Deep+Wide Lensing Surveys will Provide Exquisite Measurements of the Dark Matter Halos of Dwarf Galaxies

Alexie Leauthaud; Sukhdeep Singh; Yifei Luo; Felipe Ardila; Johnny P. Greco; Peter Capak; Jenny E. Greene; Lucio Mayer

doi:10.1016/j.dark.2020.100719

Deep+Wide Lensing Surveys will Provide Exquisite Measurements of the Dark Matter Halos of Dwarf Galaxies

Leauthaud, Alexie;Singh, Sukhdeep;Luo, Yifei;Ardila, Felipe;Greco, Johnny P.;Capak, Peter;Greene, Jenny E.;Mayer, Lucio 2019-05-04 00:00:00 MNRAS 000, 000–000 (0000) Preprint 20 May 2019 Compiled using MNRAS LT X style ﬁle v3.0 Deep+Wide Lensing Surveys will Provide Exquisite Measurements of the Dark Matter Halos of Dwarf Galaxies 1 2 1 1 3 Alexie Leauthaud , Sukhdeep Singh , Yifei Luo , Felipe Ardila , Johnny P. Greco , 4,5 6 7 Peter Capak , Jenny E. Greene , Lucio Mayer Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California, Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 USA Berkeley Center for Cosmological Physics, Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley & Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, CA 94720, USA Center for Cosmology and AstroParticle Physics (CCAPP), The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA IPAC, California Institute of Technology, 1200 East California Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91125, USA Cosmic Dawn Center (DAWN) Department of Astrophysical Sciences, 4 Ivy Lane, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 CTAC, Institute for Computational Science, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland 20 May 2019 ABSTRACT The advent of new deep+wide photometric lensing surveys will open up the possibility of direct measurements of the dark matter halos of dwarf galaxies. The HSC wide survey will be the ﬁrst with the statistical capability of measuring the lensing signal with high signal-to- noise at log(M ) ∼ 8. At this same mass scale, LSST will have the most overall constraining power with a predicted signal-to-noise for the galaxy-galaxy lensing signal around dwarfs of SN∼200. WFIRST and LSST will have the greatest potential to push below the log(M ) = 7 mass scale thanks to the depth of their imaging data. Studies of the dark matter halos of dwarf galaxies at z ∼0.1 with gravitational lensing are soon within reach. However, further work will be required to develop optimized strategies for extracting dwarfs samples from these surveys, determining redshifts, and accurately measuring lensing on small radial scales. Dwarf lensing will be a new and powerful tool to constrain the halo masses and inner density slopes of dwarf galaxies and to distinguish between baryonic feedback and modiﬁed dark matter scenarios. Key words: dwarf galaxies, gravitational lensing 1 INTRODUCTION of CDM-based structure formation at small scales, such as the too- big-to-fail problem (e.g., Brooks et al. 2013), perhaps in combina- tion with tidal effects (Tomozeiu et al. 2016). Dwarf galaxies are a unique probe of the nature of dark matter and of the interplay between dark matter and baryonic physics. The By design, all of the models predict a ﬂattening of the in- long standing cusp-core controversy, whereby the rotation curves ner dark matter proﬁle for dwarfs. Hence, measurements of α of many gas-rich dwarfs (dwarf spirals and dwarf irregulars) favor alone are insufﬁcient to distinguish between such models; addi- ﬂatter dark matter proﬁles relative to the cuspy proﬁles predicted tional observables are required. Baryonic feedback models predict by Cold Dark Matter (CDM), can be explained by several com- a strong connection between the ﬂattening of the inner dark mat- peting scenarios (e.g., Pontzen & Governato 2014). Some models ter slope, α, and galaxy properties (stellar mass and star formation invoke modiﬁcations of CDM, such as self-interacting dark mat- efﬁciency or burstiness of the star formation rate, Governato et al. ter (SIDM), while other models rely on baryonic physics, such as 2010; On˜orbe et al. 2015; Di Cintio et al. 2014; Tollet et al. 2016). supernovae-driven outﬂows which can modify the inner slope of the Non baryonic solutions to the cusp-core controversy on the other dark matter proﬁle via potential ﬂuctuations (Governato et al. 2010; hand, do not predict such correlations. A detection of these corre- Pontzen & Governato 2012; On˜orbe et al. 2015; Di Cintio et al. lations would therefore be a powerful argument in favor of bary- 2014; Tollet et al. 2016). All of these competing models predict a onic feedback models over modiﬁcations to CDM. Recent theo- ﬂattening of the innermost dark matter density proﬁle (higher val- retical work has shown that supernovae-driven outﬂows have the ues of α where ρ ∝ r ) on scales of 0.5-1 kpc (referred to as strongest impact on the inner dark matter slope γ in the mass range DM 8 10 the “core” region). These models yield a better description of the 10 − 10 M . At lower mass scales, star formation is too inefﬁ- observed kinematics of dwarf galaxies (e.g., Oh et al. 2015) which cient to generate signiﬁcant mass displacement via outﬂows while favor α ∼ −0.3 over the CDM prediction of α = −1. A ﬂattening at larger mass scales, the potential well is too deep for outﬂows of the inner halo proﬁle may also solve other long-standing issues to be effective at generating potential ﬂuctuations (Governato et al. c 0000 The Authors arXiv:1905.01433v2 [astro-ph.CO] 16 May 2019 2 Leauthaud et al. 2012; Chan et al. 2015; Tollet et al. 2016). Hence, the mass range ogy with Ω = 0.693, σ = 0.823, H = 67.8. We use physical λ 8 0 8 10 M = 10 − 10 M is a “sweet spot” in terms of trying to units for the lensing observable ΔΣ. ∗ ⊙ detect correlations between dwarf properties, the inner dark matter halo slope, and dark matter halo mass. Galaxies properties are straightforward to measure, and kine- 2 COMPLETENESS LIMITS OF UPCOMING SURVEYS matic studies can be used to probe the inner slope α. But the to- Deep+wide photometric data will be required to identify sufﬁcient tal halo mass is the key missing component required to complete numbers of dwarf galaxies to measure halo masses with lensing. In this picture. The THINGS and LITTLE-THINGS 21cm HI surveys, 8 10 this paper, we assume that the dwarf lens samples will be selected which focus on galaxies in the range M = 10 − 10 M , only ∗ ⊙ from the same imaging data used for shape measurements. For this measure the rotation curves of dwarfs on scales up to R = max reason, we begin by estimating the stellar mass completeness limits 5 − 10 kpc (Oh et al. 2015). Hence rotation curves of dwarf galax- ies only yield a measurement of the total mass on scales below of lensing surveys. Here, we consider ﬁve lensing surveys: COS- MOS, HSC, LSST, Euclid, and WFIRST. We begin by considering ∼ 10-20 kpc. This is a factor of ∼10-20 smaller than the actual 8.5 halo radius (R ∼ 90 − 150 kpc at M ∼ 10 M ). Any existing surveys (COSMOS and HSC). We then use these results to ∗ ⊙ 200b “halo mass” estimate from rotation curves is in fact an extrapolation estimate the completeness limits for future surveys. that relies on assumptions about the shape of the dark matter pro- ﬁle (e.g., Kazantzidis et al. 2004). Furthermore, cosmological hy- 2.1 COSMOS, HSC, and Surface Brightness Effects dro simulations of dwarfs suggest that the inner proﬁles of dwarfs display a wide range of slopes with values ranging from α = −1 to The COSMOS survey (Scoville et al. 2007) provides more than 30 α = −0.3 (Chan et al. 2015; Tollet et al. 2016). This would imply bands of deep imaging data, spanning UV to radio wavelengths. that conventional measurements of kinematics measurements sim- The COSMOS2015 catalog presents the latest public data release ply cannot be used to determine halo masses (a large dispersion in for the COSMOS survey Laigle et al. (2016). The COSMOS i-band α would mean that one cannot extrapolate to larger scales because 5 sigma point source depth is i = 25.9 (C. Laigle, priv. comm). there is not a single universal halo proﬁle). Similar issues also ap- The HSC survey is an ongoing effort that aims to map 1400 ply to stellar kinematics studies of gas poor dwarf spheroidals and deg to i ∼26 in grizy using the 8.2m Subaru telescope. The depth dwarf ellipticals. In short, the scales on which both rotation curves of the HSC wide survey is i = 26.4 (5σ point source) (Aihara et al. and stellar kinematics can be measured only provide insight on the 2018). The COSMOS i-band data is slightly shallower than HSC inner dark matter proﬁle. wide, but for simplicity, we will assume for the remainder of this For the reasons outlined above, independent and large scale paper that the HSC and COSMOS have roughly the same mass measurements of the dark matter proﬁle would be tremendously sensitivity at z < 0.3. powerful and highly complementary to small-scale kinematic stud- The completeness of the COSMOS survey has already been ies of dwarfs. The combination of a large scale halo mass estimate, well characterized for mass function studies. We use the mass com- together with rotation curve data, or stellar kinematic data, would pleteness limits estimates from Laigle et al. (2016) (hereafter L16) yield much more accurate constraints on both the total halo masses who performed a detailed analysis of the completeness of COS- M of dwarfs as well as their inner dark matter slopes α. The halo MOS in order to measure the galaxy mass function. In brief, they lack of total halo mass measurements is the key missing ingredient ﬁrst estimate the photometric errors for each of their bands by plac- ′′ that is required in order to full understand the interplay between ing apertures on empty portions of the sky in 2 and 3 apertures and baryonic physics and dark matter proﬁles in dwarf galaxies. measuring the noise distribution. Second, a model grid of SEDs One of the most powerful ways to directly probe total halo was compared with the K-band limit to determine the 90% com- masses out to the halo radius is via weak gravitational lensing. pleteness limit for each stellar mass. Finally, they derive a func- In particular, the “galaxy-galaxy lensing” technique measures the tional form for the completeness as a function of redshift scaled to average weak lensing signal from background “source” galaxies the depth of the Ks-band data. The estimated COSMOS complete- around a sample of foreground “lens” galaxies (typically several ness limits are shown in Figure 1 which is for an estimated K-band ′′ hundred to thousands of lens galaxies). Galaxy-galaxy lensing is depth of 25.0 5σ in a 2 aperture. COSMOS is mass complete to one of the most effective techniques that can be used to measure log(M ) =∼ 7.3 at z = 0.1 and to log(M ) =∼ 8.1 at z = 0.3. ∗ ∗ the full dark matter proﬁle of galaxies, from scales of a few tens of Since the COSMOS completeness estimates from L16 are de- kpc to scales of several Mpc. However, existing weak lensing mea- rived from a ﬁxed aperture, the effect of surface brightness sensi- surements have been limited to galaxies with M > 10 M (e.g., ∗ ⊙ tivity is not explicitly included. At ﬁxed stellar mass, dwarf galax- Leauthaud et al. 2012). ies are observed to span a wide range of sizes (e.g., McConnachie The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that the advent of lens- 2012), leading to a range of surface brightness values, which will ing surveys that are both deep and wide will enable the discovery of impact the mass completeness (e.g., Blanton et al. 2005). To in- large enough samples of z ∼ 0.1 dwarfs for direct measurements vestigate the importance of this effect, we use the pipeline from of the dark matter halos of dwarf galaxies with galaxy-galaxy lens- Greco et al. (2018) to inject PSF-convolved Sersic functions with ′′ ′′ ing. We present forecasts for the signal-to-noise of galaxy-galaxy a range of sizes (r = 2 -10 ) and surface brightnesses (22- reﬀ −2 lensing around dwarf galaxies for the Hyper Suprime Cam sur- 29 mag arcsec ) into HSC survey images across the entire foot- vey (HSC, Aihara et al. 2018), and for upcoming surveys such as print of the survey. This pipeline was designed speciﬁcally to detect the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST, Ivezic´ et al. 2008), extended low surface brightness galaxies in the HSC survey. We as- Euclid (Laureijs et al. 2011), and the Wide Field Infrared Survey sign each mock galaxy a stellar mass by sampling the stellar mass– Telescope (WFIRST, Spergel et al. 2013). Section 2 presents an es- surface brightness relation (including scatter) from Danieli et al. timate of the mass completeness limits of these surveys. Section 3 presents our methodology and Section 4 presents forecasts. Section 5 presents a summary and our conclusions. We assume a cosmol- https://github.com/johnnygreco/hugs MNRAS 000, 000–000 (0000) Dwarf Lensing 3 (2018), which is derived from dwarf galaxies in and around the Local Group. We recover the mock galaxies with a 90% mass limit of log M /M ∼ 7.3 at z = 0, with relatively little dependence ∗ ⊙ COSMOS, HSC, Euclid on galaxy effective radius. To model the redshift dependence of the LSST completeness, we use the surface brightness completeness function WFIRST to scale the z = 0 mass limit according to cosmological surface brightness dimming. The results are indicated by the upper black line in Figure 1. Given surface brightness effects, we estimate the mass com- pleteness curves for COSMOS/HSC at low-z to be roughly lo- cated within the grey shaded region in Figure 1. At low red- shifts, the completeness will depend on both mass, surface bright- ness, but also on the exact pipeline used to detect objects. Tradi- tional pipelines, such as those used in the SDSS and HSC surveys, are generally excellent for detecting high surface brightness galax- ies in non-crowded ﬁelds, but they have not been optimized for 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 diffuse dwarf galaxy detection, making them susceptible to sur- Redshift face brightness selection effects (e.g., Kniazev et al. 2004). Further work will be required to optimize detection methods for dwarfs and to characterize more precise completeness limits. We cannot Figure 1. Stellar mass completeness of lensing surveys. The black solid line say whether COSMOS or HSC can reliably detect dwarfs with corresponds to the COSMOS2015 catalog. The grey shaded region indicates log M /M ∼ 7.0 at z ∼ 0.05, however, based on our tests, the ∗ ⊙ where surface brightness effects may impact completeness estimates. HSC detection of dwarfs with log M /M > 8.0 at z < 0.2 should be ∗ ⊙ and Euclid have roughly the same mass sensitivity as COSMOS2015. LSST robust. will be more complete than COSMOS2015 by 0.36 dex. WFIRST adds an extra ≈0.43 dex in terms of completeness compared to COSMOS2015. Sur- face brightness effects will need to be investigated in further detail, espe- 2.2 LSST, Euclid, and WFIRST cially for LSST and WFIRST. We do not have the same galaxy-injection tools in place yet for other surveys. Hence, to estimate the completeness limits for other depth of the Euclid r + i + z wide ﬁeld imaging. For simplicity, we surveys, we adopt the following simple approximation. Due to the assume here that Euclid will have roughly the same mass sensitivity physics of stellar evolution, the stellar mass is strongly correlated as COSMOS (i = 25.9) and HSC (i = 26.4). with the rest-frame optical ﬂux in the 0.4-2μm range (see e.g. The Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST) is a Bruzual & Charlot 2003 or Maraston 2005) with a secondary de- 2.4m telescope NASA mission with a launch in 2024 (Spergel et al. pendence on the age of the stellar population. So the primary sur- 2015). WFIRST will be NIR selected in the 1-2μm wavelength vey characteristic of interest for mass completeness is the depth of range and is anticipated to reach a depth of 25.8-26.7 ABmag over the survey data in this rest frame wavelength range. At the redshifts ∼ 2, 200 square degrees depending on the ﬁlter . To estimate the of z < 0.3 we are interested in for this paper the depth in the i mass completeness of WFIRST, we scale the i-band depth as de- band (observed ∼ 0.75μm) or the deepest band red-ward of i is scribed previously, and add 0.1 dex for the red selection. With this a good proxy. For simplicity we will scale the survey complete- calculation, WFIRST is 0.42 dex more sensitive in mass than COS- ness to those depths. As long as the relative depths of the 0.3-1μm MOS. photometry are similar to COSMOS this should be a good proxy Figure 1 displays the mass completeness limits of these sur- at z < 0.3. We therefore scale the COSMOS completeness limits veys as a function of redshift. Columns 2 and 3 in 1 indicate the as Δi/2.5 where Δi it the difference in i-band depth compared to mass completeness limits for the surveys under consideration at COSMOS (5σ point source). z = 0.1 and z = 0.3. Of the surveys under consideration, WFIRST The LSST (Ivezic´ et al. 2008) will be a large wide-ﬁeld and LSST will have the greatest potential for pushing to low halo ground-based system with a 8.4 m (6.5 m effective) primary mass. They may be capable of detecting dwarf lens galaxies with mirror. LSST begins operations in 2023 and plans to map out masses below log(M ) = 7 at z < 0.1. But further work will be 18,000 deg . The 10-year 5σ point source depth of i = 26.8 required to investigate the impact of surface brightness effects and (LSST Science Collaboration et al. 2009). By scaling the i-band to develop adapted detection algorithms. sensitivity with respect to COSMOS, we ﬁnd that the 10-year LSST optical imaging will therefore be 0.36 dex more sensitive in mass than COSMOS. Euclid is a European space mission with a 1.2m primary mir- 3 FORECAST METHODOLOGY ror and with an expected launch in 2020 (Laureijs et al. 2011). Over We now consider how well ongoing and future surveys will be able 6 years, Euclid will conduct both an imaging and a spectroscopic 2 to measure the galaxy-galaxy lensing signal for dwarf lenses. Here, survey over the lowest background 15000 deg of the extragalactic we set aside the question of how to determine redshifts for dwarfs, sky. The Euclid catalog will be selected in a broad r + i + z ﬁlter as well as the impact of lensing systematic errors. We focus only on similar to, but wider than, the HST F814W ﬁlter. For Euclid, the depth in the wide ﬁeld will be 26.3 ABmag (5σ point source, H. Hoekstra et al. priv comm) over 15,000 square degrees. Compli- The quoted depth is deeper than the the one typically quoted for lensing mentary data will be obtained in grizY JH bands from the ground because the lensing source catalog typically cuts at SN> 20 which is 1.5 and from the Euclid Near-Infrared channel. Here we consider the mag brighter than the limits quoted here. MNRAS 000, 000–000 (0000) SB effects log (M ) 10 * 4 Leauthaud et al. Table 1. Estimated completeness limits and lensing parameters. The completeness limits may be optimistic given possible surface brightness effects. This will be investigated in future work. Survey M limit at M limit at Area in N source Mean redshift ∗ ∗ 2 2 z = 0.1 z = 0.3 deg per arcmin of sources hz i COSMOS 7.3 8.1 1.64 39 1.2 HSC Wide 7.3 8.1 1000 18.5 0.81 LSST Wide 6.94 7.74 18,000 30 1.2 Euclid Wide 7.3 8.1 15,000 30 0.9 WFIRST HLS 6.9 7.68 2,400 45 1.1 estimating the statistical uncertainties on the lensing signal given a 3.3 Computation of Signal-to-noise dwarf lens sample with known redshifts. We now use the survey parameters above to predict the errors on ∗ ∗ the ΔΣ proﬁles at log(M ) = 8 and log(M ) = 9. We assume one redshift bin extending from z = 0 to z = 0.25. The mean 3.1 Amplitude of Dwarf Lensing Signal redshift of lenses is z = 0.18. We use the same COSMOS SMF as To generate forecasts, we ﬁrst need predictions for the expected in Leauthaud et al in prep. to compute to number density of dwarfs amplitude of the lensing signal around dwarfs lenses. For this, we within a given mass and redshift range. adopt the results from Leauthaud et al in prep. These are brieﬂy Our methodology for computing the expected errors for ΔΣ summarized below. follows Singh et al. (2017). We brieﬂy summarize the salient fea- The expected signal is generated directly from the Bolshoi tures of this computation and refer the reader to Singh et al. (2017) Planck N-body simulation (Klypin et al. 2016). The Bolshoi Planck for further details. In short, the gaussian covariance for ΔΣ is given 3 3 simulation has a box size of Lbox=(250 Mpc/h) , 2048 particles, by: 8 10 a particle mass of m = 1.5 × 10 M , and resolves 10 M p ⊙ ⊙ Σ (χ , χ ) halos. We use a snapshot at a = 0.78 or z = 0.28. A ﬁve pa- s g ′ c ′ Cov(ΔΣ(r ), ΔΣ(r )) ≈ dk k J (k r )J (k r ) p p ⊥ ⊥ 2 ⊥ p 2 ⊥ p rameter stellar-to-halo mass relation with mass dependent scatter V was used to populate the Bolshoi simulation with mock galaxies down to log(M /M ) = 8. The parameters of this model were ∗ ⊙ 1 σ (P (k ) + )(P (k ) + ) + P (k ) , (1) gg ⊥ κκ ⊥ ⊥ gκ ﬁt to the COSMOS stellar mass function (SMF) as well as to a n n g s galaxy-galaxy lensing signal measured for a dwarf sample with where χ and χ are the comoving distances to lens and source g s log(M /M ) ∼ 8.5. Both the SMF and the lensing help to en- ∗ ⊙ galaxies. We use the mean redshift for source galaxies as speciﬁed sure that the resulting mock catalog has a realistic population of in Table 1. dwarf galaxies. Further details are given in Leauthaud et al in prep. For the power spectrum, we use the HaloFit non linear power Using the mock catalog described above, we can predict the spectrum (Smith et al. 2003; Takahashi et al. 2012). For the galaxy amplitude of the galaxy-galaxy lensing observable (ΔΣ) for dwarfs power spectrum, we use linear galaxy bias with the non-linear mat- with log(M /M ) > 8. The predicted signal is computed from ter power spectrum. The galaxy-matter power spectrum (Σ P ) is c gκ Bolshoi by selecting dwarfs in a narrow mass range and then cross- obtained by direct inverse hankel transform of ΔΣ. correlating this sample with the dark matter particles of the simula- The convergence power spectrum, P in units of P (k) is κκ tion. More speciﬁcally, we use the delta sigma function in Halo- given by: tools (Hearin et al. 2017) to generate our model predictions. We select mock galaxies in two narrow mass bins centered 2 ρ χ ∗ ∗ P (k ) = dχ P (k ) (2) κκ ⊥ mm ⊥ around log(M ) = 8 and log(M ) = 9. The predicted ΔΣ pro- Σ (χ , χ) χ c s ﬁles are shown in Figure 2. This signal includes contributions from both central and satellite galaxies. Our computation includes all terms relevant for the discon- nected or gaussian covariance. However, we do not account for the effects of survey masks and selection functions, including the clus- 3.2 Survey Parameters tering of source galaxies. We also ignore contributions from the connected covariance which includes super sample covariance, as Here we list the survey parameters assumed to generate forecasts. well as the trispectrum between galaxies and shear. We estimate These numbers are also summarized in Table 1. that ignoring these teams will lead to S/N estimates that will be • For the HSC wide layer, we assume an area of 1000 deg , a over optimistic by up to ∼25%. To account for this, we apply a source density of 18.5 galaxies per arcmin , and a mean source ∼25% reduction in the S/N estimates reported in Table 2. redshift of z = 0.81 (Hikage et al. 2019). • For the main LSST survey, we assume an area of 18,000 2 2 deg , a source density of 30 galaxies per arcmin with z = 1.2 4 RESULTS (Chang et al. 2013; Chan et al. 2015). • For the Euclid wide layer we assume 15,000 deg , 30 Using the methodology described above, we compute the expected galaxies/arcmin , and a mean source redshift of 0.9. ΔΣ signal, and the errors on this signal. We consider two narrow ∗ ∗ • Finally, we assume that the WFIRST High Latitude Survey mass bins centered at log(M ) = 8 and log(M ) = 9 and with a (HLS) will observe 2,400 deg and will yield a source density of bin width of 0.2 dex. We assume one redshift bin from 0 < z < 54 galaxies per arcmin at a mean redshift of z = 1.1. 0.25 with lenses at a mean redshift of z = 0.18. MNRAS 000, 000–000 (0000) Dwarf Lensing 5 Figure 2 shows the expected amplitude of ΔΣ for these two up (e.g. Eriksen et al. 2019). Finally, it will also be interesting to mass bins and for radial scales below R < 500 kpc. Figure 2 also consider these in combination with machine learning methods for displays the predicted diagonal errors on ΔΣ for the HSC wide extracting dwarf samples from deep imaging surveys. survey, Euclid, WFIRST, and LSST. Based on our mocks, the mean halo mass of the log(M ) = 8 sample is log(M ) = 10.91 and the mean halo mass of the 200m 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS log(M ) = 9 sample is log(M200m) = 11.25. The signal shown In this paper, we show that the advent of new photometric lensing in Figure 2 is therefore a combination of the dark matter halos asso- surveys that are both deep and wide will open up the possibility ciated with central dwarfs (the “one halo” term at R < 84.55 200m ∗ ∗ of direct measurements of the dark matter halos of dwarf galaxies kpc and rR = 113.44 kpc for log(M ) = 8 and log(M ) = 200m with gravitational lensing. Deep photometry (i∼26 mag) over wide 9 respectively), with satellite galaxies, and the signal arising from areas (A > 1000 deg ) will enable the extraction of large enough correlated structure at r > R (the so-called “two halo term”). 200m samples of dwarf galaxies at z ∼ 0.1 to push galaxy-galaxy lensing We now computed the expected S/N of the detections shown measurements to the dwarf scale. in Figure 2 and report the corresponding values in Table 2. We con- The HSC wide survey will be the ﬁrst with the capability of sider radial scales that correspond both to the one-halo term but measuring the lensing signal for dwarfs with high signal-to-noise. also at r < 500 kpc (physical) which also includes contributions The signal will be detected with enough signiﬁcance to measure from the two-halo term. the signal in ﬁne bins of mass (here the bins are only 0.2 dex in The HSC wide survey will be the ﬁrst with the capability of width). LSST will have the most overall constraining power. We measuring the lensing signal for dwarfs with high signal-to-noise. ﬁnd that LSST will be able to measure the lensing signal with a The signal will be detected with enough signiﬁcance to measure the signal-to-noise in excess of 200 at log(M ) > 8. Finally, WFIRST signal in ﬁne bins of mass (here the bins are only 0.2 dex in width). and LSST will have the greatest potential for pushing below the At r < 500 kpc, the HSC wide survey will be able to measure the log(M ) = 7 mass scale. lensing signal with a signal-to-noise of 37 at log(M ) = 8 and 46 HSC and other deep+wide lensing surveys will detect signiﬁ- at log(M ) = 9. In the one-halo regime, the predicted S/N of the ∗ ∗ cant numbers of dwarf galaxies at z ∼ 0.1. However, further work detection is 8 at log(M ) = 8 and 15 at log(M ) = 9. will be required in order to develop optimized strategies for de- Considering all of the lensing surveys taken together, LSST termining redshifts and for extracting dwarfs samples from these will have the most constraining power. We ﬁnd that LSST will be surveys. able to measure the lensing signal with a signal-to-noise of 208 at ∗ ∗ Studies of the dark matter halos of dwarf galaxies with gravita- log(M ) = 8 and 261 at log(M ) = 9 at r < 500 kpc! In the tional lensing is soon within reach. The combination of small scale one-halo regime, the predicted S/N of the detection for LSST is 47 ∗ ∗ kinematics and weak lensing on larger scales will be a new pow- at log(M ) = 8 and 84 at log(M ) = 9. erful tool to constrain the halo masses and inner density slopes of WFIRST and LSST will have the greatest capability of push- ∗ dwarf galaxies and to distinguish between baryonic feedback and ing below the log(M ) = 7 mass scale thanks to the depth of their modiﬁed DM scenarios. imaging data. Exactly how low mass they will probe is likely to de- pend on surface brightness effects and whether or not the detection pipelines are optimized to detect faint and low surface brightness objects. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In order to disentangle baryonic effects from non baryonic so- We thank Clotilde Laigle for providing the COSMOS point source lutions to the cusp-core controversy (such as self-interacting dark sensitivity. We thank Henk Hoekstra for proving the Euclid point matter), it will become interesting to try and push the galaxy-galaxy source sensitivity. This material is based upon work supported by lensing measurement down to the smallest radial scales possible to the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1714610. This probe the inner dark matter proﬁle. Kobayashi et al. (2015) have research was also supported in part by National Science Foundation shown that statistically speaking this “small scale lensing” mea- under Grant No. NSF PHY11-25915. AL acknowledges support surement is possible. However, pushing the lensing signal down to from the David and Lucille Packard foundation and from the Alfred r < 20 kpc will require the development of methods capable of ac- P. Sloan foundation. curately measure the lensing signal in the presence of strong prox- imity and blending effects. On these very small scales (R < 100 kpc), are forecasts are optimistic because they do not account for REFERENCES loss of source galaxies due of masking and blending effects. Our results and the signal-to-noise values in Table 2 demon- Aihara H., et al., 2018, PASJ, 70, S4 strate that that studies of the dark matter halos of dwarfs will not Blanton M. R., Lupton R. H., Schlegel D. J., Strauss M. A., Brinkmann J., be limited by lensing signal-to-noise. Rather, lensing at the dwarf Fukugita M., Loveday J., 2005, ApJ, 631, 208 Brooks A. M., Kuhlen M., Zolotov A., Hooper D., 2013, ApJ, 765, 22 scale will be limited by our ability to accurately obtain redshifts for Bruzual G., Charlot S., 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000 dwarf lenses. Chan T. K., Keresˇ D., On˜orbe J., Hopkins P. F., Muratov A. L., Faucher- We have shown in Section 2 that HSC, and future lensing sur- Gigue`re C.-A., Quataert E., 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2981 veys, will be deep enough to detect large samples of dwarfs. How- Chang C., et al., 2013, MNRAS, 434, 2121 ever, these surveys are photometric, and do not provide the redshifts Danieli S., van Dokkum P., Conroy C., 2018, ApJ, 856, 69 that will be necessary to select low redshift dwarf lens samples. Di Cintio A., Brook C. B., Maccio` A. V., Stinson G. S., Knebe A., Dutton Further work will be required to study methods for obtaining red- A. A., Wadsley J., 2014, MNRAS, 437, 415 shifts. For example, it will be important to consider the feasibility Eriksen M., et al., 2019, MNRAS, 484, 4200 of, and trade-offs between: wide ﬁeld direct spectroscopic follow- Governato F., et al., 2010, Nature, 463, 203 up, prism/grism based redshifts, and narrow-band imaging follow- Governato F., et al., 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1231 MNRAS 000, 000–000 (0000) 6 Leauthaud et al. * * 7.9<log(M )<8.1 HSC wide15 8.9<log(M )<9.1 HSC wide Euclid Euclid WFIRST WFIRST LSST LSST 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 R [Mpc] R [Mpc] Figure 2. Predicted lensing signal and errors for the ΔΣ proﬁle around dwarf lens galaxies. The left hand panel corresponds to dwarfs with log(M ) = 8 and the right hand panel corresponds to dwarfs with log(M ) = 9. Errors correspond to a lens samples selected within a narrow mass range (0.2 dex bin width) and for 0 < z < 0.25. Predicted diagonal errors are shown for HSC wide survey (blue), Euclid (orange), WFIRST (red), and LSST (green). Table 2. Predicted signal-to-noise for two mass bins of width 0.2 dex and for 0 < z < 0.25. ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ Survey log(M )=8 and r < 500 kpc log(M )=9 and r < 500 kpc log(M )=8 and r < 84.55 kpc log(M )=9 and r < 113.44 kpc HSC Wide 37 46 8 15 LSST Wide 208 261 47 84 Euclid Wide 184 231 41 74 WFIRST HLS 92 153 21 37 Greco J. P., et al., 2018, ApJ, 857, 104 Tomozeiu M., Mayer L., Quinn T., 2016, ApJ, 827, L15 Hearin A. P., et al., 2017, AJ, 154, 190 Hikage C., et al., 2019, PASJ, Ivezic´ Z., et al., 2008, preprint, (arXiv:0805.2366) Kazantzidis S., Mayer L., Mastropietro C., Diemand J., Stadel J., Moore B., 2004, ApJ, 608, 663 Klypin A., Yepes G., Gottlo¨ber S., Prada F., Heß S., 2016, MNRAS, 457, 4340 Kniazev A. Y., Grebel E. K., Pustilnik S. A., Pramskij A. G., Kniazeva T. F., Prada F., Harbeck D., 2004, AJ, 127, 704 Kobayashi M. I. N., Leauthaud A., More S., Okabe N., Laigle C., Rhodes J., Takeuchi T. T., 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2128 LSST Science Collaboration et al., 2009, preprint, (arXiv:0912.0201) Laigle C., et al., 2016, ApJS, 224, 24 Laureijs R., et al., 2011, preprint, (arXiv:1110.3193) Leauthaud A., et al., 2012, ApJ, 746, 95 Maraston C., 2005, MNRAS, 362, 799 McConnachie A. W., 2012, AJ, 144, 4 On˜orbe J., Boylan-Kolchin M., Bullock J. S., Hopkins P. F., Keresˇ D., Faucher-Gigue`re C.-A., Quataert E., Murray N., 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2092 Oh S.-H., et al., 2015, AJ, 149, 180 Pontzen A., Governato F., 2012, MNRAS, 421, 3464 Pontzen A., Governato F., 2014, Nature, 506, 171 Scoville N., et al., 2007, ApJS, 172, 1 Singh S., Mandelbaum R., Seljak U., Slosar A., Vazquez Gonzalez J., 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3827 Smith R. E., et al., 2003, MNRAS, 341, 1311 Spergel D., et al., 2013, preprint, (arXiv:1305.5425) Spergel D., et al., 2015, preprint, (arXiv:1503.03757) Takahashi R., Sato M., Nishimichi T., Taruya A., Oguri M., 2012, ApJ, 761, 152 Tollet E., et al., 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3542 MNRAS 000, 000–000 (0000) -2 ΔΣ [ M pc ] O • R200m ΔΣ [ M • pc -2 ] R200m http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Astrophysics arXiv (Cornell University) http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/arxiv-cornell-university/deep-wide-lensing-surveys-will-provide-exquisite-measurements-of-the-cJpVzFR01x

Loading next page...

References (42)

A. Pontzen, Fabio Cosmology, Cambridge, U. Washington, Seattle (2011)
How supernova feedback turns dark matter cusps into cores
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 421
N. Scoville, N. Scoville, H. Aussel, M. Brusa, P. Capak, C. Carollo, M. Elvis, M. Giavalisco, L. Guzzo, G. Hasinger, C. Impey, J. Kneib, O. LeFèvre, S. Lilly, B. Mobasher, A. Renzini, A. Renzini, R. Rich, D. Sanders, E. Schinnerer, E. Schinnerer, D. Schminovich, P. Shopbell, Y. Taniguchi, N. Tyson (2006)
The Cosmic Evolution Survey (COSMOS): Overview
The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 172
A. Klypin, G. Yepes, S. Gottlober, F. Prada, S. Hess (2014)
MultiDark simulations: the story of dark matter halo concentrations and density profiles
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 457
Governato (2010)
Bulgeless dwarf galaxies and dark matter cores from supernova-driven outflows
Nature, 463
Sukhdeep Singh, R. Mandelbaum, U. Seljak, A. Slosar, Jose Gonzalez (2016)
Galaxy–galaxy lensing estimators and their covariance properties
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 471
R. Laureijs, J. Amiaux, S. Arduini, J. Auguères, J. Brinchmann, R. Cole, M. Cropper, C. Dabin, L. Duvet, A. Ealet, B. Garilli, P. Gondoin, L. Guzzo, J. Hoar, H. Hoekstra, R. Holmes, T. Kitching, T. Maciaszek, Y. Mellier, F. Pasian, W. Percival, J. Rhodes, G. Criado, M. Sauvage, R. Scaramella, L. Valenziano, S. Warren, R. Bender, F. Castander, A. Cimatti, O. Fèvre, H. Kurki-Suonio, M. Levi, P. Lilje, G. Meylan, R. Nichol, K. Pedersen, V. Popa, R. Lopez, H. Rix, H. Rottgering, W. Zeilinger, F. Grupp, P. Hudelot, R. Massey, M. Meneghetti, L. Miller, S. Paltani, S. Paulin-Henriksson, S. Pires, C. Saxton, T. Schrabback, G. Seidel, J. Walsh, N. Aghanim, L. Amendola, J. Bartlett, C. Baccigalupi, J. Beaulieu, K. Benabed, J. Cuby, D. Elbaz, P. Fosalba, G. Gavazzi, A. Helmi, I. Hook, M. Irwin, J. Kneib, M. Kunz, F. Mannucci, L. Moscardini, C. Tao, R. Teyssier, J. Weller, G. Zamorani, M. Osorio, O. Boulade, J. Foumond, A. Giorgio, P. Guttridge, A. James, M. Kemp, J. Martignac, A. Spencer, D. Walton, T. Blumchen, C. Bonoli, F. Bortoletto, C. Cerna, L. Corcione, C. Fabron, K. Jahnke, S. Ligori, F. Madrid, L. Martin, G. Morgante, T. Pamplona, É. Prieto, M. Riva, R. Toledo, M. Trifoglio, F. Zerbi, F. Abdalla, M. Douspis, C. Grenet, S. Borgani, R. Bouwens, F. Courbin, J. Delouis, P. Dubath, A. Fontana, M. Frailis, A. Grazian, J. Koppenhofer, O. Mansutti, M. Melchior, M. Mignoli, J. Mohr, C. Neißner, K. Noddle, M. Poncet, M. Scodeggio, S. Serrano, N. Shane, J. Starck, C. Surace, A. Taylor, G. Verdoes-Kleijn, C. Vuerli, O. Williams, A. Zacchei, B. Altieri, I. Sanz, R. Kohley, T. Oosterbroek, P. Astier, D. Bacon, S. Bardelli, C. Baugh, F. Bellagamba, C. Benoist, D. Bianchi, A. Biviano, E. Branchini, C. Carbone, V. Cardone, D. Clements, S. Colombi, C. Conselice, G. Cresci, N. Deacon, J. Dunlop, C. Fedeli, F. Fontanot, P. Franzetti, C. Giocoli, J. García-Bellido, J. Gow, A. Heavens, P. Hewett, C. Heymans, A. Holland, Z. Huang, O. Ilbert, B. Joachimi, E. Jennins, E. Kerins, A. Kiessling, D. Kirk, R. Kotak, O. Krause, O. Lahav, F. Leeuwen, J. Lesgourgues, M. Lombardi, M. Magliocchetti, K. Maguire, E. Majerotto, R. Maoli, F. Marulli, S. Maurogordato, H. McCracken, R. McLure, A. Melchiorri, A. Merson, Michele Moresco, M. Nonino, P. Norberg, J. Peacock, R. Pelló, M. Penny, V. Pettorino, C. Porto, L. Pozzetti, C. Quercellini, M. Radovich, A. Rassat, N. Roche, S. Ronayette, E. Rossetti, B. Sartoris, P. Schneider, E. Semboloni, S. Serjeant, F. Simpson, C. Skordis, G. Smadja, S. Smartt, P. Spano, S. Spiro, M. Sullivan, A. Tilquin, R. Trotta, L. Verde, Y. Wang, G. Williger, G. Zhao, J. Zoubian, E. Zucca (2011)
Euclid Definition Study Report
É. Tollet, A. Macciò, A. Dutton, G. Stinson, Liang-Yao Wang, Camilla Penzo, T. Gutcke, T. Buck, X. Kang, C. Brook, A. Cintio, B. Keller, J. Wadsley (2015)
NIHAO – IV: core creation and destruction in dark matter density profiles across cosmic time
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456
S. Kazantzidis, Lucio Mayer, C. Mastropietro, J. Diemand, J. Stadel, B. Moore (2003)
Density Profiles of Cold Dark Matter Substructure: Implications for the Missing-Satellites Problem
The Astrophysical Journal, 608
S. Danieli, P. Dokkum, C. Conroy (2017)
Hunting Faint Dwarf Galaxies in the Field Using Integrated Light Surveys
The Astrophysical Journal, 856
L. Abell, J. Allison, S. Anderson, J. Andrew, J. Angel, L. Armus, D. Arnett, S. Asztalos, T. Axelrod, S. Bailey, D. Ballantyne, J. Bankert, W. Barkhouse, J. Barr, L. Barrientos, A. Barth, J. Bartlett, A. Becker, J. Becla, T. Beers, J. Bernstein, R. Biswas, M. Blanton, J. Bloom, J. Bochanski, P. Boeshaar, K. Borne, M. Bradač, W. Brandt, C. Bridge, M. Brown, R. Brunner, J. Bullock, A. Burgasser, J. Burge, D. Burke, P. Cargile, Srinivasan Chandrasekharan, G. Chartas, S. Chesley, Y. Chu, D. Cinabro, M. Claire, C. Claver, D. Clowe, A. Connolly, K. Cook, J. Cooke, A. Cooray, K. Covey, C. Culliton, R. Jong, W. Vries, V. Debattista, F. Delgado, I. Dell’Antonio, S. Dhital, R. Stefano, M. Dickinson, B. Dilday, S. Djorgovski, G. Dobler, C. Donalek, G. Dubois-Felsmann, J. Ďurech, Á. Elíasdóttir, M. Eracleous, L. Eyer, E. Falco, Xiaohui Fan, C. Fassnacht, H. Ferguson, Y. Fernández, B. Fields, D. Finkbeiner, E. Figueroa, D. Fox, H. Francke, J. Frank, J. Frieman, S. Fromenteau, M. Furqan, G. Galaz, A. Gal-yam, P. Garnavich, E. Gawiser, J. Geary, P. Gee, R. Gibson, K. Gilmore, E. Grace, R. Green, W. Gressler, C. Grillmair, S. Habib, J. Haggerty, M. Hamuy, A. Harris, S. Hawley, A. Heavens, L. Hebb, T. Henry, E. Hileman, E. Hilton, K. Hoadley, J. Holberg, M. Holman, S. Howell, L. Infante, Ž. Ivezić, S. Jacoby, B. Jain, Jedicke, M. Jee, J. Jernigan, S. Jha, K. Johnston, R. Jones, M. Jurić, M. Kaasalainen, S. Kafka, S. Kahn, N. Kaib, J. Kalirai, J. Kantor, M. Kasliwal, C. Keeton, R. Kessler, Z. Knežević, A. Kowalski, V. Krabbendam, K. Krughoff, S. Kulkarni, S. Kuhlman, M. Lacy, S. Lépine, M. Liang, A. Lien, P. Lira, K. Long, S. Lorenz, J. Lotz, R. Lupton, J. Lutz, L. Macri, A. Mahabal, R. Mandelbaum, P. Marshall, M. May, P. McGehee, B. Meadows, A. Meert, A. Milani, C. Miller, Michelle Miller, D. Mills, D. Minniti, D. Monet, A. Mukadam, E. Nakar, D. Neill, J. Newman, S. Nikolaev, M. Nordby, P. O'connor, M. Oguri, J. Oliver, S. Olivier, J. Olsen, K. Olsen, E. Olszewski, H. Oluseyi, N. Padilla, A. Parker, J. Pepper, J. Peterson, C. Petry, P. Pinto, J. Pizagno, B. Popescu, A. Prša, Veljko Radcka, M. Raddick, A. Rasmussen, A. Rau, J. Rho, J. Rhoads, G. Richards, S. Ridgway, B. Robertson, R. Rǒskar, A. Saha, A. Sarajedini, E. Scannapieco, T. Schalk, R. Schindler, S. Schmidt, S. Schmidt, D. Schneider, G. Schumacher, R. Scranton, J. Sebag, L. Seppala, O. Shemmer, J. Simon, M. Sivertz, H. Smith, J. Smith, N. Smith, A. Spitz, A. Stanford, K. Stassun, J. Strader, M. Strauss, C. Stubbs, D. Sweeney, A. Szalay, P. Szkody, M. Takada, P. Thorman, D. Trilling, V. Trimble, A. Tyson, R. Berg, D. Berk, J. Vanderplas, L. Verde, B. Vršnak, L. Walkowicz, B. Wandelt, Sheng Wang, Yun Wang, M. Warner, R. Wechsler, A. West, O. Wiecha, B. Williams, B. Willman, D. Wittman, S. Wolff, W. Wood-Vasey, P. Wozniak, P. Young, A. Zentner, H. Zhan (2009)
LSST Science Book, Version 2.0
arXiv: Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics
Chihway Chang, M. Jarvis, B. Jain, S. Kahn, D. Kirkby, A. Connolly, S. Krughoff, E. Peng, J. Peterson (2013)
The effective number density of galaxies for weak lensing measurements in the LSST project
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 434
A. Leauthaud, M. George, P. Behroozi, K. Bundy, J. Tinker, R. Wechsler, C. Conroy, A. Finoguenov, Masayuki Tanaka (2011)
THE INTEGRATED STELLAR CONTENT OF DARK MATTER HALOS
The Astrophysical Journal, 746
vZeljko Ivezi'c, S. Kahn, J. Tyson, B. Abel, Emily Acosta, R. Allsman, D. Alonso, Y. AlSayyad, S. Anderson, J. Andrew, J. Angel, G. Angeli, R. Ansari, P. Antilogus, C. Araujo, R. Armstrong, K. Arndt, P. Astier, 'Eric Aubourg, Nicole Auza, T. Axelrod, D. Bard, J. Barr, A. Barrau, J. Bartlett, A. Bauer, Brian Bauman, S. Baumont, A. Becker, J. Becla, C. Beldica, S. Bellavia, F. Bianco, R. Biswas, G. Blanc, J. Blazek, R. Blandford, J. Bloom, J. Bogart, T. Bond, A. Borgland, K. Borne, J. Bosch, D. Boutigny, Craig Brackett, A. Bradshaw, W. Brandt, M. Brown, J. Bullock, P. Burchat, D. Burke, G. Cagnoli, D. Calabrese, S. Callahan, Alice Callen, Srinivasan Chandrasekharan, Glenaver Charles-Emerson, S. Chesley, E. Cheu, Hsin-Fang Chiang, J. Chiang, Carol Chirino, Der-Mei. Chow, D. Ciardi, C. Claver, J. Cohen-Tanugi, Joseph Cockrum, R. Coles, A. Connolly, K. Cook, A. Cooray, K. Covey, C. Cribbs, Wei Cui, R. Cutri, P. Daly, S. Daniel, F. Daruich, G. Daubard, G. Daues, W. Dawson, F. Delgado, A. Dellapenna, Robert Peyster, Miguel Val-Borro, S. Digel, P. Doherty, R. Dubois, G. Dubois-Felsmann, J. Ďurech, F. Economou, M. Eracleous, H. Ferguson, Enrique Figueroa, M. Fisher-Levine, W. Focke, M. Foss, J. Frank, M. Freemon, E. Gangler, E. Gawiser, J. Geary, P. Gee, M. Geha, C. Gessner, R. Gibson, D. Gilmore, T. Glanzman, W. Glick, T. Goldina, D. Goldstein, Iain Goodenow, M. Graham, W. Gressler, P. Gris, L. Guy, A. Guyonnet, G. Haller, Ronald Harris, P. Hascall, J. Haupt, Fabio Hernandez, S. Herrmann, E. Hileman, J. Hoblitt, J. Hodgson, C. Hogan, Dajun Huang, M. Huffer, P. Ingraham, W. Innes, S. Jacoby, B. Jain, Fabrice Jammes, J. Jee, T. Jenness, G. Jernigan, Darko Jevremovi'c, Kenneth Johns, A. Johnson, Margaret Johnson, R. Jones, C. Juramy-Gilles, Mario Juri'c, J. Kalirai, N. Kallivayalil, B. Kalmbach, J. Kantor, P. Karst, M. Kasliwal, H. Kelly, R. Kessler, Veronica Kinnison, D. Kirkby, L. Knox, I. Kotov, V. Krabbendam, K. Krughoff, P. Kub'anek, J. Kuczewski, S. Kulkarni, J. Ku, N. Kurita, C. Lage, R. Lambert, T. Lange, J. Langton, L. Guillou, Deborah Levine, M. Liang, Kian-Tat Lim, C. Lintott, Kevin Long, Margaux Lopez, P. Lotz, R. Lupton, N. Lust, L. Macarthur, A. Mahabal, R. Mandelbaum, D. Marsh, P. Marshall, S. Marshall, M. May, R. McKercher, M. Mcqueen, J. Meyers, M. Migliore, Michelle Miller, D. Mills, C. Miraval, Joachim Moeyens, D. Monet, M. Moniez, S. Monkewitz, C. Montgomery, Fritz Mueller, G. Muller, Freddy Arancibia, D. Neill, S. Newbry, Jean-Yves Nief, A. Nomerotski, M. Nordby, P. O'connor, J. Oliver, S. Olivier, K. Olsen, W. O'Mullane, Sandra Ortiz, S. Osier, R. Owen, R. Pain, Paul Palecek, J. Parejko, James Parsons, N. Pease, J. Peterson, J. Peterson, D. Petravick, M. Petrick, C. Petry, F. Pierfederici, Stephen Pietrowicz, Robin Pike, P. Pinto, R. Plante, S. Plate, P. Price, M. Prouza, V. Radeka, J. Rajagopal, A. Rasmussen, N. Regnault, K. Reil, D. Reiss, Michael Reuter, S. Ridgway, V. Riot, S. Ritz, S. Robinson, W. Roby, A. Roodman, W. Rosing, C. Roucelle, M. Rumore, S. Russo, A. Saha, B. Sassolas, T. Schalk, P. Schellart, R. Schindler, S. Schmidt, D. Schneider, M. Schneider, W. Schoening, G. Schumacher, M. Schwamb, J. Sebag, Brian Selvy, G. Sembroski, L. Seppala, Andrew Serio, Eduardo Serrano, R. Shaw, I. Shipsey, J. Sick, N. Silvestri, C. Slater, J. Smith, R. Smith, S. Sobhani, Christine Soldahl, L. Storrie-Lombardi, Edward Stover, M. Strauss, R. Street, C. Stubbs, I. Sullivan, D. Sweeney, J. Swinbank, A. Szalay, P. Takacs, S. Tether, J. Thaler, J. Thayer, Sandrine Thomas, V. Thukral, J. Tice, D. Trilling, M. Turri, R. Berg, D. Berk, K. Vetter, Françoise Virieux, T. Vucina, W. Wahl, L. Walkowicz, B. Walsh, C. Walter, Daniel Wang, Shin-Ywan Wang, M. Warner, O. Wiecha, B. Willman, S. Winters, D. Wittman, S. Wolff, W. Wood-Vasey, Xiuqin Wu, B. Xin, P. Yoachim, H. Zhan, for Collaboration (2008)
LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products
The Astrophysical Journal, 873
A. Leauthaud, J. Tinker, P. Behroozi, M. Busha, R. Wechsler (2011)
A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR COMBINING TECHNIQUES THAT PROBE THE LINK BETWEEN GALAXIES AND DARK MATTER
The Astrophysical Journal, 738
A. Kniazev, E. Grebel, S. Pustilnik, A. Pramskij, T. Kniazeva, F. Prada, D. Harbeck (2003)
Low Surface Brightness Galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. I. Search Method and Test Sample
The Astronomical Journal, 127
H. Aihara, N. Arimoto, N. Arimoto, R. Armstrong, S. Arnouts, N. Bahcall, S. Bickerton, J. Bosch, K. Bundy, K. Bundy, P. Capak, J. Chan, J. Chan, M. Chiba, J. Coupon, E. Egami, M. Enoki, F. Finet, Hiroki Fujimori, S. Fujimoto, H. Furusawa, J. Furusawa, T. Goto, A. Goulding, J. Greco, J. Greene, J. Gunn, T. Hamana, Y. Harikane, Y. Hashimoto, T. Hattori, M. Hayashi, Yusuke Hayashi, K. Hełminiak, R. Higuchi, C. Hikage, P. Ho, B. Hsieh, Kuiyun Huang, Song Huang, Song Huang, H. Ikeda, M. Imanishi, A. Inoue, K. Iwasawa, I. Iwata, I. Iwata, A. Jaelani, H. Jian, Y. Kamata, H. Karoji, N. Kashikawa, N. Katayama, S. Kawanomoto, I. Kayo, J. Koda, Michitaro Koike, Takashi Kojima, Y. Komiyama, A. Konno, S. Koshida, Y. Koyama, Y. Koyama, H. Kusakabe, A. Leauthaud, A. Leauthaud, Chien-Hsiu Lee, Lihwai Lin, Yen-Ting Lin, R. Lupton, R. Mandelbaum, Y. Matsuoka, E. Medezinski, S. Mineo, S. Miyama, S. Miyama, H. Miyatake, H. Miyatake, S. Miyazaki, R. Momose, A. More, S. More, Y. Moritani, T. Moriya, T. Morokuma, T. Morokuma, Shiro Mukae, Ryoma Murata, Ryoma Murata, Hitoshi Murayama, Hitoshi Murayama, Hitoshi Murayama, T. Nagao, F. Nakata, M. Niida, Hiroko Niikura, Hiroko Niikura, A. Nishizawa, Y. Obuchi, M. Oguri, M. Oguri, Yukie Oishi, N. Okabe, N. Okabe, S. Okamoto, Y. Okura, Y. Ono, M. Onodera, M. Onoue, K. Osato, M. Ouchi, M. Ouchi, P. Price, T. Pyo, M. Sako, M. Sawicki, T. Shibuya, K. Shimasaku, K. Shimasaku, A. Shimono, M. Shirasaki, J. Silverman, M. Simet, J. Speagle, J. Speagle, D. Spergel, M. Strauss, Y. Sugahara, N. Sugiyama, N. Sugiyama, Y. Suto, S. Suyu, S. Suyu, S. Suyu, N. Suzuki, Philip Tait, M. Takada, T. Takata, N. Tamura, Manobu Tanaka, Masaomi Tanaka, Masayuki Tanaka, Yoko Tanaka, T. Terai, Y. Terashima, Y. Toba, N. Tominaga, N. Tominaga, J. Toshikawa, E. Turner, E. Turner, E. Turner, T. Uchida, H. Uchiyama, K. Umetsu, F. Uraguchi, Y. Urata, T. Usuda, Y. Utsumi, Shiang‐Yu Wang, Wei-hao Wang, K. Wong, K. Yabe, Y. Yamada, H. Yamanoi, N. Yasuda, S. Yeh, A. Yonehara, S. Yuma (2017)
The Hyper Suprime-Cam SSP Survey: Overview and Survey Design
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70
A. Brooks, M. Kuhlen, A. Zolotov, D. Hooper (2012)
A BARYONIC SOLUTION TO THE MISSING SATELLITES PROBLEM
The Astrophysical Journal, 765
J. Oñorbe, M. Boylan-Kolchin, J. Bullock, P. Hopkins, Duvsan Kerves, C. Faucher-Giguère, E. Quataert, N. Murray (2015)
Forged in FIRE: cusps, cores and baryons in low-mass dwarf galaxies
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454
Se-Heon Oh, D. Hunter, E. Brinks, B. Elmegreen, A. Schruba, F. Walter, M. Rupen, L. Young, C. Simpson, Megan Johnson, K. Herrmann, Dana Ficut-Vicas, P. Cigan, V. Heesen, Trisha Ashley, Hong-Xin Zhang (2015)
HIGH-RESOLUTION MASS MODELS OF DWARF GALAXIES FROM LITTLE THINGS
The Astronomical Journal, 149
M. Blanton, R. Lupton, D. Schlegel, M. Strauss, J. Brinkmann, M. Fukugita, J. Loveday (2004)
The Properties and Luminosity Function of Extremely Low Luminosity Galaxies
The Astrophysical Journal, 631
R. Smith, R. Smith, J. Peacock, A. Jenkins, S. White, C. Frenk, F. Pearce, P. Thomas, G. Efstathiou, H. Couchman (2002)
Stable clustering, the halo model and non-linear cosmological power spectra
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 341
C. Maraston (2004)
Evolutionary population synthesis: models, analysis of the ingredients and application to high‐z galaxies
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 362
N ov 2 00 9 At the heart of the matter : the origin of bul-geless dwarf galaxies and Dark Matter cores
F. Governato, A. Zolotov, A. Pontzen, C. Christensen, S. Oh, A. Brooks, T. Quinn, S. Shen, J. Washington, Hebrew Oxford, U. Arizona, U. Australia, Caastro, Univ. Wisconson, Ucsc, McMaster Univ. (2012)
Cuspy No More: How Outflows Affect the Central Dark Matter and Baryon Distribution in Lambda CDM Galaxies
arXiv: Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics
(2005)
Evolutionary population synthesis: models
T. Chan, D. Kerevs, J. Oñorbe, P. Hopkins, A. Muratov, C. Faucher-Giguère, E. Diego, Mpia, Caltech, Northwestern, U. Berkeley (2015)
The impact of baryonic physics on the structure of dark matter haloes: the view from the FIRE cosmological simulations
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454
Cuspy no more : how outflows affect the central dark matter and baryon distribution in Λ cold dark matter galaxies
J. Greco, J. Greene, M. Strauss, L. Macarthur, X. Flowers, A. Goulding, Song Huang, J. Kim, Y. Komiyama, A. Leauthaud, L. Leisman, R. Lupton, C. Sif'on, Shiang‐Yu Wang (2017)
Illuminating Low Surface Brightness Galaxies with the Hyper Suprime-Cam Survey
The Astrophysical Journal, 857
D. Spergel, N. Gehrels, C. Baltay, D. Bennett, J. Breckinridge, M. Donahue, A. Dressler, B. Gaudi, T. Greene, O. Guyon, C. Hirata, J. Kalirai, N. Kasdin, B. Macintosh, W. Moos, S. Perlmutter, M. Postman, B. Rauscher, J. Rhodes, Y. Wang, D. Weinberg, D. Benford, M. Hudson, W. Jeong, Y. Mellier, W. Traub, T. Yamada, P. Capak, J. Colbert, D. Masters, M. Penny, D. Savransky, D. Stern, N. Zimmerman, R. Barry, L. Bartusek, K. Carpenter, E. Cheng, D. Content, F. Dekens, R. Demers, K. Grady, C. Jackson, G. Kuan, J. Kruk, M. Melton, B. Nemati, B. Parvin, I. Poberezhskiy, C. Peddie, J. Ruffa, J. Wallace, A. Whipple, Edward Wollack, F. Zhao (2015)
Wide-Field InfrarRed Survey Telescope-Astrophysics Focused Telescope Assets WFIRST-AFTA 2015 Report
(2015)
Forged in FIRE: cusps
Andrew Hearin, D. Campbell, E. Tollerud, P. Behroozi, B. Diemer, N. Goldbaum, E. Jennings, A. Leauthaud, Yao-Yuan Mao, S. More, J. Parejko, Manodeep Sinha, Brigitta Sipöcz, A. Zentner (2016)
Forward Modeling of Large-scale Structure: An Open-source Approach with Halotools
The Astronomical Journal, 154
M. Tomozeiu, L. Mayer, T. Quinn (2016)
TIDAL STIRRING OF SATELLITES WITH SHALLOW DENSITY PROFILES PREVENTS THEM FROM BEING TOO BIG TO FAIL
The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 827
A. McConnachie (2012)
THE OBSERVED PROPERTIES OF DWARF GALAXIES IN AND AROUND THE LOCAL GROUP
The Astronomical Journal, 144
M. Eriksen, A. Alarcon, E. Gaztañaga, A. Amara, L. Cabayol, J. Carretero, F. Castander, M. Crocce, M. Delfino, J. Vicente, E. Fernández, P. Fosalba, J. García-Bellido, H. Hildebrandt, H. Hoekstra, B. Joachimi, P. Norberg, R. Miquel, C. Padilla, A. Réfrégier, E. Sánchez, S. Serrano, I. Sevilla-Noarbe, P. Tallada, N. Tonello, L. Tortorelli (2018)
The PAU Survey: early demonstration of photometric redshift performance in the COSMOS field
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
D. Spergel, N. Gehrels, J. Breckinridge, M. Donahue, A. Dressler, B. Gaudi, T. Greene, O. Guyon, C. Hirata, J. Kalirai, N. Kasdin, W. Moos, S. Perlmutter, M. Postman, B. Rauscher, J. Rhodes, Y. Wang, D. Weinberg, J. Centrella, W. Traub, C. Baltay, J. Colbert, D. Bennett, A. Kiessling, B. Macintosh, J. Merten, M. Mortonson, M. Penny, E. Rozo, D. Savransky, K. Stapelfeldt, Y. Zu, C. Baker, E. Cheng, D. Content, J. Dooley, M. Foote, R. Goullioud, K. Grady, C. Jackson, J. Kruk, M. Levine, M. Melton, C. Peddie, J. Ruffa, S. Shaklan (2013)
WFIRST-2.4: What Every Astronomer Should Know
arXiv: Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics
C. Laigle, H. McCracken, O. Ilbert, B. Hsieh, I. Davidzon, P. Capak, G. Hasinger, J. Silverman, C. Pichon, J. Coupon, H. Aussel, D. Borgne, K. Caputi, P. Cassata, Yu-Yen Chang, F. Civano, F. Civano, J. Dunlop, J. Fynbo, J. Kartaltepe, A. Koekemoer, O. Fèvre, E. Floc’h, A. Leauthaud, S. Lilly, Lihwai Lin, S. Marchesi, S. Marchesi, B. Milvang-Jensen, M. Salvato, D. Sanders, N. Scoville, V. Smolčić, M. Stockmann, Y. Taniguchi, L. Tasca, S. Toft, M. Vaccari, J. Zabl (2016)
THE COSMOS2015 CATALOG: EXPLORING THE 1 < z < 6 UNIVERSE WITH HALF A MILLION GALAXIES
The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 224
A. Cintio, C. Brook, A. Macciò, G. Stinson, A. Knebe, A. Dutton, J. Wadsley (2013)
The dependence of dark matter profiles on the stellar-to-halo mass ratio: a prediction for cusps versus cores
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 437
G. Bruzual, S. Charlot (2003)
Stellar population synthesis at the resolution of 2003
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 344
C. Hikage, M. Oguri, T. Hamana, S. More, R. Mandelbaum, M. Takada, F. Kohlinger, H. Miyatake, A. Nishizawa, H. Aihara, R. Armstrong, J. Bosch, J. Coupon, A. Ducout, P. Ho, B. Hsieh, Y. Komiyama, F. Lanusse, A. Leauthaud, R. Lupton, E. Medezinski, S. Mineo, S. Miyama, S. Miyazaki, Ryoma Murata, H. Murayama, M. Shirasaki, C. Sif'on, M. Simet, J. Speagle, D. Spergel, M. Strauss, N. Sugiyama, Masayuki Tanaka, Y. Utsumi, Shiang‐Yu Wang, Y. Yamada (2018)
Cosmology from cosmic shear power spectra with Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam first-year data
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan
A. Pontzen, F. Governato (2014)
Cold dark matter heats up
Nature, 506
R. Takahashi, Masanori Sato, T. Nishimichi, A. Taruya, M. Oguri (2012)
REVISING THE HALOFIT MODEL FOR THE NONLINEAR MATTER POWER SPECTRUM
The Astrophysical Journal, 761
Masato Kobayashi, A. Leauthaud, S. More, N. Okabe, C. Laigle, J. Rhodes, T. Takeuchi (2015)
Can we use weak lensing to measure total mass profiles of galaxies on 20 kpc scales
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449

ISSN: 2212-6864
eISSN: ARCH-3330
DOI: 10.1016/j.dark.2020.100719
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

MNRAS 000, 000–000 (0000) Preprint 20 May 2019 Compiled using MNRAS LT X style ﬁle v3.0 Deep+Wide Lensing Surveys will Provide Exquisite Measurements of the Dark Matter Halos of Dwarf Galaxies 1 2 1 1 3 Alexie Leauthaud , Sukhdeep Singh , Yifei Luo , Felipe Ardila , Johnny P. Greco , 4,5 6 7 Peter Capak , Jenny E. Greene , Lucio Mayer Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California, Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 USA Berkeley Center for Cosmological Physics, Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley & Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, CA 94720, USA Center for Cosmology and AstroParticle Physics (CCAPP), The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA IPAC, California Institute of Technology, 1200 East California Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91125, USA Cosmic Dawn Center (DAWN) Department of Astrophysical Sciences, 4 Ivy Lane, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 CTAC, Institute for Computational Science, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland 20 May 2019 ABSTRACT The advent of new deep+wide photometric lensing surveys will open up the possibility of direct measurements of the dark matter halos of dwarf galaxies. The HSC wide survey will be the ﬁrst with the statistical capability of measuring the lensing signal with high signal-to- noise at log(M ) ∼ 8. At this same mass scale, LSST will have the most overall constraining power with a predicted signal-to-noise for the galaxy-galaxy lensing signal around dwarfs of SN∼200. WFIRST and LSST will have the greatest potential to push below the log(M ) = 7 mass scale thanks to the depth of their imaging data. Studies of the dark matter halos of dwarf galaxies at z ∼0.1 with gravitational lensing are soon within reach. However, further work will be required to develop optimized strategies for extracting dwarfs samples from these surveys, determining redshifts, and accurately measuring lensing on small radial scales. Dwarf lensing will be a new and powerful tool to constrain the halo masses and inner density slopes of dwarf galaxies and to distinguish between baryonic feedback and modiﬁed dark matter scenarios. Key words: dwarf galaxies, gravitational lensing 1 INTRODUCTION of CDM-based structure formation at small scales, such as the too- big-to-fail problem (e.g., Brooks et al. 2013), perhaps in combina- tion with tidal effects (Tomozeiu et al. 2016). Dwarf galaxies are a unique probe of the nature of dark matter and of the interplay between dark matter and baryonic physics. The By design, all of the models predict a ﬂattening of the in- long standing cusp-core controversy, whereby the rotation curves ner dark matter proﬁle for dwarfs. Hence, measurements of α of many gas-rich dwarfs (dwarf spirals and dwarf irregulars) favor alone are insufﬁcient to distinguish between such models; addi- ﬂatter dark matter proﬁles relative to the cuspy proﬁles predicted tional observables are required. Baryonic feedback models predict by Cold Dark Matter (CDM), can be explained by several com- a strong connection between the ﬂattening of the inner dark mat- peting scenarios (e.g., Pontzen & Governato 2014). Some models ter slope, α, and galaxy properties (stellar mass and star formation invoke modiﬁcations of CDM, such as self-interacting dark mat- efﬁciency or burstiness of the star formation rate, Governato et al. ter (SIDM), while other models rely on baryonic physics, such as 2010; On˜orbe et al. 2015; Di Cintio et al. 2014; Tollet et al. 2016). supernovae-driven outﬂows which can modify the inner slope of the Non baryonic solutions to the cusp-core controversy on the other dark matter proﬁle via potential ﬂuctuations (Governato et al. 2010; hand, do not predict such correlations. A detection of these corre- Pontzen & Governato 2012; On˜orbe et al. 2015; Di Cintio et al. lations would therefore be a powerful argument in favor of bary- 2014; Tollet et al. 2016). All of these competing models predict a onic feedback models over modiﬁcations to CDM. Recent theo- ﬂattening of the innermost dark matter density proﬁle (higher val- retical work has shown that supernovae-driven outﬂows have the ues of α where ρ ∝ r ) on scales of 0.5-1 kpc (referred to as strongest impact on the inner dark matter slope γ in the mass range DM 8 10 the “core” region). These models yield a better description of the 10 − 10 M . At lower mass scales, star formation is too inefﬁ- observed kinematics of dwarf galaxies (e.g., Oh et al. 2015) which cient to generate signiﬁcant mass displacement via outﬂows while favor α ∼ −0.3 over the CDM prediction of α = −1. A ﬂattening at larger mass scales, the potential well is too deep for outﬂows of the inner halo proﬁle may also solve other long-standing issues to be effective at generating potential ﬂuctuations (Governato et al. c 0000 The Authors arXiv:1905.01433v2 [astro-ph.CO] 16 May 2019 2 Leauthaud et al. 2012; Chan et al. 2015; Tollet et al. 2016). Hence, the mass range ogy with Ω = 0.693, σ = 0.823, H = 67.8. We use physical λ 8 0 8 10 M = 10 − 10 M is a “sweet spot” in terms of trying to units for the lensing observable ΔΣ. ∗ ⊙ detect correlations between dwarf properties, the inner dark matter halo slope, and dark matter halo mass. Galaxies properties are straightforward to measure, and kine- 2 COMPLETENESS LIMITS OF UPCOMING SURVEYS matic studies can be used to probe the inner slope α. But the to- Deep+wide photometric data will be required to identify sufﬁcient tal halo mass is the key missing component required to complete numbers of dwarf galaxies to measure halo masses with lensing. In this picture. The THINGS and LITTLE-THINGS 21cm HI surveys, 8 10 this paper, we assume that the dwarf lens samples will be selected which focus on galaxies in the range M = 10 − 10 M , only ∗ ⊙ from the same imaging data used for shape measurements. For this measure the rotation curves of dwarfs on scales up to R = max reason, we begin by estimating the stellar mass completeness limits 5 − 10 kpc (Oh et al. 2015). Hence rotation curves of dwarf galax- ies only yield a measurement of the total mass on scales below of lensing surveys. Here, we consider ﬁve lensing surveys: COS- MOS, HSC, LSST, Euclid, and WFIRST. We begin by considering ∼ 10-20 kpc. This is a factor of ∼10-20 smaller than the actual 8.5 halo radius (R ∼ 90 − 150 kpc at M ∼ 10 M ). Any existing surveys (COSMOS and HSC). We then use these results to ∗ ⊙ 200b “halo mass” estimate from rotation curves is in fact an extrapolation estimate the completeness limits for future surveys. that relies on assumptions about the shape of the dark matter pro- ﬁle (e.g., Kazantzidis et al. 2004). Furthermore, cosmological hy- 2.1 COSMOS, HSC, and Surface Brightness Effects dro simulations of dwarfs suggest that the inner proﬁles of dwarfs display a wide range of slopes with values ranging from α = −1 to The COSMOS survey (Scoville et al. 2007) provides more than 30 α = −0.3 (Chan et al. 2015; Tollet et al. 2016). This would imply bands of deep imaging data, spanning UV to radio wavelengths. that conventional measurements of kinematics measurements sim- The COSMOS2015 catalog presents the latest public data release ply cannot be used to determine halo masses (a large dispersion in for the COSMOS survey Laigle et al. (2016). The COSMOS i-band α would mean that one cannot extrapolate to larger scales because 5 sigma point source depth is i = 25.9 (C. Laigle, priv. comm). there is not a single universal halo proﬁle). Similar issues also ap- The HSC survey is an ongoing effort that aims to map 1400 ply to stellar kinematics studies of gas poor dwarf spheroidals and deg to i ∼26 in grizy using the 8.2m Subaru telescope. The depth dwarf ellipticals. In short, the scales on which both rotation curves of the HSC wide survey is i = 26.4 (5σ point source) (Aihara et al. and stellar kinematics can be measured only provide insight on the 2018). The COSMOS i-band data is slightly shallower than HSC inner dark matter proﬁle. wide, but for simplicity, we will assume for the remainder of this For the reasons outlined above, independent and large scale paper that the HSC and COSMOS have roughly the same mass measurements of the dark matter proﬁle would be tremendously sensitivity at z < 0.3. powerful and highly complementary to small-scale kinematic stud- The completeness of the COSMOS survey has already been ies of dwarfs. The combination of a large scale halo mass estimate, well characterized for mass function studies. We use the mass com- together with rotation curve data, or stellar kinematic data, would pleteness limits estimates from Laigle et al. (2016) (hereafter L16) yield much more accurate constraints on both the total halo masses who performed a detailed analysis of the completeness of COS- M of dwarfs as well as their inner dark matter slopes α. The halo MOS in order to measure the galaxy mass function. In brief, they lack of total halo mass measurements is the key missing ingredient ﬁrst estimate the photometric errors for each of their bands by plac- ′′ that is required in order to full understand the interplay between ing apertures on empty portions of the sky in 2 and 3 apertures and baryonic physics and dark matter proﬁles in dwarf galaxies. measuring the noise distribution. Second, a model grid of SEDs One of the most powerful ways to directly probe total halo was compared with the K-band limit to determine the 90% com- masses out to the halo radius is via weak gravitational lensing. pleteness limit for each stellar mass. Finally, they derive a func- In particular, the “galaxy-galaxy lensing” technique measures the tional form for the completeness as a function of redshift scaled to average weak lensing signal from background “source” galaxies the depth of the Ks-band data. The estimated COSMOS complete- around a sample of foreground “lens” galaxies (typically several ness limits are shown in Figure 1 which is for an estimated K-band ′′ hundred to thousands of lens galaxies). Galaxy-galaxy lensing is depth of 25.0 5σ in a 2 aperture. COSMOS is mass complete to one of the most effective techniques that can be used to measure log(M ) =∼ 7.3 at z = 0.1 and to log(M ) =∼ 8.1 at z = 0.3. ∗ ∗ the full dark matter proﬁle of galaxies, from scales of a few tens of Since the COSMOS completeness estimates from L16 are de- kpc to scales of several Mpc. However, existing weak lensing mea- rived from a ﬁxed aperture, the effect of surface brightness sensi- surements have been limited to galaxies with M > 10 M (e.g., ∗ ⊙ tivity is not explicitly included. At ﬁxed stellar mass, dwarf galax- Leauthaud et al. 2012). ies are observed to span a wide range of sizes (e.g., McConnachie The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that the advent of lens- 2012), leading to a range of surface brightness values, which will ing surveys that are both deep and wide will enable the discovery of impact the mass completeness (e.g., Blanton et al. 2005). To in- large enough samples of z ∼ 0.1 dwarfs for direct measurements vestigate the importance of this effect, we use the pipeline from of the dark matter halos of dwarf galaxies with galaxy-galaxy lens- Greco et al. (2018) to inject PSF-convolved Sersic functions with ′′ ′′ ing. We present forecasts for the signal-to-noise of galaxy-galaxy a range of sizes (r = 2 -10 ) and surface brightnesses (22- reﬀ −2 lensing around dwarf galaxies for the Hyper Suprime Cam sur- 29 mag arcsec ) into HSC survey images across the entire foot- vey (HSC, Aihara et al. 2018), and for upcoming surveys such as print of the survey. This pipeline was designed speciﬁcally to detect the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST, Ivezic´ et al. 2008), extended low surface brightness galaxies in the HSC survey. We as- Euclid (Laureijs et al. 2011), and the Wide Field Infrared Survey sign each mock galaxy a stellar mass by sampling the stellar mass– Telescope (WFIRST, Spergel et al. 2013). Section 2 presents an es- surface brightness relation (including scatter) from Danieli et al. timate of the mass completeness limits of these surveys. Section 3 presents our methodology and Section 4 presents forecasts. Section 5 presents a summary and our conclusions. We assume a cosmol- https://github.com/johnnygreco/hugs MNRAS 000, 000–000 (0000) Dwarf Lensing 3 (2018), which is derived from dwarf galaxies in and around the Local Group. We recover the mock galaxies with a 90% mass limit of log M /M ∼ 7.3 at z = 0, with relatively little dependence ∗ ⊙ COSMOS, HSC, Euclid on galaxy effective radius. To model the redshift dependence of the LSST completeness, we use the surface brightness completeness function WFIRST to scale the z = 0 mass limit according to cosmological surface brightness dimming. The results are indicated by the upper black line in Figure 1. Given surface brightness effects, we estimate the mass com- pleteness curves for COSMOS/HSC at low-z to be roughly lo- cated within the grey shaded region in Figure 1. At low red- shifts, the completeness will depend on both mass, surface bright- ness, but also on the exact pipeline used to detect objects. Tradi- tional pipelines, such as those used in the SDSS and HSC surveys, are generally excellent for detecting high surface brightness galax- ies in non-crowded ﬁelds, but they have not been optimized for 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 diffuse dwarf galaxy detection, making them susceptible to sur- Redshift face brightness selection effects (e.g., Kniazev et al. 2004). Further work will be required to optimize detection methods for dwarfs and to characterize more precise completeness limits. We cannot Figure 1. Stellar mass completeness of lensing surveys. The black solid line say whether COSMOS or HSC can reliably detect dwarfs with corresponds to the COSMOS2015 catalog. The grey shaded region indicates log M /M ∼ 7.0 at z ∼ 0.05, however, based on our tests, the ∗ ⊙ where surface brightness effects may impact completeness estimates. HSC detection of dwarfs with log M /M > 8.0 at z < 0.2 should be ∗ ⊙ and Euclid have roughly the same mass sensitivity as COSMOS2015. LSST robust. will be more complete than COSMOS2015 by 0.36 dex. WFIRST adds an extra ≈0.43 dex in terms of completeness compared to COSMOS2015. Sur- face brightness effects will need to be investigated in further detail, espe- 2.2 LSST, Euclid, and WFIRST cially for LSST and WFIRST. We do not have the same galaxy-injection tools in place yet for other surveys. Hence, to estimate the completeness limits for other depth of the Euclid r + i + z wide ﬁeld imaging. For simplicity, we surveys, we adopt the following simple approximation. Due to the assume here that Euclid will have roughly the same mass sensitivity physics of stellar evolution, the stellar mass is strongly correlated as COSMOS (i = 25.9) and HSC (i = 26.4). with the rest-frame optical ﬂux in the 0.4-2μm range (see e.g. The Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST) is a Bruzual & Charlot 2003 or Maraston 2005) with a secondary de- 2.4m telescope NASA mission with a launch in 2024 (Spergel et al. pendence on the age of the stellar population. So the primary sur- 2015). WFIRST will be NIR selected in the 1-2μm wavelength vey characteristic of interest for mass completeness is the depth of range and is anticipated to reach a depth of 25.8-26.7 ABmag over the survey data in this rest frame wavelength range. At the redshifts ∼ 2, 200 square degrees depending on the ﬁlter . To estimate the of z < 0.3 we are interested in for this paper the depth in the i mass completeness of WFIRST, we scale the i-band depth as de- band (observed ∼ 0.75μm) or the deepest band red-ward of i is scribed previously, and add 0.1 dex for the red selection. With this a good proxy. For simplicity we will scale the survey complete- calculation, WFIRST is 0.42 dex more sensitive in mass than COS- ness to those depths. As long as the relative depths of the 0.3-1μm MOS. photometry are similar to COSMOS this should be a good proxy Figure 1 displays the mass completeness limits of these sur- at z < 0.3. We therefore scale the COSMOS completeness limits veys as a function of redshift. Columns 2 and 3 in 1 indicate the as Δi/2.5 where Δi it the difference in i-band depth compared to mass completeness limits for the surveys under consideration at COSMOS (5σ point source). z = 0.1 and z = 0.3. Of the surveys under consideration, WFIRST The LSST (Ivezic´ et al. 2008) will be a large wide-ﬁeld and LSST will have the greatest potential for pushing to low halo ground-based system with a 8.4 m (6.5 m effective) primary mass. They may be capable of detecting dwarf lens galaxies with mirror. LSST begins operations in 2023 and plans to map out masses below log(M ) = 7 at z < 0.1. But further work will be 18,000 deg . The 10-year 5σ point source depth of i = 26.8 required to investigate the impact of surface brightness effects and (LSST Science Collaboration et al. 2009). By scaling the i-band to develop adapted detection algorithms. sensitivity with respect to COSMOS, we ﬁnd that the 10-year LSST optical imaging will therefore be 0.36 dex more sensitive in mass than COSMOS. Euclid is a European space mission with a 1.2m primary mir- 3 FORECAST METHODOLOGY ror and with an expected launch in 2020 (Laureijs et al. 2011). Over We now consider how well ongoing and future surveys will be able 6 years, Euclid will conduct both an imaging and a spectroscopic 2 to measure the galaxy-galaxy lensing signal for dwarf lenses. Here, survey over the lowest background 15000 deg of the extragalactic we set aside the question of how to determine redshifts for dwarfs, sky. The Euclid catalog will be selected in a broad r + i + z ﬁlter as well as the impact of lensing systematic errors. We focus only on similar to, but wider than, the HST F814W ﬁlter. For Euclid, the depth in the wide ﬁeld will be 26.3 ABmag (5σ point source, H. Hoekstra et al. priv comm) over 15,000 square degrees. Compli- The quoted depth is deeper than the the one typically quoted for lensing mentary data will be obtained in grizY JH bands from the ground because the lensing source catalog typically cuts at SN> 20 which is 1.5 and from the Euclid Near-Infrared channel. Here we consider the mag brighter than the limits quoted here. MNRAS 000, 000–000 (0000) SB effects log (M ) 10 * 4 Leauthaud et al. Table 1. Estimated completeness limits and lensing parameters. The completeness limits may be optimistic given possible surface brightness effects. This will be investigated in future work. Survey M limit at M limit at Area in N source Mean redshift ∗ ∗ 2 2 z = 0.1 z = 0.3 deg per arcmin of sources hz i COSMOS 7.3 8.1 1.64 39 1.2 HSC Wide 7.3 8.1 1000 18.5 0.81 LSST Wide 6.94 7.74 18,000 30 1.2 Euclid Wide 7.3 8.1 15,000 30 0.9 WFIRST HLS 6.9 7.68 2,400 45 1.1 estimating the statistical uncertainties on the lensing signal given a 3.3 Computation of Signal-to-noise dwarf lens sample with known redshifts. We now use the survey parameters above to predict the errors on ∗ ∗ the ΔΣ proﬁles at log(M ) = 8 and log(M ) = 9. We assume one redshift bin extending from z = 0 to z = 0.25. The mean 3.1 Amplitude of Dwarf Lensing Signal redshift of lenses is z = 0.18. We use the same COSMOS SMF as To generate forecasts, we ﬁrst need predictions for the expected in Leauthaud et al in prep. to compute to number density of dwarfs amplitude of the lensing signal around dwarfs lenses. For this, we within a given mass and redshift range. adopt the results from Leauthaud et al in prep. These are brieﬂy Our methodology for computing the expected errors for ΔΣ summarized below. follows Singh et al. (2017). We brieﬂy summarize the salient fea- The expected signal is generated directly from the Bolshoi tures of this computation and refer the reader to Singh et al. (2017) Planck N-body simulation (Klypin et al. 2016). The Bolshoi Planck for further details. In short, the gaussian covariance for ΔΣ is given 3 3 simulation has a box size of Lbox=(250 Mpc/h) , 2048 particles, by: 8 10 a particle mass of m = 1.5 × 10 M , and resolves 10 M p ⊙ ⊙ Σ (χ , χ ) halos. We use a snapshot at a = 0.78 or z = 0.28. A ﬁve pa- s g ′ c ′ Cov(ΔΣ(r ), ΔΣ(r )) ≈ dk k J (k r )J (k r ) p p ⊥ ⊥ 2 ⊥ p 2 ⊥ p rameter stellar-to-halo mass relation with mass dependent scatter V was used to populate the Bolshoi simulation with mock galaxies down to log(M /M ) = 8. The parameters of this model were ∗ ⊙ 1 σ (P (k ) + )(P (k ) + ) + P (k ) , (1) gg ⊥ κκ ⊥ ⊥ gκ ﬁt to the COSMOS stellar mass function (SMF) as well as to a n n g s galaxy-galaxy lensing signal measured for a dwarf sample with where χ and χ are the comoving distances to lens and source g s log(M /M ) ∼ 8.5. Both the SMF and the lensing help to en- ∗ ⊙ galaxies. We use the mean redshift for source galaxies as speciﬁed sure that the resulting mock catalog has a realistic population of in Table 1. dwarf galaxies. Further details are given in Leauthaud et al in prep. For the power spectrum, we use the HaloFit non linear power Using the mock catalog described above, we can predict the spectrum (Smith et al. 2003; Takahashi et al. 2012). For the galaxy amplitude of the galaxy-galaxy lensing observable (ΔΣ) for dwarfs power spectrum, we use linear galaxy bias with the non-linear mat- with log(M /M ) > 8. The predicted signal is computed from ter power spectrum. The galaxy-matter power spectrum (Σ P ) is c gκ Bolshoi by selecting dwarfs in a narrow mass range and then cross- obtained by direct inverse hankel transform of ΔΣ. correlating this sample with the dark matter particles of the simula- The convergence power spectrum, P in units of P (k) is κκ tion. More speciﬁcally, we use the delta sigma function in Halo- given by: tools (Hearin et al. 2017) to generate our model predictions. We select mock galaxies in two narrow mass bins centered 2 ρ χ ∗ ∗ P (k ) = dχ P (k ) (2) κκ ⊥ mm ⊥ around log(M ) = 8 and log(M ) = 9. The predicted ΔΣ pro- Σ (χ , χ) χ c s ﬁles are shown in Figure 2. This signal includes contributions from both central and satellite galaxies. Our computation includes all terms relevant for the discon- nected or gaussian covariance. However, we do not account for the effects of survey masks and selection functions, including the clus- 3.2 Survey Parameters tering of source galaxies. We also ignore contributions from the connected covariance which includes super sample covariance, as Here we list the survey parameters assumed to generate forecasts. well as the trispectrum between galaxies and shear. We estimate These numbers are also summarized in Table 1. that ignoring these teams will lead to S/N estimates that will be • For the HSC wide layer, we assume an area of 1000 deg , a over optimistic by up to ∼25%. To account for this, we apply a source density of 18.5 galaxies per arcmin , and a mean source ∼25% reduction in the S/N estimates reported in Table 2. redshift of z = 0.81 (Hikage et al. 2019). • For the main LSST survey, we assume an area of 18,000 2 2 deg , a source density of 30 galaxies per arcmin with z = 1.2 4 RESULTS (Chang et al. 2013; Chan et al. 2015). • For the Euclid wide layer we assume 15,000 deg , 30 Using the methodology described above, we compute the expected galaxies/arcmin , and a mean source redshift of 0.9. ΔΣ signal, and the errors on this signal. We consider two narrow ∗ ∗ • Finally, we assume that the WFIRST High Latitude Survey mass bins centered at log(M ) = 8 and log(M ) = 9 and with a (HLS) will observe 2,400 deg and will yield a source density of bin width of 0.2 dex. We assume one redshift bin from 0 < z < 54 galaxies per arcmin at a mean redshift of z = 1.1. 0.25 with lenses at a mean redshift of z = 0.18. MNRAS 000, 000–000 (0000) Dwarf Lensing 5 Figure 2 shows the expected amplitude of ΔΣ for these two up (e.g. Eriksen et al. 2019). Finally, it will also be interesting to mass bins and for radial scales below R < 500 kpc. Figure 2 also consider these in combination with machine learning methods for displays the predicted diagonal errors on ΔΣ for the HSC wide extracting dwarf samples from deep imaging surveys. survey, Euclid, WFIRST, and LSST. Based on our mocks, the mean halo mass of the log(M ) = 8 sample is log(M ) = 10.91 and the mean halo mass of the 200m 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS log(M ) = 9 sample is log(M200m) = 11.25. The signal shown In this paper, we show that the advent of new photometric lensing in Figure 2 is therefore a combination of the dark matter halos asso- surveys that are both deep and wide will open up the possibility ciated with central dwarfs (the “one halo” term at R < 84.55 200m ∗ ∗ of direct measurements of the dark matter halos of dwarf galaxies kpc and rR = 113.44 kpc for log(M ) = 8 and log(M ) = 200m with gravitational lensing. Deep photometry (i∼26 mag) over wide 9 respectively), with satellite galaxies, and the signal arising from areas (A > 1000 deg ) will enable the extraction of large enough correlated structure at r > R (the so-called “two halo term”). 200m samples of dwarf galaxies at z ∼ 0.1 to push galaxy-galaxy lensing We now computed the expected S/N of the detections shown measurements to the dwarf scale. in Figure 2 and report the corresponding values in Table 2. We con- The HSC wide survey will be the ﬁrst with the capability of sider radial scales that correspond both to the one-halo term but measuring the lensing signal for dwarfs with high signal-to-noise. also at r < 500 kpc (physical) which also includes contributions The signal will be detected with enough signiﬁcance to measure from the two-halo term. the signal in ﬁne bins of mass (here the bins are only 0.2 dex in The HSC wide survey will be the ﬁrst with the capability of width). LSST will have the most overall constraining power. We measuring the lensing signal for dwarfs with high signal-to-noise. ﬁnd that LSST will be able to measure the lensing signal with a The signal will be detected with enough signiﬁcance to measure the signal-to-noise in excess of 200 at log(M ) > 8. Finally, WFIRST signal in ﬁne bins of mass (here the bins are only 0.2 dex in width). and LSST will have the greatest potential for pushing below the At r < 500 kpc, the HSC wide survey will be able to measure the log(M ) = 7 mass scale. lensing signal with a signal-to-noise of 37 at log(M ) = 8 and 46 HSC and other deep+wide lensing surveys will detect signiﬁ- at log(M ) = 9. In the one-halo regime, the predicted S/N of the ∗ ∗ cant numbers of dwarf galaxies at z ∼ 0.1. However, further work detection is 8 at log(M ) = 8 and 15 at log(M ) = 9. will be required in order to develop optimized strategies for de- Considering all of the lensing surveys taken together, LSST termining redshifts and for extracting dwarfs samples from these will have the most constraining power. We ﬁnd that LSST will be surveys. able to measure the lensing signal with a signal-to-noise of 208 at ∗ ∗ Studies of the dark matter halos of dwarf galaxies with gravita- log(M ) = 8 and 261 at log(M ) = 9 at r < 500 kpc! In the tional lensing is soon within reach. The combination of small scale one-halo regime, the predicted S/N of the detection for LSST is 47 ∗ ∗ kinematics and weak lensing on larger scales will be a new pow- at log(M ) = 8 and 84 at log(M ) = 9. erful tool to constrain the halo masses and inner density slopes of WFIRST and LSST will have the greatest capability of push- ∗ dwarf galaxies and to distinguish between baryonic feedback and ing below the log(M ) = 7 mass scale thanks to the depth of their modiﬁed DM scenarios. imaging data. Exactly how low mass they will probe is likely to de- pend on surface brightness effects and whether or not the detection pipelines are optimized to detect faint and low surface brightness objects. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In order to disentangle baryonic effects from non baryonic so- We thank Clotilde Laigle for providing the COSMOS point source lutions to the cusp-core controversy (such as self-interacting dark sensitivity. We thank Henk Hoekstra for proving the Euclid point matter), it will become interesting to try and push the galaxy-galaxy source sensitivity. This material is based upon work supported by lensing measurement down to the smallest radial scales possible to the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1714610. This probe the inner dark matter proﬁle. Kobayashi et al. (2015) have research was also supported in part by National Science Foundation shown that statistically speaking this “small scale lensing” mea- under Grant No. NSF PHY11-25915. AL acknowledges support surement is possible. However, pushing the lensing signal down to from the David and Lucille Packard foundation and from the Alfred r < 20 kpc will require the development of methods capable of ac- P. Sloan foundation. curately measure the lensing signal in the presence of strong prox- imity and blending effects. On these very small scales (R < 100 kpc), are forecasts are optimistic because they do not account for REFERENCES loss of source galaxies due of masking and blending effects. Our results and the signal-to-noise values in Table 2 demon- Aihara H., et al., 2018, PASJ, 70, S4 strate that that studies of the dark matter halos of dwarfs will not Blanton M. R., Lupton R. H., Schlegel D. J., Strauss M. A., Brinkmann J., be limited by lensing signal-to-noise. Rather, lensing at the dwarf Fukugita M., Loveday J., 2005, ApJ, 631, 208 Brooks A. M., Kuhlen M., Zolotov A., Hooper D., 2013, ApJ, 765, 22 scale will be limited by our ability to accurately obtain redshifts for Bruzual G., Charlot S., 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000 dwarf lenses. Chan T. K., Keresˇ D., On˜orbe J., Hopkins P. F., Muratov A. L., Faucher- We have shown in Section 2 that HSC, and future lensing sur- Gigue`re C.-A., Quataert E., 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2981 veys, will be deep enough to detect large samples of dwarfs. How- Chang C., et al., 2013, MNRAS, 434, 2121 ever, these surveys are photometric, and do not provide the redshifts Danieli S., van Dokkum P., Conroy C., 2018, ApJ, 856, 69 that will be necessary to select low redshift dwarf lens samples. Di Cintio A., Brook C. B., Maccio` A. V., Stinson G. S., Knebe A., Dutton Further work will be required to study methods for obtaining red- A. A., Wadsley J., 2014, MNRAS, 437, 415 shifts. For example, it will be important to consider the feasibility Eriksen M., et al., 2019, MNRAS, 484, 4200 of, and trade-offs between: wide ﬁeld direct spectroscopic follow- Governato F., et al., 2010, Nature, 463, 203 up, prism/grism based redshifts, and narrow-band imaging follow- Governato F., et al., 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1231 MNRAS 000, 000–000 (0000) 6 Leauthaud et al. * * 7.9<log(M )<8.1 HSC wide15 8.9<log(M )<9.1 HSC wide Euclid Euclid WFIRST WFIRST LSST LSST 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 R [Mpc] R [Mpc] Figure 2. Predicted lensing signal and errors for the ΔΣ proﬁle around dwarf lens galaxies. The left hand panel corresponds to dwarfs with log(M ) = 8 and the right hand panel corresponds to dwarfs with log(M ) = 9. Errors correspond to a lens samples selected within a narrow mass range (0.2 dex bin width) and for 0 < z < 0.25. Predicted diagonal errors are shown for HSC wide survey (blue), Euclid (orange), WFIRST (red), and LSST (green). Table 2. Predicted signal-to-noise for two mass bins of width 0.2 dex and for 0 < z < 0.25. ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ Survey log(M )=8 and r < 500 kpc log(M )=9 and r < 500 kpc log(M )=8 and r < 84.55 kpc log(M )=9 and r < 113.44 kpc HSC Wide 37 46 8 15 LSST Wide 208 261 47 84 Euclid Wide 184 231 41 74 WFIRST HLS 92 153 21 37 Greco J. P., et al., 2018, ApJ, 857, 104 Tomozeiu M., Mayer L., Quinn T., 2016, ApJ, 827, L15 Hearin A. P., et al., 2017, AJ, 154, 190 Hikage C., et al., 2019, PASJ, Ivezic´ Z., et al., 2008, preprint, (arXiv:0805.2366) Kazantzidis S., Mayer L., Mastropietro C., Diemand J., Stadel J., Moore B., 2004, ApJ, 608, 663 Klypin A., Yepes G., Gottlo¨ber S., Prada F., Heß S., 2016, MNRAS, 457, 4340 Kniazev A. Y., Grebel E. K., Pustilnik S. A., Pramskij A. G., Kniazeva T. F., Prada F., Harbeck D., 2004, AJ, 127, 704 Kobayashi M. I. N., Leauthaud A., More S., Okabe N., Laigle C., Rhodes J., Takeuchi T. T., 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2128 LSST Science Collaboration et al., 2009, preprint, (arXiv:0912.0201) Laigle C., et al., 2016, ApJS, 224, 24 Laureijs R., et al., 2011, preprint, (arXiv:1110.3193) Leauthaud A., et al., 2012, ApJ, 746, 95 Maraston C., 2005, MNRAS, 362, 799 McConnachie A. W., 2012, AJ, 144, 4 On˜orbe J., Boylan-Kolchin M., Bullock J. S., Hopkins P. F., Keresˇ D., Faucher-Gigue`re C.-A., Quataert E., Murray N., 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2092 Oh S.-H., et al., 2015, AJ, 149, 180 Pontzen A., Governato F., 2012, MNRAS, 421, 3464 Pontzen A., Governato F., 2014, Nature, 506, 171 Scoville N., et al., 2007, ApJS, 172, 1 Singh S., Mandelbaum R., Seljak U., Slosar A., Vazquez Gonzalez J., 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3827 Smith R. E., et al., 2003, MNRAS, 341, 1311 Spergel D., et al., 2013, preprint, (arXiv:1305.5425) Spergel D., et al., 2015, preprint, (arXiv:1503.03757) Takahashi R., Sato M., Nishimichi T., Taruya A., Oguri M., 2012, ApJ, 761, 152 Tollet E., et al., 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3542 MNRAS 000, 000–000 (0000) -2 ΔΣ [ M pc ] O • R200m ΔΣ [ M • pc -2 ] R200m

Journal

Astrophysics – arXiv (Cornell University)

Published: May 4, 2019

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Deep+Wide Lensing Surveys will Provide Exquisite Measurements of the Dark Matter Halos of Dwarf Galaxies

Deep+Wide Lensing Surveys will Provide Exquisite Measurements of the Dark Matter Halos of Dwarf Galaxies

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Deep+Wide Lensing Surveys will Provide Exquisite Measurements of the Dark Matter Halos of Dwarf Galaxies

Deep+Wide Lensing Surveys will Provide Exquisite Measurements of the Dark Matter Halos of Dwarf Galaxies

References (42)

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies