Diagnostic plots, re-plotted with vertical lines:

here is the zoomed plots after subtracting the FeII template and continuum. the dotted-red vertical lines are the approximate boundaries we use to calculate the sigma. of course I didn't recorded the information about these boundaries. I kept it for CIV technique but not the MgII. This approximately based on what I assumed in measurements.

============ Notation:

panel top-left: cyan is the raw-spectrum, black is the reconstructed spectrum. both pseudo-continuum subtracted

panel top-right: black is the spectrum after PCA, red is the FeII+continuum, green is the continuum.

panel top (the big one): spectrum after PCA

panel low-right: same as top-right panel but before PCA

panel low (the big one): spectrum before PCA

=========================

vari=0.79, MBH_ab=1.01E9

vari=0.72, MBH_ab=1.47E9

for this case, if the line doesn't cross the zero we eventually stop when the profile is approximately horizontal in average.

vari=0.72, MBH_ab=1.7E9

===========

this is the case when after and before PCA gives very close masses.

vari=0.06, MBH_ab=9.21E8

Comparing spectra and fitting before and after PCA applied:

notation in all plots:

single plot: black is the raw spectrum, red is the PCA reconstructed spectrum, M_ab is the mass of the BH after PCA, vari is the relative mass ratio = (M[ab]  -  M[bb]) / M[ab]. these single panels show how PCA reconstructed spectra fit the raw spectra.

double plot: the upper panel is after PCA, lower panel is before PCA applied. red is the pesudo-continuum, green is the continuum and black is the spectrum. these plots show how well the mass estimates is in both case before or after PCA applied however in calculating the parameter "vari" I assume that PCA mass is accurate.

1)  vari = 0.79 means raw mass is about 21% of the PCA-mass

below is the same as above but zoom in around 2800 Angstrom.

2) vari = 0.72 means the raw mass is about 28% of the PCA-mass.

same as above but zoomed in

 

3) vari = 0.78 means the raw mass is 22% of the PCA-mass

same as above but zoomed in

  

=============================

4) a good example for object which PCA doesn't improve the mass estimates. vari = 0.06 means the raw mass is about 94% of the PCA-mass

same as above but zoomed in

Spiky spectra vs PCA reconstructed:

here is some examples of the spiky spectra with very low BH mass estimates in which we reconstruct the spectra and then we have a normal range BH mass. here the relative difference between after and before PCA applied BH mass is more than 70%.

eta=(M_BH(ab)-M_BH(bb))/M_BH(ab) > 0.7  assuming that M_BH(ab) is correct.

there are cases where eta is larger than 0.85 or 0.9 but the row data has significant problem (missing data around 2800 Angs or absolute noise)

black curve is the row data

red curve is the reconstructed spectra

the variable "vari" in the left panel is the relative differences between masses.

 

 

and these are samples for the case when there is very low differences between before of after PCA applied: the relative differences between BH mass are smaller than 10%

Catalogue paper step 2:

I wanted to understand a little more about differences between Shen et al. 2008 and Shen et al. 2010 results. Here is a plot showing mass-mass contour plots for redshift bins of 0.5 for all 3 emission lines.

well, there is something more to consider before interpreting these plots and that is the distribution of objects on redshift.

this means, there are more objects between 0.5 < z < 2. but that should not change the mass difference distributions.  So the mass-mass plots may be interpreted in two ways:

1)  assume that the new FWHM (2010) is more accurate, so that means, CIV is less sensitive to number of Gaussian fit.  (since new and old measurements are very close). so multiple Gaussian fit is only working for some of the lines.

2)  not assuming that, then high luminosity in high redshift bins is dominant in mass estimation. thus the calibration-factors for luminosity is determining the mass not the FWHM measurement. that means they need to check the calibration-factor. as you mentioned this somewhere, using 0.6 or 0.5 then matters here and indeed is very significant.

these can be added to Catalogue paper section 8.1.

using only MgII range for redshifts then we have:

it looks like semi-random distribution around a mean value for BH mass. this mean value increases from 8.5 in first redshift bin to 9.5 in the last redshift bin. its like the mean of their mass measurement has not changed by changing technique but the error has changed.!!!!

TODO: I need to plot the FWHM(2010) vs FWHM(2008) to see differences too.

Catalogue paper Step 1:

126 duplicated objects are out now.

the catalogue list has 27602 lines now with a flag for completness at the end (created by Pat).

The caption for Fig 4 is rewritten. it is more clear now.

I have compared the Shen et al. 2010 with Shen et al. 2008. The question is, should I add this into the Catalogue paper or not?

for example here is the FWHMs:

the FWHMs plot is very scattered. good news, some of the objects previously (in 2008) have not the mass estimates, they have has estimates for them in 2010. However, some high redshift objects, in CIV plot, had estimates in 2008 but have zero FWHM estimates in 2010, which is surprising.

but in general, the 2010 FWHMs are lower than 2008 estimates. that explains why in the mass-mass plot there is a trend towards the lower estimates for BH masses. The Lbol vs Lbol shows some scatter but it is moderately symmetrical, possibly due random noise.

so the question is, does it worth anything to show this mass-mass plot.

MgII mass estimates; and instrumental sigma_line

Pat has provided me 4 files:

• tab0tab1tab2pjh1perspec.idmpf  ---> (2 columns) has SDSSJ name and MJD-Plate-Fiber (118451 lines), there are more than one SDSSJ name.
• tab0tab1tab2pjh1perspec.res_canis  ---->  has the instrumental line dispersion for Hbeta, MgII and CIV as well as the complete path address of the fits files (118451 lines)
• tab0tab1tab2pjh.idmpfs  ---> (up to 10 columns) has SDSSJ and MJD-Plate-Fiber (107194 lines), there are more than one set of MJD-Plate-Fiber for each SDSSJ name sometimes.
• tab0tab1uniq.basics ---> these are unique objects(1409 lines)

data format:

#1  2  3    4   5      6    7     8     9   10  11
#id ra dec zHW zHWerr mjd plate fiber FIRST EBV Mi

so the sigma_intrinsic[in units km/s] = sqrt(sigma_line**2-(1+z)**2*sigma_instrumental**2)*speed_light/2798

sigma_line and sigma_instrumental is in Units of Angstrom.

 

New added spectra to DR7

Pat has provided me with some new objects and spectra to reconstruct.

There are 3354 new objects in the file "l_febEV_rpt.dr7qzHW" with the same format as DR7 catalogue. They are additional repeat spectra of objects in the DR7 quasar catalog. I have started applying PCA on these objects using "min3_qev_2.sm".

There are 1514 spectra of 1409 objects in file "tab0tab1.basics" with new format

#1  2  3    4   5      6    7     8     9   10  11
#id ra dec zHW zHWerr mjd plate fiber FIRST EBV Mi

so I have prepared the "min3_qev_3.sm" I will run it when the last list is done. (DONE)

I have also prepared the "min3_qev_4.sm" which uses "dup_dr7qANDhw10.dr7qzHWy.txt" including 7987 duplicated spectra with the same format as DR7 original catalogue. I will reconstruct that too later. (DONE)

all of the reconstructed spectra (118640 spectra) are copied into this directory at Canis:

"/data/arafiee/DR7_ReCon_dered"

the list-files are:

"qso_report_1514PHW_tab0_dup.txt" -->  "tab0tab1.basics"

"qso_report_3354PHW.txt" --> "l_febEV_rpt.dr7qzHW"

"qso_report_7987P_dup.txt" ---> "dup_dr7qANDhw10.dr7qzHWy.txt"

MgII Mass estimator:

The sigma_line estimator and L_3000 estimator is partially ready. Some test must be done to be sure that everything is clear and well defined.

located at canis: /home/arafiee/work/DR7/SMBH_MgII.sm

uses the MgII_fit.sm and fitspectrum.sm

However, there is a problem here. I am trying to estimate the sigma_instruments at MgII wavelength but I cann't extract the wavelength dispersion d from fits file. I should ask pat about this. I need to know what KEY I should use.

When I use, "specplot" in IRAF/noao/onedspec then I get a plot with flus, error and mask.

 

 

 

NOTES: my source for information on SDSS HDUs: Princeton/MIT SDSS Spectroscopy Home Page

http://spectro.princeton.edu/#dm_spplate

126 missing objects problem, resolved!

These objects are duplicated spectra (same RAOBJ and DECOBJ) so they can be removed from our MgII mass catalogue.

126 objects in Catalogue paper!

There were 126 objects in our catalogue in which there name was identical. I have tracked the problem back to where I have crosslisted my catalogue with DR3 to record there SDSS name.

I have crosslisted them again, my lists and DR3 list.

There is something that I don't understand.  there are some objects in my list but they are not in the dr3 list! maybe the dr3 list that I use is the old version! it means the qso file exist in the SPECTRA directory on ara but they are not listed in DR3 catalogue! I don't know why yet?

As I thought, these objects (126 objects, listed in my list but they are not listed in the dr3) are exactly the same objects as Pat have found with problem. I checked few of them. they are fine but for some reason they are not listed in the dr3 catalogue-list that I have.

here are a few examples:

location:  Canis@/data/home/arafiee/work/Catalogue_new_data_match