How well do integral-of-motion distribution functions describe Milky Way-analogue halos?

We will find it convenient to express the phase space distribution in terms of the momentum per unit mass (velocity) $v$. If the phase space distribution is spherically symmetric, then the spatial density of particles per unit mass at any position $r$ can be expressed as

where $L$ and $E$ are the angular momentum and energy per mass,²² 2 Henceforth, we will frequently treat “per mass” as implicit. respectively, given by

$\Phi(r)$ is the gravitational potential, given by

Here, $M(r)$ is the mass enclosed within radius $r$, and $r_{0}$ is any convenient place to set the zero-point of the potential. We will choose $r_{0}=0$, $\Phi(0)=0$. Note that the mass of the particles only enters in the definition of $\Phi(r)$. If baryonic matter is included, then it also contributes to the enclosed mass.

Using eq. 1, we can relate $f(E,L)$ to the number of particles in a numerical simulation found within a radial shell, with energy and angular momentum found within particular bins. Consider the particles lying within a radial bin (that is, a spherical shell) of size $\Delta V$ with mean radial coordinate $r_{avg}$. Within this radial shell, we consider particles lying within an energy bin bounded by $E_{min}$ and $E_{max}$, and an angular momentum bin bounded by $L_{min}$ and $L_{max}$. If we assume that the energy and angular momentum bins are small enough that $f(E,L)$ does not vary significantly over the size of the bin, then we can perform the energy, angular momentum and volume integrals in eq. 1 in order to relate $f(E,L)$ to $N(r,E,L)$, which is the number of particles in the simulation within a particular radial, energy and angular momentum bin. We find

where $\Phi_{avg}(r)$ is the average value of $\Phi$ over particles within this radial bin. Note that, in expressing the integral in this form, we have assumed that the radial bins are small enough that we can treat $r$ as a constant over the radial bin with value $r_{avg}$, and can treat $\Phi(r)$ as a constant over the radial bin with value $\Phi_{avg}(r)$. Moreover, we have assumed that $f(E,L)$ can be treated as a constant over the energy and angular momentum bins. However, this is only an approximation, and introduces an error which increases with the size of the bins. In particular, for sufficiently large bins and for values of $E_{min,max}$ and $L_{min,max}$ near the boundary of the kinematically allowed range, the right-hand-side of eq. 4 may not be real.

Eq. 4 provides an expression for $f(E,L)$ derived from every radial bin for which those values of $E$ and $L$ are kinematically accessible (up to the binning error mentioned above). If the phase space distribution is, in fact, only a function of $E$ and $L$, then the values of $f(E,L)$ derived from every such radial bin should be the same, up to the statistical fluctuations inherent in a numerical simulation (and up to the inherent binning error). On the other hand, if the values of $f(E,L)$ derived from different radial bins are not consistent with each other, this would indicate a residual explicit dependence on $r$ (that is, $f=f(E,L,r)$), providing a measure of the deviation of the numerical simulation from our assumptions of a static, spherically-symmetric phase space distribution.

If the phase space distribution is also isotropic (that is, if $f(E,L)=f(E)$), then the integral over $L$ in eq. 1 can be performed analytically, yielding

Proceeding as above, we can relate $f(E)$ to the number of particles found within a particular radial shell and energy bin ($N(r,E)$), yielding

To determine if the phase space distribution is well-described by a function of $E$ and $L$ alone, we define $f_{i}(E_{j},L_{k})$ as the value of $f(E_{j},L_{k})$ obtained from the $i$th radial bin (with radius $r_{i}$), as given in eq. 4. Here, $E_{j}$ represents the energy of the $j$th energy bin, and $L_{k}$ represents the angular momentum of the $k$th angular momentum bin.

We only consider radial, energy and angular momentum bin triplets $(i,j,k)$ such that the terms in eq. 4 are well defined and such that $N(r,E,L)>20$. The latter requirement ensures that the bin has adequate statistical power. We will denote by ${\cal B}$ the set of such bin triplets. The number of such triplets is $N_{bins}$.

The fractional statistical uncertainty in $f_{i}(E_{j},L_{k})$ is then

where we have assumed Gaussian statistics. Since we only consider bin triplets for which $N(r,E,L)>20$, this will be a good approximation.

We can then obtain a weighted average of $f(E_{j},L_{k})$ over all relevant radial bins. The weighted average $\bar{f}$ (along with its uncertainty, $\delta\bar{f}$), are defined as

where the sum is over radial bins $i$ such $(i,j,k)\in{\cal B}$. We will let $N_{f}$ denote the number of energy and angular momentum bin doublets $(j,k)$ such that $\bar{f}(E_{j},E_{k})$ is well-defined (that is, there is at least one term in the sum in eq. 8).

To measure the consistency of the simulation data in all radial bins with the phase space distribution given by $\bar{f}(E,L)$, we define

The number of degrees of freedom of the $\chi^{2}$-distribution is $N_{dof}=N_{bins}-N_{f}$.

If we approximate the phase space distribution as isotropic, then we can obtain $f_{i}(E_{j})$ from simulation data using eq. 6. We can then perform a similar statistical analysis to find $\bar{f}(E_{j})$, $\delta\bar{f}(E_{j})$ and $\chi^{2}$ by assuming a single angular momentum bin.

We first locate the center of the halo using the shrinking sphere method of Ref. [20]. Having shifted the center of mass to the origin, spherical symmetry is a good approximation [20]. We can quantify deviations from spherical symmetry by expanding the spatial density in spherical harmonics. The spherical harmonic coefficients are defined as

where we have taken $\rho(r,\theta,\phi)=\sum_{i=1}^{N}(1/r_{i}^{2})\delta(r-r_{i})\delta(\cos\theta-\cos\theta_{i})\delta(\phi-\phi_{i})$. The sum is over only the $N$ dark matter particles outside the radius of convergence and inside $R_{200}$. For the $i$th such particle, the position of the particle may be expressed as $x_{i}=r_{i}\sin\theta_{i}\cos\phi_{i}$, $y_{i}=r_{i}\sin\theta_{i}\sin\phi_{i}$, $z_{i}=r_{i}\cos\theta_{i}$.

Computing the $a_{\ell m}$ for $\ell\leq 2$, we present the maximum value of $|a_{\ell m}|/a_{00}$ for each halo in Table 1. From these results, we see that spherical symmetry is a good approximation, but by no means exact.

To quantify the extent to which the halo is in equilibrium, we can use the virial theorem (after subtracting off the bulk velocity of the halo). We should have 2$\sum_{i}\overline{T_{i}}=-\sum_{i}\overline{\vec{F}_{i}\cdot\vec{r}_{i}}$, where $\overline{X}$ means the time-average of $X$ over a long time and the sum is over all DM particles inside $R_{200}$. If the DM distribution is in equilibrium, then the time average of the sum will be well approximated by evaluating the sum using our data from the last time step. We define

where $\langle...\rangle$ is the average over the $N$ particles, and $M(r)$ is the mass enclosed within a radius $r$. $\delta q$ is obtained by propagation of errors. We can then measure how well the approximation of a time-invariant distribution holds by seeing how close $q$ is to 1.

We present the values of $q$ obtained for each halo in Table 1 (the statistical uncertainties are negligible). We thus see that there are statistically significant deviations from equilibrium, but only at the $\lesssim 10\%$ level, indicating that a static distribution is a very good approximation, though not exact.

We investigate how close phase space distributions are to isotropic in any radial shell, labeled by $i$. To do this, we define a spherical aniostropy parameter $\beta_{i}$ by

where the average is over all $N_{i}$ DM particles in the radial shell. $\delta\beta_{i}$ is obtained by propagation of errors. If the velocity distribution in this shell is close to isotropic, then $\beta_{i}$ will be close to 0. We can thus use $\beta_{i}$ to investigate deviations from isotropy as a function of $r$. We can restrict ourselves to $r<R_{200}$.

In Figure 1, we plot $\beta_{i}$ for each radial shell, for each halo which we consider. The uncertainties are shown with error bars; they are negligible at large $r$. We find that there are significant deviations from isotropy, which tend to be larger far from the center of the halo. As expected [17], we find that isotropy is a better approximation near the center of the halo.

For each halo, we fit the density profile for all dark matter particles between the radius of convergence and $R_{200}$ to a generalized NFW (gNFW) profile of the form $\rho(r)=\rho_{s}(r/r_{s})^{-\gamma}[1+(r/r_{s})]^{\gamma-3}$, where $\rho_{s}$ and $r_{s}$ are the scale density and scale radius, respectively. The inner slope parameter $\gamma$ for each halo is presented in Table 1.

We have seen that the Auriga simulation halos seem to be well approximated as spherically symmetric and equilibrated. However, significant anisotropy is found in the velocity distribution. This implies that $f$ may be well-approximated as a function of both $E$ and $L$, and the dependence on $L$ may be non-trivial.

To test these conclusions, we divide each halo into $1000$ radial bins, $64$ energy bins, and $64$ angular momentum bins. The radial bins are evenly spaced logarithmically, from the radius of convergence to $R_{200}$.³³ 3 Note that, in computing the gravitational potential, all bound particles are used, including those within the radius of convergence. The energy bins are linearly spaced between the 2nd and 98th percentile of the energies of bound particles, and the angular momentum bins are linearly spaced between 0 and the 98th percentile of particles bound to the halo.

We use the simulated data to determine $f(E,L)$ in each radial bin and determine $\bar{f}(E,L)$ using the methods described in Section II. Figure 2 shows the resulting shell-averaged distribution function for one representative halo, together with the radial-shell residuals about this average. The figure illustrates both the smooth leading dependence of the coarse-grained phase-space distribution on $E$ and $L$, and the residual shell-to-shell structure that remains after averaging over radius. Note that the residuals tend to be largest at large energy, where the phase-space distribution describes particles which can access a large range of radii.

In Table 2, we present $N^{E,L}_{dof}$ and $\chi_{E,L}^{2}/dof$ for each halo. This $\chi^{2}$-distribution characterizes the statistical significance with which the actual phase space distribution deviates from a function of $E$ and $L$ alone. We also present the median fractional residual, which is defined as

where the median is taken over all $(i,j,k)\in{\cal B}$. $(|\Delta f|/f)_{med.}$ describes the extent to which $f_{i}(E_{j},L_{k})$ obtained in any radial bin differs from $r$-independent phase space distribution $\bar{f}(E_{j},L_{k})$, and thus characterizes the fractional error made in approximating the phase space distribution as a function of $E$ and $L$ alone.

For typical halos, we find $\chi_{E,L}^{2}/dof\sim 1-2$ and $N^{E,L}_{dof}\sim 30000-40000$. Given the large number of degrees of freedom, the resulting values of $\chi_{E,L}^{2}/dof\sim 1-2$ indicate that there are strong statistical deviations from the assumption that the phase space distribution is a function of $E$ and $L$ alone. However, we also see that the median fractional residuals are $\sim 15\%$, characterizing the magnitude of these deviations.

We also find $\bar{f}(E)$ for each halo using the methods of Section II, to determine if an anisotropic phase space distribution describes the Auriga data significantly better than an isotropic distribution. Figure 3 shows the analogous energy-only reconstruction for the same representative halo shown in Figure 2. The gray curves show the estimates $f_{i}(E)$ obtained independently in individual radial shells, while the black curve shows the weighted shell-averaged distribution $\bar{f}(E)$. The right panel summarizes the corresponding shell-to-shell fractional residuals as a function of energy. In Table 2, we also present $N^{E}_{dof}$, $\chi^{2}_{E}$ and $(|\Delta f|/f)_{med.}^{E}$ for each halo, using $1000$ radial bins and $96$ energy bins. We find typical values of $\chi^{2}_{E}/dof\sim 6-9$ (with $N^{E}_{dof}\sim 20000$), indicating that, statistically, the description of $f$ as a function of $E$ and $L$ is significantly better than as a function of $E$ alone. However, this statistical difference is largely driven by the fact that the number of particles in a typical energy and angular momentum bin used to compute $f(E,L)$ is far smaller than the number of particles in an energy bin used to compute $f(E)$. As a result, the fractional uncertainties in $f(E,L)$ are typically far larger than the fractional uncertainties in $f(E)$ (that is, $|\delta f_{i}(E_{j},L_{k})|/f_{i}(E_{j},L_{k})\gg|\delta f_{i}(E_{j})|/f_{i}(E_{j})$), leading to a smaller $\chi^{2}/dof$ for $\bar{f}(E,L)$ than for $\bar{f}(E)$. Although a phase space distribution which is a function of $E$ and $L$ is statistically a better fit to the numerical data than a distribution which is a function of $E$ alone, neither is a statistically good description of the data. This is not surprising, since the underlying assumptions which would require the phase space distribution to be a function of $E$ and $L$ alone (spherical symmetry and equilibrium) are not exactly satisfied.

Since neither $\bar{f}(E,L)$ nor $\bar{f}(E)$ are a statistically good description of the data, the relevant question is which of these two descriptions is a better approximation. To answer this question, we again look at the fractional residuals. Comparing the values of $f_{i}(E_{j})$ found in any radial bin to the $r$-independent distribution $\bar{f}(E_{j})$ as described above, we find that the $\bar{f}(E)$ residuals are at the level of $(|\Delta f|/f)_{med.}^{E}\sim 0.15$. Note that these fractional residuals are at a level comparable to $(|\Delta f|/f)_{med.}^{E,L}$. Moreover, rather than computing the median of the fractional residuals, we may instead compute the 90th percentile fractional residual (denoted P90). We then find $(|\Delta f|/f)_{P90}^{E}\sim(|\Delta f|/f)_{P90}^{E,L}\sim 0.4-0.6$. That is, the $90\%$ of the fractional residuals in $(E,L)$ (or $(E)$, as relevant) bins are below $0.4-0.6$ in all of the halos we have considered.

From this, we can conclude that the description of the phase space distribution as a function of $E$ and $L$ is not a significant improvement over a description as a function of $E$ alone. The fractional residuals in any particular radial bin are typically at the level of $\sim 15\%$, with $90\%$ of radial bins having residuals below $40-60\%$, depending on the halo. Including an explicit dependence on $L$ in the phase space distribution $f(E,L)$ does not alter this picture significantly.

The choice of bins was made to minimize the associated binning error when analyzing Halo 6. To ensure that there is no bias, the same binning choice was also used on the other halos.

When the phase space distribution is isotropic, then $\rho(r)$ is related to $f(E)$ by eq. 5, which is in the form of an Abel integral transform. The inverse Abel transform then yields the Eddington inversion formula [4]

This expression is very useful because the density profile $\rho(r)$ can be directly estimated from observations of stellar kinematics, and in turn determines $\Phi(r)$. With these observational inputs, one can then determine $f(E)$. Indeed, in Ref. [2] it was noted that phase space distribution $f(E)$ obtained from publicly-available Via Lactea 2 simulated data (under the assumption of an isotropic phase space distribution) was similar to that which would have been obtained from the Eddington inversion formula, if one had only the observational inputs.

As a consistency check, in Figure 4 we plot $\bar{f}(E)$ obtained for each halo (as in Figure 3), along with the $f_{Edd.}(E)$ obtained using eq. 14, assuming that the dark matter density profile $\rho(r)$ is of the gNFW form given by the best fit halo profile. We obtain the gravitational potential $\Phi(r)$ using eq. 3, where the enclosed mass is obtained from the simulated data (not the best fit gNFW profile), including baryons when relevant. As we see, at low energy, $\bar{f}(E)$ is well-described by $f_{Edd.}(E)$. This is not surprising, since the inverse Abel integral transform is unique; to the extent that $\rho(r)$ is well-described by a gNFW profile, and to the extent that the phase space density is well-described as a function of $E$ alone, it must be $f_{Edd.}(E)$. The deviation of the $\bar{f}(E)$ from $f_{Edd.}(E)$ at large $E$ arises from the fact that the profile deviates from gNFW form and truncates near $R_{200}$, and from computational precision.