text:
# GAMMA RAYS FROM ROTATION-POWERED PULSARS

## 1 Introduction

The Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory (CGRO), which ended its spectacularly successful mission in June 2000, provided a wealth of new data on isolated, rotation powered pulsars. While that data went a long way in constraining emission models, it was not enough to define the location or mechanisms of the high energy pulsed emission and ultimately, of the particle acceleration. Meanwhile, as we have been waiting for the launch of the next $`\gamma `$-ray telescopes, Integral, AGILE and GLAST, there have been a large number of new pulsars detected at radio and X-ray wavelengths by the Parkes Multibeam survey $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and by the Chandra X-ray Observatory. Many of these are young and energetic pulsars, prime $`\gamma `$-ray pulsar candidates and many of them lie in or near the error boxes of unidentified $`\gamma `$-ray sources $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Observations of these sources at $`\gamma `$-ray wavelengths promise a harvest of new data for the study of high-energy emission from isolated pulsars.

## 2 Summary of Observations

During its nine-year mission, observations by CGRO increased the number of known $`\gamma `$-ray pulsars from two to seven. In addition, EGRET made four “candidate” detections with somewhat lower significance, including the millisecond pulsar PSR J0218+4232 $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Table 1 lists the known $`\gamma `$-ray pulsars together with the rotation-powered X-ray pulsars. There are three main groups of sources in Table 1: pulsars detected only in X rays, those detected in X rays and radio and those detected in $`\gamma `$ rays, X rays and radio. One interesting and important question is the number of high-energy pulsars that are radio quiet. Since it is generally believed that radio emission originates near the polar caps of the neutron star, lack of detection in the radio (if due to unfavorable beaming) would strongly constrain the location and geometry of the high-energy emission. All of the known $`\gamma `$-ray pulsars are radio-loud with the possible exception of Geminga, which has unconfirmed reports of weak radio emission $`^\mathrm{?}`$. But they are also radio selected, since EGRET was not capable of independent period searches. The ten radio-loud X-ray pulsars which were not detected as $`\gamma `$-ray pulsars fall into several categories. The first five are millisecond pulsars (only one $`\gamma `$-ray pulsar is a ms pulsar), the last three are young pulsars in supernova remnants, too recently discovered to have provided concurrent ephemerides for CGRO detections, PSR B1929+10 is a $`10^7`$ yr old pulsar with only thermal X-ray emission and PSR B0540-69 is a young pulsar in the LMC. Finally, the seven pulsars detected only in X rays are a collection of all categories and may be truly radio quiet. However, it has recently become apparent that lack of detection by even the most sensitive radio surveys is not proof that the pulsar is radio quiet. J11245916 $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ and J0205+6449 $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ were recently discovered to be very weak radio pulsars only after long, pointed observations. The unexpected finding that these young pulsars have extremely low radio luminosities is raising new questions about the radio luminosity function and its implications for the neutron star birthrate.

Figure 1 plots the known radio and $`\gamma `$-ray pulsars as a function of their period, $`P`$, and period derivative, $`\dot{P}`$. The $`\gamma `$-ray pulsars reside in the upper-left corner of the radio pulsar population, and with the exception of the millisecond pulsar J0218+4232, all have ages less than $`10^6`$ yr. Also shown are the sixteen radio pulsars associated with EGRET unidentified sources. It is remarkable that with one exception, all have ages less than $`10^5`$ yr, suggesting that some real associations of the $`\gamma `$-ray emission with emission from the pulsars or their nebulae is likely.

A pattern which emerged from the $`\gamma `$-ray pulsar light curves measured by CGRO was that, with the one exception of PSR1509-58, all have double-peaked pulses with interpeak emission. This strongly suggests that we are observing emission associated with just one of the magnetic poles and that the emission pattern is a hollow cone or wide fan beam. Most of the pulsars detected only at X-ray energies, by contrast, have broad single-peaked pulses. In most cases, the radio pulses lead the $`\gamma `$-ray pulses in phase rather than being coincident. Another strong pattern identified in the CGRO pulsars was a correlation between high-energy luminosity and the quantity $`P^{3/2}\dot{P}^{1/2}`$, where $`P`$ and $`\dot{P}`$ are the pulsar rotation period and period derivative, respectively. For a pure dipole field, this quantity is proportional to the polar cap current, the voltage across open field lines and $`\dot{E}_{\mathrm{rot}}^{1/2}`$, where $`\dot{E}_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ is the spin-down luminosity. Thus the $`\gamma `$-ray luminosity seems to be closely tied to the primary particle acceleration of the pulsar.

The broad-band spectra from radio to TeV energies of the seven confirmed CGRO $`\gamma `$-ray pulsars $`^\mathrm{?}`$ show that the emission power in these sources peaks in the hard X-ray or $`\gamma `$-ray part of the spectrum. The spectra of all the CGRO pulsars have clear high-energy turnovers since none have detected pulsed emission above 20 GeV. Three pulsars, Vela, Crab and Geminga, have spectral turnovers in the EGRET range, around 5 GeV and one, PSR1509-58, has a sharp turnover in the COMPTEL range around 10 MeV. Below the turnovers, there is a trend of increasing spectral hardness with dipole spin-down age, $`\tau =P/2\dot{P}`$. In the middle-aged and older pulsars, a thermal component in the soft X-ray band is visible above the falling power-law continuum. This component is probably present also in young pulsars but hidden beneath the strong power-law.

## 3 Emission Models and Predictions

Particle acceleration inside the pulsar magnetosphere gives rise to pulsed non-thermal radiation. Rotating, magnetized neutron stars are natural unipolar inductors, generating huge $`\mathrm{𝐯𝐱𝐁}`$ electric fields. However, these fields are capable of pulling charges out of the star against the force of gravity and it is believed that the resulting charge density that builds up in a neutron star magnetosphere is able to short out the electric field parallel to the magnetic field ($`E_{}`$)(thus allowing the field to corotate with the star) everywhere except at a few locations. Two possible sites where $`𝐄𝐁0`$, and strong $`E_{}`$ may develop to accelerate particles, have given rise to two classes of high energy emission models: polar cap models, where the acceleration and radiation occur at the magnetic poles close to the neutron star surface, and outer gap models, where these processes occur in the outer magnetosphere.

### 3.1 Polar cap

Polar cap models $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ advocate that particle acceleration occurs near the neutron star surface and that $`\gamma `$-rays result from a curvature radiation or inverse Compton induced pair cascade in a strong magnetic field. There is some variation among polar cap models, with the primary division being whether or not there is free emission of particles from the neutron star surface. The subclass of polar cap models based on free emission of particles of either sign, called space-charge limited flow models, assumes that the surface temperature of the neutron star (many of which have now been measured in the range $`T10^510^6`$ K) exceeds the ion and electron thermal emission temperatures. Although $`E_{}=0`$ at the neutron star surface in these models, the space charge along open field lines above the surface falls short of the corotation charge, due to the curvature of the field $`^\mathrm{?}`$ or to general relativistic inertial frame dragging $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The $`E_{}`$ generated by the charge deficit accelerates particles, which radiate inverse Compton (IC) photons (at particle Lorentz factors $`\gamma 10^210^6`$) and curvature (CR) photons (at Lorentz factors $`\gamma \stackrel{>}{}10^6`$). Recent studies $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ have found that virtually all pulsars can produce IC radiation, by scattering thermal X rays from the NS surface, at high enough energies to produce pairs. The IC emission is mostly resonant scattering in high-field pulsars and non-resonant scattering in older and weaker field pulsars. Because lower Lorentz factors are required to produce pairs through IC emission, an IC pair formation front (PFF) will form first, close to the surface. However, it is found $`^\mathrm{?}`$ that the IC pair formation fronts do not produce sufficient pairs to screen the $`E_{}`$ completely, thus allowing acceleration to the Lorentz factors $`10^7`$ sufficient to produce a CR PFF, where there are sufficient pairs to completely screen the $`E_{}`$. The CR pair front will therefore limit the particle acceleration voltage and determine the high-energy emission luminosity.

It has been realized for some time that only younger pulsars are capable of producing pairs (and pair cascades) through CR emission in dipole magnetic fields $`^\mathrm{?}`$. These pulsars with

$$\dot{E}_{\mathrm{rot}}>\dot{E}_{\mathrm{rot},\mathrm{break}}=5\times 10^{33}P^{1/2}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1.$$
(1)
will have screened $`E_{}`$, so that the acceleration voltage $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is nearly independent $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ of the period and surface magnetic field, $`B_0`$. Pulsars having spin-down luminosity $`\dot{E}_{\mathrm{rot}}<\dot{E}_{\mathrm{rot},\mathrm{break}}`$ will not produce CR pairs to screen $`E_{}`$, so that the acceleration voltage will be limited only by the saturation due to the geometry of the polar cap and this $`does`$ depend on $`P`$ and $`B_0`$. The bolometric luminosity is $`L_{\mathrm{CR}}ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }\dot{n}_{prim}ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }n_{GJ}\pi R_{PC}^2c`$, where $`\dot{n}_{prim}\dot{E}_{\mathrm{rot}}^{1/2}`$ is the primary PC current, $`n_{GJ}`$ is the Goldreich-Julian density, $`R_{PC}`$ is the polar cap radius, and $`ϵ`$ is a radiation effiency. We thus have the luminosity prediction

$$L_{\mathrm{CR}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}ϵ\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{16}(\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s})^{1/2}\dot{E}_{\mathrm{rot}}^{1/2}P^{1/14}B_{12}^{1/7}\hfill & \hfill \dot{E}_{\mathrm{rot}}>\dot{E}_{\mathrm{rot},\mathrm{break}}\\ ϵ\frac{3}{4}\kappa (1\kappa )\dot{E}_{\mathrm{rot}}\hfill & \hfill \dot{E}_{\mathrm{rot}}<\dot{E}_{\mathrm{rot},\mathrm{break}}\end{array}$$
(2)
for PC space-charge limited flow acceleration $`^\mathrm{?}`$, where $`\kappa =r_gI/MR^30.14`$, and $`r_g`$ is the gravitational radius of a NS of mass $`M`$, and $`I`$ and $`R`$ are the stellar moment of inertia and radius, respectively. The above expression is valid for surface fields $`B_0\stackrel{<}{}5\times 10^{12}`$ G. Figure 2 shows the predicted luminosity from Eqn (2), assuming $`ϵ=0.5`$, and the luminosities of the observed $`\gamma `$-ray pulsars. The break from $`L_{\mathrm{CR}}\dot{E}_{rot}`$ to $`L_{\mathrm{CR}}\dot{E}_{rot}^{1/2}`$ is predicted to occur for luminosities just below that of the detected $`\gamma `$-ray pulsars.

Polar cap models predict that the $`\gamma `$-ray spectra cut off very sharply (as a “super-exponential”) due to one-photon pair production attenuation, at the pair escape energy $`^\mathrm{?}`$, i.e. the highest energy at which photons emitted at a given location can escape the magnetosphere without pair producing. A rough estimate of this cutoff energy, assuming emission along the polar cap outer rim, $`\theta _{_{\mathrm{PC}}}(2\pi r/cP)^{1/2}`$, at radius $`r`$, is

$$E_c2\mathrm{GeV}P^{1/2}\left(\frac{r}{R}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{max}\{0.1,B_{0,12}^1\left(\frac{r}{R}\right)^3\}$$
(3)
where $`B_{0,12}`$ is the surface magnetic field in units of $`10^{12}`$ G. At all but the highest fields there is a prediction that the spectral cutoff energy should be inversely proportional to surface field strength, or $`B_0=6.4\times 10^7P\dot{P}^{1/2}`$ G for a dipole field. In fields above $`2\times 10^{13}`$ G, photon splitting, in which a single photon splits into two lower energy photons, becomes the dominant attenuation process and lowers the photon escape energy $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. The observed cutoff energies of eight $`\gamma `$-ray pulsars seem to increase with decreasing surface field $`^\mathrm{?}`$, although a larger number of measurements are needed to confirm this trend.

According to Eqn (2), millisecond pulsars should have detectable high-energy emission. However only one, PSR J0218+4232, has been detected in $`\gamma `$ rays by EGRET $`^\mathrm{?}`$. But the polar cap particle acceleration in millisecond pulsars will be limited by curvature radiation reaction $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ so that the CR emission spectrum will be quite hard (photon index $`2/3`$). Because ms pulsars have surface fields of only $`B_010^810^{10}`$ G, the spectral cutoff will not be caused by magnetic pair production at an energy of a few GeV, but will occur at the cutoff of the CR spectrum, causing the $`\nu F_\nu `$ spectrum to peak at 50-100 GeV energies $`^\mathrm{?}`$. There may be a second spectral component at X-ray energies from IC pair cascades. This may explain why many millisecond pulsars detected at X-ray energies are not detectable by EGRET, but may be visible to air Cherenkov telescopes having thresholds below 100 GeV.

### 3.2 Outer gap

Outer-gap models $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ assume that acceleration occurs in vacuum gaps along null charge surfaces in the outer magnetosphere and that $`\gamma `$ rays result from photon-photon pair production-induced cascades. The gaps arise because charges escaping through the light cylinder along open field lines above the null charge surface cannot be replenished from below. Pairs from the polar cap cascades, which flow out along all the open field lines, will undoubtedly pollute the outer gaps to some extent (and vice versa), but this effect has yet to be investigated. The electron-positron pairs needed to provide the current in the outer gaps are produced by photon-photon pair production. In young Crab-like pulsars, the pairs are produced by CR photons from the primary particles interacting with non-thermal synchrotron X-rays from the same pairs. In older Vela-like pulsars, where non-thermal X-ray emission is much lower, the pairs are assumed to come from interaction of primary particles with thermal X-rays from the neutron star surface. Some of the accelerated pairs flow downward to heat the surface and maintain the required thermal X-ray emission. The modern outer gap Vela-type models $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ all adopt this picture. Although there seems to be agreement on the radiation processes involved in the outer gap, the full geometry of the gap is still not solved. Two approaches to such a solution are currently underway, but neither is near to defining the complete three-dimensional gap geometry. One group $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ solves the 1D Poisson equation perpendicular to the magnetic field lines, resulting in a gap geometry for young pulsars that is a long, thin sheet bounded by the last open field line. The other group $`^\mathrm{?}`$ obtains solutions to the 1D Poisson equation along the magnetic field (assuming a gap width across field lines) and finds that the gap is limited parallel to the field by pair creation. The actually gap geometry is probably somewhere in between (see Figure 3). The long narrow outer gap geometry of Yadigaroglu & Romani $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and Cheng et al. $`^\mathrm{?}`$, which has been so successful in reproducing the observed double-peaked pulse profiles needs to be re-examined to also explore gap closure along the field.

When the high-energy photons are emitted in the outer magnetosphere, where the local magnetic field is orders of magnitude lower than the surface field, one-photon pair production plays no role in either the pair cascade or the spectral attenuation. In this case the high-energy cutoffs in the photon spectrum come from the upper limit of the accelerated particle spectrum, due to radiation reaction. The shape of the cutoff is thus a simple exponential, more gradual than in polar cap model spectra. Due to the large errors of the EGRET data points above 1 GeV, the measurements at present do not definitely discriminate between model spectra. GLAST should have the energy resolution and dynamic range to measure the shape of the cutoffs seen by EGRET and should be able to rule out either the simple exponential or super-exponential shape. In addition, GLAST will detect enough $`\gamma `$-ray pulsars with different field strengths to look for a correlation between surface field strength and cutoff energy.

Outer gap models predict an emission component at TeV energies due to inverse Compton scattering by gap-accelerated particles. TeV photons should escape from the outer gaps of pulsars with even strong surface fields and this component is thus expected to be observable in many pulsars. The original predictions of Cheng et al. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ were not verified by observations of ground-based detectors $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$, requiring a revision of the Vela-like model $`^\mathrm{?}`$. However, even later models which predicted lower TeV fluxes $`^\mathrm{?}`$ are above CANGAROO upper limits on pulsed emission from Vela $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The most recent outer gap models $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$, have predicted TeV inverse-Compton fluxes which are below the present observational upper limits, but which should be detectable with the next generation of TeV detectors. Unfortunately, while a TeV emission component is an essential prediction of all outer gap models, the inverse Compton flux level depends on the pulsed emission spectrum in the infra-red (IR) band which is notoriously difficult to measure in most pulsars.

Unlike in polar cap models, pair production in outer gap models is essential to the production of the high energy emission: it allows the current to flow and particle acccleration to take place in the gap. Beyond a death line in period-magnetic field space, and well before the traditional radio-pulsar death line, pairs cannot close the outer gap and the pulsar cannot emit high energy radiation. This outer gap death line for $`\gamma `$-ray pulsars $`^\mathrm{?}`$ falls around $`P=0.3`$ s for $`B10^{12}`$ G. Geminga is very close to the outer gap death line and recent self-consistent models $`^\mathrm{?}`$ have difficulty accounting for GeV $`\gamma `$-rays from pulsars of this age. Polar cap models, on the other hand, predict that all pulsars are capable of $`\gamma `$-ray emission at some level, so that detection as a radio-loud $`\gamma `$-ray pulsar is thus a matter of sensitivity. Detection of pulsars with periods much exceeding that of Geminga would thus be strong evidence in favor of polar cap models.

## 4 Geometry, Population Statistics and Radio-Quiet Pulsars

In polar cap models, the $`\gamma `$-ray and radio emission are physically connected, since the electron-positron pairs from the PC cascades are thought to be a necessary ingredient for coherent radio radiation. However, the relative geometry of the two emission regions is not very constrained from observation. A possible scheme for the geometry of the radio and high-energy emission beams is shown in Figure 3. Models for radio emission morphology $`^\mathrm{?}`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$ include core and conal components, emitted within a radius of about ten stellar radii from the surface. If the PC $`\gamma `$-ray cone emission occurs at a lower altitude than the radio emission, as would be expected, then the leading edge of the radio cone would lead the first $`\gamma `$-ray peak. The trailing edge of the radio conal emission would then have to be undetected in the CGRO pulsars. This type of radio geometry for young pulsars was suggested by Manchester $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and there is indeed a class of pulsars with one-sided radio conal emission $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Another requirement on the geometry of polar cap $`\gamma `$-ray emission is that the inclination angle be comparable to or smaller than the size of the $`\gamma `$-ray emission beam. Since the high-energy emission beam is comparable to the angle of the open field lines, $`\theta _{PC}(\mathrm{\Omega }r/c)^{1/2}`$, this requirement is very restrictive unless the emission radius, $`r`$, is at least several stellar radii $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

High energy emission in the outer gap is generally radiated in a different direction from the radio emission, which allows these models to account for the observed phase offsets of the radio and $`\gamma `$-ray pulses. At the same time, there will be fewer radio-$`\gamma `$-ray coincidences and thus a larger number of radio-quiet $`\gamma `$-ray pulsars. In Romani & Yadigaroglu’s $`^\mathrm{?}`$ geometrical outer gap model, the observed radio emission originates from the magnetic pole opposite to the one connected to the visible outer gap. Many observer lines-of-sight miss the radio beam but intersect the outer-gap $`\gamma `$-ray beam, having a much larger solid angle. When the line-of-sight does intersect both, the radio pulse leads the $`\gamma `$-ray pulse, as is observed in most $`\gamma `$-ray pulsars.

The emission geometry greatly influences the predicted numbers of radio-loud and radio-quiet $`\gamma `$-ray pulsars. Polar cap $`\gamma `$-ray emission is expected to have a much higher observational correlation than outer-gap emission with the radio emission. Simulations of the radio and $`\gamma `$-ray pulsar populations in both models confirm this. Although there are significant variations in the numbers of predicted $`\gamma `$-ray pulsars due to different model assumptions in the various studies, outer gap models clearly predict a much larger ratio of radio-quiet to radio-loud $`\gamma `$-ray pulsars. Polar cap model simulations $`^\mathrm{?}`$ find that EGRET should have detected many fewer radio-quiet than radio-loud pulsars, while outer gap model simulations $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ claim that many of the 40-60 EGRET unidentified sources at low latitudes are radio-quiet pulsars. However, pulsars are “radio-quiet” in PC models primarily because their flux is below the sensitive limit of present radio surveys but in outer gap models primarily because the radio emission is beamed away from us. The polar cap model simulations $`^\mathrm{?}`$ predict that GLAST should detect slightly more radio-quiet than radio-loud pulsars as point sources. Although GLAST will have the capability to detect pulsed $`\gamma `$-ray emission, the required sensitivity is much higher, about equal to the EGRET point source sensitivity. Thus, only about 10% of the radio-quiet sources will have detected $`\gamma `$-ray pulsations. The outer gap simulations $`^\mathrm{?}`$ predict that GLAST may detect 13 times as many radio-quiet as radio-loud pulsars as point sources, with the detected number of radio-quiet pulsars equaling the present radio pulsar population! This would have profound consequences for neutron star evolution and supernova rates in the galaxy.

Another possible population of radio-quiet $`\gamma `$-ray pulsars has been suggested $`^\mathrm{?}`$. According to the polar cap model $`^\mathrm{?}`$, $`\gamma `$-ray emission occurs throughout the entire pulse phase. Primary electrons that initiate pair cascades at low altitude continue to radiate curvature emission on open field lines to high altitudes beyond the cascade region, producing a lower level of softer off-beam emission. Due to the flaring of the dipole field lines, this emission may be seen over a large solid angle, far exceeding that of the main $`\gamma `$-ray and radio beams. It is therefore quite probable to see the off-beam $`\gamma `$-ray emission and miss the radio beam. But since it is much less luminous than the on-beam emission, off-beam emission will be detectable only in nearby sources. EGRET detected a population of unidentified $`\gamma `$-ray sources correlated with the Gould Belt $`^\mathrm{?}`$, a young star cluster only $`100300`$ pc away, and recent simulations of pulsars in the Gould Belt $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ suggest that such off-beam $`\gamma `$-ray emission might plausibly account for a significant fraction of these sources.

## 5 Prospects for the Future

Our window on the $`\gamma `$-ray universe from space will open again soon with the launch of Integral $`^\mathrm{?}`$ in October 2002, AGILE $`^\mathrm{?}`$ in 2003 and ultimately GLAST $`^\mathrm{?}`$ in 2006. Searches for pulsed $`\gamma `$ rays in EGRET unidentified source error boxes with simultaneous timing of the new radio pulsars associated with these sources may finally provide some counterparts. Searching for $`\gamma `$-ray emission from the recently discovered X-ray pulsars inside young supernova remnants may also be fruitful. Although it is only slightly more sensitive than EGRET, AGILE may significantly add to the $`\gamma `$-ray pulsar population due to the tripling of the radio pulsar population since the death of CGRO. With its better sensitivity at energies above 1 GeV, AGILE will be able to improve measurements of the spectral cutoffs detected by EGRET and discriminate between emission models. GLAST will detect at least an order of magnitude more radio-loud pulsars and many more radio-quiet pulsars. It will, for the first time, be capable of doing blind period searches in about 10% of the source population in the plane and all of the source population detected by EGRET in the Gould Belt. Meanwhile, more sensitive ground-based air Cherenkov telescope $`^\mathrm{?}`$ may be able to detect the pulsed inverse-Compton emission around 1 TeV predicted by outer gap models or the pulsed curvature radiation around 50-100 GeV from millisecond pulsars predicted by polar cap models. Upper limits at this energy are also very important in constraining emission models. In summary, the next five years promise to be exciting ones for $`\gamma `$-ray astronomy.

## References


format: text

text:
# Electron-phonon interaction in transition metal diborides 𝑇B2 (𝑇=Zr, Nb, Ta) studied by point-contact spectroscopy

## Abstract

The electron-phonon interaction (EPI) in transition metal diborides $`T`$B2 ($`T`$=Zr, Nb, Ta) is investigated by point-contact (PC) spectroscopy. The PC EPI functions were recovered and the EPI parameters $`\lambda 0.1`$ were estimated for all three compounds. Common and distinctive features between the EPI functions for those diborides are discussed also in connection with the superconductivity in MgB2.

Introduction. The recent discovery of superconductivity in MgB2 at 39 K by Akimitsu (see Nagamatsu et al. Nagam ) renewed the interest in electron transport measurements and activated a search for superconductivity in other diborides. According to a recent review Buzea  no superconducting transition has been observed so far in diborides of transition metals $`T`$B2 ($`T`$ = Ti, Zr, Hf, V, Cr, Mo). Only NbB2 is expected to superconduct with a rather low transition temperature $`T_c<`$ 1 K and contradictory reports about superconductivity up to $`T_c`$ = 9.5 K in TaB2 can be found in the literature (see, e. g., Refs. 2, 3 and further Refs. therein). Finally, the reported $`T_c`$ = 7 K in ZrB2 Gaspa  encourages further studies of these three diborides.

The goal of this paper is to determine the electron-phonon interaction (EPI) function for selected diborides by means of point-contact (PC) spectroscopy in order to address the above mentioned issues about superconductivity in these compounds. The measurement of the nonlinear conductivity of PC‘s between two metals allows us, in a direct way Yanson , to recover the PC EPI function $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$. The knowledge of $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$ for conducting systems provides a consistent check for the possibility of a phonon-mediated pairing mechanism, e.g., by an estimation of the electron-phonon-coupling strength characterized by the EPI parameter $`\lambda =2\alpha ^2F(\omega )\omega ^1𝑑\omega `$. From a comparison of the experimentally determined $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$ with theoretical calculations, different models and approaches can be discriminated. Thus the PC spectroscopy could be helpful to understand details of the EPI in the diborides under consideration, and to evaluate contradictory reports about possible superconductivity within this family.

Experimental details. We have used single crystals of $`T`$B2 ($`T`$=Zr, Nb, Ta) grown by the rf-heated floating-zone methodOtani . Samples were prepared using a diamond wire saw. The residual resistivity $`\rho _0`$ and the RRR of $`T`$B2 are shown in Table I.

The experimental cell with the sample holders, which allows mechanical movements of electrodes by differential screw mechanism, was placed directly in liquid 4He to ensure good thermal coupling. The PC‘s were established in situ at low temperatures by a touching of the cleaved surface of $`T`$B2 by the edge of another single crystals. We did not control the mutual orientation of electrodes; therefore, the contact axis was not determined with respect to the definite crystallographic direction. However, we did not observe an appreciable variation of the maxima position (see additional remarks for NbB2 at the end of discussion below) and their relative intensity in the spectra for different contacts. Therefore, we believe the anisotropy is not crucial. Both the differential resistance d$`V/`$d$`I`$ and the second derivative of the $`IV`$ characteristic d$`{}_{}{}^{2}V`$/d$`I^2(V)`$ vs $`V`$ were registered using a standard lock-in technique. The zero-bias resistance $`R_0`$ of investigated contacts ranged from a few ohms up to several tens of ohms at 4.2 K.

Results and discussion. The voltage $`V`$ applied to the ballistic contact defines the excess energy e$`V`$ of electrons; therefore, for some of them backscattering processes caused by the creation of phonons can take place. This results in a decrease of the net current through the contact and leads to a nonlinear $`IV`$ characteristic. According to the theory of Kulik, Omelyanchouk and ShekhterKOS  in this case the second derivative \- d$`{}_{}{}^{2}I`$/d$`V^2(V)`$ of the $`IV`$ curve at low temperatures is proportional to $`\alpha _{\mathrm{PC}}^2F(\omega )`$. In the free electron approximationKulik

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^2I}{\mathrm{d}V^2}R^1\frac{\mathrm{d}R}{\mathrm{d}V}=\frac{8\mathrm{e}d}{3\mathrm{}v_\mathrm{F}}\alpha _{\mathrm{PC}}^2(ϵ)F(ϵ)|_{ϵ=\mathrm{e}V},$$
(1)
where $`R=\mathrm{d}V/\mathrm{d}I`$, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{PC}}`$, roughly speaking, measures the interaction of an electron with one or another phonon branch. The kinematic restriction of electron scattering processes in a PC is taken into account by the factor $`K=1/2(1\theta /\mathrm{tan}\theta )`$, where $`\theta `$ is the angle between initial and final momenta of scattered electrons \[for transport and Eliashberg EPI functions the corresponding factors are: $`K=(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ and $`K`$=1, respectively\]. Therefore in PC spectra the large angle $`\theta \pi `$ scattering (back-scattering) processes of electrons dominate.

From Eq.(1) EPI function $`\alpha _{\mathrm{PC}}^2(ϵ)F(ϵ)`$ can be expressed via the measured rms signal of the first $`V_1`$ and second $`V_2`$ harmonics of a small alternating voltage superimposed on the ramped dc voltage $`V`$:

$$\alpha _{PC}^2(ϵ)F(ϵ)=\frac{3\sqrt{2}}{4}\frac{\mathrm{}v_\mathrm{F}}{\mathrm{e}d}\frac{V_2}{V_1^2}.$$
(2)
The PC diameter $`d`$, appearing in Eqs.(1) and (2), determines the constriction resistance which consists of a sum of the ballistic Sharvin and the diffusive Maxwell terms according to the simple formula

$$R_{\mathrm{PC}}(T)\frac{16\rho l}{3\pi d^2}+\frac{\rho (T)}{d}$$
(3)
derived by WexlerWexler , which is commonly used to estimate the PC diameter $`d`$. Here $`\rho l=p_\mathrm{F}/n`$e2, where $`p_\mathrm{F}`$ is the Fermi momentum, $`n`$ is the density of charge carriers.

Representative examples of measured d$`{}_{}{}^{2}V`$/d$`I^2(V)`$ dependencies are shown in Fig. 1. Among tens of curves, which show reproducible phonon structure for each compound, we selected d$`{}_{}{}^{2}V`$/d$`I^2(V)`$ characteristics with the most pronounced and intensive maxima. A common feature for all crystals is the presence of the main low energy maximum placed at about 30, 28 and 20 mV for ZrB2, NbB2 and TaB2, respectively. This is in line with the common consideration that at fixed spring constants the phonon frequency decreases with increasing atomic mass (see Fig. 2). Such a behavior suggests that the first peak corresponds to the vibration of transition metal. Curiously, on the one hand, the aforementioned peaks appear just above the maximal phonon energy on PC spectra of the corresponding clean metals: Zr Zr , Nb and Ta from Ref.10 (see Table II). On the other hand, the neutron data peak position for MgB2 on Fig. 2, at about 36 meV Osborn , is far below the straight line connecting the $`T`$B2 compounds. This might be considered a consequence of a softening of the corresponding spring constants, i. e. metallic bonds in MgB2 instead of relatively strong $`T`$$`d`$B$`2p`$ covalent bonds in the $`T`$B2 series. Notice that the recent dataBobrov  recovered maxima in the PC spectra of MgB2 even at lower energy of about 30 and 20 meV. This cannot be occasional. It points either to peculiarities in the lattice dynamics of MgB2 since such peaks are missing in standard first-principle phonon calculations Kong ; Heid  or to the presence of other, nonphononic, low-frequency bosonic excitations Shulga . It is noteworthy that the presence of such anomalous low-energy modes has also been noticed by other experimental techniques: Raman scatteringvarelogiannis  and tunneling measurementsDyachenko . Their relationship to its high critical temperature remains unclear at present.

Because of the large mass difference between the transition metal and the boron atoms the boron derived modes are expected to occurat much higher energy. Indeed, for ZrB2 two additional maxima at 70 and 100 mV twophin  are well resolved, while for NbB2 the high energy part of the spectrum presents a broad maximum around 60 mV. For TaB2 the high energy phonon peaks were difficult to resolve, although according to a rough estimationRosner  the boron in-plane and out-of-plane displacement modes should have energies of 98 and 85 meV, respectively. No spectral features were found for the above-mentioned compounds above 100 meV. This is in line with the measured surface phononsAizava  for ZrB2 and NbB2. There all phonon frequencies are below 100 meV. Moreover, for both compounds a phonon dispersion studyAizava  demonstrated a gap between 30 and 50 meV which separates acoustic and optic branches. In this energy region a minimum in our PC spectra occurs. Comparing the high energy parts of the ZrB2 and the NbB2 PC spectra, we may support the statementAizava  that, for NbB2 the boron surface phonon modes are softer and more complex than in the case of ZrB2. Possibly for this reason in the PC spectra of NbB2 all boron derived modes form broad structureless maxima around 60-70 meV (see Fig. 3).

To recover the spectral EPI function according to Eq.(2), at first d$`{}_{}{}^{2}V`$/d$`I^2(V)`$ has been transformed into \- d$`{}_{}{}^{2}I`$/d$`V^2(V)`$, and thereafter the background (see Fig. 1, insets) was subtracted. There are a few models, both theoretical and empirical, for the background behaviour. Using our experience with PC spectra of different metals and compounds we have drawn the background simply by eye with a dependence like $`\mathrm{exp}(1/x^2)`$, as shown in Fig. 1, insets. During this procedure we paid attention to the following: (i) zero-bias anomalies were disregarded; (ii) the background curve is made to touch the measured one at the minimum above the first peak, where a gap between acoustic and optical phonons is expected; and (iii) above 100 mV or below in the case of lacking visible maxima the background coincides with the data. Fig. 3 presents the recovered PC EPI function for the investigated diborides calculated by Eq. (2) with a Fermi velocity $`v_\mathrm{F}=1\times 10^6`$m/s. To obtain the PC diameter $`d`$ we used the Sharvin part of the PC resistance from Eq.(3) and the calculated value $`\rho l=p_\mathrm{F}/n`$e$`{}_{}{}^{2}=(3\pi ^2)^{1/3}\mathrm{}`$e$`{}_{}{}^{2}n_{}^{2/3}`$ with $`n`$ from Table I. By virtue of the fact that $`d(\rho l)^{1/2}n^{1/3}`$ the simplicity of the evaluation of $`n`$ (see Table I footnote) is not crucial for the calculation of $`d`$ and afterward for estimation of the EPI parameter $`\lambda `$.

It is also seen from Fig. 3 that the upper boundaries of the ZrB2 and NbB2 spectra are at about 110 meV and 90 meV (see Fig. 3), which is much larger than their Debye temperatures of 280 K and 460 K, respectively, estimated from the Bloch-Grüneisen temperature dependence of the resistivityGaspa .

With the EPI function we have calculated the EPI parameter $`\lambda =2\alpha ^2F(\omega )\omega ^1𝑑\omega `$. We should emphasize that, in general, due to presence of the $`K`$-factor, $`\lambda _{\mathrm{PC}}\lambda _{Eliashberg}`$; however, for many superconductors it was foundKhot  that $`\lambda _{\mathrm{PC}}\lambda _{Eliashberg}`$. As we can see from Table II, $`\lambda _{\mathrm{PC}}`$ is rather low for the diborides lambda . We remark that a small $`\lambda _{\mathrm{PC}}`$0.02 were also reported for PC studies of the transition metal silicides NbSi2 and TaSi2 Balkas . The reason for this can be the deviation from the ballistic electron flow and the establishment of a regime with $`l_id`$ in PC (here $`l_i`$ is the elastic mean free path of electrons), which adds a prefactorKulYan  of the order of $`l_i/d`$ in Eq. (1). The large background level and the absence of the high energy peaks, e. g., for the PC spectra of TaB2, may have the same origin: the lack of a ballistic regime in our PC‘s. Also note also, that the TaB2 samples are of relative low quality (their RRR‘s amounts to only 1.2) (see Table I); that is, a small $`l_i`$-value is already expected in the bulk. Therefore, for TaB2 we assume that $`\lambda `$ is underestimated. However, in the case of ZrB2, where the PC spectra present distinct peaks up to the maximal energy, and even at the first peak such details as a bump at 20 mV and a shoulder at 35 mV are seen, we believe that our parameter $`\lambda _{\mathrm{PC}}`$ corresponds here to a real state of the arts. Our results also show that NbB2 has the largest $`\lambda _{\mathrm{PC}}`$ among the studied compounds. Thus the search for superconductivity in NbB2 is more interesting. We should note that, among the studied diborides, for NbB2 we observed the largest variation in the position of the first peak. For some PC spectra the peak shifted down to 22-23 mV. In this case any high energy maxima, e. g., at 60 mV, was difficult to resolve. Most likely this is due to disturbed metal structure in the PC area caused by low temperature deformation at the contact formation. In any case the effect of anisotropy has to be studied. Of course, to draw a more weighty conclusion about details of the EPI and the $`\lambda `$ value in the presented $`T`$B2 family, a theoretical calculation of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{PC}}^2F(\omega )`$ with the mentioned $`K`$-factor, and a comparison with experimental data is any desirable.

Finally, we should stress that by investigation of MgB2 thin filmsBobrov  the EPI inelastic contribution to the PC spectrum was estimated only in a few percent of the total PC resistance, which is nearly an order of magnitude lower than for the $`T`$B2 under consideration. Why the EPI features on PC spectra of MgB2 are shallow and hardly reproducible is still unclear at the moment. Possibly this is due to a weak EPI for a 3D-band of the Fermi surface sheet, which determines the PC conductivity of thin filmsYansmgb , along with a small $`l_i/d`$ ratio.

Conclusion. We have measured the PC spectra in transition metal diborides: ZrB2, NbB2 and TaB2. The spectra exhibit structure up to an energy of about 100 meV, which is unequivocally caused by phonons. For all compounds the PC EPI function was established and the EPI parameter $`\lambda `$ was calculated. The obtained small $`\lambda `$ values strongly question the reported bulk superconductivity in these compounds. The PC EPI spectra of the above-mentioned diborides differs even qualitatively from that measured earlier for superconducting MgB2.

Acknowledgements. The work in Ukraine was supported by the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. The investigations were carried out in part with the help of equipment donated by the Alexander von Humbold Stiftung (Germany). Further thanks to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for financial support. Discussions with H. Rosner and S. V. Shulga are grateful acknowledged (S.-L. D.).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In spite of impressive progress in description of nonperturbative results in the supersymmetric (SUSY) gauge theories during the last decade the progress in non-SUSY gauge theories is quite modest. That is why any tool invented to connect SUSY and non-SUSY theories in a controllable way gives rise to new hopes. Among recent promising advances is the orbifolding procedure introduced in the string theory context  (with the purpose of reducing the amount of SUSY). It was shown that both parent and daughter theories enjoy the same planar limit.

Later on, a similar procedure was worked out in field theory: it was proved that the parent and daughter theories have the same perturbative behavior at large $`N`$ (i.e. for all planar graphs) provided a proper rescaling of the coupling constant is made  (see also  for an earlier approach).

At the nonperturbative level so far next to nothing is known. It was shown in , starting from the brane picture of the orbifold theory, that the correspondence survives at the nonperturbative level in a limited sense — for the low-energy effective actions — if both parent ($`𝒩=2`$) and daughter ($`𝒩=1`$) theories are supersymmetric. In this case the Riemann surfaces governing the low-energy behaviors coincide after the above-mentioned rescaling of the coupling constant. Further attempts to consider the orbifoldization at the nonperturbative level in the theory with fundamental matter have been made in .

In a recent paper  Strassler put forward a bold and beautiful conjecture that the correspondence between the planar perturbative limits between the parent/daughter theories is an exact property and is valid including all nonperturbative effects at large $`N`$ under an appropriate rescaling of coupling constants. More exactly, Strassler’s nonperturbative orbifold (NPO) conjecture reads: “correlation functions calculated in those vacua which appear in both (parent/daughter) theories, for the operators which appear in both theories, are identical.” This implies, in particular, the coincidence of the corresponding spectral functions. If information on the spectral function in the parent theory is available, the NPO conjecture allows one to predict that in the daughter theory.

The NPO conjecture leads to remarkable consequences  if the parent theory is ($`𝒩=1`$) supersymmetric gluodynamics (then the daughter one is not supersymmetric). For instance, were the NPO conjecture true it would give rise to infinite degeneracies between the bosonic states of the daughter theory which the latter would inherit from the parent one. In short, the NPO conjecture could become a powerful tool in the studies of non-Abelian gauge theories, a major finding in this range of questions.

In this paper we suggest simple tests of Strassler’s conjecture. To our deep regret we observe that these tests do not support the NPO conjecture — in all cases where we could quantitatively compare nonperturbative effects there is a mismatch between the parent and daughter theories.

What do we know for certain of nonperturbative aspects in non-Abelian gauge theories? First, at strong coupling, there exist exact low-energy theorems. One can confront the NPO conjecture with these theorems.

Secondly, one can make non-Abelian gauge theories weakly coupled by considering special geometries of the world sheet. At weak coupling nonperturbative effects can be reliably analyzed using quasiclassical methods. Since the correspondence between the parent and the orbifold theory is the property of the planar graphs , it does not depend on geometry of the world sheet. Instead of $`R^4`$ one can consider $`T^4`$ or $`R^3\times S^1`$. If the size of the compact dimension(s) is small compared to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the scale parameter of the gauge theory), of the gauge theory,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }M_{\mathrm{uv}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{8\pi ^2}{3kNg_{P}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right)=M_{\mathrm{uv}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{8\pi ^2}{3Ng_{D}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right),$$
(1)
the gauge theory never becomes strongly coupled. (Here $`g_P`$ and $`g_D`$ are the gauge couplings in the parent and daughter theories, respectively, $`k`$ is the orbifoldization degree, $`M_{\mathrm{uv}}`$ is the ultraviolet cut-off.) At weak coupling the theory is under reliable theoretical control and one can compare corresponding nonperturbative effects in the parent and orbifold theories.

In this paper we focus on these two sets of tests. At strong coupling we analyze low-energy theorems for topological susceptibilities and patterns of chiral symmetry breaking. We observe non-matching of certain factors related to $`k`$, the degree of orbifoldization (Secs. 3.2 and 4). Then we consider parent/daughter theories on $`T^4`$ and $`R^3\times S^1`$, at weak coupling. In the first case one deals with torons (Sec. 3.3), in the second with “monopole instantons” (Sec. 3.4). In both cases there is a clear-cut mismatch between the numbers of the fermion zero modes, and, hence, the corresponding condensates.

Thus, the overall conclusion of our investigation is, unfortunately, negative — the evidence presented suggests that the perturbative planar equivalence does not extend at nonperturbative level.

## 2 General remarks

Instantons, historically the first example of nonperturbative field configuration  in Yang-Mills, are irrelevant for our purposes since the instanton action scales as $`8\pi ^2/g^2N`$ at large $`N`$. Hence, instanton contributions die off as $`\mathrm{exp}(N)`$. We have to consider nonperturbative fields configurations with action scaling as $`8\pi ^2/(Ng^2)`$. Such configurations are known in non-Abelian gauge theories on $`T^4`$ and $`R^3\times S^1`$.

For $`Z_k`$ orbifoldization (see Sec. 3) the gauge invariant chiral operator of the lowest dimension one can build of the chiral fermion fields in the daughter theory has the structure

$$𝒪_k=\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k}{}}\chi _{\mathrm{},\mathrm{}+1},$$
(2)
where the color and Lorentz indices are suppressed. The color indices must be convoluted cyclically, while the Lorentz ones can be convoluted in an arbitrary way. One more class of gauge invariant operators is represented by baryons

$$B_l=\text{det}(\chi _{\mathrm{},\mathrm{}+1}).$$
(3)
The cases of even and odd $`k`$ should be treated separately. If $`k`$ is even, then the operator $`𝒪_k`$ in Eq. (2) is bosonic. At $`k=2`$ it is the orbifold projection of the gluino operator $`\lambda \lambda `$ of the parent theory. At $`k=4,6,\mathrm{}`$ the operator $`𝒪_k`$ can be obtained as the orbifold projection of $`(\lambda \lambda )^{k/2}`$. The vacuum expectation value of $`(\lambda \lambda )^{k/2}`$ in the parent theory is saturated by the gauge field configuration with the topological charge $`k/2`$ times the minimal one. We will be interested mostly in the case $`k=2`$. In this case the operators (2) and $`\lambda \lambda `$ can be used as mass terms. Limiting oneself to $`k=2`$ is sufficient to show that the NPO conjecture does not work.

If $`k`$ is odd, then the operator $`𝒪_k`$ in Eq. (2) is fermionic. It is the orbifold projection of the parent theory operator of the type $`\lambda ^k`$. Needless to say that neither $`𝒪_k`$ nor $`\lambda ^k`$ can have vacuum expectation values. In this case one may confront the correlation function $`\lambda ^k(x)\lambda ^k(y)`$ in the parent theory with $`𝒪_k(x)𝒪_k(y)`$ in the daughter one. The gauge field configuration saturating $`\lambda ^k(x)\lambda ^k(y)`$ has the topological charge $`k`$ times the minimal one.

## 3 Supersymmetric gluodynamics and its daughter theory

Let the parent theory be $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY Yang-Mills theory with SU($`kN`$) gauge group, $`k`$ is an integer,

$$=\frac{1}{g_P^2}\left(\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{\mu \nu ,a}+i\overline{\lambda }_{\dot{\alpha }}^a𝒟^{\dot{\alpha }\alpha }\lambda _\alpha ^a\right),$$
(4)
where $`\lambda _\alpha `$ is the Weyl spinor in the adjoint. This theory has the classical global U$`(1)_R`$ symmetry which is broken quantum-mechanically by anomaly down to $`Z_{2kN}`$. The theory has $`kN`$ chirally asymmetric vacua labeled by the value of the gluino condensate $`\lambda \lambda `$.

The orbifold projection eliminates the gluon fields with the color indices outside $`N\times N`$ blocks on the diagonal; it also eliminates the gluino fields with the indices outside $`N\times N`$ blocks above the diagonal (see Fig. 1). Hence, the daughter theory is the gauge theory with $`(\text{SU}(N))^k`$ gauge group and $`k`$ bifundamentals. The Lagrangian of the daughter theory is

$$=\frac{1}{g_D^2}\left(\frac{1}{4}\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k}{}}F_{(\mathrm{})\mu \nu }F_{(\mathrm{})}^{\mu \nu }+i\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k}{}}\overline{\chi }_{\mathrm{},\mathrm{}+1}𝒟\chi _{\mathrm{},\mathrm{}+1}\right),\chi _{k,k+1}\chi _{k,1},$$
(5)
where the covariant derivative is defined as $`D_\mu =_\mu i_{\mathrm{}}A_{(\mathrm{})\mu }T^{(\mathrm{})}`$, while $`T^{(\mathrm{})}`$ are the generators of the gauge symmetry with respect to the group SU($`N`$) number $`\mathrm{}`$. The fermion fields are denoted by $`\chi _{\mathrm{},\mathrm{}+1}`$. The first subscript belongs to fundamental, the second to antifundamental. The coupling constants are subject to the relation

$$g_D^2=kg_P^2.$$
(6)
The daughter theory is non-supersymmetric. It is expected  to have $`N`$ discrete vacua.

In particular, if $`k=2`$, the daughter theory has the gauge symmetry SU($`N`$)$`\times `$ SU($`N`$), with the matter sector consisting of two Weyl spinors — one of them is $`\{N,\overline{N}\}`$ while the other $`\{\overline{N},N\}`$; these two Weyl spinors can be combined into one bifundamental Dirac spinor. According to the NPO conjecture, a possible correspondence between the theories (4) and (5) extends to those operators which exist in the parent theory and have non-trivial projections in the daughter one, i.e. (gauge invariant) operators invariant under the action of $`Z_k`$. At $`k=2`$, as an example, one can consider the operator $`\lambda \lambda `$ and its projection $`\chi _{1,2}\chi _{2,1}`$, and correlation functions of the type

$$\lambda \lambda (0),\overline{\lambda }\overline{\lambda }(x)\chi _{1,2}\chi _{2,1}(0),\overline{\chi }_{1,2}\overline{\chi }_{2,1}(x).$$
(7)
For arbitrary values of $`k`$ bilinear in $`\chi `$ operators are not gauge invariant; therefore, the correspondence pairs are

$$\underset{k}{\underset{}{\lambda \mathrm{}\lambda }}\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k}{}}\chi _{\mathrm{},\mathrm{}+1},$$
(8)
where the color indices in $`\lambda ^k`$ are convoluted cyclically. For even $`k`$ these operators are bosonic while for odd $`k`$ fermionic.

In what follows we will derive low-energy theorems for theories formulated on $`R4`$ (in strong coupling) and, alternatively, analyze the parent and daughter theories on either $`T^4`$ or $`R^3\times S^1`$, with a small size of the compact dimension (in weak coupling). For both purposes we need to know chiral anomalies.

### 3.1 Divergence of the axial current

The chiral currents in the parent and daughter theories are

$`J_\mu ^P`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\sigma _\mu )_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}J_P^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_P^2}}\lambda ^a\sigma _\mu \overline{\lambda }^a,`$ (9)
$`J_\mu ^D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\sigma _\mu )_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}J_D^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_D^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k}{}}}\chi _{\mathrm{},\mathrm{}+1}\sigma _\mu \overline{\chi }_{\mathrm{},\mathrm{}+1},`$ (10)
where the sub(super)scripts $`P`$ and $`D`$ refer to the parent and daughter theories, respectively. The chiral anomalies have the form

$`^\mu J_\mu ^P`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{kN}{16\pi ^2}}F_{\mu \nu }^a\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^a,`$ (11)
$`^\mu J_\mu ^D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k}{}}}F_{\mu \nu }^a_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^a_{\mathrm{}},`$ (12)
where the color index $`a`$ in Eq. (11) covers SU($`kN`$) while $`a_{\mathrm{}}`$ in Eq. (12) the $`\mathrm{}`$-th SU($`N`$) factor. Let us recall that, with our normalization, the topological charge

$$Q=(32\pi ^2)^1d^4xF_{\mu \nu }^a\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^a.$$
(13)
At $`k>2`$ the daughter theory admits no mass term for the fermion field. However, at $`k=2`$ a mass term is possible. It has a counterpart in the parent theory — a gluino mass term — which breaks supersymmetry. We introduce these mass terms, with a small mass parameter $`m`$, with the intention to derive a low-energy theorem to leading order in $`m`$. More specifically, in the parent theory

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_m=\frac{1}{2}\frac{m}{g_P^2}\left(\lambda ^a\lambda ^a+\overline{\lambda }^a\overline{\lambda }^a\right)$$
(14)
while in the daughter one

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_m=\frac{m}{g_D^2}\left(\chi _{1,2}\chi _{2,1}+\overline{\chi }_{1,2}\overline{\chi }_{2,1}\right).$$
(15)
The operator (15) is the orbifold projection of (14). In both cases the mass terms are normalized in such a way that the free fermion propagator has the standard form $`(\overline{)}pm)^1`$.

If the mass terms are included, the divergence of the currents (9) and (10), besides the anomalous part presented in Eqs. (11) and (12), has a nonanomalous (classical) part,

$`^\mu J_\mu ^\mathrm{P}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2N}{16\pi ^2}}F_{\mu \nu }^a\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^a+i{\displaystyle \frac{m}{g_P^2}}\left(\lambda ^a\lambda ^a\overline{\lambda }^a\overline{\lambda }^a\right),`$ (16)
$`^\mu J_\mu ^\mathrm{D}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{2}{}}}F_{\mu \nu }^a_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^a_{\mathrm{}}+2i{\displaystyle \frac{m}{g_D^2}}\left(\chi _{1,2}\chi _{2,1}\overline{\chi }_{1,2}\overline{\chi }_{2,1}\right).`$ (17)
### 3.2 Low-energy theorem for topological susceptibilities

The topological susceptibility reflects dependence of the vacuum energy on the vacuum angle $`\theta `$. For massless fermions such dependence is absent and the topological susceptibility vanishes. However, if $`m0`$, the topological susceptibility does not vanish and can be readily derived to leading order in $`m`$. In the parent theory one defines it as follows

$$𝒯_P=id^4x\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}F_{\mu \nu }^a\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^a(x),\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}F_{\mu \nu }^a\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^a(0).$$
(18)
In the daughter theory there are two vacuum angles. We are interested in the vacuum response to a $`Z_2`$ invariant combination (remember, for the time being we consider $`Z_2`$ orbifoldization), namely

$$𝒯_D=i\frac{1}{2}d^4x\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{2}{}}F_{\mu \nu }^a_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^a_{\mathrm{}}(x),\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{2}{}}F_{\mu \nu }^a_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^a_{\mathrm{}}(0).$$
(19)
The overall factor $`1/2`$ in Eq. (19) is introduced to provide proper normalization: with this factor included the planar perturbative expansion of the correlation functions $`d^4x\mathrm{exp}(iqx)F\stackrel{~}{F}(x),F\stackrel{~}{F}(0)`$ at large momentum transfer will be the same in the parent and daughter theories.

Using Eqs. (16) and (17) and the fact that both theories have no massless particles in the $`m0`$ limit, it is easy to obtain

$`𝒯_P`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8N^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{g_P^2}}\lambda ^a\lambda ^a+\overline{\lambda }^a\overline{\lambda }^a,`$ (20)
$`𝒯_D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{g_D^2}}\chi _{1,2}\chi _{2,1}+\overline{\chi }_{1,2}\overline{\chi }_{2,1},`$ (21)
where terms $`O(m^2)`$ are omitted. In accordance with the NPO hypothesis, the condensates on the right-hand side must be calculated in the vacuum state which is present in both theories. One can normalize them as follows: to leading order in $`m`$ the vacuum energy densities $``$ are111For the daughter theory this statement requires a reservation. In fact, $`_D`$ in Eq. (22) is a linear in $`m`$ part of the vacuum energy density. Unlike the parent supersymmetric theory, we cannot rule out a (nonperturbative) gluon condensate in the daughter theory. It may well exist, implying that the vacuum energy density has an $`O(m^0)`$ part at the nonperturbative level. In view of our negative conclusion on the NPO hypothesis it is only natural to assume that $`_D`$ has a nonvanishing $`O(m^0)`$ part.

$$_P=\frac{1}{2}\frac{m}{g_P^2}\lambda ^a\lambda ^a+\overline{\lambda }^a\overline{\lambda }^a,_D=\frac{m}{g_D^2}\chi _{1,2}\chi _{2,1}+\overline{\chi }_{1,2}\overline{\chi }_{2,1},$$
(22)
where the condensates $`\lambda \lambda `$ and $`\chi _{1,2}\chi _{2,1}`$ are $`O(m^0)`$. Demanding the equality of the energy densities (i.e. $`_P=_D`$) we see that the topological susceptibilities differ by a factor of 2:

$$𝒯_P=\frac{1}{2}𝒯_D.$$
(23)
This difference reflects the fact that the numbers of vacuum states in the parent and daughter theories are different, and although we deal with the expectation values in the given vacuum, they still do “remember” of this difference.

### 3.3 Weak coupling: theory on $`T^4`$

Instead of $`R^4`$ let us take $`T^4`$ as the world volume. Topologically nontrivial gauge fields produce nonperturbative effects. As well-known, the minimal topological charge $`Q=1/(kN)`$ is achieved on torons  provided ’t Hooft’s twisted boundary conditions are imposed. The very possibility of imposing these boundary conditions rests on the fact the gauge group is $`\text{SU}(kN)/Z_{kN}`$ rather than $`\text{SU}(kN)`$ — the elements of the group center do not act on the adjoint fields. Equation (11) shows that two fermion zero modes exist in the toron background. These are so-called supersymmetric zero modes, $`\lambda _{(0)\alpha }F_{\alpha \beta }`$, which are spatially constant. These modes saturate the gluino condensate $`\lambda \lambda `$. In fact, calculation of the gluino condensate on $`T^4`$ along these lines was performed long ago .

If one introduces fields in the fundamental representation, the twisted boundary conditions become impossible since the elements of the center act nontrivially. However, the daughter theory with which we deal contains bifundamentals, not fundamentals. This fact allows one to resurrect twisted boundary conditions . For simplicity we will discuss $`Z_2`$ orbifoldization, $`k=2`$. The case $`k>2`$ can be treated in a similar manner. For $`k=2`$ the daughter theory has two SU($`N`$) groups, call them SU($`N`$)one and SU($`N`$)two. The following boundary conditions are imposed  on the matter fields:

$`\chi _{1,2}(L_1,y,z,t)=\mathrm{\Omega }_1^{\mathrm{one}}(y,z,t)\chi _{1,2}(0,y,z,t)\mathrm{\Omega }_1^{\mathrm{two}}(y,z,t)^1,`$
$`\chi _{1,2}(x,L_2,z,t)=\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{\mathrm{one}}(x,z,t)\chi _{1,2}(x,0,z,t)\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{\mathrm{two}}(x,z,t)^1,`$ (24)
and so on, with one and the same twist in both SU($`N`$) groups,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu ^{\mathrm{one},\mathrm{two}}(L_\nu )\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu ^{\mathrm{one},\mathrm{two}}(0)=\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu ^{\mathrm{one},\mathrm{two}}(L_\mu )\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu ^{\mathrm{one},\mathrm{two}}(0)Z_{\mu \nu },$$
(25)
where $`Z_{\mu \nu }`$ is an element of the SU($`N`$) group center. This fact — that the twist is one and the same — follows from the single-valuedness of the fermion field.

The above boundary condition excludes field configurations with a toron in one of two SU($`N`$)’s and topologically trivial gauge field in another. In other words, the minimal nonvanishing topological charge is associated with two torons, one in each SU($`N`$). This automatically guarantees $`Z_2`$ symmetry. Equation (12) then implies that there are four fermion zero modes in this background. The bilinear condensate $`\chi _{1,2}\chi _{2,1}`$ is not generated. Although the operator $`\chi _{1,2}\chi _{2,1}`$ is the orbifold partner to $`\lambda \lambda `$, there is no partner to the gluino condensate.

### 3.4 Theory on $`R^3\times S^1`$

In this subsection we discuss the theory on $`R^3\times S^1`$ world sheet (to be referred to as the theory on cylinder). In this case the gluino condensate was calculated  by saturating $`\lambda \lambda `$ by the “monopole instanton” configuration. Let us recall a few basic facts regarding the theory on $`R^3\times S^1`$. For definiteness we will take the fourth direction to be $`S^1`$.

Unlike the theory on $`R^4`$, where the appropriate topological classification is based on $`\pi _3(\text{SU(}kN))`$, the situation is more complex for the theory on cylinder. The vacuum state is continuously degenerate (at the classical level) and is parametrized by the Polyakov line

$$P\mathrm{exp}\left(i_0^L𝑑tA_4(x,y,z,t)\right)$$
(26)
which, upon diagonalization, can be represented as

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(i_0^La^pT^p\right)$$
(27)
where $`T^p`$ are the generators of the Cartan subalgebra. The classically flat directions are parametrized by $`kN1`$ moduli $`a^p`$ which are angular variables. The classical degeneracy of the vacuum manifold is lifted by nonperturbative effects  leading to $`kN`$ discrete vacua. The crucial point is that the moduli dynamics is $`Z_{kN}`$ invariant. This is again a consequence of the existence of the group center acting trivially on the adjoint fields. The $`Z_{kN}`$ invariance is clearly seen  in the superpotential generated on the moduli space through one “monopole instanton” saturation (more specifically, for SU(2), the prime target of Ref. ), it is $`Z_2`$). For the occurrence of this $`Z_{kN}`$ it is crucial that, along with the standard monopoles, the so-called KK monopoles are included in the calculation (for details see ). The latter are obtained from the standard monopoles by performing an improper gauge transformation — with a gauge matrix $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t)`$ which is not periodic, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t=L)=\mathrm{\Omega }(t=0)Z`$ where $`Z`$ is an element of the center. In the parent theory where all fields are in the adjoint, the inclusion of the KK monopole-instanton is automatic.

The “monopole instanton” action in the parent theory (in the supersymmetric vacuum) is

$$A_P=\frac{8\pi ^2}{(kN)g_P^2}.$$
(28)
(see ). The “monopole instanton” has two gluino zero modes, which can be seen in many different ways. One can use, for instance, the fact that the “monopole instanton” has four bosonic zero modes. Supersymmetry then implies that the number of the fermion zero modes is two.

Since $`kg_P^2=g_D^2`$, the NPO matching requires that the action of the nonperturbative configuration relevant in the daughter theory is

$$A_D=\frac{8\pi ^2}{Ng_D^2}.$$
(29)
This is the action of a single “monopole instanton” residing in one of the SU$`(N)`$ factors of the daughter gauge group.

With respect to such field configuration, with the background field in just one SU$`(N)`$, the daughter bifundamental fermion is nothing but an ensemble of $`N`$ flavors of fundamental fermions. For fundamental fermions the zero modes follow from the Callias index theorem . Say, at $`k=2`$ the four-dimensional Dirac operator $`\overline{)}D_4`$ can be considered. We look for $`x_4`$-independent zero modes. One can calculate the corresponding index and obtain that there is one zero mode for each field $`\chi _{\mathrm{},\mathrm{}+1}`$ with one of the color indices lying in the given SU$`(N)`$ — altogether $`2N`$ modes.

Alternatively, instead of considering the Callias index, one can directly analyze the fermion zero modes in the “monopole instanton” background. As well-known for the ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole, with fundamental fermions coupled to the adjoint scalar field $`\overline{\psi }\varphi \psi `$, one fermion zero mode per each flavor $`\psi `$ exists. The only distinction between the “monopole instanton” of Ref.  and the ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole is a slightly different chiral structure of the vertex coupling fermions to $`\varphi `$ (or $`A_4`$). It is not difficult to see that this distinction has no impact on the existence of the fermion zero mode.

Summarizing, we conclude that while in the parent theory the “monopole instanton” has two fermion zero modes, its counterpart in the daughter theory has a large number of fermion zero modes, scaling with $`N`$. The corresponding condensates cannot match.

## 4 Orbifoldization of multiflavor theories and patterns of chiral symmetry breaking

In this section we will consider parent-daughter pairs for multiple flavors. Both theories, the original one and the one obtained after orbifoldization, are non-supersymmetric. For simplicity we will focus on $`Z_2`$ orbifoldization and two flavors; $`Z_k`$ orbifoldization and $`\nu `$ “flavors” (with $`k>2`$ and $`\nu >2`$) can be analyzed in a similar manner.

Let the parent theory have SU($`2N`$) gauge group, and two Weyl flavors in the adjoint,

$$=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{\mu \nu ,a}+\underset{f=1}{\overset{2}{}}\left\{\overline{\lambda }_{\dot{\alpha },(f)}^ai𝒟^{\dot{\alpha }\alpha }\lambda _{\alpha ,(f)}^am\left(\lambda _{(1)}\lambda _{(2)}+\text{h.c.}\right)\right\},$$
(30)
where we find it convenient to change the overall normalization of fields compared to Eq. (4). The flavor index is indicated in parentheses. The mass term could be chosen in many equivalent forms, our choice is motivated by historical reasons (see ). We need the mass term for an auxiliary reason, to normalize the chiral condensates. Our final answer will refer to the limit $`m0`$.

The orbifold theory is similar to Eq. (5), except that summation in the fermion sector runs over two flavors,

$$=\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{2}{}}\left\{\frac{1}{4}F_{(\mathrm{})\mu \nu }F_{(\mathrm{})}^{\mu \nu }+\underset{f=1}{\overset{2}{}}\overline{\chi }_{\mathrm{},\mathrm{}+1,(f)}i𝒟\chi _{\mathrm{},\mathrm{}+1,(f)}m\left(\chi _{\mathrm{},\mathrm{}+1,(1)}\chi _{\mathrm{}+1,\mathrm{}+2,(2)}+\text{h.c.}\right)\right\},$$
(31)
(remember, $`\chi _{2,3}\chi _{2,1}`$). In the limit $`m0`$ these two theories have flavor symmetries which are partially spontaneously broken resulting in the emergence of the Goldstone mesons. The pattern of the chiral symmetry breaking has been studied previously . In the parent theory the flavor (non-anomalous) symmetry is SU(2). It is spontaneously broken down to U(1). Correspondingly, there are two Goldstones. The daughter theory is in fact (almost) QCD with two (Dirac) flavors. The non-anomalous flavor symmetry is SU(2)$`\times `$ SU(2)$`\times `$U(1), which is spontaneously broken down to a diagonal SU(2) (the baryon number is also unbroken). Three familiar Goldstone bosons emerge. Thus, the dimensions of the vacuum manifolds in the parent and daughter theories (at $`m=0`$) are different.

A nonvanishing mass term discretizes the set of vacua, so that one can compare partner correlation functions in the parent/daughter theories in the vacuum with one and the same symmetry (i.e. $`Z_2`$ symmetric). We will consider Goldstones, derive analogs of the Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner relations and show that, contrary to the NPO hypothesis, there is a mismatch in the chiral condensates in these two theories.

At first let us select a pair of corresponding and properly normalized currents in the parent/daughter theories producing Goldstone bosons. A convenient choice is

$$J_{\alpha \dot{\beta }}^P=\lambda _{\alpha ,(1)}\overline{\lambda }_{\dot{\beta },(2)}.$$
(32)
It is easy to see that in the daughter theory the current producing the same correlation function in the planar limit is

$$J_{\alpha \dot{\beta }}^D=\sqrt{2}\underset{\mathrm{}}{}\chi _{\alpha ,(1)}\overline{\chi }_{\dot{\beta },(2)}.$$
(33)
Note a crucial overall $`\sqrt{2}`$ normalization factor in Eq. (33) which is absent in Eq. (32). It reflects $`Z_2`$ orbifoldization. At small momentum transfer, $`p\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, both correlation functions $`J^{P,D}(p),J^{P,D}(p)`$ have the form

$$f^2\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2},$$

with one and the same residue $`f^2`$ (in the limit $`m0`$). The pole form is a direct consequence of the Goldstone saturation at $`p0`$ while the equality of the residues is due to the NPO hypothesis.

Now, it is rather trivial to obtain the Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner relations,

$`\text{Parent:}{\displaystyle \frac{f^2M^2}{m}}=2\left(\lambda _{(1)}\lambda _{(2)}+\text{h.c.}\right),`$ (34)
$`\text{Daughter:}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f^2M^2}{m}}=2{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\chi _{(1)}\chi _{(2)}+\text{h.c.}\right),`$ (35)
where $`M`$ is the mass of the Goldstone boson while $`m`$ is the mass parameter in the Lagrangian, see Eqs. (30) and (31). Note that the ratio $`M^2/m`$ does not vanish in the limit $`m0`$. Thus, both sides of the Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner relations above are $`O(m^0)`$.

Now, the right-hand sides have to match since they present the slopes of the linear in $`m`$ part of the vacuum energy density. The left-hand sides do not match, however, because of the extra $`1/2`$ in the daughter theory, a leftover from $`Z_2`$ orbifoldization. Again, we conclude that the NPO conjecture implies a mismatch and thus cannot hold in the given parent/daughter pair.

## 5 Comment on the brane picture

A remark is in order regarding the observed mismatch of zero modes in weekly coupled theory on $`R^3\times S^1`$. How can one interpret it in the brane picture? In the brane picture the starting point for the parent SU$`(kN)`$ theory is $`kN`$ D3 branes wrapped around the compact direction. After the $`T`$ duality transformation they become D2 branes localized at the positions determined by the eigenvalues of the Wilson loop. The “monopole instanton” configurations discussed in Sec. 3.4 correspond to a Euclidean D0 brane stretched between two D2 branes. If we consider a $`Z_k`$ symmetric solution in the daughter theory then we have to take Euclidean D0 branes together with their $`Z_k`$ images; then only a multifermion (rather than bifermion) condensate can develop. If we count zero modes on the single D0 brane the mismatch is also evident since the number of zero modes in the daughter theory is larger due to additional branes representing bifundamentals.

## 6 Conclusion

The NPO hypothesis, if true, could be the most powerful tool for non-Abelian theories at strong coupling discovered in the last decade. Alas, the evidence we present in this paper suggests that this beautiful conjecture is not valid. The key question is: “can one modify this conjecture appropriately to make it work?”

The authors are grateful to Valya Khoze and Matt Strassler for useful discussions. The work of A.G. is supported in part by grants INTAS-00-334, CRDF-RP1-2108 and DE-FG02-94ER408. The work of M.S. was supported in part by DOE grant DE-FG02-94ER408.


text:
# Masses, Accretion Rates and Inclinations of AGNs

## 1 Introduction

Broad emission lines are one of the dominant features of many Active Galactic Nuclei (AGNs) spectrum. Broad Line Regions (BLRs) play a particularly important role in our understanding of AGNs by virtue of its proximity to the central source. With reverberation mapping technique the sizes of the BLRs can be obtained through the study of correlated variations of the lines and continuum fluxes (Peterson 1993). The BLR sizes for 17 Seyfert 1 galaxies (Wandel et al. 1999) and for 17 PG quasars (Kaspi et al. 2000) have been recently obtained. Assuming the Keplerian motions and the random orbits of the BLRs, the central black hole masses also have been obtained. In order to underline the physics of AGNs, these masses have been used to check the relations with other parameters of AGNs, such as the radio power (Ho 2002), the X-ray excess variance (Lu & Yu 2001), the velocity dispersions of their host galaxies (Ferrarese et al. 2001; Gebhardt et al. 2000b).

Based on the unified model of AGNs, the wide variety of AGN phenomena we see is due to a combination of real differences in a small number of physical parameters (e.g. luminosity) coupled with apparent differences which are due to observer-dependent parameters (e.g. orientation). AGNs with wide emission lines from BLRs are oriented at a preferred angle from which BLRs is visible. No edge-on disks in AGNs with wide emission lines would be seen (Urry & Padovani 1995). Therefore, inclinations of AGNs with wide emission lines are generally expected to be small although further evidence is obviously needed. It is important to test it with inclinations of AGNs. Random mean angle is often assumed in calculated black hole masses with the reverberation mapping method. Some authors (McLure & Dunlop 2001; Wu & Han 2001) have shown it is necessary to consider the effects of the inclination.

Though it is powerful for size determination, currently reverberation mapping method does not provide the velocity field of the BLRs, and can not distinguish between radial and rotational motions. Because there is no consensus about the dynamics of the BLRs, there has been little progress in understanding the physics of this region. Recently some authors (Collin & Hure 2001) suggest the gravitationally unstable disc is the source which releases BLRs in the medium.

In this paper, we also assume the gravitational instability leads to the formation of BLRs. With the analysis formulae of standard thin accretion disks and the observational sizes of the BLRs, we calculate the central masses, accretion rates and inclinations for 34 AGNs. We want to give the clues to the origin of BLRs, the values of three parameters of accretion disks and the inclination effect in mass determination in AGNs. The paper is structured as follows. In Sect. 2, we describe our model and available data. In sect. 3, we give our calculational results. Our discussion and conclusions are presented in the last section.

## 2 Calculation

### 2.1 Formulae

First, we consider gravitational potential energy at R away from the center of the black hole is released at the rate $`GM\dot{M}/R`$, where $`M`$ is the central black hole mass and $`\dot{M}`$ is the accretion rate; from the virial theorem, half of this goes into heating the gas, and the other half is radiated away. Thus the disk temperature at R is $`T=(\frac{3GM\dot{M}}{8\pi \sigma R^3}(1(R/R_s)^{1/2}))^{1/4}`$ (Frank et al. 1992), where G is the gravitational constant, $`\sigma `$ is Stefan-Boltzmann constant, $`R_s=2GM/c^2`$ is the Schwarzchild radius of the black hole with the mass of M. For $`R>>R_s`$, this can be simplified, $`T=(\frac{3GM\dot{M}}{8\pi \sigma R_s^3})^{1/4}(R/R_s)^{3/4}=T_{}(R/R_s)^{3/4}`$. As a first approximation we can assume the accretion disk radiates locally like a blackbody and the specific luminosity is $`L_\nu =2.4\times 10^{18}R_s^2cosiT_{}^{8/3}\nu ^{1/3}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Hz}^1`$ (Peterson 1997). We obtained the B band luminosity, $`L^B=0.5312\times 10^{44}\dot{M}^{2/3}M^{2/3}cosi\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$, where i is the inclination of the disk to the line of sight and the frequency is between 3900$`\AA `$ and 4900$`\AA `$. We can rewrite it in terms of $`R_{14}=R/(10^{14}cm)`$, $`M_8=M/(10^8\text{ }\mathrm{M}_{})`$, $`L_9^B=L^B/(10^9L\mathrm{})`$ and $`\dot{M}_{26}=\dot{M}/(10^{26}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{s}^1)`$,

$$L_9^B=13.8\dot{M}_{26}^{2/3}M_8^{2/3}cosi.$$
(1)
Second, we assume that the gravitational instability of the disk at large radii leads to the formation of BLRs. The criterion is $`Q=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\pi G\rho }1`$ (Golreich & Lynden-Bell 1965) , where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the Keplerian angular velocity $`(GM/R^3)^{1/2}`$ and $`\rho `$ is the local mass density. We adopted the solutions of $`\rho `$ for the standard thin disk from Shakura & Sunyaev (1973), $`\rho =3.1\times 10^5\alpha ^{7/10}\dot{M}_{26}^{11/20}M_8^{5/8}R_{14}^{15/8}f^{11/5}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, where $`f=(1(R/R_s)^{1/2})^{1/4}`$, $`\alpha `$ is the parameter of the standard $`\alpha `$ disk. We adopted $`f=1`$. The value of $`\alpha `$ in AGNs is often between 0 and 1. We obtained the size of the BLRs,

$$R_{14}=880\alpha ^{28/45}Q^{8/9}\dot{M}_{26}^{22/45}M_8^{1/3}.$$
(2)
Third, assuming the Keplerian velocity of the BLRs, then the so-called virial mass estimated for the central black hole is given by $`M=\frac{V_{FWHM}^2}{4(sini^2+A^2)}RG^1`$ (McLure & Dunlop 2001), where $`V_{FWHM}`$ is the FWHM of the H$`\beta `$ emission line, i is the inclination, A is the ratio of the random isotropic characteristic velocity to the Keplerian velocity of the disk and A is omitted here (Wu & Han 2001). Then we can get,

$$V_3=3.89\alpha ^{14/45}\dot{M}_{26}^{11/45}M_8^{1/3}sini.$$
(3)
where $`V_3=V_{FWHM}/(1000\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1)`$.

### 2.2 Data

The absolute B band magnitudes are adopted from Veron-Cetty et al. (2001), which are calculated by adopting an average optical index of -0.5 and accounting for Galactic redding and K-correction. Giveon et al. (1999) have calculated the median absolute magnitude for the PG sample that Kaspi et al. (2000) have used. The values of absolute B band magnitude from Giveon et al. (1999) are often different from the values we adopted from Veron-Cetty et al. (2001). The optical variability is a common property for AGNs (Giveon et al. 1999). The B magnitude of Seyfert 1 galaxies might be affected from their host galaxies. Therefore we adopt one B band magnitude uncertainty when we calculate the uncertainty of our calculated results. The sizes of the BLRs for 17 Seyfert 1 galaxies and 17 PG quasars are adopted from Kaspi et al. (2000). The central black hole masses calculated from reverberation mapping are also adopted from Kaspi et al. (2000). The properties of 34 AGNs are listed in Table 1. Column 2,3,4 are respectively absolute B band magnitudes, sizes of BLRs and FWHMs of $`H\beta `$.

## 3 Results

Using Eq. (1), Eq. (2), Eq. (3), we can calculate the central black hole masses ($`M`$) , the accretion rate ($`\dot{M}`$) and the inclination ($`i`$) knowing absolute B band luminosity ($`L^B`$), sizes of the BLRs ($`R`$) and FWHMs of H$`\beta `$ ($`V_{FWHM}`$). Errors of FWHMs of H$`\beta `$ are not included in our calculation. $`\alpha `$ is 1 in all the calculations and the uncertainties of our calculated results are estimated by considering $`1/4Q4`$ (Golreich & Lynden-Bell 1965), errors of sizes of BLRs and one absolute B band magnitude uncertainty except in situations where we declare otherwise. We use Q=0.25, the lower limits of BLRs sizes and the upper limits of the absolute B magnitude to give one directional limits of our results. We calculate the another directional limits of our results using Q=4, the upper limits of BLRs sizes and the lower limits of the absolute B magnitude. We present the accretion rate in units of Eddington accretion rate, $`\dot{m}=\dot{M}_{26}1.578/(3.88M_8)`$ (Laor & Netzer 1989). The results are shown in Table 1. Column (6) is our calculated BH masses. Column (7) is inclinations of the disk to the line of sight. Column (8) and Column (9) are the accretion rates and the accretion rate in unites of Eddington accretion rate, respectively. Column (10) lists the the radio loudness (Nelson 2001). Column (11) is the available nuclear radio loudness (Ho & Peng 2001). Column (12) is inclinations for the same AGNs from Wu & Han (2001).

We also use the bootstrap method, which uses the actual data and their errors to generate many data following a gaussian distribution, to calculate uncertainties of our results. Based on the measured values and their errors of some parameters (such as BLRs sizes, FWHMs of $`H\beta `$ line, B magnitude), independent 20000 gaussian distribution data points of these parameters are generated, which are used to drive 20000 values of our results. We can get the values and uncertainties of our results using gaussian distribution to fit 20000 results. The values and uncertainties of our results from the bootstrap method are almost the same as our results listed in Table 1.

### 3.1 Masses

Assuming random disk inclinations to the line of sight, these 34 central black hole reverberation mapping masses $`M_{rm}`$ have been obtained (Kaspi et al. 2000). Here we plot in Fig.1 our calculated central black hole masses considering the effects of inclinations ($`M_{cal}`$) versus the reverberation mapping masses ($`M_{rm}`$). Fig.1 shows that, though $`M_{cal}`$ of 17 PG quasars are lager than their $`M_{rm}`$ , $`M_{cal}`$ of 17 Seyfert 1 galaxies are consistent with $`M_{rm}`$ of them. We have a $`\chi ^2`$ (Press et al. 1992, p616) test to show if our calculated BH masses $`M_{cal}`$ are consistent with $`M_{rm}`$ from Kaspi et al. (2000). $`\chi ^2`$ and probability are 1.81 and 99.9% for 17 Seyfert 1 galaxies. For 17 PG quasars $`\chi ^2`$ and probability are 10.98 and 81% respectively.

### 3.2 Inclinations

By fitting the observed iron $`K\alpha `$ line profile with the accretion disk model, Nandra et al. (1997) estimated the inclinations, with a mean value of $`30^o`$, for 18 Seyfert 1 galaxies. Wu & Han (2001) developed a simple method to drive the inclinations (with a mean value of $`36^o`$) for a sample of 11 Seyfert 1 galaxies that have both measured bulge velocity dispersion and BH masses estimated by reverberating mapping technique. The mean and the rms of the mean of our calculated inclinations for 17 Seyfert 1 galaxies are $`32.2\pm 5.5`$ (deg), which are consistent with the results of Nandra et al. ( 1997 ) and Wu & Han (2001). In fig.2 we plot inclinations from Wu & Han (2001) versus our calculated inclinations for 9 common Seyfert 1 galaxies. The dash line in Fig.2 presents inclinations from Wu & Han (2001) and our calculated inclinations are consistent. Our calculated inclinations of 17 Seyfert 1 galaxies provide further support to the orientation-dependent unification scheme of AGNs. The mean and error of our calculated inclinations for 17 PG quasars are $`5.65\pm 1.08`$ (deg), which are smaller compared to that of Seyfert 1 galaxies.

A positive correlation of inclinations with observed FWHMs of the $`H\beta `$ line has been found (Wu & Han 2001). Fig. 3 displays the inclination of the disk to the line of sight versus the width of H$`\beta `$. We can find there is a correlation for Seyfert 1 galaxies between FWHMs of H$`\beta `$ and inclinations. A simple least square linear regression (Press et al. 1992, p655) gives $`i=(12.95\pm 10.65)+(4.7\pm 2.29)(V_{FWHM}/1000\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1)`$, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of R=0.47 corresponding to a probability of P=0.058 that the correlation is caused by a random factor. A minimum $`\chi ^2`$ fit considering the errors of both parameters ( Press et al. 1992, p660 ) gives $`i=(0.80\pm 4.43)+(4.15\pm 1.59)(V_{FWHM}/1000\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1)`$ , with $`\chi ^2`$ and probability of 6.04 and 73%, respectively. There also exists a correlation between FWHMs of H$`\beta `$ and inclinations for 17 PG quasars. A simple least square linear regression gives $`i=(1.75\pm 1.3)+(2.29\pm 0.36)(V_{FWHM}/1000\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1)`$, with R=0.85 (P$`<10^4`$). A minimum $`\chi ^2`$ fit considering the errors of both parameters gives $`i=(1.85\pm 1.47)+(0.19\pm 0.53)(V_{FWHM}/1000\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1)`$ , with $`\chi ^2`$ and probability of 6.9 and 65%, respectively.

A possible anticorrelation of inclinations with the nuclear radio loudness has been found (Wu & Han 2001). Fig.4 displays the inclinations versus the radio loudness, defined by the ratio between 5 GHz radio luminosity and B-band optical luminosity (Nelson 2001). Because there exist the contaminations to the luminosity of galactic nucleus from the host galaxies, using the nuclear radio loudness will be better to describe the nature of galactic nuclei. We plot in Fig.5 the inclinations versus the nuclear radio loudness, defined by the ratio between 5 GHz nuclear radio luminosity and B-band nuclear optical luminosity (Ho & Peng 2001). Although there are only eight AGNs with available data for nuclear radio loudness, Fig.5 still shows the tendency that Seyfert 1 galaxies with the larger nuclear radio loudness may have smaller inclinations. A simple least square linear regression gives $`i=(53.9\pm 17.9)+(13.0\pm 11.8)(R_{nuc})`$, with a correlation coefficient of R=0.41 corresponding to a probability of P=0.31 that the correlation is caused by a random factor. It is consistent with the result of Wu & Han (2001).

Considering the disk inclinations we calculate the intrinsic width of H$`\beta `$, which is approximately equal to the observed width of H$`\beta `$ divided by $`sin(i)`$. In Fig.6 we plot the intrinsic width of H$`\beta `$ versus the observed width of H$`\beta `$.

### 3.3 Accretion Rates

In Fig.7 we plot $`M_{cal}`$ versus the accretion rates $`\dot{M}`$ and in Fig.8 we plot $`M_{cal}`$ versus the accretion rates in terms of the Eddington accretion rate. Our calculated accretion rates for PG quasars are consistent with that from Laor (1990). Our calculated accretion rates for Seyfert 1 galaxies are larger and we discuss it in next section.

### 3.4 $`M_{bh}\sigma `$ Relation

Ferrarese et al. (2001) measured bulge velocity dispersions of AGNs and found good agreement between BH masses obtained from reverberating mapping technique and from the $`M_{bh}\sigma `$ relation as defined by quiescent galaxies. In Fig.9 we plot our calculated BH masses considering inclinations versus the bulge velocity dispersion of AGNs. The dash line in Fig.9 is the best linear fit to the $`M_{bh}\sigma `$ relation as published by Merritt & Ferrarese (2001) for nearby normal galaxies. Although there is a large scatter our calculated BH mass is also consistent with the $`M_{bh}\sigma `$ relation as defined by quiescent galaxies. A minimum $`\chi ^2`$ fit for our calculated BH mass and the bulge velocity dispersion considering error of both parameters gives $`log(M/(10^7\text{ }\mathrm{M}_{}))=(1.63\pm 5.49)+(4.32\pm 2.65)log(\sigma /(\mathrm{kms}^1))`$, with $`\chi ^2`$ and probability of 1.55 and 98%, respectively. The minimum $`\chi ^2`$ fit for the reverberation mapping BH mass (Kaspi et al. 2000) and the bulge velocity dispersion gives $`log(M/(10^7\text{ }\mathrm{M}_{}))=(1.64\pm 1.17)+(4.3\pm 0.55)log(\sigma /(\mathrm{kms}^1))`$ ($`\chi ^2=14.2`$ and probability is 0.05), which is very similar to our results.

### 3.5 Uncertainties of Our Results

We also adopt $`\alpha =0.1`$ and $`\alpha =0.01`$ to calculate $`\mathrm{\Delta }(logM)=log(M_{cal})log(M_{rm})`$ (Q=1 and not considering the uncertainties of sizes of BLRs and absolute B magnitudes). The mean and the standard error(SE) of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(logM)`$ are calculated. The results are shown in Table2. From Table2, we can find the mean of $`\mathrm{\Delta }log(M)`$ for Seyfert 1 galaxies is smaller than that of PG quasars with the same value of $`\alpha `$. With the decrease of $`\alpha `$ the mean of $`\mathrm{\Delta }log(M)`$ becomes larger. In table 3,4 we list the mean and error of uncertainties of our results for Seyfert 1 galaxies and PG quasars, respectively. Considering the effect of uncertainty of B band magnitude we find the uncertainties of calculated inclinations, masses and accretion rates will be larger. The errors of BLRs sizes don’t effect our calculated inclinations too much compared to the influence of B magnitude.

## 4 Discussions and Conclusions

### 4.1 The large accretion rates for Seyfert 1 galaxies.

In Fig.7 and Fig.8, though the accretion rates in units of the Eddington accretion rates for PG quasars are consistent with the results of Laor (1990), we can see that accretion rates in units of the Eddington accretion rates of the most of Seyfert 1 galaxies is larger than one. We confirmed the results of Collin & Hure (2001). They also find it radiates at super-Eddington rates if a standard accretion disc accounts for the observed optical luminosity. They can’t account for the effect of the inclination. In this paper we consider the effect of the inclinations and uncertainties of accretion rates from Q, BLRs sizes and B absolute magnitude. Although we find there also exists high accretion rates for Seyfert 1 galaxies, we should notice the uncertainties about accretion rates (Fig. 8). The large accretion rates are maybe due to the uncertainty of dynamics of BLRs, median absolute B magnitudes. More knowledge of BLRs dynamics, accretion disks and optical luminosity are needed to improve the determinations of accretion rates in AGNs.

### 4.2 The disk inclination to the line of sight

With our calculation, there is apparent difference in inclinations between Seyfert 1 galaxies and PG quasars (Fig.3, Table 1) when we adopt $`\alpha =1`$ for all objects. Inclinations for quasars are smaller than that for Seyfert galaxies. The mean and error of inclinations for 17 Seyfert 1 galaxies are $`32.2\pm 5.5`$ (deg) ($`\alpha =1`$). The mean and error of inclinations for 17 PG quasars are $`5.65\pm 1.08`$ (deg) ($`\alpha =1`$). Only 4 quasars have inclinations larger than $`10^o`$. The mean uncertainty of inclinations of quasars is large, about $`4.7^o`$ (Table 4). The mean value of inclinations for PG quasar can be about $`10^o`$ as upper limit considering the uncertainties of Q, BLR sizes and B magnitude. We noticed that the ratio between the black hole mass determined by reverberation mapping technique ($`M_{rm}`$) and our calculated black hole mass ($`M_{cal}`$) can be approximated by $`3(sini)^2`$ (Wu & Han, 2001). With the mean value of inclinations ($`32^o`$) derived by us, we obtained $`M_{rm}/M_{cal}=1.19`$ for Seyfert 1 galaxies. It means that the black hole mass estimated by the standard method of reverberation mapping can still represent the ”true” black hole mass well if the inclination of the Seyfert galaxy is not substantially different from $`32^o`$. With the mean value of inclinations ($`5.65^o`$) derived by us, we obtained $`M_{rm}/M_{cal}=34`$ for PG quasars. According to our model and when using $`\alpha =1`$, it is necessary to consider the effect of inclinations to calculate the central black hole masses for quasars.

Based on AGNs unification schemes, AGNs with wide emission lines from BLRs are oriented at a preferred angle from which BLRs is visible. No edge-on disks would be seen (Urry & Padovani 1995). Our calculated inclinations, with a mean value of $`32^o`$ for 17 Seyfert 1 galaxies that agrees well with the result obtained by fitting the iron $`K\alpha `$ lines of Seyfert 1 galaxies observed with ASCA (Nandra et al. 1997) and the result obtained by Wu & Han (2001), provide further support for the orientation-dependent unification scheme of active galactic nuclei. Based on the unified model of AGNs, the wide variety of AGN phenomena we see is due to a combination of real differences in a small number of physical parameters (e.g. luminosity) coupled with apparent differences which are due to observer-dependent parameters (e.g. orientation). The unification scheme does not explain the difference between Seyfert 1 galaxies and quasars in an inclination effect (as they both should have the same inclinations of close to face on) but explain it as a luminosity difference. We here find that inclinations of PG quasars are smaller than that of Seyfert 1 galaxies if we adopt the same value of $`\alpha `$ for all objects ( Fig.3, Table 1) . Do luminous quasars prefer to face on ? We adopt different values of parameter $`\alpha `$ and try to bring quasars inclinations to the inclination levels of Seyfert 1 galaxies. We use larger $`\alpha `$ to recalculated inclinations for PG quasars. The mean and error of inclinations for 17 PG quasars is $`13.4_{5.8}^{+10.4}`$ (deg) ($`\alpha =10`$) and $`29.7_{12.0}^{+15.0}`$ (deg) ($`\alpha =100`$), which are in the inclination levels of Seyfert 1 galaxies. The errors of Q, absolute B band magnitude, BLRs sizes are considered to calculate the uncertainties of inclinations. It is possible that the difference between PG quasars and Seyfert 1 galaxies is maybe due to the difference of the value of $`\alpha `$. From above all we may find calculated inclinations of PG quasars are smaller than that of Seyfert 1 galaxies unless we adopt larger value of $`\alpha `$ for PG quasars to calculate in our model. However we often assume that the value of $`\alpha `$ of disc in AGNs is often between 0 and 1 (Shakura & Sunyaev 1973) . The need of higher value of $`\alpha `$ (larger than one) for PG quasars maybe shows that our model is not suitable for PG quasars if we think inclinations of PG quasars are in the inclination levels of Seyfert 1 galaxies.

In Fig.3 we can find the NLS1s (here we simply define the NLS1s with FWHM of H$`\beta `$ is less than 2000 $`kms^1`$) have the smaller inclinations except for NGC4051. We should notice the larger scatter about the value of inclination for NGC4051 (Table 1). Collin & Hure (2001) suggested the sizes of the BLRs will increase with the accretion rates expressed in Eddington units and decrease with the black hole masses. The larger size of BLRs led to the smaller widths of H$`\beta `$ in NLS1s. They omitted the effect of the inclinations. The virial BH mass is given by $`M=\frac{V_{FWHM}^2}{4(sini^2+A^2)}RG^1`$. Because the difference for the sizes of BLRs is not big, NLS1s with small values of $`V_{HWHM}`$ will have smaller BH masses when we don’t consider the effect of inclinations. The effect of inclinations in NLS1s should be considered when we study the physics of NLS1s. In Fig.6 we show the velocity of BLRs and we find the intrinsic widths of H$`\beta `$ for NLS1s are not smaller than that of broad line AGNs, which is different from the results of Wu & Han (2001), which is from 11 Seyfert 1 galaxies.

### 4.3 The size of BLRs

There is a natural idea that BLRs are made of the atmosphere or winds of giant stars (Edwards 1980). Another idea is that BLRs are from the accretion disk or the wind released at the top of the disk (Murray & Chiang 1997). With the reasonable values of $`M_{cal}`$ and inclinations, we show that the gravitational instability can indeed explain the size of BLRs. Assuming the gravitational instability of standard thin accretion disk leads to the Broad Line Regions(BLRs), the B band luminosity comes from standard thin disk and the motion of BLRs is virial, we can obtain $`R_{BLR}L_B^{0.5}\dot{M}^{37/45}`$ from Eq. 1 and Eq. 2. If $`L_{5100}L_B`$, there is a correlation $`R_{BLR}L_{5100}^{0.5}\dot{M}^{37/45}`$. The size of BLRs relates not only to the luminosity, but also to the accretion rates. Nicastro (2000) proposed that the BLRs are released by the accretion disk in the region where a vertically outflowing corona exists and he found the sizes of BLRs would relate to $`\dot{M}`$. Collin & Hure (2001) showed the size of BLRs mainly related to $`M`$, not $`\dot{M}`$. Based on the formulae $`R_{BLR}L_{5100}^{0.5}\dot{M}^{37/45}`$, the difference of the accretion rate for the Seyfert 1 galaxies is not much and there is a relation as $`R_{BLR}L_{5100}^{0.5}`$, the power index is almost 0.5, which can explain the correlation between the size of BLRs($`R_{BLR}`$) and the monochromatic luminosity at 5100Å($`L_{5100}`$), $`R_{BLR}L_{5100}^{0.5}`$ (Wandel et al. 1999). The $`\dot{M}`$ is different for Seyfert 1 galaxies and quasars. The $`\dot{M}`$ of luminous quasars are small (see Fig.7, Fig.8). The index will be higher for the sample of Kaspi et al. (2000) which includes 17 Seyfert 1 galaxies and 17 PG quasars. It is necessary to check this with a larger sample.

### 4.4 Conclusion

With the formulae of the standard thin disk and the assumption of gravitational instability leading to BLRs, we calculate the central black hole masses, accretion rates and inclinations for 34 AGNs. The main conclusions can be summarized as follows:

* The gravitational instability can indeed explain the size of BLRs. The size of BLRs relates not only to the luminosity, but also to the accretion rates.
* Our results are sensitive to $`\alpha `$ parameter of the standard $`\alpha `$ disk. $`\alpha `$ is 1 in all the calculations. The mean value of inclinations for 17 Seyfert 1 galaxies is $`32^o`$ , which is favoring the orientation-dependent unification scheme of AGNs. Inclinations of 17 Seyfert 1 galaxies are about 6 times larger than that of 17 PG quasars unless the value of $`\alpha `$ of PG quasars is larger than Seyfert 1 galaxies. The need of higher value of $`\alpha `$ for PG quasars maybe shows that our model is not suitable for PG quasars if we think inclinations of PG quasars are in the inclination levels of Seyfert 1 galaxies. There is a correlation between inclinations and the FWHMs of H$`\beta `$. Though the observed FWHMs of H$`\beta `$ for NLS1s is smaller than that for broad line AGNs, the intrinsic of FWHMs of H$`\beta `$ for NLS1s are not smaller than that of broad line AGNs. Small inclinations lead to the small FWHMs of H$`\beta `$ for NLS1s.
* The uncertainty of absolute B band magnitude (here we adopt 1 magnitude) from variability or the hosts contribution leads to larger scatter of our results than error of size of BLRs. More knowledge of BLRs dynamics, accretion disks and optical luminosity are needed to improve the determinations of black hole masses, accretion rates and inclinations in AGNs.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Keliang Huang for useful discussions, and the anonymous referee for the valuable comments.