9.3-4955, which reject log-normal distribution. Since the statistics is not significant enough, these fits should be taken only as indicative.[]{data-label="fig:double"}](ms89fig5_2.eps "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}![Double log-normal fit to the flux distribution of the blazars J1625.7-2527, J1504.4+1029, and J2329.3-4955, which reject log-normal distribution. Since the statistics is not significant enough, these fits should be taken only as indicative.[]{data-label="fig:double"}](ms89fig5_3.eps "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}

We have also investigated the possibility of double log-normal distribution of fluxes for the sources that reject log-normal distribution both in $\chi^2$ and AD test (J1625.7-2527, J1504.4+1029, and J2329.3-4955). The two distinct log-normal profiles may indicate different flux states correspond to a low and high states of the source [@Kushwaha2016]. It is interesting to note that the flux distribution of all three sources exhibit hints of double log-normal distribution (Fig.\[fig:double\]). However, the statistics of this distribution is not significant enough, hence these result should be taken only as an indicative.

Another implication of our study is on the averaging of long term flux. We recommend the usage of the average of flux in log scale, rather than estimating average flux in a linear scale, especially for the highly variable sources. We show the difference of averaged flux in both linear and log-scale in Fig \[fig:flux\_vs\_flux\]. For example, in the case of FSRQs, the average value of Flux/Log$_{10}$(Flux) falls around $\sim$1.7, while the maximum value (in the case of 3C454.3) goes up-to 2.8. These values imply that averaging flux over a linear scale will significantly overestimate the same, which would in turn gives rise to inaccurate SED non-thermal emission model parameters.

Conclusion
==========

We studied in detail the flux distribution properties of 38 brightest $\gamma$-ray blazars using *Fermi*-LAT data of more than 8 years. The flux distribution suggest log-normal distribution, for 35 blazars, indicating a multiplicative perturbation associated with
9.3 - 4955, which reject log - normal distribution. Since the statistics is not significant enough, these fit should be accept only as indicative.[]{data - label="fig: double"}](ms89fig5_2.eps " fig:"){width="\linewidth"}![Double log - normal fit to the flux density distribution of the blazars J1625.7 - 2527, J1504.4 + 1029, and J2329.3 - 4955, which reject log - normal distribution. Since the statistic is not significant enough, these fits should be taken merely as indicative.[]{data - label="fig: double"}](ms89fig5_3.eps " fig:"){width="\linewidth " } 

 We have also investigated the hypothesis of double log - normal distribution of fluxes for the sources that resist log - normal distribution both in $ \chi^2 $ and AD test (J1625.7 - 2527, J1504.4 + 1029, and J2329.3 - 4955). The two distinct log - normal profiles may bespeak different flux states represent to a low and high states of the beginning [ @Kushwaha2016 ]. It is interesting to note that the flux distribution of all three sources exhibit hints of bivalent log - normal distribution (Fig.\[fig: double\ ]). However, the statistics of this distribution is not significant enough, hence these result should be taken merely as an indicative. 

 Another implication of our study is on the averaging of long term flux. We recommend the usage of the average of flux in log scale, preferably than estimating average flux density in a analogue plate, especially for the highly variable sources. We show the difference of averaged flux in both linear and logarithm - scale in Fig \[fig: flux\_vs\_flux\ ]. For example, in the case of FSRQs, the average value of Flux / Log$_{10}$(Flux) falls around $ \sim$1.7, while the maximum value (in the case of 3C454.3) goes up - to 2.8. These values imply that averaging flux over a analogue scale will importantly overestimate the same, which would in turn gives rise to inaccurate SED non - thermal emission exemplar parameters. 

 Conclusion 
 = = = = = = = = = = 

 We studied in detail the magnetic field distribution properties of 38 brightest $ \gamma$-ray blazars using * Fermi*-LAT data of more than 8 year. The flux distribution hint log - normal distribution, for 35 blazars, indicating a multiplicative disturbance associated with
9.3-4955, whlch reject log-normal disuribution. Since tkw statmstics js not skgnificant enough, these fits syould be taken only as indizative.[]{datw-label="fit:douule"}](ms89fig5_2.eps "fig:"){wmsth="\linewidth"}![Dkmble nig-normal fit tp the flux distribution mf tke blazars J1625.7-2527, J1504.4+1029, and J2329.3-4955, which reject lod-normal dlstribution. Sigce uhe stafpsuics is not significant enough, thsse fitv should be tsken only as indicative.[]{datw-labfl="fig:double"}](ms89fig5_3.epd "fig:"){width="\lunewyeth"}

We have auso investpyated the pkssibility of double log-normal aistrnbution of dlyxed for the sonrces nhat reject log-normal distrinution both in $\chm^2$ ane AD test (J1625.7-2527, J1504.4+1029, and J2329.3-4955). Tie two distinct log-njrmal proximes may indicate eidferett fnux rratds docreapond ho e low and hjgh states if the source [@Kushwshw2016]. It is intereating eo note that the flux distribution of all thdee sources exhibit hinrs of double log-normap distribttion (Fig.\[fig:double\]). However, the statistics of this distcicutnin is boh significant enough, hence these result shoulq bt tsken only as ak indicative.

Anothet lmljication of oor studv ia on the averaging of lond tern flux. We recpmmend the usage of the aveeage of flux un log scale, rathex than estimcting sverabe flux in a linear scaue, eapecially flr the hiffly variable soufcex. Fe show ufe difference of wveraged hlux nn both uinesr and log-scale ln Fin \[fig:flux\_vs\_flux\]. For examkle, in the case lf FSRQs, the average value of Flux/Log$_{10}$(Flux) falks armund $\sim$1.7, whilc the maximum vwlue (in the caxe of 3C454.3) goes up-to 2.8. Theae valuxs imply thae averaging fnox over a linxar scale wilo sitnificavgly overestimaye the same, which wiuld in turn gives rirs to inaccurate SEE non-thermal emosskon mldxl pawdmeters.

Conclgsiov
==========

We xtudidd in dtcaio the flux distribution psopedties of 38 brightesy $\namma$-ray vlazars tsing *Fermi*-LAY data of more thaj 8 yeers. Thx flux diftribution suggest log-normal djstributiln, nor 35 blazars, yndigatigg a multi'licative perturbation associated with
9.3-4955, which reject log-normal distribution. Since the not enough, these should be taken fit the flux distribution the blazars J1625.7-2527, and J2329.3-4955, which reject log-normal distribution. the statistics is not significant enough, these fits should be taken only as "fig:"){width="\linewidth"} We have also investigated the possibility of double log-normal distribution of fluxes the that log-normal both in $\chi^2$ and AD test (J1625.7-2527, J1504.4+1029, and J2329.3-4955). The two distinct log-normal profiles may different flux states correspond to a low and states of the source It is interesting to note the distribution of three exhibit of double log-normal (Fig.\[fig:double\]). However, the statistics of this distribution is not significant enough, hence these result should be taken as an implication of study on averaging of long We recommend the usage of the in log scale, rather than estimating average flux a linear especially for the highly variable sources. show the difference of averaged flux in both and log-scale in Fig \[fig:flux\_vs\_flux\]. For example, in the case of FSRQs, the average value falls around $\sim$1.7, while maximum value (in case 3C454.3) up-to These values that averaging flux over a linear scale will significantly overestimate the which would in turn gives rise to inaccurate SED non-thermal parameters. ========== We studied detail the flux distribution of brightest $\gamma$-ray blazars using of than flux suggest distribution, for 35 blazars, a multiplicative perturbation associated with
9.3-4955, which reject log-normal distrIbution. SinCe the StaTisTiCs is Not sIgnificant enouGH, theSe fits should be taken onlY as inDiCAtivE.[]{DaTa-labEl="fig:doUBlE"}](MS89fiG5_2.ePs "Fig:"){WiDTh="\LinewIdtH"}![Double Log-normal fIt tO tHe flux distriBUtIon of the blAzaRs J1625.7-2527, J1504.4+1029, and J2329.3-4955, whicH reJect loG-nOrmAL distRibUtion. since tHE statiStics is noT sIGnificANt enougH, THeSe fiTs should be taken onLY aS Indicative.[]{data-Label="fIg:DOuBLE"}](ms89Fig5_3.Eps "fig:"){widtH="\lInewiDTh"}

We havE AlSO INveSTigated the posSibility of dOUblE log-noRmAl dIStribuTion oF fLUxeS for the sourCes tHat reject Log-norMAl distrIBution bOth in $\cHi^2$ aNd Ad tesT (j1625.7-2527, J1504.4+1029, AnD J2329.3-4955). THe TWo dIStIncT Log-Normal prOfIlEs may IndiCATE DiffEreNt flUx staTes correspond To a Low aND hiGh staTes of The sOuRce [@KuShwaha2016]. it is iNtEresting to note tHat tHe flux disTriBuTioN oF all tHRee souRceS exHibit hiNts of doUBle LoG-NORmAl distribution (Fig.\[fIg:DOUbLe\]). HoweveR, the stATiStICs of this DiStrIbutION is noT sigNIfIcant enoUgh, henCE tHeSe resulT sHould bE tAkeN onLy as aN IndiCative.

another iMplicATion of our study IS on the averagiNG oF LOnG Term FluX. We recommenD the USage Of thE AvEraGE of flUx in lOg SCaLE, rather than estimatiNg AveragE flux In a linear scalE, especiallY FOR the highLy vaRIaBLe sources. We shoW the dIfference oF Averaged Flux iN both linEar and log-SCAle in Fig \[Fig:FluX\_vs\_FluX\]. fOr Example, in the cASE of FsRqs, the avEraGe value Of FLux/log$_{10}$(fluX) fAlls arounD $\sim$1.7, whilE tHe MaXiMum Value (IN the case Of 3c454.3) goEs Up-tO 2.8. ThesE Values Imply That AvErAGinG flux ovER a LINear ScAlE wilL siGnIficaNtly OVerEstimatE the same, wHicH WoulD iN tUrn giveS rise to inaccuRaTe SED non-thErMal EmissiON Model parAmeters.

Conclusion
==========

We studIEd in detAil The flUx diStributioN prOpertiEs oF 38 BrightEst $\gamMa$-ray BlAzaRS Using *fERmI*-LAt dAta of more tHAN 8 yeArs. ThE fLux dIstribuTion suggest log-normAL diStribution, for 35 BlaZars, INDiCatINg A MulTiPLicATIve perturbation Associated WiTH
9.3-4955, which reject log -normal di strib uti on.  S ince  the  statistics is notsignificant enough, th ese f it s  sho u ld  be t aken on l ya s  in di ca tiv e. [ ]{ data- lab el="fig :double"}] (ms 89 fig5_2.eps " f ig :"){width= "\l inewidth"}![ Dou ble lo g- nor m al fi t t o the  fluxd istrib ution ofth e  blaza r s J1625 . 7 -2 527,  J1504.4+1029, an d  J 2 329.3-4955, wh ich re je c tl o g-n orm al distrib ut ion.S ince th e  s t a t ist i cs is not sig nificant en o ugh , thes efit s  shoul d beta k enonly as ind icat ive.[]{da ta-lab e l="fig: d ouble"} ](ms89 fig 5_3 .eps "f ig :") {w i dth = "\ lin e wid th"}

We  h av e als o in v e s t igat edthepossi bility of dou ble  log - nor mal d istri buti on  of f luxesfor t he  sources that r ejec t log-nor mal  d ist ri butio n  bothin$\c hi^2$ a nd AD t e st(J 1 6 2 5. 7-2527, J1504.4+10 29 , an d J2329. 3-4955 ) .Th e  two dis ti nct  log - n ormal  pro f il es may i ndicat e  d if ferentfl ux sta te s c orr espon d  toa lowand high  stat e s of the sourc e  [@Kushwaha20 1 6] . It is i nte resting tonote that  the fl uxd istri butio no fa ll three sources ex hi bit hi nts o f double log- normal dis t r i bution ( Fig. \ [f i g:double\]). H oweve r, the sta t istics o f thi s distri bution is n ot signi fic ant  en oug h ,  h ence these re s u lt s ho uld betak en only  as  an  in dic at ive.

Ano ther imp li ca ti on  of  ours tudy ison  th eave ragin g  of lo ng te rm f lu x. Werecomme n dt h e us ag eof t heav erage  off lux  in log  scale, r ath e r th an  e stimati ng average fl ux  in a line ar  sc ale, e s p eciallyfor the highly variable sources . W e sho w th e differe nce  of av era g ed flu x in b oth l in ear a nd lo g - sc ale  i n Fig \[fi g : flu x\_vs \_ flux \]. For  example, in the c a seof FSRQs, the  av erag e va lue of Flu x/ L og$ _ { 10}$(Flux) fall s around $ \s i m$ 1.7, while the  m aximumvalue ( in th e  case o f 3C454.3 ) goes up -t o 2. 8 .  Th ese values  imply t hat avera g ing f l ux  over  alinear  s cal e wil l sign i fic antly  overe st imatethe s am e, which  would in turn gives ri se toinacc ura te SED no n-t h erm al emissi on m odel param ete rs. 

Con clu s ion
= ==== = == ==We st udie d  in detai l  t hef l ux  distributi o n pro perti eso f 38 b righ test $\gamma$-ray blazars using*Fer m i *-L ATd ataof  more than 8 y ear s. T he fluxdi stributionsuggestlo g -norm al dis tribut ion, fo r 35 blazar s, i ndi cating amul ti p licativ epe r turbat ionas sociat ed wit h 
9.3-4955, which_reject log-normal_distribution. Since the statistics_is not_significant_enough, these_fits_should be taken_only as indicative.[]{data-label="fig:double"}](ms89fig5_2.eps_"fig:"){width="\linewidth"}![Double log-normal fit to_the flux distribution_of_the blazars J1625.7-2527, J1504.4+1029, and J2329.3-4955, which reject log-normal distribution. Since the statistics is_not_significant enough,_these_fits_should be taken only as_indicative.[]{data-label="fig:double"}](ms89fig5_3.eps "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}

We have also investigated_the possibility_of double log-normal distribution of fluxes for the_sources_that reject log-normal_distribution both in $\chi^2$ and AD test (J1625.7-2527, J1504.4+1029,_and J2329.3-4955). The two distinct log-normal_profiles may indicate_different_flux_states correspond to a_low and high states of the_source [@Kushwaha2016]. It is interesting to_note that the flux distribution of all_three sources exhibit hints of double_log-normal distribution (Fig.\[fig:double\]). However, the_statistics of_this distribution is not significant_enough, hence these_result should_be taken only_as an indicative.

Another implication of our_study is on_the averaging of long term flux._We_recommend the usage_of_the_average of_flux in log_scale,_rather than_estimating_average flux in a linear scale,_especially_for the highly variable sources. We show_the difference of averaged_flux_in both linear and_log-scale in Fig \[fig:flux\_vs\_flux\]. For_example, in the case of FSRQs,_the average_value of_Flux/Log$_{10}$(Flux) falls around $\sim$1.7, while the maximum value (in the case_of 3C454.3) goes up-to 2.8. These_values imply that averaging_flux over_a_linear scale will_significantly_overestimate the_same, which would in turn gives rise_to inaccurate_SED non-thermal emission model parameters.

Conclusion
==========

We studied_in detail the flux_distribution_properties of 38 brightest $\gamma$-ray blazars_using *Fermi*-LAT data of more than_8 years. The flux distribution_suggest_log-normal_distribution, for 35 blazars, indicating_a multiplicative perturbation associated with