Paper detail

Do Anomalous Narrow Line Quasars Cast Doubt on Virial Mass Estimation?

Anomalous Narrow-Line Quasars (ANLs) are a population of quasars with narrow Hβ, and sometimes [O III] broader than ~1000 km/s, in total comprising \sim 10-30% (most likely ~25%) of Type I quasars at 0.2 < z < 0.8. We find that virial masses using the Hβand Mg II lines systematically differ for ANLs by an average of as much as 0.5 dex. Because the broad Hβcomponent width increases in ANLs but Mg II does not, we might suspect Hβ-based virial masses for ANLs are wrong but Mg II masses are correct. If this is due to an outflow reaching the lower-ionization potential Hβline, C IV masses will be similarly flawed. However, we cannot be certain of this explanation without followup work, and may be unable to identify which quasars are ANLs at z > 0.8. Therefore, it is essential that ANLs be well-understood and well-modeled in order to allow the use of virial mass estimators on large optical spectroscopic catalogs, particularly at z < 0.4 and z > 2.0 where only one broad line is available for use in mass estimation.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

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.