1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass{emulateapj}
3: \def\gtsim {\lower .1ex\hbox{\rlap{\raise .6ex\hbox{\hskip .3ex
4: {\ifmmode{\scriptscriptstyle >}\else
5: {$\scriptscriptstyle >$}\fi}}}
6: \kern -.4ex{\ifmmode{\scriptscriptstyle \sim}\else
7: {$\scriptscriptstyle\sim$}\fi}}}
8:
9: \shorttitle{Redefining the Missing Satellites Problem}
10: \shortauthors{Strigari et~al.}
11:
12: \bibliographystyle{apj}
13:
14: \begin{document}
15:
16: \title{Redefining the Missing Satellites Problem}
17:
18: \author{Louis E. Strigari\altaffilmark{1},
19: James S. Bullock\altaffilmark{1},
20: Manoj Kaplinghat\altaffilmark{1},
21: Juerg Diemand \altaffilmark{2,5},
22: Michael Kuhlen\altaffilmark{3},
23: Piero Madau\altaffilmark{2,4}
24: }
25: \altaffiltext{1}{Center for Cosmology,
26: Department of Physics \& Astronomy, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697}
27: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy \& Astrophysics, University of
28: California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064}
29: \altaffiltext{3}{School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study,
30: Einstein Drive, Princeton, NJ 08540}
31: \altaffiltext{4}{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str.
32: 1, 85740 Garching, Germany.}
33: \altaffiltext{5}{Hubble Fellow}
34: %\date{\today}
35:
36: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% abstract %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
37:
38: \begin{abstract}
39:
40: Numerical simulations of Milky-Way size Cold Dark Matter (CDM) halos
41: predict a steeply rising mass function of {\em small} dark matter
42: subhalos and a substructure count that greatly outnumbers the observed
43: satellites of the Milky Way. Several proposed explanations exist, but
44: detailed comparison between theory and observation in terms of the
45: maximum circular velocity ($V_{\rm max}$) of the subhalos is hampered
46: by the fact that $V_{\rm max}$ for satellite halos is poorly
47: constrained. We present comprehensive mass models for the well-known
48: Milky Way dwarf satellites, and derive likelihood functions to show
49: that their masses within $0.6$ kpc ($M_{0.6}$) are strongly
50: constrained by the present data. We show that the $M_{0.6}$ mass
51: function of luminous satellite halos is flat between $\sim 10^7$ and
52: $10^{8} M_{\odot}$. We use the ``Via Lactea'' N-body simulation to show
53: that the $M_{0.6}$ mass function of CDM subhalos is steeply rising
54: over this range. We rule out the hypothesis that the 11 well-known satellites
55: of the Milky Way are hosted by the 11 most massive subhalos. We show that
56: models where the brightest satellites correspond to the earliest forming subhalos
57: or the most massive accreted objects both reproduce the observed mass function.
58: A similar analysis with the newly-discovered dwarf satellites will further test
59: these scenarios and provide powerful constraints on the CDM
60: small-scale power spectrum and warm dark matter models.
61:
62: \end{abstract}
63:
64: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% end abstract %%%%%%%%%%%
65:
66: \keywords{Cosmology: dark matter, theory--galaxies}
67:
68: %\maketitle
69:
70: \section{Introduction}
71:
72: It is now well-established that numerical simulations of Cold Dark
73: Matter (CDM) halos predict many orders of magnitude more dark matter
74: subhalos around Milky Way-sized galaxies than observed dwarf satellite
75: galaxies \citep{klypin99,moore99,Diemand:2006ik}. Within the context
76: of the CDM paradigm, there are well-motivated astrophysical solutions
77: to this `Missing Satellites Problem' (MSP) that rely on the idea that
78: galaxy formation is inefficient in the smallest dark matter halos
79: \citep{Bullock:2000wn,Benson:2001au,Somerville:2002,Stoehr:2002ht,Kravtsov:2004cm,Moore:2005jj,Gnedin:2006rt}.
80: However, from an observational perspective, it has not been possible to
81: distinguish between these solutions.
82:
83: A detailed understanding of the MSP is limited by our lack of a precise
84: ability to characterize the dark matter halos of satellite galaxies.
85: From an observational perspective, the primary constraints come from
86: the velocity dispersion of $\sim 200$ stars in the population of dark
87: matter dominated dwarf spheroidal galaxies (dSphs)
88: \citep{Wilkinson:2004fz,Lokas:2004sw,Munoz:2005be,Munoz:2006hx,Westfalletal05,Walker:2005nt,Walker:2006qr,Sohn:2006et,Gilmore:2007fy}.
89: However, the observed extent of the stellar populations in dSphs are
90: $\sim$ kpc, so these velocity dispersion measurements are only able to
91: probe properties of the halos in this limited radial regime.
92:
93: From the theoretical perspective, dissipationless numerical
94: simulations typically characterize subhalo counts as a function of the
95: total bound mass or maximum circular velocity, $V_{\rm max}$. While
96: robustly determined in simulations, global quantities like $V_{\rm
97: max}$ are difficult to constrain observationally because dark halos
98: can extend well beyond the stellar radius of a satellite. Indeed
99: stellar kinematics alone provide only a {\em lower limit} on the halo
100: $V_{\rm max}$ value (see below). This is a fundamental limitation of
101: stellar kinematics that cannot be remedied by increasing the number of
102: stars used in the velocity dispersion analysis
103: \citep{Strigari:2007vn}. Thus determining $V_{\rm max}$ values for
104: satellite halos requires a theoretical extrapolation. Any
105: extrapolation of this kind is sensitive to the {\em predicted} density
106: structure of subhalos, which depends on cosmology, power-spectrum
107: normalization, and the nature of dark matter \citep{Zentner:2003yd}.
108:
109: Our inability to determinate $V_{\rm max}$ is the primary limitation
110: to test solutions to the MSP. One particular solution states that the
111: masses of the dSphs have been systematically underestimated, so that
112: the $\sim 10$ brightest satellites reside systematically in the $\sim
113: 10$ most massive subhalos \citep{Stoehr:2002ht,Hayashi:2002qv}. A
114: byproduct of this solution is that there must be a sharp mass cutoff
115: at some {\em current} subhalo mass, below which galaxy formation is
116: suppressed. Other solutions, based on reionization suppression, or a
117: characteristic halo mass scale {\em prior to subhalo accretion}
118: predict that the suppression comes in gradually with current subhalo
119: mass \citep{Bullock:2000wn,Kravtsov:2004cm,Moore:2005jj}.
120:
121: In this paper, we provide a systematic investigation of the masses of the
122: Milky Way satellites. We highlight that in all cases the {\em total}
123: halo masses and maximum circular velocities are not well-determined by the
124: data. We instead use the fact that the total cumulative mass within a characteristic
125: radius $\sim 0.6$ kpc is much better determined by the present data
126: \citep{Strigari:2007vn}. We propose using this mass, which we define
127: as $M_{0.6}$, as the favored means to compare to the dark halo
128: population in numerical simulations. Unlike $V_{\rm max}$,
129: $M_{0.6}$ is measured directly and requires no cosmology-dependent or
130: dark-matter-model-dependent theoretical prior.
131:
132: In the following sections, we determine the $M_{0.6}$ mass
133: function for the Milky Way satellites, and compare it to the
134: corresponding mass function measured directly in the high-resolution
135: ``Via Lactea'' substructure simulation of \cite{Diemand:2006ik}.
136: We rule out the possibility that there is a one-to- one correspondence
137: between the 11 most luminous satellites and the most massive subhalos in
138: Via Lactea. We find that MSP solutions based on reionization and/or
139: characteristic halo mass scales prior to accretion are still viable.
140:
141: \section{Milky Way Satellites}
142: \label{sec:mwsatellites}
143: Approximately 20 satellite galaxies can be classified as residing in
144: MW subhalos. Of these, $\sim 9$ were discovered within the
145: last two years and have very low luminosities and surface brightnesses
146: \citep{Willman:2004kk,Willman:2005cd,Belokurov:2006hf,Belokurov:2006ph,
147: Zucker:2006bf,Zucker:2006he}. The lack of precision in these numbers
148: reflects the ambiguity in the classification of the newly-discovered
149: objects. The nine `older' galaxies classified as dSphs are supported
150: by their velocity dispersion, and exhibit no rotational motion
151: \citep{Mateo:1998wg}. Two satellite galaxies, the Small Megallanic
152: Cloud (SMC) and Large Megallanic Cloud (LMC), are most likely
153: supported by some combination of rotation and dispersion.
154: Stellar kinematics suggest that
155: the LMC and SMC are likely the most massive satellite systems of the
156: Milky Way.
157:
158: We focus on determining the masses of the nine most well-studied
159: dSphs. The dark matter masses of the dSphs are determined from
160: the line-of-sight velocities of the stars, which trace the total
161: gravitational potential. We assume a negligible contribution of the
162: stars to the gravitational potential, which we find to be an excellent
163: approximation. The dSph with the smallest mass-to-light ratio is
164: Fornax, though even for this case we find that the stars generally do
165: not affect the dynamics of the system \citep[see][and
166: below]{Lokas:2001mf,Wu:2007gt}.
167:
168: Under the assumptions of equilibrium and spherical symmetry, the radial component of the stellar velocity dispersion, $\sigma_r$, is linked
169: to the total gravitational potential of the system via the Jeans equation,
170: \begin{equation}
171: \label{eq:jeans}
172: r \frac{d(\nu_{\star} \sigma_r^2)}{dr} = - \nu_{\star} V_c^2
173: - 2 \beta \nu_{\star} \sigma_r^2.
174: \end{equation}
175: Here, $\nu_\star$ is the stellar density profile, $V_c^2 = GM(r)/r$
176: includes the total gravitating mass of the system,
177: and the parameter $\beta (r) = 1 - \sigma_\theta^2/\sigma_r^2$
178: characterizes the difference between the radial ($\sigma_r$) and tangential
179: ($\sigma_\theta$) velocity dispersions.
180: The observable velocity dispersion is constructed by integrating the
181: three- dimensional stellar radial velocity dispersion profile along the
182: line-of-sight,
183: \begin{equation}
184: \sigma_{los}^2(R) = \frac{2}{I_\star(R)} \int_{R}^{\infty} \left ( 1 - \beta \frac{R^{2}}{r^2} \right )
185: \frac{\nu_{\star} \sigma_{r}^{2} r dr}{\sqrt{r^2-R^2}} \, , \label{eq:LOSdispersion}
186: \label{eq:sigmaLOS}
187: \end{equation}
188: where $R$ is the projected radius on the sky.
189: The surface density of stars in all dSphs are reasonably well-fit by a
190: spherically-symmetric King profile \citep{King:1962wi},
191: \begin{equation}
192: I_\star(R) \propto \left [ \left ( 1 + \frac{R^2}{r_{king}^2} \right )^{-1/2} -
193: \left ( 1 + \frac{r_t^2}{r_{king}^2} \right )^{-1/2} \right ]^2,
194: \label{eq:king}
195: \end{equation}
196: where $r_t$ and $r_{king}$ are fitting parameters denoted as the tidal
197: and core radii.~\footnote{Our results are insensitive to this particular
198: parameterization of the light profile.}
199: The spherically symmetric stellar density can be obtained with an integral transformation
200: of the surface density. From the form of Eq.~(\ref{eq:sigmaLOS}), the normalization in
201: Eq.~(\ref{eq:king}) is irrelevant.
202:
203: Some dSphs show evidence for multiple, dynamically distinct stellar populations, with each population described by its own surface
204: density and velocity dispersion
205: \citep{Harbeck:2001bu,Tolstoy:2004vu,Westfalletal05,McConnachie:2006nb,Ibata:2006xr}.
206: In a dSph with $i = 1 ... N_p$ populations of stars, standard observational
207: methods will sample a density-weighted average of the populations:
208: \begin{eqnarray}
209: \nu_\star & = & \sum_{i} \nu_i \, \\
210: \sigma_r^2 & = & \frac{1}{\nu_\star}\sum_{i} \nu_i \sigma_{r,\imath}^2 \, ,
211: \end{eqnarray}
212: where $\nu_i$ and $\sigma_i$ are the density profile and radial stellar velocity dispersion of stellar component $i$.
213: In principle, each component has its own stellar velocity anisotropy profile,
214: $\beta_i(r)$. In this case, Equation~(\ref{eq:jeans}) is valid for $\nu_\star$ and $\sigma_r$ as long as an effective
215: velocity anisotropy is defined as
216: \begin{eqnarray}
217: \beta(r) & = & \frac{1}{\nu_\star \sigma_r^2} \sum_{i} \beta_i \nu_i \sigma_i^2.
218: \end{eqnarray}
219: From these definitions, we also have $\sum_\imath I_{\star,\imath} \sigma_{los,\imath}^2 = I_\star \sigma_{los}^2$.
220:
221: The conclusion we draw from this argument is that the presence of
222: multiple populations will not affect the inferred mass
223: structure of the system,
224: provided that the velocity anisotropy is modeled as a free
225: function of radius. Since the functional form of the stellar velocity
226: anisotropy is unknown, we allow for a general, three parameter model
227: of the velocity anisotropy profile,
228: \begin{equation}
229: \beta (r) = \beta_\infty \frac{r^2}{r_\beta^2 + r^2} + \beta_0.
230: \label{eq:betaprofile}
231: \end{equation}
232: A profile of this form
233: allows for the possibility for $\beta(r)$ to change from radial to tangential orbits
234: within the halo,
235: and a constant velocity anisotropy is recovered in the limit
236: $\beta_\infty \rightarrow 0$, and $\beta_0 \rightarrow$ const.
237:
238: In Equations~(\ref{eq:jeans}) and (\ref{eq:sigmaLOS}), the radial stellar velocity dispersion, $\sigma_r$,
239: depends on the total mass distribution, and thus the parameters
240: describing the dark matter density profile.
241: Dissipation-less N-body simulations show that the density profiles of CDM halos
242: can be characterized as
243: \begin{equation}
244: \rho (\tilde{r}) = \frac{\rho_s}{\tilde{r}^{\gamma} (1+\tilde{r})^{\delta}}; \hspace{0.6cm}
245: \tilde{r} = r / r_s,
246: \label{eq:nfw}
247: \end{equation}
248: where $r_s$ and $\rho_s$ set a radial scale and density normalization
249: and $\gamma$ and $\delta$ parameterize the inner and
250: outer slopes of the distribution. For dark matter halos unaffected by tidal interactions,
251: the most recent high-resolution simulations find $\delta + \gamma \approx 3$ works well for the
252: outer slope, while $0.7 \lesssim \gamma \lesssim 1.2$ works well down to
253: $\sim 0.1 \%$ of halo virial radii \citep{Navarro:2003ew,Diemand:2005wv}.
254: This interior slope is not altered as a subhalo loses mass from tidal
255: interactions with the MW potential \citep{Kazantzidis:2005su}. The outer slope, $\delta$,
256: depends more sensitively on the tidal interactions in the halo. The majority of the
257: stripped material will be from the outer parts of halos, and thus
258: $\delta$ of subhalo density profiles will become steeper than those of field
259: halos. Subhalos are characterized by outer slopes in the range
260: $2 \lesssim \delta \lesssim 3$.
261:
262: Given the uncertainty in the $\beta(r)$ and $\rho(r)$ profiles, we are
263: left with nine shape parameters that must be constrained via
264: line-of-sight velocity dispersion measurements: $\rho_s$, $r_s$,
265: $\beta_0$, $\beta_\infty$, $r_\beta$, $\gamma$, $\delta$, $r_{king}$,
266: and $r_t$. While the problem as posed may seem impossible, there are
267: a number of physical parameters, which are degenerate between
268: different profile shapes, that are well constrained. Specifically,
269: the stellar populations constrain $V_c(r)$ within a radius comparable
270: to the stellar radius $r_t \sim$ kpc. As a result, quantities like
271: the local density and integrated mass within the stellar radius are
272: determined with high precision \citep{Strigari:2006rd}, while
273: quantities that depend on the mass distribution at larger radii are
274: virtually unconstrained by the data.
275:
276: It is useful to determine the value of the radius where the
277: constraints are maximized.
278: The location of this characteristic
279: radius is determined by the form of the
280: integral in Eq.~(\ref{eq:sigmaLOS}). We can gain some insight
281: using the example of a power-law stellar distribution $\nu_\star(r)$,
282: power-law dark matter density profile $\rho \propto r^{-\gamma_\star}$,
283: and constant velocity anisotropy. The line-of-sight velocity dispersion depends on the
284: three-dimensional stellar velocity dispersion, which can be written as
285: \begin{equation}
286: \sigma_r^2(r) = \nu_\star^{-1} r^{-2 \beta} \int_r^{r_t} G
287: \nu_\star(r) M(r) r^{2 \beta - 2} {\rm d}r \propto r^{2 -
288: \gamma_\star}
289: \label{eq:3Ddispersion}
290: \end{equation}
291: From the shape of the King profile, the majority of stars reside at projected radii
292: $r_{\rm king} \lesssim R \lesssim r_{\rm t}$,
293: where the stellar distribution is falling rapidly $\nu_\star \sim r^{-3.5}$. In this
294: case, for $\beta = 0$, the LOS component scales as $\sigma_{los}^2(R)
295: \propto \int_R^{r_t} r^{-0.5 - \gamma_\star} (r^2 - R^2)^{-1/2} {\rm
296: d}r$ and is dominated by the mass and density profile at the
297: smallest relevant radii, $r \sim r_{\rm king}$. For $R \lesssim r_{\rm
298: king}$, $\nu_\star \propto r^{-1}$ and $\sigma_{los}^2$ is similarly
299: dominated by $r \sim r_{\rm king}$ contributions.
300: We note that although the scaling arguments above
301: hold for constant velocity anisotropies, they can be extended by
302: considering anisotropies that vary significantly in radius. They are
303: also independent of the precise form of $I_\star$, provided there is a
304: scale similar to $r_{king}$.
305:
306: In \cite{Strigari:2007vn}, it was shown that
307: typical velocity dispersion profiles best constrain the mass (and density)
308: within a characteristic radius $\simeq 2 \, r_{king}$.
309: For example, the total mass within $2
310: r_{king}$ is constrained to within $\sim 20\%$ for dSphs with $\sim
311: 200$ line-of-sight velocities. Note that when deriving constraints
312: using only the innermost stellar velocity dispersion and fixing the
313: anisotropy to $\beta = 0$, the characteristic radius for best
314: constraints decreases to $\sim 0.5 r_{king}$ \citep[e.g.][]{Penarrubia:2007zz}.
315:
316: As listed in Table~\ref{tab:parameterstable}, the
317: Milky Way dSphs are observed to have variety of $r_{king}$ values,
318: but $r_{king} \sim 0.3$ kpc is typical. The values of $r_{king}$ and $r_t$
319: are taken from \cite{Mateo:1998wg}.
320: In order to facilitate comparison with simulated subhalos, we chose
321: a single characteristic radius of 0.6 kpc for all the dwarfs,
322: and we represent the mass within this
323: radius as $M_{0.6} = M(< 0.6 \, {\rm kpc})$. The relative
324: errors on the derived masses are unaffected for small variations in the
325: characteristic radius in the range $\sim 1.5-2.5 \, r_{king}$.
326: Deviations from a true King
327: profile at large radius (near $r_t$) do not affect these arguments, as long as there is
328: a characteristic scale similar to $r_{king}$ in the surface
329: density. The only dSph significantly affected by the choice of 0.6 kpc
330: as the characteristic radius is Leo II, which has $r_t = 0.5$
331: kpc. Since the characteristic radius is greater than twice $r_{king}$, the
332: constraints on its mass will be weakest of all galaxies (with the exception of
333: Sagittarius, as discussed below).
334:
335: \section{Dark Matter Halo Masses at the Characteristic Radius}
336: \label{sec:constraints}
337:
338: We use the following data sets:
339: \cite{Wilkinson:2004fz,Munoz:2005be,Munoz:2006hx,Westfalletal05,Walker:2005nt,Walker:2006qr,Sohn:2006et};
340: Siegal et al. in preparation.
341: These velocity dispersions are determined from the line-of-sight velocities of $\sim 200$ stars
342: in each galaxy, although observations in the
343: coming years will likely increase this number by a factor $\sim 5-10$.
344: From the data, we calculate the $\chi^2$, defined in our case as
345: \begin{equation}
346: \chi^2 = \sum_{\imath=1}^n \frac{(\sigma_{obs,\imath} - \sigma_{th,\imath})^2}{\epsilon_\imath^2}.
347: \label{eq:chisquared}
348: \end{equation}
349: Here $\sigma_{obs}^2$ is the observed velocity dispersion in each bin, $ \sigma_{th}^2$
350: is the theoretical value, obtained from Eq.~(\ref{eq:LOSdispersion}), and $\epsilon_\imath^2$
351: are errors as determined from the observations.
352:
353: It is easy to see that, when fitting to a single data set of $\sim 200$ stars, parameter
354: degeneracies will be significant. However, from the discussion in
355: section~\ref{sec:mwsatellites}, $M_{0.6}$ is well-determined by the LOS data.
356: To determine how well $M_{0.6}$ is constrained, we construct likelihood functions for each galaxy.
357: When thought of as a function of the theoretical parameters, the likelihood
358: function, ${\cal L}$, is defined as the probability that a data set is acquired given a
359: set of theoretical parameters.
360: In our case ${\cal L}$ is a function of the parameters $\gamma$, $\delta$, $r_s$,
361: $\rho_s$, and $\beta_0$, $\beta_\infty$, $r_\beta$, and is defined as
362: ${\cal L} = e^{-\chi^2/2}$.
363: In writing this likelihood function, we assume that the errors on the measured
364: velocity dispersions are Gaussian, which we find to be an excellent approximation to the
365: errors for a dSph system \citep{Strigari:2007vn}. We marginalize over the parameters
366: $\gamma$, $\delta$, $r_s$, $\rho_s$, and $\beta_0$, $\beta_\infty$, $r_\beta$ at fixed
367: $M_{0.6}$, and the optimal values for $M_{0.6}$ are determined by the maximum of ${\cal L}$ .
368:
369: We determine ${\cal L}$ for all nine dSphs with velocity dispersion
370: measurements. For all galaxies we use the full published velocity
371: dispersion profiles.
372: The only galaxy that does not have a published velocity dispersion profile
373: is Sagittarius, and for this galaxy we use the central velocity dispersion
374: from \citet{Mateo:1998wg}.
375: The mass modeling of Sagittarius is further complicated by the fact that it is
376: experiencing tidal interactions with the MW
377: \citep{Ibata:1996dv,Majewski:2003ux},
378: so a mass estimate from the Jeans equation is not necessarily
379: reliable. We caution that in this case the mass we determine is likely
380: only an approximation to the total mass of the system.
381:
382: We determine the likelihoods by marginalizing over the following ranges of
383: the velocity anisotropy, inner and outer slopes: $-10 < \beta_0 < 1$, $-10 < \beta_\infty < 1$,
384: $0.1 < r_\beta < 10$ kpc, $0.7 < \gamma < 1.2$, and $2 < \delta < 3$.
385: As discussed above, these ranges for the asymptotic inner and outer slopes are appropriate
386: because we are considering CDM halos. It is important to emphasize that
387: these ranges are theoretically motivated and that
388: observations alone do not demand such restrictive choices.
389: It is possible to fit all of the dSphs at present with
390: a constant density cores with scale-lengths $\sim 100$ pc
391: \citep{Strigari:2006ue,Gilmore:2007fy}, although the data by no
392: means demand such a situation. Though we consider inner
393: and outer slopes in the ranges quoted above,
394: our results are not strongly affected if
395: we widen these intervals.
396: For example, we find that if we allow the inner slope to vary down to
397: $\gamma = 0$, the widths of the likelihoods are only changed by
398: $\sim 10\%$. This reflects the fact that there is a negligible
399: degeneracy between $M_{0.6}$ and the inner and outer slopes.
400:
401: \begin{deluxetable*}{l|lllllllc}
402: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
403: \tablewidth{0pt}
404: \tablecaption{Parameters Describing Milky Way Satellites.
405: \label{tab:parameterstable} }
406: \tablehead{
407: \colhead{Galaxy} & \colhead{$r_{king}$} & \colhead{$r_t$} &
408: \colhead{L$_V$} & \colhead{Mass $< 0.6$ kpc}
409: & \colhead{Mass $< r_t$}
410: & \colhead{$M(<r_t)/L$} &
411: \colhead{$V_{\rm max} \, [{\rm km} \, {\rm s}^{-1}]$} &
412: \colhead{$V_{\rm max} \, [{\rm km} \, {\rm s}^{-1}]$} \\
413: &[kpc] & [kpc] & [10$^6$ L$_\odot$]& $[10^7 \, {\rm M}_\odot$]
414: & $[10^7 \, {\rm M}_\odot$]
415: & [${\rm M}_\odot/L_\odot$]& (w/o prior) & (with theory prior) } %\\
416:
417: \startdata
418: Draco & 0.18 & 0.93 & $0.26$ & $4.9^{+1.4}_{-1.3}$&$14^{+7.0}_{-4.2}$
419: &530& $> 22$ & $28_{-9}^{+21}$ \\
420: Ursa Minor & 0.30& 1.50 & $0.29$& $5.3^{+1.3}_{-1.3}$ & $23^{+16}_{-11}$
421: &790& $>21$ & $26_{-6}^{+12}$ \\
422: Leo I & 0.20 & 0.80 & 4.79 & $4.3^{+1.6}_{-1.6}$ & $8.5^{+4.5}_{-2.8}$
423: &106 & $>14$ & $19_{-5}^{+13}$ \\
424: Fornax & 0.39 & 2.70 & $15.5$ & $4.3^{+2.7}_{-1.1}$& $44^{+31}_{-29}$
425: &28 &$>20$ & $25_{-5}^{+5}$ \\
426: Leo II & 0.19 & 0.52 & 0.58 & $2.1^{+1.6}_{-1.1}$&$2.1^{+1.6}_{-1.1}$ &128&
427: $ > 17$ & $9^{+3}_{-1}$ \\
428: Carina & 0.26 & 0.85 & $0.43$ & $3.4^{+0.7}_{-1.0}$ &$6.7^{+2.3}_{-2.5}$
429: & 82& $>13$ & $15_{-3}^{+5}$ \\
430: Sculptor & 0.28& 1.63 & $2.15$& $2.7^{+0.4}_{-0.4}$& $15^{+0.7}_{-1.5}$
431: &68 & $ >20$ & $14_{-2}^{+2}$ \\
432: Sextans & 0.40 & 4.01 & $0.50$ & $0.9^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$& $13^{+11}_{-5.8}$
433: &260& $ >8$ & $9^{+1}_{-1}$ \\
434: Sagittarius & 0.3 & 4.0 &18.1 & $20^{+10}_{-20}$ & $>20$ &$>11$& $> 19$ & --- \\
435: %SMC & -- & -- &xx&xxx & xxx& $ > xxx$ & xxx \\
436: %LMC & -- & -- &xx& xxx & xxx& $ > xxx$ & xxx \\
437: \enddata
438: \tablecomments{Determination of the mass within 0.6 kpc and the maximum circular
439: velocity for the dark matter halos of the dSphs. The errors are determined as the location
440: where the likelihood function falls off by $90\%$ from its peak value. For Sagittarius, no
441: reliable estimate of $V_{\rm max}$ with the CDM prior could be determined.
442: The CDM prior is determined using the concordance cosmology with $\sigma_8 = 0.74$,
443: $n = 0.95$ (see text for details).
444: }
445: %% arxiv version%
446: \end{deluxetable*}
447: %% preprint version
448: %\end{deluxetable}
449:
450: \begin{figure}
451: \plotone{f1.eps}
452: \caption{\label{fig:m0.6kpc}
453: The likelihood functions for the mass within 0.6 kpc for the nine dSphs, normalized to unity at the peak.
454: }
455: \end{figure}
456:
457: We are left to determine the regions of $\rho_s$ and $r_s$ parameter
458: space to marginalize over. In all dSphs, there is a degeneracy in this
459: parameter space, telling us that it is not possible to derive an upper
460: limit on this pair of parameters from the data alone
461: \citep{Strigari:2006rd}. While this degeneracy is not important when
462: determining constraints on $M_{0.6}$, it is the primary obstacle in
463: determining $V_{\rm max}$. From the fits we present below, we find
464: that the lowest $r_s$ value that provides an acceptable
465: fit is $\sim 0.1$ kpc, and we use this as the lower limit in all
466: cases. In our fiducial mass models, we conservatively restrict the
467: maximum value of $r_s$ using the known distance to each dSph. In this
468: case, we use $0.1 \, {\rm kpc} < r_s < D/2$, where $D$ is the distance to the
469: dSph.
470:
471: In Figure~\ref{fig:m0.6kpc} we show the $M_{0.6}$ likelihood functions for
472: all of the dSphs.
473: As is shown, we obtain strong constraints on $M_{0.6}$
474: in all cases except Sagittarius, for which we use only a central
475: velocity dispersion. Table~\ref{tab:parameterstable} summarizes the best
476: fitting $M_{0.6}$ values for each dwarf. The quoted errors correspond to
477: the points where the likelihood falls to $10\%$ of its peak value. The upper panel
478: of Figure \ref{fig:sum} shows $M_{0.6}$ values for each dwarf as a function of
479: luminosity. In Figure~\ref{fig:sigma} we show an example of the velocity dispersion
480: data as a function of radial distance for Ursa Minor, along with the model that
481: maximizes the likelihood function. For all galaxies, we find $\chi^2$ per degree
482: of freedom values $\lesssim 1$.
483:
484: \begin{figure}
485: \plotone{f2.eps}
486: \caption{\label{fig:sigma}
487: The velocity dispersion for Ursa Minor as a function of radial distance, along with
488: the model that maximizes the likelihood function.
489: }
490: \end{figure}
491:
492: The maximum likelihood method also allows us to constrain the mass at
493: other radii spanned by the stellar distribution. The sixth column
494: of Table 1 provides the integrated mass within each dwarf's King tidal radius.
495: This radius roughly corresponds to the largest radius where a reasonable mass
496: constraint is possible. As expected, the mass within $r_t$ is not as well determined
497: as the mass within $2 \, r_{king}$. From these masses we are able to determine the
498: mass-to-light ratios within $r_t$, which we present in the seventh column of
499: Table~\ref{tab:parameterstable}. In the bottom panel of Figure~\ref{fig:sum}, we
500: show mass-to-light ratios within $r_t$ as a function of dwarf luminosity. We see
501: the standard result that the observable mass-to-light ratio increases with
502: decreasing luminosity \citep{Mateo:1998wg}. Note, however, that our results
503: are inconsistent with the idea that all of the dwarfs have the same
504: integrated mass within their stellar extent. We note that for Sagittarius,
505: we can only obtain a lower limit on the total mass-to-light ratio.
506:
507: The last two columns in Table 1 list constraints on $V_{\rm max}$ for
508: the dSphs. Column 8 shows results for an analysis with limits on
509: $r_s$ as described above. In this case, the integrated mass within the
510: stellar radius is constrained by the velocity dispersion data, but the halo
511: rotation velocity curve, $V_c(r)$, can continue to rise as $r$ increases
512: beyond the stellar radius in an unconstrained manner.
513: The result is that the velocity dispersion data alone provide only
514: a lower limit on $V_{\rm max}$.
515:
516: \begin{figure}
517: \plotone{f3.eps}
518: \caption{\label{fig:sum}
519: The mass within 0.6 kpc (upper) and the mass-to-light ratios within the King tidal radius (lower)
520: for the Milky Way dSphs as a function of dwarf luminosity.
521: The error-bars here are defined as the locations where the likelihoods fall to $40\%$ of the peak
522: values (corresponding to $\sim 1 \sigma$ errors). The lines denote, from top to bottom, constant
523: values of mass of $10^7, 10^8, 10^9 \, M_\odot$.
524: }
525: \end{figure}
526:
527: Stronger constraints on $V_{\rm max}$ can be obtained if we
528: limit the range of $r_s$ by imposing a cosmology-dependent
529: prior on the dark matter mass profile. CDM simulations
530: have shown that there is a correlation between
531: $V_{\rm max}$ and $r_{\rm max}$ for halos,
532: where $r_{\rm max}$ is the radius where the circular velocity peaks.
533: Because subhalo
534: densities will depend on the collapse time and orbital evolution of
535: each system, the precise $V_{\rm max}$-$r_{\rm max}$ relation is
536: sensitive to cosmology (e.g. $\sigma_8$) and the formation history of
537: the host halo itself
538: \citep[e.g.][]{Zentner:2003yd,Power03,Kazantzidis:2005su,BJ:05,BJ:06}.
539: When converted to the relevant halo parameters, the imposed $V_{\rm
540: max}$-$r_{\rm max}$ relation can be seen as a theoretical prior on
541: CDM halos, restricting the parameter space we need to integrate over.
542: In order to illustrate the technique, we adopt $\log_{10} ( r_{\rm max} ) =
543: 1.35(\log_{10} ( V_{\rm max}/{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1} ) -1) -0.196$ kpc with a
544: scatter of $0.2$ in $\log_{10}$, as measured from simulated subhalos within the
545: Via Lactea host halo \citep{Diemand:2007qr}. This simulation is for a LCDM
546: cosmology with $\sigma_8 = 0.74$ and $n=0.95$. The scatter in the subhalo mass
547: function increases at the very high mass end, which reflects the fact that these most
548: massive subhalos are those that are accreted most recently
549: \citep{Zentner:2003yd,vandenBosch:2004zs}. However, as we show below our results
550: are not strongly dependent on the large scatter at the high mass end.
551:
552: Column 9 in Table 1 shows the allowed subhalo
553: $V_{\rm max}$ values for the assumed prior.
554: Note that in most cases, this prior degrades the quality of the fit, and
555: the likelihood functions peak at a lower overall value.
556: The magnitude of this effect is not large except for the cases of
557: Leo II and Sagittarius. For Leo II, the peak likelihood with the
558: prior occurs at a value that is below the $10 \%$ likelihood
559: for the case without a prior on $r_s$ (i.e. the data seem to
560: prefer a puffier subhalo than would be expected in CDM).
561: For Sagittarius, we are unable to obtain a reasonable fit within a
562: subhalo that is typical of those expected. This is
563: not too surprising. Sagittarius is being tidally disrupted
564: and its dark matter halo is likely atypical.
565:
566: We emphasize that the $V_{\rm max}$ determinations
567: listed in Column 9 are driven by {\em theoretical}
568: assumptions, and can only be fairly
569: compared to predictions for
570: this specific cosmology (LCDM, $\sigma_8 = 0.74$).
571: The $M_{0.6}$ values in Column 5 are applicable
572: for any theoretical model, including non-CDM models, or CDM
573: models with any normalization or power spectrum shape.
574:
575: \section{Comparison to Numerical Simulations}
576:
577: The recently-completed Via Lactea run is the highest-resolution
578: simulation of galactic substructure to date, containing an order of
579: magnitude more particles than its predecessors \citep{Diemand:2006ik}.
580: As mentioned above, Via Lactea assumes a LCDM cosmology with
581: $\sigma_8 = 0.74$ and $n= 0.95$. For a detailed description of the
582: simulation, see \cite{Diemand:2006ik}. For our purposes, the most
583: important aspect of Via Lactea is its ability to resolve the mass of
584: subhalos on length scales of the characteristic radius 0.6 kpc. In
585: Via Lactea, the force resolution is 90 pc and the smallest
586: well-resolved length scale is 300 pc, so that the mass within 0.6 kpc
587: is well-resolved in nearly all subhalos.
588: Due to the choice of time steps we expect the simulation to underestimate local
589: densities in the densest regions (by about $10 \%$ at densities of $9 \times
590: 10^7 \, {\rm M}_\odot/{\rm kpc}^3$). There
591: is only one subhalo with a higher local density than this at 0.6 kpc.
592: For this subhalo, $\rho(r=0.6 \, {\rm kpc}) = 1.4 \times 10^8 \, {\rm
593: M}_\odot/{\rm kpc}^3$, so its local density might be underestimated by
594: up to $10\%$, and the errors in the enclosed mass might be $\sim 20\%$
595: \citep{Diemand:2005wv}. For all other subhalos the densities at 0.6
596: kpc are well below the affected densities, and the enclosed mass
597: should not be affected by more than $10\%$ by the finite numerical
598: resolution.
599:
600: We define subhalos in Via Lactea to be the self-bound halos that
601: lie within the radius ${\rm R}_{200} = 389$ kpc, where ${\rm R}_{200}$ is defined to
602: enclose an average density 200 times the mean matter density. We note that in
603: comparing to the observed MW dwarf population, we could have conservatively chosen
604: subhalos that are restricted to lie within the same radius as the most distant MW dSph
605: (250 kpc). We find that this choice has a negligible effect on our conclusions --
606: it reduces the count of small halos by $\sim 10\%$.
607:
608: In Figure~\ref{fig:m06vsvmax}, we show how
609: $M_{0.6}$ relates to the more familiar quantity
610: $V_{\rm max}$ in Via Lactea subhalos.
611: We note that the relationship between subhalo $M_{0.6}$ and $V_{\rm max}$
612: will be sensitive to the power spectrum shape and normalization,
613: as well as the nature of dark matter~\citep{Bullock:1999he,Zentner:2003yd}.
614: The relationship shown is only valid for the Via Lactea cosmology, but
615: serves as a useful reference for this comparison.
616:
617: \begin{figure}
618: \plotone{f4.eps}
619: \caption{\label{fig:m06vsvmax}
620: The mass within 0.6 kpc versus the maximum circular velocity for the mass ranges of Via
621: Lactea subhalos corresponding to the population of satellites we study.
622: }
623: \end{figure}
624:
625: Given likelihood functions for the dSph $M_{0.6}$ values,
626: we are now in position
627: to determine the $M_{0.6}$ mass function for Milky Way (MW)
628: satellites and compare this to the
629: corresponding mass function in Via Lactea.
630: For both the observations and the simulation, we count the number of systems
631: in four mass bins from $4 \times 10^6 < M_{0.6} < 4 \times 10^8 \, {\rm M}_\odot$.
632: This mass range is chosen to span the $M_{0.6}$ values allowed by
633: the likelihood functions for the MW satellites.
634: We assume that the two non-dSph satellites, the LMC and SMC, belong in the
635: highest mass bin, corresponding to
636: $M_{0.6} > 10^8 \, {\rm M}_\odot$ \citep{Harris:2006cr,vdMarel:02}.
637:
638: In Figure~\ref{fig:nm1} we show resulting mass functions for MW
639: satellites (solid) and for Via Lactea subhalos (dashed, with Poisson error-bars).
640: For the MW satellites, the
641: central values correspond to the median number of galaxies per bin,
642: which are obtained from the maximum values of the respective
643: likelihood functions. The error-bars on the satellite points
644: are set by the upper and
645: lower configurations that occur with a probability of $> 10^{-3}$
646: after drawing 1000 realizations from the respective likelihood
647: functions. As seen in Figure~\ref{fig:nm1}, the predicted dark subhalo
648: mass function rises as $\sim M_{0.6}^{-2}$ while the visible MW satellite
649: mass function is relatively flat. The lowest mass bin
650: ($M_{0.6} \sim 9 \times 10^6 M_{\odot}$)
651: always contains 1 visible galaxy (Sextans). The second-to-lowest mass bin
652: ($M_{0.6} \sim 2.5 \times 10^7 M_{\odot}$) contains between 2 and 4 satellites
653: (Carina, Sculptor, and Leo II). The fact that these two lowest bins are
654: not consistent with zero galaxies has important implications for the
655: \cite{Stoehr:2002ht} solution to the MSP: specifically, it implies that
656: the 11 well-known MW satellites do not reside in subhalos that resemble the
657: 11 most massive subhalos in Via Lactea.
658:
659: To further emphasize this point, we see from Figure~\ref{fig:nm1} that the mass of the
660: 11th most massive subhalo in Via Lactea is $4 \times 10^7 \, {\rm M}_\odot$. From
661: the likelihood functions in Figure~\ref{fig:m0.6kpc}, Sextans, Carina, Leo II, and Sculptor
662: must have values of $M_{0.6}$ less than $4 \times 10^7 \, {\rm M}_\odot$ at $99 \%$ c.l.,
663: implying a negligible probability that all of these dSphs reside in halos
664: with $M_{0.6} > 4 \times 10^7 \, {\rm M}_\odot$.
665:
666: \begin{figure}
667: \plotone{f5.eps}
668: \caption{\label{fig:nm1}
669: The $M_{0.6}$ mass function of Milky Way satellites and dark subhalos in
670: the Via Lactea simulation. The red (short-dashed) curve is the total subhalo mass function
671: from the simulation. The black (solid) curve is the median of the observed
672: satellite mass function. The
673: error-bars on the observed mass function represent the upper and lower
674: limits on the number of configurations that occur with a probability of $> 10^{-3}$.
675: }
676: \end{figure}
677:
678: Using the $M_{0.6}$ mass function of MW satellites, we can test other CDM-based
679: solutions to the MSP.
680: Two models of interest are based on
681: reionization suppression \citep{Bullock:2000wn,Moore:2005jj} and on there being a
682: characteristic halo mass scale prior to subhalo accretion \citep{Diemand:2006ik}.
683: To roughly represent these models, we
684: focus on two subsamples of Via Lactea subhalos: the earliest forming (EF) halos,
685: and the largest mass halos before they were accreted (LBA) into the host halo.
686: As described in \cite{Diemand:2006ik}, the LBA sample is defined to be the 10 subhalos
687: that had the highest $V_{\rm max}$ value throughout their entire history. These systems all had
688: $V_{\rm max} > 37.3 \, {\rm km} \, {\rm s}^{-1}$ at some point in their history. The EF sample consists
689: of the 10 subhalos with $V_{\rm max} > 16.2 \, {\rm km} \, {\rm s}^{-1}$ (the limit of atomic cooling)
690: at $z=9.6$. The \cite{Kravtsov:2004cm} model would correspond to a selection intermediate between
691: EF and LBA. In Figure~\ref{fig:nm2} we show the observed mass
692: function of MW satellites (solid, squares) along with
693: the EF (dotted, triangles) and LBA (long-dashed, circles) samples.
694: We conclude that both of these models
695: are in agreement with the MW satellite mass function. Future observations and
696: quantification of the masses of the newly-discovered MW satellites will enable us
697: to do precision tests of the viable MSP solutions. Additionally, once the capability to
698: do numerical simulations of substructure in warm dark matter models becomes a
699: reality, the $M_{0.6}$ mass function will provide an invaluable tool to place
700: constraints on WDM models.
701:
702: \begin{figure}%[t!]
703: \plotone{f6.eps}
704: \caption{\label{fig:nm2}
705: The solid and dashed curves show the MW satellites and
706: dark subhalos in Via Lactea, respectively. These lines are reproduced from
707: Figure~\ref{fig:nm1}, with error-bars suppressed for clarity. The blue (dotted)
708: curve represents the ten earliest forming halos in Via Lactea, and the green
709: (long-dashed) curve represents the 10 most massive halos before accretion
710: into the Milky Way halo.
711: }
712: \end{figure}
713:
714: \section{Summary and Discussion}
715:
716: We have provided comprehensive dark matter mass constraints for the 9
717: well-studied dSph satellite galaxies of the Milky Way and investigated
718: CDM-based solutions for the missing satellite problem in light of
719: these constraints. While subhalo $V_{\rm max}$ values are the
720: traditional means by which theoretical predictions quantify
721: substructure counts, this is not the most direct way to confront the
722: observational constraints. Specifically, $V_{\rm max}$ is poorly
723: constrained by stellar velocity dispersion measurements, and can only
724: be estimated by adopting cosmology-dependent, theoretical
725: extrapolations. We argue the comparison between theory and
726: observation is best made using the integrated mass within a fixed
727: physical radius comparable to the stellar extent of the known
728: satellites, $\sim 0.6$ kpc. This approach is motivated by
729: \cite{Strigari:2007vn} who showed that the mass within two stellar
730: King radii is best constrained by typical velocity dispersion data.
731:
732: Using $M_{0.6}$ to represent the dark matter mass within a radius of
733: 0.6 kpc, we computed $M_{0.6}$ likelihood functions for the MW dSphs
734: based on published velocity dispersion data. Our models allow for a
735: wide range of underlying dark matter halo profile shapes and stellar
736: velocity dispersion profiles. With this broad allowance, we showed that
737: the $M_{0.6}$ for most dwarf satellites is constrained to within
738: $\sim 30 \%$.
739:
740: We derived the $M_{0.6}$ mass function of MW satellites (with
741: error bars) and compared it to the same mass function computed
742: directly from the Via Lactea substructure simulation. While the
743: observed $M_{0.6}$ mass function of luminous satellites is relatively flat,
744: the comparable CDM subhalo mass function rises as $\sim M_{0.6}^{-2}$.
745: We rule out the hypothesis that all of the well-known
746: Milky Way satellites strictly inhabit the most
747: massive CDM subhalos. If luminosity does track {\em current} subhalo mass,
748: this would only be possible if the subhalo population of the
749: Milky Way were drastically different than that predicted in CDM.
750: However, we show that other plausible CDM solutions are consistent with
751: the observed mass function. Specifically, the earliest forming subhalos
752: have a flat $M_{0.6}$ mass function that is consistent with the
753: satellite subhalo mass function. This would be expected
754: if the population of bright dwarf spheroidals corresponds to the residual halo population
755: that accreted a significant mount of gas
756: before the epoch of reionization \citep{Bullock:2000wn}.
757: We also
758: tested the hypothesis that the present dwarf spheroidal population corresponds to the subhalos
759: that were the most massive before they fell into the MW halo \citep{Kravtsov:2004cm}.
760: This hypothesis is also consistent with the current data.
761:
762: In deriving the $M_{0.6}$ mass function for this paper we have set aside the
763: issue of the most-
764: recently discovered population of MW dwarfs. We aim to return to this
765: issue in later work, but it is worth speculating on the expected
766: impact that these systems would have on our conclusions.
767: If we had included the new systems, making $\sim 20$ satellites in
768: all, would it be possible to place these systems in the $\sim 20$ most
769: massive subhalos in Via Lactea? Given the probable mass ranges for
770: the new dwarfs, we find that this is unlikely. We can get a rough
771: estimate of their masses from their observed luminosities. We start by
772: considering the mass-to-light ratios of the known dSph population from
773: figure~\ref{fig:sum} and from \cite{Mateo:1998wg}. If we assume that
774: the other dwarfs have similar $M/L$ range, we can assign a mass range
775: for each of them. In all cases, the new MW dwarfs are approximately 1
776: to 2 orders of magnitude smaller in luminosity than the well-known
777: dSph population. Using the central points for the known dSphs, we
778: obtain $M_{0.6}/L$ spanning the range from $3-230$. Considering the width of
779: the likelihoods, we can allow a slightly larger range, $2-350$. If we
780: place the new dwarfs in this latter range, the uncertainty in their
781: masses is $(2-350) L M_\odot/L_\odot$. Even with this generous range
782: we expect most of the new dwarfs have $M_{0.6} \lesssim 10^7 \, {\rm M}_\odot$.
783: \footnote{These estimates are in rough agreement with recent determinations
784: from stellar velocity dispersion measurements in the new dwarfs, as
785: presented by N. Martin and J. Simon at the 3rd Irvine Cosmology
786: Workshop, March 22-24, 2007,
787: http://www.physics.uci.edu/Astrophysical-Probes/}
788:
789: The discovery of more members of the MW group, and the precise
790: determination of the $M_{0.6}$ mass function, could bring the
791: status of the remaining viable MSP solutions into sharper focus.
792: These measurements would also provide important constraints on warm
793: dark matter models or on the small scale power spectrum in CDM.
794:
795: \section{Acknowledgments}
796: We thank Jason Harris, Tobias Kaufmann, Savvas Koushiappas, Andrey Kravtsov,
797: Steve Majewski, Nicolas Martin, Josh Simon, and Andrew Zentner for discussions on this topic.
798: We thank Mike Siegal for sharing his Leo II data.
799: LES is supported in part by a Gary McCue postdoctoral fellowship
800: through the Center for Cosmology at the University of California,
801: Irvine. L.E.S., J.S.B., and M.K. are supported in part by NSF grant
802: AST-0607746. M.K. acknowledges support from PHY-0555689.
803: J. D. acknowledges support from
804: NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant HST-HF-01194.01 awarded by the
805: Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the
806: Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA,
807: under contract NAS 5-26555.
808: P.M. acknowledges support from NASA grants
809: NAG5-11513 and NNG04GK85G, and from the Alexander von Humboldt
810: Foundation. The Via Lactea simulation was performed on NASA's Project
811: Columbia supercomputer system.
812:
813:
814: % Bibliography
815: \bibliography{ms}
816:
817: \end{document}
818: