1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2: \usepackage{natbib}
3:
4: \shorttitle{The Dark Halo in NGC~821}
5: \shortauthors{Forestell and Gebhardt}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: \title{Hobby-Eberly Telescope Observations of the Dark Halo in
10: NGC~821\altaffilmark{1}}
11:
12: \author{Amy D. Forestell and Karl Gebhardt} \affil{Department of
13: Astronomy, University of Texas at Austin, C1400, 1 University Station,
14: Austin, TX 78712} \email{amydove@astro.as.utexas.edu,
15: gebhardt@astro.as.utexas.edu}
16:
17: \altaffiltext{1}{Based on observations obtained with the Hobby-Eberly
18: Telescope, which is a joint project of the University of Texas at
19: Austin, the Pennsylvania State University, Stanford University,
20: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit\"at M\"unchen, and
21: Georg-August-Universit\"at G\"ottingen.}
22:
23: \begin{abstract}
24:
25: We present line-of-sight stellar velocity distributions of elliptical
26: galaxy NGC~821 obtained to approximately $100\arcsec$ (over 2
27: effective radii) with long-slit spectroscopy from the Hobby-Eberly
28: Telescope. Our measured stellar line-of-sight
29: velocity distributions are larger than the planetary nebulae
30: measurements at similar radii. We fit axisymmetric orbit-superposition models with a range
31: of dark halo density profiles, including two-dimensional kinematics at
32: smaller radii from SAURON data. Within our assumptions, the
33: best-fitted model gives a total enclosed mass of $2.0\times 10^{11}
34: M_{\sun}$ within $100\arcsec$, with an accuracy of 2\%; this mass is
35: equally divided between halo and stars. At $1R_e$ the best-fitted
36: dark matter halo accounts for $13\%$ of the total mass in the galaxy.
37: This dark halo is inconsistent with previous claims of little to no
38: dark matter halo in this galaxy from planetary nebula measurements.
39: We find that a power-law dark halo with a slope 0.1 is the best-fitted
40: model; both the no dark halo and NFW models are worse fits at a
41: greater than 99\% confidence level. NGC~821 does not appear to have
42: the expected dark halo density profile. The internal moments of the stellar
43: velocity distribution show that the model with no dark halo is
44: radially anisotropic at small radii and tangentially isotropic at
45: large radii, while the best-fitted halo models are slightly radially
46: anisotropic at all radii. We test the potential effects of model
47: smoothing and find that there are no effects on our results within the
48: errors. Finally, we run models using the planetary nebula kinematics
49: and assuming our best-fitted halos and find that the planetary nebulae
50: require radial orbits throughout the galaxy.
51: \end{abstract}
52:
53: \keywords{galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD --- galaxies: individual (NGC 821) --- galaxies: kinematics and dynamics --- galaxies: halos --- dark matter}
54:
55: \section{Introduction}
56:
57: Cold dark matter is now accepted as an integral part of our universe,
58: and recent observations have continued to provide support for its
59: existence \citep{kom08}. Part of the picture of the universe is that
60: galaxies are surrounded by massive dark matter halos in which they
61: formed \citep{whi78,blu84}. Recently cosmological simulations have
62: become detailed enough to reach the level of individual galaxy
63: formation \citep{naa07,gov07}, and comparisons with data can help
64: further constrain cosmological theory \citep{ost03}. Indeed, spiral
65: galaxy rotation curves are one of the strongest pieces of
66: observational evidence for the existence of dark matter
67: \citep{van85,per96,sof01}. It is also important to study the dark
68: halo structure of elliptical galaxies because of their different
69: formation and evolution. However it is more difficult to measure dark
70: matter in elliptical galaxies because of a lack of tracers at large
71: radii where dark matter is thought to dominate. The best way to
72: measure the underlying gravitational potential is to use kinematics
73: from the stellar population, but this has been limited due to the
74: faintness of stellar light in the outer regions of galaxies
75: \citep{ger01}. Dark matter in elliptical galaxies has therefore been
76: studied in other ways, such as via X-ray emission \citep{loe99,mat03},
77: gravitational lensing \citep{kee01,man08}, and using individual stellar
78: velocities as in nearby dwarf spheroidals \citep{mat98,kle02}. In
79: order to study a more representative sample of galaxies, tracers such
80: as globular clusters \citep{zep00,pie06} and planetary nebulae
81: \citep{men01,rom03,coc09} are used used to probe the outer parts of
82: elliptical galaxies, though it is difficult to get a significant
83: sample size. Additional issues arise with these tracers, as discussed
84: below, such as understanding their radial profile. With larger
85: telescopes we are now able to measure stellar kinematics from
86: integrated light to larger radii, thus closing the gap between stars
87: and the large-radii tracers.
88:
89: Meanwhile dynamical models of galaxies have also improved. Rather
90: than previous spherical models that use analytic distribution
91: functions \citep[DFs;][]{ger01}, orbit-based axisymmetric models are
92: now available. These fully general models, based on the technique of
93: \citet{sch79}, provide detailed information on the orbital structure
94: of the galaxy, including the DF and its projections, such as velocity
95: anisotropy. Orbit-based models are now frequently applied to galaxies
96: for studies of both dark halos and central black holes
97: \citep{rix97,van98,cre99,geb00,cap02,ver02b,geb03,tho05,geb09}.
98:
99: The elliptical galaxy NGC~821 is an example in which the use of
100: large-radii tracers has provided an intriguing result. \citet{rom03}
101: study the dark halo of NGC~821 using approximately 100 planetary
102: nebula velocities and find small line-of-sight velocity dispersions
103: that are consistent with little or no dark halo. \citet{dek05} use
104: disk galaxy merger simulations to show that large anisotropies can be
105: created in the resulting elliptical galaxies, and that this anisotropy
106: in combination with the different density profile of a young
107: population could explain how the low dispersions from planetary
108: nebulae measurements are also consistent with typical dark matter
109: halos. Our study uses deep long-slit spectroscopy of NGC~821 from the
110: 9.2-meter Hobby-Eberly Telescope to obtain stellar kinematics to
111: greater than 2 effective radii in hopes of further constraining the
112: dark halo of this galaxy.
113:
114: \citet{wei09} model NGC~821 using data from SAURON, both at
115: small radii (which we include in our analysis) and newer data at large
116: radii. We find similar results both for the kinematics and for the
117: dark halo properties. Comparison between the two studies is presented
118: in their paper and within this paper.
119:
120: NGC~821 is classified as an E6? \citep{dev91}. It has disky isophotes
121: \citep{lau85,ben88} and a power-law central surface brightness profile
122: \citep{rav01}. The blue absolute magnitude is $-20.27$ \citep{tra00}.
123: We use a distance of 23.44 Mpc taken from \citet{cap06}, which adjusts
124: the \citet{ton01} values for the new Cepheids zero-point of
125: \citet{free01}. NGC~821 is not detected in H$\alpha$ \citep{mac96} or
126: OIII \citep{sar06}. Point source and diffuse X-ray emission has been
127: detected but there is no evidence for hot gas \citep{pel07a, pel07b}.
128: NGC~821 is considered a fast rotator \citep{cap07,ems07}.
129: \citet{pro05} find that NGC~821 has very strong age and metallicity
130: gradients, from $\sim$4 Gyr and 3 times solar in the center to
131: $\sim$12 Gyr and less than \onethird\ solar at $1R_e$. They conclude that NGC~821
132: has experienced a recent ($\sim$1-4 Gyr ago) burst of star formation,
133: most likely from in-situ gas and perhaps triggered by the accretion of
134: a small satellite galaxy. This may be an indication that there are
135: young planetary nebulae in this galaxy.
136:
137: \S \ref{obs} describes the observations and data reduction; in \S
138: \ref{kin} we describe the kinematic extraction; the dynamical models
139: are described in \S \ref{mod}; we present our results in \S \ref{res}
140: and give conclusions in \S \ref{disc}.
141:
142: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}\label{obs}
143:
144: Long-slit spectra were taken with the Low-Resolution Spectrograph
145: \citep{hil98} on the Hobby-Eberly Telescope. We use the g2 grism and
146: 1\arcsec~by 4\arcmin~slit over the wavelength range 4300-7300\AA.
147: This setup gives a resolving power of 1300 or a full-width
148: half-maximum (FWHM) resolution of about 230 km s$^{-1}$. Measurements
149: of night sky line widths show that we can measure dispersions to about
150: 110 km s$^{-1}$. The CCD frame (binned $2\times2$) has a plate scale
151: of 0.47\arcsec/pix spatially and 2\AA/pix spectrally. The gain is
152: 1.832 $e^-$ ADU$^{-1}$ and readout noise is 5.10 $e^-$. We use the
153: Schott Glass blocking filter GG385, which has a half-power point of
154: the transmission around 385 nm.
155:
156: NGC~821 was observed over eight nights in November 2003 for a total
157: exposure time of approximately 5.5 and 2.3 hours on the major and
158: minor axes respectively. Cadmium and Neon calibration lamp exposures
159: and white light illumination flat fields were taken each night.
160:
161: The data reduction uses standard techniques. First we overscan
162: correct and trim the images. Then we apply a flat correction using a
163: normalized flat frame, taken from averaged instrumental flats obtained
164: each night of observations. Next we rectify the images along the
165: spatial axis using the calibration lamp lines as a reference.
166:
167: For sky subtraction, we use the region of the slit that is furthest
168: from the galaxy center. Since we only have a 4\arcmin\ slit, there
169: will be some galaxy light in the region where we select sky. However,
170: the surface brightness profile extends out 350\arcsec\ so we can
171: accurately calculate the amount of galaxy in our background
172: region. For our last extracted spectrum (at 90\arcsec), the amount of
173: galaxy light that we are including as background light is about 15\%
174: of the galaxy light for that last extraction. We have run simulations
175: in order to determine whether this amount of contamination has an
176: effect on the extracted kinematics. We take a high signal-to-noise
177: galaxy spectrum and subtract off 15\% of itself, and then extract the
178: kinematics. Only for very high S/N does this amount have an effect and
179: for the S/N for this dataset (as described below), we find no
180: significant effect.
181:
182: \section{Kinematics}\label{kin}
183:
184: We extract the spectra in radial bins along the major and minor axes.
185: Because the seeing is approximately 2$\arcsec$ we set the central bins
186: to 5 pixels (2.35$\arcsec$). The outer bins are sized to obtain
187: sufficient signal for kinematic analysis. Along the minor axis the
188: spectra from either side of the galaxy were averaged at each radius before kinematic analysis.
189: Along the major axis, the center of the galaxy was near the edge of
190: the chip so only one side was extracted. Our farthest radial bin
191: extends to 99$\arcsec$ on the majoraxis and 45$\arcsec$ on the minor axis, corresponding to a V-band surface brightness of 21.8 and 23.5 respectively. There is a faint object centered at 115$\arcsec$ along the major axis that prevents a further radial bin from being used. The radial extent in effective radii depends on the value
192: of $R_e$ used. The measured $R_e$ of NGC~821 varies throughout the
193: literature: 50$\arcsec$ \citetext{RC3}, 45$\arcsec$ \citep{fab89},
194: 39$\arcsec$ \citep{cap06}, 36$\arcsec$ \citep{tra00}, and
195: 16.7-18.3$\arcsec$ \citep{ben88}. For the purpose of this discussion
196: we adopt an $R_e$ of 45$\arcsec$. Thus our data extend to
197: approximately $1 R_e$ along the minor axis and $2 R_e$ along the major
198: axis.
199:
200: We do not flux calibrate the spectra, and thus we remove the continuum
201: in each spectrum. We fit the local continuum by finding the biweight
202: \citep{bee90} in windows as described in \citet{pin03}. The
203: wavelength solution comes from the Cd and Ne calibration lamps.
204:
205: We obtain a nonparametric line-of-sight velocity distribution (LOSVD)
206: by deconvolving the galaxy spectrum with a set of stellar template
207: spectra using the maximum penalized likelihood technique of
208: \citet{geb00}. Tests of this technique are given in \citet{pin03}.
209: There are 30 evenly-spaced velocity bins of 54 km s$^{-1}$ that
210: represent the LOSVD. We vary the height in each bin and the weights
211: of each template star to find the best match to the galaxy spectrum from each radial range.
212: We use nine stellar templates with types ranging from G dwarf to M
213: giant from \citet{lei96}, convolved to our spectral resolution.
214:
215: For our kinematic analysis we use the spectral range 4800-5450\AA\
216: which matches the wavelength range of our template stars. This region
217: includes the H$\beta$ and Mg$b$ lines, however we exclude the Mg$b$
218: region because it is enhanced \citep{pro05} and our template stars do
219: not provide a proper fit. \citet{bar02} show that in pixel-space
220: fitting routines the Mg$b$ line is sensitive to template mismatch and
221: the details of the fitting procedure. If the Mg$b$ line is included
222: in the fit, the measured dispersions are falsely high by as much as
223: 20\% to account for the abundance discrepancy. An example fit is
224: shown in Figure \ref{fig:spec}.
225:
226: \begin{figure}
227: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.3]{f1.eps}
228: \caption{Spectrum of the combined, weighted template stars (lower panel), data from the central bin along the minor axis (dashed line, upper panel), and the template spectrum convolved with the best-fitted LOSVD (solid line, upper panel). The region from 5163 \AA\ to 5228 \AA\ is excluded from the fit.
229: \label{fig:spec}}
230: \end{figure}
231:
232: The uncertainty of each velocity bin is obtained from Monte Carlo
233: simulations. We convolve the best-fitted LOSVD and weighted stellar
234: templates to obtain an initial galaxy spectrum. We then generate 100
235: realizations of the galaxy spectrum by adding Gaussian noise using an
236: estimate of the initial rms. The LOSVD is determined for each
237: realization as described above. The distribution of values in each
238: velocity bin of the LOSVD provides an estimate of the 68\% confidence
239: bands. The median value of the dispersion from the 100 realizations
240: compared to the initial dispersion reveals any possible bias in the
241: dispersion measurement.
242:
243: Although we use the full nonparametric velocity profile in the dynamic
244: modeling it is useful to compare moments of the distribution. In
245: Figure \ref{fig:pallmcall} we plot, from top to bottom, the second
246: moment as measured by $\sqrt(V^2+\sigma^2)$, the first four Gauss-Hermite
247: moments (mean velocity $V$, velocity dispersion $\sigma$, asymmetric
248: deviations from Gaussian (similar to skewness) $h_3$, and symmetric
249: deviations from Gaussian (similar to kurtosis) $h_4$). The kinematic
250: data are given in Table \ref{tab:kinmj} and Table \ref{tab:kinmn}. For
251: comparison, in Figure \ref{fig:pallmcall} we also plot data from
252: \citet{pin03} and \citet{ems04} extracted in a 1 arcsec slit along the
253: major and minor axes. The second moment of the line-of-sight velocity,
254: $(V^2+\sigma^2)^{1/2}$, is slightly smaller than the other samples
255: throughout the overlapping region. This may be caused by a slit
256: misalignment (since $V$ will be higher on the major axis) or template
257: fitting difference. Since, however, our models are dominated by SAURON
258: data in the center, this difference is not a major issue. We further
259: run the dynamical models with using SAURON data alone and HET data
260: alone, and find un-biased results from when using the combined
261: dataset.
262:
263: \begin{deluxetable*}{ccccccccc}
264: \tablewidth{0pt}
265: \tablecaption{Major Axis Kinematics\label{tab:kinmj}}
266: \tablehead{
267: \colhead{$r$} & \colhead{$v$} & \colhead{$\epsilon_v$} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{$\epsilon_{\sigma}$} & \colhead{$h_3$} & \colhead{$\epsilon_{h_3}$} & \colhead{$h_4$} & \colhead{$\epsilon_{h_4}$} \\
268: $arcsec$ & $km~s^{-1}$ & & $km~s^{-1}$ & & & & &}
269: \startdata
270: 0.00 & -1.05 & 1.65 & 208.24 & 4.43 & 0.049 & 0.040 & -0.076 & 0.012 \\
271: 1.41 & 25.35 & 1.40 & 191.71 & 2.96 & 0.005 & 0.025 & -0.056 & 0.010 \\
272: 3.76 & 48.53 & 1.55 & 185.06 & 4.16 & 0.002 & 0.038 & -0.061 & 0.008 \\
273: 6.11 & 60.13 & 1.89 & 186.95 & 4.73 & -0.007 & 0.030 & -0.063 & 0.008 \\
274: 8.46 & 65.68 & 1.72 & 177.81 & 3.93 & -0.010 & 0.016 & -0.035 & 0.009 \\
275: 10.81 & 60.16 & 2.79 & 179.86 & 4.20 & -0.023 & 0.018 & -0.042 & 0.008 \\
276: 13.16 & 85.90 & 3.80 & 172.81 & 4.40 & 0.008 & 0.016 & -0.047 & 0.010 \\
277: 15.51 & 73.79 & 3.76 & 175.29 & 5.35 & -0.005 & 0.018 & -0.051 & 0.010 \\
278: 18.09 & 61.67 & 3.37 & 184.25 & 6.40 & -0.002 & 0.025 & -0.035 & 0.012 \\
279: 21.62 & 77.70 & 3.91 & 172.87 & 5.93 & 0.004 & 0.020 & -0.058 & 0.011 \\
280: 26.08 & 56.48 & 3.27 & 177.18 & 4.56 & -0.016 & 0.021 & -0.044 & 0.009 \\
281: 31.96 & 55.20 & 3.46 & 171.32 & 5.12 & -0.022 & 0.021 & -0.034 & 0.013 \\
282: 39.01 & 42.58 & 4.29 & 168.27 & 4.21 & -0.039 & 0.019 & -0.039 & 0.007 \\
283: 47.24 & 66.29 & 3.89 & 160.18 & 5.64 & 0.068 & 0.015 & -0.040 & 0.009 \\
284: 58.99 & 42.41 & 6.68 & 176.27 & 6.69 & -0.012 & 0.017 & -0.041 & 0.010 \\
285: 74.26 & 33.40 & 8.50 & 173.74 & 6.79 & 0.100 & 0.022 & -0.003 & 0.018 \\
286: 90.47 & 79.97 & 6.16 & 170.17 & 7.48 & -0.019 & 0.026 & -0.019 & 0.017 \\
287: \enddata
288: \end{deluxetable*}
289:
290: \begin{deluxetable*}{ccccccccc}
291: \tablewidth{0pt}
292: \tablecaption{Minor Axis Kinematics\label{tab:kinmn}}
293: \tablehead{
294: \colhead{$r$} & \colhead{$v$} & \colhead{$\epsilon_v$} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{$\epsilon_{\sigma}$} & \colhead{$h_3$} & \colhead{$\epsilon_{h_3}$} & \colhead{$h_4$} & \colhead{$\epsilon_{h_4}$} \\
295: $arcsec$ & $km~s^{-1}$ & & $km~s^{-1}$ & & & & &}
296: \startdata
297: 0.00 & -6.51 & 1.29 & 211.91 & 5.50 & 0.069 & 0.053 & -0.062 & 0.016 \\
298: 1.41 & -4.68 & 0.86 & 201.49 & 4.47 & 0.037 & 0.022 & -0.066 & 0.009 \\
299: 3.76 & -7.94 & 1.04 & 188.69 & 3.30 & 0.000 & 0.015 & -0.053 & 0.009 \\
300: 6.11 & -6.27 & 2.88 & 193.16 & 4.54 & -0.012 & 0.024 & -0.053 & 0.011 \\
301: 8.46 & 1.79 & 2.63 & 198.46 & 4.27 & 0.005 & 0.027 & -0.049 & 0.011 \\
302: 10.81 & -6.24 & 2.72 & 185.65 & 3.66 & -0.015 & 0.020 & -0.046 & 0.011 \\
303: 13.16 & -1.07 & 4.47 & 195.26 & 6.04 & 0.083 & 0.029 & 0.025 & 0.024 \\
304: 15.51 & 14.06 & 5.22 & 209.36 & 5.76 & -0.033 & 0.028 & 0.010 & 0.020 \\
305: 17.86 & 6.49 & 6.04 & 180.82 & 7.07 & -0.043 & 0.033 & -0.059 & 0.016 \\
306: 20.21 & -31.59 & 6.41 & 182.22 & 12.62 & 0.055 & 0.045 & 0.021 & 0.024 \\
307: 22.56 & 30.06 & 12.08 & 219.63 & 11.81 & -0.031 & 0.037 & -0.030 & 0.026 \\
308: 26.08 & -40.85 & 10.30 & 177.36 & 11.96 & -0.044 & 0.035 & -0.021 & 0.022 \\
309: 30.78 & 5.47 & 10.77 & 194.77 & 12.27 & -0.036 & 0.037 & -0.034 & 0.024 \\
310: 35.49 & -23.16 & 14.05 & 171.31 & 11.39 & 0.100 & 0.041 & 0.016 & 0.028 \\
311: 41.36 & -76.04 & 21.58 & 233.45 & 21.95 & 0.020 & 0.050 & -0.004 & 0.032 \\
312: \enddata
313: \end{deluxetable*}
314:
315: \begin{figure}
316: \epsscale{0.8}
317: \plotone{f2.eps}
318: \caption{Gauss-Hermite moments of the LOSVDs and the rms line-of-sight velocity: mean velocity $V$, velocity dispersion $\sigma$, asymmetric deviations from Gaussian (skewness) $h_3$, and symmetric deviations from Gaussian (kurtosis) $h_4$ along the major axis (left panel) and minor axis (right panel) for our data (black filled circles), SAURON \citep{ems04} (blue open triangles), and \citet{pin03} (red open squares).
319: \label{fig:pallmcall}}
320: \end{figure}
321:
322: Our $h_4$ values are more negative than the data from the literature.
323: This discrepancy could be attributed to template mismatch (either in
324: the published analysis or in ours), however we use a wide range of
325: template stars and do not get a different result when more template
326: stars are made available for the fit. It could also be that relying
327: on Gauss-Hermite parameterization causes some differences since there
328: are known correlations, especially with higher order moments
329: \citep[see][]{mag06, hou06}. Since we fit the LOSVD directly in the
330: dynamical models, a better comparison would be with those profiles, as
331: opposed to their moments. The dark halo mass, however, is determined
332: mainly by the radial profile of the second moment, and $h_4$
333: determines mainly the anisotropies. There is certainly some degeneracy
334: between the two parameters, but we find no reason to believe that our
335: $h_4$ values are incorrect. There are also kinematic points that have
336: differences which are inconsistent with their reported uncertainties
337: (for example, some of the minor axis points), and the uncertainties
338: may be underestimated for those points. We run halo models without the
339: most discrepant points and still find the same halo results as when
340: they are included.
341:
342: \citet{pro09} measure the kinematics of NGC~821 using the background galaxy light from Keck DEIMOS multi-object spectroscopy of globular clusters. Their results show good agreement with our $V$ and $\sigma$ profiles, as seen in their Figure~17. Previously, \citet{pro05} determined the kinematics of NGC~821 using the Gemini Multi-Object Spectrograph (GMOS). As shown in Figure~2 of that paper, our $\sigma$ is in agreement with theirs, except that they find a lower dispersion at about $30\arcsec$. However their data are of substantially lower signal to noise and they are also unable to determine higher order moments.
343:
344: \citet{wei09} provide a new analysis of the SAURON data and
345: also include additional data at large radii. Their furthest radial
346: point is at 110\arcsec\ (which they refer to as 4 Re), whereas our
347: last point is at 90\arcsec\ (which we refer to as 2 Re). The
348: comparison between the two kinematic sets is shown in Figure~6 from
349: \citet{wei09}. There is generally excellent agreement between the two
350: sets of kinematics. Furthermore, their re-analysis of the SAURON
351: central pointing shows $h_4$ values now more consistent with our numbers.
352: The higher-order moments of the LOSVD are difficult to measure, and it
353: is important to consider systematic difference in the analysis. The
354: spectra from \citet{wei09} have lower signal-to-noise than our
355: spectra, which could add to systematic difference. For this reason,
356: our dynamical modeling does not include their kinematics, although we
357: suspect there will be little difference in the overall results. Thus,
358: we can compare the constraints on the dark matter parameters, which
359: would include systematic differences in the kinematic samples used.
360:
361: Our results are consistent with \citet{wei09}, and not consistent
362: with either \citet{rom03} or \citet{coc09}. The Weijmans et
363: al. data are consistent with that of Coccato et al. The reason is
364: simply that the Weijmans et al. dispersions have large uncertainties,
365: and that the Weijmans et al. dispersions are between our values and
366: that of Coccato et al. The difference is not due to comparing
367: dispersions measured from major axis radii compared to circular radii
368: (as in Coccato et al.), since our dispersion profile is nearly
369: flat. We compare with the Romanowsky et al. values and not to the
370: values reported in Coccato. The differences between Coccato et al. and
371: Romanowsky et al. are small enough to not impact our analysis or
372: conclusions. The Coccato et al. data have slightly smaller
373: uncertainties than Romanowsky et al., so the statistical differences
374: between our dispersions and theirs is slightly larger.
375:
376: Figure \ref{fig:pallmcpn} shows the rms line-of-sight velocity
377: $(V^2+\sigma^2)^{1/2}$ compared to the planetary nebula results of
378: \citet{rom03}. Our largest radii data show higher rms line-of-sight
379: velocities than the planetary nebulae, at about $3\sigma$ for their
380: two largest radii points. Thus, there appears to be a significant
381: difference in the kinematics between the two samples.
382:
383: \begin{figure}
384: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.3]{f3.eps}
385: \caption{The rms line-of-sight velocity $(v^2+\sigma^2)^{1/2}$ in km s$^{-1}$ as a function of radius from our major axis data (filled squares) and minor axis data (open squares), compared to the data from planetary nebulae measurements \citep{rom03}. We use $v$ and $\sigma$ as measure from a Gauss-Hermite fit; since we do not correct for the higher order moments, these values approximate the actual second moment. The arrow indicates the adopted $R_e$ of the galaxy.
386: \label{fig:pallmcpn}}
387: \end{figure}
388:
389: \section{Dynamical Models}\label{mod}
390:
391: We use axisymmetric orbit superposition models based on the method of
392: \citet{sch79}. The surface brightness profile is converted to a
393: luminosity density profile using an assumed inclination. We assume an
394: edge-on inclination for this analysis, which is reasonable given
395: NGC~821's large ellipticity of $0.40$ \citep{cap07}. This luminosity
396: density is converted to a mass density using a mass-to-light ratio
397: ($M/L_V$) that is constant over the galaxy. A spherically symmetric
398: dark halo density profile is added to the stellar density and this
399: total mass density gives the galaxy's gravitational potential. Next
400: individual stellar orbits are sampled in energy ($E$), angular
401: momentum ($L_z$) and the third integral ($I_3$) and these orbits are
402: integrated in the specified potentials. The galaxy is divided
403: spatially into cells both in real space and in projection, and the
404: amount of time that an orbit spends in a cell represents the mass
405: contributed by that orbit. The orbits are combined with nonnegative
406: weights to find the best-fitted superposition to match the data LOSVDs
407: from both HET and SAURON and the light profile. The model incorporates seeing by convolving the light
408: distribution for every orbit with the appropriate PSF before comparing with the data. This process is
409: repeated for different dark halo density profiles and $M/L_V$ values
410: to find the halo potential that best fits the data, as determined by
411: $\chi^2$ (described in \S \ref{res}).
412:
413: The SAURON data are described in \citet{ems04}. We reconstruct a full LOSVD from their reported moments and rebin them to match our model bins. The \citet{pin03} data shown in Figure \ref{fig:pallmcall} is not used in the models.
414:
415: To reduce computational time, an orbit library is calculated for a
416: given input dark halo plus stars with a mass-to-light ratio of one.
417: The velocities are then scaled accordingly given the mass-to-light
418: ratio before matching the data. The numbers reported are the actual
419: density parameters, including this $M/L$ factor, which gives the
420: somewhat irregular parameter space grids (as seen in Figure
421: \ref{fig:2dchinfw}).
422:
423: We use the orbital weight fitting of \citet{geb00,geb03} with the
424: orbit library sampling of \citet{tho04,tho05}. Our models differ from
425: others \citep[e.g.][]{cre99} in that we use maximum entropy
426: \citep{ric88} and we utilize the full LOSVD, rather than its moments.
427: \citet{tho04,tho05} show the ability of our orbit libraries to
428: recovery dark halo profile from mock elliptical galaxy data.
429: Therefore these models should accurately measure the properties of
430: NGC~821 given the caveats that we assume an axisymmetric galaxy and
431: spherical halo.
432:
433: The orbits are computed in 4 angular bins and 15 radial bins from
434: 0.3$\arcsec$ to 300$\arcsec$. These bins are similar in size to the HET
435: data extraction bins in the radial direction, though in the angular direction they span about 20 degrees. We specify the galaxy potential and the forces on a grid
436: that is four times finer. Our libraries have approximately 10000 total
437: orbits.
438:
439: To calculate our galaxy potential we use a composite surface
440: brightness profile. Within $0.3\arcsec$ we use the profile from
441: \citet{lau05} as compiled in \citet{pin03} based on HST WFPC2 images
442: in F555W. Outside of $0.3\arcsec$ we use a composite profile from HST
443: PC F555W and the McDonald Observatory 0.8-m telescope in $V$
444: (D. Fisher, private communication). The surface brightness
445: deprojection is based on a nonparametric estimate of the density using
446: smoothing splines \citep[see][]{geb96}. The luminosity density is given in Table \ref{tab:lumdens}.
447:
448: \begin{deluxetable}{cc}
449: \tablewidth{0pt}
450: \tablecaption{V-band Luminosity Density\label{tab:lumdens}}
451: \tablehead{
452: \colhead{radius (\arcsec)} & \colhead{$L_{\odot}/pc^3$} }
453: \startdata
454: 2.300E-02 & 8.275E+03 \\
455: 2.533E-02 & 7.205E+03 \\
456: 2.790E-02 & 6.283E+03 \\
457: 3.073E-02 & 5.485E+03 \\
458: 3.385E-02 & 4.793E+03 \\
459: 3.728E-02 & 4.192E+03 \\
460: 4.107E-02 & 3.668E+03 \\
461: 4.523E-02 & 3.212E+03 \\
462: 4.982E-02 & 2.813E+03 \\
463: 5.487E-02 & 2.464E+03 \\
464: \nodata & \nodata \\
465: \enddata
466: \end{deluxetable}
467:
468: \subsection{NFW Halo}\label{nfwhalo1}
469:
470: We use the NFW \citep{nfw96} dark halo density profile, given as
471: \begin{equation}
472: \rho(r)=\frac{\rho_{crit}\ \delta_c}{(r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2}
473: \end{equation}
474: where $r_s$ is the scale radius of the halo, $\rho_{crit}=3H^2/8\pi
475: G$ is the critical density, and $\delta_c$ is the characteristic overdensity. We use $H=70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$.
476: Throughout this paper we refer to $\rho_{crit}\delta_c$ as the scale
477: density. We use two independent parameters to define the NFW halo in our moedls: the scale density and the scale radius. The scale density can also be written in terms of a concentration parameter $c$ by
478: \begin{equation}
479: \delta_c=\frac{\Delta_{vir}}{3}\frac{c^{3}}{\ln{(1+c)}-c/(1+c)}.
480: \end{equation}
481: The virial overdensity $\Delta_{vir}$ varies with redshift and
482: cosmological model and we use a value of $\Delta_{vir}=101$. Although we vary
483: both the concentration (density) and scale radius, there is a known
484: correlation between them \citep{nfw96}. This relation as given in
485: \citet{bul01} is
486: \begin{equation}
487: c\simeq9\left(\frac{M_{vir}}{1.5\times10^{13}h^{-1}M_{\sun}}\right)^{-0.13}
488: \label{eqn:nfwMvir}
489: \end{equation}
490: and can be written in the form
491: \begin{equation}
492: r_{s}^{3}=\left(\frac{c}{9}\right)^{-1/0.13}\left(\Delta_{vir}\frac{4\pi}{3}\rho_{crit}c^3\right)^{-1}(1.5\times10^{13}h^{-1}M_{\odot}).
493: \label{eqn:nfwcr}
494: \end{equation}
495:
496: \subsection{Power-Law Halo}\label{powhalo1}
497:
498: The best-fitted NFW halo profiles have a break radius beyond the
499: extent of our modeling and therefore look like a power-law over the
500: extent of our models (see \S \ref{nfwhalo} below). We therefore tried
501: a simple power-law profile as well. We used power-law density
502: profiles of the form
503: \begin{equation}
504: \rho(r)=\rho_o(\frac{r}{r_o})^{-n}
505: \end{equation}
506: where $n$ is the power-law slope, $\rho_o$ is the characteristic
507: density, and $r_o$ is the characteristic radius such that
508: $\rho(r=r_o)=\rho_o$. We use $r_o=0.3\arcsec=34\ pc$ because it is
509: the inner-most radial point calculated in the models.
510:
511: \section{Results}\label{res}
512:
513: The best-fitted model is determined by comparing the $\chi^2$ between
514: the model and data LOSVDs, with the uncertainty of the data determined
515: from the 68\% confidence band. Example LOSVDs are shown in Figure
516: \ref{fig:losvdm} for several radial bins. The measure of the reduced
517: $\chi^2$ is not straight-forward since because determining the number
518: of degrees of freedom is uncertain. The number of independent
519: observables is roughly the number of radial data bins times the number
520: of LOSVD bins at each radius ($69\times13=897$ in this case), however
521: the LOSVD bins are correlated and thus the effective number of data
522: points is less than this value. The best-fitted model has a $\chi^2$
523: of around 2200, and with 897 data points, this provides a large
524: reduced $\chi^2$. Typical values of the reduced $\chi^2$ for the
525: orbit-based models are around 0.5 (see Gebhardt et al. 2003), so the
526: value reported here is not typical. The main driver for the large
527: $\chi^2$ is the minor axis data---removing this data gives a reduced
528: $\chi^2$ below one. Furthermore, the results on the parameters do not
529: change significantly. Regardless, the change in $\chi^2$ between
530: different models remains a valid statistic to determine confidence
531: levels of the fits. For example, a change in $\chi^2$ of 2.3
532: corresponds to the 68.3\% confidence level because we marginalize over
533: $M/L$ and thus have two parameters describing the halo.
534:
535: \begin{figure}
536: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.3]{f4.eps}
537: \caption{Match of data and no dark halo model LOSVDs for the central four radial bins along the major axis (r = 0.00, 1.41, 3.76, 6.11 arcsec). The open circles are the data values with error bars and the closed circles are the model values. The area is normalized to the total light in that bin.
538: \label{fig:losvdm}}
539: \end{figure}
540:
541: Because of computational limits we first calculate models using a
542: coarse grid of mass-to-light ratio. The $\chi^2$ values are then fit
543: with the IDL quadratic interpolation routine, and those models with
544: the lowest minimum $\chi^2$ are modeled with a finer mass-to-light
545: ratio interval.
546:
547: \subsection{NFW Halo}\label{nfwhalo}
548:
549: We use models with scale radius from 1 to 2000 kpc and scale density
550: from $0.05$ to $3.0\times10^{-5} M_\sun pc^{-3}$, corresponding to a
551: range in c of approximately 0.75 to 23, and $M/L_V$ from 1.0 to 9.0.
552: Figures \ref{fig:2dchinfw} and \ref{fig:2dchia4nfw} show the resulting
553: $\chi^2$ as a function of halo scale radius and scale density. The
554: points represent actual modeled values, and the $M/L_V$ that gives the
555: lowest $\chi^2$ is used at each point. The dashed line in Figure
556: \ref{fig:2dchinfw} indicates the expected correlation of concentration
557: and scale radius as described in \S \ref{nfwhalo1}. This relation has
558: a scatter of $\Delta \log r_s = 0.36$ \citep{bul01}. Our data show a
559: degeneracy between scale radius and scale density that is similar to,
560: though slightly tilted from, the correlation.
561:
562: \begin{figure}
563: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.4]{f5.ps}
564: \caption{Scale radius ($r_s$) and scale density ($\rho_{crit}\delta_c$) $\chi^{2}$ grid for NFW halo density profiles. Each point represents a model, and the size of the point reflects the value of $\Delta\chi^2$ for the best-fitted $M/L_V$ value. Models with $\Delta \chi^2$ less than $6 \sigma$ from the minimum value are plotted with open circles. The ringed point indicates the model with the lowest value of $\chi^2$. The dashed line shows the expected NFW parameter relation (see \S\ref{nfwhalo1}).
565: \label{fig:2dchinfw}}
566: \end{figure}
567:
568: \begin{figure}
569: \plotone{f6.eps}
570: \caption{$\chi^2$ as a function of scale radius and scale density ($\rho_{crit}\delta_c$) for NFW halo density profiles with best-fitted $M/L_V$. The points represent actual modeled values. The dashed lines refer to $\Delta\chi^2=2.3, 4.61, 6.17, 9.21, 11.8, 18.4$, corresponding to 2 degree of freedom confidence levels of 63.8\%, 90\%, 95.4\%, 99\%, 99.73\%, and 99.99\%.
571: \label{fig:2dchia4nfw}}
572: \end{figure}
573:
574: $\chi^2$ is a function of 3 variables: stellar M/L, dark halo scale
575: radius and dark halo normalization. Due to computer resources, we do
576: not provide a uniformally-sampled grid of the 3 variables for the
577: $\chi^2$. Because of this, it is difficult to produce reliable
578: contours for any 2 of the parameters. Figure \ref{fig:2dchinfw} thus
579: shows only the location of the points (with size related to
580: $\chi^2$). We do not estimate uncertainties from the contours
581: directly, but instead rely on plotting $\chi^2$ versus each of the
582: parameters, including all values for the other two parameters. Figure
583: \ref{fig:2dchia4nfw} shows $\chi^2$ versus scale radius and
584: density. Uncertainties come from the envelope of these one-dimensional
585: plots. Since we have explored neither a regular grid nor a full set of
586: variables (e.g., black hole mass, inclination, change in the stellar
587: M/L with radius), the uncertainties should only be used in a
588: comparative sense with the models that we have tried. A full
589: exploration of the uncertainties will come as computer resources
590: improve.
591:
592: We find that the best-fitted NFW dark halo density profile has scale
593: radius $700^{+500}_{-300}$ kpc and scale density
594: $1.28^{+0.8}_{-0.5}\times10^{-4} M_{\odot}pc^{-3}$, corresponding to a
595: c of 2.45. The no halo model is ruled out with a change in $\chi^2$
596: of 356 (greater than 99\% confidence level) from the best-fitted NFW
597: halo. Table \ref{tab:modres} shows the $\chi^2$ values and halo
598: parameters of the best-fitted halo model and model with no dark halo.
599: We do not attach significance to this density, radius, and
600: concentration. They are clearly outside the expected range for a
601: galaxy and merely indicate that the NFW profile is not reasonable.
602: The halo needs more mass at large radii to fit the data. The
603: best-fitted NFW halo density profile is shown in Figure
604: \ref{fig:densvrpownfw}. The scale radius is well beyond the radial
605: extent of our modeling, and is indicative of the need for a near
606: power-law profile over the extent of our models.
607:
608: \begin{figure}
609: \plotone{f7.eps}
610: \caption{Density (top) and circular velocity (bottom) as a function of radius for the best-fitted NFW (dashed lines) and power-law (solid lines) dark halos. In each case the bottom line is the dark halo alone and the top line is the total mass (halo plus stars) The data point shows the radius of the most extended bin of our kinematic data.
611: \label{fig:densvrpownfw}}
612: \end{figure}
613:
614: Since dynamical modeling directly measures mass (as opposed to dark
615: halo parameters), the enclosed mass provides a more robust estimate
616: and is likely not subject to the specific parameterization of the dark
617: halo. Figure \ref{fig:totmass} shows the mass enclosed within the
618: extent of our kinematic data as a function of $\chi^2$. The
619: best-fitted total enclosed mass is $1.78\pm0.15\times10^{11}M_{\sun}$,
620: divided into $1.03\pm0.03\times10^{11}M_{\sun}$ in stars and
621: $0.75\pm0.15\times10^{11}M_{\sun}$ in dark matter. At $1R_e$ the
622: ratio of dark matter to total matter is 0.19. The best-fitted NFW
623: halo circular velocity profile is shown in Figure
624: \ref{fig:densvrpownfw}.
625:
626: \begin{figure}
627: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f8.eps}
628: \caption{Enclosed mass within the radial extent of our kinematic data, $100\arcsec$, as a function of $\chi^2$ for both the NFW halo density profiles (top) and power-law halo density profiles (bottom) with best-fitted $M/L_V$. The dashed lines refer to $\Delta\chi^2=2.3, 4.61, 6.17, 9.21, 11.8, 18.4$, corresponding to 2 degree of freedom confidence levels of 63.8\%, 90\%, 95.4\%, 99\%, 99.73\%, and 99.99\%.
629: \label{fig:totmass}}
630: \end{figure}
631:
632: Figures \ref{fig:intmom000} and \ref{fig:intmom256} show the internal
633: moments $\sigma_r$, $\sigma_{\theta}$, and $\sigma_{\phi}$ and ratio
634: of radial to tangential dispersion along the major and minor axes for
635: the model with no dark halo and the best-fitted NFW halo model. The
636: model without a dark halo shows radial anisotropy at small radii and
637: tangential anisotropy at large radii along the major axis. Tangential
638: anisotropy at large radii in a model with no dark halo could be an
639: indication of the need for a dark halo because the observations
640: largely constrain only $\sigma_{\phi}$ (for an edge-on configuration),
641: so both $\sigma_r$ and $\sigma_{\theta}$ may be artifically decreased
642: to create a smaller total $\sigma$ that can be fit without a dark
643: halo. Along the minor axis, the contribution in the $\theta$ and
644: $\phi$ directions are roughly equal, as is expected for an
645: axisymmetric model. Overall the minor axis shows tangential
646: anisotropy over the entire range of our data. The NFW model is more isotropic than the model with no halo.
647:
648: \begin{figure}
649: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f9.eps}
650: \caption{Internal moments $\sigma_r$, $\sigma_{\theta}$, and $\sigma_{\phi}$ (top) and the ratio of radial to tangential dispersion (bottom) along the major axis (left) and minor axis (right) for the model with no dark halo. Note that $\sigma_{\phi}$ includes both random and ordered motions, which are shown (dot-dashed line) and are small. The vertical line shows the limit of our kinematic data; results beyond this radius are not reliable.
651: \label{fig:intmom000}}
652: \end{figure}
653:
654: \begin{figure}
655: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f10.eps}
656: \caption{Internal moments $\sigma_r$, $\sigma_{\theta}$, and $\sigma_{\phi}$ (top) and the ratio of radial to tangential dispersion (bottom) along the major axis (left) and minor axis (right) for the model with the best-fitted NFW halo. Note that $\sigma_{\phi}$ includes both random and ordered motions, which are shown (dot-dashed line) and are small. The vertical line shows the limit of our kinematic data; results beyond this radius are not reliable.
657: \label{fig:intmom256}}
658: \end{figure}
659:
660: Although the models fit the full nonparametric velocity profile of
661: both the HET data and SAURON data, in Figure \ref{fig:gherm} we plot
662: the first four Gauss-Hermite moments for our HET data and the
663: best-fitted halo models. The models differ most at intermediate to
664: large radii, and do not appear to be driven by any one single parameter or
665: radius in particular.
666:
667: \begin{figure}
668: \plotone{f11.eps}
669: \caption{Gauss-Hermite moments (mean velocity $V$, velocity dispersion $\sigma$, asymmetric deviations from Gaussian (skewness) $h_3$, and symmetric deviations from Gaussian (kurtosis) $h_4$) of the LOSVDs for our HET data and the best-fitted halo models along the major axis (left panel) and minor axis (right panel). The HET data are shown with open circles, SAURON data along the axes with open triangles, no dark halo model with solid lines, best-fitted NFW halo with dashed lines, and best-fitted power-law halo with dotted lines. The model fits the full LOSVD of the HET data and all of the SAURON data.
670: \label{fig:gherm}}
671: \end{figure}
672:
673: \subsection{Power-Law Halo}\label{powhalo}
674:
675: We run models with a range of slope $n$ from 0.0 to 1.1, density
676: $\rho_o$ from 0.0015 to 26 $M_{\odot}/pc^3$, and $M/L_V$ from 3.5 to
677: 8.0. The resulting $\chi^2$ grid is shown in Figure
678: \ref{fig:densrchipow} and as a function of $n$ and $\rho_o$ in Figure
679: \ref{fig:chiparampow}. The best-fitted halo model has a slope
680: $0.1^{+0.1}_{-0.08}$ and a characteristic density
681: $\rho_o=0.025^{+0.025}_{-0.009} M_{\odot}pc^{-3}$. This halo is a
682: better fit to the data than the best NFW halo, with a
683: $\Delta\chi^2=95$ (see Table \ref{tab:modres}). This power-law slope
684: is significantly more shallow than the 1.0 slope of an NFW profile. A
685: comparison of the best-fitted halo density and circular velocity
686: profiles is shown in Figure \ref{fig:densvrpownfw}.
687:
688: \begin{figure}
689: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.4]{f12.ps}
690: \caption{Power-law slope n and density $\rho_o$ $\chi^{2}$ grid for power-law halo density profiles. Each point represents a model, and the size of the point reflects the value of $\Delta\chi^2$ for the best-fitted $M/L_V$ value. Models with $\Delta \chi^2$ less than $6 \sigma$ from the minimum value are plotted with open circles. The ringed point indicates the model with the lowest value of $\chi^2$. \label{fig:densrchipow}}
691: \end{figure}
692:
693: \begin{figure}
694: \plotone{f13.eps}
695: \caption{$\chi^2$ as a function of power-law index $n$ and scale density $\rho_o$ for power-law halo density profiles with best-fitted $M/L_V$. The points represent actual modeled values. The dashed lines refer to $\Delta\chi^2=2.3, 4.61, 6.17, 9.21, 11.8, 18.4$, corresponding to 2 degree of freedom confidence levels of 63.8\%, 90\%, 95.4\%, 99\%, 99.73\%, and 99.99\%.
696: \label{fig:chiparampow}}
697: \end{figure}
698:
699: \begin{deluxetable*}{ccccccccccc}
700: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
701: \tablewidth{0pt}
702: \tablecaption{Best-Fitted Halo Model Results\label{tab:modres}}
703: \tablehead{
704: \colhead{halo} & \colhead{$\chi^2$} & \colhead{$M/L_V$} & \colhead{$r_s$} & \colhead{$\rho$} & \colhead{$c$} & \colhead{$M_{vir}$} & \colhead{$n$} & \colhead{$M_{tot}$} & \colhead{$M_{stars}$} & \colhead{$M_{halo}$}\\
705: & & ($M/L)_{\sun}$ & $kpc$ & $M_{\odot}/pc^3$ & & $10^{17}M_{\odot}$ & & $10^{11}M_{\odot}$ & $10^{11}M_{\odot}$ & $10^{11}M_{\odot}$\\
706: (1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) & (6) & (7) & (8) & (9) & (10)}
707: \startdata
708: none & 2527.30 & $7.25\pm0.05$ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $1.20\pm0.01$ & $1.20\pm0.01$ & 0.00 \\
709: NFW & 2171.70 & $6.19\pm0.09$ & $700^{+500}_{-300}$ & $1.28^{+0.8}_{-0.5}\times10^{-4}$ & $2.45^{+0.65}_{-0.53}$ & $4.76^{+26}_{-4.0}$ & \nodata & $1.78\pm0.15$ & $1.03\pm0.03$ & $0.75\pm0.15$\\
710: power-law & 2077.05 & $6.25\pm0.07$ & \nodata & $0.025^{+0.025}_{-0.009}$ & \nodata & \nodata & $0.1^{+0.1}_{-0.08}$ & $2.01\pm0.15$ & $1.04\pm0.02$ & $0.97\pm0.15$ \\
711: \enddata
712: \tablecomments{(1) Dark halo density profile. (2) $\chi^2$ of best-fitted model. (3) Stellar $M/L_V$ of best-fitted model. (4) Scale radius of best-fitted model. (5) Scale density $\rho_{crit}\delta_c$ for NFW, characteristic density $\rho_o$ for power-law. (6) NFW concentration parameter determined from scale density. (7) Virial mass determined from NFW concentration parameter. (8) Power-law index. (9) Total mass within 100\arcsec. (10) Mass of stars within 100\arcsec. (11) Mass of dark halo within 100\arcsec.}
713: \end{deluxetable*}
714:
715: The best-fitted total enclosed mass is
716: $2.01\pm0.15\times10^{11}M_{\sun}$, divided into
717: $1.04\pm0.02\times10^{11}M_{\sun}$ in stars and
718: $0.97\pm0.15\times10^{11}M_{\sun}$ in dark matter (see Figure
719: \ref{fig:totmass}). At $1R_e$ the ratio of dark matter to total
720: matter is 0.13. The internal moments $\sigma_r$, $\sigma_{\theta}$,
721: and $\sigma_{\phi}$ and ratio of radial to tangential dispersion along
722: the major axis are shown in Figure \ref{fig:intmom027} and are roughly
723: consistent with those of the best-fitted NFW halo.
724:
725: \begin{figure}
726: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f14.eps}
727: \caption{As in Figure \ref{fig:intmom000} for the best-fitted power-law model.
728: \label{fig:intmom027}}
729: \end{figure}
730:
731: Figure \ref{fig:gherm} shows the first four Gauss-Hermite moments for
732: our HET data and the best-fitted halo models. Note that the models
733: fit the full nonparametric velocity profile of both the HET data and
734: SAURON data.
735:
736: \subsection{Model Tests}\label{tests}
737:
738: In order to learn which aspect of the data is driving the results we
739: have performed several tests. Using an abbreviated grid of about one
740: third of the halos in the full run and a coarse spacing in $M/L_V$ we
741: have re-run the models with various subsets of the data. First, to
742: address any concerns over the scattered minor axis data we have run
743: the test models using only the HET major axis data and SAURON data.
744: The results are the same as the full data set; there is a clear need
745: for a dark halo, and the best-fitted NFW halo is not as good a fit as
746: the power-law halo. Second, we removed the two points on the major
747: axis with extreme $h_3$ values (at about $47\arcsec$ and $74\arcsec$)
748: since Figure \ref{fig:gherm} may lead one to believe they are driving
749: the fits. Again the results are the same as with the full data set.
750: And third, we do a test run using only data below $0.5 R_e$. In this
751: case there is essentially no difference in $\chi^2$ between the three
752: best-fitted models (no dark halo, NFW halo, and power-law halo), and
753: the best-fitted halos are quite different than those from the full
754: data results. These tests indicate that it is the large radii data as
755: a whole that is driving the model fits. To further demonstrate this,
756: Figure \ref{fig:bins} shows the $\Delta\chi^2$ between the model with
757: no halo and the best-fitted halo in each bin. The bins at large radii
758: show the greatest change in $\chi^2$, again indicating that the large
759: radii data are the major factor in the fits.
760:
761: \begin{figure}
762: \includegraphics[angle=270, scale=0.4]{f15.ps}
763: \caption{Difference in $\chi^2$ between the LOSVDs of the model with no dark halo and the best-fitted power law halo model averaged in each spatial bin. Green indicates that the no-halo model has a larger $\chi^2$ than the power-law model and therefore the power-law is a better fit, while orange indicates that the power-law model has a larger $\chi^2$ than the no-halo model and therefore the no halo model is a better fit.
764: \label{fig:bins}}
765: \end{figure}
766:
767: \subsection{Comparisons to Other Studies}\label{comparison}
768:
769: \citet{geb03} model the central region of NGC~821 and find that it is
770: radially anisotropic within a few arcseconds and isotropic to slightly
771: tangentially anisotropic at larger radii. Given the difference in
772: spatial resolution this roughly agrees with our result. \citet{cap07}
773: find that within about $20 \arcsec$ N821 is radially anisotropic
774: overall, along the major and minor axes and between. They find that
775: the velocity ellipsoids are circular in the center and become more
776: radial with increasing radius, in conflict with our results, but they
777: do not include a dark halo which could change their results.
778: \citet{tho07}, using similar modeling as we use, find that early-type
779: galaxies in the Coma cluster are radial compared to the $\theta$
780: direction over all radii along the major axis, agreeing with our
781: result, and vary from galaxy to galaxy in the $\phi$ component. The
782: merger simulations of \citet{dek05} also find a radial anisotropy.
783: Their spherically averaged $\beta$ of about $0.4$ corresponds to a
784: $\sigma_{radial}/\sigma_{tangential}$ of $1.3$, which is larger than
785: our results along the major and minor axes. However their simulations
786: show declining projected dispersion profiles, which our data does not,
787: that could account for the difference.
788:
789: By modeling only the central part of NGC~821 \citet{geb03} find
790: $M/L_V=7.6$ (without including foreground extinction), which is
791: consistent with our no-halo value over the whole galaxy of
792: $M/L_V=7.25$. Correcting for NGC~821's large reddening of $A_V=0.364$
793: mag \citep[NED extragalactic database]{sch98} we find our best-fitted
794: $M/L_{V,no halo}=5.18$, $M/L_{V,nfw}=4.43$, and $M/L_{V,pow}=4.47$.
795: \citet{cap06} find $M/L_{jeans}=3.54$, $M/L_{schwarzschild}=3.08$, and
796: $M/L_{stellar pop}=2.60$ in the $I$ band. Using $(V-I)=1.35$ mag
797: \citep{lau05}, dereddened to $(V-I)_0=1.20$ mag, and $(V-I)_{\sun}=0.682$ mag \citep{ram05} our $V$ band
798: mass-to-light ratios are converted to $M/L_{I,no halo}=3.21$,
799: $M/L_{I,nfw}=2.75$, and $M/L_{I,pow}=2.77$. Our mass-to-light ratios
800: are slightly higher, though roughly consistent, with their
801: mass-to-light ratios found using Schwarzschild modeling and stellar
802: populations.
803:
804: We find that the enclosed mass of NGC~821 within $\sim 2 R_e$ is
805: roughly $2\times10^{11}M_{\sun}$, equally divided between stars and
806: dark matter. At $1R_e$ the ratio of dark matter halo mass to total
807: mass is $0.19$ for the best-fitted NFW halo profile and $0.13$ for the
808: best-fitted power-law halo profile. This matches other studies that
809: find that the dark matter is $10-40\%$ of the total matter at $1R_e$
810: and that dark matter begins to dominate at $2-4R_e$
811: \citep[e.g.][]{sag00,ger01,mam05}. The simulations of \citet{dek05}
812: also show that dark matter and stellar matter are equal at $3 R_e$,
813: and at $1 R_e$ have a mass fraction of $40\%$ dark matter.
814: \citet{tho07} perform similar dynamical modeling on 17 galaxies in the
815: Coma cluster. Using values taken by eye from their Figure 5 we find
816: that their average dark matter fraction at $1R_e$ is $0.19$, though
817: their galaxies show a wide range of dark matter fractions, from about
818: $0.1$ to $0.5$ at $1R_e$. We therefore find that the dark matter
819: fraction at $1R_e$ is similar for N821, a field elliptical galaxy, and
820: a selection of Coma cluster early-type galaxies, perhaps contrary to
821: hypotheses that environment plays a role in the dark matter fraction.
822:
823: \citet{wei09} provide a dynamical analysis using orbit-based
824: models and using data that extend to similar radii, though they do not attempt to characterize the shape of the halo. Thus, the
825: comparison of dark halo mass results is informative. We find very similar
826: numbers. Inside of 39\arcsec\ (which they call Re), they find a dark
827: matter fraction of 18\%. Inside of 45\arcsec\ (which we call Re), we
828: have a dark matter fraction of 13\%. There are differences in the
829: models as well. First, they use a ``maximum M/L'' model where they
830: force the M/L of the stars to have a maximum value. We find the best-fit stellar M/L amongst the range modeled. Second, the modelling codes are different, with
831: the main difference in that they use regularization (which trades the
832: best fitted values with smoothness) and we report results for the best
833: fit to the data. Third, they use SAURON data at large radii and we use
834: our HET data at large radii. Their data extend to slightly larger
835: radii (110\arcsec\ compared to our limit of 90\arcsec), and our data
836: is high signal-to-noise. Given all of the these differences, it is
837: impressive that we obtain similar results for the dark halo mass. This
838: implies that systematic differences are not significant for
839: determining the enclosed mass profile.
840:
841: \subsection{Smoothing}\label{smooth}
842:
843: It is useful to constrain the orbital weighting so that the resulting
844: DF is smooth, as a real galaxy's DF may be presumed to be. Although
845: we do not usually report results when smoothing our models (we argue
846: that allowing the best fit to the data is the most robust way to
847: provide an un-biased result), other groups suggest that it is
848: important for their model. \citet{rix97} and subsequent studies
849: minimize the variation in the DF, a process they term regularization.
850: We employ maximum entropy to find the best combination of orbit
851: weights to match the data, as described in \citet{tho05}. We define a
852: function $f\equiv\chi^2-\alpha S$ where $\chi^2$ is the sum of squared
853: residuals to the data, $S$ is the entropy, and $\alpha$ is a parameter
854: describing the relative weights of entropy and residuals in the fit.
855: In order to minimize $f$ we typically start with a large value of
856: $\alpha$ and make it smaller until the $\chi^2$ no longer varies. To
857: test the effect of smoothing we run models such that the iterations
858: stop when $\alpha=0.01$, a reasonable value based on \citet{tho05}.
859:
860: Using only our HET data we ran our no-halo and NFW-halo models with
861: and without smoothing using a coarser grid in parameter space. We
862: find that smoothing does not alter the results. All of the models
863: have a lower $\chi^2$ using only the HET data than the main results of
864: our paper which use both HET and SAURON data. The models with
865: smoothing have a larger $\chi^2$ than without smoothing (see Table
866: \ref{tab:modressmooth}), but the $\Delta\chi^2$ between different halo
867: models remains the same. The best-fitted NFW dark halo parameters are
868: consistent within the errors. The internal moments are also
869: consistent with the unsmoothed models within the errors. Using an
870: estimate by eye, the smoothed model's DF (plotted as $I_3$ versus
871: $L_z$ in $E$ bins) looks similar to the unsmoothed model's DF when
872: smoothed.
873:
874: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}
875: \tablewidth{0pt}
876: \tablecaption{Smoothing Model Results\label{tab:modressmooth}}
877: \tablehead{
878: \colhead{halo} & \colhead{smoothing} & \colhead{$\chi^2$} & \colhead{$r_s$} & \colhead{$c$} & \colhead{$\rho$}\\
879: & & & $kpc$ & & $M_{\odot}/pc^3$\\
880: (1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) & (6)}
881: \startdata
882: none & no & 940.857 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
883: none & yes & 1033.73 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
884: NFW & no & 766.47 & 1050 & 2.32 & $1.14\times10^{-4}$ \\
885: NFW & yes & 852.77 & 800 & 2.70 & $1.56\times10^{-4}$ \\
886: \enddata
887: \tablecomments{(1) Dark halo density profile. (2) Smoothing or no smoothing. (3) $\chi^2$ of best-fitted model. These $\chi^2$ values are lower than those of Table \ref{tab:modres} because the models fit fewer data points (HET data only) than the models in Table \ref{tab:modres} (HET and SAURON). (4) Scale radius of best-fitted model. (5) NFW concentration parameter determined from scale density. (6) NFW Scale density $\rho_{crit}\delta_c$.}
888: \end{deluxetable}
889:
890: We therefore determine that adding smoothing via maximum entropy does
891: not alter the measured halo, internal moments, or overall DF shape.
892: We also note that these results using only our HET data are consistent
893: with those using both HET and SAURON presented throughout this paper.
894:
895: \subsection{Planetary Nebula Data}\label{pne}
896:
897: We model the NGC~821 planetary nebula data of \citet{rom03} with the
898: best-fitted halos from the stellar data. We are not trying to
899: constrain models using this data, but rather are interested in what
900: orbital properties the planetary nebulae would require given the
901: potential derived from the stellar data. In doing this we assume that
902: the potential derived from stars is correct and that the planetary
903: nebulae are distributed in the same way as the stars. This assumption
904: may not be realistic, as \citet{dek05} predicts that it is the
905: densities, not the anisotropies, that differ. Figure
906: \ref{fig:intmompne} shows the ratio of radial to tangential dispersion
907: for the models with no dark halo and best-fitted NFW and power-law
908: halos. As expected from the results of \citet{rom03}, the model with
909: no dark halo is roughly isotropic throughout, and tangential at large
910: radii. The best-fitted NFW model requires radial orbits throughout
911: and the best-fitted power-law halo requires extremely radial orbits, with $\sigma_{radial}/\sigma_{tangential}$ of over $3$ (corresponding to a $\beta$ of 0.9).
912: This again demonstrates the strong mass-anisotropy degeneracy in
913: dynamical studies. All three models are an excellent fit to the data,
914: although there is a preference for a dark halo, but it is not
915: statistically significant.
916:
917: \begin{figure}
918: \plotone{f16.eps}
919: \caption{Ratio of radial to tangential dispersion (an average of $\sigma_{\theta}$ and $\sigma_{\phi}$, including streaming motion) along the major axis for models with only planetary nebula data (thick lines) and the best-fitted no halo, NFW halo, and power-law halo derived from the stellar kinematics. All three models are consistent with the PN data, in terms of $\chi^2$, with the dark halo models providing a slightly better fit. Thin lines show results for stellar data as comparison.
920: \label{fig:intmompne}}
921: \end{figure}
922:
923: \section{Conclusions}\label{disc}
924:
925: We present kinematics of NGC~821 to over 2 effective radii using
926: long-slit spectroscopy from the Hobby-Eberly Telescope and find that
927: our measured stellar line-of-sight velocity distributions are larger
928: than the planetary nebulae measurements of \citet{rom03} at large
929: radii.
930:
931: Regardless of the density profile used, we are able to constrain the
932: enclosed mass of NGC~821 within our kinematic data ($\sim 2 R_e$) as
933: roughly $2\times10^{11}M_{\sun}$, equally divided between stars and
934: dark matter. At $1R_e$ the ratio of dark matter halo mass to total
935: mass is $0.19$ for the best-fitted NFW halo profile and $0.13$ for the
936: best-fitted power-law halo profile.
937:
938: We find that the best-fitted model of the dark halo in NGC~821 has a
939: nearly flat power-law density profile. This dark halo gives a better
940: fit than both the NFW halo models and models without a dark halo at a
941: greater than 99\% confidence level. This slope is somewhat
942: unexpected, and is strongly inconsistent with halo profiles with inner
943: slopes greater than one \citep[e.g. isothermal,][]{her90,moo99}, and
944: may lend support to halos with a flat inner slope \citep[e.g. cored
945: isothermal, logarithmic potential, and][]{bur95}. Additionally, one
946: would expect that adiabatic contraction would create even steeper
947: inner halo profiles \citep{blu86,gne04}, which is in conflict with our
948: result. This halo result is driven by the data at large radii.
949:
950: Our NFW $\chi^2$ space shows a degeneracy in radius and density as
951: expected. This degeneracy is slightly tilted from the expected NFW
952: correlations. Constraining these NFW radius and density parameters
953: using a single concentration parameter could lead to biased results.
954:
955: In addition to having a significantly poorer fit, the models without a
956: dark halo show tangential anisotropy at large radii. This may be an
957: indication that a dark halo is necessary because the radial component
958: of the velocity dispersion may need to be artificially decreased at
959: large radii in order to create a smaller total velocity dispersion
960: that can be reproduced by a haloless model. The best-fitted dark halo
961: model shows a radial bias in the $\theta$ direction at all radii.
962: However we do show that the velocities in the $\phi$ direction are
963: greater than the radial component. If the planetary nebulae are on
964: radial orbits, that would explain why our measured stellar velocity
965: dispersions are larger than the reported planetary nebulae dispersions
966: \citep{rom03}. We show this by modeling the planetary nebula data
967: assuming the potential of our best-fitted halo models from the stellar
968: kinematics. We find that the planetary nebulae do require radially
969: anisotropic orbits to match the best-fitted halo potentials.
970:
971: \acknowledgments
972:
973: The authors would like to thank Tim de Zeeuw for his many helpful
974: comments and discussions regarding the manuscript. We are very
975: grateful to David Fisher for providing the surface brightness
976: profile. K.G. acknowledges the support of the Texas Advanced Research
977: Program under grant 003658--0243-2001 and NSF-CAREER grant
978: AST03-49095. The authors acknowledge use of the computational
979: resources at The University of Texas at Austin's Texas Advanced
980: Computing Center (\url{http://www.tacc.utexas.edu}) for the research
981: reported in this paper. The Hobby-Eberly Telescope (HET) is a joint
982: project of the University of Texas at Austin, the Pennsylvania State
983: University, Stanford University, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit\"at
984: M\"unchen, and Georg-August-Universit\"at G\"ottingen. The HET is
985: named in honor of its principal benefactors, William P. Hobby and
986: Robert E. Eberly.
987:
988: \bibliographystyle{apj}
989: \bibliography{references} %% assuming the bib file is names references.bib
990:
991: \clearpage
992:
993:
994: \clearpage
995:
996: \clearpage
997:
998: \clearpage
999:
1000:
1001:
1002: \clearpage
1003:
1004:
1005:
1006:
1007: \end{document}
1008: