1: \documentclass[]{emulateapj}
2: \usepackage{lscape}
3: \submitted{Accepted to ApJ}
4:
5: \newcommand{\Ha }{H$\alpha$}
6: \newcommand{\HI}{H{\sc i}}
7: \newcommand{\Dpak } {DensePak}
8: \newcommand{\kms} {km s$^{-1}$}
9: \newcommand{\siis}{[\mbox{S\,{\sc ii}}]$\lambda$6717}
10: \newcommand{\siio}{[\mbox{S\,{\sc ii}}]$\lambda$6731}
11: \newcommand{\nii}{[\mbox{N\,{\sc ii}}]$\lambda$6584}
12: \newcommand {\ml} {$\Upsilon_{*}$}
13:
14: \shorttitle{Mass Models of LSB Galaxies}
15: \shortauthors{Kuzio de Naray et al.}
16:
17: \begin{document}
18: \title{Mass Models for Low Surface Brightness Galaxies with High
19: Resolution Optical Velocity Fields}
20: \author{Rachel Kuzio de Naray\altaffilmark{1,2}}
21: \affil{Center for Cosmology, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California,
22: Irvine, CA 92697-4575}
23: \altaffiltext{1}{NSF Astronomy and Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellow}
24: \altaffiltext{2}{Visiting Astronomer, Kitt Peak
25: National Observatory, National Optical Astronomy Observatory,
26: which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research
27: in Astronomy, Inc. (AURA) under cooperative agreement with the
28: National Science Foundation.}
29: \email{kuzio@uci.edu}
30: \author{Stacy S. McGaugh}
31: \affil{Department of Astronomy, University of Maryland, College Park,
32: MD 20742-2421}
33: \email{ssm@astro.umd.edu}
34: \and
35: \author{W.~J.~G.~ de Blok}
36: \affil{Department of Astronomy, University of Cape Town,
37: Rondebosch 7700, South Africa}
38: \email{edeblok@circinus.ast.uct.ac.za}
39:
40: \begin{abstract}
41: We present high-resolution optical velocity fields from \Dpak\
42: integral field spectroscopy, along with derived rotation curves, for
43: a sample of low surface brightness galaxies. In the limit of no
44: baryons, we fit the NFW and pseudoisothermal halo models to the data
45: and find the rotation curve shapes and halo central densities to be
46: better described by the isothermal halo.
47: For those galaxies with photometry, we present halo fits for three
48: assumptions of the stellar mass-to-light ratio, \ml. We find that the
49: velocity contribution from the baryons is significant enough in the
50: maximum disk case that maximum disk and the NFW halo are mutually
51: exclusive. We find a substantial cusp mass
52: excess at the centers of the galaxies, with at least two times more
53: mass expected in the cuspy CDM halo than is allowed by the data.
54: We also find that to reconcile the data with $\Lambda$CDM, $\sim$20
55: \kms\ noncircular motions are needed and/or the power spectrum has a
56: lower amplitude on the scales we probe.
57: \end{abstract}
58:
59: \keywords{dark matter --- galaxies: fundamental parameters ---
60: galaxies: kinematics and dynamics}
61:
62: \section{Introduction}
63: The behavior of cold dark matter (CDM) on galaxy scales has been
64: discussed extensively in the literature, with particular attention
65: given to constraints from rotation curves of low surface brightness
66: (LSB) galaxies. Numerical simulations of CDM predict cuspy halos with
67: a density distribution showing a $\rho$ $\sim$ $r^{-\alpha}$ ($\alpha$
68: $\gtrsim$ 1) behavior, regardless of mass \citep*[e.g.,][]{ColeLacey,
69: NFW96, NFW97, AvilaReese, Klypin,Diemand}. However, numerous studies of the
70: rotation curves of LSB and dwarf galaxies have found the data to be
71: inconsistent with a cuspy halo, and instead to be more consistent
72: with a halo having a nearly constant density core: $\rho$ $\sim$
73: $r^{-\alpha}$ ($\alpha$ $\approx$ 0) \citep*[e.g.,][]{Flores, DMV,
74: MRdB,Marchesini,dBBM,Gentile, Gentile05,Simon05, Kuzio, Spano07}. This
75: interpretation of the observations has been met with skepticism,
76: though, as cored halos lack
77: theoretical and cosmological motivation. Systematic effects in the
78: data (most notably beam smearing, slit misplacement, and noncircular
79: motions) have also been used to argue against the presence of cored
80: halos \citep*[e.g.,][]{vandenB00, Rob, Simon03, Rhee04}, although some
81: authors find the magnitude of these effects to be insufficient for
82: masking the presence of a cusp \citep{dBBM}.
83:
84: To address these concerns, the most recent observations have been made
85: using integral field spectrographs \citep[e.g.,][]{Chemin04, Gentile,
86: Gentile05, Kuzio, Simon05, Swaters03}. By their nature, these high-resolution
87: two-dimensional velocity fields eliminate concerns about long-slit
88: placement, and highlight the presence of noncircular motions. They
89: also typically probe in detail the innermost regions of the galaxies
90: where the cusp-core conflict is most severe. Even with these
91: improved observations, the data remain more consistent with cored
92: halos and tend to have concentrations too low for $\Lambda$CDM
93: (Kuzio de Naray et al.~2006; Gentile et al.~2007; but see Swaters
94: et al.~2003b).
95:
96: In a previous paper
97: \citep[hereafter K06]{Kuzio}\defcitealias{Kuzio}{K06}, we presented
98: high-resolution optical velocity fields and derived rotation curves for 11 LSB
99: galaxies, along with pseudoisothermal (core) and NFW (cusp) halo fits
100: in the limit of no baryons. LSB galaxies are thought to be dark
101: matter-dominated down to small radii (de Blok \& McGaugh 1996, 1997;
102: Boriello \& Salucci 2001; but see Fuchs 2003) with the light simply
103: providing a tracer for the dark matter, so neglecting the baryons is
104: not entirely unreasonable. The stellar mass contribution in these
105: systems is low, which reduces errors involving the uncertainty in the stellar
106: mass-to-light ratio, \ml, and in turn, the isolation of the dark
107: matter component. While halo fits are often made under the assumption
108: that all observed rotation is due to the dark matter, it is not
109: strictly true. In this paper, we present halo fits for four
110: assumptions about \ml\ for the galaxies in \citetalias{Kuzio} with
111: available photometry. We also present observed \Dpak\ velocity fields,
112: rotation curves and halo fits for six new galaxies, along with
113: additional \Dpak\ observations, updated rotation curves and halo
114: fits for three galaxies in \citetalias{Kuzio}.
115:
116: In \S\ 2 we describe our sample of galaxies and the \Dpak\
117: observations; the data reduction is discussed in \S\ 3. The
118: observed velocity fields and derived rotation curves are presented
119: in \S\ 4 and the zero disk halo fits are presented in \S\ 5. Mass
120: models for the galaxies with photometry are presented in \S\ 6 and
121: \S\ 7. A discussion of the mass model results is given in \S\ 8. Our
122: conclusions are stated in \S\ 9.
123:
124:
125: \section{Sample and Observations}
126:
127: During the nights of 2006 March 28-29, April 6-8, August 28-30 and
128: September 25-27 we observed 17 LSB galaxies using the \Dpak\
129: Integrated Field Unit (IFU) on the 3.5 m
130: WIYN\footnote{Based on observations obtained at the WIYN
131: Observatory. The WIYN Observatory is a joint facility of the
132: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Indiana University, Yale University,
133: and the National Optical Astronomy Observatory.} telescope at the Kitt
134: Peak National Observatory (KPNO). UGC 4325, DDO 64, and F583-1 were
135: observed during March and April. These observations augment previous
136: \Dpak\ observations published in \citetalias{Kuzio}. The 14 targets
137: that were observed in August and September were selected primarily
138: from the Nearby Galaxies Catalogue \citep{Tully}. Selection criteria
139: for these galaxies included positions satisfying 18$^{h}$ $\lesssim$ $\alpha$
140: $\lesssim$ 08$^{h}$ and 10\degr\ $\lesssim$
141: $\delta$ $\lesssim$ 50\degr, inclinations between 30\degr\ and
142: 85\degr, heliocentric velocities $\lesssim$ 3000
143: \kms, and an estimated $V_{flat}$ (approximated by
144: $V_{flat}$ $\sim$ 0.5$W_{20}$(sin i)$^{-1}$) between roughly 50 \kms\
145: and 100 \kms. Additionally, we selected those galaxies which appear
146: to have diffuse \Ha\ emission and lack indicators of significant
147: noncircular motions (e.g., strong bars or gross asymmetries). We also
148: targeted galaxies with previous long-slit rotation curves or \Ha\ imaging.
149:
150: Because of inclement weather and telescope scheduling, we did not have
151: \Ha\ imaging or long-slit rotation curves for most of the galaxies in
152: the sample prior to making the \Dpak\ observations.
153: Without these data, there is no way of
154: knowing how much \Ha\ emission will be detected by the
155: IFU until the observations are actually made. Thus,
156: our observed sample of galaxies is signal-limited; the IFU fibers
157: detected sufficient \Ha\ emission to create a useable velocity field in just
158: under 50\% of our target galaxies.
159:
160: The observing setup and procedure were identical to that used in
161: \citetalias{Kuzio}.
162: The IFU orientation on the sky and the
163: total number of pointings per galaxy were tailored to each galaxy so
164: that the critical central regions were covered by the \Dpak\ fibers.
165: Each exposure was 1800 s, and two exposures were taken at each
166: pointing. To provide wavelength calibration, a CuAr lamp was observed
167: before and after each pointing. We used the 860 line mm$^{-1}$
168: grating in second order, centered near \Ha, giving a 58 \kms\ velocity
169: resolution. The \Dpak\ fibers are 3\arcsec, however, we achieved
170: $\sim$2\arcsec\ resolution by shifting the \Dpak\ array by small
171: amounts so that the spaces between the fibers were observed. The
172: distances to the galaxies in the sample are such that a 3\arcsec\
173: fiber provides subkiloparsec resolution.
174:
175:
176: \section{Data Reduction}
177: The data were reduced following the procedure described in
178: \citetalias{Kuzio}. Briefly, the observations were reduced in
179: IRAF\footnote{IRAF is distributed by
180: the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by the
181: Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA), Inc.,
182: under agreement with the National Science Foundation.} using the
183: \texttt{HYDRA} package. Night-sky emission lines \citep{Osterbrock}
184: were used for wavelength calibration, and velocities were measured by fitting
185: Gaussians to both the sky lines and the four galactic emission lines
186: of interest: \Ha, \nii, \siis\ and \siio. The average error on
187: individual emission-line velocities due to centroiding accuracies was
188: roughly 1.5 \kms. The velocity assigned to each fiber was the
189: arithmetic mean of the measured emission-line velocities in the
190: fiber. The error on the fiber velocity was the maximum difference
191: between the measured velocities and the mean. Many of these errors were
192: less than 5 \kms, although a few were as high as $\sim$20 \kms.
193: If only \Ha\ was observed in a fiber, the observed \Ha\ velocity was
194: taken as the fiber velocity. Without other lines to determine the
195: maximum difference, we adopt 10 \kms\ as a conservative error estimate
196: based on experience with long-slit data \citep[e.g.][]{MRdB}.
197:
198: Using the input shifts at the telescope, individual \Dpak\ pointings
199: were combined to construct the observed velocity field. An \Ha\ flux
200: image of the galaxy constructed from the \Dpak\ observations was
201: compared to an actual \Ha\ image of the galaxy obtained at the KPNO 2 m
202: telescope to confirm the accuracy of the offsets. The fiber maps were
203: registered to the galaxy image by the correspondence of flux maxima
204: through the fibers to observed features like individual H{\sc ii} regions.
205: We find the accuracy of the fiber positions
206: ($\sim$0\arcsec.6) to be consistent with our results in
207: \citetalias{Kuzio}. Both large (1\arcsec$-$2\arcsec) and small
208: ($\sim$0\arcsec.7) shifts can be made confidently.
209:
210: Rotation curves were derived from the observed velocity fields using
211: the tilted-ring fitting program \texttt{ROTCUR} \citep{Begeman} following the
212: procedure outlined in \citetalias{Kuzio}. To construct a rotation curve,
213: \texttt{ROTCUR} requires the systemic velocity, inclination, kinematic center,
214: and position angle of the galaxy in addition to the observed fiber
215: velocities. For a more complete description of \texttt{ROTCUR} as
216: applied here, the reader is referred to \citetalias{Kuzio}.
217:
218: \begin{deluxetable*}{lccccccccccc}
219: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
220: \tablecaption{Properties of Observed Galaxies}
221: \tablewidth{0pt}
222: \tablehead{
223: &\colhead{R.A.} &\colhead{Decl.} &\colhead{$\mu_{0}$(B)}
224: &\colhead{Distance} &\colhead{$i$} &\colhead{$V_{hel}$}
225: &\colhead{$R_{max}$} &\colhead{$V_{max}$} &\colhead{P.A.} &\colhead{$\sigma$} &\colhead{}\\
226: \colhead{Galaxy} &\colhead{(J2000.0)} &\colhead{(J2000.0)}
227: &\colhead{(mag arcsec$^{-2}$)} &\colhead{(Mpc)} &\colhead{(deg)}
228: &\colhead{(\kms)} &\colhead{(kpc)} &\colhead{(\kms)} &\colhead{(deg)} &\colhead{(\kms)} &\colhead{References}\\
229: \colhead{(1)} &\colhead{(2)} &\colhead{(3)} &\colhead{(4)}
230: &\colhead{(5)} &\colhead{(6)} &\colhead{(7)} &\colhead{(8)}
231: &\colhead{(9)} &\colhead{(10)} &\colhead{(11)}
232: &\colhead{(12)}
233: }
234: \startdata
235: UGC 4325 &08 19 20.5 &+50 00 35 &22.5$^{a}$ &10.1 &41 &514 &2.9 &110
236: &52 &9.0 &2,2,2\\
237: DDO 64 &09 50 22.4 &+31 29 16 &\nodata &6.1 &60 &517 &1.9 &60 &97 &7.9
238: &2,2,2\\
239: F583-1 &15 57 27.5 &+20 39 58 &24.1 &32 &63 &2256 &5.8 &72 &355 &8.7 &4,4,4\\
240: NGC 7137$^{b}$ &21 48 13.0 &+22 09 34 &20.7$^{c}$ &22.5 &38 &1669
241: &3.2 &62 &44 &7.1 &1,10,12\\
242: UGC 11820 &21 49 28.4 &+14 13 52 &23.7 &13.3 &50 &1088 &2.9 &93 &309 &8.9 &14,7,9\\
243: UGC 128 &00 13 50.9 &+35 59 39 &24.2 &60 &57 &4509 &13.5 &133 &62 &15.5 &8,3,3\\
244: UGC 191 &00 20 05.2 &+10 52 48 &22.7 &17.6 &39 &1139 &2.4 &97 &156 &7.7 &14,13,12\\
245: UGC 1551 &02 03 37.5 &+24 04 32 &22.5 &20.2 &63 &2663 &3.8 &83 &114 &9.7 &5,11,12\\
246: NGC 959$^{d}$ &02 32 23.9 &+35 29 41 &21.9$^{e}$ &7.8 &51 &590 &1.6
247: &77 &64 &8.7 &6,7,7
248: \enddata
249: \tablecomments{Units of right ascension are hours, minutes, and
250: seconds, units of declination are degrees, arcminutes, and
251: arcseconds. Col.(1): Galaxy name. Col.(2): Right Ascension. Col.(3):
252: Declination. Col.(4): Central surface brightness in
253: $B$-band. Col.(5): Distance. Col.(6): Inclination. Col.(7):
254: Heliocentric systemic velocity. Col.(8): Maximum radius of the
255: DensePak rotation curve. Col.(9): Maximum velocity of the DensePak
256: rotation curve. Col.(10): Position angle of major axis; see \S 3
257: for details. Col.(11): Velocity dispersion of the \Dpak\ data. Col.(12): References for surface brightness, distance, and inclination.\\
258: \indent $^{a}$ Converted from $R$ band assuming $B$ $-$ $R$ = 0.9.\\
259: \indent $^{b}$ NGC 7137 = UGC 11815.\\
260: \indent $^{c}$ Converted from $V$ band assuming $B$ $-$ $V$ = 0.57.\\
261: \indent $^{d}$ NGC 959 = UGC 2002.\\
262: \indent $^{e}$ Converted from $I$ band assuming $V$ $-$ $I$ = 0.90 and $B$ $-$ $V$ = 0.53.\\
263: \indent REFERENCES $-$ (1) Baggett et al.\ 1998. (2) de Blok \& Bosma
264: 2002. (3) de Blok \& McGaugh 1996. (4) de Blok, McGaugh, \& Rubin
265: 2001. (5) de Jong 1996. (6) Heraudeau \& Simien 1996. (7)
266: James et al.\ 2004. (8) McGaugh 2005. (9) McGaugh, Rubin, \& de Blok
267: 2001. (10) Rosenberg \&
268: Schneider 2003. (11) Swaters \& Balcells 2002. (12) Tully 1988. (13)
269: van Zee \& Haynes 2006. (14) van Zee et al.\ 1997.}
270: \end{deluxetable*}
271:
272:
273: Because the \Dpak\ data cover the centers of the galaxies and probe
274: the regime of solid-body rotation, neither the galaxy center nor the
275: inclination could be determined from the observations. The velocity
276: field centers were therefore fixed to the optical centers of the
277: galaxies, as determined by the centroid of ellipses fit in the surface
278: photometry, and the inclination was fixed to published values
279: \citep{Tully, dBM96, MRdB, dBMR, dBB, James}. The systemic velocities
280: were determined by \texttt{ROTCUR}. We used \texttt{ROTCUR} to
281: determine the position angle of the major axis, using published
282: long-slit values as the initial guess. If the position angle could
283: not be well-constrained by \texttt{ROTCUR}, then it was fixed to the
284: long-slit value. The position angles of UGC 4325,
285: DDO 64, and F583-1 were not well-constrained by \texttt{ROTCUR}, and
286: remained fixed at the values used in
287: \citetalias{Kuzio}. The position angle of the major axis was
288: well-constrained by \texttt{ROTCUR} for all of the galaxies in the new
289: sample except for UGC 128. In the case of UGC 128, the position angle
290: was set to the position angle of the \HI\ velocity field of
291: \citet{vanderHulst}. For reasons described in \citetalias{Kuzio},
292: we did not impose a minimum error on the rotation curve points.
293: However, we added in quadrature to the error bars on the final
294: \texttt{ROTCUR} rotation curve the velocity error from Gaussian
295: centroiding accuracy, typically $\sim$1.5 \kms, corrected for inclination.
296: We have also not corrected the rotation velocities for asymmetric drift,
297: as the corrections are typically only $\sim$2 \kms\
298: \citep[see also][]{dBB}.
299:
300:
301:
302:
303:
304: \section{Observed Velocity Fields and Derived Rotation Curves }
305:
306: In this section, we present the \Dpak\ fiber positions, observed
307: velocity fields, and rotation curves in Figures 1-3. A
308: description of each galaxy is given, and the properties of the galaxies
309: for which a rotation curve was derived are listed in Table 1.
310:
311: \subsection{Extended Observations of Previously Observed Galaxies}
312: Additional \Dpak\ observations were made of three galaxies published
313: in \citetalias{Kuzio}. In this section, we describe the positions of the
314: new \Dpak\ pointings, present the augmented velocity fields, and
315: discuss the resulting changes in the rotation curves.
316:
317: $\textbf{\textit{UGC 4325}$-$}$ There were four new \Dpak\ pointings
318: roughly through the galaxy center from SE to NW. All eight pointings
319: are shown on the \Ha\ image (Figure 1) of the galaxy. The fiber velocities
320: were the average of the \Ha\ and
321: \siis\ lines. The position angle of the major axis remained fixed at
322: the average of the position angles of previous long-slit observations
323: \citep{dBB, Rob}. With the addition of the new \Dpak\ pointings, the
324: \Dpak\ rotation curve extends to $\sim$ 60$\arcsec$ and remains
325: in excellent agreement with the long-slit \Ha\ rotation curve of
326: \citet{dBB}.
327:
328: $\textbf{\textit{DDO 64}$-$}$ There were two new \Dpak\ pointings
329: along the SE end of DDO 64. All five pointings are shown on the \Ha\
330: image (Figure 1) of the galaxy. The fiber
331: velocities were the average of the \Ha\ and \siis\ lines. The
332: position angle remained fixed at the value determined in \citet{dBB}.
333: With the addition of the new \Dpak\ pointings and an \Ha\ image, the
334: positions of the \Dpak\ fibers on the galaxy have been updated and the
335: center of the velocity field has moved 13\arcsec E and
336: 2\arcsec.5 S. The
337: new \Dpak\ rotation curve is now consistent with the long-slit \Ha\
338: rotation curve of \citet{dBB} in the inner 20\arcsec. Beyond
339: 20\arcsec, the \Dpak\ rotation curve shows a more linear rise with
340: less scatter than its previous version.
341:
342: $\textbf{\textit{F583-1}$-$}$ There were two new \Dpak\ pointings,
343: one to the north and one to the east, on this galaxy. All three
344: pointings are shown on the $R$-band image (Figure 1) of the galaxy from
345: \citet{DMV}. The fiber velocities were the average of the \Ha, \siis,
346: and \siio\ lines. The receding side of the galaxy and more of the
347: minor axis are now covered with the additional pointings. The
348: position angle remained fixed at the value listed in \citet{MRdB}.
349: The new \Dpak\ rotation curve shows less scatter than the curve
350: derived from a single \Dpak\ pointing, and it displays a higher level
351: of consistency with the long-slit \Ha\ rotation curve of \citet*{dBMR}.
352:
353: \begin{figure*}
354: \includegraphics[scale=0.20]{f1a.eps}
355: \hfill
356: \includegraphics[scale=0.195]{f1b.eps}
357: \hfill
358: \includegraphics[scale=0.195]{f1c.eps}\\
359: \includegraphics[scale=0.34]{f1d_color.eps}
360: \hfill
361: \hfill
362: \hfill
363: \includegraphics[scale=0.34]{f1e_color.eps}
364: \hfill
365: \hfill
366: \hfill
367: \includegraphics[scale=0.34]{f1f_color.eps}\\
368: \includegraphics[scale=0.21]{f1g.eps}
369: \hfill
370: \includegraphics[scale=0.21]{f1h.eps}
371: \hfill
372: \includegraphics[scale=0.21]{f1i.eps}\\
373: \includegraphics[scale=0.21]{f1j.eps}
374: \hfill
375: \includegraphics[scale=0.21]{f1k.eps}
376: \hfill
377: \includegraphics[scale=0.21]{f1l.eps}
378: \begin{quote}
379: \caption{Additional observations of UGC 4325, DDO 64, and F583-1.
380: $\textit{Top row:}$ Position of \Dpak\ array on the \Ha\ images of
381: UGC 4325 and DDO 64 and the $R$-band image of F583-1.
382: $\textit{Second row:}$ Observed \Dpak\ velocity field with new pointings.
383: Empty fibers are those without detections. $\textit{Third row:}$
384: Updated \Dpak\ rotation curves. $\textit{Bottom row:}$ Updated
385: \Dpak\ rotation curves plotted with long-slit \Ha\ and \HI\ rotation
386: curves. [{\it See the
387: electronic edition of the Journal for a color version of this figure.}] }
388: \end{quote}
389: \end{figure*}
390:
391: \begin{figure*}
392: \includegraphics[scale=0.30]{f2a.eps}
393: \hfill
394: \includegraphics[scale=0.30]{f2b.eps}
395: \hfill
396: \includegraphics[scale=0.30]{f2c.eps}\\
397: \includegraphics[scale=0.34]{f2d_color.eps}
398: \hfill
399: \hfill
400: \hfill
401: \includegraphics[scale=0.34]{f2e_color.eps}
402: \hfill
403: \hfill
404: \hfill
405: \includegraphics[scale=0.34]{f2f_color.eps}\\
406: \includegraphics[scale=0.21]{f2g.eps}
407: \hfill
408: \includegraphics[scale=0.21]{f2h.eps}
409: \hfill
410: \includegraphics[scale=0.21]{f2i.eps}
411: \begin{quote}
412: \caption{Results for NGC 7137, UGC 11820, \& UGC 128.
413: $\textit{Top row:}$ Position of \Dpak\ array on the \Ha\ images of the
414: galaxies. $\textit{Middle row:}$ Observed \Dpak\ velocity field.
415: Empty fibers are those without detections. $\textit{Bottom row:}$
416: \Dpak\ rotation curves. The UGC 128 \Dpak\ points at large radii with
417: $\sigma$ $>$ 4 \kms\ are plotted as smaller points. The \Dpak\ rotation
418: curve of UGC 128 is
419: plotted with the \HI\ rotation curve of \citet{VerheijendB} (stars).
420: [{\it See the
421: electronic edition of the Journal for a color version of this figure.}]}
422: \end{quote}
423: \end{figure*}
424:
425: \begin{figure*}
426: \includegraphics[scale=0.30]{f3a.eps}
427: \hfill
428: \includegraphics[scale=0.30]{f3b.eps}
429: \hfill
430: \includegraphics[scale=0.30]{f3c.eps}\\
431: \includegraphics[scale=0.34]{f3d_color.eps}
432: \hfill
433: \hfill
434: \hfill
435: \includegraphics[scale=0.34]{f3e_color.eps}
436: \hfill
437: \hfill
438: \hfill
439: \includegraphics[scale=0.34]{f3f_color.eps}\\
440: \includegraphics[scale=0.21]{f3g.eps}
441: \hfill
442: \includegraphics[scale=0.21]{f3h.eps}
443: \hfill
444: \includegraphics[scale=0.21]{f3i.eps}
445: \begin{quote}
446: \caption[\Dpak\ observations of UGC 191, UGC 1551, \& NGC
447: 959]{Results for UGC 191, UGC 1551, \& NGC 959. $\textit{Top
448: row:}$ Position of \Dpak\ array on the \Ha\ images of the
449: galaxies. $\textit{Middle row:}$ Observed \Dpak\ velocity field.
450: Empty fibers are those without detections. $\textit{Bottom row:}$
451: \Dpak\ rotation curves. The open points in the UGC 191 and UGC 1551
452: rotation curves were excluded from the halo fits. [{\it See the
453: electronic edition of the Journal for a color version of this figure.}] }
454: \end{quote}
455: \end{figure*}
456:
457: \begin{figure*}
458: \includegraphics[scale=0.23]{f4a_color.eps}
459: \hfill
460: \includegraphics[scale=0.23]{f4b_color.eps}
461: \hfill
462: \includegraphics[scale=0.23]{f4c_color.eps}\\
463: \includegraphics[scale=0.23]{f4d_color.eps}
464: \hfill
465: \includegraphics[scale=0.23]{f4e_color.eps}
466: \hfill
467: \includegraphics[scale=0.23]{f4f_color.eps}\\
468: \includegraphics[scale=0.23]{f4g_color.eps}
469: \hfill
470: \includegraphics[scale=0.23]{f4h_color.eps}
471: \hfill
472: \includegraphics[scale=0.23]{f4i_color.eps}
473: \begin{quote}
474: \caption{Halo fits to the
475: \Dpak\ rotation curves. The red solid line is the best-fit
476: isothermal halo, the green short-dashed line is the best-fit unconstrained
477: NFW halo, and the black long-dashed line is the best-fit
478: NFW$_{constr}$ halo. NFW$_{constr}$ fits were only made to UGC 4325,
479: DDO 64, and F583-1. [{\it See the
480: electronic edition of the Journal for a color version of this figure.}] }
481: \end{quote}
482: \end{figure*}
483:
484: \begin{deluxetable*}{lcccccccccccccccccc}
485: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
486: \tablecaption{Isothermal Halo Parameters}
487: \tablecolumns{16}
488: \tablewidth{0pt}
489: \tablehead{
490: &\multicolumn{7}{c}{ZERO DISK} &\colhead{} &\multicolumn{7}{c}{MINIMAL DISK}\\
491: \cline{2-8} \cline{10-16}
492: \colhead{Galaxy} &\colhead{$R_{c}$} &\colhead{} &\colhead{$\rho_{0}$} &\colhead{} &\colhead{$\chi^{2}_{r}$} &\colhead{} &\colhead{$\Upsilon_{*}$} &\colhead{} &\colhead{$R_{c}$} &\colhead{} &\colhead{$\rho_{0}$} &\colhead{} &\colhead{$\chi^{2}_{r}$} &\colhead{} &\colhead{$\Upsilon_{*}$}
493: }
494: \startdata
495: UGC 4325 &4.1$\pm$0.3 & &88$\pm$3 & &3.2 & &0.0 & &4.6$\pm$1.5 & &77$\pm$5 & &3.1 & &0.57\\
496: F563-V2 &1.5$\pm$0.1 & &119$\pm$6 & &0.71 & &0.0 & &1.4$\pm$0.2 & &114$\pm$20 & &0.68 & &0.44\\
497: F563-1 &2.1$\pm$0.1 & &67$\pm$2 & &0.43 & &0.0 & &2.0$\pm$0.2 & &61$\pm$10 & &0.48 & &0.68\\
498: DDO 64 &3.3$\pm$0.5 & &43$\pm$3 & &3.2 & &0.0 & &4.1$\pm$3.8 & &37$\pm$6 & &3.3 & &0.62\\
499: F568-3 &3.8$\pm$0.2 & &27$\pm$1 & &1.2 & &0.0 & &4.0$\pm$0.5 & &22$\pm$3 & &1.5 & &0.66\\
500: UGC 5750 &5.7$\pm$0.4 & &7.1$\pm$0.3 & &0.83 & &0.0 & &6.5$\pm$1.1 & &5.2$\pm$0.6 & &0.84 & &0.62\\
501: NGC 4395 &0.7$\pm$0.1 & &258$\pm$9 & &2.9 & &0.0 & &0.57$\pm$0.05 & &318$\pm$42 & &2.7 & &0.70\\
502: F583-4 &1.3$\pm$0.1 & &67$\pm$2 & &0.67 & &0.0 & &1.2$\pm$0.2 & &66$\pm$16 & &0.62 & &0.53\\
503: F583-1 &2.5$\pm$0.1 & &30$\pm$2 & &0.50 & &0.0 & &2.4$\pm$0.2 & &30$\pm$3 & &0.59 & &0.62\\
504: NGC 7137 &0.6$\pm$0.1 & &274$\pm$17 & &3.1 & &0.0 & &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata\\
505: UGC 11820 &1.1$\pm$0.1 & &274$\pm$21 & &2.9 & &0.0 & &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata\\
506: UGC 128 &2.3$\pm$0.1 & &66$\pm$0.6 & &8.5 & &0.0 & &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata\\
507: UGC 191 &1.7$\pm$0.1 & &138$\pm$10 & &5.8 & &0.0 & &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata\\
508: UGC 1551 &1.3$\pm$0.2 & &57$\pm$5 & &5.5 & &0.0 & &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata\\
509: NGC 959 &0.4$\pm$0.1 & &1117$\pm$29 & &1.2 & &0.0 & &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata\\
510: \hline\\
511: \hline
512: \hline
513:
514: &\multicolumn{7}{c}{POPSYNTH} &\colhead{} &\multicolumn{7}{c}{MAXIMUM DISK}\\
515: \cline{2-8} \cline{10-16}
516: \colhead{Galaxy} &\colhead{$R_{c}$} &\colhead{} &\colhead{$\rho_{0}$} &\colhead{} &\colhead{$\chi^{2}_{r}$} &\colhead{} &\colhead{$\Upsilon_{*}$} &\colhead{} &\colhead{$R_{c}$} &\colhead{} &\colhead{$\rho_{0}$} &\colhead{} &\colhead{$\chi^{2}_{r}$} &\colhead{} &\colhead{$\Upsilon_{*}$}\\
517: \hline\\
518: UGC 4325$^{a}$ &6.2$\pm$3.3 & &66$\pm$5 & &3.2 & &1.14 & &$\textit{2.5}$ & &$\textit{45}$ & &$\textit{11}$ & &4.5\\
519: F563-V2 &1.4$\pm$0.2 & &102$\pm$20 & &0.75 & &0.88 & &4.7$\pm$5.9 & &7.1$\pm$8.8 & &1.4 & &4.0\\
520: F563-1$^{b}$ &2.1$\pm$0.2 & &54$\pm$10 & &0.50 & &1.36 & &4.2$\pm$1.2 & &13$\pm$6 & &0.83 & &6.5\\
521: &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata & &12.5$\pm$9.0 & &2.7$\pm$1.6 & &1.3 & &10.0\\
522: DDO 64$^{a}$ &5.9$\pm$11.1 & &32$\pm$5 & &3.5 & &1.24 & &$\textit{1.5}$ & &$\textit{24}$ & &$\textit{2.2}$ & &5.0\\
523: F568-3 &4.7$\pm$0.8 & &16$\pm$3 & &1.8 & &1.32 & &6.1$\pm$1.8 & &10$\pm$3 & &2.5 & &2.3\\
524: UGC 5750 &7.5$\pm$1.6 & &4.1$\pm$0.5 & &0.95 & &1.24 & &9.8$\pm$3.2 & &2.6$\pm$0.5 & &1.3 & &2.2\\
525: NGC 4395$^{a}$ &0.50$\pm$0.04 & &355$\pm$50 & &2.8 & &1.40 & &$\textit{19}$ & &$\textit{0.32}$ & &$\textit{4.1}$ & &9.0\\
526: F583-4$^{a}$ &1.2$\pm$0.2 & &63$\pm$16 & &0.62 & &1.06 & &$\textit{8}$ & &$\textit{1.4}$ & &$\textit{1.2}$ & &10.0\\
527: F583-1$^{b}$ &2.5$\pm$0.2 & &27$\pm$3 & &0.60 & &1.24 & &3.6$\pm$0.5 & &14$\pm$2 & &0.83 & &5.0\\
528: &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata & &6.9$\pm$1.7 & &5.2$\pm$0.9 & &2.0 & &10.0\\
529:
530:
531:
532: \enddata
533: \tablecomments{$R_{c}$ is in kpc; $\rho_{0}$ is in 10$^{-3}$
534: M$_{\sun}$ pc$^{-3}$. Photometry is unavailable for NGC 7137, UGC
535: 11820, UGC 128, UGC 191, UGC 1551, \& NGC 959; halo fits beyond zero
536: disk are not presented.\\
537: $^{a}$ The baryons can account for most of the velocity in the maximum disk fit. See text for details of fit.\\
538: $^{b}$ As discussed in the text, F563-1 and F583-1 have two possible values of \ml$_{Max}$.}
539: \end{deluxetable*}
540:
541: \begin{deluxetable*}{lcccccccccccccccccc}
542: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
543: \tablecaption{NFW Halo Parameters}
544: \tablecolumns{16}
545: \tablewidth{0pt}
546: \tablehead{
547: &\multicolumn{7}{c}{ZERO DISK} &\colhead{} &\multicolumn{7}{c}{MINIMAL DISK}\\
548: \cline{2-8} \cline{10-16}
549: \colhead{Galaxy} &\colhead{c} &\colhead{} &\colhead{$V_{200}$} &\colhead{} &\colhead{$\chi^{2}_{r}$} &\colhead{} &\colhead{$\Upsilon_{*}$} &\colhead{} &\colhead{c} &\colhead{} &\colhead{$V_{200}$} &\colhead{} &\colhead{$\chi^{2}_{r}$} &\colhead{} &\colhead{$\Upsilon_{*}$}
550: }
551: \startdata
552: UGC 4325 &$\textit{6.9}$ & &$\textit{249}$ & &$\textit{39}$ & &0.0 & &$\textit{1.0}$ & &$\textit{1002}$ & &$\textit{12}$ & &0.57\\
553: F563-V2 &7.7$\pm$2.0 & &128$\pm$32 & &0.40& &0.0 & &8.4$\pm$1.5 & &105$\pm$17 & &0.46 & &0.44\\
554: F563-1 &7.8$\pm$1.3 & &106$\pm$10 & &0.88 & &0.0 & &7.6$\pm$1.3 & &100$\pm$9 & &0.89 & &0.68\\
555: DDO 64 &$\textit{9.2}$ & &$\textit{62}$ & &$\textit{12}$ & &0.0 & &$\textit{1.0}$ & &$\textit{376}$ & &$\textit{6.5}$ & &0.62\\
556: F568-3 &$\textit{8.2}$ & &$\textit{110}$ & &$\textit{12}$ & &0.0 & &$\textit{1.0}$ & &$\textit{465}$ & &$\textit{3.9}$ & &0.66\\
557: UGC 5750 &0.5$\pm$0.1 & &320$\pm$43 & &1.7 & &0.0 & &$\textit{1.0}$ & &$\textit{167}$ & &$\textit{1.7}$ & &0.62\\
558: NGC 4395 &10.1$\pm$0.6 & &77$\pm$4 & &2.1 & &0.0 & &11.5$\pm$1.0 & &63$\pm$4 & &2.1 & &0.70\\
559: F583-4 &5.5$\pm$2.2 & &92$\pm$32 & &0.41 & &0.0 & &5.7$\pm$1.4 & &83$\pm$18 & &0.41 & &0.53\\
560: F583-1$^{a}$ &4.5$\pm$0.8 & &120$\pm$20 & &1.7 & &0.0 & &5.1$\pm$1.2 & &102$\pm$21 & &1.8 & &0.62\\
561: NGC 7137 &15$\pm$3 & &56$\pm$10 & &3.4 & &0.0 & &\nodata & &\nodata &
562: &\nodata & &\nodata\\
563: UGC 11820 &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata &
564: &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata\\
565: UGC 128 &8.9$\pm$0.2 & &111$\pm$0.7 & &9.3 & &0.0 & &\nodata &
566: &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata\\
567: UGC 191 &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata &
568: &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata\\
569: UGC 1551 &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata &
570: &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata\\
571: NGC 959 &23$\pm$4 & &76$\pm$15 & &1.7 & &0.0 & &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata\\
572: \hline\\
573: \hline
574: \hline
575:
576: &\multicolumn{7}{c}{POPSYNTH} &\colhead{} &\multicolumn{7}{c}{MAXIMUM DISK}\\
577: \cline{2-8} \cline{10-16}
578: \colhead{Galaxy} &\colhead{c} &\colhead{} &\colhead{$V_{200}$} &\colhead{} &\colhead{$\chi^{2}_{r}$} &\colhead{} &\colhead{$\Upsilon_{*}$} &\colhead{} &\colhead{c} &\colhead{} &\colhead{$V_{200}$} &\colhead{} &\colhead{$\chi^{2}_{r}$} &\colhead{} &\colhead{$\Upsilon_{*}$}\\
579: \hline\\
580: UGC 4325 &$\textit{1.0}$ & &$\textit{897}$ & &$\textit{12}$ & &1.14 & &$\textit{1.0}$ & &$\textit{283}$ & &$\textit{12}$ & &4.5\\
581: F563-V2 &7.8$\pm$1.7 & &104$\pm$20 & &0.52 & &0.88 & &$\textit{1.0}$ & &$\textit{203}$ & &$\textit{1.1}$ & &4.0\\
582: F563-1$^{b}$ &7.0$\pm$1.3 & &102$\pm$11 & &0.90 & &1.36 & &$\textit{1.0}$ & &$\textit{283}$ & &$\textit{1.0}$ & &6.5\\
583: &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata & &$\textit{1.0}$ & &$\textit{210}$ & &$\textit{1.5}$ & &10.0\\
584: DDO 64 &$\textit{1.0}$ & &$\textit{332}$ & &$\textit{6.4}$ & &1.24 & &$\textit{1.0}$ & &$\textit{146}$ & &$\textit{2.6}$ & &5.0\\
585: F568-3 &$\textit{1.0}$ & &$\textit{404}$ & &$\textit{4.3}$ & &1.32 & &$\textit{1.0}$ & &$\textit{317}$ & &$\textit{5.2}$ & &2.3\\
586: UGC 5750 &$\textit{1.0}$ & &$\textit{141}$ & &$\textit{1.9}$ & &1.24 & &$\textit{1.0}$ & &$\textit{101}$ & &$\textit{2.4}$ & &2.2\\
587: NGC 4395 &12.5$\pm$1.1 & &61$\pm$4 & &2.2 & &1.40 & &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata & &9.0\\
588: F583-4 &5.8$\pm$1.5 & &86$\pm$19 & &0.40 & &1.06 & &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata & &10.0\\
589: F583-1$^{b}$ &4.9$\pm$1.2 & &110$\pm$26 & &1.9 & &1.24 & &$\textit{1.0}$ & &$\textit{298}$ & &$\textit{2.1}$ & &5.0\\
590: &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata & &\nodata & &$\textit{1.0}$ & &$\textit{173}$ & &$\textit{3.3}$ & &10.0\\
591:
592: \enddata
593: \tablecomments{$V_{200}$ is in km s$^{-1}$. Italicized halo
594: parameters are forced fits. See text for details. Photometry is unavailable for NGC 7137, UGC
595: 11820, UGC 128, UGC 191, UGC 1551, \& NGC 959; halo fits beyond zero
596: disk are not presented.\\
597: $^{a}$ The parameters of the updated $NFW_{constr}$ fit for the zero
598: disk case of F583-1 are $c$ = 8.7,
599: $V_{200}$ = 83, $\chi^{2}_{r}$ = 6.5.\\
600: $^{b}$ As discussed in the text, F563-1 and F583-1 have two possible values of \ml$_{Max}$.}
601: \end{deluxetable*}
602: \subsection{New Observations}
603:
604: Of the 14 galaxies observed, there were eight galaxies for which
605: meaningful velocity fields
606: could not be constructed.\footnote{F469-2, UGC 2034, UGC 2053, UGC
607: 11944, UGC 12048/NGC 7292, UGC 12082, UGC 12212, and UGC 12632.}
608: The \Ha\ emission in these galaxies was too faint to be detected
609: and/or not spread out enough across the fiber array. Velocity fields
610: and rotation curves were derived for the remaining six galaxies in the
611: sample, and each is described below.
612:
613: $\textbf{\textit{NGC 7137}$-$}$ There were three \Dpak\ pointings for
614: this galaxy. The pointings are shown on the \Ha\ image (Figure 2)
615: of the galaxy. Spiral arms are
616: clearly visible in this galaxy. The fiber velocities were the
617: average of the \Ha, \nii, \siis, and \siio\ lines. \Ha\ emission was
618: abundant and the majority of fibers detected emission. The
619: inclination was fixed to the value in \citet{Tully}. The position
620: angle of the major axis was well-constrained by \texttt{ROTCUR}. The
621: rotation curve rises steeply out to roughly 10$\arcsec$ then dips
622: slightly before rising again.
623:
624: $\textbf{\textit{UGC 11820}$-$}$ This galaxy is both large and diffuse on
625: the sky. There is a central concentration of \Ha\ emission, which is
626: perhaps a bar, that runs roughly NE-SW and also two large, diffuse
627: arms that extend from the end of the bar. There were three \Dpak\ pointings
628: along the central feature. The pointings are shown on the \Ha\ image
629: (Figure 2) of the galaxy. The
630: fiber velocities were the average of the \Ha, \siis, and \siio\ lines.
631: The \Ha\ emission was sparse and only roughly half of the fibers
632: detected emission. The inclination was fixed to the value listed in
633: \citet{MRdB}. The position angle of the major axis was well-constrained
634: by \texttt{ROTCUR}.
635:
636: $\textbf{\textit{UGC 128}$-$}$ There were three \Dpak\ pointings across this
637: galaxy. The pointings are shown on the \Ha\ image (Figure 2) of the galaxy.
638: The fiber velocities were the
639: average of the \Ha, \nii, and \siis\ lines. The \Ha\ emission in this
640: galaxy was sparse, but the emission that was present was scattered
641: across the three \Dpak\ pointings such that both the approaching and
642: receding sides of the velocity field were mapped. The position angle
643: was fixed to the position angle of the \HI\ velocity field of
644: \citet{vanderHulst} and the inclination was fixed to the value listed
645: in \citet{dBM96}. The \Dpak\ rotation curve is plotted with the \HI\
646: rotation curve of \citet{VerheijendB}. The \Dpak\ rotation curve is
647: largely consistent with if not slightly steeper than the \HI\ curve
648: and does not go out far enough to show a clear turn-over.
649:
650: $\textbf{\textit{UGC 191}$-$}$ There were two \Dpak\ pointings for
651: this galaxy and they are shown on the \Ha\ image (Figure 3). The fiber
652: velocities were the
653: average of the \Ha, \siis, and \siio\ lines. There is ample \Ha\
654: emission in the galaxy and almost every fiber had a detection. The
655: inclination was fixed to the value in \citet{Tully}. The position angle
656: of the major axis was well-constrained by \texttt{ROTCUR}. The
657: rotation curve rises linearly and has no clear turn-over.
658:
659: $\textbf{\textit{UGC 1551}$-$}$ There were three \Dpak\ pointings for
660: this galaxy. The pointings are shown on the \Ha\ image (Figure 3)
661: of the galaxy. The fiber
662: velocities were the average of the \Ha, \nii, \siis, and \siio\ lines.
663: \Ha\ emission was detected in nearly all of the fibers. The
664: inclination was fixed to the value in \citet{Tully}. The position angle
665: of the major axis was well-constrained by \texttt{ROTCUR}. There is a twist
666: in the velocity field that is suggestive of the presence of a bar. Noncircular
667: motions are probably important inside of 15$\arcsec$ where the rotation
668: curve is mostly flat. Beyond 15$\arcsec$, there is a linear rise in the
669: rotation curve.
670:
671: $\textbf{\textit{NGC 959}$-$}$ There were three \Dpak\ pointings
672: across the length of this galaxy. The pointings are shown on the
673: \Ha\ image (Figure 3) of the galaxy. The
674: fiber velocities were the average of the \Ha, \nii, \siis, and \siio\
675: lines. \Ha\ emission was abundant and the majority of fibers detected
676: emission. The inclination was fixed to the value listed in
677: \citet{James}. The position angle of the major axis was well-constrained
678: by \texttt{ROTCUR}. The rotation curve is well-behaved with a steady rise
679: and a turnover to $V_{flat}$ $\sim$ 80 \kms.
680:
681:
682:
683: \section{Zero Disk Halo Fits}
684: In this section, we present the pseudoisothermal and NFW halo fits
685: to the \Dpak\ rotation curves in the zero disk case. By ignoring the
686: velocity contribution from the baryons and attributing all rotation to
687: dark matter, we are able to put an upper limit on the slope and/or
688: concentration of the halo density profile. For those galaxies with
689: photometry, halo fits for three assumptions about the stellar
690: mass-to-light ratio are presented in \S\ 6.
691:
692: \subsection{Halo Models}
693: The cuspy NFW halo and the cored pseudoisothermal halo are two of the
694: most well-known competing descriptions of dark matter halos. We
695: provide a brief description of each below.
696:
697: \subsubsection{NFW Profile}
698: Numerical simulations show that the density of CDM halos rises steeply
699: toward the halo center. The exact value of the inner slope of the CDM
700: halo varies slightly depending on the simulation \citep[e.g.][]
701: {NFW96,NFW97,Moore, Reed, Navarro2004, Diemand}. From an observational
702: perspective, there is very little to distinguish the various flavors
703: of cuspy CDM halos, and we choose to fit the data with the NFW halo.
704:
705: The NFW mass-density distribution is described as
706: \begin{equation}
707: \rho_{NFW}(R) = \frac{\rho_{i}}{(R/R_{s})(1 + R/R_{s})^{2}} ,
708: \end{equation}
709: in which $\rho_{i}$ is related to the density of the universe at the
710: time of halo collapse, and $R_{s}$ is the characteristic radius of
711: the halo. The NFW rotation curve is given by
712: \begin{equation}
713: V(R) = V_{200}\sqrt{ \frac{\ln(1+cx) - cx/(1 + cx)}{x[\ln(1 + c) - c/(1+c)]}},
714: \end{equation}
715: with $x$ = $R$/$R_{200}$. The rotation curve is parameterized by
716: a radius $R_{200}$ and a concentration parameter $c$ = $R_{200}$/$R_{s}
717: $, both of which are directly related to $R_{s}$ and $\rho_{i}$. Here
718: $R_{200}$ is the radius at which the density contrast exceeds 200,
719: roughly the virial radius; $V_{200}$ is the circular velocity
720: at $R_{200}$ \citep{NFW96,NFW97}. Because the NFW profile has a shallower
721: slope than other cuspy halo models, it provides a lower limit on the
722: slope of cuspy density profiles and, as such, gives the cuspy halo the
723: best possible chance to fit the data.
724:
725: \subsubsection{Pseudoisothermal Halo}
726: The pseudoisothermal halo describes a dark
727: matter halo that has a core of roughly constant density. By
728: construction, it produces flat rotation curves at large radii.
729: The density profile of the pseudoisothermal halo is
730: \begin{equation}
731: \rho_{iso}(R) = \rho_{0}[1 + (R/R_{C})^{2}]^{-1} ,
732: \end{equation}
733: with $\rho_{0}$ being the central density of the halo and $R_{C}$
734: representing the core radius of the halo. The rotation curve
735: corresponding to this density profile is
736: \begin{equation}
737: V(R) = \sqrt{4\pi G\rho_{0} R_{C}^{2}\left[1 - \frac{R_{C}}{R}\arctan\left(\frac{R}{R_{C}}\right)\right]} .
738: \end{equation}
739: The pseudoisothermal halo is empirically motivated and predates halo
740: profiles stemming from numerical simulations.
741:
742: \subsection{Halo Fits to Previously Observed Galaxies}
743:
744: We find the best-fit zero disk
745: case isothermal and NFW halos to the new \Dpak\
746: rotation curves of UGC 4325, DDO 64, and F583-1. When available,
747: the \Dpak\ rotation curves have been supplemented with previous
748: smoothed long-slit \Ha\ and \HI\ rotation curves. We use the entire
749: long-slit rotation curve, and include only those \HI\ points that
750: extend beyond the radial range of both the \Dpak\ and long-slit data.
751: Uncertainties from possible resolution effects are avoided by using
752: only the outer \HI\ points.
753:
754: For these three galaxies, we also fit an NFW halo called
755: NFW$_{constrained}$ (hereafter NFW$_{constr}$), as
756: described in detail in \citetalias{Kuzio}. This halo fit is motivated by
757: NFW fits that have parameters which are unrealistic or inconsistent
758: with $\Lambda$CDM. Briefly, the constrained halo was
759: required to match the velocities at the outer radii of each galaxy
760: while constraining the concentration to agree with cosmology. The
761: concentrations were calculated using Equation (7) of \citet{dBBM},
762: which gives the concentration as a function of of $V_{200}$
763: \citep{NFW97}, and then adjusted to the cosmology of \citet{Tegmark}
764: by subtracting 0.011 dex \citep*{McGaugh03}.
765:
766: The halo fits are plotted over the data in Figure 4, and the halo
767: parameters are listed in Tables 2 and 3. For comparison,
768: the numbers mentioned in the text below are the fits from
769: \citetalias{Kuzio}, unless specifically noted otherwise.
770:
771: $\textbf{\textit{UGC 4325}$-$}$ The isothermal fit to UGC 4325
772: improves slightly with the addition of the four new \Dpak\ pointings
773: ($R_{c}$ = 3.3 $\pm$ 0.2; $\rho_{0}$ = 91 $\pm$ 4; $\chi^{2}$ = 3.8).
774: An unconstrained NFW halo still could not be fitted to the data, and the
775: poor quality of the NFW$_{constr}$ fit remains virtually
776: unimproved ($c$ = 6.9; $V_{200}$ = 249; $\chi^{2}$ = 40). This galaxy
777: remains best-described by the isothermal halo.
778:
779: $\textbf{\textit{DDO 64}$-$}$ The two new \Dpak\ pointings on DDO 64
780: help to improve the quality of both the isothermal and NFW$_{constr}$
781: fits. The values of the isothermal halo parameters remain within the
782: errors of the original values, but the value of $\chi^{2}_{r}$
783: decreases ($R_{c}$ = 4.4 $\pm$ 0.9; $\rho_{0}$ = 38 $\pm$ 3;
784: $\chi^{2}$ = 5.5). While no unconstrained NFW halo fit could be made, the
785: quality of the NFW$_{constr}$ halo significantly improves ($c$ = 9.2;
786: $V_{200}$ = 62; $\chi^{2}$ = 20). This does
787: not mean, however, that the NFW halo is a good fit to the data. The
788: NFW$_{constr}$ halo continues to overshoot the data at radii interior
789: to where it was forced to match the data. While it passes through the
790: large errorbars on the inner rotation curve points, significant
791: noncircular motions would need to be important all the way out to
792: $\sim$1 kpc in order to boost the observed velocities up to the
793: expected NFW velocities.
794:
795: $\textbf{\textit{F583-1}$-$}$ The isothermal and NFW fits are
796: significantly better constrained by the addition of the two new \Dpak\
797: pointings. F583-1 remains best-described by the isothermal halo. The
798: values of the halo parameters remain within the errors of the previous
799: values, but the value of $\chi^{2}_{r}$ falls from 5.4 to 0.5
800: ($R_{c}$ = 2.7 $\pm$ 0.1; $\rho_{0}$ = 35 $\pm$ 2). The
801: new values of the isothermal halo parameters are almost
802: indistinguishable from the values determined by \citet{dBMR}: $R_{c}$
803: = 2.44 $\pm$ 0.06, $\rho_{0}$ = 33.0 $\pm$ 1.1. The values of the
804: parameters of the unconstrained NFW fit are also mostly unchanged, and
805: $\chi^{2}_{r}$ decreases to 1.7 from 8.7 ($c$ = 4.7 $\pm$ 0.7;
806: $V_{200}$ = 133 $\pm$ 21). The value of the
807: concentration, $c$ = 4.5, is still too low to be consistent with
808: $\Lambda$CDM. The value of $\chi^{2}_{r}$ also drops for the
809: NFW$_{constr}$ fit ($\chi^{2}$ = 11 $\rightarrow$ 6.5), but the NFW
810: velocities continue to over-predict
811: the observed velocities interior to where they were forced to match
812: the data.
813:
814: \subsection{Halo Fits to New Observations}
815: We find the best-fit zero disk case isothermal and NFW halos to the \Dpak\
816: rotation curves of NGC 7137, UGC 11820, UGC 128, UGC 191, UGC 1551,
817: and NGC 959. In the case of UGC 128, we combine the \Dpak\
818: rotation curve with the \HI\ rotation curve of \citet{VerheijendB},
819: using only those \HI\ points beyond the radial range of the \Dpak\
820: data. We do not make an NFW$_{constr}$ fit to these six galaxies, as
821: the radial range of the data does not extend beyond the rising part of
822: the rotation curve. In Figure 4 we plot the halo fits over the data,
823: and list the halo parameters in Tables 2 and 3.
824:
825:
826: $\textbf{\textit{NGC 7137}$-$}$ The isothermal halo is a
827: slightly better fit to NGC 7137 than the NFW halo, but the difference
828: is not particularly significant. There are
829: ``bumps and wiggles'' in the rotation curve that simple, smooth halo
830: models cannot fit. The value of the concentration, $c$ = 15, for
831: the NFW fit is on the high side of values expected in a $\Lambda$CDM
832: cosmology.
833:
834: $\textbf{\textit{UGC 11820}$-$}$ UGC 11820 is fit relatively
835: well by the isothermal halo; no NFW halo could be fit to the rotation
836: curve.
837:
838: $\textbf{\textit{UGC 128}$-$}$ UGC 128 is more consistent with the
839: isothermal halo than the NFW halo, though the value of $\chi^{2}_{r}$
840: is high for both fits and both halo models overestimate the rotation
841: velocities at small radii. The best-fitting concentration, $c$ = 8.9, is
842: reasonable for a galaxy of this size in a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology.
843: The best-fitting isothermal halo parameters for the combined \Dpak+\HI\
844: rotation curve are $R_{c}$ = 2.3$\pm$0.1 and $\rho_{0}$ = 66$\pm$0.6.
845: \citet{dBM96} also fit an isothermal halo to the \citet{vanderHulst}
846: \HI\ rotation curve and find $R_{c}$ = 4.0 and $\rho_{0}$ = 21.7.
847: The differences in the halo parameters reflect the inclusion of the
848: slightly steeper \Dpak\ rotation curve.
849:
850:
851: $\textbf{\textit{UGC 191}$-$}$ We exclude the innermost point of
852: the UGC 191 rotation curve due to its unrealistically small formal
853: error bar and the steep jump in velocity between it and the next
854: rotation curve point. Excluding this point from the halo
855: fits does not significantly alter the values of the halo parameters, but does
856: improve the values of the reduced $\chi^{2}$. No NFW fit could be made to
857: the \Dpak\ rotation curve. The data were fit with an
858: isothermal halo, albeit with a large $\chi^{2}_{r}$. The UGC 191
859: \Dpak\ rotation curve is linearly rising and shows no turn-over over
860: in the radial range covered by the \Dpak\ data. To be useful for
861: distinguishing between halo models, data points at larger
862: radii are needed to better constrain the halo fits.
863:
864: $\textbf{\textit{UGC 1551}$-$}$ We exclude the first five points of
865: the UGC 1551 rotation curve because the twist in the velocity field
866: suggests that a bar may be present in the galaxy. An NFW fit could
867: not be made to the data; an isothermal fit was made, but was not
868: well-constrained. Like UGC 191, data at larger radii are necessary
869: for obtaining useful constraints on the halo models.
870:
871: $\textbf{\textit{NGC 959}$-$}$ NGC 959 is well
872: described by the isothermal halo and is a slightly better fit than the
873: NFW halo. The value of the concentration, $c$ = 23, of the best fit NFW
874: halo is on the high side of expected values for galaxies in a
875: $\Lambda$CDM cosmology.
876:
877:
878:
879: \newpage
880: \subsection{Summary of Zero Disk Halo Fits}
881:
882: In \S\ 5.2 and \S\ 5.3 we have presented updated zero disk halo fits
883: to three galaxies from \citetalias{Kuzio} and six new galaxies
884: observed with \Dpak. Overall, we find the
885: isothermal halo to be a better description of seven of these
886: galaxies than the NFW halo. Two of the new galaxies do not have data
887: at large enough radii to put useful constraints on the halo models.
888: When NFW fits could be made, the
889: concentrations were often beyond the range of values expected for
890: $\Lambda$CDM. We find that the parameters of the halo fits to the
891: three previously observed galaxies do not significantly change, but
892: are better constrained by the additional \Dpak\ coverage. The \Dpak\
893: rotation curves of the six new galaxies could all be fit by the
894: isothermal halo, and an NFW fit could be made to only three. Only one
895: of the three NFW fits had a concentration consistent with the range
896: expected for galaxies in a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology; the other two are
897: on the high end of expected values. We also find that the quality of
898: both the isothermal and NFW halo fits is greatly improved when the
899: radial range of the data extends into the flat part of the rotation
900: curve. Of the six new galaxies, only NGC 959 has a \Dpak\ rotation
901: curve which clearly turns over and flattens, and it is this galaxy
902: that has the isothermal and NFW fits with the lowest $\chi^{2}_{r}$.
903:
904: \section{Mass Models}
905: Low surface brightness galaxies are dark matter-dominated down
906: to small radii. Because of this, the velocity contribution from the
907: baryons is often disregarded when fitting dark matter halo models
908: to the galaxy rotation curves. This type of fit which ignores the
909: contribution of the stars and gas, such as in \S\ 5, is usually
910: called the minimum-disk case. While the dark matter is the dominant
911: mass component of LSB galaxies at all radii, baryons are still
912: important. To accurately determine the distribution of the dark
913: matter, it is necessary to properly account for the stars and gas
914: in the galaxies and their contribution to the observed rotation.
915: The velocity component coming from the stars is determined from the
916: surface photometry scaled by the stellar mass-to-light ratio, \ml.
917: This is a straightforward computation of the gravitational potential
918: of the observed stars. However, the true value of \ml\ is
919: difficult to determine, and as discussed below, can be assigned a
920: value following a number of techniques. Similarly, the velocity
921: component from the gas is determined using \HI\ surface density
922: profiles. The conversion from observed 21 cm luminosity to atomic
923: gas mass is well understood from the physics of the spin-flip
924: transition. A scaling factor, the inverse of the hydrogen mass
925: fraction, is usually included to account for the
926: helium and metals also present in the galaxies.
927:
928: In \S\ 5 of this paper and in \citetalias{Kuzio}, we have so far ignored the
929: baryons in the halo fits to LSB galaxies observed with \Dpak. For
930: those galaxies with $R$-band photometry and \HI\ surface density
931: profiles we now include the contribution from the baryons and present
932: the dark matter halo fits for three determinations of \ml.
933:
934: \begin{deluxetable}{lclcc}
935: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
936: \singlespace
937: \tablecaption{Galaxy Parameters}
938: %\tablewidth{0pt}
939: \tablehead{
940: \colhead{Galaxy} &\colhead{$h$ (kpc)} &\colhead{($B$--$R$)} &\colhead{\ml\ (Pop)} &\colhead{References}
941: }
942: \startdata
943: UGC 4325 &1.6 &0.85 &1.14 &1,3\\
944: F563-V2 &2.1 &0.51$^{a}$ &0.88 &2,4\\
945: F563-1 &2.8 &0.96 &1.36 &2,5\\
946: DDO 64 &1.2 &0.9$^{b}$ &1.24 &1\\
947: F568-3 &4.0 &0.94 &1.32 &2,5\\
948: UGC 5750 &5.6 &0.9$^{b}$ &1.24 &2,2\\
949: NGC 4395 &2.3 &\nodata$^{c}$ &1.40 &1\\
950: F583-4 &2.7 &0.8 &1.06 &2,6\\
951: F583-1 &1.6 &0.9 &1.24 &2,6\\
952: \enddata
953: \tablecomments{Col.(2): Scale length (kpc). Col.(4): \ml\ for the popsynth case as determined from the colors. Col.(5): References for $h$ and ($B$--$R$), respectively: (1) de Blok \& Bosma (2002) (2) de Blok, McGaugh, \& Rubin (2001) (3) van den Bosch \& Swaters (2001) (4) de Blok \& McGaugh (1997) (5) de Blok, van der Hulst, \& Bothun (1995) (6) de Blok, McGaugh, \& van der Hulst (1996).\\
954: $^{a}$ ($\bv$) color.\\
955: $^{b}$ Multicolor photometry unavailable; assuming ($B$--$R$)=0.9 for dwarf galaxies.\\
956: $^{c}$ Multicolor photomety unavailable; assuming $\Upsilon_{*}$=1.4.}
957: \end{deluxetable}
958:
959:
960:
961: \subsection{Dynamical Components}
962: There are three separate components in galaxy mass models that
963: contribute to the observed velocities: the stars, the gas, and the
964: dark matter. The stars, gas, and dark matter are added together in
965: quadrature to obtain the total velocity, $V_{total}^{2}$ =
966: \ml$v_{*}^{2}$ + $V_{gas}^{2}$ + $V_{DM}^{2}$. In this section, we
967: describe each of these dynamical components.
968:
969: \begin{figure*}
970: \plotone{f5_color.eps}
971: \begin{quote}
972: \caption{Isothermal and NFW halo fits for
973: UGC 4325. The green
974: dotted line is the rotation curve of the gas disk, the gold
975: short-dashed line is the rotation curve of the stellar disk, the blue
976: long-dashed line is the rotation curve of the dark matter halo, and
977: the red solid line is the total model curve. The velocity
978: contribution from both the stars and gas is ignored in the zero disk
979: case. The minimal disk case considers the gas contribution and
980: assumes a lightweight IMF for the stars. The popsynth case includes
981: the gas contribution and uses population synthesis models to determine
982: the stellar contribution. The maximum disk case includes the gas
983: contribution and the stellar mass-to-light ratio is scaled up as far
984: as the data will allow. [{\it See the
985: electronic edition of the Journal for a color version of this figure.}]}
986: \end{quote}
987: \end{figure*}
988:
989: \begin{figure*}
990: \plotone{f6_color.eps}
991: \begin{quote}
992: \caption{Isothermal and NFW halo fits for F563-V2. Line types are
993: described in Figure 5. [{\it See the
994: electronic edition of the Journal for a color version of this figure.}]}
995: \end{quote}
996: \end{figure*}
997:
998: \begin{figure*}
999: \plotone{f7_color.eps}
1000: \begin{quote}
1001: \caption{Isothermal and NFW halo fits for
1002: F563-1. Line types are described in Figure 5. [{\it See the
1003: electronic edition of the Journal for a color version of this figure.}]}
1004: \end{quote}
1005: \end{figure*}
1006:
1007: \begin{figure*}
1008: \plotone{f8_color.eps}
1009: \begin{quote}
1010: \caption{Isothermal and NFW halo fits for DDO 64. Line types are
1011: described in Figure 5. [{\it See the
1012: electronic edition of the Journal for a color version of this figure.}]}
1013: \end{quote}
1014: \end{figure*}
1015:
1016: \begin{figure*}
1017: \plotone{f9_color.eps}
1018: \begin{quote}
1019: \caption{Isothermal and NFW halo fits for F568-3. Line types are
1020: described in Figure 5. [{\it See the
1021: electronic edition of the Journal for a color version of this figure.}]}
1022: \end{quote}
1023: \end{figure*}
1024:
1025: \begin{figure*}
1026: \plotone{f10_color.eps}
1027: \begin{quote}
1028: \caption{Isothermal and NFW halo fits for
1029: UGC 5750. Line types are described in Figure 5. [{\it See the
1030: electronic edition of the Journal for a color version of this figure.}]}
1031: \end{quote}
1032: \end{figure*}
1033:
1034: \begin{figure*}
1035: \plotone{f11_color.eps}
1036: \begin{quote}
1037: \caption{Isothermal and NFW halo fits for
1038: NGC 4395. Line types are described in Figure 5. The solid magenta line
1039: in the maximum disk NFW plot is the total baryonic rotation curve.
1040: See text for details. [{\it See the
1041: electronic edition of the Journal for a color version of this figure.}]}
1042: \end{quote}
1043: \end{figure*}
1044:
1045: \begin{figure*}
1046: \plotone{f12_color.eps}
1047: \begin{quote}
1048: \caption{Isothermal and NFW halo fits for
1049: F583-4. Line types are described in Figure 5. The solid magenta line
1050: in the maximum disk NFW plot is the total baryonic rotation curve. See
1051: text for details. [{\it See the
1052: electronic edition of the Journal for a color version of this figure.}]}
1053: \end{quote}
1054: \end{figure*}
1055:
1056: \begin{figure*}
1057: \plotone{f13_color.eps}
1058: \begin{quote}
1059: \caption{Isothermal and NFW halo fits for F583-1. Line types are
1060: described in Figure 5. [{\it See the
1061: electronic edition of the Journal for a color version of this figure.}]}
1062: \end{quote}
1063: \end{figure*}
1064:
1065: \begin{figure*}
1066: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{f14a_color.eps}
1067: \hfill
1068: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{f14b_color.eps}
1069: \begin{quote}
1070: \caption{$\textit{Left:}$ Isothermal halo parameters for different
1071: assumptions about the baryons. The red pentagons are maximum disk
1072: fits where $R_{c}$ is a lower limit and $\rho_{0}$ is an upper limit.
1073: The data for NGC 959 are beyond the range of this plot and are not
1074: shown. The core radius is often $\gtrsim$ 1 kpc. There is a trend towards
1075: larger $R_{c}$ with increasing \ml. For comparison, the solid line is
1076: the $\rho_{0}$-$R_{c}$ scaling law of \citet{Kormendy} and the dashed line
1077: is the $\rho_{0}$-$R_{0}$ relation of \citet{Spano07}.
1078: $\textit{Right:}$ $NFW_{free}$ halo parameters for different
1079: assumptions about the baryons. No NFW fits could be made in the
1080: maximum disk case. The solid lines show the range of
1081: $\textit{c-V$_{200}$}$ predicted by the cosmology of \citet{Tegmark},
1082: whereas the dashed lines are the predictions for WMAP3
1083: \citep{Spergel07}. For both cosmologies, the width of the bands is
1084: $\pm$1$\sigma$, assuming a scatter of $\sigma_{c}$ = 0.14
1085: \citep{Bullock01}. The data show a steeper $\textit{c-V$_{200}$}$
1086: relation, and favor the lower concentrations/lower $\sigma_{8}$
1087: predicted by WMAP3. [{\it See the
1088: electronic edition of the Journal for a color version of this figure.}]}
1089: \end{quote}
1090: \end{figure*}
1091:
1092: \begin{figure*}
1093: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{f15a_color.eps}
1094: \hfill
1095: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{f15b_color.eps}
1096: \begin{quote}
1097: \caption{$\textit{Left:}$ Comparison
1098: of the dark matter rotation curve for different values of \ml\ with
1099: the NFW rotation curves expected from cosmology for F568-3.
1100: $\textit{Right:}$ Total dark
1101: matter mass as a function of radius for \ml$_{POP}$. The solid
1102: line is the dark matter mass predicted by CDM; the dashed line is
1103: the dark matter mass allowed by the data. The two curves have been
1104: forced to meet at large radii; interior to this, CDM predicts more
1105: mass at all radii than is actually observed. [{\it See the
1106: electronic edition of the Journal for a color version of this figure.}]}
1107: \end{quote}
1108: \end{figure*}
1109:
1110: \begin{figure*}
1111: \plotone{f16_color.eps}
1112: \begin{quote}
1113: \caption{Ratio of the observed dark matter mass
1114: to the constrained
1115: cusp mass as a function of radius. The black (solid), green (dotted),
1116: blue (short dash), and red/magenta (long dash/dot-long dash)
1117: lines are the zero, minimal, popsynth, and maximum disk
1118: cases, respectively. Near the centers of the galaxies there is a
1119: substantial cusp mass excess with at least two times more mass
1120: expected in the cuspy halo than is allowed by the data. [{\it See the
1121: electronic edition of the Journal for a color version of this figure.}]}
1122: \end{quote}
1123: \end{figure*}
1124:
1125: \begin{figure*}
1126: \plotone{f17_color.eps}
1127: \begin{quote}
1128: \caption{The required noncircular motions, assuming an isotropic
1129: dispersion, to reconcile the difference between the $NFW_{constr}$
1130: velocity and the observed dark matter velocity. The black (solid),
1131: green (dotted), blue (short dash), and red/magenta (long dash/dot-long dash)
1132: lines are the zero, minimal, popsynth, and maximum disk
1133: cases, respectively. [{\it See the
1134: electronic edition of the Journal for a color version of this figure.}]}
1135: \end{quote}
1136: \end{figure*}
1137:
1138: \subsubsection{Stars}
1139: Galaxy photometry in combination with a stellar mass-to-light ratio,
1140: \ml, is used to determine the stellar contribution to the observed
1141: galaxy rotation. It is difficult to determine the true value of \ml\
1142: of a galaxy because it depends on many factors ranging from the
1143: initial mass function to the extinction. To address this uncertainty,
1144: we consider four different scenarios for the value of \ml. We assume
1145: that \ml\ is constant with radius.
1146:
1147: $\textbf{\textit{Zero disk}$-$}$ In this limiting case we ignore the
1148: contribution of the stars (\ml = 0) and gas and attribute all rotation
1149: to dark matter. This case is typically called `minimum disk' in the
1150: literature; we have chosen to refer to this case as zero disk because it aptly
1151: describes the omission of the baryons. The zero disk case puts an
1152: upper limit on the slope and/or concentration of the halo density
1153: profile. The results for the zero disk case were presented in
1154: \S\ 5 and also \citetalias{Kuzio} (where they were referred to as
1155: minimum-disk) and are reproduced in Tables 2 and 3 for completeness.
1156: Two galaxies from \citetalias{Kuzio}, UGC 1281 and UGC 477, are excluded
1157: from mass models beyond zero disk because of their high inclinations
1158: and possible associated line-of-sight integration effects. Photometry
1159: is unavailable for the six new galaxies presented in \S\ 5; mass models
1160: beyond zero disk will not be presented.
1161:
1162: $\textbf{\textit{Minimal disk}$-$}$ Though commonly employed, the
1163: zero disk case is unphysical. We next consider a more realistic minimal
1164: contribution of the stars and the gas. The \ml\ is determined from
1165: population synthesis models (see below) and then scaled by 0.5
1166: \citep[see][]{McGaugh05} to simulate a lightweight IMF.
1167:
1168: $\textbf{\textit{Popsynth}$-$}$ Here \ml\ is determined using the population
1169: synthesis models of \citet{Belletal03}. Specifically, we use the
1170: relation between \ml\ and color as defined in their Table 7. For a
1171: scaled Salpeter IMF, ($B$--$R$)
1172: and (\bv) colors are related to \ml. This is our best estimate of the
1173: baryonic mass from the perspective of stellar populations. The popsynth
1174: model also includes the gas contribution. Colors and corresponding \ml\
1175: are listed in Table 4.
1176:
1177: $\textbf{\textit{Maximum disk}$-$}$ We also consider the case where the
1178: \ml\ is scaled up as far as the data will allow. In high surface
1179: brightness galaxies, this approach usually fits the inner rotation
1180: curve well. In LSB galaxies, the shape of the stellar rotation curve
1181: is often not well-matched to the observed rotation curve. We have
1182: chosen a \ml\ that allows the stellar rotation curve to match the
1183: inner rotation curve points as well as possible, sometimes
1184: overshooting the innermost point in order to hit the next few.
1185: These \ml\ are usually
1186: higher than those determined from the popsynth models, and in some cases
1187: (eg. F583-4) are substantially higher.
1188:
1189: To model the stellar disk we have used the $R$-band photometry
1190: presented in \citet{dBetal95}, \citet{Stil},
1191: \citet{Swatersthesis}, and \citet{Swatersetal02}. The \texttt{GIPSY} task
1192: \texttt{ROTMOD} was used to
1193: determine the rotation of the disk assuming a vertical sech$^{2}$
1194: distribution with a scale height $z$$_{0}$=$h$/6
1195: \citep{vanderKruit81}. The stellar rotation curve computed from the
1196: photometry was resampled at
1197: the same radii as the combined DensePak+long-slit+\HI\ rotation curves.
1198:
1199: Each estimator of \ml\ has its advantages and disadvantages. The zero
1200: disk \ml\ is often adopted and is useful because it provides an upper
1201: limit on the dark matter. Unfortunately, it is an unphysical
1202: assumption. Population synthesis models best represent what we know
1203: about stars, however, sometimes the data will allow a larger \ml.
1204: And although \ml$_{MAX}$ often seems too large with respect to
1205: \ml$_{POP}$, disk features like bars and spiral arms require a large
1206: disk mass \citep{McGdB98, Fuchs} and support high \ml$_{MAX}$.
1207:
1208: \subsubsection{Gas}
1209: The gas present in galaxies also contributes to the observed galaxy
1210: rotation. \HI\ is the dominant gas component, but to include helium
1211: and metals, the \HI\ data were scaled by a factor of 1.4.
1212: Substantial amounts of molecular gas are not obviously present in LSB
1213: galaxies \citep{dBvdH, Schombert}. The total mass of H$_{2}$ is
1214: almost certainly much less than that of \HI\ \citep*{Mihos}.
1215: Moreover, in brighter galaxies H$_{2}$ is known to trace the stars
1216: \citep{Regan}, so at most represents a slight tweak to \ml. The
1217: contribution of the gas to the observed velocity is considered in the
1218: minimal, popsynth, and maximum disk cases.
1219:
1220: The \HI\ surface density profiles presented in \citet{DMV},
1221: \citet{vanderHulst}, and \citet{Swatersthesis} were used to model the
1222: gas disk. The \texttt{GIPSY} task \texttt{ROTMOD} was used to
1223: determine the rotation of the disk assuming a thin disk. The gas
1224: rotation curve was resampled at the same radii as the combined
1225: DensePak+long-slit+\HI\ rotation curves.
1226:
1227: \subsubsection{Dark Matter Halo}
1228: In LSB galaxies there is usually a considerable amount of observed rotation
1229: unaccounted for after subtracting off the velocity of the stellar and gas
1230: disks, even in the maximum disk case. The remaining rotation is
1231: usually attributed to dark matter. While there have been a number of dark
1232: matter models proposed in the literature, we fit two of the most prominent
1233: competing profiles: the pseudo-isothermal halo and the NFW profile.
1234: Both halo profiles are described in \S\ 5.1.
1235:
1236: \section{Mass Model Results for Individual Galaxies}
1237: In this section, we present the isothermal and NFW halo fits for the
1238: four scenarios of \ml. The halo parameters are listed in Tables 2
1239: and 3. Figures 5-13 plot the halo fits over the data.
1240:
1241: As \ml\ increases and the baryons become responsible for more of the
1242: observed velocity, less room is available for dark matter and the NFW
1243: halo becomes increasingly difficult to fit to the data. The best-fit
1244: concentrations drop to very small, and sometimes negative, values. In
1245: these cases, we forced an NFW fit with $c$ = 1.0. The halo parameters
1246: of forced fits are italicised in the tables.
1247:
1248:
1249: $\textbf{\textit{UGC 4325}$-$}$ UGC 4325 is clearly best described by
1250: an isothermal halo; an NFW halo could not be fit to the data for any
1251: \ml\ scenario. With \ml$_{MAX}$ = 4.5, the stellar rotation curve
1252: is able to describe the data well out to a radius of $\sim$ 1.3 kpc, as
1253: compared to $\lesssim$ 0.4 kpc for \ml$_{POP}$ = 1.14. Because the
1254: baryons are able to explain so much of the data in the maximum disk
1255: case, there is little room left for a dark matter isothermal halo.
1256: When this happens, the cored halo becomes very nearly hollow with
1257: $\rho_{0}$ decreasing to a very small value and $R_{c}$ increasing to a
1258: large number. For the maximum disk case of UGC 4325, we forced an
1259: isothermal halo fit by fixing $V_{h}$ to approximately the observed
1260: velocities of the outer rotation curve and then varying $R_{c}$ such
1261: that $V_{TOT}$ follows the data. In this fit, the resulting $R_{c}$
1262: is a lower limit and $\rho_{0}$ is an upper limit.
1263:
1264: $\textbf{\textit{F563-V2}$-$}$ As discussed in \citetalias{Kuzio} for the
1265: zero disk case, F563-V2 has too few data points to really distinguish
1266: between halo types. This remains true for the other \ml\ scenarios as well.
1267: The value of \ml\ can be turned up to 4.0 in the maximum disk
1268: case, leaving essentially no room for an NFW halo; a fit was forced
1269: with $c$ = 1.0. NFW halos could be fit to the zero, minimal, and
1270: popsynth cases, however, and the values of the best-fitting
1271: concentrations, $c$ = 7.7, 8.4, and 7.8, respectively, are comparable
1272: to values expected from simulations. Because of the $c$-$V_{200}$
1273: degeneracy that allows halos of different ($c$, $V_{200}$) to look the
1274: same over a finite range of radius \citep{dBMR}, these three NFW fits
1275: are essentially indistinguishable. This is an example of where the
1276: zero disk assumption is reasonable for LSB galaxies.
1277:
1278: $\textbf{\textit{F563-1}$-$}$ The isothermal halo fits the F563-1
1279: data better than the NFW halo, though the values of the best-fitting
1280: concentrations are consistent with values expected in $\Lambda$CDM.
1281: The baryons can account for the majority of the observed rotation in
1282: the maximum disk case and a forced NFW fit was made with the
1283: concentration fixed at 1.0. Stellar population models set \ml$_{POP}$
1284: = 1.36 for F563-1. With this value of the \ml, the stellar rotation
1285: curve just grazes the innermost observed rotation curve point. The
1286: \ml$_{MAX}$ can be substantially turned up such that the stellar
1287: rotation curve matches the data more closely. If \ml$_{MAX}$ = 6.5,
1288: $V_{*}$ overshoots the innermost rotation curve point, but matches the
1289: cluster of points at $\sim$ 1.5 kpc and even crosses the lower
1290: errorbars on points between 5 kpc and 10 kpc. The shape of the
1291: observed rotation curve is well-matched when \ml$_{MAX}$ = 10.0;
1292: $V_{*}$ goes through the upper errorbars on points $\lesssim$ 2 kpc
1293: and agrees well with the data between 5 kpc and 10 kpc. Fitting the
1294: inner observed rotation curve points or the overall rotation curve
1295: shape are both equally plausible approaches to defining \ml$_{MAX}$
1296: \citep{Palunas}, so we use both values in our halo fits.
1297:
1298: F563-1 is a good example of how the choice of \ml\ affects the mass
1299: models, and the degeneracy between the luminous and dark components.
1300: While \ml$_{POP}$ is our best estimate for the stars, the data will
1301: clearly allow a higher \ml. To constrain the degeneracy between the
1302: stars and dark matter in cases like this, we need more information.
1303: The stellar velocity dispersion perpendicular to the disk, for
1304: instance, would help to put limits on the disk mass \citep{Verheijen07}.
1305:
1306: $\textbf{\textit{DDO 64}$-$}$ As \HI\ surface density profiles were
1307: unavailable for this galaxy, the baryons in the mass models are
1308: represented by the stars only. Multicolor photometry was also
1309: unavailable, so a ($B$--$R$) = 0.9 color was assumed for this dwarf
1310: galaxy \citep{dBetal95}. DDO 64 is better described by the
1311: isothermal halo than
1312: the NFW halo; forced $c$ = 1 NFW fits are made for each value of \ml. The
1313: stellar rotation curve falls below the observed rotation curve with
1314: the exception of two low points in the popsynth case, \ml$_{POP}$ =
1315: 1.24. In the maximum disk case with \ml$_{MAX}$ = 5.0, however,
1316: $V_{*}$ is able to follow the data very well out to just past 1 kpc,
1317: and is even consistent with a data point at $\sim$ 1.5 kpc. With
1318: \ml$_{MAX}$ = 5.0, the stars are able to account for most of the
1319: observed rotation, and the displayed isothermal halo fit is the upper
1320: limit on $\rho_{0}$ and the lower limit on $R_{c}$.
1321:
1322: $\textbf{\textit{F568-3}$-$}$ F568-3 is fit well by isothermal halos;
1323: only forced NFW fits could be made to the data. The shape of the
1324: stellar rotation curve is not well-matched to the observed rotation
1325: curve and is only able to describe the inner 2 kpc of data, even in
1326: the maximum disk case.
1327:
1328: $\textbf{\textit{UGC 5750}$-$}$ Because multicolor photometry was
1329: unavailable, a ($B$--$R$) = 0.9 color was assumed for this
1330: galaxy \citep{dBetal95}. Excellent isothermal fits were made for
1331: UGC 5750; the NFW
1332: halo provides very poor fits. Like F568-3, there is not a substantial
1333: difference between \ml$_{POP}$ and \ml$_{MAX}$.
1334:
1335: $\textbf{\textit{NGC 4395}$-$}$ Multicolor photometry was unavailable
1336: for this galaxy and \ml$_{POP}$ = 1.4 \citep{dBB} was assumed for
1337: the popsynth
1338: model. The NFW halo is a slightly better fit to NGC 4395 than the
1339: isothermal halo, and the best-fitting concentrations are consistent
1340: with expectations from $\Lambda$CDM. There is a substantial
1341: difference between \ml$_{POP}$ and \ml$_{MAX}$. For \ml$_{POP}$ =
1342: 1.4, $V_{*}$ is well below the observed rotation curve; however, for
1343: \ml$_{MAX}$ = 9.0, $V_{*}$ is able to trace the data out to 8 kpc, the
1344: entire length of the rotation curve. Because the baryons can explain
1345: the observed rotation so well in the maximum disk case, the data want
1346: an isothermal halo with an almost hollow core. We force a fit with an
1347: upper limit on $\rho_{0}$ and a lower limit on $R_{c}$. The baryons
1348: do such a good job of explaining the observed rotation in the maximum
1349: disk case that there is not even room for an NFW halo with $c$ = 1.0.
1350: In the NFW maximum disk plot in Figure 11, the magenta line represents
1351: the total baryonic rotation curve, $V_{disk}^{2}$ = $V_{*}^{2}$ +
1352: $V_{gas}^{2}$. It should be noted that the nucleus of NGC 4395 is the
1353: least luminous known Seyfert 1 \citep{Filippenko} and may
1354: influence the inner rotation curve that we derive.
1355:
1356: $\textbf{\textit{F583-4}$-$}$ The isothermal halo is a good
1357: description of the data. The NFW halo fits are comparable, although
1358: the values of the concentrations are on the low side of expected
1359: values from simulations. The stellar rotation curve is far below the
1360: data at all radii for the popsynth \ml$_{POP}$ = 1.06. The entire
1361: observed rotation curve can be well described by the stellar rotation
1362: curve when \ml$_{MAX}$ is turned up to 10.0. In this case, there is
1363: very little room left for a dark matter halo, and only a limiting
1364: isothermal halo fit is made. Like NGC 4395, there is not enough
1365: velocity left for an NFW halo with $c$ = 1.0, and the magenta line in
1366: the maximum disk NFW plot in Figure 12 represents the total baryonic
1367: rotation curve.
1368:
1369: $\textbf{\textit{F583-1}$-$}$ F583-1 is better fit by the isothermal
1370: halo than the NFW halo. Additionally, the best-fitting NFW
1371: concentrations are on the low side of expected values from
1372: $\Lambda$CDM. Like F563-1, we consider two values of \ml$_{MAX}$.
1373: With \ml$_{MAX}$ = 5.0, $V_{*}$ goes through the data within $\sim$
1374: 1.5 kpc. $V_{*}$ goes through the upper errorbars on the inner
1375: rotation curve, through the data at $\sim$ 2 kpc, and then through the
1376: lower errorbars on the data out to $\sim$ 3.5 kpc when \ml$_{MAX}$ = 10.0.
1377:
1378: \section{Discussion}
1379:
1380: While one would like to know the true \ml\ for each galaxy, our data
1381: do not indicate that a particular estimator of \ml\ is any better than
1382: another. In Figure 14 we show that the parameters of both the
1383: isothermal and NFW halo fits do not change much as \ml\ changes.
1384: This confirms that the details about what is assumed for the stars
1385: in LSB galaxies do not really matter. Unfortunately, it also means
1386: that without additional information, we cannot constrain \ml\ in
1387: galaxies like F563-1 and F583-1 where a wide range of \ml\ are applicable.
1388:
1389: Though the exact assumption about the stars may be unimportant, the
1390: stars cannot be entirely ignored. In reality, stars do not
1391: have zero mass. In fact, as the velocity contribution from the stars
1392: becomes more important (ie. as \ml\ goes up), there is
1393: less room for dark matter at the centers of the galaxies. The left
1394: panel of Figure 14 illustrates that the isothermal core radius is
1395: often larger than $\sim$ 1 kpc. There is also a trend towards
1396: larger $R_{c}$ with increasing \ml. This is important to recognize,
1397: as it shows that the cusp-core problem is not restricted to the
1398: innermost radii only, particularly when stars are allowed to have
1399: mass. Also plotted in this figure is the $\rho_{0}$-$R_{c}$ scaling
1400: relation of \citet{Kormendy} (their equation 20) and the $\rho_{0}$-$R_{0}$
1401: relation determined by \citet{Spano07} (their figure 2). The \citet{Kormendy}
1402: relation follows the data more closely than the \citet{Spano07} relation,
1403: however the maximum disk case points tend to drift below the \citet{Kormendy}
1404: relation.
1405:
1406: The $\textit{c-V$_{200}$}$ plot in the right
1407: panel of Figure 14
1408: similarly shows the difficulty of fitting the centrally concentrated
1409: NFW halo to the data as the velocity contribution from the baryons
1410: becomes larger: as \ml\ increases, fewer galaxies can be fitted with
1411: an NFW halo. In particular, the velocity contribution from the
1412: baryons is significant enough in the maximum disk case that maximum
1413: disk and the NFW halo are mutually exclusive.
1414:
1415: For comparison, we have
1416: also included the predicted $\textit{c-V$_{200}$}$ lines for the
1417: high $\sigma_{8}$ cosmology of
1418: \citet[][hereafter T04]{Tegmark} and the low $\sigma_{8}$ WMAP3 cosmology \citep{Spergel07}.
1419: The width of the bands is $\pm$1$\sigma$, assuming a scatter of
1420: $\sigma_{c}$ = 0.14 \citep{Bullock01}. The data appear to follow a steeper
1421: $\textit{c-V$_{200}$}$ relation than both predictions
1422: \citep[see also][]{McGaugh07}, and the concentrations of the \Dpak\ galaxies
1423: with NFW fits primarily cluster between the WMAP3 lines. The median
1424: concentration of $\textit{all}$ the zero disk \Dpak\ galaxies is
1425: $c$=4.5. At the corresponding $V_{200}$, the median $c$ expected
1426: from T04 is $\sim$8.2, and the median $c$ expected from WMAP3 is
1427: $\sim$6.1. An alternative method of measuring the halo central
1428: density is the $\Delta_{V/2}$ approach proposed by \citet*{Alam}.
1429: The median $\Delta_{V/2}$ of all the zero disk \Dpak\ galaxies is
1430: $\sim$2.9$\times$10$^{5}$. At the corresponding $V_{max}$, the
1431: median $\Delta_{V/2}$ expected from T04 is $\sim$4.5$\times$10$^{5}$
1432: and is $\sim$1.8$\times$10$^{5}$ from WMAP3. The low
1433: concentrations/central densities observed in the data are more
1434: consistent with a power spectrum having a lower amplitude on small
1435: (galaxy) scales \citep[see also][]{McGaugh03}.
1436:
1437: %\newpage
1438: \subsection{Cusp Mass Excess}
1439:
1440: In \S\ 5.2 we defined a constrained NFW halo, $NFW_{constr}$,
1441: which was constructed to have a cosmologically-consistent
1442: concentration by forcing the halo to match the velocities at the outer
1443: radii of each galaxy. We can now find $NFW_{constr}$ halos for the
1444: dark matter rotation curves for each determination of \ml. The
1445: rotation curves of the $NFW_{constr}$ halos over-predict the observed
1446: velocities interior to where they are forced to agree. We can
1447: evaluate the difference between this expected CDM rotation curve and
1448: the observed dark matter rotation curve in terms of velocity
1449: difference, or alternatively, as a cusp mass excess. We can ask what
1450: the difference is between the expected cuspy NFW halo mass and the
1451: dark matter mass that is allowed by the data. In the left panel of
1452: Figure 15, we show the observed dark
1453: matter rotation curves of F568-3 for the zero, minimal, popsynth, and
1454: maximum disk models. We also show the constrained NFW halo for each dark
1455: matter rotation curve. In the right panel of Figure 15, we plot the
1456: same data in terms of mass using $M$ = $V^{2}$$R$/$G$. To prevent a
1457: cluttered plot, we show only the results for the popsynth model. The
1458: solid line is the enclosed mass as a function of radius for the
1459: $NFW_{constr}$ halo. The dashed line is the enclosed mass of the
1460: observed dark matter. We have not smoothed the data, so $V_{DM}$ is a
1461: bit jittery between $\sim$ 6-8 kpc; $\textit{M(r)}$, however, is
1462: displayed using a smoother version of the data. The $NFW_{constr}$
1463: halo has been forced to match the data at large radii; interior to
1464: this, however, there is less mass observed at all radii than is expected.
1465:
1466: In Figure 16 we plot the ratio of the observed dark matter mass to
1467: the constrained cusp mass as a function of radius for each galaxy.
1468: This ratio approaches 1 at large radii where the data have been forced
1469: to agree. Near the centers of the galaxies there is a substantial
1470: cusp mass excess; there is at least two times more mass expected in
1471: the cuspy halo than is allowed by the data. At all radii, the cusp
1472: mass excess becomes larger as the baryons become increasingly more
1473: important.
1474:
1475: \subsection{Reconciling the Cusp Mass Excess with Noncircular Motions}
1476:
1477: In our analysis so far, we have assumed that the observed velocity is
1478: the circular velocity ($V_{circ}$ = $V_{obsv}$). If noncircular
1479: motions are present, the true circular velocity may be
1480: underestimated. This is the argument commonly given to explain the
1481: discrepancy between the NFW halo and the observations at small radii
1482: \citep[e.g.][]{Rob, vandenB01}. To determine the true circular
1483: velocity, the noncircular motions are added in quadrature to the
1484: observed velocities, $V^{2}_{circ}$ = $V^{2}_{rot}$ +
1485: $\beta$$\sigma^{2}$, usually assuming an isotropic dispersion
1486: ($\beta$ = 3).
1487:
1488: We can invert Figure 16 and determine how large the noncircular
1489: motions must be in order to bring the observed dark matter velocity
1490: into agreement with the $NFW_{constr}$ velocity. In Figure 17 we
1491: plot the required $\sigma$$(r)$, assuming an isotropic dispersion, for
1492: each galaxy. In general, most of the galaxies need about 20 \kms\
1493: noncircular motions at inner radii for the data to be consistent with
1494: the expectations of CDM. This is roughly twice as large as the
1495: velocity dispersion in the \Dpak\ data \citepalias{Kuzio}. It is also
1496: important to recognize the effect of stars not having zero mass.
1497: Instead of just having to convince ourselves that $\sim$20 \kms\
1498: noncircular motions should be added to the data, we actually must be
1499: willing to consider noncircular motions an additional 5-10 \kms\
1500: higher when \ml\ $\neq$ 0. Because we have forced the halo velocity
1501: to match the observed velocity at large radius, our derived
1502: $\sigma$$(r)$ often show a steep drop to 0 \kms\ from $\sim$ 20 \kms.
1503: Strictly speaking, this behavior is unphysical, and a more continuous
1504: model could be derived. If $\sigma$ contributes at large radii,
1505: however, that implies that the halo has even more dark matter and
1506: $\sigma$ at small radii would have to be even higher. In a
1507: forthcoming paper, we model the NFW halo and noncircular motions,
1508: and Figure 17 provides us with testable predictions. For instance,
1509: we can use the results to test whether the observations are consistent
1510: with $NFW$+$\sigma(r)$.
1511:
1512:
1513:
1514: \section{Conclusions}
1515:
1516: We have presented updated \Dpak\ velocity fields, rotation
1517: curves and zero disk halo fits for three galaxies from \citetalias{Kuzio}.
1518: We have also presented the velocity fields, derived
1519: rotation curves and zero disk halo fits for six galaxies previously
1520: unobserved with \Dpak. Overall, we find the isothermal halo to be
1521: a better description of both the shape of the rotation curves and the
1522: central densities of these nine galaxies in the limit of zero disk
1523: than the NFW halo. When NFW fits could be made, the concentrations
1524: were often beyond the range of values expected for $\Lambda$CDM. We
1525: also find that the quality of both the isothermal and NFW halo fits is
1526: greatly improved when the radial range of the data extends into the
1527: flat part of the rotation curve.
1528:
1529: For those \Dpak\ galaxies with photometry, we have also presented
1530: isothermal and NFW halo fits for four assumptions of the stellar
1531: mass-to-light ratio, \ml. We have tested the zero, minimal, popsynth,
1532: and maximum disk cases. We have found that the NFW halo is a poor
1533: description of the data, and that the NFW halo and maximum disk are
1534: mutually exclusive. There
1535: is a substantial cusp mass excess near the centers of the galaxies
1536: with at least two times more mass expected in the cuspy CDM halo than
1537: is allowed by the data. Most galaxies in the sample require $\sim$20
1538: \kms\ noncircular motions to reconcile the differences between
1539: observations and the NFW halo. Even larger noncircular motions are
1540: required when stars are allowed to have mass. We have also found
1541: the data to favor a low $\sigma_{8}$ cosmology.
1542:
1543:
1544: \section{Acknowledgements}
1545:
1546: We thank James Bullock for providing the theoretical predictions for
1547: $\Delta_{V/2}$. The work of R.~K.~D. and S.~S.~M. was supported by NSF grant
1548: AST0505956. R.~K.~D. is also supported by an NSF Astronomy \&
1549: Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellowship under award AST0702496.
1550: This paper was part of R.~K.~D.~'s Ph.~D. dissertation at
1551: the University of Maryland. The work of W.~J.~G.~d.~B. is supported
1552: by the South African Research Chairs Initiative of the Department of
1553: Science and Technology and National Research Foundation.
1554: This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database
1555: (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California
1556: Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics
1557: and Space Administration. Our velocity field plots were made using a
1558: modified version of the program found at
1559: \newline\url{http://www.astro.wisc.edu/$\sim$mab/research/densepak/}
1560: \newline\url{DP/dpidl.html}
1561:
1562:
1563: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1564: \bibitem[Alam et al.(2002)Alam, Bullock, \& Weinberg]{Alam} Alam,
1565: S.~M.~K., Bullock, J.~S., \& Weinberg, D.~H. 2002, \apj, 572, 34
1566: \bibitem[Avila-Reese et al.(1998)Avila-Reese, Firmani, \& Hernandez]
1567: {AvilaReese} Avila-Reese, V., Firmani, C., \& Hernandez, X. 1998,
1568: \apj, 505, 37
1569: \bibitem[Baggett et al.(1998)Baggett, Baggett, \& Anderson]{Baggett}Baggett, W.~E.,
1570: Baggett, S.~M., \& Anderson, K.~S.~J. 1998, \aj, 116, 1626
1571: \bibitem[Begeman(1989)]{Begeman} Begeman, K.~G. 1989, \aap, 223, 47
1572: \bibitem[Bell et al.(2003)]{Belletal03} Bell, E.~F., McIntosh, D.~H., Katz,
1573: N., \& Weinberg, M.~D. 2003, \apjs, 149, 289
1574: \bibitem[Borriello \& Salucci(2001)]{Borriello} Borriello, A., \& Salucci,
1575: P. 2001, \mnras, 323, 285
1576: \bibitem[Bullock et al.(2001)]{Bullock01} Bullock, J.~S., Kolatt,
1577: T.~S., Sigad, Y., Somerville, R.~S., Kravtsov, A.~V., Klypin, A.~A.,
1578: Primack, J.~R., \& Dekel, A. 2001, \mnras, 321, 559
1579: \bibitem[Chemin et al.(2004)]{Chemin04} Chemin, L., et al. 2004, IAUS, 220, 333
1580: \bibitem[Cole \& Lacey(1996)]{ColeLacey} Cole, S., \& Lacey, C. 1996,
1581: \mnras, 281, 716
1582: \bibitem[de Blok \& Bosma(2002)]{dBB} de Blok, W.~J.~G., \& Bosma, A.
1583: 2002, \aap, 385, 816
1584: \bibitem[de Blok et al.(2003)de Blok, Bosma, \& McGaugh]{dBBM} de
1585: Blok, W.~J.~G., Bosma, A., \& McGaugh, S.~S. 2003, \mnras, 340, 657
1586: \bibitem[de Blok \& McGaugh(1996)]{dBM96} de Blok, W.~J.~G., \& McGaugh,
1587: S.~S. 1996, \apj, 469, L89
1588: \bibitem[de Blok \& McGaugh(1997)]{dBM97} ---------- . 1997, \mnras, 290, 533
1589: \bibitem[de Blok et al.(2001)de Blok, McGaugh, \& Rubin] {dBMR} de Blok, W.~J.~G.,
1590: McGaugh, S.~S., \& Rubin, V.~C. 2001, \aj, 122, 2396
1591: \bibitem[de Blok et al.(1996)de Blok, McGaugh, \& van der Hulst]{DMV} de Blok,
1592: W.~J.~G., McGaugh, S.~S., \& van der Hulst, J.~M. 1996, \mnras, 283, 18
1593: \bibitem[de Blok \& van der Hulst(1998)]{dBvdH} de Blok, W.~J.~G., \&
1594: van der Hulst, J.~M. 1998, \aap, 336, 49
1595: \bibitem[de Blok et al.(1995)de Blok, van der Hulst, \& Bothun]{dBetal95} de Blok, W.~J.~G.,
1596: van der Hulst, J.~M., \& Bothun, G.~D. 1995, \mnras, 274, 235
1597: \bibitem[de Jong(1996)]{deJong} de Jong, R.~S. 1996, \aaps, 118, 557
1598: \bibitem[Diemand et al.(2005)]{Diemand} Diemand, J., Zemp, M., Moore, B.,
1599: Stadel, J., \& Carollo, M. 2005, \mnras, 364, 665
1600: \bibitem[Filippenko \& Sargent(1989)]{Filippenko} Filippenko, A.~V.,
1601: \& Sargent, W.~L.~W. 1989, \apjl, 342, L11
1602: \bibitem[Flores \& Primack(1994)]{Flores} Flores, R.~A., \& Primack, J.~R.
1603: 1994, \apjl, 427, L1
1604: \bibitem[Fuchs(2003)]{Fuchs} Fuchs, B. 2003, \apss, 284, 719
1605: \bibitem[Gentile et al.(2005)]{Gentile05} Gentile, G., Burkert, A.,
1606: Salucci, P., Klein, U., \& Walter, F. 2005, \apj, 634, L145
1607: \bibitem[Gentile et al.(2007)]{Gentile07} Gentile, G., Salucci, P.,
1608: Klein, U., \& Granato, G.~L. 2007, \mnras, 375, 199
1609: \bibitem[Gentile et al.(2004)]{Gentile} Gentile, G., Salucci, P.,
1610: Klein, U., Vergani, D., \& Kalberla, P. 2004, \mnras, 351, 903
1611: \bibitem[Heraudeau \& Simien(1996)]{Heraudeau} Heraudeau, P., \&
1612: Simien, F. 1996, \aaps, 118, 111
1613: \bibitem[James et al.(2004)]{James} James, P.~A., et al. 2004, \aap,
1614: 414, 23
1615: \bibitem[Klypin et al.(2001)]{Klypin} Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A.~V.,
1616: Bullock, J.~S., \& Primack, J.~R. 2001, \apj, 554, 903
1617: \bibitem[Kormendy \& Freeman(2004)]{Kormendy} Kormendy, J., \&
1618: Freeman, K.~C. 2004, IAUS, 220, 377
1619: \bibitem[Kuzio de Naray et al.(2006)]{Kuzio} Kuzio de Naray, R.,
1620: McGaugh, S.~S., de Blok, W.~J.~G., \& Bosma, A. 2006, \apjs, 165,
1621: 461 (K06)
1622: \bibitem[Marchesini et al.(2002)]{Marchesini} Marchesini, D.,
1623: D'Onghia, E., Chincarini, G., Firmani, C., Conconi, P., Molinari, E.,
1624: \& Zacchei, A. 2002, \apj, 575, 801
1625: \bibitem[McGaugh(2005)]{McGaugh05} McGaugh, S.~S. 2005, \apj, 632, 859
1626: \bibitem[McGaugh et al.(2003)McGaugh, Barker, \& de Blok]{McGaugh03} McGaugh, S.~S.,
1627: Barker, M.~K., \& de Blok, W.~J.~G. 2003, \apj, 584, 566
1628: \bibitem[McGaugh \& de Blok(1998)]{McGdB98} McGaugh, S.~S., \& de Blok,
1629: W.~J.~G. 1998, \apj, 499, 41
1630: \bibitem[McGaugh et al.(2007)]{McGaugh07} McGaugh, S.~S., de Blok,
1631: W.~J.~G., Schombert, J.~M., Kuzio de Naray, R., \& Kim, J.~H. 2007, ApJ,
1632: 659, 149
1633: \bibitem[McGaugh et al.(2001)McGaugh, Rubin, \& de Blok]{MRdB} McGaugh, S.~S., Rubin,
1634: V.~C., \& de Blok, W.~J.~G. 2001, \aj, 122, 2381
1635: \bibitem[Mihos et al.(1999)Mihos, Spaans, \& McGaugh]{Mihos} Mihos, J.~C., Spaans,
1636: M., \& McGaugh, S.~S. 1999, \apj, 515, 89
1637: \bibitem[Moore et al.(1999)]{Moore} Moore, B., Quinn, T., Governato,
1638: F., Stadel, J., Lake, G. 1999, \mnras, 310, 1147
1639: \bibitem[Navarro et al.(1996)Navarro, Frenk, \& White]{NFW96} Navarro, J.~F., Frenk,
1640: C.~S., \& White, S.~D.~M. 1996, \apj, 462, 563
1641: \bibitem[Navarro et al.(1997)Navarro, Frenk, \& White]{NFW97} ---------- . 1997,
1642: \apj, 490, 493
1643: \bibitem[Navarro et al.(2004)]{Navarro2004} Navarro, J.F., et
1644: al. 2004, \mnras, 349, 1039
1645: \bibitem[Osterbrock et al.(1996)]{Osterbrock} Osterbrock, D.~E.,
1646: Fulbright, J.~P., Martel, A.~R., Keane, M.~J., Trager, S.~C., \& Basri,
1647: G. 1996, \pasp, 108, 277
1648: \bibitem[Palunas \& Williams(2000)]{Palunas} Palunas, P., \& Williams,
1649: T.~B. 2000, \aj, 120, 2884
1650: \bibitem[Reed et al.(2003)]{Reed} Reed, D., Gardner, J., Quinn, T.,
1651: Stadel, J., Fardal, M., Lake, G., \& Governato, F. 2003, \mnras, 346, 565
1652: \bibitem[Regan et al.(2001)]{Regan} Regan, M.~W., Thornley, M.~D.,
1653: Helfer, T.~T., Sheth, K., Wong, T., Vogel, S.~N., Blitz, L., \& Bock,
1654: D.~C.~J. 2001, \apj, 561 218
1655: \bibitem[Rhee et al.(2004)]{Rhee04} Rhee, G., Valenzuela, O., Klypin, A.,
1656: Holtzman, J., \& Moorthy, B. 2004, \apj, 617, 1059
1657: \bibitem[Rosenberg \& Schneider(2003)]{Rosenberg} Rosenberg, J.~L., \&
1658: Schneider S.~E. 2003, \apj, 585, 256
1659: \bibitem[Schombert et al.(1990)]{Schombert} Schombert, J.~M., Bothun,
1660: G.~D., Impey, C.~D., \& Mundy, L.~G. 1990, \aj, 100, 1523
1661: \bibitem[Simon et al.(2003)]{Simon03} Simon, J.~D., Bolatto, A.~D.,
1662: Leroy, A., \& Blitz, L. 2003, \apj, 596, 957
1663: \bibitem[Simon et al.(2005)]{Simon05} Simon, J.~D., Bolatto, A.~D.,
1664: Leroy, A., Blitz, L., \& Gates, E.~L. 2005, \apj, 621, 757
1665: \bibitem[Spano et al.(2007)]{Spano07} Spano, M., Marcelin, M., Amram, P.,
1666: Carignan, C., Epinat, B., \& Hernandez, O. 2007, \mnras, in press
1667: (arXiv:0710.1345)
1668: \bibitem[Spergel et al.(2007)]{Spergel07} Spergel, D.~N., et al. 2007,
1669: ApJS, 170, 377
1670: \bibitem[Stil(1999)]{Stil} Stil, J. 1999, Ph.D. Thesis, University of
1671: Leiden
1672: \bibitem[Swaters(1999)]{Swatersthesis} Swaters, R.~A. 1999,
1673: Ph.D. Thesis, University of Groningen
1674: \bibitem[Swaters \& Balcells(2002)]{SwatersBalcells} Swaters, R.~A., \&
1675: Balcells, M. 2002, \aap, 390, 863
1676: \bibitem[Swaters et al.(2003a)]{Rob} Swaters, R.~A., Madore, B.~F.,
1677: van den Bosch, F.~C., \& Balcells, M. 2003a, \apj, 583, 732
1678: \bibitem[Swaters et al.(2002)]{Swatersetal02} Swaters, R.~A., van
1679: Albada, T.~S., van der Hulst, J.~M., \& Sancisi, R. 2002, \aap,
1680: 390, 829
1681: \bibitem[Swaters et al.(2003b)]{Swaters03} Swaters, R.~A., Verheijen,
1682: M.~A.~W., Bershady, M.~A., \& Andersen, D.~R. 2003b, \apj, 587, L19
1683: \bibitem[Tegmark et al.(2004)]{Tegmark} Tegmark, M., et al. 2004,
1684: Phys.\ Rev.\ D, 69, 103501
1685: \bibitem[Tully(1988)]{Tully} Tully, R.~B. 1988, Nearby Galaxies
1686: Catalogue (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)
1687: \bibitem[van den Bosch et al.(2000)]{vandenB00} van den Bosch, F.~C.,
1688: Robertson, B.~E., Dalcanton, J.~J., \& de Blok, W.~J.~G. 2000, \aj, 119,
1689: 1579
1690: \bibitem[van den Bosch \& Swaters(2001)]{vandenB01} van den Bosch, F.~C.,
1691: \& Swaters, R.~A. 2001, \mnras, 325, 1017
1692: \bibitem[van der Hulst et al.(1993)]{vanderHulst} van der Hulst, J.~M.,
1693: Skillman, E.~D., Smith, T.~R., Bothun, G.~D., McGaugh, S.~S., \& de
1694: Blok, W.~J.~G. 1993, \aj, 106, 548
1695: \bibitem[van der Kruit \& Searle(1981)]{vanderKruit81} van der Kruit,
1696: P.~C., \& Searle, L. 1981, \aap, 95, 105
1697: \bibitem[van Zee \& Haynes(2006)]{vanZeeHaynes} van Zee, L., \&
1698: Haynes, M.~P. 2006, \apj, 636, 214
1699: \bibitem[van Zee et al.(1997)]{vanzee97} van Zee, L., Haynes, M.~P.,
1700: Salzer, J.~J., \& Broeils, A.~H. 1997, \aj, 113, 1618
1701: \bibitem[Verheijen \& de Blok(1999)]{VerheijendB} Verheijen, M., \& de
1702: Blok, W.~J.~G. 1999, \apss, 269, 673
1703: \bibitem[Verheijen et al.(2007)]{Verheijen07} Verheijen, M.~A.~W.,
1704: Bershady, M.~A., Swaters, R.~A., Andersen, D.~R., \& Westfall, K.~B.
1705: 2007, ISLAND UNIVERSES, Astrophysics and Space Science
1706: Proceedings.~ISBN 978-1-4020-5572-0.~Springer, 2007, p.~95
1707:
1708: \end{thebibliography}
1709:
1710:
1711: \end{document}