Optical and near-infrared spectroscopy of quasars at : public data release and composite spectrum
Abstract
We present optical and near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopic observations for a sample of quasars at with absolute magnitudes at Å in the range and their composite spectrum. The median redshift and of the quasars in the sample are and , respectively. The NIR spectra are taken with echelle spectrographs, complemented with additional data from optical long slit instruments, and then reduced consistently using the open-source Python-based spectroscopic data reduction pipeline PypeIt. The median value of the mean signal-to-noise ratios of the spectra in J, H, and K band (median ) is: median , median , and median ; demonstrating the good data quality. This work presents the largest medium/moderate-resolution sample of quasars at from ground-based instruments. Its homogeneity and reproducibility make it ideally suited for several scientific goals, i.e., the study of the quasar proximity zones and dam** wings, the Ly forest, the intergalactic medium’s metal content, as well as other properties such as the distribution of SMBH masses and Eddington ratios. Our composite spectrum is compared to others at both high and low- from the literature, showing differences in the strengths of many emission lines, probably due to differences in luminosity among the samples, but a consistent continuum slope, which proves that the same spectral features are preserved in quasars at different redshift ranges.
keywords:
quasars: supermassive black holes – galaxies: active – cosmology: early Universe – methods: data analysis – techniques: spectroscopic1 Introduction
Discoveries of high redshift quasars () have uncovered the presence of exceptionally supermassive black holes (SMBHs), ranging from approximately to , in the early stages of the universe (Wu et al. 2015; Bañados et al. 2018; Matsuoka et al. 2019a; Onoue et al. 2019; Shen et al. 2019; Yang et al. 2020; Wang et al. 2021a; see Fan et al. 2023 for a recent review). This motivates inquiry into the rapid growth mechanisms enabling these SMBHs to reach billions of solar masses within an extraordinarily brief time frame, less than one billion years after the Big Bang.
Various theoretical models proposing different seed black hole masses ( ) and highly efficient accretion modes present potential explanations for the formation and growth of early SMBHs (see Woods et al. 2019 and Inayoshi et al. 2020 for recent reviews). Rigorous observations of an extensive sample of quasars are imperative to test and refine these models, advancing our comprehension of SMBH formation and evolution. Recent advancements in deep imaging surveys, coupled with the enhanced capabilities of near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy on large telescopes, have substantially expanded the sample size of quasars with to more than (e.g., Fan et al. 2023). This has extended the quasar frontier beyond , moving deep into the epoch of reionization (EoR; e.g., Mortlock et al. 2011; Jiang et al. 2016; Mazzucchelli et al. 2017; Bañados et al. 2016, 2018; Fan et al. 2019; Reed et al. 2019; Matsuoka et al. 2019a, b; Venemans et al. 2013, 2015; Wang et al. 2018, 2019; Yang et al. 2019, 2020, 2021; Wang et al. 2021a). Furthermore, recent observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) have already uncovered new high- active galactic nuclei (AGNs) with lower luminosity and black hole mass, promising to deliver additional breakthroughs in our understanding (e.g., Labbe et al. 2023; Maiolino et al. 2023a, b; Larson et al. 2023; Fujimoto et al. 2023; Goulding et al. 2023; Furtak et al. 2023; Kokorev et al. 2023; Greene et al. 2023; Kokorev et al. 2024; Pérez-González et al. 2024; Matthee et al. 2024; Andika et al. 2024).
Our work of collecting high-quality spectra marks a significant milestone as the most extensive medium/moderate-resolution collection of quasar data at very high redshifts obtained through ground-based instruments. Its uniformity and reproducibility make it exceptionally well-suited for various scientific objectives, including the exploration of the Ly forest (Fan et al. 2006; Becker et al. 2015), the study of the final stages of the EoR (Bosman et al. 2022), the investigation into the intergalactic medium’s (IGM) metal content (e.g., Davies et al. 2023), but also the broad line region (BLR) chemical abundances (Lai et al., 2022), and analysis of properties such as the distribution of SMBH masses and Eddington ratios (Yang et al. 2021; Farina et al. 2022; Mazzucchelli et al. 2023). Also, the creation of a composite spectrum can be extremely helpful in evaluating the continuum and line properties of quasar spectra, investigating the average rest-frame UV quasar spectral properties and their possible evolution with redshift (Vanden Berk et al. 2001; Selsing et al. 2016; Mazzucchelli et al. 2017; Meyer et al. 2019; Schindler et al. 2020; Yang et al. 2021). On top of that, the creation of a composite spectrum allows for detecting features that might be too weak to appear in individual spectra, identifying objects that differ from the template, or modeling/fitting spectral energy distributions (SED).
Other key analyses involving high-quality spectra aim to place constraints on the average fraction of neutral hydrogen () at the EoR and on the radiative efficiency of the earliest SMBHs. They can be performed by starting with the reconstruction of the quasar’s intrinsic blue side of the spectrum from the observed red side employing, e.g., principal component analysis (PCA) continuum modeling (e.g., Davies et al. 2018a, b, 2019; Bosman et al. 2021) so that we can systematically study quasar proximity zones and lifetimes (see Fan et al. 2006; Eilers et al. 2017; Eilers et al. 2020; Davies et al. 2020; Satyavolu et al. 2023), proximate damped Ly systems (see Bañados et al. 2019; Andika et al. 2020, 2022), and Ly dam** wings (Miralda-Escudé 1998; Davies et al. 2018a; Ďurovčíková et al. 2024; Greig et al. 2024).
This paper is the first of a series aimed at exploiting the wealth of information that could be obtained from this sample (e.g., the study of the quasar proximity zone sizes in Paper II, Onorato et al. in prep). Here, we present and make publicly available the optical and NIR spectra of quasars at , and the composite rest-frame UV/optical spectrum. We describe the dataset including the quasar sample, the instruments, and their properties, with the data reduction in Section 2. Section 3 details the spectral calibration procedure and presents the main properties of the sample. We show a comparison between this sample and other spectroscopic data releases of high- quasars in Section 4. We discuss the mean quasar composite spectrum in Section 5, and we conclude this work with a summary of the paper, presented in Section 6. All results below refer to a CDM cosmology with parameters , , and ; all magnitudes are reported in the AB system.
Instrument | Dither sequence | () | Slit width (′′) | FWHM (km s-1) | (km s-1) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GNIRS | ABBA | 0.68/1.00 | ||||
NIRES | ABBA | 0.55 | ||||
X-Shooter NIR | varies | 0.6 | ||||
X-Shooter VIS | - | 0.9 | ||||
GMOS | - | 1.00 | ||||
DEIMOS | - | 1.00 | ||||
LRIS | - | 1.00 | ||||
MODS | - | 1.00/1.2 |
2 The Data Set
2.1 Quasar Sample
We start this analysis by compiling a list of quasars, both known from the literature and unpublished, and applying a redshift cut at . We check the individual telescope archives looking for medium/moderate-resolution spectroscopy of these sources from echelle spectrographs, and then also long slit instruments if the spectrum was not sufficiently covered in the Ly region. We avoid collecting data of faint objects (), even if we do not apply a strict cut as long as the luminosity of the source does not strongly compromise the data reduction. Thus, our catalog includes quasars in the redshift range () and in the magnitude range (, see Figure 1 and Table 3). The full names of the quasars are shown in Table 3, while short names are adopted throughout the paper. Eleven out of the objects are classified in the literature as Broad Absorption Lines (BAL) quasars, defined as those with absorption lines with FWHM 2000 km s-1. These BALs sources are: J03131806, J00381527, J12430100111Identified as a possible BAL in the discovery paper (Matsuoka et al., 2019a), but the spectroscopy quality does not lead to a clear classification., J08393900, J23483054, J02465219, J09100414, J09230402, J07062921, J15262050, and J04391634, as flagged in Table 3. We also include three new unpublished high- quasars, J04100139 (Bañados et al. in prep), J19175003, and J04301445 (Belladitta et al. in prep). This last source seems also to be a possible BAL, leading to a final number of BALs in this work.
2.2 Instruments
We obtain visible (VIS) and NIR spectroscopy of our sample from the data archives of three main echelle spectrographs: Gemini/GNIRS (Gemini Near-Infrared Spectrograph; Elias et al. 2006a; Elias et al. 2006b), Keck/NIRES (Near-Infrared Echellette Spectrometer; Wilson et al. 2004), and VLT/X-Shooter (Vernet et al., 2011), both VIS and NIR arms, except for J13420928, whose spectrum is entirely covered by the NIR arm. For some quasars, part of the spectrum redward of Ly is in the optical, and hence not covered by the NIR arm, so we have complemented them using observations from additional long slit instruments, such as Gemini/GMOS (Gemini Multi-Object Spectrographs; Hook et al. 2004), Keck/DEIMOS (DEep Imaging Multi-Object Spectrograph; Faber et al. 2003), Keck/LRIS (Low-Resolution Imaging Spectrometer; Oke et al. 1995; Rockosi et al. 2010) and LBT/MODS (Multi-Object Double Spectrographs; Pogge et al. 2010). A complete list of the instruments used to observe each quasar is available in Table 3.
2.2.1 Dither sequences
All GNIRS and NIRES observations were executed following an ABBA dither sequence except for the last two frames of J03131806, which are AABB. The X-Shooter observations were acquired with different dither sequences (i.e.: ABBA, ABAB, AABB), but because of the long average exposure time per frame ( s) and the consequent change of the sky conditions, they were treated as ABCD during the data reduction instead of performing usual image differencing. The only X-Shooter frames where a dither sequence of ABBA was used while performing the reduction are those for J11101329 because of the short exposure time of s. This applies mostly for the NIR arm since VIS data are usually not reduced doing image differencing, but using a sky model.
2.2.2 Wavelength coverage, Slit widths, , FWHM, and
The GNIRS data provide full wavelength coverage of the YJHK bands ( m). Slit widths of 0.68′′ or 1.00′′ were used, with mean resolution of or km s-1 and pixel size of km s-1. The NIRES observations have a coverage of m through a fixed 0.55′′ slit, where the mean resolution is or km s-1 and pixel size of km s-1. The X-Shooter data cover the wavelength range m in the VIS arm and m in the NIR arm. The slit width varies among programs but is typically 0.9′′ in the VIS and 0.6′′ in the NIR arm. The mean resolution in VIS is or km s-1 and pixel size km s-1; while in NIR, or km s-1 and km s-1. J03191008 is complemented with R400 grating GMOS-N observations, covering the wavelength range m. The slit width is 1.00′′, with a mean resolution of or km s-1, and pixel size of km s-1. J07062921 is complemented with 830G grating DEIMOS observations, covering the wavelength range m. The slit width is 1.00′′, with a mean resolution of or km s-1, and pixel size of km s-1. J02180007 is complemented using grating 600/10000 LRIS red observations, covering the wavelength range m. The slit width is 1.00′′, with a mean resolution of or km s-1, and pixel size of km s-1. J04110907, J19175003, and J10582930 are complemented by red grating MODS observations (both MODS1 and MODS2), covering the wavelength range m. The slit width is 1.00′′ and 1.2′′, with a mean resolution of or km s-1, and pixel size of km s-1. All of these properties of the instruments are summarised in Table 1.
2.3 Data Reduction
All spectra are reduced with the open-source Python-based Spectroscopic Data Reduction Pipeline PypeIt222https://github.com/pypeit/PypeIt, using versions between 1.7.1 and 1.14.1 (Prochaska et al., 2020). The pipeline performs image processing, including gain correction, bias subtraction, dark subtraction, and flat fielding. It uses supplied flat-field images to automatically trace the echelle orders and correct for the detector illumination. Construction of the wavelength solutions and the wavelength tilt models are based on either arc (for VIS instruments) or science frames (i.e. using sky OH lines, for NIR spectrographs). Cosmic rays are removed with the L. A. COSMIC algorithm (van Dokkum, 2001). The sky subtraction is based on the standard A–B mode and a B-spline fitting procedure that is performed to further clean up the sky line residuals following Bochanski et al. (2009). Optimal extraction (Horne, 1986) is performed to generate 1D science spectra. The extracted spectra are flux-calibrated with sensitivity functions derived from the observations of spectroscopic standard stars. All flux-calibrated 1D spectra of each quasar are then co-added to achieve higher SNR and corrected for telluric absorption using PypeIt. A telluric model is fit to correct the absorbed science spectrum up to a best-fit PCA model (Davies et al., 2018b) of said spectrum. The telluric model is based on telluric model grids produced from the Line-By-Line Radiative Transfer Model (LBLRTM4; Clough et al. 2005; Gullikson et al. 2014).
All the PypeIt files to reproduce the reduction are publicly available in a GitHub repository333https://github.com/enigma-igm/onorato24_hiz_qsos.
2.4 Co-add of spectra from different instruments (or arms)
As reported in Table 3 and in Subsection 2.2, some quasars are observed with more than one spectrograph and/or in more arms. Here we describe how we treat these spectra after the flux calibration with sensitivity function since they have different resolutions, wavelength grids, and pixel sizes.
-
•
X-Shooter VIS - NIR: two different approaches were used depending on the stage of development of PypeIt. We co-add the majority of the quasars with versions between 1.8.2 and 1.11.1, using the echelle combspec PypeIt routine, getting a unique spectrum in a wavelength grid of [5410, 24770] Å and pixel size of km s-1. Few quasars were reduced using recent PypeIt versions (after 1.12.3) which now support the option of editing a unique file (.coadd1d) to combine the 1D spectra from multiple exposures of the same object, in case we work with the same type of spectrograph (i.e. echelle), containing both arms together. The final spectrum has the same characteristics as those obtained with the first method.
-
•
GNIRS - NIRES: we co-add them using a single coadd1d file. J03131806 and J10072115 are co-added onto a common grid covering [9410, 24690] Å with a pixel size of km s-1. We co-add J09100414 and J21021458 by requiring a pixel size of km s-1, but without constraints on the wavelength range. We get a final spectrum that covers [824025200] Å and has km s-1.
-
•
GNIRS - X-Shooter (VIS - NIR): we co-add them using a unique coadd1d file for all the GNIRS, X-Shooter VIS, and NIR frames. The final spectra cover [5410, 25200] Å with a pixel size of km s-1.
-
•
NIRES - GMOS: we co-add all the echelle - long slit spectra using the multi combspec PypeIt routine, which works with the final 1D spectrum in both instruments, getting an ultimate spectrum with wavelength coverage of [8000, 24700] Å and pixel size of km s-1.
-
•
NIRES - DEIMOS: using multi combspec as described above, we get a final spectrum covering [8000, 24700] Å with pixel size of km s-1.
-
•
NIRES - LRIS: using multi combspec as described above, we get a final spectrum covering [8000, 24700] Å with pixel size of km s-1.
-
•
NIRES - MODS: using multi combspec as described above, we get a final spectrum covering [8000, 24700] Å with pixel size of km s-1.
In the end, when echelle frames are co-added together, the telluric correction described above (at the end of Section 2.3) is applied to the final stacked spectrum; when echelle - long slit are co-added, the individual spectra of both instruments are already telluric corrected, and no further correction is required.
wave | wave grid mid | flux | ivar | sigma | mask | telluric | obj model | flux scaled | ivar scaled | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
J13420928 | 10289.82613 | 10289.83458 | 0.31196 | 18.34511 | - | 1 | 0.99 | 0.61569 | 0.36666 | 13.27947 |
J10582930 | 10240.48127 | 10240.45124 | 1.56780 | 2.58264 | 0.62226 | 1 | 1.0 | - | 0.54980 | 21.00057 |
3 Quasar sample Properties
3.1 Redshift
In this paper, we account for uncertainties in the systemic redshift of every quasar depending on the emission line used to determine its redshift. Systemic redshifts are challenging quantities to determine because of various factors, like the broad widths of emission lines, Gunn-Peterson absorption (Gunn & Peterson, 1965), and offsets between different ionization lines (Gaskell 1982; Tytler & Fan 1992; Vanden Berk et al. 2001; Richards et al. 2002; Shen et al. 2016). Also, most quasars show winds and strong internal motions, which displace many of the emission lines far from the systemic redshift of the host galaxy. Thus, we decide to assign a redshift error of km s-1 for the most precise determinations of the location of the quasar, such as those using emission lines from the atomic gas reservoir of the host galaxy itself ([C II] lines). For quasars with a redshift measurement from low-ionization broad emission lines, such as Mg II, we assume a redshift error of km s-1, to account for the dispersion between the redshift of the Mg II line and the redshift of the host galaxy (e.g., Richards et al. 2002; Hennawi et al. 2006; Shen & Ménard 2012; Shen et al. 2016; Venemans et al. 2016; Schindler et al. 2020). Table 3 reports redshifts, methods, and references for every quasar.
These will be adopted as uncertainties on the redshift (and thus on the position of the Ly line) to achieve our next scientific goal of studying the proximity zones of the quasars in this sample (Onorato et al., in prep). From the literature ( in Table 3), we also get values of for every quasar, but we do not report them here. They are available online at the link at the end of Section 2.3, and we use them as uncertainties on in Figure 1.
3.2 Absolute flux calibration
The flux calibration of the spectra carried out is relative: every spectrum is corrected using a spectroscopic standard star, but the flux values at the different wavelengths may differ from the true flux. This could be due to slit losses and non-photometric sky conditions at the time of observations. Tests of absolute flux calibration have been performed in this analysis, tying the spectra to the photometric data in the Y, J, H, and K bands, where all or part of them are available. However, since there is not a good match in all the photometric bands at once, a definitive method is still an object of discussion.
For this paper, the reduced spectrum of each quasar is scaled using its J-band magnitude, or the Y and band ones if the J-band is not available (as in the case of J12430100, J09230753, and J10582930), all in the AB system; an example for all bands is shown in Figure 8 and the approach is described in Appendix A. These NIR data come from different archival surveys: the UKIRT Infrared Deep Sky Survey (UKIDSS; Lawrence et al. 2007), the UKIRT Hemisphere Survey (UHS; Dye et al. 2018), in both cases mostly from WFCAM (Casali et al., 2007), and the VISTA Hemisphere Survey (VHS; McMahon et al. 2013). The Y-band photometry of J12430100 comes from the Hyper Suprime-Cam (HSC) Subaru Strategic Program (SSP) survey (Aihara et al., 2018), as reported in the discovery paper (Matsuoka et al., 2019a). The J-band photometry of J04100139, J04301445, and J21321217 is taken from SofI (Son of ISAAC; Moorwood et al. 1998), at the NTT in La Silla, and that of J11291846 and J19175003 comes from NOTCam444Both SofI and NOTCam are dedicated follow up., at the Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT). The -band photometry of J10582930 is gotten from the acquisition image taken with NIRES, whose guider camera uses a Mauna Kea K′ ("K prime") filter555https://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/inst/nires/guider.html. Since the transmission curve of this filter is not available, we use the one from Keck/NIRC2 to perform the flux scaling (see the bottom panel of Figure 8), as it is very similar to the Mauna Kea K′. Most of these magnitudes are collected from Ross & Cross (2020) and available online. All J-band (or Y and ) magnitudes are displayed in panel (a) of Figure 1 as a function of redshift for each quasar, and the final flux-scaled spectra are plotted as a function of wavelength in Figure 2.
A detailed list of all the filters that were used to acquire every magnitude is available at the link given at the end of Section 2.3, while the final flux calibrated spectra are available online as explained in the Data Availability Section. An example of the format of the FITS files, selecting a random row, for two spectra reduced using different PypeIt versions is shown in Table 2.
3.3 Absolute magnitudes at 1450 Å
We calculate using the flux-scaled spectra of the quasars themselves. From every spectrum in the observed frame and knowing the redshift of each quasar, we compute the rest-frame wavelength.
We determine the apparent AB magnitude at Å from the median flux between and Å, converted to Jansky (), using the Pogson law: . We continue calculating the luminosity per unit frequency () at Å with Equation 1, where is the luminosity distance to the object at a redshift :
(1) |
We find the absolute AB magnitude at Å using Equation 2 from the luminosity per unit frequency , where is the reference distance ( pc), and Jy is the zero-point flux density in the AB system:
(2) |
The results from this method are compared with other values from the literature, showing good agreement. For this reason, we trust the estimates we obtain for all quasars, with only three exceptions. In the case of J12430100, the spectrum is of poor quality as the source is faint and has a low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR, see the values at the last three columns of Table 3). As a consequence, this makes the result difficult to trust, so we adopt the from Matsuoka et al. (2019a), in which they measured it from the best-fit power-law continuum. In the case of J09100414 and J09230402, the BAL features visible in their spectra create a bias in the measurement of . For this reason, we correct the estimate by matching these spectra with a "reference spectrum" with a trustworthy continuum shape, such as the composite spectrum created from the sample in this paper (shown in Figure 4). The match is performed by eye and shown in Figure 9, with a detailed description of the method followed reported in Appendix B.
We show the absolute magnitude values as a function of redshift for our sample in panel (b) of Figure 1, with its histogram in panel (d).
Name | Instrument (arms) | Discovery | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
J031343.839180636.404a | GNIRS/NIRES | 27300/15840 | 7.6423 | [C II] | 1 | 20.92 0.13 | 26.208 | 1 | 15.9 | 18.8 | 27.2 |
J134208.110092838.610 | X-Shooter (NIR) | (81600) | 7.5413 | [C II] | 2 | 20.64 0.08 | 26.336 | 3 | 33.5 | 43.7 | 13 |
J100758.264211529.207 | GNIRS/NIRES | 21000/7920 | 7.5149 | [C II] | 4 | 20.20 0.18 | 26.818 | 4 | 18.5 | 19.5 | 24.2 |
J112001.480064124.300 | X-Shooter (NIR/VIS) | (114000/113440) | 7.0851 | [C II] | 2 | 20.17 0.07 | 26.565 | 5 | 44.7 | 53.7 | 308.7 |
J124353.930010038.500a | GNIRS | 10944 | 7.07 | Mg II | 26 | 23.57 0.08b | 24.130d | 26 | 1.4 | 1 | 1.3 |
J003836.097152723.636a | GNIRS/X-Shooter (NIR/VIS) | 15300/(15600/17912) | 7.0340 | [C II] | 6 | 19.69 0.07 | 27.030 | 7 | 24.8 | 24.6 | 22.6 |
J025216.640050331.810 | X-Shooter (NIR/VIS) | (28800/31200) | 7.0006 | [C II] | 6 | 20.19 0.07 | 26.625 | 8 | 29.1 | 39.7 | 12.7 |
J041009013919e | NIRES | 9360 | 6.9964 | [C II] | 27 | 20.75 0.07 | 25.858 | 27 | 6 | 5.9 | 8.1 |
J083946.880390011.440a | GNIRS | 16800 | 6.9046 | Mg II | 9 | 20.39 0.20 | 26.214 | 10 | 27.2 | 29.9 | 43.9 |
J234833.340305410.000a | X-Shooter (NIR/VIS) | (9200/8783) | 6.9018 | [C II] | 11 | 21.10 0.08 | 25.224 | 12 | 7.5 | 10.3 | 4.2 |
J024655.902521949.950a | X-Shooter (NIR/VIS) | (24000/24000) | 6.8876 | [C II] | 6 | 21.20 0.14 | 25.301 | 8 | 6.1 | 11.7 | 4.9 |
J191729.984500313.540e | NIRES/MODS | 12720/26400 | 6.845 | Mg II | 28 | 20.66 0.05 | 26.208 | 28 | 5.2 | 5.4 | 5.3 |
J221100.601632055.845 | X-Shooter (NIR/VIS) | (36000/37961) | 6.8449 | [C II] | 6 | 21.27 0.18 | 25.470 | 8 | 9 | 12.9 | 4.8 |
J002031.470365341.800 | X-Shooter (NIR/VIS) | (4800/4800) | 6.834 | Mg II | 13 | 20.42 0.10 | 25.999 | 13 | 6 | 8.3 | 3.6 |
J031941.660100846.000 | NIRES/GMOS | 18750/15300 | 6.8275 | [C II] | 6 | 20.88 0.30 | 25.480 | 8 | 4.9 | 6.1 | 12.2 |
J041128.628090749.700 | NIRES/MODS | 5760/30000 | 6.8260 | [C II] | 6 | 20.02 0.14 | 26.490 | 10 | 17.4 | 18 | 19.6 |
J112925.368184624.330 | X-Shooter (NIR/VIS) | (12000/12000) | 6.823 | Mg II | 9 | 20.90 0.11 | 25.421 | 14 | 6.6 | 8.2 | 3.2 |
J010953.130304726.300 | X-Shooter (NIR/VIS) | (21600/21600) | 6.7909 | [C II] | 11 | 21.28 0.14 | 25.200 | 12 | 6.7 | 9.3 | 3.7 |
J082931.979411740.870 | GNIRS | 12600 | 6.773 | Mg II | 9 | 20.26 0.15 | 26.154 | 10 | 12.2 | 9.2 | 13.2 |
J021847.040000715.200 | NIRES/LRIS | 5760/3583 | 6.7700 | [C II] | 6 | 21.08 0.30 | 25.896 | 9,15 | 2.8 | 3.3 | 3.6 |
J110421.580213428.850 | GNIRS | 7200 | 6.7662 | [C II] | 6 | 19.91 0.11 | 26.506 | 10 | 16.1 | 14.3 | 17.6 |
J091013.651165630.180 | GNIRS | 13200 | 6.7289 | [C II] | 6 | 21.06 0.13 | 25.346 | 10 | 8.9 | 7.3 | 10.7 |
J043043.660144541.210a,e | GNIRS | 12000 | 6.7142 | Mg II | 28 | 20.78 0.18 | 25.656 | 28 | 8.4 | 7.5 | 11.7 |
J083737.830492900.600 | GNIRS | 15600 | 6.702 | Mg II | 9 | 20.21 0.17 | 26.069 | 10 | 26.4 | 23.7 | 36.2 |
J200241.594301321.690 | GNIRS | 3600 | 6.6876 | [C II] | 6 | 19.97 0.16 | 26.622 | 9 | 9.7 | 6.4 | 8 |
J092358.997075349.107 | GNIRS | 7200 | 6.6817 | [C II] | 6 | 21.25 0.26b | 25.687 | 9 | 3.2 | 2 | 2.9 |
J104819.090010940.210 | X-Shooter (NIR/VIS) | (4800/4800) | 6.6759 | [C II] | 16 | 20.87 0.06 | 25.864 | 17 | 5.1 | 6.7 | 2.9 |
J223255.150293032.040 | GNIRS/X-Shooter (NIR/VIS) | 4800/(14400/14400) | 6.666 | Mg II | 6 | 20.46 0.12 | 25.831 | 18 | 10.6 | 9.2 | 8.5 |
J210219.230145853.860 | GNIRS/NIRES | 10200/5760 | 6.6645 | [C II] | 6 | 21.15 0.20 | 25.421 | 10 | 9.4 | 8.5 | 10.4 |
J121627.584451910.675 | GNIRS | 3600 | 6.66 | Mg II | 9 | 21.02 0.13 | 25.518 | 10 | 4.8 | 3.6 | 5.3 |
J091054.535041406.846a | GNIRS/NIRES | 3600/3600 | 6.6363 | [C II] | 6 | 20.23 0.07 | 26.397f | 10 | 9.8 | 11.4 | 15.6 |
J092347.117040254.580a | X-Shooter (NIR/VIS) | (43200/43200) | 6.6330 | [C II] | 6 | 20.14 0.08 | 26.524f | 10,19 | 24.4 | 48.5 | 23.1 |
J002429.772391318.980 | GNIRS | 13800 | 6.621 | [C II] | 20 | 21.28 0.48 | 25.316 | 21 | 8.5 | 6.1 | 9.7 |
J030516.920315056.000 | X-Shooter (NIR/VIS) | (16800/16800) | 6.6145 | [C II] | 11 | 20.60 0.05 | 25.690 | 12 | 12.3 | 15.6 | 6.3 |
J070626.379292105.460a | NIRES/DEIMOS | 14960/17800 | 6.6037 | [C II] | 6 | 19.14 0.05 | 27.410 | 10 | 24.3 | 25.6 | 34.2 |
J213233.190121755.260 | X-Shooter (NIR/VIS) | (33600/35809) | 6.5881 | [C II] | 20 | 19.74 0.03 | 26.914 | 20 | 30.6 | 35.3 | 16.5 |
J152637.840205000.660a | X-Shooter (NIR/VIS) | (43200/46234) | 6.5864 | [C II] | 16 | 19.60 0.08 | 27.030 | 20 | 33 | 45.6 | 18.9 |
J113508.918501132.600 | GNIRS | 7200 | 6.5851 | [C II] | 6 | 20.41 0.16 | 26.075 | 10 | 12.8 | 11.6 | 16.2 |
J105807.720293041.703 | NIRES/MODS | 3600/28800 | 6.5846 | [C II] | 22 | 20.56 0.05c | 26.039 | 9 | 5 | 4.9 | 5.7 |
J233807.032214358.170 | GNIRS | 4500 | 6.565 | Mg II | 9 | 20.75 0.30 | 25.816 | 9 | 3.4 | 2.4 | 2.8 |
J092120.560000722.900 | GNIRS | 9600 | 6.5646 | [C II] | 6 | 21.11 0.11 | 25.319 | 19 | 9 | 8.1 | 12 |
J022601.870030259.280 | X-Shooter (NIR/VIS) | (14400/23520) | 6.5412 | [C II] | 23 | 19.40 0.09 | 27.192 | 18 | 26.5 | 30.6 | 11.7 |
J022426.540471129.400 | X-Shooter (NIR/VIS) | (31200/33360) | 6.5222 | [C II] | 6 | 19.73 0.05 | 26.663 | 24 | 27.2 | 40.7 | 20 |
J043947.098163415.819a,g | X-Shooter (NIR/VIS) | (54720/53656) | 6.5192 | [C II] | 6 | 17.47 0.02 | 28.822 | 25 | 207.7 | 285.8 | 149.5 |
J111033.960132945.600 | X-Shooter (NIR/VIS) | (34800/29520) | 6.5148 | [C II] | 16 | 20.59 0.18 | 26.079 | 18 | 4.8 | 7.6 | 3.7 |
-
•
Ref: 1 - Wang et al. (2021a); 2 - Venemans et al. (2017); 3 - Bañados et al. (2018); 4 - Yang et al. (2020); 5 - Mortlock et al. (2011); 6 - Wang et al. (2021b); 7 - Wang et al. (2018); 8 - Yang et al. (2019); 9 - Yang et al. (2021); 10 - Wang et al. (2019); 11 - Venemans et al. (2016); 12 - Venemans et al. (2013); 13 - Reed et al. (2019); 14 - Bañados et al. (2021); 15 - Matsuoka et al. (2022); 16 - Decarli et al. (2018); 17 - Wang et al. (2017); 18 - Venemans et al. (2015); 19 - Matsuoka et al. (2018); 20 - Mazzucchelli et al. (2017); 21 - Tang et al. (2017); 22 - Wang et al. (2024); 23 - Bañados et al. (2015); 24 - Reed et al. (2017); 25 - Fan et al. (2019); 26 - Matsuoka et al. (2019a); 27 - Bañados et al. in prep; 28 - Belladitta et al. in prep
- a, b, c, d, e, f, g
3.4 SNR of the spectra
We compute the SNR of the spectra in this sample considering three different wavelength ranges (the J, H, and K bands). We want to properly sample the spectra and avoid possible biases introduced by telluric absorption regions. For these reasons, we define the ranges in which we can compute the SNR in a very conservative manner, avoiding regions affected by absorption: , , and Å.
To make the calculation and have a comparison among the quality of the spectra that is as fair as possible, we follow these steps:
-
•
We move the spectra to the rest-frame, dividing the wavelengths by ;
-
•
We define a new wavelength grid: [1040, 3332] Å in steps of =110 km s-1 (set to be coarser than the coarsest pixel scale, in velocity, among all the instruments used to create the sample);
-
•
We re-bin the spectra into the new wavelength grid;
-
•
We finally compute the mean SNR in the three different wavelength ranges (, where J, H, K), also shifted to the rest-frame according to the redshift of the quasar considered.
Two examples showing the method described above, considering the highest and lowest redshift quasar in the sample, are visible in Figure 10. The results of this analysis are shown in the last three columns of Table 3, and in the histograms in Figure 3, where we generate 25 logarithmically spaced bins between the minimum and maximum of all the values in the sample. The majority of the spectra have in the range [5,10], and between and . To quantify the overall data quality we compute the median in the three wavelength ranges. We have median , median , and median (reported as red dashed vertical lines in Figure 3).
The different properties for every quasar are reported in Table 3, which lists: the name of the quasars, the instruments (and arms), the exposure time for each quasar in every instrument, their redshifts, the method adopted to determine the redshift, the reference for this measurement, the J-band photometry in the AB system, the magnitude (), the reference for the discovery of each quasar, and the mean SNR of the spectra in the three different wavelength ranges. The references and some notes are listed at the bottom of the table.
4 Comparison with other quasar samples
It is important to discuss this work comparing it to the present literature on other spectroscopic data releases, such as Ďurovčíková et al. (2024), D’Odorico et al. (2023), Yang et al. (2021), Schindler et al. (2020), and Shen et al. (2019). The most relevant quantities used to characterize the samples are reported in Table 4. We want to state clearly that for all the objects where the spectra are previously published, these are not the same reductions as in earlier publications, as all data are re-reduced in this work.
The sample that shows the most similarities with this work is the one in Yang et al. (2021), with quasars in common in the redshift range out of the total sources. The major differences are in the instruments used to collect the spectra: in Yang et al. (2021) the data mostly come from Gemini/GNIRS and Keck/NIRES, while in this work, a higher fraction of the data comes from VLT/X-Shooter which provides better spectral resolution (see the values of each instrument reported in Table 1) and, consequently, higher quality spectra. Most spectra in Yang et al. (2021) have wavelength coverage only in the NIR arm. Indeed, because of their different scientific goals, which consist of investigating the central BH masses from the Mg II emission lines and the Eddington ratio distribution, and studying rest-frame UV properties like the chemical abundances from the Fe II/Mg II ratio, Yang et al. (2021) do not aim to have coverage in the optical band. In contrast, we create a sample that can be used for additional scientific goals, such as the study of the proximity zones (Onorato et al., in prep), or the Ly forest, requiring wavelength coverage also in the VIS arm, as we provide in this work.
The other three samples with only a few similarities with this work are: Ďurovčíková et al. (2024) with sources in common in the redshift range out of the total ones, Schindler et al. (2020) with quasars in common at out of the total ones, and D’Odorico et al. (2023) with only sources in common at out of the total ones. In the first sample mentioned, the spectra come almost entirely from Magellan/FIRE ( if the slit is 0.6′′ wide), which has a better data quality than the GNIRS and NIRES/MODS spectra in common, but worse than the X-Shooter ones. The other two samples have all the spectra acquired with VLT/X-Shooter and the same data quality as this sample.
Finally, there are no sources in common with Shen et al. (2019) as the redshift range () of their quasars does not overlap with the one in this work. All their spectra come from Gemini/GNIRS.
Sample | range | range | (in common) | Instruments |
---|---|---|---|---|
Onorato et al. (2024 - this work) | 45 | GNIRS/NIRES/X-Shooter/GMOS/LRIS/DEIMOS/MODS | ||
Ďurovčíková et al. (2024) | 18 (8) | FIRE/X-Shooter/MOSFIRE/ESI | ||
D’Odorico et al. (2023) | 42 (6) | X-Shooter | ||
Yang et al. (2021) | 37 (31) | GNIRS/NIRES/X-Shooter/FIRE/F2 | ||
Schindler et al. (2020) | 38 (8) | X-Shooter | ||
Shen et al. (2019) | 50 | GNIRS |
5 Composite Spectrum
In this section, we present a quasar composite spectrum based on this sample and compare it with other composite spectra known from the literature (see Figure 4 and Table 6). We aim to study the average UV quasar spectral properties and their possible evolution through the different redshifts. We decide to exclude all the quasars that show BAL features in their spectra (flagged in Table 3) and then we generate the composite with out of the quasars in the sample. This choice comes from the fact that BAL features can distort the shape of the main emission lines, producing a prominent C IV and many other high-ionization features, such as Si IV and N V.
We generate the composite spectrum following Selsing et al. (2016) as a guideline:
-
•
We move the spectra to the rest-frame, dividing the wavelengths by ;
-
•
We define a new wavelength grid: [1040, 3332] Å in steps of =110 km s-1 (set to be coarser than the coarsest pixel-scale, in velocity, among all the instruments used to create the sample);
-
•
We re-bin the spectra into the new wavelength grid;
-
•
We normalize the spectra to the continuum flux at 1450 Å rest-frame, where there are no strong broad lines or iron emission;
-
•
Only for Å, we apply the following masks to improve the overall quality of the composite, without affecting its natural shape in the Ly region:
-
1.
Telluric transmission : we use the individual PypeIt telluric model fits to mask out the telluric regions;
-
2.
SNR : to mask the flux where the SNR is very low (and hence the noise is high);
-
3.
[ erg s-1cm-2Å-1] : to mask the flux where the noise is high (i.e., in those regions close to the right edge of the wavelength coverage of the spectra, where the noise increases exponentially);
-
4.
Flux [ erg s-1cm-2Å-1] : to mask out the outliers (e.g., hot pixels or sky lines not well subtracted during the spectra reduction).
-
1.
-
•
We create the composite spectrum as a weighted mean of the individual spectra. The weights for each spectrum at each wavelength are calculated as shown in Equation 3, where the different factors are: the good pixel mask (gpm) used to exclude bad pixels from the calculation, the combination of the four masks defined above (maskstot), and the number of spectra used at every wavelength (nused). Thus, the composite spectrum at every wavelength is the sum of the fluxes of the individual spectra at that wavelength, each multiplied by its weight, and divided by the sum of the weights.
(3)
Wavelengths [Å] | Flux [] | Error | N spec | Mean |
---|---|---|---|---|
1040.00000 | 0.07235 | 0.03021 | 18 | 6.73951 |
1040.38167 | 0.14979 | 0.02575 | 18 | 6.73951 |
1040.76347 | 0.24631 | 0.02212 | 18 | 6.73951 |
… | … | … | ||
1600.55798 | 1.36016 | 0.04412 | 30 | 6.72212 |
… | … | … | ||
2096.78621 | 0.97827 | 0.04707 | 33 | 6.76699 |
… | … | … | ||
3250.71769 | 0.78563 | 0.14352 | 13 | 6.62963 |
… | … | … |
The composite spectrum that we obtain is available online as explained in the Data Availability Section, and an example of the format of the FITS file is shown in Table 5. For [1700, 1900] Å and [2300, 2600] Å (rest-frame), the quality of the composite decreases because of the presence of strong telluric absorption at [13500, 14150] Å and [18200, 19300] Å (observed frame). Indeed, at the wavelengths of the highest absorption, only spectra contribute to the composite because of the narrow redshift range of our sample. The quality also decreases for Å, where the number of contributing spectra starts to get lower.
In the bottom panel of Figure 4, we compare our composite with those from D’Odorico et al. (2023); Yang et al. (2021); Shen et al. (2019); Selsing et al. (2016); Telfer et al. (2002); Vanden Berk et al. (2001); for comparison purposes, all the composites are normalized at 1450 Å, showing a better match among their continuum shape for Å rather than at longer wavelengths, where there is a visible offset between the various continua. We also report the main emission lines in this wavelength range, and an inset panel with a zoom-in of the region [1175, 1580] Å, where we can see differences in the Ly and C IV lines, despite the good overlap among their continuum shape. In the middle panel of Figure 4, we display the number of spectra that are contributing to the composite at each wavelength for our work, Yang et al. (2021), and Shen et al. (2019) (the only two for which this piece of information is available); and finally, in the top panel, we show the distribution of the mean redshift that contributes to the composite at each wavelength. We summarize the properties of our composite and the comparison ones in Table 6.
Composite | range | range | quasars | Instruments |
---|---|---|---|---|
Onorato et al. (2024 - this work) | 33 | GNIRS/NIRES/X-Shooter/GMOS/LRIS/MODS | ||
D’Odorico et al. (2023) | 42 | X-Shooter | ||
Yang et al. (2021) | 38a | GNIRS/NIRES/X-Shooter/FIRE/F2 | ||
Shen et al. (2019) | 50 | GNIRS | ||
Selsing et al. (2016) | 7 | X-Shooter | ||
Telfer et al. (2002) | 184 | FOS/GHRS/STIS | ||
Vanden Berk et al. (2001) | 2204 | SDSS |
The discrepancies highlighted in the inset panel of Figure 4 are most likely due to differences in luminosity among the samples (see the column in Table 6), as we know that many emission line properties are functions of quasar luminosity. This is the case of C IV, a high-ionization line visible in the composites, where a decreasing equivalent line width (EW) is expected with increasing luminosity, according to the so-called Baldwin effect (Baldwin, 1977). The biggest differences are noticeable in the strength of the C IV emission line when comparing our composite with the one from the most bright samples, such as Selsing et al. (2016), Shen et al. (2019) and D’Odorico et al. (2023). This effect is also confirmed by the test described in Section 5.3, where we divide the sample of non-BAL quasars into two luminosity bins and create a separate composite from each one. In Figure 7, we can notice the different EW of the Ly, C IV, and Mg II emission lines due to the difference in of the two sub-samples. The different strength of the Ly line between our sample (or high- in general) and low- ones is due to the increasing absorption from the IGM toward higher redshift. The overall continuum slope of the composite is consistent with those from the literature, showing that the same spectral features are preserved in quasars at different ranges.
In the next sections, we discuss an alternative version of the composite obtained including the BAL quasars, and two tests performed by dividing the non-BAL quasars into two redshift bins first, and into two bins later.
5.1 Including BAL quasars
As already stated at the beginning of Section 5, BAL features can affect the shape of a quasar spectrum. For this reason, we decide to exclude the contribution of all the BAL quasars in the sample to the creation of the final composite spectrum. However, for completeness purposes, we also create another version of the composite, this time considering all the quasars in the sample, so including the BALs. We show the comparison between the two versions in Figure 5, where the blue curve is the composite created from the non-BAL quasars in the sample, and the orange curve is the one obtained including also the BALs flagged in Table 3, and listed in Section 2.1. The rest of the plot shows the same quantities already described in Figure 4. From this comparison, we can see that there are no strong differences between the two versions of the composite. Both D’Odorico et al. (2023) and Yang et al. (2021) make the same investigation on the BAL contribution to their composite spectrum. They agree with this study that BALs do not cause significant differences but, unlike in this work, decide to include them in their final composite anyway.
5.2 Dividing the sample into two redshift bins
To check whether we are averaging any features in the final composite spectrum because of the relatively wide redshift distribution of the quasars in the sample, we perform another test dividing the non-BAL quasars into two redshift bins and creating a composite spectrum from the spectra in each bin. If any "-related" features are present, they might arise when dividing the sample into two groups based on the redshift. To account for enough statistics, we consider the median redshift of the non-BALs () and create a version of the composite from the spectra having and another version from the spectra with . The two versions are shown in Figure 6, where the blue curve is the composite created from the quasars at , and the orange curve is the one obtained from the quasars at . The rest of the plot shows the same quantities already described in Figure 4.
From this comparison, we notice that the high- composite has a shallower slope and thus a redder continuum. A possible interpretation of this would be a larger number of "subtle" BAL absorption at higher redshift. Bischetti et al. (2022, 2023) found that the BAL fraction in quasars is times higher than in quasars at . The presence of BALs correlates with a redder continuum, probably due to dust attenuation. If this idea is correct, it would explain why the Ly and C IV lines look weaker. Alternatively, another explanation to justify the weaker Ly could be the presence of more neutral hydrogen in the IGM causing more absorption and suggesting the presence of statistical IGM dam** wings (Ďurovčíková et al., 2024). Finally, the difference in the Mg II lines most likely reflects a change in the average black hole mass or accretion rate of the sub-samples.
5.3 Dividing the sample into two magnitude bins
The last test we perform on the composite consists of dividing the non-BAL quasars into two bins and creating a composite spectrum from the spectra in each bin. As before, to account for enough statistics, we consider the median of the non-BALs () and create a version of the composite from the spectra having and another version from the spectra with . The two versions are shown in Figure 7, where the blue curve is the composite created from the quasars having , and the orange curve is the one obtained from the quasars having . The rest of the plot shows the same quantities already described in Figure 4.
6 Summary
In this section, we discuss the conclusions of this paper, the quantitative analysis performed on the sample, and future work. We summarize the two main results below.
-
•
We report and release a sample of quasars at (), in the magnitude range (), where out of the quasars show BAL features in their spectrum, and are new unpublished quasars (Bañados et al. in prep, Belladitta et al. in prep). This represents the largest medium/moderate-resolution released sample of quasars at high redshift from ground-based instruments. The optical and NIR spectroscopy were obtained using the Gemini/GNIRS, Keck/NIRES, VLT/X-Shooter, Gemini/GMOS, Keck/DEIMOS, Keck/LRIS, and LBT/MODS instruments. The data in this sample allow us to estimate the of the quasars directly from the spectra, and to determine their quality from the SNR:
-
1.
After scaling the flux and inverse variance of each spectrum considering the J, Y, or band magnitude of every quasar, we calculate from these new flux-scaled spectra (see Section 3.3 and Appendix B). These values may be relevant in the course of the analysis on quasar proximity zones (Onorato et al., in prep), in case we have to correct the measurements for the luminosity of the quasar.
- 2.
-
1.
-
•
We create a quasar composite spectrum using out of the quasars of this sample: we exclude the BAL quasars to avoid biases in the analysis due to absorption features in their spectra. We compare the composite with others from low and high redshift quasars samples from the literature. No significant redshift evolution is found for either broad UV emission lines or quasar continuum slopes (see Section 5). An alternative version of the composite, created considering also the BAL quasars, is described in Section 5.1. We notice that there are no strong differences between the two versions. Other two tests are discussed in Section 5.2 and 5.3. In the first one, we divide the sample of non-BAL quasars into two redshift bins (17 quasars at and at ) and create a composite from the spectra in each bin. There are small differences in the continuum shape and the strength of Ly and C IV emission lines, visible in Figure 6, that we tentatively interpret as due to the presence of subtle BAL absorption at higher (Bischetti et al., 2022, 2023). Alternatively, statistical dam** wings (Ďurovčíková et al., 2024) could also justify the weaker Ly observed at higher , while the difference in Mg II could arise from changes in the average black hole mass or accretion rates. In the second test, we divide the sample of non-BAL quasars into two bins (17 quasars at and at ) and create a composite from the spectra in each bin. In Figure 7, we see how weaker emission lines are associated with brighter quasars, confirming the presence of the Baldwin effect (Baldwin, 1977), which still holds at early times.
Starting from the sample presented in this paper, in subsequent works we will reconstruct the quasar’s intrinsic blue side from the observed red side, with PCA continuum modeling (e.g., Davies et al. 2018a, b; Bosman et al. 2021), to study their proximity zones (Onorato et al., in prep), and Ly dam** wings (Miralda-Escudé 1998; Davies et al. 2018a; Ďurovčíková et al. 2024; Greig et al. 2024). In particular, Hennawi et al. in prep introduce a new inference approach for analyzing the IGM dam** wings, deriving a single Bayesian likelihood for the entire spectrum; while Kist et al. in prep, quantify the precision with which these IGM dam** wings analyzed with the new method can measure astrophysical parameters such as and , and the dependence of this precision on the properties of the spectra analyzed. Our final goal will be to impose more stringent constraints on during the EoR and the radiative efficiency of the earliest SMBHs.
Acknowledgements
This work is based in part on observations obtained at the international Gemini Observatory, a program of NSF NOIRLab, which is managed by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. National Science Foundation on behalf of the Gemini Observatory partnership: the U.S. National Science Foundation (United States), National Research Council (Canada), Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (Chile), Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (Argentina), Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações e Comunicações (Brazil), and Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute (Republic of Korea).
Some of the data presented herein were obtained at Keck Observatory, which is a private 501(c)3 non-profit organization operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology, the University of California, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Observatory was made possible by the generous financial support of the W. M. Keck Foundation. The authors wish to recognize and acknowledge the very significant cultural role and reverence that the summit of Maunakea has always had within the Native Hawaiian community. We are most fortunate to have the opportunity to conduct observations from this mountain. This research has made use of the Keck Observatory Archive (KOA), which is operated by the W. M. Keck Observatory and the NASA Exoplanet Science Institute (NExScI), under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
This work is based in part on observations made with ESO telescopes at the La Silla Paranal Observatory.
This paper also uses data based on observations obtained at the LBT, an international collaboration among institutions in the United States, Italy and Germany. The LBT Corporation partners are: The University of Arizona on behalf of the Arizona university system; Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Italy; LBT Beteiligungsgesellschaft, Germany, representing the Max Planck Society, the Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, and Heidelberg University; The Ohio State University; The Research Corporation, on behalf of The University of Notre Dame, University of Minnesota and University of Virginia.
We acknowledge the use of the PypeIt data reduction package.
We acknowledge helpful conversations with the ENIGMA group at UC Santa Barbara and Leiden University. SO is grateful to Ben Wang and Suk Sien Tie for help with some of the data reductions, and to Elia Pizzati and Caitlin Doughty for comments on an early version of the manuscript.
JFH acknowledges support from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement No 885301), from the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant No. 2307180, and from NASA under the Astrophysics Data Analysis Program (ADAP, Grant No. 80NSSC21K1568). JTS is supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) - Project number 518006966. CM acknowledges support from Fondecyt Iniciacion grant 11240336 and the ANID BASAL project FB210003. E.P.F. is supported by the international Gemini Observatory, a program of NSF’s NOIRLab, which is managed by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation, on behalf of the Gemini partnership of Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the Republic of Korea, and the United States of America.
Data Availability
Data archives
The raw Gemini data (both GNIRS and GMOS) can be searched and downloaded from the Gemini Observatory Archive at this link: https://archive.gemini.edu/searchform. The user needs to set the Instrument used and the coordinates of the target (RA and Dec). Additionally, we notice that sometimes there are superimposed features like vertical stri**, horizontal banding, and quadrant offsets on GNIRS data. We use the CLEANIR666https://www.gemini.edu/instrumentation/niri/data-reduction Python routine to remove these artifacts.
The raw Keck data (all NIRES, DEIMOS, and LRIS) can be downloaded from a Basic Search on the Keck Observatory Archive (KOA) at this link: https://koa.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/KOA/nph-KOAlogin. The user needs to select the Instrument used, set the Object Name or Location, and decide how to return the results. In case we want to download multiple targets, we can look for More Search Options, select the desired Instruments, and add a file in the Multiple Object Table File section. A code to create such a table is provided in the GitHub repository storing the relevant tables and codes used in this paper, whose link is provided in Section 2.3.
The raw ESO data (VLT/X-Shooter) can be downloaded from the ESO Observatory Archive at this link: https://archive.eso.org/eso/eso_archive_main.html. The user can type the coordinates of the target (RA and Dec), set the Instrument used, and select the category of data desired. In case we want to download multiple targets, we can add a file in the List of Targets section. A code to create such a file is provided in the GitHub repository already mentioned.
The raw LBT data (MODS) come from private projects present in the LBT Archive at this link: http://archive.lbto.org/. The user needs to set the coordinates of the target (RA and Dec), the Instrument used, and to authenticate for the project.
More (and fewer) details can always be inserted in the archives when searching for targets.
Data reduction and analysis
The files to reduce the spectroscopic data with PypeIt (.pypeit, .flux, .coadd1d, and .tell), the .csv tables (containing information such as the redshift of the quasars, photometric details or SNR), and the relevant codes to reproduce the results in this paper are all stored in the GitHub repository previously mentioned.
Final FITS files (spectra and composites)
All the FITS files produced in this work (45 flux-scaled spectra and 6 different versions of the composite spectrum) are available at CDS via anonymous ftp to cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr (130.79.128.5) or via this link: https://cdsarc.cds.unistra.fr/viz-bin/cat/J/MNRAS, after the publication of the paper in MNRAS.
References
- Aihara et al. (2018) Aihara H., et al., 2018, PASJ, 70, S4
- Andika et al. (2020) Andika I. T., et al., 2020, ApJ, 903, 34
- Andika et al. (2022) Andika I. T., et al., 2022, AJ, 163, 251
- Andika et al. (2024) Andika I. T., et al., 2024, A&A, 685, A25
- Bañados et al. (2015) Bañados E., Decarli R., Walter F., Venemans B. P., Farina E. P., Fan X., 2015, ApJ, 805, L8
- Bañados et al. (2016) Bañados E., et al., 2016, ApJS, 227, 11
- Bañados et al. (2018) Bañados E., et al., 2018, Nature, 553, 473
- Bañados et al. (2019) Bañados E., et al., 2019, ApJ, 885, 59
- Bañados et al. (2021) Bañados E., et al., 2021, ApJ, 909, 80
- Baldwin (1977) Baldwin J. A., 1977, ApJ, 214, 679
- Becker et al. (2015) Becker G. D., Bolton J. S., Madau P., Pettini M., Ryan-Weber E. V., Venemans B. P., 2015, MNRAS, 447, 3402
- Bischetti et al. (2022) Bischetti M., et al., 2022, Nature, 605, 244
- Bischetti et al. (2023) Bischetti M., et al., 2023, ApJ, 952, 44
- Bochanski et al. (2009) Bochanski J. J., et al., 2009, PASP, 121, 1409
- Bosman et al. (2021) Bosman S. E. I., Ďurovčíková D., Davies F. B., Eilers A.-C., 2021, MNRAS, 503, 2077
- Bosman et al. (2022) Bosman S. E. I., et al., 2022, MNRAS, 514, 55
- Casali et al. (2007) Casali M., et al., 2007, A&A, 467, 777
- Clough et al. (2005) Clough S. A., Shephard M. W., Mlawer E. J., Delamere J. S., Iacono M. J., Cady-Pereira K., Boukabara S., Brown P. D., 2005, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiative Transfer, 91, 233
- D’Odorico et al. (2023) D’Odorico V., et al., 2023, MNRAS, 523, 1399
- Davies et al. (2018a) Davies F. B., et al., 2018a, ApJ, 864, 142
- Davies et al. (2018b) Davies F. B., et al., 2018b, ApJ, 864, 143
- Davies et al. (2019) Davies F. B., Hennawi J. F., Eilers A.-C., 2019, ApJ, 884, L19
- Davies et al. (2020) Davies F. B., Hennawi J. F., Eilers A.-C., 2020, MNRAS, 493, 1330
- Davies et al. (2023) Davies R. L., et al., 2023, MNRAS, 521, 289
- Decarli et al. (2018) Decarli R., et al., 2018, ApJ, 854, 97
- Dye et al. (2018) Dye S., et al., 2018, MNRAS, 473, 5113
- Eilers et al. (2017) Eilers A.-C., Davies F. B., Hennawi J. F., Prochaska J. X., Lukić Z., Mazzucchelli C., 2017, ApJ, 840, 24
- Eilers et al. (2020) Eilers A.-C., et al., 2020, ApJ, 900, 37
- Elias et al. (2006a) Elias J. H., Rodgers B., Joyce R. R., Lazo M., Doppmann G., Winge C., Rodríguez-Ardila A., 2006a, in McLean I. S., Iye M., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 6269, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series. p. 626914, doi:10.1117/12.671765
- Elias et al. (2006b) Elias J. H., Joyce R. R., Liang M., Muller G. P., Hileman E. A., George J. R., 2006b, in McLean I. S., Iye M., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 6269, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series. p. 62694C, doi:10.1117/12.671817
- Faber et al. (2003) Faber S. M., et al., 2003, in Iye M., Moorwood A. F. M., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes. pp 1657–1669, doi:10.1117/12.460346
- Fan et al. (2006) Fan X., et al., 2006, AJ, 132, 117
- Fan et al. (2019) Fan X., et al., 2019, ApJ, 870, L11
- Fan et al. (2023) Fan X., Bañados E., Simcoe R. A., 2023, ARA&A, 61, 373
- Farina et al. (2022) Farina E. P., et al., 2022, ApJ, 941, 106
- Fujimoto et al. (2023) Fujimoto S., et al., 2023, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2308.11609
- Furtak et al. (2023) Furtak L. J., et al., 2023, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2308.05735
- Gaskell (1982) Gaskell C. M., 1982, ApJ, 263, 79
- Goulding et al. (2023) Goulding A. D., et al., 2023, ApJ, 955, L24
- Greene et al. (2023) Greene J. E., et al., 2023, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2309.05714
- Greig et al. (2024) Greig B., et al., 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3208
- Gullikson et al. (2014) Gullikson K., Dodson-Robinson S., Kraus A., 2014, AJ, 148, 53
- Gunn & Peterson (1965) Gunn J. E., Peterson B. A., 1965, ApJ, 142, 1633
- Hennawi et al. (2006) Hennawi J. F., et al., 2006, ApJ, 651, 61
- Hook et al. (2004) Hook I. M., Jørgensen I., Allington-Smith J. R., Davies R. L., Metcalfe N., Murowinski R. G., Crampton D., 2004, PASP, 116, 425
- Horne (1986) Horne K., 1986, PASP, 98, 609
- Inayoshi et al. (2020) Inayoshi K., Visbal E., Haiman Z., 2020, ARA&A, 58, 27
- Jiang et al. (2016) Jiang L., et al., 2016, ApJ, 833, 222
- Kokorev et al. (2023) Kokorev V., et al., 2023, ApJ, 957, L7
- Kokorev et al. (2024) Kokorev V., et al., 2024, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2401.09981
- Labbe et al. (2023) Labbe I., et al., 2023, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2306.07320
- Lai et al. (2022) Lai S., et al., 2022, MNRAS, 513, 1801
- Larson et al. (2023) Larson R. L., et al., 2023, ApJ, 953, L29
- Lawrence et al. (2007) Lawrence A., et al., 2007, MNRAS, 379, 1599
- Lusso et al. (2015) Lusso E., Worseck G., Hennawi J. F., Prochaska J. X., Vignali C., Stern J., O’Meara J. M., 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4204
- Maiolino et al. (2023a) Maiolino R., et al., 2023a, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2305.12492
- Maiolino et al. (2023b) Maiolino R., et al., 2023b, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2306.00953
- Matsuoka et al. (2018) Matsuoka Y., et al., 2018, ApJS, 237, 5
- Matsuoka et al. (2019a) Matsuoka Y., et al., 2019a, ApJ, 872, L2
- Matsuoka et al. (2019b) Matsuoka Y., et al., 2019b, ApJ, 883, 183
- Matsuoka et al. (2022) Matsuoka Y., et al., 2022, ApJS, 259, 18
- Matthee et al. (2024) Matthee J., et al., 2024, ApJ, 963, 129
- Mazzucchelli et al. (2017) Mazzucchelli C., et al., 2017, ApJ, 849, 91
- Mazzucchelli et al. (2023) Mazzucchelli C., et al., 2023, A&A, 676, A71
- McMahon et al. (2013) McMahon R. G., Banerji M., Gonzalez E., Koposov S. E., Bejar V. J., Lodieu N., Rebolo R., VHS Collaboration 2013, The Messenger, 154, 35
- Meyer et al. (2019) Meyer R. A., Bosman S. E. I., Ellis R. S., 2019, MNRAS, 487, 3305
- Miralda-Escudé (1998) Miralda-Escudé J., 1998, ApJ, 501, 15
- Moorwood et al. (1998) Moorwood A., Cuby J. G., Lidman C., 1998, The Messenger, 91, 9
- Mortlock et al. (2011) Mortlock D. J., et al., 2011, Nature, 474, 616
- Oke et al. (1995) Oke J. B., et al., 1995, PASP, 107, 375
- Onoue et al. (2019) Onoue M., et al., 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 880, 77
- Pérez-González et al. (2024) Pérez-González P. G., et al., 2024, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2401.08782
- Pogge et al. (2010) Pogge R. W., et al., 2010, in McLean I. S., Ramsay S. K., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III. p. 77350A, doi:10.1117/12.857215
- Prochaska et al. (2020) Prochaska J., et al., 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308
- Reed et al. (2017) Reed S. L., et al., 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4702
- Reed et al. (2019) Reed S. L., et al., 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1874
- Richards et al. (2002) Richards G. T., Vanden Berk D. E., Reichard T. A., Hall P. B., Schneider D. P., SubbaRao M., Thakar A. R., York D. G., 2002, AJ, 124, 1
- Rockosi et al. (2010) Rockosi C., et al., 2010, in McLean I. S., Ramsay S. K., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III. p. 77350R, doi:10.1117/12.856818
- Ross & Cross (2020) Ross N. P., Cross N. J. G., 2020, MNRAS, 494, 789
- Satyavolu et al. (2023) Satyavolu S., et al., 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4918
- Schindler et al. (2020) Schindler J.-T., et al., 2020, ApJ, 905, 51
- Selsing et al. (2016) Selsing J., Fynbo J. P. U., Christensen L., Krogager J. K., 2016, A&A, 585, A87
- Shen & Ménard (2012) Shen Y., Ménard B., 2012, ApJ, 748, 131
- Shen et al. (2016) Shen Y., et al., 2016, ApJ, 831, 7
- Shen et al. (2019) Shen Y., et al., 2019, ApJ, 873, 35
- Tang et al. (2017) Tang J.-J., et al., 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4568
- Telfer et al. (2002) Telfer R. C., Zheng W., Kriss G. A., Davidsen A. F., 2002, ApJ, 565, 773
- Tytler & Fan (1992) Tytler D., Fan X.-M., 1992, ApJS, 79, 1
- Vanden Berk et al. (2001) Vanden Berk D. E., et al., 2001, AJ, 122, 549
- Venemans et al. (2013) Venemans B. P., et al., 2013, ApJ, 779, 24
- Venemans et al. (2015) Venemans B. P., et al., 2015, ApJ, 801, L11
- Venemans et al. (2016) Venemans B. P., Walter F., Zschaechner L., Decarli R., De Rosa G., Findlay J. R., McMahon R. G., Sutherland W. J., 2016, ApJ, 816, 37
- Venemans et al. (2017) Venemans B. P., et al., 2017, ApJ, 851, L8
- Vernet et al. (2011) Vernet J., et al., 2011, A&A, 536, A105
- Wang et al. (2017) Wang F., et al., 2017, ApJ, 839, 27
- Wang et al. (2018) Wang F., et al., 2018, ApJ, 869, L9
- Wang et al. (2019) Wang F., et al., 2019, ApJ, 884, 30
- Wang et al. (2021a) Wang F., et al., 2021a, ApJ, 907, L1
- Wang et al. (2021b) Wang F., et al., 2021b, ApJ, 908, 53
- Wang et al. (2024) Wang F., et al., 2024, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2404.15413
- Wilson et al. (2004) Wilson J. C., et al., 2004, in Moorwood A. F. M., Iye M., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 5492, Ground-based Instrumentation for Astronomy. pp 1295–1305, doi:10.1117/12.550925
- Woods et al. (2019) Woods T. E., et al., 2019, Publ. Astron. Soc. Australia, 36, e027
- Wu et al. (2015) Wu X.-B., et al., 2015, Nature, 518, 512
- Yang et al. (2019) Yang J., et al., 2019, AJ, 157, 236
- Yang et al. (2020) Yang J., et al., 2020, ApJ, 897, L14
- Yang et al. (2021) Yang J., et al., 2021, ApJ, 923, 262
- Ďurovčíková et al. (2024) Ďurovčíková D., et al., 2024, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2401.10328
- van Dokkum (2001) van Dokkum P. G., 2001, PASP, 113, 1420
Appendix A Flux scaling with J, Y, or band photometry
As already mentioned in Section 3.2, the reduced spectrum of every quasar in this sample is scaled using the J, Y, or band photometry. This is because the flux calibration of the spectra performed with PypeIt is relative and, while we are still looking for a definitive absolute flux calibration method, we need to tie the spectroscopic measurements with the photometric ones, which are more accurate in terms of fluxes.
To correct the spectra, we scale them to a given magnitude in a specified passband filter. First, we calculate the AB magnitude of the spectrum in a certain passband filter () by using the Python library Speclite777https://speclite.readthedocs.io/en/latest/. Then we calculate a scale factor () using the difference between the calculated magnitude from the spectrum and the true magnitude from the photometry (), as shown in this formula that we get from the Pogson law:
(4) |
This scale factor is used to adjust the flux and inverse variance of the spectrum to match the true magnitude in the given passband.
Appendix B Absolute magnitude of J09100414 and J09230402 (BAL quasars)
This Appendix describes the approach followed to calculate in the two problematic cases of J09100414 and J09230402. These quasars are affected by strong BAL features, which mostly appear around the region at rest-frame Å, making the measurement of with the method described in Section 3.3 difficult to trust (note the black dashed line at Å in Figure 9 falling in the area affected by the BAL). To correct this problem, we want to visualize what the continuum would be in a quasar with the same shape, but without BAL features. For this aim, we make a comparison using the composite spectrum created from the sample excluding the BAL quasars (described in Section 5 and shown in Figure 4). We start moving the observed spectrum (already flux-scaled using its J-band magnitude) to the rest-frame, while the composite spectrum is already in the rest-frame. We scale the composite to the observed spectrum at a certain wavelength ( Å, in both cases, produces a good result) by multiplying for a factor 888It is the ratio between the flux of the BAL spectrum and the flux of the composite spectrum at the wavelength .. We apply a power-law correction with an exponent , to rotate the composite and then have a better match with the orientation of the observed spectra, according to the following formula:
(5) |
We set for J09100414 and for J09230402.
Finally, we can calculate (reported in Table 3) from the scaled composite spectrum following the method described in Section 3.3, assuming that the magenta star in Figure 9 represents the "new" continuum level for the BAL quasar at Å. Figure 9 shows the observed spectra in blue and the composite in orange, with their noise vectors reported at the bottom of each plot; the black dashed lines represent Å and the green dashed lines are the normalization wavelengths, both set at Å.
Appendix C SNR
In Figure 10, we plot the distribution of the SNR along the rest-frame wavelength grid defined in Section 3.4 for J03131806 and J11101329 (dark red curves), and the J, H, and K bands (indicated in Section 3.4 too) are in different colors. These are two good example cases of spectra with medium/high and medium/low SNR, respectively.