arX

iv:1

509.

0494

5v1

[as

tro-

ph.H

E]

16

Sep

2015

MNRAS 000, 1–10 (2015) Preprint 31 July 2018 Compiled using MNRAS LATEX style file v3.0

Parameter constraints in a near-equipartition model with

multi-frequency NuSTAR, Swift and Fermi-LAT data

from 3C 279

Dahai Yan1⋆, Li Zhang2†, Shuang-Nan Zhang1‡1Key Laboratory of Particle Astrophysics, Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China2Department of Astronomy, Yunnan University, Key Laboratory of Astroparticle Physics of Yunnan Province, Kunming, 650091, China

Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ

ABSTRACT

Precise spectra of 3C 279 in the 0.5-70 keV range, obtained during two epochs ofSwift and NuSTAR observations, are analyzed using a near-equipartition model. Weapply a one-zone leptonic model with a three-parameter log-parabola electron energydistribution (EED) to fit the Swift and NuSTAR X-ray data, as well as simultane-ous optical and Fermi-LAT γ-ray data. The Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)technique is used to search the high-dimensional parameter space and evaluate theuncertainties on model parameters. We show that the two spectra can be successfullyfit in near-equipartition conditions, defined by the ratio of the energy density of rela-tivistic electrons to magnetic field ζe being close to unity. In both spectra, the observedX-rays are dominated by synchrotron-self Compton photons, and the observed γ raysare dominated by Compton scattering of external infrared photons from a surroundingdusty torus. Model parameters are well constrained. From the low state to the highstate, both the curvature of the log-parabola width parameter and the synchrotronpeak frequency significantly increase. The derived magnetic fields in the two statesare nearly identical (∼ 1 G), but the Doppler factor in the high state is larger thanthat in the low state (∼28 versus ∼18). We derive that the gamma-ray emission sitetakes place outside the broad-line region, at & 0.1 pc from the black hole, but withinthe dusty torus. Implications for 3C 279 as a source of high-energy cosmic-rays arediscussed.

Key words: galaxies: jets — gamma rays: galaxies — radiation mechanisms: non-thermal

1 INTRODUCTION

Blazar emission is generally dominated by non-thermal ra-diation over all frequencies ranging from radio to TeV γrays. By modeling blazar spectra, emission mechanisms andphysical properties of the relativistic jets can be determined.The typical multi-wavelength spectral energy distribution(SED) of a blazar is characterized by two distinct humps.It is generally accepted that the first hump in the blazarSED is nonthermal synchrotron emission radiated by rela-tivistic electrons in the jet. The origin of the emission inthe γ-ray hump is less certain. Leptonic and hadronic mod-els have both been proposed to explain the formation ofthe second bump (see, e.g., Bottcher et al. 2012, for review).In general, both types of models are able to reproduce the

⋆ E–mail: yandahai@ihep.ac.cn† E–mail: lizhang@ynu.edu.cn‡ E–mail: zhangsn@ihep.ac.cn

SEDs well, but require quite different jet properties, with thehadronic models sometimes requiring super-Eddington jetpowers (Bottcher et al. 2013; Zdziarski & Bottcher 2015).The leptonic models are more attractive by allowing muchsmaller jet powers, and by more readily explaining rapidblazar variability from highly radiative electrons in con-trast to the more weakly radiating hadrons (cf. Cerruti et al.2015).

All hadronic models are hybrid lepto-hadronic, becausethe synchrotron bump is believed to be radiated by di-rectly accelerated electron/lepton primaries in the jet. Be-sides the leptonic synchrotron self-Compton (SSC) compo-nent, γ rays in hadronic models can result from proton-or ion-synchrotron radiation (Aharonian 2000; Mucke et al.2003) and pγ interactions, including both photopionand Bethe-Heitler photopair production (Atoyan & Dermer2001, 2003; Bottcher et al. 2009, 2013; Murase et al.2014; Mastichiadis et al. 2013; Dimitrakoudis et al. 2014;

c© 2015 The Authors

2 D. H. Yan, L. Zhang, S. N. Zhang

Weidinger & Spanier 2015; Yan & Zhang 2015). Interac-tions of ultra-relativistic protons and ions in the jet withphotons induce cascades by the injection of extremely high-energy photons and leptons.

In leptonic models, γ rays are produced via in-verse Compton (IC) scattering of the relativistic elec-trons, including SSC scattering (e.g., Maraschi et al.1992; Tavecchio et al. 1998; Finke et al. 2008; Yan et al.2014) and external Compton (EC) scattering (e.g.,Dermer & Schlickeiser 1993; Sikora et al. 1994;B lazejowski et al. 2000; Dermer et al. 2009; Kang et al.2014; Paliya et al. 2015). EC models seem to be requiredfor flat-spectrum radio quasars (FSRQs; a subclass ofblazars with intense broad-line radiation in the inner-jet).Depending on the emission site, the external seed photonscould be dominated by radiation from accretion-disk(e.g., Dermer et al. 1992; Dermer & Schlickeiser 1993,2002), broad-line region (BLR) (e.g., Sikora et al. 1994;Zhang et al. 2012), and dusty torus (e.g., B lazejowski et al.2000). Many efforts have been made to locate the γ-rayemission regions of FSRQs (e.g., Liu & Bai 2006; Bai et al.2009; Tavecchio et al. 2010; Yan et al. 2012; Dotson et al.2012; Nalewajko et al. 2014), but it is still an unresolvedissue.

Radio telescopes can partially resolve the structure ofblazar jets. The observed connections between γ-ray flaresand radio/millimeter flares are used to argue for gamma-rayemission arising at distance scales of & pc, or even & 10 pc(e.g., Jorstad et al. 2001, 2010; Agudo et al. 2011). However,Tavecchio et al. (2010) argued that the rapid variabilities ontimescale of a few hours challenge the scenario in which γ-rayemission site is placed at tens of parsec from the black hole.Using the time lags of γ rays relative to broad emission lines,Liu, Bai & wang (2011) argued that γ-ray emission may beproduced in the regions of the jet at . 2 pc from the blackhole.

Although blazar emission models have been constructedthat accurately reproduce contemporaneous SED data, thenumber of free parameters in even the simplest SSC modelcan exceed the number of constraining observables. There-fore, blazar SED modeling generally yields degenerate pa-rameter values, which makes it difficult to investigate corre-lations between model parameters.

Claims and explanations of correlations between modelparameters have been made, for example, for statisticalquantities like the blazar sequence (Fossati et al. 1998;Ghisellini et al. 1998), or for flux-flux or flux-index corre-lations between different spectral states of the same blazar.Due to many free and unconstrained parameters, it is diffi-cult to establish robust correlations between model param-eters using simple fitting methods.

Using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) tech-nique, Yan et al. (2013) constrained parameter space in anSSC model for Mrk 421. The high-quality SEDs enable usto derive the confidence intervals of each model parameterusing the MCMC method, and to do a comparison of modelfits for different SEDs. In a series of papers (Yan et al. 2013;Peng et al. 2014; Zhou et al. 2014), we showed that fittinghigh-quality SEDs with the MCMC technique is a powerfulapproach to investigating the blazar jet physics. In a relatedmodeling effort, Dermer et al. (2014) assumed that a three-parameter log-parabola function approximates the electron

energy distribution (EED). Introducing the equipartitionparameter ζe = u′

e/u′

B′ as the ratio of the energy den-sities of electrons u′

e and magnetic field u′

B′ gives, whenζe ≈ 1, the minimum synchrotron jet power. Besides ζe, theother three equipartition factors in this modeling approach(Cerruti et al. 2013; Dermer et al. 2014) are: (1) ζs, the ra-tio of the energy density of synchrotron radiation u′

syn tou′

B′ ; (2) ζBLR, the ratio of the energy density of BLR radia-tion in comoving frame u′

BLR to u′

B′ ; and (3) ζdust, the ratioof the energy density of dust radiation in comoving frameu′dust to u′

B′ . In this approach, the physical parameters (e.g.,fluid magnetic field B′ and Doppler factor δD) are expressedin terms of observables (e.g., synchrotron peak frequencyand synchrotron peak luminosity, and variability time scale).With this formulation, GeV cutoffs in blazar spectra areexplained under equipartition conditions by IC scatteringbroad-line region (BLR) radiation in Klein-Nihisna regime(Cerruti et al. 2013). In SSC models, the equipartition mod-eling approach allows the complete set of parameters to befully constrained, contingent on the underlying assumptionthat the electron distribution can be described, at least ap-proximately, by a log-parabola function. Here, we constrainthe parameters using the near-equipartition, log-parabolamodel for 3C 279. In our approach, we do not adopt ζBLR

and ζdust to define the energy densities of the external radi-ations. Instead, we use the distance r from emitting regionto super-massive black hole to deduce the energy densitiesof the external radiations via the standard scaling relationsfor BLR and dust torus radiations. We will give the detailsin Section 2.

The blazar 3C 279, at redshift z = 0.536, is classifiedas an FSRQ due to its strong prominent emission lines, andwas one of the first γ-ray blazars discovered (Hartman et al.1992). Its synchrotron peak frequency is < 1014 Hz, mak-ing it a low-synchrotron peaked object, like most FSRQs(Ackermann et al. 2011). Rapid variability is observed in 3C279, the analysis in Paliya (2015) shows that the variabilitytimescale for GeV emission of 3C 279 can be down to ∼1 -2 hour.

Using the near-equipartition leptonic model with a log-parabola electron energy distribution (EED), Dermer et al.(2014) satisfactorily explained four SEDs of 3C 279 reportedin Hayashida et al. (2012). Since then, detailed simultaneousmultiwavelength SED data of 3C 279 in 4 states of elevatedactivity that took place between 2013 December to 2014April were analyzed by Hayashida et al. (2015). In particu-lar, Hayashida et al. (2015) reported 0.5-70 keV X-ray spec-tra obtained from Swift-XRT and NuSTAR observations intwo flaring periods, namely Period A, taking place from 16– 19 December 2013, and Period C, from 31 December – 3January 2014. Hayashida et al. (2015) argue that their one-zone leptonic models with a double-broken power-law EEDfail to explain the Swift-XRT and NuSTAR X-ray spectra.

In this paper, we fit the two simultaneous SEDs that in-clude NuSTAR data reported in Hayashida et al. (2015) us-ing the near-equipartition blazar model with a log-parabolaEED. Using the MCMC technique, we derive the best-fit re-sults and the uncertainties on parameters. The implicationsof the results on the acceleration processes in the jet of 3C279 are discussed. Supposing that 3C 279 is a high-energycosmic-ray (CR) source, we discuss its implied CR luminos-

MNRAS 000, 1–10 (2015)

Parameter constraints in Modeling of 3C 279 3

ity. We use parameters H0 = 71 km s−1 Mpc−3, Ωm = 0.27,and ΩΛ = 0.73.

2 EMISSION MODEL AND FITTING

TECHNIQUE

In the log-parabola leptonic blazar model (Dermer et al.2014), the non-thermal electron distribution is assumed tobe isotropic in the emission region (blob), and described bya log-parabola function

γ′2N ′

e(γ′) ∼

(

γ′

γ′pk

)−b log (γ′/γ′

pk)

, (1)

where γ′ is the electron Lorentz factor, b is the spectral cur-vature parameter, and γ′

pk is the peak Lorentz factor in theγ′2N ′

e(γ′) distribution. Emission from the blob is stronglyboosted due to the beaming effect. Besides SSC emission, ECcomponents for low-energy target photons from the broad-line region (BLR; EC-BLR) and the dusty torus (EC-dust)are included.

As mentioned in Section 1, we do not use theequipartition relations ζBLR and ζdust (Cerruti et al. 2013;Dermer et al. 2014) to normalize the energy densities of theexternal radiations. We take the distance r from the centralblack hole to the emitting blob as an input parameter. Theenergy densities of BLR radiation (uBLR) and dust radiation(udust) can be expressed as functions of r (Sikora et al. 2009;Hayashida et al. 2012)

uBLR(r) =τBLRLdisk

4πr2BLRc[1 + (r/rBLR)3], (2)

udust(r) =τdustLdisk

4πr2dustc[1 + (r/rdust)4]. (3)

The size of BLR is related to the disk luminos-ity Ldisk: rBLR = 1017(Ldisk/1045 erg s−1)1/2 cm(Ghisellini & Tavecchio 2009; Ghisellini et al. 2014). Weassume a dust torus with the size of rdust =1018(Ldisk/1045 erg s−1)1/2 cm. This size of dust torus is halfof the size used in Ghisellini et al. (2014), which enhancesthe energy density of dust radiation. Using the scalings be-tween Ldisk and rBLR/dust, we can rewrite Eqs. (2) and (3)as

uBLR(r) ≃0.3τBLR

1 + (r/rBLR)3erg cm−3, (4)

udust(r) ≃0.003τdust

1 + (r/rdust)4erg cm−3, (5)

where τBLR and τdust are the fractions of the disk luminosityreprocessed into BLR radiation and into dust radiation, re-spectively. We adopt the typical values of τBLR = 0.1 (e.g.,Ghisellini et al. 2014) and τdust = 0.3 (e.g., Hao et al. 2005;Malmrose et al. 2011). Using Eqs. (4) and (5), one can ob-tain uBLR(erg cm−3) . 0.3τBLR, and udust(erg cm−3) .

3τdust × 10−3. The two energy densities are limited by rBLR

and rdust, respectively. When r is smaller than rdust, udust

varies by a factor of at most 2. Moreover, the energy densityof the IR dust radiation should be lower than the energy den-sity of a blackbody with the temperature of Tdust, namelyudust < ubb(Tdust) ⋍ 3 × 10−4(Tdust/440 K)4.

The external radiation is assumed to be a dilute black-body radiation, namely a blackbody spectral shape normal-ized to uBLR/dust. BLR radiation is dominated by Lyα linephotons. We adopt an effective temperature for the BLRradiation of TBLR = 6.3 × 104 K, so that the energy den-sity of BLR radiation peaks at ≈ 2.82kBT/h ∼= 3.7 × 1015

Hz in the u(ν) distribution (Tavecchio & Ghisellini 2008).We consider IR dust radiation with Tdust = 800 K. Notethat Dermer et al. (2014) approximated the BLR and dustphoton fields as monochromatic. Cerruti et al. (2013) con-sidered a complex of atomic emission lines in BLR. The dif-ferent approximations for the BLR and dust radiations donot significantly modify the modeling results.

The input parameters in the model are: (i) L48 =Lsyn/1048 erg s−1, the apparent isotropic bolometric syn-chrotron luminosity; (ii) ν14 = (1 + z)νobs

syn/1014 Hz, the syn-chrotron peak frequency in the source frame, where νobs

syn

is the measured synchrotron peak frequency; (iii) t4 =tobs,var/[(1+z)104 s)], the source variability timescale, wheretobs,var is the minimum measured variability timescale; asalready noted, we define the equipartition parameter (iv)ζe = u′

e/u′B ; (v) ζs = u′

syn/u′B , the ratio between the syn-

chrotron photon (u′syn) and magnetic-field energy densities;

(vi) b, curvature parameters of EED; (vii) r, the location ofemitting blob along the jet; (viii) Tdust, the temperature ofdust torus IR radiation; and (ix) Ldisk, accretion disk lumi-nosity.

There are six output parameters: (1) Doppler factorδD; (2) fluid magnetic-field strength B′; (3) γ′

pk; (4) uBLR;(5) udust; and (6) comoving radius of emitting blob, R′ =cδDtobs,var/(1 + z). The physical model parameters, δD, B′,and γ′

pk, are deduced by using the equations in Dermer et al.(2014, 2015). The SSC and EC emissions are calculated us-ing the methods given in Dermer et al. (2009). Synchrotronself-absorption (SSA) is included. The contribution of ther-mal emission is included, which is assumed to be from aShakura-Sunyaev disk, using the expression following eq. (9)in Dermer et al. (2014).

We use the MCMC technique to do the fitting (see de-tails in Yuan et al. 2011; Liu et al. 2012; Yan et al. 2013).The MCMC method, based on the Bayesian statistics, is apowerful tool for high-dimensional parameter space investi-gation. The Metropolis-Hastings sampling algorithm whichensures that the probability density functions of model pa-rameters can be asymptotically approached with the num-ber density of samples, is adopted to determine the jumpprobability from one point to the next in parameter space(Gamerman 1997; Mackay 2003). The MCMC method is alsoan effective approach for determining uncertainties of modelparameters.

3 RESULTS

We consider the SEDs of 3C 279 from simultaneous obser-vations of Swift, NuSTAR, and Fermi-LAT in two periodsreported in Hayashida et al. (2015), namely Period A (2013December 16-19) and Period C (2013 December 31-2014 Jan-uary 3). Since an X-ray spectrum is lacking in Period B andthere is no NuSTAR data in Period D, we do not considerthese SEDs. Note that the X-ray flux increased by a factor

MNRAS 000, 1–10 (2015)

4 D. H. Yan, L. Zhang, S. N. Zhang

1E10 1E12 1E14 1E16 1E18 1E20 1E22 1E24 1E261E-14

1E-13

1E-12

1E-11

1E-10

1E-9

1E-8

1E17 1E19

1E-12

1E-11

1E-10

EC-BLR EC-dust Syn+SSC total

F [e

rg c

m-2 s

-1]

[Hz]

F [e

rg c

m-2 s

-1]

[Hz]

Figure 1. Best-fit model to the SED of 3C 279 for Period A(data from Hayashida et al. 2015). The inset shows the details offit at X-ray energies.

of ≈ 2 and the γ-ray flux increased by a factor of ≈ 3 fromPeriod A to Period C.

The X-ray flux showed no intraday variations inPeriod A, but showed intraday variations in period C(Hayashida et al. 2015). Therefore, the variability timescalefor Period A is taken to be t4 = 5 which corresponds to anobserved variability timescale of ∼21 hours, and the vari-ability timescale for Period C is set to be t4 = 1 which cor-responds to an observed variability timescale of ∼4 hours.

There is no evidence for a thermal emission feature inthe two SEDs, making it difficult to constrain the accretiondisk luminosity Ldisk. We adopt Ldisk = 1.5 × 1045 ergs−1,which is the maximum disk luminosity allowed by theoptical-UV SED. Using this value, we derive rBLR ≃ 0.04 pcand rdust ≃ 0.4 pc.

By comparison, at a much earlier 3-week epoch be-tween 1992 December and 1993 January, Pian et al. (1999)originally discovered the accretion disk-emission from 3C279 during a low-state monitored with ROSAT, IUE, andEGRET, finding a νFν flux of ≈ 3×10−12 erg s−1 cm−2 be-tween ≈ 1 and 2×1015 Hz, corresponding to a UV luminosityLdisk = 2.4 × 1045 ergs−1.

Due to the strong SSA below 1012 Hz, we fit only theoptical, X-ray and γ-ray data, but not the 230 GHz SMApoint.

Fig. 1 shows the best-fit to the SED of 3C 279 for PeriodA. The fit is satisfactory. The joint Swift and NuSTAR X-ray spectrum is successfully fit, and is dominated by theSSC component. The γ-ray emission is dominated by theEC-dust component.

In Fig. 2, we give the one-dimensional probability dis-tributions and the two-dimensional contours of input andoutput parameters. The complete information on constrain-ing parameters can be read from this figure. We note thatζe is constrained in the range of [0.8 - 1.7] (the marginalized95% confidence interval). The distance r is constrained in therange of [0.1 - 0.4] pc, namely the emitting blob is outside

the BLR, but is still inside the dust torus (rBLR ≃ 0.04 pcand rdust ≃ 0.4 pc). The derived udust is in the range of[5 - 9]×10−4 erg cm−3, and uBLR is in the range of [0.2 -10]×10−4 erg cm−3. The magnetic field B′ is in the range of[0.7 - 1.2] G, and δD is in the range of [17 - 20]. We summarisethe marginalized 95% confidence intervals for input and out-put parameters in Table 1. We also notice that there is a cor-relation between r and ζe; and B′ is anti-correlated with δD(see the two-dimensional contours). These parameter cor-relations showed in Fig. 2 are caused by degeneracies ofthe leptonic model (e.g., Tavecchio et al. 1998; Sikora et al.2009; Dermer et al. 2014). Nevertheless, all parameters ex-cept uBLR are well constrained.

The fit to the SED from Period C is also satisfactory(Fig. 3). The Swift-NuSTAR X-ray spectrum from Period Cshows a break at 3.7 keV with photon indices of 1.37 and1.76, respectively, below and above the break energy, whenfit by a broken power law (Hayashida et al. 2015). Our re-sults show that the one-zone leptonic model can successfullyfit the X-ray spectrum. The X-ray emission in Period C isalmost entirely attributed to SSC, and the spectral break isnaturally explained. The γ-ray emission is again dominatedby the EC-dust component.

The one-dimensional probability distributions and thetwo-dimensional contours of input and output parametersderived in the fitting to the SED for Period C are shownin Fig. 4. In this Period, the γ-ray emission site r is in therange of [0.1 - 0.4] pc, identical to that in Period A; but alarger ζe of [3 - 5] and δD of [26 - 30] is required to explainthe higher γ-ray flux. The magnetic field B′ of [0.9 - 1.4]is nearly identical to that in Period A. From Period A toPeriod C, ζs and ν14 increase, respectively, from ∼0.5 to 0.8,and from ∼0.3 to 0.5; and b increases from ∼1.2 to 1.5.

In Table 1, we also give the jet powers for a two-sided jetin the form of radiation (Pr), Poynting flux (PB), where weassume that Doppler factor is related to the bulk Lorentzfactor through δD = Γ. The relativistic emitting electronspower Pe, which is not shown, is obtained from the relationPe=ζePB. This is the minimum jet power, and the additionof hadrons will only increase this power. One can see thatthe radiation power Pr is significantly greater than PB andPe in both cases.

4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

A one-zone leptonic model with a three-parameter log-parabola EED (Dermer et al. 2014) is used to fit the twoSEDs of 3C 279 where joint NuSTAR and Swift dataare available (the SEDs from Period A and Period C inHayashida et al. 2015). Using the MCMC method, we ob-tained the best-fit results and the uncertainties on the inputand output parameters. Our results show that the two SEDscan be successfully fit in near-equipartition conditions. Inboth cases, the γ-ray emission is dominated by the EC-dustcomponent, and the EC-BLR component is essentially negli-gible; and the X-ray emission is dominated by SSC emission.The SSC origin of X-ray emission is expected to be highlypolarized if the magnetic field is perpendicular to the line ofsight (e.g., Krawczynski 2012). The X-ray measurements ofthe degree of polarization by future detectors such as X-ray

MNRAS 000, 1–10 (2015)

Parameter constraints in Modeling of 3C 279 5

0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55

Pro

babi

lity

ζs

0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19

Pro

babi

lity

L48

0.25 0.3 0.35

Pro

babi

lity

ν14

1.1 1.2 1.3

Pro

babi

lity

b

−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4

Pro

babi

lity

Log r (pc)0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Pro

babi

lity

ζe

ζs

L 48

0.4 0.50.16

0.18

ζs

ν 14

0.4 0.5

0.25

0.3

0.35

L48

ν 14

0.16 0.18

0.25

0.3

0.35

ζs

b

0.4 0.51.1

1.2

1.3

L48

b

0.16 0.181.1

1.2

1.3

ν14

b

0.25 0.3 0.351.1

1.2

1.3

L48

Log

r (p

c)

0.16 0.18−1

−0.5

ν14

Log

r (p

c)

0.25 0.3 0.35−1

−0.5

b

Log

r (p

c)

1.1 1.2 1.3−1

−0.5

ν14

ζ e

0.25 0.3 0.35

0.81

1.21.41.61.8

b

ζ e

1.1 1.2 1.3

0.81

1.21.41.61.8

Log r (pc)

ζ e

−1 −0.5

0.81

1.21.41.61.8

−4.5 −4 −3.5 −3

Pro

babi

lity

Log uBLR

(erg cm−3)−3.5 −3.4 −3.3 −3.2 −3.1

Pro

babi

lity

Log udust

(erg cm−3)

0.8 1 1.2

Pro

babi

lity

B′16 17 18 19 20 21

Pro

babi

lity

δD

200 250 300

Pro

babi

lity

γ′pk

Log uBLR

(erg cm−3)Log

u dust

(er

g cm

−3 )

−4.5 −4 −3.5 −3

−3.5−3.4−3.3−3.2−3.1

Log uBLR

(erg cm−3)

B′

−4.5 −4 −3.5 −3

0.81

1.2

Log udust

(erg cm−3)

B′

−3.5 −3.3 −3.1

0.81

1.2

Log uBLR

(erg cm−3)

δ D

−4.5 −4 −3.5 −316

18

20

Log udust

(erg cm−3)

δ D

−3.5 −3.3 −3.116

18

20

B′

δ D

0.8 1 1.216

18

20

Log uBLR

(erg cm−3)

γ′ pk

−4.5 −4 −3.5 −3200

250

300

Log udust

(erg cm−3)

γ′ pk

−3.5 −3.3 −3.1200

250

300

B′

γ′ pk

0.8 1 1.2200

250

300

δD

γ′ pk

16 18 20200

250

300

Figure 2. One-dimensional probability distribution of parameter values (left; the dashed curves are the mean likelihoods of samples andthe solid curves are the marginalized probabilities) and two-dimensional contours of parameters (right; the regions enclosing 68%(95%)confidence level are shown) for Period A. The upper panel is for the input parameters, and the lower panel is for the output parameters.

Table 1. Input and output parameters values. The mean values and the marginalized 95% confidence intervals (CI) for interestedparameters are reported.

Input

ζe b L48 ν14 t4 ζs r Tdust Ldisk(pc) (K) (1046 erg s−1)

Period A 1.12 1.24 0.18 0.30 5 0.47 0.2 800 0.15(95% CI) 0.80-1.71 1.15-1.32 0.17-0.19 0.26-0.34 - 0.41-0.52 0.1-0.4 -

Period C 4.06 1.49 0.23 0.54 1 0.81 0.3 800 0.15(95% CI) 3.04-5.0 1.43-1.57 0.22-0.24 0.50-0.58 - 0.74-0.89 0.1-0.4 -

Output

B δD γ′

pk udust uBLR R′ PB Pr

(G) (10−3 erg cm−3) (10−3 erg cm−3) (1016 cm) (1045 erg s−1) (1046 erg s−1)

Period A 1.0 18 260 0.7 0.2 2.7 1.7 2.0(95% CI) 0.7-1.2 17-20 220-290 0.5- 0.9 0.02-1 - - -

Period C 1.1 28 300 0.6 0.1 0.8 0.5 1.3(95% CI) 0.9-1.4 26-30 280-310 0.5- 0.9 0.03-2 - - -

timing and polarization (XTP) and ASTRO-H would givemore details on the magnetic field.

We take advantage of the MCMC technique to searchthe multi-dimensional parameter space, and to evaluate theuncertainties on the parameters. We have shown that all pa-rameters except uBLR are constrained very well by the cur-

rent data. The stringently constrained parameters enable usto investigate the important issues in blazar physics confi-dently.

We derive the energy density of BLR radiation uBLR <0.002 erg cm−3 at 95% confidence level. Our results showthat the EC-BLR component is essentially negligible in mod-

MNRAS 000, 1–10 (2015)

6 D. H. Yan, L. Zhang, S. N. Zhang

1E10 1E12 1E14 1E16 1E18 1E20 1E22 1E24 1E261E-14

1E-13

1E-12

1E-11

1E-10

1E-9

1E-8

1E17 1E19

1E-12

1E-11

1E-10

F [e

rg c

m-2 s

-1]

[Hz]

F [e

rg c

m-2 s

-1]

[Hz]

Figure 3. Best-fit model to the SED of 3C 279 for Period C (datafrom Hayashida et al. 2015). The inset shows the details of fit atX-ray energies.

elling the two SEDs 3C 279. Note that Cerruti et al. (2013)showed that EC-BLR component is necessary to explain theGeV break in 3C 454.3. The distance r from γ-ray emissionblob to the black hole is well constrained in the range of [0.1 -0.4] pc, namely the γ-ray emission region is outside the BLR,but is inside the dusty torus. The value of r depends on theassumptions on rBLR and rdust. Compared with the previousworks (e.g., Ghisellini & Tavecchio 2009; Hayashida et al.2012; Nalewajko et al. 2014; Ghisellini et al. 2014), weadopted a smaller rdust. In Appendix A, we show the fit-ting results with rdust = 2 × 1018(Ldisk/1045 erg s−1)1/2 cm(Ghisellini et al. 2014). We find that the lower limit of rderived in the fittings with the larger rdust is still 0.1 pc; theupper limit is modified, but is still less than rdust. Therefore,our conclusion on the γ-ray emission site is still tenable. Ourresult is consistent with the γ-ray emission site in 3C 279derived by Dermer et al. (2014), and is also consistent withthe result derived by Nalewajko et al. (2014) who used anindependent method to constrain the γ-ray emission site.Pacciani et al. (2014) explored the emission zone in high-energy flares of 10 FSRQs, and also found the evidence ofgamma-ray flares occurring outside the BLR.

The log-parabola EED can be generated by stochas-tic particle acceleration, for example, through systematicgyro-resonant acceleration of electrons with plasma waves(e.g., Becker et al. 2006; Tramacere et al. 2011; Asano et al.2014; Kakuwa et al. 2015), and the correlations between thecurvature b and the peak energy γ′

pk of EED provide evi-dence about the acceleration process (e.g., Tramacere et al.2011). By fitting the SEDs, the EEDs are inferred, whichhelps to identify acceleration processes in the jet (Yan et al.2013; Peng et al. 2014; Zhou et al. 2014). Indeed, Yan et al.(2013) found that, because of the improved fits with curv-ing rather than power-law EEDs, it is likely that stochas-tic acceleration is acting in the jet of Mrk 421 in the gi-ant flare state in February 2010. The acceleration processis also revealed by dynamic changes of the SED, which im-

plies changes in the EED. Yan et al. (2013) also found thatfor Mrk 421 as ν14 increased from ∼ 1000 in the low stateto ∼ 10000 in the giant flare, the curvature of PLLP EEDin N ′(γ′) distribution increased from ∼ 1.7 to ∼ 3.8. Wediscussed that the changes in ν14 and the curvature in Mrk421 are not compatible with a purely acceleration-dominatedscenario. The two states of 3C 279 that we have analyzedindicates that a changing EED in terms of a changing log-parameter width parameter b plays an important role in dif-ferent spectral states.

It is known that X-ray spectra of several high-synchrotron-peaked (HSP) BL Lac objects can be describedby a log-parabola function (e.g., Massaro et al. 2004a,b).Using a large data set of X-ray observations for severalHSPs with ν14 > 10, Tramacere et al. (2007, 2009) andMassaro et al. (2008) find that the synchrotron peak fre-quency is anti-correlated with the curvature parameter ob-tained by fitting the X-ray spectrum. Chen (2014) finds thatthe synchrotron peak frequency is anti-correlated with thecurvature parameter of the synchrotron spectrum for a sam-ple of Fermi blazar.

Tramacere et al. (2011) discussed the ν14 – b trends inan SSC model with stochastic acceleration. They showedthat the anti-correlation between ν14 and b for HSPs couldbe explained in the stochastic acceleration SSC model by achange in the diffusion process rather than by a change ofmagnetic field that affects the cooling. The radiative coolingof electrons in FSRQs is more efficient than that in HSPs,which may lead to the different ν14 – b trend from thatfor HSPs. Our results show that both ν14 and b significantlyincrease from period A to period C. More high-quality SEDsare needed to confirm the ν14 – b trend for FSRQs. Moreover,our results indicate that the γ-ray emission region is in thedust torus, in contrast to Zhang et al. (2013), who assumeda absence of the dust torus. The unknown γ-ray emission sitemay complicate the ν14 – b trend for FSRQs. Because of thelarger photon energy density in the BLR, radiative coolingof electrons is stronger than in the dust torus. On the otherhand, the relatively inefficient radiative cooling of electronsin the dust tours allows the electrons to be accelerated tohigher energies by the inefficient stochastic mechanism.

In our model, the radiation power is much greater thanthe magnetic-field and relativistic electron power, assumingthat the baryon-loading (the ratio of the energy density ofhadrons to electrons, ηbl) is low, and will not have an im-pact on the total jet power (Pr+PB+Pe+Ph, where Ph isthe power carried by hadrons) as long as ηbl . 10. Assum-ing ηbl = 1, we derive Ph = ηblPe = 0.3 × 1046 erg s−1 and0.2×1046 erg s−1 for Period A and Period C, respectively. 3C279 has a black hole with mass (3-8)×108M⊙ (e.g., Gu et al.2001; Woo & 2002). The Eddington luminosity is thereforein the range (4-10)×1046 erg s−1. For low baryon loading,the total jet powers in our model are comfortably below theEddington luminosity of 3C 279.

Blazars are usually considered as cosmic-ray (CR)sources. Using the near-equipartition-log-parabola model,Dermer et al. (2015) gave the following expression for max-imum escaping proton energy

Emax(eV) = 1.4 × 1020L5/1648 (

t4ν14

)1/8f1/41 f

1/82

ζ1/4e ζ

1/16s f

11/160

, (6)

with f0 = 1/3, f1 = 10−1/4b, and f2 = 101/b . Using the

MNRAS 000, 1–10 (2015)

Parameter constraints in Modeling of 3C 279 7

0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9

Pro

babi

lity

ζs

0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25

Pro

babi

lity

L48

0.5 0.55 0.6

Pro

babi

lity

ν14

1.4 1.45 1.5 1.55 1.6

Pro

babi

lity

b

−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4

Pro

babi

lity

Log r (pc)3 4 5

Pro

babi

lity

ζe

ζs

L 48

0.7 0.8 0.9

0.22

0.24

ζs

ν 14

0.7 0.8 0.9

0.5

0.55

0.6

L48

ν 14

0.21 0.23 0.25

0.5

0.55

0.6

ζs

b

0.7 0.8 0.91.4

1.5

1.6

ζs

Log

r (p

c)

0.7 0.8 0.9

−1

−0.5

L48

Log

r (p

c)

0.21 0.23 0.25

−1

−0.5

ν14

Log

r (p

c)

0.5 0.55 0.6

−1

−0.5

b

Log

r (p

c)

1.4 1.5 1.6

−1

−0.5

L48

ζ e

0.21 0.23 0.25

345

ν14

ζ e

0.5 0.55 0.6

345

b

ζ e

1.4 1.5 1.6

345

Log r (pc)

ζ e

−1 −0.5

345

−4.5 −4 −3.5 −3 −2.5

Pro

babi

lity

Log uBLR

(erg cm−3)−3.5 −3.4 −3.3 −3.2 −3.1

Pro

babi

lity

Log udust

(erg cm−3)

1 1.2 1.4 1.6

Pro

babi

lity

B′24 26 28 30

Pro

babi

lity

δD

280 290 300 310

Pro

babi

lity

γ′pk

Log uBLR

(erg cm−3)Log

u dust

(er

g cm

−3 )

−4.5 −3.5 −2.5

−3.4

−3.2

Log uBLR

(erg cm−3)

B′

−4.5 −3.5 −2.5

1

1.5

Log udust

(erg cm−3)

B′

−3.5 −3.3 −3.1

1

1.5

Log uBLR

(erg cm−3)

δ D

−4.5 −3.5 −2.5

25

30

Log udust

(erg cm−3)

δ D

−3.5 −3.3 −3.1

25

30

B′

δ D

1 1.5

25

30

Log uBLR

(erg cm−3)

γ′ pk

−4.5 −3.5 −2.5

280

300

Log udust

(erg cm−3)

γ′ pk

−3.5 −3.3 −3.1

280

300

B′

γ′ pk

1 1.5

280

300

δD

γ′ pk

25 30

280

300

Figure 4. One-dimensional probability distribution of parameter values (left; the dashed curves are the mean likelihoods of samples andthe solid curves are the marginalized probabilities) and two-dimensional contours of parameters (right; the regions enclosing 68%(95%)confidence level are shown) for Period C. The upper panel is for the input parameters, and the lower panel is for the output parameters.

best-fit values for Period C (Table 1), we derive Emax ∼

1020− 2 × 1020 eV. However, it should be noted that 3C

279 cannot contribute to the CRs with energy & 1018 eVat the Earth, because of the significant energy losses duringthe CRs traveling to us.

Besides Emax, the other key quantity of a blazar is itsCR luminosity LCR. Secondary γ rays are produced whenhigh-energy CRs propagate towards us (e.g., Kalashev et al.2009, 2013), which depends primarily on the values of LCR

and Emax. Such kinds of non-variable secondary emission(variable on timescale of years; Prosekin et al. 2012) havebeen proposed to explain the steady VHE (& 100 GeV)emission from distant blazars (e.g., Essey et al. 2010, 2011;Murase et al. 2012; Aharonian et al. 2013; Takami et al.2013; Yan et al. 2015).

If 3C 279 emits high-energy cosmic rays, the secondaryemission should be lower than its VHE emission, whichputs an upper limit on LCR. There are no recently re-ported VHE observations for 3C 279, so we use the sen-sitivity of MAGIC-II as the upper limit of secondary emis-sion. In Fig. 5, we show the secondary gamma-ray spectrumcalculated by using the code TransportCR (Arisaka et al.2007; Gelmini et al. 2012; Kalashev & Kido 2014) and the

EBL model of Franceschini et al. (2008) (see Finke et al.2010, for detailed comparisons for various EBL models).In the calculation, we assume a log-parabola CR distribu-tion with b = 1.48 and peak energy Epk = 5 × 1018 eV,and let the intergalactic magnetic field strength BIGMF =10−15 G (e.g., Essey, Ando & Kusenko 2011) and its coher-ence length λcoh = 1 Mpc. To make the secondary emis-sion lower than the sensitivity of MAGIC-II, the CR lumi-nosity is required to be < 6 × 1046 erg s−1, significantlylower than Lsyn and the apparent gamma-ray luminosity(∼ 1048 erg s−1). The upper limit of the corresponding ab-solute CR power L+

ab,CR is ∼ 1044 erg s−1 (adopting δD = 28in Period C), a quarter of PB (PB is for a two-sided jet) inPeriod C. In Fig. 5, it can be seen that Cherenkov TelescopeArray (CTA), having significantly improved sensitivity overthe present imaging air Cherenkov arrays, will put strongerconstraints on the CR luminosity. The upper limit assumesthat ultra-high energy cosmic rays are not deflected andisotropized during transit, which is unlikely unless the blazaris found in structured regions, for example, clusters and fila-ments (Murase et al. 2012). Even if the UHECRs can freelyescape from the source region, they can be deflected duringtransport across intergalactic space (Takami et al. 2014).

MNRAS 000, 1–10 (2015)

8 D. H. Yan, L. Zhang, S. N. Zhang

1E22 1E24 1E26 1E281E-15

1E-14

1E-13

1E-12

1E-11

1E-10

1E-9

1E-8 Fermi data (Period C) MAGIC data MAGIC-II sensitivity CTA sensitivity secondary, 5E18 eV

F [e

rg c

m-2 s

-1]

[Hz]

Figure 5. Secondary γ-ray emission produced in the propaga-tion of CRs. For comparison, the sensitivities of Imaging Atmo-spheric Cherenkov telescopes (MAGIC-II and CTA) and the non-simultaneous TeV MAGIC data for 3C 279 are shown. The sen-sitivities and TeV data are obtained through the SED Builder ofASDC (http://tools.asdc.asi.it).

1E10 1E12 1E14 1E16 1E18 1E20 1E22 1E24 1E261E-14

1E-13

1E-12

1E-11

1E-10

1E-9

1E-8

F [e

rg c

m-2 s

-1]

[Hz]

Figure 6. Best-fit model to the SED of 3C 279 (Hayashida et al.2015) for Period D. The parameter values are udust ∼ 0.6 ×

10−3 erg cm−3, ζs ∼ 1.0, ν14 ∼ 0.9, b ∼ 1.4 and L48 ∼ 0.3.

If the hadrons in the jet are relativistic cosmic rays, asdiscussed above, these protons could, before escaping fromthe emission region, lose energies and produce secondaryradiations via synchrotron and photohadronic interactionswith low-energy photons (e.g., Dermer, Murase & Inoue2014; Murase et al. 2014). However, the emission made bythe protons in the emission region is negligible compared tothe observed data, because the proton power (Ph) in ourmodel is 2 – 3 orders of magnitude below the proton powerrequired by hadronic model interpretations of FSRQ SEDs(1047-1049 erg s−1) and the magnetic field in our model is 1 –

2 orders of magnitude below that usually found in hadronicmodels (10-100 G) (Bottcher et al. 2013; Diltz et al. 2015).

In this paper, we fitted the SEDs for Period A and Pe-riod C reported by Hayashida et al. (2015) with our one-zone leptonic model. This model can also explain the SEDin the bright flare state of Period D with F (> 100 MeV) of10−5 photons cm−2 s−1 and tobs,var ∼ 2 hours reported byHayashida et al. (2015). In Fig. 6, we show our best-fit resultfor the SED of Period D in Hayashida et al. (2015). In thisfit, we use t4 = 0.5 and Tdust = 800 K. The best-fit model re-quires ζe ∼ 10 and r ∼ 0.2 pc. The deduced parameters areB ∼ 0.8 G, δD ∼ 42, γ′

pk ∼ 360 and R′∼ 6×1015 cm (see the

other parameters values in the caption in Fig. 6). The resultsof Period D, compared with those of Periods A and C, areconsistent with b and ν14 mutually increasing. In contrast,the HSP BL Lacs with large peak synchrotron frequencieshave broader widths of the synchrotron SEDs (correspond-ing to smaller values of b) than FSRQs with smaller valuesof νs (Chen 2014).

Because of the lack of X-ray spectrum and the poor datacoverage of the synchrotron hump in Period B, we do not fitthe SED in Period B. We found that the EC-dust emissionin our model could account for the very hard γ-ray spectrum(Γγ ≃ 1.7) in Period B with ν14 ∼ 2.6, L48 ∼ 0.07, b ∼ 1.7,ζe ∼ 3, t4 ∼ 0.5 and r ∼ 0.3 pc; and we derived B ∼ 0.3 G,δD ∼ 60, γ′

pk ∼ 950, and udust ∼ 0.6 × 10−3erg cm−3.In conclusion, we have applied the MCMC technique

developed for blazar studies by Yan et al. (2013) to the high-quality simultaneous data of 3C 279 (Hayashida et al. 2015),using a log-parabola EED (Dermer et al. 2014). We find thatthe γ-ray SED is dominated by the dusty torus radiation,whereas the contribution of the BLR radiation field is veryweak. This allows us to place the γ-ray emission region out-side the BLR, at & 0.1 pc, but within the IR radiation fieldof the torus. The reasonable fits obtained with curving par-ticle distributions are more simply expained with a stochas-tic acceleration mechanism. The allowed parameter range in3C 279 is well constrained at different epochs, and showsa positive correlation of the log-parabola width parameter bwith peak synchrotron frequency νs. Analysis of more FSRQSEDs will be required to determine if this correlation is ro-bust.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to give special thanks to Charles Dermer,who carefully edited the manuscript and gave us many valu-able suggestions and comments. We thank Charles Dermer,J. Finke, Kinwah Wu for discussions, and the anonymousreferee for very helpful and constructive questions. We aregrateful to Krzysztof Nalewajko for providing us the dataof 3C 279. This work is partially supported by the NationalNatural Science Foundation of China (NSFC 11433004) andTop Talents Program of Yunnan Province, China. DHYacknowledges partial funding support by China Postdoc-toral Science Foundation under grant No. 2015M570152.SNZ acknowledges partial funding support by 973 Pro-gram of China under grant 2014CB845802, by the NationalNatural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under grantNos. 11133002 and 11373036, by the Qianren start-up grant292012312D1117210, and by the Strategic Priority Research

MNRAS 000, 1–10 (2015)

Parameter constraints in Modeling of 3C 279 9

Program “The Emergence of Cosmological Structures” ofthe Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) under grant No.XDB09000000. We acknowledge the use of the ASDC webTools (SED Builder, http://tools.asdc.asi.it).

REFERENCES

Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743,171

Aharonian F. A., 2000, NewA, 5, 337Aharonian F., Essey W., Kusenko A., Prosekin A., 2013, PhRvD,

87, 063002Agudo I., Jorstad S. G., Marscher A. P., et al., 2011 ApJL, 726,

L13Arisaka K., Gelmini G. B., Healy M., Kalashev O., Lee J., 2007,

JCAP, 12, 002Asano K., Takahara F., Kusunose M., Toma K., Kakuwa J., 2014,

ApJ, 780, 64Atoyan A., Dermer C. D., 2001, Physical Review Letters, 87,

221102Atoyan A. M., & Dermer C. D., 2003, ApJ, 586, 79Bai J. M., Liu H. T., Ma L., 2009, ApJ, 699, 2002Becker P., Le T., Dermer C., 2006, ApJ, 647, 539B lazejowski M., Sikora M., Moderski R., Madejski G. M., 2000,

ApJ, 545, 107Bottcher M., Reimer A., Marscher A. P., 2009, ApJ, 703, 1168Bottcher M., Harris D. E., Krawczynski H., eds., 2012, Relativistic

Jets from Active Galactic Nuclei (Berlin: Wiley)Bottcher M., Reimer A., Sweeney K., Prakash A., 2013, ApJ, 768,

54Cerruti M., Dermer C. D., Lott B., Boisson C., Zech A., 2013,

ApJ, 771, L4Cerruti M., Zech A., Boisson C., Inoue S. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 910Chen L., 2014, ApJ, 788, 179Dermer C. D., Schlickeiser R., Mastichiadis A., 1992, A&A, 256,

L27Dermer C. D., Schlickeiser R., 1993, ApJ, 416, 458Dermer C. D., Schlickeiser R., 2002, ApJ, 575, 667Dermer C. D., Finke J. D., Krug H., Bottcher M., 2009, ApJ, 692,

32Dermer C. D., Cerruti M., Lott B., Boisson C., Zech A., 2014,

ApJ, 782, 82Dermer C. D., Murase K., Inoue Y., 2014, J. High Energy Astro-

phys., 3, 29Dermer C. D., Yan D. H., Zhang L., Finke J., Lott B., 2015, ApJ,

809, 174Diltz C., Bottcher M., Fossati G., 2015, ApJ, 802, 133Dimitrakoudis S., Petropoulou M., Mastichiadis A., 2014, APh,

54, 61 546, A120Dotson A., Georganopoulos M., Kazanas D., Perlman E. S., 2012,

ApJ, 758, L15Essey W., Kalashev O. E., Kusenko A., Beacom J. F., 2010,

PhRvL, 104, 1102Essey W., Ando S., Kusenko A., 2011, Astropart. Phys., 35, 135Essey W., Kalashev O. E., Kusenko A., Beacom J. F., 2011, ApJ,

731, 51Finke J. D., Dermer C. D., Bottcher M., 2008, ApJ, 686, 181Finke J. D., Razzaque S., Dermer C. D., 2010, ApJ, 712, 238Fossati, G., Maraschi, L., Celotti, A., Comastri, A., & Ghisellini,

G. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 433Franceschini A., Rodighiero G., Vaccari M., 2008, A&A, 487, 837Gamerman D., 1997, Markov Chain Monte Carlo: Stochastic Sim-

ulation for Bayesian Inference (London: Chapman and Hall)Gelmini G. B., Kalashev O., Semikoz D. V., 2012, JCAP, 01, 044Ghisellini G., Tavecchio F., 2009, MNRAS, 397, 958Ghisellini G., Tavecchio F., Maraschi L., Celotti A., Sbarrato T.,

2014, Nature, 515, 376

Ghisellini G., Celotti, A., Fossati G., Maraschi L., Comastri A.

1998, MNRAS, 301, 451Gu M., Cao X., Jiang D. R., 2001, MNRAS, 327, 1111

Hao L., et al., 2005, AJ, 129, 1795Hartman, R. C., Bertsch, D. L., Fichtel, C. E., et al. 1992, APJL,

385, L1

Hayashida M., Madejski G. M., Nalewajko K., et al., 2012, ApJ,754, 114

Hayashida M., Nalewajko K., Madejski G. M. et al., 2015, arXiv:1502.04699

Jorstad S. G., Marscher A. P., Mattox J. R., Wehrle A. E., BloomS. D., Yurchenko, A. V., 2001, ApJS, 134, 181

Jorstad S. G., Marscher A. P., Larionov V. M., 2010, ApJ, 715,362

Kakuwa J., Toma K., Asano K., Kusunose M., Takahara F., 2015,MNRAS, 449, 551

Kalashev O. E., Semikoz D. V., Sigl G., 2009, PhRvD, 79, 063005Kalashev O. E., Kusenko A., Essey W., 2013, PhRvL, 111, 041103

Kalashev O. E., Kido E., 2014, arXiv: 1406.0735Kang S. J., Chen L., Wu Q. W., 2014, ApJS, 215, 5

Krawczynski H., 2012, ApJ, 744, 30

Liu J., Yuan Q., Bi X. J., Li H., Zhang X. M., 2012, PhRvD, 85,d3507

Liu H. T., Bai, J. M., 2006, ApJ, 653, 1089

Liu H. T., Bai, J. M., Wang J. M., 2011, MNRAS, 414, 155Mackay D., 2003, Information Theory, Inference and Learning

Algorithms (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)

Malmrose M. P., Marscher A. P., Jorstad S. G., Nikutta R.,Elitzur M., 2011, ApJ, 732, 116

Maraschi L., Ghisellini G., Celotti A., 1992, ApJL, 397, L5

Massaro E., Perri M., Giommi P., Nesci R., 2004a, A&A, 413, 489

Massaro E., Perri M., Giommi P., Nesci R., Verrecchia F., 2004b,A&A, 422, 103

Massaro F., Tramacere A., Cavaliere A., Perri M., Giommi P.,2008, A&A, 478, 395

Mastichiadis A., Petropoulou M., Dimitrakoudis S., 2013, MN-RAS, 434, 2684

Mucke A., Protheroe R. J., 2001, APh, 15, 121

Mucke A., Protheroe R. J., Engel R., Rachen J. P., Stanev T.,2003, APh, 18, 593

Murase K., Dermer C. D., Takami H., Migliori G., 2012, ApJ,749, 63

Murase K., Inoue Y., Dermer C. D., 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 90,023007

Nalewajko K., Begelman M. C., Sikora M., 2014, ApJ, 789, 161Pacciani L., Tavecchio F., Donnarumma I., et al., 2014, ApJ, 790,

45

Paliya V. S., Sahayanathan S., Stalin C. S., 2015, ApJ, 803, 15Paliya V. S., 2015, ApJL, 808, 48

Pian E., Urry C. M., Maraschi L., et al. 1999, ApJ, 521, 112Peng Y. P., Yan D. H., Zhang L. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 2357

Prosekin A., Essey W., Kusenko A., Aharonian F., 2012, ApJ,757, 183

Sikora M., Begelman M. C., Rees M. J., 1994, ApJ, 421, 153Sikora M., Stawarz L., Moderski R., Nalewajko K., Madejski G.

M., 2009, ApJ, 704, 38

Takami H., Murase K., Dermer C. D., 2013, ApJ, 771, L32Takami H., Murase K., Dermer C. D., 2014, arXiv:1412.4716

Tavecchio F., Maraschi L., Ghisellini G., 1998, ApJ, 509, 608Tavecchio F., Ghisellini G., 2008, MNRAS, 386, 945

Tavecchio F., Ghisellini G., Bonnoli G., Ghirlanda G., 2010, MN-RAS, 405, L94

Tramacere A., Massaro F., Cavaliere A., 2007, A&A, 466, 521Tramacere A., Giommi P., Perri M., Verrecchia F., Tosti G., 2009,

A&A, 501, 879

Tramacere A., Massaro E., Taylor A. M., 2011, ApJ, 739, 66Weidinger M., Spanier F., 2015, A&A, 573, 7

Woo J. H., Urry C. M., 2002, ApJ, 579, 530

MNRAS 000, 1–10 (2015)

10 D. H. Yan, L. Zhang, S. N. Zhang

Yan D. H., Zeng H. D., Zhang L., 2012, PASJ, 64, 80

Yan D. H., Zhang L., Yuan Q., Fan Z. H., Zeng H. D., 2013, ApJ,765, 122

Yan D. H., Zeng H. D., Zhang L., 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2933Yan D. H., Zhang L., 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2810Yan D. H., Kalashev O., Zhang L., Zhang S. N., 2015, MNRAS,

449, 1018Yuan Q., Liu S., Fan Z., Bi X., Fryer C., 2011, ApJ, 735, 120Zdziarski A., Bottcher M., 2015, MNRAS, 450, L21Zhang J., Liang E. W., Zhang S. N., Bai, J. M., 2012, ApJ, 752,

157Zhang J., Zhang S. N., Liang E., W., 2013, ApJ, 767, 8Zhou Y., Yan D. H., Dai B. Z., Zhang L., 2014, PASJ, 66, 12

APPENDIX A: FITTING RESULTS WITH

LARGER SIZE OF DUST TORUS

We show the fitting results with a larger rdust, i.e., rdust =2 × 1018(Ldisk/1045 erg s−1)1/2 cm (e.g., Ghisellini et al.2014). We then have rdust ≃ 0.8 pc. Using τdust = 0.3, wederive udust . 2 × 10−4 erg cm−3.

Figure A1 shows the best-fit results with this larger rdust. One can see that the fit to the SED in Period A is com-parable to the fit showed in Section 3; however, the fit tolowest γ-ray data in Period C is bad in the case of the largerrdust.

In Figs. A2 and A3, we show the one-dimensional prob-ability distribution of parameter values. The mean valuesand the marginalized 95% confidence intervals of the modelparameters are reported in Table A1. In Period A, a largerζe and r is required in fitting with the larger rdust. The otherinput parameters change little, compared with those given inSection 3. The change in ζe leads to the significant changesin B′ and δD. In Period C, the input parameters are nearlyidentical to those reported in Section 3.

This paper has been typeset from a TEX/LATEX file prepared bythe author.

1E10 1E12 1E14 1E16 1E18 1E20 1E22 1E24 1E261E-14

1E-13

1E-12

1E-11

1E-10

1E-9

1E-8

1E17 1E191E-13

1E-12

1E-11

1E-10

EC-BLR EC-dust syn+SSC total

F [e

rg c

m-2 s

-1]

[Hz]

F [e

rg c

m-2 s

-1]

[Hz]

1E10 1E12 1E14 1E16 1E18 1E20 1E22 1E24 1E261E-14

1E-13

1E-12

1E-11

1E-10

1E-9

1E-8

F [e

rg c

m-2 s

-1]

[Hz]

1E17 1E191E-12

1E-11

1E-10

F [e

rg c

m-2 s

-1]

[Hz]

Figure A1. Best-fit models with a larger rdust to the SEDs of 3C279. Upper : for Period A; lower : for Period C. The inset showsthe details of fit at X-ray energies.

MNRAS 000, 1–10 (2015)

Parameter constraints in Modeling of 3C 279 11

Table A1. Input and output parameters values derived in the fittings with the larger rdust. The mean values and the marginalized 95%confidence intervals (CI) for interested parameters are reported.

Input

ζe b L48 ν14 t4 ζs r Tdust Ldisk(pc) (K) (1046 erg s−1)

Period A 3.25 1.18 0.19 0.27 5 0.48 0.7 800 0.15(95% CI) 1.52-4.91 1.11-1.26 0.17-0.20 0.23-0.31 - 0.44-0.53 0.1-1.2 -

Period C 4.58 1.50 0.24 0.52 1 0.79 0.2 800 0.15(95% CI) 3.13-4.98 1.43-1.56 0.22-0.25 0.48-0.57 - 0.71-0.87 0.1-0.3 -

Output

B δD γ′

pk udust uBLR R′ PB Pr

(G) (10−3 erg cm−3) (10−3 erg cm−3) (1016 cm) (1045 erg s−1) (1046 erg s−1)

Period A 0.5 23 290 0.1 0.005 3 0.9 0.6(95% CI) 0.3-0.8 19-26 260-320 0.04- 0.25 0.001-0.3 - - -

Period C 1.0 29 300 0.21 0.6 0.8 0.5 1.0(95% CI) 0.9-1.3 27-31 290-310 0.20- 0.22 0.07-2 - - -

0.45 0.5 0.55

Pro

babi

lity

ζs

0.17 0.18 0.19 0.2

Pro

babi

lity

L48

0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.3 0.32

Pro

babi

lity

ν14

1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3

Pro

babi

lity

b

−0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0

Pro

babi

lity

Log r (pc)1 2 3 4 5

Pro

babi

lity

ζe

−6 −5 −4 −3

Pro

babi

lity

Log uBLR

(erg cm−3)−4.4 −4.2 −4 −3.8

Pro

babi

lity

Log udust

(erg cm−3)

0.4 0.6 0.8

Pro

babi

lity

B′18 20 22 24 26

Pro

babi

lity

δD

240 260 280 300 320 340

Pro

babi

lity

γ′pk

Figure A2. One-dimensional probability distribution of param-

eter values for Period A.

0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9

Pro

babi

lity

ζs

0.22 0.24 0.26

Pro

babi

lity

L48

0.5 0.55 0.6

Pro

babi

lity

ν14

1.4 1.45 1.5 1.55 1.6

Pro

babi

lity

b

−1.2 −1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4

Pro

babi

lity

Log r (pc)3 4 5

Pro

babi

lity

ζe

−4.5 −4 −3.5 −3 −2.5

Pro

babi

lity

Log uBLR

(erg cm−3)−3.68 −3.67 −3.66 −3.65

Pro

babi

lity

Log udust

(erg cm−3)

1 1.2 1.4 1.6

Pro

babi

lity

B′ (G)

24 26 28 30 32

Pro

babi

lity

δD

280 290 300 310 320

Pro

babi

lity

γ′pk

Figure A3. One-dimensional probability distribution of param-

eter values for Period C.

MNRAS 000, 1–10 (2015)