1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\usepackage{natbib}
3:
4: \newcommand{\IUE}{{\it IUE}}
5: \newcommand{\HST}{{\it HST}}
6: \newcommand{\kms}{\ifmmode {\rm km\ s}^{-1} \else km s$^{-1}$\fi}
7: \newcommand{\Msun}{\ifmmode {\rm M}_{\odot} \else M$_{\odot}$\fi}
8: \newcommand{\Lsun}{\ifmmode {\rm L}_{\odot} \else L$_{\odot}$\fi}
9: \newcommand{\qo}{\ifmmode q_{\rm o} \else $q_{\rm o}$\fi}
10: \newcommand{\Ho}{\ifmmode H_{\rm o} \else $H_{\rm o}$\fi}
11: \newcommand{\ho}{\ifmmode h_{\rm o} \else $h_{\rm o}$\fi}
12: \newcommand{\ltsim}{\raisebox{-.5ex}{$\;\stackrel{<}{\sim}\;$}}
13: \newcommand{\gtsim}{\raisebox{-.5ex}{$\;\stackrel{>}{\sim}\;$}}
14: \newcommand{\vFWHM}{\ifmmode v_{\mbox{\tiny FWHM}} \else
15: $v_{\mbox{\tiny FWHM}}$\fi}
16: \newcommand{\CCF}{\ifmmode F_{\it CCF} \else $F_{\it CCF}$\fi}
17: \newcommand{\ACF}{\ifmmode F_{\it ACF} \else $F_{\it ACF}$\fi}
18: \newcommand{\Halpha}{\ifmmode {\rm H}\alpha \else H$\alpha$\fi}
19: \newcommand{\Hbeta}{\ifmmode {\rm H}\beta \else H$\beta$\fi}
20: \newcommand{\Hgamma}{\ifmmode {\rm H}\gamma \else H$\gamma$\fi}
21: \newcommand{\Hdelta}{\ifmmode {\rm H}\delta \else H$\delta$\fi}
22: \newcommand{\Lya}{\ifmmode {\rm Ly}\alpha \else Ly$\alpha$\fi}
23: \newcommand{\Lyb}{\ifmmode {\rm Ly}\beta \else Ly$\beta$\fi}
24: \newcommand{\HeI}{\ifmmode {\rm He}\,{\sc i}\,\lambda5876 \else
25: He\,{\sc i}\,$\lambda5876$\fi}
26: \newcommand{\HeII}{\ifmmode {\rm He}\,{\sc ii}\,\lambda4686 \else
27: He\,{\sc ii}\,$\lambda4686$\fi}
28: \newcommand{\hi}{H\,{\sc i}}
29: \newcommand{\hii}{H\,{\sc ii}}
30: \newcommand{\hei}{He\,{\sc i}}
31: \newcommand{\heii}{He\,{\sc ii}}
32: \newcommand{\fe}{Fe}
33: \newcommand{\feii}{Fe\,{\sc ii}}
34: \newcommand{\feiii}{Fe\,{\sc iii}}
35: \newcommand{\fevi}{Fe\,{\sc vi}}
36: \newcommand{\fevii}{Fe\,{\sc vii}}
37: \newcommand{\fex}{Fe\,{\sc x}}
38: \newcommand{\fexi}{Fe\,{\sc xi}}
39: \newcommand{\fexiv}{Fe\,{\sc xiv}}
40: \newcommand{\neiii}{Ne\,{\sc iii}}
41: \newcommand{\neiv}{Ne\,{\sc iv}}
42: \newcommand{\nev}{Ne\,{\sc v}}
43: \newcommand{\ci}{C\,{\sc i}}
44: \newcommand{\cii}{C\,{\sc ii}}
45: \newcommand{\ciii}{\ifmmode {\rm C}\,{\sc iii} \else C\,{\sc iii}\fi}
46: \newcommand{\civ}{C\,{\sc iv}}
47: \newcommand{\Ni}{N\,{\sc i}}
48: \newcommand{\nii}{N\,{\sc ii}}
49: \newcommand{\niii}{N\,{\sc iii}}
50: \newcommand{\niv}{N\,{\sc iv}}
51: \newcommand{\nv}{N\,{\sc v}}
52: \newcommand{\oi}{O\,{\sc i}}
53: \newcommand{\oii}{O\,{\sc ii}}
54: \newcommand{\oiii}{O\,{\sc iii}}
55: \newcommand{\ob}{[O\,{\sc iii}]\,$\lambda \lambda 4959,5007$}
56: \newcommand{\oiv}{O\,{\sc iv}}
57: \newcommand{\ov}{O\,{\sc v}}
58: \newcommand{\ovi}{O\,{\sc vi}}
59: \newcommand{\mgi}{Mg\,{\sc i}}
60: \newcommand{\mgii}{Mg\,{\sc ii}}
61: \newcommand{\siiii}{Si\,{\sc iii}}
62: \newcommand{\Sizw}{Si\,{\sc ii}}
63: \newcommand{\siiv}{Si\,{\sc iv}}
64: \newcommand{\si}{S\,{\sc i}}
65: \newcommand{\sii}{S\,{\sc ii}}
66: \newcommand{\siii}{S\,{\sc iii}}
67: \newcommand{\caii}{Ca\,{\sc ii}}
68: \newcommand{\cav}{Ca\,{\sc v}}
69: \newcommand{\aliii}{Al\,{\sc iii}}
70: \newcommand{\sigbl}{$\sigma_{\rm blue}$}
71: \newcommand{\Flamunit}{erg s$^{-1}$\,cm$^{-2}$\,\AA$^{-1}$}
72: \newcommand{\lam}{$\lambda$}
73:
74: \shorttitle{Systematics in Single Epoch Black Hole Mass Measurements}
75: \shortauthors{}
76:
77: %\received{}
78: %\accepted{}
79:
80: \begin{document}
81:
82: \title{Systematic Uncertainties in Black Hole Masses Determined from Single Epoch Spectra}
83:
84: \author{ Kelly~D.~Denney\altaffilmark{1},
85: Bradley~M.~Peterson\altaffilmark{1},
86: Matthias~Dietrich\altaffilmark{1},
87: Marianne~Vestergaard\altaffilmark{2}, and
88: Misty~C.~Bentz\altaffilmark{1,3} }
89:
90: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy,
91: The Ohio State University,
92: 140 West 18th Avenue,
93: Columbus, OH 43210;
94: denney, bentz, dietrich,
95: peterson@astronomy.ohio-state.edu}
96:
97: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics and Astronomy,
98: Tufts University,
99: Medford, MA 02155;
100: m.vestergaard@tufts.edu}
101:
102: \altaffiltext{3}{Present address:
103: Dept. of Physics and Astronomy,
104: 4129 Frederick Reines Hall,
105: University of California at Irvine,
106: Irvine, CA 92697-4575;
107: mbentz@uci.edu}
108:
109: \begin{abstract}
110:
111: We explore the nature of systematic errors that can arise in measurement
112: of black hole masses from single-epoch spectra of active galactic nuclei
113: (AGNs) by utilizing the many epochs available for NGC~5548 and
114: PG1229+204 from reverberation mapping databases. In particular, we
115: examine systematics due to AGN variability, contamination due to
116: constant spectral components (i.e., narrow lines and host galaxy flux),
117: data quality (i.e., signal-to-noise ratio, $S/N$), and blending of
118: spectral features. We investigate the effect that each of these
119: systematics has on the precision and accuracy of single-epoch masses
120: calculated from two commonly-used line-width measures by comparing these
121: results to recent reverberation mapping studies. We calculate masses by
122: characterizing the broad \Hbeta\ emission line by both the full width at
123: half maximum and the line dispersion and demonstrate the importance of
124: removing narrow emission-line components and host starlight. We find
125: that the reliability of line width measurements rapidly decreases for
126: $S/N$ lower than $\sim$ 10 to 20 (per pixel) and that fitting the line
127: profiles instead of direct measurement of the data does not mitigate
128: this problem but can, in fact, introduce systematic errors. We also
129: conclude that a full spectral decomposition to deblend the AGN and
130: galaxy spectral features is unnecessary except to judge the contribution
131: of the host galaxy to the luminosity and to deblend any emission lines
132: that may inhibit accurate line width measurements. Finally, we present
133: an error budget which summarizes the minimum observable uncertainties as
134: well as the amount of additional scatter and/or systematic offset that
135: can be expected from the individual sources of error investigated. In
136: particular, we find that the minimum observable uncertainty in
137: single-epoch mass estimates due to variability is $\lesssim 0.1$ dex for
138: high $S/N$ ($\gtrsim 20$ pixel$^{-1}$) spectra.
139:
140: \end{abstract}
141:
142: \keywords{galaxies: active --- galaxies: nuclei --- galaxies: black holes}
143:
144:
145: %****************************************************************************
146: %***********MAIN BODY STARTS HERE********************************************
147: %****************************************************************************
148:
149:
150: \section{INTRODUCTION}
151: \label{S_Intro}
152:
153: Understanding the demographics of supermassive black holes (BHs) is
154: imperative to expanding our understanding of the present state as well
155: as the cosmic evolution of galaxies. In particular, links between BHs
156: and properties of host galaxies point to coevolution \citep{Kormendy95,
157: Ferrarese00, Gebhardt00a}. This is a surprising conclusion, given the
158: small sphere of influence of the central BH compared to the size of the
159: galaxy. To trace the cosmic evolution of BHs, we must determine BH
160: masses as a function of cosmic time, thus requiring the measurement of
161: BH masses at large distances. The direct methods (e.g. stellar and gas
162: dynamics, megamasers) that have succeeded for $\sim 30-40$ comparatively
163: local, mostly quiescent galaxies \citep[see review by][]{Ferrarese05}
164: fail at large distances because they require high angular resolution to
165: resolve motions within the radius of influence of the BH. A solution to
166: this distance problem is to use AGNs as tracers of the BH population at
167: redshifts beyond the reach of the above mentioned methods. AGNs are
168: luminous and easier to observe than quiescent galaxies at large
169: distances. Most importantly, their masses can be determined by
170: reverberation mapping
171: \citep{Blandford82,Peterson93}, a method that does not depend on angular
172: resolution.
173:
174: Masses have been measured for nearly $40$ active galaxies with
175: reverberation mapping (RM) methods \citep[see the recent compilation
176: by][]{Peterson04}. The results of these studies have led to the
177: identification of certain scaling relationships for AGNs. The
178: correlation between BH mass and bulge/spheroid stellar velocity
179: dispersion, i.e. the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_{\star}$ relation, for AGNs
180: \citep{Gebhardt00b, Ferrarese01, Onken04, Nelson04} is consistent with
181: that discovered for quiescent galaxies \citep{Ferrarese00, Gebhardt00a,
182: Tremaine02}. In addition, and more relevant for this study, is the
183: correlation between the broad-line region (BLR) radius and the
184: luminosity of the AGN, i.e. the $R-L$ relation
185: \citep{Kaspi00,Kaspi05,Bentz06a, Bentz08}, which allows estimates of BH
186: masses from single-epoch (SE) spectra. This relation affords great
187: economy of observing resources, allowing masses to be calculated for the
188: large number of AGNs/quasars with SE spectra obtained from surveys such
189: as the SDSS and AGES
190: \citep[e.g.,][]{Vestergaard02,Corbett03,Vestergaard04,Kollmeier06,Vestergaard08,JShen08,YShen08,Fine08}.
191:
192: Measuring BH masses from single-epoch spectra presents itself as a
193: remarkably powerful tool for determining black hole masses at all
194: redshifts for potentially all spectroscopically observed quasars.
195: However, many effects limit the precision of these measurements, the
196: most important being how well the emission-line widths represent the
197: true motions of the BLR gas --- for example, if the BLR has a flattened
198: disk-like geometry, the unknown inclination of the system can result in
199: a huge uncertainty in the mass \citep{Collin06}. For the moment,
200: however, if we set aside the issue of these calibration uncertainties
201: (i.e., the accuracy of the RM measurements themselves), the relevant
202: question becomes: how well can the SE mass measurements reproduce the RM
203: measurements? Scaling relationships are being used with increased
204: frequency in the literature to indirectly measure black hole masses from
205: single-epoch spectra. Therefore, it is imperative that we understand the
206: systematic uncertainties introduced in measuring a SE black hole mass.
207: In particular, there are four systematics we will discuss that clearly
208: affect how well SE mass estimates reproduce the RM measurements of BH
209: masses.
210:
211: \begin{description}
212: \item[{\bf 1. Variability:}] The
213: most inherent and unavoidable systematic in measuring masses of AGNs is
214: intrinsic variability that causes the luminosity, line widths, and
215: reverberation lag to change with time. The variable luminosity leads to
216: variable BLR radius determinations when the $R-L$ relation is used, so we
217: are therefore likely to measure different SE masses for different
218: epochs. In the case of AGNs for which multiple measurements of line
219: widths and radii are available from reverberation studies, the
220: relationship between line width and BLR radius (i.e. reverberation lag)
221: is consistent with a virial relationship, $\Delta V \propto R^{-1/2}$
222: \citep{Peterson99b,Peterson00a,Onken02,Kollatschny03}, as expected if
223: the BLR dynamics are dominated by gravity. This relationship also seems
224: to hold at least approximately for individual emission lines measured at
225: different times \citep[e.g.][]{Peterson04}: the size of the BLR as
226: measured in a particular emission line scales with luminosity
227: approximately as $R \propto L^{1/2}$ so we would expect that the line
228: width would correspondingly decrease as $\Delta V \propto L^{-1/4}$ in
229: order to preserve the virial relationship. Evidence to date suggests
230: that the central mass deduced from reverberation experiments at
231: different epochs is constant or, at worst, a weak function of luminosity
232: \citep{Collin06}. This is itself quite remarkable since we are
233: characterizing a region that is undoubtedly rather complex
234: \citep[cf.][]{Elvis00} by two quantities, the average time for response
235: of an emission line to continuum variations and the emission-line width.
236: In a previous investigation of variability on SE mass measurements using
237: \civ\,$\lambda1549$ emission, \citet{Wilhite07} show that the
238: distribution of fractional change in $M_{\rm BH}$ between epochs for
239: several hundred SDSS quasars has a dispersion of $\sim 0.3$. Only part
240: of this dispersion can be accounted for by random measurement
241: errors. Similarly, \citet{Woo07} estimate the uncertainty in SE mass
242: measurements based solely on propagating the variability in the
243: measurement of the H$\beta$ FWHM. They demonstrate that the uncertainty
244: is roughly $30\%$. However, the $S/N$ of their data was low ($\sim
245: 10-15\, {\rm pixel}^{-1}$), and they attribute a large fraction of their
246: measured uncertainty to random measurement errors in the line width.
247: Here we will investigate the effect of variability by determining the
248: consistency of masses based on the two observables from optical SE
249: spectra: the monochromatic luminosity at $5100$\AA\ and the \Hbeta\ line
250: width. We will use several hundred spectra of the Type~1 AGN NGC~5548
251: and a smaller sample of spectra of the Palomar Green (PG) quasar
252: PG1229+204.
253:
254: \item[{\bf 2. Contamination by Constant Components:}] The variable AGN
255: spectrum is contaminated by relatively constant components. These
256: include narrow emission lines and host galaxy starlight. As the AGN
257: luminosity varies, so does the relative contributions to the observed
258: spectrum from these sources. We will determine how the SE mass
259: measurements are affected by these non-variable features in the
260: spectrum. In particular, we will examine changes in the precision and
261: accuracy of the masses when these contaminating features remain in the
262: spectrum, compared to when their contributions are subtracted before
263: luminosities and line widths are measured.
264:
265: \item[{\bf 3. Signal-to-Noise Ratio:}] Accurately measuring the
266: spectroscopic properties needed for calculating the SE mass is highly
267: dependent on the quality of the spectra. This is particularly true for
268: measuring emission-line widths. Certainly not all spectra used for such
269: calculations in the literature are of comparable quality. Therefore, we
270: will demonstrate how changes in the signal-to-noise ratio ($S/N$) of the
271: data affect SE mass measurements. To make this comparison, we will
272: artificially degrade the $S/N$ of our sample to various levels and
273: compare the resulting masses. In addition, it is common practice
274: \citep[e.g.,][]{McLure04, Woo07, YShen08, McGill08} to fit functions to
275: emission-line profiles in data with comparatively low $S/N$ in the hopes
276: of yielding more accurate line-width measurements. Here we test
277: the usefulness of this practice by calculating and comparing SE masses
278: using line widths measured directly from the data to those using line
279: widths measured from fits to the line profiles of the original and
280: $S/N$-degraded spectra.
281:
282: \item[{\bf 4. Blending:}] The optical region of broad-line AGNs is often
283: characterized by blending from many broad emission features as well as
284: contributions from the host galaxy starlight and AGN thermal emission.
285: Therefore, detailed modeling and decomposition of a spectrum into
286: individual spectral components is useful for isolating the features
287: required for accurately measuring SE masses. However, this process is
288: rather time consuming as well as non-unique, since it requires
289: assumptions about the types of templates to fit and the relative
290: contributions to fit for each SE spectrum. Instead, to make SE mass
291: measurements for a large number of AGNs, it is expedient to use simple
292: algorithms or prescriptions for these measurements. There is concern,
293: however, that AGN emission-line blending and host galaxy features can
294: affect the accuracy of the line width measurements that utilize these
295: simple prescriptions. With these considerations in mind, we will
296: compare SE mass measurements made from measuring spectral properties
297: using a simple prescription for local continuum fitting and subtraction
298: versus detailed modeling and decomposition of the optical region to
299: remove any extraneous components.
300: \end{description}
301:
302: This is not a comprehensive list of systematics, but these particular
303: issues have a common element: all can be addressed empirically using a
304: large number of SE spectra of a single variable source. The use of a
305: single source (actually, two single sources) is what sets this study
306: apart from past investigations, particularly on the point of
307: understanding the effect of variability on SE masses. This is an
308: important distinction, given that \citet{Kelly07} show that an intrinsic
309: correlation between $M_{\rm BH}$ and $L$ that is statistically
310: independent of the $R-L$ relationship \citep[supported by,
311: e.g.][]{Corbett03,Netzer03,Peterson04} can lead to an artificially
312: broadened SE mass distribution when it is composed of masses from
313: multiple sources. They suggest that because of this intrinsic $M_{\rm
314: BH} - L$ relation, using the luminosity simply as a proxy for the BLR
315: radius may cause additional scatter in the mass estimates because
316: additional information about the BH mass that may be contained in $L$ is
317: ignored. By utilizing many epochs from the same object, however, the
318: effect on SE masses due strictly to variability can be isolated, while
319: the broadening caused by a possible $M_{\rm BH} - L$ correlation is
320: avoided, because we are dealing with a single black hole mass.
321: Therefore, any additional information about $M_{\rm BH}$ contained in
322: the luminosity could only affect the overall accuracy of our SE
323: measurements, not the scatter in our mass distributions due to
324: variability.
325:
326: For each of the potential sources of uncertainty listed above, we
327: consider the effect on the precision of the SE mass estimates, which is
328: determined from the dispersion of these masses about the mean sample
329: value. We will also consider the accuracy of the SE measurements, which
330: we define as the systematic offset between the distribution average and
331: a single mass based on reverberation mapping results for the same
332: sample. We are not, however, addressing the accuracy of the
333: reverberation mapping masses themselves. Better understanding and
334: quantifying the systematic uncertainties and zero-point calibration of
335: the reverberation mapping mass scale is an important but difficult
336: endeavor and will therefore be the focus of future work. Because the
337: focus of this paper is not the accuracy of the RM measurements but
338: instead on the reproducibility of these values by SE measurements, we
339: will work only with the virial product, given by
340:
341: \begin{equation}
342: M_{\rm vir} = \frac{c \tau (\Delta V)^2}{G},
343: \end{equation}
344:
345: \noindent where $\tau$ is the measured time delay between the continuum
346: and broad emission-line variations (so that $c\tau$ is the effective BLR
347: radius) and $\Delta V$ is the velocity dispersion of the BLR gas. Here,
348: we measure the velocity dispersion from the width of the broad H$\beta$
349: emission line. By dealing simply with the virial product, or virial
350: mass, we bypass the zero-point calibration issue with the actual black
351: hole mass\footnote{This mass can be determined by scaling $M_{\rm vir}$
352: by a factor, $f$, which accounts for the unknown BLR geometry and
353: kinematics \citep[e.g.,][]{Onken04,Collin06,Labita06,Decarli08}.},
354: $M_{\rm BH}$. In addition, we will consider without prejudice the two
355: common measures for characterizing line widths: the full width at half
356: maximum (FWHM) and the line dispersion, or second moment of the line
357: profile, $\sigma_{\rm line}$.
358:
359: \section{Data and Analysis}
360: \label{S_Data_analysis}
361:
362: \subsection{NGC 5548 Spectra}
363: \label{S_ngc5548}
364:
365: The extensive, multi-decade monitoring of the Seyfert 1 galaxy NGC~5548
366: has led to one of the largest collections of observations of any single
367: AGN. The size of this data set alone makes this object an obvious
368: choice for studying SE mass measurements. The spectra of NGC 5548 for
369: this paper were selected from the International AGN Watch public
370: archives\footnote{http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/$\sim$agnwatch/}.
371: With spectral quality in mind, we choose several subsets of the
372: available $1494$ spectra for the different analyses within this paper.
373: In our analysis of AGN variability and the effects due to the constant
374: spectral components in \S\S \ref{S_Res_variability} and
375: \ref{S_Res_const_components}, we use a total of $370$ spectra, including
376: the ``Revised selected optical spectra (1989-1996)'' covering years
377: $1-5$ \citep{Wanders&Peterson96}, as well as the remaining spectra from
378: the $1.8$m Perkins Telescope at Lowell Observatory covering years $6-10$
379: \citep{Peterson99a,Peterson02}. This subset of data represents a nearly
380: homogeneous set of high-quality spectra that is centered on the
381: H$\beta\,\lambda 4861$ region of the optical spectrum. We then use a
382: smaller subset of this NGC 5548 data set for the $S/N$ analysis in \S
383: \ref{S_Res_SN}, separating from the 370 spectra only those 270 observations
384: made with the Perkins Telescope. These 270 spectra were all obtained
385: with the same instrument and instrumental setup, which kept properties
386: such as the entrance aperture, spectral resolution, and wavelength range
387: nearly constant for all observations. This sample allows us to target
388: the systematic errors due to changes in $S/N$ rather than additional
389: observational systematics. For the analysis of spectral component
390: blending covered in \S \ref{S_Res_decomp}, we focus on a set of 33
391: spectra from years $6-13$ of the AGN Watch campaign
392: \citep{Peterson99a,Peterson02} observed with the $3.0$m Shane Telescope at
393: Lick Observatory. These spectra have full optical wavelength coverage
394: spanning rest frame $\sim 3000-7000$ \AA. Utilizing this wide spectral
395: coverage, we perform full AGN-host spectral decompositions using two
396: independent methods to better judge the effects of blending.
397:
398: Each of the above data sets have been internally flux calibrated to the
399: [O\,{\sc iii}]\,$\lambda 5007$ line flux in the mean spectrum using a
400: $\chi^{2}$ minimization algorithm developed by \citet{vanGroningen92}.
401: In this method the narrow emission-line flux can be taken as constant,
402: since these lines arise in an extended, low density region and are thus
403: unaffected by short timescale variations in the ionizing continuum flux.
404: Following this internal flux calibration, all subsets were scaled to the
405: absolute [O\,{\sc iii}]\,$\lambda 5007$ line flux of $5.58 \times
406: 10^{-13}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ \citep{Peterson91}.
407:
408: \subsection{PG1229+204 Spectra}
409: \label{S_pg1229}
410:
411: The PG quasar PG1229+204 (hereafter PG1229) from the Bright Quasar
412: Survey was chosen as an additional object for this study because it is
413: also a Type~1 AGN with a reverberation mapping mass measurement. In
414: contrast to NGC~5548, however, it is a higher luminosity source where
415: neglecting the host galaxy and narrow lines is less likely to interfere
416: with the SE mass measurement. In addition, results for this object will
417: allow for a more meaningful comparison (than the low-luminosity Seyfert
418: 1 NGC~5548) with other quasars for which the $R-L$ scaling method is
419: more relevant. The 32 optical spectra in our sample were originally
420: published along with reverberation mapping results for several PG
421: quasars by \citet{Kaspi00} and reanalyzed by \citet{Peterson04}. Here,
422: we are again interested in the H$\beta$ region of the optical spectrum.
423: The absolute spectral fluxes of these data were calibrated externally
424: with comparison stars in the same field as the object \citep[for further
425: details see][]{Kaspi00}.
426:
427: \subsection{Methodology for Measuring Virial Masses}
428: \label{S_measuringVPs}
429:
430: \subsubsection{Virial Masses from Single-Epoch Spectra}
431: \label{S_SEVPmeasure}
432:
433: The virial mass can be measured from a single optical spectrum by using
434: the width of the broad H$\beta$ emission line as a measure of the BLR
435: velocity dispersion and $\lambda L_{\lambda}$ at $\lambda=5100$ \AA\ in
436: the rest frame as a proxy for the BLR radius, $c\tau$, through the use
437: of the $R-L$ scaling relation \citep[e.g.][]{Kaspi00, Bentz06a,
438: Bentz08}. We use the $R-L$ relation of \citet{Bentz08} because it
439: includes the most current reverberation mapping results and luminosities
440: that have been corrected for host galaxy starlight contamination. Using
441: this form of the $R-L$ scaling relation and the virial mass formula
442: given by equation 1 (i.e., excluding any assumptions about the scale
443: factor, $f$), the SE virial mass is given by
444:
445: \begin{equation}
446: \rm log \left(\frac{M_{\rm SE}}{\rm M_{\odot}}\right)=-22.0+0.519\,\rm log\left(\frac{\lambda L_{5100}}{\rm erg\,s^{-1}}\right)+2\,\rm log\left(\frac{V_{\rm H\beta}}{\rm km\,s^{-1}}\right),
447: \end{equation}
448:
449:
450: \noindent where $\lambda L_{5100}$ is the luminosity at rest frame
451: wavelength $5100$\,\AA, and $V_{\rm H\beta}$ is the line width of the
452: broad H$\beta$ emission line. SE masses have been calculated in the
453: literature using various combinations of line widths and luminosity
454: measurements \citep[for examples and comparisons, see][]{McGill08}.
455: Therefore, we calculate eight virial masses for each SE spectrum using
456: different combinations of line width and luminosity measurements.
457: Through comparisons of these different mass estimates, we observe how
458: the systematics listed above affect the resulting SE masses in relation
459: to each of the spectral properties that we isolate in our calculation.
460:
461: For the investigations of AGN variability, constant components, and
462: $S/N$ in \S\S \ref{S_Res_variability} -- \ref{S_Res_SN}, the continuum
463: flux density is taken as the average between observed-frame wavelengths
464: $5170$\,\AA\ and $5200$\,\AA\ for NGC~5548 and between $5412$\,\AA\ and
465: $5456$\,\AA\ for PG1229. These flux densities were corrected for
466: Galactic extinction, and then luminosity distances were calculated
467: assuming the following cosmological parameters: $\Omega_{m}=0.3$,
468: $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.70$, and $H_0 = 70$ km sec$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$.
469: Luminosities for each spectrum were calculated both from the measured
470: continuum flux density and from the host galaxy-subtracted flux density.
471: For NGC5548 spectra the AGN continuum was then subtracted from each
472: spectrum based on a linearly interpolated fit between two local
473: continuum regions: one blueward of \Hbeta\ over the observed-frame range
474: $4825 - 4840$\,\AA\ and one redward of [O\,{\sc iii}]\,$\lambda 5007$
475: over the range $5170-5200$\,\AA. Similarly, local continuum regions
476: were defined for PG1229 over the ranges $5063-5073$\,\AA\ and
477: $5412-5456$\,\AA.
478:
479: Following continuum subtraction, H$\beta$ line widths are measured from
480: each spectrum within the following observed-frame wavelength ranges.
481: For the majority of the NGC~5548 data, H$\beta$ is defined over the
482: wavelength range $4845-5018$\,\AA\ for spectra with narrow line
483: components still present but was extended to the range $4845-5036$\,\AA\
484: for spectra from which we have removed the narrow lines because it is
485: often clear that the H$\beta$ profile extends under the [O\,{\sc
486: iii}]\,$\lambda 4959$ emission line. However, during year 4 of the AGN
487: Watch campaign (JD2448636--JD2448898), NGC~5548 was in an extremely low
488: luminosity state, thus necessitating a different choice for the \Hbeta\
489: line boundaries and local continuum region blueward of this line. For
490: spectra observed this year, we extended the boundaries of \Hbeta\ to
491: $4810-5135$\AA\ and defined the local continuum region blueward of
492: \Hbeta\ to be between $4782-4795$\AA. For the PG1229 data set, H$\beta$
493: is defined over the range $5075-5248$\,\AA\ or $5075-5310$\,\AA\ for
494: spectra with and without narrow lines, respectively. We measure the
495: line dispersion from the blue side of the broad H$\beta$ line, \sigbl,
496: assuming a symmetric profile about the line center. This is done to
497: avoid residuals from the \ob\ narrow emission-line subtraction as well
498: as possible Fe\,{\sc ii} contamination commonly present on the red side
499: of the profile. The FWHM is measured from the full line profiles
500: described above. The exact procedures used for measuring these line
501: widths follow those of \citet{Peterson04}. We measure the line widths
502: directly from the data, except in one subsection of the $S/N$ analysis
503: (\S \ref{S_VPs_from_fitsSN}), where line widths are measured from
504: Gauss-Hermite polynomial fits to the \Hbeta\ line profile. Figure
505: \ref{fig:VandLvsTime} shows the host-subtracted luminosity and line
506: widths measured from the $370$ narrow-line subtracted SE spectra of
507: NGC~5548; the left panels show these observables as a function of time,
508: and the right panels show corresponding distributions, with the mean and
509: dispersions listed. The dispersions in these quantities are non-random
510: and due primarily to the intrinsic variability of the AGN but also
511: include small random measurement uncertainties.
512:
513: \subsubsection{Reverberation Virial Masses}
514: \label{S_RMmeasure}
515:
516: To effect the most meaningful comparison with the single-epoch masses,
517: we calculate reverberation-based virial products, $M_{\rm vir}$, for
518: each data set. Using radii from reverberation mapping leads to masses
519: that are independent of the uncertainties introduced in obtaining SE
520: radii measurements (i.e., AGN variability and calibration uncertainties
521: in the $R-L$ scaling relationship). We use the reverberation radii of
522: \citet{Peterson04} that are derived from the rest-frame lag, $\tau_{\rm
523: cent}$, the centroid of the cross-correlation function.
524:
525: We characterize the BLR velocity dispersion by both FWHM and \sigbl\ of
526: the broad H$\beta$ emission line. Line widths are measured in the mean
527: spectrum for each observing season of NGC~5548 (years 1--13) created
528: from the sample of SE spectra used in each analysis and the full PG1229
529: data set after removal of the narrow-line components. We use the same
530: methods and line boundaries as were used for the SE spectra. Here, we
531: measure line widths in the mean spectrum \citep{Collin06} rather than
532: the rms spectrum \citep{Peterson04} because there is no analog for the
533: rms spectrum for a SE spectrum. Instead, by using the mean spectrum, we
534: are still measuring the approximate mean BLR velocity
535: dispersion\footnote{The main justification for using the rms spectrum is
536: that only the portions of the line profile varying in response to the
537: ionizing continuum contribute to the rms spectrum. See \citet{Collin06}
538: for a discussion.} yet retain a comparable line profile to a
539: single-epoch spectrum to use for a direct comparison. Uncertainties in
540: these line width measurements are determined with the bootstrap method
541: of \citet{Peterson04}. We then combine the reverberation radii for each
542: year of the NGC~5548 sample and the single radius for PG1229 with the
543: corresponding values of each line width measurement to calculate two
544: sets of RM virial products for each data set: one using FWHM and one
545: using \sigbl. Weighted mean virial products are then calculated for the
546: NGC~5548 data sets spanning multiple years: $1-10$ for the variability,
547: constant component, and $S/N$ analyses in
548: \S\S \ref{S_Res_variability} -- \ref{S_Res_SN} and $6-13$ for the
549: blending analysis in \S \ref{S_Res_decomp}, providing two final
550: reverberation virial masses for each data set: one using \sigbl\ and one
551: using FWHM.
552:
553: \subsubsection{Comparisons: Measuring Precision and Accuracy}
554: \label{S_VPcomparisons}
555:
556: We measure the precision of SE virial masses by creating distributions
557: of the SE virial masses calculated for each data set as described above.
558: The dispersion, $\sigma_{\rm SE}$, of these distributions serves as a
559: measure of the precision of the SE masses. It gives an indication of
560: how well multiple SE spectra can reproduce a single, mean mass, $\langle
561: {\rm log}\,M_{\rm SE} \rangle$. In addition, the accuracy of the SE
562: masses can be gauged by measuring the systematic offset of this mean
563: mass from the corresponding reverberation virial mass determined for a
564: given data set. We define this offset as $\langle \Delta {\rm
565: log}\,M \rangle = \langle {\rm log}\,M_{SE} \rangle - {\rm
566: log}\,M_{\rm vir}$ and calculate a value for each SE mass distribution.
567:
568: \subsection{Evaluation of Constant Components}
569: \label{S_Eval_const_components}
570:
571: A copy of each flux calibrated spectrum was made, and the narrow emission
572: lines were removed from this copy to allow for the calculation and
573: comparison of virial products from spectra with and without narrow lines
574: present. Narrow H$\beta\,\lambda 4861$ and the [O\,{\sc iii}]\,$\lambda
575: \lambda 4959, 5007$ lines were removed by first creating a template
576: narrow line from the [O\,{\sc iii}]\,$\lambda 5007$ line in the mean
577: spectrum from each data set. This template was then scaled in flux to
578: match and remove the [O\,{\sc iii}]\,$\lambda 4959$ line and narrow
579: component of H$\beta$ \citep{Peterson04}.
580:
581: Host galaxy starlight contributions to the flux were determined for the
582: various extraction apertures of all NGC~5548 and PG1229 spectra using
583: the method of \citet{Bentz08} and observations of both galaxies with
584: the High Resolution Channel of the Advanced Camera for Surveys on the
585: {\it Hubble Space Telescope}. Luminosities (and subsequently SE virial
586: masses) were calculated for every spectrum with and without the presence
587: of this constant continuum component.
588:
589: \subsection{Spectral Decomposition: Deblending the Spectral Features}
590: \label{S_Spect_decomp}
591:
592: The rather simple approach used above to measure line widths and to
593: account for host galaxy contamination using local continuum fitting
594: techniques fails to address certain spectral features or components that
595: may systematically affect our SE virial mass estimates. First, the
596: global AGN continuum is power-law shaped, rather than linear, as we fit
597: above. This may lead to small uncertainties in our continuum
598: subtraction, possibly even over the small wavelength range used here.
599: Second, blended Fe\,{\sc ii} emission exists throughout the optical
600: spectrum. If strong, this emission could complicate our definitions of
601: local continua on either side of the \Hbeta, \ob\ region, potentially
602: adding flux both to these continuum regions and to H$\beta$ itself.
603: Third, the red wing of broad \HeII\ emission may be blended with the
604: blue wing of H$\beta$. This could also contaminate the local continuum
605: region defined between these two lines as well as the line width
606: measurement. Fourth, the underlying galaxy spectrum has structure that
607: may be imprinted on the broad line profiles if not removed accurately.
608:
609: Therefore, we undertake full spectral decompositions of a selection of
610: NGC~5548 spectra. Our goal is to determine if the (potentially over-)
611: simplified local continuum-fitting prescription to account for the
612: underlying host galaxy and additional AGN emission skew the SE virial
613: mass results in a significant, yet correctable manner. The data set
614: used in this section consists of the 33 Shane Telescope spectra from the
615: AGN Watch sample described above. Because spectral decomposition gives
616: model-dependent, non-unique solutions, we compare results based on two
617: independent methods utilizing multi-component fits to account for
618: contributions from the host galaxy, AGN continuum, and spectral emission
619: lines.
620:
621: \subsubsection{Method A}
622: \label{S_describe_methodA}
623:
624: Decomposition method A \citep[e.g.,][]{Wills85} assumes that the observed
625: spectra can be described as a superposition of five components
626: \citep[see][for more details]{Dietrich02,Dietrich05}:
627: \begin{enumerate}
628:
629: \item An AGN power law continuum ($F_\nu \sim \nu ^{\alpha}$).
630:
631: \item A host galaxy spectrum \citep{Kinney96}.
632:
633: \item A pseudo-continuum due to merging \feii\ emission blends.
634:
635: \item Balmer continuum emission \citep{Grandi82}.
636:
637: \item An emission spectrum of individual emission lines, such as
638: H$\alpha$, [\nii]$\lambda \lambda 6548,6583$, \hei\,$\lambda 5876$,
639: H$\beta$, [\oiii]$\lambda \lambda 4959,5007$, \heii\,$\lambda 4686$.
640: \end{enumerate}
641:
642: The first four components are simultaneously fit to each single-epoch
643: spectrum, minimizing the $\chi^2$ of the fit. We tested several
644: different host galaxy templates (elliptical galaxies, S0, and spiral Sa
645: and Sb galaxies). The best results were obtained using a scaled spectrum
646: of the E0 galaxy NGC\,1407, which is quite appropriate for the bulge of
647: NGC\,5548. From this template we measure an average host starlight
648: contribution of $F_{\rm gal}(5100$\,\AA$) = (4.16\pm0.84)\times
649: 10^{-15}$ \Flamunit\ for this sample. This is highly consistent with
650: the value of $F_{\rm gal}(5100$\,\AA$) = (4.45\pm0.37)\times 10^{-15}$
651: \Flamunit\ derived with the \citet{Bentz08} procedure for the observed
652: aperture of ($4\arcsec \times 10\arcsec$) for this data. To account for
653: the \feii\ emission, we use the rest-frame optical template covering
654: $4250-7000$ \AA\ based on observations of I\,Zw1 by
655: \citet{Boroson92}. The width of the \feii\ emission template was on
656: average FWHM\,=\,$1160\pm34$ km\,s$^{-1}$. For the Balmer continuum
657: emission, we found that the best fit was obtained for $T_e = 15,000$\,K,
658: $n_e = 10^8$\,cm$^{-3}$, and optically thick conditions.
659:
660: The best fits of these components, including the power-law fit to
661: account for AGN continuum emission, are subtracted from each spectrum,
662: leaving the AGN emission-line spectrum intact. Narrow emission-line
663: components were then subtracted by creating a template narrow line from
664: a two-component Gaussian fit to the [\oiii]\,$\lambda 5007$ narrow line
665: and then scaling it to each individual narrow line to be subtracted
666: based on standard emission line ratios. Figure \ref{fig:MDdecompFig}
667: illustrates the different fit components and residuals for a typical
668: spectrum of NGC\,5548. Overall, the spectrum is quite well
669: reconstructed. However, it can be seen that around $\lambda \simeq
670: 5200$\,\AA\ to $\lambda \simeq 5800$\,\AA\ the flux level is
671: overestimated. This might indicate that it is necessary to include an
672: additional component due to Paschen continuum emission, as suggested by
673: \citet{Grandi82} and more recently by \citet{Korista01}. This may, in turn,
674: result in the selection of a less red host galaxy spectrum but
675: potentially a better overall fit \citep{Vestergaard08}. This component
676: was not included here, however, because the actual strength of the
677: Paschen continuum emission is not yet well constrained and will
678: therefore be the topic of future work in this area.
679:
680: \subsubsection {Method B}
681: \label{S_describe_methodB}
682:
683: This method first corrects the spectra for Galactic reddening using the
684: extinction maps of \citet{Schlegel98} and the reddening curve of
685: \citet{ODonnell94} with $E(B-V) = 0.0392$. The continuum and emission
686: lines were modeled separately. The continuum components include the
687: following:
688: \begin{enumerate}
689:
690: \item A nuclear power-law continuum.
691:
692: \item The \feii{} and \feiii{} blends that form a
693: ``pseudo-continuum'' across much of the UV-optical range. Template
694: modeling is the only way, at present, to provide a reasonable iron
695: emission model for subtraction \citep[see, e.g.,][and references
696: therein]{Vestergaard01, Veron-Cetty04}. We used the optical iron
697: template of \citet{Veron-Cetty04}, varying only the strength of the
698: template and the line widths.
699:
700: \item The Balmer continuum was modeled using the prescription of
701: \citet{Grandi82} and \citet{Dietrich02}, with an adopted electron
702: temperature of $10,000$ K and an optical depth at the Balmer edge of
703: $1.0$. These Balmer continuum parameters typically give good matches to
704: quasar spectra \citep{Vestergaard08}. We note that here, too, no
705: attempt was made to model the Paschen continuum as it is poorly
706: constrained.
707:
708: \item The underlying host-galaxy spectrum was modeled using the
709: stellar population model templates of \citet{Bruzual03}. The best-fit
710: model was a single elliptical galaxy template with stellar ages of 10
711: Gyr. This model seems to slightly underestimate the stellar emission
712: strength in NGC 5548 longward of H$\alpha$ (e.g., $\gtrsim 7000$\AA),
713: but preliminary fits (not included) seem to indicate the overall fit is
714: better with the inclusion of the Paschen continuum.
715: \end{enumerate}
716:
717: The individual continuum model components were varied to provide the
718: optimum match to the observed spectrum using Levenberg-Marquardt
719: least-squares fitting and optimization. Based on the host galaxy
720: template fits for this decomposition method, we measure a host starlight
721: contribution of $F_{\rm gal}(5100$\,\AA$) = (7.05\pm1.28)\times
722: 10^{-15}$ \Flamunit, larger than found by \citet{Bentz08} and the
723: method A value, but marginally consistent once these other values take
724: Galactic reddening into account. The best fit continuum components were
725: then subtracted from the spectrum, and the remaining emission-line
726: spectrum was modeled with Gaussian functions using the same optimization
727: routine as for the continuum. A single Gaussian profile, whose width
728: was allowed to vary up to 600 km s$^{-1}$ was used for each of the
729: narrow emission lines, but the same width was used for all narrow
730: lines. The strength of the \ob\ doublet lines was constrained to the 1:3
731: ratio set by atomic physics. Figure \ref{fig:MVdecompFig} shows the
732: individual and combined components fit to the same NGC~5548 spectrum as
733: in Figure \ref{fig:MDdecompFig}, as well as the residual spectrum after
734: subtraction of both continuum components and the narrow emission lines.
735:
736: \subsubsection{Methodical Differences and Mass Calculations}
737: \label{S_method_diff_andVPs}
738:
739: Overall, the two methods for fitting the individual AGN spectral
740: components agree quite well. However, there are two differences worth
741: noting. First, each method uses a different optical \feii\ emission
742: line template. The \feii\ template used by method B
743: \citep{Veron-Cetty04} includes narrow line region contributions to the
744: emission. In general, both templates are similar, but they differ in
745: detail at around $\lambda \simeq 5000$\,\AA\ and $\lambda \gtsim
746: 6400$\,\AA. However, the strength of the optical \feii\ emission in
747: NGC\,5548 is quite weak \citep{Vestergaard05}, and the width of the
748: \feii\ emission is expected to be broad. Therefore, the choice of the
749: \feii\ emission template has little impact on the results in this
750: case. Second, the modeling of the narrow emission lines in the \Hbeta\
751: and \ob\ region with the single Gaussian component of method B sometimes
752: leaves some residuals around the \ob\ lines. This typically happens
753: when excess emission appears in the red wing of \Hbeta\ which cannot be
754: fully accounted for with only Gaussian components. Although these
755: residuals do not account for a significant amount of flux, the
756: two-component Gaussian fit to the narrow lines used by method A tends to
757: better minimize these residuals.
758:
759: Line widths are measured for \Hbeta\ from all epochs following analysis
760: from both spectral decomposition methods as well as the local continuum
761: fitting method. For this particular sample, the local continuum was
762: defined between two continuum windows over the rest-frame wavelength
763: ranges $4730-4745$\AA\ and $5090-5110$\AA, and line widths were measured
764: in all spectra over the rest-frame wavelength range $4747-4931$\AA, as
765: determined from the mean spectrum. For the local continuum-fitted
766: spectra, $L_{5100}$ was calculated from the average continuum flux
767: density over the rest-frame wavelength range $5090-5110$\AA\ after
768: correcting for host galaxy starlight. For decomposition methods A and
769: B, $L_{5100}$ was taken to be the value of the power-law fit to each SE
770: spectrum at rest-frame $5100$\AA. SE virial masses were then calculated
771: with equation 2 for line widths measured with both \sigbl\ and FWHM.
772:
773: For comparison to the SE mass distributions of each of the three data
774: analysis methods, reverberation virial masses were calculated with each
775: of the line width measures, FWHM and \sigbl, similar to the previous
776: NGC~5548 data sets spanning multiple years. The weighted mean RM virial
777: mass for each analysis method (covering yrs 6--11 and 13 for this data
778: set) was calculated by averaging the yearly RM virial masses calculated
779: by combining line widths measured from the mean spectrum created from SE
780: spectra spanning a single observing season and the BLR radius from the
781: corresponding season as determined with reverberation mapping \citep[for
782: results from individual years, see][]{Peterson04}.
783:
784: \section{Analysis and Results}
785: \label{S_Results}
786:
787: \subsection{Effects of Variability}
788: \label{S_Res_variability}
789:
790: To investigate systematics associated strictly with AGN variability in
791: SE virial products (VPs), we first remove the contaminating constant
792: spectral components (i.e., narrow lines and host galaxy flux) as
793: described in \S \ref{S_Eval_const_components}. Figure
794: \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_var} shows virial mass distributions created from all
795: 370 spectra of NGC~5548 (Fig. \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_var}a) and 32 spectra
796: of PG1229 (Fig. \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_var}b). Results are shown for both
797: line width measures, \sigbl\ and FWHM (left and right panels,
798: respectively), for both objects. For each distribution we focus on the
799: dispersion (i.e., precision) and the mean offset (i.e., accuracy),
800: $\langle \Delta {\rm log} M \rangle $, from the reverberation result, as
801: given in Table~1. Column 1 gives the object name, column 2 shows the
802: sample size, column 3 lists the reverberation virial product and
803: associated uncertainties when calculated with \sigbl, column 4 lists the
804: mean and standard deviation of the distribution utilizing \sigbl, column
805: 5 gives the mean offset between the reverberation VP (Col. 3) and mean
806: of the SE distribution (Col. 4). Columns 6, 7, and 8 are similar to
807: columns 3, 4, and 5, but for masses based on FWHM.
808:
809: Figure \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_var} shows that the widths of all four
810: distributions are quite small. The listed dispersions have not been
811: corrected for measurement uncertainties in line width and luminosity.
812: However, we have estimated the average measurement uncertainties for the
813: full set of NGC~5548 SE spectra to be $0.08$ dex in log($L$), $0.01$ dex
814: in log(\sigbl), and $0.03$ dex in log(FWHM). We can assume that these
815: measurement errors are independent of the dispersion due to variability
816: alone and that the distributions are close enough to Gaussian that we
817: can add independent errors in quadrature. Therefore, we can correct the
818: observed dispersions in the SE mass distributions for NGC~5548 for the
819: contribution due to these measurement uncertainties. Following this
820: correction, the uncorrected dispersions listed in Figure
821: \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_var}a and Table 1 can be reduced to $0.11$ dex for
822: masses based on \sigbl\ and $0.14$ dex for masses based on FWHM. The
823: narrowness of these distributions indicates that the scatter in SE
824: masses due to intrinsic variability is remarkably small. This is
825: particularly true for PG1229, for which $\sigma_{\rm SE} \approx 0.05$
826: dex. Granted, PG1229 is less variable, but with a scatter of only
827: $0.11-0.14$ dex, the uncertainty in $M_{\rm SE}$ due to variability for
828: NGC~5548 is not large either.
829:
830: The precision and accuracy in the $M_{\rm SE}$ measurements seem only
831: weakly dependent on whether \sigbl\ or FWHM is used as the line-width
832: measure. For both AGNs, the scatter is apparently minimized and the
833: accuracy (given by $\langle \Delta {\rm log} M \rangle$) maximized with
834: the use of \sigbl. In terms of accuracy, $\langle \Delta {\rm log} M
835: \rangle$ should at least partially represent the displacement of the
836: particular AGN from the $R-L$ relation, regardless of which quantity is
837: used to characterize the line width. Figure \ref{fig:rLrelation} shows
838: that the average luminosities of the NGC~5548 and PG1229 SE spectra
839: place them above the $R-L$ relation in $r$ by $\sim 0.13$ dex and $\sim
840: 0.07$ dex, respectively, after accounting for host starlight
841: contributions (as was done here). This explains why, for a given SE
842: luminosity, the resulting radius (and thus VP) is underestimated
843: compared to the reverberation results, confirmed by the negative
844: $\langle \Delta {\rm log} M \rangle$ values found in Table~1. Since
845: this effect depends on luminosity alone, the masses calculated from both
846: line width measures should be affected equally. However, masses
847: calculated from FWHM measurements result in larger $\langle \Delta {\rm
848: log} M \rangle$ values for both objects. This additional component may
849: be related to the fact that our measurement uncertainties tend to be
850: larger for FWHM compared to \sigbl, or it may simply demonstrate one of
851: the limitations of measuring masses from SE spectra with FWHM.
852:
853: The light curves of NGC 5548 span several years, much longer than the
854: reverberation time scale of tens of days. Indeed, the \Hbeta\ lag has
855: been measured year-to-year for over a dozen different years, and the lag
856: and the mean luminosity of the AGN are well-correlated on yearly
857: timescales, and as noted earlier, the reverberation-based mass is
858: approximately constant with perhaps a weak dependence on luminosity
859: \citep{Bentz07}. Given our goal of comparing SE predictions with
860: reverberation measurements, we have for NGC 5548 also computed the
861: difference between each SE virial product and the reverberation virial
862: product for the specific year in which the SE observation was made. We
863: show the distribution of these differences in Figure
864: \ref{fig:deltalogM}, which is rather narrower than the similar
865: distribution shown in Figure \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_var}a. This illustrates
866: that masses from SE spectra seem to reproduce the reverberation mass
867: that would be measured at the same time quite accurately, to $\sim 25$\%
868: or so. However, there are longer term secular changes that occur, as
869: shown in the top panel of Figure 1, that add to the observed dispersion
870: due to variability resulting in the total width of the distributions
871: shown in Figure \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_var}. Because of these secular
872: changes, even a reverberation-based mass measurement might change
873: slightly, say, over a dynamical time scale.
874:
875: \subsection{Accounting for Constant Components}
876: \label{S_Res_const_components}
877:
878: Failing to account for the constant spectral components in the AGN
879: spectrum (i.e., the narrow emission lines and host galaxy starlight)
880: affects both the precision and accuracy of the SE mass estimates. We
881: examine the effect of neglecting each of these components individually
882: and then in combination for both NGC~5548 and PG1229.
883:
884: \subsubsection{Effect of Starlight}
885: \label{S_Res_hosteffects}
886:
887: First, we examine the consequence of failing to remove the host starlight
888: contribution to the continuum flux density. We still subtract narrow
889: emission-line components, however. Figure \ref{fig:SEVPnl_nogs} shows SE
890: virial mass distributions similar to those in Figure
891: \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_var}, but here the host starlight was not subtracted from
892: the luminosity before the SE masses were calculated. In terms of
893: precision, the virial mass distributions in Figure \ref{fig:SEVPnl_nogs}
894: derived from non-host-corrected luminosities have equal or even slightly
895: smaller dispersions than their corrected counterparts
896: (Fig. \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_var}). This occurs simply because subtraction
897: of the host starlight increases the relative amplitude of the AGN
898: continuum variations. NGC~5548 has a relatively larger host galaxy
899: contribution and is therefore more susceptible to this effect than
900: PG1229. The observable result is an overall increase in the dispersion
901: of the mass distribution and, in particular, the low-mass (i.e.,
902: low-luminosity state) wings of the $M_{\rm SE}$ distributions in Figure
903: \ref{fig:SEVPnl_nogs} are broadened compared to those in Figure
904: \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_var}. Notably, over-subtracting the host galaxy flux
905: could also lead to similar observable consequences. However, the tail
906: of the distribution appears to be nearly Gaussian, which argues against
907: any large error in the starlight flux estimate. In contrast, this
908: broadening affect is not observed for PG1229. This is expected because
909: PG1229 has a smaller host contribution to its total luminosity than
910: NGC~5548, and its luminosity varied less over the time period in which
911: it was observed. Therefore, when we subtract a relatively smaller
912: constant host flux from a distribution of values with an initially
913: smaller luminosity dispersion, the effect on the SE mass distributions
914: is less significant.
915:
916: Failing to account for host starlight imposes a shift to the entire SE
917: mass distribution. Because the luminosity is larger when the host
918: contribution is not subtracted, a larger BLR radius is estimated with
919: the $R-L$ relation. This, in turn, produces larger virial products and
920: affects the accuracy of the measurements. Whereas Figure
921: \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_var} shows an average underestimation of the SE
922: masses compared to the reverberation results, Figure
923: \ref{fig:SEVPnl_nogs} shows that on average, the SE masses are
924: overestimated (i.e. positive $\langle \Delta {\rm log} M \rangle$
925: values), which is again explained by the locations of NGC~5548 and
926: PG1229 on the $R-L$ scaling relationship (Fig. \ref{fig:rLrelation}).
927: Without accounting for the host starlight, both objects lie below the
928: relation. Therefore, the $R-L$ relation overestimates the radius of a
929: SE luminosity measurement that does not account for this contribution.
930: This effect can be seen by comparing the $\langle \Delta {\rm log} M
931: \rangle$ values in rows 2 and 5 of Table 2 with those of Table 1, which
932: are negative for in Table 1 but positive in Table 2\footnote{Results in
933: Table 2 are presented in a similar manner as Table 1, except columns
934: have been added to distinguish whether or not narrow emission-line
935: and/or host starlight contributions are present in the results.}.
936: Failing to account for the host contribution has roughly the same
937: overall effect on the precision and accuracy of SE mass distributions
938: regardless of whether \sigbl\ or FWHM is used for the calculation of
939: $M_{\rm SE}$ (a shift in $\langle \Delta {\rm log} M \rangle$ of $0.17$
940: dex for NGC~5548 and $0.12$ dex for PG1229 for both line width
941: measures), as expected since this contribution does not affect the line
942: width.
943:
944: Based on the results presented here, it is not completely clear that
945: subtracting the host contribution improves the overall accuracy of the
946: mass estimates. In fact, the SE masses of both NGC~5548 and PG1229
947: presented here are typically as accurate or more accurate (i.e., the
948: absolute value of $\langle \Delta {\rm log} M\rangle$ is smaller) when
949: the starlight contribution is not subtracted. When considering the
950: physics of AGNs, however, the BLR radius should be correlated with only
951: the AGN luminosity, since the material in the BLR knows nothing of the
952: luminosity originating from galactic starlight. Furthermore,
953: \citet{Bentz08} determine that calibrating the $R-L$ relation with luminosity
954: measurements that have been corrected for host starlight contamination
955: significantly reduces the scatter in the relationship and results in a
956: slope that is highly consistent with that predicted by simple
957: photoionization theory. These considerations, in addition to our use of
958: the \citet{Bentz08} host starlight-corrected calibration of the $R-L$
959: relation for SE mass determinations, serve as motivation for removing
960: this contamination before the $R-L$ relation is used. This evidence
961: suggests that the ambiguity between the theoretical expectation that
962: host-subtracted luminosities should yield more accurate masses and the
963: fact that the masses presented here are more accurate before host
964: starlight subtraction is simply because both NGC~5548 and PG1229 happen
965: to lie above the $R-L$ relation. However, in a general statistical
966: sense, SE masses will be overestimated if host starlight contamination
967: is not taken into account before the $R-L$ relation is used to determine
968: BLR radii. This is particularly true for lower-luminosity, Seyfert-type
969: galaxies that, in contrast to quasars, have larger relative host
970: starlight contributions to their measured luminosity.
971:
972: \subsubsection{Effect of Narrow Lines}
973: \label{S_Res_NarLines}
974:
975: The \Hbeta\ and \ob\ emission line profiles for NGC~5548 and PG1229 are
976: shown in Figure \ref{fig:meanspec}. In NGC~5548 (left), the narrow line
977: typically increases the peak flux by $\sim 50\%$, compared to $\lesssim
978: 10\%$ in PG1229 (right). Given these relative contributions of
979: narrow-line fluxes (particularly in the case of NGC~5548), failing to
980: subtract the narrow line component from the broad emission line before
981: measuring the width can have a significant impact on the resulting mass
982: estimate. To demonstrate this, Figure \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_wlgs} displays
983: SE mass distributions for NGC~5548 and PG1229; this time, however, we do
984: not subtract the narrow lines from the spectra before measuring line
985: widths, although we do subtract the host galaxy contribution.
986: Statistics for the scenarios shown in Figure \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_wlgs}
987: can be found in Table 2, rows 3 and 6. Figure \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_wlgs}
988: clearly demonstrates that leaving the narrow lines present affects both
989: the precision and accuracy of the SE masses.
990:
991: Failing to subtract the narrow lines tends to decrease the precision of
992: the SE mass estimates. This is evident by an increase in the width of
993: the SE mass distributions and is particularly pronounced for NGC~5548
994: when characterizing the line with FWHM (by comparing
995: Fig. \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_wlgs}a with Fig. \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_var}a or
996: Fig. \ref{fig:SEVPnl_nogs}a, in which narrow lines were removed). In
997: this case (Fig. \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_wlgs}a, right), the resulting width
998: of the VP distribution is a factor of three to four larger than if
999: \sigbl\ is used (Fig. \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_wlgs}a, left). This effect of
1000: the narrow lines on the precision is less apparent in PG1229 because the
1001: narrow line constitutes only a small percentage of the \Hbeta\ line
1002: flux. However, it is still observed when the FWHM is used for measuring
1003: the line widths (compare Fig. \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_wlgs}b, left, to
1004: Fig. \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_var}b, left), since, to reiterate, this trend is
1005: much more apparent for the FWHM.
1006:
1007: From a physical standpoint, only BLR emission varies in response to the
1008: ionizing continuum on reverberation timescales, so only the broad
1009: emission component should be used for the virial mass calculation.
1010: Because the square of the line width enters into the BH mass
1011: calculation, relatively small changes in the line width can
1012: significantly affect the mass estimate. When the narrow-line component
1013: is not subtracted, the line width and hence the black hole mass is
1014: underestimated. Figure \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_wlgs} shows evidence for this
1015: in both NGC~5548 and PG1229. As with the precision, this effect is much
1016: stronger when the narrow component is a more prominent feature in the
1017: emission-line profile, as is the case for NGC~5548 (refer back to
1018: Fig. \ref{fig:meanspec}). For obvious reasons, removing the narrow
1019: lines is more important when the line width is measured with the FWHM
1020: (right panels of Figs. \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_wlgs}a and
1021: \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_wlgs}b); the very definition of the FWHM depends on
1022: the peak flux, so if the narrow component is not subtracted, this peak
1023: flux can be greatly overestimated. An overestimation of the peak flux
1024: results in an artificially small FWHM and, subsequently, a severely
1025: underestimated mass. NGC~5548 affords a useful case in point: the
1026: masses calculated without removing narrow line components (Figure
1027: \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_wlgs}a) are underestimated on average by a whole
1028: order of magnitude ($\langle \Delta {\rm log} M \rangle = -1.00$) when
1029: line widths are measured from the FWHM (right panel). In contrast, the
1030: dependence of the line dispersion on the line center and peak flux is
1031: relatively weak, affecting the accuracy of SE mass estimates by $\sim
1032: 0.1-0.2$ dex for NGC~5548 and by an insignificant amount for PG1229 (compare
1033: $\langle \Delta {\rm log} M \rangle$ values for $M_{\rm SE}
1034: \propto$ \sigbl\ from Table 2, Rows 3 and 6 to Table 1 values).
1035: Regardless of the minimal effect when \sigbl\ is used, the evidence
1036: presented here clearly indicates that the narrow line component should
1037: be removed regardless of which prescription is used for measuring the
1038: line width.
1039:
1040: \subsubsection{Combined Effects of Starlight and Narrow Lines}
1041:
1042: Figure \ref{fig:SEVP_nocorrections} shows mass distributions for both
1043: NGC~5548 and PG1229 when neither of these constant components is removed
1044: from the spectra. Table 2 (Rows 1 and 4) displays the corresponding
1045: statistics. Generally, as expected, the precision and accuracy are
1046: worse, or at least no better than when these constant components are
1047: removed. However, these two constant components act opposingly on the
1048: mass: failing to remove the narrow lines tends to decrease mass
1049: estimates, but failing to subtract host galaxy flux increases mass
1050: estimates. Therefore, these two effects can fortuitously cancel,
1051: resulting in an apparently smaller dispersion and/or mean offset. This
1052: is the case for PG1229 when FWHM is used to measure the line width and
1053: NGC~5548 when \sigbl\ is used. The chance cancellation in these cases
1054: should not distract from the otherwise well-supported conclusion that
1055: both of these components should be removed to obtain the most accurate
1056: and precise SE mass estimates.
1057:
1058: \subsection{Systematic Effects due to \boldmath{$S/N$}}
1059: \label{S_Res_SN}
1060:
1061: Our goal here is to identify the point at which low $S/N$ begins to
1062: compromise the precision and accuracy of SE mass determinations. We
1063: start with our most homogeneous data set, the 270 observations of
1064: NGC~5548 from the Perkins Telescope. Based on conclusions from previous
1065: sections \S\S \ref{S_Res_variability} and \ref{S_Res_const_components},
1066: only narrow-line-subtracted spectra that have been corrected for host
1067: galaxy starlight are used. The $S/N$ per pixel of the original spectra
1068: ranges significantly, with a mean and standard deviation of $110 \pm
1069: 50$, as measured across the $5100$\AA\ continuum window given above.
1070: Using the $S/N$ per pixel in the original spectra as a starting point,
1071: we then increase the noise in each spectrum by applying a random
1072: Gaussian deviate to the flux of each pixel across the whole spectrum.
1073: The magnitude of the deviate is set to achieve degraded $S/N$ levels of
1074: $\sim 20$, $\sim 10$, and $\sim 5$ across the $5100$\AA\ continuum
1075: window. Figure \ref{fig:SNdegrade} shows an example degradation for a
1076: typical NGC~5548 spectrum. Below, we discuss results for masses
1077: calculated from line widths measured directly from the data as well as
1078: from Gauss-Hermite fits to \Hbeta\ in the original and $S/N$ degraded
1079: spectra.
1080:
1081: \subsubsection {Direct Measurement of the Spectra}
1082: \label{S_VPs_from_dataSN}
1083:
1084: We measure line widths and luminosities directly from both the original
1085: and $S/N$-degraded spectra and calculate virial masses. The resulting
1086: distributions are shown in Figure \ref{fig:SEVPdataSN} for both \sigbl\
1087: (left) and FWHM (right). Statistics describing the distributions of
1088: $M_{\rm SE}$ are listed in Table 3 in a format similar to that of
1089: previous tables. Figure \ref{fig:SEVPdataSN} shows that the dispersions
1090: of the distributions broaden as the $S/N$ of the spectra decreases.
1091: Overall, low $S/N$ begins to negatively affect the precision of the
1092: virial mass estimates at $S/N$ $\lesssim 10$ for \sigbl\ (see third
1093: panel on left) and at $S/N$ $\lesssim 5$ for FWHM (see bottom panel on
1094: right). \citet{Wilhite07} find a similar result, with the widths of
1095: their SE mass distributions increasing steadily with decreasing $S/N$.
1096: However, measurements of \sigbl\ and FWHM are affected differently by
1097: decreasing $S/N$ and will therefore be discussed separately.
1098:
1099: Measurements of virial masses from \sigbl\ in low $S/N$ spectra
1100: sacrifices both precision and accuracy primarily because the wings of
1101: the broad line become lost in the noise and the line profile boundaries
1102: cannot be accurately defined for cases where $S/N \lesssim 10$. This
1103: results in smaller effective line widths. This effect decreases the
1104: overall accuracy by shifting the whole distribution to artificially
1105: smaller masses. However, at these low $S/N$ limits (see bottom two
1106: plots of Fig. \ref{fig:SEVPdataSN}, left), the distribution actually
1107: becomes highly non-Gaussian in shape, resulting in a much peakier
1108: distribution, nearly centered on the corresponding reverberation virial
1109: product. This implies that although the overall dispersion has
1110: increased significantly (by nearly a factor of 2) and individual
1111: measurements have the potential to be highly inaccurate, a typical
1112: measurement will likely be more accurate with a much smaller uncertainty
1113: than quoted through the overall distribution average.
1114:
1115: Different systematics are introduced when using FWHM to characterize the
1116: line width. Because FWHM does not depend on the line wings, lower $S/N$
1117: can be tolerated before the precision is significantly sacrificed. When
1118: $S/N$ is low enough to affect FWHM, the line width is generally
1119: underestimated. Several effects contribute to the difficulty in
1120: defining FWHM in low $S/N$ data. First, the peak flux may be
1121: incorrectly attributed to the highest noise spike, resulting in an
1122: overestimated maximum. Second, the half-maximum may be difficult to
1123: define because the continuum level cannot be accurately ascertained.
1124: Third, the width may also be problematic to define because a noisy
1125: profile could mean that the half-maximum flux value is shared by
1126: multiple wavelength values. These effects alter the precision at our
1127: lowest degraded $S/N$ level ($\sim 5$). However, they begin to affect
1128: the accuracy of the measurement much earlier. Progressively poorer
1129: accuracy can be easily observed from the increasingly negative $\langle
1130: \Delta {\rm log} M \rangle$ values in the distribution statistics given
1131: in Table 3 for FWHM and/or by comparing the mean values of the
1132: distributions in Figure \ref{fig:SEVPdataSN}, right. Although higher
1133: precision VP measurements can be made from lower $S/N$ data with the
1134: FWHM than with \sigbl, there is a trade-off in accuracy. For this
1135: reason, we caution against measuring SE masses from spectra with $S/N$
1136: lower than $\sim 20$ pixel$^{-1}$, regardless of the line-width
1137: measurement method.
1138:
1139: \subsubsection{Measurements from Gauss-Hermite Polynomial Fits}
1140: \label{S_VPs_from_fitsSN}
1141:
1142: Recent work has been published in which the emission line profiles are
1143: fit with either Gaussian and/or Lorentzian profiles \citep[e.g.,][]{
1144: McLure04, JShen08, YShen08} or Gauss-Hermite polynomials
1145: \citep[e.g.,][]{Woo07, McGill08}. SE virial masses are then calculated
1146: with the line widths measured from these fits rather than directly from
1147: the data in an attempt to mitigate the negative effects of low $S/N$ on
1148: line-width determinations. We test this technique by fitting a
1149: sixth-order Gauss-Hermite polynomial to the narrow-line-subtracted
1150: H$\beta$ profiles in the original and $S/N$-degraded spectra used above.
1151: A linearly interpolated continuum defined by the same regions as above
1152: was first subtracted from the spectra before the fits were made. Our
1153: Gauss-Hermite polynomials utilize the normalization of
1154: \citet{vanderMarel93} and the functional forms of
1155: e.g. \citet{Cappellari02}. We then use the method of least-squares to
1156: determine the best coefficients for the sixth-order polynomial fit. The
1157: thick black curves in Figure \ref{fig:SNdegrade} show an example of the
1158: fits to the original and $S/N$-degraded forms of this typical NGC~5548
1159: spectrum. Both FWHM and \sigbl\ were measured from these fits with the
1160: same methods described previously for the direct measurements and then
1161: combined with host-corrected luminosities in order to calculate virial
1162: masses for all SE spectra in this sample. Figure \ref{fig:SEVPfitsSN}
1163: shows the resulting distributions for the virial masses calculated using
1164: \sigbl\ (left) and FWHM (right). Distribution statistics are
1165: also given in Table 3.
1166:
1167: We can now compare the mass distributions from the fitted data to our
1168: previous results (Fig. \ref{fig:SEVPdataSN}; Table 3) based on direct
1169: measurement. We find that low $S/N$ is somewhat mitigated by using
1170: \sigbl\ to characterize the line width of fits to the data (Fig
1171: \ref{fig:SEVPfitsSN}, left). The fits allow increased precision at the
1172: $S/N$ $\sim 10$ level, compared to measurements directly from the
1173: spectra. In addition, the accuracy of the VPs resulting from the fits
1174: is also nearly unchanged down to $S/N$ $\sim 10$. Although the fits
1175: routinely underestimate the line peak, this does not greatly affect the
1176: \sigbl\ results because of the insensitivity of this line
1177: characterization to the line center. Therefore, Gauss-Hermite fits are
1178: advantageous for extending the usefulness of data down to $S/N$ $\sim
1179: 10$ if \sigbl\ is used to characterize the line width.
1180:
1181: On the other hand, our fit results do not show an improvement if FWHM is
1182: used for the line widths, at least as far as this object is concerned.
1183: The Gauss-Hermite fits were often unable to accurately model the complex
1184: H$\beta$ profile of NGC~5548, and the underestimation of the line peak
1185: by the fits that was mentioned previously causes a systematic
1186: overestimation of FWHM that increases with decreasing $S/N$. This
1187: overestimation of FWHM acts in the opposite direction as the trend
1188: observed with the direct FWHM measurements from the data (i.e. a typical
1189: underestimation of FWHM). Therefore, as the $S/N$ decreases, a
1190: significantly increasing difference results between the mean value of
1191: the $M_{\rm SE}$ distributions based on direct measurement and those
1192: based on the Gauss-Hermite fits. From a precision standpoint, the width
1193: of the $M_{\rm SE}$ distribution based on Gauss-Hermite fits to the
1194: original $S/N$-level spectra is actually narrower than that of the
1195: equivalent distribution resulting from direct measurement. This
1196: suggests that fitting the line profile when using FWHM may actually be
1197: beneficial in high $S/N$ data and reduce possible systematics such as
1198: residuals from narrow-line subtraction. However, once the $S/N$ is
1199: degraded, the dispersions of the distributions composed of masses
1200: calculated from the fits (Fig. \ref{fig:SEVPfitsSN}, right) quickly
1201: become larger than those composed of masses calculated from direct
1202: measurement (Fig. \ref{fig:SEVPdataSN}, right). This shows that fitting
1203: the line profile when using FWHM does not mitigate the effects of low
1204: $S/N$ because the fit does not accurately reproduce the true profile
1205: shape.
1206:
1207: For the sake of completeness, we note that there are many different
1208: methods described in the literature for measuring FWHM that are
1209: formulated to address issues associated with noisy data and complex line
1210: profiles. Here, we have chosen two methods (the formulation of
1211: \citet{Peterson04} and the use Gauss-Hermite polynomial fits) that
1212: differ in computational complexity and the assumptions made about the
1213: underlying profile shape. However, other methods also attempt to
1214: mitigate the effects of noise. For example, \citet{Brotherton94} define
1215: the peak of the line based on a flux weighted mean wavelength, the
1216: centroid, above a level that is 85\% of the line peak to decrease the
1217: likelihood that the peak used is simply a noise spike. Similarly,
1218: \citet{Heckman81,Busko89} also calculate the centroid with $\gtrsim
1219: 80\%$ of the peak flux but use it in a slightly different way to
1220: determine the line width. Results using any of these other methods are
1221: not expected to differ greatly from the results that we show here,
1222: however, since our two methods effectively represent the extremes for
1223: measuring this naively simple quantity.
1224:
1225: \subsection{Systematic Effects Due to Blending}
1226: \label{S_Res_decomp}
1227:
1228: As noted earlier, the best subset of NGC~5548 spectra to use to explore
1229: the effects of blending of spectral features is the $33$ spectra from
1230: the Lick Observatory 3m Shane Telescope. These are high $S/N$,
1231: homogeneous spectra that have the broad spectral coverage necessary for
1232: spectral decomposition. Since spectral decomposition does not
1233: necessarily lead to a unique solution, two independent methods were
1234: employed as described earlier. Cumulative distribution functions
1235: created from the SE masses measured from the 33 Lick Observatory spectra
1236: of NGC~5548 are shown in Figure \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_decomp}.
1237: Distributions of $M_{\rm SE}$ are presented for all three data analysis
1238: methods described above: the local continuum fitting method (left
1239: panels), spectral decomposition method A (center panels), and spectral
1240: decomposition method B (right panels). As in previous plots, mass
1241: results are shown for both \sigbl\ (Fig. \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_decomp}a)
1242: and FWHM (Fig. \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_decomp}b). Table 4 displays the
1243: corresponding statistics for the distributions shown in Figure
1244: \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_decomp}.
1245:
1246: When \sigbl\ is used in the VP calculation, a full spectral
1247: decomposition gains a small amount of precision relative to the simple,
1248: local continuum fitting method. More importantly though is that a
1249: systematic offset is seen between the mean values of the local
1250: continuum-fitted distribution versus those of decomposition methods A
1251: and B. Line dispersions measured from the deblended spectra (for both
1252: methods A and B) are consistently larger than those measured using a
1253: local continuum fit. This is demonstrated in Figure
1254: \ref{fig:sigbl_plot}, where we have plotted the \sigbl\ measurements
1255: from the spectra deblended with methods A and B against those based on a
1256: local continuum fit. This difference is due to a combination of two
1257: factors{\footnote{A third factor that could also lead to differing line
1258: dispersion measurements is the presence of \feii\ emission. Strong
1259: \feii\ emission can obscure the line wings and line boundaries as well
1260: as contaminate the true AGN continuum level, leading to smaller line
1261: dispersion measurements. Fortuitously, \feii\ emission is very weak in
1262: NGC~5548, and therefore does not contribute to the differences observed
1263: here. However, this may not be the case for other objects.}. First,
1264: the host galaxy templates used for both decomposition methods contain a
1265: small H$\beta$ absorption feature that effectively adds additional flux
1266: to the center of the H$\beta$ emission line when the host is subtracted.
1267: This absorption is not accounted for by a linear continuum fit.
1268: However, since \sigbl\ is only weakly dependent on the line peak, this
1269: is unlikely to make a significant contribution to the observed
1270: difference. The second and larger contributing factor to the differences
1271: in \sigbl\ measurements is a result of blending of
1272: \Hbeta\ with \HeII. \citet{Decarli08} have suggested that this blending with \HeII\
1273: complicates the measurement of the line dispersion for \Hbeta\ widths
1274: larger that $2500$\, km s$^{-1}$. However, we observe larger
1275: differences for narrower \Hbeta\ widths, and therefore deduce that this
1276: blending is a stronger function of the flux of \HeII\ rather than the
1277: width of \Hbeta. The effects of blending are therefore greater when the
1278: AGN is in a higher luminosity state, when
1279: \HeII\ is stronger, even though the \Hbeta\ line is narrower in high
1280: states. This is supported by the trend seen in Figure
1281: \ref{fig:sigbl_plot} of larger \sigbl\ differences for narrower \Hbeta\
1282: widths.
1283:
1284: The blending of \HeII\ and \Hbeta\ could cause an overestimation of the
1285: continuum flux level in the local continuum window defined between these
1286: lines (see \S \ref{S_method_diff_andVPs}). An overestimated continuum
1287: level leads to a steeper linear fit, a subsequent over-subtraction of
1288: the blue wing region of H$\beta$, and finally, an underestimation of
1289: \sigbl. The power-law continuum fit used for the decomposition
1290: methods is not susceptible to this, since it is not fit based on local
1291: continuum regions. On the other hand, the \sigbl\ measurements from the
1292: decompositions could be overestimated if some of the flux attributed to
1293: \Hbeta\ is actually from the red wing of \HeII. Figure
1294: \ref{fig:profile_oplot} shows a comparison of the continuum-subtracted
1295: mean spectrum formed from all SE spectra from each of the three data
1296: analysis methods. It is clear that more flux exists in the blue wing of
1297: the deblended spectra from both methods A and B than in the spectrum
1298: formed by subtracting the local continuum fit. This is a consequence of
1299: the way the continuum was fit in each case in connection with the
1300: presence of \HeII.
1301:
1302: Because of the large differences we observe in \sigbl\ measurements
1303: between the decomposition methods and the local continuum fitting
1304: method, we return to each of our decomposition methods and fit
1305: additional contributions to account for helium emission. Starting with
1306: the deblended spectra we previously created with decomposition method A,
1307: we first remove the \Hbeta\ profile by modeling the emission with a
1308: scaled template created from a four-component Gaussian fit (two
1309: components for the main emission and two to account for broader wings)
1310: to \Halpha, whose blue wing is unobstructed by broad emission-line
1311: blending. The template is fixed in velocity space and then scaled in
1312: flux to minimize the residuals of the fit. For these 33 spectra, the
1313: best fits result in Balmer decrements typically in the range of
1314: $2.8-3.2$. The \Hbeta\ fit is then subtracted from the spectrum,
1315: leaving the \HeII\ emission line clearly visible. This emission is then
1316: fit with either a single broad Gaussian profile or a double Gaussian
1317: profile (adding a narrower component in addition to the broad component
1318: fits 19 out of the 33 epochs better than a single component, possibly
1319: due to residual narrow-line emission). The best fit profile for each
1320: epoch is subtracted from the initial, narrow-line subtracted, deblended
1321: spectrum. Figure \ref{fig:Hefits} (top) shows the \Hbeta\ region of the
1322: mean spectrum formed from the SE spectra after spectral decomposition
1323: with method A before and after subtracting the mean \HeII\ fit, which is
1324: also shown. This method fits \HeII\ only as a means to better understand
1325: the blending with \Hbeta.
1326:
1327: In contrast, with method B, we return to the continuum-subtracted
1328: spectra (i.e. after removing contributions from the host starlight,
1329: Balmer continuum, power-law continuum, and FeII emission) and
1330: simultaneously fit both broad and narrow optical emission lines.
1331: Similar to the method described above for the continuum component
1332: fitting, method B uses Levenberg-Marquardt least-squares fitting and
1333: optimization to obtain the best overall emission-line fits to the full
1334: spectrum. In addition to fitting the narrow-line features as described
1335: above, the three strongest broad Balmer lines are each fit with two
1336: Gaussian profiles, where the best fit velocity width is held fixed for
1337: all three lines. Both \heii\ and \hei\ emission lines are fit with a
1338: single Gaussian profile, and although these widths are not tied to the
1339: Balmer line widths, the widths of \HeII\ and the \hei\ emission under
1340: the \Hbeta, \ob\ region are tied to the width of the unblended \HeI\
1341: line in the same way the Balmer line widths are tied together. Each set
1342: of emission lines of a given species and type of emission (i.e. narrow
1343: or broad) is isolated in the total fit, so that only the emission of
1344: interest can be subtracted. Since the narrow-line emission was
1345: subtracted previously, we now subtract the broad helium emission,
1346: effectively deblending \Hbeta\ from \HeII. Figure \ref{fig:Hefits}
1347: (bottom) shows the \Hbeta\ region of the mean spectrum created from the
1348: 33 SE spectra after decomposition with method B before and after
1349: subtracting the average helium fit, which is also shown.
1350:
1351: We measure line widths in these He-deblended spectra with a
1352: newly-defined blue boundary for \Hbeta\ at $4720$\AA\ (compared to
1353: $4747$\AA\ previously). This boundary was extended because the edge of
1354: the blue wing of \Hbeta\ is better discerned without the presence of
1355: \HeII. Figure \ref{fig:noHe_sigbl_plot} shows new \sigbl\ measurements
1356: for the He-deblended \Hbeta\ line from the two decomposition methods
1357: compared again to \sigbl\ from the local continuum method. The \sigbl\
1358: measurements from method A still disagree with the local continuum
1359: fitting method as much as, if not more than, before subtraction of
1360: \HeII. However, the new \sigbl\ measurements from method B are now
1361: consistent with the local continuum fitting method.
1362:
1363: The observed differences in these new \sigbl\ measurements between
1364: method A and method B come from the procedure and assumptions that each
1365: method uses to fit the spectral emission lines. The line widths from
1366: method B now agree with the local continuum fitting method because the
1367: combined best fit to both lines tends to result in an \Hbeta\ profile
1368: that basically sits on top of a broad \HeII\ profile. In the wavelength
1369: region between the two emission lines (i.e. where the local continuum is
1370: defined), the difference between the continuum level and the flux level
1371: observed in the blended spectrum is usually attributed completely to
1372: \HeII\ emission by method B. Therefore, when \HeII\ is subtracted, the
1373: flux level of this region is reduced nearly to the level of the
1374: continuum, which is what is assumed by the local continuum fitting
1375: method, thus making these two methods consistent. On the other hand,
1376: method A subtracts the \Hbeta\ with an \Halpha\ template before fitting
1377: \HeII. Because the \Halpha\ profile has very extended wings, this method
1378: necessarily assumes that \Hbeta\ also has this extended, broad component.
1379: Therefore, nearly opposite to method B, method A effectively fits a
1380: \HeII\ profile that is sitting on top of a very broad \Hbeta\
1381: profile and consequently subtracts a smaller \HeII\ component. This
1382: results in \sigbl\ measurements that are equally or even more inconsistent
1383: with previous measurements because it extends the \Hbeta\ wing under the
1384: \HeII\ profile. Because this extended blue wing is hidden under \HeII,
1385: method A results suggest that the local continuum fitting method is
1386: significantly underestimating \sigbl\ (by as much as $40 \%$).
1387:
1388: Evidence suggests that the helium lines are consistently broader than
1389: the Balmer lines in Type 1 AGNs \citep{Osterbrock82}. This is always
1390: the case in the rms spectrum of AGNs that have been monitored for
1391: reverberation mapping studies, as well. Additionally, in the few cases
1392: for which reverberation lags could be measured for \HeII\, the lags are
1393: shorter than the corresponding \Hbeta\ lag in the same object
1394: \citep[see][]{Peterson04}. This suggests that given the virial
1395: hypothesis for a single source, the material responsible for \HeII\
1396: emission is closer to the central source than that responsible for the
1397: \Hbeta\ emission and moving at a faster velocity, thus producing broader
1398: emission lines. Method B supports this evidence with the emission line
1399: models and results described above. On the other hand, although the
1400: fits of method A do not reproduce the same broad \HeII\ emission, the
1401: assumption this method makes about the similarities that should exist
1402: between the shape of the \Halpha\ and \Hbeta\ profiles are hard to
1403: discount, given that these two species should exist in similar regions
1404: of the BLR. Instead, our analysis demonstrates that there is not a
1405: unique method to account for the blending of \Hbeta\ and \HeII\ that
1406: results in consistent line dispersion measurements of \Hbeta.
1407: Therefore, we conclude that this blending is a potential problem for the
1408: use of \sigbl\ in calculating $M_{\rm SE}$.
1409:
1410: Blending is less likely to be a limitation for reverberation mapping
1411: studies that use the line dispersion measured in the rms spectrum,
1412: however. Blending between \Hbeta\ and \HeII\ is often lessened in the
1413: rms spectrum because the broad wings of the lines that are the most
1414: blended tend not to be as variable as the more central parts of the
1415: line. To test this, we characterized the \Hbeta\ line width with
1416: \sigbl\ in the 3 rms spectra formed from the three sets of spectra
1417: created during the deblending analysis (after the local continuum fit,
1418: decomposition method A, and decomposition method B). We did not account
1419: for \HeII\ emission in the rms spectrum before measuring \sigbl\ in the
1420: local continuum subtracted rms spectrum. However, the \HeII\ emission
1421: in the two rms spectra formed after decomposition methods A and B was
1422: modeled with a single Gaussian profile and subtracted. We find that
1423: measurements of \sigbl\ from the rms spectra from all three methods are
1424: consistent to within $1\sigma$. This consistency suggests that the
1425: masses determined through reverberation studies that use the line
1426: dispersion measured from the rms spectrum are not as susceptible as SE
1427: masses to this bias in \sigbl\ caused by blending. Additionally, it is
1428: worth noting that not all AGNs have strong blending of \HeII\ and
1429: \Hbeta, superceding the need for such caution with the use of \sigbl.
1430:
1431: Different concerns arise when FWHM is used to characterize the \Hbeta\
1432: line width. Figure \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_decomp}b demonstrates that all
1433: three methods are in agreement, on average, with equally good precision
1434: and moderately small offsets from their respective reverberation results
1435: (given in Table 4). The small systematic difference between the mean SE
1436: masses of the decomposition methods and the local continuum fit is most
1437: likely due to the small \Hbeta\ absorption feature present in the host
1438: galaxy light, as discussed above. Figure \ref{fig:fwhm_plot} shows that
1439: FWHM, unlike the line dispersion, is less sensitive to the details of
1440: measurement, however. The differences seen in the line dispersion
1441: measurements are not present for the FWHM measurements, since blending
1442: in the wings and the definition of the continuum have a much smaller
1443: effect on the FWHM value. However, these general observations and the
1444: FWHM statistics in Table 4 exclude the outliers at the low-mass end of
1445: the distributions in Figure \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_decomp}b, shown by the
1446: thin black curves (also labeled in Fig. \ref{fig:fwhm_plot}). These
1447: points are outliers because of a particularly complex line profile,
1448: characterized by an asymmetric red bump, present in these two epochs
1449: (JD2452030 and JD2452045). These epochs illustrate that FWHM can be
1450: complicated by profile features such as the gross asymmetries and double
1451: peaks that the broad Balmer lines sometimes exhibit.
1452:
1453: Figure \ref{fig:outlier_oplot} shows how FWHM is defined for the \Hbeta\
1454: profile on JD2452030 for each of the two decomposition methods and for
1455: a local continuum fit. In each case, we measure FWHM following the
1456: procedure of \citet{Peterson04}. The differences in the FWHM
1457: measurements for this spectrum are due in part to the complex profile of
1458: this line and in part to the differences in the peak flux of the line
1459: for the different methods. Figure \ref{fig:outlier_oplot} shows that
1460: each of the three methods removes slightly different amounts of
1461: narrow-line emission. These small differences change the total flux in
1462: the line by at most a few percent, but the change in the line peak
1463: combined with the complex profile are sufficient to cause large
1464: differences in the measurements of FWHM, and thus $M_{\rm SE}$.
1465:
1466: Despite the observed differences in the SE \sigbl\ measurements between
1467: each decomposition method after accounting for \HeII\ blending, masses
1468: derived from both methods otherwise differ very little. The dispersions
1469: in the SE mass distributions from both methods are nearly equal, however
1470: masses derived with the use of method A seem somewhat more accurate,
1471: with smaller $\langle \Delta {\rm log} M\rangle$ values than method B.
1472:
1473: \section{Discussion and Conclusion}
1474: \label{S_Discuss_and_conclude}
1475:
1476: We have undertaken a careful examination of some of the systematics
1477: associated with measurements of emission-line widths for the purpose of
1478: calculating black hole virial masses from single-epoch spectra. The
1479: systematics on which we focused our attention are (i) intrinsic AGN
1480: variability, (ii) contributions by constant spectral components, (iii)
1481: $S/N$ of the data, and (iv) blending with the different spectral
1482: components, particularly the underlying host galaxy.
1483:
1484: Throughout this analysis we have not displayed a preference for either
1485: the line dispersion or the FWHM to characterize the line width and have
1486: instead shown that there are both advantages and limitations to each
1487: measure. Specifically, FWHM provides consistent results for lower $S/N$
1488: spectra without the use of profile fits, and it is much more robust in
1489: the presence of blending. However, FWHM should only be used in spectra
1490: that have had the narrow line components carefully removed, as the
1491: sensitivity of FWHM to the presence and/or removal method of narrow
1492: emission lines is a serious limitation. On the other hand, the line
1493: dispersion is advantageous in this respect, since it is rather
1494: insensitive to the details of narrow-line component subtraction.
1495: However, its use should be limited to data characterized by relatively
1496: high $S/N$ or with profile fits to the emission lines. Unlike FWHM, the
1497: greatest limitation of using the line dispersion is blending in the line
1498: wings, and use of the line dispersion should therefore be avoided if
1499: there is emission line blending that has not been modeled and removed.
1500: As we have shown here, however, even in the case of modeling, the
1501: accuracy of the model may be questionable. In the case of NGC~5548, if
1502: decomposition model B is correct (i.e., where the \HeII\ line is fit
1503: assuming the same velocity width as the unblended \HeI\ line), then
1504: correcting for the blending of \Hbeta\ and \HeII\ by modeling and
1505: subtracting the helium emission produces consistent results with the
1506: local continuum-fitting method. However, if method A is the more
1507: accurate representation of the blending (i.e., where the \HeII\ line was
1508: modeled assuming the line profile of \Hbeta\ is the same as \Halpha),
1509: then there will be a resulting mean offset in the SE masses of $\sim
1510: 0.1$ dex compared to the local continuum-fitting method due to
1511: underestimation of the blended \Hbeta\ line dispersion in the latter
1512: method. Because of these difficulties, when blending complicates the
1513: line profile shape or boundaries of SE spectra, it is best to use FWHM.
1514:
1515: To summarize the effects of these systematics on SE masses, Table 5
1516: gives an error budget displaying how each systematic affects the
1517: uncertainties in SE mass estimates in terms of increasing or decreasing
1518: the precision and accuracy of the measurement, where we generalize our
1519: results here to both low luminosity Seyfert-type AGNs and quasars.
1520: While nearly all of the systematic uncertainties we investigated add to
1521: the dispersion in the SE mass distributions in varying amounts, some
1522: effects also cause often severe systematic shifts in the distributions,
1523: leading to overall under- or overestimations of SE masses. Readers
1524: should be particularly cautious about these effects because large
1525: statistical studies cannot average out these types of systematics. In
1526: summarizing the sources of error covered here, we use the same
1527: description of the precision and accuracy as above, with the accuracy
1528: described as an offset in the mean SE virial mass, and the precision
1529: described by the dispersion in the mass distribution. In Table 5,
1530: however, we assume that errors are independent and the distributions are
1531: close enough to Gaussian that we can add independent errors in
1532: quadrature to determine the cumulative effect. We therefore describe
1533: the additional offset and dispersion due to each systematic with respect
1534: to the SE mass calculation which results in the minimum observed
1535: uncertainties (i.e., Fig. \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_var}). In Table 5 we
1536: consider the following individual sources of error in the SE masses for
1537: both characterizations of the line width:
1538:
1539: \begin{enumerate}
1540:
1541: \item Random measurement errors. These are simply due to inherent
1542: uncertainties in any measurement of luminosity and line width.
1543: Empirically, we determine these uncertainties by comparing measurements
1544: of closely spaced observations, assuming that these parameters change
1545: little over very short time scales (i.e., time scales much shorter than
1546: the reverberation time scale). We use this empirical method to estimate
1547: the uncertainties for the line width and luminosity of the NGC~5548 data
1548: set, which we propagate through to determine uncertainties in the mass
1549: estimates, listed in Table 5. Uncertainties are not listed for quasars
1550: because the size of the PG1229 data set is much smaller and with fewer
1551: closely spaced observations than that of NGC~5548. We could therefore
1552: not accurately estimate uncertainties in this manner. However, given
1553: the small observed dispersion in the SE virial masses for PG1229
1554: ($\sim0.05$ dex), measurement uncertainties are likely to be very small.
1555:
1556: \item Variability on reverberation timescales (see
1557: Fig. \ref{fig:deltalogM} and Fig. \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_var}b). Our
1558: analysis on re\-ver\-ber\-a\-tion-timescale variability shows that SE
1559: spectra can reproduce the reverberation-based virial product that would
1560: be measured at the same time to about 0.10 dex (i.e., $\sim25$\%) for
1561: Seyferts and to about 0.05 dex (i.e., $\sim15$\%) for quasars. This is
1562: an interesting result, given the quadrature sum of the individual
1563: dispersions in luminosity and line width for NGC~5548 add to be $\sim
1564: 0.17$ dex, regardless of line width measure. This is significantly
1565: larger than the dispersion in the virial masses, and therefore confirms
1566: the presence of a virial relation between the line width and luminosity
1567: (i.e., the BLR radius). An additional ramification for quasars is that
1568: the dispersion for PG1229 determined here represents more than a factor
1569: of two less than even the formal, observational uncertainties in the
1570: reverberation mass for this object. This suggests that once the zero
1571: point and slope of scaling relations such as the $R-L$ relation are
1572: accurately determined, it may be more accurate to simply use the scaling
1573: relations to determine masses of individual sources than to make direct
1574: mass measurements. It also follows that SE mass estimates can then
1575: easily be acquired with relative certainty for high redshift objects, as
1576: long as the extrapolation of the scaling relations to these luminosity
1577: regimes is valid.
1578:
1579: \item Longer-term secular variations. At least in the case of NGC~5548,
1580: we see that longer-term (dynamical timescale?) variations cause changes
1581: in both the SE and re\-ver\-ber\-a\-tion-based virial product. The
1582: amplitude of these variations is similar to those on reverberation time
1583: scales, creating an additional dispersion in the SE virial products of
1584: about $0.09$ or $0.05$ dex for FWHM and \sigbl, respectively. This
1585: longer-term secular variability adds to the reverberation-scale
1586: variability described above (and seen in Figure \ref{fig:deltalogM}) to
1587: produce the observed dispersion (Fig. \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_var}a) in the
1588: SE virial product for Seyferts. We cannot estimate the contribution of
1589: secular variations to the observed dispersion for quasars, since all the
1590: data available for PG1229 was used in a single reverberation experiment
1591: and observations did not span dynamical timescales for this object.
1592:
1593: \item Combined minimum uncertainty. The combination of the above effects
1594: sets a ``minimum observable uncertainty'' for SE-based masses, given in
1595: line 4 of Table 5 (see also Fig. \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_var}). Adding
1596: measurement uncertainties, reverberation timescale variability, and
1597: longer-term secular variability effects in quadrature yields an estimate
1598: of the observable dispersion in SE masses for Seyferts of $0.12-0.16$
1599: dex ($\sim30-45$\%) and less for quasars (although the long-term secular
1600: effects are unexplored in this case).
1601:
1602: \item Failure to remove host galaxy starlight. Host galaxy contamination
1603: causes an overestimation of the luminosity and thus the mass. The
1604: effect of this contamination on the precision of SE mass estimates is
1605: minimal so it does not further broaden the distribution of mass
1606: measurements. Instead, it affects the accuracy of the mass estimate,
1607: resulting in an additional mean offset, listed in Table 5, compared to
1608: the offset observed when the host contamination is removed (Also compare
1609: the mean distribution values of Figs. \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_var} and
1610: \ref{fig:SEVPnl_nogs}). The size of the systematic overestimation of
1611: the mass depends on the fraction of host starlight contamination,
1612: however. Since both NGC~5548 and PG1229 lie near the middle of the
1613: sample of AGNs used to set the slope of the $R-L$ relation, the effect
1614: due to host-galaxy contamination could be much worse or more minimal
1615: depending on whether the luminosity is much smaller or larger
1616: (respectively) than the objects presented here
1617: \citep{Bentz08}.
1618:
1619: \item Failure to remove narrow \Hbeta. The \Hbeta\ narrow emission-line
1620: component is by far the biggest source of error for both Seyferts and
1621: quasars when using FWHM to characterize the line width, adding
1622: significantly to the dispersion and offset, as shown in Table 5. In
1623: particular, this offset causes SE masses to be underestimated by nearly
1624: an order of magnitude for Seyfert-type galaxies that often have strong
1625: narrow-line components. Notice, however, that because of the
1626: insensitivity of \sigbl\ to the line center, this effect increases the
1627: dispersion of the SE mass distributions very little or not at all when
1628: the line width is characterized by \sigbl. However, the systematic
1629: offset for the \sigbl\ case is still nearly doubled compared to the
1630: offset observed for the minimum uncertainty case. This makes it
1631: imperative to remove narrow line components before measuring line
1632: widths, regardless of how the line width is characterized.
1633:
1634: \item Limitations due to $S/N$. Direct measurements from low $S/N$
1635: spectra add an additional systematic offset in the SE mass measurements
1636: because of a systematic underestimation of the line width, as well as
1637: decreased precision in these measurements. Our fits to the line
1638: profiles do increase the usefulness of $S/N$-level $\sim10$ spectra with
1639: \sigbl. However, they generally make things worse for FWHM, leading to lower
1640: precision masses than when direct measurements of the line widths are
1641: used, as well as systematic overestimations of the line width and mass,
1642: an effect that is opposite to that observed when measuring FWHM directly
1643: from the data. Therefore, to avoid either underestimating SE masses
1644: when measuring line widths directly from the data or overestimating SE
1645: masses when line profiles are fit, SE mass studies should be conducted
1646: using high $S/N$ ($\gtrsim 20$ pixel$^{-1}$) spectra.
1647:
1648: \end{enumerate}
1649:
1650:
1651: \acknowledgements
1652: The authors are grateful to C. A. Onken for the use of his Gauss-Hermite
1653: fitting software. We would also like to thank David Weinberg for many
1654: useful comments and suggestions which improved several aspects of this
1655: paper. This work has been supported by the NSF through grant
1656: AST-0604066 and by NASA through grant AR-10691 from the Space Telescope
1657: Science Institute, which is operated by AURA, Inc., under NASA contract
1658: NAS5-26555. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic
1659: Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
1660: California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National
1661: Aeronautics and Space Administration.
1662:
1663: %****************************************************************************
1664: %***********BIBLIOGRAPHY STARTS HERE*****************************************
1665: %****************************************************************************
1666:
1667: %\clearpage
1668:
1669: %\bibliographystyle{apj}
1670: %\bibliography{kdenney}
1671:
1672: \begin{thebibliography}{63}
1673: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
1674:
1675: \bibitem[{{Bentz} {et~al.}(2006){Bentz}, {Peterson}, {Pogge}, {Vestergaard}, \&
1676: {Onken}}]{Bentz06a}
1677: {Bentz}, M.~C., {Peterson}, B.~M., {Pogge}, R.~W., {Vestergaard}, M., \&
1678: {Onken}, C.~A. 2006, \apj, 644, 133
1679:
1680: \bibitem[{{Bentz} {et~al.}(2007)}]{Bentz07}
1681: {Bentz}, M.~C., {et~al.} 2007, \apj, 662, 205
1682:
1683: \bibitem[{{Bentz} {et~al.}(2008)}]{Bentz08}
1684: ---. 2008, \apj, submitted
1685:
1686: \bibitem[{{Blandford} \& {McKee}(1982)}]{Blandford82}
1687: {Blandford}, R.~D., \& {McKee}, C.~F. 1982, \apj, 255, 419
1688:
1689: \bibitem[{{Boroson} \& {Green}(1992)}]{Boroson92}
1690: {Boroson}, T.~A., \& {Green}, R.~F. 1992, \apjs, 80, 109
1691:
1692: \bibitem[{{Brotherton} {et~al.}(1994){Brotherton}, {Wills}, {Francis}, \&
1693: {Steidel}}]{Brotherton94}
1694: {Brotherton}, M.~S., {Wills}, B.~J., {Francis}, P.~J., \& {Steidel}, C.~C.
1695: 1994, \apj, 430, 495
1696:
1697: \bibitem[{{Bruzual} \& {Charlot}(2003)}]{Bruzual03}
1698: {Bruzual}, G., \& {Charlot}, S. 2003, \mnras, 344, 1000
1699:
1700: \bibitem[{{Busko} \& {Steiner}(1989)}]{Busko89}
1701: {Busko}, I.~C., \& {Steiner}, J.~E. 1989, \mnras, 238, 1479
1702:
1703: \bibitem[{{Cappellari} {et~al.}(2002){Cappellari}, {Verolme}, {van der Marel},
1704: {Kleijn}, {Illingworth}, {Franx}, {Carollo}, \& {de Zeeuw}}]{Cappellari02}
1705: {Cappellari}, M., {Verolme}, E.~K., {van der Marel}, R.~P., {Kleijn}, G.~A.~V.,
1706: {Illingworth}, G.~D., {Franx}, M., {Carollo}, C.~M., \& {de Zeeuw}, P.~T.
1707: 2002, \apj, 578, 787
1708:
1709: \bibitem[{{Collin} {et~al.}(2006){Collin}, {Kawaguchi}, {Peterson}, \&
1710: {Vestergaard}}]{Collin06}
1711: {Collin}, S., {Kawaguchi}, T., {Peterson}, B.~M., \& {Vestergaard}, M. 2006,
1712: \aap, 456, 75
1713:
1714: \bibitem[{{Corbett} {et~al.}(2003)}]{Corbett03}
1715: {Corbett}, E.~A., {et~al.} 2003, \mnras, 343, 705
1716:
1717: \bibitem[{{Decarli} {et~al.}(2008){Decarli}, {Labita}, {Treves}, \&
1718: {Falomo}}]{Decarli08}
1719: {Decarli}, R., {Labita}, M., {Treves}, A., \& {Falomo}, R. 2008, \mnras, 387,
1720: 1237
1721:
1722: \bibitem[{{Dietrich} {et~al.}(2002){Dietrich}, {Appenzeller}, {Vestergaard}, \&
1723: {Wagner}}]{Dietrich02}
1724: {Dietrich}, M., {Appenzeller}, I., {Vestergaard}, M., \& {Wagner}, S.~J. 2002,
1725: \apj, 564, 581
1726:
1727: \bibitem[{{Dietrich} {et~al.}(2005){Dietrich}, {Crenshaw}, \&
1728: {Kraemer}}]{Dietrich05}
1729: {Dietrich}, M., {Crenshaw}, D.~M., \& {Kraemer}, S.~B. 2005, \apj, 623, 700
1730:
1731: \bibitem[{{Elvis}(2000)}]{Elvis00}
1732: {Elvis}, M. 2000, \apj, 545, 63
1733:
1734: \bibitem[{{Ferrarese} \& {Ford}(2005)}]{Ferrarese05}
1735: {Ferrarese}, L., \& {Ford}, H. 2005, Space Science Reviews, 116, 523
1736:
1737: \bibitem[{{Ferrarese} \& {Merritt}(2000)}]{Ferrarese00}
1738: {Ferrarese}, L., \& {Merritt}, D. 2000, \apjl, 539, L9
1739:
1740: \bibitem[{{Ferrarese} {et~al.}(2001){Ferrarese}, {Pogge}, {Peterson},
1741: {Merritt}, {Wandel}, \& {Joseph}}]{Ferrarese01}
1742: {Ferrarese}, L., {Pogge}, R.~W., {Peterson}, B.~M., {Merritt}, D., {Wandel},
1743: A., \& {Joseph}, C.~L. 2001, \apjl, 555, L79
1744:
1745: \bibitem[{{Fine} {et~al.}(2008)}]{Fine08}
1746: {Fine}, S., {et~al.} 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 807
1747:
1748: \bibitem[{{Gebhardt} {et~al.}(2000{\natexlab{a}})}]{Gebhardt00a}
1749: {Gebhardt}, K., {et~al.} 2000{\natexlab{a}}, \apjl, 539, L13
1750:
1751: \bibitem[{{Gebhardt} {et~al.}(2000{\natexlab{b}})}]{Gebhardt00b}
1752: ---. 2000{\natexlab{b}}, \apjl, 543, L5
1753:
1754: \bibitem[{{Grandi}(1982)}]{Grandi82}
1755: {Grandi}, S.~A. 1982, \apj, 255, 25
1756:
1757: \bibitem[{{Heckman} {et~al.}(1981){Heckman}, {Miley}, {van Breugel}, \&
1758: {Butcher}}]{Heckman81}
1759: {Heckman}, T.~M., {Miley}, G.~K., {van Breugel}, W.~J.~M., \& {Butcher}, H.~R.
1760: 1981, \apj, 247, 403
1761:
1762: \bibitem[{{Kaspi} {et~al.}(2005){Kaspi}, {Maoz}, {Netzer}, {Peterson},
1763: {Vestergaard}, \& {Jannuzi}}]{Kaspi05}
1764: {Kaspi}, S., {Maoz}, D., {Netzer}, H., {Peterson}, B.~M., {Vestergaard}, M., \&
1765: {Jannuzi}, B.~T. 2005, \apj, 629, 61
1766:
1767: \bibitem[{{Kaspi} {et~al.}(2000){Kaspi}, {Smith}, {Netzer}, {Maoz}, {Jannuzi},
1768: \& {Giveon}}]{Kaspi00}
1769: {Kaspi}, S., {Smith}, P.~S., {Netzer}, H., {Maoz}, D., {Jannuzi}, B.~T., \&
1770: {Giveon}, U. 2000, \apj, 533, 631
1771:
1772: \bibitem[{{Kelly} \& {Bechtold}(2007)}]{Kelly07}
1773: {Kelly}, B.~C., \& {Bechtold}, J. 2007, \apjs, 168, 1
1774:
1775: \bibitem[{{Kinney} {et~al.}(1996){Kinney}, {Calzetti}, {Bohlin}, {McQuade},
1776: {Storchi-Bergmann}, \& {Schmitt}}]{Kinney96}
1777: {Kinney}, A.~L., {Calzetti}, D., {Bohlin}, R.~C., {McQuade}, K.,
1778: {Storchi-Bergmann}, T., \& {Schmitt}, H.~R. 1996, \apj, 467, 38
1779:
1780: \bibitem[{{Kollatschny}(2003)}]{Kollatschny03}
1781: {Kollatschny}, W. 2003, \aap, 407, 461
1782:
1783: \bibitem[{{Kollmeier} {et~al.}(2006)}]{Kollmeier06}
1784: {Kollmeier}, J.~A., {et~al.} 2006, \apj, 648, 128
1785:
1786: \bibitem[{{Korista} \& {Goad}(2001)}]{Korista01}
1787: {Korista}, K.~T., \& {Goad}, M.~R. 2001, \apj, 553, 695
1788:
1789: \bibitem[{{Kormendy} \& {Richstone}(1995)}]{Kormendy95}
1790: {Kormendy}, J., \& {Richstone}, D. 1995, \araa, 33, 581
1791:
1792: \bibitem[{{Labita} {et~al.}(2006){Labita}, {Treves}, {Falomo}, \&
1793: {Uslenghi}}]{Labita06}
1794: {Labita}, M., {Treves}, A., {Falomo}, R., \& {Uslenghi}, M. 2006, \mnras, 373,
1795: 551
1796:
1797: \bibitem[{{McGill} {et~al.}(2008){McGill}, {Woo}, {Treu}, \&
1798: {Malkan}}]{McGill08}
1799: {McGill}, K.~L., {Woo}, J.-H., {Treu}, T., \& {Malkan}, M.~A. 2008, \apj, 673,
1800: 703
1801:
1802: \bibitem[{{McLure} \& {Dunlop}(2004)}]{McLure04}
1803: {McLure}, R.~J., \& {Dunlop}, J.~S. 2004, \mnras, 352, 1390
1804:
1805: \bibitem[{{Nelson} {et~al.}(2004){Nelson}, {Green}, {Bower}, {Gebhardt}, \&
1806: {Weistrop}}]{Nelson04}
1807: {Nelson}, C.~H., {Green}, R.~F., {Bower}, G., {Gebhardt}, K., \& {Weistrop}, D.
1808: 2004, \apj, 615, 652
1809:
1810: \bibitem[{{Netzer}(2003)}]{Netzer03}
1811: {Netzer}, H. 2003, \apjl, 583, L5
1812:
1813: \bibitem[{{O'Donnell}(1994)}]{ODonnell94}
1814: {O'Donnell}, J.~E. 1994, \apj, 422, 158
1815:
1816: \bibitem[{{Onken} {et~al.}(2004){Onken}, {Ferrarese}, {Merritt}, {Peterson},
1817: {Pogge}, {Vestergaard}, \& {Wandel}}]{Onken04}
1818: {Onken}, C.~A., {Ferrarese}, L., {Merritt}, D., {Peterson}, B.~M., {Pogge},
1819: R.~W., {Vestergaard}, M., \& {Wandel}, A. 2004, \apj, 615, 645
1820:
1821: \bibitem[{{Onken} \& {Peterson}(2002)}]{Onken02}
1822: {Onken}, C.~A., \& {Peterson}, B.~M. 2002, \apj, 572, 746
1823:
1824: \bibitem[{{Osterbrock} \& {Shuder}(1982)}]{Osterbrock82}
1825: {Osterbrock}, D.~E., \& {Shuder}, J.~M. 1982, \apjs, 49, 149
1826:
1827: \bibitem[{{Peterson}(1993)}]{Peterson93}
1828: {Peterson}, B.~M. 1993, \pasp, 105, 247
1829:
1830: \bibitem[{{Peterson} \& {Wandel}(1999)}]{Peterson99b}
1831: {Peterson}, B.~M., \& {Wandel}, A. 1999, \apjl, 521, L95
1832:
1833: \bibitem[{{Peterson} \& {Wandel}(2000)}]{Peterson00a}
1834: ---. 2000, \apjl, 540, L13
1835:
1836: \bibitem[{{Peterson} {et~al.}(1991)}]{Peterson91}
1837: {Peterson}, B.~M., {et~al.} 1991, \apj, 368, 119
1838:
1839: \bibitem[{{Peterson} {et~al.}(1999)}]{Peterson99a}
1840: ---. 1999, \apj, 510, 659
1841:
1842: \bibitem[{{Peterson} {et~al.}(2002)}]{Peterson02}
1843: ---. 2002, \apj, 581, 197
1844:
1845: \bibitem[{{Peterson} {et~al.}(2004)}]{Peterson04}
1846: ---. 2004, \apj, 613, 682
1847:
1848: \bibitem[{{Schlegel} {et~al.}(1998){Schlegel}, {Finkbeiner}, \&
1849: {Davis}}]{Schlegel98}
1850: {Schlegel}, D.~J., {Finkbeiner}, D.~P., \& {Davis}, M. 1998, \apj, 500, 525
1851:
1852: \bibitem[{{Shen} {et~al.}(2008{\natexlab{a}}){Shen}, {Vanden Berk},
1853: {Schneider}, \& {Hall}}]{JShen08}
1854: {Shen}, J., {Vanden Berk}, D.~E., {Schneider}, D.~P., \& {Hall}, P.~B.
1855: 2008{\natexlab{a}}, \aj, 135, 928
1856:
1857: \bibitem[{{Shen} {et~al.}(2008{\natexlab{b}}){Shen}, {Greene}, {Strauss},
1858: {Richards}, \& {Schneider}}]{YShen08}
1859: {Shen}, Y., {Greene}, J.~E., {Strauss}, M.~A., {Richards}, G.~T., \&
1860: {Schneider}, D.~P. 2008{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 680, 169
1861:
1862: \bibitem[{{Tremaine} {et~al.}(2002)}]{Tremaine02}
1863: {Tremaine}, S., {et~al.} 2002, \apj, 574, 740
1864:
1865: \bibitem[{{van der Marel} \& {Franx}(1993)}]{vanderMarel93}
1866: {van der Marel}, R.~P., \& {Franx}, M. 1993, \apj, 407, 525
1867:
1868: \bibitem[{{van Groningen} \& {Wanders}(1992)}]{vanGroningen92}
1869: {van Groningen}, E., \& {Wanders}, I. 1992, \pasp, 104, 700
1870:
1871: \bibitem[{{V{\'e}ron-Cetty} {et~al.}(2004){V{\'e}ron-Cetty}, {Joly}, \&
1872: {V{\'e}ron}}]{Veron-Cetty04}
1873: {V{\'e}ron-Cetty}, M.-P., {Joly}, M., \& {V{\'e}ron}, P. 2004, \aap, 417, 515
1874:
1875: \bibitem[{{Vestergaard}(2002)}]{Vestergaard02}
1876: {Vestergaard}, M. 2002, \apj, 571, 733
1877:
1878: \bibitem[{{Vestergaard}(2004)}]{Vestergaard04}
1879: ---. 2004, \apj, 601, 676
1880:
1881: \bibitem[{{Vestergaard} {et~al.}(2008){Vestergaard}, {Fan}, {Tremonti},
1882: {Osmer}, \& {Richards}}]{Vestergaard08}
1883: {Vestergaard}, M., {Fan}, X., {Tremonti}, C.~A., {Osmer}, P.~S., \& {Richards},
1884: G.~T. 2008, \apjl, 674, L1
1885:
1886: \bibitem[{{Vestergaard} \& {Peterson}(2005)}]{Vestergaard05}
1887: {Vestergaard}, M., \& {Peterson}, B.~M. 2005, \apj, 625, 688
1888:
1889: \bibitem[{{Vestergaard} \& {Wilkes}(2001)}]{Vestergaard01}
1890: {Vestergaard}, M., \& {Wilkes}, B.~J. 2001, \apjs, 134, 1
1891:
1892: \bibitem[{{Wanders} \& {Peterson}(1996)}]{Wanders&Peterson96}
1893: {Wanders}, I., \& {Peterson}, B.~M. 1996, \apj, 466, 174
1894:
1895: \bibitem[{{Wilhite} {et~al.}(2007){Wilhite}, {Brunner}, {Schneider}, \& {Vanden
1896: Berk}}]{Wilhite07}
1897: {Wilhite}, B.~C., {Brunner}, R.~J., {Schneider}, D.~P., \& {Vanden Berk}, D.~E.
1898: 2007, \apj, 669, 791
1899:
1900: \bibitem[{{Wills} {et~al.}(1985){Wills}, {Netzer}, \& {Wills}}]{Wills85}
1901: {Wills}, B.~J., {Netzer}, H., \& {Wills}, D. 1985, \apj, 288, 94
1902:
1903: \bibitem[{{Woo} {et~al.}(2007){Woo}, {Treu}, {Malkan}, {Ferry}, \&
1904: {Misch}}]{Woo07}
1905: {Woo}, J.-H., {Treu}, T., {Malkan}, M.~A., {Ferry}, M.~A., \& {Misch}, T. 2007,
1906: \apj, 661, 60
1907:
1908: \end{thebibliography}
1909:
1910:
1911: \clearpage
1912:
1913:
1914: %****************************************************************************
1915: %***********TABLES START HERE************************************************
1916: %****************************************************************************
1917:
1918:
1919: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
1920: \label{T_variability_stats}
1921: \rotate
1922: \tablecolumns{8}
1923: \tablewidth{0pt}
1924: \tablecaption{Systematic Effects due to Variability}
1925: \tablehead{
1926: \multicolumn{2}{c}{}&
1927: \multicolumn{3}{c}{$M$ ($M_{\odot}$) $\propto$ \sigbl}&
1928: \multicolumn{3}{c}{$M$ ($M_{\odot}$) $\propto$ FWHM}\\
1929: \cline{3-8}
1930: \colhead{Object}&
1931: \colhead{$N_{\rm SE}$}&
1932: \colhead{log\,$M_{\rm vir}$}&
1933: \colhead{$\langle \rm{log}\,M_{\rm SE} \rangle \pm \sigma_{\rm SE}$}&
1934: \colhead{$\langle \Delta {\rm log} M \rangle$}&
1935: \colhead{log\,$M_{\rm vir}$}&
1936: \colhead{$\langle \rm{log}\,M_{\rm SE} \rangle \pm \sigma_{\rm SE}$}&
1937: \colhead{$\langle \Delta {\rm log} M \rangle$}
1938: }
1939:
1940: \startdata
1941:
1942: NGC~5548 &370& 7.21$\pm$0.02 & $7.12\pm 0.12$ & $-0.09$ & $8.06 \pm 0.02$ & $7.95 \pm 0.16$ & $-0.11$ \\
1943: PG1229+204 & 33& 7.28$\pm$0.25 & $7.22\pm 0.05$ & $-0.06$ & $8.03 \pm 0.25$ & $7.92 \pm 0.06$ & $-0.11$ \\
1944:
1945: \enddata
1946:
1947: \end{deluxetable}
1948:
1949:
1950:
1951: \clearpage
1952:
1953:
1954:
1955: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccc}
1956: \label{T_const_compon_stats}
1957: \rotate
1958: \tablecolumns{10}
1959: \tablewidth{0pt}
1960: \tablecaption{Systematic Effects due to Constant Components}
1961: \tablehead{
1962:
1963: \multicolumn{4}{c}{}&
1964: \multicolumn{3}{c}{$M$ ($M_{\odot}$) $\propto$ \sigbl}&
1965: \multicolumn{3}{c}{$M$ ($M_{\odot}$) $\propto$ FWHM}\\
1966: \cline{5-7}
1967: \cline{8-10}
1968: \multicolumn{2}{c}{}&
1969: \colhead{Narrow}&
1970: \colhead{Host}&
1971: \colhead{}&
1972: \colhead{$\langle {\rm log}\,M_{\rm SE} \rangle$}&
1973: \multicolumn{2}{c}{}&
1974: \colhead{$\langle {\rm log}\,M_{\rm SE} \rangle$}&
1975: \colhead{}\\
1976: \colhead{Object}&
1977: \colhead{$N_{\rm SE}$}&
1978: \colhead{Lines}&
1979: \colhead{Starlight}&
1980: \colhead{log\,$M_{\rm vir}$}&
1981: \colhead{$\pm \sigma_{\rm SE}$}&
1982: \colhead{$\langle \Delta {\rm log}\,M \rangle$}&
1983: \colhead{log\,$M_{\rm vir}$}&
1984: \colhead{$\pm \sigma_{\rm SE}$}&
1985: \colhead{$\langle \Delta {\rm log}\,M \rangle$}
1986: }
1987:
1988: \startdata
1989:
1990: NGC~5548\tablenotemark{a} &370&present &present &7.21$\pm$0.02& $7.21\pm 0.11$ & $+0.00$ & $8.06\pm 0.02$ & $7.22\pm 0.47$ & $-0.84$ \\
1991: NGC~5548\tablenotemark{b} &370&removed &present &7.21$\pm$0.02& $7.29\pm 0.11$ & $+0.08$ & $8.06\pm 0.02$ & $8.12\pm 0.14$ & $+0.06$ \\
1992: NGC~5548\tablenotemark{c} &370&present &removed &7.21$\pm$0.02& $7.05\pm 0.13$ & $-0.16$ & $8.06\pm 0.02$ & $7.06\pm 0.52$ & $-1.00$ \\
1993: PG1229...\tablenotemark{a}& 33&present &present &7.28$\pm$0.25& $7.33\pm 0.05$ & $+0.05$ & $8.03\pm 0.25$ & $8.00\pm 0.07$ & $-0.03$ \\
1994: PG1229...\tablenotemark{b}& 33&removed &present &7.28$\pm$0.25& $7.34\pm 0.05$ & $+0.06$ & $8.03\pm 0.25$ & $8.04\pm 0.06$ & $+0.01$ \\
1995: PG1229...\tablenotemark{c}& 33&present &removed &7.28$\pm$0.25& $7.21\pm 0.05$ & $-0.07$ & $8.03\pm 0.25$ & $7.88\pm 0.07$ & $-0.15$ \\
1996:
1997: \enddata
1998:
1999: \tablenotetext{a}{Refer to Figure \ref{fig:SEVP_nocorrections}.}
2000: \tablenotetext{b}{Refer to Figure \ref{fig:SEVPnl_nogs}.}
2001: \tablenotetext{c}{Refer to Figure \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_wlgs}.}
2002:
2003: \tablecomments{See Table 1 for the case in which both the narrow emission
2004: lines and the host starlight are removed for the virial mass
2005: calculations for both NGC~5548 and PG1229.}
2006:
2007: \end{deluxetable}
2008:
2009:
2010:
2011: \clearpage
2012:
2013:
2014:
2015: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccccc}
2016: \label{T_SN_stats}
2017: \rotate
2018: \tablecolumns{9}
2019: \tablewidth{0pt}
2020: \tablecaption{Systematic Effects due to Signal-to-Noise Ratio}
2021: \tablehead{
2022:
2023: \multicolumn{3}{c}{}&
2024: \multicolumn{3}{c}{$M$ ($M_{\odot}$) $\propto$ \sigbl}&
2025: \multicolumn{3}{c}{$M$ ($M_{\odot}$) $\propto$ FWHM}\\
2026: \cline{4-9}
2027:
2028: \colhead{Data or}&
2029: \multicolumn{3}{c}{}&
2030: \colhead{$\langle {\rm log}\,M_{\rm SE} \rangle$}&
2031: \multicolumn{2}{c}{}&
2032: \colhead{$\langle {\rm log}\,M_{\rm SE} \rangle$}&
2033: \colhead{}\\
2034:
2035: \colhead{Fit}&
2036: \colhead{$S/N$}&
2037: \colhead{$N_{\rm SE}$}&
2038: \colhead{log\,$M_{\rm vir}$}&
2039: \colhead{$\pm \sigma_{\rm SE}$}&
2040: \colhead{$\langle \Delta {\rm log}\,M \rangle$}&
2041: \colhead{log\,$M_{\rm vir}$}&
2042: \colhead{$\pm \sigma_{\rm SE}$}&
2043: \colhead{$\langle \Delta {\rm log}\,M \rangle$}
2044: }
2045:
2046: \startdata
2047:
2048: Data & Orig &$270$&$7.23\pm0.02$&$7.12\pm0.14$&$-0.11$&$8.02\pm0.02$&$7.96\pm0.19$&$-0.06$\\
2049: Data & $\sim 20$&$270$&$7.23\pm0.02$&$7.11\pm0.15$&$-0.12$&$8.02\pm0.02$&$7.93\pm0.18$&$-0.09$\\
2050: Data & $\sim 10$&$270$&$7.23\pm0.02$&$7.09\pm0.22$&$-0.14$&$8.02\pm0.02$&$7.85\pm0.19$&$-0.17$\\
2051: Data & $\sim 05$&$270$&$7.23\pm0.02$&$7.04\pm0.31$&$-0.19$&$8.02\pm0.02$&$7.84\pm0.21$&$-0.18$\\
2052: Fit & Orig &$270$&$7.23\pm0.02$&$7.11\pm0.14$&$-0.12$&$8.02\pm0.02$&$8.03\pm0.17$&$+0.01$\\
2053: Fit & $\sim 20$&$270$&$7.23\pm0.02$&$7.10\pm0.17$&$-0.13$&$8.02\pm0.02$&$8.08\pm0.23$&$+0.06$\\
2054: Fit & $\sim 10$&$270$&$7.23\pm0.02$&$7.10\pm0.17$&$-0.13$&$8.02\pm0.02$&$8.08\pm0.23$&$+0.06$\\
2055: Fit & $\sim 05$&$270$&$7.23\pm0.02$&$7.06\pm0.28$&$-0.17$&$8.02\pm0.02$&$8.13\pm0.29$&$+0.11$\\
2056:
2057: \enddata
2058:
2059: \end{deluxetable}
2060:
2061:
2062:
2063: \clearpage
2064:
2065:
2066:
2067: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccc}
2068: \label{T_decomp_stats}
2069: \rotate
2070: \tablecolumns{9}
2071: \tablewidth{0pt}
2072: \tablecaption{Systematic Effects due to Blending}
2073: \tablehead{
2074:
2075: \multicolumn{3}{c}{}&
2076: \multicolumn{3}{c}{$M$ ($M_{\odot}$) $\propto$ \sigbl}&
2077: \multicolumn{3}{c}{$M$ ($M_{\odot}$) $\propto$ FWHM}\\
2078: \cline{4-9}
2079:
2080: \multicolumn{2}{c}{}&
2081: \colhead{Decomposition}&
2082: \colhead{}&
2083: \colhead{$\langle {\rm log}\,M_{\rm SE} \rangle$}&
2084: \multicolumn{2}{c}{}&
2085: \colhead{$\langle {\rm log}\,M_{\rm SE} \rangle$}&
2086: \colhead{}\\
2087:
2088: \colhead{Object}&
2089: \colhead{$N_{\rm SE}$}&
2090: \colhead{Method}&
2091: \colhead{log\,$M_{\rm vir}$}&
2092: \colhead{$\pm \sigma_{\rm SE}$}&
2093: \colhead{$\langle \Delta {\rm log}\,M \rangle$}&
2094: \colhead{log\,$M_{\rm vir}$}&
2095: \colhead{$\pm \sigma_{\rm SE}$}&
2096: \colhead{$\langle \Delta {\rm log}\,M \rangle$}
2097: }
2098:
2099: \startdata
2100:
2101: NGC~5548&33&Local Cont. Fit&$7.22\pm 0.02$&$7.23\pm 0.13$&$+0.01$&$8.16\pm 0.02$&$8.16\pm 0.09$&$+0.00$ \\
2102: NGC~5548&33&Method A&$7.32\pm 0.02$&$7.31\pm 0.10$&$-0.01$&$8.11\pm 0.02$&$8.09\pm 0.08$&$-0.02$ \\
2103: NGC~5548&33&Method B&$7.38\pm 0.02$&$7.31\pm 0.09$&$-0.07$&$8.15\pm 0.02$&$8.08\pm 0.09$&$-0.07$ \\
2104:
2105: \enddata
2106:
2107: \end{deluxetable}
2108:
2109:
2110:
2111: \clearpage
2112:
2113: \begin{deluxetable}{lrcrcrcrc}
2114: \label{T_summary}
2115: \rotate
2116: \tablecolumns{9}
2117: \tablewidth{0pt}
2118: \tablecaption{Individual Error Sources for SE Mass Measurements}
2119: \tablehead{
2120:
2121: \colhead{}&
2122: \multicolumn{4}{c}{Seyfert}&
2123: \multicolumn{4}{c}{Quasar}\\
2124: \cline{2-9}
2125:
2126: \colhead{}&
2127: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M$ $\propto$ FWHM}&
2128: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M$ $\propto$ \sigbl}&
2129: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M$ $\propto$ FWHM}&
2130: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M$ $\propto$ \sigbl}\\
2131:
2132: \colhead{Effect on $M_{\rm SE}$}&
2133: \colhead{offset}&
2134: \colhead{dispersion}&
2135: \colhead{offset}&
2136: \colhead{dispersion}&
2137: \colhead{offset}&
2138: \colhead{dispersion}&
2139: \colhead{offset}&
2140: \colhead{dispersion}
2141: }
2142:
2143: \startdata
2144: Random measurement error: &\nodata&$0.07$&\nodata&$0.04$&\nodata&\nodata\tablenotemark{a}&\nodata&\nodata\tablenotemark{a}\\
2145: Variability (RM timescales): &$-0.11$&$0.11$&$-0.10$&$0.10$&$-0.11$&$0.06$&$-0.06$&$0.05$\\
2146: Longer term secular variations +\\
2147: \hspace{8pt}slight inhomogeneity of spectra: &$-0.00$&$0.09$&$+0.01$&$0.05$&\nodata\tablenotemark{b}&\nodata\tablenotemark{b}&\nodata\tablenotemark{b}&\nodata\tablenotemark{b}\\
2148: Above effects (min. uncertainty): &$-0.11$&$0.16$&$-0.09$&$0.12$&$-0.11$&$0.06$&$-0.06$&$0.05$\\
2149: Additional systematics:\\
2150: \hspace{4pt}Failure to remove host galaxy: &$+0.17$&$-0.08$&$+0.17$&$-0.05$&$+0.12$&$0.00$&$+0.12$&$0.00$\\
2151: \hspace{4pt}Failure to remove narrow \Hbeta: &$-0.89$&$0.49$&$-0.07$&$0.05$&$-0.04$&$0.04$&$-0.01$&$0.00$\\
2152: \hspace{4pt}$S/N$ limitation (data, $S/N$=10): &$-0.06$&$0.10$&$-0.05$&$0.18$&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata\\
2153: \hspace{86pt}(data, $S/N$=05): &$-0.07$&$0.14$&$-0.10$&$0.29$&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata\\
2154: \hspace{4pt}$S/N$ limitation (fit, $S/N$=20): &$+0.17$&$0.17$&$-0.04$&$0.12$&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata\\
2155: \hspace{86pt}(fit, $S/N$=10): &$+0.17$&$0.17$&$-0.04$&$0.12$&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata\\
2156: \hspace{86pt}(fit, $S/N$=05): &$+0.22$&$0.24$&$-0.08$&$0.25$&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata\\
2157:
2158: \enddata
2159:
2160: \tablenotetext{a}{Uncertainties could not be determined; see Discussion,
2161: \S\ref{S_Discuss_and_conclude}, individual sources of error (1).}
2162: \tablenotetext{b}{Uncertainties could not be determined; see Discussion,
2163: \S\ref{S_Discuss_and_conclude}, individual sources of error (3).}
2164:
2165: \end{deluxetable}
2166: \clearpage
2167:
2168: %****************************************************************************
2169: %***********FIGURES START HERE***********************************************
2170: %****************************************************************************
2171: \begin{figure}
2172: %Figure 1
2173: \epsscale{1}
2174: \plotone{f1.eps}
2175: \caption{Starlight-corrected luminosity and narrow-line subtracted \Hbeta\
2176: line width measurements from the full set of NGC~5548 spectra. Left
2177: panels show individual SE measurements as a function of time, and right
2178: panels show distributions of each measured quantity, with the mean and
2179: standard deviation of the sample given.}
2180:
2181: \label{fig:VandLvsTime}
2182: \end{figure}
2183: \clearpage
2184:
2185:
2186: \begin{figure}
2187: %Figure 2
2188: \epsscale{.95}
2189: \plotone{f2.eps}
2190: \caption{The multi-component fit to a typical spectrum of NGC~5548 for
2191: decomposition method A. In the top panel, the rest-frame spectrum shown
2192: together with a four-component fit: a power-law continuum, a host-galaxy
2193: spectrum, Balmer continuum emission, and weak optical \feii\
2194: emission. The combined fit is displayed in green. In the bottom panel,
2195: the corresponding residual spectrum is presented after additional
2196: subtraction of the narrow emission-line components (not shown).}
2197:
2198: \label{fig:MDdecompFig}
2199: \end{figure}
2200: \clearpage
2201:
2202: \begin{figure}
2203: %Figure 3
2204: \epsscale{.95}
2205: \plotone{f3.eps}
2206:
2207: \caption{The multi-component fit to a typical spectrum of NGC~5548 for
2208: decomposition method B. In the top panel the rest frame spectrum shown
2209: has been corrected for Galactic extinction and is shown together with a
2210: four-component fit: a power-law continuum, a host-galaxy spectrum,
2211: Balmer continuum and broad-line emission, and weak optical \feii\
2212: emission. The combined fit is displayed in green. Note: the Balmer line
2213: emission shown here is only included to prevent the fitting routine from
2214: attempting to assign continuum emission components to the profile wings
2215: and is not included in the final fit that is subtracted to create the
2216: residual spectrum (bottom). In addition, the residual spectrum
2217: presented also includes additional subtraction of narrow emission-line
2218: components, not shown.}
2219:
2220: \label{fig:MVdecompFig}
2221: \end{figure}
2222: \clearpage
2223:
2224: \begin{figure}
2225: %Figure 4
2226: \epsscale{.94}
2227: \plotone{f4a.eps}
2228: \plotone{f4b.eps}
2229:
2230: \caption{Virial mass distributions for the full NGC~5548 (a) and
2231: PG1229 (b) data sets. The Solid lines show the distributions of virial
2232: masses calculated with equation 2 using both \sigbl\ (left) and the FWHM
2233: (right) to measure \Hbeta\ line widths: histograms for the larger
2234: NGC~5548 data set and cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) for the
2235: smaller PG1229 data set. Narrow lines and host galaxy starlight have
2236: been subtracted from all spectra before calculating masses. A Gaussian
2237: function with the same mean, dispersion, and area as the data is
2238: overplotted in gray. The distribution mean and dispersion is shown in
2239: each plot, where values listed have not been corrected for random
2240: measurement uncertainties (see \S \ref{S_Res_variability}). For each data
2241: set and line width measure, the vertical lines represent the
2242: reverberation virial mass (dotted) with measurement uncertainties
2243: (dashed; not shown for PG1229 because they are typically larger than the
2244: widths of the distributions).}
2245:
2246: \label{fig:SEVPdistr_var}
2247: \end{figure}
2248:
2249: \clearpage
2250:
2251: \begin{figure}
2252: %Figure 5
2253: \epsscale{1}
2254: \plotone{f5.eps}
2255:
2256: \caption{Broad line region radius-luminosity relationship for the PG1229 data
2257: and weighted mean as well as individual years of NGC~5548 data. Points
2258: are plotted for luminosities both before and after subtracting the host
2259: galaxy starlight contribution to the $5100$ \AA\ continuum flux. The
2260: \citet{Bentz08} relation and the \citet{Kaspi05} relation are shown for
2261: reference.}
2262:
2263: \label{fig:rLrelation}
2264: \end{figure}
2265:
2266: \clearpage
2267:
2268: \begin{figure}
2269: %Figure 6
2270: \epsscale{1}
2271: \plotone{f6.eps}
2272:
2273: \caption{Distributions of the differences between each SE mass in a given
2274: observing year and the reverberation virial mass from that same year,
2275: plotted for masses calculated with \sigbl\ (left) and FWHM (right).
2276: Mass differences are shown for every spectrum in the full sample of
2277: $370$ observations of NGC~5548 after subtraction of narrow emission-line
2278: components and host starlight contribution.}
2279:
2280: \label{fig:deltalogM}
2281: \end{figure}
2282: \clearpage
2283:
2284: \begin{figure}
2285: %Figure 7
2286: \epsscale{1}
2287: \plotone{f7a.eps}
2288: \plotone{f7b.eps}
2289:
2290: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_var}, except the host-galaxy
2291: flux contribution has not been removed. The narrow-line components have
2292: been subtracted from the spectra before measuring the \Hbeta\ line width
2293: and calculating the black hole mass.}
2294:
2295: \label{fig:SEVPnl_nogs}
2296: \end{figure}
2297:
2298:
2299: \begin{figure}
2300: %Figure 8
2301: \epsscale{1}
2302: \plotone{f8.eps}
2303:
2304: \caption{Mean spectra of NGC~5548 (left) and PG1229 (right) with narrow
2305: emission lines (solid) and after subtraction of the narrow emission
2306: lines (dotted).}
2307:
2308: \label{fig:meanspec}
2309: \end{figure}
2310:
2311:
2312: \begin{figure}
2313: %Figure 9
2314: \epsscale{1}
2315: \plotone{f9a.eps}
2316: \plotone{f9b.eps}
2317:
2318: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_var}, except the narrow
2319: emission lines have not been removed from the spectra before measuring
2320: the \Hbeta\ line width. The host-galaxy contribution to the flux was
2321: removed before determination of the masses.}
2322:
2323: \label{fig:SEVPdistr_wlgs}
2324: \end{figure}
2325:
2326: \begin{figure}
2327: %Figure 10
2328: \epsscale{1}
2329: \plotone{f10a.eps}
2330: \plotone{f10b.eps}
2331:
2332: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{fig:SEVPdistr_var}, except neither the
2333: narrow-line components nor the host-galaxy flux contribution have been
2334: removed before determination of the masses.}
2335:
2336: \label{fig:SEVP_nocorrections}
2337: \end{figure}
2338:
2339:
2340: \begin{figure}
2341: %Figure 11
2342: \epsscale{1}
2343: \plotone{f11.eps}
2344:
2345: \caption{Example spectrum of NGC~5548 (top left) and three artificial
2346: degradations of the same spectrum with the resultant $S/N$ labeled for
2347: each. The solid black lines are the Gauss-Hermite polynomial fits to
2348: each spectrum (gray lines) as described in \S \ref{S_VPs_from_fitsSN}.
2349: The vertical lines show the assumed boundaries of the broad H$\beta$
2350: line used for measuring the line widths from both the actual data and
2351: the Gauss-Hermite fits.}
2352:
2353: \label{fig:SNdegrade}
2354: \end{figure}
2355:
2356:
2357: \begin{figure}
2358: %Figure 12
2359: \epsscale{1}
2360: \plottwo{f12a.eps}{f12b.eps}
2361:
2362: \caption{Virial mass distributions for the original and $S/N$ degraded
2363: NGC~5548 Perkins data set, using line widths measured directly from the
2364: data. Virial masses are calculated in all cases by measuring the
2365: velocity dispersion of the broad H$\beta$ emission from narrow
2366: line-subtracted spectra using \sigbl\ (left) and FWHM (right). All
2367: virial masses are calculated using a value of $L_{5100}$ that has been
2368: corrected for host galaxy starlight.}
2369:
2370: \label{fig:SEVPdataSN}
2371: \end{figure}
2372: \clearpage
2373:
2374:
2375: \begin{figure}
2376: %Figure 13
2377: \epsscale{1}
2378: \plottwo{f13a.eps}{f13b.eps}
2379:
2380: \caption{Virial mass distributions based on sixth order Gauss-Hermite
2381: polynomial fits to the original and $S/N$ degraded NGC~5548 Perkins data
2382: set. Virial masses are calculated by measuring the velocity dispersion
2383: of the Gauss-Hermite polynomial fit to narrow line-subtracted broad
2384: H$\beta$ emission line with \sigbl\ (left) and the FWHM (right). All
2385: virial masses are calculated with a value of $L_{5100}$ that has been
2386: corrected for host galaxy starlight.}
2387:
2388: \label{fig:SEVPfitsSN}
2389: \end{figure}
2390: \clearpage
2391:
2392:
2393: \begin{figure}
2394: %Figure 14
2395: \epsscale{1}
2396: \plotone{f14a.eps}
2397: \plotone{f14b.eps}
2398:
2399: \caption{Cumulative distribution functions of NGC~5548 SE virial masses
2400: for decomposition data sets with \sigbl\ (a) and FWHM (b). The panels
2401: show virial mass distributions that have been calculated using a local
2402: continuum fit to the continuum underneath the \Hbeta\ line (left),
2403: spectral decomposition method A (middle), and spectral decomposition
2404: method B (right). Statistics listed in the bottom three panels do not
2405: include the outliers plotted in the thin black line, as described in
2406: \S\ref{S_Res_decomp}.}
2407:
2408: \label{fig:SEVPdistr_decomp}
2409: \end{figure}
2410: \clearpage
2411:
2412:
2413: \begin{figure}
2414: %Figure15
2415: \epsscale{1}
2416: \plotone{f15.eps}
2417:
2418: \caption{Comparison of the \Hbeta\ line dispersion measurements (\sigbl)
2419: using the various techniques described in \S\ref{S_Res_decomp} to
2420: account for the continuum flux level under the emission line. The open
2421: circles represent the line width measurements using decomposition method
2422: A results, and the black triangles show results using method B. In the
2423: top panel, these values are plotted against widths measured using a
2424: local continuum fit, and the bottom panel shows the residuals with
2425: respect to the width from the local continua method. The solid black
2426: line in each panel shows a 1:1 correlation between the measured
2427: \sigbl\ values.}
2428:
2429: \label{fig:sigbl_plot}
2430: \end{figure}
2431: \clearpage
2432:
2433: \begin{figure}
2434: %Figure 16
2435: \epsscale{1}
2436: \plotone{f16.eps}
2437:
2438: \caption{Mean spectra of NGC~5548 created using three different
2439: techniques to account for the continuum flux level under the \Hbeta\
2440: emission line (as described in \S \ref{S_Res_decomp}). The black line
2441: shows the mean spectrum formed after simply fitting and subtracting a
2442: local linear continuum to each of the 33 spectra. The gray line shows
2443: the mean continuum-subtracted spectrum formed after deblending the
2444: spectral components from the same 33 spectra with method A, and the
2445: dotted line is the same, but for method B.}
2446:
2447: \label{fig:profile_oplot}
2448: \end{figure}
2449: \clearpage
2450:
2451: \begin{figure}
2452: %Figure 17
2453: \epsscale{1}
2454: \plotone{f17.eps}
2455:
2456: \caption{Mean spectra of NGC~5548 both before (gray lines) and after
2457: (dotted lines) subtracting the \HeII\ emission line (black lines). The
2458: top panel show the results from decomposition method A, where the \heii\
2459: line was modeled assuming the line profile of \Hbeta\ is the same as
2460: \Halpha. The bottom panel shows the results from decomposition method
2461: B, where the \heii\ line is fit assuming the same velocity width as the
2462: unblended \HeI\ line.}
2463:
2464: \label{fig:Hefits}
2465: \end{figure}
2466: \clearpage
2467:
2468: \begin{figure}
2469: %Figure18
2470: \epsscale{1}
2471: \plotone{f18.eps}
2472:
2473: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{fig:sigbl_plot}, except the \HeII\ emission
2474: line has been subtracted from each of the spectra before measuring the
2475: \Hbeta\ line dispersion (\sigbl).}
2476:
2477: \label{fig:noHe_sigbl_plot}
2478: \end{figure}
2479: \clearpage
2480:
2481: \begin{figure}
2482: %Figure 19
2483: \epsscale{1}
2484: \plotone{f19.eps}
2485:
2486: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{fig:sigbl_plot}, except the width of the
2487: \Hbeta\ line is characterized here by FWHM rather than \sigbl. Outliers
2488: discussed in \S \ref{S_Res_decomp} are individually labeled by Julian
2489: Date.}
2490:
2491: \label{fig:fwhm_plot}
2492: \end{figure}
2493: \clearpage
2494:
2495: \begin{figure}
2496: %Figure 20
2497: \epsscale{1}
2498: \plotone{f20.eps}
2499:
2500: \caption{FWHM measurements of the \Hbeta\ broad line for JD2452030 using
2501: each of the three spectral analysis methods discussed in
2502: \S\ref{S_Res_decomp}. The spectra shown here illustrate complications
2503: that arise when using FWHM to characterize a complex emission line
2504: structure, especially when the narrow emission-line components are not
2505: well-determined. The \Hbeta\ profile after subtracting a local
2506: continuum fit (black line) has FWHM$=5632$\,\kms, the profile determined
2507: from decomposition method A (gray line) has FWHM$=4511$\,\kms, and the
2508: profile from decomposition method B (dotted line) has
2509: FWHM$=6334$\,\kms.}
2510:
2511: \label{fig:outlier_oplot}
2512: \end{figure}
2513: \clearpage
2514:
2515:
2516:
2517:
2518:
2519: \end{document}
2520: