text:
# Improved Epstein–Glaser renormalization II. Lorentz invariant framework

## 1 Introduction

According to the spirit of Epstein–Glaser theory , the physical process of renormalization is mathematically expressed as an extension of functionals, v.gr. (convolutions of) powers of Feynman propagators, to well defined distributions. This paper is a continuation of  by the second named author, in which an extension on configuration space was presented. By modifying the use of, and relaxing the conditions on, the infrared regulators $`w`$ introduced by Epstein and Glaser, very useful results on the distributions at the crossroads of mathematics and quantum field theory have been obtained; the relationship of this improved Epstein–Glaser subtraction, dubbed “$`T`$-renormalization”, with Hadamard regularization, the minimal subtraction scheme in analytical regularization, and differential renormalization, has been treated there at length. Hereinafter that paper  will be denoted by I.

The discussion in I took place in the Euclidean framework introduced by Stora  in the realm of the Epstein–Glaser construction. We tackle in this paper the problem of going to the “physical world” with its symmetry group of transformations, namely the Minkowski space and the Lorentz group respectively.

The Lorentz covariance properties of extensions for powers of propagators are deeply related to the $`S`$-matrix covariance. Prima facie, Epstein–Glaser procedures are not covariant. A proof of existence of covariant time ordered products was first given in , working on momentum space. About ten years later, the problem was translated into a group cohomological question on configuration space by Popineau and Stora in  —another work which has remained at the status of preprint. The latter analysis is available in textbook form . In relatively recent (also apparently unpublished) preprints , explicit computations for “counterterms” reestablishing Lorentz invariance of the extensions have been performed.

A perfectly covariant method for the extension of distributions employed in quantum field theory exists, although it is rarely used: the “analytical regularization” method  of Bollini, Giambiagi and Gonzales Domínguez. It leads to quantum versions of the Riesz distributions of classical field theory .

In this paper we extend $`T`$-renormalization of primitive diagrams to the Lorentz-invariant framework, and show that it generalizes directly the causal or quantum Riesz distributions.

The proof that all difficulties in renormalization theory can be overcome through exclusive use of the $`T`$ operation is work in progress; the third paper of the series  —from now on denoted III— deals with renormalization of nonprimitive diagrams and the Hopf algebra of Feynman graphs . It is of course not claimed that the simplicity of the class of extensions envisaged in this work guarantees that it is the physically relevant one in all circumstances; as a rule, the latter will be singled out by appropriate renormalization prescriptions.

We do not suppose the reader to be familiar with causal Riesz distributions. Thus we turn to them in Section 3, after recalling the main properties of our “natural” extension method in Section 2. The covariance properties of $`T`$-renormalization are then addressed in Section 4. To fix ideas, we mainly consider in Section 5 the basic primitively divergent graphs in massless $`\phi _4^4`$ theory, and demonstrate by way of example the link to analytical regularization and causal Riesz distributions. Section 6 shows how $`T`$-renormalization improves upon the BPHZL formalism. We conclude with a brief discussion and outlook.

## 2 Main features of $`T`$-renormalization

Let us begin by fixing some conventions. The scalar functionals we shall be dealing with (coming from the Wick theorem) are to be extended to the main diagonal of $`^{4(n+1)}`$. The latter can be regarded as the origin in $`^{4n}`$ thanks to translation invariance, allowing to set $`x_{n+1}=0`$, for instance.

For fixed $`j\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, to each fourcoordinate $`x_j`$ (a point in $`^4`$) let $`\alpha ^j=(\alpha _0^j,\alpha _1^j,\alpha _2^j,\alpha _3^j)`$ be a quadri-index, where $`\alpha _\mu ^j`$ is a nonnegative integer for each $`j`$ and each Lorentz index $`\mu `$. One has, according to Schwartz’s notation , $`\alpha ^j!=\alpha _0^j!\alpha _1^j!\alpha _2^j!\alpha _3^j!`$ and $`|\alpha ^j|=\alpha _0^j+\alpha _1^j+\alpha _2^j+\alpha _3^j`$, as well as

$$x_j^{\alpha ^j}:=\underset{\mu =0}{\overset{3}{}}(x_j^\mu )^{\alpha _\mu ^j},_{\alpha ^j}:=\left(\frac{}{x_j}\right)^{\alpha ^j}=\underset{\mu =0}{\overset{3}{}}\left(\frac{}{x_j^\mu }\right)^{\alpha _\mu ^j}=:\underset{\mu =0}{\overset{3}{}}\left(_\mu ^j\right)^{\alpha _\mu ^j}.$$

We also use a multiquadri-index $`\alpha =(\alpha _\mu ^j)`$ notation: $`\alpha !=\alpha ^1!\alpha ^2!\mathrm{}\alpha ^n!`$ and $`|\alpha |=|\alpha ^1|+|\alpha ^2|+\mathrm{}+|\alpha ^n|`$, as well as

$$x^\alpha :=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_j^{\alpha ^j},_\alpha :=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_{\alpha ^j}.$$

We assume that the reader is familiar with the basic concepts of distribution theory. In this paper operators (Fourier transforms, actions of the Lorentz group, subtractions, …) are defined on distributions always by transposition (or adjoint mapping), and we denote them by the same letter denoting the original action on test functions.

Consider scalar functionals $`f(x_j)`$ defined on $`M_4^{n+1}D_{n+1}`$, where $`D_{n+1}:=\{x_1=\mathrm{}=x_{n+1}\}`$ is the full diagonal; thus we assume that the diagram is primitive or that Bogoliubov’s  disentangling operation $`\overline{R}`$ corresponding to all subgraphs (see III) has been performed. Those will be considered as functionals of the difference variables in $`^{4n}\{0\}`$. A tempered distribution $`\stackrel{~}{f}𝒮^{}(^{4n})`$ is an extension or renormalization of $`f`$ if

$$\stackrel{~}{f}[\varphi ]\stackrel{~}{f},\varphi =_{^{4n}}f(x)\varphi (x)d^{4n}x$$

holds whenever $`\varphi `$ belongs to $`𝒮(^{4n}\{0\})`$. In QFT one considers a generalized homogeneity degree, the scaling degree . The scaling degree $`\sigma `$ of a scalar distribution $`f`$ at the origin of $`^d`$ is defined to be

$$\sigma (f)=inf\{s:\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}\lambda ^sf(\lambda x)=0\}\text{for }f𝒮^{}(^{4n}),$$

where the limit is taken in the sense of distributions. Essentially this means that $`f(x)=O(|x|^{\sigma (f)})`$ as $`x0`$ in the Cesàro or distributional average sense .

Let then $`\sigma (f)=a`$, with $`a`$ an integer, and $`k=a4n0`$. Then, $`fL_{\mathrm{loc}}^1(^{4n})`$. The simplest way to get an extension of $`f`$ would appear to be standard Taylor series surgery: throw away the $`k`$-jet $`j_0^k\varphi `$ of $`\varphi `$ at the origin, and define $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ by transposition:

$$\stackrel{~}{f},\varphi =R_0^kf,\varphi :=f,R_0^k\varphi ,$$

where $`R_0^k\varphi :=\varphi j_0^k\varphi `$ is the Taylor remainder. Using Lagrange’s integral formula for $`R_0^k`$, and exchanging integrations, one appears to obtain an explicit integral formula for $`R_0^kf`$:

$$R_0^kf(x)T_1f(x):=()^{k+1}(k+1)\underset{|\beta |=k+1}{}_\beta \left[\frac{x^\beta }{\beta !}_0^1𝑑t\frac{(1t)^k}{t^{k+4n+1}}f\left(\frac{x}{t}\right)\right].$$
(1)
The trouble with (1) is that the remainder $`R_0^k\varphi `$ is not a test function and therefore, unless the infrared behaviour of $`f`$ is good, we can end up with an undefined integral. Actually, for the needs of theories with only massive fields, formula (1) is largely sufficient. However in theories with massless particles, $`f`$ is typically an homogeneous function with an algebraic singularity, the infrared behaviour is pretty bad, and $`4n`$ is also the critical degree. A way to avoid the problem is to weight the Taylor subtraction. Epstein and Glaser  introduced infrared regulators $`w`$ with the properties $`w(0)=1`$ and $`w^{(\alpha )}(0)=0`$ for $`0<|\alpha |k`$, as well as projector maps $`\varphi W_w\varphi `$ on $`𝒮(^d)`$ given by

$$W_w\varphi (x):=\varphi (x)w(x)j_0^k\varphi (x).$$
(2)
There is a considerable amount of overkill in (2). We argued in I that one can, and should, weight only the last term of the Taylor expansion. This leads to the definition used in this paper, at variance with Epstein and Glaser’s:

$$T_w\varphi (x):=\varphi (x)j_0^{k1}(\varphi )(x)w(x)\underset{|\alpha |=k}{}\frac{x^\alpha }{\alpha !}\varphi ^{(\alpha )}(0).$$
(3)
Just $`w(0)=1`$ is now required in principle for the weight function. $`T_w`$ is also a projector. To obtain an integral formula for it, start from

$$T_w\varphi =(1w)R_0^{k1}\varphi +wR_0^k\varphi .$$

By transposition, using (1), we derive

$`T_wf(x)`$ $`=()^kk{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |=k}{}}_\alpha \left[{\displaystyle \frac{x^\alpha }{\alpha !}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{(1t)^{k1}}{t^{k+d}}}f\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{t}}\right)\left(1w\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{t}}\right)\right)\right]`$
$`+()^{k+1}(k+1){\displaystyle \underset{|\beta |=k+1}{}}_\beta \left[{\displaystyle \frac{x^\beta }{\beta !}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{(1t)^k}{t^{k+d+1}}}f\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{t}}\right)w\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{t}}\right)\right].`$ (4)
Consider the functional variation of the renormalized amplitudes with respect to $`w`$. One has

$$<\frac{\delta }{\delta w}T_wf,\psi >:=\frac{d}{d\lambda }T_{w+\lambda \psi }f|_{\lambda =0}.$$

Equation (3) yields:

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta w}T_wf[]=()^{k+1}\underset{|\alpha |=k}{}f[x^\alpha ]\frac{_\alpha \delta }{\alpha !},$$
(5)
independently of $`w`$. The combination $`\frac{()^{|\alpha |}}{\alpha !}_\alpha \delta `$ is rebaptized $`\delta _\alpha `$. A central fact of renormalization theory, under its distributional guise, is that there is no unique way to construct the renormalized amplitudes, the inherent ambiguity being represented by the undetermined coefficients of the $`\delta `$ and its derivatives, describing how the chosen extension acts on the (finite codimension) space of test functions which do not vanish to some order in a neighborhood of $`0`$. There is, however, a more natural way —in which the ambiguity is reduced to terms in the higher-order derivatives of $`\delta `$, as seen in (5), exclusively. This is guaranteed by our choice of $`T_w`$.

A word on the space of infrared regulators $`w`$ is in order. In I it was shown that, for the extension of homogeneous $`f`$ of the kind found in massless field models, any element of the space $`𝒦^{}`$ (dual of the Grossmann–Loupias–Stein function space) of distributions rapidly decreasing in the Cesàro sense , taking the value 1 at zero, qualifies as a weight “function”. The space $`𝒦^{}`$ is a kind of distributional analogue of the Schwartz space $`𝒮`$. Elements of $`𝒦^{}`$ have moments of all orders. In particular, exponential functions $`e^{iqx}`$ do qualify; this was realized by Prange, at the heuristical level . See the consequences in Section 6. The usefulness of $`𝒦^{}`$ has appeared by now in many different contexts . The regulator $`w(\mu x)=H(1\mu |x|)`$ of I, with $`H`$ the Heaviside function, will be mainly used here. Call $`T_\mu `$ the corresponding renormalization.

The results just summarized go a long way to justify the conjecture (made by Connes and independently by Estrada) that Hadamard’s finite part theory is in principle enough to deal with quantum field theory divergences. At least in the Euclidean context. When going from there to the physical signature for the spacetime, both the ultraviolet and the infrared problems immediately turn nastier, in a tangled sort of way. For the first, since the singular support of the Feynman propagator lies on the whole light-cone, it would appear that we have to worry about singularities supported on the entire cone, and not just at the origin. For the second, it is easy to see that if we approach infinity in directions parallel to the light cone, the Feynman propagator decays as $`1/|x|`$ and not “naïvely” anymore as $`1/|x|^2`$.

Both kinds of trouble are a bit less ferocious than they seem. There are techniques for dealing with the worsened infrared problem, conjuring at need combinations of diagrams . Microlocal analysis \[24, Sec. 8.2\] can be invoked  to argue that the ultraviolet troubles remain concentrated at the origin, just as in the Euclidean case. In the next section, we show the same for the square and the cube of the Feynman propagator (i.e., the basic four-point and two-point divergent graphs in the $`\phi _4^4`$ model), by a direct calculation.

Whereas $`T_1`$ of (1) ostensibly preserves the Lorentz covariance properties of $`f`$, the operator $`T_w`$ of (4) in general does not. Our main task is to fix this problem.

## 3 Causal Riesz distributions

Riesz’s method consists in generalizing to the Lorentz-invariant context the well known holomorphic family of distributions on $``$,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^\lambda (x):=\frac{x_+^{\lambda 1}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda )}$$

for complex $`\lambda `$, which have the properties

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu =\mathrm{\Phi }^{\lambda +\mu };\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }^\lambda }{dx}=\mathrm{\Phi }^{\lambda 1};\mathrm{\Phi }^0(x)=\delta (x),$$

where $``$ denotes convolution of distributions. In fact, Riesz only dealt with the (advanced and) retarded propagators. He was able to show that the holomorphic family of distributions $`G_{\mathrm{ret}}^\lambda `$ defined on $`^4`$ as follows:

$$G_{\mathrm{ret}}^\lambda (x)=C_\lambda x_+^{2(\lambda 2)},$$

with $`x_+^2`$ equal to $`t^2|\stackrel{}{x}|^2=t^2r^2`$ on the forward light cone and to 0 anywhere else, and

$$C_\lambda =\frac{1}{2^{2\lambda 1}\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda 1)},$$

fulfils

$$G_{\mathrm{ret}}^\lambda G_{\mathrm{ret}}^\mu =G_{\mathrm{ret}}^{\lambda +\mu };\mathrm{}G_{\mathrm{ret}}^\lambda =G_{\mathrm{ret}}^{\lambda 1};G_{\mathrm{ret}}^0=\delta .$$

In particular, $`x_+^{2(\lambda 2)}`$ is at once seen to have (generally double) poles with residues concentrated at the origin as the only singularities. The $`G_{\mathrm{ret}}^\lambda `$ constitute a set of convolution inverse powers of the d’Alembertian, verifying $`\mathrm{}^\lambda G_{\mathrm{ret}}^\lambda =\delta (x)`$.

In quantum field theory, as stressed in , the relevant set of inverse powers is related to the Feynman propagator

$$D_F(x)=\frac{i}{4\pi ^2(t^2r^2iϵ)}.$$

We therefore focus on $`(t^2r^2\pm iϵ)^{\alpha 2}`$, with poles at $`\alpha =0,1,\mathrm{}`$, with the aim of studying the renormalization by analytic regularization in the variable $`\alpha `$ of the functionals $`(t^2r^2\pm iϵ)^2,(t^2r^2\pm iϵ)^3`$ and so on, ill-defined as distributions. For a start, we need to compute the residues at the poles.

It is instructive and convenient for the purpose to look in the spirit of analytic regularization at the Euclidean $`^4`$ first, in a somewhat unconventional manner. Consider $`\rho ^2:=|x|^2=t^2+r^2`$. The singularities of $`\rho ^\alpha `$ are well known (see I): simple poles in the regularizing variable $`\alpha `$ at $`42k`$, for $`k=0,1,\mathrm{}`$, with residues

$$\underset{\alpha =42k}{Res}\rho ^\alpha =\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_4\mathrm{\Delta }^k\delta }{2^kk!\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4.6.8}\mathrm{}(2+2k)},$$
(6)
the denominator in the case $`k=0`$ being 1; here $`\mathrm{\Omega }_4=2\pi ^2`$ is the area of the sphere in dimension $`4`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the Laplacian in dimension 4. It is possible, and usually done, to define a holomorphic family of distributions that encodes the pole structure of $`\rho ^\alpha `$ in the same way that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\lambda `$ encodes that of $`x_+^\lambda `$. However, we consider instead the following meromorphic family:

$$G_{\mathrm{eucl}}^\alpha (x)=C_\alpha \rho ^{2(\alpha 2)},$$

with

$$C_\alpha =\frac{e^{i\pi \alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\alpha )}{4^\alpha \pi ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )}.$$

Notice that $`G_{\mathrm{eucl}}^1`$ is the Green function for the Laplace equation on $`^4`$; that $`\mathrm{\Delta }G_{\mathrm{eucl}}^\alpha =G_{\mathrm{eucl}}^{\alpha 1}`$, which is quickly seen from $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^\mu =\mu (\mu +2)\rho ^{\mu 2}`$; and that $`G_{\mathrm{eucl}}^m(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }^m\delta (x)`$; the latter of course is just another way of writing (6).

It is also true that $`G_{\mathrm{eucl}}^\alpha G_{\mathrm{eucl}}^\beta =G_{\mathrm{eucl}}^{\alpha +\beta }`$. For that, define the Fourier transforms on test functions by

$$F[\varphi ](p)\widehat{\varphi }(p):=\frac{d^4x}{(2\pi )^2}e^{ipx}\varphi (x),F^1[\varphi ](p)\stackrel{ˇ}{\varphi }(p):=\frac{d^4x}{(2\pi )^2}e^{ipx}\varphi (x),$$

and on distributions by transposition. Then $`FfFg=(2\pi )^2F(fg)`$ for convolvable distributions. It turns out \[26, Thm. 5.9\] that

$$\widehat{G}_{\mathrm{eucl}}^\alpha (p)=(2\pi )^2e^{i\pi \alpha }|p|^{2\alpha },$$
(7)
a most interesting duality. From this the convolution identity follows.

Now we obtain the poles of $`(x^2\pm iϵ)^\alpha `$ from the poles of $`\rho ^{2\alpha }`$. We follow Gelfand and Shilov \[27, Ch. III, Secs 2.3, 2.4\] in this. Consider the quadratic forms $`g_\pm (x):=\pm i\rho ^2`$. Then $`g_\pm ^\alpha =e^{\pm i\pi \alpha /2}\rho ^{2\alpha }`$. Rewrite equation (6) as

$$\underset{\alpha =2l}{Res}g_\pm ^\alpha =\frac{\pi ^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{g_\pm }^l\delta }{4^ll!(l+1)!\sqrt{(i)^4detg_\pm }},$$

with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{g_\pm }`$ the Laplacian canonically associated to $`g_\pm `$, which is $`i\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on this occasion. To be precise, if $`\stackrel{~}{g}^{ij}`$ is the inverse matrix of the quadratic form $`g`$, then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_g:=\underset{i,j}{}\stackrel{~}{g}^{ij}_i_j.$$

For the forms $`g(x)=t^2r^2\pm iϵ(t^2+r^2)`$, we find then by analytic continuation:

$$\underset{\alpha =2l}{Res}(x^2\pm iϵ)^\alpha =\frac{\pm i\pi ^2\mathrm{}^l\delta }{4^ll!(l+1)!}.$$

(This analytic continuation is not to be confused with the one involved in the definition of the $`G^\alpha `$ for $`\alpha `$ complex.)

The information on the singularity structure of $`(x^2\pm iϵ)^\alpha `$ —and of its Fourier transform— can now be codified in causal Riesz distributions $`G_\pm ^\alpha `$. To wit, we define

$$G_\pm ^\alpha (x):=\frac{ie^{i\pi \alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\alpha )}{4^\alpha \pi ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )}(t^2r^2\pm iϵ)^{\alpha 2},$$
(8)
and, sure enough,

$$G_{}^1(x)=D_F(x);G_\pm ^l(x)=\mathrm{}^l\delta (x)$$

for $`l0`$. Also, $`\mathrm{}G_\pm ^\alpha (x)=G_\pm ^{\alpha 1}(x)`$, just as for the ordinary Riesz distributions. This is clear from

$$\mathrm{}(t^2r^2\pm iϵ)^{\alpha 2}=4(\alpha 1)(\alpha 2)(t^2r^2\pm iϵ)^{\alpha 3}$$

valid for $`1<\mathrm{}\alpha <2`$, and then analytically extended. It follows that $`\mathrm{}^lf=G_\pm ^lf`$ for appropriately convolvable $`f`$; and $`\mathrm{}^\alpha `$ for complex $`\alpha `$ can be defined by $`\mathrm{}^\alpha f=G_\pm ^\alpha f`$.

We can perform the (covariant, if one wishes) Fourier transforms by the same method of analytic prolongation from the Fourier transforms of the $`r^{2\alpha }`$. The result is

$$\widehat{G}_\pm ^\alpha (p)=(2\pi )^2e^{i\pi \alpha }(p^2iϵ)^\alpha ,$$
(9)
where $`p^2=E^2|\stackrel{}{p}|^2`$. For instance, $`\widehat{G}_{}^0(p)=1/4\pi ^2`$, $`\widehat{G}_{}^1(p)=\widehat{D}_F(p)=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2(p^2+iϵ)}`$, as expected . There is still an interesting duality at work here. Moreover,

$$G_\pm ^\alpha G_\pm ^\beta =G_\pm ^{\alpha +\beta }.$$

In summary, thanks to (rigorous) “Wick rotation”, the structure of the causal Riesz distributions $`G_\pm ^\alpha `$ is remarkably simpler than the structure of the retarded Riesz distributions $`G_{\mathrm{ret}}^\alpha `$. It largely parallels the positive signature case, vindicating Schwinger’s contention on the “Euclidean” character of quantum field theory .

We turn finally to the renormalization of the functionals $`(t^2r^2iϵ)^l`$ with $`l2`$ from $`G_{}^\alpha `$. We may define the extension $`[(t^2r^2iϵ)^2]_{\mathrm{AR}}`$, as a distribution, to be the second term on the right hand side of the expansion

$$(t^2r^2iϵ)^{\kappa 2}=:\frac{i\pi ^2\delta (x)}{\kappa }+[(t^2r^2iϵ)^2]_{\mathrm{AR}}+O(\kappa ).$$

That is to say,

$$[(t^2r^2iϵ)^2]_{\mathrm{AR}}=\underset{\kappa 0}{lim}\frac{d}{d\kappa }[\kappa (t^2r^2iϵ)^{\kappa 2}].$$

Analogously,

$$(t^2r^2iϵ)^{\kappa 3}=:\frac{i\pi ^2\mathrm{}\delta (x)}{8\kappa }+[(t^2r^2iϵ)^3]_{\mathrm{AR}}+O(\kappa ),$$
(10)
as $`\kappa 0`$ defines $`[(t^2r^2iϵ)^3]_{\mathrm{AR}}`$, and so on.

## 4 Lorentz covariance of the $`T`$-renormalization

The action of an element $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the Lorentz group on $`^{4n}`$ is given by the tensorial representation

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^nx:=(\mathrm{\Lambda }x_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }x_n),$$

to be denoted $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as well, according to custom. The action of the Lorentz group on functionals is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }f(x),\varphi (x)f(\mathrm{\Lambda }x),\varphi (x):=f(x),\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi (x),\text{with}\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi (x):=\varphi (\mathrm{\Lambda }^1x).$$

It follows that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }f(x),\mathrm{\Lambda }^1\varphi (x)=f(x),\varphi (x)`$.

A Lorentz invariant functional fulfils

$$f(\mathrm{\Lambda }x)=f(x).$$
(11)
(More generally, in the nonscalar case, $`f`$ would have tensorial and/or spinorial character and one would have a covariant transformation

$$f(\mathrm{\Lambda }x)=[D(\mathrm{\Lambda })f](x)$$

with $`D(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ a finite dimensional representation of $`SL(2,)`$ —making no notational distinction between belonging to the Lorentz group and to its cover— acting on functionals in the obvious way.)

Derivatives will transform according to the (tensor powers of the) contragredient representation: one has

$$x^\alpha _\alpha (\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi )=x^\alpha _\alpha (\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }^1)=x^\alpha [\mathrm{\Lambda }^1]_{}^{\beta }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}(_\beta \varphi )\mathrm{\Lambda }^1=(\mathrm{\Lambda }x)^\beta (_\beta \varphi )\mathrm{\Lambda }^1.$$

In particular,

$$x^\alpha _\alpha (\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi )(0)=[\mathrm{\Lambda }^1x]^\beta _\beta \varphi (0),$$
(12)
that is to say $`R_0^k\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }R_0^k`$, and

$$\delta _\alpha (\mathrm{\Lambda }x)=[\mathrm{\Lambda }^1x]_\alpha ^\beta \delta _\beta (x).$$
(13)
Suppose that $`f`$ is Lorentz invariant and a particular extension $`T_wf`$ to the whole of $`^{4n}`$ has been constructed, according to our scheme. All the extensions of $`f`$ are given by

$$T_wf+\underset{|\alpha |k}{}a^\alpha \delta _\alpha ,$$
(14)
with $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{4n+k}{k}\right)`$ coefficients $`a^\alpha `$. Our goal is to show that a Lorentz invariant extension $`T_w^{\mathrm{cov}}f`$ can be obtained within the class of $`T`$-extensions, advocated in this series of papers. Namely,

$$T_w^{\mathrm{cov}}f(\mathrm{\Lambda }x)=T_w^{\mathrm{cov}}f(x),$$

with

$$T_w^{\mathrm{cov}}f=T_wf+\underset{|\alpha |=k}{}a^\alpha \delta _\alpha ,$$
(15)
for at most $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{4n1+k}{k}\right)`$ coefficients $`a^\alpha `$; so that the ambiguity (14) in all the smaller orders drops out.

By a theorem of Gårding and Lions , the difference between two covariant extensions must be of the form $`P(\mathrm{})\delta `$, where $`P(\mathrm{})`$ is a polynomial in $`\mathrm{}`$; in our case, a monomial.

The proof is by direct computation; since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }f=f`$, we get

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(T_wf)T_wf,\varphi `$ $`=T_wf,\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi T_wf,\varphi =f,T_w\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi f,T_w\varphi `$
$`=f,(1w)R_0^{k1}\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi +wR_0^k\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi f,(1w)R_0^{k1}\varphi +wR_0^k\varphi `$
$`\stackrel{\text{(}\text{12}\text{)}}{=}f,(1w)\mathrm{\Lambda }R_0^{k1}\varphi +w\mathrm{\Lambda }R_0^k\varphi f,(1w)R_0^{k1}\varphi +wR_0^k\varphi `$
$`=\mathrm{\Lambda }f,(1\mathrm{\Lambda }^1w)R_0^{k1}\varphi +\mathrm{\Lambda }^1wR_0^k\varphi f,(1w)R_0^{k1}\varphi +wR_0^k\varphi `$
$`\stackrel{\text{(}\text{11}\text{)}}{=}f,(1\mathrm{\Lambda }^1w)R_0^{k1}\varphi +\mathrm{\Lambda }^1wR_0^k\varphi f,(1w)R_0^{k1}\varphi +wR_0^k\varphi `$
$`=f,(w\mathrm{\Lambda }^1w)(R_0^{k1}\varphi R_0^k\varphi )`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |=k}{}}f,(w\mathrm{\Lambda }^1w)x^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{_\alpha \varphi (0)}{\alpha !}}.`$
The integral $`f,(w\mathrm{\Lambda }^1w)x^\alpha `$ exists under the hypothesis we have made.

This shows that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(T_wf)T_wf=\underset{|\alpha |=k}{}b^\alpha (\mathrm{\Lambda })\delta _\alpha ,$$

with coefficients

$$b^\alpha (\mathrm{\Lambda })=()^kf,(w\mathrm{\Lambda }^1w)x^\alpha ,$$

with $`|\alpha |=k`$. One also has

$`{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |=k}{}}b^\alpha (\mathrm{\Lambda })\delta _\alpha `$ $`=k{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |=k}{}}^\alpha \left[{\displaystyle \frac{x^\alpha }{\alpha !}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{(1t)^{k1}}{t^{k+4n}}}f\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{t}}\right)\left(w\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{t}}\right)w\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }x}{t}}\right)\right)\right]`$
$`+(k+1){\displaystyle \underset{|\beta |=k+1}{}}^\beta \left[{\displaystyle \frac{x^\beta }{\beta !}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{(1t)^k}{t^{k+4n+1}}}f\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{t}}\right)\left(w\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }x}{t}}\right)w\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{t}}\right)\right)\right].`$
The rest of the proof just follows the steps of the cohomological argument in : applying two Lorentz transformations, on use of (13) —and omitting indices— one obtains

$$b(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^1b(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)+b(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2),$$
(16)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^1`$ denotes the tensor antirepresentation. A solution for this equation is given by

$$b(\mathrm{\Lambda })=(1\mathrm{\Lambda }^1)a$$
(17)
with $`a^{4k}`$ independent of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Actually (16) is a group 1-cocycle equation, for $`SL(2,)`$, with values in the space carrying the contragredient representation, and because of the vanishing of the the first cohomology group $`H^1(SL(2,);^{4k})`$  its only solutions are of the trivial form (17).

Now, we conclude that, if $`a`$ satisfies (17), then, in view of (13), formula (15) gives indeed a Lorentz invariant renormalization of $`f`$.

For logarithmic divergences, $`b=0`$, and, as $`[\mathrm{\Lambda }^1]^0=1`$, one can take $`a`$ arbitrary (this is a priori obvious in view of the Lorentz invariance of $`\delta `$). The choice $`a=0`$ commends itself.

For higher order divergences, in principle one solves (17) for $`a`$ and plugs the (in general non unique) solution in (15). However, following a suggestion in , a wiser course can be devised. For simplicity, we take $`n=1`$ from now on. Then we can assume that $`f`$ depends only on $`x^2`$ . It will be seen that only the symmetric part of the Lorentz content of $`a^\alpha `$ counts. Consider $`\sigma (f)=6`$, i.e. $`k=2`$, a quadratic divergence. We revert to a Lorentz quadri-index notation: $`|\alpha |=2,\alpha (\mu _1\mu _2)`$. It is found  that the totally symmetric part

$$a^{(\mu _1\mu _2)}=\frac{1}{4}f,\left(x^{\mu _1}x^{\mu _2}x^\rho _\rho x^2x^{(\mu _1}^{\mu _2)}\right)w,$$

is a possible choice for $`a`$; this choice is canonical in that $`a_\mu ^\mu =0`$. Integrating by parts the previous expression, on account of $`_\mu f=2x_\mu f^{}`$, we obtain

$$a^{(\mu _1\mu _2)}=f,\left(x^{\mu _1}x^{\mu _2}\frac{1}{4}x^2g^{\mu _1\mu _2}\right)w.$$

In (15) with use of (3) we see cancellation of the first term on the right hand side of this equation, and finally the canonical expression

$$T_w^{\mathrm{cov}}f(x),\varphi (x)=f(x),\varphi (x)\varphi (0)w(x)\frac{\mathrm{}\varphi (0)}{8}x^2,$$

emerges for the Lorentz-invariant distribution extending a quadratically divergent Lorentz-invariant functional $`f`$. This formula supplants the case $`k=2`$ of (3) in practice.

More generally, from the formulae in , we can derive, for $`\sigma (f)=2m+4`$ or $`2m+5`$:

$$T_w^{\mathrm{cov}}f(x),\varphi (x)=<f(x),\varphi (x)\varphi (0)\frac{\mathrm{}\varphi (0)}{8}x^2\mathrm{}w(x)\xi _mx^{2m}>,$$
(18)
where

$$\xi _m:=\frac{2(2m1)!!}{(2m+2)!!(2m)!}.$$

Concentrate now in $`T_\mu ^{\mathrm{cov}}`$. In Section 4.2 of I we proved that the Euclidean $`[\rho ^{42m}]_{\mathrm{AR}},\varphi (x)`$ is given by

$$<\rho ^{42m},\varphi (x)\varphi (0)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (0)}{8}\rho ^2\mathrm{}H(1\rho )\xi _m\mathrm{\Delta }^m\varphi (0)\rho ^{2m}>.$$

This expression Wick-rotates into $`[(x^2\pm iϵ)^{2m}]_{\mathrm{AR}},\varphi (x)`$, which therefore is given by

$$<(x^2\pm iϵ)^{2m},\varphi (x)\varphi (0)\frac{\mathrm{}\varphi (0)}{8}x^2\mathrm{}H(1\rho )\xi _m\mathrm{}^m\varphi (0)(x^2)^m>.$$

The conclusion is that $`[(x^2\pm iϵ)^{2m}]_{\mathrm{AR}}=T_{\mu =1}^{\mathrm{cov}}(x^2\pm iϵ)^{2m}`$. For negative powers of the Feynman propagator, Bollini, Giambiagi and Gonzales Domínguez’s analytic regularization and our canonical covariant renormalization using the improved subtraction $`T_{\mu =1}`$ give one and the same result.

This coincidence is extended to $`T_\mu `$ for all values of $`\mu `$ by introduction of a ’t Hooft factor in the definition of $`[(x^2\pm iϵ)^{2m}]_{\mathrm{AR}}`$. The procedure will be clear from the examples in the next section.

## 5 Computing examples

The singularities of the powers of $`D_F`$ are concentrated at the origin, so that the improved method of Epstein and Glaser is directly applicable here. Consider first the $`T_\mu `$-renormalization of $`(t^2r^2iϵ)^2`$, corresponding to the “fish” diagram in the $`\phi _4^4`$ model. We use the notations $`[f]_\mathrm{R}:=[f]_{\mathrm{R},\mu }:=T_\mu ^{\mathrm{cov}}f`$. From (4) we obtain, in full analogy with the Euclidean case (see Sec. 3 of I):

$$[(x^2iϵ)^2]_{\mathrm{R},\mu }=\frac{1}{2}_\nu \left[x^\nu \frac{\mathrm{log}\mu ^2(x^2iϵ)}{(x^2iϵ)^2}\right].$$

This is the very same result coming from analytical regularization: just check

$$\mu ^{2\kappa }(x^2iϵ)^{\kappa 2}=\frac{\mu ^{2\kappa }}{2\kappa }_\nu [x^\nu (x^2iϵ)^{\kappa 2}],$$

and expand in $`\kappa `$ the right hand side. In conclusion:

$$[(t^2r^2iϵ)^2]_{\mathrm{R},\mu }=[(t^2r^2iϵ)^2]_{\mathrm{AR},\mu },$$

or $`[(D_F)^2]_\mathrm{R}=[(D_F)^2]_{\mathrm{AR}}`$, with this generalized definition of $`[]_{\mathrm{AR}}`$.

Consider now the “sunset” diagram in the same model. Have another look at Sec. 3 of I; one obtains

$$\left[(x^2iϵ)^3\right]_{\mathrm{R},\mu }=3\underset{|\beta |=3}{}_\beta \left[\frac{x^\beta }{\beta !}\frac{\mathrm{log}(\mu ^2(x^2iϵ))}{(x^2iϵ)^3}\right]\frac{3i\pi ^2}{8}\mathrm{}\delta (x).$$

Analogously, one checks by a longer but straightforward calculation:

$$\mu ^{2\kappa }(x^2iϵ)^{\kappa 3}=\frac{3\mu ^{2\kappa }}{2\kappa (13\kappa +2\kappa ^2)}\underset{|\beta |=3}{}_\beta \left(\frac{x^\beta (x^2iϵ)^{\kappa 3}}{\beta !}\right).$$

It is clear from (10) that

$$3_\beta \left(\frac{x^\beta (x^2iϵ)^{\kappa 3}}{\beta !}\right)=\frac{i\pi ^2}{4}\mathrm{}\delta (x),$$

from which

$$\mu ^{2\kappa }(x^2iϵ)^{\kappa 3}=\frac{i\pi ^2\mathrm{}\delta (x)}{8\kappa }+\left[(x^2iϵ)^3\right]_{\mathrm{R},\mu }+O(\kappa ).$$

Therefore $`[(D_F)^3]_\mathrm{R}=[(D_F)^3]_{\mathrm{AR}}`$.

For higher order powers of $`G_F`$ similar arguments show that

$$[(D_F)^l]_\mathrm{R}=[(D_F)^l]_{\mathrm{AR}}$$

is true generally for $`l2`$.

Powers of the massive propagator $`D_F^m`$ are renormalizable in our standard way, by use of (1), now applicable, and automatically Lorentz-covariance preserving. The scaling degree of the (powers of) propagators is the same in the massive and in the massless cases. One routinely finds, for instance,

$$[(D_F^m)^2]_\mathrm{R}(x)=\frac{m^2}{32\pi ^4}_\mu x^\mu \left(\frac{K_1^2(m\sqrt{x^2+iϵ})K_0(m\sqrt{x^2+iϵ})K_2(m\sqrt{x^2+iϵ})}{x^2+iϵ}\right).$$

## 6 BPHZ renormalization revisited

It is well known that for zero-mass models, the basic BPHZ scheme runs into trouble. This is due to the failure of $`^\mu \widehat{f}(0)`$ to exist for $`|\mu |=k`$, on account of the infrared problem. Now, one can try subtraction at some suitable external momentum $`q0`$, providing a mass scale. It is patent that this last subtraction will introduce in the Minkowskian context a noncovariance. This prompted Lowenstein and Zimmermann to introduce their “soft mass insertions” ; but that BPHZL method is quite awkward in practice.

A far simpler solution to the problem is now available to us. It comes from the observation in I that the BPHZ method is ancillary to Epstein and Glaser’s: from the definitions

$$F[R_0^kf],F^1[\varphi ]=F[f],F^1[R_0^k\varphi ].$$
(19)
An expression such as $`F[f]`$ is not a priori meaningless: it is a well defined functional on the linear subspace of Schwartz functions $`\varphi `$ whose first moments $`p^\alpha \varphi (p)d^dp`$ up to order $`k+1`$ happen to vanish: this is the Fourier counterpart of the space of distributions on configuration space acting on Schwartz test functions vanishing up to order $`k+1`$ at the origin.

Now, one has

$$(x^\mu \varphi )\stackrel{ˇ}{}(p)=(i)^{|\mu |}^\mu \stackrel{ˇ}{\varphi }(p),$$

where $`\mu `$ denotes a multiindex; so that, in particular,

$$(x^\mu )\stackrel{ˇ}{}(p)=(i)^{|\mu |}(2\pi )^{d/2}^\mu \delta (p).$$

Also,

$$_\mu \varphi (0)=(i)^{|\mu |}(2\pi )^{d/2}p^\mu ,\stackrel{ˇ}{\varphi }.$$

From this, with an integration by parts in the right hand side of (19), we conclude

$$F[R_0^kf],F^1[\varphi ]=R_0^kF[f],F^1[\varphi ];$$

that is to say, $`F`$ and $`R_0^k`$ commute. Thus the BPHZ subtraction rule in momentum space is equivalent to (1).

Now use (18) instead of (1), with employment of $`w(x)=\mathrm{exp}(iqx)`$, with $`q0`$, which, as discussed earlier, is a perfectly good infrared regulator. From that follows the simple, obviously covariant, rule:

$$T_q^{\mathrm{cov}}f(p)=f(p)\frac{\mathrm{}f(0)p^2}{8}\mathrm{}\xi _m\mathrm{}^mf(q)(p^2)^m.$$

for a Feynman amplitude $`f`$ in momentum space. Note $`\mathrm{}^mT_q^{\mathrm{cov}}f(q)=0`$. The difference between two of these recipes is, as it should be, a Lorentz-invariant polynomial in $`p`$, of degree the divergence index.

## 7 Outlook

The “missing link” between the Epstein–Glaser subtraction method and the literature on prolongation of distributions found in I has here been extended to the Minkowskian context. Before rendering in the language of $`T`$-renormalization the full complexity of the construction of time-ordered products, and the main result of perturbative renormalization theory, one needs to handle the combinatorial aspects of diagrams with subdivergences. This we do in the next paper of the series III, using a variant of the Connes–Kreimer Hopf algebraic paradigm.

### Acknowledgements

We thank Christian Brouder and Joe Várilly for helpful comments. Support from the Vicerrectoría de Investigación of the Universidad de Costa Rica is gratefully acknowledged, as well as from Université de Provence in the early stage of the work.


format: text

text:
# X-ray Spectral Properties of Low-Mass X-ray Binaries in Nearby Galaxies

## 1. Introduction

The Chandra X-ray Observatory has made it possible to resolve dozens if not hundreds of individual X-ray point sources in nearby galaxies owing to its sub-arcsecond spatial resolution (Sarazin, Irwin, & Bregman 2000; Angelini, Loewenstein, & Mushotzky 2001; Kraft et al. 2001; Bauer et al. 2001; Soria & Wu 2002). While spiral galaxies contain a variety of types of X-ray point sources (high- and low-mass X-ray binaries, supernovae remnants), elliptical and S0 galaxies, as well as the bulges of spiral galaxies contain almost exclusively low-mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs). LMXBs are believed to be composed of a compact accreting primary (a neutron star or a black hole) and a low-mass main sequence or red giant secondary that is losing material to the primary as a result of Roche lobe overflow. Although LMXBs have been studied extensively in our Galaxy, resolving them and determining their spatial distribution and spectral characteristics in external galaxies has only recently become feasible.

Initial work on the LMXB population of early-type galaxies has led to several interesting results. Sarazin, Irwin, & Bregman (2000, 2001) detected 90 X-ray sources in a Chandra observation of the elliptical galaxy NGC 4697, and found a break in the luminosity function of the sources at a luminosity of $`3\times 10^{38}`$ ergs s-1, intriguingly close to the Eddington luminosity of an accreting 1.4 M neutron star. One interpretation of this break is that it represents a division between black hole X-ray binaries and neutron star X-ray binaries, with only black hole binaries more luminous than the break, and a mixture of neutron star and black hole binaries less luminous than the break. Such breaks have also been found in other early-type galaxies (Blanton, Sarazin, & Irwin 2001; Finoguenov & Jones 2002; Randall, Sarazin, & Irwin 2002; Kundu, Maccarone, & Zepf 2002). Recent studies have also found that a significant fraction (40%–70%) of the X-rays binaries reside in globular clusters of the host galaxy (Angelini et al. 2001; Randall et al. 2002; Kundu et al. 2002), in marked contrast to the $`10\%`$ of Galactic and M31 LMXBs that reside within globular clusters. In addition, when the spectra of all the resolved LMXBs of a given galaxy were added together and fit with a power law spectral model, an index ranging from 1.5–2.0 has been obtained (Sarazin et al. 2001; Randall et al. 2001; Kim & Fabbiano 2002; Irwin, Sarazin, & Bregman 2002).

Previous X-ray satellites lacked the needed spatial resolution and bandpass coverage to separate cleanly the LMXB component from the hot gas component in early-type galaxies. While recent progress has been made from the study of the luminosity functions and host environment of LMXBs in early-type galaxies, a detailed analysis of the spectral properties of LMXBs with a large sample of galaxies has not yet been attempted with Chandra. With Chandra we are now in a position to determine the spectral properties of individual bright sources in galaxies or add up the spectra of the fainter sources to determine the bulk spectral properties of the LMXBs.

A more thorough understanding of the X-ray spectral properties of LMXBs in early-type galaxies is critical for the study of the hot, X-ray–emitting gas within these systems. Although the LMXB contribution to the X-ray emission from gas-rich galaxies is negligible, this is not the case for galaxies with moderate to low amounts of X-ray–emitting gas. In these galaxies, the LMXB contribution can be the dominant X-ray emission mechanism. Quantifying the spectral properties of LMXBs in nearby galaxies where the LMXBs are resolvable will allow for a more accurate separation of the gaseous and stellar X-ray components in galaxies too distant for the individual LMXBs to be detected.

In this paper we use both proprietary and archival Chandra data for 15 early-type systems (consisting of eight elliptical galaxies, two transitional E/S0 galaxies, three S0 galaxies, and two spiral bulges) to determine the spectral characteristics of LMXBs over a range of X-ray luminosity classes, as well as a function of galactic radius. Unless otherwise stated, all uncertainties are 90% confidence levels, and all X-ray luminosities are in the 0.3–10 keV energy band.

## 2. Observations and Data Reduction

We have constructed a sample of 13 early-type galaxies and two spiral bulges that were observed with the ACIS S3 chip onboard Chandra. The sample is given in Table 1. The assumed distances were taken from Tonry et al. (2001) with the exceptions of NGC 1291 (de Vaucouleurs 1975) and M31 (van den Bergh 2000), and the assumed Galactic hydrogen column densities are from Dickey & Lockman (1990).

The galaxies in the sample were processed in a uniform manner following the Chandra data reduction threads employing CIAO 2.2.1 coupled with CALDB 2.12. All of the data were calibrated with the most recent gain maps at the time of reduction (acisD2000-08-12gainN0003.fits for –120 C focal plane temperature data and acisD2000-08-12gainN0003.fits for –110 C data). ASCA grades of 0, 2, 3, 4 and 6 were selected for all subsequent processing and analysis. The observation specific bad pixel files were applied from the standard calibration library included with CIAO 2.2.1. Pile-up was not an issue even for the brightest sources and no correction has been applied.

To check for background flares, a temporal light curve was constructed from the outer regions of the ACIS S3 chip. We examined each light curve by eye and eliminated any data approximately three to four sigma away from a determined mean value during a quiescent period. Typically this eliminated less than 15% of the data. Since our goal is to detect point sources rather than diffuse emission, strict screening of high background rates is not necessary. The peak of the energy distribution of the source region was determined and used to generate an exposure map appropriate for that energy for each observation. Sources were detected using the “Mexican-Hat” wavelet detection routine wavdetect in CIAO in an 0.3–6.0 keV band image. The threshold was set to give approximately one false detection per image and the scales run were from 2–32 pixels. The source list of each galaxy was culled to remove any source not detected at the 3$`\sigma `$ level.

In order to reduce contamination from unrelated foreground/background X-ray sources, we restrict our study to sources within three effective (half-optical light) radii of the center of each galaxy. Effective semimajor and semiminor axes as well as position angles were collected from the literature (see Table 1). In galaxies with large amounts of hot, diffuse gas (i.e., NGC 1399, NGC 4472), some sources near the center of the galaxy were omitted since their count rates were highly uncertain owing to the presence of the high X-ray surface brightness gas.

For each source a local background was determined from a circular annular region with an inner radius that was set to 1.5 times the semimajor axis of the source extraction region and an outer radius chosen such that the area of the background annulus was five times the area of the sources extraction region. Care was taken to exclude neighboring sources from the background annuli of each source in crowded regions. We excluded point sources located at the optical center of each galaxy since it is likely that many of these sources are actually low-luminosity active galactic nuclei (AGN) rather than LMXBs.

## 3. Spectral Analysis

For each galaxy, the spectra of all the sources in the galaxy within three effective radii were extracted and summed into one spectrum using the CIAO routine acisspec. This routine calculates a weighted redistribution matrix file (RMF) and ancillary response file (ARF) appropriate for extended sources, or for our case, a collection of point sources spread out over the ACIS detector. The ARF files have been corrected for the continuous degradation of the ACIS quantum efficiency111See http://cxc.harvard.edu/cal/Links/Acis/acis/Cal\_prods/qeDeg/index.html for a complete description. using the CIAO tool corrarf, which applies the ACISABS absorption profile (Chartas & Getman 2002222See http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/chartas/xcontdir/xcont.html.) to the original ARF file. The composite spectrum was then regrouped such that each energy channel contained at least 25 X-ray counts. Channels with energies less than 0.5 keV and greater than 6.0 keV were then excluded. The composite spectrum for each galaxy was then fit within XSPEC v11.2.0 with a simple power law model absorbed by the Galactic hydrogen column density (Table 1).

The results of these fits are shown in Figure 3 for each of the 15 galaxies in our sample. The best-fit power law exponent varies from 1.45 to 1.9 from galaxy to galaxy, in agreement with previous Chandra studies of LMXBs in early-type systems. In general, freeing the absorption column density did not improve the quality of the fits, so the column densities have remained fixed at the Galactic value throughout the remainder of this paper. For the individual sources in each particular galaxy, the best-fit power law exponent for that galaxy was used to convert the source count rates into 0.3–10 keV luminosities. The correction for the degradation of the ACIS quantum efficiency typically increased the power law exponent by 10%–20% over the uncorrected value, with the correction greatest for the most recently observed targets, as is expected for linearly increasing absorption over time from molecular contamination of the ACIS optical blocking filters.

Next, we generated color-color plots for the individual sources in each galaxy. We define three X-ray bands, S (0.3–1.0 keV), M (1.0–2.0 keV), and H (2.0–6.0 keV), and create two X-ray colors, H21 = (M–S)/(M+S) and H31 = (H–S)/(H+S). The color-color plots of the 15 galaxies in our sample made it apparent that the most luminous sources ($`L_X>10^{39}`$ ergs s-1) tend to have significantly softer colors than the rest of the sources. This is illustrated in Figure 3 where the H21 vs. H31 values have been plotted for the sources within all the galaxies except NGC 1407, NGC 3115, NGC 3585, and M31, which have higher Galactic column densities that will artificially harden the colors. It is clear that the most luminous sources are indeed softer on average than the less luminous sources. We have performed a two-dimensional Kolmogorov-Smirnov test on the faint and bright sources and found that the probability that the H21 and H31 colors of the two distributions were chosen from the same parent distribution was only 0.004.

Also note the presence of a small number of sources at (–1, –1). These sources have no detectable emission above 1 keV and are most likely supersoft sources, such as those seen in the Milky Way and the disk of M31. The traditional explanation of these supersoft sources is that they are accreting white dwarfs burning hydrogen on their surface (van den Heuvel et al. 1992). However, the bolometric luminosity of such a supersoft in M81 far exceeds the Eddington limit for a 1.4 M white dwarf, prompting Swartz et al. (2002) to postulate that these sources are intermediate mass black holes ($`10^210^3`$ M) accreting at a few percent of their Eddington limit, rather than a white dwarf. The brighter supersoft sources in our sample have similar bolometric luminosities. However, the small number of these sources found in our sample combined with their low count rates in the 0.5–6 keV energy range limits what we can learn from them, so we have excluded them from our analysis in order to focus on LMXBs. A thorough study of supersoft sources in less distant galaxies has recently been conducted by Di Stefano & Kong (2002).

Since the number of $`>10^{39}`$ ergs s-1 sources is small, it is important to check if there could be significant contamination from background AGN at these flux levels, especially considering the apparent change in source colors across the $`10^{39}`$ ergs s-1 threshold. In Table 2, we compare the number of sources in each galaxy with fluxes corresponding to luminosities of $`12\times 10^{39}`$ ergs s-1 and $`>2\times 10^{39}`$ ergs s-1 to the number of foreground/background sources expected over the area covered, both for each galaxy and for all the galaxies combined. We have calculated the expected number of foreground/background sources using the 0.5–2.0 keV log $`N`$–log $`S`$ relations of both Mushotzky et al. (2000; hereafter M00) and Giacconi et al. (2001; hereafter G01) and extrapolating to a 0.5–6.0 keV Chandra count flux using the spectral model assumed in each paper. These two Chandra deep field studies predict somewhat different numbers of high flux sources, as illustrated in Figure 2 of Giacconi et al. (2001). This is most likely the result of small number statistics of the number of sources at the high flux end of the distribution. We have excluded NGC 1407 from the combined results because of the uncertainty in its distance, which greatly affects the number of high luminosity sources it contains (see § 3.2 below). We have also excluded the two spiral bulges, NGC 1291 and M31, for which no luminous sources were detected. For sources with inferred luminosities between $`12\times 10^{39}`$ ergs s-1, there are 4–5 times more sources than expected from foreground/background sources, so clearly a majority of these sources belong to the galaxies in our sample. Conversely, the ten sources with inferred luminosities greater than $`2\times 10^{39}`$ ergs s-1 are what is expected from foreground/background sources. We note that two of the ten sources are known to be contained within globular clusters of NGC 1399 (Angelini et al. 2001). The remaining eight sources are what is expected if the M00 and G01 predictions are averaged. The colors of these sources tend to be quite soft, and are denoted by red triangles in Figure 3. This is in accordance with the G01 finding that the bright sources in their deep field had softer spectra than the faint sources.

### 3.1. Composite X-ray Spectrum for Sources with $`L_X<10^{39}`$ ergs s-1

Given the tendency of the most luminous sources to be softer than the lower luminosity sources, we have re-determined the best-fit power law exponent for the spectrum of all the sources in each galaxy excluding the sources whose luminosities exceeded $`10^{39}`$ ergs s-1 as well as the supersoft sources. The results are shown in Figure 3.2. Upon removal of the most luminous sources, the spectra of the remaining sources appear remarkably uniform from galaxy to galaxy. The unweighted mean and standard deviation of the sample was $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.56\pm 0.08`$. We performed a simultaneous fit to the 15 data sets within XSPEC, allowing the normalizations for each galaxy to vary while having one common power law exponent. The best-fit exponent was $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.56\pm 0.02`$ (90% confidence level), with $`\chi _\nu ^2=1.08`$ for 903 degrees of freedom. A thermal bremsstrahlung model led to a slightly worse fit ($`\chi _\nu ^2`$ of 1.14) with $`kT_{brem}=7.3\pm 0.3`$ keV. A disk blackbody model led to a statistically unacceptable fit ($`\chi _\nu ^2`$ = 1.79).

### 3.2. Dependence of LMXB Spectral Properties on Source Luminosity

We further subdivided the sources into four luminosity classes for each galaxy: (1) $`L_X=12\times 10^{39}`$ ergs s-1, (2) $`10^{38}`$ ergs s$`{}_{}{}^{1}<L_X<10^{39}`$ ergs s-1, (3) $`10^{37}`$ ergs s$`{}_{}{}^{1}<L_X<10^{38}`$ ergs s-1, and (4) $`L_X<10^{37}`$ ergs s-1. Only the bulge of M31 is close enough to contribute to the final class. For the most luminous class, only NGC 1316, NGC 1399, and NGC 4649 are used, since these are the only galaxies where there is clearly an excess of sources over that expected from foreground/background sources. Figure 3.2 shows the best-fit power law exponents for the three lower luminosity classes for each galaxy. There was no statistical difference between classes (2) and (3).

Interestingly, the spectrum of the lowest luminosity source of M31) is indistinguishable from sources in the $`10^{37}10^{39}`$ ergs s-1 regime. Thus, it appears on average that the bulk spectral characteristics of LMXBs are the same over at

least three orders of magnitudes in luminosity up to $`10^{39}`$ ergs s-1.

The situation is quite different for sources with luminosities of $`12\times 10^{39}`$ ergs s-1 as alluded to earlier. Since several galaxies contained only one or two such high flux sources, a single contaminating background AGN could alter the best-fit power law index significantly if misidentified as an X-ray source within the target galaxy. We have checked to see if any of the luminous sources coincided spatially with known AGN. The only high flux source in both NGC 4374 and NGC 4697 are known AGN and have been excluded. NGC 4636 and NGC 4649 each have a bright source that is coincident with optical identifications from the USNO-A2.0 optical catalog (Monet et al. 1998). The $`BR`$ value given in the USNO-A2.0 optical for the source in NGC 4649 is –0.7, far too blue to be a globular cluster of NGC 4649 and is most likely an AGN. The bright source in NGC 4636 has $`BR=1.7`$, which would make it red enough to be a globular cluster. However, such an identification is premature, since a known AGN near NGC 4374 has a similar red color. Given the uncertainty in determining which high luminosity sources were actually AGN, we have calculated power law indices for only galaxies that contained at least four such sources (see Table 3). NGC 1316, NGC 1399, and NGC 4649 all have power law indices significantly higher than the lower luminosity sources, as the colors information of Figure 3 implied. NGC 1407 has a low power law index ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.37\pm 0.19`$) despite containing seven high luminosity sources, but there is considerable uncertainty in the distance to this galaxy. While we have assumed the Tonry et al. (2001) surface brightness fluctuation distance of 28.8 Mpc, the globular cluster luminosity function distance method gives a distance of only 17.6 Mpc (Perrett et al. 1997). With this smaller distance, only two of the sources would have a luminosity exceeding $`10^{39}`$ ergs s-1, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.75\pm 0.21`$, which is more similar to the values obtained for NGC 1316, NGC 1399, and NGC 4649. Also using this distance, the seven sources that yielded $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.37\pm 0.19`$ would all have luminosities less than $`10^{39}`$ ergs s-1, and the low value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ would be consistent with that expected from lower luminosity sources in other galaxies. The spectra of the LMXBs in NGC 1407 would at least tentatively argue in favor of the lower distance estimate to this galaxy.

If we make a simultaneous fit for all the galaxies that have at least four high luminosity sources (and also exclude NGC 1407 because of the uncertainty in its distance) so that the effects of including an unidentified AGN are minimized, we find a best-fit power law exponent of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.96\pm 0.08`$. A summary of the best-fit power laws by luminosity class above and below $`10^{39}`$ ergs s-1 for each galaxy is given in Table 3, and a summary of the simultaneous fits by luminosity class is given in Table 4.

Although it has been postulated that the break in the luminosity function at $`3\times 10^{38}`$ ergs s-1 represents a transition between neutron star and black hole LMXBs, there is no apparent difference in spectral characteristics of sources above and below the break (excluding the very luminous $`>10^{39}`$ ergs s-1 sources). Fitting the spectra of all sources in all the galaxies with luminosities less than $`3\times 10^{38}`$ ergs s-1 yielded a best-fit power law spectrum with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.58\pm 0.03`$, while fitting sources more luminous than $`3\times 10^{38}`$ ergs s-1 (but less than $`10^{39}`$ ergs s-1) yielded $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.54\pm 0.03`$. This is expected given that differences in the spectral signatures between black holes in their non-flaring state and neutron stars differ appreciably only at hard X-ray energies ($``$ 5 keV). A disk blackbody model provided a poor fit ($`\chi _\nu ^2>1.5`$) for both luminosity classes.

### 3.3. Globular Cluster vs. Non-globular Cluster Sources

We have tested whether the spectral properties of LMXBs that reside within globular clusters differ from those not residing within globular clusters. For NGC 1399 and NGC 4472, we used the globular cluster–X-ray source identifications of Angelini et al. (2001) and Kundu et al. (2002), respectively, to derive best-fit power laws for LMXBs residing inside and outside of globular clusters. We excluded sources with luminosities that exceeded $`10^{39}`$ ergs s-1. For NGC 1399, globular cluster LMXBs had a best-fit power law index of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.33\pm 0.17`$, while for non-globular cluster LMXBs, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.62\pm 0.34`$. A similar exercise for NGC 4472 found $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.51\pm 0.13`$ for globular cluster sources and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.57\pm 0.06`$ for non-globular cluster sources. A similar result was found for this galaxy by Maccarone, Kundu, & Zepf (2002). So within the uncertainties, there is no difference in the spectral properties of LMXBs based on their location inside or outside a globular cluster.

### 3.4. Radial Dependence of the Spectral Properties of LMXBs

We also investigated the radial dependence of the spectral properties of LMXBs. Sources were extracted from within 0–1, 1–2, and 2–3 effective radii (again the highest luminosity and supersoft sources were excluded) and a best-fit power law exponent was obtained. For each radial bin, the spectra from all the galaxies were fit simultaneously as described above (the spiral bulges of NGC 1291 and M31 were excluded from the fit). For the three radial bins, the best-fit exponents were $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.48\pm 0.05`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.51\pm 0.05`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.62\pm 0.06`$ (90% uncertainties), respectively. Although the first two radial bins are consistent with one another, the first and third bins are marginally inconsistent. We investigated if this was due to contamination from unrelated foreground/background sources in the third radial bin. For each galaxy, we used the Chandra deep field source count rate of M00 to estimate the expected number of serendipitous sources in the third radial bin. If the number of expected contaminating sources exceeded 30% of the total number of sources actually detected in this radial bin, we excluded it from the simultaneous fit. After excluding NGC 1316, NGC 1553, NGC 4472, NGC 4494, and NGC 4697 because of this criterion, the best-fit power law exponent from a simultaneous fit of the remaining eight galaxies was $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.53\pm 0.06`$, which lessens the difference with the inner two radial bins. Thus, there appears to be no radial dependence of the spectral properties of LMXBs at least out to three effective radii. This information is summarized in Table 4.

Given that five of the galaxies had significant contamination in the third radial bin, we re-determined the best-fit power law exponent for all sources with $`L_X<10^{39}`$ ergs s-1 sources without including sources in the third radial bin. However, the results before and after the exclusion were consistent within the uncertainties. Also, the composite spectrum was not changed significantly.

## 4. Discussion

### 4.1. Comparison with Previous Studies

The constraints on the bulk spectral properties of LMXBs of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.56\pm 0.02`$ (or alternatively $`kT_{brem}=7.3\pm 0.3`$ keV) represent the tightest constraints derived to date. Previously, Matsumoto et al. (1997) simultaneously fit the spectra of several early-type galaxies observed with ASCA with a two component model to fit jointly the hot gas and LMXB component; the best-fit power law model yielded $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.8\pm 0.4`$. More recently, White (2001) also used ASCA data for six early-type galaxies to set a constraint of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.83_{0.11}^{+0.10}`$ (90% confidence limits) on the power law index, in marginal disagreement with our result (although their best-fit bremsstrahlung temperature of $`kT_{brem}=6.3_{1.1}^{+1.6}`$ is consistent with our value). However, since the rather poor spatial resolution of ASCA could not in general resolve most of the sources, the more luminous sources undoubtedly biased the power law exponent higher, owing to the soft spectral nature of these luminous sources. If we make a composite fit to the spectra from all 15 galaxies without excluding the most luminous sources, we obtain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.64\pm 0.02`$, in closer agreement with the White (2001) result. Furthermore, three of the galaxies in our sample have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1.9`$ (Figure 3). If these three galaxies were part of a smaller sample than what we have compiled here, we would have obtained an average value closer to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.8`$ for the sample.

### 4.2. High/Soft vs. Low/Hard Spectral States?

The result that sources with luminosities of $`12\times 10^{39}`$ ergs s-1 are substantially softer on average than sources less luminous than $`10^{39}`$ ergs s-1 is highly reminiscent of the high flux/soft spectral state vs. low flux/hard spectral shape behavior exhibited by Galactic black hole X-ray binaries candidates (e.g., Tanaka & Lewin 1995; Nowak 1995). While in their low/hard state, the spectra of Galactic black hole X-ray binaries are characterized by a power law with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.31.7`$ with an exponential cut-off at about 100 keV, while in their high/soft state, they exhibit a disk blackbody component ($`kT_{in}1`$ keV) plus a power law component with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }2.5`$. While the high energy cut-off of the low/hard state is obviously impossible to detect in our sample, our best-fit power law of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.56\pm 0.02`$ for sources with $`L_X<10^{39}`$ ergs s-1 is certainly consistent with Galactic examples in their low/hard state. Intriguingly, if we fit simultaneously the most luminous sources in our sample with a disk blackbody plus power law model, we get best-fit values of $`kT_{in}=1.76_{0.23}^{+0.16}`$ keV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2.61_{0.40}^{+0.51}`$, with the power law component contributing between 25%–68% of the total 1–10 keV luminosity from galaxy to galaxy. This ratio is that expected from black hole binaries in the very high state of Figure 1 of Nowak (1995), in which the binaries are accreting close to the Eddington limit. This spectral model was also a better fit than the single power law model ($`\chi _\nu ^2`$ = 0.89/66 d.o.f. vs. $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ = 1.15/70 d.o.f.).

Finally, it is unlikely that the luminous sources found in elliptical and S0 galaxies are actually multiple lower-luminosity sources. If this were the case, one would not expect the difference in spectral characteristics between these sources and lower luminosity sources. A single accreting object provides the most reasonable explanation.

### 4.3. Spatial Distribution of the Luminous Sources

The spatial distribution of the luminous sources can yield useful insight into the nature of these sources. We have determined how many $`>10^{39}`$ ergs s-1 sources are found between 0–1 $`r_{eff}`$ and 1–3 $`r_{eff}`$, respectively, for all 13 elliptical and S0 galaxies in our sample collectively. Since these sources typically have 100 or more X-ray counts, the effects of missing sources because of the degradation of the point spread function with increasing off-axis distance or from contamination from high X-ray surface brightness hot gas in some of the galaxies is minimized and can be safely ignored.

If the sources are distributed randomly over the field of view of the ACIS detector, we would expect eight times more sources in the 1–3 $`r_{eff}`$ bin than in the 0–1 $`r_{eff}`$ bin. Because the 3 $`r_{eff}`$ radius contour did not always fit onto the ACIS chip for the larger galaxies, the ratio for our sample is expected to be about 5.5:1, rather than 8:1. Conversely, if the sources follow the optical light, one would expect about half as many sources within the 1–3 $`r_{eff}`$ bin than in the 0–1 $`r_{eff}`$ bin.

For the $`>2\times 10^{39}`$ ergs s-1 sources, once the two sources known to be associated with globular clusters of NGC 1399 are removed, there are seven sources in the 1–3 $`r_{eff}`$ bin and only one within one effective radius (Table 2). This is consistent with the sources being randomly distributed over the detector, providing further evidence that these sources are unrelated foreground/background sources. The spatial distribution of the $`12\times 10^{39}`$ ergs s-1 sources is clearly not random. Once an estimate for the foreground/background sources is removed, there are about nine sources within one effective radius and 11 sources within 1–3 $`r_{eff}`$. Thus, the spatial distribution of these sources is much flatter than the optical light, in which there should have been twice the number of sources in the inner spatial bin than in the outer one. This is not unexpected, given that a large percentage of the sources are within globular clusters, and that the spatial distribution of globular cluster within early-type galaxies is known to be significantly flatter than the optical light, which follows a de Vaucouleurs profile. In fact, the two high luminosity sources within both NGC 1399 and NGC 4472 that fall within the ChandraHubble Space Telescope overlap region of the galaxies reside within globular cluster. Further optical work will be required to determine if all the high luminosity sources reside within globular clusters, but the extended spatial distribution of the sources would suggest that they do.

### 4.4. Are The Luminous Sources Ultraluminous X-ray Sources (ULXs)?

The existence of very luminous off-center X-ray point sources in spiral galaxies has been the subject of considerable interest in recent years (e.g., Makishima et al. 2000; Roberts & Warwick 2000; King et al. 2001). Usually found in star-forming regions of spiral arms and having $`L_X>10^{39}`$ ergs s-1 (although this lower limit on the luminosity is somewhat arbitrary), the nature of these ultraluminous X-ray sources has been difficult to explain. Although a few ULXs appear to be supernovae that detonated in a very dense environment (Fabian & Terlevich 1996; Immler et al. 1998; Blair, Fesen, & Schlegel 2001), significant temporal variability has ruled out this possibility in many other cases, strongly indicating that they are some form of accreting X-ray binary. However, ULXs in NGC 1313, M81, and IC 342 do not exhibit the typical high/soft–low/hard flux/spectral behavior that black hole binaries exhibit but instead show a reverse behavior (Makishima et al. 2000; Mizuno, Kubota, & Makishima 2001). Still, the fact that ULX spectra can be adequately fit with a disk blackbody model argues that they are an accreting binary of some kind.

The high X-ray luminosities of the more luminous ULXs imply that the mass of the central accreting object must exceed 50 M if they are accreting at the Eddington limit (where $`L_{Eddington}=1.3\times 10^{38}`$ ergs s-1 $`M`$/M and $`M`$ is the mass of the accreting object), assuming the emission is unbeamed. Sub-Eddington accretion rates typical of Galactic X-ray binaries would imply an even higher black hole mass. Such a class of intermediate mass black holes would provide the crucial missing link between stellar mass ($`10`$ M) black holes and supermassive ($`>10^6`$ M) black holes at the centers of galaxies. However, black holes of this size are very difficult to create from the collapse of single stars, given that current stellar evolution models predict that massive main-sequence progenitor stars will lose too much mass via stellar winds throughout the course of its lifetime to retain a $`>50`$ M core to produce such a massive black hole. This has created some skepticism of the intermediate mass black hole explanation. Alternatively, the X-ray emission might not be isotropic but instead beamed at us. King et al. (2001) has proposed that the most likely candidate in a beaming scenario is a period of thermal time scale mass transfer in binaries with intermediate or high mass donor stars, which naturally explains the presence of the ULXs in regions of recent star formation.

While the focus of ULX studies has been on sources in spiral galaxies, information gathered on possible ULXs in elliptical galaxies has yet to be incorporated into their explanation. A substantial number of high luminosity X-ray sources in early-type galaxies was found by Colbert & Ptak (2002) in a survey with the ROSAT HRI, although the lack of spectral resolution of that instrument did not allow for a spectral comparison of these sources to ULXs in spiral galaxies.

From our Chandra sample, we find that very luminous ($`>2\times 10^{39}`$ ergs s-1) sources are absent from elliptical and S0 galaxies, save for two luminous sources within globular clusters of NGC 1399. Furthermore, the sources in our sample with luminosities of $`12\times 10^{39}`$ ergs s-1 have different spectra than ULXs in spiral galaxies. A single disk blackbody model does not provide a good fit to the composite spectrum of the high luminosity sources within NGC 1316, NGC 1399, and NGC 4649 ($`\chi _\nu ^2`$ of 2.74 for 70 degrees of freedom) unlike spiral galaxy ULXs (e.g., Makishima et al. 2000). The addition of a power law tail is required at very high significance, something required for only one ULX studied to date (M33 X-8; Makishima et al. 2000). The disk blackbody + power law model required to fit the high luminosity sources (§ 4.2) is much more similar to the model used to fit high state black hole binaries than the model used to fit ULXs. This is illustrated in Figure 3, where the colors predicted from a disk blackbody with in inner temperature of $`kT_{in}=1.5`$ keV (green square) are significantly different that the colors of the high luminosity sources.

The two very luminous ($`4\times 10^{39}`$ ergs s-1) sources found within globular clusters of NGC 1399 by Angelini et al. (2001) appear to be very rare objects indeed. It is unlikely that any other such high luminosity sources exist in our sample given that the number of expected serendipitous foreground/background objects should account for all the other high flux sources in our sample, statistically speaking, although further optical work will be needed to search for possible optical counterparts of the very luminous sources. If such rare, very luminous sources are specific to globular clusters then perhaps it is not surprising that both are found within globular clusters of NGC 1399 given that NGC 1399 has such a large number of globular clusters (it has a globular cluster specific frequency that is 2–3 times that of typical elliptical galaxies; Harris 1991).

The combined spectra of the two globular cluster sources also look more like that of a high state black hole binary than a ULX. A disk blackbody alone provided a very poor fit to the data ($`\chi _\nu ^2`$ of 2.48 for 32 degrees of freedom), while a simple power law provided a very good fit with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.93\pm 0.11`$, very similar to the best-fit power law exponent for the $`12\times 10^{39}`$ ergs s-1 sources, although in this instance the addition of a disk blackbody model to the power law did not significantly improve the fit. Thus, it is possible that these very luminous sources are not ULXs (although they have ULX-like luminosities), and represent a different type of accreting object than that responsible for ULXs in spiral galaxies.

One possibility for these very luminous globular clusters sources is accretion onto a central intermediate mass black hole at the center of the globular cluster. The formation of luminous X-ray sources within globular clusters has been discussed in detail by Miller & Hamilton (2002). In their scenario, a $`50`$ M black hole sinks to the center of the globular cluster and accretes smaller black holes over the lifetime of the cluster to grow to a mass of $`1000`$ M. The creation of the initial $`50`$ M black hole (the smallest mass black hole that would not be ejected from the cluster by recoil during three-body interactions) might not be a problem in the low metallicity environment of a globular cluster, since mass-loss rates of very massive stars is predicted to be mild to negligible for low metallicity stars (see, e.g., Vink, de Koter & Lamers 2001). If the accretion efficiency of such a black hole was 0.01–0.1 as in Galactic black holes, X-ray luminosities of $`10^{39}10^{40}`$ ergs s-1 could be achieved. Such a scenario alleviates the problem of having the black hole emit persistently near its Eddington limit.

If the well-known relation in elliptical galaxies and spiral bulges between the stellar velocity dispersion and mass of the central black hole (e.g., Gebhardt et al. 2000a) is extrapolated down to objects the size of globular clusters, the relation predicts globular clusters will contain central black holes with masses on the order of $`10^3`$ M. In fact, kinematical evidence for a 2500 M black hole in the center of the Galactic globular cluster M15 (Gebhardt et al. 2000b) indicates that globular clusters are indeed capable of harboring intermediate-mass black holes. Although the lack of a very luminous X-ray source at the center of M15 indicates that the black hole is not currently being fed, the presence of very luminous X-ray sources in globular clusters might serve as an indication that central massive black holes are a common feature of stellar systems over a wide range of masses ranging from giant galaxies to globular clusters. Demonstrating that the ULX is at the dynamical center of the globular cluster, however, is not currently feasible even for the nearest early-type galaxies.

In summary, it does not appear that elliptical galaxies contain ULXs, at least not the kind found within spiral galaxies. For sources below $`2\times 10^{39}`$ ergs s-1, the implied masses assuming the sources are accreting near their Eddington limit are only $`15`$ M, which does not contradict the current estimates of the upper mass limit of stellar mass black holes. Furthermore, their X-ray spectra are substantially different than those of ULXs in spiral galaxies, as Figure 3 indicates. Their spectral similarities to known black hole binaries strongly argues that these sources are simply black holes accreting near their Eddington limit, and do not require either beaming or an intermediate mass black hole to explain their existence. In addition, the only two sources with luminosities exceeding $`2\times 10^{39}`$ ergs s-1 that are conclusively in the galaxies of our sample (and probably the only two) also have much different spectra than ULXs. The increasing evidence that globular clusters can contain intermediate mass black holes also provides a method for explaining their high X-ray luminosities that is problematic for spiral galaxy ULXs that occur in the field.

### 4.5. Implications for the Hot Gas Component

The uniformity of the spectral properties of LMXBs with luminosities below $`10^{39}`$ ergs s-1 has useful implications for the study of hot gas in early-type galaxies. First, in galaxies where most of the LMXB emission is not resolved (either galaxies observed with XMM-Newton or more distant galaxies where excessively long Chandra observations would be needed to detect sources fainter than $`10^{38}`$ ergs s-1), the LMXB component will contribute significantly to the diffuse emission, particularly for galaxies that are not rich in hot gas. In this case, the ability to fix the spectral shape of the LMXB component ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.56`$ or $`kT_{brem}=7.3`$ keV) will allow tighter constraints to be placed on the temperature and especially the metallicity of the hot gas. All that is required is that LMXBs more luminous than $`10^{39}`$ ergs s-1 be removed from the spectrum. As an example of this, we have extracted the spectrum of the diffuse emission from within one effective radius of the X-ray faint galaxy NGC 3115, and fit the emission with a MEKAL component (Mewe, Gronenschild, & van den Oord 1985; Kaastra & Mewe 1993; Liedahl et al. 1995) to model the hot gas component and a power law to model the unresolved LMXB component. If the power law exponent is left as a free parameter, a gas temperature of $`kT_{MEKAL}=0.61_{0.31}^{+0.28}`$ is obtained, and the metallicity of the gas is unconstrained. After fixing the power law component at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.56`$, the temperature is constrained significantly better, with $`kT_{MEKAL}=0.61_{0.18}^{+0.16}`$. In addition, the metallicity of the gas could now be constrained to be less than 5% of the solar value.

Secondly, the result that LMXBs in the bulge of M31 with luminosities as low as $`10^{36}`$ ergs s-1 have bulk spectral characteristics that are indistinguishable from more luminous LMXBs will greatly simplify the determination of the total gaseous X-ray luminosity, $`L_{X,gas}`$ in very X-ray faint galaxies. In these types of galaxies, where very low X-ray count rates will not allow the gas and LMXB components to be separated spectrally as in NGC 3115, $`L_{X,gas}`$ can be very difficult to determine accurately. A small error in the estimation of the unresolved LMXB component would lead to a large error in the derived luminosity of the gaseous component. Although such an error would have a negligible effect on the determination of $`L_{X,gas}`$ in well-known, gas-rich galaxies such as NGC 4636 and NGC 1399 (where the gaseous emission is over an order of magnitude more luminous than the LMXB component), this will not be the case for a galaxy such as NGC 3585. If we assume that all the diffuse counts in NGC 3585 above 2 keV are from unresolved LMXBs (since the emission from 0.3 keV gas typical of such X-ray faint galaxies would be negligible above 2 keV), we can convert the 2–6 keV flux to the 0.3–6 keV flux that emanates from unresolved sources, and subtract this amount from the total diffuse amount to yield the gaseous flux. If we use a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.56`$ power law model in the conversion, we find that 60% of the 0.3–6 keV diffuse flux is from unresolved LMXBs, leaving 40% for the hot gas component. Conversely, if we assume a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.9`$ power law model, LMXBs account for 83% of the diffuse emission, leaving only 17% of the diffuse emission for the gas component. Clearly, the derivation of $`L_{X,gas}`$ is highly dependent on our choice of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the unresolved sources, and factors of two or more uncertainties can arise. Knowing that we can safely use a value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.56`$ will significantly decrease the uncertainty in $`L_{X,gas}`$ for these very X-ray faint systems.

Determining $`L_{X,gas}`$ accurately for X-ray faint galaxies is particularly important in deriving the $`L_{X,gas}`$ vs. $`L_{opt}`$ relation, which has been used extensively to characterize the hydrodynamical history of gas lost from stars within the galaxy over the lifetime of the galaxy (Canizares, Fabbiano, & Trinchieri 1987; Davis & White 1996; Brown & Bregman 1998). Comparison of the X-ray to optical luminosities of galaxies found $`L_{X,gas}L_B^{1.73.0}`$ among the various studies. The rather large spread in the best-fit exponent is in large part due to uncertainties in the luminosity of the lower X-ray luminosity systems, and how each investigator chose to subtract off the LMXB component. Future studies with Chandra will minimize the uncertainty in the $`L_{X,gas}`$ values and lead to a more accurate determination of the exponent.

## 5. Conclusions

We have used Chandra data for 15 early-type systems to constrain the spectral and spatial properties of LMXBs in these galaxies. We have found that once the most luminous ($`>10^{39}`$ ergs s-1) sources are removed from the combined spectra of the sources, the spectra of the sum of the sources are very similar values among the galaxies. When all the galaxies are fit simultaneously with a power law spectral model, the best-fit power law exponent is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.56\pm 0.02`$. Even faint sources as dim as $`10^{36}`$ ergs s-1 in the bulge of M31 have similar spectral properties as the more luminous sources. There was no apparent difference in the spectral properties of LMXBs as a function of galactic radius. Nor was there a significant difference in the spectral properties of sources based on their presence within or outside a globular cluster.

A significant number of sources with luminosities of $`12\times 10^{39}`$ ergs s-1 were found within the galaxies, and they exhibited significantly softer spectral properties than the fainter sources. The disk blackbody + power law model used to model their spectra is very reminiscent of Galactic black hole X-ray binaries when they are in their very high state. Their spectra were also quite different from ULXs found within spiral galaxies. The simplest explanation of these sources is that they are $`715`$ M accreting near their Eddington limit. The spatial distribution of these sources is significantly more extended than the optical light.

With rare exception, sources more luminous than $`2\times 10^{39}`$ ergs s-1 are absent from early-type galaxies. The number and spatial distribution of the sources with fluxes corresponding to $`2\times 10^{39}`$ ergs s-1 or greater if they are at the distance of the galaxy is consistent with them being unrelated background/foreground sources. The only exceptions to this seems to be two $`4\times 10^{39}`$ ergs s-1 sources found within globular clusters of NGC 1399. Their spectra are also quite different than that of a typical spiral galaxy ULX. Their presence within a globular cluster suggests that globular clusters might harbor intermediate mass black holes that are accreting at a few percent of their Eddington limit.

Finally, we have discussed how these constraints on the spectral properties of LMXBs, especially the fainter ones, can lead to better constraints to the luminosity, temperature, and metallicity of the hot gas within early-type galaxies that contain little gas.

We thank the referee, Alexis Finoguenov, for many useful comments that improved the quality of the manuscript. J. A. I. was supported by Chandra Fellowship grant PF9-10009, awarded through the Chandra Science Center. J. N. B. acknowledges support from NASA grants GO0-1148 and GO1-2087. The Chandra Science Center is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for NASA under contract NAS8-39073.