Paper detail

Spherical Jeans analysis for dark matter indirect detection in dwarf spheroidal galaxies - Impact of physical parameters and triaxiality

Dwarf spheroidal (dSph) galaxies are among the most promising targets for the indirect detection of dark matter (DM) from annihilation and/or decay products. Empirical estimates of their DM content - and hence the magnitudes of expected signals - rely on inferences from stellar-kinematic data. However, various kinematic analyses can give different results and it is not obvious which are most reliable. Using extensive sets of mock data of various sizes (mimicking &#39;ultra-faint&#39; and &#39;classical&#39; dSphs) and an MCMC engine, here we investigate biases, uncertainties, and limitations of analyses based on parametric solutions to the spherical Jeans equation. For a variety of functional forms for the tracer and DM density profiles, as well as the orbital anisotropy profile, we examine reliability of estimates for the astrophysical J- and D-factors for annihilation and decay, respectively. For large (N > 1000) stellar-kinematic samples typical of &#39;classical&#39; dSphs, errors tend to be dominated by systematics, which can be reduced through the use of sufficiently general and flexible functional forms. For small (N < 100) samples typical of &#39;ultrafaints&#39;, statistical uncertainties tend to dominate systematic errors and flexible models are less necessary. We define an optimal strategy that would mitigate sensitivity to priors and other aspects of analyses based on the spherical Jeans equation. We also find that the assumption of spherical symmetry can bias estimates of J (with the 95% credibility intervals not encompassing the true J-factor) when the object is mildly triaxial (axis ratios b/a = 0.8, c/a = 0.6). A concluding table summarises the typical error budget and biases for the different sample sizes considered.

preprint2014arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.