English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

A growing body of evidence suggests that the central density of cuspy darkmatter subhaloes is conserved in minor mergers. However, empirical models ofsubhalo evolution, calibrated from simulations, often assume a drop in thecentral density. Since empirical models of subhaloes are used in galaxy-galaxylensing studies and dark matter annihilation calculations, we explore theconsequences of assuming different subhalo models. We find that dark matterannihilation calculations are very sensitive to the assumed subhalo massprofile, and different models can give more than a magnitude difference in theJ-factor and boost factor in individual haloes. On the other hand, the shearand convergence profiles used in galaxy-galaxy lensing are sensitive to theinitial profile assumed (e.g., NFW versus Einato) but are otherwisewell-approximated by a simple model in which the original profile is sharplytruncated. We conclude that since the innermost parts of haloes are difficultto resolve in simulations, it is important to have a theoretical understandingof how subhaloes evolve to make accurate predictions of the dark matterannihilation signal.

Do assumptions about the central density of subhaloes affect dark matter annihilation and lensing calculations?