1: %% ApJ
2: %% \documentclass{aastex}
3: %% \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
5: \documentclass{emulateapj}
6: \bibliographystyle{apj}
7: %%\usepackage{color}
8: %%\slugcomment{Submitted to Astrophysical Journal}
9: \lefthead{Faltenbacher et al.}
10: \righthead{Alignments between central and satellite halos}
11: \newcommand{\hMsol}{{\,h^{-1}\rm M}_\odot}
12: \newcommand{\hMpc}{{\,h^{-1}\rm Mpc}}
13: \newcommand{\hkpc}{{\,h^{-1}\rm kpc}}
14: \newcommand{\kpc}{{\,\rm kpc}}
15: \newcommand{\kms}{\>{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}
16: \newcommand{\kmsmpc}{\>{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}}
17: \newcommand{\Rvir}{{\,r_{\rm vir}}}
18: \newcommand{\Om}{\Omega_{\rm m}}
19: \newcommand{\Ol}{\Omega_\Lambda}
20: \renewcommand{\vec}[1]{{\mathbf #1}}
21: \newcommand{\aII}{\langle|\vec{a}_{\rm GCS}\!\cdot\!\vec{r}|\rangle\,}
22: \newcommand{\axI}{\langle|\vec{a}_{\rm SAT}\!\cdot\!\vec{r}|\rangle\,}
23: \newcommand{\axB}{\langle|\vec{a}_3\!\cdot\!\vec{r}|\rangle\,}
24: \newcommand{\acI}{\langle|\vec{a}_{\rm GCS}\!\cdot\!\vec{a}_{\rm SAT}|\rangle\,}
25: \newcommand{\acB}{\langle|\vec{a}_{\rm GCS}\!\cdot\!\vec{a}_3|\rangle\,}
26: \newcommand{\vel}{\langle|\vec{v} \!\cdot\!\vec{r}|\rangle\,}
27: \newcommand{\aIv}{\langle|\vec{a}_{\rm SAT}\!\cdot\!\vec{v}|\rangle\,}
28: \newcommand{\cIv}{\langle|\vec{a}_{\rm GCS}\!\cdot\!\vec{v}|\rangle\,}
29: %%\newcommand{\fig}{fig/}
30: \newcommand{\fig}{1E3-5E4_2sigma/}
31: %%
32: \begin{document}
33: %%
34: %%---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35: \title{Spatial and kinematic alignments between central and satellite halos}
36: %%---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37: %%
38: \author {A. Faltenbacher\altaffilmark{1}, Y.P. Jing\altaffilmark{1},
39: Cheng Li\altaffilmark{1}, Shude Mao\altaffilmark{2},
40: H.J. Mo\altaffilmark{3}, Anna Pasquali\altaffilmark{4} and Frank C. van
41: den Bosch\altaffilmark{4}}
42: %%
43: \altaffiltext{1} {Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, Joint Center for
44: Cosmology and Astrophysics of the Max-Planck-Institut fuer Astrophysik
45: and the Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, Nandan Road 80, Shanghai
46: 200030, China}
47: \altaffiltext{2} {University of Manchester, Jodrell Bank Observatory,
48: Macclesfield, Cheshire SK11 9DL, UK}
49: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy, University of Massachusetts,
50: Amherst MA 01003-9305}
51: \altaffiltext{4} {Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy, K\"onigstuhl 17,
52: D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany }
53:
54: %%
55: \begin{abstract}
56: Based on a cosmological N-body simulation we analyze spatial and
57: kinematic alignments of satellite halos within six times the virial
58: radius of group size host halos ($\Rvir$). We measure three
59: different types of spatial alignment: halo alignment between the
60: orientation of the group central substructure (GCS) and the
61: distribution of its satellites, radial alignment between the
62: orientation of a satellite and the direction towards its GCS, and
63: direct alignment between the orientation of the GCS and that of its
64: satellites. In analogy we use the directions of satellite velocities
65: and probe three further types of alignment: the radial velocity
66: alignment between the satellite velocity and connecting line between
67: satellite and GCS, the halo velocity alignment between the orientation
68: of the GCS and satellite velocities and the auto velocity alignment
69: between the satellites orientations and their velocities. We find
70: that satellites are preferentially located along the major axis of the
71: GCS within at least $6\Rvir$ (the range probed here). Furthermore,
72: satellites preferentially point towards the GCS. The most pronounced
73: signal is detected on small scales but a detectable signal extends out
74: to $\sim 6\Rvir$. The direct alignment signal is weaker, however a
75: systematic trend is visible at distances $\lesssim2\Rvir$. All
76: velocity alignments are highly significant on small scales. The halo
77: velocity alignment is constant within $2\Rvir$ and declines rapidly
78: beyond. The halo and the auto velocity alignments are maximal at
79: small scales and disappear beyond 1 and $1.5\Rvir$ respectively. Our
80: results suggest that the halo alignment reflects the filamentary large
81: scale structure which extends far beyond the virial radii of the
82: groups. In contrast, the main contribution to the radial alignment
83: arises from the adjustment of the satellite orientations in the group
84: tidal field. The projected data reveal good agreement with recent
85: results derived from large galaxy surveys.
86: \end{abstract}
87: %%
88: %%
89: \keywords{dark matter --- galaxies: clusters: general --- galaxies:
90: kinematics and dynamics --- methods: numerical}
91: %%
92: %%--------------------
93: \section{Introduction}
94: %%--------------------
95: %%
96: Over the last decades observational and numerical evidence has
97: substantiated the picture of a filamentary large-scale structure in
98: the universe. In principle the large-scale tidal field is expected to
99: induce large-scale correlations between the orientations of halos and
100: galaxies that are embedded within these filaments
101: \citep[e.g.,][]{2000ApJ...543L.107P,2000ApJ...545..561C,
102: 2000MNRAS.319..649H, 2001MNRAS.320L...7C,2001ApJ...559..552C,
103: 2002MNRAS.332..339P, 2002MNRAS.335L..89J}. On the other hand, the
104: subsequent accretion onto larger systems, such as groups and clusters
105: of galaxies, may alter the orientations of these (sub-)structures in
106: response to the local tidal field \citep{1994MNRAS.270..390C,
107: 2005ApJ...629L...5L}. Cosmological N-body simulations provide a
108: valuable tool to differentiate the various contributions to the
109: halo/galaxy alignments within overdense regions.
110:
111: Observationally, various types of alignment between galaxies and their
112: environment have been detected on a wide range in scales, from
113: super-cluster systems down to the distribution of the satellite
114: galaxies in our Milky Way (MW). On cluster scales various different
115: types of alignment are discussed in the literature : alignment between
116: neighboring clusters \citep{1982A&A...107..338B, 1989ApJ...338..711U,
117: 1989ApJ...344..535W, 1994ApJS...95..401P, 2002ApJ...565..849C},
118: between brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs) and their parent clusters
119: \citep{1980MNRAS.191..325C, 1982A&A...107..338B, 1990AJ.....99..743S,
120: 1991A&A...243...38R,2002MNRAS.329L..47P}, between the orientation of
121: satellite galaxies and the orientation of the cluster
122: \citep{1985ApJ...298..461D, 2003ApJ...594..144P}, and between the
123: orientation of satellite galaxies and the orientation of the BCG
124: \citep{1990AJ.....99..743S}. According to these studies the typical
125: scales over which clusters reveal signs for alignment range up to
126: $10-50\hMpc$, which can be most naturally explained by the presence of
127: filaments.
128:
129: With large galaxy redshift surveys, such as the two-degree Field
130: Galaxy Redshift Survey \citep[2dFGRS,][]{2001MNRAS.328.1039C} and the
131: Sloan Digital Sky Survey \citep[SDSS,][]{2000AJ....120.1579Y}, it has
132: recently also become possible to investigate alignments on group
133: scales using large and homogeneous samples. This has resulted in
134: robust detections of various alignments: \cite{2005ApJ...628L.101B},
135: \cite{2006MNRAS.369.1293Y} and \cite{2007MNRAS.376L..43A} all found
136: that satellite galaxies are preferentially distributed along the major
137: axes of their host galaxies, while \cite{2005ApJ...627L..21P} and
138: \cite{2006ApJ...644L..25A} noticed that satellite galaxies tend to be
139: oriented towards the galaxy at the center of the halo.
140:
141: In contradiction to the studies above, \cite{1969ArA.....5..305H}
142: found that satellites around isolated late type galaxies
143: preferentially lie along the minor axis of the disc. Subsequent
144: studies, however, were unable to confirm this so-called `Holmberg
145: effect'\citep{1975AJ.....80..477H, 1979MNRAS.187..287S,
146: 1982MNRAS.198..605M, 1997ApJ...478L..53Z}. Recently
147: \cite{2007arXiv0704.3441A} reported a Holmberg effect at large
148: projected distances around blue host galaxies, while on smaller scales
149: the satellites were found to be aligned with the major axis of their
150: host galaxy and \cite{2005ApJ...627..647B} claim that a careful
151: selection of isolated late-type galaxies reveals the the tendency for
152: the satellites to align with the minor axis of the galactic
153: disc. Investigating the companions of M31 \cite{2006AJ....131.1405K}
154: find little evidence for a Holmberg effect. Yet, the Milky Way (MW)
155: seems to exhibit a Holmberg effect even on small scales, in that the
156: 11 innermost MW satellites show a pronounced planar distribution
157: oriented close to perpendicular to the MW disc
158: \citep{1982Obs...102..202L, 1994ApJ...431L..17M, 2005A&A...431..517K,
159: 2005A&A...437..383K, 2005MNRAS.363..146L}.
160:
161: Numerical simulations have been employed to test alignment on a
162: similar range in scales, from super-clusters down to galaxy-satellite
163: systems. All studies focusing on cluster size halos report a
164: correlation in the orientations for distances of at least $10\hMpc$;
165: some studies observe a positive alignment signal up to $100\hMpc$
166: \citep[e.g.,][]{2000MNRAS.319..614O,2002A&A...395....1F,
167: 2005MNRAS.362.1099F,2005ApJ...618....1H,2005ApJ...629..781K,
168: 2006MNRAS.365..539B}. These findings are interpreted as the signature
169: of the filamentary network which interconnects the clusters. The
170: preferential accretion along these filaments causes the clusters to
171: point towards each other. Also, for galaxy and group-sized halos a
172: tendency to point toward neighboring halos is detected. According to
173: \cite{2006MNRAS.370.1422A} the alignments for such intermediate mass
174: objects are caused by tidal fields rather than accretion along the
175: filaments. Consequently, the mechanisms responsible for the alignment
176: of the orientations depend on halo mass. Further evidence for a mass
177: dependence of alignment effects comes from the examination of the
178: halos' angular momenta.
179: \cite{2005ApJ...627..647B} and \cite{2007ApJ...655L...5A} find that the
180: spins of galaxy size halos tend to be parallel to the filaments
181: whereas the spins of group-sized halos tend to be perpendicular. This
182: behavior may originate in the relative sizes of halos with respect to
183: the surrounding filaments.
184:
185: On subhalo scales basically three different types of alignments have
186: been discussed: the alignment of the overall subhalo distribution with
187: the orientation of the host halo \citep[e.g.,][]{2004ApJ...603....7K,
188: 2005ApJ...629..219Z, 2006ApJ...650..550A, 2007MNRAS.378.1531K,
189: 2007MNRAS.374...16L}, the alignment of the orientations of subhalos
190: among each other \citep[e.g.,][]{2005ApJ...629L...5L} and, very
191: recently, the orientation of the satellites with respect to the center
192: of the host \citep{2007arXiv0705.2037K,2007arXiv0707.1702P}. Again,
193: accretion along the filaments and the impact of tidal fields have been
194: invoked as explanations for the former and the latter, respectively.
195: Thus, on all scales tidal fields and accretion along filaments are
196: considered to be the main contributers to the observed alignment
197: signals. Here we attempt to isolate the different contributions. In
198: particular we focus on the continuous transition from subhalo to halo
199: scales meaning we examine the alignment of (sub)structure on distance
200: scales between 0.3 and 6 times the virial of groups sized halos.
201:
202: Faltenbacher et al. (2007, hereafter Paper~I)\nocite{2007ApJ...662L..71F}
203: applied the halo-based group finder of \cite{2005MNRAS.356.1293Y} to
204: the SDSS Data Release Four \citep[DR4;][]{2006ApJS..162...38A} and
205: carried out a study of the mutual alignments between central galaxies
206: (BCG) and their satellites in group-sized halos. Using the same
207: data set consisting of over $60000$ galaxies three different types of
208: alignment have been investigated : (1) the `halo' alignment between
209: the orientations of the BCG and associated satellite distribution;
210: (2) the `radial' alignment between the direction given by the
211: BCG-satellite connection line and the satellite orientation; (3)
212: the `direct' alignment between the orientations of the BCG and the
213: satellites. The study presented in this paper focuses on the same
214: types of alignment and is aimed to compare the observational
215: results with theoretical expectations derived from N-body simulations.
216:
217: There are a variety of dynamical processes which can contribute to the
218: alignments of satellites associated with groups, the most important
219: are: (1) a possible pre-adjustment of satellites in the filaments,
220: which for distances of a few times the virial radius commonly point
221: radially towards the group; (2) the preferential accretion along those
222: filaments; (3) the change of the satellite orbits in the triaxial
223: group potential well; (4) the continuous re-adjustment of satellite
224: orientations as they orbit within the group. Basically, the first two
225: points can be attributed to the large scale environment of the groups
226: whereas the latter two are more closely associated with the impact of
227: the group potential on small scales. The purpose of the present
228: analysis is to separate the different contributions to the observed
229: alignment signals, therefore we analyse the mutual orientations of
230: satellites within 6 times the virial radius of the groups.
231: Since the tidal forces are closely related to the dynamics of the
232: satellites additional insight into the generation of alignment can be
233: gained by considering the satellite velocities. Therefore, we also
234: investigate the direction of the satellite velocities with respect to
235: their orientations, which constitutes an indirect way to infer the
236: impact of the dynamics onto the orientation of the satellites. A more
237: direct way to work out the interplay between the dynamics and the
238: orientations would be to trace the orbits of individual satellites,
239: however such an approach goes beyond the scope of the present
240: study.
241:
242: The paper is organized as follows. In \S~\ref{sec:sim} we introduce
243: the simulation and describe the halo finding
244: procedure. \S~\ref{sec:size} deals with some technical aspects, namely
245: the determination of the size and orientation of the
246: substructures. In \S~\ref{sec:3D} we present the signals of the three
247: dimensional spatial and velocity alignments and in \S~\ref{sec:2D} we
248: repeat the analysis based on projected data. Finally, we conclude with
249: a summary in
250: \S~\ref{sec:diss}.
251:
252: %%
253: %%-------------------------------------------
254: \section{Simulation and halo identification}
255: \label{sec:sim}
256: %%-------------------------------------------
257: %%
258: For the present analysis we employ an N-body simulation of structure
259: formation in a flat $\Lambda$CDM universe with a matter density
260: $\Omega_m=0.3$, a Hubble parameter $h=H_0/(100 \kmsmpc)=0.7$, and a
261: Harrison-Zeldovich initial power spectrum with normalization
262: $\sigma_8=0.9$. The density field is sampled by $512^3$ particles
263: within a $100\hMpc$ cube resulting in a mass resolution of $6.2\times
264: 10^8\hMsol$. The softening length was set to $\epsilon = 10\hkpc$,
265: beyond which the gravitational force between two particles is exactly
266: Newtonian. The density filed is evolved with 5000 time steps from an
267: initial redshift of $z_i=72$ using a PPPM method. An extensive
268: description of the simulation can be found in
269: \cite{2002ApJ...574..538J} where it is quoted as LCDMa realization.
270:
271: As detailed in the following two paragraphs the host halos and its
272: satellites are found in two subsequent steps with two different
273: techniques, first the main halos are located thereafter the associated
274: satellite halos are detected. In order to identify the host halos
275: we first run a FoF algorithm \citep{1985ApJ...292..371D} on
276: the simulation output at $z=0$. We set the FoF linking length to 0.1
277: times the mean particle separation, which selects regions with an
278: average overdensity of $\sim3000$. Note that, this linking length is a
279: factor of two smaller than the commonly used value of 0.2,
280: consequently only the central part of the host halo (and occasionally
281: large substructures) are selected.
282: Subsequently, the virial radius,
283: $\Rvir$, is defined as the radius of the sphere centered on the most
284: bound FoF particle which includes a mean density of 101 times the
285: critical density, and we simply define the virial mass of each halo as
286: the mass within $\Rvir$. If the virial regions of two halos overlap,
287: the lower mass halo is discarded. In what follows we only focus on
288: the 515 halos with a virial mass in the range from $10^{13} \hMsol$
289: to $5\times10^{14}\hMsol$ (corresponding to halos with more than
290: 16,000 particles). Since this is the typical mass scale of galaxy
291: groups, we will refer to these halos as `groups'.
292:
293: In a second step we search for self-bound (sub)structures using the SKID
294: halo finder \citep{2001PhDT........21S} applied to the particle
295: distribution within group centric distances of $6\Rvir$. As discussed in
296: \cite{2006MNRAS.366.1529M} SKID adequately identifies the smallest
297: resolvable substructures when using a linking length $l$ equal to
298: twice the softening length, i.e. four times the spline softening
299: length. We therefore adopt $l=20\hkpc$. Throughout we will
300: distinguish between ``group central substructures'' (GCSs), which are
301: located at the center of our groups, and satellites which are all the
302: other (sub)structures, no matter whether they lie within or beyond
303: $\Rvir$. According to this definition every group hosts one, and only
304: one, GCS at its center while it may have numerous satellites outside
305: the volume occupied by the GCS. Satellites are allocated to all
306: groups from which they are separated less than $6\Rvir$. Hence, a
307: satellite may be assigned to more than one GCS.
308: %%
309: %%--------------------------------------------
310: \section{Size and orientation of substructures}
311: \label{sec:size}
312: %%--------------------------------------------
313: %%
314: Before describing the computation of the orientation we determine the
315: typical sizes of the GCSs and the satellites. Knowledge about the
316: physical sizes of the (sub)structures provides a crucial link for the
317: comparison to observational data.
318: %%
319: \subsection{Sizes of group central substructures}
320: %%
321: %%
322: %%\clearpage
323: \begin{figure}
324: \plotone{f1.eps}
325: %%\plotone{\fig covi.Rsph6.mim200.eps}
326: \caption{\label{fig:covi}
327: Distribution of the spatial dispersion $r_\sigma$ of the group central
328: substructure (GCS) in units of the virial radius. Satellites can only
329: be resolved at radii larger than the size of the GCS.}
330: \end{figure}
331: %%\clearpage
332: %%
333: The physical interpretation of the size of the GCS is not
334: straightforward. For one thing, it depends on the SKID linking length
335: used. However, for our purposes it is sufficient to notice that the
336: GCS represents the dense inner region of the group which, largely due
337: to numerical reasons, is free of substructure. Consequently, any
338: radial dependence of satellite properties can only be probed down to
339: the size of the GCS. In order to express the sizes of the GCS and the
340: satellites we use the rms of the distances between the bound
341: particles, $r_{\sigma}$. The advantage of this size measure is that
342: it provides a direct estimate of the (momentary) size without having
343: to make any assumption regarding the actual density distribution. In
344: the case of an isolated NFW halo $r_\sigma\approx0.5\Rvir$, with only
345: a very weak dependence on the concentration parameter.
346: Figure~\ref{fig:covi} displays the $r_\sigma$ distribution of the GCSs
347: in units of the group's virial radius, $\Rvir$. The distribution
348: peaks at $0.11\Rvir$ and has a mean of $0.13\Rvir$.
349: %%
350: %%----------------------------------
351: \subsection{Sizes of satellite halos}
352: %%----------------------------------
353: %%
354: %%\clearpage
355: \begin{figure}
356: \plotone{f2.eps}
357: %%\plotone{\fig rkpc.Rsph6.mim200.eps}
358: \caption{\label{fig:rkpc}
359: Distribution of the radii of satellites found within the virial radius
360: of the group. In this context radius refers to listed fraction
361: (0.5, 1.0) of the satellites spatial dispersion $r_\sigma$. For
362: example, the typical inner radii probed by the $b=0.5r_\sigma$ sample
363: is $\sim30\hkpc$.}
364: \end{figure}
365: %%\clearpage
366: %%
367: The aim of the present analysis is twofold: (1) to assess the impact
368: of the group tidal field on the satellite orientations, and (2) to
369: compare the alignment signals in our N-body simulation to observations
370: of galaxy alignments. The impact of the group tidal field is stronger
371: at larger satellite-centric radii. On the other hand, since galaxies
372: reside at the centers of their dark matter halos, the central parts of
373: the satellites are more of interest when comparing the alignment
374: signals with those observed for galaxies. To meet both requirements we
375: therefore measure the orientation of the satellite mass distribution
376: within two radii. In analogy to the measurement of GCS sizes, we
377: determine these radii with reference to the spatial dispersion
378: $r_\sigma$. More precisely, we choose the particles within 1.0 and
379: $0.5r_\sigma$ as the basic sets for the subsequent determination of
380: the satellite orientation (see Section~\ref{sec:ori} below).
381: Figure~\ref{fig:rkpc} displays the distributions of the corresponding
382: physical sizes. The $0.5r_\sigma$ sample probes the matter
383: distribution of the satellites within $\sim25\hkpc$, which is
384: comparable to the sizes of elliptical galaxies. The mean, physical
385: radii of the $1.0r_\sigma$ sample is $\sim50\hkpc$. If not quoted
386: otherwise we will display the results for the $0.5r_\sigma$ sample,
387: since this may most closely resemble the properties of observable
388: galaxy distributions (outside of the very central part of the host
389: halo).
390: %%
391: %%----------------------
392: \subsection{Orientation}
393: \label{sec:ori}
394: %%----------------------
395: %%
396: %%\clearpage
397: \begin{figure}
398: \plotone{f3.eps}
399: %%\plotone{\fig shape.Rsph6.mim200.eps}
400: \caption{\label{fig:shape}
401: Distribution of satellite shapes, represented by the ratio of shortest
402: to the longest semi-major axis of the mass-ellipsoid ($s=c/a$). The
403: colors correspond to the samples with different truncation radii as
404: listed. With increasing size the halos become rounder. The
405: distribution of the $b=0.5r_\sigma$ sample is rather symmetric,
406: whereas for larger truncation radii there appears a slight asymmetry.}
407: \end{figure}
408: %%\clearpage
409: %%
410: There are a few different ways found in the literature
411: \citep[e.g.,][]{2002sgdh.conf..109B, 2002ApJ...574..538J,
412: 2005ApJ...627..647B, 2005ApJ...629..781K, 2006MNRAS.367.1781A} to
413: model halos as ellipsoids. They all differ in details, but most
414: methods model halos using the eigenvectors from some form of the
415: inertia tensor. The eigenvectors correspond to the direction of the
416: major axes, and the eigenvalues to the lengths of the semi-major axes
417: $a\geq b \geq c$. Following \cite{2006MNRAS.367.1781A} we determine
418: the main axes by iteratively computing the eigenvectors of the {\it
419: distance weighted} inertia tensor.
420: %%
421: \begin{equation}
422: I_{ij} = \sum_{k=1,N} {r_{ki}r_{kj}\over r^2_{k}}\ ,
423: \end{equation}
424: %%
425: where $r_{ki}$ denotes the $i$th component of the position vector of
426: the $k$th particle with respect to the center of mass and
427: %%
428: \begin{equation}
429: \label{eq:weight}
430: r_k = \sqrt{{x^2\over a^2} + {y^2\over b^2} + {z^2\over c^2}}
431: \end{equation}
432: %%
433: is the elliptical distance in the eigenvector coordinate system from
434: the center to the $k$th particle. The square roots of the eigenvalues
435: of the inertia tensor determine the axial ratios of the halo ($a:b:c =
436: \sqrt{\lambda_a}:\sqrt{\lambda_b}:\sqrt{\lambda_c}$). The iteration is
437: initialized by computing the eigenvalues of the inertia tensor for the
438: spherically truncated halo. In the following iterations the length of
439: the intermediate axis is kept unchanged and all bound particles within
440: the ellipsoidal window determined by the eigenvalues of the foregoing
441: iteration are used for the computation of the new inertia tensor. The
442: iteration is completed when the eigenvectors have converged. The
443: direction of the resulting major axis is identified as the
444: orientation. The advantage of keeping the intermediate axis fixed is
445: that the number of particles within the varying ellipsoidal windows
446: remains almost constant. Instead, if the longest (shortest) axis is
447: kept constant the number of particles within the ellipsoidal windows
448: can decrease (increase) substantially during the iteration.
449:
450: Note that we apply this truncation to all (sub)structures, both
451: satellites and GCSs, and that the orientation of each sub(structure)
452: is measured within this truncation radius. Throughout we only
453: consider those sub(structures) that comprise at least 200 bound
454: particles within the volume of the final ellipsoid (corresponding to a
455: lower limit in mass of $\approx 10^{11}\hMsol$). For the satellites
456: this implies that a smaller truncation radius results in a smaller
457: sample. For example, there are 772 $0.5r_\sigma$ satellites within
458: the virial radii of our groups whereas the $1.0r_\sigma$ sample
459: comprises 1431 satellites. Since all 515 GCSs contain more than 200
460: particles within $0.5r_\sigma$ their sample size is independent of the
461: truncation radius used.
462:
463: Figure~\ref{fig:shape} displays the distribution of the shape
464: parameter $s=c/a$. The shading corresponds to different truncation
465: radii as listed. There is a weak indication that satellites become
466: more spherical with increasing truncation radii. A similar behavior
467: was found for isolated halos \citep[e.g.,][]{2002ApJ...574..538J,
468: 2006MNRAS.367.1781A}. As discussed by \cite{2006MNRAS.367.1781A} the
469: exact determination of individual shapes may need as many as 7000
470: particles, so that the resolution of the present simulation is not
471: suited for the analysis of (sub)structure shapes. However, for the
472: determination of the orientations, which is the focus of this paper, a
473: particle limit of 200 can be considered conservative
474: \citep[cf.,][]{2002MNRAS.335L..89J, 2007arXiv0707.1702P}. A study
475: examining the shapes of substructure in a single high-resolution
476: Milky Way-sized halo can be found in \cite{2007arXiv0705.2037K}.
477: %%
478: %%------------------------------------
479: \section{Three dimensional Alignments}
480: \label{sec:3D}
481: %%------------------------------------
482: %%
483: For both classes of objects, GCSs and satellites, the orientations are
484: determined according to the approach described above. A third
485: orientation-like quantity is given by the direction of the line
486: connecting a GCS-satellite pair. Throughout we refer to the
487: orientation of the GCS, the satellite and the connecting line as
488: $\vec{a}_{\rm GCS}$, $\vec{a}_{\rm SAT}$ and $\vec{r}$, respectively.
489: These quantities are unit vectors, such that the scalar product of two
490: vectors yields the cosine of the angle between them. We will focus on
491: three different types of alignment, (1) the {\it halo alignment}
492: between the orientations of the GCSs and the connecting lines, (2) the
493: {\it radial alignment} between the orientations of the satellites and
494: the connecting lines and (3) the {\it direct alignment} between the
495: orientation of the GCS and that of its satellites. In addition, we
496: also consider various alignments based on the proper velocity,
497: $\vec{v}$, of the satellite with respect to its GCS. In particular,
498: we discuss (4) the {\it radial velocity alignment} between $\vec{v}$
499: and $\vec{r}$, (5) the {\it halo velocity alignment} between
500: $\vec{a}_{\rm GCS}$ and $\vec{v}$, and finally (vi) the {\it auto
501: velocity alignment} between the orientations, $\vec{a}_{\rm SAT}$, and
502: velocities, $\vec{v}$, of the satellites. Here $\vec{v}$ is the unit
503: vector indicating the direction of the {\it proper} velocity of the
504: satellite (including the Hubble flow) relative to the host. Since all
505: the other quantities also represent unit vectors the scalar products
506: yield the cosines of the enclosed angles.
507: %%
508: %%-------------------------
509: \subsection{Halo alignment}
510: \label{sec:halo3D}
511: %%-------------------------
512: %%
513: %%\clearpage
514: \begin{figure}
515: \plotone{f4.eps}
516: %%\plotone{\fig a11.Rsph6Rmax6.bin12.mim200.eps}
517: \caption{\label{fig:a11}
518: Mean values of the cosines of the angles between the orientations of
519: the GCS and the connecting lines to the satellites, $\aII$, as a
520: function of $r/\Rvir$ for the $0.5r_\sigma$ sample. The dotted
521: horizontal line indicates the mean values for an isotropic
522: distribution. The error bars indicate the $95\%$ bootstrap confidence
523: intervals within each distance bin.}
524: \end{figure}
525: %%\clearpage
526: %%
527: %%
528: %%The orientation of the GCS is correlated with the shape of the overall
529: %%halo \citep[e.g.,][]{2005ApJ...627..647B}. Consequently, the
530: %%distribution of the satellites is expected to correlate with the GCS
531: %%since the accretion of satellites and diffuse dark matter follows
532: %%similar patterns causing similar spatial distributions.
533: %%Alternatively, \cite{2006ApJ...637..561L} propose that the tidal field
534: %%of the host is responsible for the correlation between the satellite
535: %%distribution and the host halo, ultimately causing a similar alignment
536: %%between the orientation of the GCS and the satellite distribution.
537:
538: In order to measure the alignment between the GCS and the satellite
539: distribution we use $\vec{a}_{\rm GCS}$ and $\vec{r}$ (the orientation
540: of the GCS and the position of the satellite with respect to its GCS).
541: Figure~\ref{fig:a11} displays the radial dependence of $\aII$ within
542: $6\Rvir$, where $\langle\cdot\rangle$ denotes the mean value within a
543: bin of $r/\Rvir$. The error bars indicate the $95\%$ bootstrap
544: confidence intervals based on 1000 bootstrap samples for each distance
545: bin.
546: %% The shaded areas mark the parameter space between
547: %% the $16^{\rm th}$ and $84^{\rm th}$ percentiles of the distributions
548: %% obtained from the 100 random samples. A signal outside this shaded
549: %% region therefore indicates that it is inconsistent with no alignment
550: %% (i.e., with isotropy) at more than 68 percent confidence. The
551: %% different line styles correspond to different truncation radii. The
552: %% solid line probes the alignment based on the orientation of the inner
553: %% regions of the GCS ($0.5r_\sigma$) whereas the broken lines correspond
554: %% to GCS orientations at measured out to larger radii. Within the errors
555: %% the signals agree for all three cases, indicating that the orientation
556: %% of the GCS does not change significantly with radius.
557: %%
558: Over the entire range of distances probed, the mean values of the
559: cosines deviate significantly from a isotropic distribution. The
560: strength of the alignment, i.e. the deviation from $\aII=0.5$,
561: increases with group centric distance and reaches a maximum at
562: $\sim1.7\Rvir$. The subsequent decline, however, is very weak and
563: even at $6\Rvir$ the alignment is still very pronounced
564: ($\aII\approx0.55$), with no clear indication of a downward trend.
565: The fact that there is strong alignment over such a long range
566: suggests that the halo intrinsic alignment is closely connected to the
567: filamentary structure in which the groups are embedded in. Since here
568: we focus on the transition between group and environment dominated
569: areas we do not aim to map out the entire range of the radial
570: alignment.
571: %% However, we can use simple geometrical arguments to argue
572: %% that filaments have a finite extent. Consider for simplicity that
573: %% filaments are infinitely long and perfectly straight cylinders with a
574: %% uniform distribution of satellites. Then those satellites at larger
575: %% group-centric radii will extend a smaller solid angle as viewed from
576: %% the GCS. Consequently, $\aII \rightarrow 1$ as $r \rightarrow \infty$.
577: %% The fact that, instead, $\aII$ decreases (weakly) with increasing
578: %% radius indicates that the filaments are not infinitely long.
579:
580: The weakening of the signal at small scales may be attributed to the
581: fact that the information about the filamentary origin is washed away
582: once the satellites start to orbit within the groups (i.e., once
583: non-linear effects kick in). Yet, the orientation of the group itself
584: is closely correlated with the surrounding filamentary network, so
585: that a residual alignment is maintained by the overall distribution of
586: satellites orbiting in the potential well of the group
587: \citep[cf.][]{1987ApJ...321..113S, 2005ApJ...629..219Z,
588: 2007MNRAS.378.1531K}. Additionally, if one assumes that filaments are
589: approximately cylindrical in shape and the GCS is aligned with the
590: orientation of the cylinder, then the mean angles between the
591: orientation of the GCS and the satellites position become larger at
592: smaller group-centric radii. In fact, at distances smaller than the
593: radius of the cylinder the distribution will converge to
594: isotropic. Finally, some contribution to the decrease of the alignment
595: strength on small scales may come from the fact that satellites on
596: nearly radial orbits are filtered out during their epicenter passage.
597: They get severely stripped and consequently the number of particles
598: that remains bound can easily fall below the detection criterion
599: (minimum of 200 particles), thus weakening the alignment signal.
600: %%
601: %%---------------------------
602: \subsection{Radial alignment}
603: \label{sec:radial3D}
604: %%---------------------------
605: %%
606: %%\clearpage
607: \begin{figure}
608: \plotone{f5.eps}
609: %%\plotone{\fig ax1.Rsph6Rmax6.bin12.mim200.eps}
610: \caption{\label{fig:ax1}
611: Same as Figure~\ref{fig:a11}, but for the distributions of cosines
612: between the satellite orientation and the connecting line to the GCS,
613: $|\vec{a}_{\rm SAT}\!\cdot\!\vec{r}|$ for the $0.5$ and
614: $1.0r_\sigma$ samples.}
615: \end{figure}
616: %%\clearpage
617: %%
618: %%
619: The radial alignment, $\axI$, probes the orientations of individual
620: satellites, $\vec{a}_{\rm SAT}$, relative to the direction pointing
621: towards their GCS, $\vec{r}$. Figure~\ref{fig:ax1} displays $\axI$
622: for distances up to $6\Rvir$. The line styles represent different
623: truncation radii of the satellites. Over the entire range of
624: group-centric distances probed, the data reveal a significant
625: anisotropic distribution. The signal is most pronounced on small
626: scales, where it also shows a strong dependence on the truncation
627: radii. The $1.0r_\sigma$ sample, which includes the behavior of the
628: outer mass shells of the satellites, clearly exhibits a stronger
629: deviation from isotropy. Within $\sim 1.5\Rvir$ there is a pronounced
630: decline of the radial alignment signal, while it remains remarkably
631: constant at larger radii. For distance in the range between
632: $2-6\Rvir$ we detect a weak but significant signal, $\acI\approx0.52$,
633: inconsistent with isotropy at 95\% confidence level in good agreement
634: with
635: \cite{2007arXiv0704.2595H}. In a recent study,
636: \cite{2007arXiv0705.2037K} detected no radial alignment for distances
637: $\gtrsim3\Rvir$. However, their analysis is based on a resimulation
638: of a single galaxy-sized host halo. Since this halo is rather
639: isolated, in that it has not experienced any major merger after
640: redshift $z=1.7$, it is likely that its ambient filaments have already been
641: drained.
642:
643: At large distances satellites preferentially reside in filaments (as
644: discussed in the context of Figure~\ref{fig:a11}) which point radially
645: towards the groups. Consequently, the signal on scales
646: $\gtrsim2\Rvir$ indicates an alignment between the satellite
647: orientations and the filaments in which they are embedded. Such an
648: alignment may be caused by accretion of matter along those filaments
649: or by the local tidal fields generated by the mass distribution within
650: the filaments. The group tidal field is not likely to be responsible
651: for the observed large scale alignment signal due to its rapid decline
652: with distance. On small scales, however, the tidal field can
653: substantially alter the orientations of the satellites. As shown by
654: \cite{1994MNRAS.270..390C} the time scale on which a prolate satellite
655: can adjust its orientation to the tidal field of a group is much
656: shorter than the Hubble time, but longer than its intrinsic dynamical
657: time. Therefore, the adjustment of the satellite orientations
658: parallel to the gradients of the group potential offers a convincing
659: explanation for a radial alignment signal on small scales. This
660: perception is further supported by the dependence of the alignment
661: strength on the truncation radii of the satellites. For the largest
662: radii, which are strongest affected by tidal forces, the alignment
663: signal is strongest.
664: %%
665: %%---------------------------
666: \subsection{Direct alignment}
667: %%---------------------------
668: %%
669: %%\clearpage
670: \begin{figure}
671: \plotone{f6.eps}
672: %%\plotone{\fig ac1.Rsph6Rmax6.bin12.mim200.eps}
673: \caption{\label{fig:ac1}
674: Same as Figure~\ref{fig:a11}, but for the distributions of
675: cosines between the orientation of the satellites and the
676: GCS, $|\vec{a}_{\rm GCS}\!\cdot\!\vec{a}_{\rm SAT}|$.}
677: \end{figure}
678: %%\clearpage
679: %%
680: The strong signals for halo and radial alignment may lead to the
681: expectation of a comparably pronounced signal for the direct alignment
682: between the orientation of the GCS, $\vec{a}_{\rm GCS}$, and the
683: orientations of its satellites, $\vec{a}_{\rm SAT}$. However, as can
684: be seen in Figure~\ref{fig:ac1}, the signal is weak. There is only a
685: weak trend for positive alignment up to $2\Rvir$. The significance
686: found at distances between $1$ and $\sim2\Rvir$ seems to be somewhat
687: higher ($\sim90\%$ confidence). Based on an analytical model
688: \cite{2005ApJ...629L...5L} predict a certain degree of parallel
689: alignment between host and satellite orientations due to the evolution
690: of the satellites within the tidal shear field of host. The signal for
691: the direct alignment may be a relic of this effect.
692:
693: To summarize, we find positive alignment signals for all three types
694: of alignment tested here. However, they differ in strength and radial
695: extent. The halo alignment is the strongest and reaches far beyond the
696: virial radii of the groups ($\gtrsim6\Rvir$). The radial alignment is
697: most pronounced at small scales, where it reveals a strong dependence
698: on the radial extent of the satellite over which its orientation has
699: been measured. Although the radial alignment is weak beyond $\sim 1.5
700: \Rvir$, the signal stays remarkably constant out to $\sim6\Rvir$.
701: Finally, the least prominent signal comes from the direct alignment.
702: This ranking of the alignment strengths is in good agreement with the
703: observational results reported in Paper~I.
704: %%The radial dependence of
705: %%the halo alignment is readily explained by the filamentary structure
706: %%of the group environment superimposed on the small scale signal caused
707: %%by the satellites orbiting within the triaxial group potential
708: %%well. On small scales, the radial alignment arises from the group
709: %%tidal field, while on large scales it most likely reflects that
710: %%satellites are aligned with the filaments in which they reside.
711: %%
712: %%
713: \subsection{Alignments based on subhalo velocities}
714: \label{sec:vel}
715: %%
716: If tidal forces give rise to the radial alignment on small scales, as
717: displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:ax1}, the satellite orientations should be
718: related to their actual velocities and the local gradients of the host
719: potential. For instance a satellite moving radially towards the GCS
720: will show an enhanced radial alignment since the gradient of the
721: potential and the actual velocity are pointing in the same direction
722: inducing an orientation in radial direction. On the other side the
723: orientations of satellites moving perpendicular to the gravitational
724: field (i.e. tangentially with respect to the GCS) will lie in between
725: their velocities and the gradients of the potential well. To gain
726: some more insight into the dynamical origin of the alignments, we
727: include the directions of satellite velocities into the alignment
728: study. We will consider three different kinds of alignments: the
729: radial velocity alignment, $|\vec{v}\cdot\vec{r}|$, the halo velocity
730: alignment $|\vec{a}_{\rm GCS}\cdot\vec{v}|$ and the auto velocity
731: alignment $|\vec{a}_{\rm SAT}\cdot\vec{v}|$.
732: %%
733: %%\clearpage
734: \begin{figure}
735: \plotone{f7.eps}
736: %%\plotone{\fig ioRsph6Rmax6.bin12.mim200.eps}
737: \caption{\label{fig:io} Ratio of inward moving satellites,
738: $f_{\rm in} = n_{\rm in}/ (n_{\rm out} + n_{\rm in})$ for the
739: $0.5r_\sigma$ sample. Error bars are Poisson.}
740: \end{figure}
741: %%\clearpage
742: %%
743: To facilitate the interpretation of the velocity alignments, we split
744: the satellites according to whether their net motion is inward
745: ($\vec{v} \! \cdot \! \vec{r} < 0$) or outward ($\vec{v} \! \cdot \!
746: \vec{r} > 0$) with respect to their group. Figure~\ref{fig:io} shows
747: the fraction of inward moving satellites, $f_{\rm in}$, as a function
748: of their group centric distances. Note that $f_{\rm in}$ reaches a
749: maximum around $\sim 2\Rvir$, beyond which the Hubble flow gradually
750: starts to become more and more important. In fact, at sufficiently
751: large radii, where the Hubble flow dominates, one expects that $f_{\rm
752: in}=0$, and all satellites reveal an outward motion. For satellites
753: that are in virial equilibrium within the group potential (i.e., at $r
754: \la \Rvir$), one expects roughly equal numbers of inward and outward
755: moving systems (i.e., $f_{\rm in}=0.5$). However, on these small
756: scales one has an additional contribution from the infall region
757: around the group, causing $f_{\rm in} > 0.5$. In addition, a
758: substantial fraction of satellites get stripped below the detection
759: limit (200 particles) at their peri-centric passage, so that they no
760: longer contribute to the signal on their outward motion
761: \citep[cf.,][]{2007MNRAS.375..313F}. At $\Rvir$, the outgoing
762: satellite fraction is about 40\%, which is (within the errors)
763: consistent with the value $\sim 30\%$ determined by
764: \cite{2005MNRAS.364..424W}.
765: % The majority of these outward moving
766: %satelites must have been closer to the group center before.
767: If one assumes an average ratio of 6:1 between apo- and peri-center distances
768: for typical satellite orbits \citep{1998MNRAS.300..146G,
769: 1999ApJ...515...50V} the majority of these satellites must have passed the
770: central parts of the group before \citep[cf.,][]{2007astro.ph..3337D}.
771:
772: %%
773: %%\clearpage
774: \begin{figure}
775: \plotone{f8.eps}
776: %%\plotone{\fig iovel.Rsph6Rmax6.bin12.mim200.eps}
777: \caption{\label{fig:vel}
778: Same as Figure~\ref{fig:a11}, but for $\vel$. The upper, middle and
779: lower panel displays the signal for all, the inward and the outward
780: moving satellites, respectively.}
781: \end{figure}
782: %%\clearpage
783: %%
784: The upper panel of Figure~\ref{fig:vel} displays the radial velocity
785: alignment, $\vel$, as a function of $r/\Rvir$. $\vel > 0.5$ indicates
786: that the distribution of angles between $\vec{r}$ and $\vec{v}$ is not
787: isotropic, instead, on average they preferentially point in radial
788: directions. This behavior is in agreement with earlier studies of the
789: velocity anisotropy of subhalos which is usually expressed by the
790: anisotropy parameter $\beta=1-0.5(\sigma_t/\sigma_r)^2$
791: \citep[e.g.,][]{1987gady.book.....B}, where $\sigma_t$ and $\sigma_r$
792: denote the velocity dispersions of the satellites in the tangential
793: and radial direction, respectively. Note, $\vel$ is closely related
794: to $\beta$. If one assumes a relaxed (steady-state) halo the above
795: mentioned tendency towards radial motions translates into a higher
796: radial velocity dispersion compared to the tangential one $\sigma_r >
797: \sigma_{t1} = \sigma_t/\sqrt{2}$ (where $\sigma_{t1}$ and $\sigma_t$
798: are the one and two dimensional tangential velocity dispersions,
799: respectively and tangential isotropy is assumed). Thus $\vel > 0.5$
800: on small scales ($r \la 2\Rvir$) suggest that $\sigma_r >
801: \sigma_t/\sqrt{2}$, in good qualitative agreement with numerical
802: simulations which have shown that $\beta > 0$ for subhalos within the
803: virial radius of their hosts.
804: \citep{1998MNRAS.300..146G, 2000ApJ...539..561C, 2004MNRAS.352..535D}.
805:
806: In accordance with the spherical collapse model the signal extends out
807: to $\sim 2\Rvir$, which roughly reflects the distance of
808: turnaround. At $2.5\Rvir$ the distribution is close to isotropic
809: suggesting that at these distances the impact of the group potential
810: is negligible and the satellite motions are dominated by local
811: potential variations arising from the filaments and dark matter halos
812: within these filaments. Note that the presence of this filamentary
813: structure in the vicinity of groups is clearly evident from
814: Figure~\ref{fig:a11}. Finally, the increase of the radial velocity
815: alignment on large scales, $\gtrsim4\Rvir$, is simply due to the
816: Hubble flow (i.e., $\vel
817: \rightarrow 1$ at $r \rightarrow \infty$). The middle panel of
818: Figure~\ref{fig:vel} shows $\vel$ for the inward moving satellites only.
819: The radial trend within $2\Rvir$ is somewhat enhanced compared to the
820: upper panel. At larger radii, the inward moving satellites have a
821: velocity structure that is consistent with isotropy. The lower panel
822: of Figure~\ref{fig:vel} reveals a marked difference in the behavior of
823: $\vel$ for the outward moving satellites. It indicates a slightly
824: radial trend for satellites within $1\Rvir$ which is much lower than
825: seen in the upper two panels. Within $1-2\Rvir$ it drops below 0.5,
826: indicating a preference for tangential velocities. Together with the
827: information derived from Figure~\ref{fig:io} this suggests that a
828: substantial fraction of outward moving satellites located at
829: $1-2\Rvir$ currently are close to their apo-center passage after
830: having crossed the more central regions of the group. Finally, on
831: large scales the outward moving satellites clearly reveal the Hubble
832: flow.
833:
834: %%
835: %%\clearpage
836: \begin{figure}
837: \plotone{f9.eps}
838: %%\plotone{\fig c1v.Rsph6Rmax6.bin12.mim200.eps}
839: \caption{\label{fig:c1v} Same as Figure~\ref{fig:a11}, but for $\cIv$.}
840: \end{figure}
841: %%\clearpage
842: %%
843: Figure~\ref{fig:c1v} displays the radial dependence of $\cIv$ which
844: measures the cosines of the angels between the satellite velocities
845: and the orientation of the GCS. On large scales the radial outward
846: motion caused by the Hubble flow exceeds the internal velocities of
847: the satellites within the filaments. Since the GCS is strongly
848: aligned with these filaments over the entire radial range shown
849: (cf. Figure~\ref{fig:a11}), one has that $\cIv > 0.5$ on scales where
850: the Hubble flow becomes important ($\gtrsim4\Rvir$). The strong
851: alignment signal on small scales indicates that the satellites tend to
852: move parallel to the orientation of the GCS. According to
853: \cite{1997MNRAS.290..411T} and \cite{2006MNRAS.367.1781A} the
854: principal axes of the velocity anisotropy tensor are strongly
855: correlated with the principal axes of the satellite
856: distribution. Therefore, the alignment found for $\aII$
857: (Figure~\ref{fig:a11}) actually implies an analogous signal for
858: $\cIv$. However, in contrast to the halo alignment, $\aII$, the
859: velocity halo alignment, $\cIv$, only extends out to
860: $\sim1\Rvir$. Beyond this radius a substantial fraction of the
861: satellites shows relatively large angles between their velocities and
862: the orientation of the GCS which is consistent with the picture of
863: tangential motions associated with the apo-center passage of the
864: satellites, as discussed in the context of Figure~\ref{fig:vel}.
865:
866: %%
867: %%\clearpage
868: \begin{figure}
869: \plotone{f10.eps}
870: %%\plotone{\fig a1v.Rsph6Rmax6.bin12.mim200.eps}
871: \caption{\label{fig:a1v} Same as Figure~\ref{fig:a11}, but for the
872: distributions of cosines between the satellites velocities and
873: positions, $|\vec{v}\!\cdot\!\vec{r}|$.}
874: \end{figure}
875: %%\clearpage
876: %%
877: Finally we consider the auto velocity alignment, $\aIv$, which
878: reflects the distribution of the cosines between the satellite
879: velocities and their orientations, $|\vec{v}\cdot\vec{a}_{\rm SAT}|$.
880: Fig~\ref{fig:a1v} displays the variation of $\aIv$ with $r/\Rvir$.
881:
882: The signal for $\aIv$ shows a maximum at $0.7\Rvir$. At larger
883: distances it decreases quickly. Beyond $1.5\Rvir$ it is roughly in
884: agreement with an isotropic distribution. A possible reason for the
885: slight central dip is, that satellites on their peri-center passages
886: move perpendicular to the gradients of the group potential.
887: Figure~\ref{fig:ax1}, however, revealed a preferential radial
888: orientation of these satellites. Thus, during the peri-center
889: passages the angles between satellite orientations and velocities can
890: become large. The degree of the radial alignment depends on the ratio
891: between the internal dynamical time of the satellite, with which it
892: can adjust its orientation, and the duration of the peri-center
893: passage. If the peri-center passage occurs too quickly the time may
894: be too short for a `perfect' radial alignment
895: \citep[cf.,][]{2007arXiv0705.2037K}. On large scales ($1-2\Rvir$) a
896: similar mechanism may take place. Above we have argued that within
897: this distance range a substantial fraction of satellites are close to
898: their apo-center passage. During this phase the velocities are again
899: perpendicular to the gradient of the potential but, as indicated by
900: Figure~\ref{fig:ax1}, the satellites are oriented radially. The
901: comparison between the signal for $\axI$ and $\aIv$ suggests that, in
902: a statistical sense, the (spatial) radial alignment is maintained
903: during the entire orbit of the satellite within the potential well of
904: the groups, which in turn causes a suppression of $\aIv$, at its apo-
905: and peri-center.
906:
907:
908: %%
909: %%
910: %%----------------------------
911: \section{Projected Alignments}
912: \label{sec:2D}
913: %%----------------------------
914: %%
915: To facilitate a comparison with observations, in particular with the
916: results presented in Paper~I, we repeat the foregoing analysis using
917: projected data, i.e. we project the particle distribution along one of
918: the coordinate axes and compute the second moment of mass for the
919: projected particle distribution. Accordingly,
920: for the distances between GCS and satellites we use the projected
921: values (all satellites within a sphere of $6\Rvir$ about the GCS are
922: projected), which we label as $R$ (the physical distances are labelled as
923: $r$).
924:
925: Since the projections along the three Cartesian
926: coordinate axes are independent we include all three projections of
927: each host-satellite in our 2D sample. To reduce the contamination by
928: satellites associated with massive ambient groups we exclude those
929: host-satellite systems where another SKID group more massive than the
930: GCS (which is most likely the center of an ambient host-satellite
931: system) is found within a sphere of $6\Rvir$. After rejection of
932: `contaminated' groups we obtain 1034 and 543 satellites for the
933: $1.0r_\sigma$ and $0.5r_\sigma$ samples with 3D distances to the GCS
934: $\leq\Rvir$ (for all groups irrespective of their environment we found
935: 1431 and 772, see \S~\ref{sec:ori}.) Furthermore, since (due to
936: technical reasons) we project satellites located within a {\it sphere}
937: of $6\Rvir$ the projected volume at large projected distances shrinks
938: substantially. Therefore, we analyze the 2D data only for projected
939: distances $\lesssim3\Rvir$ which roughly resembles the projection of
940: all satellites within a cylinder with a radius $3\Rvir$ and length of
941: $10\Rvir$ along the `line of sight'. Thus, in an approximate manner,
942: uncertainties in the determination of group membership based on
943: redshift measurements are accounted for.
944:
945: The resolution of the simulation does not permit to probe alignment
946: below $0.3\Rvir$. Other authors \citep[using semi-analytical
947: techniques, e.g.,][]{2007MNRAS.378.1531K} have bypassed this problem
948: by introducing so-called {\it orphan galaxies}, i.e. galaxies which
949: are associated with the once most bound particle of a satellite halo
950: which subsequently has become undetectable due to the stripping by
951: tidal forces. Here we do not adopt this technique since it does not
952: provide us with information about the orientation of a satellite.
953: Both approaches, considering only satellite halos with a minimum
954: number of particles and the introduction of orphan galaxies, have
955: certain disadvantages. The former does not account for galaxies which
956: are hosted by strongly stripped subhalos whereas the latter ignores
957: the dynamical differences of galaxies and (once most bound) particles.
958:
959: The application of a fixed lower particle limit excludes satellites
960: from the analysis which still constitute distinct objects. In
961: particular satellites which are strongly tidally stripped may fall
962: below the selection criterion even if the galaxy, which is assumed to
963: sit at the center, may still be observable. Thus, we caution that our
964: satellite sample may be somewhat biased toward more recently accreted
965: satellites compared to a hypothetical galaxy population. This effect
966: appears whenever a fixed lower particle limit is imposed.
967: % It is independent of the specific value chosen.
968: % which is chosen as the limit.
969:
970: %%\clearpage
971: \begin{figure}
972: \plotone{f11.eps}
973: %%\plotone{\fig sketch.eps}
974: \caption{\label{fig:sketch}
975: Illustration of the three angles $\theta$, $\phi$ and $\xi$, which are
976: used for halo alignment, radial alignment and direct alignment,
977: respectively \citep[cf.,][]{2007ApJ...662L..71F}.}
978: \end{figure}
979: %%\clearpage
980: %%
981: In analogy to Paper~I we define the angles $\theta$, $\phi$ and $\xi$
982: to address the projected halo, radial and direct alignments (same
983: definitions as in \S\ref{sec:3D} but for the 2D data, see
984: Fig.~\ref{fig:sketch}) and the projected orientations are referred to
985: as position angles (PAs). It is not straightforward to derive galaxy
986: properties, such as luminosity and color, from the dark matter
987: distribution. In particular, if the satellite halo hosts a late type
988: galaxy, it is not obvious how to accurately determine the orientation
989: of the disk (but see e.g., \citealt{2007MNRAS.378.1531K} and
990: \citealt{2007arXiv0704.3441A} for attempts).
991: On the other side, if one focuses on early type galaxies the
992: orientation of the central dark matter distribution is very likely
993: correlated with the orientation of the stellar component (see the
994: evidence from gravitational lensing, e.g.,
995: \citealt{2002sgdh.conf...62K}). The lower particle limit for the
996: satellites results in a lower mass of $10^{11}\hMsol$ within
997: $25\hkpc$. Assuming a dynamical mass-to-light ratio of a few
998: \citep[][]{2006MNRAS.366.1126C} within this radius yields a stellar
999: component which roughly resembles $L_\ast$ galaxies. Therefore, our
1000: findings in the current paper may be best compared with results based
1001: on bright early-type satellite galaxies. However, as we have pointed
1002: out in Paper~I, our observational results were only marginally
1003: dependent on the luminosity/mass of satellite galaxies. Therefore, a
1004: comparison with observations based on somewhat fainter satellites is
1005: viable as well.
1006: %%
1007: %%---------------------------
1008: \subsection{Halo alignment}
1009: %%---------------------------
1010: %%
1011: %%\clearpage
1012: \begin{figure}
1013: \plotone{f12.eps}
1014: %%\plotone{\fig SD2a11.Rsph6Rmax3.bin06.mim200.eps}
1015: \caption{\label{fig:D2a11}
1016: Mean angle, $\theta$, between the PA of the GCS and the line
1017: connecting the GCS and a satellite, as a function of projected
1018: distance $R/\Rvir$ with equidistant bins of $0.5\times\Rvir$. The
1019: error bars give the $95\%$ bootstrap confidence intervals for the mean
1020: angles within each bin. The short horizontal line on the left
1021: indicates the signal for the innermost bin if only the satellites with
1022: in 3D distances $\leq1\Rvir$ are projected. The corresponding 3D
1023: results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:a11}.}
1024: \end{figure}
1025: %%\clearpage
1026: %%
1027:
1028: Figure~\ref{fig:D2a11} shows the results obtained for the angle
1029: $\theta$ between the orientation of the GCS and the line connecting
1030: the GCS with the satellite. The short horizontal line on the left
1031: indicates the result for the innermost bin if only the satellites
1032: within $1\Rvir$ are projected. The sample shows $\langle\theta
1033: \rangle < 45^{\circ}$ for the entire distance range. The
1034: error bars give the $95\%$ bootstrap confidence intervals for the mean
1035: angles within each bin. The alignment strength within $\Rvir$ is
1036: $\sim42^\circ$, in good agreement with the findings of
1037: \cite{2005ApJ...628L.101B}, \cite{2006MNRAS.369.1293Y}. In Paper~I we
1038: found a mean value $\theta\approx41^\circ$ within $0.5\Rvir$ which is
1039: very close to the values we obtain for the innermost bin, in
1040: particular if only the satellites within $1\Rvir$ (short horizontal
1041: lines on the left) are projected. As also shown by
1042: \cite{2006ApJ...650..550A} the alignment signal extends beyond the
1043: virial radius. The strongest amplitude is found outside the virial
1044: radius at $\sim 1.7\Rvir$. Currently there are no available
1045: observations covering the same distance range. The analysis in
1046: Paper~I, for instance, is based on galaxies within the virial radius
1047: whereas we use all galaxies with projected distances
1048: $\lesssim3\Rvir$. According to our findings a search for alignment of
1049: satellite distribution in group environments for distances larger than
1050: $\Rvir$ may be a promising proposition.
1051: %%
1052: %%---------------------------
1053: \subsection{Radial alignment}
1054: %%---------------------------
1055: %%
1056: %%\clearpage
1057: \begin{figure}
1058: \plotone{f13.eps}
1059: %%\plotone{\fig SD2ax1.Rsph6Rmax3.bin06.mim200.eps}
1060: \caption{\label{fig:D2ax1}
1061: Same as Figure~\ref{fig:D2a11}, but for the angle $\phi$. In addition
1062: the radial dependence of the $b=1 r_\sigma$ sample is displayed as
1063: well. The corresponding 3D results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ax1}.}
1064: \end{figure}
1065: %%\clearpage
1066: %%
1067: Figure~\ref{fig:D2ax1} displays the mean angle $\phi$ between the PA
1068: of the satellite and the line connecting the satellite with its
1069: GCS. For all group centric distances there is a clear and significant
1070: signal for the major axes of the satellites to point towards the GCS
1071: (i.e., $\langle\phi\rangle < 45^\circ$). The projection of only those
1072: satellites within $1\Rvir$ increases the central signal by about
1073: $1^\circ$ (differences between the innermost data points and the short
1074: horizontal lines). The mean angle for the $0.5r_\sigma$ sample within
1075: the innermost bin is $\sim43^\circ$ and according to Paper~I the mean
1076: value for the red SDSS satellites within $0.5\Rvir$ is very close to
1077: this value. However, the observations suggest a significant alignment
1078: for red galaxies only out to $0.7\Rvir$ whereas the N-body data
1079: indicate that radial alignment extends beyond $3\Rvir$. The
1080: discrepancy may be caused by the observational confinement to galaxies
1081: within the virial radius.
1082: %%
1083: %%---------------------------
1084: \subsection{Direct alignment}
1085: %%---------------------------
1086: %%
1087: %%
1088: %%\clearpage
1089: \begin{figure}
1090: \plotone{f14.eps}
1091: %%\plotone{\fig SD2ac1.Rsph6Rmax3.bin06.mim200.eps}
1092: \caption{\label{fig:D2ac1}
1093: Same as Figure~\ref{fig:D2a11}, but for the angle $\xi$.}
1094: \end{figure}
1095: %%\clearpage
1096: %%
1097: Figure~\ref{fig:D2ac1} displays the results for the direct alignment,
1098: based on the angle $\xi$ between the orientations of GCSs and
1099: satellites. The alignment signal is significant at a $\gtrsim95\%$
1100: confidence level for distances $\lesssim0.5\Rvir$. In Paper~I we
1101: obtained $\xi\approx44^\circ$ for red satellite with in $0.5\Rvir$
1102: which indicates a somewhat weaker alignment than we find here. Since
1103: the 3D analysis shows no increase of $\aII$ at small scales
1104: (Figure~\ref{fig:a11}) the central enhancement displayed here has to
1105: be interpreted as a result of projection effects.
1106:
1107: In summary for all three types of alignments we find good agreement
1108: between numerical data presented here and the observational results
1109: from Paper~I. In particular the relative strength among the different
1110: alignments is well reproduced in the numerical analysis. Due to
1111: limited resolution the range below $1\Rvir$ is only sparsely sampled
1112: thus no detailed information about the radial dependence of the
1113: alignment signal on small scales can be derived. However, the signal
1114: for $\theta$ increases with distance which is only marginally implied
1115: by the SDSS results presented in Paper~I. Also for $\phi$, the
1116: dependence on the distance disagrees between simulations
1117: and observations. It is currently unclear whether this is due
1118: to shortcomings from the numerical or observational side.
1119: %%
1120: %%------------------
1121: \section{Summary}
1122: \label{sec:diss}
1123: %%------------------
1124: %%
1125: Based on a sample of 515 groups with masses ranging from
1126: $10^{13}\hMsol$ to $5\times10^{14}\hMsol$ we have investigated the
1127: halo alignment, $\aII$, the radial alignment, $\axI$ and the direct
1128: alignment $\acI$, between the central region of each group (the GCS)
1129: and its satellite halos out to a distance of $6\Rvir$. Here
1130: $\vec{a}_{\rm GCS}$, $\vec{a}_{\rm SAT}$ and $\vec{r}$ denote the unit vectors
1131: associated with the orientation of the GCS, the satellites and the
1132: line connecting both of them. Additionally, we have employed the
1133: directions of the satellite velocities $\vec{v}$ to probe the
1134: alignments $\vel$, $\cIv$ and $\aIv$, referred to as radial, halo and
1135: auto velocity alignments, respectively. Our main results are:
1136: %%
1137: \begin{itemize}
1138: \item[(1)] Halo, radial and direct alignment differ in strength. The
1139: halo alignment is strongest followed by the radial alignment. By far
1140: the weakest and least significant signal comes from the direct
1141: alignment. This sequence is found in the 3D analysis as well as for
1142: the projected data and agrees well with our recent analysis of
1143: galaxy alignments in the SDSS (cf., Paper~I).
1144: %%
1145: \item[(2)] The signal for the halo alignment, $\aII$, reaches far
1146: beyond the virial radii of the groups ($>6\Rvir$) which we interpret
1147: as evidence for large scale filamentary structure.
1148: %%
1149: \item[(3)] The signal for the radial alignment, $\axI$, is largest
1150: on small scales. After a rapid decline with distance it flattens,
1151: such that a relatively small $\axI\approx0.52$, but significant
1152: deviation from isotropy is detected out to $\sim 6\Rvir$. Whereas
1153: the small scale signal more likely owes to the group's tidal field,
1154: the weak but significant signal on large scales suggests that
1155: satellites tend to be oriented along the filaments in which they
1156: reside.
1157: %%
1158: \item[(4)] The 3D signal for the direct alignment, $\acI$, shows a
1159: weak trend for parallel orientations on scales $\lesssim2\Rvir$.
1160: The projected data indicate an increasing signal for distances
1161: $\lesssim0.5\Rvir$ which is likely caused by projection effects.
1162: %%
1163: \item[(5)] All kinetic alignment signals are highly
1164: significant at small scales. The signal for $\vel$ is basically
1165: constant within $2.0\Rvir$, beyond which it rapidly drops. In the
1166: subset of outward moving satellites we find a tendency for
1167: tangential motions which can be attributed to the satellites which
1168: have been accreted earlier and are currently passing their peri- or
1169: apo-centers. The signal for $\cIv$ is maximal at the center, drops
1170: rapidly with distance and disappears at $1\Rvir$. Finally, $\aIv$
1171: shows a slight dip at the center, reaches a maximum at $0.7\Rvir$,
1172: and becomes consistent with isotropy at $1.5\Rvir$. All these
1173: features support the interpretations advocated for the spatial
1174: alignments.
1175: %%
1176: \end{itemize}
1177: %%
1178: The simulation analyzed here clearly demonstrates that tidal forces
1179: cause a variety of alignments among neighboring, non-linear
1180: structures. On large scales, the tidal forces are responsible for
1181: creating a filamentary network, which gives rise to a halo alignment
1182: out to at least $6\Rvir$. The same tidal forces also cause an
1183: alignment between filaments and (sub)structures within the filaments
1184: \citep[cf.,][]{2006MNRAS.370.1422A,2007arXiv0704.2595H}
1185: which in turn results in a large scale radial alignment with the
1186: virialized structures at the nodes of the cosmic web. Within these
1187: virialized structures, tidal forces are responsible for a radial
1188: alignment of its substructures, similar to the tidal locking mechanism
1189: that affects the Earth-Moon system. This is further supported by the
1190: fact that the auto velocity alignment $\aIv$ reveals a dip on small
1191: scale, indicating that at peri-centric passage satellites tend to be
1192: oriented perpendicular to the direction of their motion
1193: \citep[cf.,][]{2007arXiv0705.2037K}. This behavior also explains,
1194: why the direct spatial alignment, $\acI$, is so weak. A possible
1195: direct alignment originating from the co-evolution of group and
1196: satellites, as proposed by \cite{2005ApJ...629L...5L}, is quickly
1197: erased as the satellites orbit in the potential well of the group.
1198: For future work it will be instructive to trace the orbits of
1199: individual satellites and consider more closely how their shapes and
1200: orientations evolve with time.
1201:
1202: The infall regions around virialized dark matter halos cause a radial
1203: velocity alignment out to $\sim 2\Rvir$, and an enhancement of inward
1204: moving (sub)structures. At around the same scale, the (sub)structures
1205: with a net outward movement have a tendency to move tangentially.
1206: This most likely reflects the apo-centric passage of substructures
1207: that have previously fallen through the virialized halo. Within a
1208: virialized region, the orientation of orbits is naturally aligned with
1209: that of its GCS. Since (sub)structures reveal at most a weak velocity
1210: bias with respect to dark matter particles
1211: \citep[e.g.,][]{2006MNRAS.369.1698F}, this causes a strong halo
1212: velocity alignment on scales $\la \Rvir$. The halo velocity alignment
1213: is also strong on large scales ($\ga 3\Rvir$), which reflects the
1214: Hubble flow combined with the filamentary, non-isotropic distribution
1215: of (sub)structures on these scales.
1216:
1217: A one-to-one comparison between the N-body results discussed here and
1218: the observations presented in Paper~I is not
1219: straightforward. Although we have employed the same mass range for the groups
1220: in both studies the resolution of the current simulation only allows
1221: to resolve satellites which are expected to host $\gtrsim L_\ast$
1222: galaxies. These are bright compared to our SDSS sample for which a
1223: lower magnitude limit of $^{0.1}M_r - 5\log h \leq -19$ has been
1224: adopted. Nevertheless, the qualitative agreement between the relative
1225: strengths of the different types of spatial alignment is
1226: promising. Supplementary to the observational results of Paper~I we
1227: find a strong halo alignment and a somewhat weaker radial alignment
1228: out to at least $6\Rvir$ which we will investigate further.
1229:
1230: Finally, the weak but significant detection of radial alignment out to
1231: $6\Rvir$ may contaminate the cosmic shear measurements on these
1232: scales. This correlation has to be considered, either by simply
1233: removing or down-weighting pairs of galaxies within this distance
1234: range \citep{2002A&A...396..411K, 2003MNRAS.339..711H}. This may be
1235: particularly important for applications of weak gravitational lensing
1236: for the purposes of precision cosmology.
1237: %%
1238: %%-------------------------
1239: \acknowledgements
1240: %%-------------------------
1241: %%
1242: This work has is supported by NSFC (10533030, 0742961001, 0742951001,
1243: 973 Program No. 2007CB815402) and the Knowledge Innovation Program of
1244: the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Grant No. KJCX2-YW-T05. The CAS
1245: Research Fellowship for International Young Researchers (AF), the
1246: local support of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (HJM and SM) and the
1247: Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (SM) is gratefully acknowledged.
1248: HJM would like to acknowledge the support of NSF ATP-0607535, NASA
1249: AISR-126270, and NSF IIS-0611948 .
1250: %%
1251: %%\bibliography{lit}
1252: %%
1253: \begin{thebibliography}{75}
1254: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
1255:
1256: \bibitem[{{Adelman-McCarthy} {et~al.}(2006)}]{2006ApJS..162...38A}
1257: {Adelman-McCarthy et~al.} 2006, \apjs, 162, 38
1258:
1259: \bibitem[{{Agustsson} \& {Brainerd}(2006a)}]{2006ApJ...644L..25A}
1260: {Agustsson}, I. \& {Brainerd}, T.~G. 2006a, \apjl, 644, L25
1261:
1262: \bibitem[Agustsson \& Brainerd(2006b)]{2006ApJ...650..550A}
1263: ---. 2006b, \apj, 650, 550
1264:
1265: \bibitem[{{Agustsson} \& {Brainerd}(2007)}]{2007arXiv0704.3441A}
1266: ---. 2007, arXiv:0704.3441v1 [astro-ph]
1267:
1268: \bibitem[{{Allgood} {et~al.}(2006){Allgood}, {Flores}, {Primack}, {Kravtsov},
1269: {Wechsler}, {Faltenbacher}, \& {Bullock}}]{2006MNRAS.367.1781A}
1270: {Allgood}, B., {Flores}, R.~A., {Primack}, J.~R., {Kravtsov}, A.~V.,
1271: {Wechsler}, R.~H., {Faltenbacher}, A., \& {Bullock}, J.~S. 2006, \mnras, 367,
1272: 1781
1273:
1274: \bibitem[{{Altay} {et~al.}(2006){Altay}, {Colberg}, \&
1275: {Croft}}]{2006MNRAS.370.1422A}
1276: {Altay}, G., {Colberg}, J.~M., \& {Croft}, R.~A.~C. 2006, \mnras, 370, 1422
1277:
1278: \bibitem[{{Arag{\'o}n-Calvo} {et~al.}(2007){Arag{\'o}n-Calvo}, {van de
1279: Weygaert}, {Jones}, \& {van der Hulst}}]{2007ApJ...655L...5A}
1280: {Arag{\'o}n-Calvo}, M.~A., {van de Weygaert}, R., {Jones}, B.~J.~T., \& {van
1281: der Hulst}, J.~M. 2007, \apjl, 655, L5
1282:
1283: \bibitem[{{Azzaro} {et~al.}(2007){Azzaro}, {Patiri}, {Prada}, \&
1284: {Zentner}}]{2007MNRAS.376L..43A}
1285: {Azzaro}, M., {Patiri}, S.~G., {Prada}, F., \& {Zentner}, A.~R. 2007, \mnras,
1286: 376, L43
1287:
1288: \bibitem[{{Bailin} \& {Steinmetz}(2005)}]{2005ApJ...627..647B}
1289: {Bailin}, J. \& {Steinmetz}, M. 2005, \apj, 627, 647
1290:
1291: \bibitem[Bailin et al.(2007)]{2007arXiv0706.1350B} Bailin, J., Power, C.,
1292: Norberg, P., Zaritsky, D., \& Gibson, B.~K.\ 2007, arXiv:0706.1350
1293:
1294: \bibitem[{{Basilakos} {et~al.}(2006){Basilakos}, {Plionis}, {Yepes},
1295: {Gottl{\"o}ber}, \& {Turchaninov}}]{2006MNRAS.365..539B}
1296: {Basilakos}, S., {Plionis}, M., {Yepes}, G., {Gottl{\"o}ber}, S., \&
1297: {Turchaninov}, V. 2006, \mnras, 365, 539
1298:
1299: \bibitem[{{Binggeli}(1982)}]{1982A&A...107..338B}
1300: {Binggeli}, B. 1982, \aap, 107, 338
1301:
1302: \bibitem[{{Binney} \& {Tremaine}(1987)}]{1987gady.book.....B}
1303: {Binney}, J. \& {Tremaine}, S. 1987, {Galactic dynamics} (Princeton:
1304: Princeton University Press, p747.)
1305:
1306: \bibitem[{{Brainerd}(2005)}]{2005ApJ...628L.101B}
1307: {Brainerd}, T.~G. 2005, \apjl, 628, L101
1308:
1309: \bibitem[{{Bullock}(2002)}]{2002sgdh.conf..109B}
1310: {Bullock}, J.~S. 2002, in ''The Shapes of Galaxies and Their
1311: Dark Matter Halos'', eds. P. Natarajan (Singapore: World Scientific)
1312: p.109
1313:
1314: \bibitem[{{Cappellari} {et~al.}(2006){Cappellari}, {Bacon}, {Bureau}, {Damen},
1315: {Davies}, {de Zeeuw}, {Emsellem}, {Falc{\'o}n-Barroso}, {Krajnovi{\'c}},
1316: {Kuntschner}, {McDermid}, {Peletier}, {Sarzi}, {van den Bosch}, \& {van de
1317: Ven}}]{2006MNRAS.366.1126C}
1318: {Cappellari}, M., {Bacon}, R., {Bureau}, M., {Damen}, M.~C., {Davies}, R.~L.,
1319: {de Zeeuw}, P.~T., {Emsellem}, E., {Falc{\'o}n-Barroso}, J., {Krajnovi{\'c}},
1320: D., {Kuntschner}, H., {McDermid}, R.~M., {Peletier}, R.~F., {Sarzi}, M., {van
1321: den Bosch}, R.~C.~E., \& {van de Ven}, G. 2006, \mnras, 366, 1126
1322:
1323: \bibitem[{{Carter} \& {Metcalfe}(1980)}]{1980MNRAS.191..325C}
1324: {Carter}, D. \& {Metcalfe}, N. 1980, \mnras, 191, 325
1325:
1326: \bibitem[{{Catelan} {et~al.}(2001){Catelan}, {Kamionkowski}, \&
1327: {Blandford}}]{2001MNRAS.320L...7C}
1328: {Catelan}, P., {Kamionkowski}, M., \& {Blandford}, R.~D. 2001, \mnras, 320, L7
1329:
1330: \bibitem[{{Chambers} {et~al.}(2002){Chambers}, {Melott}, \&
1331: {Miller}}]{2002ApJ...565..849C}
1332: {Chambers}, S.~W., {Melott}, A.~L., \& {Miller}, C.~J. 2002, \apj, 565, 849
1333:
1334: \bibitem[{{Ciotti} \& {Dutta}(1994)}]{1994MNRAS.270..390C}
1335: {Ciotti}, L. \& {Dutta}, S.~N. 1994, \mnras, 270, 390
1336:
1337: \bibitem[{{Col{\'{\i}}n} {et~al.}(2000){Col{\'{\i}}n}, {Klypin}, \&
1338: {Kravtsov}}]{2000ApJ...539..561C}
1339: {Col{\'{\i}}n}, P., {Klypin}, A.~A., \& {Kravtsov}, A.~V. 2000, \apj, 539, 561
1340:
1341: \bibitem[{{Colless} {et~al.}(2001){Colless}, {Dalton}, {Maddox}, {Sutherland},
1342: {Norberg}, {Cole}, {Bland-Hawthorn}, {Bridges}, {Cannon}, {Collins}, {Couch},
1343: {Cross}, {Deeley}, {De Propris}, {Driver}, {Efstathiou}, {Ellis}, {Frenk},
1344: {Glazebrook}, {Jackson}, {Lahav}, {Lewis}, {Lumsden}, {Madgwick}, {Peacock},
1345: {Peterson}, {Price}, {Seaborne}, \& {Taylor}}]{2001MNRAS.328.1039C}
1346: {Colless}, M., {Dalton}, G., {Maddox}, S., {Sutherland}, W., {Norberg}, P.,
1347: {Cole}, S., {Bland-Hawthorn}, J., {Bridges}, T., {Cannon}, R., {Collins}, C.,
1348: {Couch}, W., {Cross}, N., {Deeley}, K., {De Propris}, R., {Driver}, S.~P.,
1349: {Efstathiou}, G., {Ellis}, R.~S., {Frenk}, C.~S., {Glazebrook}, K.,
1350: {Jackson}, C., {Lahav}, O., {Lewis}, I., {Lumsden}, S., {Madgwick}, D.,
1351: {Peacock}, J.~A., {Peterson}, B.~A., {Price}, I., {Seaborne}, M., \&
1352: {Taylor}, K. 2001, \mnras, 328, 1039
1353:
1354: \bibitem[{{Crittenden} {et~al.}(2001){Crittenden}, {Natarajan}, {Pen}, \&
1355: {Theuns}}]{2001ApJ...559..552C}
1356: {Crittenden}, R.~G., {Natarajan}, P., {Pen}, U.-L., \& {Theuns}, T. 2001, \apj,
1357: 559, 552
1358:
1359: \bibitem[{{Croft} \& {Metzler}(2000)}]{2000ApJ...545..561C}
1360: {Croft}, R.~A.~C. \& {Metzler}, C.~A. 2000, \apj, 545, 561
1361:
1362: \bibitem[{{Davis} {et~al.}(1985){Davis}, {Efstathiou}, {Frenk}, \&
1363: {White}}]{1985ApJ...292..371D}
1364: {Davis}, M., {Efstathiou}, G., {Frenk}, C.~S., \& {White}, S.~D.~M. 1985, \apj,
1365: 292, 371
1366:
1367: \bibitem[{{Dekel}(1985)}]{1985ApJ...298..461D}
1368: {Dekel}, A. 1985, \apj, 298, 461
1369:
1370: \bibitem[{{Diemand} {et~al.}(2004){Diemand}, {Moore}, \&
1371: {Stadel}}]{2004MNRAS.352..535D}
1372: {Diemand}, J., {Moore}, B., \& {Stadel}, J. 2004, \mnras, 352, 535
1373:
1374: \bibitem[{{Diemand} {et~al.}(2007){Diemand}, {Kuhlen}, \&
1375: {Madau}}]{2007astro.ph..3337D}
1376: {Diemand}, J., {Kuhlen}, M., \& {Madau}, P. 2007, arXiv:0705.2037v2 [astro-ph]
1377:
1378: \bibitem[{{Faltenbacher} {et~al.}(2002){Faltenbacher}, {Gottl{\"o}ber},
1379: {Kerscher}, \& {M{\"u}ller}}]{2002A&A...395....1F}
1380: {Faltenbacher}, A., {Gottl{\"o}ber}, S., {Kerscher}, M., \& {M{\"u}ller}, V.
1381: 2002, \aap, 395, 1
1382:
1383: \bibitem[{{Faltenbacher} {et~al.}(2005){Faltenbacher}, {Allgood},
1384: {Gottl{\"o}ber}, {Yepes}, \& {Hoffman}}]{2005MNRAS.362.1099F}
1385: {Faltenbacher}, A., {Allgood}, B., {Gottl{\"o}ber}, S., {Yepes}, G., \&
1386: {Hoffman}, Y. 2005, \mnras, 362, 1099
1387:
1388: \bibitem[{{Faltenbacher} \& {Diemand}(2006)}]{2006MNRAS.369.1698F}
1389: {Faltenbacher}, A. \& {Diemand}, J. 2006, \mnras, 369, 1698
1390:
1391: \bibitem[{{Faltenbacher} \& {Mathews}(2007)}]{2007MNRAS.375..313F}
1392: {Faltenbacher}, A. \& {Mathews}, W.~G. 2007, \mnras, 375, 313
1393:
1394: \bibitem[Faltenbacher et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...662L..71F} Faltenbacher, A.,
1395: Li, C., Mao, S., van den Bosch, F.~C., Yang, X., Jing, Y.~P., Pasquali, A.,
1396: \& Mo, H.~J.\ 2007, \apjl, 662, L71
1397:
1398: \bibitem[{{Ghigna} {et~al.}(1998){Ghigna}, {Moore}, {Governato}, {Lake},
1399: {Quinn}, \& {Stadel}}]{1998MNRAS.300..146G}
1400: {Ghigna}, S., {Moore}, B., {Governato}, F., {Lake}, G., {Quinn}, T., \&
1401: {Stadel}, J. 1998, \mnras, 300, 146
1402:
1403: \bibitem[{{Hahn} {et~al.}(2007){Hahn}, {Carollo}, {Porciani}, \&
1404: {Dekel}}]{2007arXiv0704.2595H}
1405: {Hahn}, O., {Carollo}, C.~M., {Porciani}, C., \& {Dekel}, A. 2007, arXiv:0704.2595v1 [astro-ph]
1406:
1407:
1408: \bibitem[{{Hawley} \& {Peebles}(1975)}]{1975AJ.....80..477H}
1409: {Hawley}, D.~L. \& {Peebles}, P.~J.~E. 1975, \aj, 80, 477
1410:
1411: \bibitem[{{Heavens} {et~al.}(2000){Heavens}, {Refregier}, \&
1412: {Heymans}}]{2000MNRAS.319..649H}
1413: {Heavens}, A., {Refregier}, A., \& {Heymans}, C. 2000, \mnras, 319, 649
1414:
1415: \bibitem[{{Heymans} \& {Heavens}(2003)}]{2003MNRAS.339..711H}
1416: {Heymans}, C. \& {Heavens}, A. 2003, \mnras, 339, 711
1417:
1418: \bibitem[{{Holmberg}(1969)}]{1969ArA.....5..305H}
1419: {Holmberg}, E. 1969, Arkiv for Astronomi, 5, 305
1420:
1421: \bibitem[{{Hopkins} {et~al.}(2005){Hopkins}, {Bahcall}, \&
1422: {Bode}}]{2005ApJ...618....1H}
1423: {Hopkins}, P.~F., {Bahcall}, N.~A., \& {Bode}, P. 2005, \apj, 618, 1
1424:
1425: \bibitem[{{Jing}(2002)}]{2002MNRAS.335L..89J}
1426: {Jing}, Y.~P. 2002, \mnras, 335, L89
1427:
1428: \bibitem[{{Jing} \& {Suto}(2002)}]{2002ApJ...574..538J}
1429: {Jing}, Y.~P. \& {Suto}, Y. 2002, \apj, 574, 538
1430:
1431: \bibitem[{{Kang} {et~al.}(2005){Kang}, {Mao}, {Gao}, \&
1432: {Jing}}]{2005A&A...437..383K}
1433: {Kang}, X., {Mao}, S., {Gao}, L., \& {Jing}, Y.~P. 2005, \aap, 437, 383
1434:
1435: \bibitem[Kang et al.(2007)]{2007MNRAS.378.1531K} Kang, X., van den Bosch,
1436: F.~C., Yang, X., Mao, S., Mo, H.~J., Li, C., \& Jing, Y.~P.\ 2007, \mnras,
1437: 378, 1531
1438:
1439: \bibitem[{{Kasun} \& {Evrard}(2005)}]{2005ApJ...629..781K}
1440: {Kasun}, S.~F. \& {Evrard}, A.~E. 2005, \apj, 629, 781
1441:
1442: \bibitem[{{King} \& {Schneider}(2002)}]{2002A&A...396..411K}
1443: {King}, L. \& {Schneider}, P. 2002, \aap, 396, 411
1444:
1445: \bibitem[Koch \& Grebel(2006)]{2006AJ....131.1405K} Koch, A., \& Grebel,
1446: E.~K.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 1405
1447:
1448: \bibitem[Knebe et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...603....7K} Knebe, A., Gill,
1449: S.~P.~D., Gibson, B.~K., Lewis, G.~F., Ibata, R.~A., \& Dopita, M.~A.\
1450: 2004, \apj, 603, 7
1451:
1452: \bibitem[{{Kochanek}(2002)}]{2002sgdh.conf...62K}
1453: {Kochanek}, C.~S. 2002, in ''The Shapes of Galaxies and Their
1454: Dark Matter Halos'', Eds. P. Natarajan (Singapore: World Scientific)
1455: p. 62
1456:
1457: \bibitem[{{Kroupa} {et~al.}(2005){Kroupa}, {Theis}, \&
1458: {Boily}}]{2005A&A...431..517K}
1459: {Kroupa}, P., {Theis}, C., \& {Boily}, C.~M. 2005, \aap, 431, 517
1460:
1461: \bibitem[{{Kuhlen} {et~al.}(2007){Kuhlen}, {Diemand}, \&
1462: {Madau}}]{2007arXiv0705.2037K}
1463: {Kuhlen}, M., {Diemand}, J., \& {Madau}, P. 2007, arXiv:0705.2037v2 [astro-ph]
1464:
1465: \bibitem[{{Lee} {et~al.}(2005){Lee}, {Kang}, \& {Jing}}]{2005ApJ...629L...5L}
1466: {Lee}, J., {Kang}, X., \& {Jing}, Y.~P. 2005, \apjl, 629, L5
1467:
1468: \bibitem[{{Libeskind} {et~al.}(2005){Libeskind}, {Frenk}, {Cole}, {Helly},
1469: {Jenkins}, {Navarro}, \& {Power}}]{2005MNRAS.363..146L}
1470: {Libeskind}, N.~I., {Frenk}, C.~S., {Cole}, S., {Helly}, J.~C., {Jenkins}, A.,
1471: {Navarro}, J.~F., \& {Power}, C. 2005, \mnras, 363, 146
1472:
1473: \bibitem[Libeskind et al.(2007)]{2007MNRAS.374...16L} Libeskind, N.~I.,
1474: Cole, S., Frenk, C.~S., Okamoto, T., \& Jenkins, A.\ 2007, \mnras, 374, 16
1475:
1476: \bibitem[{{Lynden-Bell}(1982)}]{1982Obs...102..202L}
1477: {Lynden-Bell}, D. 1982, The Observatory, 102, 202
1478:
1479: \bibitem[{{Macci{\`o}} {et~al.}(2006){Macci{\`o}}, {Moore}, {Stadel}, \&
1480: {Diemand}}]{2006MNRAS.366.1529M}
1481: {Macci{\`o}}, A.~V., {Moore}, B., {Stadel}, J., \& {Diemand}, J. 2006, \mnras,
1482: 366, 1529
1483:
1484: \bibitem[{{MacGillivray} {et~al.}(1982){MacGillivray}, {Dodd}, {McNally}, \&
1485: {Corwin}}]{1982MNRAS.198..605M}
1486: {MacGillivray}, H.~T., {Dodd}, R.~J., {McNally}, B.~V., \& {Corwin}, Jr., H.~G.
1487: 1982, \mnras, 198, 605
1488:
1489: \bibitem[{{Majewski}(1994)}]{1994ApJ...431L..17M}
1490: {Majewski}, S.~R. 1994, \apjl, 431, L17
1491:
1492: \bibitem[{{Onuora} \& {Thomas}(2000)}]{2000MNRAS.319..614O}
1493: {Onuora}, L.~I. \& {Thomas}, P.~A. 2000, \mnras, 319, 614
1494:
1495: \bibitem[{{Pen} {et~al.}(2000){Pen}, {Lee}, \& {Seljak}}]{2000ApJ...543L.107P}
1496: {Pen}, U.-L., {Lee}, J., \& {Seljak}, U. 2000, \apjl, 543, L107
1497:
1498: \bibitem[{{Pereira} \& {Kuhn}(2005)}]{2005ApJ...627L..21P}
1499: {Pereira}, M.~J. \& {Kuhn}, J.~R. 2005, \apjl, 627, L21
1500:
1501: \bibitem[Pereira et al.(2007)]{2007arXiv0707.1702P} Pereira, M.~J., Bryan,
1502: G.~L., \& Gill, S.~P.~D.\ 2007, arXiv:0707.1702
1503:
1504: \bibitem[{{Plionis}(1994)}]{1994ApJS...95..401P}
1505: {Plionis}, M. 1994, \apjs, 95, 401
1506:
1507: \bibitem[{{Plionis} \& {Basilakos}(2002)}]{2002MNRAS.329L..47P}
1508: {Plionis}, M. \& {Basilakos}, S. 2002, \mnras, 329, L47
1509:
1510: \bibitem[{{Plionis} {et~al.}(2003){Plionis}, {Benoist}, {Maurogordato},
1511: {Ferrari}, \& {Basilakos}}]{2003ApJ...594..144P}
1512: {Plionis}, M., {Benoist}, C., {Maurogordato}, S., {Ferrari}, C., \&
1513: {Basilakos}, S. 2003, \apj, 594, 144
1514:
1515: \bibitem[{{Porciani} {et~al.}(2002){Porciani}, {Dekel}, \&
1516: {Hoffman}}]{2002MNRAS.332..339P}
1517: {Porciani}, C., {Dekel}, A., \& {Hoffman}, Y. 2002, \mnras, 332, 339
1518:
1519: \bibitem[{{Rhee} \& {Latour}(1991)}]{1991A&A...243...38R}
1520: {Rhee}, G.~F.~R.~N. \& {Latour}, H.~J. 1991, \aap, 243, 38
1521:
1522: \bibitem[{{Sharp} {et~al.}(1979){Sharp}, {Lin}, \&
1523: {White}}]{1979MNRAS.187..287S}
1524: {Sharp}, N.~A., {Lin}, D.~N.~C., \& {White}, S.~D.~M. 1979, \mnras, 187, 287
1525:
1526: \bibitem[{{Stadel}(2001)}]{2001PhDT........21S}
1527: {Stadel}, J.~G. 2001, PhD thesis, unpublished (University of Washington)
1528:
1529: \bibitem[{{Statler}(1987)}]{1987ApJ...321..113S}
1530: {Statler}, T.~S. 1987, \apj, 321, 113
1531:
1532: \bibitem[{{Struble}(1990)}]{1990AJ.....99..743S}
1533: {Struble}, M.~F. 1990, \aj, 99, 743
1534:
1535: \bibitem[{{Tormen}(1997)}]{1997MNRAS.290..411T}
1536: {Tormen}, G. 1997, \mnras, 290, 411
1537:
1538: \bibitem[{{Ulmer} {et~al.}(1989){Ulmer}, {McMillan}, \&
1539: {Kowalski}}]{1989ApJ...338..711U}
1540: {Ulmer}, M.~P., {McMillan}, S.~L.~W., \& {Kowalski}, M.~P. 1989, \apj, 338, 711
1541:
1542: \bibitem[{{van den Bosch} {et~al.}(1999){van den Bosch}, {Lewis}, {Lake}, \&
1543: {Stadel}}]{1999ApJ...515...50V}
1544: {van den Bosch}, F.~C., {Lewis}, G.~F., {Lake}, G., \& {Stadel}, J. 1999, \apj,
1545: 515, 50
1546:
1547: \bibitem[{{Wang} {et~al.}(2005){Wang}, {Jing}, {Mao}, \&
1548: {Kang}}]{2005MNRAS.364..424W}
1549: {Wang}, H.~Y., {Jing}, Y.~P., {Mao}, S., \& {Kang}, X. 2005, \mnras, 364, 424
1550:
1551: \bibitem[{{West}(1989)}]{1989ApJ...344..535W}
1552: {West}, M.~J. 1989, \apj, 344, 535
1553:
1554: \bibitem[{{Yang} {et~al.}(2005){Yang}, {Mo}, {van den Bosch}, \&
1555: {Jing}}]{2005MNRAS.356.1293Y}
1556: {Yang}, X., {Mo}, H.~J., {van den Bosch}, F.~C., \& {Jing}, Y.~P. 2005, \mnras,
1557: 356, 1293
1558:
1559: \bibitem[{{Yang} {et~al.}(2006){Yang}, {van den Bosch}, {Mo}, {Mao}, {Kang},
1560: {Weinmann}, {Guo}, \& {Jing}}]{2006MNRAS.369.1293Y}
1561: {Yang}, X., {van den Bosch}, F.~C., {Mo}, H.~J., {Mao}, S., {Kang}, X.,
1562: {Weinmann}, S.~M., {Guo}, Y., \& {Jing}, Y.~P. 2006, \mnras, 369, 1293
1563:
1564: \bibitem[{{York} {et~al.}(2000)}]{2000AJ....120.1579Y}
1565: {York, D.~G., et~al.} 2000, \aj, 120, 1579
1566:
1567: \bibitem[{{Zaritsky} {et~al.}(1997){Zaritsky}, {Smith}, {Frenk}, \&
1568: {White}}]{1997ApJ...478L..53Z}
1569: {Zaritsky}, D., {Smith}, R., {Frenk}, C.~S., \& {White}, S.~D.~M. 1997, \apjl,
1570: 478, L53+
1571:
1572: \bibitem[{{Zentner} {et~al.}(2005){Zentner}, {Kravtsov}, {Gnedin}, \&
1573: {Klypin}}]{2005ApJ...629..219Z}
1574: {Zentner}, A.~R., {Kravtsov}, A.~V., {Gnedin}, O.~Y., \& {Klypin}, A.~A. 2005,
1575: \apj, 629, 219
1576:
1577: \end{thebibliography}
1578:
1579: %%
1580: \end{document}
1581: % LocalWords: ApJ Faltenbacher al Jing Li Shude Mo Pasquali Institut fuer SK
1582: % LocalWords: Astrophysik Nandan Jodrell Macclesfield DL UK nigstuhl virial MW
1583: % LocalWords: GCS overdense onigstuhl BCGs BCG dFGRS SDSS Holmberg subhalo pre
1584: % LocalWords: subhalos triaxial analyse CDM Zeldovich PPPM LCDMa FoF GCSs eps
1585: % LocalWords: overdensity rms NFW ij ki kj arXiv resimulation infall peri apo
1586: % LocalWords: labelled virialized NSFC KJCX YW HJM AISR IIS natexlab Adelman
1587: % LocalWords: Agustsson Brainerd ph Allgood Primack Kravtsov Wechsler Altay
1588: % LocalWords: Colberg Arag Calvo Weygaert der Hulst Azzaro Patiri Prada Bailin
1589: % LocalWords: Zentner Norberg Zaritsky Basilakos Plionis Yepes Gottl ber Damen
1590: % LocalWords: Turchaninov Binggeli Binney Natarajan Cappellari Zeeuw Emsellem
1591: % LocalWords: Falc Barroso Krajnovi Kuntschner McDermid Peletier Sarzi
1592: