1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass{aastex}
3: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}
4:
5: %\usepackage{epsf}
6: %\usepackage{lscape}
7:
8: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}
9: %\usepackage{graphicx,natbib,amsfonts,amssymb,rotating,lscape}
10: %\usepackage{apjfonts}
11: \newcommand{\Lsun}{L_{\odot}} % solar luminosity
12: %\newcommand{\kms}{\rm km~s$^{-1}$}
13: \newcommand{\Mdot}{\dot{M}}
14: %\newcommand{\Msun}{M_{\odot}}
15: \newcommand{\Msun}{M_{\odot}}
16: \newcommand{\ergs}{\rm erg~s^{-1}}
17: \newcommand{\OIII}{$[\rm O~ \sc{III}]$}
18: \newcommand{\LOIII}{L_{\rm [O~ \sc{III}]}}
19: \newcommand{\civ}{C {\sc iv}\ }
20: \newcommand{\kms}{\ifmmode {\rm km\ s}^{-1} \else km s$^{-1}$\ \fi}
21:
22: \begin{document}
23:
24:
25: \title{Active Galactic Nuclei with Double-Peaked Balmer
26: Lines: I. Black Hole Masses and the Eddington ratios}
27:
28: \author{Wei-Hao Bian \altaffilmark{1,}\altaffilmark{2}, Yan-Mei Chen
29: \altaffilmark{1}, Qiu-Sheng Gu\altaffilmark{3}, and Jian-Min Wang
30: \altaffilmark{1}} \altaffiltext{1}{Key Laboratory for Particle
31: Astrophysics, Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of
32: Sciences, Beijing 100039, China} \altaffiltext{2}{Department of
33: Physics and Institute of Theoretical Physics, Nanjing Normal
34: University, Nanjing 210097, China; whbian@njnu.edu.cn}
35: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy, Nanjing University,
36: Nanjing 210093, China}
37:
38: \shorttitle{SMBH Masses and Eddington Ratios of Double-Peaked
39: AGNs}
40:
41: \shortauthors{Bian, Chen, Gu \& Wang}
42:
43: \slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ}
44:
45: \begin{abstract}
46: Using the stellar population synthesis, we model the stellar
47: contribution for a sample of 110 double-peaked broad-lines AGNs
48: from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). The stellar velocity
49: dispersions ($\sigma_*$) are obtained for 52 double-peaked AGNs
50: with obvious stellar absorption features, ranging from 106 to 284
51: \kms. We also use multi-component profiles to fit \OIII
52: $\lambda\lambda4959,5007$ and H$\beta$ emission lines. Using the
53: well-established $M_{\rm bh}-\sigma_*$ relation, the black hole
54: masses are calculated to range from $1.0\times 10^{7}$ to
55: $5.5\times 10^{8}$ $\Msun$, and the Eddington ratio from about
56: 0.01 to about 1. Comparing with the known $R_{\rm BLR}-L$
57: relation, we can get the factor $f$, which indicates BLRs'
58: geometry, inclination and kinematics. We find that $f$ far
59: deviates from 0.75, suggesting the non-virial dynamics of broad
60: line regions. The peak separation is mildly correlated with the
61: Eddington ratio and SMBH mass with almost the same correlation
62: coefficients. It implies that it is difficult to detect obvious
63: double-peak AGNs with higher Eddington ratios. Using the
64: monochromatic luminosity at 5100\AA\ to trace the bolometric
65: luminosity, we find that the external illumination of the
66: accretion disk is needed to produce the observed strength of
67: H$\alpha$ emission line.
68:
69: \end{abstract}
70: \keywords{galaxies:active --- galaxies: nuclei --- black hole
71: physics --- accretion, accretion disks}
72:
73:
74: \section{INTRODUCTION}
75: Double-peaked broad Balmer emission profiles have been detected in
76: about 200 active galactic nuclei (AGNs) (Eracleous \& Halpern
77: 1994, 2003; Strateva et al. 2003, 2006). A systematic survey of
78: 110 sources (mostly broad-line radio loud AGNs at $z<0.4$) by
79: Eracleous \& Halpern (1994, 2003) suggested that about 20\%
80: sources show double-peaked broad Balmer lines. They found some
81: characteristics of double-peaked AGNs: large full width at half
82: maximum (FWHM) of H$\alpha$ line, ranging from about 4000 \kms \
83: up to 40000 \kms (e.g. Wang et al. 2005); about 50\% starlight
84: contribution in optical continuum around H$\alpha$; large
85: equivalent widths of low-ionization forbidden lines; large [O
86: I]/\OIII \ ratios. Strateva et al. (2003) found about 3\% of the
87: $z<0.332$ AGNs in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) are
88: double-peaked AGNs, the fraction is smaller than that in
89: radio-loud AGNs sample. Double-peaked lines have also been
90: detected in some low-ionization nuclear emission line regions
91: (LINERs), e.g. NGC1097, M81, NGC4450, NGC4203, NGC4579
92: (Storchi-Bergmann et al. 1993; Bower et al. 1996; Shields et al.
93: 2000; Ho et al. 2000; Barth et al. 2001). It remains a matter as
94: debate of the origin of the double-peaked profiles.
95:
96: There are mainly three models to interpret the origin of the
97: double-peaked profiles: the accretion disk (Chen \& Halpern 1989;
98: Eracleous \& Halpern 1994, 2003; Gezari et al. 2007); the
99: biconical outflow (Zheng et al. 1991; Abajas et al. 2006), and an
100: anisotropic illuminated BLRs (Goad \& Wanders 1996). More
101: recently, observational test and physical consideration
102: preferentially suggested that double-peaked profiles originate
103: from the accretion disk within a radius from a few hundreds $R_g$
104: to about thousands $R_g$ ($R_{g}=GM_{\rm bh}/c^2$, $M_{\rm bh}$ is
105: the SMBH mass) (Eracleous \& Halpern 1994, 2003; Eracleous et al.
106: 1997; Strateva et al. 2003, 2006; Gezari, et al. 2007). In order
107: to interpret the sparsity of double-peaked AGNs, the origin of the
108: single-peaked lines from accretion disk have been discussed
109: (Eracleous \& Halpern 2003 and the references therein): larger out
110: radius of the line-emitting accretion disk; face-on accretion
111: disk; and the accretion disk wind. Very few of the double-peaked
112: high-ionization line profiles (e.g. CIV) is due to that these high
113: ionization lines are thought to arise in a wind, not in the disk.
114:
115: The masses of central supermassive black holes (SMBHs) can provide
116: an important tool to understand the physics of double-peaked AGNs
117: if we reliably estimate them (e.g. Lewis \& Eracleous 2006; Lewis
118: 2006). During the last decade, there is a striking progress on the
119: study of central supermassive black holes. The stellar and/or
120: gaseous dynamics is used to derive the SMBHs masses in nearby
121: inactive galaxies. However, for AGNs, this method is very
122: difficult because nuclei outshine their hosts. Fortunately, we can
123: use the broad emission lines from BLRs (e.g. H$\beta$, H$\alpha$,
124: Mg $\rm \sc II$, C$\rm \sc IV$) to estimate SMBH masses in AGNs by
125: the reverberation mapping method and the empirical size-luminosity
126: relation (Kaspi et al. 2000,2005; Vestergaard 2002; McLure \&
127: Jarvis 2002; Wu et al. 2004; Greene \& Ho 2006a). There is a
128: scaling factor with larger uncertainty, which is due to the
129: unknown geometry and dynamics of broad line regions, BLRs (e.g.
130: Krolik 2001; Collin et al. 2006). Nearby galaxies and AGNs seem to
131: follow the same tight $M_{\rm bh}-\sigma_{*}$ relation, where
132: $\sigma_{*}$ is the bulge velocity dispersion at eighth of the
133: effective radius of the galaxy (Nelson et al. 2001; Tremaine et
134: al. 2002; Greene \& Ho 2006a, 2006b), although it remains
135: controversial for narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies (NLS1s) (Mathur
136: et al. 2001; Bian \& Zhao 2004; Grupe \& Mathur 2004; Watson et
137: al. 2007). Lewis \& Eracleous (2006) derived the black hole masses
138: from $\sigma_*$ through fitting absorption lines of the Ca II
139: triplet ($\lambda \lambda8498, 8542, 8662 $) for 5 double-peaked
140: AGNs. Therefore the determination of the black hole mass from
141: independent method of reverberation mapping is an useful prober to
142: explore mysteries of the double peaked AGNs.
143:
144: Significant stellar contribution in double-peaked AGNs makes the
145: measurement of $\sigma_*$ possible and reliable. Here we present
146: our results on the $\sigma_*$ measurements for the sample of 110
147: double-peaked AGNs from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS)
148: (Strateva et al. 2003). In section 2, we introduce our working
149: sample selected from Strateva et al. (2003). Section 3 is data
150: analysis. We present the calculations of the SMBH mass and the
151: Eddington ratio, and discuss their errors in Section 4. Section 5
152: is contributed to the discuss of the BLRs in double-peaked AGNs.
153: Section 6 is the relation between the peak separation and
154: Mass/Eddington ratio. Section 7 is the Energy budget for
155: double-peaked AGNs. Our conclusion is given in Section 8. The last
156: section is our conclusion. All of the cosmological calculations in
157: this paper assume $H_{0}=71 \rm {~km ~s^ {-1}~Mpc^{-1}}$,
158: $\Omega_{M}=0.27$, and $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.73$.
159:
160: \section{Sample}
161: Strateva et al. (2003) presented a sample of double-peaked AGNs
162: ($z<0.332$) selected from SDSS. They used two steps to select
163: candidates: (1) they selected the unusual ones from the symmetric
164: lines using the spectral principal component analysis (PCA) (Hao
165: et al. 2003); and (2) they fitted the H$\alpha$ region with a
166: combination of several Gaussians, and only selected AGNs better
167: fitted by two Gaussians. From the profiles of the broad
168: components, several fitting parameters including the positions of
169: the red and blue peaks ($\lambda_{\rm red}$, $\lambda_{\rm
170: blue}$), the corresponding peak heights ($H_{\rm red}$, $H_{\rm
171: blue}$), FWHMs were given in their Table 3. They investigated the
172: multi-wavelength properties of these double-peaked AGNs and
173: suggested that Eddington ratios could be large in these SDSS
174: double-peaked AGNs (Strateva et al. 2006).
175:
176: SDSS spectra cover the wavelength range of 3800-9200 \AA\ with a
177: spectral resolution of $1800 < R < 2100$. The fiber diameter in
178: the SDSS spectroscopic survey is 3" on the sky. At the mean
179: redshift of 0.24 in the sample of Strateva et al. (2003), the
180: projected fiber aperture diameter is 13.2 kpc, typically
181: containing about 80\% of the total host galaxy light (Kauffmann \&
182: Heckman 2005). The stellar absorption features in these SDSS
183: spectra provide us the possibility to measure the stellar velocity
184: dispersion. We did not apply aperture corrections to the stellar
185: velocity dispersions because this effect can be omitted for
186: $z<0.3$ (Bernardi et al. 2003; Bian et al. 2006).
187:
188: \section{Data analysis}
189: There are a number of objective and accurate methods to measure
190: $\sigma_{*}$, including two main different techniques, the
191: "Fourier-fitting" method (Sargent et al. 1977; Tonry \& Davis
192: 1979), and the "direct-fitting" method (Rix \& White 1992; Greene
193: \& Ho 2006b and reference therein). With the development of
194: computing, the "direct-fitting" method become much more popular.
195: For SDSS spectra with significant stellar absorption features
196: (such as Ca H+K $\lambda \lambda$ 3969, 3934, Mg Ib$\lambda
197: \lambda$ 5167, 5173, 5184 triplet, and Ca II$\lambda \lambda$
198: 8498, 8542, 8662 triplet, etc.), $\sigma_{*}$ can be measured by
199: matching the observed spectra with the combination of different
200: stellar template spectra broadened by a Gaussian kernel (e.g.
201: Kauffmann et al. 2003; Cid Fernandes et al. 2004; Vanden Berk et
202: al 2006; Greene \& Ho 2006b; Zhou et al. 2006; Bian et al. 2006).
203: The SMBH mass can then be estimated from the $M_{\rm
204: bh}-\sigma_{*}$ relation if $\sigma_{*}$ can be accurately
205: measured from the spectrum of AGN host galaxy.
206:
207: Here we briefly introduce the method to measure $\sigma_{*}$.
208: Adopting the stellar library from Bruzual \& Charlot (2003), we
209: used the stellar population synthesis code, STARLIGHT, (Cid
210: Fernandes et al. 2004, 2005; Bian et al. 2006) to model the
211: observed spectrum $O_\lambda$. It models the spectrum $M_\lambda$
212: by the linear combination of simple stellar populations (SSP). The
213: model spectrum $M_\lambda$ is:
214: \begin{equation}
215: M_\lambda(x,M_{\lambda_0},A_{\rm V},v_*,\sigma_*) = M_{\lambda_0}
216: \left[
217: \sum_{j=1}^{N_*} x_{\rm j} b_{\rm j,\lambda} r_\lambda
218: \right]
219: \otimes G(v_*,\sigma_*)
220: \end{equation}
221: where $b_{\rm j,\lambda} \equiv L_\lambda^{\rm SSP}(t_{\rm
222: j},Z_{\rm j}) / L_{\lambda_0}^{\rm SSP}(t_{\rm j},Z_{\rm j})$ is
223: the $j^{\rm th}$ template normalized at $\lambda_0$, $x$ is the
224: population vector, $M_{\lambda_0}$ is the synthetic flux at the
225: normalization wavelength, $r_{\lambda}$ is the reddening term,
226: $A_{\rm V}$ is the $V$-band extinction, and $G(v_*,\sigma_*)$ is
227: the line-of-sight stellar velocity distribution, modelled as a
228: Gaussian centered at velocity $v_*$ and broadened by $\sigma_*$.
229: The best fit is reached by minimizing $\chi^2$,
230:
231: \begin{equation}
232: \chi^2(x,M_{\lambda_0},A_{\rm V},v_*,\sigma_*) =
233: \sum_{\lambda=1}^{N_\lambda}
234: \left[
235: \left(O_\lambda - M_\lambda \right) w_\lambda
236: \right]^2
237: \end{equation}
238: where the weighted spectrum $w_\lambda$ is defined as the inverse
239: of the noise in observed spectra. We can obtained some parameters
240: including $\sigma_*$ by modelling the observed spectrum, which are
241: important for our understanding the stellar populations in AGNs
242: host galaxies.
243:
244: We download 110 double-peaked spectra from SDSS
245: DR5\footnote{http://cas.sdss.org/dr5/en/tools/search/} in the
246: sample of Strateva et al. (2003), as well as the extinction values
247: at $g$ band. We perform the Galactic extinction correction to
248: observed spectra by using the extinction law of Cardelli, Clayton
249: \& Mathis (1989). Then, the rest-frame spectra with errors and
250: masks are obtained by use of the redshift given in their SDSS FITS
251: headers. We normalize the spectra at 4020\AA\ and the
252: signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) is measured between 4010 and 4060 \AA.
253: An additional power-law component is used to represent the AGNs
254: continuum emission. We check visually our modelled spectra sorted
255: by the equivalent width (EW) of CaII K $\lambda 3934$ line. It is
256: found that the fitting goodness depends on the S/N ($\gtrsim5$),
257: the absorption lines equivalent widths (EW (CaII K) $\gtrsim$ 1.5
258: \AA), and the contribution of stellar lights (see also Zhou et al.
259: 2006). At last, 54 double-peaked AGNs are selected, which are well
260: fitted to derive reliable $\sigma_*$ from their significant
261: stellar absorption. Using the two sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S)
262: test, {\it kolmov} task in IRAF, the distributions of the
263: luminosity at 5100\AA\ in the total sample of Strateva et al.
264: (2003) and our sub-sample are drawn from the same parent
265: population with the probability of 53\%. Therefore, this
266: sub-sample is representative of the total sample of Strateva et
267: al. (2003) with respect to the luminosity at 5100\AA. Fig. 1 shows
268: a fitting example for SDSS J082113.71+350305.02. The final results
269: are presented in Table 1, arranging in order of increasing right
270: ascension.
271:
272: \begin{figure*}
273: \begin{center}
274: \includegraphics[width=10cm,height=13cm,angle=-90]{f1.eps}
275: \caption{Sample fit of the synthetic population model for SDSS
276: J081700.40+34556.34. The top panel is the logarithm of the
277: observed spectrum (top black curve) and the synthetic spectra
278: (bottom red curve)(shifted down for clarity). In this top panel,
279: we also show the region around Ca H+K $\lambda \lambda$ 3969, 3934
280: and G-band (left); the region around Mg Ib$\lambda \lambda$ 5167,
281: 5173, 5184 triplet, Fe 5270\AA\ (middle); the region around Ca
282: II$\lambda \lambda$ 8498, 8542, 8662 triplet (right). The residual
283: spectrum is shown in the bottom panel. }
284: \end{center}
285: \end{figure*}
286:
287:
288: Using Interactive Data Language (IDL), we also carefully model the
289: profiles of \OIII\ and H$\beta$ lines. Since the double-peaked
290: profile of the H$\beta$ line and the asymmetric profiles of
291: \OIII$\lambda\lambda$4959, 5007 lines, seven-gaussian profiles are
292: used to model these lines carefully, two broad and one narrow
293: components for H$\beta$ plus two sets of one broad and one narrow
294: components for \OIII$\lambda \lambda 4959, 5007$. We take the same
295: linewidth for each component of \OIII$\lambda \lambda 4959, 5007$,
296: fix the flux ratio of \OIII$\lambda$4959 to \OIII$\lambda$5007 to
297: be 1:3, and set their wavelength separation to the laboratory
298: value. And we also set the wavelength separation between the
299: narrow component of H$\beta$ and the narrow \OIII$\lambda$5007 to
300: the laboratory value. We do the lines fitting for these 54
301: stellar-light subtracted spectra. For spectra without obvious
302: stellar features, we do the emission lines fitting for the
303: extinction-corrected rest-frame SDSS spectra without stellar-light
304: subtraction. At last we obtain the gaseous velocity dispersion,
305: $\sigma_g$, from the core \OIII$\lambda 5007$ line, the total flux
306: of \OIII$\lambda 5007$ line and the monochromatic flux at 5100\AA.
307: Our emission-line profile fitting for SDSS J022014.57-072859.30 is
308: shown in Fig. 2.
309:
310:
311: \begin{figure*}
312: \begin{center}
313: \includegraphics[width=13cm,height=8cm]{f2.eps}
314: \caption{Sample multi-component fitting of the
315: \OIII$\lambda\lambda$4959, 5007 lines for SDSS
316: J022014.57-072859.30: composite profile(blue curves); narrow
317: components (green curves); broad components (red curves); the
318: residue (bottom panel).}
319: \end{center}
320: \end{figure*}
321:
322:
323: \section{The Masses and the Eddington ratios}
324: \subsection{The stellar velocity dispersions}
325: \begin{figure}
326: \begin{center}
327: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{f3.eps}
328: \caption{Comparison of our $\sigma_*$ from the partial SDSS
329: spectra with that for a sample of the local AGNs presented by
330: Greene \& Ho (2006a). The solid line denotes our best linear fit,
331: the red dash lines are $y=x\pm 20$ \kms. Considering the error bar
332: of $\sigma_*$ presented by Greeene \& Ho (2006a), most of local
333: AGNs are located between two red dash lines.}
334: \end{center}
335: \end{figure}
336:
337:
338: In the synthesis, we focus on the strongest stellar absorption
339: features, such as CaII K, G-band, and Ca II$\lambda \lambda$ 8498,
340: 8542, 8662 triplet, which are less affected by emission lines. We
341: put twice more weight for these features during the stellar population synthesis.
342: After correcting the template and the SDSS instrumental resolution, we obtain the value of
343: $\sigma_*$ through the direct-fitting method.
344:
345: Cid Fernandes et al. (2005) applied the same synthesis method to a
346: larger sample of 50,362 normal galaxies from the SDSS Data Release
347: 2 (DR2). Their $\sigma_{*}$ is consistent very well with that of
348: the MPA/JHU group (Kauffmann et al. 2003), the median of the
349: difference is just 9 \kms. They also gave the $\sigma_*$
350: uncertainty based on the S/N (see Table 1 in Cid Fernandes et al.
351: 2005). Typically, the $\sigma_*$ uncertainty based on S/N at
352: 4020\AA\ is about: 24 \kms at S/N=5; 12 \kms at S/N=10; 8 \kms at
353: S/N=15. In order to use the typical errors suggested by Cid
354: Fernandes et al. (2005), we calculate the S/N and the starlight
355: fraction at 4020\AA. The S/N is the mean flux divided by the root
356: mean square (RMS) of the flux in the range 4010 to 4060 \AA. We
357: also performed the method of Cid Fernandes et al. (2005) to
358: compute the S/N by using the SDSS error spectrum, the results are
359: almost the same. Considering the contribution from featureless
360: continuum (FC, represented by a power law), we use an effective
361: S/N to show the typical error of $\sigma_*$, where the effective
362: S/N is roughly the S/N multiplied by the stellar fraction. We use
363: the featureless continuum fraction as the up limit of nuclei
364: contribution, because the featureless continuum can be attributed
365: either by a young dusty starburst, by an AGN, or by these two
366: combination (Cid Fernandes et al. 2004). Therefore, the effective
367: S/N is the low limit. In our sample, the effective mean spectral
368: S/N at 4020\AA\ for these objects are 7.2 (see Table 1). Thus the
369: typical uncertainty in $\sigma_{*}$ should be around 20 \kms. For
370: 13 objects with effective S/N less than 5, their $\sigma_*$ in
371: Table 1 are preceded by colons.
372:
373: Here, we also apply this synthesis method to a sample of the local
374: AGNs presented by Greene \& Ho (2006a). Greene \& Ho (2006a;
375: 2006b) performed a research on the systematic bias of $\sigma_{*}$
376: derived from the regions around CaII triplet, MgIb triplet, and
377: CaII H+K, respectively (Barth et al. 2002). They argued that the
378: CaII triplet provide the most reliable measurements of
379: $\sigma_{*}$ and there is a systematic offset between $\sigma_{*}$
380: from CaII K line and that from other spectral regions. We use our
381: synthesis method to their sample in two manners: one is using
382: whole spectrum, the other is just using partial spectrum between
383: 3200\AA\ and 7500\AA \ at the rest frame. We put twice more weight
384: for the strongest absorption features of Ca H+K $\lambda \lambda$
385: 3969, 3934, G-band, and Ca II$\lambda \lambda$ 8498, 8542, 8662
386: triplet. We find that the values of $\sigma_*$ in these two
387: manners are similar by performing our synthesis method. By using
388: the least-square regression, the best fit between the $\sigma_*$
389: from these two manners ($\sigma^{\rm whole}_*$ and
390: $\sigma_{*}^{\rm partial}$, respectively) is: $\sigma^{\rm
391: whole}_* =(5.49\pm3.29)+(0.95\pm0.03)\sigma_{*}^{\rm partial}$.
392: The spearman coefficient $R$ is 0.97, with a probability of
393: $p_{\rm null} < 10^{-4}$ for rejecting the null hypothesis of no
394: correlation.
395:
396: Because the SDSS spectral coverage is from 3800\AA\ to 9200\AA,
397: most of double-peaked AGNs with redshift larger than 0.083 will
398: not cover the range of CaII triplet. For those sources with
399: redshift larger than 0.083, we used the above formula to obtain
400: the corrected velocity dispersion, i.e. $\sigma^{\rm c}_*
401: =(5.49\pm3.29) +(0.95\pm0.03)\times \sigma_{*}$. The corrected
402: velocity dispersion is listed in Col. (8) in Table 1. And we find
403: that the corrected velocity dispersion is almost the same to the
404: uncorrected one. The largest difference is about 10 \kms, which is
405: less than the typical error of 20\kms.
406:
407: Based on the SDSS instrumental resolution, we take 60 \kms \ as a
408: lower limit of $\sigma_*$ (e.g. Bernardi 2003). Only for two
409: objects, SDSS J133433.24 -013825.41 and SDSS J214555.03
410: +121034.17, the measured $\sigma_*$ are below/near the lower limit
411: (51 \kms and 62 \kms, respectively). These two objects are
412: excluded from further analysis.
413:
414:
415: The $\sigma_*$ value from the partial SDSS spectra is also used to
416: compare our result with Greene \& Ho (2006a), who fitted the
417: region around CaII triplet directly. In Fig. 3, we compared our
418: $\sigma_*$ with theirs. We found that the agreement is quite good,
419: the $\sigma_*$ difference ($\sigma_*^{\rm GH} -\sigma_*^{\rm
420: partial}$) distribution is -2.1 \kms \ with a standard deviation
421: (SD) of 22.7 \kms. By using the least-square regression
422: considering the errors of $\sigma_*^{\rm GH}$, the best fit
423: between $\sigma^{\rm GH}_*$ and $\sigma_{*}^{\rm partial}$ is:
424: $\sigma^{\rm GH}_* =(-16.66\pm3.56)+(1.09\pm0.04)\sigma_{*}^{\rm
425: partial}$ (solid line in Fig. 3). The spearman coefficient $R$ is
426: 0.86, the standard deviation is 2.11, with $p_{\rm null} <
427: 10^{-4}$.
428:
429:
430: \subsection{The Results}
431: For these double-peaked AGNs with reliable $\sigma^{c}_*$, we use
432: the $M_{\rm bh}-\sigma_{*}$ relation to derive the SMBH mass (e.g.
433: Tremaine et al. 2002 and reference therein),
434: \begin{equation}
435: M_{\rm bh} (\sigma_*^c) = 10^{8.13}\left(\frac{\sigma_{*}^{c}}
436: {200~ \rm km~s^{-1}}\right)^{4.02} ~~\Msun .
437: \end{equation}
438: We calculate the Eddington ratio, e.g., the ratio of the
439: bolometric luminosity ($L_{\rm bol}$) to the Eddington luminosity
440: ($L_{\rm Edd}$), where $L_{\rm Edd}=1.26 \times 10^{38} (M_{\rm
441: bh}/\Msun) \ \ergs$. We use the monochromatic luminosity at
442: 5100\AA\ ($\lambda L_{\lambda}$ at 5100\AA) to estimate the
443: bolometric luminosity, $L_{\rm bol}=c_{\rm B} \lambda
444: L_{\lambda}$(5100\AA), where $c_{\rm B} = 9$ (Kaspi et al. 2000).
445: These results are presented in Table 1.
446:
447: For the typical uncertainty of 20 \kms \ for $\sigma_{*}=200$
448: \kms, the error of $\log~ \sigma_{*}$ would be about 0.05 dex,
449: corresponding to 0.2 dex for $\log M_{\rm bh}$. The error of $\log
450: M_{\rm bh}$ is about 0.4 considering the error of 0.3 dex form the
451: $M_{\rm bh}-\sigma_{*}$ relation (Tremaine et al. 2002). Richards
452: et al. (2006) suggested a bolometric correction factor of $10.3\pm
453: 2.1$ at 5100 \AA. Therefore, the final Eddington ratio, $L_{\rm
454: bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$, has a large uncertainty, about 0.5 dex.
455:
456:
457:
458: \begin{figure}
459: \begin{center}
460: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{f4.eps}
461: \caption{The histograms of the black hole masses (left) and the
462: Eddington ratios (right) for these 52 double-peaked AGNs with
463: reliable $\sigma^{c}_{*}$.}
464: \end{center}
465: \end{figure}
466:
467: In Fig. 4, we show the histograms of the black hole masses and the
468: accretion ratios for these 52 double-peaked AGNs. The black hole
469: masses range from $1.0\times 10^{7}$ to $5.5\times 10^{8}$ $\Msun$
470: with a mean value of $\log M_{\rm bh}/\Msun=7.76 \pm 0.37$. Using
471: the H$\alpha$ FWHM and the 5100\AA\ monochromatic luminosity, Wu
472: \& Liu (2004) estimated the SMBH masses and the Eddington ratios
473: for an assembled double-peaked AGNs sample. Lewis \& Eracleous
474: (2006) noted that the BH masses from the H$\alpha$ FWHM are not
475: completely consistent with those from the stellar velocity
476: dispersion. Our BH masses derived from $\sigma^c_*$ are indeed
477: smaller than those from the H$\alpha$ FWHM (Wu \& Liu 2004) by
478: about an order of magnitude. This will lead to our $L_{\rm
479: bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$ larger than that from the H$\alpha$ FWHM by
480: almost an order of magnitude.
481:
482: \begin{figure}
483: \begin{center}
484: \includegraphics[width=9cm,height=7cm]{f5.eps}
485: \caption{The BLRs sizes versus the monochromatic luminosity at
486: 5100\AA\ (where $f$=0.75 for random BLRs orbits). Objects with
487: effective S/N in 4020 \AA\ less then 5 is denoted as open stars.
488: The black dash line is the empirical size-luminosity relation,
489: $R_{\rm BLR}=22.3\times [\lambda
490: L_{\lambda}$(5100\AA)$/10^{44}~\rm erg s^{-1}]^{0.69} ~\rm
491: lt-days$, found by Kaspi et al. (2005). The black dot line is the
492: empirical size-luminosity relation,$R_{\rm BLR}=40\times (\lambda
493: L_{\lambda}$(5100\AA)$/10^{44}~\rm erg s^{-1})^{0.52} ~\rm
494: lt-days$, found by Bentz et al. (2006). The red solid line is our
495: best fit with the fixed slope of 0.69 ($R$=0.29), lower by -0.63
496: dex respect to dash line.}
497: \end{center}
498: \end{figure}
499:
500:
501: The Eddington ratio has a distribution with mean and the standard
502: deviation of $\log (L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd})$ is $-1.13 \pm 0.38$.
503: It is suggested that the accretion disk in double-peaked AGNs is
504: in the mode of Advection Dominated Accretion Flow (ADAF) (e.g.
505: Eracleous \& Halpern 2003). When the Eddington ratio is below than
506: the critical one $L_{\rm Bol}/L_{\rm Edd}\sim
507: 0.0028\alpha_{0.1}^{2}$ (Mahadevan 1997), the ADAF appears, where
508: $\alpha_{0.1}=\alpha/0.1$ is viscous coefficient. For our SDSS
509: sample, all objects have Eddington ratios larger than this
510: critical value of 0.0028. The present results from Fig. 4 clearly
511: show that these double peaked AGNs have accretion disks in the
512: standard regime.
513:
514: The black hole masses can be independently tested by the relation
515: between the black holes and bulges. The Appendix gives details of
516: the test. We find the black hole masses are consistent from
517: $M_{\rm bh}-M_{\rm bulge}$ and $M_{\rm bh}-\sigma_*$ relations.
518:
519: \section{BLRs in double-peaked AGNs}
520:
521: \subsection{The size of BLRs}
522:
523: We also calculate the BLRs sizes for these 52 double-peaked AGNs
524: using the SMBHs masses derived from $\sigma_*^c$ and the H$\alpha$
525: FWHM. We firstly transform the H$\alpha$ FWHM to the H$\beta$ FWHM
526: by (Greene \& Ho 2005b):
527: \begin{equation}
528: \rm FWHM_{\rm H \beta} = (1.07 \pm 0.07) \times 10^3 \left
529: (\frac{\rm FWHM_{\rm H \alpha}}{10^3~ \rm km s^{-1}}
530: \right)^{(1.03 \pm 0.03)}~{\rm km s^{-1}}.
531: \end{equation}
532:
533: \noindent From the SMBH masses derived from the velocity
534: dispersions, we can calculate the BLRs sizes:
535: %
536: \begin{equation}
537: R_{\rm BLR} = \frac{M_{\rm bh}(\sigma_*^c)\times 5.123}{f \times
538: \rm FWHM_{ H \beta}^2} ~~~~~~~~~~\rm lt-days,
539: \end{equation}
540: %
541: where $f$ is the scaling factor related to the kinematics and
542: geometry of the BLRs, defined by $M_{\rm bh}=f\frac{R_{\rm BLR}
543: V_{\rm p}^2}{G}$, $V_{\rm p}$ is the Keplerian velocity in disk
544: plane. For random orietation of BLR cloud Keplerian orbits, $f$ is
545: 0.75.
546:
547: In Fig. 5, we plot the BLRs sizes versus the monochromatic
548: luminosity at 5100\AA\ (assuming $f$=0.75 for random BLRs orbits).
549: Almost all objects are located below the empirical size-luminosity
550: relation (black dash line) found by Kaspi et al. (2005). The
551: correlation between the BLRs sizes and the monochromatic
552: luminosity at 5100\AA\ is not too strong. The best fit is shown as
553: red solid line in Fig. 5 as $R_{\rm BLR}=5.1\left[\lambda
554: L_{\lambda}(5100\AA)/10^{44}~{\rm erg s^{-1}}\right]^{0.69}$
555: lt-days ($R=0.34$, $P_{\rm null}=0.20$), lower by -0.64 dex
556: respecting to the empirical relation found by Kaspi et al. (2005).
557: When excluding objects with effective S/N in 4020 \AA\ less then 5
558: (open stars in Fig. 5), for fixed slope of 0.69, the best fit
559: gives almost the same line but with a smaller $R$ of $0.28$.
560:
561: If we used $f$=0.52 (Table 2 in Collin et al. 2006), $\log R$ will
562: increased by 0.16 dex, the BLRs sizes of double-peaked AGNs are
563: still deviated from the empirical relation found by Kaspi et al.
564: (2005) (about 0.48 dex). FWHMs of the double-peaked AGNs are about
565: twice as broad as other AGN of similar luminosity (Eracleous \&
566: Halpern 1994, 2003; Strateva et al. 2003). If the double-peaked
567: AGNs are not systematically more massive than other AGNs, equation
568: 5 suggested that BLRs radii can be smaller than for a similarly
569: massive "normal" AGNs by a factor of 4.
570:
571: We have to point out that here we are not really testing the
572: $R_{\rm BLR}-L$ relation in double peaked AGNs, but the comparison
573: with $R_{\rm BLR}-L$ relation allows us to derive the factor $f$.
574:
575: \subsection{ The factor $f$, BLR inclinations and Non-virial BLRs}
576: If we use the empirical $R_{\rm BLR}-L$ relation (Kaspi et al.
577: 2005) to derive the $R_{\rm BLR}$ and the SMBH masses, $M_{\rm
578: bh}(\sigma_*^c)$, to do the calibration of the factor $f$ (Onken
579: et al. 2004), we find that the distribution of $f$ is 0.179 with a
580: standard deviation of 0.171. It is not consistent with the value
581: of $\langle f\rangle=5.5/4$ presented by Onken et al. (2004) and
582: it is about 1/3 of $0.52\pm 0.13$ suggested by Collin et al.
583: (2006). Our results suggest that the empirical relation between
584: the BLRs sizes and the luminosity at 5100\AA\ does not hold for
585: double-peaked AGNs (see also Zhang et al. 2007), otherwise the
586: calibration factor $f$ should be as low as 0.179. An important
587: consequence of the breakdown in the size-luminosity relationship
588: is that using mass estimation methods based on the size-luminosity
589: relationship and the calibration factor of 0.75 can lead to an
590: order of magnitude over-estimate of the SMBH mass (Wu \& Liu
591: 2004).
592:
593:
594: If BLRs are disk-like with an inclination of $\theta$, the
595: relation between the H$\beta$ FWHM and the Keplerian disk plane
596: velocity, $v_{\rm p}$, is given by (Wills \& Browne 1986)
597: %
598: \begin{equation}
599: {\rm FWHM_{\rm H \beta}}=2\left(V_{\rm r}^{2}+V_{\rm p}^{2}
600: \sin^{2}\theta\right)^{1/2},
601: \end{equation}
602: %
603: where $V_{\rm r}$ is the random isotropic component. We may derive
604: the scaling factor as $f=1/[4(V_{\rm r}/V_{\rm p})^2+ 4\rm sin^2
605: \theta]$. Ignoring $V_{\rm r}$, $f=1/(\rm 2sin\theta)^2$, and the
606: minimum of $f$ is 0.25. For only ten object with $f>0.25$, we can
607: derive the inclination of $\theta$ by the above formula. The mean
608: inclination is 56 degrees. It is suggested that double-peaked AGNs
609: are not preferentially edge-on (Eracleous \& Halpern 1994, 2003;
610: Strateva et al. 2003), most have an inclination of less than 50
611: degrees. If all these objects were nearly edge-on, the obscuring
612: torus would prevent us from seeing the broad lines. Collin et al.
613: (2006) suggested that objects with large FWHMs, inclination
614: effects are not really important. In these 52 double-peaked AGNs,
615: 42 objects have smaller $f$ less than 0.25. $V_{\rm r}$ can't be
616: omitted, we need to consider the random isotropic component,
617: implying the non-virial dynamics of BLRs in double-peaked AGNs. If
618: we use $f$ to trace the non-virial effect, smaller $f$ means
619: strong non-virial effect. We find $f$ have strong correlations
620: with $\log M_{\rm bh}$ and $\log(L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd})$ (see
621: Fig. 6). Using the least-square regression, we derive the
622: correlations are:
623: %
624: \begin{equation}
625: \log f =(-1.63 \pm 0.12)-(0.65\pm 0.10) \log(L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm
626: Edd}),
627: \end{equation}
628: %
629: where $R=-0.69$, $p_{\rm null} < 10^{-4}$; and
630: %
631: \begin{equation}
632: \log f =(-4.31 \pm 0.97)+(0.44\pm 0.13) \log M_{\rm bh}/\Msun,
633: \end{equation}
634: %
635: where $R=0.45$ with $p_{\rm null} =9.6 \times 10^{-4}$. When we
636: exclude objects with effective S/N in 4020 \AA\ less then 5 (open
637: stars in Fig. 6), the best fits for $f$ relations between SMBH
638: mass and the Eddington ratio give a little larger $R$ ($-0.75,
639: 0.52$, respectively). We should note that the reason of these
640: strong correlations are that $f$ is derived from $M_{\rm bh}$,
641: $R_{\rm BLR}$ [from $\lambda L_{\lambda} (5100\AA)$ ], and $\rm
642: FWHM_{H \beta}$. These strong correlations suggest that objects
643: with larger Eddington ratios have strong non-virial effect.
644:
645:
646: \begin{figure}
647: \begin{center}
648: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{f6.eps}
649: \caption{The scaling factor $f$ versus the Eddington ratio (left
650: panel) and the SMBH masses (right panel). Objects with effective
651: S/N in 4020 \AA\ less then 5 is denoted as open stars. The dash
652: lines are $f=0.25$. The correlation coefficient for the relation
653: between the peak separation and the Eddington ratio is $R=-0.69$
654: and that between the separation and the black hole mass is
655: $R=0.45$.}
656: \end{center}
657: \end{figure}
658:
659:
660: 3C 390.3 is the only double peaked object with the direct
661: measurements of the time delay and the host stellar velocity
662: dispersion. And it locates in the empirical relation between BLRs
663: sizes and the luminosity (e.g. Kaspi et al. 2005). By $\sigma_*$
664: of 240 \kms (Onken et al. 2004), we find that $f$ is about 1.3,
665: consistent with the assumption of random BLRs orbits in 3C390.3.
666: Its small Eddington ratio (Lewis \& Eracleous 2006), $(2-4)\times
667: 10 ^{-2}$, is also consistent with the virial BLRs dynamics (See
668: Fig. 6).
669:
670: \section{Peak separation, BH Mass and Eddington ratio}
671: \begin{figure}
672: \begin{center}
673: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{f7.eps}
674: \caption{The peak separation versus the Eddington ratio (left
675: panel) and the SMBH masses (right panel). Objects with effective
676: S/N in 4020 \AA\ less then 5 is denoted as open stars. The
677: correlation coefficient for the relation between the peak
678: separation and the Eddington ratio is $R=-0.33$, which is almost
679: the same for that between the separation and the black hole mass
680: ($R=0.35$).}
681: \end{center}
682: \end{figure}
683:
684: For double-peaked AGNs, the peak separation, $\Delta v =
685: \lambda_{\rm red} -\lambda_{\rm blue} $, has a large variance
686: ranging from about 1000 \kms\ to about 10000 \kms\ (Table 3 in
687: Strateva et al. 2003). In Fig. 7, we show the relations between
688: $\log \Delta \lambda$ and $\log(L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd})$, $\log
689: M_{\rm bh}$. Using the least-square regression, we derive the
690: correlation between $\log \Delta v$ and $\log(L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm
691: Edd})$ to be:
692: %
693: \begin{equation}
694: \log \Delta v =(3.43 \pm 0.08)-(0.17\pm 0.06) \log(L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}),
695: \end{equation}
696: %
697: where $R=-0.33$, $p_{\rm null} = 0.017$ (see Fig. 7). For the
698: relation between $\log \Delta \lambda$ and $\log M_{\rm bh}$,
699: %
700: \begin{equation}
701: \log \Delta v =(2.17 \pm 0.55)+(0.11\pm 0.08) \log (M_{\rm
702: bh}/\Msun),
703: \end{equation}
704: %
705: where $R$ is 0.35 with $p_{\rm null} = 0.011$. When excluding
706: objects with effective S/N in 4020 \AA\ less then 5 (open stars in
707: Fig. 7), the best fits for $\log \Delta v$ relations between SMBH
708: mass and the Eddington ratio give smaller $R$ ($-0.22, 0.21$,
709: respectively). We also do the multiple regression for the
710: dependence of $\Delta v$ on $\log(L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd})$ and
711: $\log M_{\rm bh}$,
712: %
713: \begin{eqnarray}
714: \log \Delta v =(2.54 \pm 0.64)+(0.13\pm 0.09) \log (M_{\rm
715: bh}/\Msun) \\ \nonumber - (0.10\pm 0.09)\log(L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm
716: Edd}),
717: \end{eqnarray}
718: %
719: where the $R-$Square correlation coefficient is 0.15.
720:
721: Wu \& Liu (2004) also studied this correlation and obtained an
722: apparent stronger correlation ($R=0.84$). Their derived strong
723: correlation is mainly due to the very strong correlation between
724: the separation and the H$\alpha$ FWHM ($R=0.88$). When the
725: H$\alpha$ FWHM is fixed, they found that the partial correlation
726: coefficient is only 0.05. In this paper, we use the stellar
727: velocity dispersion to estimate the black hole masses, and we also
728: find a mild correlation between $\Delta v$ and $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm
729: Edd}$, which implies that the peak separation would be smaller for
730: AGNs with higher Eddington ratios. It provides clues to why
731: previous double-peaked AGNs have lower Eddington ratios.
732:
733: There is increasing evidence for a disk geometry of the BLR (see a
734: review of Laor 2007). If we assume that peak separation is created
735: by the doppler shift of the movement of a thin annulus and the
736: annulus radius corresponds the location where the self-gravitation
737: domiantes (Bian \& Zhao 2002), we have the radius $R_{\rm
738: SG}/R_g=3586m_8^{-2/9}\dot{m}^{4/9}\alpha^{2/9}$ (their eq. 18 in
739: Laor \& Netzer 1989), where $R_g=1.5\times 10^{13}m_8$~cm,
740: $m_8=M_{\rm bh}/10^8\Msun$, $\dot{m}$ is the Eddington ratio and
741: $\alpha$ is the viscosity. The maximum separation of the double
742: peaks in units of \AA\ under the edge-on orientation to an
743: observer is given
744: %
745: \begin{equation}
746: \Delta \lambda=\lambda_0\left(\frac{R_{\rm g}}{R_{\rm SG}}\right)^{1/2}
747: =84.9~\alpha_{0.1}^{-1/9} \dot{m}^{-2/9}m_8^{1/9}~\AA,
748: \end{equation}
749: %
750: where we use the peak separation in term of separation velocity,
751: %
752: \begin{equation}
753: \Delta v= 7.76 \times 10^3 ~\alpha_{0.1}^{-1/9}
754: \dot{m}^{-2/9}m_8^{1/9}~ \kms.
755: \end{equation}
756: %
757: where $\alpha_{0.1}=\alpha/0.1$ and H$\alpha$ wavelength $\lambda_0=6563$\AA.
758:
759: Considering the uncertainties of the fitting results for the peak
760: separation correlations with SMBH mass and the Eddington ratio,
761: the slopes are consistent with the simple theoretical expectation.
762: We have to stress that equation (11) is for the maximum separation
763: (edge-on orientation) when the disk structure is given. More sophisticated
764: model is needed for explanations of the dependence of peak separations and
765: Eddington ratios. The
766: scatters in Fig 7 may be caused by different orientation of the
767: BLR in the sample.
768:
769: We also find no significant correlations between the ratio of the
770: red peak height to the blue height and the Eddington ratio, the
771: black hole mass, the peak separation. Since the Keplerian velocity
772: is much below the light speed, the Doppler boosting effects could
773: be hidden by complex situations of the BLR.
774:
775: \begin{figure*}
776: \begin{center}
777: \includegraphics[width=7cm,height=13cm,angle=-90]{f8.eps}
778: \caption{The ratio of the H$\alpha$ line luminosity ($L_{\rm
779: H\alpha}$) to the line-emitting power ($W_{\rm disk}$) versus the
780: monochromatic luminosity at 5100\AA\ ($\log \lambda
781: L_{\lambda}$(5100 \AA)). The solid line is $L_{\rm H\alpha}=W_{\rm
782: disk}$, the dash line is $L_{\rm H\alpha}=0.2 W_{\rm disk}$, and
783: the dot line is $L_{\rm H\alpha}=0.1 W_{\rm disk}$. We display the
784: histogram of the distribution of $L_{\rm H \alpha}/W_{\rm disk}$
785: (right).}
786: \end{center}
787: \end{figure*}
788:
789: \section{Energy budget}
790:
791: Here we discuss the energy budget of the line-emitting accretion
792: disk. Based on the standard accretion disk model, the disk
793: radiation as a function of radius $\xi$ is (Chen et al. 1989):
794: \begin{equation}
795: F(\xi)=1\times 10^{12}
796: m_{8}^{-2}\dot{M}_{24}\xi_{100}^{-3}[1-(6/\xi)^{1/2}]~ \rm ergs~
797: cm^{-2}~s^{-1}
798: \end{equation}
799: where $m_8=M_{\rm bh}/10^8\Msun$, $\dot{M}_{24}$ is the accretion
800: rate in units of $10^{24} ~g~ s^{-1}$, and the dimensionless
801: radius $\xi_{100}$ is $\xi/(100R_{g})$. Using $\dot{M}=L_{\rm
802: bol}/(\zeta c^2)$ where the efficiency $\zeta$ is 0.1, the
803: gravitational power output of the line-emitting disk annulus
804: between $\xi_1$ and $\xi_2$ is (Eracleous \& Halpern 1994):
805: \begin{eqnarray}
806: W_{\rm disk}(\xi_1,\xi_2)=7.7\times L_{\rm bol}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nonumber \\
807: \left
808: [\frac{1}{\xi_{1}} \left (1-{\sqrt \frac{8}{3\xi_{1}}}\right
809: )-\frac{1}{\xi_2}\left (1-\sqrt \frac{8}{3\xi_2}\right)\right ]
810: {\rm ergs ~s^{-1}},
811: \end{eqnarray}
812: where $L_{\rm bol}$ is in units of $\ergs$. It is noted that
813: $W_{\rm disk}$ is independent of the black hole mass, when we use
814: the typical radius in units of $R_{g}$. We use the luminosity at
815: 5100\AA\ to calculate the bolometric luminosity. From the work of
816: Eracleous \& Halpern (2003) and Strateva et al. (2003), the inner
817: radius is about hundreds of $R_{\rm g}$, and the outer radius is
818: about thousands of $R_{\rm g}$. The outer radius of line-emitting
819: accretion disk is about near the inner position of torus. We can
820: assume typical inner and outer radii of $\xi_{1}=450R_{g}$ and
821: $\xi_{1}=3000R_{g}$ to calculate the energy output for these
822: double-peaked SDSS AGNs, i.e. $W_{\rm disk}=10^{-1.876}\times
823: L_{\rm bol} \ \ergs$. The distribution of $\rm {log}(L_{\rm
824: H\alpha}/W_{\rm disk})$ is $-0.55\pm 0.06$ with the standard
825: deviation of 0.57 (see also Fig. 8). If assuming as much as $20\%$
826: of the power was radiated as H$\alpha$ line (dashed line in Fig.
827: 8), our results show that only 36 out of 105 double-peaked AGNs
828: would generate enough power to produce observed strength of
829: H$\alpha$ emission. If we adopt the value of 10\%, more objects
830: (83 out of 105 objects) showed the energy problem. It implied that
831: the majority of double-peaked AGNs need external illumination of
832: the disk (e.g. an inner iron torus or corona) to produce the
833: observed strength of H$\alpha$ line (Strateva et al. 2006; Cao \&
834: Wang 2006).
835:
836: \section{conclusions}
837: We use the simple population synthesis to model the stellar
838: contributions in double-peaked SDSS AGNs. The reliable stellar
839: velocity dispersions are obtained for 52 medium-luminous
840: double-peaked SDSS AGNs with obvious stellar features. We find
841: that: 1) The black hole mass is from $1.0\times 10^{7} \Msun$ to
842: $5.5\times 10^{8} \Msun$ and the Eddington ratio is from about
843: 0.01 to about 1; 2) The factor $f$ far deviates from the
844: virialized value 0.75, suggesting the non-virial dynamics of BLRs;
845: 3) The peak separation is mildly correlated with the Eddington
846: ratio and SMBH mass with almost the same correlation coefficients,
847: which can be interpreted in the doppler shift of thin annulus of
848: BLRs created by gravitational instability; 4) Based on the
849: line-emitting accretion disk model, we need external illumination
850: of the accretion disk to produce the observed strength of
851: H$\alpha$ line. In the future, using different models, we would
852: fit the double-peaked profiles to constrain the nature of
853: double-peaked AGNs. We can also use the double-peaked AGNs to
854: constrain the BLRs origin ( Nicastro 2000; Laor 2003; Bian \& Gu
855: 2007).
856:
857:
858:
859: \section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
860: We are very grateful to the anonymous referee and Ari Laor for
861: their thoughtful and instructive comments which significantly
862: improved the content of the paper. We thank Luis C. Ho for his
863: very useful comments, and thank discussions among people in IHEP
864: AGN group. This work has been supported by the NSFC ( Nos.
865: 10403005, 10473005), the Science-Technology Key Foundation from
866: Education Department of P. R. China (No. 206053), and and the
867: China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No. 20060400502). QSG would
868: like to acknowledge the financial supports from China Scholarship
869: Council (CSC) and the NSFC under grants 10221001 and 10633040. JMW
870: thanks NSFC grants via No. 10325313 and 10521001 and supports from
871: CAS key project via KJCX2-YW-T03.
872:
873: Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred
874: P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National
875: Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National
876: Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho,
877: the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council
878: for England. The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research
879: Consortium for the Participating Institutions. The Participating
880: Institutions are the American Museum of Natural History,
881: Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, University of Basel, Cambridge
882: University, Case Western Reserve University, University of
883: Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced
884: Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University,
885: the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute
886: for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean Scientist
887: Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos
888: National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy
889: (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New
890: Mexico State University, Ohio State University, University of
891: Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the
892: United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
893:
894: \newpage
895:
896:
897: \appendix
898:
899: \section{The relation between the host mass and the SMBH mass}
900: %
901: \begin{figure*}
902: \begin{center}
903: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{f9.eps}
904: \caption{The relation between the host mass and the SMBH mass.
905: With fixed slope of 1, the solid line denotes the best fit with
906: $R$=0.53 and $p_{\rm null} < 10^{-4}$. Objects with effective S/N
907: in 4020 \AA\ less then 5 is denoted as open stars.}
908: \end{center}
909: \end{figure*}
910: %
911:
912: For the sample of 52 double-peaked SDSS AGNs, assuming $\lambda
913: L_{\lambda} \propto \lambda^{0.5},\lambda L_{\lambda} (5100\AA)$
914: is translated to $\lambda L_{\lambda}(5530\AA)$. The host
915: luminosity in V band is the value of $\lambda
916: L_{\lambda}(5530\AA)$ multiplied by the stellar fraction at
917: 5530\AA. We assume that the host luminosity in V band
918: approximates the bulge luminosity $L_{\rm bulge}$ in V-band. We
919: then use the following formula to calculate the bulge mass: $\log
920: (M_{\rm bulge}/\Msun)=1.18\log(L_{\rm bulge} /\Lsun)-1.11$
921: (Magorrian et al. 1998). Fig. 9 shows this bulge mass versus the
922: BH mass from $\sigma_*$. We fit with fixed slope as 1, intercept
923: is $2.93\pm 0.05$, correlation coefficient is 0.53. The null
924: hypothesis is less then $10^{-4}$. We find that the $M^{\rm
925: bulge}_V$ versus the $\log \sigma$ relation is consistent with
926: Fig.4 of Faber et al. 1997. Therefore, the SMBH mass from $L_{\rm
927: bulge}$ and the Magorrian relation agrees with that from
928: $\sigma_*$. When we exclude objects with effective S/N in 4020
929: \AA\ less then 5 (open stars in Fig. 9), for fixed slope of 1, the
930: best fit gives that intercept is $2.95\pm 0.05$, correlation
931: coefficient is 0.49.
932:
933: It is suggested that the mass from the $M_{\rm bh}-\sigma_{*}$
934: relation could underestimate the SMBH mass for the massive
935: ellipticals with SMBH mass larger than $10^9\Msun$ (Fig. 2 in
936: Lauer et al. 2007). For our 52 double-peaked AGNs, their SMBH
937: masses are all less than $10^9\Msun$ from $M_{\rm bh}-M_{\rm
938: bulge}$ relation. The present results are less affected by Lauer
939: et al's findings.
940:
941: \begin{thebibliography}{}
942:
943: \bibitem[]{} Abazajian, K., et al. 2005, AJ, 129, 1755
944: \bibitem[]{} Barth, A. J., Ho, L. C., Filippenko, A. V., Rix, H., Sargent, W.
945: L. W. 2001, ApJ, 546, 205
946: \bibitem[]{} Bentz et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 133
947: \bibitem[]{} Bernardi, M., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 1817
948: \bibitem[]{} Bian, W., Zhao, Y. 2002, A\&A, 395, 465
949: \bibitem[]{} Bian, W., Zhao, Y. 2004, MNRAS, 347, 607
950: \bibitem[]{} Bian, W., Yuan, Q., Zhao, Y. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 187
951: \bibitem[]{} Bian, W., Gu, Q, Zhao. Y, Chao, L., Cui, Q. 2006, MNRAS,
952: 372, 876
953: \bibitem[]{} Bian, W., Gu, Q. 2007, ApJ, 657, 159
954: \bibitem[]{} Bower, G. A., Wilson, A. S., Heckman, T. M., Richstone,
955: D. O. 1996, AJ, 111, 1901
956: \bibitem[]{} Bruzual, G., Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000
957: \bibitem[]{} Cao, X.W., Wang, T.G. 2006, ApJ, 652, 112
958: \bibitem[]{} Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245
959: \bibitem[]{} Chen, K., Halpern, J. P. 1989, ApJ, 344, 115
960: \bibitem[]{} Cid Fernandes R., Gu Q., Melnick J., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 273
961: \bibitem[]{} Cid Fernandes R., Mateus A., Sodre L., Stasinska G.,
962: Gomes J. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 363
963: \bibitem[]{} Collin, S. et al. 2006, A\&A, 456, 75
964: \bibitem[]{} Dietrich, M., et al. 1998, ApJS, 115, 185
965: \bibitem[]{} Eracleous, M., Halpern, J. P. 1994, ApJS, 90, 1
966: \bibitem[]{} Eracleous, M., Halpern, J. P. 2003, ApJ, 599, 886
967: \bibitem[]{} Eracleous, M., et al. 1997, ApJ, 490, 216
968: \bibitem[]{} Gezari, S., Halpern, J. P., Eracleous, M. 2007, ApJS,
969: 169, 167
970: \bibitem[]{} Goad, M., Wanders, I. 1996, ApJ, 469, 113
971: \bibitem[]{} Greene, J. E., Ho, L. C. 2005a, ApJ, 627, 721
972: \bibitem[]{} Greene, J. E., Ho, L. C. 2005b, ApJ, 630, 122
973: \bibitem[]{} Greene, J. E., Ho, L. C. 2006a, ApJL, 641, L21
974: \bibitem[]{} Greene, J. E., Ho, L. C. 2006b, ApJ, 641, 117
975: \bibitem[]{} Grupe, D., Mathur, S. 2004, ApJ, 606, L41
976: \bibitem[]{} Hao, L., et al. 2003, AJ, 129, 1783
977: \bibitem[]{} Heckman, T. M., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 109
978: \bibitem[]{} Ho, L. C., Rudnick, G., Rix, H., Shields, J. C., McIntosh, D. H.,
979: Filippenko, A. V., Sargent, W. L. W., Eracleous, M. 2000, ApJ,
980: 541, 120
981: \bibitem[]{} Kaspi, S., Maoz, D., Netzer, H., Peterson, B.M.,
982: Vestergaard, M., \& Jannuzi, B.T. 2005, ApJ, 629, 61
983: \bibitem[]{} Kaspi, S., Smith, P.S., Netzer, H., Maoz, D.,
984: Jannuzi, B.T., Giveon, U. 2000, ApJ, 533, 631
985: \bibitem[]{} Kauffmann, G., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1055
986: \bibitem[]{} Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M. 2005, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London,
987: A363, 621
988: \bibitem[]{} Lauer, T. R., et al. 2007, ApJ, 662, 808
989: \bibitem[]{} Laor, A. 2003, ApJ, 590, 86
990: \bibitem[]{} Laor, A. 2007, in Proceedings of The Central Engine of Active Galactic Nuclei,
991: ed. L. C Ho \& J.-M. Wang (San Francisco: ASP) in press (astro-ph/0702577)
992: \bibitem[]{}Laor, A. \& Netzer, H. 1989, MNRAS, 238, 897
993: \bibitem[]{} Kormendy, J., \& Gebhardt, K. 2001, in Proc. 20th Texas Symposium,
994: ed. H. Martel \& J. C. Wheeler (Austin: AIP), 363
995: \bibitem[]{} Krolik, J. H. 2001, ApJ, 551, 72
996: \bibitem[]{} Lewis, K. T., Eracleous, M. 2006, ApJ, 642, 711
997: \bibitem[]{} Lewis, K. T. 2006, In ASP Conference Series, the central
998: engine of Active galactic Nuclei.
999: \bibitem[]{} Mahadevan, R. 1997, ApJ, 477, 585
1000: \bibitem[]{} Magorrian, J., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285
1001: \bibitem[]{} Mathur, S., Kuraszkiewicz, J., Czerny, B. 2001, NewA, 6, 321
1002: \bibitem[]{} McLure, R. J., Jarvis, M. J. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 109
1003: \bibitem[]{} Nelson, C. H. 2001, ApJ, 544, L91
1004: \bibitem[]{} Nicastro, F. 2000, ApJ, 530, L65
1005: \bibitem[]{} Onken, C. A., et al. 2004, ApJ, 615, 645
1006: \bibitem[]{} Peterson, B. M. ApJ, 2004, 613, 682
1007: \bibitem[]{} Richards, G. T., et al. 2006, ApJS, 166, 470
1008: \bibitem[]{} Rix, H. W., White, S. D. M. 1992, MNRAS, 254, 389
1009: \bibitem[]{} Sargent, W. L. W., Schechter, P. L., Boksenberg, A., Shortridge, K. 1977, ApJ, 212, 326
1010: \bibitem[]{} Shields, J. C., Rix, H., McIntosh, D. H., Ho, L. C., Rudnick, G.,
1011: Filippenko, A. V., Sargent, W. L. W., Sarzi, M. 2000, ApJ, 534,
1012: L27
1013: \bibitem[]{} Storchi-Bergmann, T., Baldwin, J. A., Wilson, A. S. 1993, ApJ,
1014: 410, L11
1015: \bibitem[]{} Strateva, I. V., et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 1720
1016: \bibitem[]{} Strateva, I. V., et al. 2006, ApJ, 651, 749
1017: \bibitem[]{} Tonry, J., \& Davis, M. 1979, ApJ, 84, 1511
1018: \bibitem[]{} Tremaine, S., et al. 2002, Ap J, 574, 740
1019: \bibitem[]{} Vanden Berk, D. E., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 84
1020: \bibitem[]{} Vestergaard, M. 2002, ApJ, 571, 733
1021: \bibitem[]{} Wang, T.-G., Dong, X.-B., Zhang, X.-G., Zhou, H.-Y., Wang, J.-X.,
1022: Lu, Y.-J. 2005, ApJ, 625, L35
1023: \bibitem[]{} Watson, L. c., Grupe, D., Mathur, S. 2007, ApJ,
1024: 133, 2435
1025: \bibitem[]{} Wills, B.J., Browne, I.W.A. 1986, ApJ, 302, 56
1026: \bibitem[]{} Woo, J. H. et al. 2006, ApJ, 645, 900
1027: \bibitem[]{} Wu X.-B.,Wang R., Kong M. Z., Liu F. K., Han J. L. 2004, A\&A,
1028: 424, 793
1029: \bibitem[]{} Wu, X.-B., Liu, F. K. 2004, ApJ, 614, 91
1030: \bibitem[]{} Zhang, X. G., Dultzin-Hacyan D., Wang, T.G.
1031: 2007,MNRAS, 377, 1215
1032: \bibitem[]{} Zheng, W., Veilleux, S., Grandi, S. A. 1991, ApJ, 381, 418
1033: \bibitem[]{} Zhou, H. Y. et al. 2006, ApJS, 166, 128
1034:
1035:
1036:
1037: \end{thebibliography}
1038: %\end{document}
1039:
1040:
1041:
1042: \begin{deluxetable}{lllllllllllll}
1043: \tabletypesize{\tiny} \tablewidth{0pt}
1044: %\tablenum{1}
1045: \tablecaption{Results for 52 double-peaked AGNs.}
1046: \startdata
1047: \hline
1048: Name & z & EW(Ca K) & $\chi^2$& FC & S/N & $\sigma_{*}$ & $\sigma_{*}^{\rm c}$ & $\sigma_{\rm g}$ & $\lambda L_{\lambda} (5100\AA)$& $M_{\rm bh}$ & $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$ & $\Delta V$\\
1049: (1) & (2) &(3) & (4) & (5) & (6)&(7)& (8) & (9) & (10)& (11)&(12)&(13)\\
1050: \hline
1051: SDSS J000815.46$-$104620.57 & 0.199 & $ -3.5 \pm 1.3 $ & 0.86& 0.45 & 4.12 &:148.30 & 146.37& $ 112.2 \pm 4.6 $ & 43.71 & 7.59 & -1.02 & 3100 \\
1052: SDSS J011140.03$-$095834.94 & 0.207 & $ -3.7 \pm 0.7 $ & 0.91& 0.58 & 3.49 &:110.93 & 110.87& $ 92.5 \pm 31.1 $ & 43.77 & 7.10 & -0.48 & 2300 \\
1053: SDSS J013407.88$-$084129.98 & 0.070 & $ -7.7 \pm 0.6 $ & 1.07& 0.07 & 9.47 &~121.14 & 121.14$\star$& $ 84.8 \pm 1.3 $ & 42.95 & 7.25 & -1.45 & 3800 \\
1054: SDSS J014901.08$-$080838.23 & 0.210 & $ -3.1 \pm 7.0 $ & 1.05& 0.64 & 2.78 &:125.25 & 124.48& $ 169.9 \pm 5.3 $ & 43.67 & 7.30 & -0.77 & 2800 \\
1055: SDSS J023253.42$-$082832.10 & 0.265 & $ -2.7 \pm 0.6 $ & 0.86& 0.30 & 11.00&~186.03 & 182.22& $ 236.1 \pm 14.3 $ & 43.97 & 7.97 & -1.14 & 3200 \\
1056: SDSS J024052.82$-$004110.93 & 0.247 & $ -3.0 \pm 0.3 $ & 1.31& 0.67 & 7.52 &~121.61 & 121.02& $ 105.9 \pm 3.9 $ & 44.22 & 7.25 & -0.18 & 3100 \\
1057: SDSS J024703.24$-$071421.59 & 0.333 & $ -4.3 \pm 2.3 $ & 0.81& 0.62 & 3.41 &:293.48 & 284.29& $ 402.1 \pm 19.0 $ & 44.08 & 8.74 & -1.81 & 8100 \\
1058: SDSS J024840.03$-$010032.68 & 0.184 & $ -4.7 \pm 1.5 $ & 0.72& 0.38 & 6.26 &~155.34 & 153.06& $ 91.9 \pm 0 $ & 43.62 & 7.66 & -1.19 & 2700 \\
1059: SDSS J025220.89$+$004331.32 & 0.170 & $ -1.3 \pm 0.2 $ & 1.01& 0.50 & 6.81 &~174.65 & 171.41& $ 195.7 \pm 6.9 $ & 43.82 & 7.86 & -1.18 & 2600 \\
1060: SDSS J025951.71$-$001522.78 & 0.102 & $ -2.5 \pm 0.5 $ & 0.90& 0.62 & 4.51 &:137.38 & 136.00& $ 116.1 \pm 19.3 $ & 43.28 & 7.46 & -1.33 & 3600 \\
1061: SDSS J034931.03$-$062621.05 & 0.287 & $ -5.1 \pm 0.8 $ & 0.98& 0.61 & 4.32 &:148.31 & 146.38& $ 155.0 \pm 9.2 $ & 44.09 & 7.59 & -0.64 & 5300 \\
1062: SDSS J081700.40$+$343556.34 & 0.062 & $ -7.6 \pm 1.5 $ & 1.33& 0.16 & 9.35 &~172.92 & 172.92$\star$& $ 200.8 \pm 4.3 $ & 43.08 & 7.88 & -1.94 & 6300 \\
1063: SDSS J081916.28$+$481745.48 & 0.223 & $ -2.6 \pm 0.4 $ & 1.06& 0.61 & 4.84 &:173.85 & 170.65& $ 170.6 \pm 166.4$ & 43.97 & 7.85 & -1.03 & 5400 \\
1064: SDSS J082133.60$+$470237.33 & 0.128 & $ -7.9 \pm 2.9 $ & 0.90& 0.19 & 9.47 &~171.11 & 168.05& $ 172.8 \pm 6.5 $ & 43.58 & 7.83 & -1.39 & 5200 \\
1065: SDSS J084535.37$+$001619.52 & 0.260 & $ -5.2 \pm 1.8 $ & 0.77& 0.33 & 6.52 &~106.66 & 106.82& $ 113.3 \pm 9.5 $ & 43.82 & 7.04 & -0.36 & 5600 \\
1066: SDSS J091459.05$+$012631.30 & 0.198 & $ -3.2 \pm 0.3 $ & 0.80& 0.33 & 11.38&~156.94 & 154.59& $ 180.7 \pm 15.5 $ & 43.97 & 7.68 & -0.86 & 7400 \\
1067: SDSS J092515.00$+$531711.91 & 0.186 & $ -3.9 \pm 0.7 $ & 0.79& 0.26 & 8.78 &~203.50 & 198.82& $ 142.7 \pm 11.1 $ & 43.85 & 8.12 & -1.42 & 3400 \\
1068: SDSS J100443.43$+$480156.45 & 0.199 & $ -5.6 \pm 1.5 $ & 1.00& 0.52 & 3.92 &:172.93 & 169.77& $ 115.2 \pm 3.3 $ & 43.79 & 7.84 & -1.20 & 6600 \\
1069: SDSS J101405.89$+$000620.36 & 0.141 & $ -7.6 \pm 1.1 $ & 1.50& 0.26 & 12.21&~221.51 & 215.92& $ 166.8 \pm 6.5 $ & 43.85 & 8.26 & -1.56 & 9000 \\
1070: SDSS J103202.41$+$600834.47 & 0.294 & $ -2.7 \pm 1.0 $ & 0.82& 0.55 & 5.30 &~179.60 & 176.11& $ 164.1 \pm 8.1 $ & 43.98 & 7.91 & -1.08 & 3700 \\
1071: SDSS J104108.18$+$562000.32 & 0.230 & $ -3.5 \pm 0.9 $ & 1.04& 0.43 & 6.20 &~205.50 & 200.72& $ 181.9 \pm 0.2 $ & 43.82 & 8.14 & -1.47 & 8500 \\
1072: SDSS J104128.60$+$023204.99 & 0.182 & $ -4.6 \pm 0.5 $ & 0.91& 0.27 & 9.75 &~185.68 & 181.88& $ 191.1 \pm 26.2 $ & 43.78 & 7.96 & -1.33 & 5700 \\
1073: SDSS J104132.78$-$005057.46 & 0.303 & $ -3.1 \pm 0.3 $ & 1.41& 0.47 & 10.42&~179.70 & 176.20& $ 195.1 \pm 4.2 $ & 44.24 & 7.91 & -0.81 & 4500 \\
1074: SDSS J110742.76$+$042134.18 & 0.327 & $ -2.5 \pm 0.6 $ & 0.99& 0.42 & 6.12 &~205.09 & 200.32& $ 251.5 \pm 13.6 $ & 44.18 & 8.13 & -1.10 & 3700 \\
1075: SDSS J113021.41$+$005823.04 & 0.132 & $ -6.9 \pm 1.0 $ & 0.98& 0.31 & 10.85&~148.10 & 146.19& $ 95.2 \pm 0.9 $ & 43.73 & 7.58 & -1.00 & 2100 \\
1076: SDSS J113633.08$+$020747.65 & 0.239 & $ -4.2 \pm 0.3 $ & 1.18& 0.74 & 6.41 &~143.45 & 141.76& $ 163.2 \pm 10.2 $ & 44.22 & 7.53 & -0.45 & 2500 \\
1077: SDSS J114051.58$+$054631.13 & 0.132 & $ -11.2\pm 3.9 $ & 0.78& 0.41 & 6.43 &~134.19 & 132.97& $ 138.7 \pm 8.5 $ & 43.50 & 7.42 & -1.06 & 9100 \\
1078: SDSS J115047.48$-$031652.95 & 0.149 & $ -5.4 \pm 1.1 $ & 0.89& 0.46 & 5.98 &~137.15 & 135.78& $ 91.2 \pm 3.7 $ & 43.69 & 7.45 & -0.91 & 4900 \\
1079: SDSS J122009.55$-$013201.14 & 0.288 & $ -5.2 \pm 1.2 $ & 0.96& 0.49 & 6.70 &~186.09 & 182.28& $ 179.4 \pm 19.5 $ & 44.02 & 7.97 & -1.09 & 3100 \\
1080: SDSS J130927.67$+$032251.76 & 0.267 & $ -2.6 \pm 0.5 $ & 1.30& 0.36 & 10.66&~199.92 & 195.42& $ 256.1 \pm 0.5 $ & 43.95 & 8.09 & -1.28 & 3000 \\
1081: SDSS J132442.44$+$052438.86 & 0.116 & $ -8.8 \pm 10.4 $ & 1.12& 0.45 & 3.20 &:145.40 & 143.62& $ 231.7 \pm 8.9 $ & 42.98 & 7.55 & -1.72 & 9700 \\
1082: SDSS J132834.14$-$012917.64 & 0.151 & $ -4.2 \pm 1.0 $ & 1.41& 0.60 & 4.70 &:154.22 & 152.00& $ 180.6 \pm 2.2 $ & 43.64 & 7.65 & -1.16 & 3600 \\
1083: SDSS J133312.42$+$013023.73 & 0.217 & $ -2.8 \pm 0.8 $ & 1.03& 0.55 & 5.18 &~105.37 & 105.59& $ 129.0 \pm 2.3 $ & 43.71 & 7.01 & -0.45 & 3400 \\
1084: SDSS J133338.30$+$041803.94 & 0.202 & $ -3.0 \pm 0.5 $ & 0.97& 0.36 & 7.34 &~206.10 & 201.29& $ 185.9 \pm 16.7 $ & 43.82 & 8.14 & -1.47 & 4100 \\
1085: SDSS J134617.54$+$622045.47 & 0.116 & $ -3.4 \pm 0.3 $ & 1.37& 0.64 & 7.94 &~153.91 & 151.71& $ 114.1 \pm 1.3 $ & 43.73 & 7.65 & -1.07 & --- \\
1086: SDSS J140019.27$+$631426.93 & 0.331 & $ -2.3 \pm 0.5 $ & 1.05& 0.83 & 5.08 &~204.44 & 199.71& $ 167.1 \pm 25.5 $ & 44.59 & 8.13 & -0.69 & 5300 \\
1087: SDSS J141454.55$+$013358.55 & 0.269 & $ -4.1 \pm 0.7 $ & 1.15& 0.29 & 10.97&~218.93 & 213.47& $ 287.8 \pm 8.6 $ & 44.03 & 8.24 & -1.36 & 2700 \\
1088: SDSS J141613.37$+$021907.82 & 0.158 & $ -5.9 \pm 1.2 $ & 1.02& 0.54 & 6.70 &~212.96 & 207.80& $ 117.6 \pm 0.2 $ & 43.81 & 8.20 & -1.54 & 5900 \\
1089: SDSS J141946.06$+$650353.04 & 0.148 & $ -3.7 \pm 0.3 $ & 1.18& 0.55 & 8.11 &~149.36 & 147.38& $ 154.9 \pm 6.3 $ & 43.85 & 7.60 & -0.90 & 2700 \\
1090: SDSS J142754.76$+$635448.42 & 0.145 & $ -4.2 \pm 0.3 $ & 1.39& 0.70 & 7.33 &~159.98 & 157.48& $ 117.2 \pm 9.5 $ & 43.86 & 7.71 & -0.99 & 4500 \\
1091: SDSS J143455.31$+$572345.37 & 0.175 & $ -2.0 \pm 0.4 $ & 1.65& 0.51 & 10.09&~191.25 & 187.18& $ 202.6 \pm 35.9 $ & 44.00 & 8.01 & -1.17 & 3100 \\
1092: SDSS J154534.55$+$573625.12 & 0.268 & $ -2.2 \pm 0.4 $ & 0.92& 0.46 & 9.34 &~193.04 & 188.88& $ 180.6 \pm 4.9 $ & 44.12 & 8.03 & -1.05 & 2700 \\
1093: SDSS J170102.28$+$340400.60 & 0.094 & $ -2.7 \pm 0.4 $ & 1.62& 0.75 & 3.79 &:127.55 & 126.66& $ 118.9 \pm 1.4 $ & 43.28 & 7.33 & -1.20 & 1600 \\
1094: SDSS J172102.47$+$534447.29 & 0.192 & $ -5.0 \pm 2.4 $ & 0.78& 0.35 & 4.45 &:125.66 & 124.86& $ 138.7 \pm 5.6 $ & 43.60 & 7.31 & -0.85 & 3400 \\
1095: SDSS J210109.58$-$054747.31 & 0.179 & $ -6.2 \pm 1.4 $ & 0.85& 0.32 & 7.52 &~177.42 & 174.04& $ 168.0 \pm 15.1 $ & 43.75 & 7.89 & -1.29 & 3700 \\
1096: SDSS J214935.23$+$113842.04 & 0.239 & $ -9.5 \pm 5.7 $ & 0.85& 0.56 & 1.92 &:178.69 & 175.24& $ 132.8 \pm 10.0 $ & 43.66 & 7.90 & -1.38 & 10800 \\
1097: SDSS J222132.41$-$010928.76 & 0.288 & $ -6.3 \pm 1.1 $ & 0.84& 0.56 & 5.01 &~190.63 & 186.59& $ 220.5 \pm 14.9 $ & 44.12 & 8.01 & -1.03 & 8200 \\
1098: SDSS J223302.68$-$084349.13 & 0.058 & $ -7.2 \pm 0.6 $ & 1.68& 0.37 & 10.05&~121.19 & 121.19$\star$& $ 89.7 \pm 0.9 $ & 43.09 & 7.26 & -1.31 & 2500 \\
1099: SDSS J223336.71$-$074337.10 & 0.174 & $ -4.6 \pm 0.9 $ & 0.96& 0.36 & 9.12 &~145.42 & 143.64& $ 192.2 \pm 16.4 $ & 43.58 & 7.55 & -1.12 & 3100 \\
1100: SDSS J230545.67$-$003608.55 & 0.269 & $ -7.1 \pm 2.3 $ & 0.93& 0.35 & 5.52 &~208.17 & 203.25& $ 167.4 \pm 9.8 $ & 44.00 & 8.16 & -1.30 & 8200 \\
1101: SDSS J232721.96$+$152437.31 & 0.046 & $ -5.2 \pm 0.1 $ & 2.10& 0.45 & 18.59&~221.87 & 221.87$\star$& $ 165.3 \pm 0.4 $ & 43.45 & 8.31 & -2.01 & 4400 \\
1102: SDSS J235128.77$+$155259.15 & 0.096 & $ -2.8 \pm 0.2 $ & 1.21& 0.66 & 6.96 &~155.30 & 153.03& $ 112.1 \pm 2.9 $ & 43.66 & 7.66 & -1.15 & 3700 \\
1103: \hline
1104: \enddata
1105: \tablecomments{Col. (1): Object name. Col. (2): Redshift. Col.
1106: (3): Equivalent width of Ca K and the error in units of \AA. Col.
1107: (4): $\chi^2$. Col. (5) fraction of featureless continuum
1108: component. Col. (6): effective S/N from the S/N at 4020 \AA\ and
1109: the fraction of featureless continuum component. Col. (7):
1110: Uncorrected stellar velocity dispersion in units of $\rm km~
1111: s^{-1}$, and values for objects with effective S/N $< 5$ are
1112: preceded by a colon. Col. (8): Corrected stellar velocity
1113: dispersion in units of $\rm km~ s^{-1}$. For 4 objects with Ca II
1114: triplet, it is not need to do the correction, which are shown as
1115: $\star$. Col. (9): Corrected gas velocity dispersion in units of
1116: $\rm km~ s^{-1}$. Col. (10): $\log$ of the monochromatic
1117: luminosity at 5100 \AA\ in units of $\rm ergs~ s^{-1}$ . Col.
1118: (11): $\log$ of SMBH masses from corrected stellar velocity
1119: dispersion in units of $\rm M_{\odot}$. Col. (12): The Eddington
1120: ratios. Col. (13): The peak separations in units of $\rm km~
1121: s^{-1}$.}
1122: \end{deluxetable}
1123:
1124:
1125:
1126: \end{document}
1127: