1: %DOCUMENT CLASS
2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}
4:
5:
6: % NEW COMMANDS AND DEFINITIONS %
7:
8: \newcommand{\hi} {\mbox{\rm \ion{H}{1}}}
9: \newcommand{\hii} {\mbox{\rm \ion{H}{2}}}
10: \newcommand{\surfb} {mag~arcsec$^{-2}$}
11: \newcommand{\kms} {km~s$^{-1}$}
12: \newcommand{\gpercmcu} {g~cm$^{-3}$}
13: \newcommand{\msun} {M$_{\odot}$}
14: \newcommand{\lsun} {L$_{\odot}$}
15: \newcommand{\mlv} {M$_{\odot}/$L$_{\odot, V}$}
16: \newcommand{\simgtr} {\; \raisebox{-.2ex}{$\stackrel{>}{\mbox{\tiny
17: $\sim$}}$} \;}
18: \newcommand{\simless} {\; \raisebox{-.2ex}{$\stackrel{<}{\mbox{\tiny
19: $\sim$}}$} \;}
20:
21:
22: % OTHER STUFF
23: \shorttitle{Kinematics of Ultra-Faint Milky Way Satellites}
24: \shortauthors{Simon \& Geha}
25: \slugcomment{Accepted for publication in ApJ}
26:
27: % PAPER
28: \begin{document}
29:
30: \title{The Kinematics of the Ultra-Faint Milky Way Satellites: Solving
31: the Missing Satellite Problem}
32:
33: \author{Joshua D. Simon}
34:
35: \affil{Department of Astronomy,
36: California Institute of Technology, 1200 E. California Blvd.,
37: MS 105-24, Pasadena, CA 91125}
38:
39: \medskip
40: \and
41: \vspace{-0.3cm}
42:
43: \author{Marla Geha}
44:
45: \affil{National Research Council of Canada, Herzberg Institute of
46: Astrophysics, 5071 West Saanich Road, Victoria, BC V9E 2E7, Canada}
47:
48: \email{jsimon@astro.caltech.edu}
49: \email{marla.geha@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca}
50:
51:
52: \begin{abstract}
53: We present Keck/DEIMOS spectroscopy of stars in 8 of the newly
54: discovered ultra-faint dwarf galaxies around the Milky Way. We
55: measure the velocity dispersions of Canes Venatici~I, Canes
56: Venatici~II, Coma Berenices, Hercules, Leo~IV, Leo~T, Ursa Major~I,
57: and Ursa Major~II from the velocities of $18-214$ stars in each galaxy
58: and find dispersions ranging from 3.3 to 7.6~\kms. The 6 galaxies
59: with absolute magnitudes $M_{V} < -4$ are highly dark
60: matter-dominated, with mass-to-light ratios approaching 1000~\mlv.
61: For the fainter galaxies, Ursa Major II and (to a lesser extent) Coma
62: Berenices, we find tentative evidence for tidal disruption, which for
63: UMa~II is strongly supported by previous studies. If these 2 galaxies
64: are also dark matter-dominated, they have extremely large
65: mass-to-light ratios. The measured velocity dispersions of the
66: ultra-faint dwarf galaxies are correlated with their luminosities,
67: indicating that a minimum mass for luminous galactic systems may not
68: yet have been reached. We also measure the metallicities of the
69: observed stars and find that several of the new dwarfs have mean
70: metallicities as low as [Fe/H] =$-2.3$; these galaxies represent some
71: of the most metal-poor known stellar systems. The 6 brightest of the
72: ultra-faint dwarfs extend the luminosity-metallicity relationship
73: followed by more luminous dwarfs by $\sim2$ orders of magnitude in
74: luminosity. We detect metallicity spreads of up to 0.5~dex in several
75: objects, suggesting multiple star formation epochs. UMa~II and Com,
76: despite their exceptionally low luminosities, have higher
77: metallicities that suggest they may once have been much more massive.
78: Having established the masses of the ultra-faint dwarfs, we re-examine
79: the missing satellite problem. After correcting for the sky coverage
80: of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, we find that the ultra-faint dwarfs
81: substantially alleviate the discrepancy between the predicted and
82: observed numbers of satellites around the Milky Way, but there are
83: still a factor of $\sim4$ too few dwarf galaxies over a significant
84: range of masses. We show that if galaxy formation in low-mass dark
85: matter halos is strongly suppressed after reionization, the simulated
86: circular velocity function of CDM subhalos can be brought into
87: approximate agreement with the observed circular velocity function of
88: Milky Way satellite galaxies.
89: \end{abstract}
90:
91: \keywords{dark matter --- galaxies: dwarf --- galaxies: kinematics and
92: dynamics --- Local Group --- techniques: radial velocities}
93:
94:
95: \section{INTRODUCTION}
96: \label{intro}
97:
98: The Cold Dark Matter (CDM) cosmological model predicts that massive
99: galaxies such as the Milky Way should be surrounded by large numbers
100: of dark matter-dominated satellite halos. The relatively modest
101: populations of observed dwarf galaxies orbiting the Milky Way and
102: Andromeda, however, seem to conflict with this prediction
103: \citep*{kgg93,klypin99,moore99}. This apparent disagreement between
104: the expected and observed numbers of dwarf galaxies has become widely
105: known as the ``substructure'' or ``missing dwarf'' problem.
106:
107: Proposed solutions to the substructure problem can be broadly divided
108: into two categories: cosmological and astrophysical. Cosmological
109: solutions include modifying the power spectrum at small scales
110: \citep{kl99,zb03} and changing the properties of the dark matter
111: particles, such as by making them warm \citep*{colin00,bode01} or
112: invoking a late decay from a non-relativistic particle \citep{skb07}.
113: Astrophysical solutions are more prosaic, but perhaps easier to
114: constrain observationally. Some of the most popular astrophysical
115: solutions include the hypothesis that reionization could suppress the
116: formation of dwarf galaxies by preventing low-mass dark matter halos
117: from acquiring enough gas to form stars after $z\sim10$
118: \citep*[e.g.,][]{bkw00,somerville02,benson02,rg05,moore06} and the
119: possibility that the dwarf galaxies we observe today were once much
120: more massive objects that have been reduced to their present
121: appearance by dramatic tidal stripping \citep*{mayer01a, mayer01b,
122: kravtsov04}. Despite a wealth of ideas about how to solve the
123: missing dwarf problem, distinguishing between the various proposals
124: has proved to be difficult, and making sense of the tremendous variety
125: of masses, luminosities, mass-to-light ratios, gas fractions, and star
126: formation histories among observed dwarf galaxies remains a challenge.
127:
128: Our understanding of the missing satellite problem and the evolution
129: of dwarf galaxies is being rapidly revised by the discovery of a large
130: population of new, very faint Local Group dwarfs in the Sloan Digital
131: Sky Survey \citep[SDSS;][]{sdss} and other wide-field imaging surveys.
132: In the past 3 years, at least 20 of these galaxies have been
133: identified, nearly doubling the previously known population. The new
134: dwarfs include 8 additional Milky Way dwarf spheroidals
135: \citep{willman05a,zucker06a,belok06,zucker06b,grillmair06,belok07,sh06}
136: and 1 dwarf irregular \citep{irwin07}, 8 new dwarf spheroidals around
137: Andromeda \citep{zucker04,zucker06c,martin06,majewski07,ibata07}, and
138: 3 further new Milky Way satellites that lie in the uncertain parameter
139: space between dwarf galaxies and globular clusters \citep*{willman05b,
140: belok07, walsh07}. Nearly all of these objects have both surface
141: brightnesses and luminosities that are significantly lower than those
142: of any previously-known galaxies.
143:
144: Properly placing these new discoveries within the framework of CDM and
145: the missing satellite problem requires measurements of their internal
146: kinematics, in order to determine whether the ultra-faint dwarfs are
147: gravitationally bound, dark matter-dominated galaxies, or
148: tidally-disrupted systems. Only 5 of these objects (Ursa Major~I,
149: Andromeda~IX, Bo{\" o}tes, Canes Venatici~I, and Andromeda~XIV) have
150: published stellar kinematics measurements, and for 2 of the 3
151: ultra-faint Milky Way dwarfs that have been studied already only a
152: handful of stars were observed
153: \citep{kleyna05,chapman05,munoz06,ibata06,majewski07}. In this paper,
154: we present new stellar velocity measurements of larger samples of
155: stars in 8 of the 12 new Milky Way satellites (see Table
156: \ref{targettable}). Including the other published and in preparation
157: studies that we are aware of, the only known Milky Way satellites that
158: remain unobserved are Segue 1 and Bo{\" o}tes~II.
159:
160: \begin{deluxetable*}{l c c c c c l}
161: \tablewidth{0pt}
162: \tablecolumns{7}
163: \tablecaption{Observing Targets}
164: \tablehead{
165: \colhead{Galaxy} & \colhead{$\alpha$ (J2000.0)} &
166: \colhead{$\delta$ (J2000.0)} & \colhead{$M_{V}$} &
167: \colhead{$\mu_{V}$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{Distance\tablenotemark{b}} &
168: \colhead{References} \\
169: \colhead{} & \colhead{(h$\,$ $\,$m$\,$ $\,$s)} &
170: \colhead{($^\circ\,$ $\,'\,$ $\,''$)} & \colhead{} &
171: \colhead{(\surfb)} & \colhead{(kpc)} & \colhead{}}
172:
173: \startdata
174: Ursa Major II & 08 51 30.00 & \phs63 07 48.0 & $-3.8$ & 28.8 & \phn32 & \phm{(4}(1),(2) \\
175: Leo T & 09 34 53.40 & \phs17 03 05.0 & $-7.1$ & 26.9 & 417 & \phm{(4),}(3) \\
176: Ursa Major I & 10 34 52.80 & \phs51 55 12.0 & $-5.6$ & 28.9 & 106 & (4),(5),(7) \\
177: Leo IV & 11 32 57.00 & $-$00 32 00.0 & $-5.1$ & 28.3 & 158 & \phm{(4),}(2) \\
178: Coma Berenices & 12 26 59.00 & \phs23 54 15.0 & $-3.7$ & 27.4 & \phn44 & \phm{(4),}(2) \\
179: Canes Venatici II & 12 57 10.00 & \phs34 19 15.0 & $-4.8$ & 27.2 & 151 & \phm{(4),}(2) \\
180: Canes Venatici I & 13 28 03.50 & \phs33 33 21.0 & $-7.9$ & 28.2 & 224 & \phm{(4),}(6) \\
181: Hercules & 16 31 02.00 & \phs12 47 30.0 & $-6.0$ & 28.6 & 138 & \phm{(4),}(2)
182: \enddata
183: \tablenotetext{a}{Central surface brightnesses, calculated from the
184: Plummer profile fit parameters given in the discovery papers cited
185: above.}
186: \tablenotetext{b}{The distances reported in the literature for these
187: galaxies have generally been rounded off to the nearest multiple of
188: 10~kpc after converting from the distance modulus, which is the
189: quantity directly constrained by the data. The distances listed
190: here have been calculated from the published distance moduli and
191: rounded to the nearest kpc.}
192: \tablerefs{(1) \citealt{zucker06b}; (2) \citealt{belok07}; (3)
193: \citealt{irwin07}; (4) \citealt{willman05a}; (5) \citealt{belok06};
194: (6) \citealt{zucker06a}; (7) this work }
195: \label{targettable}
196: \end{deluxetable*}
197:
198:
199: In \S \ref{observations}, we describe our observations, target
200: selection, and data reduction, focusing in particular on our
201: techniques for obtaining very high precision velocity measurements
202: with DEIMOS. We present the main results of this study, including
203: measured velocity dispersions, masses, mass-to-light ratios, and
204: metallicities in \S \ref{results}. In \S \ref{discussion}, we discuss
205: the implications of our results for the Cold Dark Matter model and the
206: missing satellite problem. We summarize our results and conclusions
207: in \S \ref{conclusions}.
208:
209:
210: \section{OBSERVATIONS AND DATA REDUCTION}
211: \label{observations}
212:
213: \subsection{Observations}
214: \label{obs}
215:
216: We obtained spectra of individual stars in eight dwarf galaxies with
217: the DEIMOS spectrograph \citep{faber03a} on the Keck II telescope on
218: 2007 February 12-14. During the observations, the weather was clear,
219: with seeing that varied between 0\farcs5 and 0\farcs9 (with a very
220: brief excursion to 1\farcs4). The spectrograph was configured to
221: cover the wavelength range $6500-9000$\,\AA\ with the 1200 $\ell$/mm
222: grating, and the OG550 filter was used to block shorter wavelength
223: light. The spectral dispersion of this setup is $0.33\,\mbox{\AA}$
224: per pixel, and the resulting spectral resolution, taking into account
225: our slit-width of 0\farcs7 and the anamorphic distortion factor of
226: 0.7, is $1.37~\mbox{\AA}$ FWHM (corresponding to 12\,\kms\ per pixel
227: and 47\,\kms\ FWHM at the Ca~II triplet).
228: % Spectral FWHM = (0.7"/0.1185"/pix) * 0.33AA * 0.7 = 1.37 AA
229: Exposures of Kr, Ar, Ne, and Xe arc lamps provided the wavelength
230: calibration, and an internal quartz lamp was used for flat-fielding.
231:
232: We observed 18 DEIMOS slit masks, with total exposure times ranging
233: between 20 minutes and 2.5~hours. One to four masks were placed on
234: each galaxy. Each mask contained $\sim50-100$ stars, of which
235: $\sim30-80$\% were expected to be actual members of the target
236: galaxies from the SDSS photometry. The positions, exposure times and
237: number of slits on each mask are listed in Table \ref{masktable}.
238: Typical target stars had magnitudes of $r \approx 20-21$. At $r=20$,
239: a 1~hr exposure in good seeing conditions yields a signal-to-noise
240: ratio (S/N) of $\sim15$, and a 2.5~hr exposure gives a S/N of
241: $\sim22$, where the S/N is calculated as the average S/N per pixel in
242: the \ion{Ca}{2} triplet region.
243:
244: \begin{deluxetable*}{lccccccc}
245: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
246: \tablecaption{Keck/DEIMOS Slitmask Observing Parameters}
247: \tablewidth{0pt}
248: \tablehead{
249: \colhead{Mask} &
250: \colhead{$\alpha$ (J2000)} &
251: \colhead{$\delta$ (J2000)} &
252: \colhead{PA} &
253: \colhead{$t_{\rm exp}$} &
254: \colhead{\# of slits} &
255: \colhead{\% useful} \\
256: \colhead{name}&
257: \colhead{(h$\,$ $\,$m$\,$ $\,$s)} &
258: \colhead{($^\circ\,$ $\,'\,$ $\,''$)} &
259: \colhead{(deg)} &
260: \colhead{(sec)} &
261: \colhead{}&
262: \colhead{spectra}
263: }
264: \startdata
265: UMaII-1 & 08 50 38.68 & \phs63 06 45.0 & \phs\phn95.8 & 3600 & 81 & 48\%\\
266: UMaII-2 & 08 49 42.19 & \phs63 11 05.6 & \phs180.0 & 3600 & 87 & 52\%\\
267: UMaII-3 & 08 53 08.75 & \phs63 04 45.4 & \phs109.0 & 2400 & 76 & 62\%\\
268: UMaI-1 & 10 34 50.57 & \phs51 54 47.7 & \phs\phn65.0 & 5400 & 68 & 59\%\\
269: UMaI-2 & 10 34 22.23 & \phs51 56 23.9 & \phs\phn66.0 & 3600 & 62 & 65\%\\
270: UMaI-3 & 10 35 35.62 & \phs51 56 06.4 & \phs\phn23.3 & 5400 & 68 & 85\%\\
271: LeoT-1 & 09 35 00.18 & \phs17 00 56.3 & \phs\phn\phn1.0 & 3600 & 87 & 75\%\\
272: LeoIV-1 & 11 32 58.69 & $-$00 31 41.1 & \phs\phn\phn9.8 & 3000 & 77 & 83\%\\
273: ComBer-1 & 12 27 08.32 & \phs23 52 52.0 & \phs117.0 & 9000 & 78 & 62\%\\
274: ComBer-2 & 12 26 44.48 & \phs23 57 58.7 & \phs140.0 & 9000 & 78 & 51\%\\
275: ComBer-3 & 12 26 47.98 & \phs23 54 42.8 & \phn$-$20.0 & 9000 & 80 & 65\%\\
276: CVnII-1 & 12 57 12.78 & \phs34 20 43.8 & \phn$-$20.0 & 9000 & 67 & 81\%\\
277: CVnII-2 & 12 57 16.03 & \phs34 18 51.8 & \phs\phn50.0 & 1200 & 66 & 30\%\\
278: CVnI-1 & 13 27 59.38 & \phs33 34 26.8 & \phs\phn73.0 & 4140 & 91 & 87\%\\
279: CVnI-2 & 13 28 09.19 & \phs33 31 16.0 & \phs\phn70.5 & 4140 & 94 & 83\%\\
280: CVnI-3 & 13 28 14.34 & \phs33 33 23.3 & \phn\phn$-$2.0 & 4860 & 90 & 83\%\\
281: CVnI-4 & 13 28 02.17 & \phs33 33 36.7 & $-$112.0 & 9000 & 115 & 79\%\\
282: Herc-1 & 16 31 02.70 & \phs12 47 21.3 & \phs104.0 & 4500 & 106 & \phn83\%
283: \enddata
284: \tablecomments{Mask name, right ascension, declination, position angle
285: and total exposure time for each Keck/DEIMOS slitmask. The final
286: two columns refer to the total number of slitlets on each mask and
287: the percentage of those slitlets for which a redshift was measured.}
288: \label{masktable}
289: \end{deluxetable*}
290:
291: Target selection was carried out on star catalogs extracted from the
292: NYU-VAGC analysis \citep{vagc} of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data
293: Release 5 data set \citep{dr5}.\footnote{The position of Leo~T, which
294: was discovered during our observing preparations, had not yet been
295: processed for the VAGC at that time, so to select targets for that
296: galaxy we used the standard DR5 data.} We set the target priorities
297: so as to preferentially observe stars with a high likelihood of being
298: members of the various dwarfs based on their color, apparent
299: magnitude, and position. We constructed $r,g-i$ color-magnitude
300: diagrams (CMDs) for each dwarf and overlaid globular cluster
301: isochrones from \citet[][hereafter C05]{clem05}, adjusted for the
302: distance reported in the literature. We chose the best-fitting
303: globular cluster red giant branch (RGB) of the 3 examples provided by
304: C05. We also added a horizontal branch track derived from the M13
305: observations of C05 and asymptotic giant branch (AGB) isochrones (for
306: an age of 11.2~Gyr and a metallicity of [Fe/H]$ = -1.3$ or Fe/H]$ =
307: -1.7$) from \citet{girardi04}. The highest priority targets were
308: those located within 0.1 mag (in the least squares sense\footnote{As
309: in \S \ref{memberselection}, when we refer to the distance between
310: a star and a fiducial track in a color-magnitude diagram, we mean
311: the following: $d_{\rm CMD} = \sqrt{[(g - i)_{*} - (g - i)_{\rm
312: fiducial}]^{2} + (r_{*} - r_{\rm fiducial})^{2}}$, where the
313: appropriate reference point for each star along the fiducial track
314: is chosen so as to minimize $d_{\rm CMD}$.}) of the RGB or AGB
315: tracks, or within 0.2~mag of the horizontal branch, with additional
316: preference being given to brighter stars. Stars farther from any of
317: the fiducial sequences were classified as lower priority targets.
318: We then designed slitmasks so as to maximize the number of high
319: priority targets while still obtaining good spatial coverage.
320: Slitmasks were created using the DEIMOS {\tt dsimulator} slitmask
321: design software which fills in the mask area to the extent possible
322: with the highest priority input targets. This automatic selection
323: was then adjusted by hand as appropriate. The remaining space on
324: the slitmasks was filled in with lower priority targets. The slit
325: width for all masks was 0\farcs7, and the minimum slit lengths were
326: $\sim5$\arcsec, depending slightly on the density of target stars.
327:
328: In addition to the dwarf galaxy observations, we also obtained spectra
329: of a radial velocity standard star, several telluric standards, and
330: stars in the globular cluster NGC~1904 to serve as templates for
331: cross-correlation with the dSph stars. More template observations
332: (the globular cluster NGC~2419 and other radial velocity standards)
333: were obtained during additional recent Keck/DEIMOS observing runs,
334: with identical observing set-ups (except for the slit width).
335:
336:
337: \subsection{Data Reduction}
338:
339: The data were reduced using version 1.1.4 of the DEIMOS data reduction
340: pipeline developed for the DEEP2 Galaxy Redshift Survey (Cooper et
341: al., in preparation). Since this software was designed for faint,
342: resolved galaxies, we modified the pipeline to optimize reductions for
343: our relatively bright unresolved stellar targets. The main
344: modifications were to change the cosmic ray rejection algorithm and to
345: allow alignment of individual 2D exposures in the spatial direction
346: before co-adding. In addition, we modified the long-slit pipeline to
347: allow proper reduction of very bright standard stars.
348:
349:
350: \subsection{Measurement of Radial Velocities}
351: \label{measure_v}
352:
353: We measure radial velocities by cross-correlating the observed science
354: spectra with a set of high signal-to-noise stellar templates. The
355: stellar templates were observed with Keck/DEIMOS using the same set-up
356: described above. Because template mismatch can result in significant
357: velocity errors, we include a wide variety of stellar types and
358: metallicities in our template library: giants of spectral type F8III
359: through M8III, subgiants and dwarf stars. In order to cover the range
360: of metallicity expected in our low-luminosity dwarf galaxies, we also
361: include several RGB and horizontal branch (HB) stars taken from
362: observations of Galactic globular clusters. The stellar templates
363: cover the metallicity range [Fe/H] = $-2.12$ to $+0.11$. All science
364: and template spectra are rebinned onto a common wavelength array with
365: logarithmic wavelength bins of size 15~\kms~pixel$^{-1}$, which is
366: chosen to match the lowest spectral resolution present in the observed
367: data.
368:
369: We calculate and apply a telluric correction to each velocity
370: measurement to account for velocity errors that result from
371: mis-centering an unresolved star within the slit. Following
372: \citet{sohn06a}, we cross-correlate each science spectrum with a
373: telluric template in the regions of the strong telluric absorption:
374: 6860-6925\,\mbox{\AA}, 7167-7320\,\mbox{\AA}, 7593-7690\,\mbox{\AA}
375: and 8110-8320\,\mbox{\AA}. The telluric template was created from the
376: spectrum of a hot, rapidly rotating star (HR~1641, B3V) that was
377: allowed to drift perpendicularly across the slit (i.e., across the
378: 0\farcs7 dimension) during the exposure, simulating a source that
379: uniformly fills the slit, and thus accurately reflects the mean
380: integrated slit function. The mean telluric offset per mask ranged
381: between $-7$ and $+2$\,\kms, with a standard deviation within a mask
382: of 3\,\kms. This correction is the velocity error caused by the
383: mis-centering of the science star within the slit from
384: e.g.,~astrometry errors, small mask rotation, etc. Repeat
385: observations of a number of stars on multiple masks demonstrate that
386: the telluric correction reduces the mean absolute deviation between
387: independent pairs of measurements from 4.6 to 3.8~\kms, reduces the
388: weighted standard deviation of the velocity differences between pairs
389: of measurements from 5.6 to 4.2~\kms, and improves the weighted mean
390: difference from $-2.0$ to $-0.4$~\kms, indicating that the telluric
391: correction is removing both random and systematic errors from the
392: data.
393:
394: We first calculate the telluric offset ($v_{\rm tell}$) and then
395: determine radial velocities ($v_{\rm obs}$) for each science spectrum.
396: In both cases, the template and science spectra are
397: continuum-subtracted; the template is then shifted and scaled to find
398: the best fit in reduced-$\chi^2$ space. The final radial velocity
399: ($v$) is then: $v = v_{\rm obs} - v_{\rm tell} - v_{\rm hel}$, where
400: $v_{\rm hel}$ is the heliocentric correction determined for each mask.
401: All the radial velocities presented in this paper include a telluric
402: and heliocentric correction.
403:
404: The internal velocity dispersions of low-luminosity dwarf galaxies
405: are, in many cases, of the same order as the DEIMOS velocity errors
406: associated with individual measurements. {\it In this regime, it is
407: crucial to measure not only accurate velocities, but accurate
408: velocity uncertainties.} Underestimating (overestimating) the
409: velocity uncertainties translates directly into larger (smaller)
410: values of the inferred velocity dispersion using the methods described
411: in \S \ref{sigma}. We determine our velocity error bars using a
412: Monte Carlo bootstrap method, determine the contribution from
413: systematic errors via repeat measurements of individual stars, and
414: check the precision of these errors by comparing to higher spectral
415: resolution data.
416:
417: For the Monte Carlo method, noise is added to each pixel in the
418: one-dimensional spectrum of each science observation based on the
419: observed variance in that pixel. We assume the variance in each pixel
420: is independent and distributed according to Poisson statistics. We
421: then re-calculate the velocity and telluric correction for this new
422: spectrum using the same routines above. Error bars are defined as the
423: square root of the variance in the recovered mean velocity over 500
424: runs of the simulations. We next compare these Monte Carlo error
425: estimates to the velocity differences between independent repeat
426: measurements of individual stars. Since many of our DEIMOS masks
427: covered overlapping sky areas, we placed 43 stars on two or more masks
428: to obtain multiple independent velocity measurements. We note that
429: one of these stars is likely an RR Lyrae variable (\S\,\ref{uma2}) and
430: remove it from the sample of repeated observations. We are left with
431: 49 pairs of independent velocity measurements. The velocity
432: difference between these independent observations samples the `true'
433: error distribution. We define a normalized error ($\sigma_N$) as the
434: velocity difference between two independent measurements ($v_1$,
435: $v_2$), divided by the quadrature sum of all error contributions:
436: \begin{equation}
437: \sigma_{\rm N} = \frac{v_1 - v_2}{\sqrt{\sigma_{\rm MC1}^2 +
438: \sigma_{\rm MC2}^2 + 2\epsilon^2}},
439: \label{sigma_n}
440: \end{equation}
441: \noindent
442: where the Monte Carlo errors ($\sigma_{\rm MC1}$, $\sigma_{\rm MC2}$)
443: on each measurement are combined in quadrature with an additional term
444: $\epsilon$ equal to the error contribution from systematics not
445: accounted for in the Monte Carlo simulation. The $\sigma_{\rm N}$
446: distribution should be a Gaussian of unit width. We therefore
447: determine the unknown contribution from other systematic errors by
448: fitting the parameter $\epsilon$ to produce a unit Gaussian
449: distribution. In the left panel of Figure~\ref{error_fig}, the final
450: $\sigma_{\rm N}$ distribution is plotted for the best fitting value of
451: $\epsilon = 2.2$\,\kms. The final velocity errors used in our
452: analysis are the quadrature sum of the Monte Carlo and systematic
453: errors. In the right panel of Figure~\ref{error_fig}, we plot the
454: final velocity errors as a function of the mean per pixel
455: signal-to-noise ratio for all the individual stellar velocities
456: presented in this paper. Stars that fall far from the main locus of
457: points are typically hot horizontal branch stars (which have few sharp
458: spectral features). The median velocity uncertainty for our sample of
459: member stars in the ultra-faint dwarfs is 3.4~\kms; including mask
460: alignment stars and bright foreground stars that tend to have higher
461: S/N, the median uncertainty for the entire data set is 2.7~\kms.
462:
463: \begin{figure*}[t!]
464: \epsscale{1.0}
465: \plotone{f1.eps}
466: \caption{ ({\it a}) Distribution of the normalized velocity error,
467: $\sigma_N$ (as defined in Eq.~\ref{sigma_n}), for 49 pairs of
468: repeated independent velocity measurements. The best fitting
469: systematic error, $\epsilon = 2.2$~\kms, is used to produce the unit
470: Gaussian distribution shown in red. ({\it b}) Combined random
471: ($\sigma_{\rm MC}$) and systematic velocity error for individual
472: measurements plotted as a function of the mean per pixel
473: signal-to-noise ratio. These data include all of our science targets,
474: but not the globular cluster and standard stars observed as
475: spectroscopic templates. Points that fall far from the main locus are
476: typically hot horizontal branch stars that lack the sharp spectral
477: features present in the majority of giant and dwarf stars that
478: comprise our sample. Note that five stars in the sample have velocity
479: uncertainties larger than 18~\kms, and 62 stars have S/N greater than
480: 100, and are therefore not displayed in this plot; we chose the axis
481: ranges so as to make the detailed distribution of uncertainties more
482: visible.}
483: \label{error_fig}
484: \end{figure*}
485:
486: To demonstrate our ability to accurately measure velocities and
487: recover velocity dispersions, we compare our observations of the
488: Galactic globular cluster NGC~2419 to higher spectral resolution
489: Keck/HIRES observations of the same cluster (P.~C{\^ o}t{\' e} 2007,
490: private communication). We measure radial velocities for 26~stars
491: between $1\arcmin$ and $4\arcmin$ of the cluster center. The HIRES
492: data contain a similar number of stars in this region, although very
493: few stars overlap between the two data sets. The HIRES spectrograph
494: has a high spectral dispersion (0.02\,\AA\ per pixel) and much more
495: accurate individual velocity measurements ($\sim0.95$~\kms). We
496: compute the recession velocity and velocity dispersion of NGC~2419 for
497: both data sets using the maximum-likelihood technique described in \S
498: \ref{sigma}. For the recession velocity, we measure $\langle\hat
499: u\rangle_{\rm DEIMOS} = -20.7 \pm 0.6$~\kms\ compared to $\langle\hat
500: u\rangle_{\rm HIRES} = -21.2 \pm 0.5$~\kms, and for the velocity
501: dispersion, $\sigma_{\rm DEIMOS} = 2.3 \pm 0.4$~\kms\ compared to
502: $\sigma_{\rm HIRES} =2.3 \pm 0.3$\,\kms. The DEIMOS observations
503: agree within the 1-$\sigma$ limits of the more accurate HIRES
504: measurements. Both sets of measurements agree with the published
505: values for this cluster \citep{pryor93}. While our NGC~2419
506: observations have somewhat higher signal-to-noise ratios than those
507: typical of our dwarf galaxy observations, this comparison demonstrates
508: that we are able to reliably measure the kinematics in systems with
509: extremely low velocity dispersions (smaller than expected for the
510: dwarf galaxies). We also note that we measure a metallicity based on
511: the Ca triplet lines (\S \ref{measure_EW}) for NGC~2419 of [Fe/H]$ =
512: -2.0$, and the data are consistent with no intrinsic metallicity
513: spread within the cluster. The standard metallicity for this cluster
514: is [Fe/H]$ = -2.12$ \citep{harris96}.
515:
516: As a further test of our ability to measure reliable velocities, we
517: compare our observations to high resolution spectroscopy in UMa~I by
518: \citet{kleyna05}. These authors presented Keck/HIRES spectra of 7
519: stars in the UMa~I region (5 members and 2 non-members). We
520: re-observed all 7 stars with multiple measurements for 2
521: stars.\footnote{Note that the SDSS DR2 coordinates given in
522: \citet{kleyna05} for the target stars are up to 8\arcsec\ off from
523: the true positions as given in the DR5 data or on Palomar Sky Survey
524: plates.} We find excellent agreement between our measurements and
525: those of \citeauthor{kleyna05}~for 6 of the stars (differences within
526: the 1~$\sigma$ uncertainties for 5 out of 6 and less than
527: 1.7~\kms\ for all 6); for star 7, both of our measurements are
528: significantly discrepant with \citeauthor{kleyna05}'s velocity. Star
529: 7 had the lowest S/N in \citeauthor{kleyna05}'s observations, and they
530: described the Ca triplet lines as ``barely discernible above the
531: noise.'' We conclude that either this star is a binary or variable
532: star, or the velocity measured by \citet{kleyna05} is in error by
533: $\sim8$~\kms\ (their estimated uncertainty is 5~\kms).
534:
535: Radial velocities were successfully measured for 1015 of the 1460
536: extracted spectra across the 18~observed science masks. This total
537: includes 50 duplicate measurements of individual stars and 124
538: objects identified as galaxies or quasars. The latter objects will be
539: very useful as background objects for proper motion studies and will
540: be the subject of a future paper. The majority of spectra for which
541: we could not measure a redshift did not have sufficient S/N. The
542: fitted velocities are visually inspected to insure the reliability of
543: the measured redshift and the overall quality of the spectrum. The
544: final sample of stellar radial velocities consists of 841~unique
545: measurements across the eight target dwarf galaxies.
546:
547:
548: \subsection{Measurement of Equivalent Widths and Metallicities}
549: \label{measure_EW}
550:
551: We estimate the metallicity ([Fe/H]) of individual RGB stars in our
552: target galaxies using the \ion{Ca}{2} triplet absorption lines near
553: $\lambda = 8500$\,\mbox{\AA}. We calculate the equivalent widths (EWs)
554: of the three \ion{Ca}{2} absorption lines using the line and continuum
555: definitions of \citet{rutledge97a}. The three EWs are combined into a
556: single quantity as $\Sigma {\rm Ca} = 0.5{\rm
557: EW}(\lambda8498\mbox{\AA}) + 1.0{\rm EW}(\lambda 8542\mbox{\AA}) +
558: 0.6{\rm EW}(\lambda8662\mbox{\AA})$. We determine the error on this
559: combined quantity with the Monte Carlo method described above. Added
560: in quadrature to the Monte Carlo uncertainties is a systematic
561: uncertainty of $0.3$\,\mbox{\AA}, which we determined from repeat
562: measurements as described in \S \ref{measure_v}. We convert
563: $\Sigma{\rm Ca}$ into metallicity using the \citet*{rutledge97b}
564: empirical calibration relationship:
565: \begin{equation}
566: [\mbox{Fe/H}] = -2.66 + 0.42 [\Sigma {\rm Ca} - 0.64 (V_{\rm HB} - V)]
567: \end{equation}
568: \noindent
569: The term $(V_{\rm HB} - V)$ is the magnitude difference between the
570: horizontal branch and the observed star, and corrects for surface
571: gravity effects. We assume an absolute magnitude for a metal-poor
572: horizontal branch $M_{V,\rm HB} = 0.88$ \citep{clem05}, and calculate
573: the apparent magnitude, $V_{\rm HB}$, using the distance modulus of
574: each galaxy (see Table \ref{targettable}). The uncertainties in the
575: distance moduli are included in the total metallicity uncertainties we
576: derive. Note that assuming a single value for the horizontal branch
577: magnitude in the possible presence of multiple stellar populations may
578: add an additional $\sim 0.07$~dex to the metallicity uncertainties
579: \citep{koch06}. We convert the SDSS $g$-band magnitudes into $V$-band
580: using the photometric transformations of \citet{blanton07} and
581: reddening corrections from \citet*{sfd98}. The
582: \citeauthor{rutledge97b}~calibration relation is derived for RGB stars
583: in Milky Way globular clusters using the abundance scale of
584: \citet{cg97}, and while the calibration data only extend to [Fe/H]$ =
585: -2.1$ it is reasonable to extrapolate the relation to the slightly
586: lower metallicities found in some of our low-luminosity dwarfs (see \S
587: \ref{metals}). We restrict our metallicity analysis in \S
588: \ref{metals} to only the RGB stars in the dwarf galaxies.
589:
590: To remove foreground dwarf stars from the sample, we will use the
591: equivalent width of the \ion{Na}{1} $\lambda\lambda
592: 8183,8195$~\AA\ absorption lines, which are strongly dependent on
593: surface gravity and temperature \citep{spinrad71,schiavon97}. We
594: measure the \ion{Na}{1} equivalent width using the line and continuum
595: definitions of \citet{schiavon97}. \citeauthor{schiavon97}~show that
596: the \ion{Na}{1} EW is expected to be 1~\AA\ or greater in M-type dwarf
597: stars, whereas this feature is much weaker in giant stars at the same
598: temperature. \citet{gilbert06} have used this feature to successfully
599: discriminate between dwarf and giant stars for a similar spectroscopic
600: sample.
601:
602:
603: \section{RESULTS}
604: \label{results}
605:
606: \subsection{Selection of Members}
607: \label{memberselection}
608:
609: We use two complementary techniques to determine which of the observed
610: stars are members of the dwarf galaxies and which are foreground
611: stars. The first method classifies stars based on objective criteria:
612: velocity, distance from the fiducial RGB and HB tracks (corrected for
613: foreground extinction using the reddenings from \citealt{sfd98} and
614: for the distance of the galaxy), and the equivalent width of the
615: \ion{Na}{1} 8190~\AA\ absorption lines (described above). The exact
616: cutoffs for each of these parameters needed to be adjusted in a few
617: cases, but in general we use a 3~$\sigma$ cutoff in velocity
618: (requiring a prior iteration to estimate the velocity dispersion),
619: color-magnitude distance limits (defined as in \S \ref{obs}) of
620: 0.2~mag for RGB stars and 0.4~mag for HB stars, and a \ion{Na}{1}
621: equivalent width of less than 1.0~\AA. Notable exceptions to these
622: cutoffs include Coma Berenices, which is located so nearby that we
623: detect a number of subgiants, blue stragglers, and main sequence stars
624: at $r > 21.5$ --- at these faint magnitudes we extend the allowed
625: distance from the fiducial CMD track to 0.5~mag; and CVn~I, which has
626: a broad giant branch that also necessitates widening the cutoff
627: distance from the RGB track. In addition, CVn~I has so many member
628: stars (214) that the presence of a 3~$\sigma$ outlier is likely (and
629: indeed we find one), so the velocity cutoff must be extended to
630: 3.5~$\sigma$, where there is only a 10\% chance of finding a member
631: star in our sample.
632:
633: The second method is to examine individually the following properties
634: of each star: velocity, location in the CMD, spatial position, fitted
635: spectral type, metallicity, \ion{Na}{1} equivalent width, and if
636: necessary, the spectrum. Combining all of the available information
637: about each star, and using thresholds similar to those described above
638: (but less rigid), we classify each star as a likely member or
639: non-member ``by eye''. Both of these methods are similar in spirit to
640: the techniques described by \citet{gilbert06} and \citet{raja06} to
641: separate M31 red giants from foreground main sequence stars, but
642: without employing a full maximum-likelihood calculation, which is not
643: necessary for these data because the dSph stars are more localized in
644: parameter space than M31 halo stars are, and because of the higher
645: S/N. In all cases, we find excellent agreement between the member
646: samples identified with the two methods (with occasional threshold
647: tweaks required to produce a perfect match). A few of the galaxies
648: contain questionable member stars that significantly affect the
649: derived velocity dispersions, and these cases will be discussed
650: individually in \S \ref{comments}. We display color-magnitude
651: diagrams and spatial distributions for the observed stars in each
652: dwarf galaxy in Figures \ref{uma2_obsplot} - \ref{herc_obsplot}.
653:
654: \begin{figure*}[t!]
655: \epsscale{1.20}
656: \plotone{f2.eps}
657: \caption{(\emph{a}) Color-magnitude diagram of observed stars in Ursa
658: Major~II. The large black circles represent stars identified as
659: radial velocity members of the galaxy, the small black dots
660: represent stars identified as non-members, and the blue crosses are
661: spectroscopically confirmed background galaxies and quasars. The
662: red curve shows the location of the red giant branch, subgiant
663: branch, and main sequence turnoff populations in the globular
664: cluster M92 and the blue curve shows the location of the horizontal
665: branch of M13, both corrected for Galactic extinction and shifted to
666: a distance of 32 kpc \citep[data from][]{clem05}. (\emph{b})
667: Spatial distribution of observed stars in Ursa Major~II. Symbols
668: are the same as in (\emph{a}) (the figure legend applies to both
669: panels), and the ellipse represents the half-light radius of UMa~II
670: from \citet{zucker06b}. (\emph{c}) Velocity histogram of observed
671: stars in Ursa Major~II. Velocities are corrected to the
672: heliocentric rest frame. The filled red histogram represents stars
673: classified as members, and the hatched black-and-white histogram
674: represents non-members. The velocity bins are 2~\kms\ wide. }
675: \label{uma2_obsplot}
676: \end{figure*}
677:
678: \begin{figure*}[t!]
679: \epsscale{1.20}
680: \plotone{f3.eps}
681: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{uma2_obsplot}, but for Leo~T.}
682: \label{leot_obsplot}
683: \end{figure*}
684:
685: \begin{figure*}[t!]
686: \epsscale{1.20}
687: \plotone{f4.eps}
688: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{uma2_obsplot}, but for Ursa Major~I.}
689: \label{uma1_obsplot}
690: \end{figure*}
691:
692: \begin{figure*}[t!]
693: \epsscale{1.20}
694: \plotone{f5.eps}
695: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{uma2_obsplot}, but for Leo~IV.}
696: \label{leo4_obsplot}
697: \end{figure*}
698:
699: \begin{figure*}[t!]
700: \epsscale{1.20}
701: \plotone{f6.eps}
702: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{uma2_obsplot}, but for Coma Berenices.}
703: \label{coma_obsplot}
704: \end{figure*}
705:
706: \begin{figure*}[t!]
707: \epsscale{1.20}
708: \plotone{f7.eps}
709: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{uma2_obsplot}, but for Canes Venatici~II.}
710: \label{cvn2_obsplot}
711: \end{figure*}
712:
713: \begin{figure*}[t!]
714: \epsscale{1.20}
715: \plotone{f8.eps}
716: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{uma2_obsplot}, but for Canes Venatici~I.}
717: \label{cvn1_obsplot}
718: \end{figure*}
719:
720: \begin{figure*}[t!]
721: \epsscale{1.20}
722: \plotone{f9.eps}
723: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{uma2_obsplot}, but for Hercules.}
724: \label{herc_obsplot}
725: \end{figure*}
726:
727:
728: \subsection{Central Velocity Dispersions}
729: \label{sigma}
730:
731: Given the member samples selected in the previous subsection, we use
732: the maximum-likelihood method described by \citet{walker06} to
733: calculate simultaneously the mean velocities and velocity dispersions
734: of each galaxy.\footnote{Note that the numerical values of the
735: parameters $a$ and $b$ in Equation 9 of \citeauthor{walker06}~are
736: negative, since they are proportional to the second derivatives of
737: $\ln{p}$ evaluated at the maximum of the function. The
738: uncertainties on the mean velocity and the velocity dispersion
739: should therefore be defined as $d\langle\hat u\rangle = \sqrt{\left|
740: a \right|}$ and $d\sigma = \sqrt{\left|b\right|}$ to avoid
741: imaginary results.} This method assumes that the observed velocity
742: dispersion is the sum of the intrinsic galaxy dispersion and the
743: dispersion produced by measurement errors, as well as that the
744: velocity distribution is reasonably approximated by a Gaussian. The
745: derived velocities and intrinsic velocity dispersions are displayed in
746: Table \ref{dispersiontable}. We find dispersions ranging from
747: $3.3\pm1.7$~\kms\ for Leo~IV to $7.6\pm0.4$~\kms\ for Canes
748: Venatici~I.
749:
750: \begin{deluxetable*}{l c c c c c c}
751: \tablewidth{0pt}
752: \tablecolumns{7}
753: \tablecaption{Radial Velocities and Velocity Dispersions}
754: \tablehead{
755: \colhead{Galaxy} & \colhead{$\langle\hat u\rangle_{hel}$} &
756: \colhead{$d\langle\hat u\rangle_{hel}$} &
757: \colhead{$\langle\hat u\rangle_{GSR}$} &
758: \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{$d\sigma$} & \colhead{Number} \\
759: \colhead{} & \colhead{(\kms)} & \colhead{(\kms)} &
760: \colhead{(\kms)} & \colhead{(\kms)} & \colhead{(\kms)} & \colhead{of stars}
761: }
762: \startdata
763: Ursa Major II & $-$116.5 & 1.9 & \phn$-$33.4 & 6.7 & 1.4 & \phn20 \\
764: Leo T & \phn\phs38.1 & 2.0 & \phn$-$58.4 & 7.5 & 1.6 & \phn19 \\
765: Ursa Major I & \phn$-$55.3 & 1.4 & \phn\phn$-$7.1 & 7.6 & 1.0 & \phn39 \\
766: Leo IV & \phs132.3 & 1.4 & \phn\phs10.1 & 3.3 & 1.7 & \phn18 \\
767: Coma Berenices & \phn\phs98.1 & 0.9 & \phn\phs81.7 & 4.6 & 0.8 & \phn59 \\
768: Canes Venatici II & $-$128.9 & 1.2 & \phn$-$95.5 & 4.6 & 1.0 & \phn25 \\
769: Canes Venatici I & \phn\phs30.9 & 0.6 & \phn\phs77.6 & 7.6 & 0.4 & 214 \\
770: Hercules & \phn\phs45.0 & 1.1 & \phs144.6 & 5.1 & 0.9 & \phn30
771: \enddata
772: \label{dispersiontable}
773: \end{deluxetable*}
774:
775: We plot the stellar velocity dispersions as a function of absolute
776: magnitude in Figure \ref{sigmaplot}\emph{a}. There is a significant
777: correlation of velocity dispersion with absolute magnitude, with the
778: more luminous galaxies ($M_{V} \simless -6$) having larger dispersions
779: of $\sim7-8$~\kms\ and the fainter galaxies ($M_{V} \simgtr -6$)
780: exhibiting smaller dispersions of $\sim4-5$~\kms. The four
781: low-luminosity galaxies Coma Berenices, CVn~II, Hercules, and Leo~IV
782: are the first galaxies to break the velocity dispersion ``barrier'' at
783: $\sim7$~\kms\ that observations of the previously known dSphs had
784: suggested \citep{gilmore07}. The unprecedentedly low velocity
785: dispersions of these galaxies, and the correlation with absolute
786: magnitude down to such low luminosities, demonstrate that if there is
787: a floor on the masses of dSphs, it does not appear to have been
788: reached yet.
789:
790: \begin{figure*}[t]
791: \epsscale{1.1}
792: \plottwo{f10a.eps}{f10b.eps}
793: \caption{(\emph{a}) Velocity dispersion as a function of absolute
794: magnitude for the ultra-faint dwarfs. The filled black symbols
795: represent the gravitationally bound dwarfs and the open gray symbol
796: represents UMa~II, which is thought to be tidally disrupted (see \S
797: \ref{tidal}). Circles are ultra-faint dwarfs in this sample and the
798: triangle is the Bo{\"o}tes dSph \citep{martin07}. (\emph{b})
799: Dynamical mass as a function of total $V$-band luminosity. Symbols
800: are the same as panel (\emph{a}). The ultra-faint dwarf galaxies
801: clearly display a trend in which the more luminous galaxies have
802: larger velocity dispersions and correspondingly larger masses.
803: Perhaps surprisingly, there appears to be a simple power-law
804: relationship between mass and luminosity.}
805: \label{sigmaplot}
806: \end{figure*}
807:
808: The likely presence of unresolved binary stars in our stellar velocity
809: sample may increase the measured velocity dispersion of our target
810: galaxies due to binary orbital motion. \citet{olszewski96} simulated
811: the effect of binaries on the velocity dispersions of the Draco and
812: Ursa Minor dSphs with very similar sample sizes and velocity
813: uncertainties as the present study. Assuming the binary fractions
814: determined for Draco and Ursa Minor (which range between 0.2 and 0.3
815: for relevant binary periods), \citeauthor{olszewski96}~suggested that
816: the velocity dispersion from binaries alone is on the order of
817: 1.5~\kms. Since it is possible that the binary fractions may be
818: different in the lower luminosity galaxies we observed, we use this
819: estimate only as a guide. For the highest velocity dispersion systems
820: listed in Table~\ref{dispersiontable}, the effect of binaries is
821: negligible. This result is consistent with conclusions from previous
822: groups for other Local Group dSphs \citep{kleyna99, walker06}. For
823: our lowest dispersion system, Leo~IV, the
824: \citeauthor{olszewski96}~binary correction would reduce the measured
825: dispersion from 3.3\,\kms\ to 2.9\,\kms. However, this difference is
826: significantly smaller than our measurement uncertainty of 1.7\,\kms,
827: so we do not correct our measured dispersions for the presence of
828: binaries. Unless the binary star fraction in these ultra-low
829: luminosity dwarfs is significantly larger than that of other dwarf
830: galaxies, binaries do not significantly inflate the measured
831: dispersions and inferred masses of even the lowest-dispersion dwarf
832: galaxies in our sample.
833:
834:
835: \subsection{Total Masses}
836: \label{masses}
837:
838: The process of determining the total mass of a dwarf spheroidal galaxy
839: from the velocities of a relatively modest sample of stars that are
840: probably located well inside the virial radius of the galaxy's dark
841: matter halo is fraught with difficulty. The standard technique in the
842: literature is to assume that (1) the galaxy is spherical, (2) the
843: galaxy is in dynamical equilibrium, (3) the galaxy has an isotropic
844: velocity dispersion, and (4) the light distribution of the galaxy
845: traces its mass distribution. All four of these assumptions may be
846: false in reality, especially for the ultra-faint dwarfs that are the
847: subject of this paper. SDSS photometry and followup imaging reveal
848: that most of the dwarfs are elongated, demonstrating that they are not
849: spherically symmetric systems and probably do not have isotropic
850: velocity dispersion tensors. Several of the dwarfs also appear
851: irregular, opening up the possibility that their structure has been
852: significantly affected by the tidal field of the Milky Way. However,
853: these apparently irregular isodensity contours could also be the
854: result of the extremely low surface densities of the galaxies, which
855: make their stellar distributions difficult to determine accurately.
856: Finally, the nearly flat velocity dispersion profiles observed in all
857: of the dSphs where spatially resolved kinematics are available
858: indicate that light does not trace mass \citep{walker06,wu07}.
859: Despite these objections, the samples of stars in the ultra-faint
860: dwarfs that are spectroscopically accessible with current instruments
861: are so small that more sophisticated analyses are not possible (with
862: the exception of CVn~I, which will be discussed in more detail in a
863: future paper). We therefore use the method of \citet{illingworth76}
864: to estimate total masses for the observed galaxies:
865:
866: \begin{equation}
867: M_{tot} = 167 \beta r_{c} \sigma^{2},
868: \end{equation}
869:
870: \noindent
871: where $\beta$ is a parameter that depends on the concentration of the
872: system and is generally assumed to be 8 for dSphs \citep{mateo98},
873: $r_{c}$ is the \citet{king62} profile core radius, and $\sigma$ is the
874: observed central velocity dispersion. For most of the new dwarfs,
875: only Plummer (half-light) radii rather than King core radii are
876: available in the literature, but we can use the fact that $r_{c} =
877: 0.64*r_{\rm Plummer}$ to estimate the King radii. The radii and
878: luminosities we have assumed for these calculations are given in
879: Appendix \ref{data}. Our derived masses for each galaxy are listed in
880: Table \ref{masstable} and plotted in Figure~\ref{sigmaplot}\emph{b}.
881: We note that objects in the bottom left corner of the plot are both
882: the least massive and least luminous known galactic systems.
883:
884: \begin{deluxetable*}{l c c c c}
885: \tablewidth{0pt}
886: \tablecolumns{5}
887: \tablecaption{Masses, Mass-to-Light Ratios, and Metallicities}
888: \tablehead{
889: \colhead{Galaxy} & \colhead{Mass} &
890: \colhead{M/L$_{V}$} & \colhead{[Fe/H]} &
891: \colhead{$\sigma_{[Fe/H]}$} \\
892: \colhead{} & \colhead{(\msun)} &
893: \colhead{(\msun/\lsun)} & \colhead{} &
894: \colhead{}
895: }
896: \startdata
897: Ursa Major II\tablenotemark{a} & $4.9 \pm 2.2 \times 10^{6}$ & $1722 \pm 1226$ & $-1.97 \pm 0.15$ & 0.28 \\
898: Leo T & $8.2 \pm 3.6 \times 10^{6}$ & \phn$138 \pm \phn71$ & $-2.29 \pm 0.10$ & 0.35 \\
899: Ursa Major I & $1.5 \pm 0.4 \times 10^{7}$ & $1024 \pm 636$ & $-2.06 \pm 0.10$ & 0.46 \\
900: Leo IV & $1.4 \pm 1.5 \times 10^{6}$ & \phn$151 \pm 177$ & $-2.31 \pm 0.10$ & 0.15 \\
901: Coma Berenices & $1.2 \pm 0.4 \times 10^{6}$ & \phn$448 \pm 297$ & $-2.00 \pm 0.07$ & 0.00 \\
902: Canes Venatici II & $2.4 \pm 1.1 \times 10^{6}$ & \phn$336 \pm 240$ & $-2.31 \pm 0.12$ & 0.47 \\
903: Canes Venatici I & $2.7 \pm 0.4 \times 10^{7}$ & \phn$221 \pm 108$ & $-2.09 \pm 0.02$ & 0.23 \\
904: Hercules & $7.1 \pm 2.6 \times 10^{6}$ & \phn$332 \pm 221$ & $-2.27 \pm 0.07$ & 0.31
905: \enddata
906: \label{masstable}
907: \tablenotetext{a}{UMa~II may be a tidally disrupted remnant, which
908: would artificially inflate its mass and mass-to-light ratio.}
909: \end{deluxetable*}
910:
911: The ultra-faint Milky Way satellites have masses ranging from just
912: over $10^{6}$~\msun\ (Coma Berenices) up to $2.8 \times
913: 10^{7}$~\msun\ (Canes Venatici~I). Not surprisingly, CVn~I, which is
914: nearly as bright as previously known dSphs such as Ursa Minor and
915: Draco, has a mass that is similar to those of the original Milky Way
916: dSphs. Combining the measured masses with the absolute magnitudes
917: listed in Table \ref{targettable}, we can calculate $V$-band
918: mass-to-light ratios, which are presented in Table \ref{masstable}.
919: The new dwarfs continue the trend of an anti-correlation between
920: luminosity and M/L that has been known for many years
921: \citep[e.g.,][]{mateo93}, reaching mass-to-light ratios of $\sim1000$
922: in $V$-band solar units. Although the uncertainties on the
923: mass-to-light ratios are substantial, owing primarily to the poorly
924: known luminosities of the ultra-faint dwarfs, it is clear that all of
925: these galaxies have quite large mass-to-light ratios. The existence
926: of galaxies with similar properties to these was predicted recently by
927: \citet{rg05} and \citet*{read06}, but the measured masses seem to be in
928: better agreement with the models of \citet{rg05}.
929:
930:
931: \subsection{Metallicities}
932: \label{metals}
933:
934: The mean stellar metallicity of a galaxy reflects the enrichment
935: history of the interstellar medium at the time the stars were formed.
936: We determine the mean metallicity, [Fe/H], for the new dwarf galaxies
937: based on the \ion{Ca}{2} triplet equivalent width (\S
938: \ref{measure_EW}). While we can reliably measure equivalent widths
939: for the majority of our target stars, the \citet{rutledge97b}
940: empirical calibration that we use to convert to [Fe/H] is valid only
941: for RGB stars. We therefore only include stars brighter than $M_V =
942: +1.5$ and redder than $(g-r) > 0.3$ (to avoid HB stars) in the
943: metallicity analysis. We determine the mean metallicity and
944: metallicity spread using the maximum-likelihood technique described in
945: \S \ref{sigma}. While the metallicity distributions are not
946: necessarily Gaussian, as the maximum-likelihood calculation assumes,
947: we find that the mean and median of the observed metallicity
948: distributions give similar results. We run the maximum-likelihood
949: algorithm twice, rejecting 3~$\sigma$ outliers on the second run. The
950: mean metallicities and metallicity spreads are listed in
951: Table~\ref{masstable}. We find metallicities ranging from [Fe/H]
952: =$-1.97 \pm 0.15$ for UMa~II down to [Fe/H]=$-2.31$ for CVn~II and
953: Leo~IV. We note that several of our galaxies have mean metallicities
954: equal to those of the most metal-poor globular clusters and lower than
955: those of other dwarf galaxies \citep{harris96,mateo98}, making them,
956: along with the Bo{\" o}tes dSph \citep{munoz06}, the most metal-poor
957: stellar systems known.
958:
959: A strong correlation exists between the total luminosity of dwarf
960: galaxies in the Local Group and their stellar metallicities
961: \citep{mateo98, grebel03}. In comparison, Galactic globular clusters
962: follow no such relationship \citep{harris96}. In
963: Figure~\ref{feh_fig}, we show that all but the two faintest of the
964: ultra-low luminosity galaxies follow the luminosity-metallicity
965: relationship defined by the more luminous dSphs. The two galaxies
966: deviating from this relationship are UMa~II and Com. These are the
967: nearest as well as the lowest-luminosity objects in our sample and
968: both galaxies (particularly UMa~II) show a variety of evidence
969: suggesting that they are undergoing tidal disruption by the Milky Way.
970: As discussed in \S\,\ref{tidal}, we interpret the high metallicities
971: in these two objects as evidence that their formation mass may have
972: been significantly larger than their present mass.
973:
974: \begin{figure*}[t!]
975: \epsscale{1.0}
976: \plotone{f11.eps}
977: \caption{Metallicity-luminosity relationship for dwarf galaxies in the
978: Local Group. The new ultra-faint galaxies (red circles) follow the
979: trend of decreasing metallicity with luminosity set by more luminous
980: dwarf galaxies (black squares). The two lowest-luminosity objects
981: (UMa~II and Com) show possible evidence of tidal stripping. In
982: comparison, Galactic globular clusters (blue triangles) do not
983: follow any luminosity-metallicity relationship. Data for luminous
984: dwarf galaxies are from \citet{mateo98}, Galactic globular clusters
985: from \citet{harris96} and the ultra-low luminosity dwarf Bo{\"o}tes
986: (open square at $M_V = -5.8$) from \citet{munoz06}.
987: \citet{martin07} find a somewhat higher metallicity for Bo{\"o}tes
988: of [Fe/H]$ = -2.1$. The smaller horizontal bars on our galaxy
989: measurements represent the uncertainty in the mean metallicity;
990: internal metallicity spreads are indicated by the larger vertical
991: bars. The ultra-low luminosity dwarfs are among the most metal-poor
992: stellar systems in the known universe.}
993: \label{feh_fig}
994: \end{figure*}
995:
996: The ultra-low luminosity galaxies extend the luminosity-metallicity
997: relation in the Local Group by an additional four magnitudes to $M_V =
998: -4.8$. The location of these seven objects (including Bo{\"o}tes) on
999: the same relationship defined by brighter dSphs is significant. It
1000: suggests that the stars formed in these galaxies are connected to the
1001: {\it present} mass of the galaxy and argues against significant tidal
1002: stripping, unless the amount of mass stripped from each galaxy
1003: approximately preserved the relative ordering of dwarf masses. We
1004: also measure significant internal metallicity spreads,
1005: $\sigma_{[Fe/H]}$, up to 0.5~dex in several ultra-low luminosity
1006: dwarfs, as listed in Table~\ref{masstable}. This suggests that stars
1007: formed in multiple star formation episodes, rather than a single
1008: burst, and firmly distinguishes these faint dwarfs from globular
1009: clusters, which do not contain mixed stellar populations. This is
1010: clearly the case for Leo~T, which shows evidence for multiple stellar
1011: populations from its color-magnitude diagram \citep{irwin07}.
1012: However, a metallicity spread is the only evidence of multiple star
1013: formation episodes in the other dwarfs. Further investigation into
1014: the detailed abundances of these will provide a much clearer picture
1015: of star formation in these low mass objects.
1016:
1017:
1018: \subsection{Comments on Individual Galaxies}
1019: \label{comments}
1020: \begin{list}{$\bullet$}{\leftmargin=0.0in \rightmargin=0.0in
1021: \topsep=-0.0in \itemsep=0.05in}
1022: \item {\bf Ursa Major II}
1023: \label{uma2}
1024:
1025: UMa~II is one of the hardest galaxies to identify based on its
1026: signature in the velocity histogram (see Figure \ref{uma2_obsplot}{\it
1027: c}), but a clear peak at $-117$~\kms\ emerges once the foreground
1028: dwarf stars are screened out by their \ion{Na}{1} equivalent widths.
1029: Our measured velocity and velocity dispersion are in good agreement
1030: with those of \citet{martin07}. We identify 20 member stars in UMa~II
1031: out of 236 targeted sources, which represents our lowest detection
1032: rate for any of the galaxies. However, this is at least partly a
1033: result of our attempt to focus on stars in the outlying clumps noted
1034: by \citet{zucker06b} rather than the main body of the dwarf. There
1035: are two additional stars we classify as non-members that could in fact
1036: be associated with UMa~II. One of these stars has a velocity of
1037: $-95.6 \pm 2.3$~\kms, just over 3~$\sigma$ away from the systemic
1038: velocity; including this star as a member would increase the velocity
1039: dispersion of UMa~II to $8.2 \pm 1.6$~\kms. The other candidate
1040: member, SDSSJ084947.6+630830, was observed on both the first and third
1041: nights of our run and shows a velocity shift of 52.5~\kms\ while also
1042: changing spectral type from a K giant to a horizontal branch star. We
1043: suspect that this star is an RR Lyrae variable, and its mean velocity
1044: and apparent magnitude suggest that it is plausibly associated with
1045: UMa~II, but we must exclude it from our velocity dispersion
1046: calculation because of its large velocity variability. Future
1047: observations of this star could provide improved constraints on the
1048: distance of UMa~II.
1049:
1050: UMa~II is a clear outlier from the $M_{V}-\sigma$ trend defined by the
1051: other galaxies in Figure \ref{sigmaplot}\emph{a}, with a dispersion of
1052: 6.7~\kms\ despite its incredibly low luminosity. The irregular
1053: appearance, proximity to the Milky Way, and low luminosity of UMa~II
1054: led \citet{zucker06b} to suggest in their discovery paper that this
1055: galaxy might be in the process of tidal disruption. \citet{belok06b}
1056: and \citet{fellhauer07} have argued that UMa~II is the progenitor of
1057: the recently discovered stellar tidal stream known as the Orphan
1058: Stream. In \S\,\ref{tidal}, we add additional kinematic and abundance
1059: evidence supporting the hypothesis that UMa~II is a tidally disrupting
1060: satellite that may be associated with the Orphan Stream.
1061:
1062:
1063: \item {\bf Leo T}
1064:
1065: Leo~T is unique among the new dwarfs in that it contains gas
1066: ($M_{\rm HI}/M_{\rm star} \sim 1$) and has formed stars in the relatively
1067: recent past \citep{irwin07}. We measure a mean velocity of $38.1 \pm
1068: 2.0$~\kms\ and a stellar velocity dispersion of $7.5 \pm 1.6$~\kms, in
1069: excellent agreement with the \hi\ velocity and gas velocity dispersion
1070: measured by Ryan-Weber et al. (in preparation). We do not detect any
1071: evidence for a cold stellar population to match the cold gas component
1072: at the center of the galaxy, but our sample of 19 member stars is not
1073: large enough for a significant detection of such a component. One
1074: would also only expect the youngest blue stars, which are not sampled
1075: by our observations, to have kinematics similar to the cold gas.
1076: Leo~T is now one of very few dwarf galaxies that have well-measured
1077: kinematics from both the stars and the gas, and the agreement between
1078: the two indicates that the gas is accurately tracing the gravitational
1079: potential of the galaxy. In such a small system, many other effects
1080: could contribute to the velocity dispersion of the gas, but those
1081: contributions appear not to be significant. If this result also
1082: applies to other dwarfs then \hi\ kinematics can be used to measure
1083: their masses reliably, which is useful because in many cases the gas
1084: extends to larger radii than the stars do.
1085:
1086:
1087: \item {\bf Ursa Major I}
1088:
1089: \citet{kleyna05} reported Keck/HIRES spectra of 5 UMa~I member stars,
1090: obtaining a systemic velocity of $-52.45 \pm 4.27$~\kms\ and a
1091: velocity dispersion of $9.3^{+11.7}_{-1.2}$~\kms. We reobserved all 7
1092: of the stars from the \citeauthor{kleyna05} sample (including the 2
1093: non-members), and find excellent agreement on individual velocity
1094: measurements as discussed in \S\,\ref{measure_v}. With our larger
1095: sample of 39 member stars, our mean velocity for UMa~I is in good
1096: agreement with that of \citeauthor{kleyna05}, but our dispersion is
1097: somewhat lower than they measure (the disagreement is at less than
1098: 95\% confidence). We rule out the extremely high velocity dispersions
1099: of up to $\sim20$~\kms\ allowed by \citeauthor{kleyna05}'s data.
1100: Using the same luminosity for UMa~I that \citeauthor{kleyna05} assumed
1101: ($M_{V} = -6.75$ from \citealt{willman05a}), we naturally find a
1102: somewhat lower mass-to-light ratio ($355\pm220$~\msun/\lsun) than they
1103: calculate, but with the revised magnitude of $M_{V} = -5.5$ measured
1104: by \citet{belok06}, M/L becomes significantly larger. Our derived
1105: velocity dispersion is significantly lower than that obtained by
1106: \citet{martin07}, which may indicate that their uncertainties have
1107: been underestimated (see \S \ref{measure_v}). We do not detect any
1108: evidence for the kinematically cold component ($\sigma < 3.4$~\kms)
1109: suggested by \citeauthor{martin07}, despite a sample of stars that is
1110: a factor of $\sim2$ larger.
1111:
1112: UMa~I lacks a published distance uncertainty. \citet{willman05a}
1113: estimated a distance of 100~kpc from comparisons with the CMD of
1114: Sextans and theoretical isochrones. We use $\chi^{2}$ fits of the M92
1115: RGB and M13 HB fiducial tracks to our sample of radial velocity member
1116: stars to measure a more accurate distance modulus for UMa~I of
1117: $20.13^{+0.18}_{-0.17}$~mag, corresponding to a distance of
1118: $106^{+9}_{-8}$~kpc. We increase the assumed absolute magnitude of
1119: UMa~I to $M_{V} = -5.6$ to compensate for this slight increase in
1120: distance.
1121:
1122:
1123: \item {\bf Leo IV}
1124:
1125: With only one slitmask devoted to it, and a total exposure time of
1126: less than an hour, Leo~IV is the least-well studied galaxy in our
1127: sample. It also appears to have the smallest velocity dispersion,
1128: although with only 18 member stars and larger-than-average
1129: uncertainties on many of them, the uncertainty on the dispersion is
1130: significant. The dispersion of Leo~IV also depends critically on our
1131: assumptions about membership. Two candidate member stars that we have
1132: rejected would significantly influence its properties if they were
1133: included. One of these stars, although it is located just above blue
1134: end of the horizontal branch, has a velocity of $v = 160.1 \pm
1135: 5.9$~\kms\ that is well beyond the 3~$\sigma$ velocity range for the
1136: galaxy. Adding this star as a member would dramatically increase the
1137: velocity dispersion to $6.4 \pm 2.0$\,\kms. We therefore reject this
1138: star as a non-member (or possible binary system). The second star
1139: presents a more ambiguous case. It has a velocity of $120.2 \pm
1140: 2.8$~\kms, which is consistent with membership. It is located outside
1141: the half-light radius, but is close to 2 other member stars. However,
1142: inspection of the spectrum reveals that the Ca triplet lines for this
1143: star appear to be double-peaked, and that a more appropriate velocity
1144: for this star may be $\sim129$~\kms. Given that this star may be a
1145: binary and that its true velocity is uncertain, we consider the safest
1146: approach to be removing it from the sample. If the star is included
1147: with a velocity of 120.2~\kms\ the dispersion of Leo~IV would be $5.0
1148: \pm 1.4$~\kms; if the star's velocity is 129~\kms\ the effect on the
1149: velocity dispersion is negligible.
1150:
1151:
1152: \item {\bf Coma Berenices}
1153:
1154: Coma Berenices has the lowest luminosity of the new Milky Way
1155: satellites, and is located firmly in the low velocity dispersion half
1156: of the sample. One of the 59 assumed member stars has a velocity just
1157: outside the 3~$\sigma$ limit, at $v = 83.1 \pm 2.8$~\kms. This star
1158: is located $\sim0.3$~mag away from the blue edge of the subgiant
1159: branch, and could be an evolved blue straggler in Com. On the other
1160: hand, if we reject this star from the sample as a foreground
1161: contaminant, the velocity dispersion of Com declines to $3.8 \pm
1162: 0.8$~\kms. Com is unique among the ultra-faint dwarfs in that its
1163: member stars span a wide range of $g-i$ colors near the main sequence
1164: turnoff (MSTO), although only UMa~II is nearby enough to detect such
1165: stars among the other galaxies. The photometric uncertainties are not
1166: large enough to account for this spread. The stars on the blue side
1167: of the MSTO could be blue stragglers, but the presence of a few
1168: similarly situated stars on the red side suggests that we might
1169: instead be seeing the effects of multiple stellar populations with
1170: different ages (and hence MSTO luminosities and colors) in Com.
1171: Although it appears in Figure \ref{coma_obsplot}{\it c} that there may
1172: be velocity substructure in Com, this is partly a result of the chosen
1173: velocity binning, and a two-sided Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test
1174: indicates that the observed velocity distribution is consistent with a
1175: Gaussian at the 17\% confidence level.
1176:
1177: In terms of its luminosity, radius, and proximity to the Milky Way,
1178: Com is most similar to UMa~II among all of the ultra-faint satellites.
1179: Accordingly, we consider the possibility that, like UMa~II, Com is in
1180: the process of being tidally disrupted. We discuss the available
1181: evidence for and against disruption n \S\,\ref{tidal}, but conclude
1182: that Com is more likely to be a bound, dark matter-dominated object.
1183:
1184:
1185: \item {\bf Canes Venatici II}
1186:
1187: CVn~II is a very faint and very compact dwarf with a low mass. We
1188: have rejected one star as a member that is located well outside the
1189: half-light radius and has a velocity that is almost 4~$\sigma$ away
1190: from the mean velocity. If we instead opt to include this star, the
1191: velocity dispersion of the galaxy increases somewhat to $5.1 \pm
1192: 1.1$~\kms.
1193:
1194:
1195: \item {\bf Canes Venatici I}
1196:
1197: Along with Leo~T, CVn~I is the only other of the new dwarfs to display
1198: a broad red giant branch, indicating a significant spread in
1199: metallicity and/or age among its stellar population. For Leo~T, such
1200: a result is not surprising because young stars are visible in its CMD
1201: \citep{irwin07} and it still contains gas, but it is somewhat less
1202: expected in a tiny, gas-poor system like CVn~I. It is not currently
1203: understood how low-mass dSphs managed to hold on to enough gas to form
1204: stars over an extended period of time (although see, e.g.,
1205: \citealt{rg05,marcolini06}), but the same phenomenon is observed in
1206: all of the more luminous Milky Way dSph satellites. In this sense,
1207: CVn~I may have more in common with the previously-known dSphs (it
1208: approaches the lower bound of their luminosities) than it does with
1209: its ultra-faint SDSS cousins (which have much lower luminosities).
1210: While other dwarfs in our sample show evidence for metallicity
1211: spreads, CVn~I and Leo~T --- the two brightest of the ultra-faint
1212: dwarfs, and two of the three most massive (along with UMa~I) --- are
1213: the only two with RGB spreads as well. This result suggests that the
1214: critical mass and luminosity for dwarf galaxies to maintain the
1215: ability to form multiple stellar populations are $M_{V} \simless -7$
1216: and $M \simgtr 10^{7}$~\msun\ (although see \S\,\ref{metals}).
1217:
1218: \citet{ibata06} measured the velocities of 44 stars in CVn~I and
1219: reported two distinct kinematical components to the galaxy: a
1220: centrally concentrated metal-rich population with a velocity
1221: dispersion of less than 1.9~\kms\ at 99\% significance and a more
1222: extended metal-poor component with a velocity dispersion of
1223: $13.9^{+3.2}_{-2.5}$~\kms. Our much larger sample of 214 CVn~I member
1224: stars does not reveal any trace of this dichotomy. Dividing our
1225: sample in half using the same metal-rich/metal-poor cutoff as
1226: \citeauthor{ibata06} ([Fe/H]$ = -2.0$), we find $\sigma = 8.1 \pm
1227: 0.8$~\kms\ for the metal-rich stars and $\sigma = 7.2 \pm
1228: 0.5$~\kms\ for the metal-poor stars. Even limiting the metal-rich
1229: selection to the most metal-rich $\sim10$\% of the stars (in case the
1230: population detected by \citealt{ibata06} represents only a small
1231: fraction of the overall stellar population) does not reveal any
1232: evidence for a cold component. We also do not detect any tendency for
1233: the metal-rich stars to be more centrally concentrated in the galaxy
1234: than the metal-poor stars. Finally, we measure a mean velocity of
1235: $30.9 \pm 0.6$~\kms, inconsistent with the value of
1236: $\sim24.5$~\kms\ determined by \citet{ibata06}. Because of our very
1237: large sample of member stars and our repeat measurements of individual
1238: stars to constrain our errors carefully, we conclude that there is no
1239: kinematically cold population in CVn~I, and there is no detectable
1240: difference between the kinematics and spatial distributions of the
1241: metal-rich and metal-poor stars.
1242:
1243:
1244: \item {\bf Hercules}
1245:
1246: The only galaxy in which we detect possible evidence of kinematic
1247: substructure is Hercules. There is a peak in the velocity histogram
1248: containing 9 stars between 41 and 43~\kms\ (compared to the mean
1249: velocity of $45.0 \pm 1.1$~\kms), with the remaining 21 stars
1250: distributed more broadly between 30 and 60~\kms. Given an
1251: intrinsically Gaussian distribution with the same mean velocity and
1252: velocity dispersion that we measure for Hercules, the likelihood of
1253: finding as many as 9 stars out of 30 in such a narrow, offset peak is
1254: only $\sim1$\%. However, a two-sided KS test indicates that the
1255: observed velocity distribution of stars in Hercules is consistent with
1256: a Gaussian at the 43\% level. We conclude that there is not yet
1257: statistically significant evidence of velocity substructure in
1258: Hercules. If the velocity substructure does turn out to be real, it
1259: could be a sign in favor of the tidal disruption hypothesis advanced
1260: by \citet{coleman07}.
1261:
1262: Hercules contains two stars whose membership status is difficult to
1263: determine. The first of these, which is excluded from our member
1264: sample, has a velocity exactly on the mean velocity of the galaxy, but
1265: is offset almost 0.3~mag from the RGB and is therefore rejected on the
1266: basis of the photometry. Because its velocity is so close to the mean
1267: of the other stars, this star would have a negligible effect on the
1268: measured velocity dispersion. The other candidate star, which does
1269: satisfy our membership criteria, has a velocity that is just within
1270: 3~$\sigma$ of the mean velocity, at $30.7 \pm 2.2$~\kms. The Na
1271: equivalent width and metallicity of this star are also near the edge
1272: of the membership ranges; if we remove this star from the sample then
1273: the velocity dispersion of the galaxy would decrease to $4.2 \pm
1274: 0.9$~\kms.
1275:
1276: \end{list}
1277:
1278:
1279: \subsection{Tidal Disruption}
1280: \label{tidal}
1281:
1282: Two of the dwarfs presented in this paper show at least some evidence
1283: for on-going tidal disruption by the Milky Way. As mentioned in \S
1284: \ref{comments}, the properties of UMa~II and perhaps Com appear to be
1285: affected by these interactions.
1286:
1287: UMa~II is located very close to the Milky Way, second only to
1288: Sagittarius (which is the archetype of tidally disrupting dwarfs)
1289: among the known dSphs. \citet{zucker06b} noted that UMa~II appears
1290: irregular and its stars are broken up into several subclumps.
1291: \citet{belok06b} pointed out that the Orphan Stream lies along a great
1292: circle intersecting the position of UMa~II, and our measured radial
1293: velocity of $-116.5 \pm 1.9$\,\kms\ is in reasonable agreement with
1294: the $100$\,\kms\ predicted by \citet{fellhauer07} if UMa~II is
1295: associated with the Orphan Stream. \citeauthor{fellhauer07}~also
1296: predict a roughly north-south velocity gradient over several degrees
1297: within UMa~II. Although our member sample only spans a declination
1298: range of 13.6\arcmin, we do detect a modest correlation between radial
1299: velocity and declination among the member star (correlation
1300: coefficient of $-0.40$), in the same sense as predicted. More
1301: significantly, we find strong evidence for a difference in the mean
1302: velocity between the eastern and western halves of the galaxy, with
1303: the stars on the eastern side having a velocity $8.4 \pm
1304: 1.4$~\kms\ larger than those on the western side. It is highly
1305: unlikely that a galaxy as small as UMa~II would show significant
1306: coherent rotation, so this velocity gradient strongly suggests that
1307: UMa~II is distorted by tidal forces. As noted previously, UMa~II is
1308: also a clear outlier from the $M_{V}-\sigma$ trend shown in Figure
1309: \ref{sigmaplot}\emph{a}. This galaxy therefore either has a
1310: mass-to-light ratio several times larger than any other dwarf
1311: (Table~\ref{masstable}), or its velocity dispersion has been inflated
1312: by the tidal field of the Milky Way. Finally, UMa~II has a
1313: metallicity $\simgtr0.5$~dex higher than would be expected from the
1314: luminosity-metallicity relationship shown in Figure~\ref{feh_fig}.
1315: Its metallicity is more appropriate for a system with $M_{V} \approx
1316: -10$ (250 times more luminous than UMa~II). Taken together, all of
1317: these independent results make a strong case for the imminent tidal
1318: disruption of UMa~II, and we are not aware of any observational
1319: evidence suggesting that UMa~II is bound.
1320:
1321: Coma Berenices presents an intriguing counterpoint to UMa~II. It
1322: shares some notable properties with UMa~II, including an exceptionally
1323: low luminosity ($M_{V} = -3.7$, compared to $M_{V} = -3.8$), a
1324: location near the Milky Way (44~kpc instead of 32~kpc), and an
1325: unexpectedly high stellar metallicity. As with UMa~II, we find a
1326: modest correlation of velocity with position in the galaxy
1327: (correlation coefficient of velocity with right ascension = $-0.24$).
1328: Dividing the galaxy in half along the minor axis, we find a mean
1329: velocity of $93.3 \pm 1.1$~\kms\ for the northwestern side and a mean
1330: velocity of $98.8 \pm 0.5$~\kms\ for the southeastern side. This
1331: velocity difference is significant at the 4~$\sigma$ level. As with
1332: UMa~II, it is not expected that galaxies of this size are rotationally
1333: supported, so if this velocity gradient is real it suggests that Coma
1334: Berenices, like UMa~II, may be distorted by tidal forces. On the
1335: other hand, there are no known tidal streams that are plausibly
1336: associated with Com, its velocity dispersion is approximately what
1337: would be expected given its luminosity, and its stellar distribution
1338: is not noticeably more irregular than those of the other ultra-faint
1339: dwarfs (there are two bright stars immediately to the north of Com
1340: that may be responsible for the apparent distortion of the isopleths
1341: in that direction pointed out by \citealt{belok07}). We also note
1342: that, with a smaller half-light radius (and larger central density;
1343: see \S \ref{density}) than any other Local Group dwarf, Com may be
1344: more robust to disruption than some of its counterparts. While the
1345: available evidence is suggestive of the possibility that Coma
1346: Berenices could be tidally disrupting, the situation is not nearly as
1347: clear-cut as it is for UMa~II. We therefore treat Com as a bound,
1348: dark matter-dominated object for now, while recognizing that future
1349: observations (most importantly, identification of an associated
1350: stellar stream) could change this picture.
1351:
1352: For the other six galaxies in our sample, we do not detect any
1353: statistically significant velocity gradients or other evidence
1354: suggesting tidal disruption.
1355:
1356:
1357: \section{DISCUSSION}
1358: \label{discussion}
1359:
1360: \subsection{The Missing Satellite Problem}
1361: \label{missingsats}
1362:
1363: Understanding the nature of the ultra-faint dwarf galaxies and
1364: determining their impact on the missing satellite problem is one of
1365: the key goals of this work. Our observations show that with the
1366: likely exception of UMa~II (and possibly Coma Berenices as well) the
1367: ultra-faint dwarfs seem to be dark matter-dominated systems, with
1368: masses lower than those of the previously-known dSphs and very large
1369: mass-to-light ratios. These galaxies are currently the darkest known
1370: stellar systems in the universe.
1371:
1372: Determining the importance of the effect that the new dwarfs have on
1373: the abundance of satellite galaxies around the Milky Way requires
1374: having a way to compare observed galaxy properties to the properties
1375: of subhalos in N-body simulations. The simplest possible approach is
1376: to estimate the halo circular velocities of the ultra-faint dwarfs as
1377: $v_{\rm circ} = \sqrt{3} \sigma$ \citep{klypin99}, assuming that the
1378: observed dispersions are equivalent to the maximum dispersions reached
1379: in each galaxy, and that the stars have negligible orbital anisotropy.
1380: Although these assumptions may not be correct in detail, if we use
1381: cumulative satellite distributions then the results of this exercise
1382: are relatively insensitive to them. The circular velocities of dark
1383: matter subhalos in the simulations can be measured robustly, giving us
1384: an appropriate point of comparison. We note that a more accurate
1385: means of comparing observed dwarfs to simulated subhalos is to use the
1386: mass contained within 0.6~kpc, which is better constrained by the
1387: observations than the halo circular velocity is \citep{strigari07b};
1388: these calculations will be presented in a future paper (Strigari et
1389: al., in preparation). Using the above approximation, we find that the
1390: ultra-faint dwarfs have circular velocities from $v_{\rm circ} =
1391: 6-13$~\kms\ (for plotting and comparison purposes, we round the
1392: circular velocity of Leo~IV up to 6~\kms). Because the fifth data
1393: release of the SDSS, where all of the new Milky Way satellites have
1394: been discovered, only covers 8000 deg$^{2}$ of sky, we must weight
1395: each of the new dwarfs by a factor of $\sim5$ to account for the
1396: additional ultra-faint dwarfs likely to be discovered once the rest of
1397: the sky has been similarly surveyed.
1398:
1399: We display the cumulative number of Milky Way satellites as a function
1400: of circular velocity in Figure \ref{substructure_plot}. We assume
1401: Poisson uncertainties on the total number of dwarfs ($\mbox{dN} =
1402: \sqrt{\mbox{N}_{\rm old} + 5^{2}\mbox{N}_{\rm new}}$, where $N_{\rm
1403: old}$ and $N_{\rm new}$ refer to the previously-known and
1404: newly-discovered dwarf galaxies, respectively). For comparison, we
1405: include the subhalo circular velocity function from the recent Via
1406: Lactea simulation, currently the highest resolution (234 million
1407: particles) N-body simulation of a Milky Way-size galaxy
1408: \citep*{diemand06,diemand07}. This simulation assumes the best-fit
1409: WMAP three-year cosmological parameters: $\Omega_{m} = 0.238$,
1410: $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.762$, $h = 0.73$, $n = 0.951$, and $\sigma_{8} =
1411: 0.74$ \citep{spergel07}. The Via Lactea subhalos include all bound
1412: halos located within the virial radius (389~kpc) of the main halo (see
1413: also \S \ref{completeness}). The addition of the new dwarfs, combined
1414: with the correction for the sky area that has yet to be observed with
1415: sufficient sensitivity, substantially changes the appearance of the
1416: substructure problem. The previously-known Milky Way satellite
1417: galaxies have a nearly flat circular velocity function below $v_{\rm
1418: circ} = 15$~\kms, causing a discrepancy with the predictions that
1419: worsens with decreasing mass and reaches well over an order of
1420: magnitude below $v_{\rm circ} = 10$~\kms. With the ultra-faint dwarfs
1421: included we now see a rising circular velocity function and a
1422: satellite underabundance of a factor of $\sim4$ for halos with masses
1423: between $v_{\rm circ} = 10$~\kms\ and 20~\kms. At $v_{\rm circ} =
1424: 6$~\kms\ the discrepancy increases again towards an order of
1425: magnitude, but if the current observational census is still incomplete
1426: at the faint end, this is the mass range where that would manifest
1427: itself. The ultra-faint dwarfs significantly fill in the gap for
1428: satellites in the two lowest mass bins, but have masses that are too
1429: small to affect the satellite deficit at higher circular velocities.
1430:
1431: \begin{figure}[t!]
1432: \epsscale{1.24}
1433: \plotone{f12.eps}
1434: \caption{Cumulative number of Milky Way satellite galaxies as a
1435: function of halo circular velocity. The filled black squares
1436: include the new circular velocity estimates from this paper (plus
1437: Bo{\" o}tes, but excluding UMa~II) as well as all of the previously
1438: known Milky Way dwarfs. The open gray squares show the observed
1439: distribution without the new ultra-faint dwarfs. We assume Poisson
1440: errors on the number count of satellites in each bin (computed
1441: independently for the new and old dwarfs), although the true
1442: uncertainties may be larger. The solid line plus diamonds
1443: represents the subhalo abundance within the virial radius of the Via
1444: Lactea N-body simulation \citep{diemand06}.}
1445: \label{substructure_plot}
1446: \end{figure}
1447:
1448:
1449: \subsubsection{Proposed Solutions to the Missing Satellite Problem}
1450: \label{solutions}
1451:
1452: Using these new data, we can test a number of proposed astrophysical
1453: solutions to the missing satellite problem. For example, the observed
1454: dwarf galaxies could inhabit the most massive subhalos at the present
1455: day \citep{stoehr02}, the subhalos that collapsed at the highest
1456: redshift \citep{bkw00}, or the subhalos that were the most massive at
1457: the time they were accreted by the Milky Way \citep{kravtsov04}. We
1458: show the results of these tests in Figures \ref{substruc_solns} and
1459: \ref{substruc_reion}. To compare the observed dwarfs to the most
1460: massive (MM) subhalos, we identified the 51 halos (to match the number
1461: of Milky Way satellites projected to be found once the remainder of
1462: the sky has been surveyed) located within the virial radius that have
1463: the largest total masses at the present day in the Via Lactea
1464: simulation. The circular velocity function of these subhalos is
1465: plotted as the solid cyan curve in Figure \ref{substruc_solns}. Note
1466: that because we chose the total number of subhalos to match the total
1467: number of Milky Way dwarfs, the agreement between the observed
1468: distribution and the cyan curve in the lowest mass bin is trivial.
1469: Another possibility is to compare the observed circular velocity
1470: function with the circular velocity function of the subhalos that were
1471: most massive when they were accreted (dashed purple curve in Figure
1472: \ref{substruc_solns}). We selected the largest before accretion (LBA)
1473: subhalos from the Via Lactea simulation as the halos located within
1474: the virial radius of the main halo at $z = 0$ that had the largest
1475: circular velocities at any point in the past. Again, the agreement at
1476: the low-mass end is simply a result of our choice of the top 51
1477: subhalos from the simulation.\footnote{The largest-before-accretion
1478: subsample at the present day (dashed purple curve in Figure
1479: \ref{substruc_solns}) actually only has 46 objects with $v_{\rm
1480: circ} > 6$~\kms\ because 5 of the subhalos lost so much mass by
1481: $z=0$ that they end up with even lower present-day circular
1482: velocities than are shown in the plot.} If the observed dwarf
1483: galaxies inhabit only the most massive dark matter subhalos around the
1484: Milky Way, the shape of the mass function of the most massive subhalos
1485: fails to match the shape of the observed mass function. Using the
1486: subhalos that were most massive at the time they were accreted instead
1487: of the ones most massive today (i.e., allowing for mass lost by tidal
1488: stripping) brings the subhalo mass function slightly closer to the
1489: observed one, but there are still a factor of $\sim3$ too few dwarfs
1490: in the $v_{\rm circ} = 10-30$~\kms\ range.
1491:
1492: \begin{figure}[t!]
1493: \epsscale{1.24}
1494: \plotone{f13.eps}
1495: \caption{Outcome of two proposed solutions to the missing satellite
1496: problem. As in Figure \ref{substructure_plot}, the filled black
1497: squares include the new circular velocity estimates from this paper
1498: (plus Bo{\" o}tes, but excluding UMa~II) as well as all of the
1499: previously known Milky Way dwarfs, and the solid line plus diamonds
1500: represents the subhalo abundance within the virial radius of the Via
1501: Lactea N-body simulation \citep{diemand06}. The solid cyan curve
1502: shows the circular velocity distribution for the 51 most massive Via
1503: Lactea subhalos at $z=0$. The dashed purple curve illustrates the
1504: circular velocity distribution for the 51 Via Lactea subhalos that
1505: had the largest masses at the time they were accreted by the main
1506: halo.}
1507: \label{substruc_solns}
1508: \end{figure}
1509:
1510: \begin{figure}[t!]
1511: \epsscale{1.24}
1512: \plotone{f14.eps}
1513: \caption{Effect of reionization on the missing satellite problem. As
1514: in Figure \ref{substructure_plot}, the filled black squares include
1515: the new circular velocity estimates from this paper (plus Bo{\"
1516: o}tes, but excluding UMa~II) as well as all of the previously
1517: known Milky Way dwarfs, and the solid line plus diamonds represents
1518: the subhalo abundance within the virial radius of the Via Lactea
1519: N-body simulation \citep{diemand06}. The solid red curve shows the
1520: circular velocity distribution for the 51 most massive Via Lactea
1521: subhalos at $z=13.6$, the dashed cyan curve at $z=11.9$, and the
1522: dotted blue curve at $z=9.6$.}
1523: \label{substruc_reion}
1524: \end{figure}
1525:
1526: The final astrophysical solution we consider is that only halos that
1527: collapsed prior to reionization were able to form significant numbers
1528: of stars \citep[e.g.,][]{bkw00,somerville02,moore06}. Among the Via
1529: Lactea subhalos that are located within the virial radius at $z=0$, we
1530: select the objects with the 51 largest values of $v_{\rm circ}$ at
1531: various high redshifts. The results of this test are displayed in
1532: Figure \ref{substruc_reion}. The solid red, dashed cyan, and dotted
1533: blue curves represent the subhalos that would be selected if $z_{\rm
1534: reion} = 13.6$, 11.9, and 9.6, respectively. \emph{If reionization
1535: occurred around redshift $9-14$, and dwarf galaxy formation was
1536: strongly suppressed thereafter, the circular velocity function of
1537: Milky Way satellite galaxies approximately matches that of CDM
1538: subhalos.} If reionization occurred at $z \simless 8$, we again
1539: find an underabundance of Milky Way dwarfs with $v_{circ} =
1540: 15-30$~\kms\ compared to theoretical models, although we note that the
1541: individual subhalo $v_{\rm circ}(z)$ histories in the Via Lactea
1542: simulation are noisy at high redshift, and the number of objects in
1543: these bins is relatively low. We therefore suggest that the observed
1544: mass function of Milky Way satellite galaxies constrains reionization
1545: to have taken place before $z=8$, in agreement with the 3-year WMAP
1546: results from measurements of the cosmic microwave background
1547: \citep[$z_{\rm reion} = 10.9^{+2.7}_{-2.3}$;][]{page06}. However,
1548: there are a number of caveats to this analysis: (1) the extrapolation
1549: of dwarf galaxy abundances from the SDSS DR5 sky coverage to the whole
1550: sky must be reasonable, (2) the observed velocity dispersions must
1551: provide a reasonable estimate of the halo circular velocities, (3) the
1552: primary physical mechanism responsible for suppressing the formation
1553: of galaxies in low-mass dark matter halos must be reionization, (4)
1554: the cosmology used for the Via Lactea simulation
1555: \citep{diemand06,diemand07} --- particularly the low value of
1556: $\sigma_{8}$ --- must be a good match to the cosmology of our
1557: universe, and (5) the main halo simulated in Via Lactea must be a
1558: reasonable representation of the Milky Way. We also note that while
1559: WMAP and most other observational probes are sensitive to the mean
1560: reionization history of the universe, the dwarf galaxies observed in
1561: the study are sensitive primarily to the reionization history \emph{of
1562: the Local Group}. If reionization was indeed responsible for the
1563: low abundance of Galactic satellites, then the Milky Way and/or M31
1564: must have been undergoing vigorous enough star formation to ionize the
1565: intergalactic medium of the Local Group at $z > 8$.
1566:
1567:
1568: \subsubsection{Observational Incompleteness and the Comparison Radius
1569: in Simulations}
1570: \label{completeness}
1571:
1572: One of the important assumptions involved in our analysis in \S\S
1573: \ref{missingsats} and \ref{solutions} is the choice of the radius in
1574: the simulations out to which satellites should be counted. In the
1575: ideal case, this radius should be the virial radius, as we have used,
1576: but in reality the comparison between observations and simulations is
1577: only meaningful in the regime where the observations are complete.
1578:
1579: The observational census for Milky Way satellite galaxies similar to
1580: the brighter dwarf spheroidals ($M_{V} \simless -9$) should be largely
1581: complete by now; the last Milky Way satellite in this luminosity range
1582: to be discovered was Sagittarius \citep*{ibata94}. Recent searches of
1583: Palomar Sky Survey data, which are sensitive to such galaxies anywhere
1584: within the Local Group, have not detected additional dwarfs
1585: \citep{whiting07,sb02}. The distribution of Milky Way dwarf galaxies
1586: as a function of Galactic latitude suggests that additional relatively
1587: bright dwarfs remain to be discovered at low latitudes, where
1588: extinction and foreground confusion are serious problems. The
1589: expected number of such objects if they are distributed uniformly
1590: around the Galaxy is $\sim4$ \citep{mateo98,willman04}, which does not
1591: appear to be enough to significantly affect the missing satellite
1592: problem.
1593:
1594: Very recently, \citet{koposov07} have analyzed the detectability of
1595: faint Milky Way satellites in the SDSS DR5 data. They find that
1596: extremely low-luminosity objects ($M_{V} \simless -5$) may be missed
1597: by SDSS searches if they are located at relatively large distances ($d
1598: \simgtr 100$~kpc), as the horizontal branch and MSTO stars that their
1599: detection relies on become too faint to be reliably detected in the
1600: SDSS. Galaxies with even lower surface brightnesses than the known
1601: dwarfs ($\mu_{V} \simgtr 30$~\surfb), if they exist, are also likely
1602: to have escaped detection. However, if there is a correlation between
1603: surface brightness and distance from the host galaxy
1604: \citep[e.g.,][]{mi06} or density and distance (as our data and
1605: \citealt{mayer01b} suggest), there may not be significant numbers of
1606: ultra-faint dwarfs at large distances. For more luminous dwarfs and
1607: those with higher central surface brightnesses, the current sample of
1608: Milky Way satellites should be reasonably complete. The
1609: \citet{koposov07} luminosity function of Milky Way satellite galaxies
1610: predicts that there are a total of 57 dwarf galaxies within 280~kpc of
1611: the Milky Way over the whole sky, and a similar number within 420~kpc.
1612: Thus, our much simpler estimates of $46 \pm 14$ dwarf galaxies within
1613: 250~kpc and $51 \pm 15$ within 420~kpc from \S \ref{missingsats}
1614: appear to be well-justified.
1615:
1616: Incompleteness may still be a significant problem at the extreme faint
1617: end of the luminosity function, as the recent discovery of
1618: Bo{\"o}tes~II reveals \citep{walsh07}. Our results suggest that
1619: satellites in this luminosity range are not gravitationally-bound
1620: dwarf galaxies. If these objects are tidally disrupted dwarfs, then
1621: they should still contribute to the Milky Way satellite census, but if
1622: they are simply multiple fragments from larger objects (for example,
1623: if there is a physical connection between Bo{\"o}tes and
1624: Bo{\"o}tes~II) or unusual globular clusters then they do not
1625: correspond to dark matter subhalos in the CDM simulations. Until
1626: surveys are more complete at faint magnitudes and some kinematic
1627: information is available for this class of objects, their effect on
1628: the missing satellite problem is not clear.
1629:
1630: In case there are undiscovered ultra-faint Milky Way dwarfs beyond $d
1631: = 250$~kpc, we repeated our analysis of \S \ref{missingsats} using
1632: subhalos within 250~kpc from the main halo in the Via Lactea
1633: simulation (and discarding Leo~T from the observed sample because it
1634: is beyond this radius). This smaller radius reduces the overall
1635: number of satellite subhalos by $\sim30$\%, not enough to
1636: significantly change our conclusions. Limiting the comparison to this
1637: radius shifts the preferred range of reionization redshifts slightly
1638: lower, but also lessens our leverage on determining the redshift of
1639: reionization.
1640:
1641:
1642: \subsection{The Constant Halo Mass Hypothesis}
1643:
1644: \citet{mateo93} was the first to point out that observations of the
1645: dSphs known at that time suggested that they were all embedded within
1646: dark matter halos of mass $\sim3 \times 10^{7}$~\msun, independent of
1647: luminosity. In Figure \ref{mateoplot} we display an updated version
1648: of what has become popularly known as the ``Mateo'' plot, showing the
1649: mass-to-light ratios of all of the Local Group dSphs with measured
1650: kinematics as a function of absolute magnitude. As seen previously by
1651: \citet{mateo93}, \citet{mateo98}, and \citet{gilmore07}, all of the
1652: galaxies observed prior to this work are approximately consistent with
1653: the picture proposed by \citet{mateo93}. The results change, however,
1654: when the ultra-faint Milky Way satellites are added. Although the
1655: brightest of the ultra-faint dwarfs still lie within the same range of
1656: halo mass as their more luminous counterparts, the fainter objects
1657: (Hercules, Leo~IV, CVn~II, and Coma Berenices) are located well below
1658: the extrapolated trend. These galaxies have much lower halo masses,
1659: and hence their mass-to-light ratios are significantly smaller than
1660: what would be expected if they too were embedded in $\sim3 \times
1661: 10^{7}$~\msun\ halos. Combining the new and old dwarfs, it appears
1662: that there are two distinct regimes: the brighter dwarfs ($M_{V} <
1663: -9$) all have similar mass dark matter halos, but for the fainter
1664: dwarfs ($M_{V} > -9$) M/L saturates at a value of $200-1000$ and the
1665: halo mass declines as luminosity decreases (see Figure
1666: \ref{sigmaplot}\emph{b}). It therefore appears that the ultra-faint
1667: dwarfs \emph{do not} occupy halos as massive as those of the
1668: ``normal'' dSphs; if there is a minimum halo mass for dwarf galaxies,
1669: it is not clear that the observations have yet reached it.
1670:
1671: \begin{figure*}[t!]
1672: \epsscale{1.20}
1673: \plotone{f15.eps}
1674: \caption{Total mass-to-light ratios (in solar units) as a function of
1675: absolute magnitude for Local Group dwarf spheroidals. The red
1676: symbols represent the ultra-faint dwarfs from this paper (including
1677: Leo~T, which is not really a dSph, and UMa~II, which may be tidally
1678: disrupted, as an open red circle in the upper left). The open black
1679: squares represent all of the dSphs with previously-published
1680: kinematic data, including satellites of M31 as well as the Milky
1681: Way. The dashed gray lines are curves of constant dark matter halo
1682: mass ($1,2,4,8 \times 10^{7}$~\msun\ from bottom to top), assuming a
1683: stellar mass-to-light ratio of 2.5~\mlv. For the previously-known
1684: Milky Way dwarfs, we recomputed luminosities from \citet{ih95} using
1685: the most up-to-date distance measurements, and then adjusted the
1686: mass-to-light ratios from the literature accordingly. References
1687: for distance measurements are: Fornax \citep*{saviane00,mg03,gull07},
1688: Leo~I \citep{bellazzini04}, Sculptor \citep{mateo98}, Leo~II
1689: \citep*{bellazzini05}, Sextans \citep{lee03}, Carina \citep{d03},
1690: Ursa Minor \citep{mb99}, and Draco \citep{bonanos04}. References
1691: for M/L measurements are: Fornax \citep{walker06}, Leo~I
1692: \citep{sohn06a,koch07a}, Sculptor \citep{westfall06}, Leo~II
1693: \citep{koch07b}, Sextans \citep{walker06b}, Carina \citep{munoz06a},
1694: Ursa Minor \citep{wu07}, Draco \citep*{lokas05}, And~II
1695: \citep{cote99}, Cetus \citep{lewis07}, And~IX \citep{chapman05}, And
1696: XIV \citep{majewski07}, and Bo{\" o}tes \citep{munoz06}. }
1697: \label{mateoplot}
1698: \end{figure*}
1699:
1700:
1701: \subsection{Central Dark Matter Densities in the Ultra-Faint Dwarfs}
1702: \label{density}
1703:
1704: The observed velocity dispersions and radii of the new dwarfs
1705: constrain their densities as well as their masses and mass-to-light
1706: ratios. Because these galaxies are highly dark matter-dominated, the
1707: overall densities we derive are essentially equal to the density of
1708: the dark matter halo of each object. Following \citet{mateo91}, we
1709: can approximate the central density as
1710:
1711: \begin{equation}
1712: 166 \sigma^{2} \eta/r_{c}^{2},
1713: \end{equation}
1714: where $\eta$ is a numerical parameter that works out to 1 for
1715: plausible density profiles. The central densities of the new dwarfs
1716: range from $\sim0.08$~\msun~pc$^{-3}$ for CVn~I and Hercules up to
1717: $\sim2.1$~\msun~pc$^{-3}$ for the faintest galaxy, Coma Berenices.
1718: Alternatively, we can calculate mean densities from the total masses
1719: given in Table \ref{masstable} and the core radii. To compare with
1720: the mean densities of the previously-known Milky Way dSphs tabulated
1721: by \citet{gilmore07}, we assume that the extent of the new dwarfs is
1722: $\sim2$ King core radii. Again, Coma Berenices is the densest object,
1723: with a mean density of 0.52~\msun~pc$^{-3}$ ($=
1724: 20$~GeV/c$^{2}$~cm$^{-3}$), almost a factor of five higher than any of
1725: the previously known dSphs. This substantially raises the limiting
1726: mass density of $\sim5$~GeV/c$^{2}$~cm$^{-3}$ identified by
1727: \citet{gilmore07} and suggests that there may not be a true physical
1728: ceiling on the densities of dwarf galaxies (as opposed to an
1729: observational ceiling) at all. However, if Com is in the process of
1730: tidal disruption, as our observations hint, then the highest dark
1731: matter densities in our sample occur in Leo~T and CVn~II and are only
1732: modestly above the density limit of \citet{gilmore07}.
1733:
1734:
1735: \subsection{Phase-Space Density Constraints from the Ultra-Faint Dwarfs}
1736: \label{phasespace}
1737:
1738: \citet{hd00} introduced the parameter $Q \equiv \rho/\sigma^{3}$ as an
1739: estimate of the coarse-grained phase-space density of the dark matter
1740: in galaxy halos. As discussed by \citet{hd00}, \citet{dh01}, and
1741: \citet{strigari06}, Liouville's theorem implies that observed values
1742: of $Q$ set a hard lower limit on the original phase-space density of
1743: the dark matter. By finding the systems with the largest observed
1744: values of $Q$, we can therefore constrain the properties of dark
1745: matter and potentially rule out classes of dark matter candidates.
1746: Observations of low-mass spiral galaxies by \citet{simon05} yield
1747: lower limits of $\sim 10^{-6}$~\msun~pc$^{-3}$~(\kms)$^{-3}$ on $Q$
1748: \citep[][Martinez et al., in preparation]{strigari06}, but those are
1749: less restrictive constraints than are provided by the Ly-$\alpha$
1750: forest. $Q$ values for the ultra-faint dwarfs are listed in Table
1751: \ref{densitytable}. These values are calculated under the assumption
1752: that the velocity dispersion of the dark matter (which is what $Q$
1753: actually depends on) is equal to the velocity dispersion of the stars.
1754: Our observations show that most of the ultra-faint dwarfs greatly
1755: exceed the phase-space density constraint from the Ly-$\alpha$ forest,
1756: reaching a maximum of $Q = 2.2 \times
1757: 10^{-2}$~\msun~pc$^{-3}$~(\kms)$^{-3}$ in Coma Berenices. Even if the
1758: derived $Q$ of Com has been affected by tidal disruption, all of the
1759: galaxies except UMa~I, CVn~I, and Hercules have $Q$ values $\simgtr
1760: 10^{-3}$~\msun~pc$^{-3}$~(\kms)$^{-3}$, two orders of magnitude better
1761: than the Ly-$\alpha$ forest constraint and about an order of magnitude
1762: improvement compared to the previously-known dSphs. In fact, the dark
1763: matter velocity dispersion is expected to be larger than the stellar
1764: velocity dispersion, so the $Q$ values we derive are upper limits on
1765: the true $Q$ values for these galaxies. Nevertheless, these $Q$
1766: values will further restrict the allowed parameter space for Warm Dark
1767: Matter particles, and may have an impact on the meta-CDM scenario
1768: proposed by \citet*{skb07}.
1769:
1770: \begin{deluxetable*}{l c c c}
1771: \tablewidth{0pt}
1772: \tablecolumns{5}
1773: \tablecaption{Physical and Phase-Space Densities}
1774: \tablehead{
1775: \colhead{Galaxy} & \colhead{$\rho_{0}$} &
1776: \colhead{$\bar \rho$} & \colhead{Q} \\
1777: \colhead{} & \colhead{(\msun~pc$^{-3}$)} &
1778: \colhead{(\msun~pc$^{-3}$)} & \colhead{(\msun~pc$^{-3}$~[\kms]$^{-3}$)}
1779: }
1780: \startdata
1781: Ursa Major II\tablenotemark{a} & $1.13 \pm 0.60$ & $0.27 \pm 0.18$ & $3.7 \pm 3.1 \times 10^{-3}$ \\
1782: Leo T & $0.79 \pm 0.36$ & $0.19 \pm 0.10$ & $1.9 \pm 1.5 \times 10^{-3}$ \\
1783: Ursa Major I & $0.25 \pm 0.08$ & $0.06 \pm 0.02$ & $5.6 \pm 2.9 \times 10^{-4}$ \\
1784: Leo IV & $0.19 \pm 0.20$ & $0.05 \pm 0.05$ & $5.3 \pm 9.9 \times 10^{-3}$ \\
1785: Coma Berenices & $2.09 \pm 0.86$ & $0.52 \pm 0.24$ & $2.2 \pm 1.4 \times 10^{-2}$ \\
1786: Canes Venatici II & $0.49 \pm 0.25$ & $0.12 \pm 0.07$ & $5.1 \pm 4.1 \times 10^{-3}$ \\
1787: Canes Venatici I & $0.08 \pm 0.02$ & $0.02 \pm 0.01$ & $1.7 \pm 0.5 \times 10^{-4}$ \\
1788: Hercules & $0.10 \pm 0.04$ & $0.02 \pm 0.01$ & $7.7 \pm 5.2 \times 10^{-4}$
1789: \enddata
1790: \label{densitytable}
1791: \tablenotetext{a}{UMa~II may be a tidally disrupted remnant, which
1792: would artificially inflate its density.}
1793: \end{deluxetable*}
1794:
1795:
1796: \section{SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS}
1797: \label{conclusions}
1798:
1799: We have obtained Keck/DEIMOS spectra of significant samples of stars
1800: in 8 of the new, ultra-faint Milky Way satellite galaxies recently
1801: discovered in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Using a large
1802: spectroscopic data set of radial velocity standard stars observed with
1803: DEIMOS, repeat DEIMOS measurements of stars in dwarf spheroidals and
1804: globular clusters, and DEIMOS and HIRES spectra of the same stars, we
1805: demonstrated that both our velocity measurements and our derived
1806: uncertainties are accurate. We then measured the velocities of $18-214$
1807: stars in each galaxy, with typical uncertainties of $\sim3.4$~\kms.
1808:
1809: From our measurements of individual stellar velocities, we calculated
1810: velocity dispersions for each of the ultra-faint dwarfs. The velocity
1811: dispersions, which are listed in Table \ref{dispersiontable}, range
1812: from $3.3 \pm 1.7$~\kms\ for Leo~IV up to $7.6 \pm 0.4$~\kms\ for CVn
1813: I, and we showed that the velocity dispersions are correlated with
1814: luminosity (inversely correlated with absolute magnitude). Under a
1815: set of simple assumptions, we calculated the total masses of the
1816: ultra-faint dwarfs, finding that these objects are the lowest-mass
1817: galaxies currently known. From the equivalent widths of the Ca
1818: triplet absorption lines we measured the metallicities of the red
1819: giant branch stars in the new dwarfs and derived mean metallicities
1820: ranging from [Fe/H] = $-2.0$ to [Fe/H] = $-2.3$; several of these
1821: galaxies are the most metal-poor stellar systems yet discovered.
1822:
1823: We summarize our primary conclusions from this study as follows:
1824:
1825: \begin{enumerate}
1826:
1827: \item The ultra-faint Milky Way satellites are dark matter-dominated
1828: dwarf galaxies with lower masses than any other known galaxies.
1829:
1830: \item The only clear exception among the 8 galaxies we observed, as
1831: well as those previously observed by others, is Ursa Major~II.
1832: Based on its clumpy appearance \citep{zucker06b}, small
1833: galactocentric distance \citep{zucker06b}, associated tidal stream
1834: \citep[][\S \ref{comments}]{fellhauer07}, inflated velocity
1835: dispersion (\S \ref{sigma}), unusually high metallicity (\S
1836: \ref{metals}), and possible velocity gradient (\S \ref{comments}),
1837: we conclude that UMa~II is in the late stages of tidal disruption.
1838: The other dwarf with $M_{V} \simgtr -4$, Coma Berenices, has a
1839: similarly high metallicity that indicates it may have suffered
1840: substantial tidal stripping as well. Because Com lacks most of the
1841: other supporting evidence for tidal disruption, we assume for now
1842: that it is still a bound, dark matter-dominated dwarf, although we
1843: recognize that future observations may show otherwise. Based on
1844: these results, we suggest that $M_{V} \approx -4$ ($3.4 \times
1845: 10^{3}$~\lsun) is the lower limit to the luminosity of
1846: gravitationally-bound dwarf galaxies. We therefore predict that
1847: objects such as Willman 1, Segue 1, and Bo{\" o}tes II will prove to
1848: be tidally-disrupted remnants.
1849:
1850: \item The 6 ultra-faint dwarfs with $M_{V} \simless -4$ follow the
1851: luminosity-metallicity relationship established by the more luminous
1852: Local Group dwarfs, and extend the relation by $\sim2$ orders of
1853: magnitude in luminosity. The faintest dwarfs, UMa~II and Com, are
1854: both outliers from this relationship, with metallicities more than
1855: 0.5 dex too large for their luminosities (or conversely,
1856: luminosities that are more than two orders of magnitude too small
1857: for their metallicities). We detect metallicity spreads of up to
1858: 0.5~dex in several objects, suggesting multiple star formation
1859: epochs.
1860:
1861: \item The total mass-to-light ratios of the ultra-faint dwarfs reach
1862: as high as 1000~\mlv\ (UMa~I). While the brighter galaxies ($M_{V}
1863: \simless -9$) have mass-to-light ratios consistent with the
1864: hypothesis that all dwarf spheroidals are embedded within dark
1865: matter halos of the same mass, the fainter galaxies depart from this
1866: trend in the sense that their mass-to-light ratios are too low
1867: (i.e., they have lower masses). We therefore suggest that the
1868: minimum \emph{mass} for dwarf galaxies (as opposed to the minimum
1869: luminosity mentioned earlier), if there is one, may not have been
1870: reached yet.
1871:
1872: \item The ultra-faint Milky Way satellites, after correcting for the
1873: sky area not covered by DR5 of the Sloan survey, substantially
1874: increase the abundance of dwarf galaxies with very low masses
1875: ($v_{\rm circ} \le 15$~\kms), thereby reducing the satellite deficit
1876: compared to CDM simulations to a factor of $\sim4$. Proposals to
1877: remedy the missing satellite problem by placing the observed dwarf
1878: galaxies in the most massive dark matter subhalos (at the present
1879: day) around the Milky Way or in the subhalos that were most massive
1880: at the time they were accreted by the Milky Way do not reproduce the
1881: observed shape of the circular velocity function. If we assume
1882: instead that only the halos that acquired a significant amount of
1883: mass ($v_{\rm circ} \simgtr 8$~\kms, varying somewhat with $z_{\rm
1884: reion}$) before the redshift of reionization were able to form
1885: stars, then the subhalos from the Via Lactea simulation
1886: \citep{diemand06,diemand07} approximately match both the total
1887: number of Milky Way dwarfs and the shape of the circular velocity
1888: function.
1889:
1890: \item The central dark matter densities of the ultra-faint dwarfs are
1891: as high as 2.1~\msun~pc$^{-3}$ (0.8~\msun~pc$^{-3}$ if Coma
1892: Berenices is tidally disrupting), significantly larger than those of
1893: the previously-known dwarf spheroidals. The phase-space densities
1894: are also higher than those of other astrophysical systems ($Q >
1895: 10^{-3}$~\msun~pc$^{-3}$~(\kms)$^{-3}$), which will place
1896: significant limits on non-CDM dark matter models.
1897:
1898: \end{enumerate}
1899:
1900:
1901: \acknowledgements{Data presented herein were obtained at the
1902: W. M. Keck Observatory, which is operated as a scientific
1903: partnership among the California Institute of Technology, the
1904: University of California, and the National Aeronautics and Space
1905: Administration. The Observatory was made possible by the generous
1906: financial support of the W. M. Keck Foundation. The authors wish to
1907: recognize and acknowledge the very significant cultural role and
1908: reverence that the summit of Mauna Kea has always had within the
1909: indigenous Hawaiian community. We are most fortunate to have the
1910: opportunity to conduct observations from this mountain. JDS
1911: gratefully acknowledges the support of a Millikan Fellowship
1912: provided by Caltech and MG acknowledges support from a Plaskett
1913: Research Fellowship at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics of the
1914: National Research Council of Canada. We thank George Djorgovski,
1915: Vasily Belokurov, Leo Blitz, James Bullock, Judy Cohen, Pat C{\^
1916: o}t{\' e}, J{\" u}rg Diemand, Gerry Gilmore, Raja Guhathakurta,
1917: Nicolas Martin, Emma Ryan-Weber, Wal Sargent, Peter Stetson, Louie
1918: Strigari, Beth Willman, and Dan Zucker for helpful conversations,
1919: and we acknowledge the useful suggestions of the anonymous referee.
1920: We also thank Michael Cooper and the DEEP2 team for their hard work
1921: on the DEIMOS data reduction pipeline. The analysis pipeline used
1922: to reduce the DEIMOS data was developed at UC Berkeley with support
1923: from NSF grant AST-0071048. This research has made use of NASA's
1924: Astrophysics Data System Bibliographic Services, the NASA/IPAC
1925: Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion
1926: Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with
1927: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the SIMBAD
1928: database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France.}
1929:
1930: {\it Facilities:} \facility{Keck:II (DEIMOS)}
1931:
1932:
1933: \appendix
1934: \section{APPENDIX: COLLECTING UNIFORM DATA FOR THE ULTRA-FAINT DWARF GALAXIES}
1935: \label{data}
1936:
1937: The new ultra-faint dwarf galaxies have been discovered by a number of
1938: different authors, which means that their properties have not all been
1939: determined in a uniform manner. In order to calculate masses and
1940: mass-to-light ratios as consistently as possible for each galaxy, and
1941: to facilitate future studies of these objects, in this appendix we
1942: collect the currently available data on all 12 of the new Milky Way
1943: satellites (see Table~\ref{dwarfdatatable}).
1944:
1945: \begin{deluxetable*}{l c c c c c}
1946: \tablewidth{0pt}
1947: \tablecolumns{6}
1948: \tablecaption{Parameters of the Ultra-Faint Milky Way Satellites}
1949: \tablehead{
1950: \colhead{Galaxy} & \colhead{$M_{V}$} &
1951: \colhead{distance} & \colhead{$r_{Plummer}$}
1952: & \colhead{$r_{Plummer}$} & \colhead{References} \\
1953: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{(kpc)} &
1954: \colhead{(arcmin)} & \colhead{(pc)} & \colhead{}
1955: }
1956: \startdata
1957: Ursa Major II & $-3.8 \pm 0.6 $ & $32^{+5}_{-4}$ & 13.6 & $127 \pm 21$ & (1),(2) \\
1958: Leo T & $-7.1 \pm 0.3 $ & $417^{+20}_{-19}$ & 1.4 & $170 \pm 15$ & (3) \\
1959: Ursa Major I & $-5.6 \pm 0.6 $ & $106^{+9}_{-8}$ & 10.0 & $308 \pm 32$ & (2),(4),(5) \\
1960: Leo IV & $-5.1 \pm 0.6 $ & $158^{+15}_{-14}$ & 3.3 & $152 \pm 17$ & (6) \\
1961: Coma Berenices & $-3.7 \pm 0.6 $ & $44 \pm 4$ & 5.0 & $64 \pm 7$ & (6) \\
1962: Canes Venatici II & $-4.8 \pm 0.6 $ & $151^{+15}_{-13}$ & 3.0 & $132 \pm 16$ & (6) \\
1963: Canes Venatici I & $-7.9 \pm 0.5 $ & $224^{+22}_{-20}$ & $8.5 \pm 0.5$ & $554 \pm 63$ & (7) \\
1964: Hercules & $-6.0 \pm 0.6 $ & $138^{+13}_{-12}$ & 8.0 & $321 \pm 36$ & (6) \\
1965: \hline
1966: Segue 1 & $-3.0 \pm 0.6 $ & $23 \pm 2$ & 4.5 & $30 \pm 3$ & (6) \\
1967: Willman 1 & $-2.5 \pm 1.0 $ & $38 \pm 7$ & $1.9 \pm 0.3$ & $21 \pm 5$ & (8) \\
1968: Bo{\" o}tes II & $-3.1 \pm 1.1 $ & $60 \pm 6$ & $4.1\pm1.6$ & $72 \pm 28$ & (9) \\
1969: Bo{\" o}tes & $-5.8 \pm 0.5 $ & $60 \pm 6$ & $13.0\pm0.7$ & $227 \pm 26$ & (3)
1970: \enddata
1971:
1972: \tablerefs{(1) \citealt{zucker06b}; (2) D. Zucker \& V. Belokurov
1973: 2007, private communication; (3) \citealt{irwin07}; (4)
1974: \citealt{belok06}; (5) this work; (6) \citealt{belok07}; (7)
1975: \citealt{zucker06a}; (8) \citealt{willman06}; (9) \citealt{walsh07}
1976: }
1977: \label{dwarfdatatable}
1978: \end{deluxetable*}
1979:
1980: With the exception of Willman~1 and Bo{\"o}tes~II, we use the absolute
1981: magnitudes and radii determined by the Cambridge group (Zucker,
1982: Belokurov, Irwin et al.) from SDSS data. This includes the revised
1983: absolute magnitude of $M_{V} = -5.5$ for UMa~I reported in
1984: \citet{belok06}, which differs substantially from the original value
1985: of $M_{V} = -6.75$ estimated by \citet{willman05a}, although the
1986: uncertainties on both numbers are admittedly large. Note that our
1987: improved distance for UMa~I of 106~kpc (compared to the previously
1988: reported 100~kpc) requires a corresponding change in the absolute
1989: magnitude to $M_{V} = -5.6$. The \citeauthor{belok06}~magnitude for
1990: UMa~I is not accompanied by an uncertainty; by analogy to the other
1991: galaxies of similar luminosity we assume an uncertainty of 0.6~mag.
1992: \citeauthor{belok06}~have also re-measured the radius of UMa~I in the
1993: same manner as they did for the other Milky Way galaxies, finding a
1994: Plummer radius of 10\arcmin\ (D. Zucker \& V. Belokurov 2007, private
1995: communication).
1996:
1997: UMa~II is described in the discovery paper only as having an angular
1998: extent of $\sim0\fdg5 \times 0\fdg25$ and a half-light radius of
1999: approximately 120~pc \citep{zucker06b}. Similarly to UMa~I, the
2000: authors have re-fit the light profile using the same method as they
2001: did for the other new dwarfs and measured a half-light radius of
2002: $13\farcm6$ (D. Zucker \& V. Belokurov 2007, private communication).
2003: Note that unlike the Plummer radii we use for the other dwarfs, this
2004: radius is the mean of the Plummer radius and the exponential scale
2005: radius; in most cases the two radii are very similar.
2006:
2007: Bo{\"o}tes~II does not have a published distance uncertainty, so given
2008: the angular proximity to Bo{\"o}tes and the apparently identical
2009: distance moduli, we assume the same distance uncertainty for
2010: Bo{\"o}tes~II as \citet{belok06} derived for Bo{\"o}tes.
2011:
2012: Most of the new discoveries do not have published uncertainties for
2013: their Plummer radius fits. For these objects, we assume an
2014: uncertainty of 6\% (the uncertainty given for CVn~I) on the angular
2015: radius for the purposes of calculating the uncertainty on the
2016: corresponding physical radius.
2017:
2018:
2019:
2020: \begin{thebibliography}{}
2021:
2022: \bibitem[Adelman-McCarthy et al.(2007)]{dr5} Adelman-McCarthy,
2023: J.\ 2007, \apjs in press (ApJS preprint doi:10.1086/'518864')
2024:
2025: \bibitem[Bellazzini et al.(2004)]{bellazzini04} Bellazzini, M.,
2026: Gennari, N., Ferraro, F.~R., \& Sollima, A.\ 2004, \mnras, 354, 708
2027:
2028: \bibitem[Bellazzini et al.(2005){Bellazzini, Gennari, \&
2029: Ferraro}]{bellazzini05} Bellazzini, M., Gennari, N., \& Ferraro,
2030: F.~R.\ 2005, \mnras, 360, 185
2031:
2032: \bibitem[Belokurov et al.(2006a)]{belok06a} Belokurov, V., et
2033: al.\ 2006a, \apjl, 642, L137
2034:
2035: %Bootes discovery
2036: \bibitem[Belokurov et al.(2006b)]{belok06} Belokurov, V., et
2037: al.\ 2006b, \apjl, 647, L111
2038:
2039: %Orphan Stream (UMa II)
2040: \bibitem[Belokurov et al.(2007a)]{belok06b} Belokurov, V., et
2041: al.\ 2007a, \apj, 658, 337
2042:
2043: %Coma Berenices, CVn II, Leo IV, Hercules discoveries
2044: \bibitem[Belokurov et al.(2007b)]{belok07} Belokurov, V., et
2045: al.\ 2007b, \apj, 654, 897
2046:
2047: \bibitem[Benson et al.(2002)]{benson02} Benson, A.~J., Frenk, C.~S.,
2048: Lacey, C.~G., Baugh, C.~M., \& Cole, S.\ 2002, \mnras, 333, 177
2049:
2050: \bibitem[Blanton \& Roweis(2007)]{blanton07} Blanton, M.~R., \& Roweis,
2051: S.\ 2007, \aj, 133, 734
2052:
2053: \bibitem[Blanton et al.(2005)]{vagc} Blanton, M.~R., et al.\
2054: 2005, \aj, 129, 2562
2055:
2056: \bibitem[Bode et al.(2001){Bode, Ostriker, \& Turok}]{bode01} Bode,
2057: P., Ostriker, J.~P., \& Turok, N.\ 2001, \apj, 556, 93
2058:
2059: \bibitem[Bonanos et al.(2004)]{bonanos04} Bonanos, A.~Z., Stanek,
2060: K.~Z., Szentgyorgyi, A.~H., Sasselov, D.~D., \& Bakos,
2061: G.~{\'A}.\ 2004, \aj, 127, 861
2062:
2063: \bibitem[Bullock et al.(2000){Bullock, Kravtsov, \& Weinberg}]{bkw00}
2064: Bullock, J.~S., Kravtsov, A.~V., \& Weinberg, D.~H.\ 2000, \apj,
2065: 539, 517
2066:
2067: \bibitem[Carretta \& Gratton(1997)]{cg97} Carretta, E., \& Gratton,
2068: R.~G.\ 1997, \aaps, 121, 95
2069:
2070: %And IX kinematics
2071: \bibitem[Chapman et al.(2005)]{chapman05} Chapman, S.~C., Ibata,
2072: R., Lewis, G.~F., Ferguson, A.~M.~N., Irwin, M., McConnachie, A., \&
2073: Tanvir, N.\ 2005, \apjl, 632, L87
2074:
2075: \bibitem[Clem(2005)]{clem05} Clem, J.~L.\ 2005, Ph.D.~Thesis,
2076: University of Victoria
2077:
2078: \bibitem[Coleman et al.(2007)]{coleman07} Coleman, M.~G. et al.\ 2007,
2079: submitted to ApJL (preprint at ArXiv e-prints, 706, arxiv:0706.1669)
2080:
2081: \bibitem[Col{\'{\i}}n et al.(2000){Col{\'{\i}}n, Avila-Reese, \&
2082: Valenzuela}]{colin00} Col{\'{\i}}n, P., Avila-Reese, V., \&
2083: Valenzuela, O.\ 2000, \apj, 542, 622
2084:
2085: \bibitem[C{\^o}t{\'e} et al.(1999)]{cote99} C{\^o}t{\'e}, P., Mateo,
2086: M., Olszewski, E.~W., \& Cook, K.~H.\ 1999, \apj, 526, 147
2087:
2088: \bibitem[Dalcanton \& Hogan(2001)]{dh01} Dalcanton, J.~J., \& Hogan,
2089: C.~J.\ 2001, \apj, 561, 35
2090:
2091: \bibitem[Dall'Ora et al.(2003)]{d03} Dall'Ora, M., et al.\ 2003, \aj,
2092: 126, 197
2093:
2094: \bibitem[Diemand et al.(2007a){Diemand, Kuhlen, \& Madau}]{diemand06}
2095: Diemand, J., Kuhlen, M., \& Madau, P.\ 2007a, \apj, 657, 262
2096:
2097: \bibitem[Diemand et al.(2007b){Diemand, Kuhlen, \& Madau}]{diemand07}
2098: Diemand, J., Kuhlen, M., \& Madau, P.\ 2007b, \apj, in press
2099: (preprint: astro-ph/0703337)
2100:
2101: \bibitem[Faber et al.(2003)]{faber03a} Faber, S.~M., et al.\
2102: 2003, \procspie, 4841, 1657
2103:
2104: \bibitem[Fellhauer et al.(2007)]{fellhauer07} Fellhauer, M., et
2105: al.\ 2007, \mnras, 375, 1171
2106:
2107: \bibitem[Gilbert et al.(2006)]{gilbert06} Gilbert, K.~M., et
2108: al.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 1188
2109:
2110: \bibitem[Gilmore et al.(2007)]{gilmore07} Gilmore, G., Wilkinson,
2111: M.~I., Wyse, R.~F.~G., Kleyna, J.~T., Koch, A., \& Evans,
2112: N.~W.\ 2007, \apj, in press (preprint: astro-ph/0703308)
2113:
2114: \bibitem[Girardi et al.(2004)]{girardi04} Girardi, L., Grebel,
2115: E.~K., Odenkirchen, M., \& Chiosi, C.\ 2004, \aap, 422, 205
2116:
2117: \bibitem[Grebel et al.(2003)]{grebel03} Grebel, E.~K., Gallagher,
2118: J.~S., \& Harbeck, D.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 1926
2119:
2120: %UMa II co-discovery
2121: \bibitem[Grillmair(2006)]{grillmair06} Grillmair, C.~J.\ 2006,
2122: \apjl, 645, L37
2123:
2124: \bibitem[Guhathakurta et al.(2006)]{raja06} Guhathakurta, P., et
2125: al.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 2497
2126:
2127: \bibitem[Gullieuszik et al.(2007)]{gull07} Gullieuszik, M., Held,
2128: E.~V., Rizzi, L., Saviane, I., Momany, Y., \& Ortolani, S.\ 2007,
2129: \aap, 467, 1025
2130:
2131: \bibitem[Harris(1996)]{harris96} Harris, W.~E.\ 1996, \aj, 112, 1487
2132:
2133: \bibitem[Hogan \& Dalcanton(2000)]{hd00} Hogan, C.~J., \&
2134: Dalcanton, J.~J.\ 2000, \prd, 62, 063511
2135:
2136: %Sagittarius discovery
2137: \bibitem[Ibata et al.(1994)]{ibata94} Ibata, R.~A., Gilmore,
2138: G., \& Irwin, M.~J.\ 1994, \nat, 370, 194
2139:
2140: %CVn I kinematics
2141: \bibitem[Ibata et al.(2006)]{ibata06} Ibata, R., Chapman, S.,
2142: Irwin, M., Lewis, G., \& Martin, N.\ 2006, \mnras, 373, L70
2143:
2144: %And XV and XVI discovery
2145: \bibitem[Ibata et al.(2007)]{ibata07} Ibata, R., Martin,
2146: N.~F., Irwin, M., Chapman, S., Ferguson, A.~M.~N., Lewis, G.~F., \&
2147: McConnachie, A.~W.\ 2007, submitted to \apj\ (preprint at
2148: ArXiv e-prints, 704, arXiv:0704.1318)
2149:
2150: \bibitem[Illingworth(1976)]{illingworth76} Illingworth, G.\ 1976,
2151: \apj, 204, 73
2152:
2153: \bibitem[Irwin \& Hatzidimitriou(1995)]{ih95} Irwin, M., \&
2154: Hatzidimitriou, D.\ 1995, \mnras, 277, 1354
2155:
2156: %Leo T discovery
2157: \bibitem[Irwin et al.(2007)]{irwin07} Irwin, M.~J., et al.\
2158: 2007, \apjl, 656, L13
2159:
2160: \bibitem[Kamionkowski \& Liddle(2000)]{kl99} Kamionkowski, M., \&
2161: Liddle, A.~R.\ 2000, Physical Review Letters, 84, 4525
2162:
2163: \bibitem[Kauffmann et al.(1993){Kauffman, White, \&
2164: Guiderdoni}]{kgg93} Kauffmann, G., White, S.~D.~M., \& Guiderdoni,
2165: B.\ 1993, \mnras, 264, 201
2166:
2167: \bibitem[King(1962)]{king62} King, I.\ 1962, \aj, 67, 471
2168:
2169: \bibitem[Kleyna et al.(1999)]{kleyna99} Kleyna, J., Geller, M.,
2170: Kenyon, S., \& Kurtz, M.\ 1999, \aj, 117, 1275
2171:
2172: %UMa I kinematics
2173: \bibitem[Kleyna et al.(2005)]{kleyna05} Kleyna, J.~T., Wilkinson,
2174: M.~I., Evans, N.~W., \& Gilmore, G.\ 2005, \apjl, 630, L141
2175:
2176: \bibitem[Klypin et al.(1999)]{klypin99} Klypin, A., Kravtsov,
2177: A.~V., Valenzuela, O., \& Prada, F.\ 1999, \apj, 522, 82
2178:
2179: \bibitem[Koch et al.(2006)]{koch06} Koch, A., Grebel, E.~K., Wyse,
2180: R.~F.~G., Kleyna, J.~T., Wilkinson, M.~I., Harbeck, D.~R., Gilmore,
2181: G.~F., \& Evans, N.~W.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 895
2182:
2183: \bibitem[Koch et al.(2007a)]{koch07a} Koch, A., Wilkinson, M.~I.,
2184: Kleyna, J.~T., Gilmore, G.~F., Grebel, E.~K., Mackey, A.~D., Evans,
2185: N.~W., \& Wyse, R.~F.~G.\ 2007a, \apj, 657, 241
2186:
2187: \bibitem[Koch et al.(2007b)]{koch07b} Koch, A., Kleyna, J.~T.,
2188: Wilkinson, M.~I., Grebel, E.~K., Gilmore, G.~F., Evans, N.~W., Wyse,
2189: R.~F.~G., \& Harbeck, D.~R.\ 2007, \aj, 134, 566
2190:
2191: \bibitem[Koposov et al.(2007)]{koposov07} Koposov, S., et al.\ 2007,
2192: submitted to \apj\ (preprint at ArXiv e-prints, 706, arXiv:0706.2687
2193:
2194: \bibitem[Kravtsov et al.(2004){Kravtsov, Gnedin, \&
2195: Klypin}]{kravtsov04} Kravtsov, A.~V., Gnedin, O.~Y., \& Klypin,
2196: A.~A.\ 2004, \apj, 609, 482
2197:
2198: \bibitem[Lee et al.(2003)]{lee03} Lee, M.~G., et al.\ 2003, \aj, 126,
2199: 2840
2200:
2201: %Cetus kinematics
2202: \bibitem[Lewis et al.(2007)]{lewis07} Lewis, G.~F., Ibata,
2203: R.~A., Chapman, S.~C., McConnachie, A., Irwin, M.~J., Tolstoy, E., \&
2204: Tanvir, N.~R.\ 2007, \mnras, 1510
2205:
2206: \bibitem[{\L}okas et al.(2005){{\L}okas, Mamon, \& Prada}]{lokas05}
2207: {\L}okas, E.~L., Mamon, G.~A., \& Prada, F.\ 2005, \mnras, 363, 918
2208:
2209: \bibitem[Mackey \& Gilmore(2003)]{mg03} Mackey, A.~D., \& Gilmore,
2210: G.~F.\ 2003, \mnras, 345, 747
2211:
2212: %And XIV discovery
2213: \bibitem[Majewski et al.(2007)]{majewski07} Majewski, S.~R., et
2214: al.\ 2007, submitted to \apjl\ (preprint: astro-ph/0702635)
2215:
2216: \bibitem[Marcolini et al.(2006)]{marcolini06} Marcolini, A., D'Ercole,
2217: A., Brighenti, F., \& Recchi, S.\ 2006, \mnras, 371, 643
2218:
2219: %And XI-XIII discovery
2220: \bibitem[Martin et al.(2006)]{martin06} Martin, N.~F., Ibata, R.~A.,
2221: Irwin, M.~J., Chapman, S., Lewis, G.~F., Ferguson, A.~M.~N., Tanvir,
2222: N., \& McConnachie, A.~W.\ 2006, \mnras, 371, 1983
2223:
2224: \bibitem[Martin et al.(2007)]{martin07} Martin, N.~F., Ibata, R.~A.,
2225: Chapman, S., Irwin, M., \& Lewis, G.~F.\ 2007, \mnras, in press
2226: (preprint at ArXiv e-prints, 705, arXiv:0705.4622)
2227:
2228: \bibitem[Mateo et al.(1991)]{mateo91} Mateo, M., Olszewski, E.,
2229: Welch, D.~L., Fischer, P., \& Kunkel, W.\ 1991, \aj, 102, 914
2230:
2231: \bibitem[Mateo et al.(1993)]{mateo93} Mateo, M., Olszewski, E.~W.,
2232: Pryor, C., Welch, D.~L., \& Fischer, P.\ 1993, \aj, 105, 510
2233:
2234: \bibitem[Mateo(1998)]{mateo98} Mateo, M.~L.\ 1998, \araa, 36, 435
2235:
2236: \bibitem[Mayer et al.(2001a)]{mayer01a} Mayer, L., Governato, F.,
2237: Colpi, M., Moore, B., Quinn, T., Wadsley, J., Stadel, J., \& Lake, G.\
2238: 2001a, \apjl, 547, L123
2239:
2240: \bibitem[Mayer et al.(2001b)]{mayer01b} Mayer, L., Governato, F.,
2241: Colpi, M., Moore, B., Quinn, T., Wadsley, J., Stadel, J., \& Lake, G.\
2242: 2001b, \apj, 559, 754
2243:
2244: \bibitem[McConnachie \& Irwin(2006)]{mi06} McConnachie, A.~W., \&
2245: Irwin, M.~J.\ 2006, \mnras, 365, 1263
2246:
2247: \bibitem[Mighell \& Burke(1999)]{mb99} Mighell, K.~J., \& Burke,
2248: C.~J.\ 1999, \aj, 118, 366
2249:
2250: \bibitem[Moore et al.(1999)]{moore99} Moore, B., Ghigna, S.,
2251: Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T., Stadel, J., \& Tozzi, P.\ 1999,
2252: \apjl, 524, L19
2253:
2254: \bibitem[Moore et al.(2006)]{moore06} Moore, B., Diemand, J., Madau,
2255: P., Zemp, M., \& Stadel, J.\ 2006, \mnras, 368, 563
2256:
2257: \bibitem[Mu{\~n}oz et al.(2006a)]{munoz06a} Mu{\~n}oz, R.~R., et
2258: al.\ 2006a, \apj, 649, 201
2259:
2260: %Bootes kinematics
2261: \bibitem[Mu{\~n}oz et al.(2006b)]{munoz06} Mu{\~n}oz, R.~R.,
2262: Carlin, J.~L., Frinchaboy, P.~M., Nidever, D.~L., Majewski, S.~R., \&
2263: Patterson, R.~J.\ 2006b, \apjl, 650, L51
2264:
2265: \bibitem[Olszewski et al.(1996)]{olszewski96} Olszewski, E.~W., Pryor,
2266: C., \& Armandroff, T.~E.\ 1996, \aj, 111, 750
2267:
2268: \bibitem[Page et al.(2006)]{page06} Page, L., et al.\ 2007, \apjs,
2269: 170, 335
2270:
2271: \bibitem[Pryor \& Meylan(1993)]{pryor93} Pryor, C., \& Meylan, G.\
2272: 1993, ASP Conference Series, Vol.~50, p.357
2273:
2274: \bibitem[Read et al.(2006){Read, Pontzen, \& Viel}]{read06} Read,
2275: J.~I., Pontzen, A.~P., \& Viel, M.\ 2006, \mnras, 371, 885
2276:
2277: \bibitem[Ricotti \& Gnedin(2005)]{rg05} Ricotti, M., \& Gnedin,
2278: N.~Y.\ 2005, \apj, 629, 259
2279:
2280: \bibitem[Rutledge et al.(1997a)]{rutledge97a} Rutledge, G.~A., Hesser,
2281: J.~E., Stetson, P.~B., Mateo, M., Simard, L., Bolte, M., Friel, E.~D.,
2282: \& Copin, Y.\ 1997a, \pasp, 109, 883
2283:
2284: \bibitem[Rutledge et al.(1997b){Rutledge, Hesser, \&
2285: Stetson}]{rutledge97b} Rutledge, G.~A., Hesser, J.~E., \& Stetson,
2286: P.~B.\ 1997b, \pasp, 109, 907
2287:
2288: %CVn II co-discovery
2289: \bibitem[Sakamoto \& Hasegawa(2006)]{sh06} Sakamoto, T., \& Hasegawa,
2290: T.\ 2006, \apjl, 653, L29
2291:
2292: \bibitem[Saviane et al.(2000){Saviane, Held, \& Bertelli}]{saviane00}
2293: Saviane, I., Held, E.~V., \& Bertelli, G.\ 2000, \aap, 355, 56
2294:
2295: \bibitem[Schiavon et al.(1997)]{schiavon97} Schiavon, R.~P.,
2296: Barbuy, B., Rossi, S.~C.~F., \& Milone, A.\ 1997, \apj, 479, 902
2297:
2298: \bibitem[Schlegel et al.(1998){Schlegel, Finkbeiner, \& Davis}]{sfd98}
2299: Schlegel, D.~J., Finkbeiner, D.~P., \& Davis, M.\ 1998, \apj, 500,
2300: 525
2301:
2302: \bibitem[Simon \& Blitz(2002)]{sb02} Simon, J.~D., \& Blitz, L.\ 2002,
2303: \apj, 574, 726
2304:
2305: \bibitem[Simon et al.(2005)]{simon05} Simon, J.~D., Bolatto,
2306: A.~D., Leroy, A., Blitz, L., \& Gates, E.~L.\ 2005, \apj, 621, 757
2307:
2308: \bibitem[Sohn et al.(2007)]{sohn06a} Sohn, S.~T., et al.\ 2007,
2309: \apj, in press (preprint: astro-ph/0608151)
2310:
2311: \bibitem[Somerville(2002)]{somerville02} Somerville, R.~S.\ 2002,
2312: \apjl, 572, L23
2313:
2314: \bibitem[Spergel et al.(2007)]{spergel07} Spergel, D.~N., et
2315: al.\ 2007, \apjs, 170, 377
2316:
2317: \bibitem[Spinrad \& Taylor(1971)]{spinrad71} Spinrad, H., \& Taylor,
2318: B.~J.\ 1971, \apjs, 22, 445
2319:
2320: \bibitem[Stoehr et al.(2002)]{stoehr02} Stoehr, F., White, S.~D.~M.,
2321: Tormen, G., \& Springel, V.\ 2002, \mnras, 335, L84
2322:
2323: \bibitem[Strigari et al.(2006)]{strigari06} Strigari, L.~E., Bullock,
2324: J.~S., Kaplinghat, M., Kravtsov, A.~V., Gnedin, O.~Y., Abazajian,
2325: K., \& Klypin, A.~A.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 306
2326:
2327: \bibitem[Strigari et al.(2007b)]{strigari07b} Strigari, L.~E.,
2328: Bullock, J.~S., Kaplinghat, M., Diemand, J., Kuhlen, M., \& Madau,
2329: P.\ 2007b, submitted to \apj\ (preprint at ArXiv e-prints, 704,
2330: arXiv:0704.1817)
2331:
2332: \bibitem[Strigari et al.(2007a){Strigari, Kaplinghat, \&
2333: Bullock}]{skb07} Strigari, L.~E., Kaplinghat, M., \& Bullock,
2334: J.~S.\ 2007a, \prd, 75, 061303
2335:
2336: % Fornax
2337: \bibitem[Walker et al.(2006a)]{walker06} Walker, M.~G., Mateo, M.,
2338: Olszewski, E.~W., Bernstein, R., Wang, X., \& Woodroofe, M.\ 2006a,
2339: \aj, 131, 2114
2340:
2341: % Sextans
2342: \bibitem[Walker et al.(2006b)]{walker06b} Walker, M.~G., Mateo,
2343: M., Olszewski, E.~W., Pal, J.~K., Sen, B., \& Woodroofe, M.\ 2006b, \apjl,
2344: 642, L41
2345:
2346: %Bootes II discovery
2347: \bibitem[Walsh et al.(2007){Walsh, Jerjen, \& Willman}]{walsh07}
2348: Walsh, S.~M., Jerjen, H., \& Willman, B.\ 2007, \apjl, 662, L83
2349:
2350: \bibitem[Westfall et al.(2006)]{westfall06} Westfall, K.~B., Majewski,
2351: S.~R., Ostheimer, J.~C., Frinchaboy, P.~M., Kunkel, W.~E.,
2352: Patterson, R.~J., \& Link, R.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 375
2353:
2354: \bibitem[Whiting et al.(2007)]{whiting07} Whiting, A.~B., Hau,
2355: G.~K.~T., Irwin, M., \& Verdugo, M.\ 2007, \aj, 133, 715
2356:
2357: \bibitem[Willman et al.(2004)]{willman04} Willman, B., Governato, F.,
2358: Dalcanton, J.~J., Reed, D., \& Quinn, T.\ 2004, \mnras, 353, 639
2359:
2360: %UMa I discovery
2361: \bibitem[Willman et al.(2005a)]{willman05a} Willman, B., et al.\ 2005a,
2362: \apjl, 626, L85
2363:
2364: %Willman 1 discovery
2365: \bibitem[Willman et al.(2005b)]{willman05b} Willman, B., et al.\
2366: 2005b, \aj, 129, 2692
2367:
2368: %Willman 1 photometry
2369: \bibitem[Willman et al.(2006)]{willman06} Willman, B., et al.\
2370: 2006, submitted to \aj\ (preprint: astro-ph/0603486)
2371:
2372: \bibitem[Wu (2007)]{wu07} Wu, X. 2007, submitted to \apj\ (preprint:
2373: astro-ph/0702233)
2374:
2375: \bibitem[York et al.(2000)]{sdss} York, D.~G., et al.\ 2000,
2376: \aj, 120, 1579
2377:
2378: \bibitem[Zentner \& Bullock(2003)]{zb03} Zentner, A.~R., \& Bullock,
2379: J.~S.\ 2003, \apj, 598, 49
2380:
2381: %And IX discovery
2382: \bibitem[Zucker et al.(2004)]{zucker04} Zucker, D.~B., et al.\
2383: 2004, \apjl, 612, L121
2384:
2385: %CVn I discovery
2386: \bibitem[Zucker et al.(2006a)]{zucker06a} Zucker, D.~B., et al.\
2387: 2006a, \apjl, 643, L103
2388:
2389: %UMa II discovery
2390: \bibitem[Zucker et al.(2006b)]{zucker06b} Zucker, D.~B., et al.\
2391: 2006b, \apjl, 650, L41
2392:
2393: %And X discovery
2394: \bibitem[Zucker et al.(2007)]{zucker06c} Zucker, D.~B., et al.\
2395: 2007, \apjl, 659, L21
2396:
2397:
2398: \end{thebibliography}
2399:
2400:
2401:
2402: \end{document}
2403: