Paper detail

Biases in the Quasar Mass-Luminosity Plane

We find that the recently reported departure from the Eddington luminosity limit for the highest quasar black hole masses at a given redshift is an artifact due to biases in black hole mass measurements. This sub-Eddington boundary (with non-unity slope) in the quasar mass-luminosity plane was initially reported by Steinhardt & Elvis (2010a) using the FWHM-based black hole mass catalogue of Shen et al. (2008). However, the significance of the boundary is reduced when the FWHM-based mass-scaling relationship is recalibrated following Wang et al. (2009) and using the most updated reverberation mapping estimates of black hole masses. Furthermore, this boundary is not seen using mass estimates based on the line dispersion of the same quasars' MgII emission lines. Thus, the initial report of a sub-Eddington boundary with non-unity slope was due to biases in estimating masses using the FWHM of a fit of one or two Gaussians to quasar MgII emission lines. We provide evidence that using the line dispersion of the MgII line produces less biased black hole mass estimates.

preprint2011arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.