text:
# Quark number susceptibilities, strangeness and dynamical confinement

## Abstract

We report first results on the strange quark number susceptibility, $`\chi _s`$, over a large range of temperatures, mainly in the plasma phase of QCD. $`\chi _s`$ jumps across the phase transition temperature, $`T_c`$, and grows rapidly with temperature above but close to $`T_c`$. For all quark masses and susceptibilities in the entire temperature range studied, we found significant departures from ideal-gas values. We also observed a strong correlation between these quantities and the susceptibility in the scalar/pseudo-scalar channel, supporting ideas of “dynamical confinement” in the high temperature phase of the QCD plasma.

As seen recently in the Quark Matter 2001 conference , the first runs of the RHIC have provided many exciting results. With the anticipated much longer runtime, at a variety of colliding energies and nuclear species, the existence and properties of the high temperature phase of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) will be probed and tested further. This is an immediate reason to improve our theoretical knowledge of such matter.

Fully non-perturbative computations of quark number susceptibilities are important for three reasons. Firstly, there have been attempts to link them directly to experimental measurements of event-to-event fluctuations in particle production . Secondly, experimental observations of a relative enhancement of strange quarks have been attributed to the formation of a QCD plasma ; a hypothesis which can be quantitatively tested against the computation of the strange quark susceptibility. Finally, earlier results  showed a strong jump in the susceptibility across the phase transition, but indicated a statistically significant 20% departure from weak-coupling behaviour; this is the only (lattice) evidence that physics at finite chemical potential is not weak-coupling physics. In this paper we present the first extensive systematic study of such susceptibilities and relate them to other widely studied variables.

The partition function of QCD with three quark species can be written on a discrete space-time lattice as

$`Z(T,\mu _u,\mu _d,\mu _s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{U,\psi ,\overline{\psi }}}\mathrm{exp}[S(T)]\times `$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{f=u,d,s}{}}detM(T,m_f,\mu _f),`$
where the temperature $`T`$ enters through the size of the Euclidean time direction, $`S(T)`$ is the gluonic part of the action, the determinants of the Dirac matrices, $`M`$, contain as parameters the quark masses, $`m`$, and the chemical potentials $`\mu `$. The chemical potentials for specific flavours, $`\mu _f`$ ($`f=u,d,s`$), can be expressed as linear combinations of the chemical potentials, $`\mu _\alpha `$ ($`\alpha `$=0,3,8), corresponding to the diagonal generators of flavour $`SU(3)`$. We work with the choice $`\mu _0=\mu _u+\mu _d+\mu _s`$, $`\mu _3=\mu _u\mu _d`$ and $`\mu _8=\mu _u+\mu _d2\mu _s`$, because $`\mu _0`$ is then the usual baryon chemical potential.

We follow convention in defining quark numbers

$$n_i(T,\mu _u,\mu _d,\mu _s)=\frac{T}{V}\frac{\mathrm{log}Z}{\mu _i},$$
(3)
and number susceptibilities

$$\chi _{ij}(T,\mu _u,\mu _d,\mu _s)=\frac{T}{V}\frac{^2\mathrm{log}Z}{\mu _i\mu _j}.$$
(4)
Here $`V`$ denotes the spatial volume, and $`i`$ and $`j`$ are either of the index sets $`f`$ or $`\alpha `$. Transformations between these bases are straightforward. We lighten our notation by writing the diagonal susceptibilities $`\chi _{ii}`$ as $`\chi _i`$. We determine the susceptibilities at zero chemical potentials, $`\mu _f=0`$. In this limit, of course, $`n_i(T)=0`$ for all $`i`$. It is also easy to prove that $`\chi _{03}=0`$ if $`m_u=m_d`$. Since all current lattice computations are made in this approximation, the off-diagonal susceptibility cannot be measured at present. Also, in this limit, $`\chi _{us}=\chi _{ds}`$, where the strange quark mass, $`m_sm_{u,d}`$.

Previous works have reported the values of the flavour $`SU(2)`$ singlet, $`\chi _0`$, and triplet, $`\chi _3`$, susceptibilities. Measurements of $`\chi _{0,3}`$ in 2-flavour dynamical QCD showed a statistically significant 20% departure from free field theory (FFT) for $`m/T=0.1`$ and 0.15 . Later computations with $`m/T=0.05`$ reported $`\chi _{0,3}`$ compatible with FFT but with errors of about 20% . Quenched computations deviated from the first set of dynamical QCD results by 5–10% . All this work covered a range of temperatures up to $`1.5T_c`$. However, the quark mass varied with temperature, since the quantity that was fixed was $`m/T`$.

In order to facilitate a comparison of our results with these, we report the same susceptibilities. In the remainder of this paper, $`\chi _0`$ and $`\chi _3`$ refer to these 2-flavour quantities. We also report the first determination of the strange quark susceptibility, $`\chi _s`$. This work improves on previous studies in four other ways— by covering a larger range of temperatures, by using a series of different quark masses at fixed $`m/T_c`$, by investigating finite spatial volume effects systematically, and by analysing the effect of increasing statistics in the stochastic determination of Fermion operators on the lattice. The study of volume dependence gives control over extrapolation to the thermodynamic limit. Our study of many different quark masses gives the strange quark susceptibility. The systematic study of the stochastic method yields a vastly improved determination of the flavour-singlet susceptibility, $`\chi _0`$.

These computations have been made on lattices with lattice spacing $`a=1/4T`$ in the quenched approximation. Fermion loops are neglected in this approximation, making it substantially easier to handle numerically. Apart from an overall normalisation of the temperature scale, this approximation is known to reproduce all the qualitative features of the full QCD simulations. Furthermore numerical agreement between the quenched and 2-flavour dynamical QCD results for $`\chi _{0,3}`$ are obtained by 5–10% correction of the former . It has been shown recently that one can extract continuum results from the lattice spacing we employ . Nevertheless, in future studies we will analyse the effects of relaxing these two approximations.

Successive configurations used in our computations are separated by 1000 sweeps of a Cabbibo-Marinari heat bath algorithm, so that the gauge fields are completely decorrelated by any measure one may choose to use. At $`\beta =5.8941`$, corresponding to $`T=1.5T_c`$ we have generated configurations on $`4\times 8^3`$, $`4\times 12^3`$ and $`4\times 16^3`$ lattices. At other couplings, corresponding to $`T=0.75T_c`$, $`1.1T_c`$, $`1.25T_c`$, $`2T_c`$ and $`3T_c`$, we have used only the $`4\times 12^3`$ lattice. We have used quark masses $`m/T_c=3`$, 1.5, 1, 0.75, 0.30 and 0.03. Using estimates of $`T_c`$=275–290 for the quenched theory , we see that the strange quark mass lies between $`0.3T_c`$ and $`0.5T_c`$.

In this letter we use staggered Fermions exclusively. Since these are defined for four flavours, we have to normalise the susceptibilities appropriately . We have

$`\chi _0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(𝒪_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒪_2),`$ (5)
$`\chi _3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒪_1,`$ (6)
$`\chi _s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(𝒪_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}𝒪_2),`$ (7)
where the two operators involved are

$`𝒪_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T}{V}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(M^{\prime \prime }M^1M^{}M^1M^{}M^1\right),`$ (8)
$`𝒪_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T}{V}}\left(\mathrm{Tr}M^{}M^1\right)^2.`$ (9)
The traces here are sums over lattice points and colour indices, and angular brackets are averages over gauge field configurations. Primes denote derivatives of the Dirac matrix with respect to appropriate chemical potentials. The quark mass to be used in the Dirac operator for evaluating $`\chi _s`$ is, of course, different from that for $`\chi _{0,3}`$.

The traces are evaluated by the usual stochastic technique,

$$\mathrm{Tr}A=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=i}{\overset{N}{}}R_i^{}AR_i,$$
(10)
where $`R_i`$ are a set of $`N`$ uncorrelated vectors with components drawn independently from a Gaussian ensemble with unit variance. Each vector has three colour components at each site of the lattice. We improve on the definitions in eq. (9) by using half lattice versions of the Dirac operator for staggered Fermions. A detailed discussion of the stochastic evaluation of the squared trace in eq. (9) can be found in . A systematic study of the optimum value of $`N`$ is shown in Figure 1. We find that $`N80`$ is needed in order to see that $`\chi _0=\chi _3`$ within statistical errors . In all our subsequent work we have used $`N=80`$ . Such a large value of $`N`$ also seems to decrease the variance in the average over gauge configurations.

In Figure 2 we exhibit the spatial volume dependence of our results at $`T=1.5T_c`$. Note that the volume dependence is smaller than the statistical errors on $`\chi `$ at this temperature, and also much smaller than what could be expected for an ideal gas of Fermions. In view of this, we have chosen to perform the remaining computations with lattices of size $`4\times 12^3`$. This volume allows us to measure thermodynamic quantities up to $`3T_c`$. At larger $`T`$, spatial deconfinement sets in and distorts the results unless larger lattices are used . Measurements of finite volume effects on the QCD equation of state indicates that this lattice size can also be used down to $`1.1T_c`$, below which the first order phase transition of the quenched theory causes strong finite volume effects. As a result, the quenched theory approximation to full QCD is expected to fail close to $`T_c`$. Another finite size effect appears in Fermion computations in the quenched theory. As the quark mass decreases at fixed temperature, the scalar/pseudo-scalar screening length increases. If this length becomes comparable to the spatial dimensions of the lattice, then finite volume effects cannot be neglected. Among all our computations, this happened only for $`m/T_c=0.03`$ at $`T=1.1T_c`$.

In Figure 3 we collect together all our data. At all these points, $`\chi _0=\chi _3=2\chi _s`$ within statistical errors . For $`T<T_c`$ all the susceptibilities are consistent with zero. Notice that the results lie significantly below the expectation from FFT even at temperatures as high as $`3T_c`$. It is interesting to note that the departures from an ideal gas become stronger with increasing quark mass. We discuss later our checks that this is not a lattice artifact. The jump in $`\chi _s`$ across $`T_c`$, its rapid increase with temperature, and its becoming comparable with $`\chi _{0,3}`$ for $`T2T_c`$, all have observable consequences in the pattern of relative strangeness enhancement, including strange baryon enhancement, in going from CERN to RHIC energies .

It is interesting to speculate upon the reasons for departure from the weak coupling theory. In view of the long-standing observation that screening masses in the scalar/pseudo-scalar channel (so-called pion screening masses) also depart strongly from the weak coupling theory, we would like to check whether these observations are related. Below $`T_c`$, at vanishing chemical potential, pair production of quarks can take place only by pair production of mesons. The lightest meson, the pion, will be most effective at producing quark pairs. Hence the pion susceptibility

$$\chi _\pi =G_\pi (k_0=0,𝐤=0)=\frac{1}{N_z}\underset{z}{}C_\pi (z)$$
(11)
(here $`G_\pi `$ is the pion propagator in momentum space and $`C_\pi `$ is the zero-momentum screening correlator) should determine $`\chi _{0,3}`$. For $`T>T_c`$, this logic does not necessarily follow, but in view of the strong correlation in the pion sector, it is interesting to test such a hypothesis.

All the susceptibilities are functions of $`m`$ and $`T`$. Since QCD with two light dynamical flavours is expected to have a second order chiral phase transition for $`m=0`$ and $`T=T_c`$, near the critical point we should expect these functions to scale as powers of $`TT_c`$ or $`m`$. These powers are determined by the ratio of various critical exponents. The scaled quantities would then vary as universal functions of each other. At the critical point, there is a zero mass correlation in the scalar/pseudoscalar channel which is solely responsible for the susceptibilities, since the correlations in the other channels are massive. The universal scaling is then a signal for a restricted form of dynamical confinement  near the critical point.

In quenched QCD, where there is no critical point, we can instead make an expansion such as

$$\chi _i=a_i^0(T)+a_i^1(T)m+a_i^2(T)m\mathrm{log}m+𝒪(m^2),$$
(12)
where $`i=`$ 0, 3, $`s`$ or $`\pi `$ . Eliminating $`m`$ between $`\chi _\pi `$ and $`\chi _3`$, we can always expand one in terms of the other, albeit with temperature dependent coefficients. The surprise, shown in Figure 4, is that the curves for different $`T`$ can be scaled to lie on top of each other. The scaling function which achieves this goes to 1 as $`TT_c`$. Thus, for $`T2T_c`$ and $`m/T1.5`$, the co-variance of $`\chi _\pi `$ and $`\chi _3`$ at $`T_c`$ determines that at higher temperatures. Since the scalar/pseudoscalar screening mass is smallest at finite temperature, and very much smaller than other screening masses, therefore the observed scaling may be interpreted as a demonstration of dynamical confinement in much the same way as at a second order phase transition.

Why is this not a trivial observation? After all, as $`m0`$, $`\chi _\pi /\chi _3`$ is a $`T`$-dependent number, which defines the scaling function. The point is that the scaling is observed not only for $`m=0`$, but for a whole range of masses. This defines an universal curve at $`T_c`$, not just a single value. As a result, this scaling also gives us a partial ability to test for lattice artifacts. The very fact that scaling is seen for all $`m/T_c1.5`$, when results for the lightest mass are consistent with previous computations in two flavour dynamical QCD, implies that there are neither strong quenching artifacts, nor other strong lattice artifacts in our measurements.

In summary, we have presented new and precise results on quark number susceptibilities over a wide range of temperatures and quark masses in the high temperature phase of QCD. The susceptibilities differ significantly from the ideal gas expectations (Figure 3). These deviations increase with mass and decrease at higher $`T`$. As a result, we expect the relative strangeness enhancement seen in heavy-ion collisions to increase with temperature as quantitatively determined here. The linear relation between $`\chi _\pi `$ and $`\chi _3`$ (Figure 4) is the clearest evidence to date for the hypothesis of “dynamical confinement” in the high temperature phase of the plasma . However, it also shows that such a picture becomes less effective with increasing temperature. It is perhaps not a coincidence that the temperature at which the quenched plasma becomes free of this phenomenon is also the temperature at which dimensional reduction becomes quantitatively correct . For $`T2T_c`$, the light quark susceptibility is known accurately enough to test dimensional reduction and various other ideas which have emerged in trying to explain lattice results on the QCD equation of state.

RVG wishes to gratefully acknowledge the kind hospitality of the Physics Department of Brookhaven National Laboratory where this work was initiated. SG’s work has been sponsored by contract no. DE-AC02-98CH10886 of the U.S. Department of Energy.


format: text

text:
# Weak perturbations of shock waves.

## Introduction.

The Cauchy problem is considered for the perturbed strictly hyperbolic 2x2 system of quasilinear equations

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}u_t+\lambda (u)u_x=\epsilon f(u,v),u|_{t=0}=\stackrel{o}{u}(x),\hfill & \\ v_t+\mu (u,v)v_x=\epsilon g(u,v),v|_{t=0}=\stackrel{o}{v}(x),xR.\hfill & \end{array}0<\epsilon 1$$
$`(1)`$
Here $`\epsilon `$ is a small parameter. We assume, that the initial data $`\stackrel{o}{u}(x),\stackrel{o}{v}(x)`$ have jumps at $`x=0`$. The unperturbed problem (with $`\epsilon =0`$) has a persistent solution with two discontinuity lines (shock waves 111We will name the lines of discontinuity of the solution in the plain $`(x,t)`$ as shock lines.). Well-known Hugoniot conditions are necessary for a uniqueness of the solution of the problem (1). Both an asymptotics of shock waves position in the plane (x,t) and an asymptotics of the perturbed problem solution are discussed, when $`\epsilon 0`$.
In this case the asymptotic formula

$$s^\pm (t,\epsilon )\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\epsilon ^is_i^\pm (t),\epsilon 0.$$
$`(2)`$
holds for the discontinuity lines, and

$$u(x,t,\epsilon )\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\epsilon ^iu_i(x,t),v(x,t,\epsilon )\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\epsilon ^iv_i(x,t),\epsilon 0$$
$`(3)`$
hold for the solution in the continuity domain. Here the leading terms $`s_o^\pm (t)`$, $`u_o(x,t)`$ and $`v_o(x,t)`$ are the shock waves and the solution of the unperturbed problem respectively.
The corrections in the asymptotic solution $`s_i^\pm (t),u_i(x,t),v_i(x,t)`$ are found from linear equations.

We will use the following domains in the plain $`(x,t)`$

$$D^+=\{(x,t)|t>0,x>s^+(t,\epsilon )\},D^{}=\{(x,t)|t>0,x<s^{}(t,\epsilon )\},$$

$$\stackrel{~}{D}=\{(x,t)|t>0,s^{}(t,\epsilon )<x<s^+(t,\epsilon )\}.$$

## Asymptotic solution in domains $`D^\pm `$ .

To obtain an asymptotics in the domains $`D^\pm `$ we consider two Cauchy problems for the system (1). The initial data are taken in the form

(A) $`u|_{t=0}=\stackrel{o}{u}(x),v|_{t=0}=\stackrel{o}{v}(x),x<0`$

(B) $`u|_{t=0}=\stackrel{o}{u}(x),v|_{t=0}=\stackrel{o}{v}(x),x>0`$

Each of these problems can be solved (see ) in some area. The Cauchy problem (1),(A) has a continuous solution in a domain $`\stackrel{~}{D}^{}`$ in the plain $`(x,t)`$. Similarly, the Cauchy problem (1),(B) has a continuous solution in a domain $`\stackrel{~}{D}^+`$.

In order to find the unknown coefficients in series (3), we substitute expansions (3) into (1). After that, as usually, we obtain a system of recurrence relations. We have the following Cauchy problems for leading terms and terms in order $`\epsilon `$

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}u_{0t}+\lambda (u_0)u_{0x}=0,u_0|_{t=0}=\stackrel{o}{u}(x),x>0(<0),\hfill & \\ & \\ v_{0t}+\mu (u_0,v_0)v_{0x}=0,v_0|_{t=0}=\stackrel{o}{v}(x),x>0(<0),\hfill & \end{array}$$
$`(4.1)`$
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}u_{1t}+\lambda (u_0)u_{1x}+\lambda _u(u_0)u_1u_{0x}=f(u_0,v_0),u_1|_{t=0}=0,x>0(<0),\hfill & \\ & \\ v_{1t}+\mu (u_0,v_0)v_{1x}+\mu _u(u_0,v_0)u_1v_{0x}+\mu _v(u_0,v_0)v_1v_{0x}=g(u_0,v_0),v_0|_{t=0}=0,x>0(<0).\hfill & \end{array}$$
$`(4.2)`$
Two various Cauchy problems for each system here are written down. In the first case the initial data are taken on the semiaxis $`x>0`$. In the second case the initial data are taken on the semiaxis $`x<0`$. Thus, the asymptotic solution for the Cauchy problem (1),(2) in the domains $`\stackrel{~}{D}^\pm `$ have been constructed. Moreover, in the same way, we can find all functions $`u_i,v_i`$ in the domains $`\stackrel{~}{D}^\pm `$.

The following properties take place (see ): $`D^{}\stackrel{~}{D}^{}`$ and $`D^+\stackrel{~}{D}^+`$. Thus the asymptotic solution for the Cauchy problem (1),(2) is found in the domains $`D^\pm `$.

## An asymptotics of shock lines and an asymptotics of the solution in domain $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$.

Let’s remind, that the Hugoniot conditions follow from the conservation laws of system (1). In this case, the Hugoniot conditions looks as follows

$$D^\pm \{u(t,s^\pm (t,\epsilon ),\epsilon )\stackrel{~}{u}(t,s^\pm (t,\epsilon ),\epsilon )\}=\mathrm{\Lambda }(u(t,s^\pm (t,\epsilon ),\epsilon ))\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{~}{u}(t,s^\pm (t,\epsilon ),\epsilon )),$$
$`(5)`$
$$D^\pm \{\mathrm{\Phi }(u(t,s^\pm (t,\epsilon ),\epsilon ),v(t,s^\pm (t,\epsilon ),\epsilon ))\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{u}(t,s^\pm (t,\epsilon ),\epsilon ),\stackrel{~}{v}(t,s^\pm (t,\epsilon ),\epsilon ))\}=$$

$$=\mathrm{\Psi }(u(t,s^\pm (t,\epsilon ),\epsilon ),v(t,s^\pm (t,\epsilon ),\epsilon ))\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{~}{u}(t,s^\pm (t,\epsilon ),\epsilon ),\stackrel{~}{v}(t,s^\pm (t,\epsilon ),\epsilon )).$$
$`(6)`$
Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_u(u)=\lambda (u),D^\pm (t,\epsilon )=s_t^\pm (t,\epsilon )`$222The functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ are determined by a choice of the conservation laws of the system (1).. From the first conservation law we have the equations (5). From the second we have the equations (6). The tilde notes that the value of the discontinuous function is taken from the $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ domain. As usually, we substitute the expansions (2),(3) into the (6),(7) and use the asymptotic expansion for all functions as $`\epsilon 0`$. After that, collecting terms in order $`\epsilon ^0`$ and $`\epsilon ^1`$ we obtain

$$D_0^\pm (u_0^\pm \stackrel{~}{u}_0^\pm )=\mathrm{\Lambda }(u_0^\pm )\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{~}{u}_0^\pm ),$$

$$D_0^\pm \{\mathrm{\Phi }(u_0^\pm ,v_0^\pm )\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{u}_0^\pm ,\stackrel{~}{v}_0^\pm )\}=\mathrm{\Psi }(u_0^\pm ,v_0^\pm )\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{~}{u}_0^\pm ,\stackrel{~}{v}_0^\pm ),$$
$`(7.1\pm )`$
$$D_1^\pm (u_0^\pm \stackrel{~}{u}_0^\pm )+D_0^\pm (u_1^\pm +u_{0x}^\pm s_1^\pm \stackrel{~}{u}_1^\pm \stackrel{~}{u}_{0x}^\pm s_1^\pm )=\mathrm{\Lambda }_u(u_0^\pm )(u_1^\pm +u_{0x}^\pm s_1^\pm )\mathrm{\Lambda }_u(\stackrel{~}{u}_0^\pm )(\stackrel{~}{u}_1^\pm +\stackrel{~}{u}_{0x}^\pm s_1^\pm ),$$

$$D_1^\pm \{\mathrm{\Phi }(u_0^\pm ,v_0^\pm )\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{u}_0^\pm ,\stackrel{~}{v}_0^\pm )\}+D_0^\pm \{\mathrm{\Phi }_u(u_0^\pm ,v_0^\pm )(u_1^\pm +u_{0x}^\pm s_1^\pm )+\mathrm{\Phi }_v(u_0^\pm ,v_0^\pm )(v_1^\pm +v_{0x}^\pm s_1^\pm )$$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_u(\stackrel{~}{u}_0^\pm ,\stackrel{~}{v}_0^\pm )(\stackrel{~}{u}_1^\pm +\stackrel{~}{u}_{0x}^\pm s_1^\pm )\mathrm{\Phi }_v(\stackrel{~}{u}_0^\pm ,\stackrel{~}{v}_0^\pm )(\stackrel{~}{v}_1^\pm +\stackrel{~}{v}_{0x}^\pm s_1^\pm )\}=$$

$$=\mathrm{\Psi }_u(u_0^\pm ,v_0^\pm )(u_1^\pm +u_{0x}^\pm s_1^\pm )+\mathrm{\Psi }_v(u_0^\pm ,v_0^\pm )(v_1^\pm +v_{0x}^\pm s_1^\pm )$$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_u(\stackrel{~}{u}_0^\pm ,\stackrel{~}{v}_0^\pm )(\stackrel{~}{u}_1^\pm +\stackrel{~}{u}_{0x}^\pm s_1^\pm )\mathrm{\Psi }_v(\stackrel{~}{u}_0^\pm ,\stackrel{~}{v}_0^\pm )(\stackrel{~}{v}_1^\pm +\stackrel{~}{v}_{0x}^\pm s_1^\pm ),$$
$`(7.2\pm )`$
All function with tilde and functions $`s_i^\pm `$, $`D_i^\pm =s_{it}^\pm `$ are unknown here.

Thus, from the Hugoniot conditions, we have four equations for six unknown functions in every order of $`\epsilon `$. Two additional equations we can obtain from differential equations (1). These equations are the same as the equations (4), when we replace both $`u`$ and $`v`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ respectively. Moreover, it is necessary to add the initial data to the differential equations:

$$\stackrel{~}{u}_1|_{x=s_0^+(t)}=\stackrel{~}{u}_1^+(t)\stackrel{~}{v}_1|_{x=s_0^{}(t)}=\stackrel{~}{v}_1^{}(t).$$
$`(8.1)`$
. The leading terms $`\stackrel{~}{u}_0,\stackrel{~}{v}_0,s_0`$ are the unperturbed solution in domain $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$.

Without loss of generality we can consider, that $`v_0`$ has a jump on the curve $`x=s_0^+(t)`$, and $`u_0`$ is continuous function. Then on the curve $`x=s_0^{}(t)`$ the function $`u_0`$ has a jump and $`v_0`$ is continuous. Using this fact, we can determine all six unknown functions. For example the procedure of a construction of $`u_1,v_1,s_1^\pm `$ in domain $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ looks as follows

1) The function $`u_0`$ is continuous on the curve $`x=s_0^+(t)`$. Hence we can solve the first equation in (7.2+) to determine $`\stackrel{~}{u}_1^+`$, because $`D_0^+,u_1^+`$ are known.

2) To find the function $`u_1`$ inside of the domain $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ we must solve the Cauchy problem (4.2) for the first equation with the initial data (8.1). In the same time, we determine the function $`\stackrel{~}{u}_1^{}`$.

3) After that we can obtain the solution of the first equation in (7.2-) to find $`D_1^{}`$.

4)From the second equation in (7.2-) we can determine $`\stackrel{~}{v}_1^{}`$ in the same way as an item 1.

5) To find the function $`\stackrel{~}{v}_1`$ in the area $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{v}_1^+`$ respectively we must solve the Cauchy problem (4.2) with the initial data (8.1).

6) To obtain $`D_1+`$ we solve the second equation in (7.2+).

This algorithm is convenient for determination of all coefficients of the asymptotic expansion.

This work was supported by RFFI 00-01-00663, 00-15-96038 and INTAS 1068.


text:
# X-ray luminosities of galaxies in groups

## 1 Introduction

Many galaxies in the Universe are found in galaxy groups (e.g. ?). These group galaxies show some differences from their counterparts in the field. For example, there is evidence that some spirals interact with their environment (?), and with each other (e.g. ??). Early-type galaxies in groups are less likely to have boxy isophotes and more likely to have irregular isophotes than comparable ellipticals in other environments (?). Many of these features are likely to be due to the effects of the group environment in which the galaxy is found, and it is possible that the X-ray properties of galaxies could be affected by the group environment as well.

There are two main sources for the X-ray emission from normal galaxies: stellar sources and hot diffuse interstellar gas. Emission from bright early-type galaxies is dominated by the hot diffuse component (e.g. ??) whilst in late-type and less luminous early types, the emission is primarily from stellar sources (e.g. ??). There have been a number of studies of the X-ray properties of both spiral (e.g. ??) and elliptical (e.g. ????) galaxies, which show that while the X-ray luminosity of late-type galaxies scales roughly with the optical luminosity, the same relation for early-type galaxies is considerably steeper and shows much more scatter.

If environment does have a significant effect on galaxy X-ray properties, this could explain some of the scatter observed in the LX:LB relations for galaxies. A galaxy moving through the intragroup medium may undergo ram pressure stripping (?) or viscous stripping (?), thus decreasing the X-ray luminosity without much affecting the stellar luminosity. Conversely, material cooling onto a galaxy from the intragroup medium could enhance the observed galaxy X-ray luminosity (?). The effects of galaxy winds may also play an important role. ? found a positive correlation between LX/LB and local galaxy volume density, for early-type galaxies using ROSAT data. They suggested that the X-ray luminosity of early-type galaxies is enhanced in higher density environments. This is in contrast to the earlier work of ? who claimed detection of the opposite effect, using Einstein data.

In practice, study of the X-ray properties of galaxies within groups is complicated by the presence of X-ray emission from a hot intragroup medium in many bound groups (???). Many previous studies of the X-ray emission from galaxies, especially early-type galaxies, which predominate in X-ray bright groups, have failed to allow for this problem. This can result in poor estimates for the luminosity, extent and spectral properties of galaxy emission. In the present paper we attempt to remedy this by carefully removing group emission, which in some cases involves using multicomponent models of the surface brightness distribution (?) within a group. By comparing the properties of these galaxies to those in low density environments we seek to gain some insight into the processes operating in the group environment. Throughout this paper we use H0=50 km s-1 Mpc-1, and all errors are 1 $`\sigma `$.

## 2 A sample of group galaxies

In order to investigate the X-ray properties of galaxies in groups, it is first necessary to define a sample of groups with available X-ray data. For this study we have combined the sample of groups studied by ? with additional data for compact galaxy groups. We use only galaxies from groups in which a hot intragroup medium is detected, since this confirms that these groups are genuine mass concentrations, as opposed to chance line-of-sight superpositions.

? compiled a sample of 24 X-ray bright groups observed with the ROSAT PSPC. In the case of compact galaxy groups, the tight configuration of the major group galaxies (typically separated by only a few arcminutes) can lead to serious problems of confusion, and contamination of galaxy fluxes by diffuse group emission. We therefore have added to the sample all the Hickson Compact Group (HCG; ?) galaxies observed by the ROSAT HRI. The HCGs thus added were 15, 16, 31, 44, 48, 51, 62, 68, 90, 91, 92, and 97. In the case of overlap between the HRI data and the PSPC data of ? (HCGs 62, 68 and 90), the HRI data were preferentially used, except in the case of HCG 62. In the case of HCG 62, the diffuse group emission is so bright that no galaxies could be detected, and upper limits were dominated by uncertain systematic errors in modeling the diffuse flux. However the PSPC data for this system clearly show a central component, fairly distinct from the surrounding group emission; a structure very similar to that of a number of other PSPC groups. We have therefore omitted this group from the HRI dataset and used the PSPC data instead. This resulted in a final sample of 33 groups, 11 HCGs with HRI data and 22 other groups with PSPC data. Note that the PSPC data contains two compact groups (HCG 42 & HCG 62), which are listed under the names given in ? (NGC 3091 & NGC 4761).

Principal galaxies in the HCGs are listed with types and magnitudes in ?. The sample for which we were able to derive useful X-ray flux estimates or upper limits, contains 46 galaxies in 11 HCGs. For the loose groups, we wished to include only galaxies residing within the denser inner regions, where environmental effects might be expected. We therefore searched the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) for galaxies lying within a third of the group virial radius in projection on the sky, and having recession velocities within three times the group velocity dispersion (3$`\sigma _g`$) of the catalogued group mean. The virial radius of each group (typically $``$ 1.1 Mpc) is calculated as described in ?, which also lists $`\sigma _g`$ for each group. All galaxies with a listed optical magnitude and galaxy type were initially included. A number of extra galaxies were included with galaxy types from ?, who have carried out multifibre spectroscopy on 9 of the groups. Also included were a few galaxies whose galaxy types were easily determined from Digitized Sky Survey images. This gave a total of 114 galaxies (in 22 loose groups ) for which we were able to derive useful X-ray flux estimates or upper limits. These were split into four broad morphological categories i.e. spiral, elliptical, lenticular and irregular. Adding the HCG galaxies gives a total sample of 160 galaxies in 33 groups. This sample should not be regarded as being statistically complete in any way, but rather a reasonably representative sample of galaxies in collapsed groups.

## 3 Data reduction

### 3.1 ROSAT HRI data

HRI data were reduced using standard asterix software, and binned into 3″pixel images, using the full energy range of the detector. Due to the compact nature of HCGs, almost all galaxies studied lie within 5′of the pointing axis, so that vignetting affects their detected fluxes by $`<3`$%, and no correction was applied for this.

The high resolution of the HRI generally provides a clear separation between the galaxy and group emission, and in many cases the latter was undetectable. Radial profiles centred on each galaxy were used to determine the radial extent of galaxy-related emission, and the galaxy count rate was then extracted from a circle encompassing this emission. In most cases the background was flat, and was determined from a large source-free region near the centre of the field. A few systems with bright diffuse X-ray emission were more difficult. Wherever diffuse group emission might contribute more than 5% contamination to the galaxy fluxes (i.e. HCG 51, 90 and 97), we fitted an elliptical model to the diffuse flux distribution, and this was then used as a background model when deriving galaxy count rates or upper limits. In the case of HCG 92, the diffuse emission is very irregular, since it apparently arises from intergalactic shocks, rather than a hydrostatic intragroup medium (?). Since we were unable to reliably model this emission, three of the five galaxies in this system had to be excluded from our sample.

Source count rates, together with Poisson errors were extracted and background subtracted. Cases where the source counts exceeded twice the Poisson error on the background ($`\sigma _b`$) were deemed to be detections. For non-detected sources, an upper limit of $`3\sigma _b`$ is returned, normally calculated within a circle of radius 18″. All count rates were converted to unabsorbed bolometric luminosities assuming a 1 keV Raymond & Smith (1977) model with 0.25 solar metallicity, and distances given in Table 1. This model was selected as it should provide a reasonable description of the spectral properties of an early-type galaxy (?). For the spiral and irregular galaxies a hotter spectral model may be more appropriate, but for simplicity the same spectral model was used for all galaxies. If a hotter temperature of 5 keV is used instead, the luminosities of the late-type galaxies would rise by about 0.24 dex. B-band luminosities were derived using magnitudes from NED, and assuming a solar blue luminosity of 5.41$`\times 10^{32}`$ erg s-1.

### 3.2 ROSAT PSPC data

Previous work on the X-ray properties of galaxies tends to use one of two approaches: (a) trace the extent of the emission from the galaxy position out to a background level, and include all this emission as the galaxy emission (e.g. ?), or (b) extract the emission within some standard radius, such as four times the optical effective radius of the galaxy (e.g. ?). The first method may significantly overestimate the X-ray luminosity of any galaxy located near the centre of a group, while the second takes no account of the X-ray surface brightness profile of the galaxy, and so could result in an over- or underestimate of the true luminosity.

For the galaxies in loose groups, we adopted one of two different methods to derive X-ray luminosities, depending on their position within the group, as described in sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 below. 2-dimensional models of the group emission were available for each of the 22 loose groups (?). For a number of systems, these model fits indicated the presence of a central cusp, in addition to more extended emission associated with the group as a whole. Such central components invariably coincide with a central galaxy. For these cases we take the central component to be the emission associated with the galaxy. For these and all the other galaxies we are able to use the group models to remove the group contribution to the galaxy flux. In the case of HCG 62, the central X-ray component is centred on the brightest galaxy, HCG 62a, but also encompasses a second galaxy (HCG 62b). We identify this X-ray component with HCG 62a, but inclusion of the second galaxy would only reduce the derived LX/LB by 50% (-0.18 in log(LX/LB)).

For the remainder of this paper, galaxies coincident with clear central X-ray cusps will be referred to as central-dominant galaxies. The brightest group galaxy (BGG) refers to the optically brightest member. It should be noted that a central-dominant group galaxy will generally be a BGG, although a BGG will not necessarily be a central-dominant galaxy as defined here.

#### 3.2.1 Central-dominant galaxies

For 11 of the groups, ? have derived two-component fits, involving an extended group component and a central component coincident with a central, optically bright galaxy. In a few of these cases the central component was poorly resolved by the ROSAT PSPC so we examined HRI data if available, in order to check the properties of the central components. These checks showed that use of the HRI data did not significantly alter the properties of the central components derived by the PSPC. Thus for these 11 cases we have used the central component from the PSPC fits to derive the luminosity associated with the central galaxy. We have also added to these 11, the group NGC 4325, for which we have fitted a 2 component model. ? found that a one component model was adequate for this system, however the addition of a second component does significantly improve the fit ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$Cash = 43.6). The luminosity for each of these 12 cases was derived by using the 2D models to calculate the fraction of the total luminosity of the group emission contained in the central component. This contribution was then extracted from the group total luminosity given in ? to give the luminosity of the galaxy itself.

#### 3.2.2 Other group galaxies

Initial reduction of the ROSAT PSPC data was carried out as in ?. An image of the group was then generated and a radial profile produced for each galaxy listed in Table 1. These profiles were examined individually and used to identify the radius to which emission could be traced. In cases where poor statistics prevented extraction of a reliable profile, a fixed radius of 20 kpc was used. Examination of both the image and radial profiles also enabled the identification of cases where the X-ray data may be contaminated by a nearby bright source, possible cases of source overlap or cases where the galaxies may be partially obscured by the PSPC support ring. Such cases (20 galaxies in total) were excluded from further analysis. Of these 20 galaxies, 8 were removed due to the PSPC ring and the majority of the remainder were galaxies probably confused with a central galaxy X-ray component. In almost all these confused cases the central galaxy was much brighter than the removed galaxy. Even if all the optical light from these other galaxies was included, the derived LX/LB of the affected central galaxy would typically only change by 5% (0.02 in log space. HCG 62a, discussed earlier, is the case with the largest change).

For each galaxy, a count rate was extracted within the radius as determined above, and then corrected to an on-axis count rate. As all these galaxies lie within X-ray bright groups, a fraction of the count rate will be due to group emission. To correct for this, the best fitting 2D surface brightness profile models derived by ? were used to determine the contribution from the group, which was then subtracted from the count rate extracted at the position of the galaxy.

Detections and upper limits were derived, and converted to source luminosities (bolometric), in the way described above for compact group galaxies. The luminosities of all the group galaxies in our sample are listed in Table 1.

## 4 X-ray properties of Late-type galaxies in Groups

### 4.1 LX:LB

Figure 1 shows the LX:LB relation for the late-type galaxies in our sample. No significant difference in the relation is apparent between the subsamples in compact and loose groups, so we have combined the two. It is clear that two points stand out from the trend described by the rest. The upper of these is HCG 91a, a Seyfert 1 with powerful central point-like X-ray source associated with the central AGN. Since this study aims to explore the X-ray properties of normal galaxies, we exclude HCG 91a from fits derived below. The second high point is HCG 48b. This is not known to have an active nucleus, however it is likely that it contains some sort of active nucleus as it stands out in a similar way to HCG 91a in both Figures 1 and 2. As a result we also exclude HCG 48b from the fits derived below (although we will show its effect on the fits).

As can be seen in Figure 1 there are a large number of upper limits, so we have used survival analysis to derive best fits to the data. Survival analysis takes into account both detections and upper limits, providing that the censoring is random – i.e. upper limits must be unrelated to the true values of the parameter being studied. (For example, this would not be the case if longer observations have been made for fainter objects). For our sample the luminosity limits are determined by both exposure time and source distance, and in almost all cases the galaxies were not the main target of the observation. Note that although galaxies in more distant groups may have been observed for longer because of lower fluxes, this does not mean that lower luminosity galaxies have been observed longer. Random censoring should therefore be a reasonable approximation.

Linear regression analysis was carried out using the expectation and maximisation (EM) and Buckley-James (BJ) algorithms in IRAF. The EM method requires that the residuals about the fitted line follow a Gaussian distribution, whilst the BJ algorithm calculates a regression using Kaplan-Meier residuals and only requires that the censoring distribution about the fitted line is random. When fitting the lines the uncensored points were used as independent variables, and the censored points as dependent variables. In all cases in this paper the two different methods give similar results, and all quoted lines are based on the mean of these two methods. A third possible method of linear regression, Schmitt binning, was not used as the results can be unreliable in cases with heavy censoring.

The best fit line (solid) shown in Figure 1 is

$`\mathrm{log}L_X=(1.07\pm 0.3)\mathrm{log}L_B+(29.2\pm 2.1)`$
(the slope drops to 0.95 with HCG 48b included). For comparison we also plot the regression line of ? who derived the LX:LB relation for a large sample of spirals (covering a range of environments).

The ? relationship (slope=1.52$`\pm `$0.1, intercept=24.6), whilst steeper, lies within 2$`\sigma `$ of the slope derived here. It is therefore not clear that our results are in conflict with those of ?, especially since these authors find evidence for extra emission (possibly from a hot halo) in the largest spirals, which are mostly absent from our sample.

In galaxy groups it might be expected that galaxy interactions may result in starbursts which could increase the X-ray to optical luminosity ratio (?). We identify starbursts on the basis of their FIR colours ($`f_{60}/f_{100}>0.4`$, though note that an AGN may also have such warm FIR colours – ?). The 12 galaxies for which FIR colour is available show that the starbursts (or AGN) lie above the best fit line (8 galaxies including HCG 91a and HCG 48b) and the non-starbursts generally lie below the best fit line (3 out of 4 galaxies). However, this difference is not large, and the data generally suggest that some late-type galaxies in groups may have a small enhancement of their X-ray emission (relative to the optical) but overall these galaxies follow the same LX:LB relation as galaxies in other environments.

### 4.2 LX:LFIR

In Figure 2 we plot the LX:LFIR relation for the late-type galaxies in our sample. FIR luminosities are calculated from IRAS 60 and 100 $`\mu m`$ fluxes using

$`L_{FIR}=3.65\times 10^5(2.58S_{60\mu m}+S_{100\mu m})D^2(L_{})`$

(e.g. ?) where $`D`$ is the distance in Mpc, $`S_{60\mu m}`$ and $`S_{100\mu m}`$ are the IRAS 60 and 100 $`\mu m`$ fluxes in Janskys. Most of the galaxies with IRAS fluxes recorded are in the Hickson Compact groups, and the flux values are taken from ?. For other galaxies, IRAS fluxes are taken from NED. Only galaxies detected in the X-ray and having a determined FIR luminosity are plotted. The dashed line in Figure 2 is from ? and the solid line is from a smaller ROSAT PSPC survey of nearby spirals by ?.

The rather tight correlation between the two variables, which has been noted previously, is clearly apparent. The two points well away from the trend are once again HCG 91a and HCG 48b. This strongly suggests that HCG 48b, like HCG 91a, contains an AGN, since strong interaction-induced starburst activity tends to decrease the ratio of LX/LFIR (?). In fact the ? line in Figure 2 is a good fit to both normal and starburst galaxies, with starbusts occupying the high LX (or high LFIR) end of the relation. The starbursts as identified in § 4.1 above do indeed tend to lie in this region of the relation. Despite the limited number of data points it can be seen that most late-type galaxies in groups again follow the same relation as spirals in other environments.

## 5 X-ray properties of Early-type galaxies in groups

Figure 3 shows the LX:LB relation for the early-type galaxies in our sample. No significant difference is apparent between the compact and loose group samples. The crossed circles represent the non-central group galaxy detections and the arrows upper limits. Shaded squares are central-dominant group galaxies, as defined in § 3.2.1 and include HCG 97a, which is a central-dominant galaxy from the HRI sample. Also plotted for comparison are the best fit to the early-type galaxy LX:LB relation as determined by ?, on the basis of their study of a large sample of early-type galaxies derived from the ROSAT All Sky Survey (RASS), and an estimate of the discrete source contribution. This latter estimate was derived using the mean hard component LX/LB derived by ?. These authors used spectral fits to ASCA data to calculate the contribution of the hard spectral component, identified with discrete galactic sources, in the 0.5-10 keV band, assuming a 10 keV thermal bremsstrahlung model for its spectrum. As we use a 1 keV ? model for all our galaxies we have converted the ? LX/LB ratio to our assumed model and bandpass to give a discrete source estimate of LX/LB=29.56. This value is in reasonable agreement with a number of other estimates of this hard discrete source contribution, once the effects of differing bandpasses and models are taken into account (????). It can also be seen to constitute a reasonable lower envelope for the X-ray luminosity of the galaxies in our sample. It has been suggested that there is also a very soft component associated with discrete sources (e.g. ?). If this component is present in all galaxies its effect on our estimated discrete source contribution would be somewhat dependent on the absorbing column, but could typically increase it by a factor of $``$2. However, recent Chandra observations have resolved much of the discrete source contribution in early-types (??), and Chandra spectral analysis of this discrete component show that any soft component is very weak relative to the hard component (?).

As described in § 4.1, we again use survival analysis to derive fits to the data, including the upper limits available. Fitting to the whole dataset gives

$`\mathrm{log}L_X=(1.5\pm 0.2)\mathrm{log}L_B+(24.7\pm 2.0)`$

which is plotted as the dashed line in Figure 3. Although this fit is flatter than the ? line (slope=2.23 $`\pm `$ 0.12), a large fraction of our data lie in the region log $`L_X`$ 40.5. Below this luminosity previous work indicates that the slope of the relation is approximately unity (?), we therefore expect a somewhat flatter slope than derived by ?, who had many more luminous galaxies in their sample. In fact if we restrict the fit to the more optically luminous galaxies the slope does indeed steepen to $``$ 2.2 (and if we restrict the ? data to the less optically luminous galaxies their slope flattens).

However it is clear that the central-dominant group galaxies all lie in the upper right region of the graph. This along with their central position in the group suggests that they may not be typical of other early-type group galaxies. Thus we also fit a regression line to the data after excluding all central-dominant galaxies, obtaining a best fit of,

$`\mathrm{log}L_X=(0.90\pm 0.18)\mathrm{log}L_B+(31.1\pm 1.8)`$

which is significantly flatter than the previous fit and is plotted as the dot-dash line in Figure 3.

While the fit to the full dataset does appear to be consistent with previous work, of more interest is the very flat slope obtained if the central-dominant group galaxies are excluded. Since this line has a slope consistent with unity, one interpretation might be that the X-ray emission is primarily from stellar sources, and that these non-central group galaxies do not contain a significant hot halo. However the level of this line is a factor $`2.5`$ above the expected hard discrete source contribution, and even if a soft component is included in the discrete source contribution, many of these galaxies will still lie above the line, suggesting that a hot halo still remains. We will return to this issue below.

A further factor which might be influencing our result, which is significantly flatter than that derived in previous studies (e.g. ??), is that these other studies included galaxies from a range of environments, whilst we have specifically targeted galaxies in X-ray bright groups. To explore this, we now compare group galaxies to those in low density environments.

## 6 Comparison with non-group early-type galaxies

To investigate the effects of environment on the properties of early-type galaxies we adopt two approaches. Firstly we use a previous large study of the X-ray properties of early-type galaxies. This large sample will be used to derive group and field subsamples, and the properties of each subsample examined. The second approach involves defining a sample of very isolated early-type galaxies whose properties we can compare with our group galaxies. This latter approach results in a smaller sample, but with much more reliable X-ray parameters. Both approaches are described in detail below.

### 6.1 Environmental effects in the RASS sample

The largest ROSAT study to date of early-type galaxies is that of ?, with nearly 300 galaxies examined using X-ray data from the RASS. However one complication in the Beuing et al. LX values is the presence of intragroup or intracluster X-ray emission which Beuing et al. associate with the galaxy if it lies at the centre of the extended X-ray emission. This will tend to increase the quoted LX for high luminosity galaxies (which are especially likely to lie in clusters, or in the cores of galaxy groups), increasing the slope of the LX/LB relation at high LB values.

In order to investigate any possible environmental dependence in the Beuing et al. sample we divided the sample into a number of group and field subsamples. Cluster galaxies were identified and removed based on membership in the ? and ? catalogues. The X-ray properties of cluster galaxies determined by Beuing et al. may be severely contaminated by cluster emission, and will be best addressed by future observations with the high spatial resolution of Chandra. These are not the object of the present study. Group membership is taken from the all sky group catalogue of ?, which has a velocity limit of 5,500 km s-1. Any galaxy not classified as a member of a cluster or group from these catalogues is considered to be in the field. Galaxies more distant than 5,500 km s-1 are removed to avoid possible misclassification. This process produces 127 group galaxies and 81 in the field. To explore any possible difference between central-dominant group galaxies and other galaxies in groups, we further split the Beuing et al. group sample into a sample of BGGs and one with all BGGs removed.

? record the radii to which they detect emission around each galaxy. In an attempt to explore the effects of contamination of their galaxy fluxes by surrounding group emission, we also split the group sample into subsamples with extents greater than and less than 200 kpc. Galaxies with extents $`>200`$ kpc are very likely to include a significant amount of group emission.

We fitted the LX:LB relation for each subsample separately using survival analysis techniques as described earlier. The results for the slopes of these fits for non-cluster galaxies are shown in Table 2. These results do appear to indicate the presence of significant environmental effects, with the BGG galaxies having a very steep slope, the field sample a flatter relation, and group galaxies with emission confined within 200 kpc a flatter slope still. However some of these fits may be biased, since some of the subsets have very few detections and many upper limits.

In order to reduce any bias in our comparisons we binned our data into optical luminosity bins and used the Kaplan-Meier estimator (which includes upper limits) within iraf to derive the mean value of LX/LB for each bin. This technique works by redistributing the contribution from each upper limit over all the lower points within a bin. One effect of this, is that estimates may be seriously biased where all the lowest values within a bin consist of upper limits. To avoid this problem, we discard bins which have many more upper limits than detections. In Figure 4 we plot log(LX/LB) versus log LB for the subsets of the ? data. There is some evidence from this plot that the BGGs (which often have r$`{}_{ext}{}^{}>200`$kpc in ?) are more X-ray luminous in general than the other early-type galaxies in groups, or the field galaxies, though the comparison is hampered by a lack of detections for non-BGG group galaxies. The rather high non-BGG point at log(L$`{}_{B}{}^{})=`$11.05 includes only 4 detections all of which show emission extending to a radius well over 200 kpc. This suggests that the fluxes for these galaxies may include a significant amount of group emission.

The field galaxy sample shown in Figure 4 could also be contaminated. The ‘field’ designation here relies on galaxies not appearing in the group catalogue of ?. It could therefore include galaxies which are not all that isolated. In addition, the field sample could be contaminated with ‘fossil groups’ (???). These would tend to lie in the high LB region of the plot, as they are thought to be the result of a number of galaxy mergers within a compact group, thus leaving a single bright early-type in the centre of the group potential, with no other bright galaxies nearby. Such systems can have very high X-ray luminosities, arising from the hot intergalactic medium of the erstwhile group.

The conclusion from this section is that there does appear to be some evidence for environmental effects within the ? sample, but that the statistics are limited, the quality of the LX values questionable, and there is some doubt about some of the environmental classification of some galaxies. To address these concerns, we now attempt to identify a sample of genuinely isolated galaxies with available X-ray data, which can be compared with our group sample.

### 6.2 Isolated galaxies compared with group galaxies

First we need to define a sample of isolated early-type galaxies. This was done using the Lyon-Meudon Extragalactic Data Archive (LEDA). This catalogue contains information for about 100,000 galaxies, of which $``$40,000 have enough information recorded to be of use to us. From this sample we select galaxies which fit the following criteria:

* Morphological type $`T3`$.
* Virgo corrected recession velocity $`V9000`$ km s-1.
* Apparent magnitude $`B_T14.0`$.
* Not listed as a member of a Lyon Galaxy Group (?).

The restrictions on apparent magnitude and recession velocity are imposed to minimize the effect of incompleteness in the catalogue. The LEDA catalogue is known to be 90% complete to $`B_T=14.5`$ (?), so our sample should be close to being statistically complete.

This selection gives 330 galaxies which can be considered as potential candidates. These are compared to the rest of the catalogue and accepted as being isolated if they have no neighbours which are:

* within 700 km s-1 in recession velocity.
* within 1 Mpc in the plane of the sky.
* less than 2 magnitudes fainter in $`B_T`$.

These criteria are imposed to ensure that galaxies do not lie in groups or clusters and that any neighbours they do have are too small to have had any significant effect on their evolution and X-ray properties.

To check the results of this process, all galaxies are compared against NED and the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS). A NED search in the area within 1 Mpc of the galaxy picks out galaxies which are not listed in LEDA, and examination of the DSS reveals any galaxies of similar brightness to the candidate which are not listed in either catalogue. We believe that these measures ensure that the isolation of the galaxy is real, and not produced by errors or omissions in the catalogue. Our final sample consists of 36 isolated early-type galaxies.

Comparison of these 36 galaxies with previously published work, and with pointed X-ray observations (ROSAT, ASCA & Einstein) reveals that only 8 have X-ray data available. Of these, two (NGC 821 and NGC 2271) have been observed in the ROSAT All-Sky Survey (RASS), but were not detected at 3$`\sigma `$ confidence, and have no pointed observations available. NGC 6776 is a fairly recent post-merger (?) as is NGC 2865 (?), NGC 2110 is a Seyfert galaxy, and NGC 1132 is a possible “fossil” group elliptical (?). There is also a possible problem with NGC 4555, in that the DSS shows several small galaxies projected near it. Although they are probably not large enough to exclude NGC 4555 from consideration, their possible effect on the galaxy should not be ignored.

To expand and improve this subset, we chose to relax the isolation conditions and the apparent magnitude cut. We thus include galaxies that are either less isolated (no neighbours within 0.4 Mpc in plane of sky) or which are faint enough for their isolation to be uncertain ($`B_T>14`$). Although these do not fit our rigorous criteria, we believe that they are isolated enough to provide useful extra information. The relaxed criteria should still exclude galaxies in truly dense environments, but might include galaxies in loose associations or in the outer fringes of large clusters. Once again we searched for X-ray data from either ROSAT, ASCA or Einstein.

Galaxies defined as isolated by the rigorous definition are listed in the top half of Table 3, and additional galaxies are given in the lower half. X-ray luminosities for these galaxies were derived using a simple standard reduction. The instrument from which the data were obtained for each galaxy is listed in Table 3. Luminosities from ROSAT were background subtracted and corrected. Spectra were extracted from an aperture of radius $``$6 effective radii. Detections and upper limits were derived using a Raymond-Smith plasma (?) model with hydrogen column fixed at Galactic values (?), temperature fixed at 1 keV and 0.25 solar metallicity.

Analysis of ASCA data was carried out using the screened data sets available from LEDAS (Leicester Database and Archive Service). Spectra were extracted using the xselect package in ftools and fitted using xspec. In cases where no reasonable fit could be obtained and no source was obvious, we used the count rate within the circular aperture to estimate a 3$`\sigma _b`$ upper limit on the galaxy luminosity. Conversion of count rate into flux was performed using w3pimms. Analysis of the Einstein data was performed using a reduced dataset available on CDROM from the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. This did not give a detection, and a 3$`\sigma _b`$ upper limit was derived based on the number of counts found in a 6 re radius around the galaxy position.

The LX:LB values for the isolated galaxies are plotted in Figure 5. Also plotted for comparison are the lines shown in Figure 3. The crosses mark detections, and the corresponding galaxy names are given on the plot. Upper limits are denoted by arrows. One point of interest is that the “fossil” group elliptical (NGC 1132) lies in the same region of the plot as the central-dominant group galaxies. Note that NGC 2110 is a Seyfert galaxy.

As can be seen, the small numbers of isolated galaxies do not provide strong constraints on the LX:LB relation. As a result we now bin up the data for the isolated galaxies, and for the group galaxy data derived in this paper. We have binned these in the same way as for the Beuing subsets in § 6.1. Figure 6 shows log(LX/LB) versus log LB for the group dominant galaxies, non-central galaxies and isolated galaxies. Due to their special nature, we have excluded the fossil group and the Seyfert from the isolated galaxy sample. No bins in the group samples are omitted due to poor statistics this time. This Figure shows a much clearer picture than the results derived above from the Beuing sample. The LX/LB ratio for non-central group galaxies and isolated galaxies is consistent with a constant log LX/LB value of $`30`$ (erg s$`{}_{}{}^{1}L_{}^{1}`$), whilst the central dominant group galaxies are clearly far more X-ray luminous than other galaxies of similar optical luminosity.

The significant X-ray over-luminosity of the central group galaxies relative to the others, suggests that some process is enhancing the X-ray emission from these central galaxies, whilst other early-type galaxies in groups are similar in their X-ray properties to isolated galaxies.

## 7 Discussion

There are two main results from the data presented above. Firstly, the X-ray properties of spirals in galaxy groups appear to be indistinguishable from spirals in other environments. Secondly, the X-ray properties of early-type galaxies in groups appear to depend on whether the galaxy is centrally located or not.

The properties of the late-type galaxies in groups are perhaps unsurprising, given that in late-type galaxies much of the X-ray emission is believed to come from stellar sources. Spirals which lie significantly above the LX:LB relation most likely contain active nuclei, and also show excess X-ray emission relative to the LX:LFIR relation. The solid line plotted in Figure 2 is a good fit to both normal and starbursting galaxies (?) suggesting that the excess X-ray emission seen in HCG 91a and HCG 48b is not due to starbursts.

In the case of compact groups, there is strong evidence that the group environment leads to galaxy interactions (?), but the statistical evidence that this leads to increased starburst activity is controversial (see e.g. ??). Our results do not throw any additional light on this debate, since we do not have a well-controlled statistical sample. Rather, the implication of our results is that the X-ray luminosity of group galaxies, arising from a combination of discrete sources and starburst-related hot gas (see ?), scales with galaxy size and starburst activity, in a way which appears indistinguishable from field spirals.

In the case of early-type galaxies, our results imply that these need to be separated into two classes – central-dominant galaxies, and others – and that the failure to recognise this distinction has compromised much previous work on the X-ray properties of early-type galaxies.

What is the origin of this distinction in properties? Central-dominant group galaxies appear to be located at the centre of the group potential both in radial velocity and on the sky (?). This suggests that these galaxies are not moving significantly with respect to the group potential, in contrast to other group galaxies. A galaxy moving through the intragroup medium may undergo ram pressure stripping (?) or viscous stripping (?). Simulations of galactic halos in clusters also suggest that tidal stripping by the cluster potential can remove a significant amount of a galaxy halo (?). All these processes could reduce the amount of hot gas that the galaxy could retain, thus reducing the X-ray luminosity towards the value expected from stellar sources alone. In contrast, a centrally located, stationary galaxy may be able to accrete additional gas from the surrounding group potential, enhancing its X-ray luminosity.

In the absence of active stripping, the hot gas content of an early-type galaxy is determined by the balance between gas loss from stars, gas infall from the surroundings, and energy sources (notably type Ia supernovae) within the galaxy which control the energetics of the gas. The result can be a hydrostatic halo with a cooling flow, a global outflow, or a ‘partial wind’ in which an outer wind region surrounds a central inflow (???). In the case of global inflows, the X-ray luminosity is essentially equal to the whole of the injected supernova luminosity (and even higher if gas flows in from outside the galaxy), whilst in the case of winds, much of this energy may be lost in kinetic energy, and LX is typically much lower.

Previous discussion of the observed LX:LB relation in terms of such models, has started from the basis that this relation is steep (approximately L$`{}_{X}{}^{}`$L$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{B}{}^{}`$) for optically bright early-type galaxies. ?, for example, suggest that the observed LX:LB relation may be explained by a model based on the transition between galaxies with total winds, partial winds and those in which the gas is retained. They calculate that this transition should occur over the range 10.7 $`<\mathrm{log}L_B<`$ 11.2, leading to a rise in LX/LB across this range. In a galaxy group the surrounding intragroup medium might be expected to help suppress galaxy winds, pushing the region of steep LX/LB to lower luminosities. However for our sample of non-central-dominant group galaxies, the average ratio of LX/LB is approximately constant over the range 9.8 $`<\mathrm{log}L_B<`$ 11.3.

What of the effects of environment on early-type galaxies? Our results (Figure 6) show no significant difference between isolated galaxies, and non-central group galaxies. In contrast, the studies of ? and ? both found that the X-ray properties of early-type galaxies have some dependence on environment, but in opposite senses. ? find that on average, galaxies in denser environments (as defined by the Tully volume density parameter $`\rho `$) are more X-ray luminous. In fact they see that galaxies in low density environments have low LX/LB, whilst those in denser environments show a larger scatter in LX/LB. In the light of our results, it is natural to ask whether this result might be entirely due to the inclusion of central-dominant group galaxies in the ? sample. In the ? sample, only 3 out of 58 galaxies with log L$`{}_{B}{}^{}>`$11.0 are found in the field. This suggests that almost all optically bright early-type galaxies are located in groups and clusters. Many of these brightest galaxies will be central-dominant group galaxies, which will naturally lie in rather dense environments, and have a high value of LX/LB.

If we remove all the brightest group galaxies from the ? sample (optically brightest as defined by ? plus two from ?) the trend in LX/LB is considerably reduced. If galaxies identified as being at the centre of sub-clumps within Virgo (?) are also removed (they may represent the cores of groups which have fallen in) the remaining data show only a weak trend ($`1.5\sigma `$) with galaxies in the densest environments showing a lot of scatter, while galaxies in other environments show an almost constant LX/LB. This is shown in Figure 7, which contrasts the original ? dataset with the same data with central group galaxies removed (note that an approximate conversion to our bolometric X-ray bandpass have been carried out on the data). The two highest points remaining within the high density bin are in clusters (Virgo and Fornax), and with the exception of these, the data show that non-central-dominant group galaxies across a range of environments have LX/LB ratios with rather little variation (scatter is factor of $``$ 3 about a mean value of log LX/LB $`29.5`$ ergs s-1 L$`{}_{}{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}`$ \- we believe this value is lower than our value of log LX/LB $`30`$ (erg s$`{}_{}{}^{1}L_{}^{1}`$ because ? use 4 times the optical effective radii to extract the X-ray flux, which may actually be more extended than this). Thus much of the trend seen by ? is actually due to the central-dominant group galaxies. In a new study of a larger sample, ? find no trend in LX/LB with $`\rho `$ for a sample of 196 early-type galaxies which includes almost all the ? galaxies.

Our result, then, is that early-type galaxies outside clusters, apart from central-dominant galaxies in groups, have an apparently universal mean value of LX/LB, which shows little sign of variation with either optical luminosity or density of environment. Earlier results to the contrary appear to be due to the effects of including high luminosity central-dominant galaxies, or from contamination of LX values by intragroup emission. Once central-dominant galaxies are excluded, the scatter in LX/LB is reduced, but as can be seen in Figure 8, it is still substantial, varying over a factor of 20-30 for galaxies of a given optical luminosity.

It is interesting to compare the observed LX/LB values with the three lines marked on Figure 8. The horizontal dotted line marks the expected discrete source contribution, discussed in section 5. Whilst this line lies close to the lower bound of the data, we note that a number of galaxies do fall somewhat below it. ? also point out that their derived discrete source contribution shows apparently real variations, by a factor of at least three, from one galaxy to another. Attributing this component primarily to low mass X-ray binaries, they argue that such variations may reflect the abundance of neutron star remnants in a galaxy, which in turn is sensitive to the initial mass function of its stars.

The upper horizontal line in Figure 8 corresponds to the energy available from type Ia supernovae. This line is derived using the ? rate of (0.18$`\pm `$0.06)$`h_{75}^2`$ supernovae per century per $`10^{10}`$LB⊙, where $`h_{75}`$=H0/75 km s-1 Mpc-1. Assuming that each supernova releases 1051 ergs of energy, this corresponds to LSN/LB=$`2.5\times 10^{30}`$ erg s$`{}_{}{}^{1}L_{}^{1}`$. This line lies within the distribution of points, a factor $`2.5`$ above the characteristic mean value of $`10^{30}`$erg s-1L$`{}_{}{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}`$ (Figure 6). What is the source of the additional luminosity in those galaxies which lie above the SNIa line? There should be a contribution from the velocity dispersion of mass-losing stars (the stellar ejecta have an initial bulk kinetic energy which will be thermalised in the surrounding interstellar medium) and another from the gravitational work done as the gas cools and flows towards the centre of the galaxy (??). Both these contributions scale as the square of the velocity dispersion. Using the Faber-Jackson relation from ?, and following the analysis of ?, adopting a King profile galaxy and assuming that the gas flows into the centre before cooling out ($`f=A=1`$ in their terminology), we obtain the ‘gravitational’ line, log$`L_{grav}=25.28+1.51`$log$`L_B`$, marked in Figure 8, which is uncertain by a factor of a few, depending on the radius at which gas drops out of the cooling flow, and the mass of the dark galaxy halo.

Adding the discrete source, SNIa and gravitational terms gives an upper envelope for LX/LB, which is shown in Figure 8. Three of the four galaxies which lie significantly above this line in the plot are all peculiar. The highest, HCG 15d, is an interacting galaxy which also a radio source. The HRI emission from this galaxy is dominated by a central point-like source which is most likely an AGN. The two galaxies above the line with log(LX/L$`{}_{B}{}^{})31`$ and log L$`{}_{B}{}^{}`$ 10.3 are a Seyfert 2 and a starbursting S0 galaxy.

Our conclusion, then, is that all non-central-dominant early-type galaxies within our sample, apart from a handful which are clearly peculiar, populate a band in LX/LB which lies between the discrete source contribution and the expected luminosity from discrete sources plus a cooling halo of gas released from galactic stars. This band covers a range of LX/LB which changes only weakly with LB (the lower bound in Figure 8 is horizontal, whilst the upper bound rises by only a factor $`3`$ over the range L$`{}_{B}{}^{}=10^910^{11}`$L), and where we have reasonable data, our galaxies appear to populate the whole band. It is therefore not surprising that the mean LX/LB ratio shows no significant trend with LB. Larger samples of galaxies would be required to convincingly resolve any trend associated with the upper boundary of the band.

The fact that group galaxies (at least in the range L$`{}_{B}{}^{}=10^{10}11^{10}`$L, where we have good coverage) span the full range from discrete source to full cooling halo lines, indicates that their hot halos cover a wide range of states. The most X-ray underluminous systems have either lost all their gas as a result of some recent stripping or star formation event, or are in a wind phase, in which most of the gas lost by stars streams out of the galaxy in a fast, low-density wind (?). There is an interesting indication from Figure 5, that such systems are not represented amongst our sample of genuinely isolated early-type galaxies, though better statistics are required to be sure. If confirmed, this observation may relate to the low incidence of tidal interaction and interaction-induced starburst activity expected in isolated galaxies, compared to those in groups. Galaxies with intermediate LX/LB values may be in ‘partial wind’ stages (?), and high resolution X-ray studies with Chandra and XMM-Newton can be used to search for central cooling flows within such systems. The non-central-dominant galaxies with the highest values of LX/LB are likely to have hot hydrostatic halos with fully developed galactic cooling flows. However unlike central dominant galaxies, we see no evidence that these non-central galaxies have excess X-ray luminosity due to accretion of external gas from the group. Presumably their motion prevents this.

Turning finally to the the central-dominant group galaxies – these mostly fall above the upper boundary marked in Figure 8. Gas loss from within the galaxy is unable to explain the high luminosity and temperature, and the large extent of the X-ray emission in these galaxies, as pointed out by ? and ?. It appears that additional infalling material is required to adequately reproduce their observed properties (?,1999). The most likely origin of this infalling material, for dominant group galaxies, is a group cooling flow, since the X-ray properties of these galaxies appear to be more closely related to the group than to the galaxy itself (?).

If this picture is correct, the most X-ray over-luminous early-type galaxies should be found in the centres of undisturbed bright groups and clusters. Other early-type galaxies within galaxy systems should have much lower values of LX/LB, unless of course they have been the central galaxy of a group which has recently merged with the present cluster. In addition, disturbed clusters which show no evidence of any cooling flow would be expected to contain central galaxies that are less X-ray overluminous than clusters and groups with cooling flows.

If central group galaxy X-ray properties are more strongly related to the group than to the galaxy this would account for some of the scatter in the early-type galaxy LX/LB relation. It would also explain the correlation of X-ray luminosity with the relative sizes of the X-ray and optical emission found by ?: the most X-ray overluminous galaxies should be found in the centre of bigger groups. In addition, the apparent lack of rotationally enhanced X-ray ellipticity in the cooling flows of elliptical galaxies (?), may be explained if it is a group, rather than galaxy cooling flow.

## 8 Conclusions

We have derived the X-ray luminosity for a sample of galaxies in groups after allowing for the effects of the intragroup emission. This sample is used to derive the LX:LB relation for both early- and late-type galaxies in groups, and these relations are compared to those derived for other environments.

In general, the X-ray properties of spiral galaxies appear to be indistinguishable from those in other environments. We find no significant deviations from the LX:LB and LX:LFIR relations of spirals derived from more general samples.

The X-ray properties of early-type galaxies appear to fall into two distinct categories – central-dominant group galaxies, and non-central-dominant galaxies. The non-central group galaxies populate a band in LX/LB which shows no discernible trend with optical luminosity in our data, and is well explained by a combination of emission from discrete galactic X-ray sources together with a variable contribution from hot gas released by stars. In contrast the central-dominant group galaxies are far more X-ray luminous. In the region where the optical luminosity of the central galaxies overlaps with the non-central sample their X-ray luminosity is over an order of magnitude greater. It appears that infall of gas from the intragroup medium is required to account for these large luminosities.

We have compared the properties of the early-type galaxies in groups with those in other environments by deriving X-ray luminosities for a sample of isolated galaxies and also by splitting previous large surveys of early-type galaxies into group and field subsamples. Non-central-dominant galaxies in groups have a LX:LB relation of slope unity, and the resulting mean value of LX/LB appears essentially identical for isolated and group galaxies. We suggest that steeper LX:LB slopes derived in previous work, and apparent dependence of LX/LB on surrounding galaxy density, result from the inclusion of central-dominant group galaxies in galaxy samples.

## 9 Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Craig Sarazin for providing pre-publication information on the spectral characteristics of discrete source populations in early-type galaxies, and to acknowledge useful discussions with Joel Bregman and Bill Mathews. We would also like to thank the referee, Jimmy Irwin, for suggesting several improvements to the paper. The data used in this work have been obtained from the Leicester database and archive service (LEDAS). This work made use of the Starlink facilities at Birmingham and the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED). SFH acknowledges financial support from the University of Birmingham and EJOS acknowledges the receipt of a PPARC studentship.