The SubEddington Boundary part 2:

S&E uses 0.4 < z < 0.6 to show that the SEB exist. here is two plots comparing Shen 2008 (DR5) and Shen 2010 (DR7) for the same redshift range and same range but using new calibration from equation 11 of Wang et al. (2009).

Conclusion: going from DR5 to DR7 using Shen et al. results partially closes the gap between data and Eddington-ratio=1.

comparing Fig 1 to Fig 2 shows that SEB goes away partially.

comparing Fig 1 to Fig 3 (and Fig 2 to Fig 4) shows that the new calibration along with a bigger sample may resolve the SEB problem.

 

                      Fig 1: Shen 2008 old calibration

                Fig 2: Shen 2010 old calibratoion

If we use the new calibration from Wang et al. (2009) since this is in the Hbeta range, then we have:

                     Fig 3: Shen 2008, New Calibration following Wang et al. (2009)

                       Fig 4: Shen 2010, New calibration following

                             same equation (11 )in Wang et al. (2009)

I can use this 4 plots instead of Fig 1a and b in SEB paper. Advantages: we can see clearly the evolution of the SEB as we go from DR5 to DR7 and from old calibration (Shen et al. 2008) to new calibration (Wang et al. 2009) and cross-evolution too.

(a) to (b) shows how DR7 closes the gap partially

(a) to (c) or similarly (b) to (d) show how new calibration make the non-zero slop a unity slope and close it then partially.

 

same plot as above but without contours.

 

  I can use either of the above plots instead of Fig 1 of our SEB paper.