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.