1: \documentclass[12pt, preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \usepackage{amsmath}
4: \usepackage{amssymb}
5:
6: \newcommand{\emp}{\rm}
7: \newcommand{\mt}{*}
8: \newcommand{\dd}{\mathrm{d}}
9: \newcommand{\pc}{\mathrm{pc}}
10: \newcommand{\mpc}{\mathrm{Mpc}}
11: \newcommand{\msun}{M_{\odot}}
12: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
13: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
14: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
15: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
16: \newcommand{\appgeq}{\stackrel{>}{\sim}}
17: \newcommand{\appleq}{\stackrel{<}{\sim}}
18: \newcommand{\ec}{{\cal E}}
19:
20: \shorttitle{Milky Way Models}
21: \shortauthors{Widrow & Pym}
22:
23: \begin{document}
24:
25: \title{Dynamical Models for Disk Galaxies with Triaxial Halos}
26:
27: \author{Lawrence M. Widrow\altaffilmark{*}} \affil{Department of
28: Physics, Engineering Physics, and Astronomy, Queen's University,
29: Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada\\ \medskip (submitted to the
30: Astrophysical Journal, October, 2007)}
31: \altaffiltext{1}{widrow@astro.queensu.ca}
32:
33: \begin{abstract}
34:
35: We construct self-consistent dynamical models for disk galaxies with
36: triaxial, cuspy halos. We begin with an equilibrium, axisymmetric,
37: disk-bulge-halo system and apply an artificial acceleration to the
38: halo particles. By design, this acceleration conserves energy and
39: thereby preserving the system's differential energy distribution
40: even as its phase space distribution function is altered. The
41: halo becomes triaxial but its spherically-averaged density profile
42: remains largely unchanged. The final system is in equilibrium, to a
43: very good approximation, so long as the halo's shape changes
44: adiabatically. The disk and bulge are ``live'' while the halo is
45: being deformed; they respond to the changing gravitational potential
46: but also influence the deformation of the halo. We test the
47: hypothesis that halo triaxiality can explain the rotation curves of
48: low surface brightness galaxies by modelling the galaxy F568-3.
49:
50: \end{abstract}
51:
52: \keywords{Galaxy: kinematics and dynamics --- methods: statistical ---
53: methods: N-body simulations --- cosmology: dark matter}
54:
55:
56: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
57:
58: \section{INTRODUCTION}
59:
60: Dark matter halos -- at least the ones found in cosmological
61: simulations -- have a number of universal traits. Most famously,
62: their density profiles have a shape that is nearly independent of
63: mass, formation epoch, and cosmological model \citep{nfw96}. Their
64: angular momentum distribution \citep{bullock01}, phase space density
65: \citep{taylor01}, and velocity anisotropy \citep{hansen06} profiles
66: also appear to follow universal forms. In other respects, halos are
67: rather diverse. Simulated halos are typically triaxial with axis
68: ratios that range from $0.6$ to $1$ (See \citet{dubinski91, warren92}
69: and more recently, \citet{novak06}). The shapes of real halos are
70: more difficult to determine but promising observational approaches do
71: exist. Probes of the Galactic halo include flaring of the gas disk
72: \citep{olling} and tidal streams of satellite galaxies
73: \citep{johnston99}. The shapes of halos in other galaxies can be
74: determined, at least statistically, by weak gravitational lensing
75: surveys \citep{hoekstra, mandelbaum, parker}. On the other hand,
76: triaxiality can bias attempts to determine a halo's density profile
77: from the rotation curve of the disk that sits within it
78: \citep{hayashi06}.
79:
80: Our main goal in writing this paper is to introduce a novel scheme to
81: generate self-consistent dynamical models for disk galaxies with
82: triaxial halos. Our models can be tailored to fit observational data
83: for specific galaxies and therefore provide a testing ground to study
84: the disk-halo connection. We consider the effects of halo triaxiality
85: on the rotation curves of low surface brightness galaxies (LSBs)
86: and briefly discuss other applications of the models.
87:
88: Halos in simulations of a cold dark matter (CDM) universe have central
89: cusps with $\rho\propto r^{-\gamma}$ where $\gamma\simeq 1$
90: \citep{nfw96}. In dark matter-dominated galaxies, this density
91: profile would seem to imply a rotation curve where $v\propto r^{1/2}$
92: as $r\to 0$. By contrast, a halo with a constant density core implies
93: $v\propto r$ as $r\to 0$. LSBs, which are believed to be dark-matter
94: dominated at small radii, have rotation curves that generally favor a
95: constant density core over a $\gamma=-1$ cusp. This result represents
96: one of the most serious challenges to the CDM scenario \citep{moore94,
97: flores94, mcg98} and has inspired some rather exotic alternatives.
98: De Blok \& McGaugh (1998), for example, suggested that LSB rotation
99: curves could be explained by Modified Newtonian Gravity while
100: \citet{firmani00} and \citet{mo00}) invoked dark matter
101: self-interactions to flatten the central cusp of the halo.
102:
103: The connection described above between a galaxy's rotation curve and
104: the intrinsic density profile of its halo assumes that the halo is
105: spherically symmetric. However, if a galaxy's halo is triaxial, then
106: gas in the disk will move on non-circular orbits and, under certain
107: conditions, the observed rotation curve will rise approximately
108: linearly even if the intrinsic halo density profile has a steep cusp.
109: \citet{hayashi06} and \citet{hayashi07} presented this argument as a
110: means of reconciling LSB rotation curves with the predictions of the
111: CDM model.
112:
113: \citet{hayashi06} and \citet{hayashi07} derived model rotation curves
114: by calculating closed orbits in the potential generated by a triaxial
115: halo. In this paper, we derive rotation curves by making
116: pseudo-observations of a disk that is embedded in the halo.
117: Deviations from axial symmetry in disk and halo are generated
118: concurrently and self-consistently.
119:
120: A number of methods exist for constructing models of, and embedding
121: disks in, triaxial halos. For example, \citet{moore04} show that the
122: remnant of a major merger between two equilibrium spherical halos is
123: triaxial. \citet{bailin07} describe how to set up an equilibrium disk
124: in a combined halo-disk potential. Our approach produces an N-body
125: galaxy complete with disk, bulge, and triaxial halo. (Central black
126: holes may also be included, as in \citet{wid05}.) It is inspired by
127: the method outlined in \citet{holley01}. In that scheme, dubbed
128: ``adiabatic squeezing'', particles of an equilibrium halo are
129: subjected to an artificial drag by modifying the force law of a
130: standard N-body code and evolving the system forward in time. A
131: triaxial halo is created if the drag has a different strength along
132: three orthogonal directions, that is, along what become the three
133: principle axes of the halo. The final model will be in equilibrium,
134: to a good approximation, so long as the timescale for the halo's shape
135: to change is slow as compared to the typical orbital timescale of the
136: system.
137:
138: Adiabatic squeezing causes a halo to shrink in size. For an isolated
139: halo, this shrinking can be reversed by simply rescaling the positions
140: and velocities of the particles. Obviously, this method is unsuitable
141: for disk-bulge-halo systems since the disk and bulge would be
142: disrupted in an unphysical way. We propose a modification of this
143: method in which drag is applied along one axis and ``negative drag''
144: is applied along the other two or vice versa depending on whether one
145: wants a prolate or oblate halo. We require that for each particle,
146: the change in energy due to the artificial drag force is zero. In
147: this way, we change the phase space distribution of the particles but
148: not their energy distribution. As noted in \citet{BT}, {\it if two
149: systems have the same energy distribution, their
150: spherically-averaged density profiles will be very similar even if
151: their phase space distribution functions are different.}
152:
153: Our starting point is the equilibrium model of \citet{wid07} which
154: comprises a Sersic bulge, cuspy dark halo, and exponential disk. The
155: model is described in terms of a phase space distribution function
156: (DF) which, in turn, is a function of the integrals of motion. In the
157: current version of the model, the halo component of the DF depends
158: only on the energy. In the absence of a disk, the halo is spherically
159: symmetric. With the disk included, the halo is flattened slightly but
160: is still axisymmetric. Adiabatic deformation allows us to extend our
161: disk-bulge-halo model to systems with triaxial halos.
162:
163: In Section 2, we describe our method and construct an example of an
164: isolated triaxial halo. We then consider the LSB galaxy F568-3. In
165: Section 3, we present axisymmetric, equilibrium models for this galaxy
166: based on its published surface brightness profile and circular speed
167: curve. In Section 4, we show how transforming the axisymmetric halo
168: in one of these models into a triaxial halo changes the shape of the
169: rotation curve. We conclude in Section 5, by summarizing our results
170: and briefly discussing further applications of the method.
171:
172: \section{METHOD}
173:
174: We begin with an N-body equilibrium halo and evolve the system forward
175: in time using standard techniques augmented by an artificial,
176: energy-conserving acceleration. To be precise, we introduce an
177: acceleration into the equations of motion given by
178: \begin{equation}
179: a_x = \frac{\left (\beta_1-\beta_2\right )v_y^2 + \beta_1 v_z^2}{v^2}\,v_x~,
180: \label{eq:ax}
181: \end{equation}
182: \begin{equation}
183: a_y = \frac{\left (\beta_2-\beta_1\right )v_x^2 + \beta_2 v_z^2}{v^2}\,v_y~,
184: \label{eq:ay}
185: \end{equation}
186: and
187: \begin{equation}
188: a_z = -\frac{\beta_1v_x^2 + \beta_2 v_y^2}{v^2}\,v_z
189: \label{eq:az}
190: \end{equation}
191: where $v$ is the speed of the particle and ${\bf a}\cdot {\bf v} = 0$,
192: as required. The coefficients $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ are
193: time-dependent. Following \citet{holley01} we assume that $\beta_{1}$
194: and $\beta_2$ ``turn on'' at $t=0$ and increase to their respective
195: maximum values over a period $T_G$ with a time-dependence given by
196: \begin{equation}\label{eq:betatimedependence}
197: \beta_i =
198: \beta_{i,max}\left (3\left (t/T_G\right )^2
199: - 2\left (t/T_G\right )^3\right )~.
200: \end{equation}
201: $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ remain constant for a time $T_C$ before
202: decreasing to zero over a time $T_D$.
203:
204: A few comments regarding the parameters $\beta_1$, $\beta_2$, $T_G$,
205: $T_C$, and $T_D$ are in order. First, the degree by which the halo
206: departs from spherical symmetry is given, roughly, by the integral
207: $\int \beta_i dt = \beta_i\left (T_G + T_C + T_D\right )$. Rescaling
208: the $\beta$'s by a factor $f$ and the $T$'s by a factor $f^{-1}$
209: leaves the final halo shape unchanged with one important caveat.
210: $\beta^{-1}$ sets the timescale over which the halo's shape changes
211: and therefore must be longer than its dynamical time $\sim
212: a_h/\sigma_h$ in order to maintain adiabaticity.
213:
214: In the case of an isolate halo equations \ref{eq:ax}-\ref{eq:az} admit
215: several discrete symmetries. For example, interchanging $\beta_1$ and
216: $\beta_2$ is equivalent to interchanging $x$ and $y$. Similar
217: symmetries are listed in Table 1. The presence of a disk breaks these
218: symmetries. In general, increasing $\beta_1$ causes the system to expand
219: along the $x$-axis while increasing $\beta_2$ causes the system to expand
220: along the $y$-axis. Models with $\beta_1=\beta_2$ are axisymmetric about
221: the $z$-axis.
222:
223: As an illustration, we transform an isolated, spherically-symmetric
224: halo into one that is triaxial. We begin with a halo
225: whose density profile is given by
226: \begin{equation}\label{eq:haloprofile}
227: \tilde{\rho}_{\rm halo} = \frac{2^{2-\gamma}\sigma_h^2}{4\pi a_h^2}
228: \frac{1}{\left (r/a_h\right )^{\gamma}
229: \left (1 + r/a_h\right )^{3-\gamma}}\,
230: {\rm erfc}\left (\frac{r-r_h}{\sqrt{2}\delta r_h}\right )~.
231: \end{equation}
232: For this example, we set $\gamma = 1$ (the NFW value), $a_h= 10\,{\rm
233: kpc}$, $\sigma_h=100\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$, $r_h = 100\,{\rm kpc}$ and
234: $\delta r_h = 10\,{\rm kpc}$. We choose $\beta_{1,max} = 0.24 {\rm \,
235: Gyr}^{-1}$, $\beta_{2,max} = 0.08 \,{\rm Gyr^{-1}}$, $T_G = T_D =
236: 1\,{\rm Gyr}$ and $t_c=3\,{\rm Gyr}$. As required, the characteristic
237: timescale for the halo, $a_h/\sigma_h = 100\,{\rm Myr}$, is short
238: compared to the timescale, $\beta^{-1} = 4-12\,{\rm Gyr}$, associated
239: with the artificial force. Our choice for the $\beta_i$ yields a halo
240: whose short axis is along the $z$-direction and whose long axis is
241: along the $x$-direction.
242:
243: The model is evolved forward in time using the N-body code from
244: \citet{stiff03} which is based on the algorithm described in
245: \citet{dehnen00}. The code uses a multipole expansion for cell-cell
246: interactions; computational costs scale approximately linearly with
247: particle number $N$. The softening length is $200\,{\rm pc}$ and the
248: timestep is $1\,{\rm Myr}$. The system is evolved for a period of
249: $15\,{\rm Gyr}$.
250:
251: In Figure \ref{fig:xyz}, we show a contour plot of the projected
252: surface density of the halo along the three principle axes. Note that
253: the departure from spherical symmetry is strongest in the inner parts
254: of the halo. In Figure \ref{fig:axes}, we show the axis ratios as a
255: function of time. To be precise, we model the density field
256: as an ellipsoidal distribution,
257: \begin{equation}
258: \rho = \rho(\tilde{r})~~~~{\rm where}~~~~
259: \tilde{r} = x^2 + \frac{y^2}{b^2} + \frac{z^2}{c^2}~.
260: \end{equation}
261: The parameters $b$ and $c$ are calculated through an iterative
262: procedure as outlined in \citet{dubinski91}. We show the results
263: using the inner third of the particles, the inner two thirds of the
264: particles, and all of the particles. Again, we see that the halo is
265: more spherical in the outer parts. Note that the axis ratios at all
266: radii oscillate a bit at $t=5\,{\rm Gyr}$, the time when the
267: artificial acceleration is turned off. After this time, the axis
268: ratios in the inner two thirds of the halo quickly settle down to
269: constant values. The oscillations damp more slowly in the outer
270: parts of the halo where the dynamical time is not much shorter than
271: $\beta_i^{-1}$. One can minimize the oscillations by increasing
272: the $T's$ and decreasing the $\beta$'s but at the cost of additional
273: computation time.
274:
275: In Figure \ref{fig:density}, we show the spherically-averaged
276: differential mass profile, $dM/dr \propto r^2\rho$ for the initial
277: model and for the deformed model at $t=6\,{\rm Gyr}$ and $t=12\,{\rm
278: Gyr}$ and compare with equation 5. Also shown is the density
279: profile calculated from the initial conditions and the density profile
280: for the system evolved to $12\,{\rm Gyr}$ with no artificial
281: acceleration. The former illustrates the role mass resolution plays
282: on the measured density profile while the latter illustrates the
283: effects of force softening and two-body relaxation. We see that the
284: spherically-averaged density profile is preserved to within the
285: fluctuations introduced by these other effects.
286:
287: Table 2 presents results for the axes ratios for other choices of
288: $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$. Note that models 1a-c (and likewise models
289: 2a-b and models 3a-c) are equivalent through the symmetries described
290: in Table 1.
291:
292: \section{THE LSB GALAXY F568-3}
293:
294: In this section, we construct axisymmetric, equilibrium models for
295: F568-3, an LSB galaxy which has appeared in a number of studies. We
296: describe our general axisymmetric disk-bulge-halo models, review
297: published photometric and kinematic observations for this galaxy, and
298: discuss the statistical techniques used to tailor the model to the
299: data.
300:
301: \subsection{\it Equilibrium Models for Disk-Bulge-Halo Systems}
302:
303: Our starting point is the dynamical galactic model described in
304: \citet{wid07}. The model is axisymmetric and comprises an exponential
305: disk, a Sersic bulge, and a halo whose density profile is given by
306: equation \ref{eq:haloprofile}. DFs for the bulge and halo are
307: functions of the energy, $E$, and constructed via an Abel integral
308: transform. The DF for the disk is constructed from three integrals of
309: motion following the method outlined in \citet{kui95}. The total DF
310: for the composite system self-consistently satisfies the collisionless
311: Boltzmann and Poisson equations.
312:
313: The bulge has a spherically-averaged density profile given, to
314: a good approximation, by
315: \begin{equation}\label{eq:prugnielsimien}
316: \tilde{\rho}_{\rm bulge}(r) = \rho_b\left (\frac{r}{R_e}\right )^{-p}
317: e^{-b\left (r/R_e\right )^{1/n}}~.
318: \end{equation}
319: This density profile yields the Sersic law,
320: \begin{equation}\label{eq:sersic}
321: \Sigma(r) = \Sigma_0 e^{-b\left (R/R_e\right )^{1/n}}~,
322: \end{equation}
323: for the projected mass density provided one sets $p = 1 - 0.6097/n +
324: 0.05563/n^2$ \citep{ps97,ter05}. $\Sigma_0$, $R_e$ and $n$ are free
325: parameters while the constant $b$ is adjusted so that $R_e$ encloses
326: half the total projected light or mass.
327:
328: The disk DF depends on $E$, the angular momentum about the symmetry
329: axis, $L_z$, and an approximate integral of motion, $E_z$, which
330: corresponds to the energy associated with vertical motions of stars in
331: the disk. The DF is adjusted so that the intrinsic three-dimensional
332: density distribution and velocity dispersion profile are given,
333: respectively, by
334: \begin{equation}
335: \rho_{\rm disk}\left (R,\,z\right ) = \rho_0 \exp^{-R/R_d}\,
336: {\rm sech}^2{\left (z/z_d\right )}
337: {\rm erfc}\left (\left (R-R_{\rm out}\right )/\delta R_{\rm out}\right )~.
338: \end{equation}
339: and
340: \begin{equation}\label{eq:radialdispersion}
341: \sigma_R^2(R) = \sigma_{R0}^2 \exp{\left (-R/R_\sigma\right )}~.
342: \end{equation}
343:
344: \subsection{\it Surface Brightness Profile and Rotation Curve for F568-3}
345:
346: Multi-band photometry for the LSB galaxy F568-3 is presented in
347: \citet{deblok95}. The galaxy resembles a normal late-type galaxy
348: exhibiting a disk and faint spiral arms. However, its central B-band
349: surface brightness is more than a magnitude fainter than the Freeman
350: value \citep{freeman70} placing it squarely in the category of LSBs.
351: For the purpose of modelling the galaxy, we use the R-band surface
352: brightness profile from Figure 2 of \citep{deblok95}.
353:
354: High-resolution rotation curves for F568-3 are described in
355: \citet{mcgaugh01}. The circular speed rises approximately linearly to
356: $80\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$ within $4\,{\rm kpc}$. It continues to rise
357: beyond this radius reaching a maximum value of $\sim 100\,{\rm
358: km\,s^{-1}}$ at $R\simeq 12\,{\rm kpc}$.
359:
360: \subsection{\it Markov Chain Monte Carlo Analysis of F568-3}
361:
362: We use Bayesian statistics and the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)
363: method to find suitable axisymmetric models for F568-3. MCMC
364: provides an efficient means of mapping out the likelihood function
365: over the full multi-dimensional parameter space and has a number of
366: advantages over traditional maximum likelihood techniques.
367:
368: For a particular choice of model parameters, one can construct a
369: likelihood function which quantifies the agreement between the model
370: and the data. Maximization techniques, such as the simplex algorithm,
371: allow one to hone in on the ``best-fit'' model. However, with a large
372: number of parameters, the likelihood function may become difficult to
373: characterize with many false maxima. Moreover, the computational
374: costs of simple algorithms, such as grid-based searches, become
375: prohibitive.
376:
377: The goal of our MCMC analysis is to calculate the posterior
378: probability density function, $p(M|D,I)$, of a Galactic model, $M$,
379: given data, $D$, and prior information, $I$. From Bayes' theorem we
380: have
381: \begin{equation}\label{eq:bayes}
382: p(M|D,I) = \frac{p(M|I)p(D|M,I)}{p(D|I)}
383: \end{equation}
384: where $p(M|I)$ is the prior probability density and $p(D|I)\equiv \int
385: d{\bf A}\, p(M|D,I)$ is a normalization factor. In MCMC, one
386: constructs a sequence or chain of models through parameter space
387: chosen according to a prescribed algorithm. The distribution of
388: models along the chain will be proportional to $p\left (M|D,I\right )$
389: provided the chain is sufficiently long.
390:
391: In this work, we use the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm \citep{met53,
392: hast70} as outlined in \citet{gre05}. The first model in the chain
393: is chosen at random. A candidate for the second model is chosen by
394: taking a step in parameter space according to a proposal distribution.
395: Let ${\cal R}$ be the ratio of the likelihood function of the
396: candidate to that of the first model. The candidate is accepted a
397: fraction, $f$, of the time where $f=\min\{1,{\cal R}\}$. Otherwise,
398: the second model is taken to be identical to the first model. The
399: process is repeated to find the third model and so forth.
400:
401: Care must be taken in selecting a proposal distribution. If the step
402: size is too short, the chain moves slowly through parameter space and
403: the time required to fully explore parameter space becomes
404: prohibitively large. On the other hand, if the typical step size is
405: too large, the acceptance rate will be very low. We use an iterative
406: approach, as outlined in \citet{wid07}, to choose an efficient
407: proposal distribution.
408:
409: Since the data used in this work do not include observations of the
410: velocity dispersion, the parameters $\sigma_{R0}$ and $R_\sigma$ are
411: superfluous and may be ignored in fitting the galaxy. Likewise, only
412: the major-axis surface brightness profile is used and therefore the
413: disk scale-height parameter, $z_d$, may be fixed to a reasonable
414: value. Finally, $r_h$ may be set to any value greater than $15\,{\rm
415: kpc}$ (i.e., beyond the outermost point of the observed rotation
416: curve) and $\delta r_h$ may be ignored. The DF is thus specified by
417: ten free parameters.
418:
419: Our set of model parameters must include the mass-to-light ratios of
420: the disk and bulge. In general, the rotation curve fit for LSBs is
421: improved by choosing a very large mass-to-light ratio for the disk,
422: that is, by devising a galactic model that is disk-dominated in the
423: inner regions. However, the required mass-to-light ratios are
424: typically unphysical. Indeed, one can constrain mass-to-light ratios
425: using population synthesis models and galaxy colours \citep{bell01,
426: bell03}. In a Bayesian analysis such as MCMC, these constraints are
427: implemented through prior probabilities for the mass-to-light ratios.
428: For simplicity, we assume that these prior probabilities follow a
429: log-normal distribution. Using the $B-R$ and $B-V$ profiles from
430: \citet{deblok95} and the color-M/L relations from \citet{bell03} we
431: find
432: \begin{equation}
433: {\rm log}{\left (\left (M/L\right )_{\rm disk}\right )} = 0.03 \pm 0.25
434: \end{equation}
435: and
436: \begin{equation}
437: {\rm log}{\left (\left (M/L\right )_{\rm bulge}\right)} = 0.2 \pm 0.25
438: \end{equation}
439: The errors, which translate directly into the width of the prior
440: probability distribution, are meant to incorporate uncertainties in
441: the relations from \citet{bell03}, uncertainties in the colors, and
442: differences in the $M/L$-values obtained by using either $B-R$ or
443: $B-V$ colours.
444:
445: Two MCMC runs are conducted, one in which $\gamma$ is a free parameter
446: and one in which $\gamma$ is fixed to the NFW-value (i.e.,
447: $\gamma=1$). The surface brightness profile and rotation curve fits
448: for a typical model from the first run are shown in Figure
449: \ref{fig:profiles_free}. Also shown is the fit found by
450: \citet{mcgaugh01} which assumes an exponential disk and does not
451: include a bulge. Evidently, an excellent fit to the full surface
452: brightness profile can be obtained provided both disk truncation and a
453: bulge are included in the model. In Figure \ref{fig:gamma} we show
454: the probability distribution function for $\gamma$. Clearly, the data
455: favor values of $\gamma$ between $0$ and $0.8$.
456:
457: The surface brightness profile and circular speed curve for a typical
458: model from our MCMC analysis with $\gamma=1$ is shown in Figure
459: \ref{fig:profiles_fixed}. We find that the model rotation curve rises
460: too quickly as compared with the data, in agreement with previous
461: studies \citep{moore94, flores94, mcg98, deblok01}.
462:
463: \section{MODELLING F-583 WITH A TRIAXIAL HALO}
464:
465: Using the method outlined in Section 2, we transform the halo in one
466: of our axisymmetric $\gamma=1$ models. We begin by generating an
467: N-body representation of the model with $500K$ particles for the halo,
468: $400K$ particles for the disk, and $100K$ particles for the bulge. We
469: produce two examples of models with triaxial halos: Model I where
470: $\beta_1=0.24\,{\rm Gyr^{-1}}$ and $\beta_2=0.08\,{\rm Gyr^{-1}}$
471: (i.e., same choise of parameters as in our isolated halo example) and
472: Model II where $\beta_1 = 0.16\,{\rm Gyr^{-1}}$ and $\beta_2 =
473: -0.08\,{\rm Gyr^{-1}}$. Note that the artificial acceleration is applied
474: only to the halo particles.
475:
476: First, consider Model I. Recall that in the example from Section 2
477: the short axis of the halo is aligned with the $z$-direction while the
478: long axis is aligned with the $x$-direction. In a disk-bulge-halo
479: system, the same choice of parameters leads to a rather mild deviation
480: from axial symmetry since the intermediate axis is in the disk plane.
481:
482: For an isolated halo, the choice of parameters used in Model II amounts
483: to a trivial interchange of the $y$ and $z$ coordinates. In the
484: presence of the disk, the choice yields a halo model in which both the
485: long and short axes are in the disk plane and hence the departure from
486: axial symmetry is very strong.
487:
488: In Figure \ref{fig:disk}, we show contour plots of the disk surface
489: density for Models I and II. As expected, departures from circular
490: symmetry are more evident in Model II. Also, as
491: expected, the long axis of the disk is perpendicular to the long axis
492: of the halo \citet{hayashi06}.
493:
494: In Figure \ref{fig:LSB_axes} we show the evolution of the halo axes
495: ratios as a function of time for Models I and II. The evolution of the
496: axis ratios in Model I is very similar to that found for the isolated
497: halo in Section 2. By contrast, the influence of the disk is readily
498: evident in Model II; the halo is flattened
499: along the $z$-direction and somewhat rounder in the $x-y$ plane than
500: it would be in the absence of the disk. The end result is a halo that
501: is prolate with approximate axial symmetry about the $x$-axis.
502:
503: In Figure \ref{fig:LSB_vcirc} we show the rotation curves for Models I
504: and II as calculated along a slit placed on the major axis of the disk.
505: In both experiments, the maximum rotation speeds decreases relative to
506: their initial values by about $10\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$. One might
507: imagine an iterative procedure in which, given these results, one
508: adjusts the initial model so that the final system better reproduces
509: the data.
510:
511: Next, we consider the change in shape of the rotation curve produced
512: by the deformation of the halo. In both experiments, the rotation curve
513: rises more slowly than in the initial, axisymmetric model. Figure
514: \ref{fig:LSB_vcirc} shows the logarithmic slope of the rotation curve
515: and illustrates this point quantitatively. We can also quantify the
516: change in shape of the rotation curve by considering the fitting
517: formula
518: \begin{equation}\label{courteaufit}
519: v(r) = v_0 \frac{1}{\left (1 + x^\alpha\right )^{1/\alpha}}
520: \end{equation}
521: where $x = a_v/r$ \citet{courteau97}. $a_v$ and $v_0$ are scale
522: parameters while $\alpha$ dictates the shape of the function.
523: (\citet{courteau97} actually proposed a more elaborate fitting formula
524: but for our purposes, this form will suffice (see, for example,
525: \citep{hayashi04}.)) A cored-isothermal sphere yields a rotation
526: curve with $\alpha\ga 2$ while an NFW-halo yields a rotation curve
527: with $\alpha\simeq 0.6$ \citep{courteau97, hayashi04}. We find the
528: following values for $\alpha$: observed rotation curve -- $5.35$;
529: initial, axisymmetric model -- $0.91$; Model I -- $1.94$; and Model II
530: -- $3.57$. Clearly, Model II, where departures from axial symmetry
531: are strongest, comes closest to reproducing the shape of the rotation
532: curve.
533:
534:
535: \section{SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION}
536:
537: The adiabatic squeezing method \citet{holley01} produces triaxial
538: halos that have shrunk in size and therefore requires that the
539: positions and velocities of the particles be rescaled. This awkward
540: step precludes the technique from being applied to compound systems.
541: Our approach avoids this problem by using an {\it energy-conserving}
542: artificial force to deform the halos.
543:
544: Our analysis of the LSB galaxy F568-3 begins with a discussion of
545: axisymmetric models. We attempt to fit both photometric and kinematic
546: observations using Bayesian statistics and the MCMC method. Our
547: excellent fit of the surface brightness profile requires a bulge and
548: disk truncation, neither of which were included in previous studies.
549: As for the rotation curve, we find that constant density cores do
550: better than density cusps in agreement with earlier studies of LSBs.
551:
552: The second stage of our analysis is to deform the halo of a compound
553: system. In agreement with \citet{hayashi06}, we show that the
554: rotation curve of F568-3 may indicate the presence of a triaxial halo
555: rather than a problem with the standard CDM model of structure
556: formation. \citet{hayashi06} and \citet{hayashi07} construct rotation
557: curves by finding closed orbits in the gravitational potential of a
558: triaxial halo. We calculate the rotation curves by making
559: pseudo-observations of a disk that is self-consistently embedded in a
560: dark halo.
561:
562: There are two improvements that will add a further level of realism to
563: the analysis: the inclusion of a gas disk in the galactic models and
564: an iterative scheme whereby the initial model and artificial
565: acceleration parameters are adjusted so that the final model fits the
566: data in detail. These improvements will be considered in a future
567: publication.
568:
569: Our triaxial models have a wide range of applications. For example,
570: they can be used to study the effect a non-spherical halo has on the
571: morphology of tidal streams from satellite galaxies and flaring and
572: warping of the gas disk. The method can also be applied to bulges
573: where departures from axial symmetry are thought to be important.
574:
575: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
576: \acknowledgements{It is a pleasure to thank J. Bailin, S. Courteau,
577: J. Dubinski, S. McGaugh, and D. Puglielli for useful conversations.
578: This work was supported by a grant from the Natural Sciences and
579: Engineering Research Council of Canada.}
580:
581: \begin{thebibliography}{}
582:
583: \bibitem[Bailin et al.(2007)]{bailin07} Bailin, J. et al. 2007, \apj, 667, 191
584: \bibitem[Bell \& de Jong(2001)]{bell01} Bell, E. F. \& de Jong, R. S. 2001,
585: \apj, 550, 212
586: \bibitem[Bell et al.(2003)]{bell03} Bell, E. F. et al. 2003, \apjs, 149, 289
587: %\bibitem[Binney(1980)]{bin80} Binney, J. 1980, 190, 873
588: %\bibitem[Binney \& Merrifield(1998)]{bin98} Binney, J., \& Merrifield, M. 1998,
589: % Galactic Astronomy, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton
590: \bibitem[Binney \& Tremaine(1987)]{BT} Binney, J., \& Tremaine, S. 1987,
591: Galactic Dynamics, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton
592: \bibitem[Bullock et al.(2001)]{bullock01} Bullock, J. S. et al. 2001, \apj, 555, 240
593: \bibitem[Courteau(1997)]{courteau97} Courteau, S. 1997, \aj, 114, 2402
594: %\bibitem[Courteau, de Jong, \& Broeils(1996)]{cou96} Courteau, S., de Jong, R. S.,
595: %\& Broeils, A. H. 1996, \apj, L73
596: \bibitem[de Blok, van der Hulst, \& Bothun(1995)]{deblok95}
597: de Blok, W. J. G., van der Hulst, J. M., \& Bothun, G. D. 1995, \mnras, 274,
598: 235
599: \bibitem[de Blok \& McGaugh(1998)]{deblok98} de Blok, W. J. G.
600: \& McGaugh, S. S. 1998, \apj, 508, 132
601: \bibitem[de Blok, McGaugh, \& Rubin(2001)]{deblok01} de Blok, W. J. G.,
602: McGaugh, S. S., \& Rubin, V. C. 2001, \aj, 122, 2381
603: %\bibitem[de Vaucouleurs(1948)]{deV48} de Vaucouleurs, G. 1948, {\it Ann. d'Astrophys.},
604: %11, 247
605: \bibitem[Dehnen(2000)]{dehnen00} Dehnen, W. 2001, \apj, 536, L39
606: \bibitem[Dubinski \& Carlberg(1991)]{dubinski91} Dubinski, J. \& Carlberg, R. G. 1991,
607: \apj, 378, 496
608: \bibitem[Firmani(2000)]{firmani00} Firmani, C. et al. 2000, \mnras, 315, L29
609: \bibitem[Flores \& Primack(1994)]{flores94} Flores, R. A. \& Primack, J. R. 1994,
610: \apj, 427, L1
611: \bibitem[Freeman(1970)]{freeman70} Freeman, K. C. 1970, \apj, 160, 811
612: The
613: %\bibitem[Gauthier, Dubinski \& Widrow(2006)]{jr06} Gauthier, J.-R.,
614: %Dubinski, J. \& Widrow, L. M. 2006, \apj, 653, 1180
615: \bibitem[Gelman, Carlin, Stern, \& Rubin(1995)]{gel95}
616: Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., \& Rubin, D. B. 1995,
617: {\it Bayesian Data Analysis}, Chapman \& Hall, London
618: \bibitem[Gregory(2005)]{gre05}Gregory, P. 2005, Bayesian Logical Data
619: Analysis for the Physical Sciences, Cambridge University Press, UK
620: \bibitem[Hansen \& Moore(2006)]{hansen06} Hansen, S. H. \& Moore, B. 2006,
621: New Astronomy, 11, 333
622: \bibitem[Hastings(1970)]{hast70} Hastings, W. K. 1970, Biometrika,
623: 57, 97
624: \bibitem[Hayashi et al.(2004)]{hayashi04} Hayashi, E. et al. 2004, \mnras,
625: 355, 794
626: \bibitem[Hayashi \& Navarro(2006)]{hayashi06} Hayashi, E. \& Navarro, J. F.
627: 2006, \mnras, 373, 1117
628: \bibitem[Hayashi, Navarro, \& Springel(2007)]{hayashi07} Hayashi, E.,
629: Navarro, J. F., Springel, V. 2007, \mnras, 377, 50
630: \bibitem[Hoekstra, Yee, \& Gladders(2004)]{hoekstra} Hoekstra, H.,
631: Yee, H.K.C., \& Gladders, M. D. 2004, \apj, 606, 67
632: \bibitem[Holley-Bockelmann et al.(2001)]{holley01} Holley-Bockelmann, K.
633: et al. 2001, \apj, 549, 862
634: \bibitem[Johnston et al.(1999)]{johnston99} Johnston, et al. 1999,
635: \aj, 118, 1719
636: \bibitem[Kuijken \& Dubinski(1995)]{kui95} Kuijken, K., \& Dubinski, J.
637: 1995, \mnras, 277, 1341
638: %\bibitem[L\'{o}pez-Corredoira et al.(2002)]{lop02} L\'{o}pez-Corredoira et al.
639: %2002, A\&A, 394, 883
640: \bibitem[Mandelbaum et al.(2006)]{mandelbaum} Mandelbaum, R. et al. 2006, \mnras, 370, 1008
641: \bibitem[McGaugh \& de Blok(1998)]{mcg98} McGaugh, S. S. \& de Blok, W. J. G.
642: 1998, \apj, 499, 41
643: \bibitem[McGaugh, Rubin, \& de Blok(2001)]{mcgaugh01}
644: McGaugh, S. S., Rubin, V. C., \& de Blok, W. J. G. 2001, \aj, 122, 2396
645: \bibitem[Metropolis et al.\,(1953)]{met53} Metropolis, N. et al. 1953,
646: Journal of Chemical Physics, 21, 1087
647: \bibitem[Mo \& Mao(2000)]{mo00} Mo, H. J. \& Mao, S. 2000, \mnras, 318, 163
648: \bibitem[Moore(1994)]{moore94} Moore, B. 1994, Nature, 370, 629
649: \bibitem[Moore et al.(2004)]{moore04} Moore, B. et al, 2004, \mnras, 354, 522
650: \bibitem[Navarro, Frenk \& White(1996)]{nfw96} Navarro, J. F.,
651: Frenk, C. S., \& White, S. D. M. 1996, \apj, 462, 563
652: %\bibitem[Navarro et al.(2004)]{nav04} Navarro, J. F. et al. 2004, \mnras, 349, 1039
653: \bibitem[Novak et al.(2006)]{novak06} Novak, G. S. et al. 2006, \apj, 646, L9
654: \bibitem[Olling \& Merrifield(2000)]{olling} Olling, R. P. \& Merrifield,
655: M. R. 2000, \mnras, 311, 361
656: \bibitem[Parker et al.(2007)]{parker} Parker, L. C. et al. 2007, \apj,
657: 669, 21
658: \bibitem[Prugniel \& Simien(1997)]{ps97} Prugniel, P. \& Simien, F. 1997,
659: A\& A, 321, 111
660: \bibitem[Stiff(2003)]{stiff03} Stiff, D. 2003, PhD Thesis, Queen's University
661: \bibitem[Taylor \& Navarro(2001)]{taylor01} Taylor, J. E. \& Navarro, J. F. 2001,
662: \apj, 563, 483
663: \bibitem[Terzi\'{c} \& Graham(2005)]{ter05} Terzi\'{c}, B. \&
664: Graham, A. W. 2005, \mnras, 362, 197
665: \bibitem[Warren et al.(1992)]{warren92} Warren, M. S. et al. 1992, \apj, 399, 405
666: \bibitem[Widrow \& Dubinski(2005)]{wid05} Widrow, L. M. \& Dubinski, J. 2005,
667: \apj, 631, 838
668: \bibitem[Widrow, Pym, \& Dubinski(2007)]{wid07} Widrow, L. M., Pym, B, \&
669: Dubinski, J. 2007, arXiv:0801:3414
670:
671: \end{thebibliography}
672: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
673: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
674:
675: \begin{figure}
676: \epsscale{1.0}
677: \plotone{./f1.eps}
678: \caption{Surface density contours along the three principle axes for the
679: triaxial isolated halo constructed in Section 2.
680: Spacing between solid contours is 1 dex.}
681: \label{fig:xyz}
682: \end{figure}
683:
684: \begin{figure}
685: \epsscale{1.0}
686: \plotone{./f2.eps}
687: \caption{Axes ratios as a function of time. Solid curves show $b$;
688: dashed curves show $c$. Red, blue, and green curves are for,
689: respectively, the inner one third of the particles, the inner
690: two thirds of the particles, and the entire halo.}
691: \label{fig:axes}
692: \end{figure}
693:
694: \begin{figure}
695: \epsscale{1.0}
696: \plotone{./f3.eps}
697: \caption{Differential mass profile, $dM/dr\propto r^2\rho$ as a
698: function of spherical radius $r$. Line types are: analytic profile
699: -- solid black curve; initial profile derived from the N-body
700: distribution -- dot-dashed magenta curve; profile at $6\,{\rm Gyr}$
701: -- dotted red curve; profile at $12\,{\rm Gyr}$ -- dashed blue
702: curve. The profile for the control experiment (no artificial
703: acceleration) at $12\,{\rm Gyr}$ is
704: shown by the long-dashed green curve. The straight solid black line
705: corresponds to $r^2\rho\propto r$ or $\rho(r)\propto
706: r^{-1}$. Lower panel gives the fractional difference between the 4
707: measured profiles and the the analytic expression (i.e., $\left
708: (\rho_{\rm measured}-\rho_{\rm exact}\right )/\rho_{\rm exact}$.}
709: \label{fig:density}
710: \end{figure}
711:
712: \newpage
713:
714:
715: \begin{figure}
716: \epsscale{.9}
717: \plotone{./f4.eps}
718: \caption{Comparison of data with predictions for a typical model from
719: the MCMC run where $\gamma$ is a free parameter. Top panel shows
720: surface brightness profile. Observations from \citet{deblok95} are
721: indicated by magneta dots. Line types are as follows: total model
722: surface brightness profile -- solid black curve; disk contribution
723: -- blue dotted curve; bulge contribution -- red dashed curve;
724: exponential disk model from \citet{deblok95} -- yellow long-dashed
725: curve. Bottom panel shows the rotation curve. Observations from
726: \citet{mcgaugh01} are indicated by magneta dots. Total model --
727: solid black curve; disk contribution -- blue dotted curve; bulge
728: contribution -- red dashed curve; halo contribution -- green
729: long-dashed curve; gas contribution -- yellow dot-dashed curve.}
730: \label{fig:profiles_free}
731: \end{figure}
732:
733: \newpage
734:
735: \begin{figure}
736: \epsscale{1.0}
737: \plotone{./f5.eps}
738: \caption{Probability distribution function for $\gamma$ from
739: the first MCMC where $\gamma$ is a free parameter.}
740: \label{fig:gamma}
741: \end{figure}
742:
743: \newpage
744:
745: \begin{figure}
746: \epsscale{0.9}
747: \plotone{./f6.eps}
748: \caption{Surface brightness profile and circular speed curve
749: for a typical model from MCMC chain where $\gamma=1$.
750: Line types are the same as in Figure \ref{fig:profiles_free}.}
751: \label{fig:profiles_fixed}
752: \end{figure}
753:
754: \begin{figure}
755: \epsscale{1.0}
756: \plotone{./f7.eps}
757: \caption{Superposition of surface density contours and projected
758: particle distribution for Models A (top) and B (bottom).}
759: \label{fig:disk}
760: \end{figure}
761:
762: \begin{figure}
763: \epsscale{1.0}
764: \plotone{./f8.eps}
765: \caption{Halo axis ratios as a function of time for Models A (top) and
766: B (bottom). Line types are the same as in Figures \ref{fig:axes}.}
767: \label{fig:LSB_axes}
768: \end{figure}
769:
770: \begin{figure}
771: \epsscale{1.0}
772: \plotone{./f9.eps}
773: \caption{Observed and model rotation curves. Top panel shows the
774: rotation curves; bottom panel shows the logarithmic slope.
775: Observations from \citet{mcgaugh01} are shown as red dots. Line
776: types are as follows: black dotted line -- rotation curve for the
777: initial model as derived from the potential; blue dashed line --
778: rotation for the initial model as derived by measuring bulk motion of
779: the disk stars; green long-dashed line -- rotation curve for Model
780: I; magenta solid line -- rotation curve for Model II.}
781: \label{fig:LSB_vcirc}
782: \end{figure}
783:
784: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccc}
785: \tablewidth{0pt}
786: \tablecaption{Invariances of Equations 1-3}
787: \tablehead{
788: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\beta$} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Coordinates} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Axis ratios} \\}
789: \startdata
790: $\beta_1\to \beta_2$ & $\beta_2\to\beta_1$ & $x\to y$ & $y\to x$ & $z\to z$
791: & $b\to 1/b$ & $c\to c/b$\\
792: $\beta_1\to \beta_1-\beta_2$ & $\beta_2\to-\beta_2$ & $x\to x$ & $y\to z$ & $z\to x$
793: & $b\to c$ & $c\to b$\\
794: $\beta_1\to \beta_2-\beta_1$ & $\beta_2\to-\beta_1$ & $x\to y$ & $y\to z$ & $z\to x$
795: & $b\to 1/c$ & $c\to b/c$
796: \enddata
797: \end{deluxetable}
798:
799: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccc}
800: \tablewidth{0pt}
801: \tablecaption{Axis Ratios for Various Choices of $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$}
802: \tablehead{\colhead{} &
803: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Isolated Halo} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Composite Model} \\
804: \\ \colhead{Model} &
805: \colhead{$\beta_1 \left ({\rm Gyr}^{-1}\right )$}
806: & {$\beta_2\left ({\rm Gyr^{-1}}\right )$} & {b} & {c} & {b} & {c} \\}
807: \startdata
808: 1a & 0.12 & 0.04 & 0.93 & 0.86 & 0.95 & 0.85\\
809: 1b & 0.08 & -0.04 & 0.86 & 0.93 & 0.88 & 0.90\\
810: 1c & -0.08 & -0.12 & 0.93 & 1.07 & 0.93 & 1.06\\
811: 2a & 0.16 & 0.16 & 1.00 & 0.78 & 1.01 & 0.77\\
812: 2b & 0.0 & -0.16 & 0.78 & 1.00 & 0.80 & 0.99\\
813: 3a & 0.24 & 0.08 & 0.89 & 0.73 & 0.92 & 0.73\\
814: 3b & 0.16 & -0.08 & 0.73 & 0.89 & 0.75 & 0.87\\
815: 3c & -0.16 & -0.24 & 0.82 & 1.12 & 0.82 & 1.08
816: \enddata
817: \end{deluxetable}
818:
819:
820:
821:
822: \end{document}
823:
824:
825: