text:
# The Influence of Gravitational Microlensing on the Broad Emission Lines of Quasars

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The change in the continuum flux of quasars by stars or compact objects in intervening galaxies (gravitational microlensing) is now a well-established observational phenomenon. Several studies have attempted to resolve the structure of the region generating the optical and UV continuum by using the microlensing effect as a gravitational telescope (see Yonehara 1999, and references therein). However, it has usually been assumed that the size of the region generating the broad emission lines (BELs) of quasars is too large (0.1–1 pc within the framework of the standard model, Rees 1984) to be substantially affected by stellar-mass lenses. According to previous studies (Nemiroff 1988; Schneider & Wambsganss 1990), by comparing one line in different components of a multiple-image quasar, we would be able to detect only fractional deviations of the lensed from the unlensed profile. Even using optimistic estimates for the microlens masses, these deviations would amount to a modest 10–30% range. However, new results concerning the BLR structure and kinematics are relevant to these studies, and could substantially change the common view about the expected influence of microlensing events on the BEL profiles. A recent study (Wandel, Peterson, & Malkan 1999) that compares the BLR size determinations obtained using both the reverberation and the photoionization techniques for a sample of 19 low luminosity AGN (mainly Seyferts) inferred a size in the range of a few light days to a few light weeks. For AGN of greater luminosity (QSOs) Kaspi et al. (2000) derived sizes from the Balmer lines in the range from 13 to 514 light days, finding a global scaling of the BLR size as a function of the intrinsic luminosity, $`r_{\mathrm{BLR}}L^{0.7}`$.

The purpose of this paper is to revisit the influence of microlensing in the BEL by incorporating these new results. In §2 we estimate the possibility of microlensing on the BLR of different known multiple-image quasars. In §3 we use simple, but not kinematically unrealistic, models of BLRs to study qualitatively the effects that microlensing can produce on the line profiles. In §4 the observational implications and applications will be discussed. Finally, the main conclusions are summarized in §5.

## 2 ESTIMATES FOR SOME KNOWN SYSTEMS OF MULTIPLE-IMAGE QSOs

Only extended objects of sizes comparable to or smaller than the Einstein radius associated with the gravitational lens will experience appreciable amplifications (e.g., Schneider, Ehlers, & Falco 1992). Thus, in the framework of the AGN standard model where the BLR is supposed to have a radius in the 0.1–1 pc range, only massive deflectors could give rise to significant amplifications. However, recent results from the MACHO project indicate that the most likely microdeflector masses in the Galactic halo are in the range 0.15–0.9 $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ (Alcock et al. 2000b). In the Galactic bulge the microdeflector masses are in good agreement with normal-mass stars (Alcock et al. 2000a). Estimates from the lightcurve of Q 2237+0305 (Wyithe, Webster, & Turner 2000) are also in reasonable agreement with these values. Consequently, significant amplifications of the BEL would not be expected according to the standard model. This result has been pointed out by other authors (Nemiroff 1988; Schneider & Wambsganss 1990), even if they were somewhat optimistic concerning the distribution of the microlens mass adopted.

However, recent research on the BEL seems to indicate that the BLR could be substantially smaller than expected in the standard model (Wandel et al. 1999). Based on the idea that ‘the continuum/emission line cross-correlation function measures the responsivity-weighted radius of the BLR (Koratkar & Gaskell, 1991)’, Wandel et al. (1999) have obtained reliable size measurements. The sizes obtained using this technique (reverberation mapping) are consistent with the substantially more extensive but less accurate measurements inferred from the photoionization method. The results summarized by Wandel et al. (1999) exhibited a large scatter (from 1.4 to 107 days) which could be attributed to: i) the different size/structure of the BLR in different objects, and ii) the different sizes of the regions associated with emission lines of different degrees of ionization. The latter possibility has been neatly exemplified in the case of NGC 5548, in which luminosity-weighted radii ranging from $``$ 2.5 days for the He ii $`\lambda `$1640 line to the 28 days corresponding to the \[C iii\] $`\lambda `$1909 line have been found (Peterson & Wandel 1999). NGC 5548 and the other objects in the sample of Wandel et al. (1999) are AGN of relatively low luminosity. However, there is a range of luminosities among the lensed QSOs. To take this fact into account we use the results from Kaspi et al. (2000), who found a dependence between the BLR size and the intrinsic luminosity of the AGN, $`r_{\mathrm{BLR}}L^{0.7}`$.

### 2.1 Search for candidates

For a typical lens configuration ($`z_\mathrm{l}=0.5`$ and $`z_\mathrm{s}=2`$), the projected Einstein radius of the microlens on the source is $`\eta _020(M/M_{})^{(1/2)}`$ light-days (for a $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.3`$ flat cosmology and $`H_0=70`$ km s-1 Mpc-1). Objects with $`r_{\mathrm{BLR}}\eta _0`$ are significantly affected by microlensing. So the relevant question is whether in the sample of the $`70`$ known gravitational lens systems there exist some lensed quasars with BLR radius $`r_{\mathrm{BLR}}\eta _0`$. To answer this question we can apply the Kaspi relationship $`r_{\mathrm{BLR}}L^{0.7}`$ using NGC 5548 as a reference object. We adopt two values for the BLR size of NGC 5548 in order to account for its stratification: 21.2 light-days (Balmer lines, Kaspi et al. 2000) and 2.5 light-days (high ionization, He ii line, Peterson & Wandel 1999). One can straightforwardly verify that for a $`z=2`$ (1) quasar with $`m_V=24.3`$ (22.5) would have the same $`r_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$ as NGC 5548, i.e., the microlensing on the BLR would be quite pronounced. Multiple-image objects of this apparent magnitude can be detected and, in fact, there are several examples among the currently known gravitational lens systems.

We can refine this rough estimate by taking into account the redshift and apparent magnitude of each lensed object. With this aim, in Figure 1 we show contour plots of the BLR radius as a function of the source redshift and apparent magnitude using both reference values for the BLR of NGC 5548 and the $`r_{\mathrm{BLR}}L^{0.7}`$ law. We have also included in Fig. 1 the observed redshift–magnitude values corresponding to a sample of 31 QSOs selected from the $`70`$ known gravitational lenses with the criteria of having the lens and source redshifts and the optical magnitude well determined. We have used the $`V`$ magnitude of the brightest lensed image (in B 1933+507, B 2045+265, MG 0414+0534, PKS 1830-211 and other four unlabeled objects we have inferred $`V`$ from $`I`$ using $`VI=0.50`$; in HST 1413+5211 and other unlabeled object we have inferred $`V`$ from $`R`$ using $`VR=0.11`$). The data have been mainly obtained from the CASTLES web page (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/castles). For the previous and subsequent calculations we have adopted from NED the visible magnitude and redshift of NGC 5548, $`m_V=13.3`$ and $`z=0.017`$. To transform apparent magnitudes into intrinsic luminosities we have made use of the equation $`L=4\pi D_{\mathrm{lum}}^2S(1+z)^{(\alpha 1)}`$, which relates the absolute luminosity of the source, the luminosity distance, $`D_{\mathrm{lum}}`$, the apparent flux, $`S`$, and the spectral index, $`\alpha `$, defined by $`F_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$. We have considered an $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.3`$ flat cosmology and a value for the spectral index $`\alpha =0.5`$ (e.g., Richards et al. 2001).

In Fig. 1 we can identify a group of ten systems with magnitude $`m_V>21`$ that would lie in the region $`R100`$ light-days (Balmer lines) and in the region $`r10`$ light-days (high-ionization lines). These systems are possibly affected by microlensing, with particular strength in the case of the high-ionization lines. However, the observed magnitudes of the lensed QSOs should be corrected by extinction and gravitational lens amplification. The amount of extinction in the gravitational lenses is unknown for most of them, but it can be in the range from dust-free lenses to strongly reddened systems (e.g., Falco et al. 1999; Muñoz et al. 2001 and references therein). We selected the magnitude from the brightest QSO image, which in most of the cases is the less reddened. As a first approximation to the expected amount of obscuration we can adopt the mean extinction, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=0.6`$, derived by Falco, Kochanek, & Muñoz (1998) comparing the statistics of radio and optical lensed quasars. On the other hand, the quasar source is amplified by the gravitational lens and the true luminosity of the unlensed quasar should be calculated by fitting a lens model to each system. The exact amplification of each gravitational lens system depends on the lens model and on the particular configuration of the system, but an average expected amplification between the brightest image and the unlensed source is $`1.5`$ mag (e.g., Lehár et al. 2000). Thus, a roughly averaged correction of the combined effects of extinction and lens amplification can be made by adding $`1`$ mag to the apparent QSO magnitude.

Taking into account the +1 mag shift, the number of possible candidates affected by microlensing (at least in the high-ionization lines) is increased to 12 ($`40`$% of the sample, see Fig. 1). Our selection procedure could include not only intrinsically low-luminosity but also reddened objects in the list of candidates. As we have seen, a 1 mag shift due to underestimation of the extinction will not substantially modify the set of candidates. This moderates the impact of the extinction uncertainties in the selection of candidates, but we cannot discard the possibility that our statistics were biased by heavily reddened objects of intrinsically high luminosity. This is the case for B 0218+357, which according to the rest-frame $`E(BV)=1.52`$ obtained from Falco et al. (1999) would be an intrinsically high-luminosity object reddened by extinction. MG 0414+0534 is also a very reddened object, but in this case probably owing to a very red intrinsic spectral distribution ($`F_\nu \nu ^9`$ was measured at optical wavelengths by Hewitt et al. 1992). This implies that MG 0414+0534 could have a high intrinsic rest-frame V luminosity but also indicates that this object is probably a radio galaxy rather than a QSO.

The identification of the candidates available in the literature supports the hypothesis that most of them are intrinsically low-luminosity objects, since in most cases the objects cannot be clearly classified as bright QSOs but admit alternative classifications as objects with lower levels of activity (radio galaxies, underluminous QSOs, starburst galaxies, Seyfert 2 galaxies, or other types of AGNs). This also implies that we have probably overestimated the luminosities of the candidate objects because we have not removed the contribution from the galaxy, which is probably far from negligible.

### 2.2 Estimate of the amplification in B 1600+434

It would be very useful to compute the expected amplifications for each object in the list of candidates. However, lack of knowledge of the extinction in each system and, to some extent, of a precise classification of the source, could affect the results significantly. We have selected the gravitational lens discovered by Jackson et al. (1995), B 1600+434, a double-imaged typical quasar at $`z_\mathrm{s}=1.59`$, lensed by an edge-on spiral galaxy at $`z_\mathrm{l}=0.42`$, in which both the lens amplification and the extinction might be reasonably well known. To calculate the amplification induced in B 1600+434 by the lens galaxy we have fitted a singular isothermal ellipsoid (SIE) to this double-imaged quasar. Thus, we obtain an amplification of 0.96 mag for the brightest quasar image, which has an observed V-band magnitude of $`m_V=22.69`$. For the extinction we have used the result from Falco et al. (1999), $`A_V=1.02`$ mag. From the intrinsic luminosity obtained after correcting for amplification and extinction ($`m_V=22.63`$) and using the Kaspi et al. relationship, we have estimated radii of 45 and 5.3 ligth-days for the Balmer and He ii BLRs, respectively (according to the two values of reference adopted for NGC 5548).

To estimate the maximum amplification, $`\mu _{\mathrm{max}}`$, we adopt the expression (e.g., Schneider et al. 1992):

$$\mu _{\mathrm{max}}\frac{\sqrt{(\frac{r_{\mathrm{BLR}}}{\eta _0})^2+4}}{(\frac{r_{\mathrm{BLR}}}{\eta _0})},$$
(1)
where $`r_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$ is the BLR radius, and $`\eta _0`$ is given by

$$\eta _0=\sqrt{4\frac{GM}{c^2}\frac{D_\mathrm{s}D_{\mathrm{ds}}}{D_\mathrm{d}}}$$
(2)
($`D_\mathrm{d}`$ and $`D_\mathrm{s}`$ are the angular diameter distances to the lens and the QSO respectively, and $`D_{\mathrm{ds}}`$ is the angular diameter lens–QSO distance).

If we apply these formulae to B 1600+434, we find that a solar-mass stellar microlens would induce a modest, albeit potentially observable, amplification of 1.4 in the Balmer lines and a strong amplification of 8.2 in He ii. A $`0.1M_{}`$ microlens would also induce an appreciable amplification of 2.76 in the He ii lines. We do not calculate the amplification by microlensing on the BEL for the other objects in the list because the exact amount of extinction is unknown for most of them, and because we can no longer suppose that the $`F_\nu \nu ^{0.5}`$ dependence of the energy distribution is a realistic approach for some of the objects.

In summary, although most of the lensed quasars ($`70\%`$ of the total) are intrinsically high-luminosity quasars (so that no strong microlensing in the BEL is expected) we found that $`30\%`$ of the lensed sources are faint enough to be considered as possibly affected by microlensing in the BEL.

## 3 MICROLENSING EFFECTS ON THE PROFILE OF THE BROAD EMISSION LINES

When an organized velocity field governs the kinematics of the BLR, microlensing can give rise to a selective amplification of the emission-line profile (Nemiroff 1988). The shape of the line depends on the location of the source with respect to the optical axis (defined by the observer and the microlens) and can change with the relative movement between the microlens and the BLR. In this section we adopt the kinematic models for the BLR used by Robinson (1995) to study the range of profile shapes that exists among AGN in the context of a simple parameterization of some basic properties of the BLR such as emissivity and velocity law. Our intention is to study, in this framework, the effects induced in the line profile by a microlens in different locations with respect to the center of the BLR.

We assume that a single microdeflector is affecting the BLR. This supposition adequately serves the objectives of the present paper (a more realistic approach based on the existence of a random distribution of microdeflectors will be analyzed in a future paper).

In accordance with Robinson (1995), we consider three different geometries (spherical, biconical, and cylindrical) and adopt the following radial dependences for the emissivity and magnitude of the velocity:

$$ϵ(r)=ϵ_0\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{in}}}\right)^\beta $$
(3)
and

$$v(r)=v_0\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{in}}}\right)^p.$$
(4)
We compute the emission-line profile from the expression

$$F_\lambda =_Vϵ(r)\delta \left[\lambda \lambda _0\left(1+\frac{v_{}}{c}\right)\right]\mu (\stackrel{}{r})𝑑V,$$
(5)
where

$$\mu (\stackrel{}{r})=\frac{u^2+2}{u\sqrt{u^2+4}}\left(u=\frac{|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_0|}{\eta _0}\right)$$
(6)
is the amplification associated with the microlens, $`\stackrel{}{r}_0(r_0,\phi _0)`$ is the position of the microlens, $`\eta _0`$ is the Einstein radius, and $`v_{}`$ is the projected line-of-sight velocity.

We adopt inner ($`r_{\mathrm{in}}`$) and outer ($`r_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$) radii for the BLR.

It is convenient to scale the distances to the Einstein radius associated with the microlens. In this way, the relevance of the microlens effect can be characterized by the quantity

$$\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{BLR}}=\frac{r_{\mathrm{BLR}}}{\eta _0}.$$
(7)
We consider two values (1 and 4) for $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$. We assume throughout that $`r_{\mathrm{in}}=0.1r_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$.

To study the effects produced by the relative off-centering between the microlens and the BLR, we compute line profiles corresponding to a grid of displacements of the microlens relative to the center of the BLR. We consider 25 positions in the positive $`XY`$ quadrant ranging from $`0`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$ in both the $`X`$ and $`Y`$ axes (Fig. 2).

In the Appendix we collect all the formal development and formulae and concentrate on the results in the following sections.

### 3.1 SPHERICAL SHELL

In the case of a spherical ensemble of emitters flowing radially, the projected line-of-sight velocity corresponding to a emitter at a position $`(r,\theta )`$ is given by

$$v_{}=v_0\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{in}}}\right)^p\mathrm{cos}\theta \left(p>0\right).$$
(8)
We have used the same notation as Robinson (1995) for the parameters related to the relative velocity,

$$x=\frac{\lambda \lambda _0}{\lambda _0}\frac{c}{v_{\mathrm{max}}},$$
(9)
and we will refer to the line parameter which defines the line shape:

$$\eta =\frac{\beta +3}{p}1.$$
(10)
The line profile (see Appendix A.1) is obtained by integrating

$$F_x=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{ϵ_0r_{\mathrm{int}}^2c}{\lambda _0v_0}_0^{2\pi }_{\mathrm{Max}[r_{\mathrm{in}},r_{\mathrm{lim}}]}^{r_{\mathrm{BLR}}}\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{in}}}\right)^{\beta +2p}[\mu (x,r,\phi )]_{f=0}𝑑r𝑑\phi \hfill & r_{\mathrm{lim}}<r_{\mathrm{BLR}}\text{ }\hfill \\ 0\hfill & r_{\mathrm{lim}}>r_{\mathrm{BLR}}\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
where $`r_{\mathrm{lim}}=r_{\mathrm{in}}(x/x_\mathrm{m})^{1/p}`$, $`x_\mathrm{m}=v_0/v_{\mathrm{max}}=(r_{\mathrm{in}}/r_{\mathrm{BLR}})^p`$, and $`[\mu (x,r,\phi )]_{f=0}`$ is given by Eq. 6, inserting Eq. A8 into Eq. A10.

Following Robinson (1995), we take $`\eta `$ as the parameter defining the emission-line profile. For the spherical case we consider two values, a) $`\eta =2`$ and b) $`\eta =0.25`$, which in absence of microlensing would correspond to concave and convex profile wings, respectively. In absence of microlensing, only this parameter is needed to characterize the line profile. In the presence of microlensing we need also to fix another parameter. We select the emissivity exponent $`\beta =1.5`$ (see Eq. 3). The exponent of the velocity law, $`p`$, is then obtained from Equation 10. Thus, for case a) we have $`p=0.5`$ and for case b) $`p=2`$.

In Figs. 3, 4 we present the grids of profiles for $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{BLR}}=1,4`$ for case a) and in Figs. 5, 6 for case b). The influence of microlensing on the line profiles would be observable when the microlens is centered on the BLR, and also in many other cases in which the microlens is off-centered. The displacement of a microlens across the BLR would induce changes in the relative strength of different parts of the line profile, relatively enhancing the wings when the microlens is centered on the BLR and the core when it is sited in the outer parts. However, no relative enhancements between the blue and red parts of the profile would appear due to the high symmetry of the spherical model.

As mentioned previously, one notable property of Robinson’s models is that the profile shape depends only on $`\eta `$. This implies that from the study of the line profile it is not possible to derive direct information on the velocity field or the emissivity law. Could the presence of microlensing break this degeneracy for a spherical shell? Such questions as the existence of a monotonically increasing or decreasing dependence with radial distance of the velocity field may have a formal answer. In principle, it would be possible to invert the line-profile expression (Eq. 11) obtained for several different positions of the microlens to recuperate, making suitable suppositions, the law for radial velocities. However, it is not easy to decide on direct observational criteria to carry out this study.

To illustrate the difficulties in deriving information from the microlensed line profile in the spherical case, notice that not even a simple question like the existence of outflow or inflow can be answered. (For the spherical case there is always the same contribution of receding and approaching emitters along the line of sight which would undergo the same magnification.)

### 3.2 BICONICAL SHELL

Much observational evidence (Zheng, Binette, & Sulentic 1990; Marziani, Calvani, & Sulentic 1992) and theoretical work supports the idea that the flow of emitting gas is anisotropic, preferentially confined to a pair of oppositely directed cones. In this model we need three polar coordinates $`(r,\theta ,\phi )`$ measured with respect to the cone axis to express the projected line-of-sight velocity corresponding to an emitter,

$$v_{}=v_0\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{in}}}\right)^p\xi (p>0),$$
(12a)
$$\xi =\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{sin}i+\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}i,$$
(12b)
where $`i`$ is the inclination of the cones axis with respect to the line of sight.

This model can give rise to a variety of line profiles (see Figure 5 of Robinson 1995). We are going to consider the two limiting cases: $`i=0^{}`$ and $`i=90^{}`$. We will adopt the cone half-angle $`\theta _\mathrm{c}=30^{}`$, and $`\beta =1.5`$.

#### 3.2.1 $`i=0^{}`$

The line profile (see Appendix A.2.1) is obtained by integrating

$$F_x=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{ϵ_0r_{\mathrm{int}}^2c}{\lambda _0v_0}_0^{2\pi }_{\mathrm{Max}[r_{\mathrm{lim}},r_{\mathrm{in}}]}^{\mathrm{Min}[r_{\mathrm{sup}},r_{\mathrm{BLR}}]}\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{in}}}\right)^{\beta +2p}[\mu (x,r,\phi )]_{f=0}𝑑r𝑑\phi \hfill & \left(r_{\mathrm{lim}}<r_{\mathrm{BLR}}\mathrm{and}r_{\mathrm{sup}}>r_{\mathrm{in}}\right)\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{in the other cases }\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
where $`r_{\mathrm{lim}}=r_{\mathrm{in}}(|x|/x_\mathrm{m})^{1/p}`$, $`r_{\mathrm{sup}}=r_{\mathrm{BLR}}(|x|/\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{c})^{1/p}`$, and $`[\mu (x,r,\phi )]_{f=0}`$ is given by Eq. 6, inserting Eq. A8 into Eq. A10, with $`x_\mathrm{m}=v_0/v_{\mathrm{max}}=(r_{\mathrm{in}}/r_{\mathrm{BLR}})^p`$.

In Figs. 7, 8 we present the grids of profiles for $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{BLR}}=1,4`$ corresponding to $`\eta =2`$, and in Figs. 9, 10 the grids corresponding to $`\eta =0.25`$. In both cases we obtain two-peaked profiles. As in the case of the sphere, the influence of microlensing when the microdeflector is centered with the BLR is very noticeable. However, in the biconical case, the change in the relative enhancements of different parts of the line profile caused by the displacement of the microlens with respect to the center of the BLR is more noticeable than in the spherical one.

#### 3.2.2 $`i=90^{}`$

The line profile (see Appendix A.2.2) is obtained by integrating

$$F_x=\underset{\mathrm{Max}[r_{\mathrm{lim}},r_{\mathrm{in}}]}{\overset{r_{\mathrm{BLR}}}{}}\left(\left[\underset{\theta _{\mathrm{lim}}}{\overset{\theta _\mathrm{c}}{}}+\underset{\pi \theta _\mathrm{c}}{\overset{\mathrm{Min}[\pi \theta _{\mathrm{lim}},\pi ]}{}}\right]f(x,r,\theta )d\theta \right)𝑑r,$$
(14)
where

$$f(x,r,\theta )=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{ϵ_0r_{\mathrm{in}}^2c}{\lambda _0v_0}\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{in}}}\right)^{\beta +2p}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta [\mu _+(x,r,\theta )+\mu _{}(x,r,\theta )]_{f=0}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \left[\frac{x}{x_\mathrm{m}}\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{in}}}\right)^p\right]^2}}\hfill & \left(\theta >\theta _{\mathrm{lim}}\right),\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{in other cases},\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
with $`\theta _{\mathrm{lim}}=\mathrm{arcsin}[(|x|/x_\mathrm{m})(r/r_{\mathrm{in}})^p]`$, $`x_\mathrm{m}=v_0/v_{\mathrm{max}}=(r_{\mathrm{in}}/r_{\mathrm{BLR}})^p`$, and $`[\mu _\pm (x,r,\theta )]_{f=0}`$ is given by Eq. 6, inserting Eq. A20 into Eq. A22.

In Figs. 11, 12 we present the grids of profiles for $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{BLR}}=1,4`$ corresponding to $`\eta =2`$ and in Figs. 13, 14 the grids corresponding to $`\eta =0.25`$. In this case, $`i=90^{}`$, we obtain single-peaked profiles, convex for $`\eta =2`$, and concave for $`\eta =0.25`$. The effects of microlensing are very strong, even for the case $`\eta _0=r_{\mathrm{BLR}}/4`$ (Figs. 12 and 14).

For the limiting geometries considered here ($`i=0^{},90^{}`$) there are no asymmetries induced by the microlensing in the line profile. However, for an arbitrary inclination, an off-centered microlens should induce relative enhancements of the blue and red parts. Due to the loss of symmetry of the projected velocity field with respect to that of the spherical case, the inversion of the profile equation to study the velocity field should be easier. For instance, in the case of small cone aperture, the crossing of a microlens along the biconical axis would serve to virtually map the radial dependence of the velocity field.

### 3.3 CYLINDRICAL SHELL

Rotation in a plane disk has been often considered in relation to the kinematics of the BLR and is typically characterized by the presence of a central dip (Mathews 1982) in the line profile arising from the finite extension of the outer radius of the disk. This feature is not usually found in the observed line profiles, but there are several ways to avoid it in the models (see Robinson 1995). Nevertheless, the existence of rotation is strongly supported by recent observational work (Peterson & Wandel 1999).

#### 3.3.1 Keplerian disk

The Keplerian disk is a particular case of the cylindrical disk with velocity field,

$$v_{}=v_0\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{in}}}\right)^p\mathrm{cos}\phi \mathrm{sin}i(p=0.5),$$
(16)
where $`r`$ and $`\phi `$ are polar coordinates of an emitter in the disk.

The line profile is given by (see Appendix A.3.1):

$$F_x=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{ϵ_0r_{\mathrm{in}}c}{\lambda _0v_0\mathrm{sin}i}_{r_{\mathrm{in}}}^{\mathrm{Min}[r_{\mathrm{lim}},r_{\mathrm{BLR}}]}\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{in}}}\right)^{\beta +1p}\frac{[\mu _+(x,r)+\mu _{}(x,r)]_{f=0}}{\sqrt{1\left[\frac{x}{\mathrm{sin}i}\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{in}}}\right)^p\right]^2}}𝑑r\hfill & (r_{\mathrm{lim}}>r_{\mathrm{in}})\hfill \\ 0\hfill & (r_{\mathrm{lim}}<r_{\mathrm{in}})\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
where $`r_{\mathrm{lim}}=r_{\mathrm{in}}(|x|/\mathrm{sin}i)^{1/p}`$, $`x_\mathrm{m}=(r_{\mathrm{in}}/r_{\mathrm{BLR}})^p`$ and $`[\mu _\pm (x,r)]_{f=0}`$ is given by Eq. 6, inserting Eqs. A27 and A28 into Eq. A30.

In Figs. 15, 16 we present the grid of profiles for $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{BLR}}=1,4`$ with $`i=45^{}`$, $`\beta =1.5`$, and $`\eta =(\beta +2)/p1`$. The most noticeable feature associated with the Keplerian case (and with the cylindrical case in general) is the presence of strong asymmetries in the line profiles induced by the microlensing.

#### 3.3.2 Modified Keplerian disk

An easy way of generating a single-peaked profile in the cylindrical case is to modify the velocity field increasing the contribution of low velocities. For our purpose we will adopt

$$v_{}=v(r)\mathrm{cos}\phi \mathrm{sin}i(p=0.5)$$
(18a)
and
$$v(r)=v_0\left(\frac{\frac{1}{r}\frac{1}{r_{\mathrm{BLR}}}}{\frac{1}{r_{\mathrm{in}}}\frac{1}{r_{\mathrm{BLR}}}}\right)^p=v_0u(r),$$
(18b)
where $`r`$ and $`\phi `$ are polar coordinates of an emitter in the disk.

In this case, the line profile is given by (see Appendix A.3.2),

$$F_x=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{ϵ_0r_{\mathrm{in}}c}{\lambda _0v_0\mathrm{sin}i}_{r_{\mathrm{in}}}^{\mathrm{Min}[r_{\mathrm{lim}},r_{\mathrm{BLR}}]}\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{in}}}\right)^{\beta +1}\frac{[\mu _+(x,r)+\mu _{}(x,r)]_{f=0}}{u(r)\sqrt{1\left(\frac{x}{u(r)\mathrm{sin}i}\right)^2}}𝑑r\hfill & \left(r_{\mathrm{lim}}>r_{\mathrm{in}}\right)\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \left(r_{\mathrm{lim}}<r_{\mathrm{in}}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
where $`r_{\mathrm{lim}}=\left[\left(|x|/\mathrm{sin}i\right)^{1/p}\left(1/r_{\mathrm{in}}1/r_{\mathrm{BLR}}\right)+1/r_{\mathrm{BLR}}\right]^1`$, $`x_\mathrm{m}=r_{\mathrm{in}}/r_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$, and $`[\mu _\pm (x,r)]_{f=0}`$ is given by Eq. 6, inserting Eqs. A27 and A28 into Eq. A30.

In Figs. 17, 18 we present the grid of profiles for $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{BLR}}=1,4`$ with $`i=45^{}`$and $`\beta =1.5`$. In addition to the asymmetries, the most interesting effect of microlensing on the line profiles corresponding to the Keplerian modified velocity field is the displacement of the line peak with respect to the centroid of the non-microlensed line profile, $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_\mathrm{p}`$, (Fig. 19), which, independently of the mass considered ($`\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{BLR}}=1,4`$), can be of the order of as much as $`\mathrm{FWZI}/4`$.

## 4 DISCUSSION

If the models and assumptions of the previous sections constitute a good description of BLR microlensing, we could conclude that the effects of this phenomenon on the line profiles should be not only noticeable but also easily detectable in some lens systems.

The experimental situation, however, is more complex. In first place, the BELs are blended with the narrow emission lines, which come from the much more extended narrow-line region (NLR), which would be not affected by microlensing. In fact, it is likely that diverse transition regions between the BLR and the NLR could also contribute to the core of the line profile. Second, the compactness of the lens systems makes observation very difficult. For instance, in the case (B 1600+434) in which we have obtained a realistic estimate for microlensing amplification there are two compact images, the lens galaxy (an edge-on spiral), and some additional extended emission, all within a separation of $`2^{\prime \prime }`$. This is a major setback when trying to obtain individual spectra, and only modern spectroscopic techniques (2D spectroscopy, Mediavilla et al. 1998 and references therein) or observation from space avoid the problems induced by source blending and differential atmospheric refraction. In any case, to detect microlensing we should obtain spectra (preferably of high-ionization lines) with a high S/N ratio in the wings of the line profile, where the contribution from the BLR would be dominant.

The emissivity is another important parameter that can affect the detection of microlensing in BELs. In Fig. 20 we present the ratio of the amplified to unamplified line profiles corresponding to the modified Keplerian case, where we have changed the emissivity parameter, $`\beta `$. For a highly concentrated BLR ($`\beta =4`$) the effect is stronger when the BLR is almost centered on the microlens and weak for larger displacements of the microlens with respect to the center of the BLR. But when the emissivity is constant (for a disk of uniform brightness, $`\beta =0`$) the effects of microlensing remain noticeable for all displacements considered and are hence more likely to be observed.

In Fig. 1 we have labeled the gravitational lens systems in which significant BEL microlensing could be detected (30% of the total). However, in other systems a modest effect could be detectable by looking at high-ionization lines. This is important because other questions than the amplification, such as the crossing time of the microlens across the BLR or the frequency of the events, can lead us to study a gravitational lens system in particular. For instance, in a favorable case it would be possible not only to compare the line profile corresponding to microlensed and non-microlensed images but also to observe in the line profile of an image changes attributable to the microlens crossing. In the most favorable case from this perspective, Q 2237+0305, microlensing events are reported each year with crossing times of the order of a year or less. However, this is a bright QSO in which only very modest amplifications of 30% or less can be expected in the high-ionization lines. This estimation of the amplification is, in any case, subject to changes in the BLR-size vs QSO-luminosity relationship, and also to the expected intrinsic dispersion from object to object.

In spite of the last comment, the amplifications associated with the high-ionization lines could be high in many cases, and only a strong departure from the assumptions made in this study (e.g., a severe underestimate of the extinction, very different behavior of the BLR-size/QSO-magnitude relationship, or an unexpectedly low-mass population of microlenses) could avoid the detection of microlensing in the BELs by comparing the high-ionization line profiles of a microlensed and a non-microlensed image in the most favorable cases. According to this, the study of the incidence of microlensing in BELs could become a tool for studying the BLR size and stratification, especially when lines of different ionization are observed.

## 5 CONCLUSIONS

In the light of recent discoveries concerning the BLR size and its scaling with AGN luminosity, currently accepted values for microlens masses, and a variety of kinematic models for the BLR, we have revisited the influence of microlensing in the BEL. We have computed grids of line profiles corresponding to different displacements of the microlens with respect to the BLR center. Some results are worth summarizing:

1.- The global amplification of the BEL induced by microlensing events could be relevant. We identify a group of ten gravitational lens systems (about 30% of the total sample) for which the microlensing effect could be observable, especially in high-ionization lines. In other gravitational lenses the microlensing amplifications would be much more modest.

2.- Even for relatively small microlenses corresponding to high values of the BLR radius/Einstein radius quotient, ($`r_{\mathrm{BLR}}/\eta _04`$), the effects produced by the differential amplification of the line profile (relative enhancement of different parts of the line profile, line asymmetries, displacement of the peak of the line, etc.) would be easily detectable except for highly symmetric velocity fields. The displacement of the peak of the line profile caused by microlensing is especially interesting, since it could otherwise induce inexplicable redshift differences between the different images in a gravitational lens system.

3.- The study of the changes between the BEL profiles corresponding to microlensed and non-microlensed images, or among the BEL profiles of lines with different ionization in a microlensed image could be useful for probing current ideas about BLR size and stratification.

We would like to acknowledge valuable and useful comments of the anonymous referee. This work was supported by the P6/88 project of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC). L. Č. P. is supported by Ministry of Science, Technologies and Development of Serbia through the project ‘Spectroscopy of Extragalactic Objects’.

## Appendix A MODELING THE BROAD LINE REGION

Nowadays, there is no generally accepted model for the geometry and dynamics of the broad line region. So, we adopt in this paper the discrete cloud model (see Robinson 1995) in which it is assumed that the magnitude of the velocity and the volume emissivity may be independently specified by a power law. It is also assumed that the clouds or volume elements emit line radiation isotropically.

The amplified line profile produced by the system is obtained from:

$$F_\lambda =\underset{V}{}ϵ(r)\delta \left[\lambda \lambda _0\left(1+\frac{v_{}}{c}\right)\right]\mu (\stackrel{}{r})𝑑V,$$
(A1)
where the integral is taken over the total volume occupied by the clouds, $`\mu (\stackrel{}{r})`$ is the relative amplification that the microlens produces over the line profile, and $`v_{}`$ is the projection of the velocity field along the line of the sight. Finally, $`ϵ(r)`$ is the volume emissivity of the clouds:

$$ϵ(r)=ϵ_0\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{in}}}\right)^\beta ,$$
(A2)
$`r_{\mathrm{in}}`$ being the inner radius of the cloud system.

The geometry of the BLR is unknown, but it seems plausible that its overall structure could be characterized by one of three basic symmetries: spherical, conical, or cylindrical.

### A.1 SPHERICAL SHELL

Let us first consider a spherically symmetric cloud ensemble of outer radius $`r_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$, which is characterized by a radial velocity field. The component of the velocity parallel to the line of sight is:

$$v_{}=v_0\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{in}}}\right)^p\mathrm{cos}\theta (p>0).$$
(A3)
If the microlens is placed at $`\stackrel{}{r}_0(r_0,\phi _0)`$ and the Einstein radius is $`\eta _0`$, the relative amplification is given by (e.g., Schneider et al. 1992):

$$\mu (\stackrel{}{r})=\frac{u^2+2}{u\sqrt{u^2+4}},u=\frac{|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_0|}{\eta _0},$$
(A4a)
$$|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_0|=\sqrt{(r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi r_0\mathrm{cos}\phi _0)^2+(r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi r_0\mathrm{sin}\phi _0)^2}.$$
(A4b)
To compute the integral in Eq. A1, we define:

$$f\lambda \lambda _0\left[1+\frac{v_0}{c}\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{in}}}\right)^p\mathrm{cos}\theta \right].$$
(A5)
Equation A1, when the integral in the $`\theta `$ dimension is done and the parameters $`x=c(\lambda \lambda _0)/(v_{\mathrm{max}}\lambda _0)`$ and $`x_\mathrm{m}=v_0/v_{\mathrm{max}}=(r_{\mathrm{in}}/r_{\mathrm{BLR}})^p`$ are defined, appears as:

$$F_x=\{\begin{array}{cc}_0^{2\pi }_{\mathrm{Max}[r_{\mathrm{lim}},r_{\mathrm{in}}]}^{r_{\mathrm{BLR}}}ϵ(r)r^2\frac{[\mu (x,\stackrel{}{r})]_{f=0}}{[\frac{\mathrm{df}}{d\theta }]_{f=0}}[\mathrm{sin}\theta ]_{f=0}𝑑r𝑑\phi \hfill & \left(r_{\mathrm{lim}}<r_{\mathrm{BLR}}\right)\text{ }\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \left(r_{\mathrm{lim}}>r_{\mathrm{BLR}}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(A6)
with

$$[\mathrm{cos}\theta ]_{f=0}=\frac{x}{x_\mathrm{m}}\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{in}}}\right)^p,$$
(A7)
$$[\mathrm{sin}\theta ]_{f=0}=+\sqrt{1[\mathrm{cos}\theta ]_{f=0}^2},$$
(A8)
and

$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{df}}{d\theta }\right]_{f=0}=\lambda _0\frac{v_0}{c}\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{in}}}\right)^p[\mathrm{sin}\theta ]_{f=0},$$
(A9)
where $`[\mu (x,\stackrel{}{r})]_{f=0}`$ is given by Eq. A4a, inserting Eq. A8 into Eq. A4b as:

$$|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_0|_{\pm ,f=0}=\sqrt{(r[\mathrm{sin}\theta ]_{f=0}\mathrm{cos}\phi r_0\mathrm{cos}\phi _0)^2+(r[\mathrm{sin}\theta ]_{f=0}\mathrm{sin}\phi r_0\mathrm{sin}\phi _0)^2},$$
(A10)
and $`r_{\mathrm{lim}}=r_{\mathrm{in}}(|x|/x_m)^{1/p}`$. The expression of $`r_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ is obtained from the delta condition.

### A.2 BICONICAL SHELL

In this case, the broad lines are emitted by a bipolar flow in which clouds moving radially outwards are confined to a pair of oppositely directed cones, whose common axis passes through the optical axis. In general, an individual cloud measured with respect to the cone axis has a projected velocity:

$$v_{}=v_0\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{in}}}\right)^p\xi (p>0),$$
(A11a)
$$\xi =\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{sin}i+\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}i,$$
(A11b)
where $`i`$ represents the inclination of the axis with respect to the line of sight. For this system, the amplified line profile is:

$$F_\lambda =_0^{2\pi }_{r_1}^{r_2}\left[_0^{\theta _\mathrm{c}}+_{\pi \theta _\mathrm{c}}^\pi \right]ϵ(r)\delta \left[\lambda \lambda _0\left(1+\frac{v_{}}{c}\right)\right]\mu (\stackrel{}{r})r^2\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta drd\phi ,$$
(A12)
where the amplification is given by Eq. A4a, with:

$$|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_0|=\sqrt{(r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi r_0\mathrm{cos}\phi _0)^2+(r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{cos}ir\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}ir_0\mathrm{sin}\phi _0)^2}.$$
(A13)
#### A.2.1 $`i=0^{}`$ CASE

The $`i=0^{}`$ case leads to the amplified line profile:

$$F_x=\{\begin{array}{cc}_0^{2\pi }_{\mathrm{Max}[r_{\mathrm{lim}},r_{\mathrm{in}}]}^{\mathrm{Min}[r_{\mathrm{sup}},r_{\mathrm{BLR}}]}ϵ(r)r^2\frac{[\mu (x,\stackrel{}{r})]_{f=0}}{[\frac{\mathrm{df}}{d\theta }]_{f=0}}[\mathrm{sin}\theta ]_{f=0}𝑑r𝑑\phi \hfill & \left(r_{\mathrm{lim}}<r_{\mathrm{BLR}}\mathrm{and}r_{\mathrm{sup}}>r_{\mathrm{in}}\right),\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{in the other cases},\hfill \end{array}$$
(A14)
where $`[\mathrm{sin}\theta ]_{f=0}`$ and $`[df/d\theta ]_{f=0}`$ are given by Eqs. A8 and A9, $`[\mu (x,\stackrel{}{r})]_{f=0}`$ is given by Eq. A4a, inserting Eq. A8 into Eq. A10, with $`r_{\mathrm{lim}}=r_{\mathrm{in}}(|x|/x_\mathrm{m})^{1/p}`$, and $`r_{\mathrm{sup}}=r_{\mathrm{BLR}}(|x|/\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{c})^{1/p}`$. The expressions of $`r_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{sup}}`$ can be inferred from delta conditions.

#### A.2.2 $`i=90^{}`$ CASE

In the $`i=90^{}`$ case we consider a projected velocity of

$$v_{}=v_0\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{in}}}\right)^p\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi (p>0).$$
(A15)
Let us now define $`f`$ as:

$$f\lambda \lambda _0\left[1+\frac{v_0}{c}\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{in}}}\right)^p\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi \right],$$
(A16)
and then, after integrating in the $`\phi `$ dimension and adopting that $`x=c(\lambda \lambda _0)/(v_{\mathrm{max}}\lambda _0)`$ and $`x_\mathrm{m}=v_0/v_{max}=(r_{\mathrm{in}}/r_{\mathrm{BLR}})^p`$, Eq. A12 becomes:

$$F_x=\underset{\mathrm{Max}[r_{\mathrm{lim}},r_{\mathrm{in}}]}{\overset{r_{\mathrm{BLR}}}{}}\left(\left[\underset{\theta _{\mathrm{lim}}}{\overset{\theta _\mathrm{c}}{}}+\underset{\pi \theta _\mathrm{c}}{\overset{\mathrm{Min}[\pi \theta _{\mathrm{lim}},\pi ]}{}}\right]f(x,r,\theta )d\theta \right)𝑑r,$$
(A17)
where

$$f(x,r,\theta )=\{\begin{array}{cc}ϵ(r)r^2\mathrm{sin}\theta \frac{[\mu _+(x,\stackrel{}{r})+\mu _{}(x,\stackrel{}{r})]_{f=0}}{[\frac{\mathrm{df}}{d\phi }]_{,f=0}},\hfill & \left(\theta >\theta _{\mathrm{lim}}\right)\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{in other cases}\hfill \end{array}$$
(A18)
with $`\theta _{\mathrm{lim}}=\mathrm{arcsin}[(|x|/x_\mathrm{m})(r/r_{\mathrm{in}})^p]`$. The expression of $`\theta _{\mathrm{lim}}`$ is inferred from delta conditions. Moreover,

$$[\mathrm{sin}\phi ]_{f=0}=\frac{x}{x_\mathrm{m}}\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{in}}}\right)^p\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta },$$
(A19)
$$[\mathrm{cos}\phi ]_{\pm ,f=0}=\pm \sqrt{1[\mathrm{sin}\phi ]_{f=0}^2},$$
(A20)
and

$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{df}}{d\phi }\right]_{\pm ,f=0}=\lambda _0\frac{v_0}{c}\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{in}}}\right)^p\mathrm{sin}\theta [\mathrm{cos}\phi ]_{\pm ,f=0}.$$
(A21)
$`[\mu _\pm (x,\stackrel{}{r})]_{f=0}`$ is given by Eq. A4a, inserting Eq. A20 into Eq. A13 as

$$|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_0|_{\pm ,f=0}=\sqrt{(r\mathrm{sin}\theta [\mathrm{cos}\phi ]_{\pm ,f=0}r_0\mathrm{cos}\phi _0)^2+(r\mathrm{cos}\theta +r_0sin\phi _0)^2}.$$
(A22)
### A.3 CYLINDRICAL SHELL

The simplest example of cylindrical symmetry is a plane, i.e., a thin disk. We will suppose that this disk has uniform thickness, $`hr_{\mathrm{in}}`$, and that the angle between its axis and the line of sight is $`i`$. Finally, any point in the disk is assumed to follow a circular orbit about the axis, thus giving a line-of-sight velocity of:

$$v_{}=v(r)\mathrm{cos}\phi \mathrm{sin}i,$$
(A23)
where $`r`$ and $`\phi `$ are polar coordinates of an emitter in the disk.

For this system, the amplified line profile is

$$F_\lambda =_Sϵ(r)\delta \left[\lambda \lambda _0\left(1+\frac{v_{}}{c}\right)\right]\mu (\stackrel{}{r})𝑑S.$$
(A24)
Let us now define $`f`$ as:

$$f\lambda \lambda _0\left[1+\frac{v(r)\mathrm{cos}\phi \mathrm{sin}i}{c}\right],$$
(A25)
and $`x=c(\lambda \lambda _0)/(v_{\mathrm{max}}\lambda _0)`$, with $`v_0=v_{\mathrm{max}}`$. Then, when the integral in the $`\phi `$ dimension is done, Eq. A24 becomes:

$$F_x=\{\begin{array}{cc}_{r_{\mathrm{in}}}^{\mathrm{Min}[r_{\mathrm{lim}},r_{\mathrm{BLR}}]}ϵ(r)r\frac{[\mu _+(x,\stackrel{}{r})+\mu _{}(x,\stackrel{}{r})]_{f=0}}{[\frac{df}{d\phi }]_{+,f=0}}𝑑r\hfill & \left(r_{\mathrm{lim}}>r_{\mathrm{in}}\right)\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \left(r_{\mathrm{lim}}<r_{\mathrm{in}}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(A26)
where

$$[\mathrm{cos}\phi ]_{f=0}=x\frac{v_0}{v(r)\mathrm{sin}i},$$
(A27)
$$[\mathrm{sin}\phi ]_{\pm ,f=0}=\pm \sqrt{1[\mathrm{cos}\phi ]_{f=0}^2},$$
(A28)
and

$$\left[\frac{df}{d\phi }\right]_{\pm ,f=0}=\lambda _0\frac{v(r)\mathrm{sin}i}{c}[\mathrm{sin}\phi ]_{\pm ,f=0}.$$
(A29)
$`[\mu _\pm (x,\stackrel{}{r})]_{f=0}`$ is given by Eq. A4a, inserting the expressions of $`[\mathrm{cos}\phi ]_{f=0}`$ and $`[\mathrm{sin}\phi ]_{f=0}`$ (Eqs. A27 and A28) into:

$$|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_0|_{\pm ,f=0}=\sqrt{(r[\mathrm{cos}\phi ]_{f=0}\mathrm{cos}ir_0\mathrm{cos}\phi _0)^2+(r[\mathrm{sin}\phi ]_{\pm ,f=0}r_0\mathrm{sin}\phi _0)^2},$$
(A30)
and $`r_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ is defined by the condition:

$$v(r_{\mathrm{lim}})=v_0\frac{|x|}{\mathrm{sin}i}.$$
(A31)


format: text

text:
# Evolving networks with disadvantaged long-range connections

## Abstract

Abstract. We consider a growing network, whose growth algorithm is based on the preferential attachment typical for scale-free constructions, but where the long-range bonds are disadvantaged. Thus, the probability to get connected to a site at distance $`d`$ is proportional to $`d^\alpha `$, where $`\alpha `$ is a tunable parameter of the model. We show that the properties of the networks grown with $`\alpha <1`$ are close to those of the genuine scale-free construction, while for $`\alpha >1`$ the structure of the network is vastly different. Thus, in this regime, the node degree distribution is no more a power law, and it is well-represented by a stretched exponential. On the other hand, the small-world property of the growing networks is preserved at all values of $`\alpha `$.

PACS numbers: 89.75.-k, 05.50.+q, 89.75.Hc

Complex weblike structures (the small-world or scale-free networks) have recently become an object of extensive investigation, and in the last years a great success in understanding the properties of these structures was achieved (see Ref. as a review). Apart from appealing mathematics, this recent interest is due to the fact that many natural and technological systems, like polymer networks , the science collaboration network , or networks of chemical reactions in a living cell  seem to be organized according to some internal principles. Thus, the Internet , the network of human sexual contacts  or the WWW  possess a similar structure, e.g. are they all based on the preferential attachment of the newly introduced nodes to the highly connected old ones. All these networks show the small-world property: the typical distance (in terms of the number of intermediate connections) between two nodes grows logarithmically with the web’s size.

One of the prominent examples of a mathematical model of such a growing network is the scale-free (SF) construction of Barabási and Albert ; and one of its most interesting properties is the very specific form of the probability distribution of the degree of nodes (i.e. of the numbers of bonds connecting any given node $`i`$ with other ones in the network): $`P(k)k^3`$ . Many models have been presented, based on the same two most important ingredients: growth and preferential attachment. Examples are models with an accelerated growth of the network , models with a nonlinear preferential attachment , with nodes provided by a initial attractiveness , with growth constraints as aging and cost , models that have a competitive aspect of the nodes , or models of networks that incorporate local events as the addition, rewiring or removal of nodes or edges .

The SF-construction may be a reasonable approximation for such world-spanning networks like one of the Internet’s information transmission channels or one of the formal links of WWW. On the other hand, in many situations (like in a network of human sexual contacts) a connection means a physical contact, i.e. means that the contacting individuals, representing the nodes of the network, have to occur at the same site and at the same time, thus introducing a clear geographical aspect. In what follows we present a simple model taking into account this metrical (”geographical”) aspect, where the probability to connect two nodes depends both on the number of connections that the nodes already have (as in the genuine SF-construction), and on the distance between them. That is, we treat an emerging network in a metric space. In this emerging network the probability that a newly introduced node $`n`$ is connected to a previously existing node $`i`$ is proportional to the number $`k_i`$ of the already existing connections of node $`i`$ (preferential attachment prescription), but on the other hand the too long bonds are disadvantaged, because this probability depends on the Euclidean distance $`d_{in}`$ between the nodes $`n`$ and $`i`$ as $`d_{in}^\alpha `$, (clearly, a ”scale-free” function), with $`\alpha >0`$.

Based on extensive numerical simulations of a one-dimensional situation, we show that even if the length penalties are mild, the model exhibits properties which differ strongly from those of the usual scale-free networks. Thus, the corresponding degree distribution function $`P(k)`$ depends strongly on $`\alpha `$. We show, in particular, that for $`\alpha <1`$ the behavior of $`P(k)`$ is similar to the behavior of the SF model without penalties, so that asymptotically $`P(k)k^3`$, (which distribution possesses a mean, but no dispersion, and corresponds to strong, universal fluctuations). On the other hand, for $`\alpha >1`$ the behavior of $`P(k)`$ is well-described by a stretched-exponential $`P(k)\mathrm{exp}(bk^\gamma )`$, with the power $`\gamma `$ depending on $`\alpha `$, so that the fluctuations in $`k`$ are rather weak. We discuss the reasons for such a dramatic change, being rooted in the probability of connection between the nodes as function of the distance, and the overall structure of the emerging network, preserving its small-world nature even at large (probably at all) $`\alpha `$-values.

We start from a one-dimensional lattice of $`L`$ sites, spaced by a unit distance and apply cyclic boundary conditions. On this structure we will let our network grow, so that each lattice site will be a possible location of a network’s node. We denote by $`n_i`$ the position in the lattice of a node $`i`$. The distance $`d_{ij}`$ between any two nodes $`i`$ and $`j`$ is defined as:

$$d_{ij}=min\{|n_in_j|,(L|n_in_j|)\}.$$
(1)
Let us now construct the network. First, we choose randomly an even number $`m_0`$ of sites from the lattice and we bind them in pairs with one bond each. This will be our initial condition. That is, at $`t=0`$, our network will consist from $`m_0`$ nodes connected in pairs. As in the SF model we will add at every time step a new node to our network (linear growth). We proceed according to the following rule: at every time step we choose at random a free site of our lattice, and pose the new node there. This new node is then connected through $`m`$ edges ($`mm_0`$) with $`m`$ different nodes already present in the network. After $`t`$ time steps the algorithm results in a network with $`t+m_0`$ nodes and $`mt+m_0/2`$ edges. In contrast with the SF model, the probability $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ for the new node $`n`$ to be connected to an old one $`i`$ will depends not only on the number of edges $`k_i`$ which $`i`$ already possesses, but also on the distance $`d_{in}`$ between them:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(k_i,d_{in},\alpha )=\frac{k_id_{in}^\alpha }{_jk_jd_{jn}^\alpha }.$$
(2)
Here the sum in the denominator goes over all nodes in the system except the newly introduced one and $`\alpha `$ is a real non-negative parameter describing the distance penalties. For large $`\alpha `$, the probability of connection between two distant nodes is very small. On the other hand, for a very small $`\alpha `$ the probability is almost independent from the distance. In the case $`\alpha =0`$ our model reduces to the genuine scale-free one. Note that our model is to some extent also scale-free: the connection probabilities depend only on the relative distances.

Our initial condition is slightly different from one of Barabási and Albert, where the initial $`m_0`$ nodes are not connected: in our case all nodes introduced at $`t=0`$ have exactly one edge, which allows to use Eq.(2) from the very beginning. This simplifies the algorithm, since we do not have to distinguish between the initial and the further steps. The only difference with the genuine SF construction is that at time $`t`$ one has $`mt+m_0/2`$ (instead of $`mt`$) edges present; hence, the asymptotic behavior of both models for $`t\mathrm{}`$ is the same.

Three examples of the evolving networks of such a kind are given en Fig.1. Here is $`m=3`$, $`L=10^6`$, $`N=102`$ and $`m_0=6`$, (so that all three networks have exactly $`300`$ edges). Three different values of $`\alpha `$ were used: $`\alpha =0.0`$ (scale-free model), $`\alpha =1.5`$ and $`\alpha =15.0`$. Note that increasing $`\alpha `$ leads to marked changes in the topology of the network. Fig. 1(a) corresponds to a genuine scale-free construction and exhibits a lot of long bonds connecting distance sites. On the other hand, only few such bonds are present in Fig. 1(c).

In our further simulations we use a lattice of $`L=210^7`$ sites; the maximal number of the introduced nodes is $`N=210^5`$. All simulation results are based on the average of 10 realizations of this structure. The error bars on Figs. 3-5 correspond just to this ensemble average. The simulations are done for several values of $`\alpha `$ and for two values of $`m`$, the number of the outgoing bonds: $`m=1`$ and $`m=3`$; $`m_0=2m`$.

One of the prominent features of the scale free-model is that the distribution of the degrees of the nodes decays as a power law, i.e. like $`P(k)k^\gamma `$, with $`\gamma =3`$. This corresponds to the fact that the mean number of connections per site exists, but its dispersion diverges. Let us now discuss, how this distribution changes if the long-range connections are penalized. In Fig. 2 we plot the probability distribution of $`k`$ for different values of $`\alpha `$ on double logarithmic scales. One readily infers that for all $`0<\alpha <1`$ no important differences with the scale free model ($`\alpha =0`$) can be detected: in any case the asymptotic behavior of $`P(k)`$ is well-described by $`P(k)k^3`$. The distributions seem to be almost identical; however, small but statistically significant deviations can be detected for small $`k`$-values. At $`\alpha 1`$ the degree distribution shows a pronounced change in its behavior and ceases being a power law; now the behavior of the model with distance penalties is quite different.

Let us concentrate on the case $`\alpha >1`$ and try to describe the shape of the degree distribution under such conditions. The analysis of the simulations suggests that the corresponding mathematical expression could be a stretched-exponential function of the form:

$$P(k)=a\mathrm{exp}(bk^\gamma ),$$
(3)
where the parameters $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`\gamma `$ depend on $`\alpha `$ and $`m`$. To obtain the values of these parameter and to analyze the goodness of this fitting function we have fitted the data to Eq.(3) using the nonlinear least-squares Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm , taking into consideration the error bars as coming out of $`10`$ realizations of each situation. The data is replotted together with the outcomes of the fits in Fig. 4 on the scales in which the fitting function, Eq.(3), is represented by a straight line. One namely takes $`k^\gamma `$ as the abscissa and $`\mathrm{ln}P(k)`$ as the ordinata of the graph. Fig. 4 shows that such a fit (straight line) is surprisingly good!

The values of the exponent $`\gamma `$ are shown as a function of $`\alpha `$ ($`\alpha >1`$) in Fig. 3, for the two different situations corresponding to $`m=1`$ and $`m=3`$. We see that $`\gamma `$ monotonously grows with $`\alpha `$, and that the dependences $`m=1`$ and $`m=3`$ differ, i.e. that the $`\gamma (\alpha )`$ dependence is nonuniversal.

We note that in related models of growing networks another form of degree distribution appears: an exponentially demped power-law ,

$$P(k)=ak^\gamma \mathrm{exp}(bk).$$
(4)
We tested also this fit function and found out that it gives a good fit for larger $`\alpha `$-values, but is definitely inferior to our fit, Eq.(3), for $`1<\alpha <3`$.

A growing network with disadvantaged long bonds is a very interesting hierarchical construction. Thus, for large $`\alpha `$, the strong correlation between the age of the connection and its length exists. The old connections, made when the nodes were sparce, are typically long, while the younger connections get shorter and shorter, since more sites in the immediate vicinity of a newly introduced site can be found. The simulations show that for $`\alpha `$ large, the nodes are almost surely connected to their nearest neighbors. On the other hand, the old, long-range connections are of great importance for the overall topology of the lattice, since they guarantee that for any $`\alpha `$ the network is a small-world one.

In Fig. 5 we plot the mean number of connections between each two nodes of the network for two different values of $`\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =1.5`$ and $`\alpha =5`$) and for the two values $`m=1`$ and $`m=3`$ as a function of the network size $`N`$. The algorithm here is trivial: starting from a node (labeled 0) we pass to all nodes connected to it (nodes of the first generation, labeled 1), then to nodes of the second generation (labeled 2), etc; untill all nodes are labeled. The mean distance between this node (labeled 0) and any other given node of the network is then the sum of all values of these labels divided by $`N1`$. This procedure is repeated for each node, and the overall mean value, the so-called path diameter of the network ($`l`$), is evaluated. The error bars of the figure correspond to the average of the mean diameters over 10 realizations of the network. Fig.5 shows that the mean diameter of the network grows linearly in $`\mathrm{ln}N`$, i.e. it shows the typical small-world behavior. This behavior is preserved for all tested values of $`\alpha ;`$ the largest value tested was $`\alpha =45,`$ which, for $`m=1`$, corresponds to a practically sure connection of a newly introduced node to its nearest neighbor. The high-$`\alpha `$ networks resemble closely the simple small-world constructions .

Let us summarize our findings. We considered a growing network, whose growth algorithm is based, as in the SF construction, on a preferential attachment of the newly introduced nodes to the highly connected old ones. However, here the too long connections are disadvantaged by introducing penalties. Thus, the probability to connect two nodes separated by a distance $`d`$ is proportional to $`d^\alpha `$, where $`\alpha `$ is a variable parameter. We found out that for $`\alpha <1`$ the degree distribution $`P(k)`$ decays, as in the SF model, like $`P(k)k^3`$, whereas for $`\alpha >1`$ a stretched exponential form $`P(k)=a\mathrm{exp}(bk^\gamma )`$ gives an extremely good description of this distribution. On the other hand, the small-world property is preserved at all checked values of $`\alpha `$.

The authors are grateful to Mr. F. Jasch for fruitful discussions and to Mr. M. Obermayr for the valuable technical assistence. Financial support by the Fonds der Chemischen Industrie is gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# Scalar field dark energy and Cosmic Microwave Background

## 1 Introduction

One of the most exciting surprises in modern cosmology is the evidence of an acceleration in the cosmic expansion from type Ia supernovae . To explain this result, about $`70\%`$ of the present cosmological energy density should be some sort of vacuum energy having a negative equation of state, like a Cosmological Constant, already considered by A. Einstein. However, the theoretical difficulties due to the too low value of the vacuum energy today with respect to the early universe allow, if not require, the introduction of a more general concept which is now widely known as “dark energy”. The first proposal in this sense was made well before the evidence of cosmic acceleration, already in 1988, by C. Wetterich, P. Ratra and P.J.E. Peebles , replacing a Cosmological Constant into the Einstein equations with a dynamical scalar field $`\varphi `$, also known as “Quintessence”. Even if the system gets obviously more complicated, for general forms of the potential $`V(\varphi )`$ there exist attractor trajectories for the evolution of the background expectation value of $`\varphi `$. These trajectories have been proposed to alleviate, at least classically, the fine-tuning required in the early universe, when the typical energy scales were presumably Planckian, $`10^{76}`$ GeV4, to generate a vanishing relic vacuum energy as it is observed today, at the level of $`10^{49}`$ GeV4 . However, these scenarios do not solve the coincidence problem, merely why we are living in the epoch in which dark energy and matter have roughly the same energy density. Even if some attempts to address this issue exist in scalar field dark energy scenarios , it remains largely a mystery.
Quintessence models in scalar tensor cosmologies are widely known as “Extended Quintessence” scenarios , where the idea is to connect dark energy to Gravity through a non-minimal coupling with the Ricci scalar in the fundamental Lagrangian.

These models have been explored under different perspectives in literature , including recent important consequences on the structure formation process . Possible couplings with the matter sector of the Lagrangian have been also studied . In addition, intriguing models of dark energy, not based on scalar fields, have been proposed .
The evidence in favour of dark energy comes, in addition to type Ia Supernovae, from Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and Large Scale Structure (LSS) . Recently several authors tried to constrain the dark energy equation of state $`w_Q`$ . Even if interesting results can be obtained assuming reasonable values of some parameters , a true measure of the dark energy equation of state requires the precision of planned experiments like SNAP  and SNfactory  together with observations of LSS  and of the CMB with MAP  and Planck .
In Section 2 we focus on the role of fluctuations in scalar field dark energy, pointing out that even in the case of a constant background expectation value for the scalar field $`\varphi `$, fluctuations can still be present and are ultimately the signature of a dynamical component instead of a pure Cosmological Constant. In Section 3 we show interesting results obtained by comparing CMB spectra predicted in tracking minimally coupled Quintessence scenarios with available data .

## 2 Scalar field dark energy fluctuations

Scalar field dynamics is driven by the Klein Gordon equation. It is possible to define a gauge invariant form for the fluctuations in the expectation value of $`\varphi `$ , which we define as $`\delta \varphi _{GI}`$; the form of the Klein Gordon equation for this quantities, in Fourier space at wavenumber $`k`$ is

$$\ddot{\delta \varphi }_{GI}+2\dot{\delta \varphi }_{GI}+(k^2+a^2V_{\varphi \varphi })\delta \varphi _{GI}=$$

$$=\dot{\varphi }(\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}3\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }})2a^2V_\varphi \mathrm{\Psi },$$
(1)
where $`a`$ is the cosmic scale factor, $`=\dot{a}/a`$ is the Hubble parameter, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are the gauge invariant expressions for the scalar metric fluctuations, $`()_\varphi `$ and $`\dot{()}`$ mean derivatives with respect to $`\varphi `$ and conformal time respectively. The background reduces to a Cosmological Constant equivalent case when $`V_\varphi =0`$: in this case $`\varphi =constant`$ is a solution of the unperturbed Klein Gordon equation, reducing Eq.(1) to

$$\ddot{\delta \varphi }_{GI}+2\dot{\delta \varphi }_{GI}+(k^2+a^2V_{\varphi \varphi })\delta \varphi _{GI}=0.$$
(2)
Therefore, even in conditions in which the background expectation value is frozen providing $`w_Q=1`$ like a Cosmological Constant, some mechanism in the early universe  and/or some coupling with other fields entering in $`V_{\varphi \varphi }`$  could excite fluctuations, providing an unique signature on the nature of dark energy.
In addition, it should be noted that if the equation of state is near but different from -1, as one has if $`\varphi `$ rolls in an almost flat potential, Quintessence fluctuations are dragged to be non-zero by fluctuations in the gravitational potential itself, as the following simple argument shows. In absence of anisotropic stress, the relation $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Phi }`$ holds, and it is possible to show that in a matter or radiation dominate regimes $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ remain approximately constant . Neglecting the term involving $`\dot{\varphi }`$ and in the limit of slow expansion the right hand side of Eq. (1) gets constant and the simple solution is

$$\delta \varphi _{GI}\frac{2V_\varphi \mathrm{\Psi }}{k^2/a^2+V_{\varphi \varphi }},$$
(3)
which means that metric fluctuations drag the corresponding ones in the scalar field. The behavior (3) has been found rather independent on the details of initial conditions .
The simple arguments exposed in this Section clarly show as the investigation of the nature of dark energy cannot be reduced to the measure of its equation of state, but deserves a deep understanding of all the possible physical degrees of freedom associated to this component.

## 3 Constraints from CMB

According to the arguments exposed above, even in the case in which observations indicate $`w_Q=1`$, this would not be a conclusive evidence in favour of a Cosmological Constant. However, the quest for $`w_Q`$ is a well posed problem, with solid theoretical motivations, already addressed by several authors . Due to the large number of cosmological parameters, a conclusive statement is likely to be given by the planned and future experiments like SNAP, SNfactory, MAP, Planck, together with the data from redshift surveys. At the present, the only possible strategy is to fix some of the cosmological parameters at reasonable values. In  we assumed flat cosmologies with a fixed Hubble constant within the allowed range by the Hubble Space Telescope . We allowed variations of baryon abundance, spectral index of scalar fluctuations, cosmological gravitational waves with spectral index and amplitude related by single field inflationary consistency relations; relaxing this hypotesis in particular can largely affect the results .
We compared the predicted CMB spectra in tracking scalar field cosmologies with the available data; the effects on the CMB in these scenarios are well known and have high amplitude, resulting mainly in a shift of the acoustic peaks toward small multipoles, as well as an increased Integrated Sachs Wolfe (ISW) effect on low multipoles as $`w_Q`$ increases from -1 toward larger values, as it is clear from figure 1.
We found dark energy as the dominant cosmological component $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q=0.71_{0.04}^{+0.05}`$, with equation of state $`w_Q=0.82_{0.11}^{+0.14}`$ ($`68\%`$ C.L.); the confidence region is shown in figure 2, which also shows how ordinary Cosmological Constant is recovered at 2$`\sigma `$. We argued that this intriguing result is due to a mild evidence of a projection effect in the available CMB data . The best fit value of the physical baryon density is in good agreement with the primordial nucleosynthesis bound. Also, we find no significant evidence for deviations from scale-invariance, although a scalar spectral index slightly smaller than unity is marginally preferred. Finally, we find that the contribution of cosmological gravitational waves is negligible within our hypothesis.
In conclusion, within our assumptions we found a mild evidence in favour of a dark energy equation of state larger than -1. Incoming data and cross-correlation with other unbiased observations can help to further check this intriguing result.