1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
3: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
4: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
5: \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
6: \usepackage{epsf,graphicx}
7:
8: \bibliographystyle{apj}
9:
10: \setcounter{totalnumber}{10}
11: \setcounter{topnumber}{10}
12: \setcounter{bottomnumber}{10}
13:
14: %\renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{1.0}
15:
16:
17: \begin{document}
18:
19: \def\la{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}}}
20: \def\ga{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}}}
21:
22: \font\sevenrm=cmr7
23: \def\MgII{Mg~{\sevenrm II}}
24:
25: \newdimen\digitwidth
26: \setbox0=\hbox{-.}
27: \digitwidth=\wd0
28: \catcode `@=\active
29: \def@{\kern\digitwidth}
30:
31: \title{A Search for Synchrotron X-ray Emission in Radio Quasars}
32:
33: \author{Hermine Landt}
34: \affil{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street,
35: Cambridge, MA 02138.}
36:
37: \author{Paolo Padovani}
38: \affil{European Southern Observatory, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 2,
39: D-85748 Garching, Germany.}
40:
41: \author{Paolo Giommi, Matteo Perri}
42: \affil{ASI Science Data Center, c/o ESRIN, via G. Galilei,
43: I-00044 Frascati, Italy.}
44:
45: \author{Chi C. Cheung\altaffilmark{1}}
46: \affil{Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology,
47: Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.}
48:
49: \altaffiltext{1}{Jansky Postdoctoral Fellow, National Radio Astronomy
50: Observatory}
51:
52:
53: \begin{abstract}
54:
55: This paper presents {\sl XMM-Newton} and {\sl Chandra} X-ray
56: spectroscopy of ten flat-spectrum radio quasars (FSRQ) which are
57: candidates to have an X-ray spectrum dominated by jet synchrotron
58: emission. In all these FSRQ, which are less strongly relativistically
59: beamed than blazars, a considerable contribution from a power-law
60: component similar to that present in radio-quiet quasars is required
61: to explain the observed X-ray fluxes and X-ray spectral slopes. And as
62: in radio-quiet quasars, their relatively high optical/UV fluxes can be
63: accounted for by a significant contribution from thermal accretion
64: disk emission. The lack of success in finding radio quasars with
65: synchrotron X-rays is attributed to the adopted selection criteria,
66: which were based on the multiwavelength flux ratios of BL Lacertae (BL
67: Lac) objects. A refined selection technique, which additionally
68: involves radio imaging, is proposed to search for these important
69: candidates for the Gamma Ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST). On
70: the other hand, the discovered FSRQ with their strong accretion disk
71: signatures are expected to be important probes for studies of the
72: poorly known accretion disk - jet connection.
73:
74: \end{abstract}
75:
76: \keywords{galaxies: active - quasars: general - radiation mechanisms:
77: non-thermal - X-rays: galaxies}
78:
79:
80: \section{Introduction}
81:
82: Blazars offer us the unique possibility to study the spectral energy
83: distributions (SEDs) of relativistic jets. Being radio galaxies with
84: their jets oriented at relatively small angles with respect to our
85: line of sight they profit from the relativistic beaming effect. This
86: enhances dramatically (by factors up to $\sim 1000$) the intrinsic jet
87: (core) flux and thus makes it the dominant continuum emission at all
88: frequencies [see \citet{Urry95} for a review].
89:
90: As first discussed by \citet{Jones74} two emission processes dominate
91: the multiwavelength SEDs of relativistic jets and, therefore, of
92: blazars, namely, synchrotron and inverse Compton. These give rise to
93: two prominent emission peaks in a logarithmic $\nu f_\nu - \nu$ plot,
94: which were observationally demonstrated by \citet{Sam96} and
95: \citet{Fos98}. The synchrotron emission peak ($\nu_{\rm peak}$) in
96: blazars is observed within a wide range of frequencies (from infrared
97: to soft-X-rays) in sources with weak emission lines, the BL Lacertae
98: objects \citep[BL Lacs; e.g.,][]{Gio95, Fos98, Gio05}. However,
99: strong-lined blazars, the flat-spectrum radio quasars (FSRQ), had
100: until recently synchrotron emission peaks at relatively low energies
101: and thus X-rays dominated by inverse Compton emission
102: \citep[e.g.,][]{Gam03, Tav02, Sam06}.
103:
104: Based on this finding some authors proposed the so-called ``blazar
105: sequence'' \citep{Sam96, Fos98, Ghi98}. This scenario advocates that
106: the frequency of the synchrotron emission peak is governed by particle
107: Compton cooling by an external radiation field. Such a field, produced
108: by, e.g., the accretion disk or broad emission line region (BLR), both
109: more luminous in radio quasars than in BL Lacs, is expected to
110: interact with the particles in the jet via the inverse Compton process
111: causing them to lose energy. Therefore, within this scenario radio
112: quasars with $\nu_{\rm peak} > 10^{15}$ Hz and thus X-rays dominated
113: by synchrotron emission are not expected to exist.
114:
115: Two new surveys have recently shown that mere selection effects had
116: prevented us so far from finding ``X-ray loud'' radio quasars,
117: allowing for the possibility that radio quasars with high $\nu_{\rm
118: peak}$ existed. About 10\% of the FSRQ discovered in the Deep X-ray
119: Radio Blazar Survey \citep[DXRBS;][]{Per98, L01} and $\sim 30\%$ of
120: the ones identified in the {\it ROSAT} All-Sky Survey (RASS) - Green
121: Bank \citep[RGB;][]{LM98, LM99} have multiwavelength flux ratios
122: similar to those of BL Lacs with synchrotron X-rays \citep{P03}. In
123: addition, subsequent investigations of the {\it EINSTEIN} Medium
124: Sensitivity Survey (EMSS) and the Slew survey revealed that these
125: radio quasars had gone undetected in previous surveys \citep{Wol01b,
126: Per01}.
127:
128: The definite proof of the synchrotron nature of the X-ray emission in
129: these newly discovered blazars, however, requires X-ray
130: spectroscopy. \citet{P02} presented {\sl Beppo}SAX observations of
131: four ``X-ray loud'' FSRQ and found that the synchrotron emission of
132: one source, RGB J1629$+$4008, peaked at UV frequencies ($\nu_{\rm
133: peak} \sim 2\times10^{16}$ Hz) and dominated the X-rays. In this paper
134: we present {\sl XMM-Newton} and {\sl Chandra} observations of a
135: further ten of these sources.
136:
137: The observed sample was selected as discussed in Section 2 and the
138: data acquired and analyzed as described in Section 3. The
139: multiwavelength SEDs of the sample are presented in Section 4 and the
140: results discussed in Section 5. Section 6 gives a brief
141: summary. Throughout this paper cosmological parameters $H_0 = 70$ km
142: s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_m=0.3$, and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$ have
143: been assumed. Energy spectral indices have been defined as $f_\nu
144: \propto \nu^{-\alpha}$ and photon spectral indices as $N(E) \propto
145: E^{-\Gamma}$, where $\Gamma=\alpha+1$.
146:
147:
148: \section{The Sample Selection}
149:
150: We have selected for X-ray spectroscopy FSRQ from the DXRBS and RGB
151: survey which had multiwavelength flux ratios similar to those of BL
152: Lacs with X-rays dominated by synchrotron emission. To this selection
153: criterion we have added different constraints in the case of the {\sl
154: XMM-Newton} and the {\sl Chandra} observed samples (see below).
155:
156: As first suggested by \citet{P95} BL Lacs that emit synchrotron
157: radiation which peaks at low (IR/optical) frequencies, the so-called
158: low energy-peaked BL Lacs (LBL), can be distinguished from those that
159: emit synchrotron radiation which peaks at higher (UV/soft-X-ray)
160: frequencies, the so-called high energy-peaked BL Lacs (HBL), by their
161: distinct ratios between their radio, optical and X-ray fluxes. These
162: ratios are usually studied by plotting the objects in an ($\alpha_{\rm
163: ro}, \alpha_{\rm ox}$) plane, where $\alpha_{\rm ro}$ and $\alpha_{\rm
164: ox}$ are the usual rest-frame effective spectral indices defined
165: between 5 GHz, 5000~\AA, and 1 keV. In this plane constant
166: $\alpha_{\rm rx}$ values are represented by straight lines of slope
167: $\sim -0.5$ (see Fig. \ref{aroaox}).
168:
169: A sequence of synchrotron emission peak frequencies in BL Lacs
170: produces a specific trail in the ($\alpha_{\rm ro}, \alpha_{\rm ox}$)
171: plane \citep{P95}. While the synchrotron emission peak is at low
172: enough frequencies for the X-rays to be dominated by inverse Compton
173: radiation (as in LBL), $\alpha_{\rm rx}$ is roughly constant, whereas
174: $\alpha_{\rm ro}$ decreases and $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ increases as the
175: peak moves to higher energies (see also \citet{Gio02}). When the
176: synchrotron radiation starts to dominate the X-ray band (as in HBL),
177: $\alpha_{\rm rx}$ starts to decrease, with LBL and HBL having values
178: of $\alpha_{\rm rx} > 0.78$ and $\le 0.78$, respectively
179: \citep{P96}. Now $\alpha_{\rm ro}$ is roughly constant (and low) and
180: $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ decreases. Based on these considerations \citet{P03}
181: have defined a region in the ($\alpha_{\rm ro}, \alpha_{\rm ox}$)
182: plane expected to be populated by high-energy peaked blazars, both BL
183: Lacs and FSRQ (see their Fig. 1). This so-called ``HBL box''
184: represents the 2 $\sigma$ region around the mean $\alpha_{\rm ro},
185: \alpha_{\rm ox}$, and $\alpha_{\rm rx}$ values of all HBL in the
186: multifrequency active galactic nuclei (AGN) catalog of \citet{P97}.
187:
188: We have selected for X-ray spectroscopy with {\sl XMM-Newton} and {\sl
189: Chandra} FSRQ that populate the ``HBL box'' (Fig. \ref{aroaox}). For
190: observations with {\sl XMM-Newton} we have chosen FSRQ from DXRBS only
191: and have additionally required that the synchrotron emission peak
192: frequency, estimated from a crude multiwavelength SED including only
193: radio, optical and X-ray data points \citep{P03}, was $\nu_{\rm
194: peak}>10^{15}$ Hz. Eight sources satisfied these criteria and were
195: proposed. We were granted observing time in Cycle 3 for 4/8 sources
196: (PI: Padovani). For observations with {\sl Chandra} we have selected
197: sources from the sample of DXRBS and RGB FSRQ imaged with the VLA by
198: \citet{L06} and made an additional constraint that extended radio
199: structure was present. In this case the goal was to study the extended
200: X-ray morphology in addition to the core spectrum. Six sources
201: satisfied these criteria and were proposed. We were granted observing
202: time in Cycle 6 for all six sources (PI: Landt).
203:
204: Table \ref{general} summarizes the general properties of our
205: sample. For all ten X-ray observed sources we have deep radio
206: observations obtained with the VLA at 1.4 GHz in A configuration and
207: for 8/10 sources also in C configuration. These data have been
208: published recently \citep{L06} and we reproduce here for convenience
209: also some of these radio measurements.
210:
211:
212: \section{The X-ray Observations}
213:
214: On-board {\sl XMM-Newton} we used the European Photon Imaging Camera
215: (EPIC). In Table \ref{xmm} we give the journal of observations for the
216: three CCD cameras, MOS 1, MOS 2 and PN. All three cameras were
217: operated in small window mode and the thin filter was used. The source
218: WGA J1026$+$6746 was observed twice. However, the first observation
219: taken on 23 March 2004 was strongly affected by high radiation and,
220: therefore, not useful for our purposes.
221:
222: On-board {\sl Chandra} we used the Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer
223: (ACIS) with the back-illuminated S3 chip at the aim-point. All sources
224: were observed with a 1/8 subarray, except for WGA J2347$+$0852 which
225: was observed with a 1/4 subarray. The observations were performed in
226: faint timed mode. In order to avoid that the readout streak falls on
227: the extended jet structures of our sources we additionally imposed
228: roll angle constraints. In Table \ref{chandra} we give the journal of
229: observations.
230:
231:
232: \subsection{The X-ray Data Analysis}
233:
234: The EPIC data were processed using the XMM Science Analysis Software
235: (SAS; version 6.1.0). The initial data files were reprocessed with the
236: EMPROC and EPPROC scripts with default settings, using the latest
237: known calibration files (as of August 2005). We used X-ray events with
238: patterns $0-12$ and energies in the range $0.2 - 10$ keV for the two
239: MOS cameras. For the PN, we selected X-ray events with patterns $0-4$
240: (single and double pixel events) and energies in the range $0.2-15$
241: keV. The non-X-ray background was relatively high only in the case of
242: WGA J0110.5$-$1647. For this source we excluded from the analysis of
243: the PN in the energy range $>10$ keV time intervals with count rates
244: $\ge1$ counts s$^{-1}$. Source spectra were extracted from circular
245: regions of $30''$ radius for the two MOS and $35''$ radius for the
246: PN. This corresponds to an encircled energy of $\sim 85\%$. Background
247: spectra were taken from a similar circular region, offset from the
248: source position. None of the source light curves showed variability
249: over the duration of the observations after the removal of the
250: background.
251:
252: The ACIS initial event files were reprocessed using the CIAO software
253: package (version 3.3) applying the latest known calibration files (as
254: of February 2006). We filtered for bad grades and used only X-ray
255: events with energies in the range $0.3-10$ keV. High non-X-ray
256: background periods were not present in our data. Source spectra were
257: extracted from circular regions of $3''$ radius, corresponding to an
258: encircled energy of $>95\%$ at 1.5 keV. Background spectra were taken
259: from a similar circular region, offset from the source position. None
260: of the source light curves showed variability over the duration of the
261: observations after the removal of the background.
262:
263:
264: \subsection{The X-ray Spectral Fits}
265:
266: The background subtracted EPIC and ACIS spectra were fit using XSPEC
267: (version 12.2), with the individual response and ancillary matrices
268: produced with SAS and CIAO, respectively, from the source
269: spectra. Spectra were binned to a minimum of 20 counts per bin in
270: order to apply the $\chi^2$ minimization technique.
271:
272: We initially fit the individual X-ray spectra from the three EPIC
273: detectors in order to check for consistency between the datasets. From
274: a simple power-law fit we found that the photon indices agreed within
275: $2\sigma$ and that the relative normalizations were consistent to
276: within 10\%. Therefore, for all sources we proceeded to fit the three
277: datasets simultaneously, allowing for the individual normalizations to
278: vary.
279:
280: We fit the data both with single and broken power-law models with
281: photo-electric absorption using Wisconsin cross-sections from
282: \citet{Morr83}. The hydrogen column densities $N_{\rm H}$ were fixed
283: to the Galactic value \citep{DL90} and in the case of the single
284: power-law fits also allowed to vary in order to check for internal
285: absorption and/or indications of a ``soft excess''. The results for
286: the single power-law fits to the EPIC and ACIS spectra are reported in
287: Tables \ref{epic1} and \ref{acis1}, respectively. The results for the
288: broken power-law fits to the EPIC and ACIS spectra are reported in
289: Tables \ref{epic2} and \ref{acis2}, respectively.
290:
291:
292: \subsection{Discussion of Individual Sources} \label{discuss}
293:
294: In the following we discuss for each object the results of the X-ray
295: spectral analysis. In Figs. \ref{epicfit} and \ref{acisfit} we show
296: for the {\sl XMM-Newton} and {\sl Chandra} observed sources,
297: respectively, the best-fit for the model which we consider the most
298: appropriate. This is a single power-law with Galactic absorption for
299: 7/10 sources and a broken power-law with Galactic absorption for 3/10
300: sources, namely, WGA J0447$-$0322, RGB J0112$+$3818, and RGB
301: J2229$+$3057.
302:
303: \vspace*{0.3cm}
304:
305: {\sl WGA J0110$-$1647. $-$} The EPIC data are well fit by a single
306: power-law with Galactic absorption and a spectral index of
307: $\Gamma\sim2$. The data suggest that a broken power-law is a better
308: fit ($F$-test $>99.9\%$) than a single power-law. But since the break
309: is at relatively high energies ($E\sim7$ keV), the hard power-law
310: cannot be constrained by the present data. The soft spectral index is
311: in this case similar to the one obtained for the single power-law fit.
312: Additionally, there is a hint in the data of a soft excess; the fit is
313: marginally improved ($F$-test $\sim99\%$) assuming an absorption lower
314: than Galactic, but in this case the $N_{\rm H}$ is not well
315: constrained.
316:
317: \vspace*{0.1cm}
318:
319: {\sl WGA J0304$+$0002. $-$} The EPIC data are well fit by a single
320: power-law with Galactic absorption and a spectral index of
321: $\Gamma\sim1.9$. There is a hint in the data of a soft excess; the fit
322: is marginally improved ($F$-test $\sim98\%$) assuming an absorption
323: lower than Galactic. The fit is also marginally improved ($F$-test
324: $\sim99\%$) if we assume a broken power-law instead of a single
325: power-law. But in this case both the soft and hard spectral indices
326: are similar to the one obtained for the single power-law.
327:
328: \vspace*{0.1cm}
329:
330: {\sl WGA J0447$-$0322. $-$} The EPIC data are well fit by a broken
331: power-law with Galactic absorption. This fit represents a significant
332: improvement relative to a fit by a single power-law ($F$-test
333: $>99.9\%$). The resulting spectral indices of the soft and hard
334: power-laws are $\Gamma_{\rm soft}\sim2.3$ and $\Gamma_{\rm
335: hard}\sim1.7$, respectively, with an observed break at energy
336: $E\sim1.6$ keV.
337:
338: \vspace*{0.1cm}
339:
340: {\sl WGA J1026$+$6746. $-$} The EPIC data are well fit by a single
341: power-law with Galactic absorption and a spectral index
342: $\Gamma\sim1.8$.
343:
344: \vspace*{0.1cm}
345:
346: {\sl RGB J0112$+$3818. $-$} The ACIS data are well fit by a broken
347: power-law with Galactic absorption. This fit represents a significant
348: improvement relative to a fit by a single power-law ($F$-test
349: $>99.9\%$). The resulting spectral indices of the soft and hard
350: power-laws are $\Gamma_{\rm soft}\sim2.6$ and $\Gamma_{\rm
351: hard}\sim1.7$, respectively, with an observed break at energy
352: $E\sim0.9$ keV.
353:
354: \vspace*{0.1cm}
355:
356: {\sl RGB J0254$+$3931. $-$} The ACIS data are well fit by a single
357: power-law with Galactic absorption and a spectral index
358: $\Gamma\sim1.8$.
359:
360: \vspace*{0.1cm}
361:
362: {\sl RGB J2229$+$3057. $-$} The ACIS data are well fit by a broken
363: power-law with Galactic absorption. This fit represents a significant
364: improvement relative to a fit by a single power-law ($F$-test
365: $>99.9\%$). The resulting spectral indices of the soft and hard
366: power-laws are $\Gamma_{\rm soft}\sim2.3$ and $\Gamma_{\rm
367: hard}\sim1.7$, respectively, with an observed break at energy
368: $E\sim1.5$ keV.
369:
370: \vspace*{0.1cm}
371:
372: {\sl RGB J2256$+$2618. $-$} The ACIS data are well fit by a single
373: power-law with Galactic absorption and a spectral index
374: $\Gamma\sim1.7$.
375:
376: \vspace*{0.1cm}
377:
378: {\sl RGB J2318$+$3048. $-$} The ACIS data are well fit by a single
379: power-law with Galactic absorption and a spectral index of
380: $\Gamma\sim1.7$. There is a hint in the data of a soft excess; the fit
381: is marginally improved ($F$-test $\sim96\%$) assuming an absorption
382: lower than Galactic, but in this case the $N_{\rm H}$ is not well
383: constrained. The fit is also marginally improved ($F$-test $\sim99\%$)
384: if we assume a broken power-law instead of a single power-law. But in
385: this case both the soft and hard spectral indices are similar to the
386: one obtained for the single power-law.
387:
388: \vspace*{0.1cm}
389:
390: {\sl WGA J2347$+$0852. $-$} The ACIS data are well fit by a single
391: power-law with Galactic absorption and a spectral index of
392: $\Gamma\sim1.9$. There is a hint in the data of a soft excess; the fit
393: is marginally improved ($F$-test $\sim97\%$) assuming an absorption
394: lower than Galactic. The fit is also marginally improved ($F$-test
395: $\sim99\%$) if we assume a broken power-law instead of a single
396: power-law. But in this case the break is at relatively high energies
397: ($E\sim5$ keV) and the resulting soft spectral index is similar to the
398: one obtained for the single power-law fit.
399:
400:
401: \section{The Spectral Energy Distributions} \label{sed}
402:
403: In order to constrain the origin of the X-ray emission in our sources,
404: and in particular to understand if it is produced by the synchrotron
405: jet component, we have related it to the multiwavelength
406: SED. Additionally, we have estimated the flux contribution expected
407: from the two thermal emission components present in radio quasars,
408: namely, the accretion disk and the host galaxy.
409:
410:
411: \subsection{The Multiwavelength Data}
412:
413: We have used the following uniform multiwavelength data, which, with
414: the exception of the magnitudes from the Optical Monitor (OM) on-board
415: {\sl XMM-Newton}, are non-simultaneous with our X-ray observations
416: (but, as noted below, in part simultaneous with each other):
417:
418: \begin{enumerate}
419:
420: \item
421: radio core fluxes at 1.4 GHz obtained with the VLA A array
422: \citep[from][reproduced in Table \ref{general}]{L06};
423:
424: \item
425: near-IR $J$, $H$ and $Ks$ magnitudes (simultaneous to each other) from
426: the Two Micron All Sky Survey \citep[2MASS;][]{Skr06} Point Source and
427: Extended Source catalogs (see Table \ref{mag}, where the extended
428: fluxes are listed in parenthesis);
429:
430: \item
431: optical red and blue magnitudes (simultaneous to each other) from the
432: Automatic Plate Measuring catalogs \citep[APM;][]{Irw94} (see Table
433: \ref{mag});
434:
435: \item
436: optical magnitudes (simultaneous to each other) from the Sloan Digital
437: Sky Survey \citep[SDSS;][]{Ade06} Data Release 6 for WGA J0304$+$0002,
438: our only source included in this survey ($u=18.5$ mag, $g=18.1$ mag,
439: $r=18.2$ mag, $i=18.0$ mag, and $z=18.2$ mag);
440:
441: \item
442: far- and near-UV magnitudes (simultaneous to each other) from the
443: Galaxy Evolution Explorer \citep[GALEX;][]{Mar05} Data Release 3
444: (see Table \ref{mag});
445:
446: \item
447: optical and UV magnitudes (simultaneous to each other) from the OM for
448: the four sources observed with {\sl XMM-Newton} (see Table \ref{om});
449:
450: \item
451: dereddened optical spectra from \citet{Per98} and \citet{L01} for the
452: DXRBS sources and from \citet{LM98} for the RGB sources; and
453:
454: \item
455: unabsorbed {\sl ROSAT} X-ray flux densities at 1 keV (see Table
456: \ref{general}).
457:
458: \end{enumerate}
459:
460: The multiwavelength SEDs of our sources are shown in
461: Figs. \ref{xmmsed} and \ref{chandrased} for our {\sl XMM-Newton} and
462: {\sl Chandra} observed sources, respectively. We have plotted the SEDs
463: in the observer's frame as log $\nu f_{\nu}$ vs. log $\nu$. In such a
464: representation the peak indicates directly at which frequency most of
465: the energy is emitted. All magnitudes have been corrected for Galactic
466: extinction prior to their inclusion in Figs. \ref{xmmsed} and
467: \ref{chandrased}. For this purpose we used the analytical expression
468: for the interstellar extinction curve of \citet{Car89} and a parameter
469: of $R_{\rm V} = 3.1$ to transform the $A_{\rm V}$ values to
470: $A_{\lambda}$ values. We note that the optical spectra were obtained
471: through a relatively small ($\sim 1''$) aperture, and, therefore, in
472: particular for nearby objects, are not expected to account for all the
473: flux from extended emission components, such as, e.g., the host galaxy
474: (see Section \ref{host}).
475:
476:
477: \subsection{The Thermal Emission Components} \label{thermal}
478:
479: In addition to the relativistically beamed, non-thermal jet emission,
480: two thermal emission components are expected to be present in radio
481: quasars: the accretion disk and the host galaxy. We have estimated
482: their contribution to the multiwavelength SED as follows.
483:
484:
485: \subsubsection{The Accretion Disk}
486:
487: We have calculated accretion disk spectra assuming a steady
488: geometrically thin, optically thick accretion disk. In this case the
489: emitted flux is independent of viscosity and each element of the disk
490: face radiates roughly as a blackbody with a characteristic
491: temperature, which depends only on the mass of the black hole, $M_{\rm
492: BH}$, the accretion rate, $\dot{M}$, and the radius of the innermost
493: stable orbit \citep[e.g.,][]{Peterson, FKR}. We have adopted the
494: Schwarzschild geometry (non-rotating black hole) and for this the
495: innermost stable orbit is at $r_{\rm in} = 6 \cdot r_{\rm g}$, where
496: $r_{\rm g}$ is the gravitational radius defined as $r_{\rm g} = G
497: M_{\rm BH}/c^2$ with $G$ the gravitational constant and $c$ the speed
498: of light. Furthermore, we have assumed that the disk is viewed
499: face-on.
500:
501: The accretion disk spectrum is fully constrained by the two
502: quantities, accretion rate and mass of the black hole, which we have
503: estimated as follows. We have calculated the accretion rate from the
504: luminosity of the broad emission lines using the two relations: (1)
505: $L_{\rm ion} = \epsilon \dot{M} c^2$, where $L_{\rm ion}$ and
506: $\epsilon$ are the total ionizing power of the disk and the efficiency
507: for converting matter to energy, respectively, with $\epsilon \sim$6\%
508: in the case of a Schwarzschild black hole; and (2) $L_{\rm ion} =
509: f_{\rm cov}^{-1} L_{\rm BLR}$, where $f_{\rm cov}$ and $L_{\rm BLR}$
510: are the BLR covering factor and luminosity, respectively. We have
511: calculated BLR luminosities from the fluxes of the observed broad
512: emission lines as described in \citet{Cel97}. The optical spectra of
513: our sources cover mostly the broad emission lines \MgII~$\lambda 2798$
514: and H$\beta$, and in two cases also H$\alpha$. The BLR covering factor
515: is not well known, but is derived to be in the range of $\sim 5-30$\%
516: \citep[][and references therein]{Mai01} and in general a canonical
517: value of $\sim 10$\% is assumed \citep[][]{Peterson}.
518:
519: Assuming that the BLR is gravitationally bound, the mass of the black
520: hole can be estimated based on the virial theorem from the width of a
521: broad emission line and the ionizing luminosity. In this case the
522: ionizing power is used as a surrogate for the BLR radius. Following
523: \citet{Delia03} we have calculated black hole masses for 6/10 sources
524: using the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of H$\beta$ and the
525: ionizing power $L_{\rm ion}$, the latter calculated from the BLR
526: luminosity as above. For 4/10 sources, for which the optical spectrum
527: does not cover the wavelength of H$\beta$, we have used the \MgII~FWHM
528: as a substitute for that of H$\beta$. As \citet{McL02} have shown, the
529: widths of H$\beta$ and \MgII~are almost identical, indicating that, as
530: expected from their (similar) ionization potentials, these two broad
531: emission lines are produced at similar radii.
532:
533: In Table \ref{acctable} we list for our sources the observed BLR
534: luminosities and line widths along with the accretion rates and black
535: hole masses calculated assuming $f_{\rm cov}=10$\%. We note that in
536: two sources, namely, WGA J0304$+$0002 and WGA J2347$+$0852, H$\beta$
537: has a clear narrow component, which we have subtracted before
538: measuring the width. In Figs. \ref{xmmsed} and \ref{chandrased} we
539: show accretion disk spectra (black, dotted curves) for three sets of
540: accretion rates and black holes masses corresponding to $f_{\rm
541: cov}=5, 10$ and 30\% (from top to bottom).
542:
543:
544: \subsubsection{The Host Galaxy} \label{host}
545:
546: The host galaxies of radio quasars are bright ellipticals that exhibit
547: a relatively narrow range in luminosity \citep[standard deviation
548: $\sigma \sim 0.1-0.6$ mag; e.g.,][]{McL04a, Dun03, Dun93,
549: Kot98}. Therefore, we have estimated the contribution from this
550: emission component using the elliptical galaxy template of
551: \citet{Man01}, which extends from near-IR to UV frequencies, and
552: assuming a fixed absolute luminosity in the (rest-frame) $R$-band of
553: $M_R=-23.2$ mag. This is the average value obtained by \citet{McL04a}
554: for the host galaxy luminosities of a sample of 41 radio galaxies
555: imaged with the {\sl Hubble Space Telescope} in the (observer's frame)
556: {\sl I}-band. The green, solid curves in Figs. \ref{xmmsed} and
557: \ref{chandrased} show our results.
558:
559:
560: \section{Results and Discussion}
561:
562: We now address the main question of this paper: Have we found among
563: this subsample of ``X-ray loud'' radio quasars as expected
564: strong-lined blazars with $\nu_{\rm peak} > 10^{15}$ Hz and thus
565: X-rays dominated by synchrotron emission?
566:
567:
568: \subsection{Is the X-ray Emission Synchrotron?}
569:
570: In a representation of the SED as a logarithmic $\nu f_{\nu} - \nu$
571: plot (as in Figs. \ref{xmmsed} and \ref{chandrased}) the two main jet
572: components, synchrotron and inverse Compton radiation, form two humps
573: peaking at lower and higher energies, respectively. The synchrotron
574: emission in our sources presumably peaks at UV/soft-X-ray
575: frequencies. Therefore, if the X-ray emission was synchrotron in
576: origin, it would be necessarily the part of the synchrotron spectrum
577: after the emission peak and thus curved downward. In the simplest
578: approximation this means that in this case a single power-law with
579: slope $\Gamma > 2$ is expected.
580:
581: In our sample, 7/10 sources are well fit by a single power-law,
582: however, all with values $\Gamma < 2$. Therefore, synchrotron X-ray
583: emission is not observed in the large majority of our sources. Three
584: sources, namely, WGA J0447$-$0322, RGB J0112$+$3818, and RGB
585: J2229$+$3057, are well fit by a broken power-law. The best-fits give
586: in all three cases soft and hard spectral indices $\Gamma_{\rm
587: soft}>2$ and $\Gamma_{\rm hard}<2$, respectively. This suggests that,
588: as in ``intermediate'' BL Lacs, we observe the spectral transition
589: between the synchrotron and inverse Compton jet components, which in
590: these radio quasars occurs at relatively low X-ray energies of $E \sim
591: 1 - 1.5$ keV.
592:
593:
594: \subsection{Is the Synchrotron Peak in the UV?} \label{UVpeak}
595:
596: In the seven sources well fit by a single power-law synchrotron
597: emission does not dominate at X-ray frequencies. Therefore, the X-ray
598: emission is either produced by the inverse Compton jet component as in
599: ``classical'' FSRQ, indicating a relatively low $\nu_{\rm peak}$, or
600: by an emission component unrelated to the jet, indicating that the jet
601: is generally weak. The first scenario is excluded by the $\alpha_{\rm
602: rx}$ values of our sources, which are much lower than the typical
603: value of $\alpha_{\rm rx} \sim 0.85$ of ``classical'' FSRQ
604: \citep{P03}. The latter scenario seems likely. As Table \ref{general}
605: shows, these FSRQ are either lobe-dominated (i.e., have $\log R=\log
606: L_{\rm core}/L_{\rm ext}<0$, where $L_{\rm core}$ and $L_{\rm ext}$
607: are the radio core and extended luminosity, respectively; 3/7 objects)
608: or are only slightly core-dominated (i.e., have $0<\log R<0.3$; 4/7
609: objects), which suggests that their jets are weakly beamed. In this
610: case a $\nu_{\rm peak} \ga 10^{15}$ Hz cannot be excluded, but then
611: these sources were not selected as high-energy peaked blazar
612: candidates based on their jet SED.
613:
614: Out of the three sources well fit by a broken power-law, only WGA
615: J0447$-$0322 has an SED sampled simultaneously at optical/UV and X-ray
616: frequencies (by {\sl XMM-Newton}) and an extrapolation of its soft
617: X-ray power-law to lower energies predicts fluxes a factor of $\sim 3$
618: below the observed OM magnitudes. This discrepancy suggests that a
619: single emission component cannot account for the fluxes at both
620: frequencies. Therefore, either the soft-X-ray flux is synchrotron and
621: the optical/UV fluxes are not, in which case the accretion disk could
622: produce the optical/UV emission (see Section \ref{selection}), or the
623: optical/UV magnitudes sample the synchrotron jet component (which has
624: $\nu_{\rm peak} \ga 10^{15}$ Hz), but the observed soft X-ray spectral
625: slope is too flat (we refer here and in the following to ``flat'' and
626: ``steep'' in $\log \nu f_{\nu} - \log \nu$) to be synchrotron emission
627: alone.
628:
629: A similar argument for an additional emission component can also be
630: made for RGB J2229$+$3057, but less stringently so, since its
631: optical/UV magnitudes and X-ray spectrum are not
632: simultaneous. Nevertheless, it is likely that RGB J2229$+$3057 and WGA
633: J0447$-$0322 are similar cases, since their best-fit X-ray broken
634: power-laws have similarly flat spectral slopes and low break
635: energies. For RGB J0112$+$3818, an extrapolation of the soft X-ray
636: power-law to lower energies predicts fluxes similar to the observed
637: optical magnitudes. However, also for this source the optical and
638: X-ray observations are not simultaneous and, moreover, its soft X-ray
639: power-law is not as well constrained as that of WGA J0447$-$0322 and
640: RGB J2229$+$3057.
641:
642: The fact that an emission component in addition to synchrotron is
643: required at either optical/UV or soft X-ray frequencies (or both) for
644: WGA J0447$-$0322 and RGB J2229$+$3057 means that these sources are not
645: strong-lined analogs to HBL. On the other hand, if instead the analogy
646: to ``intermediate'' BL Lacs holds for the three sources well fit by a
647: broken power-law, as suggested by their X-ray spectrum, we expect
648: their synchrotron emission peak to be at relatively low frequencies
649: \citep[typically $\nu_{\rm peak} \sim 10^{14}$ Hz; e.g.,][]{Gio02}.
650:
651:
652: \subsection{Revisiting the Selection Criteria} \label{selection}
653:
654: Given that in none of our sources we detected an X-ray spectrum
655: dominated by jet synchrotron emission the important question arises:
656: Why do the selected radio quasars have multiwavelength flux ratios
657: typical of HBL? Our method selected sources based on their high X-ray
658: to radio flux ratios (low $\alpha_{\rm rx}$) as well as high optical
659: to radio flux ratios (low $\alpha_{\rm ro}$). Therefore, if it is not
660: a jet synchrotron spectrum peaking at UV/soft-X-ray frequencies and
661: dominating the X-rays that increases both the optical and X-ray fluxes
662: relative to that at radio frequencies (as in HBL), a different
663: emission component must cause a similar effect.
664:
665: Since our sources are radio quasars with strong broad emission lines,
666: the most likely component increasing the optical flux relative to that
667: at radio frequencies is the accretion disk. However, low-redshift
668: sources have usually low-luminosity AGN and their optical flux could
669: be instead enhanced by the host galaxy emission. Our estimate of the
670: fluxes of these two thermal emission components (Section
671: \ref{thermal}) suggests that the accretion disk can contribute
672: significantly to the optical fluxes of the majority of our sources
673: (8/10 objects; see Figs. \ref{xmmsed} and \ref{chandrased}). The host
674: galaxy, on the other hand, appears to dominate the optical magnitudes
675: of only the two most nearby objects, namely, RGB J2256$+$2618
676: ($z=0.121$) and RGB J2318$+$3048 ($z=0.103$).
677:
678: The estimated accretion disk spectrum approximate well the optical
679: spectra of 5/8, 2/8 and 1/8 objects if a BLR covering factor of
680: $f_{\rm cov}=5$, 10 and 30\%, respectively, is assumed. In 5/8 sources
681: we observe moderate variability (by factors of $\sim 2-5$) between the
682: optical spectra and the magnitudes. This variability behavior is
683: compatible with that of radio-quiet quasars \citep[e.g.,][]{Pal94,
684: Giv99, Van04, Wil05} and, as in these, it could be due to a change in
685: accretion rate \citep[][and references therein]{Pere06}. In this
686: respect we note that in particular the simultaneous OM magnitudes (and
687: in the case of WGA J0304$+$0002 also the simultaneous SDSS magnitudes)
688: mimic the slope of the estimated accretion disk spectrum.
689:
690: Our interpretation that the host galaxy dominates the optical fluxes
691: of the two most nearby objects is supported by the fact that they
692: appear extended on digitized images from the Second Palomar Sky Survey
693: (POSS2). Additionally, their extended near-IR magnitudes lie well
694: above those from the 2MASS Point Source catalog and comply with the
695: estimated flux and spectral shape of the host galaxy. Similarly, their
696: optical spectra mimic the expected spectral shape of the host galaxy,
697: but the small aperture used in spectroscopy underestimates its flux.
698:
699: Generally, accretion disk emission is expected to be unimportant in
700: FSRQ. Their jets are assumed to be strongly beamed and to dominate the
701: emission even at UV frequencies, where the accretion disk spectrum
702: peaks \citep{Delia03}. However, \citet[][see their Fig. 11]{L06} have
703: recently shown that a flat radio spectrum does not always ensure that
704: the radio source is highly core-dominated and thus strongly
705: beamed. This means that in some (few) FSRQ the accretion disk emission
706: could dominate over the (weakly beamed) jet spectrum. As already
707: discussed in Section \ref{UVpeak}, our sample seems to fall in this
708: category. In this respect we note that the {\it Chandra} sources were
709: chosen also because of their extended radio emission. Nevertheless,
710: among the {\it XMM-Newton} sources, which were chosen based on their
711: estimated high $\nu_{\rm peak}$, 2/4 sources are lobe-dominated and
712: one source has log $R<0.3$.
713:
714: Given that thermal accretion disk emission is pronounced in our
715: sources one can assume that their X-ray fluxes are increased relative
716: to that at radio frequencies by the same component that renders also
717: radio-quiet quasars strong X-ray emitters. In support of the notion
718: that both the optical/UV and X-ray fluxes in our FSRQ have a similar
719: (non-jet) origin as in radio-quiet quasars are also their $\alpha_{\rm
720: ox}$ values (see Fig. \ref{aroaox}), which are not inconsistent with
721: those of radio-quiet quasars \citep[e.g.,][]{Gio99a, Str05}.
722:
723: The X-ray emission of radio-quiet quasars is usually dominated by a
724: power-law with a flat spectral index [e.g., $\Gamma = 1.89 \pm 0.11$
725: \citep{Pic05}; $\Gamma = 1.92^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$ \citep{Just07}], which
726: is generally interpreted as the Comptonized hot corona of the
727: accretion disk. The seven sources well fit by a single power-law have
728: an average X-ray spectral index of $\Gamma = 1.81 \pm 0.04$, similar
729: ($\la1 \sigma$ level) to the averages found for radio-quiet
730: quasars. But more than half of these sources (4/7 objects) show also a
731: hint of a broken power-law in their X-ray spectra (thin, red solid
732: lines in Figs. \ref{xmmsed} and \ref{chandrased}; see also Section
733: \ref{discuss}). In particular, in WGA J0110$-$1647, WGA J2347$+$0852
734: and RGB J2318$+$3048 a different (steep) component seems to emerge at
735: higher X-ray energies ($E \sim 7$, 5 and 3 keV, respectively), and in
736: WGA J0304$+$0002 a broken power-law similar in break energy to that
737: observed in WGA J0447$-$0322 and RGB J2229$+$3057 but with much
738: flatter both soft and hard X-ray spectral indices is evident at a
739: lower significance level.
740:
741: Especially the case of WGA J0304$+$0002 suggests that in the selected
742: FSRQ the flat X-ray power-law component present in radio-quiet quasars
743: adds onto the jet SED, leading to an increase in total X-ray flux and
744: to a flattening of both soft and hard X-ray spectral slopes. Then in
745: sources where this component is particularly strong relative to the
746: jet, such as, e.g., WGA J0110$-$1647, the jet inverse Compton
747: component can emerge only at higher energies.
748:
749: To a first approximation we expect in this scenario that the stronger
750: the relativistic beaming, the stronger the jet contribution and,
751: therefore, the less flattened the X-ray spectral slopes. And indeed,
752: two of the three sources well fit by a broken power-law are also those
753: with the highest radio core-dominance values in the sample (log
754: $R\ga2.6$ for WGA J0447$-$0322 and log $R \sim 0.7$ for RGB
755: J0112$+$3818).
756:
757: The additional flat X-ray power-law will dominate the jet SED in
758: particular around the spectral transition point between the
759: synchrotron and inverse Compton components. This is exemplified by our
760: simulations in Fig. \ref{corona} for which we have used the average
761: blazar SED of \citet{Gio05} and to which we have added a component
762: with a spectral index of $\Gamma=2$, assuming flux ratios at the jet
763: SED transition point of 1, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100, and
764: 150. Therefore, an increased X-ray flux relative to that at radio
765: frequencies is expected to be more pronounced in FSRQ whose spectral
766: break is at or around the selection X-ray energy. In this respect we
767: note that 4/10 sources in our sample and 2/4 sources observed by
768: \citet{P02} have a detected jet SED transition point around $E=1$ keV
769: (the X-ray energy used to calculate the $\alpha_{\rm rx}$ and
770: $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ values).
771:
772:
773: \subsection{A Refined Selection Technique}
774:
775: \citet{P02} and this work presented X-ray spectroscopy for a total of
776: 14 ``X-ray loud'' radio quasars and only one source, namely, RGB
777: J1629$+$4008, had X-rays dominated by synchrotron radiation. We have
778: shown that this modest success in finding radio quasars with
779: synchrotron X-rays is due to the adopted selection criteria, which
780: efficiently select BL Lacs with synchrotron X-rays, but do not work
781: well for radio quasars. Nevertheless, the important question remains:
782: does a large population of radio quasars with synchrotron X-rays
783: exist, and, if yes, how can they be efficiently found?
784:
785: An efficient selection of radio quasars candidate to have synchrotron
786: X-rays could be based on the diagram presented by \citet[][see their
787: Fig. 12]{L06}, which plots log $L_{\rm core}/L_{\rm x}$ versus log
788: $R$, where $L_{\rm core}$ and $L_{\rm x}$ are the radio core and total
789: X-ray luminosity, respectively. In this plot high-energy peaked FSRQ
790: are expected to separate from the rest of the population, since they
791: should be those strongly core-dominated radio quasars (i.e., with log
792: $R\gg0$) that have the lowest $L_{\rm core}/L_{\rm x}$ ratios.
793:
794: For BL Lacs values of log $L_{\rm core}/L_{\rm x} \la 6$ are known to
795: be indicative of synchrotron X-rays \citep{P96}. However, based on the
796: results in the previous section lower values must be chosen for radio
797: quasars. E.g., whereas RGB J1629$+$4008, which is strongly
798: core-dominated (log $R>1.5$), has a ratio of log $L_{\rm core}/L_{\rm
799: x} \sim 4.5$ \citep{L06}, the two strongly core-dominated sources in
800: our sample, namely, WGA J0447$-$0322 and RGB J0112$+$3818, have ratios
801: of log $L_{\rm core}/L_{\rm x} \sim 5$ and $\sim 5.5$ \citep{L06},
802: respectively, which are apparently not low enough to be indicative of
803: synchrotron X-rays.
804:
805: But it remains to be shown if radio quasars with synchrotron X-rays
806: exist in large numbers and both a positive and a negative result will
807: reveal highly significant AGN physics. A negative result could tell us
808: that the so-called ``blazar sequence'' \citep{Sam96, Fos98, Ghi98}
809: holds to some level \citep{Pad07}, which would mean that the particles
810: in the relativistic jets of AGN strongly interact with the ambient
811: photon field, such as the one produced by, e.g., the accretion disk -
812: BLR complex, already in the most inner regions where they are
813: produced. A positive result, on the other hand, could mean that the
814: basic properties of AGN jets, such as, e.g., their powers, magnetic
815: field strengths or velocities, are not determined by the presence or
816: absence of emission line regions in the nuclear regions.
817:
818: Finding radio quasars with synchrotron X-rays in large numbers will
819: also provide present and up-coming $\gamma$-ray missions, such as
820: AGILE and the Gamma Ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST), with
821: plenty of targets. A synchrotron spectrum peaking at UV/soft-X-ray
822: energies produces an inverse Compton spectrum with peak at
823: $\gamma$-ray frequencies. But such jets have been detected so far only
824: in a (small) part of the BL Lac population, the HBL. Since at the high
825: fluxes required by the sensitivity of these missions radio quasars are
826: by far more abundant than BL Lacs \citep[e.g.,][]{P07}, high-energy
827: peaked FSRQ instead could become the prime targets.
828:
829:
830: \section{Summary and Conclusions}
831:
832: A considerable fraction of FSRQ discovered in the DXRBS and RGB survey
833: have multiwavelength flux ratios similar to those of BL Lacs with
834: synchrotron X-rays. However, the definite proof of the synchrotron
835: nature of their X-ray emission requires X-ray
836: spectroscopy. \citet{P02} observed four ``X-ray loud'' radio quasars
837: and found one object (RGB J1629$+$4008) to have X-rays dominated by
838: synchrotron radiation. In this paper we have presented X-ray
839: spectroscopy of a further ten of these sources. The main results are:
840:
841: \vspace*{0.2cm}
842:
843: 1. The X-ray spectrum of 7/10 sources is well fit by a single
844: power-law with spectral index $\Gamma \la 2$, indicating that
845: synchrotron X-ray emission is not the dominant component. The
846: remaining three sources are well fit by a broken power-law with soft
847: and hard spectral indices $\Gamma_{\rm soft}>2$ and $\Gamma_{\rm
848: hard}<2$, respectively, which, as in ``intermediate'' BL Lacs,
849: suggests that we observe the spectral transition between the
850: synchrotron and inverse Compton jet components.
851:
852: 2. The lack of success in finding radio quasars with X-ray spectra
853: dominated by jet synchrotron emission can be attributed to the
854: employed selection method. This was developed for BL Lacs and requires
855: the sources to have high both optical/UV and X-ray fluxes relative to
856: that at radio frequencies (low $\alpha_{\rm rx}$ and $\alpha_{\rm ro}$
857: values). In the case of radio quasars these criteria yield
858: predominantly those (few) sources that have a thermal and non-thermal
859: accretion disk component strong enough to dominate over the (weakly
860: beamed) jet emission. The majority of the observed FSRQ are either
861: lobe-dominated (i.e., have log $R<0$; 4/10 objects) or are only
862: slightly core-dominated (i.e., have $0<\log R<0.3$; 4/10 objects).
863:
864: 3. The discovered radio quasars with their relatively low $\alpha_{\rm
865: ro}$ values and strong accretion disk signatures represent a
866: population intermediate between ``classical'' FSRQ and radio-quiet
867: quasars. This makes them unique probes for studying the poorly known
868: accretion disk - jet connection.
869:
870: 4. A refined selection technique based on the work of \citet{L06} is
871: proposed to be used to search for high-energy peaked FSRQ, which,
872: since their inverse Compton emission is expected to peak at
873: $\gamma$-ray frequencies, could be prime targets for GLAST and
874: AGILE. The recipe is: (i) choose highly core-dominated radio quasars,
875: and among these (ii) choose radio quasars with low radio core to X-ray
876: luminosity ratios of log $L_{\rm core}/L_{\rm x} \la 5$.
877:
878:
879: \acknowledgments
880:
881: H.L. acknowledges financial support from the Deutsche Akademie der
882: Naturforscher Leopoldina (grant no. BMBF-LPD 9901/8-99) and from NASA
883: (grants no. NNG04GN17G and GO5-6102X). H.L. thanks the European
884: Southern Observatory and St. John's College, Oxford, where part of
885: this work was conducted, for their hospitality. We thank Sally
886: Laurent-Muehleisen for providing the spectra of sources from the RGB
887: survey in electronic format.
888:
889: Facilities: \facility{XMM}, \facility{CXO}, \facility{ROSAT},
890: \facility{GALEX}, \facility{CTIO:2MASS}, \facility{FLWO:2MASS},
891: \facility{KPNO:2.1m}, \facility{Mayall}, \facility{MMT},
892: \facility{Sloan}, \facility{VLA}
893:
894:
895:
896: %\bibliography{references}
897:
898: \begin{thebibliography}{}
899:
900: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Adelman-McCarthy et~al.}{Adelman-McCarthy
901: et~al.}{2006}]{Ade06}
902: Adelman-McCarthy, J.~K., et~al. 2006, ApJS, 162, 38
903:
904: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cardelli, Clayton, \& Mathis}{Cardelli
905: et~al.}{1989}]{Car89}
906: Cardelli, J.~A., Clayton, G.~C., \& Mathis, J.~S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245
907:
908: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Celotti, Padovani, \& Ghisellini}{Celotti
909: et~al.}{1997}]{Cel97}
910: Celotti, A., Padovani, P., \& Ghisellini, G. 1997, MNRAS, 286, 415
911:
912: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{D'Elia, Padovani, \& Landt}{D'Elia
913: et~al.}{2003}]{Delia03}
914: D'Elia, V., Padovani, P., \& Landt, H. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 1081
915:
916: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dickey \& Lockman}{Dickey \&
917: Lockman}{1990}]{DL90}
918: Dickey, J.~M., \& Lockman, F.~J. 1990, ARA\&A, 28, 215
919:
920: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dunlop et~al.}{Dunlop et~al.}{2003}]{Dun03}
921: Dunlop, J.~S., McLure, R.~J., Kukula, M.~J., Baum, S.~A., O'Dea, C.~P., \&
922: Hughes, D.~H. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 1095
923:
924: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dunlop et~al.}{Dunlop et~al.}{1993}]{Dun93}
925: Dunlop, J.~S., Taylor, G.~L., Hughes, D.~H., \& Robson, E.~I. 1993, MNRAS,
926: 264, 455
927:
928: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Fossati et~al.}{Fossati et~al.}{1998}]{Fos98}
929: Fossati, G., Maraschi, L., Celotti, A., Comastri, A., \& Ghisellini, G. 1998,
930: MNRAS, 299, 433
931:
932: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Frank, King, \& Raine}{Frank
933: et~al.}{2002}]{FKR}
934: Frank, J., King, A., \& Raine, D. 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics
935: (Cambridge University Press)
936:
937: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gambill et~al.}{Gambill et~al.}{2003}]{Gam03}
938: Gambill, J.~K., Sambruna, R.~M., Chartas, G., Cheung, C.~C., Maraschi, L.,
939: Tavecchio, F., Urry, C.~M., \& Pesce, J.~E. 2003, A\&A, 401, 505
940:
941: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ghisellini et~al.}{Ghisellini
942: et~al.}{1998}]{Ghi98}
943: Ghisellini, G., Celotti, A., Fossati, G., Maraschi, L., \& Comastri, A. 1998,
944: MNRAS, 301, 451
945:
946: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Giommi, Ansari, \& Micol}{Giommi
947: et~al.}{1995}]{Gio95}
948: Giommi, P., Ansari, S.~G., \& Micol, A. 1995, A\&AS, 109, 267
949:
950: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Giommi et~al.}{Giommi et~al.}{2002}]{Gio02}
951: Giommi, P., Capalbi, M., Fiocchi, M., Memola, E., Perri, M., Piranomonte, S.,
952: Rebecchi, S., \& Massaro, E. 2002, in Blazar Astrophysics with {BeppoSAX}
953: and Other Observatories, ed. E.~M. P.~Giommi \& G.~Palumbo (ASI/ESA), 63
954:
955: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Giommi, Menna, \& Padovani}{Giommi
956: et~al.}{1999}]{Gio99a}
957: Giommi, P., Menna, M.~T., \& Padovani, P. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 465
958:
959: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Giommi et~al.}{Giommi et~al.}{2005}]{Gio05}
960: Giommi, P., Piranomonte, S., Perri, M., \& Padovani, P. 2005, A\&A, 434, 385
961:
962: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Giveon et~al.}{Giveon et~al.}{1999}]{Giv99}
963: Giveon, U., Maoz, D., Kaspi, S., Netzer, H., \& Smith, P.~S. 1999, MNRAS, 306,
964: 637
965:
966: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Irwin, Maddox, \& McMahon}{Irwin
967: et~al.}{1994}]{Irw94}
968: Irwin, M., Maddox, S., \& McMahon, R.~G. 1994, Spectrum, 2, 14
969:
970: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Jones, O'Dell, \& Stein}{Jones
971: et~al.}{1974}]{Jones74}
972: Jones, T.~W., O'Dell, S.~L., \& Stein, W.~A. 1974, ApJ, 188, 353
973:
974: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Just et~al.}{Just et~al.}{2007}]{Just07}
975: Just, D.~W., Brandt, W.~N., Shemmer, O., Steffen, A.~T., Schneider, D.~P.,
976: Chartas, G., \& Garmire, G.~P. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1004
977:
978: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kotilainen, Falomo, \& Scarpa}{Kotilainen
979: et~al.}{1998}]{Kot98}
980: Kotilainen, J.~K., Falomo, R., \& Scarpa, R. 1998, A\&A, 332, 503
981:
982: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Landt et~al.}{Landt et~al.}{2001}]{L01}
983: Landt, H., Padovani, P., Perlman, E.~S., Giommi, P., Bignall, H., \& Tzioumis,
984: A. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 757
985:
986: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Landt, Perlman, \& Padovani}{Landt
987: et~al.}{2006}]{L06}
988: Landt, H., Perlman, E.~S., \& Padovani, P. 2006, ApJ, 637, 183
989:
990: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Laurent-Muehleisen et~al.}{Laurent-Muehleisen
991: et~al.}{1999}]{LM99}
992: Laurent-Muehleisen, S.~A., Kollgaard, R., Feigelson, E.~D., Brinkmann, W., \&
993: Siebert, J. 1999, ApJ, 525, 127
994:
995: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Laurent-Muehleisen et~al.}{Laurent-Muehleisen
996: et~al.}{1998}]{LM98}
997: Laurent-Muehleisen, S.~A., Kollgaard, R.~I., Ciardullo, R., Feigelson, E.~D.,
998: Brinkmann, W., \& Siebert, J. 1998, ApJS, 118, 127
999:
1000: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Maiolino et~al.}{Maiolino
1001: et~al.}{2001}]{Mai01}
1002: Maiolino, R., Salvati, M., Marconi, A., \& Antonucci, R. R.~J. 2001, A\&A,
1003: 375, 25
1004:
1005: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Mannucci et~al.}{Mannucci
1006: et~al.}{2001}]{Man01}
1007: Mannucci, F., Basile, F., Poggianti, B.~M., Cimatti, A., Daddi, E., Pozzetti,
1008: L., \& Vanzi, L. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 745
1009:
1010: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Martin et~al.}{Martin et~al.}{2005}]{Mar05}
1011: Martin, D.~C., et~al. 2005, ApJ, 619, 1
1012:
1013: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{McLure \& Jarvis}{McLure \&
1014: Jarvis}{2002}]{McL02}
1015: McLure, R.~J., \& Jarvis, M.~J. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 109
1016:
1017: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{McLure et~al.}{McLure et~al.}{2004}]{McL04a}
1018: McLure, R.~J., Willott, C.~J., Jarvis, M.~J., Rawlings, S., Hill, G.~J.,
1019: Mitchell, E., Dunlop, J.~S., \& Wold, M. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 347
1020:
1021: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Morrison \& McCammon}{Morrison \&
1022: McCammon}{1983}]{Morr83}
1023: Morrison, R., \& McCammon, D. 1983, ApJ, 270, 119
1024:
1025: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Padovani}{Padovani}{2007}]{Pad07}
1026: Padovani, P. 2007, in The Multi-Messenger Approach to High-Energy Gamma-Ray
1027: Sources, Vol. 309 (Astrophysics and Space Science), 63
1028:
1029: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Padovani et~al.}{Padovani et~al.}{2002}]{P02}
1030: Padovani, P., Costamante, L., Ghisellini, G., Giommi, P., \& Perlman, E.~S.
1031: 2002, ApJ, 581, 895
1032:
1033: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Padovani \& Giommi}{Padovani \&
1034: Giommi}{1995}]{P95}
1035: Padovani, P., \& Giommi, P. 1995, ApJ, 444, 567
1036:
1037: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Padovani \& Giommi}{Padovani \&
1038: Giommi}{1996}]{P96}
1039: Padovani, P., \& Giommi, P. 1996, MNRAS, 279, 526
1040:
1041: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Padovani, Giommi, \& Fiore}{Padovani
1042: et~al.}{1997}]{P97}
1043: Padovani, P., Giommi, P., \& Fiore, F. 1997, MmSAI, 68, 147
1044:
1045: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Padovani et~al.}{Padovani et~al.}{2007}]{P07}
1046: Padovani, P., Giommi, P., Landt, H., \& Perlman, E.~S. 2007, ApJ, 662, 182
1047:
1048: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Padovani et~al.}{Padovani et~al.}{2003}]{P03}
1049: Padovani, P., Perlman, E.~S., Landt, H., Giommi, P., \& Perri, M. 2003, ApJ,
1050: 588, 128
1051:
1052: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Paltani \& Courvoisier}{Paltani \&
1053: Courvoisier}{1994}]{Pal94}
1054: Paltani, S., \& Courvoisier, T. J.-L. 1994, A\&A, 291, 74
1055:
1056: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Pereyra et~al.}{Pereyra et~al.}{2006}]{Pere06}
1057: Pereyra, N.~A., Vanden~Berk, D.~E., Turnshek, D.~A., Hillier, D.~J., Wilhite,
1058: B.~C., Kron, R.~G., Schneider, D.~P., \& Brinkmann, J. 2006, ApJ, 642, 87
1059:
1060: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Perlman et~al.}{Perlman et~al.}{1998}]{Per98}
1061: Perlman, E.~S., Padovani, P., Giommi, P., Sambruna, R., Jones, L.~R., Tzioumis,
1062: A., \& Reynolds, J. 1998, AJ, 115, 1253
1063:
1064: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Perlman et~al.}{Perlman et~al.}{2001}]{Per01}
1065: Perlman, E.~S., Padovani, P., Landt, H., Stocke, J.~T., Costamante, L., Rector,
1066: T., Giommi, P., \& Schachter, J.~F. 2001, in Blazar Demographics and
1067: Physics, ed. P.~Padovani \& C.~M. Urry (A.S.P., San Francisco), 200
1068:
1069: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Peterson}{Peterson}{1997}]{Peterson}
1070: Peterson, B.~M. 1997, An Introduction to Active Galactic Nuclei (Cambridge
1071: University Press)
1072:
1073: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Piconcelli et~al.}{Piconcelli
1074: et~al.}{2005}]{Pic05}
1075: Piconcelli, E., Jimenez-Bail\'on, E., Guainazzi, M., Schartel, N.,
1076: Rodr\'iguez-Pascual, P.~M., \& Santos-Lle\'o, M. 2005, A\&A, 432, 15
1077:
1078: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sambruna et~al.}{Sambruna
1079: et~al.}{2006}]{Sam06}
1080: Sambruna, R.~M., Gliozzi, M., Tavecchio, F., Maraschi, L., \& Foschini, L.
1081: 2006, ApJ, 652, 146
1082:
1083: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sambruna, Maraschi, \& Urry}{Sambruna
1084: et~al.}{1996}]{Sam96}
1085: Sambruna, R.~M., Maraschi, L., \& Urry, C.~M. 1996, ApJ, 463, 444
1086:
1087: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Skrutskie et~al.}{Skrutskie
1088: et~al.}{2006}]{Skr06}
1089: Skrutskie, M.~F., et~al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163
1090:
1091: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Strateva et~al.}{Strateva
1092: et~al.}{2005}]{Str05}
1093: Strateva, I.~V., Brandt, W.~N., Schneider, D.~P., Vanden~Berk, D.~G., \&
1094: Vignali, C. 2005, AJ, 130, 387
1095:
1096: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Tavecchio et~al.}{Tavecchio
1097: et~al.}{2002}]{Tav02}
1098: Tavecchio, F., et~al. 2002, ApJ, 575, 137
1099:
1100: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Urry \& Padovani}{Urry \&
1101: Padovani}{1995}]{Urry95}
1102: Urry, C.~M., \& Padovani, P. 1995, PASP, 107, 803
1103:
1104: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Vanden~Berk et~al.}{Vanden~Berk
1105: et~al.}{2004}]{Van04}
1106: Vanden~Berk, D.~E., et~al. 2004, ApJ, 601, 692
1107:
1108: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wilhite et~al.}{Wilhite et~al.}{2005}]{Wil05}
1109: Wilhite, B.~C., Vanden~Berk, D.~E., Kron, R.~G., Schneider, D.~P., Pereyra, N.,
1110: Brunner, R.~J., Richards, G.~T., \& Brinkmann, J.~V. 2005, ApJ, 633, 638
1111:
1112: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wolter \& Celotti}{Wolter \&
1113: Celotti}{2001}]{Wol01b}
1114: Wolter, A., \& Celotti, A. 2001, A\&A, 371, 527
1115:
1116: \end{thebibliography}
1117:
1118:
1119: \clearpage
1120: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1121: % Tables
1122: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1123:
1124: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccrrrcccc}
1125: \tabletypesize{\small}
1126: \rotate
1127: \tablecaption{
1128: \label{general}
1129: General Properties of the Observed Sources}
1130: \tablewidth{0pt}
1131: \tablehead{
1132: Object Name & R.A.(J2000) & Decl.(J2000) & z & $f_{1keV}$ & $\alpha_{\rm r}$ & $f_{\rm core}$ & log $R$ &
1133: $\alpha_{\rm ro}$ & $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ & $\alpha_{\rm rx}$ & galactic $N_{\rm H}$ \\
1134: &&&& [$\mu$Jy] && [mJy] &&&&& [$10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$] \\
1135: (1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) & (6) & (7) & (8) & (9) & (10) & (11) & (12)
1136: }
1137: \startdata
1138: RGB J0112$+$3818 & 01 12 18.049 & $+$38 18 56.90 & 0.333 & 0.096 & $ $0.09 & 32.5 & $ $0.65 & 0.38 & 1.38 & 0.72 & 5.64 \\
1139: RGB J0254$+$3931 & 02 54 42.629 & $+$39 31 34.75 & 0.291 & 0.344 & $-$0.31 & 160.2 & $ $0.24 & 0.44 & 1.39 & 0.76 & 9.54 \\
1140: RGB J2229$+$3057 & 22 29 34.151 & $+$30 57 12.10 & 0.322 & 0.203 & $ $0.15 & 44.2 & $-$0.52 & 0.40 & 1.42 & 0.74 & 6.79 \\
1141: RGB J2256$+$2618 & 22 56 39.163 & $+$26 18 43.55 & 0.121 & 0.208 & $-$0.02 & 21.4 & $ $0.19 & 0.43 & 1.19 & 0.69 & 5.20 \\
1142: RGB J2318$+$3048 & 23 18 36.905 & $+$30 48 37.00 & 0.103 & 0.185 & $ $0.12 & 17.5 & $ $0.12 & 0.29 & 1.35 & 0.65 & 6.34 \\
1143: WGA J0110$-$1647 & 01 10 35.516 & $-$16 48 27.80 & 0.781 & 0.176 & $ $0.35 & 72.0 & $ $0.22 & 0.36 & 1.35 & 0.69 & 1.62 \\
1144: WGA J0304$+$0002 & 03 04 58.973 & $+$00 02 35.85 & 0.563 & 0.121 & $ $0.40 & 8.4 & $-$1.22 & 0.50 & 1.21 & 0.74 & 7.00 \\
1145: WGA J0447$-$0322 & 04 47 54.727 & $-$03 22 42.20 & 0.774 & 0.348 & $ $0.47 & 68.0 & $>$2.63 & 0.32 & 1.31 & 0.66 & 4.01 \\
1146: WGA J1026$+$6746 & 10 26 33.850 & $+$67 46 12.10 & 1.181 & 0.069 & $ $0.49 & 84.7 & $-$0.50 & 0.51 & 1.25 & 0.76 & 2.18 \\
1147: WGA J2347$+$0852 & 23 47 38.144 & $+$08 52 46.35 & 0.292 & 0.176 & $ $0.58 & 8.3 & $-$1.30 & 0.38 & 1.34 & 0.71 & 6.02 \\
1148: \enddata
1149:
1150: \tablecomments{\footnotesize Columns: (1) object name; (2) and (3)
1151: position of the radio core measured on VLA 1.4 GHz A array map; (4)
1152: redshift; (5) unabsorbed {\it ROSAT} X-ray flux density at 1 keV,
1153: calculated using an X-ray spectral index derived from hardness ratios;
1154: (6) radio spectral index between 1.4 and 5 GHz, calculated from the
1155: sum of the fluxes of all NVSS sources within a $3'$ radius
1156: (corresponding roughly to the beam size of the GB6 survey) and the
1157: total flux from the GB6 and PMN surveys for northern and southern
1158: sources, respectively; (7) radio core flux density measured on VLA 1.4
1159: GHz A array map; (8) radio core dominance parameter $R$ at 1.4 GHz,
1160: defined as $R=L_{\rm core}/L_{\rm ext}$, where $L_{\rm core}$ and
1161: $L_{\rm ext}$ are the core and extended luminosities, respectively;
1162: $k$-corrected rest-frame effective spectral indices between: (9) 5 GHz
1163: and 5000~\AA, (10) 5000~\AA~and 1 keV, and (11) 5 GHz and 1 keV; and
1164: (12) galactic hydrogen column density from \citet{DL90}.}
1165:
1166: \end{deluxetable}
1167:
1168: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1169: \clearpage
1170: %\thispagestyle{empty}
1171: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccccccccc}
1172: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1173: \rotate
1174: \tablecaption{
1175: \label{xmm}
1176: {\sl XMM-Newton} Journal of Observations}
1177: \tablewidth{0pt}
1178: \tablehead{
1179: Object Name & \multicolumn{3}{c}{MOS 1} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{MOS 2} &
1180: \multicolumn{3}{c}{PN} & observation & observation \\
1181: & tot. exp. & filt. exp. & source & tot. exp. & filt. exp. & source &
1182: tot. exp. & filt. exp. & source & ID & date \\
1183: & [sec] & [sec] & counts & [sec] & [sec] & counts & [sec] & [sec] & counts && \\
1184: (1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) & (6) & (7) & (8) & (9) & (10) & (11) & (12)
1185: }
1186: \startdata
1187: WGA J0110$-$1647 & 7506 & 3106 & 812 & 7508 & 3787 & 1004 & 7242 & 4233 & 5785
1188: & 0203160401 & 12/17/2003 \\
1189: WGA J0304$+$0002 & 15157 & 14638 & 939 & 15162 & 14642 & 928 & 14964 & 10432 & 2733
1190: & 0203160201 & 07/19/2004 \\
1191: WGA J0447$-$0322 & 7657 & 7439 & 1131 & 7662 & 7443 & 1162 & 7464 & 5238 & 3129
1192: & 0203160101 & 03/06/2004 \\
1193: WGA J1026$+$6746 & 9957 & 9571 & 433 & 9962 & 9576 & 412 & 9764 & 6779 & 1420
1194: & 0203160601 & 04/19/2004 \\
1195: \enddata
1196:
1197: \tablecomments{\footnotesize Columns: (1) object name; (2) total
1198: exposure time; (3) filtered live exposure time; and (4) extracted
1199: source counts for MOS 1; (5) total exposure time; (6) filtered live
1200: exposure time; and (7) extracted source counts for MOS 2; (8) total
1201: exposure time; (9) filtered live exposure time; and (10) extracted
1202: source counts for PN; (11) observation ID; and (12) observation date.}
1203:
1204: \end{deluxetable}
1205: \clearpage
1206:
1207:
1208: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccc}
1209: \tabletypesize{\small}
1210: \tablecaption{
1211: \label{chandra}
1212: {\sl Chandra} Journal of Observations}
1213: \tablewidth{0pt}
1214: \tablehead{
1215: \colhead{Object Name} & \colhead{tot. exp.} & \colhead{filt. exp.} &
1216: \colhead{source} & \colhead{angle} & \colhead{observation} &
1217: \colhead{observation} \\
1218: & \colhead{[sec]} & \colhead{[sec]} & \colhead{counts} &
1219: \colhead{[deg]} & \colhead{ID} & \colhead{date} \\
1220: \colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} & \colhead{(3)} & \colhead{(4)} &
1221: \colhead{(5)} & \colhead{(6)} & \colhead{(7)}
1222: }
1223: \startdata
1224: RGB J0112$+$3818 & 16183 & 13815 & 1897 & 172 & 5641 & 10/07/2005 \\
1225: RGB J0254$+$3931 & 10708 & 8613 & 1584 & 153 & 5638 & 10/26/2005 \\
1226: RGB J2229$+$3057 & 10628 & 9235 & 3884 & 91 & 5639 & 05/04/2005 \\
1227: RGB J2256$+$2618 & 9854 & 8936 & 2042 & 91 & 5642 & 05/04/2005 \\
1228: RGB J2318$+$3048 & 11275 & 9219 & 1168 & 316 & 5643 & 01/25/2005 \\
1229: WGA J2347$+$0852 & 16675 & 14440 & 4936 & 128 & 5640 & 08/20/2005 \\
1230: \enddata
1231:
1232: \tablecomments{\footnotesize Columns: (1) object name; (2) total
1233: exposure time; (3) filtered live exposure time; (4) extracted source
1234: counts; (5) nominal roll angle; (6) observation ID; and (7)
1235: observation date.}
1236:
1237: \end{deluxetable}
1238:
1239: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1240:
1241: \begin{deluxetable}{lllccll}
1242: \tabletypesize{\small}
1243: \tablecaption{
1244: \label{epic1}
1245: EPIC Single Power-Law Fits}
1246: \tablewidth{0pt}
1247: \tablehead{
1248: Object Name & $N_{\rm H}$ & $\Gamma$ & $f_{(0.2-2.4)}$ & $f_{(2-10)}$ & $\chi^2_{\nu}$/dof & F-test\\
1249: & [$10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$] & & [erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$] & [erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$] && null prob.\\
1250: (1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) & (6) & (7)
1251: }
1252: \startdata
1253: WGA J0110$-$1647 & 1.62 fixed & 1.96$\pm$0.04 & 1.44e$-$12 & 1.19e$-$12
1254: & 1.08/306 & \\
1255: & 0.62$^{+0.64}_{-0.58}$ & 1.88$^{+0.07}_{-0.06}$ & 1.48e$-$12 & 1.28e$-$12
1256: & 1.07/305 & 0.011 \\
1257: WGA J0304$+$0002 & 7.00 fixed & 1.93$\pm$0.05 & 2.98e$-$13 & 3.53e$-$13
1258: & 0.92/195 & \\
1259: & 4.90$^{+1.59}_{-1.14}$ & 1.83$^{+0.09}_{-0.06}$ & 2.96e$-$13 & 3.75e$-$13
1260: & 0.90/194 & 0.019 \\
1261: WGA J0447$-$0322 & 4.01 fixed & 2.11$\pm$0.04 & 7.31e$-$13 & 5.63e$-$13
1262: & 1.11/219 & \\
1263: & 1.79$^{+0.84}_{-0.72}$ & 1.97$^{+0.07}_{-0.06}$ & 7.60e$-$13 & 6.34e$-$13
1264: & 1.04/218 & 7.10e$-$05 \\
1265: WGA J1026$+$6746 & 2.18 fixed & 1.76$\pm$0.08 & 1.99e$-$13 & 2.39e$-$13
1266: & 1.06/97 & \\
1267: & 0.60$^{+1.84}_{-0.60}$ & 1.68$^{+0.13}_{-0.09}$ & 2.08e$-$13 & 2.55e$-$13
1268: & 1.05/96 & 0.171 \\
1269: \enddata
1270:
1271: \tablecomments{\footnotesize Columns: (1) object name; (2) hydrogen
1272: column density; (3) photon index; (4) observed PN flux in the range
1273: 0.2-2.4 keV; (5) observed PN flux in the 2-10 keV range; (6) reduced
1274: $\chi^2$ and number of degrees of freedom; and (7) $F$-test null
1275: probability quantifying the significance of the $\chi^2$ decrease
1276: due to the addition of a new parameter (free $N_{\rm H}$). The
1277: errors are quoted at 90\% confidence.}
1278:
1279: \end{deluxetable}
1280:
1281: \begin{deluxetable}{lllccll}
1282: \tabletypesize{\small}
1283: \tablecaption{
1284: \label{acis1}
1285: ACIS Single Power-Law Fits}
1286: \tablewidth{0pt}
1287: \tablehead{
1288: Object Name & $N_{\rm H}$ & $\Gamma$ & $f_{(0.3-2.4)}$ & $f_{(2-10)}$ & $\chi^2_{\nu}$/dof & F-test\\
1289: & [$10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$] & & [erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$] & [erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$] && null prob.\\
1290: (1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) & (6) & (7)
1291: }
1292: \startdata
1293: RGB J0112$+$3818 & 5.64 fixed & 1.89$\pm$0.08 & 4.49e$-$13 & 5.44e$-$13 & 1.07/69 & \\
1294: & 4.36e$-$08$^{+1.97}_{-4.36e-08}$ & 1.67$^{+0.09}_{-0.06}$ & 4.77e$-$13 & 6.25e$-$13 & 0.88/68 & 2.32e$-$04 \\
1295: RGB J0254$+$3931 & 9.54 fixed & 1.80$\pm$0.08 & 5.74e$-$13 & 8.99e$-$13 & 0.83/62 & \\
1296: & 6.85$^{+3.51}_{-3.27}$ & 1.71$^{+0.14}_{-0.13}$ & 5.80e$-$13 & 9.47e$-$13 & 0.81/61 & 0.163 \\
1297: RGB J2229$+$3057 & 6.79 fixed & 2.04$\pm$0.05 & 1.39e$-$12 & 1.40e$-$12 & 1.31/128 & \\
1298: & 4.84e$-$07$^{+1.34}_{-4.84e-07}$ & 1.76$^{+0.07}_{-0.04}$ & 1.48e$-$12 & 1.71e$-$12 & 0.98/127 & 8.69e$-$10 \\
1299: RGB J2256$+$2618 & 5.20 fixed & 1.66$\pm$0.06 & 7.12e$-$13 & 1.18e$-$12 & 1.07/77 & \\
1300: & 4.85$^{+2.84}_{-2.66}$ & 1.65$^{+0.12}_{-0.11}$ & 7.13e$-$13 & 1.19e$-$12 & 1.08/76 & 0.789 \\
1301: RGB J2318$+$3048 & 6.34 fixed & 1.67$\pm$0.09 & 3.93e$-$13 & 6.70e$-$13 & 0.78/46 & \\
1302: & 1.91$^{+4.01}_{-1.91}$ & 1.52$^{+0.16}_{-0.13}$ & 4.04e$-$13 & 7.38e$-$13 & 0.72/45 & 0.039 \\
1303: WGA J2347$+$0852 & 6.02 fixed & 1.86$\pm$0.04 & 1.10e$-$12 & 1.40e$-$12 & 1.34/147 & \\
1304: & 3.83$^{+1.43}_{-1.35}$ & 1.78$\pm$0.07 & 1.12e$-$12 & 1.49e$-$12 & 1.30/146 & 0.031 \\
1305: \enddata
1306:
1307: \tablecomments{\footnotesize Columns: (1) object name; (2) hydrogen
1308: column density; (3) photon index; (4) observed ACIS flux in the
1309: range 0.3-2.4 keV; (5) observed ACIS flux in the 2-10 keV range; (6)
1310: reduced $\chi^2$ and number of degrees of freedom; and (7) $F$-test
1311: null probability quantifying the significance of the $\chi^2$
1312: decrease due to the addition of a new parameter (free $N_{\rm
1313: H}$). The errors are quoted at 90\% confidence.}
1314:
1315: \end{deluxetable}
1316:
1317: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1318:
1319: \begin{deluxetable}{llllcccll}
1320: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1321: \rotate
1322: \tablecaption{
1323: \label{epic2}
1324: EPIC Broken Power-Law Fits}
1325: \tablewidth{0pt}
1326: \tablehead{
1327: Object Name & $N_{\rm H}$ & $\Gamma_{\rm soft}$ & $\Gamma_{\rm hard}$
1328: & $E_{\rm break}$ & $f_{(0.2-2.4)}$ & $f_{(2-10)}$ & $\chi^2_{\nu}$/dof & F-test \\
1329: & [$10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$] & & & [keV] & [erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$] & [erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$] && null prob. \\
1330: (1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) & (6) & (7) & (8) & (9)
1331: }
1332: \startdata
1333: WGA J0110$-$1647 & 1.62 fixed & 1.97$\pm$0.04
1334: & $-$3.00(unc.) & 6.91$^{+0.47}_{-0.39}$ & 1.43e$-$12 & 1.68e$-$12
1335: & 1.03/304 & 1.29e$-$04 \\
1336: % & 0.74$^{+0.67}_{-0.59}$ & 1.90$^{+0.07}_{-0.06}$
1337: %& $-$3.00(unc.) & 7.04$^{+0.52}_{-0.32}$ & 1.47e$-$12 & 1.72e$-$12
1338: %& 1.02/303 & 2.92e$-$04 \\
1339: WGA J0304$+$0002 & 7.00 fixed & 2.07$^{+0.33}_{-0.10}$
1340: & 1.81$^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$ & 1.26$^{+0.54}_{-0.55}$ & 2.92e$-$13 & 3.78e$-$13
1341: & 0.89/193 & 0.012 \\
1342: % & 7.03$^{+4.58}_{-1.91}$ & 2.07$^{+0.37}_{-0.13}$
1343: %& 1.81$\pm$0.09 & 1.26$^{+0.44}_{-1.25}$ & 2.92e$-$13 & 3.78e$-$13
1344: %& 0.90/192 & 0.190 \\
1345: WGA J0447$-$0322 & 4.01 fixed & 2.28$^{+0.07}_{-0.08}$
1346: & 1.74$^{+0.11}_{-0.17}$ & 1.62$^{+0.53}_{-0.32}$ & 7.26e$-$13 & 7.27e$-$13
1347: & 0.94/217 & 9.71e$-$09 \\
1348: % & 4.03$^{+2.03}_{-1.29}$ & 2.28$^{+0.26}_{-0.15}$
1349: %& 1.74$^{+0.11}_{-0.17}$ & 1.62$^{+0.44}_{-0.27}$ & 7.24e$-$13 & 7.27e$-$13
1350: %& 0.95/217 & 2.67e$-$05 \\
1351: WGA J1026$+$6746 & 2.18 fixed & 1.96$^{+0.82}_{-0.23}$
1352: & 1.66$^{+0.11}_{-0.27}$ & 0.99$^{+2.05}_{-0.54}$ & 2.02e$-$13 & 2.61e$-$13
1353: & 1.05/95 & 0.246 \\
1354: % & 0.27$^{+1.96}_{-0.27}$ & 1.65$^{+0.12}_{-0.09}$
1355: %& 3.80$^{+6.21}_{-5.35}$ & 5.70 (unc.) & 2.11e$-$13 & 2.19e$-$13
1356: %& 1.06/94 & 0.626 \\
1357: \enddata
1358:
1359: \tablecomments{Columns: (1) object name; (2) hydrogen column density;
1360: (3) soft photon index; (4) hard photon index; (5) break energy; (6)
1361: observed PN flux in the range 0.2-2.4 keV; (7) observed PN flux in
1362: the 2-10 keV range; (8) reduced $\chi^2$ and number of degrees of
1363: freedom and (9) $F$-test null probability quantifying the
1364: significance of the $\chi^2$ decrease due to the addition of two
1365: parameters (from a single power-law fit with Galactic absorption to
1366: a broken power-law fit). The errors are quoted at 90\% confidence.}
1367:
1368: \end{deluxetable}
1369:
1370: \begin{deluxetable}{llllcccll}
1371: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1372: \rotate
1373: \tablecaption{
1374: \label{acis2}
1375: ACIS Broken Power-Law Fits}
1376: \tablewidth{0pt}
1377: \tablehead{
1378: Object Name & $N_{\rm H}$ & $\Gamma_{\rm soft}$ & $\Gamma_{\rm hard}$
1379: & $E_{\rm break}$ & $f_{(0.3-2.4)}$ & $f_{(2-10)}$ & $\chi^2_{\nu}$/dof & F-test \\
1380: & [$10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$] & & & [keV] & [erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$] & [erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$] && null prob. \\
1381: (1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) & (6) & (7) & (8) & (9)
1382: }
1383: \startdata
1384: RGB J0112$+$3818 & 5.64 fixed & 2.57$^{+0.59}_{-0.29}$ & 1.74$\pm$0.09 & 0.86$^{+0.15}_{-0.17}$ & 4.72e$-$13 & 6.18e$-$13 & 0.82/67 & 6.89e$-$05 \\
1385: RGB J0254$+$3931 & 9.54 fixed & 1.97$^{+0.55}_{-0.27}$ & 1.72$^{+0.11}_{-0.84}$ & 1.17(unc.) & 5.76e$-$13 & 9.50e$-$13 & 0.81/60 & 0.223 \\
1386: RGB J2229$+$3057 & 6.79 fixed & 2.31$^{+0.22}_{-0.11}$ & 1.70$^{+0.17}_{-0.15}$ & 1.50$^{+0.43}_{-0.47}$ & 1.40e$-$12 & 1.78e$-$12 & 1.02/126 & 3.79e$-$08 \\
1387: RGB J2256$+$2618 & 5.20 fixed & 1.69$^{+2.88}_{-4.69}$ & 1.59$^{+8.41}_{-4.59}$ & 2.34(unc.) & 7.10e$-$13 & 1.22e$-$12 & 1.09/75 & 0.775 \\
1388: RGB J2318$+$3048 & 6.34 fixed & 1.78$^{+0.09}_{-0.12}$ & 1.00$^{+0.51}_{-1.30}$ & 3.01$^{+1.76}_{-1.49}$ & 3.91e$-$13 & 8.72e$-$13 & 0.65/44 & 0.007 \\
1389: WGA J2347$+$0852 & 6.02 fixed & 1.90$\pm$0.05 & 0.60$^{+0.74}_{-1.48}$ & 4.64$^{+1.17}_{-0.97}$ & 1.10e$-$12 & 1.82e$-$12 & 1.28/145 & 0.013 \\
1390: \enddata
1391:
1392: \tablecomments{Columns: (1) object name; (2) hydrogen column density;
1393: (3) soft photon index; (4) hard photon index; (5) break energy; (6)
1394: observed ACIS flux in the range 0.3-2.4 keV; (7) observed ACIS flux
1395: in the 2-10 keV range; (8) reduced $\chi^2$ and number of degrees of
1396: freedom and (9) $F$-test null probability quantifying the
1397: significance of the $\chi^2$ decrease due to the addition of two
1398: parameters (from a single power-law fit with Galactic absorption to
1399: a broken power-law fit). The errors are quoted at 90\% confidence.}
1400:
1401: \end{deluxetable}
1402:
1403: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1404:
1405: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc|cc|cc}
1406: \tabletypesize{\small}
1407: \tablecaption{
1408: \label{mag}
1409: Near-IR, Optical and UV Magnitudes}
1410: \tablewidth{0pt}
1411: \tablehead{
1412: Object Name & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{2MASS\tablenotemark{\star}} &
1413: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{APM} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{GALEX} \\
1414: & J & H & Ks & O & E & FUV & NUV \\
1415: & 1.235 $\mu$m & 1.622 $\mu$m & 2.159 $\mu$m & 4100~\AA & 6500~\AA & 1530~\AA & 2310~\AA \\
1416: & [mag] & [mag] & [mag] & [mag] & [mag] & [mag] & [mag] \\
1417: (1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) & (6) & (7) & (8)
1418: }
1419: \startdata
1420: RGB J0112$+$3818 & 15.5 & 14.6 & 13.9 & 17.3 & 16.5 & & \\
1421: RGB J0254$+$3931 & 15.9 (16.1) & 15.3 (15.4) & 14.4 (13.9) &
1422: 16.4 & 15.4 & & \\
1423: RGB J2229$+$3057 & 15.5 & 14.7 & 14.3 & 16.4 & 15.8 & & \\
1424: RGB J2256$+$2618 & 15.9 (15.0) & 15.1 (13.8) & 14.6 (13.8) &
1425: 18.3 & 16.7 & 21.7 & 21.0 \\
1426: RGB J2318$+$3048 & 15.2 (14.3) & 14.4 (13.9) & 13.9 (13.3) &
1427: 17.3 & & 20.2 & 19.5 \\
1428: WGA J0110$-$1647 & 15.0 & 14.7 & 14.0 & 15.9 & 16.2 & 17.2 & 16.5 \\
1429: WGA J0304$+$0002 & 16.5 & 15.9 & 15.2 & & 18.4 & 19.7 & 19.1 \\
1430: WGA J0447$-$0322 & 14.7 & 14.5 & 13.8 & 16.3 & 16.0 & & \\
1431: WGA J2347$+$0852 & 15.6 (15.2) & 14.8 (14.2) & 13.8 (13.5) &
1432: 17.1 & 16.2 & 18.0 & 17.7 \\
1433: \enddata
1434:
1435: \tablenotetext{\star}{magnitudes from the Extended Source catalog are
1436: listed in parenthesis}
1437:
1438: \end{deluxetable}
1439:
1440: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccc}
1441: \tabletypesize{\small}
1442: \tablecaption{
1443: \label{om}
1444: {\sl XMM-Newton} Optical Monitor Data}
1445: \tablewidth{0pt}
1446: \tablehead{
1447: Object Name & V & B & U & UVW1 & UVM2 & observation \\
1448: & $\lambda5430$ & $\lambda4500$ & $\lambda3440$
1449: & $\lambda2910$ & $\lambda2310$ & date \\
1450: & [mag] & [mag] & [mag] & [mag] & [mag] & \\
1451: (1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) & (6) & (7)
1452: }
1453: \startdata
1454: WGA J0110$-$1647 & 16.42$\pm$0.01 & 16.642$\pm$0.007 & 15.587$\pm$0.006
1455: & 15.241$\pm$0.008 & & 12/17/2003 \\
1456: WGA J0304$+$0002 & 18.76$\pm$0.02 & 19.04$\pm$0.07 & 18.07$\pm$0.05
1457: & 17.75$\pm$0.05 & & 07/19/2004 \\
1458: WGA J0447$-$0322 & 16.33$\pm$0.03 & 16.66$\pm$0.01 & 15.76$\pm$0.01
1459: & & & 03/06/2004 \\
1460: WGA J1026$+$6746 & 18.41$\pm$0.06 & & 17.49$\pm$0.02
1461: & 17.07$\pm$0.02 & 17.23$\pm$0.05 & 03/23/2004 \\
1462: & & &
1463: & 17.09$\pm$0.03 & & 04/19/2004 \\
1464: \enddata
1465: \end{deluxetable}
1466:
1467: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1468:
1469: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccc}
1470: \tabletypesize{\small}
1471: \tablecaption{
1472: \label{acctable}
1473: Accretion Disk Model Parameters}
1474: \tablewidth{0pt}
1475: \tablehead{
1476: Object Name & $L_{\rm BLR}$ & $\dot{M}$ & FWHM & broad
1477: & $M_{\rm BH}$ & $\dot{m}$ \\
1478: & [erg/s] & [$M_{\odot}$/yr] & [km/s] & line & [$M_{\odot}$] & \\
1479: (1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) & (6) & (7)
1480: }
1481: \startdata
1482: RGB J0112$+$3818 & 2.7e$+$44 & 0.8 & 3144 & \MgII & 3e$+$08 & 0.08 \\
1483: RGB J0254$+$3931 & 1.4e$+$44 & 0.4 & 3244 & H$\beta$ & 2e$+$08 & 0.05 \\
1484: RGB J2229$+$3057 & 2.6e$+$44 & 0.8 & 5467 & H$\beta$ & 8e$+$08 & 0.03 \\
1485: RGB J2256$+$2618 & 6.9e$+$42 & 0.02 & 7888 & H$\beta$ & 3e$+$08 & 0.002 \\
1486: RGB J2318$+$3048 & 5.9e$+$42 & 0.02 & 6645 & H$\beta$ & 2e$+$08 & 0.003 \\
1487: WGA J0110$-$1647 & 1.5e$+$45 & 5 & 3853 & \MgII & 1e$+$09 & 0.1 \\
1488: WGA J0304$+$0002 & 2.7e$+$44 & 0.8 & 7404 & H$\beta$ & 2e$+$09 & 0.01 \\
1489: WGA J0447$-$0322 & 6.5e$+$45 & 19 & 4595 & \MgII & 3e$+$09 & 0.2 \\
1490: WGA J1026$+$6746 & 1.1e$+$46 & 32 & 6646 & \MgII & 8e$+$09 & 0.1 \\
1491: WGA J2347$+$0852 & 8.1e$+$43 & 0.2 & 7926 & H$\beta$ & 9e$+$08 & 0.005 \\
1492: \enddata
1493:
1494: \tablecomments{\footnotesize Columns: (1) object name, (2) BLR
1495: luminosity, (3) accretion rate (in solar masses per year) calculated
1496: from the BLR luminosity assuming a covering factor of 10\%, (4) FWHM
1497: of the broad emission line listed in (5), (6) mass of the black hole
1498: (in solar masses) calculated from the FWHM and the BLR luminosity
1499: assuming a covering factor of 10\%, and (7) dimensionless accretion
1500: rate defined as $m=\dot{M}/\dot{M_{\rm E}}$, where $\dot{M_{\rm E}}$
1501: is the accretion rate at the Eddington limit. See text for more
1502: details.}
1503:
1504: \end{deluxetable}
1505:
1506: \clearpage
1507: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1508: % Figures
1509: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1510:
1511: \begin{figure*}
1512: \centerline{
1513: \includegraphics[scale=0.38]{f1.eps}
1514: }
1515: \caption{\label{aroaox} ($\alpha_{\rm ro}, \alpha_{\rm ox}$) plane for
1516: FSRQ from the DXRBS and RGB survey observed with {\sl XMM-Newton}
1517: (open circles) and {\sl Chandra} (filled circles). The effective
1518: spectral indices are defined in the usual way and calculated between
1519: the rest-frame frequencies of 5 GHz, 5000~\AA, and 1 keV. The dashed
1520: line represents the locus of constant $\alpha_{\rm rx}=0.78$, with
1521: $\alpha_{\rm rx} \ga 0.78$ and $\alpha_{\rm rx} \la 0.78$ being
1522: typical of BL Lacs with X-rays dominated by inverse Compton (LBL) and
1523: synchrotron radiation (HBL), respectively. The ``HBL box'' as defined
1524: by \citet{P03} represents the 2 $\sigma$ region around the mean
1525: $\alpha_{\rm ro}, \alpha_{\rm ox}$, and $\alpha_{\rm rx}$ values of
1526: HBL.}
1527: \end{figure*}
1528:
1529: \begin{figure*}
1530: \centerline{
1531: \includegraphics[scale=0.34,angle=-90]{f2a.eps}
1532: \includegraphics[scale=0.34,angle=-90]{f2b.eps}
1533: }
1534: \vspace*{0.7cm}
1535: \centerline{
1536: \includegraphics[scale=0.34,angle=-90]{f2c.eps}
1537: \includegraphics[scale=0.34,angle=-90]{f2d.eps}
1538: }
1539: \caption{\label{epicfit} EPIC MOS (black) and PN (grey) spectra
1540: fit with a single power-law with Galactic hydrogen column density for
1541: WGA J0110$-$1647, WGA J0304$+$0002, and WGA J1026$+$6746, and with a
1542: broken power-law with Galactic hydrogen column density for WGA
1543: J0447$-$0322.}
1544: \end{figure*}
1545:
1546: \begin{figure*}
1547: \centerline{
1548: \includegraphics[scale=0.32,angle=-90]{f3a.eps}
1549: \includegraphics[scale=0.32,angle=-90]{f3b.eps}
1550: }
1551: \vspace*{0.6cm}
1552: \centerline{
1553: \includegraphics[scale=0.32,angle=-90]{f3c.eps}
1554: \includegraphics[scale=0.32,angle=-90]{f3d.eps}
1555: }
1556: \vspace*{0.6cm}
1557: \centerline{
1558: \includegraphics[scale=0.32,angle=-90]{f3e.eps}
1559: \includegraphics[scale=0.32,angle=-90]{f3f.eps}
1560: }
1561: \caption{\label{acisfit} ACIS spectra fit with a single
1562: power-law with Galactic hydrogen column density for RGB J0254$+$3931,
1563: RGB J2256$+$2618, RGB J2318$+$3048, and WGA J2347$+$0852, and with a
1564: broken power-law with Galactic hydrogen column density for RGB
1565: J0112$+$3818 and RGB J2229$+$3057.}
1566: \end{figure*}
1567:
1568: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1569:
1570: \begin{figure*}
1571: \centerline{
1572: \includegraphics[scale=0.42]{f4a.eps}
1573: \includegraphics[scale=0.42]{f4b.eps}
1574: }
1575: \centerline{
1576: \includegraphics[scale=0.42]{f4c.eps}
1577: \includegraphics[scale=0.42]{f4d.eps}
1578: }
1579: \caption{\label{xmmsed} Observed multiwavelength SEDs of the
1580: {\sl XMM-Newton} sources. The thick red solid line and circles
1581: represent the X-ray spectrum and the magnitudes from the Optical
1582: Monitor (OM), respectively. The broken power-law fits with marginal
1583: significance are indicated by the thin red solid line. Black circles
1584: represent non-simultaneous data at radio, near-IR, optical, UV and
1585: X-ray frequencies. The extended near-IR fluxes are shown as green
1586: circles. The black, solid line represents the optical spectrum. The
1587: black, dotted curves indicate the accretion disk spectrum estimated
1588: from the broad line region (BLR) luminosity and assuming a BLR
1589: covering factor of $f_{\rm cov} = 5$, 10 and 30\% (from top to
1590: bottom). The estimated host galaxy emission is represented by the
1591: green, solid curve. See text for more details.}
1592: \end{figure*}
1593:
1594: \begin{figure*}
1595: \centerline{
1596: \includegraphics[scale=0.42]{f5a.eps}
1597: \includegraphics[scale=0.42]{f5b.eps}
1598: }
1599: \centerline{
1600: \includegraphics[scale=0.42]{f5c.eps}
1601: \includegraphics[scale=0.42]{f5d.eps}
1602: }
1603: \caption{\label{chandrased} As in Fig. \ref{xmmsed} for the
1604: {\sl Chandra} sources.}
1605: \end{figure*}
1606:
1607: \begin{figure*}
1608: \figurenum{\ref{chandrased}}
1609: \centerline{
1610: \includegraphics[scale=0.42]{f5e.eps}
1611: \includegraphics[scale=0.42]{f5f.eps}
1612: }
1613: \caption{continued.}
1614: \end{figure*}
1615:
1616: \clearpage
1617: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1618:
1619: \begin{figure*}
1620: \centerline{
1621: \includegraphics[scale=0.42]{f6.eps}
1622: }
1623: \caption{\label{corona} Simulated change in observed jet SED
1624: around the transition point between the synchrotron and inverse
1625: Compton components as a power-law component with an X-ray spectral
1626: index of $\Gamma \sim 2$ adds to it. Flux ratios of 1, 5, 10, 20, 30,
1627: 40, 50, 100, and 150 were assumed between this component and the jet
1628: SED at the transition point.}
1629: \end{figure*}
1630:
1631: \end{document}
1632: