1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{natbib}
3:
4: \shorttitle{The Black Hole in PG\,2130+099}
5: \shortauthors{Grier et al.}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: \title{The Mass of the Black Hole in the Quasar PG\,2130+099}
10:
11: \author{C.~J.~Grier\altaffilmark{1},
12: B.~M.~Peterson\altaffilmark{1,2},
13: M.~C.~Bentz\altaffilmark{3},
14: K.~D.~Denney\altaffilmark{1},
15: J.~D.~Eastman\altaffilmark{1},
16: M.~Dietrich\altaffilmark{1},
17: R.~W.~Pogge\altaffilmark{1,2},
18: J.~L.~Prieto\altaffilmark{1},
19: D.~L.~DePoy\altaffilmark{1,2},
20: R.~J.~Assef\altaffilmark{1},
21: D.~W.~Atlee\altaffilmark{1},
22: J.~Bird\altaffilmark{1},
23: M.~E.~Eyler\altaffilmark{4},
24: M.~S.~Peeples\altaffilmark{1},
25: R.~Siverd\altaffilmark{1},
26: L.~C.~Watson\altaffilmark{1},
27: J.~C.~Yee\altaffilmark{1}
28: }
29:
30: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy, The Ohio State University, 140 W 18th Ave,
31: Columbus, OH 43210}
32: \altaffiltext{2}{Center for Cosmology \& AstroParticle Physics, The Ohio State University,
33: 191 West Woodruff Ave, Columbus, OH 4321}
34: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California at Irvine,
35: 4129 Frederick Reines Hall, Irvine, CA 92697}
36: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Physics, U.S. Naval Academy, 572C Holloway Road, Annapolis, MD 21401}
37:
38: \begin{abstract}
39: We present the results of a recent reverberation-mapping campaign undertaken to improve measurements
40: of the radius of the broad line region and the central black hole mass of the quasar PG\,2130+099.
41: Cross correlation of the 5100\,\AA\ continuum and H$\beta$ emission-line light curves yields a
42: time lag of 22.9$^{+4.4}_{-4.3}$ days, corresponding to a central black hole mass
43: $M_{\rm BH} = $ ($3.8 \pm 1.5 $)$ \times 10^{7} M_{\odot}$. This value supports the notion that previous measurements
44: yielded an incorrect lag. We re-analyzed previous datasets to investigate the possible sources of the discrepancy and
45: conclude that previous measurement errors were apparently caused by a combination of undersampling of the light curves and
46: long-term secular changes in the H$\beta$ emission-line equivalent width.
47: With our new measurements, PG\,2130+099 is no longer an outlier in either the $R_{\rm BLR}$--$L$ or
48: the $M_{\rm BH}$--$\sigma_*$ relationships.
49: \end{abstract}
50:
51: \keywords{galaxies: active --- galaxies: nuclei ---
52: galaxies: Seyfert --- quasars: emission lines}
53: \section{INTRODUCTION}
54: Reverberation mapping uses observations of continuum and emission-line variability to probe the
55: structure of the broad line region (BLR) in active galactic nuclei (Blandford \& McKee 1982; Peterson 1993).
56: It has been extensively used to estimate the physical size of the BLR and the mass of central black holes
57: in active galactic nuclei (AGN).
58: The observed continuum variability precedes the observed emission-line variability by a time related to the
59: light travel time across the BLR; by obtaining an estimate of the time delay, or ``lag'' $\tau$, between
60: the change in continuum flux and the change in emission-line flux, one can estimate the size of the BLR.
61: While this is an extremely effective method, high-quality datasets are difficult to obtain,
62: as they require well-spaced observations over long timescales. To date, over three dozen AGN
63: have estimated black hole masses obtained using reverberation methods.
64:
65: In addition to being important physical parameters, the BLR radius and central black hole mass ($M_{\rm BH}$) measurements are
66: crucial in calibrating relationships between different properties of AGN. A useful
67: relationship that has emerged is the correlation between the radius of the BLR ($R_{\rm BLR}$) and the optical
68: luminosity of the AGN (e.g. Kaspi et al.\ 2000, 2005; Bentz et al.\ 2006). Another key relationship
69: is that between $M_{\rm BH}$ and bulge stellar velocity dispersion ($\sigma_*$) which is seen in both quiescent
70: (Ferrarese \& Merritt 2000; Gebhardt et al.\ 2000a; Tremaine et al.\ 2002) and active galaxies (Gebhardt et al.\ 2000b;
71: Ferraresse et al.\ 2001; Nelson et al.\ 2004; Onken et al.\ 2004; Dasyra et al.\ 2007). These two
72: relationships are critical because they allow us to estimate the masses of black holes in AGN from a
73: single spectrum (see McGill et al.\ 2008 for a recent summary) --- we estimate $R_{\rm BLR}$ from the AGN luminosity,
74: the velocity dispersion of the
75: BLR is determined by the emission-line width, and the quiescient $M_{\rm BH}$--$\sigma_{*}$ relationship provides the
76: calibration of the reverberation-based mass scale. Obtaining high-quality single-epoch spectra is much less observationally
77: demanding than obtaining high-quality reverberation measurements; once relations such as these are properly calibrated, we can
78: measure $M_{\rm BH}$ in many more objects than would otherwise be possible. An extensive set of objects with
79: reliable black hole masses allows us to explore the connection between black holes and AGN evolution over cosmologically
80: interesting timescales.
81:
82: PG\,2130+099 has been a source of curiosity because it is an outlier in both the $M_{\rm BH}$--$\sigma_{*}$ and $R_{\rm BLR}$--$L$
83: relations. Previous measurements obtained by Kaspi et al.\ (2000) and reanalyzed by Peterson et al.\ (2004) found H$\beta$ lags
84: of about 180 days.
85: These measurements yield a black hole mass $M_{\rm BH}$ upwards of $10^{8}$ $M_{\odot}$.
86: At luminosity $\lambda L_{\lambda}$(5100\,\AA)=($2.24\pm0.27$)$\times10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$, this places PG\,2130+099 well
87: above the $R_{\rm BLR}$--$L$ relationship (Bentz et al.\ 2006). Dasyra et al.\ (2007) also note that PG\,2130+099
88: falls above the $M_{\rm BH}$--$\sigma_{*}$ relationship. Together these suggest that this discrepancy could be caused by
89: measurement errors in the BLR radius. Our suspicions are also fueled by two other factors. First, the optical spectrum
90: of PG\,2130+099 is similar to that of narrow-line Seyfert 1 (NLS1) galaxies, which are widely supposed to be AGN with high
91: accretion rates relative to the Eddington rate (see Komossa 2008 for a recent review). However, the accretion rate derived
92: from this mass and
93: luminosity (under common assumptions for all reverberation-mapped AGN as described by Collin et al.\ 2006) is
94: quite low compared to NLS1s, again suggesting that $M_{\rm BH}$ and therefore $\tau$ are overestimated.
95: Second, as we discuss further below, a lag of approximately half a year on an equatorial source means that
96: fine-scale structure in the two light curves will not match up in detail, and cross-correlation becomes very
97: sensitive to long-term secular variations that may or may not be an actual reverberation signal.
98:
99: For these reasons, we decided to undertake a new reverberation campaign to remeasure the H$\beta$ lag for PG\,2130+099.
100: In this paper, we present a new lag determination from
101: this campaign. We also present a re-analysis of the earlier dataset that suggests that the true lag is consistent
102: with our new lag value and investigate possible sources of error in the previous analysis.
103:
104: \section{OBSERVATIONS AND DATA ANALYSIS}
105:
106: \subsection{Observations}
107: The data were obtained as a part of queue-scheduled program during the SDSS-II Supernova Survey follow-up campaign
108: (Frieman et al.\ 2008). We obtained spectra of PG\,2130+099 with the Boller and
109: Chivens CCD Spectrograph on the MDM 2.4m telescope for 21 different nights from 2007 September through 2007
110: December. We used a 150 grooves/mm grating which yields a dispersion of 3.29 \AA\ pixel$^{-1}$ and
111: covers the spectral range $4000$--$7500$ \AA. The slit width was set to $3''\!.0$ projected on the
112: sky and the spectral resolution was 15.2\,\AA. We used an extraction aperture that corresponds to $3''\!.0 \times 7''\!.0$.
113: \subsection{Light Curves}
114: The reduced spectra were flux-calibrated using the flux of the [O\,{\sc iii}]\,$\lambda5007$ emission line in a reference
115: spectrum created using a selection of 9 nights with the best observing conditions. Using a $\chi^2$ goodness-of-fit
116: estimator method (van Groningen \& Wanders 1992), each individual spectrum was scaled
117: to the reference spectrum. For three epochs, no reasonable fit could be obtained, hence we scaled these spectra
118: by hand to match the [O\,{\sc iii}]\,$\lambda5007$ flux of the reference spectrum, which was 1.36$\times$10$^{-13}$
119: erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ in the observed frame ($z$~=~0.06298). We then removed the narrow-line
120: components of the H$\beta$ and [O\,{\sc iii}]\,$\lambda\lambda\,4959$, $5007$ lines using relative line strengths given by
121: Peterson et al. (2004). Figure \ref{fig:f1} shows the mean and rms spectra of PG\,2130+099, created from the entire set
122: of 21 flux-calibrated observations.
123:
124: To measure the continuum and line fluxes, we fit a line to the continuum between the regions $5050$--$5070$\,\AA\
125: and $5405$--$5435$\,\AA\ in
126: the observed frame. We measured the H$\beta$ flux by integrating the flux above the continuum from $5070$--$5285$\,\AA,
127: and the optical continuum flux was taken to be the average flux in the range $5405$--$5435$\,\AA. Errors were estimated
128: based on differences between observations that were close together in time. The observations from 2007
129: September 27 (JD\,2454371) had an extremely low signal-to-noise ratio $(S/N)$ compared to the rest of the population; following
130: Peterson et al.\ (1998a), we assigned fractional errors of 1/$(S/N)$ for this night in both the continuum
131: and line flux. The resulting continuum and H$\beta$ light curves are given in Table \ref{Table:tbl1} and
132: are shown in Figure \ref{fig:f2}. The properties of the final light curves used in our time series analysis
133: are given in Table \ref{Table:tbl2}. Column (1) gives the spectral feature and Column (2) gives the number of points in the individual
134: light curves. Columns (3) and (4) give the average and median time spacing between observations, respectively. Column (5)
135: gives the mean flux of the feature in the observed frame, and Column (6) gives the mean fractional error that is
136: computed based on observations that are closely spaced. Column (7) gives the excess variance, defined by
137: \begin{equation}
138: F_{\rm var} = \frac{\sqrt{\sigma^{2}-\delta{^2}}}{\langle f\rangle}
139: \end{equation}
140: where $\sigma^{2}$ is the flux variance of the observations, $\delta^{2}$ is the mean square uncertainty, and $\langle f \rangle$
141: is the mean observed flux. Column (8) is the ratio of the maximum to minimum flux in each light curve.
142:
143: We note in passing that we attempted to determine light curves for the other prominent emission lines in our spectra,
144: H$\alpha$ and H$\gamma$. Unfortunately, the fidelity of our flux calibration decreases away from the
145: [O\,{\sc iii}]\,$\lambda5007$ line (which we believe accounts for the increasing strength of the rms spectrum longward of
146: $\sim 5800$\,\AA\ in Figure \ref{fig:f1}) and, combined with the low amplitude of variability, renders the other light curves
147: unreliable. Nevertheless, time series analysis yields results that are at least consistent with the H$\beta$ results, though with
148: much larger uncertainties.
149:
150: \section {TIME SERIES ANALYSIS}
151: \subsection {Time delay measurements}
152: To measure the lag between the optical continuum and H$\beta$ emission-line variations, we cross-correlated the
153: H$\beta$ light curve with the continuum light curve using the interpolation method originally described by
154: Gaskell \& Sparke (1986) and Gaskell \& Peterson (1987) and subsequently modified by White \& Peterson (1994) and
155: Peterson et al.\ (1998b, 2004). The method works as follows: because the data
156: are not evenly spaced in time, we interpolate between points to obtain an evenly-sampled light curve.
157: The linear correlation coefficient $r$ is then calculated using pairs of points, one from each light curve,
158: separated by a given time lag. When $r$ is calculated for a range of time lag values, the cross correlation function
159: (CCF) is obtained, which consists of the value of $r$ for each time lag value. We interpolated
160: between the points on a 0.5 day timescale to obtain the CCF for our dataset, which is shown in Figure \ref{fig:f3}.
161:
162: To determine the most probable delay and its uncertainty, we employed the flux randomization/random subset sampling
163: Monte Carlo method described by Peterson et al.\ (1998b). The ``random subset sampling'' method
164: takes a light curve of $N$ points and samples it $N$ times without regard to whether or not any given point has been
165: selected already. The flux uncertainty of a data point selected $n$ times is correspondingly
166: reduced by a factor $n^{-1/2}$ (Welsh 1999; Peterson et al. 2004). The flux value of each point is then altered by
167: a random Gaussian deviate based on the uncertainty assigned to the point; this is known as ``flux randomization''. A
168: CCF was calculated for each
169: altered light curve using interpolation as before. Using 2000 iterations of this process, we obtain a distribution of
170: $\tau_{\rm peak}$, measured from the CCF of each Monte Carlo realization and defined by the location of the peak value
171: of $r$. We also calculate and obtain a distribution
172: of the lag values $\tau_{\rm cent}$ that represents the centroid of each CCF using the points surrounding the peak, based on
173: all lag values with $r\geq0.8r_{\rm max}$. We then adopt the mean values of both the centroid
174: and peak $\langle \tau_{\rm cent}\rangle$ and $\langle \tau_{\rm peak}\rangle$ for our analysis. We estimate the uncertainties
175: in $\tau_{\rm cent}$ and $\tau_{\rm peak}$ such that 15.87\% of the realizations fall below the mean minus the lower
176: error and 15.87\% of the
177: realizations fall above the mean plus the upper error. Our final lag values and errors are $\tau_{\rm cent}=22.9^{+4.4}_{-4.3}$
178: days and $\tau_{\rm peak}=22.2^{+5.6}_{-5.2}$ days in the rest frame of PG\,2130+099. It is important to note that the CCF
179: is heavily dependent on the timespan of the light curve relative to the actual delay, and if the data timespan is short
180: with respect to the lag, the CCF will be biased towards short lag measurements (Welsh 1999). We note that because
181: our data span just over three months, our CCF is not capable of producing a lag measurement as large as previous measurements and
182: is subject to this bias. However, if the actual lag is shorter as the evidence presented in this work suggests, our
183: data span a sufficiently long period to identify the true delay.
184:
185: As a check on our time series analysis, we also employed an alternative method known as the $z$-transformed
186: discrete correlation function (ZDCF), as described by Alexander (1997). This method is a modification of the discrete
187: correlation function (DCF) described by Edelson \& Krolik (1988). The DCF is obtained by correlating data points
188: from the continuum with points from the H$\beta$ light curve by binning the data in time rather than interpolating
189: between points. The ZDCF similarly uses bins rather than interpolation, but bins the data by equal population rather
190: than by equal spacing in time and applies Fisher's $z$-transform to the cross correlation coefficients. Discrete
191: correlation functions have the advantage that they only use real data points, and are therefore less likely to
192: find spurious correlations in data where there are large time gaps. However, datasets with few points tend to
193: yield lag values with large uncertainties; hence this method is primarily useful as a check on the interpolation
194: method when the data are undersampled. Figure \ref{fig:f3} shows the computed ZDCF for our PG\,2130+099 dataset. It
195: should be noted that the $z$-transform requires a minimum of 11 points per bin to be statistically significant (Alexander
196: 1997);
197: because our light curves contained only 21 points, we were unable to obtain a well-sampled ZDCF with a minimum of 11 points
198: per bin. We used a minimum of 8 points per bin and do not obtain an independent lag measurement, but the ZDCF
199: is very consistent with our calculated CCF, indicating that the interpolation results are credible.
200:
201:
202: \subsection {Line width measurement and mass calculations}
203:
204: We use the second moment of the line profile, $\sigma_{\rm line}$ (Fromerth \& Melia 2000; Peterson et al.\ 2004)
205: to characterize the width of the H$\beta$ line. To determine the best value of $\sigma_{\rm line}$ and
206: its uncertainties, we use Monte Carlo simulations similar to those used in determining the time lag
207: (see Peterson et al. 2004). We measure the line widths from both the mean and rms spectra created in the
208: simulations from $N$ randomly chosen spectra and correct them for the spectrograph resolution.
209: We obtain a distribution of each line width from multiple realizations,
210: from which we take the mean value for our measure of $\sigma_{\rm line}$ or FWHM and the standard deviation as
211: the measurement uncertainty. The measured line widths and uncertainties are given in Table \ref{Table:tbl3}.
212:
213: Assuming that the motion of the H$\beta$-emitting gas is dominated by gravity, the relation
214: between $M_{\rm BH}$, line width, and time delay is
215: \begin{equation}
216: M_{\rm BH} = \frac{f c \tau \Delta V^2}{G},
217: \end{equation}
218: where $\tau$ is the emission-line time delay, $\Delta V$ is the emission-line width, and $f$
219: is a dimensionless factor that is characterized by the geometry and kinematics of the BLR. Onken
220: et al.\ (2004) calculated an average value of $\langle f \rangle$ by assuming that AGN follow the
221: same $M_{\rm BH}$--$\sigma_*$ relationship as quiescent galaxies. By normalizing the reverberation black
222: hole masses to the relation for quiescent galaxies, they obtain $\langle f\rangle =5.5$ when the line width
223: is characterized by the line dispersion $\sigma_{\rm line}$ of the rms spectrum.\footnote{Differences
224: between the use of $\sigma_{\rm line}$ and the FWHM in calculating $M_{\rm BH}$ are discussed
225: by Collin et al.\ (2006).} Using our values of $\tau_{\rm cent}$
226: and $\sigma_{\rm line}$, we compute $M_{\rm BH} = $ ($3.8 \pm 1.5 $)$ \times 10^{7} M_{\odot}$.
227:
228: We also compute the average 5100\,\AA\ luminosity of our sample to see where our new $R_{\rm BLR}$ value
229: places PG\,2130+099 on the $R_{\rm BLR}$--$L$ relationship. Following Bentz et al.\ (2006), we correct our
230: luminosity for host-galaxy contamination. Assuming $H_{0}=70$ km s$^{-1}$
231: Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.30$ and $\Omega_{\rm \Lambda}=0.70$, we
232: calculate $\log \lambda L_{\lambda}$(5100\,\AA)= 44.40$\pm0.02$
233: for our recent measurements of PG\,2130+099. The relevant measurements
234: and computed quantities are given in Table \ref{Table:tbl4}.
235:
236: \section{DISCUSSION}
237: Analysis of previous datasets of PG\,2130+099 yields lags greater than 150 days and $M_{\rm BH}$
238: values above $10^{8}$ $M_{\odot}$, in both cases approximately an order of magnitude larger than our new value.
239: To investigate the source of these discrepancies, we closely scrutinized the previous dataset,
240: which consists of data obtained at Steward Observatory and Wise Observatory (Kaspi et al.\ 2000).
241: The 5100\,\AA\ continuum and emission-line light curves, along with their respective CCF and ZDCFs, are shown in Figure \ref{fig:f4}.
242: We first ran the full light curve through the time series analysis as described in section 2.3 to
243: confirm the previous results, and successfully reproduced a lag measurement of $\sim168$ days, in agreement
244: with Kaspi et al.\ (2000) and Peterson et al.\ (2004). However, visual inspection of the light curves
245: suggests that these values were in error; we were able to identify several features that are
246: present in the continuum, H$\beta$ and H$\alpha$ light curves that are quite visibly lagging on timescales
247: shorter than 50 days, as we show below.
248:
249: It is clear that the Kaspi et al.\ results are dominated by the
250: data spanning the years 1993-1995, as this period contains the most significant variability as well
251: as time sampling that is sufficient to resolve features in the light curves. We show the light curves for
252: all spectral features measured by Kaspi et al.\ during this time period in Figure \ref{fig:f5}. Over
253: this period, we can match behavior
254: in the continuum with the behavior of the emission lines, most noticeably in the data from 1995. The
255: most prominent features in the light curves are the maximum in the continuum at the end of the 1994 series
256: and the maxima in the lines at the beginning of the 1995 series, which, based on the continuum variations, one
257: would expect to be lower relative to the fluxes in 1994. However, inspection of the relative flux levels of the lines
258: and continuum in the 1994 and 1995 data reveals that the equivalent width of the emission lines
259: changes during this timespan, which results in a rise in emission-line flux apparently unrelated to
260: reverberation. The maximum in the continuum and those
261: in the emission lines do not correspond to the same features--- the maxima in the emission line light curves in 1995 correspond
262: to the similar feature in the continuum at the beginning of 1995. Because there are no observations during
263: the six months or so between these features, the CCF and ZDCF lock onto the two unrelated maxima that are separated by 196
264: days and yield lags
265: of $\sim$200 days over this three-year span. The emission lines likely continued to increase in flux during the time period
266: for which there were no observations.
267:
268: Inspection of the light curve segments in Figure \ref{fig:f5} reveals similar structures in each of them within a given year.
269: To quantify the time delays between the continuum and lines on short timescales, we cross-correlated each individual year,
270: this time using only flux randomization in the Monte Carlo realizations, as there were too few points
271: in each year to use random subset sampling, so the uncertainties are underestimated. The resulting lags are
272: given in Table \ref{Table:lags}. Again we must
273: consider that the CCF cannot produce a lag that is greater than the duration of observations, so the
274: individual CCFs for these three years are limited to short delays. However, the presence of the 1995 feature in
275: both the continuum and emission-line light curves is unmistakable and it is extremely unlikely that it lags
276: by a value exceeding the sensitivity limit of the CCF. From this we surmise that the discrepancies in measured lag values
277: are mostly a result of large time gaps in the data and/or underestimation of the error bars in the Kaspi et al.\ data.
278:
279: Welsh (1999), and even earlier, P\'{e}rez, Robinson, \& de la Fuente (1992), pointed out that emission-line lags can
280: be severely underestimated with light curves that are too short in duration, particularly if the BLR is extended:
281: certainly our 98-day campaign is insensitive to lags as long as $\sim180$\,days. Is it possible that the original lag
282: determination of Kaspi et al.\ (2000) and Peterson et al.\ (2004) is correct (or more nearly so) and we have been fooled
283: by reliance on light curves that are too short? We think not, based on (1) the reasonable match between details in the
284: continuum and emission-line light curves for four different observing seasons (1993, 1994, 1995, and 2007), (2) the
285: improved agreement with the $R_{\rm BLR}$-$L$ relationship with the smaller lag (demonstrated in Figure \ref{fig:f6}), and (3) the
286: improved agreement with the $M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$ relationship with the smaller lag (Figure \ref{fig:f7}). It is also worth
287: pointing out the difficulty of accurately measuring a $\sim 180$\,day lag, particularly in the case of equatorial sources
288: which have a relatively short observing season. The short observing season, typically 6-7 months, means that there are
289: very few emission-line observations that can be matched directly with continuum points: the observed emission-line
290: fluxes represent a response to continuum variations that occurred when the AGN was too close to the Sun to observe.
291:
292: Welsh (1999) has also pointed out the value in ``detrending'' the light curves--- removing long-term trends by fitting the
293: light curves with a low-order function can reduce the bias toward underestimating lags. In this particular case, we find that
294: detrending has almost no effect: in particular, the highest points in the continuum (in late 1994) and the highest points
295: in the line (early in the 1995 observing season) remain so after detrending, and both the interpolation CCF and ZDCF
296: weight these points heavily. It is also interesting to note that the peak in the ZDCF agrees with the peak of the
297: interpolation CCF (Figure \ref{fig:f4}), which demonstrates that the $\sim180$\,day lag is {\em not} simply ascribable to
298: interpolation across the gap between the 1994 and 1995 observing seasons.
299:
300: The data from our 2007 campaign are not ideal: the amplitude of variability was low, the time sampling was
301: adequate, but only barely, and the duration of the campaign was short enough that we lack sensitivity to lags of $\sim
302: 50$\,days or longer. But the preponderance of evidence at this point argues that our smaller lag measurement is more
303: likely to be correct than the previous determination. Certainly better-sampled light curves of longer duration would yield a
304: more definitive result.
305:
306: \section {SUMMARY}
307: From a new reverberation campaign, we obtain a measurement of the time lag
308: of the H$\beta$ line in PG\,2130+099 of $\tau_{\rm cent}$= 22.9$^{+4.4}_{-4.3}$ days
309: and calculate a central black hole mass $M_{\rm BH} = $ ($3.8 \pm 1.5 $)$ \times 10^{7} M_{\odot}$.
310: Previous measurements of $\tau_{\rm cent}$ overestimated the size of the BLR and therefore
311: the mass of the black hole, most likely due to the undersampling in the light curves.
312: A re-analysis of the previous data, using both visual and algorithmic methods, suggests that the true BLR size
313: and $M_{\rm BH}$ are consistent with our new values. The recent reverberation measurements for PG\,2130+099 presented
314: in this study remove the discrepancies previously found for this object based on the $M_{\rm BH}$--$\sigma_*$
315: and $R_{\rm BLR}$--$L$ relationships.
316:
317: \acknowledgments
318:
319: We are grateful for support of this program by the National Science Foundation through
320: grant AST-0604066 to The Ohio State University. We would also like to thank H. Netzer, S. Kaspi,
321: and referee C. M. Gaskell for their helpful suggestions.
322:
323:
324: \begin{thebibliography}
325:
326: \bibitem{} Alexander, T. 1997, in Astronomical Time Series, ed. D. Maoz, A. Sternberg, \& E.M. Leibowitz
327: (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 163
328: \bibitem{} Bentz, M.C., Peterson, B.M., Pogge, R.W., Vestergaard, M., \& Onken, C.A. 2006, ApJ, 644, 133
329: \bibitem{} Bentz, M.C., Peterson, B.M., Netzer, H., Pogge, R.W., \& Vestergaard, M. 2008, ApJ, submitted
330: \bibitem{} Blandford, R.D., \& McKee, C.F. 1982, ApJ, 255, 419
331: \bibitem{} Collin, S., Kawaguchi, T., Peterson, B.M., \& Vestergaard, M. 2006, A\&A, 456, 75
332: \bibitem{} Dasyra, K.M., Tacconi, L.J., Davies, R.I., Genzel, R., Lutz, D., Peterson, B.M.,
333: Veilleux, S., Baker, A.J., Schweitzer, M., \& Sturm, E. 2007, ApJ, 657, 102
334: \bibitem{} Edelson, R.A., \& Krolik, J.H. 1988, ApJ, 333, 646
335: \bibitem{} Ferrarese, L., \& Merritt, D.M. 2000, ApJ, 539, L9
336: \bibitem{} Ferrarese, L., Pogge, R.W., Peterson, B.M., Merritt, D., Wandel, A., \& Joseph, C.L. 2001, ApJ, 555, L79
337: \bibitem{} Frieman, J. A., et al.\ 2008, AJ, 135, 338
338: \bibitem{} Fromerth, M.J., \& Melia, F. 2000, ApJ, 533, 172
339: \bibitem{} Gaskell, C.M., \& Peterson, B.M. 1987, ApJS, 65, 1
340: \bibitem{} Gaskell, C.M., \& Sparke, L.S. 1986, ApJ, 305, 175
341: \bibitem{} Gebhardt, K., et al.\ 2000a, ApJ, 539, L13
342: \bibitem{} Gebhardt, K., et al.\ 2000b, ApJ, 543, L5
343: \bibitem{} Kaspi, S., Maoz, D., Netzer, H., Peterson, B.M., Vestergaard, M., \& Jannuzi, B.T. 2005, ApJ, 629, 61
344: \bibitem{} Kaspi, S., Smith, P.S., Netzer, H., Maoz, D.,
345: Jannuzi, B.T., \& Giveon, U. 2000, ApJ, 533, 631
346: \bibitem{} Komossa, S. 2008, in The Nuclear Region, Host Galaxy, and Environment of Active Galaxies, ed. E.
347: Ben\'{i}tez, I. Cruz-Gonz\'{a}lez, and Y. Krongold, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrof\'{i}sica (Serie de Conferencias),
348: Vol. 32, pp. 86-92
349: \bibitem{} McGill, K.L., Woo, J.-H., Treu, T., Malkan, M.A. 2008,
350: ApJ, 673, 703
351: \bibitem{} Nelson, C.H., Green, R.F., Bower, G., Gebhardt, K., \& Weistrop, D. 2004, ApJ, 615, 652
352: \bibitem{} Onken, C.A., Ferrarese, L., Merritt, D., Peterson, B.M.,
353: Pogge, R.W., Vestergaard, M., \& Wandel, A. 2004, ApJ, 615, 645
354: \bibitem{} Peterson, B.M. 1993, PASP, 105, 247
355: \bibitem{} Peterson, B.M., Wanders, I., Bertram, R., Hunley, J.F., Pogge, R.W., \& Wagner, M. 1998a, ApJ, 501, 82
356: \bibitem{} Peterson, B.M., Wanders, I., Horne, K., Collier, S., Alexander, T., \& Kaspi, S. 1998b, PASP, 110, 660
357: \bibitem{} Peterson, B.M., et al.\ 2004, ApJ, 613, 682
358: \bibitem{} Tremaine, S., et al.\ 2002, ApJ, 574, 740
359: \bibitem{} van Groningen, E., \& Wanders, I. 1992, PASP, 104, 700
360: \bibitem{} Watson, L.C. et al. 2008, ApJL, 682, 21
361: \bibitem{} Welsh, W.F. 1999, PASP, 111, 1347
362: \end{thebibliography}
363:
364: \clearpage
365:
366: \begin{figure}
367: \begin{center}
368: \epsscale{0.8}
369: \plotone{f1.eps}
370: \caption{The flux-calibrated mean and rms spectra of PG\,2130+099 in the observed frame ($z$ = 0.06298).
371: The flux density is in units of 10$^{-15}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ \AA$^{-1}$.}
372: \label{fig:f1}
373: \end{center}
374: \end{figure}
375: \clearpage
376:
377: \begin{figure}
378: \begin{center}
379: \epsscale{0.9}
380: \plotone{f2.eps}
381: \caption{Continuum (upper panel) and H$\beta$ (lower panel) light curves that were used in the time series analysis. Continuum flux
382: densities are in units of 10$^{-15}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ \AA$^{-1}$. Emission-line flux densities are
383: in units of 10$^{-13}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$. All fluxes are in the observed frame.}
384: \label{fig:f2}
385: \end{center}
386: \end{figure}
387: \clearpage
388:
389: \begin{figure}
390: \begin{center}
391: \epsscale{0.75}
392: \plotone{f3.eps}
393: \caption{The CCF (solid line) and ZDCF (filled circles) from the time series analysis of
394: our recent observations of PG\,2130+099.}
395: \label{fig:f3}
396: \end{center}
397: \end{figure}
398:
399: \begin{figure}
400: \begin{center}
401: \epsscale{1.0}
402: \plotone{f4.eps}
403: \caption{The left column shows the light curves of PG\,2130+099 from Kaspi et al.\ (2000). The 5100\ \AA \ continuum light curve is shown
404: in the top left panel and the H$\alpha$, H$\beta$, and H$\gamma$ light curves are displayed below. The right column
405: shows the CCF and corresponding ZDCF for each spectral feature, with the top right panel showing the auto-correlation
406: function (ACF) of the continuum. The continuum flux density is given in units of 10$^{-15}$ erg s$^{-1}$
407: cm$^{-2}$~\AA$^{-1}$ and the H$\beta$ flux density is in units of 10$^{-13}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$. }
408: \label{fig:f4}
409: \end{center}
410: \end{figure}
411:
412: \begin{figure}
413: \begin{center}
414: \epsscale{1.0}
415: \plotone{f5.eps}
416: \caption{Light curves and cross correlation functions for different spectral features of the Kaspi et al.\ (2000) data.
417: The left column shows a small section of the light curve for each spectral feature. The right column panels show the CCF (solid line)
418: and ZDCF (filled circles) for each feature. The top right panel shows the ACF of the continuum, and the other three panels
419: below show the correlation functions resulting from correlation of each respective emission line with the continuum
420: light curve. The fluxes are given in the same units as in Figure \ref{fig:f4}.}
421: \label{fig:f5}
422: \end{center}
423: \end{figure}
424:
425: \begin{figure}
426: \begin{center}
427: \epsscale{1.0}
428: \plotone{f6.eps}
429: \caption{The position of PG\,2130+099 on the most recent $R_{\rm BLR}$--$L$ relationship from Bentz
430: et al.\ (2008), denoted by the solid line. The starred circle represents the position of
431: PG\,2130+099 with a lag of 158.1 days, as given by Peterson et al.\ (2004). The filled square represents
432: the measurement of 22.9 days from our recent dataset. The open squares represent other
433: objects from Bentz et al. }
434: \label{fig:f6}
435: \end{center}
436: \end{figure}
437:
438: \begin{figure}
439: \begin{center}
440: \epsscale{1.0}
441: \plotone{f7.eps}
442: \caption{The position of PG\,2130+099 on the $M_{\rm BH}$--$\sigma_{*}$ relationship (from Tremaine et al.\ 2002), denoted
443: by the solid line. The
444: open squares show data points based on Onken et al.\ (2004) and Nelson et al.\ (2004) and the open circle is PG\,1426+015 from
445: Watson et al.\ (2008). The starred circle and filled square represent the position of PG\,2130+099 using the
446: same data sets as in Figure \ref{fig:f6}.}
447: \label{fig:f7}
448: \end{center}
449: \end{figure}
450:
451: \clearpage
452:
453:
454: %%% TABLE 1 %%%
455: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
456: \tablewidth{0pt}
457: \tablecaption{Continuum and H$\beta$ Fluxes for PG\,2130+099}
458: \tablehead{
459: \colhead{JD} &
460: \colhead{$F_{\lambda}$ (5100\,\AA )} &
461: \colhead{H$\beta$\,$\lambda4861$} \\
462: \colhead{($-2400000$)} &
463: \colhead{($10^{-15}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ \AA$^{-1}$) } &
464: \colhead{ ($10^{-13}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$)} &
465: }
466: \startdata
467: 54352.70 & 4.36 $\pm $ 0.08& 4.94 $\pm $ 0.07\\
468: 54353.70 & 4.23 $\pm $ 0.07& 4.98 $\pm $ 0.07\\
469: 54354.72 & 4.38 $\pm $ 0.08& 4.88 $\pm $ 0.07\\
470: 54371.76 & 4.56 $\pm $ 0.15& 4.91 $\pm $ 0.16\\
471: 54373.65 & 4.53 $\pm $ 0.08& 4.82 $\pm $ 0.07\\
472: 54382.65 & 4.53 $\pm $ 0.08& 4.73 $\pm $ 0.07\\
473: 54383.63 & 4.74 $\pm $ 0.08& 4.83 $\pm $ 0.07\\
474: 54384.64 & 4.74 $\pm $ 0.08& 4.88 $\pm $ 0.07\\
475: 54392.62 & 4.93 $\pm $ 0.09& 4.92 $\pm $ 0.07\\
476: 54393.59 & 4.89 $\pm $ 0.08& 5.00 $\pm $ 0.07\\
477: 54394.57 & 4.93 $\pm $ 0.08& 4.95 $\pm $ 0.07\\
478: 54395.59 & 5.14 $\pm $ 0.09& 5.02 $\pm $ 0.07\\
479: 54400.63 & 4.86 $\pm $ 0.08& 5.01 $\pm $ 0.07\\
480: 54401.63 & 4.76 $\pm $ 0.08& 5.01 $\pm $ 0.07\\
481: 54413.57 & 4.40 $\pm $ 0.08& 5.27 $\pm $ 0.08\\
482: 54414.58 & 4.42 $\pm $ 0.08& 5.07 $\pm $ 0.07\\
483: 54415.57 & 4.55 $\pm $ 0.08& 5.21 $\pm $ 0.08\\
484: 54416.56 & 4.47 $\pm $ 0.08& 5.14 $\pm $ 0.07\\
485: 54427.57 & 4.78 $\pm $ 0.08& 5.17 $\pm $ 0.07\\
486: 54449.56 & 4.55 $\pm $ 0.08& 4.84 $\pm $ 0.07\\
487: 54450.57 & 4.69 $\pm $ 0.08& 5.03 $\pm $ 0.07
488: \enddata
489: \label{Table:tbl1}
490: \end{deluxetable}
491:
492:
493:
494: %%% TABLE 2 %%%
495: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
496: \tablewidth{0pt}
497: \tablecaption{Light Curve Statistics}
498: \tablehead{
499: \colhead{ } &
500: \colhead{ } &
501: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Sampling} &
502: \colhead{ } &
503: \colhead{Mean} \\
504: \colhead{Time} &
505: \colhead{ } &
506: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Interval (days)} &
507: \colhead{Mean} &
508: \colhead{Fractional} \\
509: \colhead{Series } &
510: \colhead{$N$} &
511: \colhead{$\langle T \rangle$} &
512: \colhead{$T_{\rm median}$} &
513: \colhead{Flux\tablenotemark{1}} &
514: \colhead{Error} &
515: \colhead{$F_{\rm var}$} &
516: \colhead{$R_{\rm max}$} \\
517: \colhead{(1)} &
518: \colhead{(2)} &
519: \colhead{(3)} &
520: \colhead{(4)} &
521: \colhead{(5)} &
522: \colhead{(6)} &
523: \colhead{(7)} &
524: \colhead{(8)}
525: }
526: \startdata
527: 5100\,\AA\ & 21 & 4.9 & 1.0 & $4.64\pm0.23$ & 0.018 & 0.047 & $1.22\pm 0.03$\\
528: H$\beta$ & 21 & 4.9 & 1.0 & $4.98\pm0.14$ & 0.015 & 0.023 & $1.14\pm 0.02$
529: \enddata
530: \tablenotetext{1}{Continuum and emission-line fluxes are given in the same units
531: as Table \ref{Table:tbl1}.}
532: \label{Table:tbl2}
533: \end{deluxetable}
534:
535: %%%%%%%%%TABLE 3 %%%%%%%%%%%
536: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}
537: \tablewidth{0pt}
538: \tablecaption{Reverberation Results}
539: \tablehead{
540: \colhead{Parameter} &
541: \colhead{Value} \\
542: \colhead{(1)} &
543: \colhead{(2) }
544: }
545: \startdata
546: $\tau_{\rm cent} $\tablenotemark{a} & 22.9 $^{+4.7}_{-4.6}$ days\\
547: $\tau_{\rm peak} $\tablenotemark{a} & 22.2 $^{+5.6}_{-5.2}$ days \\
548: $\sigma_{\rm line}$ (mean) & 1807 $\pm$ 4 km s$^{-1}$\\
549: FWHM (mean) & 2807 $\pm$ 4 km s$^{-1}$\\
550: $\sigma_{\rm line}$ (rms) & 1246 $\pm$ 222 km s$^{-1}$\\
551: FWHM (rms) & 2063 $\pm$ 720 km s$^{-1}$\\
552: $M_{\rm BH}$ & ($3.8 \pm 1.5 $)$ \times 10^{7} M_{\odot}$
553: \enddata
554: \tablenotetext{a}{Values are given in the rest frame of the object.}
555: \label{Table:tbl3}
556: \end{deluxetable}
557:
558: %%%%%%%%%TABLE 4 %%%%%%%%%%%
559: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}
560: \tablewidth{0pt}
561: \tablecaption{Host Galaxy Flux Removal Parameters}
562: \tablehead{
563: \colhead{Parameter} &
564: \colhead{Value} \\
565: \colhead{(1)} &
566: \colhead{(2) }
567: }
568: \startdata
569: Position angle of slit & 0.0$^{\circ}$\\
570: Aperture size &$ 3''\!.0 \times 7''\!.0$\\
571: $F_{\rm galaxy}$ (5100\,\AA)\tablenotemark{a} & (0.405$\pm$0.037) $\times 10^{-15}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ \AA$^{-1}$\\
572: $\log\lambda$L$_{\lambda}$(5100\,\AA)\tablenotemark{b} & (44.40$\pm0.02$)
573: \enddata
574: \tablenotetext{a}{Galaxy flux is in the observed frame, from Bentz et al.\ (2008).}
575: \tablenotetext{b}{5100\,\AA\ rest-frame luminosity in erg s$^{-1}$, with host galaxy subtracted and corrected for extinction,
576: following Bentz et al.\ (2006; 2008).}
577: \label{Table:tbl4}
578: \end{deluxetable}
579:
580:
581: %%%%%%%%%%LAGS TABLE%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
582:
583: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
584: \tablewidth{0pt}
585: \tablecaption{Reverberation Results From Kaspi et al.\ Dataset}
586: \tablehead{
587: \colhead{Data} &
588: \colhead{Spectral} &
589: \colhead{$\tau_{\rm cent} $} &
590: \colhead{$\tau_{\rm peak} $}\\
591: \colhead{Subset} &
592: \colhead{Feature} &
593: \colhead{(days) } &
594: \colhead{(days)}
595: }
596: \startdata
597: Entire Data Set & H$\alpha$ & 215.2 $^{+32.1}_{-27.8}$ & 217.4 $^{+20.0}_{-20.0}$ \\
598: Entire Data Set & H$\beta$ & 168.2 $^{+36.7}_{-21.4}$ & 177.4 $^{+60.0}_{-100.0}$ \\
599: Entire Data Set & H$\gamma$ & 197.6 $^{+37.9}_{-28.5}$ & 208.3 $^{+40.0}_{-80.0}$ \\
600: 1993-1995 & H$\alpha$ & 199.1 $^{+4.8}_{-0.7}$ & 203.0 $^{+10.0}_{-10.0}$ \\
601: 1993-1995 & H$\beta$ & 203.5 $^{+5.2}_{-17.4}$ & 202.9 $^{+0.0}_{-10.0}$ \\
602: 1993-1995 & H$\gamma$ & 195.6 $^{+35.1}_{-27.6}$ & 219.5 $^{+21.0}_{-93.0}$ \\
603: 1993 & H$\alpha$ & 15.6 $^{+0.6}_{-1.4}$ & 19.1 $^{+0.0}_{-3.0}$ \\
604: 1993 & H$\beta$ & 12.2 $^{+1.5}_{-2.5}$ & 13.1 $^{+3.0}_{-2.0}$ \\
605: 1994 & H$\alpha$ & 15.2 $^{+0.9}_{-1.6}$ & 16.0 $^{+0.0}_{-0.0}$ \\
606: 1994 & H$\beta$ & 13.7 $^{+1.8}_{-0.8}$ & 16.0 $^{+0.0}_{-1.0}$ \\
607: 1994 & H$\gamma$ & 10.0 $^{+5.3}_{-3.4}$ & 12.0 $^{+51.0}_{-9.0}$ \\
608: 1995 & H$\alpha$ & 36.6 $^{+4.7}_{-3.3}$ & 44.0 $^{+0.0}_{-10.0}$ \\
609: 1995 & H$\beta$ & 46.5 $^{+4.0}_{-2.9}$ & 44.0 $^{+8.0}_{-0.0}$ \\
610: 1995 & H$\gamma$ & 67.4 $^{+7.7}_{-8.5}$ & 67.0 $^{+7.7}_{-8.5}$
611: \enddata
612: \label{Table:lags}
613: \end{deluxetable}
614:
615: \end{document}
616: