1: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
2:
3: \usepackage{natbib,graphicx}
4:
5: %----------------------------------------------------------------
6: \textwidth 16.5cm
7: \textheight 24cm
8: \hoffset -1.cm
9: \voffset -2.cm
10: %\vfuzz2pt
11: %\hfuzz2pt
12: %----------------------------------------------------------------
13:
14: \title
15: {\bf On reverberation and cross-correlation estimates of the size of
16: the broad-line region in active galactic nuclei}
17:
18: \author
19: {A. V. Melnikov\thanks{E-mail: melnikov@gao.spb.ru}\, and I. I. Shevchenko \\
20: Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences,\\
21: Pulkovskoje ave. 65/1, St.Petersburg 196140, Russia}
22:
23: \begin{document}
24:
25: \maketitle
26:
27: \label{firstpage}
28:
29: \begin{abstract}
30: It is known that the dependence of the emission-line luminosity of
31: a typical cloud in the active galactic nuclei (AGN) broad-line
32: regions (BLRs)upon the incident
33: flux of ionizing continuum can be nonlinear. We study how this
34: nonlinearity can be taken into account in estimating the size of
35: the BLR by means of the ``reverberation'' methods. We show that
36: the BLR size estimates obtained by cross-correlation of
37: emission-line and continuum light curves can be much (up to an
38: order of magnitude) less than the values obtained by reverberation
39: modelling. This is demonstrated by means of numerical
40: cross-correlation and reverberation experiments with model
41: continuum flares and emission-line transfer functions and by means
42: of practical reverberation modelling of the observed optical
43: spectral variability of NGC 4151. The time behaviour of NGC 4151
44: in the H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ lines is modelled on the basis of
45: the observational data by Kaspi~{\it et al.} (1996) and the
46: theoretical BLR model by Shevchenko (1984, 1985). The values of
47: the BLR parameters are estimated that allow to judge on the size
48: and physical characteristics of the BLR. The small size of the
49: BLR, as determined by the cross-correlation method from the data
50: of Kaspi~{\it et al.} (1996), is shown to be an artifact of this
51: method. So, the hypothesis that the BLR size varies in time is not
52: necessitated by the observational data.
53: \end{abstract}
54:
55: \noindent{\bf Key words:}
56: galaxies: active --- galaxies: nuclei --- galaxies: Seyfert --
57: galaxies: individual: NGC~4151
58:
59: \section{Introduction}
60:
61: In the early 1970's, in the course of observations of rapid
62: variability of the optical spectrum of the Seyfert galaxy
63: NGC~4151, the time lag of variations in the H$\alpha$ line
64: with respect to variations in the optical continuum was
65: discovered \citep{lyutyi71, cherepashchuk73}. The time lag was
66: interpreted by \citet{lyutyi77, lyutyi82} as a consequence of the
67: fact that the emission-line clouds are at some distance from the
68: ionizing radiation source. Later on, \citet{antonucci83} observed
69: much smaller time lags in variations of the H$\beta$ and H$\gamma$
70: lines. Such a difference in the time lag, in H$\alpha$ greater
71: than in H$\beta$, is observed in other active galactic nuclei (AGN) as
72: well (see Table~6 in \citealt{peterson04}). According to
73: \citet{shevchenko84, shevchenko85a}, this difference in time
74: lag is due to an essential nonlinearity in the dependence of the
75: H$\alpha$ luminosity of an individual cloud upon the ionizing
76: continuum flux incident on the cloud, the dependence in the
77: higher order Balmer lines being close to linear. This explanation
78: was made with the assumption that the duration of the
79: emission-line flare is much greater than the duration of the flare
80: in the ionizing continuum, and the duration of the latter one
81: allows its description by $\delta$-function. However, continuum
82: variations are not so rapid usually; therefore, in order to
83: extract physical information from the observed emission-line
84: variations, it is necessary, in addition to theoretical estimates,
85: to use numerical modelling taking into account the timescale
86: of continuum variations.
87:
88: In the present paper, we study theoretically how the nonlinearity
89: in the emission-line luminosity, $L_\mathrm{l}$, of the broad-line
90: region (BLR) cloud, in its dependence on the ionizing continuum flux,
91: $F_\mathrm{i}$, incident on the cloud, can be taken into account
92: in estimating the BLR sizes by means of the ``reverberation''
93: methods. We show that the BLR size estimates obtained by
94: straightforward cross-correlation of emission-line and continuum
95: light curves can be much (up to an order of magnitude) less than
96: those obtained by reverberation modelling. First of all, we
97: demonstrate this by means of abstract representative numerical
98: cross-correlation and reverberation experiments with model
99: continuum flares and emission-line transfer functions. Then we
100: accomplish practical numerical modelling of the light curves of
101: NGC~4151 in the H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ lines on the basis the
102: observational data by \citet{kaspi96} and the theoretical model of
103: the BLR by \citet{shevchenko84, shevchenko85a}. This model is
104: characterized by allowing for thick geometries of the BLR, taking
105: into account the anisotropy of line emission of individual clouds
106: and, most important, taking into account the nonlinearity of the
107: ``$L_\mathrm{l}$--$F_\mathrm{i}$'' relation. This nonlinearity allows
108: one to explain the differences in the time lags for different
109: lines. Cross-correlation estimates of the BLR size are also made.
110: They turn out to be small in comparison to the estimates obtained
111: by the direct reverberation modelling.
112:
113: The values of the parameters of the BLR model are derived directly
114: from the reverberation modelling, and that is why we do not use
115: any specific numeric results of modern photoionization models of
116: the emission-line spectra of AGN. We use only the fact that,
117: according to these models, the emission-line response of an
118: individual cloud (particularly, in H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$) can be
119: nonlinear. We also allow for a constant emission-line component.
120:
121: Though the presented theoretical inferences on the time lags can
122: be of general interest, our primary goal is to apply them to
123: explaining the time behaviour of the H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ lines
124: in the emission-line spectrum of NGC~4151, in the framework of a
125: simple uniform one-component model. Of course, explaining the time
126: behaviour of the whole emission-line spectrum
127: would require much more complicated multi-component models.
128:
129:
130: \section[]{Effective Stratification of a Homogeneous BLR}
131:
132: The broad-line region (BLR) of an active galactic nucleus,
133: according to the ``standard model'', see, e.g.
134: \citealt{peterson88}, represents an aggregate of line-emitting
135: clouds under the effect of ionizing radiation of the central
136: source.
137:
138: The dependence of the emission-line luminosity $L_\mathrm{l}$ of an
139: individual cloud upon the value of the incident ionizing flux
140: $F_\mathrm{i}$, in accordance with the photoionization models of
141: spectra of active galactic nuclei (see, e.g.,
142: \citealt{kwan84, mushotzky84}), is described by a power law:
143: $L_\mathrm{l} \propto F_\mathrm{i}^s$, where $s \ge 0$.
144:
145: The rate of heat input in a gas cloud optically thick in the
146: ionizing continuum is directly proportional to the value of the
147: ionizing flux incident on this cloud. \citet{kwan84} noted that
148: therefore the cloud's emission-line luminosity should be, in a
149: first approximation, directly proportional to the ionizing flux;
150: different lines, however, behave differently. For example, in the
151: case of L$\alpha$ the dependence is somewhat weaker than linear.
152: The L$\alpha$ quanta leaving the cloud are produced in the
153: traditional \mbox{H\,{\sc ii}} zone. At the high ionization
154: parameters typical of AGNs the collisional ionization from the
155: excited levels of hydrogen (in particular, from the second level)
156: are effective even in the \mbox{H\,{\sc ii}} zone. With increasing
157: ionization parameter their efficiency grows, and this leads to
158: weakening of the specified dependence \citep{kwan81,kwan84}.
159:
160: So, the emission-line response of an individual cloud can be
161: nonlinear. This fact was recognized already in the first
162: successful photoionization models. According to them, quanta in
163: many lines are produced mainly not in the traditional
164: \mbox{H\,{\sc ii}} zone, but deeper, in the so-called ``deep
165: partly ionized zone''. Successful modelling of stationary optical
166: emission-line spectra of AGN requires the following two
167: circumstances to be taken into account \citep{kwan79}: the
168: power-law shape of the spectrum of ionizing continuum (i.e., the
169: fact that the major fraction of ionizing quanta is in the X-ray
170: part of spectrum) and the big column densities of the clouds
171: emitting in lines. If the X-ray luminosity of the ionizing source
172: is great enough in comparison with the UV one, the ``deep partly
173: ionized zone'' is formed in the cloud. Taking into account the
174: contribution of this zone increases the luminosity of the cloud in
175: Balmer lines, whereas the luminosity in L$\alpha$ is stabilized at
176: the level of the luminosity of the \mbox{H\,{\sc ii}} zone. So,
177: the collisional amplification of Balmer and Paschen lines takes
178: place in the ``deep partly ionized zone''. Inside this zone the
179: excitation temperatures of these lines increase with optical
180: depth, but ultimately attain some limiting values. The limiting
181: values are insensitive to variation of the ionizing flux, because
182: the Balmer and Paschen continua dominate in cooling at such depths
183: \citep{kwan84}. According to \citet{kwan81}, when
184: collisional ionization becomes the main source of ionizations and
185: cooling, the rate of cooling increases with increasing electron
186: temperature approximately as $\exp(-32 \times 10^4\,{\rm
187: K}/T_\mathrm{e})$. In the standard model by \citet{kwan81},
188: $T_\mathrm{e} \approx 8000$~K in ``the deep zone''; the steep
189: dependence of the rate of cooling on temperature, as Kwan and
190: Krolik noted, provides only weak variation of $T_\mathrm{e}$ with
191: depth and insensitivity of $T_\mathrm{e}$ to variation of the model
192: parameters, in particular, the ionization parameter. Increasing
193: the ionizing flux makes higher levels of hydrogen attain the
194: limiting excitation temperatures; the luminosity of the ``deep
195: zone'' in the relevant lines then ceases to react to changes of
196: the ionizing flux, i.e., in this limit they are constant. In the
197: Balmer series, the approach to the limiting temperatures affects
198: first of all the H$\alpha$ line, then H$\beta$, and so on. Thus,
199: according to the photoionization models \citep{kwan81,kwan84}, the
200: dependence of the cloud's emission-line luminosity on the incident
201: ionizing flux for the H$\alpha$ line is weaker than for H$\beta$,
202: for H$\beta$ is weaker than for H$\gamma$, and so on.
203:
204: Due to the difference between H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ in the value
205: of the $s$ parameter, the Balmer decrement increases with increasing
206: distance of clouds away from the central source,
207: therefore a photographic BLR image (if such an image could be
208: obtained) would be larger in H$\alpha$ than in H$\beta$.
209: A formula for an effective BLR radius in a line with
210: an arbitrary $s$ value in the homogeneous model of the cloud
211: aggregate was deduced in \citep{shevchenko85a}. This effective
212: stratification is explained by differences between emission lines
213: in the degree of nonlinearity of the $L_\mathrm{l}(F_\mathrm{i})$
214: function. \citet{shevchenko88} showed that within the framework of
215: the homogeneous model of the cloud aggregate, if one takes into
216: account the results of the photoionization calculations of the
217: emission-line spectra of active galactic nuclei
218: \citep{kwan84, mushotzky84}, it is possible to explain the
219: observed time lags and amplitudes of variations in major optical
220: and ultraviolet (UV) emission lines in the spectrum of NGC~4151.
221:
222: After the first successes of the photoionization computations of
223: the AGN emission-line spectra, significant progress was made in
224: this field; see, e.g., reviews by \citet{ferland03} and
225: \citet{leighly07}. Multi-component models were proposed and
226: studied \citep{collin-souffrin88, collin-souffrin88a, korista97},
227: which allowed to reproduce the relative fluxes in high-ionization
228: and low-ionization lines simultaneously. Evidence was found for
229: the presence of optically thin line-emitting gas \citep{ferland90,
230: shields95}.
231: This progress promoted much deeper understanding of the AGN
232: emission-line spectra~--- it turned out that the uniform models
233: are too simple to reproduce the whole spectra. However, in what
234: follows, our study concerns only Balmer lines. We aim to explain
235: the time behaviour of the H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ lines in the
236: emission-line spectrum of NGC~4151, in the framework of a simple
237: uniform one-component model. Of course, explaining the behaviour
238: of the emission-line spectrum in total may require much more
239: complicated multi-component models.
240:
241: Effective, not physical, stratification is present in our
242: one-component model, due to the nonlinearity in each cloud's line
243: emission. The alternative to a homogeneous BLR with effective
244: stratification is a physically stratified BLR.
245: Investigating variability of the UV lines of NGC~4151,
246: \citet{ulrich84} offered the BLR model consisting of three zones
247: with different physical characteristics (see Table~2 in their
248: article). \citet{gaskell86} proposed a model consisting of two
249: zones (see Table~1 in their article). These models are not
250: considered henceforth; we adopt the effective stratification
251: picture as implied by the nonlinearity in cloud's line emission.
252:
253:
254: \section[]{The Reverberation Model}
255:
256: \citet{blandford82} offered a procedure to recover the
257: BLR structure by analysis of line and continuum lightcurves.
258: This is the so-called method of
259: ``reverberation mapping''. Its essence consists in the following:
260: the observed light curve in a line is supposed to represent a
261: convolution of two curves: the transfer function describing
262: physical characteristics and the geometry of the BLR and the light
263: curve in ionizing continuum. The emission-line luminosity of an
264: individual cloud was supposed to depend linearly on the
265: incident ionizing flux.
266:
267: \citet{shevchenko84, shevchenko85a} found necessary and sufficient
268: conditions for the existence of a time lag of a maximum of
269: an emission-line flare in relation to a (short duration)
270: continuum flare when the BLR structure is isotropic with respect
271: to the central source; these conditions are: the typical cloud
272: should emit in the line mainly from the side facing the central
273: source, and, either a central cavity should be effectively present
274: in BLR, or the $s$ parameter in the formula $L_\mathrm{l} \propto
275: F_\mathrm{i}^s$ should be less than one. These conditions set useful
276: reference points for our modelling. In the 1990's the effect of
277: nonlinear response as well as of anisotropy of the individual
278: cloud emission in specific BLR models, as applied to the
279: cross-correlation analysis, was studied in detail by
280: \citet{sparke93} and \cite{obrien94, obrien95}.
281:
282: We adopt the homogeneous model of the cloud aggregate
283: \citep{shevchenko84, shevchenko85a}. The effective BLR radius $R$
284: is defined by screening of the peripheral part of the aggregate by
285: the clouds situated closer to its centre: $R = (\sigma n)^{-1}$,
286: where $\sigma$~[cm$^2$] is the mean geometrical cloud section
287: orthogonal to direction to the central source, $n$~[cm$^{-3}$] is
288: the cloud concentration (number of clouds in a unit volume).
289: Generally, the BLR can contain a central cloud-free cavity of
290: radius $R_0$. Let us remark that the Balmer quanta, unlike the
291: ionizing quanta, can leave the BLR freely even at large
292: cloud-covering factors of the ``sky'' of the central source,
293: because the dispersion of the cloud velocities in the BLR is
294: assumed to be great; the latter fact is testified by the large
295: width of the observed emission lines.
296:
297: The model of a homogeneous (outside the central cavity)
298: distribution of the clouds is equivalent, in what concerns the
299: transfer function form, to a model with zero covering factor but
300: with $n \propto e^{-r/R}$, an exponential decrease in the
301: cloud concentration with increasing distance from the centre.
302: In both interpretations, $R$ characterizes the BLR radius
303: for all lines. In the first case, it is the radius of the ``lit''
304: zone in the homogeneous aggregate, and in the second case it is
305: the $e$-folding scale of the cloud concentration.
306:
307: We assume that a typical BLR cloud represents a flat ``pancake''
308: emitting lines solely from the side facing the ionizing radiation
309: source, and, what is more, emitting orthotropically. See
310: discussion in \citep{shevchenko85b} on the physical basis for this
311: assumption. The planes of the clouds are either orthogonal to the
312: direction to the central source, or are oriented randomly. The
313: phase function, describing the phase angle dependence of the
314: cloud's line emission, is different in these two cases. For
315: random orientation, the effective phase function (the phase
316: function of a volume unit containing many clouds) coincides with
317: the phase function of a spherical cloud, provided
318: \citep{shevchenko85b}: the cloud is completely opaque in the line,
319: the line quanta are produced at small optical depths, and the
320: cloud surface emits in the line orthotropically.
321:
322: One should make a reservation that the pancake shaped cloud, as
323: well as a uniform cloud aggregate model itself, is a physical
324: idealization that can be used only as an approximation for the
325: real arrangement of line-emitting material in the BLR. The real
326: structure might be closer to a combination of a disk and an
327: outflowing wind \citep{emmering92, murray95, chiang96, bottorff97,
328: elvis00}. We adopt the pancake shape for the BLR cloud exclusively
329: for convenience in mathematical modelling: indeed, according
330: to \citet{shevchenko85b}, the phase function of the pancake cloud
331: with the plane orthogonal to the ionizing source direction
332: provides the maximum anisotropy of line emission, i.e., this is a
333: physical limit worth theoretical examination, while the phase
334: function of a spherical cloud (or, equivalently, randomly oriented
335: pancakes) gives an approximation for the phase function of
336: randomly oriented optically thick line-emitting material, i.e., it
337: describes a situation that is expected to be closer to reality.
338:
339: If the ``pancakes'' are orthogonal to the central source
340: direction, the transfer function representing the dependence of
341: the observed integrated emission-line flux $f(t)$ on time $t$
342: counted from the moment of the $\delta(t)$--flare of the central
343: source in continuum, is as follows \citep{shevchenko84,
344: shevchenko85a}:
345:
346: \begin{equation}
347: \label{transfer1}
348: f(t) \propto \left\{
349: \begin{array}{cl}
350: 0, & 0 \le t \le {\displaystyle R_0}, \\
351: &\\
352: {\displaystyle R^{-1} \int\limits_{R_0}^{t}} g(r,t)\,dr,
353: & {\displaystyle R_0 \le t \le 2 R_0},\\
354: &\\
355: {\displaystyle R^{-1} \int\limits_{t/2}^{t}} g(r,t)\,dr, & t \ge
356: {\displaystyle 2 R_0},
357: \end{array}
358: \right.
359: \end{equation}
360:
361: \noindent
362: where
363: \[
364: g(r,t) = \left(\frac{t}{r} -1 \right) r^{1-2s} e^{-r/R},
365: \]
366:
367: \noindent and $r$, $R$, $R_0$ are measured in the light-travel
368: time units.
369:
370: In the case when the planes of clouds are oriented randomly,
371: their mean phase function coincides with the phase function of a
372: spherical cloud. This function is as follows
373: \citep{shevchenko85b}:
374:
375: \begin{equation}
376: \label{pf2} j(\theta) \propto (1 + \cos \theta) \left(1 +
377: \frac{s}{2}\cos \theta \right),
378: \end{equation}
379:
380: \noindent
381: where $\theta$ is the ``ionizing source -- cloud --
382: observer'' angle, $0 \le \theta \le \pi$, $0 \le s \le 2$. General
383: formula~(3) in \citep{shevchenko84} for the transfer function,
384: after substitution of phase function~(\ref{pf2}), becomes:
385:
386: \begin{equation}
387: \label{transfer2} f(t) \propto \left\{
388: \begin{array}{cl}
389: {\displaystyle\frac{t}{R}\int\limits_{R_0}^\infty} g(r,t)\,dr,
390: & 0 \le t \le {\displaystyle 2 R_0},\\
391: &\\
392: {\displaystyle\frac{t}{R}\int\limits_{t/2}^\infty} g(r,t)\,dr, & t
393: \ge {\displaystyle 2 R_0},
394: \end{array}
395: \right.
396: \end{equation}
397:
398: \noindent
399: where
400: \[
401: g(r,t) = \left(1 + {\displaystyle\frac{s}{2}\left(\frac{t}{r} -
402: 1\right)}\right) r^{-2s} e^{-r/R}\>.
403: \]
404:
405: \noindent Transfer functions~(\ref{transfer1}) and
406: (\ref{transfer2}) can be expressed through incomplete
407: $\gamma$ functions. The behaviour of the transfer functions with
408: different values of the $s$ parameter (while $R_0=0$, $R=15$
409: lt-days) is demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{fig1}. The qualitative
410: difference in the behaviour of the functions with $s$ less and
411: greater than unity is clearly seen. In particular, $f(t)$ peaks at
412: $t = 0$ for $s \ge 1$ and at $t>0$ for $s<1$.
413:
414: \begin{figure}
415: \begin{center}
416: \includegraphics[width=130mm]{fig1a.eps}\\
417: \includegraphics[width=130mm]{fig1b.eps}\\
418: \caption{Transfer functions~(\protect\ref{transfer1}) and
419: (\protect\ref{transfer2}) (figures (a) and (b), respectively) for
420: three values of the $s$ parameter, while $R_0=0$, $R=15$ lt-days.}
421: \label{fig1}
422: \end{center}
423: \end{figure}
424:
425: The model emission-line light curve is determined by the
426: convolution formula:
427:
428: \begin{equation}
429: F_\mathrm{l}(t) = a \int_0^\infty f(\tau) F_\mathrm{c}^s(t - \tau)d\tau \>,
430: \label{conv}
431: \end{equation}
432:
433: \noindent where $F_\mathrm{l}$ is the integrated flux in the line,
434: $F_\mathrm{c}$ is the observed flux in continuum, $a$ is the
435: normalizing dimensional factor. Since it is the optical continuum,
436: not the ionizing one, that is observed, we use an assumption,
437: formulated below, on a relation between the continua. A difference
438: of expression~(\ref{conv}) from those usually used (valid in the
439: case of the linear ``$L_\mathrm{l}$--$F_\mathrm{i}$'' relation; see,
440: e.g., \citealt{blandford82} and \citealt{horn04}) consists in
441: raising of $F_\mathrm{c}$ to the power $s$. Let us remark that,
442: according to~(\ref{conv}), on taking $f(\tau)$ in the form of
443: $\delta$-function, one gets $F_\mathrm{l}(t) \propto F_\mathrm{c}^s(t)$,
444: i.e., the dependence for the case of quasi-stationary spectrum;
445: see \citep{shevchenko88}.
446:
447:
448: \section[]{The time lag and the cross-correlation method}
449: \label{tlccm}
450:
451: Techniques for cross-correlation analysis of AGN
452: emission-line variability have demonstrated remarkable progress
453: during the last decade. The methods of calculation of the basic
454: properties of the cross-correlation function (CCF), namely, the lags of
455: the CCF peak and CCF centroid and their uncertainties, were
456: greatly improved (e.g., \citealt{white94, peterson95, peterson98,
457: welsh99}). In particular, it was realized that the CCF peaks and
458: centroids underestimate the BLR size \citep{perez92, welsh99}, and
459: that taking into account the continuum variability time scale is
460: important for correct estimation of the BLR size (e.g.,
461: \citealt{edelson88}).
462:
463: Let us consider the time lag as determined by means of
464: cross-correlation analysis in the case of nonlinear emission-line
465: response of an individual cloud. In this Section, we measure the
466: time lag in model numerical experiments and study the dependence
467: of the time lag on the parameters of a model transfer function and
468: duration of the continuum flares. We consider the case of a single
469: flare of various durations. As the model transfer function we take
470: Eq.~(\ref{transfer1}) corresponding to the case of the ``pancake''
471: clouds orthogonal to the central source direction. The central
472: cavity in the BLR is set to be absent: $R_0 = 0$.
473:
474: The model light curve in the continuum is assumed to have the form
475: of the bell-like function $F_\mathrm{c}(t) = \mbox{sech} ((t -
476: t_0)/T)$, where $t_0 = 50$~d and $T$ is effective duration of the
477: flare, $t$ is time in days. The model emission-line light curves
478: are computed on the time interval of 500~d with the step of
479: $0.05$~d.
480:
481: \begin{figure}
482: \begin{center}
483: \includegraphics[width=130mm]{fig2.eps}\\
484: \caption {The upper plot: the model light curve in the continuum
485: (the continuous line; $R=15$ lt-days, $R_0=0$, $T=1$~d, $s=1$) and
486: the computed emission-line light curve (the dashed line). The
487: lower plot: the normalized cross-correlation function.}
488: \label{fig2}
489: \end{center}
490: \end{figure}
491:
492: In the upper part of Fig.~\ref{fig2}, the model light curve in the
493: continuum ($T = 1$~d) and the computed emission-line light curve
494: are presented. The latter curve has been obtained by means of
495: convolution of the light curve in the continuum and the transfer
496: function~(\ref{transfer1}) with $R = 15$~lt-days, $R_0=0$, $s =
497: 1$. In the lower part of Fig.~\ref{fig2}, the normalized
498: cross-correlation function of these curves is plotted. The shift
499: of the peak of the cross-correlation function is clearly visible;
500: as determined numerically, $\Delta t_\mathrm{peak} \simeq 3.8$~d.
501: Note that the exponential-like decay of the resulting curves in
502: both plots reflects the radial structure of the line-emitting
503: region, and the rise in the CCF reflects the shape of the
504: continuum flare.
505:
506: One may argue that the linear response model is just a
507: linearization of the nonlinear response model, and that any
508: BLR radius estimate made in the linear response model is
509: therefore an approximation that might be not far from reality.
510: However, one should take into account, firstly, that the ``equal
511: time-travel'' paraboloidal surface inside the BLR covers a whole
512: range of distances from the ionizing source just after the
513: ionizing flare, secondly, that with increasing time after the
514: flare this surface retreats from the source to larger
515: distances. The slopes of the linearized dependences for individual
516: clouds on the surface vary significantly in both space and time.
517: The response slopes might be averaged on the surface, but then the
518: change of the averaged slope with time should be taken into
519: account; the latter is never done in practice. So, it is not
520: surprising that the nonlinear response model, as compared to the
521: linear one, can give very different quantitative results on the
522: BLR radius. This directly follows from the qualitative differences
523: in the response function for different values of the $s$
524: parameter, as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig1}. A vivid manifestation of
525: the insufficiency of the linearized response model is that
526: increasing the time lag value in the nonlinear response model can
527: be achieved either by increasing the BLR radius or by specific
528: increasing the response nonlinearity, namely, by decreasing the
529: $s$ parameter value in relation to unity (see
530: relation~(\ref{deltat})), while in the linear response model only
531: the BLR radius can be varied.
532:
533: \citet{shevchenko85a, shevchenko94} obtained an approximate
534: theoretical relation of the time lag of the maximum of the
535: emission-line light curve to the $s$ parameter in the homogeneous
536: model of the cloud aggregate with or without a central cavity
537: ($R_0 \ge 0$). The continuum flare was described by a
538: $\delta$ function. This relation is as follows:
539:
540: \begin{equation}
541: \Delta t = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
542: W (1-s) R, & {0 \le s \le {1 - 2 R_{0}/(W R)},} \\
543: 2R_{0}, & {s \ge {1 - 2 R_{0}/(W R)},}
544: \end{array}
545: \right.
546: \label{deltat}
547: \end{equation}
548:
549: \noindent where the constant $W$ depends on the choice of phase
550: function; $W = 3.19$ in the considered case of clouds with regular
551: orientation. In the case of phase function~(\ref{pf2}) one has $W
552: = 2$.
553:
554: \begin{figure}
555: \begin{center}
556: \includegraphics[width=130mm]{fig3.eps} \\
557: \caption{The dependence of the time lag on the parameter $s$;
558: $R_0=0$, $T=1$~d. The straight line segments represent theoretical
559: relations~(\protect\ref{deltat}).}
560: \label{fig3}
561: \end{center}
562: \end{figure}
563:
564: By examining the shifts of peaks of cross-correlation
565: functions at various values of parameters we can assess how well
566: relation~(\ref{deltat}) works when the ionizing flare
567: has a finite duration. Consider first how
568: the time lag varies with $s$ at fixed $R$ (Fig.~\ref{fig3}).
569: The time lag, as defined here, is the value
570: of the distance along the time axis from $t = 0$ up to the first
571: maximum of the cross-correlation function; i.e., it is $\Delta
572: t_\mathrm{peak}$. We do not examine the shift of the centroid of the
573: cross-correlation function here. The parameter $s$ is varied from
574: $0.1$ to $2.0$ with the step of $0.01$. The ionizing flare
575: duration is fixed at $T=1$~d. The curves for $R = 5$, 15 and
576: 25~lt-days are plotted. Theoretical dependences~(\ref{deltat}) for
577: $R = 5$, 15 and 25~lt-days and $R_0 = 0$ are plotted as straight
578: line segments. It is clear that the theoretical and numerical
579: estimates of the time lag at such a relatively small duration of
580: the continuum flare are in a good agreement.
581:
582: \begin{figure}
583: \begin{center}
584: \includegraphics[width=130mm]{fig4.eps} \\
585: \caption{The dependence of the time lag on the BLR radius $R$;
586: $R_0=0$, $T=1$~d.}
587: \label{fig4}
588: \end{center}
589: \end{figure}
590:
591: Now we consider the dependence of the time lag on the BLR radius
592: $R$ (Fig.~\ref{fig4}). The ionizing flare duration is the same,
593: $T=1$~d. The dependences for $s=0.5$ and $s=1$ are plotted. We see
594: that the linear character of theoretical relation~(\ref{deltat}),
595: valid for the $\delta(t)$ ionizing flare, is preserved in the case
596: of $s=0.5$. In what concerns the $s=1$ case, it is completely
597: different. From the viewpoint of relation~(\ref{deltat}), this
598: case is degenerate, and the predicted value of $\Delta
599: t_\mathrm{peak}$ is constant (zero). In reality we observe the
600: ``$\Delta t_\mathrm{peak}$--$R$'' relation similar to a logarithmic
601: one.
602:
603: So, as follows from Fig.~\ref{fig3} and Fig.~\ref{fig4}, for $s
604: \ge 1$ the CCF $\Delta t_\mathrm{peak}$ value depends only
605: weakly on $R$. The cross-correlation peak time lag for $s \ge 1$
606: is small in comparison with $R$ expressed in the light-travel time
607: units. The difference can reach an order of magnitude.
608: For $s = 1$, a similar phenomenon was observed by \citet{perez92} for
609: the CCF centroid estimates of the BLR size in an isotropic (with
610: respect to the ionizing source) model of the line-emitting cloud
611: distribution. They found that such estimates can be less than the
612: real size of the BLR, the difference reaching two times. This is
613: in accord with our findings.
614:
615: \begin{figure}
616: \begin{center}
617: \includegraphics[width=130mm]{fig5.eps} \\
618: \caption{The dependence of the time lag on the BLR radius $R$ at
619: various values of duration $T$ of the ionizing flare; $s = 1$,
620: $R_0=0$.}
621: \label{fig5}
622: \end{center}
623: \end{figure}
624:
625: What is the role of the ionizing flare duration in the degenerate
626: case $s = 1$? The dependences of the time lag on $R$ in this case
627: for various fixed values of $T$ are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig5}. We
628: see that this role is far greater than that of the BLR radius. The
629: observed ``$\Delta t_\mathrm{peak}$--$R$'' dependences seem to be
630: logarithmic indeed; one can verify that, unlike the rational and
631: power-law functions, the functions of the form $a + b \ln (R +
632: c)$, where $a$, $b$, $c$ are fitting parameters, provide ideal
633: visual description of the observed curves. Note that further
634: work is required to explore how the logarithmic dependence found
635: here is vulnerable to the choice of the ionizing flare shape.
636:
637: In summary, according to our numerical-experimental findings, the
638: BLR radius is only weakly related to the measured $\Delta
639: t_\mathrm{peak}$ value in the mathematically degenerate but
640: observationally most common case of $s=1$. The role of the
641: timescale of variability is far greater. Therefore, the lines with
642: $s \approx 1$ are of little help in determining the BLR size by
643: means of cross-correlation techniques; instead, the lines with $s$
644: essentially less than 1, such as H$\alpha$, should be used for
645: this purpose. This conclusion has been obtained in a model
646: framework and thus may be model-dependent in some way. However, it
647: makes clear that there are no general theoretical grounds to
648: believe that $\Delta t_\mathrm{peak}$ is mostly determined by the BLR
649: size. Note that solely the CCF peak offset has been examined.
650: The CCF centroid offset should be examined as well in a future
651: study to check whether it exhibits the same behaviour.
652:
653:
654: \section[]{Reverberation modelling of the emission-line light curves of NGC~4151}
655:
656: In this Section we examine the effect of taking into account the
657: nonlinearity in a cloud's line emission in practical modelling of
658: emission-line variability of an AGN. We model the
659: emission-line variability of the Seyfert galaxy NGC~4151. The
660: observational data of \citet{kaspi96} on variability of the
661: nucleus of this galaxy in H$\alpha$, H$\beta$ and optical
662: continuum is used. The observations of \citet{kaspi96}, performed
663: in the framework the AGN Watch Programme, cover the time interval
664: of approximately three months, from 1993 November until 1994
665: February. While we use the light curve continuum data for the
666: whole time span of the observations, the data on the fluxes in the
667: lines during the first five days and during the last five days of
668: the observational time span are excluded, following the usual
669: practice of eliminating the border effects (see~\citet{maoz91}).
670: The error bars of the individual observations, defining the
671: weights of the observations, are taken into account in the
672: modelling.
673:
674: We optimize the model parameters by using a non-linear
675: least-squares method \citep{levenberg44,marquardt63} to minimize
676: $\chi^2$, thereby finding best-fit parameter values and their
677: standard errors (see~\citet{press97}). We find that the
678: iterations converge to the same solution for random starting
679: values in ranges specified below, with the deepest minimum of
680: $\chi^2$ in all cases, though several other local minima exist, as
681: demonstrated below. We expand the standard errors by the
682: square root of the reduced $\chi^2$, because the best-fit reduced
683: $\chi^2$ is greater than unity in all best-fit models found.
684:
685: As the transfer functions, we use Eqs.~(\ref{transfer1}) and
686: (\ref{transfer2}). The best approximation of the computed model
687: light curve to the observed one is found by means of the
688: modelling. We vary six parameters: the BLR radius $R$,
689: the nonlinearity parameters
690: $s_\mathrm{opt}$ for H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$, the normalizing
691: coefficients $a$ for H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$, the flux $F_{\alpha
692: \mathrm{n}}$ in the narrow component of H$\alpha$ (on the $F_{\beta
693: \mathrm{n}}$ value for H$\beta$ see below).
694:
695: The radius $R_0$ of the central cavity (a zone free from
696: line-emitting clouds) has not been varied because it is already
697: known to be most probably small. A comparison of the known values
698: of time lags in different Balmer lines of NGC~4151 allowed
699: \citet{shevchenko85a} to conclude that the upper bound of the
700: cavity radius $R_0$ is 4--5 times less than the effective BLR
701: radius. The deduction that the central cavity is small is in
702: agreement with conclusions by \citet{maoz91} and \citet{xue98}.
703: Note that the radius of the accretion disc in the centre of the
704: nuclear region is estimated to be equal to $0.6$--2~lt-days
705: \citep{lyuty05, sergeev05, sergeev06}. Taking into account the
706: uncertainty of this estimate and the uncertainty of the $R_0$
707: estimates, the probable existence of this component of the nuclear
708: region does not at all contradict the conclusions on the small
709: relative size of the central cavity in the BLR.
710:
711: For the continuum flux we take the flux at the wavelengths of
712: 4560--4640\AA \ (the ``4600\AA'' region), because this region
713: corresponds to the shortest wavelengths at which \citet{kaspi96}
714: measured the continuum flux. The series of the observed values
715: of the continuum flux are recalculated for presentation on the
716: uniform time grid by means of cubic spline interpolation.
717:
718: The constant contribution to the integrated flux in H$\alpha$ and
719: H$\beta$ due to the narrow components of the lines has been taken
720: into account in the following way. We set $F_{\alpha}(t) =
721: F_\mathrm{c}^{s_\alpha}(t) + F_{\alpha \mathrm{n}}$ and $F_{\beta}(t) =
722: F_\mathrm{c}^{s_\beta}(t) + F_{\beta \mathrm{n}}$. The contributions of
723: the narrow components $F_{\alpha \mathrm{n}}$ and $F_{\beta \mathrm{n}}$
724: are connected to each other via the constant Balmer decrement
725: $D_\mathrm{n} = F_{\alpha \mathrm{n}}/F_{\beta \mathrm{n}}$. Therefore in
726: the course of searching for the best model it is enough to vary
727: the value of $F_{\alpha \mathrm{n}}$; the value of $F_{\beta
728: \mathrm{n}}$ is determined via the Balmer decrement. For each of the
729: considered cases of orientation of the planes of clouds we have
730: accomplished the modelling twice, namely, for the two reported
731: values of the Balmer decrement in the narrow components:
732: $D_\mathrm{n} = 4.47$ as given in Table~1 in \citep{ferland82} and
733: $D_\mathrm{n} = 7.55$ as given in Table~1 in \citep{sergeev01}. The
734: difference in the observed values of the decrement $D_\mathrm{n}$ may
735: reflect either the difficulty in its evaluation or its probable
736: long-term variability.
737:
738: The contribution of the stellar component to the observed
739: continuum flux has been taken into account by its subtraction from
740: the observed flux prior to modelling. According to
741: \citet{peterson95} and \citet{kaspi96}, the stellar component
742: contribution at the wavelength of 4600\AA \ and the aperture used
743: at their observations is approximately equal to $2.2 \times
744: 10^{-14} \mbox{ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ \AA$^{-1}$}$.
745:
746: As it is known from observations (see, e.g., \citealt{crenshaw96,
747: peterson02}), the light curves of an active galactic nucleus in
748: the optical and UV continua can be rather different, and the
749: relation between the continua is nonlinear. For the Seyfert galaxy
750: NGC~5548, most studied in this respect, the slow components of
751: variability in the optical and UV continua are connected by the
752: power law $F_{\mathrm{opt}} \propto F_{\mathrm{UV}}^\gamma$, where
753: $\gamma \approx {0.56}$ \citep{peterson02}.
754: Basing on this relation, we find the real values of the $s$
755: parameter from the values obtained in our modelling of the optical
756: light curves (we designate these values by $s_{\mathrm{opt}}$)
757: by means of the formula $s = \gamma s_{\mathrm{opt}}$, where
758: we set $\gamma = 0.6$.
759:
760: The value of $R$ does not depend on the line choice. The
761: values of $s_{\mathrm{opt}}$ for different lines are generally
762: different, and the same is true for $a$. The initial data for the
763: iterations of the Levenberg--Marquardt algorithm have been taken
764: randomly in the following limits: $R$~--- from 1 to 30~lt-days;
765: $s_{\mathrm{opt}}$ in the both lines~--- from $0.2$ to $2.0$; $a$~---
766: from $0.01$ to $2.0$; $F_{\alpha \mathrm{n}}$~--- from 0 to $30
767: \times 10^{-12} \mbox{ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$}$.
768:
769: \begin{figure}
770: \begin{center}
771: \includegraphics[width=130mm]{fig6a.eps}\\
772: \includegraphics[width=130mm]{fig6b.eps}\\
773: \caption{The best model light curves of NGC~4151 in H$\alpha$ and
774: H$\beta$ in the case when the planes of clouds are orthogonal to
775: the direction to the central source. $D_\mathrm{n} = 4.47$ (a),
776: $D_\mathrm{n} = 7.55$ (b). The continuum flux is given in the
777: units of $10^{-14} \mbox{ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ \AA$^{-1}$}$. The
778: emission-line fluxes are given in the units of $10^{-12} \mbox{
779: erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$}$.}
780: \label{fig6}
781: \end{center}
782: \end{figure}
783:
784: In the case when the planes of clouds are orthogonal to the
785: direction to the central source, the best-fit model light curves
786: are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig6} for two different values of
787: $D_\mathrm{n}$. The circles designate the observed values of the flux
788: in optical continuum and the observed integrated emission-line
789: fluxes according to the data in (\citealt{kaspi96}, Table~2). In
790: both parts of the Figure, the continuous curve in the upper plot
791: is the spline interpolation of the continuum flux. The flux is
792: given in the units of $10^{-14} \mbox{ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$
793: \AA$^{-1}$}$. In the lower two plots, the best model light curves
794: in H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ are presented as continuous curves; here
795: the integrated emission-line flux is given in the units of
796: $10^{-12} \mbox{ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$}$.
797:
798: \begin{figure}
799: \begin{center}
800: \includegraphics[width=130mm]{fig7a.eps}\\
801: \includegraphics[width=130mm]{fig7b.eps}\\
802: \caption{The same as in Fig.~\protect\ref{fig6}, but the planes of
803: clouds are oriented randomly.}
804: \label{fig7}
805: \end{center}
806: \end{figure}
807:
808: In Fig.~\ref{fig7}, the best model emission-line light curves are
809: presented for the case when the planes of clouds are oriented
810: randomly.
811:
812: To demonstrate the effect of variation of different
813: parameters in determining the best-fit models, $\chi^2/N$
814: (where $N$ is the number of degrees of freedom) is shown in
815: Figs.~\ref{fig8}, \ref{fig9} and \ref{fig10} in dependence on the
816: main parameters. Fig.~\ref{fig8} gives the dependence of the
817: reduced $\chi^2$ on the BLR radius $R$ with all other parameters
818: assigned to their best-fit values. Figs.~\ref{fig9} and
819: \ref{fig10} show the reduced $\chi^2$ in dependence on the
820: $s$ parameters for H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ with all other
821: parameters assigned to their best-fit values. (Note that these
822: graphs are presented here for illustrative purposes solely; for
823: quantitative analysis, when offsetting one parameter, one should
824: re-optimize all the other parameters while holding the one
825: parameter fixed at the offset value.) In the presented graphs one
826: can see that the $\chi^2$ dependence on $R$ is characterized by a
827: single well-defined minimum. The dependences of $\chi^2$ on the
828: $s$ parameters have four minima each. The Levenberg--Marquardt
829: algorithm finds the deepest one.
830:
831: \begin{figure}
832: \begin{center}
833: \includegraphics[width=130mm]{fig8.eps} \\
834: \caption{The dependence of the reduced $\chi^2$ on the BLR
835: radius $R$ with all other parameters assigned to their best-fit
836: values.}
837: \label{fig8}
838: \end{center}
839: \end{figure}
840:
841: \begin{figure}
842: \begin{center}
843: \includegraphics[width=100mm]{fig9a.eps}\\
844: \includegraphics[width=100mm]{fig9b.eps}\\
845: \caption{The dependence of the reduced $\chi^2$ on the
846: values of the $s$ parameters for H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ with all
847: other parameters assigned to their best-fit values. The case when
848: the planes of clouds are orthogonal to the direction to the
849: central source. $D_\mathrm{n} = 4.47$ (a), $D_\mathrm{n} = 7.55$ (b).}
850: \label{fig9}
851: \end{center}
852: \end{figure}
853:
854: \begin{figure}
855: \begin{center}
856: \includegraphics[width=100mm]{fig10a.eps}\\
857: \includegraphics[width=100mm]{fig10b.eps}\\
858: \caption{The same as in Fig.~\protect\ref{fig9}, but the planes of
859: clouds are oriented randomly.}
860: \label{fig10}
861: \end{center}
862: \end{figure}
863:
864: In Tables~\ref{tab1} and \ref{tab2}, the obtained values of the
865: model parameters, corresponding to the model emission-line light
866: curves in Fig.~\ref{fig6} and Fig.~\ref{fig7}, are presented
867: together with the reduced $\chi^2$ values of the models. In total,
868: the results of our modelling give the following values of the
869: radius of the BLR of NGC~4151: $R = 11$--14~lt-days, with the
870: uncertainty of 5--8~lt-days. At $D_\mathrm{n} = 4.47$, the best-fit
871: values of the $s$ parameter are: $s \approx 0.6$ for H$\alpha$
872: and $s \approx 0.85$ for H$\beta$. From comparison of
873: Tables~\ref{tab1} and \ref{tab2} one can see that at increasing
874: decrement $D_\mathrm{n}$ from $4.47$ up to $7.55$ the difference in
875: the computed values of the $s$ parameter for H$\alpha$ and
876: H$\beta$ becomes less, though does not seem to disappear
877: completely.
878:
879: \begin{table}
880: \begin{center}
881: \caption{The recovered values of the BLR parameters in the case of
882: $D_\mathrm{n} = 4.47$} \label{tab1}
883: \begin{tabular}{@{}lccc}
884: \hline
885: \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & Orthog.\ orient.\ & Random orient.\ \\
886: && (Fig.~\ref{fig6}a) & (Fig.~\ref{fig7}a) \\
887: \hline
888: \multicolumn{2}{l}{$R$} & $11 \pm 5$ & $13 \pm 7$\\
889: & $s$ ($s_{\mathrm{opt}}$) & $ 0.61 \pm 0.08$ ($1.02 \pm 0.13$)
890: & $ 0.60 \pm 0.08$ ($1.00 \pm 0.14$)\\
891: H$\alpha$ $\biggl\{ \biggr.$ & $F_{\alpha \mathrm{n}}$ &
892: $19.76 \pm 0.97$ & $19.55 \pm 1.14$\\
893: & $a$ & $0.53 \pm 0.08$ & $0.11 \pm 0.02$\\
894: & $s$ ($s_{\mathrm{opt}}$) & $0.85 \pm 0.05$ ($1.41 \pm 0.09$) &
895: $0.84 \pm 0.06$ ($1.40 \pm 0.10$)\\
896: H$\beta$ $\biggl\{ \biggr.$ & $F_{\beta \mathrm{n}}$ &
897: $4.42 \pm 0.22$ & $4.37 \pm 0.26$\\
898: &$a$ & $0.16 \pm 0.04$ & $0.040 \pm 0.009$\\
899: \multicolumn{2}{l}{$\chi^2/N$} & 2.97 & 2.98\\
900: \hline
901: \end{tabular}
902:
903: \medskip
904: $F_{\alpha \mathrm{n}}$ and $F_{\beta \mathrm{n}}$ are in the units of
905: $10^{-12} \mbox{ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$}$.
906: \end{center}
907: \end{table}
908:
909: \begin{table}
910: \begin{center}
911: \caption{The same in the case of $D_\mathrm{n} = 7.55$} \label{tab2}
912: \begin{tabular}{@{}lccc}
913: \hline
914: \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & Orthog.\ orient.\ & Random orient.\ \\
915: && (Fig.~\ref{fig6}b) & (Fig.~\ref{fig7}b) \\
916: \hline
917: \multicolumn{2}{l}{$R$} & $14 \pm 8$ & $11 \pm 5$\\
918: &$s$ ($s_{\mathrm{opt}}$) & $0.68 \pm 0.07$
919: ($1.13 \pm 0.12$) & $0.61 \pm 0.10$ ($1.02 \pm 0.16$)\\
920: H$\alpha$ $\biggl\{ \biggr.$ & $F_{\alpha \mathrm{n}}$ &
921: $20.96 \pm 0.86$ & $20.22 \pm 1.31$\\
922: & $a$ & $0.56 \pm 0.13$ & $0.11 \pm 0.01$\\
923: & $s$ ($s_{\mathrm{opt}}$) & $0.71 \pm 0.05$
924: ($1.18 \pm 0.09$) & $0.66 \pm 0.06$ ($1.10 \pm 0.10$)\\
925: H$\beta$ $\biggl\{ \biggr.$ & $F_{\beta \mathrm{n}}$ &
926: $2.78 \pm 0.11$ & $2.68 \pm 0.17$\\
927: & $a$ & $0.34 \pm 0.09$ & $0.063 \pm 0.009$\\
928: \multicolumn{2}{l}{$\chi^2/N$} & 3.76 & 3.71 \\
929: \hline
930: \end{tabular}
931: \end{center}
932: \end{table}
933:
934: \citet{mushotzky84} elaborated photoionization models of
935: stationary AGN optical spectra. In the framework of the
936: photoionization modelling they carried out calculations, in our
937: equivalent terms representing the calculations of the functions
938: $L_\mathrm{l}(F_\mathrm{i})$ for the BLR clouds. According to the
939: results of their calculations, $s \approx 0.6$ for H$\alpha$, and
940: $s \approx 0.8$ for H$\beta$. Thus, there exists a satisfactory
941: agreement of the results of our modelling with the data of
942: \citet{mushotzky84}, especially in the case of $D_\mathrm{n} = 4.47$.
943: Let us remark that the values of $s$ can be nonconstant inside the
944: BLR, varying from cloud to cloud, because they depend on physical
945: characteristics of the clouds. As a result of our modelling we
946: obtain some ``effective'' values of $s$.
947:
948: The model of a homogeneous distribution of clouds implies that the
949: covering factor is close to one, but, as it has been noted above,
950: an interpretation of the adopted model is possible as a model with
951: an exponential decrease of the cloud concentration with distance
952: away from the centre; then the covering factor can be small.
953:
954:
955: \section[]{Discussion}
956:
957: There are several ways of estimating the BLR size. Besides the
958: reverberation and cross-correlation methods, discussed above,
959: there exists a technique based on estimating the ionization
960: parameter from modelling the stationary emission-line spectra of
961: AGN. Using this technique, \citet{mushotzky84} obtained an
962: estimate of the radius of the BLR of NGC~4151, equal to
963: approximately 16~lt-days. By a similar argument,
964: \citet{cassidy97} found the inner and outer radii equal to 6 and
965: 40~lt-days in their theoretical model of the BLR of this galaxy.
966: At the same time when the photoionization estimate was made by
967: \citet{mushotzky84}, the reverberation estimate $R \simeq
968: 15$~lt-days was obtained independently by \citet{shevchenko84}, in
969: agreement with the photoionization estimate by
970: \citet{mushotzky84}. This reverberation estimation was performed
971: within the framework of the model of a homogeneous isotropic
972: distribution of line-emitting matter around the central ionizing
973: source, on the basis of the observational data of \citet{lyutyi71}
974: and \citet{cherepashchuk73} on the time lags in the H$\alpha$ line
975: variations.
976:
977: Cross-correlation estimates are usually less than the
978: ``photoionization'' values. Cross-correlation analysis by
979: \cite{peterson88a} (see also discussion by \citealt{peterson88}),
980: accomplished on the basis of their own observational data and the
981: data of \citet{antonucci83} on variability in the lines H$\beta$
982: and \mbox{He\,{\sc ii}} $\lambda 4686$, gave $\sim 6$~lt-days as
983: the estimate for the radius of the BLR of NGC~4151. Similar
984: cross-correlation estimates of the BLR size were recovered by
985: \cite{clavel90} on the basis of the {\it IUE} ({\it International
986: Ultraviolet Explorer}) data on variability
987: of the major UV lines: $R = 4 \pm 3$~lt-days. These values
988: correspond to the peak CCF time lags; the centroid ones are
989: greater by about two days. \cite{wandel99} find similar centroid
990: CCF time lags, $4 \pm 3$~d, for the H$\beta$ line. \cite{clavel90}
991: note that their cross-correlation estimates of the BLR size for
992: NGC~4151 are an order of magnitude less than the typical
993: ``photoionization'' estimates for Seyfert galaxies.
994:
995: By means of cross-correlation analysis of their own data,
996: \citet{kaspi96} found that the time lag of variations in the
997: H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ lines in relation to continuum is 0--3~d;
998: thus the cross-correlation estimate of the BLR radius is 0--3~lt-days.
999: According to the modern analysis of these data
1000: accomplished by \citet{metzroth06} and \citet{bentz06}, the value
1001: of the cross-correlation time lag for the data of \citet{kaspi96}
1002: has no clear-cut statistical bounds.
1003:
1004: In total, the cross-correlation estimates of the BLR radius of
1005: NGC~4151 are all in the range of 0--6~lt-days. Direct
1006: reverberation modelling, in comparison with the cross-correlation
1007: analysis, give very different values of $R$ similar to the given
1008: above ``photoionization'' estimates. According to the results of
1009: \citet{maoz91}, who carried out reverberation modelling of light
1010: curves of NGC~4151 in H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$, the weighted-mean
1011: (by the local emission-line luminosity of clouds) BLR radius
1012: $\approx 16$--18~lt-days for the best found model, and the central
1013: cavity radius $R_0 \approx 2$~lt-days. The linear character of the
1014: $L_\mathrm{l}(F_\mathrm{i})$ dependence was assumed, as in practically
1015: all modern research on this subject. \citet{xue98} numerically
1016: recovered the BLR transfer functions on the basis of the data of
1017: \citet{maoz91} and \citet{kaspi96}. They obtained the following
1018: estimates: $R \approx 10$~lt-days, $R_0 \le 1$~lt-day. As
1019: mentioned above, the reverberation estimate $R \simeq 15$~lt-days
1020: was obtained in \citep{shevchenko84}. All these reverberation
1021: estimates are in agreement with our reverberation modelling
1022: results presented in Tables~\ref{tab1} and \ref{tab2}.
1023:
1024: So, the known reverberation estimates of the BLR size of NGC~4151
1025: are in agreement with ``photoionization'' estimates, and they all
1026: are much greater than the cross-correlation estimates. The strong
1027: difference between the BLR radii found by reverberation modelling,
1028: on one side, and its estimates following from cross-correlation
1029: analysis, on the other side, (10--18~lt-days versus 0--6~lt-days)
1030: underlines the conditional character of the cross-correlation
1031: estimates. Such a difference is no surprise: the size identified
1032: as the value of the observed time lag can be much (an order of
1033: magnitude) less than the true size of the BLR in lt-days
1034: (Section~\ref{tlccm}). For example, if the cloud aggregate is
1035: uniform, the time lag of variation of a line with $s \approx 1$
1036: with respect to an ionizing flare is small compared to the BLR
1037: radius $R$ in light travel time units, and depends on $R$ only
1038: weakly. The ultimate cause of this phenomenon is the degeneracy of
1039: relation~(\ref{deltat}) at $s \ge 1$. This degeneracy means that
1040: in practice there are no rigourous theoretical grounds to believe
1041: that the $\Delta t_\mathrm{peak}$ value is mostly determined by the
1042: BLR size, if $\Delta t_\mathrm{peak}$ is calculated for a typical
1043: line (i.e., a line with $s \approx 1$).
1044:
1045: \begin{figure}
1046: \begin{center}
1047: \includegraphics[width=130mm]{fig11a.eps}\\
1048: \includegraphics[width=130mm]{fig11b.eps}\\
1049: \caption{The computed cross-correlations between the splined curve
1050: in continuum and our theoretical model light curves. The case when
1051: the planes of clouds are orthogonal to the direction to the
1052: central source (a) and the case when they are oriented randomly (b).}
1053: \label{fig11}
1054: \end{center}
1055: \end{figure}
1056:
1057: However, cross-correlation analysis by \cite{kaspi96} of their
1058: observational data indicated that the cross-correlation time lag
1059: was small not only for H$\beta$ (the line with $s \approx 1$
1060: presumably), but for H$\alpha$ as well (the line with $s$
1061: definitely less than one). To clarify this point, we have examined
1062: cross-correlations between the splined curve in continuum and our
1063: {\it theoretical} model light curves in H$\alpha$ (presented in
1064: Figs.~\ref{fig6} and \ref{fig7}; linear trends have been
1065: subtracted prior to the analysis). The analysis has shown that the
1066: cross-correlation time lag is 0--3~d, practically equal to the
1067: cross-correlation time lag found by \citet{kaspi96} for the
1068: observed emission-line light curves; the computed
1069: cross-correlation functions are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig11}. So,
1070: substitution of the observed emission-line light curve by a
1071: theoretical one calculated for a definite value of $R$ (equal to
1072: 11--14~lt-days) in the transfer function does not change the
1073: cross-correlation estimate of $R$ (0--3~lt-days). It is much less
1074: than the value adopted as the parameter of the transfer function.
1075: This means that the cross-correlation method may provide
1076: inadequate results not only at $s \approx 1$, but at $s < 1$ as
1077: well. The cause is not all-together clear, but one may speculate
1078: that it is related to the strong dependence of $\Delta
1079: t_\mathrm{peak}$ on the variability time scale (Fig.~\ref{fig5})
1080: and/or to the small amplitudes of variability in this particular
1081: set of observational data. Let us underline that, contrary to the
1082: cross-correlation analysis, the reverberation modelling turns out
1083: to be immune, as we have seen, to these unfavourable conditions,
1084: and provides adequate values of $R$.
1085:
1086: A hypothesis on possible variability of the BLR size of NGC~4151
1087: was put forward by \citet{kaspi96}, \citet{peterson02} and other
1088: researchers on the basis of cross-correlation analysis of optical
1089: spectral variability data at different time intervals of
1090: observations. Our reverberation modelling of the H$\alpha$ light
1091: curve data of \citet{kaspi96} gives the value of the BLR radius
1092: matching the majority of the BLR size estimates of other authors.
1093: This removes necessity in any special physical interpretation of
1094: the small value of the cross-correlation time lag in H$\alpha$ for
1095: these light curve data. In particular, the hypothesis by
1096: \citet{kaspi96} that the physical size of the BLR at the moment of
1097: their observations was an order of magnitude less than usually is
1098: not necessitated.
1099:
1100:
1101: \section{Conclusions}
1102:
1103: We have studied how the nonlinearity in the
1104: ``$L_\mathrm{l}$--$F_\mathrm{i}$'' relation (the emission-line
1105: luminosity, $L_\mathrm{l}$, of the BLR cloud in dependence on the
1106: ionizing continuum flux, $F_\mathrm{i}$, incident on the cloud) can
1107: be taken into account in estimating the size of the BLR in active
1108: galactic nuclei by means of ``reverberation'' methods. We have
1109: shown that the BLR size estimates obtained by cross-correlation
1110: peaks of emission-line and continuum light curves can be much (up
1111: to an order of magnitude) less than the values obtained by
1112: reverberation modelling. This has been demonstrated by means of
1113: abstract representative numerical cross-correlation and
1114: reverberation experiments with model continuum flares and
1115: emission-line transfer functions and by means of practical
1116: reverberation modelling of the observed emission-line variability
1117: of NGC~4151. The modelling of the observed light curves of
1118: NGC~4151 in H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ has been accomplished on the
1119: basis of the observational data by \citet{kaspi96} and the
1120: theoretical broad-line region model by \citet{shevchenko84,
1121: shevchenko85a}.
1122:
1123: In the abstract representative numerical cross-correlation and
1124: reverberation experiments with model continuum flares and
1125: emission-line transfer functions, we have found that the value of
1126: the cross-correlation peak time lag $\Delta t_\mathrm{peak}$ for $s
1127: \ge 1$ is small in comparison with the BLR size $R$ expressed in
1128: the light-travel time units and depends on $R$ only weakly. We
1129: have shown that in the case of $s \ge 1$ the effect of the
1130: ionizing flare duration on the $\Delta t_\mathrm{peak}$ value is far
1131: greater than that of the BLR radius. In other words, the BLR
1132: radius has little effect on the measured value of the $\Delta
1133: t_\mathrm{peak}$ value in the mathematically degenerate but
1134: observationally most common case of $s=1$; the role of the
1135: timescale of variability is far greater. Therefore, the lines with
1136: $s \approx 1$ seem to be of little help in determining the
1137: size of the BLR by means of estimating the cross-correlation peak
1138: time lag.
1139:
1140: The presence of a noticeable time lag of variations of NGC~4151 in
1141: H$\alpha$ \citep{lyutyi71, cherepashchuk73} and significantly
1142: shorter time lags in other Balmer lines \citep{antonucci83} with
1143: respect to variations in the optical continuum has been
1144: attributed, in agreement with conclusions by \citet{shevchenko84,
1145: shevchenko85a}, to the effect of essential nonlinearity in the
1146: ``$L_\mathrm{l}$--$F_\mathrm{i}$'' relation for H$\alpha$. The low value
1147: of the power-law index, $s \approx 0.6$, distinguishes this line
1148: from the other Balmer lines.
1149:
1150: The values of the model parameters of the BLR of NGC~4151 have
1151: been estimated. In particular, estimates of the BLR radius have
1152: been made. Our reverberation modelling of the emission-line
1153: variability based on the observational data by \citet{kaspi96}
1154: gives values of the BLR radius agreeing with the majority of its
1155: known ``reverberation'' and ``photoionization'' estimates. Much
1156: smaller $R$ values obtained by means of the cross-correlation
1157: method have been shown to be an artifact of this method. The
1158: hypothesis by \citet{kaspi96} that the size of the BLR of NGC~4151
1159: at the time interval of their observations were an order of
1160: magnitude less than usually is not necessitated.
1161:
1162: Concluding, a power-law emission-line response model and
1163: simple spherically symmetric thick geometries of the BLR cloud
1164: distribution, taken here as a basis for modelling the
1165: emission-line AGN variability, gives the size of the BLR of
1166: NGC~4151 equal to 11--14~lt-days, with the uncertainty of
1167: 5--8~lt-days. This agrees satisfactorily with BLR size estimates
1168: in photoionization models fitting emission line strengths in the
1169: mean spectrum of NGC~4151. Much shorter time lags found in the
1170: cross-correlation analysis of the emission-line and continuum
1171: light curves of NGC~4151 correspond to the size of a smaller
1172: emission-line region that is reverberating.
1173:
1174:
1175: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1176:
1177: The authors thank anonymous referees, whose advice and remarks led
1178: to a significant improvement of the manuscript. We express
1179: appreciation to S.G.Sergeev for extremely valuable comments.
1180: We are deeply grateful to V.V.Kouprianov for programming
1181: assistance and discussions. We thank E.Yu.Aleshkina for technical
1182: help. This work was supported by the Programme of Fundamental
1183: Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences ``Origin and Evolution
1184: of Stars and Galaxies''. A.V.Melnikov is grateful to the Russian
1185: Science Support Foundation for support. The computations were
1186: partially carried out on the computers of the St.Petersburg Branch
1187: of the Supercomputer Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
1188:
1189:
1190: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1191:
1192: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Antonucci \& Cohen}{1983}]{antonucci83} Antonucci R.J., Cohen R.D.,
1193: 1983, ApJ, 271, 564
1194: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bentz et al.}{2006}]{bentz06} Bentz M.C. et
1195: al., 2006, ApJ, 651, 775
1196: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Blandford \& McKee}{1982}]{blandford82} Blandford R.D., McKee C.F.,
1197: 1982, ApJ, 255, 419
1198: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bottorff et al.}{1997}]{bottorff97}
1199: Bottorff M., Korista K.T., Shlosman I., Blandford R.D.,
1200: 1997, ApJ, 479, 200
1201: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cassidy \& Raine}{1997}]{cassidy97}
1202: Cassidy I., Raine D. J., 1997, A\&A, 322, 400
1203: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cherepashchuk \& Lyutyi}{1973}]{cherepashchuk73}
1204: Cherepashchuk A.M., Lyutyi V.M., 1973, Astrophys. Letters, 13, 165
1205: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Chiang \& Murray}{1996}]{chiang96} Chiang J., Murray N.,
1206: 1996, ApJ, 466, 704
1207: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Clavel et al.}{1990}]{clavel90}
1208: Clavel J. et al., 1990, MNRAS, 246, 668
1209: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Collin-Souffrin \& Lasota}{1988}]{collin-souffrin88a}
1210: Collin-Souffrin S., Lasota J.-P., 1988, PASP, 100, 1041
1211: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Collin-Souffrin et al.}{1988}]{collin-souffrin88}
1212: Collin-Souffrin S., Dyson J.E., McDowell J.C., Perry J.J.,
1213: 1988, MNRAS, 232, 539
1214: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Crenshaw et al.}{1996}]{crenshaw96} Crenshaw D.M. et
1215: al., 1996, ApJ, 470, 322
1216: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Edelson \& Krolik}{1988}]{edelson88} Edelson R.A., Krolik J.H.,
1217: 1988, ApJ, 333, 646
1218: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Elvis}{2000}]{elvis00} Elvis M.,
1219: 2000, ApJ, 545, 63
1220: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Emmering, Blandford \& Shlosman}{1992}]{emmering92} Emmering R.T.,
1221: Blandford R.D., Shlosman I., 1992, ApJ, 385, 460
1222: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ferland}{2003}]{ferland03} Ferland G.J.,
1223: 2003, ARA\&A, 41, 517
1224: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ferland, Korista \& Peterson}{1990}]{ferland90} Ferland G.J.,
1225: Korista K.T., Peterson B.M., 1990, ApJ, 363, L21
1226: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ferland \& Mushotzky}{1982}]{ferland82} Ferland G.J., Mushotzky R.F.,
1227: 1982, ApJ, 262, 564
1228: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gaskell \& Sparke}{1986}]{gaskell86} Gaskell C.M., Sparke L.S.,
1229: 1986, ApJ, 305, 175
1230: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Horne et al.}{2004}]{horn04}
1231: Horne K., Peterson B.M., Collier S.J., Netzer H.,
1232: 2004, PASP, 116, 465
1233: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kaspi et al.}{1996}]{kaspi96} Kaspi S. et
1234: al., 1996, ApJ, 470, 336
1235: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Korista et al.}{1997}]{korista97}
1236: Korista K., Baldwin J., Ferland G., Verner D.,
1237: 1997, ApJS, 108, 401
1238: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kwan}{1984}]{kwan84} Kwan J.,
1239: 1984, ApJ, 283, 70
1240: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kwan \& Krolik}{1979}]{kwan79} Kwan J., Krolik H.,
1241: 1979, ApJ, 233, L91
1242: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kwan \& Krolik}{1981}]{kwan81} Kwan J., Krolik H.,
1243: 1981, ApJ, 250, 478
1244: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Leighly \& Casebeer}{2007}]{leighly07}
1245: Leighly K.M., Casebeer D., 2007, in Ho L.C., Wang J.-M., eds, ASP Conf. Ser.
1246: Vol.~373. Astron. Soc. Pac., San Francisco, p.~365
1247: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Levenberg}{1944}]{levenberg44}
1248: Levenberg K., 1944, Quarterly Applied Math., 2, 164
1249: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lyutyi}{1977}]{lyutyi77} Lyutyi V.M.,
1250: 1977, AZh, 54, 1153
1251: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lyutyi}{1982}]{lyutyi82} Lyutyi V.M.,
1252: 1982, in Sunyaev R.A., ed, Astrophysics and Cosmic Physics, Izdatel'stvo Nauka,
1253: Moscow, p.~66. (In Russian)
1254: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lyutyi}{2005}]{lyuty05} Lyutyi V.M.,
1255: 2005, Astron. Lett., 31, 723
1256: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lyutyi \& Cherepashchuk}{1971}]{lyutyi71}
1257: Lyutyi V.M., Cherepashchuk A.M., 1971, Astron. Circ., 633, 3
1258: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Maoz et al.}{1991}]{maoz91} Maoz D. et al.,
1259: 1991, ApJ, 367, 493
1260: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Marquardt}{1963}]{marquardt63}
1261: Marquardt D.W., 1963, SIAM Journal Applied Math., 11, 431
1262: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Metzroth et al.}{2006}]{metzroth06}
1263: Metzroth K.G., Onken C.A., Peterson B.M., 2006, ApJ, 647, 901
1264: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Murray et al.}{1995}]{murray95}
1265: Murray N., Chiang J., Grossman S.A., Voit G.M.,
1266: 1995, ApJ, 451, 498
1267: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Mushotzky \& Ferland}{1984}]{mushotzky84} Mushotzky R., Ferland G.J.,
1268: 1984, ApJ, 278, 558
1269: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{O'Brien, Goad \& Gondhalekar}{1994}]{obrien94} O'Brien P.T.,
1270: Goad M.R., Gondhalekar P.M., 1994, MNRAS, 268, 845
1271: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{O'Brien, Goad \& Gondhalekar}{1995}]{obrien95} O'Brien P.T.,
1272: Goad M.R., Gondhalekar P.M., 1995, MNRAS, 275, 1125
1273: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{P\'{e}rez et al.}{1992}]{perez92}
1274: P\'{e}rez E., Robinson A., de la Fuente L., 1992, MNRAS, 255, 502
1275: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Peterson}{1988}]{peterson88} Peterson B.M.,
1276: 1988, PASP, 100, 18
1277: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Peterson \& Cota}{1988}]{peterson88a} Peterson B.M., Cota S.A.,
1278: 1988, ApJ, 330, 111
1279: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Peterson et al.}{1995}]{peterson95}
1280: Peterson B.M., Pogge R.W., Wanders I., Smith S.M., Romanishin W.,
1281: 1995, PASP, 107, 579
1282: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Peterson et al.}{1998}]{peterson98}
1283: Peterson B.M., Wanders I., Horne K., Collier S., Alexander T., Kaspi S., Maoz D.,
1284: 1998, PASP, 110, 660
1285: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Peterson et al.}{2002}]{peterson02} Peterson B.M. et al.,
1286: 2002, ApJ, 581, 197
1287: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Peterson et al.}{2004}]{peterson04} Peterson B.M. et al.,
1288: 2004, ApJ, 613, 682
1289: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Press et al.}{1997}]{press97}
1290: Press W.H., Teukolsky S.A., Vetterling W.T., Flannery B.P.,
1291: 1997, Numerical Recipes in Fortran 77, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge
1292: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sergeev, Pronik \& Sergeeva}{Sergeev et al.}{2001}]{sergeev01}
1293: Sergeev S.G., Pronik V.I., Sergeeva E.A., 2001, ApJ, 554, 245
1294: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sergeev et al.}{2005}]{sergeev05}
1295: Sergeev S.G., Doroshenko V.T., Golubinskiy Yu.V., Merkulova N.I., Sergeeva E.A.,
1296: 2005, ApJ, 622, 129
1297: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sergeev et al.}{2006}]{sergeev06}
1298: Sergeev S.G., Doroshenko V.T., Golubinskiy Yu.V., Merkulova N.I., Sergeeva E.A.,
1299: 2006, in Gaskell C.M., McHardy I.M., Peterson B.M., Sergeev S.G., eds,
1300: ASP Conf. Ser., Vol.~360, p.~13
1301: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Shevchenko}{1984}]{shevchenko84} Shevchenko I.I.,
1302: 1984, Sov. Astron. Lett., 10, 377
1303: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Shevchenko}{1985a}]{shevchenko85a} Shevchenko I.I.,
1304: 1985a, Sov. Astron. Lett., 11, 35
1305: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Shevchenko}{1985b}]{shevchenko85b} Shevchenko I.I.,
1306: 1985b, Sov. Astron. Lett., 11, 178
1307: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Shevchenko}{1988}]{shevchenko88} Shevchenko I.I.,
1308: 1988, Afz, 28, 59
1309: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Shevchenko}{1994}]{shevchenko94} Shevchenko I.I.,
1310: 1994, in Courvoisier T. and Blecha A., eds, Proc. IAU Symp. 159,
1311: Multi-wavelength Continuum Emission of AGN, Kluwer, Dordrecht, p.~173
1312: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Shields, Ferland \& Peterson}{1995}]{shields95} Shields J.C.,
1313: Ferland G.J., Peterson B.M., 1995, ApJ, 441, 507
1314: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sparke}{1993}]{sparke93} Sparke L.S.,
1315: 1993, ApJ, 404, 570
1316: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ulrich et al.}{1984}]{ulrich84} Ulrich M.H. et al.,
1317: 1984, MNRAS, 206, 221
1318: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wandel et al.}{1999}]{wandel99}
1319: Wandel A., Peterson B. M., Malkan M. A., 1999, ApJ, 526, 579
1320: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Welsh}{1999}]{welsh99} Welsh W.F.,
1321: 1999, PASP, 111, 1347
1322: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{White \& Peterson}{1994}]{white94} White R.J.,
1323: Peterson B.M., 1994, PASP, 106, 879
1324: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Xue \& Cheng}{1998}]{xue98} Xue S.J., Cheng F.Z.,
1325: 1998, in Koyama K. et al., eds, Proc. IAU Symp. 188,
1326: The Hot Universe, Kluwer, Dordrecht, p.~424
1327:
1328: \end{thebibliography}
1329:
1330: \label{lastpage}
1331:
1332: \end{document}
1333: