Paper detail

Black Hole Growth to z = 2 - I: Improved Virial Methods for Measuring M_BH and L/L_Edd

We analyze several large samples of AGN in order to establish the best tools required to study the evolution of black hole mass (M_BH) and normalized accretion rate (L/L_Edd). The data include spectra from the SDSS, 2QZ and 2SLAQ surveys at z<2, and a compilation of smaller samples with 0<z<5. We critically evaluate the usage of the MgII(2798A) and CIV(1549A) lines, and adjacent continuum bands, as estimators of M_BH and L/L_Edd, by focusing on sources where one of these lines is observed together with Hbeta. We present a new, luminosity-dependent bolometric correction for the monochromatic luminosity at 3000A, L_3000, which is lower by a factor of 1.75 than those used in previous studies. We also re-calibrate the use of L_3000 as an indicator for the size of the broad emission line region (R_BLR) and find that R_BLR is proportional to L_3000^0.62. We find that FWHM(MgII)\simeqFWHM(Hb) for all sources with FWHM(MgII)<6000 km/s. Beyond this FWHM, the MgII line width seems to saturate. The spectral region of the MgII line can thus be used to reproduce Hb-based estimates of M_BH and L/L_Edd, with negligible systematic differences and a scatter of 0.3 dex. The width of the CIV line, on the other hand, shows no correlation with either that of the Hb or the MgII lines and we could not identify the reason for this discrepancy. The scatter of M_BH(CIV), relative to M_BH(Hb) is of almost 0.5 dex. Moreover, 46% of the sources have FWHM(CIV)<FWHM(Hb), in contrast with the basic premise of the virial method, which predicts FWHM(CIV)/FWHM(Hbeta)~1.9. Thus, the CIV line cannot be used to obtain precise estimates of M_BH. We conclude by presenting the observed evolution of M_BH and L/L_Edd with cosmic epoch. The steep rise of L/L_Edd with redshift up to z~1 flattens towards the expected maximal value of L/L_Edd~1, with lower-M_BH sources showing higher values of L/L_Edd at all redshifts. [Abridged]

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 topics

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 map preview

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.