format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Low-rank separable potentials greatly simplify many-body computations. The main sources of separable nucleon-nucleon ($`NN`$) potentials are the inverse scattering methods (see  and references therein). On the other hand the model effective two-particles interactions (see e.g. ) constructed with use of a realistic $`NN`$ potential (e.g.  ) as input are also of separable form.

Recently a novel method was proposed for the treating of three-body problems including Coulomb forces . In the framework of this approach the potential operator of the short-range part of full interaction is expanded with use of Coulomb-Sturmian (Laguerre) functions. Whereas Coulomb interaction is kept in the Green’s operator involved in Lippman-Schwinger equation. Instead of separable potentials (of relatively high rank) resulting from a realistic $`NN`$ interaction, the potentials obtained by means of inverse scattering technique  within so-called $`J`$-matrix method can be applied in the three-body calculations .

The $`J`$-matrix method  is equivalent to the potential separable expansion approach ; here too the potential $`\widehat{V}`$ is approximated by its projection $`\widehat{V}^N`$ onto the finite subspace spanned by the first $`N`$ (Laguerre or oscillator ) basis functions. However in the $`J`$-matrix method the Schrödinger equation rather than Lippman-Schwinger one is solved in the square integrable basis representation. In the $`J`$-matrix approach an auxiliary function have been introduced resulting from discrete representation of the full Green’s operator . This function (or matrix in the multichannel scattering case), so-called $`𝒫`$-matrix, plays in our inversion scheme a part similar to that of the $`R`$-matrix in the potential reconstruction in the framework of finite-difference analogue of $`R`$-matrix scattering theory . In particular, information requisite for the potential construction can also be obtained from the poles and residues of the $`𝒫`$-matrix.

As an application of our method, we invert phase shifts of the proton-proton and neutron-proton elastic scattering. In the $`NN`$ potential construction an attempt have been made to account for the deuteron wave function  using the phase-equivalent transformation .

In Sect. 2 we outline the $`J`$-matrix formalism for the solution of multichannel scattering problem. In Sect. 3 we briefly present the inversion procedure in the Laguerre form factors case, and describe the taking account for deuteron wave function technique within our method. We then apply the method to the $`NN`$ elastic scattering in Sect. 4. In Sect. 5 we summarize our conclusions.

## 2 Elements of the $`J`$-matrix formalism

The formalism is spelled out in detail in  for treating the problem of multichannel scattering from the potentials of the form

$$\widehat{V}=\underset{\alpha ,\beta =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}{}|\alpha V^{\alpha \beta }\beta |,$$
(1)
where the partial wave potentials $`V^{\alpha \beta }`$ are given by the expansion

$$V^{\alpha \beta }=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\underset{n=0}{\overset{N_\alpha 1}{}}\underset{n^{}=0}{\overset{N_\beta 1}{}}|\overline{\varphi }_n^{(\alpha )}V_{n,n^{}}^{\alpha \beta }\overline{\varphi }_n^{}^{(\beta )}|.$$
(2)
Here, the $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ denote sets of quantum numbers including the values of the orbital momenta $`l_\alpha `$ and $`l_\beta `$, and

$$|\overline{\varphi }_n^{(\alpha )}=\frac{n!}{r(n+2l_\alpha +1)!}(a_\alpha r)^{l_\alpha +1}e^{a_\alpha r/2}L_n^{2l_\alpha +1}(a_\alpha r),$$
(3)
are the functions bi-orthogonal to the Laguerre basis functions $`|\varphi _n^{(\alpha )}`$  in the channel $`\alpha `$

$$|\varphi _n^{(\alpha )}=(a_\alpha r)^{l_\alpha +1}e^{a_\alpha r/2}L_n^{2l_\alpha +1}(a_\alpha r),$$
(4)
i.e. $`\varphi _n^{(\alpha )}|\overline{\varphi }_n^{}^{(\alpha )}=\delta _{nn^{}}`$. Here, $`a_\alpha `$ is a scaling parameter, $`\mu `$ is the reduced mass of the system. We confine ourselves to the elastic scattering case, in which the energy $`ϵk^2=`$ $`2\mu /\mathrm{}^2E`$ is the same in the two channels.

The elements $`u_{\alpha \beta }(k,r)`$ of the $`2\times 2`$ matrix as the solution of the Schrödinger equation are represented in the $`J`$-matrix method in the form of the expansion

$$u_{\alpha \beta }(k,r)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|\varphi _n^{(\alpha )}b_n^{(\alpha \beta )}(k),$$
(5)
whose coefficients $`b_n^{(\alpha \beta )}`$ obey the relations :

$$b_n^{(\alpha \beta )}(k)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\underset{\alpha ^{}}{}P_{n,N_\alpha ^{}1}^{\alpha \alpha ^{}}(ϵ)J_{N_\alpha ^{}1,N_\alpha ^{}}^{(\alpha ^{})}(k)b_{N_\alpha ^{}}^{(\alpha ^{}\beta )}(k),\hfill & \hfill nN_\alpha 1,\\ S_n^{(\alpha )}(k)\delta _{\alpha \beta }+C_n^{(\alpha )}(k)K_{\alpha \beta },\hfill & \hfill nN_\alpha 1.\end{array}$$
(6)
Here, $`K_{\alpha \beta }`$ are the elements of the $`K`$-matrix, $`P_{n,n^{}}^{\alpha \beta }`$ are the elements of the matrix

$$𝐏=\left(𝐑ϵ𝐡\right)^1,$$
(7)
where $`𝐡`$ is the matrix of the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{h}=\widehat{h}_0^{(1)}+\widehat{h}_0^{(2)}+\frac{2\mu }{\mathrm{}^2}\widehat{V}`$ calculated in the basis $`\left\{\right|\alpha |\varphi _n^{(\alpha )}`$, $`n=\overline{0,N_\alpha 1}`$, $`\alpha =\overline{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\}`$. $`𝐑`$ is the block-diagonal overlap matrix involving the symmetric tridiagonal submatrices $`𝐑^{(\alpha )}`$ :

$$\begin{array}{c}R_{n,n}^{(\alpha )}=\frac{2}{a_\alpha }(n+l_\alpha +1)\frac{\left(n+2l_\alpha +1\right)!}{n!},\\ R_{n,n+1}^{(\alpha )}=R_{n+1,n}^{(\alpha )}=\frac{1}{a_\alpha }\frac{\left(n+2l_\alpha +2\right)!}{n!}.\end{array}$$
(8)
The matrix $`𝐡_0^{(\alpha )}`$ of free Coulomb Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{h}_0^{(\alpha )}=\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\frac{l_\alpha (l_\alpha +1)}{r^2}+\frac{2\tau k}{r},$$
(9)
where $`\tau =\frac{Ze^2\mu }{\mathrm{}^2k}`$, is also symmetric and tridiagonal :

$$\begin{array}{c}\left[𝐡_0^{(\alpha )}\right]_{n,n}=\frac{a_\alpha ^2}{4}R_{n,n}^{(\alpha )}+2\tau k\frac{\left(n+2l_\alpha +1\right)!}{n!},\\ \left[𝐡_0^{(\alpha )}\right]_{n,n+1}=\left[𝐡_0^{(\alpha )}\right]_{n+1,n}=\frac{a_\alpha ^2}{4}R_{n,n+1}^{(\alpha )}.\end{array}$$
(10)
$`J_{N_\alpha 1,N_\alpha }^{(\alpha )}`$ are the elements of so called $`J`$matrix :

$$J_{n,n^{}}^{(\alpha )}(k)=\left[𝐡_0^{(\alpha )}\right]_{n,n^{}}k^2R_{n,n^{}}^{(\alpha )}.$$
(11)
In what follows, $`𝐡`$ denotes an $`𝒩\times 𝒩`$-matrix ($`𝒩=N_1+N_2`$) whose elements $`h_{ij}`$ are defined in accordance with the rule $`h_{ij}=h_{nn^{}}^{\alpha \beta }`$, if $`i=n+\underset{\alpha ^{}<\alpha }{}N_\alpha ^{}+1`$ and $`j=n^{}+\underset{\alpha ^{}<\beta }{}N_\alpha ^{}+1`$.

With the spectral decomposition of the matrix $`𝐡^{}=𝐙𝚲𝐙^{}`$ (where superscript $``$ denotes transposition) of the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{h}`$ calculated in the orthonormalized basis $`\left\{\right|\alpha |\psi _n^{(\alpha )}`$, $`n=`$ $`\overline{0,N_\alpha 1}`$, $`\alpha =\overline{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\}`$, where $`𝐙`$ is the orthogonal matrix of eigenvectors, and $`𝚲`$ is the diagonal matrix of the eigenvalues $`\left\{\lambda _j\right\}`$ of the matrix $`𝐡^{}`$, expression (7) can be written as

$$𝐏=𝐃^{}𝐙\left[𝐈ϵ𝚲\right]^1𝐙^{}𝐃.$$
(12)
Here, $`𝐈`$ is the identity matrix, $`𝐃`$ is the block-diagonal matrix involving the $`N_\alpha \times N_\alpha `$ submatrices $`𝐃^{(\alpha )}`$, $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ of the transformation to the orthonormal basis $`\left\{\right|\psi _n^{(\alpha )}`$, $`n=\overline{0,N_\alpha 1}\}`$, i. e.

$$|\psi _n^{(\alpha )}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N_\alpha }{}}D_{n+1,j}^{(\alpha )}|\varphi _{j1}^{(\alpha )}.$$
(13)
$`C_n^{(\alpha )}`$ and $`S_n^{(\alpha )}`$ coincide respectively with the real and image part of the solution $`C_n^{(\alpha )(+)}`$ of the discrete analogue of the Coulomb Schröodinger equation

$$\begin{array}{c}C_n^{(\alpha )(+)}(k)=\frac{n!e^{\text{i}\sigma _\alpha }e^{\left(\theta _\alpha \pi /2\right)\tau }e^{\text{i}\left(n+1\right)\theta _\alpha }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+l_\alpha +2+\text{i}\tau \right)\left(2\mathrm{sin}\theta _\alpha \right)^{l_\alpha }}\hfill \\ \times {}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(l_\alpha +\text{i}\tau ,n+1;n+l_\alpha +2+\text{i}\tau ;e^{2\text{i}\theta _\alpha }).\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
Here, $`\sigma _\alpha =arg\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{i}\tau +l_\alpha +1)`$, $`e^{\text{i}\theta _\alpha }=(\text{i}q_\alpha \frac{1}{2})/(\text{i}q_\alpha +\frac{1}{2})`$, $`q_\alpha =k/a_\alpha `$. For $`Z=0`$ hypergeometric function $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ in Eq. (14) degenerates into a polynomial of degree $`l_\alpha `$ in $`e^{2\text{i}\theta _\alpha }`$.

The symmetric $`2\times 2`$ $`K`$-matrix corresponding to the potential (1), (2) has the form :

$$𝐊=\left[𝐂_{N1}𝒫\mathrm{𝐉𝐂}_N\right]^1\left[𝐒_{N1}𝒫\mathrm{𝐉𝐒}_N\right],$$
(15)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}\left[𝐂_{N1}𝒫\mathrm{𝐉𝐂}_N\right]_{\alpha ,\beta }=C_{N_\alpha 1}^{(\alpha )}(k)\delta _{\alpha ,\beta }𝒫_{\alpha ,\beta }(ϵ)J_{N_\beta 1,N_\beta }^{(\beta )}(k)C_{N_\beta }^{(\beta )}(k),\\ \left[𝐒_{N1}𝒫\mathrm{𝐉𝐒}_N\right]_{\alpha ,\beta }=S_{N_\alpha 1}^{(\alpha )}(k)\delta _{\alpha ,\beta }𝒫_{\alpha ,\beta }(ϵ)J_{N_\beta 1,N_\beta }^{(\beta )}(k)S_{N_\beta }^{(\beta )}(k),\end{array}$$
(16)
$`𝒫_{\alpha ,\beta }(ϵ)P_{N_\alpha 1,N_\beta 1}^{\alpha \beta }(ϵ)`$ are the elements of so called $`𝒫`$-matrix.

## 3 Description of the method

By choosing the orthonormal basis functions $`\left\{|\psi _n^{(\alpha )}\right\}`$ (13) in the form

$$|\psi _n^{(\alpha )}=\left(\frac{a_\alpha n!}{(n+2l_\alpha +2)!}\right)^{1/2}(a_\alpha r)^{l_\alpha +1}e^{a_\alpha r/2}L_n^{2l_\alpha +2}(a_\alpha r),$$
(17)
which is to say that the matrices $`𝐃^{(\alpha )}`$ are defined by the expressions

$$D_{i,j}^{(\alpha )}=\{\begin{array}{cc}d_{i1}^{(\alpha )},\hfill & \hfill ij,\\ 0,\hfill & \hfill i<j,\end{array}$$
(18)
where

$$d_n^{(\alpha )}=\left(\frac{a_\alpha n!}{(n+2l_\alpha +2)!}\right)^{1/2},$$
(19)
we derive the following expressions for the $`𝒫`$-matrix elements

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒫_{11}(ϵ)=\left(d_{N_11}^{(1)}\right)^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝒩}{}}\frac{Z_{N_1,j}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{ϵ\lambda _j},\\ 𝒫_{22}(ϵ)=\left(d_{N_21}^{(2)}\right)^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝒩}{}}\frac{Z_{𝒩,j}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{ϵ\lambda _j},\\ 𝒫_{12}(ϵ)=𝒫_{21}(ϵ)=d_{N_11}^{(1)}d_{N_21}^{(2)}\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝒩}{}}\frac{Z_{N_1,j}Z_{𝒩,j}}{ϵ\lambda _j}.\end{array}$$
(20)
It should be noted that the elements $`𝒫_{\alpha ,\beta }(ϵ)`$ (20) decay ($`ϵ^1`$) at the energies $`ϵ>\lambda _𝒩`$, and the same is true for the $`K`$-matrix elements (15). On this basis, we set ourselves the task of the construction of the potential (1), (2) descriptive of the $`K`$-matrix in an energy interval $`[0,ϵ_0]`$ and the system bound spectrum. In the case of arbitrary $`K`$-matrix behaviour it is suggested that $`ϵ_0<\lambda _𝒩`$.

The expressions (20) for the $`𝒫`$-matrix are similar in structure to those for the $`R`$-matrix . This analogue have inspired us  to implement the technique used within the finite-difference analogue of the $`R`$-matrix scattering theory  for the retrieval of information requisite for the potential constructing from the $`K`$-matrix. For this purpose we fix some values of $`a_\alpha ,N_\alpha `$ and define functions

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_{11}(ϵ)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(k\right)J_{N_11,N_1}^{\left(1\right)}}(k)\{(S_{N_11}^{(1)}(k)+C_{N_11}^{(1)}(k)K_{11})(S_{N_2}^{(2)}(k)+C_{N_2}^{(2)}(k)K_{22})\\ C_{N_11}^{(1)}(k)C_{N_2}^{(2)}(k)K_{12}^2\},\end{array}$$
(21)
$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_{22}(ϵ)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(k\right)J_{N_21,N_2}^{\left(2\right)}}(k)\{(S_{N_21}^{(2)}(k)+C_{N_21}^{(2)}(k)K_{22})(S_{N_1}^{(1)}(k)+C_{N_1}^{(1)}(k)K_{11})\\ C_{N_21}^{(2)}(k)C_{N_1}^{(1)}(k)K_{12}^2\},\end{array}$$
(22)
$$\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_{12}(ϵ)=\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_{21}(ϵ)=\frac{kK_{12}}{\mathrm{\Delta }(k)J_{N_11,N_1}^{(1)}(k)J_{N_21,N_2}^{(2)}(k)},$$
(23)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(k)=\left(S_{N_1}^{(1)}(k)+C_{N_1}^{(1)}(k)K_{11}\right)\left(S_{N_2}^{(2)}(k)+C_{N_2}^{(2)}(k)K_{22}\right)C_{N_1}^{(1)}(k)C_{N_2}^{(2)}(k)K_{12}^2,$$
(24)
by inverting expression (15) relative to the $`𝒫`$-matrix elements. We set, in view of Eq. (20),

$$\begin{array}{c}\lambda _j=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_j,Z_{N_1,j}=\left(d_{N_11}^{(1)}\right)^1\sqrt{\underset{ϵ=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_j}{Res}\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_{11}}(ϵ),\\ Z_{𝒩,j}=\left(d_{N_21}^{(2)}\right)^1\underset{ϵ=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_j}{Res}\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_{12}(ϵ)/\sqrt{\underset{ϵ=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_j}{Res}\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_{11}(ϵ)},j=\overline{1,p},\end{array}$$
(25)
where $`\left\{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_j<ϵ_0,j=\overline{1,p}\right\}`$ are the “internal” poles of the functions $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ (21)-(24).

An search for optimal combinations $`a_\alpha ,N_\alpha `$ is an important constituent of the method. Assuming that the absolute values of the off-diagonal elements of the $`K`$-matrix are negligibly small, this problem can be solved in every channel $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ separately. For this purpose, on every step of variational procedure involving  in which the rational approximant

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒫_\alpha (ϵ)=\left(d_{N_\alpha 1}^{(\alpha )}\right)^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{N_\alpha }{}}\frac{\left(Z_{N_\alpha ,j}^{\left(\alpha \right)}\right)^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{ϵ\lambda _j^{\left(\alpha \right)}},\\ \underset{j=1}{\overset{N_\alpha }{}}\left(Z_{N_\alpha ,j}^{(\alpha )}\right)^2=1\end{array}$$
(26)
on the interval $`[0,ϵ_0]`$ of the function

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\alpha (ϵ)=\frac{1}{J_{N_\alpha 1,N_\alpha }^{\left(\alpha \right)}\left(k\right)}\frac{\stackrel{~}{C}_{N_\alpha 1}^{\left(\alpha \right)}\left(k\right)}{\stackrel{~}{C}_{N_\alpha }^{\left(\alpha \right)}\left(k\right)},\\ \stackrel{~}{C}_n^{(\alpha )}(k)=\mathrm{cos}\delta _\alpha S_n^{(\alpha )}(k)+\mathrm{sin}\delta _\alpha C_n^{(\alpha )}(k)\end{array}$$
(27)
is constructed. Going to the next step, we increase $`a_\alpha `$ and decrease $`N_\alpha `$. The condition that remainder of the approximation  be small is criteria for going to new combination $`a_\alpha ,N_\alpha `$.

$`N_\alpha `$ is bounded below by the requirement that the residues of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\alpha `$ be positive, or by the equivalent condition that the roots of the denominators of the functions $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\alpha `$ alternate those of the numerators . It is evident from asymptotic expressions for the solutions $`S_n^{(\alpha )},C_n^{(\alpha )}`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$ ($`k`$ is bounded) :

$$\begin{array}{c}S_n^{(\alpha )}(k)=n^{(l_\alpha +1)}\mathrm{sin}\left\{\sigma _\alpha (n+l_\alpha +1)\theta _\alpha \tau \mathrm{ln}(2n\mathrm{sin}\theta _\alpha )+\frac{\pi l_\alpha }{2}\right\},\\ C_n^{(\alpha )}(k)=n^{(l_\alpha +1)}\mathrm{cos}\left\{\sigma _\alpha (n+l_\alpha +1)\theta _\alpha \tau \mathrm{ln}(2n\mathrm{sin}\theta _\alpha )+\frac{\pi l_\alpha }{2}\right\},\\ \stackrel{~}{C}_n^{(\alpha )}(k)=n^{(l_\alpha +1)}\mathrm{sin}\left\{\sigma _\alpha (n+l_\alpha +1)\theta _\alpha \tau \mathrm{ln}(2n\mathrm{sin}\theta _\alpha )+\frac{\pi l_\alpha }{2}+\delta _\alpha \right\},\end{array}$$
(28)
that if $`N_\alpha `$ is large enough to fulfill the condition

$$\left|\frac{d}{dk}\left\{\sigma _\alpha (N_\alpha +l_\alpha )\theta _\alpha \tau \mathrm{ln}[2(N_\alpha 1)\mathrm{sin}\theta _\alpha ]\right\}\right|>\left|\frac{d\delta _\alpha }{dk}\right|,$$
(29)
the roots separation holds.

The parameters $`a_\alpha ,N_\alpha `$ obtained above are used in the coupled-channel case. Once the “internal” parameters has been fixed (25), $`r=𝒩p`$ “external” triplets $`\{\lambda _j>ϵ_0`$, $`Z_{N_1,j}`$, $`Z_{𝒩,j},j=\overline{p+1,𝒩}\}`$ remain unknown. Since the rows $`\left\{Z_{N_1,j}\right\}`$ and $`\left\{Z_{𝒩,j}\right\}`$ of the orthogonal matrix $`𝐙`$ must meet the orthonormalization conditions

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝒩}{}}Z_{N_1,j}^2=\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝒩}{}}Z_{𝒩,j}^2=1,\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝒩}{}}Z_{N_1,j}Z_{𝒩,j}=0,$$
(30)
it is evident that the minimal r is equal to 2.

The values of the “external” parameters $`\left\{\lambda _j\right\}`$, as a rule, lie in the energy range that is far removed from the right limit of the interval $`[0,ϵ_0]`$. If the assumption is made that for this energies the phase shifts and the mixing parameter are negligible, for the parameters $`\left\{\lambda _j>ϵ_0\right\}`$ the “external” parameters $`\left\{\lambda _j^{(\alpha )}\right\}`$ obtained in the construction of the rank $`N_\alpha `$ potential in every channel $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ can be used.

There is for every bound state with the energy $`\epsilon _\nu =\kappa _\nu ^2`$ a corresponding parameter $`\lambda _\nu `$: $`\epsilon _\nu <\lambda _\nu <\lambda _1`$, which fits the equation :

$$det\left[𝐂_{N1}^{(+)}𝒫\mathrm{𝐉𝐂}_N^{(+)}\right]=0,$$
(31)
where

$$\left[𝐂_{N1}^{(+)}𝒫\mathrm{𝐉𝐂}_N^{(+)}\right]_{\alpha ,\beta }=C_{N_\alpha 1}^{(\alpha )(+)}(\text{i}\kappa _\nu )\delta _{\alpha ,\beta }𝒫_{\alpha ,\beta }(\epsilon _\nu )J_{N_\beta 1,N_\beta }^{(\beta )}(\text{i}\kappa _\nu )C_{N_\beta }^{(\beta )(+)}(\text{i}\kappa _\nu ).$$
(32)
Eq. (31) is similar to the equation

$$det[𝐈𝐆^{(0)(+)}(\text{i}\kappa _\nu )𝐕]=0,$$
(33)
where

$$[𝐆^{(0)(+)}(\text{i}\kappa _\nu )]_{n,n^{}}^{\alpha ,\beta }=\delta _{\alpha ,\beta }\overline{\varphi }_n^{(\alpha )}\left|\widehat{G}^{(0)(+)}(\text{i}\kappa _\nu )\right|\overline{\varphi }_n^{}^{(\alpha )}$$
(34)
are the matrix elements of the Coulomb Green’s operator. In spite of the fact that Eq. (31) possesses the redundant roots $`\kappa =a_\alpha /2`$ of multiplicity $`N_\alpha `$, it is preferable to Eq. (33), since the desired potential matrix $`𝐕`$ not enters explicitly into Eq. (31).

### Phase-equivalent transformation

From Eq. (20) follows the expression that relates the matrices of the phase-equivalent potentials (for comparison see ) corresponding to fixed values of $`a_\alpha ,N_\alpha `$:

$$𝐕(Q)=𝐃^1\mathrm{𝐐𝐙}_0𝚲\left(𝐃^1\mathrm{𝐐𝐙}_0\right)^{}𝐡_0.$$
(35)
Here, $`𝚲`$ and $`𝐙_0`$ are fixed diagonal and orthogonal $`𝒩\times 𝒩`$-matrices respectively; $`𝐐`$ is arbitrary orthogonal matrix of the form

$$𝐐=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\text{}\hfill & \text{}& \text{}& \hfill \text{}\\ \text{}\hfill & \text{}& \text{}& \hfill \text{}\\ \text{}\hfill & \text{}& \text{}& \hfill \text{}\\ \text{}\hfill & \text{}& \text{}& \hfill \text{}\end{array}\right),$$
(36)
$`𝐡_0`$ is the block-diagonal matrix of the free Hamiltonian involving submatrices $`𝐡_0^{(\alpha )}`$ (10). Thus, the eigenvalues $`\left\{\lambda _j\right\}`$ and rows $`\left\{Z_{N_1,j}\right\}`$, $`\left\{Z_{𝒩,j}\right\}`$ of the eigenvectors matrix $`𝐙`$ of the truncated Hamiltonian matrix $`𝐡^{}`$ specify the potential (1), (2) $`𝐕`$ to within the orthogonal matrix $`𝐙`$ construction method from given $`N_1`$-th and $`𝒩`$-th rows. Once this method has been fixed (e.g. ), and the corresponding matrix has been denoted by $`𝐙_0`$, the uncertainty of sought-for potential can be concentrated in the arbitrary orthogonal matrix $`𝐐`$ (36).

It should be noted that from (20) it also follows that the $`𝒫`$-matrix is invariant under exchange of $`Z_{N_1,j}`$ and $`Z_{𝒩,j}`$ signs.

#### Taking into account the bound state wave function

The components $`u_\alpha `$ of the bound state wave function are represented in the form of expansion

$$u_\alpha (\text{i}\kappa ,r)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_n^{(\alpha )}(\text{i}\kappa )|\varphi _n^{(\alpha )},\alpha =1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},$$
(37)
where the coefficients $`b_n^{(\alpha )}`$ for $`n_\alpha N_\alpha 1`$ are given by :

$$b_n^{(\alpha )}(\text{i}\kappa )=𝒮_\alpha C_n^{(\alpha )(+)}(\text{i}\kappa ).$$
(38)
Notice that the parameters $`\left\{\lambda _j,Z_{N_1,j},Z_{𝒩,j},j=\overline{1,𝒩}\right\}`$ determine the asymptotic properties of the bound state wave function. Really, from the equation

$$\left[𝐂_{N1}^{(+)}𝒫\mathrm{𝐉𝐂}_N^{(+)}\right]𝒮=0,$$
(39)
it follows that

$$\stackrel{~}{\eta }𝒮_2/𝒮_1=\frac{C_{N_11}^{(1)(+)}(\text{i}\kappa )𝒫_{11}(\epsilon )J_{N_11,N_1}^{(1)}(\text{i}\kappa )C_{N_1}^{(1)(+)}(\text{i}\kappa )}{𝒫_{12}(\epsilon )J_{N_21,N_2}^{(2)}(\text{i}\kappa )C_{N_2}^{(2)(+)}(\text{i}\kappa )}.$$
(40)
To derive the expression for $`𝒮_1`$, let us define two auxiliary $`𝒩`$-component vectors:

$$\begin{array}{c}x_j=\frac{b_{j1}^{\left(1\right)}\left(\text{i}\kappa \right)b_j^{\left(1\right)}\left(\text{i}\kappa \right)}{𝒮_1d_{j1}^{\left(1\right)}},j=\overline{1,N_11},x_{N_1}=\frac{C_{N_11}^{\left(1\right)(+)}\left(\text{i}\kappa \right)}{d_{N_11}^{\left(1\right)}},\\ x_j=\frac{b_{jN_11}^{\left(2\right)}\left(\text{i}\kappa \right)b_{jN_1}^{\left(2\right)}\left(\text{i}\kappa \right)}{𝒮_1d_{jN_11}^{\left(2\right)}},j=\overline{N_1+1,𝒩1},x_𝒩=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\eta }C_{N_21}^{\left(2\right)(+)}\left(\text{i}\kappa \right)}{d_{N_21}^{\left(2\right)}},\end{array}$$
(41)
and

$$\begin{array}{c}g_j=\frac{1}{\kappa ^2+\lambda _j}\{Z_{N_1,j}d_{N_11}^{(1)}J_{N_11,N_1}^{(1)}(\text{i}\kappa )C_{N_1}^{(1)(+)}(\text{i}\kappa )+\hfill \\ +\stackrel{~}{\eta }Z_{𝒩,j}d_{N_21}^{(2)}J_{N_21,N_2}^{(2)}(\text{i}\kappa )C_{N_2}^{(2)(+)}(\text{i}\kappa )\},j=\overline{1,𝒩}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(42)
With the help of (41), (42), we can rewrite (6), (38) as

$$𝐱=𝐙𝐠.$$
(43)
Since $`𝐙`$ is the orthogonal matrix, the vector $`𝐱`$ norm is equal to that of $`𝐠`$:

$$𝐱^{}𝐱=𝐠^{}𝐠.$$
(44)
Notice that the functions $`u_\alpha `$ (37) can be rewritten in the form:

$$\begin{array}{c}u_1(\text{i}\kappa ,r)=𝒮_1\left\{\underset{n=0}{\overset{N_12}{}}x_{n+1}|\psi _n^{(1)}+\stackrel{~}{u}_1(\text{i}\kappa ,r)\right\},\\ u_2(\text{i}\kappa ,r)=𝒮_1\left\{\underset{n=0}{\overset{N_22}{}}x_{N_1+n+1}|\psi _n^{(2)}+\stackrel{~}{\eta }\stackrel{~}{u}_2(\text{i}\kappa ,r)\right\},\end{array}$$
(45)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{u}_\alpha (\text{i}\kappa ,r)=u_\alpha ^{(0)}(\text{i}\kappa ,r)\underset{n=0}{\overset{N_\alpha 2}{}}\frac{C_n^{\left(\alpha \right)(+)}\left(\text{i}\kappa \right)C_{n+1}^{\left(\alpha \right)(+)}\left(\text{i}\kappa \right)}{d_n^{\left(\alpha \right)}}|\psi _n^{(\alpha )},\\ u_\alpha ^{(0)}(\text{i}\kappa ,r)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_n^{(\alpha )(+)}(\text{i}\kappa )|\varphi _n^{(\alpha )}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{C_n^{\left(\alpha \right)(+)}\left(\text{i}\kappa \right)C_{n+1}^{\left(\alpha \right)(+)}\left(\text{i}\kappa \right)}{d_n^{\left(\alpha \right)}}|\psi _n^{(\alpha )}.\end{array}$$
(46)
Substitution of Eq. (44-46) into the unit norm of the wave function condition

$$\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left|u_1(\text{i}\kappa ,r)\right|^2𝑑r+\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left|u_2(\text{i}\kappa ,r)\right|^2𝑑r=1$$
(47)
gives:

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒮_1^2=𝐠^{}𝐠\left|\frac{C_{N_11}^{\left(1\right)(+)}\left(\text{i}\kappa \right)}{d_{N_11}^{\left(1\right)}}\right|^2\left|\frac{\stackrel{~}{\eta }C_{N_21}^{\left(2\right)(+)}\left(\text{i}\kappa \right)}{d_{N_21}^{\left(2\right)}}\right|^2+\hfill \\ \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left|\stackrel{~}{u}_1(\text{i}\kappa ,r)\right|^2𝑑r+\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left|\stackrel{~}{\eta }\stackrel{~}{u}_2(\text{i}\kappa ,r)\right|^2𝑑r.\hfill \end{array}$$
(48)
In the framework of our method the phase-equivalent transformation (35), (36) is a tool for the influence on the potential (1), (2) off-shell behaviour. If we only be interested in describing the bound state wave function properties, we may vary the first $`N_\alpha 1`$ coefficients of the expansions (37) in view of the condition (44). For $`𝒩4`$, the resulting set $`\left\{b_n^{(\alpha )},n=\overline{0,N_\alpha 2}\right\}`$ does not uniquely specify (see (43)) the matrix $`𝐐`$ (36), since its unknown submatrix $`\overline{𝐐}`$

$$\overline{𝐐}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\right)\text{}$$
(49)
is of order $`𝒩2`$.

## 4 Results

As an application, we invert the $`NN`$ elastic scattering data. A set of Nijmegen  phase shifts in the $`0350`$ MeV energy range is taken as input to calculate the potentials. The obtained $`pp`$ potentials parameters in the channels $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}^3F_2`$ are listed in Table I. In Fig. 1 we show the phase shifts resulting from the Nijmegen partial wave analysis  (crosses) and the phase shifts obtained from our potentials (solid line).

In the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ channel for a chosen $`a`$ and $`N`$ the pair of unknown “external” parameters $`\lambda _4,Z_{4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}`$ has been obtained. Since the $`Z_{4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}`$ value is fixed by the normalization of the vector $`\left\{Z_{4,j}\right\}`$ condition, only free parameter $`\lambda _4`$ remains.

In the channel $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}^3F_2`$ the absolute values of the phase shift $`\overline{\delta }_3`$ are very small. For the relative deviations of the $`\overline{\delta }_3`$ values from ones of  to be comparable to those for the phase shift $`\overline{\delta }_1`$, the value of $`N_2`$ must be chosen sufficiently large (see Table I). For a chosen combination of the $`a_\alpha ,Na_\alpha `$, we obtain three triplets of the “external” parameters $`\left\{\lambda _j,Z_{2,j},Z_{8,j},j=6,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}\right\}`$. The values of $`\lambda _6`$ and $`\lambda _7`$ are obtained by making it equal to $`\lambda _2^{(1)}`$ and $`\lambda _5^{(2)}`$ calculated in the potentials construction in the uncoupled channels $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}F_{2}^{}`$ respectively. The parameters $`\lambda _8,Z_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}},Z_{8,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}}`$ values were calculated in a similar way to those of the “internal”; to do this the phase shifts are extrapolated with functions which decay asymptotically. Finally, the orthonormalization conditions (30) allow the free parameters number to be reduced to one. For the latter we used $`Z_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}}`$.

The obtained values for the $`np`$ potential parameters in the channel $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}^3D_1`$ are given in Table II. The phase shifts and the mixing parameter corresponding to our potential are represented by solid lines in Fig. 2.

Here, we also have obtained three triplets $`\{\lambda _j`$, $`Z_{2,j},Z_{8,j}`$, $`j=6,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}\}`$ of the “external” parameters. The values $`\lambda _6`$ and $`\lambda _7`$ are equal to $`\lambda _4^{(2)}`$ and $`\lambda _4^{(1)}`$ obtained in the uncoupled channels $`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ respectively. Next, orthonormalization conditions (30) have reduced the unknown parameters number to four, three of which $`Z_{4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}},Z_{4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}},Z_{8,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}}`$ are variable. Further, the combination of $`Z_{4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}},Z_{8,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}}`$ has an effect on the phase shift $`\overline{\delta }_0`$ and mixing parameter $`\overline{\epsilon }_1`$ behaviour in the neighborhood of $`ϵ=0`$, whereas $`Z_{4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}}`$ is responsible for $`\overline{\epsilon }_1`$ curve form at the right of the interval $`[0,ϵ_0]`$. Then the parameter $`\lambda _8`$ fits Eq. (31) with the deuteron binding energy $`\epsilon =\kappa ^2=.0536401fm^2`$.

The deuteron wave function of the potential Nijm II  is employed as input in the $`np`$ potential constructing. It is seen from (45), (46) and the relation $`\underset{r\mathrm{}}{u_S^{(0)}(\text{i}\kappa ,r)}e^{\kappa r}`$ that the asymptotic $`S`$-state normalization $`A_S`$ is equal to $`S_1`$, i. e. depends on the module of the vector $`𝐠`$ (42) (see (48)). The last component $`g_8`$ containing the parameters $`Z_{4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}},Z_{8,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}},\lambda _8`$ makes a major contribution to the vector $`𝐠`$ norm (see Table III). $`A_S`$ is found to be the most sensitive to the change in $`Z_{4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}}`$, whereas the $`D/S`$-state ratio $`\eta `$ ($`\eta =\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ (40), since $`\underset{r\mathrm{}}{u_D^{(0)}(\text{i}\kappa ,r)}e^{\kappa r}`$) is strongly dependent on the value of $`Z_{8,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}}`$.

In order to get the right behaviour of the wave function in the interior domain we use the phase-equivalent transformation (35), (36). In so doing the vector $`𝐱`$ (41) components $`\{x_1,x_2,x_3\}`$ and $`\{x_5,x_6,x_7\}`$ (which within the factor $`𝒮_1`$ are equal to the first three coefficients of the $`S`$ and $`D`$ waves expansions (37) on the basis orthonormal functions (17) ) are varied in view of Eq. (44). In Fig. 3 the deuteron wave function $`S`$ and $`D`$ components (functions $`u_S`$ and $`u_D`$ respectively) of our potential with the parameters in Tables II, III are drawn (dotted line). There we compare them with the wave functions of the Nijm II potential  (solid line). The deuteron parameters calculated with our wave function and those from the Nijm II potential are listed in Table IV.

## 5 Summary

Approximate inverse scattering method within $`J`$-matrix approach  has been extended to the case of the Laguerre form factors. As a result the method has become applicable to the inversion of charge particles scattering. The $`𝒫`$-matrix has a dominant role in our procedure. Similar to the $`R`$-matrix, the $`𝒫`$-matrix contains requisite information for the potential constructing and on the other hand is uniquely determined by the $`S`$-matrix. Besides, the $`𝒫`$-matrix determines the asymptotic normalization constants of the bound state wave functions.

In this work the phase-equivalent transformation  has been modified to be valid for separable potentials with the Laguerre form factors. The phase-equivalent transformation was used for the description of the deuteron wave function of the realistic Nijm II  nucleon-nucleon potential . In doing this, we were interested in the behaviour of the wave function in the internal domain rather than in fitting the values of the quadrupole moment $`𝒬_d`$ or the $`D`$-state probability $`p_D`$. The discrepancy between the deuteron wave functions of our potential and that of Nijm II potential can be removed by increasing of desired potential (1), (2) rank $`𝒩`$.

### Acknowledgment

It is pleasure to thank Prof. A .M. Shirokov and Prof. A. I. Mazur for helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by the State Program “Universities of Russia”, project No 992306.

Tables

Table I. $`pp`$ potentials parameters values in the channels $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}^3F_2`$.

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}& & & & & \\ & & & & & \\ & & & & & \\ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{l=0,a=2.5fm^1,N=4}& \multicolumn{3}{c}{\begin{array}{c}l_1=1,a_1=5fm^1,N_1=2,\\ l_2=3,a_2=3fm^1,N_2=6\end{array}}\\ & & & & & \\ & & & & & \\ & & & & & \\ j& Z_{N,j}& \lambda _j& Z_{N_1,j}& Z_{𝒩,j}& \lambda _j\\ & & (fm^2)& & & (fm^2)\\ & & & & & \\ \begin{array}{c}1\\ 2\\ 3\\ 4\\ 5\\ 6\\ 7\\ 8\end{array}& \begin{array}{c}.1558523299\hfill \\ .4062499094\hfill \\ .6517820375\hfill \\ .6211692507\hfill \\ \\ \\ \end{array}& \begin{array}{c}.08517568687\hfill \\ .6366888556\hfill \\ 2.999305831\hfill \\ 22.\hfill \\ \\ \\ \end{array}& \begin{array}{c}.002378372193\hfill \\ .006334410556\hfill \\ .02352440740\hfill \\ .4982479821\hfill \\ .02790963713\hfill \\ .01090380937\hfill \\ .8657366805\hfill \\ .02742131063\hfill \end{array}& \begin{array}{c}.2021238864\hfill \\ .2927989544\hfill \\ .3709560916\hfill \\ .03288283700\hfill \\ .4402591159\hfill \\ .4980705527\hfill \\ .01462158020\hfill \\ .5409333126\hfill \end{array}& \begin{array}{c}.3171350908\hfill \\ .7864286930\hfill \\ 1.607103324\hfill \\ 2.259459783\hfill \\ 3.146276272\hfill \\ 6.48\hfill \\ 13.25\hfill \\ 16.20600628\hfill \end{array}\\ & & & & & \end{array}$$

Table II. $`np`$ potential parameters values in the channel $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}^3D_1`$.

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \multicolumn{4}{c}{\begin{array}{c}l_1=0,a_1=2.8fm^1,N_1=4,\\ l_2=2,a_2=3fm^1,N_2=4\end{array}}\\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ j& Z_{N_1,j}& Z_{𝒩,j}& \lambda _j\\ & & & (fm^2)\\ & & & \\ \begin{array}{c}1\\ 2\\ 3\\ 4\\ 5\\ 6\\ 7\\ 8\end{array}& \begin{array}{c}.02017320192\hfill \\ .3982489552\hfill \\ .01890700216\hfill \\ .6535995282\hfill \\ .1314698511\hfill \\ .08780677309\hfill \\ .6152722974\hfill \\ .09943159709\hfill \end{array}& \begin{array}{c}.2989525605\hfill \\ .02212234580\hfill \\ .4605017812\hfill \\ .09501129016\hfill \\ .5784348737\hfill \\ .5929301489\hfill \\ .05339635194\hfill \\ .006685636351\hfill \end{array}& \begin{array}{c}.4678515858\hfill \\ .6496845646\hfill \\ 1.501863086\hfill \\ 3.492094508\hfill \\ 4.238758885\hfill \\ 12.75\hfill \\ 35.\hfill \\ .03571632149\hfill \end{array}\\ & & & \end{array}$$

Table III. The components of the vectors $`𝐠`$ (42) and $`𝐱`$ (41) in $`fm^{1/2}`$.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & & \\ & & \\ j& g_j& x_j\\ & & \\ & & \\ \begin{array}{c}1\\ 2\\ 3\\ 4\\ 5\\ 6\\ 7\\ 8\end{array}& \begin{array}{c}.002345654140\hfill \\ .1089332559\hfill \\ .0002896455277\hfill \\ .03560896022\hfill \\ .004683742390\hfill \\ .001726119865\hfill \\ .003354599822\hfill \\ 1.067801341\hfill \end{array}& \begin{array}{c}.6665\hfill \\ .69\hfill \\ .341506600\hfill \\ .1757029190\hfill \\ .265\hfill \\ .025\hfill \\ .045\hfill \\ .01049929153\hfill \end{array}\\ & & \end{array}$$

Table IV. Deuteron properties: $`D/S`$-ratio $`\eta `$, asymptotic $`S`$-state normalization $`A_S`$ in
$`fm^{1/2}`$, $`D`$-state probability $`p_D`$ in $`\%`$, and quadrupole moment $`𝒬_d`$ in $`fm^2`$.

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & & & \\ & & & & \\ & & & & \\ & \eta & A_S& p_D& 𝒬_d\\ & & & & \\ & & & & \\ \text{(this article)}& .0252& .8845& 5.729& .28185\\ & & & & \\ \text{Nijm II}& .0252& .8845& 5.635& .2707\\ & & & & \end{array}$$

Figure captions

Fig. 1. $`pp`$ phase shifts in the channels $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}^3F_2`$ from the Nijmegen  partial-wave analysis (crosses) and the potential (1), (2) with the parameters listed in Table I (solid line).

Fig. 2. $`np`$ phase shifts in the channel $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}^3D_1`$ from the Nijmegen  partial-wave analysis (crosses) and the potential (1), (2) with the parameters listed in Table II (solid line).

Fig. 3. The $`S`$ and $`D`$ components of the deuteron wave functions of the Nijm II potential  (solid line) and of the potential (1), (2) with the parameters listed in Tables II, III (dotted line).

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.


text:
# Duality in semileptonic inclusive 𝐵-decays in potential models: regular versus singular potentials

## A The model

Let us proceed along the lines of ref. . We treat the leptonic part relativistically, but for the description of mesons as bound states of spinless quarks use the nonrelativistic potential model with a confining potential. We consider the decay in the $`B`$-rest frame. The Hamiltonian of the $`b\overline{q}`$ system at rest has the form

$`\widehat{H}_{bd}=m_b+m_d+\widehat{h}_{bd}`$, $`\widehat{h}_{bd}=\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/2m_b+\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/2m_d+V_{bd}(r)`$, such that $`(\widehat{h}_{bd}ϵ_B)|B=0`$, $`(\widehat{H}_{bd}M_B)|B=0`$, and $`M_B=m_b+m_d+ϵ_B`$.

The Hamiltonian of the $`c\overline{q}`$ system produced in the semileptonic $`bcl\nu `$ decay reads

$`\widehat{H}_{cd}(\stackrel{}{q})=m_c+m_d+(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q})^2/2m_c+\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/2m_d+V_{cd}(r)`$. The eigenstates of this hamiltonian are $`|D_n(\stackrel{}{q})`$ such that $`(\widehat{H}_{cd}(\stackrel{}{q})E_{D_n}(\stackrel{}{q}))|D_n(\stackrel{}{q})=0`$, where $`E_{D_n}(\stackrel{}{q})=M_{D_n}+\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/2(m_c+m_d)`$ and $`M_{D_n}=m_c+m_d+ϵ_{D_n}`$.

The $`Q\overline{q}`$ potential can be expanded as follows:

$`V_{Qq}=V_0+V_1/2m_Q+V_2/2m_Q^2+\mathrm{}`$

## B Sum Rules

The relationship between the sum over the individual channels and the meson matrix elements of the operators is established by the sum rules. Let us introduce $`\delta _n(\stackrel{}{q})`$ through the relation ($`\delta _n(\stackrel{}{q})=ϵ_{D_n}ϵ_B\stackrel{}{q}^2m_d/2m_c(m_c+m_d)`$)

$`M_Bq_0E_{D_n}(\stackrel{}{q})=\delta mq_0\stackrel{}{q}^2/2m_c\delta _n(\stackrel{}{q}).`$ (5)
The $`\delta _n(\stackrel{}{q})`$ is the eigenvalue of the operator $`\delta H(\stackrel{}{q})`$

$`M_B\widehat{H}_{cd}(\stackrel{}{q})=\delta m\stackrel{}{q}^2/2m_c\delta H(\stackrel{}{q})`$ (6)
with $`|D_n(\stackrel{}{q})`$ the corresponding eigenstates. The sum rules are obtained by inserting the full system of the eigenstates $`|D_n(\stackrel{}{q})`$ into $`B|\left(\delta H(\stackrel{}{q})\right)^i|B`$:

$`B|\left(\delta H(\stackrel{}{q})\right)^i|B={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|F_n(\stackrel{}{q})|^2\left(\delta _n(\stackrel{}{q})\right)^i.`$ (7)
where $`F_n(\stackrel{}{q})=B|D_n(\stackrel{}{q})`$ is the $`BD_n`$ transition form factor. This relation represents the sum over all $`c\overline{d}`$ resonances in terms of the $`B`$-meson matrix element of the operators $`\left(\delta H(\stackrel{}{q})\right)^i`$. For the potential regular at the origin $`r=0`$ the sum over $`n`$ is convergent for any $`i`$, whereas for the singular potential both sides of Eq. (7) are convergent for small $`i`$ and diverge for large $`i`$. At the moment we proceed formally and discuss this problem in more detail in section E.

## C Duality relation for the amplitude

Making use of the sum rules (7), we represent the amplitude as a sum of the operators:

$`T(q_0,\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|F_n(\stackrel{}{q})|^2}{M_Bq_0E_n(\stackrel{}{q})}}`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\delta m\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^2}{2m_c}q_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{|F_n(\stackrel{}{q})|^2(\delta _n(\stackrel{}{q}))^i}{(\delta m\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^2}{2m_c}q_0)^i}}`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\delta m\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^2}{2m_c}q_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{B|(\delta H(\stackrel{}{q}))^i|B}{(\delta m\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^2}{2m_c}q_0)^i}}.`$ (10)
This expression is the duality relation for the amplitude: the sum (8) runs over the infinite number of the charm resonances, and the sum (9) runs over the infinite number of the operators of the increasing dimensions (the OPE series). In fact, the location of singularities in the complex $`q_0`$-plane in the series (8) and (10) is quite different: in (8) it is an infinite set of single poles at the different locations corresponding to different charm resonances, and in (9) it is an infinite set of poles of the increasing order at the same point.

However this set of equations is only a formal one ; in fact, (8) is a summable series leading to a finite result in all cases ; on the other hand, the situation of eq (10) is more subtle. In the singular case, the coefficients are infinite beyond some order, and one must accordingly truncate the series. In the regular case, the eq (10) is only an asymptotic series : notice that the geometric sum over $`i`$ in eq (9) has a domain of convergence which is repelled to infinity with $`n`$.

Let us illustrate it with a simple example: Assume that $`F_n^2e^n`$ and $`E_nn`$. Then the analog of the above equations takes the form

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^n}{zn}}={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^n}{z}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{z}}\right)^i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{i!}{z^i}}.`$ (11)
The last step is obtained by changing the order of summation and using the relation $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}e^nn^ii!`$ The series (11) in $`i`$ is only asymptotic and not even Borel summable.

From the amplitude $`T`$ under the form eq. (8) or eq. (10), respectively, by integration over the same contour C, we can obtain either the width as a sum over the exclusive final states, or as the OPE series. The expression (10) is an accurate approximation to (8) only when $`q_0`$ is far from the singularities of $`T(q_0,\stackrel{}{q})`$. The contour C can be deformed away from the singularities except near its fixed end points. When integrating over $`q_0`$ this is a possible source of discrepancy, i.e. of duality violation. Consequently, we are now going to estimate the integral of expression (8), i.e. the sum over the exclusive channels, and the integral of expression (10), i.e. the OPE prediction, and compare both results.

## D The OPE calculation of the decay rate

Let us first proceed with the amplitude in the form (10) and obtain the OPE expression for the decay rate. We consider the leptonic tensor of the general form $`L(q^2)=(q^2)^N`$. For technical reasons, it is convenient to isolate $`h_{bd}`$ in the expression for $`\delta H(\stackrel{}{q})`$ as follows

$`\delta H(\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`=`$ $`h_{bd}ϵ_B+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q}}{m_c}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_b}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{k}^2+V_1}{2}}`$ (12)
Substituting (12) in (10) and performing the necessary integrations gives a series in $`1/m_c`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{OPE}(BX_cl\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(bcl\nu )}}`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{B|\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}|B}{2m_c^2}}`$ (16)
$`(2N+3){\displaystyle \frac{B|V_1|B}{2m_c^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2N+3}{}}}(1)^i{\displaystyle \frac{C_{2N+5}^{i+2}}{2N+5}}{\displaystyle \frac{B|\widehat{O}_i|B}{m_c^2\delta m^i}}`$
$`+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\delta m}{m_c^3}}\right),`$
with $`C_n^i=\frac{n!}{i!(ni)!}`$ and $`\widehat{O}_i=\stackrel{}{k}(h_{bd}ϵ_B)^i\stackrel{}{k}`$. An important feature of the OPE series (16) is that the leading-order term reproduces the free-quark decay rate, and the first correction emerges only in the $`1/m_c^2`$ order (cf. ).

## E Summation of the exclusive channels

Now let us sum the rates of the exclusive channels. The $`BD_n`$ transition form factors have the form

$`F_0^2(\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`=`$ $`1\rho _0^2\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/m_c^2+O(\stackrel{}{q}^4/m_c^4)+O(\delta m^2\beta ^2/m_c^4),`$ (17)
$`F_n^2(\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _n^2\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/m_c^2+O(\stackrel{}{q}^4/m_c^4)+O(\delta m^2\beta ^2/m_c^4).`$ (18)
Since $`|\stackrel{}{q}|\delta m`$ in the decay region, these expressions allow calculating the decay rate to the accuracy $`\delta m^2/m_c^2`$. Explicitly, we obtain :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(BD_0l\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(bcl\nu )}}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{3\rho _0^2}{2N+5}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m^2}{m_c^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_d}{1+m_d/m_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m}{m_c^2}}`$ (19)
$``$ $`(2N+3){\displaystyle \frac{<B|\stackrel{}{k}^2+V_1|B>}{2m_c^2}},`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(BD_nl\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(bcl\nu )}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\rho _n^2}{2N+5}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m^2}{m_c^2}}3\left(\rho _n^2\mathrm{\Delta }_n\right){\displaystyle \frac{\delta m}{m_c^2}}`$ (21)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_c^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{2N+5}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^iC_{2N+5}^i}{2N+5}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(3\rho _n^2\mathrm{\Delta }_n^i\right)}{\delta m^{i2}}},`$ (22)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n=ϵ_{D_n}ϵ_{D_0}`$.

The main contribution is given by the $`BD_0`$ transition. Excited states contribute only starting from the $`(\delta m)^2/m_c^2`$ order in the SV limit. Notice that each of the exclusive rates contains terms of the order $`\delta m^2/m_c^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta m/m_c^2`$ which are absent in the OPE series.

Summing over all opened exclusive channels gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(BX_cl\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(bcl\nu )}}=1{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m^2}{m_c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2N+5}}\left(\rho _0^2{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{n_{max}}{}}}\rho _n^2\right)`$ (23)
$`+3{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m}{m_c^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_d/2}{1+m_d/m_c}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{n_{max}}{}}}\rho _n^2\mathrm{\Delta }_n\right)`$ (24)
$`(2N+3)\times {\displaystyle \frac{B|\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+V_1|B}{2m_c^2}}`$ (25)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{2N+5}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^iC_{2N+5}^i}{2N+5}}{\displaystyle \frac{3\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{n_{max}}{}}\rho _n^2\mathrm{\Delta }_n^i\right)}{m_c^2\delta m^{i2}}}.`$ (26)
The sum over the charm resonances is truncated at $`n_{max}`$, which is the total number of the resonance levels opened at $`q^2=0`$. For the confining potential and in the SV limit $`n_{max}`$ is found from the relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{n_{max}}\delta m`$.

## F Check of duality for regular potentials

The transition radii in the expression (23) are not independent and related to each other through the sum rules. These sum rules can be obtained from (7). Expanding both sides of (7) in powers of $`1/m_Q`$ and taking the linear $`\stackrel{}{q}^2`$ term gives the set of the sum rules : For $`i=0`$ one finds the Bjorken sum rule , for $`i=1`$ \- the Voloshin sum rule , for $`i2`$ \- higher moment sum rules:

$`i`$ $`=`$ $`0:{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\rho _n^2=\rho _0^2,`$ (27)
$`i`$ $`=`$ $`1:{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\rho _n^2\mathrm{\Delta }_n={\displaystyle \frac{m_d/2}{1+m_d/m_c}},`$ (28)
$`i`$ $``$ $`2:{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\rho _n^2\mathrm{\Delta }_n^i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}B|\stackrel{}{k}(h_{bd}ϵ_B)^{i2}\stackrel{}{k}|B.`$ (29)
Using these relations to rewrite the OPE result (16) as the sum over hadronic resonances, the difference between the OPE and the exclusive sum (the duality-violating contribution) explicitly reads

$`\delta _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{OPE}(BX_cl\nu )\mathrm{\Gamma }(BX_cl\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(bcl\nu )}}`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`3{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m^2}{m_c^2}}\times {\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{2N+5}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^iC_{2N+5}^i}{(2N+5)\delta m^i}}{\displaystyle \underset{n>n_{max}}{}}\rho _n^2(\mathrm{\Delta }_n)^i`$ (32)
$`+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\delta m}{m_c^3}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m^2}{m_c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2N+5}}{\displaystyle \underset{n>n_{max}}{}}\rho _n^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_n}{\delta m}}\right)^{2N+5}`$ (34)
$`+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\delta m}{m_c^3}}\right)`$
Quite remarkably, $`\delta _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ happens to be equal to the sum of the extrapolated widths for charm states beyond the kinematical limit. A similar expression is found in $`QCD_2`$ . Clearly, the duality-violating effect is connected with the charm states forbidden kinematically in the decay process. Notice that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{OPE}(BX_cl\nu )\mathrm{\Gamma }(BX_cl\nu )<0`$, because $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n>\delta m`$ for $`n>n_{max}`$, and $`2N+5`$ is odd.

To estimate the size of the duality-violation effects, the behavior of the transition radii and the relation between $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ and $`n_{max}`$, which will be given by the behaviour of the excitation energies also at large $`n`$, are needed. For quite a general form of the confining potential we can write the following relations for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ at large $`n`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n\mathrm{\Lambda }Cn^a`$ for $`n>n_{max}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{n_{max}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }C(n_{max})^a\delta m`$, with $`C`$ and $`a`$ some positive numbers. In particular, this estimate is valid for the confining potentials with a power behavior at large $`r`$. This estimate for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ is only depending on the behaviour of the potential at large distances.

The behavior of the radii $`\rho _n^2`$ at large $`n`$ are then connected with the finiteness of the r.h.s. of the sum rules (29): for a potential regular at $`r=0`$, the matrix elements in the r.h.s. of the sum rules are finite for any $`i`$, which means that the radii $`\rho _n^2`$ are decreasing with $`n`$ faster than any power. Essentially this means that $`\rho _n^2\mathrm{exp}(n)`$, and therefore the duality-violating effect in the decay rate in (30) is of order $`\delta _\mathrm{\Gamma }\delta m^2/m_c^2\mathrm{exp}(\delta m/\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. One of such examples, the harmonic oscillator potential, is discussed in .

## G Singular potentials

However, if the potential is singular at $`r=0`$, the situation changes dramatically. First, only a few first number of the matrix elements $`B|\widehat{O}_i|B`$ are finite. §§§ The appearance of infinite coefficients in the OPE series is probably due to a breakdown of the power series expansion, for instance by fractional powers or logarithms of $`m_Q`$ as seems to be the case in the pure Coulomb case. For similar phenomena in a perturbation expansion, see .

We can try to proceed along the same lines but then have to truncate the series in $`1/\delta m`$ at the last finite term. We want to estimate the difference between this truncated series and the exclusive sum.

Let us illustrate this considering a potential with a Coulomb behavior at small $`r`$, $`V\alpha /r`$, and confining at large $`r`$. Then $`B|\stackrel{}{k}(h_{bd}ϵ_B)^i\stackrel{}{k}|B`$ are finite for $`i1`$, but diverge starting from $`i=2`$. We then find that

$`\rho _n^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^{1+\epsilon }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^a}}\right)^3.`$ (35)
Such $`\rho _n^2`$ lead to the estimate

$`\delta _\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m_c^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\delta m}}\right)^{(1+\epsilon /a)}.`$ (36)
More generally, if the above matrix element begins to diverge for some value $`i=K+1`$, the formulas are to be replaced by :

$`\rho _n^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^{1+\epsilon }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^a}}\right)^{K+2}.`$ (37)
$`\delta _\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m_c^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\delta m}}\right)^{(K+\epsilon /a)}.`$ (38)
Notice that this $`\delta _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is smaller than the last retained term in the OPE series which is of order $`\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m_c^2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\delta m}\right)^K`$. Therefore the ’duality violation’ is just smaller than the last retained term as for the asymptotic series. This means in fact that there is no indication of duality violation at this computable order. This is independent of $`a`$, therefore of the large distance behavior of the potential.

## H Conclusion

Summarizing our results, the amplitude $`T(q_0,\stackrel{}{q}^2)`$ \- the T-product, eq. (1) - can be expanded in inverse powers of $`\delta m\stackrel{}{q}^2/2m_cq_0`$, the so-called OPE expansion. Exact duality would mean that the OPE series was convergent and equal to $`T`$. Actually, this is not exactly the case. Even in the favourable case of the regular potentials (at $`\stackrel{}{r}=0`$), the OPE series is not convergent, it is only asymptotic to the actual $`T`$. For singular potentials, the coefficients are simply infinite beyond a certain order.

Besides these problems concerning the amplitude, additional problems appear for the expansion of the width, which is given by a contour integral of $`T`$ in the $`q_0`$ complex plane : the OPE expansion is accurate far from the singularities in $`q_0`$, while the contour has fixed end points in the complex plane close to the singularities (Fig. 1). In view of this situation, we have computed explicitly the difference between the OPE and the actual width. For singular potentials, the series must be truncated, and the difference is found smaller than the last retained term.

As to the perspectives opened by this work, we must first emphasize that singular potentials seem more interesting than regular ones. Indeed, in QCD the effective quark potential is singular, a smoothed Coulomb singularity. Moreover, in $`QCD_2`$, one can suspect some similarity with a linear potential $`|\stackrel{}{r}|`$, which is also singular at the origin in the sense of this paper. For a singular potential, we have seen that the entire series must be truncated at some order, because the coefficients become eventually infinite. We think that such infinite coefficients in an entire series expansion correspond to the fact that the correct expansion is not entire but must include fractional powers and/or logarithms in the expansion parameter, i.e. $`\delta m`$. In QCD, one can argue that the operator matrix elements are finite due to renormalisation, but nevertheless the coefficients still contain logarithms of heavy masses. In the non-relativistic case, the object of the present paper, the method which has been followed does not lead to definite conclusions as regards duality for singular potentials : namely, to the order we are able to calculate in this paper, we find that there is no duality violation, but this leaves open the question of duality violation at some higher order In the context of QCD2, one has demonstrated duality up to the order $`1/m_Q^4`$ and it may be believed that duality has been fully demonstrated in higher orders . However, a comment is in order here. In , it was shown that the matrix element of the leading operator $`B|\overline{Q}Q|B`$ is dual to the sum of the widths of the full tower of resonances. Therefore, one can suspect that there is a difference between the actual width and the OPE, that is of higher order $`1/m_Q^5`$, corresponding to the extrapolated width of the kinematically forbidden states. This difference, however, has the same order $`1/m_Q^5`$ as the matrix elements of the higher dimension operators . It was then assumed that both quantities are dual to each other, but the corresponding OPE coefficients were not calculated and we have not found where this assumption was demonstrated.. To proceed further, one would have to devise new methods to obtain the above conjectured generalized expansions.

We are grateful to G. Korchemsky, B. Stech for discussions, and specially to N. Uraltsev for detailed correspondence. D.M. was supported by BMBF under project 05 HT 9 HVA3. Laboratoire de Physique Théorique is Unité Mixte de Recherche CNRS-UMR8627.


text:
# Size-Mass-luminosity relations in AGN and the role of the accretion disc

## 1 Introduction

There are several ubiquitous media in the central region of Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN): surrounding the supermassive black hole (BH), there are an accretion disc (AD), an X-ray source, a photoionized Broad Line Region (BLR) and possibly a molecular torus at the scale of a few parsecs from the center (Antonucci & Miller 1985). Despite years of efforts, the physics of these components is far from being completely understood as well as the possible interaction between them. For instance, the origin of the observed correlation between the size of the BLR and the luminosity of the AGN, which, under some hypothesis, translates into a relation between the mass of the central black hole and the disc accretion rate, is still mysterious.

In this paper, we try to understand the links between the accretion disc (at small and large radii), the optical, bolometric and Eddington luminosities, and finally the Broad Line Region (BLR). For this purpose, we use recent observational data which have led to the determination of the size of the BLR, optical luminosity, and black hole (BH) mass in a few tens of objects spanning a large range of luminosity (Kaspi et al. 2000). In Section 2, we briefly recall the emission mechanisms in Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN), their link with the accretion disc, the main properties of the disc itself and those of the BLR. In Section 3 we discuss the relations between the observed optical luminosity, bolometric luminosity and BH mass. It is demonstrated that the standard disc emission cannot account for the optical luminosity, and that Narrow Line Seyfert 1 galaxies (NLS1s) are the most extreme cases on this point of view. In Section 4, we model the outer disc and show that the occurrence of gravitational instability roughly coincides with the size of the BLR. Our conclusions are presented in the last section.

## 2 General considerations

### 2.1 Emission mechanisms in AGN: the inner disc

Since its discovery in AGN spectra, the universal feature known as the “Big Blue Bump” (BBB) which represents the bulk of the bolometric luminosity, has been interpreted as thermal emission of an accretion disc (Shields 1978, Malkan & Sargent 1982). If this disc is Keplerian and optically thick as generally assumed (the so-called “standard disc” model), then its emission reproduces roughly the BBB feature (see for a review Koratkar & Blaes 1999, and Collin 2000). Moreover, the idea that a non thermal power law continuum dominates the near infrared band and contributes, together with the disc, to the total emission in the optical range, has been abandoned after the publication of the generic spectrum of radio quiet quasars by Sanders et al. (1989). These authors have actually shown that the IR band is most likely due to hot dust emission peaking at a few microns. Since hot dust sublimates at temperatures $`1700`$ K, dust cannot contribute to the optical emission. So, if one sustains the standard disc picture, one must admit that the optical continuum component is entirely emitted by the accretion disc.

According to the standard model, the disc regions emitting in the optical band are located at a few 100 $`R_\mathrm{G}`$, where $`R_\mathrm{G}=GM/c^2`$ is the gravitational radius of the BH with mass $`M`$ (see Fig. 1, middle panel). Since the accretion luminosity varies as $`R^1`$, the optical luminosity should be only a small fraction ($`1\%`$) of the bolometric luminosity. In contrast, the regions emitting the UV and EUV components are located close to the BH, typically at distances of a few 10 $`R_\mathrm{G}`$. Modeling the disc spectrum in the UV and EUV ranges is a difficult task as radiation is subject to several processes such as Comptonization. The emergent spectrum does depend strongly on the details of the disc vertical stratification which is not well known. On the contrary, in the optical range, one can show that the local spectrum is roughly a blackbody at the effective temperature corresponding to the conversion of gravitational energy into radiation (Collin 2000).

The bolometric luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ is a robust prediction for a (steady state) standard disc: it is related only to the accretion rate $`\dot{M}`$ and to the radius of the last, dynamically stable orbit, and corresponds to an efficiency of mass-energy conversion $`\eta 10\%`$ (the value adopted throughout this paper), depending on the spin of the black hole. Thus:

$$L_{\mathrm{bol}}=\eta \dot{M}c^2,$$
(1)
and in principle, accretion stops if $`L_{\mathrm{bol}}>L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ where $`L_{\mathrm{Edd}}1.5\times 10^{45}M_7`$ erg/s is the Eddington luminosity and $`M_7`$ is the mass in units of $`10^7`$ M.

AGN spectra also display a hard X-ray spectrum which extends up to a few hundred keV. This hard component which contributes a significant fraction of the bolometric luminosity (typically 30$`\%`$) cannot be produced by a bare standard disc. This is why one generally invokes the presence of a hot gas close to the BH (see Fig. 1, left panel), either in the form of a corona above the disc, or, instead of the inner disc itself, a quasi-spherical medium. In this case, the luminosities emitted respectively in the X-ray and optical-UV ranges relative to the accretion luminosity depend on the radius where this hot medium physically connects to the outer, standard disc.

The likely change in the morphology of the accretion flow in the inner region (thin disc $``$ thick disc/spherical medium) is predicted by theory. The standard model probably does not work at small radii where the disc is radiation pressure supported because of thermal instabilities. In comparison, the standard disc as a model for outer regions ($`R`$ a few $`10^2R_G`$) seems more consistent: the disc is sustained by gas pressure, relatively cold, and much more stable. It is true that a thermal instability, possibly recurrent (Siemiginovska, Czerny & Kostyunin 1986), is expected where hydrogen recombines/ionizes but such an instability is predicted to keep the disc in a geometrically thin configuration.

### 2.2 The status of the outer, self-gravitating disc

At large radii (roughly $`R10^3R_\mathrm{G}`$; see below), the standard disc solution must be modified to account for the disc vertical self-gravity which may exceed the vertical component of the central gravity. The occurrence of vertical self-gravity is inescapable since it varies roughly as $`R^{3/5}`$, that is less steeply than central gravity which varies as $`R^3`$ (Shlosman & Begelman 1998; Huré et al. 1994; Huré 1998). When the hydrostatic equilibrium is no longer controlled by the central object but by the disc, the surface density continuously increases whilst the disc gets thinner and thinner. But a self-gravitating disc is expected to be gravitationally unstable as soon as some criterion is fulfilled (Goldreich & Lyndell-Bell 1965; see also Toomre 1964), usually this is $`Q=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\pi G\rho }1`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the Keplerian angular velocity and $`\rho `$ is the local mass density.

The structure of the disc in the gravitationally unstable region is not known. It may become marginally stable again, if the viscosity self-adjusts in some fashion (Lynden-Bell & Pringle 1974). Gravitational instabilities increase random (radial and vertical) velocities and could lead to the disc fragmentation into clouds (Pacynski 1968; Shore & White 1982, Shlosman & Begelman 1989). Following this scenario (see Fig. 1, right panel), it is often assumed that these clouds are moving with a high velocity, and that their chaotic motion and mutual collisions provide the support against vertical gravity and keep accretion at the required rate (Begelman & Krolik 1986, Kumar 1999). The clumpy disc could become geometrically thick again, and even, at very large distance ($`1`$ pc), it could connect to the dusty molecular torus invoked in the Unified Scheme of Seyfert nuclei (Antonnucci & Miller 1985). It is also possible that fragments in the unstable disc collapse to form protostars. Because these protostars can trap a large amount of gas from the disc, they should rapidly evolve into massive stars, and then give rise to outflowing gas through winds and supernovae explosions (Collin & Zahn 1999). In both scenarios one would thus expect the presence of a dense medium above the accretion disc, with an azimuthal velocity close to the Keplerian one, which could be identified with the BLR.

### 2.3 Size and velocities within the BLR

A major tool for studying the structure of the BLR is reverberation mapping, through the study of correlated variations of the lines and continuum fluxes (see the review by Peterson 1993). It has been used to determine the size of the BLR in several tens of AGN, and to correlate the mass of the central black hole with the luminosity of the AGN, under the assumption that the BLR is gravitationally bound to the black hole.

Though powerful for size determination, reverberation mapping does not provide the velocity field of the BLR, and can generally not distinguish between radial and rotational motions. In some objects however, there are indications that rotational motions of the medium emitting the H$`\beta `$ line dominates over radial motions. On the other hand, the medium emitting high ionization lines (or HILs) is sometimes observed as an outflowing medium. This is thought to be the case in NGC 4051 (Peterson et al. 2000). However it is likely that the velocity $`V_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$ does not differ strongly from a gravitationally bound, Keplerian or virial motion (Peterson & Wandel 1999). Then, the radius of the BLR is approximately given by

$$\frac{R_{\mathrm{BLR}}}{R_\mathrm{G}}=\frac{GM}{V_{\mathrm{BLR}}^2}\times \frac{c^2}{GM}\frac{900}{V_9^2}$$
(2)
where $`V_{\mathrm{BLR}}=V_9\times 10^9`$ cm/s.

Because there is no consensus about the dynamics of the BLR, there has been little progress in understanding the physics of this region. The most commonly accepted picture, deduced from photoionization models, consists of an assembly of photoionized clouds that cover at least $`10\%`$ of the source emitting the incident, primary continuum. The number of BLR clouds is probably very large because the volumic filling factor of the emitting medium is extremely small. This large population ensures a large total emitting area as well as a high density and a small individual size. The smoothness of the line profiles also requires a large number of clouds. If these clouds are not confined by any mechanism, they expand in a very short time scale (less than one year). If the BLR is stationary, new clouds must be permanently generated. Alternatively, if the the clouds are formed uniquely then some form of confinement mechanism must operate. The thermal confinement by a hot medium as proposed in the ”two phase model” by Krolik, Tarter & Mc Kee (1981) implies a Thomson thick hot medium, which is difficult to reconcile with the very short variation time scale of the X-ray flux.

A natural idea which does not address the confinement problem is that the BLR is made of the atmosphere of giant or “bloated stars”, or by winds from giant stars (Edwards 1981, Penston 1988, Scoville & Norman 1988, Alexander & Netzer 1994). This model however requires a very large number of stars to account both for the line luminosity and for the smoothness of the line profiles. Another possibility that does not appeal to any special confinement mechanism either is that the lines are emitted by the accretion disc. Dumont & Collin-Souffrin (1990) have proposed that low ionization lines (or LILs), like Balmer lines, which require a high density emitting medium (Collin-Souffrin et al., 1986) are formed at the surface of the accretion disc. On the other hand, Murray & Chiang (1995, 1997) proposed that the broad emission lines are emitted by a wind released at the top of the disc where motions are still mainly rotational. In this model, the broad absorption lines (BALs) are produced by the high-velocity component of the wind. In both cases, the BLR is dominated by rotation and its presence (or at least, that of the region emitting the LILs) is linked to the accretion disc.

## 3 Relation between the optical luminosity and the bolometric luminosity

### 3.1 Global investigation

Kaspi et al. (2000) combined their own reverberation mapping study with other published data to determine the size of the BLR, the BH mass and the optical luminosity. As it is usually done (Peterson 1993, 2000), they derived the size of the BLR from the measurements of the time lags between the light curves relative to the H$`\alpha `$ and H$`\beta `$ fluxes and the light curve of the underlying continuum which is assumed to follow the ionizing continuum. From the size of the BLR, they computed the BH mass from the FWHM of H$`\beta `$ and H$`\alpha `$, assuming that these lines are emitted by a gravitationally bound medium. There is some uncertainty in the mass determination (by a factor of a few) since there are two different, non-equivalent methods to determine the FWHM of lines. The FWHM can be averaged on all spectra, giving a “mean” BH mass: this is the method preferred by Kaspi et al. (2000). In the method proposed by Peterson et al (1998), the FWHM is measured on the rms spectrum, giving a “rms” mass.

To estimate the bolometric luminosity from the monochromatic luminosity, $`L_{\mathrm{bol}}\nu L_\nu ^{\mathrm{obs}}(5100\AA )`$ is generally assumed. For the AGN generic spectrum (Laor et al. 1997), one deduces:

$$L_{\mathrm{bol}}9\times \nu L_\nu ^{\mathrm{obs}}(5100\AA ).$$
(3)
For each object in Kaspi et al. sample, we have compared this optical-to-bolometric conversion with two non equivalent but both self-consistent methods of conversion based on the disc model:

1. by computing the theoretical, monochromatic luminosity $`\nu L_\nu ^{\mathrm{disc}}(5100\AA )`$ from the spectrum of an optically thick, steady state disc given the pair $`(M,\dot{M})`$, assuming Eq.(3), and Eq.(1) to estimate $`\dot{M}`$. Figure 2 displays the ratio $`L_\nu ^{\mathrm{disc}}(5100\AA )/L_\nu ^{\mathrm{obs}}(5100\AA )`$ obtained with this method. It shows that, for all objects in the sample, the emission due to the disc can represent only a minor, and in most cases, a negligible fraction of the observed luminosity in the optical band.
2. by finding the “right” accretion rate $`\dot{M}`$ (and then $`L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ via Eq.(1)) such that the observed monochromatic luminosity is only due to a standard disc (that is $`L_\nu ^{\mathrm{disc}}(5100\AA )=L_\nu ^{\mathrm{obs}}(5100\AA )`$). This method leads to extremely small ratios $`\nu L_\nu ^{\mathrm{obs}}(5100\AA )/L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$, as shown by Fig. 3. It implies a very large bolometric luminosity, and therefore a very large Eddington ratio $`\dot{m}=L_{\mathrm{bol}}/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$. To illustrate this last point the corresponding Eddington ratio is plotted versus the central mass on Fig. 4. It shows that almost all the objects would be radiating at highly super-Eddington rates, proving that this second self-consistent optical-to-bolometric conversion is wrong.

In other words, a relation of the form Eq.(3) should be roughly valid, meaning that the optical luminosity is not radiated by a standard disc.

Note that we assume a face-on disc, thus overestimating slightly $`L_\nu ^{\mathrm{disc}}`$. These conclusions are unchanged if the inner disc is removed for some reason, that is, if the inner radius is larger (in the limit of a few 10 $`R_\mathrm{G}`$) than a few $`R_\mathrm{G}`$ as considered here, since the optical emission is almost entirely produced in outer regions located much further away from the center. Clearly the situation becomes even more extreme if the region emitting the optical band is not present in the disc, that is, if the disc is truncated for some reason, for instance due to self-gravity.

There are at least four possible explanations for this result:

1. the optical luminosity is not due to the disc, as quoted. This is plausible since the standard disc spectrum is well known to be flatter than the spectrum of Seyfert 1 nuclei in the optical range (Koratkar & Blaes 1999, Hubeny et al. 2000, Collin 2000). This is also compatible with a recent study of the NLS1 1 RE J1034+396 by Puchnarewicz et al. (2000) who conclude that an additional underlying power law connecting the IR to the X-rays is really necessary to fit the optical/UV continuum. They suggest that this extra component might be a non thermal BLac-type component. This is indeed possible if for instance there is a strong magnetic field anchored into the disc. But it could also be due to a thermal process like the emission of dense clouds surrounding the X-ray source and reprocessing a large fraction of the X-ray luminosity, as proposed by Celotti, Fabian and Rees (1992), and by Collin-Souffrin et al. (1996). This cloud system should be distributed quasi-spherically in order to reprocess a large fraction of the X-ray luminosity (in the case of a disc, the reprocessed fraction decreases as $`R^1`$, like the accretion luminosity, and is necessarily small in the optical range).
2. the standard disc model is not valid. Although the accretion luminosity does not depend on viscosity, the fact that the disc is effectively optically thick and radiates like a black body is not independent of the viscosity prescription. Note, as a proof, that the optical thickness of a standard disc is a function of the $`\alpha `$-viscosity parameter. Either a completely different mechanism of angular momentum evacuation in the disc is at work (e.g. density waves), or the formalism for turbulent viscosity must be reconsidered, or both.
3. the accretion rate is not uniform. This possibility includes the presence of a non steady disc and the possible existence of some steady inflow involving an accretion rate decreasing with decreasing radius. Concerning the first point, there are a few well known sources of instability that can perturb the equilibrium of a disc but this would mean that all objects are observed in a “high optical state”. This is statistically somewhat doubtful. Regarding the second point, this would mean that a huge amount of gas is accreted at large distances and then converted into an outflow at smaller radii. This is also unrealistic because it would imply massive super-Eddington outflows, which are not observed.
4. accretion is advection dominated in the inner regions. Such a solution is still not demonstrated on theoretical grounds. Stable Advection Dominated Accretion Flows (ADAFs) (Narayan & Yi 1995, and many other works) take place for relatively low accretion rates, well below the Eddington limit. At the other extreme, there are advective solutions for Eddington rates (“slim discs” for instance, cf. Abramowicz et al. 1988) or for super-Eddington rates (thick discs), but it is difficult to conceive a durable, super-Eddington accretion rate, as it would imply a dramatic growth of the hole over cosmic time scales. In conclusion, even if the disc becomes geometrically thick in the inner regions, advection is not likely to be important in the Seyfert galaxies and moderately luminous quasars considered here, and the gas should flow all the way down to the last stable orbit and radiate accordingly.

### 3.2 The case of Narrow Line Seyfert 1

Figure 5 displays the size of the BLR, $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$, versus $`\nu L_\nu ^{\mathrm{disc}}(5100\AA )`$ for the Kaspi et al. (2000) sample. In this figure and in Figs. 2, 3, and 4, NLS1 have been isolated111We define NLS1 as Seyfert nuclei with $`V_{\mathrm{BLR}}=(GM/R_{\mathrm{BLR}})^{1/2}<2000`$ km/s, instead of using FWHMs, to avoid having to take into account a correction for H$`\alpha `$ and H$`\beta `$. We notice that they do not occupy any privileged region on Fig. 5, contrary to Figs. 2, 3 and 4. On Fig. 4 they are concentrated in the top-left region corresponding to small masses and high bolometric luminosities. Further, NLS1s have the smallest $`L_\nu ^{\mathrm{disc}}(5100\AA )/L_\nu ^{\mathrm{obs}}(5100\AA )`$ ratios compared to other objects in the same range of BH mass, as shown by Fig. 2. How to explain these properties?

We know that NLS1 galaxies have a strong soft X-ray excess compared to Broad Line Seyfert 1 galaxies (BLS1s) (Boller, Brandt & Fink 1996 for a review; see also the proceedings edited by Boller et al. 2000). This would suggest that the BBB is shifted towards the EUV, and that the ratio $`L^{\mathrm{disc}}(5100\AA )/L^{\mathrm{disc}}(\mathrm{EUV})`$ is smaller in NLS1s than in BLS1s. Meanwhile, this would mean that the ratio $`L_{\mathrm{bol}}/L^{\mathrm{obs}}(5100\AA )`$ is larger in NLS1s than in BLS1s. However this is impossible, as it would imply super-Eddington rates. Indeed Fig. 8, which displays $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}/R_\mathrm{G}`$ as a function of the Eddington ratio, for $`L_{\mathrm{bol}}/L^{\mathrm{obs}}(5100\AA )=9`$, shows that with the conservative assumption of Eq. 3, NLS1s are already radiating at Eddington rates. NLS1s occupy a privileged position on this figure, not only because of their small FWHM (corresponding by definition to large $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}/R_\mathrm{G}`$ values), but also because they display large Eddington ratios. Actually this was strongly suspected on the basis of their spectral and variability properties in the X-ray range, similarly to galactic BH candidates (Pounds, Done & Osborne 1995).

We conclude that NLS1s have not only larger Eddington ratios, but also probably a larger “non disc” fraction of optical emission, compared to BLS1s.

## 4 What determines the size of the BLR ?

### 4.1 Model for the outer disc

Based mainly on distance arguments, we have suggested before that the BLR is possibly related to the suppression of the disc by gravitational instabilities. We have investigated this idea more quantitatively by a series of bi-dimensional simulations of steady state, Keplerian accretion $`\alpha `$-disc (Huré 2000). More precisely, the model includes convection in the framework of the Mixing Length Theory, turbulent pressure that substantially thickens the disc and self-gravity within the infinite disc approximation. Opacities and equation of state are realistic and corresponds to a gas at LTE with cosmic abundances. External irradiation is not taken into account, for several reasons. First the discs considered here are optically very thick and moreover the irradiation flux is likely to decrease as the gravitational flux, having thus a relatively small influence on the disc structure (Collin & Huré 1999). Second, as we shall see below, outer regions are in the shadow of the central regions due to self-gravity which pinches the disc vertically. Figure 6 shows an example of internal structure of a disc computed for $`M=10^8`$ M, $`\dot{M}=10^1`$ M/yr and $`\alpha =0.1`$. We see that the disc becomes self-gravitating (in the sense $`4\pi G\rho R^3M`$) from $`1200R_\mathrm{G}`$ which results in a significant decrease of the disc thickness and rise of the density. Note however that the disc flaring vanishes at much lower radius $`900R_\mathrm{G}`$.

### 4.2 Location of the gravitationally unstable region

In order to determine the radius $`R_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ where the disc becomes gravitationally unstable, we have computed a series of disc models by varying $`M`$ and $`\dot{M}`$. There are many possible sources of uncertainties on the value of this quantity, including a lack of information regarding some physical processes like turbulent viscosity through the $`\alpha `$-prescription and its $`z`$-dependency, convective transport, self-gravity, environment effects. In addition, the threshold value of the $`Q`$-parameter which defines the instability criterion is uncertain in this context (e.g., it is not clear whether this criterion applies to the midplane quantities). We have attempted to estimate an absolute error on $`R_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ by considering $`0.01\alpha 1`$ and $`\frac{1}{4}Q4`$ (Toomre, 1964; Goldreich & Lynden-Bell 1965). Figure 6 shows the location of the unstable disc region ($`R_{\mathrm{crit}}15002000R_\mathrm{G}`$). Our results are displayed in Figure 7 which gives $`R_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ versus the accretion rate for four mass decades, obtained for $`\alpha =0.1`$ and $`Q=1`$ (mean values). We see that $`R_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ is mainly determined by the central mass and weakly sensitive to the accretion rate $`\dot{M}`$. The $`\alpha `$-parameter and threshold value for $`Q`$ have rather minor effect for moderate and high Eddington luminosities. The magnitude of the error on $`R_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ is given by the gap between curves corresponding to the same central mass but to different values of $`\alpha `$ and threshold values for $`Q`$. It is comforting to see that the results are quite reliable, as the uncertainties do not produce an “error” larger than a factor say, $`3`$ on $`R_{\mathrm{crit}}`$.

Figure 8 displays $`R_{\mathrm{crit}}/R_\mathrm{G}`$ versus the Eddington ratio for the same models. A crude fit in the domain $`0.01\dot{m}1`$ gives

$$\frac{R_{\mathrm{crit}}}{R_\mathrm{G}}2\times 10^4M_7^{0.46}$$
(4)
### 4.3 Comparing the BLR and the disc sizes

We have plotted on Fig. 5 $`R_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ in light-days versus $`L(5100\AA )`$, using Eq. (3) to convert the disc accretion rate into optical luminosity (otherwise, accretion rates are unrealistically high), together with the data of the Kaspi et al. sample. Figure 8 displays $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}/R_\mathrm{G}`$, for the Kaspi et al. sample, still assuming Eq. (3). We see clearly from these two figures that, in absolute, the BLR size is correlated with the occurrence of the disc gravitational instability. So, if we identify the edge of the gravitationally unstable disc with the inner edge BLR, that is $`R_{\mathrm{crit}}R_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$, we conclude that active nuclei hosting low mass black holes are predicted to have broad lines narrower than others.

Fig. 8 shows that, though the observed masses do not match exactly the theoretical expectations, there is a clear trend that objects with small masses (10$`{}_{}{}^{6}<M<10^7`$ M) have a large $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}/R_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ ratio and that objects with large masses ($`M>10^8`$ M) have a small $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}/R_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ ratio, in agreement with our theoretical predictions. So, at least to this “zero order approximation”, the gravitationally unstable region of the disc has kinematic and size properties compatible with the BLR and could therefore be the ultimate source of the BLR clouds. It is however difficult to draw more quantitative conclusions from this investigation.

### 4.4 Influence of the ionization parameter of the BLR

One can notice that $`R_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ depends mainly of the BH mass and little on the luminosity, while a correlation appears on Fig. 5 between $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$ and the $`L^{\mathrm{obs}}(5100\AA )`$. Kaspi et al. (2000) represent this correlation as $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}L(5100\AA )^{0.70}`$. A smaller power law index (closer to $`0.5`$) was found in previous works (e.g. Wandel et al. 1999). Anyway it is not clear how to translate such a relation into a relation between $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$ and $`L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$, because of an important uncertainty arising from the optical-to-bolometric conversion. If the optical to bolometric luminosity ratio is constant, it results in $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}L_{\mathrm{bol}}^{0.50.7}`$.

In a recent paper, Nicastro (2000) proposed that the BLR clouds are released by the accretion disc in the region where a vertically outflowing corona exists, according to a model proposed by Witt, Czerny & Zicky (1997). This is indeed an interesting model, since in this case the main parameter governing the size of the BLR would be $`\dot{m}`$ and not $`M`$. However one would expect that the remote regions giving rise to the BLR, which are strongly pressurized by the corona, are also gravitationally unstable. Moreover there is also another important parameter governing the size of the BLR, that is its ionization parameter

$$\xi =\frac{L_{\mathrm{ion}}}{nR_{\mathrm{BLR}}^2}$$
(5)
where $`L_{\mathrm{ion}}`$ is the ionizing luminosity ($`L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$) and $`n`$ is the number density in the clouds. Actually, any model must reproduce not only the kinematics and dimension of the BLR but also the ionization parameter (linked to the ionization state) consistent with the observed line ratios which are almost independent on the luminosity over more than four decades (except for the Baldwin effect which might indicate a decrease of the ionization parameter with increasing luminosity, but only for high ionization lines). Typically, $`\xi 1`$ and detailed studies of the line ratios show that $`n10^{10}`$ cm-3. If the density is about a constant, the constancy of $`\xi `$ translates into a relation $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}L_{\mathrm{bol}}^{0.5}`$, in close agreement with the observations. Another way to express this relation is that the flux irradiating the clouds is constant. This relation has been used in the “ionization method” aiming to determine the mass of the black holes, and it gives results compatible with the reverberation mapping method (Wandel, Peterson & Malkan 1999), but more uncertain.

Thus a possible interpretation of the observed correlation is that among clouds released by the gravitationally unstable disc, only those located at the right distance (i.e. corresponding to the right ionization parameter or ionizing flux) are observed as BLR clouds: the others could contribute to the Warm Absorber. This could explain why $`R_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ constitutes a “lower envelope” to $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$ for a given BH mass. Also since a constant ionizing flux corresponds to $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}/R_\mathrm{G}\sqrt{\dot{m}/M}`$, we see that the objects displaying the largest $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}/R_\mathrm{G}`$ ratios, hence the smaller line widths, are those which have the largest accretion rates in Eddington unit and the smallest masses. Such a situation is proposed to explain the properties of NLS1s. Note that in this picture, the more intense soft X-ray excess displayed by NLS1s compared to BLS1s can also play a role, since such a spectrum has a stronger ionizing power for the same ionization parameter (e.g. Wandel 1997).

## 5 Conclusion

We have discussed the relations between the optical luminosity, the BH mass, and the size of the BLR, in the framework of the standard accretion disc model.

We have shown first that the optical luminosity cannot be accounted for, meaning that the standard accretion disc picture (stationary, geometrically thin and optically thick) does not hold, at least in the region emitting the optical band, i.e. at $`100R_\mathrm{G}`$. Either the major fraction of the optical luminosity is not due to disc emission, or the disc is not “standard”: it is unstable, or the accretion rate depends on the radius, owing to strong outflows or to advection dominated accretion. In these last cases, the implied mass rate would have to be strongly super-critical. We would thus favor the first explanation. We have also shown that NLS1s are extreme in this context: either they have a larger fraction of non disc emission in the optical range and are radiating close to their Eddington luminosity, or they have strongly super-Eddington luminosity, which seems implausible. So again in this case it seems that the best explanation would be that a large fraction of the optical emission (larger even than for BLS1s) is not produced by the disc.

In the second part, we have studied the relation between the disc and the BLR, and we have shown that there is a good agreement between the size of the BLR and the critical radius at which an $`\alpha `$-disc becomes gravitationally unstable. This suggests that the BLR is produced above the gravitationally unstable part of the disc. However the ionization parameter should also play a role in explaining the correlation observed between the size and the luminosity. If BLR clouds are seen only for a small range of ionization parameter or of ionizing flux, the size of the BLR expressed in $`R_\mathrm{G}`$ should increase with the accretion rate expressed in Eddington unit and decrease with the BH mass, according to the observed correlation. This could explain the small widths of NLS1s.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Martin Ward for a careful reading of the manuscript leading to several improvments.