Table 3
Comparison of different best fitting dynamical models including NFW haloes.
| M/Lstars | β | c | ρ s | r s |
|
χ 2 | χ2/d.o.f. |
| (M⊙/L⊙) | (10-3 × M⊙ pc-3) | (kpc) | (M⊙) | ||||
|
|
|||||||
| all data | |||||||
|
|
|||||||
| 3.15 | 0* | − | − | − | − | 111.43 | 2.86 |
| 3.156 | −0.043 | − | − | − | − | 111.19 | 2.85 |
| 3.08 | 0* | 5* | 1.18249* | 23.5 | 1.85 × 1011 | 100.4 | 2.71 |
| 3.06 | 0* | 10* | 6.08990* | 9.0 | 8.31 × 1010 | 103.1 | 2.79 |
| 2.96 | 0.3* | 5* | 1.18249* | 34.8 | 6.00 × 1011 | 89.6 | 2.39 |
| 2.91 | 0.3* | 10* | 6.08990* | 13.3 | 2.68 × 1011 | 88.1 | 2.38 |
| 2.78 | MŁ* | 5* | 1.18249* | 42.8 | 1.12 × 1012 | 97.3 | 2.56 |
| 2.78 | MŁ* | 10 | 6.08990* | 16.0 | 4.67 × 1011 | 92.8 | 2.44 |
|
|
|||||||
| No “bump” | |||||||
|
|
|||||||
| 3.13 | 0* | − | − | − | − | 65.08 | 1.86 |
| 3.12 | 0.072 | − | − | − | − | 64.22 | 1.88 |
| 3.11 | 0* | 5* | 1.18249* | 12.45 | 2.75 × 1010 | 64.46 | 1.89 |
| 3.13 | 0* | 10* | 6.08990* | 1.875 | 7.51 × 108 | 65.21 | 1.91 |
| 2.98 | 0.3* | 5* | 1.18249* | 27.7 | 3.03 × 1011 | 56.5 | 1.66 |
| 2.94 | 0.3* | 10* | 6.08990* | 11.0 | 1.52 × 1011 | 55.5 | 1.63 |
| 2.80 | MŁ* | 5* | 1.18249* | 36.5 | 6.93 × 1011 | 67.5 | 1.98 |
| 2.74 | MŁ* | 10 | 6.08990* | 14.2 | 3.27 × 1011 | 62.6 | 1.84 |
Notes. Quantities with an asterisk mean they have kept fixed during the minimisation process. The “no bump” panel refers to the quantities derived when the velocity dispersion values between 70′′ and 80′′ are removed. MŁ refers to the Mamon & Łokas (2005) anisotropy profile of Eq. (2).
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.