text:
# The BMW Detection Algorithm applied to the Chandra Deep Field south: deeper and deeper

## 1 Introduction

The Chandra observatory is providing the astronomical community with the deepest X–ray look at the sky (Mushotzky et al. 2000; Hornschemeier et al. 2000; Giacconi et al. 2001). Two 1 Ms observations have been recently carried out: one in the northern hemisphere on the Hubble Deep Field North (HDFN) and the other in the southern hemisphere on a field, named Chandra Deep Field South (CDFS), selected for its low column density (the southern twin of the Lockman hole) and for the lack of bright X–ray and optical sources. The data are available from the Chandra public archive
(http://asc.harvard.edu/udocs/ao2-cdf-download.html) A further 1 Ms data set on the HDFN will be available in the next future.

The main goal of these observations is to look at the X–ray sky at the deepest level and to gain insight in the population of emitting sources comprising the cosmic X–ray background (XRB). The details of the data reduction and analysis procedures that have been applied to manage the CDFS data-set are discussed in Section 2. In order to fully exploit the potential of these data, refined detection algorithm have to be used. We developed a wavelet-based source detection algorithm (Lazzati et al. 1999; for its main characteristics see also Section 3), that we applied to the full sample of ROSAT HRI fields (Campana et al. 1999; Panzera et al. 2002, in preparation). We modified this detection algorithm, called Brera Multi-scale Wavelet (BMW), to account for the specific characteristics of the Chandra ACIS Imaging and Spectroscopic instruments. The algorithm (BMW-Chandra) has been extensively tested in the extreme conditions provided by the CDFS (Section 4). Our final goal is to obtain a source detection and a source Log N–Log S at the faintest limits in order to resolve as much as possible of the XRB in point sources. In order to compare our results with previous investigations, we carry out the analysis in the soft (0.5–2 keV) band and in the hard (2–10 keV) band. We are able to safely reconstruct the Log N–Log S source flux distribution down to $`2.4\times 10^{17}`$ and $`2.1\times 10^{16}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 in the soft and hard bands, respectively (Section 5). A first account of these results have been given in Campana et al. (2001), here we extend these results discussing in more details the resolved background and source characteristics. Conclusions are reported in Section 6.

## 2 The data

All exposures were taken with the Chandra X–ray Observatory (Weisskopf et al. 2000) Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer (ACIS-I) detector (Bautz et al. 1998). ACIS-I consists of four CCDs arranged in a $`2\times 2`$ array assembled in an inverse shallow pyramid configuration to better follow the curved focal surface of the mirrors. The full ACIS-I has a field of view of $`16.9^{}\times 16.9^{}`$. The on-axis image quality is $`0.5^{\prime \prime }`$ FWHM increasing to $`3.0^{\prime \prime }`$ FWHM at $`4.0^{}`$ off-axis. The CDFS has been obtained performing eleven exposures of the same area of the sky with slight position and orientation offsets. A total exposure time of 966 ks is obtained by summing them together. In Tab. 1 we report the main properties of each exposure.

First we have to match the position of the different exposures to add them into a single image. To this aim we performed a preliminary source detection on the 11 sub-frames at full resolution. We used the grid of the positions of the brightest sources to calculate the ten roto–translation matrices with respect to the first image. In all ten matrices we find that the rotation terms are negligible. The translation factors of each frame with their uncertainties are reported in Tab. 1. The reported uncertainties are the standard deviations of the position distributions of the grid sources after the translations.

Starting with the level 2 event files, the data were filtered to include only the standard event grades (corresponding to the ASCA grades 0, 2, 3, 4, 6). In order to compare our results with previous studies and existing estimates of the cosmic X–ray background, we selected a 0.5–2 keV soft energy band and a 2–7 keV hard energy band to carry out the scientific analysis. The limit at 7 keV has been selected because at higher energies the effective area decreases and the background increases, resulting in a lower signal to noise of celestial sources. The fluxes are then extrapolated to the 2–10 keV energy band.

Chandra observations are affected by the ‘space weather’, resulting in periods with high background. In order to eliminate these periods we calculated the total counts light curve for each exposure using a time resolution such that in each bin we had $`400`$ events (i.e. $`1,000`$ s in the soft band and $`600`$ s in the hard band). We excluded all time intervals above $`3\sigma `$ of the mean. From a total of 966 ks, we excluded 24 ks in the soft band (28 ks in the hard band), giving a final effective exposure time of 942 ks (939 ks in the hard). The lost fractions amount to $`3\%`$ of the total time, but allowed us to reduce considerably the background in each band. In particular, we registered a very strong flare in the observation ID1431 which contained about $`90\%`$ of the total events both in the soft and hard band in about $`10\%`$ of the exposure time.

CCDs are usually affected by defects such as bad columns, bad and hot/flickering pixels and cosmic ray events. The great majority of these defects are already eliminated by the standard Chandra processing pipeline. Random flickering pixels (probably excited by energetic cosmic rays) however do occur and have to be removed manually. These are active pixels for only 2–6 frames and might be easily detected as X–ray sources. Following Tozzi et al. (2001), we defined a pixel as “flickering” when it registers two events within the time of two consecutive frames and in each observation we eliminated all the events registered from that pixel (this can be done safely thanks to the lack of bright sources). In this way we excluded about 600 events in the soft band whereas in the hard band we did not find any flickering pixels. We also eliminated the data from chip 3 of the ID581 observation, because it suffered from Good Time Intervals inconsistences with other chips, resulting in an anomalous high background level.

The count-rate to flux conversion factors in the 0.5–2 keV and in the 2–10 keV bands were taken from Tozzi et al. (2001). These were computed using the response matrices at the aim point and amount to $`(4.6\pm 0.1)\times 10^{12}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 per count s-1 (0.5–2 keV), and $`(2.9\pm 0.3)\times 10^{11}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 (2–10 keV) per count s-1 in the hard band, assuming a Galactic absorbing column of $`8\times 10^{19}`$ cm-2 and a photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.4`$, i.e. the spectrum of the XRB. Flux uncertainties are derived considering power law indices in the range $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.11.7`$. Fluxes are corrected for vignetting by using the exposure map (see below).

The analysis has been carried out on images rebinned by a factor of 2 (i.e. 1 pixel corresponds to 0.98 arcsec), allowing us to deal directly with the entire image. We found that working on sub-images at the natural scale improves slightly the positional accuracy at the price of a four times longer computational time and with the problem of matching the four sub-images.

In the analysis of the CDFS we have restricted our analysis to the central 8 arcmin radius circle, assuming as the center the aim point of ID581 observation. This is a good compromise between the simplicity of the geometry and the efficiency of the data analysis (see below). The minimum value of the exposure map in this region is about $`23\%`$ of the maximum value. This occurs at the border of the circle where the exposure map has a very steep decrease. More than $`90\%`$ of the exposure map within the 8 arcmin central circle have values larger than $`80\%`$ of the maximum value, corresponding to an effective exposure time greater then 753 ks. The average background levels in this region are 0.18 and 0.29 counts per binned pixel in the soft and hard band, respectively. These correspond to 0.07 and 0.11 counts s-1 per chip and are in very good agreement with the expected value reported in the Chandra Observatory Guide.

## 3 The BMW algorithm

The wavelet transform (WT) is a mathematical tool able of decomposing an image in a set of sub-images, each of them carrying the information of the original image at a given scale. These features make the WT well suited for the analysis of X–ray images, where the scale of sources is not constant over the field of view. In addition, the background is automatically subtracted since it is not characterized by any scale. The use of WT as X–ray detection algorithms was pioneered by Rosati et al. (1995; 1998) for the detection of extended sources in ROSAT PSPC fields and subsequently adopted by many groups (Grebenev et al. 1995; Damiani et al. 1997a; Pislar et al. 1997; Vikhlinin et al. 1998; Lazzati et al. 1998; Freeman et al. 2001).

The BMW detection algorithm is a WT-based algorithm for the automatic detection and characterization of sources in X–ray images. It is fully described in Lazzati et al. (1999) and has been developed to analyze ROSAT HRI images producing the BMW-HRI catalog (Campana et al. 1999; Panzera et al. 2002). We have recently updated this algorithm to support the analysis of Chandra ACIS Imaging and Spectroscopic images. Here we summarize the basic steps of the algorithm. First, the WT of the input image is performed. The BMW WT computation is based on the discrete multi-resolution theory and on the “á trous” algorithm (Bijaoui et al. 1991). This is different with respect to algorithms based on a continuous WT, which can sample more scales at the cost of longer computing time (Rosati et al. 1995; Grebenev et al. 1995; Damiani et al. 1997a). We used a Mexican hat mother, which can be analytically approximated by the difference of two Gaussians (Slezak et al. 1994). We performed the Chandra ACIS-I data analysis with a rebin factor of 2 and we used the scales $`a=1`$, 2, 4, 8, 16 and 32 pixels, where $`a`$ is the scale of the transform (see Lazzati et al. 1999).

Candidate sources are identified as local maxima above the threshold in the wavelet space at each scale. A catalog for each scale is obtained. Different scale catalogs are then cross–correlated and merged in a single catalog. For each scale the threshold in the wavelet space is calculated by means of Monte Carlo simulations: for a grid of values of Poissonian backgrounds in the range between $`10^410^1`$ counts per pixel we estimated the number of expected spurious detections as a function of the threshold value. The background value is measured as an average on the whole image by means of a $`\sigma `$-clipping algorithm. The number of spurious sources per field can be fixed arbitrarily by the user (typical values are in the range $`0.110`$). At the end of this detection step we have a first estimate of the source position, an estimate of the counts from the local maximum value of the WT and a guess of the size from the scale where the WT is maximized.

The final catalog is obtained through the characterization of the sources, which is performed by means of a $`\chi ^2`$ minimization with respect to a Gaussian model source in the wavelet space. The WT of a detected source is used at three different scales, with the central being the scale at which the source has been found (corrections are introduced when the best scale is the first or the last). In order to fit the model on a set of independent data, the WT coefficients are decimated according to the scheme described in Lazzati et al. (1999). Neighbor sources can be fitted simultaneously in the deblending process, allowing the characterization of faint objects located near bright sources.

### 3.1 Total background map

The WT detection is carried out on top of a map representing at best the image background (named total background map, see Lazzati et al. 1999). The ACIS-I background consists of two different components, the cosmic X–ray background and cosmic ray-induced events (also called particle background). The first is made by focalized X–ray photons from not resolved sources and therefore suffers from mirror vignetting. Its spectrum can be modelled as a power law with photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.4`$. Following the CIAO 2.1 Science Threads (http://asc.harvard.edu/ciao/threads) we built the exposure maps for each of the eleven observations (both in the soft and in the hard band) assuming a photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.4`$ as input spectrum. The second contribution has a spatial pattern which is basically due to the electronics of the system and depends on its temperature. Based on the Chandra ACIS background web page
(http://asc.harvard.edu/cal/Links/Acis/acis/Cal\_prods/bkgrnd/current/index.html) we found that for the ACIS-I chips in the energy range and in the spatial region of interest for the only particle background we can assume a spatial flat pattern with an inaccuracy of less than $`10\%`$. We assumed that the particle background in the soft band is $`50\%`$ of the total and the $`66\%`$ in the hard band with a flat energy spectrum (Baganoff 1999). Summing the two components of the background we obtain a total background map and taking a Poissonian realization of it we can accurately account for the data in both bands as shown in Fig. 1. This procedure is slightly different from the one adopted in Campana et al. (2001), where a map based only on the cosmic X–ray background was considered.

## 4 Simulations

We tested the detection algorithm, trying to reproduce the real data in terms of background level and source flux distribution, matching the characteristics of the CDFS fields. The analysis is carried out in two energy bands: the soft (0.5–2 keV) and the hard (2–7 keV) band. From the detection algorithm point of view the two bands differ for two main reasons: the shape of the exposure maps and the different background level. This forced us to carry out two different sets of simulations.

X–ray sources were generated at random positions in a $`30^{}\times 30^{}`$ square region around the center of the image (larger than the real field of view) and with fluxes distributed in the range $`10^{17}10^{13}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 for the soft band and $`10^{16}10^{13}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 in the hard band. The number counts have been generated according to the Log N–Log S integral distributions reported in Tozzi et al. (2001), i.e. power laws with slope of $`0.66`$ in the soft band and $`0.92`$ in the hard band.

The CDFS is made of eleven observations. For this reason we added a further element to our simulations: for each source we calculated its position in each observation and derived the corresponding off-axis angle (each source has different positions in the detector in each different observation, depending on the coordinate of the pointing, which are slightly different, and on the roll angle). Then we calculated the expected number of photons for each observation. These depend on the conversion factor and on the local value of the exposure map. Finally, for each single observation we multiplied the expected number of photons with the corresponding point spread function image (from the Chandra CALDB) and we summed the eleven images to the background image. This procedure is aimed at reproducing at best the image characteristics.

We used these routines instead of the MARX simulator essentially because of computational reasons: we found that dealing with the input/output of data was easier for us using our IDL routines. We repeated the procedure for 100 times, for a total sample of about 150,000 input sources (here and in the following we refer to simulations in the soft band, unless otherwise stated; in the hard band results are similar). We recovered 25,000 of them within the central 8 arcmin radius, from which we were able to verify the performance of the procedure.

### 4.1 Spurious detection and position determination

In the BMW detection algorithm the expected number of spurious sources is one of the fundamental input parameters. In our analysis we fixed the number of spurious sources to a total of 4.3 in the 8 arcmin radius circle (which corresponds to 6 expected spurious in a $`1024\times 1024`$ pixels image). In 100 simulated frames we found a total of 425 spurious sources (431 expected, see left panel of Fig. 2). This shows that the contamination of our sample is well understood and under control. This corresponds to sources detected at a significance level larger than $`4\sigma `$.

Source positions are recovered accurately. In the right panel of Fig. 2 we plot the differences between the input and output position of simulated sources. The difference distributions on both axes are well approximated by Gaussian functions centered on zero and with a r.m.s. of $`0.6^{\prime \prime }`$ (i.e. $``$ half a pixel at rebin 2, at which the analysis has been carried out).

### 4.2 Sky–coverage

The distribution of the detected sources is usually depleted at the faint end. In order to compute the Log N–Log S it must be corrected for (i) detection probability lower than one close to the sensitivity limit (completeness function; CF) and (ii) the different areas effectively surveyed at different fluxes (sky coverage; SC). The CF is due to the fact that sources are preferentially detected if they sit on a positive background fluctuation, while they are missed in the opposite case. The proper SC takes into account that the sensitivity limit can change in the same observation if the background or spatial resolution are not uniform or in different observations when different exposure times are considered. In single observations the SC depends on the off–axis angle, since the detector sensitivity decreases (lower effective exposure time) and the spatial resolution worsen. In the CDFS the geometry is complicated by the sum of observations with slightly different aim points and different roll angles. We have verified that this fact does not affect significantly the symmetry of the SC. More importantly, the SC has strong variations in those locations of the sky that were not imaged in all the eleven observations. In order to avoid large SC fluctuations, we restricted our analysis to the inner $`8^{}`$ of the field, where the background and exposure are roughly constant (see above).

Using WT based detection algorithms the SC can be computed either analytically or by means of simulations. The first approach is recommended when the intrinsic size of sources is poorly known (like in surveys of cluster of galaxies, see Rosati et al. 1995). In the CDFS the presence of extended sources is a minor effect for the computation of the Log N–Log S. For this reason we computed the SC by comparing the input and output number counts of simulated fields. We divided the selected field of view into four circular regions ($`0^{}3^{}`$, $`3^{}5^{}`$, $`5^{}6.5^{}`$ and $`6.5^{}8^{}`$) and derived the SC and CF from simulations as a single correction (which we hereafter will call sky coverage). In the upper panels of Fig. 3 the derived CF as a function of flux and off-axis angle is shown for the soft and hard band; in the lower panels the total sky-coverages are shown in unit of square degrees.

### 4.3 Fluxes and bias correction

In Fig. 4 we show the comparison between the input and output counts of simulated sources (output fluxes are corrected for the flux lost during the WT characterization, i.e. the so-called Point Spread Function (PSF) correction, evaluated on bright isolated sources for every arcmin of the field of view, and vignetting, evaluated directly from the exposure map). For high signal to noise sources the counts are measured correctly, while at lower signal to noise ratio the count distribution of the detected sources suffers from the well known Eddington bias (e.g. Hasinger et al. 1993). In our case the bias starts affecting the data below $`30`$ input counts in the soft band (corresponding to $`10^{16}`$ erg s-1 cm-2). This bias is due to the superposition of faint sources (below the detection threshold) on positive background fluctuations, making them detectable. Given the background level we expect to detect sources with less than 10 counts only in correspondence of background peaks (or when two faint sources are merged together into a brighter one). It follows that the counts of the very faint sources are necessarily overestimated (otherwise they could not be detected). We corrected for this bias following the approach of Vikhlinin et al. (1995). We fitted the output source counts as a function of the input counts with polynomial functions for a grid of circular coronae, since the bias is a function of the source width (see Fig. 4). By inverting the fitting functions, we get an unbiased estimate of the source counts in the faint tail of the simulated sample. Input counts versus corrected output counts are shown in the right panel of Fig. 4.

To assess the goodness of our correction procedure we perform a maximum likelihood fit to the differential (unbinned) flux distributions of the 100 simulated fields individually and we compare the results of the fits with the expected values from the input distributions. In Fig. 5 we compare the results before and after the bias correction. As explained below, in the final test section, for the corrected fluxes we set the flux limit at 5 and 7 counts in the innermost region in the soft and hard band, respectively, whereas for the uncorrected fluxes we are forced to use limiting flux of 10 and 12 counts, respectively. From the results of the maximum likelihood fit it is evident that after the flux correction results are in very good agreement with the input value, whereas the distribution of the uncorrected fluxes suffers for a bias. This effect is more evident in the hard band where the background level is higher.

A possible alternative to the correction of the measured fluxes is the use of a completeness function allowing for a probability higher than unity for those fluxes where faint sources are wrongly detected. Such a probability function can be obtained by comparing the number of input and output sources in simulations as a function of their output fluxes instead of the (usually considered) input ones. In any case, this probability function will depend on the input Log N–Log S and it will be necessary to perform simulations with a number count distribution as close as possible to the unknown distribution of the sky sources (an iterative approach would be required). On top of that, the sensitivity limit of a survey adopting this procedure to correct for the Eddington bias will be a factor of $`2`$ brighter than the correction of fluxes discussed above. Thus we followed the first procedure.

### 4.4 Final tests and flux limits

In order to investigate any systematic error in our analysis we verified how the entire procedure works on different and independent simulated samples. Thus, we have generated different samples of sources with different slopes and normalizations of the integral flux distribution, comparing the input sample with the output of the detection procedure, after the correction for the flux bias and the sky coverage. Again, to assess the goodness of our analysis and to derive the flux limit, we perform a maximum likelihood fit to the differential (unbinned) flux distributions.

In Fig. 6 we compare the input integral flux distribution (dashed line) with the output one before (dotted line) and after (solid line) the correction for the Eddington bias. As stated above, without the flux correction for this bias, a reliable flux limit is about a factor 2 larger. This happens because all the detected sources with input fluxes in the range 5–10 counts range are detected typically with 10–15 counts. As a consequence the slope of the faint tail of the distribution of uncorrected fluxes is overestimated. This effect depends on the background level and on the slope of the distribution. It is more important in the hard band where the background is higher, and where the source distribution has a larger slope. As illustrated in Fig. 6 in all cases we are able to recover the input distributions with high accuracy and with different input slopes down to 5 and 7 counts in the soft and hard band, respectively (corresponding to fluxes of $`2.4\times 10^{17}`$ and $`2.1\times 10^{16}`$ erg s-1 cm-2). These numbers refer to the innermost regions and rising to 5, 6 and 8 counts in the other regions (7, 7 and 10 in the hard band).

## 5 Log N–Log S distribution

Within the $`8^{}`$ radius region in which our analysis has been carried out we detected 244 and 177 sources in the soft and hard band, respectively (Fig. 7). These sources are detected independently in the two images for a total number of 278 sources. This is at variance with e.g. Rosati et al. (2001) who made a detection over the entire 0.5–7 keV energy band and then pick up sources with signal to noise ratio larger than 2.1 in the 0.5–2 keV and 2–7 keV energy bands. Given a typical source spectrum and taking into account the different background levels in the two bands this latter approach is in general more efficient in the source detection, because it uses all the signal available, but it is not well suitable for our purposes. Infact, our final aim is drawing the flux distributions in the two bands down to the faintest limits, where the detection is highly incomplete and to do this we based on the results of the Monte Carlo simulations: if we perform the detection and the photometry in the two bands indipendently we can simulate all the procedures directly, whereas if we perform the detection in the full band we have to assume an input spectrum for the sources to simulate the photometry in the two bands making the evaluation of the sky coverage at the faint end tricky.

To further characterize the detected sources we computed the hardness ratio $`HR=(HS)/(H+S)`$ where $`H`$ and $`S`$ are the net counts in the hard and the soft band corrected for PSF and vignetting losses, respectively. There are 34 sources ($`12\%`$ of the total number of detected sources) that are revealed only in the hard band ($`HR=1`$), and 101 sources ($`36\%`$) that are revealed only in the soft band ($`HR=1`$). As can be seen in Fig. 8, there is a progressive hardening of the detected sources when plotted as a function of the soft flux indicating that the deeper we go in the soft band, the larger the number of sources responsible for the XRB at higher energies. This is particularly evident at 0.5–2 keV fluxes larger than $`10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 for which no source with $`HR>0`$ are observed (e.g. Tozzi et al. 2001; Brandt et al. 2001b), whereas the large number of sources at low fluxes undetected in the hard band ($`HR=1`$) may weaken the trend. Sources with no soft X–ray counterparts are likely candidate for type II quasar (Norman et al. 2001; Stern et al. 2001). The small number of hard sources not detected in the soft band indicate that even in highly obscured AGN a sizeable soft emission can still be produced due to, e.g., scattering, partial covering of the central radiation or from starburst emission around the AGN (e.g. Turner et al. 1997). This confirms that also at these extreme flux levels the ratio between soft and hard X–ray emission is $`110\%`$. In addition, as shown in Barger et al. (2001), the effects of obscuration get significantly reduced at $`z2`$, since we observe in the soft band the harder 1.5–6 keV rest frame interval.

In order to characterize the flux distribution of sources detected in the soft band we performed a maximum likelihood fit with a power–law distribution. We obtain as a best fit

$$N(>S)=438\left(\frac{S}{2\times 10^{15}}\right)^{0.65}\mathrm{cgs}.$$
(1)
The error at $`68\%`$ confidence level for the normalization is $`K_{15}=438_{68}^{+82}`$ ($`K_{15}`$ means that fluxes are measured in units of $`2\times 10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2), while for the slope is $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}=0.65\pm 0.05`$ (see also Fig. 9). This value is slightly different from the one reported in Campana et al. (2001) by less than $`1\sigma `$. This is mainly due to the improvements in the total background map calculations. Maximum likelihood analysis provide an accurate description of the errors only in the case of good fits. To assure this we adaptively binned the source distribution in order to contain 10 sources per bin. The fit of the binned data with the same power law gives a good fit by means of a $`\chi ^2`$ test (null hypothesis probability $`10\%`$).

In order to test the influence of the Eddington bias correction in the fit of the slope and normalization of the Log N–Log S, we fit with the same maximum likelihood routine the uncorrected number counts. As explained above, a further implication of the Eddington bias correction is that the detection can be performed at fainter fluxes. Our soft band limiting fluxes are, in fact, $`F_{\mathrm{lim}}=4.9\times 10^{17}`$ and $`F_{\mathrm{lim}}=2.4\times 10^{17}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 before and after the correction, respectively. We find that the normalization does not change significantly ($`K_{15}=420_{68}^{+80}`$) while the slope is only marginally consistent with what measured after the bias correction ($`\alpha _\mathrm{s}=0.72\pm 0.05`$; see also Fig. 9).

Our bias corrected normalization and slope, are in good agreement with earlier results obtained with ROSAT (Hasinger et al. 1998), Chandra (Tozzi et al. 2001) and XMM-Newton (Hasinger et al. 2001; Baldi et al. 2001) up to their faintest flux levels ($`>10^{16}`$ erg s-1 cm-2).

The total extragalactic background in the soft band is usually evaluated in the 1–2 keV band to limit contribution from our Galaxy. The absolute value of the XRB is still a matter of debate. The 1–2 keV XRB estimates are clustered around two different values: Hasinger et al. (1993) and Gendreau et al. (1995) obtained a value of $`3.76\times 10^{12}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 deg-2. This is in contrast with the estimate derived by Chen et al. (1997; see also Hasinger 1996) based on a joint ROSAT/ASCA fit yielding a flux of $`4.42\times 10^{12}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 deg-2 (i.e. $`20\%`$ higher). An intermediate value has recently been obtained by Kuntz, Snowden & Mushotzky (2001) using ROSAT PSPC observations with $`3.99\times 10^{12}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 deg-2 and Garmire et al. (2002, in preparation) using Chandra $`4.19\times 10^{12}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 deg-2. Based on our Log N–Log S distribution we can resolve in point sources a flux of $`5.58\times 10^{13}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 deg-2 for sources fainter than $`10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2. Summing to this the contribution from the Lockman hole (Hasinger et al. 1998) we obtain a resolved flux of $`3.57\times 10^{12}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 deg-2. As pointed out by Rosati et al. (2001) we have also to include the contribution from cluster of galaxies recognized to be at a level of $`6\%`$ in the 1–2 keV energy band (Rosati et al. 1998). In conclusion, in the case of the lower background estimate we are able to fully resolve it as arising from point sources, taking the higher value we can resolve $`87\%`$.

The slope of the faint end counts converges slower than logarithmically and therefore the faint sources have a very small contribution to the XRB. Extending to lower fluxes the source distribution we can add just a $`4\%`$ more. This may leave space for a $`\stackrel{<}{}9\%`$ truly diffuse emission produced by the warm/hot diffuse intergalactic medium which is estimated to contribute at a $`515\%`$ level (Phillips et al. 2001).

A final caveat concerns the total flux of the point sources which suffers from several uncertainties: source flux conversion, variation of the power law index from source to source, cosmic variance (the CDFS is depleted of bright sources), Log N–Log S power law index and normalization uncertainties. We estimate an error at a level of $`7\%`$.

In the case of the hard band, a fit with a single power-law source distribution does not provide a good description of the data (binning the data as before, we obtain a probability of the null hypothesis $`0.02\%`$). Moreover due to the lack of bright sources in the CDFS, our data cannot be matched directly with earlier result. So we normalized the distribution of our 177 sources, see Fig. 9) to the ASCA data (della Ceca et al. 2000). The limiting flux is $`2.1\times 10^{16}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 and raises to $`F_{\mathrm{lim}}=3.7\times 10^{16}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 if the Eddington bias correction is not applied.

Thus, we turn to a smoothly joined power–law model:

$$N(>S)=1.2\times 10^4\left[\frac{(2\times 10^{15})^{\alpha _{\mathrm{h1}}}}{S^{\alpha _{\mathrm{h1}}}+S_0^{\alpha _{\mathrm{h1}}\alpha _{\mathrm{h2}}}S^{\alpha _{\mathrm{h2}}}}\right]\mathrm{cgs},$$
(2)
fixing the bright flux slope and the normalization to the ASCA value, i.e. $`\alpha _{h1}=1.67`$ (della Ceca et al. 2000). The faint end slope and the break flux $`S_0`$ are fitted to the data. The maximum likelihood fit yields $`\alpha _{\mathrm{h2}}=0.49\pm 0.05`$ and $`S_0=9.6_{1.0}^{+1.2}\times 10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 (all at $`68\%`$ confidence level for a single parameter; see Fig. 9). Without correcting for the Eddington bias, the break flux slightly changes $`S_0=10.5_{1.0}^{+1.2}\times 10^{15}`$ and the fitted slope is $`\alpha _{\mathrm{h2}}=0.56\pm 0.05`$. The slope value is slightly flatter (within $`1\sigma `$) than what found in Campana et al. (2001).

The problem of estimating the background level in the hard 2–10 keV band is even more serious than in the soft band. Also in this case different estimates exist but the range of variation is as high as $`50\%`$. The limiting values are on the lower side the ones from UHURU and HEAO-1 $`1.6\times 10^{11}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 deg-2 (Marshall et al. 1980; see also Ueda et al. 1999 based on ASCA) and on the higher side the (more recent) ones from BeppoSAX and ASCA $`2.4\times 10^{11}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 deg-2 (Chiappetti et al. 1998; Vecchi et al. 1999; Ishisaki et al. 2000; Perri & Giommi 2000), in agreement with the old Wisconsin measurements (McCammon et al. 1983).

With our number counts distribution, we are able to account for $`1.99\times 10^{11}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 deg-2. This value is higher than the UHURU and HEAO-1 estimate by $`24\%`$ likely ruling out it. With respect to the higher 2–10 keV background estimate our source distribution can account for $`83\%`$ of the background resolved in point sources. Also in this case the faint end tail converges slower than logarithmically and we can comprise up to $`87\%`$ of the hard background (see also Campana et al. 2001). A new population of sources, possibly contributing also at higher energies, is therefore needed if one wants to fully resolve the background into point sources.

In this case, the error on the background flux resolved into sources is dominated by the uncertainty in the flux conversion factor, resulting in a $`10\%`$ error.

## 6 Conclusions

Based on the experience developed in the ROSAT HRI data analysis (Lazzati et al. 1999; Campana et al. 1999) we build up a procedure for the automatic detection and characterization of sources in Chandra ACIS fields. The main difference between our wavelet algorithm (BMW-Chandra) and the standard CIAO wavdetect (Freeman et al. 2001) is the use of the multi-resolution technique. As explained, this makes the BMW-Chandra algorithm less flexible but faster and therefore more suitable for the analysis of large data sets and for Monte Carlo tests. The Chandra deep fields are, of course, the most intriguing fields to probe the algorithm. Here we have described the procedures we used to simulate and analyze in details the CDFS. The simulations we performed allow us to safely conclude that our detection procedures are robust in terms of number of spurious sources, positional accuracy, flux estimate down to the quoted limits. In this respect the Eddington bias correction is especially important, allowing us to approach the theoretical detection limit of 3 photons (Damiani et al. 1997b).

Scientific results have been previously discussed in Campana et al. (2001), here we improve and complement them. We independently detect 244 and 177 sources in the soft and hard band, respectively for a total number of 278 sources. Source distributions can be safely recovered down to fluxes $`2.4\times 10^{17}`$ and $`2.1\times 10^{16}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 in the soft and hard energy band, respectively. These are a factor of $`\stackrel{>}{}2`$ deeper than current estimates. Note that being still in the photon detection limit, an improvement by a factor of $`2`$ in the Log N–Log S reconstruction corresponds to an effective doubling of the observing time.

There is general consensus that the main constituents of the soft 1–2 keV XRB can be ascribed to broad line AGN (i.e. Seyfert 1 galaxies; Hasinger et al. 1998; Schmidt et al. 1998). At faint fluxes ($`\stackrel{<}{}10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2) nearby ($`z\stackrel{<}{}0.6`$) optically-normal (possibly low luminosity AGN) galaxies are also being detected as soft sources (Fiore et al. 2000; Barger et al. 2001; Tozzi et al. 2001; Brandt et al. 2001a; Schreier et al. 2001; Koekemoer et al. 2001). Our analysis of the CDFS extends the source flux distribution down the faintest level of $`2.4\times 10^{17}`$ erg s-1 cm-2. We found that even at these low fluxes the Log N–Log S distribution can still be represented by the extrapolation from higher fluxes without upward trends. Including the contribution from cluster of galaxies (Rosati et al. 1998), we are able to resolve in point sources $`>90\%`$ of the soft XRB, the exact value depending on the sky level itself. Our results are also in agreement with the recent fluctuation analysis on the HDFN down to $`7\times 10^{18}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 (Miyaji & Griffiths 2002).

In the hard band the XRB is made by the superposition of absorbed and unabsorbed sources (Setti & Woltjer 1989). The steeper power law index observed in bright AGN implies that a population of faint hard sources is present, likely affected by a considerable absorption. Studies with Chandra and XMM-Newton are now discovering these sources identifiable with Type II AGN unrelated to the morphological type (Schreier et al. 2001; Koekemoer et al. 2001). We note that only a small fraction of hard source are not detected in the soft band, likely indicating that at least $`110\%`$ of the flux is in any case emitted in the soft band. Our analysis lead to the extension of the Log N–Log S source flux distribution down to $`2.1\times 10^{16}`$ erg s-1 cm-2. At this level we can rule out the UHURU/HEAO-1 estimate and account for $`87\%`$ of the BeppoSAX/ASCA estimate. The fluctuation analysis by Miyaji & Griffiths (2002) does not add much stopping at $`1\times 10^{16}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 but with a large error.

The analyzed field of view is small and cosmic variance likely plays a role. We plan to carry out the same analysis of the Chandra HDFN in order to confirm the present results and to perform a joint analysis with other shallower and more extended surveys in order to cover with good statistics the bright flux ends (Moretti et al., in preparation).

Chandra with its superb angular resolution opens the possibility to extend at even lower fluxes the source distribution. In fact, at the present level sources are still photon limited. This will allow to deepen our knowledge of the distant universe, allowing to probe the accretion power over the history of the X–ray universe, and its implications for structure formation and the epoch of reionization.

We thank the continuous support of the Chandra Help Desk and the CIAO team for the organization of Chandra/CIAO workshop. We also thank M. Markevitch and the anonymous referee for their suggestions. This work was supported through CNAA, Co-fin, ASI grants and Funds for Young Researchers of the Università degli studi di Milano.


format: text

text:
# Towards a Resolution of the Galactic Spin Crisis: Mergers, Feedback, and Spin Segregation

## 1 Introduction

The ‘standard’ model of cosmology, which assumes hierarchical buildup of structure in a universe where the mass is dominated by cold dark matter (CDM), seems to be facing intriguing difficulties in explaining some of the robust observed properties of galaxies. Standing out among these problems is the inability of galaxy formation models to reproduce both the sizes and structure of disk galaxies. In hydrodynamical simulations baryons lose a significant fraction of their angular momentum leading to overly small disks. To avoid this, analytic and semi-analytic models commonly assume there is no angular momentum loss. Recent studies, however, show that this leads to a variety of discrepancies with observations. Taken together this suggests a crisis in our understanding of the role of angular momentum in forming disk galaxies. Our aim here is to make progress in the effort to resolve this crisis by first reproducing the problems using a simple model in which the important physical ingredients are spelled out and well understood. Subsequently we incorporate an additional process into this model which then reproduces the observed sizes and structure of galactic disks.

The sizes of galactic disks are commonly linked to the angular momentum of their parent dark-matter halos (Fall & Efstathiou, 1980). This modeling is based on the distribution of halo spin parameters as found in N-body simulations (see Bullock et al., 2001, and references therein), combined with the assumptions that the baryons and dark matter initially share the same distribution of specific angular momentum, $`j`$, within the halos (as seen in simulations by van den Bosch et al., 2002) and that $`j`$ is conserved as the baryons contract to form the disk (as suggested by Mestel, 1963). The sizes of disks obtained under these assumptions are roughly comparable to those observed.

However, high-resolution simulations that incorporate gas processes find this scenario to be invalid. In particular, they find that a significant fraction of the angular momentum of the baryons is transfered to the dark matter, resulting in disk sizes roughly an order of magnitude smaller then those observed (Navarro & Steinmetz, 2000; Sommer-Larsen et al., 1999; Navarro & Steinmetz, 1997; Navarro et al., 1995; Navarro & Benz, 1991). This has been refered to as the angular momentum catastrophe.

The angular momentum catastrophe is commonly associated with the problem of “over-cooling” in CDM-type scenarios (White & Frenk, 1991; White & Rees, 1978). Without sufficient feedback much of the gas cools quickly, contracts into small halos and then spirals deep into the centers of bigger halos, efficiently transferring its orbital angular momentum to the dark matter (Navarro & Steinmetz, 2000). It has therefore been speculated that enough energy feedback from supernova may prevent this over-cooling (Larson, 1974; White & Rees, 1978) and thus reduce the angular-momentum loss. Indeed, simulations where gas cooling is artificially suppressed till $`z=1`$ do not suffer from the angular momentum catastrophe (Eke et al., 2000; Weil et al., 1998). Furthermore, simulations including some forms of feedback show a reduction in the amount of angular momentum lost (Sommer-Larsen et al., 1999). However, while feedback has been studied using simplified approximations (e.g., Dekel & Silk, 1986, hereafter DS), a realistic implementation of feedback has proved challenging (see Thacker & Couchman, 2000, and references therein), though some partial progress may have been made recently (Ferrara & Tolstoy, 2000; Thacker & Couchman, 2001; Springel & Hernquist, 2002). At this point, the feedback scenario has not yet been studied in satisfactory detail, nor has it been confirmed to solve the spin problem, or properly understood in basic terms. This motivates an attempt to understand the scenario and how it may work using a simple semi-analytic model, in which the basic elements are easily understood.

Even if the angular momentum catastrophe can be avoided such that the total baryonic spin agrees with the total dark-halo spin, there remain discrepancies between the angular-momentum properties of dark halos in N-body simulations and those of observed disk galaxies. Foremost among these is the apparent mismatch of the distribution of specific angular momentum within galaxies (loosely termed “the $`j`$ profile”) between observations and N-body simulations. Bullock et al. (2001, hereafter BD) revealed a universal profile with an excess of both low-$`j`$ and high-$`j`$ material compared to the observed $`j`$ distribution in exponential galactic disks. Subsequently, van den Bosch, Burkert & Swaters (2001, hereafter BBS) have measured the $`j`$ distribution in a sample of dwarf disk galaxies, confirming in detail, case by case, the differences between the $`j`$ profile predicted by the simulated halos and those found in disk galaxies. We refer to this second discrepancy as the mismatch of angular-momentum profiles.

Another spin problem is indicated by the observations of de Jong & Lacey (2000), who found that the scatter in the log of the spin parameter inferred from fitting the spread of observed disks sizes in a large sample of late-type disk galaxies is only $`0.36\pm 0.03`$, while the scatter seen in simulated halos is significantly larger, $`0.5\pm 0.05`$ (BD and references therein). This could have been explained by a scenario in which the disks formed in low-spin halos are unstable and thus become early-type galaxies, which implies that disk galaxies occupy only the higher spin halos (Mo, Mao & White, 1998; van den Bosch, 1998). However, this scenario is in apparent conflict with the finding in N-body simulations that recent major mergers, usually identified with large spheroidal components, actually give rise to halos with higher spin than average (Gardner, 2001; Wechsler, 2001). This demonstrates that the exact connection between the angular-momentum properties observed in galaxies and in N-body simulations is unclear.

We propose that the solution to the crisis is spin segregation — that the angular momentum distribution of baryons differs from that of the dark matter due to gas processes. These processes can either decrease or increase the specific angular momentum of the baryons relative to the dark matter. Gas cooling generally results in lower spin for the baryons compared to the dark matter, but heating due to feedback reduces this effect, and gas removal in small halos actually results in a higher spin for the baryons compared to the dark matter.

In this paper we work out a simple model to explore these effects. Knowing that in a hierarchical scenario the halo buildup can be largely interpreted as a sequence of mergers between smaller halos, our model is based on a simple algorithm for the buildup of halo spin by summation of the orbital angular momenta of merging satellites (Maller et al., 2002; Vitvitska et al., 2001). This algorithm has been found to match well the spin distribution among halos in N-body simulations. In this paper we extend the model and find that it also reproduces the angular-momentum profile within halos. It therefore provides a useful insight into the origin of the spin problems, and a clue for their possible solution. We therefore use this model as a tool for incorporating the relevant baryonic processes, and especially feedback.

In §2 we describe the model for angular-momentum buildup in halos by mergers. In §3 we model the angular momentum catastrophe as resulting from over-cooling and dynamical friction. In §4 we introduce a simple model of feedback. In §5 we study the resultant angular-momentum properties of the baryonic component both in bright and dwarf disk galaxies and compare them to observations. In §6 we test the robustness of our results to the details of the feedback model assumed. We conclude and discuss our results in §7.

## 2 Buildup of Halo Spin by Mergers

### 2.1 Modeling the Spin Parameter

The angular momentum of a galaxy, $`J`$, is commonly expressed in terms of the dimensionless spin parameter $`\lambda =J\sqrt{|E|}/GM^{5/2}`$, where $`E`$ is the internal energy (Peebles, 1969). In practice, the computation and measurement of this quantity, especially the energy, may be ambiguous, e.g., it is not obvious how to define separate spin parameters for the dark matter and the baryons. Furthermore, it introduces an undesired dependence on the specifics of the halo density profile. Instead, following BD, we use the modified spin parameter

$`\lambda ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{j}{\sqrt{2}V_{\mathrm{vir}}R_{\mathrm{vir}}}},`$ (1)
where $`j=J/M`$ is the specific angular momentum. This quantity is more straightforward to compute for each component, $`\lambda _{\mathrm{dm}}^{}`$ and $`\lambda _\mathrm{b}^{}`$, and it does not explicitly depend on the density profile of the halo. For a density profile of the type suggested by Navarro et al. (1996, NFW) $`\lambda ^{}`$ is related to $`\lambda `$ by

$`\lambda ^{}=\lambda f_c^{1/2},`$ (2)
where the factor $`f_c`$ reflects the difference between the energy of an NFW halo and a truncated singular isothermal sphere. An expression for $`f_c`$ as a function of the halo concentration, $`c_{\mathrm{vir}}`$, is given in Mo et al. (1998, equation 22). For a NFW halo with $`c_{\mathrm{vir}}=4.5`$ the values of the two spin parameters become equal.

BD found for simulated halos that, similarly to $`\lambda `$, the distribution of $`\lambda ^{}`$ is well fit by a log-normal function,

$`P(\lambda ^{})d\lambda ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \sigma _\lambda ^2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^2(\lambda ^{}/\lambda _0^{})}{2\sigma _\lambda ^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda ^{}}{\lambda ^{}}},`$ (3)
with $`\lambda _0^{}0.035`$ (compared to $`\lambda _00.042`$) and $`\sigma _\lambda 0.5`$.

In Maller et al. (2002), we proposed a very simple model for the buildup of spin in dark halos, termed “the orbital-merger model”. In this model, the spin of a final halo is simply the vector sum of the orbital angular momenta of all the halos merging into its main progenitor throughout its history. In this paper, as in Maller et al. (2002), we generate 500 random realizations of merger histories for each desired final halo mass at $`z=0`$, using the method of Somerville & Kolatt (1999) with the slight adjustment of Bullock, Kravtsov & Weinberg (2000) to implement the Extended Press Schechter formalism (Lacey & Cole, 1993; Bond et al., 1991). The specific cosmology assumed, without significant loss of generality, is the “standard” $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, $`h=0.7`$ and $`\sigma _8=1.0`$. For each of the merger trees, we perform 10 realizations of the orbital angular momentum that comes in with each merger. The encounter parameters are taken to be those of typical encounters in simulations, and the directions of the added spins are drawn at random, allowing for a slight correlation between the planes of successive mergers (as seen in simulations, e.g. Dekel et al., 2001; Porciani et al., 2001). We end up with a distribution of 5000 spin values for each halo mass. This distribution is shown in Fig. 4, in comparison with the log-normal distribution obtained by BD from a cosmological simulation. The model predictions of $`\lambda _0^{}=0.036`$ and $`\sigma _\lambda =0.53`$ match rather well the simulated results. One can see in Figure 2 of Maller et al. (2002) that the match is reasonable even without introducing any correlation between the encounter planes.

Similar results were obtained by Vitvitska et al. (2001), who draw their encounter parameters statistically from the distribution found in N-body simulations, and by Monaco, Theuns & Taffoni (2002), where encounter parameters for each object are provided by Lagrangian perturbative theory. We conclude that the simple orbital-merger model is successful in reproducing the simulated halo spin distribution, and therefore serves as a useful tool for studying the angular-momentum buildup in galaxies.

### 2.2 Modeling the Angular-Momentum Profile

The cumulative mass distribution of specific angular momentum within simulated dark halos, $`M(<j)`$, was found by BD to be well fit by the 2-parameter universal functional form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{M(<j)}{M_{\mathrm{vir}}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu j/j_{\mathrm{max}}}{\mu 1+j/j_{\mathrm{max}}}},\mu >1,`$ (4)
in which one of the parameters, say $`j_{\mathrm{max}}`$, can be replaced by $`\lambda ^{}`$. This profile is a simple power law, $`M(<j)j`$, for at least half the mass. When $`\mu `$ is close to unity, it bends over towards the high-$`j`$ end. The distribution of the shape parameter $`\mu `$ was found to be Gaussian in $`\mathrm{log}(\mu 1)`$, with a mean of $`0.6`$ and standard deviation of $`0.4`$.

One can also quantify the shape of the angular momentum profile by the ratio of the total specific angular momentum, $`j_{\mathrm{tot}}`$, to $`j_{\mathrm{max}}`$. The relation between this parameter and $`\mu `$ is

$`\zeta ={\displaystyle \frac{j_{\mathrm{tot}}}{j_{\mathrm{max}}}}=1\mu (1(1(\mu 1)\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\mu 1}}))`$ (5)
(BBS eqn. 12).

We create $`M(<j)`$ profiles for each of the realizations of the orbital-merger model as follows. We divide the mass growth of the halo into 20 equal-mass bins and assign to each bin the corresponding angular momentum that comes in with that mass. When a satellite’s mass is divided among several bins, $`i=1,n`$, with a fraction $`f`$ in bin 1, we assign a fraction $`f^2`$ of its angular momentum to bin 1. The remaining satellite mass and angular momentum are then distributed in an analogous way among bins $`i=2,n`$. This mimics an $`M(<j)j^{1/2}`$ profile for the contribution of each satellite, in rough agreement with the predictions of a toy model based on dynamical friction and tidal stripping for an NFW halo (BD; Dekel et al., 2001). The role of this procedure is to smooth the profile; in most cases it does not change the global shape, which is predominantly determined by the cosmological sequence of mergers. The result is therefore not too sensitive to the exact assumed distribution of $`j`$ due to each single merger.

Fig. 1 shows a sample of $`j`$ profiles produced by this procedure. Our profiles are somewhat noisier then those seen in simulations, partly because we ignore any exchange of angular momentum between particles. The overall agreement between our model profiles and the simulation results of BD suggests that the rearrangement of angular momentum only smoothes the profile without changing its global shape. We fit each of our profiles to eq. (4) by the simple method of requiring an exact match at half the virial mass (Fig. 1). The same results follow if we use $`\zeta `$ to compute $`\mu `$ by inverting eqn. 5. We obtain a distribution of $`\mu `$ values that are consistent with the results of BD (Fig. 2). As in BD, they show no dependence on halo mass or redshift. Thus, the orbital-merger model, which reproduces the correct distribution of spin values among halos, also recovers reasonably well the angular-momentum profile inside halos.

Our orbital-merger model reveals an important feature in the buildup of halo angular momentum. We see in the typical realization that the final halo spin and its direction are predominantly determined by one last major merger. Most of the high-$`j`$ mass in the final distribution comes in with this merger. The many smaller satellites, each possibly carrying a high $`j`$, come in at different directions and therefore tend to sum up to a low spin. Thus, most of the low-$`j`$ fraction of the halo mass originates in minor mergers. This feature provides an important clue for a possible solution to the spin crisis, as follows. If small satellites lose a large fraction of their gas before they merge into the halo then the final gas distribution in the galaxy lacks the low $`j`$ material. Furthermore, if more of the galactic gas originates in big satellites then the spin of the baryonic component may be higher then that of the dark matter.

## 3 Reproducing the Angular Momentum Catastrophe

### 3.1 Tidal Stripping and Dynamical Friction

We can understand the transfer of angular momentum from the baryons to the dark matter in cosmological hydrodynamical simulations with a simple model including gas cooling, dynamical friction and tidal stripping. In our model for halo spin buildup discussed above we have not specified how the orbital angular momentum of the satellite is converted to the spin of the halo. Clearly the transfer of angular momentum occurs by the processes of dynamical friction and tidal stripping. The dynamical friction acting by the halo particles on the bound part of the satellite exerts a torque which transfers angular-momentum from the satellite to the halo and eventually brings the satellite towards the halo center. Satellite particles that are tidally stripped and become part of the halo before the satellite sinks to the halo’s center retain what is left of their angular momentum at that point and add it directly to the halo.

A hint for the typical $`M(<j)`$ distribution due to a single merger can be obtained as follows (BD; Dekel et al., 2001). If the satellite moves with a circular velocity $`V_\mathrm{c}(r)`$, and we assume that the lost mass and $`j`$ are deposited, on average, locally at $`r`$, then the resultant spatial profile $`j(r)`$ can be obtained by averaging over shells,

$`4\pi r^2\rho (r)j(r)=m(r){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}[rV_\mathrm{c}(r)]}{\mathrm{d}r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}m(r)}{\mathrm{d}r}}rV_\mathrm{c}(r).`$ (6)
The first term refers to the $`J`$ transfer as a reaction to dynamical friction, and the second is the $`J`$ deposit associated with the tidal mass transfer. We need to estimate the momentary surviving satellite mass $`m(r)`$ in order to compute $`j(r)`$, which can then be inverted to obtain the desired $`M(<j)`$.

The tidal mass loss at halo radius $`r`$ can be crudely estimated by evaluating the tidal radius $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{t}`$ of the satellite at $`r`$ using the crude resonance condition,

$`m(\mathrm{}_\mathrm{t})/\mathrm{}_\mathrm{t}^3=M(r)/r^3,`$ (7)
where $`m(\mathrm{})`$ and $`M(r)`$ are the mass profiles of the satellite and halo respectively (e. g. Weinberg, 1994). If, for simplicity, these two profiles are self-similar, then the resonance condition implies

$`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{t}/\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{vir}}=r/R_{\mathrm{vir}},`$ (8)
where $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ are the virial radii of the satellite and the halo respectively. This means that the remaining bound mass of the satellite when it is at $`r`$ obeys

$`m[\mathrm{}_\mathrm{t}(r)]M(r).`$ (9)
A more accurate recipe for tidal stripping, based on studies with N-body simulations of mergers, reveal that eq. (9) is valid as a crude approximation for a wide range of merger parameters (Dekel et al., in preparation). We therefore adopt it in our model.

If the halo density profile is isothermal, $`M(r)r`$, then substituting eq. (9) in eq. (6) yields $`j(r)r`$, which corresponds to $`M(<j)j`$. A more realistic NFW density profile leads in the outer halo to a $`j`$ profile closer to $`M(<j)j^{1/2}`$, (BD; Dekel et al., 2001) which is what we use to smooth the profile in the orbital-merger algorithm. The qualitative similarity between the profile predicted by this toy model and the typical $`j`$ profile seen in simulations (BD) provides further support to the general picture of $`J`$ buildup by mergers.

### 3.2 Spin Segregation

We can now explore the effect of cooling in the satellites on the final angular momentum of the baryons. We assume that at an early time the baryons follow the dark-matter distribution. As the gas within a halo cools radiatively, it contracts to a more compact configuration characterized by a smaller radius, $`R_\mathrm{b}`$, compared to the extent of the dark matter, $`R_{\mathrm{dm}}`$. Such a spatial segregation in a satellite before it merges with a bigger halo naturally leads to a difference in the spins of baryons and dark matter in the product halo. The bound part of the satellite is continuously transferring orbital angular momentum to the dark matter by dynamical friction. In the extreme case, the inner satellite that remains bound all the way to the halo center eventually loses all its orbital angular momentum by this mechanism. At the moment of stripping, the escaping satellite material stops being affected by dynamical friction, and it joins the halo with the angular momentum that it is left with at that point.

The spatial segregation in the satellite thus implies that the $`j`$-rich mass stripped at the early stages of the merger in the outer halo is dominated by dark matter, while the more compact baryonic component survives longer as a bound satellite and loses more of its orbital angular momentum by dynamical friction. The result is a net transfer from the baryons to the dark-matter component. This process is illustrated in a schematic diagram, Fig. 3.

Using eqn. 8 above, we obtain that the orbital angular momentum added to the merger product with the baryons is related to the amount gained by the dark matter via

$`\mathrm{\Delta }J_\mathrm{b}={\displaystyle \frac{R_\mathrm{b}}{R_{\mathrm{dm}}}}\mathrm{\Delta }J_{\mathrm{dm}}.`$ (10)
We ignore any transfer of angular momentum from the satellite to the baryons already in the halo as baryons in the more massive halo are already more centrally concentrated than those in the satellite. In the case of maximum cooling the baryons dominate the center of the halo which we approximate as $`R_\mathrm{b}=f_\mathrm{b}R_{\mathrm{dm}}`$, where $`f_\mathrm{b}`$ is the universal baryon fraction. Adopting $`f_\mathrm{b}=0.13`$ (Tytler et al., 1999), we obtain that the spin of the baryons is reduced by almost an order of magnitude, and thus reproduces the angular momentum catastrophe as seen in hydrodynamical cosmological simulations. In Fig. 4 we show the resultant probability distribution of the spin parameter as obtained in our orbital-merger model with maximum cooling; it has $`\lambda _0^{}=0.005`$.

This simple modeling of the spin problem makes it easy to understand why it is usually assumed that some form of energy input into the gas may remedy the problem; it would delay the cooling, increase $`R_\mathrm{b}`$, and thus reduce the baryonic spin loss.

Note that in common semi-analytic models of galaxy formation the gas is assumed to be either in a hot phase or in a cold phase, with the hot phase extending out to $`R_{\mathrm{dm}}`$ and the cold phase condensed. This implies that the cold gas in the satellite looses most of its angular momentum to dynamical friction, while the hot gas retains most of its angular momentum. In this case the fraction of baryons in the hot phase, $`f_{hot}`$, determines the orbital angular momentum added as baryonic angular momentum to the merger product, $`\mathrm{\Delta }J_\mathrm{b}=f_{hot}\mathrm{\Delta }J_{\mathrm{dm}}`$. Thus, one can relate our discussion here to other semi-analytic modeling by identifying $`f_{hot}=R_\mathrm{b}/R_{\mathrm{dm}}`$.

## 4 Feedback

It is generally assumed that some form of heating may play an important role in preventing over-cooling and therefore angular-momentum loss. The most important source of heating is likely to be supernova feedback though reionization by the UV background, tidal heating, and ram pressure may all contribute. Semi-analytic models assume different ad hoc recipes for the amount of heating as a function of star-formation rate, though hydrodynamical simulations have been largely unsuccessful so far in implanting feedback in a way that prevents over-cooling (see Thacker & Couchman, 2000, and references therein). Our approach in the present work is to avoid the details of star formation and feedback recipes and rather use a very simple prescription for the effect of feedback in a satellite halo as a function of its virial velocity, $`V_{\mathrm{sat}}`$.

Following the analysis in §IV of DS, we assume that the total supernova energy pumped into the gas per unit mass is a robust quantity. This is based on the assumptions that the supernova rate is roughly proportional to the same gas mass that is later being affected by it, that the star-formation rate is inversely proportional to the dynamical time, and that the supernova remnant transfers most of its energy to the interstellar medium by the end of its “adiabatic” phase. DS estimated as a crude upper limit that the supernova input is comparable to the kinetic energy per unit mass of an isothermal halo with virial velocity $`100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The actual free parameter characterizing our feedback model, $`V_{\mathrm{fb}}`$, is defined as the virial velocity of a halo for which the energy input is sufficient to heat all the gas to the virial temperature of the halo. Based on DS we expect $`V_{\mathrm{fb}}`$ to be of order $`100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ or less, but we keep this estimate in mind only as a general constraint which does not enter our current analysis. The actual relation between $`V_{\mathrm{fb}}`$ and the supernova input depends on the initial state of the gas before the supernova burst.

We thus parameterize the effect of feedback on the spatial extent of the baryons in a halo by the ratio of $`V_{\mathrm{sat}}`$ to $`V_{\mathrm{fb}}`$. The limit $`V_{\mathrm{sat}}>>V_{\mathrm{fb}}`$, massive halos with deep potential wells, corresponds to maximum cooling, $`R_\mathrm{b}R_{\mathrm{dm}}`$. For smaller halos with $`V_{\mathrm{sat}}V_{\mathrm{fb}}`$ we expect the heating to balance the cooling and yield $`R_\mathrm{b}R_{\mathrm{dm}}`$. Our model is therefore a simple interpolation between these limits,

$`R_\mathrm{b}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{\mathrm{fb}}}{V_{\mathrm{sat}}}}\right)^{\gamma _1}R_{\mathrm{dm}}(V_{\mathrm{sat}}>V_{\mathrm{fb}}),`$ (11)
with $`\gamma _1`$ an arbitrary exponent.

If $`V_{\mathrm{fb}}`$ is larger than $`V_{\mathrm{sat}}`$, the feedback can cause gas ejection from the satellite. For $`V_{\mathrm{sat}}<<V_{\mathrm{fb}}`$ we expect total blowout, and we assume that partial blowout starts occurring for halos where the potential energy of the gas is comparable to the energy input from supernova, $`V_{\mathrm{sat}}^2=(1/2)V_{\mathrm{fb}}^2`$. We therefore parameterize the amount of gas that remains in the halo by another simple interpolation,

$`f_\mathrm{d}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{\mathrm{sat}}}{\sqrt{2}V_{\mathrm{fb}}}}\right)^{\gamma _2}(V_{\mathrm{sat}}<V_{\mathrm{fb}}/\sqrt{2}),`$ (12)
with $`\gamma _2`$ another arbitrary exponent.

We start with the simplest arbitrary choice $`\gamma _1=\gamma _2=1`$. Later, in section 6, we will explore the robustness of the results to different assumptions about choices of values for $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$.

The only remaining free parameter of the feedback model is $`V_{\mathrm{fb}}`$. We set it by requiring that halos with a virial velocity of $`60\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ have an average $`f_\mathrm{d}=0.04`$, as measured in the data of BBS. Note that we are concerned with the state of the baryons only when the satellite mergers with the halo; it is therefore sufficient that the feedback be effective for a short duration, perhaps triggered by the merging process itself.

The effects of heating and blowout on the angular momentum of baryons versus dark matter, according to our model, in shown in Figure 5. For massive satellite with $`V_{\mathrm{sat}}>V_{\mathrm{fb}}`$, the baryons retain less angular momentum as the mass increases, because of dynamical friction. Small satellites with $`V_{\mathrm{sat}}<\sqrt{2}V_{\mathrm{fb}}`$ allow a blowout of a larger fraction of their gas as the mass decreases, thus adding to the merger product less baryons and therefore less baryonic angular momentum, while the specific angular momentum of the two components remains the same.

In Fig. 6 we demonstrate the effects of the different ingredients of this feedback scheme, with $`V_{\mathrm{fb}}=95\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, on the baryonic spin-parameter distribution. We do it for two kinds of final halo masses, corresponding to virial velocities of $`60`$ and $`220\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. We refer to these as representing dwarf  and bright  galaxies respectively.

The left panel of Fig. 6 shows the effects of adding heating only, ignoring blowout. The dwarf galaxies are all built up by satellites of $`V_{\mathrm{sat}}<V_{\mathrm{fb}}`$, so there is full heating, $`R_\mathrm{b}R_{\mathrm{dm}}`$ The result is that the spin distribution of the baryons resembles that of the dark-matter. In bright galaxies, the partial heating raises the baryonic spin to $`\lambda _0^{}=0.028`$, which is still lower than the typical spin of the dark matter due to the partial cooling.

The center panel shows the effects of full heating ($`R_\mathrm{b}R_{\mathrm{dm}}`$) and blowout, as if there is no cooling. For the two kinds of galaxies, the baryonic $`\lambda ^{}`$ distribution becomes significantly higher then that of the dark matter, with $`\lambda _0^{}=0.051`$ for the bright galaxies and a very high $`\lambda _0^{}=0.067`$ for the dwarf galaxies.

Finally, the right panel shows the result of applying the full feedback scheme, considering cooling, heating and blowout together. The baryons in the bright galaxies now have spins comparable and even slightly higher then their dark-matter halos, with $`\lambda _0^{}=0.040`$ (and $`\sigma _\lambda =0.43`$), while the baryons in dwarf galaxies now have spins higher by $`50\%`$, with $`\lambda _0^{}=0.068`$ (and $`\sigma _\lambda =0.61`$).

Thus, the baryonic spin in dwarf galaxies, which are made by mergers of small satellites, is dominated by the blowout of the gas from these satellites, and it ends up with $`\lambda _\mathrm{b}^{}>\lambda _{\mathrm{dm}}^{}`$. For bigger galaxies, which are largely made of bigger satellites, the dominant effect preventing the over-cooling spin catastrophe is the heating, with some contribution from blowout. This yields a baryonic spin distribution similar to that of the dark matter halos, in general agreement with observations.

## 5 Model versus Observations

We now confront the model predictions with observations, in particular those of BBS. We first calibrate the value of the one free parameter $`V_{\mathrm{fb}}`$ by the observed gas deficit in dwarf galaxies. We then address the distribution of the baryonic spin parameter in these galaxies, as well as the angular momentum profiles within dwarf and bright disks.

### 5.1 Observations

Generally, galaxy formation modelers have compared their predicted disk sizes to the distribution of disk scale lengths found in large samples of late type galaxies (Courteau, 1996; Mathewson et al., 1992). A more detailed comparison has been performed by de Jong & Lacey (2000) where they constructed the bivariate space density of galaxies as a function of luminosity and size. This allows the spread in observed disk sizes to be compared to models and they found that the spread corresponded to a $`\sigma _\lambda `$ of only $`0.36\pm 0.03`$. Ideally one would like to compare the actual angular momentum in models with observed galaxies instead of just properties derived from the angular momentum.

The only observational attempt so far to measure spin parameters for galactic disks is by BBS, which therefore serves as the main target for our modeling effort in this paper. BBS used fits to the rotation curves and assumed an NFW profile for the halos (Navarro et al., 1995) in order to determine the halo virial quantities $`R_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ and $`V_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ for 14 dwarf galaxies, with an average $`V_{\mathrm{vir}}60\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. They also assumed a mass-to-light ratio of unity in the $`R`$ band, but their results are not very sensitive to this assumption because dwarf galaxies are dominated by their dark matter halos. BBS then determined for each galaxy the baryonic spin parameter $`\lambda _\mathrm{b}`$ which we have converted to $`\lambda _\mathrm{b}^{}`$ using their values for $`c_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ and equation 2. This leads to an average value of $`\lambda _\mathrm{b}^{}0.063`$, significantly larger than that of simulated dark-matter halos. They also estimated the ratio $`f_\mathrm{d}`$ of disk mass (stars + gas) to dark-matter mass, and found an average of $`f_\mathrm{d}0.04`$, about a factor of 3 smaller than the universal baryonic fraction (Tytler et al., 1999). Finally, they measured the $`j`$ distribution in each galaxy, and confirmed the mismatch of angular-momentum profiles. We discard one galaxy (UGC4499) from the sample because its rotation-curve fit yields strikingly anomalous results.

### 5.2 Baryon Fraction

The distribution of $`f_\mathrm{d}`$ values for the dwarf galaxies of BBS is displayed in Fig. 7 as a shaded histogram. These values are significantly lower than the generally adopted universal value of $`f_\mathrm{b}0.13`$, which suggests significant baryonic mass loss from these objects. Shown for comparison are the corresponding model predictions for dwarf and bright galaxies. We have chosen a value of $`V_{\mathrm{fb}}=95\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ in order to match the mean of the BBS measurements for dwarf galaxies, $`f_\mathrm{d}0.04`$, but one can see in Fig. 7 that the resulting spread in $`f_\mathrm{d}`$ values is also in good agreement with the dwarf galaxies data. For bright galaxies, $`f_\mathrm{d}`$ is typically lower than the universal value by only $`3040\%`$, reflecting the limited fraction of small merging satellites who lost their gas.<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 There is one dwarf galaxy with an $`f_\mathrm{d}`$ value much higher then the rest of the distribution. This galaxy has the lowest virial velocity in the sample, $`V_{\mathrm{vir}}=43\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, and the second highest concentration parameter, $`c_{\mathrm{vir}}=31`$, suggesting that there may be something unusual about this galaxy, either in its history or in the BBS fit to it rotation curve. It is encouraging that the obtained value for $`V_{\mathrm{fb}}`$ is in the range of expected values for supernova-driven winds (DS).

### 5.3 Spin Parameter of Baryons

Next, we compare predicted and observed distributions of spin parameters for dwarf galaxies. The distribution of $`\lambda _\mathrm{b}^{}`$ for the BBS disks of dwarf galaxies is plotted in Figure 8 as a shaded histogram. Shown first in comparison is the $`\lambda ^{}`$ distribution for dark halos in cosmological $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM simulations from BD. Contrary to comments made by BBS, these two distributions are not in agreement — the observed spins are significantly higher, with an average of $`0.063`$ compared to $`0.035`$ in the dark-matter simulations. Finally shown in Figure 8 is our model prediction for the baryonic spin distribution in dwarf galaxies ($`V_{\mathrm{vir}}=60\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$), with $`V_{\mathrm{fb}}=95\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The effect of blowout brings the baryonic spin distribution into good agreement with the observed sample. Note that this distribution is quite different then that of the dark matter, with $`\lambda _0^{}=0.068`$ and $`\sigma _\lambda =0.61`$. We find it remarkable that the agreement with the observed spin distribution follows automatically from the adjustment of $`V_{\mathrm{fb}}`$ to match the observed baryon fraction in dwarf galaxies. In the next section we demonstrate that the result is also independent of the details of the feedback model used.

In the context of the scatter issue mentioned above we note that the predicted spread in $`\lambda ^{}`$ values for baryons in bright galaxies is smaller than the spread for the dark-matter halos ($`\sigma _\lambda =0.43`$ versus $`0.5`$), and is more like the spread observed by de Jong & Lacey (2000). We note also that the high baryonic spin values obtained in our model for both dwarf and bright disks suggests that one does not need to eliminate low-spin halos in order to match the observed distribution of disk sizes \[e.g., as done in Mo et al. (1998)\].

### 5.4 Angular-Momentum Profile of Baryons

BBS also measured the specific angular momentum profiles of their dwarf galaxies, which they find to be quite different from the profiles of dark halos found by BD. The dwarf galaxies in their sample show a systematic behavior, with a low baryonic fraction, and a significant deficit of angular momentum at the two ends of the distribution compared to the halo $`j`$ profiles of BD. Examples of some of the $`j`$ profiles from their data are shown in the left column of Fig. 9.

We construct a baryonic $`j`$ profile in each of our model realizations, following the same method used to produce dark-matter $`j`$ profiles in §2.2, but now including feedback and gas loss. Examples of such model profiles for dwarf galaxies of $`V_{\mathrm{vir}}=60\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ are shown in the central column of Fig. 9. The low-$`j`$ tail of the halo distribution is missing in the baryons in many cases, as expected, because the blowout preferentially removes gas from small satellites — those satellites that merge to form the low-$`j`$ halo material. The high-$`j`$ tail tends to be reduced in the baryons, because this tail is often the result of a small satellite that comes in with its orbital angular momentum aligned with the halo spin, and now has lost its gas. While there is general agreement between the model dwarf galaxies and the BBS data, sometimes the model galaxies show a spike of low $`j`$ material that is not seen in the data. We can think of several alternative reasons for this apparent discrepancy. Either the predicted spike corresponds to a baryonic component that BBS fail to observe (such as faint halo stars), or these galaxies which show a spike do not become disk dwarf galaxies and are therefore missing from the BBS sample, or our model is missing a certain element that should eliminate the very low-$`j`$ spike more efficiently.

The right column of Fig. 9 shows the model predictions for a sample of bright galaxies, $`V_{\mathrm{vir}}=220\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. They retain most of their baryons, so their profiles are less affected by blowout, and they are more similar to the dark-matter $`j`$-profiles seen in the simulations of BD. However, in some cases they show a reduction of both low and high $`j`$ material for the same reasons that it is seen in the dwarf galaxies. For comparison, we also show in the right column of Fig. 9 the $`j`$ profile of an exponential disk with a flat rotation curve truncated at $`4.5`$ disk scale lengths. The $`j`$-profile mismatch problem in bright galaxies is partly remedied by the common presence of low-$`j`$ bulge components in such galaxies. The fact that sometimes the low-$`j`$ material is lost even from bright galaxies allows some of them to become pure exponential disks, as observed, without the need to hide any low-$`j`$ material in a bulge.

Fig. 10 shows the distributions of the quantity $`\zeta `$, which characterizes the shape of the $`j`$-profile. It compares the observed values in the BBS dataset with our model predictions for the baryons in dwarf and in bright galaxies. Given the crudeness of our model, the agreement between our model for dwarf galaxies and the data is quite reasonable. The somewhat smaller spread in the data compared to the model predictions may suggest that either selection effects or gas processes tend to favor a particular value of $`\zeta `$. Also shown for comparison is the distribution of $`\zeta `$ for dark halos as measured by BD in simulations. One sees that the values of $`\zeta `$ for bright galaxies are slightly shifted to higher values then the dark halos. For dwarf galaxies the shift is a significant effect, reflecting the mismatch between the $`j`$-profiles of dark halos and observed galaxies.

## 6 Robustness of the Feedback Model

In this section we examine the sensitivity of our results in the previous section to our extremely simple model of feedback. We explore a range of values for the exponents $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$. For each choice of exponents, we determine $`V_{\mathrm{fb}}`$ such that the mean value of $`f_\mathrm{d}`$ for the dwarf galaxies is the same as the BBS value of $`0.04`$ We find that the results of § 5 for dwarf galaxies remain practically unchanged. The results for bright galaxies do depend on the value of $`\gamma _1`$, though a value can always be chosen such that the median spin for the bright galaxies is at least as high as that of the dark halos.

In Table 1 we show a range of values of $`\gamma _2`$ and the corresponding values of $`V_{\mathrm{fb}}`$ necessary to give our dwarf halos the right baryon fraction $`f_\mathrm{d}`$. Then we list the largest value of $`\gamma _1`$ for which bright galaxies have a median $`\lambda _\mathrm{b}^{}0.035`$, as suggested observationally. A maximum value of $`3.0`$ is considered for both exponents as higher values produce indistinguishable results. The resulting values of $`f_\mathrm{d}`$, $`\lambda _0^{}`$ and $`\sigma _\lambda `$ are listed for the two types of galaxies. We indeed see in the table that varying the exponents $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ has a small effect on the resulting baryonic spin distribution for dwarf galaxies. We conclude that any feedback recipe in which an appropriate amount of gas is being ejected from dwarf galaxies should resolve the angular-momentum crisis for dwarf galaxies in a way similar to our results in §5. The angular momentum catastrophe for bright galaxies is prevented if $`\gamma _1`$ is sufficiently small.

If $`\gamma _2`$ is as small as $`0.5`$, as in the first row of Table 1, then the required value of $`V_{\mathrm{fb}}`$ needed to fit the mean value of $`f_\mathrm{d}`$ in dwarf galaxies is very high ($`185\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$). This velocity is significantly higher than the crude upper limit allowed by the energetics (DS). Also, for such a large $`V_{\mathrm{fb}}`$ value bright galaxies have a median $`\lambda ^{}`$ much higher then the dark matter even for the maximum value of $`\gamma _1`$. Thus, the model yields sensible results only if $`\gamma _2`$ is limited to the range $`0.83.0`$.

The shaded region in Fig. 5 shows the range of curves corresponding to the range spanned in Table 1. We note that a tight constraint is enforced by the data on this range of feedback models, that halos of $`35\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ must loose about half of their baryons.

## 7 Conclusion

We used a simple model to address the two issues that create the angular-momentum crisis of galaxy formation within the CDM scenario. One, the angular momentum catastrophe is that the spin of the baryonic component in galaxies is typically comparable to that of the dark-matter halo (in bright galaxies) or even larger (in dwarf galaxies), while simple theoretical arguments and simulations involving gas dynamics predict a significant spin loss by the baryons due to over-cooling in merging halos. The other, the mismatch of angular-momentum profiles, is that the baryons in each galaxy tend to lack the low-$`j`$ tail (and the high-$`j`$ tail) of the distribution as predicted by simulations for the dark halos.

In an earlier paper (Maller et al., 2002), we showed that a simple algorithm, based on adding up the orbital angular momenta of the mergers in random realizations of merger histories, can successfully reproduce the distribution of spins among dark-matter halos as measured in N-body simulations of the $`\lambda `$CDM cosmology. We showed here that an extension of such a model also reproduces the characteristic angular-momentum profile, i.e., the distribution of specific angular momentum within halos. This provided the basic tool for addressing a possible resolution to the spin problems by incorporating the effects of supernova feedback on the gas in halos before they merge into bigger halos — a process we have termed spin segregation.

A simple analysis of how the orbital angular momentum in a merger turns into a spin profile suggested how feedback effects in the satellite before the merger event can eliminate the problem of spin loss. The effective size of the gas component within the incoming satellite determines its tidal stripping position in the halo and thus the final spin that it will be left with after the merger. The finding, using the orbital-merger model, that the low-end tail of the $`j`$ distribution originates in many minor mergers, that tend to cancel each other’s angular momentum, provided a possible solution to the spin-profile mismatch problem. The blowout of gas from small incoming halos would eliminate the low-$`j`$ tail of the baryon distribution in the merger product, as observed. The blowout has a particular strong effect in dwarf galaxies, because they are made of smaller progenitors that tend to loose more of their gas. This results in a higher spin parameter for the baryons than the dark matter, as observed.

We constructed a simple semi-analytic model for simulating this process using a simplified model for the effects of feedback as a function of halo mass, including heating and blowout. For a given choice of exponent $`\gamma _2`$, the model has one free parameter, the characteristic halo virial velocity $`V_{\mathrm{fb}}`$ for which the energy inputted to the IGM by supernova is sufficient to counter the effect of cooling. By matching the low baryonic fraction in the dwarf galaxies observed by BBS, we found that for $`0.8\gamma _23`$ the characteristic velocity has to be in the range $`60V_{\mathrm{fb}}130\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, which falls within the range of theoretical predictions (e.g., DS). We then found considerable agreement between the model predictions and the observed data for both the distribution of the spin parameter and the angular-momentum profile of baryons in dwarf and bright galaxies. We also noted that the same basic model may explain the other unresolved issues concerning angular momentum in galaxies, such as the spread in observed disk sizes and the identification of halos that form late type galaxies. The success of the model in matching several independent observations indicates that this simple model indeed captures the main features necessary for a full scenario involving feedback and mergers that can resolve the spin crisis in more detail. The next natural step should be to incorporate a more sophisticated feedback recipe into the model using the full machinery of semi-analytic models of galaxy formation. This will be a step towards the long-term goal of implementing feedback in full-scale hydrodynamical cosmological simulations.

Our work is an attempt to resolve the angular-momentum problems within the standard framework of CDM cosmology, which is so successful on large scales, using the effects of feedback which we know must occur. Another approach is to appeal to a different cosmological scenario, WDM, where the dark-matter particles are “warm” rather than “cold” (Hogan, 1999; Hogan & Dalcanton, 2000; Pagels & Primack, 1982). WDM is less robust than CDM because it requires fine-tuning of a new parameter, the particle mass, which is constrained to be $`1keV`$. Still, it is worth investigating since it may remedy the angular-momentum problems without appealing to strong feedback effects. The main distinguishing feature of the WDM scenario is that the formation of small halos is significantly suppressed, such that the validity of the explicit picture of halo buildup by the hierarchical build up of small halos becomes limited. Despite this difference from CDM, an N-body simulation of WDM (Bullock et al., 2001) indicates that the angular-momentum properties of halos remain basically unchanged. This is not very surprising because in Maller et al. (2002) we found that the same angular-momentum properties can also be interpreted as a general result of tidal-torque theory, independent of the explicit picture of mergers (see also BD). In the absence of small halos at early times, one may expect less over-cooling in halos before they merge into other halos and thus less angular-momentum loss by the baryons. Indeed, hydrodynamical simulations of this scenario (Sommer-Larsen & Dolgov, 2001) indicate that the angular momentum catastrophe is significantly remedied. However, the angular-momentum profile mismatch is still expected to be valid in WDM, and, in the absence of small halos, the feedback effects are weaker and may not be enough for resolving the problem. Thus the $`j`$-profile mismatch may be a crucial discriminator between solutions to the problems of CDM.

It is clear that some sort of heating may provide the cure for another problem of CDM, the dwarf satellite problem (Klypin et al., 1999; Moore et al., 1999), where the predicted number of dwarf halos is much larger than the observed number of dwarf galaxies. Bullock et al. (2000) demonstrated that cosmological photo-ionization due to feedback from UV sources such as early stars and quasars can solve this problem. Feedback from supernova would qualitatively have a similar effect. While the number of dwarf satellites is automatically suppressed in WDM, it seems that the inclusion of minimum realistic feedback effects would reduce the predicted number of galaxies to significantly below the observed number, and thus be an overkill (J. Bullock, private communication).

Furthermore, it is becoming clear (Dekel et al., in preparation) that the key elements of our model, namely the tidal effects in mergers and the feedback effects in small halos, are also very relevant in understanding and resolving the third problem of CDM. This is the cusp/core problem, where the halos in simulations typically show steep cusps in their inner profiles (Navarro et al., 1995; Moore et al., 1999), while observations indicate flat cores at least in some low-surface-brightness galaxies (de Blok et al., 2001). An analysis of tidal effects explains the necessary formation of an asymptotic cusp in halos as long as satellites continue penetrating into the halo center. Feedback effects may puff up small satellites and prevent them from penetrating the core, thus allowing a stable core. These studies together indicate that our model indeed grasps the relevant elements of the complex processes involved, and that feedback effects may indeed provide the cure to all three major problems of galaxy formation in CDM.

This research has been supported by the Israel Science Foundation grant 546/98, by the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation grant 98-00217, and by the German-Israeli Science Foundation grant I-629-62.14/1999. We thank James Bullock and Frank van den Bosch for stimulating discussions. We also thank Frank van den Bosch for providing us with the BBS data in Fig. 9.