4.7 Article

Assessing the Jeans Anisotropic Multi-Gaussian Expansion method with the Illustris simulation

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 455, Issue 4, Pages 3680-3692

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stv2565

Keywords

galaxies: evolution; galaxies: formation; galaxies: kinematics and dynamics; galaxies: structure; dark matter

Funding

  1. HITS
  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDB09000000]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [11333003, 11390372]
  4. NSFC [11303033, 11133003]
  5. Youth Innovation Promotion Association of CAS

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We assess the effectiveness of the Jeans Anisotropic Multi-Gaussian Expansion (JAM) technique with a state-of-the-art cosmological hydrodynamic simulation, the Illustris project. We perform JAM modelling on 1413 simulated galaxies with stellar mass M* > 10(10) M-circle dot, and construct an axisymmetric dynamical model for each galaxy. Combined with a Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation, we recover the projected root-mean-square velocity (V-rms) field of the stellar component, and investigate constraints on the stellar mass-to-light ratio, M* /L, and the fraction of dark matter f(DM) within 2.5 effective radii (R-e). We find that the enclosed total mass within 2.5 R-e is well constrained to within 10 per cent. However, there is a degeneracy between the dark matter and stellar components with correspondingly larger individual errors. The 1 sigma scatter in the recovered M* /L is 30-40 per cent of the true value. The accuracy of the recovery of M* /L depends on the triaxial shape of a galaxy. There is no significant bias for oblate galaxies, while for prolate galaxies the JAM-recovered stellar mass is on average 18 per cent higher than the input values. We also find that higher image resolutions alleviate the dark matter and stellar mass degeneracy and yield systematically better parameter recovery.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available