1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %
3: % (uses AASTeX 5.0)
4: %
5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6:
7: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
8: %\newenvironment{deluxetable*}{\begin{landscape}\begin{deluxetable}}{\end{deluxetable}\end{landscape}}
9: \documentclass{emulateapj}
10: %remember to comment the deluxetable definition when you switch to emulateapj
11:
12: \usepackage{lscape}
13: \newcommand{\erg}{\mbox{$\rm\,erg$}}
14: \newcommand{\kev}{\mbox{$\rm\,keV$}}
15: \newcommand{\cm}{\mbox{$\rm\,cm$}}
16: \newcommand{\ev}{\mbox{$\rm\,eV$}}
17: \newcommand{\gyr}{\mbox{$\rm\,Gyr$}}
18: \newcommand{\yr}{\mbox{$\rm\,yr$}}
19: \newcommand{\s}{\mbox{$\rm\,s$}}
20: \newcommand{\ks}{\mbox{$\rm\,ks$}}
21: \newcommand{\mpc}{\mbox{$\rm\,Mpc$}}
22: \newcommand{\kpc}{\mbox{$\rm\,kpc$}}
23: \newcommand{\pc}{\mbox{$\rm\,pc$}}
24: \newcommand{\au}{\mbox{$\rm\,AU$}}
25: \newcommand{\msun}{\mbox{$\,M_\odot$}}
26: \newcommand{\kms}{\mbox{${\rm\,km\,s}^{-1}$}}
27: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
28: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
29: \newcommand{\vv}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}
30: \newcommand{\Lxgas}{\ensuremath{L_{\rm X,gas}}}
31: \newcommand{\lxgas}{\ensuremath{L_{\rm X,gas}}}
32: \newcommand{\lxtx}{$\lxgas$--$T_X$}
33: \newcommand{\RJ}{\ensuremath{R_{\rm J}}}
34: \newcommand{\LNVSS}{\ensuremath{L_{\rm NVSS}}}
35: \newcommand{\aout}{\ensuremath{\alpha_{\rm 24}}}
36: \newcommand{\ain}{\ensuremath{\alpha_{\rm 02}}}
37: \newcommand{\rhomass}{\ensuremath{\rho_{\rm 2MASS}}}
38: \newcommand{\rhotully}{\ensuremath{\rho_{\rm Tully}}}
39: \newcommand{\MK}{\ensuremath{M_{\rm K}}}
40: \newcommand{\Lsix}{\ensuremath{L_{\rm 6cm}}}
41: \newcommand{\TX}{\ensuremath{T_{\rm X}}}
42:
43: \usepackage{color}
44: \newcommand{\mycomment}[1]{#1}
45: \newcommand{\todoSD}[1]{\mycomment{\textcolor{red}{TO DO (SD): #1}}}
46: \newcommand{\todoTSS}[1]{\mycomment{\textcolor{blue}{TO DO (TSS): #1}}}
47: \newcommand{\todo}[1]{\mycomment{\textcolor{green}{TO DO (SD.TSS): #1}}}
48:
49:
50:
51: \shorttitle{Morphological Evidence for AGN Feedback in Normal Ellipticals}
52: \shortauthors{Diehl \& Statler}
53:
54: \begin{document}
55:
56: \title{The Hot Interstellar Medium in Normal Elliptical Galaxies. II.\linebreak Morphological Evidence for AGN Feedback}
57:
58: \author{Steven Diehl\altaffilmark{1,2} and Thomas S. Statler\altaffilmark{1}}
59: \altaffiltext{1}{Astrophysical Institute, Department of Physics and Astronomy,
60: 251B Clippinger Research Laboratories, Ohio University, Athens, OH
61: 45701, USA}
62: \altaffiltext{2}{Theoretical Astrophysics Group T-6, Mailstop B227, Los Alamos National Laboratory, P.O. Box 1663, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA (present address)}
63: \email{diehl@lanl.gov, statler@ohio.edu}
64:
65: \begin{abstract}
66: We report on the discovery of a new quantitative relationship between X-ray gas morphology and radio and X-ray AGN luminosities in normal elliptical galaxies. This is the second paper in a series using data on 54 objects from the {\it Chandra} public archive and builds on the findings of Paper I, which demonstrated that hydrostatic equilibrium in elliptical galaxies holds, at best, only approximately and that the shape of the X-ray isophotes is unrelated to the shape of the gravitational potential. Instead, the gas is almost always asymmetrically disturbed. In this paper, we quantify the amount of asymmetry and study its correlation with other galaxy properties. We also determine radio powers and derive X-ray
67: AGN luminosities for our galaxy sample. We find that the amount of asymmetry in the gas is correlated with both measures of AGN activity, in the sense that the hot gas is more disturbed in galaxies with higher radio and X-ray AGN luminosities. We find no evidence that galaxy density has significant effects on gas morphology. We do however find evidence for a correlation between gas asymmetry and the presence of hot ambient gas, which we interpret as a signature of hydrodynamic interactions with an external ambient medium. Surprisingly, the AGN--morphology connection persists all the way down to the weakest AGN luminosities in rather X-ray faint galaxies. This is strong morphological evidence that supports the general importance of AGN feedback, even in normal elliptical galaxies.
68: \end{abstract}
69:
70: \keywords{galaxies: cooling flows---galaxies: elliptical and lenticular,
71: cD---galaxies: ISM---X-rays: galaxies---X-rays: ISM}
72:
73:
74: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
75:
76:
77: \section{Introduction}\label{s4.introduction}
78:
79: In the first paper of this series \citep[][hereafter Paper
80: I]{DiehlGallery} we conducted a morphological analysis of the
81: hot interstellar medium (ISM) of normal elliptical galaxies, derived
82: from archived {\it Chandra} observations of 54 objects. This paper
83: introduced a new technique to isolate the diffuse hot gas emission
84: from the contaminating effects of unresolved point sources, and
85: presented a gallery of adaptively binned gas-only images. By fitting
86: elliptical isophotes to these images, we demonstrated that the
87: apparent flattening of the X-ray gas is completely uncorrelated with,
88: and often significantly larger than, that of the starlight. The absence of any
89: correlation, at radii inside the optical effective radius, implies that the hot gas cannot be in perfect hydrostatic
90: equilibrium, unless the potential is dominated by
91: a dark matter component completely unrelated to the stellar mass distribution. This is unlikely, since
92: within the effective
93: radius gravitational potentials are generally expected to be stellar-mass
94: dominated \citep[e.g.][]{MamonDarkmatterI,HumphreyDarkmatter}. Consequently, efforts to measure the shapes of dark
95: matter halos using X-ray gas isophotes may be fruitless in most cases
96: \citep[e.g.][]{BuoteGeomtest,BuoteNGC720}, and radial mass profiles
97: derived from X-ray data
98: \citep{HumphreyDarkmatter,FukazawaMassprofiles} could be in error by
99: factors of order unity.
100:
101: This paper takes up the question left unaddressed by Paper I: what
102: {\it is} the origin of the gas flattening, if not gravitational? In
103: Paper I, we already excluded rotational flattening as the dominant
104: cause. A qualitative analysis of gas morphologies showed that
105: they are often asymmetric and disturbed. In this paper we will
106: quantify this asymmetry, argue that it and the isophotal ellipticity
107: reflect the same underlying disturbance, and show
108: strong evidence that the root causes are the
109: central active nucleus---even in those systems with
110: very weak active galactic nuclei (AGN)---and interactions with
111: ambient external gas.
112:
113: Asymmetries are well known in X-ray studies of galaxies, groups, and
114: clusters. {\it Chandra} and {\it XMM-Newton} observations of clusters
115: of galaxies reveal strong deviations from smooth surface brightness
116: distributions. Many of these features are believed to be due to cold
117: fronts, caused by infalling substructure into the cluster center
118: \citep[e.g.][]{SarazinColdfront}, or gas sloshing in the gravitational
119: potential \citep[e.g.][]{MarkevitchSloshing}. In other cases,
120: depressions in the surface brightness distribution are found to be
121: coincident with extended radio emission
122: \citep[e.g.][]{McnamaraHydraA2}. These depressions, or ``bubbles'',
123: are generally believed to be pockets of low-density extremely hot
124: plasma, inflated by jets powered by the central AGN
125: \citep[see][for a recent review]{McNamaraAGNReview}. However, there are many cases where the
126: depressions have no obvious radio counterparts, which has brought them
127: the nickname ``ghost cavities'' \citep{McnamaraGhostCavities}. These
128: cavities are now interpreted to be relic bubbles that have detached from
129: the radio source and are buoyantly rising radially outward in the
130: cluster gas.
131:
132: Unexpectedly, {\it Chandra} and {\it XMM} observations of normal elliptical galaxies have also revealed a wealth of highly disturbed gas morphologies with qualitatively similar properties to clusters. Many individual observations have been analyzed in detail and a variety of different explanations have been proposed. Sharp, one-sided drops in surface brightness are usually interpreted as signs of ram-pressure, distorting the gas in elliptical galaxies as they move through the ambient intracluster or intragroup medium, as in NGC~4472 \citep{IrwinNGC4472,BillerNGC4472} and NGC~1404 \citep{Machacek}. To explain the very asymmetric emission in NGC~7618, \citet{KraftNGC7618} even argue for a major group-group merger. Other observations are not interpreted as results of environmental effects, but rather as signatures of the central AGN. For a few cases, such as NGC~4374 \citep{Fin01} or NGC~4472 \citep{BillerNGC4472}, the association with the AGN is indicated clearly by the correspondence between the radio source and depressions in the X-ray gas distribution. While these cavities are generally surrounded by cool rims \citep[][and references therein]{McNamaraAGNReview}, two low-power radio galaxies (Centaurus~A and NGC~3801) have recently been identified with shocks surrounding the radio lobes \citep{KraftCentaurusA,KraftCentaurusA2,CrostonShocks}. In other objects, one can directly detect the X-ray counterpart of the radio jet \citep[e.g.][]{SambrunaXrayjets, HarrisXrayJet, HardcastleXrayJet}. However, most cases are less clear-cut. For example, the origin of the shock-like features seen in NGC~1553 \citep{BlantonNGC1553} or NGC~4636 \citep{JonesNGC4636} is still a mystery. The morphologies in other galaxies qualitatively resemble ghost cavities very close to the core \citep[e.g. NGC 5044,][]{BuoteNGC5044XMM}, without evidence for an active radio source.
133:
134: These individual cases each come with their own analysis techniques and
135: interpretations, making general statements about elliptical
136: galaxies problematic. Detailed analyses are generally
137: limited to the X-ray brightest galaxies with clearly
138: identifiable features, which are often dismissed as special
139: cases. However, our
140: morphological survey of normal elliptical galaxies in
141: Paper I shows that disturbances and asymmetries in the gas are
142: actually the norm rather than the exception, even for relatively X-ray
143: faint galaxies. Most galaxies in the {\it Chandra\/} archive lack the signal, and
144: therefore the contrast, to reliably identify cavity or shock features individually. In this paper, we introduce a statistical
145: measure of asymmetry (the asymmetry index, $\eta$) that allows us to
146: treat all objects on an equal footing. We will show that the asymmetry
147: index is strongly correlated with two different measures of nuclear activity, and with
148: the presence of ambient hot gas.
149:
150: The analysis in this paper begins with the elliptical isophotal fits
151: of Paper I, and is organized as follows. In \S\ref{s4.analysis} we
152: review the techniques of Paper I and describe the sample. We then
153: calculate smooth functional fits to the isophotal profiles, use these
154: fits to generate symmetric surface brightness models, and use the
155: residuals from these models to define the asymmetry index $\eta$ for
156: each galaxy. We show by simulations that $\eta$ is a monotonic measure
157: of the sort of asymmetry expected from multiple cavities, and that it
158: is independent of non-morphological parameters. We describe our
159: techniques to extract the central AGN X-ray luminosity and to
160: determine radio power and environment. In \S\ref{s4.results} we show
161: that the asymmetry and isophotal ellipticity are correlated, and thus probably
162: measure the same underlying disturbance. We show that neither of these
163: quantities depends on neighbor galaxy density, but that they are correlated with
164: measures of AGN power and the presence of ambient gas.
165: The consequences for AGN feedback in
166: galaxies and interactions with the ambient medium
167: are discussed in \S\ref{s4.discussion}, before we conclude
168: with a reiteration of our major results in \S\ref{s4.conclusions}.
169:
170:
171: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
172:
173:
174: \section{Data Analysis}\label{s4.analysis}
175:
176: \begin{figure*}
177: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{f1a}
178: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{f1b}
179: \caption{{\it Left panel}: Gas X-ray surface brightness (in ${\rm
180: photons}\,{\rm s}^{-1}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}\,{\rm arcsec}^{-2}$),
181: ellipticity and position angle profile for NGC~4649. Solid lines
182: indicate the Chebyshev polynomial fits. {\it Right panel}: Adaptively
183: binned gas map of NGC~4649 with the fitted elliptical isophotes
184: overlaid. \label{f.smoothmodel}}
185: \end{figure*}
186:
187: \begin{figure*}
188: \begin{center}
189: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{f2a}
190: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{f2b}
191: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{f2c}
192: \end{center}
193: \caption{Gas surface brightness maps for three elliptical galaxies,
194: showing the range in asymmetry index $\eta$; Left: NGC~6482
195: ($\eta=0.032$); Center: NGC~4472 ($\eta=0.077$); Right: NGC~4374
196: ($\eta=0.478$). Colors depict gas surface brightness levels with the
197: color scale ranging from $5\times 10^{-10}$ to $10^{-6} {\rm
198: photons\,s^{-1}\,cm^{-2}\,arcsec^{-2}}$. The axes are labelled
199: according to right ascension and declination (2000).\label{f.asymexample}}
200: \end{figure*}
201:
202: \subsection{Summary of Paper I and Preliminary Analysis}\label{s4.data}
203:
204: Our full sample, as described in Paper I, consists of
205: 54 early-type galaxies observed with the the ACIS-S instrument on the
206: {\it Chandra} satellite during cycles 1-4. The data have been
207: homogeneously reprocessed to avoid problems due to changes in the
208: standard calibration pipeline over time. We will briefly summarize the
209: generation of those data products essential for the understanding of
210: this paper and refer the interested reader back to Paper I for more
211: details.
212:
213: In Paper I, we presented a new method to isolate the hot gas emission
214: in elliptical galaxies from the contamination of unresolved point
215: sources. This method is based on the fact that point sources and hot
216: gas contribute differently to soft ($0.3-1.2\kev$) and hard
217: ($1.2-5\kev$) bands, due to their intrinsically different
218: spectra. Thus, by subtracting a properly scaled version of the hard
219: band image from the soft band after removing resolved sources,
220: we are able to remove the contribution
221: of the harder unresolved point sources and isolate the soft gas
222: emission self-consistently, correcting for the amount of gas flux
223: subtracted from the hard band as well. All images are photon-flux
224: calibrated, corrected for exposure map effects and background. We
225: adaptively bin the gas maps with an adaptive binning technique
226: using weighted Voronoi tesselations
227: \citep{DiehlWVT,Cappellari}\footnote{http://www.phy.ohiou.edu/$\sim$diehl/WVT}.
228:
229: For a subset of 36 galaxies with sufficient signal, we
230: characterize the overall shape of the gas by deriving ellipticity and
231: position angle profiles. A qualitative comparison with optical DSS-2
232: $R$-band images and a quantitative comparison with published optical
233: surface photometry reveal little correlation between optical and X-ray
234: properties. In particular, we find no correlations between the optical
235: and X-ray ellipticities at any radius. Even within one effective
236: radius, where stars dominate the gravitational potential
237: \citep[e.g.][]{MamonDarkmatterI,HumphreyDarkmatter}, the two are
238: completely uncorrelated. The second column of Table \ref{t.asymgalaxyprop} lists mean gas ellipticities in the annulus between $0.6$ and $0.9$ $J$-band effective radii, from Paper I. These findings establish that
239: the gas in elliptical galaxies is, in general, not in precise hydrostatic
240: equilibrium, at least at a level that precludes using the gas isophotes to constrain the
241: shapes of dark matter halos
242: \citep[][]{BuoteGeomtest,BuoteNGC720}. Instead of being
243: hydrostatically calm, the gas morphology is almost always disturbed,
244: even for rather X-ray faint galaxies.
245:
246: In this paper, we restrict our analysis to the subset of 36 galaxies
247: (Table \ref{t.asymgalaxyprop}) for which we derive ellipticity
248: profiles in Paper I. Following the technique used in Paper I to
249: derive photon-flux calibrated images, we also produce calibrated energy-flux images, which are
250: necessary to determine the central X-ray AGN luminosity
251: (\S\ref{s4.xrayagn}). We create mono-energetic
252: exposure maps in steps of 7 in PI ($\sim 100\ev$) and generate counts
253: images in each individual PI channel ($14.6\ev$-wide). We then divide
254: each counts image by the energetically closest exposure map to create
255: a photon-flux-calibrated ``slice,'' and multiply each slice by the
256: appropriate energy of the PI channel. Finally, we sum all
257: energy-weighted slices to produce a calibrated energy-flux image that
258: automatically adjusts the effective exposure map to spatial changes in
259: the spectral composition of the galaxies, due to radial temperature
260: gradients and/or point source or AGN contributions. This energy-flux
261: calibrated image can be used to derive flux values, upper limits, and
262: flux-calibrated surface brightness profiles even in situations with
263: insufficient signal to perform spectral fits.
264:
265:
266:
267: \begin{deluxetable*}{l c rrrrrr}
268: \tablewidth{0pt}
269: \tablecaption{Chandra X-ray gas morphology, AGN luminosity and temperature gradient\label{t.asymgalaxyprop}}
270: \tablehead{
271: \colhead{Name} & \colhead{} &
272: \colhead{$\epsilon_{\rm X}$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$\eta$\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{$r_{\rm min}$\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{$r_{\rm max}$\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{$L_{\rm X,AGN}$\tablenotemark{c}} & \colhead{$\alpha_{24}$\tablenotemark{d}}}
273: \startdata
274: IC1262 & & $ 0.43 \pm 0.09 $ & $ 0.110 \pm 0.042 $ & $ 6.4 $ & $ 101.3 $ & $ < 1.9\times 10^{39} $ & $ 0.21 \pm 0.07 $\\
275: IC1459 & & $ 0.35 \pm 0.12 $ & $ 0.130 \pm 0.040 $ & $ 0.7 $ & $ 5.1 $ & $ 6.4\pm 3.3\times 10^{40} $ & $ -0.27 \pm 0.04 $\\
276: IC4296 & & $ 0.28 \pm 0.06 $ & $ 0.133 \pm 0.032 $ & $ 1.1 $ & $ 5.4 $ & $ 3.4\pm 1.1\times 10^{40} $ & $ 0.08 \pm 0.07 $\\
277: NGC0193 & & $ 0.33 \pm 0.42 $ & $ 0.244 \pm 0.074 $ & $ 3.6 $ & $ 29.7 $ & $ 1.2\pm 0.4\times 10^{40} $ & \nodata\\
278: NGC0315 & & $ 0.11 \pm 0.14 $ & $ 0.138 \pm 0.059 $ & $ 1.5 $ & $ 11.3 $ & $ 4.8\pm 4.2\times 10^{41} $ & \nodata\\
279: NGC0383 & & $ 0.23 \pm 0.09 $ & $ 0.394 \pm 0.065 $ & $ 1.1 $ & $ 5.8 $ & $ 1.9\pm 0.6\times 10^{40} $ & $ 0.50 \pm 0.16 $\\
280: NGC0404 & & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $ < 4.0\times 10^{37} $ & \nodata\\
281: NGC0507 & & $ 0.13 \pm 0.17 $ & $ 0.334 \pm 0.055 $ & $ 2.2 $ & $ 34.7 $ & $ < 6.7\times 10^{38} $ & $ 0.16 \pm 0.10 $\\
282: NGC0533 & & $ 0.33 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 0.131 \pm 0.032 $ & $ 1.3 $ & $ 19.7 $ & $ 1.0\pm 0.8\times 10^{39} $ & \nodata\\
283: NGC0720 & & $ 0.06 \pm 0.07 $ & $ 0.106 \pm 0.042 $ & $ 0.7 $ & $ 14.3 $ & $ < 2.8\times 10^{38} $ & $ -0.04 \pm 0.15 $\\
284: NGC0741 & & $ 0.24 \pm 0.05 $ & $ 0.167 \pm 0.038 $ & $ 1.4 $ & $ 8.5 $ & $ < 5.6\times 10^{39} $ & $ -0.10 \pm 0.12 $\\
285: NGC0821 & & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $ 3.2\pm 1.5\times 10^{38} $ & \nodata\\
286: NGC1132 & & $ 0.08 \pm 0.25 $ & $ 0.050 \pm 0.047 $ & $ 2.2 $ & $ 75.5 $ & $ < 2.3\times 10^{39} $ & $ -0.22 \pm 0.11 $\\
287: NGC1265 & & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $ 3.0\pm 1.0\times 10^{40} $ & \nodata\\
288: NGC1316 & & $ 0.42 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 0.242 \pm 0.041 $ & $ 0.4 $ & $ 6.1 $ & $ 2.3\pm 1.0\times 10^{38} $ & $ 0.12 \pm 0.26 $\\
289: NGC1399 & & $ 0.17 \pm 0.07 $ & $ < 0.095 $ & $ 0.3 $ & $ 12.5 $ & $ 1.5\pm 1.3\times 10^{38} $ & $ 0.10 \pm 0.03 $\\
290: NGC1404 & & $ 0.03 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 0.028 \pm 0.013 $ & $ 0.3 $ & $ 8.6 $ & $ 1.5\pm 0.9\times 10^{38} $ & $ 0.15 \pm 0.05 $\\
291: NGC1407 & & $ 0.07 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 0.174 \pm 0.023 $ & $ 0.7 $ & $ 9.8 $ & $ 2.0\pm 0.5\times 10^{39} $ & $ 0.46 \pm 0.23 $\\
292: NGC1549 & & $ 0.24 \pm 0.21 $ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $ 4.4\pm 2.0\times 10^{38} $ & \nodata\\
293: NGC1553 & & $ 0.57 \pm 0.14 $ & $ 0.174 \pm 0.091 $ & $ 1.6 $ & $ 11.0 $ & $ 5.2\pm 1.1\times 10^{39} $ & $ -0.28 \pm 0.12 $\\
294: NGC1600 & & $ 0.24 \pm 0.09 $ & $ 0.114 \pm 0.074 $ & $ 1.0 $ & $ 9.3 $ & $ 1.1\pm 0.8\times 10^{39} $ & \nodata\\
295: NGC1700 & & $ 0.31 \pm 0.11 $ & $ 0.154 \pm 0.069 $ & $ 1.1 $ & $ 24.5 $ & $ < 1.9\times 10^{39} $ & \nodata\\
296: NGC2434 & & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $ 1.2\pm 0.7\times 10^{38} $ & \nodata\\
297: NGC2865 & & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $ < 2.6\times 10^{39} $ & \nodata\\
298: NGC3115 & & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $ < 8.5\times 10^{37} $ & \nodata\\
299: NGC3377 & & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $ < 2.2\times 10^{38} $ & \nodata\\
300: NGC3379 & & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $ < 5.0\times 10^{38} $ & \nodata\\
301: NGC3585 & & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $ 1.6\pm 1.1\times 10^{38} $ & \nodata\\
302: NGC3923 & & $ 0.15 \pm 0.10 $ & $ 0.044 \pm 0.033 $ & $ 0.4 $ & $ 5.4 $ & $ < 2.5\times 10^{37} $ & $ -0.37 \pm 0.11 $\\
303: NGC4125 & & $ 0.22 \pm 0.05 $ & $ 0.056 \pm 0.027 $ & $ 0.7 $ & $ 13.0 $ & $ 2.2\pm 0.9\times 10^{38} $ & $ -0.15 \pm 0.16 $\\
304: NGC4261 & & $ 0.08 \pm 0.08 $ & $ 0.142 \pm 0.054 $ & $ 0.6 $ & $ 4.3 $ & $ 1.1\pm 0.2\times 10^{40} $ & \nodata\\
305: NGC4365 & & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $ < 1.4\times 10^{38} $ & \nodata\\
306: NGC4374 & & $ 0.31 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 0.478 \pm 0.050 $ & $ 0.4 $ & $ 5.0 $ & $ 8.2\pm 2.6\times 10^{38} $ & $ 0.44 \pm 0.08 $\\
307: NGC4406 & & $ 0.21 \pm 0.09 $ & $ 0.130 \pm 0.021 $ & $ 0.9 $ & $ 9.2 $ & $ 8.6\pm 1.4\times 10^{38} $ & $ -0.05 \pm 0.04 $\\
308: NGC4472 & & $ 0.05 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 0.077 \pm 0.012 $ & $ 0.3 $ & $ 10.0 $ & $ 9.6\pm 4.1\times 10^{37} $ & \nodata\\
309: NGC4494 & & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $ < 1.9\times 10^{39} $ & \nodata\\
310: NGC4526 & & $ 0.07 \pm 0.16 $ & $ 0.258 \pm 0.177 $ & $ 0.5 $ & $ 2.9 $ & $ 7.9\pm 4.6\times 10^{38} $ & \nodata\\
311: NGC4552 & & $ 0.31 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 0.149 \pm 0.028 $ & $ 0.3 $ & $ 3.9 $ & $ < 7.2\times 10^{38} $ & $ 0.42 \pm 0.16 $\\
312: NGC4555 & & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $ < 4.2\times 10^{40} $ & $ -0.02 \pm 0.03 $\\
313: NGC4564 & & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $ < 4.4\times 10^{38} $ & \nodata\\
314: NGC4621 & & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $ 6.2\pm 3.6\times 10^{38} $ & \nodata\\
315: NGC4636 & & $ 0.22 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 0.086 \pm 0.009 $ & $ 0.3 $ & $ 9.5 $ & $ 6.2\pm 1.4\times 10^{37} $ & $ 0.04 \pm 0.02 $\\
316: NGC4649 & & $ 0.04 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 0.049 \pm 0.035 $ & $ 0.3 $ & $ 7.7 $ & $ 3.0\pm 2.7\times 10^{37} $ & $ -0.01 \pm 0.01 $\\
317: NGC4697 & & $ 0.20 \pm 0.16 $ & $ < 0.080 $ & $ 0.7 $ & $ 4.2 $ & $ < 1.6\times 10^{39} $ & \nodata\\
318: NGC5018 & & $ 0.23 \pm 0.26 $ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $ < 3.3\times 10^{38} $ & \nodata\\
319: NGC5044 & & $ 0.46 \pm 0.05 $ & $ 0.213 \pm 0.022 $ & $ 1.1 $ & $ 19.8 $ & $ 8.0\pm 2.6\times 10^{38} $ & $ 0.12 \pm 0.02 $\\
320: NGC5102 & & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $ < 3.1\times 10^{36} $ & \nodata\\
321: NGC5171 & & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $ < 6.3\times 10^{38} $ & \nodata\\
322: NGC5532 & & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $ 6.9\pm 3.5\times 10^{40} $ & $ -0.38 \pm 0.07 $\\
323: NGC5845 & & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $ 6.6\pm 3.3\times 10^{38} $ & \nodata\\
324: NGC5846 & & $ 0.31 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 0.141 \pm 0.018 $ & $ 0.7 $ & $ 13.2 $ & $ 2.8\pm 0.8\times 10^{38} $ & $ 0.03 \pm 0.17 $\\
325: NGC6482 & & $ 0.14 \pm 0.05 $ & $ < 0.032 $ & $ 1.2 $ & $ 30.3 $ & $ < 2.5\times 10^{39} $ & $ -0.34 \pm 0.02 $\\
326: NGC7052 & & $ 0.26 \pm 0.12 $ & $ 0.118 \pm 0.067 $ & $ 1.7 $ & $ 5.5 $ & $ 1.4\pm 0.5\times 10^{40} $ & \nodata\\
327: NGC7618 & & $ 0.38 \pm 0.14 $ & $ 0.225 \pm 0.060 $ & $ 3.4 $ & $ 46.8 $ & $ 3.1\pm 1.7\times 10^{39} $ & $ -0.12 \pm 0.08 $\\
328: \enddata
329: \tablenotetext{a}{Mean X-ray gas ellipticity $\epsilon_{\rm X}$ between $0.6-0.9\, R_{\rm J}$ \citep[$J$-band effective radius from 2MASS extended source catalog,][]{2MASS}.}
330: \tablenotetext{b}{Asymmetry index $\eta$, measured between $r_{\min}$ and $r_{\rm max}$ (in $\kpc$).}
331: \tablenotetext{c}{X-ray AGN luminosity (in ${\rm ergs\,s^{-1}}$) between $0.3-5\kev$, derived from $\beta$ and S\'ersic model plus point source fits to radial surface brightness profiles.}
332: \tablenotetext{d}{Mean logarithmic temperature gradient $d\ln T/d \ln r $ evaluated at radii between 2 and 4 $R_J$}
333: \end{deluxetable*}
334:
335:
336:
337:
338: \subsection{Quantifying Asymmetry}\label{s4.asymmetry}
339:
340: \subsubsection{Definition of the Asymmetry Index $\eta$}
341:
342:
343:
344: Since many of the {\it Chandra} data sets lack the required signal and
345: resolution to reliably identify individual asymmetric features in the
346: gas surface brightness maps, we are forced to measure asymmetry
347: statistically. We first construct a smooth, symmetric surface
348: brightness model to subtract from the gas map. We base this model on
349: the isophotal profiles computed in Paper I. These profiles give
350: surface brightness ($I_{\rm X}$), ellipticity ($\epsilon_{\rm X}$), and
351: major axis position angle ($PA_{\rm X}$) as a function of mean radius
352: $r$. We fit this surface brightness profile in $\log r - \log I_{\rm
353: X}$ space with a quadratic Chebyshev polynomial. For two galaxies with
354: more complex surface brightness profiles (NGC~1316 and NGC~4636), we use a third order
355: polynomial, and for one other object (NGC~4472), we resort to fourth order. To
356: accommodate moderate changes in ellipticity and isophotal twists, we
357: fit the ellipticity and position angle profiles in $\log r -
358: \epsilon_{\rm X}$ and $\log r - {\rm PA}_{\rm X}$ space with
359: straight lines. From the fits, we compute a smooth, symmetric model for
360: the gas distribution. The left panel of Figure \ref{f.smoothmodel}
361: shows all three profile fits for NGC~4649. The adaptively binned gas
362: map in the right panel has the elliptical isophotes of the adopted
363: fits overlaid. Finally, we bin the surface brightness model to match
364: the binning structure of the adaptively binned gas map and subtract
365: the binned smooth model to reveal small scale asymmetries in the gas
366: distribution.
367:
368: To quantify the degree of asymmetry in this residual map, we define
369: the asymmetry index $\eta$ in the following way:
370: %
371: \begin{equation}\label{e.asymindex}
372: \eta={{1}\over{N}}\, \sum_{i=1}^{N}{\left[{\left({G_i-M_i\over
373: M_i}\right)^2 - \left({\sigma_{G,i}\over M_i}\right)^2}\right]}.
374: \end{equation}
375: %
376: The asymmetry index is the sum over all pixels $i$ of the squared
377: relative deviations of the binned gas image $G_i$ from the smooth
378: model $M_i$, over and above the expected statistical deviations due to
379: Poisson noise $\sigma_{G,i}$\footnote{Equation (\ref{e.asymindex}) is
380: equivalent to an area-weighted average over bins. We find empirically
381: that an unweighted average gives too much emphasis to bright regions
382: and small-scale structure.}. We find that $\eta$ is an unbiased
383: measure of asymmetry, independent of exposure time, radial fitting
384: range, background level or signal-to-noise ratio. The errors on the
385: $\eta$ values are estimated from a bootstrap analysis of 20
386: Monte-Carlo simulations.
387:
388: Figure \ref{f.asymexample} shows representative examples spanning the
389: range of $\eta$ values present in our sample. NGC~6482 ($\eta < 0.032$,
390: left) shows no apparent signs of disturbance and is statistically
391: consistent with a smooth, purely elliptical model
392: \citep{PonmanNGC6482}. In NGC~4472 ($\eta=0.077$, center), one can
393: detect low-level surface brightness depressions at several radii
394: \citep{BillerNGC4472}. NGC~4374 \citep[right;][]{Fin01} has the
395: highest $\eta$ value ($\eta=0.48$) in our sample. This sequence can
396: serve as a guide for the meaning of $\eta$. However, one should keep in
397: mind that the examples in Figure \ref{f.asymexample} have been chosen
398: to have high signal-to-noise ratios for display purposes. Most galaxies
399: have significantly less signal and the asymmetric structures cannot be
400: picked out by eye as easily.
401:
402: The third, fourth, and fifth columns of Table \ref{t.asymgalaxyprop} list the values of $\eta$ and the range of radii from which they are derived. We have chosen to calculate $\eta$ from the full radial range over which isophote fits are possible for each object, in order to take advantage of as much detected signal as possible. This choice unavoidably creates a certain inhomogeneity in the sample since $\eta$ is not always being measured at the same physical scale. However, we have tested the sensitivity of all of the results of this paper to the size of the extraction annulus by separating into subsamples with small and large outer radii $r_{\rm max}$. In no case do we find any statistically significant difference between the subsamples.
403:
404:
405: \subsubsection{Simulations and Tests}\label{s4.asymmetrytest}
406:
407: To test the behavior of the asymmetry index $\eta$, we simulate images
408: that qualitatively reproduce the variety of gas morphologies seen in
409: the data. We start with a $256\times 256$ pixel realization of a
410: S\'ersic model with index $n=4$ and a half-light radius of 50
411: pixels. We then add disturbances as relative surface brightness
412: depressions surrounded by enhanced rim emission, mimicking the
413: appearance of AGN-induced ``bubbles'', often observed in clusters of
414: galaxies \citep[e.g.][]{McnamaraHydraA}. Figure \ref{f.bubbleprofile}
415: shows a one-dimensional cut through our adopted circular bubble
416: template profile, which is obtained by subtracting two
417: $e^{-(r/\sigma)^4}$ functions with slightly different $\sigma$ values,
418: and adjusting their normalizations such that integrating the 2-d
419: profile yields a total deviation of zero. We define the ``depression
420: strength'' as the maximum relative deviation at the bubble center,
421: indicated by the $-100\%$ mark in our template, while the dashed
422: vertical lines in Figure \ref{f.bubbleprofile} mark the ``bubble
423: size''. We then control the level of asymmetry in our simulations by
424: varying the depression strength, bubble size, and the total number of
425: bubbles.
426:
427: We simulate the disturbed gas images by randomly distributing the
428: bubbles over the entire S\'ersic model image. Then, following our real
429: data analysis, we construct a smooth model to subtract. For
430: simplicity, we extract a radial surface brightness profile from
431: circular annuli, and fit it with a S\'ersic model, instead of
432: constructing a fully general elliptical model. We adaptively bin the
433: image to a signal-to-noise per bin of 4, and apply the same binning
434: structure to the smooth model. After subtracting the binned model, we
435: derive the asymmetry index from the residuals according to equation
436: (\ref{e.asymindex}). We produce a suite of test simulations, keeping
437: two parameters fixed while varying the third. For small numbers of
438: simulated bubbles, the disturbed surface brightness models resemble
439: galaxies in which one is able to reliably identify the location of
440: individual bubbles. Although very large numbers of simulated bubbles
441: are unrealistic for real galaxies, we increase the number of bubbles
442: beyond the physically motivated level to achieve more complex
443: asymmetries in the morphology.
444:
445: We find that $\eta$ is largely independent of the bubble size, but
446: correlates positively with the number of simulated bubbles and their
447: relative depression strength, as shown in the left and middle panel of
448: Figure \ref{f.asymtest}. We compute the expected trends by simulating
449: 20 random spatial configurations for each parameter set without adding
450: Poisson noise, and computing the average of all $\eta$ values of these
451: ``perfect'' data sets. We find that our asymmetry index values are
452: fair representations of the expected values.
453:
454: The asymmetry index is constructed to account for the statistical
455: scatter in the data and to be insensitive to differences in data
456: quality. To verify this, we repeat our tests, keeping the bubble
457: parameters fixed while varying the total galaxy luminosity, background
458: level, cutoff radius, and the exposure time of the observation. We
459: find no correlations with any of these parameters. As an example, in
460: the right panel of Figure \ref{f.asymtest} we show one test in which
461: we vary the exposure time. One can see that $\eta$ is not affected by
462: the increasing resolution that is a result of the rising total number
463: of counts. We conclude that $\eta$ is an unbiased measure of the
464: asymmetry present in the gas maps, and unaffected by non-morphological
465: data properties.
466:
467:
468: \begin{figure}
469: \begin{center}
470: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f3}
471: \end{center}
472: \caption{One-dimensional cut through a
473: simulated ``bubble depression'', demonstrating the fractional
474: depression strength of the bubble with respect to its radial
475: extent. The bubble has negative surface brightness deviations within
476: the bubble radius $R_{\it Bubble}$, and slightly enhanced rims around
477: it. The profile shape is chosen such that the integrated deviations
478: integrate to 0 over area. \label{f.bubbleprofile}}
479: \end{figure}
480:
481: \begin{figure}
482: \begin{center}
483: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f4}
484: \end{center}
485: \caption{Tests of the asymmetry index using models with
486: simulated bubble-like depressions (see
487: Fig. \ref{f.bubbleprofile}). The asymmetry index $\eta$ is sensitive
488: to the number of simulated bubbles (left), and the relative strength of
489: the depression (middle), but not to the effective exposure time, characterized
490: by the total number of counts (right). The dashed lines mark the
491: expected behavior for perfect (noise-free) data. \label{f.asymtest}}
492: \end{figure}
493:
494:
495: \subsection{X-ray AGN Luminosities\label{s4.xrayagn}}
496:
497: We identify the location of the central AGN in the X-ray image by
498: overlaying the high-accuracy center from the 2MASS extended source
499: catalogue \citep{2MASS}. The 2MASS position is derived from the
500: luminosity weighted center of the co-added $K$, $J$ and $H$ band
501: images and has a typical $1\sigma$-uncertainty of only
502: $0.3\arcsec$. We combine this uncertainty with {\it Chandra}'s
503: pointing
504: accuracy\footnote{http://cxc.harvard.edu/mta/ASPECT/abs\_point.html},
505: and manually assign the AGN to the brightest X-ray point source in the
506: $0.3-5.0\kev$ counts image within a $\sim 3$ pixel radius of the 2MASS
507: center. If multiple source candidates are within this field, we take
508: the point source closest to the centroid of the diffuse emission. In cases
509: where soft gas emission completely dominates the central region, we
510: revert to the $2-5\kev$ band for identification instead. This
511: technique allows a rather reliable AGN identification, with only few
512: ambiguous cases.
513:
514: Unfortunately, the location of the AGN coincides with the peaks of
515: both the diffuse gas emission and the stellar point source
516: component. While this sometimes helps in pinpointing the location of the AGN, it
517: makes it difficult to determine the AGN flux. The standard technique
518: is to extract a spectrum from the central region and to attempt to
519: spectrally disentangle the AGN component from the contaminating
520: diffuse gas and low-mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs) \citep[e.g.][]{KimNGC1316}. However, the weak
521: AGN in normal elliptical galaxies often yield insufficient counts to
522: constrain all parameters in this complex spectral fit. This fit is
523: additionally complicated by the fact that the AGN and unresolved LMXB
524: components are both well-described by featureless power-laws, and can
525: sometimes become virtually indistinguishable. For many observations in
526: our sample, the AGN contributes no more than a few counts, making a
527: reliable spectral fit practically impossible.
528:
529: Instead, we decide to spatially disentangle the X-ray AGN emission
530: from its complex background using the energy-flux calibrated images of
531: diffuse emission. The energy weighting makes it easier to distinguish
532: the hard AGN component. We bin the energy-flux image into circular
533: annuli centered on the AGN position and adaptively change the annular
534: bin sizes to enforce a minimum signal-to-noise requirement of 2. As
535: this would result in very large numbers of bins at larger radii, we
536: also require the annular width to be larger than 10\% of the mean bin
537: radius to ensure proper azimuthal averaging within a bin, generally resulting in
538: a logarithmic binning at large radii.
539:
540: We fit the inner 32 arcsec of the radial surface brightness profile
541: with a two-component model, one representing the point source and one
542: the diffuse emission. The point source profile is obtained from a
543: normalized mono-energetic point-spread function (PSF) centered on the
544: position of the central AGN and computed at its mean photon energy. We
545: bin the PSF image to the same circular binning, to give a radial point source
546: model that matches our binning structure with only the normalization flux as a free parameter. To
547: represent the diffuse emission we use a S\'ersic or a $\beta$ model,
548: on top of a uniform background. Figure \ref{f.agnfit} shows the inner
549: 10~arcsec of two galaxies with a statistically significant AGN
550: detection (NGC~4261, left) and a non-detection (NGC~6482, right). The
551: dashed lines indicate the diffuse component from the S\'ersic (grey)
552: and $\beta$ model fit (black), while the solid lines show the same
553: fits with the additional AGN component. All fits are inspected by eye
554: and obviously unconverged fits are repeated over a different radial
555: extent until a satisfactory fit is obtained.
556:
557: Even though both models generally produce statistically equally good fits, the
558: $\beta$ model fits systematically yield higher fluxes for the AGN, as
559: the $\beta$-profile is flatter at small radii. We adopt the average of
560: the AGN fluxes yielded by the $\beta$ and S\'ersic model fits as the
561: best value. The difference between the two individual fits and the
562: average value is assumed to represent a $3\sigma$ systematic error and
563: is combined with the statistical errors yielded by each profile
564: fitting procedure. Finally, we correct the AGN fluxes for Galactic
565: absorption with the same correction factor that is used to correct the
566: total gas flux, computed from integrating the best spectral fit for
567: the gas emission with and without the Galactic absorption factor. This
568: correction may be a slight overestimate, since the AGN emission is
569: generally harder and less strongly affected by absorption; on the
570: other hand the column density is also likely to be higher due to
571: intrinsic absorption inside the galaxy. This correction is generally
572: rather small, well below our statistical and systematical errors, and
573: does not affect the computed X-ray AGN luminosity significantly.
574:
575: The final AGN luminosities $L_{\rm X,AGN}$ are reported in the sixth column of Table
576: \ref{t.asymgalaxyprop}, together with the combined statistical and
577: systematic errors. Flux values that are detected below the $1\sigma$
578: confidence limit are reported as upper limits. For objects with
579: insufficient signal to produce a surface brightness profile, we sum up
580: the energy-flux calibrated image within the region containing 99\% of
581: the PSF flux and correct for a flat background extracted from an
582: adjacent annulus extending out to 10~arcsec. Since we have no way to
583: distinguish between a central peak in gas emission, LMXBs, or an
584: actual AGN for these galaxies, we quote the $3\sigma$ upper bound of
585: the summed flux as an upper limit on their AGN luminosity.
586:
587:
588: \begin{figure*}
589: \begin{center}\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{f5}
590: \end{center}
591: \caption{Radial X-ray surface brightness profiles for the inner
592: $6\arcsec$ of NGC~4261 (left) and NGC~6482 (right). Thick solid lines
593: indicate S\'ersic model fits, thin solid lines show $\beta$ model
594: fits, including a PSF model for the central AGN. Dashed lines show the
595: same model fits without the AGN component. NGC~4261's AGN is detected
596: at a $7\sigma$ level, NGC~6482 profile reveals no AGN signature. For
597: NGC~6482, the AGN flux yielded by the S\'ersic model fit is so small
598: that the thick dashed line is invisible, as it is covered by the thick
599: solid line.\label{f.agnfit}}
600: \end{figure*}
601:
602:
603:
604:
605: \subsection{Radio Luminosities}
606:
607: We use the NRAO VLA Sky Survey \citep[NVSS;][]{NVSS} to derive homogeneous $20\cm$ radio continuum luminosities for our sample. As we are interested in the AGN's impact on the ISM, we sum up all associated radio sources within 3 J-band effective radii from the 2MASS catalog \citep{2MASS} radii to derive the NVSS radio luminosity $L_{\rm NVSS}$, thus including contributions from extended structures. This results in general in an extraction radius of approximately $1.5\arcmin$ for most of the sample (see Paper I for a complete list of optical radii). The formal average NVSS source density for the full NVSS catalog is about 50 sources per square degree \citep{NVSS}, resulting in a probability to include unrelated background sources within $1.5\arcmin$ of only $9\%$. For 63\% of our sample, this probability lies below 10\%, for 91\% it lies below 20\%. To further reduce the chance of including background sources, we inspect all NVSS images by eye and compare radio features with X-ray and optical images to find possible counterparts. We manually remove obviously non-associated background sources from the source list.
608:
609: The resulting luminosities are listed in the second column of Table \ref{t.radiogalaxyprop}. For the majority of our sample, the limited spatial resolution of the NVSS survey precludes reliably distinguishing between extended and point-like radio sources. Only where unambiguously possible, we determine the NVSS position angle by manually measuring the orientation of the major axis.
610:
611: Twenty-three galaxies in our sample have been observed in the Faint
612: Images of the Radio Sky at Twenty-Centimeters (FIRST) VLA survey
613: \citep{FIRST}, which has a much higher spatial resolution than NVSS,
614: with a similar detection limit. We extract FIRST radio luminosities
615: from the inner 3 optical effective radii to match the NVSS extraction
616: region. A comparison between the two radio surveys indicates that both
617: are yielding consistent values. However, the higher spatial resolution
618: of the FIRST survey gives us the opportunity to extract fluxes from
619: the central point source alone, largely excluding contributions from
620: the radio jets. Thus, instead of using a large extraction radius, we
621: sum the flux within a smaller 30~arcsec radius to determine the FIRST
622: luminosity $L_{\rm FIRST}$, listed in the third column of Table
623: \ref{t.radiogalaxyprop}. These values are systematically smaller than
624: the NVSS fluxes due to the smaller extraction region, but still very
625: well correlated. This indicates that our larger NVSS sample is not
626: heavily contaminated by background objects, but that the extra flux is
627: most likely associated with extended radio structure intrinsic to the galaxy.
628:
629:
630:
631: \begin{deluxetable}{l c rrr}
632: \tablewidth{0pt}
633: \tablecaption{Radio luminosities and galaxy environment\label{t.radiogalaxyprop}}
634: \tablehead{
635: \colhead{Name} & \colhead{\phm} & \colhead{$L_{\rm NVSS}$\tablenotemark{a}} &\colhead{$L_{\rm FIRST}$\tablenotemark{a}} &
636: \colhead{$\log_{10} \rhomass$\tablenotemark{b}}}
637: \startdata
638: IC1262 & & $ 1.8\pm 0.5\times 10^{33} $ & $ 2.4\pm 0.8\times 10^{32} $ & $ 3.47 \pm 0.22 $\\
639: IC1459 & & $ 1.3\pm 0.3\times 10^{33} $ & \nodata & $ 2.41 \pm 0.31 $\\
640: IC4296 & & $ 6.0\pm 1.8\times 10^{33} $ & \nodata & $ 2.77 \pm 0.25 $\\
641: NGC0193 & & $ 5.6\pm 1.7\times 10^{33} $ & \nodata & $ 2.66 \pm 0.31 $\\
642: NGC0315 & & $ 9.8\pm 2.9\times 10^{33} $ & \nodata & $ 2.43 \pm 0.43 $\\
643: NGC0383 & & $ 1.3\pm 0.4\times 10^{34} $ & \nodata & $ 3.52 \pm 0.13 $\\
644: NGC0404 & & $ 4.3\pm 0.6\times 10^{28} $ & \nodata & \nodata\\
645: NGC0507 & & $ 6.1\pm 1.8\times 10^{32} $ & \nodata & $ 3.03 \pm 0.22 $\\
646: NGC0533 & & $ 2.1\pm 0.6\times 10^{32} $ & \nodata & $ 3.17 \pm 0.19 $\\
647: NGC0720 & & $ < 2.3\times 10^{30} $ & \nodata & $ 2.57 \pm 0.25 $\\
648: NGC0741 & & $ 6.4\pm 1.9\times 10^{33} $ & \nodata & $ 2.95 \pm 0.25 $\\
649: NGC0821 & & $ < 1.7\times 10^{30} $ & \nodata & \nodata\\
650: NGC1132 & & $ 1.1\pm 0.3\times 10^{32} $ & $ 3.8\pm 1.2\times 10^{31} $ & $ 3.07 \pm 0.25 $\\
651: NGC1265 & & $ 3.3\pm 1.0\times 10^{34} $ & \nodata & \nodata\\
652: NGC1316 & & $ 1.6\pm 0.3\times 10^{32} $ & \nodata & $ 3.13 \pm 0.13 $\\
653: NGC1399 & & $ 3.0\pm 0.4\times 10^{32} $ & \nodata & $ 3.28 \pm 0.12 $\\
654: NGC1404 & & $ 2.1\pm 0.5\times 10^{30} $ & \nodata & $ 3.27 \pm 0.11 $\\
655: NGC1407 & & $ 9.7\pm 2.3\times 10^{31} $ & \nodata & $ 3.10 \pm 0.14 $\\
656: NGC1549 & & \nodata & \nodata & $ 2.74 \pm 0.22 $\\
657: NGC1553 & & \nodata & \nodata & $ 2.96 \pm 0.18 $\\
658: NGC1600 & & $ 3.6\pm 1.1\times 10^{32} $ & \nodata & $ 3.09 \pm 0.19 $\\
659: NGC1700 & & $ < 8.8\times 10^{30} $ & \nodata & $ 2.31 \pm 0.43 $\\
660: NGC2434 & & \nodata & \nodata & $ 2.56 \pm 0.25 $\\
661: NGC2865 & & $ < 4.3\times 10^{30} $ & \nodata & \nodata\\
662: NGC3115 & & $ < 2.8\times 10^{29} $ & $ < 2.2\times 10^{29} $ & \nodata\\
663: NGC3377 & & $ < 3.8\times 10^{29} $ & $ < 2.8\times 10^{29} $ & \nodata\\
664: NGC3379 & & $ 3.2\pm 0.7\times 10^{29} $ & $ < 2.5\times 10^{29} $ & $ 3.82 \pm 0.10 $\\
665: NGC3585 & & $ < 1.2\times 10^{30} $ & \nodata & $ 2.43 \pm 0.31 $\\
666: NGC3923 & & $ < 1.6\times 10^{30} $ & \nodata & $ 2.89 \pm 0.16 $\\
667: NGC4125 & & $ 1.7\pm 0.4\times 10^{31} $ & \nodata & $ 3.13 \pm 0.13 $\\
668: NGC4261 & & $ 1.0\pm 0.2\times 10^{34} $ & $ 1.7\pm 0.3\times 10^{32} $ & $ 3.09 \pm 0.14 $\\
669: NGC4365 & & $ < 1.2\times 10^{30} $ & $ < 9.7\times 10^{29} $ & $ 3.16 \pm 0.13 $\\
670: NGC4374 & & $ 2.5\pm 0.3\times 10^{33} $ & $ 3.4\pm 0.5\times 10^{32} $ & $ 3.18 \pm 0.14 $\\
671: NGC4406 & & $ 1.1\pm 0.2\times 10^{30} $ & $ < 2.6\times 10^{30} $ & $ 3.31 \pm 0.13 $\\
672: NGC4472 & & $ 8.1\pm 0.8\times 10^{31} $ & $ 3.9\pm 0.5\times 10^{31} $ & $ 3.41 \pm 0.12 $\\
673: NGC4494 & & $ < 8.7\times 10^{29} $ & $ < 6.4\times 10^{29} $ & \nodata\\
674: NGC4526 & & $ 6.6\pm 1.2\times 10^{30} $ & $ 4.1\pm 0.9\times 10^{30} $ & $ 2.54 \pm 0.31 $\\
675: NGC4552 & & $ 2.9\pm 0.4\times 10^{31} $ & $ 3.2\pm 0.5\times 10^{31} $ & $ 3.62 \pm 0.09 $\\
676: NGC4555 & & $ < 2.8\times 10^{31} $ & $ 2.2\pm 0.7\times 10^{31} $ & $ 3.19 \pm 0.22 $\\
677: NGC4564 & & $ < 6.7\times 10^{29} $ & $ < 5.4\times 10^{29} $ & \nodata\\
678: NGC4621 & & $ < 10.0\times 10^{29} $ & $ < 7.6\times 10^{29} $ & $ 2.66 \pm 0.25 $\\
679: NGC4636 & & $ 2.7\pm 0.3\times 10^{31} $ & $ 1.5\pm 0.2\times 10^{31} $ & $ 3.47 \pm 0.12 $\\
680: NGC4649 & & $ 9.8\pm 1.4\times 10^{30} $ & $ 6.4\pm 1.1\times 10^{30} $ & $ 3.39 \pm 0.12 $\\
681: NGC4697 & & $ < 4.1\times 10^{29} $ & $ < 3.4\times 10^{29} $ & $ 3.65 \pm 0.11 $\\
682: NGC5018 & & $ < 4.8\times 10^{30} $ & \nodata & $ 2.50 \pm 0.31 $\\
683: NGC5044 & & $ 4.0\pm 1.0\times 10^{31} $ & \nodata & $ 3.17 \pm 0.13 $\\
684: NGC5102 & & $ 6.1\pm 1.5\times 10^{28} $ & \nodata & \nodata\\
685: NGC5171 & & $ < 2.9\times 10^{31} $ & $ 2.7\pm 0.8\times 10^{31} $ & \nodata\\
686: NGC5532 & & $ 5.8\pm 1.7\times 10^{34} $ & $ 5.1\pm 1.6\times 10^{33} $ & $ 3.11 \pm 0.25 $\\
687: NGC5845 & & $ < 2.0\times 10^{30} $ & $ < 1.5\times 10^{30} $ & \nodata\\
688: NGC5846 & & $ 1.6\pm 0.3\times 10^{31} $ & $ 1.0\pm 0.2\times 10^{31} $ & $ 2.97 \pm 0.15 $\\
689: NGC6482 & & $ < 1.0\times 10^{31} $ & \nodata & $ 2.64 \pm 0.31 $\\
690: NGC7052 & & $ 1.2\pm 0.4\times 10^{33} $ & \nodata & $ 2.72 \pm 0.31 $\\
691: NGC7618 & & $ 2.7\pm 0.8\times 10^{32} $ & \nodata & $ 2.76 \pm 0.31 $\\
692: \enddata
693: \tablenotetext{a}{20 cm continuum radio luminosity (in ${\rm ergs\, s^{-1} \, Hz^{-1}}$) from NVSS within $3\, R_{\rm J}$, and FIRST within $30\arcsec$.}
694: \tablenotetext{b}{Projected local galaxy density (in $\rm Mpc^{-2}$), derived from the 2MASS extended source catalog \citep{2MASS}. Reported errors only include statistical errors, not systematic errors.}
695: \end{deluxetable}
696:
697:
698:
699: \subsection{Correlation between Radio and X-ray AGN Luminosities}\label{s4.agnradioxray}
700:
701: Figure \ref{f.radioxrayagn} compares the AGN X-ray luminosity with both the NVSS (left) and FIRST (right) 20 cm continuum radio powers. Both plots show a clear correlation between radio and X-ray luminosities, spanning almost six orders of magnitude. The slope is consistent with a purely linear relation between both luminosities, as indicated by the solid lines. We analyze all of the correlations in this paper using an algorithm (``\texttt{bandfit}''; see Appendix \ref{s.bandfit}) that models the distribution of data points as a linear band with finite Gaussian intrinsic width. \texttt{Bandfit} can handle data with errors in either or both variables, as well as censored data (upper or lower limits). The \texttt{bandfit}
702: analysis for the $L_{\rm NVSS}$--$L_{\rm X,AGN}$ relation puts the chance for the null hypothesis of no correlation to less than $10^{-11}\%$ ($\sim8\sigma$). This correlation is not simply a consequence of plotting distance vs. distance; it is equally significant if the distance dependencies of both parameters are removed. The best fit correlation can be described as
703: %
704: \begin{equation}
705: \log L_{\rm X,AGN}=0.62 (\pm 0.10) \log \LNVSS + 19.11 (\pm 0.12).
706: \end{equation}
707:
708: Similar correlations have been found in the past for AGN \citep[e.g.][and references therein]{HardcastleLxLr, BrinkmannLxLr}, with slopes ranging from $\sim 0.5$ for radio-loud quasars to $\gtrsim 1$ for radio-quiet quasars and radio galaxies. One must remember, however, that these results were obtained using total X-ray luminosities, not nuclear lumninosities as in our case. Also, previous samples have consisted mostly of objects in which the AGN dominate the X-ray emission, in contrast to our sample where the AGN is outweighed by the gas and LMXB contributions. If we replace $L_{\rm X,AGN}$ with the total gas luminosity
709: $L_{\rm X,gas}$, we find a steeper slope, similar to previous results for radio galaxies.
710:
711: \cite{HardcastleLxLr} have argued that the existence of an $L_x$--$L_{\rm radio}$ correlation indicates that both X-ray and radio emission originate in a strongly Doppler boosted jet. If this were the case, then measured X-ray or radio fluxes might reflect primarily the orientation of the jet relative to the line of sight, rather than the intrinsic power of the AGN. In this picture, the shallower slope of the correlation for quasars could be explainable by a combination of beamed and isotropic X-ray emission, implying that X-rays would, at least in part, measure AGN power. Whether the shallow slope we find in the $L_{\rm NVSS}$--$L_{\rm X,AGN}$ relation indicates a similarity with the quasars is unclear. It is possible that our slope could be affected at the low-luminosity end by occasional misidentification of individual LMXBs in the galaxy centers as AGN. However, if $L_{\rm NVSS}$ or $L_{\rm X,AGN}$ were only reflecting the jet orientation, we would not expect either to be correlated with gas morphology, as we do see.
712:
713:
714: A survey of radio emission from normal elliptical galaxies by \citet{WrobelRadioorigin} suggests that the majority of their radio flux is due to AGN activity rather than star formation. The fact that nuclear X-ray and radio luminosities show a tight relationship supports this conclusion for our sample, as well as indicating that we have properly identified and isolated the central AGN in the X-ray images. We conclude that both the radio and the X-ray AGN luminosities are reliable tracers of the central AGN activity in our sample, most likely due to jets powered by gas accreting onto a supermassive black hole.
715:
716:
717: \begin{figure*}
718: \begin{center}
719: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{f6}
720: \end{center}
721: \caption{X-ray AGN luminosity vs. $20\cm$ continuum radio luminosity with data taken from NVSS within 3 optical radii ({\it left}) and from FIRST ({\it right}) within a $30\arcsec$ radius. Arrows indicate $3\sigma$ upper limits. The slope of the relationship between radio and X-ray luminosity is close to linear, as indicated by the solid lines. The dashed line in the left panel shows the \texttt{bandfit} best fit relation, which has a slope of $0.62\pm0.10$. Thus, X-ray and radio luminosities are each measures of AGN activity.
722: \label{f.radioxrayagn}}
723: \end{figure*}
724:
725:
726:
727: \subsection{The Galaxy Environment} \label{s4.environment}
728:
729:
730: To quantify the likelihood of interactions with neighboring galaxies, we measure the projected galaxy density in the vicinity of our sample galaxies by counting the number of neighbors listed in the 2MASS extended source catalog \citep{2MASS}. We identify all galaxies within a projected radius of 100~kpc at the distance of the target as ``neighbors.'' We restrict this distance to a maximum angular size of 15~arcmin, to minimize contamination by random foreground or background objects. Despite the smaller physical extraction radius for nearby objects, the number of neighbors is still sufficient to
731: derive a galaxy density, as the incompleteness limit drops significantly, and lower-luminosity neighbors can be identified. Because the 2MASS catalog is flux-limited, we have to cope with a distance-dependent completeness limit. We use the $K$-band Schechter luminosity function from \citet{KochanekKSchechter} to correct for incompleteness. We integrate the luminosity function down to the completeness limit at the object's distance and divide by the integral of the luminosity function down to a reference luminosity, which we arbitrarily chose as $M_{\rm K}=-11.5$. This way we can calculate the fraction of all galaxies above the reference luminosity that 2MASS is able to detect. We find that, after correcting for incompleteness, our galaxy densities \rhomass\ are independent of distance. We list the values for $\rhomass$ in Table \ref{t.radiogalaxyprop} in units of galaxies per $\mpc^2$. The errors include only statistical errors due to the galaxy counting statistics; deriving systematic errors due to background objects or uncertainties in the galaxy luminosity function are beyond the scope of this paper.
732:
733: Ideally, one would also like to restrict the list of neighbors in velocity space, to remove galaxies that are simply aligned along the line of sight. Such a three-dimensional restriction requires an additional unbiased source of radial velocities. However, available radial velocities are heavily biased toward ``more interesting'' regions of the sky and better studied objects. Thus, we refrain from using these velocities and use the projected galaxy density $\rhomass$ instead, a measure similar to the Tully density parameter \citep{TullyRho}, but well-defined for our entire sample. All conclusions based on \rhomass\ are reproducible with the Tully parameter instead.
734:
735: The hot ISM morphology may also be affected by hydrodynamic interactions with a surrounding intra-cluster medium (ICM) or intra-group medium (IGM). One expects a transition to an IGM or ICM at large radii to be accompanied by an outward rise in gas temperature, reflecting the higher virial temperature of the group or cluster. To assess the presence of a hotter ambient medium, we compute radial temperature profiles for our sample. The X-ray counts image of each galaxy is divided into elliptical annuli, according to the X-ray ellipticity profiles computed in Paper I, except for those with insufficient signal to fit ellipses, for which we revert to circular annuli. We then extract a source and background spectrum for each annulus and fit them with a two-component model in the CIAO analysis package Sherpa. The first component consists of an APEC \footnote{Astrophysical Plasma Emission Code} plasma model to represent the hot gas emission. A quantitative comparison with its better known predecessor, the Mekal model, shows nearly identical results. We fix the gas metallicity at the solar abundance value. Unresolved point sources are represented by a power-law model with the power law index fixed at 1.6. This ``universal'' spectral model is an adequate representation of the emission of low-luminosity low-mass X-ray binaries, as demonstrated in Paper I and determined independently by \citet{Irwin03}. We also add a multiplicative absorption component, for which we fix the hydrogen column density to the Galactic value, evaluated at the target position with the CIAO tool {\it Colden}\footnote{http://cxc.harvard.edu/toolkit/colden.jsp}. We repeat our spectral analysis for a few objects with the gas abundance as a free parameter, and find that our choice to fix them to the solar value does not affect the fitted temperature. Since the metallicity is poorly constrained by the fits in low signal-to-noise systems, we fix the metallicity for all of our galaxies, in order not to introduce systematic differences in the analysis. We then fit the temperature profile by a power law, and derive a mean logarithmic temperature gradient between 2 and 4 J-band effective radii ($R_J$): $\alpha_{24}\equiv d \ln T /d \ln R |_{2-4\,R_J}$. Values of $\alpha_{24}$ are listed in the last column of Table \ref{t.asymgalaxyprop}.
736:
737: One can consider the galaxy density $\rhomass$ as an indicator of the likelihood of gravitational galaxy interactions through close encounters or mergers, similar to the Tully galaxy density parameter. The outer temperature gradient, on the other hand, is a measure of the presence of hot ambient gas and thus a proxy for the likelihood of hydrodynamic interactions with this gas. A much more thorough analysis of the temperature profiles present in our sample will be the main focus of Paper III.
738:
739:
740:
741: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
742:
743:
744:
745: \section{Results} \label{s4.results}
746:
747: \subsection{X-ray Ellipticity and Asymmetry}\label{s4.asymeps}
748:
749: \begin{figure}
750: \begin{center}
751: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f7}
752: \end{center}
753: \caption{The X-ray asymmetry index $\eta$ as a function of X-ray
754: ellipticity $\epsilon_{\rm X}$. The observed positive trend
755: suggests a common underlying cause for both the large measured X-ray
756: ellipticities and the asymmetries.\label{f.asymeps}}
757: \end{figure}
758:
759: Figure \ref{f.asymeps} shows a comparison between the mean X-ray ellipticities between $0.6-0.9$ optical radii and the asymmetry index
760: $\eta$. There is a trend for flatter galaxies to be also more asymmetric, with a \texttt{bandfit} correlation strength of 99.72\%. There is a clear deficit of galaxies with flattened X-ray emission, but small asymmetry, which suggests a common underlying cause for both. The ellipticity may best be interpreted as simply a mean measure of the $m=2$ Fourier amplitude of the departure from circular symmetry. This is consistent with our results from Paper I, where we find that the gas ellipticities are uncorrelated with the ellipticities of the starlight, and thus are not simply determined by the shape of the smooth underlying gravitational potential.
761:
762: \subsubsection{AGN Influence on Gas Morphology}\label{s4.asymagn}
763:
764: Figure \ref{f.AGNasym} shows the dependence of the asymmetry index $\eta$ on the two independent measures of AGN activity: the X-ray luminosity $L_{\rm X,AGN}$ of the central point source (left panel) and the NVSS radio power $L_{\rm NVSS}$, integrated over three optical radii (right panel). Both AGN properties are correlated with $\eta$, in the sense that galaxies hosting stronger AGN have stronger morphological asymmetries in their hot ISM. Analysis with \texttt{bandfit} rejects the null hypothesis of no correlation between $L_{\rm NVSS}$ and $\eta$ at the 98.7\% confidence level (see Table \ref{t.significances}). The same analysis for $L_{\rm X,AGN}$ and $\eta$ yields a slightly lower confidence value of 97.1\%. If we regard $L_{\rm X,AGN}$ and $L_{\rm NVSS}$ as independent measures of the same phenomenon (\S\ref{s4.agnradioxray}), we can compute the joint probability of the null hypothesis of no correlation between general AGN activity and asymmetry, which is then rejected at the 99.96\% level. Similar results are obtained from bootstrapping and from a Spearman rank analysis ignoring the upper limits. This AGN--asymmetry connection is strong evidence that the central AGN is {\it generally} responsible for disturbing the hot gas morphology even in normal elliptical galaxies and provides further support for the importance of AGN feedback.
765:
766: A comparison with our simulations in \S\ref{s4.asymmetrytest} suggests two possible interpretations for the increase of asymmetry with AGN luminosity: the number of inflated bubbles, or the strength of the created depressions. The asymmetry index is equally sensitive to both and cannot distinguish between them. However, a qualitative investigation of the gas morphologies (see Paper I) suggests that depression strengths are more important. The examples in Figure \ref{f.asymexample} already show that galaxies with larger $\eta$ values tend to have stronger surface brightness depressions, possibly caused by the stronger interaction of more powerful radio sources with the ISM.
767:
768: \begin{figure*}
769: \begin{center}
770: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{f8}
771: \end{center}
772: \caption{Asymmetry index $\eta$ as a function of X-ray AGN luminosity
773: $L_{\rm X,AGN}$ (left) and $20\cm$ radio continuum power $L_{\rm
774: NVSS}$ taken from NVSS (right). Both plots indicate that the central
775: AGN luminosity is positively correlated with the observed asymmetry in
776: the gas, with the correlation extending all the way down to the
777: weakest AGN. \label{f.AGNasym}}
778: \end{figure*}
779:
780: \begin{deluxetable}{lrr}
781: \tablewidth{0pt}
782: \tablecaption{Significances for correlations with $\eta$. \label{t.significances}}
783: \tablehead{
784: \colhead{Second Variable} & \colhead{$P_{Null}$}}
785: \startdata
786: $\log L_{\rm NVSS}$ \& $\log L_{\rm X,AGN}$ (jointly) & 0.04\% \\
787: $\alpha_{24}$ & 0.2\% \\
788: $\log L_{\rm NVSS}$ & 1.3\% \\
789: $\log L_{\rm X,AGN}$ & 2.9\% \\
790: $\log \rhomass$ & 24.9\% \\
791: $\log \rho_{\rm Tully}$ & 45.1\% \\
792: \enddata
793: \end{deluxetable}
794:
795:
796: \subsection{Environmental Influence on Gas Morphology}
797:
798: The probability of interactions with neighboring galaxies through mergers, tidal interactions or close encounters naturally increases with the local number density of galaxies. Thus, if interactions are important in influencing the gas morphology of elliptical galaxies, we would expect a correlation between morphological parameters and the projected galaxy density $\rhomass$. However, Figure \ref{f.environment} shows that neither the gas ellipticity (upper panel), nor the asymmetry index (lower panel) shows any trend with this measure of environment. A \texttt{bandfit} analysis yields no statistically significant correlation in either case (Table \ref{t.significances}). Bootstrapping and a Spearman rank analysis give consistent results.
799:
800: \begin{figure}
801: \begin{center}
802: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f9}
803: \end{center}
804: \caption{X-ray ellipticity $\epsilon_{\rm X}$ (top) and asymmetry index $\eta$ (bottom) as a function of projected galaxy density
805: $\rhomass$. Both plots indicate that environment is not the driving factor causing the ellipticities and asymmetries. \label{f.environment}}
806: \end{figure}
807:
808: To ensure that our conclusions are independent of our definition of galaxy density, we repeat the analysis with other environmental measures of galaxy density: the Tully density parameter $\rho_{\rm Tully}$ \citep{TullyRho}, the distance to the 10th closest neighbor in the 2MASS extended source catalog \citep{2MASS}, and the number of galaxies associated with a galaxy group, as listed in the Lyon Group of Galaxies \citep[LGG;][]{LGG} catalog. All of these measures of environment yield the same result: the galaxy density is not correlated with the observed asymmetries or large ellipticities of the hot gas. Thus, the X-ray gas morphology is not mainly driven by interactions with companions, although they may still be important for some individual objects.
809:
810: In the absence of galaxy-galaxy interactions, hydrodynamic interaction with a hot ambient medium is still possible, through ram pressure, shocks, pressure confinement or hydrodynamic instabilities at the contact interface. Two galaxies in our sample are already known to be affected by ram-pressure: NGC~4472 \citep{BillerNGC4472} and NGC~1404 \citep{Machacek}. However, in both cases, the radius within which we compute the asymmetry index is smaller than the radius at which the interaction with the ambient medium becomes obvious. To assess the sample in general, we use the outer temperature gradient $\alpha_{24}$ as a proxy for a hot ICM, IGM, or circumgalactic gas. A larger gradient suggests a larger ambient gas pressure. Figure \ref{f.tslope24asym} shows that asymmetry indeed increases as a function of $\alpha_{24}$. A \texttt{bandfit} analysis rejects the null hypothesis at the 99.8\% level (Table \ref{t.significances}), with similar results obtained from bootstrapping and Spearman rank correlations.
811:
812: \begin{figure}
813: \begin{center}
814: \includegraphics[width=0.45 \textwidth]{f10}
815: \end{center}
816: \caption{Asymmetry index $\eta$ as a function of the outer temperature gradient $\alpha_{24}$, an indicator for the presence of hotter ambient gas. The correlation is such that galaxies in a hot gas environment are more asymmetric. Note that the sample includes both rising ($\alpha_{24}>0$, hotter ambient gas present) and falling ($\alpha_{24}<0$, no ambient gas present) temperature profiles. \label{f.tslope24asym}}
817: \end{figure}
818:
819:
820:
821: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
822:
823:
824:
825: \section{Discussion} \label{s4.discussion}
826:
827: \subsection{Causes of Disturbances in the Gas Morphology}
828:
829: Our comparison of optical and X-ray morphologies in Paper I revealed that even well within one effective radius, where the gravitational potential is dominated by the stellar component \citep{MamonDarkmatterI, HumphreyDarkmatter}, there is no correlation between stellar and gas ellipticities, very much at odds with predictions from hydrostatic equilibrium. In fact, many X-ray ellipticities even exceed those of the starlight, quite the opposite of what is expected from purely gravitational effects. We also noted in Paper I the prevalence of asymmetries in the hot gas, which we have now statistically quantified in this paper with the asymmetry index $\eta$. We find that the large observed ellipticities and the amount of asymmetry in the gas are correlated, pointing toward a common cause that dictates the overall X-ray morphology.
830:
831: In this Paper, we have shown that feedback from the central AGN (Figure \ref{f.AGNasym}) and hydrodynamic interactions with the ambient medium (Figure \ref{f.tslope24asym}) are the dominant causes of these asymmetries. Our analysis of the AGN-morphology correlation shows that this phenomenon is not restricted to powerful radio sources, but forms a continuous sequence down to the weakest AGN. The correlation with the outer temperature gradient $\alpha_{24}$, on the other hand, suggests that the presence of a hot ambient medium has a similarly strong effect on the gas morphology. Figure \ref{f.coloredasym} shows that both correlations together dictate the disturbance in the gas. In Figure \ref{f.coloredasym}a we have colored the residuals in the $\alpha_{24}-\eta$ correlation according to AGN luminosity, with red indicating low ($\LNVSS < 10^{32}\erg\s^{-1}\,{\rm Hz}^{-1}$), and green high, radio power. In Figure \ref{f.coloredasym}b we color the residuals in the $\LNVSS-\eta$ correlation according to $\alpha_{24}$, with red now indicating a negative and green a positive temperature gradient. (Black points indicate objects for which these values are unavailable.) In each case, the residuals are clearly correlated with the third quantity. Replacing \LNVSS\ with the X-ray AGN luminosities $L_{\rm X,AGN}$ yields comparable results. Note that the scatter about the mean correlations is about the same in each case, indicating that AGN and ambient medium have comparable effects on the gas morphology.
832:
833: \begin{figure*}
834: \begin{center}
835: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f11a}
836: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f11b}
837: \end{center}
838: \caption{Similar to Figures \ref{f.tslope24asym} and \ref{f.AGNasym}. {\em Left\/}: correlation between $\eta$ and the outer temperature gradient $\alpha_{24}$. Red colors indicate low-luminosity ($\LNVSS < 10^{32}\erg\s^{-1}\,{\rm Hz}^{-1}$), and green colors higher luminosity ($\LNVSS >10^{32}\erg\s^{-1}\,{\rm Hz}^{-1}$) AGN. {\em Right\/}: correlation between $\eta$ and radio luminosity $L_{\rm NVSS}$. Red points indicate a negative, and green a positive, temperature gradient $\alpha_{24}$. In each case the residuals from the mean relation are correlated with the third variable. On can consider the more fundamental correlation to be a 2-d plane in $\log \LNVSS$--$\alpha_{24}$--$\log \eta$ space.
839: \label{f.coloredasym}}
840: \end{figure*}
841:
842: \subsection{Implications for AGN Feedback in Elliptical Galaxies}
843:
844: The great majority of galaxies in our sample are not conspicuous AGN; most harbor only weak, unresolved radio sources. Nevertheless, we find a correlation between hot gas asymmetries and the radio and X-ray AGN luminosities, down to the lowest luminosities detectable by NVSS, FIRST, or {\it Chandra.} These results solidify the AGN as an influential feedback mechanism for normal elliptical galaxies in general, even where they do not obviously harbor powerful nuclear sources.
845:
846: Intermittent AGN activity may stir the hot gas, pushing it far enough out of equilibrium that information about the shape of the underlying potential is lost. That we observe morphological disturbances in nearly all elliptical galaxies, and that some objects even reveal signatures of multiple outbursts \citep[e.g.][]{OsullivanNGC4636}, suggest that the duty cycle of the AGN is shorter than or comparable to the sound crossing time. Thus, the hot gas is continually disturbed, without having time to resettle into equilibrium.
847:
848: Despite the lack of correlation between optical and X-ray ellipticities (Paper I), we do note a weak tendency for the hot gas isophotal major axes to be aligned with those of the starlight. To quantify this trend, we extract a subsample of 15 galaxies that have X-ray ellipticities $\epsilon_X>0.2$ in order to have well-defined position angles (PA). The PA differences between the gas and the stellar component, in $15^\circ$-wide bins, are shown as the grey-shaded histogram in Figure \ref{f.histoparadio}. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test puts the probability for a chance correlation at only 0.05\%.
849:
850: While this alignment may reflect the orientation of the underlying gravitational potential, it may also be the result of interactions with the central radio source. Our sample exhibits an anti-correlation between radio and optical major axes, which is shown as the solid histogram in Figure \ref{f.histoparadio}. This controversial phenomenon has been observed early on by \citet{PalimakaRadioopt}, but has not been confirmed in subsequent studies \citep{SansomRadioopt}. Nevertheless, a KS-test yields only a 1.1\% probability for the null hypothesis of uncorrelated orientations in our small sample of 11 galaxies with both available radio and optical major axes.
851:
852: In case of a relatively stable radio jet axis, one would expect the jet to preferentially evacuate gas along the axis, creating a misalignment between radio and X-ray gas emission. We do observe a very slight anti-correlation, shown in the dashed histogram in Figure \ref{f.histoparadio}, but only 12 galaxies have both reliable X-ray and radio position angles. The large error bars on both radio and X-ray position angles make it difficult to ascertain the significance of the correlation, which a KS-test puts nominally at 90\%. Extracting the X-ray position angles at a larger radius increases the significance; but the detection of this misalignment is marginal and awaits confirmation with a larger sample and deeper radio data. With our current small sample, a two-sided KS test yields a 22.3\% probability that the radio--X-ray anticorrelation and the X-ray--optical alignment are drawn from the same distribution, which rises to 80.6\% at a larger extraction radius. Thus, the data are consistent with the alignment being caused by the effects of the radio source on the hot ISM. The competing effect of the interaction with the ambient medium may also work against a proper detection of this misalignment. However, the position angle may also represent the only information that is still inferable about the underlying gravitational potential, namely its orientation.
853:
854: \begin{figure}
855: \begin{center}
856: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{f12}
857: \end{center}
858: \caption{Histogram of absolute differences between optical (${\rm PA}_{\rm opt}$), radio (NVSS 20cm continuum, ${\rm PA}_{\rm NVSS}$), and X-ray gas (${\rm PA}_{\rm X}$) position angles. The grey shaded histogram with dotted contours shows a tendency for galaxies to have X-ray and optical isophotes aligned. The solid line shows an anti-correlation between optical and radio position angles, and the dashed line a slight anti-correlation between radio and X-ray position angles, suggesting that the radio source is responsible for the X-ray--optical alignment. \label{f.histoparadio}}
859: \end{figure}
860:
861:
862:
863: \subsection{Implications for Interactions with the Intergalactic Medium}
864:
865: We find that the observed ellipticities and asymmetries in the hot gas are not mainly a consequence of interactions with neighboring galaxies. On the other hand, interactions with the ambient medium seem to be as important as the interplay with the central radio source. We expect the impact of an external ambient medium to increase with distance from the center. However, our analysis is confined to a region within {\it Chandra}'s limited field of view, restricted further by our need for sufficient signal to fit isophotes. Thus, our asymmetry index is insensitive to structure outside a radius which depends on the average surface brightness of the object and the exposure time of the observation. To verify that the $\alpha_{24}-\eta$ correlation is not simply a consequence of a variable extraction radius, we have checked for a correlation between this radius and $\eta$ and we find none.
866:
867: The majority of X-ray halos associated with elliptical galaxies extend well beyond the outer radii in Table \ref{t.asymgalaxyprop}, as was already demonstrated with observations with the {\it Einstein} and {\it ROSAT} satellites \citep[e.g.][]{Forman1985,OSullivan}. Interactions with the ambient medium may very well have an even stronger influence on the gas structure at larger radii. At this point we are not yet able to distinguish the effects of AGN from those of environment based on morphology alone. Nevertheless it is curious to note that we do not observe a correlation between the X-ray ellipticity and the outer temperature gradient, as one might expect. Perhaps a different definition of statistical asymmetry that is sensitive to ``lopsidedness'' may be useful in this regard.
868:
869: Alternatively, the existence of a positive outer temperature gradient could also be interpreted as the presence of an external fuel reservoir for the central AGN. \citet{BestAGNenvironment} finds a correlation between radio-loud AGN activity and environment, in the sense that a larger fraction of AGN in richer environment are switched ``on'' compared to isolated galaxies. In this scenario, the correlation between the outer temperature gradient and the gas asymmetry would be a result of an increased duty cycle for AGN outbursts, rather than hydrodynamic interactions with the ambient medium. In addition, the circumgalactic gas reservoir also acts as a pressure confinement, which would prevent radio jets and inflated cavities from simply leaving the system and provides a background contrast to actually identify asymmetries at larger radii.
870:
871: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
872:
873:
874:
875: \section{Conclusions} \label{s4.conclusions}
876:
877: We have extended our earlier work from Paper I on normal elliptical galaxies, which showed that optical and X-ray gas ellipticities are uncorrelated in the regions where stellar mass dominates, contrary to what is expected from gas in hydrostatic equilibrium. Instead, the hot gas is generally disturbed. To elucidate the nature of these asymmetries, we have introduced the asymmetry index $\eta$, which measures the statistical deviation from a symmetric surface brightness model. This allows a systematic study of asymmetry even in relatively low-luminosity objects, in which asymmetric features are barely resolved.
878:
879: We find a strong correlation between the asymmetry index and two independent measures of AGN activity: the radio continuum power at $20\cm$ from NVSS \citep{NVSS} and the X-ray AGN luminosity extracted from {\it Chandra} data. The observed AGN--asymmetry correlation persists all the way down to the weakest AGN, where the NVSS survey reaches its detection
880: limit. This is quite surprising, since these objects generally lack extended jet signatures in their radio images and are mostly detected as weak central point sources, if at all. We also find the asymmetry index to be correlated with the outer temperature gradient $\alpha_{24}$, a proxy for the presence of a hot intragroup or intracluster medium. The strength of this correlation is comparable to that of the AGN--asymmetry correlation, indicating that hydrodynamic interaction with the ambient medium is comparably important to AGN in determining the X-ray morphology of normal ellipticals. However, we find no such correlation with the density of neighboring galaxies, and no evidence that galaxy-galaxy interactions play a significant role in shaping the hot ISM in these systems. Alternatively, the presence of an outer temperature gradient may also indicate the availability of a fuel reservoir for the central AGN. In this case, the increased amount of asymmetries in the X-ray gas could indicate a greater duty cycle for AGN outbursts in these objects.
881:
882: The emerging picture is consistent with the AGN persistently stirring up the interstellar medium through intermittent outbursts, and strengthens the case for the AGN to be at least partly responsible for offsetting cooling in normal elliptical galaxies. We will address the impact of the central AGN on temperature and entropy profiles in detail in Paper III of this series \citep{DiehlEntropy}.
883:
884:
885:
886: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
887:
888:
889:
890: \acknowledgments We thank the anonymous referee for an insightful referee report which helped improve the manuscript. We have made use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation. Support for this work was provided by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) through Chandra Awards G01-2094X and AR3-4011X, issued by the {\em Chandra X-Ray Observatory Center}, which is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for and on behalf of NASA under contract NAS8-39073, and by National Science Foundation grant AST0407152.
891:
892:
893: \bibliographystyle{apj}
894: \bibliography{allreferences}
895:
896: \appendix
897: \section{Correlation analysis with bandfit}\label{s.bandfit}
898:
899: The \texttt{bandfit} algorithm fits a model to two-dimensional $(x,y)$ data that are, or are suspected of being, linearly correlated. The model is a linear band, described by an orientation angle $\phi$ relative to the $x$ axis, a perpendicular offset from the origin $z_0$, and an intrinsic Gaussian perpendicular width $\sigma_{\rm int}$. The likelihood of any observed datum $(x_i,y_i)$ is a function of the perpendicular distance to the midline of the band, and is straightforwardly calculated by convolving the band with the error ellipse for the datum. The algorithm is thus similar to line fitting using perpendicular residual minimization, which is not exactly the same as classical linear regression.
900:
901: \texttt{Bandfit} is written to handle data with Gaussian errors in either or both variables, including correlated errors. Censored data (upper or lower limits in either or both variables) are also easily handled, and contribute to the likelihood via an integral over the convolved band up to their location (i.e., the likelihood is proportional to the erf function evaluated at the censored point).
902:
903: The model parameters are found by maximizing the likelihood using the well known simplex (``amoeba'') method. Errors in the fitted parameters are returned in the form of a covariance matrix.
904:
905: To assess a correlation, the data are first shifted to zero mean to minimize the covariance between $\phi$ and $z_0$. The square root of the $\phi\phi$ element of the covariance matrix can then be interpreted as the standard error in $\phi$. Tests with simulated data sets show that integrating over this Gaussian provides accurate confidence limits on the non-zero slope of the correlation.
906:
907: \texttt{Bandfit} is implemented in IDL, and will be made available through the IDL astro library after a thorough workout by volunteer beta-testers.
908:
909:
910: \end{document}
911:
912:
913:
914: