1: % Last edited by CO on June 27
2:
3: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4: \documentclass{emulateapj}
5: \usepackage{natbib}
6: \usepackage{epsfig}
7:
8: \newcommand{\Msun}{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}
9: \newcommand{\Lsun}{\mathrm{L}_{\odot}}
10: \newcommand{\kms}{\,{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}
11: \newcommand{\HI}{\ion{H}{1}}
12: \def\Mpc2{\; {\rm M}_{\odot}\, {\rm pc}^{-2}}
13: \newcommand{\fsfr}{f_{\rm sfr}}
14: \newcommand{\age}{\tau} %{\tau_{\rm age}}
15: \newcommand{\bdv}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath$#1$}}
16: \def\ba{{\bdv{a}}}
17: \def\bx{{\bdv{x}}}
18: \def\bsigma{{\bdv{\sigma}}}
19: \def\bdelta{{\bdv{\Delta}}}
20:
21: % The following will make LaTeX stop floating figures to the last page
22: \renewcommand\floatpagefraction{.9}
23: \renewcommand\topfraction{.9}
24: \renewcommand\bottomfraction{.9}
25: \renewcommand\textfraction{.05}
26:
27: \begin{document}
28:
29: \slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ}
30: \shortauthors{Orban et al.}
31: \shorttitle{Star Formation Histories of Dwarf Galaxies}
32:
33: \title{Delving Deeper into the Tumultuous Lives of Galactic Dwarfs: \\
34: Modeling Star Formation Histories}
35:
36: \author{ Chris Orban\altaffilmark{1}$^,$\altaffilmark{2},
37: Oleg Y. Gnedin\altaffilmark{3},
38: Daniel R. Weisz\altaffilmark{4},
39: Evan D. Skillman\altaffilmark{4}, \\
40: Andrew E. Dolphin\altaffilmark{5}, and
41: Jon A. Holtzman\altaffilmark{6}}
42:
43: \altaffiltext{1}{Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics,
44: The Ohio State University, 191 W Woodruff Ave, Columbus, OH 43210}
45: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics,
46: The Ohio State University, 191 W Woodruff Ave, Columbus, OH 43210; \mbox{\tt orban@mps.ohio-state.edu} }
47: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy, University of Michigan,
48: 500 Church St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109; \mbox{\tt ognedin@umich.edu} }
49: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Astronomy,
50: University of Minnesota, 116 Church St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455}
51: \altaffiltext{5}{Raytheon Corporation, USA}
52: \altaffiltext{6}{Astronomy Department
53: New Mexico State University, Box 30001, MSC 4500
54: Las Cruces, NM 88003}
55:
56: \date{\today}
57:
58: \begin{abstract}
59: The paucity of observed dwarf galaxies in the Local Group relative to
60: the abundance of predicted dark matter halos remains one of the
61: greatest puzzles of the $\Lambda$CDM paradigm. Solving this puzzle
62: now requires not only matching the numbers of objects but also
63: understanding the details of their star formation histories. We
64: present a summary of such histories derived from the HST data using
65: the color-magnitude diagram fitting method. To reduce observational
66: uncertainties, we condense the data into five cumulative parameters --
67: the fractions of stellar mass formed in the last 1, 2, 5, and 10 Gyr,
68: and the mean stellar age. We interpret the new data with a
69: phenomenological model based on the mass assembly histories of dark
70: matter halos and the Schmidt law of star formation. The model
71: correctly predicts the radial distribution of the dwarfs and the
72: fractions of stars formed in the last 5 and 10 Gyr. However, in order
73: to be consistent with the observations, the model requires a
74: significant amount of recent star formation in the last 2 Gyr. Within
75: the framework of our model, this prolonged star formation can be
76: achieved by adding a stochastic variation in the density threshold of
77: the star formation law. The model results are not sensitive to late
78: gas accretion, the slope of the Schmidt law, or the details of cosmic
79: reionization. A few discrepancies still remain: our model typically
80: predicts too large stellar masses, only a modest population of
81: ultra-faint dwarfs, and a small number of dwarfs with anomalously
82: young stellar populations. Nevertheless, the observed star formation
83: histories of Local Group dwarfs are generally consistent the expected
84: star formation in cold dark matter halos.
85: \end{abstract}
86:
87: \keywords{cosmology: theory --- galaxies: formation --- galaxies: dwarf}
88:
89:
90:
91: \section{Introduction}
92: \label{sec:intro}
93:
94: The discrepancy between the number of observed dwarf satellite
95: galaxies of the Milky Way and the anticipated number of dark matter
96: halos in cosmological simulations has been heralded as the ``missing
97: satellite problem'' \citep{Klypin1999, Moore1999, kauffmann_etal93}
98: and it still remains one of the greatest puzzles of the $\Lambda$CDM
99: paradigm. One class of suggested solutions to this puzzle involves
100: modifications to the nature of dark matter
101: \citep[e.g.,][]{spergel_steinhardt01} or to the initial conditions of
102: cosmic structure \citep[e.g.,][]{ZentnerBullock2003a,
103: ZentnerBullock2003b, KamionkowskiLiddle2000, Colin_et_al_2000}, while
104: another class of solutions invokes astrophysical arguments such as
105: inefficient cooling of cosmic gas and/or feedback from young stars
106: \citep[e.g.][]{ThoulWeinberg96, DekelWoo2003}.
107:
108: Motivated by this latter class of solutions, \citet*[][hereafter
109: referred to as KGK04]{tumultuous04} developed a star formation model
110: for the satellite galaxies, based on the mass assembly histories of
111: individual dark matter halos in a $\Lambda$CDM cosmological
112: simulation. That model incorporated the accretion of gas in
113: hierarchical mergers and the loss of gas caused by the extragalactic
114: UV background, and included both a continuous mode and a starburst
115: mode of star formation. The model correctly reproduced the observed
116: number of satellites of the Milky Way and M31, the radial distribution
117: of luminous satellites, and the morphological segregation of dwarf
118: irregular (dIrr) and dwarf spheroidal (dSph) galaxies. Recent
119: $N$-body simulations of \citet*{Madau_Diemand_Kuhlen_2008}, with the
120: updated WMAP3 cosmological parameters, have confirmed the qualitative
121: picture of KGK04.
122:
123: The amount of observational data for Local Group dwarfs has been
124: increasing steadily in the
125: last several years, shifting the focus from simply counting the number
126: of dwarf galaxies to deriving their detailed star formation histories
127: (SFHs). Most Local Group dwarfs have now been observed with the {\it
128: HST}, which has provided color-magnitude diagrams of resolved stellar
129: populations in single or multiple fields \citep{2005Dolphin_et_al,
130: Holtzman_et_al_2006}. We parametrize these data as the fractions of
131: stars formed in the last 1~Gyr, 2~Gyr, 5~Gyr, and 10~Gyr, and present
132: these fractions in our Table \ref{tab:sfdata_lg}. The data show a
133: great variety of star formation histories -- some continuous, some
134: bursty, some truncated. In this paper we extend the model of KGK04 to
135: account for such varied histories of the Local Group dwarfs and argue
136: that adding a stochastic threshold to the star formation law greatly improves
137: the comparison between models and observations.
138: We also make predictions for the number of ultra-faint satellites of
139: the Milky Way and M31 of which there have been many recent discoveries
140: with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) and the MegaCam survey
141: \citep{Belokurov2006, Belokurov2007, Irwin2007, Liu_etal08, Martin2006,
142: SimonGeha2007, Walsh2007, Willman2005a, Willman2005b, Zucker2004,
143: Zucker2006b, Zucker2006, Zucker2007}.
144:
145: Our approach is complementary to running full hydrodynamic simulations
146: of galaxy formation. We attempt to model star formation with a
147: phenomenological recipe, containing several but not too many free
148: parameters. We investigate the effects of varying each of these
149: parameters and constrain them by comparing the model predictions
150: for each parameter set with the observations. In this way,
151: we obtain empirical rules that
152: govern star formation in dwarf galaxies, even though we may not yet
153: fully understand their physical origin. In an alternative approach,
154: one uses cosmological hydrodynamic simulations with a detailed
155: prescription for gas cooling and star formation, and thus obtains more
156: physically sound results. Discrepancies between the
157: simulation results and the data may, however, be difficult to interpret
158: or computationally expensive to investigate. By combining the two approaches,
159: our empirical rules will guide future developments of more sophisticated
160: models of galaxy formation.
161:
162: The paper is organized as follows. We give a brief summary of the
163: observational data in \S\ref{sec:obs}. We describe our model in
164: \S\ref{sec:model} and report the primary results from adding
165: stochasticity to the star formation law in \S\ref{sec:threshold}. In
166: \S\ref{sec:other} we describe the results of several variants of our
167: star formation model, including late accretion of gas, steeper slopes
168: of the Schmidt law, an extended epoch of reionization, and rejection
169: of galaxies with delayed star formation; none of these changes
170: significantly alters our results. In \S\ref{sec:lowmass} we show our
171: model projections for the new low-mass dwarfs, and in
172: \S\ref{sec:conclusions} we summarize our main results.
173:
174:
175:
176: % Table 1
177: \begin{table*}%\scriptsize
178: \begin{center}
179: \caption{ Star Formation Histories of Satellite Galaxies of MW and M31
180: \label{tab:sfdata_lg}}
181: \begin{tabular}{lcccrcllllr}
182: \tableline\tableline\\
183: \multicolumn{1}{l}{Galaxy} &
184: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Alternate Name} &
185: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Type} &
186: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Host} &
187: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_{\rm host}$ (kpc)} &
188: \multicolumn{1}{c}{log$(M_{*,\sun})$} &
189: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$f_{1G}$} &
190: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$f_{2G}$} &
191: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$f_{5G}$} &
192: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$f_{10G}$} &
193: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\age$ (Gyr)}
194: \\[2mm] \tableline\\
195: \noindent M33 & NGC598 & Sc & M31 & 203 & 9.9 & 0.093 & & & 0.52 & 8.4 \\%Dolphin data (f1G = b1G/14), r_host inferred from McConnachie et al. 2004
196: %LMC & & & & 6.3 & 0.107 & & & 0.82 & 9.739 \\%Dolphin data, f1G = b1G/14, M* inferred from Lv
197: LMC & & Irr & MW & 50 & 9.7 & 0.078 & 0.17 & 0.42 & 0.70 & 6.7 \\%Cole et al 2001 data
198: %NGC55 & & & & & & & & & 9.542 & & \\ %Note that NGC55 is d > 1 h^-1 kpc
199: %SMC & & & & & 0.093 & & & 0.69 & $7.17^f$ & 9.167 & & \\ %Dolphin data, f1G = b1G/14
200: SMC & & Irr & MW & 63 & 9.2 & 0.096 & 0.18 & 0.48 & 0.65 & 6.6 \\ %Harris & Zaritsky 2004
201: M32 & NGC221 & dE & M31 & 6 & 9.1 & 0.042 & & & 0.50 & 8.5 \\%Dolphin data, f1G = b1G/14
202: NGC205 & M110 & dE & M31 & 58 & 9.0 & 0.0049 & 0.0050 & 0.055 & 0.48 & 10.5 \\ %Mult fields (Weisz data)
203: IC10 & & dIrr & M31 & 255 & 8.7 & 0.060 & 0.14 & 0.52 & 0.75 & 7.1 \\ %Single field (Weisz data)
204: NGC6822 & & dIrr & MW & 500 & 8.7 & 0.087 & 0.16 & 0.57 & 0.68 & 6.9 \\ %Mult fields (Weisz data)
205: NGC3109 & & dIrr & MW & 1360 & 8.7 & 0.054 & 0.065 & 0.084 & 0.12 & 11.1 \\ %Single field (Weisz data)
206: NGC185 & & dSph & M31 & 175 & 8.6 & 0.0053 & 0.0053 & 0.090 & 0.51 & 10.5 \\ %Mult fields (Weisz data)
207: NGC147 & & dSph & M31 & 101 & 8.4 & 0.032 & 0.036 & 0.050 & 0.17 & 12.4 \\ %Mult fields (Weisz data)
208: IC1613 & & dIrr & M31 & 505 & 8.3 & 0.059 & 0.11 & 0.42 & 0.64 & 7.7 \\ %Mult fields (Weisz data)
209: %IC5152 & & & & 8.3 & 0.042 & 0.042 & 0.13 & 0.82 & 8.4 \\ %Single field (Weisz data) Too far away!!
210: WLM & DDO221 & dIrr & M31 & 840 & 8.2 & 0.14 & 0.35 & 0.55 & 0.69 & 6.7 \\ %Mult fields (Weisz data)
211: Sex B & DDO70 & dIrr & MW & 1320 & 8.2 & 0.049 & 0.067 & 0.11 & 0.21 & 11.1 \\ %Single field (Weisz data)
212: Sex A & DDO75 & dIrr & MW & 1440 & 7.9 & 0.15 & 0.29 & 0.38 & 0.41 & 9.3 \\ %Mult fields (Weisz data)
213: Sagittarius & & dSph & MW & 28 & 7.7 & 0.0008 & 0.0008 & 0.52 & 0.86 & 6.5 \\ %Mult fields (Weisz data)
214: Fornax & & dSph & MW & 138 & 7.5 & 0.013 & 0.059 & 0.33 & 0.73 & 7.4 \\ %Single field (Weisz data)
215: UGC4879 & VV124 & dIrr & MW & 1100 & 7.3 \\
216: Pegasus & DDO216 & dIrr & M31 & 410 & 7.2 & 0.057 & 0.095 & 0.40 & 0.64 & 7.4 \\ %Single field (Weisz data)
217: UGCA92 & EGB\_0427+63 & dIrr & MW & 1300 & 7.2 & & & & & \\ %Note that UGCA93 is d < 1 h^-1 Mpc !!
218: %Holtzman does have one, off center hubble field
219: %for this object, SFH may yet materialize
220: %UGCA438 & UKS2323-326 & dIrr & MW & 1320 & 7.2 & & & & & \\ % New distance obs. give d > 1 h^-1 Mpc
221: % Makarova et al. 2005, A&A 433, 751
222: %Holtzman does have two hubble fields for this
223: %object, SFH may yet materialize
224: Sag DIG & ESO594-4 & dIrr & MW & 1060 & 7.1 & 0.11 & 0.17 & 0.20 & 0.20 & 11.6 \\ %Single field (Weisz data)
225: AndVII & Cassiopia dSph & dSph & M31 & 216 & 7.1 & 0.016 & 0.022 & 0.022 & 0.025 & 12.9 \\
226: AndI & & dSph & M31 & 48 & 7.1 & 0.0038 & 0.0098 & 0.087 & 0.67 & 8.9 \\ %Single field (Weisz data)
227: AndII & & dSph & M31 & 160 & 7.0 & 0.0049 & 0.0086 & 0.076 & 0.50 & 9.2 \\ %Single field (Weisz data)
228: AndVI & Pegasus dSph & dSph & M31 & 266 & 6.9 & 0.0023 & 0.023 & 0.19 & 0.60 & 9.0 \\ %Single field (Weisz data)
229: Leo A & DDO69 & dIrr & MW & 800 & 6.8 & 0.13 & 0.31 & 0.65 & 0.78 & 6.2 \\ %Mult fields (Weisz data)
230: Antlia & & dSph & MW & 1330 & 6.8 & 0.043 & & & 0.43 & 9.0 \\%Dolphin data, f1G = b1G/14
231: LeoI & DDO74 & dSph & MW & 270 & 6.8 & 0.0099 & 0.18 & 0.50 & 0.76 & 6.4 \\ %Single field (Weisz data)
232: %GR8? & DDO155 & & & 7.1 & & & & & \\ % GR8 is too far out, d> 1 h^-1 kpc
233: Aquarius & DDO210 & dIrr & MW & 950 & 6.7 & 0.037 & 0.083 & 0.12 & 0.12 & 12.0 \\ %Single field (Weisz data)
234: AndIII & & dSph & M31 & 68 & 6.5 & 0.0022 & 0.0061 & 0.10 & 0.47 & 9.8 \\ %Single field (Weisz data)
235: Cetus & & dSph & M31 & 680 & 6.4 & 0.0045 & 0.013 & 0.17 & 0.52 & 9.9 \\ %Single field (Weisz data)
236: LGS3 & Pisces & dIrr & M31 & 284 & 6.3 & 0.015 & 0.046 & 0.16 & 0.43 & 9.8 \\ %Single field (Weisz data)
237: LeoII & DDO93 & dSph & MW & 205 & 6.3 & 0.0028 & 0.012 & 0.025 & 0.70 & 8.8 \\ %Single field (Weisz data)
238: Phoenix & & dIrr & MW & 405 & 6.3 & 0.027 & 0.071 & 0.23 & 0.42 & 10.3 \\ %Mult fields (Weisz data)
239: Sculptor & & dSph & MW & 88 & 6.3 & 0.010 & 0.016 & 0.026 & 0.14 & 12.6 \\ %Single field (Weisz data)
240: Tucana & & dSph & MW & 870 & 6.2 & 0.0048 & 0.011 & 0.014 & 0.30 & 11.6 \\ %Single field (Weisz data)
241: AndXV & & dSph & M31 & 170 & 6.2 \\
242: AndXVI & & dSph & M31 & 270 & 6.1 \\
243: Sextans & & dSph & MW & 86 & 6.1 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 12.0 \\%Dolphin data, f1G = b1G/14
244: AndV & & dSph & M31 & 117 & 6.0 & 0.0045 & 0.048 & 0.066 & 0.35 & 10.8 \\ %Single field (Weisz data)
245: Carina & & dSph & MW & 94 & 6.0 & 0.0065 & 0.0077 & 0.43 & 0.67 & 7.1 \\ %Single field (Weisz data)
246: Draco & DDO208 & dSph & MW & 79 & 5.9 & 0.0004 & 0.010 & 0.025 & 0.49 & 10.9 \\ %Single field (Weisz data)
247: Ursa Minor & DDO199 & dSph & MW & 69 & 5.9 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 12.0 \\%Dolphin data, f1G = b1G/14
248: AndX & & dSph & M31 & 110 & 5.9 & & & & & \\ % From Zucker et al 2007
249: AndXIV & & dSph & M31 & 162 & 5.8 \\
250: AndXVII & & dSph & M31 & 44 & 5.8 & & & & & \\ % From Irwin et al 2008
251: AndIX & & dSph & M31 & 45 & 5.7 & & & & & \\ % From Zucker et al 2004
252: \tableline
253: \end{tabular}
254: \end{center}
255: {\small {\sc Notes.}---Listed are all presently known satellite
256: galaxies of the MW and M31 within 1 $h^{-1}$ Mpc of either host, with
257: stellar mass $M_* > 5 \times 10^5\, \Msun$. Star formation data are
258: shown if available -- here we parameterize the SFH in terms of the
259: fraction of total stellar mass formed in the last 1, 2, 5, and 10 Gyr
260: (i.e., $f_{1G}$, $f_{2G}$, $f_{5G}$, $f_{10G}$) and the mean
261: mass-weighted stellar age, $\age$. Most of the star formation data
262: are derived from the Local Group Stellar Photometry Archive
263: \citep{Holtzman_et_al_2006}. Exceptions are M32, M33, Antlia, Sextans
264: and Ursa Minor, which are taken from \citet{2005Dolphin_et_al} and
265: $\age$ is estimated from the reported $f_{10G}$ value. The LMC data
266: are inferred from \citet{SmeckerHane2002}; SMC from
267: \citet{HarrisZaritsky2004}. Distances from the host, $r_{\rm host}$,
268: are directly taken or inferred from \citet{Grebel_et_al_2003}
269: with some exceptions: AndX \citep{Zucker2007},
270: AndXIV \citep{majewski_etal07}, AndXV and AndXVI \citep{ibata_etal07},
271: AndXVII \citep{Irwin_et_al_2008}, UGC4879 \citep{kopylov_etal08}, UGCA 92 \citep{Mateo1998},
272: and M33 \citep{McConnachie_etal2004}.
273: Stellar mass, $M_*$, is from \citet{DekelWoo2003}, except for M32 and
274: Sagittarius, whose values are estimated using $M_*/L_V = 3\
275: \Msun/\Lsun$, with $L_V$ from \citet{Mateo1998}; similarly we estimate
276: $M_*$ for AndIX, AndX, AndXIV, AndXV, AndXVI, AndXVII and UGC 4879 from
277: the quoted $L_V$ or $M_V$ in the same references cited for $r_{\rm
278: host}$.
279: \vspace{0.5cm}}
280: \end{table*}
281:
282:
283:
284: \section{Observed Star Formation Histories}
285: \label{sec:obs}
286:
287: The star formation data used in this study, and listed in
288: Table~\ref{tab:sfdata_lg}, come primarily from Hubble Space Telescope
289: observations with the WFPC2 camera. For a majority of the dwarfs, the
290: SFHs were measured by the color-magnitude diagram fitting method,
291: described in \citet{Dolphin2002}, using photometric data from the
292: Local Group Stellar Photometry
293: Archive\footnote[1]{http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/holtz/archival/html/lg.html}
294: \citep{Holtzman_et_al_2006}. We condense the data into five
295: parameters -- the fractions of stellar mass formed in the last 1, 2,
296: 5, and 10 Gyr, respectively ($f_{1G}$, $f_{2G}$, $f_{5G}$, $f_{10G}$),
297: and the mass-weighted mean age of the stellar population ($\age$).
298: The HST observations included in archive are far from homogeneous,
299: and, therefore, the uncertainties in the derived star formation
300: histories cover a broad range. However, by concentrating on
301: cumulative star formation fractions the uncertainties are greatly
302: reduced, compared to specific star formation rates at specific times.
303: Thus, the entries in Table~\ref{tab:sfdata_lg} do not have associated
304: errors. Constraining comparisons between models and observations to
305: cumulative distributions greatly reduces the sensitivity of these
306: comparisons to uncertainties in individual galaxies.
307:
308: Note that the observed {\it HST} fields do not necessarily cover the
309: full extent of each galaxy and, therefore, do not allow us to calculate
310: the total stellar mass. For the estimate of total stellar mass, with
311: a few exceptions, we take the values quoted in \citet{DekelWoo2003}.
312:
313: The rest of the SFHs are taken from a variety of sources, as indicated
314: in the notes to Table \ref{tab:sfdata_lg}. In the case of the LMC, the
315: star formation data are inferred from \citet{SmeckerHane2002}. Since
316: they give the star formation rates per unit area, in units of $\Msun\,
317: {\rm yr}^{-1}\, {\rm deg}^{-2}$, separately for the disk and the bar
318: of the LMC, we assume that the extent of the disk is 3.5 times larger
319: than the extent of the bar in determining the star formation fractions
320: and the mean age (A.~A. Cole, personal communication).
321:
322: The star formation histories for five dwarfs (M32, M33, Antlia,
323: Sextans, Ursa Minor) are taken from Table 1 of
324: \citet{2005Dolphin_et_al}. Since that table does not include the
325: fraction of a galaxy's star formation in the last $2$ Gyr or $5$ Gyr,
326: our table is also missing these entries, except for Sextans and Ursa
327: Minor. \citet{2005Dolphin_et_al} reported that Sextans and Ursa Minor
328: have formed no stars in the past 10 Gyr (i.e., $f_{10G} = 0$), which
329: implies that the fractions of stars formed in the last 1~Gyr, 2~Gyr,
330: and 5~Gyr are also consistent with zero.
331:
332: For the purpose of comparing the radial distributions of different
333: morphological types with model predictions, we combine the Sc, Irr,
334: and dIrr types into one broadly-defined ``dIrr'' group, and the dE,
335: dSph types into the ``dSph'' group.
336:
337: One object not included in Table~\ref{tab:sfdata_lg} is the Canis Major
338: dwarf, discovered by \citet{martin_etal04} in the SDSS field, which
339: could be part of a larger Monoceros tidal stream. This object is the
340: closest discovered to the Galaxy, at a heliocentric distance of only 8
341: kpc. Whether this galaxy is still gravitationally self-bound is
342: unclear at present \citep{butler_etal07}, but in any case it is
343: being strongly tidally disrupted. An additional reason for not
344: including it in our comparison is that such an object would have been
345: completely disrupted in the $N$-body numerical simulation used to
346: construct our models.
347:
348: Note also that Table~\ref{tab:sfdata_lg} does not include any of the
349: newly-discovered SDSS and MegaCam ultrafaint dwarfs, since they are
350: likely to have stellar masses below $5~\times~10^5\,~\Msun$. We list
351: these new objects in Table~\ref{tab:lowmass_tbl} and compare their
352: estimated stellar mass function with the predictions of our fiducial
353: model in \S\ref{sec:lowmass}.
354:
355:
356:
357: % Figure 1
358: \begin{figure*}[p]
359: \vspace{-1.0cm}
360: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f1.eps, angle=0, width=7.0in}}
361: %\plotone{f1.eps}
362: \vspace{-1.6cm}
363: \caption{{\it Top four panels:} Cumulative distributions of the
364: fractions of stellar mass formed in the last 1, 2, 5, and 10 Gyr. The
365: $f_{1G}$ and $f_{2G}$ fractions reflect recent star formation, while
366: the $f_{5G}$ and $f_{10G}$ fractions represent the overall star
367: formation history. Solid line shows the data for the Local Group.
368: Gray shaded region shows the spread of predictions of the KGK04 model,
369: for 10 random realizations of the model. Dashed region shows the
370: range predicted by our model with a stochastic star formation
371: threshold, $\epsilon_* = 0.1$, also for 10 realizations. The numbers
372: in parentheses show the Kolmogorov-Smirnov probability of the model
373: average being consistent with the data. {\it Bottom left:} cumulative
374: distribution of the mass-weighted mean age of stellar population.
375: {\it Bottom right:} Cumulative stellar mass function per host halo.}
376: \label{fig:sfplots}
377: \end{figure*}
378:
379: % Figure 2
380: \begin{figure*}[p]
381: \vspace{-0.2cm}
382: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f2.eps, angle=-0, width=7.39in}}
383: %\plotone{f2.eps}
384: \vspace{-0.8cm}
385: \caption{Three cumulative radial plots and a cumulative stellar mass
386: function comparing the data for observed Local Group dwarfs (solid
387: line) to three variants of the star formation model. The KGK04 model
388: (gray shaded region) does not include stochasticity in the star
389: formation density threshold, $\Sigma_{\rm th}$, (i.e., $\epsilon_* =
390: 0$) whereas the two other models include stochasticity with a
391: logarithmic dispersion $\epsilon_* = 0.1$ (contours of dotted lines)
392: and $\epsilon_* = 0.2$ (contours of dashed lines). The other
393: parameters of the Kennicutt-Schmidt law are kept the same for the
394: three models. The models include an intrinsic spread from the random
395: assignment of the angular momentum spin parameters to the halos. This
396: spread is shown here as a filled region, or contours outlining a
397: region, which encompasses the range of model predictions for 10 random
398: realizations of the model.}
399: \label{fig:radial}
400: \end{figure*}
401:
402:
403:
404: % Table 2
405: \begin{table*}[p]
406: \begin{center}
407: \caption{ \sc Stochastic Threshold of Star Formation Law
408: \label{tab:sfdata}}
409: \begin{tabular}{lccccc}
410: \tableline\tableline\\
411: \multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
412: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\epsilon_* = 0$} &
413: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\epsilon_* = 0.05$} &
414: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\epsilon_* = 0.1$} &
415: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\epsilon_* = 0.15$} &
416: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\epsilon_* = 0.2$}
417: \\[2mm] \tableline\\
418: $P_{KS}$: $r_{\rm all}$ & 3.1e-1 & 3.0e-1 & 2.5e-1 & 2.1e-1 & 2.2e-1 \\
419: $P_{KS}$: $r_{\rm dSph}$ & 3.7e-1 & 3.6e-1 & 3.8e-1 & 3.6e-1 & 4.9e-1 \\
420: $P_{KS}$: $r_{\rm dIrr}$ & 8.7e-2 & 5.2e-2 & 4.2e-2 & 3.3e-2 & 3.9e-2 \\
421: $P_{KS}$: $f_{1G}$ & 1.1e-19 & 2.0e-6 & 3.0e-3 & 3.1e-2 & 1.1e-1 \\
422: $P_{KS}$: $f_{2G}$ & 2.0e-16 & 3.4e-2 & 4.3e-1 & 3.6e-1 & 1.0e-1 \\
423: $P_{KS}$: $f_{5G}$ & 3.8e-13 & 2.5e-4 & 2.1e-2 & 7.8e-2 & 2.9e-1 \\
424: $P_{KS}$: $f_{10G}$ & 1.3e-1 & 9.9e-2 & 4.4e-2 & 1.6e-2 & 2.5e-3 \\
425: $P_{KS}$: $\age$ & 1.7e-3 & 1.3e-1 & 6.1e-1 & 3.8e-1 & 1.5e-1 \\
426: $P_{KS}$: $M_*$ & 6.2e-3 & 3.1e-3 & 3.4e-3 & 2.8e-3 & 1.2e-3 \\
427: Dwarfs per halo & 20 & 21 & 22 & 24 & 26 \\
428: \tableline
429: \end{tabular}
430: \end{center}
431: {\small
432: \begin{center}
433: {\sc Notes.}---Other fixed parameters are $\Sigma_{\rm th0} = 5
434: \Mpc2$, $\fsfr = 1$. The observed \\
435: number in the Local Group is 46/2 = 23 dwarfs per host halo.
436: \end{center}
437: }
438: \end{table*}
439:
440: %\clearpage
441:
442: \section{Star Formation Model}
443: \label{sec:model}
444:
445: The KGK04 model of star formation in dwarf galaxies is
446: based on the mass assembly history of dark matter halos in a
447: collisionless $\Lambda$CDM simulation of the Local Group-like
448: environment. The simulation volume contains three large host halos,
449: with virial masses $(1.2-1.7) \times 10^{12}\ h^{-1}\ \Msun$ at $z=0$,
450: resolved with $\sim 10^6$ dark matter particles. The model
451: incorporates the accretion of gas in hierarchical mergers and the loss
452: of gas caused by the extragalactic UV background (following the
453: filtering mass approach of \citealt{Gnedin2000}), and includes both a
454: continuous mode and a starburst mode of star formation.
455:
456: The model assumes that in the satellite halos the accreted gas
457: dissipates its energy via radiative cooling and forms a disk. The
458: surface density of the gas follows an exponential profile,
459: \begin{equation}
460: \Sigma_{g}(r) = \Sigma_0 \exp{(-r / r_d)},
461: \label{eq:gas_radial}
462: \end{equation}
463: with the scale length $r_d$ set by the satellite halo's virial radius
464: $r_{\rm vir}$ and angular spin parameter $\lambda$:
465: \begin{equation}
466: r_d = \lambda \, r_{\rm vir} \, 2^{-1/2} \,
467: \exp{\left[{c (V_4/V_{\rm max})^2}\right]}.
468: \label{eq:r_d}
469: \end{equation}
470: The last factor accounts for the less efficient gas dissipation in
471: small halos with the virial temperature $T_{\rm vir} \lesssim {\rm
472: few} \times 10^4$ K, or equivalently, maximum circular velocity
473: $V_{\rm max} \lesssim 50$ km s$^{-1}$. This factor is written in
474: terms of $V_4 \equiv 16.7$ km s$^{-1}$, the virial velocity
475: corresponding to the virial temperature $T_{\rm vir} = 10^4$ K, and a
476: constant, $c = 10$, chosen to reproduce the correct total number of
477: dwarfs. This important factor, coupled with the density threshold for
478: star formation, suppresses star formation in most low-mass halos.
479: Equation (\ref{eq:r_d}) is consistent with results of recent
480: hydrodynamic simulations of galaxy formation
481: \citep{KravstovGnedin2005, tassis_etal08}. An alternative
482: parametrization of dwarf gaseous disks with a temperature floor at
483: $\sim 10^4$ K is given by \citet{kaufmann_etal07}. In their model the
484: disks are vertically puffed-up, which works to the same effect to
485: reduce the gas density. The observed stellar core radii in the Local
486: Group dwarfs are a factor of $2-3$ smaller than those predicted by our
487: model, which may favor the vertical expansion over the radial one
488: assumed here. However, since it would not change the surface density
489: $\Sigma_{g}$, we cannot fit it in our framework of the
490: Kennicutt-Schmidt law of star formation.
491:
492: The spin parameter $\lambda$ is drawn randomly from a standard
493: log-normal distribution with $\bar{\lambda} = 0.045$ and
494: $\sigma_\lambda = 0.56$ \citep[][]{Vitvitska02, Hernandez07}. This
495: adds an intrinsic variance in the predictions of the star formation
496: model. While the KGK04 model used only one set of the
497: randomly-selected $\lambda$ values to compare with the observations,
498: in this paper we take 10 random realizations of each model, in order
499: to account for this intrinsic variance.
500:
501: The gaseous disk is modeled spatially by 50 radial zones. At each
502: simulation output epoch (about every $10^8$ yr), the newly accreted
503: gas is added to these radial zones, according to the exponential
504: profile of eq. (\ref{eq:gas_radial}). In each zone, the rate of star
505: formation is determined by the Kennicutt-Schmidt law:
506: \begin{equation}
507: \dot{\Sigma}_{*} = 2.5 \times 10^{-4} \fsfr
508: \left({\Sigma_{g} \over 1 \Mpc2}\right)^n
509: \ \Msun \, {\rm kpc}^{-2} \, {\rm yr}^{-1},
510: \end{equation}
511: wherever the gas density, $\Sigma_{g}$, exceeds the threshold,
512: $\Sigma_{\rm th}$ \citep{kennicutt98}. Standard parameters are $n
513: \approx 1.4$, $\fsfr = 1$, and $\Sigma_{\rm th} = 5 \, \Mpc2$. Most
514: of the variants of the model discussed in this paper employ this star
515: formation law but with an important addition, described in
516: \S\ref{sec:threshold} below.
517:
518: In addition to this quiescent mode of star formation, the model also
519: allows a starburst mode prompted by strong tidal interactions with other
520: halos (see section 6.1 in KGK04). In this mode there is no density
521: threshold and even galaxies with $\Sigma_{g} < \Sigma_{\rm th}$
522: can form stars if a strong enough interaction occurs.
523:
524: Finally, the effect of stellar evolution is taken into account
525: following \citet{prieto_gnedin06}. They find that some 40\% of the
526: initial stellar mass is lost to stellar wind and supernovae after
527: $5-10$ Gyr, given the assumptions of the initial stellar mass function
528: from \citet{kroupa01}, stellar remnant masses as a function of initial
529: stellar mass from \citet{chernoff_weinberg90}, and main sequence
530: lifetimes from \citet{hurley_etal00}. In the models investigated here
531: we simply assume that 40\% of the initial stellar mass is lost between
532: the time when the stars formed and the present day. We do not
533: ``recycle'' the liberated gas back into the ISM, which would make it
534: available to form more stars. As a result our estimate of the stellar
535: masses are the lower limit of the true masses -- a simple decrease
536: of the total stellar mass, $M_*$, for each dwarf by a factor of $0.6$.
537: Accordingly, the $f_{[1,2,5,10]G}$ and $\tau$ values are unchanged
538: by stellar evolution in our models and since the {\it HST} photometry
539: for the Milky Way satellites is typically good enough to measure
540: the main sequence stars we simply compare the observed
541: $f_{[1,2,5,10]G}$ and $\tau$ values (Table~\ref{tab:sfdata_lg}) to the
542: same quantities for the simulated dwarfs without any corrections.
543:
544: We mark as luminous (having corrected $M_*$ for stellar evolution as
545: just described) those satellite halos with a predicted stellar
546: mass $M_* > 5 \times 10^5\, \Msun$ at $z=0$. Such a cutoff agrees
547: with the observational limit of all Local Group dwarfs (Table
548: \ref{tab:sfdata_lg}) known until a few years ago, when the ultrafaint
549: dwarfs were discovered. We defer the discussion of the model
550: predictions for these low-mass objects until \S\ref{sec:lowmass}.
551:
552: As in KGK04, we do a rough morphological classification of dwarf
553: galaxies as dSph or dIrr based on the ratio of the stellar rotation
554: velocity to the velocity dispersion: $v_{\rm rot}/\sigma < 3$ for dSph
555: and $v_{\rm rot}/\sigma > 3$ for dIrr. In the model, the rotation
556: velocity is calculated as the circular velocity at the outer-most
557: stellar radius, as it would be measured in observation, while the
558: velocity dispersion is estimated from the amount of external tidal
559: heating in strong tidal interactions with other halos. Such
560: classification does not take into account the recent star formation
561: activity or the remaining gas content, and therefore, is only a crude
562: indication of the observationally defined morphological type.
563: Comparison of these model predictions to the data is, in fact,
564: completely complementary to the comparison of the star formation
565: histories.
566:
567: In the process of revising our models we have discovered that the gas
568: densities $\Sigma_{g}$ in \citet{tumultuous04} were underestimated
569: by a factor of 2 due to an error in the code. When we quote the
570: results for the KGK04 model here, we use the corrected values.
571:
572:
573:
574:
575: \subsection{Discrepancies of KGK04 Model with Star Formation Data}
576: \label{sec:kgk}
577:
578: Despite significant successes in explaining the number and spatial
579: distribution of the Local Group dwarfs, the KGK04 model did not
580: predict a sufficient amount of recent star formation. Figure
581: \ref{fig:sfplots} shows that 95\% of the dwarfs in that model have not
582: formed any stars in the last 1 Gyr, in serious disagreement with data.
583:
584: To quantify the level of this disagreement, we use the
585: Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test for cumulative distribution functions of
586: the following parameters: the distance to the host ($r_{\rm all}$),
587: the distances for the dSph and dIrr galaxies separately ($r_{\rm
588: dSph}$ and $r_{\rm dIrr}$), the star formation fractions ($f_{1G}$,
589: $f_{2G}$, $f_{5G}$, $f_{10G}$), the mean age ($\age$), and the stellar
590: mass ($M_*$). Table~\ref{tab:sfdata} shows that the recent star
591: formation fractions in the KGK04 model (see column $\epsilon_*=0$)
592: have very low KS probabilities, below $10^{-12}$. On the other hand,
593: the $f_{10G}$ fraction, which is a more global measure of the overall
594: star formation, is consistent with the data at the 13\% level. Thus
595: the star formation law used in the model is not necessarily at fault,
596: but the apparent lack of recent star formation is a direct result of
597: the fixed star formation threshold, as we will see below.
598:
599: The mean mass-weighted age is also inconsistent with the data, but at
600: a less significant level ($P_{KS} \sim 10^{-3}$). The mean age is a
601: global, integral measure of the SFH, which combines the
602: low-probability recent star formation with a higher-probability early
603: star formation. The stellar age is systematically overestimated in
604: the model, by a few Gyr.
605:
606: The total stellar mass is also overestimated by a factor of several
607: for most dwarfs. The cumulative mass function is inconsistent with
608: the data at a level similar to the age distribution, $P_{KS} \sim
609: 10^{-3}$.
610:
611: Note also that KGK04 considered principally the satellite dwarfs located
612: within the virial radius of the host galaxy at $r < 200 \, h^{-1}$
613: kpc. We extend our analysis to all dwarfs in the Local Group, even
614: the potentially isolated ones lying outside the virial radius of
615: either host. Figure~\ref{fig:radial} shows their cumulative radial
616: distribution out to $1000 \, h^{-1}$ kpc. The KGK04 model does well
617: for the distribution of all dwarfs and the distribution of Irr/dIrr
618: types separately. The model slightly overestimates the number of
619: dSph/dE types outside $200 \, h^{-1}$ kpc, but in all cases the KS
620: probability is $\sim 10$\% or higher, fully consistent with the
621: observations.
622:
623: Our phenomenological model contains several parameters that allow for
624: some freedom in the outcome. Two of the most
625: important parameters in the model are the threshold density
626: $\Sigma_{\rm th}$ and the disk size parameter, $c$ (eq. \ref{eq:r_d}),
627: both of which are difficult to know, {\it a priori}, from theory.
628: Since these parameters can significantly change the predicted total
629: number of dwarfs, the observed number of ($M_* > 5 \times 10^5 M_\odot$)
630: dwarfs provides a fairly stringent constraint on these values. For
631: example, with $c=10$ and $\Sigma_{\rm th} = 5 \, \Mpc2$, the predicted
632: average number of dwarfs per host halo within 1~$h^{-1}$~Mpc is 20.5.
633: If we take $c=5$ (with $\Sigma_{\rm th} = 5 \, \Mpc2$) this number
634: increases to 40.7, and if we take $c=15$ the number of dwarfs drops to
635: 14.3. Analogously, reducing the threshold density to 4 and $3 \, \Mpc2$
636: (with $c=10$) increases the average number to 21.7 and 22.3,
637: respectively. None of these fixed threshold models, however, adequately
638: reproduces the observed star formation histories. Therefore, we look for
639: additional physical ingredients for our model.
640:
641: In our extension of the KGK04 model, we attempt to retain the correct
642: radial distribution of the dwarf galaxies, while improving the
643: predictions for their star formation histories.
644:
645:
646:
647: \section{Stochastic Star Formation Threshold}
648: \label{sec:threshold}
649:
650: We consider a number of modifications to the KGK04 model. The most
651: promising of the modifications is the introduction of a stochastic
652: threshold to the star formation law.
653:
654: At each output epoch through the course of the simulation, the
655: threshold density for star formation is drawn from a log-normal
656: distribution with a mean value $\Sigma_{\rm th0}$ and a small
657: dispersion $\epsilon_* \sim 0.1$:
658: \begin{equation}
659: P(\Sigma_{\rm th}) \; d\Sigma_{\rm th}
660: = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi} \epsilon_*}
661: \exp{\left[{-\frac{(\log{\Sigma_{\rm th}} - \log{\Sigma_{\rm th0}})^2}
662: {2\epsilon_*^2}}\right]} \; d\Sigma_{\rm th}.
663: \label{eq:sig_distrib}
664: \end{equation}
665: As a fiducial mean value we take $\Sigma_{\rm th0} = 5 \Mpc2$, but we
666: also vary that parameter in some runs.
667:
668: What does this stochastic threshold mean? And what, physically, is
669: the threshold of star formation? We apply it to the
670: azimuthally-averaged surface density of gas. In nearby star forming
671: regions, which we can study directly with {\it HST} and {\it Spitzer},
672: stars form in dense molecular clouds
673: \citep[e.g.,][]{mckee_ostriker07}. Locally the density is high, but
674: the azimuthal average at a particular distance $r$ from the center may
675: be either high (if molecular clouds are common at $r$) or low (if they
676: are rare). Thus, by invoking the threshold $\Sigma_{\rm th}$, we are
677: effectively parameterizing the fraction of molecular gas available for
678: star formation. When we take the threshold to vary, we are thus
679: accounting for stochastic star formation in isolated HII regions, such
680: as those found by {\it GALEX} in nearby spirals
681: \citep{thilker_etal07}.
682:
683: Nearby dwarf galaxies often show a very high HI gas fraction, i.e. the
684: ratio of gas mass to baryon (gas+stars) mass, up to 90\%
685: \citep{fisher_tully1975, geha_etal06, lee_etal06}. The current star
686: formation rates in those galaxies are low, and therefore most of the
687: gas is inert. Hydrodynamic simulations of
688: \citet{RobertsonKravtsov2007}, which treat the formation of molecular
689: hydrogen in detail, also suggest that dwarf disks may contain large
690: reservoirs of diffuse atomic gas that is unable to condense in
691: molecular clouds and participate in star formation. This inefficiency
692: of forming molecular clouds at low densities effectively results in
693: the threshold density for star formation.
694:
695:
696:
697: \subsection{A Major Improvement}
698:
699: Figure \ref{fig:sfplots} shows that the stochasticity greatly improves
700: the agreement of the recent star formation fractions ($f_{1G},
701: f_{2G}$, $f_{5G}$) with the Local Group data. The predicted
702: distributions are much closer to the observed ones than in the KGK04
703: model, and are, in fact, statistically consistent with each other at
704: $\sim 10\%$ level.
705:
706: We quantify this effect by gradually increasing the amount of
707: stochasticity, $\epsilon_*$. Table~\ref{tab:sfdata} shows the KS test
708: results for $\epsilon_*$ ranging from 0.05 to 0.2, which approximately
709: corresponds to 10\% to 60\% variation in the threshold density
710: $\Sigma_{\rm th}$. Even a small amount of stochasticity, $\epsilon_*
711: \sim 0.05$, leads to a dramatic improvement of the $f_{1G}, f_{2G}$,
712: and $f_{5G}$ statistics. The probabilities increase rapidly with
713: $\epsilon_*$ to a good fraction of a percent or more. The model with
714: $\epsilon_* = 0.1$ is already statistically consistent with the data.
715:
716: With the other parameters of the star formation law ($\Sigma_{\rm
717: th0}$ and $\fsfr$) being fixed, increasing $\epsilon_*$ leads to
718: better recent star formation parameters but worse early star formation
719: parameters. The probability of the $f_{10G}$ distribution decreases
720: from 13\% to under 5\% for $\epsilon_* = 0.1$ and even below a percent
721: for $\epsilon_* = 0.2$.
722:
723: The mean age is most consistent with the data ($P_{KS} = 0.61$) for
724: $\epsilon_* = 0.1$. The total number of dwarfs also increases
725: systematically with $\epsilon_*$ while the stellar mass function and
726: the radial distributions are not significantly affected by the
727: variation of $\epsilon_*$. Additionally, the $\epsilon_* = 0.15$ and
728: $\epsilon_* = 0.2$ models begin to overpredict the total number of
729: luminous dwarfs per host halo, implying that at these values the
730: overall star formation becomes too efficient. This overabundance can
731: be seen in Table~\ref{tab:sfdata}, or graphically in
732: Fig.~\ref{fig:radial}. Therefore, we take the case with $\epsilon_* =
733: 0.1$ as our fiducial model striking the best balance for all star
734: formation statistics. We consider other variants of the stochastic
735: model in \S\ref{sec:other}.
736:
737:
738:
739: % Figure 3
740: \begin{figure*}
741: \vspace{-0.5cm}
742: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f3.eps, angle=0, width=5.75in}}
743: %\plotone{f3.eps}
744: \vspace{-0.5cm}
745: \caption{{\it Left:} The star formation histories of two
746: simulated dwarfs in the KGK04 model, coarsened into 1 Gyr bins so as
747: to better resemble the time resolution of the data. The x-axis shows the
748: Age (i.e. of the isochrone) with the present epoch at 0 Gyr, going back to
749: the Big Bang at 14 Gyr. {\it Right:} The
750: gas density profiles for the two simulated galaxies that were used to
751: calculate their star formation rates, at five epochs. The
752: fixed star formation threshold is shown by the dashed
753: horizontal line.}
754: \label{fig:sfr_gasprofile}
755: \end{figure*}
756:
757:
758:
759: % Figure 4
760: \begin{figure*}
761: \vspace{-0.5cm}
762: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f4.eps, angle=0, width=5.75in}}
763: %\plotone{f4.eps}
764: \vspace{-0.5cm}
765: \caption{{\it Left:} The star formation histories of the two dwarfs
766: from Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:sfr_gasprofile} in the model with a
767: stochastic star formation threshold, $\epsilon_* = 0.1$ (dashed
768: histograms and quoted parameters). For comparison, shaded histograms
769: show the observed SFHs of NGC 3109 and IC 1613, normalized to the total
770: stellar mass cited in Table~\protect\ref{tab:sfdata_lg}. {\it Right:}
771: The gas density profiles at five epochs. The range of variation of
772: the star formation threshold is shown by dashed horizontal lines.
773: This range allows star formation to continue at late times.}
774: \label{fig:sfr_vs_sfr}
775: \end{figure*}
776:
777:
778:
779: \subsection{Reasons for Success}
780:
781: Figures~\ref{fig:sfr_gasprofile} and \ref{fig:sfr_vs_sfr} illustrate
782: why the stochasticity is so successful. They show star formation
783: histories and corresponding gas density profiles for two
784: representative model dwarfs. Figure~\ref{fig:sfr_gasprofile} is for
785: the case of a fixed density threshold, $\Sigma_{\rm th} = 5 \Mpc2$.
786: Without the stochasticity, and in the absence of radial gas flows, the
787: gas above the threshold is steadily converted into stars at early
788: times (10 and 12 Gyr ago) at substantial rates, $0.1~-~0.3\ \Msun~\rm{yr}^{-1}$. At these epochs the galaxies evolve effectively in
789: isolation, while still growing by gas-rich hierarchical mergers. At
790: later time, when these galaxies become satellites of the larger host
791: galaxy, they are tidally truncated and no new gas is accreted. After
792: the high-density gas supply is exhausted, the rest of the gas hovers
793: just under the threshold, unable to form new stars. In the first
794: dwarf, shown in the top panels in Figure~\ref{fig:sfr_gasprofile},
795: star formation almost completely halts
796: 8 Gyr ago. The other dwarf, shown in the bottom panels, experiences
797: several distinct episodes of star formation, the last one finishing 3
798: Gyr ago. In both cases there is effectively no star formation in the
799: last 2 Gyr, $f_{1G} \approx f_{2G} \approx 0$.
800:
801: If instead the threshold density varies in time, at later epochs the
802: gas may find itself above the threshold and allow more recent star
803: formation. Figure~\ref{fig:sfr_vs_sfr} shows the star formation
804: histories for the same dwarfs but now with a variable threshold and using
805: $\epsilon_* = 0.1$. There is more star formation overall and more
806: star formation at later times. As a result, the stellar mass is
807: higher by 20\% to 30\% and mean stellar age is lower by about 1 Gyr.
808: More importantly, several percent of all stars are formed in the last
809: 2 Gyr. This stochastic enhancement of the star formation rate allows
810: the model to reproduce the star formation episodes at late times when
811: gas-rich mergers (which increase the available gas supply) and strong
812: interactions (which can prompt starbursts) are relatively less common.
813:
814: We also show on Fig.~\ref{fig:sfr_vs_sfr} the observed star formation
815: histories of two dwarf galaxies, NGC 3109 and IC 1613. We do not expect
816: the model predictions to correspond in detail to the observed SFH
817: features, as our modeling is necessarily statistical and is aimed at
818: explaining not a specific galaxy's SFH but only an ensemble of SFHs of
819: many Local Group dwarfs. Still, qualitatively, the agreement between
820: the model and the data is good: in the case of NGC 3109 both show most
821: stars being formed at early times with a small fraction in the last 4 Gyr,
822: while in the case of IC 1613, both SFHs continue until the present in
823: several distinct, extended episodes.
824:
825:
826:
827: \subsection{Remaining Discrepancies}
828: \label{sec:discrepancies}
829:
830: Despite the impressive improvements, there still remain discrepancies
831: of the fiducial model with the observed data.
832:
833: First, there is still not quite enough very recent star formation, a
834: problem which is quantified by the KS-test result for $f_{1G}$ in
835: Table~\ref{tab:sfdata} ($P_{KS} \approx 3 \times 10^{-3}$) and is
836: apparent in Fig.~\ref{fig:sfplots}. The models with a higher amount
837: of stochasticity, $\epsilon_* = 0.15$ and $\epsilon_* = 0.2$, achieve
838: better agreement with the observed $f_{1G}$ distribution but they are
839: disfavored for skewing all other star formation statistics. Thus, in
840: the fiducial model ($\epsilon_* = 0.1$) over 25\% of the dwarfs have
841: less than $10^{-3}$ of their stars formed in the last 1 Gyr, compared
842: with about 10\% of such dwarfs in the observed sample. Note that the
843: current observations are sensitive to SFHs with large fractions of
844: star formation at later times. The very deep {\it HST} ACS imaging of Leo A
845: by \citet{cole_etal07} have confirmed that majority of all star
846: formation has occurred in the last half of the age of the universe.
847:
848: Second, the total stellar masses of the luminous dwarfs in the models
849: tend to be significantly above the observed stellar masses of the
850: Local Group dwarfs. This result is apparent for any value of
851: $\epsilon_*$ between 0 and 0.2 (see bottom right panel of
852: Fig.~\ref{fig:radial}). This excess stellar mass in our models can
853: perhaps be traced to the fact that we do not include thermal and
854: ionizing feedback from young massive stars \citep[e.g.,][]{DekelSilk1986,
855: DekelWoo2003}, which can disrupt molecular clouds and drive galactic
856: outflows, thus reducing the available gas supply for star formation.
857:
858: Third, the model does not predict enough very {\it early} star
859: formation. This is a generic problem with any hierarchical model in
860: which the presently-massive satellites form and accrete onto the host
861: late and, at early times, therefore, do not contain significant
862: amounts of gas above the threshold. Our model predicts that some 20\%
863: to 30\% of the dwarf galaxies will have formed greater than 85\% of
864: their stellar mass in the last 10 Gyr (i.e. $f_{10G} > 0.85$). In
865: other words, there exists in the model a number of dwarfs with
866: anomalously young stellar populations, whereas, by contrast, the Local
867: Group data in Table~\ref{tab:sfdata_lg} does not show any dwarfs
868: having formed more than 86\% of its stellar mass in the last 10~Gyr
869: (the Saggitarius dSph has the highest fraction) -- at least 14\% of
870: all stars in the observed dwarfs formed in the first 4 Gyr after the
871: Big Bang. Some of the simulated dwarfs with very young stellar
872: populations include objects which form the bulk of their stars in one,
873: punctuated star formation event caused by a close tidal interaction,
874: prompting a starburst which happened to occur in the last 10~Gyr. But
875: not all of the galaxies in this category form stars through the
876: starburst mode; other dwarfs with very young stellar populations form
877: all of their stars through the continuous mode with no starbursts at
878: all.
879:
880: % Table 3
881: \begin{table}[t]
882: \begin{center}
883: \caption{\sc Gas Accretion at $d < R_{\rm vir}$
884: \label{tab:late_acc}}
885: \begin{tabular}{lcc}
886: \tableline\tableline\\
887: \multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
888: \multicolumn{1}{c}{No} &
889: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Yes}
890: \\[2mm] \tableline\\
891: $P_{KS}$: $r_{\rm all}$ & 2.5e-1 & 2.4e-1 \\
892: $P_{KS}$: $r_{\rm dSph}$ & 3.8e-1 & 4.1e-1 \\
893: $P_{KS}$: $r_{\rm dIrr}$ & 4.2e-2 & 3.1e-2 \\
894: $P_{KS}$: $f_{1G}$ & 3.0e-3 & 9.1e-2 \\
895: $P_{KS}$: $f_{2G}$ & 4.3e-1 & 8.1e-1 \\
896: $P_{KS}$: $f_{5G}$ & 2.1e-2 & 1.9e-1 \\
897: $P_{KS}$: $f_{10G}$ & 4.4e-2 & 5.8e-3 \\
898: $P_{KS}$: $\age$ & 6.1e-1 & 3.8e-1 \\
899: $P_{KS}$: $M_*$ & 3.4e-3 & 6.3e-4 \\
900: Dwarfs per halo & 22 & 23 \\
901: \tableline
902: \end{tabular}
903: \end{center}
904: {\small {\sc Note.}---Other parameters are
905: $\epsilon_* = 0.1$, $\Sigma_{\rm th0} = 5 \Mpc2$, $\fsfr = 1$.}
906: \vspace{0.4cm}
907: \end{table}
908:
909:
910:
911: \section{Other Variants of Star Formation Model}
912: \label{sec:other}
913:
914: With the discrepancies discussed in \S\ref{sec:discrepancies} in mind,
915: we have explored several variants of our star formation model in order
916: to check if relaxing other model assumptions can improve the predicted
917: star formation histories to the point where there is broad agreement
918: with the observations.
919:
920:
921: \subsection{Gas Accretion within the Virial Radius}
922:
923: One of these alternate models is motivated by the lack of enough
924: recent star formation. In the KGK04 model and in the stochastic
925: models shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:sfplots} and \ref{fig:radial},
926: accretion of new gas onto the dwarf halos is shut off whenever the
927: dwarf comes within the virial radius of the host halo. This is based
928: on the expectation that satellite halos near their host would be
929: tidally truncated and unable to capture new gas even if they happen to
930: increase their dark matter mass in mergers with other satellite halos.
931: However, becoming a satellite does not immediately stop the halo's
932: star formation activity which can continue as long as the gas density
933: remains above the threshold or if a starburst event is triggered.
934:
935: In the first of these alternative models, we lift this assumption and allow
936: the accretion of new gas even within the virial radius of the host, at
937: $d < R_{\rm vir}$. As a result, the agreement between the model and
938: the data for the $f_{1G}$ distribution improves as indicated by the
939: KS-test results shown in Table~\ref{tab:late_acc} -- from the
940: rejection of the null hypothesis of the same-distribution at 0.3\%
941: significance level to rejection only at the 9\% level, essentially
942: statistically consistent.
943:
944: Qualitatively, the improvement is most dramatic for $f_{1G}$ since
945: allowing the additional accretion of gas is more important at late
946: times, and because the virial radius of the host halo will be larger
947: than at earlier epochs; also the dwarf galaxies at late times are
948: likely to be closer in. The extra gas is converted into extra stars
949: and so the $f_{1G}$ value increases and the typical mass of the dwarfs
950: increases. Generally, the extra accretion shifts the stellar age
951: distribution to be younger. However, another predicted feature of our models
952: is a tail of the age distribution at $\age~<~5$~Gyr. The extra accretion
953: exaggerates this tail since it increases recent star formation. In
954: contrast, the youngest dwarf galaxy in the Local Group is Leo A, with
955: $\age = 6.2$ Gyr (though see the Leo A SFH of \citealt{cole_etal07},
956: which has a significantly younger result for $\age$). This is
957: fundamentally the same problem as the existence of simulated dwarfs
958: with $f_{10G} > 0.85$, and the $f_{10G}$ distribution similarly
959: becomes less consistent with the data in this model.
960:
961:
962:
963: % Table 4
964: \begin{table}[t]
965: \begin{center}
966: \caption{\sc Slope of Schmidt law, $\dot{\Sigma}_{*} \propto \Sigma_{g}^n$
967: \label{tab:powerlaw}}
968: \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
969: \tableline\tableline\\
970: \multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
971: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$n = 1.4$} &
972: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$n = 1.4$} &
973: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$n = 2$} &
974: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$n = 3$}
975: \\[2mm] \tableline\\
976: $\fsfr$ & 1 & 0.5 & 0.14 & 0.012 \\
977: $P_{KS}$: $r_{\rm all}$ & 2.5e-1 & 2.5e-1 & 2.6e-1 & 2.6e-1 \\
978: $P_{KS}$: $r_{\rm dSph}$ & 3.8e-1 & 4.4e-1 & 4.2e-1 & 4.8e-1 \\
979: $P_{KS}$: $r_{\rm dIrr}$ & 4.2e-2 & 3.5e-2 & 3.3e-2 & 3.5e-2 \\
980: $P_{KS}$: $f_{1G}$ & 3.0e-3 & 1.4e-2 & 2.5e-2 & 8.3e-2 \\
981: $P_{KS}$: $f_{2G}$ & 4.3e-1 & 2.4e-1 & 2.4e-1 & 1.8e-1 \\
982: $P_{KS}$: $f_{5G}$ & 2.1e-2 & 1.1e-1 & 9.4e-2 & 1.3e-1 \\
983: $P_{KS}$: $f_{10G}$ & 4.4e-2 & 5.7e-3 & 7.7e-3 & 8.3e-3 \\
984: $P_{KS}$: $\age$ & 6.1e-1 & 1.1e-1 & 4.5e-1 & 5.2e-1 \\
985: $P_{KS}$: $M_*$ & 3.4e-3 & 3.7e-3 & 3.1e-3 & 5.0e-3 \\
986: Dwarfs per halo & 22 & 22 & 22 & 21 \\
987: \tableline
988: \end{tabular}
989: \end{center}
990: {\small
991: {\sc Note.}---Other parameters are
992: $\epsilon_* = 0.1$, $\Sigma_{\rm th0} = 5 \Mpc2$.}
993: \vspace{0.4cm}
994: \end{table}
995:
996:
997:
998: \subsection{Modifications of the Schmidt Law}
999:
1000: Another important question to be addressed is whether the observed
1001: SFHs, given our model assumptions, favor steepening of the
1002: Schmidt-Kennicutt law ($\dot{\Sigma}_{*} \propto \Sigma_g^n$). There
1003: is some evidence for the exponents $n$ to become gradually larger at
1004: low gas densities in dwarf galaxies (e.g., \citealt{boissier_etal03,
1005: heyer_etal04}; see also discussion in
1006: \citealt{RobertsonKravtsov2007}). Since most of our dwarfs are close
1007: to the threshold, we investigate this effect simply by changing the
1008: exponent at all densities, setting it to $n = 1.4$, 2, or 3. For each
1009: of these values, the normalization $\fsfr$ is allowed to float such
1010: that the overall star formation efficiency is lowered until the point
1011: where the median of the age distribution, $\age_{\rm med}$, of the
1012: simulated dwarfs matches that of the Local Group galaxies, 9.25 Gyr.
1013:
1014: Table~\ref{tab:powerlaw} shows the required values of $\fsfr$ and the
1015: results of KS-tests. The rather high significance results from the KS
1016: tests applied to the $\age$-distribution are not particularly
1017: surprising since the normalization of the star formation law has been
1018: fine-tuned for this comparison. Qualitatively this exercise keeps the
1019: overall star formation rate the same, i.e. the stellar mass function
1020: is basically unchanged. And similarly the radial distributions stay
1021: roughly the same -- this is important since one of the primary
1022: successes of the KGK04 model was reproducing the observed radial
1023: distribution of the Local Group dwarfs, something that our models
1024: continue to do. Eventually the same amount of gas above the density
1025: threshold is converted into stars, so the rate at which star formation
1026: proceeds does not alter the total number or the radial distribution of
1027: the simulated dwarfs.
1028:
1029: By and large, all of the same discrepancies with the data listed in
1030: \S\ref{sec:discrepancies} are apparent in these models with different
1031: $n$ -- too large stellar masses, not enough recent star formation, and
1032: too much overall star formation in the last 10 Gyr. Arguably the \{$n
1033: = 3$, $\fsfr = 0.012$\} model is a best fit to the data for $f_{1G}$
1034: and $f_{5G}$, however the fiducial \{$n = 1.4$, $\fsfr = 1$\} model is
1035: still the best for $f_{2G}$ and $f_{10G}$. Further, comparisons of
1036: the stellar mass and the $\tau$-distribution are inconclusive as well.
1037:
1038:
1039: % Table 5
1040: \begin{table}
1041: \begin{center}
1042: \caption{\sc Reionization Scenarios
1043: \label{tab:reioniz}}
1044: \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
1045: \tableline\tableline\\
1046: \multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
1047: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Early} &
1048: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Extended} &
1049: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Fiducial} &
1050: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Late}
1051: \\[2mm] \tableline\\
1052: $z_r$ & 9 & 7 & 7 & 6 \\
1053: $z_o$ & 10 & 10 & 8 & 10 \\
1054: $P_{KS}$: $r_{\rm all}$ & 2.3e-1 & 2.9e-1 & 2.5e-1 & 3.2e-1 \\
1055: $P_{KS}$: $r_{\rm dSph}$ & 5.7e-1 & 5.6e-1 & 3.8e-1 & 5.3e-1 \\
1056: $P_{KS}$: $r_{\rm dIrr}$ & 4.2e-2 & 4.7e-2 & 4.2e-2 & 6.0e-2 \\
1057: $P_{KS}$: $f_{1G}$ & 1.6e-2 & 7.7e-3 & 3.0e-3 & 1.3e-2 \\
1058: $P_{KS}$: $f_{2G}$ & 7.7e-1 & 6.4e-1 & 4.3e-1 & 6.6e-1 \\
1059: $P_{KS}$: $f_{5G}$ & 1.2e-1 & 8.2e-2 & 2.1e-2 & 6.3e-2 \\
1060: $P_{KS}$: $f_{10G}$ & 4.8e-3 & 9.9e-3 & 4.4e-2 & 1.5e-2 \\
1061: $P_{KS}$: $\age$ & 6.3e-1 & 6.9e-1 & 6.1e-1 & 6.7e-1 \\
1062: $P_{KS}$: $M_*$ & 1.6e-3 & 1.3e-3 & 3.4e-3 & 2.4e-3 \\
1063: Dwarfs per halo & 20 & 19 & 22 & 18 \\
1064: \tableline
1065: \end{tabular}
1066: \end{center}
1067: {\small
1068: {\sc Notes.}---$z_r$ refers to the redshift when reionization is completed,
1069: while $z_o$ refers to the redshift where cosmic HII regions begin to
1070: overlap (see Appendix B in \citealt{tumultuous04} for details).
1071: Other parameters:
1072: $\epsilon_* = 0.1$, $\Sigma_{\rm th0} = 5 \Mpc2$, $\fsfr = 1$.}
1073: \vspace{0.4cm}
1074: \end{table}
1075:
1076:
1077:
1078: \subsection{Revised Epoch of Reionization and Cutoff Mass}
1079:
1080: Another interesting test is to vary the epoch of reionization.
1081: Appendix B of KGK04 presents an analytic fit to the numerical results
1082: of \citet{Gnedin2000} that parametrize the reionization epoch in terms
1083: of the redshift when cosmic HII regions begin to overlap, $z_o$, and
1084: the redshift when the reionization is completed, $z_r$. Varying these
1085: two parameters allows us to test the sensitivity of model predictions
1086: to the details of the evolution of the ionizing background radiation.
1087: Note that our parametrization of reionization here applies only to the
1088: local neighborhood of the Galaxy and may differ from the global cosmic
1089: reionization.
1090:
1091: Reionization affects the amount of gas accreted onto dwarf halos.
1092: Increasing extragalactic UV flux during reionization photoionizes the
1093: gas inside and outside dark matter halos and prevents the halos with
1094: shallow potential wells from capturing new gas heated to $\sim 10^4$
1095: K. In \citet{Gnedin2000} the effect of decreasing the gas fraction of
1096: halos was parametrized as
1097: \begin{equation}
1098: f_{\rm gas} = f_{\rm b}\; (1 + M_c/M)^{-3},
1099: \label{eq:fgas}
1100: \end{equation}
1101: where $f_{\rm b}$ is the universal baryon fraction, $M$ is the halo
1102: mass, and $M_c$ is the cut-off mass parameter. In linear theory for
1103: baryon perturbations, this parameter can be related to the filtering
1104: mass as $M_c \approx 0.26 \, M_f$. The filtering mass $M_f$ is an
1105: integral of a function of the intergalactic gas temperature over
1106: cosmic history and corresponds to the mass of a halo that loses 50\%
1107: of its baryons as a result of external photoheating. The values of
1108: the filtering mass from \citet{Gnedin2000} can be calculated for any
1109: $z_o$ and $z_r$ using eq. (B1) in \citet{tumultuous04}.
1110:
1111: We consider four scenarios listed in Table~\ref{tab:reioniz}: early
1112: \{$z_r = 9$, $z_o = 10$\}, extended \{$z_r = 7$, $z_o = 10$\}, and late
1113: \{$z_r = 6$, $z_o = 10$\} reionizations, in addition to the standard
1114: scenario \{$z_r = 7$, $z_o = 8$\}, which was used in KGK04 and in our
1115: fiducial model. Generally, the results are quite similar for all
1116: scenarios, likely because luminous satellites are hosted by the
1117: relatively massive halos, in which the virial temperatures are above
1118: $10^4$ K and the external heating of the gas does not affect its
1119: distribution significantly. Early reionization is slightly preferred
1120: for the $f_{1G}$, $f_{2G}$, and $f_{5G}$ distributions, but
1121: statistically all scenarios are consistent with each other. The
1122: $f_{10G}$ distribution is still reproduced best by the fiducial model.
1123:
1124: Recent hydrodynamic simulations indicate that the filtering mass may
1125: overestimate the mass of the halos that lose 50\% of their baryons,
1126: especially at low redshift. The most sophisticated ART simulations of
1127: \citet{tassis_etal08}, including the effects of radiative transfer,
1128: give distributions of $f_{\rm gas}$ at several redshifts, $z = 3.3, 4,
1129: 5, 7, 8, 9$ (their Fig.~2) for the standard model of reionization. We
1130: have fit these distributions with the form of equation (\ref{eq:fgas})
1131: and obtained best-fitting values of $M_c$. These values are similar
1132: to our old values at $z \ge 8$ but deviate from them at lower redshift
1133: by as much as an order of magnitude. We supplement these
1134: high-redshift fits with the $z=0$ results of SPH simulations by
1135: \citet{Crain_et_al_2007} and \citet{Hoeft_et_al_2007}, which both give
1136: $M_c \sim 2\times 10^9\, h^{-1}\ \Msun$, about a factor of 5 smaller
1137: than our old value. The combined sets at $z=0$ and $z>3$ can be fit
1138: by the following expression, accurate to better than 50\%:
1139: \begin{equation}
1140: \label{eq:new_mc}
1141: M_c \approx 1.8 \times 10^7 + 3 \times 10^9 \, (1+z)^{-3} \ h^{-1}\, \Msun.
1142: \end{equation}
1143: Ideally, we would like to derive the cutoff mass evolution from
1144: several simulations covering the whole range of redshifts, but at the
1145: moment it is the best we can assemble from the literature.
1146:
1147: We have run our model with the new expression (\ref{eq:new_mc}) for
1148: $M_c$ and found that the corresponding changes in the predicted SFHs
1149: are not straightforwardly better or worse. The $f_{1G}$
1150: distribution improves a little, $f_{2G}$ and $f_{5G}$ are effectively
1151: unchanged, while the $f_{10G}$ distribution is significantly worse off
1152: and the anomalously young dwarfs still persist.
1153: The age distribution and
1154: stellar mass function are also more discrepant with the data than in
1155: the fiducial model. While the lack of improvement with the new cutoff
1156: mass prescription is unpleasant or, at any rate, suprising, until we
1157: have a more robust estimate of $M_c$ confirmed by several groups,
1158: we keep our fiducial model untouched.
1159:
1160: % Figure 5
1161: \begin{figure*}
1162: \vspace{-1.0cm}
1163: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f5.eps, angle=0,width=8.0in}}
1164: %\plotone{f5.eps}
1165: \vspace{-1.6cm}
1166: \caption{ A comparison of three variants of the fiducial model which
1167: reject dwarfs that have not formed any stars by $t_{\rm
1168: reject}~=$~0.5~Gyr (filled gray shape), $t_{\rm reject}~=$~1.0~Gyr
1169: (dashed line), or $t_{\rm reject}~=$~2.0~Gyr (dotted line) after the
1170: Big Bang. Local Group data are shown as a solid black line. Note
1171: that in order to match the observed number of dwarfs, the star
1172: formation density threshold is lowered in these models, see
1173: Table~\ref{tab:reject_LB2}. The only noticeable improvements,
1174: relative to the fiducial model, are in the $f_{10G}$ distribution and
1175: in the corresponding lack of the low-$\age$ tail in the age
1176: distribution.}
1177: \label{fig:sfplots_early2}
1178: \end{figure*}
1179:
1180:
1181:
1182:
1183: % Table 6
1184: \begin{table}[b]
1185: \begin{center}
1186: \caption{\sc Stochastic vs. Monotonic Threshold \\ of Star Formation Law
1187: \label{tab:mono}}
1188: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
1189: \tableline\tableline\\
1190: \multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
1191: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\epsilon_* = 0$} &
1192: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\epsilon_* = 0.1$} &
1193: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\epsilon_* = 0$} \\
1194: \multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
1195: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\Sigma_{\rm th0} = 5$} &
1196: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\Sigma_{\rm th0} = 5$} &
1197: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\Sigma_{\rm th}(z)$}
1198: \\[2mm] \tableline\\
1199: $P_{KS}$: $r_{\rm all}$ & 3.1e-1 & 2.5e-1 & 3.0e-1 \\
1200: $P_{KS}$: $r_{\rm dSph}$ & 3.7e-1 & 3.8e-1 & 3.4e-1 \\
1201: $P_{KS}$: $r_{\rm dIrr}$ & 8.7e-2 & 4.2e-2 & 3.7e-2 \\
1202: $P_{KS}$: $f_{1G}$ & 1.1e-19 & 3.0e-3 & 3.7e-2 \\
1203: $P_{KS}$: $f_{2G}$ & 2.0e-16 & 4.3e-1 & 7.1e-1 \\
1204: $P_{KS}$: $f_{5G}$ & 3.8e-13 & 2.1e-2 & 1.6e-2 \\
1205: $P_{KS}$: $f_{10G}$ & 1.3e-1 & 4.4e-2 & 2.7e-2 \\
1206: $P_{KS}$: $\age$ & 1.7e-3 & 6.1e-1 & 5.0e-1 \\
1207: $P_{KS}$: $M_*$ & 6.2e-3 & 3.4e-3 & 2.0e-3 \\
1208: Dwarfs per halo & 20 & 22 & 23 \\
1209: \tableline
1210: \end{tabular}
1211: \end{center}
1212: \end{table}
1213:
1214: \subsection{Monotonically Variable Star Formation Threshold}
1215: \label{sec:mono_sec}
1216:
1217: In addition to exploring the stochastically variable density threshold,
1218: we have also investigated a threshold $\Sigma_{\rm th}$ that varies
1219: with redshift monotonically. Though, at the moment, we do not know of a
1220: convincing physical motivation for such a global systematic variation,
1221: we have investigated this possibility in exploring the full range of
1222: predictions of our model. Here we used a simple parameterization of
1223: the $\Sigma_{\rm th}$ redshift dependence,
1224: \begin{equation}
1225: \Sigma_{\rm th}(z) = \Sigma_{\rm th0} \, (1+z)^\alpha,
1226: \label{eq:sig_mono}
1227: \end{equation}
1228: where $\Sigma_{\rm th}(z=0) = \Sigma_{\rm th0} = 3 \, \Mpc2$
1229: and $\Sigma_{\rm th}(z=9) = 5 \, \Mpc2$, which results in $\alpha =
1230: \log{(5/3)} \approx 0.22$.
1231:
1232: Interestingly, the results of this model are very similar to our fiducial
1233: model with the stochastic threshold. The comparison is shown in
1234: Table~\ref{tab:mono}. The new model shares the same problems as the
1235: fiducial model: the stellar masses are still too large and
1236: the anomalously young dwarf problem is still present (if not slightly
1237: worse). We do not consider any other variants of the monotonic threshold
1238: but note that if a compelling theoretical or observational motivation
1239: for such a variation appears in the future, an evolving threshold may
1240: become a viable model.
1241:
1242: \begin{table}
1243: \begin{center}
1244: \caption{\sc Rejecting Late Beginners
1245: \label{tab:reject_LB2}}
1246: \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
1247: \tableline\tableline\\
1248: \multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
1249: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$t_{\rm reject} =$} &
1250: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$t_{\rm reject} =$} &
1251: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$t_{\rm reject} =$} &
1252: \multicolumn{1}{c}{No} \\
1253: \multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
1254: \multicolumn{1}{c}{0.5 Gyr} &
1255: \multicolumn{1}{c}{1 Gyr} &
1256: \multicolumn{1}{c}{2 Gyr} &
1257: \multicolumn{1}{c}{rejection}
1258: \\[2mm] \tableline\\
1259: $\Sigma_{\rm th0}$ & 1.87 & 2.6 & 3.5 & 5.0 \\
1260: $P_{KS}$: $r_{\rm all}$ & 5.3e-1 & 4.0e-1 & 3.4e-1 & 2.5e-1 \\
1261: $P_{KS}$: $r_{\rm dSph}$ & 1.7e-1 & 3.7e-1 & 5.1e-1 & 3.8e-1 \\
1262: $P_{KS}$: $r_{\rm dIrr}$ & 2.2e-1 & 9.6e-2 & 7.3e-2 & 4.2e-2 \\
1263: $P_{KS}$: $f_{1G}$ & 1.6e-3 & 3.3e-3 & 4.9e-3 & 3.0e-3 \\
1264: $P_{KS}$: $f_{2G}$ & 2.5e-1 & 5.0e-1 & 5.6e-1 & 4.3e-1 \\
1265: $P_{KS}$: $f_{5G}$ & 5.0e-3 & 7.3e-3 & 1.4e-2 & 2.1e-2 \\
1266: $P_{KS}$: $f_{10G}$ & 3.3e-1 & 3.5e-1 & 3.2e-1 & 4.4e-2 \\
1267: $P_{KS}$: $\age$ & 1.3e-1 & 3.1e-1 & 4.0e-1 & 6.1e-1 \\
1268: $P_{KS}$: $M_*$ & 2.8e-4 & 2.7e-4 & 2.9e-4 & 3.4e-3 \\
1269: Dwarfs per halo & 22 & 22 & 23 & 22 \\
1270: \tableline
1271: \end{tabular}
1272: \end{center}
1273: {\small {\sc Notes.}---Here we reject dwarfs that have not formed any
1274: stars by $t_{\rm reject} = 0.5$ Gyr, 1 Gyr, or 2 Gyr after the Big
1275: Bang (redshifts $z \approx 10$, $z \approx6$, and $z \approx 3.3$,
1276: respectively). Other parameters: $\epsilon_* = 0.1$, $\fsfr = 1$.}
1277: \vspace{0.4cm}
1278: \end{table}
1279:
1280:
1281:
1282: \subsection{Rejecting Galaxies with Delayed Star Formation}
1283:
1284: Finally, in directly addressing the problematic issue of the simulated
1285: dwarfs with too young stellar populations, we consider models that
1286: reject dwarfs with delayed star formation, i.e. the dwarfs that have
1287: not formed any stars within the first few Gyr after the Big Bang.
1288:
1289: The reasoning for such an {\it ad hoc} cut is motivated by the
1290: uncertainty in the detailed effect of the early UV background on the
1291: gas content of low-mass halos. The satellites without early star
1292: formation in our model must have acquired a significant gas reservoir
1293: only at late times. In the hierarchical paradigm, these satellites
1294: have been built by mergers of smaller objects, each of which carried
1295: an even smaller amount of gas. In order to become a galaxy in our
1296: model, at some time the total gas density distribution in the
1297: satellite must reach above the density threshold. However, if for any
1298: reason we underestimated the effect of gas loss from small halos at
1299: early times, then at that time the combined amount of gas would be
1300: overestimated and star formation should not take place. Our treatment
1301: of the gas heating during reionization is very approximate, which
1302: makes it likely that we could either underestimate or overestimate the
1303: gas loss effect for particular dwarfs. In general, star formation at
1304: very high redshift could proceed even at lower densities than assumed
1305: in our models, such that all luminous dwarfs form at least a fraction
1306: of their stars before reionization \citep{ricotti_gnedin05}.
1307:
1308: In the current concordance cosmology \citep{wmap5}, the epoch of
1309: complete reionization can range from $z \sim 10$ to $z \sim 6$, which
1310: corresponds to a range of times from 0.5 to 1 Gyr after the Big Bang.
1311: Given this uncertainty, and uncertainties in the details of gas outflows, we
1312: consider three models that reject the dwarfs without star formation in
1313: the first 0.5 Gyr, 1 Gyr, or 2 Gyr after the Big Bang. The last model
1314: with $t_{\rm reject} = 2$ Gyr is the least restrictive and closest to
1315: the fiducial model (no rejection), which can be formally written as
1316: $t_{\rm reject}~>~14~\rm{Gyr}$. In each of these ``reject late beginners''
1317: models, the star formation density threshold $\Sigma_{\rm th0}$ is
1318: lowered in order to raise the number of dwarfs back to the number
1319: observed in the Local Group. The details of these models are listed
1320: in Table~\ref{tab:reject_LB2}.
1321:
1322: % Figure 6
1323: \begin{figure}[t]
1324: %\vspace{0.0cm}
1325: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f6.eps, angle=0, width=4.0in}}
1326: %\plotone{f6.eps}
1327: %\vspace{0.0cm}
1328: \caption{Mass-weighted mean stellar age vs. stellar mass at $z = 0$.
1329: We show the fiducial model and three variants, which reject simulated
1330: galaxies with delayed star formation, by 0.5, 1, and 2 Gyr,
1331: respectively. The model galaxies are binned by stellar mass and only
1332: the bin averages are shown for clarity. Vertical bars indicate the
1333: standard deviation of the sample in each bin. Observed values for the
1334: Local Group (Table~\protect\ref{tab:sfdata_lg}) are plotted by circles
1335: and fall in the same range as the model.}
1336: \label{fig:noearly_t_vs_M}
1337: \end{figure}
1338:
1339:
1340:
1341: Figure~\ref{fig:sfplots_early2} shows the star formation parameters in
1342: the three models. All of the distributions are similar to each other,
1343: but they all deviate from the fiducial model (plotted in corresponding
1344: panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:sfplots}) in one important aspect. The
1345: $f_{10G}$-distribution lacks objects with $f_{10G}=1$, i.e. with no
1346: star formation in the first 4 Gyr after the Big Bang. Unfortunately,
1347: the time resolution of the observed SFHs does not allow us to
1348: discriminate among the three variants of the cut. But all of them
1349: provide the needed fix: the $f_{10G}$-distribution is fully consistent
1350: with the data ($P_{KS} > 30\%$).
1351:
1352: Table~\ref{tab:reject_LB2} shows that the other probabilities remain
1353: roughly the same or even decrease relative to the fiducial model. If
1354: we are to accept any of the ``reject late beginners'' variants, we
1355: would prefer the least restrictive $t_{\rm reject} = 2$ Gyr model.
1356: Ideally, of course, we prefer to develop a better understanding of
1357: early star formation that would make this cut unnecessary.
1358:
1359: Figure~\ref{fig:noearly_t_vs_M} shows the stellar age as a function of
1360: stellar mass in the fiducial model and its three variants. Rejecting
1361: any of the ``late beginners'' increases the stellar age by less than 1
1362: Gyr, which is significantly smaller than the dispersion of the sample
1363: at all masses. A general trend, also largely overcome by the
1364: dispersion, is for the mean age to increase with mass until $M_* \sim
1365: 10^9\, \Msun$ and then to decrease at larger masses. The Local Group
1366: data are consistent with the younger stellar ages, and extended SFHs,
1367: for more massive galaxies. At the lowest-mass end, however, the
1368: observations show a number of very old objects that are still not
1369: present in our models, even with the strictest age cut. It is
1370: apparent from this and previous plots that our prescription for star
1371: formation in the first few Gyr of cosmic time still needs
1372: improvement.
1373:
1374: It is possible that the starburst mode of star formation is causing
1375: very young stellar ages in small galaxies. We have checked, however,
1376: that the anomalously young dwarfs do not all have significant
1377: starbursts at late times and are hosted by dark matter halos with a
1378: wide range of masses. In fact, galaxies with the highest fraction of
1379: stellar mass built in starbursts are typically old, with $\tau$
1380: between 10 and 12 Gyr. Starbursts are not very important overall --
1381: 91\% of the dwarfs have less than 10\% of their stellar mass formed in
1382: the starburst mode. Also, we have varied the two parameters
1383: describing the starburst mode (the minimum required tidal force and
1384: the fraction of gas converted into stars) and found that it has little
1385: effect on the SFH distributions.
1386:
1387: It should also be mentioned that there does seem to be a trend, at $z
1388: = 0$, for the anomalously young dwarf halos to be more massive than
1389: the other, more typical, dwarf halos in the model -- observationally
1390: speaking, these dwarfs would have higher dynamical mass-to-light
1391: ratios. Interestingly, at the end of reionization these anomalous
1392: dwarfs are hosted by halos with a very wide range of masses, so that
1393: there is significant dynamical evolution from the epoch of
1394: reionization until the present day. In other words, the younger
1395: dwarfs really do have rather ``tumultuous'' lives.
1396:
1397:
1398:
1399:
1400:
1401:
1402: \begin{table}
1403: \begin{center}
1404: \caption{\sc Low Mass Satellite Galaxies of MW and M31
1405: \label{tab:lowmass_tbl}}
1406: \begin{tabular}{lcrccc}
1407: \tableline\tableline\\
1408: \multicolumn{1}{l}{Galaxy} &
1409: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Host} &
1410: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_{\rm host}$ (kpc)} &
1411: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$M_{V}$} &
1412: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$M_*$ ($M_{\sun})$}&
1413: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Refs.}
1414: \\[2mm] \tableline\\
1415: Leo T & MW & 417 & $-8.0$ & $4.0 \times 10^5$ & 1 \\
1416: Canes Venatici I & MW & 218 & $-7.9$ & $3.7 \times 10^5$ & 2 \\
1417: AndXI & M31 & 103 & $-7.3$ & $2.1 \times 10^5$ & 3 \\
1418: AndXIII & M31 & 95 & $-6.9$ & $1.5 \times 10^5$ & 3 \\
1419: AndXII & M31 & 116 & $-6.4$ & $9.3 \times 10^4$ & 3 \\
1420: Hercules & MW & 138 & $-6.0$ & $6.4 \times 10^4$ & 4 \\
1421: Bo\"{o}tesI & MW & 62 & $-5.8$ & $5.4 \times 10^4$ & 5 \\
1422: Ursa Major I & MW & 106 & $-5.6$ & $4.5 \times 10^4$ & 6 \\
1423: LeoIV & MW & 158 & $-5.1$ & $2.8 \times 10^4$ & 4 \\
1424: Canes Venatici II & MW & 151 & $-4.8$ & $2.1 \times 10^4$ & 4 \\
1425: SDSSJ100+5730 & MW & 83 & $-4.2$ & $1.2 \times 10^4$ & 7 \\
1426: SDSSJ1329+2841 & MW & 76 & $-3.9$ & $9.4 \times 10^3$ & 7 \\
1427: Ursa Major II & MW & 32 & $-3.8$ & $8.5 \times 10^3$ & 8 \\
1428: Coma Berencies & MW & 44 & $-3.7$ & $7.8 \times 10^3$ & 4 \\
1429: Bo\"{o}tesII & MW & 60 & $-3.1$ & $4.5 \times 10^3$ & 9 \\
1430: %SegueI & MW & & $-3.0$ & $4.1 \times 10^3$ & \\
1431: WillmanI & MW & 38 & $-2.5$ & $2.6 \times 10^3$ & 10 \\
1432: %SDSSJ1058+2843 & MW & 24 & $-0.2$ & $2.1 \times 10^2$ &
1433: \tableline
1434: \end{tabular}
1435: \end{center}
1436: {\small {\sc References.}---(1) \citealt{deJong_et_al_2008}; (2)
1437: \citealt{Zucker2006}, \citealt{martin_etal08};
1438: (3) \citealt{Martin2006}; (4) \citealt{Belokurov2007};
1439: (5) \citealt{Belokurov2006}, \citealt{siegel06};
1440: (6) \citealt{SimonGeha2007}; (7) \citealt{Liu_etal08};
1441: (8) \citealt{Zucker2006b}; (9) \citealt{Walsh2007};
1442: (10) \citealt{Willman2006}, \citealt{siegel06}.\\
1443: %
1444: {\sc Notes.}---$M_*$ is estimated assuming $M_*/L_V = 3\, \Msun/\Lsun$, with
1445: $L_V$ determined from $M_V$ quoted in the references. Satellites of
1446: MW are discovered by the SDSS, satellites of M31 by the MegaCam
1447: survey. Satellite-to-host radii, $r_{\rm host}$, for AndXI, AndXII, \&
1448: AndXIII are derived using their projected distances from M31, assuming
1449: $d_{\rm M31} = 785$ kpc \citep{McConnachie_etal2005}.}
1450: %\vspace{0.4cm}
1451: \end{table}
1452:
1453:
1454: % Figure 7
1455: \begin{figure}
1456: \vspace{-0.2cm}
1457: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f7.eps, angle=0, width=4.0in}}
1458: %\plotone{f7.eps}
1459: %\vspace{-0.05cm}
1460: \caption{The stellar mass function per host halo, extended down to $5
1461: \times 10^3\, \Msun$. All dwarfs in our fiducial model at $d < 1\,
1462: h^{-1}$ Mpc are shown in gray. The Local Group data for $M_* > 5
1463: \times 10^5\, \Msun$ are shown with a thick solid line, while the
1464: thick dashed line shows the number of presently-known low mass ($M_* <
1465: 5 \times 10^5\, \Msun$) dwarfs (all the SDSS and MegaCam dwarfs listed
1466: in Table~\ref{tab:lowmass_tbl}). The thin dashed line is a likely
1467: extrapolation of the mass function to all sky, to account for the
1468: incompleteness of current surveys. Thin solid line is an estimate of
1469: the luminosity function by \citet{koposov_etal08}, assuming $M_* / L_V
1470: = 3$.}
1471: \label{fig:lowmass_projections}
1472: \end{figure}
1473:
1474:
1475:
1476: \section{Projections for Low-Mass Dwarfs}
1477: \label{sec:lowmass}
1478:
1479: Given the amazing rate of recent discoveries of the population of
1480: ultrafaint dwarfs in the SDSS and MegaCam surveys, there stands a
1481: challenge to predict the yet-to-be-observed star formation properties
1482: of these objects. Our models should in principle be able to predict
1483: the mean age and stellar masses for the low-mass dwarfs, however
1484: current predictions are not satisfactory.
1485:
1486: Figure~\ref{fig:lowmass_projections} shows our fiducial model (with
1487: the stochasticity parameter $\epsilon_* = 0.1$) extended to masses as
1488: low as $M_* = 5 \times 10^3\ \Msun$. This model reproduces most
1489: closely the observed SFHs of the higher-mass dwarfs, but at $M_* < 5
1490: \times 10^5 \ M_{\sun}$, it predicts only a modest increase in the
1491: number of galaxies. The thick dashed line in
1492: Fig.~\ref{fig:lowmass_projections} shows the currently-known number of
1493: ultrafaint dwarfs, listed in Table~\ref{tab:lowmass_tbl}. The model
1494: predictions actually agree very well with the observed number and with
1495: the gentle slope of the mass function.
1496:
1497: The problem, though, is that the SDSS data release 5, where the bulk
1498: of the new dwarfs have been discovered, covers only 20\% of the sky.
1499: Therefore, we might expect the full sky to contain 5 times as many
1500: yet-to-be-discovered ultrafaint dwarfs \citep{SimonGeha2007}. For the
1501: MegaCam survey, the incompleteness factor is even larger, $\sim 9$
1502: \citep{Martin2006}. Extrapolation to all sky, by multiplying the
1503: observed number of dwarfs by these correction factors, is shown by the
1504: thin dashed line in Fig.~\ref{fig:lowmass_projections}. Our model
1505: falls well below this corrected mass function.
1506:
1507: \citet{koposov_etal08} calculate the expected luminosity function of
1508: the faint dwarfs more accurately, by estimating the maximum accessible
1509: volume of the survey. They conclude that the luminosity function
1510: should rise as $dN/dM_V \propto 10^{0.1 M_V}$, which for a fixed
1511: mass-to-light ratio results in $N(>M_*) \propto M_*^{-0.25}$. This
1512: estimate is also plotted by a straight line in
1513: Fig.~\ref{fig:lowmass_projections}. It lies below our first naive
1514: estimate but still significantly above the range of the model. Both
1515: incompleteness corrections predict over 50 satellites above $10^4\
1516: \Msun$, a factor of two larger than in the model. Plus, more dwarfs
1517: may remain undetected at larger distances than those probed by the
1518: current surveys ($\sim 300$ kpc).
1519:
1520: The discrepancy at low mass persists for all variants of our model and
1521: we were unable to find a set of parameters which adequately reproduced
1522: the stellar mass function at $M_* > 5 \times 10^5\ \Msun$ while
1523: predicting appreciable numbers of $M_* < 5 \times 10^5\ \Msun$
1524: objects. This rather striking result is evidence that our models are not
1525: capturing some critical aspects of the formation of very low mass
1526: galaxies. The most naive solutions of significantly reducing either
1527: the threshold $\Sigma_{\rm th}$ or the disk structure factor $c$ in
1528: eq. (\ref{eq:r_d}), thereby allowing a larger portion of gas to
1529: participate in star formation, are not viable options since these
1530: modifications invariably overpredict the number of $M_* > 5 \times
1531: 10^5\ \Msun$ dwarfs. In other words, lowering the density threshold
1532: produces so many dwarfs that the ``missing satellites'' are no longer
1533: missing and we are once again left with the expectation that we should
1534: see in the sky $\sim 75$ or more luminous dwarf galaxies around the
1535: Milky Way, whereas we only observe $\sim 30$. \cite{Kang_2008} also
1536: reports a deficit of ultra-faint dwarfs from an independently-developed
1537: semi-analytical model of galaxy formation applied to a different
1538: collisionless $N$-body simulation and using the same cosmic reionization
1539: model employed here.
1540:
1541: Observationally, a new interesting puzzle for our understanding of dwarf
1542: galaxy formation is presented by \citet[][]{Ryan_Weber2007}. In that study
1543: they observe the HI emission from Leo T, the only ultrafaint dwarf
1544: with measurable gas content and recent star formation. Based on the
1545: density and temperature of HI gas and velocity dispersion of stars,
1546: they find that the gas is everywhere globally Jeans-stable, whereas
1547: the observed pockets of blue, 200 Myr-old stars indicate continuous
1548: star formation. The observed peak of HI column density is a few
1549: $\Mpc2$, close to the star formation threshold. Leo T may thus
1550: present another example of stochastic star formation in a handful of
1551: isolated molecular clouds, surrounded by largely inert atomic gas.
1552: Another relatively massive dwarf, Canes Venatici I, also shows a small
1553: fraction of relatively young ($\sim 2$ Gyr), more metal-rich stars in
1554: addition to the predominantly old ($\sim 12$ Gyr), metal-poor
1555: population \citep{martin_etal08}. Thus even the ultrafaint dwarfs
1556: may, in the future, reveal complex, extended star formation
1557: histories.
1558:
1559:
1560:
1561: \section{Conclusions and Discussion}
1562: \label{sec:conclusions}
1563:
1564: We have presented phenomenological models for star formation histories
1565: of dwarf galaxies in the Local Group, based on the mass assembly
1566: histories in cosmological simulations and the stochastic density
1567: threshold in Kennicutt-Schmidt law of star formation. Our main
1568: conclusions are as follows:
1569:
1570: $\bullet$ Models with a stochastic star formation threshold are much
1571: more successful than non-stochastic models, such as KGK04, in
1572: reproducing the observed star formation histories of the Local Group
1573: dwarfs. While the KGK04 model predicted 95\% of luminous dwarfs
1574: without any recent ($t < 1$ Gyr ago) star formation, our fiducial
1575: stochastic model correctly predicts that most dwarfs form a few
1576: percent of their stellar mass at late times, in agreement with the
1577: recent star formation fraction inferred for the Local Group dwarfs
1578: (see Table~\ref{tab:sfdata_lg}, $f_{1G}$ column and
1579: Fig.~\ref{fig:sfplots}). Stochasticity allows star formation to
1580: proceed in isolated regions at late times if the threshold decreases.
1581:
1582: $\bullet$ Despite significant improvements of the stochastic model, a
1583: some discrepancies with the data remain. (1)~Total stellar masses are
1584: typically too large by a factor of several. This is a generic problem
1585: of both the fixed-threshold and stochastic models presented here.
1586: (2)~About 10\% of the dwarfs in both fixed-threshold and stochastic models
1587: have anomalously young stellar populations. These objects build the
1588: bulk of their stellar mass in the last 10~Gyr, whereas all of the
1589: observed dwarfs contain at least 15\% of stars older than 10~Gyr.
1590: These young stellar populations in the models are not created only by
1591: tidally-induced starbursts, but rather represent late mass assembly of
1592: some of the larger satellites.
1593:
1594: $\bullet$ Relaxing several model assumptions does not significantly
1595: alter these predictions. We have considered the following variants of
1596: the fiducial model: allowing late gas accretion within the virial
1597: radius of the host halo; different slopes of the star formation law;
1598: extended epoch of reionization; and different prescriptions for the
1599: photoevaporation of gas from low-mass halos after reionization. All
1600: of these variants predict statistically similar observables to the
1601: fiducial model.
1602:
1603: $\bullet$ A variant of the fiducial model that rejects dwarfs with no
1604: star formation in the first 1 or 2 Gyr after the Big Bang
1605: significantly improves the $f_{10G}$ stellar fraction. Even though we
1606: do not yet have an adequate justification for such a cut, this model
1607: predicts the $f_{10G}$-distribution fully consistent with the Local
1608: Group data. Stellar masses, however, are still overestimated.
1609:
1610: $\bullet$ Our fiducial model predicts only a modest population of
1611: dwarfs with $M_* \la 10^5\, \Msun$, such as those recently discovered
1612: by SDSS and the MegaCam survey. The predicted stellar mass function
1613: would be an underestimate if the observed numbers are extrapolated to
1614: all sky. However, our mass function is still consistent with the
1615: presently known dwarfs.
1616:
1617: \medskip
1618:
1619: Our phenomenological model contains several free parameters,
1620: which allows significant freedom in the range of predicted properties of
1621: the satellite galaxies. As we discuss in \S\ref{sec:kgk}, a combination
1622: of the parameters, $c$ and $\Sigma_{\rm th0}$, is well constrained by the
1623: observed number of dwarfs. Other parameters of the model, apart from the
1624: stochasticity $\epsilon_*$ which strongly affects late-time star formation,
1625: lead only to small and relatively insignificant varations from the fiducial
1626: model.
1627:
1628: This analytical prescription for star formation is applied to the mass
1629: assembly histories of the halos in the cosmological $N$-body simulation.
1630: Since we average over three host halos, our results should not depend
1631: significantly on a particular host-halo merger history. Also, by
1632: construction all the massive satellite halos that become galaxies in
1633: our model survive tidal disruption in the host halo, so that their total
1634: number is predicted robustly even if their mass after tidal stripping may
1635: depend on the particulars of the simulation.
1636:
1637: We should emphasize that our model is not a unique interpretation of the
1638: SFH data. Our inferences here neccesarily depend on the assumptions of
1639: a Schmidt law of star formation and an exponential profile for the gas
1640: density distribution inside dwarf halos as well as the assumptions we have
1641: made with the minimum density threshold for star formation,
1642: $\Sigma_{\rm th}$. With this latter part of the model we have found that
1643: both stochasticity in this threshold over time (\S\ref{sec:threshold})
1644: and a monotonically decreasing function (\S\ref{sec:mono_sec}) can lead to
1645: extended SFHs -- the feature missing from the KGK04 model.
1646:
1647: We have assumed in our model that the gas clouds
1648: moving on circular orbits should generally remain at the same distance
1649: from the galaxy center. However, during mergers and tidal interactions
1650: the angular momentum of the gas can be perturbed, leading to radial infall.
1651: Such inflow of gas may bring the central gas density above the threshold
1652: in some halos soon after the Big Bang and lead to more early star formation.
1653: Modeling this process would be very interesting, as it may provide a nice
1654: solution for the $f_{10G}$ problem, but the complexity of such a process is
1655: beyond our simple model and requires a detailed hydrodynamic simulation.
1656:
1657: Additionally, we have not considered any gas outflows due to the radiative
1658: and thermal feedback of young stars. Such processes could reduce the amount
1659: of available gas supply and the total stellar mass of the simulated dwarfs,
1660: which may lead to a closer agreement of the predicted and observed stellar
1661: mass function. However, given the uncertainty in the evolution of the gas
1662: density profile, we cannot conclude that such feedback is required to
1663: reconcile the stellar masses. In fact, from
1664: Figure~\ref{fig:lowmass_projections} we see that in very low mass halos,
1665: where feedback is expected to be stronger, our model needs a boost, rather
1666: than a reduction, of star formation. The actual complex details of the
1667: condensation of molecular clouds in dwarf halos, which lead to the formation
1668: of stars, may turn out more important than the feedback of the stars after
1669: their formation.
1670:
1671: In spite of these uncertainties, the conclusion we would like to draw from
1672: our investigation is that the complex and extended SFHs of the Local Group
1673: dwarfs are generally consistent with the expected star formation in cold
1674: dark matter halos, and that this star formation is generally governed by
1675: the (low) efficiency of conversion of atomic gas into molecular clouds.
1676:
1677:
1678: \acknowledgements
1679:
1680: We thank Andrew Cole for useful comments on the LMC star formation
1681: data, and Andrey Kravtsov and Todd Thompson for helpful suggestions.
1682: CO thanks the Ohio State University Center for Cosmology and
1683: AstroParticle Physics for its support. OG is supported by the NSF
1684: grant AST-0708087.
1685:
1686:
1687: \begin{thebibliography}{72}
1688: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
1689:
1690: \bibitem[{{Belokurov et al.}(2006)}]{Belokurov2006}
1691: {Belokurov et al.} 2006, \apjl, 647, L111
1692:
1693: \bibitem[{{Belokurov et al.}(2007)}]{Belokurov2007}
1694: ---. 2007, \apj, 654, 897
1695:
1696: \bibitem[{{Boissier} {et~al.}(2003){Boissier}, {Prantzos}, {Boselli}, \&
1697: {Gavazzi}}]{boissier_etal03}
1698: {Boissier}, S., {Prantzos}, N., {Boselli}, A., \& {Gavazzi}, G. 2003, \mnras,
1699: 346, 1215
1700:
1701: \bibitem[{{Butler} {et~al.}(2007){Butler}, {Mart{\'{\i}}nez-Delgado}, {Rix},
1702: {Pe{\~n}arrubia}, \& {de Jong}}]{butler_etal07}
1703: {Butler}, D.~J., {Mart{\'{\i}}nez-Delgado}, D., {Rix}, H.-W., {Pe{\~n}arrubia},
1704: J., \& {de Jong}, J.~T.~A. 2007, \aj, 133, 2274
1705:
1706: \bibitem[{{Chernoff} \& {Weinberg}(1990)}]{chernoff_weinberg90}
1707: {Chernoff}, D.~F. \& {Weinberg}, M.~D. 1990, \apj, 351, 121
1708:
1709: \bibitem[{{Cole} {et~al.}(2007){Cole}, {Skillman}, {Tolstoy}, {Gallagher},
1710: {Aparicio}, {Dolphin}, {Gallart}, {Hidalgo}, {Saha}, {Stetson}, \&
1711: {Weisz}}]{cole_etal07}
1712: {Cole}, A.~A., {Skillman}, E.~D., {Tolstoy}, E., {Gallagher}, III, J.~S.,
1713: {Aparicio}, A., {Dolphin}, A.~E., {Gallart}, C., {Hidalgo}, S.~L., {Saha},
1714: A., {Stetson}, P.~B., \& {Weisz}, D.~R. 2007, \apjl, 659, L17
1715:
1716: \bibitem[{{Col{\'{\i}}n} {et~al.}(2000){Col{\'{\i}}n}, {Avila-Reese}, \&
1717: {Valenzuela}}]{Colin_et_al_2000}
1718: {Col{\'{\i}}n}, P., {Avila-Reese}, V., \& {Valenzuela}, O. 2000, \apj, 542, 622
1719:
1720: \bibitem[{{Crain} {et~al.}(2007){Crain}, {Eke}, {Frenk}, {Jenkins}, {McCarthy},
1721: {Navarro}, \& {Pearce}}]{Crain_et_al_2007}
1722: {Crain}, R.~A., {Eke}, V.~R., {Frenk}, C.~S., {Jenkins}, A., {McCarthy}, I.~G.,
1723: {Navarro}, J.~F., \& {Pearce}, F.~R. 2007, \mnras, 377, 41
1724:
1725: \bibitem[de Jong et al.(2008)]{deJong_et_al_2008} de Jong, J.~T.~A., et al.\ 2008, \apj, 680, 1112
1726:
1727: \bibitem[{{Dekel} \& {Silk}(1986)}]{DekelSilk1986}
1728: {Dekel}, A. \& {Silk}, J. 1986, \apj, 303, 39
1729:
1730: \bibitem[{{Dekel} \& {Woo}(2003)}]{DekelWoo2003}
1731: {Dekel}, A. \& {Woo}, J. 2003, \mnras, 344, 1131
1732:
1733: \bibitem[{{Dolphin}(2002)}]{Dolphin2002}
1734: {Dolphin}, A.~E. 2002, \mnras, 332, 91
1735:
1736: \bibitem[{{Dolphin} {et~al.}(2005){Dolphin}, {Weisz}, {Skillman}, \&
1737: {Holtzman}}]{2005Dolphin_et_al}
1738: {Dolphin}, A.~E., {Weisz}, D.~R., {Skillman}, E.~D., \& {Holtzman}, J.~A. 2005,
1739: preprint (astro-ph/0506430)
1740:
1741: \bibitem[{{Fisher} \& {Tully}(1975)}]{fisher_tully1975}
1742: {Fisher}, J.~R. \& {Tully}, R.~B. 1975, \aap, 44, 151
1743:
1744: \bibitem[{{Geha} {et~al.}(2006){Geha}, {Blanton}, {Masjedi}, \&
1745: {West}}]{geha_etal06}
1746: {Geha}, M., {Blanton}, M.~R., {Masjedi}, M., \& {West}, A.~A. 2006, \apj, 653,
1747: 240
1748:
1749: \bibitem[{{Gnedin}(2000)}]{Gnedin2000}
1750: {Gnedin}, N.~Y. 2000, \apj, 542, 535
1751:
1752: \bibitem[{{Grebel} {et~al.}(2003){Grebel}, {Gallagher}, \&
1753: {Harbeck}}]{Grebel_et_al_2003}
1754: {Grebel}, E.~K., {Gallagher}, III, J.~S., \& {Harbeck}, D. 2003, \aj, 125, 1926
1755:
1756: \bibitem[{{Harris} \& {Zaritsky}(2004)}]{HarrisZaritsky2004}
1757: {Harris}, J. \& {Zaritsky}, D. 2004, \aj, 127, 1531
1758:
1759: \bibitem[{{Hernandez} {et~al.}(2007){Hernandez}, {Park}, {Cervantes-Sodi}, \&
1760: {Choi}}]{Hernandez07}
1761: {Hernandez}, X., {Park}, C., {Cervantes-Sodi}, B., \& {Choi}, Y.-Y. 2007,
1762: \mnras, 375, 163
1763:
1764: \bibitem[{{Heyer} {et~al.}(2004){Heyer}, {Corbelli}, {Schneider}, \&
1765: {Young}}]{heyer_etal04}
1766: {Heyer}, M.~H., {Corbelli}, E., {Schneider}, S.~E., \& {Young}, J.~S. 2004,
1767: \apj, 602, 723
1768:
1769: \bibitem[{{Hoeft} {et~al.}(2007){Hoeft}, {Yepes}, \& {Gottloeber}}]{Hoeft_et_al_2007}
1770: {Hoeft}, M., {Yepes}, G., \& {Gottloeber}, S. 2007, preprint (arXiv:0708.0229)
1771:
1772: \bibitem[{{Holtzman} {et~al.}(2006){Holtzman}, {Afonso}, \&
1773: {Dolphin}}]{Holtzman_et_al_2006}
1774: {Holtzman}, J.~A., {Afonso}, C., \& {Dolphin}, A. 2006, \apjs, 166, 534
1775:
1776: \bibitem[{{Hurley} {et~al.}(2000){Hurley}, {Pols}, \& {Tout}}]{hurley_etal00}
1777: {Hurley}, J.~R., {Pols}, O.~R., \& {Tout}, C.~A. 2000, \mnras, 315, 543
1778:
1779: \bibitem[{{Ibata} {et~al.}(2007){Ibata}, {Martin}, {Irwin}, {Chapman},
1780: {Ferguson}, {Lewis}, \& {McConnachie}}]{ibata_etal07}
1781: {Ibata}, R., {Martin}, N.~F., {Irwin}, M., {Chapman}, S., {Ferguson}, A.~M.~N.,
1782: {Lewis}, G.~F., \& {McConnachie}, A.~W. 2007, \apj, 671, 1591
1783:
1784: \bibitem[{{Irwin} {et~al.}(2008){Irwin}, {Ferguson}, {Huxor}, {Tanvir},
1785: {Ibata}, \& {Lewis}}]{Irwin_et_al_2008}
1786: {Irwin}, M.~J., {Ferguson}, A.~M.~N., {Huxor}, A.~P., {Tanvir}, N.~R., {Ibata},
1787: R.~A., \& {Lewis}, G.~F. 2008, \apjl, 676, L17
1788:
1789: \bibitem[{{Irwin et al.}(2007)}]{Irwin2007}
1790: {Irwin et al.} 2007, \apjl, 656, L13
1791:
1792: \bibitem[{{Kamionkowski} \& {Liddle}(2000)}]{KamionkowskiLiddle2000}
1793: {Kamionkowski}, M. \& {Liddle}, A.~R. 2000, Physical Review Letters, 84, 4525
1794:
1795: \bibitem[Kang(2008)]{Kang_2008} Kang, X.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints (arXiv:0806.3279)
1796:
1797: \bibitem[{{Kauffmann} {et~al.}(1993){Kauffmann}, {White}, \&
1798: {Guiderdoni}}]{kauffmann_etal93}
1799: {Kauffmann}, G., {White}, S.~D.~M., \& {Guiderdoni}, B. 1993, \mnras, 264, 201
1800:
1801: \bibitem[{{Kaufmann} {et~al.}(2007){Kaufmann}, {Wheeler}, \&
1802: {Bullock}}]{kaufmann_etal07}
1803: {Kaufmann}, T., {Wheeler}, C., \& {Bullock}, J.~S. 2007, \mnras, 382, 1187
1804:
1805: \bibitem[{{Kennicutt}(1998)}]{kennicutt98}
1806: {Kennicutt}, Jr., R.~C. 1998, \apj, 498, 541
1807:
1808: \bibitem[{{Klypin} {et~al.}(1999){Klypin}, {Kravtsov}, {Valenzuela}, \&
1809: {Prada}}]{Klypin1999}
1810: {Klypin}, A., {Kravtsov}, A.~V., {Valenzuela}, O., \& {Prada}, F. 1999, \apj,
1811: 522, 82
1812:
1813: \bibitem[{{Komatsu} {et~al.}(2008){Komatsu}, {Dunkley}, {Nolta}, {Bennett},
1814: {Gold}, {Hinshaw}, {Jarosik}, {Larson}, {Limon}, {Page}, {Spergel},
1815: {Halpern}, {Hill}, {Kogut}, {Meyer}, {Tucker}, {Weiland}, {Wollack}, \&
1816: {Wright}}]{wmap5}
1817: {Komatsu}, E., {Dunkley}, J., {Nolta}, M.~R., {Bennett}, C.~L., {Gold}, B.,
1818: {Hinshaw}, G., {Jarosik}, N., {Larson}, D., {Limon}, M., {Page}, L.,
1819: {Spergel}, D.~N., {Halpern}, M., {Hill}, R.~S., {Kogut}, A., {Meyer}, S.~S.,
1820: {Tucker}, G.~S., {Weiland}, J.~L., {Wollack}, E., \& {Wright}, E.~L. 2008,
1821: \apjs, submitted (arXiv:0803.0547)
1822:
1823: \bibitem[{{Koposov} {et~al.}(2008){Koposov}, {Belokurov}, {Evans}, {Hewett},
1824: {Irwin}, {Gilmore}, {Zucker}, {Rix}, {Fellhauer}, {Bell}, \&
1825: {Glushkova}}]{koposov_etal08}
1826: {Koposov}, S., {Belokurov}, V., {Evans}, N.~W., {Hewett}, P.~C., {Irwin},
1827: M.~J., {Gilmore}, G., {Zucker}, D.~B., {Rix}, H.~., {Fellhauer}, M., {Bell},
1828: E.~F., \& {Glushkova}, E.~V. 2008, \apj accepted (arXiv:0706.2687)
1829:
1830: \bibitem[Kopylov et al.(2008)]{kopylov_etal08} Kopylov, A.~I.,
1831: Tikhonov, N.~A., Fabrika, S., Drozdovsky, I.,
1832: \& Valeev, A.~F.\ 2008, \mnras, 387, L45
1833:
1834: \bibitem[{{Kravtsov} \& {Gnedin}(2005)}]{KravstovGnedin2005}
1835: {Kravtsov}, A.~V. \& {Gnedin}, O.~Y. 2005, \apj, 623, 650
1836:
1837: \bibitem[{{Kravtsov} {et~al.}(2004){Kravtsov}, {Gnedin}, \&
1838: {Klypin}}]{tumultuous04}
1839: {Kravtsov}, A.~V., {Gnedin}, O.~Y., \& {Klypin}, A.~A. 2004, \apj, 609, 482
1840:
1841: \bibitem[{{Kroupa}(2001)}]{kroupa01}
1842: {Kroupa}, P. 2001, \mnras, 322, 231
1843:
1844: \bibitem[{{Lee} {et~al.}(2006){Lee}, {Skillman}, {Cannon}, {Jackson}, {Gehrz},
1845: {Polomski}, \& {Woodward}}]{lee_etal06}
1846: {Lee}, H., {Skillman}, E.~D., {Cannon}, J.~M., {Jackson}, D.~C., {Gehrz},
1847: R.~D., {Polomski}, E.~F., \& {Woodward}, C.~E. 2006, \apj, 647, 970
1848:
1849: \bibitem[Liu et al.(2008)]{Liu_etal08} Liu, C., Hu, J., Newberg, H., \& Zhao, Y.\ 2008, \aap, 477, 139
1850:
1851: \bibitem[Madau et al.(2008)]{Madau_Diemand_Kuhlen_2008} Madau, P., Diemand, J., \& Kuhlen, M.\ 2008, \apj, 679, 1260
1852:
1853: \bibitem[{{Majewski} {et~al.}(2007){Majewski}, {Beaton}, {Patterson},
1854: {Kalirai}, {Geha}, {Mu{\~n}oz}, {Seigar}, {Guhathakurta}, {Gilbert}, {Rich},
1855: {Bullock}, \& {Reitzel}}]{majewski_etal07}
1856: {Majewski}, S.~R., {Beaton}, R.~L., {Patterson}, R.~J., {Kalirai}, J.~S.,
1857: {Geha}, M.~C., {Mu{\~n}oz}, R.~R., {Seigar}, M.~S., {Guhathakurta}, P.,
1858: {Gilbert}, K.~M., {Rich}, R.~M., {Bullock}, J.~S., \& {Reitzel}, D.~B. 2007,
1859: \apjl, 670, L9
1860:
1861: \bibitem[{{Martin} {et~al.}(2008){Martin}, {Coleman}, {De Jong}, {Rix}, {Bell},
1862: {Sand}, {Hill}, {Thompson}, {Burwitz}, {Giallongo}, {Ragazzoni}, {Diolaiti},
1863: {Gasparo}, {Grazian}, {Pedichini}, \& {Bechtold}}]{martin_etal08}
1864: {Martin}, N.~F., {Coleman}, M.~G., {De Jong}, J.~T.~A., {Rix}, H.-W., {Bell},
1865: E.~F., {Sand}, D.~J., {Hill}, J.~M., {Thompson}, D., {Burwitz}, V.,
1866: {Giallongo}, E., {Ragazzoni}, R., {Diolaiti}, E., {Gasparo}, F., {Grazian},
1867: A., {Pedichini}, F., \& {Bechtold}, J. 2008, \apjl, 672, L13
1868:
1869: \bibitem[{{Martin} {et~al.}(2004){Martin}, {Ibata}, {Bellazzini}, {Irwin},
1870: {Lewis}, \& {Dehnen}}]{martin_etal04}
1871: {Martin}, N.~F., {Ibata}, R.~A., {Bellazzini}, M., {Irwin}, M.~J., {Lewis},
1872: G.~F., \& {Dehnen}, W. 2004, \mnras, 348, 12
1873:
1874: \bibitem[{{Martin} {et~al.}(2006){Martin}, {Ibata}, {Irwin}, {Chapman},
1875: {Lewis}, {Ferguson}, {Tanvir}, \& {McConnachie}}]{Martin2006}
1876: {Martin}, N.~F., {Ibata}, R.~A., {Irwin}, M.~J., {Chapman}, S., {Lewis}, G.~F.,
1877: {Ferguson}, A.~M.~N., {Tanvir}, N., \& {McConnachie}, A.~W. 2006, \mnras,
1878: 371, 1983
1879:
1880: \bibitem[{{Mateo}(1998)}]{Mateo1998}
1881: {Mateo}, M.~L. 1998, \araa, 36, 435
1882:
1883: \bibitem[{{McConnachie} {et~al.}(2004){McConnachie}, {Irwin}, {Ferguson},
1884: {Ibata}, {Lewis}, \& {Tanvir}}]{McConnachie_etal2004}
1885: {McConnachie}, A.~W., {Irwin}, M.~J., {Ferguson}, A.~M.~N., {Ibata}, R.~A.,
1886: {Lewis}, G.~F., \& {Tanvir}, N. 2004, \mnras, 350, 243
1887:
1888: \bibitem[{{McConnachie} {et~al.}(2005){McConnachie}, {Irwin}, {Ferguson},
1889: {Ibata}, {Lewis}, \& {Tanvir}}]{McConnachie_etal2005}
1890: ---. 2005, \mnras, 356, 979
1891:
1892: \bibitem[{{McKee} \& {Ostriker}(2007)}]{mckee_ostriker07}
1893: {McKee}, C.~F. \& {Ostriker}, E.~C. 2007, \araa, 45, 565
1894:
1895: \bibitem[{{Moore} {et~al.}(1999){Moore}, {Ghigna}, {Governato}, {Lake},
1896: {Quinn}, {Stadel}, \& {Tozzi}}]{Moore1999}
1897: {Moore}, B., {Ghigna}, S., {Governato}, F., {Lake}, G., {Quinn}, T., {Stadel},
1898: J., \& {Tozzi}, P. 1999, \apjl, 524, L19
1899:
1900: \bibitem[{{Prieto} \& {Gnedin}(2006)}]{prieto_gnedin06}
1901: {Prieto}, J.~L. \& {Gnedin}, O.~Y. 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, preprint
1902: (astro-ph/0608069)
1903:
1904: \bibitem[{{Ricotti} \& {Gnedin}(2005)}]{ricotti_gnedin05}
1905: {Ricotti}, M. \& {Gnedin}, N.~Y. 2005, \apj, 629, 259
1906:
1907: \bibitem[Robertson \& Kravtsov(2008)]{RobertsonKravtsov2007} Robertson, B.~E., \& Kravtsov, A.~V.\ 2008, \apj, 680, 1083
1908:
1909: \bibitem[{{Ryan-Weber} {et~al.}(2008){Ryan-Weber}, {Begum}, {Oosterloo}, {Pal},
1910: {Irwin}, {Belokurov}, {Evans}, \& {Zucker}}]{Ryan_Weber2007}
1911: {Ryan-Weber}, E.~V., {Begum}, A., {Oosterloo}, T., {Pal}, S., {Irwin}, M.~J.,
1912: {Belokurov}, V., {Evans}, N.~W., \& {Zucker}, D.~B. 2008, \mnras, 384, 535
1913:
1914: \bibitem[{{Siegel}(2006)}]{siegel06}
1915: {Siegel}, M.~H. 2006, \apjl, 649, L83
1916:
1917: \bibitem[{{Simon} \& {Geha}(2007)}]{SimonGeha2007}
1918: {Simon}, J.~D. \& {Geha}, M. 2007, \apj, 670, 313
1919:
1920: \bibitem[{{Smecker-Hane} {et~al.}(2002){Smecker-Hane}, {Cole}, {Gallagher}, \&
1921: {Stetson}}]{SmeckerHane2002}
1922: {Smecker-Hane}, T.~A., {Cole}, A.~A., {Gallagher}, III, J.~S., \& {Stetson},
1923: P.~B. 2002, \apj, 566, 239
1924:
1925: \bibitem[{{Spergel} \& {Steinhardt}(2000)}]{spergel_steinhardt01}
1926: {Spergel}, D.~N. \& {Steinhardt}, P.~J. 2000, Physical Review Letters, 84, 3760
1927:
1928: \bibitem[{{Tassis} {et~al.}(2008){Tassis}, {Kravtsov}, \&
1929: {Gnedin}}]{tassis_etal08}
1930: {Tassis}, K., {Kravtsov}, A.~V., \& {Gnedin}, N.~Y. 2008, \apj, 672, 888
1931:
1932: \bibitem[{{Thilker et al.}(2007)}]{thilker_etal07}
1933: {Thilker et al.} 2007, \apjs, 173, 538
1934:
1935: \bibitem[{{Thoul} \& {Weinberg}(1996)}]{ThoulWeinberg96}
1936: {Thoul}, A.~A. \& {Weinberg}, D.~H. 1996, \apj, 465, 608
1937:
1938: \bibitem[{{Vitvitska} {et~al.}(2002){Vitvitska}, {Klypin}, {Kravtsov},
1939: {Wechsler}, {Primack}, \& {Bullock}}]{Vitvitska02}
1940: {Vitvitska}, M., {Klypin}, A.~A., {Kravtsov}, A.~V., {Wechsler}, R.~H.,
1941: {Primack}, J.~R., \& {Bullock}, J.~S. 2002, \apj, 581, 799
1942:
1943: \bibitem[{{Walsh} {et~al.}(2007){Walsh}, {Jerjen}, \& {Willman}}]{Walsh2007}
1944: {Walsh}, S.~M., {Jerjen}, H., \& {Willman}, B. 2007, \apjl, 662, L83
1945:
1946: \bibitem[{{Willman} {et~al.}(2006){Willman}, {Masjedi}, {Hogg}, {Dalcanton},
1947: {Martinez-Delgado}, {Blanton}, {West}, {Dotter}, \& {Chaboyer}}]{Willman2006}
1948: {Willman}, B., {Masjedi}, M., {Hogg}, D.~W., {Dalcanton}, J.~J.,
1949: {Martinez-Delgado}, D., {Blanton}, M., {West}, A.~A., {Dotter}, A., \&
1950: {Chaboyer}, B. 2006, preprint (astro-ph/0603486)
1951:
1952: \bibitem[{{Willman et al.}(2005{\natexlab{a}})}]{Willman2005a}
1953: {Willman et al.} 2005{\natexlab{a}}, \aj, 129, 2692
1954:
1955: \bibitem[{{Willman et al.}(2005{\natexlab{b}})}]{Willman2005b}
1956: ---. 2005{\natexlab{b}}, \apjl, 626, L85
1957:
1958: \bibitem[{{Zentner} \& {Bullock}(2003{\natexlab{a}})}]{ZentnerBullock2003a}
1959: {Zentner}, A.~R. \& {Bullock}, J.~S. 2003{\natexlab{a}}, in American Institute
1960: of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 666, The Emergence of Cosmic Structure,
1961: ed. S.~H. {Holt} \& C.~S. {Reynolds}, 151--154
1962:
1963: \bibitem[{{Zentner} \& {Bullock}(2003{\natexlab{b}})}]{ZentnerBullock2003b}
1964: {Zentner}, A.~R. \& {Bullock}, J.~S. 2003{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 598, 49
1965:
1966: \bibitem[{{Zucker et al.}(2004)}]{Zucker2004}
1967: {Zucker et al.} 2004, \apjl, 612, L121
1968:
1969: \bibitem[{{Zucker et al.}(2006{\natexlab{a}})}]{Zucker2006b}
1970: ---. 2006{\natexlab{a}}, \apjl, 650, L41
1971:
1972: \bibitem[{{Zucker et al.}(2006{\natexlab{b}})}]{Zucker2006}
1973: ---. 2006{\natexlab{b}}, \apjl, 643, L103
1974:
1975: \bibitem[{{Zucker et al.}(2007)}]{Zucker2007}
1976: ---. 2007, \apjl, 659, L21
1977:
1978: \end{thebibliography}
1979:
1980: \end{document}
1981: