![Flux-weighted disk radius at λrest = 2500 Å vs. the black hole mass relation for AGNs/quasars. Filled and open squares denote, respectively, the ±1σ and ±2σ disk size constraints for PG 2308+098 derived from the JAVELIN thin disk analysis on the assumption of β = 4/3, and the two points are vertically shifted for clarity. The disk size constraints based on the continuum reverberation lags for quasar samples of Jiang et al. (2017) and Mudd et al. (2018), and those based on the microlensing measurements taken from Morgan et al. (2010), are also plotted for comparison (see text in subsection 4.1 for details). The error-bars are ±1σ, except for the data points from Mudd et al. (2018) where the error bars denote ±2σ ranges. Note that MBH (taken from each paper) generally have an uncertainty of 0.4 dex. The standard thin disk model prediction for Eddington ratios of 0.1, 0.3, and 1.0 are denoted by lines [$R_{\rm disk} \propto M_{\rm BH}^{2/3}$; equation (5)], along with an arbitrarily scaled line of $R_{\rm disk} \propto M_{\rm BH}^{1/3}$, and the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO; RISCO = 6GMBH/c2), for comparison. Note that the black hole mass estimate for the most massive quasar in the sample provided by Jiang et al. (2017), SDSS J083841.70+430519.0 with MBH = 1010 M⊙, may be erroneous (see footnote 11). (Color online)](https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/pasj/70/5/10.1093_pasj_psy096/3/pasj_70_5_97_f8.jpeg?Expires=1750037669&Signature=Lv1EWdWzJKTDEzShQX7BTr3PvcJjCbuYCSLL4PRZZjpBy2S4vGwQeBdh8y4QAOp90i4Mz8baNiHgtH8p6vU~2xPTDDWABBiRvn4USPZdtUnQxvWE8XQOi0uAbwQ2Iv~euyDiCA4gZl3bKnHSWe6yagvmGmJhbFarS2aRe9sM1zbq1F~L0fDF39XJOIE4~9Ejd97FK3d5476omkufpKllpsAKB~37nxrcrymTmAiCF5c~MWDDBdxoda9Q24imw8Ct1uL7V6q-jVCrQVR2mYVEO8nRurzH7biib5S6VAk3nwUM8ORxCMM4LotaPZewXprECCb9LLh7L5RQfXqFApjktw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA)
Flux-weighted disk radius at λrest = 2500 Å vs. the black hole mass relation for AGNs/quasars. Filled and open squares denote, respectively, the ±1σ and ±2σ disk size constraints for PG 2308+098 derived from the JAVELIN thin disk analysis on the assumption of β = 4/3, and the two points are vertically shifted for clarity. The disk size constraints based on the continuum reverberation lags for quasar samples of Jiang et al. (2017) and Mudd et al. (2018), and those based on the microlensing measurements taken from Morgan et al. (2010), are also plotted for comparison (see text in subsection 4.1 for details). The error-bars are ±1σ, except for the data points from Mudd et al. (2018) where the error bars denote ±2σ ranges. Note that MBH (taken from each paper) generally have an uncertainty of 0.4 dex. The standard thin disk model prediction for Eddington ratios of 0.1, 0.3, and 1.0 are denoted by lines [|$R_{\rm disk} \propto M_{\rm BH}^{2/3}$|; equation (5)], along with an arbitrarily scaled line of |$R_{\rm disk} \propto M_{\rm BH}^{1/3}$|, and the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO; RISCO = 6GMBH/c2), for comparison. Note that the black hole mass estimate for the most massive quasar in the sample provided by Jiang et al. (2017), SDSS J083841.70+430519.0 with MBH = 1010 M⊙, may be erroneous (see footnote 11). (Color online)
