1: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2: %\documentstyle[psfig]{l-aa}
3: \documentclass{aa501}
4: %\documentclass[referee]{aa}
5:
6: \usepackage{graphicx}
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: \def\bh{{\rm BH}}
10:
11: %\hyphenation{}
12:
13:
14: % \thesaurus{02.01.2 % A&A
15: % 02.09.1;
16: % 11.01.2;
17: % 11.14.1
18: % 11.17.3)}
19: %
20:
21: \title{Black hole mass and velocity dispersion of narrow line region in
22: active galactic nuclei and narrow line Seyfert 1 galaxies}
23: \author{Tinggui Wang \and Youjun Lu}
24:
25: \offprints{Tinggui Wang (twang@ustc.edu.cn)}
26:
27: \institute{Center for Astrophysics, University of Science and Technology
28: of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026, P.R. China \\
29: National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences
30: }
31:
32: \date{Received 6 June 2001 / Accepted 12 July 2001 }
33:
34: \authorrunning{T. Wang \& Y. Lu}
35: \titlerunning{Relation between the MBH mass and [OIII] width
36: in AGN}
37:
38: \abstract{
39: Controversy regarding whether Narrow Line Seyfert 1 galaxies (NLS1s)
40: follow the same black hole --- galactic bulge relation as normal galaxies
41: has been raised by Mathur et al. (2001) and Ferrarese et al. (2001). In
42: this paper, the correlation between the black hole mass and the velocity
43: dispersion of the narrow line region, indicated by the [OIII] line
44: width for a heterogeneous sample of NLS1s, is examined. We show that
45: the non-virial component subtracted [OIII] width, which may well represent
46: the stellar velocity dispersion ($\sigma$), correlates with the estimated
47: black hole
48: mass $M_\bh$, made using the empirical law for broad line region size
49: from the reverberation mapping measurements. Considering measurement
50: errors, we find that the relation between $M_\bh$ and the [OIII] width
51: in active galactic nuclei (both NLS1s in this paper and normal Seyferts
52: in Nelson 2000) is consistent with that defined in nearby hot galaxies
53: (ellipticals and spiral bulge) but with more scatter. It seems that there
54: is no clear difference in the relation between $M_\bh$ and $\sigma$
55: (represented by the [OIII] width for AGN) in both NLS1s and normal broad
56: line active galactic nuclei from the same relation defined by nearby
57: hot galaxies.
58: \keywords{black hole physics--galaxies: active--galaxies:
59: nuclei--galaxies: Seyfert}
60: }
61: \maketitle
62:
63: \section{Introduction}
64:
65: Massive Black Holes (MBHs) are believed to exist in the centers of all active
66: and many or most normal galaxies. High-resolution observations of various
67: kinematic tracers of the central gravitational potential have resulted in
68: the detections of numerous MBHs in nearby galaxies over the past decade
69: (e.g. \cite{kr95,fm00,geb00a,sar00,ho99}, and references therein).
70: A relationship between the MBH mass and the mass of the spheroidal component
71: was suggested by Kormendy (1993) and later quantified by Kormendy \&
72: Richstone (1995) and Magorrian et al. (1998). This correlation appears also
73: in Seyfert 1 galaxies and QSOs, in which the MBH masses are measured either
74: using reverberation mapping techniques (\cite{wan99}) or using the
75: empirical relation between the Broad Line Region (BLR) size and nuclear
76: luminosity (\cite{lao98}). Laor (1998) found that the MBH mass-to-bulge mass
77: ratio for a sample of PG QSOs is the same as that for nearby galaxies.
78: In contrast, Wandel (1999) obtained a substantially lower MBH mass-to-bulge
79: mass ratio for Seyfert 1 galaxies. This could be due to an overestimation
80: of the bulge mass in Seyfert galaxies, e.g., a larger luminosity-to-mass
81: ratio in the host galaxies, or an underestimation of central black
82: hole masses using the reverberation mapping method (\cite{md00,kro00}),
83: or an intrinsic difference in the MBH mass-to-bulge mass ratio for Seyfert
84: galaxies and normal galaxies.
85:
86: For nearby hot galaxies (ellipticals and spiral bulge), recent works by
87: Gebhardt et al. (2000a) and
88: Ferrarese \& Merritt (2000) have demonstrated that the mass of a MBH is tightly
89: correlated with the stellar velocity dispersion, which is obtained within
90: a large aperture extending to the galaxy effective radius and thus with
91: little influence of the MBH, with remarkably small scatter. Note that Gebhardt
92: et al. (2000b) included also seven AGN, in which the MBH masses are obtained
93: by the reverberation mapping method, and they found that these objects
94: follow the same correlation with small scatter. Ferrarese et al. (2001)
95: reached the same conclusion by making an accurate measurement of stellar
96: velocity dispersions for 6 Seyfert galaxies, for which the masses of MBHs
97: have been measured using reverberation mapping techniques.
98:
99: The good correlation between the [OIII] width and the stellar velocity
100: dispersion (\cite{nw96}) indicates that the narrow-line width is primarily
101: virial in origin and the Narrow Line Region (NLR) kinematics are mainly
102: controlled by the gravitational potential of the galaxy bulge. For a sample
103: of 32 AGN and QSOs in which the MBH masses have been measured from
104: reverberation mapping, Nelson (2000) demonstrated a good relation between
105: the MBH mass and the bulge velocity dispersion derived from the [OIII] width,
106: which is consistent with the results of Gebhardt et al. (2000b) but with
107: somewhat larger scattering. This agreement can be taken as evidence in
108: support of the reverberation mapping method to measure the MBH masses in AGN.
109:
110: The tight $M_\bh-\sigma$ relation supports the theoretical arguments
111: of a close link between the growth of MBHs and the galaxy or spheroidal
112: formation. Several theoretical scenarios have been proposed to explain
113: the $M_\bh-\sigma$ or $M_\bh-M_{\rm bulge}$ relation (e.g.
114: \cite{sr98,fab99,ost00,hk00}). Silk \& Rees (1998) predicted
115: $M_{\rm BH}\propto\sigma^5$, based on the back-reaction mechanism such that
116: the kinetic energy associated with the output wind from the central
117: BH-accretion disk system will evacuate the fueling gas when it is
118: comparable to the bound energy of the gas in the bulge or host galaxy. Fabian
119: (1999) further incorporated the Silk--Rees scenario into an obscured growth
120: of MBHs model, and a consequent result is that most MBHs grow very
121: fast in an obscured phase before they clean the surrounding dust and cold gas
122: and appear as QSOs or AGN. This scenario can also explain both the
123: $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ and $M_{\rm BH}-M_{\rm bulge}$ relation.
124:
125: It is of particular interest to investigate the time evolution (or
126: accretion history) of MBHs and thus reveal the physical link between
127: the bulge formation and the MBH growth. One approach is to measure
128: the masses of MBHs and bulge properties in high redshift QSOs and AGN
129: and compare them with low redshift QSOs, AGN and nearby galaxies. Narrow
130: Line Seyfert 1 galaxies (NLS1s) are suggested to be due to accretion rates
131: close to the Eddington limit and have small BHs compared to normal Seyfert
132: 1 galaxies at a given luminosity, and much evidence suggests that NLS1s
133: might be normal Seyfert galaxies at an early stage of evolution
134: (\cite[and references therein]{mat00}). If this is true, NLS1s could
135: be an ideal class of objects, together with normal Seyfert galaxies and
136: QSOs, to study the accretion history and growth of MBHs. Therefore, it is
137: also interesting to measure the masses of MBHs and bulge properties in
138: NLS1s and compare them with those in Broad Line (BL) Seyfert 1 galaxies
139: and nearby galaxies. Using the MBH mass estimated from spectra fitting by
140: an accretion disk model and the virial mass of the broad line region, Mathur
141: et al. (2001) found that NLS1s show systematically lower $M_\bh$ than
142: BL AGN with the same bulge luminosity or [OIII] width of host galaxies.
143: However, two NLS1s in the Ferrarese et al. (2001) sample follow the same
144: relation as BL Seyfert 1 galaxies. The conflicting results in the literature
145: suggest that further study is required. In the present paper, we investigate
146: the correlation between the MBH mass and the [OIII] line width for a large
147: sample of NLS1s (\cite{vvg}) and find that NLS1s consistently follow
148: the well-known $M_\bh-\sigma$ relation defined in nearby galaxies.
149:
150: \section{Data and Analysis}
151:
152: A heterogeneous sample of 59 NLS1 galaxies were observed spectroscopically
153: by Veron-Cetty et al. (2001) (hereafter VVG) with a moderate resolution of
154: 3.4\AA~. The measurement of the instrument-subtracted [OIII] and H$\beta$
155: width as well as the optical magnitude at B band are listed in table~1.
156: VVG found that, in general, the [OIII] lines of those NLS1s have a
157: relatively narrow Gaussian profile (with Full Width at Half Maximum,
158: hereafter FWHM, of $\sim200-500$ km~s$^{-1}$) with often, in addition, a
159: second broad blueshifted Gaussian component (with FWHM of $\sim 500-1800$
160: km~s$^{-1}$). The blueshifted Gaussian component is
161: proposed to be associated with those individual high-velocity clouds seen
162: in the spatially resolved NLR of some nearby Seyfert galaxies, which is
163: outflowing rather than virial bounded (e.g. NGC~4151: \cite{kaiser}). The
164: width of the narrow component is then adopted as the velocity dispersion of
165: the virial NLR clouds if the line is fitted by a narrow component and a
166: blueshifted broad component.
167:
168: \begin{table*}
169: \caption{Black hole mass estimates and narrow line cloud
170: velocity dispersions. Col. 1: name, col. 2: B magnitude, col. 3: redshift, col.
171: 4: the the Galactic hydrogen column density in units of 10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$,
172: col. 5: FWHM (in km s$^{-1}$) of the broad component of H$\beta$ line, col. 6:
173: FWHM (in km s$^{-1}$) of the broad component of [OIII] line, col. 7: the
174: estimated size of broad line region using the empirical law (see \S\,2.1) and
175: col. 8: the estimated black hole mass in unit $10^7$M$_{\odot}$(see \S\,2.1).
176: ~$^a$ the black hole mass has been measured in Kaspi et al. (2000) using
177: reverberation mapping techniques. }
178: \scriptsize
179: %\tiny
180: \begin{center}
181: \begin{tabular}{lccccccc} \hline \hline
182: Name & B & Z & NH & FWHM(H$\beta$) & FWHM([OIII]) & R$_{\rm BLR}$ & M$_{\rm BH}$ \\ \hline
183: Mrk\,335$^a$ & 13.7 & 0.025 & 3.8 & $\cdots$ & 245 & $\cdots$ & 0.63 \\
184: I\,ZW\,1 & 14.0 & 0.061 & 5.1 & $\cdots$ & 1040 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
185: Ton\,S\,180 & 14.4 & 0.062 & 1.5 & 1085 & 435 & 89.8 & 1.16 \\
186: Mrk\,359 & 14.2 & 0.017 & 4.8 & 900 & 180 & 19.0 & 0.17 \\
187: MS\,01442-0055 & 15.6 & 0.080 & 2.8 & 1100 & 240 & 63.7 & 0.85 \\
188: Mrk\,1044 & 14.3 & 0.016 & 3.0 & 1010 & 335 & 15.0 & 0.17 \\
189: HS\,0328+0528 & 16.7 & 0.046 & 8.9 & 1590 & 220 & 18.9 & 0.53 \\
190: IRAS\,04312+40 & 15.2 & 0.020 & 34.5 & 860 & 380 & 52.2 & 0.42 \\
191: IRAS\,04416+12 & 16.1 & 0.089 & 14.1 & 1470 & 650 & 92.8 & 2.20 \\
192: IRAS\,04576+09 & 16.6 & 0.037 & 13.5 & 1210 & 380 & 18.5 & 0.30 \\
193: IRAS\,05262+44 & 13.6 & 0.032 & 38.3 & 740 & 365 & 342.3 & 2.06 \\
194: RXJ\,07527+261 & 17.0 & 0.082 & 5.1 & 1185 & 400 & 29.9 & 0.46 \\
195: Mrk\,382 & 15.5 & 0.034 & 5.8 & 1280 & 155 & 23.0 & 0.41 \\
196: Mrk\,705 & 14.9 & 0.028 & 4.0 & 1790 & 365 & 23.6 & 0.83 \\
197: Mrk\,707 & 16.3 & 0.051 & 4.7 & 1295 & 315 & 23.2 & 0.43 \\
198: Mrk\,124 & 15.3 & 0.056 & 1.3 & 1840 & 380 & 43.0 & 1.60 \\
199: Mrk\,1239 & 14.4 & 0.019 & 4.1 & 1075 & 400 & 18.9 & 0.24 \\
200: IRAS\,09571+84 & 17.0 & 0.092 & 3.9 & 1185 & 240 & 33.4 & 0.52 \\
201: PG\,1011-040 & 15.5 & 0.058 & 4.5 & 1455 & 400 & 46.3 & 1.08 \\
202: PG\,1016+336 & 15.9 & 0.024 & 1.6 & 1590 & 315 & 8.9 & 0.25 \\
203: Mrk\,142 & 15.8 & 0.045 & 1.2 & 1370 & 260 & 22.7 & 0.47 \\
204: KUG\,1031+398 & 15.6 & 0.042 & 1.4 & 935 & 315 & 23.6 & 0.23 \\
205: RXJ\,10407+330 & 16.5 & 0.081 & 2.2 & 1985 & 460 & 35.3 & 1.53 \\
206: Mrk\,734 & 14.6 & 0.049 & 2.7 & 1825 & 180 & 59.6 & 2.18 \\
207: Mrk\,739E & 14.1 & 0.030 & 2.2 & 1615 & 380 & 39.9 & 1.14 \\
208: MCG\,06.26.012 & 15.4 & 0.032 & 1.9 & 1145 & 220 & 18.6 & 0.27 \\
209: Mrk\,42 & 15.4 & 0.024 & 1.9 & 865 & 220 & 12.4 & 0.10 \\
210: NGC\,4051$^a$ & 12.9 & 0.002 & 1.3 & 1120 & 200 & 1.8 & 0.13 \\
211: PG\,1211+143$^a$ & 14.6 & 0.085 & 2.8 & 1975 & 410 & 132.6 & 4.05 \\
212: Mrk\,766 & 13.6 & 0.012 & 1.8 & 1630 & 220 & 14.8 & 0.43 \\
213: MS\,12170+0700 & 16.3 & 0.080 & 2.2 & 1765 & 365 & 39.4 & 1.35 \\
214: MS\,12235+2522 & 16.3 & 0.067 & 1.8 & 800 & 240 & 29.9 & 0.21 \\
215: IC\,3599 & 15.6 & 0.021 & 1.4 & $\cdots$ & 280 & 8.8 & $\cdots$ \\
216: PG\,1244+026 & 16.1 & 0.048 & 1.9 & 740 & 330 & 21.2 & 0.13 \\
217: NGC\,4748 & 14.0 & 0.014 & 3.6 & 1565 & 295 & 15.5 & 0.42 \\
218: Mrk\,783 & 15.6 & 0.067 & 2.0 & 1655 & 430 & 47.4 & 1.43 \\
219: R\,14.01 & 14.6 & 0.042 & 7.6 & 1605 & 430 & 60.5 & 1.71 \\
220: Mrk\,69 & 15.9 & 0.076 & 1.1 & 1925 & 315 & 44.9 & 1.83 \\
221: 2E\,1346+2646 & 16.5 & 0.059 & 1.1 & $\cdots$ & 180 & 21.2 & $\cdots$ \\
222: PG\,1404+226 & 15.8 & 0.098 & 2.0 & 1120 & 950 & 72.4 & 1.00 \\
223: Mrk\,684 & 14.7 & 0.046 & 1.5 & 1150 & 1290 & 48.2 & 0.70 \\
224: Mrk\,478 & 14.6 & 0.077 & 1.0 & 1270 & 365 & 105.3 & 1.87 \\
225: PG\,1448+273 & 15.0 & 0.065 & 2.7 & 1050 & 155 & 69.1 & 0.84 \\
226: MS\,15198-0633 & 14.9 & 0.084 & 12.4 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & 170.4 & $\cdots$ \\
227: Mrk\,486 & 14.8 & 0.038 & 1.8 & 1680 & 400 & 34.9 & 1.08 \\
228: IRAS\,15462-0450 & 16.4 & 0.100 & 12.5 & 1615 & 1600 & 83.9 & 2.40 \\
229: Mrk\,493 & 15.1 & 0.031 & 2.0 & 740 & 315 & 21.7 & 0.13 \\
230: EXO\,16524+393 & 16.7 & 0.069 & 1.7 & 1355 & 400 & 24.0 & 0.48 \\
231: B\,31702+457 & 15.1 & 0.060 & 2.2 & 975 & 295 & 56.4 & 0.59 \\
232: RXJ\,17450+480 & 15.9 & 0.054 & 3.1 & 1355 & 400 & 30.2 & 0.61 \\
233: Kaz\,163 & 15.0 & 0.063 & 4.4 & 1875 & 480 & 71.7 & 2.77 \\
234: Mrk\,507 & 15.4 & 0.053 & 4.3 & 1565 & 1025 & 43.0 & 1.16 \\
235: HS\,1817+5342 & 15.2 & 0.080 & 4.9 & 1615 & 570 & 91.2 & 2.61 \\
236: HS\,1831+5338 & 15.9 & 0.039 & 4.9 & 1555 & 240 & 20.7 & 0.55 \\
237: Mrk\,896 & 14.6 & 0.027 & 4.0 & 1135 & 315 & 27.1 & 0.38 \\
238: MS\,22102+1827 & 16.7 & 0.079 & 6.2 & 690 & 890 & 36.2 & 0.19 \\
239: Akn\,564 & 14.2 & 0.025 & 6.4 & 865 & 220 & 35.4 & 0.29 \\
240: HS\,2247+1044 & 15.8 & 0.083 & 6.2 & 1790 & 710 & 69.6 & 2.45 \\
241: Kaz\,320 & 16.8 & 0.034 & 4.9 & 1470 & 260 & 9.5 & 0.23 \\
242: \hline
243:
244: \end{tabular}
245: \end{center}
246: \end{table*}
247:
248: \subsection{Estimation of black hole masses}
249:
250: The size of the broad emission line region (BLR) can be estimated
251: by the empirical relationship between the size and the
252: monochromatic continuum luminosity at 5100\AA~ (\cite{kas00}):
253: \begin{equation}
254: R_{\rm BLR} = 32.9 \left(\frac{\lambda L_{\lambda}(5100{\rm \AA})}
255: {10^{44}{\rm erg\cdot s^{-1}}} \right)^{0.7} {\rm lt~day}~,
256: \label{eq:blr}
257: \end{equation}
258: where $\lambda L_{\lambda}$ is estimated from the B-magnitude by adopting
259: an average optical spectral index of $-0.5$ and accounting for
260: Galactic reddening and K-correction (H$_0$=75km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$,
261: q$_0$=0.5). Assuming that the BLR is virialized, the MBH mass can be estimated
262: by $M_{\rm BH} = R_{\rm BLR} V^2 G^{-1}$, where $G$ is the gravitational
263: constant, $V$ can be estimated from the emission line width,
264: $V=\sqrt{3}/2{\rm FWHM}$, by assuming BLR clouds in random orbit motion.
265: The estimated BH masses are also listed in Table~1.
266:
267: There are some uncertainties in the estimation of the MBH mass. First,
268: a typical error of 0.2 mag in the B magnitude given in VVG would
269: introduce an uncertainty of above 0.05 dex in MBH mass. Second, the
270: continua are likely to be variable, but generally this variation
271: is not larger than a factor of 2 for most AGN (cf. \cite{kas00}), which
272: may introduce an uncertainty of 0.15 dex in the estimation of MBH mass.
273: Third, using the empirical law of equation~\ref{eq:blr} to estimate the
274: BLR size, the uncertainties are generally not much larger than a factor
275: of 2 for those NLS1s in VVG sample (see \cite{kas00}) with
276: $\lambda L_{\lambda}(5100{\rm \AA})$ range from $10^{43}$ to $10^{45}$
277: erg~s$^{-1}$, if those NLS1s do follow this empirical relation. Finally,
278: a significant fraction of optical light may come from host galaxies. To
279: make a quantitative estimation of this effect in a NLS1, we notice that
280: $L_{\rm AGN}/L_{\rm bulge}=L_{\rm AGN}/L_{\rm Edd}\times L_{\rm Edd}/M_\bh
281: \times M_{\rm bulge}/L_{\rm bulge}\times M_\bh/M_{\rm bulge}$, and
282: $L_{\rm Edd}/M_{\rm BH}\sim 3\times 10^4 L_{\sun}/M_{\sun}$. For NLS1,
283: the typical value of $L_{\rm AGN}/L_{\rm Edd}$ should be around 0.5
284: (Puchnarewicz et al. 2001);
285: the typical bulge mass to light ratio may be similar to nearby hot
286: galaxies with $M_{\rm bulge}/L_{\rm bulge}\sim 10 M_{\sun}/L_{\sun}$;
287: and the MBH mass to bulge mass ratio may be similar to (or less than)
288: nearby galaxies with $M_\bh/M_{\rm bulge}$ of about 0.0015 --- 0.003
289: (by an order of magnitude) (Merritt \& Ferrarese 2001b;
290: Gebhardt et al. 2000a; Mathur et al. 2001). The fraction of light at
291: the optical band $L_{\rm opt}/L_{\rm bol}$ is $\sim 0.1$ for AGN and
292: $\sim 1.0$ for bulge. Adopting those values, one obtains
293: $L_{\rm opt,AGN}/L_{\rm opt,bulge}\ga 1-10$, which suggests that
294: the stellar contribution to the measured optical luminosity should
295: be much less (or less) than that from the nuclear emission.
296: Thus, the uncertainty in the mass estimation is small in comparison with
297: the intrinsic scatter in the mass of the sample. Combining all those
298: uncertainties, the estimation of
299: the MBH mass would typically have an uncertainty of about 0.5 dex.
300:
301: \subsection{Estimation of the bulge velocity dispersion}
302: \label{sec:oiii}
303:
304: The [OIII] width can be converted to the stellar velocity dispersion by
305: $\sigma={\rm FWHM}_{\rm [OIII]}/2.35$ (\cite{nw95}). Nelson (2000) has
306: shown that the reverberation mapping measured MBH mass in AGN, for which
307: the bulge velocity dispersion is derived from the [OIII] width, is in
308: good agreement with the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation defined by nearby
309: hot galaxies, which may support the assertion
310: that the narrow line [OIII] width serves
311: as a good representation of the bulge velocity dispersion. The $\sigma$
312: derived this way is systematically lower than the stellar velocity
313: dispersion from the absorption line width by 0.1 dex, while the mean
314: deviation to the best fit line is 0.13 dex (\cite{nw95}).
315: This systematic difference will not affect the
316: following statistical analysis significantly since it is much smaller
317: than the intrinsic scatter in the [OIII] line width measurements.
318:
319: The [OIII] width could be significantly over-estimated from the spectra with
320: poor resolution (Veilleux 1991, hereafter V91). According to Figure~3 in
321: V91, this overestimation could be as large as a factor of 1.2---1.5 if the
322: spectral resolution is close to the intrinsic [OIII] width of the object.
323: Note that three objects in VVG,
324: Mrk~359, NGC~4051, Mrk~766, were also observed by
325: Veilleux (1991) at a resolution of 10 km~s$^{-1}$, and the [OIII] line width
326: (the width measured by VVG, the V91 width to the VVG width ratio) are 113
327: (180, 1.59), 162 (200, 1.23) and 180 (220, 1.22) km~s$^{-1}$, respectively.
328: These values clearly support that the [OIII] line width is overestimated by
329: a factor of 1.2---1.5 for those objects with intrinsic widths close to or
330: less than the spectral resolution, i.e. 204 km~s$^{-1}$. As discussed by
331: Whittle (1985), the detailed amount of the deviation is also sensitive
332: to the line profile. This would suggest that the measured line width of less
333: than 300 km~s$^{-1}$ may be overestimated by such a factor. In the following
334: analysis, we will keep in mind this uncertainty, and discuss its
335: consequences wherever appropriate. Note also that the [OIII] widths for most
336: objects in the Nelson (2000) sample were measured from the spectra with high
337: resolution, $<2$\AA, corresponding to $<120$ km~s$^{-1}$, which may not
338: suffer from the overestimation due to spectral resolution, since measured
339: [OIII] line widths are much larger than the spectral resolution.
340:
341: \subsection{$M_{\rm BH}$ to the bulge velocity dispersion relation}
342:
343: The relationship between the estimated MBH mass $M_{\rm BH}$ and the bulge
344: velocity dispersion represented by the [OIII] width is shown in the left
345: panel of Figures~\ref{fig:msigma_mf} and \ref{fig:msigma_geb} for NLS1s
346: in VVG, along with the same
347: relationship for those BL AGN in Nelson (2000). Note that four objects,
348: NGC~4051, Mrk~335, PG~1211+143 and Mrk~110, which have reverberation
349: mapping measured MBH masses and high resolution ($R\ga1500$) [OIII] line
350: widths, in the Nelson (2000) sample are NL Seyfert 1 galaxies or QSOs. The
351: former three objects are also included in VVG. The high quality data
352: in Nelson (2000) are adopted for these three objects instead of the estimated
353: ones from VVG. The effectiveness of using the empirical law to estimate
354: the mass of MBHs in NLS1s may also be supported by the fact that the other NL
355: objects, whose masses are estimated from the empirical law, follow the trend
356: of these four NL objects in Figures~\ref{fig:msigma_mf} and
357: \ref{fig:msigma_geb}.
358: In the present paper, the stellar velocity dispersion derived from the
359: [OIII] width is likely to represent the central velocity dispersion.
360: For comparison, the nearby hot galaxies from Merritt \& Ferrarese (2001a),
361: for which values of $M_{\rm BH}$ and $\sigma$ (the central stellar velocity
362: dispersion) are measured from dynamical modeling of {\it HST} data, are
363: therefore also plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:msigma_mf}.
364: Since there are different views on the slope of the $M-\sigma$ relation defined
365: in nearby galaxies (see Merritt \& Ferrarese 2001a; Gebhardt et al. 2000a),
366: a similar figure is also plotted (see Fig.~\ref{fig:msigma_geb}) for comparison
367: with the galaxies from Gebhardt et al. (2000a), in which the brightness
368: weighted stellar
369: velocity dispersions within the effective radius of galaxies are adopted.
370:
371: \begin{figure*}
372: \centering
373: \includegraphics[width=17cm]{f1.eps}
374: \caption{The estimated mass of MBHs versus the stellar
375: velocity dispersion derived from the [OIII] line width:
376: NLS1s from Veron-Cetty et al. (2001) (VVG) are shown as open
377: stars. For comparison, NL AGN and BL AGN from Nelson
378: (2000) (N00) are plotted as open squares and open triangles,
379: respectively. The solid circles represent the nearby
380: hot galaxies from Merritt \& Ferrarese (2001a) (MF01). The dashed
381: line is the best fitted line for nearby hot galaxies
382: (MF01). The [OIII] width is corrected
383: for the possible overestimation due to the low spectral
384: resolution by a factor of 1.3 in the right panel, but not
385: in the left panel. In the left panel, the dotted (solid)
386: line is the best fitted line for NL AGN (NL + BL AGN,
387: 78 objects in total by excluding
388: those six objects which deviate from the others and have the
389: largest [OIII] width, see also \S 2.3);
390: in the right panel, the solid (dotted long-dashed) line
391: is the best fitted line for the 78 NL + BL AGN ( 75 NL + BL
392: AGN by excluding those
393: three objects which deviate from the main trend but have the
394: smallest [OIII] width, see also \S2.3).}
395: \label{fig:msigma_mf}
396: \end{figure*}
397:
398:
399: It is clearly shown in Figures~1 and 2 that five NL objects, Mrk~507, Mrk~684,
400: IRAS~15462-0450, MS~22102+1827, and PG~1404+226, having large [OIII]
401: widths, deviate from other NL objects. Note that Mrk~507, Mrk~684,
402: IRAS~15462-0450 are the three objects for which a narrow HII region
403: contribution has been subtracted in the VVG sample. For spectra with a
404: resolution of 3.4\AA~ used by VVG, the HII component may not be reliably
405: separated from a narrow component of NLR with width 200---500
406: km\,s$^{-1}$ if an additional broad wing is present. Thus the widths of NLR
407: in these three objects are likely to be significantly over-estimated.
408: Only poor quality [OIII] profiles are available for MS~22102+1827 and
409: PG~1404+226, and VVG mentioned that broad blueshifted [OIII] profiles
410: should not be overlooked in PG 1404+226. These five objects will be
411: excluded in the following statistic analysis.
412: The galactic bulge mass of IC~4329A, which clearly deviates from other
413: AGN in the Figure~1 in Nelson (2000), is one of the smallest in the Wandel
414: (1999) sample of about $10^{10.6}$ solar mass. However, the bulge velocity
415: dispersion derived from the [OIII] width of IC~4329A is one of the largest.
416: The small bulge mass but large bulge velocity in this object compared with
417: others in the Wandel (1999) sample is in contradiction with the Faber-Jackson
418: relation. The
419: high resolution radio map of IC~4329A consists of a compact core and with
420: extended component to several kpc (Unger et al. 1987). If the extended
421: component is the radio jet, then the large [OIII] width can be due to the
422: non-virial component (Nelson \& Whittle 1996). This object will also be
423: removed from the sample in the following analysis.
424:
425: Considering both the NL Seyfert 1 galaxies and NL QSOs in VVG and BL
426: AGN in the Nelson (2000) sample, a Spearman rank correlation tests gives
427: a strong correlation between $M_{\rm BH}$ and $\sigma$ for 78 AGN with
428: a correlation coefficient of $R_{\rm s}=0.613$ corresponding to
429: a probability of $P_{\rm s}=2.4\times 10^{-9}$ that the correlation is
430: caused by a random factor, which can be fitted by a line with a slope of
431: $3.64\pm0.21$ using an ordinary least-squares (OLS) bisector\footnote{
432: One should be cautious, as the use of OLS can be very misleading: linear
433: fits not accounting for errors are known to underestimated the true slope
434: of the relation. Merritt \& Ferrarese (2001a), for example, have argued that
435: the shallower slope found for the M-$\sigma$ relation by Gebhardt et al. (2000)
436: is due mostly to a bias introduced by neglecting the observational errors.
437: In our sample, however, it is hard to assign errorbars to the BH masses and
438: velocity dispersions for galaxies.}
439: (\cite{isobe}) (represented by the solid line in the left panel of
440: Figs.~\ref{fig:msigma_mf} and ~\ref{fig:msigma_geb}). This slope agrees well
441: with the one defined in nearby hot galaxies derived by Gebhardt et al. (200a),
442: but deviates from the one derived by Merritt \& Ferrarese (2001a),
443: and the MBH mass in AGN seems smaller than the one in nearby hot galaxies
444: by 0.5~dex. If we only consider NL Seyfert 1 galaxies
445: and NL QSOs (51 objects), the correlation is also moderately significant
446: with $R_{\rm s}=0.553$ ($P_s=2.6\times 10^{-5}$), which can be fitted by
447: a line with a slope of $2.70\pm0.28$ using the OLS bisector (represented by
448: the dotted line in the left panel of Figs.~\ref{fig:msigma_mf} and
449: \ref{fig:msigma_geb}). Compared with
450: the $M_\bh-\sigma$ relation defined by nearby hot galaxies (Gebhardt et al.
451: 2000a), we find the MBH mass in NLS1s is smaller than that in nearby hot
452: galaxies by $\sim 0.5$~dex. However, we may not be able to draw a conclusion
453: that the MBHs in NLS1s (or AGN) are systematically smaller than that in nearby
454: hot galaxies at a given bulge velocity dispersion if the uncertainties in
455: the estimation of MBH mass (about 0.5 dex) and possible overestimation of
456: the [OIII] width (see following paragraph) are considered.
457:
458: \begin{figure*}
459: \centering
460: \includegraphics[width=17cm]{f2.eps}
461: \caption{Legend as Fig.~\ref{fig:msigma_mf}, but adopting the galaxies
462: from Gebhardt et al. (2000a) (G00) for comparison. It
463: is obviously that the best fit slope of AGN is
464: consistent with the one derived by G00. }
465: \label{fig:msigma_geb}
466: \end{figure*}
467:
468:
469: As discussed in \S~\ref{sec:oiii}, the low spectral resolution could
470: introduce an overestimation of the [OIII] width, probably by a factor
471: of 1.2---1.5. The relationship between $M_{\rm BH}$ and $\sigma$ are
472: re-plotted in the right panel of Figure~\ref{fig:msigma_geb} by correcting
473: this overestimation of a moderate factor 1.3 for NLS1s in VVG. Now, the
474: correlation between $M_{\rm BH}$ and $\sigma$ becomes very strong with
475: a coefficient $R_{s}=0.730$ ($P_s=3.8\times 10^{-14}$) for the combined
476: sample (78 AGN), and can be fitted (using the OLS bisector) by
477: \begin{equation}
478: M_{\rm BH} = 10^{(7.78\pm0.005)}M_{\odot}\left(
479: \frac{{\rm FWHM}_{\rm [OIII]}/2.35}{200{\rm km\cdot {\rm s}^{-1}}}
480: \right)^{3.32\pm0.38},
481: \end{equation}
482: as shown by the solid line in the right panel of Figures~\ref{fig:msigma_mf}
483: and \ref{fig:msigma_geb}. As seen in Figures~\ref{fig:msigma_mf} and
484: \ref{fig:msigma_geb}, three objects,
485: Mrk~382, Mrk~734 and PG~1448+273, which have the smallest [OIII] widths,
486: deviate from the other NL objects. The reason that they have somewhat
487: larger MBHs than others is not known. However, if excluding them, the
488: correlation becomes even stronger with $R_{s}=0.762$
489: ($P_s=2.0\times 10^{-15}$), which can be fitted (using OLS bisector) by
490: \begin{equation}
491: M_{\rm BH} = 10^{(7.81\pm0.006)}M_{\odot}\left(
492: \frac{{\rm FWHM}_{\rm [OIII]}/2.35}{200{\rm km\cdot {\rm s}^{-1}}}
493: \right)^{3.70\pm0.51},
494: \end{equation}
495: as shown by the dotted-long dashed line in the right panel of
496: Figures~\ref{fig:msigma_mf} and \ref{fig:msigma_geb}.
497: The scatter is large for this relation, which should be due to large
498: uncertainties in both variables. Whether we exclude Mrk~382, Mrk~734 and
499: PG~1448+273 or not, the $M_\bh-\sigma$ relation for AGN (both NL and BL
500: AGN) is consistent with that defined in nearby hot galaxies. It seems
501: also that the slope of the fit agrees with the one found by Gebhardt et
502: al. (2000a) for nearby hot galaxies and Nelson (2000) for AGN (see Fig.~2),
503: but is different to the one derived by Merritt \& Ferrarese (2001a) of 4.72
504: (see Fig.~1); more conclusive result
505: needs precise measurement of both the MBH mass and bulge velocity
506: dispersion. Again, the difference from the $M_\bh-\sigma$ relation
507: (Gebhardt et al. 2000a) in Log$_{10}$$M_\bh$ or Log$_{10}$$\sigma$ is
508: about -0.5
509: or 0.1. The consistency of the MBH mass in NL Seyfert 1 galaxies and NL
510: QSOs with the bulge velocity dispersion supports the result of Ferrarese
511: et al. (2001) that the two NLS1s with measured MBH masses (by the reverberation
512: mapping method) and bulge velocity dispersions (from stellar absorption
513: lines) are consistent with $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation defined by nearby
514: hot galaxies.
515:
516:
517: \section{Discussion and Conclusion}
518:
519: In this paper, we find that there is no clear difference in the relation
520: between $M_{\rm BH}$ and $\sigma$ (the bulge velocity dispersion is
521: represented by the [OIII] width for AGN) for both NL and BL AGN from
522: the same relation defined by nearby hot galaxies (Gebhardt
523: et al. 2000a; Ferrarese \& Merritt 2000). Furthermore, the MBH masses
524: and bulge velocity dispersions of NLS1s are thought to be consistent
525: with the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation for other galaxies if we consider the
526: overestimation in the [OIII] line width. This consistency suggests that
527: NLS1s have small MBHs compared with BL AGN with similar non-thermal
528: luminosity simply due to their host galaxies having small bulges compared
529: to that of BL AGN. This may support one of the competing model of
530: NLS1s, i.e., the low-mass/high accretion rate interpretation.
531:
532: A simple evolutionary scenario proposed by Mathur (2000) is that NLS1s are
533: likely to represent a crucial early and more obscured phase in the evolution
534: of active galaxies based on the observational properties of NLS1s, such
535: as super-solar metallicities and are unusually luminous in the far-infrared
536: band etc. This evolutionary view has also been frequently suggested by other
537: authors (\cite{law00}). Although it is tentative that the $M_{\rm BH}$ and
538: $\sigma$ of NLS1s is consistent with the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation
539: (Gebhardt et al. 2000a, Ferrarese \& Merritt 2000), we cannot rule out the
540: possibility that the MBHs in NLS1s are smaller than those in BL AGN or nearby
541: hot galaxies at a given bulge velocity dispersion by a factor of several
542: (say, 3), which means that Mathur's scenario cannot simply be ruled
543: out by our results. However, the claim of Mathur et al. (2001) that NLS1s
544: have a significantly smaller MBH to bulge velocity dispersion ratio,
545: which may be caused by some non-virial component in their [OIII] line
546: width measurements, is discredited by our results.
547:
548: Now we have more confidence in applying the reverberation mapping method to
549: measure the masses of MBHs in AGN, since the MBH masses from reverberation
550: mapping are consistent with the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation recently
551: discovered for local galaxies (\cite{geb00b,fer01,ne00}). Krolik (2000)
552: pointed out, however, this consistence could be due to fortuitous mutual
553: canceling of the systematic errors$-$including overestimation of the MBH
554: mass by a fixed ratio by interpreting the emission line kinematics as
555: gravitationally bound and underestimating the mass for planar-like BLR
556: cloud distribution. If the narrowness of the permitted line width
557: of NLS1s is due to a planar-like BLR viewed nearly ``pole-on''
558: (the ``orientation model'': Osterbrock \& Pogge 1985; Goldrich
559: 1989; Puchnarewicz et al. 1992), the estimated MBH masses would be
560: systematically smaller than the real one. Since the orientation
561: is a random effect, we would expect that the estimated MBH masses
562: in BL AGN are systematically larger than those in NLS1 by a
563: similar factor of 10, considering of NLS1s broad line width
564: are around $1000$~km~s$^{-1}$ while BL objects are typically about
565: $3000-5000$~km~s$^{-1}$ (which means that the velocity of broad-line-emitting
566: clouds would be underestimated by a factor of about 3 if both NLS1s
567: and BL objects have a similar central engine and a flat broad line geometry),
568: at a given stellar velocity dispersion. As we can see in
569: Figure~\ref{fig:msigma_mf} and \ref{fig:msigma_geb},
570: masses of NL objects at a given bulge velocity dispersion are consistent
571: with the trend of BL objects, which suggests that at
572: least not all NLS1s can be regarded as ``orientation'' dependent.
573:
574: It is generally believed that the activity in galactic nuclei
575: is closely linked with the galaxy and bulge formation. Silk \&
576: Rees (1998) proposed that the powerful wind from the central
577: engine can blow away the cold gas from the galaxy and terminate
578: the accretion process when the output kinetic energy is comparable
579: with the bound energy of the total gas in the galaxy. This results
580: in a relation of the MBH mass to the stellar velocity dispersion of
581: the form $M_{\rm BH}\propto \sigma^5$. The typical duration of
582: the bright QSOs phase is required to be only about few $10^7$ yr from
583: fitting the optical QSOs luminosity function by the mass function
584: of dark matter halos predicted by standard hierarchical
585: cosmogonies (\cite{hnr98}). It suggests that
586: MBHs may grow at an accretion rate far above the Eddington
587: rate before this brief optical bright phase and/or at a very low
588: accretion rate via advection-dominated accretion flows lasting a
589: Hubble time after this phase.
590: Fabian (1999) further incorporated the Silk-Rees scenario in a
591: model of obscured growth of MBHs. In his model, a MBH in the center
592: of a galaxy accretes the surrounding material and emits a QSO/AGN-like
593: spectrum which is absorbed by surrounding gas and dust. The
594: wind from the central engine exerts a force on the gas and pushes it
595: outwards. The central engine emerges when the Thomson depth in the
596: $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation for bright AGN or NL objects is similar to
597: that of the galaxies.
598: Our result of a consistent $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation in NLS1s favors
599: the model of Fabian (1999).
600:
601: Many works have been done on the relation between $M_{\rm BH}$ and
602: $M_{\rm bulge}$. There is still controversy about whether Seyfert
603: galaxies have a small $M_{\rm BH}$ to $M_{\rm bugle}$ ratio compared
604: with local galaxies or not (Wandel 1999, McLure \& Dunlop 2000).
605: Czerny et al. (2000) claimed that NLS1s, at least, have a smaller
606: $M_{\rm BH}$ to $M_{\rm bugle}$ ratio, which could be due to nuclear star
607: burst (or stellar formation and evolution) in NLS1s leading to a small
608: mass to light ratio of bulges.
609:
610: In the present paper, there are some caveats for both the estimation
611: of the MBH mass and
612: the bulge velocity. First, the empirical $R_{\rm BLR}$-$L$ relation is not
613: fully tested for NLS1s. This relation is derived from a moderate-size sample
614: of AGN, composed mainly of BL AGN (\cite{kas00}). Three of the four NLS1s in
615: this sample closely follow the $R_{\rm BLR}$-$L$ relation. The lowest luminosity
616: object, NGC 4051, shows a larger size of BLR than this empirical relation
617: predicted. There is, at least, no obvious evidence against this empirical
618: relation, although further confirmation is needed. Second, Nelson \&
619: Whittle (1996) identified two cases in which the [OIII] width can be
620: significantly larger than the bulge velocity dispersion, i.e., presenting
621: kpc linear radio sources or displaying distorting morphology. Though
622: lacking in systematic study, NLS1s tend to possess similar radio properties
623: to average radio-quiet Seyfert galaxies (\cite{uag95}). Zheng et al.
624: (1999) found that NLS1s in their sample are morphology relaxed. We also
625: note that two NL objects included in the sample of Nelson \& Whittle (1995)
626: do not show systematic deviation. Also, the non-virial component of [OIII]
627: lines has been subtracted for VVG objects. Therefore, our results should
628: not be affected by the possible linear radio source in some objects.
629:
630: \begin{acknowledgements}
631: We thank an anonymous referee for helpful comments and suggestions.
632: TW thanks the financial support from Chinese NSF through grant
633: NSF-19925313 and from Ministry of Science and Technology. YL acknowledges
634: the hospitality of the Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton
635: University.
636: \end{acknowledgements}
637:
638:
639: \begin{thebibliography}{}
640: \bibitem[Blandford 1999]{bla99}Blandford, R. D., 1999, in ``Origin and
641: Evolution of Massive Black Holes in Galactic Nuclei'', ed. Merritt,
642: Valluri \& Sellwood, 1999, p87
643: \bibitem[Czerny et al. 2000]{czn00}Czerny, B., Nikolajuk, M., Piasecki, M.,
644: \& Kuraszkiewicz, J., 2001, MNRAS, 325, 865
645: \bibitem[Fabian 1999]{fab99}Fabian, A. C., 1999, MNRAS, 308, L39
646: \bibitem[Ferrarese \& Merritt 2000]{fm00}Ferrarese, L., \& Merritt, D.
647: 2000, ApJL, 539, L9
648: \bibitem[Ferrarese et al. 2001]{fer01} Ferrarese, L., Pogge, R. W.,
649: Peterson, B. M., Merritt, D., Wandel, A., \& Joseph, C. L., 2001,
650: ApJL, 555, L79
651: \bibitem[Gebhardt et al. 2000a]{geb00a}Gebhardt, K., et al. 2000a,
652: ApJL, 539, L13
653: \bibitem[Gebhardt et al. 2000b]{geb00b}Gebhardt, K., et al. 2000b,
654: ApJL, 543, L5
655: \bibitem[Goldrich 1989]{gold89}Goldrich, R. W., 1989, ApJ, 342, 224
656: \bibitem[Haehnelt \& Kauffmann 2000]{hk00}Haehnelt,M. G., Kauffmann, G.,
657: 2000, MNRAS, 318, L35
658: \bibitem[Haehnelt et al. 1998]{hnr98}Haehnelt, M. G.,
659: Natarajan, P. \& Rees, M. J., 1998, MNRAS, 300, 817
660: \bibitem[Ho 1999]{ho99}Ho, L., 1999, in "Observational Evidence for the
661: Black Holes in the Universe", ed. S. K. Chakrabarti
662: (Dordrecht:Kluwer), p157
663: \bibitem[Kaiser et al. 2000]{kaiser} Kaiser, M. E., Bradley, L. D. II,
664: Hutchings, J. B., Crenshaw, D. M., Gull, T. R., Kraemer, S. B.,
665: Nelson, C. H., Ruiz, J., \& Weistrop, D., 2000, ApJ, 528, 260
666: \bibitem[Kaspi et al. 2000]{kas00}Kaspi, S., Smith, P. S., Netzer, H.,
667: Maoz, D., Jannuzi, B. T., \& Giveon, U., 2000, ApJ, 533, 631
668: \bibitem[Isobe et al. 1990]{isobe} Isobe, T., Feigelson, E. D.,
669: Akritas, M. G., \& Babu, G. J., 1990, ApJ, 364, 104
670: \bibitem[Kauffmann \& Haehnelt 2000]{kh00}Kauffmann, G., Haehnelt, M.,
671: 2000, MNRAS, 311, 576
672: \bibitem[Kormendy 1993]{kor93}Kromendy, J., 1993, in The Nearest
673: Active Galaxies, eds. J. Beckman, L. Colina, \& H. Netzer
674: (Madrid: CSIC), 197
675: \bibitem[Kormendy \& Richstone 1995]{kr95}Kormendy, J., \& Richstone, D.,
676: 1995, ARA\&A, 33, 581
677: \bibitem[Krolik 2000]{kro00}Krolik, J., 2001, ApJ, 551, 72
678: \bibitem[Laor 1998]{lao98}Laor, A., 1998, ApJL, 505, L83
679: \bibitem[Law-Green et al. 2000]{law00}Law-Green, J. D. B., Hirst, P.,
680: O'Brien, P. T., Ward, M., \& Boisson, C., 2000, MNRAS submitted
681: \bibitem[Magorrian et al. 1998]{mag98}Magorrian, J., et al.
682: 1998, AJ, 115, 2285
683: \bibitem[Mathur 2000]{mat00}Mathur, S., 2000, MNRAS, 314, L17
684: \bibitem[Mathur et al. 2001]{mat01}Mathur, S., Kuraszkiewicz, J., \&
685: Czerny, B. 2001, New Astron., 6, 321
686: \bibitem[McLure \& Dunlop 2000]{md00}McLure, R. J., \& Dunlop, J. S.,
687: 2000, MNRAS, in press (astro-ph/0009406)
688: \bibitem[Merritt \& Ferrarese 2001a]{mf01a} Merritt D, \& Ferrarese L.,
689: 2001a, ApJ, 547, 140
690: \bibitem[Merritt \& Ferrarese 2001b]{mf01m} Merritt D, \& Ferrarese L.,
691: 2001b, MNRAS, 320, L30
692: \bibitem[Nelson 2000]{ne00}Nelson, C. H., 2000, ApJ, 544, L91
693: \bibitem[Nelson \& Whittle 1995]{nw95}Nelson, C. H., \& Whittle, M.,
694: 1995, ApJS, 99, 67
695: \bibitem[Nelson \& Whittle 1996]{nw96}Nelson, C. H., \& Whittle, M.,
696: 1996, ApJ, 465, 96
697: \bibitem[Osterbrock \& Pogge 1985]{op85}Osterbrock, D. E., \& Pogge, R. W.,
698: 1985, ApJ, 297, 166
699: \bibitem[Ostriker 2000]{ost00}Ostriker, J. P., 2000, PRL, 84, 5258
700: \bibitem[Puchnarewicz et al. 1992]{puch92}Puchnarewicz, E. M., et al.
701: 1992, MNRAS, 256, 589
702: \bibitem[Puchnarewicz et al. 2001]{pun01} Puchnarewicz, E. M., Mason, K.
703: O., Siemiginowska, A., Fruscione, A., Comastri, A., Fiore, F.,
704: \& Cagnoni, I., 2001, ApJ, 550, 644
705: \bibitem[Sarzi et al. 2000]{sar00}Sarzi, M., et al. 2000, ApJ, 550, 65
706: \bibitem[Silk \& Rees 1998]{sr98}Silk, J. \& Rees, M. J., 1998, A\&A,
707: 331, L1
708: \bibitem[Ulvestad et al. 1995]{uag95}Ulvestad, J. S.,
709: Antonucci, R. R. J., Goodrich R., 1995, AJ, 109, 81
710: \bibitem[Unger et al. 1987]{u87}Unger, S. W., Lawrence, A., Wilson,
711: A. S., Elvis, M., Wright, A. E., 1987, MNRAS, 228, 521
712: \bibitem[Veilleux 1991]{vei91} Veilleux, S., 1991, ApJS, 75, 383
713: \bibitem[Veron-Cetty et al. 2001]{vvg} Veron-Cetty, M.-P., Veron, P.,
714: \& Goncalves, A. C., 2001, A\&A, 372, 730
715: \bibitem[Wandel 1999]{wan99}Wandel, A., 1999, ApJL, 519, L39
716: \bibitem[Whittle 1985]{w85} Whittle, M., 1985, MNRAS, 216, 817
717: \bibitem[Zheng et al. 1999]{zheng99}Zheng, Z., Wu, H., Mao, S., Xia, X. Y.,
718: Deng, Z. G., \& Zou, Z. L., 1999, A\&A, 349, 735
719: \end{thebibliography}
720:
721: \end{document}
722:
723: