$\pm$ 0.07 for [$R_{\mathrm{BLR}}$]{} derived from [H$\beta$]{} lags alone (line 18 of their Table 3). The slight discrepancy between our value and theirs stems from a combination of the slightly differing cosmologies, samples, and fitting techniques employed in the two studies. For completeness, we recast our BH mass estimators based on the radius-luminosity relation of Kaspi [et al.]{} (2005):

$${\ensuremath{R_{\mathrm{BLR}}}}= (20.0^{+2.8}_{-2.4})~\left( \frac{{\ensuremath{L_{5100}}}}{10^{44}~{\rm erg~
s^{-1}}} \right)^{0.67 \pm 0.07} \ \ \ {\rm lt-days} .$$

+0.5cm

Kaspi et al. (2005) consider a radius-luminosity relation derived from the average lags of all the Balmer lines, but we prefer to focus on the relation based exclusively on [H$\beta$]{} lags because the significant difference we find between the FWHMs of [H$\alpha$]{} and [H$\beta$]{} suggests that the lines form, at least in part, from kinematically and possibly spatially distinct regions. The resulting relations are

$$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{M_\mathrm{BH}}}&=& (1.3 \pm 0.3) \times 10^6 \nonumber \\
     & & \hskip -0.5in \left(
\frac{{\ensuremath{L_{\mathrm{H{\alpha}}}}}}{10^{42}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}} \right)^{0.57 \pm 0.06}\left(
\frac{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{FWHM}_\mathrm{H{\alpha}}}}}{10^{3}~\mathrm{{km~s\ensuremath{^{-1}}}}} \right)^{2.06 \pm 0.06} {\ensuremath{M_{\odot}}}.\end{aligned}$$

+0.5cm

$$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{M_\mathrm{BH}}}&=& (2.4 \pm 0.3) \times 10^6 \nonumber \\
     & & \hskip -0.3in \left(
\frac{{\ensuremath{L_{\mathrm{H{\beta}}}}}}{10^{42}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}} \right)^{0.59 \pm 0.06}~\left(
\frac{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{FWHM}_\mathrm{H{\beta}}}}}{10^{3}~\mathrm{{km~s\ensuremath{^{-1}}}}} \right)^2 {\ensuremath{M_{\odot}}}.\end{aligned}$$

+0.5cm

Kaspi [et al.]{} also derive a new [$R_{\mathrm{BLR}}$]{}-[$L_{\mathrm{H{\beta}}}$]{} relation from the reverberation-mapped sample. Their 