1: % !iTeXMac(typeset): simpdftex latex --keep-psfile ${iTMInput}

2: % !iTeXMac(compile): "./local Command"

3: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

4: \documentclass{emulateapj}

5: \usepackage{apjfonts}

6: \bibliographystyle{apj}

7: 

8: 

9: %\newcommand{\figexpand}{}

10: %\newcommand{\plotter}{\includegraphics[scale=0.70]}

11: \newcommand{\figexpand}{\epsscale{1.15}}

12: \newcommand{\plotter}{\plotone}

13: 

14: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.}

15: \newcommand{\mbh}{M_{\rm BH}}

16: \newcommand{\mstar}{M_{\ast}}

17: \newcommand{\lstar}{L_{\ast}}

18: \newcommand{\mdyn}{M_{\rm dyn}}

19: \newcommand{\re}{R_{e}}

20: \newcommand{\vvir}{V_{\rm vir}}

21: \newcommand{\fgas}{f_{\rm gas}}

22: \newcommand{\sersic}{n_{s}}

23: \newcommand{\msun}{M_{\sun}}

24: \newcommand{\tH}{t_{\rm H}}

25: \newcommand{\tmerger}{t_{\rm merger}}

26: \newcommand{\mdotstar}{\dot{M}_{\ast}}

27: \newcommand{\mhalo}{M_{\rm halo}}

28: \newcommand{\mgal}{M_{\rm gal}}

29: \newcommand{\mh}{\mhalo}

30: \newcommand{\mg}{\mgal}

31: \newcommand{\lbol}{L_{\rm bol}}

32: \newcommand{\mmerger}{M_{\rm merger}}

33: \newcommand{\paperone}{Paper \textrm{I}}

34: \newcommand{\papertwo}{Paper \textrm{II}}

35: 

36: 

37: 

38: \shorttitle{Co-Evolution of Quasars, Black Holes, and Galaxies \textrm{II}}

39: \shortauthors{Hopkins \etal}

40: \slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ, June 8, 2007}

41: \begin{document}

42: 

43: \title{A Cosmological Framework for the Co-Evolution of Quasars,

44: Supermassive Black Holes, and Elliptical Galaxies: \textrm{II}. Formation of Red Ellipticals}

45: \author{Philip F. Hopkins\altaffilmark{1}, 

46: Thomas J. Cox\altaffilmark{1}, 

47: Du{\v s}an Kere{\v s}\altaffilmark{1}, 

48: \&\ Lars Hernquist\altaffilmark{1}

49: }

50: \altaffiltext{1}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 

51: 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}

52: 

53: \begin{abstract}

54: We develop and test a model for the cosmological role of mergers 

55: in the formation and quenching of red, early-type galaxies. 

56: By combining theoretically well-constrained 

57: halo and subhalo mass functions as a function of redshift and 

58: environment with empirical halo occupation models, we predict the distribution of 

59: mergers as a function of redshift, environment, and physical galaxy properties. 

60: Making the simple ansatz that star formation is quenched after a gas-rich, 

61: spheroid-forming major merger, we demonstrate that this naturally 

62: predicts the turnover in the efficiency of star formation and baryon 

63: fractions in galaxies at $\sim\lstar$ (without any parameters tuned to 

64: this value), as well as the 

65: observed mass functions and mass density of red galaxies as a function of 

66: redshift, the formation times of early-type galaxies as a function of mass, and 

67: the fraction of quenched galaxies as a function of galaxy and halo mass, environment, 

68: and redshift. Comparing to a variety of semi-analytic 

69: models in which quenching is primarily driven 

70: by halo mass considerations or secular/disk instabilities, 

71: we demonstrate that our model makes unique and robust qualitative predictions 

72: for a number of observables, including the bivariate red fraction as a function of 

73: galaxy and halo mass, the density of passive galaxies at high redshifts, 

74: the emergence/evolution of the color-morphology-density relations 

75: at high redshift, and the fraction of disky/boxy (or cusp/core) spheroids  

76: as a function of mass. In each case, the observations favor a model 

77: in which some mechanism quenches future star formation after a major merger 

78: builds a massive spheroid. Models where quenching is dominated by a halo mass 

79: threshold fail to match the behavior of the bivariate red fractions, predict 

80: too low a density of passive galaxies at high redshift, and overpredict 

81: by an order of magnitude the mass of the transition from disky to boxy ellipticals. 

82: Models driven by secular disk instabilities also qualitatively disagree with the 

83: bivariate red fractions, fail to predict the observed evolution in the 

84: color-density relations, and predict order-of-magnitude 

85: incorrect distributions of kinematic types in early-type galaxies. 

86: We make specific predictions for how future observations, 

87: for example quantifying the red fraction as a function of galaxy mass, halo mass, 

88: environment, or redshift, 

89: can break the degeneracies between a number of different assumptions 

90: adopted in present galaxy formation models.

91: We discuss a variety of physical possibilities 

92: for this quenching, and propose a mixed scenario in which traditional quenching 

93: in hot, quasi-static massive halos is supplemented by the strong shocks and 

94: feedback energy input associated with a major merger (e.g.\ tidal shocks, 

95: starburst-driven winds, and quasar feedback), which 

96: temporarily suppress cooling and establish the conditions of 

97: a dynamically hot halo in the central regions of the host, even in low mass halos (below 

98: the traditional threshold for accretion shocks). 

99: \end{abstract}

100: 

101: \keywords{quasars: general --- galaxies: active --- 

102: galaxies: evolution --- cosmology: theory}

103: 

104: \section{Introduction}

105: \label{sec:intro}

106: 

107: 

108: Recent, large galaxy 

109: surveys such as SDSS, 2dFGRS, COMBO-17, and DEEP 

110: have demonstrated that the local distribution of galaxies is 

111: bimodal with respect to a number of physical properties, including 

112: color, morphology, star formation, concentration, and surface brightness, 

113: \citep[e.g.][]{strateva:color.bimodality}, 

114: and that this bimodality extends at least to moderate

115: redshifts, $z\sim1.5$ \citep[e.g.,][]{bell:combo17.lfs,willmer:deep2.lfs} with a 

116: significant 

117: population of massive, red, passively evolving galaxies at even higher redshifts

118: \citep{labbe05:drgs,kriek:drg.seds}. 

119: The massive red galaxies in this bimodal

120: distribution correspond to traditional spheroids, with high surface brightness and 

121: concentration \citep{kauffmann:bimodality}, 

122: with little continuing star formation since their formation 

123: at early times \citep{trager:ages}. Understanding the formation, and in particular the 

124: turning off or ``quenching'' of star formation on the red sequence, is therefore 

125: of fundamental importance to understanding the origin of galaxies.

126: 

127: Hierarchical theories of galaxy formation and evolution indicate that

128: large systems are built up over time through the merger of smaller

129: progenitors, and galaxy interactions in the local Universe motivate the

130: ``merger hypothesis'' \citep{toomre72,toomre77}, according

131: to which collisions between spiral galaxies produce the massive

132: ellipticals observed at present times. 

133: 

134: Observations increasingly support the notion that galaxy mergers produce 

135: starbursts and structure ellipticals. The 

136: most intense starbursts, ultraluminous infrared galaxies (ULIRGs),

137: are always associated with mergers \citep[e.g.][]{sanders96:ulirgs.mergers}, with 

138: dense gas in their centers providing material to feed black hole (BH) 

139: growth and to boost the

140: concentration and central phase space density to match those of

141: ellipticals \citep{hernquist:phasespace,robertson:fp}. 

142: Likewise, observations of individual merging systems and 

143: gas-rich merger remnants

144: \citep[e.g.,][]{LakeDressler86,Doyon94,ShierFischer98,James99}, 

145: as well as post-starburst (E+A/K+A) galaxies 

146: \citep{goto:e+a.merger.connection}, have shown that their kinematic and

147: photometric properties, including velocity dispersions,

148: concentrations, stellar masses, light profiles, and phase space

149: densities, are consistent with their eventual evolution into typical

150: $\sim L_{\ast}$ elliptical galaxies. The correlations

151: obeyed by these mergers and remnants

152: \citep[e.g.,][]{Genzel01,rothberg.joseph:kinematics,rothberg.joseph:rotation} 

153: are similar to e.g.\ the observed

154: fundamental plane and Kormendy relations for relaxed ellipticals, and

155: consistent with evolution onto these relations as their stellar populations

156: age. This is further supported by the ubiquitous presence of fine structures such as shells, ripples,

157: and tidal plumes in ellipticals \citep[e.g.][]{schweizerseitzer92,schweizer96}, 

158: which are signatures of mergers 

159: \citep[e.g.][]{quinn.84,hernquist.quinn.87,hernquist.spergel.92}, 

160: and the clustering and mass density of ellipticals, consistent with 

161: passive evolution after formation in mergers \citep{hopkins:clustering}. 

162: 

163: Numerical simulations performed during the past twenty years verify

164: that {\it major} mergers of {\it gas-rich} disk galaxies can plausibly

165: account for these phenomena and elucidate the underlying physics.

166: In \citet{hopkins:groups.qso}, 

167: we provide an outline of the phases of 

168: evolution that might be associated with a major merger in the 

169: lifetime of a massive galaxy, but we briefly summarize them here.

170: Tidal torques excited during a merger lead to rapid inflows of gas

171: into the centers of galaxies \citep{hernquist.89,barnes.hernquist.91,

172: barneshernquist96}, triggering starbursts \citep{mihos:starbursts.94,

173: mihos:starbursts.96} and feeding rapid black hole growth \citep{dimatteo:msigma}.

174: Gas consumption by the starburst and dispersal of residual

175: gas by supernova-driven winds and feedback from black hole growth 

176: \citep{springel:red.galaxies} terminate star formation so that the remnant

177: quickly evolves from a blue to a red galaxy.  The stellar component of

178: the progenitors provides the bulk of the material for producing the

179: remnant spheroid \citep{barnes:disk.halo.mergers,barnes:disk.disk.mergers,

180: hernquist:bulgeless.mergers,hernquist:bulge.mergers}

181: through violent relaxation. A major

182: merger is generally required in order for the tidal forces to excite a

183: sufficiently strong response to set up nuclear inflows of gas and build massive spheroids.

184: Although simulations suggest that the precise

185: definition of a major merger in this context is somewhat blurred by the

186: degeneracy between the mass ratio of the progenitors and the orbit of

187: the interaction \citep{hernquist.89,hernquist.mihos:minor.mergers,bournaud:minor.mergers},

188: systematic studies with both numerical simulations \citep{younger:minor.mergers} 

189: and observations \citep{dasyra:mass.ratio.conditions,woods:tidal.triggering} 

190: find that strong gas inflows and morphological transformation are typically only observed 

191: below mass ratios $\sim 3:1$, despite the greater frequency of 

192: higher mass-ratio mergers. In what follows, unless explicitly noted, we generally 

193: mean the term ``mergers'' to refer specifically to major mergers.

194: 

195: It also must be emphasized that essentially all numerical studies 

196: of spheroid kinematics find that {\em only} mergers 

197: can reproduce the observed kinematic properties of observed elliptical 

198: galaxies and ``classical'' bulges \citep{hernquist.89,hernquist:bulgeless.mergers,

199: hernquist:bulge.mergers,barnes:disk.halo.mergers,barnes:disk.disk.mergers,

200: schweizer92,naab:minor.mergers,bournaud:minor.mergers,

201: naab:gas,naab:dry.mergers,naab:profiles,jesseit:kinematics,cox:kinematics}. 

202: Disk instabilities and

203: secular evolution (e.g.\ bar instabilities, harassment, and other 

204: isolated modes) can indeed produce bulges, but these are invariably 

205: ``pseudobulges'' \citep{schwarz:disk-bar,athanassoula:bar.orbits,

206: pfenniger:bar.dynamics,combes:pseudobulges,

207: raha:bar.instabilities,kuijken:pseudobulges.obs,oniell:bar.obs,athanassoula:peanuts}, 

208: with clearly distinct shapes (e.g.\ flattened or 

209: ``peanut''-shaped isophotes), rotation properties (large $v/\sigma$), 

210: internal correlations (obeying different Kormendy and Faber-Jackson relations), 

211: light profiles (nearly exponential Sersic profiles), and colors and/or 

212: substructure from classical bulges 

213: \citep[for a review, see][]{kormendy.kennicutt:pseudobulge.review}. 

214: Observations indicate that 

215: pseudobulges constitute only a small fraction of the total mass density 

216: in spheroids \citep[$\lesssim10\%$; see][]{allen:bulge-disk,ball:bivariate.lfs,

217: driver:bulge.mfs}, becoming a large fraction of the bulge 

218: population only in small bulges in late-type hosts 

219: \citep[e.g.\ Sb/c, corresponding to typical $\mgal\lesssim10^{10}\,\msun$; see][and 

220: references therein]{carollo98, kormendy.kennicutt:pseudobulge.review}. 

221: This is not to say that secular processes cannot, in principle, 

222: build some massive bulges \citep[see e.g.][]{debattista:pseudobulges.a,debattista:pseudobulges.b}. 

223: However, although 

224: such processes may be important 

225: for the buildup of low mass black hole and spheroid 

226: populations, it is empirically clear that secular evolution {\em cannot} be the agent 

227: responsible for the formation of most 

228: elliptical galaxies. 

229: 

230: Motivated by these considerations, \citet{hopkins:qso.all,hopkins:red.galaxies} developed a

231: model where starbursts, quasars, supermassive black hole growth, and

232: the formation of red, elliptical galaxies are connected through an

233: evolutionary sequence, caused by {\it mergers} between {\it gas-rich}

234: galaxies. It is important to keep in mind

235: that this does not rule out other processes occurring at lower levels

236: and under other circumstances.  For example, we are not claiming that

237: all bulges result from mergers -- secular pseudobulge growth does 

238: appear to be important for small bulges in disk-dominated systems, 

239: and additional processes may act to redden satellite galaxies 

240: in massive halos, a potentially important contributor to the population 

241: of red galaxies at low masses $\mgal\lesssim10^{10}\,\msun$ \citep[e.g.][]{blanton:env}. 

242: Moreover, spheroid evolution by gas-free (``dry'') mergers will go on, but does

243: not explain how stellar mass is initially moved onto the red sequence 

244: or transformed from disk to spheroid. 

245: 

246: All of this, however, only goes to the question of the formation of elliptical 

247: galaxies, not to the question of how such galaxies become (and stay) 

248: ``red and dead.'' It is well established from both numerical simulations 

249: \citep{springel:red.galaxies} and observations \citep[e.g.][]{rothberg.joseph:kinematics}

250: that merger remnants redden rapidly onto the 

251: red sequence as typical early-type galaxies. 

252: However, it is still debated whether or not such systems 

253: will stay on the red sequence for long periods of time, since this requires some 

254: suppression of subsequent accretion and cooling as their host 

255: dark matter halos grow. In massive elliptical galaxies, it is not obvious how 

256: the formation of cooling flows has been suppressed since $z\sim2$, 

257: despite observations finding that the cooling times of large quantities of 

258: gas are shorter than a Hubble time. 

259: In other words, there is an important outstanding question, 

260: which we seek to address: do major mergers 

261: or their remnants effectively quench future star formation (i.e.\ 

262: maintain low star formation rates for significant cosmic times), or is 

263: it some other, independent process which is responsible for quenching? 

264: 

265: At low redshift, there appears to be a clear association between quenched 

266: (red, passive) galaxies and the presence of a massive spheroid, at least 

267: for the relatively massive $\mgal\gtrsim10^{10}\,\msun$ systems of interest in 

268: this paper. \citet{bell:mfs} and \citet{mcintosh:size.evolution} 

269: find that $\gtrsim80\%$ of the $z=0$ red population are classical, bulge-dominated 

270: systems, with most of the remainder being early-type disks. 

271: \citet{drory:quenching.vs.bulge.type} further 

272: investigate these disk-dominated systems, and find that early-type disks on the 

273: red sequence have uniformly classical bulges (presumably formed via mergers), 

274: whereas disks of comparable mass, luminosity, and bulge size hosting 

275: pseudobulges (formed via secular instabilities) remain in the blue cloud. At 

276: higher redshifts, morphological signatures are less clear, and an increasingly large fraction 

277: of red galaxies (naively identified by simple color cuts) are contaminant dusty or 

278: edge-on disks (clearly not true quenched/passive systems). However, those 

279: systems which can be clearly identified as truly 

280: passive appear to be overwhelmingly compact spheroids \citep{mcintosh:size.evolution,bundy:mfs}, 

281: even at $z\sim2-3$ \citep{labbe05:drgs,kriek:drg.seds,zirm:drg.sizes}. 

282: This suggests a strong connection between 

283: a major, spheroid-forming merger and galaxy quenching.

284: 

285: The standard framework for understanding quenching follows the 

286: cooling of gas in the galaxy host halo. From simple 

287: scaling arguments one can show that at low halo masses 

288: the cooling time will (in the absence of heating 

289: mechanisms) be shorter than the free-fall time of the gas, and 

290: accretion is only limited by the free-fall of newly accreted halo 

291: gas onto the central galaxy -- the 

292: so-called ``rapid cooling'' or ``cold accretion'' regime. Once the 

293: halo becomes sufficiently massive, the cooling time becomes 

294: longer than the free fall time, and so gas does not simply fall 

295: onto the central galaxy, but rather forms a quasi-static, pressure 

296: supported hydrostatic equilibrium -- the ``hot halo'' regime. New gas accreted will shock 

297: against this pressure-supported structure, heating itself and the 

298: gas interior to it, and 

299: accretion will proceed only gradually, from the cooling of the gas at the 

300: center of the halo \citep{rees.ostriker.77,

301: norman.silk:gas.halos,blumenthal.84}. 

302: 

303: Numerical simulations suggest that this transition 

304: occurs at a mass $\mhalo\sim10^{11}-10^{12}\,\msun$ \citep{birnboim:mquench,keres:hot.halos}. 

305: In many prescriptions (such as the ``halo quenching'' models to which we refer in 

306: \S~\ref{sec:ellipticals:fractions}), it is simply assumed that the development of a hot halo 

307: at this mass threshold is the dominant criterion for quenching. However, 

308: both numerical simulations and analytic calculations 

309: \citep[][and references therein]{kh00,benson:sam,keres:hot.halos} argue that 

310: this transition alone cannot solve the ``cooling flow'' problem -- namely that the 

311: high densities at the core of the pressure-supported hot halo will allow 

312: rapid cooling onto the central galaxy, producing large galaxies which 

313: are much too massive, gas-rich, disk-dominated, actively star-forming, young and blue 

314: relative to the observations. Some kind of 

315: heating term is needed to prevent this from occurring and 

316: maintain quenching. 

317: 

318: It has become popular to invoke activity from a 

319: low-Eddington ratio AGN in the central galaxy as the source of this heating term -- 

320: the ``radio-mode'' AGN \citep{croton:sam}. This, however, 

321: requires the presence of a massive black hole (and therefore 

322: a correspondingly massive spheroid) accreting in a relatively 

323: low steady state (i.e.\ with most of the cold gas in the galaxy consumed). This requirement, 

324: along with the arguments above, suggests that merger history might be just as important 

325: as (if not more important than) halo mass in determining the quenching of a given galaxy. 

326: Ultimately, we emphasize that the detailed numerical simulations and 

327: analytic calculations of the hot halo regime do {\em not} argue that 

328: entering this regime does, or can, directly quench future cooling. Rather, these 

329: calculations argue only that the ``hot halo'' regime provides an ideal environment 

330: {\em in which quenching mechanisms might operate}. 

331: 

332: Unfortunately, obtaining a purely theoretical framework for 

333: any quenching scenario is difficult

334: because cosmological simulations including gas dynamics currently lack

335: the resolution to describe the small-scale physics associated with

336: disk formation, galaxy mergers, star formation, and black hole growth. 

337: A popular alternative has been the employment of semi-analytic methods, 

338: adopting various prescriptions for quenching and feedback 

339: processes and comparing the predictions with observed 

340: galaxy populations \citep[e.g.][]{kh00,somerville:sam,benson:sam,khochfar:sam,

341: granato:sam,scannapieco:sam,kang:sam,delucia:sam,monaco:sam}

342: These models have robustly shown

343: the need for some quenching processes, and their great success has been 

344: demonstrating that simple prescriptions for basic feedback elements 

345: yield good agreement with local galaxy mass/luminosity functions and 

346: color distributions \citep[e.g.][]{croton:sam,bower:sam,cattaneo:sam}.

347: 

348: However, the similar success of a large variety of 

349: such prescriptions at matching these basic local constraints has 

350: demonstrated that such predictions are fundamentally

351: {\em non-unique}. For example, \citet{cattaneo:sam} have shown that 

352: one obtains similar galaxy mass functions and color-magnitude 

353: relations whether one adopts a pure halo mass threshold 

354: for quenching, a halo mass threshold which depends on 

355: some feedback balance with a low-luminosity AGN, 

356: or a (halo mass-independent) 

357: galaxy bulge-to-disk criterion. Clearly, these simple constraints are 

358: insufficient to discriminate between the mechanisms associated 

359: with galaxy quenching. Furthermore, the diversity of semi-analytic 

360: prescriptions has demonstrated that there are considerable 

361: degeneracies between, for example, the prescriptions for star formation in disks 

362: and those for quenching, despite the fact that the two should be 

363: constrained by independent galaxy populations. It is therefore 

364: necessary to determine what, if any, are the robust differences between 

365: various quenching prescriptions, and to study higher-order 

366: observational constraints (such as e.g.\ the redshift evolution of 

367: populations, or bivariate distributions of galaxy properties as a function of 

368: both galaxy mass and halo mass or galaxy kinematics) that 

369: hold the potential to break these degeneracies. 

370: 

371: In the first of a pair of companion papers 

372: \citep[][henceforth \paperone]{hopkins:groups.qso}, 

373: we describe a strategy that enables us, for the first

374: time, to provide a purely theoretical framework for our models of 

375: merger-induced activity. 

376: By combining previous estimates of the evolution of the halo mass

377: function with halo occupation models and our estimates for merger

378: timescales, we infer the statistics of mergers that 

379: form spheroids. Because our merger simulations relate starbursts,

380: quasars, and red galaxies as different phases of the same events, we

381: can graft these simulations onto our theoretical, cosmological 

382: calculation and determine the cosmological birthrate of these various

383: populations and their evolution with redshift.  In particular we

384: demonstrate in what follows that there are a number of unique, 

385: robust predictions of a model in which mergers drive the quenching 

386: of galaxies (in addition to forming spheroids in the first place), 

387: distinct from the predictions of models in which this quenching is set just by 

388: halo properties or secular (disk) instabilities. We find that observations 

389: of red galaxies support our predictions, and disfavor 

390: other theoretical models. 

391: 

392: In \paperone, 

393: we describe our model and use it to investigate the properties of 

394: mergers and merger-driven quasar activity. 

395: In this paper (\papertwo), 

396: we extend this to study the properties of merger remnants and the 

397: formation of the early-type galaxy population.

398: We begin by briefly reviewing the key 

399: elements of the model from \paperone\ in 

400: \S~\ref{sec:mergers}. 

401: In \S~\ref{sec:ellipticals} we use the method developed in 

402: \paperone\ to examine the 

403: consequences of a general model in which 

404: major merger remnants remain ``quenched'' once the merger 

405: terminates star formation. Specifically, 

406: \S~\ref{sec:ellipticals:int} shows the predictions of this 

407: model for the buildup of early-type or red galaxy mass functions 

408: and mass density with redshift, and the formation times of 

409: early-type galaxies. In \S~\ref{sec:ellipticals:fractions} we demonstrate 

410: how the resulting fraction of red or ``quenched'' galaxies depends on 

411: properties such as halo and galaxy mass, and contrast these 

412: with the predictions of alternative models in which the 

413: quenching is associated with a halo mass criterion or 

414: secular processes (disk instabilities). In \S~\ref{sec:ellipticals:evolution} 

415: we extend these comparisons to the redshift evolution of these trends.

416: In \S~\ref{sec:ellipticals:dry} we

417: briefly examine the role of subsequent gas-poor 

418: major mergers in this model, and compare with observations of 

419: early-type galaxy structure. 

420: In \S~\ref{sec:quenching} we outline the broad physical 

421: mechanisms which give rise to such a model. We examine 

422: in \S~\ref{sec:quenching:transition} 

423: how mergers are associated with the ``transition'' of 

424: galaxies from the blue cloud to the red sequence, and 

425: in \S~\ref{sec:quenching:maintenance} we examine the 

426: role of different feedback mechanisms in ``maintaining'' low 

427: star formation rates in remnant elliptical galaxies. 

428: We discuss and summarize our 

429: conclusions in \S~\ref{sec:discussion}. 

430: 

431: Throughout, we adopt a WMAP3 

432: $(\Omega_{\rm M},\,\Omega_{\Lambda},\,h,\,\sigma_{8},\,n_{s})

433: =(0.268,\,0.732,\,0.704,\,0.776,\,0.947)$ cosmology 

434: \citep{spergel:wmap3}, and normalize all observations and models 

435: shown to this cosmology. 

436: Although the exact choice of 

437: cosmology may systematically 

438: shift the inferred bias and halo masses (primarily scaling with $\sigma_{8}$), 

439: our comparisons (i.e.\ relative biases) are for the most part unchanged, 

440: and repeating our calculations for 

441: a ``concordance'' $(0.3,\,0.7,\,0.7,\,0.9,\,1.0)$ cosmology or 

442: the WMAP1 $(0.27,\,0.73,\,0.71,\,0.84,\,0.96)$ results of \citet{spergel:wmap1}

443: has little effect on our conclusions. 

444: We also adopt a diet Salpeter IMF following \citet{bell:mfs}, and convert all stellar masses 

445: and mass-to-light ratios to this choice. Again, the exact choice of IMF systematically 

446: shifts the normalization of stellar masses herein, but does not substantially change 

447: our comparisons. 

448: $UBV$ magnitudes are in the Vega system, and 

449: SDSS $ugriz$ magnitudes are AB.

450: 

451: 

452: \section{Mergers: The Basic Model}

453: \label{sec:mergers}

454: 

455: The model which we use to calculate the rate and nature of mergers 

456: as a function of e.g.\ mass, redshift, and environment is described in 

457: detail in \paperone, but we briefly outline the key elements here. 

458: 

459: {\bf 1.\ Halo Mass Function:} We begin by adopting the halo mass function 

460: following \citet{shethtormen}. 

461: There is little ambiguity in this calculation at all redshifts and masses 

462: of interest \citep[$z\lesssim6$; e.g.][]{reed:halo.mfs}, and we do not consider it a significant source of 

463: uncertainty. 

464: 

465: {\bf 2.\ Subhalo Mass Function:} The subhalo mass function of each halo is 

466: then calculated. Although numerical simulations and semi-analytic 

467: calculations generally give 

468: similar results \citep[especially for the major-merger mass ratios of interest 

469: in this paper, as opposed to very small subhalo populations; see][]{vandenbosch:subhalo.mf}, 

470: there is still some (typical factor $<2$) disagreement between different estimates. 

471: We therefore repeat most of our calculations adopting both 

472: our ``default'' subhalo mass function calculation 

473: \citep{zentner:substructure.sam.hod,kravtsov:subhalo.mfs} and an alternative 

474: subhalo mass function calculation \citep{vandenbosch:subhalo.mf} 

475: \citep[normalized to match cosmological simulations 

476: as in][]{shaw:cluster.subhalo.statistics}, which bracket the range 

477: of a number of different estimates \citep[e.g.,][]{springel:cluster.subhalos,

478: tormen:cluster.subhalos,delucia:subhalos,gao:subhalo.mf,nurmi:subhalo.mf} 

479: and demonstrate the uncertainty 

480: owing to this choice. The difference is ultimately negligible 

481: at $\mgal\gtrsim10^{10}\,\msun$ (where, unless otherwise specified, $\mgal$ 

482: refers to the baryonic mass of the galaxy)

483: at all redshifts, and rises to only a factor $\sim2$ at 

484: $\mgal\lesssim10^{10}\,\msun$ (probably owing to differences in the 

485: numerical resolution of various estimates at low halo masses). 

486: 

487: {\bf 3.\ Halo Occupation Model:} We then populate the 

488: central galaxies and ``major'' subhalos with an empirical halo occupation model. 

489: Although such models are constrained, by definition, to reproduce the mean 

490: properties of the halos occupied by galaxies of a given mass/luminosity, there 

491: are known degeneracies between parameterizations that give rise to 

492: (typical factor $\sim2$) differences between models. We therefore again 

493: repeat all our calculations for our ``default'' model 

494: \citep{conroy:monotonic.hod} \citep[see also][]{valeostriker:monotonic.hod} and 

495: an alternate halo occupation model \citep{yang:clf} \citep[see also][]{yan:clf.evolution,zheng:hod}, which 

496: bracket the range of a number of calculations \citep[e.g.,][]{vandenbosch:concordance.hod,

497: cooray:highz,cooray:hod.clf,zheng:hod}. Again, we find this

498: yields negligible differences 

499: at $\mgal\gtrsim10^{10}\,\msun$ (as the clustering and abundances 

500: of massive galaxies are reasonably well-constrained, and most of these 

501: galaxies are central halo galaxies), and even at low masses the 

502: typical discrepancy in our predictions owing to the 

503: choice of halo occupation model rises to only $\sim0.2\,$dex. 

504: 

505: We note that we have also considered a variety of prescriptions for the 

506: redshift evolution of the halo occupation model: including that 

507: directly prescribed by the quoted models, a complete re-derivation 

508: of the HOD models of \citet{conroy:monotonic.hod} and 

509: \citet{valeostriker:monotonic.hod} 

510: at different redshifts from the observed mass functions of 

511: \citet{bundy:mfs,fontana:highz.mfs,borch:mfs,blanton:lfs} (see \paperone), 

512: or assuming no evolution (in terms of galaxy mass

513: distributions at fixed halo mass; for either all galaxies or 

514: star-forming galaxies). We find that the resulting differences are 

515: small (at least at $z\lesssim3$), comparable to 

516: those inherent in the choice of halo occupation model. 

517: This is not surprising, as a number of recent 

518: studies suggest that there is little evolution in halo occupation 

519: parameters (in terms of mass, or relative to $L_{\ast}$) with 

520: redshift \citep{yan:clf.evolution,cooray:highz,

521: conroy:monotonic.hod}, or equivalently that the masses of galaxies hosted in a 

522: halo of a given mass are primarily a function of that halo mass, not 

523: of redshift \citep{heymans:mhalo-mgal.evol,

524: conroy:mhalo-mgal.evol}. This appears to be especially true for 

525: star-forming and $\sim L_{\ast}$ galaxies \citep[of greatest importance for 

526: our conclusions;][]{conroy:mhalo-mgal.evol}, unsurprising 

527: given that quenching is not strongly operating in those systems to change 

528: their mass-to-light ratios. 

529: 

530: {\bf 4.\ Merger Timescale:} Having populated a given halo and its subhalos 

531: with galaxies, we then calculate the timescale for mergers between major galaxy 

532: pairs. This is ultimately the largest source of uncertainty in our calculations, 

533: at all redshifts and masses. 

534: Again, we emphasize that some of our calculations are completely 

535: independent of these timescales. However, where adopted, we illustrate  

536: this uncertainty by presenting all of our predictions for three estimates of 

537: the merger timescale: 

538: first, a simple dynamical friction formula (this is what is generally 

539: adopted in semi-analytic models, for example). Second, a 

540: group capture or collisional (i.e.\ effective 

541: gravitational) cross section \citep[e.g.][]{white:cross.section,krivitsky.kontorovich,

542: makino:merger.cross.sections,mamon:groups.review} 

543: approximation, generally more appropriate on small scales, 

544: in satellite-satellite mergers, or in the merger 

545: of two small field halos. Third, an angular 

546: momentum (orbital cross section) capture estimate \citep[i.e.\ 

547: considering capture into the effective angular-momentum space 

548: of mergers;][]{binneytremaine}. 

549: 

550: At large masses 

551: and redshifts $z\lesssim2.5$, this is a surprisingly weak source of 

552: uncertainty, but the estimated merger rates/timescales 

553: can be different at low masses $\mgal\lesssim 10^{10}\,\msun$ 

554: and the highest redshifts $z\sim3-6$. At low masses, this owes 

555: to a variety of effects, including the substantial difference 

556: between infall or merger timescales and the timescale for 

557: morphological disturbances to be excited (different in e.g.\ an 

558: impact approximation as opposed to the circular orbit decay 

559: assumed by dynamical friction). Note that where relevant, we have used  

560: numerical simulations to estimate the typical duration of the final merger 

561: stages or e.g.\ the morphological relaxation time  

562: \citep[in which mergers will be identified by typical 

563: morphological classification schemes, see][]{lotz:merger.selection}.

564: The difference in redshift 

565: evolution is easily understood: at fixed mass ratio, the 

566: dynamical friction timescale scales as 

567: $t_{\rm df}\propto \tH\propto \rho^{-1/2}$, 

568: but a ``capture'' timescale will scale with fixed cross section as 

569: $t\propto 1/(n\,\langle\sigma\,v \rangle)\propto \rho^{-1}$, 

570: so that (while the details of the cross-sections make the 

571: difference not quite as extreme as this simple scaling) the very high densities at 

572: high redshift make collisional merging grow rapidly in efficiency. 

573: The true solution is probably some effective 

574: combination of these two estimates, and the 

575: ``more appropriate'' approximation 

576: depends largely on the initial orbital parameters of the subhalos. 

577: At present, we therefore must recognize this as an inherent 

578: uncertainty, but one that serves to bracket the likely range of 

579: possibilities at high redshifts. 

580: 

581: In \paperone\ (\S~2.2), we show that 

582: together, these criteria naturally define a preferred major-merger scale (host halo mass $\mhalo$) for 

583: galaxies of mass $\mgal$ -- the ``small group scale,'' only slightly larger than 

584: the average halo hosting a galaxy of mass $\mgal$. This is the scale at which 

585: the probability to accrete a second galaxy of comparable mass $\sim\mgal$ (fuel for a 

586: major merger) first becomes significant. At smaller (relative) 

587: halo masses, the probability that the halo 

588: hosts a galaxy as large as $\mgal$ declines rapidly. At larger masses, the 

589: probability that the halo will merge with or accrete another halo hosting a comparable $\sim\mgal$ 

590: galaxy increases, but the efficiency of the merger of these galaxies declines rapidly. 

591: We stress that this small group scale is distinct from the more typical large group scale 

592: identified observationally (the average small group halo will still host only 1 galaxy 

593: of mass $\sim\mgal$, and groups will only consist of $2-3$ members of similar mass). 

594: This is not to say, however, that mergers occur (in a global sense) at a specific scale, 

595: since the small group scale is different for different galaxy masses -- 

596: a consequence of this model is the observational fact that mergers occur in halos of 

597: all masses and in all environments

598: \citep[including field and even void environments;][]{alonso:groups,

599: goto:e+a.merger.connection,hogg:e+a.env}, although 

600: the characteristic masses 

601: and star formation histories 

602: of galaxies merging will change in different environments. 

603: 

604: In \paperone\ we compare this model with a number of observations, and 

605: show that it reproduces the mass functions and star formation 

606: histories of galaxies, merger mass functions (and infrared 

607: luminosity functions) and merger fractions as 

608: a function of galaxy and/or halo mass and redshift, the clustering of 

609: mergers as a function of mass and redshift, and the dependence of 

610: merger rates and fractions on small-scale environmental properties. 

611: This provides some reassurance that we are accurately predicting 

612: the rate and nature of major mergers as a function of 

613: these properties, and can use this model to make robust predictions 

614: for the nature of merger remnants. 

615: 

616: 

617: \section{Ellipticals}

618: \label{sec:ellipticals}

619: 

620: We now turn to the possibility of an 

621: association between mergers and the termination or quenching of 

622: star formation in remnant galaxies. 

623: In \S~\ref{sec:quenching} we consider 

624: potential physical mechanisms for this quenching, but we 

625: caution that at present these mechanisms are neither well-understood 

626: nor observationally well-constrained. As a consequence, we first wish to 

627: examine the consequences of the simple hypothesis that {\em some} 

628: mechanism quenches star formation after a major merger, whether

629: it involves gas exhaustion, starburst or quasar feedback, hot halo formation, 

630: or other mechanisms. We therefore 

631: make the simple ansatz: {\em Systems are 

632: quenched after a major merger of star-forming/gas-rich galaxies}. 

633: 

634: \subsection{Integrated Populations}

635: \label{sec:ellipticals:int}

636: 

637: \begin{figure}

638:     \centering

639:     \figexpand

640:     %\plotone{local.mf.fit.ps}

641:     \plotone{f1.ps}

642:     \caption{Predicted local quenched/red/early-type galaxy 

643:     mass function (lines) obtained by integrating 

644:     forward the major merger mass function to $z=0$ (i.e.\ assuming 

645:     that each merger leaves a quenched early-type remnant). 

646:     Different styles show different 

647:     variants of our calculation which bracket the 

648:     range of our uncertainties, varying e.g.\ the subhalo mass functions, 

649:     halo occupation model, and approximation used to calculate merger 

650:     timescales (as described in \S~\ref{sec:mergers}; see \paperone\ for 

651:     a more detailed comparison). 

652:     We compare with observed early-type or red galaxy mass functions 

653:     from \citet[][SDSS elliptical and red galaxy mass functions; 

654:     black and red $\times$'s, respectively]{bell:mfs}, 

655:     \citet[][SDSS LRGs; blue squares]{wake:lrgs}, and 

656:     \citet[][6dF LRGs; purple diamonds]{jones:lrgs}.

657:     The mass functions from \citet{wake:lrgs} and \citet{jones:lrgs} are 

658:     converted from luminosity functions using the luminosity-dependent 

659:     mass-to-light ratios from \citet{bell:mfs}. We show both the 

660:     directly measured \citet{wake:lrgs} result (open) and that corrected for 

661:     passive evolution from $z=0.1$ (filled). 

662:     \label{fig:local.mf}}

663: \end{figure}

664: \begin{figure}

665:     \centering

666:     \figexpand

667:     %\plotone{all.z.mf.fit.ps}

668:     \plotone{f2.ps}

669:     \caption{As Figure~\ref{fig:local.mf}, but at each of several redshifts. Points 

670:     at $z=0$ are as in Figure~\ref{fig:local.mf}. At higher redshifts, early-type or 

671:     red galaxy MFs are shown from \citet[][red circles]{bundy:mfs,bundy:mtrans}, 

672:     \citet[][purple squares]{borch:mfs}, \citet[][cyan stars]{franceschini:mfs}, 

673:     \citet[][orange triangles]{pannella:mfs}, \citet[][blue inverted triangles]{fontana:mfs}, 

674:     \citet[][blue filled squares]{wake:lrgs}, and points 

675:     at $z=1.7,\,2.5$, and $3.1$ are estimated from the number density of passively evolving 

676:     (non-star forming) red galaxies with stellar masses $\gtrsim10^{11}\,\msun$ 

677:     in \citet[][cyan square]{daddi05:drgs}, \citet[][green square]{labbe05:drgs}, and 

678:     \citet[][magenta star]{grazian:drg.comparisons}, 

679:     %\citet[][orange]{vandokkum06:drgs}, 

680:     respectively. Masses (or mass ranges) have been corrected to our adopted IMF. The 

681:     integrated merger mass function is consistent with the observed red galaxy mass 

682:     function at all redshifts $z\sim0-3.5$. 

683:     \label{fig:redshift.mf}}

684: \end{figure}

685: 

686: In \paperone\ we calculated the 

687: major merger rate of galaxies as a function of 

688: galaxy mass and redshift. If each such merger leaves a quenched early-type 

689: remnant, then

690: we can integrate the merger rate forward in time to 

691: obtain the early-type or red galaxy mass function at each redshift, 

692: \begin{equation}

693: \label{eqn:mf.int}

694: \phi_{\rm early}(\mgal) = \int{\dot{n}(\mgal\,|\,z)}\,\frac{{\rm d}t}{{\rm d}z}\,{\rm d}z.

695: \end{equation}

696: Figures~\ref{fig:local.mf} \& \ref{fig:redshift.mf} show this at several redshifts

697: for our model of major mergers. 

698: Note that Equation~\ref{eqn:mf.int} adds the contribution from all mergers -- 

699: i.e.\ implicitly includes in the mass function the contribution from ``dry'' or 

700: spheroid-spheroid mergers. Technically, we should also include the 

701: sink term from dry mergers, 

702: $-2\,\int{\dot{n}_{\rm dry}(0.5\,\mgal\,|\,z)\,{\rm d}t}$, representing the loss of 

703: two early-types of mass $\sim\mgal/2$ for each major dry merger of final mass $\mgal$. 

704: This requires a number of additional assumptions for the red/blue galaxy fraction 

705: as a function of $\mgal$ or $\mhalo$ and the 

706: initial mass ratios of mergers, so we have not included it here, 

707: but note that for reasonable empirical 

708: estimates (such as those in \S~\ref{sec:ellipticals:fractions}) of these numbers, the sink 

709: term has little effect. That is not to say that at low redshift, 

710: the dry merger contribution cannot indeed be important to the shape of the mass function

711: where it is falling steeply at high mass ($\gg\mstar$). Because of this 

712: steep fall-off, moving a small fraction of lower mass systems to higher masses 

713: can significantly increase the number density of the most massive systems. 

714: However, the loss of 

715: less massive systems is a small correction. The dominant term 

716: at masses ($\lesssim$ a few $\mstar$) important for the total mass density 

717: of red systems is the movement of systems 

718: to the red sequence by gas-rich mergers. 

719: 

720: We have also neglected 

721: growth via minor mergers: however, we demonstrate in \paperone\ 

722: that this is also a small correction; i.e.\ mass growth is 

723: dominated by major mergers and star formation, as seen in 

724: cosmological simulations \citep{maller:sph.merger.rates} and 

725: observations \citep{zheng:hod.evolution} (although it is possible that minor mergers 

726: become important for the most extreme, massive BCGs). 

727: 

728: As discussed in \S~\ref{sec:mergers}, there are a number of uncertainties at 

729: the lowest masses $\mgal\lesssim10^{10}\,\msun$, which are evident 

730: in the differences between our predictions 

731: in Figures~\ref{fig:local.mf} \&\ \ref{fig:redshift.mf} -- these include issues of 

732: completeness and resolution in the subhalo mass functions and 

733: halo occupation models, and sensitivity (for very low-mass mergers) to the 

734: method used to calculate merger cross sections (for example, 

735: the difference between a dynamical friction and an impact approximation becomes 

736: large). The predictions in this regime are probably subject to a number of 

737: other caveats, as well. At the lowest masses $\mgal\lesssim{\rm a\ few}\times10^{9}\,\msun$, 

738: satellite-satellite mergers (the dynamics of which are sensitive to orbital parameters) 

739: become an important contributor to the 

740: total merger remnant population. Also, the fraction of observed pseudobulges 

741: starts to become large, implying that secular instabilities may begin contributing 

742: significantly to the early-type population below these masses. Finally, many 

743: of the observed red galaxies at masses below this threshold (almost an 

744: order of magnitude below $\mstar$) are satellites of more massive systems, so 

745: processes like ram pressure stripping, tidal stripping, harassment, and a 

746: cutoff of new accretion are likely to be important (and may even dominate 

747: their becoming red in the first place). 

748: At higher masses $\mgal\gtrsim10^{10}\,\msun$, however, 

749: the agreement 

750: between our predictions is good, 

751: regardless of which subhalo mass functions, halo occupation models, 

752: or merger timescale approximations we adopt. Moreover,

753: almost all of these galaxies are observed to be central halo galaxies 

754: \citep[e.g.][]{weinmann:obs.hod} and the pseudobulge fraction 

755: is small, so we can have some confidence 

756: that satellite and secular processes are not a large effect 

757: (see also \S~\ref{sec:ellipticals:fractions}). 

758: We refer to \paperone\ for a 

759: more detailed comparison, but we have tested the model extensively for 

760: these masses ($\mgal\gtrsim10^{10}\,\msun$), 

761: and find it is both robust and consistent with observed statistics of 

762: mergers as a function of galaxy and halo mass, redshift, and 

763: galaxy color/morphological type. 

764: 

765: \begin{figure}

766:     \centering

767:     \figexpand

768:     %\plotone{red.mass.density.ps}

769:     \plotone{f3.ps}

770:     \caption{Integrated stellar mass density of red or early-type 

771:     (passive) galaxies as a function of redshift, 

772:     compared to the predicted stellar mass density which has undergone a major galaxy merger 

773:     (i.e.\ integrating the merger rate function of star-forming galaxies). 

774:     Points are as in Figures~\ref{fig:local.mf} \& \ref{fig:redshift.mf}, with 

775:     lines showing the predictions from our 

776:     different methods of calculating the merger rate function from \S~\ref{sec:mergers} (see \paperone). 

777:     We add the mass density estimates from 

778:     \citet[][violet diamonds]{abraham:red.mass.density} and \citet[][orange square]{vandokkum06:drgs}.

779:     Dotted green (uppermost) line shows the total stellar mass density of the universe expected 

780:     from the integrated star formation history in 

781:     \citet{hopkinsbeacom:sfh} (normalized to the $z=0$ value from \citet{bell:mfs}). 

782:     The mass density of systems which have undergone major, gas-rich mergers 

783:     agrees well at all redshifts with the mass density in red or early-type galaxies, with 

784:     sufficient mergers occurring at high redshifts to account for the observed densities 

785:     from \citet{labbe05:drgs} and \citet{grazian:drg.comparisons} at $z\sim2-4$. 

786:     \label{fig:red.mass.density}}

787: \end{figure}

788: 

789: Figure~\ref{fig:red.mass.density} plots the integrated version of this, namely the 

790: mass density of red/early-type systems as a function of redshift. Here, we 

791: integrate only the gas-rich merger rate function (the same merger rate function we 

792: used to predict the quasar luminosity function in \paperone; i.e.\ using our 

793: empirical halo occupation model to identify specifically mergers of gas-rich or 

794: star-forming galaxies), as 

795: dry mergers cannot, by definition, increase the mass density of red galaxies. 

796: 

797: The integrated 

798: mass which has undergone major, gas-rich mergers agrees well with the mass 

799: density of red galaxies at all redshifts. Even at high redshifts 

800: $z\sim2-4$, this merger-driven model has no difficulty accounting for the 

801: relatively large mass densities of red galaxies observed by e.g.\ \citet{labbe05:drgs}, 

802: \citet{vandokkum06:drgs}, \citet{grazian:drg.comparisons}, and \citet{kriek:drg.seds}, 

803: as the highest-overdensity peaks in the early universe undergo rapid 

804: major mergers \citep[suggested in the observations as well, given 

805: the color-density relation of these objects;][]{quadri:highz.color.density}.

806: It is important to note that a significant number of these high-redshift systems 

807: have been spectroscopically confirmed as passive, ``red and dead'' systems 

808: \citep{kriek:drg.seds,wuyts:irac.drg.colors} 

809: with elliptical morphologies \citep{zirm:drg.sizes} and relatively 

810: old ages ($\sim{\rm a\ few}\times10^{8}\,$yr, or $\sim1/5\,\tH$ at these redshifts). 

811: This is in strong contrast to some pure hot-halo quenching models, in 

812: which cold accretion within a hot halo persists at high redshifts $z\gtrsim2$. 

813: 

814: We consider a detailed comparison with these models in \S~\ref{sec:ellipticals:evolution}, 

815: but note, for example, 

816: that the \citet{dekelbirnboim:mquench} estimate of the hot halo quenching mass 

817: predicts that at $z\sim3.5$, cold flows continue within all $\mhalo \lesssim10^{14}\,\msun$ 

818: halos, which allows only a completely negligible maximum 

819: red galaxy mass density (even if we adopt a $100\%$ baryon 

820: conversion efficiency and assume all quenched halos are ``red'') -- even lowering 

821: this threshold by an order of magnitude predicts a quenched galaxy mass density 

822: an order of magnitude below that observed.

823: 

824: 

825: \begin{figure}

826:     \centering

827:     \figexpand

828:     %\plotone{pred.ages.ps}

829:     \plotone{f4.ps}

830:     \caption{Predicted ages of early-type galaxies (at $z=0$) as a function of 

831:     stellar mass from the integrated mass functions in Figure~\ref{fig:redshift.mf}, 

832:     compared to observations from \citet[][red circles]{nelan05:ages}, 

833:     \citet[][orange squares; we take their mean values as opposed to 

834:     those in a specific environment]{thomas05:ages}, and \citet[][blue stars]{gallazzi06:ages}. 

835:     Errors show the mass ranges and dispersion in ages within each mass range (not 

836:     the error in the mean ages). Blue lines show the predicted mean lookback time  

837:     to the final gas-rich merger for different 

838:     estimates of the merger rate as in Figure~\ref{fig:local.mf}. Black lines show 

839:     the same, but with age calculated from the mean redshift (as opposed to 

840:     lookback time), showing the systematic offset owing to this choice of definition. 

841:     \label{fig:ages}}

842: \end{figure}

843: 

844: Having integrated forward the implied rate of formation of early-type galaxies, we 

845: can also predict the ages of early types as a function of their mass. Figure~\ref{fig:ages} 

846: shows this comparison. We note that age here is defined as the time since 

847: the last gas-rich major merger (systems may, of course, undergo 

848: subsequent gas-free mergers, but this will not contribute new star formation). 

849: Our model contains no information 

850: about the prior star formation histories of merging disks. However, the observations 

851: to which we compare typically measure single stellar population (single burst) or 

852: light-weighted ages, which tend to reflect the last significant epoch of 

853: star formation. 

854: 

855: We emphasize that this does {\em not} imply that most of the stars in spheroids 

856: form in a short-lived, merger-induced burst. 

857: Direct calculation of the inferred stellar population 

858: ages from line index and SED fitting \citep[following][]{trager:ages} 

859: for realistic star formation histories 

860: from the semi-analytic models of \citet{somerville:sam} and the

861: hydrodynamical 

862: merger simulations of \citet{robertson:fp} suggests that the 

863: ages inferred for present early-type galaxies indeed reflect the epoch of 

864: the termination of star formation, even when $\gtrsim95\%$ of stars are 

865: formed over a much longer timescale at significantly earlier times 

866: (in these cases, in quiescent star formation in disks). 

867: 

868: Since we are interested in testing the possibility that major, gas-rich 

869: mergers are associated with the {\em termination} of star formation, these ages are the 

870: most appropriate with which to compare. But we again emphasize the caveat that 

871: without the details of the star formation histories in progenitor disks, our 

872: ages are subject to some systematic uncertainties. 

873: In any case, the agreement is good, 

874: suggesting that mergers have the correct timing, in a cosmic sense, to 

875: explain the shutdown of star formation in early-type systems. 

876: 

877: 

878: \subsection{Color-Density Relations: The Dependence of Red Fractions on 

879: Halo Mass and Environment}

880: \label{sec:ellipticals:fractions}

881: 

882: \begin{figure*}

883:     \centering

884:     \figexpand

885:     %\plotone{cartoon.allmodels.ps}

886:     \plotone{f5.ps}

887:     \caption{Qualitative illustration of galaxy growth and quenching in three different 

888:     basic models: a ``merger'' model, in which systems are quenched (for 

889:     any reason) after a major, gas-rich merger; a ``halo quenching'' model, in which 

890:     systems are uniformly quenched when their halo reaches a critical mass 

891:     $M_{Q}$ and establishes a ``hot halo'' gas accretion mode; and a ``secular'' model, 

892:     in which internal galactic processes (e.g.\ instabilities) determine 

893:     and color, independent of external processes. In all three models, star formation 

894:     and accretion move systems to larger galaxy and halo masses in the blue cloud 

895:     (blue shaded regions), and dry mergers move systems to larger masses 

896:     in the red sequence (red shaded regions). However, the division in this 

897:     galaxy-halo mass space is different in each case: for the ``halo quenching'' or 

898:     ``secular'' cases it depends solely on halo mass or galaxy mass, respectively. 

899:     In the ``mergers'' case, the transition line is tilted, as the probability of 

900:     mergers depends both on galaxy and halo mass. More massive halos 

901:     are more evolved, live in higher-density regions, and have more likely accreted 

902:     other galaxies to supply a major merger, so the red fraction increases with halo mass. 

903:     But at a given $\mhalo$, mergers are more efficient for high-mass systems 

904:     (and initial capture more likely), so the red fraction increases with galaxy mass. 

905:     Note that for all of these, we are explicitly focused on {\em central} galaxies, 

906:     and ignore processes that may redden satellites.

907:     \label{fig:cartoon}}

908: \end{figure*}

909: 

910: We now study the distribution of red galaxies in greater detail, to highlight the 

911: {\em unique} features of a merger-driven quenching model. For clarity, we focus 

912: only on {\em central} galaxies, and ignore the (potentially) completely 

913: physically distinct mechanisms (ram pressure stripping, tidal heating, etc.) 

914: responsible for quenching satellite galaxies in massive halos. 

915: Therefore, in what follows, our comparison of 

916: quenching and red/blue galaxies explicitly ignores satellite galaxies. 

917: 

918: Figure~\ref{fig:cartoon} 

919: illustrates three qualitatively distinct classes of models for quenching. 

920: We distinguish our ``merger'' model (systems quench after a major, gas-rich merger), 

921: a pure ``halo quenching'' model (systems quench upon crossing a critical 

922: halo mass), and a ``secular'' model (internal processes -- set by the galaxy mass 

923: and/or size -- 

924: solely determine galaxy color/star formation history). The models all predict that the 

925: most massive halos and most massive galaxies are predominantly quenched. 

926: However, in detail, the models differ in the behavior of quenching with 

927: respect to galaxy and halo mass.

928: 

929: In the simplest halo quenching models, the ability of a 

930: galaxy to redden is completely determined by its host halo mass. In the simplest 

931: secular models, this is completely determined by the galaxy mass. In contrast, 

932: a merger-driven model depends on both -- mergers will proceed more 

933: rapidly and efficiently at high $\mgal$ in a given $\mhalo$, and larger $\mhalo$ systems 

934: represent larger overdensity peaks which are more evolved and more likely to have 

935: undergone a period of merging (recall, we refer to 

936: accreting a pair of mass $\sim\mgal$ to fuel a major galaxy merger). 

937: 

938: \begin{figure*}

939:     \centering

940:     \figexpand

941:     %\plotone{red.bivar.realcartoon.ps}

942:     %\includegraphics[bb= 54 360 904 643,scale=0.60]{red.bivar.realcartoon.ps.gz}

943:     %\includegraphics[bb=0 0 707 240]{red.bivar.realcartoon.jpg}

944:     %\plotone{pct_conv.ps}

945:     \plotone{f6.ps}

946:     \caption{As Figure~\ref{fig:cartoon}, but showing the predictions from 

947:     full cosmological models (again, for central galaxies only). Galaxies 

948:     are color-coded by whether or not each model predicts they should 

949:     be in the blue cloud or red sequence.

950:     {\em Left:}

951:     Our full merger model Monte Carlo predictions. 

952:     {\em Center:} 

953:     The semi-analytic model of \citet{croton:sam}, which 

954:     implements a standard halo quenching model (albeit requiring the 

955:     presence of a relatively massive BH to maintain quenching). Note the 

956:     apparent relatively low number of massive galaxies/halos owes to 

957:     the sampling density of the model in its public release. 

958:     {\em Right:} The modified semi-analytic model of \citet{bower:sam}, 

959:     as described in \S~\ref{sec:ellipticals:fractions}, 

960:     where we assume the strong secular (disk instability) mode that 

961:     dominates the morphological transformation and gas exhaustion of most 

962:     disks (in the model) also determines whether or not galaxies are quenched. 

963:     Dashed lines in each qualitatively divide the 

964:     red and blue populations, as in Figure~\ref{fig:cartoon}. Despite 

965:     the considerably complexity added to these models, their qualitative 

966:     behavior in the $\mgal-\mhalo$ plane reflects the key 

967:     distinctions of each corresponding toy model in Figure~\ref{fig:cartoon}. 

968:     \label{fig:real.cartoon}}

969: \end{figure*}

970: 

971: Of course, the cartoon illustration in Figure~\ref{fig:cartoon} ignores some details. 

972: In many halo quenching models, quenching also requires a massive BH or 

973: some other feedback mechanism, which implicitly requires a relatively massive 

974: spheroid and therefore depends to some extent on the 

975: stellar mass and merger history of the system. In many secular models, galaxy 

976: structure and disk instability are influenced by halo properties (e.g.\ concentration) 

977: that vary with halo mass and accretion history. We therefore consider 

978: a more detailed comparison with state-of-the-art semi-analytic models. 

979: We extract the results of 

980: \citet{croton:sam}\footnote{http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/NumCos/CR/Download/index.html} 

981: and \citet{bower:sam}\footnote{http://galaxy-catalogue.dur.ac.uk:8080/galform/}, 

982: both recent fully cosmological semi-analytic models based on the 

983: Millenium dark-matter simulation \citep{springel:millenium}. 

984: 

985: The \citet{croton:sam} 

986: models correspond roughly 

987: to the halo quenching models described above -- a massive BH is required 

988: to maintain the hot halo, but development of the hot halo reservoir (upon 

989: crossing the appropriate halo mass threshold) is 

990: still effectively the dominant criterion for quenching

991: \citep[see also e.g.][]{kang:sam,cattaneo:sam,delucia:sam}. 

992: 

993: The \citet{bower:sam} models implement a strong 

994: disk instability (secular) mode, which dominates black hole growth and 

995: bulge formation at all redshifts, with 

996: mergers typically contributing only $\sim0.1\%$ to the spheroid mass budget. 

997: However, in the model, it is still assumed that cooling can only be halted in a 

998: quasi-static hot halo, and effectively galaxies are quenched upon crossing the 

999: appropriate halo mass threshold (like other models, the presence of a moderate-mass BH 

1000: is technically required, but essentially all systems with sufficiently massive halos easily 

1001: host a BH of the necessary mass, even without mergers, owing to the 

1002: disk instability mode of growth). For our purposes, therefore, 

1003: it is effectively equivalent to the \citet{croton:sam} and other 

1004: halo quenching models. But, given the strong secular mode assumed in the model, 

1005: we easily can use it to construct an mock example of a semi-analytic model in which 

1006: secular processes dominate the quenching itself. 

1007: 

1008: We do so by adopting the 

1009: \citet{bower:sam} model, but instead of using their criterion for 

1010: quenching (namely, the presence of a hot halo), simply assume that systems which 

1011: undergo a sufficiently massive disk instability 

1012: that destroys the entire disk will ``quench.'' 

1013: The disk stability is estimated according to the assumptions of the original model, 

1014: based on e.g.\ disk angular momentum, scale lengths, masses, 

1015: and concentrations. 

1016: We specifically adopt a mass threshold for the instability of $\gtrsim2\times10^{10}\,\msun$ 

1017: (i.e.\ assume systems in which less of the galaxy mass participates in the instability will not 

1018: automatically quench, since almost all galaxies in the model have at least some very 

1019: small mass added to the bulge via instabilities). We choose this value because it 

1020: gives a good match to the total observed mass density of passive galaxies and 

1021: globally-averaged quenched fractions as a function of $\mgal$, but note that our comparisons 

1022: are all qualitatively unchanged regardless of exactly how we choose the 

1023: quenching criterion. We subsequently refer to this as a ``modified \citet{bower:sam}'' model, 

1024: and emphasize that we are not plotting the predictions of the original model 

1025: \citep[which are, for our purposes, equivalent to the predictions of][]{croton:sam}, but using 

1026: it to represent the predictions of a cosmological model for secular evolution, in the case 

1027: where that evolution dominates galaxy quenching. 

1028: 

1029: We extract 

1030: the $z=0$ predictions of both models, and classify galaxies as either red or blue following 

1031: the criteria of the authors (namely colors $(U-B)>0.8$ being ``red''), although it does 

1032: not change our qualitative comparisons if we adopt a magnitude-dependent 

1033: color limit \citep[although, as noted by][this reveals that high-mass galaxies in both 

1034: models are ``too blue'']{weinmann:group.cat.vs.sam}. We extract these properties 

1035: only for central galaxies -- both semi-analytic models invoke 

1036: alternative physical mechanisms such as ram pressure stripping 

1037: to rapidly redden essentially all satellite galaxies. While there is no doubt this is 

1038: an important mechanism, it has nothing to do with the models we wish to compare, 

1039: and would only confuse the comparison we wish to highlight (and obscure 

1040: the important differences between models). The position of these systems in 

1041: the $\mgal-\mhalo$ space is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:real.cartoon}, in the 

1042: same manner as Figure~\ref{fig:cartoon}. 

1043: 

1044: To compare to these models in more detail, we construct a 

1045: realistic Monte Carlo population of galaxies of different masses in different mass halos, 

1046: from our merger-driven model. 

1047: Beginning with a small halo at high redshift, 

1048: hosting a (initially) 

1049: disk-dominated galaxy (in the absence of mergers), 

1050: we integrate forward in time. 

1051: The average halo mass accretion history in a 

1052: $\Lambda{\rm CDM}$ universe is well-defined \citep[here we adopt 

1053: the average progenitor mass as a function of time from][]{neistein:natural.downsizing}.

1054: At each point in time, the average mass of a disk galaxy in such a halo can 

1055: be estimated empirically, either from halo occupation models \citep[e.g.,][]{yang:clf,

1056: conroy:monotonic.hod,wang:sdss.hod}, 

1057: adopting the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation \citep[assuming the 

1058: disk circular velocity traces maximal halo circular velocity, e.g.][]{mcgaugh.tf.old,

1059: mcgaugh:tf,belldejong:tf}, or assuming a 

1060: constant baryon fraction in the galaxy. 

1061: We henceforth adopt the baryonic Tully-Fisher expectation for 

1062: $M_{\rm disk}(\mhalo)$, which we assume does not evolve with redshift 

1063: \citep[as suggested by a large number of observations at least to $z\sim1.5$, 

1064: and by some to $z\gtrsim3$;][]{conselice:tf.evolution,

1065: flores:tf.evolution,bell:tf.evolution,kassin:tf.evolution,vandokkum:tf.evolution}, 

1066: but we have tried all three estimators, and find similar results. 

1067: This is not surprising, since, as discussed in \S~\ref{sec:mergers}, 

1068: observations find there is little or no evolution in most general halo occupation 

1069: statistics of star-forming galaxies (i.e.\ average baryonic mass 

1070: hosted by an ``un-quenched'' halo of a given mass) even to $z\sim4$ 

1071: \citep{yan:clf.evolution,heymans:highz.baryon.fractions,

1072: conroy:monotonic.hod,conroy:mhalo-mgal.evol}. 

1073: 

1074: At each time,

1075: we probabilistically increase the disk mass with the halo mass, such that 

1076: an ensemble of these Monte Carlo simulations always has the appropriate 

1077: mean $M_{\rm disk}(\mhalo)$ and observationally measured scatter about this 

1078: quantity.  Then, we calculate the probability of a major gas-rich merger, 

1079: specifically the probability both that the halo has accreted another halo hosting a 

1080: galaxy of comparable mass (mass ratio $<3:1$) and that the two will merge 

1081: in the given timestep. This calculation is identical to that in \S~\ref{sec:mergers} 

1082: (see \paperone\ for details), 

1083: where the former probability 

1084: has been determined from dark-matter simulations (i.e.\ the probability 

1085: of hosting or accreting a subhalo of the appropriate mass range) and the latter 

1086: is the ratio ${\rm d}t / \tmerger$ (where $\tmerger$ is the merger timescale as 

1087: in \S~\ref{sec:mergers}; we generally adopt the dynamical friction timescale 

1088: in what follows, but our 

1089: results are qualitatively similar regardless of this choice). 

1090: Based on this probability, it is randomly determined whether or 

1091: not the galaxies merge. If so, the final stellar mass is just the sum of the two 

1092: pre-merger baryonic masses, and we assume zero further growth through 

1093: star formation (although growth via dry mergers is allowed). 

1094: 

1095: We technically

1096: integrate this model only from $z\sim10$ to $z=0$ (or where $\mhalo>10^{9}\,\msun$), 

1097: but find the results are reasonably converged with respect to this choice (although 

1098: in principle every halo may have a major merger if we integrated to 

1099: infinite redshift or $\mhalo=0$, these mergers are meaningless for our purposes 

1100: as there is no significant galaxy formed inside the halo). 

1101: Running a large sample of Monte Carlo realizations for each $\mhalo$, we 

1102: obtain a bivariate $z=0$ distribution of early and late-type galaxies in 

1103: $\mgal$ and $\mhalo$ which reflects our models. The resulting predictions 

1104: are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:real.cartoon}. 

1105: 

1106: Although this in some sense serves as a crude toy semi-analytic model, 

1107: we adopt this approach specifically to minimize the uncertainty owing to choices 

1108: such as the modeling of star formation and accretion in galactic disks. Instead, we 

1109: adopt as much as possible in a purely empirical fashion, to isolate 

1110: the predictions of a merger-driven quenching model (and not confuse these 

1111: with degeneracies in modeling disk formation). Since mergers will efficiently convert 

1112: gas to stars, and their gravitational processes are not changed by the ratio of 

1113: gas to stellar mass, our results are also entirely independent of the star formation 

1114: histories in the disks -- we only need to inform our predictions with a rough 

1115: estimate of the masses of disks hosted by halos of a given $\mhalo$. Ultimately, 

1116: adding the complications of our Monte Carlo tests allows us to construct a comparison to the 

1117: \citet{croton:sam} and modified \citet{bower:sam} models, but yields a qualitatively similar 

1118: result to our naive cartoon expectation in Figure~\ref{fig:cartoon}. 

1119: (Note that there are some differences in the low-mass star-forming galaxies 

1120: between the various models, owing to their treatment of star formation, but 

1121: this is unimportant for any of our conclusions.) 

1122: 

1123: \begin{figure}

1124:     \centering

1125:     \figexpand

1126:     %\plotone{red.fractions.compare.ps}

1127:     \plotter{f7.ps}

1128:     \caption{{\em Top:} Local fraction of red/early-type (major merger remnant) 

1129:     central galaxies 

1130:     as a function of halo mass, from our prediction in Figure~\ref{fig:real.cartoon}. 

1131:     Linestyles adopt different estimations of the merger rate, as in Figure~\ref{fig:local.mf}.

1132:     Solid blue line shows the mean fraction, upper and lower green lines the fraction in 

1133:     the higher and lower stellar mass halves at each $\mhalo$, respectively. 

1134:     {\em Bottom:} Same, as a function of galaxy stellar mass. Green lines in this 

1135:     case are as the blue lines, but adopt a different halo occupation fit

1136:     (as the dashed black lines in Figure~\ref{fig:local.mf}).

1137:     Black squares show the observed early-type galaxy 

1138:     fraction as a function of mass from \citet{bell:mfs}. 

1139:     \label{fig:red.frac.summary}}

1140: \end{figure}

1141: \begin{figure}

1142:     \centering

1143:     \figexpand

1144:     %\plotone{demo.quenching.ps}

1145:     \plotone{f8.ps}

1146:     \caption{Mean central galaxy baryonic 

1147:     mass as a function of halo mass (blue lines, as in Figure~\ref{fig:local.mf}), from our prediction 

1148:     in Figure~\ref{fig:real.cartoon}. Dotted orange line corresponds to the universal 

1149:     baryon fraction. 

1150:     Points show the observationally estimated mean 

1151:     central galaxy stellar mass as a function of halo mass 

1152:     from \citet{wang:sdss.hod} (HOD fitting) and \citet{mandelbaum:mhalo} (weak lensing).

1153:     The merger-driven quenching model 

1154:     naturally predicts the red fraction as a function of mass and the turnover in 

1155:     the $\mgal(\mhalo)$ relation (equivalently, turnover in galaxy $M/L$ ratios above 

1156:     $\sim\mstar$), without any input parameters describing a preferred mass scale. 

1157:     \label{fig:mgal.mean.vs.mhalo}}

1158: \end{figure}

1159: 

1160: Quantitatively, we can now integrate the results of Figure~\ref{fig:real.cartoon} 

1161: and predict the red (i.e.\ merger remnant) fraction as a bivariate 

1162: function of $\mgal$ and $\mhalo$; Figure~\ref{fig:red.frac.summary} shows this. 

1163: In order to represent the real observations, we add the appropriate 

1164: observational errors in both $\mgal$ and $\mhalo$ ($\sigma_{\mgal}\approx0.2$\,dex, 

1165: $\sigma_{\mhalo}\approx0.4$\,dex), for both our model and the \citet{croton:sam,bower:sam} 

1166: models. This does not qualitatively change any of the results, but does smooth some of 

1167: the dependencies (and tends to remove unphysical features in the models 

1168: caused by undersampling). 

1169: 

1170: In a global sense, the trends appear to be reasonably accurate -- they agree well 

1171: with the observed fraction of red galaxies as a function of galaxy stellar mass 

1172: \citep{bell:mfs}. Figure~\ref{fig:mgal.mean.vs.mhalo} compares the 

1173: mean $\mgal$ at each $\mhalo$ predicted from this model. Quenching 

1174: associated with  

1175: major mergers naturally predicts the turnover in $\mgal(\mhalo)$ around 

1176: $\mgal\sim10^{11}\,\msun$. We emphasize that there are no parameters in 

1177: our model which have been tuned or otherwise adjusted to give this 

1178: result -- unlike halo quenching models which empirically adopt 

1179: a specific quenching mass, we have no input parameter which 

1180: fixes this mass. Rather, the turnover arises self-consistently, as the result of 

1181: major, gas-rich mergers first becoming efficient at these masses, and subsequent 

1182: star formation being quenched. 

1183: 

1184: \begin{figure*}

1185:     \centering

1186:     %\figexpand

1187:     %\plotone{red.frac.bivar.ps}

1188:     \plotone{f9.ps}

1189:     \caption{Red/early-type fraction $f_{\rm red}$ (of {\em central galaxies only})

1190:     as a bivariate function of stellar mass/luminosity and 

1191:     halo mass/local environment. 

1192:     We specifically exclude satellites, as they tend to be uniformly red (making the predicted 

1193:     red fractions degenerate between central galaxy quenching mechanisms and 

1194:     the satellite fraction as a function of $\mhalo$ and $\mgal$). 

1195:     {\em Top Left:} Observed $f_{\rm red}$ of central galaxies as a function of host 

1196:     halo mass (estimated from matching group catalogues to halo mass functions) 

1197:     in bins of galaxy $r$-band magnitude, from \citet[][solid line, filled points]{weinmann:obs.hod} and 

1198:     \citet[][dashed line, open points]{martinez:redfrac.groups,martinez:redfrac.evol}.

1199:     (Note there appears to be some small fraction of massive galaxies in small halos in each panel: this 

1200:     owes to scatter in the halo and stellar mass estimators, but has no effect on the conclusions.)

1201:     {\em Top Right:} Predicted $f_{\rm red}$ of central galaxies 

1202:     from our merger model, as a function of halo mass in bins of galaxy stellar mass, as labeled

1203:     (bins of a given color/style roughly correspond to the observed $r$-band absolute 

1204:     magnitude ranges of the same color/style). 

1205:     {\em Bottom Left:} Same, from the \citet{croton:sam} halo quenching model. We 

1206:     qualitatively label the quenching halo mass, which separates uniformly low 

1207:     and uniformly high $f_{\rm red}$ in this model.

1208:     {\em Bottom Right:} Same, from the modified \citet{bower:sam} secular model. Dotted lines 

1209:     show the $\mhalo$-independent red fraction for 

1210:     each $\mgal$ if the model were strictly dependent on only $\mgal$ (the model 

1211:     treats satellites and central galaxies differently, so the normalizations of these 

1212:     $f_{\rm red}$ estimates does not agree at low $\mgal$). 

1213:     The behavior of the three models is qualitatively different, as in Figure~\ref{fig:real.cartoon}, 

1214:     with a merger model predicting a joint dependence on $\mgal$ and $\mhalo$ 

1215:     distinct from the halo quenching or secular models. 

1216:     \label{fig:red.frac.bivar}}

1217: \end{figure*}

1218: 

1219: We now examine the predicted red fractions in greater detail, by breaking them 

1220: down as a bivariate function of both $\mgal$ and $\mhalo$. Figure~\ref{fig:red.frac.bivar} 

1221: shows this, for each of the three models as in Figure~\ref{fig:real.cartoon}, 

1222: and several observational determinations. Specifically, we calculate the 

1223: red/early-type fractions predicted as a function of $\mhalo$, in bins of 

1224: galaxy stellar mass $\mgal$. 

1225: Note that a detailed quantitative comparison with the observations 

1226: is difficult and beyond the scope of this paper, as 

1227: the exact absolute values of $f_{\rm red}$ depend sensitively on the selection 

1228: method and conversion between group properties and halo mass

1229: \citep[see, e.g.][]{cooper:z1.color.density}. But the qualitative 

1230: trends are robust to these effects \citep[see e.g.][]{weinmann:group.cat.vs.sam,

1231: cooper:color.density.evol,cooper:z1.color.density}.

1232: For all the model predictions and the observational 

1233: analogues, we consider only the red fraction of central galaxies. In most models, 

1234: satellite galaxies are uniformly (or close to uniformly) red, so considering the 

1235: total (central+satellite) red fraction mixes the consequences of the 

1236: physics causing quenching (what makes central galaxies red) with the 

1237: estimated satellite fraction as a function of $\mgal$ and $\mhalo$ (which, while 

1238: importantly informing models, contains no information about the physics of 

1239: central galaxy quenching). 

1240: 

1241: From the observed group catalogues of 

1242: \citet{weinmann:obs.hod} and 

1243: \citet{martinez:redfrac.groups,martinez:redfrac.evol}, which consider the 

1244: same (again, for central galaxies only), there are a few important qualitative trends. 

1245: These include: (1) a strong dependence of red fraction on halo mass, but

1246: (2) a significant residual dependence on galaxy mass/luminosity, (3) 

1247: a lack of any sharp characteristic scale in $\mhalo$, (4) a relatively high 

1248: red fraction ($f_{\rm red}\gtrsim0.5$) for the most massive/luminous systems even 

1249: at low halo masses ($\mhalo\lesssim10^{12}\,\msun$), and 

1250: (5) a similar, relatively high red fraction ($f_{\rm red}\gtrsim0.5$) 

1251: for the least massive/luminous systems at high halo masses 

1252: ($\mhalo\gtrsim10^{13}\,\msun$).

1253: 

1254: In contrast to the observed trends, 

1255: the \citet{croton:sam} model is, as expected, similar to a pure halo quenching 

1256: model -- there is a sharp transition from uniformly low red fractions ($f_{\rm red}\lesssim0.1$) 

1257: below the halo quenching mass ($\sim$a few $10^{12}\,\msun$) to 

1258: uniformly high red fractions above this halo mass, with a weak residual dependence 

1259: on galaxy mass. The low red fraction at small halo masses also forces these 

1260: models to assume a high red satellite fraction at these masses 

1261: (in order to match the global red galaxy mass functions), in disagreement 

1262: with observations \citep{weinmann:obs.hod}. 

1263: 

1264: The public (original) version of the \citet{bower:sam} model yields an essentially 

1265: identical prediction to the \citet{croton:sam} model in this space, as 

1266: the development of a hot halo is assumed to be the key criterion for quenching. 

1267: The modified \citet{bower:sam} model which we consider, on the other hand, 

1268: is quite similar to a pure secular model (as expected), 

1269: with $f_{\rm red}$ nearly independent of $\mhalo$ at each $\mgal$. 

1270: There is some weak dependence, because galaxies living in high-mass halos 

1271: tend to have earlier formation times, meaning that their progenitor disks 

1272: were more compact and therefore (according to the model assumptions) 

1273: more prone to massive instabilities, but 

1274: the primary dependence of $f_{\rm red}$ is clearly on galaxy mass.

1275: 

1276: Neither of these 

1277: predictions agrees qualitatively with the observations. 

1278: The prediction from 

1279: our merger model, however, matches these features -- the dependence 

1280: on $\mhalo$ is stronger than that in the modified \citet{bower:sam} model 

1281: (or a ``toy'' secular model) in considerably 

1282: better agreement with the observations, but the residual dependence on $\mgal$ 

1283: is stronger than that in \citet{croton:sam}. There is no sharp transition at 

1284: some specific $\mhalo$, and the red fraction of massive systems 

1285: remains relatively high at lower $\mhalo$, in contrast to the \citet{croton:sam} 

1286: predictions. However, there is still a significant dependence on halo mass, 

1287: and low stellar mass systems do become red at large $\mhalo$, 

1288: in contrast to the secular/modified \citet{bower:sam} model predictions. 

1289: 

1290: 

1291: \begin{figure}

1292:     \centering

1293:     \figexpand

1294:     %\plotone{redfrac.local.overdensity.ps}

1295:     \plotone{f10.ps}

1296:     \caption{Dependence of red fraction on density at small scales 

1297:     ({\em left}) and large scales ({\em right}), at fixed 

1298:     halo mass (i.e.\ considering $f_{\rm red}/\langle f_{\rm red} \rangle$ 

1299:     versus density $(1+\delta_{r})/\langle (1+\delta_{r}) \rangle$ at fixed $\mhalo$). 

1300:     Points show the observations from \citet{blanton:smallscale.env}, 

1301:     for SDSS groups with different total group luminosities (as labeled; this should 

1302:     be a good proxy for total group halo mass). Lines show our prediction, 

1303:     which has an increasing $f_{\rm early}$ with overdensity on small scales, 

1304:     as a local galaxy overdensity implies an increased probability of major mergers. 

1305:     Solid line is for $z=0$, $\mhalo=\mstar\approx1.5\times10^{12}\,h^{-1}\,\msun$ halos, 

1306:     dashed lines show how this changes for more massive ($\mhalo\sim10^{15}\,h^{-1}\,\msun$, 

1307:     shallower dependence on density) and less massive 

1308:     ($\mhalo\sim10^{10}\,h^{-1}\,\msun$, 

1309:     steeper dependence on density) halos. The merger-driven quenching hypothesis naturally 

1310:     explains a dependence on small-scale overdensity, similar to that observed. 

1311:     \label{fig:fred.density}}

1312: \end{figure}

1313: 

1314: Observationally, when red fractions are quantified as a function of quantities 

1315: such as galaxy density $\rho$ or surface density $\Sigma$, there is some 

1316: ambiguity in what these quantities represent. To lowest order, they serve 

1317: as tracers of halo mass and are 

1318: directly comparable to predictions such as those in 

1319: Figure~\ref{fig:red.frac.bivar}. However, \citet{baldry06:redfrac.vs.m.env} and 

1320: others have suggested that the trends 

1321: in $f_{\rm red}$ with these quantities argue for some level of dependence 

1322: on environment, even after accounting for the 

1323: primary dependence on halo mass. 

1324: 

1325: In greater detail, 

1326: \citet{blanton:smallscale.env} investigate this possibility by determining 

1327: $f_{\rm red}$ in SDSS groups as a function of local density ($1+\delta_{r}$; 

1328: defined as the galaxy number density within a radius $r$ relative 

1329: to the mean number density in that radius) on 

1330: various scales, in narrow bins of total group luminosity \citep[which 

1331: should be a good proxy for group halo mass, see][]

1332: {yang:group.finder,vandenbosch:concordance.hod}. 

1333: At fixed total group luminosity (roughly equivalent to fixed group parent halo 

1334: mass), they find no 

1335: evidence for an additional dependence of red fraction on large-scale 

1336: environment, measured at projected radii $6 < r < 10$ 

1337: and $0.3 < r < 1\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}$. 

1338: However, at small radii 

1339: $0.1 < r < 0.3\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}$ they find a significant dependence of 

1340: $f_{\rm red}$ on density for all group luminosities (halo masses) 

1341: which they consider. A similar result is found by 

1342: \citet{park:redfrac} and \citet{kauffmann:sf.vs.env}. 

1343: 

1344: In a halo quenching or secular model, this 

1345: is difficult to explain, as quenching depends only on either halo mass or 

1346: internal galaxy properties, respectively. However, as we have discussed 

1347: for both ongoing/recent galaxy mergers and 

1348: quasars in \paperone, mergers are more likely to occur in regions 

1349: with galaxy overdensities on very small scales. The bias to increasing 

1350: fractions of merger remnants with increasing small scale density in 

1351: \paperone\ (see Figures~7 \&\ 17 in that paper) directly translates to a prediction 

1352: for the dependence of $f_{\rm red}$ on small scale overdensity, which we 

1353: show in Figure~\ref{fig:fred.density}. The merger hypothesis provides a natural 

1354: explanation for the observed dependence on small-scale overdensities. 

1355: 

1356: We caution, however, that this explanation is not unique. If satellites 

1357: are preferentially red, then a simple autocorrelation function or dependence of 

1358: overall red fraction on density \citep[such as that observed by][]{blanton:smallscale.env} of 

1359: red galaxies will see a similar effect (with the excess on small scales reflecting 

1360: the abundance of satellite galaxies). Furthermore, mergers (by definition) consume 

1361: some of the galaxies that (initially) define the small-scale overdensity, so it is not clear 

1362: how much of this effect might be wiped out by the mergers themselves. In other words, 

1363: seeing this effect weakly does not necessarily argue against a merger-driven model 

1364: for quenching, and theoretical study in cosmological simulations is needed for 

1365: more detailed predictions.

1366: 

1367: A more rigorous test of this would 

1368: be to compare the cross-correlation of central red galaxies with 

1369: all other galaxies, i.e.\ to more directly test whether central red galaxies preferentially 

1370: live in regions of small-scale galaxy overdensity. Early analysis along these 

1371: lines does suggest a similar conclusion \citep{masjedi:cross.correlations}, 

1372: in agreement with these 

1373: predictions (and difficult to reconcile in models where quenching is a pure 

1374: function of galaxy or halo mass). 

1375: 

1376: \subsection{Redshift Evolution of Quenched Fractions and Color-Morphology-Density Relations}

1377: \label{sec:ellipticals:evolution}

1378: 

1379: \begin{figure}

1380:     \centering

1381:     \figexpand

1382:     %\plotone{red.mass.density.models.ps}

1383:     \plotone{f11.ps}

1384:     \caption{Integrated stellar mass density of red or early-type galaxies as a function of redshift. 

1385:     The predictions from a merger quenching model (with shaded range reflecting the range of 

1386:     predictions from our different adopted models) 

1387:     and observations are as in Figure~\ref{fig:red.mass.density}. We compare the predictions of 

1388:     a pure secular model (based on the observed total mass function in \citet{fontana:highz.mfs}, 

1389:     where we assume the red fraction as a function of galaxy mass is identical to that 

1390:     at $z=0$), 

1391:     and various halo quenching models (where we assume all systems above the quoted 

1392:     halo quenching masses in our halo occupation model are quenched). 

1393:     In order to form massive galaxies at high redshift, 

1394:     the traditional halo quenching models must allow cold accretion flows in all but the most massive 

1395:     halos at $z\gtrsim2-3$, yielding almost no red galaxies at these redshifts. In contrast, by allowing 

1396:     reddening to occur in a range of halo masses (which might otherwise continue accreting), 

1397:     the merger and secular model produce a sufficient density of passive galaxies at high 

1398:     redshift. 

1399:     \label{fig:red.mass.density.models}}

1400: \end{figure}

1401: We next examine the redshift evolution of the trends in red galaxy 

1402: fraction with stellar and/or halo mass. 

1403: First, we return to our prediction for the mass density of passive systems as a function 

1404: of redshift (Figure~\ref{fig:red.mass.density}). As noted there, a merger quenching 

1405: model predicts a (relatively high) 

1406: density of passively evolving, quenched systems in good agreement 

1407: with that observed at high redshifts $z\gtrsim2-3$. 

1408: This is in strong contrast to many pure hot-halo quenching models, in 

1409: which cold accretion within a hot halo persists at high redshifts $z\gtrsim2$. 

1410: Figure~\ref{fig:red.mass.density.models} contrasts the merger-driven prediction 

1411: with that from several halo quenching models \citep{dekelbirnboim:mquench,

1412: cattaneo:sam,croton:sam}, where we assume 

1413: (since we are ultimately just making a qualitative comparison) that 

1414: all systems above their quoted quenching halo mass thresholds are red/passive 

1415: (but our explicit comparison with these models in \S~\ref{sec:ellipticals:fractions} 

1416: suggests this is actually a good approximation to their predictions). Note that 

1417: for the \citet{cattaneo:sam}, this is a comparison with the halo quenching-only 

1418: version of their model (since they also consider a model in which, like ours herein, 

1419: major merger remnants are automatically quenched). We then use our 

1420: halo occupation model to determine the ``red'' mass density. 

1421: 

1422: The result is 

1423: similar in each halo quenching model: above $z\sim2-3$, the density of passive galaxies plummets. 

1424: In detail, for example, 

1425: the \citet{dekelbirnboim:mquench} derivation of the hot halo quenching mass 

1426: predicts that at $z\sim3.5$, cold flows continue within all $\mhalo \lesssim10^{14}\,\msun$ 

1427: halos, which allows only a completely negligible maximum 

1428: red galaxy mass density (since such halos are extremely rare at high redshifts). 

1429: As demonstrated by \citet{cattaneo:sam}, introducing these ``cold flows in hot halos'' is 

1430: necessary for these models to match the overall density of massive galaxies 

1431: and cosmic star formation rate density at 

1432: high redshift. This owes to the steep step-function transition from unquenched to 

1433: quenched systems around the quenching mass 

1434: in such models (see Figure~\ref{fig:red.frac.bivar}) -- 

1435: if the quenching mass is lowered (to make for more red galaxies), then the models 

1436: will quench systems too early, and not form any 

1437: high-redshift massive galaxies in the first place. 

1438: 

1439: In contrast, a merger driven model 

1440: is able to predict that the appropriate fraction of these massive, high 

1441: redshift galaxies are passive. This is because it allows for reddening to 

1442: be somewhat uncoupled from halo mass; i.e.\ systems in massive halos might 

1443: generally continue to accrete, but some fraction can redden and build up 

1444: sufficient mass density of passive galaxies (without reddening all systems of these 

1445: masses and destroying the ability to make massive galaxies in short cosmic times). 

1446: 

1447: In addition, we compare the simplest secular model (where we just adopt our halo occupation

1448: model and assume the red fraction as a function of galaxy mass is identical to that 

1449: at $z=0$; as in \S~\ref{sec:ellipticals:fractions}), and (for the same reasons) 

1450: find that it is also able to reproduce the observations. This should not be surprising, 

1451: since in this toy model, matching the overall galaxy mass density is 

1452: implicit, and the red fractions are as high as they are at $z=0$. However, we 

1453: will show that there are other aspects in which the redshift evolution of 

1454: red fractions predicted by a secular model are in conflict with the observations. 

1455: 

1456: Interestingly, simulations suggest that hot halos often develop at lower 

1457: masses than the halo quenching models require 

1458: \citep[$\sim10^{11.5}\,\msun$; see][]{keres:hot.halos} -- in other words, the possibility that 

1459: such halos are {\em necessary} for quenching is viable, since this mass threshold 

1460: allows for the possibility of sufficient populations of passive, high-redshift galaxies. 

1461: However, the idea that such halos are {\em sufficient} for quenching (as 

1462: is effectively true in the halo quenching models) is not viable, 

1463: since it prevents the formation/growth of galaxies beyond this mass threshold 

1464: and cannot form sufficient numbers of massive galaxies nor yield a sufficiently 

1465: high global star formation rate at high redshift. 

1466: 

1467: \begin{figure}

1468:     \centering

1469:     %\figexpand

1470:     %\plotone{red.fractions.z.w.noobs.ps}

1471:     \plotter{f12.ps}

1472:     \caption{{\em Top:} Evolution in the predicted early-type fraction as a function of 

1473:     halo mass (see Figure~\ref{fig:red.frac.summary}) with redshift (here for 

1474:     just our standard model).

1475:     {\em Bottom:} Same, but as a function of the halo clustering 

1476:     amplitude (calculated for each $\mhalo$, $z$) or (rough) equivalent 

1477:     correlation length $r_{0}$. The figure should be interpreted as reflecting 

1478:     the scales on which a color-density or morphology-density relation 

1479:     will manifest at different redshifts. At high redshifts, the highest-density 

1480:     regions (e.g.\ $b\gtrsim2$, $r_{0}\gtrsim10$ at $z\sim2$) 

1481:     will have built up a color-density relation, while at low redshifts 

1482:     the color-density relation will have built up even in field populations ($b\sim1$). 

1483:     \label{fig:fred.z.pred}}

1484: \end{figure}

1485: Figure~\ref{fig:fred.z.pred} shows the mean predicted early-type fraction 

1486: in our merger-driven model as a 

1487: function of halo mass (as in Figure~\ref{fig:red.frac.summary}) at 

1488: different redshifts. We also plot this as a function of 

1489: the estimated clustering amplitude for each $\mhalo$ (at each redshift), and 

1490: the (approximate) corresponding comoving correlation length $r_{0}$ 

1491: (where we define $r_{0} \equiv 5\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}\,[b(z)]^{2/\gamma}$, 

1492: where $\gamma\approx1.8$ as measured locally). At high redshifts,

1493: systems in only the most massive halos (i.e.\ most extreme overdensities) 

1494: have sufficiently rapid merger rates that they will have built up large  

1495: red fractions. In terms of $\mhalo$, the evolution appears relatively 

1496: weak, but in terms of the clustering amplitude, it is more 

1497: obvious (this owes to massive halos being rarer

1498: and corresponding to significantly higher-density 

1499: peaks at high redshifts). 

1500: 

1501: \begin{figure}

1502:     \centering

1503:     \figexpand

1504:     %\plotone{red.fractions.z.w.obs.ps}

1505:     \plotone{f13.ps}

1506:     \caption{As Figure~\ref{fig:fred.z.pred}, but comparing with 

1507:     observations. {\em Top Left:} Predicted red fraction versus 

1508:     halo mass and redshift, for typical halo masses (near $\mstar$) at $z\sim0-1$. 

1509:     {\em Bottom Left:} Observed red fraction verses density (which should 

1510:     trace $\mhalo$, to lowest order) at different redshifts from \citet{cooper:color.density.evol}. 

1511:     The predicted and observed relations flatten with redshift in a similar manner. 

1512:     {\em Top Right:} Predicted red fraction versus redshift, for different halo masses 

1513:     ($\log(\mhalo/h^{-1}\,\msun) = 10.0$, etc., as labeled). The most massive halos 

1514:     are in high-density regions which evolve most rapidly at high redshifts. 

1515:     {\em Bottom Right:} The observed red fraction versus redshift 

1516:     from \citet{cooper:color.density.evol} 

1517:     for the highest-density and 

1518:     lowest-density $1/3$ of systems at each redshift (shaded ranges). 

1519:     An exact quantitative comparison is sensitive to color selections and 

1520:     definitions of environment, but the qualitative trends are similar. 

1521:     \label{fig:fred.z.obs}}

1522: \end{figure}

1523: 

1524: Figure~\ref{fig:fred.z.obs} compares these predictions to 

1525: recent observations from \citet{cooper:color.density.evol}. The same trends are 

1526: evident for both our predictions and the observations. Looking at typical 

1527: halos, expected in average regions of the universe, the color-density 

1528: relation (more specifically, the dependence of $f_{\rm early}$ on halo 

1529: mass) nearly vanishes by $z\sim1.5$. Similar trends have been 

1530: observed by \citet{gerke:blue.frac.evol} and \citet{nuijten:color.density.evol}. 

1531: This does not mean that there is no 

1532: such trend -- it does not become prominent until higher-density, 

1533: rare high-halo mass peaks are probed, as in Figure~\ref{fig:fred.z.pred}. 

1534: This is also observed -- for the most massive, red galaxies at $z\sim2-4$, 

1535: a color-density relation is seen for dense environments with 

1536: $r_{0}\gtrsim10\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}$, similar to our predictions. 

1537: Again, we emphasize that a detailed quantitative comparison is outside the 

1538: scope of this paper, as it is sensitive to the galaxy and color selection method 

1539: and the exact definition of galaxy environments \citep{cooper:color.density.evol}, 

1540: but the qualitative trends should be robust. We also caution that the observations 

1541: (presently) mix central and satellite systems, although above moderate 

1542: $\sim\lstar$ luminosities, satellite systems should only be a small fraction of the 

1543: observed populations. 

1544: 

1545: \begin{figure}

1546:     \centering

1547:     \figexpand

1548:     %\plotone{red.fractions.z.models.ps}

1549:     \plotone{f14.ps}

1550:     \caption{Red or quenched fraction as a function of halo mass and redshift 

1551:     (as Figures~\ref{fig:fred.z.pred} \&\ \ref{fig:fred.z.obs}), for a pure 

1552:     secular model ({\em top}) and a pure halo quenching model ({\em bottom}). 

1553:     Because the average total mass of a disk in a halo of a given mass 

1554:     evolves weakly with redshift, there is little evolution in the 

1555:     color-density (morphology-density) relations in the secular model, 

1556:     in contrast to the observations.

1557:     \label{fig:fred.z.models}}

1558: \end{figure}

1559: 

1560: In Figure~\ref{fig:fred.z.models} we

1561: compare the evolution in the red fraction predicted as a function 

1562: of halo mass and redshift from our merger-driven model to that 

1563: predicted in a secular or halo quenching model. For the secular 

1564: model, we assume that the red fraction is a pure function of galaxy 

1565: mass (calibrated at $z=0$ as in Figure~\ref{fig:red.frac.bivar}) -- 

1566: so the difference in red fraction as a function of halo mass reflects 

1567: only evolution in the typical stellar masses hosted in halos of a given 

1568: mass. As we have noted (see \S~\ref{sec:mergers}), this evolves 

1569: relatively weakly, and as a consequence there is little 

1570: evolution in the red fraction as a function of halo mass in secular models. 

1571: It is clear in Figure~\ref{fig:fred.z.models} that (in the secular model) 

1572: the color-density relation for 

1573: ``typical'' $\sim10^{11}-10^{12}\,h^{-1}\,\msun$ mass halos does 

1574: not vanish at $z\sim1.5$ as is observed. Although there might be 

1575: some apparent evolution (since, as noted in Figure~\ref{fig:fred.z.pred}, 

1576: the clustering of halos of fixed mass will vary with redshift), 

1577: there is little evolution in the color-density relations in 

1578: terms of halo mass in this model, and it is not obvious how 

1579: any fundamentally secular-dominated model can avoid this

1580: prediction. 

1581: 

1582: Interestingly, 

1583: \citet{cassata:blue.spheroid.frac} 

1584: observationally estimate that the pseudobulge fraction as a function of 

1585: redshift may exhibit this behavior (being essentially constant for 

1586: a given galaxy/halo mass), as expected if these are formed via secular 

1587: mechanisms, and \citet{sheth:bar.frac.evol} find 

1588: similar results for the evolution in disk bar fractions. 

1589: But \citet{cassata:blue.spheroid.frac} (and others) estimate that this pseudobulge population 

1590: accounts for only $\lesssim5\%$ of massive spheroids. 

1591: Future observations and direct 

1592: comparison with e.g.\ the model of \citet{bower:sam} can 

1593: place stronger constraints on these distinctions, but 

1594: even at present, the observations suggesting 

1595: evolution in the color-density relations at $z\gtrsim1$ 

1596: \citep{cooper:color.density.evol,gerke:blue.frac.evol,nuijten:color.density.evol} 

1597: appear to contradict the basic prediction of a model in which secular processes 

1598: dominate red galaxy formation.

1599: 

1600: We also consider the predictions from a halo quenching model 

1601: in Figure~\ref{fig:fred.z.models}. Specifically, we adopt the 

1602: red fraction as a function of halo mass from \citet{croton:sam} at 

1603: $z=0$ (a near step-function rise near the halo quenching mass), and 

1604: renormalize it by the evolution in the halo quenching mass 

1605: with redshift (i.e.\ shift the step function to whatever halo mass corresponds 

1606: to the model halo quenching mass at that redshift). The predictions are 

1607: somewhat different from those of our merger-driven model, but in this 

1608: case that owes mostly to the difference in red fraction as a function of 

1609: halo mass at fixed redshift (as in Figure~\ref{fig:red.frac.bivar}). 

1610: Future observations of the red fraction as a bivariate function of 

1611: galaxy and halo mass at different redshifts can break these degeneracies, 

1612: but for now we note that the evolution is also qualitatively 

1613: consistent with the observations -- in both this model and the merger-driven 

1614: model, the field color-density relation begins to disappear around $z\gtrsim1$, 

1615: with the buildup of the color-density relation occurring at higher masses (higher density 

1616: environments) at higher redshifts. 

1617: 

1618: \subsection{The Role of Dissipationless or ``Dry'' Mergers}

1619: \label{sec:ellipticals:dry}

1620: 

1621: \begin{figure}

1622:     \centering

1623:     \figexpand

1624:     %\plotone{merger.type.vs.z.ps}

1625:     \plotone{f15.ps}

1626:     \caption{Average predicted major merger rate for central galaxies in 

1627:     halos of a given $z=0$ mass (as labeled). Lines show the average 

1628:     rate of disk-disk (gas-rich), mixed morphology (disk-spheroid, but also 

1629:     gas-rich), and 

1630:     spheroid-spheroid (gas-poor, i.e.\ dissipationless or ``dry'') mergers. 

1631:     In an integrated sense, mixed-morphology mergers are a

1632:     relatively small contribution to global merger rates.

1633:     Dissipationless mergers, however, 

1634:     become dominant in the massive ($\mhalo>10^{11}\,\msun$) systems at 

1635:     late times (once most systems of the given mass have already undergone 

1636:     at least one major merger). 

1637:     \label{fig:merger.types.z}}

1638: \end{figure}

1639: 

1640: Our model directly yields the major merger history of a given 

1641: galaxy population. We therefore briefly quantify this as a function of 

1642: galaxy properties, decomposing the types of 

1643: mergers in comparison to various observations. 

1644: Figure~\ref{fig:merger.types.z}, for example, shows the average 

1645: major merger rate predicted by our model (specifically our Monte Carlo 

1646: realization described in \S~\ref{sec:ellipticals:fractions}) for central galaxies of a 

1647: given mass, decomposed into the average rates of 

1648: disk-disk mergers (i.e.\ two systems which have not yet 

1649: undergone a major merger), mixed-morphology mergers, 

1650: and spheroid-spheroid mergers (i.e.\ two systems 

1651: which have both undergone previous major mergers). 

1652: 

1653: Once 

1654: the fraction of systems which 

1655: have undergone at least one major merger 

1656: at a given $\mgal$ and $\mhalo$ becomes large, spheroid-spheroid 

1657: mergers will naturally become the dominant type of merger. In 

1658: other words, merger efficiencies are not especially sensitive to 

1659: galaxy types (at fixed mass), and so reflect the abundance of 

1660: merged or un-merged systems.

1661: We note that only this category, the spheroid-spheroid mergers, 

1662: will be (in our model) gas-poor, dissipationless or ``dry'' mergers.

1663: We show the results just from our default model, but note that they 

1664: are qualitatively similar regardless of our choices of 

1665: halo occupation models, subhalo mass functions, or 

1666: merger timescales. 

1667: 

1668: The rate of dry mergers in massive systems is consistent with 

1669: observational estimates \citep{bell:dry.mergers,vandokkum:dry.mergers} 

1670: of roughly $\sim0.5-1$ dry mergers per massive elliptical since $z\sim1$ 

1671: (i.e.\ $\sim0.1\,$Gyr$^{-1}$ in $\mhalo\gtrsim10^{13}\,\msun$ halos at $z<1$). 

1672: Although briefly important in the transition between the dominance of 

1673: gas-rich and gas-poor mergers, mixed morphology mergers are 

1674: an intermediate phenomenon -- 

1675: most galaxies that have undergone only their 

1676: initial, gas-rich, spheroid forming major merger were produced in 

1677: disk-disk mergers, and the evolution of massive systems with 

1678: multiple mergers is dominated (at late times) by spheroid-spheroid 

1679: mergers. Note that for most of our predictions above, only the 

1680: fact that the merger remnant is quenched is important, although 

1681: the morphologies of the progenitors can change the ``type'' of merger. 

1682: 

1683: 

1684: \begin{figure}

1685:     \centering

1686:     \figexpand

1687:     %\plotone{mc.dry.ps}

1688:     \plotone{f16.ps}

1689:     \caption{{\em Top:} Average number (with $\sim1\,\sigma$ range 

1690:     shown as error bars) of major mergers 

1691:     in the history of a $z=0$ early-type galaxy (i.e.\ galaxy with 

1692:     at least one major merger in the past) as a function of 

1693:     galaxy stellar mass ({\em left}) or host halo mass ({\em right}). 

1694:     {\em Bottom:} Fraction of early-type galaxies 

1695:     (as a function of galaxy stellar mass [{\em left}] or 

1696:     host halo mass [{\em right}]) which have 

1697:     undergone just their one, initial (gas-rich) spheroid-forming 

1698:     major merger (blue), or more than one major merger (red). 

1699:     Orange lines decompose the red line into systems which have 

1700:     undergone exactly 2 major mergers (i.e.\ 1 gas-rich, and 

1701:     generally 1 spheroid-spheroid or ``dry'' merger; dot-dashed), 3 

1702:     major mergers (2 dry mergers; dashed), and 

1703:     $\ge4$ major mergers ($\ge3$ dry mergers; dotted). 

1704:     \label{fig:dry.int}}

1705: \end{figure}

1706: 

1707: Integrating these rates to $z=0$, Figure~\ref{fig:dry.int} shows the 

1708: mean number of major mergers (and fraction of 

1709: spheroids with a given number of previous major mergers) 

1710: as a function of spheroid or host halo mass.  We show this 

1711: only for spheroids, since (by definition) the fraction of late-type 

1712: systems (i.e.\ systems which have not undergone a major 

1713: merger) is identical to our blue fractions in \S~\ref{sec:ellipticals:fractions}. 

1714: There is a general trend for more massive systems to 

1715: have experienced a larger number of major mergers, as expected since 

1716: such systems form earlier and in more dense environments. 

1717: The trend is somewhat steeper as a function of galaxy mass than 

1718: as a function of halo mass -- this is also expected, since at a given 

1719: $\mhalo$, a larger number of mergers builds a more massive galaxy, 

1720: steepening the trend in number of mergers as a function of $\mgal$. 

1721: 

1722: The number of mergers as a function of mass is similar to 

1723: that predicted by various semi-analytic models 

1724: \citep[e.g.,][]{khochfar:sam,croton:sam,kang:sam} and relatable to (although not 

1725: identical to, owing to the difference in definitions) the 

1726: ``effective number of progenitors'' in \citet{delucia:ell.formation}. This is expected, 

1727: as mergers are a dynamical inevitability. There might be some 

1728: differences owing to various prescriptions for merger 

1729: timescales or different populations of galaxies in a given halo, 

1730: but the general results of Figure~\ref{fig:dry.int} are robust.

1731: The nature of these mergers, however (whether they are, for example, 

1732: gas-rich or gas-poor), does depend on the model.

1733: 

1734: It is well-established that there is a general dichotomy in the properties of elliptical 

1735: galaxies \citep[e.g.][]{bender:ell.kinematics,bender:ell.kinematics.a4,

1736: kormendy77:correlations,kormendy:wetvsdry,lauer:bimodal.profiles}. 

1737: Whether or not the division is strict \citep[see e.g.][]{ferrarese:profiles}, 

1738: the most massive ellipticals tend to be slowly rotating, anisotropic systems with 

1739: boxy isophotal shapes and central core profile deviations from a pure Sersic 

1740: profile. Less massive ellipticals, including most of the $\sim\lstar$ population, 

1741: tend to be more rapidly rotating, with disky isophotal shapes 

1742: and central light cusps. The transition between the two occurs at approximately 

1743: $M_{V}\sim-21.5$, and is commonly thought to derive from the difference between 

1744: systems which have undergone just their initial, spheroid forming and gas-rich 

1745: merger (which will dominate the less massive systems) and those which 

1746: have undergone subsequent spheroid-spheroid dry mergers (which will 

1747: dominate the most massive systems). 

1748: 

1749: Indeed, detailed numerical simulations 

1750: have shown that gas-rich disk mergers, and only gas-rich mergers, 

1751: reproduce the detailed distributions of kinematic properties of 

1752: the less massive/rapidly rotating/disky/cuspy $\sim\lstar$ elliptical population 

1753: \citep{cox:kinematics} -- including their rotation properties, 

1754: kinematic misalignments, isophotal shapes, ellipticities, central light cusps 

1755: \citep{mihos:cusps}, velocity profiles \citep{naab:gas}, 

1756: kinematic subsystems \citep{hernquist:kinematic.subsystems},

1757: and internal correlations \citep{robertson:fp}. 

1758: Likewise, mergers of kinematically hot systems, i.e.\ spheroid-spheroid mergers, 

1759: with little gas content, are required to produce the combination of 

1760: boxy isophotal shapes, anisotropy, and low rotation seen in most massive ellipticals 

1761: \citep{naab:dry.mergers}, and the commonly adopted theory of ``scouring'' by a binary black hole 

1762: in the formation of central cores also 

1763: requires that the mergers have very little cold gas content (since even 

1764: $\sim1\%$ of the stellar mass in cold gas falling to the center is $\gg\mbh$, and 

1765: would allow for rapid coalescence of a merging binary). 

1766: Mergers of disks, even when gas-free, cannot reproduce the combination of 

1767: low ellipticities and little rotation seen in the most massive spheroids 

1768: \citep{cox:kinematics}.

1769: 

1770: \begin{figure}

1771:     \centering

1772:     \figexpand

1773:     %\plotone{mc.dry.obs.ps}

1774:     \plotter{f17.ps}

1775:     \caption{Predicted fraction of spheroids for which the last merger was a gas-rich, 

1776:     spheroid-forming 

1777:     major merger (blue), or for which 

1778:     the last merger was a subsequent spheroid-spheroid (dry) 

1779:     major merger (red), as a function of galaxy stellar mass. 

1780:     We compare with the observed fraction of cusped or cored-central profile 

1781:     ellipticals \citep[][]{lauer:bimodal.profiles}, the fraction of ellipticals with 

1782:     disky ($a_{4}/a>0$) or boxy isophotal shapes \citep[][circles and 

1783:     stars, respectively]{bender:ell.kinematics.a4,pasquali:boxy.frac}, 

1784:     and the fraction of rapidly ($\log{(v/\sigma)^{\ast}}>-0.15$) or slowly rotating/isotropic  

1785:     ellipticals \citep[][]{bender:ell.kinematics}. The dichotomy between 

1786:     elliptical types is reproduced well, if dry mergers form 

1787:     cored, boxy, slowly rotating remnants (as suggested by numerical simulations). 

1788:     In each panel, the solid lines are the predictions of our merger model, 

1789:     dotted and dashed lines show the predictions of 

1790:     secular and halo quenching models, respectively (see Figure~\ref{fig:dry.models}; 

1791:     for clarity just the dry merger fractions are shown). 

1792:     \label{fig:dry.obs}}

1793: \end{figure}

1794: 

1795: Figure~\ref{fig:dry.obs} therefore compares the fraction of 

1796: cusp/core, disky/boxy, and rotating/isotropic ellipticals as a function of 

1797: galaxy stellar mass to our estimate of the fraction of $z=0$ 

1798: systems for which the last major merger was a 

1799: gas-rich, spheroid-forming merger, or for which 

1800: the last merger was a (subsequent) spheroid-spheroid 

1801: dry merger. The agreement is good, for all three indicators. Both the trend in the 

1802: fraction as a function of mass, and the transition at 

1803: $\mgal\sim2-3\times10^{11}\,\msun$ are predicted by our model. 

1804: This transition point is robust, with a rough $\sim0.2$\,dex 

1805: systematic uncertainty owing to the exact version of our model which is used to calculate 

1806: the merger histories (within the range of uncertainties from the observations). 

1807: 

1808: \begin{figure}

1809:     \centering

1810:     \figexpand

1811:     %\plotone{dry.vs.models.ps}

1812:     \plotone{f18.ps}

1813:     \caption{Predicted fraction of spheroids for which the last merger was a gas-rich, 

1814:     spheroid-forming 

1815:     major merger (blue), or for which 

1816:     the last merger was a subsequent spheroid-spheroid (dry) 

1817:     major merger (red), as a function of galaxy stellar mass as 

1818:     in Figure~\ref{fig:dry.obs}, but for different models. The predictions of our 

1819:     merger model ({\em solid}) are compared to those 

1820:     from a pure secular ({\em dotted}) or pure halo quenching ({\em dashed}) 

1821:     models. Secular models quench and form bulges via disk instability, so 

1822:     most mergers even at low mass are dry/spheroid-spheroid; halo quenching models do not 

1823:     prevent spheroids from re-forming disks below the halo quenching mass, 

1824:     so only the most massive mergers are dry/spheroid-spheroid. Both predict 

1825:     a transition point between cuspy/disky/rapidly rotating and 

1826:     cored/boxy/slow rotating ellipticals an order of magnitude discrepant from 

1827:     that shown in Figure~\ref{fig:dry.obs}.

1828:     \label{fig:dry.models}}

1829: \end{figure}

1830: 

1831: This additionally puts strong constraints on other models, 

1832: shown in Figure~\ref{fig:dry.models}. In a pure secular model, 

1833: most ellipticals are formed via disk instabilities -- this is already 

1834: in conflict with the kinematic arguments in \S~\ref{sec:intro} (which 

1835: find that disk instabilities generically form {\em pseudobulges}, not 

1836: the classical bulges that dominate the spheroid population at the 

1837: masses of interest here), but in addition, these systems 

1838: therefore are already 

1839: gas exhausted and quenched by the time they undergo their first major merger. 

1840: Nearly {\em all} major mergers in such a model, then, constitute dry, spheroid-spheroid 

1841: mergers. Adopting our calculated merger histories as a 

1842: function of mass (which are not sensitive to our model for 

1843: the colors and morphologies of the merging systems), but using the pure secular 

1844: model criteria (as in Figure~\ref{fig:red.frac.bivar}) to determine whether the progenitor 

1845: galaxies are already 

1846: red (i.e.\ whether or not the merger is dry), we obtain the 

1847: prediction that the transition to dominance of dry, spheroid-spheroid mergers 

1848: should occur at masses an order of magnitude lower, $\mgal\sim10^{10}\,\msun$, 

1849: an order-of-magnitude contradiction with the observations. 

1850: 

1851: Likewise, the simplest pure halo quenching models fail to reproduce the observed 

1852: elliptical dichotomy. In such models, a substantial fraction of galaxies will 

1853: experience their first major merger before the system crosses the quenching 

1854: halo mass threshold. Since they are below this threshold, the system will 

1855: re-accrete gas and re-form a disk, even for major mergers occurring 

1856: just a short time ($\sim$\,a couple Gyr) before the halo grows sufficiently 

1857: massive to cross this threshold. The next major merger will therefore 

1858: be assumed (in the model) to be a 

1859: gas-rich disk merger, instead of a dry spheroid-spheroid merger. 

1860: 

1861: We again calculate the 

1862: effects of this in Figure~\ref{fig:dry.models}, using our merger histories but 

1863: assuming that all systems below the halo quenching mass threshold of 

1864: \citet{croton:sam} (at each redshift) will re-accrete and remain gas-rich. 

1865: The result is that only the most extremely massive systems, which 

1866: crossed the halo quenching mass threshold at early times, 

1867: have had sufficient time to then undergo subsequent multiple mergers 

1868: (yielding at least one spheroid-spheroid dry merger). We obtain the 

1869: prediction that the transition point between 

1870: elliptical types should occur at masses an order of magnitude higher 

1871: than in our merger-driven model, at $\mgal>10^{12}\,\msun$, 

1872: once again an order-of-magnitude contradiction with the observations. 

1873: 

1874: This is further demonstrated in the recent analysis by \citet{kang:boxy.frac.sam}, 

1875: who consider the predictions for the number of boxy ellipticals 

1876: in a similar halo quenching model.  For the reasons given

1877: above, their model predicts that a negligible ($\ll 10\%$) fraction of 

1878: early-type galaxies have undergone a true dry (spheroid-spheroid) 

1879: merger, at all masses $\mgal\lesssim10^{12}\,\msun$. In order to 

1880: match the observations in Figure~\ref{fig:dry.obs}, they are forced 

1881: to assume that {\em any} major merger with a gas fraction 

1882: $f_{\rm gas}<0.1$ produces a boxy elliptical. As a consequence, 

1883: such a model

1884: predicts that $\sim1/3-1/2$ of ``boxy'' systems are actually formed 

1885: in mergers of two disk galaxies (low gas-fraction, 

1886: Milky Way-like disks), with the remaining $\sim1/2-2/3$ 

1887: formed in what we would call gas-rich, mixed morphology mergers. 

1888: However, numerical simulations of major mergers of disk-dominated 

1889: galaxies with gas fractions $f_{\rm gas}\lesssim0.1$, and 

1890: kinematic analysis of comparable local merger remnants \citep{rothberg.joseph:kinematics},

1891: have clearly established that such mergers {\em do not}, in fact, 

1892: generically produce boxy ellipticals. They instead produce systems 

1893: resembling disky ellipticals \citep{naab:gas}, with substantial 

1894: central cusps \citep[the cusps do not disappear even at low $f_{\rm gas}$;][]{mihos:cusps}, 

1895: and high ellipticities \citep{cox:kinematics}. 

1896: 

1897: If we instead begin knowing the properties of mergers that form 

1898: different types of ellipticals, the observations lead us to conclude that some form 

1899: of quenching must be able to operate, at least temporarily, in massive spheroids 

1900: after their first formation epoch, in order that they be truly dry/spheroidal in 

1901: subsequent mergers. A similar conclusion is reached by \citet{naab:dry.mergers}, 

1902: who find, using numerical simulations to measure the distribution of 

1903: spheroid isotropy/anisotropy that would be observed in a remnant of a merger of 

1904: specific types of progenitor galaxies, that matching the trend and transition to the 

1905: dominance of anisotropic galaxies requires the quenching of all systems with massive 

1906: bulges ($\gtrsim3\times10^{10}\,\msun$, in their case), effectively identical to 

1907: our merger quenching criterion.

1908: This demonstrates the strong constraints that can be placed on models for 

1909: how systems quench and become red galaxies, given the 

1910: specific kinds of galaxy mergers required to produce the correct distribution of 

1911: elliptical kinematic properties as a function of mass. A more detailed 

1912: investigation combining these cosmological predictions with 

1913: detailed numerical simulations, to study the effect of such mergers 

1914: on the kinematics, internal correlations, and redshift evolution of 

1915: massive ellipticals is outside the scope of this paper, but is an important

1916: subject of future work. 

1917: 

1918: 

1919: \section{The Physics of Quenching}

1920: \label{sec:quenching}

1921: 

1922: We now turn to a discussion of the physical mechanisms by which mergers 

1923: might both terminate significant star formation, and 

1924: result in a system which can maintain relatively low star formation rates. 

1925: It is not our intent in this discussion to prove that a particular 

1926: mode of feedback, for example, {\em must} quench subsequent star formation, 

1927: but rather to highlight the physical processes that operate in mergers 

1928: and their possible or likely effects on the intergalactic medium (IGM)

1929: and subsequent cooling of halo gas.

1930: 

1931: To do so, we examine a large suite of hydrodynamical simulations of 

1932: disk galaxies and major mergers between them, described in 

1933: detail in \citet{robertson:fp}.

1934: The simulations are high-resolution 

1935: (spatial resolution $\sim20\,{\rm pc}$ in the best cases), 

1936: fully hydrodynamic calculations

1937: which incorporate a self-consistent, observationally motivated model 

1938: for a multiphase interstellar medium,

1939: star formation, supernova feedback, and black 

1940: hole accretion and feedback \citep[for details, see][]{springel:multiphase,springel:models}. 

1941: We construct stable, equilibrium 

1942: disk galaxies to either merge or evolve in isolation as described in 

1943: \citet{robertson:fp}, with a dark matter halo, gas and stellar disk, and bulge 

1944: component relevant for observed galaxies of the given mass and 

1945: redshift, with e.g.\ the 

1946: scale length of these components set by the appropriate concentration 

1947: and spin parameter as a function of mass and redshift. We specifically consider 

1948: a subset of disks with baryonic masses 

1949: $\mgal \approx 10^{10},\,10^{11},\,10^{12}\,\msun$, and initial simulation gas 

1950: fractions of $f_{\rm gas}=0.4$ and $0.2$. In our merger simulations, we 

1951: place two identical disks with a relative inclination of $\sim60^{\circ}$ (representative 

1952: of most random encounters) on a parabolic orbit and allow the system to evolve 

1953: until it has completely relaxed (usually $\sim2.5-3$\,Gyr after the merger).

1954: The simulations were performed using the code

1955: Gadget-2 \citep{springel:gadget}, a fully conservative \citep{springel:entropy}

1956: implementation of smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH).

1957: 

1958: We show just the results from these cases in what follows, for simplicity, but 

1959: note that we have surveyed

1960: a much wider parameter space in 

1961: \citet{robertson:fp,hopkins:qso.all,cox:kinematics}, 

1962: varying masses from $\mgal \sim 10^{8} - 10^{13}\,\msun$, 

1963: gas fractions $\fgas = 0.05 - 1$, concentrations, bulge-to-disk ratios, 

1964: and (in mergers) orbital parameters, relative disk 

1965: inclinations, and merger mass ratios. We ultimately find qualitatively similar results 

1966: in all these cases, and for our purposes the subset of simulations shown is 

1967: representative of the important qualitative effects. 

1968: 

1969: In each simulation, we assume any stars 

1970: present at the beginning were formed according to the 

1971: best-fit observed $\tau$-model star formation history for disks of the given mass 

1972: in \citet{BelldeJong:disk.sfh} (appropriate for the redshift at which the 

1973: simulation is initialized). The stars formed during the simulation 

1974: have ages and metallicities determined self-consistently. Knowing 

1975: the star formation and enrichment history of all stars in the simulation, we 

1976: integrate to calculate the mean $(B-V)$ color of the galaxies at 

1977: each time, using the stellar population synthesis models of 

1978: \citet{BC03} with an assumed \citet{chabrier:imf} IMF 

1979: (similar in the predicted colors to our generally adopted diet Salpeter IMF). 

1980: Because the simulation also includes gas, we can self-consistently 

1981: integrate along the line of sight to all star particles and calculate 

1982: the appropriate dust reddening and extinction, 

1983: following \citet{hopkins:lifetimes.methods}. However, because we 

1984: are primarily interested in times 

1985: after the merger (i.e.\ after most gas is exhausted in star formation) 

1986: and average trends, we find this makes little difference.

1987: 

1988: \subsection{``Transition'': Termination of Star Formation in Major Mergers}

1989: \label{sec:quenching:transition}

1990: 

1991: It is relatively easy to see how a major merger can terminate star formation 

1992: in an immediate sense. The rapid consumption of gas in the final stages of 

1993: the merger, potentially coupled with expulsion by feedback mechanisms, 

1994: allows for a sharp truncation in star formation. Figure~\ref{fig:quench.colors} 

1995: illustrates this. 

1996: 

1997: \begin{figure*}

1998:     \centering

1999:     \figexpand

2000:     %\plotone{ssfr.ps}

2001:     \plotone{f19.ps}

2002:     \caption{Evolution of star formation rate (relative to that at $t=0$) 

2003:     and $(B-V)$ optical colors of galaxies of different initial 

2004:     baryonic masses and gas fractions (as labeled), 

2005:     in high-resolution hydrodynamic simulations. {\em Left:} Evolution of an isolated 

2006:     quenched or ``truncated'' disk which is completely cut off from 

2007:     accretion/external gas supplies at $t=0$. {\em Center:} Evolution of a 

2008:     merger remnant after the final galaxy coalescence/starburst phase at $t=0$. 

2009:     No feedback is included (i.e.\ the decrease in star formation rate derives 

2010:     entirely from gas exhaustion and shock-heating). {\em Right:} Evolution of a 

2011:     merger remnant, with feedback in the form of starburst-driven 

2012:     and quasar-driven winds. The mergers rapidly redden to 

2013:     the red sequence ($(B-V)\gtrsim0.8$) in $\lesssim1\,$Gyr, but 

2014:     an isolated disk (even with secular instabilities operating) remains blue. 

2015:     \label{fig:quench.colors}}

2016: \end{figure*}

2017: 

2018: We first consider 

2019: simulations of ``truncated'' disks; i.e.\ disks which are completely cut off 

2020: from a gas accretion supply. We construct appropriate disks of the 

2021: masses and gas fractions shown in Figure~\ref{fig:quench.colors} 

2022: and evolve them in isolation (allowing no further gas accretion). 

2023: Technically, in terms of the stellar populations and disk properties, 

2024: the plot assumes that disk accretion is truncated at $z=2$, appropriate 

2025: for most of the star formation in present-day early type galaxies 

2026: \citep[e.g.][and references therein]{gallazzi06:ages}, but the qualitative result is 

2027: almost identical regardless of when we initialize the simulation. 

2028: The star formation rate, plotted as a fraction of that

2029: at the onset of the simulation (since the optical colors here 

2030: are primarily influenced 

2031: by the relative decline in star formation), decays weakly. In 

2032: fact, this drop is similar to that expected in the simplest models. 

2033: For any disk 

2034: which obeys a $\tau$-model star formation history 

2035: $\dot{M} \propto \exp{(-t/\tau)}$ prior to truncation, and a 

2036: Kennicutt-Schmidt star formation law $\Sigma_{\rm SF} \propto \Sigma_{\rm gas}^{1.4}$

2037: \citep{kennicutt98}, it is straightforward to calculate the 

2038: subsequent evolution in the star formation rate if the disk accretion 

2039: is instantaneously truncated at a time $t_{f}$ (since the disk 

2040: size and baryonic mass should no longer evolve) -- 

2041: it will evolve as $\dot{M}\propto (1+ [t-t_{f}]/t_{0})^{-7/2}$, 

2042: where $t_{0}\approx\tau$ is a constant timescale which depends in detail 

2043: on the gas fraction, gas mass profile, and time of 

2044: star formation truncation ($t_{0}=0.72\,\tau$ for a 

2045: $10^{11}\,\msun$ exponential disk with $\fgas=0.4$ truncated at $z=2$). 

2046: 

2047: Figure~\ref{fig:quench.colors} next shows the star formation rate and colors 

2048: of merger remnants, after the merger itself. We consider two cases -- first, 

2049: with no feedback (i.e.\ no stellar winds, and no black hole accretion or feedback) 

2050: included, and second, with a standard, observationally calibrated and 

2051: relatively mild prescription for starburst-driven winds \citep[with a 

2052: wind outflow rate roughly half the star formation rate; see][]{cox:winds} and BH accretion 

2053: and feedback \citep[such that the BHs self-regulate at masses appropriate for 

2054: the observed $\mbh-\sigma$ relation; see][]{dimatteo:msigma}. Star formation 

2055: rapidly falls by orders of magnitude after the merger, even in the ``no feedback'' case, 

2056: as the majority of the gas supply has been rapidly consumed in a central 

2057: starburst and much of the remaining gas shock-heated into an X-ray halo 

2058: \citep{cox:xray.gas}. With feedback, the suppression is even more complete, as 

2059: stellar and quasar-driven winds clean up the last remaining traces of 

2060: star-forming gas. 

2061: In both cases, the remnants redden extremely rapidly, requiring 

2062: less than one Gyr to reach the red sequence. We do caution that, in mergers of 

2063: extremely gas-rich disks, feedback may be necessary to redden so 

2064: rapidly -- \citet{springel:red.galaxies} showed this for $100\%$ gas disks; but in any 

2065: case the level of feedback required is reasonable (comparable to that used here), 

2066: and this is probably only relevant for the highest-redshift mergers. 

2067: 

2068: Two conclusions emerge from Figure~\ref{fig:quench.colors}. 

2069: In the case of a 

2070: truncated disk, the decline in star formation rate is gradual, so the $(B-V)$ 

2071: colors redden very slowly. Even in a truncated $10^{12}\,\msun$ disk 

2072: after 3\,Gyr, the galaxy colors are significantly bluer ($(B-V)\sim0.6$) 

2073: than those of a typical red sequence galaxy ($(B-V)>0.8$). Furthermore, 

2074: although our simulations allow for disk instabilities (see Figure 6 of

2075: Springel et al. 2005b),

2076: and do form 

2077: spiral structure and even bars (seen in the 

2078: small variations in star formation rate), this (even in the most massive, gas rich cases) 

2079: does not consume sufficient gas to quench the disk. It is extremely difficult for 

2080: secular mechanisms to exhaust {\em all} the gas, especially in the outer, low density 

2081: regions of disks, and only a small continued rate of star formation is 

2082: necessary to keep the galaxies blue. 

2083: 

2084: Furthermore, it is observed 

2085: locally and at redshifts up to $z\sim1$ \citep{bell:combo17.lfs} that only a 

2086: small fraction of galaxies occupy the ``green valley'' between blue cloud and red 

2087: sequence. Assuming that $\sim1/2$ of $\sim\mstar$ galaxies must cross the 

2088: green valley since $z=1$ \citep[roughly what is expected from comparison of the 

2089: mass/luminosity functions, e.g.][]{martin:mass.flux}, a slow reddening such as that of the truncated 

2090: disk in Figure~\ref{fig:quench.colors} would imply as many as $\sim1/4-1/3$ of 

2091: all $\sim\mstar$ galaxies should occupy this region, compared to the $\ll10\%$ 

2092: observed \citep{bell:combo17.lfs}. Simply put, this would eliminate or 

2093: completely smooth out the observed 

2094: strongly bimodal color-magnitude distribution \citep[e.g.][]{baldry:bimodality}, 

2095: at least in moderately massive galaxies (our simulations are obviously not 

2096: meant to be applied to e.g.\ dwarf satellites). 

2097: In contrast, even gas-rich merger remnants with no feedback redden rapidly to 

2098: the red sequence, with a timescale for reddening 

2099: of $\lesssim1\,$Gyr that is completely consistent with the observed 

2100: color bimodality and small fraction of galaxies in the ``green valley.''

2101: 

2102: 

2103: \subsection{``Maintenance'': How Is Later Star Formation Suppressed?}

2104: \label{sec:quenching:maintenance}

2105: 

2106: It is apparent that merger remnants redden rapidly onto the 

2107: red sequence.  However, whether or not they 

2108: can stay on the red sequence for significant periods of time is

2109: less certain. 

2110: In other words, although mergers 

2111: easily {\em terminate} star formation, they will not remain 

2112: as long-lived red galaxies unless they also {\em maintain} low 

2113: levels of accretion and star formation. 

2114: 

2115: 

2116: \subsubsection{Is there a need to do so? The ``No Feedback'' Solution}

2117: \label{sec:quenching:maintenance:nofeedback}

2118: 

2119: One possibility is that this maintenance is trivial. Roughly half the 

2120: present mass density in red galaxies is built up since $z=1$, and the typical 

2121: host halo of a $\sim\mstar$ red galaxy at $z=0.5$ will grow only by $\sim0.2$\,dex 

2122: to $z=0$. While this is still enough fractional growth ($\sim50\%$) to make the galaxy 

2123: blue, if all the newly accreted gas were to cool immediately and form new stars, 

2124: it is unlikely that this small amount of gas at the virial radius could cool and 

2125: infall within the $\sim5\,$Gyr timescale to $z=0$. Indeed, the 

2126: ``cooling flow problem'' appears to be a problem for only the most massive 

2127: clusters at low redshifts 

2128: \citep[e.g.][but see also \citet{chen:cooling.flow.small}]{best:radio.loudness,vikhlinin:low.cooling.flows.at.highz}, 

2129: which suggests that cooling flows 

2130: are, in general, a late-forming phenomenon just now becoming relevant, 

2131: and perhaps were never suppressed in the past. Furthermore, many 

2132: ``central'' galaxies do not actually reside at the exact center of their group or 

2133: cluster potential \citep{mulchaey:midz.groups,jeltema:midz.groups}, 

2134: as is naively assumed in most analytic models, 

2135: which makes the formation of cooling flows less efficient. 

2136: Recent high-resolution simulations \citep{naab:etg.formation,keres:prep} 

2137: do suggest that, without any AGN or stellar feedback, the combination of virial shocks, 

2138: compression, and kinematic heating by clumpy accretion flows 

2139: can prevent substantial cooling at $z\lesssim1$, and that simple gas exhaustion 

2140: via star formation can quickly eliminate most of the low cooling-time gas. 

2141: 

2142: However, this is not entirely satisfactory, at least in the simplest sense. 

2143: First, cooling flows still do appear to be a problem in these systems -- and 

2144: the most massive galaxies are almost uniformly red \citep{baldry06:redfrac.vs.m.env}, 

2145: they do not appear to 

2146: be recently accreting/star-forming or ``becoming'' blue

2147: \citep[but see][who reach the opposite conclusion for 

2148: BCGs with large cooling flows]{rafferty:cooling.flows.are.growing}. Second, 

2149: even in the moderate-mass halo case considered above, the free-fall 

2150: time of the gas accreted since $z=0.5$, $\sim2\,$Gyr, is sufficiently 

2151: short that a cooling flow problem remains a possibility. The problem 

2152: also becomes more severe at high redshifts, where cooling 

2153: rates can be a factor $\sim100$ higher 

2154: than at $z=0$ (scaling $\propto n \propto (1+z)^{3}$). 

2155: Finally, essentially all implementations of galaxy formation 

2156: models which attempt to account for gas accretion and cooling with 

2157: various prescriptions have found that feedback of some 

2158: kind is necessary to prevent new accretion in massive galaxies 

2159: \citep[e.g.][]{birnboim:mquench,binney:cyclic.feedback,granato:sam,

2160: scannapieco:sam,keres:hot.halos,

2161: monaco:feedback,croton:sam,dekelbirnboim:mquench,cattaneo:sam}. 

2162: 

2163: 

2164: \subsubsection{Can Quasar/Starburst Feedback Completely Suppress Future Cooling?}

2165: \label{sec:quenching:maintenance:nuke}

2166: 

2167: It is therefore natural to examine the feedback effects involved in (or stemming 

2168: from) major mergers. We identify four primary feedback mechanisms: 

2169: 

2170: {\bf (1) ``Kinematic'' Feedback:} Mergers themselves stir large 

2171: quantities of gas, allowing relatively hot and cold gas from the inner and outer 

2172: regions of a shared halo to mix, and generally increasing the 

2173: cooling time 

2174: significantly and disrupting any cooling flows ongoing or in formation. This is 

2175: seen both in simulations \citep{naab:etg.formation,keres:prep,cox:xray.gas} and X-ray observations of 

2176: galaxy groups \citep{jeltema:midz.groups,vikhlinin:low.cooling.flows.at.highz}. 

2177: Furthermore, tidal shocks in the merger itself 

2178: heat a significant quantity of gas to temperatures well above those that can 

2179: efficiently cool in a Hubble time (the reason for the low star formation rates 

2180: at late times in Figure~\ref{fig:quench.colors}, even in the ``no feedback'' case). 

2181: 

2182: {\bf (2) Starburst-Driven Winds:} It is known from local 

2183: measurements \citep[e.g.][]{kennicutt98} 

2184: and also suggested in high-redshift studies \citep{erb:lbg.metallicity-winds} that a high surface 

2185: density of star formation inevitably results in strong galactic winds. Presumably 

2186: driven by a combination of young stellar winds and supernovae, the energy 

2187: coupling efficiency appears to be high (order unity), and simulations 

2188: demonstrate that the observations are well-reproduced for reasonable, theoretically 

2189: expected mass-loading efficiencies \citep[$\eta\sim0.5$, where 

2190: $\dot{M}_{\rm wind} = \eta\,\dot{M}_{\ast}$, with possible mass dependence from a 

2191: momentum-based escape approximation; see][]{cox:winds,oppenheimer:outflow.enrichment}. 

2192: These will act throughout a merger, 

2193: and are a powerful integrated source of feedback, although not as impulsive 

2194: as quasar-driven outflows \citep[e.g.][]{lidz:proximity}.

2195: 

2196: {\bf (3) ``Quasar'' Feedback:} Quasars are known to often exhibit 

2197: strong outflows \citep[for a review, see][]{veilleux:winds} 

2198: and to have a large effect on the ionization and 

2199: temperature state of the inner regions of their host galaxies 

2200: \citep[e.g.][and references therein]{laor:warm.absorber,krongold:seyfert.outflow,rupke:outflows}. 

2201: At the brightest luminosities, a large fraction ($\sim40\%$) of sightlines 

2202: to quasars see highly energetic ($\gtrsim$\,several $10^{3}\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$) 

2203: broad absorption line (BAL) outflows, and it is likely that all 

2204: bright quasars exhibit some such BALs \citep[although they may not be visible owing 

2205: to geometric effects;][]{reichard:bal.properties,elvis:outflow.model,

2206: gallagher:bal.xray,gallagher:bal.submm}. 

2207: These feedback mechanisms {\em must} be able to have a dynamical 

2208: effect in some sense on the host, in order to suppress accretion onto the 

2209: central BH once it reaches the limit of the $\mbh-\sigma$ relation. Recall, 

2210: if only $\sim0.1\%$ of the initial galaxy gas mass were to survive a merger 

2211: and make its way to the center of the galaxy, it would (without BH feedback) 

2212: drive the central BH off the $\mbh-\sigma$ relation by more than 

2213: the observed scatter (while having almost no effect on $\sigma$). 

2214: 

2215: What is 

2216: less certain is the effect such feedback has on the largest galactic 

2217: scales. In most models, it is inevitable that the small-scale 

2218: wind, heating, or pressurization required to halt accretion and produce the 

2219: $\mbh-\sigma$ relation will indeed generate a galactic outflow, and 

2220: recent high-resolution, self-consistent simulations of quasar feedback 

2221: and accretion disk winds 

2222: imply the formation of powerful kinematic outflows that will couple on 

2223: larger scales \citep{proga:disk.winds}. Indeed, an increasing number of 

2224: bright quasar hosts have now been observed in which jets or winds 

2225: appear to be strongly impacting the host galaxy and halo gas 

2226: \citep{zirm:radio.gal.feedback,nesvadba:radio.gal.feedback,

2227: nesvadba:smg.feedback,reuland:quasar.feedback}, or in 

2228: which BAL quasar 

2229: winds are entraining gas at $\sim10^{3}-10^{4}\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$ 

2230: velocities on $\sim$\,kpc scales \citep{dekool:large.outflow.1,dekool:large.outflow.2,

2231: gabel:large.outflow}. Indeed, high velocity winds at (or beyond) galactic scales 

2232: appear to be ubiquitous in

2233: post-starburst galaxies at moderate redshifts, and trace a continuum in outflow 

2234: properties with bright quasars \citep[typically with low-luminosity AGN consistent 

2235: with fading from a recent peak of starburst and quasar activity;][]{tremonti:in.prep,ganguly:qso.outflows}.

2236: The integrated energy in this feedback is, from simple energetic arguments, comparable 

2237: to that from stellar winds \citep{lidz:proximity}.

2238: However, the timescale is much shorter -- 

2239: the BH gains most of its mass (releases most of its energy) in less than a 

2240: Salpeter time $\sim10^{7.5}\,$yr, whereas most of the stars are typically formed 

2241: over a timescale $\gtrsim10^{9}\,$yr. Therefore, even in the most conservative 

2242: models, the {\em power} in such quasar-driven winds is $\sim10-100$ times 

2243: greater than that in typical starburst-driven winds.

2244: 

2245: As a result of the short timescales associated with this process, and

2246: because the energy or momentum is injected on scales small compared with

2247: those of entire galaxies, the impact of quasar feedback is explosive in

2248: nature.  Indeed, \citet{hopkins:seyferts} and \citet{hopkins:faint.slope}

2249: have demonstrated that the outflows in the simulations caused by this

2250: phenomenon are well-approximated by a generalized blast-wave solution.

2251: 

2252: {\bf (4) ``Radio-Mode'' Feedback:} As coined by \citet{croton:sam}, 

2253: this refers to a maintenance mode of 

2254: feedback, including e.g.\ the inflation of radio bubbles in clusters at 

2255: relatively low accretion rates \citep[e.g.][and references therein]{fabian:perseus,dunn:bubble.heating,

2256: allen:jet.bondi.power,sanders:perseus}, but also the driving of weak winds from 

2257: radiatively inefficient accretion flows \citep[e.g.][]{NY94} and X-ray heating of 

2258: nearby gas. Essentially, this is a blanket term for all feedback mechanisms 

2259: which depend on a massive BH at relatively low levels of activity 

2260: (low Eddington ratios), in which most massive BHs spend most of their 

2261: lifetimes (typically since $z\sim2$). It explicitly does {\em not} include ``quasar-mode'' 

2262: feedback, representative of the high-Eddington ratio, high-power output effects 

2263: described above (and it also does not exclude radio jets as a feedback 

2264: mechanism in the ``quasar-mode''). 

2265: 

2266: This mode of feedback operates over long timescales ($\sim\tH$) 

2267: and would not occur under the high-Eddington ratio conditions of mergers. 

2268: Nevertheless, we include it here because it is linked to mergers in a critical way: 

2269: almost universally, the forms of ``maintenance'' feedback 

2270: require the presence of a relatively massive BH \citep[e.g.][]{dekelbirnboim:mquench,

2271: binney:cyclic.feedback,croton:sam,sijacki:radio}. A massive 

2272: BH empirically 

2273: requires a massive spheroid, which requires a major merger. In other words, 

2274: {\em there is no ``radio-mode'' feedback without major mergers.}

2275: Indeed, a comparison of the local mass density of supermassive black

2276: holes with the luminosity density of quasars integrated over redshift

2277: \citep{soltan82,hopkins:bol.qlf} indicates that the mass growth

2278: through the radio mode must be negligible \citep{hopkins:old.age}, in

2279: agreement with preliminary results from cosmological simulations of

2280: these processes \citep{sijacki:radio,dimatteo:cosmo.bhs}.

2281: 

2282: Although the distinctions between these modes of feedback, and ultimately 

2283: the detailed identification of the drivers of each are of great importance, these 

2284: are questions outside the scope of this paper. A detailed comparison, for example,

2285: of the effects of different modes of feedback on the IGM and their observable 

2286: signatures will be the topic of a future paper (Hopkins et al., in preparation). 

2287: For now, we simply wish to examine whether a reasonable integrated effect of 

2288: such feedback could be to completely suppress future star formation in 

2289: merger remnants. To do so, we return to the numerical simulations described above. 

2290: 

2291: \begin{figure}

2292:     \centering

2293:     \figexpand

2294:     %\plotone{halo.fb.fx.ps}

2295:     \plotone{f20.ps}

2296:     \caption{{\em Top:} Cooling time as a function of radius for typical relaxed 

2297:     SPH simulation merger 

2298:     remnants embedded in massive gaseous halos. We show both the absolute 

2299:     value of the cooling time ({\em left}) and the cooling time relative to the 

2300:     local free-fall time ({\em right}). Solid (dot-dashed)

2301:     lines show the mass-weighted mean value at each $r$ for 

2302:     galaxies with stellar masses $\sim10^{12}\,\msun$ ($\sim3\times10^{10}\,\msun$). 

2303:     Different colors correspond to different initial halo gas profiles: 

2304:     black assumes a relatively low total halo gas mass, red and blue a factor of several 

2305:     higher gas mass (with a pre-merger isothermal or pressure-supported temperature profile, 

2306:     respectively). 

2307: %    {\bf igm1/1, igm2/4, igm3/5, for the low/high mass 

2308: %    cases -- need to get the details of each from TJ}.

2309:     For one case we show 

2310:     contours of the full gas distribution at $50,\ 5,\ 1$ and $0.1\%$ -- most of the gas is 

2311:     close to the mean value. Vertical dotted lines show 

2312:     the virial radii of the halos of both masses at $z=0$ (black) and $z=2$ (green).

2313:     {\em Lower:} The integrated gas mass below a given cooling time ({\em left}) 

2314:     or cooling time relative to free-fall time ({\em right}). Dotted horizontal lines 

2315:     show the two galaxy stellar masses represented here. 

2316:     Dashed line in left panels shows the Hubble time. 

2317:     Feedback from a major merger heats a large quantity of gas and establishes a 

2318:     hot or ``quasi-static'' halo.

2319:     \label{fig:hot.halos}}

2320: \end{figure}

2321: 

2322: First, we consider several merger simulations similar to those in Figure~\ref{fig:quench.colors}, 

2323: with reasonable, observationally constrained feedback prescriptions from 

2324: both star formation and quasars. We embed the progenitor systems in large gaseous halos 

2325: meant to represent the gas both in the host halo and surrounding it 

2326: (which will be accreted in the future). Specifically, we consider a range of gas mass 

2327: for the halo, from the total gas mass expected within $R_{\rm vir}$ to several 

2328: times this quantity (representative of that which will be accreted in the next few Gyr). 

2329: We consider both an NFW profile for the gas and a uniform density distribution,

2330: and calculate 

2331: the initial gas temperature either assuming a uniform heating to the virial temperature or 

2332: initial hydrostatic equilibrium. The halos are initialized appropriate for those at 

2333: low redshifts, and the galaxies are otherwise constructed identically 

2334: to those described in \S~\ref{sec:quenching:transition}. 

2335: We evolve our merger simulations until they are 

2336: relaxed (typically $\sim2-3\,$Gyr, as before), 

2337: and calculate the cooling time \citep[including metal-line cooling, following][]{cox:xray.gas} 

2338: for all remaining gas particles at the end of the simulation. 

2339: 

2340: Figure~\ref{fig:hot.halos} shows the results for several representative simulations. 

2341: For clarity, we do not show the results of every simulation, but note that 

2342: the qualitative behavior is, in all cases of a given mass, quite similar, with 

2343: properties such 

2344: as the initial gas density profile affecting only the details of the final gas profiles 

2345: (not their general behavior as a function of mass and/or radius). We plot the 

2346: gas cooling time as a function of radius -- by this time, the gas has relaxed and 

2347: there is a reasonably well-defined cooling radius inside which the gas will 

2348: cool in $\ll \tH$. The actual mass contained therein is not negligible -- 

2349: only $\sim5-10\%$ can be added to the galaxy mass in a Hubble time. 

2350: This is, in principle, sufficient to make the galaxy blue once again, however 

2351: most of the cooling would happen at late times -- where another small burst 

2352: of feedback could re-heat the gas and prevent this scenario. For galaxies 

2353: moving to the red sequence at $z\lesssim1$ ($\sim1/2$ of present red galaxies), 

2354: the suppression is even stronger -- only $\lesssim1\%$ of the post-merger galaxy 

2355: stellar mass can cool by $z=0$, which is sufficiently small to 

2356: ensure that the galaxy remains ``red and dead.'' 

2357: 

2358: These simulations, however, neglect the dynamical nature of accretion onto 

2359: the dark matter halo with cosmic time, and do not include the 

2360: {\em very} large relative gas mass accreted onto the most massive, early-forming 

2361: systems. For example, a $\gtrsim{\rm few}\times10^{8}\,\msun$ BH forming at $z=2$ 

2362: will live in a $\gtrsim10^{13}\,h^{-1}\,\msun$ halo, which will typically grow by 

2363: more than an order of magnitude in mass to $z=0$.  In our complete SPH simulations, 

2364: surveying this parameter space requires large boxes, external reservoirs of gas,

2365: inclusion of cosmological effects, and long runtimes ($\sim\tH$), and is ultimately 

2366: outside the scope of this paper. However, we can make some rough estimates 

2367: of the qualitative effects from simple scaling arguments. 

2368: 

2369: Consider the feedback energy which couples to the galactic ISM during a 

2370: merger ($E_{\rm merger}$). The integrated 

2371: feedback energy injected by the ``quasar mode'' over the course of the merger will be 

2372: (given that most of the BH mass is gained in this phase) approximately 

2373: $E = \eta\,\epsilon_{r}\,\mbh\,c^{2}$, where $\epsilon_{r}\approx0.1$ is the 

2374: radiative efficiency and $\eta$ is the feedback coupling efficiency ($\eta\sim0.05$ 

2375: in our simulations in order to yield the appropriate normalization of the 

2376: $\mbh-\sigma$ relation). As noted above, the total feedback energy 

2377: from star formation is of a comparable order (although 

2378: it operates over a much larger timescale, so only some fraction 

2379: will couple during the merger itself), so we can subsume it into this 

2380: scaling (since $\eta$ is uncertain anyways, it can effectively include the 

2381: maximal factor $\sim2$ addition from stellar winds and supernovae). 

2382: The feedback from BH growth and at least the final, peak 

2383: starburst phase will couple in a short time, $\sim10^{7.5}$ years (the 

2384: timescale for the final $e$-foldings of BH growth), much shorter than the 

2385: dynamical time in the outer regions of the halo. 

2386: 

2387: Assuming, therefore, that the ``merger feedback'' 

2388: (by which we mean the combined feedback from quasar, starburst, and 

2389: kinematic effects -- although the latter are energetically sub-dominant) 

2390: creates a strong shock (true in nearly all of our 

2391: simulations), the post-shock temperature inside the virial radius of the 

2392: halo will be approximately 

2393: $T_{\rm shock} \approx \alpha\,c\,T_{\rm vir}$, where $c$ is the halo 

2394: concentration and $\alpha$ is a coefficient of order unity which depends in detail on the 

2395: halo gas profile, baryon fraction, and metallicity \citep[we follow][who adopt 

2396: standard values for these quantities, and obtain $\alpha\approx0.5$]{dekelbirnboim:mquench}. 

2397: The resulting cooling time of the shocked gas near the virial radius is 

2398: then (for the same parameters) roughly

2399: $t_{\rm cool}\approx 8.3\,\Delta_{200}^{-1}\,(1+z)^{-3}\,(T_{\rm shock}/10^{6}\,{\rm K})^{2} \, \tH$, 

2400: where $\Delta_{200}\sim1$ is 

2401: the virial overdensity at the given redshift relative to a value of $200$ 

2402: \citep[and we approximate the cooling function around the 

2403: temperatures of interest following][]{sutherlanddopita93}. (Of course, 

2404: most of the gas relevant for cooling will be at smaller radii and $\Delta_{200}\gg1$, 

2405: but we simply wish to illustrate the relevant scalings.) 

2406: 

2407: If we were to rely on one feedback event alone to suppress all cooling until 

2408: $z=0$, we would require two basic criteria. 

2409: First, this clearly requires that $T_{\rm shock}$ be sufficiently 

2410: high such that $t_{\rm cool} > \tH(z)$, i.e.\ $T_{\rm shock} > T_{\rm crit,\,H}

2411: \approx 4\times10^{5}\,{\rm K}\,[\Delta_{200}\,f_{H}\,(1+z)^{3}]^{1/2}$, 

2412: where $f_{H}$ is the fractional lookback time to redshift $z$. 

2413: Second, the coupled feedback energy must be sufficient to heat {\em all} of the 

2414: total $z=0$ halo gas content to these temperatures -- i.e.\ the 

2415: total mass which can be shocked, 

2416: $M_{\rm shock} = \mu\,m_{p}\,E_{\rm merger} / (3/2\, k\,T_{\rm crit,\,H})$ 

2417: (where $\mu=0.59$ for pristine gas) must be equal to or greater 

2418: than the total gas mass which will be accreted by $z=0$ and therefore 

2419: which must be prevented from cooling. 

2420: The first criterion is satisfied for all moderate halo masses of interest 

2421: (although it may be that low-mass halos at high redshifts 

2422: $z\gtrsim2$ have difficulty shocking to sufficiently high temperatures), 

2423: and this is borne out by direct comparison with the post-shock temperatures 

2424: in our simulations at all redshifts. It is at least likely that some of 

2425: the surrounding gas will be shocked to very high temperatures -- the more 

2426: interesting question is how this mass compares to the total mass 

2427: that will be accreted and (potentially) otherwise cool by $z=0$. 

2428: 

2429: Given our expectation for the average galaxy, and corresponding BH mass, in a 

2430: halo of a given mass at some redshift, 

2431: Figure~\ref{fig:blastwaves} compares the mass 

2432: that can be shocked (given the energetic criterion above) to that accreted by $z=0$. 

2433: In all cases, the feedback 

2434: is able to shock-heat up to several times the initial galaxy mass, and 

2435: we crudely expect the shock to propagate to several times the initial virial radius of the galaxy. 

2436: However, the implications of this can be quite different for 

2437: halos of different masses. Low mass halos, even at $z=2$, grow by a relatively small amount. 

2438: For example, an average $10^{11}\,h^{-1}\,\msun$ halo at $z=2$ grows by a 

2439: factor $\sim5$ to $z=0$ (so the feedback from the merger need only 

2440: shock several times the galaxy mass in external gas to prevent all 

2441: future accretion), but an average $10^{13}\,h^{-1}\,\msun$ halo at $z=2$ grows 

2442: by a factor $\sim25$ to $z=0$. In small halos, then, feedback from a merger, 

2443: at least at redshifts $z\lesssim2$, may be able to completely prevent future 

2444: accretion, without the need to invoke any maintenance mode of feedback. 

2445: In large halos, however, there is too much continued accretion 

2446: and growth at low redshifts, and there is little chance that a single, merger-triggered 

2447: burst of feedback can (alone) suppress all future growth. The division between the 

2448: regimes appears 

2449: to be at $\mhalo\sim10^{12}-10^{13}\,h^{-1}\,\msun$, 

2450: interestingly similar to the traditional halo 

2451: quenching mass (see \S~\ref{sec:quenching:maintenance:hothalo} below). 

2452: We note that this analysis can be repeated in terms of the post-shock entropy, 

2453: following \citet{scannapieco:sam}, which yields a nearly identical result. 

2454: 

2455: \begin{figure}

2456:     \centering

2457:     \figexpand

2458:     %\plotone{egy.compare.ps}

2459:     \plotone{f21.ps}

2460:     \caption{{\em Left:} Total gas mass 

2461:     (relative to the total gas mass of the halo at $z=0$) 

2462:     which can be shocked by a merger-induced 

2463:     feedback-driven outflow/blastwave at the given redshift and host halo mass 

2464:     above temperatures for which 

2465:     the cooling time becomes longer than the Hubble time (i.e.\ total 

2466:     fraction of the $z=0$ halo baryon content for which cooling can be completely 

2467:     suppressed until $z=0$ by a typical merger at the given redshift). 

2468:     {\em Right:} Total gas mass (relative to the total 

2469:     gas mass of the halo at the given redshift) which 

2470:     can be shocked to the critical shock stability temperature 

2471:     (following \citet{keres:hot.halos,dekelbirnboim:mquench}) 

2472:     above which the cooling time is longer than the (instantaneous local) 

2473:     gas compression or free-fall time and a quasi-static halo is established. 

2474:     Feedback from a major merger alone can quench all 

2475:     future accretion in halos below the traditional ``hot halo'' mass threshold 

2476:     at moderate redshifts ($z\lesssim2$), and can easily 

2477:     establish a ``hot halo'' within the virial radius at all 

2478:     redshifts.

2479:     \label{fig:blastwaves}}

2480: \end{figure}

2481: 

2482: 

2483: %\begin{figure}

2484: %    \centering

2485: %    \figexpand

2486: %    \plotone{bw.1d.ps}

2487: %    \caption{{\em Left:} Radius of a merger-induced feedback-driven outflow/shockwave 

2488: %    (from a merger ending at $z=2$) as a function of time (subsequent redshift) 

2489: %    in a simplified one-dimensional calculation (including gravitational infall and accretion). 

2490: %    The shock radius is shown for typical mergers with different host halo masses 

2491: %    (at $z=2$) as labeled, relative to the virial radius of the halo at $z=2$ ({\em upper}) 

2492: %    or the virial radius at each $z$ ({\em lower}). {\em Right:} The total gas mass 

2493: %    shocked by this outflow, relative to the total baryonic mass of the galaxy merger 

2494: %    remnant at $z=2$ ({\em upper}) or the total gas mass of the halo 

2495: %    at each $z$ ({\em lower}). Feedback from a major merger alone can quench 

2496: %    future accretion in halos below the traditional ``hot halo'' mass threshold, 

2497: %    and easily set up hot halos out to $r\gtrsim R_{\rm vir}$ in halos of all masses. 

2498: %    \label{fig:blastwaves}}

2499: %\end{figure}

2500: 

2501: 

2502: %However, we quickly survey the qualitative effects by 

2503: %running a series of one-dimensional simulations using the 

2504: %{\textsc{ZEUS}} code \citep{zeus:a,zeus:b}. Using 

2505: %our SPH simulations, we calculate the averaged one-dimensional 

2506: %galaxy and dark matter profiles at the end of a merger, for halos of several 

2507: %representative masses. We embed these in an effectively infinite 

2508: %dark matter+gas background, where we consider the same range of profiles 

2509: %and temperatures for the initial gas as the SPH simulations. 

2510: %We then measure the amount of feedback energy/pressure 

2511: %injected in the SPH simulation in the final merger stages -- ultimately 

2512: %it makes little difference here what the 

2513: %source of feedback is, because the energetics must be similar.

2514: %In the 1-D, code, then, we approximate this feedback as an impulsive energy or 

2515: %momentum injection at $r=0$, $t=0$. We then evolve the resulting hydrodynamics, 

2516: %including the effects of the gravitational potential calculated from the 

2517: %assumed mass profiles, until $z=0$. Essentially, this amounts to a numerical 

2518: %improvement on the analytic blastwave calculations of e.g.\ \citet{scannapieco:sam}, 

2519: %for feedback impulsively injected into the IGM at the end of a merger. We 

2520: %assume the merger occurs at a given redshift, calculating the galaxy and 

2521: %halo properties appropriately for that initial redshift. 

2522: %

2523: %Figure~\ref{fig:blastwaves} shows the results of this calculation. We show 

2524: %the results for the redshift of greatest general interest, $z=2$. At $z=1$ 

2525: %and $z=0$, the results are qualitatively similar, but as noted before, less 

2526: %constraining (there is less subsequent accretion, so feedback 

2527: %needs to do less work to suppress future star formation). 

2528: %In all cases, a strong blastwave is generated by the feedback injection. The 

2529: %post-shock entropy of the case is sufficiently high that, even under optimal 

2530: %adiabatic compression/expansion, its cooling time 

2531: %will remain longer than the Hubble time (unless it somehow becomes 

2532: %extremely metal enriched, which is unlikely at the large radii of interest). 

2533: %The key question is then, can the feedback-induced outflow shock sufficient gas to 

2534: %prevent subsequent cooling/accretion? We therefore consider the 

2535: %radius to which the shock propagates and the shocked gas mass as a function 

2536: %of time (specifically, redshift after our initial $z=2$). In all cases, the feedback 

2537: %is able to shock-heat up to several times the initial galaxy mass, and 

2538: %the shock propagates to several times the initial virial radius of the galaxy 

2539: %by $t=0$. In fact (although perhaps unsurprisingly, given our simplifying 

2540: %assumptions for the 1-D case) the blastwave behavior is well-described 

2541: %(at late times, when the shock radius $R_{s}$ is much 

2542: %larger than the effective radius of the galaxy $R_{e}$) by the solution, 

2543: %\begin{equation}

2544: %\log{{\Bigl(}\frac{R_{s}(t)}{R_{\rm vir}(t=0)}{\Bigr)}} \approx 0.72+

2545: %0.40\,\log{{\Bigl(}\frac{t}{t_{0}}{\Bigr)}}-0.13\,\log^{2}{{\Bigl(}\frac{t}{t_{0}}{\Bigr)}}

2546: %\end{equation}

2547: %where

2548: %\begin{equation}

2549: %t_{0} \equiv 1\,{\rm Gyr}\,{\Bigl(}\frac{\mgal}{10^{11}\,\msun}{\Bigr)}^{1/3}

2550: %\end{equation}

2551: %and $t=0$ at the launch of the shock.

2552: %{\bf LH: How does this relate to the analysis we did for stochastic

2553: %fueling?}

2554: %

2555: %However, the implications of this (approximate) 

2556: %similarity solution are very different for 

2557: %halos of different masses. 

2558: %Low mass halos, even at $z=2$, grow by a relatively small amount. 

2559: %For example, a typical $10^{10}\,h^{-1}\,\msun$ halo at $z=2$ grows by a 

2560: %factor $\sim5$ to $z=0$ (so the feedback from the merger need only 

2561: %shock several times the galaxy mass in external gas to prevent all 

2562: %future accretion), but a typical $10^{13}\,h^{-1}\,\msun$ halo at $z=2$ grows 

2563: %by a factor $\sim25$ to $z=0$. In small halos, then, feedback from a merger, 

2564: %even at high redshifts $z\sim2-3$, may be able to completely prevent future 

2565: %accretion, without the need to invoke any maintenance mode of feedback. 

2566: %In large halos, however, there is too much continued accretion 

2567: %and growth at low redshifts, and there is little chance that a single, merger-triggered 

2568: %burst of feedback can suppress all future growth. The division between the 

2569: %regimes appears 

2570: %to be at $\mhalo\sim10^{12}\,h^{-1}\,\msun$ (more generally, 

2571: %$\sim{\rm a\ few}\times10^{11}-10^{13}\,h^{-1}\,\msun$ over the range 

2572: %$z\sim3-1$, respectively), interestingly similar to the traditional halo 

2573: %quenching mass (see \S~\ref{sec:quenching:maintenance:hothalo} below). 

2574: %

2575: %It appears that feedback from a major merger can completely suppress future 

2576: %star formation in relatively low-mass halos (roughly, less than or equal to 

2577: %the mass hosting a typical $\sim\lstar$ galaxy), even if the merger occurs 

2578: %at high redshift. The feedback is also sufficient in high mass halos which 

2579: %undergo major mergers at later times, $z\lesssim1$. 

2580: 

2581: At the highest redshifts $z>2$, it is also difficult for a single event to suppress the cooling of 

2582: all gas which will be accreted by these halos, especially for systems which are already 

2583: massive at these redshifts (and therefore likely to form the most massive clusters at 

2584: $z=0$). A $\sim10^{12}\,h^{-1}\,\msun$ halo at $z=4$, for example, is likely to 

2585: grow to a $\sim10^{15}\,h^{-1}\,\msun$ cluster by $z=0$, so the baryon content contributing 

2586: to the merger-driven feedback event at these redshifts is negligible compared 

2587: to that which will be accreted at later times. 

2588: %

2589: %This may come in the form of 

2590: %low-luminosity (radio-mode) AGN feedback, or other feedback associated 

2591: %with a hot halo, or perhaps through small future rounds of AGN activity 

2592: %induced by either small initial gas cooling or future dry mergers 

2593: %(which, if not {\em completely} gas-free, could trigger very short-lived 

2594: %quasar activity). We note, however, that we are not claiming that quasar feedback is 

2595: %necessarily ``more important'' in low-mass systems -- after all, we have shown that 

2596: %mergers themselves are more important in high-mass systems, and 

2597: %\citet{hopkins:faint.slope} demonstrate that, in terms of the immediate effects on the 

2598: %reddening of and gas supply within a galaxy, quasar feedback is more 

2599: %efficient in high-mass systems. 

2600: %

2601: We also caution that the feedback from a merger may not be as efficient 

2602: as we have assumed in this analysis. Although we adopted a relatively 

2603: conservative total ``stellar+quasar'' feedback energy input, it is not entirely 

2604: clear how successful such feedback is at coupling to gas on large scales. 

2605: Perhaps more important, the simple scalings above  

2606: ignore the possibility that cooling instabilities 

2607: might occur within the post-shock compression, or that cold clumps might 

2608: be able to self-shield against a propagating shock, leaving most of the 

2609: mass which would be accreted unaffected. 

2610: 

2611: In particular, if gas accretion 

2612: occurs preferentially along filamentary structures, it may be difficult for 

2613: feedback to directly couple to most of the gas in the filament.

2614: A more detailed calculation of these effects will, unfortunately, require better knowledge of 

2615: the actual drivers of feedback, as well as high-resolution 

2616: simulations which can self-consistently resolve phase structure and shocks 

2617: in the IGM gas. For now, we would more cautiously describe our calculations as 

2618: estimates of what feedback from a major merger {\em could} do to suppress cooling. 

2619: Even in this case, however, both our 

2620: SPH simulations and simple scaling arguments 

2621: suggest that the most massive systems, especially if their 

2622: mergers occur early at $z\gtrsim2$, cannot be quenched just by the 

2623: energy injection from a single feedback event.

2624: 

2625: \subsubsection{A ``Mixed'' Solution: Hot Halos from Quasar/Starburst Feedback}

2626: \label{sec:quenching:maintenance:hothalo}

2627: 

2628: Given the uncertainties and limits, in the most massive systems, on the efficiency 

2629: of short-term feedback from a major merger, we propose a mixed 

2630: solution. Halos more massive than (roughly) $\sim10^{12}\,h^{-1}\,\msun$ 

2631: have characteristic gas cooling timescales longer than the dynamical or free-fall timescale, 

2632: and are so described as being in the so-called ``quasi-static'' or hot halo regime. 

2633: In most models, ``radio mode'' feedback, i.e.\ {\em some} form of feedback from 

2634: {\em low} accretion rate activity in a massive central BH provides the 

2635: small additional heating term needed to maintain a pressure-supported 

2636: hydrostatic equilibrium structure at all radii, preventing new gas from 

2637: cooling onto the central galaxy. The additional heating term, for our purposes, does 

2638: not even necessarily need to come from a central BH -- it could owe to 

2639: kinematic heating or other effects, so long 

2640: as it maintains the hot halo -- although energetic arguments \citep[e.g.][]{benson:sam} 

2641: and high-resolution observations \citep[e.g.][]{batcheldor:outflow.mechanism} 

2642: favor an AGN origin. 

2643: 

2644: A significant problem with these models, however, as we have seen in 

2645: the \citet{croton:sam} example in \S~\ref{sec:ellipticals:fractions}, is that they are unable to 

2646: produce sufficient numbers of red central galaxies in relatively low mass 

2647: halos, and the red fraction does not depend on stellar mass as is observed. 

2648: In other words, {\em some} process, with a dependence on galaxy mass, 

2649: is required to assist the quenching of 

2650: lower-halo mass systems. One might attempt to address this by adding a 

2651: strong secular quenching mechanism, but we have shown 

2652: by including this in the \citet{bower:sam} models that 

2653: this fares little better at matching the bivariate red 

2654: fraction as a function of halo and galaxy stellar mass, and that it conflicts 

2655: with constraints on pseudobulge populations. 

2656: 

2657: However, we have just shown that feedback from a major merger 

2658: can shock-heat sufficient surrounding gas to quench systems below 

2659: the traditional hot halo mass threshold ($\sim10^{12}-10^{13}\,\msun$) 

2660: for substantial periods of time. We therefore propose that traditional modes of 

2661: quenching and feedback in hot halos remain the key to suppressing 

2662: star formation in massive systems, but that these are supplemented 

2663: by mergers, which can effectively quench star formation in lower-mass systems 

2664: before these cross the hot halo threshold.

2665: In fact, the major merger needs to suppress star formation in 

2666: low mass systems only until they would naturally develop hot halos -- often 

2667: much less than a Hubble time. 

2668: For example, a typical $\sim10^{11}\,h^{-1}\,\msun$ halo merging at $z\sim4$ need only be 

2669: quenched by merger feedback until $z\sim2$ ($\approx1.8\,$Gyr), when it 

2670: will be sufficiently massive to enter the traditional hot halo regime. 

2671: Once a hot halo is developed, the merger remnant already, by definition, 

2672: has the means to maintain that halo and supplement it with feedback -- 

2673: namely, a relatively massive spheroid and BH which will be accreting 

2674: at low rates (i.e.\ the ideal seed for ``radio-mode'' feedback). 

2675: 

2676: More conservatively, the ``merger feedback'' does not even need to 

2677: completely suppress cooling/accretion in these low mass systems. If the hot halo 

2678: is an effective means of quenching, then mergers only have to create hot halos. 

2679: In fact, the traditional hot halo is generated by an accretion shock in massive systems, 

2680: and does not occur in low-mass systems because the conditions do not set up 

2681: such a shock \citep{dekelbirnboim:mquench}. It is a small extension, then, to suppose that 

2682: the strong shocks from merger-induced (quasar and starburst-driven) 

2683: feedback, which are powerful even in 

2684: low-mass systems, might accomplish this even when accretion shocks do not. 

2685: Indeed, in Figure~\ref{fig:hot.halos} we show the cooling time relative to the 

2686: free fall time ($t_{\rm ff}$) for the gas in our SPH merger remnants, and the amount of 

2687: gas mass raised by the feedback coupling above a given $t_{\rm cool}/t_{\rm ff}$. 

2688: Regardless of the mass of the systems or absolute values of the cooling times, 

2689: the gas out to many times the virial radius is almost uniformly raised to 

2690: $t_{\rm cool}/t_{\rm ff}\gg 1$, the traditional criterion for a hot halo. 

2691: 

2692: In other words, relatively low-mass halos (which would otherwise rapidly cool) 

2693: require some event to enable their quenching and transition to a stable 

2694: hot accretion mode (i.e.\ suppression of future cooling). We demonstrated in 

2695: \S~\ref{sec:quenching:maintenance:nuke} that feedback associated with a 

2696: major merger can easily accomplish this (although we note that feedback 

2697: may be inefficient in extremely low mass halos, $\lesssim10^{10}\,\msun$, 

2698: which are not important for our conclusions). 

2699: Once a halo grows to large 

2700: masses, however, any single quasar or stellar feedback event 

2701: (or any baryonic feedback event, given the relative mass growth involved) 

2702: is probably insufficient to 

2703: singlehandedly heat the (very large) quantities of gas involved to a temperature 

2704: so that the cooling time is longer than a Hubble time. However, in this regime, massive 

2705: halos are already heating most of the gas via accretion shocks. Some 

2706: mechanism (such as a major merger) is still needed to exhaust the gas in the 

2707: central galaxy, and additional mechanisms (such as radio-mode feedback; 

2708: requiring a massive spheroid and black hole in the remnant) may be 

2709: needed to account for a small additional energy input or mixing term in the center 

2710: of the halo (in order to prevent the formation of cooling flows at late times), but the 

2711: bulk of the energetic input needed to maintain a hot system is already in place. 

2712: 

2713: We specifically check this scenario by revisiting 

2714: Figure~\ref{fig:blastwaves}, and considering, instead of the 

2715: amount of gas which can be heated to temperatures above which the 

2716: cooling time is much longer than a Hubble time, the 

2717: amount of gas which can be shocked to temperatures which are above 

2718: the critical shock stability threshold; i.e.\ for which 

2719: the cooling time is longer than the free-fall or dynamical time of the gas. 

2720: Following \citet{dekelbirnboim:mquench}, we estimate this critical temperature  

2721: for gas near the virial radius of the halos of interest, and obtain the 

2722: (halo-mass independent) threshold 

2723: $T_{\rm crit} \approx 4\times10^{5}\,{\rm K}\,\Delta_{200}^{1/2}\,(1+z)^{3/4}$. 

2724: Interestingly, the ratio of BH to host mass (and therefore the 

2725: relative amount of feedback energy coupled to the gas) appears to scale with 

2726: redshift in a roughly similar manner \citep[see \paperone\ and][]{hopkins:bhfp}, yielding a 

2727: nearly redshift-independent 

2728: ratio of mass which can be shocked by merger feedback to that inside 

2729: the virial radius at each epoch. In other words, at all redshifts, feedback 

2730: from quasar and/or starburst activity associated with 

2731: a major merger is sufficient to shock the entire gas content within the 

2732: virial radius (or even to several times the virial radius) to this critical temperature, 

2733: for halo masses $\mhalo\lesssim10^{13}\,\msun$. At larger halo masses, 

2734: systems will already have naturally developed hot halos owing to 

2735: accretion shocks, so it does not matter whether or not the 

2736: feedback energy can shock the systems into the hot halo mode (although 

2737: the merger-driven exhaustion and feedback may still be critical to ceasing 

2738: star formation and making the system red).

2739: And once the hot halo mode is 

2740: established in the inner radii inside $R_{\rm vir}$, 

2741: it does not ultimately matter how far the hot halo extends beyond 

2742: the virial radius (or how much of the mass to be later accreted is affected) -- the hot halo 

2743: sets up a quasi-static, pressure supported equilibrium against which newly 

2744: accreted gas will shock and add to at large radii (regardless of its mass). 

2745: 

2746: A more detailed study of these hot halos from major merger-driven 

2747: quasar and starburst feedback in 

2748: cosmological simulations is an important topic of future work. However, it 

2749: is ultimately a relatively small variation on the traditional principle 

2750: which has been recognized for many years \citep[see][]{rees.ostriker.77,

2751: norman.silk:gas.halos,blumenthal.84}. We 

2752: have further shown that it is not only possible, but quite easily accomplished 

2753: from moderate feedback prescriptions. 

2754: Quenching can therefore be accomplished in the ``traditional'' context 

2755: of hot halos supplemented by feedback from a massive BH, but 

2756: allowing for feedback from black hole growth and 

2757: star formation in a major merger, in a halo of {\em any} mass, to 

2758: create a hot halo environment. 

2759: 

2760: 

2761: \section{Discussion}

2762: \label{sec:discussion}

2763: 

2764: We have developed and tested a 

2765: simple but physically-motivated model in order to study the cosmological 

2766: role of mergers in the formation and quenching of red, early-type galaxies. 

2767: By combining theoretically well-constrained 

2768: halo and subhalo mass functions as a function of redshift and 

2769: environment with empirical halo occupation models, we can 

2770: predict the distribution of 

2771: mergers as a function of redshift, environment, and physical galaxy properties. 

2772: In \paperone, we discuss this methodology in detail, and show that it 

2773: accurately reproduces a variety of observations over a 

2774: wide range in redshifts, including 

2775: observed merger mass functions; merger fractions as a function of 

2776: galaxy mass, halo mass, and redshift; the mass flux/mass density in 

2777: mergers; the large-scale clustering/bias of merger populations; 

2778: and the small-scale environments of mergers. 

2779: The primary advantage of this model is that it allows us to 

2780: study and make a priori predictions for 

2781: the effects of mergers without many of the uncertainties or 

2782: degeneracies inherent in present cosmological simulations or semi-analytic models. 

2783: 

2784: For example, cosmological simulations still lack the resolution to 

2785: model the processes of internal galactic kinematics in mergers, black 

2786: hole accretion/feedback, and disk formation. Although progress is being 

2787: made studying these processes via ``zoom-in'' simulations, it is not meaningful to 

2788: speak of gas-rich, spheroid forming mergers in cosmological 

2789: populations if a cosmological box does not contain the appropriate, representative 

2790: population of accurately formed disk galaxies (the progenitors 

2791: in these mergers) in the first place.

2792: 

2793: Although semi-analytic models 

2794: avoid some of these difficulties, they require making a number of assumptions 

2795: regarding models or physics that we are not attempting to 

2796: test in this paper, including e.g.\ 

2797: disk formation, star formation efficiency in disks, disk instabilities, 

2798: minor mergers, satellite disruption, reddening of satellite galaxies, 

2799: and the exact physical mechanisms of feedback. These assumptions 

2800: introduce uncertainties in the model and, more importantly, obscure the 

2801: key physical elements being tested. 

2802: 

2803: Our adopted model, in contrast, 

2804: bypasses these (unnecessary for our purposes) assumptions and 

2805: uncertainties, and instead 

2806: empirically adopts the relevant consequences of all these physical 

2807: processes -- namely what kinds of galaxies are merging at a given place and time. 

2808: We can then more directly ask the question we wish to answer: 

2809: how do mergers contribute to the formation and/or quenching of massive 

2810: red galaxies? 

2811: 

2812: We find that the simple assumption that star formation is quenched after a gas-rich, 

2813: spheroid-forming major merger (by any mechanism) 

2814: naturally predicts the turnover in the galaxy mass-halo mass relation 

2815: at $\sim\lstar$ -- i.e.\ the fundamental turnover in the efficiency of star formation 

2816: and incorporation of baryons in galaxies, at the observed scale and without 

2817: any parameters tuned to this value. The physical scale $\sim\lstar$ reflects 

2818: the point where major, galaxy-galaxy mergers first become efficient. At lower 

2819: masses, major mergers are rare -- this is true both of 

2820: halo-halo major mergers \citep[e.g.][]{vandenbosch:subhalo.mf} 

2821: and galaxy-galaxy mergers (which 

2822: are further suppressed at these masses because of the relative 

2823: scalings of orbital velocities and internal galaxy velocities -- i.e.\ 

2824: two such galaxies are likely to interact as field flyby or satellite-satellite 

2825: systems with relatively high orbital velocities that do not efficiently merge). 

2826: 

2827: Systems therefore generally grow uninterrupted, potentially building 

2828: relatively low-mass pseudobulges ($\lesssim10^{10}\,\msun$) via disk/bar instabilities 

2829: or minor mergers, until they get to $\sim\lstar$. By these masses, the probability of 

2830: the halo merging with a major companion reaches of order unity, and 

2831: the velocity scalings are such that the two galaxies (once the halos have merged) 

2832: will merge efficiently ($t_{\rm merger}\ll \tH$). The systems 

2833: can then grow via subsequent (dry) mergers, but this is a relatively inefficient channel 

2834: (i.e.\ mass growth is slow). 

2835: Because their star formation is quenched (and therefore no longer 

2836: keeping pace with their host halo growth), mergers themselves also rapidly become less efficient 

2837: (i.e.\ the system mass becomes low relative to the host halo mass, increasing 

2838: the merger timescales). 

2839: 

2840: In addition, our model naturally predicts the 

2841: observed mass functions and mass density of red galaxies as a function of 

2842: redshift, the formation times of early-type galaxies as a function of mass, 

2843: the fraction of quenched galaxies as a function of galaxy and halo mass, environment, 

2844: and redshift, and the distribution/dichotomy of kinematics in massive ellipticals. 

2845: Each of these predictions agrees well with observations over the 

2846: entire observed range of galaxy masses and redshifts. 

2847: As demonstrated in \paperone, our 

2848: model also agrees well with observed merger rates and fractions as a 

2849: function of galaxy mass and halo mass at all observed redshifts. Together with 

2850: the agreement between our model and the observed mass functions and mass density 

2851: of red galaxies, this illustrates that there are, in fact, sufficient numbers of mergers 

2852: (both in theory and observed) to produce the entire massive 

2853: spheroid population at all observed redshifts \citep[see also][]{hopkins:transition.mass}.

2854: Also, unlike commonly adopted models in which quenching is regulated purely 

2855: by halo mass, we have not adjusted or tuned any parameter to 

2856: give the desired results. Indeed, there is not even an obvious parameter 

2857: which can be tuned to give the turnover in the galaxy mass-halo mass 

2858: relation at the appropriate location (since it appears not to depend  

2859: on our calculation of the merger timescale). To the extent that mergers 

2860: can supplement quenching, then, this suggests that it is not necessarily 

2861: problematic that theoretical calculations \citep{birnboim:mquench,keres:hot.halos} 

2862: do not give exactly the same 

2863: halo quenching threshold as semi-analytic models subsequently tuned 

2864: to fit the observations, as has been noticed in several works 

2865: \citep[e.g.][]{croton:sam,cattaneo:sam}. 

2866: 

2867: Although these predictions are suggestive, recent semi-analytic models 

2868: have demonstrated that many of them are non-unique. A variety of 

2869: different quenching implementations and feedback effects in these 

2870: models have been shown to successfully reproduce e.g.\ low-redshift 

2871: mass functions, color-magnitude diagrams, 

2872: and mean red fractions. We therefore investigate the robust, observable 

2873: differences between three broad classes of models for quenching. 

2874: 

2875: First, our adopted merger-induced quenching model, in which some 

2876: mechanism enables merger remnants to remain quenched. 

2877: Second, a halo quenching model, in which quenching is primarily 

2878: determined by a simple (albeit potentially redshift-dependent) 

2879: halo mass threshold (regardless of merger history 

2880: or morphology) -- i.e.\ one in which some mechanism enables any system to 

2881: remain quenched if and only if it develops a ``hot halo.'' Third, a 

2882: secular model, in which color (and/or morphological) transformation is 

2883: driven solely by galaxy structure (essentially baryonic galaxy mass), 

2884: owing to e.g.\ disk or bar instabilities (or other non-merger related mechanisms). 

2885: Regardless of the exact details of their quenching prescriptions (and other 

2886: assumptions), most present semi-analytic models can clearly be 

2887: identified with one of these three classes of models, based on which 

2888: criterion effectively dominates quenching (e.g.\ galaxy merger history, halo mass, 

2889: or disk mass), and we demonstrate that the key qualitative predictions of 

2890: each class will remain true. Note that we are explicitly referring to the 

2891: quenching of {\em central} halo galaxies (the great majority of 

2892: $\gtrsim10^{10}\,\msun$ galaxies), as the reddening of satellites is almost 

2893: certainly affected by other processes (such as their initial 

2894: accretion, ram pressure stripping, or harassment). 

2895: 

2896: We show that these models make a number of robust, unique predictions

2897: with respect to several observables, including: 

2898: 

2899: {\em (1) Bivariate Red Fractions:} Observational measurements of the 

2900: red fractions of galaxies in groups can now break the degeneracy between 

2901: the fraction of quenched systems as a function of galaxy mass (which 

2902: all these models successfully reproduce) and halo mass. The observations 

2903: show several important qualitative trends in the fraction of quenched, 

2904: central halo galaxies as a bivariate function of galaxy stellar and halo 

2905: mass \citep[e.g.][]{weinmann:obs.hod}. 

2906: These include: (1) a strong dependence of red fraction on halo mass,  

2907: (2) some (weaker) residual dependence on galaxy mass/luminosity, (3) 

2908: a lack of any sharp characteristic scale in $\mhalo$, (4) a relatively high 

2909: red fraction ($f_{\rm red}\gtrsim0.5$) for the most massive/luminous systems even 

2910: at relatively low halo masses ($\mhalo\lesssim10^{12}\,\msun$), and 

2911: (5) a similar, relatively high red fraction ($f_{\rm red}\gtrsim0.5$) 

2912: for the least massive/luminous systems at high halo masses 

2913: ($\mhalo\gtrsim10^{13}\,\msun$).

2914: The fundamental difference between the classes of models we consider 

2915: is directly reflected in this predicted bivariate red fraction (where 

2916: we refer specifically to central galaxies, as satellites may be affected by 

2917: other processes as indicated above). 

2918: 

2919: In halo models, the red fraction is essentially a step function in halo mass 

2920: with a sharp transition from low red fractions to 

2921: $f_{\rm red}\sim1$ 

2922: around the critical quenching mass, and little residual dependence on 

2923: galaxy properties. In secular models, the red fraction is just a function 

2924: of galaxy mass, with little (or even inverse, if quenching becomes 

2925: harder to maintain in high mass halos) correlation with halo mass. 

2926: Mergers, however, depend on both galaxy and halo mass, with 

2927: larger galaxies at a given halo mass merging more efficiently 

2928: (and being more likely to have already undergone a major merger), 

2929: while larger halos are more evolved and more likely 

2930: to have accreted a major companion as fuel for a major merger. 

2931: Consequently, the red fraction is an increasing function of halo mass, but 

2932: with an additional (weaker) dependence on galaxy mass, and grows smoothly 

2933: (i.e.\ without a single, sharp characteristic scale) to higher masses. 

2934: A significant dependence on halo mass is maintained, but there 

2935: is still a large red fraction for the massive galaxies (even in relatively 

2936: low-mass halos). More detailed observations are needed to quantify this 

2937: in greater detail, but only the merger model appears to match 

2938: the qualitative trends observed. 

2939: 

2940: 

2941: {\em (2) High-Redshift Passive Galaxies:} A relatively large population of 

2942: massive, red galaxies exists at even high redshifts $z\gtrsim3$. 

2943: Although at high redshifts most (simply identified) ``red'' galaxies 

2944: are dusty star-forming systems, there is a significant population 

2945: which are truly ``red and dead,'' spectroscopically confirmed 

2946: passively evolving, low star-formation rate spheroids 

2947: \citep{labbe05:drgs,kriek:drg.seds}. In contrast, 

2948: semi-analytic halo quenching models are generally forced to assume that 

2949: some process (e.g.\ accretion in filaments or cold clumps) at these redshifts 

2950: raises the mass threshold for quenching, and as a result the predicted 

2951: density of passive galaxies drops rapidly at $z\gtrsim2$. 

2952: We note that this is not a statement that ``hot halos'' cannot or 

2953: do not form at these redshifts \citep[simulations, in fact, suggest that they 

2954: do;][]{keres:hot.halos}, 

2955: nor that such models do not predict a sufficient density of all massive 

2956: galaxies at these redshifts. 

2957: However, in the naive implementation (in which 

2958: the quenching is strongly dominated by a simple halo mass threshold), 

2959: one cannot simultaneously form massive galaxies (and predict a 

2960: sufficiently high global star formation rate density) at high redshift {\em and} 

2961: quench them. In order to match both the observed density of 

2962: star-forming and passive massive galaxies, some mechanism is 

2963: required which can explain the quenching of {\em some}, but not all, systems in 

2964: massive halos at high redshifts. 

2965: 

2966: Mergers, on the other hand, proceed efficiently 

2967: in massive halos at high redshifts, predicting a significant density of 

2968: quenched, passively evolving systems even at $z\gtrsim3$, in 

2969: good agreement with the observations. A secular model can also 

2970: explain the density of passive systems at these redshifts, since, by definition, 

2971: the existence of such massive galaxies in the first place guarantees that a large 

2972: fraction will be red (since the red fraction is a pure function of galaxy mass 

2973: in this model). However, the secular model encounters a different 

2974: conflict at high redshift. 

2975: 

2976: 

2977: {\em (3) Buildup of the Color-Density Relation:} The color-density 

2978: relation appears to weaken with redshift, flattening in intermediate 

2979: density environments until $z\sim1.5$, where it appears 

2980: that there is no measurable color-density relation in field environments 

2981: \citep{nuijten:color.density.evol,cooper:color.density.evol,gerke:blue.frac.evol}. 

2982: Even at high redshifts $z\sim3$, however, 

2983: there is still a significant color-density relation 

2984: \citep{quadri:highz.color.density} -- it is simply that the relation becomes significant only in 

2985: more extreme (proto-cluster, for example) environments. In other words, 

2986: a large population of quenched galaxies 

2987: emerges rapidly at early times in the 

2988: most massive environments, and then subsequently builds up in more 

2989: moderate environments at lower redshifts. 

2990: 

2991: A halo quenching model 

2992: predicts something similar to the low-redshift evolution in these 

2993: trends (although with difficulty in producing quenched systems in 

2994: all but the most truly extreme environments at high redshift, as described above). 

2995: At higher redshift, systems above the halo threshold quenching 

2996: mass represent progressively more extreme environments, and 

2997: if this effective mass threshold increases with redshift, the trend is more 

2998: pronounced. The red fraction is still nearly a step-function at each redshift, 

2999: but with a shifting relative scale. 

3000: 

3001: A merger model also predicts a 

3002: trend qualitatively similar to that observed. The most dense environments 

3003: undergo their epoch of major mergers more rapidly than less dense 

3004: environments (equivalently, more massive present environments passed 

3005: through their small group stage at earlier times), although 

3006: the red fraction in halos of all masses decreases with redshift 

3007: (as there is less time for mergers to operate). By $z\sim1.5$, typical 

3008: field environments have uniformly low red fractions, and no significant 

3009: measurable color-magnitude relation is expected. The location of 

3010: the buildup of quenched galaxies shifts to denser environments, similar to the 

3011: observed trend. 

3012: 

3013: A secular model, in contrast, predicts almost no evolution 

3014: in the trend of red fraction with halo mass as a function of redshift (as a 

3015: consequence of there being relatively little evolution in the average mass of 

3016: a star-forming galaxy hosted by a given halo mass). If one allows for 

3017: high-redshift disks being more compact, this increases their inferred instability, 

3018: yielding {\em opposite} evolution in the red fraction versus halo mass 

3019: to that observed (i.e.\ increasing quenched fractions with redshift at fixed $\mhalo$).

3020: As a consequence, although there may be some artificial evolution with redshift in 

3021: the red fraction as a function of environment (as the same halo mass corresponds to 

3022: different environments), there is no significant true evolution. Furthermore, in 

3023: a secular model, the 

3024: halo masses corresponding to field environments do not trend towards uniformly 

3025: low red fractions by $z\gtrsim1.5$ -- i.e.\ there is little ``smearing out'' of the 

3026: color-density relations at high redshift. Future observations are needed to 

3027: make these comparisons formal, but quantifying the evolution with redshift in 

3028: the red fraction as a function of host halo mass (from large samples which 

3029: can isolate groups and group central galaxies, and span a wide range of environments) 

3030: will be a powerful discriminant between these models. 

3031:  

3032: 

3033: {\em (4) Spheroid Kinematics (Dichotomy of Elliptical Galaxies):} Numerical 

3034: simulations and observations of merger remnants and elliptical kinematics 

3035: demonstrate that gas-rich major mergers 

3036: (i.e.\ those involving disks, even with low gas fractions $\fgas\lesssim0.1$) 

3037: generally produce typical low-mass ($\lesssim$ a few $\lstar$) 

3038: ellipticals with central cusps, disky isophotes, and significant rotation, 

3039: while subsequent gas-poor spheroid-spheroid mergers produce 

3040: typical high-mass ellipticals with central cores, boxy isophotes, 

3041: and little rotation. There is a well-defined transition between the two 

3042: classes of spheroids, at a mass $\sim2-3\times10^{11}\,\msun$ for 

3043: each of these criteria. 

3044: 

3045: A merger model naturally predicts this transition 

3046: point: at lower mass, most spheroids (i.e.\ merger remnants) have 

3047: experienced only their initial, disk-disk spheroid-forming merger or 

3048: (in some cases) one additional, gas-rich, disk-spheroid major merger. 

3049: At higher mass, most systems have undergone an additional, subsequent 

3050: spheroid-spheroid major merger. 

3051: If the major merger is associated with quenching, the low-mass

3052: disk mergers are guaranteed to 

3053: be gas-rich, and the spheroid-spheroid mergers at high masses 

3054: are guaranteed to be gas-poor, matching the observed trends and transition point 

3055: in each of the cusp/core, disky/boxy, rapid/slow rotation criteria. 

3056: 

3057: In a halo quenching model, however, many systems undergo their first 

3058: major merger somewhat before their host halos cross the quenching 

3059: mass threshold, and therefore re-accrete significant disks. Their subsequent 

3060: mergers are not gas-poor, spheroid-spheroid any longer, but 

3061: gas-rich, disk mergers. As a result, the predicted transition mass between disky 

3062: and boxy ellipticals is increased by an order of magnitude (only the most massive 

3063: cD galaxies cross the quenching mass threshold early enough to have 

3064: had multiple subsequent major mergers since that time), in contradiction 

3065: to the observations. 

3066: 

3067: A secular model suffers from the opposite problem. In order 

3068: for secular mechanisms to dominate quenching, they must act before major mergers 

3069: transform the system to a spheroid -- i.e.\ systems must (by definition in such a model) 

3070: predominantly quench before they undergo their first merger. A large fraction of 

3071: even these first mergers, then, are gas-poor, spheroid-spheroid 

3072: (or pseudobulge-pseudobulge) mergers. The predicted transition mass between 

3073: disky and boxy ellipticals is therefore decreased by an order of magnitude, 

3074: again in contradiction to the observations. It appears that matching 

3075: the observed transition in elliptical types (without violating the basic 

3076: kinematic constraints from simulations and observations) fundamentally requires 

3077: some quenching of massive spheroids/merger remnants \citep[a conclusion also reached 

3078: by][who begin from a halo quenching model]{naab:dry.mergers}.

3079: 

3080: 

3081: {\em (5) Effects of Small-Scale Environment:} It has also been 

3082: suggested observationally that the red fraction (at fixed halo mass and 

3083: galaxy mass) does not depend on large-scale environment, but 

3084: may depend on small-scale environment, in the sense that it increases 

3085: with overdensities on small scales \citep{blanton:smallscale.env}. 

3086: We caution that, at present, interpretation of these observations is 

3087: difficult because they include both satellite and central galaxies. However, 

3088: if the result is borne out for central galaxies alone (i.e.\ a central galaxy 

3089: is more likely to be red, all else being equal, if it lives in a small-scale 

3090: overdensity) via measurements of the cross-correlation function for 

3091: red, central galaxies and other galaxies, then this would also favor a merger model. 

3092: We note that it is not necessary that merger remnants live in such overdensities 

3093: long after their mergers (as, by definition, the mergers will consume 

3094: some of the very galaxies that define such an overdensity). However, 

3095: if such a trend exists, it is difficult to explain in a pure halo quenching or 

3096: secular model, as both mechanisms operate independent of 

3097: neighboring galaxy populations. 

3098: 

3099: These consequences of merger-driven, halo mass-driven, and secular/disk instability-driven 

3100: quenching models are robust, and future observations should be able to

3101: break the degeneracies between the models. Although the quantitative details 

3102: may differ slightly in different implementations of the models, we have shown 

3103: that current state-of-the-art semi-analytic models \citep[e.g.][which include a number of 

3104: other prescriptions and more detailed physical recipes than the 

3105: toy models described above]{croton:sam,cattaneo:sam,bower:sam} 

3106: fundamentally yield predictions which are qualitatively 

3107: identical to the behavior expected for the basic classes of models described above. 

3108: These behaviors are generic to any model in which these processes dominate 

3109: the quenching of central galaxies, and the predictions shown are at least qualitatively 

3110: robust regardless of ``tuning'' the models. 

3111: 

3112: That we have not tuned or adjusted our model to give a particular result should not, 

3113: of course, be taken to mean that there are no uncertainties in our approach. 

3114: However, we 

3115: re-calculate all of our predictions adopting different estimates for the 

3116: subhalo mass functions and halo occupation model (and its redshift 

3117: evolution) and find this makes little difference (a factor $<2$) at all 

3118: redshifts. The largest uncertainty comes from our calculation of 

3119: merger timescales, where, at the highest redshifts ($z\gtrsim3$), merging via 

3120: direct collisional processes may be more efficient than 

3121: merging via dynamical friction, given the large physical densities. 

3122: More detailed study in very high-resolution numerical simulations will 

3123: be necessary to determine the effective breakdown between different 

3124: merger processes. 

3125: Nevertheless, the difference in our predictions at these redshifts is still 

3126: within the range of observational uncertainty. 

3127: 

3128: Ultimately, we find that our predictions are robust 

3129: above masses $\mgal\gtrsim10^{10}\,\msun$, regardless of these 

3130: changes to our model, as the theoretical 

3131: subhalo mass functions and empirical halo occupation models 

3132: are reasonably well-constrained in this regime. Below these masses, 

3133: in any case, 

3134: it is likely that a large fraction of spheroids are relatively small 

3135: bulges in disk-dominated galaxies (of which a large fraction 

3136: may be pseudobulges formed by disk instabilities) and that a large fraction of 

3137: the red galaxy population are satellites (whose reddening 

3138: may be affected by their mere accretion as a satellite, let alone tidal 

3139: or ram pressure stripping processes, which we do not attempt to model). 

3140: While not dominant in the $\gtrsim\lstar$ galaxies with which our modeling 

3141: is most concerned, these processes are certainly important for 

3142: low-mass populations. 

3143: 

3144: We further discuss a variety of physical mechanisms that 

3145: may drive the quenching of major merger remnants. 

3146: In numerical experiments, the star formation rates of isolated disks 

3147: (i.e.\ ones cut off from any gas accretion) decay slowly, and the galaxies do not 

3148: move to the red sequence in times $\lesssim$\,a few Gyr (despite allowing 

3149: for secular instabilities in these simulations). This alone is a consideration which 

3150: should be of concern in secular or pure halo quenching models -- without 

3151: mergers or some other driver of violence in the system, these systems 

3152: do not efficiently transition to the red sequence in the first place. 

3153: However, it is clear that 

3154: merger remnants efficiently exhaust gas and redden rapidly onto 

3155: the red sequence, even 

3156: without the inclusion of feedback effects (although these may be necessary 

3157: to fully terminate star formation in the most high-redshift, gas-rich systems). 

3158: It is clear that mergers easily accomplish the ``transition'' to the red sequence, 

3159: even if only temporarily. The more difficult question is how such systems 

3160: might prevent future cooling, in order to remain quenched for significant 

3161: periods of time.

3162: 

3163: There are, however, a number of feedback sources directly associated 

3164: with major mergers, including purely kinematic ``stirring,'' tidal heating, and 

3165: shock effects, long-lived starburst-driven winds, and (potentially) 

3166: impulsive, quasar-driven outflows. We demonstrate in numerical simulations 

3167: (and from simple scaling arguments) that the combination of these 

3168: feedback effects (even with relatively mild prescriptions for their 

3169: strength) is sufficient to heat several times the initial baryon content of the 

3170: host halo at the time of the merger to very high temperatures, 

3171: at which the cooling time becomes longer than a Hubble time. For 

3172: the $\sim1/2$ of the present $\sim\lstar$ red galaxy population that has moved 

3173: onto the red sequence since $z\sim1$, this single feedback event is sufficient to 

3174: prevent all but $\lesssim1\%$ of the galaxy mass from cooling back onto 

3175: the galaxy by $z=0$, i.e.\ sufficient to ensure the galaxy remains ``red and dead.'' 

3176: The problem, however, is potentially more severe at high redshifts. 

3177: Not only must the suppression of cooling act for a longer period of time, 

3178: but a massive halo at high redshifts $z\gtrsim2$ may typically grow by a large 

3179: amount (more than an order of magnitude) in mass by $z=0$, implying that 

3180: the total baryon content for which cooling must be suppressed is larger 

3181: than that of the galaxy. Moreover, the increased densities at these times 

3182: further suppress the propagation of feedback-driven shocks, and 

3183: enhances the cooling rates by large factors ($\sim100$ at $z\sim3-4$). 

3184: 

3185: We therefore propose a ``mixed'' solution, in which 

3186: traditional modes of 

3187: quenching and feedback in quasi-static ``hot halos'' remain the key to suppressing 

3188: star formation in massive systems, but that these are supplemented 

3189: by mergers, which can effectively quench star formation in lower-mass systems 

3190: before these cross the hot halo threshold. The major merger 

3191: can supplement this traditional quenching mode in two ways: first, by temporarily 

3192: suppressing cooling until the system naturally develops a hot halo (i.e.\ crosses 

3193: the quenching mass threshold). This is, even for high redshift systems, 

3194: often much less than a Hubble time ($\sim$a couple Gyr), and is relatively 

3195: easily accomplished by the feedback effects described above. 

3196: Second, the strong shocks from the merger-driven feedback can accomplish 

3197: what an accretion shock would in a more massive system -- i.e.\ they can 

3198: create a quasi-static hot halo even in low-mass systems which would not 

3199: (independent of a major merger) develop such a halo on their own. 

3200: 

3201: We demonstrate both using

3202: simple scaling arguments and numerical simulations including 

3203: feedback, cooling, star formation, and realistic shock mechanisms, 

3204: that even conservative feedback prescriptions will 

3205: shock most of the gas within the virial radius to temperatures and entropies 

3206: where the cooling time becomes much longer than the free fall or dynamical/compression 

3207: timescales (the traditional definition of a hot halo). 

3208: Once this hot halo is established inside $R_{\rm vir}$, 

3209: a quasi-static, pressure supported equilibrium is established against which newly 

3210: accreted gas will shock and add to at large radii (regardless of the mass 

3211: subsequently accreted). 

3212: The energetics of merger-triggered 

3213: feedback are sufficient to achieve this in all halos $\mhalo\lesssim10^{13}\,\msun$ 

3214: (including halos below the traditional quenching mass threshold), 

3215: with little dependence on redshift (at least from $z=0-6$). 

3216: Once a hot halo is developed, the problem of maintaining that hot halo 

3217: (i.e.\ preventing cooling flows) is no different from the traditional cooling flow problem 

3218: (which we are not directly attempting to address here), but 

3219: the merger remnant already, by definition, 

3220: has the means to heat the halo and supplement it with feedback -- 

3221: namely, a relatively massive spheroid and BH which will be accreting 

3222: at low rates (i.e.\ the ideal seed for ``radio-mode'' feedback). 

3223: 

3224: This ultimately simple variation on the traditional models of quenching 

3225: in massive systems appears to yield a number of qualitatively different 

3226: predictions, as described above, and merits further study. 

3227: Although, in order to limit the physical assumptions being studied, we 

3228: did not adopt a full semi-analytic model, it will be valuable for 

3229: future studies and comparison to observations to implement 

3230: such models.

3231: There are a number of prescriptions one might consider, with 

3232: varying degrees of complexity, 

3233: which may yield different, testable observational predictions. 

3234: Ideally, such models should consider a variety of prescriptions for 

3235: quenching, and compare the results in order to determine 

3236: what (if any) observational tests might break the degeneracies 

3237: between them.

3238: 

3239: (1) Pure Merger Quenching: This is the simplest possible model, 

3240: similar to what we have assumed in this work, assuming that a major 

3241: merger completely suppresses future cooling/star formation. Equivalently, 

3242: one could adopt some bulge-to-disk ratio above which cooling is 

3243: suppressed, as in \citep{cattaneo:sam}, or a bulge mass threshold 

3244: \citep[$M_{\rm bulge}\gtrsim3\times10^{10}\,\msun$, as in][]{naab:dry.mergers}. 

3245: 

3246: (2) Merger Feedback/Strong Shocks: Rather than fiat quenching, 

3247: one could allow for some large energy injection from feedback (presumably owing 

3248: to triggered quasar and starburst activity)

3249: in a merger, and assume that the appropriate shocked quantity of 

3250: gas has its cooling suppressed, or is ejected from the host galaxy and 

3251: reheated to the halo virial temperature \citep{somerville:new.sam}. 

3252: This is similar to the calculation 

3253: in \citet{scannapieco:sam}, who demonstrate that such an assumption is 

3254: sufficient to produce downsizing trends below $z\sim2$. 

3255: There are a number of analytic models which have been proposed for 

3256: the effects of this feedback, including the blastwave model calibrated 

3257: to simulations in \citet{hopkins:seyferts}, the 

3258: model of \citet{scannapieco:sam} in terms of the post-shock entropy, 

3259: and the temperature/cooling time calculations in \S~\ref{sec:quenching:maintenance}. 

3260: 

3261: (3) Merger-Induced ``Hot Halos'': Based on the arguments above, 

3262: it is straightforward to assume that feedback from 

3263: quasar and/or starburst activity triggered in a major merger drives the host 

3264: halo to the quasi-static, hot halo regime. Whatever the treatment in the 

3265: semi-analytic model is for such hot halos (i.e.\ whether they are

3266: assumed to be quenched, or whether various AGN feedback modes 

3267: are considered for ``maintenance'' purposes), the host halos of major 

3268: merger remnants would be treated identically. 

3269: 

3270: (4) A ``Full Model'': Ideally, semi-analytic models could incorporate all of the 

3271: effects above. Based on energetic arguments or the simple scaling 

3272: arguments in \S~\ref{sec:quenching:maintenance}, or adopting some analytic model for 

3273: a feedback-driven shock \citep{scannapieco:sam,hopkins:seyferts}, 

3274: one can calculate the appropriate effects on 

3275: halo gas. It is then possible to consider whether this moves the halo 

3276: into the hot halo regime, or ``buys time'' until the halo experiences 

3277: accretion shocks and falls into such a regime itself. Feedback from low-luminosity 

3278: AGN, or cyclic accretion inside a hot halo, would be allowed, and could 

3279: further suppress subsequent cooling. 

3280: 

3281: Future study using high-resolution numerical simulations will be essential to 

3282: ultimately understanding the interplay of these complex feedback 

3283: processes. Simulations with the dynamic range to 

3284: simultaneously resolve the relevant galactic structure and feedback processes 

3285: and cosmologically rare, massive populations are 

3286: not yet feasible; however, the effects of these processes in 

3287: representative systems can be studied in detailed zoom-in simulations

3288: \citep{li:z6.quasar}. 

3289: Examining, for example, the effects of feedback on clumpy accretion 

3290: at high redshift or the details of how merger-driven shocks transform the 

3291: halo cooling structure will be critical to inform theoretical models of 

3292: how these systems quench and suppress cooling over cosmic time. 

3293: The combination of detailed simulations used to study the effects of 

3294: feedback and cosmological models which enable predictions for 

3295: the broad statistical properties of rare populations 

3296: should allow future observations to break the 

3297: degeneracies between different quenching models and 

3298: tightly constrain the history of massive galaxy formation. 

3299: 

3300: \acknowledgments We thank Marijn Franx, Rachel Somerville, Richard Bower, 

3301: Michael Cooper, Thorsten Naab, Ivo Labb{\'e}, and Norm Murray 

3302: for helpful discussions contributing to this paper. 

3303: This work was supported in part by NSF grant AST

3304: 03-07690, and NASA ATP grants NAG5-12140, NAG5-13292, and NAG5-13381.

3305: 

3306: 

3307: \bibliography{ms}

3308: 

3309: 

3310: 

3311: \end{document}

3312: 

3313: 

3314: