Measuring the Masses of Supermassive Black Holes

204 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

A systematic search for changing-look quasars in SDSS (2015, background): “…Schmidt et al. 2012; Ruan et al. 2014), the broad emission lines (BELs) seen in quasar spectra are usually less variable and lagged with respect to the continuum, as seen in reverberation mapping studies (e.g., Clavel et al. 1991; Peterson 1993; Grier et al. 2012; Peterson 2014; Shen et al. 2015).”
Weighing Black Holes Using Tidal Disruption Events (2018, methodology): “We calculated radius values as a function of mass, metallicity, and age for main-sequence stars using MIST (Paxton et al. 2011, 2013, 2015; Choi et al. 2016; Dotter 2016) and used the maximum and minimum radius values at each stellar mass to bound our radius anomaly parameter. This was also done for”
Cosmic X-ray surveys of distant active galaxies (2015, background): “Unfortunately, mass estimates and bolometric corrections for SMBHs in the distant universe generally have substantial uncertainties (e.g., see Shen 2013 and Peterson 2014 for discussion of virial SMBH mass estimators and Hao et al 2014 for discussion of bolometric corrections; also see Section 5.4).”
BAT AGN Spectroscopic Survey. I. Spectral Measurements, Derived Quantities, and AGN Demographics (2017, methodology): “The virial mass estimators we used for broad Hβ are known to suffer from systematic uncertainties of about 0.3 dex (see, e.g., Shen 2013; Peterson 2014, and references therein).”