1: % \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: % \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
3: \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
4:
5: \slugcomment{Submitted for publication in ApJ. Lett.}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: \title{Low-energy X-ray emission\\
10: from the Abell 2199 cluster of galaxies}
11:
12: \author{Jelle S. Kaastra}
13: \affil{SRON National Institute for Space Research,
14: Sorbonnelaan 2, 3584 CA Utrecht, The Netherlands}
15: \email{j.kaastra@sron.nl}
16:
17: \author{Richard Lieu}
18: \affil{Department of Physics, University of Alabama, Huntsville, AL 35899}
19:
20: \author{Johan A.M. Bleeker and Rolf Mewe}
21: \affil{SRON National Institute for Space Research,
22: Sorbonnelaan 2, 3584 CA Utrecht, The Netherlands}
23:
24: \and
25:
26: \author{Sergio Colafrancesco}
27: \affil{Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma, Via dell'Osservatorio 2,
28: I-00040 Monteporzio, Italy}
29:
30: \begin{abstract}
31: In a recent Letter, Bergh\"ofer \& Bowyer rediscussed the analysis of BeppoSAX
32: LECS data of the cluster of galaxies Abell~2199 as presented by Kaastra et al.,
33: in particular the detection of a soft X-ray excess. Bergh\"ofer \& Bowyer
34: stated that their analysis method is better suited and does not show evidence
35: for a soft X-ray excess. Here we find it necessary to publish a rebuttal,
36: because it can be demonstrated that the method used by Bergh\"ofer \& Bowyer is
37: oversimplified, leading to an erroneous result. As a consequence, their
38: statement that our initial analysis is incorrect is invalid and the detection of
39: a soft X-ray excess in A~2199 is still confirmed.
40: \end{abstract}
41:
42: \keywords{galaxies: clusters: general --- galaxies: clusters: individual
43: (Abell 2199) --- X-rays: galaxies}
44:
45: \section{Introduction}
46:
47: The X-ray spectrum of the cluster of galaxies Abell\,2199 has been studied by
48: many instruments. The detection of a soft X-ray excess in this cluster was
49: first claimed by \citet{bowyer98}, based upon {\it Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer
50: (EUVE)} data, although they do not represent any analysis work.
51: \citet{kaastra99} analyzed the {\it BeppoSAX} data of this cluster of galaxies
52: and found evidence of both a soft and a hard X-ray excess at radii larger than
53: 300\,kpc. This last analysis was based on spatially resolved spectroscopy with
54: data from the {\it BeppoSAX}, {\it EUVE} and {\it ROSAT} missions.
55:
56: However, in a recent Letter, \citet{berghoefer02}, (hereafter BB) made
57: categorical statements that the analysis of Kaastra et al. is flawed. BB say
58: explicitly that "Unfortunately, the telescope sensitivity profile used is likely
59: to be incorrect," that "{\it BeppoSAX} LECS does not detect an EUV excess when
60: the data are analyzed correctly," that "using a procedure better suited to the
61: analysis of extended sources we show that there is no excess in Abell~2199," and
62: that "these findings appeared to support the (incorrect) finding of an excess in
63: this cluster using {\it EUVE} data." In this Letter, we discuss the recent
64: conclusions of BB, and we show that BB in fact did not use a different
65: "telescope sensitivity profile" and that their conclusions are not based upon
66: improved calibration knowledge. Therefore, in this Letter, we demonstrate that
67: by pursuing their own highly nonstandard approach to {\it BeppoSAX} data, the
68: results of BB are susceptible to many problems.
69:
70: For a clear discussion of this controversy, we focus on the data analysis
71: procedures and omit the discussion on the physical implications of the existence
72: of a soft excess, since this has already been presented in our earlier work
73: \citep{kaastra99}.
74:
75: \section{Summary of the data analysis by Kaastra et al.}
76:
77: The data analysis method used previously by us has been described by
78: \citet{kaastra99}. Briefly, the cluster was divided into seven concentric
79: annuli, centered around the bright cD galaxy, with outer radii of 3\arcmin,
80: 6\arcmin, 9\arcmin, 12\arcmin, 15\arcmin, 18\arcmin, and 24\arcmin.
81: Background-subtracted spectra for these regions were obtained from the {\it
82: BeppoSAX} Low and Medium Energy Concentrator Spectrometers (LECS and MECS,
83: respectively), High Pressure Gas Scintillator Proportional Counter, and Phoswich
84: Detection System as well as from the {\it ROSAT} Position Sensitive Proportional
85: Counter (PSPC) and the {\it EUVE} Deep Survey (DS). The background for the {\it
86: BeppoSAX} LECS and MECS instruments was obtained from the standard blank-sky
87: observations, and it was verified that the background level during our
88: observation was not enhanced due to a higher level of particle activity.
89:
90: For the study of the soft excess, the most important instruments are the LECS,
91: PSPC, and DS, but the data of all instruments in the entire 0.1--100~keV range
92: were used and fitted simultaneously.
93:
94: The instrumental point-spread function (PSF) of the LECS instrument is a strong
95: function of energy \citep{parmar97}. For example, at 0.28~keV, the energy
96: resolution is 32~\% (FWHM) and the angular resolution 9.7\arcmin\ (FWHM). Both
97: scale approximately with the incoming photon energy $E$ as $E^{-0.5}$.
98: Moreover, the wings of the PSF are strongly non-Gaussian. Thus, at low
99: energies, a significant fraction of the flux generated in a given annulus
100: extends to the neighboring annuli, so that the annular spectra are coupled and
101: need to be fitted {\it simultaneously}.
102:
103: Therefore, in our analysis, we fitted the spectra of all eight annuli and all
104: instruments (26 spectra in total) simultaneously. In the response matrices, the
105: position- and energy-dependent vignetting factors were taken into account as
106: well as the effects of the (energy-dependent) overlapping PSF for the different
107: annuli.
108:
109: The spectral model that we used consists of a thermal plasma in collisional
110: ionization equilibrium for each annulus. For the inner regions, the possible
111: effects of resonance scattering have also been taken into account for the iron
112: K$\alpha$ complex. In addition, a cooling-flow model with partial absorption
113: has been included in the central annulus.
114:
115: After applying this model to the data, we found evidence at the 99.99~\%
116: confidence level of the soft excess as described by \citet{kaastra99}. In
117: particular, in the 6\arcmin--12\arcmin\ range, the 0.1--0.3\,keV excess
118: luminosity above the thermal component is 25\,\%. In this region, the
119: subtracted background is smaller than 15\,\% of the cluster signal, while the
120: large scale variations of the background in this region of the sky are less than
121: 10\,\% of this background.
122:
123: \section{Summary of the data analysis by BB}
124:
125: \subsection{Background subtraction}
126:
127: BB focus much of their attention on the background subtraction. However, as we
128: noted above, this is not really a matter of concern for the observed cluster
129: signal since (1) the background in the relevant radial range is relatively small
130: and (2) its level during the A\,2199 observation was of average level and not
131: enhanced.
132:
133: BB attempted to divide the background into a flat, time-dependent particle
134: background plus an X-ray background. Much earlier, \citet{parmar99a,parmar99b}
135: already showed that the particle contribution in the 0.1--0.5~keV band is small,
136: less than 13~\% of the total, and that it even decreased by about 15~\% over two
137: years (our A\,2199 observation is in the middle of this period). Also, a study
138: of the MECS background (see F. Fiore, D. Ricci, \& P. Giommi 1997)\footnote{
139: BepSDC Report on LECS and MECS Dark Earth Background
140: (http://bepposax.gsfc.nasa.gov/bepposax/soft\-ware/cookbook/rep\_dark\_497.html)}
141: indicates that the particle background does not vary in time by more than 30~\%
142: of the total background. The remaining background is the cosmic X-ray
143: background. Since the LECS only operates during satellite night time, any
144: contribution to the background from scattered solar X-rays is negligible
145: \citep{parmar99b}.
146:
147: However, BB scaled the remaining non-particle background for A\,2199 and A\,1795
148: by a factor of 4.4 and 3.9, respectively, and justified the magnitude of the
149: scaling factor by time-variable scattered solar X-rays. This is grossly
150: inconsistent with the negligible level of solar X-ray photons mentioned above.
151: Moreover, BB did not at all explain quantitatively how they arrived at this
152: scaling factor. Scaling is complicated, because the cluster fills the entire
153: field of view, and thus the observed radial X-ray intensity distribution is a
154: combination of cluster X-rays and cosmic background X-rays. The cluster profile
155: is unknown a priori (containing potentially both thermal and excess X-ray
156: photons). We must therefore assume that their undertaking was entirely ad hoc.
157:
158: \subsection{Radial profiles}
159:
160: BB questioned the reliability of the low-energy calibration of the LECS. The
161: low-energy response used by us is based on ray trace simulations. This is what
162: is available to the general observer. BB quote \citet{parmar97} regarding a
163: discrepancy by a factor of 1.5 at low energies (0.18 and 0.28~keV) between ray
164: trace simulations and ground measurements. However, Parmar et al. suggested
165: that the discrepancy may be caused by the scattered X-ray photons during the
166: ground calibration measurements, and that there is yet no convincing
167: explanation, and that in-flight measurements are needed to resolve this. Since
168: neither did BB offer an improved in-flight calibration or ray-trace model, they
169: essentially use the same calibration data as we did and therefore if our
170: analysis would contain flaws as a result of this effect, so the same will be
171: true of theirs.
172:
173: BB attempt to avoid potential calibration problems (without solving them) by
174: switching to a radial profile analysis. First they noted that at low energies,
175: the FWHM of the instrument is large, in particular in the 0.1--0.3~keV band.
176: Such a non-uniform resolution is undesirable if radial profiles in different
177: energy bands are compared. Therefore, they convolved the radial profile in the
178: high energy band (0.5--2.2~keV) with a Gaussian of 9.7\arcmin\ FWHM. Using a
179: spectral model for the cluster, they then compared this scaled, convolved
180: 0.5--2.2~keV profile with the observed, unconvolved 0.1--0.3~keV band. The
181: comparison shows no soft excess, even a small soft X-ray deficit in the center,
182: and this leads BB to the conclusion that our analysis is wrong.
183:
184: There are several reasons why this simplified approach by BB is unacceptable.
185: Specifically:
186:
187: 1. Convolving the 0.5--2.2~keV image with a Gaussian does not render it
188: compatible with the resolution of the 0.1--0.3~keV image. This is mainly due
189: to the strong, non-Gaussian tails of the instrumental PSF, as we show in the
190: next section.
191:
192: 2. Degradation of the images by smoothing destroys essential information.
193:
194: 3. The radial profile in the 0.1--0.3~keV band is also significantly affected
195: by the low energy response of higher energy photons (32~\% FWHM at 0.28~keV).
196: Thus, the radial profile in this band is sensitive to spectral variations
197: as a function of radius.
198:
199: 4. The effective vignetting corrections to be made are dependent on both energy
200: and position, and these have been apparently neglected by BB.
201:
202: 5. The 0.5--2.2~keV band contains the Fe-L complex which can be quite strong in
203: moderately cool clusters such as A\,2199. In particular, the strength of this
204: complex depends on both the amount of central cool gas as well as metallicity.
205: Since both components vary strongly with position, this biases the 0.5--2.2~keV
206: flux.
207:
208: In particular, item 1 is very important for the analysis of the soft X-ray
209: excess, as we show below.
210:
211: \section{Radial profiles}
212:
213: In order to understand what really happens in the analysis of BB, we present here
214: some simulated radial profiles. First, we generated a cluster emission profile,
215: for which we have chosen for demonstration purposes a simple $\beta$-model, with
216: core radius $r_c$ of 2.6\arcmin\ and $\beta=2/3$, parameters that approximately
217: describe the structure of the A\,2199 cluster of galaxies. This image is then
218: convolved with the monochromatic instrumental PSF of the LECS. A sufficiently
219: accurate parameterization for the present purpose, based on the publicly
220: available calibration files, is given by
221: \begin{equation}
222: F(r) = 1 - \left[1 + (x/a)^2\right]^{-b},
223: \end{equation}
224: where $F(r)$ is the encircled energy fraction of the instrument. For energies
225: of 0.19, 0.277 and 0.93~keV the scale height $a$ is 16.27, 14.70 and
226: 5.30\arcmin, and $b$ is 10.57, 13.32 and 5.12, respectively. Finally, we
227: then convolve the high-energy image with a Gaussian for which $F(r) = 1 - \exp
228: (-r^2/2\sigma^2)$, with $\sigma=4.12$\arcmin, corresponding to the FWHM of
229: 9.7\arcmin\ as used by BB.
230:
231: \placefigure{fig1}
232:
233: In Figure~\ref{fig1}, we show the results of our analysis. In all but one case,
234: we have chosen an effective energy of 0.19~keV for the low energy band (around
235: the center of the soft 0.1--0.3~keV band of BB), and 0.93~keV for the high
236: energy band (around the effective center of the 0.5--2.2~keV band of BB). In
237: all cases, we plotted the ratio of the soft to hard band, for an equal number of
238: photons.
239:
240: Case A in Figure~\ref{fig1} shows the profile ratio for an isothermal cluster,
241: without convolving the high-energy band with a Gaussian, thus reflecting purely
242: the instrumental PSF. The strong drop in the center demonstrates the effect of
243: the broader PSF at low energies. It is evident that even for a cluster without
244: spectral variations, the radial profile ratio varies strongly and is nowhere
245: equal to unity.
246:
247: Case B in Figure~\ref{fig1} is similar to case A, but now we convolved the high
248: energy band with a Gaussian as BB did. Again, for an isothermal cluster the
249: ratio varies strongly as a function of $r$, but now with opposite signatures
250: compared with the previous case. Apparently, the hard band has been smoothed
251: too much. Adopting the approach of BB, a soft flux deficit around 10\arcmin\
252: would indeed have been inferred, despite the fact that the cluster is
253: isothermal. Taking one step further, if BB would have corrected their profile
254: with a curve like case B, they would have found the soft excess reported by us!
255:
256: Case C in Figure~\ref{fig1} is similar to case B (i.e., an isothermal cluster
257: with the BB approach of smoothing the high-energy band), but now for a
258: low-energy band of 0.277~keV instead of 0.19 keV. The oversmoothing of the
259: high-energy band is more evident here. The comparison of curves B and C shows
260: that if radial profiles are used for this kind of analysis, the spectral/spatial
261: energy distribution should be known and modeled appropriately. This has not
262: been done by BB.
263:
264: Case D in Figure~\ref{fig1} simulates the effect of the presence of a cooling
265: flow or an abundance gradient. It shows the theoretical hardness ratio in case
266: the core radius of the hard component is 0.8 times smaller than that of the soft
267: component. This mimics, e.g., the case when the Fe-L complex (in the hard band)
268: is centrally concentrated, because of either an abundance gradient or a cooling
269: flow. The profiles have not been convolved with the instrument or the Gaussian.
270: It also has an $\sim$20~\% excess beyond $\sim$6\arcmin, thereby mimicking
271: approximately the soft excess as found by us in A~2199.
272:
273: Finally, case E in Figure~\ref{fig1} corresponds to the case presented in case
274: D, but now the profiles are convolved with the instrument and the hard band
275: convolved with the Gaussian. A comparison of curve E with D shows that the
276: convolved profile is completely different from the original profile, and
277: comparing curve E with curve B shows that the differences due to a different
278: cluster model are partially washed out, thus confirming that the method of BB
279: tends to destroy information by oversmoothing.
280:
281: All these effects are completely neglected by BB. They simply compare their
282: results with the expected -- scaled -- softness ratio of 1 rather than the
283: appropriate curve. That curve can only be obtained by a full spatial/spectral
284: analysis as, e.g., done by our team. But then the procedure of BB is obsolete,
285: since our spectral modeling already gave the correct answers.
286:
287: \section{Conclusions}
288:
289: We have shown in this Letter that the analysis method of BB for assessing the
290: soft excess in A~2199 is inadequate and leads to erroneous conclusions regarding
291: the presence of a soft excess.
292:
293: In fact, the method of BB is oversimplified since it neglects the intricacies
294: associated with the position and energy dependence of the effective area as well
295: as the spatial/spectral dependence of the LECS PSF.
296:
297: As a consequence of their inadequate analysis, the results presented by BB are
298: misleading, in the sense that a simple method which makes use of radial profile
299: ratios is purported to be better than a full, sophisticated spatial/spectral
300: analysis, without assessing both methods in a controlled experiment. As we have
301: shown here their method leads to unpredictable, erroneous results.
302:
303: The discussion of BB is also misleading because they claim that the finding of a
304: soft excess by Kaastra et al. is due to calibration problems, while BB neither
305: established this nor used a better LECS calibration.
306:
307: Finally we have shown that the method of BB is also wrong because of a
308: misunderstanding of the {\it BeppoSAX} background and corresponding background
309: subtraction errors.
310:
311: In conclusion, we have shown in this Letter that our previous results on the
312: soft X-ray excess in A~2199 are still valid within the uncertainties related to
313: the spectral and spatial sensitivity of the {\it BeppoSAX} LECS detector. It is
314: clear that a further investigation of the presence of the soft excess in
315: A\,2199, confirming or refuting it, can only come either from a thorough
316: recalibration of the BeppoSAX instruments or from forthcoming observations with
317: other satellites with higher sensitivity, such as the {\it XMM-Newton}
318: satellite.
319:
320: \acknowledgments
321:
322: SRON is supported financially by NWO, the Netherlands foundation for Scientific
323: Research.
324:
325: %\clearpage
326:
327: \begin{thebibliography}{}
328: \bibitem[Bergh\"ofer and Bowyer(2002)]{berghoefer02}
329: Bergh\"ofer, T.W., \& Bowyer, S. 2002, \apj, 565, L17 (BB)
330: \bibitem[Bowyer et al.(1998)]{bowyer98}
331: Bowyer, S., Lieu, R., \& Mittaz, J. 1998, in IAU Symp. 188,
332: The Hot Universe, ed. K. Koyama, S. Kitamoto, \& M. Itoh
333: (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 185
334: \bibitem[Kaastra et al.(1999)]{kaastra99}
335: Kaastra, J.S., Lieu, R., Mittaz, J.P.D., Bleeker, J.A.M., Mewe, R.,
336: Colafrancesco, S., \& Lockman, F.J. 1999, \apj, 519, L119
337: \bibitem[Parmar et al.(1999a)]{parmar99a}
338: Parmar, A.N., Guainazzi, M., Oosterbroek, T., Orr, A., Favata, F.,
339: Lumb, D., \& Malizia, A. 1999a, \aap, 345, 611
340: \bibitem[Parmar et al.(1997)]{parmar97}
341: Parmar, A.N., et al. 1997, A\&AS, 122, 309
342: \bibitem[Parmar et al.(1999b)]{parmar99b}
343: Parmar, A.N., Oosterbroek, T., Orr, A., Guainazzi, M., Shane, N.,
344: Freyberg, M.J., Ricci, D., \& Malizia, A. 1999b, A\&AS, 136, 407
345: \end{thebibliography}
346:
347: %\clearpage
348:
349: \begin{figure}
350: \plotone{f1.eps}
351: \caption{Simulated radial profile ratios as described in the text.
352: \label{fig1}}
353: \end{figure}
354:
355: \clearpage
356:
357: \end{document}
358:
359: