Is Mg II 2800 a Reliable Virial Broadening Estimator for Quasars?
Paola Marziani, Jack W. Sulentic, Ilse Plauchu-Frayn, Ascensi\'on del, Olmo

TL;DR
This study compares MgII 2800 and Hbeta lines in quasars to evaluate their reliability as virial estimators of black hole mass, highlighting MgII 2800's advantages and necessary corrections for accurate measurements.
Contribution
It provides a detailed comparison of MgII 2800 and Hbeta profiles in quasars, proposing corrections for Population B sources and demonstrating MgII 2800's reliability as a virial estimator.
Findings
MgII 2800 is ~20% narrower than Hbeta.
Uncertainty in FWHM for Population B sources due to complex profiles.
MgII 2800 shows lower centroid shifts, making it a safer virial estimator.
Abstract
[Abridged] Broad MgII 2800 and Hbeta lines have emerged as the most reliable virial estimators of black hole mass in quasars. Which is more reliable? Comparison of MgII 2800 and Hbeta profile measures in the same sources and especially FWHM measures that provide the virial broadening estimator. Identification of 680 bright Sloan Digital Sky Survey DataRelease 7 quasars with spectra showing both MgII 2800 and Hbeta lines, at redshift 0.4 < z < 0.75. The s/n of these spectra are high enough to allow binning in the "four-dimensional (4D) eigenvector 1'' optical plane and construction of high s/n composite spectra. We confirm that MgII 2800 shows a profile that is ~ 20% narrower as suggested in some previous studies. FWHM measures for Population B sources (i.e., with FWHM of Hbeta larger than 4000 km/s) are uncertain because they show complex profiles with at least two broad-line components…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
