Biases in Virial Black Hole Masses: An SDSS Perspective

TL;DR

This study analyzes virial black hole mass estimates for approximately 60,000 SDSS quasars, revealing biases, line width distributions, and mass limits across redshifts, with implications for understanding quasar evolution.

Contribution

It provides a comprehensive comparison of virial mass estimators, identifies biases in the extCIV estimator, and discusses the impact of selection effects on mass and Eddington ratio distributions.

Findings

Line widths follow log-normal distributions independent of luminosity and redshift.

extMgII- and extHbeta-estimated masses are consistent.

extCIV estimator may be biased by disk winds, affecting mass estimates.

Abstract

We compile black hole (BH) masses for $\sim 60,000$ quasars in the redshift range $0.1 \lesssim z \lesssim 4.5$ included in the Fifth Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), using virial BH mass estimators based on the \hbeta, \MgII, and \CIV emission lines. We find that: (1) within our sample, the widths of the three lines follow log-normal distributions, with means and dispersions that do not depend strongly on luminosity or redshift;(2) the \MgII- and \hbeta-estimated BH masses are consistent with one another; and (3) the \CIV BH mass estimator may be more severely affected by a disk wind component than the \MgII and \hbeta estimators, giving a positive bias in mass correlated with the \CIV-\MgII blueshift. Most SDSS quasars have virial BH masses in the range $10^8-10^9 M_\odot$. There is a clear upper mass limit of $\sim 10^{10} M_\odot$ for active BHs at $z \gtrsim 2$, decreasing at lower redshifts. Making the reasonable assumptions that the underlying BH mass distribution decreases with mass and that the Eddington ratio distribution at fixed BH mass has non-zero width, we show that the measured virial BH mass distribution and Eddington ratio distribution are subject to Malmquist bias. A radio quasar subsample (with $1.5\lesssim z\lesssim 2.3$) has mean virial BH mass larger by $\sim 0.12$ dex than the whole sample. A broad absorption line (BAL) quasar subsample (with $1.7\lesssim z\lesssim 2.2$) has identical virial mass distribution as the nonBAL sample, with no mean offset. (Abridged)