Paper detail

The Quasar Mass-Luminosity Plane III: Smaller Errors on Virial Mass Estimates

We use 62185 quasars from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) DR5 sample to explore the quasar mass-luminosity plane view of virial mass estimation. Previous work shows deviations of ~0.4 dex between virial and reverberation masses. The decline in quasar number density for the highest Eddington ratio quasars at each redshift provides an upper bound of between 0.13 and 0.29 dex for virial mass estimate statistical uncertainties. Across different redshift bins, the maximum possible MgII mass uncertainties average 0.15 dex, while Hβ uncertainties average 0.21 dex and CIV uncertainties average 0.27 dex. Any physical spread near the high-Eddington-ratio boundary will produce a more restrictive bound. A comparison of the sub-Eddington boundary slope using Hβ and MgII masses finds better agreement with uncorrected MgII masses than with recently proposed corrections. The best agreement for these bright objects is produced by a multiplicative correction by a factor of 1.19, smaller than the factor of 1.8 previously reported as producing the best agreement for the entire SDSS sample.

preprint2010arXivOpen 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.