Halo Substructure And The Power Spectrum
Extracted source text ยท arXiv astro-ph/0304292
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
% A.R.Zentner & J.S.Bullock
% Substructure Paper -- Draft 7/07/03
%
%%%%%%% lanl arXiv Version
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%% Document Preamble %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
\usepackage{epsf}
\usepackage{emulateapj5}
\usepackage{onecolfloat}
% from onecolfloat.sty; combine with \twocolumn[...] command below
\renewenvironment{slocitlum}[1]{\relax}{\relax}
\newcommand{\PSbox}[3]{\mbox{\rule{0in}{#3}\special{psfile=#1}\hspace{#2}}}
%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Useful Macros %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\def\lsim{\lower0.6ex\vbox{\hbox{$ \buildrel{\textstyle <}\over{\sim}\ $}}}
\def\gsim{\lower0.6ex\vbox{\hbox{$ \buildrel{\textstyle >}\over{\sim}\ $}}}
%%%%%%%%%% Begin/End Equation %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\def\beq{\begin{equation}}
\def\eeq{\end{equation}}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% General Cosmology Definitions %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\def\Ok{\Omega_{\rm k}}
\def\Om{\Omega_{\rm M}}
\def\Ol{\Omega_{\rm \Lambda}}
\def\Or{$\Omega_{\rm R}\ $}
\def\Ogn{$\Omega_{\rm {\gamma}{\nu}}\ $}
\def\Ow{\Omega_{\rm W}}
\def\Neff{$N_{\nu ,eff}\ $}
\def\lcdm{$\Lambda$CDM}
\def\rhocrit{\rho_{\rm crit}}
%%% Units Definitions
\def\himpc{{h$^{-1}$ Mpc}~}
\def\kms{\textrm{ km s}^{-1}}
\def\hmpci{h Mpc$^{-1}$}
\def\hunit{km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$}
\def\Owdm{\Omega_{\rm W}}
\def\dd{\textrm{d}}
% Reference Definitions
\def\etal{{\it et al.}~}
\def\cf{{\it cf.}~}
\def\eg{{\it e.g.},~}
\def\ie{{\it i.e.},~}
%\def\apj{{Astrophys. J.}~}
%\def\mnras{{Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.}~}
% BBN Definitions
\def\3he{$^3$He}
\def\4he{$^4$He}
\def\d{D$/$H}
\def\6li{$^6$Li}
\def\7li{$^7$Li}
\def\8Be{$^8$Be}
\def\9B{$^9$B}
\def\dNnu{$\Delta N_{\nu}$}
\def\wq{w_{\rm Q}}
\def\Mkev{M_{\rm keV}}
% Structure Definitions
\def\Msun{M$_{\odot}$~}
\def\Msol{M_{\odot}}
\def\V{V(\phi)}
\def\Mvir{M_{\rm vir}}
\def\Rvir{R_{\rm vir}}
\def\cvir{c_{\rm vir}}
\def\Vvir{V_{\rm vir}}
\def\Vmax{V_{\rm max}}
\def\dvir{\Delta_{\rm vir}}
\def\rs{r_{\rm s}}
\def\dv2{\Delta_{\rm V/2}}
\def\Rv2{r_{\rm V/2}}
\def\Mcoll{M_*(z_c)}
\def\rhoc{\tilde\rho_{\rm s}}
\def\sig8{\sigma_8}
% Substructure paper definitions
\def\Msat{M_{\rm sat}}
\def\Rsat{R_{\rm sat}}
\def\zacc{z_{\rm acc}}
\def\Mhost{M_{\rm host}}
\def\tacc{t_{\rm acc}}
\def\zacc{z_{\rm acc}}
\def\t0{t_0}
\def\lnL{\ln(\Lambda)}
\def\Vsat{V_{\rm sat}}
\def\Vorb{V_{\rm orb}}
\def\rt{r_{\rm t}}
\def\Rcirc{R_{\rm circ}}
\def\Vcirc{V_{\rm circ}}
\def\rmaxsat{r_{\rm max}^{\rm sat}}
\def\rssat{r_{\rm s}^{\rm sat}}
\def\Mrmax{M_{\rm sat}(<r_{\rm max}^{\rm sat})}
\def\Rmax{r_{\rm max}}
\def\xlim{x_{\rm lim}}
\def\svd{\sigma_{\star}}
\def\ncobe{n(k_{\rm COBE})}
\def\dndlnk{\textrm{d}n(k_{\rm COBE})/\textrm{d}\ln k}
% Inflation models
\def\ipl4{IPL4}
\def\bsi{BSI}
\def\irmone{RM I}
\def\irmtwo{RM II}
\def\irmthree{RM III}
\def\sigone{$\sigma_8=.65$}
\def\sigtwo{$\sigma_8=.75$}
\def\sigthree{$\sigma_8=.83$}
\def\lb{\left [}
\def\rb{\right ]}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% End of definitions. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{document}
%%%%%%%%%% Comment and Running Headers %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\slugcomment{{\em The Astrophysical Journal, submitted}}
\twocolumn[
\lefthead{Halo Substructure and the Power Spectrum}
\righthead{Andrew R. Zentner \& James S. Bullock}
\title{Halo Substructure and the Power Spectrum}\vspace{3mm}
%
%%%%%%%% Author Info %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\author{Andrew R. Zentner}
\affil{Department of Physics, The Ohio State University, 174 W.
18th Ave, Columbus, OH 43210-1173}
\email{zentner@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu}
\author{James S. Bullock\altaffilmark{1}}
\affil{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60
Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138}
\email{jbullock@cfa.harvard.edu}
\altaffiltext{1}{Hubble Fellow}
\footnotetext{hi}
%
%%%%%%%%% Abstract %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
\begin{abstract}
We present a semi-analytic model to investigate the merger history,
destruction rate, and survival probability of substructure in
hierarchically formed dark matter halos, and use it to study the
substructure content of halos as a function of input primordial power spectrum.
For a standard cold dark matter ``concordance'' cosmology
($\Lambda$CDM; $n=1$, $\sigma_8 = 0.95$) we successfully reproduce the
subhalo velocity function and radial distribution profile seen in
N-body simulations, and determine that the rate of merging and
disruption peaks $\sim 10-12$ Gyr in the past for
Milky Way-like halos, while surviving
substructures are typically accreted within the last $\sim 0-8$ Gyr.
We explore power spectra with normalizations and spectral
``tilts'' spanning the ranges $\sigma_8 \simeq 1 - 0.65$ and $n \simeq
1-0.8$, and include a ``running-index'' model with ${\rm d} n / {\rm
d} \ln k = -0.03$ similar to the best-fit model discussed in the
first-year WMAP report. We investigate spectra with truncated
small-scale power, including a broken-scale inflation model and three
warm dark matter cases with $m_{\rm W} = 0.75 - 3.0$ keV.
We find that the mass fraction in substructure is relatively
insensitive to the tilt and overall normalization of the primordial
power spectrum. All of the CDM-type models yield projected
substructure mass fractions that are consistent with,
but on the low side, of
published estimates from strong lens systems: $f_{9} = 0.4 -
1.5\%$ ($64$ percentile), for subhalos $< 10^{9}$ \Msun within
projected cylinders of radius $r < 10$ kpc. Truncated models
produce
significantly smaller fractions, $f_{9} = 0.02 - 0.2\%$ for
$m_{\rm W}\simeq 1$ keV, and are disfavored by lensing
estimates of substructure.
This suggests that lensing and
similar probes can provide a
robust test of the CDM paradigm and a powerful constraint on
broken-scale inflation/warm particle masses, including masses larger
than the $\sim 1$ keV upper limits of previous studies.
We compare our predicted subhalo velocity functions to the dwarf
satellite population of the Milky Way. Assuming dwarfs have
isotropic velocity dispersions, we find that the standard $n=1$ model
over-predicts the number of Milky Way satellites at $\Vmax \lsim 35
\kms$, as expected. Models with less small-scale power do better
because subhalos are less concentrated and the mapping between
observed velocity dispersion and halo $\Vmax$ is significantly
altered. The running-index model, or a fixed tilt with $\sigma_8
\sim 0.75$, can account for the local dwarfs without the need for
differential feedback (for $\Vmax \gsim 20 \kms$); however,
these comparisons depend sensitively on the assumption of
isotropic velocities in satellite galaxies.
%
%
\end{abstract}
%
%%%%%%%%%%%% END ABSTRACT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%% Keywords %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
\keywords{Cosmology: dark matter, theory --- galaxies: formation, halos, structure}
]
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Begin Intro %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%
\section{\label{sec:intro}INTRODUCTION}
\footnotetext{Hubble Fellow}
In the standard cosmological model of structure formation ($\Lambda$CDM), the
Universe is dominated by cold, collisionless dark matter (CDM), made
flat by a cosmological constant ($\Lambda$), and endowed with initial
density perturbations via quantum fluctuations during inflation. The
\lcdm~ model with $\Om = 1-\Ol = 0.3$, $h \approx 0.7$, and a
scale-invariant spectrum of primordial perturbations ($P(k) \propto
k^n$, $n=1$, $\sigma_8 \sim 0.9$) is remarkably
successful at reproducing a plethora of large-scale observations
(\eg Spergel et al. 2003; Percival et al. 2002). In
contrast, several small-scale observations have proven more difficult to
explain. Galaxy densities and concentrations appear
to be much lower than what is predicted for the standard ($n=1$)
$\Lambda$CDM model (\eg Debattista \& Sellwood 2000; C{\^o}te, Carignan, \&
Freeman 2000; Borriello \& Salucci 2000; Binney \& Evans 2001;
Keeton 2001; van den Bosch \& Swaters 2001; Marchesini et al. 2002;
Swaters et al. 2003; McGaugh, Barker, \& de Blok 2003;
van den Bosch, Mo, \& Yang 2003),
and the Local Group dwarf galaxy count is significantly below what
might naively be expected from the substructure content of $\Lambda$CDM
halos (Klypin et al. 1999a, K99 hereafter; Moore et al. 1999a).
In Zentner \& Bullock (2002, hereafter ZB02), we showed that the central densities of
$\Lambda$CDM dark matter halos can be brought into reasonable agreement
with the rotation curves of dark matter-dominated galaxies by
reducing galactic-scale fluctuations in the initial power spectrum
($\sigma_8 \sim 0.75$ and $n \sim 0.9$ is a good match; see
Alam, Bullock, \& Weinberg 2002, hereafter ABW; McGaugh et al. 2003;
van den Bosch et al. 2003). The present paper is an extension of this work.
We explore how changes in the initial power spectrum affect the
substructure content of $\Lambda$CDM halos, test our findings against
attempts to measure the substructure mass fraction via gravitational
lensing, and relate our results to the question of the abundance of
dwarf satellites in the Local Group.
It is straightforward to see why CDM halos are expected to play host
to a large number of distinct, bound substructures, or ``subhalos.''
In the modern picture of hierarchical structure formation (White \& Rees 1978;
Blumenthal et al. 1984; Kauffmann, White, \& Guiderdoni 1993) low-mass systems collapse
early and merge to form larger systems over time. Small
halos collapse at high redshift, when the universe is very dense, so
their central densities are correspondingly high. When these halos
merge into larger hosts, their high densities allow them to resist the
strong tidal forces that act to destroy them. While gravitational
interactions do serve to unbind most of mass associated with merged progenitors,
a significant fraction of these small halos survive as distinct substructure.
Our understanding of this process has increased dramatically in the
last five years thanks to remarkable advances in N-body techniques
that allow the high force and mass resolution necessary to study
substructure in detail (Ghigna et al. 1998, 2000; Kravtsov 1999; K99;
Klypin et al. 1999b; Kolatt et al. 1999; Moore et al. 1999a,b; Font et al.
2001; Stoehr et al. 2002). For $n=1$, $\Lambda$CDM and CDM simulations,
the total mass fraction bound up in substructure is measured at $f \sim
5-15\%$ (Ghigna et al. 1998, Klypin et al. 1999b), with a significant
portion contributed by the most massive subsystems, $dN/dM \propto
M^{-s}$, $s \approx 1.7$. The substructure content of halos seems to
be roughly self-similar when subhalo mass is scaled
by the host halo mass (Moore et al. 1999a) and the subhalo count is observed to decline at
the host halo center, where tidal forces are strongest
(Ghigna et al. 1998; Col{\'{\i}}n et al. 2000b; Chen, Kravtsov, \& Keeton 2003).
Unfortunately, studies of substructure using N-body simulations
suffer from issues of numerical resolution. Simulations with the capability
to resolve substructure are computationally expensive.
They cannot be used to study the implications of many unknown
input parameters and cannot attain both the resolution and the
statistics needed to confront observational data on substructure that
appear to be on the horizon. Even state of the art simulations
face difficulties in the centers of halos where ``overmerging'' may be
a problem (\eg Chen et al. 2003; Klypin et al. 1999b) and
measurements of the substructure fraction via lensing are highly sensitive to these
uncertain, central regions. Our goal is to present and apply a
semi-analytic model that suffers from no inherent resolution effects,
and is based on the processes that were observed to govern
substructure populations in past N-body simulations.
This kind of model can generate statistically
significant predictions for a variety of inputs quickly
and can be used to guide expectations for the next
generation of N-body simulations. Conversely, this model represents
in many ways an extrapolation of N-body results into unexplored
domains and it is imperative that our results be tested by future numerical
studies. In the present paper, we aim to explore the effect of the
power spectrum on the population of
surviving subhalos, but in principle these methods are suitable for
testing substructure ramifications for a variety of cosmological inputs.
One of the main motivations for this work comes
from simulation results that indicate that galaxy-sized CDM halos
play host to hundreds of subhalos with maximum circular
velocities in the range $10 \kms$ $\lsim$ $\Vmax$ $\lsim$ $30$ $\kms$.
The Milky Way, as a comparative example, hosts only $11$ dwarf
satellites of similar size. This ``dwarf satellite problem''
specifically refers to the gross mismatch between the predicted
number of $\Lambda$CDM subhalos and the count of satellite galaxies in the
Local Group (K99; Moore et al. 1999a; Font et al. 2001;
see also Kauffmann et al. 1993, who indicated
that there may be a problem using analytic arguments). The dwarf
satellite problem and other small-scale issues led many authors to consider
modifications to the standard framework. If the dark matter were
``warm'' (Pagels \& Primack 1982; Colombi, Dodelson, \& Widrow 1996; Hogan
\& Dalcanton 2000; Col{\'{\i}}n et al. 2000a; Bode, Ostriker, \&
Turok 2001; Lin et al. 2001; Knebe et al. 2002) or if
the primordial power spectrum were sharply truncated on small scales
(Starobinsky 1992; Kamionkowski \& Liddle 2000) then subgalactic-scale
problems may be allayed without vitiating the overall success of
$\Lambda$CDM on large scales.
Another possibility is that CDM substructure is abundant in all galaxy
halos, but that most low-mass systems are simply devoid of
stars. An intermediate solution may involve a
simple modification of the assumed primordial spectrum of density
perturbations that gradually lowers power
on galactic scales relative to the horizon, \eg
via tilting the power spectrum.
Probing models with low galactic-scale power is motivated not only by
the small-scale crises facing standard $\Lambda$CDM but also by more direct
probes of the power spectrum. While many analyses continue to measure
``high'' values for $\sig8 \sim 1$ (Van Waerbeke et al. 2002; Komatsu
\& Seljak 2002; Bahcall \& Bode 2003; where $\sig8$ is the linear, rms
fluctuation amplitude on a length scale of 8 \himpc), numerous recent
studies relying on similar techniques, advocate rather ``low'' values
of $\sig8 \sim 0.7-0.8$ (Jarvis et al. 2003; Bahcall et al. 2003;
Schuecker et al 2003; Pierpaoli et al. 2003; Viana et al. 2002; Brown et al. 2002;
Allen et al. 2002; Hamana et al. 2002; Melchiorri \& Silk 2002; Borgani et al. 2001).
Similarly, the Ly-$\alpha$ forest measurements of the power spectrum
are consistent with reduced galactic-scale power (Croft et al. 1998;
McDonald et al. 2000; Croft et al. 2002). Set against the
normalization of fluctuations on large scales implied by the Cosmic
Background Explorer (COBE) measurements of cosmic microwave background
(CMB) anisotropy (Bennett et al. 1994), these data suggest that
the initial power spectrum may be tilted to favor large scales with $n <1$.
The recent analysis of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)
measurements of CMB anisotropy presented by Spergel et al. (2003; see
also Verde et al. 2003; Peiris et al. 2003) returns a best-fit
spectral index to a pure power law primordial spectrum of $n=0.99 \pm
0.04$ when only the WMAP data are considered. However, when data from
smaller scale CMB experiments, the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey, and
the Ly-$\alpha$ forest are included, the analysis favors a mild tilt,
$n = 0.96 \pm 0.02$. Interestingly, all of the data sets together
yield a better fit if the index is allowed to run: the WMAP
team find ${\rm d}n/\rm{d}\ln k = -0.031^{+0.016}_{-0.017}$.
This result is consistent with no running at $\sim 2\sigma$,
and the statistical significance is further weakened
when additional uncertainties in the mean flux decrement in the
Ly-$\alpha$ forest are considered
(Seljak, McDonald, and Makarov 2003; Croft et al. 2002), yet such
a model certainly seems worth investigating, especially
in light of the small-scale difficulties it may help to alleviate.
We explicitly show how models with reduced small-scale power are
expected to help the halo density problem in Figure
\ref{fig:dv2}, which is an updated version of Figure 5 in ZB02. Here, we
compare the densities of standard $n=1$ halos to
galaxy rotation curve data (see ZB02 for details) along
with expectations for the running-index (RI) model favored by WMAP
and several other models we explore in the following sections.
Galaxy and halo densities (vertical axis) are evaluated at
the radius where the rotation curve falls to half its maximum value
and expressed in units of the critical density ($\Delta_{V/2}$, as
defined in ABW). Clearly, the data favor low small-scale power
relative to the standard $n=1$ case.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{!}{9cm}
{\includegraphics{dv2c.eps}}
\caption{\label{fig:dv2} {Galaxy central densities. The symbols show
the mean density (relative to the critical density) within the radius
where each rotation curve falls to half of its maximum value, inferred
from the measured rotation curves of several dark matter-dominated
dwarf and low surface brightness galaxies (see ZB02 for details). The
data are taken from de Blok, McGaugh, \& Rubin (2001; triangles and
hexagons), de Blok and Bosma (2002; squares), and Swaters (1999;
pentagons). The lines show the theoretical expectation for several of
the power spectra we describe in \S \ref{sec:ps} and Table
\ref{table:spectra}. The points with error bars in the upper right corner
reflect the expected theoretical scatter in the density as inferred by
Bullock et al. (2001, larger range) and Jing (2000, smaller range).
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The possibility of discriminating between standard $\Lambda$CDM and
several alternatives has inspired efforts to
measure and quantify the substructure content of galactic halos. One
method relies on studying tidal tails associated
with known Galactic satellites (Johnston, Spergel, \& Haydn 2002;
Ibata et al. 2002a, 2002b; Mayer et al. 2002).
Subhalos passing through cold
tidal streams scatter stars away from their original
orbits, and the signatures of these events may be detectable in the
velocity data of future astrometric missions and several deep
halo surveys that will soon be completed. Of particular interest for
obtaining measurements in distant galaxies are studies that aim to
detect substructure via flux ratio anomalies in strong gravitational lenses
(Moore et al. 1999a; Metcalf \& Madau 2001; Metcalf \& Zhao 2002;
Brada{\v c} et al. 2002). Using a sample of seven four-image radio lenses,
Dalal \& Kochanek (2001, DK01 hereafter) estimated a mass fraction of
$f = 0.006 - 0.07$ (90\% confidence level)
bound up in substructure less massive than $\sim 10^8 - 10^{10}$ M$_{\odot}$,
in line with the rough expectations of CDM.\footnote{DK01
quoted an approximate upper mass limit of $10^6 - 10^{9}$ M$_{\odot}$.
They have since concluded that an upper limit of $\sim 10^8 - 10^{10}$
M$_{\odot}$ may be more appropriate (N. Dalal, private communication).}
While measurements of this kind are susceptible to potential
degeneracies with the adopted smooth lens model and other
uncertainties, they are encouraging and serve as prime motivators for
this work (see Kochanek \& Dalal 2003). In addition, new
observational techniques that focus on astrometric features (Metcalf
2002), and particularly spectroscopic studies of strong lens
systems (Moustakas \& Metcalf 2003), promise to hone in on the masses
of the subclumps responsible for the lensing signals.
If the Milky Way really is surrounded by a large number of
dark subhalos, the dwarf satellite problem serves as a conspicuous
reminder that feedback plays an important role in hierarchical
galaxy formation. Of course, the need for feedback in small systems
has been generally recognized for some time (\eg White \& Rees 1978).
Supernova blow-out likely plays a role in regulating
star formation if CDM is the correct theory (Dekel \& Silk 1986;
Kauffmann et al. 1993; Cole et al. 1994; Somerville \&
Primack 1999); however, supernova winds do not naturally suggest a
sharp discrepancy at $\sim 30 \kms$, nor do they explain why some halos
of this size should have stars while most have none at all. It seems
more likely that supernovae play an important role in setting scaling
relations in slightly larger galaxies ($\Vmax \sim 100 \kms$;
Dekel \& Woo 2002; but see Mac Low \& Ferrara 1999).
Perhaps a more natural feedback source on satellite galaxy scales
is the ionizing background, which should suppress galaxy formation
in halos with $\Vmax \lsim 30 \kms$ (Rees 1986; Efstathiou 1992;
Kauffmann et al. 1993; Shapiro, Giroux, \& Babul 1994; Thoul \& Weinberg
1996; Quinn, Katz, \& Efstathiou 1996; Gnedin 2000).
Bullock, Kravtsov, \& Weinberg (2000, BKW hereafter) suggested that
dwarf galaxies may be associated with small halos that collapsed before the
epoch of reionization, and though the method used
by BKW to estimate dwarf luminosities was crude, more sophisticated
models have since led to similar conclusions (Chiu, Gnedin, \& Ostriker 2001;
Somerville 2002; Benson et al. 2002). For the smallest
systems, $\Vmax \lsim 10-20 \kms$, the ionizing background likely stops
star formation altogether by photo-evaporating gas in halos, even
after they have collapsed (Barkana \& Loeb 1999; Shaviv \& Dekel 2003).
Precisely what can be learned about galaxy formation and/or cosmology
by counting dwarf satellites depends upon our expectations
for the density profiles of their host halos. To count
satellites of a given maximum circular velocity, we must infer a halo
$\Vmax$ using the observed central velocity dispersion
$\sigma_{\star}$, and the mapping between these two quantities depends
sensitively on the structure of each satellite's dark matter
halo. This point was first emphasized by S. D. M. White at the Summer
$2000$ Institute for Theoretical Physics Conference on Galaxy Formation
and Evolution.\footnote{See http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/galaxy\_c00/white/.}
Standard $\Lambda$CDM halos with $\Vmax \sim 30 \kms$ are expected to be
very concentrated (Col{\'{\i}}n et al. 2000a;
Bullock et al. 2001), with their rotation curves peaking at $r_{\rm max} \sim
1$ kpc, so the multiplicative factor that converts a $\sim 1$ kpc
velocity dispersion measurement to halo $\Vmax$ is fairly modest: $\Vmax
\sim \sqrt{3} \sigma_{\star}$ (K99).
However, as we discuss in \S 4, the appropriate conversion is
cosmology-dependent because models with later structure formation tend
to produce halos with more slowly rising rotation curves.
If a dwarf galaxy sits in a halo with a slowly rising rotation curve
that peaks at $r_{\rm max} \gg$ a few kpc, the conversion factor, and thus
$\Vmax$, can be significantly larger.
Shifts of this kind in the ``observed'' velocity function
change the implied velocity (or mass) scale of discrepancy,
and influence our ideas about the type of feedback that gives rise
to the mismatch.
Hayashi et al. (2003, H03 hereafter) and Stoehr et al. (2002, S02
hereafter) suggested that substructure halos experience
significant mass redistribution in their centers as a result of tidal
interactions and that they are therefore less concentrated than comparable
halos in the field. They argue that when this is taken into account, the
dwarf satellite mismatch sets in at $\Vmax
\sim 20 \kms$, and that the transition is sudden ---
below this scale all halos are devoid of observable
galaxies. While these conclusions have yet to be confirmed and are
dependent upon subhalo merger histories and the isotropy of dwarf
velocity dispersions, they highlight the need to refine our
predictions about halo substructure. They also motivate us to explore
how minor changes in cosmological parameters can influence our
interpretation of the dwarf satellite problem.
In the remainder of this paper we present our study of CDM substructure.
In \S\ref{sec:model}, we describe our semi-analytic model, provide
some illustrative examples, and
compare our results for standard $\Lambda$CDM to previous N-body results.
In \S\ref{sec:ps}, we briefly describe the input power spectra
that serve as the basis for this study.
In \S\ref{sec:results}, we present our results on subhalo mass
functions and velocity functions.
We make predictions aimed at measuring substructure
mass fractions via gravitational lensing
and address the dwarf satellite problem in light of
some of our findings in this section.
In \S\ref{sec:caveats} we discuss some shortcomings of our
model and how they might be improved in future work.
In \S\ref{sec:conclusions} we summarize
our work and draw conclusions from our results. In this
study we vary only the power spectrum and work within the context of
the so-called ``concordance'' cosmological model with $\Omega_{\rm
M}=0.3$, $\Omega_{\rm \Lambda}=0.7$, $h=0.72$, and $\Omega_{\rm
B}h^2=0.02$ (\eg Turner 2002; Spergel et al. 2003).
%
%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
%Section Names:
% sec:model -- sub:model, sub:desc, sub:mh
% sec:PPS
% sec:results -- sub:vfunc, sub:mfrac, sub:dwarf
% sec:con
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% End Introduction %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% BEGIN MODEL SECTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
\section{\label{sec:model}MODELING HALO SUBSTRUCTURE}
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Intro paragraph %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
In order to determine the substructure properties of a dark matter
halo we must model its mass accretion history as well as the orbital
evolution of the subsystems once they are accreted. For the first
step, we rely on the the extended Press-Schechter (EPS)
formalism to create merger histories for each host system. We give a
brief description of our EPS merger trees in \S
\ref{sub:model}. In \S \ref{sub:ppt} we discuss our model for the
density structure of accreted halos and the host system and in \S
\ref{sub:desc} we describe our method for following the orbital evolution
of each merged system. We show tests and examples of this model in
\S \ref{sub:test}.
\subsection{\label{sub:model}Merger Histories}
We track diffuse mass accretion and satellite halo acquisition of host
systems by constructing merger histories using the EPS method
(Bond et al. 1991; Lacey \& Cole 1993, LC93 hereafter). In particular, we
employ the merger tree algorithm of Somerville and Kolatt
(1999, hereafter SK99). This allows us to generate a list of the
masses and accretion redshifts of all subhalos greater than a given
threshold mass that merged to form the host halo. We describe the
method briefly here, and encourage the interested reader to consult
LC93 and SK99 for further details.
A merger tree that reproduces many
of the results of N-body simulations can be constructed using
only the linear power spectrum. For convenience, we express this
in terms of $\sigma(M)$, the rms fluctuation amplitude on mass scale
$M$ at $z=0$. As in LC93, let $S(M) \equiv \sigma^2(M)$, $\Delta
S \equiv S(M) - S(M + \Delta M)$, $w(t) \equiv \delta_{\rm c}(t)$, and
$\delta w \equiv w(t) - w(t+\Delta t)$. Here $\delta_{\rm c}(t)$ is
the linear overdensity for collapse at time t, associated with our
choice of cosmology (see LC93 or White 1996).
The probability that a halo of mass $M$, at time
$t$, accreted an amount of mass associated with a step of $\Delta S$, in
a given time step implied by $\delta w$ is
\beq
\label{eq:merger}
P(\Delta S, \delta w) \textrm{d}(\Delta S) =
\frac{\delta w}{\sqrt{2\pi}\Delta S^{3/2}}
\exp \Bigg[\frac{-(\delta w)^2}{2\Delta S} \Bigg] \textrm{d}(\Delta S).
\eeq
Merger histories are constructed by starting at a chosen
redshift and halo mass and stepping back in time with an
appropriate time step.
If the minimum mass of a progenitor that we wish to track is
$M_{\rm min}$, then SK99 tell us that each time step must be small
in order to reproduce the conditional mass functions of EPS
theory: $\delta w \lsim \sqrt{M_{\rm min}(\textrm{d}S(M)/\textrm{d}M)}$.
We build merger trees by selecting progenitors at each time step
according to equation (\ref{eq:merger}) and treating events with
$\Delta M < M_{\rm min}$ as diffuse mass accretion. At each
step, we identify the most massive progenitor with the host halo and
all less massive progenitors with accreted subhalos and we continue
this process until the host mass falls below $M_{\rm min}$.
In practice, we use a slightly modified version of the SK99 scheme.
At each stage we demand that the number of progenitor halos in the
mass range we consider be close to the mean value. As discussed in BKW,
this modification considerably improves the agreement between the
analytically predicted progenitor distribution and the numerically
generated progenitor distribution. In what follows we set
$M_{\rm min} = 10^5$ M$_{\odot}$. Our fiducial, z=0 host mass is
$1.4 \times 10^{12}$ M$_{\odot}$, but we vary these choices in order
test sensitivity to the host mass and redshift.
%
%
\subsection{\label{sub:ppt}Halo Density Structure}
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Describing Halos, Used to Set Up Notation %%%%%%%%
%
%
Whether a merged system survives or is destroyed depends
on the density structure of the subhalo and on the
gravitational potential of the host system. Therefore, it
is worthwhile to describe our assumptions about CDM
density profiles in some detail. The size of a virialized
dark matter halo can be quantified
in terms of its virial mass $\Mvir$, or equivalently its virial radius
$\Rvir$, or virial velocity $\Vvir^2 \equiv G\Mvir/\Rvir$. The virial
radius of a halo is defined as the radius within which the mean density
is equal to the virial overdensity $\dvir$, multiplied by the
mean matter density of the Universe $\rho_{\rm M}$, so that
$\Mvir = 4 \pi \rho_{\rm M} \dvir(z) \Rvir^3/3$.
The virial overdensity $\Delta_{\rm vir}$, can be estimated using
the spherical top-hat collapse approximation and is
generally a function of $\Omega_{\rm M}$, $\Omega_{\rm \Lambda}$, and
redshift (\eg Eke, Navarro, \& Frenk 1998). We
compute $\Delta_{\rm vir}$ using the fitting function of Bryan
\& Norman (1998). In the cosmology considered here,
$\dvir(z=0) \simeq 337$, and at high redshift
$\dvir \rightarrow 178$, approaching the
standard cold dark matter (\ie $\Omega_{\rm M} = 1$) value.
The gross structure of dark matter halos has been described by several analytic
density profiles that have been proposed as good approximations to the
results of high-resolution N-body simulations (Moore et al. 1999b; Power et al. 2003).
In the interest of simplicity, we choose to model all halos with the density
profile proposed by Navarro, Frenk, \& White (1997; hereafter NFW):
\beq
\label{eq:NFW}
\rho(r) = \frac{\rho_{\rm s}}{(r/r_{\rm s})(1+r/r_{\rm s})^2}.
\eeq
For the NFW profile, the amount of mass contained within a
radius r, is
\beq
\label{eq:MofR}
M(<r) = \Mvir \frac{g(x)}{g(\cvir)}
\eeq
where $x \equiv r/r_{\rm s}$, $g(y) \equiv \ln(1+y) - y/(1+y)$, and
the concentration parameter is defined as
$\cvir \equiv \Rvir/r_{\rm s}$. Restating equation (\ref{eq:MofR})
in terms of a circular velocity profile yields
$V_c^2(r) = \Vvir^2 \cvir g(x)/x g(\cvir)$. The
maximum circular velocity occurs at a radius
$r_{\rm max} \simeq 2.16r_{\rm s}$, with a value
$\Vmax^2 \simeq 0.216 \Vvir^2 \cvir/g(\cvir)$.
As a result of the study by Wechsler et al. (2002; W02 hereafter) and
several precursors (\eg Zaroubi and Hoffman 1993; NFW; Avila-Reese,
Firmani, \& Hern{\'a}ndez 1998; Bullock et al. 2001, hereafter B01),
we now understand that dark matter halo concentrations are determined
almost exclusively by their mass assembly histories. The gross
picture advocated by W02 is that the rate at which a halo accretes
mass determines how close to the center of the host halo
the accreted mass is deposited. When the mass accretion rate is high,
near equal mass mergers are very likely, and dynamical friction acts
to deposit mass deep into the interior of the host. After an early
period of rapid mass accretion, the central densities of halos
remain constant at a value proportional to the mean density of the
Universe at the so-called ``formation epoch'' $z_{\rm c}$, defined as the
redshift when the relative mass accretion rate was similar to the rate
of universal expansion (see W02 for details). For typical halos, this
formation epoch occurred at a time when halos were roughly $\sim 10-20\%$
of their final masses. Additionally, W02 found that the scale radius and central
density of the best fit NFW profile remain practically constant after the
initial phase of rapid accretion. After this time, the mass increase is slow,
and as the virial radius of the halo grows, its concentration
decreases as $\cvir \propto (1+z)^{-1}$.
These results lend support to B01, who explained the
observed trends with halo mass and redshift using a simple,
semi-analytic model that we adopt in this study. In the B01 model, halo
concentrations $\cvir(M,z)$, depend only on the value of $\sigma(M)$
and the evolution of linear perturbations, $\delta (z) / \delta (z=0) $. Specifically,
the density of a halo of mass $M$ is set by the density of the
Universe at the time when systems of mass $\sim 0.01 M$ were typically
collapsing. The collapse epoch $z_{\rm c}$, is defined by
$\sigma(0.01 M) \equiv \delta_{\rm c}(z_{\rm c})$. Again, $\delta_{\rm c}(z)$
is the linear overdensity for collapse at redshift $z$. Central
densities determined in this manner connect well to the
findings of W02. Halo density structure is set at a
time of rapid accretion, when progenitor masses typically were
$M_{\rm prog} \sim 0.1 M$. Most of the mass in a halo at any given time is
set by accretion events with subhalos of mass $\sim 1/10$ the host halo mass
(\cf \S \ref{sec:results}). Thus the period of
rapid mass accretion involves objects of mass $\sim 0.1 M_{\rm prog} \sim
0.01 M$, and it is the collapse times and densities of these constituents
that set the central density of the mass $M$ halo.
The B01 model reproduces N-body results for $n=1$, $n=0.9$, and
power-law CDM models (\eg Col{\'{\i}}n et al. 2000b;
B01) as well the WDM simulations of
Col{\'{\i}}n et al. (2000a) and Avila-Reese et al. (2001).
However, we stress that N-body tests were restricted to the mass range
$\sim 10^{9}-10^{14}$ M$_{\odot}$ because of the limited dynamic range
of numerical experiments.\footnote{Preliminary results from new simulation data
show promising agreement with the B01 model all the way down to $M \sim 10^7$ M$_{\odot}$
(P. Col{\'{\i}}n, private communication).} Nevertheless, we use the B01
model to compute concentrations for halos with masses $\ll 10^9$ M$_{\odot}$.
Our results for $M \lsim 10^9$ \Msun may
be regarded as a ``best-guess'' extrapolation of N-body results.
Before proceeding, we mention an alternate prescription for assigning
$\cvir(M,z)$ proposed by Eke, Navarro, \& Steinmetz (2001, ENS hereafter).
ENS investigated the power spectrum dependence of the
$\cvir-\Mvir$ relation for several $\Lambda$CDM and WDM models.
While the B01 and ENS recipes for $\cvir(M,z)$ matched well for
$\Lambda$CDM, the B01 model failed to reproduce the mass dependence seen in
simulations by ENS for WDM halos with masses smaller than the ``free-streaming'' mass
(see \S \ref{sec:ps}). The four WDM halos simulated by ENS
with masses small enough to be appreciably affected by free-streaming
all had $\cvir$ values that were $\sim 2\sigma$ lower than the
B01 model. Based on these data, ENS proposed a model in which halo collapse
time depends not only on the amplitude of the power spectrum $\sigma(M)$,
but on an effective overdensity amplitude,
$\sigma_{\rm eff} \equiv -\sigma(M) \dd \ln \sigma(M)/\dd \ln M$.
This results in a $\cvir(M)$ relation that increases with mass for masses
smaller than the truncation scale and decreases at larger masses as in
$\Lambda$CDM. By defining an effective overdensity in this way, ENS
were able to account for the low $\cvir$ values observed in their WDM simulations
and still reproduce the redshift and mass dependence seen in $\Lambda$CDM
simulations. The slope of the $\cvir$-$\Mvir$ of ENS is
shallower than the slope predicted by the B01 relation,
therefore the ENS model also leads to less concentrated
halos at small mass ($M \lsim 10^{10}$ M$_{\odot}$) even for identical
input power spectra. This disparity grows larger when tilted
and/or running spectra are considered, as in this paper.
Unfortunately, the ENS model cannot be applied in
the WDM cases we explore because in these models $\sigma(M)$ is very flat on
scales smaller than the free-streaming mass and the ENS model breaks
down when $\dd \sigma(M) / \dd M$ becomes very small. In the ENS model,
WDM halos smaller than $\sim 1\%$ of the free-streaming mass
{\em never} collapse because $\sigma_{\rm eff} \ll 1$.
In addition to this practical problem, the ENS predictions are not supported by
the results of Avila-Reese et al. (2001) and Col{\'{\i}}n et al. (2000a).
Using $\sim 25$ halos, Avila-Reese et al. found WDM halo concentrations to be
roughly constant with mass down to several orders of magnitude below the
free-streaming scale, in accordance with the B01 model predictions.
In light of these difficulties and the discordant results of different
N-body studies, we have not explored the implications of the ENS model in
this work. This is not an indictment of the ENS model. Rather, the results
of ENS highlight the uncertainty in assigning halo concentrations to low-mass
systems, especially with power spectra that vary rapidly with scale. Our choice
of the B01 relation is a matter of pragmatism and represents a {\em conservative}
choice in that halos are assigned the higher of the two predictions of $\cvir$ at
small mass. Lower $\cvir$ values (in line with ENS expectations) would result
in less substructure and larger deviations from the standard $\Lambda$CDM
model than the predictions in \S \ref{sec:results}.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Orbit Tracking Ingredients %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
\subsection{\label{sub:desc}Orbital Evolution}
With the accretion history of the host halo in place,
and with a recipe in hand that fixes the density structure of
host and satellite halos, the next
step is to track the orbital evolution of accreted systems. This
is necessary in order to account for the effects of dynamical friction
and mass loss due to tidal forces. These processes cause most of
the accreted subhalos either to sink to the center of the host halo
and become ``centrally merged,'' or to lose most of their mass and be
``tidally disrupted'' and no longer identifiable as distinct
substructure. We model these effects using an improved version of the
BKW technique, borrowing heavily from the dynamical evolution model
proposed by Taylor and Babul (2001, TB01 hereafter; see also Taylor \&
Babul 2002) and the dynamical friction studies of Hashimoto, Funato,
\& Makino (2002, HFM02 hereafter) and Valenzuela \& Klypin
(2003; and Valenzuela \& Klypin, in preparation).
We denote the mass of an accreted subhalo as
$M_{\rm sat}$, its outer radius as $R_{\rm sat}$,
and the accretion redshift as $z_{\rm acc}$. We set the subhalo
concentration to the median value given by the B01 model for this
mass and redshift. Although initially set by the
virial mass and radius of the in-falling subhalo,
$M_{\rm sat}$ and $R_{\rm sat}$ are
allowed to evolve with time, as described in more
detail below.
We track the orbit of each subhalo in the potential of its host from the
time of accretion $t_{\rm acc}$, until today ($t_0 \simeq 13.5$ Gyr
in this cosmology) or until it is destroyed.
The mass accretion history also yields the host halo mass at
each time step. We fix the density profile of the
host at each accretion time using the median B01 expectation
for a halo of that mass. As we mentioned earlier, the
scale radius and central density of the host remain approximately
constant.
For the purpose of tracking each subhalo orbit, we assume the
host potential to be both spherically symmetric {\em and static}.
We update the host halo profile using the B01 expectation at
each accretion event, but hold it fixed while each orbit is integrated.
While the approximation of a static host potential for each orbit
is not ideal, it allows for an extremely simple
prescription that significantly reduces the
computational expense of our study. Moreover, this approximation is
not bereft of physical motivation. As we discussed above, halos
observed in numerical simulations appear to form dense central regions
early in their evolution after which their scale radii and central densities
remain roughly fixed with time.\footnote{The exception to this is the case
of a late-time merger of halos of comparable mass in which case the central
densities and scale radii of the participating halos may change
considerably (W02).} Additionally, we have run test examples
that include an evolving halo potential (set by the results of W02)
and find that this addition has a negligible effect on
the statistical properties of substructure that we are concerned with
here.
Upon accretion onto the host, each subhalo is assigned an initial
orbital energy based on the range of binding energies observed in
numerical simulations (K99; A. V. Kravtsov 2002,
private communication). We place each satellite halo on an initial orbit of energy
equal to the energy of a circular orbit of radius $\Rcirc = \eta
\Rvir$, where $\Rvir$ is the virial radius of the host at the time of
accretion and $\eta$ is drawn randomly from a uniform distribution on
the interval $[0.4,0.75]$. We assign each satellite an initial
specific angular momentum $J = \epsilon J_{\rm circ}$, where $J_{\rm
circ}$ is the specific angular momentum of the aforementioned circular
orbit and $\epsilon$ is known as the ``orbital circularity.'' Past
studies drew $\epsilon$ from a uniform distribution on the
interval $[0.1,1]$ (BKW) to match the circularity distribution of {\em surviving}
subhalos in simulations reported by Ghigna et al. (1998). However, the
orbits of surviving halos are biased relative to the orbits of all
accreted systems because subhalos on radial orbits are preferentially
destroyed. We find that we better match the Ghigna et
al. (1998) result for surviving satellites if we draw the initial
$\epsilon$ from the simple, piecewise-linear
distribution depicted in Figure \ref{fig:EPS}.
The initial radial position of each satellite halo is set to $R_{\rm
init} = \Rcirc$ and for all non-circular orbits, we set the subhalo to
be initially in-falling so that $\textrm{d}R/\textrm{d}t < 0$.
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%% epsilon distribution figure %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{!}{9cm}
{\includegraphics{pdist.color.eps}}
\caption{\label{fig:EPS} {Input orbital circularity distribution of
initially in-falling
substructure (dashed) shown along with the circularity
distribution of the final surviving population of ($n=1$) LCDM
subhalos at $z=0$ (solid). For reference, the thin dotted
line shows the circularity distribution of surviving substructure
measured by Ghigna et al. (1998) in their N-body simulations.}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%
To calculate the trajectories of subhalos, we treat them as point
masses under the influence of the NFW gravitational potential of
the host halo. We model orbital decay by dynamical friction using the
Chandrasekhar formula (Chandrasekhar 1943). The Chandrasekhar
formula was derived in the context of a highly idealized situation;
however, numerical studies indicate that this approximate relation
can be applied more generally (Valenzuela \& Klypin 2003
have performed a new test that supports the use of this approximation).
Using the Chandrasekhar approximation, there is a frictional force
exerted on the subhalo that points opposite to the subhalo
velocity:
\beq
\label{eq:Fdf}
F_{\rm DF} \simeq \frac{4 \pi \ln(\Lambda) G^2 \Msat^2 \rho(r)}{\Vorb^2}
\Bigg[{\mathrm{erf}}(X) - \frac{2X}{\sqrt{\pi}} \exp(-X^2) \Bigg].
\eeq
In equation (\ref{eq:Fdf}), $\ln(\Lambda)$ is the Coulomb logarithm,
$r$ is the radial position of the orbiting
satellite, and $\rho(r)$ is the density
of the host halo at the satellite radius.
The quantity $\Vorb$ is the orbital speed of the satellite halo and
$X \equiv \Vorb/\sqrt{2\sigma^2}$, where
$\sigma$ is the one-dimensional velocity dispersion of particles in
the host halo. For an NFW profile,
the one-dimensional velocity dispersion can be determined
using the Jeans equation. Assuming an isotropic velocity dispersion tensor,
\beq
\label{eq:sigNFW}
\sigma^2(x=r/r_s) = V_{\rm vir}^2 \frac{\cvir}{g(\cvir)} x(1+x)^2
\int_{x}^{\infty} \frac{g(x')}{x'^3(1+x')^2}{\mathrm{d}} x'.
\eeq
We find the following approximation useful and accurate to
$1\%$ for $x=0.01 - 100$:
\beq
\label{eq:sigrfit}
\sigma(x) \simeq V_{\rm max}\frac{1.4393x^{0.354}}{1 + 1.1756x^{0.725}}.
\eeq
There has been much debate on the appropriate way to assign the
Coulomb logarithm in Eq. (\ref{eq:Fdf}).
Dynamical friction is caused by the scattering of
background particles into an overdense ``wake''
that trails the orbiting body and tugs back on
the scatterer. The
Coulomb logarithm is interpreted as $\ln (b_{\rm max}/b_{\rm min})$,
where $b_{\rm max}$ is the maximum relevant impact parameter at which
background particles are scattered into the wake and
$b_{\rm min}$ is the
minimum relevant impact parameter. A common approximation is to
choose a constant value of the Coulomb logarithm (perhaps by
calibrating to the results of numerical
experiments as in TB01), but some studies indicate that
this approach significantly underestimates
the dynamical friction timescale when tested against N-body
simulations (\eg Colpi, Mayer, \& Governato 1999;
HFM02). Motivated by the results of HFM02 and
Valenzuela \& Klypin (in preparation), we allow
the Coulomb logarithm to evolve with time
and set $b_{\rm max}=r(t)$, where $r(t)$ is the radial position
of the orbiting subhalo. We assign the minimum
impact parameter according to the prescription of White (1976)
and integrate the effect of encounters with background particles
over the density profile of the subhalo. Repeating this calculation for
an NFW halo yields
\beq
\label{eq:lnL_exact}
\lnL = \ln \Bigg(\frac{r}{R_{\rm sat}} \Bigg) +
\frac{1}{g^2(x_{\rm sat})}I(x_{\rm sat}),
\eeq
where
\beq
\label{eq:Idef}
I(x_{\rm sat}) \equiv \int_{0}^{x_{\rm sat}} x_{\rm b}^3
\Bigg[\int_{x_{\rm b}}^{\infty} \frac{g(x)}{x^2 \sqrt{x^2 - x_{\rm b}^2}}
\textrm{d}x \Bigg]^2 \textrm{d}x_{\rm b},
\eeq
$x_{\rm sat} \equiv R_{\rm sat}/r_{\rm s}^{\rm sat}$, and
$r_{\rm s}^{\rm sat}$ is the NFW scale radius of the satellite.
The integral $I(y)$ is well-approximated by the following
function, which is accurate to $1\%$ for $0.1 \le y \le 100$:
%\beq
%\label{eq:Ifit}
%I(z) \simeq
%\frac{a z^{S_1}}{ [ 1 + bz^{S_2} + cz^{S_3} + dz^{S_4} ] },
%\eeq
%where $a=0.10947$, $b=0.90055$, $c=0.03568$, $d=0.06403$,
%$S_1=3.989$, $S_2 = 1.099$, $S_3=0.03568$, and $S_4=1.989$.
\beq
\label{eq:Ifit}
I(y) \simeq
\frac{0.10947 y^{3.989}}{ [ 1 + 0.90055y^{1.099} + 0.03568y^{1.189} + 0.06403y^{1.989} ] }.
\eeq
As the satellite orbits within the host potential, it
is stripped of mass by the tidal forces that it experiences.
First, we estimate the instantaneous tidal radius
of the subhalo $\rt$, at each point along its orbit.
In the limit that the satellite is
much smaller than the host, the tidal radius is given by the
solution to the equation (von Hoerner 1957; King 1962)
\beq
\label{eq:rtide}
\rt^3 \simeq \frac{\Msat(<\rt)/\Mhost(<r)}
{2 + \omega^2 R^3/G\Mhost(<r) - \partial \ln \Mhost(<r)/\partial \ln r}r^3,
\eeq
where $r$ is the radial position of the satellite, $\Mhost(<r)$ is the
host's mass contained within this radius [\cf Eq. (\ref{eq:MofR})],
$M_{\rm sat}(<r_{\rm t})$ is the
satellite's mass contained within $\rt$, and $\omega$ is the
instantaneous angular speed of the satellite. Equation (\ref{eq:rtide}) is
merely an estimate of the satellite's tidal limit. For a satellite on a
circular orbit, it represents the distance from the satellite center to
the point along the line connecting the satellite and the host halo center
where the tidal force on a test particle just balances the attractive
force of the satellite. In reality, the tidal limit of a satellite cannot be represented
by a spherical surface: some particles within $\rt$ will be unbound while
others without $\rt$ may be bound. Nevertheless, TB01 showed that this can serve
as a very useful approximation.
As the tidal radius shrinks, unbound mass in the periphery
is stripped. Tidal forces are strongest, and
$\rt$ smallest, when the orbit reaches pericenter;
however, all of the mass outside of
$\rt$ is not stripped instantaneously at each pericenter passage.
Rather, mass is gradually lost from the satellite on a timescale
set by the orbital energy of the liberated particles.
Johnston (1998), found that the typical energy scale of tidally stripped debris
is set by the change in the host halo potential on the length
scale of the orbiting satellite, $\epsilon \approx \rt \dd \Phi_{\rm host}(r)/\dd r$.
Particles on circular orbits of energy $E$ and
$E \pm \epsilon$ move a distance $\rt$ relative to each other on
a timescale of order the orbital period, $T$. As such, we may
expect $T$ to be the relevant timescale for tidal mass stripping.
TB01 used this timescale in their model to reproduce the results of
several idealized N-body experiments. Following TB01, we model
satellite mass loss by dividing the orbit into discrete
time steps of size $\delta t \ll T$. At each step, we remove an amount
of mass
\beq
\label{eq:dm}
\delta m = \Msat(>\rt) \frac {\delta t}{T},
\eeq
where $\Msat(>\rt)$ is the satellite's mass
exterior to $\rt$.
As a subhalo loses mass due to tidal stripping, we assume that
its density profile is unmodified within its outer
radius $R_{\rm sat}$. Rather than
identify $R_{\rm sat}$ with the tidal radius (which does not vary
monotonically with time), we set its value by determining the radius
within which the mass profile retains the appropriate bound
mass using Eq. (\ref{eq:MofR}).
%\beq
%\label{eq:xlim}
%g(x_{\rm sat}) \equiv \frac{\Msat(t)}{\Msat(t_{\rm acc})}
%g(c_{\rm sat}).
%\eeq
We fix the scale radius of the subhalo $r_{\rm s}^{\rm sat}$,
at the value defined at the epoch of accretion.
Our approximations for dynamical friction and tidal stripping are
least accurate when the mass of the satellite is not very small
compared to the mass of the host. However, as $F_{\rm DF} \propto
\Msat^2$, it is in precisely these cases that we expect the satellite
to merge quickly with the host and no longer be identifiable as
distinct substructure. As such, the precise dynamics should not have
a significant effect upon our results in these cases, particularly
because our main predictions involve low-mass substructure.
However, more detailed modeling will
be important for investigations that focus on more massive substructures,
for example, explorations that use disk thickening as a test of the
$\Lambda$CDM cosmological model (\eg Font et al. 2001).
The final ingredients for our semi-analytic model of halo substructure
are the criteria for declaring subhalos to be tidally disrupted and
centrally merged. Let $\rmaxsat \simeq 2.16 \rssat$ be the radius at
which the subhalo's initial velocity profile attains its maximum, and
$\Msat(<\rmaxsat)$ be the mass of the satellite originally contained
within the radius $\rmaxsat$. We declare a subhalo to be centrally
merged with the host if its radial position relative to the center of
the host becomes smaller than $\rmaxsat$. We declare a
satellite tidally disrupted if the mass of the satellite
becomes less than $\Msat(<\rmaxsat)$. This criterion is partially
motivated by the numerical study of H03, who find
that NFW subhalos are completely tidally destroyed shortly after $\rt$
becomes less than $r_{\rm max}^{\rm sat}$. Of course the distinction
between centrally merged and tidally destroyed satellites is
somewhat arbitrary as subhalos are typically severely tidally
disrupted as they approach the center of the host potential.
Fortunately, for the issues we explore here, the precise nature of
a satellite halo's destruction is not important. We
discuss this issue further in a forthcoming extension of our work
(A. Zentner \& J. Bullock, in preparation).
In reporting results concerning the velocity function of substructure,
we invoke a further modification. H03 noted that subhalos that
experienced significant tidal stripping suffered not only mass loss
at radii $\gsim \rt$, but mass redistribution in their central regions,
at radii smaller than $\rt$. To
account for this, we determine whether or not the tidal radius of each
surviving subhalo was ever less than $\rmaxsat$. If so, we follow the
prescription of H03 to account for mass redistribution and scale the
maximum circular velocity of the satellite via
\beq
\Vmax^{\rm final} = \Bigg(\frac{\Msat^{\rm final}}
{\Msat^{\rm initial}}\Bigg)^{1/3}\Vmax^{\rm initial},
\eeq
where $\Vmax^{\rm initial}$ is the maximum circular velocity of the
satellite according to its initial density profile, $\Msat^{\rm
final}$ is its final mass, and $\Msat^{\rm initial}$ is its initial
mass before being tidally stripped. In practice, this rescaling has
a fairly small effect on our velocity functions. Roughly $\sim 30\%$ of surviving
halos meet this condition for $\rt$. For those halos that do experience
this kind of mass loss, the typical reduction in $\Vmax$ is $\lsim 25\%$.
We are currently in the process of
checking this model against idealized N-body
experiments designed to mimic the type of orbital histories that
we encounter here (J. Bullock, K. Johnston, \& A. Zentner, in preparation).
Preliminary results show promising agreement.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{!}{9.cm}
{\includegraphics{orbit.illust.color.eps}}
\figcaption{\label{fig:orbits} Orbital
evolution for three sets of subhalo parameters:
$M_{sat}^0=10^8$ \Msun, $\cvir=15$ (solid); $M_{sat}^0=10^{8}$ \Msun, $\cvir=7.5$
(dashed); and $M_{sat}^0=5\times10^{9}$ \Msun, $\cvir=15$ (short-dashed). Initial
orbital parameters and host mass properties are fixed, as described
in the text. The top panel shows the radial evolution in units of the initial radius
as a function of time. The bottom panel shows the mass of each system
as a function of time. Lines that terminate represent subhalo destruction at
the end point (see text).}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{!}{9cm}
{\includegraphics{vfunc.color.eps}}
\caption{\label{fig:cal}The velocity functions of progenitor
and surviving subhalo populations derived using our fiducial
($n=1$, $\sigma_8=0.95$)
$\Lambda$CDM cosmology and a 200-halo ensemble
of $1.4\times10^{12}$ \Msun systems at $z=0$. Shown are all accreted
halos (dashed), and the fraction of those that are tidally
destroyed (short-dashed) and centrally merged (dotted).
The solid line shows the surviving population of subhalos
at $z=0$ and, for comparison, the thin dashed line shows
the surviving population derived by K99
using N-body simulations. The error bars represent the sample
variance.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%
%
\subsection{\label{sub:test}Tests and Examples}
%
%
Figure \ref{fig:orbits} shows three example calculations of subhalo
trajectories aimed at demonstrating how various factors affect the
orbital evolution of a satellite system. Each satellite was
started on the same initial orbit, $\epsilon = \eta = 0.5$, but
the satellite properties were varied: $M_{\rm sat}^0=10^8$ M$_{\odot}$,
$\cvir=15$ (solid); $M_{\rm sat}^0=10^{8}$ M$_{\odot}$, $\cvir=7.5$ (dashed); and
$M_{\rm sat}^0=5\times10^{9}$ M$_{\odot}$, $\cvir=15$ (short-dashed). The upper
and lower panels depict the evolution of orbital radius and mass of
the subhalo respectively. The accretion time was set at $8$ Gyr in
the past, $a=(1+z)^{-1} \simeq 0.45$ for this cosmology. The host
halo parameters were chosen to match reasonable expectations for a
Milky Way-sized progenitor at that time: $M_{\rm
host}=5\times10^{11}$ \Msun ($R_{\rm vir}\simeq 110$kpc) and
$c_{\rm vir}=6$. While the subhalo represented by the solid line
experiences gradual tidal mass loss and slight orbital decay as a
result of dynamical friction, its core survives for the full
time period. The less concentrated subhalo (dashed) is more strongly
affected by tides, and is completely disrupted $\sim 3.5$ Gyr after
being incorporated into the host. (Although not shown, a similar effect is seen if the host
halo concentration is increased and the subhalo concentration is held
fixed.) In the case of the massive subhalo, dynamical friction causes
the orbit to decay more quickly and the subhalo experiences more frequent
pericenter passages. Consequently, disruption occurs $\sim 6$ Gyr
after accretion. Notice that because the stripping process is gradual
(unless orbits are very radial) and the timescales involved are of
order $\sim$ Gyr, the accretion time is also important
in determining survival probability. If any of these subhalos were
were accreted more recently, their chance of survival to the present day would
increase accordingly. The combination of factors illustrated here ---
accretion time, satellite mass, and the relative concentrations of
host and satellite --- will be important in later sections for
understanding the factors that set the subhalo population from one
cosmology to the next.
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Radial Distribution Figure %%%%%%%%%%5
%
%
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{!}{9cm}
{\includegraphics{subpro.color.eps}}
\caption{\label{fig:radial}The radial number density
profile of substructure
derived from 200 model realizations of a $M_{\rm vir}=1.4\times10^{12}$
\Msun host halo at $z=0$ in our fiducial ($n=1$, $\sigma_8= 0.95$)
$\Lambda$CDM cosmology. The open circles show the number density of subhalos
with $M_{\rm sat} > 10^{6}$ \Msun divided by the average number density of
systems meeting this mass threshold within the virial radius of the
host system. The points reflect the radial profile averaged over all
realizations, and the error bars reflect the sample variance.
Solid pentagons show the same result for $M_{\rm sat} > 6\times
10^{8}$ \Msun subhalos. The variance (not shown) is significantly
larger for the higher mass threshold because there are significantly
fewer such systems in each host. For reference, the solid line shows
the NFW density profile of the host at $z=0$. The virial radius for a
host halo of this size is $R_{\rm vir} \simeq 285$ kpc and the typical
NFW scale radius is $r_{\rm s} \simeq 20$ kpc. We do not plot predictions
beyond $r = 0.75 \Rvir \simeq 215$ kpc because this is the maximum
circular radius we assign to in-falling, bound systems.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
%
%
Figure \ref{fig:cal} shows the ensemble-averaged, cumulative velocity
function for the substructure population of Milky Way-like host halos
computed in our standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmology. The host properties at
$z=0$ are $M_{\rm vir} = 1.4\times 10^{12}$ M$_{\odot}$, $c_{\rm vir}
\simeq 13.9$, and $\Vmax \simeq 187 \kms$. The lines represent the
means of 200 merger tree realizations, and the error bars represent
the sample variances over these realizations.
%The long-dashed line
%represents all subhalos accreted over the merger history of the halo.
%The dotted line shows all accreted subhalos that centrally-merged with
%the host, the short-dashed line shows the subhalos that were tidally
%disrupted, and the solid line shows
In particular, the thick solid line shows the surviving subhalo population
at $z=0$. For comparison, the thin dashed line is the best-fit
velocity function reported by K99 based on an
analysis of substructure in $\Lambda$CDM halos. This line is plotted over
the range that their resolution and sample size allowed them to probe.
The apparent agreement between our semi-analytic model and the N-body
result is excellent, and lends confidence in our ability to apply this
model to different power spectra.
The radial distribution of substructure at $z=0$ for the same
ensemble of halos is shown in Figure \ref{fig:radial}. Open circles
show the differential number density profile of subhalos with $M_{\rm
sat}>10^{6}$ \Msun normalized relative to the total, volume-averaged
number density of subhalos within $\Rvir$ that meet the same mass requirement.
The solid pentagons show the same quantity for
more massive subhalos, $M_{\rm sat}>6\times 10^{8}$ M$_{\odot}$. The line
shows the NFW dark matter profile for the host system normalized
relative to the average (virial) density within the halo. Observe that
the subhalo profile traces the dark matter profile at large radius
($\rho \propto r^{-3}$), but flattens towards the center as a consequence
of tidal disruption. This result agrees well
with that presented in Figure 3 of Col{\'{\i}}n et
al. (1999). Using an N-body analysis of a cluster-sized host,
Col{\'{\i}}n et al. (1999) showed that the number density of
systems with $M_{\rm sat}$ greater than $0.04\%$ of the host mass
traces the background halo profile at large radius,
begins to flatten at $r \sim 0.2 \Rvir$, and is
roughly a factor of $5$ below the background at $r \sim 0.07 \Rvir$
(their innermost point).\footnote{We quote results relative to $\Rvir$ and
$M_{\rm host}$ because the host halo in Col{\'{\i}}n et al. (1999) is
significantly more massive than the halos that we consider.}
The solid pentagons in Figure \ref{fig:radial} correspond to the same
mass fraction relative to the host. Notice that at $r = 0.07 \Rvir
\simeq 20$ kpc, the factor of $\sim 5$ mismatch is reproduced. Ghigna
et al. (1998) observed the same qualitative behavior for subhalos in a
standard CDM simulation of a cluster-size halo. Chen et al. (2003)
have measured the substructure profile using a high-resolution
galaxy-size halo with $M_{\rm sat} \gsim 0.0015\% M_{\rm host}$,
corresponding to subhalos intermediate in mass between those
represented by the open circles and solid pentagons in Figure
\ref{fig:radial}. Chen et al. (2003) similarly find core behavior
setting in at a radius of $\sim 30$ kpc, but also find a stronger
overall suppression in substructure counts within $r \lsim 70$ kpc.
Our results suggest that some of the observed suppression may be
caused by overmerging in the central regions of their simulated halos.
Ongoing studies by other workers lead to similar conclusions
(J. Taylor, private communication).
Only the next generation of numerical simulations can reliably
test this. That we produce a reasonable approximation to the
number density profile of substructure is an indication of the
soundness of our model.
%
%%% COMMENTED OUT LAST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 2.4. THIS IS HARD TO
%%% JUSTIFY AND SOMEWHAT TANGENTIAL ANYHOW.
%
%That we produce a reasonable approximation to the expected central
%flattening of the number density profile of substructure is an
%indication that our disruption model is sound, but our ability to
%reproduce the outer profile is perhaps more striking. We stress that
%our background dark halo profile was chosen by hand to match
%theoretical expectation, but the final substructure profile is subject
%to all of the inputs of our model, including the initial radius and
%accretion time of each halo, as well as the orbital evolution. Thus,
%the fact that we obtain an outer profile slope close to $\rho \propto
%r^{-3}$ is an encouraging achievement. This finding lends support to
%the idea that the outer profiles of dark matter halos are set by
%late-time, quiescent accretion. Furthermore, because the flattening
%at small radius is caused by disruption, it is tempting to speculate
%that these destructive processes give rise to the characteristic bend,
%and inner-slopes of dark matter halos. Although an exploration of
%these ideas is well beyond the scope of this paper, the framework we
%have put forward could serve as a useful tool in such an
%investigation. Maller \& Dekel (2002) have used a similar,
%merger-tree-based approach to explain the angular momentum structure
%of halos, and some interesting ideas towards explaining the density
%structure of halos within a similar framework were discussed by Dekel
%et al. (2002), but not within a cosmological context.
%
%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%
%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%% END MODEL SECTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%% Begin Power Spectra Descriptions %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{\label{sec:ps}Model Power Spectra}
The initial power spectrum of density fluctuations is conventionally
written as an approximate power law in wavenumber $k$, $P(k) \propto
k^n$, corresponding to a variance per logarithmic interval in
wavenumber of $\Delta^2(k) = k^3P(k)/2\pi^2$. If the
fluctuations were seeded during an early inflationary stage, as is
commonly supposed, then the initial spectrum is likely to be nearly
scale-invariant, with $n \simeq 1$. Any deviation from power law behavior,
or ``running'' of the power law index with scale is likewise expected to be small,
$|\dd n / \dd \ln k| < 0.01$ (Kosowsky \& Turner 1995). In
addition to these theoretical prejudices, large-scale observations
of galaxy clustering and CMB anisotropy seem to favor nearly
scale-invariant models that can be parameterized in this way. In this
paper we explore the effects on halo substructure of taking $n \ne 1$ and
allowing for scale-dependence in the power law index and
more dramatic features in the power spectrum. In this
section we give a brief description of the power spectra that we explore.
Table \ref{table:spectra} summarizes the relevant features of our example
power spectra. The second and third columns
list the primordial spectral index evaluated
at the pivot scale of the COBE measurements $k_{\rm COBE} \approx 0.0023$
h Mpc$^{-1}$, and the running of the spectral index.\footnote{We use the
definition of running employed by Spergel et al. (2003) rather than that
given in, for instance, Kosowsky \& Turner (1995). These definitions differ by a factor of two.}
We neglect any variation in the running with scale and explicitly
set $\textrm{d}^2 n(k)/\textrm{d} (\ln k)^2 = 0$.
Except for the running index (RI) case, we normalize all models
to the COBE measurements of the CMB anisotropy using the fitting formulae
of Bunn, Liddle, \& White (1996; also Bunn \& White 1997). The fourth
column of Table \ref{table:spectra} gives the implied value of $\sigma_8$.
We calculate spectra using the transfer functions of Eisenstein \& Hu (1999).
In Figure \ref{fig:spectra} we illustrate the implied $\sigma(M)$
for these models.
Many of the spectra listed in Table \ref{table:spectra}
are motivated by particular models of inflation. We invoke an inverse power
law potential that gives rise to a mild tilt $n\simeq 0.94$, as well as
a model in which the inflaton has a logarithmically running mass and which
can give rise to significant tilt and running for natural
parameter choices (Stewart 1997a,b; Covi \& Lyth 1999; Covi, Lyth,
\& Roszkowski 1999; Covi, Lyth, \& Melchiorri 2003). We employ specific
inflationary potentials mainly as a conceptual follow up to ZB02,
which highlighted the fact that various levels of tilt may occur
naturally within the paradigm of inflation and that $n\equiv 1$ is not
demanded by this paradigm. For the purposes of this paper, one may
regard our choices simply as spanning a range of observationally viable
input power spectra. The values of tilt and $\sig8$ that we consider range
from $n \simeq 0.84$ with $\sig8=0.65$ to $n = 1$ and $\sig8 = 0.95$.
The model with $\sig8 = 0.75$ was specifically chosen to match galaxy
central densities, as described in ZB02. We also explore the best-fit,
running-index model of the WMAP team (Spergel et al. 2003),
with ${\rm d}n/{\rm d}\ln k = -0.03$. We refer to this as the
``running index model'' or ``RI model.'' Note that Spergel et al. (2003)
quote a value of $n =0.93$ evaluated at $k=0.05$ Mpc$^{-1}$. The value listed in Table 1
is larger because we quote it at a smaller wavenumber, $k=k_{\rm COBE}$.
In addition to tilted $\Lambda$CDM models, we
consider spectra with abrupt reductions in power on small
scales. In the ``broken scale-invariance'' (BSI) example, we adopt an
idealized inflation model introduced by Starobinsky (1992) that exhibits
the most rapid drop in power possible for a single field model.
Kamionkowski \& Liddle (2000) studied this type of model as a way
to mitigate the dwarf satellite problem, but our
choice of parameters is slightly different from theirs (see ZB02).
We also consider WDM scenarios in which the primordial power spectra are
scale-invariant but small-scale fluctuations are subsequently filtered by
free-streaming. The free-streaming scale is set by the
primordial velocity dispersion of the warm particles. In the
canonical case of a ``neutrino-like,'' thermal relic with two internal
degrees of freedom, the free-streaming scale
can be expressed in terms of the warm particle mass $m_{\rm W}$
and relic abundance, $\Omega_{\rm W}h^2$:
\beq
\label{eq:Rf}
R_f \simeq 0.11 \left[\frac{\Ow h^2}{0.15} \right]^{1/3}
\left[ \frac{m_{\rm W}}{{\rm keV}} \right]^{-4/3}{\rm Mpc}.
\eeq
We calculate WDM spectra assuming the same flat cosmology with
$\Omega_{\rm M}=\Ow + \Omega_{\rm B} = 0.3$, and use the approximate
WDM transfer function given by Bardeen et al. (1986),
$P(k) = \exp[-k R_f - (k R_f)^2] P_{\rm CDM}(k)$.
Several studies have placed approximate constraints on WDM masses based
on either the argument that there must be enough power on small scales
to reionize the Universe at sufficiently high redshift
($z_{\rm re} \gsim 6$) or by probing the power spectrum on small scales directly
with the Ly-$\alpha$ forest (Barkana, Haiman, \& Ostriker 2001;
Narayan et al. 2000). These authors essentially find that
$m_{\rm {\rm W}} \gsim 0.75$ keV assuming a neutrino-like thermal relic;
however, this constraint may be significantly
more restrictive if measurements of $z_{\rm re} \sim 17$ by the WMAP
collaboration (Kogut et al. 2003; Spergel et al. 2003) are confirmed
(Somerville, Bullock, \& Livio 2003). As such, we consider three
illustrative examples in what follows, $m_{\rm W} = 0.75$ keV, $1.5$ keV, and
$3.0$ keV. The corresponding ``free-streaming'' masses, below which the fluctuation
amplitudes are suppressed, are listed in Table \ref{table:spectra}.
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%% RESULTS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
\section{\label{sec:results}RESULTS}
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%% MERGER HISTORY RESULTS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
\subsection{\label{sub:mh}Accretion Histories}
Our first results concern the merger histories of halos that are
approximately Milky Way-sized, with $M_{\rm vir} = 1.4 \times 10^{12}$
\Msun at $z=0$. For the $n=1$, $\Lambda$CDM model, we present results
based on 200 realizations. For all other models, our findings are based
on 50 model realizations.
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%Power Spectrum Table %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%
\onecolumn
%
%\begin{deluxetable}{lllllc}
\begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
\tablecaption{\label{table:spectra}Summary of power spectra properties}
%
\tablehead{
\colhead{Model Description} & \colhead{$n(k_{\rm COBE})$}
& \colhead{$\textrm{d}n(k)/\textrm{d}\ln k$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{8}$} & \colhead{comments}
%\colhead{Model Description} & \colhead{Model Name} & \colhead{$n(k_{\rm COBE})$}
%& \colhead{$\textrm{d}n(k_{\rm COBE})/\textrm{d}\ln k$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{8}$} & \colhead{comments}
}
%
\startdata
Scale-invariant & $1.00$ & \hspace{.2cm}$0.000$ & $0.95$ \\
\\
Inverted power law inflation & $0.94$ & $ -0.002 $ & $0.83$ \\
Running-mass inflation I & $ 0.84$ & $-0.008 $ & $0.65$ & see Stewart 1997a,b\\
Running-mass inflation II & $0.90 $ & $-0.002$ & $0.75$ \\
WMAP best-fit running index (RI) model & $1.03$ & $-0.03$ & $0.84$ & WMAP best fit, see Spergel et al. 2003\\
Broken scale-invariant inflation (BSI) & $1.00$ & \hspace{.2cm}$ 0.000$ & $0.97$ &
exhibits sharp decline in power at $k \gsim 1$ h Mpc$^{-1}$,\\
& & & & power suppressed for $M \lsim 10^{10}$ \Msun\\
\\
Warm Dark Matter, $m_{\rm W}=3.0$ keV & $1.00$ & \hspace{.2cm}$ 0.000$ & $0.95$ & $M_f \simeq 8.3 \times 10^8$ \Msun\\
Warm Dark Matter, $m_{\rm W}=1.5$ keV& $1.00$ & \hspace{.2cm}$ 0.000$ & $0.95$ & $M_f \simeq 1.3 \times 10^{10}$ \Msun\\
Warm Dark Matter, $m_{\rm W}=0.75$ keV& $1.00$ & \hspace{.2cm}$ 0.000$ & $0.94$ & $M_f \simeq 2.1 \times 10^{11}$ \Msun\\
\enddata
%
\tablecomments{Column (1) gives a brief description of the inflation or warm dark matter
model used to predict the power spectrum. In the text, we distinguish the first
five models by their tilts and/or their values of $\sigma_8$. We label
the warm dark matter models by the warm particle mass. Columns (2) and (3)
give the tilt $n(k_{\rm COBE})$ on the pivot scale of the COBE data
$k_{\rm COBE} \approx 0.0023$ h Mpc$^{-1}$, and the running of the spectral
index $\textrm{d}n(k)/\textrm{d}\ln k$, respectively. We have explicitly assumed the
``running-of-running'' to be small and taken
$\textrm{d}^2 n(k)/\textrm{d} (\ln k)^2 = 0$.
Column (4) contains the values of $\sigma_8$ implied by the tilt or warm particle
mass, the COBE normalization, and our fiducial cosmological parameters except in
the case of the WMAP best-fit running index (RI) model, in which case the value of
$\sigma_8$ reflects their best-fit normalization.}
%
\end{deluxetable}
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Power Spectra Figure %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%
%
%
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centerline{
\epsfysize=3.5truein \epsffile{sigmamc.eps}
\epsfysize=3.5truein \epsffile{sigmam_wdmc.eps}
}
\figcaption{\label{fig:spectra}The $z=0$ rms overdensity as a function of mass scale
for several of our adopted power spectra (see \S \ref{sec:ps} and Table \ref{table:spectra}
for more details). In the left panel, we exhibit spectra that deviate from the standard
$n=1$, scale-invariant model. The models shown in this panel are standard $n=1$ (solid), a broken
scale-invariant model (dotted), $\sigma_8 = 0.84$ \& $n \simeq 0.94$ (short-dashed),
$\sigma_8 = 0.65$ \& $n \simeq 0.84$ (long-dashed), $\sigma_8 = 0.75$ \& $n \simeq 0.90$
(dot-long-dashed), and a model based on the results of the WMAP team with $n \simeq 1.03$,
$\dd n / \dd \ln k = -0.03$, and $\sigma_8 = 0.84$ (dot-short-dashed).
The inflation models that inspire these
examples are described in ZB02. In the right panel, we show several warm dark matter power
spectra. More precisely, we depict spectra implied by warm particle masses of
$m_{\rm W} = 3.0$ keV (short-dashed), $m_{\rm W} = 1.5$ keV (long-dashed), and
$m_{\rm W} = 0.75$ keV (dotted) along side the standard $n=1$, $\Lambda$CDM
spectrum (solid).}
\end{figure*}
%
%
\twocolumn
%
%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{!}{9cm}
{\includegraphics{total.mfrac.color.eps}}
\caption{\label{fig:mergefrac} Fraction of final host mass
accreted in subhalos of mass $M_{\rm sat}$ as a function of $M_{\rm sat}$.
The final host mass is $1.4\times10^{12}$ M$_{\odot}$. The results
for several input power spectra are shown.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% END FIGURE MFRAC_TOTAL
%
Figure \ref{fig:mergefrac} focuses on the the mass distribution of
accreted halos, integrated over the entire merger history of the host.
We plot $\dd f/ \dd \log (M_{\rm sat})$, the fraction of
mass in the final halo that was accreted in subhalos of a given mass
per logarithmic interval in subhalo mass, $M_{\rm sat}$. Observe that
the mass fraction accreted in subhalos of a given
mass is relatively insensitive to the shape of the power spectrum.
Although similarity from model to model may be somewhat surprising at first,
it follows directly from repeated application of Equation
(\ref{eq:merger}). In particular, the shape of the progenitor
distribution for $M_{\rm sat} \ll M_{\rm host}$ must
follow $\dd f/\dd \log(M_{\rm sat}) \propto M_{\rm sat}^{1/2}$, and
the turnover occurs because mass conservation suppresses the
number of major mergers. The shape shown in Figure
\ref{fig:mergefrac} and its insensitivity to the power
spectrum is discussed in detail by LC93.
While the total mass function of accreted substructure is relatively
independent of the power spectrum, the merger histories
themselves are not. In models with less power on galaxy scales, halos
assemble their mass later and experience more recent mergers and
disruption events.
%\footnote{LC93 showed that $z_{1/2}$, the typical redshift, at which
%a halo attains half of the mass that it has at $z_0$ is roughly set by
%$\delta_c(z_{1/2}) \simeq \delta_c(z_0) + {\cal O} \sqrt{\sigma^2(M_0/2) -
%\sigma^2(M_0)}$, where ${\cal O}$ is of order unity.
%A lower normalization for $\sigma(M)$ implies a
%smaller value of $\delta_c(z_{1/2})$ and, therefore, a lower value for
%$z_{1/2}$ for a fixed cosmology.}
We show an example of this in Figure \ref{fig:rate}. Here we plot the
average accretion rate of subhalos with $M_{\rm sat} > 10^8$ \Msun
for host halos in the standard $n=1$, $\Lambda$CDM model, the RI model,
and our lowest normalization case ($n=0.84$, $\sig8 = 0.65$).
The total accretion rate is divided in two pieces: dashed lines show those
subhalos that are eventually destroyed and solid lines show the accretion
times of subhalos that survive until $z=0$.
For the standard ($n=1$, $\sigma_8 = 0.95$) case, the event rate peaks
sharply about $\sim 12$ Gyr in the past, while the $\sigma_8=0.65$ case
has a broader distribution, peaking later at $\sim 9$ Gyr ago, and with a
long tail of accretion events extending towards the present day.
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Merger Rate Figure
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{!}{9cm}
{\includegraphics{mergerrate.3.color.eps}}
\caption{\label{fig:rate}
Accretion rate averages, $dN/dt$ (Gyr$^{-1}$), for merged halos
more massive than $10^8$ \Msun and host halos of
mass $1.4\times10^{12}$ \Msun at $z=0$. Three different
power spectra are shown: $n=1$ (upper); RI model (middle); and $n=0.84$,
$\sig8=0.65$ (bottom). Dashed lines show objects that are destined to
be destroyed, either by tidal disruption or central merging, and
solid lines show subhalos that survive until $z=0$. The $n=1$ results
are based on 200 EPS realizations while the others are based on 50
realizations.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%% Mass Function Figure %%%%%%%%%%%5
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{!}{9cm}
{\includegraphics{Mfunc.color.eps}}
\caption{\label{fig:mfunc}The cumulative
mass function $N(>M)$, of surviving subhalos computed for
an ensemble of host halos of mass
$M_{\rm host} = 1.4 \times 10^{12} M_{\odot}$ at $z=0$.
The lines show the means computed over all realizations. The
different line types relate to different models following the
convention in the left panel of Figure \ref{fig:spectra}.
The $n=1$ results are derived from 200 realizations and the
results for the other models are based on 50 realizations.
The error bars show the variance over the $n=1$ realizations (upper)
and BSI realizations (lower).}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Velocity Function Figure %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{!}{9cm}
{\includegraphics{fixedM.vfunc.color.eps}}
\caption{\label{fig:vcomp}The cumulative velocity function
of subhalos in a host of fixed mass, $\Mhost = 1.4 \times 10^{12}$
M$_{\odot}$. The lines represent averages over 200 merger
histories for $n=1$ and 50 merger histories for the other models.
The error bars represent the dispersion amongst
these realizations. The models are $n=1$ (solid), $\sig8 \simeq 0.83$ (dashed),
RI model (dot-short-dashed), $\sig8 \simeq 0.65$ (dot-long-dashed), and
BSI (dotted).}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%
The shift in accretion times in models with less small-scale power plays an
important role in regulating the number of surviving subhalos. As we
discussed in relation to Figure \ref{fig:orbits},
a finite amount of time is required for an orbit to decay or for
a system to become unbound and in many cases
the longer a subhalo orbits in the background potential, the more
probable its disruption becomes. The later accretion times in models
with less power partially compensate for the fact that subhalos
in these models are less centrally concentrated and more
susceptible to disruption at each pericenter passage. Particular
results for substructure populations in each model are given in
the following subsections.
That we expect a characteristic merger/disruption phase in each halo's
past is intriguing, as this phase is approximately coincident with the
estimated ages of galactic thick disks, $t_{td} \sim 8-10$ Gyr
(\eg Quillen \& Garnett 2000 for the Milky Way), which seem to be
ubiquitous and roughly coeval (Dalcanton \& Bernstein 2002).
In this context, the age distributions of thick disks might serve as a
test of this characteristic accretion time, which varies as a
function of normalization {\em and} cosmology. We reiterate that
the look-back times shown for the dashed lines in Figure \ref{fig:rate}
are the times that the subhalos were {\em accreted}. The distributions of
central merger rates and tidal destruction rates peak at slightly more
recent times and their widths are broader,
with longer tails towards the present epoch.
It is interesting to note that the surviving halos in Figure \ref{fig:rate}
represent a distinctly different population of objects than the
destroyed systems --- they tend to have been accreted more recently.
We are inclined to speculate that the star formation histories of
galaxies that were destroyed after being accreted could be distinctly
different from those of the surviving (dwarf satellite) galaxies as well.
This may have implications for understanding whether
the stellar halo of our Galaxy formed from disrupted dwarfs or some
other process. While the global structure of the stellar halo seems
consistent with the disruption theory (Bullock, Kravtsov, \&
Weinberg 2001), the element ratios of stellar halo stars and stars in
dwarf galaxies are not consistent with a common history of chemical
evolution (Shetrone, C{\^o}te, \& Sargent 2001). The results shown in Figure
\ref{fig:rate} provide general motivation to model dwarf galaxy evolution and
Milky Way formation in a cosmological context.
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% VELOCITY FUNCTION STUFF %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
\subsection{\label{sub:vfunc}Mass and Velocity Functions}
We present our results on CDM halo substructure beginning with the
abundance of satellites in Milky Way-like galaxies. We plot the mass
function of subhalos $N(>M_{\rm sat})$, or the number of subhalos with mass
greater than $M_{\rm sat}$ as a function of $M_{\rm sat}$, for each of our models in
Figure \ref{fig:mfunc}. The host halo mass is again fixed at $1.4
\times 10^{12}$ \Msun at $z=0$. From this figure, we see that even in
the significantly tilted, low-normalization model ($\sigma_8 \simeq
0.65$), the number of satellite halos with mass greater than $10^6$ M$_{\odot}$
is roughly equal to that in the standard
$n=1$ model. The systematic differences between models are
small compared to the scatter. The suppression is weak because
several competing effects tend to compensate for the reduced
concentrations of the subhalos. In tilted models with reduced small-scale
power, subhalos are typically accreted at later times. In addition, host
halos are less concentrated and correspondlingly less capable of
disrupting their satellites.
In contrast, the BSI model shows a substantial decrease (a
factor of $\sim 3$) in the number of surviving satellite halos at
fixed mass. The reason for the dramatic reduction in this case is
easy to understand. First, power is reduced only on scales smaller
than a critical scale around $\sim 10^{10}$ M$_{\odot}$ (\cf Figure
\ref{fig:spectra}) and so, the concentration and accretion history of
the $\sim 10^{12}$ M$_{\odot}$ host halo are minimally altered while
the concentrations of the small subhalos are drastically reduced (see
ZB02). In other words, the host halo has a density structure similar
the $n=1$ model host and is just as capable of tidally disrupting
satellites, but the satellites are significantly more susceptible to
disruption. A second difference is that galaxy-size halos in the BSI
model, unlike the tilted models, accrete $\sim 40 \%$ fewer
low-mass ($\lsim 10^7$ \Msun) halos over their lifetimes, and this
further widens the disparity between the BSI and tilted-$\Lambda$CDM
models.
It is conventional to discuss the substructure population of Milky
Way-like halos in terms of the velocity function. In Figure
\ref{fig:vcomp}, we show our results for the cumulative velocity
functions of subhalos for a fixed host mass of $\Mhost = 1.4
\times 10^{12}$ M$_{\odot}$. Notice that the velocity functions show a
stronger trend with power spectrum than the mass functions (Figure
\ref{fig:mfunc}), but the effect is still modest compared to the
statistical scatter. For the most extreme
tilted model, the total number of subhalos with $\Vmax \gsim 10 \kms$
is only a factor of $\sim 2$ lower than in the standard,
scale-invariant case. In the case of the tilted models, the reduction
in the velocity function is largely due to the fact that the subhalos are
less concentrated, so the $\Vmax$ values are correspondingly smaller for fixed
halo masses [\cf Eq. (\ref{eq:MofR}) and the discussion that follows].
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{!}{9cm}
{\includegraphics{fixedvmax.vfunc.color.eps}}
\caption{\label{fig:fixedvmax}The cumulative velocity function
of subhalos in a host of fixed maximum velocity $\Vmax \simeq 187 \kms$.
The lines represent averages over 200 merger history
realizations for $n=1$ and 50 realizations for all other models.
The error bars represent the dispersion in these realizations.
The different models are as in Figure \ref{fig:vcomp}. }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% df/dM Plot %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{!}{9cm}
{\includegraphics{dfdm.color.eps}}
\caption{\label{fig:dfdm}The average differential
mass fraction, $df/dM_{\rm sat}$,
normalized relative to host mass and satellite mass.
The upper set of (bold) curves were computed for the $n=1$ cosmology with
$M_{\rm host} = 1.4 \times 10^{12}$ M$_{\odot}$ at $z=0$ (solid)
and $M_{\rm host}=$ $10^{11}$ \Msun (dotted), $3\times10^{12}$
\Msun (long-dash) and $10^{13}$ \Msun (dot-dash) all at $z=0.6$.
The lower set of thin curves correspond to BSI halos of
$M_{\rm host} = 1.4 \times 10^{12}$ M$_{\odot}$ at $z=0$ (solid)
and $M_{\rm host}=3\times10^{12}$ \Msun at $z=0.6$ (long-dash).
The crosses reflect an analytic fit to the $n=1$ results, as discussed
in the text [see Eq. (\ref{eq:fitfrac})].}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% total mass fraction comparison plot %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{!}{9cm}
{\includegraphics{total.mf.color.eps}}
\caption{\label{fig:mfrac_total}The fraction of the
parent halo mass that is bound up in substructure
in the mass range between $10^6$ M$_{\odot}$ and
$M_{\rm sat}$ as a function of $M_{\rm sat}$. The host halo in each case
has $M=3\times10^{12}$ \Msun at $z=0.6$.
Lines reflect the mean over all realizations, and
results are shown for
the $n=1$ model (solid), RI model (dot-short-dash),
$\sig8=0.75$ (dashed), $\sig8=0.65$ (dot-long-dash), and
BSI (dotted). The error bars on the top set of lines reflect
the $90$ percentile range determined using $200$ merger tree
realizations for the $n=1$ case (the other models in the top
set of lines have very similar scatter). The bottom set of
errors reflect the same range determined using $50$ realizations
of the BSI model.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE 14 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{!}{9cm}
{\includegraphics{proj.mf.z=0.6.color.eps}}
\caption{\label{fig:mfrac_proj}The fraction of
mass in substructure in a central, cylindrical projection of
radius $10$ kpc, for the same set of halos as shown in Figure \ref{fig:mfrac_total}.
The line types are the same as those in Figure \ref{fig:mfrac_total},
and again represent the mean fraction computed over all realizations.
The large and small error bars represent the
$90$ and $64$ percentile ranges, respectively. A down-arrow
is plotted instead of a lower, large error tick if
at least $5 \%$ of the realizations had $f=0$ in that
bin. A down-arrow with no accompanying lower error bar means that
at least $18 \%$ of the realizations were without projected
substructure in that bin.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE 15 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{!}{9cm}
{\includegraphics{sph.comp.z=0.6.color.eps}}
\caption{\label{fig:mf.comp} The cumulative mass fraction
of substructure with $10^6$ \Msun $< M_{\rm sat} < 10^{9}$ \Msun shown
spherically averaged as a function of radius $r$ (solid line)
and in
projection, as a function of the projected radius $\rho$ (dashed line).
The averages (lines) and $64\%$ percent ranges (error-bars) were determined
using $200$ realizations of $M=3\times10^{12}$ \Msun halos
$z=0.6$ for our $n=1$ model. Down-arrows indicate that more
than $18\%$ of the realizations had $f=0$ in the corresponding
radial bin. }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%
This effect is illustrated explicitly in Figure \ref{fig:fixedvmax}
where, rather than fixing the host {\em mass} at $z=0$, we have
fixed its {\em maximum circular velocity} at $\Vmax = 187 \kms$, the
value of a typical $n=1$, $\Mhost = 1.4 \times 10^{12}$ M$_{\odot}$
halo at $z=0$. Normalizing our host halos by $\Vmax$ rather than
mass is perhaps a more reasonable choice because $\Vmax$ is more
closely related to observations.\footnote{$\Vmax = 187 \kms$ is
somewhat smaller than a typical rotation velocity for a galaxy like
the Milky Way ($\Vmax^{\rm MW} \sim 220 \kms$), but this value is in line
with expectations for the dark matter halo, once the effects of
baryonic in-fall have been included (\eg Klypin, Zhao, \& Somerville 2002).}
Models with less galactic-scale power require a more massive host in
order to obtain the same value of $\Vmax$, and their velocity
functions shift correspondingly. For example, a host with $\Vmax =
187 \kms$ in the $\sig8 = 0.65$ model requires $\Mhost \approx
2.2 \times 10^{12}$ M$_{\odot}$. With this adjustment, the velocity
functions of the various tilted models are now very similar.
Again, the BSI case is
different from the tilted models because the relative shift in the
$\Vmax$-$M_{\rm vir}$ relation changes abruptly with mass scale.
It is also encouraging
that our model BSI velocity function agrees well with the
N-body results of Col{\'{\i}}n et al. (2000) for a similar type of
truncated power spectrum (see their $R_f = 0.1$ Mpc model, Fig. 2).
Another convenient way to quantify the substructure content of halos is
the fraction of mass in subhalos less massive than $M_{\rm sat}$,
$f(<M_{\rm sat})$. Figure \ref{fig:dfdm} shows the
differential mass fraction $df/dM_{\rm sat}$, normalized relative to the host mass
for several different host masses and redshifts in both the $n=1$ and BSI models.
The results are approximately self-similar with respect to the host mass, and for the
$n=1$ case can be well-represented by the analytic form
\beq
\label{eq:fitfrac}
\frac{{\rm d}f}{{\rm d}x} = \lb \frac{x}{x_0} \rb^{-\alpha} \exp\lb-\frac{x}{x_0}
\rb,
\eeq
with $x \equiv M_{\rm sat}/M_{\rm host}$, $\alpha = 0.6$ and
$x_0 = 0.07 \pm 0.05$. The quoted range in $x_0$ characterizes well
the rms scatter from realization to realization (not shown). This
function (with $x_0=0.07$) is shown as the set of crosses in Figure
\ref{fig:dfdm}. As expected, the mass
fractions are somewhat lower for the BSI model halos. The other CDM-type
models all yield differential mass functions similar to those of
the $n=1$ case. While in the next section we present results for
a particular choice of host mass, the self-similarity demonstrated
here implies that results at a fixed satellite-to-host mass
ratio $x$, can be scaled in order to apply these results
to any value of $M_{\rm host}$.
%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% MASS FRACTION & LENSING %%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{\label{sub:mfrac}Mass Fractions and Gravitational Lensing}
DK01 used flux ratios in multiply-imaged
quasars to constrain the substructure content of galactic halos to
be $f = 0.006 - 0.07$ (at $90\%$ confidence) for
$\Msat \lsim 10^8 - 10^{10}$ M$_{\odot}$. In their sample of lens systems,
the lens redshifts span the range $0.31 \lsim
z_{\ell} \lsim 0.97$ with a median lens redshift of $z_{\ell} \simeq
0.6$. Our primary goal in this section is to make predictions
aimed at lensing studies. Consequently, we present results for host
systems at $z=0.6$, and with $\Mhost = 3 \times 10^{12}$ M$_{\odot}$,
which was taken as a typical lens mass in Dalal \& Kochanek (2002, DK02).
In Figure \ref{fig:mfrac_total}, we exhibit results for each of our
inflation-derived power spectrum models.
Here, $f$($10^6$ \Msun$<M<M_{\rm sat}$) is the cumulative
fraction of host halo mass that is bound up in substructures with
mass larger than $10^6$ \Msun and less than $M_{\rm sat}$. As
expected from our discussion in \S \ref{sub:vfunc}, the mass fraction
in substructure is not a strong function of the tilt of the primordial
power spectrum, but it is sensitive to a sudden break in power at
small scales. Specifically, the subhalo mass fraction in the BSI
model is roughly a factor of $\sim 3$ below that seen for the CDM-type
spectra in this mass range. The top set of error bars reflect the
$90$ percentile range derived using $200$ realizations for the $n=1$
model (other CDM-type models show similar scatter) and the bottom set
of errors reflect the same range determined from $50$ realizations of
the BSI spectrum.
Rather than the total mass fraction, lensing measurements are
sensitive to the mass fraction in substructure projected onto the
plane of the lens at a halo-centric distance of order the Einstein
radius of the lens, $R_{\rm E} \sim 5-15$ kpc. In Figure
\ref{fig:mfrac_proj} we plot $f_{\rm sat}$($>10^6$ M$_{\odot}$)
projected through a cylinder of radius $10$ kpc centered on the host
halo for the same set of halos shown in Figure \ref{fig:mfrac_total}.
The large and small error bars reflect the
$90$ and $64$ percentile ranges, respectively, in measured projected
mass fractions derived using 200 $n=1$ realizations (top set) and 50
BSI realizations (bottom set). A down-arrow is plotted instead of a
lower, large error tick if at least $5 \%$ of the realizations had
$f=0$ in that bin. A down-arrow with no accompanying lower error bar
indicates that at least $18 \%$ of the realizations were without projected
substructure in that bin.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE 16 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{!}{9cm}
{\includegraphics{neq1.200.split.color.eps}}
\caption{\label{fig:split.neq1}Mass fraction
in substructure in cylindrical projection of
radius $\rho$ for the same set of $n=1$ halos described
in Figure \ref{fig:mf.comp}. The upper left, upper right, and
lower left panels show the mass fraction profiles in subhalos
larger than $10^{6}$ \Msun and less than $10^9$, $10^8$ and
$10^7$ \Msun respectively. Error bars reflect the same percentile
ranges as do those in Figure \ref{fig:mf.comp}. The bottom right
panel illustrates how
the mean projected mass fraction profiles vary as a function of
the maximum subhalo mass considered: $10^{6.3}$, $10^7$, $10^8$,
$10^9$, and $10^{10}$ \Msun from bottom to top.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The projected mass fractions are not as severely suppressed
relative to the volume-averaged mass fractions as one might
expect given that tidal forces act systematically to destroy
substructure near host halo centers (see Figure \ref{fig:radial}). The reason
is that we are examining substructure in a cylindrical volume, and
picking up subhalos with large halo-centric radii. We illustrate this
effect in Figure \ref{fig:mf.comp}, where we compare the mass fraction
in cylindrical projection radius $\rho$ with the mass fraction in
spherical shells with the same value of spherical radius $r$. Notice
that the mass fraction in spherical regions is significantly reduced
in the center, while the projected mass
fraction is less severely affected. Of course, the mass fraction
approaches the global value at large radii. Figures
\ref{fig:split.neq1} and \ref{fig:split.bsi} demonstrate how the mass
fractions change as a function of projection radius for various
subhalo mass cuts for the $n=1$ and BSI models respectively.
Notice that the relative drop in mass fraction as
a function of projection radius is more pronounced in the BSI model
than in the $n=1$ case. This reflects the fact that tidal disruption
is more important in the BSI case and core-like behavior of the subhalo
radial distribution sets in at a larger radius in this model.
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%% WARM DARK MATTER STUFF %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%
\subsection {Warm Dark Matter and Gravitational Lensing}
In the previous section we demonstrated that the substructure mass
fraction is sensitive to abrupt changes in the power spectrum and
used the BSI model as a specific example.
In this section we investigate these differences in the context of
WDM. We label the different WDM models by the warm particle mass $m_{\rm W}$,
and assume the canonical case of a ``neutrino-like'' thermal relic
with two internal degrees of freedom, $g_{\rm W}=2$.
Figure \ref{fig:mfrac_wdm1} shows the total mass fraction of
$3 \times 10^{12}$ M$_{\odot}$ host halos at $z=0.6$ as a
function of $M_{\rm sat}$ implied by our three WDM model power spectra
compared to our standard $\Lambda$CDM case. For substructure smaller than
$\sim 10^{7}$ M$_{\odot}$, the differences between the models are as large as
an order of magnitude or more, and even the largest WDM particle mass ($3$ keV)
provides a potentially measurable suppression of substructure. Figure
\ref{fig:mfrac_wdm2} shows the mass fraction in projected
cylinders of radius $10$ kpc.
The differences in mass fractions seen for the different models in
Figures \ref{fig:mfrac_wdm1} and \ref{fig:mfrac_wdm2} come about
because subhalos become less concentrated relative to their host halos
as the WDM particle mass is decreased and power is suppressed on larger
scales, much like the BSI case. In true WDM
models there are additional processes that, in principle, can alter the
formation and density structure of dark matter halos. In Figures
\ref{fig:mfrac_wdm1} and \ref{fig:mfrac_wdm2}, we have only accounted
for the effect of the power spectrum on substructure mass fractions and
assumed that the density structure of WDM halos is {\em identical} to
that for CDM halos. For high mass systems, this is a sensible approximation
(Col{\'{\i}}n et al. 2000a; Avila-Reese et al. 2001), but this
approximation should break down at small masses and lead to further
suppression of substructure.
One consequence of a WDM particle with non-negligible velocity
dispersion is that gravitational clustering is resisted by structures
below the effective Jeans mass of the warm particles
(\eg Hogan \& Dalcanton 2000; Bode et al. 2001):
\beq
\label{eq:Jeans}
M_{\rm J} \approx 6 \times 10^3 \Bigg(\frac{{\rm keV}}{m_{\rm W}}\Bigg)^4
\Bigg(\frac{\Owdm h^2}{0.15}\Bigg)^{1/2}\Bigg(\frac{2}{g_{\rm W}}\Bigg)
(1+z)^{3/2} M_{\odot}.
\eeq
For both the $m_{\rm W} = 1.5$ keV and $m_{\rm W} = 3.0$ keV models,
$M_{\rm J} \ll 10^5 M_{\odot}$ when $z \lsim 10$, so all halos of
interest in this context are minimally affected. The situation is
somewhat more complicated in the $m_{\rm W} = 0.75$ keV model,
where $M_{\rm J} \gsim 10^5$ M$_{\odot}$ for
redshifts $z \gsim 2$. We therefore expect that the formation
of these halos should be suppressed compared to the predictions of the
EPS formalism. This suppression should only have a minor effect on
our predictions because we restrict ourselves to satellite masses
$\gsim 10^{5}$ \Msun and most surviving subhalos are accreted at $z \lsim 2$.
In the interest of simplicity, we chose to ignore this effect here.
As a result, we may significantly {\em over-predict} substructure mass
fractions at low $M_{\rm sat}$ in these cases. In the context of this
study, this is a conservative approach because the true mass fraction
would be reduced by these effects, bringing it further away from the
measured substructure mass fractions and standard $\Lambda$CDM predictions.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{!}{9cm}
{\includegraphics{bsi.split.color.eps}}
\caption{\label{fig:split.bsi} Mass fraction
in substructure in cylindrical projection for the BSI model.
All line types and panels are as described in Figure
\ref{fig:split.neq1}.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
In addition to the effective Jeans suppression, WDM halos, unlike their
CDM counterparts, cannot achieve extremely high densities in their centers
due to phase space constraints (Tremaine \& Gunn 1979). In the early
Universe the primordial phase space distribution of the WDM particles
is a Fermi-Dirac distribution with a maximum of
$f_{\rm max} = g_{\rm W}/h_{\rm PL}^3$ at low energies
($h_{\rm PL}$ is Planck's constant). For a collisionless species, the
phase space density is conserved and this maximum phase space density
may not be exceeded within WDM halos. If we define the phase density
as $Q \equiv \rho/(2\pi\sigma^2)^{3/2}$ then the maximum allowed phase
density is (Hogan \& Dalcanton 2000)
\beq
\label{eq:Qmax}
Q_{\rm max} \simeq 5.2 \times 10^{-4}
\Bigg(\frac{m_{\rm W}}{{\rm keV}}\Bigg)^4 \Bigg(\frac{g_{\rm W}}{2}\Bigg) \
\frac{{\rm M}_{\odot}/{\rm pc}^3}{({\rm km}/{\rm s})^3}.
\eeq
This limit implies that WDM halos cannot achieve the central
density cusps of the kind observed in simulated CDM halos. Instead, we
expect a core in the density profile. For viable WDM models, the phase
space core is expected to be dynamically unimportant for any halo
massive enough to host a visible galaxy (ABW). However, for the
lowest-mass subhalos ($M \lsim 10^7$ M$_{\odot}$) the presence of
phase space-limited cores may be important because halos with large
cores are less resistant to tidal forces than cuspy halos.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE 17 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{!}{9cm}
{\includegraphics{tot_anfw_comp.color.eps}}
\caption{\label{fig:mfrac_wdm1} Total cumulative mass fractions
in substructure more massive than $10^5$ \Msun for the
$n=1$ and 3 WDM models. The models are $\Lambda$CDM (solid),
$m_{\rm W}=3.0$ keV (dashed), $m_{\rm W}=1.5$ keV (dash-dot), and
$m_{\rm W}=0.75$ keV (dotted). For clarity, we show error bars only
for the $\Lambda$CDM and $m_{\rm W}=1.5$ keV models. The error bars
and arrows have the same meaning as in Figure \ref{fig:mfrac_proj}.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%
We have attempted to estimate (crudely) how the phase space
limit affects the substructure population of WDM halos by adopting
our standard model of halo accretion and orbital evolution, but
allowing the density structure of the appropriately small subhalos to
be set by the phase space limit. For these calculations we used the
phenomenological density profile of Burkert (1995),
\beq
\label{eq:burk_profile}
\rho_{\rm B}(r) = \frac{\rho_0}{[1+r/r_{\rm B}][1+(r/r_{\rm B})^2]}.
\eeq
The Burkert profile resembles the NFW form at large radius, but
features a constant density core at its center, and thus a
velocity dispersion that approaches a constant at small $r$:
$\sigma_0^B \simeq 0.55 \Vmax$.\footnote{The numerical coefficient in
Eq. (17) of ABW should be $\approx 0.3$ rather than $0.2$.} For Burkert profiles,
$\Vmax^2 \simeq 0.86\Vvir^2 c_{\rm B}/g_{\rm B}(c_{\rm B})$, where
$c_{\rm B} \equiv R_{\rm vir}/r_{\rm B}$ is the Burkert concentration and
$g_{\rm B}(y) \equiv \ln (1+y^2) + 2\ln (1+y)-2 \tan^{-1}(y)$.
Solving for the phase density in the core ($r \ll r_{\rm B}$) and equating
it with the maximum phase density of equation (\ref{eq:Qmax}) yields the
following relation for the maximum attainable value of $c_{\rm B}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:c_B_max}
c_{\rm B}^{3/2}g_{\rm B}^{1/2}(c_{\rm B}) & \simeq & \frac{111}{(1+z)^3} \Bigg(\frac{0.15}{\Ow h^2}\Bigg)
\Bigg(\frac{178}{\dvir}\Bigg) \Bigg(\frac{\Vvir}{{\rm km/s}}\Bigg)^3 \nonumber \\
& & \times \Bigg(\frac{g_{\rm W}}{2}\Bigg) \Bigg(\frac{m_{\rm W}}{{\rm keV}}\Bigg).
\end{eqnarray}
We assigned Burkert concentrations according to the following
prescription. First, we computed NFW concentrations $\cvir$, for each
halo according to the B01 model. We converted from NFW concentration
to Burkert concentration $c_{\rm B}$, by interpreting the B01 value of
$r_{\rm s}$ as the radius at which $\dd \ln \rho(r)/ \dd \ln r
|_{r=r_{\rm s}} = -2$. This implies that $r_{\rm B} \simeq 0.66
r_{\rm s}$ or $c_{\rm B} \simeq 1.5 c_{\rm vir}$. With this
correspondence, the adopted Burkert profile achieves the maximum of
its rotation curve at $r_{\rm max}^{\rm B} \simeq 0.99 r_{\rm max}$,
where $r_{\rm max}$ is the radius at which the corresponding NFW halo
achieves $\Vmax$. Similarly, $\Vmax$ of the adopted Burkert profile is
within $10\%$ of the corresponding NFW $\Vmax$ for all relevant
concentrations ($1\le \cvir \le 25$).
Second, we computed the maximum value of $c_{\rm B}$ allowed by the
phase space constraints using Eq. (\ref{eq:c_B_max}). We then
assigned each halo the smaller of these two values of $c_{\rm B}$ at the
time of accretion. In this way, we guaranteed that the phase space
constraint was met by all halos. We have checked that this prescription for
Burkert halos does not yield any systematic bias in our results by applying it
all of our CDM models. We found that it gave nearly identical results to that
of our standard NFW model, which is not surprising in the context of our
model and disruption criteria.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{!}{9cm}
{\includegraphics{proj_anfw_comp.color.eps}}
\caption{\label{fig:mfrac_wdm2} Cumulative mass fractions
in substructure more massive than $10^5$ \Msun within a projected radius
of $10$ kpc for the same models shown in Figure \ref{fig:mfrac_wdm1}.
The linetypes are the same as in Figure \ref{fig:mfrac_wdm1}.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
We present our estimates of cumulative mass fractions in WDM models, including
the effect of the phase space constraint, in Figure \ref{fig:mfrac_wdm3}.
It is clear, at least from this rough estimate, that the
Tremaine-Gunn limit plays an important role only for the most extreme
WDM models, $m_{\rm W} \lsim 1$ keV, and only the smallest halos, $\lsim
10^6$ M$_{\odot}$. However, we emphasize that our new
assumptions about WDM halos have {\em not} been tested with N-body simulations.
Simulations have yet to examine the density structure of
halos that saturate the phase space bound and most studies
have ignored the initial velocity dispersion of the WDM particles
(Col{\'{\i}}n et al. 2000a; Avila-Reese et al. 2001, Knebe et
al. 2002), but the Burkert profile assumption seems plausible. With
these precautions in mind, Figure \ref{fig:mfrac_wdm1} may be regarded
as an approximate upper-limit on the substructure mass fraction for WDM halos.
Any phase space bound or the effects of primordial velocity
dispersions on halo formation and density structure should lead
to enhanced disruption, resulting in lower mass fractions.
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{!}{9cm}
{\includegraphics{tot_ppc_comp.color.eps}}
\caption{\label{fig:mfrac_wdm3} Total cumulative mass fractions
in substructure more massive than $10^5$ \Msun both with
(dashed) and without (solid) estimating the effects of the
phase space limit. The upper set of lines corresponds to the
$m_{\rm W}=1.5$ keV model and the lower set of lines corresponds to
the $m_{\rm W}=0.75$ keV model. The error bars and arrows are as in
Figure \ref{fig:mfrac_proj}.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
One physical process that might affect WDM (and BSI) models that we
have not considered is top-down fragmentation (\eg Knebe et al. 2002).
It is possible that power can be transported from large scales to
small in truncated models, resulting in a population of low-mass halos
that would not be accounted for in Press-Schechter theory. While such
a process could result in a higher substructure abundance than that
estimated using our model, there are reasons to believe that
the effect should be fairly small. Systems that form in
this manner collapse quite late, and their density structure
likely would be very diffuse compared to their hierarchically-formed
brethren. Therefore, it is less likely that systems formed via
fragmentation could survive tidal disruption once incorporated into a
galactic halo.
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%% THE DWARF SATELLITE PROBLEM STUFF %%%%%%%%%%%
%
\subsection{\label{sub:dwarf}The Dwarf Satellite Problem}
Comparisons between the predicted subhalo population and the observed
dwarf galaxy abundance are usually made by comparing counts as a
function of maximum circular velocity, $\Vmax$.
This is a sensible mode of comparison because it sidesteps the
complicated issues of star formation and feedback in these
poorly-understood galaxies. Yet, there are considerable uncertainties,
even for this method of comparison, and it is likely that efforts to
compare predictions as a function of dwarf luminosity
(Somerville 2002; Benson et al. 2002) in tandem with velocity
comparisons will be needed in order to fully understand the nature of
the dwarf satellite problem.
For most satellites, the quantity that is observed and used to infer
the halo $\Vmax$ is the line-of-sight stellar velocity dispersion,
$\sigma_{\star}$. As discussed in S02 and H03, the mapping between
$\svd$ and $\Vmax$ depends upon the theoretical expectation for the
density profile of the subhalo as well as on the stellar mass
distribution of the galaxy. An additional complication concerns
the unknown velocity anisotropy of the stars in the system.
%%%%%%%%%%%%FIGURE%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{!}{9cm}
{\includegraphics{vm_rmc.eps}}
\caption{\label{fig:svd} The lower and upper sets of points show a scatter
plot of $\Vmax$ and $\Rmax$ for all surviving halos produced in 10 merger
tree realizations for the $n=1$, and low-normalization, $\sig8=0.65$ models
respectively. The thick solid line shows the locus of points in
the $\Vmax$-$\Rmax$ plane that corresponds to the central value of the measured velocity
dispersion of Carina ($\svd =6.8 \pm 1.6 \kms$) given the measured King
profile parameters of Carina (Table \ref{table:vmax}) and assuming NFW halos.
The thin solid lines correspond to the $\pm 1\sigma$ quoted errors in
velocity dispersion for Carina. The dashed line corresponds to the
locus of points that is consistent with the central value of the
measured velocity dispersion of Draco ($\svd = 9.5 \kms$).}
%
%%%% Commented out the explanation in the caption.
%%%% It is redundant and explained in the text.
%Consistency
%demands that Carina (Draco) resides in a halo with structural
%parameters that overlap with the solid
%(dashed) lines. Reduced small-scale power demands
%systematically higher values of $\Vmax$ because halos are
%less concentrated.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
A phenomenologically-motivated approximation for the stellar distribution
in a dwarf galaxy is the spherically symmetric King profile (King 1962),
\beq
\label{eq:king}
\rho_{\star}(r) = \frac{k}{z^2} \Bigg(\frac{\cos^{-1}(z)}{z} - \sqrt{1-z^2}\Bigg),
\eeq
where $z \equiv [1 + (r/r_{\rm c})^2]/[1 + (r_{\rm t}/r_{\rm c})^2]$,
$r_{\rm c}$ and $r_{\rm t}$ are the core and tidal radii of the King profile,
and $\rho_{\star}(r>r_{\rm t}) = 0$. The normalization is not important in
what follows.
If we assume that a stellar system described by Equation (\ref{eq:king}) is
in equilibrium and embedded in a spherically symmetric dark matter potential
characterized by the circular velocity profile $V_{\rm c}(r)$, then the radial
stellar velocity dispersion profile $\sigma_{\rm r}(r)$, can be computed via the
Jeans equation:
\beq
\label{eq:jeans}
r \frac{\dd [\rho_{\star} \sigma_{\rm r}^2]}{\dd r} = - \rho_{\star}(r) V_c^2(r)
- 2 \beta(r) \rho_{\star}(r) \sigma_{\rm r}^2(r),
\eeq
where the anisotropy parameter $\beta \equiv 1 - \sigma_{\bot}^2/2\sigma_r^2$,
$\sigma_{\bot}$ is the tangential velocity dispersion, and $\beta=0$ corresponds
to an isotropic dispersion tensor. A measured, line-of-sight velocity dispersion
is determined by the projected velocity dispersion profile weighted by the luminosity
distribution sampled along the line-of-sight. For the
isotropic case it is given by
\beq
\label{eq:sigstar}
\sigma_{\star}^2 = \frac{\int_{0}^{r_{\rm t}}\rho_{\star}(r')V_{\rm c}^2(r')
\textrm{d}r'}{\int_{0}^{r_{\rm t}}\rho_{\star}(r')\textrm{d}r'},
\eeq
assuming a constant mass-to-light ratio.
If a galaxy has a measured stellar profile (the King parameters in this case)
and measured value of $\sigma_{\star}$, then the Jeans equation
places only one constraint on the rotation curve of the system, $V_{\rm c}(r)$.
We expect the halo velocity profile to be at least
a two-parameter function (\eg the NFW profile) so determining $\Vmax$
requires some theoretical input for the expected form of $V_{\rm c}(r)$
in order to provide a second constraint.
Motivated by dark matter models, we assume that the global
rotation curve is set by an NFW profile associated with the
dwarf galaxy halo. The rotation curve for an NFW halo
is fully described by specifying two parameters and a natural pair
is $\Vmax$ and $\Rmax$. For any given
cosmology, the relation between $\Vmax$ and $\Rmax$ is expected to be
rather tight, and this provides a second, theoretically-motivated
constraint that sets the $\Vmax$-$\svd$ mapping implied by Eq. (\ref{eq:jeans}).
The $\Vmax$-$\Rmax$ relationships for surviving subhalos in
two of our models are shown in Figure \ref{fig:svd}. The
lower set of points corresponds to our standard $n=1$ model
and the higher set of points is derived from our $\sig8 = 0.65$ model.
In each case, we plot one point for each surviving halo in 10 model realizations.
The strong correlation, $\Rmax \propto \Vmax^\gamma, \gamma \simeq 1.3$,
follows directly from the input correlations between
$\Mvir(z)$, and $\cvir$ (see \S \ref{sub:desc} and B01).
The normalizations and slopes are influenced by the cosmology,
accretion times and (mildly)
by the orbital history of the subhalos.\footnote{The
scatter in the $\Vmax$-$\Rmax$ plane should be larger
than that shown here
because we have not included the expected scatter in the input
$\cvir$-$\Mvir$ relation. For $\sigma(\log\cvir) \approx 0.14$
(B01; W02), the implied scatter is $\sigma(\log\Rmax) \approx 0.18$ at fixed $\Vmax$.
For $\sigma(\log\cvir) \approx 0.08$ (Jing 2000), the implication is
$\sigma(\log\Rmax) \approx 0.11$.}
The thick solid and dashed lines in Figure \ref{fig:svd}
show the locus of points in the $\Vmax$-$\Rmax$ plane that
correspond to the central values of the observed line-of-sight velocity dispersions
for Carina and Draco respectively, given their measured King profile parameters.
Our adopted $\svd$ values and King parameters
are listed in Table \ref{table:vmax} along with appropriate references.
The light solid lines illustrate how these contours expand when we
include the $\pm 1\sigma$ measurement error in $\svd$ for Carina. A
similar (although narrower) band exists for Draco, but we have omitted it
for the sake of clarity. Consistency with the observed King parameters
and velocity dispersions requires each dwarf to reside in a halo with
structural parameters that lie within the region of overlap between the
contours and the model points. For example, in the $n=1$ model Carina is expected
to reside in a halo with $\Vmax \approx 11 \kms$ and $\Rmax \approx 1$ kpc.
For the $\sig8 = 0.65$ model, Carina is expected to sit in a {\em larger} halo,
with $\Vmax \approx 29 \kms$ and $\Rmax \approx 10$ kpc.
Similar comparisons hold for Draco and all of the
Local Group dwarf satellites and these comparisons can be made
in a similar way for any cosmology.
The point is that the maximum velocities that are assigned to
satellite galaxies are cosmology-dependent. Therefore, ``observed''
velocity functions are also cosmology-dependent because theoretical
inputs are used to convert from $\svd$ to $\Vmax$.
In Table \ref{table:vmax} we show estimates for halo $\Vmax$ values for the
observed Milky Way satellites under the assumption
that $\beta = 0$ along with a similar analysis for
$\beta = 0.15$ (values in parentheses).
We estimate halo $\Vmax$ values for six
different power spectra, relying on the model-dependent
$\Rmax$-$\Vmax$ relationship for substructure in each case, and taking the
central values of the measured velocity dispersions for each halo. Taking
the quoted $\pm 1\sigma$ range for the measured velocity dispersions typically
leads to a shift in $\Vmax$ of $\sim 30 \%$ which is considerable compared
to the inherent scatter in the $\Mvir-\cvir$ relation. For
reference, we have also included the adopted $\Vmax$ values from the
original K99 work on the dwarf satellite
problem. As expected, the implied $\Vmax$ values become larger as we
explore models with less galactic-scale power. Our estimates
for the $n=1$, $\beta = 0$ case are close to those of K99.
The left panel of Figure \ref{fig:vfunc_comp} shows the Milky Way
satellite counts for each model, assuming $\beta = 0$, along with
the predicted velocity functions for each model. In addition to the
satellites listed in upper portion of Table \ref{table:vmax},
we have also included the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC,
with $\Vmax = 60 \kms$, estimated by
Stanimirovi{\'c} 2000 to include a substantial contribution from the
baryonic component) and the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC,
with $\Vmax = 50 \kms$, van der Marel
et al. 2002) in our cumulative velocity functions. In the standard
case ($n=1$) the discrepancy sets in at $\Vmax \sim 30 \kms$,
requiring roughly one-in-ten halos with $\Vmax \sim 10-20 \kms$ to be the host of
an observed galaxy. The extremely tilted model with $\sigma_8 \simeq 0.65$ actually
under-predicts the dwarf count for large systems. Interestingly,
dwarfs in the ${\rm d}n/{\rm d}\ln k = -0.03$ RI model as well as
the $\sigma_8=0.75$ case are consistent with inhabiting the ten
most massive subhalos, with only Sextans standing as an outlier.
The BSI model also looks to be in good agreement with the data for $\Vmax
\gsim 12 \kms$, lending support to the conclusions of
Kamionkowski \& Liddle (2000). However, the problem of Local Group
satellites is not completely ``solved'' in any of these models because the
velocity function continues to rise below the velocity-scale of
Sextans in all cases. What changes in the low-power models is the
nature of the discrepancy. In one extreme, the mismatch sets in at
$\Vmax \sim 30 \kms$ and gradually becomes worse for smaller
systems. In the other extreme, the mismatch seems to imply a
sharp threshold for dwarf galaxy formation at a scale near
$\Vmax \sim 10-20 \kms$.
Unfortunately, a detailed accounting of the mismatch is difficult,
even for a given cosmology. The dwarf $\Vmax$
estimate is very sensitive to the velocity anisotropy parameter,
$\beta$. For example, assuming $\beta = 0.15$ leads to $\Vmax$ values that
are significantly lower than in the isotropic case because rotational support
has been traded for pressure support. The velocity function comparisons with $\beta=0.15$ are
shown in the right panel of Figure \ref{fig:vfunc_comp}
and the $\Vmax$ values are listed in parentheses
in Table \ref{table:vmax}. In this case, only the $\sigma_8 \simeq 0.65$
case and the BSI model can account for the dwarf population without
a differential feedback mechanism.
The rest of the models over-predict the counts, with the greatest apparent
discord in the $n=1$ case. The specific choice of $\beta = 0.15$
serves mainly to illustrate the effect of a minor anisotropy. We
chose this value because it is typical of what is seen in the central
regions of simulated dark matter halos (Col{\'{\i}}n et al. 2000b),
and therefore it seems a reasonable possibility for the
anisotropy parameter of particles in dwarf galaxies.
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Caveats %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
\section{\label{sec:caveats}Caveats}
%%%
In this study we employed a simple, semi-analytic
model based on many previous studies (LC93; SK99; BKW; TB01; B01; W02; HFM02)
and designed to produce large numbers of halo realizations with minimal
computational effort. In developing this model, we have made many
simplifying assumptions. In this section we draw attention to many of
these shortcomings and discuss how they might affect our results and
be improved upon in future work.
Among the most obvious omissions in this work is the neglect of any
disk or bulge component in each halo. We have specifically chosen to
ignore the effects of central galaxies because the physics of dark
halo formation is relatively well-understood compared with that of
galaxy formation. This allows us to ground our work against
dissipationless N-body simulations. In order to include a galactic
component, one is forced to adopt
many poorly-constrained models and assumptions regarding
gas accretion, cooling, angular momentum
distributions, feedback, and the effects of substructure on
the host galaxy itself. Once a reliable framework for the dark matter has
been developed, we can use this as a foundation for more speculative
(yet interesting) explorations involving the baryonic
components.
A central (disk) galaxy would add to the dynamical friction force
experienced by subhalos orbiting near the plane of the disk and cause
halos on highly inclined orbits to be tidally heated during
rapid encounters with the disk potential
(\eg Gnedin \& Ostriker 1999; Gnedin, Hernquist, \&
Ostriker 1999; TB01). These effects lead to enhanced satellite
disruption. Conversely, subsystems that are massive
enough to host galaxies might be rendered more resistant to tidal
disruption because their central densities would be enhanced by the
presence of cool baryons. For low-mass halos, the net effect of a
central galaxy would likely be to reduce the substructure count,
mainly at small radii. Even without including these effects, we find that
the substructure fraction drops significantly at small radii because
of the dark matter potential, and that a large part of the projected
central mass fraction comes from subhalos at large radii that are
picked up in projection. Nevertheless, projected mass fractions are
rather sensitive to the size of the core in the subhalo radial
distribution (Chen et al. 2003), so if the core region were larger
as a result of a central galaxy, the implied lensing signal would
be reduced relative to our estimates. We find that eliminating
{\em all} substructure within $20$ kpc of the halo center, reduces
the projected mass fractions in subhalos less massive than
$10^{10}$ M$_{\odot}$, $f_{10}$, by $\sim 30\%$.
\onecolumn
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centerline{
\epsfysize=3.5truein \epsffile{vcomp.6.beta=0.color.eps}
\epsfysize=3.5truein \epsffile{vcomp.6.beta=0.15.color.eps}
}
\caption{\label{fig:vfunc_comp}Satellite halo
velocity functions for six of our models
compared with the velocity functions of the Milky Way
satellites after accounting for the cosmology-dependent
mapping between $\svd$ and $\Vmax$.
The squares represent the velocity function of
Milky Way satellites based on the data in Table \ref{table:vmax}.
The lines represent the means over all realizations and the error
bars reflect the dispersion among these realizations. The models
are labeled in each panel.}
\end{figure*}
\newpage
%
\begin{deluxetable}{llccccccccc}
%\rotate
\tablewidth{7.5in}
\tablecaption{\label{table:vmax}Characteristics of
Milky Way satellites. }
%
\tablehead{
\colhead{Satellite} & \colhead{$\svd$} & \colhead{$r_{c}$}
& \colhead{$r_{t}$} & \colhead{$\Vmax$}
& \colhead{$\Vmax$} & \colhead{$\Vmax$} & \colhead{$\Vmax$}
& \colhead{$\Vmax$} & \colhead{$\Vmax$} & \colhead{$\Vmax$} \\
& & & & \colhead{K99} & \colhead{$n=1$} & \colhead{$\sigma_8=0.83$}
& \colhead{RI model} & \colhead{$\sigma_8=.75$} & \colhead{BSI} & \colhead{$\sig8=0.65$} \\
& \colhead{($\kms$)} & \colhead{(kpc)} & \colhead{(kpc)} & \colhead{($\kms$)} & \colhead{($\kms$)} &
\colhead{($\kms$)} & \colhead{($\kms$)} & \colhead{($\kms$)} &
\colhead{($\kms$)} & \colhead{($\kms$)}
}
\startdata
Sagittarius & $11.7 \pm 0.7$ & 0.44 & 3.0 & 20 & 17 (13) & 20 (15) & 23 (17) & 24 (17) & 26 (19) & 35 (25) \\
Fornax & $10.5 \pm 1.5$ & 0.46 & 2.3 & 18 & 15 (11) & 18 (13) & 20 (15) & 21 (15) & 23 (17) & 30 (21) \\
Draco & $9.5 \pm 1.6$ & 0.18 & 0.93 & 17 & 21 (15) & 31 (20) & 38 (25) & 41 (26) & 41 (29) & 67 (44) \\
Ursa Minor & $9.3 \pm 1.8$ & 0.20 & 0.64 & 16 & 21 (15) & 31 (20) & 37 (25) & 41 (26) & 42 (29) & 69 (43) \\
Leo I & $8.8 \pm 0.9$ & 0.22 & 0.82 & 15 & 17 (12) & 24 (16) & 28 (19) & 30 (20) & 33 (23) & 51 (32) \\
Carina & $6.8 \pm 1.6$ & 0.21 & 0.69 & 12 & 11 (8) & 14 (10) & 18 (13) & 18 (13) & 22 (16) & 29 (19) \\
Leo II & $6.7 \pm 1.1$ & 0.16 & 0.48 & 12 & 13 (9) & 19 (13) & 23 (16) & 24 (16) & 27 (19) & 40 (26) \\
Sculptor & $6.6 \pm 0.7$ & 0.11 & 1.5 & 11 & 13 (9) & 18 (12) & 21 (15) & 23 (15) & 26 (18) & 38 (24) \\
Sextans & $6.6 \pm 0.7$ & 0.34 & 3.2 & 11 & 8 (7) & 10 (7) & 10 (8) & 11 (8) & 12 (9) & 14 (10) \\
\\
SMC & & & & 30 & $< 60^*$ & $< 60^*$ &$< 60^*$ & $< 60^*$ & $< 60^*$ & $< 60^*$ \\
LMC & & & & 50 & 50 & 50 & 50 & 50 & $50^*$ & $50^*$ \\
\enddata
\tablecomments{The names of the satellite galaxies of the Milky Way
are given in column (1). We consider only those galaxies with
galactocentric distances smaller than $300$ kpc. Columns (2-4) give the
measured line-of-sight velocity dispersion, and King core and tidal
radii for each satellite. The exceptions are the LMC and the SMC. These
galaxies have measured rotation speeds, listed in Columns (6-11). All
velocities are expressed in units of $\kms$ and distances are
in kpc. Column (5) gives the
value of $\Vmax$ assigned to the halo of each satellite by
by K99.
Columns (6-11) and above the horizontal space
give the value of $\Vmax$ that we estimated
for each satellite
based on its measured velocity dispersion and King profile parameters
and assuming the primordial power spectra specified at the top of
each column. Values of $\Vmax$
listed without parentheses were calculated assuming an anisotropy
parameter of $\beta=0$, and those inside parentheses assume
$\beta=0.15$.
Except for the case of
Draco, we use the velocity dispersions and King profile core and tidal
radii for the Milky Way satellites given in the review article by
Mateo (1998). For Draco, we use the parameters quoted by Odenkirchen
et al. (2001). The quoted maximum rotation speeds for the LMC and
SMC were taken from van der Marel et al. (2002) and Stanimirovi{\'c} (2000).
The LMC rotation curve is observed to be flat from $4$kpc out to $>8.9$kpc.
For many of the low-power models (indicated by superscript ``$^*$''),
the flat portion of the curve ($\sim \Rmax$) is
expected to be at larger radius. In order to explain this in the
context of these models,
we must suppose that baryonic in-fall plays an important role in setting
the properties of dark matter rotation curves (Blumenthal et al. 1986). In this
case, the measured value of $\Vmax$ ($\Rmax$) is larger (smaller)
than it would be for the pristine halo prior to baryonic contraction.
The SMC rotation curve is even
more likely to be influenced by baryons (Stanimirovi{\'c} 2000), and
baryonic in-fall is likely to be of some importance for all cases. While
not demanded by the data, the effects of baryonic in-fall
could be important for all satellites, thus the listed
$\Vmax$ values should be considered {\em lower} limits. Lastly,
the large value of $r_{\rm max}$ associated with Draco in the
$\sigma_8 = 0.65$ case may be difficult to reconcile with
the kinematic data of Kleyna et al. (2002) and may disfavor a model
with such low power.
}
\end{deluxetable}
\twocolumn
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% END OF VFUNC PLOTS
%
In addition to the considerable uncertainties associated with galaxy formation,
there are potential shortcomings in our efforts to model
substructure properties in the context of collisionless dark matter physics
alone. For example, we have allowed for only a mild
redistribution of mass within the tidal radii of the orbiting subhalos
up until the time the subhalo is totally disrupted. The work
of S02 and H03 suggests that this effect may be larger, but these
results may have been compromised by limited numerical resolution or
inappropriate assumptions regarding initial subhalo orbits and/or
accretion times. In this sense, our approach represents a
conservative extreme because we assume that the surviving subhalo
density structure is typically very similar to that of halos in the
field. We study the effects of tidal mass redistribution in a
forthcoming paper (J. Bullock, K. Johnston, \& A. Zentner, in preparation).
In addition, we have adopted a halo concentration relation (B01) that
has not been confirmed for $M \lsim 10^9$ M$_{\odot}$. Similarly, the EPS
merger tree calculations have yet to be tested in the very low-mass regime.
In light of these extrapolations, it is imperative that our results be
tested, and updated using the next generation of numerical studies.
Finally, our model does not treat the substructure
population self-consistently. We have neglected any subhalo-subhalo
interactions which could serve to increase the internal heating of substructure and
modify dynamical friction timescales as orbital energy is exchanged
between subhalos and traded for internal energy. We have adopted the approximation
that all in-falling halos are ``distinct'' and have no subhalos of their
own (see Taylor \& Babul 2003 for a study of merger tree
``pruning''). However, our ``tree-level'' calculations suggest that the
substructure mass fraction is uniformly $\sim 10\%$ regardless of
host mass, so we expect the that this correction would typically
affect our derived mass fractions by $\lsim 10\%$. Considering the
assumptions that have gone into our calculations and the
current level of observational precision, this level of error is
acceptable; however, it may need to be improved upon as observations
zero in on the masses of the subclumps responsible for the lensing
signals and the mass fractions in these subclumps.
\section{\label{sec:conclusions}Conclusions and Discussion}
The abundance of substructure in dark matter halos is determined
by a continuous competition between accretion and disruption.
Accreted subhalos with dense cores are resistant to disruption, but
over time their orbits decay, their mass is stripped away, and they are
often destroyed. The model we presented here allows us to follow the
complicated interplay between density structure, orbital evolution, and accretion time
in order to determine how changes in the power spectrum affect the final
substructure population in galaxy-sized halos. For a fixed set of
cosmological parameters, changes in the power spectrum manifest
themselves by changing collapse times for halos, where less power
leads to later accretion times and lower densities. We have
specifically focused on tilted models that help to relieve the central
density crisis facing CDM and that may be favored by joint CMB and
large-scale structure analyses (Spergel et al. 2003).
We have also considered a BSI inflation model and WDM
models, where the power is sharply reduced on small scales.
For a large class of CDM-type models, including models with significant
tilt and running, we find that the fraction of mass bound up in substructure
$f$, for galaxy-mass halos is relatively insensitive to the slope of
the primordial power spectrum. This is because both the host halos and their accreted
subsystems collapse later in these models, in a roughly self-similar
way as power is reduced. Note that this result would have been roughly
expected if we were varying only the overall normalization in
the models because the relative redshifts of collapse would be
invariant (we assume host halos are small enough that they collapse
before $z\sim 0$). Our investigation suggests that this intuitive
description holds even for tilted and running index models, at least
over the parameter range we have explored. All indications are that
this insensitivity to the tilt of the power spectrum is a rather robust
result, and should hold even if some unknown factor has caused our overall
normalization in predicted mass fractions to be in error (\eg our exclusion
of central galaxies). Interestingly, the shape of the mass function,
$f(x \equiv M_{\rm sat}/M_{\rm host})$, is also relatively insensitive to
the mass of the host halo [Eq. (\ref{eq:fitfrac})], and a similar shape holds for all
of the tilted models we explored.\footnote{Note that these self-similar
trends break down on cluster-mass scales since recent accretion, which
is a strong function of the overall power, likely plays an important
role in these objects.}
The similarity in mass fractions breaks down for models
with sharp features in their power spectra, like our BSI and WDM
models. In these models, low-mass halo formation is delayed significantly
{\em relative} to the formation time of their hosts. Consequently, fewer
subhalos are dense enough to withstand the tidal field they experience
upon accretion. We find that for the relevant WDM and BSI models,
the mass fraction in substructure is reduced by a factor of
$\gsim 3$ compared to the standard/tilted $\Lambda$CDM models.
Inspired by recent attempts to measure substructure mass fractions
using multiply-imaged quasars, we applied our model to ensembles of
host halos with $M = 3\times10^{12}$ \Msun at $z=0.6$, which
represents the expectation for massive lens galaxies (DK01; DK02).
For the $\Lambda$CDM/tilted cases, we found substructure
mass fractions within a $10$ kpc projected radius in systems less
massive than $M= 10^8$, $10^{9}$, and $10^{10}$\Msun of
$f_8 \simeq 0.2-0.4\%$, $f_9 \simeq 0.4 - 1.5\%$, and
$f_{10} \simeq 0.6-2.5\%$ at the $64$ percentile range. These
estimates are consistent with, but on the low side of, first attempts
to measure the substructure fraction using multiply-imaged quasars by
DK01, who obtain $f \simeq 0.6\% - 7\%$ at $90\%$
confidence, with an upper-mass limit of $10^8-10^{10}$ M$_{\odot}$ (N.
Dalal, private communication). The lensing results disfavor the BSI
model, which leads to mass fractions $f_8 \simeq 0.01-0.06\%$,
$f_{9} \simeq 0.02 - 0.2\%$, and $f_{10} \simeq 0.03 - 0.4\%$ at $64$\%.
This is true unless the break scale in the power spectrum is pushed to
such a small value that this model no longer has the attractive feature
of alleviating the central density problem. A $m_{\rm W} = 0.75$ keV WDM
model is similarly disfavored, and even our highest mass WDM case,
$m_{\rm W} = 3$ keV, has a typical projected fraction ($f_9 \sim
0.4\%$) that is low compared to the DK01 estimate.
Again, this indicates that if the warm particle is a thermal relic,
the mass must be large enough that WDM no longer mitigates the
small-scale problems of standard CDM. Yet, these
results are interesting because they show how lensing may be
used as one of the few probes of the WDM particle mass in the
range $\gsim 1$ keV or a break in the primordial power spectrum at
large wavenumber.
Clearly these conclusions must be regarded with some caution. In
addition to the uncertainties of modeling discussed in \S \ref{sec:caveats},
other issues make drawing definite conclusions difficult.
For example, we have only accounted for the substructure
within the virial radius of the host halo, yet the anomalous flux
ratios of lensed images are sensitive to the presence of small halos
along the line-of-sight to the lens. Keeton (2003) showed that field
halos can have a significant lensing effect even if they are separated
from the lens by several tenths in redshift and in hierarchical,
CDM-type models, small field halos are ubiquitous. Chen et al. (2003)
showed that the relative effect from halos outside the virial radius of
the lens is typically a few percent, but may be as large as
$20 - 30\%$ of that from subhalos, depending upon assumptions
about the subhalo population. Also, as the mass
fraction in substructure of a given mass depends on the mass of the
host [Eq. (\ref{eq:fitfrac})], it may be important to constrain the host halo mass in
order to fully exploit the ability of lensing measurements of
substructure to probe cosmology and structure formation.
We compared our model predictions for the cumulative subhalo velocity
function, $N(>\Vmax)$, to the satellite galaxy count of the Milky Way.
The approach here was to estimate $\Vmax$ for each satellite
galaxy's dark matter halo based on its observed line-of-sight velocity
dispersion, $\svd$. We emphasized in \S \ref{sub:dwarf} that the
mapping between $\svd$ and $\Vmax$ is sensitive to {\em
theoretical} prejudice regarding the density structure of the dwarf
galaxy's halo as well as the {\em unknown} velocity anisotropy
parameter of the system, $\beta$.
For a fixed value of $\beta$, less concentrated host halos
imply {\em larger} values of $\Vmax$ because halo rotation curves are
more slowly rising and stars probe only the inner $\sim 1$ kpc of the
halo. Interestingly, this implies that tilted models and truncated
models, do significantly better than $n=1$, $\Lambda$CDM in reproducing
apparent dwarf counts, even though their mass fractions are similar.
While our estimates of $\Vmax$ cannot be considered robust because of the
simplicity of our model and the fact that the $\svd-\Vmax$ mapping is
very sensitive to the inner structure of the subhalos, the general trends
that we illustrate should persist in more elaborate studies and
N-body simulations. Moreover, our results reveal yet another reason why
it is difficult to consider the dwarf satellite problem a serious
challenge to CDM theory, the nature of the dwarf satellite problem
is very sensitive to cosmology, the power spectrum, and assumptions about
the shape of the velocity ellipsoid for stars in dwarf galaxies.
When we fix $\beta=0$, our ${\rm d}n/\rm{d}\ln k = -0.03$ RI model,
$\sigma_8 = 0.75$ model, and the BSI case all do well in matching the
known satellite population of the Milky Way for $\Vmax \gsim 20 \kms$.
Our lowest power model ($\sigma_8 = 0.65$, $n \simeq 0.84$, and mild
running) actually under-predicts the dwarf count for $\Vmax \gsim$ 30$
\kms$. However, this result is achieved only for the optimistic
assumption of isotropic velocities. If we adopt a small level
of anisotropy, $\beta = 0.15$, consistent with the centers of simulated
dark matter halos, agreement for most models is worsened.
Only the BSI and $\sigma_8 = 0.65$ models show good
agreement in this case. Yet, even with $\beta = 0.15$, the RI
and $\sigma_8 = 0.75$ models still compare
more favorably than the $n=1$ case with $\beta=0$.
What do these results imply for the dwarf satellite problem? In all
models, including those with truncated power, the velocity function of
subhalos continues to rise below the scale of the smallest observed
Milky Way satellite, $\Vmax \lsim 10 \kms$. No matter how
one modifies the power spectrum, some kind of feedback is required to
explain the local satellite population. Different power spectra
(even different values of $\beta$) seem to indicate that different
types of feedback are needed. For example, in models with $\sig8 \gsim 0.8$
(the precise number depends on typical $\beta$ values and
the degree of running/tilt), the feedback must be {\em differential}.
That is, for $\Vmax \simeq 8 - 30 \kms$, only one out of every $\sim
5-10$ halos in this range should form stars. On the other hand,
in models like the ${\rm d}n/{\rm d}\ln k = -0.03$ RI model,
the BSI case, and our $\sig8 \simeq 0.75$
model with $\beta=0$, the discrepancy seems to set in suddenly
at $\Vmax \sim 10-20 \kms$, suggesting that nearly all halos smaller
than this are completely devoid of stars. In this case, the feedback
mechanism must provide a sharp transition.
The feedback mechanism proposed by BKW accommodates the need for only
$\sim 10\%$ of subsystems to actually host observable galaxies
by suggesting that only those systems that formed
before reionization were able to retain their gas and
eventually form stars. However, if reionization were to occur very
early (\eg $z \gsim 15$), many fewer than $10\%$ of these
dwarf-sized systems could have collapsed before reionization, so that
almost all systems smaller than $\Vmax \sim 30 \kms$ would be dark.
This would be more in line with what we see for the low-power models.
This is an intriguing result. The best-fit power
spectrum of the WMAP team (Spergel et al. 2003)
leads to similar substructure mass fractions as standard CDM,
alleviates the central density problem and dwarf satellite discrepancy,
and forces us to consider feedback mechanisms that predict a sharp
transition between luminous and non-luminous galaxies. Additionally,
the possible detection of early reionization by the WMAP team (Kogut et al. 2003)
{\em provides} a feedback mechanism that results in a sharp transition.
Of course, explaining early reionization in models with low
small-scale power may be problematic (Somerville et al. 2003).
Another feedback scenario that leads to a sharp transition is
photo-evaporation (Barkana \& Loeb 1999; Shaviv \& Dekel 2003).
Nonetheless, the uncertainty associated with $\beta$ in determining
satellite galaxy $\Vmax$ values suggests that efforts to model dwarf
galaxy luminosities as well as dynamical properties will be
required to resolve this issue (Somerville 2002; Benson et al. 2002).
Remaining uncertainties in understanding the precise nature
of the dwarf satellite problem highlight the need to focus on
attempts to measure CDM substructure by other means. Continued
efforts to detect substructure via gravitational lensing
(\eg DK01; Keeton 2003; Keeton, Gaudi, \& Petters 2002;
Moustakas \& Metcalf 2003) or by probes within our own Galaxy
(\eg Johnston et al. 2002; Ibata et al. 2002a, 2002b;
Mayer et al. 2002; Font et al. 2001) offer useful avenues
for doing so. Modeling of the kind presented here may play an important
role in interpreting results of ongoing observational programs and
bring us one step closer to confirming or refuting one of the fundamental
predictions of the CDM paradigm.
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ACKNOWLEDGMENTS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
\begin{acknowledgments}
We are pleased to thank Neal Dalal, Kathryn Johnston, Charles Keeton,
James Kneller, Chris Kochanek, Leon Koopmans, Andrey Kravtsov,
Eugene Lim, Ari Maller, Benton Metcalf, Leonidas Moustakas, Joel Primack,
David Rusin, Bob Scherrer, Rachel Somerville, Gary Steigman, Rob Swaters, Terry
Walker, Risa Wechsler, and David Weinberg for many helpful discussions.
We are also grateful to Neal Dalal, Michael Schirber,
Risa Wechsler, David Weinberg, and Joshua Winn for valuable comments on
an early draft of this manuscript. JSB acknowledges Rosemary Wyse for
her generous hospitality during visits to Johns Hopkins University,
where a substantial fraction of this work was done. ARZ is supported
by The Ohio State University and by U.S. DOE Contract
No. DE-FG02-91ER40690. JSB is supported by NASA through Hubble
Fellowship grant HF-01146.01-A from the Space Telescope Science
Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for
Research in Astronomy, Incorporated, under NASA contract NAS5-26555.
\end{acknowledgments}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% References %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% In Alphabetical Order, ApJ Style %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{thebibliography}{999}
\bibitem{ABW} Alam, S. M. K., Bullock, J. S., \& Weinberg, D. H. 2002,
ApJ, 572, 34 (ABW)
\bibitem{ALLEN} Allen, S. W., Schmidt, R. W., Fabian, A. C., \&
Ebeling, H. 2002, MNRAS, in press
\bibitem[Avila-Reese et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...559..516A} Avila-Reese, V.,
Col{\'{\i}}n, P., Valenzuela, O., D'Onghia, E., \& Firmani, C.\ 2001, \apj,
559, 516
\bibitem{AFH} Avila-Reese, V., Firmani, C. \& Hern{\'a}ndez, X. 1998, ApJ, 505, 37
\bibitem{BAHCALL} Bahcall, N. A. et al. 2003, ApJ, 585, 182
\bibitem{BandB} Bahcall, N. A. \& Bode, P. 2003, ApJL, 588, L1
\bibitem{BBKS} Bardeen, J. M., Bond, J. R., Kaiser, N., \& Szalay, A. 1986, ApJ, 304, 15
\bibitem{BHO} Barkana, R., Haiman, Z., \& Ostriker, J. P. 2001, ApJ, 558, 482
\bibitem[Barkana \& Loeb(1999)]{1999ApJ...523...54B} Barkana, R.~\& Loeb,
A.\ 1999, \apj, 523, 54
\bibitem{COBE} Bennett, C. L. et al. 1994, ApJL, 464, L1
\bibitem{BEA01} Benson, A. J., Frenk, C. S., Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M.,
\& Cole, S. 2002, MNRAS, 333, 177
\bibitem{BE} Binney, J. J. \& Evans, N. W. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 27
\bibitem[Blumenthal, Faber, Primack, \& Rees(1984)]{1984Natur.311..517B}
Blumenthal, G.~R., Faber, S.~M., Primack, J.~R., \& Rees, M.~J.\ 1984,
\nat, 311, 517
\bibitem{BFFP86} Blumenthal, G. R., Faber, S. M., Flores, R., \& Primack, J. R. 1986,
ApJ, 301, 27
\bibitem[Bode, Ostriker, \& Turok(2001)]{2001ApJ...556...93B} Bode, P.,
Ostriker, J.~P., \& Turok, N.\ 2001, \apj, 556, 93
\bibitem{BCEK} Bond, J. R., Cole, S., Efstathiou, G., \& Kaiser, N. 1991, ApJ, 379, 440
\bibitem{BORGANIetal} Borgani, S. et al. 2001, ApJ, 561, 13
\bibitem{BS00} Borriello, A. \& Salucci, P. 2000, MNRAS, 323, 285
\bibitem[Brada{\v c} et al.(2002)]{2002A&A...388..373B} Brada{\v c}, M.,
Schneider, P., Steinmetz, M., Lombardi, M., King, L.~J., \& Porcas, R.\
2002, \aap, 388, 373
\bibitem{BROWN} Brown, M. L., Taylor, A. N., Bacon, D. J.,
Gray, M. E., Dye, S., Meisenheimer, K., \& Wolf, C. 2002, MNRAS, 341, 100
\bibitem{BN98} Bryan, G. L. \& Norman, M. L. 1998, ApJ, 495, 80
\bibitem{BKW00} Bullock, J. S., Kravtsov, A. V., \& Weinberg, D. H. 2000,
ApJ, 539, 517, (BKW)
\bibitem[Bullock, Kravtsov, \& Weinberg(2001)]{2001ApJ...548...33B}
Bullock, J.~S., Kravtsov, A.~V., \& Weinberg, D.~H.\ 2001, \apj, 548, 33
\bibitem{B01} Bullock, J. S., Kolatt, T. S., Sigad, Y., Somerville, R. S., Kravtsov, A. V.,
Klypin, A. A., Primack, J. R., \& Dekel, A. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 559, (B01)
\bibitem{BLW} Bunn, E. F., Liddle, A. R., \& M. White 1996, Phys. Rev. D, 54, 5917R
\bibitem{BW} Bunn, E. F., \& White, M. 1997, ApJ, 480, 6
\bibitem{B95} Burkert, A. A. 1995, ApJL, 447, L25
\bibitem{CHANDRA} Chandrasekhar, S. 1943, ApJ, 97, 255
\bibitem[Chen, Kravtsov, \& Keeton(2003)]{2003astro.ph..2005C} Chen, J.,
Kravtsov, A.~V., \& Keeton, C.~R.\ 2003, ApJ, 592, 24
\bibitem[CGO01]{2001ApJ...563...21C} Chiu, W.~A.,
Gnedin, N.~Y., \& Ostriker, J.~P.\ 2001, \apj, 563, 21
\bibitem{CAFNZ} Cole, S., Aragon-Salamanca, A., Frenk, C. S., Navarro, J. F., \& Zepf, S. E. 1994,
MNRAS, 271, 781
\bibitem[Col{\'{\i}}n, Avila-Reese, \&
Valenzuela(2000)]{2000ApJ...542..622C} Col{\'{\i}}n, P., Avila-Reese, V.,
\& Valenzuela, O.\ 2000a, \apj, 542, 622
\bibitem[Col{\'{\i}}n, Klypin, \& Kravtsov(2000)]{2000ApJ...539..561C}
Col{\'{\i}}n, P., Klypin, A.~A., \& Kravtsov, A.~V.\ 2000b, \apj, 539, 561
\bibitem[Col{\'{\i}}n, Klypin, Kravtsov, \&
Khokhlov(1999)]{1999ApJ...523...32C} Col{\'{\i}}n, P., Klypin, A.~A.,
Kravtsov, A.~V., \& Khokhlov, A.~M.\ 1999, \apj, 523, 32
\bibitem{CDW96} Colombi, S., Dodelson, S., \& Widrow, L. M. 1996, ApJ, 458, 1
\bibitem{CMG} Colpi, M., Mayer, L., \& Governato, F. 1999, ApJ, 525, 720
\bibitem{CCF} C{\^o}te, S., Carignan, C., \& Freeman, K. C. 2000, AJ, 120, 3027
\bibitem{CL} Covi, L. \& Lyth, D. H. 1999, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 063515
\bibitem{CLR} Covi, L., Lyth, D. H., \& Roszkowski, L. 1999, Phys. Rev. D, 60, 023509
\bibitem{CLM} Covi, L., Lyth, D. H., \& Melchiorri, A. 2003, PRD, 67, 043507
\bibitem{CWKH} Croft, R. A. C., Weinberg, D. H., Katz, N., \& Hernquist, L. 1998,
ApJ, 495, 44
\bibitem{Croftetal} Croft, R. A. C, Weinberg, D. H, Bolte, M., Burles, S.,
Hernquist, L., Katz, N., Kirkman, D., \& Tytler, D. 2002, ApJ, 581, 20
\bibitem{DK01} Dalal, N. \& Kochanek, C. S. 2001, ApJ, 572, 25 (DK01)
\bibitem{DK02} Dalal, N. \& Kochanek, C. S. 2002, PRL, submitted (astro-ph/0202290) (DK02)
\bibitem[Dalcanton \& Bernstein(2002)]{2002AJ....124.1328D} Dalcanton,
J.~J.~\& Bernstein, R.~A.\ 2002, \aj, 124, 1328
\bibitem{DS00} Debattista, V. P. \& Sellwood, J. A. 2000, ApJ, 543, 704
\bibitem{BMR01} de Blok, W. J. G., McGaugh, S., \& Rubin, V. C. 2001,
AJ, 122, 2396
\bibitem{BB02} de Blok, W. J. G. \& Bosma, A. A. 2002, A\&A, 385, 816
\bibitem[Dekel \& Woo(2002)]{2002astro.ph.10454D} Dekel, A.~\& Woo, J.\
2002, MNRAS, submitted (astro-ph/0210454)
\bibitem{REI} Dekel, A. \& Silk, J. 1986, ApJ, 303, 38
\bibitem{EFS} Efstathiou, G. 1992, MNRAS, 256, 43P
\bibitem{EH99} Eisenstein, D. J. \& Hu, W. 1999, ApJ, 511, 5
\bibitem[Eke, Navarro, \& Frenk(1998)]{1998ApJ...503..569E} Eke, V.~R.,
Navarro, J.~F., \& Frenk, C.~S.\ 1998, \apj, 503, 569
\bibitem[Eke, Navarro, \& Steinmetz(2001)]{2001ApJ...554..114E} Eke, V.~R.,
Navarro, J.~F., \& Steinmetz, M.\ 2001, \apj, 554, 114 (ENS)
\bibitem{FN01} Font, A. S., Navarro, J. F., Stadel, J., \& Quinn, T. 2001, ApJL, 563, L1
\bibitem{GHIGNA} Ghigna, S., Moore, B., Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T.,
\& Stadel, J. 1998, MNRAS, 300, 146
\bibitem{GHIGNA00} Ghigna, S., Moore, B., Governato, F., Lake, G.,
Quinn, T., \& Stadel, J. 2000, ApJ, 544, 616
\bibitem[Gnedin(2000)]{2000ApJ...542..535G} Gnedin, N.~Y.\ 2000, \apj, 542,
535
\bibitem{G99} Gnedin, O. Y. \& Ostriker, J. P. 1999, ApJ, 513, 626
\bibitem{GHO} Gnedin, O. Y., Hernquist, L. \& Ostriker, J. P. 1999,
ApJ, 514, 109
\bibitem{HAMANA} Hamana, I. et al. 2002, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph/0210450)
\bibitem{HFM02} Hashimoto, Y., Funato, Y., \& Makino, J. 2002, ApJ, 582, 196 (HFM02)
\bibitem{H03} Hayashi, E., Navarro, J. F., Taylor, J. E., Stadel, J.,
\& Quinn, T. 2003, ApJ, 584, 541, (H03)
\bibitem[Hodges \& Blumenthal(1990)]{1990PhRvD..42.3329H} Hodges, H.~M.~\&
Blumenthal, G.~R.\ 1990, \prd, 42, 3329
\bibitem[Hogan \& Dalcanton(2000)]{2000PhRvD..62f3511H} Hogan, C.~J.~\&
Dalcanton, J.~J.\ 2000, \prd, 62, 063511
\bibitem{IBATAa} Ibata, R. A., Lewis, G. F., Irwin, M. J., \& Quinn, T. 2002a,
MNRAS, 332, 915
\bibitem{IBATAb} Ibata, R. A., Lewis, G. F., Irwin, M. J., \& Cambr{\'e}sy, L. 2002b,
MNRAS, 332, 921
\bibitem{JARVIS} Jarvis, M., Bernstein, G., Fischer, P., Smith, D.,
Jain, B., Tyson, J. A., \& Wittman, D. 2003, AJ, 125, 1014
\bibitem{JING} Jing, Y. 2000, ApJ, 535, 20
\bibitem{J98} Johnston, K. V. 1998, ApJ, 495, 297
\bibitem{JSH02} Johnston, K. V., Spergel, D. N., \& Haydn, C. 2002, ApJ, 570, 656
\bibitem{KL00} Kamionkowski, M. \& Liddle, A. R. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 84, 4525
\bibitem{KWG93} Kauffmann, G., White, S. D. M., \& Guiderdoni, B. 1993,
MNRAS, 264, 201
\bibitem{KEETON} Keeton, C. R. 2001, ApJ, 561, 46
\bibitem{KEETON02} Keeton, C. R. 2003, ApJ, 584, 664
\bibitem{KGP02} Keeton, C. R., Gaudi, B. S., \& Petters, A. O. 2002,
ApJ, submitted (astro-ph/0210318)
\bibitem{KING} King, I. 1962, AJ, 67, 471
\bibitem{KLEYNA} Kleyna, J., Wilkinson, M. I., Evans, N. W., Gilmore, G.,
\& Frayn, C. 2002, MNRAS, 330, 792
\bibitem{KKVP} Klypin, A. A, Kravtsov, A. V., Valenzuela, O., \&
Prada, F. 1999a, ApJ, 522, 82 (K99)
\bibitem[Klypin, Gottl{\" o}ber, Kravtsov, \&
Khokhlov(1999)]{1999ApJ...516..530K} Klypin, A., Gottl{\" o}ber, S.,
Kravtsov, A.~V., \& Khokhlov, A.~M.\ 1999b, \apj, 516, 530
\bibitem[Klypin, Zhao, \& Somerville(2002)]{2002ApJ...573..597K} Klypin,
A., Zhao, H., \& Somerville, R.~S.\ 2002, \apj, 573, 597
\bibitem[Knebe, Devriendt, Mahmood, \& Silk(2002)]{2002MNRAS.329..813K}
Knebe, A., Devriendt, J.~E.~G., Mahmood, A., \& Silk, J.\ 2002, \mnras,
329, 813
\bibitem{KD03} Kochanek, C. S. \& Dalal, N. 2003, ApJ, submitted
\bibitem{KOGUTetal} Kogut, A. et al. 2003, ApJ, submitted
\bibitem[Kolatt et al.(1999)]{1999ApJ...523L.109K} Kolatt, T.~S.~et al.\
1999, \apjl, 523, L109
\bibitem{KS02} Komatsu, E. \& Seljak, U. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 1256
\bibitem{KT95} Kosowsky, A. \& Turner, M. S. 1995, Phys. Rev. D, 52, 1739
\bibitem[Kravtsov(1999)]{1999PhDT........25K} Kravtsov, A.~V.\ 1999,
Ph.D.~Thesis,
\bibitem{LC} Lacey, C. \& Cole, S. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 627, (LC93)
\bibitem{LIN} Lin, W. B., Huang, D. H., Zhang, X., \& Brandenberger, R. 2001,
Phys. Rev. Lett., 86, 954
\bibitem{MLF99} Mac Low, M.-M. \& Ferrara, A. 1999, ApJ, 413,142
%
%\bibitem[Maller \& Dekel(2002)]{2002MNRAS.335..487M} Maller, A.~H.~\&
%Dekel, A.\ 2002, \mnras, 335, 487
\bibitem{MDCFCMZ} Marchesini, D., D'Onghia, E., Chincarini, G.,
Firmani, C., Conconi, P., Molinari, E., \& Zacchei, A. 2002, ApJ, 575, 801
\bibitem{MATEO} Mateo, M. 1998, ARA\&A, 36, 435
\bibitem{MAYERetal} Mayer, L., Moore, B., Quinn, T., Governato, F., \&
Stadel, J. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 119
\bibitem{MM-E00} McDonald, P. V., Miralda-Escud{\'e}, J., Rauch, M.,
Sargent, W. L. W., Barlow, T. A., Cen, R., \& Ostriker, J. P. 2000, ApJ, 543, 1
\bibitem{MBdB02} McGaugh, S. S., Barker, M. K., \& de Blok, W. J. G. 2003, ApJ, 584, 566
\bibitem{MS02} Melchiorri, A. \& Silk, J. 2002, PRD, 66, 014301
\bibitem[Metcalf(2002)]{2002ApJ...580..696M} Metcalf, R.~B.\ 2002, \apj,
580, 696
\bibitem[Metcalf \& Zhao(2002)]{2002ApJ...567L...5M} Metcalf, R.~B.~\&
Zhao, H.\ 2002, \apjl, 567, L5
\bibitem[Metcalf \& Madau(2001)]{2001ApJ...563....9M} Metcalf, R.~B.~\&
Madau, P.\ 2001, \apj, 563, 9
\bibitem{MOOREa} Moore, B., Ghigna, S., Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T.,
Stadel, J., \& Tozzi, P. 1999a, ApJL, 524, L19
\bibitem{MOORE} Moore, B., Quinn, T., Governato, T., Stadel, J., \& Lake, G. 1999b,
MNRAS, 310, 1147
\bibitem[Moustakas \& Metcalf(2003)]{2003MNRAS.339..607M} Moustakas,
L.~A.~\& Metcalf, R.~B.\ 2003, \mnras, 339, 607
\bibitem{NSDM00} Narayan, V. K., Spergel, D. N., Dav{\'e}, R., \& Ma, C.-P. 2000, ApJL, 543, L103
\bibitem{NFW97} Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S. \& White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493, (NFW)
\bibitem{ODEN} Odenkirchen, M. et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2538
\bibitem[Pagels \& Primack(1982)]{1982PhRvL..48..223P} Pagels, H.~\&
Primack, J.~R.\ 1982, Phys. Rev. Lett., 48, 223
\bibitem{WMAPINF} Peiris, H. V. et al. 2003, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0302225)
\bibitem{PERCIVAL} Percival, W. J. et al. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 1068
\bibitem{PIER} Pierpaoli, E., Borgani, S., Scott, D., \& White, M. 2002, MNRAS, 342, 163
\bibitem{POWER} Power, C., Navarro, J. F., Jenkins, A., Frenk, C. S., White, S. D. M.,
Springel, V., Stadel, J., \& Quinn, T. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 14
\bibitem[Quillen \& Garnett(2001)]{2001gddg.conf...87Q} Quillen, A.~C.~\&
Garnett, D.~R.\ 2001, ASP Conf.~Ser.~230: Galaxy Disks and Disk Galaxies,
87 (astro-ph/0004210 )
\bibitem{QKE96} Quinn, T., Katz, N., \& Efstathiou, G. 1996, MNRAS, 278, L49
\bibitem[Rees(1986)]{1986MNRAS.218P..25R} Rees, M.~J.\ 1986, \mnras, 218,
25P
\bibitem{SCHUECKER} Schuecker, P., B{\"o}hringer, H., Collins, C. A., \&
Guzzo, L. 2002, A \& A, 398, 867
\bibitem[Seljak, McDonald, \& Makarov(2003)]{2003astro.ph..2571S} Seljak,
U., McDonald, P. V., \& Makarov, A.\ 2003, MNRAS, in press (astro-ph/0302571)
\bibitem{SGB94} Shapiro, P. R., Giroux, M. L., \& Babul, A. 1994,
ApJ, 427, 25
\bibitem{SHAVDEK} Shaviv, N. \& Dekel, A. 2003, MNRAS, submitted (astro-ph/0305527)
\bibitem[Shetrone, C{\^ o}t{\' e}, \& Sargent(2001)]{2001ApJ...548..592S}
Shetrone, M.~D., C{\^ o}t{\' e}, P., \& Sargent, W.~L.~W.\ 2001, \apj, 548,
592
%
%\bibitem[Somerville(1997)]{1997PhDT........19S} Somerville, R.~S.\ 1997,
%Ph.D.~Thesis
\bibitem[Somerville \& Primack(1999)]{1999MNRAS.310.1087S} Somerville,
R.~S.~\& Primack, J.~R.\ 1999, \mnras, 310, 1087
\bibitem{SK99} Somerville, R. S. \& Kolatt, T. S. 1999, MNRAS, 305, 1, (SK99)
\bibitem{SOM01} Somerville, R. S. 2002, ApJ, 572, 23
\bibitem[Somerville, Bullock, \& Livio(2003)]{2003astro.ph..3481S}
Somerville, R.~S., Bullock, J.~S., \& Livio, M.\ 2003, ApJL, sumbitted
(astro-ph/0303481)
\bibitem[Spergel et al.(2003)]{2003astro.ph..2209S} Spergel, D.~N.~et al.\
2003, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0302209)
\bibitem[Stanimirovi{\'c}(2000)]{2000PhDT........21S} Stanimirovi{\'c}, S.\ 2000,
Ph.D.~Thesis, (http://astron.berkeley.edu/~sstanimi/)
\bibitem{STAROBINSKY92} Starobinsky, A. A. 1992, JETP Lett., 55, 489
\bibitem{STEWART97a} Stewart, E. D. 1997a, Phys. Lett. B, 391, 34
\bibitem{STEWAR97b} Stewart, E. D. 1997b, Phys. Rev. D, 56, 2019
\bibitem{S02} Stoehr, F., White, S. D. M., Tormen, G., \& Springel, V. 2002, MNRAS,
335, L84, (S02)
\bibitem{SWATERS} Swaters, R. A. 1999, Ph.D. Thesis
\bibitem{SMBB03} Swaters, R. A., Madore, B. F., van den Bosch, F. C., \&
Balcells, M. 2003, 583, 732
\bibitem{TB01} Taylor, J. E. \& Babul, A. 2001, ApJ, 559, 716, (TB01)
\bibitem{TB02} Taylor, J. E. \& Babul, A. 2002, preprint (astro-ph/0210074)
\bibitem{TB03} Taylor, J. E. \& Babul, A. 2003, MNRAS, submitted (astro-ph/0301612)
\bibitem{TW96} Thoul, A. A. \& Weinberg, D. H. 1996, ApJ, 465, 608
\bibitem{TG79} Tremaine, S. \& Gunn, J. E. 1979, PRL, 42, 407
\bibitem{TURNER} Turner, M. S. 2002, Int. J. Mod. Phys., A17, 3446
\bibitem[Valenzuela \& Klypin(2003)]{2002AAS...201.5101V} Valenzuela, O.~\&
Klypin, A.\ 2003, American Astronomical Society Meeting, 201, \#51.01
\bibitem{vdBS} van den Bosch, F. C. \& Swaters, R. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 1017
\bibitem{vdBMY} van den Bosch, F. C., Mo, H. J., \& Yang, X. 2003, MNRAS,
submitted (astro-ph/0301104)
\bibitem[van der Marel, Alves, Hardy, \&
Suntzeff(2002)]{2002AJ....124.2639V} van der Marel, R.~P., Alves, D.~R.,
Hardy, E., \& Suntzeff, N.~B.\ 2002, \aj, 124, 2639
\bibitem{VWMPPMJ} Van Waerbeke, L., Mellier, Y., Pello, R., Pen, U.-L.,
McCracken, H. J., Jain, B. 2002, A\&A, 393, 369
\bibitem[Verde et al.(2003)]{2003astro.ph..2218V} Verde, L.~et al.\ 2003,
ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0302218)
\bibitem{VNL01} Viana, P. T., Nichol, R. C., \& Liddle, A. R. 2002,
ApJ, 569, 75
\bibitem{RTIDE} von Hoerner, S. 1957, ApJ, 125, 451
\bibitem{WECHSLER} Wechsler, R. H., Bullock, J. S., Primack, J. R., Kravtsov, A. V., \&
Dekel, A. 2002, ApJ, 568, 52, (W02)
\bibitem{WHITE_BMIN} White, S. D. M. 1976, MNRAS, 174, 467
\bibitem{WR78} White, S. D. M. \& Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341
\bibitem{W96} White, S. D. M. 1996, in Cosmology and Large-Scale Structure,
ed. R. Schaeffer, J. Silk, \& J. Zinn-Justin (Dordrecht: Elsevier Science)
\bibitem{ZH} Zaroubi, S. \& Hoffman, Y. 1993, ApJ, 416, 410
\bibitem{ZB1} Zentner, A. R. \& Bullock, J. S. 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 043003, (ZB02)
\end{thebibliography}
%%%%%%%%%%% END OF REFERENCES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%% END OF TEXT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\end{document}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% END %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% LocalWords: overdense eV rms overdensity Mpc collisionless cuspy de Blok Sec
% LocalWords: baryonic ellipticals Alam Zel'dovich Kamionkowski Liddle SIG Ref
% LocalWords: subgalactic CMB Bunn LSB inflaton pl Newton's GeV redshift Hu RH
% LocalWords: Eisenstein Bildhauer Buchert Kasai IPL reheating Eq supergravity
% LocalWords: supersymmetry renormalization renormalizable Covi Lyth extremum
% LocalWords: Roszkowski CLR CL Refs cN RM Ly sMinf eps BSI Kamiokande Sudbury
% LocalWords: Soudan nonrelativistic FS MeV sMnu virialized virial vir al NFW
% LocalWords: Navarro Frenk crit accreting halo's Eqs Wechsler Jing sim kms BB
% LocalWords: pseudoisothermal BMR sequitur Swaters overpredicts reionization
% LocalWords: subhalo Dalal Kochanek subhalos Primack Raby Leszek FG ER Rees
% LocalWords: Flores Astrophys Lett Debattista Sellwood Carignan Astron Binney
% LocalWords: Borriello Salucci Marchesini D'Onghia Chincarini Firmani Conconi
% LocalWords: Molinari Zacchei astro ph Keeton Burkert Blais Ouellette Amram
% LocalWords: Governato Stadel Soc McGaugh Bosma Klypin Zhao Lowenstein Dekel
% LocalWords: Mushotzky Devor Kravtsov Kolatt Sigad Machacek Spergel Phys Hern
% LocalWords: Steinhardt Avila ndez Kaplinghat Bento Bertolami Rosenfeld Matos
% LocalWords: Teodoro Mohapatra Vigdor Teplitz Peebles Vilenkin Guzman Ure pez
% LocalWords: Quant Grav Lidsey Col Valenzuela Ostriker Turok Amer Sommer Jain
% LocalWords: Dolgov Steinmetz Dalcanton Melchiorri Viana Nichol Refregier Yee
% LocalWords: Waerbeke Mellier Pello Hoeckstra Gladders Barrientos Infante Mo
% LocalWords: Lahav Pierpaoli Borgani Silberman Eldar Zehavi rner Kolb Abney
% LocalWords: Barreiro Riotto Rep Tegmark Zaldarriaga HannestadVillante Nucl
% LocalWords: Grivell Masumi Linde Salopek Bardeen Lazarides Paagiotakopoulos
% LocalWords: Vlachos Bolte Burles Hernquist Kirkman Tytler Miralda Escude Cen
% LocalWords: Rauch Kofman Starobinsky Polarski Sarkar JETP Lesgourgues Fukuda
% LocalWords: Ahmad nucl Abdurashitov Proc Suppl Altmann Hampel SLAC Dodelson
% LocalWords: Bertschinger Stebbins Fukugita Liu Sugiyama Dav Elgar Belesev Ch
% LocalWords: Weinheimer Lobashev Groningen der Hulst Skillman Bothun Stil
% LocalWords: Prada Ghigna Tozzi