\section{FORMALISM}
\subsection{Assumptions}
The following main assumptions are made:

(1) Only allowed Gamow-Teller  and superallowed Fermi transitions are calculated. It is assumed that contributions from forbidden transitions are relatively negligible.

(2) It is assumed that the temperature is high enough to ionize the atoms completely. The electrons are not bound anymore to the nucleus and obey the Fermi-Dirac distribution (see also the discussions in \cite{Ful82}). At high temperatures (kT $>$ 1~MeV), positrons appear via electron-positron pair creation, and the positrons follow the same energy distribution function as the electrons.

(3) Neutrinos and antineutrinos escape freely from the interior of the star. Therefore, there are no (anti)neutrinos which block the emission of these particles in the capture or decay processes. Also, (anti)neutrino capture is not taken into account.

(4) The distortion of electron (positron) wavefunction due to the Coulomb interaction with a nucleus is represented by the Fermi function in phase space integrals.

(5) Particle emissions from excited states are taken into account. This was neglected in the previous calculations of weak interaction rates and is found to considerably affect the capture and decay rates. The effects of separation energy of protons ($S_{p}$) and neutrons ($S_{n}$) on the stellar rates are considered. All excited states, with energy greater than $S_{p}$ or $S_{n}$, are assumed to decay to the ground state by emission of protons or neutrons, respectively. Due to uncertainties in the calculation of energy levels and the effect of the Coulomb barrier for the case of proton emission, it is assumed that particles are emitted at excited energies 1~MeV higher (called $E_{crit}$ throughout this section) than the particle decay channel.

(6) For the parent nuclei, the cut-off excitation energy is set at $E_{crit}$. All excited states in daughter nuclei, with excitation energy ($E_{j} \leq E_{crit}$) decay directly to the ground state through $\gamma$ transitions. All excited energy states ($E_{j} > E_{crit}$) decay by emitting particles (protons or neutrons) with increasing kinetic energies. It is further assumed that either protons (if $S_{p} < S_{n}$) or neutrons (if $S_{n} < S_{p}$) are emitted from these excited states. The $\beta$ decay of a possible isomer is not taken into account.
\subsection{Weak Decay in Stellar Matter}
The weak decay rate from the $\mathit{i}$th state of the parent to the $\mathit{j}$th state of the daughter nucleus is given by \footnote{Throughout subsection 2.2 natural units $(\hbar=c=m_{e}=1)$ are adopted, unless otherwise stated, where $m_{e}$ is the electron mass.}
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{ij} =ln2 \frac{f_{ij}(T,\rho,E_{f})}{(ft)_{ij}},
\end{equation}
where $(ft)_{ij}$ is related to the reduced transition probability $B_{ij}$ of the nuclear transition by
\begin{equation}
(ft)_{ij}=D/B_{ij}.
\end{equation}
The $D$ appearing in Eq.~(3) is a compound expression of physical constants,
\begin{equation}
D=\frac{2ln2\hbar^{7}\pi^{3}}{g_{V}^{2}m_{e}^{5}c^{4}},
\end{equation}
and,
\begin{equation}
B_{ij}=B(F)_{ij}+(g_{A}/g_{V})^2 B(GT)_{ij},
\end{equation}
where B(F) and B(GT) are reduced transition probabilities of the Fermi and ~Gamow-Teller transitions respectively,
\begin{equation}
B(F)_{ij} = \frac{1}{2J_{i}+1} \mid<j \parallel \sum_{k}t_{\pm}^{k} \parallel i> \mid ^{2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
B(GT)_{ij} = \frac{1}{2J_{i}+1} \mid <j \parallel \sum_{k}t_{\pm}^{k}\vec{\sigma}^{k} \parallel i> \mid ^{2},
\end{equation}

In Eq.~(7), $\vec{\sigma}^{k}$ is the spin operator and $t_{\pm}^{k}$ stands for the isospin raising and lowering operator. The value of D=6295 s is adopted and the ratio of the axial-vector $(g_{A})$ to the vector $(g_{V})$ coupling constant is taken as 1.254.

\subsubsection{Phase space integrals}
The phase space integral $(f_{ij})$ is an integral over total energy,
\begin{equation}
f_{ij} = \int_{1}^{w_{m}} w \sqrt{w^{2}-1} (w_{m}-w)^{2} F(\pm Z,w) (1-G_{\mp}) dw,
\end{equation}
for electron (\textit{upper signs}) or positron (\textit{lower signs}) emission, or
\begin{equation}
f_{ij} = \int_{w_{l}}^{\infty} w \sqrt{w^{2}-1} (w_{m}+w)^{2} F(\pm Z,w) G_{\mp} dw,
\end{equation}
for continuum positron (\textit{lower signs}) or electron (\textit{upper signs}) capture.

In Eqs.~(8) and (9), $w$ is the total kinetic energy of the electron including its rest mass, $w_{l}$ is the total capture threshold energy (rest+kinetic) for positron (or electron) capture. One should note that if the corresponding electron (or positron) emission total energy, $w_{m}$, is greater than -1, then $w_{l}=1$, and if it is less than or equal to 1, then $w_{l}=\mid w_{m} \mid$. $w_{m}$ is the total $\beta$-decay energy,
\begin{equation}
w_{m} = m_{p}-m_{d}+E_{i}-E_{j},
\end{equation}
where $m_{p}$ and $E_{i}$ are mass and excitation energies of the parent nucleus, and $m_{d}$ and $E_{j}$ of the daughter nucleus, respectively.

$G_{+}$ and $G_{-}$ are the positron and electron distribution functions, respectively. Assuming that the electrons are not in a bound state, these are the Fermi-Dirac distribution functions,
\begin{equation}
G_{-} = [exp (\frac{E-E_{f}}{kT})+1]^{-1},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
G_{+} = [exp (\frac{E+2+E_{f}}{kT})+1]^{-1}.
\end{equation}
Here $E=(w-1)$ is the kinetic energy of the electrons, $E_{f}$ is the Fermi energy of the electrons, $T$ is the temperature, and $k$ is the Boltzmann constant.

In the calculations, the inhibition of the final neutrino phase space is never appreciable enough that neutrino (or anti-neutrino) distribution functions had to be taken into consideration. $F(\pm Z,w)$ are the Fermi functions and are calculated according to the procedure adopted by Gove and Martin \cite{Gov71}.

The number density of electrons associated with protons and nuclei is $\rho Y_{e} N_{A}$, where $\rho$ is the baryon density, $Y_{e}$ is the ratio of electron number to the baryon number, and $N_{A}$ is the Avogadro number.
\begin{equation}
\rho Y_{e} = \frac{1}{\pi^{2}N_{A}}(\frac {m_{e}c}{\hbar})^{3} \int_{0}^{\infty} (G_{-}-G_{+}) p^{2}dp,
\end{equation}
where $p=(w^{2}-1)^{1/2}$ is the electron or positron momentum, and Eq.~(13) has the units of \textit{moles $cm^{-3}$}. This equation is used for an iterative calculation of Fermi energies for selected values of $\rho Y_{e}$ and $T$.

There is a finite probability of occupation of parent excited states in the stellar environment as a result of the high temperature in the interior of massive stars. Weak interaction rates then also have a finite contribution from these excited states. The occupation probability of a state $i$ is calculated on the assumption of thermal equilibrium,
\begin{equation}
P_{i} = \frac {(2J_{i}+1)exp(-E_{i}/kT)}{\sum_{i=1}(2J_{i}+1)exp(-E_{i}/kT)},
\end{equation}
where $J_{i}$ and $E_{i}$ are the angular momentum and excitation energy of the state $i$, respectively.

Unfortunately one cannot calculate the $J_{i}$'s in QRPA theory and hence Eq.~(14) is modified as
\begin{equation}
P_{i} = \frac {exp(-E_{i}/kT)}{\sum_{i=1}exp(-E_{i}/kT)}.
\end{equation}
This approximation is a compromise and can be justified when one takes into consideration the uncertainty in the calculation of $E_{i}$ which easily over-sheds the uncertainty in calculating the values of $J_{i}$ in the above Eq.~(14).

The rate per unit time per nucleus for any weak process is then given by
\begin{equation}
\lambda = \sum_{ij}P_{i} \lambda_{ij}.
\end{equation}
The summation over all initial and final states is carried out until satisfactory convergence in the rate calculations is achieved.
\subsubsection{Other calculated rates}
The neutrino energy loss rates are calculated using the same formalism except that the phase space integral is replaced by
\begin{equation}
f_{ij}^{\nu} = \int_{1}^{w_{m}} w \sqrt{w^{2}-1} (w_{m}-w)^{3} F(\pm Z,w) (1-G_{\mp}) dw,
\end{equation}
for electron (\textit{upper signs}) or positron (\textit{lower signs}) emission, or by
\begin{equation}
f_{ij}^{\nu} = \int_{w_{l}}^{\infty} w \sqrt{w^{2}-1} (w_{m}+w)^{3} F(\pm ,w) G_{\mp} dw,
\end{equation}
for continuum positron (\textit{lower signs}) or electron (\textit{upper signs}) capture.

 The $\lambda_{ij}$ in Eq.~(16) in this case is the sum of the electron capture  and positron decay rates, or the sum of the positron capture and electron decay rates, for the transition $i \rightarrow j$.

The proton energy rate from the daughter nucleus is calculated, whenever $S_{p}$ $<$ $S_{n}$, by
\begin{equation}
\lambda^{p} = \sum_{ij}P_{i}\lambda_{ij}(E_{j}-E_{crit}),
\end{equation}
for all $E_{j} > E_{crit}$, whereas for all $E_{j} \leq E_{crit}$ one calculates the $\gamma$ heating rate,
\begin{equation}
\lambda^{\gamma} = \sum_{ij}P_{i}\lambda_{ij}E_{j}.
\end{equation}
If on the other hand, $S_{n} < S_{p}$, then the neutron energy rate from the daughter nucleus is calculated using
\begin{equation}
\lambda^{n} = \sum_{ij}P_{i}\lambda_{ij}(E_{j}-E_{crit}),
\end{equation}
for all $E_{j} > E_{crit}$, and for all $E_{j} \leq E_{crit}$ the $\gamma$ heating rate is calculated as in Eq.~(20).

The probability of $\beta$-delayed proton (neutron) emission is calculated by
\begin{equation}
P^{p(n)} = \frac{\sum_{ij\prime}P_{i}\lambda_{ij\prime}}{\sum_{ij}P_{i}\lambda_{ij}},
\end{equation}
where $j\prime$ are states in the daughter nucleus for which $E_{j\prime} > E_{crit}$. In Eqs.~[(19)-(22)] $\lambda_{ij(\prime)}$ is the sum of the electron capture and positron decay rates, or the sum of positron capture and electron decay rates, for the transition $i$ $\rightarrow$ $j(j\prime)$.

\subsection{Gamow-Teller  transitions}
The parent excited states can be constructed as phonon-correlated multi-quasi-particle states. An extension of the pn-QRPA model is straight forward to the Gamow-Teller  transitions from nuclear excited states. Low-lying excited states of a nucleus are obtained by one-proton (or one-neutron) excitations. They are described, in the quasi-particle (q.p.) picture, by adding two-proton (two-neutron) q.p.'s to the ground state \cite{Mut92}. The transition amplitudes between the multi-quasi-particle states can be reduced to those of single-quasi-particle states. Details of the formalism can be found in \cite{Nab99}.

In the calculation of the Gamow-Teller  transitions a quenching of the transitions was not explicitly taken into account. The quenching of the Gamow-Teller  strength cannot be a constant renormalization of the axial vector current \cite{Gro83,Kla84}. We did not choose a global quenching factor (as done in many shell model calculations) for the following reasons. In order to reproduce the Gamow-Teller  strength the Gamow-Teller  interaction strength parameters $\chi$ (for particle-hole interactions) and $\kappa$ (for particle-particle interactions) were adjusted in our calculations. These values were deduced from a fit to experimental
half-lives and for every isotopic chain fixed values of $\chi$ and $\kappa$ allowed to deduce a locally best value of $\chi$ and $\kappa$, respectively. With the large model space (up to 7 major shells) considered in this QRPA calculation and the fine tuning of the Gamow-Teller  strength parameter, an extra quenching factor on one hand might slightly improve the experimental half-lives for some $\beta^{+}$ decays of very proton-rich  nuclei but the overall comparison with measured rates of  nuclei would remain more or less unaltered (see \cite{Sta90}).
\subsection{Fermi transitions}
The Fermi operator is independent of space and spin [Eq.~(6)], and as a result, the Fermi strength is concentrated in a very narrow resonance centered around the isobaric analog state (IAS) for the ground and excited states (The IAS is generated by operating on the associated parent states with the isospin raising or lowering operator:
\begin{displaymath}
T_{\pm}=\sum_{i}t_{\pm}(i), \nonumber
\end{displaymath}
where the sum is over the nucleons. This operator commutes with all parts of the nuclear Hamiltonian except for the Coulomb part).
The superallowed Fermi transitions were assumed to be concentrated in the IAS of the parent state. The Fermi matrix element depends only on the nuclear isospin, T, and it's projection $T_{z}=(Z-N)/2$ for the parent and daughter nucleus. The energy of the IAS is calculated according to the prescription given in \cite[pages 111--112]{Gro90}
whereas the reduced transition probability is given by
\begin{equation}
B(F)=T(T+1)-T_{zi}T_{zf},
\end{equation}
where $T_{zi}$ and $T_{zf}$ are the third components of the isospin of initial and final analogue states.
\section{INCORPORATION OF EXPERIMENTAL DATA}
Table~(1) shows the references from which the latest experimental excitation energies and log $\mathit{ft}$ values are taken (NP $\rightarrow$ Nuclear Physics and NDS $\rightarrow$ Nuclear Data Sheets). For those nuclei where more than one references were given, the latest data was taken into account.

The calculated excitation energies were replaced with the measured ones when they were within 0.5 MeV of each other. The log $\mathit{ft}$ value of this energy level was also then replaced by the measured one. Very low lying states were inserted in the calculations together with their log $\mathit{ft}$ values if the theory was missing them. Inverse and mirror transitions were also taken into consideration. If there appeared a level in experimental compilations without definite spin and parity assignment, no theoretical levels were replaced with experimental levels beyond this excitation energy nor were they inserted in the calculations.

The Q-value of each transition as well as $S_{p}$ and $S_{n}$ of each nucleus were derived using the experimental mass compilation of Audi et al. \cite{Aud95}. For nuclei where \cite{Aud95} failed to give mass defects M\"oller and Nix \cite{Moe81} and Myers and Swiatecki \cite{Mye96} were used to derive the corresponding energies necessary for the calculations. The two different theoretical mass formulae used reflect the sensitivity of stellar rates on input masses. Work is in progress to compare the results of using these different mass models on the rate calculations for the case of neutron-rich and proton-rich nuclei. In \cite{Nab99t} the stellar rates of neutron-rich nuclei using the mass model of M\"oller and Nix \cite{Moe81} are presented. Stellar rates using mass formula of Myers and Swiatecki \cite{Mye96}, for the case of neutron-rich and proton-rich nuclei, are given in this paper on an abbreviated scale of density. The complete rate table on magnetic tapes can be requested from the authors.

\section{RESULTS AND DISCUSSION}
For nuclei in the mass region A = 40 to 60, some work has been done previously regarding the calculation of stellar weak rates. The calculations include the  work of FFN (which to-date is used in many simulations for example the KEPLER stellar evolution code \cite{Wea78}) and the recently reported shell model diagonalization approach calculations \cite{Lan98,Lan98a,Mar98}. The shell model diagonalization approach is used to calculate the stellar electron capture  and beta decay rates of a few nuclei. Our calculations are compared with the FFN and the shell model calculations (reported at the time of writing this paper) \cite{Lan98,Lan98a,Mar98}.
\subsection{Comparison with the FFN calculation}
Ten different cases of electron capture  and beta-decay nuclei were considered for comparison with earlier calculations of FFN. The idea was to chose the most important weak interaction nuclei which play a key role in the evolution process of the cores. For these the nuclei in Table~25 and Table~26 of \cite{Auf94} were considered. In these tables the authors have presented a list of 90 electron capture  nuclei and 71 beta-decay nuclei averaged throughout the stellar trajectory for $0.40 \leq Y_{e} \leq 0.5$. These were the nuclei which, according to the calculations of the authors, affected $\dot{Y_{e}}$ (rate of change of $Y_{e}$) the most in the presupernova evolution. These lists also contain nuclei with A $>$ 60. The top 10 nuclei with masses 40 to 60 in both lists were chosen for comparison with this work.

The QRPA rates are generally suppressed as compared to the rates of FFN. The QRPA rates are suppressed up to more than five orders of magnitude. There are two main reasons for this suppression. FFN does not take into effect the process of particle emission from excited states.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{60coec.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize Comparison of the QRPA  electron capture (EC) rates (this work) with those of FFN. Solid lines represent the QRPA electron capture  rates calculated in this work, while broken lines represent the electron capture  rates of FFN. Log(T) is the log of temperature in units of Kelvin and log(EC) represents the log of electron capture rates in units of sec$^{-1}$. The upper graph is plotted at $\rho Y_{e}=$ 10$^{3}$ g cm$^{-3}$ and the lower graph is plotted at $\rho Y_{e}=$ 10$^{11}$ g cm$^{-3}$.}
\end{figure}
 The method for truncation of a state-density integral for calculation of
the nuclear partition function was criticized by Tubbs and Koonin \cite{Tub79}. The
single particle level density, $g(\epsilon)$, which is used for the calculation of the
partition function, was discussed in detail in \cite{Shl96}. In \cite{Shl96} it is argued that the no-truncation method, prescribed by \cite{Tub79}, is associated with the presence of very high angular momentum states. However in the Gamow-Teller  transitions, considered in our work, only low angular momentum states are considered. Thielemann and collaborators \cite{Thi98} also accept the consideration of energies close to the particle separation thresholds for the calculation of level densities for astrophysical purposes. A choice of particle threshold decay as the cutoff parameter for parent excitation energy seems to be a reasonable choice as also discussed earlier by Fowler, Engelbrecht and Woosley \cite{Fow78}. This work takes into consideration for the first time the particle emission processes, which constrain the parent excitation energies.  At any $E_{i}$, higher than the minimum of $S_{p}$ and $S_{n}$ (after accounting for the effective Coulomb barrier which prevents a proton from being promptly emitted, and, the uncertainty in calculation of energy levels), the nucleus will emit protons or neutrons (as the case may be) instead of continuing to undergo capture process. The $E_{i}$ considered in this work, as a result, are considerably lower as compared to those of FFN. Secondly for odd-A nuclei FFN places the centroid of the Gamow-Teller  strength at too low excitation energies (discussed also in \cite{Lan98,Lan98a,Mar98}). Their rates are thus somewhat overestimated.
The top 10 electron capture  nuclei are, in order of decreasing importance, $^{60}$Co, $^{55}$Co, $^{56}$Ni, $^{57}$Co, $^{55}$Fe, $^{59}$Co, $^{54}$Mn, $^{53}$Mn, $^{54}$Fe and $^{56}$Fe in the mass range 40 to 60 \cite{Auf94}.

Fig.~1 shows the comparison of the QRPA electron capture  rates with those of FFN for the most important nucleus $^{60}$Co. The QRPA rate is suppressed by five orders of magnitude at log(T)  = 9 and $\rho Y_{e}$  = 10$^{3}$ g cm$^{-3}$. The suppression factor decreases as density increases to $\rho Y_{e}$  = 10$^{11}$ g cm$^{-3}$. FFN adopts the so-called Brink's hypothesis in their calculations. This hypothesis assumes that the Gamow-Teller  strength distribution on excited states is the same as for the ground state, only shifted by the excitation energy of the state. This hypothesis is used because no experimental data is available for the Gamow-Teller  strength distributions from excited states and FFN did not employ any microscopic theory to calculate the Gamow-Teller  strength functions from excited states.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{56feec.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize Same as Fig.~1 but for electron capture  by $^{56}$Fe.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{54mnec.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize Same as Fig.~1 but for electron capture  by $^{54}$Mn.}
\end{figure}
 The pn-QRPA theory calculates stronger Gamow-Teller  strength distribution from these excited states compared to those assumed using Brink's hypothesis and hence the suppression is reduced to a factor three at log(T) ~=~9 and $\rho Y_{e}$  = 10$^{11}$ g cm$^{-3}$. The FFN rates increase faster at higher temperatures as their parent excitation energies are not constrained, as mentioned above.

Fig.~2, Fig.~3 and Fig.~4 show the comparison of electron capture  rates for $^{56}$Fe, $^{54}$Mn and $^{54}$Fe, respectively.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{54feec.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize Same as Fig.~1 but for electron capture  by $^{54}$Fe.}
\end{figure}
These figures follow similar trends and one sees that the suppression factor at log(T)  = 9 and $\rho Y_{e}$  = 10$^{3}$ g~cm$^{-3}$ keeps on decreasing from 2 orders of magnitude ($^{56}$Fe) to about a factor of three ($^{54}$Fe). The enhancement in the QRPA rates continues and for $^{57}$Co and $^{56}$Ni the agreement seems to be very good at log(T)  = 9 and $\rho Y_{e}$  = 10$^{3}$ g~cm$^{-3}$ (Fig.~5 and Fig.~6, respectively). The trends are similar at  $\rho Y_{e}$  = 10$^{11}$ g~cm$^{-3}$.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{57coec.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize Same as Fig.~1 but for electron capture  by $^{57}$Co.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{56niec.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize Same as Fig.~1 but for electron capture  by $^{56}$Ni.}
\end{figure}
This trend continues and one sees that for $^{59}$Co the QRPA electron capture  rate is enhanced by a factor of 5 in comparison to FFN at the lower density (Fig.~7). Clearly here the pn-QRPA theory calculates strong Gamow-Teller  distribution strength function from parent excited states. However one notes that at higher temperatures, log(T)  $>$ 9.5, the FFN rates are again enhanced in comparison to our rates. At high temperatures the probability of occupation of parent excited states ($E_{i}$) increases [Eq.~(14)] and, since FFN considers higher parent excited states, their rates are enhanced at higher temperatures.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{59coec.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize Same as Fig.~1 but for electron capture  by $^{59}$Co.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{55feec.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize Same as Fig.~1 but for electron capture  by $^{55}$Fe.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{53mnec.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize Same as Fig.~1 but for electron capture  by $^{53}$Mn.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{55coec.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize Same as Fig.~1 but for electron capture  by $^{55}$Co.}
\end{figure}

Fig.~8, Fig.~9 and Fig.~10 show a comparison of electron capture  rates for the nuclei $^{55}$Fe, $^{53}$Mn and $^{55}$Co, respectively. The QRPA rates keep on enhancing at $\rho Y_{e}=$ 10$^{3}$ g cm$^{-3}$ and low temperatures. In Fig.~10 the QRPA rates are enhanced by up to an order of magnitude in comparison to the FFN rates. At high temperatures the effect of high $E_{i}$ considered by FFN dominates and hence FFN electron capture  rates exceed the QRPA rates. Comparison of the electron capture  rates at $\rho~Y_{e}~=$~10$^{11}$~g~cm$^{-3}$ remains more or less the same throughout the considered cases.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{58cobd.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize Comparison of the QRPA  beta-decay (BD) rates (this work) with those of FFN. Solid lines represent the QRPA beta-decay rates calculated in this work while broken lines represent the decay rates of FFN. Log(T) is the log of temperature in units of Kelvin and log(BD) represents the log of $\beta^{-}$  rates in units of sec$^{-1}$. The upper graph is plotted at $\rho Y_{e}=$ 10$^{3}$ g cm$^{-3}$ and the lower graph is plotted at $\rho Y_{e}=$ 10$^{11}$ g cm$^{-3}$.}
\end{figure}

The top 10 beta-decay nuclei are, according to \cite{Auf94}, in order of decreasing importance, $^{56}$Co, $^{59}$Fe, $^{54}$Mn, $^{56}$Mn, $^{57}$Fe, $^{57}$Mn, $^{60}$Co, $^{54}$Cr, $^{58}$Co and $^{60}$Fe in the mass region 40 to 60. It is very interesting to note that the pn-QRPA theory reports vanishing decay rates for $^{56}$Co. This is in sharp contrast to Table 26 of \cite{Auf94} where $^{56}$Co is ranked as the most important beta-decay nuclei causing the largest change in $Y_{e}$. The Q-value for this decay is -2.136~MeV and $S_{p}$ is 5.849~MeV. One of the selection rules for the quasi-particle transition to occur in the pn-QRPA theory is that the transforming quasi-particles should belong to the same major oscillator shell, i.e the neutron which changes to a proton should belong to the same major oscillator shell (and same for proton). Even though the decay channel opens below the particle decay channel no decay rates are obtained for $^{56}$Co. In this case the above mentioned selection rule is satisfied only for high-lying major shells but then the parent excited state (which is the sum of the energies of constituent quasi-particles) is above the particle decay energy. $^{56}$Co can decay however to $^{56}$Ni via positron capture process  at higher temperatures. So the top 10 beta-decay nuclei taken for comparison with FFN are, in order of decreasing importance, $^{59}$Fe, $^{54}$Mn, $^{56}$Mn, $^{57}$Fe, $^{57}$Mn, $^{60}$Co, $^{54}$Cr, $^{58}$Co, $^{60}$Fe and $^{57}$Cr.

The beta decay rates calculated in this work are also, in general, suppressed in comparison to the calculations of FFN by up to 13 orders of magnitude and more.

Fig.~11 depicts the comparison of the QRPA beta-decay rates (this work) and those of FFN for the odd-odd cobalt isotope, $^{58}$Co. One notes that the QRPA rates are very much suppressed in comparison to FFN rates. In the figure the QRPA rate is suppressed by some 13 orders of magnitude at log(T)  = 9 and $\rho Y_{e}$  = 10$^{3}$ g cm$^{-3}$. At log(T) ~=~9 and $\rho Y_{e}$  = 10$^{11}$ g cm$^{-3}$, the QRPA rate is vanishing. Beta-decay rates are sensitive functions of $(E_{i}-E_{j})$. Even for positive Q-values where measured Gamow-Teller  transitions might also exist, the phase space $(=Q+E_{i}-E_{j})$ at high temperatures and densities might be zero if $E_{i}$ is considerably less than $E_{j}$. In this work $E_{i}$'s are constrained due to the particle emission process and no $E_{i}$ above particle decay channel (after accounting for the effective Coulomb barrier and the uncertainty in calculation of energy levels) are considered. Especially at high densities, where the chemical potential of electrons increases outside the nuclei (thus impeding the decay process), this phenomenon is very obvious. By a mere increment of 500~ keV in $E_{i}$ many of the QRPA rates at high densities can increase by some tens of orders of magnitude. At $\rho Y_{e}$  = 10$^{11}$ g cm$^{-3}$, the phase space for calculation of beta-decay rates is negative resulting in vanishing decay rates till log(T)  = 9. Only at higher temperatures (log(T)  $>$ 9) the phase space becomes positive and then the QRPA rates tend to FFN rates.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{54mnbd.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize Same as Fig.~11 but for beta decay by $^{54}$Mn.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{54crbd.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize Same as Fig.~11 but for beta decay by $^{54}$Cr.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{60febd.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize Same as Fig.~11 but for beta decay by $^{60}$Fe.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{59febd.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize Same as Fig.~11 but for beta decay by $^{59}$Fe.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{56mnbd.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize Same as Fig.~11 but for beta decay by $^{56}$Mn.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{57febd.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize Same as Fig.~11 but for beta decay by $^{57}$Fe.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{60cobd.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize Same as Fig.~11 but for beta decay by $^{60}$Co.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{57crbd.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize Same as Fig.~11 but for beta decay by $^{57}$Cr.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{57mnbd.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize Same as Fig.~11 but for beta decay by $^{57}$Mn.}
\end{figure}

Fig.~12, Fig.~13 and Fig.~14 depict the comparison of beta-decay rates for $^{54}$Mn, $^{54}$Cr and $^{60}$Fe, respectively. At lower density of  $\rho Y_{e} =$ 10$^{3}$ g~cm$^{-3}$, one notes that at log(T)  = 9 the suppression rate is reducing gradually. This trend continues and finally in Fig.~19 (representing  $^{57}$Cr) the QRPA rate is suppressed by a mere factor of 3 at $\rho Y_{e} =$ 10$^{3}$ g~cm$^{-3}$, log(T)  = 9. Fig.~20 (representing  $^{57}$Mn) then depicts a situation where the QRPA rates are enhanced in comparison with FFN rates at $\rho Y_{e} =$ 10$^{3}$ g~cm$^{-3}$ till log(T)  = 9.5. At higher temperatures FFN rates increase due to the phenomenon of considering higher $E_{i}$'s in their calculation. In all these figures one sees that the situation remains more or less the same at  $\rho Y_{e} =$ 10$^{11}$ g~cm$^{-3}$.

The comparison of positron capture and positron decay rates is similar to the preceding comparison of electron capture and beta decay rates, respectively. In our table of rates, -~100 means that the rate is smaller than $10^{-100}$. It should be pointed out that the decay rates are sensitive functions of the difference of parent and daughter energies ($E_{i}-E_{j}$) and just by a mere addition of around 0.5 MeV, many of our -100 decay rates could rise to larger numbers. For all cases where experimental data were available our results are in very good agreement with the results of FFN. We differ when no experimental data are present. In all such cases FFN uses either some parameterization or some approximation for estimation of nuclear matrix elements whereas the nuclear matrix elements are calculated in the pn-QRPA theory in our compilation.

\subsection{Comparison with the shell model diagonalization approach calculation}
The shell model calculations describe well the nuclear structure and, especially for the light nuclei (eg., \cite{Mut91}), agree very well with the experiment. The dimension of the many-body space, however, grows exponentially as the number of particle increases, making it difficult to apply shell model techniques to heavier nuclei. A comparison of half-lives calculated by the pn-QRPA model for light nuclei with shell model calculations can be seen in Figure~8 of \cite{Sta90}. Recently the shell model diagonalization approach (SMDA) has been used to calculate $\beta$  decay and electron capture  rates of some $fp$-shell nuclei \cite{Lan98,Lan98a,Mar98}. For the case of odd-odd nuclei, no experimental information exists about the Gamow-Teller  strength distribution. Comparison with the QRPA electron capture rates for odd-odd nuclei suggests that SMDA rates are suppressed. The density of states in odd-odd nuclei is quite high and doing calculations for a few $E_{i}$ is undesirable. Further the shell model gives very weak transition strengths to the low-lying states in the daughter nucleus. Due to the model used, they also had to consider very few $E_{i}$ in calculation of capture rates on odd-A and even-even nuclei (for $^{56}$Ni, they considered just the ground-state transition). Consequently their rates are generally suppressed in comparison to the earlier calculations of FFN and \cite{Auf94}. Similar conclusions can be drawn for the SMDA calculation of $\beta$-decay rates. Here they considered $E_{i}$ usually up to 1~MeV and ``back resonances'' (the Gamow-Teller  back resonances are states reached by the strong Gamow-Teller  transitions in the electron capture process built on the ground and excited states, see \cite{Ful80,Auf94}. These states were discussed earlier by Klapdor \cite{Kla76}) from daughter states of energy below 1~MeV. Back resonances from daughter states higher than 1~MeV were not considered. The calculations were done  for the temperature range, T9 = 1--10 (T9 is temperature in units of 10$^{9}$ K) and density range, $\rho_{7}$ = 10--1000 ($\rho_{7}$ is the density in units of 10$^{7}$ g cm$^{-3}$). Shell model calculations of electron capture  rates were reported in \cite{Lan98,Lan98a}. A comparison of their electron capture  rates with the QRPA electron capture  rates is presented below (also see \cite{Nab99z}).
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{55co1.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize Comparison of the QRPA  electron capture  (EC) rates (this work) with those of \cite{Lan98}. Solid lines represent the QRPA electron capture  rates of this work while broken lines represent the electron capture  rates of \cite{Lan98}. Log(T) is the log of temperature in units of Kelvin and log(EC) represents the log of electron capture  rates in units of sec$^{-1}$. Aden represents the log of density in units of g cm$^{-3}$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{55co2.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize Same as Fig.~21 but for electron capture  by $^{55}$Co. }
\end{figure}

The authors in \cite{Lan98} calculated the Gamow-Teller  strength distributions for the ground state and first excited states in $^{55}$Co and $^{56}$Ni. The authors quote a noticeably smaller rate than the usually adopted rate for $^{55}$Co. The authors claim that in odd-A nuclei the Gamow-Teller  strength resides at higher energies than assumed by FFN. As seen in Fig.~21 and Fig.~22, the shell model rates are suppressed compared to the pn-QRPA rates  by an average factor of 65 at log(T)  = 1. At log(T)  = 10 the rates are suppressed on the average by a factor of 3. Due to the model limitations, the authors restricted themselves to parent excited states of a few MeV. They, for example, went to an $E_{i}$ of 2.565 MeV in the case of $^{55}$Co whereas the QRPA rates considered $E_{i}$ as high as 6.064 MeV (after which protons should be emitted from $^{55}$Co).
\begin{figure}[h!]
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{56ni1.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize Same as Fig.~21 but for electron capture  by $^{56}$Ni. }
\end{figure}

The story is somewhat different for $^{56}$Ni. Fig.~23 depicts the comparison. Till log(T)  = 3 the shell model rates are suppressed. At log(T)  = 1, eg., shell model rates are suppressed on the average by a factor of 3. The comparison at log(T)  =3 is perfect and then shell model rates start increasing. As the authors argue, for the even-even case the centroid of the Gamow-Teller  strength is placed at too high excitation energies in FFN and \cite{Auf94}. Placement of the Gamow-Teller  strength at a lower excitation energy can explain the sudden increase in their calculated rates in comparison with the QRPA rates with increasing temperature.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{cooo.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize  Same as Fig.~21 but for electron capture  by odd-odd cobalt isotopes. }
\end{figure}

Fig.~24 shows the comparison of the electron capture  rates of the odd-odd cobalt isotopes, $^{56,58,60}$Co.
In the first two graphs the QRPA rates are enhanced because all possible excited states in parent nuclei were considered for calculation in this work which were below the particle decay channel, whereas in the work of \cite{Lan98a}, the first few excited states were considered. In the last case at higher temperatures (log(T)  $>$ 3) our rates surpass the shell model rates. The probability of occupation of excited states increases with increasing temperature [Eq.~(15)]. Considerable enhancements to the rates come from transitions from these excited states.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{mnoo.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize  Same as Fig.~21 but for electron capture  by odd-odd manganese isotopes. }
\end{figure}

Fig.~25 which shows a comparison of electron capture  rates for odd-odd manganese isotopes is similar in explanation to Fig.~24. No experimental information exists for the Gamow-Teller  strength for odd-odd nuclei and one has to rely totally on the theoretical model, and the truncations might cause the suppression in their rates. Further for the case of odd-odd nuclei, the shell model gives very weak transition strength to the low lying states in the daughter nucleus \cite{Lan98a}.

The calculation of $\beta$  decay rates using SMDA was discussed in \cite{Mar98}. Here they tried to enhance their rates by using the back resonances from daughter states below 1~MeV energy. However no estimate of the energy was given to which the back resonances reach. Figures~26--28 depict a comparison of the $\beta$  decay rates.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{M98ee.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize Comparison of the QRPA beta-decay (BD) rates (this work) with those of \cite{Mar98}. Solid lines represent the QRPA $\beta$  rates of this work while broken lines represent the $\beta$  rates of \cite{Mar98}. Log(T) is the log of temperature in units of Kelvin and log(BD) represents the log of $\beta$  rates in units of sec$^{-1}$. Aden represents the log of density in units of g cm$^{-3}$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{M98oe.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize Same as Fig.~26 but for beta decay by odd-A nuclei. }
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\epsfxsize=7.8cm
\epsffile{M98oo.eps}
\caption{ \footnotesize Same as Fig.~26 but for beta decay by odd-odd nuclei. }
\end{figure}
As can be seen (Fig.~26) the QRPA rates are suppressed by about one order of magnitude. The same trend is seen in the comparison of odd-A nuclei (Fig.~27). The results support the statement in \cite{Mar98} that experimental data and shell model studies tend to decrease the contribution of the back-resonance to the $\beta$  decay rates for even-even and odd-A nuclei.
 One should note that at high densities and temperatures the QRPA rates surpass the SMDA rates. This shows the necessity of considering transitions from high-lying states at high temperatures and densities. The QRPA approach, used in the present calculation, allowed the use of a very large model space considering excitation of particles up to 7 major shells (SMDA, in comparison, considered 1 major shell).

The difference in comparison is greatest for the case of odd-odd nuclei. Here the QRPA rates are suppressed by more than 7 orders of magnitude (Fig.~28). Our results do not support the conclusions drawn in \cite{Mar98} that the $\beta$  decay rate of odd-odd nuclei should be large compared to previous compilations. Table~(2) and Table~(3) show the comparison of the QRPA rates, SMDA rates, FFN rates and the calculation of \cite{Auf94} for electron capture  and $\beta$  decay rates, respectively. Table~(2) and Table~(3) are similar to Table~I and Table~II of \cite{Mar98}.

The probabilities of $\beta$-delayed proton (neutron) $P^{p(n)}$ emission at temperature 10$^{7}$ K and density $\rho Y_{e}=$ 10 g cm$^{-3}$ can be compared to terrestrial probabilities. We searched the literature for measured probabilities to check the reliability of the present calculation. Unfortunately measured probabilities are not always given; often it is only stated that particle emission processes are observed. We found that agreement with available experiment is satisfactory and that in all instances of reported particle emission our calculation also gives finite probabilities $P^{p(n)}$. (See \cite{Hir92} for a discussion of comparison of such probabilities with experimental observations.)

\section{RELIABILITY OF THE pn-QRPA CALCULATIONS}
It should be pointed out that the uncertainty in calculations of stellar weak rates can be considerably large. Lack of experimental data deteriorates the situation. The ``electron capture  direction'' can be explored experimentally by (n,p) experiments, whereas the ``$\beta^{-}$  decay'' side can be explored by the (p,n) reactions. There are a handful of other experiments which have been used by many theorists to shape the centroid and width of the Gamow-Teller  strength. However these experimental data are not enough to completely explore the domain of nuclei which are interesting from astrophysical viewpoint. There exists, eg., no experimental information about the Gamow-Teller  strength distribution for odd-odd nuclei in the $fp$-shell. Further there is almost no experimental data concerning the Gamow-Teller  strength distribution from parent excited states. In the stellar environment, at high temperatures and densities, there is a finite probability of occupation of parent excited states and transitions from these excited states are sometimes many orders of magnitude higher than transitions from the ground state. For most of the calculations then one uses the so-called Brink hypothesis which assumes that the Gamow-Teller  strength distribution on excited states is the same as for the ground state, only shifted by the excitation energy of the state. This hypothesis is a very crude approximation and sometimes can lead to misleading results.

The weak interaction  rates are calculated using
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{ij}=\frac{ln2}{D}f_{ij}B_{ij}.
\end{equation}
Here $i$ represents the parent excites states and $j$ the daughter's. The first factor is a constant and the second are phase space integrals which can be calculated relatively accurate. In this work the weak interaction   rates are calculated using a microscopic theory. This theory (pn-QRPA) constructs parent and daughter excited states and also calculates the Gamow-Teller  strength distribution among these states. In other words the Brink hypothesis is not employed in this calculation. However there are still uncertainties present. There are, eg., uncertainties present in the calculation of excited states. Mass defects are used as input parameters to calculate the Q-value of the reaction and $S_{n}$ and $S_{p}$ of parent and daughter nuclei. For certain neutron-rich and proton-rich nuclei, no experimental masses are present and one has to rely on theoretical mass models. The uncertainty in the Q-values must be viewed as the limiting factor for the prediction of weak interaction  rates of unknown isotopes (see \cite{Hir93}). Therefore this work incorporates the latest experimental compilations of excitation energies and $logft$ values wherever present (see Table~(1) and Section~3), to ensure the most reliable calculation of stellar weak rates allowed by the pn-QRPA theory.

There, however, exists a check for the calculations of these weak interaction  rates. At the lowest temperature considered in this work (T9 = 0.01), excited parent states are not appreciably populated, while at the lowest density considered in this work ($\rho Y_{e}$ = 10 gcm$^{-3}$), the continuum electron density is quite low, and except for electron capture , the stellar rates should be close to the terrestrial values. The exception arises because only continuum electron capture  and no bound states capture is calculated. There is a reasonable amount of data of measured half-lives available as compared to the measured Gamow-Teller  strength functions. The idea was to check the calculation of the half-lives using the pn-QRPA theory with the measured ones and to also check the predictive power of the pn-QRPA theory (regarding the half-lives) with the recent measurements. We present such comparisons for thousands of nuclei in this section to give a feeling how the pn-QRPA theory can perform in the domain of high temperature and density for the calculation of stellar rates of 719 nuclei considered in this project. We also present the comparison of our calculated total Gamow-Teller  strength function with those measured from $(n,p)$ and $(p,n)$ reactions at the end of this section.

A comparison between the terrestrial half-lives (calculated by \cite{Sta90a,Hir93}) and the stellar half-lives at temperature (T9 = 0.01) and density ($\rho Y_{e}$ = 10 gcm$^{-3}$) is given in Table~(4) and Table~(5). The terrestrial half-lives are calculated using the mass formula of \cite{Moe81} whereas the stellar rates are presented using the mass formulae of \cite{Moe81,Mye96}. The slight differences are attributed to the fact that in the present calculation a model space of 7 major shells was considered for all nuclei, while the calculation for terrestrial half-lives \cite{Sta90a,Hir93} considered sometimes also smaller model spaces.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\centerline{\epsfig{file=fig4a.ps,height=3.2in,width=3.0in}}
\caption{Predictive power of the pn-QRPA theory. Here the ratios of the calculated $\beta^{+}/(EC)$ decay half-lives to measured ones are shown as a function of mass numbers. The measured values were obtained \textit{after} the calculations \cite{Hir93}.}
\end{figure}

The terrestrial half-lives are compared to the experimental data in Table~(6) and Table~(7).
In Tables~(6) and (7), $N$ denotes the number of experimentally known half-lives shorter than the limit in the second line, $n$ is the number (and percentage) of isotopes reproduced under the condition given in the first column, and $\bar{x}$ is the average deviation defined by
\begin{equation}
\bar{x} = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}x_{i},
\end{equation}
where\\
\hspace*{1.5cm}$x_{i}=T^{cal}_{1/2}/T^{exp}_{1/2}$ \hspace*{0.2cm} if \hspace*{0.2cm} $T^{cal}_{1/2} \geq T^{exp}_{1/2}$\\
\vspace*{0.1cm}\\
\hspace*{1.5cm}$x_{i}=T^{exp}_{1/2}/T^{cal}_{1/2}$ \hspace*{0.2cm} if \hspace*{0.2cm} $T^{cal}_{1/2} < T^{exp}_{1/2}$.\\
\vspace*{0.2cm}\\
For example, the pn-QRPA reproduces 93$\%$ (75$\%$) of all experimentally known half-lives shorter than 1 minute for $\beta^{+}$/EC within a factor of 10 (2) with an average deviation of $\bar{x}$ = 1.72 (1.31) and 96$\%$ (82$\%$) of all known $\beta^{-}$-decaying nuclei with half-lives less than a minute are reproduced within a factor of 10 (2) with an average deviation of $\bar{x}$ = 1.67 (1.36).

\begin{figure}[h!]
\centerline{\epsfig{file=fig1a.ps,height=3.2in,width=3.0in}}
\caption{Predictive power of the pn-QRPA theory for proton-rich nuclei. Here the ratios of the calculated $\beta^{+}/(EC)$ decay half-lives (using mass formula of \cite{Hil76}) to measured ones are shown as a function of mass numbers. The measured values were obtained \textit{after} the calculations \cite{Hir93}.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\epsfig{file=fig2a.ps,height=3.2in,width=3.0in}}
\caption{Same as Fig.~30 but here the mass formula of \cite{Gro76} was used for the calculated half-lives.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centerline{\epsfig{file=fig3a.ps,height=3.2in,width=3.0in}}
\caption{Same as Fig.~30 but here the mass formula of \cite{Moe81} was used for the calculated half-lives.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centerline{\epsfig{file=fig7a.ps,height=3.2in,width=3.0in}}
\caption{Same as Fig.~30 but depicting the predictive power of the pn-QRPA theory for neutron-rich nuclei ($\beta^{-}$  decays).}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centerline{\epsfig{file=fig6a.ps,height=3.2in,width=3.0in}}
\caption{Same as Fig.~33 but here the mass formula of \cite{Gro76} was used for the calculated half-lives.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centerline{\epsfig{file=fig5a.ps,height=3.2in,width=3.0in}}
\caption{Same as Fig.~33 but here the mass formula of \cite{Moe81} was used for the calculated half-lives.}
\end{figure}

It can be seen from the tables that the model works better with increasing neutron excess (corresponding to shorter half-lives), that is, with increasing distance from the line of stability. This is in agreement with the expectation, since forbidden transitions are neglected in the calculation. This is also a promising feature with respect to the prediction of unknown half-lives, implying that the predictions are made on the basis of a realistic physical model (see for example, Table~B and Fig.~6 of \cite{Sta90a}).

The \textit{predictive} power of the pn-QRPA model is shown in Table~(8). Here a comparison of the measured $\beta^{+}/(EC)$ decay half-lives with those calculated in the pn-QRPA theory is given. The Q-values were taken from \cite{Wap88}. All the calculated rates shown were computed \cite{Hir93} \textit{before} their measurements given in the third column. Fig.~29 shows that most of the calculated half-lives are in very good agreement with the measured ones.

Also the $\beta^{+}/(EC)$ decay half-lives of many proton-rich nuclei were measured after they were calculated in \cite{Hir93}. Since experimental masses were not available for these proton-rich nuclei at that time, Hirsch et al. calculated these half-lives using three different mass formulae from \cite{Hil76}, \cite{Gro76} and \cite{Moe81}. Table~(9) shows the comparison of these calculated half-lives with the measured ones.
Figures~30-32 show the comparison with these later measured experimental data for the calculations of half-lives using the mass formulae of \cite{Hil76}, \cite{Gro76} and \cite{Moe81}, respectively. Again the comparison is very satisfactory.

A search of new literature was also made for the measurement of neutron-rich nuclei which were not measured at the time of their calculations in \cite{Sta90a} to check the predictive power of the pn-QRPA for neutron-rich nuclei. Table~(10) shows the measured values and those calculated earlier by \cite{Sta90a} using mass formulae of \cite{Hil76}, \cite{Gro76} and \cite{Moe81}
whereas the comparison is depicted graphically in Figures~33-35. Once again the comparison is very satisfactory showing the good predictive powers of the pn-QRPA theory and putting weight into the reliability of our calculations.

Finally we also present the comparison of our calculated Gamow-Teller  strength function with those measured. As stated earlier, not much experimental measurements of the Gamow-Teller  strength function are present. $(p,n)$ and $(n,p)$ reactions can be used to measure the total $B(GT)^{-}$ and $B(GT)^{+}$ strength function, respectively. One should be cautioned about the uncertainties present in these sorts of measurements and various energy cutoffs are used as a reasonable upper limit on the energy at which Gamow-Teller  strength could be reliably related to measured $\Delta L = 0$ cross sections. Table~11 and Table~12 show the comparison of our calculated Gamow-Teller  strength function with the measured ones for $(n,p)$ and $(p,n)$ reactions, respectively. In the comparisons we used the same energy cutoff as used in the respective experiments. We also include in these tables the results of the large-scale shell model calculations of the total Gamow-Teller  strength function \cite{Cau99} where ever reported. One notes that our comparison with measured strength for $^{60,62,64}$Ni isotopes is not in good agreement. Mass formula \cite{Moe81} predicts these proton-magic isotopes to be essentially spherical. However this is not the case when one measures the electric quadrupole transition probabilities (see discussions in \cite{Hir93}). This might can cause the enhancement in our calculated strength function (around a factor of 2). Low-lying transitions can contribute considerably in stellar rates due to phase space enhancements. We should like to point here again that in this compilation of stellar rates, experimental informations, derived from measured half-lives, were used, when ever available, and inserted if the pn-QRPA theory was missing them (see Section~3).
\section{SUMMARY}
In a series of paper beginning with a paper considering the $sd$-shell nuclei \cite{Nab99}, we present extensive microscopic calculations of weak interaction  rates in stellar environment and the first ever one for the $fp$-shell nuclei. The calculations are done for 619 nuclei in the mass range A = 40 to 100. In this first paper of the $fp$-shell series we present the results for nuclei in the mass range A = 40 to 60.
The pn-QRPA theory which gives good results for the terrestrial rates also promises to be a good candidate for calculations of stellar rates.

We compared our results to the FFN calculations and to the recently reported shell model calculations.  We considered for the first time the effect of particle emission processes from parent excited states in these types of calculations. This leads to a general suppression of decay rates, and electron capture rates at high temperatures and densities, in comparison to the FFN rates. Our calculations are in very good agreement with the FFN calculations wherever experimental data are available.

These calculations, including weak interaction  rates of many important neutron-rich nuclei, are of prime importance for stellar and galactic evolution processes and nucleosynthesis calculations.

In the next papers of this series we plan to present our results for A = 61 to 80 and A = 81 to 100, respectively.


\section{INTRODUCTION}

Baldwin (1977) showed that the equivalent width~ of the CIV emission-line~ decreases with increasing
continuum luminosity, a correlation known as the 'Baldwin effect'.
This result has been confirmed for a large set of AGN and a wide luminosity
range (Kinney, Rivolo and Koratkar 1990).
A similar
relation has been found also for other broad emission-line~ s.
Several models have been proposed to explain the Baldwin effect~ ,
such as a decrease of the ionization parameter or of the covering factor
with luminosity (Wu, Boggess and Gull 1983) or the accretion~disk~ inclination
(Netzer 1985). Nevertheless, the origin of the Baldwin effect~
is still not understood (for a recent review see Shields and Osmer, 1998).

The widest accepted explanation for the energy source of quasars and Active
Galactic Nuclei (AGN) is the accretion of matter onto a supermassive black hole~
in the center of the host galaxy.
The central mass implied by a variety of observations
(see Wandel 1998) is of the order of $10^6-10^9 M_{\odot} $.
The angular momentum directs
the accreted material to form a disk around the central black hole~~
and the properties of such an accretion disk may be calculated under a few
basic assumptions (e.g. Sakura and Sunyaev, 1973). In particular one can
calculate the luminosity and spectral distribution of the radiation from
the accretion disk, given the black hole~~ mass and the accretion~rate .

The thermal emission from the accretion~disk~ around a central mass of the size
implied for AGN peaks in the UV, and ionizes the broad emission-line~ ~gas.
The precise shape of the continuum spectrum from an accretion~disk~
depends (among other factors) on the central mass.
Since the continuum radiation ionizes the line-emitting material and
drives the broad AGN emission-lines~, the emission-line~ strengths depend on the
continuum spectrum and therefore on the central mass.

 In particular the spectral shape of the ionizing
radiation can determine the equivalent width~   (the ratio between
the energy flux in the line to the continuum energy flux at the line
frequency) of the emission-line~ s.

We suggest that the Baldwin effect~ is a result of the spectral dependence
 of the line-driving ionizing continuum on the black hole~ mass.
In the next section we present constraints on the black hole~~ mass;
section 3 describes the temperature and spectrum of the basic thin accretion~disk~ model.
Section 4 gives an empirical relation between the model parameters
($M$ and $\dot M$) and the {\it observed} spectrum and luminosity,
while section 5 relates these parameters
to the {\it calculated} spectrum for various accretion~disk~ models.
In section 6 we derive the dependence of the line luminosity on the physical
conditions in the gas.
In section in 7 we compose all these elements to produce a relation
between the equivalent width~ and the mass, and in section 8 we show that the model
predictions are indeed consistent with the observed Baldwin effect~ for CIV and
other lines.

\section{Basic relations for accreting Black Holes}

Any compact, accretion powered radiation source must obey several fundamental
relations:

\smallskip
{\bf a. The Eddington~ limit:}
in order to maintain steady spherical accretion the luminosity must be less than
the Eddington~ luminosity,
$$L<L_{Edd}=4\pi GMm_pc/\sigma_T=1.3 10^{46}M_8 ~{\rm erg/sec}
$$
or
\begin{equation}
\label {equ:med}
 M_8=0.7 \eta^{-1} L_{46}
\end{equation}

where $ M_8=M/10^8M_{\odot}$, $\eta=L/L_{Edd}$ is the Eddington~ ratio, and $L_{46} =L/10^{46}$ {\rm erg/sec} .

\smallskip
{\bf b. The black body~ temperature:}
if a luminosity $L$ comes from a region of radius R and
temperature $T$, then
\begin{equation}
\label {equ:lrt}
L<4\pi R^2\sigma T^4.
\end{equation}

 If a spectral feature at a photon
energy of $E$ is due
to black body~ emission from a region of size $R$, then the temperature is given by
$E\approx 3kT$, and $E\approx (10~eV) (T/10^5K)$,
so that

\begin{equation}
\label {equ:elmr}
E\sim < (10~eV)L_{46}^{1/4}M_8^{-1/2}(R/5 R_s)^{-1/2}.
\end{equation}

 and reversing the relation above
we have an lower limit on the black hole~~ mass (for a true black body~ spectrum this
becomes an approximate equality):

\begin{equation}
\label {equ:mt}
M_8\sim >2 E_{Ryd}^{-2}{L_{46}}^{1/2} (R/5 R_s)^{-1}
\end{equation}

where $R_s=2GM/c^2\approx 3~10^{13} M_8~$cm is the \rm Schwartzshild~ radius
and $E_{Ryd}$ is the spectral energy in Rydbergs.
(Note that $L_{46}$ is the bolometric luminosity; if the observed
(say optical) luminosity is used, a bolometric correction must be included).

Combining eqs. \ref{equ:med} and \ref{equ:mt} we can eliminate $M$
obtaining (for black body~ emission) an estimate of the size:

\begin{equation}
\label {equ:rle}
{R\over R_s}\approx 13 L_{46}^{-1/2} \eta {E_{Ryd}}^{-2}
\end{equation}

\smallskip
{\bf c. Variability:}
the shortest time scale for global variations in the luminosity is the light
travel time across the \rm Schwartzshild~ radius, hence if the
luminosity is observed to vary significantly on a time scale $\delta t$, the
black hole~~ mass has to be
\begin{equation}
\label {equ:mdt}
M_8<\frac{\delta t}{10^3 r {\rm sec}},
\end{equation}
where $r$ is the effective radius of emission in units of $R_s$.

However, for continuum changes near the feature  of spectral energy $E$
the light travel time is (from eq. \ref{equ:rle})
\begin{equation}
\label {equ:trc}
\delta t_l \approx {R \over c}\approx 1.5 L_{46}^{1/2}  {E_{Ryd}}^{-2} {\rm days},
\end{equation}
and the dynamical time is
\begin{equation}
\label {equ:trd}
\delta t_d \approx {R\over v} \approx 20 L_{46}^{1/4} \eta^{1/2} {E_{Ryd}}^{-3} {\rm days},
\end{equation}
which gives time scales of the order of the observed  UV variability in
Seyferts and quasars.
\smallskip

\section{The thin accretion-disk model}
Many authors have tried to fit accretion~disk~ spectra to the observed AGN continuum, implying the
accretion~disk~ parameters ($M, \dot M, \alpha$) and the  black hole~~ spin (e.g. \rm Schwartzshild~ or
Kerr) which give the best fit to
the observed optical-UV continuum  (e.g. Wandel and Petrosian 1988; Sun and Malkan
1989; Laor  1990).
\subsection{The accretion~disk~ spectrum}

The radiative energy output of the accretion~disk~ is dominated by the release of gravitational
potential energy, the rate of which is $GM\dot M/r$. A more accurate
calculation yields for the flux emitted per unit area
\begin{equation}
\label {equ:lr}
L(R) = {3GM\dot M\over 8\pi R^3} \left [ 1-\left ({R_{in}\over R }\right )^{1/2}\right ]
\end{equation}

where $R_{in}$ is the inner disk radius.
In the outer part of the thin disk the opacity is dominated by true absorption
and the local spectrum is a black body~ spectrum. For this part of the disk,
comparing eq. \ref{equ:lr} to the black body~ radiation flux gives for the disk surface temperature
\begin{equation}
\label {equ:tr}
T(R) \approx \left (  {3GM\dot M\over 8\pi\sigma R^3} \right )^{1/4}
\approx 6 ~10^5 \left (  {\dot m\over M_8} \right ) ^{1/4} r^{-3/4}~{\rm K}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $r=R/R_s$ and
$$\dot m=\dot M/\dot M_{Edd}\approx 2(M/M_{\odot} yr^{-1})M_8^{-1}(\epsilon/0.1)^{-1}$$
is the accretion~rate~ in units of the Eddington~ accretion~rate~, $\dot m =1$ at the Eddington~ limit.
When the accretion~rate~ approaches the Eddington~ rate, the intermediate disk region becomes
dominated by electron-scattering, the spectral function will be of a modified black body~
and the surface temperature is higher than given by eq. \ref{equ:tr}.
At still smaller radii, the pressure in the disk is dominated by radiation
pressure, rather than by
gas pressure, and the thin disk solution becomes thermally unstable.
In that inner region the thin disk solution is probably not valid, and has to be replaced
by a hot disk solution (e.g. Wandel and Liang 1991).
It turns out that the intermediate modified black body~ region is relatively narrow,
and close to the black body~ - electron scattering boundary the spectrum is nearly a black body~ one,
so both regimes may be approximated by the black body~ solution.

The spectrum of a multi- black body~ accretion~disk~ is given by integrating over the entire
disk,
\begin{equation}
\label {equ:fn}
L_\nu  \approx \int_{R_t}^{R_{out}} 2\pi R B_\nu [T(R) ] dR
\end{equation}

where $B_\nu(T)$ is the Planck function and
$R_t$ is the transition radius from the intermediate to the inner radiation-pressure
dominated region (for $\dot m<0.02$ the black body~ region extends down to the inner edge of the disk
and $R_t=R_{in}$ ).

Since the $B_\nu (T)$ has a sharp peak at $h\nu_{co}\approx 3kT$ and cuts off at higher
frequencies, the highest frequency of the black body~ part of the disk spectrum comes from the
radius $R_t$, with the highest temperature for which the disk is still optically thick.
Eq. \ref{equ:fn}
gives a spectrum which depends on the radial extent of the black body~ part of the disk.
If that part is extended ($R_{out}/R_t>>1$) the spectrum is almost flat ($\sim \nu^{1/3}$)
and cuts off beyond $h\nu_{co}\approx 3kT(R_t)$ (or $3kT(5R_S)/h$ for $\dot m <0.1$).
If $R_{out}/R_t\sim$ a few,  the spectrum
will be merely a somewhat broadened  Planck spectrum, but if the accretion~disk~ is extended
over a large radial range there is a significant flat part.
In that case a better approximation than the Planck spectrum is
\begin{equation}
\label {equ:lker}
L_\nu  \approx A \left ({\nu\over \nu_{co}}\right )^{1/3} exp
\left (-{\nu\over \nu_{co}}\right )
\end{equation}
where $A$ and $\nu_{co}$ are the normalization and cutoff frequency
For a Kerr black hole~~ Malkan (1990) finds
$\nu_{co} = (2.9\times 10^{15} Hz) \dot M_{0.1}^{1/4}M_8^{-1/2}$,
where $\dot M_{0.1}=\dot M/0.1 M_{\odot} yr^{-1}$. This can be written as

\begin{equation}
\label {equ:eco}
h\nu_{co} = (6 ~eV) \dot m^{1/4}M_8^{-1/4}= (20~eV) L_{46}^{1/4}M_8^{-1/2}
\end{equation}
(note that here $L_{46}$ is the {\it observed} luminosity, and we have  included
a bolometric correction of 10. Also note that for a Kerr black hole~ the efficiency in the
definition of $\dot m$ is  $\epsilon=0.4$).
The relation between the cutoff frequency and the inner disk temperature
in the two cases of face-on Kerr and the black body~ approximation is
$$h\nu_{co} = 0.64kT_{max} = 2.5 kT_{BB}$$
(Malkan 1990).

Although the soft X-ray excess suggest a higher thermal temperature in some objects,
In general the characteristic temperature is likely to be related to the UV spectrum;
While in the UV spectrum is produced by thermal emission from an optically thick gas
(with eventual reproccessing),  the X-rays are more likely to
be produced by a hotter medium due to processes  such as
Comptonization, a two-temperature disk (Wandel and Liang 1991) or hot corona
(Haardt, Maraschi and Ghisellilni 1994; Czerny, Witt and Zycki 1996).

\section{Deriving $M$ and $\dot M$ from the UV spectrum}

We want to find an approximate relation between the black hole~~ mass and accretion~rate~ and the
continuum spectrum.
The accretion~rate~ is determined straightforwardly by the luminosity, via the relation
$L_{ion}=\epsilon f_{ion} \dot M c^2$, where $f_{ion}$ is the fraction of
 the ionizing out of the total luminosity.
To estimate the black hole~~ mass we may use the multi-black body~~accretion~disk~ -spectrum.
As discussed in the previous subsection  the UV bump cutoff frequency is determined by the
highest surface temperature in the black body~ part of the disk.
If the black body~ region extends down to a radius $R_t$, and the EUV cutoff energy is $E_{co}$,
then  eq. \ref{equ:mt} gives (we assume the inner region is optically thin and much hotter,
so its contribution in the frequencies of interest can be neglected)
\begin{equation}
\label {equ:mte}
M_8\approx 2.5 (E_{co} /10 eV )^{-2}L_{46}^{1/2} (R_t/5 R_s)^{-1}.
\end{equation}

In several accretion~disk~ models the black body~ regime extends close to the inner disk edge.
This is the case in the ``$\beta$'' disk model with viscosity proportional to the gas
pressure ($\nu\sim\beta P_{gas}$). For low accretion~rate s ($\dot m<0.1$) this is true also for the
``$\alpha$'' model with viscosity proportional to the total pressure
($\nu\sim\alpha (P_{gas}+P_{rad})$).
In this case, since the disk emissivity peaks at $R\approx 5R_S$
(for a non-rotating black hole~ ) we may
use eq. \ref{equ:elmr} in order to find the cutoff energy.
\begin{equation}
\label {equ:ecoc}
E\sim >(17~eV)L_{46}^{1/4}M_8^{-1/2}
~~~\rm Schwartzshild~
\end{equation}
(where we have introduced a  bolometric correction $L_{opt}=0.1L_{bol}$).

The equivalent result for a Kerr black hole~ (eq. \ref{equ:eco}) is very similar:
$$E\sim > (20~eV)L_{46}^{1/4}M_8^{-1/2} ~~~{\rm Kerr} .$$

Plotting the cutoff frequency versus the luminosity one can infer
the mass, and vice versa, if the mass can be estimated independently, it is
possible to estimate the cutoff frequency (fig. 1).

\myfig {19} 0 {be1f1.eps}
{1. The cutoff energy (for an accretion~disk~ spectrum vs. the monochromatic luminosity at
5100\AA. Diagonal dashed lines indicate constant black hole~ masses, and diagonal
dotted lines indicate the Eddington~ ratio.
The data shown consists of
 PG quasars (diamonds; from Boroson and Green, 1994), Seyfert 1
galaxies (triangles and squares, the latter indicate AGN with BLR reverberation
data from Wandel, Peterson and Malkan 1999, with luminosities modified for
$H=50$) and Narrow Line Seyfert 1s
(Boller, Brandt and Fink, 1996) }

It is possible to estimate the black hole~ mass from the broad emission line profile,
assuming the velocity width is induced by a Keplerian velocity dispersion.
When the broad line region size is estimated by reverberation mapping,
this technique is particularly reliable. Wandel, Peterson and Malkan (1999) have
used a sample of AGN with reverberation data to calibrate the mass estimate
obtained from photoionization models, finding the relation
\begin{equation}
\label {equ:mph}
M_8\approx 0.4 \left ({L_{46}\over Un_{10}}\right )^{1/2} v_3^2
\end{equation}
where $U$ is the ionization parameter, $n_{10}$ is the density in units
of 10$^{10}$cm$^{-3}$ and $v_3$ is the H$\beta$ FWHM in $10^3$km s$^{-1}$ .
Using this calibrated relation makes it possible to estimate black hole~ mass estimates
for large samples,
even without reverberation data (Wandel, Malkan and Peterson, in preparation).
Combining equations \ref{equ:mph} and \ref{equ:eco} or \ref{equ:ecoc}
we have

\begin{equation}
\label {equ:ecov}
E_{co}\approx (40~eV) (Un_{10})^{-1/4} v_3^{-1}
\end{equation}
Note that
the luminosity dependence cancels out, and the dependence on the unknown
parameters $U$ and $n$ is weak. Using eq. \ref{equ:ecov}
and the average fiducial value of $Un_{10}$=1
 we find the mass and cutoff energy distribution
for a large sample of quasars, Seyfert 1 galaxies and NLS1s (fig 1).
Note that $E_{co}$ is anticorrelated with the mass, and in particular
that different AGN categories group in different regions in the
$L-E_{co}$ plane: quasars have more massive black~holes~ and low cutoff energies,
Seyfert 1 galaxies have intermediate black hole~ masses ($10^7-10^8M_{\odot}$), and
NLS1s have low black hole~ masses ($10^6-10^7M_{\odot}$) and high cutoff energies.
This is consistent with the large soft X-ray excesses observed for many of
the NLS1s (Boller, Brandt and Fink, 1996).

The diagonal dotted lines in fig. 1 give the $L/L_{Edd}$ ratio - quasars are in the
0.01-1 range, Seyferts in the 0.001-0.1, and NLS1s are all near Eddington~,
$L/L_{Edd}\approx 0.1-1$.

A similar analyses for the \rm Schwartzshild~ accretion~disk~ has been performed by Wandel and Petrosian
(1988), who calculated for each pair of accretion~disk~
parameters $M$ and $\dot M$  the actual observables, e.g. the UV luminosity and
spectral index.

\section{Relating $M$ and $L$ to the Ionizing Spectrum}

\subsection{Temperature dependence of the Ionizing Spectrum}

The ionizing power $Q$ is essentially the photon flux above
the ionization potential $E_{ion}$ of the line in question -
e.g. 1Ryd (13.6 eV) for Ly$\alpha$ and 48eV for CIV.

We shall now relate the ionizing flux (defined by $Q\propto L_{ion}/<E>$)
to the temperature of the continuum-emitting gas, assuming the emission is
thermal (which is certainly true in the thin accretion~disk~ model, and supported by the
presence of the blue
bump feature in  the spectrum of most AGNs.
If  $E_{co}<E_{ion}$  this frequency is on the Wien part, and the flux is sensitively
influenced by the effective disk temperature, $T_{eff}$.
In the parameter range of interest we may therefore assume that the equivalent width~ is strongly correlated
with $T_{eff}$. Quantitatively, the correlation is related to the logarithmic derivative
\begin{equation}
\label {equ:lblt}
{d~ln~B_\nu\over d~ln~T}= {-xe^x\over e^x-1}
\end{equation}
where $x=h\nu /kT$. For $kT<$1 Ryd, which is true in a wide range of cases, as we show below,
eq. \ref{equ:lblt} gives
$${d~ln~B_\nu\over d~ln~T}\approx -h\nu/kT,$$
namely a strong correlation with T.

In order to relate the UV ionizing spectrum near 1Ryd to the accretion parameters,
it is necessary to determine the effective black body~ temperature of the emitting region,
which we do in the next section.

Once this temperature is determined, we can estimate the ratio of fluxes in any two
desired energy bands, in particular the flux in the ionizing energy
band to the energy $E_I$ of the emission-line~ in question, which is related the
equivalent width~ , since the line luminosity is related to the ionizing flux.
From eq. \ref{equ:lker} we have
\begin{equation}
\label {equ:llx}
L_{\nu ion}/L_{\nu I} \approx (E_I/E_{ion})^{1/3}exp[(E_I-E_{ion})/E_o].
\end{equation}

\subsection{The Variability-Effective Temperature Relation}

We have already derived a quite general temperature-radius relation for
black body~ emission from an accretion flow (eq. \ref{equ:rle}).
We can apply this relation to determine the temperature or radiation peak
energy as a function of the observed luminosity and estimated mass.

In order to determine a characteristic temperature we need either indicate
the size of the emitting region (and use eq. \ref{equ:lrt})
or assume an emission model, as done below for the accretion~disk~ model.
The size of the emitting region can be bounded by variability analyses.
From eqs. \ref{equ:lrt} and
\ref{equ:mdt} we have
$$ L<4\pi\sigma c^2(\delta t)^2T^4$$
which gives
\begin{equation}
\label {equ:elt}
E_{eff}> 10 {L_{46}}^{1/4} (t_{day})^{-1/2} eV
\end{equation}
where $t_{day}$ is the variability scale in days.
X-ray data imply a linear relation between luminosity and variability
time in AGN
(Barr and Mushotzky, 1986, Ulrich, Maraschi and Urry 1997).
Recently a time scale of the order of $~$30 days has been found in the X-ray
PDS of NGC 3516 (Edelson and Nandra 1999), but the fastest variability observed
in AGN is of the order of hours.
Assuming a  relation, $t_{day}\sim \tau_L L_{46}$, eq. \ref{equ:elt} gives
\begin{equation}
\label {equ:el}
E_{eff} > (10~eV)\tau_L^{-1/2} {L_{46}}^{-1/4}.
\end{equation}
For a linear $M-L$ relation $ L_{46}\approx (\eta/0.1) M_8$ (e.g. Wandel and
Yahil 1985; Wandel, Peterson and Malkan 1999; fig. 1 above) eq. \ref{equ:el} gives
\begin{equation}
\label {equ:emm}
E_{eff}\approx 17\tau_L^{-1/2}(\eta/0.1)^{-1/4}  {M_{8}}^{-1/4} eV,
\end{equation}
similar to the result obtained from accretion~disk~ models  below.

\subsection{Effective Temperature Models for an accretion~disk~}
In the framework of the thin accretion~disk~ model,
we consider four models for determining the effective temperature.

{\bf a. The inner disk black body~ temperature}

When the disk is nearly black body~ up to the inner edge,
we can approximate the spectrum  by black body~ emission near the
maximum-emissivity radius, which gives
\begin{equation}
\label {equ:ebb}
E_{max}\approx (3~eV) kT_{BB}(5R_s)=10 (\dot m /M_8 )^{1/4} .
\end{equation}

As discussed in sec. 3 above, this model applies to the ``$\beta$'' disk and to low
accretion~rate s ($\dot m<0.1$) in the $\alpha$ disk.
A similar expression (eq. \ref{equ:eco}) applies to the Kerr disk.

{\bf b. The inner disk radiation-pressure temperature}

This model applies to high accretion~rate s ($\dot m>0.1$) in the $\alpha$ disk, provided
the inner disk maintains the temperature profile given by the thin-disk solution.
The temperature in the inner, radiation dominated region is given by
(Sakura and Sunyaev 1973)
\begin{equation}
\label {equ:trad}
T_{rad}(r)\approx (2\times10^5~K) (\alpha M_8 )^{-1/4} r^{-3/8}
[ 1-(6/r)^{1/2}]^{1/4}.
\end{equation}

Substituting the maximal-emissivity radius $r=5$ gives

\begin{equation}
\label {equ:erad}
E_{max}\approx (4~ eV) (\alpha M_8 )^{-1/4}
\end{equation}
and a higher value for a Kerr black hole~ .
The gas-radiation pressure boundary -
 taking as $T_{max}$ the temperature at the inner boundary between the black body~ and
the radiation-dominated disk

{\bf c. The black body~-radiation boundary temperature}

In this case
the effective temperature is taken at the boundary between the intermediate
and inner disk regions,  $r_{mi}\approx 10(\alpha M_8)^{0.1}\dot m^{0.76}$.

The energy of the peak in the spectrum is then derived by substituting $r_{mi}$
into eq. \ref{equ:trad}, which gives
\begin{equation}
\label {equ:eradb}
E_{max}\approx 2 (\alpha\dot m M_8)^{-0.3}~ eV.
\end{equation}

This model is adequate in the case of a high accretion~rate~ - $\alpha$ disk when the inner disk
does not follow the thin disk model but establishes a stable hot solution
(e.g. Wandel and Liang 1991).

 {\bf d. The ``photospheric'' temperature}

In this model we consider as the disk effective temperature
the temperature at the radius where the disk
becomes effectively optically thin.
The effective optical depth in the disk is given by

$$\tau_*=h\rho (\kappa_{es}\kappa_a)^{1/2},$$
where $h$ and $\rho$ are the disk vertical scale-height and density, respectively,
and $\kappa_{es}$ and $\kappa_a$ are the electron-scattering and absorption opacities.
Equating $\tau_*$ to unity and eliminating $T$ and $r$ by using the temperature profile
$T(r)$ gives
\begin{equation}
\label {equ:eradph}
E_{max}\approx 2 \alpha ^{-0.4}(\dot m M_8)^{-0.26}~ eV.
\end{equation}
Note that the last two models give very similar results.

\section {The Line Emissivity}
The equivalent width~ of an emission-line~ is actually the ratio between the luminosity in the line and the continuum
luminosity at the emission-line~ frequency.

The line luminosity is determined by the photoionizing
flux, by the covering factor of the line-emitting gas and by the line emissivity
which is a function of the flux of ionizing photons and the density.
The differential line luminosity emitted from a thin shell can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label {equ:dline}
{d~L_{line}}= L_{ion} {df\over dr} j_{line}(r) dr
\end{equation}
where $df/dr$ is the differential covering factor, and $j_{line}(Q, n)$,
the line relative surface emissivity (or reproccessing efficiency),
is a function of the flux of ionizing photons
$(Q = L_{ion}/4\pi r^2 c<E>)$, the density ($n$).
$<E>$ is the weighted mean energy per ionizing photon.
The line luminosity is then found by integrating eq. \ref{equ:dline}
over radius

\begin{equation}
\label {equ:lline}
L_{line}= L_{ion} \int {df\over dr} j_{line}\left [ Q(r),n(r)\right ] dr
\end{equation}

In order to relate the line luminosity to the ionizing spectrum, we need
first to express the line luminosity in terms of the ionizing luminosity
and spectrum.
The emissivity of several lines has been charted for large portion of the
$Q-n$ (flux and density) plane using the CLOUDY photoionization code in a slab geometry
(Baldwin {\it et al.} 1994, Korista {\it et al.} 1995). These authors find that some lines,
in particular CIV$\lambda 1549$ and
OVI $\lambda 1094$ have a particularly simple emissivity structure, with
the emissivity peaking strongly (and being approximately constant)
 along the diagonal $Q/n=$const., that is,
for the ionization parameter (defined by $U=Q/n$) being constant, $U\approx U_o$.

Approximating
$$j(Q,n)\approx j_o \delta (U-Uo)$$
(the locally maximally emitting model)
the line luminosity can then be written as

\begin{equation}
\label {equ:j}
L_{line}\approx L_{ion} f_{eff} j_0,
\end{equation}
 $f_{eff}$ is the effective covering factor, given approximately by
integrating $df/dr$ convolved with $j(r)$ over the emitting layer,
and the effective radius (e.g. for calculating $f_{eff}$
is given by the condition $U(r_{eff})=U_0$, or
\begin{equation}
\label {equ:reff}
r_{eff}\times [n(r_{eff})]^{1/2}\approx \left ({L_{ion}\over 4\pi U_0 <E>c}\right )^{1/2}.
\end{equation}

\section {Relating the equivalent width~ to $M$ and $L$}

From the definition of the equivalent width~ we have
$EW_I\approx L_I/L_c$,
where I denotes the line in question and $L_c$ is the continuum flux at the
frequency corresponding to that line.
In section 5 we have seen that the thermal UV spectrum from the accretion~disk~ has a
strong dependence on the effective surface temperature of the disk, and that
for a variety of models the functional dependence of the effective photon
energy on the black hole~ mass is approximately

\begin{equation}
\label {equ:emad}
E_{eff}(M)\approx (3-6~eV) M_8 ^{-1/4}
\end{equation}
where the range in the coefficient accounts for the uncertainty in the
parameters $\dot m$ and $\alpha$ (for the accretion~disk~ models) or  $\eta$
and $\tau_L$
(for the variability-temperature relation).

\subsection{The Temperature-Luminosity Relation}

A more direct relation can be obtained with the luminosity
(which is what we actually need in the context of the Baldwin effect~ ).

The variability-temperature relation gives
$E_{eff}\approx (10 ~eV)(\tau_L/1 day)^{-1/2} L_{46}^{-1/4}$,
For the accretion~disk~ models we express $M$ and $\dot m$ in terms of $L$.
Since, from the definition of $\dot m$ we have
$\dot m M_8=1.3\times 10^{46}L_{bol,46}{\rm erg/sec}\approx (10-20)L_{opt,46}$,
so that   $$(\dot m M_8)^{1/4}\approx 2 L_{46}^{1/4}$$

The inner black body~ model (eq. \ref{equ:ebb}) gives
$$E_{eff}\approx (4~eV)(\dot m/0.1)^{1/2}(\alpha/0.1)^{-1/4} L_{46}^{-1/4}$$
the radiation-pressure model (eq. \ref{equ:erad}) -
$$E_{eff}\approx (8~eV)(\dot m/0.1)^{1/4}(\alpha/0.1)^{-1/4} L_{46}^{-1/4}$$
two last accretion~disk~ models (eqs. \ref{equ:eradb}, \ref{equ:eradph})
can be combined into a single expression
$$E_{eff}\approx (2 ~eV)\alpha^{-1/3}\dot m^{-1/4} M_8^{-1/4}$$
which gives
$$E_{eff}\approx (3~eV) (\alpha/0.1)^{-1/3}L_{46}^{-1/4}.$$

Note that the accretion~disk~ models are not including Comptonization by a hot
gas, which is likely to increase $E_{eff}$, so they are probably
underestimating $E_{eff}$.

Combining the variability and accretion~disk~ estimates we can  write

\begin{equation}
\label {equ:ecomb}
E_{eff}(L)\approx E_c L_{46} ^{-1/4}
\end{equation}
with $E_c\sim (10-20)$eV,
allowing for a  range in the
parameters $\alpha$, $\tau_L$ and $\dot m$.
This theoretical result is consistent with the empirical distribution
of $E_{co}$ independently found from the BLR data (fig. 1),
and with direct observations of the
far UV spectrum of
AGN, which show that the SEDs of several AGN observed with IUE and HUT
peaks at 1000\AA (Zheng {\it et al.} 1997,
Kriss {\it et al.} 1999).

\subsection{Power Law Continuum}

The observed SEDs  suggest that the decrease in the far UV is a power
law ($\sim \nu^{(-(1.5-2)}$ rather than exponential.
Assuming a UV spectrum of the form

$L_\nu\sim  \nu^{-1}$ for $h\nu < E_b$

$L_\nu\sim  \nu^{-\alpha}$ for $h\nu > E_b$

and $E_I<E_b<E_{ion}$
gives

$$
EW_I\propto L_{ion}/\nu L_\nu(E_I)\approx ( E_b/E_{ion})^{\alpha -1}
$$
because  the line luminosity is proportional to the ionizing luminosity
$L_{ion}\approx \nu L_\nu (E_{ion})$.

Taking $E_b=E_{eff}$ we then have
\begin{equation}\label {equ:ewlx}
EW_I\propto L_{ion}/L_I\approx
 (E_{ion}/E_b)^{-1}\approx (E_c/E_{ion})^{-1}L^{-(\alpha-1)/4}.
\end{equation}
For $\alpha\sim 1.5-2$ (Zheng {\it et al.} 1997) this gives
$EW\propto L^{-\gamma}$ with
$\gamma \sim 0.13-0.25$.

While for a pure power law, this would imply the same slope for all lines,
if the spectrum is curving to steeper slopes at higher photon energies
(as could be the case for a partially Comptonized Wien continuum),
lines with higher ionization potential (e.g. OVI) would have a steeper slope
and vice versa - also consitent with the data.

\subsection{Wien Continuum}
From eq. \ref{equ:lker}

\begin{equation}
\label {equ:ewlx}
EW_I=L_{\nu ion}/L_{\nu I} j_0 f_{eff}\propto (E_I/E_{ion})^{1/3}
exp[(E_I-E_{ion})/E_{eff}]
\end{equation}

Combining these two equations we have
\begin{equation}
\label {equ:ewmx}
EW_I \propto exp \left ({E_I-E_{ion }\over E_c L_{46} ^{-1/4}}\right )
\end{equation}

Subject to these uncertainties, we can try to estimate the Baldwin effect~ quantitatively.

For the CIV $\lambda$1546 line
$(E_I-E_{ion})=(8-48)~eV=-40~eV$, which  gives

\begin{equation}../aasn/
\label {equ:ewc4l}
 EW_{CIV} = EW0_{CIV} exp (-40~eV E_c^{-1}  L_{46} ^{1/4} ).
\end{equation}
The coefficient can be determined by normalizing the model to the low
luminosity en to the data, where the equivalent width~ seems to be independent of the
luminosity.
Although the data has a large dispersion, part of it is probably due
to intrinsic variability. Plotting the time average equivalent width~ vs continuum
luminosity gives a significantly smaller dispersion
(Kinney, Rivolo and Koratkar 1990, fig 4). From these data we get
$EW0_{CIV}=120~\AA$.

The slope of the Baldwin effect~ predicted by eq. \ref{equ:ewc4l} is

\begin{equation}
\label {equ:dewc4dl}
{ dln (EW_{CIV})\over dln L_{46}} =-10 E_c^{-1} L_{46}^{1/4}
\end{equation}

For $E_c=20$eV this gives a slope of $\sim 0.5 L_{46}^{1/4}$.

Fig. 2 shows the data referenced above,
along with the model prediction (eq. \ref{equ:ewc4l}) as a dashed curve.
We note that the decrease
in the equivalent width~ predicted by eq. \ref{equ:ewc4l} is too large for
luminous quasars.

\myfig {19} 0 {be1f2.eps}
{2. The Baldwin effect~ (equivalent width~ of CIV vs. the monochromatic continuum luminosity at
1550\AA. The fuzzy thick curves indicate the dispersion of the data,
taken from Kinney, Rivolo and Koratkar (1990). The smooth curves indicate
the prediction of the models derived in this work: heavy dashed -
a power law ionizing spectrum, $L_\nu\sim \nu^{-1.7}$, dotted - with constant
$L/M$ (eq. \ref{equ:ewc4l} with $E_c=20~eV$) , solid with $L/M\propto L^{1/2}$ (eq. \ref{equ:new}).}

This is a result of our assumption that $L/M\sim constant$.
Actually, as discussed in section 4
the $L/M$ ratio appears to be  correlated with luminosity
(see fig. 1), with the exception of NLS1.
A similar result is obtained by Wandel and
Petrosian (1988) and (although on a small range in luminosity)
by Wandel, Peterson and Malkan (1999, fig. 4).

From fig. 1 we adopt an approximate relation
$$L/L_{Edd}\approx 0.1 L_{46}^{1/2}.$$
Combining this with eqs. \ref{equ:ecoc} yields
$$ E \approx (20~eV) L_{46}^{-1/8}$$
which gives for the equivalent width~
\begin{equation}
\label {equ:new}
 EW_{CIV} = EW0_{CIV} exp (-2  L_{46} ^{1/8} ).
\end{equation}
This result is shown by the solid curve in fig. 2,
which is consistent with the observed Baldwin effect~ .

For Ly$\alpha$ we have
$E_I-E_{ion}= 9.2-13.6=4.4$eV, which gives

\begin{equation}
\label {equ:dewladl}
{ dln (EW_{Ly\alpha})\over dln L_{46}} =-1.1 E_c^{-1} L_{46}^{1/4}.
\end{equation}
which is consistent with the weaker Baldwin effect~ found for the Ly$\alpha$ line
(Kinney, Rivolo and Koratkar 1990).

\section{Discussion}

\subsection{Comparison with the Data: Luminosity and Energy  dependence}

Our derivation predicts a weak luminosity dependence of the Baldwin effect~ .
While this dependence  (eq. \ref{equ:dewc4dl}) on luminosity,
indicating a slow increase of the Baldwin effect~ (or a decrease of the slope
of the line luminosity vs. continuum luminosity) for very luminous quasars
is not obvious from the data, it cannot be ruled out either, because of the
large scatter.
When the scatter is reduced by averaging multiple observations of the same object,
(e.g. fig. 4a in Kinney, Rivolo and Koratkar (1990)  the resultant Baldwin effect~ seems to
suggest an increase the slope of EW plotted vs. L at high luminosities.

We have seen however, that the increase in the Baldwin effect~ predicted by eq.
\ref{equ:dewc4dl}
 is too strong at the highest luminosities.
When the  increase of the Eddington~ ratio with luminosity is taken into account,
the model can fit the CIV data  for the
highest energies, for
 $E_c\approx 20 eV$. This value may be obtained for a disk extending to the
last stable orbit or by including Comptonization.

Alternatively, the excess effect
could be compensated by the fact that the parameters $\dot m$ and $\tau_L$
may depend on luminosity;
If $\dot m$ increases with $L$ (as indicated in Wandel, Peterson and Malkan 1999)
or the variability timescale increase with $L$ less than linearly,
$E_c$ will increase with luminosity, compensating for the weak luminosity
increase.
An additional uncertainty is due to the unknown
dependence of the emissivity (which we assume to be constant)
on $L$, which may be influenced, among other factors, by the covering factor.

\subsection{Comparison with the Data: the Baldwin effect~ in other lines}

The Baldwin effect~ has been observed also for other lines.
Our model predict a strong dependence of the Baldwin effect~ on the ionization energy.
It is interesting to see whether
this prediction could reproduce observed  strength of the Baldwin effect~ in different lines.
Fig. 4b of Kinney, Rivolo and Koratkar (1990) shows a much weaker effect for
Ly$\alpha$, and in particular for low luminosity objects
($L>10^46{\rm erg/sec}$) the Ly$\alpha$ data are consistent with a constant equivalent width~, which
is predicted by our model (eq. \ref{equ:dewladl}).

By the same token, our model predicts that lines with a higher ionization
potential like OVI) should have  a stronger Baldwin effect~ , which is also observed
(Korista {\it et al.} 1995).

As the emissivity of CIV and OVI has a similar characteristic
distribution in the $Q-n$ plane, one could expect a similar Baldwin effect~
for the two lines, which is indeed observed.
The lack of that sharp feature in the emissivity of lines such as
Ly$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ (Korista {\it et al.} 1998a) could explain the
fact that these lines do not show a significant Baldwin effect~ or only a weak one.
Such a  specific
functional form can be predicted by assuming an explicit radial distribution
of the density and covering factor.
This the expected functional
form of the Baldwin effect could provide an observational test of the main suggestion of the paper.

\subsection{Normalization}
We have reproduced the Baldwin effect~ from the basic relations between black hole~ mass,
accretion~disk~ temperature combined with the line emissivity.
It would be of interest to estimate the normalization for the
proportionality relationship found, which would enable a quantitative
prediction of the expected Baldwin effect~ . However, the
relation between the emission line luminosity and the
ionizing continuum shape depend on the unknown density profile
of the line emitting gas, and on the unknown differential covering factor,
as discussed in section 5.
In the absence of more detailed data on the radial distribution
of the line emitting gas, further analyses is limited to qualitative
predictions, for which the
positive correlation with the radiation temperature demonstrated in
sections 5-7 is sufficient.
A more explicit dependence predicted by photoionization
models can be obtained using the equations derived in sections 5 and 6,
if the radial distribution (characterized by $n(r)$ and $df(r)/dr$)
are known.

\section{Summary}
We suggest that the Baldwin effect~ is a result of the distribution of black hole~ masses
combined with the thermal nature of the line-driving ionizing continuum.
Using the variability-black body~ relation, or alternatively the thin accretion~disk~  spectrum,
we derive an analytical estimate for the dependence of the continuum spectrum
on the black hole~ mass and
show that the ratio of ionizing continuum to the continuum luminosity
near the lines (related to the equivalent width~ ) is slowly decreasing with increasing mass.
We  find that the for a model-independent black body~ temperature
and for most variants of the thin accretion~disk~ model
the equivalent width~ decreases with increasing continuum luminosity,
reproducing the observed Baldwin effect~ .

\acknowledgments

Stimulating discussions with Jack Baldwin during
the meeting "Quasars as Standard Candles in Cosmology" at La Serena, Chile, triggered this work.
I also acknowledge valuable discussions with Gary Ferland, Matt Malkan
and Vah\' e Petrosian, the contribution of an anonymous referee,
and the hospitality of the Astronomy Department at UCLA and
Stanford University.