ner_tags: O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength B-Wavelength O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O B-CelestialObject O O B-Wavelength O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O B-Wavelength O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation
tokens: to the spectroscopic data. This source is less luminous than J0100+2802 and its mass is smaller, according to the estimate obtained by fitting the SED. With the same accretion disc model as before, in fact, we obtain M BH = 1.3 × 10 9 M ⊙ , L disc = 3.9 × 10 46 erg s −1 = 0.23 L Edd , L X = 0.8 L disc ∼ 3 × 10 46 erg s −1 and L X + L disc = 0.41 L Edd . As previously explained for J0100+2802, the value of the black hole mass should be taken as a lower limit. We conclude that both sources, despite the difference in black hole mass, share similar Eddington ratios and similar partition between optical–UV and X-ray luminosities. We can compare our results on ULAS J1120+0641 with those of Mortlock et al. ( 2011 ), who found M BH ∼ 2 × 10 9 M ⊙ (through the virial method) and a disc luminosity of 2.5 × 10 47 erg s −1 (applying a a fiducial bolometric correction taken from Willott et al. 2010 ). Differently from us, the results of Mortlock et al. ( 2011 ) indicate a slightly super-Eddington luminosity. 4.3 Comparison with other powerful quasars It is well-established that the X-ray-to-optical power-law slope parameter α ox of quasars correlates significantly with the ultraviolet 2500-Å monochromatic luminosity ( L 2500 Å : Steffen et al. 2006 ; Just et al. 2007 ). For J0100+2802 with rest-frame 2500-Å flux density, f 2500 Å , estimated from Wu et al. ( 2015 ) and rest-frame 2-keV flux density, f 2keV , estimated from the power-law model, we have parameter α ox with value −1.74 ± 0.01. In Fig. 6 , we show the location of J0100+2802 and the other highest-redshift quasars with z > 6, for which we take α ox and L 2500 Å from the literature (Brandt et al. 2002 ; Farrah et al. 2004 ; Shemmer et al. 2006 ; Moretti et al. 2014 ; Page et al. 2014 ; Gallerani et al. 2017 ), in the α ox – L 2500 Å relation. It is clear that the SED of the ultraluminous J0100+2802 is not abnormal among the highest-redshift quasars and all quasars at z > 6 follow the α ox – L 2500 Å relation like low- and median-redshift quasars. As discussed in Nanni et al. ( 2017 ), which presents a systematic analysis of X-ray archival data of quasars at z > 5.5, these results support the non-evolutionary scenario of SEDs of luminous quasars. For J0100+2802, the inferred value of α ox in Nanni et al. ( 2017 ) is , which is in agreement with ours considering the scatter of the α ox – L 2500 Å relation. Figure 6. Location of J0100+2802 (red star) in the X-ray-to-optical power-law slope parameter α ox versus 2500-Å monochromatic luminosity. The grey dots are quasars from the samples of Just et al. ( 2007 ), Steffen et al. ( 2006 ) and Gibson, Brandt Schneider ( 2008 ). The blue dots are weak-line quasars and PHL 1811 analogues from Luo et al. ( 2015 ). The solid line represents the α ox – L 2500 Å relation from Just et al. ( 2007 ) and the dot–dashed line from Nanni et al. ( 2017 ). The red symbols represent high-redshift quasars with z > 6.0 from the literature (squares from Shemmer et al.