1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
3: \newcommand{\myemail}{hsjun@astro.snu.ac.kr}
4: \shorttitle{Mid-Infrared Fundamental Plane}
5: \shortauthors{Jun and Im}
6: \begin{document}
7: \title{The Mid-Infrared Fundamental Plane of Early-Type Galaxies}
8: \author{Hyunsung David Jun\altaffilmark{1} and Myungshin Im\altaffilmark{1,2}}
9: \altaffiltext{1}{Astronomy Program, Department of Physics and Astronomy, FPRD, Seoul National
10: University, Seoul 151-742, Korea; hsjun@astro.snu.ac.kr, mim@astro.snu.ac.kr.}
11: \altaffiltext{2}{Infrared Processing and Analysis Center, California Institute of Technology,
12: Pasadena, CA 91125}
13:
14: \begin{abstract}
15: Three observables of early-type galaxies - size ($r_{e}$), surface brightness ($I_{e}$), and
16: velocity dispersion ($\sigma_{0}$) - form a tight planar correlation known as the fundamental plane
17: (FP), which has provided great insights into the galaxy formation and the evolution processes.
18: However, the FP has been found to be tilted against the simple virial expectation, prompting debates
19: on its origin. In order to investigate the contribution of systematic stellar population variation
20: to the FP tilt, we study here the FP relations of early-type galaxies in mid-infrared (MIR) which
21: may represent the stellar mass well. We examined the wavelength dependence of the FP coefficients,
22: $a$ and $b$ in $\log\,r_{e}= a\,\log\,\sigma_{0} + b\,\log\,\langle I \rangle_{e} + c$, using a
23: sample of 56 early-type galaxies for which visible ($V$-band), near-infrared ($K$-band), and MIR
24: (Spitzer IRAC, 3.6--8.0$\,\mu$m) data are available. We find that the coefficient $a$ increases as a
25: function of wavelength as $da/d\lambda=0.11\pm0.04\,\mu m^{-1}$, while the coefficient $b$ reaches
26: the closest to -1 at 3.6--5.8$\,\mu$m. When applied to the visible FP coefficients derived from a
27: larger sample of nearby early-type galaxies, we get the FP relation with $(a,b) \simeq $
28: (1.6--1.8,\,-0.9) at 3.6$\,\mu$m. Our result suggests that the stellar population effect can explain
29: more than half of the FP tilt, closing the gap between the virial expectation and the optical FP\@.
30: The reduction in the FP tilt is reflected in the dynamical mass-to-light ratio, $M_{dyn}/L$,
31: dependence on $L$ which decreases toward 3.6--5.8$\,\mu$m, suggesting that the MIR light better
32: represents mass than the shorter wavelengths.
33: \end{abstract}
34:
35: \keywords{galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD --- galaxies: formation --- galaxies: fundamental
36: parameters --- galaxies: stellar content --- galaxies: structure --- infrared: galaxies}
37:
38:
39: \section{Introduction}
40: In the search for correlations among physical parameters of early-type galaxies, it has been
41: recognized that the effective radius ($r_e$), the effective mean surface brightness ($\langle I
42: \rangle_{e}$), and the central velocity dispersion ($\sigma_{0}$) form a planar relation (in
43: logarithmic space) known as the fundamental plane (hereafter FP; \citealt{dre87}; \citealt{djo87}),
44: in the form of $r_{e} \propto \sigma_{0}^{a}\,\langle I \rangle_{e}^{b}$ where $a$ and $b$ are
45: found to be $(a,b) \simeq $ (1.2--1.5,\,-0.8) at visible wavelengths (\citealt{jor96};
46: \citealt{ber03}). Under the assumption of structural homology and a constant mass-to-light ratio,
47: the virial theorem implies that the FP coefficients should be $(a,b)$=(2,\,-1) -- the so-called
48: `virial expectation'. The observed discrepancy, or tilt of the FP with respect to the virial
49: expectation has prompted many discussions to explain its origin (see \citealt{don06} for a review of
50: this field).
51:
52: One of the ideas is that the tilt is caused by the systematic variation in the stellar population
53: as a function of physical parameters such as galaxy luminosity.
54: \citet{pah98b} investigated this effect by constructing the FP in $K$-band,
55: which is supposedly a good tracer of the stellar mass less affected by age and dust.
56: Meanwhile, \citet{sco98} examined the wavelength
57: dependence on the FP coefficients, and concluded that some of the tilt is caused by the stellar
58: population manifested by the color-magnitude relation. These studies found that the stellar
59: population effect exists, but it can only partially explain the tilt of the FP\@.
60:
61: More recent investigations tackle the FP tilt problem using new methods such as gravitational
62: lensing (\citealt{tre06}; \citealt{bol07}) or dynamical modeling (\citealt{pad04}; \citealt{cap06}).
63: Such studies suggest that the FP tilt nearly disappears when the FP is constructed in the
64: mass-domain. Their conclusion is that the tilt must arise from the variation in the central
65: mass-to-light ratio (\citealt{rob06}), but it is not clear whether the variation is dominated by
66: dark matter or by stars \citep{bol07}.
67:
68: In this Letter, we extend the FP analysis to wavelengths beyond $K$-band to further investigate
69: the effect of stellar population on the tilt. By doing so we aim to provide the FP that possibly
70: better represents stellar mass (see \S\,5), and to improve the constraints on different scenarios
71: for the FP tilt.
72: % This Letter is organized as follows: \S 2 describes about the sample, and \S3 explains about the
73: %strategy for the analysis, with \S 4 presenting the results of our fitting in detail. \S 5 includes
74: %further discussions arising from our results.
75: %%IM2 we may want to drop the above paragraph in case we go over the page limit.
76: %JUN I think we should drop them.
77:
78:
79: \section{The sample}
80: Early-type galaxies were chosen from the sample of \citet{pah99}, which was used to study the FP of
81: nearby early-type galaxies in visible and near-infrared (hereafter NIR) passbands. The sample has
82: the velocity dispersion information necessary for constructing the FP\@. We then searched for
83: mid-infrared (hereafter MIR)\footnote{We designate these wavelengths MIR to distinguish them from
84: the $K$-band.} archival images for galaxies in the \citet{pah99} sample. For the MIR data, we used
85: the Spitzer Space Telescope, Infrared Array Camera (hereafter IRAC; \citealt{faz04}) images,
86: covering four wavelength channels at 3.6, 4.5, 5.8, and 8.0$\,\mu$m. The flux-calibrated, mosaiced
87: IRAC images were retrieved from the Spitzer archive for these objects.
88:
89: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccc}
90: \tablecolumns{7}
91: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
92: \tablecaption{Photometric parameters of the sample}
93: \tablewidth{0.47\textwidth}
94: \tablehead{
95: \colhead{$\lambda$} & \colhead{$r_{e,min}$} & \colhead{$r_{e,avg}$} & \colhead{$r_{e,max}$} &
96: \colhead{$M_{min}$} & \colhead{$M_{avg}$} & \colhead{$M_{max}$}
97: \\($\mu$m) & (\arcsec) & (\arcsec) & (\arcsec) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag)}
98: \startdata
99: 0.55& 2.1 & 20.1 & 81.1 & -23.4 & -21.4 & -19.4\\
100: 2.2 & 2.3 & 14.8 & 104.0 & -26.7 & -24.5 & -22.6\\
101: 3.6 & 2.0 & 14.3 & 65.3 & -25.8 & -23.6 & -21.8\\
102: 4.5 & 2.2 & 14.7 & 80.5 & -25.1 & -23.0 & -21.2\\
103: 5.8 & 1.2 & 15.2 & 90.0 & -25.1 & -22.7 & -21.0\\
104: 8.0 & 1.1 & 13.6 & 86.8 & -24.2 & -22.3 & -20.5
105: \enddata
106: \tablecomments{Effective radii and absolute magnitudes from \citealt{pah99} ($V$- and $K$-band) and
107: our Spitzer IRAC analysis (3.6--8.0$\,\mu$m) are presented in minimum, average, and maximum values.}
108: \end{deluxetable}
109:
110: The surface brightness fitting was performed for these matched galaxies, and the objects satisfying
111: $r_{e} > 2\,\arcsec$ for three or more IRAC-bands were retained for the FP analysis. We imposed
112: this size limit in order to work with a sample with reliable $r_{e}$ values (see \S\,3.1). After
113: removing a few galaxies (NGC1275, NGC4824, NGC4478, NGC6166) that show peculiar light profiles
114: (multiple source, close to a bright galaxy or stars), we finally identified 56 galaxies with IRAC
115: data in five clusters (A0426, A1656, A2199, A2634, and VIRGO) satisfying our selection criteria. We
116: present a brief summary of the photometric information in Table 1. The exposure times for the IRAC
117: data range from 72 to 1000 secs.
118:
119: The above selection of the sample may introduce a bias in the derived FP coefficients
120: (\citealt{sco98}). However, such a bias would not affect our derivation of the wavelength dependence
121: of the FP coefficients, since the multi-wavelength FP coefficients will be derived from the same
122: galaxies for which the same bias would apply.
123:
124:
125: \section{Analysis of the data}
126: \subsection{Surface Brightness Fitting}
127: IRAF ELLIPSE was used to obtain surface brightness profiles of our IRAC sample galaxies. We
128: restricted the fitting region to $a > 2\,$pixels (along the semi-major axis) and discarded regions
129: with S/$N_{rms}<\,$1. During the fit, we held the center, and fixed the ellipticities and the
130: position angles of isophotes to those at the effective radius in the 3.6$\,\mu$m band. In addition,
131: 3$\,\sigma$ clipping was applied to reject outliers such as foreground stars. To subtract the
132: background, we used the values determined from the SExtractor \citep{ber96}. The adaptive background
133: mesh sizes were varied between 16 to 96\,pixels, and the best mesh was chosen to be the one which
134: flattened the growth curve at the largest isophote ($a \sim\,$3--6$\,a_{e}$).
135:
136: After the ELLIPSE photometry, we used the de Vaucouleurs r$^{1/4}$ law to fit the observed surface
137: brightness profiles measured along the semi-major axis\footnote{We also tried the Sersic r$^{1/n}$
138: law but found no difference in the FP coefficients; we therefore kept the r$^{1/4}$ methodology.}.
139: The fitting procedure yields the effective radius (in $\arcsec$) $r_{e}=\sqrt{(b/a)_{e}}\,a_{e}$
140: where $a_{e}$ is the effective semi major axis and $(b/a)_{e}$ is the axis ratio of the isophote at
141: this position. We tested the reliability of our fitting procedure using the simulated, PSF-convolved
142: galaxies, and found that the surface brightness fitting gives unbiased, reliable results when $r_{e}
143: > 2\,\arcsec$. At the same time, we get the mean surface brightness within $r_{e}$ (in AB
144: magnitudes) $\langle\mu\rangle_{e} = m_{1/2} + 2.5\,\log\,(\pi r_{e}^2) - 10\,\log\,(1+z) -
145: A_{\lambda} - K(z)$ where $m_{1/2}$ is the magnitude of the total flux within the effective isophote
146: defined by $a_{e}$ and $b_{e}$, while cosmological dimming, galactic extinction ($A_{\lambda}$,
147: using the formula of \citealt{lau94}, and the extinction curve of \citealt{fit07}), and
148: K-correction are taken into account. The K-correction is computed using the spectral energy
149: distribution of a 13\,Gyr age, solar metallicity, and 0.1\,Gyr burst model from \citet{bru03},
150: assuming the Salpter initial mass function. The last observable, $\sigma_{0}$ is a kinematic
151: parameter and is not expected to vary as a function of wavelength; we consequently use the same data
152: used for the visible and NIR bands \citep{pah99}.
153:
154: In our analysis, angular sizes were converted into physical length units for the FP construction
155: by setting the distance to A1656 as 98.1\,Mpc and calibrating the distances to individual clusters,
156: utilizing the NIR FP \citep{pah98a} as a distance ladder.
157:
158:
159: \subsection{Fitting of FP Coefficients}
160: We fitted the FP coefficients of the multi-waveband sample in the following manner using a variety
161: of methods:
162: \begin{equation}
163: \log\,r_{e}= a\,\log\,\sigma_{0} + b\,\log\,\langle I \rangle_{e} + c,
164: \end{equation}
165: where $\langle \mu \rangle_{e}$ and $\langle I \rangle_{e}$ are related as $\langle \mu \rangle_{e}
166: \propto -2.5\,\log\,\langle I\rangle_{e}$. For the input $r_{e}$ and $\langle I \rangle_{e}$, we use
167: our SB-fit results for MIR (\S\,3.1), and those listed in \citet{pah99} for V- and K-bands.
168: We tried five different fitting methods: standard least-squares fit, the inverse least-squares fit,
169: the bisector of the two, the least-squares fit to the orthogonal plane, and the least absolute
170: deviation fit to the orthogonal plane. These methods are outlined below.
171:
172: It is natural to think of doing the standard least-squares fit of $\log\,r_{e}$ (hereafter LSQ;
173: \citealt{guz93}; \citealt{ber03}), but early FP work mainly took $\log\,\sigma_{0}$ at the ordinate
174: (\citealt{dre87}; \citealt{djo87}; hereafter inverse LSQ) for their purposes. More recent work
175: prefers the least-squares fitting of $\log\,r_{e}$ by minimizing the variance orthogonal to the FP
176: plane (hereafter orthogonal least-squares fit, or OLSQ; \citealt{ber03}) or the least absolute
177: deviations orthogonal to the plane (hereafter orthogonal least absolute deviation fit, or OLAD;
178: \citealt{jor96}; \citealt{pah98a}). The orthogonal fitting has an advantage over other methods,
179: reducing the systematic error by treating the variables symmetrically \citep{iso90}. However, the
180: orthogonal methods yield larger measurement errors than the LSQ methods, especially for small
181: samples \citep{iso90}.
182:
183: Therefore, we also estimated the FP coefficients by taking the bisector, or the plane equidistant
184: from the planes obtained through the standard LSQ and inverse LSQ (hereafter the LSQ bisector).
185: 1,000 Monte Carlo samplings of subsets of early-type galaxies in \citet{ber03} were performed to
186: derive the FP coefficient errors on a sample of 50 early types to justify our approach. Through the
187: sampling, we found the errors of the FP coefficients to be $(\sigma_{a},\sigma_{b})=(0.14,0.06)$,
188: best reproduced with the LSQ bisector method, while the other orthogonal methods gave overestimated
189: errors ($\ga$50\,\% for the coefficient $a$). Aside from the error estimates, all three symmetrized
190: methods reproduce the FP coefficient $a$ of \citet{ber03} and the $K$-band early-type galaxy sample
191: of \citet{pah98a} within 5\,\% agreement. On the other hand, the standard and inverse LSQ methods
192: are found to have about minus and plus 20\,\% systematic biases in the coefficient $a$ estimates
193: respectively in comparison to the symmetrized methods. Given these results, we adopted the FP
194: coefficients with the LSQ bisector method as our base result.
195:
196:
197: \section{Results}
198:
199: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
200: \tablecolumns{5}
201: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
202: \tablecaption{Constructed Fundamental Planes at visible through MIR}
203: \tablewidth{0.47\textwidth}
204: \tablehead{
205: \colhead{$\lambda(\mu$m)} & \colhead{$a$} & \colhead{$b$} & \colhead{$c$} & \colhead{$r$}
206: \\(1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5)}
207: \startdata
208: 0.55& 1.23 $\pm$ 0.10 & -0.86 $\pm$ 0.04 & -9.16 $\pm$ 0.40 & 0.96\\
209: 2.2 & 1.42 $\pm$ 0.11 & -0.81 $\pm$ 0.05 & -8.20 $\pm$ 0.41 & 0.95\\
210: 3.6 & 1.55 $\pm$ 0.11 & -0.89 $\pm$ 0.04 & -9.89 $\pm$ 0.39 & 0.96\\
211: 4.5 & 1.47 $\pm$ 0.11 & -0.92 $\pm$ 0.04 & -10.16 $\pm$ 0.41 & 0.96\\
212: 5.8 & 1.57 $\pm$ 0.13 & -0.92 $\pm$ 0.05 & -10.55 $\pm$ 0.50 & 0.95\\
213: 8.0 & 1.55 $\pm$ 0.14 & -0.75 $\pm$ 0.05 & -9.30 $\pm$ 0.60 & 0.93
214: \enddata
215: \tablecomments{Fundamental planes for the sample of 56 galaxies with the $r_{e} > 2\,\arcsec$ cut
216: using the LSQ bisector method. Each column represents (1) wavelength in $\mu$m, (2)--(4) plane
217: coefficients $a$, $b$, and $c$ with associated uncertainties, and (5) the linear correlation
218: coefficient.}
219: \end{deluxetable}
220:
221: In Table 2, we list the FP coefficients with errors from 1,000 bootstrap resampling (unless
222: obtained directly from known error estimates, e.g., LSQ methods) derived from the LSQ bisector
223: method, for wavelengths of 0.55--8.0$\,\mu$m. We further plot the result of the FP fit in Figure 1,
224: overlayed on the data points. We caution readers to focus less on the absolute values of $(a,b)$,
225: but to focus more on the trend of the values with wavelengths or methods (see discussions at the end
226: of this section and \S\,2). Gathering the outcomes, we are led to the wavelength-dependent nature of
227: the FP coefficients, with $(a,b)$ values getting close to the virial expectation of (2,\,-1) as the
228: wavelength increases. Such a tendency has been noted before (\citealt{pah98b}; \citealt{sco98}), but
229: our result indicates that it extends to 3.6$\,\mu$m, and possibly beyond. When each cluster was
230: analyzed separately, we also find the trend.
231:
232: \begin{figure}
233: \centering
234: \plotone{f1.eps}
235: \caption{Constructed fundamental planes projected in the direction of smallest scatter
236: at 3.6, 4.5, 5.8, and 8.0$\,\mu$m, respectively. \label{fig1}}
237: \end{figure}
238:
239: \begin{figure}
240: \center
241: \plotone{f2.eps}
242: \caption{Wavelength dependence of coefficients a and b; diamond, triangle, square, cross, and plus
243: sign symbols correspond to methodologies of inverse LSQ, OLSQ, LSQ bisector, OLAD, and ordinary LSQ
244: respectively. Connected lines with spacing for identification are from our catalog, while solitary
245: symbols are from other literature (\citealt{dre87}; \citealt{jor96}; \citealt{pah98a};
246: \citealt{ber03}) of nearby samples with N $\ga$ 100. Virial plane values assuming constant
247: $M/L$ are $(a,b)$=(2,\,-1).
248: \label{fig2}}
249: \end{figure}
250:
251: The wavelength dependence of the FP coefficients is further presented in Figure 2, where they are
252: plotted using five different fitting methods (\S\,3.2). The tilt of the FP is maximally reduced
253: toward the virial expectation at IRAC-bands, and the thickness of the FP is maintained thin for all
254: but beyond 5.8$\,\mu$m. In terms of the methodology, we confirm the analysis of \S\,3.2 -- the three
255: symmetrized fittings give coefficient $a$ values that are fairly consistent with each other
256: (considering the sample size).
257:
258: To quantify the wavelength dependence, we model the change of coefficient $a$ as a linear function
259: of wavelength by simultaneously fitting the OLSQ, OLAD, and the LSQ bisector results as follows:
260: \begin{equation}
261: da / d\lambda = 0.11\pm0.04\,\mu m^{-1},
262: \end{equation}
263: from the visible to 3.6$\,\mu$m (coefficient $a$ behaves flat afterward). This relation nicely
264: explains the difference in coefficient $a$ of 0.05 in the SDSS g*- to z*-bands \citep{ber03}.
265: Meanwhile, for $b$, the tendency is not as linear as that for $a$, but has a local maximum near the
266: $K$-band, approaches closest to -1 at the IRAC 3.6--5.8$\,\mu$m bands, and increases again at
267: 8.0$\,\mu$m. We attribute this behavior at 8.0$\,\mu$m to the lower S/N, as well as the complexity
268: in the 8.0$\,\mu$m emission which can be dominated by the dust emission in some cases
269: (\citealt{bre06}; \citealt{ko07}). Indeed, the 8.0$\,\mu$m FP has the largest scatter among IRAC
270: bands. The above result, together with the tendency of coefficient $b$ from Table 2, implies that
271: the increase in coefficient $a$ and $b$ are ($\Delta a,\Delta b) \simeq $ (0.34,\,-0.03) from
272: $V$-band to 3.6$\,\mu$m, and ($\Delta a,\Delta b) \simeq $ (0.15,\,-0.08) from $K$-band to
273: 3.6$\,\mu$m. If we use the FP coefficients from the references in Figure 2 as the base values on
274: which to apply equation (2), we obtain $(a,b) \simeq $ (1.6--1.8,\,-0.9) at 3.6$\,\mu$m, which is
275: quite close to the virial expectation. The implication of this result is discussed in the next
276: section.
277:
278: Note that our coefficient $a$ in $K$-band, derived from a subsample of 56 early-types from
279: \citet{pah98a} is smaller than the value derived from their full sample of 251 early-types by
280: $\Delta a = -0.11$. The discrepancy should be mostly due to the limited sample size. More than half
281: of our MIR galaxies belong to the Coma cluster (29 objects), and the Coma cluster galaxies in
282: \citet{pah98a} show coefficient $a$ in the $K$-band ($a = 1.33$) smaller than the total sample
283: result by $\Delta a = -0.20$, consistent with the results of \citet{mob99}. Apart from the
284: wavelength dependence, our results seem to be skewed to the FP of the Coma cluster.
285:
286: \section{Implications on the origin of the FP tilt}
287: Recent studies suggest that the FP tilt originates mostly from a systematic variation in the
288: mass-to-light ratio (\citealt{cap06}; \citealt{bol07}). However, the cause for the mass-to-light
289: ratio variation is uncertain: it could be due to the stellar population, or the central dark matter
290: fraction \citep{bol07}. Also, some studies suggest that the tilt is mostly explained by the
291: non-homology related to the variation in the Sersic index n among early-type galaxies \citep{tru04}.
292: Here, we discuss the implication of our result on these issues.
293:
294: First, we investigated which one of the parameters - size or luminosity - dominates the observed
295: change in the FP coefficients with increasing wavelength. This was done by deriving the FP
296: coefficients from the MIR sample by replacing (i) $r_{e}$'s or (ii) $\langle I \rangle_{e}$'s, with
297: those from the shorter wavelength data (in our case the K-band). The result is presented in Figure 3
298: (left), showing that the luminosity effect is the dominant factor up to 5.8$\,\mu$m. Interpretation
299: at 8.0$\,\mu$m is difficult due to low S/N and dust emission. Our result suggests that the stellar
300: population effect is significant going from K-band to IRAC-bands.
301:
302: Next, we examined to what extent the stellar population plays a role in the FP tilt through the
303: dynamical mass-to-light ratio $M_{dyn}/L \propto r_{e}\sigma_{0}^{2}/L \propto
304: \sigma_{0}^{2}/(r_{e}\langle I \rangle_{e})$ (e.g., \citealt{ber03}) variation calculated from the
305: FP coefficients. If $M_{dyn}/L \propto L^{\beta}$, then $r_{e} \propto
306: \sigma_{0}^{2/(1+2\beta)}\,\langle I \rangle_{e}^{-(1+\beta)/(1+2\beta)}$. The study of
307: \citet{tru04} suggests $\beta \simeq 0.27$ based on the visible FP\@. Our result is that the FP
308: coefficient reaches $a \simeq 1.6$--$1.8$ at 3.6$\,\mu$m (\S 4). In such a case, this relation gives
309: $\beta \simeq $ 0.06--0.13, which enables us to explain more than half of the tilt in the visible
310: FP\@. Moreover, the reduced tilt in the mass plane ($a_{MP} - a_{FP} = 0.27$: \citealt{bol07}) is
311: consistent with our $\Delta a= 0.30 \pm 0.11$ from the I-band to the 3.6$\,\mu$m in equation (2),
312: advocating that the $M_{dyn}/L$ variation is reduced by the regular light distributions in the
313: MIR\@. As for the origin of the FP tilt, these results add another piece of evidence against the
314: significance of non-homology (\citealt{pad04}; \citealt{cap06}; \citealt{bol07}), which predicts no
315: change in the tilt with wavelength.
316:
317: \begin{figure}
318: \centering
319: \plotone{f3.eps}
320: \caption{\textit{Left}: The size vs luminosity test on the FP coefficient $a$. The solid line
321: (labeled `lum') is for the set of coefficients computed by exchanging the $\langle I \rangle_{e}$
322: data of each wavelength with that from the K-band, while the dashed line (labeled `size') is the
323: similar result by exchanging the $r_{e}$ data. \textit{Right}: The wavelength dependence of
324: $M_{dyn}/L$ on $L$ as represented by the parameter $\beta$ of $M_{dyn}/L \propto L^{\beta}$ (see
325: \S\,5).
326: \label{fig3}}
327: \end{figure}
328:
329: We also derived the $\beta$ parameter by directly fitting the $M_{dyn}/L$. Figure 3 (right)
330: demonstrates that the observed dependence of $M_{dyn}/L$ upon $L$ decreases and becomes flatter at
331: IRAC-bands, just like the changes in $\beta$ derived from the FP coefficients. Combined with the
332: fact that the change in the FP tilt with wavelength is dominated by the luminosity change, our
333: $M_{dyn}/L$-fit result suggests that the rest-frame MIR luminosities at 3.6--5.8$\,\mu$m better
334: represent the stellar mass than the shorter wavelengths, somewhat in agreement with \citet{tem08},
335: but not so with \citet{lac07}. Among many possibilities, a proper combination of the metallicity and
336: the age variation can possibly reproduce the observed trend, and we plan to investigate as future
337: work, the physical origin of the $M_{dyn}/L$ - $L$ relation as a function of wavelength.
338:
339:
340: \section{Summary}
341: We studied the MIR fundamental plane relation of 56 early-type galaxies and derived the wavelength
342: dependence of the FP coefficients. When the FP is expressed as $r_{e} \propto \sigma_{0}^{a}\,
343: \langle I\rangle_{e}^{b}$, we found that the exponent on $\sigma_{0}$, $a$, increases as a function
344: of wavelength as $da/d\lambda = 0.11\pm0.04\,\mu m^{-1}$, while $b$ reaches closest to -1 without
345: systematic variation with wavelength. When the FP coefficients of previous studies are adopted as
346: the starting point to calculate the MIR FP coefficients, we found that $(a,b) \simeq $
347: (1.6--1.8,\,-0.9) which is closer to the virial expectation, and that the change is dominated by the
348: luminosity change. Together with the reduced dependence of the $M_{dyn}/L$ on $L$ at MIR
349: wavelengths, our outcomes suggest that the variation in the stellar population is responsible for a
350: significant portion of the FP tilt, and that the rest-frame MIR better probes the stellar mass of
351: low redshift early-type galaxies than the shorter wavelengths.
352:
353:
354: \acknowledgments
355: This study was supported by a grant (R01-2007-000-20336-0) from the Basic Research Program of the
356: Korea Science and Engineering Foundation, and by the Seoul Science Fellowship (HJ). We thank the
357: referee for useful comments, and Youngmin Seo and Soonyoung Min for algorithmic and technical advice
358: in data analysis.
359:
360: \begin{thebibliography}{}
361: \bibitem[Bernardi et al.(2003)]{ber03} Bernardi, M., et al. 2003, \aj, 125, 1866
362: \bibitem[Bertin \& Arnouts(1996)]{ber96} Bertin, E., \& Arnouts, S. 1996, A\&AS, 117, 393
363: \bibitem[Bolton et al.(2007)]{bol07} Bolton, A. S., Burles, S., Treu, T., Koopmans, L. V. E., \& Moustakas, L. A. 2007, \apjl, 665, L105
364: \bibitem[Bressan et al.(2006)]{bre06} Bressan, A., et al. 2006, \apjl, 639, L55
365: \bibitem[Bruzual \& Charlot(2003)]{bru03} Bruzual, G., \& Charlot, S. 2003, \mnras, 344, 1000
366: \bibitem[Cappellari et al.(2006)]{cap06} Cappellari, M., et al. 2006, \mnras, 366, 1126
367: \bibitem[Djorgovski \& Davis(1987)]{djo87} Djorgovski, S., \& Davis, M. 1987, \apj, 313, 59
368: \bibitem[D'Onofrio et al.(2006)]{don06} D'Onofrio, M., Valentinuzzi, T., Secco, L., Caimmi, R., \& Bindoni, D. 2006, New Astronomy Review, 50, 447
369: \bibitem[Dressler et al.(1987)]{dre87} Dressler, A., Lynden-Bell, D., Burstein, D., Davies, R. L., Faber, S. M., Terlevich, R. J., \& Wegner, G. 1987, \apj, 313, 42
370: \bibitem[Fazio et al.(2004)]{faz04} Fazio, G. G., et al. 2004, \apjs, 154, 10
371: \bibitem[Fitzpatrick \& Massa(2007)]{fit07} Fitzpatrick, E. L., \& Massa, D. 2007, \apj, 663, 320
372: \bibitem[Guzm\'an et al.(1993)]{guz93} Guzm\'an, R., Lucey, J. R., \& Bower, R. G. 1993, \mnras, 265, 731
373: \bibitem[Isobe et al.(1990)]{iso90} Isobe, T., Feigelson, E. D., Akritas, M, G., \& Babu, G, J. 1990, \apj, 364, 104
374: \bibitem[J\o rgensen et al.(1996)]{jor96} J\o rgensen, I., Franx, M., \& Kj\ae rgaard, P. 1996, \mnras, 280, 167
375: \bibitem[Ko \& Im(2007)]{ko07} Ko, J., \& Im, M. 2007, BAAS, 211, 9603
376: \bibitem[Lacey et al.(2007)]{lac07} Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., Frenk, C. S., Silva, L., Granato, G. L.,\& Bressan, A. 2007, \mnras, in press (astro-ph/0704.1562)
377: \bibitem[Laureijs et al.(1996)]{lau94} Laureijs, R. J., Helou, G., \& Clark, F. O. 1994, in ASP Conf. Proc. 58, The
378: First Symp. on the Infrared Cirrus and Diffuse Interstellar Clouds, ed. R. M. Cutri \& W. B. Latter (San Francisco: ASP), 133
379: \bibitem[Mobasher et al.(1999)]{mob99} Mobasher, B., Guzman, R., Aragon-Salamanca, A., \& Zepf, S. 1999, \mnras, 304, 225
380: \bibitem[Padmanabhan et al.(2004)]{pad04} Padmanabhan, N., et al. 2004, New Astronomy Review, 9, 329
381: \bibitem[Pahre(1999)]{pah99} Pahre, M. A. 1999, \apjs, 124, 127
382: \bibitem[Pahre et al.(1998a)]{pah98a} Pahre, M. A., Djorgovski, S. G., \& de Carvalho, R. R. 1998a, \aj, 116, 1591
383: \bibitem[Pahre et al.(1998b)]{pah98b} Pahre, M. A., de Carvalho, R. R., \& Djorgovski, S. G. 1998b, \aj, 116, 1606
384: \bibitem[Robertson et al.(2006)]{rob06} Robertson, B., Cox, T. J., Hernquist, L., Franx, M., Hopkins, P. F., Martini, P.,
385: \& Springel, V. 2006, \apj, 641, 21
386: \bibitem[Scodeggio et al.(1998)]{sco98} Scodeggio, M., Gavazzi, G., Belsole, E., Pierini, D., \& Boselli, A. 1998, \mnras, 301, 1001
387: \bibitem[Temi et al.(2008)]{tem08} Temi, P., Brighenti, F., \& Mathews, W. G. 2008, \apj, 672, 244
388: \bibitem[Treu et al.(2006)]{tre06} Treu, T., Koopmans, L. V. E., Bolton, A. S., Burles, S., \& Moustakas, L. A. 2006a, \apj, 640, 662
389: \bibitem[Trujillo et al.(2004)]{tru04} Trujillo, I., Burkert, A., \& Bell, E. F. 2004, \apjl, 600, L39
390: \end{thebibliography}
391: \end{document}
392: