Astronomy and Astrophysics – Astronomy
Scientific paper
Oct 2005
adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2005aj....130.1961s&link_type=abstract
The Astronomical Journal, Volume 130, Issue 4, pp. 1961-1963.
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Astronomy
1
Errata, Addenda
Scientific paper
The model magnitudes of extended objects (e.g., galaxies) processed with the photometric pipeline PHOTO, version 5.3 (SDSS Data Release 1 [DR1] and earlier), were systematically too faint by about 0.2 mag (K. Abazajian et al. [AJ, 126, 1720 [2003]; AJ, 126, 1720 [2003]]). The part of the code that ensures the consistency of model and point-spread function (PSF) magnitudes for point sources used an incorrect model for the PSF, causing a large (and incorrect) aperture correction. The error has been fixed for version 5.4 and later of PHOTO (SDSS DR2 and later), and an improved model magnitude called cmodel has been introduced as described in detail in K. Abazajian et al. (AJ, 126, 1720 [2003]). The new cmodel magnitudes are computed using individual apertures in each band and tend to be fainter (by up to 0.3-0.5 mag) in the u and g bands than the corresponding model magnitudes (which use r-band apertures in all bands). As a result of those two effects, the median differences between the DR3 cmodel magnitudes and the DR1 model magnitudes for this sample are +0.22, +0.13, +0.05, +0.01, and +0.02 mag in the u, g, r, i, and z bands, respectively, with standard deviations of 0.34, 0.20, 0.15, 0.17, and 0.19 mag. The online version of this erratum contains the correct versions of Tables 1 and 2 using the SDSS DR3 cmodel magnitudes (K. Abazajian et al. [AJ, 126, 1720 [2003]]). The comments for these tables are explained in more detail in §§ 3.1 and 3.2 and Appendix A of the original paper. Also, due to a typographical error in the figure-creating software, the shaded histogram in Figure 10d was incorrectly identical to the one in panel c. We include Figure 10 with the correct panel d here. In addition, the absolute i-band magnitudes and luminosities as presented in Figure 14 and Table 5 were previously computed using a Hubble constant of H0=100 km s-1 Mpc-1 instead of H0=72 km s-1 Mpc-1 as stated in § 4.2 of the original paper. The corrected Figure 14 using the SDSS DR3 cmodel magnitudes and H0=72 km s-1 Mpc-1 is presented here, while Table 5 is included in the online version of this erratum. The effect of using an erroneous Hubble constant is larger than the changes in the apparent magnitudes, resulting in a brighter average absolute magnitude of Icmodel=-22.8, not Imodel=-22 as stated in § 4.2.
While estimating the flux density at 2500 Å, using the u-g color and the u-band flux, we erroneously substituted a rest u-band effective wavelength of 3543(1+z) Å instead of the correct 3543/(1+z) Å. Equation (4) should readFν(2500 Å)=3631×10-0.4u-3.097log[1.417/(1+z)](u-g) Jy. (4)This error results in flatter estimates of the optical-to-X-ray index, αox, by 0.06 on the average and of the optical-to-radio index, αor, by 0.03. In addition, since the cmodel magnitudes are not appropriate for color estimates (on account of the different apertures used in each band) and the model magnitudes are contaminated by the host galaxy for low-luminosity active galactic nuclei (AGNs), we use the SDSS DR3 PSF magnitudes for the spectral index estimates. This has the opposite effect on Fν(2500 Å), steepening αox by about -0.15 and αor by about -0.07 on the average. Taking into account both effects results in small overall average changes (<~0.1 for αox in >90% of the cases and <~0.25 for αor in >70% of the cases) that do not affect our conclusions. Figure 16 and Table 5 have been corrected accordingly. In addition, the reference paper on the appearance of a broad double-peaked line in Pictor A, J. W. Sulentic et al. (AJ, 126, 1720 [2003]), was incorrectly cited as Sulentic, Pietsch, & Arp (1995).
We are grateful to Xue-Bing Wu for alerting us to the erroneous substitution in equation (4) and to Michael Eracleous for noting the erroneous citation.
Anderson Scott F.
Brinkmann Jon
Gunn James E.
Hall Pat B.
Hao Lei
No associations
LandOfFree
Erratum: ``Double-peaked Low-Ionization Emission Lines in Active Galactic Nuclei'' (AJ, 126, 1720 [2003]) does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.
If you have personal experience with Erratum: ``Double-peaked Low-Ionization Emission Lines in Active Galactic Nuclei'' (AJ, 126, 1720 [2003]), we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Erratum: ``Double-peaked Low-Ionization Emission Lines in Active Galactic Nuclei'' (AJ, 126, 1720 [2003]) will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-1619818