Paper detail

M31 Satellite Masses Compared to LCDM Subhaloes

We compare the kinematics of M31's satellite galaxies to the mass profiles of the subhaloes they are expected to inhabit in LCDM. We consider the most massive subhaloes of an approximately M31-sized halo, following the assumption of a monotonic galaxy luminosity-to-subhalo mass mapping. While this abundance matching relation is consistent with the kinematic data for galaxies down to the luminosity of the bright satellites of the Milky Way and M31, it is not consistent with kinematic data for fainter dwarf galaxies (those with L <~ 10^8 Lsun). Comparing the kinematics of M31's dwarf Spheroidal (dSph) satellites to the subhaloes reveals that M31's dSph satellites are too low density to be consistent with the subhaloes' mass profiles. A similar discrepancy has been reported between Milky Way dSphs and their predicted subhaloes, the "too big to fail" problem. By contrast, total mass profiles of the dwarf Elliptical (and similarly bright) satellites are consistent with the subhaloes. However, they suffer from large systematic uncertainties in their dark matter content because of substantial (and potentially dominant) contributions from baryons within their half-light radii.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.