---
author:
- 'O. González-Martín[^1] I. Papadakis P. Reig'
- 'A. Zezas'
date: 'Received March 30th, 2010'
title: 'The scaling of X–ray variability with luminosity in Ultra-luminous X-ray sources'
---

[To investigate the relationship between the X-ray variability amplitude and X-ray luminosity for a sample of 14 bright Ultra-luminous X-ray sources (ULXs) with *XMM-Newton*/EPIC data, and compare it with the well established similar relationship for Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN).]{} [We computed the normalised excess variance in the 2–10 keV light curves of these objects and their 2-10 keV band intrinsic luminosity $\rm{L_{2-10~keV}}$. We also determined model “variability-luminosity" relationships for AGN, under several assumptions regarding their power-spectral shape. We compared these model predictions at low luminosities with the ULX data.]{} [The variability amplitude of the ULXs is significantly smaller than that expected from a simple extrapolation of the AGN “variability-luminosity" relationship at low luminosities. We also find evidence for an anti-correlation between the variability amplitude and $\rm{L_{2-10~keV}}$ for ULXs. The shape of this relationship is consistent with the AGN data but only if the ULXs data are shifted by four orders of magnitudes in luminosity. ]{} [Most (but not all) of the ULXs could be ‘scaled-down’ version of AGN if we assume that: i) their black hole mass and accretion rate are of the order of $\rm{\sim(2.5-30)\times 10^3M_{\odot}}$ and $\rm{\sim 1-80}$% of the Eddington limit, and ii) their Power Spectral Density has a doubly broken power-law shape. This PDS shape and accretion rate is consistent with Galactic black hole systems operating in their so-called “low-hard" and “very-high" states.]{}

Introduction
============

Ultra-luminous X-ray sources (ULXs) are point-like sources with luminosities greater than $\rm{10^{39}~erg~s^{-1}}$ in the 0.3-10 keV band. This high luminosity is greater than that expected from stellar mass black holes (M$_{\rm
BH} \rm{< 20~M_{\odot}}$) accreting at the Eddington limit. Because they are usually located away from the nucleus of the galaxies they are unlikely to be associated with super massive black holes (SMBH, M$_{\rm BH} \rm{>
10^{5}~M_{\odot}}$), typically observed at the centre of active galactic nuclei (AGN). Their high luminosities can be explained if we assume that they host a black hole (BH) with an “intermediate mass", around 100-10000 $\rm{M_{\odot}}$ [IMBHs, @Colbert99]. However, the true nature of these sources is still unclear and other mechanisms as anisotropic emission [@King01] or accretion onto the BH in excess of the expected Eddington limit [@Begelman02] could also explain them . The question of what powers ULXs will be conclusively answered by a direct mass measurement based on the determination of the binary orbit. However, due to their extragalactic nature, the study of the ULX counterparts in other bands has been difficult.

In the meantime, both spectral and timing methods have been used over the last few years in an attempt to constrain the mass of the compact object in ULXs [@Miller04]. A common spectral method uses the temperature and luminosity of the accretion disc emission to determine the BH mass (assuming the standard Shakura-Sunyaev models). As for the timing methods, one can either use the @McHardy06 and @Kording07 scaling relationships of the characteristic time scales in Galactic black hole binaries (GBHs) and SMBHs with BH mass and accretion rate, or the timing – spectral scaling for the QPOs in GBHs [e.g. @Shaposhnikov07; @Shaposhnikov09]. The results from the application of this method to ULXs have been non-conclusive. Some studies suggest that ULXs are stellar mass BHs while others imply that they host IMBHs [e.g. @Casella08; @Miller04].

In this paper we investigate the relationship between the X-ray variability amplitude and luminosity for a sample of 14 bright ULX sources using *XMM-Newton*/EPIC data. Our first aim is to measure the 2–10 keV normalised excess variance, $\rm{\sigma^{2}_{NXS}}$, for these objects and investigate whether it correlates with the source luminosity. The normalised excess variance is a simple-to-calculate quantity that measures the intrinsic variability amplitude of a source. It can be a useful complementary tool to the full-blown power-spectrum density (PSD) analysis, and it has the advantage that it can be applied to a larger number of objects as it does not require high-quality data (i.e. long, high signal-to-noise light curves).

It is well established that $\rm{\sigma^{2}_{NXS}}$ is anti-correlated with luminosity in AGN [@Nandra97; @Leighly99; @Turner99]. Moreover, the excess variance anti-correlates with BH mass [@Lu01; @Bian03; @O'Neill05; @Miniutti09; @Zhou10]. Furthermore, @Papadakis04 showed that the “variability–mass" relationship is probably the physically fundamental relationship rather than the “variability-luminosity" relationship in these objects. Our second aim is to compare the “variability–luminosity" relationship for ULXs with that of AGN with known BH mass. Following @Papadakis04, if we assume a *universal* PSD shape for AGN, which scales appropriately with BH mass and accretion rate, we can then make predictions on the expected AGN “variability–luminosity" relationship at low luminosities. We want to investigate whether the ULX “variability–luminosity" data are consistent with various model “variability–luminosity" relationships for AGN, and if yes, what are the implications for the ULX PSD shape, BH mass and accretion rate.

In Section 2 we present the sample selection. In Section 3 we describe the data reduction, and in Section 4 we discuss the data analysis and present our results. We present a short discussion of their implications and our conclusions in Sections 5 and 6, respectively.

The sample {#sec:sample}
==========

We considered all bright ULXs reported in the literature, and in particular the objects studied by @Heil09 and @Gladstone09. The @Heil09 sample includes all bright ULXs which have been observed with *XMM-Newton* for more than 25 ksec and their 0.2–10 keV flux is greater than $\rm{5\times
10^{-13}erg~cm^{-2}s^{-1}}$. The @Gladstone09 sample includes all ULXs observed with EPIC/*XMM-Newton* with more than 10000 net counts in the 0.3–12 keV EPIC band.

One of our main aims is to compare the 2–10 keV variability amplitude of ULXs with the variability amplitude of the nearby AGN studied mainly by @O'Neill05. The length, *T*, and the bin size, $\Delta t$, of a light curve determines the lower and higher frequency sampled, since $\nu_{\rm
min}=1/T$ and $\nu_{\rm max}=1/(2 \Delta t)$ Hz. The excess variance of the light curve depends on the intrinsic power-spectrum and also on the minimum and maximum frequencies (see Section 4.5). For that reason we used the same length for the light curves as those of @O'Neill05. Thus, we considered light curve segments with a length of $30-40$ ksec. Regarding $\Delta t$, due to the low count rate of all objects in the sample, we used bins of size 1000 s in order to increase the signal-to-noise of their light curves.

Consequently, we chose from the @Heil09 and @Gladstone09 samples those sources which were observed by *XMM-Newton* with a net exposure, $T_{\rm net}$, larger than 30 ksec. For this reason we did not consider the *XMM-Newton* data of M33 X–8, IC342 X–1, NGC4395 X–1, and M83 ULX. We did not consider NGC4395 X–1 either because it was located on a gap of the PN detector during its *XMM-Newton* observation with $T_{\rm net}>30$ ksec.

Our final sample comprises of 14 ULXs. Table \[tab:observations\] lists their coordinates, distance, and the *XMM-Newton* observation details. Coordinates and distances were taken from the NASA/NED[^2] database. Distances correspond to the average redshift-independent estimate for each object. For four sources (namely NGC253 PSX-2, NGC1313 X–1, NGC1313 X–2, and NGC5408 X–1) we were able to retrieve from the archive two observations with $T_{\rm
net}$ larger than 30 ksec. Note that the starburst galaxy M82 contains two ULXs, namely X41.4+60 and X42.3+59, which are unresolved by *XMM-Newton*, and they both contribute to the M82 X–1 light curve. During the 2004 April observation that we considered in this work, approximately 84% of the observed count rate originates from X41.4+60 [@Feng07].

In order to extend the @O'Neill05 sample to include AGN with low BH masses, we also considered the *XMM-Newton* observation of POX52, which hosts an AGN with a low BH mass [$\rm{M_{BH}}=1.6\times10^{5}~M_{\odot}$; @Barth04]. The coordinates, distance, as well as the *XMM-Newton* observation details for this source are also listed in Table \[tab:observations\] (the distance in this case corresponds to the “luminosity distance" estimate of NASA/NED).

Data reduction {#sec:reduction}
==============

Data were retrieved from the *XMM-Newton* public data archive[^3]. We used the *XMM-Newton* Science Analysis System SAS[^4] software version 9.0.0 and followed standard procedures to extract science products from the Observation Data Files (ODFs).

We used data from the EPIC-pn camera only due to its superior statistical quality. Source counts in each case were accumulated from a circular region of radius 400 pixels, centred on the source’s RA and Dec. In the case of NGC253 PSX-2 (ObsID 152020101) we used a radius of 300 pixels to avoid contamination from a nearby source and the detector gap. Background data were extracted from a source free circular region on the same CCD chip than the source (background region radii are listed in Column 8 of Table \[tab:observations\]). We selected only single and double pixel events (i.e. patterns of 0-4). Bad pixels and events too close to the edges of the CCD chips were rejected using “FLAG=0." Given the observed count rate, photon pile-up is negligible for the PN detector in all cases.

Source and background light curves in the 2–10 keV band were extracted using [evselect]{} task on SAS with a 1000-sec bin. They were screened for high background (usually at the end and/or the beginning of the individual observations) and flaring activity. After rejection of the respective time intervals, the total useful observation time for each observation is usually less than the original PN exposure time. We chose to study only those light curves with at least one “clean" segment longer than 30 ksec.

As an example, in the top panel of Fig. \[fig:lightcurves\] we show the light curve of NGC5408 X–1, which is typical of the light curves of all sources in the sample. Filled circles and stars indicate the 2–10 keV (background subtracted) source and background light curves, respectively. The background light curve corresponds to the full PN exposure length while the source light curve is plotted only for those parts of the observation when the background activity was “low”. In general, as background “loud” we identified the observation parts where: i) the background light curve showed “flare"-like events and/or prominent decreasing/increasing trends (usually at the start/end of an observation), and ii) the “net" source count rate was less than twice the background count rate. The brackets on top of the NGC5408 X–1 light curves indicate the light curve segments we chose for this observation. Clearly, the background light curve is stable, and of much less intensity than the “net" light curve count rate. This was the case for almost all of the light curve segments we used in this work. We also extracted the EPIC-pn spectra, after the rejection of the time intervals affected by high background, using single and double events (PATTERN $\rm{<}$=4). Response and auxiliary matrices were created with SAS tools [rmfgen]{} and [arfgen]{}, respectively.

The POX52 *XMM-Newton* data were reduced in the same way. Its 2–10 keV (background subtracted) source and background light curves are also plotted in Fig. \[fig:lightcurves\] (bottom panel). The observation is affected by high background flaring activity during the first $\sim 20$ ksec, and after $\sim
40$ ksec since the start of the observation, which lasted for almost 10 ksec (note that this observation shows the worse background “flaring" activity among all the light curves we studied in this work).

![Light curves of NGC5408 X1/ObsID 302900101 (top panel) and POX52 (bottom panel). Stars indicate the background light curves and filled dots indicate the background subtracted light curves, plotted only for the observation period for which the background activity is “low" (see text for details). The brackets on top of the light curves indicate the segments that were used to estimate the excess variance in each case.[]{data-label="fig:lightcurves"}](lc_POX52.ps){width="1.0\columnwidth"}

Data analysis and results {#sec:analysis}
=========================

The variability amplitude estimation
------------------------------------

As a measure of the intrinsic variability amplitude of the light curves we computed their normalised excess variance, $\rm{\sigma^{2}_{NXS}}$. Its square root is a measure of the average variability amplitude of a source as a fraction of the light curve mean. We used the prescription given by @Vaughan03 to estimate $\rm{\sigma^{2}_{NXS}}$ and its error, $\rm{err(\sigma^{2}_{NXS})}$[^5], as follows:

$$\sigma^{2}_{\rm NXS}=\frac{S^{2}-<\sigma_{err}^{2}>}{<x>^2},$$

$${\rm err}(\sigma^{2}_{\rm NXS})=\sqrt{\frac{2} {\rm N} ( \frac
{<\sigma^{2}_{\rm err}>} {<x>^2} )^2+ \frac {<\sigma^{2}_{\rm err}>} {\rm
N} \frac{4\sigma^{2}_{\rm NXS}}{<x>^2}},$$

where $x$, $\sigma_{err}$, and $N$ are the count rate, its error, and the number of points in the light curve, respectively and $\rm{S^{2}}$ is the variance of the light curve, i.e.:

$$\label{eqn:variance}
S^{2} = \frac{1}{N-1} \sum_{i=1}^{N} (x_{i} - <x>)^{2}.$$

Following @O'Neill05, we computed $\rm{\sigma^{2}_{NXS}}$ for each continuous light curve segment with $30\leq T_{\rm net} \leq 40$ ksec. For light curves longer than 40 ksec we considered only the first 40 ksec. If there were more than one segments of duration $T_{\rm net}$ larger than 30–40 ksec we computed $\rm{\sigma^{2}_{NXS}}$ for each one of them. The number of light curve segments in each observation, and their $T_{\rm net}$, are listed in Table \[tab:observations\] (Column 9). A few “missing" points within each segment, due to the presence of background flaring activity, appear in one of the light curve segments of NGC4559 X–1, NGC4945 X–2, NGC253 PSX-2 (ObsID 152020101), and HoII X–1. Missing points are typically less than 10–15% of the total number of points. The first segment of POX 52 light curve shows the largest number of “missing" points (20% of the total). The presence of missing points in these segments should increase the uncertainty of the resulting $\rm{\sigma^{2}_{NXS}}$ estimates.

Our $\rm{\sigma^{2}_{NXS}}$ estimates, for each light curve segment, are listed in Table \[tab:results\] (Column 3). The numbers in parenthesis in Table \[tab:results\] indicate the weighted mean $\rm{\sigma^{2}_{NXS}}$ and its error in the case we had more than one excess variance estimate for the same source.

For two sources the $\rm{\sigma^{2}_{NXS}}$ measurement was negative. In these cases, we estimated the 90% upper limits of the intrinsic $\rm{\sigma^{2}_{NXS}}$ values using the 90% upper limits on the source variance, as listed by @Vaughan03 in their Table 1. In order to constrain as much as possible the “variability-luminosity" ULXs correlation (see Section 4.3 below), we assumed a PSD slope of $\rm{-}$1, and the upper limit from the @Vaughan03 simulations with the longest light curves (any other choice would result to an even larger 90% limit). In order to take into account the uncertainty on $\rm{\sigma^{2}_{NXS}}$ due to the experimental Poisson fluctuations as well, we added to these limits the value of 1.282 err($\rm{\sigma^{2}_{NXS}}$). Our final estimates of the 90% confidence limits for these two sources are listed in a parenthesis in Table \[tab:results\].

Regarding M82 X–1, @Feng07 estimate that X41.4+60 contributes more than 80% of the observed count rate during the 2004 April *XMM-Newton* observation of M82. X42.3+59 is highly variable source, but on time scales of years [see Fig. 5 in @Feng07]. On shorter time scales, the same authors show that the PSD of X41.4+60 has a significantly higher amplitude than the PSD of X42.3+59.

The hard band X–ray luminosity estimation
-----------------------------------------

To estimate the X-ray luminosity for each source we fitted their spectra with an absorbed power-law model in the 2–10 keV band. For the Galactic absorption, we fixed the N$_{\rm H}$ values at the values derived from the HI maps of [@Dickey90]. The spectral fitting was performed using XSPEC version 12.5.1. Using the best-fit results we estimated the source flux in the 2–10 keV band, and hence the source luminosity, $\rm{L_{2-10~keV}}$, adopting the distance estimates listed in Table \[tab:observations\]. The unabsorbed $\rm{L_{2-10~keV}}$ estimates are listed in Table \[tab:results\] (Column 4)[^6]. The values in parenthesis correspond to the mean $\rm{L_{2-10~keV}}$ estimates, in the case there were more than one spectrum for an object.

In half of the cases, the best-fit $\chi^{2}_{\rm red}$ values were larger than $\sim 1.2$. This is mainly due to the presence of additional complexity in the spectra that the simple power-law model cannot account for . Nevertheless, the power law model describes adequately the broad shape of the source spectra in all cases, and the resulting best-fit flux measurements should be an accurate estimate of the source X–ray [*continuum*]{} flux. To investigate this issue further, we used the 2–10 keV band best-fit results of @Stobbart06 to estimate the 2–10 keV luminosity for the nine sources in common. We found that $\rm{L_{\rm ours} = L_{\rm literature}}$ in all cases except for NGC55 ULX, HoII X–1, and HoIX X–1 sources where $\rm{L_{\rm ours}/L_{\rm literature}}=1.1$, $\rm{L_{\rm ours}/L_{\rm
literature}}=0.8$, and $\rm{L_{\rm ours}/L_{\rm literature}}=0.8$, respectively. We are thus confident that our luminosity estimates are reliable. Regarding M82 X–1, @Feng07 estimate a 2–10 keV luminosity of $1.7\times 10^{40}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ for X41.4+60 during the April 2004 *XMM-Newton* observation of the source. This is smaller than our estimate of $2.5\times 10^{40}$ ergs s$^{-1}$, but this is expected given the presence of the other ULX, which also contributes to the flux we measure from this source.

![Normalised excess variance versus log($\rm{L_{2-10~keV}}$) for the ULXs. Arrows indicate the 90% confidence upper limits on $\rm{\sigma^{2}_{NXS}}$ for the sources with negative excess variance estimates. The point plotted with an empty square indicates the M82 X–1 measurement when corrected for the contribution of X42.3+59 to the observed count rate (see text for details). The shift of M82 X–1 is shown as a dotted line. The solid line indicates the best-fit to the data (excluding NGC55 ULX).[]{data-label="fig:sigmalum"}](fig1_v3.ps){width="1.\columnwidth"}

The “variability–luminosity" relation of ULXs {#sec:ULXrel}
---------------------------------------------

Fig. \[fig:sigmalum\] shows $\rm{\sigma^{2}_{NXS}}$ as function of log($\rm{L_{2-10~keV}}$) for the ULXs in the sample. The arrows indicate the 90% confidence upper limits on the (intrinsic) excess variance of the two sources with negative $\rm{\sigma^{2}_{NXS}}$ estimates. The X–ray variability amplitude appears to decrease with increasing X–ray luminosity. To a large extent, this trend is driven by the NGC55 ULX data. However, this source shows “dipping" episodes in its variability, which enhance its variability amplitude [@Stobbart04]. Similar events have not been observed in other ULXs.

To investigate the significance of the apparent “variability–luminosity" relation in Fig. \[fig:sigmalum\] we fitted the \[log($\rm{\sigma^{2}_{NXS}}$), log($\rm{L_{2-10~keV}}$)\] data with a straight line of the form log($\rm{\sigma^{2}_{NXS}}) = a + b\times$log($\rm{L_{2-10~keV}}$). Given the presence of upper limits in two objects, we used the Buckley-James regression method as implemented in the software package ASURV [@Isobe86]. Since the NGC55 ULX variability properties may be somewhat “anomalous" among ULXs, we excluded this source from the fit.

The best-fit slope value is $a=-1.0\pm 0.4$ and is significantly different from zero at the 2.5$\sigma$ level. The best-fit is indicated by the solid line in Fig. \[fig:sigmalum\]. The point plotted with an empty square in Fig. \[fig:sigmalum\] indicates the M82 X–1 measurements, when “corrected" for the contribution of X42.3+59 to the observed count rate. We have adopted the 2–10 keV luminosity measurement of @Feng07 for X41.4+60. Furthermore, we have increased our excess variance measurement by a factor of 1.5. This is based on the fact that the “area A" and “area A+B" PSDs of @Feng07 show a flat PSD at low frequencies, whose normalisation is higher by $\sim 1.5$ in the case of “area A" PSD. In the following figures we indicate only the “corrected" data for M82 X–1, albeit with a different symbol than the rest of the ULXs data.

Comparison with AGN
-------------------

The top panel in Fig. \[fig:ulxagn\] shows the “variability–luminosity" plot for the ULXs (filled squares in all panels, except for the M82 X–1 data which are shown with an open square; arrows indicate 90% confidence upper limits) and AGN, using the data of @O'Neill05 (open triangles). We also added to this plot the \[$\rm{\sigma^{2}_{NXS}}, \log({\rm L_{2-10 keV}})]$ data for the 4 AGN with IMBHs from @Miniutti09 (black asterisks). The open circles in all panels indicate the POX52 data. The variability amplitude of this source is comparable to the amplitude of the two lowest luminosity objects in the @O'Neill05 sample and with the amplitude of the lowest luminosity object in the @Miniutti09 sample. In fact, the addition of the POX52 and the four IMBHs data in the plot strengthens the possibility that the AGN “variability–luminosity" relation may flatten at luminosities lower than $\rm{\sim
10^{42} ergs~s^{-1}}$.

The solid line in the top panel of Fig. \[fig:ulxagn\] indicates the best-fit line for the ULXs data while the dashed line indicates the same line shifted by $\Delta \log(L_{\rm 2-10 keV})=4$. The shifted line describes rather well the AGN “variability-luminosity" relation. In fact, we used the “ordinary least squares bisector" method of @Isobe90 to fit the AGN data (in the log–log space) with a straight line. The best-fit slope was $-1.22\pm
0.16$ which is consistent with the best-fit slope for ULXs ($b_{\rm AGN}-b_{\rm
ULXs}= 0.2\pm 0.4$). Therefore, the variability amplitude may indeed decrease with increasing luminosity in a similar way for AGN and ULXs.

Despite this similarity, Fig. \[fig:ulxagn\] also indicates that the ULX data are [*not*]{} consistent with the AGN data. For a given luminosity, even if the AGN “variability – luminosity" relation flattens below $\rm{\sim
10^{42} ergs~s^{-1}}$, the ULX variability amplitude is at least 10 times lower than expected when we extrapolate the AGN “variability–luminosity" relation to lower luminosities. Only NGC55 ULX appears to be consistent with the AGN data.

Determination of model “variability–luminosity" relations {#sec:models}
---------------------------------------------------------

To compare in a quantitative way the ULXs and AGN “variability–luminosity" relationship it is necessary to derive the “excess variance - luminosity" relationship for AGN at low luminosities, and then compare it with the observed relationship for the ULXs. In this way we will be able to investigate if and for which physical parameters (i.e. M$_{\rm BH}$, and accretion rate in units of the Eddington limit, $\dot{m}_{\rm Edd}$) the ULXs data will be in agreement with the “model" AGN “variability–luminosity" relationships.

The bolometric luminosity emitted by an AGN is $L_{\rm bol}=\dot{m}_{\rm
Edd}L_{\rm Edd}=1.3  \dot{m}_{\rm Edd}10^{38}({\rm M_{BH}/M_{\odot}~ergs~s^{-1}})$. If $k_{bol}$ is the X–ray to $L_{\rm bol}$ conversion factor then,

$${\rm L}_{\rm 2-10 keV}=k_{bol}1.3 \dot{m}_{\rm Edd}10^{38} 
({\rm M_{BH}/M_{\odot}}) \hspace{0.2cm} {\rm ergs~s^{-1}}$$

[in all the calculations below, we adopted the $k_{bol}-{\rm
L_{Edd}}$ relationship given by @Lusso09]. On the other hand, the observed excess variance, estimated from a light curve of length T and bin size $\Delta
t$, is an approximate measure of the integral:

$$\sigma^2_{\rm NXS}=\int_{\nu_{\rm min}}^{\nu_{\rm max}} {\rm P}(\nu)\rm d\nu ,$$

where P$(\nu)$ is the intrinsic power spectrum normalised to the square of the light curve mean, $\nu_{\rm min}=1/T$ and $\nu_{\rm
max}=1/(2\Delta t)$. Equation (5) results from Parseval’s theorem for Fourier series, and from the fact that the mean value of the periodogram (i.e. the square of the discrete Fourier transform of the light curve) is (approximately) equal to P$(\nu)$ [e.g. see discussion given in Section 2.2 of @Vaughan03].

The excess variance can be associated with the BH mass and accretion rate if one assumes a PSD shape and certain scaling relations between the PSD characteristic frequencies with M$_{\rm BH}$ and $\dot{m}_{\rm Edd}$. Below we present model “variability – luminosity" relations for AGN, assuming two rather simple scenarios for their PSD shapes, which are based on recent power spectral studies of AGN and GBHs.

![Normalised excess variance versus log(L$_{\rm 2-10 keV}$) for ULXs (black squares, and open square for the M82 X–1 data) and AGN (open triangles). IMBHs reported by @Miniutti09 are included as black stars and POX52 (reported here) as an open circle. Top panel: the solid line indicates the best fit to the ULX data, and the dashed line indicates the same line shifted by +4 along the x–axis. Middle panel: The lines indicate the [*case A*]{} model “variability-luminosity" relation for $\dot{m}_{\rm Edd}=0.03$ (dotted line), 0.1 (dashed line) and 0.3 (continuous line). The short solid lines between the model curves indicate black hole masses of $5\times10^{6},~5\times10^{7}$, and $~5\times10^{8}~M_{\odot}$, from left to right. Bottom panel: The lines indicate the [*case B*]{} model “variability-luminosity" relation, for the same accretion rates. As above, the short solid lines within the model curves indicate black hole masses of $10^{3},~10^{4},~5\times10^{5},~5\times10^{6},~5\times10^{7},$ and $~5\times10^{8}~M_{\odot}$, from left to right.[]{data-label="fig:ulxagn"}](fig2_v3.ps){width="1.\columnwidth"}

![The assumed PSD shape in [*case A*]{} (continuous line) and [*case B*]{} (dashed line) scenarios discussed in Section \[sec:models\]. $\nu_{br}$ and $\nu_{br,2}$ are the characteristic “frequency breaks", at which the PSD slope changes, while $\nu_{\rm min}$ and $\nu_{\rm max}$ are the minimum and maximum frequencies sampled by the light curve segments used in this work. The regions filled with diagonal-dotted lines (vertical-continuous lines) indicate the area below the PSD shape in [*case A*]{} ([*case B*]{}) scenario, which should be approximately equal to the excess variance of the light curves. This area (and hence $\rm{\sigma^{2}_{NXS}}$ as well) depends on the location of the break frequencies (determined by black hole mass and accretion rate) with respect to $\nu_{\rm max}$ and $\nu_{\rm min}$ (which are fixed according to the values $T$ and $\Delta t$ of the light curves used in this work).[]{data-label="fig:psdmodels"}](PSD_form.ps){width="1.0\columnwidth"}

[*:*]{} Analyses based on high quality [*RXTE*]{} and [*XMM-Newton*]{} light curves have shown that the AGN PSDs can be approximated by a broken power law, with P$(\nu)=A(\nu/\nu_{\rm br})^{-1}$ and P$(\nu)=A(\nu/\nu_{\rm br})^{-2}$ at frequencies below and above a characteristic frequency break, $\nu_{\rm br}$ [e.g. @Markowitz03; @McHardy04]. @McHardy06 have demonstrated that $\nu_{\rm
br}$ depends on both $M_{\rm BH}$ and $\dot{m}_{\rm Edd}$ as:

$$\nu_{\rm br}=0.003 \dot{m}_{\rm Edd}({M_{\rm BH}}/10^6~{M_{\odot}})^{-1}.$$

In this case ([*case A*]{} model hereafter), it is straightforward to show that:

$$\sigma^2_{\rm NXS}= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{\rm C_{1}}\nu_{\rm br}(\nu_{\rm min}^{-1}- 
\nu_{\rm max}^{-1}), & \textrm{(if $\nu_{\rm br}<\nu_{\rm min}$)} \\
{\rm C_{1}}[{\rm ln}(\frac{\nu_{\rm br}}{\nu_{\rm min}})
-\frac{\nu_{\rm br}}{\nu_{\rm max}}+1], 
& \textrm{(if $\nu_{\rm min}<\nu_{\rm br}<\nu_{\rm max}$)} \\
{\rm C_{1}}{\rm ln}(\frac{\nu_{\rm max}}{\nu_{\rm min}}), & 
\textrm{(if $\nu_{\rm br}>\nu_{\rm max}$)}
\end{array} \right.$$

where $\rm C_{1}=A\nu_{\rm br}$. Following @Papadakis04 we assumed that $C_1=0.02$. The solid line in Fig. \[fig:psdmodels\] indicates the *case A* PSD model, when $\nu_{\rm br}=10^{-3}$ and $A=20$ Hz$^{-1}$ (values chosen arbitrarily). The vertical, dotted lines indicate the $\nu_{\rm min}$ and $\nu_{\rm max}$ frequencies. The diagonal dotted lines indicate the area below the *case A* PSD curve, and between $\nu_{\rm
min}$ and $\nu_{\rm max}$ values, which according to equation (5) should be (approximately) equal to $\rm{\sigma^{2}_{NXS}}$.

[*:*]{} A second frequency break, $\nu_{br,2}$, below which the PSD is roughly flat (i.e. P$(\nu)\propto \nu^{0}$), has also been observed in at least one AGN [i.e. Ark564, @Papadakis02; @McHardy07] and in GBHs in “low/hard" and “very high" states (see discussion in Section 5.1 below). The PSDs in the latter case are quite complex, usually described by a series of Lorentzians [e.g. @Pottschmidt03]. However, the entire spectral shape roughly resembles a (doubly) broken power law of the form: P$(\nu)=A(\nu/\nu_{\rm br})^{-2}$, for $\nu>\nu_{\rm br}$, P$(\nu)=A(\nu/\nu_{\rm br})^{-1}$, for $\nu_{\rm br,2}< \nu <nu_{\rm br}$ and P$(\nu)=A(\nu_{\rm br,2}/\nu_{\rm br})^{-1}=$constant, for $\nu<\nu_{\rm
br,2}$. In this case ([*case B*]{} model hereafter), the excess variance of the light curves should be:

$$\sigma^2_{\rm NXS}= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{\rm C_{1}}\nu_{\rm br}(\nu_{\rm min}^{-1}- 
\nu_{\rm max}^{-1}), & \\
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\textrm{(if $\nu_{\rm br,2},\nu_{\rm br}<\nu_{\rm min}$)}   & \\
{\rm C_{1}}[{\rm ln}(\frac{\nu_{\rm br}}{\nu_{\rm min}})
-\frac{\nu_{\rm br}}{\nu_{\rm max}}+1], & \\
~~~~~~\textrm{(if $\nu_{\rm min}<\nu_{\rm br}<\nu_{\rm max}$ and $\nu_{\rm br,2}<\nu_{\rm min})$} & \\
{\rm C_{1}}{\rm ln}(\frac{\nu_{\rm max}}{\nu_{\rm min}}), & \\
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\textrm{(if $\nu_{\rm br}>\nu_{\rm max}$ and $\nu_{\rm br,2}<\nu_{\rm min}$)} & \\
{\rm C_{1}}[\ln(\frac{\nu_{\rm br}}{\nu_{\rm br,2}})+2-
\frac{\nu_{\rm min}}{\nu_{\rm br,2}}-\frac{\nu_{\rm br}}{\nu_{\rm max}}],  & \\
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(\textrm{if $\nu_{\rm min}<\nu_{\rm br,2}<\nu_{\rm br}<\nu_{\rm max}$}) & \\
{\rm C_{1}}[\ln(\frac{\nu_{\rm max}}{\nu_{\rm br,2}})+1-
\frac{\nu_{\rm min}}{\nu_{\rm br,2}}],  & \\
 ~~~~~~(\textrm{if $\nu_{\rm min}<\nu_{\rm br,2}<\nu_{\rm max}$ and $\nu_{\rm br}> \nu_{\rm max}$}) & \\
{\rm C_{1}}(\nu_{\rm max}-\nu_{\rm min})/\nu_{\rm br,2}, & \\ 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(\textrm{if  $\nu_{\rm br,2}, \nu_{\rm br}> \nu_{\rm max}$}) & 
\end{array} \right.$$

The ratio $\nu_{\rm br}/\nu_{\rm br,2}$ is usually $\sim 10$ in GBHs. We adopted the @Axelsson06 relation between the two break frequencies in Cyg X–1 [^7]:

$$\nu_{\rm br,2} = 0.15\nu_{\rm br}^{1.2}.$$

The dashed line in Fig. \[fig:psdmodels\] indicates the *case B* PSD model, assuming a second break frequency which is 10 times smaller than $\nu_{\rm br}$. The vertical lines between $\nu_{\rm min}$ and $\nu_{\rm max}$ indicate the area below the the *case B* PSD curve, which should be approximately equal to $\rm{\sigma^{2}_{NXS}}$. We can now use the equations above to construct AGN model “variability–luminosity" relations as follows.

The AGN model “variability–luminosity" relations
------------------------------------------------

We considered BH mass values in the range between $10^3-10^9$ M$_{\odot}$, and three accretion rate values, namely 0.03, 0.1 and 0.3 of the Eddington limit. For any given M$_{\rm BH}$ and $\dot{m}_{\rm Edd}$ values we used equation (4) to compute the 2–10 keV luminosity of the source, and equations (6) and (9) to compute $\nu_{\rm br}$ and $\nu_{\rm br,2}$, respectively. We then used equations (7) and (8) to compute the model $\rm{\sigma^{2}_{NXS}}$ values in [*case A*]{} and [*case B*]{} scenarios, respectively. The minimum and maximum sampled frequencies in our case are $\nu_{\rm max}=1/(2\times 1000)$ Hz and $\nu_{\rm min}=1/T_{\rm mean}$ Hz, where $T_{\rm mean}=37$ ksec, i.e. the average length of all the segments listed in column (9) of Table  1. The resulting model “variability–luminosity" relations are plotted in Fig. \[fig:ulxagn\] (middle and bottom panels).

The dotted, dashed and solid line in the middle panel of Fig. \[fig:ulxagn\] indicate the expected [*case A*]{} “variability–luminosity" relations for $\rm{\dot{m}_{\rm Edd}=}$0.03, 0.1, and 0.3, respectively. The agreement between these lines and the AGN data is reasonably good, indicating that both the shape and the scatter in the observed “variability–luminosity" relation for AGN can be explained if the nearby, bright Type-1 Seyferts accrete at $\sim 3-30$% of the Eddington limit. The flattening of the relation at low luminosities is due to the fact that, if equation (6) is valid, then $\nu_{\rm br}>\nu_{\rm max}$ for objects with BH mass (luminosity) less than $\sim 2-6\times 10^5$ M$_{\odot}$ \[$(0.6-4.0)\times 10^{41} erg~s^{-1}$\]. Consequently, the excess variance should remain constant \[see bottom relationship in the set of equations (7)\] for all objects with smaller M$_{\rm BH}$ (and therefore source luminosity).

The dotted, dashed, and solid line in the bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:ulxagn\] indicate the [*case B*]{} “variability–luminosity" predictions (as before, we considered the values of $\rm{\dot{m}_{\rm Edd}=}$0.03, 0.1, and 0.3, respectively). If there is indeed a second PSD frequency break, and equations (6) and (9) are valid, then we expect $\nu_{\rm br,2}>\nu_{\rm min}$ for sources with BH mass (luminosity) smaller than $\sim 6\times 10^5$ M$_{\odot}$ ($\rm{\sim  4\times
10^{41}ergs~s^{-1}}$). Since the low-frequency flat part of the PSD does not contribute to the integral defined by equation (1) as much as the $\nu^{-1}$ part does (see Fig. \[fig:psdmodels\]), the excess variance is expected to decrease with decreasing luminosity when L$_{\rm 2-10 keV}<4\times 10^{41}erg~s^{-1}$.

![Normalised excess variance versus log($\rm{L_{2-10~keV}}$) for the ULXs. The dotted-filled region indicates the area with BH mass of $\rm{(2.5-30)\times 10^3}$ M$\rm{_{\odot}}$ and accretion rates of $\rm{\dot{m}_{\rm Edd}}$=(0.01-0.8). Dashed lines indicate the [*case B*]{} model for AGN-like objects with a BH mass of $\rm{(2.5-30)\times 10^3}$ M$\rm{_{\odot}}$ (from left to right along each line), and for accretion rates of $\rm{\dot{m}_{\rm Edd}}$=\[0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 0.8\] (from top to bottom).[]{data-label="fig:sigmalum2"}](fig3_v3.ps){width="1.\columnwidth"}

The comparison between ULXs and AGN revisited {#sec:revis}
---------------------------------------------

It is clear from the middle panel of Fig. \[fig:ulxagn\] that, apart from NGC55 ULX, the ULXs data are not consistent with the [*case A*]{} AGN model predictions. On the other hand, the bottom panel in Fig. \[fig:ulxagn\] shows that most of the ULXs data are consistent with the [*case B*]{} model “variability–luminosity" relations.

In Fig. \[fig:sigmalum2\] we plot again the $\rm{\sigma^{2}_{NXS}}-$log$(L_{\rm
2-10 keV})$ data for the ULXs. The dashed lines in the same plot indicate the [*case B*]{} model “excess variance – luminosity" relations for AGN-like objects with a BH mass of $\rm{(2.5-30)\times 10^3}$ M$_{\odot}$ (from left to right along each line), and for various accretion rates. The dashed line on the top-left corner of the plot corresponds to $\dot{m}_{\rm Edd}=0.01$. Moving down along the lines, the accretion rate increases up to $\dot{m}_{\rm Edd}=0.8$. The fact that most of the ULXs data are located within the boundaries of the diagonally dashed region of the plot implies that these objects may operate like AGN, with a BH mass in the range $\rm{(2.5-30)\times
10^3}$ M$_{\odot}$, and an accretion rate in the range $\rm{[0.01-0.8]}$. Regarding NGC2403 X–1 and NGC4945 X–2 (the upper limits), their low variability amplitude can be explained if they host a BH with a mass close to or even lower than $2.5\times 10^3$ M$_{\odot}$.

Furthermore, the same figure can also explain the apparent ULX “variability-luminosity" anti-correlation. If the higher-luminosity objects in the sample have systematically larger BH mass and accretion rate than the lower-luminosity objects, then their variability amplitude should also be systematically smaller, hence the “smaller variability amplitude with increasing luminosity" trend we detected.

Finally, it is clear from Fig. \[fig:ulxagn\] that NGC55 ULX is not consistent with the [*case B*]{} model predictions. One could assume that this source is more consistent with the [*case A*]{} model predictions, however, the high amplitude dipping episodes seen in the light curve of this source are not commonly seen in AGN light curves. Furthermore, if that were the case, we would expect that $\nu_{\rm br}>\nu_{\rm max}$ for this object, and its PSD to have a $-1$ slope in the frequency range $\sim 10^{-4}-10^{-3}$ Hz. However, @Heil09 found an average PSD slope of $-1.96\pm 0.04$ in this frequency range. Therefore, the agreement of the NGC55 ULX data with the [*case A*]{} “excess variance - luminosity" relation must be coincidental.

Discussion
==========

We present the results of a variability analysis of a sample of 14 bright ULXs using 19 observations with *XMM-Newton*/EPIC. We calculated their normalised excess variance using light-curves of 40 ksec length. Our main aim was to compare their “variability–luminosity" relationship with the same relationship for AGN. Our main results can be summarised as follows:

-   The variability amplitude of ULXs is significantly smaller than that expected from a simple extrapolation of the AGN “variability–luminosity" relationship to lower luminosities.

-   We found evidence that the variability amplitude in ULXs decreases with increasing 2–10 keV source luminosity. This “variability – luminosity" anti-correlation is similar (in slope) to what is observed in nearby Type 1 Seyferts.

We discuss in some detail some implications of our results below.

Are most ULXs AGN-like objects?
-------------------------------

The fact that ULXs show a significantly smaller variability amplitude (when compared to the amplitude expected from an extrapolation of the AGN “variability–luminosity" relation to low luminosities) is consistent with the hypothesis that ULXs are “scaled-down" version of the nearby AGN, but only if: a) there two break frequencies in their PSDs, b) $\nu_{br}$ scales with BH mass and accretion rate as in equation (6), c) $\nu_{\rm br}/\nu_{\rm br,2} \sim
5-50$, and d) $\nu_{\rm br,2}$ (i.e. the frequency where the PSD shape changes from a slope of 0 to $\sim -1$) is higher than $3\times 10^{-5}$ Hz.

This band-limited noise PSD shape is commonly observed in GBHs in their “low/hard" and “very high" state [VHS; see for example Fig. 4e and 4c in @Klein-Wolt08]. In this case the variability is mostly limited to $\sim
1-2$ decades of temporal frequency. In most AGN though, the PSDs resemble that of GBHs in their “high state": the $1/\nu$ part of the power spectrum extends over many decades of frequency below $\nu_{\rm br}$ [@McHardy06]. The only exception is Ark564, where a second PSD break (to a slope flatter than $-1$) [*is*]{} observed, and most of the variability is indeed limited in less than two decades of frequency. Interestingly, Ark564 is the only high accretion rate AGN for which a good quality PSD is available at the moment. @McHardy07 suggested that this object is the AGN analogue of GBHs in VHS. Perhaps then, just like Ark564, ULXs are also similar to GBHs in VHS.

Are there any indications that ULXs power spectra have a shape consistent with the PSD model outlined above? Recently, @Heil09 presented the results from a detailed PSD analysis of archival ULX light curves. They detected “0 to –1" PSD breaks at frequencies higher than $3\times 10^{-5}$ Hz in NGC5408 X–1 and M82 X–1. In NGC1313 X–1 they detected a “0 to –2" break, however the best-fit high-frequency slope has a large uncertainty ($-2.35\pm 1$). The possibility of a –1 slope cannot be excluded, as it is just $1.35\sigma$ away from the best fit value (note also that “0 to –2" PSD slope breaks are unusual in GBHs).

On the other hand, the same authors found that the PSD of HoIX X–1, NGC1313 X–2, and NGC 55 ULX were best-fitted by a simple power-law model. The $-2$ PSD slope in NGC 55 ULX is not consistent either with the [*case A*]{} or [*case B*]{} scenario (see also Section \[sec:revis\]). The best-fit slope for NGC1313 X–2 is also steep ($\sim -2$), but it is based on just one point [see e.g. the top left panel in Fig. 1 of @Heil09], while the best-fit slope of HoIX X–1 is flat, close to $\sim -0.5$. This may be indicative of a $\nu_{\rm br,2}$ break just below the lowest frequency of $10^{-4}$ Hz that @Heil09 considered. We therefore believe that the results of @Heil09 do not disagree with the [*case B*]{} PSD shape we outlined in the previous section.

Constrains on the BH mass and accretion rate of ULXs
----------------------------------------------------

If indeed most of the ULXs in the sample operate like AGN, and their PSDs are consistent with the [*case B*]{} scenario outlined in Section 4.5, then they [*must*]{} host a black hole with a mass of $\rm{M_{BH}\sim 2500-3\times 10^4}$ M$\rm{_{\odot}}$, which accretes at $\sim 1-80$% of the Eddington limit. Smaller BH masses with a higher accretion rate, or higher BH masses with a smaller accretion rate cannot be consistent with most of the ULX data shown in Fig. \[fig:ulxagn\]. To illustrate this point, we notice the solid line for 10$^3$M$_{\odot}$ in the bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:ulxagn\], which indicates the expected $[\sigma^2_{\rm rms}, {\rm log(L_{2-10 keV}})]$ relationship in the [*case B*]{} model for objects with M$_{\rm BH}=10^3$ M$\rm{_{\odot}}$ and $\rm{0.03<\dot{m}_{\rm Edd}<0.3}$. Clearly, this line is not consistent with the ULX data. An increase of $k_{bol}$ by a factor of $\sim 10$ would be required to shift this line along the x-axis by the same factor, and hence to be roughly consistent with the ULX data. This difference in $k_{bol}$ would imply a significant difference between the ULX and AGN spectral energy distributions. Thus, if indeed most of the ULXs in our sample host a BH mass significantly smaller than $\rm{(1-10)\times 10^{3}}$ M$\rm{_{\odot}}$, then they are not exactly [*like*]{} AGN.

@Wu08 also addressed the questions “do ULXs operate like-AGN?", and, “if yes, what should their BH mass be"? They studied the relationship between $\Gamma$ and X-ray luminosity in seven ULXs (four of them included in our sample). They found that it is similar to what is observed in GBHs and AGN, and that the ULX central BH mass should be $\rm{\sim10^{4}}$ M$\rm{_{\odot}}$, in agreement with our results. @Strohmayer09 showed that the pattern of spectral and temporal correlations in NGC5408 X–1 is analogous to that seen in GBHs, and argued that the BH mass range for this system is from $\rm{(2-9)\times 10^3}$ M$\rm{_{\odot}}$. The position of the NGC5408 X–1 data in Fig. \[fig:sigmalum\] is consistent with an object with a BH mass of $\sim 6\times 10^3$ M$_{\odot}$ which accretes at $\sim$ 4% of the Eddington limit, in agreement with the BH mass range of @Strohmayer09. As for the M82 X–1 data in the same figure, they suggested a BH mass of $1.8\times 10^4$ M$_{\odot}$ in the system. This is 2–3 times larger than the most likely BH mass range of “one to a few thousand solar masses" for this source, as estimated by @Kaaret09. This is not a significant discrepancy, because we would need many observations to estimate the [*average*]{} variability amplitude and X–ray luminosity of the source to compare it with the models, and therefore predict accurately the BH mass and accretion rate for an individual object.

Do all ULXs in our sample operate in the “same" way?
----------------------------------------------------

Obviously, NGC55 ULX does not operate in the same way as the other objects in the sample. Its large variability amplitude can be explained neither with the [*case A*]{} nor the [*case B*]{} possibilities. This is not surprising, given the “dipping" episodes that have been observed in its light curve, and not in other ULXs (or AGN). Due to the presence of these “dips", the source light curves have a large variability amplitude for its luminosity.

@Heil09 noticed that the strength of the intrinsic variability in ULXs like NGC4559 X–1, NGC5204 X–1, and HoII X–1 is substantially lower than the observed variability amplitude seen in other sources. These objects are also included in our sample, but we found that their excess variance (i.e. their X–ray variability amplitude) is consistent with that observed in the other ULXs. It could be due to the technical difficulty of the estimation of the PSD fit for faint sources like ULXs. On the other hand, we found that $\rm{\sigma^{2}_{NXS}}$ is not constrained in two other ULXs, namely NGC4945 X–2 and NGC2403 X–1. Given the large error on the $\rm{\sigma^{2}_{NXS}}$ measurement for these two objects, it is not clear whether their intrinsic variability amplitude is indeed “significantly smaller" than the amplitude of the other sources. In any case though, if the BH mass and accretion rate of the objects in the sample are in the range of $\rm{(2.5-30)\times 10^3}$ M$\rm{_{\odot}}$ and $\rm{\sim 1-80}$%, respectively, we do expect their [*intrinsic*]{} excess variance to differ by a factor of $\rm{\sim 100}$ (see Fig. \[fig:sigmalum2\]). In other words, significant differences among the variability amplitude of ULXs do not necessarily imply that there exist fundamental differences in their emission mechanism; they could be due to differences in their BH mass and/or accretion rate.

The “variability–luminosity" anti-correlation in ULXs
-----------------------------------------------------

We found evidence for an anti-correlation between the variability amplitude and the X–ray luminosity of the ULXs we studied. We estimated the significance of this correlation at the 2.5$\sigma$ level. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that a “variability – luminosity" anti-correlation has been detected in ULXs. A similar anti-correlation was also pointed out by @Heil09 (see right panel in their Fig. 4). They parametrised the variability amplitude by means of the power-spectrum amplitude at a given frequency, which is significantly more difficult to measure than the excess variance. As a result, they could measure only upper limits on the variability amplitude of many sources. Consequently, when excluding the NGC55 ULX data and the points with upper limits, the significance of the “variability–luminosity" anti-correlation was substantially decreased.

The similarity between the slope of the “variability–luminosity" relationship for AGN and ULXs argues in favour of the reliability of this anti-correlation in ULXs. However, the [*amplitude*]{} of these two relationships is significantly different. Under the [*case B*]{} scenario we have discussed above, this anti-correlation could be explained if the high luminosity objects in the sample have larger BH masses and higher accretion rate. In this case they should also have smaller variability amplitudes, as observed.

However, there are reasons why the correlation shown in Fig. \[fig:sigmalum\] may be misleading. Firstly, the luminosity of the sources in the sample covers a rather limited range of values between $\rm{(2.5-30)\times10^{39}erg~s^{-1}}$. In this case, even a small error in the luminosity estimation (due to an inaccurate distance and/or flux measurement for example) may shift the position of data points in this plot, and hence affect our results. We performed a numerical experiment to investigate this effect. We used the present $(\rm{\sigma^{2}_{NXS}}-{\rm L_{2-10 keV}})$ data set (excluding NGC55 ULX) to create 100 new sets. In each run, we randomly decreased and/or increased the luminosity of all points by a factor of 2. We then fitted the new data set (in the log-log space) using ASURV (to take into account the upper limits on the data points with negative excess variance measurements, exactly as we did with the real data points) and recorded the best-fit slope value. In all cases, the best-ft slope was different from zero at the (2.2-2.5)$\sigma$ level. The results from this experiment indicate that, most probably, “luminosity-induced" uncertainties cannot seriously affect the observed anti-correlation.

However, the most “serious" reason against the reliability of this anti-correlation is the small size of our sample. A larger number of ULXs would be necessary to confirm it. Furthermore, a conclusive test of the “variability-amplitude" anti-correlation in ULXs will be possible when future observations of ULXs will allow us to determine their [*average*]{} excess variance and [*average*]{} X–ray luminosity, and examine if they are anti-correlated or not. If this correlation is confirmed it would indicate that ULXs show a fundamental physical link between BH mass (i.e. luminosity) and accretion rate. If this correlation is not confirmed, then what we observe in this work can only be a coincidence due to incompleteness of the sample.

Conclusions
===========

The main result of this work is that the variability amplitude of ULXs is significantly smaller than the amplitude predicted by a simple extrapolation to low luminosities of the well established “variability–amplitude" relationship for the nearby bright AGN. This discrepancy can be consistent with the hypothesis that most ULXs operate like AGN, but only if: (i) They host an IMBH of $\rm{\sim
(2.5-30)\times 10^3}$ M$_{\odot}$, (ii) their accretion rate is $1-80$% of the Eddington limit, and (iii) their PSDs have the band-limited noise shape shown by GBHs in their “low-hard" and “very-high" state.

We have also found evidence for an anti-correlation between the normalised excess variance and the luminosity for ULXs. The slope is consistent with that found in AGN but with an offset in luminosity of around four orders of magnitudes. A larger sample of ULXs, and the determination of their average X–ray luminosity and variability amplitude, is necessary in order to confirm its significance.

We thank the referee for helpful comments and suggestions. We acknowledge support by the EU FP7-REGPOT 206469 and ToK 39965 grants. This work is based on observations with *XMM-Newton*, an ESA science mission with instruments and contributions directly funded by ESA Member States and the USA (NASA).

Axelsson, M., Borgonovo, L., & Larsson, S. 2006, , 452, 975 Barth, A. J., Ho, L. C., Rutledge, R. E., & Sargent, W. L. W. 2004, , 607, 90 Barnard, R. 2010, , 231 Begelman, M. C. 2002, , 568, L97 Bian, W., & Zhao, Y. 2003, , 591, 733 Casella, P., Ponti, G., Patruno, A., Belloni, T., Miniutti, G., & Zampieri, L. 2008, , 387, 1707 Colbert, E. J. M., & Mushotzky, R. F. 1999, , 519, 89 Dewangan, G. C., Mathur, S., Griffiths, R. E., & Rao, A. R. 2008, , 689, 762 Dewangan, G. C., Titarchuk, L., & Griffiths, R. E. 2006, , 637, L21 Dickey, J. M., & Lockman, F. J. 1990, , 28, 215 Feng, H., & Kaaret, P. 2007, , 668, 941 Gladstone, J. C., Roberts, T. P., & Done, C. 2009, , 397, 1836 Heil, L. M., Vaughan, S., & Roberts, T. P. 2009, , 397, 1061 Isobe, T., Feigelson, E. D., Akritas, M. G., & Babu, G. J. 1990, , 364, 104 Isobe, T., Feigelson, E. D., & Nelson, P. I. 1986, , 306, 490 Kaaret, P., Prestwich, A. H., Zezas, A., Murray, S. S., Kim, D.-W., Kilgard, R. E., Schlegel, E. M., & Ward, M. J. 2001, , 321, L29 Kaaret, P., Feng, H., & Gorski, M. 2009, ApJ, 692, 653 King, A. R., Davies, M. B., Ward, M. J., Fabbiano, G., & Elvis, M. 2001, , 552, L109 Klein-Wolt, M., & van der Klis, M. 2008, , 675, 1407 K[ö]{}rding, E. G., Migliari, S., Fender, R., Belloni, T., Knigge, C., & McHardy, I. 2007, , 380, 301 Leighly, K. M. 1999, , 125, 317 Lu, Y., & Yu, Q. 2001, , 561, 660 Lusso, E., et al. 2009, arXiv:0912.4166 Markowitz, A., et al. 2003, , 593, 96 Martocchia, A., Matt, G., Belloni, T., Feroci, M., Karas, V., & Ponti, G. 2006, , 448, 677 Matsumoto, H., Tsuru, T. G., Koyama, K., Awaki, H., Canizares, C. R., Kawai, N., Matsushita, S., & Kawabe, R. 2001, , 547, L25 M$\rm{^c}$Hardy, I. M., Ar[é]{}valo, P., Uttley, P., Papadakis, I. E., Summons, D. P., Brinkmann, W., & Page, M. J. 2007, , 382, 985 M$\rm{^c}$Hardy, I. M., Koerding, E., Knigge, C., Uttley, P., & Fender, R. P. 2006, , 444, 730 M$\rm{^c}$Hardy, I. M., Papadakis, I. E., Uttley, P., Page, M. J., & Mason, K. O. 2004, , 348, 783 Miller, J. M., Fabian, A. C., & Miller, M. C. 2004, , 614, L117 Miniutti, G., Ponti, G., Greene, J. E., Ho, L. C., Fabian, A. C., & Iwasawa, K. 2009, , 394, 443 Nandra, K., George, I. M., Mushotzky, R. F., Turner, T. J., & Yaqoob, T. 1997, , 476, 70 O’Neill, P. M., Nandra, K., Papadakis, I. E., & Turner, T. J. 2005, , 358, 1405 Papadakis, I. E. 2004, , 348, 207 Papadakis, I. E., Brinkmann, W., Negoro, H., & Gliozzi, M. 2002, , 382, L1 Pottschmidt, K., et al. 2003, , 407, 1039 Roberts, T. P. 2007, , 311, 203 Shaposhnikov, N., & Titarchuk, L. 2009, , 699, 453 Shaposhnikov, N., & Titarchuk, L. 2007, , 663, 445 Stobbart, A.-M., Roberts, T. P., & Wilms, J. 2006, , 368, 397 Stobbart, A.-M., Roberts, T. P., & Warwick, R. S. 2004, , 351, 1063 Strohmayer, T. E., & Mushotzky, R. F. 2009, , 703, 1386 Turner, T. J., George, I. M., Nandra, K., & Turcan, D. 1999, , 524, 667 Vaughan, S., Edelson, R., Warwick, R. S., & Uttley, P. 2003, , 345, 1271 Wu, Q., & Gu, M. 2008, , 682, 212 Zezas, A., Fabbiano, G., Baldi, A., Schweizer, F., King, A. R., Rots, A. H., & Ponman, T. J. 2007, , 661, 135 Zhou, X.-L., Zhang, S.-N., Wang, D.-X., & Zhu, L. 2010, , 710, 16

[^1]: 

[^2]: http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu

[^3]: http://xmm.esac.esa.int/xsa/index.shtml

[^4]: http://xmm.esac.esa.int/sas/

[^5]: The error accounts only for the uncertainty due to the Poisson noise and not due to the stochastic character of the intrinsic variability process.

[^6]: Note that we considered a single spectrum for each observation (i.e. we accumulated all the data for the whole “background-quiet" period of each observation), irrespective of the number of segments that we used for the estimation of the normalised excess variance.

[^7]: Strictly speaking, equation (9) is valid for Cyg X–1 in its “low/hard" state. We verified that our results do not depend strongly on the adopted relationship between $\nu_{\rm br,2}$ and $\nu_{\rm
    br}$, as long as $\nu_{\rm br,2}\sim 0.2-0.05\nu_{\rm br}$.
