OzDES Reverberation Mapping Program: Stacking analysis with H$\beta$, Mg ii and C iv

Abstract

Reverberation mapping is the leading technique used to measure direct black hole masses outside of the local Universe. Additionally, reverberation measurements calibrate secondary mass-scaling relations used to estimate single-epoch virial black hole masses. The Australian Dark Energy Survey (OzDES) conducted one of the first multi-object reverberation mapping surveys, monitoring 735 AGN up to $z\sim 4$, over 6 years. The limited temporal coverage of the OzDES data has hindered recovery of individual measurements for some classes of sources, particularly those with shorter reverberation lags or lags that fall within campaign season gaps. To alleviate this limitation, we perform a stacking analysis of the cross-correlation functions of sources with similar intrinsic properties to recover average composite reverberation lags. This analysis leads to the recovery of average lags in each redshift-luminosity bin across our sample. We present the average lags recovered for the H$\beta$, Mg ii and C iv samples, as well as multi-line measurements for redshift bins where two lines are accessible. The stacking analysis is consistent with the Radius-Luminosity relations for each line. Our results for the H$\beta$ sample demonstrate that stacking has the potential to improve upon constraints on the $R-L$ relation, which have been derived only from individual source measurements until now.

1 Introduction

Reverberation mapping is a powerful technique that can resolve the cores of active galactic nuclei (AGN) in the time domain. The accretion disk around the central supermassive black hole (SMBH) produces intrinsically variable emission at UV-optical wavelengths. The surrounding broad-line region (BLR) is ionised by this continuum emission, which drives a reverberation response in the emission-line flux from the BLR on time-scales of weeks to months (Blandford & McKee, 1982; Peterson, 1993). Multi-epoch photometric and spectroscopic observations can be used to trace the variability of the continuum and the emission-line response, respectively.

The size difference between the accretion disk (light-days to weeks) and the BLR (light-weeks to months) introduces a delay in the response of the BLR to the variation in the ionising flux. The delay, i.e. reverberation lag, $\tau$, can be recovered by cross-correlating the two light curves, in order to measure the radius of the BLR ($R_{\rm BLR}=c\tau$). The velocity dispersion of the BLR ($\Delta V$) can be estimated from the width of the broadened emission lines. The mass of the central black hole ($M_{\textrm{BH}}$) can then be measured using the virial theorem:

$$M_{\textrm{BH}}=f\frac{R_{\textrm{BLR}}\Delta V^{2}}{G},$$ (1)

where $f$ is the virial coefficient; a dimensionless scale factor that accounts for the geometry, orientation, and kinematics of the BLR (Woo et al., 2015).

Reverberation mapping (RM) is presently the only method that can be used to directly measure SMBH masses beyond the local Universe, as other techniques are reliant on resolving the gravitational sphere-of-influence of the black hole, which remains challenging even with high angular resolution instruments (e.g., Gebhardt et al., 2000, 2011; Kuo et al., 2011; Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration et al., 2019). However, RM is by nature observationally intensive. It requires repeated observation over the relevant variability time-scales of AGN in order to ensure the light-curve variability and reverberation lag are resolved (Horne et al., 2004). Early surveys monitored AGN on a source-by-source basis, making observations over several months to years. Lag measurements were made for dozens of sources, using the H$\beta$ line (e.g., Peterson et al., 1998; Kaspi et al., 2000; Peterson & Horne, 2004; Bentz et al., 2009). From these measurements, a tight correlation was found between the AGN luminosity and the radius of the BLR ($R-L$ relation; e.g., Bentz et al., 2009, 2013). Lags recovered using higher ionisation emission lines (e.g., C iv) were found to be shorter than lags recovered using lower ionisation emission lines (e.g., H$\beta$), demonstrating the ionisation stratification of the BLR (Gaskell & Sparke, 1986; Dietrich et al., 1993). The $R-L$ relation is importantly used to calibrate secondary mass-scaling relations to estimate single-epoch virial BH masses (e.g., Shen et al., 2011), and has also been proposed as a way to standardise AGN for use as a cosmological distance indicators (Watson et al., 2011; Martínez-Aldama et al., 2019).

Through the advent of wide-field photometric surveys such as the Dark Energy Survey, (DES, Dark Energy Survey Collaboration et al., 2016), multi-epoch photometric data for large samples of AGN has become readily available. Concurrent observations can be made with multi-object spectrographs, however the demand for these instruments is high and therefore limits the number of epochs which can be feasibly acquired. The Australian Dark Energy Survey (OzDES) and Sloan Digital Sky Survey Reverberation Mapping (SDSS-RM) Project have conducted the first multi-object RM surveys, observing hundreds of AGN probing a wide range of AGN luminosities and redshifts (King et al., 2015; Shen et al., 2015). These programs have delivered over one hundred new lag measurements (Grier et al., 2017; Hoormann et al., 2019; Grier et al., 2019; Homayouni et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2021, 2023; Malik et al., 2023, Penton et al. in prep). This allowed the Mg ii and C iv $R-L$ relations to be constrained for the first time using statistically significant samples, however there is significant scatter in the measurements. This is mostly due to challenges with data quality (low signal-to-noise, limited sampling; see Malik et al., 2022) and lag recovery reliability (Li et al., 2019; Penton et al., 2022). These factors have limited the lag recovery efficacy of each survey to about 10-25%.

Stacking can be used to combine the cross-correlation signals of physically similar AGN to recover average lags for these objects. The technique was first applied by Fine et al. (2012, 2013) using only two spectroscopic epochs, which yielded a marginal result. After demonstrating the success of the technique with the Bentz et al. (2013) H$\beta$ sample, Li et al. (2017) measured composite lags with H$\alpha$, H$\beta$, He ii and Mg ii using a subset of the SDSS-RM sample. Stacked averages are not swayed by the systematic errors from individual sources. Their consistency (or not) with the measurements made for individual sources is therefore important. Additionally, with the wide redshift range covered by our sample, the gaps in the observational window function can be filled in to some extent. Therefore, stacking leverages the data in a way that cannot be done with traditional individual measurements.

We present a stacked lag analysis of the entire OzDES sample, for the H$\beta$, Mg ii and C iv lines. Section 2 details the observations obtained by OzDES and the data calibration procedures. In Section 3 we describe the technique used to recover stacked lags. In Section 4 we present our average lag measurements, and comparisons with individual measurements on the respective $R-L$ relationships for each emission line. We summarize our results and the discuss the outlook to the future in Section 5.

Throughout this work we adopt a flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmology, with $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, $\Omega_{M}=0.3$, and $H_{0}=70$ km s^-1 Mpc^-1.

2 Data

Our photometric data were obtained as part of the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Supernova Program, which observed 10 deep fields covering 27 deg², comprising the ELAIS, XMM-LSS, Chandra deep-field South, and SDSS Stripe 82 fields (Kessler et al., 2015; Morganson et al., 2018). These fields were observed in the $griz$ filters, with the Dark Energy Camera (DECam) on the 4m Blanco telescope at Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO) (Flaugher et al., 2015). The fields were observed with $\sim$6 day cadence over a 5-6 month season (August to January) from 2013 to 2018, with additional science verification data taken in 2012. The OzDES project (Yuan et al., 2015; Childress et al., 2017; Lidman et al., 2020) conducted follow-up spectroscopic observations with the 2dF multi-object fibre positioning system and the AAOmega spectrograph (3700-8800 Å, Sharp et al., 2006) on the 3.9m Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT), taken with approximately monthly cadence over the same seasons, from 2013 to 2019. After the conclusion of the Supernova Program, additional DECam observations were taken monthly in the 2018-19 season, taking the baseline of our photometric light curves to 7 years.

Figure 1: Distribution of redshifts and monochromatic luminosity at 5100 Å for the 690 AGN in the OzDES RM sample. The H$\beta$ sample extends to $z=0.75$, with 13 sources overlapping with our Mg ii sample. The Mg ii sample extends to $z=1.92$, with 106 sources overlapping with our C iv sample.

The OzDES Reverberation Mapping sample comprises 735 AGN, ranging from $0.1<z<4.0$, with apparent magnitudes 17.2 $<$ $r_{\rm{AB}}$ $<$ 22.3 (Tie et al., 2017). Of these 735 AGN, we removed 9 of the 78 AGN from the H$\beta$ sample due to broad-absorption lines (BALs) or incorrect classification as a Type 1 AGN, 3 of the 453 AGN from the Mg ii sample for the same reason (these sources overlapped with the H$\beta$ sample), and 88 of the 378 AGN from the C iv sample due to BALs. These sources were included in the initial survey selection to improve the source density on the sky and study BAL variability, but have proven challenging for reverberation analysis. The final sample we use in this analysis comprises 69 H$\beta$ sources, 450 Mg ii sources, and 290 C iv sources (690 AGN in total). The redshift and luminosity distribution of these targets is shown in Figure 1.

As done for the individual lag measurements made by Yu et al. (2023) and Malik et al. (2023), for the H$\beta$ and Mg ii samples we measure the emission-line flux from spectra obtained on different nights as separate epochs in order to maximise the cadence of our sampling for our emission-line light curves. As we have lower signal-to-noise for the C iv sample, we co-add the spectra over each observing run (typically 4-7 nights during dark time each month), as done by Hoormann et al. (2019).

We do not measure the continuum luminosity directly from the spectra due to fibre aperture effects from variable atmospheric seeing and fibre placement uncertainties. From the average $r$-band magnitude and redshift of the AGN, we estimated the monochromatic continuum flux at rest frame 5100 Å, 3000 Å and 1350 Å using the DECam $r$-band filter transmission curve and the SDSS quasar template (Vanden Berk et al., 2001). The template is scaled to the magnitude of the source, assuming $L_{\rm bol}=9\,\lambda L_{\lambda}$ (5100 Å) (Kaspi et al., 2000). The source properties for the OzDES sample used in this work are provided in §A and complete sample characteristics for the final OzDES RM sample will be provided in a future OzDES RM Program paper.

The DES photometry is calibrated using the DES data reduction pipeline (Morganson et al., 2018; Burke et al., 2018). We perform a spectrophotometric flux calibration following Hoormann et al. (2019). For the H$\beta$ and C iv samples, we measure the line fluxes as done by Hoormann et al. (2019). For the continuum subtraction, the local continuum windows we use for H$\beta$ are 4760 to 4790 Å and 5100 to 5130 Å, and for C iv are 1450 to 1460 Å and 1780 to 1790 Å. For the Mg ii sample, the iron subtraction and line flux measurement is performed as detailed in Yu et al. (2023). The calibration uncertainties of the line flux for each line are measured using the F-star warping function method as detailed in Yu et al. (2021).

3 Lag recovery method

As reverberation lags should be dependent on the intrinsic AGN luminosity alone (at least to first order), we bin the sources by their continuum luminosity. Further details are provided for each emission-line subsample in §4.

For each source in a redshift-luminosity bin, we covert the observation dates to the rest frame of the source by dividing by (1+$z$). We use the PyCCF code to perform the interpolated cross-correlation function method for each individual source (ICCF; Gaskell & Peterson, 1987; Sun et al., 2018). The continuum and emission-line light curves of each source are linearly interpolated to a grid spacing of 3 days. The interpolated light curves are cross-correlated as a function of time-lag. We then average the cross-correlation functions (CCF) of each source in the bin to obtain the stacked CCF. We search for lags over a (rest-frame) lag range of $[-100,300]$ days for H$\beta$ and C iv, and $[-100,500]$ days for Mg ii as it has a longer expected lag for our sample.

We measure the average lag and its uncertainties by bootstrapping the sample in each bin. We perform the above procedure to calculate the stacked CCF’s for each bootstrapped re-sample of the original binned sample. We repeat this 1000 times, and record the centroid of each CCF ($r_{\rm max}$) to build the bootstrap distribution, from which we adopt the median and 16th and 84th percentiles of this distribution as the recovered average stacked lag, $\tau$, and lower and upper uncertainties, $\sigma_{\tau}$, for the bin.

Following Li et al. (2017), we shuffle the spectroscopic epochs and repeat the stacking for 100 Monte Carlo realisations, and compare the stacked CCF produced by these uncorrelated light curves to the original stacked CCF. This is similar to the null hypothesis test used by Malik et al. (2023) to check that the lag recovery is not simply a product of the interaction of the window function with underlying red-noise correlation in the photometric light curves, considering the relatively low sampling density and modest signal-to-noise of our light curves.

4 Results

We present the results of our stacking analysis for each emission line sample in the OzDES RM sample, and a multi-line analysis of the subsamples for which two emission-lines are present. With the basic assumption that the lag of a source is dependent on the intrinsic AGN luminosity alone, by using the stacking method we are assuming the lags of each source within a bin are similar (in the rest-frame) so that we recover a representative average lag for these AGN. Since the binned sources are at different redshifts, when the light curve data is converted to the rest-frame, different variability and reverberation time-scales are probed by each source through their unique rest-frame observational window function. By stacking we can partially circumvent the usual impact of the sparse sampling (particularly the 7-month seasonal gaps) in the light curves of any one source, as we are combining the CCF’s for all sources in a bin. We compare the average lag measurements to the sample of existing individual lag measurements on the respective $R-L$ relations for each line.

4.1 H$\beta$

Figure 2: The luminosity bins for the H$\beta$ sample, labelled with the number of binned sources. Within each bin, the standard deviation of the expected lags for the individual sources (measured using the source luminosity and the Bentz et al. (2013) $R-L$ relation for H$\beta$) is $\sim$10% of the expected mean lag for the binned sample (measured as the mean of the expected lags for the individual sources).

Figure 3: Left column: The coloured solid lines are the stacked cross correlation functions (CCF) for each of the five luminosity bins for the H$\beta$ sample. The colours correspond to the respective bins in Figure 2. The 1$\sigma$ scatter of the bootstrapped CCF’s is shown by the coloured shaded region. The vertical dashed and dotted lines indicate the recovered average lag and its uncertainty, as measured from the bootstrap distribution (coloured histogram). The black solid line and grey shaded area show the mean and 1$\sigma$ scatter of the CCF’s generated using the randomised spectroscopic light curves following the procedure described in §3. Right column: The number of overlapping spectroscopic and photometric epochs as a function of time lag, in total for each source in the corresponding bin. The expected mean lag for the bin is indicated by the black dashed line.

Figure 4: The Radius-Luminosity relation for H$\beta$ (dotted lines), including the stacked average lag measurements made using the OzDES H$\beta$ sample, and existing individual lag measurements from Bentz et al. (2013, and references therein); SDSS-RM (Grier et al., 2017, quality 4 and 5); SEAMBH (Du et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014; Du et al., 2015, 2016, 2018; Hu et al., 2021); Lick AGN Monitoring Project (LAMP, U et al., 2022); and other measurements from Bentz et al. (2009); Barth et al. (2013); Bentz et al. (2014); Pei et al. (2014); Lu et al. (2016); Bentz et al. (2016a, b); Fausnaugh et al. (2017); Zhang et al. (2019); Rakshit et al. (2019); Li et al. (2021), of which measurements published before 2019 are compiled by Martínez-Aldama et al. (2019). The multi-line average lag measurement is presented in §4.4.

We divide our sample into five luminosity bins of equal size, as shown in Figure 2. The size of the bins were chosen as to maximise the number of sources in each bin while avoiding introducing a broad underlying distribution in the expected lags. The highest luminosity source was excluded from the analysis for this reason. Although there are a relatively small number of sources stacked in each bin, particularly when compared to stacking done by Fine et al. (2012, 2013), the signal-to-noise of our stacked CCF’s are sufficiently high as we have much more light curve data.

The stacked CCF’s for each bin of the H$\beta$ sample are shown in Figure 3, alongside the total number of overlapping light curve epochs as a function of time-lag for all sources stacked within the bin. As the observation dates of each source in a bin are converted to the rest-frame of the source, and there is a distribution of source redshifts within each bin, the total light curve sampling of the stacked sample begins to in-fill the rest frame observational gap imposed by the observed frame 7-month seasonal gap present in the individual observed light curves.

Comparing the stacked CCF, and its scatter measured from bootstrapping, to the stacked CCF’s after light curve randomisation, we see significant correlation signal present. This implies that the signal is not dominated by the correlation of any individual source. In all cases there is one major peak present, however, the lowest luminosity bin (blue) has a flatter CCF. There is limited but non-zero data overlap around the expected mean lags for the two highest luminosity bins, as they coincide with the first seasonal gap in our light curves. However, we recover significant average lags in each of these bins. This demonstrates the ability of stacking to overcome the limitations imposed by sparse sampling, which impede lag recovery for individual sources.

We plot the recovered average lags from each luminosity bin on the $R-L$ relation, as shown in Figure 4. Our stacked measurements are consistent with the Bentz et al. (2013) slope, which agrees with the physically motivated slope of $\sim$0.5. The uncertainty in the average lags are consistent to the uncertainties in the eight lags recovered for individual sources (Malik et al., 2023), and are inconsistent with the distribution of the SDSS-RM measurements (Grier et al., 2017; Li et al., 2017), for which shorter lags are recovered. Given the similarities of our programs and sample selection, the reason for this discrepancy is unclear. Although the main difference between the surveys is the baseline and cadence of the data, simulations by Fonseca Alvarez et al. (2020) and Malik et al. (2022) find that this does not bias the lag recovery of SDSS-RM to shorter lags, or OzDES to longer lags. For our composite lags we bin across our entire H$\beta$ sample, and do not reject any sources based on light curve signal-to-noise, or any other criteria.

As a test, we repeated the stacking after excluding all the objects with individual recovered lags (Malik et al., 2023). We show the results of this test in §B. Although the average lag uncertainties increase after the exclusion, the lags remain in close agreement with those from the original analysis.

4.2 Mg ii

Figure 5: The luminosity bins for the Mg ii sample, labelled with the number of binned sources. Within each bin, the standard deviation of the expected lags for the individual sources (measured using the source luminosity and the Trakhtenbrot & Netzer (2012) $R-L$ relation for Mg ii) is $\sim$20% of the expected mean lag for the binned sample.

Figure 6: Left column: The coloured solid lines are the stacked cross correlation functions (CCF) for each of the three luminosity bins for the Mg ii sample. The colours correspond to the respective bins in Figure 5. The 1$\sigma$ scatter of the bootstrapped CCF’s is shown by the coloured shaded region. The vertical dashed and dotted lines indicate the recovered average lag and its uncertainty, as measured from the bootstrap distribution (coloured histogram). The black solid line and grey shaded area show the mean and 1$\sigma$ scatter of the CCF’s generated using the randomised spectroscopic light curves following the procedure described in the text. Right column: The number of overlapping spectroscopic and photometric epochs as a function of time lag, in total for each source in the corresponding bin. The expected mean lag for the bin is indicated by the black dashed line.

Figure 7: Radius-Luminosity relation for Mg ii, with existing individual lag measurements from Metzroth et al. (2006); Lira et al. (2018); Czerny et al. (2019); Zajaček et al. (2020, 2021) and SDSS-RM (Homayouni et al., 2020, gold sample), along with the OzDES individual measurements (Yu et al., 2023), and our stacked average lag measurements. The multi-line average lag measurements are presented in §4.4.

The three luminosity bins used for the Mg ii sample are shown in Figure 5. The lowest and highest luminosity bins are slightly wider to include sources close to the edge of the bin. Ten sources were excluded from the analysis to optimise the bin densities and reduced smoothing of the stacked CCF’s. Larger luminosity bins were required to achieve adequate signal-to-noise in the stacked CCF’s for this sample.

We present the stacked CCF’s in Figure 6. The strength of the correlation signals in each bin are lower than for the H$\beta$ sample, however, comparing to the CCF’s produced using randomised light curves we can see there is significant signal present. The signal-to-noise of the Mg ii light-curve input data is lower than for the H$\beta$ sample, as the Mg ii sample is fainter and requires subtraction of Fe ii from the emission-line (Yu et al., 2021, 2023). However, we have 450 AGN in the Mg ii sample, and are therefore stacking many more sources in each bin. Since sample size is not the limiting factor in this case, the lower signal-to-noise of the Mg ii line light curves must be producing weaker stacked cross correlation signals. In the lowest luminosity bin, the signal is flat and no clear peak is present. For the other two bins a dominant peak is present, and the bootstrap distributions are adequately constrained to recover average lags.

We plot the recovered average lags from each luminosity bin on the Mg ii $R-L$ relation in Figure 7, along with the 25 individual measurements made with this sample by Yu et al. (2023). The average lags are in agreement with the recent individual measurements from Homayouni et al. (2020) and Yu et al. (2023). There is no clear progression to longer lags with higher luminosities given that the average lags for the lowest and intermediate luminosity bins are not particularly well constrained. As shown in Figure 6, there is limited data coverage over the expected mean lags for the lowest luminosity bin (blue), which coincides with the first seasonal gap in our light curves. The time-dilation distribution over the binned sample is not sufficient to ‘fill in’ the short timescales, but it is able to sufficiently bridge the second seasonal gap. This could explain why the uncertainty on the recovered average lag for the lowest luminosity bin is larger than the uncertainties for the intermediate and highest luminosity bins. The average lags for the three luminosity bins are formally consistent with both the steeper $R-L$ relation measured by Trakhtenbrot & Netzer (2012), and the shallower relation recently constrained by Yu et al. (2023), however, the better constrained mean lag for the highest luminosity bin is only consistent with the shallower relation.

4.3 C iv

Figure 8: The luminosity bins for the C iv sample, labelled with the number of binned sources. Within each bin, the standard deviation of the expected lags for the individual sources (measured using the source luminosity and the Hoormann et al. (2019) $R-L$ relation for C iv) is $\sim$15% of the expected mean lag for the binned sample.

Figure 9: Left column: The coloured solid lines are the stacked cross correlation functions (CCF) for each of the three luminosity bins for the C iv sample. The colours correspond to the respective bins in Figure 8. The 1$\sigma$ scatter of the bootstrapped CCF’s is shown by the coloured shaded region. The vertical dashed and dotted lines indicate the recovered average lag and its uncertainty, as measured from the bootstrap distribution (coloured histogram). The black solid line and grey shaded area show the mean and 1$\sigma$ scatter of the CCF’s generated using the randomised spectroscopic light curves following the procedure described in the text. Right column: The number of overlapping spectroscopic and photometric epochs as a function of time lag, in total for each source in the corresponding bin. The expected mean lag for the bin is indicated by the black dashed line.

Figure 10: Radius-Luminosity relation for C iv, with our stacked average lags and existing individual lag measurements from Peterson et al. (2005, and references therein); Kaspi et al. (2007); Trevese et al. (2014); Lira et al. (2018), and SDSS-RM (Grier et al., 2019; Shen et al., 2019, gold sample), Kaspi et al. (2021), along with the OzDES individual measurements (Hoormann et al., 2019). The multi-line average lag measurement is presented in §4.4.

As for the previous samples, we present the luminosity bins for the C iv sample in Figure 8, and the stacked CCF results in Figure 9. As required for Mg ii, larger luminosity bins were necessary to achieve sufficient signal-to-noise after stacking, and nine sources were excluded from the analysis to avoid overly wide bins in luminosity. The OzDES C iv sample has lower signal-to-noise than the H$\beta$ and Mg ii samples, as the AGN are faint. The bootstrap distributions are not well constrained for the lowest or highest luminosity bins. However, Li et al. (2017) found that the mean recovered lag remains stable when the light curve signal-to-noise is degraded, although the uncertainty increases proportionally with the decline. Therefore we continue to recover the average lags and compare with individual source measurements.

We plot the stacked average lags from the C iv sample alongside existing measurements from the literature in Figure 10. The average lags for the intermediate and highest luminosity bins are in agreement with the $R-L$ relations constrained by Hoormann et al. (2019) and Grier et al. (2019), although the uncertainty on the average lag for the highest luminosity bin is large. As discussed for the Mg ii sample, the time dilation over the binned samples does not sufficiently bridge the first of the 7-month seasonal gaps in our light curves. With the shorter expected lags for C iv, the average lags for the lowest and intermediate luminosity bins coincides with this gap. In addition to the lower signal-to-noise of the light curves, this may be contributing to the poorer quality of the stacked CCF’s. It is unclear why the average lag recovered for the lowest luminosity bin is much longer than expected.

4.4 Multi-line measurements

Both the H$\beta$ and Mg ii lines are visible for 13 AGN, and Mg ii and C iv for 106 AGN (see Figure 1). We attempt to recover average lags independently with each line, in order to compare the lag ratios to investigate the ionisation stratification of the BLR.

We repeated the stacking procedure for the sample of 13 AGN with the H$\beta$ and Mg ii light curves. As there are few sources we do not bin them by luminosity. We present the stacked CCF’s for each line in Figure 11. We measure an average lag of 75${}^{+14}_{-16}$ days for the H$\beta$ sample, and an average lag of 79${}^{+22}_{-53}$ days for the Mg ii sample. We formally recover a Mg ii to H$\beta$ lag ratio of 1.05$\pm 0.54$, however the inherent uncertainty is significant due to the large uncertainty of the Mg ii average lag. This result is broadly consistent with the expectation that these two BLRs are approximately cospatial. This ratio is consistent with previous multi-line measurements made by Homayouni et al. (2020), who found that Mg ii is emitted from a similar or slightly larger region than H$\beta$ in several individual sources, as well as Clavel et al. (1991) and Czerny et al. (2019).

We repeated this for the sample of 106 AGN with Mg ii and C iv, and present the stacked CCF’s in Figure 12. The signal-to-noise was insufficient to divide the sample into two luminosity bins. We measure an average Mg ii lag of 182${}^{+128}_{-37}$ days, and an average C iv lag of 64${}^{+165}_{-45}$ days. We formally recover a Mg ii to C iv lag ratio of 2.84$\pm 4.84$, however this is poorly (if at all) constrained given that the average lags are not well constrained (particularly for the CIV sample). The average lags are broadly consistent with the BLR stratification model, and the multi-line comparison made for a single source by Homayouni et al. (2020).

We include the average lags recovered from the multi-line samples on the respective $R-L$ plots presented in Figure 4, Figure 7 and Figure 10. We also provide all average lags recovered in this work from each multi-line and emission line sample in Table 1.

Figure 11: The stacked cross correlation functions (CCF) for the multi-line sample with both H$\beta$ and Mg ii, comprising 13 AGN.

Figure 12: The stacked cross correlation functions (CCF) for the multi-line sample with both Mg ii and C iv, comprising 106 AGN.

Table 1: The average lags for each luminosity bin or multi-line sample, for each emission-line sample from the OzDES RM Program. Luminosities are given in erg s^-1, and average lags are in the rest frame.

H$\beta$
Binned sample	Average lag (days)
43.45$<$log($\lambda L_{\lambda})<$43.77	$16^{+44}_{-9}$
43.77$<$log($\lambda L_{\lambda})<$44.09	$56^{+16}_{-16}$
44.09$<$log($\lambda L_{\lambda})<$44.41	$65^{+15}_{-13}$
44.41$<$log($\lambda L_{\lambda})<$44.73	$63^{+13}_{-13}$
44.73$<$log($\lambda L_{\lambda})<$45.05	$93^{+14}_{-21}$
multi-line H$\beta$ + Mg ii	$75^{+14}_{-16}$
Mg ii
Binned sample	Average lag (days)
44.40$<$log($\lambda L_{\lambda})<$45.00	$157^{+30}_{-71}$
45.00$<$log($\lambda L_{\lambda})<$45.50	$143^{+38}_{-34}$
45.50$<$log($\lambda L_{\lambda})<$46.10	$191^{+14}_{-29}$
multi-line Mg ii + H$\beta$	$79^{+22}_{-53}$
multi-line Mg ii + C iv	$182^{+128}_{-37}$
C iv
Binned sample	Average lag (days)
44.90$<$log($\lambda L_{\lambda})<$45.50	$124^{+11}_{-25}$
45.50$<$log($\lambda L_{\lambda})<$46.00	$43^{+12}_{-13}$
46.00$<$log($\lambda L_{\lambda})<$46.60	$71^{+196}_{-23}$
multi-line C iv + Mg ii	$64^{+165}_{-45}$

5 Summary

We use the stacking technique developed by Fine et al. (2012, 2013) to measure average lags in luminosity bins for the H$\beta$, Mg ii and C iv samples from the OzDES Reverberation Mapping Program. By utilising the bulk of our sample to recover composite lags, we avoid the potential selection biases in the lag recovery for individual sources. We successfully recover significant cross-correlation signals for each emission-line sample:

• The average lags from each luminosity bin of the H$\beta$ sample are consistent with the $R-L$ relation constrained by Bentz et al. (2013), and the size of the uncertainties on the average lags are on par with that of individual measurements, despite the relatively small number of sources stacked in each bin. This provides confidence in the individual measurements, and demonstrates the potential for stacked RM analyses to improve upon constraints which have thus far been made with individual source measurements alone.

• For Mg ii and C iv, the stacked cross-correlations are weaker, but still present above the correlation signal generated using randomised light curves. Further data or larger samples are required to recover significant average lags for these samples across each luminosity bin.

• From our multi-line analysis, we measure a Mg ii to H$\beta$ lag ratio that is consistent with earlier findings that the size of each of these line-emitting regions is similar. Our average lags for the Mg ii and C iv multi-line sample are not well-constrained due to the limited sample size, however, the lag ratio we recover is largely consistent with the BLR ionisation stratification model.

Stacking can be applied beyond RM-specific surveys. It can be done with just a few spectroscopic epochs, using large AGN samples, provided the continuum behaviour is well sampled. With LSST forthcoming, high cadence photometry of the deep-drilling fields will yield quality continuum light curves for tens of thousands of AGN. The SDSS-V Black Hole Mapper (BHM) will be spectroscopically following these fields. In addition to their dedicated RM survey of $\sim 1,000$ AGN, SDSS-V BHM will monitor 25,000 AGN over multiple epochs, which will be combined with earlier SDSS spectra (Kollmeier et al., 2017). The Time Domain Extragalactic Survey (TiDES) will also be following up these fields to conduct an RM survey of $\sim 700$ AGN up to $z\sim 2.5$ (Swann et al., 2019). Stacking analyses of these future, large samples has promise to significantly extend the reverberation mapping results from these projects. Although the improved signal-to-noise and survey sampling of these future programs are expected to yield an increased number of higher quality individual lag measurements than the first generation of multi-object RM surveys, these datasets can benefit from the ability of stacking to alleviate the impact of the unavoidable seasonal gaps on lag recovery (Malik et al., 2022). Stacking also presents an opportunity to combine all large time-domain datasets to recover average lags that are potentially more robust than individual lags, which remain challenging to recover reliably, particularly at high redshift.

Data Availability

The underlying DES and OzDES data are available in Abbott et al. (2021) and Lidman et al. (2020). The final light curve data for the full OzDES RM data set will be made available in a future OzDES paper.

Appendix A Source properties

The source properties are given for the H$\beta$ sample of 69 AGN in Table 2, the Mg ii sample of 450 AGN in Table 4, and the C iv sample of 290 AGN in Table 12.

Table 2: Properties for our OzDES H$\beta$ stacking sample. Columns left to right: DES name (J2000), redshift, $r$-band apparent AB magnitude, monochromatic luminosity at 5100Å. The superscript $a$ flags sources which also have Mg ii data.

DES ID	$z$	$m_{r}$	$\log({\lambda}L_{5100})$ (erg s-1)
DES J002802.42-424913.52	0.127	17.88	43.67
DES J033633.16-284027.18	0.129	17.73	43.74
DES J022024.92-061731.51	0.139	18.04	43.69
DES J003515.60-433357.64	0.145	17.75	43.84
DES J003245.59-421441.67	0.183	18.85	43.62
DES J025007.02+002525.49	0.198	18.02	44.03
DES J024347.34-005354.84	0.237	19.19	43.73
DES J024340.97-002601.16	0.268	19.16	43.86
DES J025021.72-005413.02	0.271	19.87	43.59
DES J025211.61-003629.35	0.294	20.10	43.58
DES J034028.46-292902.41	0.310	18.09	44.43
DES J022249.67-051453.01	0.314	19.03	44.07
DES J025240.59-002117.04	0.315	20.37	43.53
DES J022851.50-051223.00	0.317	18.01	44.48
DES J003954.13-440509.97	0.332	19.53	43.92
DES J022330.16-054758.06	0.354	19.87	43.85
DES J024325.53-000412.67	0.356	20.47	43.62
DES J024902.03-004322.43	0.360	20.75	43.52
DES J024320.36-001825.41	0.373	19.47	44.07
DES J024519.82-010245.63	0.381	20.46	43.69
DES J024225.86-004142.50	0.383	20.74	43.59
DES J003622.82-424759.11	0.390	21.02	43.49
DES J004009.06-431255.29	0.434	19.04	44.40
DES J003834.47-433807.12	0.453	20.61	43.82
DES J025042.90-004138.74	0.457	20.54	43.86
DES J022258.90-045852.28	0.466	19.77	44.20
DES J024712.89-011106.21	0.486	20.56	43.92
DES J024211.93-010959.69	0.488	20.18	44.08
DES J024538.29-004705.32	0.488	20.49	43.96
DES J003017.47-422446.39	0.491	18.48	44.77
DES J022133.82-054842.69	0.501	18.77	44.67
DES J024643.04-013149.55	0.502	19.32	44.45
DES J033002.93-273248.31	0.527	20.33	44.10
DES J003552.21-423352.14	0.530	21.29	43.72
DES J022019.61-060729.77	0.541	20.07	44.23
DES J021910.57-055114.76	0.558	19.49	44.49
DES J025119.79-004831.62	0.559	19.98	44.30
DES J033758.00-294618.46	0.561	19.27	44.58
DES J024939.57+000700.39	0.564	20.90	43.94
DES J024646.73-001220.60	0.564	19.73	44.41
DES J022717.88-051623.78	0.566	20.87	43.95
DES J033946.12-295030.94	0.582	20.33	44.20
DES J003114.43-424227.81	0.591	20.53	44.13
DES J033905.07-292134.36	0.600	18.66	44.89
DES J022329.27-045451.85	0.604	20.78	44.05
DES J033738.50-272306.75	0.613	18.60	44.94
DES J022246.23-041450.67	0.614	19.94	44.40
DES J024651.86-010732.56	0.622	20.36	44.25
DES J033910.13-264311.77	0.622	21.39	43.84
DES J024442.77-004223.14	0.628	19.92	44.43
DES J021923.29-045148.69	0.630	19.36	44.66
DES J033051.45-271254.90	0.633	20.24	44.31
DES J032718.70-281857.85	0.634	19.52	44.60
DES J002904.43-425243.04	0.644	19.54	44.61

Table 3: continued

H$\beta$ sample DES ID $z$ $m_{r}$ $\log({\lambda}L_{5100})$ (erg s^-1) DES J021820.49-050426.42 0.650 19.59 44.60 DES J034056.37-293339.67 0.652 20.44 44.26 DES J003013.70-425733.44 ^a 0.654 20.31 44.32 DES J024533.65-000744.91 ^a 0.655 19.66 44.58 DES J003010.25-423356.22 ^a 0.667 20.14 44.40 DES J003231.39-433511.71 ^a 0.679 20.39 44.32 DES J004334.89-440546.53 ^a 0.681 19.62 44.63 DES J021952.14-040919.86 ^a 0.692 20.30 44.37 DES J022452.19-040519.38 ^a 0.695 19.85 44.55 DES J002906.71-423904.49 ^a 0.703 18.69 45.03 DES J021514.27-053321.33 ^a 0.703 20.01 44.50 DES J033819.34-274346.33 ^a 0.706 18.81 44.98 DES J022617.85-043108.99 ^a 0.708 19.52 44.70 DES J021524.99-045353.83 ^a 0.714 20.51 44.31 DES J021808.24-045845.20 ^a 0.716 18.18 45.25

Table 4: Properties for our OzDES Mg ii stacking sample. Columns left to right: DES name (J2000), redshift, $r$-band apparent AB magnitude, monochromatic luminosity at 3000Å. The superscript $a$ flags sources which also have H$\beta$ data, and $b$ flags sources which also have C iv data.

DES ID	$z$	$m_{r}$	$\log({\lambda}L_{3000})$ (erg s-1)
DES J003013.70-425733.44 a	0.654	20.31	44.47
DES J024533.65-000744.91 a	0.655	19.66	44.73
DES J003010.25-423356.22 a	0.667	20.14	44.56
DES J003231.39-433511.71 a	0.679	20.39	44.47
DES J004334.89-440546.53 a	0.681	19.62	44.78
DES J021952.14-040919.86 a	0.692	20.30	44.53
DES J022452.19-040519.38 a	0.695	19.85	44.71
DES J002906.71-423904.49 a	0.703	18.69	45.18
DES J021514.27-053321.33 a	0.703	20.01	44.66
DES J033819.34-274346.33 a	0.706	18.81	45.14
DES J022617.85-043108.99 a	0.708	19.52	44.86
DES J021524.99-045353.83 a	0.714	20.51	44.47
DES J021808.24-045845.20 a	0.716	18.18	45.40
DES J033545.58-293216.49	0.724	20.30	44.56
DES J024126.71-004526.12	0.727	18.92	45.12
DES J033227.00-274105.28	0.730	19.81	44.77
DES J024727.97-013008.97	0.741	20.26	44.60
DES J022421.67-064613.71	0.755	20.48	44.53
DES J032724.94-274202.77	0.756	19.78	44.81
DES J021902.96-062107.22	0.758	20.42	44.55
DES J022244.40-043346.88	0.761	19.23	45.03
DES J025048.65+000207.62	0.766	19.12	45.08
DES J003155.93-434225.34	0.768	19.30	45.01
DES J021705.51-042253.46	0.788	20.24	44.66
DES J033459.10-293317.41	0.801	19.99	44.77
DES J032850.20-271207.84	0.802	19.42	45.00
DES J003350.95-435606.17	0.806	19.61	44.93
DES J022155.25-064916.59	0.807	18.06	45.55
DES J024801.09-004015.63	0.811	20.05	44.76
DES J025146.78-004035.49	0.813	19.63	44.93
DES J022326.46-045705.99	0.825	20.72	44.50
DES J025100.99+004802.99	0.829	20.03	44.78
DES J021628.43-040147.11	0.831	19.52	44.99
DES J033246.02-282232.12	0.839	20.07	44.78
DES J033328.93-275641.20	0.839	20.29	44.69
DES J022255.89-051351.61	0.849	19.01	45.21
DES J004042.70-440341.05	0.851	19.78	44.91
DES J033332.81-282220.34	0.858	19.14	45.17
DES J024637.94-004105.24	0.859	20.10	44.79
DES J033137.70-284808.03	0.862	21.68	44.16
DES J033230.63-284750.36	0.862	20.70	44.55

Table 5: continued

Mg ii sample DES ID $z$ $m_{r}$ $\log({\lambda}L_{3000})$ (erg s^-1) DES J033235.64-290202.05 0.866 19.33 45.10 DES J003527.80-443411.36 0.869 19.90 44.88 DES J002831.10-421538.06 0.871 18.98 45.25 DES J033523.52-280723.67 0.871 17.25 45.94 DES J003331.34-441039.28 0.878 19.64 44.99 DES J004020.36-432053.98 0.880 19.49 45.05 DES J002641.26-424900.31 0.882 19.95 44.87 DES J021557.63-045009.52 0.884 18.73 45.36 DES J003301.72-440750.87 0.886 19.86 44.91 DES J024831.08-005025.58 0.887 20.42 44.69 DES J002951.05-433629.34 0.892 20.66 44.60 DES J002702.17-431755.99 0.900 20.15 44.81 DES J021413.01-042930.02 0.901 19.08 45.24 DES J024159.74-010512.38 0.904 20.16 44.81 DES J024357.90-011330.42 0.905 20.22 44.79 DES J022440.72-043657.71 0.907 20.14 44.82 DES J025217.48-005249.30 0.912 20.52 44.67 DES J002930.76-432724.34 0.914 18.35 45.54 DES J003437.73-424318.36 0.915 19.09 45.25 DES J033520.08-284258.52 0.931 20.14 44.84 DES J003435.26-441127.90 0.933 19.40 45.14 DES J024425.38-004652.99 0.937 18.90 45.34 DES J003809.48-435241.29 0.937 19.40 45.14 DES J033435.50-282812.24 0.940 19.88 44.95 DES J002926.51-431250.54 0.944 18.96 45.33 DES J002917.61-433759.92 0.951 18.58 45.48 DES J024237.79-012354.10 0.957 19.65 45.06 DES J033435.49-283631.56 0.963 20.09 44.89 DES J022049.53-053731.08 0.974 20.00 44.94 DES J022344.57-064039.01 0.983 20.83 44.61 DES J022712.98-044636.25 0.983 18.13 45.69 DES J033945.79-275333.88 0.984 21.29 44.43 DES J033404.10-275629.92 0.984 20.75 44.65 DES J033339.36-281724.26 0.987 20.02 44.94 DES J033509.98-283255.27 0.993 18.03 45.74 DES J002933.85-435240.66 0.995 18.06 45.73 DES J022114.78-050832.95 0.996 20.60 44.72 DES J032853.99-281706.94 1.000 20.29 44.84 DES J024514.00-003535.43 1.005 19.41 45.20 DES J025237.80-004627.79 1.008 19.49 45.17 DES J021500.22-043007.46 1.012 19.76 45.06 DES J024300.44-003030.10 1.018 20.52 44.76 DES J022449.86-043025.80 1.024 20.44 44.80 DES J024924.67+002536.38 1.025 19.93 45.00 DES J033531.95-271825.19 1.029 19.14 45.32 DES J033408.25-274337.81 1.029 20.69 44.70 DES J003914.17-443844.22 1.033 19.62 45.13 DES J033854.56-291001.97 1.049 20.21 44.91 DES J032831.40-285249.79 1.050 20.47 44.80 DES J022104.63-044239.89 1.052 20.25 44.89 DES J002826.18-433829.09 1.063 20.90 44.64 DES J003710.86-444048.06 1.067 18.53 45.59 DES J033810.75-275153.11 1.077 19.45 45.23 DES J033948.28-275438.98 1.077 17.51 46.01 DES J021817.44-045112.40 1.083 19.25 45.32 DES J002949.39-434806.73 1.088 19.29 45.31 DES J025228.55+003109.14 1.110 18.81 45.52 DES J025128.38+001144.60 1.117 20.17 44.98 DES J033045.54-284150.29 1.119 19.57 45.22 DES J003145.76-421747.61 1.129 19.38 45.30 DES J003834.04-432457.69 1.133 20.29 44.94 DES J034020.28-291750.48 1.135 18.28 45.75 DES J003536.95-443104.40 1.136 20.06 45.04 DES J002639.87-432307.71 1.139 19.58 45.23

Table 6: continued

Mg ii sample DES ID $z$ $m_{r}$ $\log({\lambda}L_{3000})$ (erg s^-1) DES J024617.07-000602.60 1.143 18.42 45.70 DES J003452.22-434613.99 1.146 20.77 44.76 DES J024854.80+001054.04 1.146 19.57 45.24 DES J033836.19-295113.53 1.148 20.95 44.69 DES J003444.53-433749.06 1.153 20.12 45.03 DES J021631.35-043207.93 1.155 19.74 45.18 DES J022501.68-040754.18 1.157 19.67 45.21 DES J003332.28-430526.16 1.159 18.53 45.67 DES J022718.54-053124.86 1.159 21.06 44.66 DES J033350.23-284244.42 1.161 21.12 44.63 DES J021849.86-035835.29 1.162 19.18 45.41 DES J033612.01-290152.96 1.164 19.58 45.25 DES J033353.02-283022.38 1.165 18.51 45.68 DES J033429.54-293904.49 1.167 20.57 44.86 DES J033416.89-274504.73 1.168 20.12 45.04 DES J033719.99-262418.84 1.169 19.56 45.27 DES J003725.23-431710.85 1.173 19.94 45.12 DES J022556.83-045853.05 1.180 21.09 44.66 DES J022823.19-041223.67 1.181 17.57 46.07 DES J022533.79-050801.95 1.183 18.40 45.74 DES J033744.23-262559.74 1.187 18.85 45.56 DES J025036.99-002408.04 1.195 20.68 44.84 DES J033335.92-264915.24 1.199 19.99 45.12 DES J024840.98-001228.80 1.199 19.11 45.47 DES J003848.77-434518.55 1.200 21.03 44.70 DES J003549.87-424526.29 1.208 20.26 45.02 DES J033627.43-294149.95 1.218 18.59 45.69 DES J022212.40-061246.20 1.220 20.71 44.85 DES J022108.60-061753.21 1.225 20.00 45.13 DES J033534.69-283149.26 1.225 19.71 45.25 DES J022134.35-062941.64 1.228 20.71 44.85 DES J024544.78-004415.24 1.229 19.82 45.21 DES J022423.52-065001.40 1.229 20.15 45.08 DES J022023.48-064959.19 1.232 20.35 45.00 DES J033525.23-270200.72 1.233 19.31 45.42 DES J022055.16-060136.43 1.234 20.55 44.92 DES J003703.65-434759.50 1.236 19.87 45.20 DES J004111.46-441014.38 1.237 20.20 45.06 DES J033211.42-284323.98 1.237 21.86 44.40 DES J033928.30-291714.73 1.241 20.08 45.12 DES J003125.94-434743.50 1.243 20.25 45.05 DES J024918.24-001731.03 1.244 19.82 45.22 DES J021906.15-063000.89 1.250 20.12 45.10 DES J002743.35-425258.79 1.252 19.94 45.18 DES J033635.40-273427.02 1.254 20.17 45.09 DES J003322.53-442412.38 1.257 19.47 45.37 DES J022445.39-065556.80 1.261 21.11 44.72 DES J022115.87-062217.45 1.273 18.82 45.64 DES J024306.66-002531.29 1.279 20.36 45.03 DES J022245.85-041932.10 1.283 20.61 44.93 DES J034106.19-291410.86 1.287 21.20 44.70 DES J022529.40-050946.39 1.288 20.93 44.81 DES J024939.57-001157.73 1.295 20.97 44.80 DES J024621.09-000152.02 1.296 18.64 45.73 DES J021957.86-060534.66 1.296 20.74 44.89 DES J025323.64+000446.97 1.297 20.18 45.12 DES J022024.34-061401.95 1.297 21.31 44.66 DES J033911.64-290601.76 1.298 20.06 45.16 DES J025224.97+001308.30 1.300 20.68 44.92 DES J003819.73-443134.02 1.305 18.80 45.67 DES J024455.17-002501.41 1.308 19.29 45.48 DES J034032.74-270521.33 1.310 20.91 44.83 DES J024811.51-012609.51 1.313 19.29 45.48 DES J003639.49-430400.30 1.317 20.20 45.12

Table 7: continued

Mg ii sample DES ID $z$ $m_{r}$ $\log({\lambda}L_{3000})$ (erg s^-1) DES J033308.48-285832.12 1.318 19.72 45.31 DES J025005.69-004054.86 1.320 20.41 45.04 DES J033030.59-282135.43 1.322 18.89 45.65 DES J022024.93-053744.40 1.322 21.14 44.75 DES J003245.16-440451.51 1.323 20.84 44.87 DES J033216.20-273930.61 1.324 20.60 44.96 DES J033525.44-265531.09 1.325 17.55 46.19 DES J033939.33-272454.08 1.325 19.19 45.53 DES J033303.99-271531.43 1.329 20.13 45.16 DES J033533.91-264847.02 1.330 20.25 45.11 DES J002855.47-434210.06 1.331 20.14 45.15 DES J024214.97-003131.71 1.332 19.93 45.24 DES J033057.32-284737.42 1.335 20.99 44.81 DES J033635.49-263735.76 1.336 19.99 45.22 DES J033824.55-263527.10 1.340 19.65 45.35 DES J024652.16-011242.95 1.340 19.44 45.44 DES J024326.61-002056.06 1.345 20.51 45.01 DES J022351.09-053750.25 1.347 18.61 45.77 DES J033723.98-294917.22 1.351 19.00 45.62 DES J022446.16-050827.57 1.357 18.85 45.69 DES J022436.17-065912.26 1.360 20.78 44.91 DES J022419.74-062142.31 1.361 18.52 45.82 DES J025324.69-002655.67 1.364 19.41 45.47 DES J003922.97-430230.45 1.369 19.71 45.35 DES J024234.93-010351.83 1.371 19.46 45.45 DES J025252.02-002211.61 1.371 20.68 44.96 DES J025318.92+001559.61 1.374 20.92 44.87 DES J002857.80-424644.03 1.377 18.74 45.74 DES J033923.53-265229.48 1.379 20.57 45.01 DES J034027.16-285641.30 1.379 18.74 45.74 DES J004055.63-441249.41 1.383 20.42 45.08 DES J033444.13-264215.40 1.384 19.57 45.42 DES J003738.22-443838.25 1.385 20.13 45.19 DES J025145.09-004639.64 1.386 19.81 45.32 DES J021749.09-041215.57 1.386 20.13 45.19 DES J022815.08-041942.59 1.387 20.10 45.21 DES J024746.99-011334.42 1.389 20.63 44.99 DES J003814.08-433314.92 1.390 18.27 45.94 DES J022032.25-044217.60 1.401 20.25 45.16 DES J021451.07-044236.60 1.401 20.97 44.87 DES J022446.95-055739.13 1.409 20.88 44.91 DES J022402.07-062943.14 1.412 20.17 45.20 DES J022124.53-050205.23 1.415 19.02 45.66 DES J032942.54-272012.09 1.415 19.94 45.29 DES J003827.69-433518.19 1.419 19.96 45.28 DES J022436.64-063255.90 1.423 20.95 44.89 DES J024935.55-001336.76 1.423 19.99 45.28 DES J024606.20-005531.75 1.426 20.38 45.12 DES J003052.76-430301.10 1.428 19.39 45.52 DES J024929.19-002104.15 1.428 19.00 45.67 DES J022216.72-041719.73 1.432 19.89 45.32 DES J033918.13-293008.14 1.436 21.12 44.83 DES J024340.09-001749.37 1.436 19.68 45.41 DES J024753.20-002137.75 1.437 20.16 45.22 DES J024212.65-010339.46 1.438 20.77 44.97 DES J033435.10-262635.67 1.441 19.45 45.50 DES J021939.92-061407.00 1.446 20.60 45.05 DES J022041.19-055039.80 1.454 20.27 45.19 DES J022006.60-061936.36 1.460 19.83 45.37 DES J033630.87-291753.39 1.462 19.63 45.45 DES J024820.90-002546.67 1.463 19.98 45.31 DES J025030.77-000801.72 1.466 18.31 45.98 DES J002940.83-424308.05 1.472 19.66 45.44 DES J025024.52-001419.03 1.472 19.98 45.31

Table 8: continued

Mg ii sample DES ID $z$ $m_{r}$ $\log({\lambda}L_{3000})$ (erg s^-1) DES J033310.16-282433.18 1.476 20.99 44.91 DES J003253.01-435626.33 1.476 20.01 45.30 DES J022644.23-040720.13 1.479 19.76 45.41 DES J003035.42-433249.60 1.480 18.77 45.80 DES J024944.09+003317.50 1.480 19.71 45.43 DES J003053.45-432344.99 1.490 20.58 45.09 DES J033213.36-283621.03 1.492 20.36 45.18 DES J003232.61-433303.00 1.492 19.77 45.41 DES J032604.02-275629.36 1.494 18.53 45.91 DES J022429.11-045807.69 1.498 20.30 45.20 DES J003621.41-435139.13 1.501 20.21 45.24 DES J034101.59-293056.44 1.504 20.49 45.13 DES J022350.77-043158.10 1.504 19.90 45.37 DES J021620.91-053417.45 1.508 20.11 45.29 DES J033253.86-283139.33 1.509 20.61 45.09 DES J024959.77-000104.11 1.512 20.09 45.30 DES J024920.97+004206.39 1.524 20.66 45.08 DES J021630.87-042051.45 1.528 19.90 45.39 DES J024455.45-011500.42 1.529 20.51 45.15 DES J033951.49-291713.89 1.530 20.83 45.02 DES J032643.99-280657.07 1.532 19.73 45.46 DES J004232.48-440757.18 1.532 18.38 46.00 DES J003207.44-433049.00 1.533 19.65 45.50 DES J033400.71-271540.89 1.538 20.04 45.35 DES J003254.85-420236.96 1.541 20.28 45.25 DES J022338.53-063246.90 1.546 21.24 44.88 DES J025311.70-004241.62 1.547 20.36 45.23 DES J022059.48-044917.03 1.547 18.51 45.97 DES J033355.67-282651.58 1.551 20.39 45.22 DES J033853.03-271735.34 1.553 21.16 44.91 DES J022509.54-040838.19 1.553 20.43 45.21 DES J003006.53-435107.85 1.555 20.46 45.20 DES J022520.75-041246.56 1.559 20.38 45.23 DES J022154.21-061941.56 1.559 20.13 45.33 DES J021612.83-044634.12 1.560 19.86 45.44 DES J003433.01-423342.34 1.561 20.28 45.27 DES J033410.83-280949.16 1.562 21.54 44.77 DES J033058.53-275148.31 1.562 20.90 45.03 DES J025318.76+000414.19 1.563 20.15 45.33 DES J033101.15-275125.44 1.563 19.12 45.74 DES J004016.88-442556.16 1.565 20.24 45.29 DES J003829.91-434454.27 1.567 17.83 46.26 DES J003858.70-443045.51 1.569 19.95 45.41 DES J003653.08-435441.53 1.572 19.32 45.67 DES J033211.64-273726.16 1.574 19.22 45.71 DES J033325.92-290142.07 1.574 20.77 45.09 DES J022422.63-061943.20 1.575 21.53 44.78 DES J002939.03-431253.68 1.577 20.70 45.12 DES J033553.51-275044.68 1.578 18.99 45.80 DES J025148.53-004637.61 1.579 19.50 45.60 DES J003413.73-432600.36 1.588 21.23 44.91 DES J022733.98-042523.34 1.590 20.57 45.18 DES J032801.84-273815.71 1.590 20.14 45.35 DES J003952.64-442753.23 1.591 20.03 45.40 DES J003254.79-423926.69 1.597 19.28 45.70 DES J003307.13-424912.19 1.598 20.49 45.22 DES J024603.67-003211.73 ^b 1.601 18.99 45.82 DES J033304.62-291230.05 ^b 1.603 20.19 45.34 DES J024823.76-010002.36 1.603 20.48 45.23 DES J022152.62-062834.38 ^b 1.604 20.96 45.03 DES J033617.72-300224.76 ^b 1.605 19.88 45.47 DES J033604.07-292659.88 ^b 1.610 20.07 45.39 DES J021505.09-045855.98 1.610 19.33 45.69 DES J033721.40-292323.42 ^b 1.612 19.99 45.43

Table 9: continued

Mg ii sample DES ID $z$ $m_{r}$ $\log({\lambda}L_{3000})$ (erg s^-1) DES J033918.18-293142.92 ^b 1.612 21.04 45.01 DES J033407.62-291607.55 ^b 1.615 19.59 45.59 DES J002950.78-423801.20 ^b 1.616 20.69 45.15 DES J003723.59-442258.09 ^b 1.618 19.98 45.44 DES J033139.43-284939.85 1.619 20.93 45.06 DES J003426.66-422807.96 1.622 21.07 45.00 DES J022016.53-043209.15 1.624 21.22 44.94 DES J025225.52+003405.92 1.624 19.97 45.44 DES J021600.36-043829.30 ^b 1.624 20.33 45.30 DES J033220.31-280214.82 1.625 21.11 44.99 DES J021947.13-043754.70 ^b 1.626 20.63 45.18 DES J033835.80-274224.52 ^b 1.629 20.00 45.44 DES J003501.58-425344.26 ^b 1.632 19.98 45.45 DES J003454.09-425716.21 ^b 1.633 20.62 45.19 DES J022247.88-043330.04 ^b 1.635 20.24 45.34 DES J003234.33-431937.83 ^b 1.641 19.40 45.68 DES J022224.82-062626.69 ^b 1.641 20.16 45.38 DES J025254.18-001119.67 ^b 1.641 21.25 44.94 DES J022716.52-050008.33 ^b 1.642 20.50 45.24 DES J022337.73-062354.60 1.646 20.91 45.08 DES J034044.75-270720.15 1.647 21.14 44.99 DES J024207.50-004423.41 1.647 22.32 44.52 DES J033437.58-275826.84 ^b 1.648 18.69 45.97 DES J022008.73-045905.31 ^b 1.649 20.52 45.24 DES J033657.91-274244.39 ^b 1.649 20.14 45.39 DES J003015.00-430333.45 ^b 1.650 19.97 45.46 DES J022029.60-051022.59 ^b 1.652 20.68 45.18 DES J024422.20-011247.11 1.654 20.14 45.40 DES J022228.25-060547.60 1.658 20.34 45.32 DES J022319.01-070927.36 1.659 21.32 44.93 DES J003143.64-425420.21 ^b 1.662 20.03 45.44 DES J022208.15-065550.48 1.662 21.12 45.01 DES J003245.74-431453.18 1.671 20.78 45.15 DES J003548.43-431444.38 ^b 1.673 20.47 45.27 DES J022424.16-043229.83 ^b 1.674 20.32 45.34 DES J025340.94+001110.20 ^b 1.675 18.31 46.14 DES J024906.74+000823.79 1.677 20.68 45.19 DES J003956.32-442047.73 ^b 1.680 20.08 45.44 DES J021439.12-051355.34 1.683 20.96 45.08 DES J033903.66-293326.48 ^b 1.684 21.85 44.73 DES J003948.24-445323.16 ^b 1.684 19.59 45.63 DES J025429.12-000404.45 1.685 21.98 44.68 DES J003635.93-434636.05 ^b 1.689 19.90 45.51 DES J025220.53+002735.19 ^b 1.690 19.86 45.53 DES J033341.61-284603.55 1.693 21.02 45.07 DES J021902.58-044628.33 ^b 1.694 19.92 45.51 DES J025356.07+001057.54 ^b 1.695 19.47 45.69 DES J003325.69-434826.13 ^b 1.696 20.26 45.37 DES J024527.72-010602.84 ^b 1.696 20.05 45.46 DES J003030.66-420243.68 1.696 20.65 45.22 DES J033457.77-274956.61 1.700 21.58 44.85 DES J022445.77-061149.99 ^b 1.701 20.19 45.40 DES J003213.12-434553.39 1.706 17.34 46.55 DES J003256.53-441451.15 1.708 19.89 45.53 DES J022907.98-045102.02 1.714 20.91 45.12 DES J022014.98-062253.15 ^b 1.716 19.91 45.52 DES J024207.18-002818.79 1.716 19.83 45.56 DES J003721.82-443051.40 1.716 20.33 45.36 DES J003221.43-423908.40 1.719 21.21 45.01 DES J024632.55-003439.14 ^b 1.724 19.87 45.55 DES J022134.97-070831.84 ^b 1.728 20.70 45.22 DES J032940.47-275143.61 ^b 1.730 19.87 45.55 DES J022602.20-061626.10 ^b 1.736 19.97 45.51 DES J003734.68-441539.48 1.738 20.15 45.44

Table 10: continued

Mg ii sample DES ID $z$ $m_{r}$ $\log({\lambda}L_{3000})$ (erg s^-1) DES J024611.20-003134.33 1.738 20.52 45.29 DES J021647.25-044029.81 1.746 21.58 44.87 DES J003206.50-425325.23 ^b 1.750 19.84 45.57 DES J033814.33-294213.78 ^b 1.750 19.94 45.53 DES J002920.73-420425.08 1.750 19.66 45.64 DES J033453.60-264121.34 ^b 1.751 20.14 45.45 DES J033817.74-290324.90 ^b 1.753 19.61 45.67 DES J021732.31-052950.95 1.755 21.84 44.77 DES J033211.80-284257.07 1.755 20.26 45.41 DES J022115.04-043155.51 ^b 1.757 21.33 44.98 DES J033452.89-265215.54 ^b 1.757 19.10 45.87 DES J033451.51-280041.23 1.758 21.49 44.92 DES J022117.44-063856.45 ^b 1.763 19.83 45.58 DES J024140.99-012712.41 1.768 20.33 45.39 DES J024257.19-004549.41 ^b 1.770 21.08 45.09 DES J022119.91-045948.62 ^b 1.770 20.76 45.22 DES J003120.86-425145.98 ^b 1.771 20.14 45.47 DES J002859.58-423239.47 1.776 19.43 45.75 DES J022024.08-045709.48 1.776 19.84 45.59 DES J033912.33-293043.57 1.778 21.35 44.98 DES J004029.04-441704.97 ^b 1.783 20.04 45.51 DES J003255.12-435757.56 ^b 1.784 20.07 45.50 DES J022533.36-065917.56 1.784 18.95 45.95 DES J032759.97-271921.90 ^b 1.785 20.37 45.38 DES J024222.95-011527.57 ^b 1.785 20.24 45.43 DES J032914.81-290130.69 1.787 20.50 45.33 DES J033328.60-290314.66 ^b 1.787 19.58 45.70 DES J022027.32-045115.53 ^b 1.788 21.14 45.08 DES J033922.52-292857.78 1.789 21.27 45.02 DES J022002.08-050101.91 ^b 1.791 19.69 45.66 DES J022751.50-044252.66 ^b 1.795 20.60 45.30 DES J003939.41-444612.90 ^b 1.797 20.17 45.47 DES J022503.11-065258.79 ^b 1.798 20.09 45.50 DES J032835.62-274406.09 ^b 1.800 19.94 45.56 DES J033722.89-274020.85 ^b 1.804 19.93 45.57 DES J003921.57-441844.65 1.813 19.91 45.58 DES J003920.50-440441.16 ^b 1.814 19.79 45.63 DES J003739.59-432521.40 ^b 1.815 20.40 45.39 DES J022231.63-043256.29 1.816 19.67 45.68 DES J033047.84-281521.39 1.818 21.53 44.94 DES J034001.87-270136.24 1.819 21.05 45.13 DES J004156.96-435856.50 1.821 20.36 45.41 DES J024635.61-000850.46 ^b 1.822 19.26 45.85 DES J033002.51-274858.28 ^b 1.823 20.70 45.27 DES J033017.79-280231.25 1.823 20.61 45.31 DES J033548.18-290943.65 ^b 1.826 20.33 45.42 DES J022352.09-064029.96 ^b 1.827 20.50 45.35 DES J022409.89-044718.00 ^b 1.832 20.11 45.51 DES J033319.58-290431.65 ^b 1.833 20.73 45.27 DES J024716.32-010401.36 ^b 1.834 21.10 45.12 DES J021958.13-041707.68 1.837 21.09 45.12 DES J033222.47-285935.09 ^b 1.837 20.68 45.29 DES J033301.69-275818.80 ^b 1.840 20.94 45.19 DES J004014.18-431716.29 ^b 1.842 19.87 45.62 DES J021643.70-052236.21 1.844 20.57 45.34 DES J021903.49-043935.00 ^b 1.845 20.48 45.37 DES J033539.94-265025.37 1.846 19.68 45.69 DES J024737.50-000458.97 ^b 1.847 19.88 45.62 DES J024608.67-013933.97 ^b 1.848 19.68 45.70 DES J022515.35-044008.91 ^b 1.850 19.82 45.64 DES J025038.68-004739.06 ^b 1.856 18.67 46.10 DES J002729.28-431501.02 ^b 1.863 19.67 45.71 DES J024723.54-002536.48 ^b 1.864 19.42 45.81 DES J022845.57-043350.18 ^b 1.864 17.41 46.61

Table 11: continued

Mg ii sample DES ID $z$ $m_{r}$ $\log({\lambda}L_{3000})$ (erg s^-1) DES J024748.87-000147.41 ^b 1.868 19.58 45.75 DES J024133.65-010724.20 ^b 1.874 20.86 45.24 DES J003940.80-443718.32 ^b 1.875 19.49 45.79 DES J024838.93-000325.87 1.876 20.61 45.34 DES J022047.63-051835.83 ^b 1.878 19.55 45.77 DES J021544.02-053607.56 1.885 21.31 45.06 DES J025513.03+000639.59 1.885 19.78 45.68 DES J021707.96-055152.07 ^b 1.885 19.70 45.71 DES J033145.20-275435.75 ^b 1.891 21.19 45.12 DES J033225.90-282208.45 1.894 21.55 44.97 DES J022213.31-041030.05 1.903 20.14 45.54 DES J024242.50-002212.87 ^b 1.904 20.57 45.37 DES J022828.19-040044.25 ^b 1.905 18.31 46.28 DES J003626.44-430820.66 ^b 1.907 19.80 45.68 DES J022050.39-061748.80 ^b 1.908 21.89 44.85 DES J021953.45-061123.39 ^b 1.910 19.90 45.64 DES J003150.13-432726.88 ^b 1.912 18.68 46.13 DES J022328.88-040134.71 ^b 1.915 19.82 45.68 DES J033739.88-272045.97 ^b 1.916 19.21 45.92 DES J033924.44-271250.15 ^b 1.918 20.52 45.40 DES J025428.31+002418.43 ^b 1.918 20.42 45.44 DES J033415.37-265535.62 ^b 1.922 19.85 45.67 DES J033011.77-283636.65 ^b 1.922 20.99 45.21 DES J022327.85-040119.16 ^b 1.922 20.81 45.29 DES J024639.22-012731.85 ^b 1.923 20.34 45.47

Table 12: Properties for our OzDES C iv stacking sample. Columns left to right: DES name (J2000), redshift, $r$-band apparent AB magnitude, monochromatic luminosity at 1350Å. The superscript $b$ flags sources which also have Mg ii data.

DES ID	$z$	$m_{r}$	$\log({\lambda}L_{1350})$ (erg s-1)
DES J024603.67-003211.73 a	1.601	18.99	45.93
DES J033304.62-291230.05 a	1.603	20.19	45.45
DES J022152.62-062834.38 a	1.604	20.96	45.14
DES J033617.72-300224.76 a	1.605	19.88	45.57
DES J033604.07-292659.88 a	1.610	20.07	45.50
DES J033721.40-292323.42 a	1.612	19.99	45.53
DES J033918.18-293142.92 a	1.612	21.04	45.11
DES J033407.62-291607.55 a	1.615	19.59	45.70
DES J002950.78-423801.20 a	1.616	20.69	45.26
DES J003723.59-442258.09 a	1.618	19.98	45.54
DES J021600.36-043829.30 a	1.624	20.33	45.41
DES J021947.13-043754.70 a	1.626	20.63	45.29
DES J033835.80-274224.52 a	1.629	20.00	45.54
DES J003501.58-425344.26 a	1.632	19.98	45.55
DES J003454.09-425716.21 a	1.633	20.62	45.30
DES J022247.88-043330.04 a	1.635	20.24	45.45
DES J003234.33-431937.83 a	1.641	19.40	45.79
DES J022224.82-062626.69 a	1.641	20.16	45.48
DES J025254.18-001119.67 a	1.641	21.25	45.05
DES J022716.52-050008.33 a	1.642	20.50	45.35
DES J033437.58-275826.84 a	1.648	18.69	46.08
DES J022008.73-045905.31 a	1.649	20.52	45.35
DES J033657.91-274244.39 a	1.649	20.14	45.50
DES J003015.00-430333.45 a	1.650	19.97	45.57
DES J022029.60-051022.59 a	1.652	20.68	45.28
DES J003143.64-425420.21 a	1.662	20.03	45.55
DES J003548.43-431444.38 a	1.673	20.47	45.38
DES J022424.16-043229.83 a	1.674	20.32	45.44
DES J025340.94+001110.20 a	1.675	18.31	46.25
DES J003956.32-442047.73 a	1.680	20.08	45.54
DES J033903.66-293326.48 a	1.684	21.85	44.84

Table 13: continued

C iv sample DES ID $z$ $m_{r}$ $\log({\lambda}L_{1350})$ (erg s^-1) DES J003948.24-445323.16 ^a 1.684 19.59 45.74 DES J003635.93-434636.05 ^a 1.689 19.90 45.62 DES J025220.53+002735.19 ^a 1.690 19.86 45.63 DES J021902.58-044628.33 ^a 1.694 19.92 45.61 DES J025356.07+001057.54 ^a 1.695 19.47 45.79 DES J003325.69-434826.13 ^a 1.696 20.26 45.48 DES J024527.72-010602.84 ^a 1.696 20.05 45.56 DES J022445.77-061149.99 ^a 1.701 20.19 45.51 DES J022014.98-062253.15 ^a 1.716 19.91 45.63 DES J024632.55-003439.14 ^a 1.724 19.87 45.65 DES J022134.97-070831.84 ^a 1.728 20.70 45.32 DES J032940.47-275143.61 ^a 1.730 19.87 45.66 DES J022602.20-061626.10 ^a 1.736 19.97 45.62 DES J003206.50-425325.23 ^a 1.750 19.84 45.68 DES J033814.33-294213.78 ^a 1.750 19.94 45.64 DES J033453.60-264121.34 ^a 1.751 20.14 45.56 DES J033817.74-290324.90 ^a 1.753 19.61 45.77 DES J022115.04-043155.51 ^a 1.757 21.33 45.09 DES J033452.89-265215.54 ^a 1.757 19.10 45.98 DES J022117.44-063856.45 ^a 1.763 19.83 45.69 DES J024257.19-004549.41 ^a 1.770 21.08 45.20 DES J022119.91-045948.62 ^a 1.770 20.76 45.32 DES J003120.86-425145.98 ^a 1.771 20.14 45.57 DES J004029.04-441704.97 ^a 1.783 20.04 45.62 DES J003255.12-435757.56 ^a 1.784 20.07 45.61 DES J032759.97-271921.90 ^a 1.785 20.37 45.49 DES J024222.95-011527.57 ^a 1.785 20.24 45.54 DES J033328.60-290314.66 ^a 1.787 19.58 45.80 DES J022027.32-045115.53 ^a 1.788 21.14 45.18 DES J022002.08-050101.91 ^a 1.791 19.69 45.76 DES J022751.50-044252.66 ^a 1.795 20.60 45.40 DES J003939.41-444612.90 ^a 1.797 20.17 45.58 DES J022503.11-065258.79 ^a 1.798 20.09 45.61 DES J032835.62-274406.09 ^a 1.800 19.94 45.67 DES J033722.89-274020.85 ^a 1.804 19.93 45.67 DES J003920.50-440441.16 ^a 1.814 19.79 45.74 DES J003739.59-432521.40 ^a 1.815 20.40 45.49 DES J024635.61-000850.46 ^a 1.822 19.26 45.95 DES J033002.51-274858.28 ^a 1.823 20.70 45.38 DES J033548.18-290943.65 ^a 1.826 20.33 45.53 DES J022352.09-064029.96 ^a 1.827 20.50 45.46 DES J022409.89-044718.00 ^a 1.832 20.11 45.62 DES J033319.58-290431.65 ^a 1.833 20.73 45.37 DES J024716.32-010401.36 ^a 1.834 21.10 45.23 DES J033222.47-285935.09 ^a 1.837 20.68 45.40 DES J033301.69-275818.80 ^a 1.840 20.94 45.29 DES J004014.18-431716.29 ^a 1.842 19.87 45.72 DES J021903.49-043935.00 ^a 1.845 20.48 45.48 DES J024737.50-000458.97 ^a 1.847 19.88 45.72 DES J024608.67-013933.97 ^a 1.848 19.68 45.80 DES J022515.35-044008.91 ^a 1.850 19.82 45.75 DES J025038.68-004739.06 ^a 1.856 18.67 46.21 DES J002729.28-431501.02 ^a 1.863 19.67 45.81 DES J024723.54-002536.48 ^a 1.864 19.42 45.92 DES J022845.57-043350.18 ^a 1.864 17.41 46.72 DES J024748.87-000147.41 ^a 1.868 19.58 45.85 DES J024133.65-010724.20 ^a 1.874 20.86 45.34 DES J003940.80-443718.32 ^a 1.875 19.49 45.89 DES J022047.63-051835.83 ^a 1.878 19.55 45.87 DES J021707.96-055152.07 ^a 1.885 19.70 45.82 DES J033145.20-275435.75 ^a 1.891 21.19 45.22 DES J024242.50-002212.87 ^a 1.904 20.57 45.48 DES J022828.19-040044.25 ^a 1.905 18.31 46.38 DES J003626.44-430820.66 ^a 1.907 19.80 45.79

Table 14: continued

C iv sample DES ID $z$ $m_{r}$ $\log({\lambda}L_{1350})$ (erg s^-1) DES J022050.39-061748.80 ^a 1.908 21.89 44.95 DES J021953.45-061123.39 ^a 1.910 19.90 45.75 DES J003150.13-432726.88 ^a 1.912 18.68 46.24 DES J022328.88-040134.71 ^a 1.915 19.82 45.78 DES J033739.88-272045.97 ^a 1.916 19.21 46.03 DES J033924.44-271250.15 ^a 1.918 20.52 45.51 DES J025428.31+002418.43 ^a 1.918 20.42 45.55 DES J033415.37-265535.62 ^a 1.922 19.85 45.78 DES J033011.77-283636.65 ^a 1.922 20.99 45.32 DES J022327.85-040119.16 ^a 1.922 20.81 45.39 DES J024639.22-012731.85 ^a 1.923 20.34 45.58 DES J022250.47-060104.89 1.925 21.54 45.10 DES J022206.47-060746.70 1.927 20.89 45.36 DES J022514.39-044700.14 1.928 18.83 46.19 DES J034005.69-292312.82 1.928 19.04 46.10 DES J033701.63-282753.94 1.933 20.20 45.64 DES J034016.06-270925.57 1.935 19.72 45.84 DES J033832.50-291215.65 1.935 20.77 45.41 DES J022537.03-050109.34 1.936 20.03 45.71 DES J033316.17-292917.48 1.947 19.95 45.75 DES J033607.36-263207.88 1.948 20.02 45.72 DES J033401.79-265054.28 1.952 19.72 45.84 DES J033232.00-280309.98 1.954 19.98 45.74 DES J025233.79+004340.74 1.954 20.60 45.49 DES J033646.40-291617.17 1.956 20.47 45.54 DES J033052.19-274926.84 1.958 21.49 45.14 DES J033559.60-280324.41 1.965 20.60 45.49 DES J024918.63+000548.34 1.966 20.66 45.47 DES J033650.66-293142.07 1.972 21.68 45.06 DES J032926.49-271844.01 1.978 20.33 45.61 DES J021949.99-064208.13 1.984 19.93 45.77 DES J033839.06-292351.17 1.987 20.33 45.61 DES J025159.70-005159.89 1.988 21.84 45.01 DES J022812.23-043227.58 1.992 21.04 45.33 DES J004016.18-435116.09 1.995 19.98 45.75 DES J033912.95-273516.85 2.006 20.08 45.72 DES J032821.07-282055.17 2.011 19.50 45.95 DES J022352.19-043031.68 2.012 19.75 45.85 DES J033040.28-274203.95 2.013 19.96 45.77 DES J022657.24-035944.42 2.018 20.17 45.68 DES J025019.26+003100.81 2.018 20.26 45.65 DES J022530.19-065458.19 2.030 19.49 45.96 DES J032703.62-274425.27 2.031 19.45 45.98 DES J022034.93-052956.02 2.036 18.20 46.48 DES J034036.10-284811.29 2.039 20.13 45.71 DES J022629.26-043057.07 2.040 20.18 45.69 DES J002959.21-434835.24 2.041 17.77 46.65 DES J022045.50-045121.91 2.045 19.92 45.80 DES J021935.78-064227.17 2.060 21.83 45.04 DES J003146.74-423601.03 2.061 19.54 45.95 DES J033635.40-280828.78 2.067 20.28 45.66 DES J021905.63-055958.78 2.069 20.11 45.73 DES J003549.05-440236.08 2.072 19.23 46.08 DES J021957.25-043952.46 2.077 18.90 46.22 DES J004143.04-440234.42 2.081 20.32 45.65 DES J024453.25-011256.33 2.083 20.73 45.49 DES J024344.30-000201.08 2.083 20.04 45.77 DES J032602.35-281031.00 2.085 20.01 45.78 DES J021850.07-050954.10 2.091 19.52 45.98 DES J021921.81-043642.21 2.092 20.04 45.77 DES J021941.16-044100.36 2.096 21.15 45.33 DES J033015.97-280219.79 2.097 20.18 45.72 DES J004022.52-442820.25 2.100 19.42 46.02 DES J022431.59-052818.78 2.102 17.53 46.78

Table 15: continued

C iv sample DES ID $z$ $m_{r}$ $\log({\lambda}L_{1350})$ (erg s^-1) DES J024628.49-004457.13 2.104 19.94 45.81 DES J003848.52-440202.07 2.105 19.72 45.90 DES J024357.91-005447.75 2.105 21.03 45.38 DES J022044.45-050905.95 2.108 21.19 45.32 DES J025209.79+000549.21 2.108 19.95 45.81 DES J024756.35-001555.92 2.119 18.70 46.32 DES J022813.61-042251.65 2.121 19.63 45.95 DES J033640.29-284423.00 2.124 20.80 45.48 DES J024739.11-005221.01 2.124 20.50 45.60 DES J022411.52-060915.92 2.128 19.82 45.87 DES J024550.79-004328.13 2.131 20.52 45.59 DES J003816.16-434647.44 2.141 19.54 45.99 DES J003936.81-443439.72 2.144 19.97 45.82 DES J022219.46-062539.66 2.146 19.04 46.19 DES J032829.96-274212.23 2.150 20.12 45.76 DES J024632.44-003214.12 2.152 18.89 46.25 DES J021441.86-043709.03 2.152 22.17 44.94 DES J022028.95-045802.58 2.153 20.53 45.60 DES J033326.24-275829.85 2.161 20.53 45.60 DES J022351.07-044729.93 2.163 20.93 45.44 DES J033217.15-271956.41 2.169 19.24 46.12 DES J032923.16-280022.78 2.175 19.77 45.91 DES J002913.21-433044.56 2.180 20.11 45.78 DES J025335.12-003039.26 2.184 20.41 45.66 DES J032939.97-284952.40 2.188 20.22 45.73 DES J024557.22-000823.36 2.199 20.05 45.81 DES J022001.63-052216.92 2.219 20.17 45.77 DES J003320.08-430428.45 2.231 20.19 45.76 DES J024840.78-003548.15 2.235 18.89 46.28 DES J022358.64-045351.63 2.235 20.29 45.72 DES J003448.83-442519.26 2.237 20.13 45.79 DES J033852.79-282256.93 2.246 19.78 45.93 DES J022402.32-061740.34 2.246 19.91 45.88 DES J002907.77-420916.39 2.247 20.77 45.54 DES J024907.29-000649.35 2.251 20.31 45.72 DES J003743.89-434715.68 2.257 19.60 46.01 DES J022725.81-033837.75 2.257 18.20 46.57 DES J021757.52-045059.15 2.257 20.73 45.56 DES J003516.08-432451.82 2.260 19.47 46.06 DES J022557.62-045005.32 2.271 19.55 46.03 DES J022229.62-044941.93 2.275 21.22 45.37 DES J033604.00-274203.95 2.277 21.41 45.29 DES J022729.22-043227.66 2.280 19.75 45.96 DES J033655.83-290218.23 2.283 19.41 46.09 DES J024204.58-003835.64 2.287 20.21 45.77 DES J022451.98-041210.79 2.294 20.14 45.80 DES J022612.64-043401.32 2.306 21.08 45.43 DES J022748.85-042820.90 2.311 20.08 45.84 DES J022410.96-050653.95 2.315 20.66 45.60 DES J024950.74-004224.16 2.317 20.45 45.69 DES J024520.05-004534.45 2.321 20.79 45.55 DES J021730.92-041823.54 2.322 19.75 45.97 DES J033843.76-294922.54 2.328 20.67 45.60 DES J022824.68-041545.71 2.328 19.63 46.02 DES J003436.78-440043.41 2.330 19.58 46.04 DES J025128.73-002650.64 2.330 19.95 45.89 DES J022055.10-061842.21 2.340 21.09 45.44 DES J024337.15-002340.17 2.347 19.36 46.14 DES J033822.77-275910.73 2.349 19.64 46.02 DES J024505.03-003441.97 2.350 20.60 45.64 DES J025033.20+003829.22 2.364 19.96 45.90 DES J004056.56-431446.40 2.384 19.56 46.07 DES J033734.80-294213.92 2.390 19.84 45.96 DES J033953.34-270053.36 2.410 18.53 46.49

Table 16: continued

C iv sample DES ID $z$ $m_{r}$ $\log({\lambda}L_{1350})$ (erg s^-1) DES J003430.47-433311.36 2.415 20.75 45.60 DES J025102.06-004142.78 2.425 22.15 45.05 DES J032942.28-281906.69 2.436 20.42 45.74 DES J033605.57-290354.17 2.450 20.17 45.85 DES J022354.81-044814.94 2.452 18.74 46.42 DES J022014.33-042917.10 2.458 19.30 46.20 DES J024511.94-011317.50 2.462 20.46 45.74 DES J024757.67+001542.65 2.467 20.87 45.57 DES J033430.30-275958.91 2.472 21.32 45.40 DES J022540.58-043825.15 2.477 20.27 45.82 DES J032640.93-283206.80 2.492 20.28 45.82 DES J024717.40-000052.27 2.497 20.30 45.81 DES J003017.36-423144.34 2.497 20.00 45.93 DES J003957.42-434107.92 2.500 20.14 45.88 DES J033237.62-271448.07 2.519 20.30 45.82 DES J033608.10-285245.81 2.522 20.30 45.82 DES J003145.23-424618.45 2.523 20.70 45.66 DES J033545.52-275451.69 2.540 20.28 45.83 DES J003341.34-420811.51 2.541 19.80 46.02 DES J033216.69-272411.37 2.547 19.77 46.04 DES J022259.87-063326.65 2.563 20.60 45.71 DES J003547.38-430558.81 2.565 20.03 45.94 DES J022434.33-043200.27 2.568 20.06 45.93 DES J033518.30-275304.01 2.576 19.33 46.22 DES J003530.07-444539.88 2.587 20.06 45.93 DES J003352.72-425452.55 2.593 19.10 46.32 DES J033331.37-275634.38 2.602 20.37 45.81 DES J024719.59-003313.11 2.607 20.48 45.77 DES J032739.71-281934.84 2.616 20.18 45.89 DES J034121.52-265901.04 2.621 19.44 46.19 DES J021457.21-043011.44 2.636 18.34 46.63 DES J022104.88-060728.52 2.648 20.05 45.95 DES J022631.82-045127.47 2.655 20.77 45.66 DES J022330.15-043004.09 2.677 20.78 45.66 DES J021719.45-052305.27 2.695 19.36 46.23 DES J022034.52-045132.47 2.732 20.40 45.83 DES J033944.09-284604.07 2.744 19.33 46.27 DES J022620.86-045946.48 2.745 21.30 45.48 DES J025223.48-003623.57 2.769 20.20 45.93 DES J033526.38-285747.93 2.770 18.08 46.78 DES J033938.51-291019.54 2.778 21.16 45.55 DES J021921.22-044315.03 2.794 20.17 45.95 DES J022636.07-043428.92 2.801 19.88 46.07 DES J022354.85-054839.89 2.814 19.31 46.30 DES J021659.87-053203.49 2.818 17.60 46.99 DES J022305.97-054015.26 2.823 20.04 46.01 DES J022321.26-055600.27 2.846 21.55 45.42 DES J022255.51-044410.32 2.871 20.31 45.92 DES J033720.58-272434.70 2.896 20.16 45.99 DES J003255.24-430948.41 3.010 19.57 46.26 DES J022423.43-070627.92 3.030 21.48 45.50 DES J003318.29-434301.10 3.082 19.31 46.38 DES J033246.76-280846.78 3.180 19.17 46.47 DES J021438.15-052024.38 3.214 20.93 45.77 DES J025250.10+000830.68 3.237 20.27 46.04 DES J003133.50-422953.97 3.248 20.62 45.90 DES J021906.24-041933.94 3.330 21.60 45.54 DES J033712.16-285146.74 3.364 20.33 46.06 DES J003411.44-424329.48 3.373 20.83 45.86 DES J002926.44-420752.35 3.403 19.71 46.32 DES J022543.53-042834.48 3.411 20.64 45.95 DES J024325.96-003145.11 3.435 19.63 46.36 DES J022133.35-065713.47 3.440 20.16 46.15 DES J034122.60-291302.04 3.470 20.33 46.09

Table 17: continued

C iv sample DES ID $z$ $m_{r}$ $\log({\lambda}L_{1350})$ (erg s^-1) DES J033512.61-292351.14 3.712 19.98 46.27 DES J024509.76-010001.28 3.807 20.58 46.05 DES J022144.21-062745.18 3.856 20.14 46.24

Appendix B H$\beta$ excluding objects with individual lags

The luminosity bins for the H$\beta$ sample excluding sources with individual lags are shown in Figure 13, and the stacked CCF’s and average lags for this reduced sample are given in Figure 14 and Figure 15. Only the two lowest (blue and orange) and second highest (red) luminosity bins had objects excluded. The stacked CCF peaks remain intact for each of these bins, although the signal-to-noise degrades slightly, which is to expected as the size of the stacked sample decreased by $\sim$one sixth. The average lags are in close agreement to those recovered in the original analysis in §4. This test indicates that the results from stacking are not dominated by objects with high quality individual lags, although their addition does considerably improve the lag uncertainties for the final result.

Figure 13: The same as Figure 2 after excluding sources with individual lag recoveries.

Figure 14: The same as Figure 3 after excluding sources with individual lag recoveries from the stacked sample.

Figure 15: The Radius-Luminosity relation for H$\beta$ (dotted lines), including the stacked average lag measurements made using the OzDES H$\beta$ sample after excluding sources with individual lag recoveries, and existing individual lag measurements (same as in Figure 4).

Affiliations

¹Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2611, Australia
²School of Mathematics and Physics, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4101, Australia
³Department of Astronomy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA
⁴Center of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA
⁵National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
⁶The Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for All-Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimension (ASTRO 3D), Australia
⁷Sydney Institute for Astronomy, School of Physics, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
⁸Centre for Gravitational Astrophysics, College of Science, The Australian National University, ACT 2601, Australia
⁹Laboratório Interinstitucional de e-Astronomia - LIneA, Rua Gal. José Cristino 77, Rio de Janeiro, RJ - 20921-400, Brazil
¹⁰Department of Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
¹¹Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, P. O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510, USA
¹²Departamento de Física Teórica and Instituto de Física de Partículas y del Cosmos (IPARCOS-UCM), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain
¹³Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, PO1 3FX, UK ¹⁴Department of Physics & Astronomy, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK
¹⁵Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias, E-38205 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
¹⁶Universidad de La Laguna, Dpto. AstrofÃsica, E-38206 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
¹⁷Institut de Física d’Altes Energies (IFAE), The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology, Campus UAB, 08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona) Spain
¹⁸Centre for Extragalactic Astronomy, Durham University, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK
¹⁹Hamburger Sternwarte, Universität Hamburg, Gojenbergsweg 112, 21029 Hamburg, Germany
²⁰Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain
²¹Institute of Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Oslo. P.O. Box 1029 Blindern, NO-0315 Oslo, Norway
²²Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
²³University Observatory, Faculty of Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Scheinerstr. 1, 81679 Munich, Germany
²⁴Center for Astrophysical Surveys, National Center for Supercomputing Applications, 1205 West Clark St., Urbana, IL 61801, USA
²⁵Department of Astronomy, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1002 W. Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
²⁶Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA
²⁷Center for Astrophysics $|$ Harvard & Smithsonian, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
²⁸Australian Astronomical Optics, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW 2113, Australia
²⁹Lowell Observatory, 1400 Mars Hill Rd, Flagstaff, AZ 86001, USA
³⁰George P. and Cynthia Woods Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy, and Department of Physics and Astronomy, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
³¹Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats, E-08010 Barcelona, Spain
³²Observatório Nacional, Rua Gal. José Cristino 77, Rio de Janeiro, RJ - 20921-400, Brazil
³³Department of Physics, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15312, USA
³⁴Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics & Cosmology, P. O. Box 2450, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
³⁵SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA
³⁶Department of Physics and Astronomy, Pevensey Building, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9QH, UK
³⁷School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
³⁸Computer Science and Mathematics Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831
³⁹Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA