z ∼ . inSXDF Kenta Setoguchi , Yoshihiro Ueda , Yoshiki Toba ,
1, 2, 3 and Masayuki Akiyama Department of Astronomy, Kyoto University, Kitashirakawa-Oiwake-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan Academia Sinica Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 11F of Astronomy-Mathematics Building, AS/NTU, No.1, Section 4,Roosevelt Road, Taipei 10617, Taiwan Research Center for Space and Cosmic Evolution, Ehime University, 2-5 Bunkyo-cho, Matsuyama, Ehime 790-8577, Japan Astronomical Institute, Tohoku University, 6-3 Aramaki, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8578, Japan (Received June 12, 2020; Revised January 22, 2021; Accepted January 22, 2021)
ABSTRACTWe investigate the relation of black hole mass versus host stellar mass and that of mass accretion rateversus star formation rate (SFR) in moderately luminous (log L bol ∼ . − . − ), X-ray selectedbroad-line active galactic nuclei (AGNs) at z = 1 . − .
68 in the Subaru/XMM-Newton Deep Field(SXDF). The far-infrared to far-ultraviolet spectral energy distribution of 85 AGNs are reproducedwith the latest version of Code Investigating GALaxy Emission (
CIGALE ) by Yang et al. (2020) wherethe AGN clumpy torus model
SKIRTOR is implemented. Most of their hosts are confirmed to be mainsequence star forming galaxies. We find that the mean ratio of the black hole mass ( M BH ) to the totalstellar mass ( M stellar ) is log M BH /M stellar = − .
2, which is similar to the local black hole-to-bulgemass ratio. This suggests that if the host galaxies of these moderately luminous AGNs at z ∼ . Keywords:
Active galaxies (17) — Active galactic nuclei (16) — Supermassive black holes (1663) INTRODUCTIONThe evolution of supermassive black holes (SMBHs)and their host galaxies is one of outstanding questionsin astrophysics. In the local universe ( z < M BH ) and galacticclassical bulge mass ( M bulge ) has been discovered (e.g.,Magorrian et al. 1998; Marconi & Hunt 2003; H¨aring &Rix 2004; G¨ultekin et al. 2009; Kormendy & Ho 2013).This correlation indicates coevolution between SMBHsand their host galaxies (e.g., Kormendy & Ho 2013). Akey population to unveil the origin of the coevolution isAGNs at cosmic noon ( z ∼ − Corresponding author: Kenta [email protected] nosity (or mass accretion rate onto the SMBH) and thestar formation rate (SFR) of the host galaxy, which rep-resent the mass growth rates of the SMBH and galaxy,respectively (e.g., Rosario et al. 2012; Stanley et al. 2015;Yang et al. 2017; Ueda et al. 2018; Yang et al. 2019; Airdet al. 2019; Stemo et al. 2020). The relation between theSMBH mass ( M BH ) and host stellar mass ( M stellar ) hasbeen also studied for broad-line AGNs whose black holemasses were determined using the broad-line widths andcontinuum luminosities (e.g., Jahnke et al. 2009; Merloniet al. 2010; Suh et al. 2020). However, due to obser-vational difficulties, studies based on spectroscopicallymeasured M BH are still limited. It is thus importantto systematically study the relations among M BH , AGNluminosity (or its ratio to M BH , the Eddington ratio λ Edd ), M stellar , and SFR using a highly complete AGNsample at cosmic noon.The Subaru / XMM-Newton
Deep Field (SXDF;Sekiguchi et al. 2005) is one of the best-studied deepmultiwavelength survey fields. Ueda et al. (2008) pre- a r X i v : . [ a s t r o - ph . GA ] J a n Setoguchi et al. sented the X-ray source catalog from the original 7XMM-Newton pointings covering an area of 1.14 deg ,whose multiwavelength (radio, mid-IR to far-UV) prop-erties were studied by Akiyama et al. (2015). The spec-troscopic or photometric redshifts were available for allthe objects. Nobuta et al. (2012) estimated the AGNluminosity at the rest-frame 3000 ˚A( L λ ) from theoptical spectra, optical photometries, or X-ray luminosi-ties, and derived M BH and Eddington ratios of broad-line AGNs at z ∼ . α lines and continuum luminosities ( L λ ) in thespectroscopic survey data . The rich multiwavelengthphotometric datasets and the highly complete catalogof black hole masses available for broad line AGNs at z = 1 . − .
68 provide us with an ideal opportunityto study the relations among physical properties of theAGN and host galaxies at these redshifts.The structure of this paper is as follows. We describethe details of sample selection and the method of thespectral energy distribution (SED) fitting in Section 2.To better estimate the SFRs, we add FIR photomet-ric data by cross-matching with the HerMES catalog(Oliver et al. 2012). In Section 3 we perform correlationanalysis between M BH and M stellar and that betweenSFR and L bol (or λ Edd ). The results are discussed incomparison with previous works. The conclusions aresummarized in Section 4. Throughout this paper, theadopted cosmology is a flat universe with H = 70 kms − Mpc − , Ω M = 0.3, and Ω Λ = 0.7 . DATA AND ANALYSIS2.1.
Sample Selection
To investigate statistical properties of AGNs at z ∼ .
4, we selected those at z = 1 . − .
68 in theSXDF detected with XMM-Newton (Ueda et al. 2008)and identified with multiwavelength catalogs (Akiyamaet al. 2015). Among the 117 at z = 1 . − . λ L λ = 43 . . − with a me-dian of 44 . − . The Eddington ratios were calcu-lated as λ Edd = L bol / L Edd , where L bol = 5 . λ L λ (Richards et al. 2006) and L Edd = 1 . × M BH /M (cid:12) .The black hole masses and Eddington ratios rangelog M BH /M (cid:12) = 7 . ∼ . λ Edd = See Kocevski et al. (2018) for the Chandra catalog, which coversa 0.33 deg area with deeper flux limits See also Oh et al. (2019) for additional measurements of M BH atdifferent redshifts. − . ∼ .
13 (median − . Cross-match with Far-infrared Data from HerMES
Since far-infrared data are important to estimate theSFRs of the host galaxies, we added far-infrared pho-tometries obtained by the
Herschel
Multi-tiered Extra-galactic Survey (HerMES; Oliver et al. 2012) to the mul-tiwavelength SEDs in (Akiyama et al. 2015). Using theHerMES DR4 catalog in the XMM-LSS field, we per-formed nearest-neighbor matching within a search ra-dius of 20 (cid:48)(cid:48) around the optical counterparts of the X-raysources. We identified 80, 78, and 65
Herschel counter-parts at 250, 350, and 500 µ m, respectively. For non-detected sources, we assign 3 σ upper limits of 15.48,12.72, and 18.48 mJy at 250, 350, and 500 µ m, respec-tively (Oliver et al. 2012).Since Herschel/SPIRE has a large beam size (fullwidths at half maximum (FWHM) of 18.2 (cid:48)(cid:48) , 24.9 (cid:48)(cid:48) , 36.3 (cid:48)(cid:48) at 250, 350 and 500 µ m, respectively; Oliver et al. 2012),the measured FIR photometries may be contaminatedby nearby sources. To evaluate the effect, we checkedthe image at 24 µ m, the closest band to the Herschelones, utilizing the Spitzer UKIDSS Ultra Deep Survey(SpUDS) catalog and the Spitzer Wide-Area InfraredExtragalactic (SWIRE) legacy survey catalog (Lonsdaleet al. 2003, 2004). We searched for 24 µ m sources withina radius of 18.2 (cid:48)(cid:48) (i.e., the half of the FWHM at 500 µ m)around the position of the optical counterpart. We foundthat 26 out of the 116 objects have multiple counterpartsin the 24 µ m band. For these sources, we calculated the3 σ upper boundary of the FIR photometries and usedthem as the upper limits.2.3. SED Fitting with
CIGALE
We performed a multi-component SED fitting to 19photometries (or their upper limits) in the far-IR (Her-schel/SPIRE and PACS), mid-IR (Spitzer/IRAC andMIPS), near-IR (UKIDSS), optical (Subaru), and ul-traviolet (GALEX) bands for each object (see Table 1of Akiyama et al. 2015 for details except for the far-IRdata).We employed a new version of Code InvestigatingGALaxy Emission (
CIGALE ; Burgarella et al. 2005; Nollet al. 2009; Boquien et al. 2019), named
X-CIGALE (Yanget al. 2020), where a clumpy two-phase torus model,
SKIRTOR (Stalevski et al. 2016), has been implementedas an AGN template. An advantage of
CIGALE is thatre-emission from dust in the mid-IR and far-IR bandsare self-consistently calculated by considering the en-ergy balance. Following Toba et al. (2019b), we adopteda star formation history (SFH) of two exponentially-decreasing star formation rates (SFRs) with different lack Hole and Galaxy Coevolution at z ∼ . in SXDF S ( m J y ) Stellar attenuatedStellar unattenuatedNebular emissionDust emissionAGN emissionModel spectrumModel fluxesObserved fluxesObserved upper limits Observed ( m)101 R e l a t i v e r e s i d u a l (Obs-Mod)/Obs Best model for SXDS0225 (z=1.65, reduced ²=1.1) S ( m J y ) Stellar attenuatedStellar unattenuatedNebular emissionDust emissionAGN emissionModel spectrumModel fluxesObserved fluxesObserved upper limits Observed ( m)101 R e l a t i v e r e s i d u a l (Obs-Mod)/Obs Best model for SXDS0717 (z=1.28, reduced ²=2.9)
Figure 1.
Examples of the SED fitting for our objects with CIGALE. SXDS0225 (left) and SXDS0717 (right) are a quasarand a Seyfert, respectively. The black solid lines display the best-fit SEDs. e-folding times: the main stellar population ( τ main )and the late starburst one ( τ burst ). We chose the sin-gle stellar population (SSP) model (Bruzual & Charlot2003), assuming a Chabrier initial mass function (IMF;Chabrier 2003). The nebular emission model is basedon Inoue (2011), for which we used the default tem-plate and parameters. Dust attenuation was taken intoaccount with the law of Calzetti et al. (2000), param-eterized by the color excess ( E ( B − V ) ∗ ). The repro-cessed IR emission of dust absorbed from UV/opticalstellar emission is modeled by using dust templates pro-vided by Dale et al. (2014). For AGN emission, we uti-lized the SKIRTOR model that has 7 parameters: torusoptical depth at 9.7 µ m ( τ . ), torus density radial pa-rameter ( p ), torus density angular parameter ( q ), anglebetween the equatorial plane and edge of the torus (∆),ratio of the maximum to minimum radii of the torus( R max /R min ), the viewing angle ( θ ), and the AGN frac-tion in total IR luminosity ( f AGN ). In order to avoida degeneracy of AGN templates in the same manner asYang et al. (2020), we fixed R max /R min , ∆, and θ thatare optimized for type 1 AGNs. Table 1 summarizes thefree parameters in the SED model. We note that CIGALE can handle the upper limits of photometries to performBayesian estimation, utilizing the method by Sawicki(2012) (see Section 4.3 in Boquien et al. 2019, for moredetail).We found that
X-CIGALE adequately reproduced theSEDs from far-IR (500 µ m) to far-UV (1500 ˚A) in a ma-jority of objects; among the 116 objects, 92 had reduced- χ < .
0. As a sanity check, we compared the AGNluminosity obtained from
X-CIGALE and L bol estimatedby Nobuta et al. (2012). It is found that 7 out of the 92objects show significantly smaller AGN luminosities in X-CIGALE . Detailed inspection suggests that these 7 ob-jects are likely weakly-absorbed AGNs, whose SEDs can-
Table 1.
Free Parameters used for the SED fitting of ourobjects with
CIGALE .Parameter ValueDouble exp. SFH τ main [Myr] 1000, 3000, 4000, 8000 τ burst [Myr] 3, 8, 80 f burst E ( B − V ) ∗ α dust ) 0.0625, 1.0000, 1.5000, 2.0000,2.5000, 3.0000, 4.0000AGN emission (Stalevski et al. 2016) τ .
3, 7 p q ◦ R max /R min θ ◦ f AGN not be well reproduced with the current AGN templatein
X-CIGALE . We thus excluded them from the sampleand used the remaining 85 objects in the following anal-ysis. Examples of our SED fitting for two objects areshown in Figure 1.To check if their physical properties are reliably esti-mated given the uncertainties of the photometries, we
Setoguchi et al. l og S F R ( M s un / y r) log M stellar (M sun ) Quasar (log λ Edd >-1)Seyfert (log λ Edd >-1)Quasar (log λ Edd <-1)Seyfert (log λ Edd <-1)MS at z=1.18MS at z=1.4MS at z=1.68
Figure 2. M stellar vs. SFR of our objects. The black solid line represents the main sequence relation at z = 1 . L bol /L (cid:12) >
12) with log λ Edd > −
1. The large red triangles: Seyferts(log L bol /L (cid:12) <
12) with log λ Edd > −
1. The cyan inverse triangles: quasars with log λ Edd < −
1. The magenta inverse triangles:Seyferts with log λ Edd < − performed a mock analysis implemented on X-CIGALE .It enables us to compare the parameters estimated by
X-CIGALE using the real catalog with those from themock catalog, which
X-CIGALE produces from the best-fit SED and photometric errors for each object (see e.g.,Boquien et al. 2019; Yang et al. 2020; Toba et al. 2020cfor more detail). We confirmed that our M stellar andSFR values adequately agree with those obtained fromthe mock catalog within the errors. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS3.1.
Results of the SED with
CIGALE
In this paper, we focus on the SFR and the total stel-lar mass (including those of the bulge ( M bulge ) and thegalactic disk) of the host galaxies derived from our SEDfitting. We then compare them with the AGN param-eters, L bol , M BH , and λ Edd . For convenience, we di-vide our sample into four groups by the bolometric lu-minosity and Eddington ratio, and use different sym-bols commonly in all plots. We refer to those withlog L bol /L (cid:12) >
12 and log L bol /L (cid:12) <
12 as quasars and Seyferts, respectively, and those with log λ Edd > − λ Edd < − Stellar Mass and SFR
Figure 2 displays the relation between M stellar andSFR of our sample. The stellar masses and SFRs of oursample range from log M stellar /M (cid:12) = 9.3 to 12.0 (me-dian 10.6) and from log SFR / ( M (cid:12) yr − ) = 0.4 to 2.9(median 1.4), respectively. The black solid line repre-sents the main sequence (MS) relation at z = 1 . > Stellar Mass versus Black Hole Mass
Figure 3 plots the relation between M stellar and M BH .We perform a correlation analysis with the method lack Hole and Galaxy Coevolution at z ∼ . in SXDF l og M B H ( M s un ) log M stellar (M sun ) Quasar (log λ Edd >-1)Seyfert (log λ Edd >-1)Quasar (log λ Edd <-1)Seyfert (log λ Edd <-1)Kormendy and Ho (2013)
Figure 3.
Relation between M stellar and M BH . The symbols are the same as in Figure 2. The black solid line reporesents thelocal BH-to-bulge mass ratio from Kormendy & Ho (2013). of Kelly (2007) where the errors in the two parame-ters are taken into account (see also Toba et al. 2019afor an application to a large number of X-ray selectedtype 1 AGNs). It yields a correlation coefficient of r = − . ± . M BH in oursample. A mean M BH /M stellar ratio is calculated to be − . σ scatter of 0.69. The black solid line rep-resents the local M BH versus M bulge relation for classicalbulges determined by Kormendy & Ho (2013). On av-erage, our sample has M BH /M stellar ratios similar to thelocal M BH /M bulge relation. Since M stellar ≥ M bulge , the M BH − M bulge relation for disk dominant galaxies is dif-ferent from the local one in the sense that black holesare overmassive.Our result on the M BH /M stellar ratio at 1 . < z < .
68 is consistent with that reported by Merloni et al.(2010) for type-1 AGNs with similar bolometric lumi-nosities at 1 < z < . M stellar from a Salpeter IMF to a ChabrierIMF by –0.255 dex). Although Merloni et al. (2010)argued that the M BH /M stellar ratio evolves with (1 + z ) . ± . (for a Chabrier IMF) compared with the lo- cal M BH /M bulge relation by H¨aring & Rix (2004), therecent upward correction by Kormendy & Ho (2013) inthe local M BH /M bulge ratio by ∼ z = 0 to z ∼ .
4. More recently, how-ever, Suh et al. (2020) obtained a significantly lower ra-tio (log M BH /M stellar ≈ − .
7) than our result for AGNsat similar redshifts detected in the Chandra COSMOSLegacy Survey, adopting a Chabrier IMF (i.e., the sameas our IMF). Their mean M stellar value is ∼ ∼ z ∼ . M BH - M bulge relation andthat (2) those with disk dominant galaxies have over-massive SMBHs relative to the bulge stellar masses. Setoguchi et al. l og Lbo l ( e r g / s ) log SFR (M sun /yr) Quasar(log λ Edd >-1)Seyfert(log λ Edd >-1)Quasar(log λ Edd <-1)Seyfert(log λ Edd <-1)A=200A=400 (a) -2-1 0 0 1 2 3 l og λ E dd log SFR (M sun /yr) Quasar (log λ Edd >-1)Seyfert (log λ Edd >-1)Quasar (log λ Edd <-1)Seyfert (log λ Edd <-1) (b)
Figure 4.
Relations between (a) SFR and L bol and (b) SFR and λ Edd . The symbols are the same as in Figure 2. The blacksolid and dashed lines in (a) corresponds to equation (1) with A = 200 and A = 400, respectively. This implies that, in the disk dominant galaxies, laterstar formation in the bulge at z (cid:46) . z (cid:46) . SFR versus Black Hole Accretion Rate andEddington ratio
Figure 4 (a) shows the relation between SFR and L bol ,which represent the time derivatives of M stellar and M BH at the observed epoch. We obtain a correlation coeffi-cient of r = 0 . ± . ∼ . σ ) in the L bol -to-SFR ratio suggests that SMBH growth and to-tal galactic star formation (including that in disks) arenot exactly simultaneous, confirming previous results atsimilar redshifts (Yamada et al. 2009; Ueda et al. 2018).The black solid and dashed lines correspond to the local M BH -vs- M bulge and M BH -vs- M stellar relations, respec-tively, that would be expected from exactly simultane-ous evolution of SMBHs and their host galaxies. Theyare given as SFR ∗ (1 − R ) = A × L bol /ηc , (1) where R = 0 .
41 (for a Chabrier IMF) is the returnfraction, A the local star-to-SMBH mass ratio ( A = M bulge /M BH = 200 or A = M stellar /M BH = 400), η = 0 . c the light speed(see Ueda et al. 2018). Our sample is distributed aroundthese lines.Yang et al. (2017) show that the mean ratio of host-galaxy SFR to AGN luminosity increases with redshift(see also e.g., Stemo et al. 2020 for similar results). Gen-erally, a flux-limited sample obtained from a single sur-vey contains more luminous AGNs at higher redshifts.Then, even if there were no intrinsic correlation at agiven redshift, the redshift dependence on the SFR to L bol ratio could drive an apparent correlation betweenSFR and L bol based on a sample that covers a wide red-shift range. Thanks to the narrow redshift range of oursample ( z = 1 . − . L bol -to-SFR ratio. Yang et al. (2017) and Stemo etal. (2020) also report that the correlation between SFRand mass accretion rate ( L bol ) comes from that between M stellar and L bol and the main sequence M stellar -SFRrelation. However, we obtain a correlation coefficientbetween M stellar and L bol of r = − . ± .
142 (no sig-nificant correlation), suggesting that the SFR- L bol cor-relation is a primary one.We note that this result is subject to selection bi-ases toward luminous AGNs, similarly to the case of M stellar -vs- M BH relation. In fact, deeper Chandra sur-veys detected a dominant AGN population whose massaccretion rate-to-SFR ratios are smaller than the lo-cal relation (e.g., Yang et al. 2017, Ueda et al. 2018).The large scatter would be explained by time variabilityof AGN activities (Hickox et al. 2014) and/or non co- lack Hole and Galaxy Coevolution at z ∼ . in SXDF . < z < . λ Edd in Figure 4(b). We obtain a correlation efficient of r = 0 . ± . L bol , asexpected from a narrow range of M BH (Figure 4). Toour knowledge, this is the first report of such correlationbased on direct measurements of M BH for z ∼ . z < . M BH and M stellar as shown in Figure 3.We investigate if the observed correlation betweenSFR and λ Edd arises from that between SFR and L bol given the small M BH range. Following Zhuang & Ho(2020), we divide our sample by L bol into two groups,quasars and Seyferts. The correlation coefficients be-tween SFR and λ Edd are found to be r = 0 . ± . r = 0 . ± .
179 (Seyferts). Alter-natively, when we divide the sample by λ Edd , we ob-tain correlation coefficients between SFR and L bol of r = 0 . ± .
167 and r = 0 . ± .
115 for high andlow Eddington rate AGNs, respectively. The more sig-nificant correlations between SFR and L bol than thosebetween SFR and λ Edd suggest that L bol is likely tobe the primary parameter. Zhuang & Ho (2020) havereached a similar conclusion for z < .
35 AGNs.3.5.
Evolution of Black Hole-to-Stellar Mass Ratio
The SMBH-to-stellar mass ratio gives us a hint onthe evolutionary scenario of our sample, in particu-lar, whether the SMBHs grew earlier or later than thegalaxies. Figure 5 (a) and (b) plot the mass ratioagainst L bol and SFR, respectively. We obtain a cor-relation efficient between L bol and M BH /M stellar of r =0 . ± .
138 and that between SFR and M BH /M stellar of r = − . ± . L bol ratio, we would see no dependence either on L bol or SFR.The weak correlation between the AGN luminosity andthe SMBH-to-stellar mass ratio prefers an evolutionaryscenario that star formation precedes SMBH growth (asproposed by e.g., Ueda et al. 2018) in the moderatelyluminous AGN phase; if the opposite were the case (i.e.,SMBH growth precedes star formation), we would find a negative correlation between L bol and M BH /M stellar in-stead. The reason why the correlation between SFR and M BH /M stellar is unseen may be explained by the pres-ence of the luminous quasars that show small SFR to L bol ratios in the final stage of black-hole mass growth.Our scenario predicts that the ratio of the black holemass accretion rate to SFR increases with time duringthe moderately luminous AGN phase and hence shouldcorrelate with the SMBH-to-steller mass ratio. Figure 5(c) plots M BH /M stellar against L bol /SFR. They show aweak positive correlation ( r = 0 . ± . CONCLUSIONWe have applied the
X-CIGALE code (Yang et al. 2020)to the far IR to far UV SED of moderately luminous(log L bol ∼ . − . z = 1 . − .
68 in the SXDF. The main conclusionsare summarized as follows. • The mean ratio of the black hole mass to the totalstellar mass for a Chabrier IMF (including thatin the bulge and disk) is found to be –2.2, whichis similar to the local SMBH-to-bulge mass ratio.This suggests that if the host galaxies of thesemoderately luminous AGNs at z ∼ . • We find a good correlation between the SFR andAGN bolometric luminosities and Eddington ratio,even if our results are subject to AGN time vari-ability and contamination from SFR in the galac-tic disk. This supports the co-evolution scenarioin these moderately luminous AGNs at z ∼ . X-CIGALE code. This work was financially supportedby the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research 20H01946(Y.U.), 18J01050, and 19K14759 (Y.T.).
Setoguchi et al. -4-3-2-1 0 44 45 46 l og M B H / M s t e ll a r log Lbol (erg/s) Quasar (log λ Edd >-1)Seyfert (log λ Edd >-1)Quasar (log λ Edd <-1)Seyfert (log λ Edd <-1) (a) -4-3-2-1 0 0 1 2 3 l og M B H / M s t e ll a r log SFR (M sun /yr) Quasar (log λ Edd >-1)Seyfert (log λ Edd >-1)Quasar (log λ Edd <-1)Seyfert (log λ Edd <-1) (b) -4-3-2-1 0 43 44 45 46 l og M B H / M s t e ll a r log L bol /SFR Quasar (log λ Edd >-1)Seyfert (log λ Edd >-1)Quasar (log λ Edd <-1)Seyfert (log λ Edd <-1) (c)
Figure 5. M BH /M stellar plotted against (a) L bol , (b) SFR, and (c) L bol /SFR. The symbols are the same as in Figure 2. REFERENCES
Aird, J., Coil, A. L., Georgakakis, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS,451, 1892Aird, J., Coil, A. L., Georgakakis, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS,484, 4360Akiyama, M., Ueda, Y., Watson, M. G., et al. 2015, PASJ,67, 82Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y., et al. 2019, A&A,622, A103Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000Burgarella, D., Buat, V., & Iglesias-P´aramo, J., et al. 2005,MNRAS, 360, 1413Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ,533, 682Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763Dale, D. A., Helou, G., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784 Fritz, J., Franceschini, A., & Hatziminaoglou, E. 2006,MNRAS, 366, 767G¨ultekin, K., Richstone, D. O., Gebhardt, K., et al. 2009,ApJ, 698, 198H¨aring N., & Rix, H.-W. 2004, ApJL, 604, L89Hickox, R. C., Mullaney, J. R., Alexander, D. M., et al.2014, ApJ, 782, 9Inoue, A. K. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 2920Izumi, T., Onoue, M., Matsuoka, Y., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71,111Jahnke, K., Bongiorno, A., Brusa, M., et al. 2009, ApJL,706, L215Kelly, B. C., 2007, ApJ, 665, 1489Kocevski, D. D., Hasinger, G., Brightman, M., et al. 2018,ApJS, 236, 48 lack Hole and Galaxy Coevolution at z ∼ . in SXDF9