4.7 Article

C IV LINE-WIDTH ANOMALIES: THE PERILS OF LOW SIGNAL-TO-NOISE SPECTRA

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 775, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/60

关键词

galaxies: active; galaxies: nuclei; quasars: emission lines

资金

  1. People Programme (Marie Curie Actions) of the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme under REA grant [300553]
  2. Space Telescope Science Institute
  3. NASA [NAS5-26555]
  4. NSF [AST-1009756, AST-1008882, AST-9987045]
  5. Danish National Research Foundation
  6. NSF Telescope System Instrumentation Program (TSIP)
  7. Ohio Board of Regents
  8. Ohio State University Office of Research
  9. [HST-AR-12149]
  10. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  11. Division Of Astronomical Sciences [1009756, 1008882] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Comparison of six high-redshift quasar spectra obtained with the Large Binocular Telescope with previous observations from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey shows that failure to correctly identify absorption and other problems with accurate characterization of the C IV lambda 1549 emission line profile in low signal-to-noise (S/N) data can severely limit the reliability of single-epoch mass estimates based on the C IV emission line. We combine the analysis of these new high-quality data with a reanalysis of three other samples based on high-S/N spectra of the C IV emission line region. We find that a large scatter between the H beta- and C IV-based masses remains even for this high-S/N sample when using the FWHM to characterize the broad-line region velocity dispersion and the standard virial assumption to calculate the mass. However, we demonstrate that using high-quality data and the line dispersion to characterize the C IV line width leads to a high level of consistency between C IV- and H beta-based masses, with <0.3 dex of observed scatter and an estimated similar to 0.2 dex intrinsic scatter, in the mass residuals.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据