Paper detail

Super- and sub-Eddington accreting massive black holes: A comparison of slim and thin accretion discs through study of the spectral energy distribution

We employ optical and UV observations to present SEDs for two reverberation-mapped samples of super-Eddington and sub-Eddington AGN with similar luminosity distributions. The samples are fitted with accretion disc models in order to look for SED differences that depend on the Eddington ratio. The fitting takes into account measured BH mass and accretion rates, BH spin and intrinsic reddening of the sources. All objects in both groups can be fitted by thin AD models over the range 0.2-1$\,μ$m with reddening as a free parameter. The intrinsic reddening required to fit the data are relatively small, $E(B-V)\leq0.2$~mag, except for one source. Super-Eddington AGN seem to require more reddening. The distribution of $E(B-V)$ is similar to what is observed in larger AGN samples. The best fit disc models recover very well the BH mass and accretion for the two groups. However, the SEDs are very different, with super-Eddington sources requiring much more luminous far-UV continuum. The exact amount depends on the possible saturation of the UV radiation in slim discs. In particular, we derive for the super-Eddington sources a typical bolometric correction at 5100Å of 60-150 compared with a median of $\sim$20 for the sub-Eddington AGN. The measured torus luminosity relative to $λL_λ(5100Å$) are similar in both groups. The $α_{OX}$ distribution is similar too. However, we find extremely small torus covering factors for super-Eddington sources, an order of magnitude smaller than those of sub-Eddington AGN. The small differences between the groups regarding the spectral range 0.2-22$\,μ$m, and the significant differences related to the part of the SED that we cannot observed may be consistent with some slim disc models. An alternative explanation is that present day slim-disc models over-estimate the far UV luminosity of such objects by a large amount.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 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.