1: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: %\usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{color}
5: %\received{......}
6: \newcommand{\msol}{M$_\odot$}
7: \newcommand{\kms}{km~s$^{-1}$}
8: \newcommand{\lsim}{{\, \lower2truept\hbox{
9: ${< \atop\hbox{\raise4truept\hbox{$\sim$}}}$}\,}}
10: \newcommand{\gsim}{{\, \lower2truept\hbox{
11: ${> \atop\hbox{\raise4truept\hbox{$\sim$}}}$}\,}}
12: %\newcommand{\vr}{$v_{\rm r}$}
13: %\newcommand{\cm2}{cm$^{-2}$\/}
14: \newcommand{\feiiq}{\rm Fe{\sc ii }$\lambda$4570\/}
15: \newcommand{\feiiopt}{{Fe \sc{ii}}$_{\rm opt}$\/}
16: \newcommand{\feiir}{\rm Fe{\sc ii }$\lambda$5250\/}
17: \def\cmq{cm$^{-2}$\/}
18: \def\l{$\lambda$}
19: \def\vr{$v_{\mathrm r}$}
20: \def\lm{$L_{\rm bol}/M_{\rm BH}$}
21: \def\lbol{$L_{\rm bol}$\/}
22: \def\lledd{$L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$}
23: \def\ne{$n_{\rm e}$\/}
24: \def\nc{$N_{\rm c}$\/}
25: \def\nh{$N_{\rm H}$\/}
26: \def\rfe{$R_{\rm FeII}$}
27: \def\REF{\par\noindent\hangindent 20pt}
28: \def\msol{M$_\odot$\/}
29: \def\msoly{M$_\odot~\rm yr^{-1}$}
30: \def\rg{$R_{\rm g}$\/}
31: \def\md{$\dot{m}$}
32: \def\ltsima{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}
33: \def\simlt{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}} % < over MMM
34: \def\gtsima{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}
35: \def\ai{A.I.($\frac{1}{4}$)\/}
36: \def\simgt{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}} % > over MMM
37: \def\bv{{\bf $\bigvee$}\/} \def\h{$h^{-1}$}
38: \def\a{$\alpha$}
39: \def\hiha{{\sc Hi~H}$\alpha$\/}
40: \def\Ka{{\sc K}$\alpha$\/}
41: \def\feka{{\sc Fe~K}$\alpha$\/}
42: \def\ha{{\sc H}$\alpha$}
43: \def\lya{{ Ly}$\alpha$}
44: \def\civ{{\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/}
45: \def\civnc{{\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549$_{\rm NC}$\/}
46: \def\civbc{{\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549$_{\rm BC}$\/}
47: \def\cmt{cm$^{-2}$\/}
48: \def\cm3{cm$^{-3}$\/}
49: \def\hb{{\sc{H}}$\beta$\/}
50: \def\hg{{\sc{H}}$\gamma$\/}
51: \def\hbbc{{\sc{H}}$\beta_{\rm BC}$\/}
52: \def\hbvbc{{\sc{H}}$\beta_{\rm VBC}$\/}
53: \def\habc{{\sc{H}}$\alpha_{\rm BC}$\/}
54: \def\hbnc{{\sc{H}}$\beta_{\rm NC}$\/}
55: \def\hgnc{{\sc{H}}$\gamma_{\rm NC}$\/}
56: \def\hanc{{\sc{H}}$\alpha_{\rm NC}$\/}
57: \def\mgii{{Mg\sc{ii}}$\lambda$2800\/}
58: \def\niv{{\sc{Niv]}}$\lambda$1486\/}
59: \def\ciii{{\sc{Ciii]}}$\lambda$1909\/}
60: \def\oiiiopt{{\sc{[Oiii]}}$\lambda\lambda$4959,5007\/}
61: \def\o4363{{\sc{[Oiii]}}$\lambda$4363\/}
62: \def\oiiiuv{{\sc{Oiii]}}$\lambda$1663\/}
63: \def\siiii{{Si}{\sc iii}]$\lambda$1892\/}
64: \def\heiiuv{{\sc{Heii}}$\lambda$1640}
65: \def\aliii{{Al}{\sc iii}$\lambda$1808\/}
66: \def\nv{{\sc Nv}$\lambda$1240\/}
67: \def\heiiuvnc{{\sc{Heii}}$\lambda$1640$_{\rm NC}$\/}
68: \def\feiiuv{{{Fe\sc{ii}}}$_{\rm UV}$\/}
69: \def\feiiopt{{Fe\sc{ii}}$_{\rm opt}$\/}
70: \def\feii{{Fe\sc{ii}}\/}
71: \def\fe{{\sc{Fe}}\/}
72: \def\dvr{{$\Delta v_{\mathrm r}$}}
73: \def\fevii6087{{\sc [Fe vii]}$\lambda$6087\/}
74: \def\oiii{{\sc [Oiii]}$\lambda$5007}
75: \def\oii{{\sc [Oii]}$\lambda$3727}
76: \def\b{$\beta$}
77: \def\kms{km~s$^{-1}$}
78: \def\ergss{ergs s$^{-1}$\/}
79: \def\mbh{$M_{\rm BH}$\/}
80: \def\gs{$\Gamma_{\rm soft}$\/}
81: \def\mb{$ M_{\rm B}$}
82: \def\hii{H{\sc ii}\/}
83: \def\hi{H{\sc i}\/}
84: \def\rk{{$R{\rm _K}$}\/}
85: \def\heii{{{\sc H}e{\sc ii}}$\lambda$4686\/}
86: \def\hei{{{\sc H}e{\sc i}}\/}
87: \def\rb{$r_{\rm BLR}$\/}
88: \def\rs{$r_{\rm SF}$\/}
89: \def\ledd{$L_{\rm Edd}$\/}
90: \def\ab{$A_{\mathrm B}$\/}
91: \begin{document}
92:
93: \title{\civ\ as an Eigenvector 1 Parameter for Active Galactic Nuclei}
94: \slugcomment{ } \shorttitle{\civ\ in AGN} \shortauthors{Sulentic
95: et al. }
96: \author{
97: Jack W. Sulentic\altaffilmark{1}, Rumen Bachev\altaffilmark{1},
98: Paola Marziani\altaffilmark{2}, \\ C. Alenka
99: Negrete\altaffilmark{3}, Deborah Dultzin\altaffilmark{3} }
100:
101: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University
102: of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA; giacomo@merlot.astr.ua.edu
103: }
104:
105: \altaffiltext{2}{INAF, Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, Vicolo
106: dell'Osservatorio 5, I-35122 Padova, Italy;
107: paola.marziani@oapd.inaf.it}
108:
109:
110: \altaffiltext{3}{Instituto de Astronom\'\i a, Universidad Nacional
111: Autonoma de M\'exico (UNAM), Apdo. Postal 70-264, 04510 Mexico
112: D.F., Mexico; deborah@astroscu.unam.mx}
113:
114:
115:
116:
117: \begin{abstract}
118:
119: We have been exploring a spectroscopic unification for all known
120: types of broad line emitting AGN. The 4D Eigenvector 1 (4DE1)
121: parameter space shows promise as a unification capable of
122: organizing quasar diversity on a sequence primarily governed by
123: Eddington ratio. This paper considers the role of \civ\ measures
124: with special emphasis on the \civ\ line shift as a principal 4DE1
125: diagnostic. We use HST archival spectra for 130 sources with
126: $S/N$\ high enough to permit reliable \civ\ broad component
127: measures. We find a \civbc\ profile blueshift that is strongly
128: concentrated among (largely radio-quiet: RQ) sources with
129: FWHM(\hbbc) $\la$ 4000 \kms\ (which we call Population A). Narrow
130: line Seyfert 1 (NLSy1, with FWHM \hb\ $\leq$ 2000 \kms) sources
131: belong to this population but do not emerge as a distinct class.
132: The systematic blueshift, widely interpreted as arising in a disk
133: wind/outflow, is not observed in broader line AGN (including most
134: radio-loud (RL) sources but also $\sim$ 25 \%\ of RQ) which we
135: call Population B. We find new correlations between FWHM(\civbc)
136: and \civ\ line shift as well as the equivalent width of \civ. They
137: are seen only in Pop. A sources. Broader-lined sources show
138: random scatter. \civ\ measures enhance the apparent dichotomy
139: between sources with FWHM(\hbbc){ \em less and greater than }\
140: 4000 \kms\ \citep{sulenticetal00a} suggesting that it has more
141: significance in the context of Broad Line Region structure than
142: the more commonly discussed RL vs. RQ dichotomy. Black hole
143: masses computed from FWHM \civbc\ for about 80 AGN indicate that
144: the \civ\ width is a poor virial estimator. Comparison of mass
145: estimates derived from \hbbc\ and \civ\ reveals that the latter
146: show different and nonlinear offsets for population A and B
147: sources. A significant number of sources also show narrow line
148: \civ\ emission that must be removed before \civbc\ measures can be
149: made and interpreted effectively. We present a recipe for \civ\
150: narrow component extraction.
151:
152:
153: \end{abstract}
154:
155: %\bf{\tt{}}
156:
157: \keywords{quasars: general, emission lines; line:
158: profiles}
159:
160: %\tableofcontents
161:
162: \section{Introduction}
163:
164: The search for a parameter space that might provide spectroscopic
165: unification for all classes of broad line emitting AGN motivated
166: the ``4D Eigenvector 1" (4DE1) concept
167: \citep{sulenticetal00a,sulenticetal00b}. Such a correlation space
168: might serve as an equivalent to the stellar H-R Diagram. Domain
169: space occupation differences and parameter correlations might then
170: provide the empirical clues from which underlying physics could be
171: inferred. At the very least it can be used to highlight important
172: differences between sources that can also drive our physical
173: understanding of the geometry, kinematics and physics of the broad
174: line emitting region (BLR). From the outset it was expected that a
175: parameter space for AGN would require more than two dimensions
176: because source orientation and ``physics'' (e.g., black hole mass
177: \mbh\ and Eddington ratio) drive AGN parameter values and
178: correlations. A suitably chosen $n$-dimensional space should help
179: to remove the degeneracy between these two drivers.
180:
181: 4DE1 has roots in the PCA analysis of the Bright Quasar Sample
182: \citep[87 sources; ][]{borosongreen92} as well as in correlations
183: that emerged from ROSAT \citep[e.g. ][]{wangetal96}. 4DE1 as we
184: define it involves BG92 measures: (1) full width half maximum of
185: broad \hb\ (FWHM \hb) and (2) equivalent width ratio of optical
186: \feii\ and broad \hb: \rfe = W(\feiiq)/W(\hbbc). We added a
187: \citet{wangetal96}-defined measure involving (3) the soft X-ray
188: photon index (\gs) and a measure of (4) \civ\ broad line profile
189: velocity displacement at half maximum ($c(\case{1}{2})$) to arrive
190: at our 4DE1 space. Other points of departure from BG92 involve our
191: comparison of RQ and RL sources as well as subordination of BG92
192: \oiii\ measures \citep[although see
193: ][]{zamanovetal02,marzianietal03a}. Finally we divide sources
194: into two AGN populations using a simple division at FWHM \hbbc\ $
195: =$4000 \kms\ with sources narrower and broader than this value
196: designated Pop. A and B respectively. It was motivated by the
197: observation that almost all RL sources show FWHM\hbbc $\ga$ 4000
198: \kms\ \citep{sulenticetal00b}. This division appears to be more
199: effective than the more traditional divisions into: (1) RQ-RL
200: sources as well as (2) NLSy1 sources defined with
201: FWHM(\hbbc)$\la$ 2000 \kms\ and broader line sources above this
202: value. Results presented in this paper strongly support the Pop.
203: A-B distinction. Exploration of possible physical drivers of
204: source occupation/correlation in 4DE1
205: \citep{marzianietal01,marzianietal03b,boroson02} suggest that it
206: is primarily driven by the luminosity to black hole mass (\mbh)
207: ratio which is proportional to the Eddington ratio (\lledd) with
208: Pop. A sources being high accreting/low \mbh\ AGN, while Pop. B
209: being low accreting/large \mbh\ AGN.
210:
211: Past 4DE1 studies focused on the optical 4DE1 plane (FWHM \hb\ vs.
212: \rfe) at low redshift because more high S/N optical spectra exist
213: than UV or X-ray measures. Complementary high-$z$\ measures of the
214: \hb\ region at IR wavelengths are ongoing
215: \citep{sulenticetal04,sulenticetal06a}. This paper focuses on an
216: expanded sample of \civ\ measures and explores their utility as
217: 4DE1 parameters. The work is supplemental to a recent paper
218: \citep{bachevetal04} that discusses data processing and analysis
219: of 123 \civ\ spectra from the HST archive. The new \civ\ sample is
220: almost twice the size of the one discussed in the defining 4DE1
221: paper \citep{sulenticetal00a}. We present (\S \ref{civ}) new 4DE1
222: correlation diagrams involving measures of the \civ\ line shift
223: and then look (\S \ref{e1}) at the implications of \civ-defined
224: source occupation for BLR structure and for the hypothesized AGN
225: Populations (A and B; \S \ref{pop}). Section \ref{nc} discusses
226: the reality of a significant narrow line \civ\ component in many
227: sources and compares our \civ\ measures with other recent studies
228: utilizing the same spectra. Section \ref{mbh} considers the
229: implications of our \civ\ results on the use of FWHM \civ\ to
230: estimate black holes masses.
231:
232: \section{\civ\ Line Measures and Correlations}
233: \label{civ}
234:
235:
236: \subsection{Sample Definition and Data Analysis}
237:
238: We searched the HST archive\footnote{Datasets covering the \civ\
239: sources listed in Table 1 can be all identified and retrieved from
240: the WWW site at URL \url{http://archive.stsci.edu/hst} and are not
241: reported here. A list with the actual datasets employed is
242: available from the authors at URL
243: \url{http://web.oapd.inaf.it/marziani}.} and found useable \civ\
244: spectra for 130 out 141 low-redshift sources. Excluded sources are
245: mostly \civ\ BAL quasars where reliable measures of the \civ\
246: emission profile are difficult. OI 363 was not included because of
247: low S/N. IRAS 13218+0552 (J132419.9+053705) was excluded because
248: it shows no broad lines that would warrant a Type 1 AGN
249: designation. We assume that our sample is large enough to
250: reasonably represent the broad emission line properties of low
251: $z$\ AGN. It is likely to be the only UV dataset of reasonable
252: quality quasar spectra in the foreseeable future. The sample
253: should be particularly valuable for RQ vs. RL comparisons because
254: the two populations are almost equally represented while in a
255: complete sample only $\approx$ 10 \% are found to be RL
256: \citep{jiangetal06,cirasuoloetal03,sulenticetal03}. A PG quasar
257: subsample was identified and includes 43 sources with 26\% RL
258: reflecting the overrepresentation of RL sources in the HST
259: archive.
260:
261: The uncertainty due to instrumental errors in wavelength
262: calibration are estimated to be $\approx 200$ \kms\
263: \citep{marzianietal96}. In order to reduce wavelength calibration
264: errors HST spectra were ``re-aligned" using expected
265: rest-wavelengths of strong low-ionization, Galactic
266: absorption-lines including \ion{Mg}{2} $\lambda$2796.35,
267: \ion{Mg}{2} $\lambda$2803.53, \ion{Fe}{2} $\lambda$2600.17,
268: \ion{Fe}{2} $\lambda$2586.65, \ion{Fe}{2} $\lambda$2382.77,
269: \ion{Fe}{2} $\lambda$2374.46, \ion{Fe}{2} $\lambda$2344.21,
270: \ion{Al}{2} $\lambda$1670.79, \ion{Si}{2} $\lambda$1526.71,
271: \ion{C}{2} $\lambda$1334.53, \ion{Si}{2} $\lambda$1260.42
272: \citep{savageetal00}. In case only one or two Galactic lines were
273: available in the spectra, any shift between expected Galactic line
274: wavelength and the wavelength measured on the spectra was double
275: checked to avoid spurious results due to low S/N. Suitable
276: Galactic lines were found for 110 sources in our sample with three
277: or more lines available for 71 sources. The average rms of the
278: residuals between measured line wavelengths after re-alignment and
279: tabulated wavelengths is $< rms
280: > \approx 40 $ \kms. This provides an estimate of the wavelength
281: calibration uncertainty (at 1$\sigma$\ confidence level) for the
282: re-aligned spectra.
283:
284: The broad component of \civ\ (\civbc) was extracted after
285: correction for contaminating lines (\niv, and especially \heiiuv
286: and \oiiiuv) and subtraction of \feiiuv\ emission (details of
287: data reduction are given in \citet{bachevetal04} and
288: \citet{marzianietal96}). The continuum underlying \civ\ was
289: estimated from nearby regions that are free of strong emission
290: lines (between the $\lambda$1400 blend and \niv\ on the blue side
291: as well as 1700 -- 1800 \AA\ on the red side). A narrow component
292: (\civnc) was subtracted from the profile when warranted. There is
293: still disagreement about the existence, frequency of occurrence
294: and strength of any \civnc. We discuss the evidence for NLR \civ\
295: and describe our \civnc\ subtraction procedure in \S \ref{nc}.
296:
297:
298: \subsection{Immediate Results}
299: \label{immres}
300:
301:
302: Fig. \ref{fig:civbc} shows individual cleaned \civbc\ profiles fit
303: with high-order spline functions to minimize effects of noise and
304: to preserve the complexity of the shape \citep[following
305: ][]{marzianietal96,marzianietal03a}. The spline fit is shown as a
306: thick line in Fig. \ref{fig:civbc} while identified narrow
307: components (that were subtracted in this analysis) are seen above
308: the spline.
309:
310: Table 1 gives an identification list of all sources shown in
311: Figure 1 along with 4DE1 optical and X-ray parameters. Table 1
312: includes: Column 1 -- IAU code identification; Col. 2 - a common
313: name for the source; Col. 3 -- available source redshift with
314: number of significant figures indicating accuracy of the
315: determination; Col. 4 -- redshift reference. Col. 5 -- an
316: asterisk indicates that the sources belongs to the
317: \citet{borosongreen92} PG sample, a ``B" indicates that the source
318: is a ``blue outlier" \citep{zamanovetal02}. Col. 6 -- Galactic
319: absorption (\ab, in magnitudes), Col. 7 -- available measures of
320: FWHM for \hb\ broad component (FWHM(\hbbc), units \kms) taken
321: from \citet{marzianietal03b}, measures of SDSS spectra or, as a
322: last resort, literature spectra; Col. 8 -- measures of the ratio
323: \rfe\ from same sources as Col. 7; Col. 9 -- decimal logarithm of
324: the specific flux at 4400 \AA\ over the flux at 6 cm. A source is
325: assumed radio-loud if $\log$ \rk $\ge$ 1.8; Col. 10 -- a measure
326: of the soft X-ray excess (photon index \gs), from
327: \citep{sulenticetal00a,sulenticetal00b} and from various
328: literature sources.
329:
330: The reported optical redshifts come from measures of
331: low-ionization optical emission lines (LILs), typically \hbnc,
332: \hgnc, and \hanc\, supplemented by values derived from \oiiiopt\
333: if the source is not a blue outlier \citep[see
334: ][]{marzianietal03a,zamanovetal02}. In these cases, the agreement
335: between LIL and high-ionization lines (HILs) is reasonable within
336: the accuracy limits of the present study. We remind that ``blue
337: outliers" i.e., sources with large \oiiiopt\ blueshift relative to
338: optical LILs, tend to be extreme Pop. A sources with very weak
339: \oiiiopt, and are relatively rare. The recipe described in
340: \citet{marzianietal03a} is applied for all sources with references
341: indicated as ESO, SPM, M03, M96, SDSS, G99. All other sources have
342: redshift measured on the basis of the optical lines. None of the
343: remaining sources are likely to be blue outliers on the basis of
344: published spectra so redshift computed using optical lines should
345: be a reliable estimate even if \oiiiopt\ lines were used.
346:
347: Table 2 presents our \civ\ parameter measures with format as
348: follows: Column 1 -- IAU code; Col. 2 -- specific continuum flux
349: at 1550$\rm{\AA}$ (units erg s$^{-1}$ $\rm{\AA}^{-1}$
350: cm$^{-2}$$\times$10$^{14}$); Col. 3 -- flux in the \civnc\ (units
351: erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$$\times$10$^{13}$); Col. 4 -- Peak \civnc\
352: radial velocity, in \kms; Col. 5 -- flux in the \civbc\ (units as
353: in Col. 3); Cols. 6, 7, 8 -- centroid profile shift at
354: $\case{1}{4}$ maximum ($c$($\case{1}{4}$)) followed by the
355: estimated uncertainties on the blue and red wings of the profile
356: (units \kms); Cols. 9, 10,11 -- same at half-maximum
357: ($c(\case{1}{2}$), which is an adopted 4DE1 parameter); Cols. 12,
358: 13 -- centroid at $\case{3}{4}$\ maximum ($c$($\case{3}{4}$)) with
359: symmetric uncertainty ; Cols. 14, 15 -- centroid at the 90\%\
360: intensity level of the \civ\ broad line (c(0.9)), with symmetric
361: uncertainty; Cols. 16, 17 -- FWHM(\civbc) and estimated
362: uncertainty (units \kms); Cols. 18,19, 20 -- \civbc\ asymmetry
363: index with estimated uncertainties on the blue and red profile
364: wings; Cols. 21,22 -- \civbc\ kurtosis measure and estimated
365: uncertainty.
366:
367: No \civnc\ measures are given in Table \ref{tab:civ} if the
368: profile if affected by partial (a) or strong (A) absorption. \ In
369: sources labeled a in Tab. \ref{tab:civ} residual \civnc\ is
370: sometimes visible but the NC width and flux cannot be recovered.
371: NC shifts and fluxes are accurate (within $\pm$ 40\%\ at a
372: 2-$\sigma$\ confidence level) only if \civnc\ emission shows an
373: intensity at least 0.05 \civbc. Note that our adopted \civnc\
374: component is often not ``\oiiiopt-like". It is often significantly
375: broader and stronger than would be subtracted if we used \oiii\ as
376: a template for the \civ\ doublet. See \S \ref{nc} for both
377: empirical and theoretical justifications for our procedure.
378:
379: Measured centroids at different fractional intensities were defined as
380: follows:
381:
382: \begin{equation}
383: \label{ } c(\case{i}{4}) = \frac{\lambda_{\mathrm B} +
384: \lambda_{\mathrm R} - 2 \lambda_0}{ 2 \lambda_0} ~c, \forall i =
385: 0, \ldots 4,
386: \end{equation}
387: where $c$\ is the speed of light. Values $c(\case{i}{4})$\ for $i
388: = 0 $\ are not listed in Tab. \ref{tab:civ} due to the difficulty
389: of assessing $\lambda_{\mathrm B}$\ and $\lambda_{\mathrm R}$\ at
390: zero intensity. We give $c(\case{9}{10})$ instead of peak radial
391: velocity. This has been shown to be a good surrogate and less
392: dependent on \civnc\ subtraction as well as line profile
393: irregularities \citep{marzianietal03a}. The asymmetry index is
394: defined as follows:
395: \begin{equation}
396: \label{ } A.I. = \frac{\lambda_{\mathrm B}(\case{1}{4}) -
397: \lambda_{\mathrm R}(\case{1}{4}) - 2 \lambda_{\mathrm P}}{
398: \lambda_{\mathrm P}}
399: \end{equation}
400: where for $ \lambda_{\mathrm P}$ we use $c(\case{9}{10})/c$.
401: The kurtosis index is defined as:
402: \begin{equation}
403: \label{ }
404: kurt = \frac{\lambda_{\mathrm R}(\case{3}{4}) - \lambda_{\mathrm B}(\case{3}{4})}{\lambda_{\mathrm R}(\case{1}{4}) - \lambda_{\mathrm B}(\case{1}{4})}
405: \end{equation}
406: \citep[cf. ][]{marzianietal96}.
407:
408:
409: Uncertainties reported in Tab. \ref{tab:civ} were estimated by
410: measuring the wavelengths $\lambda_{\mathrm R}$\ and
411: $\lambda_{\mathrm B}$\ at $\pm$ 5\% fractional intensity and then
412: quadratically propagating the errors in the relationships reported
413: above. All uncertainties reported in Table \ref{tab:civ}
414: represent a 2$\sigma$\ confidence level. Uncertainties in
415: estimating the rest frame velocity, relative to which the
416: centroids are computed, can be as large as 300 \kms\ or as small
417: as $\sim$ 30 \kms\ (at 1$\sigma$\ confidence level) depending on
418: the availability of moderate resolution spectra (SDSS is, or will
419: be, improving the situation for about 50\% of the sample). The
420: error in estimating the local rest frame $\Delta z \approx 0.00014
421: \pm 0.0006$ was derived from the distribution of differences
422: between $z$\ values used in this work and those given in NED.
423: Combining the typical uncertainty on systemic velocity, on UV
424: wavelength calibration, and the average of the measurement
425: uncertainty reported in Table \ref{tab:civ}, the typical
426: uncertainty (at a 2-$\sigma$\ confidence level) are $\approx$ 230
427: \kms and $\approx 170 $ \kms\ for $c(\case{1}{2})$ and
428: $c(\case{3}{4})$.
429:
430: \subsection{\civ\ Line Parameters in the RQ-RL Context}
431: \label{e1}
432:
433: Figure \ref{fig:e1} shows source occupation in 4DE1 planes
434: involving the $c(\case{1}{2})$\ parameter \citep[as defined in
435: ][]{sulenticetal00b}. $c(\case{1}{2})$\ was chosen from among
436: possible \civ\ profile measures (FWHM, $c(\case{1}{2})$\ and
437: equivalent width) because: 1) it is not obviously luminosity
438: dependent, 2) it showed the largest intrinsic dispersion and 3) it
439: showed possible correlations with the other principal 4DE1
440: parameters. As a luminosity normalized measure W(\civbc) is ruled
441: out even if the well-known ''Baldwin effect'' now appears to be
442: driven by dependance on the Eddington ratio
443: \citep{bachevetal04,baskinlaor04}. This does not mean that we
444: regard it as an unimportant measure but only that we reject it as
445: one of the principal 4DE1 parameters. A surrogate measure might
446: involve a direct measure of \civbc\ line flux but the parameter
447: dispersion of that measure is less than for $c(\case{1}{2})$. The
448: same is true for FWHM(\civbc) which also shows less dispersion
449: than FWHM(\hbbc). Line broadening may be due to both rotational
450: and non-rotational velocity components especially if a disk + wind
451: model is applicable to our sources. $c(\case{1}{2})$\, on the
452: contrary, is most likely related to the amplitude of any
453: non-virial motions in the BLR. It is this parameter that adds a
454: new element that can be argued to be {\em physically orthogonal}
455: to previously defined E1 parameters: FWHM(\hbbc) estimates the
456: virial broadening in the LIL-emitting part of the BLR; \rfe\
457: measures the ionization conditions, while \gs\ provides a
458: measurement of the continuum shape.
459:
460: RQ and RL sources are indicated by circles and squares respectively in
461: Fig. \ref{fig:e1} \citep[sources with radio/optical flux ratio log
462: R$_K$ $\ga$ 1.8 are considered RL: ][]{sulenticetal03}. The large
463: number of squares reflects the over-representation of RL sources in our
464: sample. Figure \ref{fig:e1}a shows that sources with \civ\ profile
465: blueshifts strongly favor RQ AGN with FWHM \hbbc$\la$ 4000 \kms. RL
466: sources show a large scatter of both red and blue \civ\ shifts. Figures
467: \ref{fig:e1}bc show that sources with \civ\ blueshift especially favor
468: RQ sources with large \rfe\ (strong optical \feii\ emission) and
469: \gs\ (a soft X-ray excess) measures respectively. RL sources are much
470: more strongly concentrated in the latter two 4DE1 planes.
471:
472: Table \ref{tab:ave} gives mean parameter values (sample standard
473: deviations in parenthesis) for total sample, RQ, RL and our
474: previously defined Pop. A-B subsamples that will be considered in
475: the next section. Values are given for: Col. 2 -- number of
476: sources; Col. 3 -- equivalent width measure of the \civbc\ line;
477: Col. 4 -- $c(\case{1}{2})$\ of \civbc; Col. 5 -- FWHM(\civbc);
478: Col. 6 -- FWHM(\hbbc); Col. 7 -- \rfe\ and Col. 8 -- \gs. Columns
479: 4,6,7 and 8 represent the principal parameters in 4DE1. We find
480: that RL sources show broader \hbbc\ and \civbc\ profiles than RQ
481: AGN while RQ sources show stronger \rfe, \gs\ and $c(\case{1}{2})$
482: (blueshift) than the RL sample. FWHM \civbc\ is on average (17\%)
483: broader than FWHM \hbbc\ for RQ sources while FWHM \hbbc\ is
484: (16\%) narrower than FWHM \civbc\ for RL sources. These
485: differences relate to one of the most significant results of our
486: earlier work where a restricted optical domain space occupation
487: was found for RL sources. Figure \ref{fig:e1} also shows this
488: restricted occupation as a strong concentration of RL sources in a
489: small region of the $c(\case{1}{2})$ vs. \rfe\ and \gs\ planes. RL
490: sources are rarely found with 4DE1 parameter values: FWHM(\hbbc)
491: $\la $4000 \kms, \rfe $\ga$ 0.3, \gs $\ga$2.5 and
492: $c(\case{1}{2})$\ $\la $0 \kms. The expanded \civ\ sample confirms
493: and strengthens this result which likely indicates a fundamental
494: difference in BLR structure, kinematics and/or physics between RL
495: and RQ populations \citep[see ][ for discussion in the context of
496: a RQ-RL dichotomy]{sulenticetal03}.
497:
498: Spearman rank correlation coefficients and associated probabilities are
499: given in Table \ref{tab:cc} for \civ\ equivalent width, FWHM and
500: centroid measures versus the three other principal 4DE1 parameters. The
501: total-sample correlation coefficients for this sample are larger than
502: corresponding values given for the smaller sample of sources in
503: \citet{sulenticetal00b} as one might hope to see if the correlations
504: are in some sense real. Table \ref{tab:cc} emphasizes the spectroscopic
505: differences between RQ vs RL sources by showing no evidence for
506: correlations among 4DE1 parameters for RL sources. Real or marginal
507: correlations are only found among RQ sources with the strongest
508: correlations involving $c(\case{1}{2})$, \rfe\ and \gs. Restriction to
509: a BG92 overlap subsample shows no significant difference in correlation
510: coefficients.
511:
512: %With this subsample of 43 sources a probability that
513: %$P_{r_\mathrm{S}} \approx 0.01$\ occurs for $r_{\mathrm S} \approx
514: %0.35$. Correlation coefficients in the BG92 subsample lower than
515: %that value are therefore not significant.
516:
517: \section{Evidence for Two Populations of Broad Line AGN}
518: \label{pop}
519:
520: So far we have compared sources on the conventional basis of a RQ
521: vs. RL dichotomy however it is important to point out that about
522: 25\%\ of RQ sources in our sample occupy the same 4DE1 parameter
523: domain as the RL AGN. If 4DE1 parameters reflect broad line
524: physics/kinematics then this overlap may be important. The
525: restricted 4DE1 parameter space occupation for RL sources
526: motivated us \citep{sulenticetal00b} to hypothesize the existence
527: of two AGN ``populations'' (A and B) defined in an optical
528: spectroscopic context (4DE1) rather than on the basis of radio
529: loudness. Following our scheme Population A sources show
530: FWHM(\hbbc) $\la$ 4000 \kms, strong \rfe, strong \gs\ (a soft
531: X-ray excess) and a $c(\case{1}{2})$\ blueshift with estimated
532: probability of radio loudness $P \la$ 0.01. Population B sources
533: show FWHM(\hbbc) $\ga$ 4000 \kms, weak \rfe, no soft X-ray excess
534: or \civ\ blueshift with estimated probability of radio loudness $P
535: \approx $0.30. Revisiting Fig. \ref{fig:e1}a in the population
536: A-B context shows that \civ\ blueshifts are strongly concentrated
537: among Pop. A sources with FWHM(\hbbc) $\la$ 4000 \kms. Filled and
538: open symbols in Figures \ref{fig:e1} identify Pop. A and B
539: sources respectively. It is important to point out that
540: FWHM(\hbbc) = 4000 \kms\ was chosen as a Pop. A-B boundary before
541: $c(\case{1}{2})$\ was selected as an 4DE1 parameter. Pop. A-B is
542: more effective than the RQ-RL distinction for highlighting
543: spectroscopic differences.
544:
545: Pop. B sources show a scatter of line shifts within
546: $c(\case{1}{2})$\ = $\pm$ 2000 \kms\ (Table \ref{tab:civ}) with
547: mean value in Table \ref{tab:ave} consistent with zero shift. A
548: large part of the Pop. B scatter may be associated with \civ\
549: measurement uncertainties (the 3$\sigma$ shift uncertainty is
550: $\approx$ 400 \kms). Fig. \ref{fig:e1} show that Pop. A sources
551: have a wider parameter dispersion than Pop. B sources. The
552: majority of Pop. B sources are so concentrated that one can assign
553: unique (within measurement errors) values of \rfe $\sim$ 0.15
554: $\pm$ 0.15 and \gs $ \approx 2.1 \pm$ 0.5. to the entire
555: population. These two values along with $c(\case{1}{2})$ = --70
556: (consistent with 0) $\pm$ 1000 \kms\ represent the 4DE1
557: coordinates with highest probability of radio-loudness.
558:
559: The strong parameter concentration of Pop. B sources relative to
560: the Pop. A RQ majority reenforces the interpretation
561: \citep{sulenticetal03} that RL quasars represent a distinct AGN
562: population and perhaps the endpoint of quasar activity in sources
563: with largest \mbh\ and lowest \lledd. The obvious question then
564: involves the relationship between Pop. B RQ sources and Pop. B RL
565: AGN. RL and RQ Pop. B sources show strong similarity in most
566: properties but $c(\case{1}{2})$\ suggests a possible small
567: separation with mean \civbc\ shift values of about --200 and
568: $+$70 \kms\ respectively for Pop. B RQ and RL sources. However
569: both values are consistent with zero shift given measurement
570: uncertainties. A $K-S $\ test for the two $c(\case{1}{2})$\
571: distributions confirms no significant difference. If \civbc\
572: blueshift and negative asymmetry index are the signature of a disk
573: wind that is driven by high \lledd\ then 60-80\% of RQ and very
574: few RL, sources show evidence for it. RQ sources in our sample
575: have an average negative asymmetry index (--0.1), and a K-S test
576: confirms a significant difference with the distribution for RL
577: sources (whose average is +0.08). The simplest answer to the above
578: question then would be that for a given \mbh, RL sources lie at
579: the extreme low end of an \lledd\ sequence -- perhaps they are
580: expiring quasars. Perhaps Pop. B RQ sources with lowest values of
581: \civbc\ shift are the RQ expiring quasars. In that case our
582: population B designation has a physical significance although we
583: do not yet know what physical property allows/inhibits radio loud
584: activity.
585:
586:
587: \subsection{Population A and NLSy1s}
588:
589: The distinction between Pop. A and B may be more fundamental than
590: RQ-RL or NLSy1-BLSy1. Fig. \ref{fig:e1} shows that \civ\
591: blueshifts are equally divided between sources with FWHM(\hbbc)
592: $\la$ 2000 \kms\ (traditional NLSy1) and sources with FWHM(\hbbc)
593: in the range 2000--4000 \kms\ (BLSy1). A K-S test reveals no
594: significant distribution difference between the two groups of
595: sources suggesting that the 2000 \kms\ cutoff for NLSy1 is
596: artificial. The same is true for comparisons involving W(\civbc),
597: FWHM(\civ) and \gs\ parameter distributions. Only \rfe\ seems
598: shows possible evidence for a difference ($D_{\mathrm KS} \approx
599: 1.65$ with probability $P \approx 0.01$ that the two \rfe\ data
600: sets are not drawn from the same parent population). Caution is
601: needed because the precision of the \rfe\ measure depends in both
602: $S/N$ and the line width \citep{marzianietal03a}. Considering the
603: similarity in \gs\ and \civ\ centroid shifts (which are likely
604: related accretion rate and disk wind properties) the Pop. A/B
605: distinction can be viewed as a physically motivated re-definition
606: of the NLSy1/BLSy1 boundary originally introduced by
607: \citet{osterbrockpogge85} and subsequently adopted by 4DE1 for
608: different (RL) reasons.
609:
610:
611: \subsection{{Population Subdivision and Quasar Structure}}
612:
613: Tables \ref{tab:ave} and \ref{tab:cc} show that the Pop. A-B
614: discrimination is more effective than the RQ-RL distinction for
615: emphasizing source differences. Table \ref{tab:ave} shows that
616: almost all sample mean differences between Pop. A and Pop. B are
617: {\it larger} than equivalent differences between RQ and RL. Since
618: the entire RQ source population shows a larger parameter spread
619: than Pop. A RQ sources alone, it should be {\em more} sensitive
620: to correlation than Pop. A RQ alone. Table \ref{tab:cc} confirms
621: that in no case does the entire RQ sample show a higher
622: correlation coefficient than Pop. A sources alone. In all cases
623: the correlation coefficient improves (or remains the same) when we
624: restrict the RQ sample to Pop. A RQ alone. We interpret these
625: results as support for our hypothesis that the Pop. A-B
626: distinction is {\em more fundamental} than the RQ-RL one. So far
627: we have distinguished between Pop. A and B sources using FWHM
628: \hbbc\ alone. The mean values given in Table \ref{tab:ave} allow
629: us to give best estimates for the Pop. A-B boundary using the
630: other three principal 4DE1 parameters: \rfe $\approx$ 0.4, \gs
631: $\approx$ 2.60 and $c(\case{1}{2}) \approx$ 0 \kms.
632:
633: 1D projections of the 4DE1 space like Fig. \ref{fig:e1}abc show a main
634: sequence of source occupation/correlation. The Population A-B concept
635: reflects either a continuous variation in physical/geometric/kinematic
636: properties along this sequence or a true source dichotomy possibly
637: driven by a critical value of \lledd\ (with Pop. B RQ-RL dichotomy due
638: perhaps to BH spin, host galaxy properties and role for secular
639: evolution in BH growth). In the former case Pop. A-B remain useful as a
640: vehicle for emphasizing source extrema providing a valuable challenge
641: to models of BLR structure/kinematics as well as changes in them due to
642: physics and/or source evolution
643: \citep{marzianietal01,marzianietal03b,boroson02}. In the past few years
644: we have favored the possibility of two disjoint AGN populations on the
645: basis of multifold evidence:
646:
647: \begin{itemize}
648: \item A possible gap or paucity of sources with FWHM(\hbbc)
649: $\approx$ 4000 \kms, which is appreciable also in e.g., Fig. 6 of
650: \citet{wangetal96}, Fig. 2 of \citet{boller04},
651: %in Fig. 1 of \citet{komossameerschweinchen00},
652: in Fig. 1 of
653: \citet{sulenticetal00b}, in Fig. 3 of \citep{baskinlaor05}, most
654: impressively in Figure 7 (right panel) of \citep{corbor96} and see
655: also \citet{collinetal06}.
656:
657: \item Most RL sources lie above FWHM \hbbc\ $\approx$ 4000 \kms\
658: while most RQ sources lie below this value. The few RL with FWHM
659: \hbbc\ $\la$ 4000\kms\ are likely viewed at an orientation that
660: minimizes any rotational component associated with BLR motions
661: \citep[][ they fall there because of orientation rather than
662: physics]{sulenticetal03}.
663:
664: \item Sources with FWHM(\hbbc) $\la 4000$ \kms\ show average
665: profiles well fit by a Lorentzian function while broader line
666: sources show profiles that are frequently red-ward asymmetric and
667: that require two Gaussians for a reasonable fit
668: \citep{sulenticetal02}.
669:
670: \item Sources with FWHM(\hbbc) $\la$ 4000 \kms\ often show a soft
671: X-ray excess (\gs $\ga$ 2.8) while those above this limit almost
672: never show one \citep{boller04,sulenticetal00a}.
673:
674: \item Sources with weak (usually less than 10 \AA\ equivalent
675: with) and blueshifted \oiii\ (the so-called blue outliers) are
676: found only in sources with FWHM(\hbbc) $\la$ 4000 \kms\
677: \citep{zamanovetal02,marzianietal03b}.
678:
679: \item All sources with \civ\ $c(\case{1}{2}) \la$ --3000 \kms\
680: show FWHM \hbbc\ $\la$4000 \kms\ (Fig. \ref{fig:e1}a). Most
681: sources with \civ\ $c(\case{1}{2}) \la$ --1000 \kms\ also lie
682: below the same FWHM limit. Sources with broader \hbbc\ show a
683: scatter of values between \civ\ $c(\case{1}{2}) \pm$ 2000\kms.
684: W(\civ) measures also show a strong difference (not correlation)
685: in mean values for source greater and less than FWHM\hbbc\ = 4000
686: \kms.
687:
688: \item Comparison of \civ\ and \hbbc\ profiles suggest a
689: discontinuity at FWHM(\hbbc)$\approx$ 4000 \kms. FWHM(\hbbc) and
690: FWHM(\civbc) are correlated above this value but not below
691: \citep[][ see also Table
692: \ref{tab:cc}]{marzianietal96,baskinlaor05}.
693:
694: \item Fig. \ref{fig:civ} shows a possible new correlation
695: between \civ\ FWHM and $c(\case{1}{2})$\ measures. Comparison of
696: Fig. \ref{fig:civ}a and \ref{fig:civ}b for Pop. B and A sources,
697: respectively, indicates that the correlation exists only for
698: sources with FWHM(\hbbc) $\la $4000 \kms\ (Pop. B sources show a
699: scatter diagram) . This \civ\ inter-correlation for Pop. A sources
700: shows a reasonably strong correlation (corr. coeff. $\approx$
701: 0.5). The best fit relation is $c(\case{1}{2})$(\civbc) = 963 --
702: 0.426 FWHM(\civbc) [\kms].
703: \end{itemize}
704:
705: The correlation in Fig. \ref{fig:civ} might be expected from (and
706: constraining of) models that view Pop. A sources as the highest
707: accreting AGN that generate a disk wind
708: \citep{murrayetal95,bottorffetal97,progakallman04}. Previous
709: results may also indicate a change in BLR structure perhaps at a
710: critical value of \lledd\ (corresponding to FWHM(\hbbc) $\approx$
711: 4000 \kms) with an accretion disk + outflowing high-ionization
712: wind required to explain Pop. A source measures
713: \citep{marzianietal96, marzianietal01, marzianietal03a}. Pop. B
714: sources do not allow us to rule out the possibility of a single
715: stratified emission region producing both LILs and HILs. Pop. A
716: and B sources differ in almost every mean property that can be
717: defined. Table \ref{tab:summ} summarizes both phenomenological
718: differences (mean values given where available) as well as some
719: physical differences (preceded by $\bullet$) that can be inferred
720: from the empiricism. Note that not all of the cited works make a
721: distinction between Pop. A and B.
722:
723: Table \ref{tab:ave} shows that W(\civbc) differs by a factor of
724: $\approx$ 2 between Pop. A and B sources, with Pop. A sources
725: showing lower values. Since Pop. A and B do not show a significant
726: difference in mean source luminosity \citep{bachevetal04} we
727: ascribe the EW difference to a difference in \lledd which is known
728: to be stronger than the luminosity dependence
729: \citep{bachevetal04,baskinlaor04}. Pop. A and B differ
730: systematically in \lledd, as shown by
731: \citet{marzianietal03b,marzianietal06}. While not a principal 4DE1
732: parameter it is clear that W(\civbc) is an important measure.
733:
734: \section{\civ\ Narrow Line Emission}
735: \label{nc}
736:
737: All tabulated parameter means and correlation coefficients
738: discussed above depend upon proper processing of the \civ\
739: spectra. Confusion exists about the reality and strength of a
740: narrow line \civ\ component (\civnc) presumably arising from the
741: same narrow-line region (NLR) as e.g. \oiiiopt\ and narrow \hb.
742: There is now no doubt that \civnc\ emission is common in AGN
743: \citep[see also][]{sulenticmarziani99}. High and low redshift type
744: 2 AGN with obvious \civnc\ emission have recently been found in
745: significant numbers: \citet{bargeretal02};
746: \citet{jarvisetal05}(*); \citet{normanetal02}(*);
747: \citet{sternetal02}(*); \citet{szokolyetal04};
748: \citet{mainierietal05}(*); \citet{severgninietal06}. According to
749: \citet{meiksin06} only four confirmed high redshift ($z > $1.6)
750: type 2 AGN are known (refs. marked with * above). All four show
751: prominent \civnc\ \citep[see also][]{dawsonetal01}.
752:
753: %Significant \civnc\ emission is also observed in (reddened)
754: %Seyfert 2 sources \citep{ferlandosterbrock86} with an intensity
755: %ratio \civnc/\oiii\ $\sim 1$.
756:
757: In contrast to \hb\ a clear, unique NLR/BLR inflection is less
758: often seen in the \civ\ profiles making NLR correction less
759: certain. This is not surprising when one considers that the
760: intrinsic velocity resolution at \civ\ is 3 times lower than at
761: \hb. NLR \civ\ can also be broader than other narrow lines
762: because: a) it is a doublet with $\Delta v \approx $ 500 \kms\
763: and b) it can arise in denser than average parts of the NLR
764: \citep[as for \o4363; e.g. ][]{marzianietal96,sulenticmarziani99}.
765: We argue that cautious subtraction of a suitable narrow component
766: is essential for exploiting the information content in the \civ\
767: line \citep[see ][]{bachevetal04}. We subtracted a significant (W
768: $>$ 1 \AA) NLR component from 76/130 sources in this sample.
769: Figure \ref{fig:civbc} shows the individual \civ\ profiles with
770: narrow components indicated in order to assist visual assessment
771: of the component on a source-by-source basis.
772:
773: \citet{baskinlaor05} recently pointed out that our earlier \civbc\
774: and \civnc\ measurements \citep{marzianietal96} were
775: ``non-unique". Every experimental measure is non-unique and the
776: lack of uniqueness is customarily indicated by error bars. Rather
777: than uniqueness, the question we are addressing is whether or not
778: there is a significant narrow component in the \civ\ line. The
779: second question, assuming that such a component is present,
780: involves how accurately we can measure it. The third question,
781: assuming we can accurately measure it, is whether correction for
782: \civnc\ matters. The goals of this section are to provide a recipe
783: for consistent \civnc\ correction and to show that very different
784: results emerge from corrected \civ\ measures.
785:
786: The strong and relatively narrow core (FWHM $\la$ 2000 \kms)
787: observed in many \civ\ profiles was previously noted and an {\it
788: ad hoc} intermediate line region (ILR) was introduced in order to
789: account for it \citep{brothertonetal94,brothertonfrancis99}. The
790: ILR was defined as having some properties typical of the canonical
791: BLR necessitating the postulation of an additional VBLR component
792: in order to explain the broad wings often seen in \civ\ spectra
793: (e.g. Figure \ref{fig:civbc}). Unfortunately the ILR approach is
794: not fully consistent because narrow \civ\ cores are significantly
795: narrower than corresponding \hbbc\ profiles
796: \citep{sulenticmarziani99} which are a canonical BLR feature. They
797: are sometimes as narrow as the \oiii\ lines. Intermediate
798: ionization lines of \ciii\ and \siiii\ measured in average spectra
799: \citep{bachevetal04} show widths that are more consistent with
800: \hbbc\ and much broader than the narrow cores of \civ\ that we
801: ascribe to the NLR. In addition density-sensitive ratios measured
802: near the \ciii\ blend are consistent with BLR density (\ne\
803: $ \sim 10^{10} $ \cm3: see \citet{brothertonetal94,bachevetal04}). This
804: reinforces our interpretation that the hypothesized ILR+VBLR
805: components as simply the more canonical NLR+BLR. The larger width
806: of \civnc\ compared to \hbnc\ or \oiii\ can be easily explained
807: within the framework of a density/ionization gradient within the
808: NLR, as further described below.
809:
810: Almost all other studies of \civ\ line properties
811: \citep{willsetal95,corbor96,willsetal99,vestergaard02,warneretal04}
812: do not subtract \civnc\ emission. \citet{baskinlaor05} assume that
813: the width and strength of \civnc\ and \oiii\ are correlated. In
814: most cases this implies that the ratio \civ/\oiii\ is $\simlt
815: 1$. The physical relationship between forbidden \oiiiopt\ and
816: permitted \civnc\ is however unclear leaving little basis for
817: assuming a fixed relation. The \oiiiopt\ lines often show a strong
818: blue wing that might be described as a semi-broad component.
819: So-called blue outlier sources show this component and it is
820: expected to be a {\em strong} \civ\ emitter \citep{zamanovetal02}.
821: Our analysis suggests that \civnc\ is likely absorbed by dust or
822: is intrinsically weak in $\approx$ 50\% of sources. Among the
823: remainder about 1/3 of the sources show \civnc\ significantly
824: broader than narrow Balmer and \oiiiopt\ emission. It is probably
825: emitted by a reddening-free high-density (or high-ionization)
826: innermost region of the NLR. Whatever its origin and relationship
827: to other narrow lines it is present in the spectra of many sources
828: and will affect our efforts to parameterize \civbc.
829:
830: The motivation for relatively high density emission in the NLR
831: stems from the clear evidence of relatively large \civnc/\oiii\
832: intensity ratios in several sources: NGC 5548,
833: NGC 7674 and I Zw 92 \citep{kraemeretal94,kraemeretal98}, with \civnc/\oiii\
834: $\approx$ 2. Also, even if \citet{baskinlaor05} subtracted little
835: \civnc, the average non-zero subtraction for the 16 sources in
836: common with the present study implies \civnc/\oiii\ $\approx$ 0.3.
837: This value already indicates bulk emission from $\log$ \ne $\simgt
838: 5.5$, much above the ``standard" NLR density \ne $\sim 10^4 $
839: \cm3. The \civ/\oiii\ intensity ratio increases with density
840: around the \oiiiopt\ critical density because of the drastic
841: collisional quenching that suppresses \oiiiopt\ but not \civ. The
842: observed FWHM differences between \oiiiopt, \hbnc, and \civnc\
843: are recovered under standard assumptions if a density gradient is
844: assumed for the NLR, with $3 \simlt \log$ \ne $\simlt 7 \div 8 $
845: \citep{sulenticmarziani99}.
846:
847: %The
848: %presence of \civ\ narrow emission is consistent with a local
849: %optimally emitting gas scenario for the NLR.
850:
851:
852: We suggest the following \civnc\ subtraction procedure as the most
853: reliable way to obtain reasonable and reproducible \civnc\
854: measures.
855:
856: \begin{description}
857:
858: \item[Step 1: Inflection] Sources showing a \civ\ NLR/BLR
859: inflection can be treated the same as \hb\ as long as the
860: width/shift/intensity constraints given below are not violated.
861: See the profiles in Figure \ref{fig:civbc} and Appendix A
862: discussion of PG 0026+126 which shows a strong profile inflection.
863: There was no simultaneous fitting. The underlying \civbc\ was fit
864: with an high-order spline function. The overlying narrow component
865: was set by bordering the fitting range at inflection points which
866: defined a core that met the FWHM and flux ratio criteria described
867: below. The FWHM was measured using a Gaussian fit, or by measuring
868: the half-maximum wavelengths if the profile was absorbed or very
869: different from Gaussian.
870:
871: \item[Step 1a: No Inflection or Multiple Inflections] Most sources
872: do not show an inflection or sometimes show multiple inflections
873: between reasonable limits of width and strength. This motivates us
874: to set a conservative limit on FWHM \civnc. Simple models suggest
875: that lines like \civ\ can be significantly broader than \oiii\
876: \citep{sulenticmarziani99}. \civ\ lines with FWHM $\la$ 1500 \kms\
877: are now observed in higher redshift type-2 AGN (see above
878: references). We therefore suggest subtracting a \civnc\ component
879: with FWHM $\leq$ 1500 \kms\ again subject to shift and intensity
880: constraints that follow (see Fig. \ref{fig:civnc}). In just two
881: cases (3C 110 and 3C 273) our data suggested a somewhat broader
882: component but inclusion/exclusion of these few sources as
883: processed, or reduction of the NLR component to this limit will
884: not affect the main conclusions of this study. The choice was
885: usually to maximize the \civnc\ FWHM within the flux ratio
886: condition as described below. Any narrow feature with FWHM $\la$
887: 900 \kms\ has no physical meaning. The feature we identify as
888: \civnc\ shows FWHM $\approx$ 1200 $\pm$ 300 \kms in 95\%\ of
889: sources with significant narrow emission (Fig. \ref{fig:civnc}).
890:
891: \item[Step 2: Nebular Physics and Observations] There is no strong
892: upper limit for the expected \civ/\oiii\ intensity ratio in the
893: absence of internal dust extinction. Both high ionization and high
894: density can produce an arbitrarily large ratio
895: \citep{continiviegas01,kraemeretal98,baldwinetal95}. We adopt
896: \civ/\oiii\ $\approx$ 10, derived for the high-ionization region
897: of NGC 5548 \citep{kraemeretal98}, as a {\em strict} upper limit.
898: Using again observational results as a guideline, we consider
899: Seyfert 1 sources in our sample that show prominent, unambiguous
900: \civnc\ (NGC sources, PKS 0518-45, and 3C 390.3). We find a large
901: dispersion in the reddening-corrected \civnc/\oiii\ ratio with a
902: mean value $\approx$ 2 and a maximum $\approx$ 5 (NGC 3783).
903: Therefore we can safely regard an \civnc/\oiii\ intensity ratio
904: $\approx$ 5 as an observationally defined boundary. If this
905: condition is appropriate the ($A_{\mathrm B}$\ corrected)
906: distribution of \civ/\oiii\ intensity ratios (shown in Fig.
907: \ref{fig:civnc}) does not pose any special challenge, including
908: the few sources for which 5 $\la$ \civnc/\oiii\ $\la 10$\ (with an
909: uncertainty of $\pm$ 50\%\ these sources are not significantly
910: above our adopted limit of 5).
911:
912: \item[Step 3: NLR shift] In most sources the \oiii\ and/or \hbnc\
913: profile centroid is used to define the rest frame of a source.
914: Limited available \hi\ and CO measures of host galaxy emission
915: support this definition except for a few extreme Pop. A (some but
916: not all formally NLSy1s) blue outlier sources. We use the peak of
917: \hb\ to define the source rest frame of blue outliers. The \civnc\
918: profile centroid (Table \ref{tab:civ}) agrees with the optically
919: defined rest frame in most sources. Ninety percent of our sources
920: show a \civnc\ centroid within $\pm 400 $\kms. This is
921: reasonable considering that the average FWHM(\civnc) =1120 \kms\
922: and that \civnc\ is strongly sensitive to S/N. Shifts of several
923: hundred \kms\ are occasionally observed and may be due to: a) an
924: intrinsic \civnc\ blueshift, b) narrow-line absorption that
925: creates a spurious shift to the red (and, indeed, inspection of
926: Fig. \ref{fig:civbc} reveals that this is the case for most
927: sources where \civnc\ appears to be significantly redshifted) and
928: c) poor rest frame determination. However only 5 sources out of 29
929: with $|$\dvr$|$(\civnc) $\ga$ 300 \kms\ show a $\Delta z \approx
930: \pm $ 0.001.
931:
932: \end{description}
933:
934: Figure \ref{fig:civnc} summarizes our \civnc\ measures: line
935: luminosity distribution of \civnc\ (upper right); distribution of
936: \civnc/\oiii\ luminosity ratios (lower left); distribution of
937: \civnc\ FWHM measures (upper right); distribution of \civnc\
938: measures\ in the line luminosity--FWHM plane (lower right).
939: Application of above procedures resulted in a subtracted NLR
940: component usually less than W(\civnc) $\approx$ 10 \AA\ but with a
941: few extreme cases usually low luminosity Seyfert 1's. RL sources
942: show the largest fraction of detectable \civnc\ components (0.71)
943: compared to 0.48 for RQ AGN. Our Pop. B sources show a slightly
944: larger fraction of \civnc\ components (0.63) than Pop. A (0.51).
945: Some sources do not allow an unambiguous \civnc\ subtraction with
946: a significant range of acceptable solutions. This ambiguity and
947: its effect on \civbc\ are usually within the adopted errors (even
948: if the effect on \civnc\ is much larger), that have been estimated
949: changing the fractional intensity levels by $\pm 5$\%. As
950: described earlier, the random scatter in Galactic line radial
951: velocity after realignment is just $\approx 40$ \kms. Therefore
952: it is possible that several \civnc\ shifts are significant because
953: they show values larger than the expected calibration and
954: measurement uncertainties. Examining spectra in Fig.
955: \ref{fig:civbc} one will occasionally see a \civ\ profile with a
956: peak as narrow as some subtracted \civnc\ (e.g. J13253$-$3824 and
957: J15591+3501). In these cases subtraction of the sufficiently
958: narrow peak would violate other selection rules (e.g. in the above
959: two cases \civnc/\oiii $\gg$ 10). Note that we also verified {\it
960: a posteriori} that the \civnc\ FWHM was less than FWHM(\hbbc).
961:
962:
963:
964:
965: %Propagation of the two sources of error yields an uncertainty of
966: %$\approx$ 350 \kms\ at a 2$\sigma$\ confidence level. The width of
967: %the distribution of \civnc\ shifts relative to the rest frame in
968: %each quasar (inferred from $z$\ values reported in Table 1.
969: %\ref{fig:civnc}) is consistent with the convolution of zero-point
970: %errors due to $z$\ uncertainty and instrumental effects. Our
971: %interpretation that the narrower component is \civnc\ holds also
972: %for the broadest \civnc\ components since \civnc\ shifts do not
973: %depend on FWHM.
974: %NLR \civ\ shifts of less than $\pm$350 \kms\ simply reflect
975: %resolution uncertainties while shifts greater than $\pm$ 350 \kms\
976: %should not be considered problematic. We find 5 sources with
977: %$\Delta$ \vr\ $\la$ 600 \kms, but they are likely related to less
978: %accurate $z$\ estimates.
979: %The largest \civnc\ shifts reported in Tab. \ref{tab:civ} can be
980: %attributed to blueward absorption (\civnc peaked to the red),
981: %intrinsic \civnc\ blueshift \citep[see ][]{zamanovetal02} and/or
982: %poor accuracy in optical redshift measures (3 significant digits
983: %in Table \ref{tab:summ}).
984: %Unfortunately we still have a few cases where $z$\ is uncertain by
985: %0.001 or more.
986:
987:
988:
989:
990: \subsection{The Narrow Cores of \civ\ Do Not Reverberate}
991:
992: An ideal check on our NLR results would involve reverberation
993: mapping where any NLR component would be expected to remain
994: stable. One IUE based study \citep{turlercourvoisier98} reported
995: PCA analysis on 18 AGN with 15 or more independent spectra. Ten of
996: the sources are included in our sample. The principal component in
997: their study was interpreted to involve the parts of the \civ\ line
998: profile that varied with zero lag time. The approach of T\"urler
999: \& Courvoisier was to isolate the principal component dominated
1000: by continuum and broad line variability. This was then subtracted
1001: from the mean spectrum to isolate the remaining information
1002: content (rest spectrum). Two things are seen in the rest spectrum:
1003: a narrow unshifted peak, and more complex and extended wings. The
1004: nature of the wings will depend upon the complexity and timescale
1005: of variations as well as the number and temporal spacing of source
1006: spectra. Component 1 can be reasonably argued to be the NLR
1007: component of the line -- the correlated intensity component that
1008: dominated our 2D analogy above.
1009:
1010: In the case of 3C 273 only the continuum was present in the
1011: principal component. We identified and subtracted an NLR component
1012: in all ten overlap cases. A narrow component of similar strength
1013: and width is seen in the second principal component spectra for
1014: nine of these cases (except 3C 273). The least ambiguous case
1015: involves 3C 390.3 where there is a clear inflection between NLR
1016: and BLR. In that case agreement is perfect. Other sources like GQ
1017: Com, NGC 3783 and NGC 5548 also show strong agreement. The range
1018: of FWHM for the second principal component \civ\ profiles 1-5000
1019: \kms\ suggesting that the NLR is often blended with additional
1020: broad line emission. However, the overall agreement between the
1021: central cores and our own estimates of NLR \civ\ emission gives us
1022: confidence that we have developed a reasonable approach to
1023: correcting the \civ\ line profiles. The alternative is to ignore
1024: the problem which we argue will lead to spurious results.
1025:
1026: %One can hypothesize that the two highest eigenvalue principal
1027: %components for a series of single source spectra will involve
1028: %intensity and differences in intensity. This follows in analogy to
1029: %PCA analysis of a series of 2D images taken through different
1030: %filters (Sulentic \& Lorre 1983). The principal component will
1031: %involve intensity because of the high intercorrelation of
1032: %intensity between the filter bands. The second eigenvalue will
1033: %represented correlated differences between the images (i.e.
1034: %color). This component would be eclipsed by intensity fluctuations
1035: %if the imaged source were variable because the intensity
1036: %variations would likely have higher information content (i.e.
1037: %measured by the eigenvalue) than color differences. Color might
1038: %dominates if the source were extended and the variable component
1039: %was highly localized. Principal, components beyond 2nd or 3rd
1040: %would likely have little information content. In the case of
1041: %multiple spectra for an AGN the situation is apparently reversed
1042: %because emission lines are so strong and variations so common. A
1043: %detailed study of NGC 4151 (Mittaz et al. 1990) found a complex
1044: %set of principal components that are difficult to interpret
1045: %physically.
1046:
1047: \subsection{Comparison with Previous Work}
1048:
1049: Other recent studies of the \civ\ profile, using the same HST
1050: archival spectra, subtracted little \citep{baskinlaor05} or no
1051: \citep{willsetal93,corbor96,vestergaard02,kuraszkiewicz02,kuraszkiewicz04,warneretal04}
1052: NLR component. Figure \ref{fig:bls} compares our \civbc\ FWHM and
1053: centroid shift ($c(\case{1}{2})$) measures with equivalent values
1054: for sources in common with some of these studies. The LL panel of
1055: Figure \ref{fig:civnc} shows that \citet{baskinlaor05} subtracted
1056: a ($\sim$2-4 times) smaller and more constant NLR component.
1057: Direct comparison with \citet{kuraszkiewicz02,kuraszkiewicz04} is
1058: not possible because they model the \civ\ profile with multiple
1059: Gaussian components that do not correspond to our NLR and BLR
1060: interpretation. FWHM measures are strongly affected by
1061: under-subtraction of \civnc. The UL panel of Figure \ref{fig:bls}
1062: compares our FWHM \civbc\ measures with those of
1063: \citet{baskinlaor05} and \citet{warneretal04}. Symbols for
1064: comparisons with \citet{baskinlaor05} (and \citet{corbor96})
1065: retain the Pop. A-B and RQ/RL distinctions used in earlier
1066: figures. Our measures are systematically larger with the
1067: amplitude of $\Delta$ FWHM increasing systematically with FWHM
1068: \civbc. The LL panel compares our FWHM measures with
1069: \citet{corbor96} and shows similar disagreement. Correlations such
1070: as FWHM \hb\ vs. FWHM \civ\
1071: \citep{corbin91,baskinlaor05,warneretal04} found using uncorrected
1072: \civ\ measures will likely be spurious except possibly for the
1073: Pop. B sources. The most striking evidence for correlation is
1074: found in Figure 7 (right) of \citet{corbor96} involving NC
1075: corrected \hbbc\ and uncorrected \civbc\ measures. One sees two
1076: groups of sources (pop. A and B) each showing a positive trend but
1077: with different slopes for the two trends. The trends are displaced
1078: by $\Delta$ FWHM(\civbc)=3000\kms at about FWHM(\hbbc) = 4000\kms.
1079: The ``Pop. B'' trend can be described as displaced towards smaller
1080: values of FWHM(\civbc). Since narrow line emission is
1081: systematically stronger in Pop. B (especially RL) sources we might
1082: expect those FWHM(\civbc) measures to be more strongly affected by
1083: NC subtraction. Is the displacement entirely due to the lack of NC
1084: corrected FWHM(\civbc) measures? Much of the displacement
1085: disappears in our equivalent FWHM-FWHM plot but the correlation
1086: seen for Pop. B sources ($r_\mathrm{S} \approx$ 0.5) is stronger
1087: than for Pop. A ($r_\mathrm{S} \sim$0.3: not significant) and its
1088: extrapolation into the pop. A domain predicts much smaller (3000
1089: \kms) values for FWHM(\civbc) than are observed.
1090:
1091:
1092: The right panels of Fig.\ref{fig:bls} compares our
1093: $c(\case{3}{4})$ measures with those from \citet{baskinlaor05}
1094: (upper) and \citet{corbor96} (lower). There is a systematic
1095: displacement of uncorrected shift measures towards smaller or even
1096: redshifted values in both comparisons. This will tend to diminish
1097: the Pop. A-B (or RQ vs. RL) differences that are highlighted in
1098: this paper. The systematic \civ\ blueshift for Pop. A sources
1099: becomes much less obvious using NC uncorrected \civ\ measures and
1100: especially using shift measures taken closer to the profile peak
1101: (e.g., $c(0.9$)). Fig. \ref{fig:bls} shows systematic differences
1102: between corrected and uncorrected measures that will erase or
1103: obscure important \civ\ results like the ones discussed in this
1104: paper.
1105:
1106: \section{\mbh\ Calculations Using \civ\ Width }
1107: \label{mbh}
1108:
1109: \civ\ has become the line of choice for black hole mass estimation
1110: in high- $z$\ quasars. It is a dangerous choice for at least two
1111: reasons: 1) it shows a systematic blueshift in many sources, and
1112: 2) FWHM \civbc\ does not correlate strongly or monotonically with
1113: FWHM \hbbc\ -- the line of choice for low-redshift \mbh\
1114: estimation. Reason 1 does not necessarily rule out a virialized
1115: distribution of emitting clouds but it certainly motivates caution
1116: when using the line to infer black hole mass. Blueshifted \civ\
1117: profiles are thought to arise in a high ionization wind resulting
1118: in a velocity flow that is not negligible relative to any
1119: rotational component \citep{murrayetal95,progakallman04}. We think
1120: use of \civ\ warrants even more caution because we see different
1121: line properties for Pop. A and B (or alternatively RQ and RL)
1122: sources. This raises the possibility that the geometry/kinematics
1123: of the \civ\ emitting region may be fundamentally different in
1124: Pop. A and B sources. The population distinction is at least
1125: useful and possibly fundamental because it maximizes source
1126: differences. FWHM \hbbc\ and \civbc\ are most similar (Table
1127: \ref{tab:ave}) for RQ sources that show mean FWHM(\civbc) only
1128: $\approx$600 \kms\ larger than FWHM(\hbbc). The RQ source
1129: distinction will therefore yield reasonable agreement between the
1130: two \mbh\ estimators. The same is true for sources under the RL
1131: distinction where FWHM(\civbc) is $\approx$ 900 \kms\ broader.
1132: Both differences are approximately 15-16\% of the mean RQ and RL
1133: profile widths respectively.
1134:
1135: The two lines show larger difference when sources are divided
1136: using the Pop. A-B distinction where $\Delta$ FWHM (\hbbc) --
1137: FWHM(\civbc) $\approx$ --1900 \kms\ and $\approx +1400$ \kms\ for
1138: pop. A and B respectively. These discrepancies amount to $\sim $56
1139: \%\ and $\approx $ 21 \%\ of FWHM(\civbc) + FWHM(\hbbc)/2 for pop.
1140: A and B, respectively. This is larger than the measurement
1141: uncertainties for FWHM measures of both lines and further supports
1142: the utility of the pop. A-B concept. The two estimators will yield
1143: \mbh\ estimates that are more discrepant. Adopting the Pop. A-B
1144: distinction as more useful than the RQ-RL one then finds the
1145: largest Pop. A-B differences using FWHM(\hbbc) where $\Delta$FWHM
1146: (A-B) $\approx$ -4600 \kms\ compared to --1400 \kms\ using
1147: FWHM(\civbc). The corresponding differences for the RQ-RL
1148: distinction are $\Delta$ FWHM (RQ--RL) $\approx$ --2800\kms\
1149: (\hbbc) and --1200 \kms\ (\civbc).
1150:
1151: As already pointed out \citep[e. g., ][]{marzianietal96} the
1152: intrinsic dispersion of FWHM \civbc\ is less than for FWHM\hbbc\
1153: making it less sensitive to differences between source
1154: populations. Since FWHM \civbc\ measures are less accurate than
1155: FWHM \hbbc\ values derived BH masses using the former will blur
1156: out any trends obtained with \hbbc\ measures. FWHM \civbc\
1157: -derived masses will yield much larger \mbh\ estimates for Pop. A
1158: and smaller values for Pop. B. If one prefers to avoid the Pop.
1159: A-B distinction then one will find smaller \civbc\ -- \hbbc\
1160: differences using the RQ-RL distinction perhaps encouraging the
1161: incorrect assumption that a simple correlation exists between the
1162: two sets of \mbh\ measures. The smaller difference between mean
1163: FWHM values has also caused some to conclude that RQ and RL
1164: sources have similar \mbh\ distributions and mean values. Even if
1165: FWHM(\civbc) could be measured with equal accuracy, and confidence
1166: about viriality, as FWHM(\hbbc) it would be a less useful \mbh\
1167: estimator because it shows less dispersion. The main source of
1168: disagreements about \mbh\ similarities and differences among AGN
1169: samples involves Pop. B RQ sources. Combining them with narrower
1170: lined RQ sources will raise the mean value of \mbh\ for that
1171: population with only small affect on the RL results. It will tend
1172: to equalize the means.
1173: %Their inclusion with/exclusion from Pop. A
1174: %RQ samples can change everything.
1175:
1176: Estimates of \mbh\ were obtained from the UV flux density and FWHM
1177: \civbc\ reported in Table \ref{tab:civ}, as well as for the
1178: corresponding data from \citet{baskinlaor05} (their Table 1),
1179: assuming Hubble constant $H_0 = 70 $ \kms\ Mpc$^{-1}$ and relative
1180: energy density $\Omega_\Lambda = 0.7$\ and $\Omega_{\mathrm M} =
1181: 0.3$. Values of \mbh\ were derived following the latest
1182: normalization of \citet{vestergaardpeterson06}, which use the same
1183: cosmological parameters. The upper panel of Figure \ref{fig:mbh}
1184: compares \civ\ based \mbh\ estimates of \citet{baskinlaor05}
1185: (based on slightly \civnc- corrected \civ\ measures) with the
1186: NC-corrected estimates derived from this paper. We see that
1187: \citet{baskinlaor05} measures are systematically low and that the
1188: difference from our results increase with \mbh. This comparison
1189: involves only sources in common between the two studies and
1190: involves only a 2dex range in \mbh. The differences between our
1191: measures and completely uncorrected \civ\ profiles will be larger.
1192: We note that both Pop. A and B sources show this disagreement. The
1193: middle panel of Fig. \ref{fig:mbh} compares \mbh\ measures based
1194: upon FWHM \civbc\ and \hbbc. We show the ratio of \civbc/\hbbc\
1195: --derived \mbh\ measures as a function of \hbbc--derived \mbh. The
1196: \hbbc\ and continuum flux density measures come from
1197: \citet{marzianietal03a}. The latest normalization of
1198: \citet{vestergaardpeterson06} was applied to these data, too.
1199:
1200: We suggest a corrected FWHM(\hbbc) measure (reduced by a fraction
1201: dependent on FWHM(\hbbc)) as likely to be the most reliable virial
1202: estimator for reasons described in \citet{sulenticetal06a}. The
1203: middle panel of Fig. \ref{fig:mbh} suggests that (NC corrected)
1204: \civ\ based \mbh\ estimates for Pop. B sources are more consistent
1205: with ones computed from the corrected \hbbc\ width. However the
1206: scatter is large and our \civ\ regression line is 0.2dex higher
1207: than for \mbh\ derived from \hbbc. The most serious disagreement
1208: involves Pop. A sources ($\approx$ 60\%\ of RQ sources) which show
1209: a trend where the \mbh\ ratio increases with decreasing \mbh. This
1210: does not allow one to easily correct \civ-computed \mbh\ to \hbbc\
1211: values unless information on the optical spectrum (rest frame and
1212: \hbbc\ line width) is available. We made several attempts to
1213: deduce a correction for \civ-derived \mbh\ values from properties
1214: intrinsic to the \civ\ profile shape (i.e., width, asymmetry and
1215: kurtosis) but were unable to find an effective relationship.
1216: Perhaps the most effective relationship we found
1217: involves the one shown in the lower panel of Fig. \ref{fig:mbh}
1218: which shows that the ratio of \mbh\ derived from \civ\ and \hbbc\
1219: is loosely correlated with W(\civbc) (for W(\civnc) $\la $ 100
1220: \AA). \civbc\ and \hbbc\ estimates of \mbh\ show better agreement
1221: for larger values of W(\civbc). Caution is advised because
1222: equivalent width measures may be affected by continuum reddening.
1223: We also suffer from a relatively small sample of sources with
1224: W(\civbc) $\ga$ 100 \AA. Our fears about \civ--derived estimates
1225: for \mbh\ have motivated us to pursue \hb\ to the highest possible
1226: redshift and we have recently presented \hbbc\ derived \mbh\
1227: estimates out to $z \approx $ 2.5
1228: \citep{sulenticetal04,sulenticetal06a}.
1229:
1230: If NLR \civ\ follows \oiii\ then we expect the strongest and most
1231: frequent \civ\ NLR to affect Pop. B sources. Uncorrected \civ\
1232: profiles in Pop. B sources will then be measured with
1233: systematically narrow FWHM \civ. Using this measure for \mbh\
1234: estimation will result in systematic under estimation. This
1235: explains why many of previous studies found little or no
1236: difference in \mbh\ estimates for RQ and RL sources in direct
1237: contradiction with derivations based on FWHM \hbbc. The overall
1238: tendency will be to push both ends towards the center thus
1239: reducing the dispersion of \mbh\ derived from uncorrected \mbh\
1240: \citep[see also discussion in][]{baskinlaor05}. \mbh\
1241: underestimates for many sources, especially RL which tend to be
1242: overluminous in an optically selected sample (e.g. BG92), will
1243: yield spuriously high \lledd\ values \citep[e. g.
1244: ][]{warneretal04} for Pop. B. The insidious effect of uncorrected
1245: \civ\ measures is that it will tend to mix sources of very
1246: different empirical and physical properties. The correlation
1247: between FWHM \civ\ and \lledd\ \cite[][ Fig. 5]{warneretal04} is
1248: almost certainly driven by biases resulting from use of
1249: uncorrected \civ\ measures.
1250:
1251:
1252: \section{Conclusions}
1253:
1254: AGN are widely compared and contrasted in two ways: (1) RQ vs. RL
1255: and (2) NLSy1 vs. broad-line Seyferts/quasars. We suggest an
1256: alternate approach that unites both of these distinctions and that
1257: is supported by differences in \civ\ line measures. We find that
1258: sources above and below FWHM \hbbc\ $\approx$ 4000 \kms\ show the
1259: most significant spectroscopic (and broadband) differences. RL
1260: sources lie largely above this limit while NLSy1 lie below it. We
1261: find that all or most sources below 4000 \kms\ show properties
1262: similar to NLSy1s. Figure \ref{fig:e1} (upper left panel) in this
1263: paper particularly reenforces this similarity by showing that
1264: almost all sources with FWHM \hbbc $\la$ 4000 \kms\ show a
1265: systematic \civ\ blueshift. Our population A-B concept simply
1266: reflects a unification where Pop. A sources show NLSy1-like
1267: properties and Pop. B sources show RL-like properties.
1268:
1269: This paper addresses two thorny problems involving \civ\ measures
1270: and their interpretation: (1) when and how to correct \civ\ for
1271: NLR contamination and (2) whether \civ\ measures support previous
1272: claims, based on optical spectra (and radio loudness), for two
1273: Populations (A+B) of broad line AGN. The second result actually
1274: clarifies the answer to the first problem. Evidence is now
1275: ubiquitous at both high and low redshift for significant \civ\ NLR
1276: emission in many sources. If we used \oiii\ as a line template
1277: then we would find fewer \civnc\ components and those found would
1278: be narrower and weaker (i.e. lower EW). In several cases we find
1279: such an \oiii-like component but in many sources our inferred
1280: \civnc\ component is broader and hence stronger. We argue that
1281: empirical evidence (e.g., inflections in some sources and broader
1282: \civnc\ in Type 2 AGN) as well as simple models support our
1283: hypothesis that \civnc\ is often not ``\oiii-like."
1284:
1285:
1286: We argue that correlations found without NLR correction are very
1287: often spurious while real correlations (Figs. \ref{fig:e1},
1288: \ref{fig:civ}) require NLR correction to be seen clearly. We
1289: propose a simple recipe for \civ\ NLR correction. \civ\ proves to
1290: be a valuable 4DE1 space discriminator that provides evidence in
1291: support of our two population hypothesis in the sense that the
1292: \civ\ blueshift is ubiquitous only in previously defined
1293: population A sources. These results have strong implications for
1294: any attempt to use \civ\ measures for black hole mass (and \lledd)
1295: estimation. We suggest that any use of \civ\ line measures can be
1296: facilitated by interpreting them within the 4DE1 + population A-B
1297: context.
1298:
1299: %We thank C. Warner for kindly providing his \civ\ measurements.
1300:
1301: We thank the referee for thorough readings of the manuscript. DD
1302: acknowledges support from grant IN100703 PAPIIT UNAM. This
1303: research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database
1304: (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
1305: California Institute of Technology, under contract with the NASA.
1306: Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred
1307: P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National
1308: Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National
1309: Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho,
1310: the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council
1311: for England. The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/. The SDSS
1312: is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the
1313: Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the
1314: American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute
1315: Potsdam, University of Basel, University of Cambridge, Case
1316: Western Reserve University, University of Chicago, Drexel
1317: University, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan
1318: Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University, the Joint Institute
1319: for Nuclear Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute for Particle
1320: Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean Scientist Group, the
1321: Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos National
1322: Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the
1323: Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State
1324: University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh,
1325: University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States
1326: Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
1327:
1328: \clearpage
1329:
1330: \appendix
1331: \section{Notes on Individual Objects}
1332: \label{appendix}
1333:
1334: Most sources follow the 4DE1 trends described here and in previous
1335: papers. However a few sources appear to be genuinely pathological.
1336: We mention a couple of such sources that appear as outliers in
1337: 4DE1 space and that are particularly relevant to the discussion
1338: involving \civ\ measures.
1339:
1340: \begin{description}
1341:
1342: \item[3C 57] shows $c(\case{1}{2})$\ \civ\ and \rfe\ parameters
1343: typical of a Pop. A (even extreme Pop. A, NLSy1s) source
1344: ($c(\case{1}{2})$ = --1605 \kms; \rfe $\approx$ 1.25). W(\civ) and
1345: profile shape are also typical of Pop. A (even similar to the ones
1346: of I Zw 1. At the same time it is RL, shows no soft X-ray excess
1347: and FWHM(\hbbc) $\approx$ 4700 \kms\ all consistent with Pop. B.
1348:
1349: \item[PG 0026+126] This quasar is moderate RQ Pop. A following
1350: the current 4DE1 empiricism because FWHM(\hbbc) $\approx$ 2400
1351: \kms\ and \rfe $\approx$ 0.28. There are two possible
1352: interpretations of the \civ\ profile: (1) (FWHM \civ $\approx$
1353: 1860 \kms\ and $c(\case{1}{2})$ = +140 \kms) if the strong narrow
1354: peak is {\em not} subtracted or 2)(FWHM \civ $\approx$ 7000 \kms\
1355: and $c (\case{1}{2}) \sim$-1000 \kms) if the narrow peak is
1356: subtracted as a NLR component. This last approach seems especially
1357: appropriate since FWHM of the \civ\ narrow core only slightly
1358: exceeds (10--20 \%) FWHM(\oiii). The source is a FWHM \civ\
1359: ``outlier" whichever \civ\ measure is adopted --either unusually
1360: narrow or unusually broad (see Figure \ref{fig:civ}). \rfe\ and
1361: \gs\ measures are intermediate for the source and therefore
1362: unconstraining. Note that an erroneous rest frame is often assumed
1363: for this source \citep{geldermanwittle94}. The most accurate
1364: redshift for the source corresponds to the centroid of the narrow
1365: component which is consistent with the NLR interpretation. This
1366: also yields a modest blueshift for the broader component which is
1367: also unconstraining. The strong profile inflection and small FWHM
1368: for the unshifted narrow component lead us to subtract it as NLR
1369: emission. RQ sources like NGC 4253 and 4395 show similar
1370: NLR-strong profiles.
1371:
1372: \item[PKS 1252+119] Is the highest-$z$ \ quasar in our sample.
1373: \hb\ is consequently located at the edge of an excellent SDSS
1374: spectrum, making measures of FWHM(\hbbc) uncertain. The reported \rfe\
1375: is the only upper limit in our sample (marked with an arrow in
1376: Fig. \ref{fig:e1}). This source maybe located in an area of
1377: the 4DE1 optical plane where other core-dominated RL sources are
1378: found \citep[Fig. 1 of ][]{sulenticetal03} but confirmatory
1379: optical data are needed.
1380: \end{description}
1381:
1382: \clearpage
1383:
1384: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1385:
1386: \bibitem[Allen et al.(1991)]{allenetal91} Allen, D.~A., Norris, R.~P., Meadows, V.~S., \& Roche, P.~F.\ 1991, \mnras, 248, 528 %
1387: \bibitem[Aoki et al., 2005]{aokietal05} Aoki, K., Kawaguchi, T., \& Ohta, K.\ 2005, \apj, 618, 601
1388: \bibitem[Bachev et al., 2004]{bachevetal04} Bachev, R., Marziani, P., Sulentic J. W., Dultzin-Hacyan D., Calvani M. 2004, ApJ, 617, 171%
1389: \bibitem[Baldwin et al.(1995)]{baldwinetal95} Baldwin, J., Ferland, G., Korista, K., \& Verner, D.\ 1995, \apjl, 455, L119 %
1390: \bibitem[Barger et al.(2002)]{bargeretal02} Barger, A.~J., Cowie, L.~L., Brandt, W.~N., Capak, P., Garmire, G.~P., Hornschemeier, A.~E., Steffen, A.~T., \& Wehner, E.~H.\ 2002, \aj, 124, 1839 %
1391: \bibitem[Baskin \& Laor, 2004]{baskinlaor04} Baskin, A. \& Laor, A. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 31
1392: \bibitem[Baskin \& Laor, 2005]{baskinlaor05} Baskin, A. \& Laor, A. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 1029
1393: \bibitem[Boller(2004)]{boller04} Boller, T.\ 2004, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 155, 217
1394: \bibitem[Boroson, 2002]{boroson02} Boroson, T.A. 2002, ApJ, 565, 78
1395: \bibitem[Boroson, 2005]{boroson05} Boroson, T.\ 2005, \aj, 130, 381%
1396: \bibitem[Boroson \& Green, 1992]{borosongreen92} Boroson, T.~A., \& Green, R.~F.\ 1992, ApJS, 80, 109
1397: \bibitem[Bottorff et al., 1997]{bottorffetal97} Bottorff, M. et al. 1997, ApJ, 479, 200
1398: \bibitem[Brotherton(1996)]{brotherton96} Brotherton, M.~S.\ 1996, \apjs, 102, 1 %
1399: \bibitem[Brotherton \& Francis(1999)]{brothertonfrancis99} Brotherton, M.~S., \& Francis, P.~J.\ 1999, ASP Conf.~Ser.~162: Quasars and Cosmology, 162, 395 %
1400: \bibitem[Brotherton et al.(1994)]{brothertonetal94} Brotherton, M.~S., Wills, B.~J., Francis, P.~J., \& Steidel, C.~C.\ 1994, \apj, 430, 495 %
1401: \bibitem[Chaffee et al.(1991)]{chaffeeetal91} Chaffee, F.~H., Foltz, C.~B., Hewett, P.~C., Francis, P.~A., Weymann, R.~J., Morris, S.~L., Anderson, S.~F., \& MacAlpine, G.~M.\ 1991, \aj, 102, 461 %
1402: \bibitem[Cirasuolo et al.(2003)]{cirasuoloetal03} Cirasuolo, M., Celotti, A., Magliocchetti, M., \& Danese, L.\ 2003, \mnras, 346, 447%
1403: \bibitem[Collin et al.(2006)]{collinetal06} Collin, S., Kawaguchi, T., Peterson, B.~M., \& Vestergaard, M.\ 2006, \aap, 456, 75 %
1404: \bibitem[Contini \& Viegas(2001)]{continiviegas01} Contini, M., \& Viegas, S.~M.\ 2001, \apjs, 132, 211 %
1405: \bibitem[Corbin(1991)]{corbin91} Corbin, M.~R.\ 1991, \apjl, 371, L51%
1406: \bibitem[Corbin(1997)]{corbin97} Corbin, M.~R.\ 1997, \apjs, 113, 245%
1407: \bibitem[Corbin \& Boroson(1996)]{corbor96} Corbin, M. \& Boroson, T.\ 1996, \apjs, 107, 69 %
1408: \bibitem[Dawson et al.(2001)]{dawsonetal01} Dawson, S., Stern, D., Bunker, A.~J., Spinrad, H., \& Dey, A.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 598 %
1409: %\bibitem[Dultzin-Hacyan et al., 2000]{dultzinhacyanetal00} Dultzin-Hacyan, D., Marziani, P., \& Sulentic, J.~W.\ 2000, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, 9, 308
1410: \bibitem[Eracleous \& Halpern(2004)]{eracleoushalpern04} Eracleous, M., \& Halpern, J.~P.\ 2004, \apjs, 150, 181 %
1411: %\bibitem[Ferland \& Osterbrock(1986)]{ferlandosterbrock86} Ferland, G.~J., \& Osterbrock, D.~E.\ 1986, \apj, 300, 658 %
1412: \bibitem[Foltz et al.(1989)]{foltzetal89} Foltz, C.~B., Chaffee, F.~H., Hewett, P.~C., Weymann, R.~J., Anderson, S.~F., \& MacAlpine, G.~M.\ 1989, \aj, 98, 1959 %
1413: \bibitem[Gelderman \& Whittle, 1994]{geldermanwittle94} Gelderman, R. \& Whittle, M. 1994, ApJS, 91, 491
1414: \bibitem[Giveon et al., 1999]{giveonetal99} Giveon, U., Maoz, D., Kaspi, S., Netzer, H., \& Smith, P.~S.\ 1999, MNRAS, 306, 637
1415: \bibitem[Grupe et al.(1999)]{grupeetal99} Grupe, D., Beuermann, K., Mannheim, K., \& Thomas, H.-C.\ 1999, \aap, 350, 805%
1416: \bibitem[Grupe et al., 2001]{grupeetal01} Grupe, D., Thomas, H.-C., \& Beuermann, K.\ 2001, AAp, 367, 470
1417: \bibitem[Hewitt \& Burbidge(1980)]{hewittburbidge80} Hewitt, A., \& Burbidge, G.\ 1980, \apjs, 43, 57%
1418: \bibitem[Hewitt \& Burbidge(1989)]{hewittburbidge89} Hewitt, A., \& Burbidge, G.\ 1989, A new optical catalog of QSO (1989), 0%
1419: \bibitem[Jackson \& Browne(1991)]{jacksonbrowne91} Jackson, N., \& Browne, I.~W.~A.\ 1991, \mnras, 250, 414 %
1420: \bibitem[Jarvis et al.(2005)]{jarvisetal05} Jarvis, M.~J., van Breukelen, C., \& Wilman, R.~J.\ 2005, \mnras, 358, L11 %
1421: \bibitem[Jiang et al.(2006)]{jiangetal06} Jiang, L., Fan, X., Ivezic, Z., Richards, G.~T., Schneider, D.~P., Strauss, M.~A., \& Kelly, B.~C.\ 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0611453%
1422: \bibitem[Kaspi et al., 2000]{kaspietal00} Kaspi S., Smith P.S., Netzer H., et al.\ 2000, ApJ, 533, 631
1423: \bibitem[Keel(1996)]{keel96} Keel, W.~C.\ 1996, \apjs, 106, 27 %
1424: %\bibitem[Komossa \& Meerschweinchen(2000)]{komossameerschweinchen00} Komossa, S., \& Meerschweinchen, J.\ 2000, \aap, 354, 411 %
1425: \bibitem[Kraemer et al.(1998)]{kraemeretal98} Kraemer, S.~B., Crenshaw, D.~M., Filippenko, A.~V., \& Peterson, B.~M.\ 1998, \apj, 499, 719 %
1426: \bibitem[Kraemer et al.(1994)]{kraemeretal94} Kraemer, S.~B., Wu, C.-C., Crenshaw, D.~M., \& Harrington, J.~P.\ 1994, \apj, 435, 171%
1427: \bibitem[Kuraszkiewicz et al. (2002)]{kuraszkiewicz02} Kuraszkiewicz, J.K. et al. 2002, ApJS, 143, 257
1428: \bibitem[Kuraszkiewicz et al. (2004)]{kuraszkiewicz04} Kuraszkiewicz, J.K. et al. 2004, ApJ, 150, 165
1429: \bibitem[Laor \& Brandt(2002)]{laorbrandt02} Laor, A., \& Brandt, W.~N.\ 2002, \apj, 569, 641
1430: \bibitem[Lynds(1967)]{lynds67} Lynds, C.~R.\ 1967, \apj, 147, 837 %
1431: \bibitem[Maccarone et al., 2005]{maccaroneetal05} Maccarone, T. et al. 2005, A\&A, 433, 53
1432: \bibitem[Meiksin(2006)]{meiksin06} Meiksin, A.\ 2006, \mnras, 365, 833%
1433: \bibitem[Mainieri et al., 2005]{mainierietal05} Mainieri, V. et al. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 1571
1434: \bibitem[Marziani et al., 1996]{marzianietal96} Marziani P., Sulentic J.W., Dultzin-Hacyan D., Calvani M., Moles M., 1996, ApJS 104, 37%
1435: \bibitem[Marziani et al., 2001]{marzianietal01} Marziani P., Sulentic J.W., Zwitter T., Dultzin-Hacyan D., Calvani M., 2001, ApJ, 558, 553 (M01)%
1436: \bibitem[Marziani et al., 2003a]{marzianietal03a} Marziani P., Sulentic J. W., Zamanov R., Calvani M., Dultzin-Hacyan D., Bachev R., Zwitter T., 2003a, ApJS, 145, 199 (M03)%
1437: \bibitem[Marziani et al., 2003b]{marzianietal03b} Marziani P., Zamanov R., Sulentic J. W., Calvani M., 2003b, MNRAS, 345, 1133
1438: \bibitem[Marziani et al., 2006]{marzianietal06} Marziani P., Dultzin-Hacyan D., \& Sulentic J.W.2006, in: New Developments in Black Hole Research, Editor: Paul V. Kreitler, Nova Science Publishers, p. 123 %
1439: %\bibitem[Mathur(2000)]{mathur00} Mathur S.\ 2000, MNRAS, 314, L17%
1440: \bibitem[Murray et al.(1995)]{murrayetal95} Murray, N., Chiang, J., Grossman, S.~A., \& Voit, G.~M.\ 1995, \apj, 451, 498%
1441: \bibitem[Norman et al.(2002)]{normanetal02} Norman, C., et al.\ 2002, \apj, 571, 218 %
1442: \bibitem[Osterbrock \& Pogge(1985)]{osterbrockpogge85} Osterbrock, D.~E., \& Pogge, R.~W.\ 1985, \apj, 297, 166
1443: \bibitem[Peterson et al., 2004]{petersonetal04} Peterson, B.~M., et al.\ 2004, ApJ, 613, 682%
1444: \bibitem[Proga \& Kallman, 2004]{progakallman04} Proga, D. \& Kallman, T.R. 2004, ApJ, 616, 688%
1445: \bibitem[Reichard et al., 2003]{reichardetal03} Reichard, T.~A., et al.\ 2003, AJ, 126, 2594%
1446: \bibitem[Richards et al., 2002]{richardsetal02} Richards, G.~T., Vanden Berk, D.~E., Reichard, T.~A., Hall, P.~B., Schneider, D.~P., SubbaRao, M., Thakar, A.~R., \& York, D.~G.\ 2002, AJ, 124, 1
1447: \bibitem[Rodriguez-Pascual et al., 1997]{rodriguezpascualetal97} Rodr\'\i guez-Pascual, P.M., Mas-Hesse, J.M., Santos-Lleo, M., 1997, AAp, 327, 72
1448: \bibitem[Schlegel et al.(1998)]{schlegeletal98} Schlegel, D.~J., Finkbeiner, D.~P., \& Davis, M.\ 1998, \apj, 500, 525 %
1449: \bibitem[Savage et al.(2000)]{savageetal00} Savage, B.~D., et al.\ 2000, \apjs, 129, 563%
1450: \bibitem[Severgnini et al.(2006)]{severgninietal06} Severgnini, P., et al.\ 2006, \aap, 451, 859%
1451: \bibitem[Stern et al.(2002)]{sternetal02} Stern, D., et al.\ 2002, \apj, 568, 71 %
1452: \bibitem[Sulentic \& Marziani, 1999]{sulenticmarziani99} Sulentic, J.W. \& Marziani, P., 1999, ApJ, 518, L9
1453: \bibitem[Sulentic et al., 2000a]{sulenticetal00a} Sulentic, J.W. et al. 2000a, AR A\&A, 38, 521 (S00a)
1454: \bibitem[Sulentic et al., 2000b]{sulenticetal00b} Sulentic, J.W. et al. 2000b, ApJ, 536, L5 (S00b)
1455: \bibitem[Sulentic et al., 2000c]{sulenticetal00c} Sulentic, J.~W., Marziani, P., Zwitter, T., Dultzin-Hacyan, D., \& Calvani, M.\ 2000c, ApJL, 545, L15
1456: \bibitem[Sulentic et al., 2002]{sulenticetal02} Sulentic, J.~W., Marziani, P., Zamanov, R., Bachev, R., Calvani, M., \& Dultzin-Hacyan, D.\ 2002, ApJ, 566, L71
1457: \bibitem[Sulentic et al., 2003]{sulenticetal03} Sulentic, J.W. et al. 2003, ApJ, 597, L17
1458: \bibitem[Sulentic et al., 2004]{sulenticetal04} Sulentic, J.W. et al. 2004, A\&A, 423, 121
1459: %\bibitem[Sulentic et al., 2005]{sulenticetal05} Sulentic, J.W. et al. 2005, RevMexAAp, submitted%
1460: \bibitem[Sulentic et al., 2006b]{sulenticetal06b} Sulentic, J.~W., Dultzin-Hacyan, D.., Marziani, P., Bongardo, C., Braito V., Zamanov, R., Calvani, M. 2006, RevMexAAp, 42, 23 %
1461: \bibitem[Sulentic et al.(2006a)]{sulenticetal06a} Sulentic, J.~W., Repetto, P., Stirpe, G.~M., Marziani, P., Dultzin-Hacyan, D., \& Calvani, M.\ 2006, \aap, 456, 929 %
1462: \bibitem[Szokoly et al.(2004)]{szokolyetal04} Szokoly, G.~P., et al.\ 2004, \apjs, 155, 271 %
1463: \bibitem[Tadhunter et al.(1993)]{tadhunteretal93} Tadhunter, C.~N., Morganti, R., di Serego-Alighieri, S., Fosbury, R.~A.~E., \& Danziger, I.~J.\ 1993, \mnras, 263, 999%
1464: \bibitem[Turler \& Courvoisier(1998)]{turlercourvoisier98} Turler, M., \& Courvoisier, T.~J.-L.\ 1998, \aap, 329, 863%
1465: \bibitem[Turner et al., 1999]{turneretal99} Turner, T.J., George, I.M., Nandra, K., \& Turcan, D., 1999, ApJ, 524, 667
1466: \bibitem[V{\' e}ron-Cetty et al., 2001]{veroncettyetal01} V{\' e}ron-Cetty, M.-P., V{\'e}ron, P., \& Gon{\c c}alves, A.~C.\ 2001, AAp, 372, 730%
1467: \bibitem[Vestergaard, 2002]{vestergaard02} Vestergaard, M. 2002, ApJ, 571, 733
1468: \bibitem[Vestergaard \& Peterson(2006)]{vestergaardpeterson06} Vestergaard, M., \& Peterson, B.~M.\ 2006, \apj, 641, 689 %
1469: \bibitem[Wang et al., 1996]{wangetal96} Wang, T. et al. 1996, A\&A, 309, 81%
1470: \bibitem[Warner et al., 2004]{warneretal04} Warner, C. et al. 2004, ApJ, 608, 136 %
1471: \bibitem[Wills \& Lynds(1978)]{willslynds78} Wills, D., \& Lynds, R.\ 1978, \apjs, 36, 317%
1472: \bibitem[Wills et al. (1993)]{willsetal93} Wills, B.~J., et al. 1993, \apj, 415, 563%
1473: \bibitem[Wills et al.(1999)]{willsetal99} Wills, B.~J., Laor, A., Brotherton, M.~S., Wills, D., Wilkes, B.~J., Ferland, G.~J., \& Shang, Z.\ 1999, \apjl, 515, L53%
1474: \bibitem[Wills et al.(1995)]{willsetal95} Wills, B.~J., et al.\ 1995, \apj, 447, 139
1475: \bibitem[Wisotzki et al.(2000)]{wisotzkietal00} Wisotzki, L., Christlieb, N., Bade, N., Beckmann, V., K{\"o}hler, T., Vanelle, C., \& Reimers, D.\ 2000, \aap, 358, 77%
1476: \bibitem[Yuan \& Wills(2003)]{yuanwills03} Yuan, M.~J.~ \& Wills, B.~J.\ 2003, ApJL, 593, L11 %
1477: \bibitem[Zamanov et al., 2002]{zamanovetal02} Zamanov, R., Marziani, P., Sulentic, J.~W., Calvani, M., Dultzin-Hacyan, D., \& Bachev, R.\ 2002, ApJL, 576, L9
1478: \end{thebibliography}
1479:
1480:
1481: %\clearpage
1482:
1483: \begin{deluxetable}{llrcccccccc}\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1484: \tablecomments{Table 1 is published in its entirety in the
1485: electronic edition of the Astrophysical Journal. A portion is
1486: shown here for guidance regarding its form and content.}
1487: \tablenum{1} \tablewidth{0pt} \tablecaption{Source Identification
1488: and 4DE1 Parameters} \tablehead{\colhead{IAU Code}&
1489: \colhead{Common Name\tablenotemark{a}}&
1490: \colhead{$z$\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{$z$\ Ref.} &
1491: \colhead{PG/BO} &\colhead{$A_{\mathrm B}$\tablenotemark{c}} &
1492: \colhead{FWHM(\hbbc)} & \colhead{\rfe} & \colhead{$\log$(\rk)} & \colhead{$\Gamma_{\rm soft}$} \\
1493: & & & & & [mag] & [\kms] & & & \\
1494: \colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} & \colhead{(3)} & \colhead{(4)} &
1495: \colhead{(5)} & \colhead{(6)} & \colhead{(7)} & \colhead{(8)} &
1496: \colhead{(9)}& \colhead{(10)} } \startdata
1497: J00057+0203 & LBQS 0003+0146 & 0.234 & C91 & &0.10 &3315 & 0.26 & -1.00 &3.08 \\%
1498: J00059+1609 & PG 0003+158 & 0.4504 & M03 &$\ast$&0.22 &5519 & 0.14 & 2.53 &2.34 \\%
1499: J00063+2012 & MRK 0335 & 0.0252 & M03 &$\ast$&0.15 &1950 & 0.28 & -0.54 &2.90 \\%
1500: J00204+0226 & LBQS 0017+0209 & 0.401 & F89 & &0.10 &2535 & 1.07 & -1.00 &\ldots \\%
1501: J00292+1316 & PG 0026+129 & 0.1451 & M03 &$\ast$&0.31 &2405 & 0.28 & -0.10 &2.07 \\%
1502: J00392$-$5117 & [WPV85] 007 & 0.0290 & G99 & &0.05 &1203 & 0.68 & \ldots &9.00: \\%
1503: J00449+1026 & [HB89] 0042+101 & 0.5857 & SPM & &0.29 &8978 & 0.40 & 0.00 &2.48 \\%
1504: J00470+0319 & PG 0044+030 & 0.6231 & M03 & &0.09 &5759 & 0.19 & 1.83 &1.72 \\%
1505: J00535+1241 & UGC 00545 & 0.0605 & M03 &$\ast$&0.28 &1151 & 1.30 & -0.47 &3.10 \\%
1506: J00548+2525 & PG 0052+251 & 0.1543 & M03 &B$\ast$&0.21 &5772 & 0.15 & -0.39 &2.49 \\%
1507: J00573$-$2222 & TON S180 & 0.0620 & M03 & &0.06 &1131 & 0.54 & -1.00 &2.89 \\%
1508: J01032+0221 & LBQS 0100+0205 & 0.394 & M03 & &0.09 &6682 & 0.20 & -1.00 &\ldots \\%
1509: J01237$-$5848 & Fairall 9 & 0.0461 & M03 & &0.12 &6263 & 0.43 & -0.30 &2.42 \\%
1510: J01342$-$4258 & HE 0132$-$4313 & 0.237 & W00 & &0.07 &2600 & 2.20 & 1.57 &3.30 \\%
1511: J01376$-$2430 & [HB89] 0135$-$247 & 0.835 & JB91 & &0.05 &10563 & 0.30 & 3.59 &2.14 \\%
1512: J01399+0131 & UM 355 & 0.2600 & SPM? & &0.13 &11245 & 0.09 & 3.09 &1.93 \\%
1513: J02019$-$1132 & 3C 057 & 0.6713 & SPM & &0.10 &4753 & 1.25 & 2.00 &2.28 \\%
1514: J02171+1104 & [HB89] 0214+108 & 0.408 & HB80 & &0.47 &4290 & 0.05 & 2.68 &2.13 \\%
1515: J03198+4130 & NGC 1275 & 0.0175 & M96 & &0.70 &5659 & 0.05 & 3.56 &2.40 \\%
1516: J03514$-$1429 & 3C 095 & 0.616 & M03 & &0.34 &9516 & 0.22 & 2.79 &2.34 \\%
1517: J04055$-$1308 & [HB89] 0403$-$132 & 0.5705 & M03 & &0.25 &4440 & 0.07 & 3.74 &1.60 \\%
1518: J04172$-$0553 & 3C 110 & 0.7744 & SPM & &0.19 &9256 & 0.55 & 2.32 &2.48 \\%
1519: J04200$-$5456 & NGC 1566 & 0.00507 & ESO & &0.04 &5967 & 0.05 & 2.37 &2.19 \\%
1520: J04232$-$0120 & [HB89] 0420$-$014 & 0.915 & WL78 & &0.57 &3185 & 0.02 & 3.44 &2.02 \\%
1521: J04412$-$4313 & [HB89] 0439$-$433 & 0.5938 & M03 & &0.07 &3608 & 0.16 & 2.46 &2.25 \\%
1522: J04525$-$2953 & IRAS 04505$-$2958 & 0.2855 & ESO & &0.06 &2275 & 0.39 & -1.00 &3.10 \\%
1523: J04561$-$2159 & [HB89] 0454$-$220 & 0.5346 & SPM & &0.18 &9042 & 0.18 & 2.76 &1.97 \\%
1524: J05161$-$0008 & ARK 120 & 0.0323 & M03 & &0.55 &6455 & 0.51 & -0.52 &2.60 \\%
1525: J05198$-$4546 & PICTOR A & 0.0350 & EH04 & &0.19 &18400 & 0.01 & 2.00 &2.34 \\%
1526: J06300+6905 & HS 0624+6907 & 0.3702 & M03 & &0.42 &3660 & 0.14 & -1.00 &3.80 \\%
1527: J06357$-$7516 & [HB89] 0637$-$752 & 0.651 & T93 & &0.42 &7922 & 0.40 & 3.53 &2.38 \\%
1528: J07086$-$4933 & 1H 0707$-$495 & 0.0408 & ESO & &0.41 &1365 & 1.43 & -1.00 &2.25 \\%
1529: J07456+3142 & FBQS J074541.6+314256 & 0.4611 & M03 & &0.31 &7800 & 0.09 & 2.66 &1.56 \\%
1530: J08407+1312 & 3C 207 & 0.6804 & M03 & &0.40 &2958 & 0.73 & 3.79 &1.55 \\%
1531: J08535+4349 & [HB89] 0850+440 & 0.5149 & M03 & &0.15 &2724 & 0.23 & -1.00 &\ldots \\%
1532: J09065+1646 & 3C 215 & 0.4113 & SPM & &0.17 &4680 & 0.03 & 3.32 &1.72 \\%
1533: J09199+5106 & NGC 2841 UB3 & 0.5563 & M96 & B &0.07 &6338 & 0.70 & -1.00 &2.41 \\%
1534: J09270+3902 & [HB89] 0923+392 & 0.6953 & SDSS & &0.06 &12675 & 0.05 & 4.46 &2.25 \\%
1535: J09508+3926 & PG 0947+396 & 0.2067 & M03 &$\ast$&0.08 &5389 & 0.26 & -1.00 &2.18 \\%
1536: J09568+4115 & PG 0953+414 & 0.2347 & M03 &$\ast$&0.05 &3413 & 0.22 & -0.13 &2.65 \\%
1537: J09583+3224 & 3C 232 & 0.5298 & M03 & &0.06 &13666 & 0.138& 3.40 &1.46 \\%
1538: J10040+2855 & PG 1001+291 & 0.3298 & M03 & B &0.09 &1853 & 0.92 & -1.00 &4.01 \\%
1539: J10043+0513 & PG 1001+054 & 0.1611 & M03 &$\ast$&0.07 &1879 & 0.49 & -0.07 &4.38 \\%
1540: J10104+4132 & FBQS J101027.5+413238 & 0.6126 & M03 & &0.06 &2964 & 0.22 & 2.76 &2.00 \\%
1541: J10235+1951 & NGC 3227 & 0.0039 & O03 & &0.10 &4605 & 0.01 & 0.00 &1.20 \\%
1542: J10309+3102 & FBQS J103059.1+310255 & 0.1780 & SPM & &0.09 &7800 & 0.02 & 2.38 &2.26 \\%
1543: J10518$-$0051 & PG 1049$-$005 & 0.3591 & M03 &$\ast$&0.25 &5610 & 0.15 & -1.00 &2.86 \\%
1544: J10525+6125 & [HB89] 1049+616 & 0.4207 & SDSS & &0.06 &4225 & 0.03 & 2.61 &2.26 \\%
1545: J11042+7658 & PG 1100+772 & 0.3116 & M03 &$\ast$&0.15 &8242 & 0.01 & 2.62 &2.56 \\%
1546: J11067+7234 & NGC 3516 & 0.0088 & K96 & &0.18 &6338 & 0.36 & 0.00 &2.20 \\%
1547: J11072+1628 & [HB89] 1104+167 & 0.632 & C93 & &0.08 &7150 & 0.02 & 2.47 &2.39 \\%
1548: J11146+4037 & 3C 254 & 0.7367 & SDSS & &0.06 &6866 & 0.20 & 2.00 &2.39 \\%
1549: J11171+4413 & PG 1114+445 & 0.1433 & M03 &$\ast$&0.07 &5402 & 0.10 & -1.00 &2.50 \\%
1550: J11185+4025 & PG 1115+407 & 0.1536 & M03 &$\ast$&0.07 &2295 & 0.49 & -1.00 &2.92 \\%
1551: J11191+2119 & PG 1116+215 & 0.1765 & M03 &$\ast$&0.10 &3218 & 0.36 & -0.20 &2.60 \\%
1552: J11246+4201 & PG 1121+422 & 0.2253 & M03 &$\ast$&0.10 &2834 & 0.23 & -1.00 &2.83 \\%
1553: J11350$-$0318 & LBQS 1132$-$0302 & 0.236 & W00 & &0.17 &2600 & 1.30 & -1.00 &\ldots \\%
1554: J11390$-$3744 & NGC 3783 & 0.0095 & M03 & &0.51 &3757 & 0.18 & 0.02 &2.50 \\%
1555: J11391$-$1350 & [HB89] 1136$-$135 & 0.5562 & SPM & &0.17 &4584 & 0.10 & 3.19 &1.78 \\%
1556: J11399+6547 & 3C 263 & 0.6465 & M03 & &0.05 &5012 & 0.85 & 3.02 &2.12 \\%
1557: J11413+0148 & LBQS 1138+0204 & 0.3821 & SDSS & &0.10 &4225 & 0.92 & -1.00 &\ldots \\%
1558: J11473$-$0132 & LBQS 1144$-$0115 & 0.3827 & SDSS & B &0.08 &4753 & 0.43 & 0.00 &\ldots \\%
1559: J11534+4931 & SBS 1150+497 & 0.3336 & M03 & &0.09 &4303 & 0.20 & 3.13 &1.99 \\%
1560: J11586+6254 & [HB89] 1156+631 & 0.5924 & SDSS & &0.07 &17956 & 0.00 & 0.00 &2.30 \\%
1561: J11594+2106 & [HB89] 1156+213 & 0.349 & HB89 & &0.12 &13000 & 0.17 & 2.13 &\ldots \\%
1562: J12047+2754 & GQ Com & 0.1654 & M03 &$\ast$&0.09 &5194 & 0.10 & -0.32 &2.24 \\%
1563: J12142+1403 & PG 1211+143 & 0.0811 & M03 &$\ast$&0.15 &1989 & 0.47 & -0.89 &1.88 \\%
1564: J12184+2948 & NGC 4253 & 0.0124 & M03 & &0.08 &2087 & 1.14 & 0.04 &2.50 \\%
1565: J12193+0638 & PG 1216+069 & 0.3322 & M03 &$\ast$&0.09 &7072 & 0.17 & 0.30 &2.38 \\%
1566: J12217+7518 & MRK 0205 & 0.0711 & M03 & &0.18 &3783 & 0.21 & -0.47 &2.10 \\%
1567: J12258+3332 & NGC 4395 & 0.0008 & M03 & &0.07 &1695 & 0.47 & -2.45 &1.2 \\%
1568: J12291+0203 & 3C 273 & 0.1583 & M03 &$\ast$&0.09 &3829 & 0.30 & 2.11 &2.11 \\%
1569: J12334+0931 & LBQS 1230+0947 & 0.4159 & SDSS & &0.09 &4225 & 0.03 & -1.00 &3.79 \\%
1570: J12524+5634 & SBS 1250+568 & 0.3200 & SDSS & &0.05 &4810 & 0.01 & 3.52 &2.59 \\%
1571: J12546+1141 & [HB89] 1252+119 & 0.8737 & SDSS & &0.19 & 3600: & $\la 0.9$& 2.95 & 1.88 \\%
1572: J13012+5902 & SBS 1259+593 & 0.4776 & M03 &$\ast$&0.03 &3569 & 1.07 & -1.00 &\ldots \\%
1573: J13055$-$1033 & PG 1302$-$102 & 0.2783 & M03 &$\ast$&0.18 &3959 & 0.64 & 2.42 &2.31 \\%
1574: J13079+0642 & 3C 281 & 0.599 & B96 & &0.17 &8915 & 0.01 & 2.00 &2.03 \\%
1575: J13097+0819 & PG 1307+085 & 0.1546 & M03 &$\ast$&0.15 &5616 & 0.10 & -1.00 &2.58 \\%
1576: J13122+3515 & FBQS J131217.7+351521 & 0.1821 & M03 &$\ast$&0.05 &4186 & 0.19 & 1.33 &2.51 \\%
1577: J13198$-$0158 & LBQS 1317$-$0142 & 0.225 & W00 & &0.11 &2275 & 0.87 & -1.00 &\ldots \\%
1578: J13238+6541 & PG 1322+659 & 0.1674 & M03 &$\ast$&0.08 &3114 & 0.34 & -1.00 &3.00 \\%
1579: J13253$-$3824 & 2MASX J13251937-382452 & 0.0667 & A91 & &0.30 &1246 & 0.48 & 0.00 &4.40 \\%
1580: J13532+6345 & PG 1351+640 & 0.0882 & M03 &$\ast$&0.09 &5876 & 0.12 & 0.66 &2.43 \\%
1581: J13545+1805 & PG 1352+183 & 0.1508 & M03 &$\ast$&0.08 &4947 & 0.44 & -1.00 &2.65 \\%
1582: J13570+1919 & [HB89] 1354+195 & 0.7197 & M03 & &0.26 &4960 & 0.06 & 3.27 &0.88 \\%
1583: J13590$-$4152 & [HB89] 1355$-$416 & 0.3145 & T93 & &0.37 &8978 & 0.10 & 2.94 &1.96 \\%
1584: J14052+2555 & FBQS J140516.1+255534 & 0.1633 & M03 &B$\ast$&0.07 &2041 & 0.84 & -0.35 &2.90 \\%
1585: J14063+2223 & PG 1404+226 & 0.0973 & M03 &$\ast$&0.10 &956 & 0.93 & -0.23 &3.07 \\%
1586: J14170+4456 & PG 1415+451 & 0.1151 & M03 &B$\ast$&0.04 &2691 & 1.03 & -1.00 &3.30 \\%
1587: J14179+2508 & NGC 5548 & 0.0168 & M03 & &0.09 &6143 & 0.33 & 0.11 &2.30 \\%
1588: J14190$-$1310 & [HB89] 1416$-$129 & 0.1294 & M03 &$\ast$&0.40 &6617 & 0.10 & 0.48 &2.09 \\%
1589: J14274+1949 & MRK 0813 & 0.1105 & SPM & &0.14 &9612 & 0.30 & -1.00 &2.64 \\%
1590: J14275+2632 & [HB89] 1425+267 & 0.3634 & M03 &$\ast$&0.08 &9224 & 0.08 & 1.83 &2.10 \\%
1591: J14297+4747 & [HB89] 1427+480 & 0.2199 & M03 &$\ast$&0.07 &2782 & 0.26 & -1.00 &2.47 \\%
1592: J14421+3526 & MRK 0478 & 0.0771 & M03 &$\ast$&0.06 &1794 & 0.93 & -0.73 &2.91 \\%
1593: J14467+4035 & [HB89] 1444+407 & 0.2670 & M03 &$\ast$&0.06 &3101 & 1.20 & -1.00 &2.99 \\%
1594: J14544$-$3747 & [HB89] 1451$-$375 & 0.314 & C97 & &0.34 &4869 & 0.17 & 2.00 &2.43 \\%
1595: J15147+3650 & [HB89] 1512+370 & 0.3710 & M03 &$\ast$&0.09 &10485 & 0.15 & 2.68 &2.21 \\%
1596: J15395+4735 & [HB89] 1538+477 & 0.7723 & M03 &$\ast$&0.07 &5857 & 0.34 & 1.18 &1.96 \\%
1597: J15455+4846 & [HB89] 1543+489 & 0.3978 & M03 &B$\ast$&0.08 &1638 & 0.64 & 0.10 &3.11 \\%
1598: J15477+2052 & PG 1545+210 & 0.2659 & M03 &$\ast$&0.18 &7670 & 0.11 & 3.08 &2.43 \\%
1599: J15591+3501 & UGC 10120 & 0.0313 & SPM & &0.11 &800 & 1.16 & -0.54 &3.05 \\%
1600: J16142+2604 & [HB89] 1612+261 & 0.1308 & M03 &$\ast$&0.23 &2542 & 0.10 & 0.30 &2.26 \\%
1601: J16203+1736 & 3C 334 & 0.5556 & M03 & &0.18 &11219 & 0.09 & 2.76 &2.10 \\%
1602: J16246+2345 & 3C 336 & 0.927 & B96 & &0.31 &7499 & 0.01 & 2.00 &\ldots \\%
1603: J16279+5522 & SBS 1626+554 & 0.1326 & M03 &$\ast$&0.03 &4888 & 0.31 & -1.00 &2.61 \\%
1604: J16303+3756 & [HB89] 1628+380 & 0.3945 & SPM & &0.04 &7394 & 0.15 & 0.00 &1.65 \\%
1605: J16429+3948 & 3C 345 & 0.5931 & M03 & &0.06 &4498 & 0.30 & 3.57 &1.81 \\%
1606: J17046+6044 & SBS 1704+608 & 0.372 & M03 &$\ast$&0.10 &9224 & 0.11 & 2.64 &2.31 \\%
1607: J18219+6420 & [HB89] 1821+643 & 0.2972 & M03 & &0.18 &6968 & 0.25 & 0.98 &2.42 \\%
1608: J18421+7946 & 3C 390.3 & 0.0555 & M03 & &0.31 &12688 & 0.12 & 3.24 &1.80 \\%
1609: J19278+7358 & [HB89] 1928+738 & 0.3021 & M03 & &0.57 &3582 & 0.19 & 3.39 &1.80 \\%
1610: J20441$-$1043 & MRK 0509 & 0.0344 & M03 & &0.25 &3614 & 0.04 & -0.61 &2.61 \\%
1611: J21148+0607 & [HB89] 2112+059 & 0.4608 & M03 &$\ast$&0.39 &4173 & 0.53 & -0.25 &1.85 \\%
1612: J21315$-$1207 & [HB89] 2128$-$123 & 0.4996 & M03 & &0.27 &6468 & 0.01 & 3.18 &1.86 \\%
1613: J21377$-$1432 & [HB89] 2135$-$147 & 0.2004 & M03 & &0.22 &9789 & 0.11 & 2.77 &2.32 \\%
1614: J21435+1743 & [HB89] 2141+175 & 0.2106 & M03 & &0.48 &5298 & 0.33 & 2.73 &2.44 \\%
1615: J22032+3145 & [HB89] 2201+315 & 0.2952 & M03 & &0.53 &3497 & 0.81 & 3.12 &2.20 \\%
1616: J22188$-$0335 & [HB89] 2216$-$038 & 0.901 & L67 & &0.41 &3900 & 0.39 & 3.20 &2.64 \\%
1617: J22426+2943 & UGC 12163 & 0.0245 & M03 & &0.26 &1300 & 0.87 & 0.34 &3.40 \\%
1618: J22463$-$1206 & [HB89] 2243$-$123 & 0.6255 & M03 & &0.22 &4472 & 0.14 & 3.44 &3.50 \\%
1619: J22539+1608 & 3C 454.3 & 0.8586 & KPNO & &0.46 &7394 & 0.10 & 1.36 &1.59 \\%
1620: J22540$-$1734 & MR 2251$-$178 & 0.0638 & M03 & &0.17 &7176 & 0.09 & -0.34 &2.39 \\%
1621: J22541+1136 & [HB89] 2251+113 & 0.3256 & M03 &$\ast$&0.37 &4752 & 0.24 & 2.52 &\ldots \\%
1622: J23032+0852 & NGC 7469 & 0.0160 & M03 & &0.30 &2789 & 0.01 & 0.44 &2.40 \\%
1623: J23037$-$6807 & [HB89] 2300$-$683 & 0.5158 & M03 & &0.13 &7625 & 0.16 & 2.52 &2.65 \\%
1624: J23112+1008 & [HB89] 2308+098 & 0.4341 & M03 &$\ast$&0.18 &9373 & 0.08 & 2.24 &2.34 \\%
1625: J23466+0930 & [HB89] 2344+092 & 0.6719 & M03 & &0.31 &3159 & 0.20 & 2.97 &2.34 \\%
1626: J23519$-$0109 & [HB89] 2349$-$014 & 0.1740 & M03 & &0.12 &5805 & 0.20 & 2.42 &2.44 \\%
1627: \enddata
1628: \tablenotetext{a}{In a format recognized by NED.}
1629: \tablenotetext{b}{Accuracy of $z$ values can be in general assumed
1630: to be $\pm 0.0001$\ at a 1--$\sigma$\ confidence level in case
1631: four decimal digits are provided; $\pm 0.001$\ otherwise. }
1632: \tablenotetext{c}{From \citet{schlegeletal98}} \tablerefs{M03:
1633: \citep{marzianietal03a}; G99: \citet{grupeetal99} SDSS: Spectra
1634: retrieved from www.sdss.org. $z$\ values were measured as
1635: described in the text of the paper, and may differ from those
1636: reported in NED. L67: \citet{lynds67}. SPM: Unpublished spectra
1637: obtained with the 2.2m telescope at San Pedro Martir. B96:
1638: \citet{brotherton96}. ESO: Unpublished ESO spectra. KPNO:
1639: unpublished KPNO spectra. T93: \citet{tadhunteretal93}. JB91:
1640: \citet{jacksonbrowne91} C97: \citet{corbin97}. M96:
1641: \citet{marzianietal96}. LBQS: W00: \citet{wisotzkietal00} A91:
1642: K96: \citet{keel96}. EH04: \citet{eracleoushalpern04}. A91:
1643: \citet{allenetal91}. HB89: \citet{hewittburbidge89}. HB80:
1644: \citep{hewittburbidge80}. }
1645: \end{deluxetable}
1646:
1647:
1648: \clearpage
1649:
1650: \textwidth=20cm\hoffset=-1cm
1651: \begin{deluxetable}{llrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrccccc}
1652: \rotate \hoffset=-2.5cm \voffset=3.25cm
1653: %\orient{landscape}
1654: \tabletypesize{\tiny} \tablecomments{Table 2 is published in its
1655: entirety in the electronic edition of the Astrophysical Journal. A
1656: portion is shown here for guidance regarding its form and
1657: content.} \tablenum{2} \tablewidth{0cm} \tablecaption{\civ\
1658: Emission Line Parameters} \tablehead{\colhead{IAU Code}&
1659: \colhead{$f_\lambda$\tablenotemark{a}}& \colhead{$F_{\mathrm
1660: NC}$\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{\dvr$_{\mathrm
1661: NC}$\tablenotemark{d}} & \colhead{$F_{\mathrm
1662: BC}$\tablenotemark{c}} &
1663: \colhead{$c$($\case{1}{4}$)\tablenotemark{d}} &
1664: \colhead{$\Delta^-$}\tablenotemark{d} &
1665: \colhead{$\Delta^+$}\tablenotemark{d} &
1666: \colhead{$c(\case{1}{2})$\tablenotemark{d}} &
1667: \colhead{$\Delta^-$\tablenotemark{d}} &
1668: \colhead{$\Delta^+$\tablenotemark{d}} & \colhead{$c$(3/4)} &
1669: \colhead{$\Delta$\tablenotemark{d}} &
1670: \colhead{c(0.9)\tablenotemark{d}} &
1671: \colhead{$\Delta$\tablenotemark{d}} &
1672: \colhead{FWHM\tablenotemark{d}} &
1673: \colhead{$\Delta$\tablenotemark{d}} & \colhead{A.I.} &
1674: \colhead{$\Delta^-$}& \colhead{$\Delta^+$} & \colhead{$Kurt.$} &
1675: \colhead{$\Delta$}\\
1676: \colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} & \colhead{(3)} &
1677: \colhead{(4)} &
1678: \colhead{(5)} & \colhead{(6)} & \colhead{(7)} & \colhead{(8)} &
1679: \colhead{(9)} &
1680: \colhead{(10)} & \colhead{(11)} & \colhead{(12)} & \colhead{(13)}
1681: & \colhead{(14)} & \colhead{(15)} & \colhead{(16)} &
1682: \colhead{(17)} & \colhead{(18)} & \colhead{(19)} & \colhead{(20)}
1683: & \colhead{(21)} & \colhead{(22)} }\startdata
1684: J00057+0203 & 0.55 & 0.23 & -726 & 4.0 & -824 & 331 & 560 & -455 & 121 & 120 & -404 & 110 & -365 & 78 & 4168 & 252 & -0.12 & 0.10 & 0.16 0.16 & 0.35 & 0.06 \\%
1685: J00059+1609 & 2.53 & 1.94 & -66 & 22.5 & 866 & 591 & 522 & 35 & 200 & 228 & -8 & 143 & -1 & 92 & 5347 & 455 & 0.16 & 0.12 & 0.10 0.12 & 0.29 & 0.04 \\%
1686: J00063+2012 & 7.97 & 7.33 & 314 & 50.7 & -221 & 259 & 229 & 19 & 98 & 94 & 147 & 81 & 195 & 53 & 2927 & 195 & -0.17 & 0.11 & 0.10 0.11 & 0.37 & 0.05 \\%
1687: J00204+0226 & 0.44 & 0.00 & \nodata & 1.2 & -2426 & 174 & 155 & -2144 & 122 & 117 & -2063 & 140 & -2064 & 106 & 5378 & 244 & -0.10 & 0.07 & 0.07 0.07 & 0.50 & 0.05 \\%
1688: J00292+1316 & 2.82 & 1.64 & 95 & 8.5 & 1035 & 1077 & 244 & -501 & 199 & 215 & -201 & 261 & -19 & 160 & 8595 & 429 & 0.14 & 0.17 & 0.06 0.17 & 0.36 & 0.06 \\%
1689: J00392-5117 & 0.20 & A & \nodata & 2.0 & 338 & 262 & 265 & -78 & 108 & 186 & -54 & 81 & -6 & 55 & 3056 & 371 & 0.11 & 0.09 & 0.09 0.09 & 0.28 & 0.03 \\%
1690: J00449+1026 & 0.12 & 0.18 & 56 & 2.3 & 1433 & 846 & 705 & -37 & 268 & 281 & -124 & 203 & -144 & 125 & 7385 & 563 & 0.20 & 0.10 & 0.09 0.10 & 0.26 & 0.04 \\%
1691: J00470+0319 & 1.09 & 0.22 & 126 & 8.2 & -418 & 322 & 490 & -750 & 203 & 229 & -568 & 143 & -591 & 91 & 6274 & 458 & 0.03 & 0.07 & 0.10 0.10 & 0.33 & 0.04 \\%
1692: J00535+1241 & 3.25 & A & \nodata & 8.7 & -2264 & 338 & 212 & -1669 & 110 & 211 & -875 & 68 & -954 & 47 & 3804 & 422 & -0.47 & 0.07 & 0.06 0.07 & 0.27 & 0.04 \\%
1693: J00548+2525 & 2.11 & 0.74 & -378 & 27.7 & -104 & 767 & 649 & -800 & 292 & 289 & -624 & 177 & -604 & 107 & 6659 & 585 & 0.08 & 0.12 & 0.10 0.12 & 0.28 & 0.04 \\%
1694: J00573-2222 & 4.01 & 1.32 & -273 & 13.8 & -1232 & 386 & 245 & -801 & 165 & 154 & -588 & 108 & -563 & 67 & 3973 & 330 & -0.21 & 0.11 & 0.08 0.11 & 0.35 & 0.05 \\%
1695: J01032+0221 & 0.43 & 0.00 & \nodata & 4.7 & -60 & 867 & 556 & -427 & 185 & 225 & -356 & 126 & -297 & 77 & 4598 & 450 & 0.05 & 0.19 & 0.12 0.19 & 0.27 & 0.06 \\%
1696: ***J01237-5848 & 2.41 & 3.68 & -6 & 41.1 & 21 & 375 & 441 & 234 & 128 & 131 & 157 & 107 & 106 & 76 & 4100 & 261 & -0.02 & 0.10 & 0.11 0.11 & 0.31 & 0.04 \\%
1697: J01342-4258 & 1.68 & 0.00 & \nodata & 1.0 & -3333 & 164 & 170 & -2665 & 173 & 166 & -2195 & 146 & -2026 & 99 & 5233 & 346 & -0.36 & 0.06 & 0.06 0.06 & 0.45 & 0.04 \\%
1698: J01376-2430 & 0.87 & A & \nodata & 3.9 & 917 & 518 & 528 & 194 & 240 & 234 & -85 & 147 & -176 & 92 & 5663 & 481 & 0.23 & 0.09 & 0.10 0.10 & 0.32 & 0.05 \\%
1699: J01399+0131 & 0.13 & 0.00 & \nodata & 3.3 & 1261 & 621 & 672 & 1930 & 471 & 262 & 214 & 133 & 269 & 79 & 8327 & 941 & 0.15 & 0.11 & 0.12 0.12 & 0.20 & 0.03 \\%
1700: J02019-1132 & 2.64 & 0.00 & \nodata & 4.8 & -1686 & 258 & 512 & -1531 & 156 & 156 & -1267 & 167 & -1088 & 116 & 5971 & 312 & -0.14 & 0.08 & 0.14 0.14 & 0.45 & 0.07 \\%
1701: J02171+1104 & 1.30 & 0.71 & -131 & 19.8 & -6 & 937 & 853 & -214 & 217 & 204 & -97 & 142 & -66 & 92 & 5296 & 434 & 0.01 & 0.15 & 0.14 0.15 & 0.24 & 0.04 \\%
1702: J03198+4130 & 0.29 & 0.00 & \nodata & 1.4 & -122 & 74 & 83 & -190 & 61 & 63 & -198 & 69 & -190 & 50 & 2557 & 125 & 0.04 & 0.07 & 0.07 0.07 & 0.48 & 0.05 \\%
1703: J03514-1429 & 3.94 & 0.86 & -12 & 20.2 & 0 & 1362 & 1940 & -78 & 382 & 322 & 194 & 247 & 277 & 172 & 9649 & 763 & -0.03 & 0.15 & 0.21 0.21 & 0.31 & 0.07 \\%
1704: J04055-1308 & 0.65 & 0.49 & 294 & 4.1 & 697 & 433 & 513 & 560 & 180 & 187 & 514 & 139 & 522 & 98 & 5398 & 375 & 0.03 & 0.09 & 0.11 0.11 & 0.33 & 0.04 \\%
1705: J04172-0553 & 2.02 & 1.11 & -134 & 16.2 & 1586 & 612 & 507 & 983 & 301 & 336 & 582 & 247 & 386 & 163 & 9018 & 672 & 0.16 & 0.09 & 0.08 0.09 & 0.36 & 0.04 \\%
1706: J04200-5456 & 0.18 & 0.42 & 443 & 1.9 & 1117 & 218 & 239 & 993 & 107 & 108 & 910 & 99 & 874 & 66 & 3602 & 216 & 0.09 & 0.09 & 0.09 0.09 & 0.40 & 0.05 \\%
1707: J04232-0120 & 0.48 & 0.13 & -285 & 4.2 & -3 & 370 & 630 & 181 & 133 & 127 & 68 & 119 & -25 & 70 & 4021 & 267 & 0.01 & 0.11 & 0.18 0.18 & 0.33 & $_{-0.37}^{+0.05}$ \\%
1708: J04412-4313 & 0.83 & 0.59 & -54 & 6.5 & -577 & 339 & 547 & -7 & 127 & 119 & -53 & 110 & -103 & 76 & 4079 & 254 & -0.12 & 0.09 & 0.15 0.15 & 0.33 & 0.05 \\%
1709: J04525-2953 & 1.41 & 0.00 & \nodata & 8.5 & -1579 & 222 & 279 & -898 & 131 & 115 & -820 & 108 & -818 & 79 & 4168 & 261 & -0.21 & 0.07 & 0.08 0.08 & 0.38 & 0.04 \\%
1710: J04561-2159 & 1.99 & 0.82 & -302 & 17.3 & 2460 & 946 & 2099 & 110 & 329 & 462 & -222 & 162 & -276 & 108 & 6520 & 925 & 0.31 & 0.10 & 0.20 0.20 & 0.21 & 0.05 \\%
1711: J05161-0008 & 9.86 & 8.65 & -143 & 126.9 & -566 & 542 & 447 & -236 & 164 & 172 & -330 & 126 & -307 & 83 & 4792 & 343 & -0.06 & 0.13 & 0.11 0.13 & 0.33 & 0.05 \\%
1712: J05198-4546 & 0.18 & 0.33 & 51 & 3.2 & 975 & 1785 & 274 & -1111 & 525 & 1153 & -278 & 207 & -291 & 124 & 10017 & 2306 & 0.13 & 0.17 & 0.04 0.17 & 0.22 & 0.05 \\%
1713: J06300+6905 & 5.95 & 0.00 & \nodata & 5.5 & -1428 & 266 & 257 & -937 & 168 & 123 & -777 & 97 & -731 & 67 & 3666 & 337 & -0.22 & 0.09 & 0.10 0.10 & 0.35 & 0.05 \\%
1714: J06357-7516 & 2.42 & 1.12 & 292 & 14.2 & 1716 & 791 & 768 & 534 & 103 & 110 & 362 & 94 & 285 & 62 & 3368 & 220 & 0.41 & 0.15 & 0.14 0.15 & 0.29 & 0.07 \\%
1715: J07086-4933 & 2.69 & 0.00 & \nodata & 2.3 & -2513 & 583 & 270 & -2032 & 231 & 295 & -1530 & 101 & -1396 & 95 & 4841 & 589 & -0.32 & 0.13 & 0.10 0.13 & 0.42 & 0.08 \\%
1716: J07456+3142 & 1.28 & 0.93 & -308 & 13.5 & 409 & 484 & 475 & 258 & 301 & 297 & -410 & 238 & -679 & 125 & 7690 & 603 & 0.17 & 0.09 & 0.09 0.09 & 0.33 & 0.05 \\%
1717: J08407+1312 & 0.35 & A & \nodata & 4.1 & 890 & 427 & 427 & 425 & 135 & 143 & 319 & 122 & 284 & 83 & 4570 & 287 & 0.16 & 0.12 & 0.11 0.12 & 0.37 & 0.06 \\%
1718: J08535+4349 & 0.79 & 0.00 & \nodata & 4.1 & -1641 & 290 & 282 & -1345 & 215 & 229 & -882 & 154 & -789 & 87 & 5448 & 457 & -0.20 & 0.08 & 0.08 0.08 & 0.34 & 0.04 \\%
1719: J09065+1646 & 0.15 & 0.25 & -508 & 4.0 & 1972 & 823 & 1664 & 28 & 186 & 169 & 100 & 153 & 11 & 147 & 7460 & 372 & 0.25 & 0.09 & 0.17 0.17 & 0.34 & 0.07 \\%
1720: J09199+5106 & 1.46 & 0.00 & \nodata & 4.3 & -2301 & 274 & 399 & -1931 & 187 & 181 & -1632 & 164 & -1503 & 110 & 5998 & 373 & -0.18 & 0.08 & 0.11 0.11 & 0.41 & 0.05 \\%
1721: J09270+3902 & 1.13 & 0.20 & 890 & 8.2 & 2341 & 920 & 477 & 1240 & 162 & 177 & 1118 & 140 & 1082 & 95 & 5271 & 353 & 0.24 & 0.20 & 0.09 0.20 & 0.31 & 0.06 \\%
1722: J09508+3926 & 1.61 & 0.50 & -284 & 11.3 & 73 & 896 & 575 & -606 & 128 & 132 & -655 & 120 & -671 & 84 & 4532 & 263 & 0.18 & 0.22 & 0.13 0.22 & 0.35 & 0.07 \\%
1723: J09568+4115 & 2.39 & 1.30 & -365 & 15.3 & -133 & 649 & 684 & -286 & 128 & 130 & -414 & 117 & -487 & 79 & 4290 & 259 & 0.09 & 0.16 & 0.17 0.17 & 0.32 & 0.06 \\%
1724: J09583+3224 & 43.40 & A & \nodata & 132.4 & 1566 & 473 & 379 & 969 & 325 & 278 & 236 & 165 & 144 & 86 & 6219 & 649 & 0.23 & 0.08 & 0.07 0.08 & 0.24 & 0.03 \\%
1725: J10040+2855 & 2.07 & 0.00 & \nodata & 7.9 & -1934 & 256 & 401 & -1319 & 171 & 149 & -994 & 172 & -699 & 71 & 3990 & 343 & -0.33 & 0.07 & 0.09 0.09 & 0.30 & 0.05 \\%
1726: J10043+0513 & 0.60 & 0.30 & -561 & 4.0 & -1815 & 288 & 619 & -930 & 128 & 121 & -851 & 115 & -828 & 80 & 4320 & 257 & -0.25 & 0.07 & 0.13 0.13 & 0.35 & 0.06 \\%
1727: J10104+4132 & 1.83 & 0.37 & 21 & 17.6 & -196 & 431 & 802 & 59 & 170 & 159 & 25 & 105 & 13 & 73 & 4161 & 340 & -0.05 & 0.10 & 0.19 0.19 & 0.29 & 0.06 \\%
1728: J10235+1951 & 0.08 & A & \nodata & 1.2 & -155 & 201 & 195 & -195 & 103 & 104 & -220 & 101 & -232 & 70 & 3717 & 208 & 0.03 & 0.09 & 0.09 0.09 & 0.42 & 0.05 \\%
1729: J10309+3102 & 1.25 & 1.03 & -85 & 14.6 & -187 & 623 & 1382 & -140 & 226 & 231 & -188 & 152 & -236 & 93 & 5538 & 462 & 0.01 & 0.12 & 0.25 0.25 & 0.28 & 0.08 \\%
1730: J10518-0051 & 1.44 & 0.36 & -208 & 14.7 & 68 & 626 & 354 & -453 & 130 & 128 & -418 & 117 & -407 & 85 & 4563 & 260 & 0.11 & 0.15 & 0.09 0.15 & 0.35 & 0.06 \\%
1731: J10525+6125 & 1.17 & a & \nodata & 7.6 & 1487 & 686 & 569 & 179 & 209 & 239 & 51 & 180 & -4 & 125 & 6790 & 478 & 0.24 & 0.11 & 0.09 0.11 & 0.33 & 0.05 \\%
1732: J11042+7658 & 1.32 & 1.12 & -33 & 17.0 & 211 & 495 & 1220 & 3 & 386 & 355 & 80 & 190 & 42 & 127 & 7560 & 771 & 0.02 & 0.08 & 0.17 0.17 & 0.31 & 0.06 \\%
1733: J11067+7234 & 3.60 & A & \nodata & 76.5 & -861 & 442 & 713 & 68 & 416 & 234 & 214 & 145 & 192 & 94 & 5494 & 832 & -0.20 & 0.09 & 0.16 0.16 & 0.30 & 0.05 \\%
1734: J11072+1628 & 2.23 & 0.92 & -333 & 17.6 & 761 & 293 & 376 & 399 & 261 & 266 & -29 & 177 & -208 & 105 & 6295 & 532 & 0.19 & 0.07 & 0.08 0.08 & 0.34 & 0.04 \\%
1735: J11146+4037 & 0.28 & 0.25 & -598 & 5.1 & 312 & 637 & 575 & 166 & 731 & 637 & -448 & 212 & -366 & 133 & 8937 & 1462 & 0.09 & 0.09 & 0.08 0.09 & 0.29 & 0.04 \\%
1736: J11171+4413 & 0.56 & A & \nodata & 4.6 & 233 & 377 & 370 & 351 & 119 & 122 & 299 & 104 & 291 & 69 & 3797 & 244 & -0.01 & 0.10 & 0.10 0.10 & 0.29 & 0.04 \\%
1737: J11185+4025 & 1.49 & a & \nodata & 6.8 & -735 & 431 & 416 & -383 & 165 & 131 & -297 & 102 & -277 & 71 & 3989 & 331 & -0.11 & 0.12 & 0.12 0.12 & 0.31 & 0.04 \\%
1738: J11191+2119 & 5.14 & 0.93 & -379 & 32.1 & -822 & 337 & 340 & -700 & 225 & 183 & -651 & 123 & -664 & 85 & 4842 & 451 & -0.03 & 0.08 & 0.08 0.08 & 0.32 & 0.04 \\%
1739: J11246+4201 & 1.52 & 0.25 & -166 & 8.9 & -195 & 342 & 241 & -166 & 75 & 78 & -225 & 63 & -247 & 42 & 2327 & 156 & 0.03 & 0.17 & 0.13 0.17 & 0.34 & 0.07 \\%
1740: J11350-0318 & 0.36 & 0.00 & \nodata & 1.3 & -1498 & 261 & 912 & -1408 & 136 & 137 & -1152 & 128 & -1041 & 78 & 4378 & 273 & -0.14 & 0.09 & 0.31 0.31 & 0.39 & 0.11 \\%
1741: J11390-3744 & 15.42 & 17.30 & 147 & 140.4 & -521 & 420 & 426 & -200 & 163 & 145 & -295 & 110 & -369 & 75 & 4171 & 326 & -0.04 & 0.11 & 0.11 0.11 & 0.31 & 0.04 \\%
1742: J11391-1350 & 1.17 & 1.31 & 139 & 11.3 & 1177 & 594 & 599 & 674 & 176 & 184 & 415 & 158 & 292 & 102 & 5620 & 368 & 0.18 & 0.13 & 0.12 0.13 & 0.35 & 0.06 \\%
1743: J11399+6547 & 1.82 & 0.38 & 14 & 14.5 & -189 & 773 & 513 & -210 & 154 & 157 & -327 & 135 & -376 & 91 & 4967 & 314 & 0.04 & 0.20 & 0.13 0.20 & 0.36 & 0.08 \\%
1744: J11413+0148 & 0.54 & a & \nodata & 1.8 & -1324 & 204 & 443 & -536 & 262 & 253 & -566 & 138 & -538 & 92 & 5391 & 523 & -0.15 & 0.05 & 0.08 0.08 & 0.29 & 0.03 \\%
1745: J11473-0132 & 0.08 & 0.01 & 371 & 0.3 & 35 & 226 & 226 & -40 & 225 & 219 & 364 & 153 & 477 & 91 & 5434 & 450 & -0.10 & 0.06 & 0.06 0.06 & 0.33 & 0.04 \\%
1746: J11534+4931 & 0.55 & 0.18 & 343 & 8.5 & 978 & 425 & 389 & 536 & 161 & 170 & 427 & 134 & 424 & 89 & 4972 & 341 & 0.12 & 0.10 & 0.09 0.10 & 0.34 & 0.04 \\%
1747: J11586+6254 & 4.46 & 0.45 & 251 & 7.7 & -607 & 653 & 1206 & -620 & 355 & 388 & 187 & 274 & 323 & 120 & 8894 & 776 & -0.11 & 0.09 & 0.16 0.16 & 0.24 & 0.04 \\%
1748: J11594+2106 & 0.60 & 0.32 & -424 & 8.4 & -1627 & 1198 & 1035 & -614 & 373 & 265 & -511 & 147 & -502 & 93 & 5617 & 746 & -0.15 & 0.15 & 0.14 0.15 & 0.21 & 0.04 \\%
1749: J12047+2754 & 0.32 & 0.61 & -475 & 9.1 & -1323 & 477 & 544 & -876 & 111 & 105 & -807 & 97 & -776 & 71 & 3782 & 222 & -0.16 & 0.13 & 0.17 0.17 & 0.36 & 0.07 \\%
1750: J12142+1403 & 3.06 & 2.72 & -101 & 22.8 & -249 & 316 & 168 & -89 & 84 & 82 & -56 & 84 & -41 & 59 & 3108 & 167 & -0.09 & 0.14 & 0.09 0.14 & 0.43 & 0.07 \\%
1751: J12184+2948 & 0.03 & 0.14 & -13 & 0.1 & -887 & 130 & 127 & -590 & 132 & 132 & -350 & 168 & -224 & 131 & 6402 & 264 & -0.16 & 0.07 & 0.07 0.07 & 0.54 & 0.05 \\%
1752: J12193+0638 & 1.79 & 1.50 & 72 & 16.9 & -342 & 829 & 638 & 279 & 209 & 198 & 200 & 129 & 172 & 83 & 4829 & 417 & -0.09 & 0.14 & 0.12 0.14 & 0.25 & 0.05 \\%
1753: J12217+7518 & 3.61 & 1.25 & 69 & 18.8 & -117 & 250 & 556 & -73 & 119 & 136 & -150 & 80 & -148 & 72 & 4097 & 271 & 0.01 & 0.08 & 0.16 0.16 & 0.41 & $_{-0.32}^{+0.03}$ \\%
1754: J12258+3332 & 0.24 & 1.25 & 281 & 1.8 & 220 & 215 & 220 & 176 & 112 & 114 & 216 & 114 & 260 & 82 & 4267 & 229 & -0.01 & 0.09 & 0.09 0.09 & 0.43 & 0.05 \\%
1755: J12291+0203 & 29.17 & 7.63 & -634 & 103.0 & 433 & 630 & 1394 & -552 & 192 & 205 & -500 & 141 & -473 & 92 & 5254 & 409 & 0.16 & 0.11 & 0.21 0.21 & 0.27 & 0.07 \\%
1756: J12334+0931 & 1.36 & 0.00 & \nodata & 8.6 & -161 & 279 & 310 & 96 & 132 & 119 & 110 & 85 & 119 & 60 & 3349 & 264 & -0.08 & 0.09 & 0.10 0.10 & 0.29 & 0.04 \\%
1757: J12524+5634 & 0.29 & 0.09 & 66 & 3.4 & 94 & 270 & 374 & 20 & 131 & 144 & -13 & 89 & -18 & 62 & 3525 & 288 & 0.03 & 0.08 & 0.11 0.11 & 0.31 & 0.04 \\%
1758: J12546+1141 & 1.17 & 0.00 & \nodata & 2.6 & -1908 & 168 & 197 & -1567 & 157 & 140 & -1465 & 129 & -1439 & 87 & 4737 & 313 & -0.13 & 0.07 & 0.07 0.07 & 0.40 & 0.04 \\%
1759: J13012+5902 & 2.40 & 0.00 & \nodata & 4.8 & -5239 & 329 & 358 & -4325 & 314 & 286 & -3795 & 209 & -3648 & 133 & 7623 & 628 & -0.27 & 0.07 & 0.07 0.07 & 0.37 & 0.04 \\%
1760: J13055-1033 & 3.87 & 0.24 & -360 & 8.1 & -262 & 458 & 323 & 215 & 212 & 173 & -71 & 210 & -488 & 114 & 5484 & 423 & 0.05 & 0.11 & 0.08 0.11 & 0.35 & 0.06 \\%
1761: J13079+0642 & 0.52 & 0.24 & 384 & 5.9 & 134 & 794 & 699 & 140 & 459 & 496 & 181 & 200 & 292 & 120 & 7727 & 991 & -0.02 & 0.11 & 0.10 0.11 & 0.27 & 0.04 \\%
1762: J13097+0819 & 1.40 & 0.30 & 607 & 13.6 & -8 & 492 & 499 & 312 & 188 & 166 & 434 & 118 & 422 & 76 & 4413 & 375 & -0.11 & 0.12 & 0.14 0.14 & 0.32 & 0.06 \\%
1763: J13122+3515 & 1.60 & A & \nodata & 11.0 & -1272 & 404 & 1325 & -358 & 133 & 129 & -223 & 124 & -142 & 86 & 4587 & 266 & -0.24 & 0.10 & 0.30 0.30 & 0.31 & 0.07 \\%
1764: J13198-0158 & 0.26 & 0.00 & \nodata & 1.6 & -1655 & 231 & 200 & -1073 & 137 & 106 & -1037 & 88 & -1061 & 62 & 3363 & 274 & -0.20 & 0.08 & 0.07 0.08 & 0.35 & 0.04 \\%
1765: J13238+6541 & 1.20 & 0.41 & -35 & 7.9 & -436 & 341 & 259 & -310 & 101 & 101 & -237 & 98 & -185 & 68 & 3617 & 202 & -0.09 & 0.12 & 0.10 0.12 & 0.40 & 0.06 \\%
1766: J13253-3824 & 1.18 & 0.00 & \nodata & 1.8 & -3160 & 214 & 215 & -2764 & 185 & 177 & -2512 & 149 & -2442 & 97 & 5427 & 370 & -0.18 & 0.07 & 0.07 0.07 & 0.40 & 0.04 \\%
1767: J13532+6345 & 2.32 & A & \nodata & 15.3 & 78 & 265 & 331 & -126 & 103 & 107 & -175 & 99 & -196 & 68 & 3660 & 214 & 0.09 & 0.10 & 0.12 0.12 & 0.39 & 0.06 \\%
1768: J13545+1805 & 1.27 & 0.46 & -79 & 10.2 & -773 & 412 & 788 & -372 & 249 & 224 & -337 & 148 & -375 & 86 & 5435 & 497 & -0.08 & 0.09 & 0.18 0.18 & 0.30 & 0.06 \\%
1769: J13570+1919 & 1.66 & 2.36 & 132 & 13.0 & 1065 & 477 & 516 & 401 & 263 & 287 & 46 & 179 & -107 & 117 & 6697 & 575 & 0.19 & 0.08 & 0.08 0.08 & 0.31 & 0.04 \\%
1770: J13590-4152 & 3.49 & 0.48 & -114 & 25.7 & -183 & 560 & 481 & -1069 & 293 & 329 & -1168 & 256 & -1268 & 205 & 10536 & 658 & 0.12 & 0.08 & 0.07 0.08 & 0.39 & 0.04 \\%
1771: J14052+2555 & 2.89 & 0.00 & \nodata & 13.0 & -675 & 857 & 362 & -719 & 220 & 330 & -184 & 113 & -86 & 71 & 4650 & 660 & -0.15 & 0.20 & 0.11 0.20 & 0.31 & 0.07 \\%
1772: J14063+2223 & 0.62 & a & \nodata & 2.5 & -1571 & 331 & 345 & -1537 & 121 & 117 & -1515 & 106 & -1508 & 72 & 3910 & 242 & -0.02 & 0.10 & 0.11 0.11 & 0.34 & 0.05 \\%
1773: J14170+4456 & 1.21 & 0.00 & \nodata & 8.3 & -1148 & 290 & 315 & -771 & 130 & 121 & -644 & 104 & -576 & 70 & 3822 & 259 & -0.17 & 0.09 & 0.10 0.10 & 0.35 & 0.05 \\%
1774: J14179+2508 & 3.00 & 4.75 & 408 & 59.2 & 63 & 459 & 479 & 309 & 191 & 183 & 251 & 174 & 182 & 121 & 6441 & 382 & -0.02 & 0.10 & 0.10 0.10 & 0.39 & 0.05 \\%
1775: J14190-1310 & 0.57 & 0.00 & \nodata & 21.1 & -843 & 786 & 694 & -143 & 144 & 147 & -195 & 136 & -222 & 93 & 4996 & 294 & -0.13 & 0.15 & 0.14 0.15 & 0.33 & 0.06 \\%
1776: J14274+1949 & 1.77 & 0.37 & 442 & 17.6 & 41 & 552 & 673 & -217 & 268 & 279 & 208 & 238 & 445 & 138 & 7983 & 558 & -0.06 & 0.09 & 0.11 0.11 & 0.34 & 0.05 \\%
1777: J14275+2632 & 0.78 & a & \nodata & 10.9 & 302 & 1487 & 2713 & -563 & 313 & 333 & -865 & 280 & -969 & 200 & 10843 & 666 & 0.14 & 0.17 & 0.26 0.26 & 0.37 & $_{-0.12}^{+0.05}$ \\%
1778: J14297+4747 & 1.07 & 0.22 & 213 & 8.1 & 626 & 383 & 315 & 426 & 96 & 98 & 348 & 87 & 298 & 62 & 3278 & 197 & 0.11 & 0.14 & 0.11 0.14 & 0.36 & 0.06 \\%
1779: J14421+3526 & 4.34 & a & \nodata & 14.3 & -765 & 210 & 307 & -351 & 73 & 70 & -324 & 67 & -306 & 49 & 2569 & 145 & -0.20 & 0.09 & 0.12 0.12 & 0.36 & 0.06 \\%
1780: J14467+4035 & 2.28 & 0.10 & -982 & 5.3 & -1422 & 268 & 297 & -1143 & 155 & 154 & -906 & 161 & -764 & 113 & 5881 & 311 & -0.16 & 0.08 & 0.09 0.09 & 0.45 & 0.05 \\%
1781: J14544-3747 & 0.59 & 0.68 & 159 & 12.8 & 975 & 382 & 450 & 777 & 168 & 169 & 608 & 131 & 534 & 81 & 4676 & 337 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 0.11 0.11 & 0.32 & 0.05 \\%
1782: J15147+3650 & 1.56 & 1.08 & 218 & 14.2 & -32 & 1225 & 510 & -622 & 333 & 376 & -44 & 198 & -22 & 120 & 7656 & 752 & 0.00 & 0.17 & 0.08 0.17 & 0.28 & 0.05 \\%
1783: J15395+4735 & 2.42 & a & \nodata & 15.7 & -659 & 571 & 437 & -402 & 257 & 237 & -227 & 159 & -183 & 106 & 6224 & 514 & -0.09 & 0.11 & 0.09 0.11 & 0.35 & 0.05 \\%
1784: J15455+4846 & 1.46 & 0.00 & \nodata & 5.9 & -2193 & 1456 & 379 & -1587 & 177 & 159 & -1263 & 126 & -1099 & 118 & 5946 & 353 & -0.25 & 0.25 & 0.10 0.25 & 0.47 & $_{-0.16}^{+0.04}$ \\%
1785: J15477+2052 & 0.99 & 0.80 & -371 & 17.4 & -26 & 836 & 1373 & -78 & 231 & 233 & -138 & 179 & -161 & 119 & 6643 & 465 & 0.02 & 0.13 & 0.20 0.20 & 0.29 & 0.06 \\%
1786: J15591+3501 & 0.77 & 0.00 & \nodata & 6.9 & -26 & 242 & 223 & 32 & 71 & 69 & 44 & 58 & 48 & 39 & 2159 & 142 & -0.04 & 0.13 & 0.12 0.13 & 0.34 & 0.06 \\%
1787: J16142+2604 & 0.68 & 0.32 & 442 & 13.1 & 1173 & 423 & 574 & 433 & 164 & 182 & 421 & 127 & 452 & 85 & 4787 & 363 & 0.14 & 0.09 & 0.11 0.11 & 0.27 & 0.04 \\%
1788: J16203+1736 & 1.31 & 0.37 & 24 & 9.9 & 96 & 561 & 667 & -67 & 304 & 311 & -162 & 184 & -186 & 117 & 6940 & 621 & 0.04 & 0.08 & 0.10 0.10 & 0.28 & 0.04 \\%
1789: J16246+2345 & 0.42 & 0.59 & 62 & 4.6 & 1554 & 756 & 742 & 638 & 284 & 320 & 303 & 210 & 260 & 141 & 7988 & 641 & 0.17 & 0.11 & 0.10 0.11 & 0.32 & 0.05 \\%
1790: J16279+5522 & 2.06 & 0.40 & -273 & 15.8 & -749 & 461 & 569 & -299 & 150 & 154 & -389 & 119 & -447 & 83 & 4529 & 307 & -0.06 & 0.10 & 0.12 0.12 & 0.29 & 0.04 \\%
1791: J16303+3756 & 0.04 & 0.00 & \nodata & 0.8 & 2088 & 368 & 264 & 941 & 226 & 241 & 851 & 226 & 863 & 169 & 8837 & 481 & 0.17 & 0.07 & 0.06 0.07 & 0.40 & 0.04 \\%
1792: J16429+3948 & 0.55 & 0.00 & \nodata & 5.9 & 389 & 195 & 309 & 250 & 112 & 111 & 166 & 111 & 115 & 73 & 3936 & 224 & 0.09 & 0.08 & 0.11 0.11 & 0.41 & 0.06 \\%
1793: J17046+6044 & 2.00 & A & \nodata & 15.7 & 942 & 1347 & 822 & -200 & 242 & 362 & -465 & 121 & -503 & 76 & 4697 & 723 & 0.21 & 0.17 & 0.11 0.17 & 0.19 & 0.04 \\%
1794: J18219+6420 & 7.81 & a & \nodata & 82.4 & 1517 & 408 & 452 & 457 & 221 & 279 & -34 & 158 & -209 & 92 & 5421 & 559 & 0.36 & 0.09 & 0.08 0.09 & 0.33 & 0.05 \\%
1795: J18421+7946 & 0.59 & 0.44 & 45 & 7.8 & -1055 & 424 & 1966 & -1285 & 270 & 275 & -2479 & 297 & -2824 & 126 & 8186 & 549 & 0.25 & 0.07 & 0.23 0.23 & 0.29 & 0.08 \\%
1796: J19278+7358 & 2.11 & 0.56 & 146 & 17.7 & 28 & 440 & 544 & 209 & 140 & 134 & 200 & 113 & 178 & 80 & 4365 & 279 & -0.04 & 0.11 & 0.14 0.14 & 0.33 & 0.05 \\%
1797: J20441-1043 & 8.00 & a & \nodata & 94.2 & -790 & 339 & 335 & -457 & 142 & 134 & -379 & 111 & -359 & 74 & 4098 & 285 & -0.12 & 0.10 & 0.10 0.10 & 0.35 & 0.05 \\%
1798: J21148+0607 & 1.50 & 0.00 & \nodata & 7.8 & -2192 & 245 & 532 & -1498 & 214 & 180 & -1229 & 156 & -1113 & 112 & 5978 & 428 & -0.22 & 0.07 & 0.14 0.14 & 0.39 & 0.05 \\%
1799: J21315-1207 & 2.51 & 0.53 & -203 & 26.2 & 808 & 402 & 589 & 524 & 301 & 276 & 81 & 130 & 4 & 98 & 6185 & 603 & 0.14 & 0.08 & 0.11 0.11 & 0.31 & 0.04 \\%
1800: J21377-1432 & 0.74 & A & \nodata & 13.9 & -75 & 681 & 643 & 131 & 194 & 184 & 210 & 101 & 225 & 63 & 3846 & 388 & -0.07 & 0.15 & 0.14 0.15 & 0.23 & 0.04 \\%
1801: J21435+1743 & 1.49 & 0.00 & \nodata & 2.6 & 267 & 83 & 83 & 309 & 101 & 101 & 350 & 143 & 375 & 117 & 5670 & 202 & -0.03 & 0.07 & 0.07 0.07 & 0.58 & 0.05 \\%
1802: J22032+3145 & 4.90 & 0.00 & \nodata & 24.6 & 213 & 1013 & 499 & -180 & 268 & 284 & -180 & 144 & -121 & 89 & 5438 & 567 & 0.05 & 0.16 & 0.08 0.16 & 0.23 & 0.04 \\%
1803: J22188-0335 & 0.95 & 0.15 & 356 & 6.1 & 2413 & 1118 & 977 & 1198 & 416 & 454 & 687 & 154 & 597 & 100 & 6431 & 908 & 0.25 & 0.12 & 0.11 0.12 & 0.24 & 0.04 \\%
1804: J22426+2943 & 1.16 & A & \nodata & 2.5 & 5 & 109 & 110 & -61 & 55 & 57 & -78 & 46 & -81 & 30 & 1664 & 115 & 0.06 & 0.09 & 0.09 0.09 & 0.36 & 0.05 \\%
1805: J22463-1206 & 1.54 & 0.50 & 312 & 10.6 & 740 & 462 & 671 & 451 & 160 & 177 & 330 & 95 & 306 & 59 & 3584 & 353 & 0.11 & 0.12 & 0.16 0.16 & 0.25 & 0.05 \\%
1806: J22539+1608 & 1.60 & 0.13 & -203 & 5.0 & -395 & 262 & 467 & -295 & 99 & 98 & -183 & 92 & -128 & 63 & 3372 & 199 & -0.10 & 0.11 & 0.20 0.20 & 0.40 & 0.08 \\%
1807: J22540-1734 & 2.50 & a & \nodata & 70.4 & -946 & 495 & 1194 & -321 & 161 & 145 & -101 & 110 & -34 & 71 & 4044 & 323 & -0.25 & 0.12 & 0.39 0.39 & 0.32 & $_{-0.11}^{+0.05}$ \\%
1808: J22541+1136 & 1.39 & a & \nodata & 19.4 & -823 & 702 & 931 & -399 & 145 & 141 & -257 & 111 & -202 & 71 & 4053 & 290 & -0.13 & 0.16 & 0.20 0.20 & 0.26 & 0.05 \\%
1809: J23032+0852 & 5.12 & 5.88 & 141 & 59.5 & -258 & 371 & 478 & 104 & 155 & 139 & 108 & 121 & 70 & 84 & 4563 & 310 & -0.08 & 0.10 & 0.13 0.13 & 0.34 & 0.05 \\%
1810: J23037-6807 & 0.63 & a & \nodata & 12.1 & 779 & 520 & 626 & 142 & 145 & 159 & 11 & 107 & -27 & 70 & 3958 & 318 & 0.15 & 0.10 & 0.12 0.12 & 0.22 & 0.03 \\%
1811: J23112+1008 & 1.32 & a & \nodata & 12.3 & 904 & 872 & 941 & -73 & 161 & 162 & -200 & 137 & -281 & 92 & 5037 & 324 & 0.18 & 0.12 & 0.13 0.13 & 0.23 & 0.04 \\%
1812: J23466+0930 & 1.76 & 1.08 & 108 & 7.2 & -362 & 462 & 673 & -111 & 116 & 118 & -72 & 110 & -29 & 78 & 4132 & 236 & -0.08 & 0.12 & 0.17 0.17 & 0.33 & 0.06 \\%
1813: J23519-0109 & 0.38 & 0.32 & -633 & 11.2 & -1739 & 452 & 680 & -1166 & 245 & 224 & -797 & 188 & -628 & 130 & 7050 & 490 & -0.20 & 0.09 & 0.14 0.14 & 0.38 & 0.06 \\%
1814: \enddata
1815: \tablenotetext{a}{Specific continuum flux at 1550 \AA\ in units of \ergss\ \AA$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2} \times 10^{14}$. }
1816: \tablenotetext{b}{Flux of \civnc\ in units of \ergss\ cm$^{-2}
1817: \times 10^{13}$. The letter ``A" indicate major absorptions
1818: (typically of mini-BALs) affecting the profile of \civbc. ``a"
1819: indicates narrow absorptions that ``eat away" \civnc\ but that do
1820: not hamper \civbc\ measurements.}\tablenotetext{c}{Flux of \civbc\
1821: in units of \ergss\ cm$^{-2} \times 10^{13}$.
1822: }\tablenotetext{d}{In units of \kms.}
1823: %\tablerefs{}
1824: \label{tab:civ}
1825: \end{deluxetable}
1826:
1827:
1828: \clearpage
1829:
1830: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccccc}
1831: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize} \tablenum{3} \tablewidth{0pt}
1832: \tablecaption{{\sc Average Values\tablenotemark{a}}} \tablehead{
1833: \colhead{AGN pop} & \colhead{$N_{\rm sources}$}
1834: &\colhead{EW(\civbc)}& \colhead{$c(\case{1}{2}$) \civbc\ } &
1835: \colhead{FWHM(\civbc) } & \colhead{FWHM(\hbbc) } & \colhead{\rfe}
1836: & \colhead{$\Gamma_{\rm Soft}$}
1837: \\
1838: \colhead{} & & \colhead{[\AA]} & \colhead{[\kms]} &
1839: \colhead{[\kms]} & \colhead{[\kms]} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} \\
1840: \colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} & \colhead{(3)} & \colhead{(4)} &
1841: \colhead{(5)} & \colhead{(6)} & \colhead{(7)} & \colhead{(8)} }
1842: \startdata
1843: All QSO & 130 & 93 (66) & $-$294 (837) &5284 (1787) &5387 (3268)&0.36 (0.38) &2.41 (0.58)\\ %
1844: RQ only & 71 & 84 (69) & $-$582 (860) &4733 (1482) &4100 (2681)&0.48 (0.43) &2.64 (0.63)\\ %
1845: RL only & 59 & 104 (60) & $+$52 (667) &5946 (1905) &6936 (3259)&0.22 (0.25) &2.15 (0.38)\\ %
1846: Pop. A & 52 & 57 (34) & $-$677 (966) &4451 (1269) &2604 (891) &0.60 (0.45) &2.67 (0.68)\\ %
1847: Pop. B & 78 & 117 (71) & $-$39 (627) &5839 (1871) &7242 (2943)&0.20 (0.22) &2.24 (0.43)\\ %
1848: \enddata
1849: \label{tab:ave} \tablenotetext{a}{The number in parenthesis
1850: indicates the sample standard deviation.}
1851: %\tablenotetext{2}{Measured in kms$^{-1}$}
1852: \end{deluxetable}
1853:
1854: \clearpage
1855:
1856: %\begin{deluxetable}{cccccccccccccccccccc}
1857: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize} \tablenum{5} \tablewidth{0pt}
1858: %\tablecaption{{\sc Pearsons' Correlation
1859: %Coefficients\tablenotemark{a}}} \tablehead{ \colhead{AGN}
1860: %&\colhead{EWCIV--FWH$\beta$}& \colhead{EWCIV--$R_{\rm Fe}$} &
1861: %\colhead{C1/2--FWH$\beta$} & \colhead{C1/2--$R_{\rm Fe}$} &
1862: %\colhead{C1/2--$\Gamma_{\rm S}$} & \colhead{FWCIV--FWH$\beta$} \\
1863: %\colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} & \colhead{(3)} & \colhead{(4)} &
1864: %\colhead{(5)} & \colhead{(6)} & \colhead{(7)} } \startdata
1865: %All & 0.31 ($<$0.01)& -0.44 ($<$0.01)& 0.31 ($<$0.01)& -0.60 ($<$0.01) & -0.41 ($<$0.01)& 0.58 ($<$0.01)\\%
1866: %RQ & 0.35 ($<$0.01)& -0.45 ($<$0.01)& 0.29 (0.02) & -0.63 ($<$0.01) & -0.45 ($<$0.01)& 0.52 ($<$0.01)\\ %
1867: %RL & 0.28 (0.16) & -0.37 ($<$0.01)& 0.01 (0.91) & -0.31 (0.18) & -0.02 (0.10) & 0.50 ($<$0.01)\\%
1868: %Pop. A& 0.11 (0.42) & -0.52 ($<$0.01)& 0.13 (0.34) & -0.58 ($<$0.01) & -0.49 ($<$0.01)& 0.31 (0.02)\\%
1869: %Pop. B& -0.02 (0.87) & -0.24 (0.04) & -0.02 (0.86) & -0.31 ($<$0.01)& -0.09 (0.47)& 0.52 ($<$0.01)\\%
1870: %\enddata\label{tab:cc}
1871: %\tablenotetext{a}{The number $P$\ in parenthesis yields the
1872: %probability that the coupled variables are not correlated. A
1873: %significant correlation can be assumed if $P \la 0.01$.}
1874: %\end{deluxetable}
1875:
1876: \clearpage
1877:
1878:
1879: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccccccccccccccc}
1880: \rotate \tabletypesize{\scriptsize} \tablenum{4}
1881: \tablewidth{0pt} \tablecaption{{\sc Correlation Analysis for
1882: \civbc\ Parameters\tablenotemark{a}}} \tablehead{ \colhead{\civbc\
1883: } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{W} && \multicolumn{2}{c}{FWHM} &&
1884: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$c(\case{1}{2})$/W} &&
1885: \multicolumn{2}{c}{FWHM(\hbbc)} && \multicolumn{2}{c}{\rfe} &&
1886: \multicolumn{2}{c}{\gs} \\ \cline{2-3} \cline{5-6} \cline{8-9}
1887: \cline{11-12} \cline{14-15} \cline{17-18}
1888: &
1889: $r_{\mathrm S}$ & $P_{r_\mathrm{S}}$ && $r_{\mathrm S}$ &
1890: $P_{r_\mathrm{S}}$ && $r_{\mathrm S}$ & $P_{r_\mathrm{S}}$ &&
1891: $r_{\mathrm S}$ & $P_{r_\mathrm{S}}$ && $r_{\mathrm S}$ &
1892: $P_{r_\mathrm{S}}$ && $r_{\mathrm S}$ & $P_{r_\mathrm{S}}$ \\
1893: & \colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} && \colhead{(3)} & \colhead{(4)}
1894: && \colhead{(5)} & \colhead{(6)} && \colhead{(7)} & \colhead{(6)}
1895: && \colhead{(9)} & \colhead{(10)} && \colhead{(11)} &
1896: \colhead{(12)} } \startdata
1897: %\\ \hline
1898: \multicolumn{18}{c}{All Sources\tablenotemark{b}}\\
1899: \hline
1900: \\
1901: $c(\case{1}{2}$) & 0.411 & 5.951E-07 && 0.008 & 4.6E-01 && 0.970 & 8.7E-81 && 0.331 & 6.0E-05 && -0.431 & 1.5E-07 && -0.327 & 1.5E-04 \\% 0.35 0.010702048
1902: W & \nodata & \nodata && 0.141 & 5.5E-02 && 0.485 & 2.5E-09 && 0.469 & 9.1E-09 && -0.530 & 4.5E-11 && -0.284 & 9.1E-04 \\%
1903: FWHM & \nodata & \nodata && \nodata & \nodata && 0.040 & 3.3E-01 && 0.512 & 2.4E-10 && -0.175 & 2.3E-02 && -0.354 & 4.2E-05 \\%
1904: $c(\case{1}{2}$)/W & \nodata & \nodata && \nodata & \nodata && \nodata & \nodata && 0.381 & 3.9E-06 && -0.471 & 7.8E-09 && -0.336 & 9.9E-05 \\%
1905: \\ \hline
1906: \multicolumn{18}{c}{RQ \tablenotemark{c}}\\ \hline
1907: \\
1908: $c(\case{1}{2}$) & 0.634 & 1.467E-09 && -0.206 & 4.2E-02 && 0.959 & 8.2E-40 && 0.365 & 8.7E-04 && -0.498 & 5.0E-06 && -0.396 & 7.2E-04 \\%
1909: W & \nodata & \nodata && -0.008 & 4.7E-01 && 0.783 & 3.6E-16 && 0.488 & 7.9E-06 && -0.529 & 1.1E-06 && -0.424 & 3.0E-04 \\%
1910: FWHM & \nodata & \nodata && \nodata & \nodata && -0.206 & 4.2E-02 && 0.392 & 3.6E-04 && 0.056 & 3.2E-01 && -0.296 & 9.7E-03 \\%
1911: $c(\case{1}{2}$)/W & \nodata & \nodata && \nodata & \nodata && \nodata & \nodata && 0.393 & 3.5E-04 && -0.538 & 6.5E-07 && -0.401 & 6.2E-04 \\%
1912: \\ \hline
1913: \multicolumn{18}{c}{RL\tablenotemark{d}}\\ \hline
1914: \\
1915: $c(\case{1}{2}$) & -0.024 & 4.3E-01 && -0.108 & 2.1E-01 && 0.965 & 4.0E-35 && -0.068 & 3.0E-01 && -0.107 & 2.1E-01 && -0.048 & 3.6E-01 \\%
1916: W & \nodata & \nodata && 0.145 & 1.4E-01 && -0.095 & 2.4E-01 && 0.219 & 4.8E-02 && -0.371 & 1.9E-03 && -0.004 & 4.9E-01 \\%
1917: FWHM & \nodata & \nodata && \nodata & \nodata && -0.092 & 2.4E-01 && 0.482 & 5.5E-05 && -0.225 & 4.3E-02 && -0.137 & 1.5E-01 \\%
1918: $c(\case{1}{2}$)/W & \nodata & \nodata && \nodata & \nodata && \nodata & \nodata && -0.049 & 3.6E-01 && -0.083 & 2.7E-01 && 0.001 & 5.0E-01 \\%
1919: \\ \hline
1920: \multicolumn{18}{c}{Pop. A\tablenotemark{e}}\\ \hline
1921: \\
1922: $c(\case{1}{2}$) & 0.668 & 3.1E-08 && -0.384 & 2.5E-03 && 0.978 & 5.3E-36 && 0.257 & 3.3E-02 && -0.549 & 1.3E-05 && -0.504 & 1.8E-04 \\%
1923: W & \nodata & \nodata && -0.299 & 1.6E-02 && 0.746 & 1.1E-10 && 0.127 & 1.8E-01 && -0.555 & 9.8E-06 && -0.364 & 6.4E-03 \\%
1924: FWHM & \nodata & \nodata && \nodata & \nodata && -0.279 & 2.3E-02 && 0.327 & 9.0E-03 && 0.113 & 2.1E-01 && -0.281 & 2.9E-02 \\%
1925: $c(\case{1}{2}$)/W & \nodata & \nodata && \nodata & \nodata && \nodata & \nodata && 0.250 & 3.7E-02 && -0.542 & 1.7E-05 && -0.484 & 3.3E-04 \\%
1926: \\ \hline
1927: \multicolumn{18}{c}{Pop. B\tablenotemark{f}}\\ \hline
1928: \\
1929: $c(\case{1}{2}$) & 0.032 & 3.905E-01 && -0.067 & 2.8E-01 && 0.967 & 3.5E-47 && -0.015 & 4.5E-01 && -0.167 & 7.2E-02 && -0.118 & 1.6E-01 \\%
1930: W & \nodata & \nodata && 0.089 & 2.2E-01 && 0.080 & 2.4E-01 && 0.092 & 2.1E-01 && -0.134 & 1.2E-01 && -0.006 & 4.8E-01 \\%
1931: FWHM & \nodata & \nodata && \nodata & \nodata && -0.060 & 3.0E-01 && 0.481 & 4.1E-06 && -0.068 & 2.8E-01 && -0.260 & 1.4E-02 \\%
1932: $c(\case{1}{2}$)/FWHM & \nodata & \nodata && \nodata & \nodata && \nodata & \nodata && -0.005 & 4.8E-01 && -0.184 & 5.3E-02 && -0.080 & 2.5E-01 \\%
1933: \enddata\label{tab:cc}
1934: \tablenotetext{a}{The number $P$\ in parenthesis yields the
1935: probability that the coupled variables are not correlated. A
1936: significant correlation can be assumed if $P \la 0.01$.}
1937: \tablenotetext{b}{130 sources of which 118 with available \gs.}
1938: \tablenotetext{c}{71 sources of which 62 with available \gs.}
1939: \tablenotetext{d}{59 sources of which 56 with available \gs.}
1940: \tablenotetext{e}{52 sources of which 46 with available \gs.}
1941: \tablenotetext{f}{78 sources, of which 72 with available \gs.}
1942: \end{deluxetable}
1943:
1944: \clearpage
1945:
1946:
1947: \begin{deluxetable}{lccl}
1948: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize} \tablenum{5} \tablewidth{0pt}
1949: \tablecaption{{\sc Main Trends Along the 4DE1 Sequence}}
1950: \tablehead{\colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Population A}
1951: &\colhead{Population B}& \colhead{References}} \startdata
1952: FWHM(\hbbc) & 800 -- 4000 \kms\ & 4000 -- 10000 \kms\ & 1,2,3,4,5\\
1953: $\bullet$log \mbh\ & 6.5 -- 8.5 & 8.0 -- 10.0 & 6,7,8,9\\
1954: $\bullet$ \lledd\ & 0.1 -- 1.0 & 0.01 -- 0.5 & 6,7,8,9\\
1955: W(\hbbc) & $\sim$ 80 \AA\ & $\sim$ 100 \AA\ & 1,2,3,4\\
1956: \hbbc\ profile shape & Lorentzian & double Gaussian & 2,3,5,10,11\\
1957: $c(\case{1}{2}$) \hbbc\ & $\sim$ zero & +500 \kms\ & 1,2,3\\
1958: \rfe\ & 0.7 & 0.3 & 1,2 \\
1959: {Si}{\sc iii} / {C}{\sc iii}] & 0.4 & 0.2 & 12,13\\
1960: $\bullet \log$ \ne\ & $~$11 & $~$9.5 -- 10 & 12\\
1961: $\bullet \log U$ & --2/--1.5 & --1.0/--0.5 & 12\\
1962: FWHM\civbc\ & (2--6) $ \cdot 10^3$\ \kms\ & (2--10) $\cdot 10^3$ \kms\ & this paper \\
1963: W(\civbc) & 58 \AA\ & 105 \AA\ & this paper\\
1964: AI(\civbc) & --0.1 & 0.05 & this paper\\
1965: $c(\case{1}{2})$\civ\ & --800 \kms\ & zero & 2,3,this paper,14,15\\
1966: \gs\ & often large & rarely large & 2,3,16\\
1967: X-ray variability & extreme/rapid common & less common & 17,18\\
1968: optical variability & possible & more frequent/higher amplitude & 19\\
1969: probability radio loud & $\approx$ 3--4\% & $\approx$ 0.25 \% & 2,20,21\\
1970: BALs & extreme BALs & less extreme BALs & 22,23 \\
1971: \enddata
1972: \tablerefs{1: \citet{marzianietal96} 2: \citet{sulenticetal00a} 3:
1973: \citet{sulenticetal00b} 4: \citet{marzianietal03a} 5:
1974: \citet{veroncettyetal01} 6: \citet{kaspietal00} 7:
1975: \citet{marzianietal03b} 8: \citet{petersonetal04} 9:
1976: \citet{sulenticetal06a}; 10: \citet{sulenticetal02} 11:
1977: \citet{sulenticetal00c} 12: \citet{marzianietal01} 13:
1978: \citet{willsetal99} 14: \citet{yuanwills03} 15:
1979: \citet{baskinlaor05} 16: \citet{wangetal96} 17:
1980: \citet{turneretal99} 18: \citet{grupeetal01} 19:
1981: \citet{giveonetal99} 20: \citet{sulenticetal03} 21: Sulentic et
1982: al. (2007), in preparation 22: \citet{reichardetal03}
1983: 22: \citet{sulenticetal06b} } \label{tab:summ}
1984: \end{deluxetable}
1985:
1986: \clearpage
1987:
1988:
1989:
1990: \begin{figure}
1991: \plotone{f1a.eps} \caption{\civ\ profiles for the 130 AGN used in
1992: the present study. They are presented in right ascension order.
1993: Abscissa is rest-frame wavelength (\AA); ordinate is rest-frame
1994: specific flux (10$^{-15}$ \ergss cm$^{-2}$ \AA$^{-1}$). Thick
1995: curves are a high-order spline fits to \civbc\ and anything above
1996: it is considered to be narrow line emission. The major thick
1997: spacing (50 \AA) corresponds to a radial velocity range of \dvr
1998: $\approx$ 9700 \kms. } \label{fig:civbc}
1999: \end{figure}
2000:
2001: \clearpage
2002:
2003: \begin{figure}\figurenum{1}
2004: \plotone{f1b.eps} \caption{Cont.}
2005: \end{figure}
2006:
2007: \clearpage
2008:
2009: \begin{figure}\figurenum{1}
2010: \plotone{f1c.eps} \caption{Cont.}
2011: \end{figure}
2012:
2013: \clearpage
2014:
2015: \begin{figure}\figurenum{1}
2016: \plotone{f1d.eps} \caption{Cont.}
2017: \end{figure}
2018:
2019: \clearpage
2020:
2021: \begin{figure}\figurenum{1}
2022: \plotone{f1e.eps} \caption{Cont.}
2023: \end{figure}
2024:
2025: \clearpage
2026:
2027: \begin{figure}\figurenum{1}
2028: \plotone{f1f.eps} \caption{Cont.}
2029: \end{figure}
2030:
2031: \clearpage
2032:
2033: \begin{figure}\figurenum{1}
2034: \plotone{f1g.eps} \caption{Cont.}
2035: \end{figure}
2036:
2037: \clearpage
2038:
2039: \begin{figure}
2040: \epsscale{0.4} \plotone{f2a.eps} \epsscale{0.4} \plotone{f2b.eps}
2041: \epsscale{0.4} \plotone{f2c.eps} \epsscale{0.4} \plotone{f2d.eps}
2042: \caption{4DE1 parameter planes involving \civbc\ profile shift at
2043: half-maximum ($c(\case{1}{2})$, see text) vs. FWHM(\hbbc) (in
2044: \kms) (UL), \rfe\ (UR) and \gs\ (LL). In LR we also show
2045: $c(\case{1}{2}$) normalized by EW \civbc\ in order to emphasize
2046: the difference between Pop. A and B sources which are denoted
2047: with filled and open symbols respectively; radio-loud sources are
2048: represented by squares and radio-quiet by circles. The vertical
2049: line in the UL and LR panels marks the nominal Pop. A-B boundary.
2050: Dotted lines indicate $\pm$ 2 $\sigma$ \ confidence intervals for
2051: $c(\case{1}{2}$) (see \S \ref{immres}) meaning that sources within
2052: that range do not show significant \civ\ line shift.}
2053: \label{fig:e1}
2054: \end{figure}
2055:
2056: \clearpage
2057:
2058: \begin{figure}
2059: \epsscale{0.5} \plotone{f3a.eps} \plotone{f3b.eps} \caption{Upper
2060: panel: Correlation diagram for measures of FWHM \civbc\ vs.
2061: $c(\case{1}{2}$) for Pop. B and Pop. A sources. Symbols and
2062: $c(\case{1}{2}$) confidence intervals are same as in the previous
2063: Figure. The best fit regression line (lsq, unweighted) for the
2064: Pop. A correlation (RQ only) is shown. Both $c(\case{1}{2})$\ and
2065: FWHM(\civbc) are in units of \kms. See Appendix \ref{appendix} for
2066: a discussion of the outlier PG 0026+126. Lower panel:
2067: $c(\case{1}{2})$\ vs. rest-frame W(\civbc). }\label{fig:civ}
2068: \end{figure} \vfill
2069:
2070: \clearpage
2071:
2072: \begin{figure}
2073: \epsscale{0.45} \plotone{f4a.eps} \plotone{f4b.eps}
2074: \plotone{f4c.eps} \plotone{f4d.eps} \caption{Comparison of our
2075: \civbc\ measures with those of \citet{baskinlaor05} and
2076: \citet{warneretal04} (upper panels) and \citet{corbor96} (lower
2077: panels). Left panels: FWHM(\civbc) comparison, in units of \kms.
2078: Small crosses compare with FWHM(\civ) data of
2079: \citet{warneretal04}. The same symbols used in previous figure
2080: were used for comparisons with \citet{baskinlaor05} and
2081: \citet{corbor96}. Right panels: comparison \civ\ line centroid at
2082: 3/4 intensity ($c(\case{3}{4}$)), in \kms. Our $c(\case{3}{4}$)
2083: confidence intervals are shown in the right panels. The source
2084: with the largest blueshift (Pop. A quasar PG 1259+593) falls
2085: outside the boundary of the plot ($c(\case{1}{2}) \approx 4000$
2086: \kms). Data point for PG 0026+129 is not shown to avoid x-scale
2087: compression. Parity diagonal line is shown in all panels. Dotted
2088: lines indicate $\pm$ 2 $\sigma$ \ confidence intervals for
2089: $c(\case{3}{4}$) (see \S \ref{immres}).} \label{fig:bls}
2090: \end{figure}
2091:
2092:
2093: \clearpage
2094:
2095: \begin{figure}
2096: \epsscale{0.35}
2097: \plotone{f5a.eps}\\
2098: \plotone{f5b.eps}\\
2099: \plotone{f5c.eps} \caption{Upper panel: Comparison of our log
2100: \mbh\ estimates for sources in common with \citet{baskinlaor05}.
2101: ``Virial'' velocity values derived from FWHM \civbc\ measures in
2102: both samples. Dot-dash indicates parity line. The thin line shows
2103: an unweighted lsq best fit for all sources. Middle panel: log
2104: ratio of \mbh\ estimated from \civ\ and ``corrected" \hbbc\ (see
2105: text in \S \ref{mbh}) vs. log \mbh for sources in common with
2106: \citet{marzianietal03a}. Thin lines show independent best fits
2107: (unweighted lsq) for Pop. A and B sources. NLSy1 sources are
2108: identified among Pop. A sources by a larger open circle. Lower
2109: panel: log ratio of \mbh\ estimated from \civ\ and ``corrected"
2110: \hb\ as in panel above versus $\log W$(\civbc). Thin line shows a
2111: best fit (unweighted lsq) for all sources with $\log W$(\civbc)$<$
2112: 2.} \label{fig:mbh}
2113: \end{figure}
2114:
2115: \clearpage
2116:
2117: \begin{figure}
2118: \epsscale{0.35} \plotone{f6a.eps} \epsscale{0.35}
2119: \plotone{f6b.eps} \epsscale{0.35} \plotone{f6c.eps}
2120: \epsscale{0.35} \plotone{f6d.eps} \caption{\civnc\ analysis. UL:
2121: luminosity distribution of \civnc\ components identified in our
2122: HST sample ($\log L$(\civnc) in units of \ergss; shaded
2123: histogram); UR: FWHM distribution for \civnc\ components; LR:
2124: distribution of the ratio L(\civnc)/L(\oiii) for our HST sample
2125: (corrected for Galactic extinction) and for sample of
2126: \citet{baskinlaor05}. LR: FWHM(\civnc) vs. $\log L$(\civnc) for
2127: our HST sample. Filled circles indicate Pop. A, open circles Pop.
2128: B sources. } \label{fig:civnc} \end{figure}
2129:
2130:
2131:
2132:
2133:
2134:
2135:
2136:
2137:
2138:
2139:
2140: \end{document}
2141: