1: %%
2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
3: %%
4: %% Modified 2005 December 5
5: %%
6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
8:
9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
11: %% any data that comes before this command.
12:
13: %% The command below calls the preprint style
14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
17: %%
18:
19: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
20:
21: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
22:
23: %%\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
24:
25: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
26:
27: %%\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
28:
29: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
30: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
31: %% use the longabstract style option.
32:
33: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
34:
35: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
36: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
37: %% the \begin{document} command.
38: %%
39: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
40: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
41: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
42: %% for information.
43:
44:
45:
46: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
47:
48:
49:
50: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
51: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
52: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
53: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
54: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
55: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
56:
57: \shorttitle{The Lorentz factor distribution and luminosity
58: function of relativistic jets in AGNs} \shortauthors{Liu \& Zhang}
59:
60: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
61: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
62:
63: \begin{document}
64:
65: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
66: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
67: %% you desire.
68:
69: \title{The Lorentz factor distribution and luminosity function of relativistic jets in AGNs}
70:
71: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
72: %% author and affiliation information.
73: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
74: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
75: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
76: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
77:
78: \author{Yuan Liu\altaffilmark{1}, Shuang Nan Zhang\altaffilmark{1,} \altaffilmark{2,} \altaffilmark{3}}
79:
80: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
81: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
82: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
83: %% affiliation.
84:
85: \altaffiltext{1}{Physics Department and Center for Astrophysics,
86: Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China
87: (zhangsn@tsinghua.edu.cn, yuan-liu@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn)}
88: \altaffiltext{2}{ Key Laboratory of Particle Astrophysics,
89: Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
90: Beijing, China} \altaffiltext{3}{ Physics Department, University
91: of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA
92: (zhangsn@uah.edu)}
93:
94: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
95: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
96: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
97: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
98: %% editorial office after submission.
99:
100: \begin{abstract}
101: The observed apparent velocities and luminosities of the relativistic jets in AGNs are
102: significantly different from their intrinsic values due to strong special relativistic
103: effects. We adopt the maximum likelihood method to determine simultaneously the
104: intrinsic luminosity function and the Lorentz factor distribution of a sample of AGNs.
105: The values of the best estimated parameters are consistent with the previous results,
106: but with much better accuracy. In previous study, it was assumed that the shape of the
107: observed luminosity function of Fanaroff-Riley type II radio galaxies is the same with
108: the intrinsic luminosity function of radio loud quasars. Our results prove the validity
109: of this assumption. We also find that low and high redshift groups divided by $z=0.1$
110: are likely to be from different parent populations.
111: \end{abstract}
112:
113: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
114: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
115: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
116: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
117:
118: \keywords{galaxies: active --- galaxies: luminosity function ---
119: galaxies: jets --- galaxies: statistics}
120:
121: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
122: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep
123: %% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
124: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
125: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have
126: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus
127: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for
128: %% each reference.
129:
130:
131: %% Authors who wish to have the most important objects in their paper
132: %% linked in the electronic edition to a data center may do so by tagging
133: %% their objects with \objectname{} or \object{}. Each macro takes the
134: %% object name as its required argument. The optional, square-bracket
135: %% argument should be used in cases where the data center identification
136: %% differs from what is to be printed in the paper. The text appearing
137: %% in curly braces is what will appear in print in the published paper.
138: %% If the object name is recognized by the data centers, it will be linked
139: %% in the electronic edition to the object data available at the data centers
140: %%
141: %% Note that for sources with brackets in their names, e.g. [WEG2004] 14h-090,
142: %% the brackets must be escaped with backslashes when used in the first
143: %% square-bracket argument, for instance, \object[\[WEG2004\] 14h-090]{90}).
144: %% Otherwise, LaTeX will issue an error.
145:
146: \section{Introduction}
147: %\citep{hen61,lyn68,spi85}, \citet{aur82}
148:
149: The large scale and relativistic jets are important
150: characteristics of active galactic nuclei (AGNs). Determining
151: their proper velocity distribution and intrinsic luminosity
152: function is of fundamental importance for understanding the
153: central engine of AGNs. However, the observed apparent velocities
154: and luminosities of the relativistic jets in AGNs are
155: significantly different from their intrinsic values due to strong
156: special relativistic effects, i.e. $\beta _{app} = \frac{{\beta
157: \sin \theta }}{{1 - \beta \cos \theta }}$ and $S = \frac{{L\delta
158: ^p }}{{4\pi d_L^2 (z)}}(1 + z)^{1 + \alpha } $, where $\beta
159: ,\;\beta _{app} ,\;\theta ,\;L,\;S,\;\delta \;{\rm{and}}\;d_L $
160: are the proper velocity, the apparent
161: velocity, the angle between the axis of jet and the line of sight, the intrinsic
162: luminosity, the observed flux, the Doppler factor and the luminosity distance,
163: respectively. The index $p$ is equal to $n-\alpha$ , where $\alpha$ is the spectral
164: index ($S \propto \nu ^\alpha $) and $n=2, 3$ for continuous or discrete jet,
165: respectively.
166:
167: Due to the lack of reliable and accurate methods to obtain $\beta$
168: or $\theta$ of each source, it remains difficult to determine
169: directly the intrinsic luminosity and the proper velocity of a
170: relativistic jet. Several authors have addressed these problems
171: with statistical methods. For example, Padovani \& Urry (1992)
172: determined the evolution parameters of different types of galaxies
173: with the $<V/V_m>$ method, and then used the observed luminosity
174: function of Fanaroff-Riley type II radio galaxies (FR II) as the
175: intrinsic luminosity function of relativistic jets in AGNs, after
176: multiplying a constant factor. This approach is at best an
177: approximation only, because the observed luminosity function of FR
178: II may or may not resemble the intrinsic luminosity function of
179: relativistic jets in AGNs. Lister \& Marscher (1997) extended this
180: work with a simulation approach by fully considering the flux
181: limit and Doppler beaming effect. However, they utilized the
182: parameters determined by Padovani \& Urry (1992) due to the size
183: limit of the simulation. Therefore, the above mentioned approaches
184: could not determine simultaneously the intrinsic luminosity and
185: Lorentz factor distribution of relativistic jets in AGNs.
186: Actually, the observed luminosity function and the apparent
187: velocity distribution can be reproduced if the intrinsic
188: luminosity and the Lorentz factor distribution are given (Lister
189: 2003, Vermeulen \& Cohen 1994). Thus the intrinsic luminosity and
190: Lorentz factor distribution could be inferred simultaneously with
191: the maximum likelihood method. Therefore, we could test the
192: previous assumption that the observed luminosity function of FR II
193: has the same shape with the intrinsic luminosity function of the
194: radio loud quasars.
195:
196: The form of the maximum likelihood estimator could be written as
197: \[
198: MLE = \sum\limits_i {C\ln p(\beta _{app,i} \;,\;L_{o,i} \;,\;z_i
199: )} ,\] where $i$ denotes the number of each source in the sample
200: and $p$ is the probability density of detecting a source for the
201: given apparent velocity, observed luminosity and redshift. $C$ is
202: the normalized factor. The probability density $p$ is
203: \[
204: p(\beta _{app} ,L_o ,z) = f(\beta _{app} |\;L_o ,\;z)\Phi (L_o
205: ,\;z)d_A (z)^2 (1 + z)^3 c\frac{{dT(z)}}{{dz}} ,\]
206: where $\beta_{app}$, $d_A$, $T(z)$, $ f(\beta _{app} |\;L_o ,\;z)$ and $\Phi (L_o ,z)$
207: are the apparent velocity,
208: the angular distance, the look-back time, the apparent velocity distribution (for the
209: given observed luminosity and redshift) and the observed luminosity function,
210: respectively. As proved by Vermeulen \& Cohen (1994, also see Appendix A at the end of
211: this paper), if we assume the intrinsic luminosity function is a single power law
212: ($\Phi (L) \propto L^{ - A}$), $L_o$ will not appear in $ f(\beta _{app} |\;L_o ,\;z)$.
213: Therefore, we could deal with the apparent velocity distribution and the observed
214: luminosity function separately.
215:
216: We present the results obtained from the apparent velocity and the
217: observed luminosity (also the redshift) in \S2. The implication of
218: our results for the unification scheme of radio loud AGNs is
219: addressed in \S3. In \S4 we summarize our conclusions and make
220: some discussions. The cosmological parameters adopted throughout
221: this paper are $(H_0 ,\;\Omega _M ,\;\Omega _\Lambda ) =
222: (75\;{\rm{km/s/Mpc}},\;0.27,\;0.73)$ .
223:
224: \section{Sample selection and data analysis}\label{section2}
225: To investigate the real parent population of the radio loud AGNs,
226: we should adopt a large sample containing different kinds of radio
227: loud AGNs, including radio galaxies, quasars, and blazars. The
228: largest available sample of the kinetics of relativistic jets in
229: AGNs is from the ``VLBA 2 cm survey" (Kellermann et al. 2004). Its
230: successor, the ``MOJAVE survey
231: \footnote[1]{http://www.physics.purdue.edu/astro/MOJAVE}",
232: provides a complete flux-limited sample further. Due to the high
233: frequency observation (15 GHz), any radio emission from large
234: scale structures is effectively excluded. The majority of the
235: sample are the flat-spectrum radio quasars (FSRQ), which is the
236: most luminous type in AGNs. According to the unified model, FSRQ
237: is the beamed version of FRII due to the small angle between the
238: jet and the line of sight.
239:
240:
241: \subsection{Analysis of the apparent velocity data}
242:
243: %
244:
245: In this section we only make use of the apparent velocity data to determine the
246: intrinsic luminosity and Lorentz factor distribution. The detailed formulae of the
247: apparent velocity distribution are presented in Appendix A.
248:
249: Our sample of the apparent velocity data comes from the ``VLBA 2 cm survey" (Kellermann
250: et al. 2004). We only adopt the fastest component of each source that has a quality
251: factor of ``Good" or ``Excellent" (see Figure 11 in Kellermann et al. 2004), since
252: several authors have pointed out that the velocities of some patterns are much slower
253: than the bulk velocity responsible for the Doppler boosting effect (Cohen et al. 2006).
254: The sample used here contains 16 BL Lac objects, 12 radio galaxies and 76 quasars. We
255: assume the Lorentz factor distribution is also a single power law ($p(\gamma ) \propto
256: \gamma ^a \;(1<\gamma<\gamma_{\max })$) as adopted by previous studies. As indicated by
257: previous studies, the maximum value of $\beta_{app}$ is nearly the same as
258: $\gamma_{max}$ (Vermeulen \& Cohen 1994). The maximum value of
259: $\beta_{app}$ in the sample is about 31, and therefore we set $\gamma _{\max }=32$
260: for safety. As
261: assumed by the previous study (Lister \& Marscher 1997), we set $n=2$ and $\alpha=0$.
262: It has been found that these simple assumptions could give reasonable results. The
263: estimated result from the whole sample is shown in Figure 1. Obviously, the constraint
264: on the parameters is weak, which is due to the limitation of the observed data.
265: However, it is still useful to constrain the values of parameters with such data,
266: because this allows us to compare between the results from the apparent velocity data
267: and that obtained from the observed luminosity data, in order to check the consistency
268: of our models.
269:
270: By fixing the index $A$, we could investigate whether the Lorentz
271: factor
272: distribution evolves with the redshift. We fix $A=3.10$ (the best estimated value of
273: $A$ for the whole sample) and estimate $a$ in each redshift bin. As shown in Figure 2, the Lorentz
274: factor distribution is much steeper in the first bin ($0<z<0.1$) than in other bins.
275: The difference of the apparent velocity distributions between the first bin
276: and other bins is also significant at the 99.98\% level obtained by K-S test.
277: Therefore, we should divide the sample into low and high redshift groups by $z=0.1$.
278: The estimated parameters of the two groups are also shown in Figure 1.
279: The difference between the results from the whole sample and the high redshift
280: sample is only slight, whereas the confidence region of low redshift sources differs with others at 90\% confidence.
281:
282:
283: \subsection{Analysis of the observed luminosity function and
284: redshift distribution}
285:
286:
287: We assume the local intrinsic luminosity function is a single
288: power law
289: \[\Phi (L,\;z = 0) = kL^{ - A} \;\;(L_1 \le L \le L_2 ),\]
290: and to compare with the previous results, we also assume a pure luminosity evolution
291: model as used in Padovani \& Urry (1992) and Lister \& Marscher (1997), \[\Phi (L,\;z)
292: = \Phi (L/\exp [T(z)/\tau ],\;z = 0),\] where $\tau$ is the evolution parameter in unit
293: of Hubble time.
294:
295: Using the equations of the beamed luminosity function (see details
296: in Appendix B), we can estimate the parameters in the intrinsic
297: luminosity function, the Lorentz factor distribution and the
298: evolution form by the maximum likelihood method. We combine the
299: data from ``VLBA 2 cm survey" and ``MOJAVE survey" (Figure 3). We
300: again divide the sample into low and high redshift groups by
301: $z=0.1$. The values of the best estimated parameters from high
302: redshift group are $a = - 1.73_{ - 0.28}^{ + 0.28}$, $ A = 2.48_{
303: - 0.09}^{ + 0.09} $, $ \tau = 0.29_{ - 0.01}^{ + 0.03} $
304: and $
305: \log (L_1 ({\rm{W/Hz}})) = 26.25_{ - 0.12}^{ + 0.03} $; the
306: results from the low redshift group are $a = - 1.5_{ - 0.6}^{ +
307: 0.6}$, $A = 2.8_{ - 1.0}^{ + 1.0}$
308: and $
309: \log (L_1 ({\rm{W/Hz}})) = 24.39_{ - 0.40}^{ + 0.09} $ (no
310: evolution is assumed for the low redshift group, and $1\sigma$
311: error for each parameter of concern is shown). The value of $\log
312: (L_2 ({\rm{W/Hz}}))$ is fixed at 34, since higher values barely
313: change the results. Figure 4 shows the confidence region for $(a,
314: A)$ by fixing other parameters at the best estimated values.
315: Although the confidence regions in Figure 4 for the low and high
316: redshift groups are consistent within the 68\% confidence region,
317: the lower intrinsic luminosity limits of the two groups are
318: different significantly. As also shown in Figure 4, the result
319: from the luminosity data for the low redshift group is only
320: marginally consistent with the result from the apparent velocity
321: data within the 68\% confidence region. This indicates that our
322: current model do not describe the low redshift group very
323: appropriately. Actually, if we adopt the whole sample, the result
324: of the Lorentz factor distribution is unreasonable, i.e. $a>0$ is
325: required to obtain the maximum value of the estimator, which is
326: ruled out by previous studies. For example, if we adopt $ \log
327: (L_1 ({\rm{W/Hz}})) = 24.39$ indicated by the low redshift group,
328: the values of best estimated parameters of the whole sample are
329: $a=30.6$, $A=3.5$ and $\tau=1.0$. The K-S test is performed to
330: estimate the goodness of fit; the corresponding probabilities of
331: the apparent velocity, the observed luminosity and the redshift
332: distribution are $10^{-22}$, 10\% and 7\%, respectively.
333: Therefore, the consistency is quite poor, especially for the
334: apparent velocity.
335: If the lower intrinsic luminosity limit is adjusted as a free parameter,
336: the value of $a$ will become larger and even without an upper limit, which is more
337: inconsistent with the result from the apparent velocity data. Therefore, we find that
338: the results from both the apparent velocity and the observed luminosity data indicate the low
339: and high redshift groups are likely to be from different parent populations. Due to the limited
340: size of the low redshift group, we only utilize the high redshift groups in further analysis.
341:
342:
343: As shown in Figure 5, there is slight difference between the result obtained from the apparent
344: velocity data and the observed luminosity function (within 68\% confidence region).
345: This is mainly due to the simple evolution form used here. When performing the K-S test
346: to estimate the goodness of fit, we find the result of the best estimated value of parameters
347: could only be accepted marginally. The corresponding probabilities of the apparent velocity,
348: the observed luminosity and the redshift distribution are 45\%, 56\% and 6\%, respectively. However,
349: if we adjust the value of $\tau$ to the $1\sigma$ boundary ($\tau=0.32$), the result of K-S test could be improved.
350: The corresponding probabilities of the apparent velocity, the observed luminosity and
351: the redshift distribution are 45\%, 61\% and 20\%, respectively. The effect of a higher
352: flux limit is only mild (see the inset in Figure 4).
353:
354: \section{ Implication for the unification scheme of radio loud AGNs}
355: There are two key parameters in the unification scheme of radio loud AGNs. One is the
356: orientation of the sources, and another is the intrinsic luminosity of the sources. The
357: high luminosity population contains quasars and luminous radio galaxies (FR II), while
358: the low luminosity population contains BL Lac objects and less luminous radio galaxies
359: (FR I). On the other hand, the viewing angles of quasars and BL Lac objects are smaller
360: than that of radio galaxies. Therefore, the superluminal motion is more common in the
361: aligned objects, and the observed luminosity is strongly affected by special
362: relativistic effects. However, the relativistic beaming effect of radio galaxies is
363: mild and the observed luminosity function of radio galaxies is supposed to be similar
364: to the intrinsic one. The discussion about the low luminosity population could be found
365: in Padovaani \& Urry (1990, 1991) and Urry et al. (1991), and the unification scheme
366: was reviewed in Urry \& Padovani (1995). Due to the limited sample size of low
367: luminosity population and unclear relationship between FR I and FR II, we focus our
368: discussion on the high luminosity population below.
369:
370: Several papers investigated the luminosity function of AGNs. For
371: example, Urry \& Padovani (1995) found the evolution parameter
372: $\tau$
373: of FR II and FSRQ are $0.26_{-0.10}^{+0.74}$ and $0.23_{-0.04}^{+0.07}$, respectively. Padovani \& Urry (1992) adopted a double
374: power law to fit the observed luminosity function of FR II, which was identified as the
375: parent luminosity function. The power law indices of low and high luminosity band were
376: found to be
377: $B_1=2.48_{- 0.15}^{ + 0.15}$ and $B_2=3.9_{ - 0.7}^{ + 0.7}$, respectively. Here we
378: have determined simultaneously the intrinsic luminosity function and the
379: Lorentz factor distribution of relativistic jets in AGNs by the maximum likelihood method.
380: However, we find a single power law form of the intrinsic luminosity function
381: is sufficient to describe the sample we used here. For comparison, we have
382: re-analyzed the observed luminosity function of the FR II sample adopted in
383: Padovani \& Urry (1992) by the maximum likelihood method (for completeness,
384: only the sources with $z<1.3$ are used). To compare with our result, we also
385: adopt a single power law ($\Phi (L_o ,z = 0) \propto L_o ^{ - A} $) and the pure luminosity evolution.
386: The results
387: are $A = 2.51_{ - 0.15}^{ + 0.15} $ and $\tau = 0.40_{ - 0.09}^{ + 0.09}$. The corresponding probabilities
388: obtained by K-S test of the observed
389: luminosity and the redshift distribution are 75\% and 80\%, respectively. Therefore,
390: we find this simple model could describe the data well, and the result is consistent
391: with the intrinsic luminosity function we have obtained in \S2. In previous studies (Padovani \& Urry
392: 1992; Lister \& Marscher 1997),
393: it was assumed that the shape
394: of the observed luminosity function of FR II is the same with the intrinsic luminosity
395: function of the radio loud quasars. Therefore, our results prove the validity of this
396: assumption. The single
397: power law form of the luminosity function may be somewhat simplified, and a more
398: complex form will be investigated when a larger and more complete sample is available.
399: \section{ Discussions and conclusions}
400:
401:
402: We have determined simultaneously the intrinsic luminosity
403: function and the Lorentz factor distribution of relativistic jets
404: in AGNs by the maximum likelihood method, and have confirmed the
405: previous assumption about the shape of the intrinsic luminosity
406: fucntion. The result of the Lorentz factor distribution is also
407: consistent with the previous result. For example, Lister (1997)
408: claimed the index of the Lorentz factor distribution $a$ is
409: roughly between -1.75 and -1.5. However, he fixed the parameters
410: of the intrinsic luminosity as \sl a prior \rm
411: condition.
412:
413: In the previous studies, it has been assumed the Lorentz factor distribution is the
414: same at all redshift. However, we find the Lorentz factor distribution is much steeper
415: at low redshift $(z<0.1)$ with the result from apparent velocity data, though the
416: uncertainties of the results are large. This indicates that the low and high redshift
417: groups are likely to be from different parent populations, i.e. the dual-population
418: scheme (Jackson \& Wall 1999). The majority of low reshift sources are low luminosity
419: ones. They are not as energetic as the high luminosity quasars. Therefore, the most
420: extremely relativistic jets are relatively rare in this population. However, this is
421: not indicated by the results from the observed luminosity function. As discussed in
422: \S2, this is likely to be due to the relatively simple model applied here. Further more
423: detailed study could be performed when the sample is large and complete enough.
424:
425: We assume the Lorentz factor is independent of the intrinsic
426: luminosity, i.e. the $L-\gamma$-independent (LGI) model. Lister \&
427: Marscher (1997) investigated a particular $L-\gamma$-dependent
428: (LGD) scenario ($L \propto \gamma ^\xi$). They found the
429: predictions of the best-fit LGD model were very similar to the
430: best-fit LGI model but predicted very few high viewing angle
431: sources compared with the Caltech-Jodrell Bank sample. We
432: speculate this may be due to the somewhat arbitrary form of the
433: relation between the Lorentz factor and the intrinsic luminosity.
434: Actually, even when the LGI model is employed, there should be
435: some correlation of the Lorentz factor and the intrinsic
436: luminosity in the observed sources due to the higher luminosity
437: threshold at higher redshift.
438:
439: Besides the shape of the intrinsic luminosity function, the space density of different
440: types of AGNs should match with each other according to the unified scheme. However,
441: both of the space densities of FR II and FSRQ evolve with redshift significantly, and
442: the value of the dividing angle of different types of AGNs may also be related with the
443: luminosity and redshift (e.g. Willott et al. 2000; Arshakian 2005). It is therefore
444: quite complicated to demonstrate the consistency of space densities of different types
445: of AGNs within the context of the unification scheme, and thus beyond the scope of the
446: current work.
447:
448: \acknowledgments{\bf Acknowledgement:} We thank ``MOJAVE survey" sharing their data on
449: the website. We also thank the anonymous referees for valuable suggestions and
450: comments, in particular the referee who suggested us to expand the previous submission
451: to ApJL and then to re-submitting it to the ApJ main journal. SNZ acknowledges partial
452: funding support by the Ministry of Education of China, Directional Research Project of
453: the Chinese Academy of Sciences under project no. KJCX2-YW-T03, and by the National
454: Natural Science Foundation of China under project no. 10521001.
455:
456:
457: %% If you wish to include an acknowledgments section in your paper,
458: %% separate it off from the body of the text using the \acknowledgments
459: %% command.
460:
461: %% Included in this acknowledgments section are examples of the
462: %% AASTeX hypertext markup commands. Use \url without the optional [HREF]
463: %% argument when you want to print the url directly in the text. Otherwise,
464: %% use either \url or \anchor, with the HREF as the first argument and the
465: %% text to be printed in the second.
466:
467:
468: %% To help institutions obtain information on the effectiveness of their
469: %% telescopes, the AAS Journals has created a group of keywords for telescope
470: %% facilities. A common set of keywords will make these types of searches
471: %% significantly easier and more accurate. In addition, they will also be
472: %% useful in linking papers together which utilize the same telescopes
473: %% within the framework of the National Virtual Observatory.
474: %% See the AASTeX Web site at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX
475: %% for information on obtaining the facility keywords.
476:
477: %% After the acknowledgments section, use the following syntax and the
478: %% \facility{} macro to list the keywords of facilities used in the research
479: %% for the paper. Each keyword will be checked against the master list during
480: %% copy editing. Individual instruments or configurations can be provided
481: %% in parentheses, after the keyword, but they will not be verified.
482:
483:
484:
485: %% Appendix material should be preceded with a single \appendix command.
486: %% There should be a \section command for each appendix. Mark appendix
487: %% subsections with the same markup you use in the main body of the paper.
488:
489: %% Each Appendix (indicated with \section) will be lettered A, B, C, etc.
490: %% The equation counter will reset when it encounters the \appendix
491: %% command and will number appendix equations (A1), (A2), etc.
492:
493: \appendix
494:
495: \section{Calculation about the apparent velocity distribution}
496:
497: \label{appendix}
498: The approach presented here is similar to that in Vermeulen \& Cohen (1994). The
499: apparent velocity probability density function (pdf) $p(\beta_{app})$ could be obtained
500: by the differentiation of the cumulative distribution function
501: $P(\beta_{app}^{'}\leq\beta_{app})$,
502:
503:
504: \begin{equation}
505: p(\beta _{app} ) = \frac{{dP(\beta _{app}^{'} \le \beta _{app}
506: )}}{{d\beta _{app} }}\;,
507: \end{equation}
508: and
509: \begin{equation}
510: P(\beta _{app}^{'} \le \beta _{app} ) = 1 - P(\beta _{app}^{'}
511: >\beta _{app} ) = 1 - \int_{\gamma _l }^{\gamma _u } {d\gamma
512: \int_{\theta _l }^{\theta _u } {p(\theta ,\gamma )d\theta } }\;,
513: \end{equation}
514: where \[\begin{array}{l}
515: \gamma _l = \sqrt {\beta _{app}^2 + 1}\;, \\
516: \gamma _u = \gamma _{\max }\;, \\
517: \end{array}\]
518:
519: \[\begin{array}{l}
520: \cos \theta _l = \frac{{\beta _{app}^2 \gamma + \sqrt {\gamma ^2 - 1 - \beta _{app}^2 } }}{{(1 + \beta _{app}^2 )\sqrt {\gamma ^2 - 1} }} \;,\\
521: \cos \theta _u = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
522: {0\;,\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\beta _{app} \le \beta }\;, \\
523: {\frac{{\beta _{app}^2 \gamma - \sqrt {\gamma ^2 - 1 - \beta _{app}^2 } }}{{(1 + \beta _{app}^2 )\sqrt {\gamma ^2 - 1} }}\;,\;\;\;\beta _{app} \ge \beta }\;, \\
524: \end{array}} \right. \\
525: \end{array}\]
526: and $\gamma=1/\sqrt{1-\beta^2}$ .
527:
528: Due to the Doppler boosting effect, $p(\theta ,\gamma )$ depends on the observed
529: luminosity $L_o=L\delta^n$. We assume pdf of $L$ has a power law form, \[p(L) =
530: \frac{{qL^{ - (q+1)} }}{{(L_{\min }^{ - q} - L_{\max }^{ - q} )}}\;,\] then
531: \[
532: \begin{array}{l}
533: p(L_o |\;\theta ,\gamma )dL_o = p(L = [\gamma (1 - \beta \cos \theta )]^n L_o )dL \\
534: \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \;\;\;\;\;\;= \frac{{q\{ [\gamma (1 - \beta \cos \theta )]^n L_o \} ^{ - (q + 1)} }}{{(L_{\min }^{ - q} - L_{\max }^{ - q} )}}[\gamma (1 - \beta \cos \theta )]^n dL_o \\
535: \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; = \frac{{q[\gamma (1 - \beta \cos \theta )]^{ - nq} }}{{L_o ^{q + 1} (L_{\min }^{ - q} - L_{\max }^{ - q} )}}dL_o \;. \\
536: \end{array}
537: \]
538: Therefore,
539: \begin{equation}
540: \begin{array}{l}
541: p(\theta ,\gamma |\;L_o ) = p(L_o |\;\theta ,\gamma )p(\theta )p(\gamma )/[\int_1^{\gamma _{\max } } {p(\gamma )d\gamma \int_0^{\pi /2} {p(\theta )} } p(L_o |\theta ,\gamma )d\theta ] \\
542: \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; = [\gamma (1 - \beta \cos \theta )]^{ - nq} \sin \theta p(\gamma )/[\int_1^{\gamma _{\max } } {p(\gamma )\frac{1}{{\gamma \beta }}\frac{{[\gamma (1 - \beta )]^{ - nq + 1} - \gamma ^{ - nq + 1} }}{{nq - 1}}d\gamma ]}\;. \\
543: \end{array}
544: \end{equation}
545: Note that there is not $L_o$ in equation (A3). Therefore,
546: \[p(\theta ,\gamma |\;L_o )=p(\theta ,\gamma)\;.\]
547: Substitute equation (A3) into equation (A2), we have
548: \[
549: \begin{array}{l}
550: P(\beta _{app}^{'} > \beta _{app} ) = \int_{\gamma _l }^{\gamma _u } {d\gamma \int_{\theta _l }^{\theta _u } {p(\theta ,\gamma )d\theta } } \\
551: \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; = C\int_{\gamma _l }^{\gamma _u } {p(\gamma )d\gamma \int_{\cos \theta _u }^{\cos \theta _l } {[\gamma (1 - \beta u)]^{ - nq} du} } \\
552: \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; = C\int_{\gamma _l }^{\gamma _u } {\frac{{p(\gamma )}}{{\gamma \beta }}d\gamma \frac{{[\gamma (1 - \beta \cos \theta _l )]^{ - nq + 1} - [\gamma (1 - \beta \cos \theta _u )]^{ - nq + 1} }}{{nq - 1}}} \\
553: \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; = C\int_{\gamma _l }^{\gamma _u } {\{ \frac{{p(\gamma )}}{{\gamma \beta }}[\gamma (1 - \beta \cos \theta _l )]^{ - nq + 1} - [\gamma (1 - \beta \cos \theta _u )]^{ - nq + 1} \} } d\gamma \;.\\
554: \end{array}
555: \]
556: To be consistent with the notation in Appendix B, we denote
557: $A=q+1$.
558:
559: Using equation (A1), we could obtain the pdf of the apparent
560: velocity distribution. In this paper we assume $p(\gamma)$ is a power law, i.e.
561: $p(\gamma)=C \gamma^a$. The examples
562: of different values of $a$ are shown in Figure 6
563:
564: \section{Calculation about the apparent luminosity function}
565: The method presented here is the same with that in Lister (2003). Here we still list
566: the main equations for clarity.
567:
568: To calculate the apparent luminosity function, we should know pdf of $\delta$. We
569: assume the orientation of jets is random, i.e. $p(\theta)\propto\sin(\theta)$.
570: Therefore, we have
571: \[
572: p(\delta ) = \delta ^{ - 2} \int_{c(\delta )}^{\gamma _{\max } }
573: {\frac{{p(\gamma )}}{{\sqrt {\gamma ^2 - 1} }}} d\gamma \;,\]
574: where \[c(\delta ) = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
575: {\delta ^{ - 1}, \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\gamma _{\max }^{ - 1} \le \delta \le 1}\;, \\
576: {\frac{{1 + \delta ^2 }}{{2\delta }}\;\;,1 \le \delta \le \delta _{\max } = \gamma _{\max } (\beta _{\max } + 1)}\;, \\
577: \end{array}} \right.\]
578:
579: We assume the form of the intrinsic luminosity function is
580: \[ \phi(L) = kL^{ - A} \; (L_{1}\leq L \leq L_{2})\;. \]
581: Since \[ \Phi (L_{\rm{o}} ,0) = \int {p(L_o ,\delta )d\delta } =
582: \int {p(\delta )\phi (L)\frac{{dL}}{{dL_o }}d\delta } \;,\] and
583: $L_o=L\delta^n$, we have
584: \[
585: \Phi (L_{\rm{o}}) = kL_{\rm{o}} ^{ - A} \int_{a(L_{\rm{o}}
586: )}^{b(L_{\rm{o}} )} {\delta ^{ - n + nA - 2} d\delta
587: \int_{c(\delta )}^{\gamma _{\max } } {\frac{{p(\gamma )}}{{\sqrt
588: {\gamma ^2 - 1} }}} d\gamma } \;,\]
589:
590: where \[\begin{array}{l}
591: \;a(L_o ) = \gamma _{\max }^{ - 1}, \;\;\;\;b(L_o ) = (L_o /L_1 )^{1/n} \;\;(L_1 \gamma _{\max }^{ - n} \le L_o < L_1 \delta _{\max }^n )\;,\;\;\;\;\;\;\\
592: \;a(L_o ) = \gamma _{\max }^{ - 1}, \;\;\;\;b(L_o ) = \delta _{\max } \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;(L_1 \delta _{\max }^n \le L_o < L_2 \gamma _{\max }^{ - n} )\;,\;\\
593: \;a(L_o ) = (L_o /L_2 )^{1/n}, \;\;\;\;b(L_o ) = \delta _{\max } \;\;(L_2 \gamma _{\max }^{ - n} \le L_o \le L_2 \delta _{\max }^n ) \;,\\
594: \end{array}\]
595:
596:
597: In this paper we assume $p(\gamma)$ is a power law, i.e.
598: $p(\gamma)=C \gamma^a$. The
599: results of different values of $a$ are shown in Figure 7. This figure
600: is similar to the Figure 3 in Lister (2003) (We mention in passing that there are
601: some typos in the figure caption.).
602:
603:
604:
605: %% The reference list follows the main body and any appendices.
606: %% Use LaTeX's thebibliography environment to mark up your reference list.
607: %% Note \begin{thebibliography} is followed by an empty set of
608: %% curly braces. If you forget this, LaTeX will generate the error
609: %% "Perhaps a missing \item?".
610: %%
611: %% thebibliography produces citations in the text using \bibitem-\cite
612: %% cross-referencing. Each reference is preceded by a
613: %% \bibitem command that defines in curly braces the KEY that corresponds
614: %% to the KEY in the \cite commands (see the first section above).
615: %% Make sure that you provide a unique KEY for every \bibitem or else the
616: %% paper will not LaTeX. The square brackets should contain
617: %% the citation text that LaTeX will insert in
618: %% place of the \cite commands.
619:
620: %% We have used macros to produce journal name abbreviations.
621: %% AASTeX provides a number of these for the more frequently-cited journals.
622: %% See the Author Guide for a list of them.
623:
624: %% Note that the style of the \bibitem labels (in []) is slightly
625: %% different from previous examples. The natbib system solves a host
626: %% of citation expression problems, but it is necessary to clearly
627: %% delimit the year from the author name used in the citation.
628: %% See the natbib documentation for more details and options.
629:
630: \begin{thebibliography}{}
631: \bibitem [Author(2001)]{key-1}Arshakian, T. G. 2005, A\&A, 436, 817
632: \bibitem [Author(2001)]{key-1}Cohen, M. H., et al. 2007, ApJ, 658, 232
633: \bibitem [Author(2001)]{key-1}Jackson, C. A., \& Wall, J. V. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 160
634:
635: \bibitem [Author(2001)]{key-1}Kellermann, K. I., et al. 2004, ApJ, 609, 539
636:
637: \bibitem [Author(2001)]{key-1}Lister, M. L., \& Marscher, A. P. 1997, ApJ, 476, 572
638:
639: \bibitem [Author(2001)]{key-1}Lister, M. L. 2003, ApJ, 599, 105
640:
641: \bibitem [Author(2001)]{key-1}Vermeulen, R. C., \& Cohen, M. H. 1994, ApJ, 430, 467
642:
643: \bibitem [Author(2001)]{key-1}Padovani, P., \& Urry, C. M. 1990, ApJ, 356, 75
644:
645: \bibitem [Author(2001)]{key-1}Padovani, P., \& Urry, C. M. 1991, ApJ, 368, 373
646:
647: \bibitem [Author(2001)]{key-1}Padovani, P., \& Urry, C. M. 1992, ApJ, 387, 449
648:
649: \bibitem [Author(2001)]{key-1}Urry, C. M., \& Padovani, P. 1995, PASP, 107, 803
650:
651: \bibitem [Author(2001)]{key-1}Urry, C. M., et al. 1991, ApJ, 382, 501
652:
653: \bibitem [Author(2001)]{key-1}Willott, C. J., Rawlings, S., Blundell, K. M., \& Lacy, M. 2000, MNRAS, 316, 449
654:
655:
656: \end{thebibliography}
657:
658: \clearpage
659:
660: \begin{figure}
661: \begin{center}
662: \epsscale{.3}
663: \includegraphics[width=13cm]{f1.eps}
664: \end{center}
665: \caption{Inferred parameters from the apparent velocity data. The
666: confidence regions are results obtained with the whole sample
667: (solid lines), $z>0.1$ sources (dashed lines), and $z<0.1$ sources
668: (dot lines), respectively. The 68\% and 90\% confidence regions
669: are shown for each case.}
670: \end{figure}
671:
672: \clearpage
673:
674: \begin{figure}
675: \begin{center}
676: \includegraphics[width=13cm]{f2.eps}
677: \end{center}
678: \caption{Evolution of the index of the Lorentz factor distribution by fixing $A=3.10$.
679: From low to high reshift, there are 13, 17, 17, 13, 17, 17 and 10 sources in each
680: redshift bin, respectively. The $1\sigma$ errors are shown for each redshfit bin.}
681: \end{figure}
682:
683: \clearpage
684:
685: \begin{figure}
686: \begin{center}
687: \includegraphics[width=13cm]{f3.eps}
688: \end{center}
689: \caption{The luminosity and redshift sample (MOJAVE survey). The
690: solid and dashed lines are the flux limit corresponding to 0.32 Jy
691: and 0.50 Jy, respectively. For completeness, only the sources with
692: $z<2.5$ are included.}
693: \end{figure}
694:
695: \clearpage
696:
697: \begin{figure}
698: \begin{center}
699: \includegraphics[width=13cm]{f4.eps}
700: \end{center}
701: \caption{The results from the observed luminosity and redshift
702: (solid lines). For comparison, the results from the apparent
703: velocity are also shown (dashed lines). The 68\% and 90\%
704: confidence regions are shown for each case.}
705: \end{figure}
706:
707: \clearpage
708:
709: \begin{figure}
710: \begin{center}
711: \includegraphics[width=13cm]{f5.eps}
712: \end{center}
713: \caption{The thin solid lines are the results from the observed luminosity
714: and the redshift distribution. The dashed lines are the results from the
715: apparent velocity distribution ($z>0.1$). The thick solid lines are the combined
716: results. The inset shows the results from the observed luminosity and the redshift
717: distribution for $S_{min}=0.32$ (solid lines) and $S_{min}=0.50$ (dashed lines). The 68\% and 90\% confidence regions are shown for each case.}
718: \end{figure}
719:
720: \clearpage
721:
722: \begin{figure}
723: \begin{center}
724: \includegraphics[width=13cm]{f6.eps}
725: \end{center}
726: \caption{The pdf of the apparent velocity distribution with
727: $p(\gamma)\propto\gamma^a (1<\gamma<30)$ and $n=2$. Three cases
728: are shown, i.e. $a=-1$ (solid line), $a=-2$ (dashed line) and
729: $a=-3$ (dot line).}
730: \end{figure}
731:
732: \clearpage
733:
734: \begin{figure}
735: \begin{center}
736: \includegraphics[width=13cm]{f7.eps}
737: \end{center}
738: \caption{The observed luminosity function with
739: $p(\gamma)\propto\gamma^a (1<\gamma<30)$ and $n=2$. The thick
740: solid line is the intrinsic luminosity function, i.e.
741: $\phi(L)\propto\L^{-2} \;(L_1<L<10^7 L_1)$. Three cases are shown,
742: i.e. $a=-1$ (thin solid line), $a=-2$ (dashed line) and $a=-3$
743: (dot line).}
744: \end{figure}
745: \end{document}
746: