THE STELLAR INITIAL MASS FUNCTION OF ULTRA-FAINT DWARF GALAXIES: EVIDENCE FOR IMF VARIATIONS WITH GALACTIC ENVIRONMENT

By M. Geha, T. Brown, Jason Tumlinson, J. Kalirai, J. Simon, E. Kirby, D. VandenBerg, R. Muñoz, R. Avila, P. Guhathakurta and 1 more. 2013

139 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We present constraints on the stellar initial mass function (IMF) in two ultra-faint dwarf (UFD) galaxies, Hercules and Leo IV, based on deep Hubble Space Telescope Advanced Camera for Surveys imaging. The Hercules and Leo IV galaxies are extremely low luminosity (MV = −6.2, −5.5), metal-poor (〈[Fe/H]〉 = −2.4, −2.5) systems that have old stellar populations (>11 Gyr). Because they have long relaxation times, we can directly measure the low-mass stellar IMF by counting stars below the main-sequence turnoff without correcting for dynamical evolution. Over the stellar mass range probed by our data, 0.52–0.77 M☉, the IMF is best fit by a power-law slope of for Hercules and α = 1.3 ± 0.8 for Leo IV. For Hercules, the IMF slope is more shallow than a Salpeter (α = 2.35) IMF at the 5.8σ level, and a Kroupa (α = 2.3 above 0.5 M☉) IMF slope at 5.4σ level. We simultaneously fit for the binary fraction, fbinary, finding for Hercules, and for Leo IV. The UFD binary fractions are consistent with that inferred for Milky Way stars in the same mass range, despite very different metallicities. In contrast, the IMF slopes in the UFDs are shallower than other galactic environments. In the mass range 0.5–0.8 M☉, we see a trend across the handful of galaxies with directly measured IMFs such that the power-law slopes become shallower (more bottom-light) with decreasing galactic velocity dispersion and metallicity. This trend is qualitatively consistent with results in elliptical galaxies inferred via indirect methods and is direct evidence for IMF variations with galactic environment.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2e29663c306e941e397cf2fdecc4e39b8615117a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

  1. P. Hopkins
  2. R. Dav'e
  3. L. Hernquist
  4. R. Somerville
  5. C. Conroy
  6. Andrey V. Kravtsov
  7. Volker Springel
  8. A. Dekel

In Instrumentation

  1. C. Conroy
  2. P. Hopkins
  3. R. Dav'e
  4. R. Somerville
  5. Risa Wechsler
  6. P. Behroozi
  7. L. Hernquist
  8. Andrew P. Hearin

Citations in the corpus