text:
# The O I line emission in Active Galactic Nuclei revisited

## 1 Introduction

Permitted transitions of O I in the spectra of gaseous nebulae are very important tracers of atomic processes other than recombination, as well as indicators of the physical conditions of the emitting gas. For many years, O I $`\lambda `$8446, usually the strongest O I line in the optical region, has been broadly studied in a large number of objects such as the Orion nebula (Morgan, 1971; Grandi, 1975), planetary nebulae (Grandi, 1976), and the pre$``$main-sequence Herbig AeBe star LkH$`\alpha `$ 101 (Rudy et al., 1991). In active galactic nuclei (AGN), this feature is very common. Grandi (1980) presented observational data showing that its strength could reach several percent of H$`\alpha `$. He associated the O I emission with a phenomenon restricted to the broad line region (BLR). Later, Morris & Ward (1989) showed the lack of detectable O I $`\lambda `$8446 in Seyfert 2 galaxies, confirming earlier predictions.

Usually, resonance fluorescence by Ly$`\beta `$ has been invoked as the single dominant mechanism for the production of O I $`\lambda `$8446 in AGN since Grandi (1980). This process is favored by a coincidence of energy levels between O I and H I: the 2$`p{}_{}{}^{3}P3d{}_{}{}^{3}D_{}^{0}`$ transition of O I at 1025.77 Å falls within the Doppler core of Ly$`\beta `$ (1025.72 Å) for gas at 104 K, a temperature that is easily reached in the BLR. If this process is the dominant one, O I $`\lambda `$11287 and O I $`\lambda `$1304 should also be observed, since they are by-products formed during the cascading to the ground level following the absorption of a Ly$`\beta `$ photon. In addition, the photon flux ratio between $`\lambda `$11287 and $`\lambda `$8446 should be unity since every $`\lambda `$11287 photon leads to the emission of exactly one $`\lambda `$8446 photon. Smaller values of this ratio should indicate the presence of recombination, continuum fluorescence, or other processes that enhance $`\lambda `$8446 but not $`\lambda `$11287.

Determining the mechanisms leading to the O I emission in AGN is important for various reasons. If Ly$`\beta `$ fluorescence is dominant, photons of this line are converted to those of neutral oxygen, affecting the population of the excited levels of hydrogen. This process would act as a cooling agent for the regions where the hydrogen lines are very optically thick. Therefore, it is a process that must be taken into account when using photoionization modeling to describe the state of the BLR. Also, the O I lines can be used as a reliable reddening indicator for the BLR if the contributions of the different processes to the line flux are known in advance.

To the best of our knowledge, the only simultaneous detection of O I $`\lambda `$8446 and $`\lambda `$11287 in an AGN was reported by Rudy et al. (2000) for I Zw 1. Previously, Rudy, Rossano & Puetter (1989) reported the detection of O I $`\lambda `$11287 for that same object. Combining previous measurements of $`\lambda `$8446 taken from Persson & McGregor (1985), Rudy, Rossano & Puetter (1989) found that the ratio of photon fluxes between these two lines was equal to unity, providing a direct confirmation that the broad permitted O I lines observed in an AGN arise through Ly$`\beta `$ fluorescence. Interestingly, in the spectrum of I Zw 1 recently published by Rudy et al. (2000), with a higher resolution and spectral coverage, the photon flux ratio between $`\lambda `$11287 and $`\lambda `$8446 that we derive from their data is 0.76. If this ratio is corrected for the E(B-V) of 0.16 adopted by these authors, it does not appreciably change, but decreases to 0.74. Thus, contrary to what has been claimed, Ly$`\beta `$ fluorescence seems not to be the only mechanism contributing to the production of $`\lambda `$8446.

We have started a program to simultaneously measure O I $`\lambda `$8446, $`\lambda `$11287 and $`\lambda `$13165 in a sample of AGN. Our goal is to establish if there is an excess of $`\lambda `$8446 emission, as in I Zw 1, indicating that Ly$`\beta `$ fluorescence is not the only excitation process that may give rise to the broad permitted O I lines. For this purpuse, near-infrared spectroscopy at moderate resolution (R$``$320 km/s) covering the spectral range 0.8$`\mu `$m – 2.4$`\mu `$m was obtained. By combining these observations with quasi-simultaneous visible spectroscopy and archival HST/IUE spectra, we expect to obtain additional information about the radiation processes that govern the O I emission and to test the usefulness of the O I lines as a reddening indicator for the BLR. The observations are presented in §2, a review of the principal mechanisms for the production of the O I lines is given in §3. A discussion of the results appears in §4. Our conclusions are in §5.

## 2 Observations

### 2.1 The sample

The sample of galaxies used in this work is composed of six narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies (NLS1s) and one classical Seyfert 1 galaxy. All seven objects show bright O I $`\lambda `$8446, so it is expected that if Ly$`\beta `$ is the dominant excitation mechanism for the O I emission, O I $`\lambda `$11287 should also be present at a similar intensity. In addition, data in the UV and optical region are available for the selected sample to help to distinguish other processes that can also contribute to the formation of broad O I lines. The reason for the predominance of NLS1s in the sample is that permitted lines in these objects are relatively narrow, minimizing the effects of blending with adjacent features. For example, the red wing of $`\lambda `$8444 is very close in wavelength to the two Ca II lines located at $`\lambda `$8498 and $`\lambda `$8542. Table 1 lists the objects selected for this study as well as their relevant characteristics. Except for I Zw 1, for which the flux measurements were drawn from the literature, our own observations or archival data are used for the remaining objects, as described in the following sections.

### 2.2 Near-infrared spectroscopy

Near-infrared spectra providing continuous coverage between 0.8 $`\mu `$m and 2.4 $`\mu `$m were obtained at the NASA 3 m Infrared Telescope Facility (IRTF) on 2000 October 11 (UT) with the SpeX facility spectrometer (Rayner et al., 2001). The detector consists of a 1024$`\times `$1024 ALADDIN 3 InSb array with a spatial scale of 0.$`\mathrm{}`$12/pixel. Simultaneous wavelength coverage is carried out by means of prism cross-dispersers. A 0.8$`\mathrm{}\times `$15$`\mathrm{}`$ slit was used during the observations, giving a spectral resolution of 320 km/s. The seeing was near 1$`\mathrm{}`$ during the exposures. Table 2 summarizes the log of these observations.

Details of the spectral extraction and wavelength calibration procedures are given in Rodríguez-Ardila et al. (2002). The spectral resolution was sufficiently high so that in all cases O I $`\lambda `$8446 could be cleanly isolated from the Ca II lines. O I $`\lambda `$11287 is located in a region free of nearby emission features, so its line profile is well defined. Figure 1 shows the observed O I lines plotted on a laboratory wavelength scale.

### 2.3 Optical Spectroscopy

Optical spectra covering simultaneously H$`\alpha `$ and H$`\beta `$ were available for all the target objects except NGC 863. Long-slit spectroscopic observations of 1H 1934-063, Mrk 335, Mrk 1044 and TON S 180 were obtained with the Complejo Astronómico El Leoncito 2.15 m telescope using a TEK 1024$`\times `$1024 CCD detector and a REOSC spectrograph. A 300 line mm-1 grating with blaze angle near 5500 Å and a spatial scale of 0.$`\mathrm{}`$95 pixel-1 was used, giving an instrumental resolution $``$8 Å. The slit, with a width of 2.$`\mathrm{}`$5, was oriented in the east-west direction. Spectra were reduced with stardard IRAF procedures (i.e. bias subtraction and flat field division). The signal along the central 4 pixels was summed to extract the spectra. Wavelength calibration was carried out using HeNeAr arc lamps, with typical errors of less than 0.1Å. Standard stars from Stone & Baldwin (1983) were used for flux calibration. In addition, a medium-resolution spectrum ($``$ 3 Å) of 1H 1934-063, taken with that same telescope and covering the wavelength interval 6050$``$7600 Å, was also available. In the remainder of this text, we will refer to the spectrum of 1H 1934-063 taken with the 300 line mm-1 grating as the low-resolution spectrum and the one taken with the 600 mm-1 grating as the high-resolution spectrum.

Ark 564 was observed in 1996 with the HST using the Faint Object Spectrograph (FOS) with a circular aperture 1$`\mathrm{}`$ in diameter. For this object, we retrieved the calibrated files from the HST data archive to obtain the wavelength, absolute flux and error flags. A log of the optical observations is listed in Table 2.

### 2.4 Ultraviolet Spectroscopy

Ultraviolet spectra observed by the IUE and the HST (FOS and STIS), in the wavelegth region around O I $`\lambda `$1304 are available for all objects of the sample. The IUE spectra were re-extracted using the IUE New Spectral Image Processing System (NEWSIPS). When more than one observation for a given object was available, they were combined in order to produce a single, averaged spectrum. FOS and/or STIS nonproprietary archival calibrated files for Ark 564, Mrk 335 and TON S 180 were retrieved from the HST data archive. Ark 564 has been the subject of a monitoring campaing using STIS during the year 2000, so we averaged calibrated archival files taken between May and July 2000. We compared the resulting spectrum with the FOS spectrum taken for this same object in 1996 and no significant difference was found in the region around $`\lambda `$1304. However, we preferred to work with the STIS spectrum because of the better resolution and S/N, which allowed us to separate, at a higher confidence level, the flux of O I $`\lambda `$1304 from that of Si II $`\lambda `$1306. Table 3 shows the details of all UV observations used in this work.

Figure 2 show the composite near-IR, optical and UV spectra for the galaxy sample. The arrows mark the position of the strongest O I lines that are of interest here.

### 2.5 Further considerations

Before any analysis, the spectra were corrected for Galactic reddening using the values reported in Table 1. Although different apertures were used during the observations, this has little effect on the results reported here, since our analysis is restricted to lines emitted exclusively by the BLR. Table 4 lists the galaxy sample emission line fluxes that will be used throughout this paper. The erros quoted reflect solely the uncertainty in the placement of the continuum, S/N around the line of interest and erros flags of the archival data and are 2$`\sigma `$ significative. Fluxes were measured by fitting Gaussians to each emission feature. In all cases, O I $`\lambda `$11287 and O I $`\lambda `$8446 were well described by a single Gaussian of similar width. In the optical region, if \[N II\] $`\lambda `$$`\lambda `$6548 and 6583 were present, their contribution was always subtracted before deriving the flux for H$`\alpha `$. The strong Fe II emission that contaminates the wings of H$`\beta `$ and He II $`\lambda `$4686 was subracted before measuring the flux of these two lines. For this step, the method used was that described by Boroson & Green (1992), consisting of modeling the Fe II lines using a Fe II template from I Zw1.

The greatest uncertainty comes from the measurement of O I $`\lambda `$1304, mainly in IUE data. This line (actually a triplet at $`\lambda `$1302.17, $`\lambda `$1304.86, and $`\lambda `$1306.0) is severely blended with Si II $`\lambda `$$`\lambda `$1304,1309. In order to separate the O I contribution, we used the prescription described in Laor et al. (1997). This consists of assuming a Si II $`\lambda `$1309/$`\lambda `$1304 ratio of either 2 (optically thin case) or 1 (optically thick case). This method can be applied only if Si II $`\lambda `$1309 is clearly detected, as is the case for Ark 564, Mrk 335 and TON S 180. As in Laor et al. (1997), we assumed an optically thick Si II doublet given that for all objects of our sample the Mg II ratio $`\lambda `$2796/2804 falls between 2 and 1. In 1H 1934-063, Mrk 1044 and NGC 863, the deblending procedure is more uncertain because of the much lower IUE spectral resolution. For these objects, we assumed that 75% of the flux in the $`\lambda `$1304 feature was due to O I. That was the average proportion found in the three objects where the deblending was possible.

#### 2.5.1 Variability

Another source of error that may affect our results when combining data from different spectral regions, taken at different dates, is variability. It is widely known that Seyfert 1 galaxies are highly variable in the UV and optical continuum and broad emission lines. However, there is little information in the literature about optical and/or UV variability in NLS1s, even though they show the fastest variations in the soft and hard X-ray bands. Giannuzzo & Stirpe (1996) systematically monitored a sample of 12 NLS1 during a period of one year and found that 10 of them showed significant variations in the optical continuum and permitted lines. Ark 564 and Mrk 1044, two of the objects from our sample included in Giannuzzo & Stirpe’s study, showed variations of $``$9% and $``$10%, respectively, in permitted lines H$`\alpha `$ and H$`\beta `$. More recent data for Ark 564 derived from a two-year optical monitoring program (Shemmer et al., 2001) showed that H$`\beta `$ exhibited only minor variability ($``$3%) and that H$`\alpha `$ did not vary significantly. In the UV region, Collier et al. (2001), using STIS data taken from an intensive two-month monitoring campaing, found flux variations of about 1% amplitude in the Ly$`\alpha `$ emission line. Moreover, they checked archival IUE observations of Ark 564 taken in Jan 1984 and compared these data with that of STIS. They found that the continuum and emission line fluxes are in qualitative agreement in spite of the long span of the observations.

For TON S 180, we have compared archival IUE spectra taken in 1992 and 1993 with that of STIS used in the present work. Although the continuum from IUE presents a shift towards larger flux values (in a constant amount) relative to the STIS spectrum, the line fluxes shows very little difference (by less than a factor of 10%) between the two set of observations. In addition, our flux measurement for H$`\beta `$ taken in 2000 is in perfect agreement with that reported by Winkler (1992), ruling out significant variations for that object.

Mrk 335 was monitored continuously in the optical region during a seven year campaing (Kassebaum, 1997). This NLS1 shows significant variability in the continuum as well as in the emission lines H$`\beta `$ and He II $`\lambda `$4686 with RMS fluctuation amplitude relative to the mean spectrum of 8.5%, 7% and 18.8%, respectively. No UV variability data for this object have been reported. For 1H 1934-063 and NGC 863 no information about variability in the optical/UV region is available in the literature. Optical follow-up taken for other NLS1s not included in this work, such as NGC 4051 (Peterson et al., 2000) during a three-year campaing, shows RMS fluctuation amplitude relative to the mean spectrum of 9.5% in H$`\beta `$.

From above, it can be seen that variability has little effect on our data. Even adopting a conservative error of 10% when combining UV/near-IR or UV/optical measurements, that estimate is within the uncertainties due to the deblending and S/N of the UV lines. Moreover, due to the fact that the O I lines are formed in the outermost portion of the BLR (see Rodríguez-Ardila et al. (2002)), it is expected that their variability amplitude be even smaller that that found for other broad line features.

## 3 Excitation mechanisms of the O I lines

O I $`\lambda `$8446 can be produced by four known mechanisms: recombination, collisional excitation, continuum fluorescence, and Ly$`\beta `$ fluorescence. Grandi (1980), Rudy, Rossano & Puetter (1989), and Rudy et al. (1991) gave a complete review of these four processes. For this reason, here we will only focus on the resulting O I emission lines arising from each of them.

Besides O I $`\lambda `$8446, recombination and collisional excitation also forms O I $`\lambda `$7774, while continuum fluorescence forms O I $`\lambda `$7002, $`\lambda `$7524 and $`\lambda `$13165. Ly$`\beta `$ fluorescence, also known as Bowen Fluorescence, does not produce neither of the last four lines; their absence is a good indicator of the predominance of this mechanism. Ly$`\beta `$ fluorescence takes advantage of the near coincidence of the energy levels of Ly$`\beta `$ (1025.72 Å) and the 2$`p{}_{}{}^{3}P3d{}_{}{}^{3}D_{}^{0}`$ transition of O I at 1025.77, as can be seen in Figure 3. At 104 K, a typical temperature within the BLR, the difference in wavelength falls within the Doppler core of Ly$`\beta `$. When excitation to the 3$`d^3D^0`$ occurs, the O I electron may return directly to the ground state or otherwise suffer a series of transitions producing photons at $`\lambda `$11287, $`\lambda `$8446, and $`\lambda `$1304 before arriving at the ground state.

Until now, Ly$`\beta `$ fluorescence has been the favoured mechanism for the production of $`\lambda `$8446 in AGN (Oke & Shields, 1976; Grandi, 1980; Morris & Ward, 1989; Rudy, Rossano & Puetter, 1989). The reason for this conclusion has been the apparent lack of detection of additional O I transitions such as $`\lambda `$7002 and $`\lambda `$7774. However, weak broad features in low resolution spectra tend to be smeared out when the nuclear continuum is strong and the S/N low. A direct confirmation of the predominance of the Bowen fluorescence can be obtained by measuring the photon flux ratio between $`\lambda `$11287 and $`\lambda `$8446, which must be unity (assuming no internal reddening). Lower values would indicate the presence of one of the other three mechanisms mentioned above, or some combination of these. This test has been elusive in AGNs for many years because of the lack of suitable observations and dectectors in the near-IR. To the best of our knowledge, the only detection of O I $`\lambda `$11287 to date in an AGN has been for the prototype NLS1 I Zw 1.

Nonetheless, we find an inconsistency in the published data. Rudy, Rossano & Puetter (1989) provided a direct confirmation of the Bowen mechanism in I Zw 1 by deriving an O I $`\lambda `$11287/$`\lambda `$8446 photon flux ratio of 1.02. Using more recent and higher quality data, taken at a higher resolution by Rudy et al. (2000) for the same object, we derive a photon flux ratio of 0.76 using the emission line flux reported by those authors in their Table 1. Rudy, Rossano & Puetter (1989) combine data taken at different times with a different instrumental setup and resolution, while in Rudy et al. (2000), both lines are observed simultaneously, with a superior quality spectrograph. Our estimate implies that in I Zw1, contrary to what was previously found, O I $`\lambda `$8446 is formed by more than one process.

Table 5 lists, in column 2, the O I $`\lambda `$11287/$`\lambda `$8446 (hereafter ROIIR) flux ratio and, in column 3, the photon flux ratio of these two lines, derived for the objects in our sample. Only in TON S 180 and Ark 564, does the observational evidence points to Ly$`\beta `$ fluorescence as the dominant mechanism for the production of $`\lambda `$8446 since the photon flux ratio is near unity. But in Mrk 1044, for example, Ly$`\beta `$ fluorescence accounts for only $``$40% of the observed $`\lambda `$8446. Evidently, additional excitation mechanisms that enhance O I $`\lambda `$8446 relative to $`\lambda `$11287 are at work. Reddening cannot be invoked to explain this discrepancy because its net effect is the opposite: to reduce O I $`\lambda `$8446 relative to $`\lambda `$11287. If the line ratios in Table 5 are affected by reddening, after correcting for this effect they will appear even smaller.

It may be argued that the deficit of $`\lambda `$11287 photons can be due to strong, sharp, atmospheric absortion lines not readily apparent in low-resolution spectra. If such a line falls near $`\lambda `$11287 (in the Earth-frame wavelength), it can substantially affect the measured flux of the latter. Kingdon & Ferland (1991) addressed this possibility in his study of He I $`\lambda `$10830 in planetary nebulae and concluded that this effect could reduce the intensity of He I $`\lambda `$10830 by as much as 20%$``$25%. Nonetheless, as he stressed, the effect can be dramatic in sharp-lined objects such as HII regions and planetary nebulae. For the particular case of O I $`\lambda `$11287, this line is spread over at least 21 pixels (the narrowest full width at zero-intensity measured for O I $`\lambda `$11287) and located in different regions of the CCD due to the different redshifts of the objects.

We consider that for O I $`\lambda `$11287, the most serious effect is not due due to strong, sharp, atmospheric absortion lines but broad atmospheric bands located blueward of $`\lambda `$11287. If they are not adequately cancelled out after dividing the object’s spectrum by that of the telluric star, the shape and flux of the line can be seriously affected. Figure 4 shows, for every object, the observed spectrum, the spectrum of the telluric star observed at similar airmass, and the resulting spectrum after the division, in the region around O I $`\lambda `$11287. Note that in all cases the atmospheric features were cleanly removed. Although some residuals may be present, by no way they do not affect the flux of $`\lambda `$11287. Also, the fact that the shape and width of $`\lambda `$11287 is essentially the same as that of $`\lambda `$8446 (see Rodríguez-Ardila et al. (2002)), confirms that the deficit of photons in O I $`\lambda `$11287 cannot be due to this effect. Regarding $`\lambda `$8446, the position where it falls is far from any atmospheric absorption feature. The nearest one is located redward of 9000 Å (in the Earth-frame wavelength) while for the galaxy with the largest redshift (TONS180), O I $`\lambda `$8446 is located at 8970 Å.

## 4 Discussion

The results obtained in the last section provide, for the first time, strong evidence that Ly$`\beta `$ fluorescence cannot be the only process responsible for the observed strength of O I $`\lambda `$8446 in most AGNs of our sample. In order to study which of the remaining three mechanisms already mentioned (continnum fluorescence, recombination and collisional ionization) are also producing $`\lambda `$8446, we use other permitted lines of O I as diagnostics tools.

According to Grandi (1980), continuum fluorescence can be probed by the presence of O I lines such us $`\lambda `$7254, $`\lambda `$7002 and $`\lambda `$13165. The later line is, in fact, a very good test because it should be one of the strongest ones, with a strength similar to that of $`\lambda `$11287, if that process is present. Unfortunately, observing $`\lambda `$13165 is not always easy. Depending on the radial velocity of the galaxy, it may fall very near or within a strong atmospheric band located between 13300 Å and 14150 Å, preventing its observation.

We have searched carefully in the spectra for the presence of O I $`\lambda `$13165. No conclusive evidence of this line was found in any galaxy. Upper limits derived for its flux are listed in Table 4. In all cases, it is detected at a limit of $`<`$0.1Fλ11287. In TON S 180 and NGC 863 it is not observable at all because it falls within a region of poor transmission. We also searched for O I $`\lambda `$7002 and $`\lambda `$7254 in 1H 1934-063. In the high resolution spectrum of this object, the former line is clearly present, as can be seen in Figure 5. For the latter line, an upper limit for its flux was derived. Table 6 lists the values found. For Ark 564, no trace of $`\lambda `$7002 can be seen in the spectrum published by Comastri et al. (2001).

The lack of additional O I lines that should be observed if continuum fluorescence is also responsible for $`\lambda `$8446 emission and, most importantly, the very low upper limit measured to O I $`\lambda `$13165, leads us to conclude that this mechanism, although probably present, cannot be responsible for the observed excess of O I $`\lambda `$8446 emission.

Recombination is another excitation mechanism that could help to explain the strength of O I $`\lambda `$8446. However, this process produces numerous lines located in the visible region, arising from triplet and quintet configurations, in proportions corresponding to the ratio of their statistical weights (Grandi, 1975). This implies that some of the additional O I lines should have comparable or larger intensities than O I $`\lambda `$8446. In 1H 1934-063, for which we have complete wavelength coverage from 0.37$`\mu `$m to 2.4$`\mu `$m, the only quintet line of O I detected at 3$`\sigma `$ level is $`\lambda `$7774 (3$`s^5S3p^5P`$). This line is the quintet counterpart of O I $`\lambda `$8446. Its predicted relative intensity, assuming recombination as the excitation mechanism, should be $`\lambda `$7774/$`\lambda `$8446 $``$1.7 (Grandi, 1980). That value is 40 times higher than the observed one ($`\lambda `$7774/$`\lambda `$8446 $``$0.07, see Table 6). For this object, if we subtract the fraction of the O I $`\lambda `$8446 flux produced by Ly$`\beta `$ fluorescence, the resulting $`\lambda `$7774/$`\lambda `$8446 ratio is 0.2, nearly 20 times weaker than its theoretical prediction.

The other object for which observations around O I $`\lambda `$7774 are available is TON S 180. The upper limit derived for this feature, also listed in Table 6, is two orders of magnitude weaker than the theoretical prediction. However, it is not expected that this line be strong in TON S 180 since Ly$`\beta `$ fluorescence accounts for the total O I $`\lambda `$8446 emission.

In addition to O I $`\lambda `$7774, we detect in 1H 1934-063, O I $`\lambda `$7990 (see Figure 5) and $`\lambda `$6048. A blip at this later position is also observed in the spectrum of Ark 564. Nonetheless, their intensities are always a few percent of O I $`\lambda `$8446. For this reason, we conclude that recombination is certainly present but it cannot explain alone the excess of $`\lambda `$8446 observed in most of the objects.

The only possibility that remains to be explored is collisional excitation by electrons. Grandi (1980) states that if this mechanism is operating, the predicted O I $`\lambda `$7774/$`\lambda `$8446 ratio would be 0.3. That value is near the observed ratio (0.2) derived in 1H 1934-063 after removing the contribution of Ly$`\beta `$ fluorescence for O I $`\lambda `$8446. The lack of observations around $`\lambda `$7774 for the remaining objects prevent us from drawing definite conclusions. However, our data clearly show that L$`\beta `$ fluorescence cannot be considered any longer as the single dominant mechanism for the production of the observed O I lines in AGN. For 1H 1934-063, for instance, collisions may contribute up to 35% of the observed O I $`\lambda `$8446 flux.

### 4.1 An optically thick $`\lambda `$1304 line?

If collisional excitation is responsible for the excess of O I $`\lambda `$8446 emission, in order to this process be efficient the population of the level 3$`s^3S^0`$ must be significant, i.e. above the Boltzman population. This requires high optical depths in the $`\lambda `$1304 line. Kwan & Krolik (1981) state that with increasing column density, trapping of $`\lambda `$1304 becomes important in sustaining the population in 3$`s^3S^0`$, and $`\lambda `$8446 becomes optically thick. Trapping of $`\lambda `$8446, in turn, builds up the population in 3$`p^3P`$, eventually leading to trapping of $`\lambda `$11287. As a result, the growth of these lines is subsequently quenched; once $`\lambda `$11287 is optically thick, all three lines grow only logarithmically with optical depth. This possibility has been examined by Ferland & Persson (1989), who found that the very high column densities ($`>`$1024.5 cm-2) necessary to produce Ca II can produce large optical depths in the O I lines. In fact, very recently, Rodríguez-Ardila et al. (2002) found that the O I, Ca II and Fe II lines have very similiar emission line profiles, both in form and width. This is interpreted as a co-spatial Ca II and O I emitting regions, which probably share similar physical conditions.

An indication that $`\lambda `$8446 is thick would be branching from its upper level to 3$`{}_{}{}^{5}S`$, by the O I\] $`\lambda `$6726 line (Rudy et al., 1991). This line is very close to \[S II\] $`\lambda `$6717,6731, a commom doublet in Seyfert 1 galaxies, so if this pair of lines is present, it may mask the observation of O I\] $`\lambda `$6726. We have searched our spectra in order to find evidences for $`\lambda `$6726. Table 6 list the derived upper limits. In none of the four objects where this measurement was possible was the $`\lambda `$6726 line present at a level greater than 0.04$`I`$($`\lambda `$8446). We conclude that the intensity of $`\lambda `$8446 is not significantly altered by optical depth effects. Probably, after the upper 3$`p^3P`$ level is significantly populated, the electrons are rapidly promoted to the upper $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{}^{0}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{}^{0}`$ levels because of their close proximity in energy (less than 2 eV), producing the additional O I lines detected and increasing the flux of $`\lambda `$8446.

### 4.2 O I as a reliable reddening indicator for the BLR

According to the Grotrian diagram of Figure 3, independent of the excitation mechanism, every $`\lambda `$8446 photon should produce a $`\lambda `$1304 photon. Theoretically, the photon flux ratio $`\lambda `$1304/$`\lambda `$8446 (ROIuv, hereafter) must be equal to unity except when reddening is present, in which case, it should be smaller. Kwan & Krolik (1981) found that the intrinsic ROIuv can vary from 1 to 0.63 even in the absence of reddening due to Balmer continuum absorption of $`\lambda `$1304 photons and the production of $`\lambda `$8446 by collisional excitation. Grandi (1983) describes three additional proccesses that may destruct $`\lambda `$1304: (i) $`\lambda `$1304 photons can photoionize H I atoms that exists in the $`n=2`$ state; (ii) collisional de-excitation can destroy $`\lambda `$1304 photons; (iii) the upper term of $`\lambda `$1304 (3$`s{}_{}{}^{3}S_{}^{o}`$) can decay to the metastable terms of the ground configuration via the semi-forbidden lines O I\] $`\lambda `$1641 and $`\lambda `$2324 ($`2p^4{}_{}{}^{1}D`$ \- $`3s{}_{}{}^{3}S_{}^{o}`$ and $`2p^4{}_{}{}^{1}S`$ \- $`3s{}_{}{}^{3}S_{}^{o}`$, respectively). Grandi’s calculations show that up to half of the $`\lambda `$1304 photons can be converted to O I\] $`\lambda `$1641 before leaving the emission cloud.

Our data offers, for the first time, the possibility of evaluating, at least to first order, how efficient the destruction of the $`\lambda `$1304 photons can be. Column 5 of Table 5 lists the ROIuv photon ratio derived for the galaxies. It was determined assuming an intrinsic flux ratio of 6.5. Note that the uncertainties in this quantity is, in most cases, larger that the estimated error due to variability (see § 2.5.1), meaning that the results are not at all affected by this effect. Except TON S 180, all objects show flux ratios significantly below the lowest theoretical limit derived by Kwan & Krolik (1981). Even if in all these objects the $`\lambda `$1304 photons are severely affected by the destruction mechanisms described above, they are not sufficient to explain the break of the one-to-one photon relation between $`\lambda `$8446 and $`\lambda `$1304. TON S 180 is particularly interesting in this respect. We had already seen that it was the only galaxy where the ROIir ratio pointed to Ly$`\beta `$ fluorescence as the dominant mechanism for producing $`\lambda `$8446. The ROIuv ratio not only confirms this result but also indicates that the physical conditions of the O I gas is different for this object. Apparently, the optical depth effects that may affect the O I lines do not apply here.

The departure from the one-to-one photon relation can be interpreted as due only to reddening or the combined effects of reddening and the destruction mechanisms of $`\lambda `$1304. Columns 2 and 3 of Table 7 list the E(B-V) inferred from the observed flux ratio. Values listed in columns 2 and 3 assume an intrinsic ROIuv photon ratio of 1 and 1.6, respectively (which translates into a flux ratio of 6.5 and 4). The Galactic extinction curve of Cardelli, Clayton & Mathis (1989) were employed in this calculation.

The E(B-V) derived from the $`\lambda `$1304/$`\lambda `$8446 ratio points toward low values of reddening in the BLR of Seyfert 1 galaxies, except in Ark 564, which seems to be affected by a moderate amount of extinction. TON S 180, on the other hand, shows evidence of being reddenning free.

In order to compare the E(B-V) derived from the O I lines with that predicted from other indicators, we have also calculated the reddening using the Balmer decrement H$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$ and the He II $`\lambda `$1640/$`\lambda `$4686 ratio. The results are shown in columns 4 and 5 of Table 7, respectively. A “N.A.” entry means that that particular ratio was not available for measurement in the spectrum and the lack of any value means that the calculated ratio gave unphysically results (the theoretical values adopted were 3.1 for the Balmer lines and 7.2 for the He II lines). Although the results of Table 7 are approximate, mainly because of the uncertainy involved in the knowledge of the intrinsic ratio of the Balmer decrement and the He II lines for the BLR, it is encouraging to see that the agreement between the different reddening indicators for the same object, are good to within 0.1 mag of uncertainty. In particular, for TON S 180, and Mrk 1044, the three indicators agree to very little or no reddening at all, while for Ark 564, they clearly confirm the presence of dust. The highest discrepancy is observed in 1H 1934-063. This result can be explained if we consider that the S/N of the UV spectrum is very low and just upper limits to the flux of the lines were derived.

It is also interesting to see that the values of E(B-V) derived assuming an intrinsic $`\lambda `$1304/$`\lambda `$8446 flux ratio of 4 are closer to the ones derives using other indicators than if we assume an intrinsic ratio of 6.5 (except for TON S 180). This provides strong observational support to the hypothesis of $`\lambda `$1304 photons being destroyed by Balmer continuum absorption and the formation of $`\lambda `$8446 by collisional excitation. Although detailed modelling of the BLR is beyond the scope of this paper, it would be important to estimate how much the intrinsic $`\lambda `$11287/$`\lambda `$8446 ratio is affected by this latter effect. The data provided here is a good starting point to investigate the physics of the outer BLR.

## 5 Summary and Conclusions

Near-infrared, optical and UV spectroscopy has been used to study the excitation mechanisms leading to the formation of permitted O I lines in Seyfert 1 galaxies. From the observed $`\lambda `$11287/$`\lambda `$8446 photon flux ratio, we found that in only one out of seven galaxies, L$`\beta `$ fluorescence is the single dominant process in the formation of O I $`\lambda `$8446. This result clearly contradicts previous assumptions that L$`\beta `$ fluorescence is the only contributor for the formation of the O I lines in those objects. Continuum fluorescence is discarded as an additional mechanism due to the very low O I $`\lambda `$8446/$`\lambda `$13165 flux ratio measurement as well as the absence of other emission lines that should be present in the optical region. Recombination is not negligible, although its effects on the flux of $`\lambda `$8446 seems to be no larger than a few percent. Collisional excitation offers a plausible explanation to enhance the strength of the O I $`\lambda `$8446 relative to that of $`\lambda `$11287, leading to the strong deviation from unity observed in the $`\lambda `$11287/$`\lambda `$8446 ratio. This conclusion is drawn from the presence of O I $`\lambda `$7774 in 1H 1934-063. The strength of this line, relative to that of $`\lambda `$8446, agrees with theoretical predictions assuming collisional excitation as responsible for the formation of $`\lambda `$7774. In that object, up to 35% of the observed $`\lambda `$8446 flux may arise through collisional pumping. Collisional excitation is also favoured if $`\lambda `$1304 is optically thick, as is suggested by the presence of strong Ca II lines, which requires high column densities for their formation.

In the absence of reddening, the $`\lambda `$1304/$`\lambda `$8446 photon flux ratio may depart from its intrinsic value (from 1 to 1.6) because of several mechanisms that destroy the $`\lambda `$1304 photons, as well as optical depth effects that favor collisional excitation of $`\lambda `$8446. The agreement between the E(B-V) of the BLR derived using different reddening indicators (among them, the ratio $`\lambda `$1304/$`\lambda `$8446) is improved if an intrinsic flux ratio $`\lambda `$1304/$`\lambda `$8446 of 4 is assumed, meaning that destruction effects for the $`\lambda `$1304 line are, in fact, present. Our results points towards low to moderate reddening for the BLR.

We thank the IRTF staff, support scientist Bobby Bus, and telescope operator Dave Griep for contributing to a productive observing run. Mike Cushing provided patient assistance with the xspextool software. The authors thank the sugestions of an anonymous referee, which help to improve this paper. This research has been supported by the Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) to ARA, PRONEX grant 662175/1996-4 to SMV and ARA and PRONEX grant 7697100300 to MGP and ARA.


format: text

text:
# Linear combinations of sections and tails of Mittag–Leffler functions and their zeros

Abstract. The zero distribution of sections of Mittag–Leffler functions of order $`\rho >1`$ was studied in 1983 by A. Edrei, E.B. Saff and R.S. Varga. In the present paper, we study the zero distribution of linear combinations of sections and tails of Mittag–Leffler functions of order $`\rho >1`$.

1. Introduction and statement of results

Let

$$f\left(z\right)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_kz^k,a_0>0,$$
$`\left(1.1\right)`$
be a transcendental entire function. Denote by

$$s_n(z,f)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}a_kz^k$$
$`\left(1.2\right)`$
and

$$t_n(z,f)=\underset{k=n}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_kz^k$$
$`\left(1.3\right)`$
its sections and tails respectively. For $`r>0`$, set

$$\mu \left(r\right):=\underset{k}{\mathrm{max}}\left|a_k\right|r^k,\nu \left(r\right):=\mathrm{max}\left\{k:\left|a_k\right|r^k=\mu \left(r\right)\right\}.$$
$`\left(1.4\right)`$
The function $`\nu (r)`$, called the central index, is an increasing step function of $`r`$ taking integer values ( see \[6, p.3\]). Denote by $`R_1,R_2,R_3,\mathrm{}`$, the discontinuity points of $`\nu (r)`$. Note that $`\nu (r)`$ is everywhere continuous from the right, and $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}R_n=\mathrm{}`$ (see \[6, pp.5–6\]).

Let $`_n(\lambda ,f)`$, $`\lambda \text{}`$, be the set of all roots of the equation

$$\left(1\lambda \right)s_n(R_nz,f)\lambda t_{n+1}(R_nz,f)=0.$$
$`\left(1.5\right)`$
In particular, $`_n(0,f)`$ coincides with the set of zeros of the sections (1.2) and $`_{n1}(1,f)`$ coincides with the set of zeros of the tails (1.3). Define $`(\lambda ,f)`$ to be the set of all accumulation points of $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}_n(\lambda ,f)`$.

In 1924, G. Szegö  proved a remarkable theorem related to the behavior of the roots of the equation (1.5) for $`f(z)=e^z`$. For function $`f(z)=e^z`$ we have $`R_n=n`$ (see \[6, Problem 27, p.6\]). Consider the main result of . The curve

$$S:=\{z:|ze^{1z}|=1\}$$

is known as the Szegö curve.

Theorem S (). The following equality holds

$$(\lambda ,e^z)=\{\begin{array}{cc}S\{z:\left|z\right|1\},\hfill & for\lambda =0;\hfill \\ S\{z:\left|z\right|1\},\hfill & for\lambda =1;\hfill \\ S,\hfill & for\lambda 0,1.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(S\right)`$
In , A. Edrei, E.B. Saff and R.S. Varga investigated the distribution of the zeros of the sections (1.2) of Mittag–Leffler functions of all orders $`\rho >1`$:

$$E_{\frac{1}{\rho }}\left(z\right)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{z^j}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{j}{\rho }\right)},1<\rho <\mathrm{}.$$
$`\left(1.6\right)`$
For function $`E_{\frac{1}{\rho }}(z)`$, by \[5, Problem 117, p.26\], we have

$$R_n=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{n}{\rho }\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{n1}{\rho }\right)}.$$

It follows from Stirling’s formula for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$, $`x>0`$, that

$$R_n=\left(\frac{n}{\rho }\right)^{\frac{1}{\rho }}\left(1+\frac{\rho 1}{2\rho n}+O\left(\frac{1}{n^2}\right)\right),n\mathrm{}.$$
$`\left(1.7\right)`$
Consider the main result of . By $`S(\rho )`$ denote a curve which is represented, in polar coordinates, as the set of all points

$$\psi \left(\varphi \right)=\sigma \left(\varphi \right)e^{i\varphi },\frac{\pi }{2\rho }\varphi <2\pi \frac{\pi }{2\rho },$$

where
(i) for $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\rho }}\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\rho }}`$, $`\sigma (\varphi )`$ satisfies

$$\left\{\sigma \left(\varphi \right)\right\}^\rho \mathrm{cos}\left(\varphi \rho \right)1\rho \mathrm{log}\sigma \left(\varphi \right)=0,$$
$`\left(1.8\right)`$
(ii) for $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\rho }}<\varphi <2\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\rho }}`$, we take

$$\sigma \left(\varphi \right)=e^{\frac{1}{\rho }}.$$

The curve $`S(\rho )`$ is called the generalized Szegö curve. We will prove in Lemma 1 that the curve $`S(\rho )\{z:|z|1\}`$ has asymptotes $`\mathrm{arg}z=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\rho }}`$ ( meanwhile, the original Szegö curve $`S`$ doesn’t have asymptotes ).

The arguments of the zeros of $`E_{\frac{1}{\rho }}(z)`$ for $`1<\rho <\mathrm{}`$ tend to $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\rho }}`$ as $`|z|\mathrm{}`$. Hence, as a consequence of the uniform convergence

$$s_n(z,E_{\frac{1}{\rho }})E_{\frac{1}{\rho }}\left(z\right),n\mathrm{},$$

on compact subsets, there are zeros of $`s_n(R_nz,E_{\frac{1}{\rho }})`$ whose arguments are close to $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\rho }}`$. Denote

$$_0(\lambda ,E_{\frac{1}{\rho }})=(\lambda ,E_{\frac{1}{\rho }})\backslash \{z:\mathrm{arg}z=\pm \frac{\pi }{2\rho }\}.$$

The main result of  implies that $`_0(0,E_{\frac{1}{\rho }})=S(\rho )\{z:|z|1\}`$. The question arises whether the complete analogue of the Szegö theorem holds for $`E_{\frac{1}{\rho }}(z)`$, that is whether the equality holds

$$_0(\lambda ,E_{\frac{1}{\rho }})=\{\begin{array}{cccc}S\left(\rho \right)\{z:\left|z\right|1\},\hfill & for\lambda =0;\hfill & & \left(S^{}\right)\hfill \\ S\left(\rho \right)\{z:\left|z\right|1\},\hfill & for\lambda =1;\hfill & & \left(S^{\prime \prime }\right)\hfill \\ S\left(\rho \right),\hfill & for\lambda 0,1.\hfill & & \left(S^{\prime \prime \prime }\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

In this paper, we are going to prove $`(S^{\prime \prime })`$ and $`(S^{\prime \prime \prime })`$, and extensions of main results of  for the linear combination $`(1\lambda )s_n(R_nz,E_{\frac{1}{\rho }})\lambda t_{n+1}(R_nz,E_{\frac{1}{\rho }})`$, $`\rho >1`$. The main result of this paper is the following theorem dealing with the asymptotic expressions of this linear combination in different domains of .

Theorem 1. Let

$$I_n(R_nz;\lambda ):=\left(1\lambda \right)s_n(R_nz,E_{\frac{1}{\rho }})\lambda t_{n+1}(R_nz,E_{\frac{1}{\rho }}),$$

$`\delta _2`$, $`\delta _3`$ be given positive constants, and $`\rho >1`$. Then, as $`n\mathrm{}`$,

$$\frac{I_n(R_nz;\lambda )\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{n}{\rho }\right)}{R_n^nz^n}=\lambda \rho \frac{e^{R_n^\rho z^\rho }\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{n}{\rho }\right)}{R_n^nz^n}\left(1+o\left(1\right)\right)\frac{z}{1z}\left(1+o\left(1\right)\right),$$

$$\text{if}z\{z=re^{i\varphi }:r1,\left|\varphi \right|\frac{\pi }{2\rho },\left|z1\right|\delta _2\},$$

$$\frac{I_n(R_nz;\lambda )\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{n}{\rho }\right)}{R_n^nz^n}=\left(1\lambda \right)\rho \frac{e^{R_n^\rho z^\rho }\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{n}{\rho }\right)}{R_n^nz^n}\left(1+o\left(1\right)\right)\frac{z}{1z}\left(1+o\left(1\right)\right),$$

$$\text{if}z\{z=re^{i\varphi }:0<r1,\left|\varphi \right|\frac{\pi }{2\rho },\left|z1\right|\delta _2\},$$

$$\frac{I_n(R_nz;\lambda )\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{n}{\rho }\right)}{R_n^nz^n}=\frac{\left(\lambda 1\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1\frac{1}{\rho }\right)}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{n}{\rho }\right)}{R_n^{n+1}z^{n+1}}\left(1+o\left(1\right)\right)\frac{z}{1z}\left(1+o\left(1\right)\right),$$

$$\text{if}z\{z=re^{i\varphi }:r>0,|\varphi |\frac{\pi }{2\rho }+\delta _3,\}.$$

In all expressions above, the symbols $`o(1)`$ have uniformity property with respect to $`z`$.

We remark that, in the special case $`\lambda =1`$, the asymptotic expression for $`I_n(R_nz;1)`$ in the unit disc, one can find in \[2, Lemma 9.2\]. It coincides with one we obtain in Theorem 1.

For given $`\delta _2>0`$, $`\delta _3>0`$ and $`h>0`$, let us introduce the following regions.

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Omega }_1=\{z=re^{i\varphi }:0<r1,\left|z1\right|\delta _2,\left|\varphi \right|\frac{\pi }{2\rho }\delta _3,r^\rho \mathrm{cos}\left(\rho \varphi \right)1\rho \mathrm{log}r0\},\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_2=\{z=re^{i\varphi }:\left|\varphi \right|\frac{\pi }{2\rho }\delta _3,r^\rho \mathrm{cos}\left(\rho \varphi \right)1\rho \mathrm{log}rh\},\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_3=\{z=re^{i\varphi }:e^{1/\rho }+hr,\left|\varphi \right|\frac{\pi }{2\rho }+\delta _3\},\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_4=\{z=re^{i\varphi }:0<re^{1/\rho }h,\left|\varphi \right|\frac{\pi }{2\rho }+\delta _3\},\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_5=\{z=re^{i\varphi }:r1,\left|\varphi \right|\frac{\pi }{2\rho }\delta _3,r^\rho \mathrm{cos}\left(\rho \varphi \right)1\rho \mathrm{log}rh\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The next theorem deals with the zero free regions of $`I_n(R_nz;\lambda )`$.

Theorem 2. Let $`I_n(R_nz;\lambda )`$ be as in Theorem 1, $`\delta _2`$, $`\delta _3`$ and $`h`$ be given positive constants. Then, for all sufficiently large $`n`$, $`I_n(R_nz;\lambda )`$ has no zeros in $`_{i=1}^5\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$.

Theorem 2 is an extension of Theorem 5 from . The next two theorems give information on the zero distribution of $`I_n(R_nz;\lambda )`$ in the neighborhood of points on the generalized Szegö curve $`S\left(\rho \right)`$. To characterize this distribution in the neighborhood of the point $`z=1`$, denote by

$$\text{erfc}\left(\zeta \right)=1\frac{2}{\pi }_0^\zeta e^{v^2}𝑑v.$$

the complementary error function.

Theorem 3. With $`I_n(R_nz;\lambda )`$ defined in Theorem 1, we have

$$\left(1+\left(\frac{2}{\rho n}\right)^{1/2}\zeta \right)^n\left\{E_{\frac{1}{\rho }}\left(R_n\right)\right\}^1I_n(R_n\left(1+\left(\frac{2}{\rho n}\right)^{1/2}\zeta \right);\lambda )e^{\zeta ^2}\left\{\frac{\text{erfc}\left(\zeta \right)}{2}\lambda \right\},$$

as $`n\mathrm{}`$, uniformly on every compact set of the $`\zeta `$–plane.

Theorem 3 is an extension of Theorem 1 from .

Theorem 4.
I. Let $`\xi =\xi (\varphi )`$, $`0<\varphi <\frac{\pi }{2\rho }`$, be a fixed point on the generalized Szegö curve $`S(\rho )`$. Let

$$\tau =\left|\zeta \right|^\lambda \mathrm{sin}\left(\varphi \rho \right)\rho \varphi ,$$

and let the sequence $`\{\tau _n\}_n`$ be defined by the condition

$$\tau _n\frac{\tau }{\rho }n\left(mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi \right),\pi <\tau _n\pi .$$

Then, as $`n\mathrm{}`$,

$$I_n(R_n\xi \left(1+\frac{\mathrm{log}n}{2\left(1\xi ^\rho \right)n}\frac{\zeta i\tau _n}{\left(1\xi ^\rho \right)n}\right);\lambda )\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{n}{\rho }\right)}{R_n^n\xi ^n\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{log}n}{2\left(1\xi ^\rho \right)n}\frac{\zeta i\tau _n}{\left(1\xi ^\rho \right)n}\right)^n}$$
$`\left(1.9\right)`$
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(1\lambda \right)\left(2\pi \rho \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{\frac{\rho +1}{2\rho }\left(\xi ^\rho 1\right)}e^\zeta \frac{\xi }{1\xi },\hfill & \text{if}\left|\xi \right|<1,\hfill \\ \lambda \left(2\pi \rho \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{\frac{\rho +1}{2\rho }\left(\xi ^\rho 1\right)}e^\zeta \frac{\xi }{1\xi },\hfill & \text{if}\left|\xi \right|>1,\hfill \end{array}$$

uniformly on every compact set of the $`\zeta `$ – plane.

II. Let $`\xi =e^{\frac{1}{\rho }}e^{i\varphi }`$, $`\frac{\pi }{2\rho }<\varphi \pi `$, be a fixed point on the circular portion of $`S\left(\rho \right)`$, and let the sequence $`\tau _n^{}`$ be defined by the condition

$$\tau _n^{^{}}\left(n+1\right)\varphi \left(mod2\pi \right),\pi <\tau _n^{}\pi .$$

Then

$$I_n(R_n\xi \left(1+\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\rho }\right)\frac{\mathrm{log}n}{n}\frac{\zeta i\tau _n^{^{}}}{n+1}\right);\lambda )\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{n}{\rho }\right)}{R_n^n\xi ^n\left(1+\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\rho }\right)\frac{\mathrm{log}n}{n}\frac{\zeta i\tau _n^{^{}}}{n+1}\right)^n}$$
$`\left(1.10\right)`$
$$\frac{\left(\lambda 1\right)\left(2\pi e^{\frac{1\rho }{\rho }}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\rho ^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\rho }}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1\frac{1}{\rho }\right)}e^\zeta \frac{\xi }{1\xi }$$

uniformly on every compact set of the $`\zeta `$ – plane.

Arguments of $`I_n`$ in (1.9) and (1.10) of Theorem 4 were taken from analogous Theorems 2 and 3 from . Theorem 4 is an easy corollary of Theorem 1.

2. Preliminary results

Lemma 1. The curve $`S(\rho )\{z:|z|1\}`$ has asymptotes $`l_j=\left\{\mathrm{arg}z=(1)^{j1}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\rho }}\right\}`$, $`j=1,2`$.

Proof . It suffices to consider only the upper half $`B\left(\rho \right)`$ of the curve. It is given by the equation

$$\mathrm{cos}\rho \varphi =r^\rho \left(1+\rho \mathrm{log}r\right),$$

which implies that conditions $`r\mathrm{}`$ and $`\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\rho }}`$ are equivalent. Take a point $`A=(r\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,r\mathrm{sin}\varphi )`$ on $`B\left(\rho \right)`$ and a point $`C=(r\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,r\mathrm{tan}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\rho }}\mathrm{cos}\varphi )`$ on $`l_1`$. The distance $`d(A,l_1)`$ from point $`A`$ to $`l_1`$ does not exceed the distance between points $`A`$ and $`C`$, i.e.

$$d(A,l_1)r\mathrm{tan}\frac{\pi }{2\rho }\mathrm{cos}\varphi r\mathrm{sin}\varphi =\frac{r\mathrm{sin}\rho \left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\rho }}\varphi \right)}{\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\rho }}}=\frac{1+\rho \mathrm{log}r}{r^{\rho 1}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\rho }}}0\text{a}sr\mathrm{}.$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

With $`I_n(R_nz;\lambda )`$ defined in the statement of Theorem 1, rewrite (1.5) as

$$I_n(R_nz;\lambda )=\left(1\lambda \right)E_{\frac{1}{\rho }}\left(R_nz\right)t_{n+1}(R_nz,E_{\frac{1}{\rho }})=0.$$
$`\left(2.1\right)`$
In the proof of Theorem 1, by (2.1), asymptotic formulas for $`E_{\frac{1}{\rho }}(R_nz)`$ and $`t_{n+1}(R_nz,E_{\frac{1}{\rho }})`$ will play a major role. Let us present those we will use.

The functions $`E_{\frac{1}{\rho }}(z)`$ have the following well–known asymptotic relations (see \[3, p.114\]):

$$E_{\frac{1}{\rho }}\left(z\right)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\rho e^{z^\rho }\frac{1}{z\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1\frac{1}{\rho }\right)}+O\left(\frac{1}{\left|z\right|^2}\right),\hfill & \left|\mathrm{arg}z\right|\frac{\pi }{2\rho },\hfill & \left|z\right|\mathrm{},\hfill \\ \frac{1}{z\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1\frac{1}{\rho }\right)}+O\left(\frac{1}{\left|z\right|^2}\right),\hfill & \frac{\pi }{2\rho }\left|\mathrm{arg}z\right|\pi ,\hfill & \left|z\right|\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(2.2\right)`$
To write an asymptotic expression for $`t_{n+1}(R_nz,E_{\frac{1}{\rho }})`$, we will use so-called Mittag–Leffler type functions

$$E_{\frac{1}{\rho }}(z,\mu )=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{z^k}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mu +\frac{k}{\rho }\right)},\rho >0,\mu \text{},$$

introduced by M.M. Djrbashian (see \[1, p.117\]). Denote by $`L(\alpha ,H)`$ ($`H>0`$, $`0<\alpha \pi `$) a contour following nondecreasing direction of $`\mathrm{arg}\zeta `$ and consisting of two rays $`\mathrm{arg}\zeta =\pm \alpha `$, $`|\zeta |H`$ and an arc $`\alpha \mathrm{arg}\zeta \alpha `$ of a circle $`|\zeta |=H`$. By $`G^{}(H,\alpha )`$ and $`G^+(H,\alpha )`$ we denote two regions lying respectively from the left and right sides of $`L(\alpha ,H)`$. For $`\rho >1`$ and $`\pi /(2\rho )<\nu \pi /\rho `$, the following representations hold (\[1, p.127\])

$$E_{\frac{1}{\rho }}(z,\mu )=\{\begin{array}{cc}\rho z^{\rho \left(1\mu \right)}e^{z^\rho }+\frac{\rho }{2\pi i}\underset{L(\nu ,H)}{}\frac{e^{\zeta ^\rho }\zeta ^{\rho \left(1\mu \right)}}{\zeta z}𝑑\zeta ,\hfill & zG^+(H,\nu ),\hfill \\ \frac{\rho }{2\pi i}\underset{L(\nu ,H)}{}\frac{e^{\zeta ^\rho }\zeta ^{\rho \left(1\mu \right)}}{\zeta z}𝑑\zeta ,\hfill & zG^{}(H,\nu ).\hfill \end{array}$$

Since

$$t_{n+1}(R_nz,E_{\frac{1}{\rho }})=\underset{k=n+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left(R_nz\right)^k}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{k}{\rho }\right)}=\left(R_nz\right)^{n+1}E_{\frac{1}{\rho }}(R_nz,1+\frac{n+1}{\rho }),$$

we have

$$t_{n+1}(R_nz,E_{\frac{1}{\rho }})=\{\begin{array}{c}\rho e^{R_n^\rho z^\rho }+\frac{\rho \left(R_nz\right)^{n+1}}{2\pi i}\underset{L(\nu ,H)}{}\frac{e^{\zeta ^\rho }\zeta ^{\left(n+1\right)}}{\zeta R_nz}𝑑\zeta ,R_nzG^+(H,\nu ),\hfill \\ \frac{\rho \left(R_nz\right)^{n+1}}{2\pi i}\underset{L(\nu ,H)}{}\frac{e^{\zeta ^\rho }\zeta ^{\left(n+1\right)}}{\zeta R_nz}𝑑\zeta ,R_nzG^{}(H,\nu ),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\nu `$ and $`H>0`$ are any constants but $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\rho }}<\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\rho }}`$. Then it follows from (2.1) and (2.2) that, as $`n\mathrm{}`$,

$$\begin{array}{cccc}I_n(R_nz;\lambda )=\lambda \rho e^{R_n^\rho z^\rho }(1+o\left(1\right))\hfill & \hfill & \frac{\rho \left(R_nz\right)^{n+1}}{2\pi i}\underset{L(\frac{\pi }{2\rho }+\frac{\delta _3}{2},R_n)}{}\frac{e^{\zeta ^\rho }\zeta ^{\left(n+1\right)}}{\zeta R_nz}𝑑\zeta ,\hfill & \left(2.3\right)\hfill \\ \text{if}\left|z\right|>1\text{and}\left|\mathrm{arg}z\right|\frac{\pi }{2\rho },\hfill & & & \\ I_n(R_nz;\lambda )=\frac{\left(\lambda 1\right)}{R_nz\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1\frac{1}{\rho }\right)}\left(1+o\left(1\right)\right)\hfill & \hfill & \frac{\rho \left(R_nz\right)^{n+1}}{2\pi i}\underset{L(\frac{\pi }{2\rho }+\frac{\delta _3}{2},R_n)}{}\frac{e^{\zeta ^\rho }\zeta ^{\left(n+1\right)}}{\zeta R_nz}𝑑\zeta ,\hfill & \left(2.4\right)\hfill \\ \text{if}\left|z\right|>0\text{and}\left|\mathrm{arg}z\right|>\frac{\pi }{2\rho }+\frac{\delta _3}{2\rho },\hfill & & & \\ I_n(R_nz;\lambda )=\left(1\lambda \right)\rho e^{R_n^\rho z^\rho }\left(1+o\left(1\right)\right)\hfill & \hfill & \frac{\rho \left(R_nz\right)^{n+1}}{2\pi i}\underset{L(\frac{\pi }{2\rho }+\frac{\delta _3}{2},R_n)}{}\frac{e^{\zeta ^\rho }\zeta ^{\left(n+1\right)}}{\zeta R_nz}𝑑\zeta ,\hfill & \left(2.5\right)\hfill \\ \text{if}0<\left|z\right|<1\text{and}\left|\mathrm{arg}z\right|\frac{\pi }{2\rho }.\hfill & & & \end{array}$$

Here and in the text below estimates denoted with symbols $`o`$ and $`O`$ are uniform with respect to $`z`$.

3. Proof of Theorem 1

Set

$$K_n\left(z\right):=\underset{L(\frac{\pi }{2\rho }+\frac{\delta _3}{2},R_n)}{}\frac{e^{\zeta ^\rho }\zeta ^n}{\zeta R_nz}𝑑\zeta .$$
$`\left(3.1\right)`$
To prove Theorem 1, by (2.3) – (2.5) and (3.1), it is enough to find asymptotic expression for the integral $`K_n(z)`$. We will do this in the following three steps:
1) change the contour of integration of $`K_n(z)`$;
2) show that the main contribution to $`K_n(z)`$ comes from the neighborhood of the point $`\zeta =R_n`$
3) find asymptotic expression for $`K_n(z)`$ by using Laplace’s Method for contour integrals.

To introduce new contours of integration we define the following curves. Denote by $`T(\rho )`$ a simple curve which is represented in polar coordinates as the set of all points

$$r^\rho =\frac{\rho \varphi }{\mathrm{sin}\rho \varphi },\frac{\pi }{\rho }<\varphi <\frac{\pi }{\rho }.$$

Define

$$S(\rho ,h):=\{z=re^{i\varphi }:r^\rho \mathrm{cos}\left(\rho \varphi \right)\rho \mathrm{log}r1=\frac{h}{2}\}.$$

By the same reason as in Lemma 1, $`S(\rho ,h)`$ has two asymptotes $`\mathrm{arg}z=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\rho }}`$. The curves $`S(\rho ,h)`$ and $`T\left(\rho \right)`$ have two common points, $`z_1=de^{i\gamma }`$ and $`z_2=de^{i\gamma }`$, say. Note that constants $`d`$ and $`\gamma `$ depend only on $`h`$, and as $`h0`$ we see that $`\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{h}}{\rho }}`$ and $`d^\rho {\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{h}}{\mathrm{sin}\sqrt{h}}}`$. Denote by $`TS_1(\rho ,h)`$ the curve which consists of
$`\left(i\right)`$ $`T\left(\rho \right)\{z:\left|z\right|d\}`$, where $`d=d\left(h\right)`$ is defined above;
$`\left(ii\right)`$ $`S(\rho ,h)\{z:\left|z\right|d,\left|\mathrm{arg}z\right|\frac{\pi }{2\rho }\delta _3\}`$;
$`\left(iii\right)`$ $`\{z:\left|z\right|=D_1,\frac{\pi }{2\rho }\delta _3\left|\mathrm{arg}z\right|\frac{\pi }{2\rho }+\frac{\delta _3}{2}\}`$, where $`D_1`$ is such that
$`D_1^\rho \mathrm{sin}\left(\rho \delta _3\right)\rho \mathrm{log}D_11={\displaystyle \frac{h}{2}}`$;
$`\left(iv\right)`$ $`\{z:\mathrm{arg}z=\pm \left(\frac{\pi }{2\rho }+\frac{\delta _3}{2}\right),\left|z\right|D_1\}`$, where $`D_1`$ was defined in part (iii).

Denote by $`TS_2(\rho ,h)`$ the curve which consists of
$`\left(i\right)`$ defined above;
$`\left(ii^{}\right)`$ $`S(\rho ,h)\{z:\left|z\right|d,\left|\mathrm{arg}z\right|\frac{\pi }{2\rho }+\frac{\delta _3}{2}\}`$, where $`d`$ is the same as in (i);
$`\left(iii^{}\right)`$ $`\{z:\mathrm{arg}z=\pm \left(\frac{\pi }{2\rho }+\frac{\delta _3}{2}\right),\left|z\right|D_2\}`$, where $`D_2`$ is such that
$`D_2^\rho \mathrm{sin}\left(\rho \frac{\delta _3}{2}\right)+\rho \mathrm{log}D_2+1=\frac{h}{2}`$.

Lemma 2. Let

$$z\mathrm{\Omega }:=\text{}\backslash \{\{z:\frac{\pi }{2\rho }|\mathrm{arg}z|\frac{\pi }{2\rho }+\delta _3\}\{z:|z1|\delta _2\}\}$$

Then, for sufficiently small $`h>0`$,

$$K_n\left(z\right)=\frac{e^{\frac{n}{\rho }}}{R_n^{n+1}}\underset{\left(i\right)}{}\frac{e^{\frac{n}{\rho }\left(t^\rho \rho \mathrm{log}t1\right)}e^{\frac{\rho 1}{2\rho }t^\rho }}{\left(tz\right)t}\left(1+O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)t^\rho \right)𝑑t+O\left(\frac{e^{\frac{n}{\rho }\left(1\frac{h}{2}\right)}}{R_n^{n+1}}\right),$$

where $`K_n(z)`$ is defined by (3.1).

Proof. Let $`zG^{}(1,\frac{\pi }{2\rho }+\frac{\delta _3}{2})\mathrm{\Omega }`$. For sufficiently small $`h>0`$, using (1.7), we have

$$K_n\left(z\right)=\frac{1}{R_n^{n+1}}\underset{L(1,\frac{\pi }{2\rho }+\frac{\delta _3}{2})}{}\frac{e^{R_n^\rho t^\rho }t^{\left(n+1\right)}}{tz}𝑑t=\frac{1}{R_n^{n+1}}\underset{TS_1(\rho ,h)}{}\frac{e^{R_n^\rho t^\rho }t^n}{\left(tz\right)t}𝑑t$$

$$=\frac{1}{R_n^{n+1}}\underset{TS_1(\rho ,h)}{}\frac{e^{\frac{n}{\rho }t^\rho }t^ne^{\frac{\rho 1}{2\rho }t^\rho }}{\left(tz\right)t}\left(1+O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)t^\rho \right)𝑑t.$$

Since there exists such constant $`A_1>0`$ that $`\left|tz\right|>A_1`$ for all $`zG^{}(1,\frac{\pi }{2\rho }+\frac{\delta _3}{2})\mathrm{\Omega }`$ while $`tTS_1(\rho ,h)`$, for any number $`l`$ we have

$$\left|\underset{\left(ii\right)}{}\frac{e^{\frac{n}{\rho }t^\rho }t^{ln}e^{\frac{\rho 1}{2\rho }t^\rho }}{tz}𝑑t\right|B_1\underset{\left(ii\right)}{}e^{\frac{n}{\rho }\left|t\right|^\rho \mathrm{cos}\left(\rho \varphi \right)}\left|t\right|^nd\left|t\right|=O\left(e^{\frac{n}{\rho }\left(1\frac{h}{2}\right)}\right);$$

$$\left|\underset{\left(iii\right)}{}\frac{e^{\frac{n}{\rho }t^\rho }t^{ln}e^{\frac{\rho 1}{2\rho }t^\rho }}{tz}𝑑t\right|B_2\underset{\left(iii\right)}{}e^{\frac{n}{\rho }D_1^\rho \mathrm{sin}\left(\rho \delta _3\right)}D_1^nd\left|t\right|=O\left(e^{\frac{n}{\rho }\left(1\frac{h}{2}\right)}\right);$$

$$\left|\underset{\left(iv\right)}{}\frac{e^{\frac{n}{\rho }t^\rho }t^{ln}e^{\frac{\rho 1}{2\rho }t^\rho }}{tz}𝑑t\right|B_3\underset{\left(iv\right)}{}e^{\frac{n}{\rho }\left|t\right|^\rho \mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\rho \delta _3}{2}\right)}d\left|t\right|=o\left(1\right);$$

where $`B_1`$, $`B_2`$, $`B_3`$ are constants not depending on $`z`$. The last three inequalities prove the Lemma if $`zG^{}(1,\frac{\pi }{2\rho }+\frac{\delta _3}{2})\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The same proof works for $`zG^+(1,\frac{\pi }{2\rho }+\frac{\delta _3}{2})\mathrm{\Omega }`$ if we change the contour of integration in the integral $`K_n\left(z\right)`$ by $`TS_2(h,\rho )`$. It follows that Lemma 2 holds for $`z\mathrm{\Omega }`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Lemma 3. Let $`|z1|\delta _2`$ and $`l`$ be a fixed real number. Then, for sufficiently small $`h>0`$,

$$\underset{\left(i\right)}{}\frac{e^{\frac{n}{\rho }\left(t^\rho \rho \mathrm{log}t1\right)}e^{\frac{\rho 1}{2\rho }t^\rho }t^l}{tz}𝑑t=\frac{i\sqrt{2\pi }e^{\frac{\rho 1}{2\rho }}\left(1+o\left(1\right)\right)}{\rho \left(1z\right)\left(\frac{n}{\rho }\right)^{1/2}}.$$

Proof. Rewrite

$$\underset{\left(i\right)}{}\frac{e^{\frac{n}{\rho }\left(t^\rho \rho \mathrm{log}t1\right)}e^{\frac{\rho 1}{2\rho }t^\rho }t^l}{tz}𝑑t=_𝒟e^{\frac{n}{\rho }v}f\left(v\right)𝑑v,$$

where $`v=t^\rho +\rho \mathrm{log}t+1`$, $`f\left(v\right)dv={\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{\rho 1}{2\rho }t^\rho }t^l}{tz}}dt`$, or equivalently, $`f\left(v\right)={\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{\rho 1}{2\rho }t^\rho }t^{l+1}}{\rho \left(tz\right)\left(1t^\rho \right)}}`$, and $`𝒟=𝒟_1𝒟_2`$, where $`𝒟_1`$ is the upper side of the segment $`[0;d_1]`$ following the direction of the decrease of $`v`$ and $`𝒟_2`$ is the lower side of the segment $`[0;d_1]`$ following the direction of increase of $`v`$. Here $`d_1={\displaystyle \frac{h}{2}}=d^\rho \mathrm{cos}\left(\rho \gamma \right)+\rho \mathrm{log}d+1`$, where $`d`$ and $`\gamma `$ are the polar coordinates of a point of intersection of $`T\left(\rho \right)`$ and $`S(\rho ,h)`$.

Note that the function $`v=t^\rho +\rho \mathrm{log}t+1`$ maps the region on the right side of $`T(\rho )`$ conformally onto the whole $`v`$–plane cut along the positive ray. In particular, the image of the curve $`(i)`$ is the segment $`[0;d_1]`$ traced twice. The transformation $`w=\sqrt{v}`$ maps $`v`$–plane cut along the positive ray onto the upper half plane. We have $`w^2=t^\rho +\rho \mathrm{log}t+1={\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{2}}(t1)^2\psi (t)`$, where $`\psi (t)`$ is an analytic function in some neighborhood of $`t=1`$ and $`\psi (1)=1`$. Then $`w={\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\sqrt{2}}}i(t1)\psi _1(t)`$, where $`\psi _1(t)`$ is an analytic function in some neighborhood of $`t=1`$ and $`\psi _1(1)=1`$. Since $`w`$ is analytic in a neighborhood of $`t=1`$ and $`w^{}(1)={\displaystyle \frac{\rho i}{\sqrt{2}}}0`$, then its inverse function $`t(w)`$ is analytic in a neighborhood of $`w=0`$, and hence the following function

$$g\left(w\right):=wf\left(w^2\right)=\frac{i\left(t1\right)\psi _1\left(t\right)e^{\frac{\rho 1}{2\rho }t^\rho }t^{l+1}}{\sqrt{2}\left(tz\right)\left(1t^\rho \right)}=\frac{i\psi _1\left(t\right)e^{\frac{\rho 1}{2\rho }t^\rho }t^{l+1}}{\sqrt{2}\rho \left(tz\right)}\left(1+o\left(1\right)\right),\left|t\right|1,$$

is analytic in some neighborhood of $`w=0`$, say $`|w|C`$, where $`C`$ is a constant not depending on $`z`$. Let $`|w|<C/2`$, then

$$g\left(w\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\underset{\left|\zeta \right|=C}{}\frac{g\left(\zeta \right)}{\zeta w}𝑑\zeta =\frac{1}{2\pi i}\underset{\left|\zeta \right|=C}{}\frac{g\left(\zeta \right)}{\zeta }𝑑\zeta +\frac{w}{2\pi i}\underset{\left|\zeta \right|=C}{}\frac{g\left(\zeta \right)}{\zeta \left(\zeta w\right)}𝑑\zeta $$

$$=g\left(0\right)+w\alpha \left(w\right)=\frac{ie^{\frac{\rho 1}{2\rho }}}{\sqrt{2}\rho \left(1z\right)}+w\alpha \left(w\right),$$

where $`\alpha (w)`$ is a function analytic in $`|w|<C/2`$, and

$$\left|\alpha \left(w\right)\right|\frac{2\pi C\underset{\left|\zeta \right|=C}{\mathrm{max}}\left|g\left(\zeta \right)\right|}{2\pi C^2/2}C_3,$$

where $`C_3`$ is a constant not depending on $`z`$ and $`n`$. This implies that $`f(v)=g(0)v^{1/2}+\alpha (v^{1/2})`$ in some neighborhood of $`v=0`$ cut along the positive ray. Let $`h`$ be so small that $`d_1<\frac{C^4}{16}`$. Then

$$\underset{𝒟}{}e^{\frac{n}{\rho }v}f\left(v\right)dv=g\left(0\right)\underset{𝒟}{}e^{\frac{n}{\rho }v}v^{1/2}dv+\frac{1}{2\pi i}\underset{𝒟}{}e^{\frac{n}{\rho }v}\alpha \left(v^{1/2}\right)dv=:g\left(0\right)I_1+\frac{1}{2\pi i}I_2.$$

Note that

$$I_2=\underset{𝒟}{}e^{\frac{n}{\rho }v}\alpha \left(v\right)𝑑v=O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)$$

and

$$I_1=\underset{𝒟}{}e^{\frac{n}{\rho }v}v^{1/2}𝑑v=\frac{1}{\left(n/\rho \right)^{1/2}}\underset{\frac{n}{\rho }𝒟}{}e^uu^{1/2}𝑑u=\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\left(1+o\left(1\right)\right)}{\left(n/\rho \right)^{1/2}}.$$

Thus,

$$\underset{𝒟}{}e^{\frac{n}{\rho }v}f\left(v\right)𝑑v=\frac{i\sqrt{2\pi }e^{\frac{\rho 1}{2\rho }}\left(1+o\left(1\right)\right)}{\rho \left(1z\right)\left(\frac{n}{\rho }\right)^{1/2}}.$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

Lemmas 2 and 3 imply that, as $`n\mathrm{}`$,

$$K_n\left(z\right)=\frac{e^{\frac{n}{\rho }}}{R_n^{n+1}}\frac{i\sqrt{2\pi }e^{\frac{\rho 1}{2\rho }}\left(1+o\left(1\right)\right)}{\rho \left(1z\right)\left(n/\rho \right)^{1/2}},z\mathrm{\Omega },$$

and hence, by (1.7), (3.1) and Stirling’s formula for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(x\right)`$, $`x>0`$,

$$\frac{\rho \left(R_nz\right)^{n+1}}{2\pi i}K_n\left(z\right)=\frac{R_n^nz^n}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{n}{\rho }\right)}\frac{z}{1z}\left(1+o\left(1\right)\right),n\mathrm{},z\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
$`\left(3.2\right)`$
Then Theorem 1 follows from (2.3)-(2.5), (3.1) and (3.2).

4. Proof of Theorem 2

Denote by

$$J_1^{}:=\frac{e^{R_n^\rho z^\rho }\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{n}{\rho }\right)}{R_n^nz^n}\text{and}J_2^{}:=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{n}{\rho }\right)}{R_n^{n+1}z^{n+1}}.$$
$`\left(4.1\right)`$
Lemma 4. Let $`z0`$, then for all sufficiently large $`n`$,

$$\left|J_1^{}\right|C_1\left(\frac{n}{\rho }\right)^{1/2},\text{if}z\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_5,\text{and}\left|J_1^{}\right|=o\left(1\right),\text{if}z\mathrm{\Omega }_2,$$

$$\left|J_2^{}\right|=o\left(1\right),\text{if}z\mathrm{\Omega }_3,\text{and}\left|J_2^{}\right|\left(1+\left(he^{1/\rho }\right)/2\right)^n,\text{if}z\mathrm{\Omega }_4,$$

where $`C_1`$ is some constant not depending on $`n`$ and $`z`$.

Proof. Using Stirling’s formula for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(x\right)`$, $`x>0`$, and (1.7), as $`n\mathrm{}`$, we have

$$\left|J_1^{}\right|=\frac{e^{\frac{n}{\rho }\left(1+\frac{\rho 1}{2\rho }+O\left(1/n^2\right)\right)r^\rho \mathrm{cos}\left(\rho \varphi \right)}\left(\frac{n}{\rho }\right)^{n/\rho +1/2}\sqrt{2\pi }e^{n/\rho }}{\left(\frac{n}{\rho }\right)^{n/\rho }e^{\frac{\rho 1}{2\rho }}r^n}\left(1+o\left(1\right)\right)$$

$$=\sqrt{2\pi }\left(1+o\left(1\right)\right)e^{\frac{\rho 1}{2\rho }\left(\left(1+o\left(1\right)\right)r^\rho \mathrm{cos}\left(\rho \varphi \right)1\right)}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{n}{\rho }\left\{r^\rho \mathrm{cos}\left(\rho \varphi \right)1\rho \mathrm{log}r\right\}\right\}\left(\frac{n}{\rho }\right)^{1/2}$$
$`\left(4.2\right)`$
and

$$\left|J_2^{}\right|=\frac{\left(\frac{n}{\rho }\right)^{n/\rho +1/2}\sqrt{2\pi }e^{n/\rho }}{\left(\frac{n}{\rho }\right)^{n/\rho +1/\rho }e^{\frac{\rho 1}{2\rho }}r^{n+1}}\left(1+o\left(1\right)\right)=\frac{\sqrt{2\pi }e^{1/\rho }}{e^{\frac{\rho 1}{2\rho }}}\left(1+o\left(1\right)\right)\left(\frac{e^{1/\rho }}{r}\right)^{n+1}\left(\frac{n}{\rho }\right)^{1/21/\rho }.$$
$`\left(4.3\right)`$
Equations (4.2) and (4.3) make Lemma 4 obvious. $`\mathrm{}`$

According to Theorem 1 and (4.1), we have

$$\frac{I_n(R_nz;\lambda )\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{n}{\rho }\right)}{R_nz^n}=\lambda \rho \left(1+o\left(1\right)\right)J_1^{}\left(1+o\left(1\right)\right)\frac{z}{1z},z\mathrm{\Omega }_5\left\{\mathrm{\Omega }_2\{z:\left|z\right|1\}\right\};$$

$$\frac{I_n(R_nz;\lambda )\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{n}{\rho }\right)}{R_nz^n}=\left(1\lambda \right)\rho \left(1+o\left(1\right)\right)J_1^{}\left(1+o\left(1\right)\right)\frac{z}{1z},z\mathrm{\Omega }_1\left\{\mathrm{\Omega }_2\{z:\left|z\right|1\}\right\};$$

$$\frac{I_n(R_nz;\lambda )\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{n}{\rho }\right)}{R_n^nz^n}=\frac{\left(\lambda 1\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1\frac{1}{\rho }\right)}J_2^{}\left(1+o\left(1\right)\right)\frac{z}{1z},z\mathrm{\Omega }_3\mathrm{\Omega }_4.$$

The last three expressions and Lemma 4 completes the proof of Theorem 2.

5. Proof of Theorem 3

We can rewrite $`I_n(R_nz;\lambda )`$ as

$$I_n(R_nz;\lambda )=s_n(R_nz,E_{\frac{1}{\rho }})\lambda E_{\frac{1}{\rho }}\left(R_nz\right).$$
$`\left(5.1\right)`$
Theorem 1 of  implies that

$$\frac{s_n(R_n\left(1+\left(\frac{2}{\rho n}\right)^{1/2}\zeta \right);E_{\frac{1}{\rho }})}{\left(1+\left(\frac{2}{\rho n}\right)^{1/2}\zeta \right)^nE_{\frac{1}{\rho }}\left(R_n\right)}\frac{1}{2}e^{\zeta ^2}\text{erfc}\left(\zeta \right),$$
$`\left(5.2\right)`$
as $`n\mathrm{}`$, uniformly on every compact set of $`\zeta `$ – plane.

By (2.2), we have

$$\frac{E_{\frac{1}{\rho }}(R_n\left(1+\left(\frac{2}{\rho n}\right)^{1/2}\zeta \right);E_{\frac{1}{\rho }})}{\left(1+\left(\frac{2}{\rho n}\right)^{1/2}\zeta \right)^nE_{\frac{1}{\rho }}\left(R_n\right)}=\mathrm{exp}\{(\frac{n}{\rho }+\frac{\rho 1}{2\rho })(1+\left(\frac{2}{\rho n}\right)^{1/2}\zeta )^\rho $$

$$n\mathrm{log}(1+\left(\frac{2}{\rho n}\right)^{1/2}\zeta )(\frac{n}{\rho }+\frac{\rho 1}{2\rho })+o\left(1\right)\}=e^{\zeta ^2}+o(1),n\mathrm{}.$$
$`\left(5.3\right)`$
Theorem 3 follows from (5.1) – (5.3).

6. Proof of Theorem 4

I. By Theorem 1, as $`n\mathrm{}`$, we have

$$I_n(R_n\xi \left(1+\frac{\mathrm{log}n}{2\left(1\xi ^\rho \right)n}\frac{\zeta i\tau _n}{\left(1\xi ^\rho \right)n}\right);\lambda )\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{n}{\rho }\right)}{R_n^n\xi ^n\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{log}n}{2\left(1\xi ^\rho \right)n}\frac{\zeta i\tau _n}{\left(1\xi ^\rho \right)n}\right)^n}$$

$$=\frac{\mu \rho e^{R_n^\rho \xi ^\rho \left(1+\frac{\mathrm{log}n}{2\left(1\xi ^\rho \right)n}\frac{\zeta i\tau _n}{\left(1\xi ^\rho \right)n}\right)^\rho }\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{n}{\rho }\right)}{R_n^n\xi ^n\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{log}n}{2\left(1\xi ^\rho \right)n}\frac{\zeta i\tau _n}{\left(1\xi ^\rho \right)n}\right)^n}\frac{\xi }{1\xi }\left(1+o\left(1\right)\right)$$

$$=:\mu \rho A_n\frac{\xi }{1\xi }(1+o\left(1\right)),$$

where $`\mu =1\lambda `$, if $`\left|\xi \right|<1`$, and $`\mu =\lambda `$, if $`\left|\xi \right|>1`$. Then, the first assertion of the Theorem follows from the following equality:

$$A_n=\left(2\pi \rho ^1\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{n}{\rho }\left(\right|\xi |^\rho \mathrm{cos}\rho \varphi 1\rho \mathrm{log}\left|\xi \right|)+i\frac{n}{\rho }\left(\right|\xi |^\rho \mathrm{sin}\left(\rho \varphi \right)\rho \varphi )i\tau _n+\zeta $$

$$+\frac{\rho +1}{2\rho }(\xi ^\rho 1)+O\left(\frac{\mathrm{log}^2n}{n}\right)\}=(2\pi \rho ^1)^{1/2}e^{\frac{\rho +1}{2\rho }\left(\xi ^\rho 1\right)}e^\zeta +o(1),n\mathrm{},$$

which one can easily obtain using Stirling’s formula for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+x\right)`$, $`x>0`$, and (1.7).

II. By Theorem 1, as $`n\mathrm{}`$, we have

$$I_n(R_n\xi \left(1+\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\rho }\right)\frac{\mathrm{log}n}{n}\frac{\zeta i\tau _n^{^{}}}{n+1}\right);\lambda )\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{n}{\rho }\right)}{R_n^n\xi ^n\left(1+\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\rho }\right)\frac{\mathrm{log}n}{n}\frac{\zeta i\tau _n^{^{}}}{n+1}\right)^n}$$

$$=\frac{\left(\lambda 1\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{n}{\rho }\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1\frac{1}{\rho }\right)R_n^{n+1}\xi ^{n+1}\left(1+\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\rho }\right)\frac{\mathrm{log}n}{n}\frac{\zeta i\tau _n^{}}{n+1}\right)^{n+1}}\frac{\xi }{1\xi }\left(1+o\left(1\right)\right)$$

$$=:\frac{\lambda 1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1\frac{1}{\rho }\right)}B_n\frac{\xi }{1\xi }(1+o\left(1\right)).$$

The second assertion of the Theorem follows then from the following equality:

$$B_n=\left(2\pi e^{\frac{1\rho }{\rho }}\right)^{1/2}\rho ^{\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\zeta +i\tau _n^{}i\left(n+1\right)\varphi +O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)\right\}$$

$$=\left(2\pi e^{\frac{1\rho }{\rho }}\right)^{1/2}\rho ^{\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{1}{2}}e^\zeta +o\left(1\right),n\mathrm{},$$

which is easy to check using Stirling’s formula for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+x\right)`$, $`x>0`$, and (1.7). $`\mathrm{}`$

Acknowledgments: The author is grateful to Prof. C.Y. Yıldırım for constant attention to this work and to Prof. I.V. Ostrovskii for useful discussions.

Department of Mathematics,
Bilkent University,
06533 Bilkent, Ankara, Turkey,
E-mail: natalya@fen.bilkent.edu.tr