1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2: \usepackage{apjfonts}
3:
4: \begin{document}
5: \title{The Blazar Sequence and the Cosmic Gamma-Ray Background Radiation
6: \\ in the Fermi Era}
7: \author{Yoshiyuki Inoue and Tomonori Totani}
8: \affil{Department of Astronomy, Kyoto University,
9: Kitashirakawa, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan}
10: \email{yinoue@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp}
11:
12: %%%%%%%%%%
13: %% Abstract %%
14: %%%%%%%%%%
15: \begin{abstract}
16: We present a new model of the blazar gamma-ray luminosity function
17: (GLF) and the spectrum of the extragalactic gamma-ray background
18: (EGRB), which is consistent with the observed distributions of EGRET
19: blazars. The unified sequence of blazar spectral energy
20: distribution (SED) is taken into account to make a non-trivial
21: prediction for the EGRB spectrum and more realistic comparison with
22: the data than previous studies. We then try to explain the EGRB data
23: by the two AGN populations: one is blazars, and the other is
24: non-blazar AGNs that are responsible for the EGRB in the MeV band.
25: We find that $\sim$80\% of the EGRB photon flux at $>$ 100 MeV can
26: be explained by the sum of the two populations, while $\sim$45 \%
27: can be accounted for only by blazars. The predicted EGRB spectrum
28: is in agreement with a wide range of the observed data from X-ray to
29: GeV, within the systematic uncertainties in the EGRB determination
30: by EGRET. These results indicate that AGNs including blazars are
31: the primary source of EGRB. Blazars are dominant in EGRB at higher
32: energy bands of $\gtrsim$ 100 MeV, while non-blazar AGNs dominate at
33: $\lesssim$ 100 MeV. Almost all of the EGRB flux from blazars will
34: be resolved into discrete sources by the {\it Fermi} Gamma-ray Space
35: Telescope, while that from non-blazar AGNs will largely remain
36: unresolved. Therefore, comparison between the integrated source
37: counts and diffuse EGRB flux as a function of photon energy will
38: give a simple and clear test of our model. Various quantitative
39: predictions for {\it Fermi} observations are also made. Especially,
40: our model predicts 600--1200 blazars in all sky down to $2 \times
41: 10^{-9} \ \rm photons \ cm^{-2} s^{-1}$ ($>$100 MeV), which is
42: considerably smaller than most of previous studies. We find that
43: the fraction of EGRB energy flux absorbed in intergalactic medium
44: (IGM) is not large, and the cascade component reprocessed in IGM
45: does not significantly alter the EGRB spectrum.
46: \end{abstract}
47:
48: \keywords{cosmology: diffuse radiation -- galaxies : active -- gamma
49: rays : theory}
50:
51: %%%%%%%%%%%%
52: %% Introduction %%
53: %%%%%%%%%%%%
54: \section{Introduction}
55: \label{intro}
56: The origin of the extragalactic diffuse gamma-ray background (EGRB)
57: has been discussed in astrophysics for a long time. EGRB
58: was first discovered by the \textit{SAS 2} satellite ({Fichtel},
59: {Simpson}, \& {Thompson} 1978; {Thompson} \& {Fichtel}
60: 1982). Subsequently, the EGRB spectrum was confirmed up to $\sim$ 50
61: GeV by EGRET (Energetic Gamma-Ray Experiment Telescope) on board the
62: Compton Gamma Ray Observatory. The EGRB flux is about $1 \times$
63: 10$^{-5}$ photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$ above 100 MeV and the
64: spectrum is approximately a power law with a photon index of $\sim -2$ in a
65: wide range of $\sim$30 MeV -- 100 GeV ({Sreekumar} {et~al.} 1998;
66: {Strong}, {Moskalenko}, \& {Reimer} 2004a). It should be noted that,
67: however, measurement of EGRB is not an easy task. The Galactic diffuse
68: background from cosmic-ray interaction in the Galactic disk is a
69: strong {\it foreground} emission and must be subtracted to estimate
70: EGRB. Therefore modeling of this foreground component could induce
71: significant systematic uncertainties in EGRB measurements ({Keshet},
72: {Waxman}, \& {Loeb} 2004; {Strong}, {Moskalenko}, \& {Reimer} 2004a,b;
73: {Kamae}, {Abe}, \& {Koi} 2005; {Kamae} {et~al.} 2006). A possible
74: systematic error in the calibration of the EGRET detector may also
75: have affected the EGRB determination (Stecker et al. 2008).
76:
77: Although several sources of gamma-rays (e.g., clusters of galaxies or
78: dark matter annihilation) have been proposed as a significant
79: contributor to EGRB [see, e.g., {Narumoto} \& {Totani} (2006) and
80: references therein], active galactic nuclei (AGNs) of the blazar class
81: have been thought as the primary candidate for the origin of EGRB,
82: since almost all of the extragalactic gamma-ray sources detected by
83: EGRET are blazars. The blazar contribution to EGRB has been estimated
84: by a number of papers ({Padovani} {et~al.} 1993; {Stecker},
85: {Salamon}, \& {Malkan} 1993; {Salamon} \& {Stecker} 1994; {Chiang}
86: {et~al.} 1995; {Stecker} \& {Salamon} 1996; {Chiang} \& {Mukherjee}
87: 1998; Mukherjee \& Chiang 1999; {M{\"u}cke} \& {Pohl} 2000; {Narumoto}
88: \& {Totani} 2006; {Giommi} {et~al.} 2006; {Dermer} 2007; {Pavlidou} \&
89: {Venters} 2008; {Kneiske} \& {Mannheim} 2008; Bhattacharya et
90: al. 2008). These previous studies have derived different results by
91: different approaches about the contribution of blazars to EGRB,
92: ranging from 20\% to 100 \%. A brief summary of these studies and
93: comparison with our new result will be presented in
94: \S\ref{subsection:past}. In our previous study (Narumoto \& Totani 2006,
95: hereafter NT06), we constructed a gamma-ray luminosity function (GLF)
96: model based on the picture of luminosity-dependent density evolution
97: (LDDE), which has been known to describe well the evolution of X-ray
98: luminosity function (XLF) of AGNs. NT06 found that the LDDE model fits
99: to the EGRET blazar data better than the pure-luminosity-evolution
100: (PLE) models employed in most of the previous studies. It is then
101: found that only 25--50\% of EGRB can be explained by blazars, with the
102: GLF model parameters that are consistent with the EGRET blazar data
103: (flux and redshift distributions).
104:
105: In most of past studies including NT06, however, blazar spectral
106: energy distributions (SEDs) were assumed to be a single or broken
107: power-law for all blazars. In such a modeling, the predicted EGRB
108: spectrum is almost obviously determined by the assumed power-law
109: indices. Blazar SED has been theoretically and observationally studied
110: in detail ({Ghisellini} \& {Tavecchio} 2008b, and references
111: therein). From the theoretical point of view, blazar emission is
112: widely believed to be the sum of the synchrotron (radio to UV bands)
113: and inverse Compton (dominant in gamma-ray bands) components produced
114: by the same nonthermal electron population accelerated in relativistic
115: jets. The source of target photons for the inverse-Compton (IC)
116: component could be either the synchrotron photons produced in the jet
117: itself (synchrotron-self-Compton, SSC), or photons emitted from the
118: accretion disk (external Compton, EC). Multi-wavelength observational
119: studies from radio to $\gamma$-ray bands have indicated an interesting
120: feature in blazar SEDs; the synchrotron and Compton peak photon
121: energies decrease as the bolometric luminosity increases ({Fossati}
122: {et~al.} 1997, 1998; Ghisellini et al. 1998, {Donato} {et~al.} 2001,
123: {Ghisellini} \& {Tavecchio} 2008b, {Maraschi} {et~al.} 2008). This is
124: often called as the blazar SED sequence. Although the validity of the
125: blazar sequence is currently still a matter of debate (e.g.,
126: {Padovani} {et~al.} 2007; {Ghisellini} \& {Tavecchio} 2008b;
127: {Maraschi} {et~al.} 2008), one can make a non-trivial prediction of
128: the EGRB spectrum if this blazar sequence is assumed. In other words,
129: the blazar SED sequence can be tested by comparing with the observed
130: EGRB spectrum.
131:
132: In this paper we calculate the EGRB flux and spectrum from blazars, by
133: constructing a blazar GLF model that is consistent with the flux and
134: redshift distributions of the EGRET blazars, based on the LDDE scheme
135: and the blazar SED sequence. By introducing the blazar SED sequence,
136: we can make a reasonable and non-trivial prediction of the EGRB
137: spectrum for the first time, which can be compared with the observed
138: EGRB spectrum.
139:
140: Recently, {Inoue}, {Totani}, \& {Ueda} (2008) has showed that EGRB in
141: the MeV band can naturally be explained by normal (i.e., non-blazar)
142: AGNs that compose the cosmic X-ray background. This MeV background
143: component extends to $\sim 100$ MeV with a photon index of about 2.8,
144: by the Comptonization photons produced by nonthermal electrons in hot
145: coronae. Therefore, it should also contribute to the EGRB at
146: $\lesssim$ 1 GeV. We will investigate how much fraction of the
147: observed EGRB can be explained by the sum of the two components, i.e.,
148: non-blazar AGNs (dominant at $\lesssim$100 MeV) and blazars (dominant
149: at $\gtrsim$100 MeV).
150:
151: We will then make quantitative predictions for the {\it Fermi}
152: Gamma-ray Space Telescope (Atwood et al. 2009; formerly known as
153: GLAST) that has successfully been launched on June 11th, 2008, so that
154: our model can be tested quantitatively by the observational data
155: coming in the very near future \footnote{After we submit the first
156: version of this paper (arXiv:0810.3580v1), the first {\it Fermi}
157: catalog for bright gamma-ray sources including AGNs has appear (Abdo
158: {et~al.} 2009a, b). The sample size of blazars
159: is about 100, which is bigger than the EGRET catalog by a modest
160: factor of about 2. We confine ourselves using only the EGRET data
161: in this work, as the theoretical prediction in the pre-{\it Fermi}
162: era. A much larger number of blazars should be detected in the
163: future {\it Fermi} sample, which should be compared with our
164: predictions.}.
165:
166: This paper is organized as follows. In \S \ref{sequence}, we will
167: present the treatment of the blazar SED sequence in our calculation.
168: We will describe the formulations for the blazar GLF model taking into
169: account the SED sequence in \S \ref{glf_model}, and the GLF parameter
170: determination by fitting to the EGRET data in \S \ref{glf_egret}. The
171: EGRB will be calculated and compared with the observed data in \S
172: \ref{section:egrb}, and we will present predictions for {\it Fermi} in
173: \S \ref{section:Fermi}. Discussions on a few issues will be given in
174: \S \ref{section:discussion}, including a comparison of our results
175: with those in previous studies. Conclusions will
176: then be given in \S \ref{section:conclusions}. Throughout this paper,
177: we adopt the standard cosmological parameters of
178: ($h,\Omega_M,\Omega_\Lambda$)=(0.7,0.3,0.7).
179:
180:
181: \section{The Blazar Population and the SED Sequence}
182: \label{sequence}
183:
184: \begin{figure*}
185: \begin{center}
186: \epsscale{}
187: \centering
188: \plotone{f1.eps}
189: \caption{The blazar SED sequence. The data points are the average SED
190: of the blazars studied by {Fossati} {et~al.} (1998) and D01. The
191: solid curves are the empirical SED sequence models constructed and
192: used in this paper. The model curves corresponds to the bolometric
193: luminosities of $\log_{10} (P/{\rm erg \ s^{-1}}) = $ 49.50, 48.64,
194: 47.67, 46.37, and 45.99 (from top to bottom).}
195: \label{fig.sed}
196: \end{center}
197: \end{figure*}
198:
199: Blazars are defined as the combined class of the two populations of
200: AGNs: BL Lac objects and flat spectrum radio quasars (FSRQs) (Urry \&
201: Padovani 1995)\footnote{Sometimes FSRQs are also called as optically
202: violent variable (OVV) quasars or highly polarized quasars (HPQs),
203: but they are essentially the same populations.}. BL Lacs are
204: defined as AGNs whose nuclear non-thermal continuum emission is so
205: strong that the rest-frame equivalent width (EW) of the strongest
206: optical emission line is narrower than 5 \AA. Such domination of
207: continuum is interpreted as the jet being directed towards the
208: observer; the continuum from jet is extremely enhanced by the
209: relativistic beaming compared with more isotropic line emission from
210: the regions around accretion disks. FSRQs are AGNs with emission line
211: EW greater than 5 \AA, but whose spectral index in radio band is less
212: than $\alpha_r < $ 0.5, where $\alpha_r$ is defined by $f_\nu \propto
213: \nu^{-\alpha_r}$ (see Urry \& Padovani 1995 for detailed reviews).
214: Although FSRQs show discernible emission lines, the flat radio
215: spectrum is also an evidence of the dominating jet component. In fact
216: FSRQs show similar properties to BL Lacs, such as rapid time
217: variability and strong polarization. These properties indicate that
218: BL Lacs and FSRQs are physically similar populations, and hence they
219: are often combined into a single class of blazars. The parameter that
220: discriminates BL Lacs and FSRQs is likely to be the luminosity;
221: generally FSRQs have larger luminosities than BL Lacs ({Fossati}
222: {et~al.} 1998, Ghisellini et al. 1998) \footnote{A recently popular
223: classification is that blazars are divided into quasar-hosted
224: blazars (QHB) that are the same population as FSRQ, low frequency BL
225: Lacs (LBLs), and high frequency BL Lacs (HBLs), in the decreasing
226: order of the absolute luminosity (Kubo et al. 1998).}. In this
227: paper we also treat the BL Lacs and FSRQs as the single population of
228: blazars \footnote{After the submission of the first version of our
229: paper (arXiv:0810.3580v1), Ghisellini et al. (2009) has shown that
230: this treatment is adequate by using the latest data of {\it
231: Fermi}. }.
232:
233: {Fossati} {et~al.} (1997, 1998) and {Donato} {et~al.} (2001, hereafter
234: D01) constructed an empirical blazar SED model to describe the SED
235: sequence, based on fittings to observed SEDs from radio to
236: $\gamma$-ray bands. These models are comprised of the two components
237: (synchrotron and IC), and each of the two is described by a linear
238: curve at low photon energies and a parabolic curve at high energies,
239: in the plane of $\log_{10} (\nu L_\nu)$ and $\log_{10} \nu$.
240:
241: Here we construct our own SED sequence model mainly based on the SED
242: model of D01, because there is a mathematical discontinuity in the
243: original D01 model. In the D01 model, two different mathematical
244: fitting formulae are used below and above the luminosity $\nu
245: L_\nu=10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$ at 5 GHz, and the luminosity of the
246: inverse-Compton component suddenly changes with a jump at this
247: critical luminosity. Our own SED sequence formula is described in
248: Appendix in detail, and the discontinuity is avoided there. Once the
249: blazar luminosity is specified at a reference frequency (e.g., 5 GHz
250: in radio band), this empirical model gives the full blazar SED from
251: radio to gamma-ray bands. In Fig.\ref{fig.sed} we show this empirical
252: blazar SED sequence model in comparison with the observed SED data
253: ({Fossati} {et~al.} 1998; D01). It should be noted that the observed
254: data are means of many blazars in a certain luminosity range, and
255: there may be scatter of individual blazar SEDs from the sequence.
256: When the bolometric blazar luminosity $P \equiv \int \nu L_\nu$ is
257: specified, the blazar luminosity per unit frequency, $L_\nu(\nu, P)$,
258: is determined for any photon frequency $\nu$ by the blazar sequence
259: model. Note that, although blazars must be strongly anisotropic
260: emitters, $L_\nu$ is defined as the isotropic-equivalent luminosity
261: and hence the observed energy flux per unit frequency is given by
262: $F_\nu[\nu/(1+z)] = (1+z) \, L_\nu(\nu, P) / [4 \pi d_L(z)^2]$, where
263: $z$ is redshift and $d_L$ is the standard luminosity distance.
264:
265:
266:
267: \section{The Model of Gamma-ray Luminosity Function of Blazars}
268: \label{glf_model}
269:
270: \subsection{Relating Jet Power and X-ray Luminosity of AGNs}
271: \label{section:jet_power}
272:
273: The cosmological evolution of X-ray luminosity function of AGNs has
274: been investigated intensively [{Ueda} {et~al.} 2003 (hereafter U03);
275: {Hasinger}, {Miyaji}, \& {Schmidt} 2005 (hereafter H05); {Sazonov}
276: {et~al.} 2007; {Gilli}, {Comastri}, \& {Hasinger} 2007]. These
277: studies revealed that AGN XLF is well described by the LDDE model, in
278: which peak redshift of density evolution increases with AGN
279: luminosity. Here we construct two models of blazar GLF based on the
280: two XLFs derived by U03 (in hard X-ray band) and H05 (in soft X-ray
281: band), both of which are based on the LDDE scheme. The use of LDDE in
282: blazar GLF has been supported from the EGRET blazar data, because NT06
283: found that the EGRET data agrees with the LDDE model better than PLE
284: models. However, the validity of this assumption from a theoretical
285: viewpoint should also be examined.
286:
287: It is known that radio jet emission is linked to the dissipation
288: process in the accretion disk (Falcke \& Biermann 1995; Falcke et
289: al. 1995; Merloni et al. 2003; Falcke et al. 2004; K{\"o}rding et
290: al.2006). Therefore, it is natural to expect that power of blazar jet
291: is correlated with mass accretion rate onto super massive black holes,
292: which is also correlated with the X-ray luminosity from accretion
293: disk. Therefore we simply assume that the bolometric luminosity of
294: radiation from jet, $P$, is proportional to disk X-ray luminosity,
295: $L_X$. It should be noted that $L_X$ is {\it not} the observed X-ray
296: luminosity of a blazar having a jet luminosity $P$; when an AGN is
297: observed as a blazar (i.e., the jet directed to an observer), its
298: X-ray flux is dominated by the radiation from the jet that is much
299: brighter than that from the accretion disk. Rather, $L_X$ is the
300: luminosity that would be observed from a direction different from the
301: jet.
302:
303: A constant $P/L_X$ ratio is realized when, e.g., the jet kinetic
304: luminosity ($P_k$) is efficiently dissipated into blazar bolometric
305: luminosity ($P$), and both $P_k$ and $L_X$ are proportional to the
306: mass accretion rate ($\dot m$). One should, however, be careful about
307: the latter condition. Recent observations of X-ray binaries indicate
308: that $P_k$ is generally proportional to $\dot m$, but $L_X$ is not,
309: when the accretion rate is much lower than the Eddington limit (i.e.,
310: low Eddington ratio) ({Gallo} {et~al.} 2003; {Gallo} {et~al.}
311: 2005). Such accretion disks are described by radiatively inefficient
312: accretion flows (RIAF) rather than the standard accretion disk, and
313: $L_X$ is roughly proportional to $\dot m^2$ in the RIAF regime ({Kato}
314: {et~al.} 1998; {Narayan} \& {Quataert} 2005). The RIAF picture is
315: well consistent also with the accretion flow onto the supermassive
316: black hole of the Galaxy (i.e., Sgr A$^*$) (see, e.g., Totani 2006 and
317: references therein).
318:
319: Accretion rates of X-ray bright AGNs used to derive the AGN XLF are
320: generally close to the Eddington limit, otherwise they are hardly
321: detected by X-ray observations because of the rapid decrease of X-ray
322: luminosity with decreasing Eddington ratio. Therefore, our blazar GLF
323: should be considered as that for high-Eddington-ratio AGNs, and
324: low-Eddington-ratio AGNs in the RIAF regime could be missed in our
325: analysis. Such a low-Eddington-ratio population might have a
326: significant contribution to blazar GLF, because we expect $P_k \propto
327: \dot m$ in contrast to $L_X \propto \dot{m}^2$ in the RIAF mode.
328: However, the black hole mass function predicted by time integration of
329: X-ray AGN LF is consistent with the local black hole mass function
330: inferred from the black-hole-mass versus bulge-mass relation,
331: indicating that black hole mass grows mainly in the high Eddington
332: ratio phase (e.g., {Marconi} {et~al.} 2004). If this is correct,
333: cosmic background radiation from jet activities should also be
334: dominated by AGNs in high Eddington ratio phase. Hence, it is
335: reasonable to expect that a significant part of EGRB flux can be
336: accounted for by blazars with high Eddington ratio phase, whose GLF
337: evolution is described by LDDE.
338:
339:
340: \subsection{Model Formulations}
341: \label{model_formulations}
342:
343: In this paper we describe the blazar GLF in terms of $\nu L_\nu$
344: luminosity at a reference rest-frame photon energy $\epsilon_{\rm ref,
345: res} \equiv$ 100 MeV, i.e., $L_\gamma \equiv (\epsilon_{\rm ref,
346: res} /h_p) \ L_\nu(\epsilon_{\rm ref, res}/h_p, P)$, where $h_p$ is
347: the Planck constant. According to the assumption justified in \S
348: \ref{section:jet_power}, we simply relate the bolometric blazar
349: luminosity $P$ and disk X-ray luminosity by the parameter $q$, as:
350: \begin{equation}
351: P=10^qL_X \ .
352: \label{power}
353: \end{equation}
354: Here, we define the disk luminosity $L_X$ to be that in the rest-frame
355: 2--10 and 0.5--2 keV bands for the hard XLF (U03) and the soft XLF
356: (H05), respectively. Thus, $L_\gamma$ and $L_X$ have been related
357: through $P$.
358:
359:
360: \begin{deluxetable}{ccrrrrrrrrcrl}[b]
361: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}[h]
362: \tablecaption{The parameters of the AGN XLF \label{XLF-parameters}}
363: \tablewidth{0pt}
364: \tablehead{
365: \colhead{} & \colhead{Ueda et al. 2003} & \colhead{Hasinger et al. 2005}
366: }
367: \startdata
368: $A_X$$^a$ & $5.04\times10^{-6}$ & $2.62\times10^{-7}$ \\
369: $\log_{10}$$L^*_X$$^b$ & $43.94_{-0.26}^{+0.21}$ & $43.94\pm 0.11$\\
370: $\gamma_1$ & $0.86\pm 0.15$ & $0.87\pm0.10$\\
371: $\gamma_2$ & $2.23\pm 0.13$ & $2.57\pm 0.16$\\
372: $z_c^*$ & $1.9^c$ & $1.96\pm 0.15$\\
373: $\log_{10}$$L_a$$^b$ & $44.6^c$ & $44.67^c$\\
374: $\alpha$ & $0.335\pm 0.07$ & $0.21\pm 0.04$\\
375: $p_1^*$ & $4.23\pm0.39$ & $4.7\pm0.3$\\
376: $p_2^*$ & $-1.5^c $ & $-1.5\pm0.7$\\
377: $\beta_1$ & $0.0^d$ & $0.7\pm 0.3$\\
378: $\beta_2$ & $0.0^d$ & $0.6\pm0.8$
379: \enddata
380: %% Text for table notes should follow after the \enddata but before
381: %% the \end{deluxetable}. Make sure there is at least one \tablenotemark
382: %% in the table for each \tablenotetext.
383: \tablenotetext{a}{In units of Mpc$^{-3}$.}
384: \tablenotetext{b}{In units of ergs s$^{-1}$.}
385: \tablenotetext{c}{These quantities are treated as
386: fixed parameters in each XLF model.
387: }
388: \tablenotetext{d}{The indices $\beta_1$, $\beta_2$ are treated as
389: constants in U03.
390: \vspace{0.5cm}}
391: \end{deluxetable}
392:
393: %% If you use the table environment, please indicate horizontal rules using
394: %% \tableline, not \hline.
395: %% Do not put multiple tabular environments within a single table.
396: %% The optional \label should appear inside the \caption command.
397:
398:
399: The blazar GLF $\rho_\gamma$
400: is then obtained from the AGN XLF $\rho_X$, as
401: \begin{equation}
402: \rho_\gamma(L_\gamma, z) = \kappa\frac{dL_X}{dL_\gamma}\rho_X(L_X, z),
403: \end{equation}
404: where $\rho_\gamma$ and $\rho_X$ are the comoving number densities per
405: unit gamma-ray and X-ray luminosity, respectively. The parameter
406: $\kappa$ is a normalization factor, representing the fraction of AGNs
407: observed as blazars. In our GLF model, we adopt the same form in U03
408: and H05 for $\rho_X$, as:
409: \begin{equation}
410: \rho_X(L_X, z) = \rho_X(L_X,0)f(L_X,z),
411: \end{equation}
412: where $\rho_X(L_X, 0)$ is the AGN XLF at present. This is
413: characterized by the faint-end slope index $\gamma_1 $, the bright-end
414: slope index $\gamma_2$, and the break luminosity $L_X^*$, as:
415: \begin{equation}
416: \rho_X(L_X,0)=\frac{A_X}{L_X \ {\rm ln}(10)} \left[ \left( \frac{L_X}{L_X^*}
417: \right)^{\gamma_1} + \left( \frac{L_X}{L_X^*} \right)^{\gamma_2} \right]^{-1} \ ,
418: \end{equation}
419: where $A_X$ is the normalization
420: parameter\footnote{The factor of $(L_X \ln 10)^{-1}$
421: appears because $A_X$ is defined as the pre-factor of the
422: number density per unit $\log_{10} L_X$.} having a dimension of
423: volume$^{-1}$.
424: The function $f(L_X,z)$ describes the density
425: evolution, which is given by the following forms:
426: \begin{eqnarray}
427: f(L_X,z)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
428: (1+z)^{p_1} & \text{$z \le z_c(L_X)$,} \\
429: f \left( L_X,z_c(L_X) \right)
430: \left( \frac{1+z}{1+z_c(L_X)} \right)^{p_2} & \text{$z > z_c(L_X)$,} \\
431: \end{array}\right.
432: \end{eqnarray}
433: where $z_c$ is the redshift of evolutionary peak, given as
434: \begin{eqnarray}
435: z_c(L_X)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
436: z_c^* & \text{$L_X \ge L_a$,} \\
437: z_c^*(L_X/L_a)^\alpha & \text{$L_X < L_a$,} \\
438: \end{array}\right.
439: \end{eqnarray}
440: The evolutionary indices $p_1$ and $p_2$ are described by
441: using the parameters $p_1^*$, $p_2^*$, $\beta_1$, and $\beta_2$:
442: \begin{eqnarray}
443: p_1 = p_1^* + \beta_1 ({\rm \log_{10}} L_X -44.0), \\
444: p_2 = p_2^* + \beta_2 ({\rm \log_{10}} L_X -44.0).
445: \end{eqnarray}
446: The parameters obtained by the fit to the observed data of X-ray AGNs
447: in U03 and H05 are shown in Table.\ref{XLF-parameters}.
448:
449: When we calculate the EGRB flux, it diverges if $\gamma_1 > 1$ and GLF
450: is integrated down to $L_\gamma \rightarrow 0$. Therefore we set the
451: minimum of the gamma-ray luminosity as $L_{\gamma,\rm min}$=10$^{43}$
452: erg s$^{-1}$ in the EGRB calculation, because we will find that there
453: is no EGRET blazars below this value (see Fig. \ref{EGRET_dist}).
454: However, it should be kept in mind that there might be a considerable
455: contribution to the EGRB flux from blazars below $L_{\gamma, \min}$
456: when $\gamma_1 > 1$.
457:
458:
459: \section{Gamma-Ray Luminosity Function Determined
460: by the EGRET Blazar Data}
461: \label{glf_egret}
462:
463: \subsection{The Maximum Likelihood Method}
464: \label{likelihood}
465:
466:
467: We use the maximum likelihood method to search for the best-fit model
468: parameters of the blazar GLF to the distributions of the observed
469: quantities of the EGRET blazars (gamma-ray flux and redshift).
470: The analysis method and the data used are essentially the same
471: as those in NT06.
472:
473: Observed gamma-ray flux $F_\gamma$ of EGRET blazars are photon flux
474: at $\epsilon_\gamma \ge \epsilon_{\rm min, obs}
475: \equiv 100 \ {\rm MeV}$ in photons cm$^{-2}$
476: s$^{-1}$, where $\epsilon_{\rm min, obs}$ is in the observer's frame.
477: For a given redshift, $F_\gamma$ can be
478: related to $P$ by the blazar SED sequence model
479: as follows:
480: \begin{equation}
481: F_\gamma = \frac{1+z}{4\pi d_L(z)^2}
482: \int_{ \epsilon_{\rm min, obs} (1+z)/h_p}^{\infty}
483: \frac{L_\nu(\nu, P)}{h_p \nu} d\nu \ .
484: \label{eq_Fg}
485: \end{equation}
486: Since $P$ has been related to the gamma-ray luminosity $L_\gamma$ by
487: the SED sequence, one can calculate $L_\gamma(z, F_\gamma)$ for a
488: given set of $z$ and $F_\gamma$ through $P$.
489:
490: A specified GLF model predicts the distribution function
491: $d^3N/dzdF_\gamma d\Omega$ of redshift $z$, flux $F_\gamma$, and the
492: location of a blazar in the sky specified by a solid angle $\Omega$,
493: which is given as:
494: \begin{eqnarray}
495: \frac{d^3N(z,F_{\gamma},\Omega)}{dzdF_\gamma d\Omega}
496: = \frac{dV}{dz}\rho_\gamma(L_\gamma,z) \epsilon(F_\gamma, z) \\
497: \times \Theta\lfloor F_\gamma-F_{\gamma,{\rm lim}}(\Omega)\rfloor,\nonumber
498: \end{eqnarray}
499: where $dV/dz$ is the comoving volume element per unit
500: solid angle, $\Theta$ the step function ($\Theta(x) = 1$ and 0 for $x
501: \geq$ 0 and $x < 0$, respectively), and $F_{\gamma,{\rm lim}}(\Omega)$
502: the sensitivity limit of EGRET for point sources that is a function of
503: the Galactic latitude. The functional form of $F_{\gamma,
504: \lim}(\Omega)$ is given in NT06. The detection efficiency
505: $\epsilon(F_\gamma, z)$ represents the identification probability as a
506: blazar by finding a radio counterpart. This is described \S 2.3 in
507: NT06, but here we modified the relation between the radio luminosity
508: $L_R$ and $L_\gamma$ from a simple linear relation in NT06 to that
509: predicted from our blazar SED sequence model. As in NT06, we also take
510: into account a log-normal scatter around the mean relation of
511: $L_R/L_\gamma$ with a standard deviation of $\sigma_p = 0.49$ in
512: $\log_{10} (L_R/L_\gamma)$. It should be noted that the blazar SED
513: sequence is an averaged SED for groups of blazars binned by radio
514: luminosity, and some scatter of $L_R/L_\gamma$ is expected for
515: individual blazars.
516:
517: The likelihood function is given by
518: \begin{equation}
519: \mathcal{L}=\prod_{i=1}^{N_{{\rm obs}}}\left\lfloor
520: \frac{1}{N_{{\rm exp}}}\frac{dN^3(z_i,F_{\gamma,i},\Omega_i)}{
521: dz \, dF_\gamma \, d\Omega}
522: \right\rfloor \ ,
523: \end{equation}
524: where the subscript $i$ is identification number of each blazar,
525: $N_{\rm obs}$ the observed number of blazars,
526: and $N_{{\rm
527: exp}}$ the expected number of the blazar detections, i.e.,
528: \begin{equation}
529: N_{{\rm exp}}=\int dz \int dF_\gamma \int d\Omega \,
530: \frac{d^3N}{dz\, dF_\gamma \, d\Omega}.
531: \end{equation}
532: The likelihood function does not depend on the normalization of GLF,
533: and the normalization parameter $\kappa$ is determined by requiring
534: $N_{\exp} = N_{\rm obs}$. There are $N_{\rm obs} =46$ blazars in the
535: sample analyzed in NT06 and this work.
536:
537:
538: \begin{figure*}
539: \begin{center}
540: \includegraphics[width=180mm]{f2.eps}
541: \caption{Top panels: redshift and gamma-ray luminosity ($\nu
542: L_\nu$ at 100 MeV) distributions of EGRET blazars. The histogram
543: is the binned EGRET data, with one sigma Poisson errors. The
544: four model curves are the best-fits for the GLF models of
545: U03($q$), H05($q$), U($q,\gamma_1$), and H05($q,\gamma_1$), as
546: indicated in the figure. Bottom panels: the same as the top
547: panels, but for cumulative distributions.}
548: \label{EGRET_dist}
549: \end{center}
550: \end{figure*}
551:
552:
553:
554:
555: \subsection{The Best Fit Parameters}
556: \label{best_fit}
557:
558:
559: \begin{deluxetable}{ccrrrrrrrrcrl}[h]
560: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}[t]
561: \tablecaption{Best-fit parameters for blazar GLF \label{best-fit-glf}}
562: \tablewidth{0pt}
563: \tablehead{
564: \colhead{} & \colhead{U03($q$)} & \colhead{U03($q$,$\gamma_1$)}
565: & \colhead{H05($q$)} & \colhead{H05($q$,$\gamma_1$)} }
566: \startdata
567: $q$ & 4.92$_{-0.10}^{+0.21}$ & $4.93_{-0.10}^{+0.25}$ & 5.29$_{-0.22}^{+0.26}$
568: & $5.35_{-0.21}^{+0.25}$ \\
569: $\gamma_1$ & 0.86$^a$ & $0.93\pm 0.13$ & 0.87$^a$ & $1.11_{-0.12}^{+0.11}$ \\
570: $\kappa$ & $1.7\times10^{-6}$ & $1.5\times 10^{-6}$ & $9.5\times 10^{-6}$ & $6.0\times 10^{-6}$ \\
571: \cutinhead{KS test probabilities}
572: $z$ & 53.8\% & 86.9\% & 0.15\% & 33.0\%\\
573: L$_{\gamma}$ & 25.6\% & 48.4\% & 0.08\% & 28.5\%
574: \enddata
575:
576: \tablecomments{The best-fit values of the model parameters ($q$,
577: $\gamma_1$, $\kappa$) obtained from the maximum likelihood
578: analysis. The KS probabilities of the best-fit models are also shown
579: for the redshift and gamma-ray luminosity distributions in the last
580: two rows. }
581:
582: \tablenotetext{a}{These parameters are fixed at the original AGN XLF
583: values in these analysis, and the original values are
584: shown.\vspace{0.5cm}}
585:
586: \end{deluxetable}
587:
588:
589: In the first analyses, we take $q$ as the only one free parameter of
590: the blazar GLF, with all the XLF model parameters fixed at the values
591: of U03 and H05. These are hereafter called as U03($q$) and H05($q$)
592: fits, respectively. In the second analyses, we take the faint-end
593: slope index of XLF $\gamma_1$ as another free parameter in addition to
594: $q$. These are hereafter called as U03($q$, $\gamma_1$) and H05($q$,
595: $\gamma_1$) fits, respectively. The motivation of these models is to
596: investigate the effect of the uncertainty about the faint-end slope,
597: because it may have significant effect on EGRB if $\gamma_1 \gtrsim
598: 1$. The best-fit values for these four fits are shown in
599: Table. \ref{best-fit-glf}. Figure \ref{EGRET_dist} shows the
600: distributions of redshift and gamma-ray luminosity predicted by the
601: best-fit models, in comparison with the EGRET data. We obtained the
602: best-fit values of $q \sim 5$, meaning that the observed jet
603: luminosity $P$ (bolometric blazar luminosity) is typically $10^5$
604: higher than the disk X-ray luminosity. In the U03($q, \ \gamma_1$)
605: model, the characteristic AGN X-ray luminosity $L_X^*$ (the break in
606: XLF) corresponds to the blazar gamma-ray luminosity of $L_\gamma^* =
607: 10^{48} \ \rm erg \ s^{-1}$.
608:
609: \begin{figure*}
610: \begin{center}
611: \begin{tabular}{cc}
612: \resizebox{90mm}{!}{\includegraphics{f3-1.eps}} &
613: \resizebox{90mm}{!}{\includegraphics{f3-2.eps}} \\
614: \end{tabular}
615: \caption{$Left$: Solid contours show the 68\%, 95\%, and $99\%$ CL
616: likelihood contours for the LDDE model parameters [the faint-end
617: slope index, $\gamma_1$, and the ratio of the blazar emission
618: power to disk X-ray luminosity, $q$] in the case of the U03 XLF. The
619: best-fit values ($q$,$\gamma_1$)=(4.93, 0.93) are shown by the
620: cross. The dotted contours are for the parameter $\kappa$, the
621: normalization ratio of blazar GLF to AGN XLF. The $\kappa$
622: values for the contours are indicated in the figure. The shaded
623: region indicates the $1 \sigma$ error region of the original $\gamma_1$
624: value determined for AGN XLF by X-ray surveys. $Right$:
625: The same as the left panel, but for the H05 XLF. The best-fit
626: values ($q$,$\gamma_1$)=(5.35, 1.11) are shown by the cross.
627: }
628: \label{contour}
629: \end{center}
630: \end{figure*}
631:
632:
633: We performed the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test to see the goodness of
634: fits for the best-fit results of each of the four fits, and the chance
635: probabilities of getting the observed KS deviation are shown in Table
636: \ref{best-fit-glf}. Except for the H05$(q)$ model, the fits are
637: statistically acceptable. Since the best KS test value is obtained
638: for the U03($q, \gamma_1$) GLF model, we use the U03($q$, $\gamma_1$)
639: GLF model as the baseline below, when only one of the four fits is
640: presented. In Fig. \ref{contour} we show the allowed regions of the
641: model parameters in the U03($q$, $\gamma_1$) and H05($q$, $\gamma_1$)
642: models. The best-fit value of $\gamma_1$ in the U03($q$, $\gamma_1$)
643: model is in good agreement with the original value derived by U03.
644: The value in the H05($q$, $\gamma_1$) model is slightly larger than
645: the original H05 value, but the statistical significance is not large.
646: The difference between the U03($q$, $\gamma_1$) and H05($q$,
647: $\gamma_1$) fits may be a result of different selections of AGNs in
648: soft (H05) and hard X-ray (U03) bands, because strongly obscured AGNs
649: would more easily be missed in soft X-ray bands than in hard X-ray
650: bands.
651:
652: It should be noted that the results of the acceptable KS probabilities
653: and the similar $\gamma_1$ values to the original XLFs give some
654: support to our basic assumption of a simple proportionality between
655: the X-ray accretion luminosity $L_X$ and the jet luminosity $P$. As
656: mentioned above, X-ray faint AGNs may be in the RIAF mode
657: (low-Eddington ratio) rather than the standard disk mode, and the
658: proportionality between $L_X$ and $P$ could be violated. Therefore our
659: results implies that the EGRET data can be described well with the
660: assumption that the majority of EGRET blazars are in the standard disk
661: mode or high Eddington ratio phase. {\it Fermi} will probe much
662: fainter blazars than EGRET, and we may see the deviation from the
663: proportionality between $L_X$ and $P$.
664:
665:
666:
667: \section{The Gamma-Ray Background Spectrum}
668: \label{section:egrb}
669:
670: \subsection{the EGRB Spectrum Calculation}
671: We calculate the EGRB spectrum by integrating our blazar SED sequence
672: model in the redshift and luminosity space, using the blazar GLF
673: derived in \S \ref{glf_model}. The spectrum of EGRB radiation (photon flux
674: per unit photon energy and per steradian) is calculated as
675: \begin{eqnarray}
676: \frac{d^2F(\epsilon_\gamma)}{d\epsilon_\gamma d\Omega}&=&\frac{c}{4\pi}
677: \int_0^{z_{\rm max}}dz
678: \frac{dt}{dz}
679: \int_{L_{\gamma,\rm min}}^{L_{\gamma}(F_{\rm EGRET},z)}dL_\gamma \
680: \rho_\gamma (L_\gamma, z) \\ \nonumber
681: & \times & \frac{(1+z)}{h_p}
682: \ \frac{L_\nu[\epsilon_\gamma (1+z) / h_p, P(L_\gamma)]}{
683: \epsilon_\gamma (1+z) }\\ \nonumber
684: &\times& e^{-\tau_{\gamma \gamma}}(z, \epsilon_\gamma) \ ,
685: \end{eqnarray}
686: where $\epsilon_\gamma$ is the observed gamma-ray photon energy, $t$
687: the cosmic time, and $dt/dz$ can be calculated by the Friedmann
688: equation in the standard cosmology. We assume $z_{\max} = 5$ in this
689: calculation, but the EGRB flux is hardly dependent on this parameter,
690: since the peak of GLF/XLF evolution is well below $z \sim 5$. The
691: minimum gamma-ray luminosity is set at $L_{\gamma, \min} = 10^{43} \
692: \rm erg \ s^{-1}$ as mentioned earlier. Since EGRET has already
693: resolved bright gamma-ray sources, we should not include those sources
694: in the EGRB calculation. Therefore, the maximum gamma-ray luminosity
695: in the integration should be $L_{\gamma}(F_{\rm EGRET},z)$, which is
696: the luminosity of the blazar having a flux $F_\gamma = F_{\rm EGRET}$
697: at a given $z$, where $F_{\rm EGRET}=7 \times 10^{-8} \ \rm photons \
698: cm^{-2} \ s^{-1}$ is the EGRET sensitivity above 100 MeV.
699:
700: Very high energy photons ($\gtrsim$ 20 GeV) from high redshift are absorbed
701: by the interaction with the cosmic infrared background (CIB) radiation
702: ({Salamon} \& {Stecker} 1998; {Totani} \& {Takeuchi} 2002; {Kneiske}
703: {et~al.} 2004; {Stecker}, {Malkan}, \& {Scully} 2006), and
704: $\tau_{\gamma \gamma}(z, \epsilon_\gamma)$ is the optical depth of the
705: universe against this reaction. In this paper, we adopt the model of
706: {Totani} \& {Takeuchi} (2002) for CIB and $\tau_{\gamma \gamma}$. The
707: gamma-ray absorption produces electron-positron pairs, and the pairs
708: would scatter the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation to make
709: the secondary contribution (the cascade component) to high energy
710: background radiation ({Aharonian} {et~al.} 1994; {Fan} {et~al.}
711: 2004). We take into account this cascading emission to calculate EGRB
712: spectrum, considering only the first generation of created pairs, by
713: using the same formulations in {Kneiske} \& {Mannheim} (2008). In the
714: following results, we will find that the amount of energy flux
715: absorbed and reprocessed in intergalactic medium (IGM) is only a small
716: fraction of the total EGRB energy flux, and hence the model dependence
717: of CIB or the treatment of the cascading component does not have
718: serious effects on our conclusions in this work.
719:
720:
721:
722:
723:
724: \subsection{The EGRB Spectrum from Blazars}
725: \label{composition}
726:
727: \begin{figure*}
728: \begin{center}
729: \begin{tabular}{cc}
730: \includegraphics[width=180mm]{f4.eps}
731: \end{tabular}
732: \caption{The
733: blazar EGRB spectrum (energy flux per unit logarithmic photon
734: energy and per steradian). The four panels are for the four
735: different GLF models of U03($q$), U03($q,\gamma_1$), H05($q$),
736: and H05($q,\gamma_1$). The solid curve is for the total EGRB
737: spectrum from all blazars, and the other curves are for a
738: particular range of blazar luminosity, as indicated in the
739: figure ($L_\gamma$ in units of erg/s). The effect of absorption
740: by CIB is included, while the reprocessed cascade component is
741: not included. The observed data of SMM ({Watanabe} {et~al.}
742: 1999), COMPTEL ({Kappadath} {et~al.} 1996), and EGRET
743: [{Sreekumar} {et~al.} 1998 (S98); {Strong} {et~al.} 2004a
744: (S04a)] experiments are also shown with the symbols indicated in
745: the figure.}
746: \label{fig.blazar}
747: \end{center}
748: \end{figure*}
749:
750: Figure \ref{fig.blazar} shows the $\nu F_\nu$ EGRB spectrum predicted
751: by the best-fit GLF model parameters obtained above. Here, we show the
752: total EGRB flux as well as the contributions from different $L_\gamma$
753: ranges. This EGRB spectrum is the primary spectrum directly from
754: blazars, because in this calculation the effect of photon absorption
755: in IGM is included but the cascade emission is not. The data of SMM
756: ({Watanabe} {et~al.} 1999), COMPTEL ({Kappadath} {et~al.} 1996) and
757: EGRET ({Sreekumar} {et~al.} 1998; {Strong} {et~al.} 2004a) are also
758: shown. As seen in Figure \ref{fig.blazar}, the contribution from
759: low-luminosity blazars with $\log_{10} (L_\gamma/{\rm erg \ s^{-1}})$ =
760: 43--45 is significant only above 1 GeV, because of the assumed SED
761: sequence of blazars. The contribution from these low-luminosity
762: blazars is larger in the model of H05($q,\gamma_1$) than that of
763: H05($q$), because the faint-end slope of the GLF becomes steeper when
764: $\gamma_1$ is treated as a free parameter.
765:
766: An important implication here is that the contribution from the
767: so-called MeV blazars, which have their SED peaks at around MeV, is
768: negligible in the MeV gamma-ray background flux, although such MeV
769: blazars have been suspected as a possible origin of the MeV
770: background. This is because MeV blazars have a large luminosity of
771: $\log_{10} (L_\gamma/{\rm erg \ s^{-1}})$ = 49--50 in the blazar SED
772: sequence, and the number density of such blazars is small.
773:
774:
775: Figure \ref{fig.cascade} shows the intrinsic (the spectrum without
776: taking into account the absorption by CIB), absorbed (the same as
777: Fig. \ref{fig.blazar}), and cascading components of EGRB spectrum,
778: as well as the total (absorbed+cascade) spectrum. The
779: absorption by CIB becomes significant at $\epsilon_\gamma \gtrsim 100$
780: GeV, and the absorbed EGRB photons are converted into lower energy
781: gamma-rays, with the energy flux roughly conserved. However, the
782: absorbed energy flux of EGRB above $\sim$ 100 GeV is not significantly
783: larger than the unabsorbed energy flux, and hence the increase of EGRB
784: flux or change of the EGRB spectrum at $\lesssim$ 100 GeV by the
785: cascading component is not a large effect.
786:
787:
788:
789: \begin{figure*}
790: \begin{center}
791: \begin{tabular}{cc}
792: \resizebox{90mm}{!}{\includegraphics{f5-1.eps}} &
793: \resizebox{90mm}{!}{\includegraphics{f5-2.eps}}
794: \end{tabular}
795: \caption{The blazar EGRB spectrum. The two panels are for the two
796: different GLF models of U03($q,\gamma_1$) and
797: H05($q,\gamma_1$). Three model predictions for the intrinsic (no
798: absorption by CIB), absorbed, and cascade (reprocessed emission
799: by electrons/positrons produced in IGM) components of the EGRB
800: spectrum are shown by line markings shown in the figure. The
801: solid curve is the total flux, i.e., absorbed plus cascade
802: components. The EGRET data are the same as those in
803: Fig. \ref{fig.blazar}.
804: }
805: \label{fig.cascade}
806: \end{center}
807: \end{figure*}
808:
809:
810: \subsection{The EGRB Spectrum from Non-blazar AGNs}
811: \label{I08}
812:
813: In addition to blazars, we take into account non-blazar AGNs as the
814: source of EGRB. Inoue et al. (2008, hereafter ITU08) has shown that
815: non-blazar AGNs are a promising source of EGRB at $\sim$1--10 MeV. In
816: this scenario, a nonthermal power-law component extends from hard
817: X-ray to $\sim$10 MeV band in AGN spectra, because of nonthermal
818: electrons that is assumed to exist ubiquitously in hot coronae around
819: AGN accretion disks. The existence of such nonthermal electrons is
820: theoretically reasonable, because the hot coronae are the essential
821: component in the standard picture of X-ray emission from AGNs, and
822: magnetic reconnection is the promising candidate for the heating
823: source of the hot coronae ({Laor} \& {Behar} 2008). Magnetic
824: reconnections should produce nonthermal particles, as is well known in
825: e.g., solar flares or the earth magnetosphere. Although several
826: sources have been proposed as the origin of the MeV background, this
827: model gives the most natural explanation for the observed MeV
828: background spectrum that is a simple power-law smoothly connected to
829: CXB.
830:
831: Theoretically, there is no particular reason to expect a cut-off of
832: the nonthermal emission around 10 MeV, and it is well possible that
833: this emission extends beyond 10 MeV with the same power index. Then,
834: this component could make some contribution to EGRB in the EGRET
835: energy band. The EGRB spectrum from the non-blazar AGNs calculated
836: based on the model of ITU08 is shown in Figure \ref{fig.egrb}, in
837: comparison with the blazar component. The model parameters of ITU08
838: have been determined to explain the EGRB in the MeV band. There is
839: some discrepancy between the MeV EGRB data of SMM and COMPTEL, and the
840: reason for this is not clear. Here we use two model parameter sets of
841: $(\Gamma, \gamma_{\rm tr})=(3.5,4.4)$ and $(3.8,4.4)$ in ITU08, where
842: $\Gamma$ is the power-law index of nonthermal electron energy
843: distribution and $\gamma_{\rm tr}$ is the transition electron Lorentz
844: factor above which the nonthermal component becomes dominant. These
845: two parameter sets are chosen so that they fit to the COMPTEL and SMM
846: data, respectively. The EGRB flux is dominated by blazars at the
847: energy range above $\sim$100 MeV, while the non-blazar component is
848: dominant at the lower photon energies.
849:
850:
851:
852:
853:
854: \subsection{On the Origin of EGRB}
855: \label{subsec:origin_egrb}
856:
857: Now we compare the EGRB data above 100 MeV with our model predictions.
858: Because of the uncertainties in the EGRB measurements, we plotted
859: three types of EGRB EGRET data in this figure (see below for the explanations of the data points). As can
860: be seen in Fig. \ref{fig.egrb}, the overall background spectrum from
861: X-ray to 1 GeV predicted by our blazar plus non-blazar model is
862: similar to the observed data. Especially, the EGRB prediction using
863: the ITU08 non-blazar background model with $\Gamma = 3.5$ is in nice
864: agreement with the observed data of Strong et al. (2004a) in 0.1--1
865: GeV. In this case, the predicted EGRB flux at 100 MeV can account for
866: 80\% of the observed flux, which is a considerably higher fraction
867: than those in previous studies (Chiang \& Mukherjee 1998; M\"ucke \&
868: Pohl 2000; NT06). It should be noted that the contribution to the
869: EGRB flux at 100 MeV from blazars is $\sim$45 \%, which is similar to
870: those estimated by previous studies. The high fraction is due to the
871: addition of the EGRB component from non-blazar AGNs.
872:
873: The prediction is still 20 \% short of the observed flux, and the
874: discrepancy becomes more serious when the model is compared with the
875: Strong et al. (2004a) data above 1 GeV or with the original EGRB
876: determination by the EGRET team (Sreekumar et al. 1998). Especially,
877: the apparent excess of the observed EGRB flux beyond 1 GeV might
878: be a contribution from a completely different component, e.g.,
879: dark matter annihilation (e.g., Oda, Totani, \& Nagashima 2005).
880: Therefore we carefully discuss the possible origin of the discrepancy
881: below.
882:
883: We should first examine the uncertainties in the model
884: prediction. Since the GLF likelihood determination is based only on 46
885: blazars, there is a statistical uncertainty of 15 and 32\% in the
886: normalization of GLF and the EGRB flux at 68 and 95\% C.L.,
887: respectively. The sensitivity limit of EGRET has been included in the
888: GLF likelihood analysis. The EGRET sensitivity to a point source
889: changes depending on the location in the sky, and we used sensitivity
890: limit inferred from the signal-to-noise ratios of the EGRET sources as
891: a function of the Galactic latitude, as in NT06. The sensitivity limit
892: has a $\sim$30\% scatter even after binned by the Galactic
893: latitude. When the sensitivity limit is changed by $\pm$30\%, we find
894: that the GLF normalization and EGRB flux changes by $\pm
895: \sim$25\%. Since the faint-end slopes of the $(q,\gamma_1)$ GLF models
896: are $\gamma_1 \sim 1$, the faint-end cut-off luminosity $L_{\gamma,
897: \min}$ of blazar GLF could also be important. We therefore repeated
898: the calculation with $L_{\gamma, \min}$ changed by a factor of 10
899: from the baseline model, but we find that the EGRB flux changes by
900: only $\sim$0.8\% and $\sim$1.7\% for U03($q$, $\gamma_1$) and H05($q$,
901: $\gamma_1$), respectively. Therefore, our result is not sensitive to
902: $L_{\gamma, \min}$.
903:
904: \begin{figure*}
905: \begin{center}
906: \begin{tabular}{cc}
907: \resizebox{90mm}{!}{\includegraphics{f6-1.eps}} &
908: \resizebox{90mm}{!}{\includegraphics{f6-2.eps}}
909: \end{tabular}
910: \caption{The EGRB spectrum from non-blazar AGNs and blazars. The
911: two panels are for the two different blazar GLF models of
912: U03($q,\gamma_1$) (left) and H05($q,\gamma_1$) (right). The
913: model curves of the blazar component (absorbed+cascade),
914: non-blazar AGN component, and the total of the two populations
915: are shown. Note that two models are plotted for the non-blazar
916: component with different values of $\Gamma$ (see the
917: line-markings indicated in the figure). The observed data of
918: HEAO-1 ({Gruber} {et~al.} 1999) and
919: {\it Swift}/BAT ({Ajello} {et~al.} 2008) are shown. We also plot a new EGRET
920: data denoted as ``S98+S08'', which is the original EGRET
921: determination of {Sreekumar} {et~al.} (1998) corrected by the
922: correction factors proposed by Stecker et al. (2008, S08). The other
923: data are the same as those in Fig. \ref{fig.blazar}.
924: }
925: \label{fig.egrb}
926: \end{center}
927: \end{figure*}
928:
929: Next we examine the possible systematic uncertainties in the
930: observational determination of EGRB. The correct modeling of the
931: foreground, i.e., the Galactic diffuse emission is critical for the
932: EGRB measurement. However, there is a well-known problem of ``GeV
933: anomaly'', which is an excess of the observed diffuse flux compared
934: with the standard theoretical model of the Galactic diffuse emission
935: ({Pohl} \& {Esposito} 1998; {Strong} {et~al.} 2004b; {de Boer}
936: {et~al.} 2005; {Kamae}, {Abe}, \& {Koi} 2005; {Stecker}, {Hunter}, \&
937: {Kniffen} 2008). The difference of the EGRB data of Strong et
938: al. (2004a) from the original EGRET data (Sreekumar et al. 1998) is a
939: result of modifying the model of the Galactic diffuse emission to
940: resolve the GeV anomaly, demonstrating that theoretical uncertainties
941: in the Galactic diffuse emission could have a significant effect on
942: the EGRB measurements. On the other hand, Stecker et al. (2008)
943: suggested that the most likely cause of the GeV anomaly is a
944: systematic error in the calibration of the EGRET detector at photon
945: energies beyond 1 GeV, and they derived the correction factors for the
946: flux measured by EGRET. If their claim is correct, the correction
947: factors should be multiplied to the original EGRET measurements of
948: EGRB (Sreekumar et al. 1998), and such corrected data are shown as
949: S98+S08 in Fig. \ref{fig.egrb}. Although
950: the overall corrected EGRB flux is still higher than the model
951: predictions, the corrected spectrum is similar to those of models. The
952: marked dip at $\sim$ GeV and hump at higher photon energies found in
953: the data of Strong et al. (2004a) are not seen. It should also be
954: noted that the EGRET EGRB data at $\sim$50 MeV is considerably higher
955: than the neighboring COMPTEL data, again indicating some systematic
956: uncertainties in the EGRB flux estimates.
957:
958: Based on these results and considerations, we conclude that most, and
959: probably all, of the EGRB flux can be explained by blazars and
960: non-blazar AGNs, with luminosity functions that are consistent with
961: the EGRET blazar data and the X-ray AGN surveys. We must await the
962: future {\it Fermi} data for a more robust conclusion about this issue.
963:
964:
965:
966: \section{Predictions for the {\it Fermi} mission}
967: \label{section:Fermi}
968:
969: \subsection{Expected Number of Blazars and Non-blazar AGNs}
970:
971: \begin{figure*}
972: \begin{center}
973: \begin{tabular}{cc}
974: \resizebox{90mm}{!}{\includegraphics{f7-1.eps}} &
975: \resizebox{90mm}{!}{\includegraphics{f7-2.eps}} \\
976: \end{tabular}
977: \caption{Left: the cumulative flux distribution of blazars. The
978: four model curves correspond to the four different GLF models of
979: U03($q$), H05($q$), U($q,\gamma_1$), and H05($q,\gamma_1$) are
980: shown. The thin solid line shows the observed distribution of
981: EGRET blazars. The detection limits of EGRET and {\it Fermi}
982: are also shown. $Right$: the same as the left panel, but showing
983: differential flux distribution multiplied by flux $F_\gamma$, to
984: show the contribution to EGRB per logarithmic flux interval. The
985: solid squares are the EGRET data with Poisson errors.}
986: \label{fig.count}
987: \end{center}
988: \end{figure*}
989: The left panel of Figure \ref{fig.count} shows the cumulative
990: distribution of $>$ 100 MeV photon flux of blazars. The four GLF
991: models of U03($q$), U03($q,\gamma_1$), H05($q$), and
992: H05($q,\gamma_1$), predict that about 640, 930, 470, and 1200 blazars
993: should be detected by {\it Fermi}, respectively, where we assumed the
994: {\it Fermi} sensitivity to be $F_{\rm lim}=2\times 10^{-9}$ photons
995: cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ above 100 MeV. This is a standard sensitivity
996: often used in the literature (e.g., Oh 2001; NT06; Venters \&
997: Pavlidou 2007), and close to $\sim 5 \sigma$ limit for a point source at high
998: Galactic latitude after a 1 year survey. See also the official Science
999: Requirement Document of {\it Fermi} available at
1000: http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/ for the {\it Fermi} performance.
1001: Here, we calculated simply all the blazars without taking into account
1002: the probability of identification by follow-up observations in other
1003: wavebands. This is why the number of bright blazars is larger than the
1004: EGRET observation in Fig. \ref{fig.count}; we have taken into account
1005: the probability of blazar identification by detecting a radio
1006: counterpart in the likelihood analysis of the EGRET blazars. The
1007: model of {Stecker} \& {Salamon} (1996), and the PLE and LDDE models in
1008: {Narumoto} \& {Totani} (2006) predicted $\sim$10000, 5400, and 3000
1009: blazars for the same sensitivity limit, respectively. It is
1010: remarkable that the GLF models in this work predict significantly
1011: smaller numbers of blazars than previous studies. This is probably
1012: because of the SED model newly used here; the IC component has its
1013: broad SED peak at around 100 MeV, and the flux at lower and higher
1014: energy band is relatively lower than the case of power-law SED,
1015: because of the curvature of the spectrum.
1016:
1017: The right panel of Figure \ref{fig.count} shows the differential flux
1018: distribution of gamma-ray blazars multiplied by flux, showing the
1019: contribution to the EGRB per unit logarithmic flux interval. From this
1020: plot one can estimate how much fraction of EGRB will be resolved by
1021: the {\it Fermi} mission. The peak of the contribution to EGRB occurs at a
1022: flux much brighter than the {\it Fermi} limit, meaning that EGRB from
1023: blazars should practically be resolved into discrete sources. We find
1024: that the fraction of EGRB flux that should be resolved is 99, 98, 100,
1025: and 100\% against the total blazar EGRB flux in the four GLF models of
1026: U03($q$), U03($q,\gamma_1$), H05($q$), and H05($q,\gamma_1$),
1027: respectively. However, as seen in Fig. \ref{fig.egrb}, there is a
1028: considerable contribution from non-blazar AGNs to the EGRB flux at 100
1029: MeV, and our next interest is how much fraction of EGRB from
1030: non-blazars will be resolved by {\it Fermi}.
1031:
1032:
1033: The left panel of Figure \ref{fig.count_all} shows the cumulative flux
1034: distribution of blazars in the U03($q, \gamma_1$) model, non-blazar
1035: AGNs, and the total of the two. The expected number of non-blazar
1036: AGNs detectable by EGRET is much smaller than unity in all sky, and it
1037: is consistent with the fact that almost all extragalactic gamma-ray
1038: sources detected by EGRET are blazars. However, about 1--30 non-blazar
1039: AGNs would be detected by {\it Fermi}, by their soft nonthermal
1040: emission from nonthermal electrons in coronae of accretion disks,
1041: giving an interesting test for our model. In fact, we can estimate
1042: the $>$ 100 MeV gamma-ray flux from the observed hard X-ray flux of
1043: NGC 4151 (the brightest Seyfert galaxy in all sky, {Sazonov} {et~al.}
1044: 2007) using the ITU08 model, and it becomes $\sim 3.3 \times 10^{-8}$
1045: and $4.1 \times 10^{-9}$ photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ for $\Gamma = 3.5$
1046: and 3.8, respectively. Therefore NGC 4151 is marginally detectable
1047: when $\Gamma = 3.8$, and easily detectable with $\Gamma = 3.5$, which
1048: are nicely consistent with the predicted source counts of
1049: non-blazar AGNs detectable by {\it Fermi}.
1050:
1051: On the other hand, the right panel of Figure \ref{fig.count_all}
1052: indicates that EGRB from non-blazar AGNs is hardly resolved into
1053: discrete sources by {\it Fermi}. The predicted fraction of non-blazar
1054: EGRB flux resolved by {\it Fermi} is 0.03 and 0.004 \% for the models
1055: with $\Gamma=3.5$ and 3.8, respectively, against the total non-blazar
1056: EGRB flux. These results are in sharp contrast to those for blazars,
1057: although the contributions to the total EGRB by the two populations
1058: are comparable at around 100 MeV. This is because of a large
1059: difference between typical absolute luminosities of blazars and
1060: non-blazar AGNs. The typical luminosity at 100 MeV of blazars and
1061: non-blazars is $\nu L_\nu=10^{48.0}$ and $10^{42.5}$ erg/s, which are
1062: corresponding to $L_X^*$ in the AGN XLF. If the evolution is similar
1063: for the two population, the characteristic redshift or distance to the
1064: sources having main contribution to EGRB should be similar.
1065: Therefore, a source population with smaller characteristic luminosity
1066: is more difficult to resolve into discrete sources when the flux
1067: sensitivity is fixed.
1068:
1069: The above results mean that a considerable part of EGRB at around 100
1070: MeV will remain unresolved even with the {\it Fermi} sensitivity,
1071: because there is a considerable contribution from non-blazar AGNs to
1072: EGRB at $\sim$100 MeV. However, the contribution from non-blazars
1073: should rapidly decrease with increasing photon energy, and almost all
1074: of the total EGRB flux at $\gtrsim$ 1 GeV should be resolved into
1075: discrete blazars by {\it Fermi}, if there is no significant source
1076: contributing to EGRB other than blazars. It should be noted that
1077: these predictions can be tested by {\it Fermi} relatively easily,
1078: without follow-up or cross check at other wavebands, once measurements
1079: of source counts and EGRB flux have been done by the {\it Fermi} data.
1080: Therefore this gives a simple and clear test for the theoretical model
1081: presented here.
1082:
1083:
1084: \begin{figure*}
1085: \begin{center}
1086: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1087: \resizebox{90mm}{!}{\includegraphics{f8-1.eps}} &
1088: \resizebox{90mm}{!}{\includegraphics{f8-2.eps}} \\
1089: \end{tabular}
1090: \caption{The same as Fig. \ref{fig.count}, but showing non-blazar AGNs
1091: as well, in addition to blazars. The two models of non-blazar
1092: AGNs with different values of $\Gamma$ are shown. The total of
1093: blazar and non-blazar counts is also shown.}
1094: \label{fig.count_all}
1095: \end{center}
1096: \end{figure*}
1097:
1098: \subsection{Redshift and Luminosity Distribution}
1099:
1100: \begin{figure*}
1101: \begin{center}
1102: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1103: \resizebox{90mm}{!}{\includegraphics{f9-1.eps}} &
1104: \resizebox{90mm}{!}{\includegraphics{f9-2.eps}} \\
1105: \end{tabular}
1106: \caption{The predictions for the redshift and gamma-ray luminosity
1107: ($\nu L_\nu$ at rest frame 100 MeV) distributions of blazars for
1108: {\it Fermi}. The four model curves are for the four different
1109: GLF models of U03($q$), H05($q$), U($q,\gamma_1$), and
1110: H05($q,\gamma_1$). The {\it Fermi} sensitivity limit is set as
1111: $F_{\rm lim}$ =$2 \times 10^{-9}$ photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ for
1112: photon flux above 100 MeV. The observed distributions of EGRET
1113: blazars are shown, for comparison against the expected
1114: distributions of {\it Fermi} blazars.
1115: }
1116: \label{Fermi_dist}
1117: \end{center}
1118: \end{figure*}
1119: \label{z_L_Fermi}
1120: Figure \ref{Fermi_dist} shows the redshift and luminosity distributions
1121: of blazars that will be detected by {\it Fermi}, where we have again set the
1122: {\it Fermi} sensitivity limit as $F_{\rm lim}=2\times 10^{-9}$ photons
1123: cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ above 100 MeV. Since we normalized the total number
1124: of detectable blazars, only the shapes of distribution should be
1125: compared.
1126:
1127: {\it Fermi} will detect much fainter blazars than EGRET did. Since
1128: $\gamma_1>1$, the H05($q,\gamma_1$) model predicts more faint blazars
1129: than other models. The redshift distribution of EGRET blazars has
1130: already extended to cosmologically significant range of $z \gtrsim 1$,
1131: and the normalized distribution does not significantly change by the
1132: {\it Fermi} sensitivity. However, the absolute number of high-$z$
1133: blazars will be increased, because the total number of blazars will
1134: drastically be increased by {\it Fermi} from that of EGRET blazars.
1135:
1136: There are some differences in the predictions by the four different
1137: GLF models. Since the {\it Fermi} will dramatically increase the
1138: statistics by a large number of detected blazars, a detailed
1139: comparison between the GLF models and the {\it Fermi} data will
1140: provide us a quantitative view of the evolutionary nature of blazar
1141: GLF, once the redshifts of {\it Fermi} blazars are measured. The
1142: comparison between the blazar GLF and other AGN LFs in different
1143: wavebands (e.g., X-ray, optical, and radio) will give us important
1144: information about the jet activity evolution of AGNs, in comparison
1145: with the mass accretion history onto SMBH that can be probed by disk
1146: luminosity function.
1147:
1148:
1149:
1150: \section{Discussion}
1151: \label{section:discussion}
1152:
1153: \begin{figure*}
1154: \begin{center}
1155: \plotone{f10.eps}
1156: \caption{The blazar SED models in our model in comparison with those
1157: in previous studies. BL Lacs and FSRQs are separately plotted in the
1158: left and right panels, respectively. SEDs of our model are those
1159: having $L_{\gamma} = 10^{44.5}$ and $10^{46.6} \rm erg s^{-1}$ for
1160: BL Lac and FSRQ, respectively. The MP00 curves are the EIC+SSC
1161: instantaneous injection model from their Fig 1. NT06 used a single
1162: power-law with the same index both for BL Lacs and FSRQs. The G06
1163: curve (the same for BL Lac and FSRQ) is the SED with the synchrotron
1164: peak of $\nu_{\rm syn} = 10^{13.8}$ Hz used in their study. D07
1165: used single power-law SEDs but with different indices for BL Lacs
1166: and FSRQs. The KM08 curve is the case 3 SED used as a model of HBL
1167: SED. The normalizations of these SEDs are from the original models
1168: for MP00 and D07, and otherwise they are fixed at $L_{\gamma} =
1169: 10^{44.5}$ and $10^{46.6} \rm erg s^{-1}$ for BL Lac and FSRQ,
1170: respectively, where $L_{\gamma}$ is $\nu L_\nu$ at 100 MeV. }
1171: \label{fig.sed_model}
1172: \end{center}
1173: \end{figure*}
1174:
1175: \subsection{Comparison with previous studies}
1176: \label{subsection:past}
1177: There are four important points in the modeling of the blazar
1178: GLF. They are (1) the treatment of blazar population (e.g., BL
1179: Lac/FSRQ separation), (2) modeling of blazar SED, (3) the functional
1180: form of the GLF and its cosmological evolution, and (4) observational
1181: inputs to determine the GLF parameters. Here we compare our model with
1182: those of previous studies about these points. Our results about the
1183: expected number of Fermi blazars ($\sim$1000 blazars to the
1184: sensitivity limit of $F_{\rm lim}=2\times 10^{-9}$ photons cm$^{-2}$
1185: s$^{-1}$ above 100 MeV) and EGRB ($\sim 45$\% contribution by blazars
1186: at 100 MeV) will also be compared with those of the previous studies.
1187:
1188: {Stecker} \& {Salamon} (1996; hereafter SS96) treated the blazar as a
1189: single population, with a single power-law SED. They used the blazar
1190: radio luminosity function of Dunlop \& Peacock (1990) with pure
1191: luminosity evolution (PLE) as the blazar GLF model. The
1192: gamma-ray/radio flux ratio was estimated by those of typical blazars,
1193: and their blazar GLF was not statistically compared with the EGRET
1194: blazar data of flux and redshift distribution. They found that blazars
1195: can explain 100\% of EGRB, and $\sim$10000 blazars are expected to be
1196: detected by {\it Fermi}.
1197:
1198: {Chiang} \& {Mukherjee} (1998; hereafter CM98) treated the blazar as a
1199: single population, with a single power-law SED. CM98 assumed a single
1200: power-law with a cut-off luminosity $L_{\min}$ for the luminosity
1201: distribution of GLF, and adopted PLE for evolution. In such a
1202: modeling, the faint-end slope is difficult to estimate accurately, and
1203: hence the uncertainty about EGRB flux becomes large. They constrained
1204: the blazar GLF parameters from a statistical comparison with the EGRET
1205: blazar data. They found that blazars can explain only 25\% of EGRB.
1206:
1207: {M{\"u}cke} \& {Pohl} (2000; hereafter MP00) treated BL Lacs and FSRQs
1208: separately. They used a theoretical model of the blazar SED of
1209: {Dermer} \& {Schlickeiser} (1993), and their GLF model is described in
1210: terms of the distribution of electron energy injection. The energy
1211: injection distribution is modeled according to the radio luminosity
1212: function of Fanaroff-Riley (FR) I and II galaxies of Urry et
1213: al. (1991) and Padovani \& Urry (1992) for BL Lacs and FSRQs,
1214: respectively. These LFs assume PLE. The GLF model parameters are then
1215: determined by the flux and redshift distributions of EGRET blazars.
1216: They found that blazars can explain 20-80\% of the EGRB depending on
1217: the model parameters.
1218:
1219: Narumoto \& Totani (2006; hereafter NT06) treated the blazar as a
1220: single population, with a single power-law SED. They examined both the
1221: PLE and LDDE model for GLE evolution, which are based on the radio LF
1222: of blazars and XLF of AGNs, respectively. The GLF model parameters
1223: are determined by the fits to the flux and redshift distributions of
1224: EGRET blazars. They found that LDDE model fits to EGRET data better
1225: than the PLE model. They found that blazars can explain 25-50\% of the
1226: EGRB, and $\sim$3000 blazars are expected to be detected by {\it
1227: Fermi}.
1228:
1229: Giommi {et~al.} (2006; hereafter G06) estimated EGRB flux and spectrum
1230: based on the radio luminosity function of blazars. They first
1231: calculated the cosmic radio background intensity, and then converted
1232: it to the EGRB spectrum by using a typical SSC SED model. Therefore,
1233: their model is not a GLF model for individual blazars, and not
1234: compared statistically with the EGRET data of blazar flux and redshift
1235: distribution. Their model overproduced the observed EGRB spectrum.
1236:
1237: Dermer (2007; hereafter D07) treated BL Lac and FSRQ separately, using
1238: single power-law SEDs for the two populations with different spectral
1239: indices. The variation of the absolute luminosity was not considered
1240: within these populations, with the single luminosity of $L_\gamma =
1241: 2.5\times10^{44} \ \rm erg\ s^{-1}$ and $10^{46} \ \rm erg\ s^{-1}$
1242: for BL Lacs and FSRQs, respectively. Therefore, this is not a model
1243: of GLF, but D07 rather considered various models of number density
1244: evolution, and the model parameters of the number density evolution
1245: are constrained by the redshift and flux distribution of EGRET
1246: blazars. They found that blazars can account for 12-19\% of EGRB at 1
1247: GeV, and their model predicts $\sim$ 1000 blazars detectable by Fermi,
1248: which is close to our result by a very different approach.
1249:
1250: Kneiske \& Mannheim (2008; hereafter KM08) considered the contribution
1251: to EBL from high energy cutoff BL Lacs (HBLs). The spectrum was
1252: assumed to be a broken power-law with the peak energy around 1 TeV for
1253: HBLs. They employed the XLF of HBL which shows no evolution (Beckmann
1254: et al. 2003), and a statistical comparison with the EGRET blazar data
1255: was not made. They found that blazars can explain $\sim$80\% of EGRB by
1256: including cascading emission (see also \S \ref{section:VHE}).
1257:
1258: For comparison, we show the SEDs of our model corresponding to the
1259: typical luminosities of BL Lacs ($L_{\gamma}\sim10^{44.5} \ \rm erg \
1260: s^{-1}$) and FSRQs ($L_{\gamma}\sim10^{46.6} \ \rm erg \ s^{-1}$), as
1261: well as those used in previous studies, in Fig. \ref{fig.sed_model}.
1262:
1263: It should be noted that, in the studies that constrained the blazar
1264: GLF parameters by a statistical comparison with the EGRET data, only
1265: CM98, NT06, and this work take into account the probability of
1266: identification of gamma-ray blazars by finding radio
1267: counterparts. CM98 assumed that there is no correlation between
1268: gamma-ray and radio luminosities of blazars. The assumption of no
1269: correlation at all over a wide range of gamma-ray and radio
1270: luminosities induces some inconsistencies (see discussion in Stecker
1271: \& Salamon 2001), and it is physically reasonable to expect some level
1272: of correlation between the two from the viewpoint of the standard
1273: synchrotron and inverse Compton emission model of blazars. In NT06
1274: and this work, we introduced this correlation with a log-normal
1275: scatter in the gamma/radio flux ratio, which is consistent with the
1276: observation.
1277:
1278:
1279:
1280: \subsection{Cascade of Very High Energy Gamma-Rays and EGRB}
1281: \label{section:VHE}
1282: KM08 estimated that HBL would account for $\sim$20\% of the EGRB by
1283: cascading emission produced by absorption of very high energy
1284: gamma-rays in IGM. However, in our estimation the cascade emission
1285: would not significantly contribute to EGRB (see
1286: Fig.\ref{fig.cascade}), and the reason for this discrepancy is as
1287: follows. In KM08, the minimum and maximum luminosities of HBL are set
1288: as L$_{\rm min}=10^{43} \rm \ erg\ s^{-1}$ and L$_{\rm max}=10^{47}\rm
1289: \ erg\ s^{-1}$, respectively (in $\nu L_\nu$ at 0.3 TeV). Their SED
1290: model is a broken-power law, which is independent of luminosity and
1291: obtained from fitting to the TeV observations of Mkn421, PKS2005-489,
1292: and PKS2155-304. However the luminosities of these three at 0.3 TeV
1293: are about $10^{44}\rm \ erg\ s^{-1}$, which is relatively low in the
1294: range of HBL luminosity assumed by KM08. The use of the same SED up
1295: to L$_{\rm max}=10^{47}\rm \ erg\ s^{-1}$ may overpredict the flux in
1296: very high energy band, compared with the case of the SED sequence.
1297: Therefore we conclude that the contribution to EGRB from the cascading
1298: component is not significant provided that the SED sequence is valid.
1299:
1300:
1301: \subsection{Effects of Flaring Activities}
1302:
1303: It is well known that blazars show flaring activities. For example,
1304: TeV Cherenkov telescopes H.E.S.S. and MAGIC have recently observed
1305: minute-scale variability in TeV ranges ({Aharonian} {et~al.} 2007;
1306: {Albert} {et~al.} 2007). The origin of such variability has been
1307: discussed in many papers (Begelman et al. 2008; Ghisellini \&
1308: Tavecchio 2008a; Ghisellini et al. 2008; Katarzy{\'n}ski et al. 2008;
1309: Mastichiadis \& Moraitis 2008; Giannios et al. 2009), but it is still
1310: rather uncertain. Therefore it is difficult to model the flaring
1311: activity quantitatively and incorporate in our analysis. We used the
1312: time-averaged gamma-ray flux of blazars in the third EGRET catalog,
1313: which is the mean of several viewing periods during the total EGRET
1314: observation period (see \S2.1 of NT06 for more details). Typical
1315: duration of one viewing period is 2--3 weeks, and flaring activities
1316: within this scale have already been taken into account. Flaring
1317: activities that might have happened at epochs out of the viewing
1318: periods are not taken into account, but still the flaring effect
1319: should have been incorporated to some extent by the use of time
1320: averaged flux. More observational information about blazar flares
1321: (light curves and frequency, etc.) is required to examine this issue
1322: in more detail, and future Fermi data will be useful.
1323:
1324:
1325:
1326: \section{Conclusions}
1327: \label{section:conclusions}
1328:
1329: In this paper, we constructed a new model of the blazar gamma-ray
1330: luminosity function (GLF), taking into account the blazar SED sequence
1331: and the LDDE luminosity function inferred from X-ray observations of
1332: AGNs. An implicit assumption here is that the jet activity of AGNs is
1333: associated with the accretion activity, and hence the blazar
1334: luminosity function has a similar evolution to that of X-ray AGNs.
1335: The GLF model parameters are constrained by carefully fitting to the
1336: observed flux and redshift distribution of the EGRET blazars. By this
1337: model, for the first time, we can predict the spectrum of the
1338: extragalactic gamma-ray background (EGRB) in a non-trivial way, rather
1339: than assuming a simple functional form such as power-law spectra.
1340:
1341: The absorption of gamma-rays in IGM by interaction with the cosmic
1342: infrared background (CIB), and the reprocessed cascade emission from
1343: electrons/positrons produced in IGM are also taken into account in the
1344: EGRB calculation. We found that, provided that the blazar SED
1345: sequence is valid, the amount of EGRB energy flux absorbed by CIB
1346: interaction (at photon energy $\gtrsim$ 10 GeV) is not large and the
1347: EGRB spectrum at lower photon energy bands is not significantly
1348: affected by the secondary cascade emission.
1349:
1350: The contribution from non-blazar AGNs to EGRB is also considered, by
1351: using the nonthermal coronal electron model of Inoue et al. (2008).
1352: This model is a natural extension of the standard X-ray spectral model
1353: of AGN emission from the disk and corona region, and predicts the
1354: nonthermal emission extending from MeV to higher energy band with a
1355: steep power-law. This model gives a natural explanation for the
1356: observed cosmic MeV background, and we examined whether X-ray to GeV
1357: gamma-ray background radiation can be accounted for by the two
1358: population model including blazars and non-blazar AGNs.
1359:
1360: Our model predicts that the EGRB flux from blazars at 100 MeV is only
1361: about 45 \% of the observed EGRB flux of Strong et al. (2004a).
1362: However, it is possible to account for more than 80\% of the observed
1363: EGRB flux by the sum of blazars and non-blazar AGNs. The predicted
1364: spectrum is also in good agreement with the observed data from X-ray
1365: to $\sim$1 GeV, indicating that the EGRB below 1 GeV can mostly be
1366: explained by our two population model. The two components have a
1367: comparable contribution to EGRB at $\sim$100 MeV, and the blazar
1368: component is dominant at the higher energy range while the non-blazar
1369: component at the lower. Therefore, the higher EGRB flux at 100 MeV
1370: found by this work than many of previous studies is not by change in
1371: the EGRB flux from blazars, but by adding non-blazar AGNs.
1372:
1373: The EGRB spectrum of Strong et al. (2004a) shows a hump beyond 3 GeV,
1374: which cannot be explained by our model. The EGRB flux determined
1375: originally by the EGRET team (Sreekumar et al. 1998) is higher than
1376: our model, and the observed spectrum is harder. However, measurements
1377: of EGRB suffer from the uncertainties in the theoretical modeling of
1378: the foreground diffuse Galactic emission, and perhaps from systematic
1379: errors in the calibration of the EGRET detector above 1 GeV (Stecker
1380: et al. 2008). We must await the {\it Fermi} data to examine these
1381: issues and whether an additional, completely different source is
1382: necessary to explain all of EGRB. We conclude that most (at least
1383: more than 50\%), and probably all, of the observed high-energy
1384: background radiation from X-ray to 1 GeV spanning 6 orders of
1385: magnitude in photon energy can be accounted for by AGNs including
1386: blazars.
1387:
1388: We predicted the flux distribution of blazars by our model, and we
1389: found that 600--1200 blazars in all sky should be detected by {\it
1390: Fermi}, assuming a sensitivity limit of $F_{\rm lim}=2\times
1391: 10^{-9}$ photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ above 100 MeV. This number is
1392: significantly lower than the predictions by many of the previous
1393: studies. The expected number of the non-blazar AGNs at 100 MeV band
1394: is much smaller than unity in all sky at the EGRET sensitivity, but
1395: about 1--30 of such population are expected be detected by {\it
1396: Fermi}. {\it Fermi} should resolve almost all of the EGRB flux from
1397: blazars into discrete blazars, with percentages of $\gtrsim$99\%. On
1398: the other hand, less than 0.1\% of the EGRB flux from non-blazar AGNs
1399: can be resolved into discrete sources. Therefore, we have a clear
1400: prediction: {\it Fermi} will resolve almost all of the EGRB flux into
1401: discrete sources at photon energies $\gtrsim 1$ GeV where blazars are
1402: dominant, while a significant fraction of the EGRB flux will remain
1403: unresolved in the low energy band of $\lesssim$ 100 MeV where
1404: non-blazar AGNs have a significant contribution. This prediction can
1405: easily be tested, only with the source counts and the EGRB estimates
1406: by {\it Fermi} data.
1407:
1408: We also predicted the redshift and absolute luminosity distributions
1409: for the {\it Fermi} blazars. Future {\it Fermi} data set with measured
1410: redshifts will enable us to get a quantitative measurement of the
1411: blazar GLF and its evolution with a much larger statistics than
1412: EGRET. A direct comparison between blazar GLF and X-ray AGN LF could
1413: be done, making it possible to discuss the relation between the cosmic
1414: histories of jet activity and accretion activity of AGNs. Our model
1415: will be able to serve as a guide in such studies. For example, if the
1416: jet luminosity is proportional to the mass accretion rate, we expect a
1417: larger jet/disk ratio than assumed in this work for AGNs with low
1418: Eddington ratio, because X-ray luminosity scales as $\propto \dot m^2$
1419: in the RIAF regime. Then, we may expect a different behavior of
1420: blazar GLF from that of AGN XLF at faint luminosity range. Such an
1421: evidence is already seen from our fit to the EGRET data (see
1422: Fig. \ref{EGRET_dist}), and it will be tested more quantitatively by
1423: the {\it Fermi} data soon.
1424:
1425:
1426: \acknowledgments
1427:
1428: We thank Takuro Narumoto and Tuneyoshi Kamae for their help and useful
1429: discussions. This work was supported by the Grant-in-Aid for the
1430: Global COE Program "The Next Generation of Physics, Spun from
1431: Universality and Emergence" and Scientific Research (19047003,
1432: 19740099) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and
1433: Technology (MEXT) of Japan.
1434:
1435:
1436: \bibliography{}
1437:
1438: \appendix
1439: \section{The Blazar SED Sequence Formulations}
1440: We define $\psi(x) \equiv \log_{10} [\nu L_\nu / (\rm erg \ s^{-1})]$ with
1441: $x \equiv \log_{10} (\nu / \rm Hz)$ ($\nu$ in rest-frame).
1442: The empirical SED sequence model of blazars
1443: is the sum of the synchrotron $[\psi_s(x)]$ and IC $[\psi_c(x)]$
1444: emissions, i.e.,
1445: \begin{eqnarray}
1446: \psi(x) = \log_{10} [10^{\psi_s(x)} + 10^{\psi_c(x)} ] \ .
1447: \end{eqnarray}
1448: Each of the two components is described by a combination of a linear
1449: and a parabolic functions at low and high photon frequencies, and we
1450: define $x_{\rm tr, s}$ and $x_{\rm tr, c}$ as the linear-parabolic
1451: transition frequencies for the synchrotron and IC components,
1452: respectively. We take $\psi_R \equiv \log_{10} [L_R / (\rm erg \ s^{-1})]$
1453: as a reference of a blazar luminosity, where $L_R$ is $\nu L_\nu$
1454: luminosity in the radio band ($\nu_R = $5 GHz or $x_R = 9.698$). The
1455: linear part of the synchrotron component is described as follows:
1456: \begin{eqnarray}
1457: \psi_s(x) = \psi_{s1}(x) \equiv (1 - \alpha_s) (x - x_R)+\psi_R
1458: \quad (x < x_{\rm tr, s}) \ ,
1459: \end{eqnarray}
1460: where
1461: $\alpha_s = 0.2$ is the energy flux index (i.e., $L_\nu \propto
1462: \nu^{-\alpha_s}$). The parabolic part of the synchrotron component is
1463: characterized by the $\nu L_\nu$ peak frequency $\nu_s$ (or
1464: corresponding $x_s$), as
1465: \begin{eqnarray}
1466: \psi_s(x) = \psi_{s2}(x) \equiv - [(x-x_s)/\sigma]^2 + \psi_{s, p}
1467: \quad (x \geq x_{\rm tr, s}) \ ,
1468: \end{eqnarray}
1469: where $\sigma$ is a parameter that controls the width of the parabolic
1470: function. The peak luminosity $\psi_{s, p}$ of the synchrotron
1471: component is determined if $x_{\rm tr, s}$, $x_s$, and $\sigma$ are
1472: given, by requiring the continuity between the linear and parabolic
1473: parts, i.e., $\psi_{s1}(x_{\rm tr, s}) = \psi_{s2}(x_{\rm tr, s})$.
1474: The result is:
1475: \begin{equation}
1476: \psi_{s,p}= (1-\alpha_s)(x_{\rm tr, s} - x_R)
1477: + \psi_R + \left(\frac{x_{\rm tr, s}
1478: - x_s }{ \sigma}\right)^2 \ .
1479: \end{equation}
1480:
1481: The linear part of the IC component (roughly in the hard X-ray band)
1482: is defined as:
1483: \begin{eqnarray}
1484: \psi_c(x) = \psi_{c1}(x) \equiv (1-\alpha_c)(x - x_X) + \psi_X
1485: \quad (x < x_{\rm tr, c}) \ ,
1486: \end{eqnarray}
1487: where
1488: the power index is $\alpha_c = 0.6$ (different from the
1489: synchrotron component), and $\psi_X$ is the luminosity of
1490: IC component at the reference frequency
1491: $\nu_X = 2.42 \times 10^{17}$ Hz = 1 keV$/h_p$, or $x_X = 17.383$.
1492: The parabolic part of the IC component is characterized by the
1493: $\nu L_\nu$ peak frequency $\nu_c$ (or corresponding to $x_c$) with
1494: the same width parameter $\sigma$ as the synchrotron component, i.e.,
1495: \begin{eqnarray}
1496: \psi_c(x) = \psi_{c2}(x) \equiv
1497: - [(x-x_c)/\sigma]^2 +\psi_{c, p}
1498: \quad (x \geq x_{\rm tr, c}) \ ,
1499: \end{eqnarray}
1500: where $\psi_{c,p}$ is the peak luminosity of
1501: the IC component. The linear-parabolic transition frequency
1502: $x_{\rm tr, c}$ is determined
1503: by requiring continuity, $\psi_{c1}(x_{\rm tr, c}) = \psi_{c2}(x_{\rm tr, c})$
1504: and the result is:
1505: \begin{equation}
1506: x_{\rm tr, c}= \frac{-\zeta-\sqrt{\zeta^2 - 4\eta}}{2} \ ,
1507: \end{equation}
1508: where
1509: \begin{eqnarray}
1510: \zeta &=& \sigma^2 (1-\alpha_c) - 2 x_c \ ,\\
1511: \eta &=& x_c^2 + \sigma^2 [\psi_X - x_X (1-\alpha_c) - \psi_{c,p}] \ .
1512: \end{eqnarray}
1513:
1514:
1515: Then, the SED sequence is determined when $x_{\rm tr, s}$, $x_s$,
1516: $\sigma$, $\psi_X$, $x_c$, and $\psi_{c, p}$ are given as functions of
1517: $\psi_R$. First we set $x_{\rm tr, s}$=$\log_{10}$($5\times 10^{10}$) and
1518: $10^{x_c - x_s} = \nu_c/\nu_s =5\times10^8$, for all luminosity range
1519: of blazars. To get a good fit in all luminosity range, we divide the
1520: luminosity into two ranges of $\psi_R \leq 43$ and $\psi_R > 43$. The
1521: parameters relevant for the synchrotron component in the $\psi_R
1522: \leq$ 43 range are determined as follows. The synchrotron peak
1523: frequency is determined by
1524: \begin{equation}
1525: x_s = - \xi (\psi_R -43) + 14.47 \ ,
1526: \end{equation}
1527: with $\xi = 0.88$.
1528: The width parameter $\sigma$ is determined by the following scaling
1529: law:
1530: \begin{equation}
1531: \sigma=0.0891 \, x_{\rm s} + 1.78 \ .
1532: \end{equation}
1533: In this case, the connection at $x=x_{\rm tr, s}$ is not smooth (i.e.,
1534: not differentiable), but the discontinuity of the derivative is not
1535: significant.
1536: In the range of $\psi_R >$ 43, we change the synchrotron peak
1537: frequency $x_s$ by adopting $\xi = 0.4$, and the width parameter
1538: $\sigma$ is determined so that the connection at $x_{\rm tr, s}$
1539: is differentiable, i.e.,
1540: \begin{equation}
1541: \sigma=[2(x_{\rm s}-x_{\rm tr, s})/(1 - \alpha_s)]^{1/2} \ .
1542: \end{equation}
1543:
1544: For the IC component parameters,
1545: the IC peak luminosity $\psi_{c,p}$ is assumed to be the
1546: same as the synchrotron peak, i.e., $\psi_{c,p} = \psi_{s,p}$,
1547: at $\psi_R \leq 43$, while it is
1548: determined by the
1549: following formula at $\psi_R > 43$:
1550: \begin{eqnarray}
1551: \psi_{c,p} = \beta (\psi_R -43)^\delta + \epsilon ,
1552: \end{eqnarray}
1553: where $\beta = 1.77$, $\delta = 0.718$, and $\epsilon = 45.3$.
1554: Still, the normalization of the IC linear part,
1555: $\psi_X$, remains to be determined. To get a good fit to
1556: the X-ray data, we define the dependence of this parameter on
1557: $\psi_R$ as follows:
1558: \begin{eqnarray}
1559: \psi_X = \left\{
1560: \begin{array}{rl}
1561: (\psi_R -43 ) + \psi_{X, 43} & \quad (\psi_R \leq 43) \\
1562: 1.40 \, (\psi_R - 43) + \psi_{X, 43}
1563: & \quad (43 < \psi_R \leq 46.68) \\
1564: 1.40 \, (46.68 - 43) + \psi_{X, 43} & \quad (46.68 < \psi_R) \\
1565: \end{array}
1566: \right.
1567: \end{eqnarray}
1568: with $\psi_{X, 43} = 43.17$. The parameter $\psi_X$ is kept constant
1569: at $\psi_R > 46.68$, because $\psi_{c1}(x) = \psi_{c2}(x)$ does not
1570: have solution and hence $x_{\rm tr, c}$ cannot be obtained, when we
1571: extrapolate the $\psi_X$ formula at $\psi_R \leq 46.68$ into $\psi_R >
1572: 46.68$. At $\psi_R = 46.68$, $\psi_{c, p}$ becomes 49.81, which is
1573: brighter than the maximum $L_\gamma$ of the EGRET blazars, and is
1574: larger than the characteristic $L_\gamma^*$ corresponding to the break
1575: X-ray luminosity $L_X^*$ in the AGN XLF by a factor of $\sim
1576: 60$. Therefore, the treatment of $\psi_X$ at such large luminosity
1577: range is not important when we consider the overall properties of
1578: blazars and EGRB. The linear-parabolic connection of the IC component
1579: at $x_{\rm tr, c}$ is not as smooth as that of the synchrotron
1580: component at $x_{\rm tr, s}$, but this is inevitable to fit the SED in
1581: the X-ray region.
1582:
1583: It should be noted that the formulations of $x_s$, $\sigma$, $\psi_{c,
1584: p}$, and $\psi_X$ are continuous at $\psi_R = 43$ and
1585: 46.68. Therefore the SED in this formula always changes continuously
1586: with $\psi_R$ in the whole luminosity range, which was the motivation
1587: of constructing this new formulation.
1588:
1589:
1590: \end{document}
1591:
1592:
1593:
1594: