1: % !iTeXMac(typeset): altpdflatex --keep-psfile ${iTMInput}
2: % !iTeXMac(compile): "./local Command"
3: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4: \documentclass[numberedappendix]{emulateapj}
5: \usepackage{apjfonts}
6: \usepackage{lscape}
7: \bibliographystyle{apj}
8:
9: %\newcommand{\rotator}{\rotate}
10: %\newcommand{\lscapeclose}{}
11: %\newcommand{\lscapeopen}{}
12: %\newcommand{\sizer}{\tabletypesize{\tiny}}
13: %\newcommand{\scaleup}{}
14: %\newcommand{\plotter}{\includegraphics[scale=0.70]}
15: %\newcommand{\plotterr}{\includegraphics[scale=0.50]}
16: %\newcommand{\breaker}{\clearpage}
17: %\newcommand{\longtabler}{}
18: %\newcommand{\tableast}{\ast}
19: %\newcommand{\appendixcolumns}{}
20: \newcommand{\rotator}{}
21: \newcommand{\lscapeclose}{\end{landscape}}
22: \newcommand{\lscapeopen}{\begin{landscape}}
23: \newcommand{\sizer}{\tabletypesize{\tiny}}
24: \newcommand{\scaleup}{\epsscale{1.1}}
25: \newcommand{\plotter}{\plotone}
26: \newcommand{\plotterr}{\plotone}
27: \newcommand{\breaker}{}
28: \newcommand{\tableast}{$\ast$}
29: \newcommand{\longtabler}{\LongTables}
30: \newcommand{\appendixcolumns}{\twocolumngrid}
31:
32: \newcommand{\tableset}{deluxetable}
33: \newcommand{\tableclear}{\clearpage}
34: \newcommand{\Mdot}{\dot{M}}
35: \newcommand{\mdot}{\dot{m}}
36: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.}
37: \newcommand{\mbh}{M_{\rm BH}}
38: \newcommand{\mstar}{M_{\ast}}
39: \newcommand{\msun}{M_{\sun}}
40: \newcommand{\lstar}{L_{\ast}}
41: \newcommand{\phistar}{\phi_{\ast}}
42: \newcommand{\pstar}{\phistar}
43: \newcommand{\reducedchi}{\chi^{2}/\nu}
44: \newcommand{\qeos}{q_{\rm eos}}
45: \newcommand{\fgas}{f_{\rm gas}}
46: \newcommand{\mdyn}{M_{\rm dyn}}
47: \newcommand{\re}{R_{\rm e}}
48: \newcommand{\fsb}{f_{\rm sb}}
49: \newcommand{\paperone}{Paper \textrm{I}}
50: \newcommand{\papertwo}{Paper \textrm{II}}
51: \newcommand{\dmu}{\sigma_{\mu}}
52: \newcommand{\Sersic}{S\'ersic}
53:
54: \shorttitle{Cusps in Elliptical Galaxies}
55: \shortauthors{Hopkins \etal}
56: \slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ, January 23, 2008}
57: \begin{document}
58:
59: \title{Dissipation and Extra Light in Galactic Nuclei: \textrm{II}.\ ``Cusp'' Ellipticals}
60: \author{Philip F. Hopkins\altaffilmark{1},
61: Thomas J. Cox\altaffilmark{1,2},
62: Suvendra N. Dutta\altaffilmark{1},
63: Lars Hernquist\altaffilmark{1},
64: John Kormendy\altaffilmark{3},
65: \&\ Tod R.\ Lauer\altaffilmark{4}
66: }
67: \altaffiltext{1}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,
68: 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}
69: \altaffiltext{2}{W.~M.\ Keck Postdoctoral Fellow at the
70: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics}
71: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy, University of Texas, 1
72: University Station, Austin, Texas 78712}
73: \altaffiltext{4}{National Optical Astronomy Observatory, Tucson, AZ 85726}
74:
75: \begin{abstract}
76:
77: We study the origin and properties of ``extra'' or ``excess'' central
78: light in the surface brightness profiles of cusp or power-law
79: elliptical galaxies. Dissipational mergers give rise to two-component
80: profiles: an outer profile established by violent relaxation
81: acting on stars already present in the progenitor galaxies prior to
82: the final stages of the merger, and an inner stellar
83: population comprising the extra light,
84: formed in a compact central starburst.
85: By combining a large set of hydrodynamical simulations with
86: data that span a broad range of profiles at
87: various masses, we show that observed cusp ellipticals appear
88: consistent with the predicted ``extra light'' structure,
89: and we use our simulations to motivate a two-component
90: description of the observations that allows us to
91: examine how the properties and mass of this component
92: scale with e.g.\ the mass, gas content, and other properties of the galaxies.
93: We show how to robustly separate the physically meaningful extra
94: light and outer, violently relaxed profile, and demonstrate that
95: the observed cusps and ``extra light'' are reliable tracers of the degree of
96: dissipation in the spheroid-forming merger.
97: We show that the typical degree of dissipation is a strong function of
98: stellar mass, roughly tracing the observed gas fractions of disks
99: of the same mass over the redshift range $z\sim0-2$.
100: We demonstrate a correlation between the strength of this
101: component and effective radius at fixed mass, in the sense that
102: systems with more dissipation are more compact,
103: sufficient to explain the discrepancy in the maximum phase-space
104: and mass densities of
105: ellipticals and their progenitor spirals.
106: We show that the outer shape of the light profile in simulated and observed systems
107: (when fit to properly account for the central light) does not depend
108: on mass, with a mean outer \Sersic\ index $\sim2.5$.
109: We also explore how this relates to e.g.\ the shapes, kinematic properties,
110: and stellar population gradients of
111: ellipticals. Extra light contributes to making remnants rounder and diskier,
112: and imprints stellar population gradients. Simulations with the gas content
113: needed to match observed surface brightness profiles reproduce the
114: observed age, metallicity, and color gradients of cusp ellipticals, and
115: we make predictions for how these can be used as tracers of the degree of dissipation
116: in spheroid formation.
117:
118: \end{abstract}
119:
120: \keywords{galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD --- galaxies: evolution ---
121: galaxies: formation --- galaxies: nuclei --- galaxies: structure ---
122: cosmology: theory}
123:
124:
125: \section{Introduction}
126: \label{sec:intro}
127:
128: Thirty years ago, \citet{toomre77} proposed the ``merger hypothesis,''
129: that major mergers between spirals could result in elliptical galaxies,
130: and the combination of detailed observations of
131: recent merger remnants \citep{schweizer82,LakeDressler86,Doyon94,ShierFischer98,James99,
132: Genzel01,tacconi:ulirgs.sb.profiles,dasyra:mass.ratio.conditions,dasyra:pg.qso.dynamics,
133: rj:profiles,rothberg.joseph:kinematics} and e.g.\ faint shells and tidal
134: features around ellipticals \citep{malin80,malin83,schweizer80,
135: schweizerseitzer92,schweizer96} have lent considerable
136: support to this picture \citep[e.g.][]{barneshernquist92}.
137: Furthermore, in the now established $\Lambda$CDM
138: cosmology, structure grows hierarchically \citep[e.g.][]{whiterees78}, making
139: mergers an inescapable element in galaxy formation.
140:
141: However, it has long been recognized
142: that purely dissipationless (collisionless) mergers of stellar
143: disks cannot explain the high mass and
144: phase-space densities of nearby ellipticals (especially
145: those of relatively low mass $\lesssim\lstar$), which
146: are far more dense than local
147: stellar disks of the same mass
148: \citep{ostriker80,carlberg:phase.space,gunn87,kormendy:dissipation}. Of course,
149: spiral galaxies are not purely collisionless systems, but contain
150: interstellar gas in addition to stars and dark matter.
151: Furthermore, most ellipticals have old stellar populations, implying
152: that their last gas-rich mergers occurred at $z\gtrsim1$, and therefore
153: their progenitors may be high-redshift spirals. These
154: were likely more dense than nearby spirals, and observational
155: evidence \citep{erb:lbg.gasmasses} indicates they
156: had even larger gas fractions than their present-day
157: counterparts ($f_{\rm gas}\sim0.5$, with some
158: approaching $f_{\rm gas}\sim0.8-0.9$). Because gas
159: can radiate, it is not subject to Liouville's Theorem, and
160: processes related to gas dynamics and
161: star formation can reconcile the high phase space densities of
162: ellipticals relative to spirals
163: \citep{gunn87,lake:merger.remnant.phase.space,schweizer98}.
164: In detail,
165: \citet{hernquist:phasespace} estimated that $\sim10\%$
166: of the stellar mass must be added in a compact dissipational
167: component to account for the central densities of typical ellipticals.
168:
169: The possible importance of gas dynamics and triggered star formation in
170: mergers is reinforced by observations of ultraluminous infrared
171: galaxies (ULIRGs)
172: \citep[e.g.][]{soifer84a,soifer84b}, which are always associated
173: with mergers in the local Universe \citep{joseph85,sanders96:ulirgs.mergers}.
174: The infrared emission from
175: ULIRGs is thought to be powered by intense starbursts in the nuclei of
176: these objects, originating in compact, central concentrations of gas
177: \citep[e.g.][]{scoville86, sargent87,sargent89}, which will leave
178: dense stellar remnants \citep{kormendysanders92,hibbard.yun:excess.light,rj:profiles}.
179: Moreover, observations of merging systems and gas-rich merger remnants
180: \citep[e.g.,][]{LakeDressler86,Doyon94,ShierFischer98,James99}, as
181: well as post-starburst (E+A/K+A) galaxies
182: \citep{goto:e+a.merger.connection}, have shown that their kinematic
183: and photometric properties are consistent with them eventually
184: evolving into typical $\sim L_{\ast}$ elliptical galaxies. The
185: correlations obeyed by these mergers and remnants
186: \citep[e.g.,][and references
187: above]{Genzel01,rothberg.joseph:kinematics,rothberg.joseph:rotation}
188: are similar to e.g.\ the observed fundamental plane and
189: \citet{kormendy77:correlations}
190: relations for relaxed ellipticals, and consistent with evolution onto
191: these relations as their stellar populations age, as well as the
192: clustering and mass density of ellipticals \citep{hopkins:clustering}.
193:
194: The link between these processes and the formation of ellipticals
195: may be manifest in their surface brightness profiles.
196: Early work by e.g.\
197: \citet{kormendy77:photometry,king78,young78,lauer:85} and
198: \citet{kormendy85:profiles} \citep[see][for a review]{kormendy:cores.review}
199: showed
200: that typical elliptical surface brightness
201: profiles were not as simple as uniform $r^{1/4}$ laws.
202: Typically, central profiles interior to $\sim1\,$kpc
203: deviate from $r^{1/4}$ laws fitted to the envelopes of ellipticals,
204: falling both above and below the
205: inward extrapolation of the $r^{1/4}$ law.
206: Contemporaneously with the discovery of black
207: hole-host galaxy correlations \citep[e.g.][]{KormendyRichstone95,fm00,Gebhardt00},
208: {\em Hubble Space Telescope}
209: observations of the centers of elliptical galaxies established that
210: typical $\lesssim \lstar $ ellipticals exhibit
211: central ``cusps'' -- i.e.\ a continued rise in
212: power-law like fashion towards small radii \citep{lauer91,lauer92:m32,crane93,
213: ferrarese:type12,kormendy94:review,lauer:95,kormendy99},
214: whereas the most massive ellipticals appear to exhibit central
215: flattening or ``cores.''
216: \citet{kormendy99} demonstrated in a number of cases that these
217: ``cusps'' appeared in some sense to be ``extra'' light, i.e.\ a distinct
218: component above the inward extrapolation of the outer profile measured
219: at large radii.
220: With the combination of
221: HST and ground-based photometry \citep{jk:profiles}, it now appears that this
222: excess is ubiquitous in ``cuspy'' or ``power-law'' ellipticals,
223: with mass ranges and spatial extents comparable to those
224: expected from observations of ongoing merger-induced
225: starbursts \citep{hibbard.yun:excess.light,rj:profiles}
226: and numerical simulations \citep{mihos:cusps,hopkins:cusps.mergers}.
227:
228: \citet{faber:ell.centers} showed that the presence or
229: absence of a cusp or power-law nuclear profile is strongly correlated
230: with other, global properties of ellipticals -- cusp ellipticals
231: tend to be more rotationally supported, diskier, and have
232: slightly higher ellipticities.
233: They argued that these differences reinforce the idea that at least the
234: cusp\footnote{There are some differences in the literature in
235: the use of the term ``cusp ellipticals.'' Unless otherwise stated, we will use
236: it to refer to ellipticals without a central resolved core/flattening --
237: i.e.\ ``power-law'' ellipticals.}
238: ellipticals are the direct product of gas-rich
239: mergers, with dissipation forming the central ``cusp'' and
240: giving rise to correlated kinematic and photometric properties.
241: The central excess or ``extra light'' in these cases
242: may therefore represent a distinct imprint of the degree of dissipation in
243: the spheroid-forming merger.
244:
245: Numerical modeling over the past twenty years has also indicated that
246: gas physics and star formation play key roles in shaping elliptical
247: galaxies and has elucidated the relationship of mergers to the various
248: phenomena described above.
249: The possible relevance of these additional processes was anticipated
250: already by \citet{toomre72}, who asked whether mergers would not
251: ``... tend to bring {\it deep} into a galaxy a fairly {\it sudden}
252: supply of fresh fuel in the form of interstellar material ...''
253: \citet{barnes.hernquist.91,barneshernquist96} showed that tidal
254: torques excited during {\it major} mergers excite rapid inflows of gas
255: into the centers of galaxies, providing the fuel to power intense
256: starbursts \citep{mihos:starbursts.94, mihos:starbursts.96} and to
257: feed rapid black hole growth \citep{dimatteo:msigma,hopkins:lifetimes.letter,
258: hopkins:lifetimes.methods}.
259: Gas consumption
260: by the starburst and dispersal of residual gas by supernova-driven
261: winds and feedback from black hole growth
262: \citep{springel:red.galaxies}, culminating in a pressure-driven
263: blast-wave \citep[e.g.][]{hopkins:faint.slope,hopkins:seyferts},
264: terminate star formation so that the
265: remnant quickly evolves from a blue to a red galaxy.
266: Provided that the interaction involved a
267: ``major'' merger,\footnote{In a major merger, tidal forces are
268: sufficiently strong to drive nuclear inflows of gas and build
269: realistic spheroids. The precise meaning of major merger in this
270: context is blurred by a degeneracy between the progenitor mass ratio
271: and the orbit
272: \citep{hernquist.89,hernquist.mihos:minor.mergers,bournaud:minor.mergers},
273: but both numerical \citep{younger:minor.mergers} and observational
274: \citep{dasyra:mass.ratio.conditions,woods:tidal.triggering} studies
275: indicate that massive inflows of gas and morphological transformation
276: are typical for mass ratios only below $\sim 3:1$. Unless otherwise
277: noted, we generally take the term ``mergers'' to refer to major
278: mergers.} the remnant will resemble an elliptical galaxy, with the
279: bulk of its mass on large scales made from progenitor stars which
280: experienced violent relaxation
281: \citep[e.g.][]{barnes:disk.halo.mergers,barnes:disk.disk.mergers,
282: hernquist:bulgeless.mergers,hernquist:bulge.mergers},
283: and the dissipation-induced starburst
284: appropriately boosting the concentration and central phase space
285: density \citep{hernquist:phasespace,robertson:fp,naab:gas,cox:kinematics}.
286: Moreover, \citet{mihos:cusps}
287: predicted that this process should leave an observable signature
288: in the surface brightness profiles of remnants, in the form of an
289: upwards departure from the outer \citet{devaucouleurs} $r^{1/4}$-law
290: distribution in the inner regions: i.e. a central ``extra
291: light'' above the inwards extrapolation of the outer profile.
292:
293: Understanding the processes responsible for establishing the
294: structural properties of ellipticals and their correlations has the
295: potential of revealing the formation histories of these objects.
296: However, notwithstanding major observational and numerical advances,
297: little effort has been made to use the extra light content of
298: ellipticals in this manner, and most studies have restricted
299: their focus to
300: determining whether or not some extra light component is evident.
301: This owes largely to the absence of a detailed theoretical framework:
302: while the original work of \citet{mihos:cusps}
303: predicted that such cusps should
304: exist, a more refined treatment of star formation and feedback, along
305: with better resolution, is required for more detailed interpretation
306: and modeling. For example, owing to limited spatial and
307: temporal resolution and
308: a simplified treatment of star formation, the ``extra light'' profiles
309: predicted by
310: \citet{mihos:cusps} generally exhibited much more severe breaks
311: than predicted by state-of-the-art simulations and seen in
312: recent observations (see Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix:resolution}).
313: There have been considerable improvements in these areas in recent
314: years \citep[e.g.][]{springel:multiphase,springel:models,cox:feedback}, and we take
315: advantage of these refinements here, and in companion papers,
316: \citet{hopkins:cusps.mergers} (hereafter \paperone) and
317: \citet{hopkins:cores,hopkins:cusps.fp}, to study galaxy
318: cusps or extra light in both simulations and observed systems. Our
319: objective in this effort is to identify the existence and understand
320: the origin of different components that contribute to the surface
321: density profiles of ellipticals, their cosmological scalings and
322: relevance for the formation history of such galaxies, and their
323: implications for global galaxy properties.
324:
325: In this paper, we focus on the extra light in our simulations and in
326: known cuspy elliptical galaxies. In \S~\ref{sec:sims} and
327: \S~\ref{sec:data} we describe our set of gas-rich merger simulations
328: and the observational data sets we consider, respectively. In
329: \S~\ref{sec:fits}, we compare different approaches for fitting the
330: surface density profile, and attempt to calibrate various methods in
331: order to recover the physically distinct (dissipational versus
332: dissipationless) components in merger remnants. In \S~\ref{sec:obs}
333: we compare our simulations with and apply our fitted galaxy
334: decomposition to a wide range of observed systems. In
335: \S~\ref{sec:properties} we use these comparisons to study how
336: structural parameters of the outer stellar light and inner extra light
337: component scale with galaxy properties. In \S~\ref{sec:structural.fx}
338: we examine how the existence and strength of the extra light component
339: is related to galaxy structure, global shape and rotation, and
340: show that it
341: drives galaxies along the fundamental plane. We investigate how this
342: extra light component influences and is related to stellar population
343: gradients in ellipticals in \S~\ref{sec:ssp.fx}. Finally,
344: in \S~\ref{sec:discuss} we discuss our results and outline future
345: explorations of these correlations.
346:
347: Throughout, we adopt a $\Omega_{\rm M}=0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$,
348: $H_{0}=70\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$ cosmology, and appropriately
349: normalize all observations and models shown, but this has
350: little effect on our conclusions. We also adopt a
351: \citet{chabrier:imf} initial mass function (IMF), and convert all
352: stellar masses and mass-to-light ratios to this choice. The exact IMF
353: systematically shifts the normalization of stellar masses herein, but
354: does not substantially change our comparisons. All magnitudes are in
355: the Vega system, unless otherwise specified.
356:
357:
358: \section{The Simulations}
359: \label{sec:sims}
360:
361: Our merger simulations were performed with the parallel TreeSPH code
362: {\small GADGET-2} \citep{springel:gadget}, based on a fully conservative
363: formulation \citep{springel:entropy} of smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH),
364: which conserves energy and entropy simultaneously even when smoothing
365: lengths evolve adaptively \citep[see e.g.,][]{hernquist:sph.cautions,oshea:sph.tests}.
366: Our simulations account for radiative cooling, optional heating by
367: a UV background \citep[as in][although it
368: is not important for the masses of interest here]{katz:treesph,dave:lyalpha}, and
369: incorporate a sub-resolution model of a multiphase interstellar medium
370: (ISM) to describe star formation and supernova feedback \citep{springel:multiphase}.
371: Feedback from supernovae is captured in this sub-resolution model
372: through an effective equation of state for star-forming gas, enabling
373: us to stably evolve disks with arbitrary gas fractions \citep[see, e.g.][]{springel:models,
374: springel:spiral.in.merger,robertson:disk.formation,robertson:msigma.evolution}.
375: This is described by the parameter $\qeos$,
376: which ranges from $\qeos=0$ for an isothermal gas with effective
377: temperature of $10^4$ K, to $\qeos=1$ for our full multiphase model
378: with an effective temperature $\sim10^5$ K. We also compare with a subset of
379: simulations which adopt the star formation and feedback prescriptions
380: from \citet{mihos:cusps,mihos:starbursts.94,mihos:starbursts.96}, in which the ISM is treated as a
381: single-phase isothermal medium and feedback energy is deposited in a
382: purely kinetic radial impulse (for details,
383: see, e.g.\ \cite{mihos:method}).
384:
385: Although we find that they make little difference to
386: the extra light component, most of our simulations include
387: supermassive black holes at the centers of both progenitor galaxies.
388: The black holes are represented by ``sink'' particles
389: that accrete gas at a rate $\Mdot$ estimated from the local gas
390: density and sound speed using an Eddington-limited prescription based
391: on Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretion theory. The bolometric luminosity
392: of the black hole is taken to be $L_{\rm bol}=\epsilon_{r}\dot{M}\,c^{2}$,
393: where $\epsilon_r=0.1$ is the radiative efficiency. We assume that a
394: small fraction (typically $\approx 5\%$) of $L_{\rm bol}$ couples dynamically
395: to the surrounding gas, and that this feedback is injected into the
396: gas as thermal energy, weighted by the SPH smoothing kernel. This
397: fraction is a free parameter, which we determine as in \citet{dimatteo:msigma}
398: by matching the observed $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation. For now, we do
399: not resolve the small-scale dynamics of the gas in the immediate
400: vicinity of the black hole, but assume that the time-averaged
401: accretion rate can be estimated from the gas properties on the scale
402: of our spatial resolution (roughly $\approx 20$\,pc, in the best
403: cases). In any case, repeating our analysis for simulations with no black
404: holes yields identical conclusions.
405:
406: The progenitor galaxy models are described in
407: \citet{springel:models}, and we review their properties here. For each
408: simulation, we generate two stable, isolated disk galaxies, each with
409: an extended dark matter halo with a \citet{hernquist:profile} profile,
410: motivated by cosmological simulations \citep{nfw:profile,busha:halomass},
411: an exponential disk of gas and stars, and (optionally) a
412: bulge. The galaxies have total masses $M_{\rm vir}=V_{\rm
413: vir}^{3}/(10GH[z])$ for an initial redshift $z$, with the baryonic disk having a mass
414: fraction $m_{\rm d}=0.041$, the bulge (when present) having $m_{\rm
415: b}=0.0136$, and the rest of the mass in dark matter. The dark matter
416: halos are assigned a
417: concentration parameter scaled as in \citet{robertson:msigma.evolution} appropriately for the
418: galaxy mass and redshift following \citet{bullock:concentrations}. We have also
419: varied the concentration in a subset of simulations, and find it has little
420: effect on our conclusions because the central regions of the
421: galaxy are baryon-dominated.
422: The disk scale-length is computed
423: based on an assumed spin parameter $\lambda=0.033$, chosen to be near
424: the mode in the $\lambda$ distribution measured in simulations \citep{vitvitska:spin},
425: and the scale-length of the bulge is set to $0.2$ times this. Modulo explicit
426: variation in these parameters, these choices ensure that the initial disks
427: are consistent with e.g.\ the observed baryonic
428: Tully-Fisher relation and estimated halo-galaxy mass
429: scaling laws \citep[][and references therein]{belldejong:tf,kormendyfreeman:scaling,
430: mandelbaum:mhalo}.
431:
432: Typically, each galaxy initially consists of 168000 dark matter halo
433: particles, 8000 bulge particles (when present), 40000 gas and 40000
434: stellar disk particles, and one black hole
435: (BH) particle. We vary the numerical
436: resolution, with many simulations using twice, and a subset up to 128
437: times, as many particles. We choose the initial seed
438: mass of the black hole either in accord with the observed $M_{\rm
439: BH}$-$\sigma$ relation or to be sufficiently small that its presence
440: will not have an immediate dynamical effect, but we have varied the seed
441: mass to identify any systematic dependencies. Given the particle
442: numbers employed, the dark matter, gas, and star particles are all of
443: roughly equal mass, and central cusps in the dark matter and bulge
444: are reasonably well resolved.
445: The typical gravitational
446: softening in our simulations is $\sim20-50\,$pc in the
447: $\lesssim L_{\ast}$ systems of particular interest here,
448: with a somewhat higher $\sim50-100\,$pc in the most massive
449: systems (yielding an effectively constant resolution $\sim 0.01\,R_{e}$
450: in terms of the effective radius). In \paperone\ and Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix:resolution}
451: we demonstrate that this is sufficient to properly resolve not only the mass
452: fractions but also the spatial extent of the extra light components of
453: interest here (although resolution may become an issue when attempting to
454: model the very smallest galaxies, with $R_{e}\lesssim100$\,pc and
455: $L<0.01\,L_{\ast}$, as discussed in \S~\ref{sec:obs}). The hydrodynamic
456: gas smoothing length in the peak starburst phases of interest is
457: always smaller than this gravitational softening.
458:
459: We consider a series of several hundred simulations of colliding
460: galaxies, described in \citet{robertson:fp,robertson:msigma.evolution} and
461: \citet{cox:xray.gas,cox:kinematics}. We vary the numerical resolution, the orbit of the
462: encounter (disk inclinations, pericenter separation), the masses and
463: structural properties of the merging galaxies, initial gas fractions,
464: halo concentrations, the parameters describing star formation and
465: feedback from supernovae and black hole growth, and initial black hole
466: masses.
467:
468: The progenitor galaxies have virial velocities $V_{\rm vir}=55, 80, 113, 160,
469: 226, 320,$ and $500\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$, and redshifts $z=0, 2, 3, {\rm
470: and}\ 6$, and our simulations span a range in final spheroid stellar mass
471: $M_{\ast}\sim10^{8}-10^{13}\,M_{\sun}$, covering essentially the
472: entire range of the observations we consider at all redshifts, and
473: allowing us to identify any systematic dependencies in our models. We
474: consider initial disk gas fractions by mass of $\fgas = 0.05,\ 0.1,\ 0.2,\ 0.4,\ 0.6,\
475: 0.8,\ {\rm and}\ 1.0$ (defined as the fraction of disk baryonic mass which is gas)
476: for several choices of virial velocities,
477: redshifts, and ISM equations of state. The results described in this
478: paper are based primarily on simulations of equal-mass mergers;
479: however, by examining a small set of simulations of unequal mass
480: mergers, we find that the behavior does not change dramatically for
481: mass ratios to about 3:1 or 4:1. The mass ratios we study are appropriate for the
482: observations of ellipticals used in this paper, which are only formed
483: in our simulations in major merger events. At higher mass ratios,
484: the result is a small bulge in a still disk-dominated galaxy
485: \citep[see e.g.][]{younger:minor.mergers,hopkins:disk.survival,
486: hopkins:disk.heating},
487: which we do not study here.
488:
489: Each simulation is evolved until the merger is complete and the remnants are
490: fully relaxed, typically $\sim1-2$\,Gyr after the final merger
491: and coalescence of the BHs. We then analyze the
492: remnants following \citet{cox:kinematics}, in a manner designed to mirror
493: the methods typically used by observers. For each remnant, we project the
494: stars onto a plane as if observed from a particular direction, and consider
495: 100 viewing angles to each remnant, which uniformly sample the unit sphere.
496: Given the projected stellar mass distribution, we calculate the iso-density contours
497: and fit ellipses
498: to each (fitting major and minor
499: axis radii and hence ellipticity at each iso-density contour),
500: moving concentrically from $r=0$ until the entire stellar mass
501: has been enclosed. This is designed to mimic observational isophotal fitting
502: algorithms \citep[e.g.][]{bender:87.a4,bender:88.shapes}. The radial deviations
503: of the iso-density contours from the fitted ellipses are
504: expanded in a Fourier series in the standard fashion to determine
505: the boxyness or diskyness of each contour (the $a_{4}$ parameter).
506: Throughout, we show profiles and quote our results in
507: terms of the major axis radius. For further details, we refer to \citet{cox:kinematics}.
508:
509: We directly extract the effective radius $\re$ as the projected half-mass stellar
510: effective radius, and the velocity dispersion $\sigma$ as the average
511: one-dimensional velocity dispersion within a circular
512: aperture of radius $\re$. This differs from what is sometimes adopted
513: in the literature, where $\re$ is determined from the best-fitting
514: \Sersic\ profile, but because
515: we are fitting \Sersic\ profiles to the observed systems we usually quote both the
516: true effective radius of the galaxy and effective radii of the fitted \Sersic\ components.
517: Throughout, the stellar mass $M_{\ast}$ refers to the total stellar mass of the galaxy, and
518: the dynamical mass $\mdyn$ refers to the
519: traditional dynamical mass estimator
520: \begin{equation}
521: \mdyn\equiv k\,\frac{\sigma^{2}\,\re}{G},
522: \end{equation}
523: where we adopt $k=3.8$ (roughly what is
524: expected for a \citet{hernquist:profile} profile, and the choice that most accurately
525: matches the true enclosed stellar plus dark matter mass within $\re$ in our
526: simulations;
527: although this choice is irrelevant as long as we apply it
528: uniformly to both observations and simulations).
529: When we plot quantities such as $\re$, $\sigma$, and $\mdyn$, we
530: typically show just
531: the median value for each simulation across all $\sim100$ sightlines. The sightline-to-sightline
532: variation in these quantities is typically smaller than the
533: simulation-to-simulation scatter, but we explicitly note where it is large.
534:
535:
536:
537: \section{The Data}
538: \label{sec:data}
539:
540: We compare our simulations to and test our predictions on an ensemble
541: of observed surface brightness profiles of ellipticals. Specifically,
542: we consider three samples of cusp or extra light ellipticals
543: and a compilation of remnants of recent gas-rich mergers. The first
544: is the $V$-band Virgo elliptical survey of \citet{jk:profiles}, based
545: on the complete sample of Virgo galaxies down to extremely faint
546: systems $M_{B}\sim-15$ in \citet{binggeli:vcc}
547: \citep[the same sample studied in][]{cote:virgo,ferrarese:profiles}.
548: \citet{jk:profiles} combine observations from a
549: large number of sources
550: \citep[including][]{bender:data,bender:06,caon90,caon:profiles,davis:85,jedrzejewski:87,
551: jedrzejewski:87b,kormendy:05,
552: lauer:85,lauer:95,lauer:centers,liu:05,peletier:profiles}
553: and new photometry from McDonald Observatory, the HST archive, and
554: the SDSS
555: for each of their objects which (after careful conversion to a single
556: photometric standard) enables accurate surface brightness measurements
557: over a wide dynamic range (with an estimated
558: zero-point accuracy of $\pm0.04\,V\,{\rm mag\, arcsec^{-2}}$).
559: Typically, the galaxies in this sample have
560: profiles spanning $\sim12-15$ magnitudes in surface brightness,
561: corresponding to a range of nearly four orders of magnitude in
562: physical radii from $\sim10\,$pc to $\sim100\,$kpc, permitting the
563: best simultaneous constraints on the shapes of both the outer and
564: inner profiles of any of the objects we study. The profiles include
565: e.g.\ ellipticity, $a_{4}/a$, and $g-z$ colors as a function of
566: radius.
567: Unfortunately, since this is restricted to Virgo ellipticals,
568: the number of galaxies is limited, especially at the intermediate and high end of the
569: mass function.
570:
571: We therefore add surface brightness profiles from \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles},
572: further supplemented by \citet{bender:data}.
573: \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles} compile $V$-band measurements of a
574: large number of nearby systems for which HST imaging of the galactic
575: nuclei is available. These include the
576: \citet{lauer:centers} WFPC2 data-set, the \citet{laine:03} WFPC2 BCG
577: sample (in which the objects are specifically selected as brightest
578: cluster galaxies from \citet{postmanlauer:95}), and the \citet{lauer:95}
579: and \citet{faber:ell.centers} WFPC1 compilations
580: \citep[see also][]{quillen:00,rest:01,ravindranath:01}.
581: Details
582: of the treatment of the profiles and conversion to a single standard
583: are given in \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles}.
584: The sample includes ellipticals over
585: a wide range of luminosities, down to $M_{B}\sim-15$, but is dominated
586: by intermediate and giant ellipticals, with typical magnitudes $M_{B}
587: \lesssim -18$. This therefore greatly extends our sampling of the
588: intermediate and
589: high-mass end of the mass function, but at the cost of some dynamic
590: range in the data. The HST images alone,
591: while providing information on the central regions, typically extend
592: to only $\sim1$\,kpc outer radii, which is insufficient to fit the
593: outer profile. \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles}
594: therefore combine these data with ground-based
595: measurements from a number of sources (see the references for the
596: \citet{jk:profiles} sample) to construct profiles that typically span
597: physical radii from $\sim10\,$pc to $\sim10-20$\,kpc. Although the
598: composite profiles
599: were used in \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles} to estimate effective radii, they were not
600: actually shown in the paper.
601: It should also be noted that there is
602: no single criterion that characterizes galaxies included in this
603: sample, but they generally
604: comprise luminous nearby ellipticals and S0 galaxies for which
605: detailed imaging is available. We emphasize that issues of completeness
606: and e.g.\ environment are not important for any of our conclusions.
607:
608: We occasionally
609: supplement the profiles from \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles} with additional
610: profiles used in \citet{bender:data,bender:ell.kinematics,bender:ell.kinematics.a4,
611: bender:velocity.structure}, and in some cases subsequently updated.
612: These are more limited: typically the profiles cover $\sim7$ magnitudes in
613: surface brightness, extending from $\sim30-50\,$pc out to $\sim$ a few
614: kpc (typically $\sim3$\,kpc in low-luminosity systems, and $\sim
615: 15$\,kpc in the brightest systems, sufficient for acceptable, but not
616: strong constraints on the outer profile shapes).
617: However, the measurements are usually
618: in each of the $V$, $R$, and $I$ bands, and hence allow us to
619: construct multicolor surface brightness, ellipticity, and $a_{4}/a$
620: profiles. We use this to estimate e.g.\ the
621: sensitivity of the fitted parameters
622: and galaxy profiles on the observed waveband and on the
623: quality and dynamic range of the photometry.
624:
625: In various places, we compare our results from the study of these ellipticals
626: to our results in \paperone\ from a study of local remnants of gas-rich
627: merger remnants \citep{rj:profiles}. For these objects, \citet{rj:profiles} compile
628: $K$-band imaging, surface brightness, ellipticity, and $a_{4}/a$
629: profiles, where the profiles typically range from $\sim100\,$pc
630: to $\sim10-20$\,kpc. These span a moderate range in luminosity
631: (including objects from $M_{K}\sim-20$ to $M_{K}\sim-27$, but with
632: most from $M_{K}\sim-24$ to $M_{K}\sim-26$) and a wide range in merger
633: stage, from ULIRGs and (a few) unrelaxed systems to shell
634: ellipticals. As demonstrated in \citet{rj:profiles} and
635: argued in \paperone, these systems will almost all
636: become (or already are, depending on the classification scheme used)
637: typical $\sim \lstar$ ellipticals, with appropriate phase space
638: densities, surface brightness profiles, fundamental plane relations,
639: kinematics, and other properties. For a detailed discussion of the modeling
640: of these systems and the profiles themselves, we refer to \paperone\
641: (all of the results shown for these systems are derived therein). We
642: show the results from \paperone\ here in order to test the continuity of
643: merger remnant and (cusp) elliptical populations.
644:
645: Because we are here specifically interested in extra light or cusps in
646: observed ellipticals, and because the generally accepted belief is
647: that core ellipticals are not directly formed in
648: gas-rich major mergers but are
649: subsequently modified by dry re-mergers
650: \citep[see e.g.][]{faber:ell.centers,
651: vandokkum:dry.mergers,bell:dry.mergers}, we restrict our attention
652: only to those ellipticals which are confirmed via HST observations as
653: being cusp ellipticals.
654: We include all the
655: confirmed gas-rich merger remnants, but note there are a small number
656: of extreme unrelaxed cases for which sharp features in the surface
657: brightness profiles prevented derivation of meaningful quantities
658: (note, however, as shown in \paperone, that almost all of the objects
659: in this sample are sufficiently well-relaxed at the radii of interest
660: for our fitting). We exclude dwarf spheroidals, as they are not
661: believed to form in major mergers as are ellipticals \citep[e.g.][]{kormendy:spheroidal1,
662: kormendy:spheroidal2,jk:profiles},
663: and in any case they dominate at
664: extremely low masses where our simulations do not sample the
665: population (they also predominate as satellite galaxies, whose effects
666: we do not model).
667:
668: We also exclude S0 galaxies (adopting the morphological
669: classifications from \citet{jk:profiles} and \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles},
670: although it makes little difference exactly which classifications we
671: consider). This is not because of a physical
672: distinction: observations suggest that these likely form a continuous
673: family with the low-luminosity cusp ellipticals, and in fact a number
674: of our simulated gas-rich merger remnants would, from certain viewing
675: angles, be classified as S0s. However, in order to derive e.g.\ the
676: parameters of the outer, violently relaxed profile and central extra
677: light, it would be necessary to remove the contribution of the
678: large-scale disk from the surface brightness profiles of these
679: objects. Our two-component (outer dissipationless and inner
680: dissipational) \Sersic\ models (described in \S~\ref{sec:fits}) then
681: become three-component fits, and the degeneracies involved with three
682: independent components, even with our best data and simulations, are
683: so large as to render the results meaningless. We have, however,
684: re-visited all of the S0s in these samples in light of our results,
685: and find that they are, in all cases, consistent with our predicted
686: and observed trends. However, it is too difficult to infer these
687: trends directly from the S0s themselves without ideal disk
688: subtraction.
689:
690: This yields a final sample of $\approx 80$ unique elliptical
691: galaxies, and $\approx 50$ confirmed remnants of gas-rich mergers. Most of the
692: sample spans a range of three orders of magnitude in stellar mass,
693: from $\lesssim0.1\,\mstar$ to $\sim10\,\mstar$, and a wide range in
694: extra light properties. There is, of course, some overlap in the
695: samples that define our compilation; we have
696: $\sim300$ surface brightness profiles for our collection of $\approx80$ unique
697: ellipticals, including (for many objects) repeated measurements in
698: multiple bands and with various instruments.
699: This turns out to be quite useful, as
700: it provides a means to quantify error estimates in fits to these
701: profiles. The variations between fit parameters
702: derived from observations
703: in different bands or made using different
704: instruments are usually much larger than the formal statistical errors in the
705: fits to a single profile. There are no obvious systematic effects
706: (i.e.\ systematic changes in profile fits from $V$ to $I$ band), but as
707: demonstrated in \paperone\ the effects of
708: using different bands or changing
709: dynamic range (from different instruments) can be complex, depending
710: on the structure and degree of relaxation of the outer regions of a
711: system. On the other hand, there are well-relaxed objects for which
712: almost no significant change in the fits occurs from band to band.
713: It is therefore useful to have multiple observations of the same system,
714: as it allows us to get some idea of how sensitive our fits are to
715: differences in e.g.\ the choice of observed wavelength or dynamic
716: range from instrument to instrument.
717:
718: In Table~\ref{tbl:cusp.fits}, we list the names and properties of our
719: sample ellipticals, including the relevant sources of
720: photometry, stellar masses, absolute magnitudes, stellar
721: velocity dispersions and effective radii, ellipticities, isophotal shapes,
722: and rotation properties.
723: We have converted all the observations to
724: physical units given our adopted cosmology,
725: and compile global parameters (where not available in the original papers)
726: including e.g.\ kinematic properties, luminosities, and black hole masses
727: from the literature.
728: We determine stellar masses ourselves in a uniform manner for
729: all the objects, based on their total $K$-band luminosities and
730: $(B-V)$ color-dependent mass-to-light ratios from \citet{bell:mfs},
731: corrected for our adopted IMF. We have
732: also repeated our analysis using stellar masses derived from a
733: mean $M/L$ as a function of luminosity or from fitting
734: the integrated $UBVRIJHK$ photometry of each object to a
735: single stellar population with the models of \citet{BC03}, and
736: find this makes no difference to our conclusions.
737:
738: Throughout, we will usually refer interchangeably to the observed surface
739: brightness profiles in the given bands and the surface stellar mass
740: density profile. Of course, stellar light is not exactly the same as
741: stellar mass, but in \paperone\ and \S~\ref{sec:ssp.fx} herein,
742: we consider the differences between
743: the stellar light and the stellar mass density profiles as a function
744: of time, wavelength, and properties of the merger remnant, and show
745: that the $V$ and $K$-band results introduce little bias (i.e.\ are good tracers of
746: the stellar mass); the \Sersic\ indices and extra light fractions fitted
747: to the $K$-band profiles of the simulations are good proxies for the
748: \Sersic\ index of the stellar mass profile and extra mass/starburst mass
749: fraction, even close in time to the peak episode of star formation.
750:
751: Although we are not concerned about the
752: absolute normalization of the profile (i.e.\ mean $M/L$), since we
753: derive total stellar masses separately from the integrated photometry,
754: we must account for systematics that might be induced by a change in
755: $M/L$ as a function of radius.
756: The results from our merger remnant
757: sample (observed in $K$-band) are, on average, robust in
758: this sense, but they
759: should be treated with care, especially in the most
760: extreme cases (namely the few LIRGs and ULIRGs in the sample),
761: where younger stellar populations may decrease $M/L$ towards their center
762: (see \S~\ref{sec:ssp.fx}).
763: We emphasize though that many of these systems are much
764: older and more relaxed (e.g.\ ellipticals
765: with faint shells or tidal debris).
766: The profiles in optical bands such as
767: $V$ require more care -- when the system is very young ($\lesssim
768: 1-2$\,Gyr after the major merger-induced peak of star formation),
769: there can be considerable bias or uncertainty owing to stellar
770: population gradients and dust. However, once the system is relaxed,
771: the optical bands also become good proxies for the stellar mass
772: distribution.
773:
774: In fact, in \paperone\ and \S~\ref{sec:ssp.fx} we demonstrate that once the system reaches
775: intermediate age, the bias in e.g.\ $B$ or $V$ band is often less than
776: that in $K$ band, because systems tend to be both younger and more
777: metal rich in their centers. In $K$-band,
778: these both increase $L/M$, leading to a (small) systematic bias. In
779: optical bands, however, the two have opposite effects (younger age
780: increases $L/M$, but higher metallicity decreases $L/M$), and they
781: tend to mostly cancel.
782: Since essentially all of our ellipticals are older than this stellar population
783: age (even in their centers), and they have been carefully vetted and
784: either corrected for
785: the effects of e.g.\ dust lanes in the sources
786: or (where correction was too difficult) excluded from our samples
787: \citep[see][]{jk:profiles,lauer:bimodal.profiles}, we are not concerned that
788: significant bias might persist. Furthermore, comparison of systems
789: observed in different bands demonstrates that our conclusions are
790: unchanged (modulo small systematic offsets) regardless of the observed
791: bands in which we analyze these systems. As has been noted
792: in other works,
793: most of these objects have weak color gradients, indicating little
794: variation in $M/L$ with radius.
795:
796:
797:
798: \section{Recovering the Physically Appropriate ``Extra Light''}
799: \label{sec:fits}
800:
801: \begin{figure*}
802: \centering
803: %\plotone{demo_fit_a.ps}
804: \plotone{f1.ps}
805: \caption{{\em Upper Left:} Surface mass density of a typical merger
806: remnant from our simulation library (black),
807: decomposed into stars formed prior to the final merger (which
808: are then violently relaxed; red) and stars formed in the
809: dissipational starburst (blue). The \Sersic\ index fitted to the pre-starburst component
810: alone is shown, with the stellar mass fraction of the
811: starburst component. {\em Upper Right:} Two-component (\Sersic\ plus
812: cusp or extra light) fit (inner exponential
813: and outer \Sersic) to the total light profile, with the \Sersic\ index of the outer component
814: and mass fraction of the inner component, and rms scatter ($\dmu$, in ${\rm mag\,arcsec^{-2}}$)
815: about the
816: fit. {\em Lower Left:} Single \Sersic\ function fit to the profile. {\em Lower Right:}
817: Core-\Sersic\ function fit. Our two-component,
818: cusp plus \Sersic\ function fit ({\em top right}) accurately
819: recovers the profile of the violently relaxed component and mass fraction
820: of the starburst component. The other fits give
821: less intuitive results in this case.
822: \label{fig:demo.fit.danger}}
823: \end{figure*}
824:
825: We would like to use the surface brightness profiles of merger
826: remnants to estimate the contribution from extra light and, in
827: particular, to infer the fraction of stellar mass that was formed in a
828: compact central starburst. However, as noted in \paperone, the light
829: profiles in our simulation remnants are quite smooth, even where the
830: extra light fraction is large. This makes recovering the extra light
831: component a non-trivial procedure, which can be sensitive to the
832: assumptions made in fitting \citep[see also][]{naab:profiles}.
833: We discuss various procedures and their
834: consequences in \paperone, but briefly review them to highlight the
835: most important decomposition we will adopt.
836:
837: Figure~\ref{fig:demo.fit.danger} shows the surface density profile of
838: a typical merger remnant from our simulation library, with a gas fraction
839: of $\sim10\%$, which
840: happens to provide a good match to
841: several observed ellipticals. We begin by reducing the profile to the
842: two most physically relevant components: the ``pre-starburst'' or
843: ``disk'' stars, i.e.\ those formed in the rotationally supported disks
844: before the final coalescence of the galaxies, and the ``starburst''
845: stars, produced in the final, compact starburst. We operationally
846: define this as stars formed within $\pm125$\,Myr of the peak in the
847: starburst star formation, but since the starburst is usually very distinct,
848: changing this definition within reason makes almost no difference.
849: We combine both the stars present in the stellar disks at the beginning of our
850: calculations and the stars formed in the disks over the course of the
851: simulations (the disk stars and pre-starburst stars in
852: Figure~\ref{fig:demo.fit.danger} of \paperone) into a single
853: pre-starburst stellar population, because there is no robust physical
854: distinction between the two. Not only do both populations experience
855: violent relaxation in the final merger/coalescence, but it is also
856: arbitrary where (or at what time) we initialize our simulations,
857: relative to the final merger, and therefore what fraction of the
858: stellar mass forms before our simulation begins.
859:
860: We also neglect
861: embedded stellar disks which can be formed by gas remaining after the
862: merger; as demonstrated in \paperone, these contribute negligibly to
863: the surface mass density profile in even the most gas-rich merger
864: remnants (and we are primarily concerned with the surface mass density
865: profiles, not the early-time optical/UV light profiles which more strongly
866: reflect the light from new stars). This does not mean such disks
867: are unimportant -- indeed they are ubiquitous in gas-rich merger
868: remnant simulations and contribute critically to the
869: kinematics \citep[especially the rotation and $a_{4}$, see][]{cox:kinematics},
870: and observations suggest that low-level disks may be present in
871: nearly all cusp galaxies \citep[perhaps all, given
872: projection effects; see][]{ferrarese:type12,lauer:centers}. However,
873: especially given our exclusion of S0 galaxies, these are not a significant
874: component of the surface brightness profiles.
875:
876: We showed in \paperone\ that the total profile of the system can be
877: robustly represented as a two-component sum of two \Sersic\
878: distributions.
879: If we fit each known physical component separately,
880: we find that the pre-starburst component follows
881: a nearly exact \Sersic\ law (here, $n_{s}=2.85$), while the inner component
882: (given its shape and origin in a gas-rich, dissipational event)
883: can be well fit by a lower-$n_{s}\sim1$ law.\footnote{Formally, we consider our simulation profiles outside of
884: some multiple $\sim3-5$ times the resolution limit, or with a seeing correction
885: appropriate for the comparison observed samples. We equally sample
886: the profile in $\log{r}$ over a dynamic range extending to the largest radii in the
887: observed samples (\S~\ref{sec:data}),
888: and weight each point equally assuming an intrinsic $\sim0.1\,$mag point-to-point variance
889: in the SB profile (the typical magnitude of residuals fitting arbitrary splines to the data).
890: We have varied these choices and find that our fits and conclusions are
891: not sensitive to them.}
892: Based on this behavior, we therefore adopt a two-component decomposition of the
893: observed quantity, the total surface brightness profile.
894: This is defined as a \Sersic\ plus cusp or extra light model, with an outer
895: component for the pre-starburst stars with a free \Sersic\ index,
896: and an inner component reflecting the starburst stars
897: (with fixed $n_{s}=1$ when the shape of the starburst is not
898: well-resolved, or free -- albeit still generally low -- $n_{s}$ when
899: resolution permits).
900: We have studied this decomposition in \paperone, and
901: show that it provides a good description of both simulated and
902: observed merger remnant profiles, accurately separating the central
903: light of younger stellar populations (as observationally
904: determined) from the light of older stars, which form a more extended
905: distribution. The total surface brightness profile is then
906: %\begin{equation}
907: %{\tiny
908: %I =
909: %I^{\prime}\,\exp{{\Bigl\{}-b_{n}^{\prime}\,{\Bigl(}\frac{r}{r_{\rm extra}}{\Bigr)}^{1/n_{s}^{\prime}}{\Bigr\}}}+
910: %I_{\rm o}\,\exp{{\Bigl\{}-b_{n}\,{\Bigl(}\frac{r}{r_{\rm o}}{\Bigr)}^{1/n_{s}}{\Bigr\}}},
911: %\label{eqn:fitfun}}
912: %\end{equation}
913: \begin{eqnarray}
914: \nonumber I_{\rm tot} &=&
915: I^{\prime}\,\exp{{\Bigl\{}-b_{n}^{\prime}\,{\Bigl(}\frac{r}{R_{\rm extra}}{\Bigr)}^{1/n_{s}^{\prime}}{\Bigr\}}}\\
916: & &+I_{\rm o}\,\exp{{\Bigl\{}-b_{n}\,{\Bigl(}\frac{r}{R_{\rm outer}}{\Bigr)}^{1/n_{s}}{\Bigr\}}},
917: \label{eqn:fitfun}
918: \end{eqnarray}
919: where $R_{\rm extra}$ and $R_{\rm outer}$ are the effective radii of the
920: inner ($n_{s}^{\prime}\sim1$) and outer (free $n_{s}$) components
921: (which we identify with the starburst and
922: old bulge or pre-starburst components, respectively), $I^{\prime}$ and
923: $I_{\rm o}$ are the corresponding normalizations,
924: $n_{s}^{\prime}$ is the \Sersic\ index of the inner (extra light) component
925: (fixed $n_{s}^{\prime}=1$ where resolution limits apply)
926: and $n_{s}$ is the \Sersic\
927: index of the outer bulge or pre-starburst component. The constant
928: $b_{n}$ is the appropriate function of $n_{s}$ such that $R_{\rm extra}$ and
929: $R_{\rm outer}$ correspond to to the projected half-mass radii.
930:
931: The upper right panel of
932: Figure~\ref{fig:demo.fit.danger} shows an example of the outcome of
933: such a fit. The resulting model of the surface density profile fits
934: the simulation well, with a rms deviation ($\dmu\equiv\langle \Delta\mu^{2} \rangle^{1/2}$)
935: of only $\dmu\sim0.15$\,mag
936: (assuming $\mu\propto-2.5\,\log{I_{\rm tot}}$). This is comparable to
937: the point-to-point variance in the profile of this simulation if we
938: fit an arbitrary spline to the data, and thus reflects a genuinely
939: good fit. More important, this fit, despite having no direct
940: information about the physical components into which we decompose the
941: brightness profile, recovers almost exactly the appropriate parameters
942: for both components. The best-fit \Sersic\ index ($n_{s}=2.83$ compared
943: to $2.85$) and effective radius of the outer or bulge component reproduce
944: well those from fitting directly to the pre-starburst stellar
945: population. Likewise, the inner or extra light component is a good
946: match to the starburst component, and the fit recovers the extra light
947: fraction accurately ($5.1\%$ compared to $6.1\%$; a smaller difference
948: than reasonable uncertainties in our physical definition of the
949: starburst component). Again, we emphasize that we have simply fit a function
950: of the form in Equation~(\ref{eqn:fitfun}) to the total surface brightness profile,
951: ignoring our knowledge of the genuine physical breakdown; but we find
952: that we recover an accurate reflection of that true decomposition.
953:
954:
955: \begin{figure}
956: \centering
957: \scaleup
958: %\plotter{check_fe_fsb.ps}
959: \plotter{f2.ps}
960: \caption{Success of our proposed two-component empirical decomposition
961: at recovering the known physical parameters of the galaxy starburst and pre-starburst
962: (violently relaxed) components.
963: {\em Top Left:} Mass fraction in the fitted ``extra light'' component $f_{\rm extra}$
964: versus the known mass fraction of the physical starburst $f_{\rm sb}$.
965: Each point is the average across $\sim100$ sightlines to a given simulation,
966: although the sightline-to-sightline variance is moderate ($\approx0.15\,$dex).
967: Different colors and symbols denote different initial disk gas fractions, orbital
968: parameters, and merger redshifts (see key in Figure~\ref{fig:ns.mass}).
969: The fitted $f_{\rm extra}$ recovers the physical $f_{\rm sb}$ on average, with a
970: factor $\sim2$ scatter (plotted error bar), and without any
971: significant bias from any varied simulation parameters.
972: {\em Top Right:} Fitted effective radius of the
973: extra light component versus the projected half-mass radius of the known starburst stars.
974: Again, the true values are recovered with a factor $\sim2$ scatter, independent
975: of simulation choices.
976: {\em Bottom Left:} Fitted effective radius of the entire galaxy
977: versus $R_{e}$ from direct profile integration. The fits recover $R_{e}$ to
978: better than $\sim0.1$\,dex.
979: {\em Bottom Right:} Fitted \Sersic\ index of the outer (dissipationless) component
980: versus that fitted directly to the known pre-starburst component profile.
981: The outer profile shape $n_{s}$ is recovered to within $\sim0.1$\,dex
982: (the only significant bias is when there is a large disk in the remnant; but
983: those cases are not relevant for this paper).
984: The empirical decompositions do well at recovering the known
985: parameters in the simulations, across the entire range of simulation
986: parameter space we have surveyed.
987: \label{fig:check.fe.fsb}}
988: \end{figure}
989:
990: Figure~\ref{fig:check.fe.fsb} shows the results of repeating
991: this procedure for
992: several hundred simulations; we directly compare
993: the fitted extra light mass fraction and size ($R_{\rm extra}$)
994: to the mass fraction and size of the known
995: physical starburst component, and
996: find that the fitted components recover the physical values in the mean with a
997: factor $\sim2$ scatter. This result is robust with respect to e.g.\ the mass,
998: orbital parameters, mass ratios, initial gas content, treatment of feedback
999: and model for the ISM equation of state, and redshift of our simulations.
1000: We similarly compare the effective radius of the entire galaxy determined
1001: from these fits to that known from the direct integration of the profile.
1002: The fits recover $R_{e}$ to within $\sim20-25\%$, given a dynamic range
1003: comparable to the observations with which we compare. We also
1004: compare the \Sersic\ index of the fitted outer component
1005: to that fitted directly to the known physical pre-starburst component
1006: and find the two agree within $\sim30-40\%$, without any systematic dependences
1007: except where the remnants have large embedded disks (biasing the
1008: fitted decompositions to lower $n_{s}$). This gives us confidence that such an
1009: empirical approach can be used, in a statistical sense, to recover
1010: physically meaningful parameters describing the galaxy components.
1011:
1012: We note that, so long as we are fitting radii $\gtrsim50\,$pc, we obtain
1013: similar results for a free inner component shape parameter $n_{s}^{\prime}$
1014: or fixed inner $n_{s}^{\prime}=1$. In \paperone\ we demonstrate that
1015: the choice of $n_{s}^{\prime}=1$ for the inner component recovers, on average,
1016: the correct physical mass fraction which participated in the
1017: starburst, and mitigates against degeneracies in fitting to the outer
1018: \Sersic\ profile (so that we recover the same value if we fit the two
1019: stellar populations independently). We therefore adopt this choice for
1020: our decompositions in situations where we cannot reliably resolve the
1021: innermost extra light shape/structure (namely our simulations
1022: and the observed samples of \citet{rj:profiles} and \citet{bender:data}).
1023: We emphasize, however, that this choice for the inner
1024: component does {\em not} imply that this reflects the true shape of
1025: the central extra light, which can be complex
1026: \citep[see e.g.\ the range of central
1027: profile shapes in][]{lauer:centers,cote:virgo,jk:profiles}.
1028: In fact, caution should be taken when
1029: considering the central $\sim30-50\,$pc, which our simulations do not
1030: generally resolve (for most of the galaxy observations
1031: considered here, this corresponds to $\sim0.5''$, a factor
1032: $\sim10$ larger than the HST diffraction limit).
1033: We include a detailed discussion of profile shapes as $r\rightarrow0$
1034: in Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix:resolution}.
1035:
1036: For now, we simply note
1037: that the quantities of interest here
1038: are well-converged in resolution studies, and our
1039: numerical tests (smoothing extremely high-resolution simulations
1040: over various seeing) find that $n_{s}^{\prime}=1$ choice
1041: is robust (in the sense that the mean properties are recovered
1042: similarly in either case).
1043: However, where the information is
1044: available in the central regions of the galaxy (namely the
1045: samples of \citet{jk:profiles} and \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles}), we find
1046: the best results using all of the information and freeing the \Sersic\
1047: index of the inner light component, to accommodate the real, observed
1048: shapes and structure in the inner light component.
1049: Despite these caveats, our treatment describes the starburst mass
1050: profile well where it is important to the overall surface
1051: density (from $\sim100\,$pc to $\sim1\,$kpc) and
1052: accurately recovers the total mass in the starburst component and its
1053: effective radius.
1054:
1055: We apply this formalism to the observed systems
1056: in \S~\ref{sec:obs} below\footnote{We fit the observed
1057: points in the same manner as the simulations, weighting
1058: each point with the (quadratic) sum of the same intrinsic
1059: $\sim0.1\,$mag point-to-point variance and the observational
1060: errors. These errors are however generally small (much smaller
1061: than the plotted points shown in the observed profiles), so
1062: weighting the data points equally gives almost identical results.},
1063: and we present the results of our
1064: fits to each elliptical in our sample in Table~\ref{tbl:cusp.fits}.
1065: For sources with
1066: multiple independent observations, we define error bars for each
1067: fit parameter representing
1068: the $\sim1\,\sigma$ range in
1069: parameters derived from various observations, typically from three
1070: different surface brightness profiles but in some cases from as many
1071: as $\approx 5-6$ sources (where there are just $2$ sources, the ``error''
1072: is simply the range between the two fits).
1073: In many cases the different observations are comparable;
1074: in some there are clearly measurements
1075: with larger dynamic range and better resolution: the errors derived
1076: in this manner should in such cases be thought of as the
1077: typical uncertainties introduced by lower dynamic range or less
1078: accurate photometry.
1079:
1080: In terms of direct comparison with our
1081: simulations, the data often cover a dynamic range and have resolution
1082: comparable to our simulations, provided we do not heavily weight the
1083: very central ($\lesssim30\,$pc) regions of HST nuclear profiles.
1084: Experimenting with different smoothings and imposed dynamic range
1085: limits, we find it is unlikely that resolution or seeing differences
1086: will substantially bias our comparisons. They do introduce
1087: larger scatter; the robustness of our results increases considerably
1088: as the dynamic range of the observed profiles is increased.
1089:
1090:
1091: As we demonstrate in \paperone, care should be taken to adopt and test
1092: physically motivated interpretations of different functional
1093: forms that could be considered when fitting these profiles.
1094: For example,
1095: the lower left panel of
1096: Figure~\ref{fig:demo.fit.danger} shows the results of fitting a
1097: pure \Sersic\ function to the entire surface density profile (including
1098: the central starburst component). There is
1099: a reasonable fit to the entire profile with a single \Sersic\ index
1100: $n_{s}=3.56$, quite different from the \Sersic\ index which describes
1101: either the pre-starburst or starburst light components. Likewise, if
1102: we consider the excess light to be that light in the real profile
1103: above the prediction of the best-fit \Sersic\ model, we would infer only
1104: a tiny extra light fraction $\sim1.0\%$. Although the fit is
1105: technically worse, with variance $\dmu=0.25$, the difference is
1106: not dramatic, and by many observational standards would be considered
1107: a good fit. Clearly, however, the results do not have the same physical
1108: meaning in this case -- the ``extra light'' determined in this manner is
1109: no longer a direct tracer of the physical starburst component.
1110: The differences grow if we add a
1111: degree of freedom and fit a ``core-\Sersic'' profile, of the form
1112: $I \propto [1 + (r_{b}/r)^{\alpha}]^{\gamma/\alpha}\,
1113: \exp{\{ -b_{n}\, [(r^{\alpha}+r_{b}^{\alpha})/r_{e}^{\alpha}]^{1/\alpha n} \}}$
1114: %\begin{equation}
1115: %I = I'\,{\Bigl[}1+{\Bigl(}\frac{r_{b}}{r}{\Bigr)}^{\alpha}{\Bigr]}^{\gamma/\alpha}\,\exp{{\Bigl[}
1116: %-b_{n}\,{\Bigl(}\frac{r^{\alpha}+r_{b}^{\alpha}}{r_{e}^{\alpha}}{\Bigr)}^{1/(\alpha\,n)}{\Bigr]}}
1117: %\end{equation}
1118: %\citep[e.g.][]{graham:core.sersic},
1119: %where $r_{b}$ is the core break
1120: %radius within which the profile shifts to a power law of slope
1121: %$\gamma$, $r_{e}$ is the effective radius and $n$ the Sersic index of
1122: %the outer light profile, and $\alpha$ a parameter describing how
1123: %rapidly the break occurs.
1124: \citep[e.g.][]{graham:core.sersic}, which behaves as a single \Sersic\ profile outside of
1125: $r_{b}$ and breaks to a power-law of slope $\gamma$ within $r_{b}$.
1126: The lower right panel of
1127: Figure~\ref{fig:demo.fit.danger} shows the
1128: outcome of this fit, which is again good in a pure statistical sense,
1129: albeit worse than our best fit \Sersic+extra light fit
1130: ($\dmu=0.20$\,mag). However, here the derived parameters are even
1131: less intuitively related to the known physical
1132: decomposition -- the best fit \Sersic\ index is a much steeper
1133: $n_{s}=3.95$ and one actually infers that the system is a {\em core}
1134: galaxy, with {\em missing} light relative to the best-fit \Sersic\
1135: profile. Furthermore, by comparison with our results in \paperone, we
1136: find that the discrepancy between the physical parameters which
1137: accurately describe the outer and starburst components and those
1138: recovered by the pure \Sersic\ or core-\Sersic\ profile fits becomes even
1139: worse when the mass fraction of starburst component is larger.
1140:
1141: The cause of these differences is that the extra light
1142: component blends smoothly with the outer pre-starburst light profile.
1143: By increasing the central surface brightness, the extra light
1144: component makes the overall profile appear steeper (concave up in the
1145: $\mu-r^{1/4}$ projection), owing to the rise at small $r$. However,
1146: the cusp itself does not continue to rise steeply inwards (in most
1147: cases), so after steepening the best-fit \Sersic\ index to fit the outer
1148: part of the extra light component, one is often forced to infer the
1149: existence of a core in the central regions. Again, these fits do not directly
1150: reflect the physical two-component nature of the profiles (rather reflecting
1151: some combination of the components, with the extra light no longer
1152: apparent in an excess with respect to the fit but in the higher fitted \Sersic\ indices),
1153: but they are not terrible matches to the
1154: light profile. {\em This emphasizes that a physically motivated profile
1155: must be adopted when fitting a parameterized model to the data, if one wishes
1156: to translate these parameters into robust physical properties.}
1157: Fortunately, there are some indications from observations that the
1158: \Sersic\ only and core-\Sersic\ fits are not physically motivated as a means
1159: to decompose the two-component nature of the observed systems.
1160:
1161: First, they are technically worse fits, although the difference is not
1162: large (and in some rare cases, core-\Sersic\ profile is
1163: a better match to our simulations than the \Sersic+extra light
1164: profile). With photometry accurate to
1165: $\sim0.01\,{\rm mag\,arcsec^{-2}}$ it is possible to
1166: robustly distinguish the quality of the fits shown in Figure~\ref{fig:demo.fit.danger},
1167: especially to note the fact that the errors in the \Sersic\ and core-\Sersic\
1168: models are a strong function of radius (an indication of
1169: the less appropriate choice of fitting function), but with the exception of \citet{jk:profiles},
1170: our data sets do not attain such high accuracy.
1171: Second, they begin to fail at large radii -- however, this
1172: is where the true nature of the \Sersic\ profile of the outer light
1173: component is most prominent, so any failure at large $r$ should be
1174: especially worrisome. Furthermore, when we examine the kinematics
1175: (e.g.\ ellipticity, boxy/diskyness, rotation properties) along the
1176: major axis, one can often see a transition in these properties where
1177: the extra light begins to dominate (see \S~\ref{sec:obs}), whereas
1178: we would expect no such change if the ability to fit a continuous \Sersic\ profile were
1179: taken to imply that there is only a single physical component
1180: constituting the galaxy.
1181: Finally, when fitting a core-\Sersic\ profile to a system with significant
1182: extra light, a large {\it missing} light fraction (defined as the difference
1183: between the core-\Sersic\ fit and the inwards extrapolation of the
1184: \Sersic\ portion of the fit) is sometimes
1185: seen, even relative to what is typically observed in genuine core
1186: galaxies \citep[e.g.\ massive, boxy, slow-rotating ellipticals;
1187: see][]{jk:profiles}. This is true when the dissipational component is
1188: large -- but Figure~\ref{fig:demo.fit.danger} demonstrates that it is
1189: not always the case, so again, care must be taken to employ a
1190: physically well-motivated decomposition and interpretation.
1191:
1192: We do not claim that a pure \Sersic\ or core-\Sersic\ profile
1193: is never a physically motivated parameterization of the galaxy light profile.
1194: However, for gas-rich merger remnants, we know from our simulations
1195: and have good reason to believe observationally that there is some
1196: excess light component. In these cases, which we investigate here, the
1197: results of these fits are demonstrably less physically intuitive and can be
1198: misleading.
1199:
1200: We also emphasize that although there are some superficial similarities
1201: between our adopted parametric profile decomposition and
1202: that in e.g.\ \citet{cote:virgo} and \citet{ferrarese:profiles},
1203: the two are in detail significantly different and address
1204: very different spatial scales and physical properties of the galaxies.
1205: Typically, the ``outer profile'' we refer to extends to and beyond (in
1206: our simulations) the limits of our ground-based photometry, corresponding
1207: to physical radii of $\sim20-100\,$kpc, and our ``inner profile'' refers to
1208: the residual from a central starburst at scales where a significant
1209: fraction of the galaxy mass becomes self-gravitating (see \S~\ref{sec:properties}),
1210: at $\sim0.5-1\,$kpc. We stress again that we are not resolving
1211: inwards of the central $\sim30-50\,$pc, and our modeling should
1212: not be extrapolated to within these radii without considerable care.
1213: In contrast, the ``outer profile'' in \citet{ferrarese:profiles} is
1214: based on the HST ACS profiles, which extent to outer
1215: radii $\sim1$\,kpc, and their ``inner profiles'' typically dominate
1216: the light profile at very small radii $\sim0.01-0.02\,R_{e}$ ($\sim10-40\,$pc
1217: for most of their sample).
1218: This is more akin to separating our
1219: ``inner'' component itself into multiple sub-components -- i.e.\ a starburst
1220: stellar component that blends (as we have shown) relatively smoothly
1221: onto the outer, violently relaxed stars and an innermost nuclear
1222: component. The authors themselves address this, and denote these
1223: nuclear excesses as central stellar clusters. In Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix:nuclei}
1224: we demonstrate that such clusters are clearly distinct, orders-of-magnitude smaller
1225: objects than the starburst/extra light components we study in this paper.
1226: Such systems may indeed be present (and could be formed
1227: in the same dissipational starburst which we model): but if so they are distinct subsystems
1228: sitting on top of the starburst light component,
1229: which we do not have the ability to model or resolve in our simulations.
1230: Therefore, while the two approaches may yield complementary constraints,
1231: we caution that our
1232: results are not directly comparable and are specifically designed
1233: to trace distinct physical structures.
1234:
1235:
1236: \section{Comparison with Observations: Extra Light in Ellipticals}
1237: \label{sec:obs}
1238:
1239: \begin{figure*}
1240: \centering
1241: %\plotone{jk_pretty_plot.1.ps}
1242: \plotone{f3.ps}
1243: \caption{Surface brightness profiles are shown for cuspy ellipticals in the
1244: Virgo cluster.
1245: Open circles show the observations, from \citet{jk:profiles}.
1246: These are the highest-mass cusp or extra light ellipticals in Virgo$^{\ref{foot:4382}}$
1247: ($\sim2\,\mstar$).
1248: {\em Top:} Observed V-band surface brightness profile with our
1249: two component best-fit model (solid, dashed, and dotted lines show the
1250: total, inner/extra light component, and outer/pre-starburst component).
1251: The best-fit outer \Sersic\ index, extra light fraction, and variance about the
1252: fit are shown.
1253: {\em Middle:} Colored lines show the corresponding surface brightness
1254: profiles from the three simulations in our library which correspond
1255: most closely to the observed system (shown outside to the gravitational
1256: softening length, $\sim30$\,pc). Dashed line shows the
1257: profile of the starburst light in the best-matching simulation.
1258: The range of outer \Sersic\ indices in the simulations (i.e.\ across sightlines for
1259: these objects) and range of starburst mass fractions ($f_{\rm sb}$)
1260: which match the
1261: observed profile are shown$^{\ref{foot:explainfits}}$,
1262: with the variance of the observations about the
1263: best-fit simulation ($\dmu$, in ${\rm mag\,arcsec^{-2}}$).
1264: {\em Bottom:} Observed disky/boxy-ness ($a_{4}$) and ellipticity profiles,
1265: with the median (solid) and $25-75\%$ range (shaded) corresponding profile
1266: from the best-fitting simulations above. Note that these are not fitted for in any sense.
1267: Figures~\ref{fig:jk2}-\ref{fig:jk10}
1268: show the other cusp ellipticals in the sample, ranked from most to least massive.
1269: \label{fig:jk1}}
1270: \end{figure*}
1271: \begin{figure*}
1272: \centering
1273: %\plotone{jk_pretty_plot.1.loglog.ps}
1274: \plotone{f4.ps}
1275: \caption{As Figure~\ref{fig:jk1}, but in log-log space. The two-component nature of the
1276: profiles is somewhat less obvious in this projection, but the dynamic range is
1277: more clear. We show the systems from the outermost observed radii down to
1278: our best simulation resolution limits ($\sim30\,$pc). Over nearly four orders of
1279: magnitude in radius (and $\sim14$\,mag in surface brightness),
1280: simulations and observed systems agree. We show all of
1281: Figures~\ref{fig:jk1}-\ref{fig:jk10} in this projection in Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix:jk}.
1282: \label{fig:jk1.log}}
1283: \end{figure*}
1284:
1285:
1286: \begin{figure*}
1287: \centering
1288: %\plotone{jk_pretty_plot.2.ps}
1289: \plotone{f5.ps}
1290: \caption{The next most massive cusp ellipticals ($\sim1\,\mstar$). Note that NGC 3377 is not
1291: a Virgo member.
1292: \label{fig:jk2}}
1293: \end{figure*}
1294: \begin{figure*}
1295: \centering
1296: %\plotone{jk_pretty_plot.3.ps}
1297: \plotone{f6.ps}
1298: \caption{The next most massive cusp ellipticals ($\sim0.5\,\mstar$).
1299: \label{fig:jk3}}
1300: \end{figure*}
1301: \begin{figure*}
1302: \centering
1303: %\plotone{jk_pretty_plot.4.ps}
1304: \plotone{f7.ps}
1305: \caption{Lower-mass cusp ellipticals ($\sim0.2-0.3\,\mstar$). Our simulations
1306: reproduce the observed outer profiles and kinematic properties of such galaxies, but
1307: do not resolve the stellar cluster nuclei at small radii. The extra light recovered by our
1308: two-component fits therefore may be misleading at such low mass.
1309: \label{fig:jk4}}
1310: \end{figure*}
1311: \begin{figure*}
1312: \centering
1313: %\plotone{jk_pretty_plot.5.ps}
1314: \plotone{f8.ps}
1315: \caption{Additional low-mass ($\sim0.2\,\mstar$) cusp ellipticals. Our
1316: fits perform better in this case.
1317: \label{fig:jk5}}
1318: \end{figure*}
1319: \begin{figure*}
1320: \centering
1321: %\plotone{jk_pretty_plot.6.ps}
1322: \plotone{f9.ps}
1323: \caption{Additional low-mass ($\sim0.1-0.2\,\mstar$) cusp ellipticals, but
1324: in this case without prominent stellar clusters in their nuclei. In this case
1325: our parameterized fitting is not misled and we recover similar starburst
1326: fractions to our simulations.
1327: \label{fig:jk6}}
1328: \end{figure*}
1329: \begin{figure*}
1330: \centering
1331: %\plotone{jk_pretty_plot.7.ps}
1332: \plotone{f10.ps}
1333: \caption{Very low-mass cusp ellipticals ($\sim0.03-0.1\,\mstar$).
1334: Our simulations provide less good matches at
1335: these luminosities, where dwarf galaxies dominate the spheroid
1336: population (ellipticals at these masses are very rare).
1337: Robustly resolving the extra light in these
1338: very small systems probably requires $\lesssim10\,$pc
1339: spatial resolution.
1340: \label{fig:jk7}}
1341: \end{figure*}
1342: \begin{figure*}
1343: \centering
1344: %\plotone{jk_pretty_plot.8.ps}
1345: \plotone{f11.ps}
1346: \caption{The lowest-luminosity cusp ellipticals in
1347: Virgo ($\sim0.01\,\mstar$). The comparison with our
1348: simulations is similar to Figure~\ref{fig:jk7}.
1349: \label{fig:jk8}}
1350: \end{figure*}
1351: \begin{figure*}
1352: \centering
1353: %\plotone{jk_pretty_plot.9.ps}
1354: \plotone{f12.ps}
1355: \caption{``Compact ellipticals.'' None of our simulations are
1356: as compact as these objects (effective radii $\sim200\,$pc).
1357: \label{fig:jk10}}
1358: \end{figure*}
1359: \breaker
1360:
1361: We now extend our analysis to the sample of observed ellipticals and
1362: merger remnants described in \S~\ref{sec:data}.
1363: Figures~\ref{fig:jk1}-\ref{fig:jk10} show surface brightness profiles
1364: of objects in the Virgo elliptical sample of \citet{jk:profiles}, in
1365: order of most massive to least massive.\footnote{\label{foot:4382}
1366: NGC 4382 is typically classified as a
1367: core or intermediate galaxy in the literature. We show it because
1368: it is also sometimes considered a gas-rich merger remnant, based on
1369: the presence of ripples and shells formed by cold tidal material
1370: \citep[e.g.][]{hernquist.spergel.92}, a
1371: high fine structure index \citep{schweizerseitzer92},
1372: young ($\sim2\,$Gyr old) stellar populations
1373: \citep{trager:ages,mcdermid:sauron.profiles}, disky isophotes
1374: and high ellipticity \citep{jk:profiles}, and rapid rotation \citep{emsellem:sauron.rotation}.
1375: Excluding it from our sample, however, makes no difference to our conclusions.}
1376: For each object, we plot the
1377: surface brightness profile with the best-fit two component model, and
1378: the corresponding fitted outer \Sersic\ index and extra light fraction.
1379: It is a reassuring consistency check that our fitted outer
1380: \Sersic\ indices agree well with those estimated
1381: independently (and with a slightly different methodology)
1382: in \citet{jk:profiles} -- i.e.\ accounting for the fact that the extra light is
1383: an independent component (and with sufficient dynamic range to
1384: well-resolve the outer profile), the results in most cases are
1385: not highly sensitive to the exact fitting procedure.
1386: We refer to \paperone\ for the same comparisons
1387: with local observed gas-rich merger remnants from \citet{rj:profiles}.
1388: A complete list of fit parameters and compiled galaxy properties
1389: is included in Table~\ref{tbl:cusp.fits} for the ellipticals and
1390: Table~\ref{tbl:mgr.fits} for the merger remnants.
1391:
1392: We also compare each observed system with our library of simulations,
1393: in a non-parametric fashion. We do this by allowing the normalization
1394: of the simulated light profile to vary (within $\pm0.5$\,dex), and
1395: quantifying the $\chi^{2}$ (variance of the observed points with
1396: respect to the simulated light curve at
1397: $>1$ gravitational softening length) of each simulation. We allow the
1398: normalization to vary because we have a finite number of simulations
1399: and therefore do not sample a continuum in e.g.\ total brightness, but
1400: instead discretely sample at factor $\sim2$ intervals (we do not allow
1401: the simulated profiles to vary by more than this amount, to avoid an
1402: unphysical match to a simulation with very different total mass). We
1403: do not allow any other parameters to vary -- i.e.\ we allow limited
1404: rescaling in the surface brightness of the simulated galaxies, but
1405: {\em not} their radii or other properties.
1406: Despite the allowed surface brightness rescaling,
1407: the best-fit simulations almost
1408: always have similar total luminosities to the observed system, because
1409: they must have a similar effective radius in order to be a good
1410: match. Considering $\sim100$ sightlines to each of our simulations
1411: (although, as noted in \paperone, the observed surface brightness
1412: profile varies by a small amount sightline-to-sightline), we find the
1413: best fit to each observed system.
1414:
1415: In the middle panels of
1416: Figures~\ref{fig:jk1}-\ref{fig:jk10} we show the three simulations
1417: which most closely match the observed light profile. For the best-fit
1418: simulation, we also show the profile of the stars formed in the final,
1419: central, merger-driven starburst, as described in
1420: \S~\ref{sec:fits}. We show in the figures the outer \Sersic\ indices
1421: fitted to these simulations, along with the typical range both across
1422: sightlines and across the best-fitting simulations (which together
1423: give some rough approximation to the range of $n_{s}$ which might be
1424: observed for these galaxies along different sightlines). We also show the
1425: best-fit starburst mass fraction, along with the range across the
1426: best-fitting simulations (described below), and the variance of the
1427: observed points with respect to the best fit\footnote{\label{foot:explainfits}
1428: The values shown
1429: in Figures~\ref{fig:jk1}-\ref{fig:jk10} are based
1430: on comparison only to the profiles shown, from \citet{jk:profiles}. In
1431: Table~\ref{tbl:cusp.fits}, the values represent the results from all available
1432: data sets, including multiple different observations of the systems shown here,
1433: and so can be slightly different (however the differences are generally small).}.
1434:
1435: In addition, for these simulations we show the isophotal shape and
1436: ellipticity as a function of major axis radius, compared to that
1437: observed. Note that we do {\em not} fit these quantities, only the
1438: surface brightness profile. We show, for each simulation, the range
1439: across sightlines in these quantities -- it is clear that these depend
1440: much more strongly on sightline than the surface brightness profile
1441: (this is primarily why we do not fit these quantities). In every
1442: case, there is a significant fraction of sightlines with shape and
1443: ellipticity profiles roughly consistent with those observed, but the
1444: simulations highlight the range of profile shapes for similar
1445: spheroids to those observed.
1446:
1447: For the intermediate and higher mass Virgo ellipticals, $\gtrsim0.1\,\lstar$, we easily
1448: find simulations which provide an excellent match to the observed
1449: profiles, with variance $\dmu$ often less than even a
1450: multi-component parameterized fit. The fits are good over the entire
1451: dynamic range from the largest observed radii ($\sim100\,$kpc)
1452: down to our resolution limits ($\sim30$\,pc)\footnote{\label{foot:loglog}
1453: The dynamic range of the fits is somewhat difficult to discern in
1454: Figures~\ref{fig:jk1}-\ref{fig:jk10} owing to the plotting versus
1455: $r^{1/4}$; we therefore reproduce these figures plotting $\mu$ versus $r$ in
1456: Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix:jk}.}. At radii below our softening limits,
1457: the simulation profiles artificially flatten; but we show in Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix:resolution}
1458: that the agreement continues down to smaller and smaller radii
1459: as we increase our resolution.
1460: At moderate and large masses, the starburst
1461: fraction recovered by our two-component fit is usually a good match to
1462: the physical starburst mass fraction in the best-fitting
1463: simulations (see \S~\ref{sec:properties}).
1464:
1465: At the lowest masses $L\lesssim0.01\,L_{\ast}$,
1466: the fitted extra light components tend to be smaller than
1467: our simulated starbursts. This is at least in part a
1468: resolution issue, both in our simulations and in the observations
1469: (the extra light in the lowest-luminosity ellipticals is poorly resolved
1470: even with HST data).
1471: Below $M_{B}\sim-18$ (i.e.\ roughly an order of magnitude below
1472: $\sim\lstar$), it is also no longer clear that the fitted
1473: extra light components are the same physical entities -- some of the
1474: sharp central features in the profiles may in fact be
1475: nuclear stellar clusters, modeling of which would require
1476: resolving individual star-forming complexes in our simulations.
1477: (See Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix:nuclei} for a discussion of the
1478: differences between extra light components studied herein
1479: and the stellar nuclei studied in e.g.\ \citet{cote:virgo} and
1480: \citet{ferrarese:profiles}. Those nuclear components
1481: are on much smaller scales and bear little resemblance to the
1482: starburst component we are interested in here.) The two lowest-mass
1483: ``compact ellipticals'' in our sample, NGC4486b and VCC1199
1484: \citep{binggeli:virgo.center}, with $R_{e}\sim150-200\,$pc,
1485: are somewhat smaller than any of our simulated merger remnants.
1486: Given our resolution limits and
1487: limited sampling of e.g.\ initial disk sizes at these very low
1488: masses, it is premature to say whether some different physics
1489: \citep[e.g.\ tidal stripping;][]{faber:compact.ellipticals.origin} is needed,
1490: but the systems lie on the fundamental
1491: plane and their outer profile shapes appear normal.
1492:
1493:
1494:
1495: \begin{figure*}
1496: \centering
1497: \scaleup
1498: %\plotter{lauer_prettyplot.ps}
1499: \plotone{f13.ps}
1500: \caption{Observed surface brightness profiles of
1501: a subset of the confirmed cuspy
1502: ellipticals from the sample of \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles},
1503: with the best-matching two component
1504: parameterized fit (dashed and dotted lines)
1505: and best-fitting simulations (red, orange, and green lines), as in Figure~\ref{fig:jk1}.
1506: Where multiple sources of photometry are available, independent fits to each are
1507: shown.
1508: The objects are ranked from brightest to faintest in $V$-band (as shown).
1509: Profiles are shown over a constant angular scale (top axis; bottom axis shows
1510: physical radius in kpc).
1511: The corresponding ({\em right}) panel for each shows the distribution of physical
1512: starburst fractions for the simulations which provide a good fit to the
1513: observed profile (as described in the text), with the fitted (parameterized)
1514: extra light fraction (blue dotted line; one for each source of
1515: photometry). Where available, red dashed lines show the mass fraction
1516: of a secondary (recent) starburst population independently
1517: estimated from stellar population studies in other works.
1518: Our simulation resolution
1519: limits do not extend within the central $\sim30-50\,$pc, and our fits
1520: are not intended to describe these radii.
1521: \label{fig:lauerpp1}}
1522: \end{figure*}
1523:
1524:
1525: Figure~\ref{fig:lauerpp1} again shows the observed and best-fit simulated
1526: surface brightness profiles, for a subset of confirmed cusp ellipticals in
1527: the sample of \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles}, in order of $V$-band magnitude from
1528: brightest to faintest. For each simulation in our library, we
1529: have a $\chi^{2}$ corresponding to its goodness of fit to the observed
1530: profile, and the genuine physical starburst mass fraction $\fsb$. We can
1531: therefore construct a $\chi^{2}$-weighted distribution of $\fsb$
1532: for each observed system -- essentially, the probability, across a
1533: uniform sample of initial conditions, that the observed profile
1534: was drawn from a simulation with the given starburst mass fraction.
1535: These are shown, and compared to the fitted extra light fraction for our
1536: two-component models.
1537: In general, the fitted extra light fraction corresponds well to
1538: the characteristic starburst mass fractions in simulations which produce
1539: similar light profiles.
1540:
1541: There are a small number of observed objects for which detailed
1542: spectral energy distributions (SEDs)
1543: have enabled two-component stellar population models to be fit, in
1544: which there are generally an older, smoother distribution and a
1545: younger, metal-enriched single burst population
1546: \citep{titus:ssp.decomp,schweizer:7252,schweizer96,schweizer:ngc34.disk,
1547: reichardt:ssp.decomp,michard:ssp.decomp}. For these objects, we
1548: plot the observationally estimated mass fraction (from these
1549: studies) in the secondary
1550: burst population (the vertical red dashed lines),
1551: which we expect should correspond (roughly) to the
1552: starburst population in the spheroid-forming merger, if this is a good
1553: description of the formation history. Although there are only a few
1554: systems for which this comparison is possible, the agreement
1555: between this estimate and our inferred extra light or starburst
1556: fractions is surprisingly good. Of course, there are a number of
1557: uncertainties and degeneracies in an attempt to observationally
1558: decompose stellar populations, but this gives us confidence that there
1559: is physical meaning to our decompositions.
1560:
1561:
1562:
1563: \breaker
1564: \section{Properties of ``Extra Light'' Profiles}
1565: \label{sec:properties}
1566:
1567: Having fit both our simulations and observed cuspy ellipticals to an
1568: outer violently relaxed component and an inner starburst profile, we
1569: now compare these fits as a function of galaxy properties.
1570:
1571:
1572: \subsection{Outer Profiles: \Sersic\ Indices}
1573: \label{sec:properties.outer}
1574:
1575: \begin{figure*}
1576: \centering
1577: %\scaleup
1578: \epsscale{0.9}
1579: \plotone{f14.ps}
1580: \caption{Outer \Sersic\ indices in cuspy ellipticals and simulated gas-rich merger
1581: remnants, using our
1582: two-component decomposition. Gas-rich merger remnants have characteristic
1583: $n\sim2-3$, without a strong systematic dependence on mass or other properties.
1584: {\em Top:} Simulations: color encodes gas fraction, symbol encodes orbital parameters
1585: (the two ``random'' orbits are two different common random orbits, one somewhat
1586: closer to prograde, the other -- ``alt'' -- somewhat closer to polar),
1587: and filled/unfilled encodes the initial redshift of the simulations (as in plotted key).
1588: %{\em Top:} Solid points are simulations: color encodes initial gas fraction (0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8,
1589: %and 1.0 as red, orange, green, cyan, blue, and black), symbol encodes
1590: %orbital parameters (circles and triangles are typical random orbits, squares
1591: %coplanar, and stars polar).
1592: The plotted $n_{s}$ is the median across $\sim100$ sightlines,
1593: typical sightline-to-sightline differences are shown as the filled plotted error bar.
1594: {\em Bottom:}
1595: Open colored points are observed systems:
1596: red stars are the cusps in the Virgo elliptical sample of \citet{jk:profiles}, purple circles
1597: the confirmed cusps in the local elliptical sample of \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles}
1598: (supplemented by the sample of \citet{bender:data}), and
1599: cyan squares are the gas-rich merger remnants from \citet{rj:profiles}.
1600: Open plotted error shows the typical differences in $n_{s}$ derived from different sources of
1601: photometry and/or different observed wavelengths.
1602: We use this point notation throughout.
1603: \label{fig:ns.mass}}
1604: \end{figure*}
1605:
1606:
1607: Figure~\ref{fig:ns.mass} plots the outer \Sersic\ indices of our sample
1608: of simulations as a function of galaxy stellar mass, compared with
1609: those observed. The lack of any trend is striking -- we predict
1610: that there is {\em no dependence
1611: of outer \Sersic\ index on galaxy mass for cusp ellipticals}. In fact, we have
1612: searched our entire sample of mergers attempting to find a dependence
1613: of outer \Sersic\ index on some galaxy property, including merger
1614: redshift, gas fraction, halo concentration, baryon fraction, and the
1615: presence or absence of initial bulges, and find no dependence. There
1616: is a weak trend with gas content, but only in the sense that systems
1617: with extremely high gas content even at late merger stages (e.g.\
1618: $\gtrsim40\%$ gas at the time of final coalescence) can form or retain
1619: massive disks, bringing them closer to $n_{s}=1$. There is also a weak
1620: dependence on orbital parameters, but only in the sense of different,
1621: extreme orbits changing the best fit outer \Sersic\ index by $\Delta
1622: n_{s}\lesssim1$. The apparent difference between our low and
1623: high-redshift simulation $n_{s}$ distributions is in fact entirely
1624: attributable to these effects.
1625: Similarly, \citet{naab:profiles} find that in simulated
1626: collisionless (gas-free) disk merger
1627: remnants -- i.e.\ systems for which the entire profile is by definition part of
1628: the ``outer,'' violently relaxed component -- there is also no significant
1629: dependence of the \Sersic\ index on mass, effective radius, or merger mass
1630: ratio.
1631:
1632: The observations appear to confirm this prediction. \citet{jk:profiles}
1633: see no dependence of outer \Sersic\ index on galaxy luminosity
1634: (within the extra light/cusp population),
1635: and our other data sets support this over a large
1636: baseline in luminosity and stellar mass (albeit with larger
1637: scatter, owing primarily to the lower quality of the data).
1638: Over more than three orders of magnitude in stellar mass,
1639: and two orders of magnitude in effective radius, the observations
1640: and simulations both show
1641: a typical $n_{s}\sim2-3$ with
1642: no dependence of outer \Sersic\
1643: index on mass, luminosity, or radius in cusp ellipticals.
1644:
1645: This prediction appears to contradict some previous results
1646: that argue for a strong
1647: dependence of \Sersic\ index on luminosity
1648: \citep{graham:bulges,trujillo:sersic.fits,ferrarese:profiles}
1649: or effective radius
1650: \citep{caon:sersic.fits,prugniel:fp.non-homology}.
1651: However, we emphasize that these fits are
1652: {\em not} directly comparable to ours. First,
1653: these correlations were found considering samples of a broad
1654: range of spheroids -- from dwarf spheroidals through cuspy, rapidly
1655: rotating ellipticals through massive, cored, slowly rotating
1656: ellipticals. Here, we are only arguing that the specific subclass of
1657: cuspy, true ellipticals formed in gas-rich mergers should have a mass-independent
1658: \Sersic\ index distribution. Different formation mechanisms \citep[for
1659: example, subsequent dry mergers;][]{hopkins:cores} can
1660: systematically change the \Sersic\ index, giving rise (via cosmological
1661: trends towards more mergers in higher-mass systems)
1662: to mean correlations between \Sersic\ index and galaxy mass or
1663: size. To the extent that the observed \Sersic\ indices of
1664: the cusp population are relatively low and do not depend on
1665: mass or luminosity, it implies that they are generally formed in a small number
1666: of major mergers, without substantial subsequent re-merging.
1667:
1668: Second, these authors were often
1669: fitting the entire galaxy light profile to a single \Sersic\ or
1670: core-\Sersic\ law, whereas we have attempted to decompose the inner and
1671: outer galaxy light profiles. This two component approach
1672: will systematically yield different \Sersic\ indices, and in some cases
1673: as demonstrated in \S~\ref{sec:fits} the difference can be dramatic.
1674:
1675:
1676: \begin{figure}
1677: \centering
1678: \epsscale{1.15}
1679: \plotter{f15.ps}
1680: \caption{As Figure~\ref{fig:ns.mass}, but using a cleaned sample: we include
1681: only those galaxies for which $\ge3$ sources of photometry (or photometry in
1682: $\ge3$ bands) yield $n_{s}$ values different by $<20\%$. For the simulations, we
1683: plot only those with sightline-to-sightline variance less than this amount (usually
1684: eliminating those with significant tidal or unrelaxed features). Dotted line
1685: shows the median $n_{s}\sim2.6$.
1686: The distribution and
1687: lack of dependence on mass is the same as Figure~\ref{fig:ns.mass}, but the
1688: results here are more robust.
1689: \label{fig:ns.mass.cleaned}}
1690: \end{figure}
1691:
1692: To check if the effect illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:ns.mass} is
1693: caused by large scatter in our estimates (possibly obscuring an
1694: underlying trend), we show in Figure~\ref{fig:ns.mass.cleaned} the
1695: same \Sersic\ index as a function of mass, but using a strict, cleaned
1696: sample. We include in this subsample only those galaxies for which
1697: $\ge3$ sources of photometry (or photometry in $\ge3$ bands) yield
1698: $n_{s}$ values different by $<20\%$. We exclude the recent merger
1699: remnants, for which unrelaxed features may introduce additional
1700: scatter or uncertainties. For the simulations, we plot only those
1701: with sightline-to-sightline variance less than this amount (usually
1702: eliminating those with significant tidal or unrelaxed features). The
1703: distribution and lack of dependence on mass is the same as
1704: Figure~\ref{fig:ns.mass}, but the conclusion here is more robust.
1705:
1706: \begin{figure}
1707: \centering
1708: \scaleup
1709: \plotter{f16.ps}
1710: \caption{Distribution of outer \Sersic\ indices in cuspy ellipticals, using our
1711: two-component decomposition. Solid black line shows the result
1712: for our entire sample of simulations (each across $\sim100$ sightlines). Colored lines show the
1713: results for the observed samples of \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles}
1714: (top), \citet{jk:profiles} (middle),
1715: and \citet{rj:profiles} (bottom), with Poisson error bars. \citet{rj:profiles} include
1716: some likely S0s, yielding a larger fraction of $n=1$ systems. Cuspy ellipticals
1717: have a fairly narrow range of $n\sim2.50-2.75\pm0.75$, in good agreement
1718: with gas-rich merger simulations.
1719: \label{fig:ns.distrib}}
1720: \end{figure}
1721: \breaker
1722:
1723: \begin{figure}
1724: \centering
1725: \scaleup
1726: \plotter{f17.ps}
1727: \caption{As Figure~\ref{fig:ns.distrib}, but for the robust
1728: cleaned sample of Figure~\ref{fig:ns.mass.cleaned}.
1729: \label{fig:ns.distrib.cleaned}}
1730: \end{figure}
1731:
1732:
1733: Given that, at least for cuspy ellipticals formed in gas-rich mergers, there is
1734: no strong systematic dependence of $n_{s}$ on other properties or
1735: initial conditions, it is acceptable to place all such systems on the same footing
1736: and consider the overall distribution of $n_{s}$ values. Figure~\ref{fig:ns.distrib}
1737: shows this, for the simulations and our observed samples.
1738: Figure~\ref{fig:ns.distrib.cleaned} shows the same, but restricted to the
1739: cleaned subsample of Figure~\ref{fig:ns.mass.cleaned}.
1740: In each case, there is
1741: reasonable agreement, within the errors.
1742:
1743: The sample of \citet{rj:profiles} shows somewhat more
1744: $n_{s}\sim1$ systems than our simulations or observed cusp
1745: ellipticals. This effect is only marginally significant, but probably
1746: arises because a few of the systems in their sample will most likely
1747: (once they are relaxed) be better classified as S0s than ellipticals.
1748: There is a tentative suggestion that our predictions are shifted to
1749: systematically higher $n_{s}$ than the observed systems, by $\Delta
1750: n\sim0.25$ or so. At this level, however, observational issues in the
1751: measurements become important, as do the exact orbital parameters used
1752: in the simulations and the dynamic range over which the fit is
1753: performed \citep[see e.g.][]{boylankolchin:mergers.fp}. For example,
1754: \citet{blanton:env} find that for SDSS light profiles, the
1755: observations may be biased to underestimate $n_{s}$ by $\sim0.2-0.5$,
1756: and are sensitive to the sky subtraction \citep[see also][]{lauer:massive.bhs},
1757: consistent with the offset we see. It is therefore not surprising
1758: that the agreement is not exact. The important thing is that, with
1759: few rare exceptions ($\lesssim5\%$ of cases), cuspy ellipticals and
1760: gas-rich merger remnants have $n_{s}<4$ \citep[as in][]{jk:profiles},
1761: i.e.\ are concave-down in $\mu-r^{1/4}$ space, without a significant
1762: dependence of $n_{s}$ on other galaxy properties.
1763:
1764:
1765: \subsection{Dissipational (``Extra Light'') Mass Fractions}
1766: \label{sec:properties.fextra}
1767:
1768:
1769:
1770: \begin{figure}
1771: \centering
1772: \scaleup
1773: %\plotter{cusp_mass_vs_sb_ell.ps}
1774: \plotter{f18.ps}
1775: \caption{{\em Top:} Comparison of our estimated
1776: mass in the fitted extra light component ($f_{\rm extra}$) versus
1777: the starburst mass fraction in the best-fitting simulations ($f_{\rm sb}$;
1778: as in Figures~\ref{fig:jk1}-\ref{fig:lauerpp1}).
1779: For clarity, we show only observations from our ``cleaned'' sample and where
1780: it would be possible for our simulations to resolve the extra light.
1781: In these cases, the two estimates agree well, with a factor $\sim2-3$ scatter
1782: in $f_{\rm extra}(f_{\rm sb})$ (similar to what we expect from our
1783: simulations; see Figure~\ref{fig:check.fe.fsb}).
1784: {\em Middle:} $f_{\rm extra}$ versus
1785: independent observational estimates of
1786: the mass fraction formed in a more recent starburst/star formation event,
1787: from two-component stellar population model fits to the observed SEDs
1788: \citep{titus:ssp.decomp,
1789: schweizer96,schweizer:7252,schweizer:ngc34.disk,
1790: reichardt:ssp.decomp,michard:ssp.decomp}
1791: {\em Bottom:} Same, but comparing the stellar population estimates
1792: to $f_{\rm sb}$ from the best-fitting simulations.
1793: More observations are needed to independently test our
1794: estimates, but the stellar population data independently
1795: suggests our decompositions
1796: are reasonable.
1797: \label{fig:mass.vs.fsb}}
1798: \end{figure}
1799:
1800: Figure~\ref{fig:mass.vs.fsb} compares our estimates of the dissipational
1801: mass fraction in the observed ellipticals: the
1802: directly fitted extra light fraction $f_{\rm extra}$
1803: and inferred starburst mass fraction $f_{\rm sb}$ from the best-fitting simulations.
1804: For clarity we restrict to the cleaned sample
1805: from Figure~\ref{fig:ns.mass.cleaned}. Our fitted decomposed extra
1806: light fraction reliably traces the inferred starburst
1807: mass fraction, with a factor $\sim2$ scatter similar to that predicted
1808: from our simulations (Figure~\ref{fig:check.fe.fsb}). The starburst
1809: fraction $f_{\rm sb}$ itself must, in some sense, reflect the cold gas
1810: mass available in the disks just before the final merger
1811: (and we show in \paperone\ that this is the case) -- in this
1812: physical sense, our fitted $f_{\rm extra}$ and inferred $f_{\rm sb}$
1813: are a robust reflection of the gas content of the progenitors.
1814: Of course, changing simulation properties such as
1815: the presence or absence of an initial
1816: bulge, the concentration of the progenitor halos and disks, the
1817: presence or absence of a supermassive black hole, and the treatment of
1818: star formation and the ISM equation of state
1819: can indirectly influence $f_{\rm sb}$ by altering how
1820: efficiently gas is consumed and/or expelled before the final merger,
1821: and therefore how much is available to participate in the
1822: starburst. For a fixed gas mass at the time of the final starburst, however,
1823: the starburst component mass (and therefore also extra light mass,
1824: which traces the starburst) is independent of these effects.
1825:
1826: Figure~\ref{fig:mass.vs.fsb} also compares the results of our
1827: fitting to independent stellar population-based
1828: estimates of the starburst fraction in observed ellipticals.
1829: It is in principle possible, by studying the stellar populations in
1830: sufficient detail, to estimate the mass fraction which formed in a
1831: recent, central starburst (as opposed to the more extended quiescent
1832: star formation history), and this should provide an independent check
1833: of our decompositions.
1834: Unfortunately, there are still a number of
1835: degeneracies, and this requires detailed observations, but it has been
1836: attempted for several of the observed systems
1837: \citep{titus:ssp.decomp,schweizer:7252,schweizer96,schweizer:ngc34.disk,
1838: reichardt:ssp.decomp,michard:ssp.decomp}. Comparing our
1839: estimated $f_{\rm extra}$ or $f_{\rm sb}$ with these
1840: estimates for the mass fraction in the secondary (newly
1841: formed/starburst) stellar populations, we find a reasonable correlation.
1842: Although there are only a
1843: few objects for which sufficiently accurate stellar populations are
1844: available to allow this comparison, they all suggest that our fitted
1845: extra light component is indeed a good proxy for the mass fraction
1846: which was involved in the central, merger-driven starburst.
1847:
1848:
1849:
1850: \begin{figure*}
1851: \centering
1852: \scaleup
1853: %\plotter{fgas_initial_obs_alt.ps}
1854: \plotter{f19.ps}
1855: \caption{Inferred gas content (dissipational/starburst fraction) of
1856: elliptical-producing mergers as a function of stellar mass.
1857: Initial gas fraction ({\em top}) and physical final starburst mass
1858: fraction ({\em bottom}) corresponding to the best-fit simulations to
1859: each observed system in the samples of
1860: \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles} (circles)
1861: and \citet{jk:profiles} (stars) are shown,
1862: with the typical $25-75\%$ allowed range (error bar).
1863: Solid line shows the fit to the data (Equation~\ref{eqn:fgas.m}).
1864: Colored points with error bars indicate the mean (and $\pm1\,\sigma$
1865: range in) disk gas fractions at the same stellar mass, at
1866: $z=0$ \citep[][blue diamonds, squares, and circles, respectively]
1867: {belldejong:tf,kannappan:gfs,mcgaugh:tf},
1868: $z=1$ \citep[][green squares]{shapley:z1.abundances}, and
1869: $z=2$ \citep[][orange circles]{erb:lbg.gasmasses}. There is a clear trend of increasing
1870: dissipation
1871: required to explain elliptical profiles at lower masses
1872: (significant at $>8\,\sigma$),
1873: in good agreement with the observed trend in progenitor disk
1874: gas fractions over the redshift range where
1875: cusp ellipticals are formed, and with what is invoked to explain
1876: the observed densities and fundamental plane correlations of ellipticals
1877: \citep[e.g.][]{kormendy:dissipation,hernquist:phasespace}.
1878: \label{fig:fgas.needed}}
1879: \end{figure*}
1880:
1881: Having some confidence that our estimates of $f_{\rm sb}$ are reasonable,
1882: Figure~\ref{fig:fgas.needed} plots the inferred starburst mass fraction
1883: $f_{\rm sb}$ for the observed systems as a function of stellar mass. In
1884: the same manner that we have defined a best-fit $f_{\rm sb}$
1885: from the best-fit simulations, we can also define a best-fit
1886: ``initial'' gas fraction (roughly the gas fraction $\sim1\,$Gyr before the
1887: final merger), and show this as well. We emphasize though (for the reasons above
1888: regarding the efficiency of pre-merger gas consumption and expulsion) that
1889: this is a much less robust quantity. In either case there is
1890: a clear trend of increasing dissipation
1891: (increasing fractional mass required in a dissipational starburst component)
1892: at lower masses. The significance of the correlation is unambiguous ($>8\,\sigma$).
1893: We can conveniently approximate the trend in dissipational mass fraction
1894: as a function of stellar mass with the fitted function
1895: \begin{equation}
1896: \langle f_{\rm starburst} \rangle \approx
1897: {\Bigl[}1+{\Bigl(}\frac{M_{\ast}}{10^{9.15}\,\msun}{\Bigr)}^{0.4}{\Bigr]}^{-1},
1898: \label{eqn:fgas.m}
1899: \end{equation}
1900: with roughly a constant factor $\sim2$ intrinsic scatter at each mass.
1901:
1902: \begin{figure}
1903: \centering
1904: \scaleup
1905: %\plotter{cusp_mass_vs_fgas_ell_rev.ps}
1906: \plotter{f20.ps}
1907: \caption{As Figure~\ref{fig:fgas.needed}, but showing
1908: our empirically fitted $f_{\rm extra}$ as a function of
1909: stellar mass. The trend of increasing dissipation
1910: at lower masses is still clear and is consistent with
1911: that in Figure~\ref{fig:fgas.needed}, but with an
1912: expected extra factor $\sim2-3$ scatter
1913: from the scatter in our purely empirical estimator.
1914: Solid line shows the best-fit from Figure~\ref{fig:fgas.needed},
1915: dotted lines show the $\pm1\,\sigma$ scatter expected
1916: based on the scatter in $f_{\rm extra}(f_{\rm sb})$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:check.fe.fsb}).
1917: Dashed line is a fit just to these data (statistically consistent
1918: with the solid line, and ruling out no dependence of dissipation on
1919: mass at $>5\,\sigma$ confidence).
1920: \label{fig:fgas.needed.fextra}}
1921: \end{figure}
1922:
1923: Admittedly, the estimation of this trend requires some comparison with our simulations,
1924: and one might argue that perhaps it is driven by some deficiency in them. However,
1925: we can repeat this exercise with the empirically fitted extra light component
1926: $f_{\rm extra}$, and show the results in Figure~\ref{fig:fgas.needed.fextra}.
1927: The trend seen in $f_{\rm extra}(M_{\ast})$ is completely consistent with
1928: that in $f_{\rm sb}$, but with a scatter larger by a factor $\sim2$ (exactly
1929: what we expect, based on the predicted and observed scatter
1930: in $f_{\rm extra}(f_{\rm sb})$). Considering just the data in Figure~\ref{fig:fgas.needed.fextra},
1931: even given its increased scatter, the trend of decreasing extra light fraction
1932: with mass is significant at $>5\,\sigma$. We have experimented with
1933: alternative, non-parametric (albeit less accurate)
1934: estimators based on e.g.\ the concentration
1935: indices or stellar populations
1936: of our simulations and observed systems, and obtain a similar answer.
1937: In short, even without reference to our simulations,
1938: however we derive an estimate of the
1939: dissipational component, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that
1940: it is more prominent in lower-mass ellipticals. This confirms
1941: a long-standing
1942: expectation of the merger hypothesis
1943: that if spirals are indeed the progenitors of ellipticals, more dissipation
1944: is required in lower mass systems in order to explain
1945: their densities and fundamental plane correlations
1946: \citep[we examine this in more detail in][]{hopkins:cusps.fp}.
1947:
1948:
1949: This, in fact, should be expected. It is well-established that the gas
1950: fractions of spirals are strongly decreasing functions of mass, at any
1951: given redshift. To the extent that these are the progenitors of the
1952: cusp ellipticals, then, the amount of dissipation involved in the
1953: formation of ellipticals should reflect this trend. We therefore
1954: compare in Figure~\ref{fig:fgas.needed} the range of observed gas
1955: fractions of spirals as a function of baryonic mass, estimated at
1956: $z=0$, $z=1$, and $z\sim2-3$. The gas fractions follow, at each
1957: redshift, a similar trend to that we find for the
1958: dissipational fractions of the observed ellipticals. They do, as expected for
1959: almost any reasonable cosmological history, increase systematically
1960: with redshift, and the typical disk gas fractions at $z=0$ and
1961: $z\sim2-3$ appear to roughly bracket the low and high end of the
1962: dispersion in the inferred elliptical progenitor gas fractions.
1963:
1964: In other words, the distribution in progenitor gas fractions implied
1965: by the elliptical surface brightness profiles is, as a function of
1966: mass, exactly what would be predicted if one assumes that the
1967: progenitors were spirals, and that most of the systems were formed by
1968: a major merger sometime between a redshift of $\sim0-3$
1969: \footnote{Technically the post-merger
1970: elliptical mass is not exactly the mass of a single initial
1971: spiral, but correcting for this amounts to a small horizontal shift of
1972: the disk and elliptical points relative to one another in the figure
1973: (i.e.\ the disk points should be shifted by $0.3$\,dex to larger
1974: masses if all mergers are $1:1$, or $0.1$\,dex for more likely $3:1$
1975: mergers), and does not change our comparison (in fact it makes the
1976: agreement slightly better).}. Indeed,
1977: this is exactly what is inferred for the formation times of cusp
1978: ellipticals from both observations of the early-type or red galaxy
1979: mass functions \citep{bundy:mtrans,borch:mfs,fontana:highz.mfs,
1980: hopkins:red.galaxies,hopkins:groups.ell},
1981: from direct stellar population synthesis studies
1982: \citep{trager:ages,thomas05:ages, gallazzi:ssps}, and
1983: by association of elliptical galaxy formation with the
1984: triggering of quasar activity
1985: \citep[e.g.][]{hopkins:qso.all,hopkins:bol.qlf,
1986: hopkins:groups.qso}.
1987:
1988:
1989:
1990: \subsection{Size of the ``Extra Light'' Component}
1991: \label{sec:properties.size}
1992:
1993: \begin{figure}
1994: \centering
1995: \scaleup
1996: %\plotter{cusp_size_mass_relation_ell.ps}
1997: \plotter{f21.ps}
1998: \caption{{\em Top:} Effective radius of the extra light component
1999: ({\em not} equivalent to the radius where it breaks from the outer \Sersic\ fit)
2000: as a function of extra light mass
2001: (points as in Figure~\ref{fig:ns.mass}). Simulations ({\em left}) and observations ({\em right})
2002: are similar, especially
2003: if we restrict to simulations with initial gas fractions $\sim0.2-0.4$. Resolution limits
2004: (see Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix:resolution}) prevent us from simulating systems with
2005: $R_{\rm extra}\ll 100\,$pc, but this is only important for the few very lowest-mass
2006: ellipticals ($L\lesssim 0.01\,L_{\ast}$; discussed in \S~\ref{sec:obs}).
2007: Filled diamond is typical sightline-to-sightline variance in the simulations, open
2008: diamond the source-to-source (or band-to-band) scatter in observed profile fits.
2009: {\em Bottom:} Effective velocity dispersion of the extra light component vs.\ that for the
2010: whole galaxy. Solid line shows $(G\,M_{\rm extra}/R_{\rm extra})=(G\,M_{\ast}/R_{e})$ -- the
2011: extra light collapses to the point where it is self-gravitating.
2012: The observed systems ({\em right}) follow a trend which agrees
2013: well with the simulations ({\em left}).
2014: \label{fig:sizes}}
2015: \end{figure}
2016:
2017: The extra light components in simulations and
2018: cusp ellipticals also appear to follow a similar size-mass
2019: relation, shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sizes}. The correspondence is
2020: especially close if we consider simulations with initial gas fractions
2021: $\sim0.2-0.4$, which tend to be the best analogs to the observed
2022: systems. This radius is the effective radius of the fitted
2023: inner extra light component, and is not the radius
2024: at which the system appears to deviate from the outer \Sersic\ law (but
2025: is more physically robust). We do not see simulations with
2026: extra light effective radii $\ll100\,$pc, corresponding to the smallest
2027: extra light components seen in the very low-mass observed
2028: systems, but as discussed in Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix:resolution},
2029: this probably owes to our
2030: resolution limits.
2031:
2032: In \paperone\ we show that the size-mass relation is driven by the
2033: condition that the gas collapsing into the central regions in the
2034: final starburst becomes self-gravitating, i.e.\ that $(G\,M_{\rm
2035: extra}/R_{\rm extra})\sim(G\,M_{\ast}/R_{e})$ in terms of the extra light
2036: mass and effective radius. We show that the observations obey a
2037: similar condition, with (small) scatter and dynamic range similar
2038: to that in our simulated mergers. That observed systems
2039: follow a similar correlation suggests both that we are at least
2040: roughly capturing the most relevant physics determining the scales of
2041: extra light, and that we are not being severely biased by resolution
2042: effects over most of the mass range of interest.
2043:
2044:
2045:
2046: \breaker
2047: \section{Impact of ``Extra Light'' on Galactic Structure}
2048: \label{sec:structural.fx}
2049:
2050:
2051: \subsection{Galaxy Sizes and the Fundamental Plane}
2052: \label{sec:structural.fx.sizes}
2053:
2054:
2055: \begin{figure*}
2056: \centering
2057: \scaleup
2058: %\plotter{re_sigma_vs_cusp_rev.ps}
2059: \plotter{f22.ps}
2060: \caption{Effective radius $R_{e}$ relative to the
2061: median value for all ellipticals of the same stellar mass,
2062: as a function of our
2063: fitted extra light fractions (the empirical
2064: tracer of the dissipational/starburst mass fraction).
2065: We compare simulated gas-rich
2066: merger remnants ({\em top}) with
2067: observed cusp ellipticals and gas-rich merger remnants
2068: ({\em bottom}), with points as in Figure~\ref{fig:ns.mass}.
2069: We show this in three bins of stellar mass
2070: (relative to $\mstar\approx10^{11}\,\msun$, or $M_{V}^{\ast}=-21$).
2071: Solid (dotted) lines show the mean ($\pm1\,\sigma$) correlation,
2072: following the analytic solution for dissipational mergers and
2073: fits to our simulation in \citet{covington:diss.size.expectation}.
2074: Simulations and observations exhibit the same
2075: behavior: systems with smaller $R_{e}$ at fixed mass have
2076: systematically larger extra light fractions ($>6\,\sigma$ significance
2077: in the observations).
2078: This implies that, at fixed mass,
2079: systems are driven along the fundamental plane by the relative amount of
2080: dissipation involved in their formation.
2081: \label{fig:re.sigma.cusp}}
2082: \end{figure*}
2083:
2084:
2085: Figure~\ref{fig:re.sigma.cusp} shows how, at fixed mass, the effective radius
2086: (of the entire elliptical profile) scales with extra light mass. We
2087: consider three mass bins, below, at, and above $\sim\mstar$. In each,
2088: we plot $R_{e}$ relative to that expected
2089: for the given stellar mass, as a function of the fitted extra light
2090: fraction. Specifically, we determine $\langle{R_{e}(M_{\ast})}\rangle$
2091: from the sample of \citet{shen:size.mass}, and take the ratio of
2092: the half mass radius of each system
2093: (determined directly from the light profile,
2094: or from the fits, it does not change the comparison)
2095: to that value. Our mass bins are small enough,
2096: however, that this makes little difference compared to just e.g.\
2097: considering $R_{e}$ in a given bin. There is a strong trend: at a
2098: given stellar mass, systems with larger extra light have
2099: systematically smaller $R_{e}$
2100: (they also have slightly larger velocity dispersion $\sigma$, although the
2101: scatter is larger there in both simulations and observations).
2102: In each case, the simulations and observed systems occupy a
2103: similar locus. We can also construct this plot with the starburst mass
2104: fraction $\fsb$ of the best-fitting simulation as the independent
2105: variable, and find an even tighter correlation of the same nature.
2106:
2107: This directly implies some structural
2108: change (some subtle non-homology, albeit not necessarily traditional
2109: structural or kinematic non-homology)
2110: in the fundamental plane tilt. At
2111: fixed mass, smaller systems are so because a larger fraction of their
2112: mass is formed in a central dissipational starburst.
2113: This dissipational starburst is compact, so even though
2114: the pre-existing stars are scattered to large radii, the effective
2115: radius is smaller.
2116:
2117: Given two progenitors of known size and mass, it is straightforward to
2118: predict the size of the remnant of a dissipationless merger, simply
2119: assuming energy conservation \citep[see e.g.][]{barnes:disk.halo.mergers};
2120: in the case of a dissipative merger, we can very crudely model
2121: the results in Figure~\ref{fig:re.sigma.cusp} by assuming the
2122: non-extra light stars follow
2123: a \citet{hernquist:profile} profile with effective radius $R_{e}(\fsb=0)$, and
2124: the extra light is all at $r=0$. More accurately,
2125: \citet{covington:diss.size.expectation} use the impulse approximation to
2126: estimate the energy loss in the gaseous component, followed
2127: by collapse in a self-gravitating starburst.
2128: This yields a detailed approximation as a function
2129: of e.g.\ initial structural and orbital parameters, but if we assume typical progenitor
2130: disks and parabolic orbits, it reduces to the
2131: remarkably simple approximation
2132: \begin{equation}
2133: R_{e} \approx \frac{R_{e}(\fsb=0)}{1+(f_{\rm sb}/f_{0})},
2134: \end{equation}
2135: where $f_{0}\approx0.25-0.30$ and $R_{e}(\fsb=0)$
2136: is the radius expected for a gas-free remnant.
2137: We plot this in Figure~\ref{fig:re.sigma.cusp}, with the scatter seen
2138: in the simulations. At all masses, in both simulated and observed
2139: cusp ellipticals, more dissipational ellipticals are smaller
2140: in the manner predicted.
2141: In the absence of dissipation, the stellar light of observed
2142: systems would follow a uniform virial relation, but
2143: dissipation results in smaller $R_{e}$ at fixed stellar mass, and (given the
2144: concentration of mass in this central starburst) therefore a higher
2145: baryon fraction inside $R_{e}$ -- i.e.\ changing the total $M/L$
2146: (total dark matter plus stellar mass to stellar mass ratio) within
2147: $R_{e}$ of the stellar light \citep[see, e.g.][]{KormendyGebhardt01}.
2148:
2149:
2150:
2151: \begin{figure}
2152: \centering
2153: %\plotter{re_sigma_vs_cusp_zoom_rev.ps}
2154: \plotter{f23.ps}
2155: \caption{Center panels of Figure~\ref{fig:re.sigma.cusp}, with
2156: four regions along the correlation between effective radius and extra
2157: light fraction at fixed mass highlighted. The surface brightness profiles
2158: in these regions are shown in Figures~\ref{fig:profile.vs.fsb.sims} \& \ref{fig:profile.vs.fsb}.
2159: \label{fig:re.sigma.cusp.zoom}}
2160: \end{figure}
2161: \breaker
2162:
2163: \begin{figure}
2164: \centering
2165: \scaleup
2166: \plotter{f24.ps}
2167: \caption{Light profiles of simulated systems with different $\re$ at fixed stellar mass.
2168: We plot all profiles from our simulations (colors
2169: denote simulation gas fractions as Figure~\ref{fig:ns.mass}) from each of the labeled regions
2170: in the $\re-\fsb$ space for the $\sim\mstar$ galaxy mass bin in Figure~\ref{fig:re.sigma.cusp.zoom},
2171: in order from largest $\re$ (smallest $\fsb$) to smallest $\re$ (largest $\fsb$) (left to right,
2172: top to bottom). Similar results are obtained for the other mass ranges.
2173: The dashed black line shows a constant \Sersic\ profile, the same in each panel, for
2174: comparison.
2175: There is a substantial systematic difference: smaller $\re$ systems at fixed stellar
2176: mass have more prominent central mass concentrations, driven by dissipation in our
2177: simulations.
2178: \label{fig:profile.vs.fsb.sims}}
2179: \end{figure}
2180: \breaker
2181:
2182: \begin{figure}
2183: \centering
2184: \scaleup
2185: \plotter{f25.ps}
2186: \caption{As Figure~\ref{fig:profile.vs.fsb}, but for the observed surface brightness profiles.
2187: Color denotes the observed sample as Figure~\ref{fig:ns.mass}.
2188: \label{fig:profile.vs.fsb}}
2189: \end{figure}
2190:
2191: We directly illustrate this homology-breaking in
2192: Figures~\ref{fig:re.sigma.cusp.zoom}-\ref{fig:profile.vs.fsb},
2193: by considering the light profiles of
2194: systems in Figure~\ref{fig:re.sigma.cusp}, along the correlation
2195: between $R_{e}$ and $f_{\rm extra}$ at fixed stellar mass. We consider the
2196: $\sim\mstar$ mass bin (the other two give similar results, but have
2197: fewer observed systems), and identify four regions in the $R_{e}-f_{\rm extra}$
2198: space along the mean correlation, highlighted in Figure~\ref{fig:re.sigma.cusp.zoom}.
2199: We then plot the simulated (Figure~\ref{fig:profile.vs.fsb.sims}) and
2200: observed (Figure~\ref{fig:profile.vs.fsb})
2201: light profiles in each region. We also plot an $n_{s}=3$ \Sersic\
2202: profile, which provides a good fit (in the mean) to most of the outer
2203: \Sersic\ profiles in this mass range.
2204:
2205: It is clear in Figure~\ref{fig:profile.vs.fsb} that both simulated and observed
2206: systems at fixed mass with the largest $R_{e}$ show profiles close to a
2207: pure \Sersic\ law, with little evidence for any extra light component in their centers
2208: (indeed, they have $\fsb\lesssim0.03$). The observed systems in this regime
2209: are still cusps, but the cusps tend to be prominent at very small radii
2210: and (in several cases) somewhat shallow, and contribute negligibly to the
2211: stellar mass. However, moving to smaller $R_{e}$,
2212: deviations from a \Sersic\ law at $r\ll\re$ become more prominent. That is not to say
2213: that these deviations are universal (that the extra light always takes the same
2214: shape/form), but there are increasingly prominent central
2215: light concentrations. If the systems were strictly homologous, there should be
2216: no differences in Figure~\ref{fig:profile.vs.fsb}. Since we have scaled
2217: each system at its $\re$, they should be identical -- instead, it appears that
2218: a central light concentration, formed in our simulations via gas dissipation,
2219: drives an important non-homology.
2220:
2221: We discuss this in \citet{hopkins:cusps.fp}, where we show
2222: that this is sufficient to explain the tilt of the
2223: (stellar mass) fundamental plane. In that work, we
2224: demonstrate that the fitting of the central component in the light profile
2225: can be used as a direct observational test for the role of dissipation in
2226: the fundamental plane. Given a larger central light component, the
2227: effective radius of the stellar light profile must be smaller. Because the
2228: central regions of the galaxy are the most baryon-dominated, moving the
2229: effective radius inwards results in a different (larger) ratio of stellar to
2230: dynamical mass, i.e.\ driving tilt in the fundamental plane. We note
2231: that although this is technically non-homology (i.e.\ the profiles
2232: are not perfectly self-similar), it does not drive tilt in the sense
2233: of traditional structural or kinematic non-homology; i.e.\ the
2234: practical ``homology assumption'' that the true mass enclosed
2235: in $R_{e}$ is proportional to the dynamical mass estimator $\sigma^{2}\,R_{e}/G$
2236: remains true. Rather, the non-homology induced is a subtle effect
2237: that provides a tracer of dissipation, which changes the physical
2238: ratio of baryonic to dark matter within $R_{e}$.
2239:
2240:
2241: \subsection{Galaxy Shapes and Kinematics}
2242: \label{sec:structural.fx.shapes}
2243:
2244: \begin{figure*}
2245: \centering
2246: \scaleup
2247: %\plotterr{cusp_vs_kinematics_rev.ps}
2248: \plotterr{f26.ps}
2249: \caption{{\em Top:}
2250: Correlation between fitted extra light fraction (in both simulations and observed
2251: cuspy ellipticals, plotted as in Figure~\ref{fig:ns.mass}) and
2252: global kinematic properties of the galaxy: rotation $(V/\sigma)^{\ast}$, boxy/disky-ness
2253: $100\,a_{4}/a$, and ellipticity $\epsilon$. Median values across
2254: sightlines are plotted. Black points with error bars show the
2255: typical $\sim1\sigma$ sightline-to-sightline dispersion in each quantity
2256: from our simulations.
2257: {\em Bottom:} Histograms show the distribution in each property,
2258: for observed systems (thick black line), dissipational simulations
2259: which have similar moderate extra light fractions (blue shaded),
2260: and gas-poor (nearly dissipationless) simulations ($\fsb<0.1$; red dotted).
2261: The simulation distributions uniformly
2262: sample each simulation in solid angle over $\sim100$ lines-of-sight (including the
2263: large sightline-to-sightline dispersion in the top panels).
2264: Broadly,
2265: cuspy ellipticals and gas-rich merger remnants occupy a wider range in these parameters at
2266: low $\fsb$, but are uniformly rapid rotators, with slightly diskier isophotal shapes, and
2267: slightly rounder ellipticities at large $\fsb\gtrsim0.1$.
2268: For more details, see \citet{cox:kinematics}.
2269: \label{fig:cusp.vs.kinematics}}
2270: \end{figure*}
2271:
2272:
2273: Figures~\ref{fig:cusp.vs.kinematics} shows how the shapes and
2274: global kinematic properties vary with extra light. We plot
2275: the rotation, isophotal shapes, and ellipticity of our simulations and
2276: the observed systems as a function of the fitted extra light fraction.
2277: Here, we consider the global properties of the galaxy -- namely the
2278: rotation $(V/\sigma)^{\ast}$ measured within $\re$, and
2279: boxy/disky-ness $100\,a_{4}/a$, and
2280: ellipticity $\epsilon$ measured for the half-mass projected ($\re$) isophotal
2281: contour, for each of $\sim100$ lines-of-sight to the remnant uniformly
2282: sampling the unit sphere (i.e.\ representing the distribution across random
2283: viewing angles). The details of the fitting for our simulations are described in
2284: \citet{cox:kinematics}, and for the observations in \citet{bender:87.a4,
2285: bender:88.shapes,bender:ell.kinematics,faber:catalogue,
2286: simien:kinematics.1,simien:kinematics.6}.
2287: We define rotation in the standard manner, relative to that
2288: of an oblate isotropic rotator, with the parameter $(V/\sigma)^{\ast}$,
2289: defined using the maximum circular velocity $V_{\rm c}$,
2290: velocity dispersion within $\re$, and ellipticity as \citep{kormendy:rotation.equation}
2291: \begin{equation}
2292: (V/\sigma)^{\ast} = (V/\sigma) / \sqrt{\epsilon/(1-\epsilon)}.
2293: \end{equation}
2294: We exclude the coplanar merger simulations
2295: from our comparisons here: those
2296: simulations are idealized perfectly coplanar prograde orbits, and as such
2297: produce pathological orbit and phase structure (we do, however, include some
2298: more representative orbits in that are not far from coplanar).
2299:
2300: In each sense, the simulations and observations occupy a similar
2301: locus. While there are no real correlations, there some broad differences
2302: between the distributions for systems with significant
2303: or insignificant extra
2304: light components. Systems with small extra light fractions ($\fsb\lesssim0.1$)
2305: have a wide range of $(V/\sigma)^{\ast}$, $a_{4}/a$, and $\epsilon$ --
2306: they range from relatively slow rotation \citep[albeit not as slow as
2307: many core elliptical slow rotators; see][]{emsellem:sauron.rotation}
2308: to rotationally supported objects $(V/\sigma)^{\ast}\gtrsim1$, with
2309: both boxy and disky isophotal shapes ($-2\lesssim 100\,a_{4}/a
2310: \lesssim 2$), and a range in ellipticity from fairly spherical to
2311: highly flattened $\epsilon\sim0.5$. Despite in some instances having e.g.\
2312: slow rotation properties, these systems do not follow other
2313: trends of massive, cored slow rotators -- they usually are not
2314: simultaneously slowly rotating, boxy, and round. This is similar to
2315: several observed systems, which generally show evidence for
2316: formation in a gas-rich merger but owing to sightline effects may
2317: be deviant in one of these properties.
2318:
2319: At high extra light fractions, however, both our simulated systems and
2320: those observed tend to be more rapid rotators
2321: (fractionally more populating
2322: $(V/\sigma)^{\ast}\gtrsim 0.4$), with less boxy isophotal shapes
2323: (typical $-0.5\lesssim 100\,a_{4}/a \lesssim2$), and slightly rounder
2324: ellipticities ($\epsilon\lesssim0.4$; note they are
2325: still more elliptical than core galaxies, in agreement with observed trends).
2326: A more detailed analysis of the
2327: role of central mass concentrations and dissipation in shaping the
2328: orbital structure of gas-rich merger remnants will be the focus of
2329: \citet{hoffman:prep}. Briefly, however, these differences are
2330: physically expected, and follow what has been
2331: seen in earlier work \citep[e.g.][]{barneshernquist96,naab:gas,
2332: cox:kinematics,onorbe:diss.fp.details,
2333: jesseit:kinematics,burkert:anisotropy}:
2334: the central dissipational mass concentration in
2335: these systems is highly concentrated, and acts effectively like a
2336: point mass at the center of the galaxy to much of the material at
2337: $R_{e}$. When this becomes a large fraction of the galaxy mass
2338: ($\fsb\gtrsim0.1$), the potential becomes more spherical, which
2339: eliminates some of the phase space density that might otherwise
2340: support boxy and radial orbits
2341: \citep{binney:box.orbits,hernquist:phasespace,naab:gas,hoffman:prep},
2342: and the central cusp can itself disrupt box orbits as they pass near
2343: the center \citep{gerhard:box.orbits.w.cusp}. This results in a
2344: larger fraction of rotationally supported tube orbits, diskier
2345: isophotal shapes, and (directly) a rounder overall system.
2346:
2347: If we consider simulations with sufficiently large dissipational fractions
2348: ($\fsb\gtrsim0.1$, similar to what we see in the observed systems), then,
2349: our gas-rich merger remnant
2350: simulations match well each of the distributions of $\epsilon$, $a_{4}/a$ and
2351: $(V/\sigma)^{\ast}$ for cuspy ellipticals.
2352: This is demonstrated in much greater detail in \citet{cox:kinematics}.
2353: Here, we highlight
2354: that there is a significant difference in many of these
2355: properties between cusp and core ellipticals, as has been well
2356: established in previous studies \citep[e.g.][]{bender89,faber:ell.centers}.
2357: It is clear that our gas-rich merger simulations
2358: provide a good match to the observed distributions of
2359: $(V/\sigma)^{\ast}$, $a_{4}/a$, and $\epsilon$ in
2360: cuspy ellipticals, as we would expect, but they are not reproducing the more
2361: slowly rotating, boxy, round distributions characteristic of core ellipticals.
2362: This should also be borne in mind considering Figure~\ref{fig:cusp.vs.kinematics}:
2363: the lack of real correlations with extra light fraction appears to be true
2364: {\em within the cuspy population}; if core ellipticals are altered through
2365: subsequent spheroid-spheroid ``dry'' mergers,
2366: these properties can be modified
2367: \citep{naab:dry.mergers,cox:remerger.kinematics,burkert:anisotropy},
2368: and it is expected that these processes will bring the predicted distributions
2369: into better agreement with those observed in the cored population.
2370:
2371:
2372: %\begin{figure}
2373: % \centering
2374: % \scaleup
2375: % \plotter{f26.ps}
2376: % \caption{Metallicity gradient strength (see \S~\ref{sec:ssp.fx}) and
2377: % outer \Sersic\ index as a function of fitted extra light fraction, in three bins
2378: % of stellar mass, as in Figure~\ref{fig:re.sigma.cusp}. There is a correlation of
2379: % gradient strength with degree of dissipation, discussed in \S~\ref{sec:ssp.fx}, but
2380: % there is little correlation of outer profile shape with the detailed amount of
2381: % central dissipation in the starburst (because these stars are violently relaxed in the
2382: % final merger). The exception is the few systems with dominant outer disks and $n\sim1$,
2383: % where the disk itself represents/requires a large extra light/dissipational component.
2384: % \label{fig:grad.ns.vs.cusp}}
2385: %\end{figure}
2386: %
2387: %Figure~\ref{fig:grad.ns.vs.cusp} shows how the stellar population
2388: %gradients and \Sersic\ indices scale with extra light fraction, similar
2389: %to Figure~\ref{fig:re.sigma.cusp}. We will discuss the strength of
2390: %gradients as a function of $\fsb$ in \S~\ref{sec:ssp.fx}, but note
2391: %here that they roughly scale with the amount of dissipation. The outer
2392: %profile shape, however, has a weak correlation, as expected based on
2393: %our arguments in \S~\ref{sec:fits} -- this is formed by the scattering
2394: %of stars in the disks at the final merger, and so has no direct
2395: %information about the central dissipation. The exception is that
2396: %systems with low $n\sim1$, i.e.\ prominent exponential disks, tend
2397: %to have large dissipational components $\fsb\gtrsim0.3$, reflecting
2398: %the fact that sufficiently large gas content means some can survive the merger to form
2399: %a dominant large disk in the remnant.
2400:
2401:
2402:
2403: \subsection{Nuclear Black Hole Masses}
2404: \label{sec:structural.fx.mbh}
2405:
2406:
2407: \begin{figure}
2408: \centering
2409: \scaleup
2410: %\plotter{bh_vs_cusp_rev.ps}
2411: \plotter{f27.ps}
2412: \caption{{\em Top:} BH mass as a function of fitted extra light mass,
2413: in our simulations ({\em left}) and observed systems that have direct BH mass
2414: measurements ({\em right}; only a small fraction of our sample have such
2415: BH masses measured). {\em Bottom:} Residual correlation of BH mass with
2416: extra light mass at fixed stellar mass (i.e.\ $M_{\rm BH}/\langle M_{\rm BH}(M_{\ast})\rangle$
2417: versus $M_{\rm extra}/M_{\ast}$). Solid line is the expectation if
2418: systems obey the correlation between $\fsb$ and $\re$ from Figure~\ref{fig:re.sigma.cusp} and
2419: the black hole fundamental plane \citep{hopkins:bhfp.obs}.
2420: There is a significant $M_{\rm BH}-M_{\rm extra}$ correlation, but it largely
2421: reflects the $M_{\rm BH}-M_{\ast}$ correlation or BHFP.
2422: At fixed stellar mass, the (weak) residual trend
2423: comes from the BHFP as increased dissipation builds a more compact remnant
2424: with deeper potential, and therefore larger BH.
2425: \label{fig:bh}}
2426: \end{figure}
2427:
2428: Figure~\ref{fig:bh} shows
2429: how the BH masses scale with extra light mass, both globally and
2430: at fixed stellar mass.
2431: We plot all of our simulations which include central BHs, and include the cusp
2432: ellipticals in our sample for which direct kinematic or maser measurements of a
2433: central BH have been possible
2434: \citep[compiled from][]{magorrian,merrittferrarese:msigma,tremaine:msigma,
2435: marconihunt,haringrix,aller:mbh.esph}.
2436: For more details, we refer to \citet{hopkins:bhfp.obs}.
2437: There is a correlation in simulations and observations between
2438: BH mass and extra light mass. However, this appears to be largely driven by the
2439: correlation between BH mass and total spheroid stellar mass, which has
2440: smaller dispersion and a weaker residual dependence on
2441: e.g.\ gas fraction or orbital properties. This is expected: if BH mass is
2442: actually sensitive to the
2443: depth of the central potential and spheroid
2444: binding energy, as argued from the nature of the fundamental plane-like
2445: correlation for BH masses and host properties demonstrated in
2446: \citet{hopkins:bhfp.theory,hopkins:bhfp.obs}
2447: and \citet{aller:mbh.esph}, then this is better correlated with the total
2448: stellar mass setting the potential than the few percent of the mass in the extra light component.
2449:
2450: We might expect though, that at fixed total stellar mass, systems with
2451: larger extra light components, since this formed a more compact
2452: remnant, would have somewhat deeper potentials. Given the black hole
2453: fundamental plane (BHFP) in terms of stellar mass and $\re$ (i.e.\
2454: scaling of BH mass with $\re$ or, equivalently, $\sigma$ at fixed
2455: galaxy stellar mass, as in \citet{hopkins:bhfp.theory,hopkins:bhfp.obs}),
2456: and the scaling of $\re$ with extra light
2457: fraction at fixed mass seen in Figure~\ref{fig:re.sigma.cusp}, we can
2458: estimate the dependence of BH mass on extra light fraction at fixed
2459: stellar mass. Figure~\ref{fig:bh} shows the residual of BH mass (i.e.\
2460: BH mass relative to that expected at each stellar mass) as a function
2461: of extra light fraction, compared to this expectation. There is
2462: considerable scatter, but the simulations and few observed systems
2463: broadly follow the expected trend -- namely that the cusp mass does
2464: not primarily drive $\mbh$, but that at fixed stellar mass, increasing
2465: dissipation builds more compact remnants which have higher binding
2466: energies and therefore, via the BHFP, larger BH masses.
2467:
2468:
2469:
2470: \breaker
2471: \section{Impact of ``Extra Light'' on Stellar Populations}
2472: \label{sec:ssp.fx}
2473:
2474: If a significant fraction of gas dissipates to produce a central mass
2475: concentration, and this forms stars in a rapid central starburst, we
2476: should expect this to leave an imprint on stellar population
2477: gradients in the remnant \citep[e.g.][]{mihos:gradients}.
2478:
2479:
2480: \begin{figure*}
2481: \centering
2482: \plotter{f28.ps}
2483: \caption{Comparison of the observed stellar population
2484: and color gradients (points) of NGC 3377 with those in the $\sim10$ simulations (lines) which
2485: most closely match its surface brightness profile (see Figure~\ref{fig:jk2}).
2486: The $B$-band light weighted parameters are plotted at three different times
2487: after the merger (labeled), with $\Delta t=3\,$Gyr corresponding roughly to the
2488: observed mean stellar population ages in NGC 3377 (points there are plotted
2489: exactly as observed). At $\Delta t = 0.1$ and $10\,$Gyr, in contrast, we have
2490: added the mean age offsets ($-2.9\,$Gyr and $+7$\,Gyr), and shifted the colors
2491: by the mean difference expected for passive evolution of a single stellar
2492: population with solar metallicity and the quoted age; this highlights the change in
2493: shape of the simulation gradients, as well as their normalizations.
2494: The simulated age and metallicity gradients fade slightly with time, as the
2495: difference in stellar populations becomes less prominent. At all times, however, the
2496: gradients are primarily driven by the mean difference in age and metallicity between
2497: the compact central starburst populations and the violently relaxed pre-merger populations.
2498: At early times, young,
2499: starburst populations often yield blue cores and a rising color gradient;
2500: at late times, the age effect weakens, and the enhanced metallicity of the
2501: starburst population dominates, reversing the color gradient (yielding
2502: red cores).
2503: \label{fig:grad.case.study}}
2504: \end{figure*}
2505:
2506: Figure~\ref{fig:grad.case.study} presents an illustrative example of
2507: these effects. We consider the elliptical NGC 3377, for which
2508: detailed stellar population gradients have been measured by
2509: \citet{sanchezblazquez:ssp.gradients}. The system is a clear cusp
2510: galaxy and rapid rotator with disky isophotal shapes, and is included
2511: in our \citet{jk:profiles} sample (Figure~\ref{fig:jk2}). From our
2512: comparison in Figure~\ref{fig:jk2}, we select the $\sim10$ simulations
2513: with the most similar surface brightness profiles. These generally
2514: fall within the range of those plotted in the figure, and all provide
2515: reasonably good fits to the observed surface brightness profile. For
2516: each simulation, we then extract the stellar populations as a function of
2517: radius, viewed from the same projection as that which provides the
2518: most similar surface brightness profile to NGC 3377 (although
2519: the sightline-to-sightline variation is weak).
2520:
2521: We model the emission from each star particle treating it as a single
2522: stellar population with the formation time and metallicity determined
2523: self-consistently from the star-forming gas in our simulations, and
2524: convolving with the stellar population models of \citet{BC03},
2525: assuming a \citet{chabrier:imf} initial mass function. The observed
2526: stellar population parameters are effectively light-weighted in the
2527: optical SED, so as a rough proxy for this we extract, in each
2528: major-axis radial annulus, the $B$-band light weighted stellar
2529: population age and metallicity from the simulation. The $g-z$ color is
2530: determined directly in each annulus.
2531:
2532: Of course, doing this requires that we pick a definite time after the
2533: merger to view a simulation. We therefore show results for three
2534: representative times. First, just $\sim10^{8}$\,yr after the final
2535: coalescence of the two galactic nuclei, when the object would likely
2536: be classified as a recent merger remnant. Second, $\sim3$\,Gyr after
2537: the final merger, which is representative of younger $\sim
2538: L_{\ast}$ cusp ellipticals. Specifically, we choose this time because
2539: the total light-weighted age, integrated over the whole galaxy, at
2540: this point matches that observationally inferred for NGC 3377 -- i.e.\
2541: when our comparisons are most appropriate. Third, we show the
2542: remnant after $\sim10\,$Gyr, i.e.\ having evolved in isolation for
2543: nearly a
2544: Hubble time, comparable to the oldest observed ellipticals. At
2545: $t=3$\,Gyr, we directly plot the observed age, metallicity, and color
2546: profiles from \citet{sanchezblazquez:ssp.gradients}. At the other
2547: times, we make the lowest-order reasonable corrections to
2548: highlight relative evolution in the shapes of the profiles: we add or
2549: subtract the appropriate age difference uniformly from the age
2550: profile, and likewise add or subtract the mean color difference
2551: expected for a single stellar population of the mean observed age and
2552: luminosity. Again, these leave the profile shapes unchanged -- we
2553: merely shift them by the expected mean to compare with the shape
2554: changes predicted by our simulations.
2555:
2556: At early times ($t=0.1\,$Gyr), the gradients are strong. The stars
2557: formed in the central starburst are very young, and thus dominate the
2558: central light. Unsurprisingly, then, the age at the center of the
2559: galaxy is approximately just the time since the merger,
2560: $\sim0.1\,$Gyr. This rises to $\sim3-5$\,Gyr in the outermost regions,
2561: representative of the ages of the stars that were forming before the
2562: merger proper began. The central population is also the most metal
2563: rich, producing a similar strong metallicity gradient. The young, blue
2564: stellar populations of the center result in a strong color gradient
2565: with a blue core, common among young merger remnants
2566: \citep[e.g.][]{schweizerseitzer92,schweizer96,rj:profiles,yamauchi:ea.gradients}.
2567:
2568: The gradients in these quantities are most pronounced
2569: between $\sim0.05-0.1\,R_{e}$ and $\sim R_{e}$: at much smaller or
2570: larger radii they tend to flatten. This intermediate region is the
2571: transition between dominance of the pre-merger stellar populations and
2572: central cusp -- the gradients are primarily driven by the mean
2573: difference in stellar population parameters between the central
2574: starburst and outer old stellar components. This, in
2575: principle, allows arbitrarily strong gradients at the radii typically
2576: observed, but at larger radii, for example, violent relaxation mixes
2577: the old stars, washing out initial gradients and leading to a
2578: flattening in the total gradient. As predicted, these trends are
2579: typical in observed stellar population gradients
2580: \citep[e.g.][]{mehlert:ssp.gradients,
2581: sanchezblazquez:ssp.gradients,reda:ssp.gradients}.
2582:
2583: By $\sim3\,$Gyr after the merger, the age and metallicity gradients
2584: have weakened slightly. The apparent age gradient,
2585: quantified as e.g.\ ${\rm d}\log{({\rm age})}/{\rm d}\log{(r)}$ is
2586: much weaker at this time, but largely for artificial reasons -- adding
2587: a uniform $\sim3$\,Gyr to the age of the system accounts for most of
2588: this, since it makes the difference in $\log{(\rm age)}$ smaller. In
2589: terms of ${\rm d}{\rm (age)}/{\rm d}\log{(r)}$, the effects are more
2590: subtle, comparable to what is seen in the metallicity gradient. The
2591: gradients do, at this level, weaken slightly. This is because the now
2592: older central stellar populations have a lower $L/M$, more comparable
2593: to the old stars with which they are mixed. There is therefore
2594: slightly more mixing between the pre-merger and starburst
2595: populations. This can be seen in the metallicity gradients, which we
2596: would expect (to lowest order) to remain constant with time. Still,
2597: the effect is clearly second-order. These trends continue with time,
2598: as can be seen at the time $\sim10\,$Gyr after the merger.
2599:
2600: The color gradients evolve significantly with time, however. The inner regions are younger,
2601: which at early times (when they are very young, $\lesssim0.5$\,Gyr) typically
2602: results in blue cores and a color gradient which becomes redder at larger radii
2603: (note, however, that at times very close to the merger, dust can reverse this trend).
2604: However, they are also more metal-rich,
2605: which tends to make them redder. After $\sim1\,$Gyr, the effects of the age difference
2606: are much less prominent, and the color gradient becomes dominated by the
2607: metallicity gradient, resulting in {\em red} cores, and reversing the
2608: sense of the gradient. At even later times, the strength of this gradient (towards redder
2609: central regions) becomes stronger, although it remains relatively weak.
2610: We therefore expect that most ellipticals, even those which are relatively young,
2611: will have weak color gradients with red cores, as observed \citep{faber:catalogue,
2612: bender:ell.kinematics.a4,trager:ages,cote:virgo,ferrarese:profiles}.
2613: This should caution strongly against inferring too much from an observed color
2614: gradient, since the physical meanings and sense of the color gradients in
2615: typical simulations not only quantitatively depend on time and relative
2616: age, metallicity, and abundance gradients, but in fact usually reverse
2617: their meaning and behavior with time.
2618:
2619: Because the star formation history depends on spatial location,
2620: mergers and dissipation can also induce gradients in e.g.\ the
2621: chemical abundance patterns and $\alpha$-enrichment of ellipticals. However, we
2622: do not show these explicitly for two reasons. First, our simulation
2623: code does not currently track separate enrichment by different species, so
2624: our estimates of such are based on crude analytic estimates (taking e.g.\ the
2625: star formation history in radial bins and estimating the
2626: $\alpha$-enrichment based on a closed-box model). Second, and more
2627: important, the effects are much more sensitive to the initial
2628: conditions and cosmological merger history. For example, one can
2629: imagine a situation where stars form over a
2630: fairly extended time period in the initial disks, leading to relatively high
2631: $[{\rm Fe/Mg}]$ at large radii. The merger then forms a rapid starburst in the
2632: center, which will preferentially be $\alpha$-enriched but not have time
2633: to self-enrich in heavier elements, leading to a decreasing $\alpha$-enrichment
2634: gradient. However, to the extent that {\em most} of the metal content of the
2635: central starburst often comes from the previous history of enrichment of
2636: that gas in the pre-merger disks (i.e.\ gas that enriched over long timescales),
2637: the additional effect of the starburst will be quite weak, leading to
2638: gradients of only $\sim0.1$ in $[{\rm Fe/Mg}]$ over $\sim0.01-10\,R_{e}$.
2639:
2640: Furthermore, one can also imagine a scenario in which the progenitor
2641: disks rapidly exhaust their gas in a short timescale leading to
2642: high $\alpha$-enrichment, retaining
2643: a relatively poor gas reservoir for the final merger. Because this gas is
2644: retained over long time periods, it enriches in ${\rm Fe}$-elements from
2645: the older disk stellar populations,
2646: and after forming stars in the central starburst creates a gradient with
2647: the opposite sense (i.e.\ decreasing $\alpha$-enrichment with radius).
2648: Again, our estimates suggest the effect will be weak.
2649:
2650: In either case,
2651: because the magnitude of the induced $\alpha$-enrichment gradients
2652: are comparable to those observed in spiral galaxies
2653: \citep[e.g.][]{moorthy:spiral.ssp.grad,ganda:spiral.ssp.grad},
2654: the final prediction is much more sensitive to the initial
2655: conditions (unlike e.g.\ the induced total metallicity gradients, which
2656: are typically stronger than those in comparable disks).
2657: The mean or total $\alpha$-enrichment, on the other hand, depends of
2658: course primarily on the timescale for the formation of most of the
2659: stellar mass -- which in almost all the cases of interest here means the
2660: pre-merger disks, which we are not attempting to model.
2661: Further complicating matters, cosmological infall or accretion of
2662: new gas and minor mergers will play a (fractionally) larger role.
2663: For these reasons, a more comprehensive set of models
2664: is needed to say anything quantitative about
2665: $\alpha$-enrichment gradients, but it is
2666: nevertheless reassuring that
2667: the magnitude and sense (both positive and negative) of these
2668: possible induced gradients are in fact qualitatively similar to
2669: what is observed \citep[e.g.][]{reda:ssp.gradients,sanchezblazquez:ssp.gradients}.
2670:
2671: \begin{figure*}
2672: \centering
2673: %\plotter{ssp_grad_compare.ps}
2674: \plotter{f29.ps}
2675: \caption{{\em Top Left:} Correlation between metallicity gradient
2676: (${\rm d[Z/H]/d}\log{r}$)
2677: and extra light fraction ($f_{\rm extra}$)
2678: in our simulations (points as in Figure~\ref{fig:ns.mass}).
2679: {\em Remaining Panels:} Various correlations
2680: between metallicity gradients (${\rm d[Z/H]/d}\log{r}$),
2681: age gradients (${\rm d\log{(Age)}/d}\log{r}$),
2682: central velocity dispersion $\sigma$,
2683: central light-weighted stellar population age (${\rm Age}_{\rm c}$),
2684: and central light-weighted stellar population metallicity
2685: (${\rm [Z/H]}_{\rm c}$). For clarity, the simulations are plotted in these
2686: panels as light grey points, and compared with observed ellipticals
2687: (magenta points; triangles, squares, and diamonds are from the samples of
2688: \citet{mehlert:ssp.gradients,reda:ssp.gradients,sanchezblazquez:ssp.gradients}, respectively).
2689: The correlation between gradient strength and the excess light fraction
2690: ({\em top left}) reflects the fact that the central light drives most of the gradients.
2691: This gives rise to the associated correlations shown in other panels.
2692: In each case, the observations occupy a similar
2693: locus to the simulations.
2694: \label{fig:grad.compare}}
2695: \end{figure*}
2696:
2697: Figure~\ref{fig:grad.case.study} is instructive, but it is difficult to compare
2698: with all systems. We therefore globally compare gradient strengths by fitting the
2699: mean gradient in metallicity and age over the range
2700: $\sim0.1-1\,R_{e}$ in each of our simulations, comparable to the
2701: range typically used observationally \citep[e.g.][and references therein]{reda:ssp.gradients}.
2702: We consider the results extracted
2703: at a series of times after the merger similar to those in Figure~\ref{fig:grad.case.study}.
2704:
2705: Figure~\ref{fig:grad.compare} shows how these gradient strengths
2706: compare to those in observed ellipticals \citep[from][]{mehlert:ssp.gradients,
2707: reda:ssp.gradients,sanchezblazquez:ssp.gradients}. We
2708: consider gradient strength as a function of
2709: extra light fraction, velocity dispersion, central stellar population age
2710: (averaged within an aperture of $R_{e}/8$, again comparable to typical
2711: observations), and central metallicity.
2712: There is a noticeable correlation between gradient strength and the excess light fraction;
2713: we expect this, since as noted above this central light drives most of the gradients.
2714: This also gives rise to a correlation between
2715: e.g.\ metallicity gradient and central metallicity, age gradient and central age, and
2716: different gradients themselves (stronger metallicity gradients tend to
2717: accompany stronger age gradients). There is not a strong dependence of
2718: gradient on mass, however (what there is is mostly driven by the mean dependence of
2719: extra light fraction on stellar mass). In each case, the observations occupy a similar
2720: locus to the simulations.
2721:
2722: There have been some claims that the metallicities
2723: \citep{naab:no.merger.ell} and metallicity gradients
2724: \citep{forbes:grad.vs.mass} in ellipticals are too large/strong for
2725: them to be formed from mergers of present-day spirals. However, these
2726: arguments fail to account for the role of dissipation in increasing
2727: the central metallicity and giving rise to strong metallicity
2728: gradients in merger remnants. The left panels of
2729: Figure~\ref{fig:grad.compare} demonstrate that, for moderate
2730: gas fractions, our simulations occupy a similar locus in
2731: both central metallicity and metallicity gradients to observed
2732: ellipticals. The metallicities typically
2733: quoted in stellar population studies are {\em central} metallicities,
2734: measured within $\sim R_{e}/8$ (or within a central fiber in automated
2735: surveys such as SDSS). It therefore requires only a small amount of
2736: material to rapidly self-enrich in the central regions to explain
2737: these metallicities -- our simulations even with $\sim5\%$ excess
2738: light fractions are able to do so (reaching ${\rm [Z/H]}_{c}\sim0.5$
2739: and ${\rm d[Z/H]/d}\log{(r)}\sim-0.6$). Since strong central metallicities
2740: often accompany strong metallicity gradients,
2741: the actual total metal mass of the galaxy (estimated from
2742: the combination of the surface density profile and metallicity
2743: profile) can easily be a factor $\sim3$ smaller than the metal mass
2744: that would be inferred if the system had a constant metallicity equal
2745: to the quoted central values.
2746:
2747: We emphasize that the pre-merger stars in our simulations
2748: are initialized to have a low uniform metallicity with no initial
2749: gradients (so that we can be sure any gradients we see are the result
2750: of the simulation dynamics, not artifacts of our initial
2751: conditions). Since more realistic initial disks will already have high
2752: metallicities $\sim Z_{\sun}$ \citep[similar, in fact, to ellipticals of the
2753: same mass; see e.g.][]{gallazzi:ssps}, and metallicity gradients in the same
2754: sense as those produced in our simulations,
2755: the metallicities and metallicity gradients in our
2756: simulations are only lower bounds to the true values that can arise in
2757: dissipational mergers. Furthermore, recycling of metal-rich gas
2758: by stellar evolution \citep[which we do not model here, but see e.g.][]{ciottiostriker:recycling}
2759: will subsequently enrich the system.
2760:
2761:
2762: \begin{figure}
2763: \centering
2764: \plotter{f30.ps}
2765: \caption{Color gradients (here the difference in mean color
2766: within $R_{e}/8$ and $R_{e}$) in simulations
2767: (black lines) at different times after the merger (labeled). We compare to
2768: the distribution for observed cusp elliptical samples (for the \citet{cote:virgo}
2769: objects, we show the distribution for ellipticals $<6\,$Gyr
2770: [{\em middle}] and $>6$\,Gyr [{\em bottom}] old).
2771: Positive values indicate blue cores. For ages typical of cusp ellipticals,
2772: the remnants have relaxed to where metallicity gradients dominate the overall
2773: color gradient and yield red cores, albeit with generally weak gradients,
2774: with distributions similar to observed ellipticals of comparable ages.
2775: \label{fig:color.grad}}
2776: \end{figure}
2777:
2778: Since the behavior of the color gradients is somewhat more complex, we
2779: try and reduce it to the key qualitative element.
2780: Figure~\ref{fig:color.grad} shows the distribution in color difference at $R_{e}/8$ and
2781: at $R_{e}$, a rough proxy for the color gradients, at various times after the merger.
2782: Observed distributions from samples of
2783: cusp ellipticals, with typical ages $\sim3-8$\,Gyr,
2784: are also shown. The transition from initial blue cores shortly after the merger to
2785: red cores in relaxed ellipticals is obvious, as is the weakness of the color
2786: differences.
2787: The simulations and observations trace
2788: broadly the same distribution for post-merger times of $\sim3-10$ Gyr.
2789: We find a similar agreement comparing to the $V-I$ color gradients in
2790: \citet{lauer:centers}, and the $V-R$ and $V-I$ color gradients
2791: in \citet{bender:data}.
2792:
2793:
2794:
2795: \begin{figure}
2796: \centering
2797: \plotter{f31.ps}
2798: \caption{Mass-to-light ratio ($M/L$)
2799: as a function of radius and time elapsed since the end of the
2800: merger-induced starburst, in $K$-band ({\em top}) and $B$-band ({\em bottom}),
2801: for relatively low gas fraction ({\em left}) and high gas fraction ({\em right}),
2802: otherwise equal ``typical'' ($\sim\lstar$) merger simulations. Shaded range shows
2803: the $\sim1\sigma$ range in $M/L$ across different sightlines.
2804: At early times ($\lesssim1\,$Gyr), young central stellar populations lead to a
2805: significant gradient (related to the strong ``blue cores'' in Figure~\ref{fig:color.grad}).
2806: By $\gtrsim3\,$Gyr (relevant for almost all the ellipticals in our sample),
2807: there is no significant dependence in optical bands, and only weak
2808: dependence in the near infrared (owing to the remaining metallicity
2809: gradients; for detailed discussion see \paperone).
2810: \label{fig:m.l.r}}
2811: \end{figure}
2812:
2813: The weak color gradients in observed ellipticals are often used to justify the
2814: assumption of a constant {\em stellar} mass-to-light ratio as a function of
2815: radius, an assumption we have used in comparing our simulations and
2816: observed systems. In Figure~\ref{fig:m.l.r}, we test this
2817: assumption directly in our simulations. We consider two $\sim\lstar$ galaxy mergers,
2818: one relatively gas poor (a case which happens to provide a reasonable
2819: match to many of the observed ellipticals), and another otherwise equal but
2820: gas rich merger, both of which have typical color and stellar population gradients. We
2821: directly calculate the stellar mass-to-light ratios in narrow major-axis radial annuli
2822: in both $K$-band and $B$-band, at different times after the peak of the
2823: merger-induced starburst.
2824:
2825: The $M/L$ gradients reflect what is expected from the color gradients,
2826: and supports our assumption of nearly constant $M/L$ with radius. At
2827: early times $\ll 1\,$Gyr, the central stellar populations are bright (associated
2828: with blue cores), and in $B$-band, nuclear dust obscuration makes the central $M/L$
2829: sensitive to viewing angle. This is a relevant for the recent merger remnants
2830: studied in \paperone\ (although they are observed in the $K$-band),
2831: and we discuss the implications for the youngest systems (with very large
2832: apparent $f_{\rm extra}\gtrsim0.5$) therein. By $\sim2\,$Gyr after the merger,
2833: however, the remnants have typical weak, red cores and $M/L$
2834: in optical bands such as $B$ and $V$ is usually constant as a function of radius to within
2835: $\lesssim20\%$. At these ages, the parameters derived by fitting to
2836: optical profiles are identical to those obtained directly fitting the stellar mass profiles.
2837: The gradients in age (younger at the center) and metallicity (more metal rich
2838: at the center) have opposite effects in the optical, yielding negligible dependence of
2839: $M/L$ on radius (in $K$ band, the effects do not cancel; however
2840: among our observed samples only the recent
2841: merger remnants from \citet{rj:profiles} are observed in $K$-band, so we refer to
2842: \paperone\ for more details).
2843: Reassuringly, this is similar to a purely empirical estimate based on the
2844: color-dependent $M/L$ from \citet{bell:mfs} and the observed color gradients.
2845: All of the ellipticals we study have estimated stellar population ages
2846: older than this threshold (and weak color gradients) and are observed in these
2847: optical bands, so our results should be robust to stellar population effects.
2848:
2849:
2850:
2851:
2852: \begin{figure}
2853: \centering
2854: \scaleup
2855: %\plotter{re_vs_ssp_grad.ps}
2856: \plotter{f32.ps}
2857: \caption{Correlation between metallicity gradient strength and
2858: effective radius (relative to the mean at each stellar mass), at
2859: fixed stellar mass (in the mass bins labeled). Our simulations are
2860: shown (point style as in Figure~\ref{fig:ns.mass}) along with the observed
2861: systems from Figure~\ref{fig:grad.compare}
2862: (black circles and squares from \citet{sanchezblazquez:ssp.gradients} and
2863: \citet{reda:ssp.gradients}, respectively). In the simulations, increased
2864: dissipation yields more compact remnants, with stronger stellar population
2865: gradients (unfortunately the color and age gradients are strongly sensitive
2866: to subsequent time evolution effects, so are less robust tracers of dissipation),
2867: predicting a correlation of the nature shown. Observations tentatively suggest the
2868: same, but more are needed to confirm this prediction of different degrees of dissipation
2869: along the fundamental plane.
2870: \label{fig:re.ssp.grad}}
2871: \end{figure}
2872:
2873:
2874: Given the dependence of both
2875: gradient strength and effective radius (Figure~\ref{fig:re.sigma.cusp}) on
2876: dissipation, we would expect that systems with smaller $R_{e}$
2877: at fixed stellar mass (an indicator of greater dissipation)
2878: should exhibit somewhat stronger stellar population
2879: gradients. Figure~\ref{fig:re.ssp.grad} shows the predicted gradient
2880: strength versus effective radius from simulations
2881: and observed systems. We focus on the metallicity
2882: gradient: the color and age
2883: gradients evolve strongly with time, introducing much larger
2884: scatter and possibly even reversing the predicted trends here.
2885: There is a significant trend predicted, and the observations show some
2886: tentative evidence for such behavior, but more data are needed to
2887: determine this robustly (because there is a mean offset in the
2888: range of metallicity gradients at different masses,
2889: it is important to consider narrow ranges in observed
2890: stellar mass). To the extent that the strength of the metallicity
2891: gradients is an indicator of the degree of dissipation in the
2892: elliptical formation event,
2893: this prediction potentially provides a completely non-parametric means
2894: to search for non-homology (i.e.\ differential degrees of dissipation
2895: as a function of radius at fixed mass) along the fundamental plane.
2896:
2897:
2898:
2899: \section{Discussion}
2900: \label{sec:discuss}
2901:
2902:
2903: We have studied the formation and properties of extra light and cusps
2904: in elliptical galaxies using a large library of both numerical
2905: simulations and local observed cuspy ellipticals. We demonstrate the
2906: relation of these observed cusps to the prediction of
2907: \citet{mihos:cusps} with our improved numerical models: namely, that
2908: tidal torques in major mergers of gas-rich disks channel gas into the
2909: central regions of the galaxy, where it forms a dense central
2910: starburst. The starburst leaves a central light excess with a high
2911: phase space density, making the remnant more compact and reconciling
2912: the densities of disks and elliptical galaxies. Improvements in
2913: spatial resolution (the ``extra light'' in previous numerical studies
2914: has generally been entirely unresolved),
2915: numerical treatments (see Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix:resolution}), and models for
2916: star formation allow us to make detailed comparisons
2917: and for the first time demonstrate good agreement between the extra light and
2918: cusps in simulated gas-rich merger remnants and observed cusp
2919: ellipticals.
2920:
2921: We argue that stars in these cuspy ellipticals (specifically,
2922: we intend this to represent those ellipticals formed
2923: immediately in gas-rich major mergers; not those which may have had subsequent gas-poor
2924: re-mergers) should be separated into at least two distinct populations.
2925: First, stars which are formed in the disks (or otherwise in extended distributions in
2926: progenitor galaxies) before the final merger and coalescence
2927: of the two galaxies. The final merger scatters these stellar orbits and they
2928: undergo violent relaxation. They dominate the light, even in highly gas-rich
2929: merger remnants, outside of $\sim0.5-1\,$kpc, and form a \Sersic-law profile
2930: owing to their partial violent relaxation. Second,
2931: the starburst or dissipational population,
2932: formed in the central gas concentration in the final merger.
2933: This component is compact, and
2934: dominates the light inside a small radius $\lesssim0.5-1\,$kpc.
2935: These stars {\em do not} undergo
2936: significant violent relaxation, but form in a nearly fixed background potential
2937: set by the dissipationless component of the galaxy. The size of the
2938: dissipational component is set primarily by the radius at which it becomes
2939: self-gravitating; the gas is then generally stable against further collapse (even with
2940: cooling) and rapidly forms stars.\footnote{There is also a third
2941: component present in simulations but not prominent in light profile fitting:
2942: gas moved to large radii temporarily either by feedback or tidal effects, which
2943: settles into the relaxed remnant and re-forms small rotationally supported
2944: components \citep[embedded disks, kinematically decoupled cores, etc.; e.g.][]{hernquist:kinematic.subsystems,hopkins:disk.survival}.}
2945:
2946:
2947: \subsection{Comparing Simulations and Observations:
2948: Empirical Decomposition of Light Profiles}
2949: \label{sec:discuss:separating}
2950:
2951: Observations and simulations have, in recent years, been driven to convergence
2952: on this multi-component description of elliptical light profiles, at least
2953: within the ``cusp'' population
2954: \citep{kormendy99,jk:profiles,cote:virgo,cote:smooth.transition,ferrarese:profiles}.
2955: In particular, the combination of ground-based and high-resolution {\em HST} photometry
2956: has allowed observers, from a purely phenomenological perspective, to
2957: recognize central extra light components
2958: beyond the inward extrapolation of an outer profile. The interpretation proposed
2959: herein has been advanced as the explanation for these central profile
2960: shapes, supported in a purely empirical manner by
2961: gradients in e.g.\ stellar populations, isophotal shapes, and stellar
2962: kinematics.
2963:
2964: By applying observational methods to a large library of simulations,
2965: we can directly compare simulations with different degrees of dissipation
2966: to observed light profiles, in order to determine what is required
2967: in a merger-driven scenario in order to
2968: reproduce the observations. We find that in all
2969: cases of ellipticals of moderate masses $\gtrsim 0.1\,\mstar$,
2970: we have simulations which provide excellent matches to the observed
2971: systems (down to our resolution limits $\sim30-50$\,pc),
2972: comparable to the typical point-to-point variance inherent
2973: in the simulation surface brightness profiles
2974: ($\dmu\lesssim0.1$). We can therefore further use this ensemble of simulations
2975: to test different means of decomposing observed
2976: profiles in order to calibrate a method which reliably and robustly
2977: recovers the appropriate {\em physical} decomposition in those
2978: simulations.
2979: We demonstrate (Figures~\ref{fig:demo.fit.danger} \&\ \ref{fig:check.fe.fsb})
2980: that an appropriately designed
2981: parametric fit to the total light profile recovers, on average, the correct
2982: (known physically in the simulations) decomposition of the
2983: light -- the mass fraction and effective radius of both
2984: the physical starburst component and, separately,
2985: the outer dissipationless component.
2986:
2987: The details of our methodology are discussed in \S~\ref{sec:fits}:
2988: essentially, we fit the surface brightness profiles to the sum
2989: of two \Sersic\ components, an inner and outer profile.
2990: The quantitative details of the decomposition are, of course,
2991: sensitive to the methodology and assumed functional forms;
2992: for this reason observations have often disagreed over the
2993: quantitative scales of extra light even for similar profiles
2994: \citep[compare e.g.][]{cote:virgo,jk:profiles}.
2995: Fitting the entire light profile to
2996: a single \Sersic\ or a core-\Sersic\ law, for example, and comparing the
2997: central regions with the fit can yield physically meaningless
2998: values for the ``extra light,'' even though the result is, in a global sense,
2999: a formally good fit to the profile.
3000: Physically motivated models and simulated light profiles of the sort
3001: studied here are therefore necessary in order to make quantitative
3002: statements about extra light.
3003: Furthermore, a wide dynamic range
3004: is necessary; we find that the extra light is typically
3005: $\sim1-10\%$ of the galaxy light and becomes important within
3006: $\sim500\,$pc ($\sim0.1\,R_{e}$). The extra light component,
3007: as it becomes larger, typically blends in more smoothly with the outer
3008: profile, and does not necessarily appear as a sharp departure from the
3009: outer light profile. Therefore, simultaneous resolution of small scales
3010: $\sim100\,$pc where the extra light dominates, and large scales
3011: $\sim20-100\,$kpc where the shape of the outer, dissipationless
3012: component can be robustly determined, is a critical observational
3013: ingredient enabling these comparisons.
3014:
3015: We apply this decomposition to our simulations and to a number of
3016: observed samples: including the combination of detailed elliptical
3017: surface brightness profiles over a wide dynamic range in
3018: \citet{jk:profiles} and \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles}, and a large
3019: sample of gas-rich merger remnants observed in \citet{rj:profiles}.
3020: The results from
3021: our fits are included in Tables~\ref{tbl:cusp.fits} \&\ \ref{tbl:mgr.fits}
3022: (see Figures~\ref{fig:jk1}-\ref{fig:lauerpp1} and Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix:jk}).
3023: For the observed
3024: ellipticals, we consider only those which are observed to have central
3025: cusps in high-resolution HST imaging, as opposed to those with central
3026: cores or mass deficits, as the latter are commonly believed to form in
3027: gas-poor spheroid-spheroid
3028: remergers, which we do not model here. We instead undertake a
3029: comparison of those objects and simulations of both gas-rich and
3030: gas-poor mergers in \citet{hopkins:cores}.
3031:
3032: Applying these methods to observations, then, provides a powerful new
3033: diagnostic of the formation history of galaxies.
3034: In the physical
3035: context of the models considered here,
3036: it is not only possible to
3037: estimate (from the existence of some central component) whether or
3038: not the formation of a given galaxy requires some dissipation,
3039: but {\em to empirically, quantitatively estimate the degree of dissipation -- i.e.\ ``how
3040: gas-rich'' was the history or progenitor of a given elliptical}.
3041: We extend this to develop a number of new
3042: probes of galaxy merger history, and
3043: corresponding
3044: predictions and tests of the merger hypothesis.
3045:
3046:
3047: \subsection{Predictions and Observations}
3048: \label{sec:discuss:predictions}
3049:
3050: {\bf (1)} From either fitted extra light/dissipational component masses, or
3051: a direct comparison of simulations and observations, we find that
3052: {\em there is a clear trend of increasing dissipation in the profiles of
3053: less massive ellipticals} (Figures~\ref{fig:fgas.needed}-\ref{fig:fgas.needed.fextra}).
3054: The required initial gas fractions in
3055: mergers to form profiles that resemble the observed systems are a
3056: decreasing function of mass, and at all masses from $M_{\ast}\sim
3057: 10^{9}-10^{12}\,\msun$ span a range bracketed by the typical observed
3058: gas fractions of spiral galaxies at the same mass, at $z=0$
3059: (bracketing the low end of the required gas fractions) and $z\sim2-3$
3060: (bracketing the high end). In terms of the mass fraction in the final
3061: dissipational or starburst component, the trend is even more clear
3062: (significance $\gg5\,\sigma$), and is reflected in the observed extra
3063: light components. The trend is given by Equation~(\ref{eqn:fgas.m}):
3064: \begin{eqnarray}
3065: \nonumber & & \langle f_{\rm starburst} \rangle \sim {\Bigl[}1+{\Bigl(}\frac{M_{\ast}}{10^{9.15}\,\msun}{\Bigr)}^{0.4}{\Bigr]}^{-1}.
3066: \end{eqnarray}
3067: We are able to, for the first time, observationally directly infer the degree of dissipation
3068: from the surface brightness profiles of observed ellipticals
3069: and use it to show that, in line with predictions from e.g.\ their fundamental plane
3070: correlations \citep{carlberg:phase.space,gunn87,lake:merger.remnant.phase.space,
3071: kormendy:dissipation,hernquist:phasespace},
3072: dissipation is more important in lower mass ellipticals,
3073: reflecting the increasingly gas-rich nature of lower-mass progenitor
3074: spirals.
3075: \\
3076:
3077: {\bf (2)} At a given mass, the degree of dissipation strongly influences the
3078: size of the remnant. In both observations and simulations {\em we
3079: demonstrate a tight correlation between effective (half-light) radius
3080: at a given stellar mass and the inferred dissipational/extra light
3081: fraction} (Figure~\ref{fig:re.sigma.cusp}).
3082: This owes to the compact nature of the central dissipational
3083: component -- increasing the
3084: mass fraction in this component means that the half-light radius must be
3085: smaller. This is also reflected as an increasing velocity dispersion
3086: with extra light fraction at fixed mass, but this effect is
3087: weaker (because of the role of dark matter in setting the total mass
3088: and velocity dispersion).
3089:
3090: This has important implications for the fundamental plane of
3091: elliptical galaxies -- namely that dissipation is a key driver of
3092: systems on the fundamental plane (in terms of e.g.\ stellar mass, in
3093: optical bands there are obviously also substantial stellar population
3094: effects). Looking at $\sim\lstar$ ellipticals along the sequence of
3095: increasing dissipational component and decreasing effective radius, we
3096: directly show how this relates to homology-breaking in ellipticals
3097: (Figures~\ref{fig:profile.vs.fsb.sims}-\ref{fig:profile.vs.fsb}). Those
3098: with large effective radii and little dissipation at a given mass
3099: are well-described by a \Sersic\ law (with our mean Sersic index
3100: $n\sim2.5-3$) over the range $\sim0.01-5\,R_{e}$. Those with smaller
3101: effective radii and large dissipational components typically show an
3102: excess at small radii, reflecting the concentration of starburst light
3103: owing to dissipation. This grows with smaller radii and larger
3104: dissipational components, from prominence only at small radii $\ll
3105: 0.1\,R_{e}$ to $\sim0.5\,R_{e}$ in extreme systems.
3106:
3107: We caution that there is not an obvious sense of the shape of this
3108: extra component -- in some cases the whole profile could still be
3109: well-fitted by a single \Sersic\ law (albeit with a higher index
3110: $n_{s}$). In others, there is only a small excess in the $\mu-r$
3111: plane, but it extends to large radii $\sim0.5\,R_{e}$ and therefore
3112: contributes considerably to the mass. In yet others it is similar to
3113: more obvious extra light, and to that visible in our most extreme
3114: simulations, as a sharp departure from the outer \Sersic\ law at small
3115: radii. In any case, however, the tight correlation between dissipational
3116: component strength and size of the elliptical can be directly seen to
3117: relate to a subtle non-homology in the central surface brightness of the
3118: galaxies, in both the observations and our simulations.
3119: \\
3120:
3121: {\bf (3)} We find that the outer \Sersic\ indices of
3122: cusp ellipticals are nearly constant as a function of
3123: stellar mass or any other properties (with median
3124: $\sim2.5-3$ and scatter $\sim0.7$; Figures~\ref{fig:ns.mass}-\ref{fig:ns.distrib.cleaned}).
3125: We emphasize that, given our
3126: two component decomposition, this outer \Sersic\ index is only
3127: meaningful in the sense of reflecting those violently relaxed stellar
3128: populations which were present in the progenitors before the final
3129: merger (fitting the entire profile to a single \Sersic\ index can yield a
3130: very different result).
3131: This is because the dissipationless component is relaxed under the
3132: influence of gravity, and is therefore roughly self-similar across
3133: scales.
3134:
3135: We note this constant \Sersic\ index distribution is
3136: relevant for {\em gas-rich merger remnants}.
3137: As we demonstrate in \citet{hopkins:cores}, subsequent gas-poor
3138: re-mergers will systematically raise the outer \Sersic\ indices,
3139: and pseudobulges or other low-mass bulges may
3140: have systematically lower indices (and together
3141: these may drive a systematic dependence of \Sersic\ index on mass, owing
3142: to the cosmological dependence of formation history on mass).
3143: This has been seen in the Virgo cusp elliptical sample of \citet{jk:profiles},
3144: and each of our observed samples independently confirms
3145: our prediction, and together they show no dependence of \Sersic\ index
3146: over more than three orders of
3147: magnitude in stellar mass. Especially restricting to a sample of
3148: ellipticals which are observed in multiple bands and from multiple
3149: ground-based sources and considering only those results for which the
3150: fits (from different bands and instruments) do not disagree, we
3151: confirm both the predicted
3152: \Sersic\ index distribution and lack of dependence on other galaxy properties.
3153: This agreement further suggests that cusp ellipticals are the direct remnants
3154: of gas-rich major mergers, without substantial subsequent re-merging.
3155: \\
3156:
3157: {\bf (4)} Extra light fraction does not, in any predictive sense, correlate with the global
3158: kinematic properties (namely, ellipticity, isophotal shape $a_{4}$, and
3159: rotation $(V/\sigma)^{\ast}$) of ellipticals in our simulations or in the observations. However,
3160: there is in a broad sense a change in these properties for large versus small
3161: extra light fractions (Figure~\ref{fig:cusp.vs.kinematics}).
3162: At small extra light fractions $\lesssim5-10\%$, remnants are
3163: more similar to the known properties of dissipationless disk-disk mergers
3164: \citep[e.g.][]{barnes:disk.halo.mergers}, with a wide range in
3165: rotation properties, isophotal shapes, and ellipticities.
3166: At substantial extra light fractions, however, the systems are
3167: (on average) somewhat rounder,
3168: and are more uniformly disky
3169: and rapidly rotating.
3170: The dissipational component itself makes the remnant potential more
3171: spherical, and is closely related to kinematic subsystems formed from gas
3172: that survives the merger which contribute to the rotation and
3173: isophotal shapes \citep[see e.g.][]{cox:kinematics,
3174: robertson:fp,dekelcox:fp,naab:gas,burkert:anisotropy}.
3175: A distribution of dissipational/extra light fractions like that
3176: observed yields remnants with a similar distribution in each of these
3177: properties to observed cusp ellipticals, in striking contrast with dissipationless simulations
3178: that have historically not been able to match these properties.
3179: \\
3180:
3181: {\bf (5)} Black hole mass appears to be roughly correlated with the mass in the
3182: extra light component, in both simulations and observations, but we show that this
3183: is largely a reflection of the tighter correlation between black hole mass and total
3184: host spheroid stellar or dynamical mass (Figure~\ref{fig:bh}).
3185: This is not surprising: if black hole mass
3186: most tightly follows the central potential or binding energy of the bulge,
3187: as argued from recent observations favoring a black hole fundamental plane
3188: \citep{hopkins:bhfp.theory,hopkins:bhfp.obs,aller:mbh.esph},
3189: then this is largely set by the total mass of
3190: the system. The extra light mass represents a perturbation to the binding energy/velocity
3191: dispersion the system would have if dissipationless, and there is in simulations
3192: a weak residual trend along the expected lines, but it is sufficiently weak that
3193: the present observations are inconclusive.
3194: \\
3195:
3196: {\bf (6)} The dissipation of gas into the central regions of ellipticals in a central starburst
3197: gives rise to significant gradients in the stellar populations (Figure~\ref{fig:grad.case.study}).
3198: Since they are formed at
3199: the end of the merger, from gas channeled to the center of the galaxy after being
3200: enriched by star formation throughout the progenitor disks, the central stellar
3201: populations tend to be younger and more metal rich. The detailed gradient structure
3202: in our simulations corresponds well to what is typically observed -- with metallicity
3203: increasing and age decreasing relatively smoothly from $\sim R_{e}$ to
3204: $\sim 0.03-0.1\,R_{e}$. We do occasionally find anomalous behavior resembling
3205: various observed systems -- e.g.\ non-monotonic trends in the stellar populations --
3206: but these are generally rare, as is also observed.
3207:
3208: At large radii, observations find generally weaker gradients -- our
3209: simulations suggest that these are not driven by dissipation in the
3210: merger, but rather reflect pre-existing gradients in the initial
3211: disks. To be conservative, we have not included them here, but
3212: experiments suggest that they are not completely destroyed: it is well
3213: known, for example, that particles roughly preserve their ordering in
3214: binding energy in mergers \citep{barnes:disk.disk.mergers}, so given
3215: the trend in spirals towards less metal enrichment and older ages in
3216: their outer regions, we expect a smeared out version of these
3217: gradients to continue weakly into the outer regions of merger
3218: remnants, where the stars are primarily those violently relaxed from
3219: the initial disks. Over the range where observed gradients are
3220: typically fit, we quantify the gradient strengths in our simulations
3221: and find they are similar to those observed, as a function of system
3222: mass, age, and metallicity (Figure~\ref{fig:grad.compare}).
3223: Previous claims that mergers would only
3224: yield weak gradients in ellipticals ignored the importance of
3225: dissipation, which allows us to form systems with metallicity
3226: gradients comparable to the most extreme observed (${\rm
3227: d[Z/H]/d}\log{r}\sim-0.8$).
3228:
3229: In general, the gradients are not strongly dependent on mass, but do
3230: depend somewhat on the degree of dissipation (Figure~\ref{fig:grad.compare}).
3231: They also evolve
3232: significantly with stellar population age, as suggested by observations --
3233: not only do the stars
3234: become uniformly older, but as they age after the merger, the
3235: difference in mass to light ratio between young stars formed in the
3236: starburst and older stars becomes less significant, so in any
3237: light-weighted stellar population the younger starburst stars become
3238: (relatively) less prominent, and the gradient weakly washes out (Figure~\ref{fig:grad.case.study}).
3239: Of course, being driven by the central dissipational population, the
3240: gradient strengths are also correlated with central metallicity and
3241: with one another, albeit with large scatter (and for e.g.\ uniformly
3242: high metallicities or weak gradients, these correlations break down).
3243: All of these trends are in good agreement with present-day observed
3244: ellipticals.
3245:
3246: Furthermore, the central stellar metallicities of ellipticals (both
3247: their mean and distribution about that mean) as a function of e.g.\
3248: mass and velocity dispersion, are reproduced in our simulations, given
3249: only the assumption that the initial spirals have metallicities
3250: appropriate for the observed disk galaxy mass-metallicity relation --
3251: in fact, when the initial disk gas fractions are moderate ($\gtrsim20\%$), we
3252: obtain this result from the self-enrichment tracked in our code (which
3253: dominates the final total central metallicity) even if the initial
3254: gas and stars have zero metallicity (Figure~\ref{fig:grad.compare}).
3255: Given that we simultaneously
3256: reproduce the central metallicities, metallicity gradients, and
3257: surface brightness profiles of observed cusp ellipticals, the claim
3258: that these systems have too much mass in metals to be produced from
3259: the merger of local spirals \citep{naab:no.merger.ell} does not stand
3260: up, at least insofar as we are restricting to {\em cuspy} ellipticals.
3261:
3262: We also reproduce the typical observed color gradients of these
3263: ellipticals (Figures~\ref{fig:grad.case.study} \&\ \ref{fig:color.grad}).
3264: We caution that while time evolution of even
3265: physical quantities such as the metallicity and age gradients is
3266: non-trivial, the color gradients are even more complex. Generally,
3267: though, systems have blue cores (are more blue towards their centers) for
3268: a short time after the merger, commonly taken as a signature of a
3269: recent merger or central starburst, owing to the young central
3270: starburst population. However, this population is also more metal
3271: rich, so the gradient rapidly weakens and after a short period,
3272: $\sim$\,Gyr, the metallicity difference becomes more important and the
3273: systems have red cores (are redder towards their centers). The
3274: gradients are fairly weak, a difference of $\sim0.1-0.2$ mag between
3275: the color within $R_{e}/8$ and $R_{e}$, and the simulated distribution
3276: of color gradient strengths agrees well with that observed in samples
3277: of local ellipticals (especially if we restrict broadly to similar
3278: mean stellar ages).
3279: \\
3280:
3281: {\bf (7)} Since increasing the amount of dissipation at a given total mass tends both to yield
3282: smaller effective radii and stronger stellar population gradients, we predict that the
3283: two should be correlated (again, at fixed stellar mass - considering too wide a range
3284: in stellar mass will wash out this correlation, since the two scale differently in the
3285: mean with stellar mass; Figure~\ref{fig:re.ssp.grad}).
3286: The trend is not predicted to be dramatic, but should be
3287: observable, and comparison with recent observations does suggest that systems with
3288: smaller effective radii for their mass do have uniformly higher metallicity gradient strengths.
3289: Future observations should be able to test this more robustly, using metallicity gradients
3290: (we caution that the age gradients and, especially, color gradients are too age-sensitive
3291: to be constraining in this sense).
3292:
3293: To the extent that gas-rich progenitor disks (at least at low-moderate redshifts)
3294: are
3295: so because they have more extended star formation histories, this should also
3296: be reflected in the integrated stellar populations of the ellipticals.
3297: This is well known in an integrated sense -- low mass ellipticals (which form from
3298: low-mass, gas-rich disks) tend to have more extended star formation histories with
3299: less $\alpha$-element enrichment \citep[e.g.][]{trager:ages,thomas05:ages}.
3300: At fixed mass, however,
3301: if systems undergo mergers over roughly the same time period
3302: (which is generally true for systems of the same mass), then those with smaller
3303: effective radii (and lower $M_{\rm dyn}/M_{\ast}$) should have formed
3304: with more dissipation from more gas rich disks, which presumably had more extended
3305: star formation histories. This should yield younger pre-merger stellar population ages
3306: and less $\alpha$-enriched stellar populations, relative to progenitors of the same
3307: mass which had shorter star formation histories and exhausted their
3308: gas supply before the merger. There is one important caveat -- systems of the same mass
3309: might also have had more gas-rich progenitors because they underwent mergers
3310: at very early times (making them older and more $\alpha$-enriched), but
3311: cosmological estimates \citep[e.g.][]{hopkins:groups.ell} suggest that systems
3312: with such early mergers will usually have multiple subsequent mergers
3313: at later times, so they will grow significantly in mass and have
3314: their effective radii substantially modified by these additional
3315: processes (and may reflect the same trends as more typical systems by $z\sim0$).
3316: In any case, this latter process is not dominant at a given stellar mass.
3317: We study this in greater detail in \citet{hopkins:cusps.evol}.
3318:
3319:
3320: \subsection{Synopsis}
3321: \label{sec:discuss:summary}
3322:
3323: We have developed a paradigm in which to understand the
3324: structure of (cusp or extra light) ellipticals, in which there are
3325: fundamentally two stellar components: the relic of a
3326: a dissipational central
3327: starburst and a more extended violently relaxed component
3328: \citep[introduced and discussed in e.g.][]{mihos:cusps,kormendy99,cox:kinematics,jk:profiles}.
3329: We have shown that these components can be separated with observations
3330: of sufficient quality, and can be used to constrain the formation histories of
3331: ellipticals and infer physically meaningful properties in a hierarchical
3332: formation scenario. This allows
3333: us to demonstrate that dissipation is critical in
3334: understanding the properties of ellipticals, including (but not
3335: limited to) the structure of their surface brightness profiles, their
3336: sizes, ellipticities, isophotal shapes and rotation, age, color, and
3337: metallicity gradients (and their evolution), and the gas content and
3338: properties of their progenitors.
3339:
3340: We have studied these properties and identified robust trends across a
3341: large library of simulations, in which we vary e.g.\ the galaxy masses, initial gas
3342: fractions, concentrations, halo masses, presence or absence of bulges, presence or
3343: absence of black holes, feedback parameters from supernovae and stellar winds,
3344: orbital parameters and disk inclinations, and mass ratios of the merging galaxies.
3345: This range of parameters allows us to identify the most important physics. Most of these
3346: choices, for example, affect the surface brightness profile, extra light mass and
3347: radius of the extra light, concentration and effective radius of the remnant,
3348: and even its ellipticity and isophotal shape only indirectly. Ultimately, what
3349: determines the structure of the remnant (insofar as the properties we have considered)
3350: is, to first order, how much mass is in the dissipationless (violently relaxed)
3351: component versus the dissipational/starburst component at the time of the final merger(s).
3352: Therefore, changing something like the orbital parameters or initial galaxy structure
3353: can alter the remnant substantially, but predominantly only insofar as it affects
3354: the amount of gas which will be available at the time of the final coalescence of the
3355: galaxy nuclei \citep[i.e.\ how much mass ends up in the starburst component, as opposed to
3356: being violently relaxed in this final merger; see also][]{cox:feedback}.
3357: Moreover, merger-induced starbursts may not be the only source of
3358: dissipation \citep[for example, stellar mass loss may replenish the gas supply and
3359: lead to new dissipational bursts, see e.g.][]{ciottiostriker:recycling},
3360: and the merger history and series of induced dissipational events may be
3361: more complex than a single idealized major merger
3362: \citep[see e.g.][]{kobayashi:pseudo.monolithic,naab:etg.formation}, but for
3363: our purposes, all dissipational star formation will appear similar when observed
3364: and have the same effects (we are essentially measuring the integrated amount of
3365: dissipation).
3366:
3367: We have demonstrated that this makes predictions for how fundamental
3368: plane scalings arise, which we study further in \citet{hopkins:cusps.fp}. Given
3369: these decompositions, we can attempt to observationally test whether sufficient
3370: dissipation, as a function of stellar mass,
3371: could have occurred in the inner regions of ellipticals to
3372: explain the discrepancies between their central densities and those of their
3373: proposed progenitor spirals. We
3374: make a wide range of new predictions for the distributions of these
3375: properties and how they scale with the degree of dissipation, and how
3376: they should scale with each other and various other observational
3377: proxies for this degree of dissipation (which we define herein).
3378: We have predicted and shown (given these proxies) that dissipation is
3379: indeed more important (contributing a larger mass fraction) in
3380: low-mass ellipticals, in line with expectations based on how gas
3381: fractions are known to scale with disk mass. Testing all of these
3382: with better observations should be possible in the near future, with
3383: well-defined samples of ellipticals and continued improvements in
3384: mapping e.g.\ the surface brightness profiles, stellar populations and
3385: their gradients, and structural properties of ellipticals over a wide
3386: dynamic range.
3387:
3388:
3389: To the extent that their parameter correlations
3390: and theoretical formation scenarios are similar,
3391: these conclusions should also
3392: generalize to ``classical'' bulges in disk-dominated galaxies
3393: (as opposed to ``pseudo-bulges'' formed in secular processes, which we
3394: do not model herein, and which may or may not show similar structure).
3395: We have excluded them from our observational study in this paper because the
3396: presence of a large disk greatly increases the uncertainties in profile
3397: fitting (and makes it difficult to robustly identify multi-component
3398: structure in the bulge), but emphasize that re-analyzing the S0 and early-type
3399: spiral galaxies in our observational samples demonstrates that they are
3400: in all cases consistent with our conclusions. Indeed,
3401: studies of the central profiles of classical bulges in S0-Sbc galaxies,
3402: in those cases with sufficient resolution and dynamic range and without
3403: much obstruction from the outer disk,
3404: have begun to see evidence
3405: for central two-component bulge structure with
3406: extra light components similar to those predicted here \citep[consistent
3407: in their profile shapes, sizes, mass fractions, kinematics,
3408: isophotal shapes, stellar populations, and colors; see e.g.][]{balcells:bulge.xl,
3409: peletier:spiral.maps}. We emphasize that these
3410: are distinct from the nuclear star clusters seen in some bulges, discussed
3411: in Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix:nuclei}.
3412:
3413: It is important to extend this study to central core ellipticals,
3414: increasingly believed to be shaped by subsequent gas-poor
3415: (spheroid-spheroid) re-mergers, and we consider these objects in
3416: \citet{hopkins:cores}. However, since cuspy ellipticals dominate the
3417: $\sim\lstar$ population, most of the mass density in present-day
3418: ellipticals is contained in those cuspy objects that we study herein.
3419: We also strongly emphasize that, if core populations are indeed the
3420: re-mergers of initially cuspy ellipticals, then the extra
3421: light or dissipational components are {\em not} destroyed in these
3422: mergers. Indeed, most simulations suggest that the dense, central
3423: components are sufficiently tightly bound that they feel relatively little
3424: disturbance in a dry merger. Although black hole scouring may scatter
3425: stars from the central region and create such a core
3426: \citep[e.g.][]{milosavljevic:core.mass}, these stars represent only a
3427: small fraction of the extra light population. In other words, scouring
3428: will flatten the central power-law like behavior of cusps of extra
3429: light, but not fundamentally remove the $\sim500$\,pc central
3430: light concentrations remaining from a dissipational starburst.
3431: Furthermore, the impact of scouring
3432: will be restricted to mass scales of order the black hole mass,
3433: which is only $\sim 10^{-3}$ the stellar mass, much smaller than
3434: the typically masses of the extra light components inferred through
3435: our analysis \citep[e.g.][]{hopkins:cores}. Given this, it should be
3436: possible to generalize our modeling and constraints to much
3437: more complex merger histories than the idealized single major
3438: merger scenarios considered in our simulation study, provided
3439: we recognize that the dissipational and dissipationless components
3440: are really integral sums over the dissipational and dissipationless
3441: events in the formation history of a given elliptical.
3442: Of course, subsequent gas poor
3443: mergers may have a number of other effects on the
3444: structural properties of the galaxies, modifying many of the
3445: properties we have argued are initially set by or correlated with the
3446: degree of dissipation -- therefore we have excluded core
3447: ellipticals from our
3448: observational samples, and wish to emphasize the importance of doing
3449: so in subsequent observational comparisons.
3450:
3451: As we noted in \paperone,
3452: there is considerable room for progress in modeling the
3453: extra light component itself and structure of nuclear profiles
3454: at small radii ($\ll100\,$pc), where observations are making rapid progress; however,
3455: modeling these radii in a meaningful sense requires not just improved numerical
3456: resolution but also the inclusion of new physics that will allow simulations to
3457: self-consistently form the structures that would be resolved (giant molecular
3458: clouds, star forming regions and star clusters, individual
3459: supernova remnants, the multiple gas-phases of
3460: the ISM and their exchange, etc.). It is an important and ambitious goal
3461: that the next generation of studies move beyond the sub-resolution prescriptions
3462: necessary when modeling larger scales, and include realistic ISM structure important
3463: in galactic nuclei.
3464:
3465: Here, and in previous work
3466: \citep[e.g.][]{hopkins:qso.all,hopkins:red.galaxies,
3467: hopkins:groups.ell,hopkins:groups.qso} we have developed a conceptual
3468: framework for understanding the origin of starbursts, quasar activity,
3469: supermassive black holes, and elliptical galaxies. In this paradigm,
3470: the various objects and phenomena we have examined are connected in an
3471: evolutionary sequence that is ultimately triggered by mergers between
3472: gas-rich disk galaxies.
3473: Previously, from observed correlations between supermassive black
3474: holes and properties of their hosts, we have argued that elliptical
3475: galaxies must have originated through a process that blends together
3476: gas- and stellar-dynamics. This is motivated by simple physical
3477: considerations implying that supermassive black holes are mainly
3478: assembled by gas accretion \citep[e.g.][]{lynden-bell69} in order to
3479: satisfy the \citet{soltan82} constraint relating black hole growth to
3480: quasar activity, and the notion that elliptical galaxies were put
3481: together by violent relaxation \citep[e.g.][]{lynden-bell67}
3482: acting on stars. The results of our analysis applied to recent
3483: merger products \citep{hopkins:cusps.mergers}, cuspy ellipticals (this
3484: paper), and elliptical galaxies with cores \citep{hopkins:cores}
3485: indicate that the same blend of gas- and stellar-dynamics is further
3486: essential for understanding the structural properties of the galaxies
3487: that harbor supermassive black holes.
3488: Together, this provides further support to the idea that elliptical galaxies and
3489: supermassive black holes originate via a common physical process
3490: (mergers of gas-rich galaxies) and, given the \citet{soltan82}
3491: constraint and the discovery of ULIRGs, quasars and starbursts,
3492: respectively, as well.
3493:
3494: \acknowledgments We thank Sandy Faber, Marijn Franx,
3495: and Barry Rothberg for helpful discussions and contributed data sets
3496: used in this paper. We also thank the anonymous referee whose
3497: comments greatly improved the presentation of the manuscript.
3498: This work
3499: was supported in part by NSF grants ACI 96-19019, AST 00-71019, AST
3500: 02-06299, and AST 03-07690, and NASA ATP grants NAG5-12140,
3501: NAG5-13292, and NAG5-13381.
3502: JK's work was supported in part by NSF grant AST 06-07490.
3503: Support for
3504: TJC was provided by the W.~M.\ Keck
3505: Foundation.
3506:
3507: \bibliography{/Users/phopkins/Documents/lars_galaxies/papers/ms}
3508:
3509:
3510:
3511: \clearpage
3512: %\tableclear
3513: %\LongTables
3514: \longtabler
3515: \begin{\tableset}{lccccccccccccc}
3516: \tablecolumns{14}
3517: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
3518: \tablecaption{Fits to Cusp Ellipticals\label{tbl:cusp.fits}}
3519: \tablewidth{0pt}
3520: \tablehead{
3521: \colhead{Name} &
3522: \colhead{Ref.} &
3523: \colhead{${\rm N}_{\rm phot}$} &
3524: \colhead{$M_{\ast}$} &
3525: \colhead{$M_{V}$} &
3526: \colhead{$\sigma$} &
3527: \colhead{$R_{e}$} &
3528: \colhead{$\epsilon$} &
3529: \colhead{$100\,a_{4}/a$} &
3530: \colhead{$(v/\sigma)^{\ast}$} &
3531: \colhead{$n_{s}$ (fit)} &
3532: \colhead{$n_{s}$ (sim)} &
3533: \colhead{$f_{e}$ (fit)} &
3534: \colhead{$f_{sb}$ (sim)} \\
3535: \colhead{(1)} &
3536: \colhead{(2)} &
3537: \colhead{(3)} &
3538: \colhead{(4)} &
3539: \colhead{(5)} &
3540: \colhead{(6)} &
3541: \colhead{(7)} &
3542: \colhead{(8)} &
3543: \colhead{(9)} &
3544: \colhead{(10)} &
3545: \colhead{(11)} &
3546: \colhead{(12)} &
3547: \colhead{(13)} &
3548: \colhead{(14)}
3549: }
3550: \startdata
3551: NGC 0596 & 2 & 4 & $10.89$ & $-20.90$ & $164$ & $3.24$ & $0.07$ & $ 1.30$ & $0.67$ & $7.50^{+0.59}_{-0.74}$ & $3.29^{+1.38}_{-0.47}$ & $0.035^{+0.009}_{-0.005}$ & $0.185^{+0.125}_{-0.097}$ \\
3552: NGC 0636 & 3 & 3 & $10.80$ & $-20.83$ & $156$ & $3.81$ & $0.13$ & $ 0.80$ & $1.04$ & $3.39^{+0.18}_{-0.31}$ & $3.07^{+2.05}_{-0.63}$ & $0.090^{+0.005}_{-0.005}$ & $0.159^{+0.105}_{-0.061}$ \\
3553: NGC 0821$^{\ast}$ & 2 & 2 & $11.36$ & $-21.71$ & $209$ & $3.63$ & $0.38$ & $ 2.50$ & $0.70$ & $3.38^{+1.57}_{-1.57}$ & $3.02^{+0.80}_{-0.14}$ & $0.228^{+0.193}_{-0.193}$ & $0.154^{+0.182}_{-0.064}$ \\
3554: NGC 1172 & 2 & 1 & $10.46$ & $-20.13$ & $113$ & $4.37$ & $0.09$ & -- & -- & $29.92$ & $2.64^{+0.70}_{-0.11}$ & $0.001$ & $0.106^{+0.166}_{-0.035}$ \\
3555: NGC 1199$^{\ast}$ & 3 & 3 & $10.95$ & $-21.49$ & $207$ & $3.23$ & $0.23$ & -- & $0.49$ & $1.96^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & $2.58^{+1.60}_{-0.80}$ & $0.106^{+0.012}_{-0.015}$ & $0.105^{+0.126}_{-0.061}$ \\
3556: NGC 1400 & 3 & 2 & $9.88$ & $-18.45$ & $250$ & $0.67$ & $0.13$ & $ 0.00$ & -- & $1.91^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & $2.82^{+8.00}_{-2.82}$ & $0.164^{+0.001}_{-0.001}$ & $0.232^{+0.114}_{-0.095}$ \\
3557: NGC 1426 & 2 & 3 & $10.83$ & $-20.78$ & $153$ & $3.63$ & $0.31$ & $ 0.01$ & -- & $5.26^{+0.11}_{-0.35}$ & $3.51^{+0.31}_{-0.63}$ & $0.001^{+0.001}_{-0.001}$ & $0.186^{+0.159}_{-0.096}$ \\
3558: NGC 1427 & 2 & 2 & $10.83$ & $-20.79$ & $170$ & $3.16$ & $0.29$ & -- & -- & $2.12^{+1.31}_{-1.31}$ & $3.32^{+0.10}_{-0.31}$ & $0.251^{+0.199}_{-0.199}$ & $0.149^{+0.159}_{-0.061}$ \\
3559: NGC 1439 & 2 & 3 & $10.85$ & $-20.82$ & $159$ & $4.07$ & $0.15$ & -- & $0.32$ & $3.47^{+1.11}_{-1.56}$ & $3.30^{+0.39}_{-0.64}$ & $0.114^{+0.142}_{-0.057}$ & $0.126^{+0.205}_{-0.050}$ \\
3560: NGC 2314$^{\ast}$ & 3 & 2 & $11.34$ & $-21.95$ & $290$ & $3.37$ & $0.18$ & -- & $1.17$ & $2.02^{+0.59}_{-0.59}$ & $5.32^{+3.07}_{-2.64}$ & $0.269^{+0.059}_{-0.059}$ & $0.194^{+0.152}_{-0.097}$ \\
3561: NGC 2434 & 2 & 1 & $11.14$ & $-21.33$ & $229$ & $3.63$ & $0.07$ & -- & -- & $4.72$ & $2.76^{+1.13}_{-0.12}$ & $0.001$ & $0.138^{+0.136}_{-0.048}$ \\
3562: NGC 2534$^{\ast}$ & 3 & 1 & $10.43$ & $-20.25$ & -- & $22.67$ & -- & -- & -- & $1.98$ & $4.67^{+0.25}_{-1.73}$ & $0.033$ & $0.054^{+0.063}_{-0.017}$ \\
3563: NGC 2693$^{\ast}$ & 3 & 2 & $11.58$ & $-22.59$ & $279$ & $6.65$ & -- & -- & -- & $1.77^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & $4.57^{+0.11}_{-2.61}$ & $0.181^{+0.001}_{-0.001}$ & $0.084^{+0.098}_{-0.048}$ \\
3564: NGC 2768$^{\ast}$ & 3 & 2 & $11.01$ & $-21.56$ & $198$ & $6.78$ & $0.68$ & -- & $0.28$ & $2.63^{+0.21}_{-0.21}$ & $2.55^{+5.91}_{-0.89}$ & $0.011^{+0.004}_{-0.004}$ & $0.037^{+0.066}_{-0.007}$ \\
3565: NGC 2778 & 2 & 1 & $9.67$ & $-18.75$ & $166$ & $1.62$ & $0.20$ & $ 3.50$ & $2.00$ & $2.15$ & $4.62^{+0.50}_{-1.83}$ & $0.447$ & $0.230^{+0.125}_{-0.115}$ \\
3566: NGC 2974 & 2,3 & 5 & $11.00$ & $-21.09$ & $143$ & $4.07$ & $0.30$ & $ 0.50$ & $1.54$ & $4.06^{+0.77}_{-0.48}$ & $3.06^{+1.12}_{-0.63}$ & $0.049^{+0.007}_{-0.034}$ & $0.158^{+0.142}_{-0.103}$ \\
3567: NGC 3193 & 3 & 2 & $10.51$ & $-20.30$ & $205$ & $1.81$ & -- & $ 0.30$ & $0.80$ & $2.73^{+0.21}_{-0.21}$ & $4.15^{+0.97}_{-1.97}$ & $0.089^{+0.010}_{-0.010}$ & $0.205^{+0.130}_{-0.097}$ \\
3568: NGC 3309$^{\ast}$ & 3 & 3 & $11.39$ & $-22.24$ & $266$ & $6.67$ & $0.15$ & -- & -- & $1.97^{+0.46}_{-0.46}$ & $2.66^{+1.92}_{-0.70}$ & $0.148^{+0.031}_{-0.031}$ & $0.077^{+0.104}_{-0.046}$ \\
3569: NGC 3311$^{\ast}$ & 3 & 3 & $11.91$ & $-23.14$ & $210$ & $12.15$ & $0.11$ & -- & -- & $1.36^{+0.00}_{-0.58}$ & $4.47^{+0.27}_{-2.56}$ & $0.086^{+0.073}_{-0.002}$ & $0.047^{+0.055}_{-0.001}$ \\
3570: NGC 3377 & 1,2,3 & 6 & $10.42$ & $-20.07$ & $141$ & $2.24$ & $0.50$ & $ 0.50$ & $0.72$ & $1.96^{+0.67}_{-0.08}$ & $3.27^{+0.73}_{-0.50}$ & $0.133^{+0.064}_{-0.051}$ & $0.221^{+0.125}_{-0.115}$ \\
3571: NGC 3605 & 2 & 3 & $10.16$ & $-19.61$ & $120$ & $1.58$ & $0.34$ & -$ 0.90$ & $0.74$ & $1.31^{+0.29}_{-0.66}$ & $3.04^{+2.08}_{-0.95}$ & $0.175^{+0.150}_{-0.041}$ & $0.283^{+0.176}_{-0.165}$ \\
3572: NGC 3610 & 2,3 & 6 & $10.93$ & $-21.16$ & $163$ & $1.45$ & $0.52$ & $ 2.50$ & $1.10$ & $4.78^{+7.11}_{-3.60}$ & $3.04^{+0.40}_{-0.87}$ & $0.342^{+0.099}_{-0.012}$ & $0.273^{+0.133}_{-0.126}$ \\
3573: NGC 3818$^{\ast}$ & 3 & 2 & $10.24$ & $-19.69$ & $206$ & $1.61$ & $0.39$ & $ 2.30$ & $0.93$ & $2.81^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & $3.54^{+0.92}_{-1.13}$ & $0.080^{+0.005}_{-0.005}$ & $0.205^{+0.132}_{-0.096}$ \\
3574: NGC 3894$^{\ast}$ & 3 & 1 & $11.15$ & $-21.70$ & -- & $4.63$ & -- & -- & -- & $2.07$ & $3.20^{+0.86}_{-0.47}$ & $0.050$ & $0.036^{+0.069}_{-0.008}$ \\
3575: NGC 3904$^{\ast}$ & 3 & 2 & $10.93$ & $-21.07$ & $215$ & $3.05$ & -- & $ 0.00$ & $0.36$ & $2.34^{+0.17}_{-0.17}$ & $6.06^{+2.84}_{-4.04}$ & $0.094^{+0.009}_{-0.009}$ & $0.109^{+0.140}_{-0.019}$ \\
3576: NGC 3923$^{\ast}$ & 3 & 3 & $11.36$ & $-22.00$ & $216$ & $5.92$ & -- & -- & -- & $2.90^{+0.12}_{-0.26}$ & $2.76^{+3.31}_{-2.76}$ & $0.057^{+0.007}_{-0.002}$ & $0.037^{+0.070}_{-0.007}$ \\
3577: NGC 3962$^{\ast}$ & 3 & 1 & $10.85$ & $-21.04$ & $211$ & $10.31$ & -- & -- & -- & $3.74$ & $4.72^{+0.08}_{-2.22}$ & $0.090$ & $0.105^{+0.122}_{-0.049}$ \\
3578: NGC 4125 & 3 & 2 & $11.39$ & $-22.53$ & $229$ & $4.97$ & -- & $ 0.95$ & $0.93$ & $2.33^{+0.09}_{-0.09}$ & $3.65^{+0.24}_{-1.31}$ & $0.031^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$ & $0.032^{+0.069}_{-0.004}$ \\
3579: NGC 4318 & 1 & 1 & $9.83$ & $-16.26$ & $101$ & $0.59$ & $0.34$ & $ 0.40$ & -- & $1.12$ & $2.36^{+0.42}_{-0.17}$ & $0.077$ & $0.336^{+0.168}_{-0.146}$ \\
3580: NGC 4382$^{\ast}$ & 1,2,3 & 4 & $11.26$ & $-22.43$ & $196$ & $8.43$ & $0.19$ & $ 0.59$ & $0.33$ & $3.89^{+1.11}_{-1.35}$ & $3.11^{+0.63}_{-0.80}$ & $0.034^{+0.008}_{-0.010}$ & $0.090^{+0.086}_{-0.054}$ \\
3581: NGC 4387 & 1,2,3 & 5 & $9.95$ & $-19.11$ & $84$ & $1.46$ & $0.43$ & -$ 1.00$ & $0.70$ & $2.04^{+0.11}_{-0.22}$ & $2.42^{+0.97}_{-2.42}$ & $0.007^{+0.002}_{-0.002}$ & $0.287^{+0.148}_{-0.147}$ \\
3582: NGC 4434 & 1 & 1 & $10.59$ & $-19.55$ & $118$ & $1.44$ & $0.08$ & $ 0.44$ & -- & $2.62$ & $2.87^{+0.05}_{-0.46}$ & $0.150$ & $0.323^{+0.137}_{-0.111}$ \\
3583: NGC 4458 & 1 & 1 & $10.36$ & $-18.89$ & $85$ & $1.34$ & $0.12$ & $ 0.41$ & $0.32$ & $2.72$ & $2.87^{+0.84}_{-0.09}$ & $0.075$ & $0.276^{+0.128}_{-0.135}$ \\
3584: NGC 4459 & 1 & 1 & $10.56$ & $-20.88$ & $168$ & $3.30$ & $0.18$ & $ 0.22$ & $0.96$ & $3.09$ & $3.68^{+0.14}_{-0.67}$ & $0.028$ & $0.194^{+0.152}_{-0.096}$ \\
3585: NGC 4464 & 1 & 1 & $10.26$ & $-18.40$ & $120$ & $0.55$ & $0.30$ & $ 0.40$ & -- & $2.11$ & $2.36^{+0.69}_{-0.17}$ & $0.228$ & $0.368^{+0.170}_{-0.134}$ \\
3586: NGC 4467 & 1 & 1 & $9.71$ & $-16.87$ & $67$ & $0.39$ & $0.32$ & $ 0.60$ & $0.35$ & $1.89$ & $2.36^{+1.26}_{-0.17}$ & $0.028$ & $0.355^{+0.152}_{-0.140}$ \\
3587: NGC 4473 & 1 & 1 & $11.13$ & $-20.82$ & $192$ & $3.14$ & $0.39$ & $ 1.03$ & $0.28$ & $3.60$ & $2.92^{+0.39}_{-0.27}$ & $0.148$ & $0.216^{+0.120}_{-0.101}$ \\
3588: NGC 4476$^{\ast}$ & 3 & 3 & $10.25$ & $-19.85$ & $41$ & $1.57$ & $0.28$ & -- & $0.60$ & $1.19^{+0.26}_{-0.37}$ & $2.59^{+1.89}_{-0.76}$ & $0.355^{+0.114}_{-0.066}$ & $0.233^{+0.113}_{-0.096}$ \\
3589: NGC 4478 & 1,3 & 3 & $10.29$ & $-19.77$ & $149$ & $1.15$ & $0.19$ & -$ 0.80$ & $0.95$ & $2.21^{+0.00}_{-0.18}$ & $2.89^{+0.90}_{-1.29}$ & $0.223^{+0.003}_{-0.195}$ & $0.296^{+0.206}_{-0.130}$ \\
3590: NGC 4486a & 1 & 1 & $10.36$ & $-18.84$ & $154$ & $0.50$ & $0.45$ & $ 4.00$ & -- & $2.40$ & $2.41^{+0.99}_{-0.08}$ & $0.338$ & $0.368^{+0.158}_{-0.120}$ \\
3591: NGC 4486b & 1 & 1 & $9.90$ & $-17.70$ & $200$ & $0.19$ & $0.40$ & $ 0.80$ & $0.59$ & $2.18$ & $2.41^{+0.69}_{-0.08}$ & $0.073$ & $0.325^{+0.135}_{-0.144}$ \\
3592: NGC 4494 & 2,3 & 7 & $11.24$ & $-21.50$ & $155$ & $3.72$ & $0.15$ & $ 0.30$ & $1.24$ & $1.97^{+0.63}_{-0.07}$ & $3.06^{+1.31}_{-0.64}$ & $0.071^{+0.007}_{-0.018}$ & $0.117^{+0.187}_{-0.027}$ \\
3593: NGC 4515 & 1 & 1 & $10.03$ & $-18.52$ & $90$ & $0.87$ & $0.14$ & $ 2.00$ & $0.47$ & $3.87$ & $2.48^{+0.79}_{-0.76}$ & $0.254$ & $0.336^{+0.133}_{-0.087}$ \\
3594: NGC 4551 & 1,2 & 5 & $10.02$ & $-19.08$ & $100$ & $1.25$ & $0.32$ & -$ 0.70$ & $0.55$ & $1.85^{+0.24}_{-0.58}$ & $2.79^{+0.59}_{-1.19}$ & $0.040^{+0.025}_{-0.014}$ & $0.300^{+0.155}_{-0.182}$ \\
3595: NGC 4564 & 2,3 & 7 & $10.53$ & $-19.66$ & $153$ & $2.75$ & $0.45$ & $ 2.20$ & $1.05$ & $1.62^{+0.75}_{-0.47}$ & $3.13^{+1.60}_{-2.04}$ & $0.108^{+0.087}_{-0.029}$ & $0.141^{+0.235}_{-0.050}$ \\
3596: NGC 4621 & 1,2,3 & 7 & $11.26$ & $-21.41$ & $237$ & $6.51$ & $0.34$ & $ 1.50$ & $0.81$ & $3.23^{+1.51}_{-0.75}$ & $3.06^{+1.70}_{-0.18}$ & $0.053^{+0.005}_{-0.044}$ & $0.140^{+0.168}_{-0.050}$ \\
3597: NGC 4660 & 2 & 2 & $10.46$ & $-19.41$ & $191$ & $1.05$ & $0.40$ & $ 2.70$ & $1.04$ & $1.88^{+0.41}_{-0.41}$ & $2.87^{+0.56}_{-0.37}$ & $0.402^{+0.161}_{-0.161}$ & $0.323^{+0.179}_{-0.140}$ \\
3598: NGC 4697 & 2,3 & 4 & $11.23$ & $-21.49$ & $165$ & $5.13$ & $0.41$ & $ 1.40$ & $0.78$ & $3.51^{+0.38}_{-2.05}$ & $2.87^{+0.92}_{-0.74}$ & $0.001^{+0.020}_{-0.001}$ & $0.103^{+0.152}_{-0.068}$ \\
3599: NGC 4742 & 2,3 & 4 & $10.30$ & $-19.79$ & $93$ & $1.24$ & -- & $ 0.41$ & $1.62$ & $2.06^{+9.33}_{-0.08}$ & $3.28^{+3.09}_{-0.61}$ & $0.232^{+0.012}_{-0.045}$ & $0.249^{+0.100}_{-0.066}$ \\
3600: NGC 5018$^{\ast}$ & 3 & 2 & $11.36$ & $-22.29$ & $223$ & $4.17$ & $0.25$ & -- & -- & $4.07^{+0.15}_{-0.15}$ & $2.72^{+0.57}_{-2.72}$ & $0.040^{+0.005}_{-0.005}$ & $0.106^{+0.124}_{-0.036}$ \\
3601: NGC 5127$^{\ast}$ & 3 & 1 & $11.15$ & $-21.87$ & -- & $8.32$ & -- & -- & -- & $2.90$ & $2.30^{+1.76}_{-0.20}$ & $0.032$ & $0.046^{+0.057}_{-0.016}$ \\
3602: NGC 5444$^{\ast}$ & 3 & 3 & $11.20$ & $-21.91$ & $221$ & $5.46$ & -- & -- & -- & $2.94^{+2.03}_{-0.11}$ & $3.13^{+1.58}_{-0.57}$ & $0.078^{+0.005}_{-0.078}$ & $0.105^{+0.117}_{-0.068}$ \\
3603: NGC 5576 & 3 & 3 & $10.81$ & $-20.82$ & $187$ & $3.52$ & $0.30$ & -$ 0.50$ & $0.22$ & $3.90^{+1.06}_{-1.06}$ & $3.06^{+8.90}_{-0.56}$ & $0.082^{+0.018}_{-0.018}$ & $0.200^{+0.113}_{-0.098}$ \\
3604: NGC 5638$^{\ast}$ & 3 & 3 & $10.65$ & $-20.60$ & $159$ & $1.99$ & $0.08$ & $ 0.20$ & $0.72$ & $1.33^{+0.58}_{-0.58}$ & $4.01^{+2.06}_{-1.66}$ & $0.169^{+0.070}_{-0.070}$ & $0.129^{+0.178}_{-0.038}$ \\
3605: NGC 5812 & 3,4 & 4 & $10.97$ & $-21.12$ & $204$ & $2.63$ & $0.05$ & $ 0.00$ & $0.52$ & $3.17^{+0.08}_{-0.64}$ & $3.86^{+0.94}_{-2.20}$ & $0.133^{+0.022}_{-0.004}$ & $0.221^{+0.106}_{-0.106}$ \\
3606: NGC 5831 & 3 & 3 & $10.68$ & $-20.42$ & $166$ & $2.56$ & $0.17$ & -- & $0.19$ & $3.47^{+0.30}_{-1.06}$ & $ 3.40^{+4.40}_{-2.00}$ & $0.054^{+0.021}_{-0.001}$ & $0.205^{+0.140}_{-0.103}$ \\
3607: NGC 5845 & 3 & 3 & $10.38$ & $-19.46$ & $251$ & $0.51$ & $0.15$ & $ 0.80$ & $0.91$ & $1.18^{+0.34}_{-0.02}$ & $2.59^{+6.31}_{-1.91}$ & $0.455^{+0.027}_{-0.077}$ & $0.404^{+0.123}_{-0.117}$ \\
3608: NGC 6482$^{\ast}$ & 3 & 2 & $11.57$ & $-22.76$ & $287$ & $4.51$ & $0.27$ & -- & -- & $2.13^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ & $3.57^{+0.90}_{-1.07}$ & $0.062^{+0.001}_{-0.001}$ & $0.084^{+0.120}_{-0.055}$ \\
3609: NGC 6487$^{\ast}$ & 3 & 3 & $11.54$ & $-23.11$ & -- & $12.91$ & -- & -- & -- & $2.26^{+0.32}_{-0.02}$ & $4.95^{+3.44}_{-3.05}$ & $0.101^{+0.002}_{-0.018}$ & $0.089^{+0.046}_{-0.043}$ \\
3610: NGC 7562 & 3 & 2 & $11.42$ & $-22.27$ & $243$ & $6.01$ & $0.29$ & -- & -- & $2.49^{+0.10}_{-0.10}$ & $2.95^{+0.33}_{-0.48}$ & $0.079^{+0.009}_{-0.009}$ & $0.046^{+0.073}_{-0.017}$ \\
3611: NGC 7626 & 3 & 3 & $11.67$ & $-22.62$ & $234$ & $8.81$ & $0.13$ & $ 0.11$ & $0.12$ & $2.94^{+0.20}_{-0.04}$ & $3.39^{+1.00}_{-1.43}$ & $0.042^{+0.001}_{-0.007}$ & $0.070^{+0.036}_{-0.038}$ \\
3612: VCC 1199 & 1 & 1 & $8.97$ & $-15.52$ & $69$ & $0.17$ & $0.28$ & $ 0.05$ & -- & $1.91$ & $2.42^{+0.68}_{-0.34}$ & $0.049$ & $0.322^{+0.120}_{-0.149}$ \\
3613: VCC 1440 & 1 & 1 & $9.13$ & $-16.75$ & $59$ & $0.70$ & $0.17$ & $ 0.60$ & -- & $3.43$ & $2.65^{+0.40}_{-0.34}$ & $0.009$ & $0.306^{+0.100}_{-0.102}$ \\
3614: VCC 1627 & 1 & 1 & $9.11$ & $-16.43$ & -- & $0.30$ & $0.20$ & $ 0.40$ & -- & $2.26$ & $2.42^{+0.68}_{-0.34}$ & $0.018$ & $0.346^{+0.158}_{-0.142}$ \\
3615: VCC 1871 & 1 & 1 & $9.27$ & $-17.33$ & $51$ & $0.61$ & $0.14$ & $ 0.80$ & -- & $1.90$ & $2.36^{+1.26}_{-0.17}$ & $0.010$ & $0.403^{+0.239}_{-0.155}$ \\
3616: UGC 10638 & 2 & 1 & $11.90$ & $-22.66$ & -- & $14.79$ & -- & -- & -- & $4.83$ & $2.53^{+0.97}_{-0.36}$ & $0.001$ & $0.088^{+0.093}_{-0.042}$ \\
3617: ESO 462-15 & 2 & 2 & $11.99$ & $-22.83$ & $289$ & $7.24$ & $0.27$ & -- & -- & $2.65^{+1.14}_{-1.14}$ & $3.13^{+1.47}_{-0.61}$ & $0.141^{+0.140}_{-0.140}$ & $0.099^{+0.127}_{-0.067}$ \\
3618: IC 2738 & 2 & 1 & $11.64$ & $-22.21$ & -- & $23.09$ & -- & -- & -- & $6.33$ & $3.09^{+0.15}_{-0.18}$ & $0.024$ & $0.090^{+0.092}_{-0.029}$ \\
3619: A0147-M1$^{\ast}$ & 2 & 1 & $11.86$ & $-22.60$ & -- & $11.34$ & -- & -- & -- & $3.86$ & $3.54^{+0.15}_{-0.47}$ & $0.030$ & $0.078^{+0.063}_{-0.017}$ \\
3620: A0160-M1$^{\ast}$ & 2 & 1 & $12.19$ & $-23.18$ & -- & $21.72$ & -- & -- & -- & $1.54$ & $2.64^{+0.57}_{-0.11}$ & $0.116$ & $0.047^{+0.058}_{-0.002}$ \\
3621: A0189-M1 & 2 & 1 & $11.46$ & $-21.89$ & -- & $9.33$ & -- & -- & -- & $3.69$ & $2.59^{+0.02}_{-0.27}$ & $0.017$ & $0.090^{+0.099}_{-0.054}$ \\
3622: A0261-M1 & 2 & 1 & $12.06$ & $-22.95$ & -- & $22.91$ & -- & -- & -- & $6.85$ & $3.09^{+0.15}_{-0.92}$ & $0.071$ & $0.090^{+0.078}_{-0.043}$ \\
3623: A0419-M1 & 2 & 1 & $11.40$ & $-21.79$ & -- & $8.13$ & -- & -- & -- & $2.11$ & $2.59^{+0.02}_{-0.27}$ & $0.153$ & $0.098^{+0.096}_{-0.061}$ \\
3624: A0912-M1 & 2 & 3 & $11.66$ & $-22.24$ & -- & $9.55$ & -- & -- & -- & $3.08^{+0.24}_{-0.24}$ & $2.59^{+1.10}_{-0.25}$ & $0.065^{+0.011}_{-0.011}$ & $0.105^{+0.116}_{-0.045}$ \\
3625: A1308-M1$^{\ast}$ & 2 & 1 & $12.34$ & $-23.44$ & -- & $26.66$ & -- & -- & -- & $4.60$ & $3.09^{+0.15}_{-0.56}$ & $0.043$ & $0.077^{+0.058}_{-0.030}$ \\
3626: A1836-M1$^{\ast}$ & 2 & 2 & $12.29$ & $-23.34$ & -- & $22.05$ & -- & -- & -- & $4.23^{+0.13}_{-0.13}$ & $2.82^{+0.45}_{-0.45}$ & $0.018^{+0.001}_{-0.001}$ & $0.073^{+0.045}_{-0.027}$ \\
3627: A1983-M1$^{\ast}$ & 2 & 1 & $11.72$ & $-22.35$ & -- & $7.41$ & -- & -- & -- & $3.79$ & $3.06^{+0.83}_{-0.05}$ & $0.033$ & $0.105^{+0.120}_{-0.051}$ \\
3628: \enddata
3629: \tablenotetext{ \, }{{\footnotesize Compiled and fitted parameters for the confirmed cusp ellipticals
3630: in our observed samples. Columns show: (1) Object name. (2) Source for surface brightness
3631: profiles, where $1=$\citet{jk:profiles}, $2=$\citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles}, $3=$\citet{bender:data},
3632: $4=$\citet{rj:profiles}.
3633: (3) Total number of different surface brightness profiles in our combined samples for
3634: the given object. (4) Stellar mass [$\log{M_{\ast}/M_{\sun}}$]. (5) $V$-band absolute magnitude.
3635: (6) Velocity dispersion [km/s]. (7) Effective (half-light) radius of the
3636: {\em total} light profile [kpc]. (8) Ellipticity. (9) Boxy/diskyness. (10) Rotation.
3637: (11) Outer \Sersic\ index $n_{s}$ of the two-component best-fit profile. Where multiple
3638: profiles are available for the same object, we show the median and minimum/maximum
3639: range of fitted $n_{s}$ values.
3640: (12) Range of outer \Sersic\ indices fit in the same manner to the best-fit simulations,
3641: at $t\approx1-3$\,Gyr after the merger when the system has relaxed.
3642: (13) Fraction of light in the inner or ``extra light'' component of the fits.
3643: Where multiple
3644: profiles are available for the same object, we show the median and minimum/maximum
3645: range of fitted values.
3646: (14) Fraction of light from stars produced in the central, merger-induced starburst
3647: in the best-fit simulations ($\pm$ the approximate interquartile range allowed).
3648: This list includes all systems morphologically
3649: classified as ellipticals in \citet{jk:profiles} (all are E0-E4), or (where not in that sample)
3650: \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles} (all are E or E/BCG). \\
3651: }}
3652: \tablenotetext{\tableast}{{\footnotesize Systems with ambiguous or uncertain cusp status.
3653: These are systems for which different sources disagree on their cusp/core status,
3654: or for which observations of the central regions are unavailable/ambiguous but
3655: for which some other evidence (e.g.\ stellar populations, gas/dust content, or kinematics) suggest a
3656: gas-rich merger origin. We include them here for completeness, but our
3657: conclusions are insensitive to their inclusion/exclusion, and they are not generally shown
3658: in our analysis.}}
3659: \end{\tableset}
3660: %\tableclear
3661:
3662:
3663:
3664:
3665: \clearpage
3666:
3667: \begin{\tableset}{lccccccccccccc}
3668: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
3669: \tablecaption{Fits to Recent Merger Remnants\label{tbl:mgr.fits}}
3670: \tablecolumns{14}
3671: \tablewidth{0pt}
3672: \tablehead{
3673: \colhead{Name} &
3674: \colhead{Ref.} &
3675: \colhead{${\rm N}_{\rm phot}$} &
3676: \colhead{$M_{\ast}$} &
3677: \colhead{$M_{K}$} &
3678: \colhead{$\sigma$} &
3679: \colhead{$R_{e}$} &
3680: \colhead{$\epsilon$} &
3681: \colhead{$100\,a_{4}/a$} &
3682: \colhead{$(v/\sigma)^{\ast}$} &
3683: \colhead{$n_{s}$ (fit)} &
3684: \colhead{$n_{s}$ (sim)} &
3685: \colhead{$f_{e}$ (fit)} &
3686: \colhead{$f_{sb}$ (sim)} \\
3687: \colhead{(1)} &
3688: \colhead{(2)} &
3689: \colhead{(3)} &
3690: \colhead{(4)} &
3691: \colhead{(5)} &
3692: \colhead{(6)} &
3693: \colhead{(7)} &
3694: \colhead{(8)} &
3695: \colhead{(9)} &
3696: \colhead{(10)} &
3697: \colhead{(11)} &
3698: \colhead{(12)} &
3699: \colhead{(13)} &
3700: \colhead{(14)}
3701: }
3702: \startdata
3703: NGC 34 & 4 & 1 & $11.09$ & $-24.61$ & $201$ & $0.84$ & $0.11$ & $ 1.36$ & $1.41$ & $3.49$ & $4.62^{+0.50}_{-1.83}$ & $0.389$ & $0.388^{+0.120}_{-0.098}$ \\
3704: NGC 455 & 4 & 1 & $11.10$ & $-24.64$ & $234$ & $3.33$ & $0.21$ & -$ 0.41$ & $1.08$ & $2.02$ & $3.20^{+1.61}_{-0.10}$ & $0.200$ & $0.194^{+0.105}_{-0.089}$ \\
3705: NGC 828 & 4 & 1 & $11.40$ & $-25.36$ & -- & $3.51$ & $0.41$ & $ 1.70$ & -- & $3.60$ & $3.65^{+0.24}_{-1.31}$ & $0.189$ & $0.231^{+0.154}_{-0.128}$ \\
3706: NGC 1210 & 4 & 1 & $10.72$ & $-23.72$ & $247$ & $2.43$ & $0.08$ & $ 0.25$ & $0.46$ & $1.92$ & $3.32^{+0.10}_{-0.31}$ & $0.158$ & $0.231^{+0.165}_{-0.108}$ \\
3707: NGC 1614 & 4 & 1 & $11.15$ & $-24.74$ & $146$ & $1.69$ & $0.13$ & $ 0.76$ & $1.91$ & $2.29$ & $3.30^{+0.39}_{-0.64}$ & $0.351$ & $0.300^{+0.107}_{-0.110}$ \\
3708: NGC 2418 & 4 & 1 & $11.38$ & $-25.31$ & $288$ & $4.81$ & $0.16$ & -$ 0.25$ & $0.66$ & $2.10$ & $3.29^{+1.38}_{-0.47}$ & $0.128$ & $0.168^{+0.169}_{-0.077}$ \\
3709: NGC 2623 & 4 & 1 & $10.93$ & $-24.22$ & $191$ & $1.32$ & $0.24$ & $ 2.39$ & $0.37$ & $4.88$ & $5.32^{+3.07}_{-2.64}$ & $0.173$ & $0.300^{+0.107}_{-0.095}$ \\
3710: NGC 2655 & 4 & 1 & $10.72$ & $-23.70$ & $169$ & $1.14$ & $0.19$ & $ 0.05$ & $1.00$ & $2.44$ & $2.76^{+1.13}_{-0.12}$ & $0.055$ & $0.322^{+0.126}_{-0.110}$ \\
3711: NGC 2744 & 4 & 1 & $10.36$ & $-22.83$ & -- & $3.44$ & $0.51$ & -$ 6.42$ & -- & $1.75$ & $2.36^{+0.69}_{-0.17}$ & $0.050$ & $0.128^{+0.208}_{-0.052}$ \\
3712: NGC 2782 & 4 & 1 & $10.77$ & $-23.83$ & $196$ & $3.30$ & $0.26$ & $ 1.03$ & $0.85$ & $1.74$ & $4.67^{+0.25}_{-1.73}$ & $0.229$ & $0.210^{+0.126}_{-0.101}$ \\
3713: NGC 2914 & 4 & 1 & $10.64$ & $-23.51$ & $186$ & $1.39$ & $0.35$ & $ 0.68$ & $1.26$ & $0.62$ & $2.53^{+0.97}_{-0.36}$ & $0.498$ & $0.244^{+0.113}_{-0.107}$ \\
3714: NGC 3256 & 4 & 1 & $11.14$ & $-24.72$ & $241$ & $1.79$ & $0.19$ & $ 1.35$ & $0.41$ & $1.85$ & $4.57^{+0.11}_{-2.61}$ & $0.090$ & $0.299^{+0.117}_{-0.163}$ \\
3715: NGC 3310$^{\dagger}$ & 4 & 1 & $10.04$ & $-22.07$ & -- & $0.70$ & $0.22$ & -$ 2.00$ & -- & $1.59$ & $2.55^{+5.91}_{-0.89}$ & $0.078$ & $0.323^{+0.132}_{-0.129}$ \\
3716: NGC 3597 & 4 & 1 & $10.72$ & $-23.72$ & $174$ & $0.83$ & $0.40$ & $ 1.11$ & $0.95$ & $0.64$ & $3.06^{+1.12}_{-0.63}$ & $0.614$ & $0.358^{+0.169}_{-0.123}$ \\
3717: NGC 3656 & 4 & 1 & $10.72$ & $-23.70$ & $132$ & $2.55$ & $0.12$ & -$ 1.70$ & -- & $3.45$ & $2.94^{+2.18}_{-0.42}$ & $0.038$ & $0.195^{+0.132}_{-0.093}$ \\
3718: NGC 3921 & 4 & 1 & $11.31$ & $-25.13$ & $222$ & $3.45$ & $0.21$ & $ 0.99$ & $1.02$ & $2.48$ & $4.15^{+0.97}_{-1.97}$ & $0.261$ & $0.297^{+0.120}_{-0.085}$ \\
3719: NGC 4004$^{\dagger}$ & 4 & 1 & $10.38$ & $-22.89$ & $33$ & $3.17$ & $0.62$ & $ 2.58$ & $0.47$ & $1.50$ & $2.66^{+1.92}_{-0.70}$ & $0.422$ & $0.194^{+0.143}_{-0.104}$ \\
3720: NGC 4194 & 4 & 1 & $10.51$ & $-23.21$ & $116$ & $0.57$ & $0.24$ & $ 0.91$ & $1.24$ & $1.57$ & $3.64^{+1.10}_{-1.74}$ & $0.535$ & $0.355^{+0.149}_{-0.091}$ \\
3721: NGC 4441 & 4 & 1 & $10.42$ & $-22.98$ & $139$ & $1.53$ & $0.17$ & $ 0.87$ & $0.94$ & $2.47$ & $3.27^{+0.73}_{-0.50}$ & $0.140$ & $0.194^{+0.133}_{-0.081}$ \\
3722: NGC 5018 & 4 & 1 & $11.32$ & $-25.15$ & $222$ & $2.62$ & $0.25$ & $ 1.17$ & $0.74$ & $3.14$ & $2.53^{+2.59}_{-0.44}$ & $0.062$ & $0.194^{+0.126}_{-0.096}$ \\
3723: %NGC 5812 & 4 & 1 & $10.87$ & $-24.08$ & $241$ & $1.79$ & $0.05$ & $ 0.10$ & -- & $4.02$ & $3.04^{+0.40}_{-0.87}$ & $0.180$ & $0.264^{+0.105}_{-0.053}$ \\
3724: NGC 6052$^{\dagger}$ & 4 & 1 & $10.65$ & $-23.55$ & $80$ & $4.82$ & $0.44$ & $ 1.38$ & $0.60$ & $0.85$ & $3.54^{+0.92}_{-1.13}$ & $0.044$ & $0.118^{+0.190}_{-0.050}$ \\
3725: NGC 6598 & 4 & 1 & $11.46$ & $-25.51$ & -- & $6.08$ & $0.16$ & -$ 0.03$ & -- & $3.39$ & $3.20^{+0.86}_{-0.47}$ & $0.045$ & $0.103^{+0.102}_{-0.067}$ \\
3726: NGC 7135 & 4 & 1 & $10.82$ & $-23.95$ & $277$ & $4.36$ & $0.18$ & $ 0.39$ & $0.82$ & $4.13$ & $6.06^{+2.84}_{-4.04}$ & $0.081$ & $0.166^{+0.085}_{-0.077}$ \\
3727: NGC 7252 & 4 & 1 & $11.19$ & $-24.84$ & $166$ & $2.53$ & $0.07$ & $ 0.24$ & $1.42$ & $1.27$ & $2.76^{+3.31}_{-2.76}$ & $0.316$ & $0.249^{+0.146}_{-0.124}$ \\
3728: NGC 7585 & 4 & 1 & $11.24$ & $-24.98$ & $211$ & $4.45$ & $0.29$ & $ 0.33$ & $0.21$ & $2.41$ & $4.72^{+0.08}_{-2.22}$ & $0.107$ & $0.141^{+0.178}_{-0.043}$ \\
3729: NGC 7727 & 4 & 1 & $10.93$ & $-24.23$ & $231$ & $2.28$ & $0.24$ & -$ 1.63$ & $1.18$ & $2.63$ & $3.02^{+0.80}_{-0.14}$ & $0.127$ & $0.249^{+0.159}_{-0.120}$ \\
3730: UGC 6 & 4 & 1 & $10.84$ & $-24.01$ & $220$ & $1.40$ & $0.19$ & -$ 0.04$ & $0.56$ & $2.10$ & $2.92^{+0.39}_{-0.27}$ & $0.630$ & $0.345^{+0.124}_{-0.115}$ \\
3731: UGC 2238$^{\dagger}$ & 4 & 1 & $11.08$ & $-24.58$ & -- & $1.42$ & $0.53$ & $ 2.60$ & -- & $1.09$ & $2.87^{+0.05}_{-0.46}$ & $0.165$ & $0.315^{+0.122}_{-0.150}$ \\
3732: UGC 4079 & 4 & 1 & $10.75$ & $-23.78$ & -- & $3.65$ & $0.54$ & -$ 1.06$ & -- & $2.28$ & $2.87^{+0.84}_{-0.09}$ & $0.040$ & $0.103^{+0.124}_{-0.066}$ \\
3733: UGC 4635 & 4 & 1 & $11.13$ & $-24.71$ & $251$ & $2.48$ & $0.34$ & $ 0.76$ & $0.65$ & $2.90$ & $3.68^{+0.14}_{-0.67}$ & $0.077$ & $0.270^{+0.133}_{-0.142}$ \\
3734: UGC 5101 & 4 & 1 & $11.46$ & $-25.50$ & $287$ & $1.07$ & $0.18$ & $ 0.62$ & $1.29$ & $4.60$ & $2.36^{+1.26}_{-0.17}$ & $0.318$ & $0.359^{+0.149}_{-0.058}$ \\
3735: UGC 8058$^{\ast}$ & 4 & 1 & $12.31$ & $-27.55$ & -- & $0.82$ & $0.05$ & -$ 0.30$ & -- & $4.60$ & $3.51^{+0.31}_{-0.63}$ & $0.769$ & $0.447^{+0.200}_{-0.152}$ \\
3736: UGC 9829$^{\dagger}$ & 4 & 1 & $11.24$ & $-24.96$ & $134$ & $6.61$ & $0.41$ & $ 2.62$ & $1.00$ & $1.37$ & $2.59^{+1.89}_{-0.76}$ & $0.021$ & $0.117^{+0.157}_{-0.054}$ \\
3737: UGC 10607 & 4 & 1 & $11.34$ & $-25.20$ & $211$ & $1.59$ & $0.24$ & $ 0.26$ & $0.99$ & $1.69$ & $2.36^{+0.42}_{-0.17}$ & $0.332$ & $0.302^{+0.132}_{-0.102}$ \\
3738: UGC 10675 & 4 & 1 & $11.17$ & $-24.80$ & $177$ & $1.46$ & $0.18$ & $ 0.72$ & $0.57$ & $2.18$ & $3.11^{+0.63}_{-0.80}$ & $0.638$ & $0.368^{+0.139}_{-0.105}$ \\
3739: UGC 11905 & 4 & 1 & $11.05$ & $-24.51$ & $222$ & $1.89$ & $0.24$ & -$ 0.76$ & $0.64$ & $1.21$ & $2.42^{+0.97}_{-2.42}$ & $0.417$ & $0.300^{+0.113}_{-0.089}$ \\
3740: AM 0318-230 & 4 & 1 & $11.29$ & $-25.09$ & -- & $3.64$ & $0.17$ & -$ 0.04$ & -- & $2.27$ & $3.54^{+0.15}_{-0.47}$ & $0.283$ & $0.264^{+0.104}_{-0.135}$ \\
3741: AM 0612-373 & 4 & 1 & $11.52$ & $-25.65$ & $303$ & $4.71$ & $0.11$ & -$ 0.64$ & $0.80$ & $1.55$ & $2.64^{+0.57}_{-0.11}$ & $0.163$ & $0.102^{+0.081}_{-0.065}$ \\
3742: AM 0956-282 & 4 & 1 & $9.39$ & $-20.50$ & -- & $2.18$ & -- & -- & -- & $2.25$ & $2.59^{+0.02}_{-0.27}$ & $0.210$ & $0.221^{+0.106}_{-0.085}$ \\
3743: AM 1158-333 & 4 & 1 & $10.26$ & $-22.61$ & -- & $1.41$ & $0.30$ & $ 1.50$ & -- & $2.99$ & $3.09^{+0.15}_{-0.92}$ & $0.316$ & $0.307^{+0.114}_{-0.086}$ \\
3744: AM 1255-430 & 4 & 1 & $11.22$ & $-24.93$ & $243$ & $5.18$ & $0.28$ & -$ 0.65$ & $0.33$ & $0.87$ & $2.59^{+0.02}_{-0.27}$ & $0.261$ & $0.248^{+0.168}_{-0.139}$ \\
3745: AM 1300-233 & 4 & 1 & $11.11$ & $-24.65$ & -- & $4.28$ & $0.68$ & -$ 0.90$ & -- & $1.92$ & $2.59^{+1.10}_{-0.25}$ & $0.102$ & $0.118^{+0.122}_{-0.044}$ \\
3746: AM 1419-263 & 4 & 1 & $11.23$ & $-24.94$ & $260$ & $3.61$ & $0.27$ & $ 0.38$ & $0.43$ & $3.15$ & $3.09^{+0.15}_{-0.18}$ & $0.057$ & $0.114^{+0.121}_{-0.037}$ \\
3747: AM 2038-382 & 4 & 1 & $11.13$ & $-24.70$ & $257$ & $1.77$ & $0.17$ & -$ 0.03$ & $1.21$ & $2.51$ & $3.09^{+0.15}_{-0.56}$ & $0.497$ & $0.355^{+0.112}_{-0.106}$ \\
3748: AM 2055-425 & 4 & 1 & $11.29$ & $-25.08$ & $185$ & $2.09$ & $0.05$ & $ 0.75$ & $0.88$ & $0.75$ & $2.82^{+0.45}_{-0.45}$ & $0.344$ & $0.248^{+0.137}_{-0.133}$ \\
3749: AM 2246-490 & 4 & 1 & $11.47$ & $-25.52$ & $267$ & $4.16$ & $0.05$ & $ 0.31$ & $0.54$ & $2.82$ & $3.06^{+0.83}_{-0.05}$ & $0.320$ & $0.197^{+0.122}_{-0.092}$ \\
3750: Arp 156 & 4 & 1 & $11.59$ & $-25.81$ & $288$ & $6.95$ & $0.17$ & $ 1.59$ & $1.20$ & $3.14$ & $3.13^{+1.47}_{-0.61}$ & $0.116$ & $0.168^{+0.065}_{-0.082}$ \\
3751: Arp 187 & 4 & 1 & $11.36$ & $-25.25$ & -- & $4.37$ & $0.47$ & $ 2.11$ & -- & $3.93$ & $3.07^{+2.05}_{-0.63}$ & $0.062$ & $0.141^{+0.093}_{-0.064}$ \\
3752: Arp 193 & 4 & 1 & $11.00$ & $-24.40$ & $172$ & $1.58$ & $0.49$ & $ 0.82$ & $0.65$ & $1.17$ & $3.02^{+0.80}_{-0.14}$ & $0.332$ & $0.296^{+0.120}_{-0.142}$ \\
3753: Arp 230 & 4 & 1 & $9.91$ & $-21.75$ & -- & $1.08$ & $0.35$ & $ 9.68$ & -- & $1.20$ & $2.64^{+0.70}_{-0.11}$ & $0.063$ & $0.335^{+0.167}_{-0.141}$ \\
3754: IC 5298 & 4 & 1 & $11.22$ & $-24.92$ & $193$ & $1.91$ & $0.08$ & $ 0.81$ & $0.36$ & $1.62$ & $2.57^{+1.61}_{-0.79}$ & $0.335$ & $0.299^{+0.119}_{-0.106}$ \\
3755: Mrk 1014$^{\ast}$ & 4 & 1 & $12.31$ & $-28.16$ & -- & $1.00$ & -- & -- & -- & $3.86$ & $2.82^{+8.00}_{-2.82}$ & $0.674$ & $0.263^{+0.129}_{-0.155}$ \\
3756: \enddata
3757: \tablenotetext{\,}{{\footnotesize As Table~\ref{tbl:cusp.fits}, but
3758: for the recent merger remnant sample of \citet{rj:profiles}. Note
3759: that we show the $K$-band as opposed to $V$-band absolute
3760: magnitudes. Systems marked ($\ast$) are excluded from our comparison in this
3761: paper owing to contamination from a central AGN. Systems marked ($\dagger$)
3762: should be regarded with caution, as unrelaxed or prominent disk/bar
3763: features make our fits unreliable. Some of the best-fit simulation parameters ($n_{s}$(sim) and
3764: $f_{sb}$(sim)) are slightly different from those in \paperone\ owing to an expanded
3765: set of simulations, but it makes no difference for our comparisons.}}
3766: \end{\tableset}
3767:
3768: \clearpage
3769:
3770: \begin{appendix}
3771: %\twocolumngrid
3772:
3773: \section{Fits to the Sample of Kormendy et.\ al.\ 2008}
3774: \label{sec:appendix:jk}
3775:
3776: In Figures~\ref{fig:jk1.log.b}-\ref{fig:jk10.log} we reproduce Figures~\ref{fig:jk1}-\ref{fig:jk10},
3777: but with profiles shown in log-log projection as opposed to $r^{1/4}$ projection.
3778:
3779: \begin{figure*}
3780: \centering
3781: %\plotter{jk_pretty_plot.1.loglog.ps}
3782: \plotter{fA1.ps}
3783: \caption{As Figure~\ref{fig:jk1}, but in log-log space.
3784: Surface brightness profiles are shown for cuspy ellipticals in the
3785: Virgo cluster.
3786: Open circles show the observations, from \citet{jk:profiles}.
3787: These are the highest-mass cusp or extra light ellipticals in Virgo$^{\ref{foot:4382}}$
3788: ($\sim2\,\mstar$).
3789: {\em Top:} Observed V-band surface brightness profile with our
3790: two component best-fit model (solid, dashed, and dotted lines show the
3791: total, inner/extra light component, and outer/pre-starburst component).
3792: The best-fit outer \Sersic\ index, extra light fraction, and variance about the
3793: fit are shown.
3794: {\em Middle:} Colored lines show the corresponding surface brightness
3795: profiles from the three simulations in our library which correspond
3796: most closely to the observed system (shown outside the gravitational
3797: softening length, $\sim30$\,pc). Dashed line shows the
3798: profile of the starburst light in the best-matching simulation.
3799: The range of outer \Sersic\ indices in the simulations (i.e.\ across sightlines for
3800: these objects) and range of starburst mass fractions which match the
3801: observed profile are shown, with the variance of the observations about the
3802: best-fit simulation$^{\ref{foot:explainfits}}$.
3803: {\em Bottom:} Observed disky/boxy-ness ($a_{4}$) and ellipticity profiles,
3804: with the median (solid) and $25-75\%$ range (shaded) corresponding profile
3805: from the best-fitting simulations above. Note that these are not fitted for in any sense.
3806: Figures~\ref{fig:jk2.log}-\ref{fig:jk10.log}
3807: show the other cusp ellipticals in the sample, ranked from most to least massive.
3808: \label{fig:jk1.log.b}}
3809: \end{figure*}
3810: \begin{figure*}
3811: \centering
3812: %\plotter{jk_pretty_plot.2.loglog.ps}
3813: \plotter{fA2.ps}
3814: \caption{The next most massive cusp ellipticals ($\sim1\,\mstar$). Note that NGC 3377 is not
3815: a Virgo member. (As Figure~\ref{fig:jk2}, but in log-log space.)
3816: \label{fig:jk2.log}}
3817: \end{figure*}
3818: \begin{figure*}
3819: \centering
3820: %\plotter{jk_pretty_plot.3.loglog.ps}
3821: \plotter{fA3.ps}
3822: \caption{The next most massive cusp ellipticals ($\sim0.5\,\mstar$).
3823: (As Figure~\ref{fig:jk3}, but in log-log space.)
3824: \label{fig:jk3.log}}
3825: \end{figure*}
3826: \begin{figure*}
3827: \centering
3828: %\plotter{jk_pretty_plot.4.loglog.ps}
3829: \plotter{fA4.ps}
3830: \caption{Lower-mass cusp ellipticals ($\sim0.2-0.3\,\mstar$). Our simulations
3831: reproduce the observed outer profiles and kinematic properties of such galaxies, but
3832: do not resolve the stellar cluster nuclei at small radii. The extra light recovered by our
3833: two-component fits therefore can be misleading at such low mass.
3834: (As Figure~\ref{fig:jk4}, but in log-log space.)
3835: \label{fig:jk4.log}}
3836: \end{figure*}
3837: \begin{figure*}
3838: \centering
3839: %\plotter{jk_pretty_plot.5.loglog.ps}
3840: \plotter{fA5.ps}
3841: \caption{Additional low-mass ($\sim0.2\,\mstar$) cusp ellipticals. Our
3842: fits perform better in this case.
3843: (As Figure~\ref{fig:jk5}, but in log-log space.)
3844: \label{fig:jk5.log}}
3845: \end{figure*}
3846: \begin{figure*}
3847: \centering
3848: %\plotter{jk_pretty_plot.6.loglog.ps}
3849: \plotter{fA6.ps}
3850: \caption{Additional low-mass ($\sim0.1-0.2\,\mstar$) cusp ellipticals, but
3851: in this case without prominent stellar clusters in their nuclei. In this case
3852: our parameterized fitting is not misled and we recover similar starburst
3853: fractions to our simulations.
3854: (As Figure~\ref{fig:jk6}, but in log-log space.)
3855: \label{fig:jk6.log}}
3856: \end{figure*}
3857: \begin{figure*}
3858: \centering
3859: %\plotter{jk_pretty_plot.7.loglog.ps}
3860: \plotter{fA7.ps}
3861: \caption{Very low-mass cusp ellipticals ($\sim0.03-0.1\,\mstar$).
3862: Our simulations provide less good matches at
3863: these luminosities, where dwarf galaxies dominate the spheroid
3864: population (ellipticals at these masses are very rare).
3865: Robustly resolving the extra light in these
3866: very small systems probably requires $\lesssim10\,$pc
3867: spatial resolution.
3868: (As Figure~\ref{fig:jk7}, but in log-log space.)
3869: \label{fig:jk7.log}}
3870: \end{figure*}
3871: \begin{figure*}
3872: \centering
3873: %\plotter{jk_pretty_plot.8.loglog.ps}
3874: \plotter{fA8.ps}
3875: \caption{The lowest-luminosity cusp ellipticals in
3876: Virgo ($\sim0.01\,\mstar$). The comparison with our
3877: simulations is similar to Figure~\ref{fig:jk7.log}.
3878: (As Figure~\ref{fig:jk8}, but in log-log space.)
3879: \label{fig:jk8.log}}
3880: \end{figure*}
3881: \begin{figure*}
3882: \centering
3883: %\plotter{jk_pretty_plot.9.loglog.ps}
3884: \plotter{fA9.ps}
3885: \caption{``Compact ellipticals.'' None of our simulations are
3886: as compact as these objects (effective radii $\sim200\,$pc).
3887: (As Figure~\ref{fig:jk10}, but in log-log space.)
3888: \label{fig:jk10.log}}
3889: \end{figure*}
3890:
3891: \clearpage
3892: \appendixcolumns
3893:
3894: \section{Are Gas-Rich Merger Remnants ``Cusps''? Resolution Tests as $r\rightarrow0$}
3895: \label{sec:appendix:resolution}
3896:
3897: In \paperone, we conduct resolution tests and demonstrate that the primary
3898: quantities of interest here, namely the extra light fraction and
3899: outer \Sersic\ index, are reasonably well converged for the mass
3900: range of interest given our typical $<100$\,pc spatial resolution.
3901: In that paper, however, the observations had comparable (or poorer) spatial
3902: resolution to our simulations; the HST observations of the nuclear regions of
3903: ellipticals, on the other hand, resolve extremely small scales
3904: $\sim 1-10\,$pc, well below our typical simulations. It is therefore of some
3905: interest to examine the behavior at small radii in our simulations.
3906:
3907: \begin{figure}
3908: \centering
3909: \scaleup
3910: %\plotter{res_test.ps}
3911: \plotter{fB1.ps}
3912: \caption{Effects of resolution on a remnant from a simulation of a gas-rich merger.
3913: We show profiles of otherwise identical simulations with a large dissipational
3914: starburst, but different gravitational softening lengths $\epsilon_{s}$.
3915: Dotted line is the profile (extrapolated to $r\rightarrow0$) of a typical
3916: ``cusp'' elliptical (logarithmic slope ${\rm d}\ln{I}/{\rm d}\ln(r)\rightarrow0.5$
3917: as $r\rightarrow0$). Finite resolution limits mean our profiles will always
3918: artificially flatten within some radius: triangles at top show where each simulation profile
3919: artificially flattens below this slope (${\rm d}\ln{I}/{\rm d}\ln(r)=0.5$);
3920: this tends to happen at our softening length $\approx \epsilon_{s}$.
3921: Arrows are shown for each simulation at $2\,\epsilon_{s}$: at
3922: $\sim2-3\,\epsilon_{s}$ the profiles are converged within $\sim 0.1\,$mag
3923: (good for our purposes in this paper). At $\gtrsim5\,\epsilon_{s}$ the
3924: profiles and kinematics are fully converged.
3925: \label{fig:res.test}}
3926: \end{figure}
3927:
3928: Figure~\ref{fig:res.test} shows an example of the (sightline-averaged)
3929: surface brightness profile of a simulated major merger remnant
3930: as a function of numerical resolution, reflected in the gravitational
3931: softening length $\epsilon_{s}$.
3932: Clearly, at some point around our resolution limits, the profiles
3933: artificially flatten (according to the softening) and
3934: become flat (essentially creating an artificial ``core'' at the
3935: center).\footnote{Note that this is different from the behavior
3936: seen in earlier generations of numerical simulations such as those in
3937: \citet{mihos:cusps}.
3938: In those simulations, time integration inaccuracies at the
3939: highest densities led the stellar cusps to artificially
3940: contract to the spatial resolution set by the gravitational
3941: softening length, yielding sharp, compact
3942: ``spikes'' in the surface brightness profile.
3943: This did not affect any other aspects of the evolution and,
3944: indeed, if these spikes are smoothed on the spatial scale
3945: set by the condition that the starburst component be
3946: self-gravitating, the results of \citet{mihos:cusps}
3947: agree in detail with those presented here
3948: and in
3949: \citet{hopkins:cusps.mergers}.}
3950: It is clear that, as we increase our resolution,
3951: the profiles continue to rise towards smaller and smaller radii.
3952: In detail,
3953: outside of $\sim2-3\,\epsilon_{s}$, we find that the profiles are
3954: sufficiently well-converged for our purposes in this paper.
3955: However, more subtle, detailed features in the galaxies such as
3956: the boxy or disky-ness of the isophotal shapes $a_{4}/a$
3957: (typically a $\sim1\%$ effect in the deviation of the shapes
3958: from ellipses) and central kinematics, converge less rapidly. Nevertheless
3959: we find that outside of $\sim 5\,\epsilon_{s}$, there are
3960: no measurable resolution effects in any of these parameters.
3961:
3962: Where do our resolution limits flatten the profiles into
3963: false cores? We check this by simply adopting the common observational
3964: definition of a ``core'' \citep{faber:ell.centers,lauer:bimodal.profiles},
3965: namely where the logarithmic derivative
3966: of the surface brightness profile flattens
3967: below a threshold $I\propto r^{-1/2}$ ($-{\rm d}\ln{I(r)}/{\rm d}\ln{r}$ < 0.5).
3968: This is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:res.test}. On average, our systems
3969: only significantly flatten into false cores at $r\lesssim 1\,\epsilon_{s}$.
3970: In other words, nearly all of our gas-rich merger
3971: simulations, including those pushing our spatial
3972: resolution to $\lesssim 20\,$pc, have ``cuspy'' nuclear profiles
3973: (by the observational definition) all the way down to the
3974: gravitational softening length.
3975:
3976: \begin{figure}
3977: \centering
3978: \scaleup
3979: %\plotter{compare_gamma.ps}
3980: \plotter{fB2.ps}
3981: \caption{``Cuspy-ness'' of our simulations at reasonably resolved radii.
3982: {\em Top Left:} Distribution of brightness profile
3983: slopes ($\gamma \equiv -{\rm d}\ln{I}/{\rm d}\ln(r)$)
3984: in the remnants of
3985: gas-rich simulations, at the smallest radii where
3986: resolution limits do not completely flatten the profiles
3987: (measured at $\sim2.0\,\epsilon_{s}$ and $2.5\,\epsilon_{s}$).
3988: {\em Top Right:} Same, but slopes are
3989: measured from the observed profiles at the HST resolution limits for
3990: each object.
3991: Dotted line in both panels is a fit to the observed distribution
3992: \citep[see][]{lauer:bimodal.profiles}.
3993: {\em Bottom Left:} Profile slopes from the simulations, measured at fixed
3994: (fractional) radius ($0.02\,R_{e}$ and $0.03\,R_{e}$; we include only
3995: simulations where these radii are $>3\,\epsilon_{s}$).
3996: {\em Bottom Right:} Observed profile slopes measured at the
3997: same fractional radii ($0.02\,R_{e}$ and $0.03\,R_{e}$).
3998: Dotted line in the lower panels is a fit to the observed
3999: distribution at $0.02\,R_{e}$.
4000: Down to our best resolution limits, the simulated gas-rich merger
4001: remnants show typical steep ``cuspy'' slopes similar to
4002: those in the observed cusp population.
4003: \label{fig:cusp.slopes}}
4004: \end{figure}
4005:
4006: This approaches (and in the best cases overlaps with)
4007: the radii where the observed slopes are classified as ``cusps'' or ``cores.''
4008: We therefore directly check whether the slopes of our simulated systems are similar
4009: to those observed. We already know that many of our simulations match observed
4010: profiles down to $\sim50$\,pc, from Figures~\ref{fig:jk1}-\ref{fig:lauerpp1}; here
4011: we use our highest-resolution simulations and test whether the slopes at the
4012: smallest radii we can reliably say anything about are reasonable or not.
4013: We consider the distribution in logarithmic slopes of our simulations
4014: at $2\,\epsilon_{s}$, the smallest radii where they are not strongly
4015: flattened by resolution effects, and compare with the observed nuclear
4016: slope distribution from \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles} at the observational resolution limits.
4017: In a more physically motivated manner, we compare the slopes measured
4018: at fixed radii relative to the effective radius
4019: $\sim0.02-0.03\,R_{e}$ in both our simulations and observations
4020: (comparison at fixed absolute radius yields similar results), only including
4021: simulations (and observations) where these radii are well-resolved ($>3$ times
4022: the resolution limit). In either case, the agreement is good.
4023: This strongly suggests that, down to
4024: $\sim10\,$pc where the physics of e.g.\ individual star-forming sites becomes
4025: important, our gas-rich
4026: merger remnants genuinely have ``cuspy'' or ``power-law'' central profiles, and
4027: that the agreement seen in Figures~\ref{fig:jk1}-\ref{fig:lauerpp1}
4028: between simulated and observed profiles would continue
4029: down to such radii if we only had the numerical resolution.
4030: Similar conclusions were obtained in \citet{cox:feedback}, who
4031: also demonstrated that these conclusions (given a fixed amount of
4032: gas at the time of the final merger) are insensitive to the details of the
4033: numerical algorithm and feedback prescriptions in the
4034: simulations.
4035:
4036:
4037: \begin{figure}
4038: \centering
4039: \scaleup
4040: %\plotter{convergence_tests.ps}
4041: \plotter{fB3.ps}
4042: \caption{Convergence properties of the quantities of interest in this
4043: paper, for an otherwise identical simulation
4044: (shown in Figure~\ref{fig:res.test})
4045: as a function of gravitational softening length $\epsilon_{s}$.
4046: Filled diamonds show results from fitting the projected profile
4047: to our two-component decomposition, with a free inner \Sersic\
4048: index/shape parameter $n_{s}^{\prime}$; open circles
4049: adopt a fixed $n_{s}^{\prime}=1$. Error bars show the $\pm1\,\sigma$
4050: range owing to shot noise, statistical fit degeneracies,
4051: and variation between different realizations. The quantities of interest
4052: here are well converged for our typical resolution limits
4053: $\sim30-50\,$pc. For all resolutions ($\lesssim100\,$pc) where
4054: the quantities are converged, we obtain the same average answers
4055: using a free $n_{s}^{\prime}$ or fixed $n_{s}^{\prime}=1$; but when
4056: resolution or seeing
4057: is relatively poor ($\gtrsim30\,$pc), a fixed $n_{s}^{\prime}$ is useful
4058: to minimize the noise (simply owing to the limited dynamic range in the fits).
4059: \label{fig:convergence}}
4060: \end{figure}
4061:
4062: Because the inner shape of the extra light clearly changes (continuing to rise towards
4063: small $r$) in Figure~\ref{fig:res.test}, we examine the convergence properties in
4064: a similar resolution test in Figure~\ref{fig:convergence}.
4065: We plot the fitted extra light fraction $f_{\rm extra}$, effective radius of
4066: the extra light component $R_{\rm extra}$,
4067: effective radius of the whole elliptical inferred from the fit $R_{e}$, and outer \Sersic\ index $n_{s}$,
4068: in otherwise identical simulations as a function of $\epsilon_{s}$. We show the
4069: median values across a large number of sightlines, but the sightline-to-sightline
4070: distribution behaves as a whole in the same manner (see \paperone\ for resolution
4071: tests demonstrating the convergence of the distribution of $f_{\rm extra}$
4072: and $n_{s}$ across sightlines). For each simulation, we generate alternative realizations
4073: by randomly re-scattering the stars according to the smoothing kernel, and
4074: show the error bars corresponding to the $\pm1\,\sigma$ range in fits to these realizations
4075: (unlike e.g.\ the variation from sightline-to-sightline, much of which is real in that it
4076: reflects actual asymmetries in the galaxy, this variation is purely a resolution
4077: effect, and should vanish as $\epsilon_{s}\rightarrow0$). The error bars
4078: therefore effectively include the formal statistical errors and fit degeneracies
4079: as well. We show results both
4080: for a fixed inner $n_{s}^{\prime}=1$ (the \Sersic\ index of the extra light component itself,
4081: as described in \S~\ref{sec:fits}), and free inner $n_{s}^{\prime}$ (i.e.\ both assuming a fixed
4082: extra light component shape or fitting for the shape).
4083:
4084: Two broad rules of thumb consistently emerge from our resolution tests.
4085: First, regardless of the exact details of our fit methodology, the quantities of
4086: interest here, especially $f_{\rm extra}$, $n_{s}$, and $R_{e}$ are well-converged
4087: for spatial resolution below $\sim100\,$pc ($\sim1''$ at the distance to Virgo,
4088: a factor $\sim10$ larger than the HST diffraction limit). We demonstrate in \paperone\ that
4089: the distribution of these quantities across sightlines is also reasonably well-converged
4090: below this threshold. In terms of general criteria, global quantities (such as $R_{e}$)
4091: converge quickly (at a resolution
4092: $\sim$ a couple hundred pc), followed by integral quantities such as
4093: $f_{\rm extra}$ and quantities related to the ``outer'' (large-scale) profile ($n_{s}$).
4094: The effective radius of the extra light
4095: ($R_{\rm extra}$) is more demanding, because of course the fitted size will
4096: not be smaller than the resolution limits (generally we find this is
4097: converged up to a smoothing length $\lesssim1/2$ of the converged or ``true''
4098: extra light size). For this reason, we do not reproduce observed systems with
4099: $R_{\rm extra}\ll100\,$pc (see Figure~\ref{fig:sizes}
4100: and Figures~\ref{fig:jk7.log}-\ref{fig:jk10.log}), but this is only relevant for a few of the
4101: very lowest-mass $\sim 0.01\,L_{\ast}$ ellipticals in our sample.
4102: Most demanding, of course, is the detailed shape of the extra light component itself
4103: (as $r\rightarrow0$),
4104: which Figures~\ref{fig:res.test} and \ref{fig:cusp.slopes} demonstrate we are only marginally
4105: resolving in our highest-resolution simulations. We reach almost identical conclusions
4106: regarding convergence if
4107: we repeat this study by artificially degrading the seeing in the observed profiles.
4108: Note that the absolute values here are for $\sim 0.1-1\,L_{\ast}$ ellipticals -- in much larger, more
4109: massive systems (especially those with flat central
4110: cores extending to $\sim100-300\,$pc), the resolution limits can be much less restrictive.
4111: In any case our resolution studies and experiments with observed profiles suggests
4112: we are not significantly biased in our estimates of the most important quantity here,
4113: $f_{\rm extra}$ (or $f_{\rm sb}$).
4114:
4115: Second, Figure~\ref{fig:convergence} explicitly demonstrates that our results
4116: are not changed whether we (for convenience) adopt a fixed inner extra light
4117: component shape $n_{s}^{\prime}$ when we fit to our
4118: simulations, or leave it as a free parameter. In the mean, the two recover the
4119: same answer (so long as our resolution is below the $\sim100\,$pc threshold
4120: needed to resolve the structures of interest in the first place).
4121: Unsurprisingly, when the resolution is extremely good, the results are most
4122: robust when we allow a free $n_{s}$ -- this allows the fit the freedom to
4123: deal with small scale features and e.g.\ the broad range in inner profile
4124: ``cusp'' slopes (Figure~\ref{fig:cusp.slopes}). Fixing $n_{s}^{\prime}$ in
4125: such cases (or in e.g.\ observations with $\sim1-5\,$pc resolution)
4126: can produce a higher rate of catastrophic failure owing to
4127: the presence of small-scale features that are unimportant for the
4128: overall profile. For example, a strict inner exponential ($n_{s}^{\prime}=1$)
4129: implies that the logarithmic slope of the
4130: surface brightness profile goes to zero as $r\rightarrow0$,
4131: whereas the small-scale ($\ll 30$\,pc) profiles of cusp galaxies have a wide
4132: range of non-zero logarithmic slopes.
4133:
4134: When the resolution is sufficient then,
4135: one can (and should) free $n_{s}^{\prime}$ and fit for the shape of
4136: the inner component as well as its radius and mass fraction (although,
4137: again, fixing it introduces no bias, just a higher failure/confusion rate).
4138: However, Figure~\ref{fig:convergence} also shows the expected
4139: behavior as the resolution is downgraded: up to the limits where
4140: properties are converged, fits with a free inner component shape
4141: recover the same answer on average, but the uncertainties (realization-to-realization
4142: noise and fit degeneracies) grow rapidly (owing largely to the poor resolution
4143: of the converged extra light shape, which gives the fit too much freedom to
4144: trade off extra light and outer components). The result is that, as noted in
4145: \S~\ref{sec:fits}, our results for this paper are entirely unchanged if we
4146: re-fit all our simulations with a free inner $n_{s}^{\prime}$, but
4147: the scatter in predicted quantities increases significantly. When the resolution
4148: is poor, then, especially if the data sets of interest are limited (i.e.\ one does
4149: not have so large a number of objects that very large scatter is not a problem),
4150: fixing the inner shape is a convenient assumption that greatly reduces fitting
4151: degeneracies and, for the choice of inner shape $n_{s}^{\prime}\sim1$,
4152: introduces no significant systematic bias.
4153: Fortunately, the behavior in Figure~\ref{fig:convergence} and our other
4154: resolution tests is reasonably simple, and yields a useful rule of thumb:
4155: it is appropriate to free the inner component $n_{s}^{\prime}$ and fit for the shape
4156: of the extra light with resolution better than $\sim20-30\,$pc (ideally $\lesssim10\,$pc),
4157: or equivalently with resolution such that the extra light size $R_{\rm extra}$ is
4158: resolved with at least $\sim5-10$ resolution elements. Again, we find
4159: the same is true for observations (the observations used in this paper -- at least
4160: for the intermediate and massive galaxies --
4161: easily meet this criterion, with $\sim10-20\,$pc corresponding to $\sim0.1-0.3''$
4162: at Virgo, a factor of a couple larger than the HST diffraction limit).
4163:
4164: Our dynamic range at large radii is, of course, not significantly limited in the simulations
4165: (rather we restrict to a comparable range to that observed). For a
4166: detailed study of the dynamic range requirements at large radii for fitting
4167: e.g.\ the outer $n_{s}$, we refer to \citet{jk:profiles}. We note though their conclusions
4168: (which we also find in limited experiments changing our sampled dynamic range)
4169: that for the observations and simulations here, the dynamic range is sufficient so
4170: as not to introduce bias or significantly larger uncertainties.
4171:
4172:
4173: \section{The Distinction Between Stellar Nuclei and Extra Light}
4174: \label{sec:appendix:nuclei}
4175:
4176:
4177: \begin{figure*}
4178: \centering
4179: \scaleup
4180: %\plotterr{nucleus_vs_xl.ps}
4181: \plotterr{fC1.ps}
4182: \caption{Fundamental parameter correlations of
4183: extra light components (open red stars and violet circles; style
4184: as in Figure~\ref{fig:ns.mass}), compared to
4185: those of stellar nuclei (nuclear stellar clusters or
4186: ``central massive objects''; blue symbols).
4187: {\em Left:} Effective surface mass density versus stellar
4188: mass (a nearly identical plot is obtained if we consider
4189: surface brightness versus luminosity).
4190: Observed stellar nuclei parameters are from
4191: \citet[][triangles]{geha02:dE.nuclei},
4192: \citet[][inverted triangles]{boker04:nuclei.scalings}, and
4193: \citet[][diamonds]{walcher05:nuclei.mdyn}.
4194: The two classes of systems not only separate strongly in
4195: mass, but trace nearly perpendicular correlations with
4196: {\em opposite} physical senses.
4197: For comparison, we plot the corresponding points for
4198: the entire elliptical profiles (filled symbols) and
4199: for globular clusters (pink symbols; $\times$'s and crosses
4200: are Milky Way and NGC 5128 (Cen A) globulars from \citet{harris96:mw.gcs} and
4201: \citet{harris02:cenA.gcs,martiniho04:cenA.gcs}, respectively).
4202: Extra light components
4203: form a continuous extension of the spheroid/elliptical
4204: population (``classical'' stellar bulges also lie along this correlation
4205: when plotted); unsurprising given that we argue they drive the
4206: effective radii and central surface brightness of the ellipticals.
4207: Stellar nuclei, on the other hand, appear to follow (at least roughly)
4208: an extension of the correlations for globular clusters.
4209: {\em Right:} Same, but showing surface density versus effective
4210: radius of each component/population.
4211: Although the sequences may approach each other
4212: at the very lowest elliptical masses (where classical bulges
4213: and ellipticals are rare, and where we may have
4214: misidentified some dwarf spheroidals as ellipticals),
4215: there is a sharp division between their structural properties,
4216: masses, radii, and parameter correlations (also, stellar population
4217: ages and metallicities; see text). The two are in general easy to separate
4218: and should not be confused.
4219: \label{fig:xl.nuc.compare}}
4220: \end{figure*}
4221:
4222: Many spiral galaxies and dwarf spheroidals show
4223: a central excess in their light profiles associated with dense stellar
4224: nuclei (nuclear star clusters) \citep{phillips96:nuclei.imaging,
4225: carollo97:nuclei.morphology,carollo98:nuclei.morphology,carollo99:nuclei.scalings,
4226: matthews99:nuclei.statistics,boker02:nuclei.ids,boker04:nuclei.scalings,seth:nuclear.star.clusters}.
4227: In their
4228: analysis of the ACS Virgo data, this is what \citet{cote:virgo}
4229: and \citet{ferrarese:profiles}
4230: identify as the central ``excess'' component (largely in their
4231: dwarf spheroidal sample).
4232: In rough terms,
4233: this aspect of these nuclei is superficially similar to what we identify as
4234: extra light. However, as we discuss in \S~\ref{sec:fits}
4235: and has been demonstrated with detailed HST observations of these
4236: objects \citep[see e.g.][]{carollo99:nuclei.scalings,matthews99:nuclei.statistics,
4237: boker04:nuclei.scalings,walcher06:nuclei.ssp},
4238: on closer examination it is immediately clear
4239: that these nuclei are very different and
4240: physically distinct from the extra light or starburst
4241: components we identify in the observations and model in our
4242: simulations.
4243:
4244: Figure~\ref{fig:xl.nuc.compare} compares the parameter correlations
4245: of extra light components and stellar nuclei; specifically their
4246: stellar masses, effective radii, and effective surface brightness
4247: or surface mass density $\sim M / (2\pi\,R_{e}^{2})$. The sequence of
4248: stellar nuclei is clearly distinct from that of extra light.
4249: The typical extra light component (effective radius $\sim100-500$\,pc)
4250: is $\sim100$ times
4251: larger in spatial extent than a stellar nucleus (effective radius $\sim1-5\,$pc)
4252: at the same surface brightness. The slopes of the sequences in either
4253: projection shown in Figure~\ref{fig:xl.nuc.compare} are nearly
4254: perpendicular: for starburst/extra light components, we find
4255: $I_{e}\propto M_{\ast}^{-0.8}$ (less massive systems are
4256: {\em more} dense and compact); for
4257: the stellar nuclei, $I_{e}\propto M_{\ast}^{+1.3}$ (less massive
4258: systems are {\em less} dense).
4259: If we include the limited subsample of stellar nuclei with velocity
4260: dispersions measured in \citet{geha02:dE.nuclei}
4261: and \citet{walcher05:nuclei.mdyn}, we find similar results
4262: in fundamental projections involving $\sigma$.
4263:
4264: In fact, it is well established that the parameter correlations
4265: of stellar nuclei are similar to those of globular clusters, not ellipticals
4266: \citep[e.g.][and references therein]{carollo99:nuclei.scalings,geha02:dE.nuclei,
4267: boker04:nuclei.scalings,walcher05:nuclei.mdyn},
4268: and we show this in Figure~\ref{fig:xl.nuc.compare}.
4269: The extra light components, on the other hand, form a
4270: relatively smooth extension of the sequence obeyed by ellipticals
4271: \citep[in terms of the elliptical total half-mass radius and mass; see e.g.][]{kormendy:spheroidal1}
4272: towards smaller radii and higher surface densities. This is
4273: a natural prediction of our models: in \S~\ref{sec:structural.fx} and
4274: \citet{hopkins:cusps.fp} we argue that ellipticals and bulges
4275: are (when analyzed as a single entity) driven along these correlations
4276: by the properties of their starburst/extra light, beginning
4277: from a location in parameter space (occupied by the least dissipational
4278: ellipticals with large radii and low surface brightness)
4279: similar to their progenitor disks.
4280: In short, dissipational/starburst components represent a smoothly
4281: rising excess at $\sim0.5-1$\,kpc from an outer dissipationless
4282: component extending to $\sim10-100$\,kpc in classical bulges and ellipticals,
4283: with smooth associated gradients; stellar nuclei represent
4284: a sharp excess \citep[being a distinct {\em object} with a fairly
4285: steep internal density profile; see e.g.][]{walcher05:nuclei.mdyn} at $\sim1-5$\,pc,
4286: with very distinctive properties. To the extent that
4287: stellar nuclei exist in some ellipticals, they would sit ``on top'' of the
4288: extra light that dominates the profile within $\sim100-500\,$pc,
4289: and exist entirely below the radius regime we model or fit.
4290:
4291: As discussed in \S~\ref{sec:fits}, this is borne out by a detailed comparison
4292: between our fits and those in e.g.\ \citet{cote:virgo} and \citet{ferrarese:profiles},
4293: who fit multi-component profiles to identify stellar nuclei in
4294: the very small-scale nuclear regions of Virgo galaxies.
4295: The ``outer'' profile in their images is
4296: based on the HST ACS profiles, which extent to outer
4297: radii $\sim1$\,kpc (almost entirely dominated by the
4298: starburst component of the galaxy), and their identified stellar clusters typically dominate
4299: the light profile at very small radii $\lesssim0.01\,R_{e}$.
4300: This is akin to separating our
4301: ``inner'' component itself into multiple sub-components -- i.e.\ a starburst
4302: stellar component that blends relatively smoothly
4303: onto the outer, violently relaxed stars and an innermost nuclear
4304: star cluster.
4305:
4306: \begin{figure}
4307: \centering
4308: %\plotter{nucleus_massfrac.ps}
4309: \plotter{fC2.ps}
4310: \caption{Distribution of
4311: the mass/light fraction of the galaxy bulge
4312: in stellar nuclei \citep[dashed; from the fit to the distribution observed
4313: in][]{cote:virgo} versus our
4314: fitted extra light components (solid).
4315: Stellar nuclei have typical mass fractions $\sim2-3\times10^{-3}\,M_{\rm bul}$,
4316: whereas extra light is typically $\sim0.1\,M_{\rm bul}$, a two order-of-magnitude
4317: difference. The gap between the populations is even larger
4318: if we consider e.g.\ absolute masses, effective radii,
4319: masses relative to the whole galaxy (as opposed to the bulge),
4320: or our best-fit simulation $f_{\rm sb}$ (instead of the fitted $f_{\rm extra}$,
4321: which has somewhat more scatter). The systems are more than just distinct; it
4322: is not possible to assemble typical extra light components from any amount of
4323: hierarchical merging/aggregation of stellar nuclei.
4324: \label{fig:xl.nuc.mf.compare}}
4325: \end{figure}
4326:
4327:
4328: Moreover, the mass fractions of these components are very
4329: different. Figure~\ref{fig:xl.nuc.mf.compare} compares the distribution
4330: of stellar nucleus mass fractions (relative to their host bulges)
4331: versus the mass fractions of extra light/starbursts.
4332: The characteristic stellar nucleus has a mass fraction
4333: $\sim 0.001-0.003\,M_{\rm gal}$
4334: \citep[we plot the distribution fitted in \citet{cote:virgo}, but
4335: other studies find very similar distributions; see e.g.][]{carollo97:nuclei.morphology,
4336: matthews99:nuclei.statistics}, compared to $\sim0.1\,M_{\rm gal}$
4337: in extra light. Because the star clusters are typically identified
4338: in much less massive galaxies, the discrepancy is even larger
4339: ($\sim4-5$ orders of magnitude) if we consider absolute masses.
4340: No amount of hierarchical merging, then (which would roughly
4341: conserve mass fractions in these components), would
4342: move a stellar cluster into the regime of extra light
4343: components.
4344:
4345: A number of other properties reveal the sharp division between
4346: these populations. The stellar populations in the extra
4347: light (see \S~\ref{sec:ssp.fx}) tend to be of similar (albeit slightly younger)
4348: stellar age to their hosts ($\sim3-10\,$Gyr), and are highly metal enriched
4349: (typical central metallicities $\sim1.5-3$ times solar) and
4350: moderately $\alpha$-enhanced
4351: (${\rm [\alpha /Fe]}\sim0.2-0.3$).
4352: Stellar nuclei tend to be extremely young
4353: (ages $\lesssim100\,$Myr) and have somewhat sub-solar
4354: metallicities \citep{walcher06:nuclei.ssp}.
4355: There are also kinematic differences, with characteristically
4356: less rotation in nuclear clusters \citep{geha02:dE.nuclei}.
4357:
4358: Altogether, there should be no risk of confusing
4359: stellar nuclei and dissipational components with detailed
4360: observations. It is worth noting that at the very lowest elliptical masses
4361: ($M_{\ast}<10^{9}\,M_{\sun}$, $M_{B}\gtrsim-17$)
4362: and very highest stellar nuclei masses,
4363: the parameter sequences in Figure~\ref{fig:xl.nuc.mf.compare}
4364: approach one another, albeit still with opposite slopes. The most likely
4365: explanation is that this is just a coincidental overlap of their structural
4366: scalings, and in any case, true ellipticals and classical bulges
4367: become extremely rare at such low masses (likewise, stellar
4368: nuclei at and above these masses also become rare).
4369: It is also possible that, at these masses, some of our smallest ellipticals
4370: are really misclassified dwarf spheroidals (which have significant
4371: stellar nuclei; our fitting
4372: procedures might then mistakenly call that nucleus the ``extra light'')
4373: or that we are in these couple of cases finding a real stellar nucleus
4374: in an elliptical
4375: and accidentally calling it the extra light (as opposed to
4376: recognizing the larger, less dense starburst component, on top of which
4377: such a stellar cluster would sit at the center of the
4378: surface brightness profile). Figures~\ref{fig:jk4} \&\ \ref{fig:jk4.log}
4379: show examples where our parameterized fitting may fall victim to
4380: this misclassification.
4381: In general however, even at the lowest classical bulge masses and highest
4382: stellar nuclei masses, the other striking differences in the
4383: systems (their stellar populations and kinematics) remain distinct: there
4384: is no continuity or ``intermediate'' class between the two populations in
4385: our data or the literature.
4386:
4387: It is in principle possible that there would be correlations between
4388: extra light and stellar nuclei, in that both might be formed by
4389: dissipational processes \citep[see e.g.][]{milosavljevic:diss.nuclei.formation,
4390: seth:nuclear.star.clusters}. Moreover, at some level similar physics
4391: may be involved in determining e.g.\ the competition between star formation
4392: and gravitational collapse that determines their size-mass relations.
4393: However, given
4394: their separation in stellar populations, and given the prevalence
4395: of stellar nuclei in systems such as bulgeless disks and
4396: dwarf spheroidals that have manifestly {\em not} experienced
4397: major dissipational angular momentum loss, they probably are not
4398: directly coupled.
4399:
4400: \end{appendix}
4401:
4402:
4403:
4404:
4405: \clearpage
4406: \lscapeopen
4407: \pagestyle{empty}
4408: %\clearpage
4409: \begin{\tableset}{lccccccccccccccccccc}
4410: \rotator
4411: \tablecolumns{18}
4412: \sizer
4413: \tablecaption{Extended Fit Results\label{tbl:cusp.fits.extended}}
4414: \tablewidth{0pt}
4415: \tablehead{
4416: \colhead{Name} &
4417: \colhead{Morph.} &
4418: \colhead{Ref.} &
4419: \colhead{$\mu_{e}$ (extra)} &
4420: \colhead{$R_{e}$ (extra)} &
4421: \colhead{$n_{s}^{\prime}$ (extra)} &
4422: \colhead{$\mu_{e}$ (out)} &
4423: \colhead{$R_{e}$ (out)} &
4424: \colhead{$n_{s}$ (out)} &
4425: \colhead{$f_{e}$ (fit)} &
4426: \colhead{$n_{s}$ (sim)} &
4427: \colhead{$f_{sb}$ (sim)} \\
4428: \colhead{(1)} &
4429: \colhead{(2)} &
4430: \colhead{(3)} &
4431: \colhead{(4)} &
4432: \colhead{(5)} &
4433: \colhead{(6)} &
4434: \colhead{(7)} &
4435: \colhead{(8)} &
4436: \colhead{(9)} &
4437: \colhead{(10)} &
4438: \colhead{(11)} &
4439: \colhead{(12)}
4440: }
4441: \startdata
4442: %NGC 4621 & E4/E/E5 & 1,2,3 & 7 & $11.26$ & $-21.74$ & 237 & 6.51 & 0.34 & 1.50 & 0.81 &
4443: NGC 4621 & E4/E/E5 & 1,2,3 &
4444: $17.38^{+4.82}_{-1.02}$ & $0.24^{+2.25}_{-0.21}$ & $3.91^{+4.50}_{-2.91}$ &
4445: $21.42^{+0.62}_{-2.20}$ & $ 4.33^{+2.35}_{-1.48}$ & $3.23^{+1.51}_{-0.75}$ &
4446: $0.053^{+0.005}_{-0.044}$ & $3.06^{+1.70}_{-0.18}$ & $0.140^{+0.168}_{-0.050}$ \\
4447: %$0.053^{+0.005}_{-0.044}$ \\
4448: \enddata
4449: \tablenotetext{ \, }{{\footnotesize As Table~\ref{tbl:cusp.fits}, but with a complete
4450: list of fit parameters (included as supplemental material in the on-line edition of the
4451: journal; here, we show an illustrative example of one table entry).
4452: Parameters are the same as in Table~\ref{tbl:cusp.fits}, with additional
4453: fitted parameters listed.
4454: Added columns include: (2) Morphology (taken from the sources given in column (3),
4455: in the same order).
4456: (3) Source for surface brightness
4457: profiles (as in Table~\ref{tbl:cusp.fits}),
4458: where $1=$\citet{jk:profiles}, $2=$\citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles}, $3=$\citet{bender:data},
4459: $4=$\citet{rj:profiles}.
4460: (4)-(10) Parameters of our two-component fits:
4461: (4) Effective surface brightness (in ${\rm mag\,arcsec^{-1}}$), i.e.\ $\mu(R_{\rm extra})$,
4462: for the fitted inner (starburst) component. (5) Effective radius of the extra
4463: light component $R_{\rm extra}$ [kpc]. (6) Sersic index of the extra light component
4464: $n_{s}^{\prime}$ (cases with $n_{s}^{\prime}=1$ and errors $=0$ are where
4465: $n_{s}^{\prime}$ is held fixed as described in the text). (7) Effective surface brightness
4466: of the outer (violently relaxed envelope) component. (8) Effective radius of this
4467: component. (9) Sersic index of this component ($n_{s}$(fit) in Table~\ref{tbl:cusp.fits}).
4468: (10) Integrated mass/light fraction in the fitted ``extra'' (inner) component.
4469: (11) Range of outer \Sersic\ indices (equivalent of $n_{s}$(out))
4470: fit in the same manner to the best-fit simulations,
4471: at $t\approx1-3$\,Gyr after the merger when the system has relaxed.
4472: (12) Fraction of light from stars produced in the central, merger-induced starburst
4473: in the best-fit simulations ($\pm$ the approximate interquartile range allowed).
4474: These values are medians for the fits to the available photometric profiles
4475: for each galaxy; they
4476: do not, together, represent the best fit to any particular individual
4477: measurements.}}
4478: \end{\tableset}
4479: \clearpage
4480: \lscapeclose
4481: %\tableclear
4482:
4483:
4484:
4485: \end{document}
4486: