1:
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3:
4:
5: \begin{document}
6: \title{The black hole fundamental plane: revisit with a larger sample of
7: radio and X-ray emitting broad-line AGNs}
8: \author{Zhao-Yu Li, Xue-Bing Wu and Ran Wang}
9: \affil{Department of Astronomy, Peking University,
10: Beijing 100871, China}
11: \email{zhaoyuli@pku.edu.cn; wuxb@bac.pku.edu.cn; littlestar@pku.edu.cn}
12:
13: \begin{abstract}
14: We use a recently released SDSS catalog of X-ray emitting AGNs in
15: conjunction with the FIRST 20cm radio survey to investigate the
16: black hole fundamental plane relationship between the 1.4GHz radio
17: luminosity ($L_r$), 0.1-2.4 keV X-ray luminosity ($L_X$), and the
18: black hole mass ($M$), namely, $log L_r=\xi_{RX}log L_X+\xi_{RM}log
19: M +const$. For this purpose, we have compiled a large sample of 725
20: broad-line AGNs, which consists of 498 radio-loud sources and 227
21: radio-quiet sources. Our results are generally consistent with
22: those in our previous work based on a smaller sample of 115 SDSS
23: AGNs. We confirm that radio-loud objects have a steeper slope
24: ($\xi_{RX}$) in the radio-X-ray relationship with respect to
25: radio-quiet objects, and the dependence of the black hole
26: fundamental plane on the black hole mass ($\xi_{RM}$) is weak. We
27: also find a tight correlation with a similar slope between the soft
28: X-ray luminosity and broad emission line luminosity for both
29: radio-loud and radio-quiet AGNs, which implies that their soft X-ray
30: emission is unbeamed and probably related to the accretion process.
31: With the current larger sample of AGNs, we are able to study the
32: redshift evolution of the black hole fundamental plane relation for
33: both radio-loud and radio-quiet subsamples. We find that there is no
34: clear evidence of evolution for radio-quiet AGNs, while for
35: radio-loud ones there is a weak trend where $\xi_{RM}$ decreases as
36: the redshift increases. This may be understood in part as due to the
37: observed evolution of the radio spectral index as a function of
38: redshift. Finally, we discuss the relativistic beaming effect and
39: some other uncertainties related to the black hole fundamental
40: plane. We conclude that, although introducing scatters to the
41: fundamental plane relation, Doppler boosting alone is not enough to
42: explain the observed steeper value of $\xi_{RX}$ in the radio-loud
43: subsample with respect to the radio-quiet ones. Therefore, the
44: significant difference of $\xi_{RX}$ between radio-loud and
45: radio-quiet sources is probably also due to the different physical
46: properties of the jets.
47: \end{abstract}
48:
49: \keywords{accretion, accretion disks -- black hole physics -- galaxies:
50: active -- galaxies: nuclei -- radio continuum: galaxies -- X-ray: galaxies}
51:
52: \section{INTRODUCTION}
53: Astrophysical black holes do not emit light directly, but they can
54: be probed by their gravitational influence on neighboring matter,
55: which produces observable signatures of black hole activity. The key
56: mechanism for a black hole to become active is the accretion process
57: (Frank, King \& Raine 2002), which is usually accompanied by a
58: relativistic jet. Accretion disks and jets can produce photons from
59: radio to X-ray band. The radio emission is usually believed to
60: originate from the synchrotron radiation of the jet (Begelman,
61: Blandford \& Rees 1984), while the optical/UV emission mostly comes
62: from the multicolor black body radiation emitted from the accretion
63: disk (Shakura \& Sunyaev 1973), and the X-ray radiation is usually
64: associated with the inner-most region of the accretion disk, where
65: the temperature is the highest. In some cases, the contribution of
66: inverse Compton scattering from high energy electrons in a disk
67: corona is also needed to account for the observed power-law
68: spectrum in the X-ray band (Haardt \& Maraschi 1993). If jet
69: production is directly related to the accretion process, we would
70: expect a natural correlation between radio and X-ray luminosities
71: (Merloni, Heinz \& Di Matteo 2003; Heinz \& Sunyaev 2003; Falcke et
72: al. 2004).
73:
74: The radio-to-X-ray correlation has long been studied in both
75: Galactic black hole (GBH) candidates and active galactic nuclei
76: (AGNs). Gallo, Fender \& Pooley (2003) found a strong correlation
77: between the radio and X-ray emission ($L_r \propto L_X^{0.7}$) using
78: the simultaneous X-ray and radio observational data of stellar-mass
79: black hole X-ray binaries (XRBs) during the low/hard state. In
80: addition, they suggested that when XRBs enter the hard to soft
81: transition state, the jet is suppressed and the radio emission
82: decreases. Recently, some studies have shown that the substantial
83: scatter exists in such a relationship of GBHs (Gallo 2006; Xue \&
84: Cui 2007; Xue, Wu \& Cui 2008). In the case of AGNs, Brinkmann, Yuan
85: \& Siebert (1997) obtained a remarkable correlation between 2keV
86: X-ray luminosity and 5GHz radio luminosity for 324 radio-loud AGNs.
87: Canosa et al. (1999) found a strong correlation between soft X-ray
88: and 5GHz radio luminosities for 40 low-power radio galaxies.
89: Brinkmann et al. (2000) studied a sample derived from the
90: cross-correlation of the {\em ROSAT} All-Sky Survey (RASS) catalog
91: and the Very Large Array (VLA) Faint Images of the Radio Sky at
92: Twenty-Centimeters (FIRST 20cm) catalog. They found that for 843
93: AGNs, the X-ray and radio luminosities are correlated over two
94: decades in radio luminosity, spanning radio-loud and radio-quiet
95: regimes, but radio-quiet quasars seem to follow a different
96: correlation from radio-loud ones. Recently, Panessa et al. (2007)
97: investigated the radio/X-ray luminosity correlation for
98: low-luminosity AGNs, including local Seyfert galaxies and low
99: luminosity radio galaxies (LLRGs). They found that X-ray and radio
100: luminosities are significantly correlated over 8 orders of magnitude,
101: with Seyfert galaxies and LLRGs showing the similar slope, which seems
102: different from the previous results.
103:
104: Theoretical explanations for the observed radio-to-X-ray relation
105: have been discussed in a number of previous works. Fender et al.
106: (2003) found that, at relatively lower accretion rate ( $\dot M <
107: 7\times10^{-5}\dot M_{Edd}$), black hole X-ray binaries would enter
108: a ``jet-dominated'' state. At this stage, the majority of the
109: liberated accretion power is transferred into the jet and does not
110: dissipate as X-ray emission in the accretion flow. This was also
111: suggested by Falcke, K\"ording \& Markoff (2004), who demonstrated
112: that, below a critical value of the accretion rate ($<1\sim 10\%\dot
113: M_{Edd}$), the Spectral Energy Distribution (SED) of a black hole
114: accreting source is dominated by the non-thermal radiation from the
115: jet, while for sources with higher accretion rates ($\dot M \le \dot
116: M_{Edd}$), the radiation is dominated by the accretion flow. Using a
117: coupled disk-jet model, Yuan \& Cui (2005) showed that, in GBHs when
118: the X-ray luminosity is smaller than a certain value ($\sim <
119: 10^{-5} -10^{-6} L_{Edd}$), the jet will dominate the radiation and
120: the radio-to-X-ray correlation becomes to $L_r \propto L_X^{1.23}$.
121: When the X-ray luminosity exceeds that critical value, the accretion
122: flow would produce most of the X-ray emission and the radio-to-X-ray
123: correlation then becomes to $L_r \propto L_X^{0.7}$. Therefore, the
124: accretion rate decides the detailed physical model of the accretion
125: disk, which then leads to different observed radio-to-X-ray
126: correlation slopes (K\"ording, Falcke \& Corbel 2006). Although it
127: is still not clear whether such a critical accretion rate is of the
128: same order of magnitude for both GBHs and AGNs, the similarity of
129: accretion-jet physics in these two systems seems to imply that
130: similar results may also be found in AGNs.
131:
132: In a comprehensive study, Merloni et al. (2003) examined a sample
133: combining Galactic black hole systems and supermassive black hole
134: systems by investigating their compact emission in X-ray (2-10 keV)
135: and radio (5 GHz) bands. They found that the radio luminosity
136: ($L_r$) is strongly correlated with both the black hole mass ($M$)
137: and the X-ray luminosity ($L_X$) (so called the fundamental plane of
138: black hole activity). The relation is: $log
139: L_r=\left(0.60_{-0.11}^{+0.11}\right)log
140: L_X+\left(0.78_{-0.09}^{+0.01}\right)log
141: M+\left(7.33_{-4.07}^{+4.05}\right)$. Subsequently, Wang et al.
142: (2006) selected a uniform sample of broad-line AGNs which was
143: cross-identified from the RASS, Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) and
144: FIRST 20cm radio survey to test the black hole fundamental plane
145: relation. Their final sample consisted of 115 broad emission line
146: AGNs including 39 radio-quiet AGNs and 76 radio-loud ones. They
147: found that the relationship has a very weak dependence on the black
148: hole mass. Moreover, radio-quiet and radio-loud objects have
149: different radio-to-X-ray slopes, which is 0.85 for radio-quiet
150: objects and 1.39 for radio-loud sources. This differs from the
151: result of Merloni et al. (2003) where the relationship seems to be
152: universal for different types of black hole sources. However, the
153: limited statistics of the sample in Wang et al. (2006) motivated us
154: to increase the number of sources in order to confirm the results on
155: stronger statistical bases. With a larger sample, we are also able
156: to study the possible evolution of the black hole fundamental plane
157: relation as we have enough sources in each redshift bins.
158:
159: We organize the paper as the following. In $\S 2$ we present our
160: sample selection criteria and the main properties of our sample. In
161: $\S 3$ we show the derived fundamental plane relation and
162: investigate the possible evolution of such a relation. In $\S 4$ we
163: briefly discuss and summarize our results.
164: %%---------------------------------------------------------------------
165:
166: \section{THE RADIO AND X-RAY EMITTING BROAD-LINE AGN SAMPLE}
167: \subsection{Sample selection}
168:
169: Our sample is selected based on the cross-identification of the
170: newly published X-ray emitting SDSS AGN catalog \citep{and07} and
171: the catalog of the FIRST 20cm radio survey\footnote{See VizieR
172: Online Data Catalog, 8071 (Becker et al. 2003)} \citep{whi97}.
173: \citet{and07} employed X-ray data from the {\em ROSAT} All-Sky Survey
174: (RASS) and both optical imaging and spectroscopic data from the
175: Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). It is worth emphasizing that the
176: RASS and SDSS are extremely well matched to each other via a variety
177: of coincidences (e.g., similar survey depth, sensitivity and sky
178: coverage, etc.)(Anderson et al. 2003). The RASS/SDSS data from $5740
179: \mathrm{\ deg^2}$ of sky spectroscopically covered in SDSS Data
180: Release 5 provide an expanded catalog of 7000 confirmed quasars and
181: other AGNs that are probable RASS identifications \citep{and07}.
182:
183: One of the main benefits of this sample is that the SDSS surveyed
184: area is also covered by the FIRST 20cm radio survey. We
185: cross-correlate the broad-line AGN catalog of \citet{and07} with the
186: FIRST radio-detected sources to build a RASS-SDSS-FIRST
187: cross-identified sample of 868 broad-line AGNs. All of these 868
188: sources have been observed and detected at 1.4GHz (FIRST 20cm
189: survey) and in 0.1-2.4 keV energy band (RASS). The optical spectra
190: from the SDSS data archive can be used to estimate the central black
191: hole mass. Here, we exclude the high z sources (${z>2.171}$) in our
192: sample for the lack of the $\mathrm{H\beta}$ and \ion{Mg}{2}
193: $\lambda 2798$ emission lines in their SDSS optical spectra. Black
194: hole masses of the remaining 725 sources are estimated. The
195: radio-loudness ($R$) is calculated with the rest-frame B-band
196: (4400\AA) and 5GHz flux density according to the definition
197: $R=f_{5GHz}/f_B$ (Kellermann et al. 1989), and the 5GHz flux density
198: is derived from the 1.4GHz flux density assuming a spectral index of
199: 0.5 (Kellermann et al. 1989). Radio-loud and radio-quiet sources are
200: separated by $R=10$. Please see subsection 2.2 of \citet{wang06}
201: for the details of data reduction and black hole mass estimation
202: (Kaspi et al. 2000, 2005; McLure \& Javis 2002; Wu et al. 2004).
203:
204: Our final sample comprises 725 entries, of which 498 are radio-loud,
205: 227 are radio-quiet. In addition, we discover several radio-loud
206: narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies (NLS1) in our study. A detailed
207: discussion of these radio-loud NLS1s is presented in Appendix
208: A. Throughout this paper, we use the cosmology\footnote{We now
209: use this
210: new cosmology to calculate the black hole mass from
211: the H$\beta$ broad component's luminosity and FWHM.
212: That is, $\mathrm{M_{bh}=1.464\times10^5\left(\frac{R_{BLR}}{1\ lt\ days}\right)
213: \left(\frac{V_{FWHM}}{10^3\ km/s}\right)^2}$ and $\mathrm{Log R_{BLR}=(1.324\pm0.086)+(0.667\pm0.101)Log
214: \left(\frac{L_{H\beta}}{10^{42}\ ergs\ s^{-1}}\right)}$. The latter relation
215: is an updated version of the $\mathrm{R_{BLR}-L_{H\beta}}$ relation
216: proposed by Wu et al. (2004) using the new cosmology.} with
217: $\mathrm{H_0=70\ km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}}$,
218: $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$ and $\Omega_M=0.3$.
219:
220: %%---------------------------------------------------------------------The Sample Properties
221:
222: \subsection{Sample properties}
223:
224: We describe here the main properties of our selected AGN sample.
225: Table \ref{tbl-1} gives the total 725 sources with the SDSS optical
226: name, redshift, broad-band (0.1-2.4 keV) soft X-ray luminosity,
227: rest-frame 1.4GHz radio luminosity, radio-loudness, black hole mass,
228: broad emission line luminosity and corresponding flag. In Figure
229: \ref{fig-1}, histograms of the redshift, logarithm of
230: radio-loudness, 0.1-2.4 keV X-ray luminosity, black hole mass (in
231: unit of $M_\odot$), 1.4GHz radio luminosity and ratio of X-ray to
232: Eddington luminosity ($L_{edd}$)\footnote{Defined as
233: $L_{Edd}=1.26\times 10^{38}(M/M_\odot)ergs\ s^{-1}$} of our sample
234: are plotted. The radio-loudness distribution does not show a clear
235: dichotomy between radio-loud and radio-quiet AGNs. This is not
236: surprised for samples of FIRST detected quasars. The
237: radio-loudness dichotomy was found mostly for optically selected
238: samples, and is usually absent for samples of deep radio-detected sources
239: (Brinkmann et al. 2000; White et al. 2000; Lacy et al. 2001).
240:
241: Our sample is a part of the broad-line AGN catalog provided by
242: Anderson et al. (2007), which includes typical broad-line quasars,
243: Seyfert 1 galaxies, low redshift Seyfert 1.5-1.9 galaxies and some
244: rare galaxies like NLS1s. Compared with Wang et al.(2006), the
245: distribution ranges of different physical parameters in our sample
246: are relatively larger. The significant range in the luminosity at
247: each redshift bin can avoid the strong dependence of luminosity on
248: redshift in a flux-limited sample (Avni \& Tananbaum 1982). In
249: particular, more convincing results can be obtained with the
250: larger sample.
251:
252: However, we must notice the selection biases in our sample. First of
253: all, AGNs with radio flux fainter than the FIRST detection limit can
254: not be detected by FIRST. Therefore, our sample does not include
255: radio-quiet AGNs with $\mathrm{log_{10}(Radio-Loudness)}
256: <-0.23$.\footnote{$10^{-0.23}$ is the minimum radio-loudness value
257: of radio-quiet AGNs in our sample} In addition, based on the
258: redshift distribution shown in Figure 1, it is clear that most AGNs
259: at high redshifts in our sample are radio-loud. Therefore, any conclusion
260: based on the total sample is biased toward luminous radio-loud AGNs.
261: We also perform the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test to evaluate the
262: distribution similarity of physical parameters shown in Figure 1
263: between radio-quiet and radio-loud subsamples (such as
264: $\mathrm{L_r,\ L_X,\ M_{BH},\ and\ \frac{L_X}{L_{Edd}}}$). We found
265: that the probabilities of similarity are all less than 0.05, meaning
266: that the distribution of these physical quantities in the two
267: subsamples are essentially different, with relatively larger mean
268: value of each parameter for radio-loud AGNs.
269:
270: We plot the radio vs. X-ray luminosity (left panel) and the
271: Eddington-luminosity-scaled radio vs. scaled X-ray luminosity (right
272: panel) in Figure \ref{fig-2}. Objects in different black hole mass
273: bins are presented with different symbols and colors to highlight a
274: possible segregation in the plot. Clearly, there is no trend that
275: sources in different black hole mass bins are parallel to each
276: other, which is consistent with the result in Wang et al. (2006).
277: Again, tight correlation between the radio and X-ray luminosities is
278: clear, with radio luminosity spanning more than 6 orders of
279: magnitude.
280:
281: Figure \ref{fig-3} and Figure 2 are identical except that in Figure
282: 3, different colors and symbols are used to denote different
283: radio-loudness bins instead of black hole mass bins. AGNs in
284: different radio-loudness bins seem to distribute in parallel
285: sequences. The result also confirms the conclusion of
286: \citet{wang06}.
287:
288:
289: %%--------------------------------------------------------------------- BHFP
290:
291: \section{CORRELATION ANALYSIS}
292: In this section, we derive the black hole fundamental plane relation
293: based on the current large sample. We also adopt several
294: statistical methods to test its significance. Finally, we examine
295: the possible evolution of this relation at different redshifts.
296:
297: \subsection{The fundamental plane relation}
298: In the three-dimensional space ($\mathrm{logL_r, logL_X, logM}$),
299: black hole systems are preferentially distributed on a plane, called the
300: ``fundamental plane of black hole activity'' \citep{mer03}. Based on
301: our sample of AGNs, we fit the data in the form:
302: \begin{equation}
303: \mathrm{ log\left(\frac{L_r}{10^{40}ergs\
304: s^{-1}}\right)=\xi_{RX}log\left(\frac{L_X}{10^{44}ergs\
305: s^{-1}}\right)+\xi_{RM}log\left(\frac{M}{10^8\
306: M_\odot}\right)+const.}
307: \end{equation}
308:
309: We also fit the relation between Eddington-luminosity-scaled radio
310: and X-ray luminosities for the radio-quiet subsample only. The
311: fitting formula is
312: \begin{equation}
313: \mathrm{
314: log\left(\frac{L_r}{L_{Edd}}\right)=\xi_{ERX}log\left(\frac{L_X}{L_{Edd}}\right)+constant.}
315: \end{equation}
316:
317: We apply the Ordinary Least Squares(OLS) multivariate regression
318: method (Isobe et al.1990) to the total, radio-loud and radio-quiet
319: subsamples, respectively. The OLS bisector fitting result for
320: equation (1) with errors at the one-sigma confidence level and the
321: dispersion ($\sigma_r$)\footnote{We define the dispersion as the
322: square root of the variance of the differences between the observed
323: radio luminosity and that calculated from the fitting relation} are
324: given in Table \ref{tbl-2}. We also list results of previous works
325: for comparison. Our result is generally consistent with Wang et al.
326: (2006), but now with smaller uncertainty for each coefficient due to
327: the larger sample. The conclusions are similar: first, the
328: coefficient $\xi_{RX}$ tends to be larger as the radio-loudness
329: increases; second, the black hole mass seems to be unimportant in
330: the correlation between radio and soft X-ray luminosities. We should
331: note that the black hole fundamental plane coefficients calculated
332: by Merloni et al. (2003) are based on a radio-loud and radio-quiet
333: combined sample, with a predominance of radio-quiet sources. Our
334: result for the radio-quiet subsample is similar to that of Merloni
335: et al. (2003)£¬ but the dependence on the black hole mass is weaker
336: in our case.
337:
338: The fitting result for equation (2) with errors at the one-sigma
339: confidence level is
340: \begin{equation}
341: \mathrm{
342: log\left(\frac{L_r}{L_{Edd}}\right)=\left(0.96\pm0.04\right)log\left(\frac{L_X}{L_{Edd}}\right)+\left(-4.82\pm0.08\right).
343: }
344: \end{equation}
345: The dependence of $\mathrm{L_r/L_X}$ on the black hole mass is shown
346: in Figure 4. The overall correlation is weak, except that a positive
347: correlation is observed for sources (mostly radio-quiet ones) with
348: black hole masses smaller than $\mathrm{10^{7.5}M_\odot}$. Figure 5
349: shows the edge-on black hole fundamental plane relation for
350: radio-quiet sources, with radio-loud AGNs overplotted for
351: comparison. We also plot $\mathrm{L_r/L_{Edd}\ vs.\ L_X/L_{Edd}}$ in
352: Figure 6, with different symbols representing different
353: radio-loudness bins. Parallel sequences can be seen clearly from
354: these figures.
355:
356: %---------------------------------------------------------------------Statistic Results
357: \subsection{Statistical tests for the fundamental plane relation}
358:
359: \subsubsection{Partial correlation tests}
360: As \citet{bre05} pointed out, the correlation between X-ray and
361: radio luminosities may be dominated by the distance effect.
362: Following \citet{wang06}, we performed the partial Kendall $\tau$
363: correlation test to examine this effect \citep{akr96}. In Table
364: \ref{tbl-3}, Column (1)-(3) list the variable names of X, Y and Z
365: respectively, where the partial correlation of X and Y is calculated
366: with the influence of Z variable excluded. Column (4) gives the
367: subsample type. Column (5) lists the number of sources in each
368: subsample. Column (6)-(8) show results of the partial correlation
369: test, the square root of the calculation variance and the
370: probability of the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is rejected
371: with a probability less than the significance
372: level(i.e.,$\sim0.05$). From Table \ref{tbl-3} we can see that the
373: partial correlation between $L_r$ and $L_X$ is strong even after
374: excluding the distance effect, because the $P_{null}$ value is less
375: than $10^{-10}$.
376:
377: \subsubsection{The scrambling test}
378: Besides the partial correlation test performed above, we adopt
379: another method introduced by Bregman (2005) to evaluate the degree
380: of influence that any distance effect has on our sample (i.e.,
381: Merloni et al. 2006). We calculate the Pearson correlation
382: coefficient ($\rho$) between $Log\left(\frac{L_r}{10^{40} ergs\
383: s^{-1}}\right)$ and $\xi_{RX}Log\left(\frac{L_X}{10^{44} ergs\
384: s^{-1}}\right)+\xi_{RM}Log\left(\frac{M_{bh}}{10^8\ M_\odot}\right)$
385: by randomly assigning radio fluxes to objects in our sample. This
386: procedure is performed $10^6$ times in order to construct the Monte
387: Carlo test. The result is shown in Figure 7. The correlation
388: coefficients are adopted from Table 2. For comparison, we overplot
389: the Pearson correlation coefficient of the original sample with a
390: vertical line in each panel of Figure 7.
391:
392: For radio-quiet objects, our $10^6$ realizations of randomized
393: datasets produce only one case, where the Pearson correlation
394: coefficient exceeds the value of the real datasets. For radio-loud
395: sources, \emph{not even one} shows a stronger correlation than the
396: real value. This means that, for the radio-quiet subsample, the
397: probability that the correlation of the fundamental plane is
398: entirely due to the distance effect is about $1\times10^{-6}$, and
399: it is even less than $10^{-6}$ for the radio-loud subsample and the
400: entire sample. Therefore, we are confident to say that the
401: existence of a correlation between the radio luminosity, X-ray
402: luminosity and black hole mass cannot be purely the result of
403: distance effects. This result is consistent with the partial
404: correlation test performed above.
405:
406: \subsection{The correlation between soft X-ray and broad emission line luminosities}
407: In Figure 8, we plot the soft X-ray luminosity versus the H$\beta$
408: broad emission line luminosity (left panel) and the radio luminosity
409: versus the the H$\beta$ broad emission line luminosity (right panel)
410: in our sample. Radio-loud and radio-quiet sources are marked with
411: different symbols to highlight the possible dichotomy of the slope
412: in the figure. It is apparent in Figure 8 that radio-loud and
413: radio-quiet objects almost have the same slope in the left panel
414: ($L_X$ vs. $L_{H\beta}$). The slope is $1.04\pm0.04$ for the
415: radio-quiet subsample and $1.00\pm0.04$ for the radio-loud
416: subsample. The Pearson correlation coefficients are 0.86 and 0.80,
417: respectively. However in the right panel of Figure 8 ($L_r$ vs.
418: $L_{H\beta}$), the slope of radio-loud sources is steeper than that
419: of radio-quiet ones. The slope is $1.68\pm0.08$ for radio-loud
420: sources and $0.99\pm0.03$ for radio-quiet sources, and the Pearson
421: correlation coefficients are 0.64 and 0.88, respectively.
422:
423: The similar slope of radio-loud and radio-quiet sources in the $L_X$
424: vs. $L_{H\beta}$ plot seems to indicate that the soft X-ray emission
425: traces well the ionizing luminosity, and is probably isotropic and
426: closely related to the accretion process of the central black hole
427: for both radio-quiet and radio-loud sources. For radio-loud
428: broad-line AGNs, the jet contribution to the soft X-ray emission is
429: probably unimportant. The beaming effect due to the relativistic jet
430: seems also weak in the soft X-ray band. Otherwise, we should expect
431: the large scatter in the $L_X$ vs. $L_{H\beta}$ relation for
432: radio-loud sources in our sample.
433:
434: The high redshift sources here usually have the measurement of the
435: \ion{Mg}{2} $\lambda$2798 broad emission line instead of the
436: H$\beta$ broad emission line in the observed wavelength. In Figure
437: 9, we show the X-ray luminosity versus the \ion{Mg}{2} emission line
438: luminosity in our sample (left panel) and the radio luminosity
439: versus the \ion{Mg}{2} emission line luminosity (right panel).
440: The result is consistent with what derived from Figure 8 for low
441: redshift objects.
442:
443: \subsection{Evolution of the black hole fundamental plane}
444:
445: With the currently available large sample, we are able to
446: investigate the evolution of the black hole fundamental plane
447: relation by dividing the sample into different redshift bins. The
448: result is listed in Table 4 and plotted in Figure 10. For
449: radio-quiet objects, the coefficients $\xi_{RM}$ and $\xi_{RX}$ are
450: almost constant in different redshift bins. For radio-loud sources,
451: $\xi_{RX}$ is almost constant with redshift, while $\xi_{RM}$ seems
452: to decrease from positive to negative values as the redshift
453: increases, with the exception of the last redshift bin, where
454: $\xi_{RM}$ is positive again although it shows the largest error bars.
455:
456: Now we can compare the evolution result obtained by us with some
457: theoretical predictions. From Heinz \& Sunyaev (2003), the radio
458: flux produced via the synchrotron radiation from relativistic jet
459: follows the scaling relation
460: \begin{eqnarray}
461: F_r \propto M^{\frac{2p+13-(2+p)\alpha_r}{8+2p}}{\dot
462: m^{\frac{2p+13+(p+6)\alpha_r}{2(p+4)}}}.
463: \end{eqnarray}
464: where $\alpha_r$ and $p$ represent the radio spectral index
465: ($f_\nu\propto\nu^{-\alpha_r}$) and the electron energy distribution
466: index ($N\propto E^{-p}$) respectively. $M$ is the central black hole
467: mass. $\dot m$ is the dimensionless accretion rate ($\dot
468: m=\frac{\dot M}{\dot M_{Edd}}$). This relation is valid for
469: radio-loud AGNs, whose radio emission is believed to be produced via
470: the synchrotron radiation of the relativistic jet.
471:
472: The dimensionless accretion rate ($\dot m$) is roughly proportional
473: to the ratio between broad emission line and Eddington luminosities
474: ($\mathrm{\frac{L_{broad-line}}{L_{Edd}}}$)(Wandel, Peterson \&
475: Malkan 1999). In the subsection above, we have shown that the soft X-ray
476: luminosity is linearly scaled with the broad emission line
477: luminosity for both radio-loud and radio-quiet subsamples. Therefore,
478: we can use $L_X/L_{Edd}$ to represent the dimensionless accretion rate
479: ($\dot m$). After replacing $\dot m$ with $L_X/L_{Edd}$ and
480: considering the relation between the Eddington luminosity and the
481: black hole mass ($L_{Edd}\propto M_{BH}$), equation (4) can be
482: turned into
483: \begin{eqnarray}
484: L_r \propto M^{-\alpha_r}{L_X^{\frac{2p+13+(p+6)\alpha_r}{2(p+4)}}}.
485: \end{eqnarray}
486: Therefore, the coefficient $\xi_{RM}$ and $\xi_{RX}$ of the radio-loud
487: subsample can be determined by $\alpha_r$ and $p$.
488:
489: In our radio-loud AGN subsample, there are 114 sources that were
490: also detected by the Green Bank 4.85GHz northern sky survey (GB6)
491: (Gregore et al. 1996). Thus we are able to estimate the real radio
492: spectral index $\alpha_r$ ($f_{\nu} \propto {\nu}^{-\alpha_r}$) of
493: this small subsample with the observed flux densities at 1.4GHz and
494: 4.8GHz. We plot the radio spectral index versus the redshift for
495: sources in this subsample in Figure 11. There is a weak trend that
496: the spectral index increases with the increasing of the redshift.
497: The mean values of $\alpha_r$ in each redshift bins are $-0.28$,
498: $-0.12$, $-0.31$, $-0.27$, $-0.06$, $-0.11$, and $0.04$ (from low-z
499: to high-z). We note that this is probably due to a selection effect
500: in observations, as we may miss high redshift AGNs with the negative
501: spectral index.
502:
503: Using the average radio spectral indeces in different redshift bins,
504: we calculate the theoretical value of the coefficient $\xi_{RM}$ and
505: $\xi_{RX}$ based on equation (5). The general trend of
506: $\xi_{RM}$ is to decrease from 0.28 ($\alpha_r=-0.28$) to $-0.04$
507: ($\alpha_r=0.04$), while $\xi_{RX}$ slightly increases from 1.23 to
508: 1.44. This can be seen clearly from Figure~12. Therefore, the
509: evolution of $\xi_{RM}$ and $\xi_{RX}$ of the radio-loud subsample
510: with the redshift is consistent with the theoretical prediction.
511:
512: On the other hand, it is also possible that the soft X-ray emission
513: of broad-line AGNs is produced by the synchrotron process in a hot
514: corona around accretion disks. Heinz (2004) calculated the
515: theoretical correlation between the radio luminosity, X-ray
516: luminosity and black hole mass when the jet radiation dominates. If
517: the physical parameters (i.e., magnetic field strength, electron
518: energy distribution index, etc.) of the hot corona and the
519: relativistic jet are similar, we can use the equations given by
520: Heinz (2004) to roughly estimate the coefficients $\xi_{RM}$ and
521: $\xi_{RX}$ in different redshift bins. We find that with this model,
522: $\xi_{RM}$ decreases from 0.047 ($\alpha_r=-0.28$) to -0.007
523: ($\alpha_r=0.04$), and $\xi_{RX}$ increases from 1.23 to 1.44.
524: Therefore, even if the soft X-ray emission mechanism is synchrotron
525: radiation, the observed evolution of the black hole fundamental
526: plane coefficients can still be explained. We can not exclude such a
527: possibility because the origin of the soft X-ray emission is still
528: uncertain.
529:
530: The radio spectral indeces of these 114 radio-loud AGNs obtained
531: from observations allow us to directly calculate their rest-frame
532: 1.4GHz radio fluxes without assuming the canonical value of
533: $\alpha_r$ as 0.5. The black hole fundamental plane relation is
534: fitted based on this small subsample with measured $\alpha_r$. The
535: derived $\xi_{RX}$ and $\xi_{RM}$ coefficients are $1.34\pm0.16$ and
536: $-0.31\pm0.21$, respectively. These values are consistent within
537: errors with what we obtained from the radio-loud subsample if we set
538: $\alpha_r=0.5$ ($\xi_{RX}=1.50\pm0.08$ and $\xi_{RM}=-0.20\pm0.10$).
539: This indicates that our results for radio-loud AGNs are quite
540: robust.
541:
542:
543:
544: %%---------------------------------------------------------------------
545:
546: \section{DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION}
547:
548: \subsection{Comparison with previous works}
549:
550: The $\xi_{RM}$ coefficient we derived is rather small, meaning that
551: the dependence of the fundamental plane relation on the black hole
552: mass is weak, which is different from the result obtained by Merloni
553: et al. (2003). However, there are some differences between our
554: sample and that of Merloni et al. (2003). We only include the
555: broad-line AGN, while their sample includes both GBHs and SMBHs. In
556: our sample, the X-ray and radio emission are measured in 0.1-2.4keV
557: and 1.4GHz respectively, while Merloni et al. (2003) used the data
558: of 2-10keV X-ray emission and 5GHz radio core emission. It is still
559: unclear whether the soft (0.1-2.4keV) and hard X-ray (2-10keV)
560: emission have the similar origin for broad-line AGNs. A sample with
561: both available data in the soft and hard X-ray bands will help us
562: address this problem. This is beyond the scope of our current study
563: and will be done in the near future.
564:
565: Another point worthy to mention is that the black hole mass data in
566: Merloni et al. (2003) were mainly obtained from the literatures.
567: This could introduce scatters due to the different mass measurement
568: techniques. In our current study, the black hole masses of AGNs were
569: estimated from the broad emission line and continuum properties by
570: the same method, which does not introduce any additional bias. In
571: addition, the black hole masses in our sample span a relatively
572: smaller range than that in Merloni et al. (2003) since we only
573: include broad-line AGNs.
574:
575: \subsection{Relativistic beaming and other uncertainties}
576:
577: Because the radio emission is produced by the relativistic jet,
578: Doppler boosting of the synchrotron radiation (namely the relativistic beaming)
579: would affect the observed radio flux significantly. Here we try to
580: address the question that whether the observed larger fundamental
581: plane coefficient $\xi_{RX}$ (or the larger radio luminosity) of radio-loud
582: sources is due to the Doppler boosting effect.
583:
584: If the radio emission of both radio-loud and radio-quiet quasars are
585: from jets, the larger radio luminosity observed in radio-loud
586: sources can be considered to have much stronger Doppler boosting
587: effect than radio-quiet AGNs. In other words, we can assume that the
588: radio emission of radio-quiet AGNs is unbeamed. In subsection 3.3,
589: we already show that the soft X-ray emission of broad-line AGNs is
590: probably isotropic and unbeamed for both radio-loud and radio-quiet
591: sources. Therefore, for a radio-loud quasar, its {\em intrinsic}
592: radio luminosity ($L_{r,jet}$) (unbeamed) may be estimated with its
593: observed X-ray luminosity through the $L_r$-$L_X$ correlation
594: derived from radio-quiet sources. We will use the ratio between the
595: observed radio luminosity ($L_r$) and the {\em intrinsic} radio
596: luminosity ($L_{r,jet}$) to represent the boosting factor of
597: radio-loud sources. The equation of the Doppler boosting effect was
598: given by Heinz \& Merloni (2004):
599:
600: \begin{eqnarray}
601: L_\nu=\frac{L_{\nu,jet}}{\Gamma^{k+\alpha_r}}\biggl[\frac{1}{(1+\beta
602: cos\theta)^{k+\alpha_r}}+\frac{1}{(1-\beta
603: cos\theta)^{k+\alpha_r}}\biggr].
604: \end{eqnarray}
605:
606: In Figure 13, we show the distribution of the boosting factor
607: ($L_r/L_{r,jet}$) of the radio-loud subsample (left panel) and the
608: boosting factor as a function of the inclination angle $\theta$
609: (right panel) when different Lorentz factor ($\Gamma$) is given. It
610: is apparent in Figure 13 that only with smaller $\theta$
611: ($<5^\circ$) and larger $\Gamma$ ($>10$), we can produce boosting
612: factors as high as 1000. Such conditions can only be met in BL Lac
613: objects and are not likely to be the case for normal broad-line AGNs
614: studied in this work. With the typical Lorentz factor of
615: $\Gamma\sim5$ for broad-line AGNs (Orr \& Browne 1982) and a
616: non-negligible inclination angle ($\theta\gtrsim10^\circ$) (Maraschi
617: et al. 1994), the boosting value is estimated to be less than 30. As
618: can be seen in Figure 13, there are about half of radio-loud sources
619: whose boosting factors are larger than the predicted maximum
620: boosting value. Therefore, although the Doppler boosting effect
621: indeed has significant influence on the radio emission of radio-loud
622: AGNs, this effect alone is not enough to explain the observed larger
623: radio luminosity of radio-loud broad-line AGNs. This is consistent
624: with the result given by Heinz \& Merloni (2004) for the case of
625: unbeamed X-ray emission.
626:
627: The non-simultaneous observations in the radio, X-ray and optical
628: bands for sources in our sample may lead to other uncertainties.
629: Both the ROSAT and FIRST surveys were conducted in the 1990s (Becker
630: et al. 1995; Voges et al. 1999; Britzen et al. 2007). SDSS-I
631: observations started from 1998, and ended in 2005 (York et al.
632: 2000). So the data in different bands were obtained within ten years
633: or so. Unless the luminosities of most objects in our sample varied
634: significantly in these years, our result may not be affected too
635: much due to this effect. In addition, several (2$\sim$3) factors
636: change of the luminosities of some individual objects have little
637: influence on the statistically significant results derived here for
638: a large sample. However, as broad-line AGNs often show X-ray
639: variabilities in timescales from hours to decades, the
640: non-simultaneous observations could be an issue if the X-ray fluxes
641: of AGNs vary significantly. Therefore, simultaneous observations in
642: different bands for a sample of broad-line AGNs are still needed to
643: confirm our results, although they are difficult to conduct for a
644: large sample.
645:
646: \subsection{Emission mechanisms}
647:
648: The existence of the AGN radio-loud and radio-quiet dichotomy is
649: still an unsolved issue. There are evidences that the radio emission
650: of radio-quiet AGNs is likely produced by a weak (sub-relativistic)
651: jet near the black hole (Blundell \& Beasley 1998; Leipski et al.
652: 2006), while radio-loud quasars are usually associated with large
653: scale jets of higher radio power (Rawlings \& Saunders 1991; Miller,
654: Rawlings \& Saunders 1993). Here we fit the black hole fundamental
655: plane relation for a broad-line AGN sample and find that the
656: coefficients are quite different between radio-loud and radio-quiet
657: quasars, especially the coefficient $\xi_{RX}$, which is steeper for
658: radio-loud objects. We also find that the larger radio luminosities
659: of radio-loud AGNs can not be produced by the Doppler boosting
660: effect alone. Therefore, the radio emission mechanism may be quite
661: different between radio-loud and radio-quiet AGNs. Such kind of
662: difference can be caused by many uncertain physical parameters, such
663: as the detailed disk/jet magnetic field strength and configuration,
664: the electron energy distribution, and the black hole spin,
665: etc.(Heinz \& Sunyaev 2003; Sikora et al. 2007). More detailed
666: observational and theoretical studies are still required.
667:
668: For the soft X-ray emission, we have shown that the correlation
669: slopes between the soft X-ray luminosity and the broad emission line
670: luminosity are all around 1 for both radio-loud and radio-quiet
671: AGNs. Therefore, the soft X-ray emission is probably produced via
672: the accretion process near the central black hole, and it is
673: unbeamed and isotropic for both radio-loud and radio-quiet sources.
674: Otherwise larger scatters should exist in the $\mathrm{L_X\ vs.\
675: L_{H\beta}\ (L_{MgII})}$ relation. However, there are many uncertain
676: factors related to the origin of the soft X-ray emissions of AGNs
677: (i.e., the accretion flow, hot corona, and warm absorber, etc.). A
678: detailed study of the soft X-ray spectra for a larger sample of
679: broad-line AGNs may give us clues to understand the origin of the
680: soft X-ray emissions.
681:
682: \subsection{Conclusion}
683:
684: We revisited the fundamental plane relation of the black hole
685: activity based on a large broad-line AGN sample selected on the
686: basis of the cross-identification of the RASS, SDSS, and FIRST
687: catalogs. The results of our work confirm the main result of Wang et
688: al. (2006), namely, the black hole fundamental plane relation of the
689: radio-quiet subsample is different from that of the radio-loud
690: subsample; the coefficient $\xi_{RX}$ becomes larger as the
691: radio-loudness increases; the black hole mass seems unimportant in
692: the black hole fundamental plane relation. We also found that the
693: soft X-ray emission is most likely produced via the accretion
694: process of the central black hole for both radio-quiet and
695: radio-loud sources. In particular, for radio-loud sources, the jet
696: contribution to the soft X-ray emission seems unimportant and the
697: Doppler boosting of the relativistic jet is also weak in the soft
698: X-ray band. Moreover, by dividing the radio-loud and radio-quiet
699: samples into different redshift bins, we studied the evolution of
700: the fundamental plane relation. For radio-quiet sources, there seems
701: to be no clear evolution, while for radio-loud objects, the
702: correlation coefficient $\xi_{RM}$ tends to decrease as the redshift
703: increases. We found that the evolution of the radio spectral index
704: can help us at least partly understand such an evolution. Finally,
705: we briefly discussed the beaming effect and some other uncertainties
706: associated with the fundamental plane relation derived here. We
707: found that Doppler boosting effect indeed has significant influence
708: on the radio emission of radio-loud AGNs, but this effect alone is
709: not enough to explain the observed radio luminosity of the
710: radio-loud sources.
711:
712:
713: We thank Fukun Liu, Lei Qian, Xian Chen, Shuo Li, Da-Wei Xu and
714: Weimin Yuan for helpful discussions, and Eric Peng for checking the
715: English. We are also grateful to the anonymous referee for his/her
716: helpful comments. This work is supported by the NSFC grant
717: No.10525113, the RFDP grant 20050001026, the NCET grant
718: (NCET-04-0022) and the 973 Program No.2007CB815405. Funding for the
719: SDSS has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the
720: Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation, the
721: U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space
722: Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society,
723: and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web
724: Site is http://www.sdss.org/. The SDSS is managed by the
725: Astrophysical Research Consortium for the Participating
726: Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the American Museum
727: of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, University of
728: Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve University,
729: University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the Institute
730: for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns Hopkins
731: University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the Kavli
732: Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean
733: Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los
734: Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy
735: (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico
736: State University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh,
737: University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States
738: Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
739:
740: %%-----------------------------------------------------------------------referee
741: \clearpage
742: \begin{thebibliography}{}
743: %\bibitem[Abramowicz et al. (1995)]{abr95}Abramowicz, M.A., Chen, X., Kato, S.,
744: %Lasota, J.-P., Regev, O. 1995, \apj, 438, L37
745: \bibitem[Akritas \& Siebert (1996)]{akr96} Akritas, M. G., \&
746: Siebert, J. 1996, \mnras, 278, 919
747: \bibitem[Anderson et al.(2003)]{and03} Anderson, S. F. et al.
748: 2003, \aj,126,2009
749: \bibitem[Anderson et al.(2007)]{and07} Anderson, S. F. et al.
750: 2007, \aj,133,313
751: \bibitem[Avni \& Tananbaum (1986)]{avn06} Avni, Y., \& Tananbaum, H.
752: 1982, \apj, 262, L17
753: \bibitem[Becker et al.(2003)]{bec03} Becker, R. H., Helfand, D. J.,
754: White, R. L., Gregg, M. D., \& Laurent-Muehleisen, S. A. 2003,
755: VizieR Online Data Catalog, 8071
756: \bibitem[Becker et al. (1995)]{bec95} Becker, R. H., White, R. L.,
757: \& Helfand, D. J. 1995, \apj, 450, 559
758: \bibitem[Begelman, Blandford \& Rees (1984)]{beg84} Begelman, M. C.,
759: Blandford, R. D., \& Rees, M. J., 1984, Rev. Mod. Phys. 56, 255
760: \bibitem[Blundell \& Beasley (1998)]{blu98} Blundell, K. M., \&
761: Beasley, A. J. 1998, \mnras, 299, 165
762: %\bibitem[Blundell \& Kuncic (2007)]{blu07} Blundell, K. M., \&
763: %Kuncic, Z. 2007, \apj, 668, 103
764: \bibitem[Boroson \& Green (1992)]{bg92} Boroson, T. A., \& Green, R. F. 1992, \apjs, 80, 109
765: \bibitem[Bregman et al.(2005)]{bre05} Bregman, J. N. 2005, \apjl,
766: astro-ph/0511368
767: \bibitem[Brinkmann et al. (2000)]{bri00} Brinkmann W., Laurent-Muehleisen S. A., Voges W.,
768: Siebert J., Becker R. H., Brotherton M. S., White R. L., Gregg M. D.
769: 2000, \aap, 356, 445
770: \bibitem[Brinkmann et al. (1997)]{bri97} Brinkmann W., Yuan W., \&
771: Siebert J., 1997, A\&A 319, 413
772: \bibitem[Britzen et al. (2007)]{bri07} Britzen, S. et al. 2007,
773: \aap, 476, 759
774: \bibitem[Canosa et al. (1999)]{can99}Canosa, C.M., Worrall, D.M.,
775: Hardcastle, M.J., \& Birkinshaw, M. 1999, \mnras, 310, 30
776: \bibitem[Collin \& Kawaguchi(2004)]{col04} Colin, S., \& Kawaguchi,
777: T. 2004, \aap, 426, 797
778: \bibitem[Falcke et al. (2004)]{fal04} Falcke, H., K\"ording, E., \& Markoff, S. 2004, \aap,
779: 414, 895
780: \bibitem[Fender et al. (2003)]{fen03} Fender, R. P., Gallo, E., \& Jonker, P. G. 2003,
781: \mnras, 343, L99
782: \bibitem[Frank, King \& Raine (2002)]{fra02} Frank, J., King, A., \&
783: Raine, D., 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics, 3rd Edition,
784: Cambridge University Press
785: \bibitem[Gallo et al. (2003)]{gal03} Gallo,E., Fender, R. P., \& Pooley, G. G. 2003,
786: \mnras, 344, 60
787: %\bibitem[Gallo et al. (2006)]{gal06} Gallo, E., Fender, R. P., Miller-Jones, J. C. A.,
788: %Merloni, A., Jonker, P. G.; Heinz, S., Maccarone, T. J., van der
789: %Klis, M. 2006, \mnras, 370, 1351G
790: \bibitem[Gallo et al. (2006)]{gal06} Gallo, E.,2006, AIP Conference
791: Proceedings, Vol. 924, 715
792: \bibitem[Gregory et al. (1996)]{gre96} Gregory, P. C., Scott, W. K.,
793: Douglas, K., \& Condon, J. J. 1996, \apjs, 103,427
794: \bibitem[Haardt \& Maraschi (1993)]{hm93} Haardt, F. \& Maraschi, L. 1993,
795: \apj, 413, 507
796: \bibitem[Heinz \& Merloni (2004)]{hei04} Heinz, S., \& Merloni, A.
797: 2004, \mnras, 355, L1
798: \bibitem[Heinz et al. (2003)]{hei03} Heinz, S., \& Sunyaev, R. A. 2003, \mnras, 343, L59
799: \bibitem[Heinz (2004)]{hei04} Heinz, S. 2004, \mnras, 355, 835
800: \bibitem[Isobe et al.(1990)]{iso90} Isobe, T., Feigelson, E.D., Akritas, M.G.
801: \& Babu, G.J. 1990, \apj, 364, 104
802: \bibitem[Kaspi et al.(2000)]{kas00} Kaspi, S., Smith, P. S., Netzer,
803: H., Peterson, B. M., Vestergaard, M., \& Giveon, U. 2000, \apj, 533,
804: 631
805: \bibitem[Kaspi et al.(2005)]{kas05} Kaspi, S., Maoz, D., Netzer, H.,
806: Peterson, B. M., Vestergaard, M., \& Jannuzi, B. T. 2005 \apj, 629,
807: 61
808:
809: \bibitem[Kellermann et al.(1989)]{kel89} Kellermann, K. I., Sramek,
810: R., Schmidt, M., Shaffer, D. B., \& Green, R. 1989, \aj, 98, 1195
811: \bibitem[Komossa et al.(2006)]{kom06} Komossa, S., Voges, W., Xu,
812: D., Mathur, S., Adorf, H. M., Lemson, G., Duschl, W. J., \& Grupe,
813: D. 2006, AJ, 132, 531
814: \bibitem[K\"ording, Falcke \& Corbel (2006)]{kor06}K\"ording, E., Falcke
815: H. \& Corbel S. 2006, \aap, 456, 439
816: \bibitem[Lacy et al. (2001)]{lac01} Lacy, M., Laurent-Muehleisen,
817: S. A., Ridgway, S. E., Becker, R. H., \& White, R. L. 2001, \apj,
818: 551L, 17L
819: \bibitem[Leipski et al. (2006)]{lei06} Leipski, C., Falcke, H.,
820: Bennert, N., \& Huttemeister, S. 2006, \aap, 455, 161
821: \bibitem[Maraschi et al. (1994)]{mar94} Maraschi, L., \& Rovetti, F.
822: 1994, \apj, 436, 79
823: \bibitem[McLure \& Jarvis(2002)]{mcl02} McLure, R. J., \& Jarvis,
824: M. J. 2002, \mnras, 337, 109
825: \bibitem[Merloni et al.(2003)]{mer03} Merloni, A., Heinz, S., \& Di
826: Matteo, T. 2003 \mnras, 345, 165
827: \bibitem[Merloni et al.(2006)]{mer06} Merloni, A., Kording, E.,
828: Heinz, S., Markoff, S., DiMatteo, T., \& Falcke, H. 2006, New
829: Astronomy 11, 567
830: \bibitem[Miller, Rawlings, \& Saunders (1993)]{mil93} Miller, P.,
831: Rawlings, S., \& Saunders, R. 1993, \mnras, 263, 425
832: %\bibitem[Narayan \& Yi (1994)]{nar94} Narayan, R., \& Yi, I. 1994, \apj,
833: %428, L13
834: \bibitem[Orr \& Browne (1982)]{orr82} Orr, M. J. L., \& Browne, I.
835: W. A. 1982, \mnras, 200, 1067
836: \bibitem[Osterbrock \& Pogge (1985)]{ost85} Osterbrock, D. E., \& Pogge,
837: R.W. 1985, \apj, 297, 166
838: \bibitem[Panessa et al. (2007)]{pan07} Panessa, F., Barcons, X., Bassani, L.,
839: Cappi, M., Carrera, F. J., Ho, L. C., \& Pellegrini, S. 2007, A\&A,
840: 467, 519
841: \bibitem[Rawlings \& Sanuders (1991)]{raw91} Rawlings, S., \&
842: Saunders, R. 1991, Nature, 349, 138
843: \bibitem[Shakura \& Sunyaev (1973)]{sha73} Shakura, N. I. \& Sunyaev, R.A.
844: 1973, \aap, 24, 337
845: \bibitem[Sikora et al. (2007)]{sik07} Sikora, M., Stawarz, L., \&
846: Lasota, J. P. 2007, \apj, 658, 815
847: %\bibitem[Stern et al. (2000)]{ste00} Stern, D., Djorgovski, S. G.,
848: %Perley, R. A., Reinaldo R. de Carvalho, \& Wall, J. V. 2000, \aj,
849: %119, 1526
850: %\bibitem[Veron-Cetty (2001)]{ver01} Veron-Cetty, M.-P., Veron, P.,
851: %\& Goncalves, A.C. 2001, \aap, 372, 730
852: %\bibitem[Veron-Cetty \& Veron (2003)]{ver03} Veron-Cetty, M.-P., \& Veron, P.
853: %2003, \aap, 412, 399
854: \bibitem[Voges et al. (1999)]{vog99} Voges, W. et al. 1999, \aap,
855: 349, 389
856: \bibitem[Wandel, Peterson, \& Malkan (1999)]{wan99} Wandel, A.,
857: Peterson, B. M., \& Malkan, M. A. 1999, \apj, 526, 579
858: \bibitem[Wang et al.(2006)]{wang06} Wang, R., Wu, X-B., Kong, M. Z.
859: 2006, \apj, 645, 890
860: %\bibitem[Whalen et alWhalen et al. (2006)]{wha06} Whalen D.J., Laurent-Muehleisen1 S.A.,
861: %Moran E.C., \& Becker R.H. 2006, AJ, 131, 1948
862: \bibitem[White et al.(1997)]{whi97} White, R. L., Becker, R. H.,
863: Helfand, D. J.,\& Gregg, M. D. 1997, \apj, 475, 479
864: \bibitem[White et al. (2000)]{whi00} White, R. L. et al. 2000, \apjs, 126,
865: 133
866: \bibitem[Wu et al.(2004)]{wu04} Wu, X-B., Wang, R., Kong, M. Z.,
867: Liu, F. K., \& Han, J. L. 2004, \aap, 424, 793
868: %\bibitem[Xu et al. (2007)]{xu07} Xu, D. W., Komossa, S., Zhou, H. Y., Wang, T. G., Wei,
869: %J. Y. 2007, \apj, 670, 60X
870: \bibitem[Xue \& Cui (2007)]{xue07} Xue, Y. Q., \& Cui, W. 2007, A\&A,
871: 466, 1053
872: \bibitem[Xue, Wu \& Cui (2008)]{xue08} Xue, Y. Q., Wu, X.-B., \& Cui, W. 2008, \mnras, 384, 440
873: \bibitem[York et al. (2000)]{yor00} York, D. G. et al. 2000, \aj,
874: 120, 1579
875: \bibitem[Yuan et al. (2005)]{yua05} Yuan, F., \& Cui, W. 2005, \apj, 629, 408
876: %\bibitem[Yuan et al. (2005)]{yuan05} Yuan, F., Cui, W., \& Narayan,
877: %R. 2005, \apj, 620, 905
878: %\bibitem[Yuan \& Zdziarski (2004)]{yu04} Yuan, F., \& Zdziarski, A.
879: %2004, \mnras, 354, 953
880: \bibitem[Yuan et al. (2008)]{yuan08} Yuan, W., Zhou, H. Y.,
881: Komossa, S., Dong, X. B., Wang, T. G., Lu, H. L., \& Bai, J. M.
882: 2008, \apj, in press (astro-ph/0806.3755)
883: \end{thebibliography}
884: \clearpage
885: %%----------------------------------------------------------------------table
886:
887: \begin{appendix}
888: \section{RADIO-LOUD NARROW-LINE SEYFERT 1 GALAXIES IN OUR SAMPLE}
889:
890: Narrow-Line Seyfert 1 (NLS1) galaxies are a sub-class of AGN
891: population. Their optical broad permitted emission lines are usually
892: narrower ($\mathrm{FWHM_{H\beta}<2000\ km/s}$ ) than that in normal
893: Broad-Line Seyfert 1 (BLS1) galaxies(Osterbrock \& Pogge 1985). The
894: NLS1s also show weak $\mathrm{[OIII]5007/H\beta_{total}}$ emission
895: and strong FeII emissions (Boroson \& Green 1992). Recently, Komossa
896: et al.(2006) argued that the classical criteria
897: ($\mathrm{FWHM_{H\beta}<2000\ km/s}$) is not well defined or even
898: completely arbitrary. They suggested that $R_{4570}>0.5$ may be a
899: physically more meaningful criteria to distinguish the NLS1 from the
900: ordinary BLS1.\footnote{The optical Fe II strength, $R_{4570}$, is
901: the ratio of the Fe II complex between the rest wavelength $\lambda
902: 4434$\AA \ and $\lambda 4684$\AA \ to the total $H\beta$ flux,
903: including the narrow component (Boroson \& Green 1992)}
904:
905: The study of the physical mechanism of NLS1s is still ongoing. There
906: is growing evidence that most NLS1s are objects with low black hole
907: masses and high accretion rates, close to or even above the
908: Eddington accretion rate (Collin \& Kawaguchi 2004).
909:
910: Radio-loud NLS1s are rare objects in NLS1 population (Komossa et al.
911: 2006). In order to understand their radio properties, it is
912: important to expand the number of radio-loud NLS1s. Anderson et al.
913: (2007) roughly examined the optical broad permitted emission line of
914: AGNs in their catalog. They marked those objects that have
915: $\mathrm{FWHM_{H\beta}<2000\ km/s}$ as ``NLS1?'' in the comment
916: columns of their tables. Seventy-four of these objects have optical
917: spectra from SDSS and are detected in the FIRST radio survey, and
918: thus are included in our analysis in this paper. We calculated the
919: radio-loudness values for these objects, and found that five of them
920: are radio-loud. We list the properties of the five sources in Table
921: A1.
922:
923: In a newly published work, Yuan et al. (2008) present a
924: comprehensive study of a sample of 23 radio-loud NLS1 galaxies.
925: Among those 23 sources, two radio-loud NLS1s are also discovered in
926: our present work, which are SDSS J144318.56+472556.7 and SDSS
927: J114654.28+323652.3. These two independent studies confirm the nature
928: of radio-loud NLS1s of these two objects.
929:
930:
931: \end{appendix}
932:
933: %% Table content
934: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
935: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize} \tablecaption{The AGN
936: Samples\label{tbl-1}\tablenotemark{a}} \tablewidth{0pt}
937: \tablehead{\colhead{Name} & \colhead{z} &
938: \colhead{log($\mathrm{L_X/1\ erg\ s^{-1}}$)} &
939: \colhead{log($\mathrm{L_r/1\ erg\ s^{-1}}$)} & \colhead{log R} &
940: \colhead{log(M/$\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$)} &
941: \colhead{$\mathrm{L_{broad-line}}$}\tablenotemark{b} &
942: \colhead{flag}\tablenotemark{c}} \startdata
943: SDSS J$000608.04-010700.7$ & 0.949 & 45.60 & 41.13 & 1.345 & 8.71 & 43.47 & 0 \\
944: SDSS J$000710.01+005329.1$ & 0.316 & 44.95 & 39.79 & 0.549 & 9.07 & 42.90 & 1 \\
945: SDSS J$004319.73+005115.4$ & 0.308 & 44.64 & 39.61 & 0.506 & 9.42 & 42.90 & 1 \\
946: \tablenotetext{a}{Only 3 rows of the catalog are shown here. A
947: complete catalog will be provided in the elecronic version}
948: \tablenotetext{b}{The broad emission line luminosity. It is represented by
949: the $H_{\beta}$ broad component luminosity or the Mg II emission
950: line luminosity (when $H_{\beta}$ is unavailable).}
951: \tablenotetext{c}{1 means that $\mathrm{L_{H_{\beta}}}$ is used for
952: $\mathrm{L_{broad-line}}$, 0 means that $\mathrm{L_{Mg II}}$ is used
953: for $\mathrm{L_{broad-line}}$.}
954: \enddata
955:
956: \end{deluxetable}
957:
958: %\clearpage
959: \begin{deluxetable}{lccrrr}
960: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}\tablecaption{Derived Fundamental Plane
961: Relation\label{tbl-2}}
962: \tablewidth{0pt}\tablehead{\colhead{Subsample} & \colhead{Number} &
963: \colhead{$\xi_{RX}$} & \colhead{$\xi_{RM}$} & \colhead{Constant} &
964: \colhead{$\sigma_r$}}\startdata Total & 725 & $1.47\pm0.06$ &
965: $0.04\pm0.07$ & $-0.33\pm0.06$ & 0.83 \\
966: Radio-quiet & 227 & $0.73\pm0.10$ &
967: $0.31\pm0.12$ & $-0.68\pm0.07$ & 0.42 \\
968: Radio-loud & 498 & $1.50\pm0.08$ & $-0.20\pm0.10$ & $0.05\pm0.10$ &
969: 0.75 \\
970: \citet{mer03} & \nodata & $0.60\pm0.11$ & $0.78^{+0.11}_{-0.09}$ &
971: $7.33^{+4.05}_{-4.07}$ & 0.88 \\
972: Total\tablenotemark{a} & 115 & $1.33\pm0.15$ & $0.30\pm0.18$ &
973: $-0.40\pm0.14$ & 0.89 \\
974: Radio-quiet\tablenotemark{a} & 39 & $0.85\pm0.10$ & $0.12\pm0.13$ &
975: $-0.77\pm0.07$ & 0.38 \\
976: Radio-loud\tablenotemark{a} & 76 & $1.39\pm0.17$ & $0.17\pm0.21$ &
977: $-0.17\pm0.21$ & 0.77 \\
978: \enddata
979: \tablenotetext{a}{Results derived by \citet{wang06}}
980: \end{deluxetable}
981:
982: %\clearpage
983: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccr}
984: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize} \tablecaption{Partial Correlation Test
985: For The Fundamental Plane Correlation\label{tbl-3}} \tablewidth{0pt}
986: \tablehead{\colhead{X} & \colhead{Y} &\colhead{Z} &\colhead{Type}
987: &\colhead{Number} &\colhead{$\tau$} &\colhead{$\sigma$}
988: &\colhead{$P_{null}$}} \startdata
989: log Lx & log Lr & log D & Radio-loud & 498 & 0.321 & 0.0264 & $<$1.000E-10 \\
990: log Lx & log Lr & log D & Radio-quiet & 227 & 0.270 & 0.0424 & 1.916E-10 \\
991: log Lx & log Lr & log D & Total & 725 & 0.308 & 0.0220 & $<$1.000E-10 \\
992: log Lx & log Lr & log M & Radio-loud & 498 & 0.567 & 0.0201 & $<$1.000E-10 \\
993: log Lx & log Lr & log M & Radio-quiet & 227 & 0.578 & 0.0366 & $<$1.000E-10 \\
994: log Lx & log Lr & log M & Total & 725 & 0.598 & 0.0188 & $<$1.000E-10 \\
995: % log M & log Lr & log Lx & Radio-loud & 498 & -0.019 & 0.0242 & 4.324E-01 \\
996: % log M & log Lr & log Lx & Radio-quiet & 227 & 0.312 & 0.0404 & $<$1.000E-10 \\
997: % log M & log Lr & log Lx & Total & 725 & 0.103 & 0.0194 & 1.101E-07 \\
998: % log M & log Lx & log Lr & Radio-loud & 498 & 0.201 & 0.0253 & $<$1.000E-10 \\
999: % log M & log Lx & log Lr & Radio-quiet & 227 & 0.215 & 0.0329 & $<$1.000E-10 \\
1000: % log M & log Lx & log Lr & Total & 725 & 0.251 & 0.0205 & $<$1.000E-10 \\
1001: log(Lx/Ledd) & log(Lr/Ledd) & log D & Radio-loud & 498 & 0.472 & 0.0249 & $<$1.000E-10 \\
1002: log(Lx/Ledd) & log(Lr/Ledd) & log D & Radio-quiet & 227 & 0.517 & 0.0340 & $<$1.000E-10 \\
1003: log(Lx/Ledd) & log(Lr/Ledd) & log D & Total & 725 & 0.412 & 0.0197 & $<$1.000E-10 \\
1004: log(Lx/Ledd) & log(Lr/Ledd) & log M & Radio-loud & 498 & 0.572 & 0.0204 & $<$1.000E-10 \\
1005: log(Lx/Ledd) & log(Lr/Ledd) & log M & Radio-quiet & 227 & 0.553 & 0.0325 & $<$1.000E-10 \\
1006: log(Lx/Ledd) & log(Lr/Ledd) & log M & Total & 725 & 0.550 & 0.0160 & $<$1.000E-10 \\
1007: % log M & log(Lr/Ledd) & log(Lx/Ledd) & Radio-loud & 498 & 0.016 & 0.0233 & 4.922E-01 \\
1008: % log M & log(Lr/Ledd) & log(Lx/Ledd) & Radio-quiet & 227 & 0.012 & 0.0400 & 7.642E-01 \\
1009: % log M & log(Lr/Ledd) & log(Lx/Ledd) & Total & 725 & 0.161 & 0.0193 & $<$1.000E-10 \\
1010: % log M & log(Lx/Ledd) & log(Lr/Ledd) & Radio-loud & 498 & -0.218 & 0.0259 & $<$1.000E-10 \\
1011: % log M & log(Lx/Ledd) & log(Lr/Ledd) & Radio-quiet & 227 & -0.119 & 0.0384 & 1.942E-03 \\
1012: % log M & log(Lx/Ledd) & log(Lr/Ledd) & Total & 725 & -0.198 & 0.0212 & $<$1.000E-10
1013:
1014: \enddata
1015: \end{deluxetable}
1016:
1017: \clearpage
1018: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrr}
1019: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}\tablecaption{Derived Fundamental Plane
1020: Relation In Different Redshift Bins\label{tbl-4}}
1021: \tablewidth{0pt}\tablehead{\colhead{Redshift Range} &
1022: \colhead{$\xi_{RX}$} & \colhead{$\xi_{RM}$} & \colhead{$N$}}
1023: \startdata \cutinhead{Radio-Quiet subsample}
1024: $z<0.13$ & $0.33\pm0.20$ & $0.23\pm0.19$ & 77 \\
1025: $0.13<z<0.4$ & $0.35\pm0.23$ & $0.16\pm0.20$ & 81 \\
1026: $0.4<z<1.0$ & $0.49\pm0.34$ & $0.12\pm0.34$ & 48 \\
1027: $z>1.0$ & $0.55\pm0.69$ & $0.45\pm0.77$ & 21 \\
1028: \cutinhead{Radio-Loud subsample}
1029: $z<0.3$ & $0.63\pm0.24$ & $0.15\pm0.23$ & 58 \\
1030: $0.3<z<0.45$ & $1.59\pm0.38$ & $-0.26\pm0.24$ & 67 \\
1031: $0.45<z<0.65$ & $0.81\pm0.35$ & $-0.03\pm0.21$ & 86 \\
1032: $0.65<z<0.80$ & $1.73\pm0.53$ & $-0.21\pm0.24$ & 71 \\
1033: $0.80<z<1.0$ & $0.70\pm0.40$ & $-0.91\pm0.41$ & 64 \\
1034: $1.0<z<1.3$ & $0.95\pm0.44$ & $-0.66\pm0.34$ & 77 \\
1035: $z>1.3$ & $1.27\pm0.38$ & $0.11\pm0.37$ & 75 \\
1036: \enddata
1037: \end{deluxetable}
1038:
1039:
1040: %\clearpage
1041: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccr}
1042: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}\tablecaption{Radio-Loud Narrow Line
1043: Seyfert 1 Objects\label{tbl-5}}\tablenum{A1}
1044: \tablewidth{0pt}\tablehead{\colhead{Name} & \colhead{z} &
1045: \colhead{$\mathrm{FWHM_{H_{\beta}}/1\ km\ s^{-1}}$} &
1046: \colhead{log($\mathrm{M_{BH}/M_{\odot}}$)} & \colhead{log R} &
1047: \colhead{$R_{4570}$}} \startdata
1048:
1049: %\cutinhead{potential candidates}
1050:
1051: SDSS J$144318.56+472556.7$\tablenotemark{a} & 0.703 & 1810.1 & 7.14
1052: & 2.91 &
1053: 5.50 \\
1054: SDSS J$114654.28+323652.3$ & 0.465 & 2374.3 & 7.43 & 1.98 & 1.59 \\
1055: %\cutinhead{possible candidates\tablenotemark{b}}
1056:
1057: SDSS J$073320.84+390505.2$ & 0.664 & 2867.8 & 7.86 & 2.80 & 3.27 \\
1058: SDSS J$154510.96+345246.9$ & 0.516 & 3269.7 & 8.13 & 1.34 & 0.74 \\
1059: SDSS J$123304.05-003134.1$\tablenotemark{a} & 0.471 & 3297.7 & 7.81 & 2.32 & 2.18 \\
1060: \enddata
1061: \tablenotetext{a}{$H_{\beta}$ emission line is fitted with just one
1062: Gaussian}
1063:
1064: %\tablenotetext{b}{These objects do not satisfy the classical
1065: %definition of NLS1, but satisfy the definition of Komossa et
1066: %al.(2006), which is $R_{4570} > 0.5$}
1067: \end{deluxetable}
1068:
1069: \clearpage
1070:
1071: %%---------------------------------------------------------------------figures
1072:
1073: \begin{figure}
1074: \epsscale{1.00} \plotone{fig1.eps} \caption{Global properties of our
1075: AGN sample, with the top panels showing the histograms of the
1076: redshift and logarithm of radio-loudness, the middle panels showing
1077: the histograms of the X-ray luminosity and black hole mass (in units
1078: of $M_\odot$), and the bottom panels showing the radio luminosity in
1079: logarithm units and ratios of X-ray to Eddington
1080: luminosity.\label{fig-1}}
1081: \end{figure}
1082: \clearpage
1083: \begin{figure}
1084: \plotone{fig2.eps} \caption{Rest-frame 1.4GHz radio luminosity
1085: ($L_r$) vs. the 0.1-2.4 keV X-ray luminosity, with different symbols
1086: representing different logarithmic bins of the black hole mass (in
1087: units of $M_\odot$). In the left panel we plot the logarithm of the
1088: luminosity directly, while in the right panel we scale the radio and
1089: X-ray luminosity with $\mathrm{\L_{Edd}}$. \label{fig-2}}
1090: \end{figure}
1091: \clearpage
1092: \begin{figure}
1093: \plotone{fig3.eps} \caption{Rest-frame 1.4GHz radio luminosity
1094: ($L_r$) vs. the 0.1-2.4 keV X-ray luminosity, with different symbols
1095: representing different radio-loudness bins. We plot
1096: the radio vs. X-ray luminosity in the left panel, and the Eddington
1097: luminosity scaled radio vs. X-ray luminosity in the right
1098: panel.\label{fig-3}}
1099: \end{figure}
1100: \clearpage
1101:
1102: \begin{figure}
1103: \plotone{fig4.eps} \caption{Ratio of the radio to X-ray luminosity
1104: vs. the black hole mass. Different symbols represent objects in
1105: different radio-loudness bins.\label{fig-4}}
1106: \end{figure}
1107: \clearpage
1108:
1109: \begin{figure}
1110: \plotone{fig5.eps} \caption{Edge-on view of the black hole
1111: fundamental plane for all AGNs in our sample. Different symbols
1112: represent sources in different radio-loudness bins. The dashed line
1113: is the best-fitting result for radio-quiet AGNs.\label{fig-5}}
1114: \end{figure}
1115: \clearpage
1116:
1117: \begin{figure}
1118: \plotone{fig6.eps} \caption{Correlation between $log(L_r/L_{Edd})$
1119: and $0.96\times log(L_X/L_{Edd})$. The symbols and lines have
1120: the same meanings as in Figure 5.\label{fig-6}}
1121: \end{figure}
1122: \clearpage
1123:
1124: \begin{figure}
1125: \epsscale{1.00} \plotone{fig7.eps} \caption{Results of the Monte
1126: Carlo test using scrambled radio fluxes. The position of the
1127: vertical line represents Pearson's correlation coefficient of the
1128: real dataset.\label{fig-7}}
1129: \end{figure}
1130: \clearpage
1131:
1132: \begin{figure}
1133: \epsscale{1.00} \plotone{fig8.eps} \caption{Plot of the 0.1-2.4keV
1134: X-ray luminosity versus the H$\beta$ broad emission line luminosity
1135: (left panel) and the rest-frame 1.4GHz radio luminosity versus the
1136: H$\beta$ broad emission line luminosity (right panel). The meanings
1137: of symbols and lines are: green diamond: radio-loud AGNs; black
1138: cross: radio-quiet AGNs; black line: best-fitting result for the
1139: radio-quiet subsample; dashed black line: best-fitting result for
1140: the radio-loud subsample.\label{fig-8}}
1141: \end{figure}
1142: \clearpage
1143: \begin{figure}
1144: \epsscale{1.00} \plotone{fig9.eps} \caption{Plot of the 0.1-2.4keV
1145: X-ray luminosity versus the \ion{Mg}{2} emission line luminosity
1146: (left panel) and the rest-frame 1.4GHz radio luminosity versus the
1147: \ion{Mg}{2} emission line luminosity (right panel). The symbols and
1148: lines have the same meanings as in Figure 8.
1149: %: green diamond: radio-loud
1150: %AGNs; black cross: radio-quiet AGNs; black line: best-fitting result
1151: %for the radio-quiet subsample; dashed black line: best-fitting
1152: %result for radio-loud subsample.
1153: \label{fig-9}}
1154: \end{figure}
1155: \clearpage
1156:
1157: \begin{figure}
1158: \epsscale{1.00} \plotone{fig10.eps} \caption{Dependence of the black
1159: hole fundamental plane coefficients $\xi_{RM}$ and $\xi_{RX}$ on
1160: redshift for radio-quiet and radio-loud AGNs.\label{fig-10}}
1161: \end{figure}
1162: \clearpage
1163:
1164: \begin{figure}
1165: \epsscale{1.00} \plotone{fig11.eps} \caption{Redshift dependence of
1166: the radio spectral index $\alpha_{r}$ of the 114 radio-loud AGNs
1167: detected both at 1.4GHz and 5GHz frequencies.\label{fig-11}}
1168: \end{figure}
1169:
1170: \clearpage
1171: \begin{figure}
1172: \epsscale{1.00} \plotone{fig12.eps} \caption{Predicted black hole
1173: fundamental plane coefficients based on equation (5). Here,
1174: $\alpha_{r}$ is the radio spectral index and $p$ equals to 2.
1175: \label{fig-12}}
1176: \end{figure}
1177:
1178: \clearpage
1179: \begin{figure}
1180: \epsscale{1.00} \plotone{fig13.eps}\caption{The histogram of the
1181: boosting factor ($L_r/L_{r,jet}$) of the radio-loud subsample
1182: (left panel) and the boosting factor as a function of the
1183: inclination angle $\theta$ (right panel), with different line
1184: representing different Lorentz factor ($\Gamma$).\label{fig-13}}
1185: \end{figure}
1186: \end{document}
1187: