Paper detail

Do quasar broad-line velocity widths add any information to virial black hole mass estimates?

We examine how much information measured broad-line widths add to virial BH mass estimates for flux limited samples of quasars. We do this by comparing the BH mass estimates to those derived by randomly reassigning the quasar broad-line widths to different objects and re-calculating the BH mass. For 9000 BH masses derived from the H_beta line we find that the distributions of original and randomized BH masses in the M_BH-redshift plane and the M_BH-luminosity plane are formally identical. A 2D KS test does not find a difference at >90% confidence. For the MgII line (32000 quasars) we do find very significant differences between the randomized and original BH masses, but the amplitude of the difference is still small. The difference for the CIV line (14000 quasars) is 2-3sigma and again the amplitude of the difference is small. Subdividing the data into redshift and luminosity bins we find that the median absolute difference in BH mass between the original and randomized data is 0.025, 0.01 and 0.04 dex for H_beta, MgII and CIV respectively. The maximum absolute difference is always <=0.1 dex. We investigate whether our results are sensitive to corrections to MgII virial masses (e.g. Onken & Kollmeier 2008). These corrections do not influence our results. Moreover, the mass residual - Eddington ratio correlation discussed by Onken & Kollmeier is more directly attributable to the slope of the relation between H_beta and MgII line width. Our results imply that the measured quasar broad-line velocity widths provide little extra information, after allowing for the mean velocity width. In this case virial estimates are equivalent to M_BH L^alpha, with L/L_edd L^(1-alpha) (with alpha~0.5). This leaves an unanswered question of why the accretion efficiency changes with luminosity in just the right way to keep the mean broad-line widths fixed as a function of luminosity. (abridged)

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 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.