1: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib,a4paper,referee]{mn2e}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{amsmath}
4: \usepackage{txfonts}
5:
6: \def\nodata{\dots}
7: \def\aap{A\&A}
8: \def\apjl{ApJ}
9: \def\aph{APh}
10: \def\apjs{ApJS}
11: \def\apj{ApJ}
12: \def\araa{ARA\&A}
13: \def\nat{Nat}
14: \def\sci{Sci}
15: \def\baas{BAAS}
16: \def\mnras{MNRAS}
17: \def\prl{PRL}
18:
19: \title[Decaying Dark Matter]{Decaying Dark Matter \\ and the Deficit of Dwarf Haloes}
20: \author[Majd Abdelqader and Fulvio Melia]{Majd Abdelqader$^{1}$\thanks{E-mail:
21: majd@physics.arizona.edu} and Fulvio Melia$^{2}$\thanks{Sir Thomas Lyle Fellow
22: and Miegunyah Fellow, E-mail: melia@as.arizona.edu}
23: \\
24: \null$^{1}$ Department of Physics, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA
25: \\
26: \null$^{2}$ Department of Physics and Steward Observatory, The University
27: of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA}
28:
29: \date{Submitted to MNRAS 2008 January 23}
30:
31: \begin{document}
32: \maketitle
33: \label{firstpage}
34: \setcounter{figure}{0}
35:
36: \begin{abstract}
37: The hierarchical clustering inherent in $\Lambda$-CDM cosmology
38: seems to produce many of the observed characteristics of
39: large-scale structure. But some glaring problems still remain,
40: including the over-prediction (by a factor 10) of the number of
41: dwarf galaxies within the virialized population of the local group.
42: Several secondary effects have already been proposed to resolve
43: this problem. It is still not clear, however, whether the principal
44: solution rests with astrophysical processes, such as early feedback
45: from supernovae, or possibly with as yet undetermined properties of
46: the dark matter itself. In this paper, we carry out a detailed
47: calculation of the dwarf halo evolution incorporating the effects
48: of a hypothesized dark-matter decay, $D\rightarrow D^\prime+l$,
49: where $D$ is the unstable particle, $D^\prime$ is the more massive
50: daughter particle and $l$ is the other, lighter (or possibly massless)
51: daughter particle. This process preferentially heats the smaller
52: haloes, expanding them during their evolution and reducing their
53: present-day circular velocity. We find that this mechanism can
54: account very well for the factor 4 deficit in the observed number
55: of systems with velocity 10--20 km s$^{-1}$ compared to those
56: predicted by the numerical simulations, if $\Delta m/ m_{D^\prime}
57: \sim 5-7\times 10^{-5}$, where $\Delta m$ is the mass difference
58: between the initial and final states. The corresponding lifetime
59: $\tau$ cannot be longer than $\sim 30$ Gyr, but may be as short
60: as just a few Gyr.
61: \end{abstract}
62:
63: \begin{keywords}
64: {cosmic microwave background---cosmology: theory---dark matter---elementary
65: particles---galaxies: formation---large-scale structure of the universe}
66: \end{keywords}
67:
68: \section{Introduction}
69:
70: Observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation with the
71: Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) have facilitated the precision
72: measurement of several cosmological parameters (Bennett et al. 2003, Spergel
73: et al. 2003), including the mass-energy density of the Universe, $\Omega$,
74: which appears to be close (if not equal) to its critical value. Baryons
75: contribute only about 4\% of this; the rest is presumably in the form of
76: dark matter (DM; roughly 22\%) and dark energy ($\sim$74\%). In addition,
77: WMAP's detection of early reionization also rules out the presence of a
78: warm DM, so the non-baryonic component must be cold (CDM). Together with
79: earlier observations by other finer scale CMB experiments, and with the
80: Hubble Key Project (Mould et al. 2000), which provided the unprecedentedly
81: accurate value $H=71\pm6$ km s$^{-1}$ of the Hubble constant, this
82: combined body of work has lead to a consensus that the Universe is
83: adequately described by the so-called flat $\Lambda$-CDM standard
84: model, in which dark energy is the manifestation of a cosmological
85: constant $\Lambda$.
86:
87: The existence of dark energy has been confirmed through the analysis
88: of Type Ia supernova data (Riess et al. 1998; Perlmutter et al. 1999),
89: providing even stronger evidence that this component of $\Omega$ has
90: negative pressure leading to an acceleration of the Universe in the
91: current epoc. To be fair, however, it is not yet entirely clear whether
92: these results require a cosmology with a true cosmological constant,
93: in which matter and radiation become dominant looking back towards
94: redshifts $z>$2--3, or whether the current acceleration might be
95: due to a so-called scaling solution, in which the dark energy density
96: scales with matter, and affects the formation of structure even at
97: early times (see Melia 2007, 2008, and references cited therein).
98:
99: Very little is known about dark matter, and almost nothing is
100: understood about dark energy. Their nature is one of the biggest
101: mysteries in contemporary physics. Yet their influence is evidently
102: quite important in the formation of large scale structure (LSS).
103: The hierarchical clustering inherent in $\Lambda$-CDM seems to
104: produce many of the characteristics observed in the local (e.g.,
105: Murali et al. 2002; Abadi et al. 2003) and high-redshift (e.g.,
106: Springel, Frenk, and White 2006) Universe. In hierarchical models,
107: smaller dark matter haloes on average collapse earlier than larger
108: ones, when the density of the universe was higher (e.g., Kravtsov
109: et al. 1998). The current mass function, however, is determined
110: not only by the halo formation history, but also by their merger
111: rate which, over time, tends to deplete the dwarf-galaxy end
112: of the distribution.
113:
114: But some glaring problems still remain. Numerical simulations
115: involving collisionless CDM predict dark haloes with steep cusps
116: in their centre (Navarro et al. 1996), whereas most of the observed
117: rotation curves of dwarf galaxies and low surface brightness galaxies
118: indicate constant density cores (see de Blok et al. 2003, and
119: references cited therein). A related problem is the over-prediction
120: of the number of dwarf galaxies within the virialized population
121: of the local group. CDM simulations over-predict the number of
122: satellite galaxies orbiting a Milky Way-sized galaxy by a factor
123: of 10 (Klypin et al. 1999, Moore et al. 1999, Diemand et al. 2007, and Simon \& Geha 2007). Generally
124: speaking, both of these problems may be described as a $\Lambda$-CDM
125: prediction of too much power on small scales.
126:
127:
128: Since in hierarchical models smaller galaxies merge to make larger
129: ones, the number of remaining dwarf haloes is an important diagnostic
130: to test both the hierarchical picture and the process of halo
131: condensation in the evolving universe. Thus, the dwarf-halo
132: deficit may be taken as an indicator of new physics associated
133: with dark matter (and/or dark energy). For example, the small-scale
134: power can be reduced by substituting warm dark matter for CDM. But
135: as we have seen, WMAP observations have already ruled this
136: possibility out.
137:
138: Other simple attempts to fix the dwarf-halo deficit problem are not
139: well motivated physically. Some involve altering the fundamental
140: nature of dark matter by introducing self-interaction, or
141: annihilation (see, e.g., Spergel and Steinhardt 2000; Kaplinghat,
142: Knox, and Turner 2000; and Giraud 2001, among others). Without a
143: proper indication from physical considerations, all of these models
144: contain free parameters tunable to fit the observations. For example,
145: the self-interacting dark matter scenario rests on the viability of
146: a huge velocity-dependent cross section. Unfortunately, the implied
147: large interaction rate is inconsistent with most weakly interacting,
148: massive particle and axion theories (see, e.g., Hennawi and Ostriker
149: 2002).
150:
151: Of course, the dwarf-halo deficit may be due to reasons other than
152: DM physics. Many of them may be invisible because they contain a very
153: small amount of luminous matter, either because of early feedback from
154: supernovae (Dekel and Silk 1986; Mac Low and Ferrara 1999), or because
155: their baryonic gas was heated by the intergalactic ionizing background
156: radiation (Rees 1986; Barkana and Loeb 1999). Others may have turned
157: into high-velocity clouds in the Local Group (see, e.g., Blitz et al.
158: 1999). The deficit may not even be real if the Universe is actually
159: older than its current inferred age, which in reality is only the
160: light-travel time to the cosmic horizon rather than the Big Bang
161: (Melia 2007, 2008). In such a scenario, the dwarf haloes would have
162: had more time to merge, depleting the lower end of the mass function
163: and bringing it into better alignment with the observations.
164:
165: In any case, it is still too early to tell whether or not the discrepancy
166: between the cosmological simulations and observations really indicates a major
167: problem for hierarchical models in $\Lambda$-CDM. Several of the effects
168: we have listed here may resolve at least part of the deficit problem. However,
169: given that this is still an open question, observations of the halo mass
170: function also allow us to explore non-astrophysical reasons for the
171: discrepancy, with the goal of learning more about the nature of dark matter.
172:
173: Our focus in this paper is the suggestion that DM particles may be
174: unstable to decay (see, e.g., Davis et al. 1981; Turner et al.
175: 1984; Turner 1985; Dicus and Teplitz 1986; Dekel and Piran 1987; Sciama
176: 1990; Cen 2001a; S\'anchez-Salcedo 2003). The impact of the interactions
177: we describe above and/or decays is almost always to provide a mass-dependent
178: expansion of the cusps and haloes to lower the core density and to reduce
179: the number of small galaxies. However, attempts to couple these ideas to
180: particle physics have been few and ambiguous, partly because these have
181: been concerned more with global effects, rather than aimed at finding
182: specific particle properties that may be consistent with the requirements
183: to fix the problem. Our goal in this paper is to begin a more careful
184: search for the properties DM particles must have in order to account
185: for the deficit of dwarf haloes, if in the end their decay is indeed
186: responsible for the observed effect.
187:
188: Our approach here is closest in spirit to the work of Cen (2001a) and
189: S\'anchez-Salcedo (2003), though their papers had different goals.
190: Cen's (2001a) primary interest was to demonstrate that if DM particles
191: decay and become relativistic, they escape the virialized halo, whose
192: remaining energy then exceeds that required to sustain virial equilibrium
193: and forces it to expand. His suggestion was that the overproduction of
194: dwarf haloes may be solved not by removing them, but by modifying them
195: into failed, dark galaxies, in which star formation has been quenched
196: due to the effects of evaporation and expansion. This is an intriguing
197: idea, though not yet sufficiently developed to provide a useful probe
198: into the properties of the particles themselves.
199:
200: S\'anchez-Salcedo's (2003) goal was to mitigate the disparity between the
201: very steep central cusps in dark haloes of dwarf galaxies predicted
202: by $\Lambda$-CDM and the relatively flat distributions actually seen
203: in these systems. He demonstrated that if DM decays into a relativistic,
204: nonradiative light particle, plus a stable massive particle with some
205: recoil velocity in the center-of-mass frame, the former escapes the
206: bound system while the latter remains with an energy exceeding that of
207: the parent, forcing the halo to expand.
208:
209: In this paper, we introduce several new aspects of the DM-decay scenario,
210: including the time-dependent and mass-dependent halo formation and
211: hierarchical-merger rates in order to more accurately gauge the impact of
212: heating on the present-day circular velocity distribution. There are
213: too many aspects of the DM decay to consider in just one set of
214: calculations, so we here restrict our attention to cases in which at
215: least one of the decay products remains within the halo, maintaining
216: its mass, though heating it with the liberated energy. Other regions
217: of the DM particle phase space will be explored elsewhere.
218:
219: In the next section, we summarize the circular-velocity data and demonstrate
220: the nature of the dwarf-halo deficit problem. Then in \S 3 we describe a
221: technique for following the mass-dependent formation and destruction of
222: haloes as the universe evolves. In \S 4 we describe the DM-particle decays
223: and how we incorporate the impact of this process into our calculational
224: algorithm. We present the results of our calculations in \S 5, and discuss
225: them in \S 6.
226:
227: \section{The Observed Circular-Velocity Distribution of Dwarf haloes}
228:
229: The dwarf-galaxy deficit was first quantified when the observed number
230: of dwarf galaxies in the local group was compared to high-resolution
231: cosmological simulations of Klypin et al. (1999) and Moore et al. (1999),
232: under the reasonable assumption that the local group is an adequate
233: representation of what is happening throughout the cosmos. If we assume
234: that each small dark matter halo contains a dwarf galaxy, then there is
235: a substantial discrepancy between theory and observation. At the time of
236: these simulations, there were only 13 known satellites of The Galaxy,
237: while both simulations predicted roughly 10 times that number of
238: satellites for a Milky Way-sized halo (Klypin et al. 1999, and Moore
239: et al. 1999).
240:
241: In the last several years, the number of pertinent observations has
242: increased substantially, and new cosmological simulations have been
243: completed with substantially higher resolution than the original
244: calculations. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS hereafter) has
245: uncovered 10 more Milky Way companions (Belokurov et al. 2007).
246: The discrepancy between the latest observations and the most
247: recent simulations still exists, however, and it appears to be
248: a function of mass. In the range of primary relevance to this paper
249: (i.e., 10--20 km s$^{-1}$), the disparity is a factor 4 when compared
250: to the latest high resolution N-body simulation known as Via Lactea
251: (Diemand et al. 2007), even after weighting the new dwarf galaxies by
252: a factor of 5 to account for the limited coverage of the SDSS; at 6
253: km s$^{-1}$, the discrepancy increases to a factor 10 (Simon \& Geha 2007).
254:
255: \section{Formation of Bound Objects in the Hierarchical Clustering Scenario}
256:
257: For reasons that will soon become apparent, the impact of decaying dark
258: matter on the evolution of haloes depends on their formation history. For
259: simplicity, we here use a semi-analytical approach that describes the
260: halo formation rate as a function of mass and time, optimized to
261: reproduce numerical simulations of structure formation. A good starting
262: point is the Press-Schechter mass function (hereafter PS), or one of its
263: modified forms, which is a reasonable representation of the overall halo
264: distribution resulting from these numerical simulations (Press and
265: Schechter 1974). However, PS is a number density that combines both the
266: formation and merger histories of the haloes, so it
267: does not provide their formation rate explicitly. None the less, a formation
268: rate can be extracted from the PS formalism by taking the comoving time
269: derivative of the mass function, identifying the term corresponding to the
270: formation rate, and multiplying it by the survivability probability.
271: This procedure subtracts the halo destruction rate, and is
272: necessary for our purpose since we only want to consider haloes that
273: formed in the past and survived to the present without merging with
274: others to form even bigger structures (see, e.g., Sasaki 1994;
275: Kitayama \& Suto 1996). The formation rate can be written as (Sasaki 1994)
276: \begin{equation}
277: \dot{N}_{form}(M,t) \;dM \;dt = \frac{1}{a(t)} \frac{d a(t)}{dt}N_{PS}
278: (M,t)\frac{\delta^{2}_{c}(t)}{\sigma^{2}(M)}\;dM \;dt \ ,
279: \end{equation}
280:
281: \noindent where $M$ is the mass of the formed gravitational structure, $t$ is the
282: formation time measured in comoving coordinates starting from zero at the
283: Big Bang, $a(t)$ is the cosmological scale factor normalized to unity at
284: the present epoch $t_{0}$, $N_{PS}(M,t)$ is the Press-Schechter mass
285: function, $\delta_{c}(t)=\frac{\delta_c}{a(t)}$ is the critical density
286: threshold for a spherical perturbation to collapse by time $t$ ($\delta_c
287: \simeq 1.69$ for $\Omega_0 =1$), and $\sigma(M)$ is the rms density
288: fluctuation smoothed over a region of mass $M$. However, we are interested
289: in haloes surviving to the present epoch, thus the above formation rate
290: function must be multiplied by the probability $p(t_1,t_2)$ that an object
291: which exists at $t_1$ remains at $t_2$ without merging, which is given by
292: $p(t_1,t_2)={a(t_1)}/{a(t_2)}$ (Sasaki 1994). The formation rate distribution
293: of surviving haloes at the present epoch becomes $F(M,t)\;dM\;dt=\dot{N}_{form}
294: (M,t)\times p(t,t_0)\;dM\;dt$, which can be written explicitly as
295: \begin{equation}
296: F(M,t)\;dM\;dt=A \frac{da(t)}{dt} \frac{1}{a(t)^3} M^{(n-1)/2} \exp
297: \left[ -\tfrac{1}{2}
298: \left(\tfrac{M}{M_{c,0}} \right)^{(n+3)/3} \frac{1}{a(t)^2} \right] \ ,
299: \label{formation}
300: \end{equation}
301:
302: \noindent where A is a normalization constant, $n$ is the power-law spectral index
303: chosen to be $-2.5$, following Klypin et al. (1999), and $M_{c,0}$ is the
304: present mass scale of the knee taken to be $ 10^{15}\, M_{\odot}$.
305:
306: In this paper, we adopt a flat universe $\Omega_0=1$, represented roughly
307: as $\Omega_{m,0}=0.3,$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda,0}=0.7$, which gives
308: $a(t)= \left({0.3}/{0.7} \right)^{1/3}\, \sinh ^{2/3} \left( 1.21 \,[{{t}/{t0}]} \right)
309: $, normalized to unity at the present epoch $t_0=13.7$ Gyr. Figure~1 shows the formation
310: rate as a function of time for two illustrative halo masses. The larger mass
311: always has the smaller formation rate, which also peaks at later times,
312: though this difference is not very obvious from the figure as the two are
313: relatively close.
314:
315: \section{DM Particle Decays and their Impact on Dwarf Halo Evolution}
316:
317: In this paper, we focus our attention on dark matter decay scenarios
318: in which the parent particle, denoted by $D$, decays into one stable
319: massive particle ($D'$) with a mass close to that of its parent, and
320: one very light (possibly even massless) particle ($\ell$), following
321: the notation of S\'anchez-Salcedo (2003). Due to the extreme mass
322: ratio between the daughter particles, the light particle carries most
323: of the energy released by the decay and becomes relativistic, escaping
324: the halo. The massive daughter particle remaining in the halo has an
325: (average) energy very close to, but slightly larger, than that of its parent,
326: forcing the halo to expand adiabatically. Since the kinetic energy
327: of the light particle is much larger than its rest mass, we neglect
328: the latter. To this level of approximation, the total mass of the
329: halo remains unaffected by the decay because $ m_{_{D'}}\approx m_{_D}$.
330:
331: \begin{figure}
332: \center{\includegraphics[scale=0.65,angle=-90]{f1.eps}
333: \vspace{10pt}
334: \caption{The relative halo formation distribution as a function of cosmic
335: time for haloes surviving to the present epoch, for two illustrative
336: masses: $M=1\times10^8 M_{\odot}$ and $M=3\times10^8 M_{\odot}$.}}
337: \end{figure}
338:
339: The decay is represented as $ D \rightarrow D'+\ell $. In the
340: center-of-mass frame (denoted by a * superscript), i.e., in the rest
341: frame of the parent particle $D$, the initial four-momentum vector
342: before the decay is
343: \begin{equation}
344: p_i^*=\big(m_{_D} c \, , \vec{0}\, \big)\;,
345: \end{equation}
346: and after the decay the final four-momentum is
347: \begin{equation}
348: p_f^*=p_{_{D'}}^*+p_{_{\ell}}^*=\big( \ \gamma_{_{D'}}^* m_{_{D'}} c\ ,
349: \ -\gamma_{_{D'}}^* m_{_{D'}} v_{_{D'}}^*\ ,\ 0\ ,\ 0\ \big) +
350: \big( \ E_{\ell}^*/c \ ,\ E_{\ell}^*/c \ ,\ 0\ ,\ 0\ \big)\;,
351: \end{equation}
352: where we have put the direction of $ \vec{p_{_{\ell}}}$ along $+\hat{x}$,
353: and $ \vec{p_{_{D'}}} $ along $-\hat{x}$.
354:
355: Conservation of momentum leads to the equation
356: \begin{equation}
357: \ E^{*}_{\ell}=(m^{2}_{_{D}}-m^{2}_{_{D'}})c^{2}/2m_{_D}\;.
358: \end{equation}
359: To find the particle's energy $E_{\ell} $ in the halo's rest frame,
360: we need to Lorentz boost the physical quantities using the
361: velocity $ \vec{v}=\vec{v}_{_D} $ and the angle $ \theta^* $ between
362: $\vec{v}$ and $ \vec{p_{_{\ell}}}$. This gives
363: \begin{equation}
364: E_{\ell} =\gamma_{_D} E^*_{\ell} (1+\beta_{_D} \cos \theta^*)\;.
365: \end{equation}
366: Averaging over all solid angles, we find that
367: \begin{equation}
368: \left\langle E_{\ell} \right\rangle = \frac{1}{4\pi} \int E_{\ell}
369: \, d\Omega = \gamma_{_D} E^*_{\ell}\;.
370: \end{equation}
371:
372: We next define the unitless parameter
373: \begin{equation}
374: \chi \equiv \frac{\Delta m}{m_{_{D'}}}\;,
375: \end{equation}
376: the ratio between the change in rest mass $\Delta m =m_{_{D}}-m_{_{D'}}$
377: and the mass of the heavier daughter particle $D'$. The energy of the
378: lighter (relativistic) particle, averaged over all angles $ \theta^* $,
379: becomes
380: \begin{equation}
381: \left\langle E_{\ell} \right\rangle = \gamma_{_D} m_{_{D}}
382: \frac{\chi(2+\chi)}{2(1+\chi)^2}\, c^2\;.
383: \end{equation}
384:
385: If both particles remain in the halo, then the change in the halo's
386: energy for each decay is simply $ \Delta m \, c^2$. However, the lighter
387: particle escapes, so its energy must be subtracted. We find that for
388: this type of decay, the rate of change in the halo's energy is therefore
389: \begin{equation}
390: \frac{dE_{halo}}{dN} =\Delta m \, c^2-\left\langle E_{\ell}
391: \right\rangle = m_{_{D}} c^2 \left( \frac{\chi}{1+\chi}- \gamma_{_D}
392: \frac{\chi(2+\chi)}{2(1+\chi)^2} \right)\;,
393: \end{equation}
394: where $N$ is the number of unstable particles. But the decay rate is
395: \begin{equation}
396: \frac{dN}{dt}= \frac{d}{dt} N_0 e^{-(t+t_{f})/\tau}
397: = -\frac{N_0}{\tau}e^{-(t+t_{f})/\tau}\;,
398: \end{equation}
399: where $t_{f} $ is the time at which the halo forms, $t$ is the time
400: elapsed since the formation of the halo, $\tau$ is the mean lifetime
401: of the parent particle $D$, and $ N_0$ is the initial number of parent
402: particles at the time the universe began its expansion. Combining these
403: quantities, we can now find the rate at which the halo's energy changes
404: with time:
405:
406: \begin{eqnarray}
407: \quad\qquad\qquad\frac{dE}{dt}=\frac{dE}{dN} \, \left|\frac{dN}{dt}\right|&=&
408: \frac{(N_0 m_{_{D}}) c^2 }{\tau}e^{-(t+t_{f})/\tau} \,
409: \left( \frac{\chi}{1+\chi}- \gamma_{_D} \frac{\chi(2+\chi)}{2(1+\chi)^2} \right) \nonumber \\
410: \null&=&\frac{(M) c^2 }{\tau}e^{-(t+t_{f})/\tau} \,
411: \left( \frac{\chi}{1+\chi}- \gamma_{_D} \frac{\chi(2+\chi)}{2(1+\chi)^2} \right) \;.
412: \label{dEdt1}
413: \end{eqnarray}
414: \vskip 0.1in
415: By knowing the rate of energy change, we can in principle find the change in size
416: of the halo by expanding it adiabatically. However, in order to do that, we need
417: to know its initial density profile. At the time of formation, we will assume the
418: halo has a Navarro, Frenk, \& White density profile (1997, NFW hereafter)
419: \begin{equation}
420: \frac{\rho_{_{\mathrm{NFW}}}(r)}{\rho_{_{\mathrm{crit}}}}=
421: \frac{\delta_{\eta}}{(r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2 }\;,
422: \end{equation}
423: where $ \rho_{_{\mathrm{crit}}} $ is the critical density, $r_s$ is the scale radius
424: of the NFW profile, and
425: \begin{equation}
426: \delta_{\eta}= \frac{200}{3} \frac{\eta^3}{\ln(1+\eta)-
427: \eta/(1+\eta)}
428: \label{delta}
429: \end{equation}
430: is a characteristic (dimensionless) density in terms of
431: $\eta=r_v/r_s$ (the concentration parameter) and the virial radius $ r_v$
432: (defined as the radius of a sphere of mean interior density $200
433: \rho_{_{\mathrm{crit}}}$). Although the NFW profile is an analytic function,
434: it cannot be readily incorporated into our semi-analytical model. First, its
435: distribution function $f(r,v)$ cannot be obtained analytically, and must be
436: found numerically. Furthermore, to find how the scale radius $r_s $ evolves
437: with time, we need to find the halo energy as a function of $ r_s$, but
438: this is not easy to do with the NFW profile. Assuming the halo is virialized,
439: $ E_{tot}=\left\langle K \right\rangle+\left\langle U
440: \right\rangle=-\frac{1}{2}\left\langle U \right\rangle+ \left\langle U
441: \right\rangle=\frac{1}{2} \left\langle U \right\rangle$. The total potential
442: energy is given as (Binney \& Tremaine 1987)
443: \begin{equation}
444: U=\frac{1}{2} \int{ \Phi ({\mathbf x}) \rho ({\mathbf x}) \, d^3 {\mathbf x}}\;,
445: \label{energy}
446: \end{equation}
447: where $\Phi$ is the gravitational potential.
448:
449: To evaluate this integral, we need to find $\Phi ({\mathbf x})$ from
450: $\rho ({\mathbf x})$, which we can do by first finding the mass
451: \begin{equation}
452: M(r)=\int\limits_0^r{ 4\pi r'^2 \, \rho (r') \, d r'}\;.
453: \label{mass}
454: \end{equation}
455: For the NFW profile,
456: \begin{equation}
457: M_{_{\mathrm{NFW}}}(r)=M\frac{\ln(1+r/r_s)-\frac{r/r_s}{1+r/r_s}}
458: {\ln(1+\eta)-\frac{\eta}{1+\eta}}\;,
459: \label{NFWmass}
460: \end{equation}
461: where $M$ is the virial mass of the halo contained inside the virial
462: radius. By definition, $\nabla \Phi({\mathbf x})=- {\mathbf F({\mathbf x})}$,
463: and for the simple isotropic case, $ {\mathbf F(r)} = -GM(r)/r^2$, which leads to
464: \begin{equation}
465: \Phi(r)=\int\limits_0^r{\frac{G M(r')}{r'^2}\, dr' }\;.
466: \label{potential}
467: \end{equation}
468: For an NFW halo, this gives\footnote{ To get the correct energy, the potential
469: $\Phi ({\mathbf x})$ must be adjusted with an additive constant such that
470: $\Phi (r_v)=-GM/r_v$ since the NFW halo density must vanish for $r>r_v$.}
471: \begin{equation}
472: \Phi_{_{\mathrm{NFW}}}(r)= \frac{-GM}{r}\,\frac{\ln(1+r/r_s)-\frac{r/r_s}
473: {(1+\eta)}}{\ln(1+\eta)-\frac{\eta}{1+\eta}}\;.
474: \end{equation}
475: Thus, solving for $U$ in equation~(\ref{energy}), we find that
476: \begin{equation}
477: E_{_{\mathrm{NFW}}}= -\frac{GM^2}{4r_s} \left( \frac{1-1/(1+\eta)^2-2\ln(1+\eta)/(1+\eta)}
478: {\left[\ln(1+\eta)-\eta/(1+\eta) \right]^2} \right)\;.
479: \label{nfwenergy}
480: \end{equation}
481: In this equation, the concentration parameter $\eta$ changes with $r_s$, which
482: makes it difficult to find an analytic expression for $ dr_s/dt $ in terms of
483: $dE/dt$.
484:
485: For these reasons, it is convenient to translate the NFW profile into an
486: equivalent Plummer distribution,
487: \begin{equation}
488: \rho_{_p}(r)=\left( \frac{3M}{4 \pi r_p^3} \right)
489: \left( 1+ \frac{r^2}{r_p^2}\right)^{-5/2}\;,
490: \end{equation}
491: which is mathematically easier to evolve in time. In this expression,
492: $r_p$ is the Plummer scale radius. A principal virtue of the Plummer
493: profile is that it solves the Lane-Emden equation for a self-gravitating,
494: polytropic gas sphere. The corresponding distribution function may be written
495: \begin{equation}
496: f_p(r,v)=B\left[\frac{GM}{\sqrt{r^{2}+r_p^{2}}}-\frac{1}{2}v^{2}\right]^{7/2}\;,
497: \label{distribution}
498: \end{equation}
499: where $B$ is a normalization constant, and it is trivial to show from
500: equations~(\ref{mass}) and (\ref{potential}) that
501: \begin{equation}
502: M_p(r)=M \frac{r^3}{\left(r_p^2+r^2\right)^{(3/2)}}\;,
503: \end{equation}
504: and
505: \begin{equation}
506: \Phi_p(r)=\frac{-GM}{\sqrt{r_p^2+r^2}}\;.
507: \end{equation}
508:
509: Thus, the total energy of a Plummer halo (from equation~\ref{energy}) is
510: \begin{equation}
511: E_p=-\frac{3\pi GM^{2}}{64r_p}\;.
512: \label{plummerenergy}
513: \end{equation}
514: In making the transition from an NFW profile to its corresponding Plummer
515: form, we use the physically reasonable criterion that two haloes should have
516: the same mass and energy. Therefore, equating equations~(\ref{nfwenergy}) and
517: (\ref{plummerenergy}), we get
518: \begin{equation}
519: r_p=r_s\frac{3\pi}{16} \left(\frac{\left[\ln(1+\eta)-\eta/(1+\eta)
520: \right]^2}{1-1/(1+\eta)^2-2\ln(1+\eta)/(1+\eta)} \right)\;.
521: \end{equation}
522: Following Navarro, Frenk, and White (1997), we will further assume that
523: $\eta=20$ at the time of formation (for the smallest haloes), though our
524: results are insensitive to its actual value.
525:
526: Figure~2 illustrates the differences in circular velocity
527: ($ v_{\rm circ}=\sqrt{GM(r)/r}$) for an NFW halo (with mass
528: $3\times 10^8\; M_\odot$) and the corresponding equivalent
529: Plummer form. The Plummer halo may not fit the observed velocities
530: as well as NFW, but their maximum circular velocities are almost the
531: same, and since the Plummer model permits us to obtain an analytic
532: solution for the halo's evolution in time, we will
533: use it in all our calculations under the assumption that the collective
534: behavior of self-gravitating virialized haloes is similar for slightly
535: different profiles. Nevertheless, we will still need to use the NFW
536: profile to obtain the initial characteristics of the halo at the time
537: of its formation.
538:
539: \begin{figure}
540: \center{\includegraphics[scale=0.65,angle=-90]{f2.eps}
541: \vspace{10pt}
542: \caption{Circular velocity curves of two haloes with the same mass
543: ($M=3\times10^8 M_{\odot}$) and the same total internal energy, but
544: one with a Plummer density profile, and the other with an NFW density
545: profile. Radii are in units of the initial Plummer scale radius,
546: $r_{p,i}$, and circular velocities in units of kilometers per second.}}
547: \end{figure}
548:
549: Now, using the Plummer distribution (equation~\ref{distribution}), we can
550: simplify equation~(\ref{dEdt1}) by evaluating the average rate\footnote{Note
551: that $ \gamma_{_D}=1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2} \approx 1+v^2/2c^2$ since particle
552: $D$ is non-relativistic.}
553: \begin{eqnarray}
554: \qquad\qquad\left\langle \frac{dE}{dt} \right\rangle\hskip-0.1in&=&
555: \hskip-0.1in \int \frac{dE}{dt}
556: f_p(r,v)\, d^3 {\mathbf x}\, d^3 {\mathbf v}\nonumber \\
557: \null\hskip-0.1in&=&\hskip-0.1in \frac{(M) c^2 }{\tau}
558: e^{-(t+t_{f})/\tau} \, \left[ \frac{\chi}{1+\chi}-
559: \left( 1+ \frac{3 \pi G M}{64 c^2 r_p} \right)
560: \frac{\chi(2+\chi)}{2(1+\chi)^2} \right]\;.
561: \label{dEdt2}
562: \end{eqnarray}
563:
564: \begin{figure}
565: \center{\includegraphics[scale=0.65,angle=-90]{f3.eps}
566: \vspace{10pt}
567: \caption{Circular velocity curves at different times (indicated) of an expanding
568: halo formed at $t=1 Gyr$ with mass $3\times10^8 M_{\odot}$. The expansion is due to
569: the decay of CDM particles with $\chi=4\times10^{-5}$ and $\tau=5$ Gyr. The radius
570: is in units of the initial Plummer scale radius, and circular velocities are km s$^{-1}$.}}
571: \end{figure}
572:
573: And combining equations~(\ref{plummerenergy}) and (\ref{dEdt2}), we therefore get
574: \begin{eqnarray}
575: \qquad\qquad\frac{dr_p}{dt}\hskip-0.1in&=&\hskip-0.1in \frac{64\, r_p^2}{3\pi G M^2}
576: \frac{dE}{dt}\nonumber \\
577: \null\hskip-0.1in&=&\hskip-0.1in\frac{64\, r_p^2}{3\pi G M} \frac{c^2 }{\tau}
578: e^{-(t+t_{f})/\tau} \, \left[ \frac{\chi}{1+\chi}- \left( 1+
579: \frac{3 \pi G M}{64 c^2 r_p} \right) \frac{\chi(2+\chi)}{2(1+\chi)^2} \right]\;.
580: \end{eqnarray}
581:
582: This differential equation can be solved analytically, yielding the result\vskip -0.08in
583: \begin{equation}
584: r_p (t)=r_{p,i} \frac{3\pi G M (\chi +2) \exp \left[-\frac{\chi (\chi+2) }
585: {2(\chi+1)^2}e^{-t_{f}/\tau}\right]}{64 \chi c^2r_{p,i}\exp \left[-
586: \frac{\chi (\chi+2) }{2(\chi+1)^2}e^{-t_{f}/\tau}\right]+
587: \left( 3 \pi G M (\chi+2)-64 \chi c^2 r_{p,i} \right)\exp
588: \left[-\frac{\chi (\chi+2) }{2(\chi+1)^2}e^{-(t+t_{f})/\tau}\right]}\;,
589: \label{finalresult}
590: \end{equation}
591: \vskip -0.08in\noindent
592: where $r_{p,i}$ is the initial Plummer scale radius at the time of formation.
593: Note that the impact of DM decay on the evolution of the halo does not depend
594: on the mass of the individual particles $D$ and $D'$, but rather on the
595: ratio of these masses represented by the unitless parameter $\chi$, as well
596: as on the mean lifetime $\tau$ of the parent particle $D$. There is an
597: underlying assumption here that the halo keeps a Plummer profile throughout
598: the expansion. When comparing the decay time scale, defined as $t_{decay}
599: \equiv \left| {E}/{dE/dt} \right|$, to the dynamical time $t_{dyn}\equiv\sqrt{{3 \pi}/
600: {16 G \rho}}$ (Binney \& Tremaine 1987), we find that $t_{decay}/t_{dyn} > 10$,
601: implying that the halo always equilibrates to its virialized profile fast
602: enough to justify the quasi-equilibrium approximation. Figure~3 illustrates
603: the expansion of a halo formed at $t_{f}=1$ Gyr, showing how the maximum
604: circular velocity decreases with time.
605:
606: \section{Computations and Results}
607:
608: To explore the global impact of our model on the halo distribution,
609: we incorporate the effects of the DM decay on each individual halo
610: (equation \ref{finalresult}) and its formation rate (equation
611: \ref{formation}) through a series of calculations. We assess
612: the consequences of this process by examining the modifications
613: to the distribution of maximum circular velocity ($v_{circ}$ hereafter)
614: under two assumptions: (i) that at the time of formation, all haloes
615: with the same mass will have the same concentration parameter. Although
616: this is evidently incorrect for individual haloes, we are considering
617: the global behavior, for which an average concentration parameter will
618: suffice. Thus, in the case of no decay, all virialized haloes with the
619: same mass will have the same circular velocity regardless of when they
620: formed, since their concentration parameter does not change with time
621: and only depends on the halo's mass; (ii) that the stellar dispersion
622: velocity is proportional to the maximum circular velocity of the host
623: dwarf halo.\footnote{This assumption has been extensively used to infer
624: the circular velocity for elliptical galaxies and dwarf spheroidals from
625: the observed stellar dispersion velocity $v_{circ}=\sqrt{3}\sigma$,
626: where $\sigma$ is the observed stellar dispersion velocity (Klypin et
627: al. 1999, Simon \& Geha 2007)} Thus, with DM decay, the haloes expand
628: and their concentration will correspondingly change with time, which
629: in turn alters the circular velocity and the observed stellar dispersion
630: velocity. So haloes with different masses that formed at different times
631: in the past may end up with the same circular velocity in the current epoch.
632:
633: \begin{figure}
634: \center{\includegraphics[scale=0.8,angle=0]{f4.eps}
635: \vspace{10pt}
636: \caption{Circular velocity distribution of DM haloes for a fixed mean lifetime
637: $\tau= 5$ Gyr, and different values of the decay parameter $\chi\equiv
638: \Delta m/m_{D^\prime}$. The circular velocity distribution without decay is
639: provided for comparison.}}
640: \end{figure}
641:
642: For a given decay parameter $\chi$ and a mean lifetime $\tau$, the
643: evolution of the halo still depends on when it formed and on its mass.
644: For example, if the halo formed late relative to the mean lifetime
645: $\tau$, then most of the unstable DM particles will have already
646: decayed by then, and the halo will therefore experience no
647: significant expansion. Furthermore, according to equations
648: (\ref{dEdt1}) and (\ref{plummerenergy}), $dE/dt\propto~M$,
649: while $E\propto~M^2$, which means that $({dE}/{dt})/E\propto1/M$.
650: This is a crucial dependence of this process on mass since it guarantees
651: a relatively stronger impact on the smaller haloes. For example, if a small
652: halo with $M\approx10^{8}\, M_{\odot}$ experiences a significant expansion
653: for a given set of decay parameters (for which, say, $({dE}/{dt})/E$ is of
654: order unity), then a much larger halo, e.g., with $M\approx~10^{10} M_{\odot}$,
655: will be unaffected by the decay since now $({dE}/{dt})/E \approx~10^{-2}$.
656:
657: Figure~4 demonstrates the impact of changing the decay parameter $\chi$ on
658: the circular-velocity distribution in the range 8--22 km s$^{-1}$, given a
659: fixed mean lifetime. For this calculation, the formation time distribution
660: function was normalized such that without any DM decay, 100 haloes would
661: be produced with $v_{circ}$ between 10 and 20 km s$^{-1}$. We can see that
662: the decay decreases the number of haloes with lower circular velocities
663: more than those with higher ones. Furthermore, the impact of the DM decay
664: on the velocity distribution increases with $\chi$, which is not surprising
665: given that a higher $\chi$ corresponds to a higher recoil velocity of the
666: remaining particle $D'$ and, therefore, a greater expansion. It is important
667: to note that our approximations cease to be valid at $\chi \approx 7\times10^{-5}$,
668: because for higher values the recoil velocity of $D'$ becomes comparable to
669: its escape velocity in the haloes we are considering. For such high values
670: of $\chi$, some of the $D'$ particles would start escaping right after the
671: decay, depending on the velocity and initial position of the parent particle
672: and on the angle $\theta^{*}$ that the recoil velocity makes with the velocity
673: of the parent particle. As a result, the mass of the halo would decrease with
674: time, an effect that is not being taken into account right now.
675:
676: \begin{figure}
677: \center{\includegraphics[scale=0.8,angle=0]{f5.eps}
678: \vspace{10pt}
679: \caption{Circular velocity distribution of DM haloes for a fixed decay parameter
680: $\chi=4 \times 10^{-5}$, and different values of the mean lifetime $\tau$.
681: The circular velocity distribution without decay is provided for comparison.}}
682: \end{figure}
683:
684: We have also examined the impact of varying the mean lifetime $\tau$ on our
685: model, the results of which are summarized in figure~5, for a fixed value of
686: $\chi$. For relatively small values of $\tau$ ($\approx 0.1$ Gyr), the decay
687: has virtually no impact on the circular velocity distribution since most of
688: the DM particles will have already decayed before the vast majority of the
689: haloes formed. In these cases, the haloes experience no significant expansion.
690: As $\tau$ increases, however, most of the DM particles decay after the majority
691: of the haloes have formed.\footnote{This implies that the dependence of our
692: model on $\tau$ is strongly related to the formation time distribution function.
693: Thus, using a different formation function can produce a qualitatively different
694: dependence on $\tau$.} The impact of DM decay reaches a maximum "effectiveness"
695: in decreasing the number of haloes for $\tau\sim 10$ Gyr. As one would expect,
696: larger values of $\tau$ produce less significant results since most of the
697: unstable particles would not have decayed by the present time.
698:
699: \begin{figure}
700: \center{\includegraphics[scale=0.65,angle=0]{f6.eps}
701: \vspace{10pt}
702: \caption{Contour plot representing the effectiveness of the DM decay in
703: reducing the number of dwarf haloes with $v_{circ}$ between 10 and 20 km s$^{-1}$,
704: given a set of decay parameters $\chi\equiv\Delta m/m_{D^\prime}$ and $\tau$.
705: The shaded regions represent the ratio of the number of haloes predicted without
706: decay (for $v_{circ}$ between 10 and 20 km s$^{-1}$) to that obtained with DM decay.}}
707: \end{figure}
708:
709: The full dependence of the circular-velocity distribution on DM decay is
710: shown in figure~6, which includes the effects of both $\chi$ and $\tau$.
711: The contour levels represent the effectiveness of the decay in decreasing
712: the number of dwarf haloes within the velocity range 10--20 km s$^{-1}$.
713: The various shaded regions represent the expected number of haloes without
714: decay divided by the corresponding number when expansion occurs with a
715: given set of parameters $\chi$ and $\tau$.
716:
717: Besides adjusting the predicted circular velocity distribution to bring it
718: in line with observations, the most important observational signature of
719: DM decay is the dependence of the concentration parameter of dwarf galaxies
720: on redshift. At relatively large redshifts, the haloes would have formed
721: recently and a smaller fraction of the DM particles would have decayed,
722: so neither the concentration parameter, nor the stellar dispersion velocity,
723: would have been influenced greatly. This is to be contrasted with what would
724: have happened to haloes observed in the current epoch. Therefore, distant dwarf
725: haloes at large redshifts would be expected to be brighter (on average) and to
726: have higher dispersion velocities compared to their nearby (lower redshift)
727: counterparts with similar masses.
728:
729: \section{Conclusion}
730: We have shown that the decay of unstable CDM particles can fully account for
731: the deficit of dwarf galaxies in the local group, and have identified some of
732: the particle properties required to achieve this result. In figure~6, the
733: lifetime $\tau$ and energy conversion fraction $\chi$ must have values
734: consistent with the thick black line between the two gray regions
735: in order to reduce the number of dwarf haloes
736: within the range of velocities 10--20 km s$^{-1}$ by a factor $\sim$ 4,
737: in agreement with the observations (Simon \& Geha 2007).
738: Broadly speaking, the DM decay model works very well as long as $\chi
739: \sim 5-7\times 10^{-5}$. The lifetime cannot be longer than $\sim 30$ Gyr,
740: and may be as short as only a few Gyr, depending on the precise value
741: of $\chi$. Note, however, that we have here restricted our analysis to
742: cases in which the more massive decay particle $D^\prime$ remains bound
743: to the halo. We may find other regions of $\chi-\tau$ phase space that
744: produce reasonable results when this restriction is removed.
745:
746: We emphasize that this model can reduce power on small scales consistent
747: with the observations without altering the number of Milky Way-sized galaxies.
748: Very importantly, we have shown that although the expansion produced by these
749: decays changes the circular velocity distribution, it does not change the halo
750: mass function, at least not directly. It is beyond the scope of the present paper
751: to seek the ultimate fate of dwarf haloes expanding to circular velocities below
752: 10 km s$^{-1}$, which remains an open question, though several possibilities have
753: been proposed by Cen (2001a, 2001b).
754:
755: It should be pointed out, however, that in addition to expanding (preferentially)
756: the smaller haloes, and thereby reducing their measurable velocity dispersion,
757: DM decay would also have the effect of speeding up their rate of evaporation
758: within the Milky Way's tidal field. In this way, dwarf haloes would be removed
759: from the overall velocity distribution, not only due to their migration in velocity
760: space towards the low end, but would also be removed entirely due to evaporation.
761: This effect would not be evident with the larger haloes, for which DM decay
762: would have little impact on their condensation (and hence on their velocity profiles).
763:
764: Interestingly, some limits on DM-decay models have already been established
765: based on limits provided by the cosmic $\gamma$-ray background. Although it is
766: beyond the scope of the present paper to consider the implications of our work on
767: all possible DM scenarios, it is useful to see how coupling our astrophysically-motivated
768: simulations to the various particle physics proposals could develop in the future.
769: For example, in their consideration of WIMPs decaying to Kaluza-Klein gravitons
770: and gravitinos, Cembranos et al. (2007) demonstrated that both the energy spectrum
771: and flux of the observed diffuse MeV $\gamma$-ray excess may be explained by
772: decaying DM with $\sim$MeV mass splittings. In this picture, a decay timescale
773: of 10 Gyr would require a mass splitting of $\sim 10$ MeV, for which the unstable
774: DM particle would then have a mass $\sim 1$ TeV within the context of our model.
775: In a second example, Kribs and Rothstein (1997) placed bounds on long-lived
776: primordial relics using measurements of the diffuse $\gamma$-ray spectrum from
777: EGRET and COMPTEL. They concluded that relics decaying predominantly through
778: radiative channels are excluded for lifetimes between
779: $10^{5}$ and $10^{15}$ years. Since the DM decay timescale in
780: our model fits within this range, the radiative decay of
781: relics such as these could not resolve the dwarf spheroidal problem.
782:
783: We have kept our analysis semi-analytical in order to better gauge the impact
784: of our assumptions and chosen parameter values. Of course, to get a more
785: accurate set of results, one should couple the properties of decaying DM
786: particles with a more realistic N-body simulation. We intend to carry
787: out such a calculation in the near future and will report the results
788: elsewhere.
789:
790: \vspace*{-0.3cm}
791: \section*{Acknowledgments}
792:
793: This research was partially supported by NSF grant 0402502 at the
794: University of Arizona, and a Miegunyah Fellowship at the University
795: of Melbourne. We are very grateful to Romeel Dav\'e for very helpful
796: discussions. Part of this work was carried out at the Center for
797: Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology in Paris.
798:
799: \vspace*{-0.3cm}
800: \vfill
801:
802: \newpage
803: \begin{thebibliography}{}
804:
805: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Abadi et al.}{Abadi et al.}{2003}] {Abadi03}
806: Abadi, M. G., Navarro, J. F., Steinmetz, M., and Eke, V. R.
807: 2003, ApJ, 597, 21
808:
809: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Barkana and Loeb}{Barkana and Loeb}{1999}] {Barkana99}
810: Barkana, R. and Loeb, A. 1999, ApJ, 523, 54
811:
812: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Belokurov et al.}{Belokurov et al.}{2007}] {Belokurov07}
813: Belokurov, V. et al., 2007, ApJ, 654, 897
814:
815: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bennett et al.}{Bennett et al.}{2003}] {Bennett03}
816: Bennett, C. L., Halpern, M., Hinshaw, G., Jarosik, N., Kogut, A., Limon, M.,
817: Meyer, S. S. et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 1
818:
819: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Binney and Tremaine}{Binney and Tremaine}{1987}] {Binney87}
820: Binney J. and Tremaine S. 1987, Galactic Dynamics, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton
821:
822: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Blitz et al.}{Blitz et al.}{1999}] {1999}
823: Blitz, L., Spergel, D., Teuben, P., Hartmann, D., and Burton, W. B. 1999,
824: ApJ, 574, 818
825:
826: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cembranos et al.}{Cembranos et al.}{20007}] {2007}
827: Cembranos, J.A.R., Feng, J. L., and Strigari, L. E., 2007, PRL, 99, 191301
828:
829: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cen}{Cen}{2001a}] {Cen01a}
830: Cen, R. 2001, ApJ Letters, 546, L77
831:
832: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cen}{Cen}{2001b}] {Cen01b}
833: Cen, R. 2001, ApJ Letters, 549, L195
834:
835: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Davis et al.}{Davis et al.}{1981}] {Davis81}
836: Davis, M., Lecar, M., Pryor, C., and Witten, E. 1981, ApJ, 250, 423
837:
838: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{de Blok et al.}{de Blok et al.}{2003}] {deBlok03}
839: de Blok, W.J.G., Bosma, A., and McGaugh, S. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 657
840:
841: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dekel and Piran}{Dekel and Piran}{1987}] {Dekel87}
842: Dekel, A. and Piran, T. 1987, ApJ Letters, 315, L83
843:
844: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dekel and Silk}{Dekel and Silk}{1986}] {Dekel86}
845: Dekel, A. and Silk, J. 1986, ApJ, 303, 39
846:
847: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dicus and Teplitz}{Dicus and Teplitz}{1986}] {Dicus86}
848: Dicus, D. A. and Teplitz, V. L. 1986, Phys. Rev. D, 34, 934
849:
850: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Diemand et al.}{Diemand et al.}{2007}] {Diemand07}
851: Diemand, J., Kuhlen, M., and Madau, P. 2007, ApJ, 657, 262
852:
853: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Giraud}{Giraud}{2001}] {Giraud01}
854: Giraud, E. 2001, ApJ Letters, 558, L23
855:
856: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hennawi and Ostriker}{Hennawi and Ostriker}{2002}]
857: {Hennawi02} Hennawi, J. F. and Ostriker, J. P. 2002, ApJ, 572, 41
858:
859: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kaplinghat et al.}{Kaplinghat et al.}{2000}]
860: {Kaplinghat00} Kaplinghat, M., Knox, L., and Turner, M. 2000, PRL, 85, 3335
861:
862: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kitayama and Suto}{Kitayama and Suto}{1996}] {Kitayama96}
863: Kitayama, T. and Suto, Y. 1996, MNRAS, 280, 638
864:
865: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kravtsov et al.}{Kravtsov et al.}{1998}] {Kravtsov98}
866: Kravtsov, A. V., Klypin, A. A., Bullock, J. S., Primack, J. R. 1998,
867: ApJ, 502, 48
868:
869: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Klypin et al.}{Klypin et al.}{1999}] {Klypin99}
870: Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A. V., and Valenzuela, O. 1999, ApJ, 522, 82
871:
872: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kribs and Rothstein}{Kribs and Rothstein}{1997}] {Kribs97}
873: Kribs, G. D., and Rothstein, I. Z., 1997, Phys. Rev. D, 55, 4435
874:
875: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Mac Low and Ferrara}{Mac Low and Ferrara}{1998}] {MacLow98}
876: Mac Low, M.-M. and Ferrara, A. 1998, ApJ, 513, 142
877:
878: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Melia}{Melia}{2007}] {Melia07}
879: Melia, F. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 1917
880:
881: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Melia}{Melia}{2008}] {Melia08}
882: Melia, F. 2007, New Astronomy, submitted (arXiv:0711.4810v1)
883:
884: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Moore et al.}{Moore et al.}{1999}] {Moore99}
885: Moore, B., Ghigna, S., Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T. et al. 1999,
886: ApJ Letters, 524, L19
887:
888: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Mould et al.}{Mould et al.}{2000}] {Mould00}
889: Mould, J. R., Huchra, J. P., Freedman, W. L., Kennicutt, R. C., Ferrarese, L.,
890: Ford, H. C., Gibson, B. K. et al. 2000, ApJ, 529, 786
891:
892: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Murali et al.}{Murali et al.}{2002}] {Murali02}
893: Murali, C., Katz, N., Hernquist, L., Weinberg, D. H., Dav\'e, R. 2002,
894: ApJ, 571, 1
895:
896: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Navarro et al.}{Navarro et al.}{1996}] {Navarro1996}
897: Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., and White, S.D.M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563
898:
899: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Perlmutter et al.}{Perlmutter et al.}{1999}]
900: {Perlmutter99} Perlmutter, S., Aldering, G., Goldhaber, G., Knop, R. A.,
901: Nugent, P., Castro, P. G., Deustua, S. et al. 1999, ApJ, 517, 565
902:
903: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Press and Schechter}{Press and Schechter}{1974}]
904: {Press74} Press, W. H. and Schechter, P. 1974, ApJ, 187, 425
905:
906: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Rees}{Rees}{1986}] {Rees86}
907: Rees, M. J. 1986, MNRAS, 218, 25
908:
909: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Riess et al.}{Riess et al.}{1998}] {Riess98}
910: Riess, A. G., Filippenko, A. V., Challis, P., Clocchiatti, A., Diercks, A.,
911: Garnavich, P. M., Gilliland, R. L. et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 1009
912:
913: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{S\'anchez-Salcedo}{S\'anchez-Salcedo}{2003}] {Sanchez03}
914: S\'anchez-Salcedo, F. J. 2003, ApJ Letters, 591, L107
915:
916: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sasaki}{Sasaki}{1994}] {Sasaki94}
917: Sasaki, S. 1994, PASJ, 46, 427
918:
919: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sciama}{Sciama}{1990}] {Sciama90}
920: Sciama, D. W. 1990, ApJ, 364, 549
921:
922: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Simon and Geha}{Simon and Geha}{2007}] {Simon07}
923: Simon, J. D., and Geha, M., 2007, ApJ, 670, 313
924:
925: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Spergel and Steinhardt}{Spergel and Steinhardt}{2000}]
926: {Spergel 00} Spergel, D. N. and Steinhardt, P. J. 2000, PRL, 84, 3760
927:
928: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Spergel et al.}{Spergel et al.}{2003}] {Spergel03}
929: Spergel, D. N., Verde, L., Peiris, H. V., Komatsu, E., Nolta, M. R. et al.
930: 2003, ApJS, 148, 175
931:
932: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Springel et al.}{Springel et al.}{2006}] {Springel06}
933: Springel, V., Frenk, C. S., and White, S.D.M. 2006, Nature, 440, 1137
934:
935: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Turner}{Turner}{1985}] {Turner85}
936: Turner, M. S. 1985, Phys. Rev. D, 31, 1212
937:
938: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Turner et al.}{Turner et al.}{1984}] {Turner84}
939: Turner, M. S., Steigman, G., and Krauss, L. M. 1984, PRL, 52, 2090
940:
941: \end{thebibliography}
942:
943: \end{document}
944:
945: