1: %For emulateapj:

2: %\documentstyle[emulateapj,graphicx]{article}

3: 

4: %\topmargin=0.4in

5: 

6: %For preprint:

7: %\documentstyle[12pt,epsf,aaspp4]{article}

8: 

9: %For manuscript:

10: %\documentstyle[12pt,aasms4]{article}

11: 

12: %For me to compile:

13: \documentclass[preprint,12pt]{aastex}

14: 

15: \def\msun{{\rm\,M_\odot}}

16: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.\ }

17: \newcommand{\kms}{\, {\rm km\, s}^{-1}}

18: \newcommand{\ikms}{(\kms)^{-1}}

19: \newcommand{\mpc}{\, {\rm Mpc}}

20: \newcommand{\kpc}{\, {\rm kpc}}

21: \newcommand{\hmpc}{\, h^{-1} \mpc}

22: \newcommand{\ihmpc}{(\hmpc)^{-1}}

23: \newcommand{\hkpc}{\, h^{-1} \kpc}

24: \newcommand{\lya}{Ly$\alpha$ }

25: \newcommand{\lyaf}{Ly$\alpha$ forest}

26: \newcommand{\ch}{\bf change}

27: \newcommand{\gmo}{{\gamma-1}}

28: \newcommand{\bF}{\bar{F}}

29: \newcommand{\hi}{\mbox{H\,{\scriptsize I}\ }}

30: \newcommand{\heii}{\mbox{He\,{\scriptsize II}\ }}

31: \newcommand{\kpa}{k_\parallel}

32: \newcommand{\vk}{{\mathbf k}}

33: \newcommand{\df}{\delta_F}

34: \newcommand{\sF}{{F_s}}

35: \newcommand{\sdelta}{{\delta_s}}

36: \newcommand{\seta}{{\eta_s}}

37: \newcommand{\dt}{\Delta \theta}

38: \newcommand{\dv}{\Delta v}

39: \newcommand{\pa}{\parallel}

40: \newcommand{\pe}{\perp}

41: \newcommand{\dz}{\Delta z}

42: 

43: \slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ}

44: 

45: \begin{document}

46: 

47: \title{Properties of Cold Dark Matter Halos at $z>6$}

48: 

49: \author{Renyue Cen\altaffilmark{1}, Feng Dong\altaffilmark{2}, Paul Bode\altaffilmark{3}, and Jeremiah P. Ostriker\altaffilmark{4}}

50: 

51: \altaffiltext{1} {Princeton University Observatory, 

52: Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544; cen@astro.princeton.edu}

53: 

54: \altaffiltext{1} {Princeton University Observatory, 

55: Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544; feng@astro.princeton.edu}

56: 

57: \altaffiltext{1} {Princeton University Observatory, 

58: Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544; bode@astro.princeton.edu}

59: 

60: \altaffiltext{1} {Princeton University Observatory, 

61: Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544; jpo@astro.princeton.edu;

62: Institute for Astronomy,

63: Cambridge University, Cambridge, England; jpo@ast.cam.ac.uk}

64: 

65: 

66: \accepted{ }

67: 

68: \begin{abstract}

69: We compute the properties of dark matter halos 

70: with mass $10^{6.5}-10^9\msun$

71: at redshift $z=6-11$ in the standard cold dark matter

72: cosmological model, utilizing a very high resolution

73: N-body simulation.

74: We find that dark matter halos in these mass and redshift ranges 

75: are significantly biased

76: over matter with a bias factor in the range $2-6$.

77: The dark matter halo mass function displays a 

78: slope of $2.05\pm 0.15$ at the small mass end.

79: We do not find a universal dark matter density profile.

80: Instead, we find

81: a significant 

82: dependence of the central density 

83: profile of dark matter halos on halo mass and epoch

84: with $\alpha_0=0.4-1.0$;

85: the high-mass ($M\ge 10^8\msun$)

86: low-redshift ($z\sim 6$) halos occupy the high end

87: of the range and low-mass ($M\sim 10^{7}\msun$)

88: high-redshift ($z\sim 11$) halos occupy the low end.

89: Additionally, for fixed mass and epoch there is 

90: a significant dispersion in $\alpha_0$ 

91: due to the stochastic assembly of halos.

92: Our results fit a relationship of the form 

93: $\alpha_0=0.75((1+z)/7.0)^{-1.25}(M/10^7\msun)^{0.11(1+z)/7.0}$

94: with a dispersion about this fit of $\pm 0.5$ and no systematic

95: dependence of variance correlated with environment.

96: The median spin parameter of dark matter halos

97: is $0.03-0.04$ but with a large lognormal dispersion of $\sim 0.4$.

98: Various quantities are tabulated or fitted with empirical formulae.

99: 

100: 

101: 

102: \end{abstract}

103: 

104: \keywords{

105: cosmology: theory---intergalactic medium---large-scale structure of 

106: universe---quasars: absorption lines

107: }

108: 

109: \section{Introduction}

110: 

111: The reionization epoch is now within the direct

112: observational reach thanks to rapid recent observational advances 

113: in two fronts ---

114: optical quasar absorption from Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS)

115: (Fan \etal 2001; Becker \etal 2001) 

116: and the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) experiment

117: (Kogut \etal 2003).

118: The picture painted by the combined observations, 

119: perhaps not too surprisingly,

120: strongly suggests

121: a complex cosmological reionization process,

122: consistent with the double reionization scenario (Cen 2003). 

123: It may be that this is the beginning 

124: of a paradigm shift in our focus on the high redshift universe:

125: the star formation history of the early universe

126: can now be observationally constrained.

127: 

128: It thus becomes urgent to theoretically explore

129: galaxy and star formation process 

130: at high redshift in the dark age ($z\ge 6$).

131: In the context of the standard cold dark matter model

132: it is expected that stars within halos 

133: of mass $10^7-10^9\msun$ at high redshift

134: play an important, if not dominant, role

135: in determining how and when the universe was reionized. 

136: Furthermore, these fossil halos may be seen

137: in the local universe as satellites of giant galaxies.

138: This linkage may potentially provide 

139: a great leverage to nail down the properties of the 

140: high redshift galaxies.

141: 

142: In this paper, as a step towards understanding

143: galaxy formation at high redshift,

144: we investigate the properties of dark matter halos at $z\ge 6$,  

145: using very high resolution TPM N-body (Bode \etal 2001; Bode \& Ostriker 2003)

146: simulations.

147: While there is an extensive literature 

148: on properties of halos at low redshift,

149: there is virtually no systematic study of dark halos

150: at $z\ge 6$.  

151: The LCDM simulation has a comoving box size of $4h^{-1}$Mpc 

152: with $512^3=10^{8.2}$ particles,

153: a particle mass of $m_p=3.6\times 10^4 \ h^{-1}\msun$,

154: and comoving gravitational softening length of $0.14 \ h^{-1}$kpc.

155: These resolutions allow us to accurately characterize

156: the properties of halos 

157: down to a mass $10^{6.5} \ h^{-1}\msun$ (having about $100$ particles

158: within the virial radius).

159: The outline of this paper is as follows.

160: The simulation details are given in \S 2.

161: In \S 3 we quantify properties of dark matter halos in the mass range

162: $10^{6.5}-10^9\msun$, including the mass function, 

163: bias and clustering properties,

164: density profile distribution, angular momentum spin 

165: parameter distribution,

166: internal angular momentum distribution

167: and peculiar velocity distribution.

168: We conclude in \S 4.

169: 

170: 

171: \section{The Simulation} \label{sec:thesim}

172: 

173: %For the $N$-body simulation 

174: A standard spatially flat LCDM cosmology was chosen,

175: with $\Omega_m=0.27$ and $\Omega_\Lambda=0.73$; the

176: Hubble constant was taken to be 70 km/s/Mpc.

177: The initial conditions were created using the GRAFIC2

178: package by Bertschinger (2001). 

179: The matter transfer 

180: function was calculated with the included Boltzmann integrator

181: (Ma \& Bertschinger 1995),

182: using $\Omega_b h^2=0.211$ for the baryon

183: fraction and $\sigma_8=0.73$ for the normalization of the matter 

184: power spectrum.

185: 

186: The simulation contained $N=512^3$ particles in a comoving

187: periodic box 4$h^{-1}$Mpc on a side, making the particle mass

188: $m_p=3.57\times 10^4 \ h^{-1}M_\odot$.  The starting redshift

189: was $z=53$, and the system was evolved down to $z=6$.

190: The evolution was carried out with the parallel

191: Tree--Particle--Mesh code TPM (Xu 1995; Bode, Ostriker, \& Xu 2000;

192: Bode \& Ostriker 2003),

193: using a $1024^3$ mesh.  The evolution took

194: 1150 PM steps, with particles in dense regions taking up to

195: 19,500 steps.  The run was carried out using up to 256

196: processors on the Terascale Computing System at Pittsburgh

197: Supercomputing Center.

198: 

199: The spline softening length in the tree portion of the

200: code was set to $\epsilon=0.14 \ h^{-1}$kpc. 

201: With this softening length, relaxation by $z=6$ inside the core

202: of a collapsed halo (assuming an NFW density distribution

203: with $c=12$) will not be significant over the course of

204: the simulation for those objects containing more than 100 particles.

205: The opening angle in the Barnes-Hut criterion used by TPM

206: was $\theta=0.577$, and the time step parameter $\eta=0.3$;

207: also, the initial values for locating trees were $A=2.0$ and

208: $B=12.5$--- see Bode \& Ostriker (2003) for details.  

209: In the TPM code, not all regions are treated

210: at full resolution.  The limiting density (above which all

211: cells are put into trees for increased resolution) rises

212: with time.  By the end of this run, all cells containing more 

213: than 18 particles are still being followed at full resolution.

214: Thus this factor is not important if the analysis is limited

215: to halos with over 100 particles.

216: 

217: Dark matter halos are identified 

218: using DENMAX scheme (Bertschinger \& Gelb 1991),

219: smoothing the density field with a Gaussian length of $300h^{-1}$kpc.

220: In computing all quantities we include all particles

221: located inside the virial radius of a halo.

222: 

223: 

224: \section{Results}

225: 

226: \epsscale{1.0}

227: \begin{figure}

228: %\plotone{f1.eps}

229: \plotone{f1new.ps}

230: \caption{The distribution of dark matter particles at $z=6$ 

231: projected onto the x-y plane (0.25$\%$ of the total).

232: \label{f1}}

233: \end{figure}

234: 

235: \begin{figure}

236: \centerline{\bf M $> 10^6 \ h^{-1} \msun$}

237: \vskip 0.01in

238: \includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize,angle=0]{f2anew.ps}%{f2a.eps}

239: \caption{The distributions of all dark matter halos 

240: with masses greater than $(10^6,10^{6.5},10^7,10^{7.5},10^8)\msun$, 

241: respectively, at $z=6$.

242: \label{f2a}}

243: \end{figure}

244: \begin{figure}

245: \centerline{\bf M $> 10^{6.5} \ h^{-1} \msun$}

246: \vskip 0.01in

247: \includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize,angle=0]{f2bnew.ps}%{f2b.eps}

248: \addtocounter{figure}{-1}

249: \caption{Continued.}

250: \end{figure}

251: \begin{figure}

252: \centerline{\bf M $> 10^6 \ h^{-1} \msun$}

253: \vskip 0.01in

254: \includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize,angle=0]{f2cnew.ps}%{f2c.eps}

255: \addtocounter{figure}{-1}

256: \caption{Continued.}

257: \end{figure}

258: \begin{figure}

259: \centerline{\bf M $> 10^{7.5} \ h^{-1} \msun$}

260: \vskip 0.01in

261: \includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize,angle=0]{f2dnew.ps}%{f2d.eps}

262: \addtocounter{figure}{-1}

263: \caption{Continued.}

264: \end{figure}

265: \begin{figure}

266: \centerline{\bf M $> 10^8 \ h^{-1} \msun$}

267: \vskip 0.01in

268: \includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize,angle=0]{f2enew.ps}%{f2e.eps}

269: \addtocounter{figure}{-1}

270: \caption{Continued.}

271: \end{figure}

272: \subsection{Pictures}

273: First, we present visually a distribution of the dark matter mass

274: and dark matter halos of varying masses.

275: Figure 1 shows the distribution of dark matter particles

276: projected onto the x-y plane.

277: Figures (2a,b,c,d,e) show 

278: the distributions of dark matter halos 

279: with masses greater than

280: $(10^6,10^{6.5},10^7,10^{7.5},10^8)\msun$, respectively, at $z=6$.

281: The progressively stronger clustering of more massive halos

282: is clearly visible in the display but we will return

283: to the clustering properties more quantitatively in \S 3.3.

284: It is also noted that voids are progressively more visible in

285: the higher mass halos than in low mass halos.

286: 

287: 

288: \subsection{Dark Matter Halo Mass Function}

289: 

290: \epsscale{0.8}

291: \begin{figure}

292: \plotone{f3new.ps}%{f3.eps}

293: \caption{The halo mass functions at four redshifts. Dotted lines represent the 

294: fitted Schechter functions with parameters summarized in Table 1. 

295: \label{f3}}

296: \end{figure}

297: 

298: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrrrrrr} 

299: \tablecolumns{5} 

300: \tablewidth{0pc} 

301: \tablecaption{Halo Mass Function Fitting Parameters} 

302: \tablehead{ 

303: \colhead{Parameters \ } & \colhead{\ \ \ \ z=6.0 \ }   & \colhead{\ \ z=7.4 \ }  & 

304: \colhead{z=9.08} & \colhead{\ \ z=11.096}}

305: \startdata 

306: $n_0$ ($h^3$ Mpc$^{-3}$) & 0.85 \ \ & 1.20 \ \ & 1.75 \ \ & 2.40 \ \  \\ 

307: \smallskip

308: $\alpha$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \  & 1.9 \ \ \ & 2.0 \ \ \ & 2.1 \ \ \ & 2.2 \ \ \ \\ 

309: \smallskip 

310: $M_*$ ($h^{-1}$ Mpc) & $8\times10^8$ & \ $6\times10^8$ & \ $4\times10^8$ & $2\times10^8$ \\ 

311: \hline

312: \enddata 

313: \end{deluxetable} 

314: 

315: Figure 3 shows the halo mass functions at four redshifts.

316: Table 1 summarizes the fitting parameters for a Schechter

317: function of the form 

318: \begin{equation}

319: n(M)dM = n_0 ({M\over M_*})^{-\alpha} \exp{(-M/M_*)} {dM\over M_*}.

320: \end{equation}

321: \noindent

322: We see that the Schechter function provides a good fit

323: to the computed halo mass function.

324: The faint end slope is 

325: $\alpha=2.05\pm 0.15$, consistent with the expectation

326: from Press-Schechter theory (Press \& Schechter 1974).

327: While there appears to be

328: a slight steepening of the slope at the low

329: mass end from $-1.9$ to $-2.2$ from $z=6$ to $z=11.1$,

330: it is unclear, however, how significant this trend is,

331: given the adopted, somewhat degenerate fitting formula.

332: The turnover at $M_h\sim 10^{6.5}\msun$

333: indicates the loss of validity of our simulation at the low mass end.

334: 

335: 

336: \subsection{Bias of Dark Matter Halos}

337: 

338: \begin{figure*}

339: \includegraphics[width=3.2in]{f4a.eps}

340: \hspace{0.01in}

341: \includegraphics[width=3.2in]{f4b.eps}

342: \vskip 0.05in

343: \includegraphics[width=3.2in]{f4c.eps}

344: \hspace{0.01in}

345: \includegraphics[width=3.2in]{f4d.eps}

346: \caption{Bias of dark matter halos in four randomly selected cases upon different 

347: mass and redshift.

348: The darkened lines show the fitting formulae of the bias relation. 

349: \label{f4}}

350: \end{figure*}

351: 

352: 

353: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrrrrrr} 

354: \tablecolumns{5} 

355: \tablewidth{0pc} 

356: \tablecaption{Halo Bias : b(M,z)} 

357: \tablehead{ 

358: \colhead{Halo Mass ($h^{-1}$ M$_\odot$) } & \colhead{\ \ \ \ z=6.0 \ }   & \colhead{\ \ z=7.4 \ }  & 

359: \colhead{z=9.08} & \colhead{\ \ z=11.096}}

360: \startdata 

361: $>$10$^{6.0}$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 1.16$\pm$0.12 & \ \ \ 1.36$\pm$0.18 \ \ & \ 1.70$\pm$0.20 \ & 

362: \ \ 2.46$\pm$0.23 \\ 

363: $>$10$^{6.5}$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 1.21$\pm$0.13 & \ \ \ 1.45$\pm$0.17 \ \ & \ 2.09$\pm$0.30 \ & 

364: \ \ 3.05$\pm$0.33 \\ 

365: $>$10$^{7.0}$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 1.37$\pm$0.19 & \ \ \ 1.60$\pm$0.23 \ \ & \ 2.77$\pm$0.40 \ & 

366: \ \ 3.92$\pm$0.90 \\ 

367: $>$10$^{7.5}$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 1.72$\pm$0.32 & \ \ \ 2.12$\pm$0.47 \ \ & \ 3.46$\pm$0.87 \ & 

368: \ \ 6.17$\pm$3.17 \\ 

369: $>$10$^{8.0}$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 2.08$\pm$0.55 & \ \ \ 2.58$\pm$0.90 \ \ & \ 4.43$\pm$1.47 \ & 

370: \ \ 9.90$\pm$4.58 \\ 

371: \hline 

372: \enddata 

373: \end{deluxetable} 

374: 

375: 

376: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrrrrrr} 

377: \tablecolumns{5} 

378: \tablewidth{0pc} 

379: \tablecaption{Halo Bias : c(M,z)} 

380: \tablehead{ 

381: \colhead{Halo Mass ($h^{-1}$ M$_\odot$)} & \colhead{\ \ \ \ z=6.0 \ }   & \colhead{\ \ z=7.4 \ }  & 

382: \colhead{z=9.08} & \colhead{\ \ z=11.096}}

383: \startdata 

384: $>$10$^{6.0}$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 3.00$\pm$0.55 & \ \ \ 3.80$\pm$0.79 \ \ & \ 4.14$\pm$0.80 \ & 

385: \ \ 4.90$\pm$1.49 \\ 

386: $>$10$^{6.5}$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 3.27$\pm$0.71 & \ \ \ 4.20$\pm$1.04 \ \ & \ 4.41$\pm$1.31 \ & 

387: \ \ 5.52$\pm$2.43 \\ 

388: $>$10$^{7.0}$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 3.43$\pm$0.70 & \ \ \ 4.37$\pm$1.07 \ \ & \ 4.97$\pm$2.59 \ & 

389: \ \ 7.33$\pm$6.29 \\ 

390: $>$10$^{7.5}$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 3.93$\pm$1.70 & \ \ \ 4.98$\pm$2.96 \ \ & \ 5.09$\pm$3.31 \ & 

391: \ \ 7.41$\pm$9.09 \\ 

392: $>$10$^{8.0}$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 4.18$\pm$2.28 & \ \ \ 5.61$\pm$4.68 \ \ & \ 6.32$\pm$6.12 \ & 

393: \ \ 6.77$\pm$8.90 \\ 

394: \hline

395: \enddata 

396: \end{deluxetable} 

397: 

398: %\epsscale{1.0}

399: \epsscale{0.8}

400: \begin{figure}

401: \plotone{bias.ps}

402: \caption{shows the ratio of 

403: dark matter halo correlation function over the dark matter 

404: mass correlation function at four redshifts,

405: $z=6.0$ (top right panel),

406: $z=7.4$ (top left),

407: $z=9.1$ (bottom right)

408: and $z=11$ (bottom left).

409: In each panel six curves are shown 

410: for halos more massive than 

411: $10^{6}\msun$

412: $10^{6.5}\msun$

413: $10^{7}\msun$

414: $10^{7.5}\msun$

415: $10^{8}\msun$

416: and $10^{8.5}\msun$, respectively.

417: \label{f5}}

418: \end{figure}

419: 

420: \epsscale{1.0}

421: \begin{figure}

422: \plotone{allbc.ps}

423: \caption{

424: shows the bias as a function of halo mass at redshifts

425: $z=(6,7.4,9.1,11.1)$ at separation of $1h^{-1}$Mpc

426: as symbols ($x$).

427: The curves are computed using the analytic method of

428: Mo \& White (1996).

429: \label{f5}}

430: \end{figure}

431: 

432: We characterize the relative distribution of

433: halos over the total dark matter distribution

434: by the following relation:

435: 

436: \begin{equation}

437: {n_{h}\over <n_h>} = b(M,z)({\rho_{m}\over <\rho_m>})^{c(M,z)},

438: \end{equation}

439: \noindent

440: where $n_{h}$ and $<n_h>$

441: are the halo density and mean halo density;

442: $\rho_{m}$ and $<\rho_m>$

443: are the mass density and mean mass density;

444: $c(M,z)$ is fixed to be unity at ${\rho_{m}\over <\rho_m>}>1$.

445: This empirical fitting formula is motivated by

446: the found result that there appears to be a break 

447: in ${n_{h}\over <n_h>}$ at ${\rho_{m}\over <\rho_m>} \sim 1$.

448: Tables 2 and 3 list the parameters $b(M,z)$ and $c(M,z)$.

449: The smoothing length used here is 0.3 $h^{-1}$ Mpc. 

450: Figure 4 shows four typical cases to indicate the goodness

451: of the fitting formula. 

452: At ${\rho_{m}\over <\rho_m>}<1$ our results (Table 2) 

453: indicate ${n_{h}\over <n_h>} \propto ({\rho_{m}\over <\rho_m>})^{3-7}$,

454: a rather rapid drop.

455: As expected, the drop-off is more dramatic for larger halos,

456: as visible in Figure 2.

457: This implies that at $z>6$ halos are unlikely to be

458: found in underdense regions (on a scale of $\sim 0.3Mpc/h$).

459: The increase of $c(M,z)$ with redshift implies

460: that voids are emptier at higher redshifts.

461: 

462: 

463: Another way to characterize the relative distribution of 

464: dark matter halos over mass is to compute the 

465: ratio of the correlation functions, which are shown in Figure 5.

466: The correlation function $\xi(r)$ is calculated by counting

467: the number of pairs of either particles or halos at separation $r$

468: (using logarithmically spaced bins) and 

469: comparing that number to a Poisson distribution.

470: It can be seen that the bias falls in the range $2-6$,

471: with the trend that the more massive halos are more biased

472: and at a fixed mass halos at higher redshifts

473: are more biased, as expected.

474: Figure 6 recollects the information in Figure 5

475: and shows the bias as a function of halo mass at four different redshifts

476: at the scale chosen to be $1h^{-1}$Mpc.

477: The agreement between our computed results and that

478: using analytic method of Mo \& White (1996) is good, indicating that the latter

479: is valid for objects at scales and redshifts of concern here.

480: 

481: 

482: 

483: 

484: \subsection{Dark Matter Halo Density Profile}

485: 

486: \begin{figure*}

487: %\includegraphics[width=3.2in]{f6a.eps}

488: \includegraphics[width=2.8in]{f6a.eps}

489: \hspace{0.01in}

490: \includegraphics[width=2.8in]{f6b.eps}

491: \vskip 0.01in

492: \includegraphics[width=2.8in]{f6c.eps}

493: \hspace{0.01in}

494: \includegraphics[width=2.8in]{f6d.eps}

495: \caption{Density profiles of four randomly selected halos over a mass range at 

496: $z=6$. The dotted lines represent the best-fit modified NFW relation given in 

497: Section 3. 

498: \label{f6}}

499: \end{figure*}

500: 

501: \begin{figure*}

502: \includegraphics[width=2.8in]{f7a.eps}

503: \hspace{0.01in}

504: \includegraphics[width=2.8in]{f7b.eps}

505: \vskip 0.01in

506: \includegraphics[width=2.8in]{f7c.eps}

507: \hspace{0.01in}

508: \includegraphics[width=2.8in]{f7d.eps}

509: \caption{The distributions of inner slope parameter $\alpha$ in the halo density profile fitting 

510: for four randomly selected cases upon different mass and redshift. The Gaussian fits 

511: are shown as smooth curves.

512: \label{f7}}

513: \end{figure*}

514: We use a variant fitting formula based on

515: the NFW (Navarro, Frenk, \& White 1997) profile:

516: 

517: \begin{equation}

518: \rho_{r} = {\rho_s\over ({r\over r_{-2}})^{\alpha} (1+{r\over r_{-2}})^{4-2\alpha}}.

519: \end{equation}

520: \noindent

521: Note that for NFW profile, $\alpha=1$.

522: An important difference, however, is the scaling radius used.

523: We use the radius where

524: the logarithmic slope of the density profile is $-2$, $r_{-2}$,

525: instead of the more conventional ``core" radius.

526: This is a two parameter fitting formula, 

527: $\alpha$ and $r_{-2}$,

528: while $\rho_s$ is a function of 

529: $\alpha$ and $r_{-2}$ at a fixed redshift, since

530: the overdensity interior to the virial radius $r_v$ is assumed to be known.

531: This fitting formula is intended for the range in radius $r\le r_v$ only.

532: 

533: We fit the density profile of each halo using the 

534: least squares method. Four randomly selected examples of such profiles 

535: along with the fitted curve using Equation (3) are shown in Figure 7,

536: indicating reasonable fits in all cases.

537: Both fitting parameters, $\alpha$ and $r_{-2}$,

538: however, display broad distributions.

539: We found that there is only weak correlation between

540: $\alpha$ and $r_{-2}$.

541: Figure 8 shows histograms for the distributions of $\alpha$,

542: for four typical cases.

543: We fit $\alpha$ distributions using a Gaussian distribution function:

544: \begin{equation}

545: P(\alpha) = {1\over \sqrt{2\pi} \sigma_\alpha}\exp{(-{(\alpha-\alpha_0)^2\over 2{\sigma_\alpha}^2})}.

546: \end{equation}

547: \noindent

548: The Gaussian fits are shown as smooth curves in Figure 8,

549: demonstrating that the proposed Gaussian fits are good.

550: Tables 4,5 list fitting parameters 

551: $\alpha_0$ and 

552: $\sigma_{\alpha_0}$, respectively. 

553: We recollect the data in Table 4 and  

554: shows in Figure 9 the median inner density slope  

555: as a function of dark matter halo different mass

556: at four different redshifts (symbols).

557: The curves in Figure 9 are empirical fits using the following formula

558: \begin{equation}

559: \alpha_0=0.75((1+z)/7.0)^{-1.25}(M/10^7\msun)^{0.11(1+z)/7.0}.

560: \end{equation}

561: \noindent

562: It is seen that this fitting formula provides a reasonable fit

563: for the simulated halos.

564: 

565: 

566: %\epsscale{1.0}

567: \epsscale{0.8}

568: \begin{figure}

569: \plotone{alphafit.eps}

570: \caption{shows the median inner density slope  

571: as a function of dark matter halo different mass

572: at four different redshifts (symbols).

573: The curves are fits (Equation 5).

574: \label{f9}}

575: \end{figure}

576: 

577: 

578: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrrrrrr} 

579: \tablecolumns{5} 

580: \tablewidth{0pc} 

581: \tablecaption{Density Profile : $\alpha_0(M,z)$} 

582: \tablehead{ 

583: \colhead{Halo Mass ($h^{-1}$ M$_\odot$) } & \colhead{\ \ \ z=6.0 \ \ }   & \colhead{\ \ z=7.4 \ }  & \colhead{z=9.08 \ } & \colhead{\ \ z=11.096}}

584: \startdata 

585: 10$^{7.0}$ - 10$^{7.5}$  \ \ \ \ \ & \ 0.81$\pm$0.01 & \ \ \ 0.63$\pm$0.01 \ \ & \ 0.50$\pm$0.01 \ & 

586: \ \ 0.42$\pm$0.01 \\ 

587: 10$^{7.5}$ - 10$^{8.0}$ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 0.90$\pm$0.01 & \ \ \ 0.75$\pm$0.02 \ \ & \ 0.62$\pm$0.02 \ & 

588: \ \ 0.50$\pm$0.04 \\ 

589: $>$ 10$^{8.0}$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 1.09$\pm$0.02 & \ \ \ 0.91$\pm$0.02 \ \ & \ 0.77$\pm$0.03 \ & 

590: \ \ 0.65$\pm$0.06 \\ 

591: \hline

592: \enddata 

593: \end{deluxetable} 

594: 

595: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrrrrrr} 

596: \tablecolumns{5} 

597: \tablewidth{0pc} 

598: \tablecaption{Density Profile : $\sigma_{\alpha}(M,z)$} 

599: \tablehead{ 

600: \colhead{Halo Mass ($h^{-1}$ M$_\odot$)} & \colhead{\ \ \ z=6.0 \ \ }   & \colhead{\ \ z=7.4 \ }  & \colhead{z=9.08 \ } & \colhead{\ \ z=11.096}}

601: \startdata 

602: 10$^{7.0}$ - 10$^{7.5}$ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 0.58$\pm$0.01 & \ \ \ 0.54$\pm$0.01 \ \ & \ 0.52$\pm$0.01 \ & 

603: \ \ 0.51$\pm$0.01 \\ 

604: 10$^{7.5}$ - 10$^{8.0}$ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 0.43$\pm$0.01 & \ \ \ 0.45$\pm$0.01 \ \ & \ 0.46$\pm$0.02 \ & 

605: \ \ 0.56$\pm$0.03 \\ 

606: $>$ 10$^{8.0}$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 0.41$\pm$0.01 & \ \ \ 0.41$\pm$0.02 \ \ & \ 0.41$\pm$0.03 \ & 

607: \ \ 0.38$\pm$0.06 \\ 

608: \hline

609: \enddata 

610: \end{deluxetable} 

611: 

612: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrrrrrr} 

613: \tablecolumns{5} 

614: \tablewidth{0pc} 

615: \tablecaption{Density Profile : $r_{-2}^0$(M,z)} 

616: \tablehead{ 

617: \colhead{Halo Mass ($h^{-1}$ M$_\odot$)} & \colhead{\ \ \ z=6.0 \ \ }   & \colhead{\ \ z=7.4 \ }  & \colhead{z=9.08 \ } & \colhead{\ \ z=11.096}}

618: \startdata 

619: 10$^{7.0}$ - 10$^{7.5}$ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 0.35$\pm$0.01 & \ \ \ 0.40$\pm$0.01 \ \ & \ 0.43$\pm$0.01 \ & 

620: \ \ 0.44$\pm$0.01 \\ 

621: 10$^{7.5}$ - 10$^{8.0}$ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 0.35$\pm$0.01 & \ \ \ 0.38$\pm$0.01 \ \ & \ 0.39$\pm$0.01 \ & 

622: \ \ 0.37$\pm$0.01 \\ 

623: $>$ 10$^{8.0}$  \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 0.34$\pm$0.01 & \ \ \ 0.35$\pm$0.01 \ \ & \ 0.34$\pm$0.01 \ & 

624: \ \ 0.34$\pm$0.02 \\ 

625: \hline

626: \enddata 

627: \end{deluxetable} 

628: 

629: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrrrrrr} 

630: \tablecolumns{5} 

631: \tablewidth{0pc} 

632: \tablecaption{Density Profile : $\sigma_{r_{-2}}$(M,z)} 

633: \tablehead{ 

634: \colhead{Halo Mass ($h^{-1}$ M$_\odot$)} & \colhead{\ \ \ z=6.0 \ \ }   & \colhead{\ \ z=7.4 \ }  & \colhead{z=9.08 \ } & \colhead{\ \ z=11.096}}

635: \startdata 

636: 10$^{7.0}$ - 10$^{7.5}$ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 0.34$\pm$0.01 & \ \ \ 0.32$\pm$0.01 \ \ & \ 0.29$\pm$0.01 \ & 

637: \ \ 0.27$\pm$0.01 \\ 

638: 10$^{7.5}$ - 10$^{8.0}$ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 0.31$\pm$0.01 & \ \ \ 0.31$\pm$0.01 \ \ & \ 0.27$\pm$0.01 \ & 

639: \ \ 0.27$\pm$0.01 \\ 

640: $>$ 10$^{8.0}$  \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 0.33$\pm$0.01 & \ \ \ 0.25$\pm$0.01 \ \ & \ 0.26$\pm$0.02 \ & 

641: \ \ 0.27$\pm$0.05 \\ 

642: \hline

643: \enddata 

644: \end{deluxetable} 

645: 

646: 

647: Figure 10 shows histograms for the distributions of $r_{-2}$

648: for four typical cases.

649: We fit $r_{-2}$ distributions using a lognormal function:

650: \begin{equation}

651: P(r_{-2}) = {1\over r_{-2}\sqrt{2\pi} \sigma_{r_{-2}}}\exp{(-{(\ln r_{-2} -\ln r_{-2}^0)^2\over 2\sigma_{r_{-2}}})},

652: \end{equation}

653: \noindent

654: which are seen to provide reasonable fits to the data in Figure 10.

655: Tables 6,7 list fitting parameters 

656: $r_{-2}^0$ and 

657: $\sigma_{r_{-2}}$, respectively. 

658: We find no visible correlation between $\alpha$ and $r_{-2}$,

659: as shown in Figure 11.

660: 

661: \begin{figure*}

662: \includegraphics[width=2.8in]{f8a.eps}

663: \hspace{0.01in}

664: \includegraphics[width=2.8in]{f8b.eps}

665: \vskip 0.01in

666: \includegraphics[width=2.8in]{f8c.eps}

667: \hspace{0.01in}

668: \includegraphics[width=2.8in]{f8d.eps}

669: \caption{The distributions of radius parameter $r_{-2}$ in the halo density profile fitting 

670: for four randomly selected cases upon different mass and redshift. The lognormal fits 

671: are shown as smooth curves.

672: \label{f8}}

673: \end{figure*}

674: 

675: 

676: An important point to note is that the average slope 

677: of the density profiles of small halos

678: ranges from $1.0$ to $0.4$ from $z=6$ to $z=11$

679: (Table 4 and Figure 8), which is somewhat shallower

680: than the universal density profile found by Navarro \etal (1997).

681: Our results at $z=9-11$ are in good agreement with Ricotti (2003),

682: who simulated a $1h^{-1}$Mpc box for  small halos at $z=10$.

683: If the theoretical argument for the dependence of 

684: halo density profile on the slope of the initial density fluctuation

685: power spectrum (Syer \& White  1988; Subramanian, Cen, \& Ostriker 2000)

686: is correct, as adopted by Ricotti (2003) to explain 

687: the dependence of inner density slope on halo mass,

688: it then follows that the neglect of density fluctuations 

689: on scales larger than his box size of $1h^{-1}$Mpc in Ricotti (2003)

690: would make the density profiles of the halos

691: in his simulation somewhat shallower than they should be in the CDM model.

692: Thus, the difference in the box size ($1h^{-1}$Mpc in Ricotti 2003

693: versus $4h^{-1}$Mpc for our simulation box)

694: would have expected to result in a slightly steeper inner slope

695: in our simulation, which is indeed the case.

696: 

697: Another point to note, which is not new but not widely known,

698: is that there is a large dispersion in the inner slope

699: of order $0.5$ due to the intrinsically stochastic nature of halo assembly.

700: This was found earlier by Subramanian \etal (2000).

701: Therefore, while a ``universal" profile is informative

702: in characterizing the mode,

703: a dispersion would be needed to give a full account.

704: This is particularly important for applications where

705: the dependence on the inner slope is very strong,

706: e.g., strong gravitational lensing.

707: More relevant for our case of small halos

708: is that, for example, the fraction of small halos

709: with inner slope close to zero (i.e., flat core)

710: is non-negligible at $z=6$.

711: A proper statistical comparison with observations

712: of local dwarf galaxies, however, is not possible with the current

713: simulation without evolving small galaxies to $z=0$.

714: 

715: \epsscale{1.0}

716: \begin{figure}

717: %\plotone{com_param2.ps}

718: \includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize,angle=270]{com_param2new.ps}

719: \caption{

720: A scatter plot of the inner slope of the density profile,  $\alpha$,

721: versus $r_{-2}$ for all the halos with $M>10^{6.5} \ h^{-1} M_\odot$ at $z=6$. 

722: \label{f10}}

723: \end{figure}

724: 

725: 

726: \epsscale{1.0}

727: \begin{figure}

728: %\plotone{f10anew.ps}%{f10a.eps}

729: \includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize,angle=270]{f10anew.ps}

730: \caption{

731: A scatter plot of the inner slope of the density profile,  $\alpha$,

732: versus the halo central density, defined as the density at $r<0.2r_{v}$. 

733: for all the halos with $M>10^6 \ h^{-1} M_\odot$ at $z=6$. 

734: \label{f10a}}

735: \end{figure}

736: 

737: 

738: \epsscale{1.0}

739: \begin{figure}

740: %\plotone{f10bnew.ps}%{f10b.eps}

741: \includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize,angle=0]{f10bnew.ps}

742: \caption{

743: A scatter plot of the inner slope of the density profile,  $\alpha$,

744: versus the environmental density, defined as the dark matter density

745: smoothed by a gaussian window of radius $0.3h^{-1}$Mpc,

746: for all the halos with $M>10^6 \ h^{-1} M_\odot$ at $z=6$. 

747: \label{f10b}}

748: \end{figure}

749: 

750: Also worthwhile is to understand whether or not there is some dependence

751: of the inner slope  of the density profile on

752: the central density of a halo or the environmental density

753: where a halo sits.

754: In Figures 12 and 13 we show the correlation

755: between the inner slope of the density profile, $\alpha$,

756: and the central density of the halo,

757: and between $\alpha$ and the environmental density, respectively.

758: We find no visible correlations between either pair of quantities.

759: But a relationship between halo shape and environment might have been

760: missed due to stochastic variations.

761: Thus, we have checked to see if deviation

762: $\Delta\alpha$, between computed and predicted (based on mass and epoch

763: using equation 5) slope exists.

764: Figure 14 shows this and no correlation is seen.

765: We note that the abundances of halos in the mass range of interest here

766: are on the rise in the redshift range considered (Lacey \& Cole 1993),

767: as evident in Figure 3.

768: During this period halos considered the inner density profiles

769: of halos steepen with time, consistent with the 

770: increase of logarithmic slope of the power spectrum with time,

771: that corresponds to the evolving nonlinear mass scale.

772: However, at some lower redshift not probed here, 

773: low mass halos will cease to form.

774: Subsequently, the evolution of halo density profile 

775: may show distinct features and some conceivable correlations, not seen

776: in Figures 12 and 13, may show up.

777: We will study this issue separately.

778: 

779: 

780: \epsscale{1.0}

781: \begin{figure}

782: \plotone{delalpharhonew.ps}%{delalpharho.eps}

783: \caption{

784: A scatter plot of 

785: the difference between measured inner slope 

786: of the density profile,  $\alpha$,

787: and the fitted inner slope using equation (5),

788: versus the environmental density.

789: \label{f10b}}

790: \end{figure}

791: 

792: 

793: Since the central density of a halo may be considered

794: a good proxy for the formation redshift of the central region,

795: the non-correlation between $\alpha$ and the central density

796: indicates that, for halos of question here,

797: the subsequent process of accretion of mass onto halos

798: is largely a random process,

799: independent of the density of the initial central ``seed".

800: The fact that halos of different masses show a comparable range 

801: of central density (not shown in figures)

802: suggest that halos of varying masses form nearly simultaneously,

803: dictated by the nature of the cold dark matter power spectrum

804: at the high-k end; i.e., density fluctuations on those scales 

805: involved here depend weakly (logarithmically) on the mass.

806: The non-correlation between the inner slope of the halo density profile

807: and the environmental density may be interpreted in the following way.

808: One may regard regions of different overdensities as 

809: local mini-universes of varying density parameters.

810: The independence of the inner slope on local density

811: is thus consistent with published results that

812: the halo density profiles in universes of different $\Omega_M$

813: do not significantly vary.

814: 

815: 

816: 

817: 

818: 

819: \subsection{Spin Parameter For Dark Matter Halos}

820: 

821: \begin{figure*}

822: \includegraphics[width=2.8in]{f9a.eps}

823: \hspace{0.01in}

824: \includegraphics[width=2.8in]{f9b.eps}

825: \vskip 0.01in

826: \includegraphics[width=2.8in]{f9c.eps}

827: \hspace{0.01in}

828: \includegraphics[width=2.8in]{f9d.eps}

829: \caption{The distributions of halo spin parameter $\lambda$ 

830: for four randomly selected cases upon different mass and redshift. The modified lognormal fits 

831: are shown as smooth curves.

832: \label{f9}}

833: \end{figure*}

834: 

835: 

836: 

837: \epsscale{1.0}

838: \begin{figure}

839: %\plotone{f10cnew.ps}%{f10c.eps}

840: \includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize,angle=270]{f10cnew.ps}

841: \caption{

842: A scatter plot of the spin parameter, $\lambda$,

843: versus the halo central density, defined as the density at $r<0.2r_{v}$. 

844: for all the halos with $M>10^6 \ h^{-1} M_\odot$ at $z=6$. 

845: \label{f10b}}

846: \end{figure}

847: 

848: \epsscale{1.0}

849: \begin{figure}

850: \plotone{f10dnew.ps}%{f10d.eps}

851: \caption{

852: A scatter plot of the spin parameter, $\lambda$,

853: versus the environmental density, defined as the dark matter density

854: smoothed by a gaussian window of radius $0.3h^{-1}$Mpc,

855: for all the halos with $M>10^6 \ h^{-1} M_\odot$ at $z=6$. 

856: \label{f10b}}

857: \end{figure}

858: 

859: \epsscale{1.0}

860: \begin{figure}

861: %\plotone{f11new.ps}%{f11.eps}

862: \includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize,angle=270]{f11new.ps}

863: \caption{Comparison of the halo density profile slope parameter $\alpha$ 

864: versus spin parameter $\lambda$. No correlation between the two is observed.

865: \label{f11}}

866: \end{figure}

867: 

868: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrrrrrr} 

869: \tablecolumns{5} 

870: \tablewidth{0pc} 

871: \tablecaption{Spin Parameter : $\lambda_{median}$(M,z)} 

872: \tablehead{ 

873: \colhead{Halo Mass ($h^{-1}$ M$_\odot$) } & \colhead{\ \ \ z=6.0 \ \ }   & \colhead{\ \ z=7.4 \ }  & 

874: \colhead{z=9.08 \ } & \colhead{\ \ z=11.096}}

875: \startdata 

876: 10$^{7.00}$ - 10$^{7.25}$ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 0.043$\pm$0.001 & \ \ \ 0.043$\pm$0.001 \ \ & \ \ 0.042$\pm$0.001 \ \ & 

877: \ 0.040$\pm$0.001 \\ 

878: 10$^{7.25}$ - 10$^{7.50}$ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 0.042$\pm$0.001 & \ \ \ 0.041$\pm$0.001 \ \ & \ \ 0.037$\pm$0.001 \ \ & 

879: \ 0.037$\pm$0.001 \\ 

880: 10$^{7.50}$ - 10$^{8.00}$ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 0.041$\pm$0.001 & \ \ \ 0.039$\pm$0.001 \ \ & \ \ 0.035$\pm$0.001 \ \ & 

881: \ 0.035$\pm$0.002 \\ 

882: $>$ 10$^{8.00}$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \  & \ 0.035$\pm$0.001 & \ \ \ 0.033$\pm$0.001 \ \ & \ \ 0.031$\pm$0.002 \ \ & 

883: \ 0.031$\pm$0.007 \\ 

884: \hline

885: \enddata 

886: \end{deluxetable} 

887: 

888: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrrrrrr} 

889: \tablecolumns{5} 

890: \tablewidth{0pc} 

891: \tablecaption{Spin Parameter : $\sigma_{\lambda}$(M,z)} 

892: \tablehead{ 

893: \colhead{Halo Mass ($h^{-1}$ M$_\odot$)} & \colhead{\ \ \ z=6.0 \ \ }   & \colhead{\ \ z=7.4 \ }  & 

894: \colhead{z=9.08 \ \ } & \colhead{\ z=11.096}}

895: \startdata 

896: 10$^{7.00}$ - 10$^{7.25}$ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 0.43$\pm$0.01 & \ \ \ 0.44$\pm$0.01 \ \ & \ \ 0.44$\pm$0.01 \ \ & 

897: \ 0.41$\pm$0.01 \\ 

898: 10$^{7.25}$ - 10$^{7.50}$ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 0.43$\pm$0.01 & \ \ \ 0.42$\pm$0.01 \ \ & \ \ 0.38$\pm$0.01 \ \ & 

899: \ 0.41$\pm$0.02 \\ 

900: 10$^{7.50}$ - 10$^{8.00}$ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 0.42$\pm$0.01 & \ \ \ 0.41$\pm$0.01 \ \ & \ \ 0.41$\pm$0.01 \ \ & 

901: \ 0.32$\pm$0.03 \\ 

902: $>$ 10$^{8.00}$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \  & \ 0.40$\pm$0.01 & \ \ \ 0.39$\pm$0.02 \ \ & \ \ 0.31$\pm$0.04 \ \ & 

903: \ 0.43$\pm$0.15 \\ 

904: \hline

905: \enddata 

906: \end{deluxetable} 

907: 

908: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrrrrrr} 

909: \tablecolumns{5} 

910: \tablewidth{0pc} 

911: \tablecaption{Angular Momentum Profile : $A_0$(M,z)} 

912: \tablehead{ 

913: \colhead{Halo Mass ($h^{-1}$ M$_\odot$)} & \colhead{\ \ \ z=6.0 \ \ }   & \colhead{\ \ z=7.4 \ }  & \colhead{z=9.08 \ \ } & \colhead{\ z=11.096}}

914: \startdata 

915: 10$^{7.0}$ - 10$^{7.5}$ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 0.51$\pm$0.03 & \ \ \ 0.49$\pm$0.04 \ \ & \ \ 0.44$\pm$0.06 \ \ & 

916: \ 0.44$\pm$0.08 \\ 

917: 10$^{7.5}$ - 10$^{8.0}$ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 0.55$\pm$0.06 & \ \ \ 0.52$\pm$0.12 \ \ & \ \ 0.48$\pm$0.14 \ \ & 

918: \ 0.50$\pm$0.16 \\ 

919: $>$ 10$^{8.0}$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 0.56$\pm$0.09 & \ \ \ 0.51$\pm$0.21 \ \ & \ \ 0.49$\pm$0.24 \ \ & 

920: \ 0.45$\pm$0.32 \\ 

921: \hline

922: \enddata 

923: \end{deluxetable} 

924: 

925: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrrrrrr} 

926: \tablecolumns{5} 

927: \tablewidth{0pc} 

928: \tablecaption{Angular Momentum Profile : $\sigma_{A}$(M,z)} 

929: \tablehead{ 

930: \colhead{Halo Mass ($h^{-1}$ M$_\odot$) } & \colhead{\ \ \ z=6.0 \ \ }   & \colhead{\ \ z=7.4 \ }  & \colhead{z=9.08 \ \ } & \colhead{\ z=11.096}}

931: \startdata 

932: 10$^{7.0}$ - 10$^{7.5}$ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 0.27$\pm$0.03 & \ \ \ 0.28$\pm$0.04 \ \ & \ \ 0.27$\pm$0.06 \ \ & 

933: \ 0.25$\pm$0.07 \\ 

934: 10$^{7.5}$ - 10$^{8.0}$ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 0.26$\pm$0.05 & \ \ \ 0.29$\pm$0.10 \ \ & \ \ 0.29$\pm$0.11 \ \ & 

935: \ 0.26$\pm$0.12 \\ 

936: $>$ 10$^{8.0}$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ & \ 0.27$\pm$0.08 & \ \ \ 0.35$\pm$0.18 \ \ & \ \ 0.29$\pm$0.16 \ \ & 

937: \ 0.36$\pm$0.23 \\ 

938: \hline

939: \enddata 

940: \end{deluxetable} 

941: 

942: We compute the spin parameter defined as

943: \begin{equation}

944: \lambda \equiv {J|E|^{1/2}\over G M^{5/2}}

945: \end{equation}

946: \noindent

947: (Peebles 1969),

948: where $G$ is the gravitational constant;

949: $M$ is the total mass of the dark matter halo;

950: $J$ is the total angular momentum of the dark matter halo;

951: $E$ is the total energy of the dark matter halo;

952: all quantities are computed within the virial radius.

953: We fit the $\lambda$ distributions using a modified

954: lognormal function:

955: \begin{equation}

956: P(\lambda) = {1\over (\lambda+\epsilon_0)\sqrt{2\pi} \sigma_{\lambda}}\exp{(-{[\ln (\lambda+\epsilon_0) -\ln \lambda_0]^2\over 2\sigma_{\lambda}})},

957: \end{equation}

958: \noindent

959: where $\epsilon_0$ is fixed to be $0.0125$,

960: which is determined through experimentation.

961: The modified lognormal fits for $\lambda$ are shown

962: as smooth curves in Figure 15;

963: the goodness of the fits is typical.

964: Tables 8,9 lists fitting parameters 

965: $\lambda_0$ and $\sigma_\lambda$, respectively. 

966: Note that the median value of $\lambda$

967: is $\lambda_{med}=\lambda_0-\epsilon_0$.

968: 

969: We see that the typical spin parameter has a value

970: $0.03-0.04$.

971: However, the distribution of the spin parameter among

972: halos is very broad, with a lognormal dispersion of $\sim 0.4$.

973: This implies that consequences that depend on 

974: the spin of a halo are likely to be widely distributed

975: even at a fixed dark matter halo mass.

976: Such consequences may include the size of a galactic disk 

977: and correlations between dark matter halo spin

978: (conceivable misalignment between spin of gas and spin

979: of dark matter would complicate the situation)

980: and other quantities.

981: 

982: 

983: In Figures 16 and 17 we show the correlation

984: between $\lambda$ and the central density of the halo,

985: and between $\lambda$ and the environmental density, respectively.

986: We find that there may possibly exist 

987: a weak correlations between 

988: $\lambda$ and the central density of the halo,

989: in the sense that halos with higher central densities (or equivalently

990: earlier formation times) have lower $\lambda$,

991: with a very large scatter,

992: whereas no correlation is discernible between $\lambda$

993: and the environmental density.

994: %This weak correlation may be approximated 

995: %as $\lambda = 

996: Finally, Figure 18 show the relation between $\lambda$ and $\alpha$,

997: where no correlation is visible.

998: 

999: \begin{figure*}

1000: \includegraphics[width=2.8in]{f12a.eps}

1001: \hspace{0.01in}

1002: \includegraphics[width=2.8in]{f12b.eps}

1003: \vskip 0.01in

1004: \includegraphics[width=2.8in]{f12c.eps}

1005: \hspace{0.01in}

1006: \includegraphics[width=2.8in]{f12d.eps}

1007: \caption{The distributions of slope parameter $A$ in the halo angular momentum profile fitting 

1008: for four randomly selected cases upon different mass and redshift. The lognormal fits 

1009: are shown as smooth curves.

1010: \label{f12}}

1011: \end{figure*}

1012: 

1013: \begin{figure*}

1014: \includegraphics[width=2.8in]{vhalo700.ps}

1015: \hspace{0.01in}

1016: \includegraphics[width=2.8in]{vhalo725.ps}

1017: \vskip 0.01in

1018: \includegraphics[width=2.8in]{vhalo750.ps}

1019: \hspace{0.01in}

1020: \includegraphics[width=2.8in]{vhalo800.ps}

1021: \caption{

1022: The distributions of dark matter halo peculiar velocity 

1023: for four mass bins at $z=6$.

1024: The lognormal fits are shown as smooth curves.

1025: \label{f12}}

1026: \end{figure*}

1027: \subsection{Angular Momentum Profile For Dark Matter Halos}

1028: 

1029: Next, we compute the angular momentum profiles

1030: for individual dark matter halos.

1031: We then fit the each angular momentum profile by the following function in the 

1032: small $|j|$ regime:

1033: \begin{equation}

1034: {M(<j)\over M_v} = A{j\over j_0} + {M(<0)\over M_v},

1035: \end{equation}

1036: \noindent

1037: where $A$ and $M(<0)$ are two fitting parameters;

1038: $M_v$ is the virial mass and

1039: $j_0\equiv J/M_v=\lambda GM^{3/2}/|E|^{1/2}$.

1040: 

1041: In order to compute the angular momentum profile

1042: an appropriate smoothing window needs to be

1043: applied to dark matter particles.

1044: We find that $M(<0)/M_v$ 

1045: varies for different smoothing scales, with typical values around 0.2,  

1046: while $A$ remains roughly constant for each individual halo.

1047: However, $A$ is broadly distributed for all dark matter halos.

1048: Figure 19 show histograms for the distributions of $A_0$,

1049: for four randomly selected cases.

1050: We fit the $A$ distribution using a modified

1051: lognormal function:

1052: \begin{equation}

1053: P(A) = {1\over (A+\epsilon_A)\sqrt{2\pi} \sigma_{A}}\exp{(-{[\ln (A+\epsilon_A) -\ln A_0]^2\over 2\sigma_{A}})},

1054: \end{equation}

1055: \noindent

1056: where $\epsilon_A=0.4$ is fixed through experimentation.

1057: Tables 10,11 list fitting parameters 

1058: $A_0$ and $\sigma_A$, respectively. 

1059: 

1060: In general we find our fitting formula (Equation 10)

1061: provides a good fit for each individual halo.

1062: The distribution of matter at small $j$ is most relevant for

1063: the formation of central objects, such as black holes

1064: (e.g., Colgate \etal 2003) or bulges (e.g., D'Onghia \& Burkert 2004).

1065: Our calculation indicates that

1066: the fraction of mass in a halo having specific angular momentum

1067: less than a certain value is

1068: roughly $0.5$ times the ratio of that value over the average

1069: specific angular momentum of the halo.

1070: 

1071: 

1072: \subsection{Bulk Velocity of Dark Matter Halos}

1073: 

1074: 

1075: Finally, we compute the peculiar velocity of dark matter halos.

1076: We find that the distribution once again can be fitted by

1077: lognormal distributions as equation (9).

1078: In order to provide

1079: a good fit for the results at $z=6$

1080: shown in Figure 20, 

1081: it is found that $\epsilon=40$km/s in equation (8)

1082: with median velocity $v_m\sim 38\pm 2$km/s and 

1083: lognormal dispersion $\sigma_v=0.22\pm 0.01$.

1084: We caution, however, the absolute value of the peculiar

1085: velocity of each halo, unlike the quantities examined in 

1086: previous subsections,

1087: may be significantly affected by large waves not present in

1088: our simulation box.

1089: Adding missing large waves should increase the zero point $\epsilon$

1090: to a larger value.

1091: Therefore, the peculiar velocity shown should be

1092: treated as a lower limit.

1093: In other words, expected peculiar velocity 

1094: of dark matter halos at these redshifts

1095: are likely in excess of $30-40$km/s.

1096: 

1097: 

1098: 

1099: 

1100: 

1101: %\end{document}

1102: 

1103: 

1104: 

1105: 

1106: 

1107: \section{Conclusions}

1108: 

1109: Using a high resolution TPM N-body simulation of the

1110: standard cold dark matter cosmological model

1111: with a particle mass of $m_p=3.57\times 10^4 \ h^{-1}M_\odot$

1112: and a softening length of $\epsilon=0.14 \ h^{-1}$kpc

1113: in a $4h^{-1}$Mpc box,

1114: we compute various properties of dark matter halos 

1115: with mass $10^{6.5}-10^9\msun$ at redshift $z=6-11$.

1116: We find the following results.

1117: 

1118: \noindent (1) Dark matter halos at such small mass 

1119: at high redshifts are already significantly biased

1120: over matter with a bias factor in the range $2-6$.

1121: 

1122: \noindent (2) The dark matter halo mass function displays a 

1123: slope at the small end $2.05\pm 0.15$.

1124: 

1125: \noindent (3) The central density profile of dark matter halos

1126: are found to be in the range $(0.4-1.0)$

1127: well fitted by 

1128: $\alpha_0=0.75((1+z)/7.0)^{-1.25}(M/10^7\msun)^{0.11(1+z)/7.0}$

1129: with a dispersion of $\pm 0.5$,

1130: in rough agreement with the theoretical

1131: arguments given in Ricotti (2003) and Subramanian \etal (2000).

1132: 

1133: \noindent (4) The median spin parameter of the dark matter halos

1134: is $0.03-0.04$ but with a lognormal dispersion of $\sim 0.4$.

1135: The angular momentum profile at the small end

1136: is approximately linear

1137: with the fraction of mass in a halo having specific angular momentum

1138: less than a certain value is

1139: roughly $0.5$ times the ratio of that value over the average

1140: specific angular momentum of the halo.

1141: 

1142: \noindent (5) The dark matter halos move at a typical velocity in excess of $30-40$km/s.

1143: 

1144: 

1145: 

1146: 

1147: \acknowledgments

1148: This research was supported in part by AST-0206299 and NAG5-13381.

1149: The computations were performed on the National Science Foundation

1150: Terascale Computing System at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center. 

1151: 

1152: 

1153:  \begin{references}

1154: \reference{} Becker, R.H., \etal 2001, AJ, 122, 2850

1155: \reference{} Bertschinger, E.,\& Gelb, J.M. 1991, Computers in Physics, 5, 164

1156: \reference{} Bertschinger, E. 2001, \apjs, 137, 1

1157: \reference{} Bode, P.,  \& Ostriker, J.P. 2003, ApJS, 145, 1

1158: \reference{} Bode, P., Ostriker, J.P., \& Xu, G. 2000, \apjs, 128, 561 

1159: \reference{} Cen, R. 2003, ApJ, 591, 12

1160: \reference{} Colgate, S.A., Cen, R., Li, H., Currier, N., \& Warren, M.S. 2003, ApJL in press, astro-ph/0310776

1161: \reference{} D'Onghia, E., \& Burkert, A. 2004, astro-ph/0402504

1162: \reference{} Fan, X., \etal 2001, AJ, 122, 2833

1163: \reference{} Lacey, C., \& Cole, S. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 627. 

1164: \reference{} Ma, C.-P., \& Bertschinger, E. 1995, \apj, 455, 7 

1165: \reference{} Mo, H.J., \& White, S.D.M. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 347

1166: \reference{} Navarro, J., Frenk, C.S., \& White, S.D.M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493

1167: \reference{} Peebles, P.J.E. 1969, ApJ, 155, 393

1168: \reference{} Press, W.H., \& Schechter, P. 1974, ApJ, 187, 425

1169: \reference{} Peebles, P.J.E. 1993, Principles of Physical Cosmology (Princeton: Princeton University Press)

1170: \reference{} Ricotti, M. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1237

1171: \reference{} Syer, D., \& White, S.D.M. 1998, MNRAS, 293, 337

1172: \reference{} Subramanian, K., Cen, R., \& Ostriker, J.P. 2000, ApJ, 538, 528

1173: \reference{} Xu, G. 1995, \apjs, 98, 355

1174: 

1175: \end{references}

1176: 

1177: 

1178: %\documentclass{aastex}

1179: %\begin{document}

1180: 

1181: 

1182: 

1183: 

1184: 

1185: 

1186: 

1187: 

1188: 

1189: \clearpage

1190: 

1191: 

1192: 

1193: 

1194: 

1195: 

1196: 

1197: 

1198: \end{document}

1199: 

1200: 

1201: 

1202: 

1203: 

1204: 

1205: