text:
# Deep 𝑔'𝑟'𝑖'𝑧' GMOS Imaging of the Dwarf Irregular Galaxy Kar 50 1footnote 11footnote 1Based on observations obtained at the Gemini Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under a co-operative agreement with the NSF on behalf of the Gemini partnership: the National Science Foundation (United States), the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (United Kingdom), the National Research Council of Canada (Canada), CONICYT (Chile), the Australian Research Council (Australia), CNPq (Brazil), and CONICET (Argentina).

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The Local Group contains over 30 dwarf galaxies that span a range of morphological types (e.g. van den Bergh 2000). While such nearby systems are fundamental laboratories for investigating dwarf galaxy evolution, many are satellites of M31 and the Milky-Way, and hence have been affected by hierarchal interactions (e.g. Mayer et al. 2001). In order to develop a more comprehensive understanding of dwarf galaxies, including the effects of environment, it is necessary to study objects outside of the Local Group.

Located at a distance of $`3.5`$ Mpc, the M81 group contains a number of dwarf galaxies, some of which are systematically different from those in the Local Group (Caldwell et al. 1998). Karachentseva, Karachentsev & Börngen (1985, hereafter KKR) list possible dwarf members of the M81 group. Many of these have yet to be studied in detail, and some will likely turn out not to be members of the M81 group. This being said, the census of galaxies in the M81 group is likely far from complete, and Froebrich & Meusinger (2000) report the detection of additional possible low surface brightness members.

One of the faintest, and hence intrinsically most interesting, systems in the KKR compilation is Kar 50. KKR noted that Kar 50 is ‘unusually filamentary with barely outlined knots’, and they partially resolved Kar 50 into stars using images recorded during 1 arcsec seeing conditions. Various observational properties of Kar 50 are summarized in Table 1.

Motivated by the possible intrinsic faintness of Kar 50, coupled with its unusual appearance, we decided to include this galaxy in a background field obtained as part of a program to study the outer regions of NGC 2403. The observations and the data reduction procedures are discussed in §2, and these data are used to investigate the integrated photometric properties of Kar 50 in §3. Our $`i^{}`$ and $`z^{}`$ images are of particular interest for work of this nature, as they sample redder wavelengths than previous studies, and hence are better probes of any cool stellar component, such as might arise from an old population. The properties of the brightest stars in Kar 50 are investigated in §4. A distance based on the brightest stars is calculated in §5, and we conclude that Kar 50 is located well behind the M81 group. A brief summary and discussion of the results follows in §6.

## 2 OBSERVATIONS & REDUCTIONS

The data were recorded with the Gemini Multi-Object Spectrograph (GMOS) on the Gemini North telescope during 2 nights in November 2001 as part of a system verification program to investigate the outer regions of NGC 2403 (Davidge & Roy 2002, in preparation). Readers are refered to Crampton et al. (2000) for a detailed description of GMOS. The GMOS detector consists of three buttable $`2048\times 4608`$ EEV CCDs, with each pixel subtending 0.0727 arcsec on a side. The sky field has a 5.5 arcmin diameter, although the detector covers a much larger area so that spectra of objects near the edge of the sky field can be obtained.

Details of the observations, including dates, exposure times, and image quality are listed in Table 2. The sky conditions were photometric when the data were obtained, and standard stars were observed on each night. The CCDs were binned $`2\times 2`$ during readout to better match the seeing conditions, so that each superpixel covers 0.145 arcsec on a side. Bias frames and twilight flats were also obtained on each night.

The data were reduced using tasks in the Gemini IRAF package. The reduction pipeline included (1) removal of CCD-to-CCD gain differences, (2) subtraction of the bias pattern, (3) division by a twilight sky flat, and (4) mosaicking of the processed CCD output to form a single image. Interference fringes were removed from the $`i^{}`$ and $`z^{}`$ data by subtracting a fringe frame that was created by combining observations of different fields. The processed images were then aligned and median-combined on a filter-by-filter basis to reject cosmic rays.

## 3 THE APPEARANCE AND INTEGRATED PHOTOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF KAR 50

The portion of the final $`r^{}`$ image containing Kar 50 is shown in Figure 1. These data have a finer angular resolution and go deeper than previous observations of Kar 50. There is an absence of structures such as a bar or a central nucleus. Concentrations of stars are evident in the outer envelope, and these are likely the ‘filamentary’ features refered to by KKR. There are a number of stars evident throughout the galaxy, although the density of sources outside of the main body of the galaxy is significant, and it can be anticipated that many of the objects detected in Kar 50 may be foreground stars and background galaxies.

Karachentseva et al. (1987; hereafter K87) included Kar 50 in their investigation of the structural properties of M81 group dwarf galaxies. Kar 50 is the most compact object in their sample, and falls within the scatter envelope of the relations between size, surface brightness, and total intrinsic brightness defined by low surface brightness dwarf spheroidals. Both K87 and Barazza, Binggeli, & Prugniel (2001, hereafter BBP) find that the central surface brightness profile of Kar 50 at visible and red wavelengths is very flat, changing by only a few tenths of a magnitude per square arcsec within a few arcsec of the galaxy center. The surface brightness profile of the halo follows an exponential relation (BBP).

A series of aperture measurements, positioned on the geometric center of Kar 50 as established from the $`i^{}`$ image, were made in each filter. A technique similar to that employed by Davidge (1992) and Piotto, King, & Djorgovski (1988) to investigate the color profiles of globular clusters was used to suppress bright resolved stars. In particular, succesive annuli were divided into six azimuthal segments, and the median surface brightness within each group of segments was assigned to that annulus.

The resulting $`g^{},r^{},i^{}`$ and $`z^{}`$ surface brightness profiles are shown in Figure 2. The error bars show the uncertainty in the surface brightness measurements in the last annulus due to uncertainties in the local sky level, which were estimated by examining the background at various locations in the vicinity of Kar 50. The light profiles are remarkably flat near the galaxy center, with a scatter of only $`\pm 0.04`$ mag in each filter in the central 8 arcsec. Light profiles obtained without azimuthal median filtering are similar to those in Figure 2.

The light profiles measured in $`i^{}`$ and $`z^{}`$ are of particular interest, as previous studies of Kar 50 have not sampled wavelengths longward of $`0.7\mu `$m. Not only are the $`i^{}`$ and $`z^{}`$ data less susceptible to reddening than the $`g^{}`$ and $`r^{}`$ observations, but they also are a more sensitive probe of any underlying old and/or intermediate-age population. It is evident from Figure 2 that there are no hints of a central concentration in the main body of the galaxy, even in $`i^{}`$ and $`z^{}`$.

The $`g^{}i^{}`$ and $`rz^{}`$ color profiles of Kar 50 are shown in Figure 3. The color profiles do not show significant gradients when $`r<15`$ arcsec, and the only deviations from a flat color profile occur at larger radii, where the uncertainties in the color measurements become significant. The onset of the exponential light profile near 8 arcsec is not accompanied by an obvious change in stellar content. The stellar content of Kar 50 is thus well mixed throughout the galaxy.

Lenz et al. (1998) investigate the photometric properties of stars in the SDSS filter system, and colors predicted from their log(g) = 4.5 solar metallicity sequences for three effective tempertures are marked in Figure 3. There is a tendency for the observations at longer wavelengths to sample cooler populations, as expected for a composite stellar system. Nevertheless, the relatively blue $`(r^{}z^{})`$ colors indicate that the integrated light from Kar 50 is dominated by hot young stars, even near $`1\mu `$m.

## 4 THE RESOLVED STELLAR CONTENT

The current investigation is restricted to objects within $`30`$ arcsec of the center of Kar 50, and photometry of sources over the remainder of the GMOS field of view will be discussed in a future paper dealing with the outer regions of NGC 2403 (Davidge & Roy 2002, in preparation). The brightnesses of individual stars were measured with the PSF-fitting routine ALLSTAR (Stetson & Harris 1988), using co-ordinates, initial brightnesses, and PSFs obtained from DAOPHOT (Stetson 1987) tasks. The PSFs were constructed from moderately bright stars located over the entire GMOS field of view.

The $`(r^{},g^{}r^{})`$ and $`(i^{},r^{}i^{})`$ CMDs of stars in two radial intervals centered on Kar 50 are shown in Figures 4 and 5; we do not consider the $`z^{}`$ measurements here as they do not go as deep as the other data. The CMDs labelled ‘Kar 50’ contain sources within 22 arcsec of the galaxy center, while the CMDs labelled ‘background’ consist of sources between 22 to 31 arcsec from the galaxy center; the former region has the same area as the latter. The radial boundaries used to construct the CMDs are marked in Figure 1.

The number density of the brightest stars in the left hand panels of Figure 4 and 5 is only slightly higher than that of background objects having comparable brightness. At fainter levels the contrast with respect to background sources increases, and there is a concentration of stars in the Kar 50 CMDs with relatively blue colors $`(g^{}r^{}0.4`$, and $`r^{}i^{}0`$) near $`r^{}i^{}25`$. Based on the blue colors, we identify this clump of stars as the onset of the upper main sequence. The $`r^{}`$ and $`i^{}`$ observations probe a redder population than the $`g^{}`$ data, and there is a clump of stars near the faint end of the $`(i^{},r^{}i^{})`$ CMD of Kar 50 at $`i^{}25.5`$ and $`r^{}i^{}0.3`$. This color is consistent with these objects being red giants, and we tentatively identify this collection of stars as the RGB-tip. The identifications of the main sequence and RGB are discussed further in §6.

Contamination from foreground stars and background galaxies complicates efforts to study stars brighter than $`r^{}i^{}=25`$ in Figures 4 and 5, but color information can be used to identify a sample of bright stars that likely belong to Kar 50. Stars occupy a distinct region of the $`(g^{}r^{},r^{}i^{})`$ two-color diagram (TCD) (e.g. Krisciunas, Margon, & Szkody 1998), and multi-color observations can be used to identify non-stellar interlopers (e.g. Fan 1999). The $`(g^{}r^{},r^{}i^{})`$ TCDs of the Kar 50 and background fields are compared in Figure 6; the majority of objects plotted in this figure have $`r^{}<25.5`$. The solid line shows the predicted locus of solar-metallicity log(g) = 4.5 stars from Table 4 of Lenz et al. (1998), while the dashed line is the ridgeline of the SDSS stellar sequence from Figure 3 of Schneider et al. (2001); the data points in Figure 6 agree better with the SDSS sequence than the model sequence.

The objects within 22 arcsec of Kar 50 plotted in Figure 6 tend to be bluer than those in the background, in the sense that the majority of sources in Kar 50 have $`(g^{}r^{})<0`$, whereas only two objects in the background region are this blue. Given this obvious difference, it was assumed that all sources with $`g^{}r^{}<0`$ within 22 arcsec of Kar 50 belong to the galaxy, while the sources with $`g^{}r^{}>0`$ are likely contaminating objects. This criterion for Kar 50 membership is further verified by comparing the number of objects with $`g^{}r^{}>0`$ in the right and left hand panels of Figure 6: there are 14 sources with $`(g^{}r^{})>0`$ within 22 arcsec of the galaxy center, and 15 such objects in the background field. This excellent agreement indicates that Kar 50 likely does not harbour a substantial component with $`r^{}<25`$ and $`(g^{}r^{})>0`$; rather, hot stars appear to dominate the bright stellar content of Kar 50.

The $`(r^{},g^{}r^{})`$ and $`(i^{},r^{}i^{})`$ CMDs of Kar 50, corrected for line of sight absorption using $`E(BV)`$ determined from the Schlegel, Finkbeiner, & Davis (1998) maps, are shown in Figure 7. The imposition of a selection criterion based on $`g^{}r^{}`$ has a major impact on the interpretation of the CMDs when $`r<25`$, in that many of the sources that might have been selected as candidate bright members of Kar 50 in the absence of $`g^{}r^{}`$ color information likely do not belong to the galaxy; the impact is most dramatic on the $`(i^{},r^{}i^{})`$ CMD, where sources with $`g^{}r^{}>0`$ are indicated. The hot stars in Kar 50 with $`r_024.8`$ that we associate with the upper main sequence have $`(g^{}r^{})_00.4`$. The solar metallicity models of Lenz et al. (1998) predict that the blue limit for stars is $`g^{}r^{}0.5`$, and so it appears that upper main sequence stars in Kar 50 are not subject to internal reddening in excess of E$`(g^{}r^{})=0.1`$ mag.

The brightest blue object in the $`(r^{},g^{}r^{})`$ CMD of Kar 50, the location of which is indicated in Figure 1, has $`r^{}=22.7`$ and $`g^{}r^{}=0.3`$. While the $`g^{}r^{}`$ color is within the acceptable range for stellar sources, this object has an extremely blue $`r^{}i`$ color, with $`r^{}i^{}0.9`$, placing it in a region of the $`(g^{}r^{},r^{}i^{})`$ TCD that is populated by compact emission line galaxies (Fan 1999). This object is likely an HII region in Kar 50, with the $`g^{}`$ and $`r^{}`$ measurements dominated by strong \[OIII\] and H$`\alpha `$ emission, respectively. This object is not extended in the 0.6 arcsec FWHM $`r^{}`$ and $`i^{}`$ images, indicating that it has a linear size $`<40`$ parsecs using the distance derived in the next Section. As the only large HII region in Kar 50, this object has the potential of providing unique information about the gas-phase chemical composition of the galaxy.

## 5 THE DISTANCE TO KAR 50

The integrated colors and stellar content of Kar 50 indicate that the galaxy has experienced recent star formation, and so the properties of the brightest blue stars provide a means of estimating the distance to this system. Rozanski & Rowan-Robinson (1994) discuss the brightest stars as distance indicators, and give a relation between the mean magnitude of the three brightest blue stars and galaxy brightness. The calibration in their Figure 10c has $`\pm 1`$ mag scatter, largely because the bright blue stellar content (1) is subject to stochastic effects, (2) is sensitive to the recent star-forming history, and (3) may be affected by internal extinction. Despite the large scatter in the calibration, the brightest blue stars still provide interesting limits on the distance of Kar 50, which are consistent with other indicators (§6).

The brightnesses and colors of the three brightest objects with stellar spectral-energy distributions (SEDs) in Kar 50 are summarized in Table 3. The $`V_0`$ and $`(BV)_0`$ entries for each star are in the AB95 system, and these were computed from the transformation equations given in Section 2.1 of Krisciunas et al. (1998). We prefer the Krisciunas et al (1998) transformation relations over those given by Fukugita et al. (1996) as the former are based on actual stellar observations; nevertheless, a potential source of uncertainty is that the brightest stars in Kar 50 are supergiants, whereas the transformation relations are likely dominated by main sequence and giant branch stars. Adopting B$`{}_{AB95}{}^{}=0.12`$ for Vega (Fukugita et al. 1996) then B0(3) = 23.3 in the Johnson system.

The relation between MB(3) and M$`_{B_T}`$ in Figure 10c of Rozanski & Rowan-Robinson (1994) was iterated until convergence, and the Kar 50 distance modulus was found to be 30.4; the integrated brightness of Kar 50, computed from the BT value in Table 1, is then M$`{}_{B}{}^{}=12.7`$. The uncertainty in these quantities is dominated by the scatter in the calibrating relation, and so we assign $`\pm 1`$ mag errors to the distance modulus and MB.

## 6 DISCUSSION & SUMMARY

Deep multicolor images obtained with the GMOS on the Gemini North telescope have been used to investigate the structure and stellar content of the dwarf irregular galaxy Kar 50. The presence of a significant population of bright blue stars, coupled with the blue integrated colors of the galaxy and the flat color profiles, which indicate that the stellar content of the galaxy is well mixed, indicate that Kar 50 has experienced a recent galaxy-wide star-forming episode. Kar 50 may thus be one of the small percentage of dwarf irregular galaxies that at any given time host a strong burst of star formation (Dohm-Palmer et al. 1998). In the remainder of this Section we discuss (1) the stellar content of Kar 50, with emphasis on checking the distance estimated from the brightest blue stars, and (2) the evolution of the galaxy.

### 6.1 The Distance and Stellar Content of Kar 50

While contamination from foreground stars and background galaxies complicates efforts to study the resolved stellar content of Kar 50 when $`r^{}<25`$, in §4 it is demonstrated that a secure population of bright galaxy members can be identified using $`g^{}r^{}`$ color. The application of a color criterion to reject contaminating objects will of course cause some objects, in this case those that have red colors, to be excluded from the analysis. The brightest red supergiants (RSG)s in dwarf galaxies have M$`{}_{V}{}^{}7`$ (Rozanski & Rowan-Robinson 1994), and thus would be expected to occur near $`r^{}23.7`$ at the distance of Kar 50. While this is well within the detection limits of our data, the agreement between the numbers of objects with $`g^{}r^{}<0`$ in the Kar 50 and background fields indicates that RSGs do not occur in great numbers in Kar 50.

The brightest object in Kar 50 has an SED suggesting that it is an HII region, and if this is the case then the $`r^{}`$ flux will be dominated by H$`\alpha `$ emission. With an assumed distance modulus of 30.4, this object has a luminosity of $`1.3\times 10^{37}`$ ergs/sec in $`r^{}`$, which is consistent with the peak H$`\alpha `$ luminosity of HII regions in other irregular galaxies (Youngblood & Hunter 1999). With a distance modulus of 27.5 then the luminosity of the HII region drops to $`8.9\times 10^{35}`$ erg/sec, which is near the lower end of what is seen in irregular galaxies. Thus, the luminosity of this object is consistent with it being an HII region. Nevertheless, this object is very compact, as the maximum size of 40 parsecs is a factor of 2 smaller than what is seen among HII regions in other irregular galaxies (Youngblood & Hunter 1999).

The distance of $`12_4^{+7}`$ Mpc measured from the brightest blue stars places Kar 50 well behind the M81 group. There are significant uncertainties inherent to the use of the brightest blue stars as standard candles, and so in the remainder of this section we check if this distance is consistent with the properties of other resolved objects in Kar 50.

The RGB-tip is a prime distance indicator for old stellar systems, as it produces a clear break in luminosity functions and CMDs. The RGB-tip occurs near M$`{}_{i^{}}{}^{}4`$ in old metal-poor populations (e.g. Davidge et al. 2002), and hence would occur at $`i^{}23.5`$ if Kar 50 were in the M81 group. Given the evidence for moderately recent star formation, a well populated AGB sequence might also be anticipated above the RGB-tip in Kar 50. There is no evidence in the CMDs of Kar 50 of either a well-defined RGB peaking near $`i^{}23.5`$ or a statistically significant AGB sequence when $`i^{}<23.5`$, which would produce an excess red population with respect to the background at this brightness. Moreover, it is evident from Figure 7 that many of the sources on the $`(i^{},r^{}i^{})`$ CMD have $`(r^{}i^{})0.0`$, whereas RGB stars will have $`r^{}i^{}0.3`$. There is an apparent onset of stars in the $`(i^{},r^{}i^{})`$ CMD with $`i^{}25.4`$ and $`r^{}i^{}0.3`$. If this is the RGB-tip then this supports a distance modulus $`29.4`$, which falls within the $`\pm 1`$ mag errors in the distance modulus computed from the brightest blue stars. We are reluctant to assign a firm distance estimate based on the RGB-tip because it is at the faint limit of our data, and AGB stars can complicate distances measured from this feature.

The brightest stars at visual wavelengths in star-forming galaxies tend to have spectral types A – F (e.g. Humphreys & McElroy 1984), and the stars used to estimate the distance to Kar 50 have colors that are consistent with this range of spectral types (§5). Humphreys & McElroy (1984) list the effective temperatures and brightnesses of supergiants and upper main sequence stars in the Milky-Way and Magellanic Clouds, and we have used these data to locate these sequences on the $`(r^{},g^{}r^{})`$ CMD. Colors were calculated using the relation between effective temperature and $`g^{}r^{}`$ predicted by the solar metallicity log(g)=4.5 atmosphere models of Lenz et al. (1998), while M$`_r^{}`$ was computed from the Krisciunas et al. (1998) transformation relations. The Lenz et al. (1998) models have surface gravities appropriate for main sequence stars, but not supergiants, and this likely introduces systematic errors in $`g^{}r^{}`$ on the order of a few hundredths of a magnitude in the placement of the supergiant sequence.

The loci defined by Ia and Ib supergiants, as well as the main sequence, are shown in Figure 8 based on the adopted distance modulus of 30.4. The type Ia supergiant sequence loosely matches the upper envelope of stars in Kar 50, while the Ib sequence passes through the main body of the CMD. In addition, the bright end of the main sequence is in reasonable agreement with the clump of stars we identified in §4 as the upper main sequence tip. Based on these comparisons we predict that spectroscopic studies will reveal that 1) the brightest stars in Kar 50 are Ia supergiants, and (2) the brightest main sequence stars in Kar 50 are early-type O stars.

### 6.2 Some Comments on the Structure and Evolution of Kar 50

The light and color profiles of Kar 50 offer clues about the past evolution of the galaxy. The light profile of Kar 50 is flat over a linear scale of $`1`$ kpc, while the color profile suggests that the stellar content is well mixed throughout the galaxy. Light and color profiles similar to those in Kar 50 are not uncommon among Magellanic Irregular galaxies in the Virgo (e.g. Figures 8 and 9 of Binggeli & Cameron 1993) and M81 (Bremnes, Binggeli, & Prugniel 1998; Froebrich & Meusinger 2000) groups.

Bar instabilities can mix gas throughout a system (e.g. Friedli, Benz, & Kennicutt 1994), and produce flat light profiles. The disruption of bars may play an important role in the morphological evolution of dwarf galaxies, with the final system having a lower density and different kinematical properties (Mayer et al. 2001). However, despite the flat light and color profiles of Kar 50, there is no evidence of a bar in Figure 1.

Most surveys of the structural characteristics of nearby dwarf systems have relied on observations at blue and visible wavelengths. The $`z^{}`$ filter samples a wavelength interval that is less affected by recent star formation than filters covering shorter wavelengths, although the relatively blue $`i^{}z^{}`$ color of Kar 50 suggests that a significant fraction of the light near $`1\mu `$m still comes from a young component. $`JHK`$ observations of Kar 50 will be of interest, as they will allow firmer constraints to be placed on (1) the size of any old stellar subtrate, (2) the degree of central concentration of this component, and (3) the presence of a bar, given that bars are more easily detected in $`H`$ than at optical wavelengths (Eskridge et al. 2000).

In the absence of subsequent star-forming episodes, Kar 50 will evolve into a very low surface brightness system. To estimate the surface brightness of Kar 50 after fading we adopt, based on the integrated colors of the galaxy, a M/L = 0.5 solar, and further assume that the final M/L = 1.0, based on the integrated color of a ‘typical’ low surface brightness system in the Virgo cluster, for which $`\overline{BV}=0.6`$ (e.g. Impey, Bothun, & Malin 1988). Kar 50 will then fade by 0.8 mag per square arcsec if the population ages passively, and the central surface brightness will drop to $`25`$ mag arcsec-2 in $`g^{}`$. This is within the range of central surface brightnesses seen among low surface brightness galaxies in Virgo, some of which also have flat central light profiles (e.g. Impey et al. 1988).

Sincere thanks are extended to Jean-Rene Roy and Sidney van den Bergh for discussions regarding bars and the morphological properties of dwarf irregular galaxies.

FIGURE CAPTIONS


format: text

text:
# The Fundamental Plane of Ellipticals: I. The Dark Matter Connection

## 1 Introduction

In the hierarchical scenario, dark matter (DM) halos have driven, from a variety of initial conditions, a dissipative infall of baryons and formed the galactic systems we observe today (White and Rees, 1978). Thus, we expect that DM halos exist within and surrounding any galaxy, regardless of its luminosity and morphological type. This prediction had overwhelming confirms for disk galaxies, due to the existence of good dynamical tracers and their intrinsic simple geometry (see Persic and Salucci, 1997). Elliptical galaxies (E’s), however, are much more complicated objects, due to their 3–dimensional shape, stellar orbital structure and velocity dispersion anisotropy. These factors have made ambiguous the interpretation of observational data.

A number of different mass tracers have been used to probe the gravitational potential in tenth of E’s and derive their mass distribution: integrated stellar absorption spectra, X–ray emission from hot gas, rotating gas disks, motions of globular clusters or satellite galaxies and, in last years, weak gravitational lensing. As result, the presence of dark matter in E’s, especially in the external regions ($`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}`$ kpc), is proven (e.g. Loewenstein and White, 1999). On the other hand, a kinematical modeling of the inner regions (i.e. within the half–luminosity “effective” radius $`R_e`$), has been performed for only a small number of ellipticals (e.g. van der Marel, 1991; Saglia et al. 1992, 1993; Bertin et al., 1994; Kronawitter et al., 2000; Gerhard et al., 2001); the results point to a tendency for moderate dark matter amounts inside $`R_e`$.

Since its discovery, the “Fundamental Plane” (Djorgovski & Davis, 1987; Dressler et al., 1987) has been one of the main tools to investigate E’s properties: effective radius $`R_e`$, central velocity dispersion $`\sigma _0`$ and mean effective surface brightness $`I_e`$ of spheroidal galaxies are linearly related in the logarithmic space and galaxies closely cluster on a plane, with a surprisingly low orthogonal scatter. To explain these linear relations between photometric and dynamical quantities in log–space, most studies on the Fundamental Plane (FP) have considered models in which the mass is distributed parallel to light. However, in presence of non–baryonic dark matter, this hypothesis is an obvious oversimplification and, at least, unjustified. Indeed, this would a priori require either: i) dark and luminous component are distributed according the same profile, thus revealing a similarity of properties and behavior which seems very unlikely or ii) the dark matter component is always negligible with respect to the luminous matter.

Within the above framework, in this paper we address the following issues:

* to derive the relation between the central velocity dispersion $`\sigma _0`$ and the mass distribution parameters, including the effect of a dark matter halo. In particular, we assume a spherical model with an isotropic luminous component and a dark halo, more diffuse than the spheroid,
* to reproduce the observed Fundamental Plane and, therefore, to constrain the mass distribution in E’s,
* to discuss the results in the light of Cold Dark Matter predictions.

Considering elliptical galaxies as two–components systems, complementary strategies are possible. One chooses a distribution function for both components and then imposes specific constraints from the observations. The other includes the ordinary stellar component (or, better, any traced by light (TBL) mass component) in a frozen spherical halo. The former approach is helpful in exploring the self–consistency of the dynamical configuration (e.g. Ciotti, 1999). The latter, we will adopt in this paper, has the advantage of providing a simpler connection between observational quantities and the parameters of the mass model.

The outline of this paper is the following: in §2 we describe two–components models, whose mass distributions are shown in §3. In §4 we derive and discuss the velocity dispersion (line–of–sight profile and central value) predicted by the mass models we consider. In §5, we introduce the data, fit the models to the Fundamental Plane and discuss the results. Finally, conclusions are presented in §6. Throughout the following work, we assume, where needed, a flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM Universe, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, $`h=0.7`$ and $`\sigma _8=1.0`$.

## 2 The velocity dispersion in the 2-components mass models

The observed velocity dispersion and, in particular, the central velocity dispersion $`\sigma _0`$ is a fundamental dynamical property related to the gravitational potential of both the dark halo and the TBL component (sometime, we call the “luminous stellar spheroid” by this way, to recall the possible existence of a number of BH’s and/or an amount of non–baryonic DM, perfectly mixed with the luminous stellar matter). Let us start by assuming a spherical and non–rotating stellar system, with the stellar velocity dispersion which is the same in all directions perpendicular to a given radial vector. If $`\sigma _r^2(r)`$ denotes the stellar velocity dispersion along the radial vector and $`\sigma _\theta ^2(r)`$ the dispersion in the perpendicular directions, the Jeans hydrodynamic equation for the mass density traced by the light $`\rho _{sph}(r)`$ in the radial direction reads (Binney and Tremaine, 1987):

$$\frac{d\rho _{sph}(r)\sigma _r^2(r)}{dr}+\frac{2\beta (r)\rho _{sph}(r)\sigma _r^2(r)}{r}=\frac{GM(r)}{r^2}\rho _{sph}(r)$$
(1)
with the boundary condition $`\rho _{sph}(r)\sigma _r^2(r)0`$ for $`r\mathrm{}`$. In eq.(1), the parameter $`\beta (r)1\sigma _\theta ^2(r)/\sigma _r^2(r)`$ describes the anisotropy degree of the velocity dispersion at each point, with $`\beta =1,0,\mathrm{}`$ for completely radial, isotropic and circular orbit distributions, respectively.

Dynamical analysis of ellipticals exclude substantial amount of tangential anisotropy and find $`\beta (\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}R_e)0.10.2`$ (e.g. Matthias and Gerhard, 1999; Gerhard et al., 2001; Koopmans and Treu, 2002) for objects of different luminosities. For reasons of simplicity, then, in calculating the central velocity dispersion to be used for statistical studies over a large sample of galaxies, we assume an isotropic velocity dispersion tensor: $`\beta =0`$.

Eq.(1) connects the spatial velocity dispersion of the component traced by the light to its density profile and to the total matter distribution $`M(r)=M_{sph}(r)+M_h(r)`$. Under the hypothesis of isotropy, the above equation assumes the well–known integral form, in which we single out the halo term:

$$\sigma _r^2(r)=\frac{G}{\rho _{sph}(r)}_r^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\rho _{sph}(r^{})M(r^{})}{r^2}𝑑r^{}\sigma _{r;sph}^2(r)+\sigma _{r;h}^2(r)$$
(2)
As external observers of galaxies, we measure only projected quantities. Let $`R`$ be the projected radius and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(R)`$ the surface stellar mass density. As usual, we take into account that mass density and the spatial velocity dispersion are related to the surface mass density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(R)`$ and to the projected velocity dispersion $`\sigma _P(R)`$ by the two Abel integral equations for the quantity $`\rho _{sph}`$ and $`\rho _{sph}\sigma _r^2`$. Then, a second step, consisting in a further integration along the line of sight, allows us to obtain the (observed) velocity dispersion profile $`\sigma _P(r)`$:

$$\sigma _P^2(R)=\frac{2}{\mathrm{\Sigma }(R)}_R^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\rho _{sph}(r)\sigma _r^2(r)r}{\sqrt{r^2R^2}}𝑑r\sigma _{P;sph}^2(R)+\sigma _{P;h}^2(R)$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(R)=_R^{\mathrm{}}[2r\rho _{sph}(r)/(r^2R^2)^{1/2}]𝑑r`$.

As spectro–photometric observations are performed through an aperture, let us define $`\sigma _A(R_A)`$ as the luminosity–weighted average of $`\sigma _P`$ within a circular aperture of radius $`R_A`$:

$$\sigma _A^2(R_A)=\frac{2\pi }{L(R_A)}_0^{R_A}\sigma _P^2(R)I(R)R𝑑R\sigma _{A;sph}^2(R_A)+\sigma _{A;h}^2(R_A)$$
(4)
where $`I(R)`$ is the surface brightness profile $`I(R)=\mathrm{\Sigma }(R)/\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ (assuming the stellar mass–to–light ratio $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ constant with radius) and $`L(R_A)=2\pi _0^{R_A}I(R)R𝑑R`$ is the aperture luminosity.

The dynamical quantity in the Fundamental Plane is the “central” velocity dispersion $`\sigma _0`$, which, observationally, corresponds to the projected velocity dispersion luminosity–weigthed within the aperture of the observations. The velocity dispersion data are to be brought to a common system, independent of the telescope and galaxy distance: this is done by correcting them to the same aperture of $`R_e/8`$ (Jørgensen et al., 1996), which is typical of measurements of nearby galaxies. Therefore, we compare model and observations by calculating $`\sigma _0`$ as the luminosity–weighted $`\sigma _P(R)`$ within $`R_A=1/8R_e`$.

The resulting velocity dispersion profiles, $`\sigma _r(r)`$, $`\sigma _P(R)`$ and $`\sigma _A(R_A)`$, can be all expressed as the sum of two terms (eqs. 2, 3 and 4): the first one is due to the self–gravity of the spheroid traced by the star light (labelled by $`sph`$); the second one (labelled by $`h`$) is due to the effect of the luminous–dark matter gravitational interaction and, therefore, it charges relevance according the characteristics of the DM distribution.

## 3 The mass distribution

### 3.1 The distribution of the mass traced by light

We describe the component traced by the star light by means of a Hernquist (1990) spherical density distribution, that is a good approximation to the de Vaucouleurs $`R^{1/4}`$ law (de Vaucouleurs, 1948) when projected and, at the same time, allows analytical calculations:

$$\rho _{sph}(r)=\frac{M_{sph}}{2\pi }\frac{kR_e}{r(r+kR_e)^3}$$
(5)
where $`M_{sph}`$ is the total mass traced by the star light and $`k0.55`$. The mass profile derived from eq.(5) is:

$$M_{sph}(r)=M_{sph}\frac{(r/R_e)^2}{(r/R_e+k)^2}$$
(6)
The Hernquist functional form, of course, cannot reproduce the fine features of the surface brightness profile (e.g. boxy isophotes, small variations in slope); neverthless, it is sufficient for our aims, since we will just consider large scale properties in the mass distribution of objects belonging to a large E’s sample.

### 3.2 The DM distribution: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM halos

N–body simulations of hierarchical collapse and merging of CDM halos have shown that gravity, starting from scale–free initial conditions, produces an universal density profile that, for $`r0`$, varies with radius as $`r^\alpha `$, with $`\alpha 12`$ (e.g. Navarro, Frenk & White, 1997, hereafter NFW; Fukushige and Makino, 1997; Moore et al., 1998; Ghigna et al., 2001), weakly dependent on the cosmological model. We adopt the well–known NFW halo density profile:

$$\rho _{NFW}(r)=\frac{\rho _s}{(r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2}$$
(7)
where $`r_s`$ is the inner characteristic length–scale, corresponding to the radius where the logarithmic slope of the profile is $`2`$. It results convenient to write the NFW mass profile as:

$$M_{NFW}(r)=M_{vir}\frac{A(r,r_s)}{A(c,r_s/R_e)}$$
(8)
where $`A(x,y)\mathrm{ln}(1+x/y)(1+y/x)^1`$ for any pair of variables $`(x,y)`$. The concentration parameter is defined as $`cr_{vir}/r_s`$; $`r_{vir}`$ and $`M_{vir}`$ are, respectively, the halo virial radius and mass. The definition of the virial radius is strictly within the framework of the standard dissipationless spherical collapse model (SCM); however, also in more realistic hierarchical models, it provides a measure of the boundary of virialized region of halos (Cole and Lacey, 1996).

Considering a dark halo at redshift $`z`$, the virialized region is the sphere within which the mean density is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{vir}(z)`$ times the background universal density at that redshift ($`\rho _{bkg}=\rho _c(1+z)^3`$, with $`\rho _c`$ the critical density for closure at $`z=0`$). The virial mass is defined as: $`M_{vir}\frac{4}{3}\pi \mathrm{\Delta }_{vir}(z)\rho _{bkg}r_{vir}^3`$, with the virial overdensity $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{vir}`$ being a function both of the cosmological model and the redshift: for the family of flat cosmologies ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$), it can be approximated by (Bryan and Norman, 1998): $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{vir}(z)18\pi ^2+82(\mathrm{\Omega }(z)1)39(\mathrm{\Omega }(z)1)^2/\mathrm{\Omega }(z)`$. From the above equations, we derive:

$$r_{vir}=0.142\mathrm{\Delta }_{vir}(z)^{1/3}(1+z)^1\left(\frac{M_{vir}}{M_{}}\right)^{1/3}h^{2/3}\mathrm{kpc}$$
(9)
A fundamental result of CDM theory is that the halo concentration well correlates with the virial mass: low–mass halos are denser and more concentrated than high–mass halos (Bullock et al., 2001; Cheng and Wu, 2001; Wechsler et al., 2002) in that, in average, they collapsed when the Universe was denser. Numerical experiments by Wechsler et al. (2002) for a population of halos identified at $`z=0`$ show that:

$$c(M_{vir})c_{11}\left(\frac{M_{vir}}{10^{11}M_{}}\right)^{0.13},$$
(10)
with $`c_{11}20.8`$. The Poisson error for galactic halos in the mass range $`M_{vir}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{1113}M_{}`$ is less than 10$`\%`$ and, virtually, no halo is found with $`c<12`$.

This is the first mass model we consider here: it is composed by a stellar bulge with a Hernquist profile embedded in a spherical dark NFW halo (hereafter H+NFW model). We neglect the effects of a possible adiabatic coupling between baryons and dark matter because it has the effect of increasing the DM density inside $`R_e`$ by adiabatic compression and, then, of worsening the fit to the data (see $`\mathrm{\S }`$5.3.1). The “total” dark–to–TBL mass ratio, defined as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vir}M_{vir}/M_{sph}`$ is a crucial parameter of the mass model. Both BBN predictions about the primordial DM–to–baryons ratio and CMB anisotropy observations point at a lower limit for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vir}`$ of $`8`$.

### 3.3 The DM distribution: cored halos

In last years, studies of high resolution rotation curves of spiral and dwarf galaxies casted doubts on the presence of the central cusps predicted by cosmological simulations of DM halos. Actually, the observational results suggest that dark halos are more diffuse than the luminous component and their densities flatten at small radii, whereas the stellar distribution peaks towards the centre (e.g. Moore, 1994; Flores and Primack, 1994; Burkert, 1995; de Battista and Sellwood, 1998; Salucci and Burkert, 2000; de Block, McGaugh and Rubin, 2001; Borriello and Salucci, 2001).

An useful analytic form for halos with soft cores has been proposed by Burkert (1995) for dwarf galaxies and, then, was extended to the whole family of spirals by Salucci and Burkert (2000):

$$\rho _B(r)=\frac{\rho _0}{(1+r/r_0)[1+(r/r_0)^2]}$$
(11)
This profile is characterized by a density–core of extension $`r_0`$ and value $`\rho _0`$, while it resembles the NFW profile at large radii. From eq.(11) the mass profile reads:

$$M_B(r)=M_e\frac{B(r,r_0)}{B(1,r_0/R_e)}$$
(12)
where, for any pair of variables $`(x,y)`$, $`B(x,y)2\mathrm{arctan}(x/y)+2\mathrm{ln}(1+x/y)+\mathrm{ln}[1+(x/y)^2]`$ and $`M_e`$ is the dark mass within $`R_e`$. Then, in analogy of spiral galaxies, we propose a mass model consisting of a Hernquist bulge plus a Burkert dark halo (hereafter H+B model). This is the second mass model we investigate in this paper; let us notice that, in this case, the halo mass distribution is characterized by two free parameters: the dark–to–TBL mass ratio within the effective radius $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_eM_{DM}/M_{sph}_{R_e}`$ and the halo core radius in units of the effective radius $`r_0/R_e`$. We assume $`r_0\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{>}{}R_e`$ to ensure a constant DM density in the region where the stars reside: otherwise the model would essentially coincide with the NFW one.

It is worth noticing that the Burkert profile is purely heuristic and featureless in the optical regions of galaxies; as a consequence, unless data at large radii are available, it is not possible to determine the halo virial radius and the total galaxy mass.

## 4 Mass–velocity dispersions relations for cuspy and cored models

We compute the velocity dispersion profiles, including the effect of a spherical dark halo, for both H+NFW and H+B cases. We resolve eq.(2), eq.(3) and eq.(4) by assuming the density/mass profiles of eq.(5), eq.(6) and eq.(8) in H+NFW case and of eq.(5), eq.(6) and eq.(12) in the H+B one. The detailed calculus in given in Appendix.

In Fig.1 (left) we show, for H+NFW models, the radial profile of the quantity $`\sigma _{P;sph}^2/\sigma _P^2`$, the line–of–sight velocity dispersion due to the TBL component, in units of the total l.o.s. velocity dispersion. We take $`M_{sph}=2\times 10^{11}M_{}`$; however, the mass dependence is very weak and the curves in Fig.1 (left) are well representative of those with stellar masses in the range $`5\times 10^910^{12}M_{}`$. We consider different plausible values for the total dark–to–TBL mass ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vir}`$ and $`R_e`$. Let us notice that, once we fix the total halo mass $`M_{vir}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vir}M_{sph}`$, the halo characteristic radius $`r_s`$ is completely determined via the $`cM_{vir}`$ relationship: therefore, different curves in Fig.1 (left) correspond to $`2\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}r_s/R_e\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}30}`$.

We realize that the contribution of a CDM halo to the velocity dispersion can be large ($`50\%`$) even at small radii $`R\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}R_e/2`$, in galaxies with large effective radii and/or small values of $`r_s/R_e`$, indipendently of the value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vir}`$.

In Fig.1 (right) we plot the TBL–to–total l.o.s. velocity dispersion ratio for H+B models, for different values of the parameters $`r_0/R_e`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e`$. Notice that the profiles just depend on these parameters and it is not necessary to assume specific values both for $`M_{sph}`$ or $`R_e`$. The main consequence of the smooth halo profile in the H+B model is that the halo contribution to $`\sigma _P(R)`$ is low at small $`R`$, even for models with a relevant amount of DM in the central region (e.g. $`\sigma _{P;sph}^2/\sigma _P^280\%`$ at $`R_e/3`$ when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e=1`$). The velocity dispersion in the central regions is more directly connected to the properties of the TBL mass distribution.

The relationship of the spheroid mass with central velocity dispersion $`\sigma _0`$ and the effective radius $`R_e`$ depends on the DM mass distribution. Recalling that $`\sigma _0\sigma _A(R_e/8)`$, we find:

$$\sigma _0^2=(0.174+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vir}F_{NFW})\frac{GM_{sph}}{R_e}\mathrm{H}+\mathrm{NFW}$$
(13)
$$\sigma _0^2=(0.174+\mathrm{\Gamma }_eF_B)\frac{GM_{sph}}{R_e}\mathrm{H}+\mathrm{B}$$
(14)
where $`F_{\mathrm{NFW}}`$ and $`F_\mathrm{B}`$ are shown in Fig.2. $`F_{\mathrm{NFW}}`$ depends on $`r_s(M_{vir})/R_e`$ and, very weakly, on $`M_{vir}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vir}M_{sph}`$. The term in the r.h.s. of eqs.(13) and (14) shows that, according to the values of the model parameters, $`\sigma _0`$ could be strongly affected by the DM gravitational potential, so that the derivation of the spheroidal mass from obsevational properties critically depends on the actual DM mass profile. This is shown in (Fig.3, left), where we plot the TBL–to–total $`\sigma _0^2`$, assuming $`M_{sph}=2\times 10^{11}M_{}`$ and different model parameters: the TBL contribution to $`\sigma _0^2`$ is under dominant also at small $`r_s/R_e`$ and becomes almost negligible for $`r_s/R_e\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vir}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}30}`$.

In H+B mass models, $`F_\mathrm{B}`$ weakly depends on $`r_0/R_e`$, so that we can assume $`F_\mathrm{B}3.6\times 10^2`$; the TBL contribution to $`\sigma _0^2`$ (Fig.3, right) remains the dominant one, even for an amount of DM within $`R_e`$ comparable to the luminous one. Moreover, from eq.(14) we infer that, for cored configurations (i.e. with $`r_0>R_e`$), $`\sigma _0`$ is weakly dependent on the DM internal amount ($`F_\mathrm{B}`$ is of the order of $`10^2`$): as a matter of fact, it just increases of $`30\%`$ when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e`$ varies of a factor 3. This is a natural consequence of the smoothness of the dark matter distribution with respect to the more concentrated distribution of the luminous spheroid.

## 5 Fitting mass models to the Fundamental Plane

### 5.1 The Sample

We build the data sample from several works by Jørgensen, Franx & Kjaergaard (hereafter JFK). They provide spectroscopy and multicolour CCD surface photometry of E/S0 galaxies in nearby clusters. The photometric data are from JFK (1992) and (1995a) in Gunn–$`r`$, their passband with the largest quantity of data. The spectroscopic measurements are taken from JFK (1995b) and references therein. Out of the whole JFK sample, we selected a homogeneous subsample of 221 E/S0 galaxies in 9 clusters, including Coma, whose properties are shown in electronic form in Tab.1 at the URL: www.sissa.it/ap/ftp. In particular, we rejected spiral, interacting, peculiar and field galaxies (due to the greater uncertainty of their distance). For each cluster, we adopt the distance derived in JFK (1996). The FP r.m.s. scatter is 0.084 in $`\mathrm{log}R_e`$ (this is equivalent to a $`17\%`$ uncertainty in galaxy distances that, then, could be the main scatter contributor). Typical measurement errors are $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}R_e=\pm 0.045`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}I_e=\pm 0.064`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}\sigma _0=\pm 0.036`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}L_r=\pm 0.036`$, maybe large enough to imply that the FP is free from an intrinsic scatter.

The statistical distributions of effective radius, ellipticity at $`R_e`$, observed central velocity dispersion and Gunn–$`r`$ luminosity of the selected galaxies are shown in Fig.4. It is worth noticing that the sample galaxies are distributed around $`L_{}=2.7\times 10^{10}L_r`$, the characteristic luminosity of the ellipticals luminosity function in $`r`$–band (Blanton et al., 2001) and that most of the objects have little/moderate ellipticity ($`<ϵ>=0.29\pm 0.17`$) and then, a reasonably spherical stellar distribution.

### 5.2 Forcing models to the Fundamental Plane

The physical interpretation of the Fundamental Plane assumes the virial theorem to be the main constraint to the structure of ellipticals. Assuming elliptical galaxies to be 1–component and homologous systems, the virial theorem and the existence of the FP imply a slow but systematic variation of the mass–to–light ratio $`M/L`$ with the luminosity, whose physical origin is debated. This homology also determines a quasi–linearity of the relations connecting the gravitational and kinematic scale parameters of the galaxies to the observables $`\sigma _0`$ and $`R_e`$ (see Prugniel and Simien, 1997). However, according to the properties of the second, dark, mass component, this property could be lost, in such a way that the gravitational and photometric scales are not anymore connected in a simple, log–linear way.

We adjust the mass models parameters to fit the observations in the log–coordinates space: effective radius $`R_e`$, central velocity dispersion $`\sigma _0\sigma _A(R_e/8)`$ and total luminosity in Gunn–$`r`$ band, defined as $`L=2\pi R_e^2I_e`$. The effective surface brightness $`I_e`$ in L$`{}_{}{}^{}/`$pc<sup>2</sup> is calculated from $`\mu _e`$ in mag arsec<sup>-2</sup>: $`\mathrm{log}I_e=0.4\mu _e26.4`$, for Gunn–$`r`$ band (JFK, 1995a). In fitting the log–surface $`\sigma _0(R_e,L_r)`$ to the observations, we leave free the mass–to–light ratio $`M_{sph}/L_r`$ of the TBL component and, respectively, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vir}`$ in the H+NFW case and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e`$ in the H+B case. In the latter, we assign a constant value to the parameter $`r_0/R_e=2`$, similar to results for spirals (Borriello and Salucci, 2001), as the fit depends very weakly on it. We characterize the mass–to–light ratio as $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_rM_{sph}/L_r=\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_r(L_r/L_{})^\alpha `$, with $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_r`$ and $`\alpha `$ free parameters. Here, we neglect a possible weak dependence of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_r`$ on $`R_e`$, but we will discuss this point later.

### 5.3 Results and discussion

#### 5.3.1 H+NFW mass model

This model is unable to provide a plane surface in the log–space ($`\sigma _0`$, $`R_e`$, $`L_r`$), for plausible values of the free parameters. In Fig.5 we show the effect on the surface by adding to the stellar spheroid a dark NFW component with the reasonable dark–to–TBL mass ratio of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vir}=30`$. The surface curvature prevents us from properly fitting the data, especially in the region occupied by galaxies with large effective radius and low luminosity, for which the DM contribution to $`\sigma _0`$ is unacceptably high.

The results of the fitting procedure are shown in Fig.6, with contours representing $`68\%`$, $`95\%`$ and $`99\%`$ CL. The best–fit model is consistent with no DM at all ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vir}=2\pm 4`$ at 1 $`\sigma `$) and values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vir}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}`$ are excluded at $`>95\%`$ CL. Solutions very marginally permitted ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vir}1015`$) still require a very high efficiency of collapse of baryons in stars ($`90\%`$). This is at strong variance with the inferred budget of the cosmic baryons (Salucci and Persic, 1999) and with current ideas of galaxy formation, for which feedback mechanisms (such as SN explosions and central QSO activity) transfer thermal energy into the ISM and inhibit an efficient star formation (e.g. Dekel and Silk, 1986; Romano et al., 2002). They predict $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vir}`$ to be significantly higher than the cosmological value of $`8`$.

The mass–to–light ratio of the TBL component in Gunn–$`r`$ band is found $`5`$, i.e. well within values predicted by passive evolution of an old stellar population, generated with a standard IMF (e.g. Trager et al., 2000). As a matter of fact, this encourages us to consider the TBL mass as composed of just stellar populations.

The curvature of the surface in the logarithmic space of the observables is a consequence of the particular concentration–mass relation predicted by CDM N–body simulations. Anyway, once we assume a value for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vir}`$, we can consider different concentration parameters (for example, by moving a fraction of DM outside $`R_e`$). In order to illustrate the consequences, we have explored the realistic case of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vir}=30`$. For simplicity, we assume $`c=c_{11}(M_{vir}/10^{11}M_{})^{0.13}`$, and we look for values of $`c_{11}`$ for which CDM profiles are in agreement with the Fundamental Plane. In Fig.7 we show the value for $`c_{11}`$ implied by the narrowness of the observed FP. In order to have a small DM fraction inside $`R_e`$ and recover the FP, we must lower the concentration parameter down to $`5`$, well below the standard predictions of numerical simulations of halos in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology (e.g. Wechsler et al., 2002).

Again, it is worth noticing the robustness of the estimate of the mass–to–light ratio of the TBL component, which results to be insensitive to even such a model change.

#### 5.3.2 H+B mass model

In this case, the presence of dark matter, distributed independently of the stellar profile, does not alter the FP surface shape, which still remains a plane. The best–fit mass model is obtained for (see Fig.8):

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_r=(5.3\pm 0.1)\left(\frac{L_r}{L_{}}\right)^{0.21\pm 0.03}$$
(15)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_e=0.29\pm 0.06$$
(16)
(at $`68\%`$ CL). In Fig.9 (left) we show the $`68\%`$, $`95\%`$ and $`99\%`$ confidence contours for the TBL mass–to–light ratio parameters $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_r`$ and $`\alpha `$. In the fit, the parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e`$ is somewhat correlated to $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_r`$: the greater DM amount in the bulge region, the lower the mass–to–light ratio of the TBL mass component. In Fig.9 (right) we show this correlation, marking the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e`$ range corresponding to $`99\%`$ CL in $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_r`$. Notice that a variation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e`$ of a factor $`5`$ corresponds to a much smaller variation of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_r`$, giving prominence to the strong stability of the stellar mass–to–light ratio we deduce from fits.

Finally, to check the reliability of the fit against our assumption of spherical stellar distribution, we perform the model fit by considering only 133 galaxies with small ellipticity ($`ϵ<0.3`$); the resulting best–fit parameters are consistent with those of the whole sample, with a difference in the mean values of about $`5\%`$.

It is worth stressing that assuming $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e`$ constant in the fit is not the most general possibility and, in principle, the DM contribution within $`R_e`$ can well vary with luminosity. Although the investigation of this point is beyond the possibilities of our database, we notice that a variation would be in agreement even with recent dynamical and photometric studies of mass distribution in individual ellipticals (Kronawitter et al., 2000; Gerhard et al., 2001). Moreover, Gerhard et al. (2001) found $`M_{DM}/M_{tot}|_{R_e}1040\%`$; in comparison we find $`M_{DM}/M_{tot}|_{R_e}30\%`$.

From eq.(14) we derive the relation between $`\sigma _0^2R_e/G`$ and the spheroid mass or, equivalently, the total mass within the effective radius $`M_e(1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_e)0.42M_{sph}`$:

$$M_{sph}5.4\frac{\sigma _0^2R_e}{G}$$
(17)
$$M_eM_{sph}(R_e)+M_h(R_e)2.9\frac{\sigma _0^2R_e}{G},$$
(18)
using $`F_\mathrm{B}=3.6\times 10^2`$ (see Fig.2) and the best–fit value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e=0.29`$. Eq.(18) explicitly contains the effect of a DM halo and is to be compared with the “gravitational” mass at $`R_e`$ ($`M_G2\sigma _0^2R_e/G`$), found by Burstein et al. (1997), taking the standard Keplerian formula $`M_e=R_eV_{rot}^2/G`$ and assuming $`V_{rot}^2=3\sigma _0^2`$. Eq.(17), instead, is in good agreement with results by Ciotti, Lanzoni and Renzini (1996); indeed they find for their HP model (a mass configuration similar to our H+B model) $`M_{sph}=c_M\frac{\sigma _0^2R_e}{G}`$ with $`c_M36`$, according to the value of the total dark–to–TBL mass ratio (in the range $`1070`$).

In Fig.10 we show the distribution of the mass–to–light ratio in Gunn–$`r`$ band of the TBL component, obtained by inserting in eq.(17) the observed $`\sigma _0`$, $`R_e`$ and $`L_r`$. Continuous line is the mean correlation provided by the FP fit :

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_r=5.3(L_r/L_{})^{0.21}$$
(19)
By testing the residuals of the mass–to–light ratio as function of the effective radius $`R_e`$, we find no correlation within the statistical errors: $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_rR_e^{0.00\pm 0.05}`$. A possible weak dependence on the effective radius, therefore, seems not sufficient to justify the scatter observed in the luminosity dependence of $`M_{sph}/L`$.

Since part of the galaxy sample has also been observed in different photometric bands (JFK, 1992; JFK, 1995a; see Tab.1), we investigated the $`M_{sph}/L`$ variations with luminosity (for a smaller number of galaxies) in Johnson $`U`$ and $`B`$ and Gunn–$`v`$ band, obtaining, respectively, the slopes $`0.34\pm 0.05`$, $`0.27\pm 0.03`$ and $`0.25\pm 0.06`$, with similar large scatter, thus independent of the photometric band. The slope of the relation $`M_{sph}/L_BL_B^{0.27\pm 0.03}`$ seems to be smaller than the value of $`0.6\pm 0.1`$, obtained from velocity dispersion profiles analysis (Gerhard et al., 2001). Anyway, this slope tends to higher values when we consider a DM fraction (within $`R_e`$) decreasing with galaxy luminosity. For example, we obtain $`M_{sph}/L_BL_B^{0.45\pm 0.05}`$ assuming $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e=1`$ for $`L_B<10^{10}L_B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e=0.1`$ for $`L_B>10^{10}L_B`$.

Recent observations have enlightened the potential of galaxy–galaxy (weak) lensing to probe the DM halo around galaxies at large radii, where it has been impossible, so far, to find kinematic tracers. Studies of weak lensing by SDSS collaborations (McKay et al., 2002; Guzik and Seljak, 2002) find $`M_{260}/L_r110`$, for a $`L_r`$ elliptical galaxy with a NFW dark matter halo ($`M_{260}`$ is the mass projected within an aperture of radius $`260h^1`$ kpc). Since the first data bin is at $`R=75h^1`$ kpc, the SDSS g–g lensing is not sensitive to small scales (where NFW and Burkert profiles actually differ); therefore, we can compare our results with SDSS ones. We estimate, at large radii, the dark–to–TBL mass ratio and the (total) mass–to–light ratio of the H+B mass model. In Fig.11 (left) we show the total (dark+TBL) mass–to–light ratio for a $`L_r`$ elliptical galaxy. Assuming $`R_e510`$ kpc for $`L=L_r`$, the $`260h^1`$ kpc aperture corresponds to $`(3570)R_e`$, for $`h=0.7`$. We obtain the value $`M/L_r110`$ at this aperture for halo core radii in the range $`(2.42.8)R_e`$. This value for the core is in agreement with the findings in spirals (Borriello and salucci, 2001) and suggests some form of DM–baryons interplay as the origin of the soft density cores in halos.

In Fig.11 (right) we show the cumulative dark–to–luminous mass ratio $`M_h/M_{sph}`$; the value we found above for the halo core radius of $`r_0(2.42.8)R_e`$ corresponds to a mass ratio, at very large radius, of $`M_h/M_{sph}1530`$. Remarkably, this range of values is in good agreement with results from spectro–photometric models of E’s formation in the spheroid mass range $`3\times 10^9\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}M_{sph}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\times 10^{11}`$ (Romano et al., 2002; their Fig.10), models including even chimical evolution and feedback.

## 6 Summary and conclusions

We have shown that the very low scatter of elliptical galaxies around the Fundamental Plane can be statistically used to put very interesting constraints on DM distribution within them. The central velocity dispersion is the key quantity we have dealt with. We have briefly reviewed its relationship with the mass distribution of both traced–by–light and dark matter. Then, we selected a sample of 221 E/S0 galaxies with $`L_r2\times 10^9`$ $`L_{}`$ in 9 clusters, endowed with very good photometric and spectroscopic data. The sample defines the classical FP in the log–space ($`\sigma _0`$, $`R_e`$, $`L_r`$), with the expected small scatter (0.084 in $`\mathrm{log}R_e`$, to be compared to a measurement uncertainty $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}R_e=\pm 0.045`$).

We tested the reference model of cuspy DM distribution, namely the NFW model, and the cored model proposed by Burkert (1995). Our analysis shows that these luminous galaxies are largely dominated within the effective radius by matter traced by light, independently of the DM distribution model, cuspy or cored. In particular, for the cuspy NFW model, we have shown that the small scatter of our sample galaxies around the Fundamental Plane severely challenges the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM predictions. In such a theory, the structural properties of dark and luminous matter are so interwoven that in the log–space ($`\sigma _0`$, $`R_e`$, $`L`$) they produce a curved surface, rather than a plane, for plausible values of the total dark–to–TBL mass ratio. We conclude that in order to keep the small scatter around the FP we have either to keep $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vir}`$ unacceptably low or to decrease the halo concentration well below the value currently predicted by simulations in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology.

Considering a cored DM density distribution, the agreement with the observed FP implies a dark–to–luminous mass fraction within the effective radius of $`30\%`$ and a luminosity dependence of the spheroid mass–to–light ratio in Gunn–$`r`$ band: $`M_{sph}/L_r=(5.3\pm 0.1)(L_r/L_r)^{0.21\pm 0.03}`$. An important result is the robustness of the mass–to–light ratio of the spheroidal component we obtained, which is in good agreement with predictions by stellar evolution models.

It is also worth noticing that, besides for spiral and dwarf galaxies, a cored DM halo, with low internal (within $`23R_e`$) density which increases as $`r^3`$ at larger radii, is successful to explain also the structure of elliptical galaxies, pointing to an intriguing homogeneous scenario. Within this framework, we argue that dark matter in E’s can be investigated by a reasonably large number of galaxies with measures of l.o.s. velocity dispersion at $`R_e`$. Although, so far, such observations have been severely hampered by the steep decreasing of the surface brigthness with radius, higher and higher sensitivity reached by recent surveys offers a good view to obtain a better resolution of the two mass components, in the whole region where baryons reside.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to aknowledge financial support from ASI and from MIUR trough COFIN. We also thank the anonymous referee for very helpful comments.

## Appendix A Velocity dispersion in detail

In this appendix, we will detail the procedure to compute velocity dispersions by means of Jeans hydrodynamic equations. Let us set all radii in units of the effective radius: $`\stackrel{~}{r}r/R_e`$, $`\stackrel{~}{R}R/R_e`$, $`\stackrel{~}{r}_0r_0/R_e`$, $`\stackrel{~}{r}_sr_s/R_e`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{vir}r_{vir}/R_e`$.

Mass distributions

Traced–by–light mass component \- the radial profiles of mass density, mass and surface mass density are (Hernquist, 1990):

$$\rho _{sph}(\stackrel{~}{r})=\frac{k}{2\pi }\frac{M_{sph}}{R_e^3}F_1(\stackrel{~}{r})$$
(20)
$$M_{sph}(\stackrel{~}{r})=M_{sph}F_2(\stackrel{~}{r})$$
(21)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(\stackrel{~}{R})=\frac{1}{2\pi k^2}\frac{M_{sph}}{R_e^2}F_3(\stackrel{~}{R})$$
(22)
where $`k0.5509`$ and:

$$F_1(\stackrel{~}{r})=\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{r}(\stackrel{~}{r}+k)^3}$$
(23)
$$F_2(\stackrel{~}{r})=\frac{\stackrel{~}{r}^2}{(\stackrel{~}{r}+k)^2}$$
(24)
$$F_3(\stackrel{~}{R})=\frac{\left[\left(2+\frac{\stackrel{~}{R}^2}{k^2}\right)X(\stackrel{~}{R})3\right]}{(1\frac{\stackrel{~}{R}^2}{k^2})^2}$$
(25)
with $`X(\stackrel{~}{R})=[1(\stackrel{~}{R}/k)^2]^{1/2}\mathrm{Sech}^1(\stackrel{~}{R}/k)`$ for $`0\stackrel{~}{R}<k`$
and

$`X(\stackrel{~}{R})=[(\stackrel{~}{R}/k)^21]^{1/2}\mathrm{Sec}^1(\stackrel{~}{R}/k)`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{R}k`$.

Dark matter halo \- the NFW mass profile reads:

$$M_{NFW}(\stackrel{~}{r})=M_{sph}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vir}\frac{A(\stackrel{~}{r},\stackrel{~}{r}_s)}{A(\stackrel{~}{r}_{vir},\stackrel{~}{r}_s)}$$
(26)
where, for any pair of variables $`(x,y)`$, $`A(x,y)\mathrm{ln}(1+x/y)x/(x+y)`$. In particular, recalling that $`cr_{vir}/r_s`$, we have $`A(\stackrel{~}{r}_{vir},\stackrel{~}{r}_s)=\mathrm{ln}(1+c)c/(1+c)`$.

The Burkert halo mass profile is:

$$M_B(\stackrel{~}{r})=0.416M_{sph}\mathrm{\Gamma }_e\frac{B(\stackrel{~}{r},\stackrel{~}{r}_0)}{B(1,\stackrel{~}{r}_0)}$$
(27)
where $`B(x,y)\mathrm{arctan}(x/y)+2\mathrm{ln}(1+x/y)+\mathrm{ln}[1+(x/y)^2]`$.

By inserting eqs. (20), (21), (22), (26) and (27) in eqs. (2), (3) and (4) (after variables substitutions), we will obtain the velocity dispersions profiles:

Spheroid self–interaction terms

Out of the stellar spheroid self–interaction terms in velocity dispersions, $`\sigma _{r;sph}^2`$, $`\sigma _{P;sph}^2`$ and $`\sigma _{A;sph}^2`$, the first two can be analitically obtained (Hernquist, 1990):

$$\sigma _{r;sph}^2(\stackrel{~}{r})=\frac{1}{12k}\frac{GM_{sph}}{R_e}[\frac{12}{k^4}\stackrel{~}{r}(\stackrel{~}{r}+k)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{r}+k}{\stackrel{~}{r}}\right)\frac{\stackrel{~}{r}}{\stackrel{~}{r}+k}$$

$$(25+\frac{52}{k}\stackrel{~}{r}+\frac{42}{k^2}\stackrel{~}{r}^2+\frac{12}{k^3}\stackrel{~}{r}^3)]$$
(28)
$$\sigma _{P;sph}^2(\stackrel{~}{R})=\frac{1}{6k}\frac{GM_{sph}}{R_e}\frac{F_4(\stackrel{~}{R})}{F_3(\stackrel{~}{R})}$$
(29)
where:

$$F_4(\stackrel{~}{R})=\frac{1}{2}(1\frac{\stackrel{~}{R}^2}{k^2})^3[3\frac{\stackrel{~}{R}^2}{k^2}X(\stackrel{~}{R})(8\frac{\stackrel{~}{R}^6}{k^6}28\frac{\stackrel{~}{R}^4}{k^4}+35\frac{\stackrel{~}{R}^2}{k^2}20)+$$

$$24\frac{\stackrel{~}{R}^6}{k^6}+68\frac{\stackrel{~}{R}^4}{k^4}65\frac{\stackrel{~}{R}^2}{k^2}+6]6\pi \frac{\stackrel{~}{R}}{k}$$
(30)
We obtain the luminosity weigthed velocity dispersion in the aperture $`\stackrel{~}{R}_AR_A/R_e`$, by integrating eq.(29):

$$\sigma _{A;sph}^2(\stackrel{~}{R}_A)=\frac{1}{6k}\frac{GM_{sph}}{R_e}\frac{_0^{\stackrel{~}{R}_A}F_4(\stackrel{~}{R})\stackrel{~}{R}𝑑\stackrel{~}{R}}{_0^{\stackrel{~}{R}_A}F_3(\stackrel{~}{R})\stackrel{~}{R}𝑑\stackrel{~}{R}}$$
(31)
where integrals must be numerically performed. For the aperture $`\stackrel{~}{R}_a=1/8`$, we obtain the stellar contribution to the “central” velocity dispersion:

$`\sigma _{0;sph}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6k}}{\displaystyle \frac{GM_{sph}}{R_e}}{\displaystyle \frac{_0^{1/8}F_4(\stackrel{~}{R})\stackrel{~}{R}𝑑\stackrel{~}{R}}{_0^{1/8}F_3(\stackrel{~}{R})\stackrel{~}{R}𝑑\stackrel{~}{R}}}`$ (32)
$``$ $`0.174{\displaystyle \frac{GM_{sph}}{R_e}}`$
Spheroid–halo interaction terms

We apply the same procedure for calculating the luminous–dark matter interaction terms: $`\sigma _{r;h}^2`$, $`\sigma _{P;h}^2`$ and $`\sigma _{A;h}^2`$. In this case, however, the integrations are always numerical.

H+NFW mass model:

$$\sigma _{r;NFW}^2(\stackrel{~}{r})=\frac{GM_{sph}}{R_e}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vir}}{A(\stackrel{~}{r}_{vir},\stackrel{~}{r}_s)}\frac{_{\stackrel{~}{r}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{F_1(\stackrel{~}{r}^{})A(\stackrel{~}{r}^{},\stackrel{~}{r}_s)}{\stackrel{~}{r}^2}𝑑\stackrel{~}{r}^{}}{F_1(\stackrel{~}{r})}$$
(33)
$$\sigma _{P;NFW}^2(\stackrel{~}{R})=2k^3\frac{GM_{sph}}{R_e}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vir}}{A(\stackrel{~}{r}_{vir},\stackrel{~}{r}_s)}\frac{_{\stackrel{~}{R}}^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{r}\frac{_{\stackrel{~}{r}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{F_1(\stackrel{~}{r}^{})A(\stackrel{~}{r}^{},\stackrel{~}{r}_s)}{\stackrel{~}{r}^2}𝑑\stackrel{~}{r}^{}}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{r}^2\stackrel{~}{R}^2}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{r}}{F_3(\stackrel{~}{R})}$$
(34)
$$\sigma _{A;NFW}^2(\stackrel{~}{R}_A)=2k^3\frac{GM_{sph}}{R_e}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vir}}{A(\stackrel{~}{r}_{vir},\stackrel{~}{r}_s)}\frac{_0^{\stackrel{~}{R}_A}\stackrel{~}{R}\frac{_{\stackrel{~}{R}}^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{r}\frac{_{\stackrel{~}{r}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{F_1(\stackrel{~}{r}^{})A(\stackrel{~}{r}^{},\stackrel{~}{r}_s)}{\stackrel{~}{r}^2}𝑑\stackrel{~}{r}^{}}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{r}^2\stackrel{~}{R}^2}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{r}}{F_3(\stackrel{~}{R})}𝑑\stackrel{~}{R}}{_0^{\stackrel{~}{R}_A}F_3(\stackrel{~}{R})\stackrel{~}{R}𝑑\stackrel{~}{R}}$$
(35)
where we can reduce the free parameters to the only virial mass i) by using eq.(9) for the virial radius, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{vir}(z=0)337`$:

$$r_{vir}2.59\times 10^2\left(\frac{M_{vir}}{M_{}}\right)^{1/3}\mathrm{kpc}$$
(36)
and ii) by assuming $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM $`cM_{vir}`$ correlation (Wechsler et al., 2002, their Fig.16), which, together with eq.(36), gives:

$$r_s\frac{r_{vir}(M_{vir})}{c(M_{vir})}6.17\left(\frac{M_{vir}}{10^{11}M_{}}\right)^{0.48}\mathrm{kpc}$$
(37)
Burkert halo:

$$\sigma _{r;B}^2(\stackrel{~}{r})=0.416\frac{GM_{sph}}{R_e}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_e}{B(1,\stackrel{~}{r}_0)}\frac{_{\stackrel{~}{r}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{F_1(\stackrel{~}{r}^{})B(\stackrel{~}{r}^{},\stackrel{~}{r}_0)}{\stackrel{~}{r}^2}𝑑\stackrel{~}{r}^{}}{F_1(\stackrel{~}{r})}$$
(38)
$$\sigma _{P;B}^2(\stackrel{~}{R})=0.831k^3\frac{GM_{sph}}{R_e}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_e}{B(1,\stackrel{~}{r}_0)}\frac{_{\stackrel{~}{R}}^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{r}\frac{_{\stackrel{~}{r}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{F_1(\stackrel{~}{r}^{})B(\stackrel{~}{r}^{},\stackrel{~}{r}_0)}{\stackrel{~}{r}^2}𝑑\stackrel{~}{r}^{}}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{r}^2\stackrel{~}{R}^2}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{r}}{F_3(\stackrel{~}{R})}$$
(39)
$$\sigma _{A;B}^2(\stackrel{~}{R}_A)=0.831k^3\frac{GM_{sph}}{R_e}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_e}{B(1,\stackrel{~}{r}_0)}\frac{_0^{\stackrel{~}{R}_A}\stackrel{~}{R}\frac{_{\stackrel{~}{R}}^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{r}\frac{_{\stackrel{~}{r}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{F_1(\stackrel{~}{r}^{})B(\stackrel{~}{r}^{},\stackrel{~}{r}_0)}{\stackrel{~}{r}^2}𝑑\stackrel{~}{r}^{}}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{r}^2\stackrel{~}{R}^2}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{r}}{F_3(\stackrel{~}{R})}𝑑\stackrel{~}{R}}{_0^{\stackrel{~}{R}_A}F_3(\stackrel{~}{R})\stackrel{~}{R}𝑑\stackrel{~}{R}}$$
(40)
From eqs. (35) and (40), by setting $`\stackrel{~}{R}_a=1/8`$, we obtain the halos contributions to the central velocity dispersions given in eq.(13) and (14), where the functions $`F_{NFW}`$ and $`F_B`$ are defined as:

$$F_{NFW}2\frac{k^3}{_0^{1/8}F_3(\stackrel{~}{R})\stackrel{~}{R}𝑑\stackrel{~}{R}}\frac{1}{A(\stackrel{~}{r}_{vir}(M_{vir}),\stackrel{~}{r}_s(M_{vir}))}$$

$$_0^{1/8}\stackrel{~}{R}\frac{_{\stackrel{~}{R}}^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{r}\frac{_{\stackrel{~}{r}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{F_1(\stackrel{~}{r}^{})A(\stackrel{~}{r}^{},\stackrel{~}{r}_s(M_{vir})}{\stackrel{~}{r}^2}𝑑\stackrel{~}{r}^{}}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{r}^2\stackrel{~}{R}^2}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{r}}{F_3(\stackrel{~}{R})}d\stackrel{~}{R}$$
(41)
$$F_B0.83\frac{k^3}{_0^{1/8}F_3(\stackrel{~}{R})\stackrel{~}{R}𝑑\stackrel{~}{R}}\frac{1}{B(1,\stackrel{~}{r}_0)}_0^{1/8}\stackrel{~}{R}\frac{_{\stackrel{~}{R}}^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{r}\frac{_{\stackrel{~}{r}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{F_1(\stackrel{~}{r}^{})B(\stackrel{~}{r}^{},\stackrel{~}{r}_0)}{\stackrel{~}{r}^2}𝑑\stackrel{~}{r}^{}}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{r}^2\stackrel{~}{R}^2}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{r}}{F_3(\stackrel{~}{R})}𝑑\stackrel{~}{R}$$
(42)
with the constant of proportionality: $`k^3/_0^{1/8}F_3(\stackrel{~}{R})\stackrel{~}{R}𝑑\stackrel{~}{R}8.31`$. Let us notice that $`F_{NFW}`$ depends on both $`R_e`$ and $`M_{vir}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vir}M_{sph}`$, while $`F_B`$ is only function of the parameter $`\stackrel{~}{r}_0r_0/R_e`$.