1:
2: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}
3: \usepackage{apjfonts}
4: \usepackage{amsbsy}
5:
6:
7: %\documentclass[apj]{../new_apjstyle/emulateapj}
8: %\usepackage{../new_apjstyle/apjfonts}
9: %\usepackage{../new_apjstyle/amsbsy}
10:
11: %\documentstyle[11pt, preprint]{../../aastex52/aastex}
12: %\documentstyle[11pt]{../../aastex52/aastex}
13: %\documentclass[12pt, preprint]{aastex}
14:
15: \input{newcommands.tex}
16: \bibliographystyle{apj}
17:
18: \def\p0{P_0(r)}
19: \def\pu{P_U(r)}
20: \def\mrlogh{M_r-5\log h}
21: \def\mbjlogh{M_{b_J}-5\log h}
22: \def\nn{{\mathcal N}}
23: \def\msat{M_{\rm sat}}
24: \def\dev{\Delta P/\sigma_{\rm SDSS}}
25: \def\zlim{z_{\rm lim}}
26: \def\xibar{\bar{\xi}}
27: \def\nbar{\bar{N}}
28: \def\ngbar{\bar{n}_g(r)}
29: \def\fred{f_{\rm red}}
30: \def\mnl{M_{\rm nl}}
31:
32: \def\xvpf{\chi^2_{\rm VPF}}
33: \def\xupf{\chi^2_{\rm UPF}}
34: \def\xwp{\chi^2_{w_p}}
35:
36: \begin{document}
37:
38: \title{Void Statistics in Large Galaxy Redshift Surveys: Does Halo
39: Occupation of Field Galaxies Depend on Environment?}
40:
41: \author{
42: Jeremy L. Tinker\altaffilmark{1,2},
43: Charlie Conroy\altaffilmark{1,3},
44: Peder Norberg\altaffilmark{4}, \\
45: Santiago G. Patiri\altaffilmark{5},
46: David H. Weinberg\altaffilmark{6},
47: \& Michael S. Warren\altaffilmark{7}
48: }
49: \altaffiltext{1}{Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, University of Chicago}
50: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy \& Astrophysics, University of Chicago}
51: %\altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Peyton Hall,
52: %Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA}
53: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astrophysical Sciences,
54: Princeton University}
55: \altaffiltext{4}{Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh}
56: \altaffiltext{5}{Instituto de Astrof{\'\i}sica de Canarias}
57: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Astronomy, Ohio State University}
58: \altaffiltext{7}{Theoretical Astrophysics, Los Alamos National Labs}
59:
60: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
61: % ABSTRACT ABSTRACT ABSTRACT ABSTRACT ABSTRACT ABSTRACT ABSTRACT
62: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
63:
64: \begin{abstract}
65:
66: We use measurements of the projected galaxy correlation function
67: \wp\ and galaxy void statistics to test whether the galaxy content of
68: halos of fixed mass is systematically different in low density
69: environments. We present new measurements of the void probability
70: function (VPF) and underdensity probability function (UPF) from Data
71: Release Four of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), as well as new
72: measurements of the VPF from the full data release of the Two-Degree
73: Field Galaxy Redshift Survey. We compare these measurements to
74: predictions calculated from models of the Halo Occupation Distribution
75: (HOD) that are constrained to match both the projected correlation
76: function \wp\ and the space density of galaxies $\ngavg$. The standard
77: implementation of the HOD assumes that galaxy occupation depends on
78: halo mass only, and is independent of local environment. For
79: luminosity-defined samples, we find that the standard HOD prediction
80: is a good match to the observations, and the data exclude models in
81: which galaxy formation efficiency is reduced in low-density
82: environments. For $L_\star$ samples we cannot rule out a slight
83: increase in galaxy formation efficiency at low densities. More
84: remarkably, we find that the void statistics of red and blue galaxies
85: (at $L\sim 0.4L_\star$) are perfectly predicted by standard HOD models
86: matched to the correlation function of these samples, ruling out
87: ``assembly bias'' models in which galaxy color is correlated with
88: large-scale environment at fixed halo mass. We conclude that the
89: luminosity and color of field galaxies are determined predominantly by
90: the mass of the halo in which they reside and have little direct
91: dependence on the environment in which the host halo formed. In
92: broader terms, our results show that the sizes and emptiness of voids
93: found in the distribution of $L\gtrsim 0.2L_\star$ galaxies are in
94: excellent agreement with the predictions of a standard cosmological
95: model with a simple connection between galaxies and dark matter halos.
96:
97: \end{abstract}
98: \keywords{cosmology:theory --- galaxies:halos --- large scale structure of the universe}
99:
100: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
101: % INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
102: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
103:
104: \section{Introduction}
105:
106: The Halo Occupation Distribution (HOD) has become one of the primary
107: methods for analyzing and interpreting galaxy clustering measurements
108: (e.g., \citealt{kauffmann_etal:97, jing_etal:98, benson_etal:00,
109: seljak:00, peacock_smith:00, ma_fry:00, roman_etal:01,
110: berlind_weinberg:02}). The unique and powerful aspect of the halo
111: occupation approach is that it quantifies the bias of a class of
112: galaxies with respect to the underlying dark matter distribution
113: through the statistical relationship between galaxies and the dark
114: matter halos in which they reside. In the HOD formalism, the bias of a
115: galaxy sample is specified by the quantity $P(N|M)$, the probability
116: that a halo of mass $M$ contains $N$ galaxies. Along with assumptions
117: about the spatial and velocity biases of galaxies with respect to the
118: dark matter within their host halos, $P(N|M)$ describes the bias of
119: the sample on all scales and for any clustering measure. The implicit
120: assumption of this approach is that $P(N|M)$ depends only the mass of
121: the halo and is independent of the halo's larger-scale
122: environment. This ``standard implementation'' of the HOD has been
123: called into question by a number of recent theoretical results. Thus
124: it is important to test the underlying assumptions of the HOD and
125: quantify any residuals of the standard implementation, reducing
126: systematic uncertainties in the cosmological constraints derived from
127: HOD modeling. In turn these tests lead to insight on the processes of
128: galaxy formation. In this paper we use new measurements of void
129: probability statistics in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS,
130: \citealt{york_etal:00}) and Two-Degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey
131: (2dFGRS, \citealt{colless_etal:01, colless_etal:03}) to test whether
132: the relation between the properties of field galaxies and their host
133: halos depends on mass only. We define field galaxies as
134: isolated systems residing in low density regions of the galaxy distribution. In the
135: halo occupation context, these are galaxies that live at the center
136: of halos at or near the minimum halo mass scale for the given galaxy
137: class.
138:
139: In \cite{tinker_etal:06b} (hereafter, Paper I), we demonstrated that
140: the statistics of galaxy voids are a sensitive diagnostic for
141: environmental dependence of halo occupation. The statistics explored
142: in Paper I were the void probability function (VPF, denoted $P_0$),
143: and the underdensity probability function (UPF, denoted $P_U$). The
144: VPF is defined as the probability that a sphere of radius $r$ contains
145: zero galaxies of a given type. The UPF is defined as the probability
146: that a sphere of radius $r$ has a galaxy density less than some
147: fraction of the overall mean density for that galaxy type. Here we set
148: that fraction to the conventional value of 0.2. Previous theoretical
149: studies sought to determine what information, if any, void statistics
150: alone offer for constraining galaxy bias (\citealt{little_weinberg:94,
151: benson:01, berlind_weinberg:02}). Paper I explored void statistics
152: in conjunction with other clustering measures, demonstrating that
153: standard HOD models that match observations of the projected two-point
154: correlation function \wp, and the number density of galaxies $\ngavg$,
155: predict nearly degenerate void statistics regardless of the mapping
156: between halo mass and central galaxy luminosity or the amplitude of
157: dark matter clustering, conclusions similar to those of
158: \cite{conroy_etal:05}. The remarkable robustness of void statistics
159: (under the assumptions of the standard HOD) implies that they can be
160: used to test these underlying assumptions. The two-point correlation
161: function is dominated by galaxies in mean and high density regions of
162: the universe. If one uses this statistic to constrain galaxy
163: occupation and correctly predicts another clustering measure that
164: probes underdense regions, then one infers that halo occupation at
165: fixed mass does not change between high and low densities.
166:
167: Early studies concluded that the properties of dark matter halos, such
168: as their formation times and merger histories, were independent of, or
169: weakly dependent on environment (\citealt{lemson_kauffmann:99,
170: sheth_tormen:04}). More recent results, aided by higher resolution
171: and larger-volume simulations, detect a clear relation between
172: formation times and local environment (\citealt{gao_etal:05,
173: harker_etal:05, wechsler_etal:06, zhu_etal:06, gao_white:06,
174: wetzel_etal:07}). These studies conclude that this correlation is
175: strongest for low-mass halos, with a sign such that older halos form
176: in higher density regions. Attempts to measure this effect in high
177: mass halos observationally have met with conflicting results
178: (\citealt{yang_etal:06, berlind_etal:06}). Although the correlation
179: between halo formation time and environment is now firmly established,
180: the effect on the galaxy population is less
181: clear. \cite{croton_etal:06a, croton_etal:07} use their
182: semi-analytical galaxy formation model to quantify this ``assembly
183: bias'' in the galaxy population. \cite{croton_etal:07} quantify
184: assembly bias by its effect on the large-scale galaxy two-point
185: correlation function, $b_x = \sqrt{\xi/\xi_0}$, where $\xi_0$ is the
186: clustering amplitude of a model once the assembly bias has been
187: removed from the sample by scrambling galaxies among halos of the same
188: mass. For luminosity-defined samples, they find $b_x-1 \approx 0.05$
189: for faint galaxies, decreasing to $-0.05$ for bright galaxies. The
190: effect is strongest in their model for faint, red, central galaxies,
191: increasing the amplitude of the correlation function of these objects
192: by nearly a factor of 4. Because central galaxies define the voids (in
193: the statistical sense of the VPF and UPF), our approach is well-suited
194: to testing this effect in the true galaxy distribution. Observational
195: tests of the environmental dependence of galaxy properties by
196: \cite{blanton_etal:06a} have shown that the blue fraction correlates
197: with the galaxy density on small-scales (i.e., the scale of a large
198: halo), but not with the larger-scale density field (see also
199: \citealt{blanton_etal:06b}). \cite{abbas_sheth:05, abbas_sheth:06}
200: use the halo occupation formalism to calculate galaxy clustering as a
201: function of local galaxy density, concluding that the standard
202: $P(N|M)$ approach correctly predicts the clustering of SDSS galaxies
203: as a function of their local environment. \cite{skibba_etal:06} use
204: the standard HOD approach to accurately predict the
205: luminosity-weighted correlation function of SDSS galaxies. Our use of
206: void statistics is complementary to these tests, in that voids probe
207: the most extreme galaxy environments. While the papers above are
208: sensitive to assembly bias of satellite galaxies or galaxies in mean
209: and high-density environments, void statistics are affected by the
210: bias of a small subset of the overall galaxy sample, making them more
211: sensitive to assembly bias in central galaxies and at low densities.
212:
213: In this paper we present new measurements of the VPF and UPF from Data
214: Release Four of the SDSS (DR4, \citealt{dr4}). Through the use of a
215: larger observational sample, this work extends earlier analysis of
216: void statistics from the CfA redshift survey
217: (\citealt{vogeley_etal:94}), the 2dFGRS (\citealt{croton_etal:04,
218: hoyle_vogeley:04, patiri_etal:06a}) and Data Release Two of the SDSS
219: (\citealt{conroy_etal:05}). We also present new measurements of the
220: VPF from the full data release of the 2dFGRS that are better suited to
221: the purposes of this study than earlier analyses. We compare these
222: data to predictions for the VPF and UPF created with the standard
223: implementation of the HOD and for models in which the occupation of
224: central galaxies depends on environment. All models are constrained to
225: match \wp\ and $\ngavg$. Using the parameterization of Paper I, we
226: create density-dependent models in which the minimum mass scale for
227: hosting a central galaxy shifts by a factor $\fmin$ in environments
228: where the density falls below a threshold value $\dc$. A value of
229: $\fmin>1$ physically represents a model in which galaxy formation
230: become less efficient in low-density regions, creating positive
231: assembly bias ($b_x>1$). Models with $\fmin<1$ imply an increase in
232: galaxy formation efficiency, in the sense that a given mass halo can
233: host a more luminous galaxy, yielding negative assembly bias
234: ($b_x<1$). We show that the void statistics for faint galaxies,
235: $\mrlogh<-19$, are accurately predicted by the standard HOD, while
236: models with density dependence always produce a worse fit to the
237: observational data. The void statistics for bright galaxies,
238: $\mrlogh<-21$, are adequately fit by the standard HOD prediction,
239: while models with positive assembly bias are strongly excluded. (For
240: reference, the characteristic luminosity $L_\star$ in the
241: \cite{blanton_etal:03} $r$-band luminosity function is $M_r - 5\log h
242: = -20.44$.) We also make predictions for void statistics in the
243: 2dFGRS. We find once again that the standard HOD accurately predicts
244: the VPF in these samples, leaving little room for assembly bias.
245:
246: We also explore models for faint color-defined galaxy samples. The
247: dependence of galaxy color and morphology on local environment is well
248: established (e.g.\ \citealt{dressler:80, postman_geller:84}). The
249: correlation between color and environment has been refined with the
250: increased statistics of the SDSS, (\citealt{blanton_etal:05a,
251: park_etal:07}). \cite{berlind_etal:05} use cosmological hydrodynamic
252: simulations to demonstrate that these variations of color with
253: environment can be explained by the variations of the halo mass
254: function with environment only, without variations of halo occupation
255: at fixed mass. The observational results of \cite{blanton_etal:06a}
256: support this conclusion. However, the theoretical results of
257: \cite{croton_etal:07} imply that environmental effects of halo
258: occupation should be strong for color-defined samples. In their
259: semi-analytic model, faint red central galaxies preferentially occupy
260: halos in dense regions (at fixed halo mass). This is contrary to the
261: standard HOD assumption that the central galaxy of a halo has a
262: probability of being red that is independent of environment. We show
263: that the measured VPFs are well-fit by the standard HOD predictions
264: for these samples. An assembly bias as strong as that in the
265: semi-analytic model of \cite{croton_etal:07} would likely be
266: detectable within the given errors of our VPF measurements.
267:
268: Section 2 presents the details of our measurements of the VPF and UPF
269: from the SDSS, and our methodology for making predictions for these
270: statistics from the HOD. Section 3 presents the results for
271: luminosity-defined samples from the SDSS, comparing observational
272: measurements to HOD predictions using both the standard implementation
273: and models with density dependence. In \S 4 we show results for
274: color-selected galaxy samples from the SDSS, and compare to HOD
275: models. In \S 5 we present results for luminosity-defined samples from
276: the 2dFGRS. In \S 6 we discuss these results.
277:
278:
279: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
280: % SECTION 2
281: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
282:
283: \section{SDSS Data and Modeling}
284:
285: \begin{figure*}
286: \centerline{\epsfxsize=5.5truein\epsffile{hod_4win.ps}}
287: %\epsscale{1.0}
288: %\plotone{hod_4win.ps}
289: %\vspace{-4.5cm}
290: \caption{\label{hod_4win} Projected correlation function data and HOD
291: fits for the $\mrlogh<-19$ sample (panels [a] and [c], respectively)
292: and the $\mrlogh<-20$ sample (panels [b] and [d], respectively). In
293: the top panels, points with error bars are the SDSS data of Z05,
294: while the gray region represents the range in HOD fits with $\Delta
295: \xwp<1$ with respect to the best-fit HOD model. Bottom panels plot
296: the mean occupation functions $\navg$ for 20 randomly chosen HOD
297: fits with $\Delta \xwp<1$. Results in panels (b) and (d) are for the
298: $\mrlogh<-20$ sample restricted to $z\le 0.06$. }
299: \end{figure*}
300:
301: \begin{figure*}
302: \centerline{\epsfxsize=5.5truein\epsffile{hod_4win2.ps}}
303: %\epsscale{1.0}
304: %\plotone{hod_4win2.ps}
305: %\vspace{-4.5cm}
306: \caption{\label{hod_4win2} Projected correlation function data and HOD
307: fits for the $M_r<-21$ sample (panels [a] and [c], respectively) and
308: the $M_r<-22$ sample (panels [b] and [d], respectively). In the top
309: panels, points with error bars are the SDSS data of
310: Z05, while the gray region represents the range in
311: HOD fits with $\Delta \xwp<1$ with respect to the best-fit HOD
312: model. Bottom panels plot the mean occupation functions $\navg$ for
313: 20 randomly chosen HOD fits with $\Delta \xwp<1$. }
314: \end{figure*}
315:
316:
317:
318: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
319: % Subsection
320: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
321:
322: \subsection{Observational Samples and Measurements}
323:
324: For SDSS galaxies, we use measurements of \wp\ from
325: \cite{zehavi_etal:05} (hereafter Z05). These measurements were
326: performed on volume-limited samples from a spectroscopic sample of
327: nearly $200,000$ galaxies, from an angular survey area of 2497
328: deg$^2$, approximately the size of Data Release Two of the SDSS (DR2,
329: \citealt{dr2}). We use four volume-limited samples defined by $r$-band
330: magnitude thresholds $\mrlogh = -19$, $-20$, $-21$, and $-22$. For all
331: samples, we utilize the full covariance error matrix of the
332: measurements when comparing HOD models of \wp\ to observations. To
333: measure the void statistics in DR4 of the SDSS we use the NYU Value
334: Added Galaxy Catalog (\citealt{blanton_etal:05b}). This sample is
335: larger in volume than the Z05 sample; the survey area for DR4 is 4783
336: deg$^2$, but the flanking fields and other isolated patches are not
337: well suited for our measurements, and are not used. As in the Z05
338: samples, all galaxies are $k$-corrected to redshift $z=0.1$ using the
339: software package {\tt kcorrect} (\citealt{blanton_etal:06c}). Although
340: the larger volume of DR4 might lead to differences in \wp, the samples
341: for which \wp\ have been measured in DR4 are within the errors of the
342: Z05 data (I. Zehavi, private communication). As we will demonstrate in
343: \S 2.3, the measurements of \wp\ used in this paper are sufficient to
344: constrain the HOD for the $\mrlogh<-19$ and $-21$ samples, so that the
345: uncertainties in HOD parameters are nearly negligible in comparison to
346: the measurement errors on the VPF and UPF. When analyzing the data we
347: use the full error covariance matrix, also taken from Z05.
348:
349:
350: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
351: % TABLE 1
352: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
353:
354: \begin{deluxetable*}{cccccc}
355: \tablecolumns{6}
356: \tablewidth{28pc}
357: \tablecaption{Properties of the SDSS Volume Limited Catalogs}
358: \tablehead{\colhead{Sample} & \colhead{$z_{\rm min}$} & \colhead{$z_{\rm max}$} & \colhead{$\ngavg$} &
359: \colhead{$f_{\rm comp}$} & \colhead{Volume $[(h^{-1}{\rm Mpc})^3]$} }
360:
361: \startdata
362:
363: $-19$ & 0.02 & 0.06 & $1.19\times 10^{-2}$ & 0.873 & $1.78\times 10^6$ \\
364: $-20$ & 0.02 & 0.06 & $4.33\times 10^{-3}$ & 0.873 & $1.78\times 10^6$ \\
365: \,$-20^\prime$ & 0.02 & 0.10 & $4.93\times 10^{-3}$ & 0.873 & $8.28\times 10^6$ \\
366: $-21$ & 0.03 & 0.15 & $1.01\times 10^{-3}$ & 0.876 & $2.11\times 10^7$ \\
367: $-22$ & 0.05 & 0.22 & $5.77\times 10^{-5}$ & 0.876 & $8.15\times 10^7$ \\
368: \hline
369: red & 0.02 & 0.06 & $3.28\times 10^{-3}$ & 0.873 & $1.78\times 10^6$ \\
370: blue & 0.02 & 0.06 & $4.33\times 10^{-3}$ & 0.873 & $1.78\times 10^6$
371:
372: \enddata \tablecomments{Number densities are given in units of
373: $($\hmpc$)^3$. $f_{\rm comp}$ is the mean completeness of each
374: sample. $-20^\prime$ refers to the unrestricted sample that includes
375: the Sloan Great Wall. See \S 2.2 for discussion. $V$ is the volume
376: of each sample. Samples are defined with luminosity thresholds, but
377: the red and blue samples are restricted to the magnitude range $-19
378: < \mrlogh < -20$. }
379: \end{deluxetable*}
380:
381: To measure the UPF and VPF from the survey at a given $r$, we randomly
382: place a large number of spheres with radius $r$ within the survey,
383: counting the number of galaxies located in each sphere. We limit the
384: number of spheres to a maximum of $10^7$ and minimum of $10^6$,
385: numbers that have been tested to ensure convergence. The largest
386: number of spheres is used at small radii to reduce the shot noise in
387: the measurement at those scales. Once the counts in each cell are
388: determined, the VPF is defined as the fraction of empty spheres, i.e.,
389:
390: \begin{equation}
391: \label{e.vpf}
392: P_0(r) = \frac{\nn_0}{\nn_{\rm tot}},
393: \end{equation}
394:
395: \noindent where $\nn_N$ refers to the number of spheres that contain
396: $N$ galaxies, and $\nn_{\rm tot}$ indicates the total number of
397: spheres. The UPF is defined as the fraction of spheres that contain
398: less than 20\% of the expected number of galaxies from the mean
399: density,
400:
401: \begin{equation}
402: \label{e.upf}
403: P_U(r) = \nn_{\rm tot}^{-1}\sum_{N=0}^{N_U(r)}\nn_N
404: \end{equation}
405:
406: \noindent where $N_U(r)={\tt floor}( 0.2\times \ngavg 4\pi
407: r^3/3)$. While $P_0(r)$ rapidly approaches zero at radii larger than
408: the mean galaxy separation, $P_U(r)$ falls off approximately as an
409: exponential function and is less subject to shot noise at larger
410: $r$. Thus is it possible to measure $P_U(r)$ more accurately at larger
411: scales than $P_0(r)$. Paper I also demonstrated that these statistics
412: have somewhat complementary information when testing for
413: density-dependence in $\navg$; altering galaxy formation efficiency
414: may eliminate galaxies from low-density regions without entirely
415: emptying them.
416:
417: Our handling of the SDSS survey geometry and completeness closely
418: parallels that of \cite{conroy_etal:05}. The completeness, defined as
419: the ratio of successfully attained redshifts to targetable objects,
420: varies non-trivially from 0 to 1 as a function of right ascension and
421: declination. Sophisticated software has been developed to efficiently
422: handle complex survey geometry such as the SDSS. In order to identify
423: and avoid regions of low completeness we use the \texttt{Mangle}
424: package (\citealt{hamilton_tegmark:04}) to generate a densely sampled
425: angular window function. This window function incorporates regions of
426: the sky not surveyed, either because the region lies outside the
427: bounds of the survey or because of bright foreground stars, and
428: incompleteness within the survey due either to fiber collisions (no
429: two fibers can be separated by less than 55 arcseconds, affecting ~7\%
430: of targetable redshifts) or objects that could not be assigned a
431: reliable redshift, affecting $\sim1$\% of targetable objects.
432:
433: In order to treat edge-effects arising from measuring the VPF and UPF
434: via counts-in-spheres, we convolve the window function with a circular
435: smoothing kernel of angular radius $\theta(r,z)$ proportional to a
436: sphere projected onto the plane of the sky with comoving radius $r$ at
437: redshift $z$. This convolution yields the total completeness of the
438: survey at each point in the sky for a given angular sphere size, where
439: the incompleteness could arise from either a sphere lying partially
440: off the edge of the survey or being in a region of the survey with low
441: spectroscopic completeness. We then place random spheres only at
442: points above a minimum convolved completeness. This allows us to
443: robustly avoid regions of bright stars, regions of low completeness
444: (due, for example, to inclement weather during observations) and the
445: edges of the survey. The distribution of completenesses is
446: approximately a Gaussian centered at $\sim 88$\% with an additional
447: constant component extending to low completeness. Motivated by this
448: distribution, we place spheres only in regions above a minimum
449: convolved completeness of $83$\%, noting that our results are
450: insensitive to this exact value. Spheres are placed uniformly along
451: the line of sight because each sample is volume limited.
452:
453: In the above methodology, completeness issues are handled by including
454: only those regions of the survey which are both high and uniform in
455: completeness and then incorporating the remaining small incompleteness
456: effects into model predictions (which we will discuss below). An
457: alternative methodology has been proposed by \cite{croton_etal:04}, in
458: which incompleteness effects are treated by correcting the measured
459: VPF in order to recover the ``true'' underlying VPF of the galaxy
460: distribution. This particular correction scheme counts the number of
461: galaxies within a sphere of radius $r'=r/f^{1/3}$ as contributing to
462: the VPF at radius $r$ ($f$ is the convolved completeness at $r$).
463: This scheme in essence treats incompleteness as missed volume rather
464: than missed galaxies. Although this correction is exact in the Poisson
465: limit, it will over-correct the VPF to some degree at larger $r$ or
466: lower $\p0$. The systematic error accrued is difficult to estimate
467: without the use of detailed mock catalogs, reducing the usefulness of
468: the correction method in the first place. Thus to compare our models
469: to data, we modify the theoretical predictions to match the
470: incompleteness of the survey, rather than trying to remove the
471: incompleteness from the survey itself. We will discuss this further in
472: \S 2.3.
473:
474: As in Z05, we create two separate volume-limited samples with
475: $\mrlogh<-20$. The maximum redshift for these objects is $z=0.10$, but
476: this redshift limit includes the so-called `Sloan Great Wall'
477: supercluster (\citealt{gott_etal:05}; see also \citealt{baugh_etal:04}
478: for results from the 2dFGRS). This structure dominates the overall
479: clustering of the full $-20$ sample, and the presence of such a
480: structure makes it difficult to accurately estimate the true cosmic
481: variance for this sample. We follow Z05 in focusing on a sample
482: restricted to the same redshift limit as the $\mrlogh<-19$ sample of
483: $z\le 0.06$. Unless otherwise stated, all results for these galaxies
484: use the restricted redshift sample.
485:
486:
487: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
488: % Subsection
489: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
490:
491: \subsection{HOD Modeling}
492:
493: We constrain the occupation function by fitting the observed \wp\ and
494: $\ngavg$ for each sample with the analytic model for \wp\ described in
495: \cite{tinker_etal:05} (see also \citealt{zheng:04,
496: zehavi_etal:04}). The mean occupation function is divided into two
497: terms; central galaxies located at the center of mass of the halo, and
498: satellite galaxies distributed throughout the halo. For SDSS samples
499: defined by a luminosity threshold, the central occupation function
500: takes the form
501:
502: \begin{equation}
503: \label{e.ncen_sdss}
504: \ncen = \frac{1}{2}\left[ 1+\mbox{erf}\left(\frac{\log M - \log
505: \mmin}{\sigmaM} \right) \right],
506: \end{equation}
507:
508: \noindent where $\mmin$ is a cutoff mass scale and all logarithms are
509: base-10. Formally, in equation (\ref{e.ncen_sdss}) $\mmin$ is the mass
510: at which $\ncen=0.5$. The parameter $\slogm$ describes the shape of
511: the central galaxy cutoff. Physically, this parameter represents the
512: scatter between halo mass and central galaxy luminosity; if this
513: scatter is large then a fraction of low-mass halos will be included in
514: the sample and the shape of the cutoff will be soft. If this scatter
515: is small then central galaxies follow a nearly one-to-one mapping of
516: mass to luminosity, and $\ncen$ resembles a step function.
517:
518: The satellite galaxy occupation function is modeled as a truncated
519: power law,
520:
521: \begin{equation}
522: \label{e.nsat_sdss}
523: \nsat = \left( \frac{M-\mcut}{\msat}\right)^{\asat},
524: \end{equation}
525:
526: \noindent where $\mcut$ is a cutoff mass scale for satellites, $\msat$
527: is the amplitude of the power law, and $\asat$ is its slope. In
528: equation (\ref{e.nsat_sdss}) the mass at which halos host on average
529: one satellite is $M_1 = \mcut+\msat$. The total occupation function is
530: $\navg = \ncen + \nsat$. As expressed in equations (\ref{e.ncen_sdss})
531: and (\ref{e.nsat_sdss}) the occupation function has five free
532: parameters. In practice, the number of free parameters is reduced to
533: four because $\mmin$ is set by $\ngavg$ once the other parameters have
534: been chosen. One can accurately fit \wp\ with only a three-parameter
535: occupation function (e.g., \citealt{zehavi_etal:04, zehavi_etal:05}),
536: but we allow $\navg$ extra freedom to explore how variations in the
537: shape of $\navg$ alter the predicted void statistics. In Paper I we
538: demonstrated that the void statistics are relatively insensitive to
539: $\slogm$ and $\mmin$ allowed by \wp\ and $\ngavg$, but to quantify the
540: uncertainty in our predicted void statistics we leave all parameters
541: free. For each \wp, the best-fit model is found by $\chi^2$
542: minimization using the full covariance error matrix of the data. To
543: minimize $\chi^2$ we use the Monte Carlo Markov chain method
544: (MCMC). While less efficient than other techniques, MCMC quantifies
545: the errors on the HOD parameters. For each sample, we randomly select
546: twenty HOD fits from the MCMC chain that have a $\Delta\chi^2<1$ with
547: respect to the best-fit model. These 20 fits will be used to estimate
548: the range in HOD predictions for the void statistics allowed by the
549: \wp\ data. The best-fit models for each sample are listed in Table 2.
550:
551: Figure \ref{hod_4win} presents the results of the HOD analysis of the
552: $\mrlogh<-19$ and $-20$ samples. Figures \ref{hod_4win}a and
553: \ref{hod_4win}b plot the data with diagonal error bars, along with the
554: sample of twenty HOD fits from the MCMC chain. Figures \ref{hod_4win}c
555: and \ref{hod_4win}d present the occupation functions for each of those
556: twenty fits for faint and bright samples, respectively. For the
557: $\mrlogh<-19$ sample, the twenty projected correlation functions
558: calculated from the HOD fits are nearly indistinguishable. But the
559: occupation functions in \ref{hod_4win}c differ substantially at low
560: masses. Because $\mmin$ for this sample is significantly below the
561: nonlinear mass scale $\mstar = 8.60\times 10^{12}$ \hmsol\ for this
562: cosmology, \wp\ is relatively unaffected by softer or harder central
563: cutoffs; the mean bias of the HOD is largely unaffected by variations
564: in $\slogm$. In Paper I we demonstrated that the distribution of voids
565: is also unaffected by such changes to the occupation function,
566: yielding degenerate VPFs and UPFs. Figure \ref{hod_4win}d presents the
567: twenty occupation function for the $\mrlogh<-20$ sample. For this
568: sample, the shape of the central galaxy cutoff is essentially
569: unconstrained; the range in $\slogm$ from the twenty MCMC models is
570: 1.4 to 0.05. Because the volume of this sample is the same as the
571: $\mrlogh<-19$ sample, the differences in the constraints are somewhat
572: surprising. The size of the diagonal errors on \wp\ are similar, but
573: the data points for the brighter galaxies are more correlated,
574: reducing the constraining power for this sample.
575:
576: Figure \ref{hod_4win2} shows the same quantities as the previous
577: figure, but now for the $\mrlogh<-21$ sample, and the $\mrlogh<-22$
578: sample. Figure \ref{hod_4win}c presents the twenty occupation
579: functions for the $\mrlogh<-21$ sample. For this sample, $\mmin \sim
580: \mstar$, thus the constraints on $\slogm$ from \wp\ alone are
581: substantially stronger than for the fainter samples. For the brightest
582: galaxies, Figure \ref{hod_4win2}b shows large differences in one-halo
583: clustering among acceptable models, resulting in significant
584: differences in $\nsat$ in Figure \ref{hod_4win2}d. The lack of strong
585: constraints on the HOD prevent the use of this sample and the
586: $\mrlogh <-20$ sample for testing assembly bias in the void
587: statistics. But, as we will show in the following section, for these
588: the constraints on the HOD can be enhanced moderately through the
589: addition of the VPF and UPF.
590:
591:
592: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
593: % Subsection
594: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
595:
596: \subsection{Mock Catalogs}
597:
598: Once the best-fit HOD model is identified, we predict void statistics
599: by populating the halos identified in dark matter N-body
600: simulations. Central galaxies are located at the center of mass of the
601: halo, and satellite galaxies are placed randomly throughout the halo
602: such that they follow the density profile of \cite{nfw:97} with a
603: concentration parameter given by the model of
604: \cite{bullock_etal:01}. Central galaxies are given the velocity of the
605: halo center of mass, while satellite galaxies are given an additional
606: random velocity in each Cartesian direction drawn from a Gaussian
607: distribution with dispersion equal to the virial velocity of the halo
608: $\sigma_{\rm vir}^2 = GM/2R_{\rm vir}$, where we have defined $R_{\rm
609: vir}$ to be the radius at which the mean interior density of the
610: halo is 200 times the background density. All calculations of the VPF
611: and UPF are performed in redshift space using the distant observer
612: approximation, with the $z$-axis as the line of sight. Our results are
613: insensitive to the value of $\om$ or possible velocity bias of the
614: galaxies within reasonable limits (i.e., variations less than $\sim
615: 40\%$). Although these parameters alter the redshift space positions of
616: galaxies, the net effect on the void statistics is negligible. As with
617: the observational measurements, we calculate the VPF and UPF using
618: $10^6-10^7$ random spheres at each radius. Errors on the calculations
619: are estimated by jackknife sampling of the simulation volume into 125
620: subsamples.
621:
622: We use two simulations to calculate void statistics, a smaller box 400
623: \hmpc\ on a side and a larger box 1086 \hmpc\ on a side. Both
624: simulations are inflationary cold dark matter models with identical
625: cosmologies. The linear matter power spectrum used to create the
626: initial conditions of each simulation was calculated with {\small
627: CMBFAST} (\citealt{cmbfast}) with the parameter set
628: $(\om,\s8,\omb,n_s,h) = (0.3,0.9,0.04,1.0,0.7)$. For fainter galaxies
629: we utilize the smaller simulation to make predictions. This is the
630: same simulation used in Paper I, consisting of $1280^3$ particles,
631: yielding a particle mass of $2.54\times 10^9$ \hmsol. To model the
632: brighter galaxies we populate the larger simulation. This simulation
633: contains $1024^3$ particles, yielding a particle mass of $9.95\times
634: 10^{10}$ \hmsol. For both simulations, the initial conditions are
635: integrated with the hashed oct-tree code of \cite{warren_salmon:93},
636: with Plummer force softening lengths of 14.6 \hkpc\ and 40 \hkpc\ for
637: the small and large boxes, respectively. Halos are identified in the
638: simulations using the friends-of-friends algorithm with a linking
639: parameter of 0.2 times the mean interparticle separation, a value that
640: selects halos roughly corresponding to our adopted definition of a
641: virial overdensity of 200 (\citealt{davis_etal:85}). To be
642: self-consistent, all analytic calculations are performed with the same
643: set of cosmological parameters listed above. For these calculations,
644: the halo mass function is obtained with the fitting function of
645: \cite{jenkins_etal:01}. For the halo bias function, we use the fitting
646: function from \cite{tinker_etal:05}. This bias relation utilizes the
647: functional form presented in \cite{sheth_mo_tormen:01}, but with
648: parameter values ($a=0.707$, $b=0.35$ and $c=0.8$) calibrated on a
649: set of larger-volume N-body simulation with widely varying
650: cosmologies.
651:
652: As mentioned in \S 2.1, we modify the number density of galaxies in
653: each mock to match that measured in each observational sample. At each
654: radius the mean number density of SDSS galaxies within spheres
655: $\ngbar$ is calculated. The maximum deviation of $\ngbar$ from the
656: overall mean averaged over all radial bins in less than $\sim 2$\% for
657: each luminosity sample, demonstrating that our treatment of the survey
658: mask is robust and that we are probing the same volume with each
659: sphere size. The mean number densities for each sample are listed in
660: Table 1, along with other details of each sample. Due to
661: incompleteness, these number densities are less than that expected
662: from the measurement of the $r$-band luminosity function by
663: \cite{blanton_etal:03}. When calculating the VPF in our mock galaxy
664: distributions, we dilute the mocks to match the number densities of
665: the data at each radius. Using the overall mean density produces
666: minimal differences in the theoretical predictions, with small
667: differences at the lowest-$r$ points where the VPF is Poisson
668: dominated.
669:
670: The galaxy number density required by the HOD analysis of \wp\ is the
671: {\it true} number density, which must be estimated from observational
672: samples and has an error associated with it due to cosmic variance. As
673: noted in \cite{kev_etal:05}, this error is $\lesssim 5\%$ for the
674: $\mrlogh<-21$ sample. To test the sensitivity of our model predictions
675: to errors in the true number density, we alter $\ngavg$ by $+/- 10\%$
676: and re-fit \wp. The resulting void statistics, once matched to the
677: {\it sample} number densities, are within the errors on the
678: theoretical estimates. Due to the steepness of the halo mass function,
679: increasing or decreasing $\ngavg$ by 10\% alters the mass scales of
680: the HOD parameters ($\mmin$, $M_1$, $\mcut$) by $\sim 5\%$ (with the
681: opposite sign of the change in $\ngavg$), but the overall shape of the
682: HOD is nearly unchanged. We conclude that cosmic variance errors on
683: the true galaxy number density do not bias our results.
684:
685:
686:
687: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
688: % Subsection
689: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
690:
691: \subsection{Error Estimation and Systematics}
692:
693: We estimate the errors on the measured void statistics with our
694: simulations, described the previous section. The volume of the
695: $\mrlogh < -19$ and $-20$ samples is approximately equal to a cube
696: $120$ \hmpc\ per side, $1/37$ the volume of the $400$ \hmpc\ box. Once
697: the HOD predictions have been calculated, using the best-fit HOD from
698: the \wp\ fitting, the box is divided into 27 cubic subregions, each
699: 133 \hmpc\ per side. The dispersion among the subregions is scaled by
700: $(133/120)^{3/2}=1.17$ to correct for the fact that the subregions do
701: not exactly match the volume of the observational sample. This scaled
702: dispersion is taken to be the error on the observational quantity. We
703: also estimate the covariance matrix from this method. This method is
704: more robust than estimating the errors directly from the observational
705: sample due to variations of the galaxy number density on 120
706: \hmpc\ scales. When estimated directly from the data, these
707: fluctuations cause the errors to be underestimated with respect to the
708: dispersion amongst the simulation subregions. At large scales, $r\sim
709: 10$ \hmpc\ in the fainter samples, proper error estimation from the
710: data is also inhibited by small sample volume. To estimate errors for
711: the brighter samples, the same process is followed using the $1086$
712: \hmpc\ box. For the $\mrlogh<-21$ sample, this larger simulation is
713: approximately $47$ times larger. For $\mrlogh<-22$ galaxies, the
714: volume of the large simulation is equivalent to 16 times the
715: observational sample. When calculating $\chi^2$ for a given model, we
716: neglect the innermost ($r=1$ \hmpc ) data point. In tests we find that
717: the errors on this scale require a prohibitive number of random
718: spheres to converge, and including this point in the covariance matrix
719: introduces significant noise to the error estimate. The data at this
720: scale contain little useful information anyway; the behavior of the
721: VPF is nearly Poisson at $r\lesssim 1$ \hmpc\ for all luminosity
722: samples (\citealt{croton_etal:04}).
723:
724: For clarity, we will refer to $\chi^2$ values with respect to $\p0$,
725: $\pu$, and \wp\ as $\xvpf$, $\xupf$, and $\xwp$, respectively.
726:
727:
728: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
729: % SECTION THREE SECTION THREE SECTION THREE SECTION THREE SECTION THREE
730: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
731: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
732: % SECTION THREE SECTION THREE SECTION THREE SECTION THREE SECTION THREE
733: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
734: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
735: % SECTION THREE SECTION THREE SECTION THREE SECTION THREE SECTION THREE
736: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
737:
738: \section{Results for Luminosity-Defined SDSS Samples}
739:
740: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
741: % Subsection
742: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
743:
744: \begin{figure*}
745: \centerline{\epsfxsize=5.5truein\epsffile{4win_vpf.ps}}
746: %\epsscale{1.0}
747: %\plotone{4win_vpf.ps}
748: %\vspace{-4.5cm}
749: \caption{\label{vpf_hod} Comparison of the measured SDSS VPF to HOD
750: predictions from fitting \wp. The luminosity sample is labeled in
751: each panel. The results for each sample are presented in two panels;
752: the upper panel presents the SDSS $P_0(r)$ and the HOD prediction,
753: while the lower panel plots difference between the data and
754: prediction, relative the the errorbar on the data. The errors on the
755: HOD prediction are calculated from the simulation by the jackknife
756: method. The shaded region in the lower panel represents the range in
757: predictions from a sample of HODs with $\Delta \xwp<1$ with
758: respect to the best-fit model. The data and model in the $M_r<-20$
759: panels are using the restricted volume-limited sample. The yellow shaded
760: region plots the results from using the full sample, $z\le 0.10$. }
761: \end{figure*}
762:
763: \begin{figure*}
764: \centerline{\epsfxsize=5.5truein\epsffile{4win_upf.ps}}
765: %\epsscale{1.0}
766: %\plotone{4win_upf.ps}
767: %\vspace{-4.5cm}
768: \caption{\label{upf_hod} Comparison of the measured SDSS UPF to HOD
769: predictions from fitting \wp. Jumps in the predictions and data
770: occur when the number of galaxies corresponding to 20\% of the mean
771: density crosses an integer boundary in the number of galaxies
772: required to make a sphere ``underdense''. For the $M_r<-22$ sample,
773: the number density is so low that the UPF only differs from the VPF
774: at $r>26$ \hmpc, so we have plotted $P_1(r)$ instead. As in Figure
775: \ref{vpf_hod}, the $M_r<-20$ panels have an additional yellow shaded
776: region comparing the $P_0(r)$ from the $z\le 0.10$ sample with the
777: HOD constraints from \wp\ for the same sample. }
778: \end{figure*}
779:
780:
781:
782: \subsection{Observational Results and HOD Predictions}
783:
784: Our approach is to take a random sample of 20 HOD models that all
785: produce accurate fits to the \wp\ data, and for each model calculate
786: the VPF and UPF. All HOD models are $\Delta\xwp<1$ with respect to
787: the best-fitting model. As shown in Table 1, the best-fit models all
788: yield $\xwp/\nu\lesssim 1$. \cite{conroy_etal:05} and Paper I
789: concluded that $P_0(r)$ contained little additional information about
790: the galaxy distribution relative to the two-point correlation
791: function. If this is exactly true, and the precision of the
792: measurements of the different statistics are equal, we would expect
793: that 1) all 20 models will produce good fits to the void statistics,
794: and 2) that the range in $\xvpf$ will be approximately 1, just as with
795: the distribution of $\xwp$ values. If the void statistics do contain
796: complementary information about the galaxy distribution, one or both
797: of these expectations will be violated. An alternate method would be
798: to perform a joint fit to \wp, $\p0$, and $\pu$ simultaneously, and
799: then compare the constraints on HOD parameters to the analysis in
800: which \wp\ is considered alone. Because calculating the void
801: statistics involves the use of an N-body simulation this procedure is
802: time intensive. It also requires an estimate of the covariance between
803: all three data sets, which is not available. This method is more
804: rigorous than the one we employ, but our approach provides a
805: straightforward test of the HOD models, and discrepancies between
806: predictions and measurements are readily detectable and quantifiable.
807:
808: Figure \ref{vpf_hod} plots the measured SDSS VPF for the four
809: luminosity samples in Table 1 and compares them to the best-fit models
810: using the standard implementation of the HOD. In each panel, the
811: points with error bars represent the observed SDSS values. Lines show
812: the VPF obtained from the populated simulations. The lower panels in
813: each quadrant present the residuals of the model from the data. We
814: define the residual as $\dev \equiv (P_0^{\rm HOD} - P_0^{\rm
815: SDSS})/\sigma_{\rm SDSS}$, where $\sigma_{\rm SDSS}$ is the diagonal
816: error bar on the SDSS data. We divide by the error to more clearly
817: present the differences between theory and observations; the
818: fractional error on the VPF (and the UPF) can range from $10^{-3}$ at
819: small radii to $\sim 1$ at large $r$. The data are highly correlated,
820: so a $\dev \sim 1$ for several consecutive data points is still only a
821: $\sim 1\sigma$ deviation overall. The errors on the lines are the
822: jackknife error bars, quantifying the theoretical uncertainty in our
823: predicted VPF for the HOD model that best fits \wp, resulting from the
824: finite volume of the simulation. The shaded region in the lower window
825: of each panel represents the range in $P_0(r)$ from the MCMC models,
826: quantifying the uncertainty in the theoretical prediction associated
827: with the uncertainty in the HOD parameters. We now describe each sample
828: in detail.
829:
830: Figure \ref{vpf_hod}a presents the results for the $\mrlogh<-19$
831: sample. Due to the low luminosity threshold, this sample has the
832: smallest volume and largest observational errors on both \wp\ and the
833: void statistics. It also has the highest number density, driving the
834: VPF to zero at the smallest value of $r$ of all four samples. The
835: agreement between the measured VPF and that predicted by the best-fit
836: HOD, which assumes no density dependence to $\navg$, is excellent. The
837: residuals are approximately $0.5\sigma_{\rm SDSS}$ or less at all
838: $r$. The $\xvpf$ for the best-fit model is 8.99 for 10 data points
839: (note that ``best-fit'' here refers to \wp, and no parameters are
840: adjusted to match the VPF itself). Due to the errors on \wp, the
841: range in predicted $P_0(r)$ from the set of acceptable HOD fits is
842: larger than the jackknife errors on $P_0(r)$ for an individual model,
843: but $\dev\lesssim 1$ for all HOD models with \wp\ fits of $\Delta
844: \xwp<1$. The $\xvpf$ values for these models range from 8.27 to
845: 11.7. We attribute the larger range of $\xvpf$ of 3.4
846: mostly to the increased volume of the DR4 sample relative to the
847: \wp\ sample.
848:
849: Figure \ref{vpf_hod}b presents the results for $\mrlogh<-20$
850: galaxies. The points with error bars in the upper panel of Figure
851: \ref{vpf_hod}b show the results from the restricted sample. The
852: best-fit HOD prediction is $\sim 2\sigma$ low at $r\ge 4$ \hmpc,
853: yielding $\xvpf=54.2$ for 10 data points. The range in $\xvpf$ from the
854: twenty MCMC models is 11.4 to 118. This is in sharp contrast to the
855: results in \ref{vpf_hod}a, in which a set of \wp\ models with $\Delta
856: \xwp\le 1$ produces a set of VPFs with $\Delta \xvpf \le 4$. This is
857: due to the large range in $\slogm$ allowed by the \wp\ data. Although
858: the VPF is most sensitive to the fraction of galaxies that are
859: satellites, large variations in the central occupation function still
860: influence the size of voids to some degree (Paper I, Figure 6). The
861: value of $\xvpf$ correlates with the $\slogm$ such that sharper
862: central cutoffs yield more accurate predictions for $\p0$, with a
863: correlation coefficient $r=0.94$. Combined with the fact that the
864: central cutoff shape is ill-constrained by \wp\ alone, the VPF adds
865: significant information for constraining the HOD for this sample;
866: models with $\slogm<0.3$ yield $\xvpf\lesssim 12$. The yellow shaded
867: region presents the residuals for VPF predictions for the same
868: analysis as the orange shaded region, but now using the full $z\le
869: 0.10$ volume. The larger volume and smaller \wp\ errors tighten the
870: constraints on the HOD, but as noted in Z05 the presence of the Sloan
871: Great Wall makes it difficult to find an HOD model that accurately
872: fits the amplitude of the correlation function in the two-halo
873: regime. The supercluster boosts the large-scale power in the two-point
874: clustering, and dramatically alters the three-point clustering
875: (\citealt{nichol_etal:06, baugh_etal:04, gaztanaga_etal:05}). This
876: amplification of clustering creates larger voids in the galaxy
877: distribution, producing residuals with respect to the HOD predictions
878: that are significantly negative.
879:
880: Figure \ref{vpf_hod}c presents the results for the $\mrlogh<-21$
881: sample. Although this sample includes the Sloan Great Wall, the volume
882: of this sample is large enough such that the inclusion of this
883: structure does not significantly alter the clustering
884: statistics. Recall that for this sample (and for the $\mrlogh<-22$
885: sample), we use the 1086 \hmpc\ box to calculate the HOD predictions
886: and estimate the observational errors. The residuals of the best-fit
887: model are $\dev\lesssim 1$ for $r< 10$ \hmpc, but at larger scales the
888: residuals gradually increase to the point where the residuals between
889: the best-fit model and data are $\sim 2\sigma_{\rm SDSS}$ are $r>12$
890: \hmpc. The $\xvpf$ for the best-fit model prediction is 27.1 for 19
891: data points. The range of $\xvpf$ values for the MCMC sample of models
892: is $\xvpf=22.1$ to $\xvpf=29.2$, indicating that $\p0$ adds some
893: complementary information to \wp\ for constraining the occupation
894: function, assuming that the HOD is environment independent. The value
895: of $\xvpf$ is negatively correlated with $\slogm$, but the correlation
896: is much weaker than in Figure \ref{vpf_hod}b, with a correlation
897: coefficient $r=-0.59$. For this model, a joint fit to both \wp\ and
898: $\p0$ would most likely find a solution with a combined
899: $\chi^2/\nu<1$. We will discuss this further in the following section.
900:
901: Figure \ref{vpf_hod}d presents the results for $\mrlogh<-22$
902: galaxies. This sample has the largest volume, but galaxies above this
903: magnitude threshold are rare. Thus Poisson fluctuations contribute
904: substantially to the jackknife errors on \wp\ at smaller scales, and
905: the Z05 \wp\ for this sample has no pairs at $r_p<1$ \hmpc. The lack
906: of information on clustering in the one-halo regime decreases the
907: constraints that can be placed on the HOD. The best-fit HOD model is
908: in good agreement with the observations, with $\xvpf=29.0$ for 29 data
909: points. The range of $\xvpf$ for the MCMC models is large, extending
910: from 23.4 to 52.0. The shape of the central cutoff for these models
911: varies from $\slogm = 0.5$ to $\slogm=0.8$. The halos that contain
912: galaxies in this magnitude regime lie in the exponential cutoff of the
913: mass function, where the halo bias is a strong function of
914: mass. Models with higher values of $\slogm$ have on average lower
915: $\xvpf$ values with respect to the VPF, yielding $r=-0.74$. Thus for
916: samples of objects with limited clustering information at small
917: scales, extra constraining power can be obtained through void
918: statistics.
919:
920: Figures \ref{upf_hod}a--\ref{upf_hod}c present the UPF results for the
921: same four luminosity samples. In each figure the upper panel shows the
922: measured UPF for SDSS galaxies and the best-fit HOD prediction. As in
923: Figure \ref{vpf_hod}, the lower panels plot the residuals between data
924: and best-fit model, as well as the range in predictions from the 20
925: MCMC models. The comparison of this statistic to the HOD predictions
926: are similar to those of the VPF. In Figure \ref{upf_hod}a, the
927: $\xupf$ for the best-fit model model is 9.93 for 11 data points, with
928: a range of 7.17 to 11.7 for the MCMC models. In Figure \ref{upf_hod}b,
929: the best-fit HOD model is once again $\sim 2-\sigma$ below the
930: observations at $r\ge 4$ \hmpc, yielding $\xupf=69.8$ for 11 data
931: points. The range in $\xupf$ values is 10.7 to 93.9, with $\xupf$
932: correlating with the value of $\slogm$ as with the models in Figure
933: \ref{vpf_hod}b. In Figure \ref{upf_hod}c, the HOD predictions are in
934: better agreement with the data at large scales than the VPF results
935: from \ref{vpf_hod}c, yielding $\xupf=20.7$ for 19 data points. The
936: range of $\xupf$ values from the MCMC models is smaller than the VPF
937: results, with maximum and minimum $\chi^2$ values of 22.0 and 16.5,
938: respectively.
939:
940: For $\mrlogh<-22$ galaxies, the UPF contains little new information
941: with respect to the VPF. The number density of this sample is low
942: enough that a single galaxy in a sphere is enough to make the local
943: density larger than the threshold of 0.2$\ngavg$ for all $r<27$
944: \hmpc. Therefore we compare predictions and measurements for $P_1(r)$,
945: the probability that a random sphere has exactly one galaxy within
946: it. For $r<16$ \hmpc\ this statistic probes overdense regions
947: ($\delta_g>0$). At large and small scales, the agreement between the
948: data and best-fit model are excellent. At intermediate scales,
949: $8<r<18$ \hmpc, the agreement is adequate but the range of predictions
950: is wide, resulting from the lack of tight constraints on the HOD from
951: \wp\ alone.
952:
953: With the exception of the $\mrlogh<-20$ sample, void statistics do not
954: provide a significant amount of new information about HOD parameters,
955: but for each sample they do tighten the constraints on the shape of
956: the central galaxy cutoff parameter, $\slogm$, relative to \wp\ alone.
957:
958: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
959: % Subsection
960: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
961:
962: \subsection{Comparison to Density-Dependent Models}
963:
964: \begin{figure*}
965: \centerline{\epsfxsize=5.5truein\epsffile{dd_models_19.ps}}
966: %\epsscale{1.0}
967: %\plotone{dd_models_19.ps}
968: %\vspace{-4.5cm}
969: \caption{ \label{dd_19} (a) Upper panel: Points with error bars are
970: the SDSS measurements of $\p0$ for the $\mrlogh<-19$ sample. Lines
971: are three density-dependent HOD models with $\fmin=4$ and $\dc=-0.6$
972: (red line), $-0.4$ (green line), and $-0.2$ (blue line). Bottom
973: panel: The residuals of the model predictions relative to the
974: data. (b) Same as (a), but for $\pu$. (c) The $\xvpf$ of the model
975: predictions as a function of $\dc$ for models with $\fmin=2$ (red
976: line), and $\fmin=4$ (blue line). The shaded horizontal band is the
977: range in $\xvpf$ from the twenty MCMC models, all using the standard
978: HOD implementation. Red and blue lines represent $\fmin=2$ and
979: $\fmin=4$, respectively. The points along each line indicate models
980: that produce an assembly bias (in the correlation function) of 5\%
981: and 10\%, from right to left. (d) Same as (c), but for the UPF. }
982: \end{figure*}
983:
984: \begin{figure*}
985: \centerline{\epsfxsize=5.5truein\epsffile{dd_models_21.ps}}
986: %\epsscale{1.0}
987: %\plotone{dd_models_21.ps}
988: %\vspace{-4.5cm}
989: \caption{ \label{dd_21} (a) Upper panel: Points with error bars
990: represent the SDSS measurements of $\p0$ for $\mrlogh<-21$
991: galaxies. Lines represent three different density-dependent HOD
992: models, $\fmin=2$, $\dc=-0.2$ (red line), $\fmin=0.5$, $\dc=-0.2$
993: (green line), and $\fmin=0.5$, $\dc=+0.2$ (blue line). Lower panel:
994: The residuals of the model predictions relative to the data. The
995: filled circles represent a standard HOD model with $\slogm=0.5$. (b)
996: Same as (a), but for $\pu$. (c) The $\xvpf$ of the HOD predictions
997: for $\p0$ as a function of $\dc$. Red and blue lines represent
998: models with $\fmin=2$ and $\fmin=4$, respectively. Green and cyan
999: lines represent models with $\fmin=0.75$ and $\fmin=0.5$,
1000: respectively. The shaded horizontal line is the range in $\xvpf$
1001: from the twenty MCMC models. The filled circle represents the
1002: $\xvpf$ for the model with $\slogm=0.5$ with no density
1003: dependence. Colors are the same as for the lines. Points along each
1004: line indicate models that produce and assembly bias of 5\% and 10\%,
1005: from right to left. For the $\fmin<1$ models, only the models with a
1006: 5\% assembly bias are indicated. (d) Same as (c), but for the UPF.
1007: }
1008: \end{figure*}
1009:
1010:
1011:
1012: In Paper I we presented a simple model for density-dependent
1013: occupation functions that focuses on changes to the minimum mass scale
1014: for central galaxies. The parameters of this model are $\dc$, the
1015: threshold density below which the HOD changes, and $\fmin$, the factor
1016: by which $\mmin$ changes in these low density regions. We calculate
1017: the local density of each halo with a top-hat smoothing filter with
1018: radius 5 \hmpc. For example, if $\dc=-0.5$ and $\fmin=2$, halos in
1019: regions that are below 50\% of the cosmic mean density must be twice
1020: as massive (relative to halos in denser regions) in order to host a
1021: galaxies above the luminosity threshold. A value of $\fmin=\infty$
1022: corresponds to complete suppression of galaxies in regions below
1023: $\dc$. We can place these models in the context of assembly bias as
1024: defined by \cite{croton_etal:07} by calculating the ratio of the
1025: large-scale correlation function in the density-dependent model to its
1026: standard counterpart, i.e., $b_x = \sqrt{\xi/\xi_0}$. We find that
1027: $b_x\gtrsim 5\%$ for $\dc\gtrsim -0.5$ and $\fmin>2$ for models of the
1028: $\mrlogh<-19$ sample. For the brighter sample, $b_x\gtrsim 5\%$ for
1029: models with $\dc\gtrsim -0.1$. We demonstrated in \S3.1 that the
1030: $\mrlogh<-19$ and $-21$ void statistics are already well-fit by the
1031: standard HOD. Thus adding two new parameters will not statistically
1032: improve the model. But we explore density dependent models in order to
1033: constrain the level of assembly bias for central galaxies: to what
1034: degree can $\fmin$ differ from unity (the standard HOD assumption) and
1035: still adequately fit the void statistics?
1036:
1037: When creating density-dependent HOD models, we follow the procedure
1038: outlined in Paper I: the number density of a sample is held constant,
1039: so if $\mmin$ in low-density areas increases $(\fmin>1)$, the overall
1040: $\mmin$ must decrease (slightly) to compensate for the missing
1041: low-density galaxies.
1042:
1043: Figure \ref{dd_19}a presents three models with $\fmin=4$ and
1044: $\dc=-0.6$, $-0.4$, and $-0.2$. Only $\sim 8\%$ of halos with mass
1045: $M=10^{11.5}$\hmsol\ reside in regions with $\delta<-0.6$ (see Paper
1046: I, Figure 7), but the effect on the void statistics can be seen in the
1047: lower panel of Figure \ref{dd_19}a, which shows the residuals of the
1048: predicted VPF to the data for this model. At $r>5$ \hmpc, $\dev = 1$,
1049: and the discrepancy monotonically increases with increasing $r$. For
1050: $\dc=-0.4$ and $-0.2$, the effect can be seen clearly in the upper
1051: panel, with residuals that are larger than the scale of the lower
1052: panel. Figure \ref{dd_19}c plots $\xvpf$ as a function of $\dc$ for
1053: $\fmin=2$ and $4$. The gray shaded regions shows the range of $\xvpf$
1054: values from the 20 MCMC models. For $\fmin=2$, there is no change to
1055: the VPF at $\dc=-0.9$, but as the threshold density increases, $\xvpf$
1056: rapidly increases, going from $\xvpf=10.7$ at $\dc=-0.8$ to
1057: $\xvpf=32.5$ at $\dc=-0.7$. As noted in Paper I, the effect of
1058: increasing $\dc$ `saturates' at $\dc\approx -0.4$, yielding a maximum
1059: $\xvpf$ of around 300. For $\fmin=4$, $\chi^2$ rapidly increases at
1060: $\dc\ge-0.7$ and saturates at a value of $\sim 1200$. The points along
1061: each $\chi^2$ curve indicate models that produce $b_x=1.05$ and
1062: $b_x=1.1$ (from right to left). Both points lie in the saturation
1063: regime, where the discrepancies with the data are largest. In other
1064: words, in this class of $( \fmin, \dc)$ models, one cannot alter the
1065: large scale bias factor by 5\% without drastically violating
1066: constraints from the VPF. A model with $(\fmin,\dc)=(2,-0.75)$ yields
1067: a $\Delta\chi^2$ of 10 with respect to the standard HOD prediction.
1068:
1069: At low $\dc$, the overall fraction of galaxies that are ``moved'' from
1070: low-density regions to median- and high-density regions is too small
1071: to affect the overall two-point clustering of the sample. As this
1072: fraction becomes non-negligible, the amplitude of the two-halo term
1073: increases as the mean bias of the sample is altered. Statistically,
1074: however, void statistics are far more sensitive to these changes in
1075: the galaxy distribution. For $\fmin=2$, $\dc=-0.5$, the $\Delta \xwp$
1076: relative to the standard HOD is only 2, while $\Delta\xvpf=210$. Note
1077: also that the values of $\xwp$ are dependent on the value of
1078: $\sigma_8$ assumed in the model. We have adopted a value of
1079: $\sigma_8=0.9$ to match that of the simulation. A lower value of
1080: $\sigma_8$, consistent with new results from cosmic microwave
1081: background anisotropies (\citealt{spergel_etal:06}), could compensate
1082: for the increased amplitude of the two-halo term in \wp\ for
1083: high-$\dc$ models. For the void statistics, no such degeneracy with
1084: $\sigma_8$ exists; in Paper I we showed that models with
1085: $\sigma_8=0.9$ and $0.7$ yielded nearly identical void statistics,
1086: even though the lower value of $\sigma_8$ produced a poor fit to the
1087: observed \wp. Thus $\p0$ is both a more robust and more sensitive test
1088: to density dependence in the central galaxy occupation function.
1089:
1090: Figures \ref{dd_19}b and \ref{dd_19}d compare the measured $\pu$ to
1091: the same density-dependent models in \ref{dd_19}a and \ref{dd_19}c. As
1092: $\dc$ and $\fmin$ increase, the underdense regions increase in size
1093: and frequency. The advantage of the UPF is that the effect of density
1094: dependence does not saturate at high values of $\dc$; rather, the UPF
1095: will continue to increase as the threshold density
1096: increases. Additionally, the UPF is less susceptible to shot noise,
1097: and the percentage UPF error bars are close to half that of the VPF
1098: errors. However, this statistic is somewhat less sensitive to density
1099: dependence than the VPF because it probes moderately higher
1100: densities. While the $\fmin=2$, $\dc=-0.5$ model yields $\xvpf$
1101: of 220, it yields $\xupf=25.1$. The UPF is still more sensitive to
1102: density dependence than \wp\ alone.
1103:
1104: For brighter galaxies, the standard HOD prediction for $\p0$ for the
1105: $\mrlogh<-21$ sample in Figures \ref{vpf_hod}c and \ref{upf_hod}c
1106: yields voids that are somewhat large compared with the measured SDSS
1107: statistics. Density-dependent models with $\fmin>1$ only increase the
1108: sizes of voids and make this discrepancy more significant. Therefore,
1109: we present results for models with $\fmin>1$ and $\fmin<1$; in the
1110: latter models, halos in underdense regions host (on average) more
1111: luminous galaxies at fixed halo mass. Figure \ref{dd_21}a compares the
1112: VPFs for three different models to the SDSS data: $(\fmin,\dc) =
1113: (2,-0.2)$, $(0.5, -0.2)$ and $(0.5, +0.2)$. The model with $\fmin=2$
1114: is clearly discrepant and yields residuals larger than the scale of
1115: the lower panel for $r>10$ \hmpc. The two models with $\fmin = 0.5$
1116: appear more consistent with the data than the standard HOD model in
1117: Figure \ref{vpf_hod}c. The residuals are smaller at large scales, but
1118: these models tend to depress the frequency of small voids below what
1119: is measured in the SDSS. In Figure \ref{dd_21}c, we present $\xvpf$ as
1120: a function of $\dc$ for models with $\fmin=0.5, 0.75, 2$ and 4. The
1121: models with $\fmin>1$ produce monotonically increasing $\xvpf$ with
1122: increasing $\dc$, and are always worse fits to the data then the
1123: standard HOD. Models that produce $b_x\ge 1.05$ yield
1124: $\xvpf>100$. Negatively biased models with $\fmin<1$ produce a minimum
1125: at $(\fmin,\dc)=(0.75,-0.2)$, yielding $\xvpf = 11.2$. Figures
1126: \ref{dd_21}b and \ref{dd_21}d present the same results for the UPF. As
1127: with the VPF, models with $\fmin<1$ are in better agreement with
1128: $\pu$, producing a minimum of $\xupf=11.8$ at
1129: $(\fmin,\dc)=(0.75,-0.2)$, as compared with the minimum $\xupf$ of
1130: $16.5$ from the MCMC models. For this model, $b_x-1 = -0.02$. Models
1131: with $b_x-1$ of $-0.05$, indicated with the filled circles in Figures
1132: \ref{dd_21}c and \ref{dd_21}d, do not produce improved fits to the VPF
1133: of UPF.
1134:
1135: As with the fainter samples, altering $\ncen$ in low density regions
1136: can alter the two-point clustering to some extent. The models with
1137: $\fmin>1$ produce better fits to \wp, resulting from the increased
1138: amplitude of large-scale clustering. In the comparison of the best-fit
1139: HOD model to the SDSS \wp\ data, it can be seen that the model is
1140: slightly below the measured amplitude in the two-halo regime. Thus
1141: redistributing galaxies from low to high density areas produces better
1142: agreement with the data. The models with $\fmin<1$ have the opposite
1143: effect on the two-point clustering; these models lower the bias and
1144: increase the discrepancy with the \wp\ data. If we relax our
1145: constraints on the standard HOD models by setting $\slogm=0.5$, the
1146: same result is achieved. This model yields $\xwp=10.4$, a value
1147: similar to that of the best density-dependent model ($\xwp=11.4$). The
1148: high $\xwp$ is a result of the lower overall bias of the sample; the
1149: lower bias in turn produces smaller voids and yields $\p0$ and $\pu$
1150: that are as accurate as the best density-dependent model. The
1151: residuals of the $\slogm=0.5$ are shown with the black dots in Figures
1152: \ref{dd_21}a and \ref{dd_21}c, and the $\chi^2$ values for the void
1153: statistics are shown in \ref{dd_21}d and \ref{dd_21}d. Combining
1154: results for all data for this model, $\xwp+\xvpf+\xupf=29.4$ for 49
1155: data points and 4 free parameters. This summation neglects the
1156: covariance between statistics, but it implies that a joint analysis of
1157: all data would easily find a set of HOD parameters that accurately
1158: fits both \wp\ and the void statistics. Thus no strong evidence for
1159: $\fmin<1$ density dependence can be inferred.
1160:
1161:
1162: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1163: % Section
1164: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1165:
1166:
1167: \begin{figure*}
1168: \centerline{\epsfxsize=5.5truein\epsffile{color_samples.ps}}
1169: %\epsscale{1.0}
1170: %\plotone{color_samples.ps}
1171: %\vspace{-4.5cm}
1172: \caption{ \label{color_samples} (a) Open squares with error bars show
1173: the measured \wp\ for $-20<\mrlogh<-19$ galaxies. Red and blue
1174: points represent red galaxies and blue galaxies. The lines represent
1175: the best-fit HOD model to the data, with the same
1176: color-coordination. (b) The best-fit occupation functions for the
1177: model in panel (a). Red and blue lines plot $\navg$ for red and blue
1178: galaxies, respectively. The HOD for the full sample is the sum of
1179: these two curves. (c) Open squares with error bars show the VPFs for
1180: red and blue galaxies. Lines plot the HOD prediction for the VPF
1181: from the best-fit $\navg$ in panel (b). (d) The reduced VPF for blue
1182: and red galaxies, plotted with blue and red squares,
1183: respectively. The solid line represents the negative binomial model,
1184: which provides a good fit to the blue galaxy VPF, but the HOD
1185: prediction (dotted curve) is much more accurate for the red
1186: galaxies. }
1187: \end{figure*}
1188:
1189: \section{Color-Defined SDSS Samples}
1190:
1191: \subsection{Results for the Standard HOD}
1192:
1193: To model the occupation function of color samples, the standard HOD
1194: parameterization presented in \S 2 is used to describe the overall
1195: sample, but $\ncen$ and $\nsat$ are multiplied by a coefficient that
1196: specifies the blue fraction $f_b^{\rm cen}$ and $f_b^{\rm sat}$,
1197: respectively. The fraction of blue central galaxies is parameterized
1198: with a lognormal function of the form
1199:
1200: \begin{equation}
1201: \label{e.fblue}
1202: f_b^{\rm cen}(M) = f_0^{\rm cen} \exp\left[ \frac{ - \left(\log_{10}M - \log_{10}\mmin \right)^2}{2(\sigma_b^{\rm cen})^2}\right],
1203: \end{equation}
1204:
1205: \noindent (cf.\ Z05, equation 11). Equation (\ref{e.fblue}) is the
1206: same for satellite galaxies, with separate parameters for $f_0^{\rm
1207: sat}$ and $\sigma_b^{\rm sat}$. This adds four free parameters to
1208: the HOD model, but in practice one of the new parameters is fixed by
1209: the overall blue fraction of galaxies (we choose $f_0^{\rm cen}$). We
1210: fit \wp\ for the full sample, red sample, and blue sample
1211: simultaneously. These samples will be correlated, but we only use the
1212: covariance matrices of each sample independently. Using the full sample
1213: adds some complementary information to the color-only \wp\ functions
1214: because it contains the cross-correlation of the red and blue
1215: galaxies.
1216:
1217: To measure the color-dependent VPF from DR4, we adopt the same color
1218: cut as Z05, $g-r = -0.03(\mrlogh) + 0.21$. The fraction of blue
1219: galaxies varies significantly with luminosity. Therefore we use
1220: galaxies with magnitudes $-19 < \mrlogh < -20$, rather than a sample
1221: defined by a luminosity threshold, to ensure that the red and blue
1222: samples have similar mean magnitudes. We choose this sample because we
1223: wish to analyze the lowest luminosity sample for which accurate
1224: measurements can be made. \cite{croton_etal:07} find that the assembly
1225: bias of red galaxies monotonically increases with decreasing
1226: luminosity. The use of a magnitude bin sample necessitates an upper
1227: cutoff mass for the central occupation function, representing the mass
1228: at which halos begin hosting central galaxies too bright to be
1229: contained within the sample. For simplicity, we adopt a step function
1230: cutoff at an upper mass limit of $10^{12}$ \hmsol, obtained from
1231: fitting the $\mrlogh<-20$ sample with a step-function $\ncen$ (i.e.,
1232: $\slogm=0$). Like Z05, we also set $\slogm=0$ for the magnitude bin
1233: sample, effectively making the central occupation function a
1234: square-window. Although we are fitting the same data presented in Z05
1235: (see their Figure 23 and Table 3), we use a different linear power
1236: spectrum, and \wp\ must be re-fit. We use $\chi^2$ minimization to
1237: once again determine the best-fit model, the parameters of which are
1238: listed in Table 2.\footnote{ Note that the satellite occupation
1239: functions in Table 3 of Z05 assume a luminosity threshold sample. To
1240: obtain $\nsat$ for each magnitude bin, $\nsat$ for the next-brighter
1241: bin was subtracted off. The parameters of $\nsat$ in this paper are
1242: for the magnitude bin only and do not require knowledge of $\nsat$
1243: of brighter galaxies.} The large values of $\sigma_b^{\rm cen}$ and
1244: $\sigma_b^{\rm sat}$ in Table 2 essentially mean that the blue galaxy
1245: fraction is a constant as a function of mass.
1246:
1247: Figure \ref{color_samples}a shows the results of the HOD modeling of
1248: the color-dependent clustering. The open squares plot the data from
1249: Z05 while the solid lines plot the best-fit HOD models. Blue and red
1250: colors represent blue galaxies, red galaxies, and the full sample,
1251: respectively. The $\xwp$ for the full set of 33 data points is 11.7
1252: (recall however that we have not taken into account the covariance
1253: between samples). The amplitude of clustering increases at all scales
1254: when comparing blue and red galaxies. The known correlation between
1255: galaxy color and environment states that red galaxies exist in more
1256: dense environments, implying that they occupy higher-mass halos that
1257: are strongly biased. Blue galaxies generally live in the field,
1258: implying that they are the central galaxies of lower-mass halos that
1259: are less strongly clustered. The best-fit occupation functions, shown
1260: in Figure \ref{color_samples}b, bears this out. Blue galaxies dominate
1261: the central occupation function, while satellite galaxies are
1262: primarily red galaxies. These results are consistent with those in
1263: Z05.
1264:
1265: Points in Figure \ref{color_samples}c show the measured VPFs for red
1266: and blue galaxies. The VPF for red galaxies is significantly higher
1267: than for blue galaxies, nearly 0.5 dex at $r=11$ \hmpc. While the
1268: number density of the red sample is below that of the blue sample,
1269: diluting the blue sample randomly to match the red number density only
1270: increases the VPF at $r=11$ \hmpc\ by 0.04 dex; the larger voids in
1271: red galaxies are a consequence of their stronger clustering. Curves
1272: show the VPF predictions of the HOD model from Figure
1273: \ref{color_samples}b, in which a $\sim 10^{11.5}$ \hmsol\ halo has a
1274: $\sim 30\%$ chance of hosting a red galaxy {\it independent of its
1275: large scale environment}. The agreement with the measured VPFs is
1276: strikingly good, with $\xvpf=9.89$ for red galaxies and $\xvpf=5.77$
1277: for blue galaxies (with 10 data points in each case). We don't perform
1278: the MCMC analysis for this sample, but we expect the results to be
1279: similar to the luminosity-defined $\mrlogh<-19$ sample in Figure
1280: \ref{vpf_hod}a.
1281:
1282: Figure \ref{color_samples}d presents the data in the form of the
1283: reduced VPF (RVPF), in which the quantity $\chi = -\ln(P_0)/\bar{N}$
1284: is plotted as a function of $\bar{N}\xibar$, where $\bar{N}$ is the mean
1285: number of galaxies in a sphere of radius $r$ and $\bar{\xi}$ is the
1286: volume-averaged two-point correlation function (in
1287: redshift space). The quantity $\xibar$ is related to the variance of
1288: the distribution of cell counts, yielding
1289:
1290: \begin{equation}
1291: \label{e.xibar}
1292: \bar{\xi} \equiv \frac{3}{r^3}\int_0^r \xi(s)s^2ds =
1293: \frac{\langle (N - \nbar)^2\rangle - \nbar}{\nbar^2}.
1294: \end{equation}
1295:
1296: \noindent Under the hierarchical clustering ansatz (see, e.g.,
1297: \citealt{bernardeau_etal:02})), all higher-order $n$-point correlation
1298: functions can be written in terms of powers of the two-point
1299: correlation function and a scaling coefficient. Many different
1300: theoretical models have been proposed for the scaling coefficients
1301: (see \citealt{fry_etal:89}). \cite{croton_etal:04} and
1302: \cite{conroy_etal:05} both demonstrated that luminosity-defined
1303: samples of galaxies exhibit the void statistics predicted by a
1304: negative binomial model, in which the VPF is related to $\xibar$ and
1305: $\bar{N}$ by
1306:
1307: \begin{equation}
1308: \label{e.negbin}
1309: P_0(r) = (1+\nbar\xibar)^{-1/\xibar}.
1310: \end{equation}
1311:
1312:
1313:
1314: \noindent This result led \cite{conroy_etal:05} to conclude that the
1315: VPF contains no complementary information over the two-point
1316: correlation function for constraining galaxy bias or halo
1317: occupation.\footnote{ It should be noted that \cite{conroy_etal:05}
1318: use $\xibar$ in redshift space; in essence they utilize more
1319: information than contained in \wp\ alone. When analyzing the
1320: clustering in mock galaxy samples, those authors found that the
1321: negative binomial is not a good description of real-space
1322: clustering.} The RVPF for blue galaxies in Figure
1323: \ref{color_samples}d is consistent with the negative binomial model,
1324: but for red galaxies the negative binomial is not a good description
1325: of the data, in agreement with the recent results from the 2dFGRS of
1326: \cite{croton_etal:06c}. The HOD model, shown with the red dotted line,
1327: correctly predicts the behavior of the RVPF for this sample. In tests
1328: we find that occupation functions that produce correlation functions
1329: with large residuals from a power law tend to lie away from the
1330: negative binomial model in RVPF space. The high fraction of satellite
1331: galaxies in the red occupation function produces the strong transition
1332: from the one-halo to two-halo regime exhibited by red galaxies in
1333: Figure \ref{color_samples}a, leading to the behavior seen in
1334: \ref{color_samples}d. The correlation function for the blue sample is
1335: very close to a power law and thus is well-described by the negative
1336: binomial. This trend works in the opposite direction as well; HODs
1337: that de-emphasize high mass halos, such as those with a lower value of
1338: $\asat$, lie {\it below} the negative binomial curve, indicating that
1339: the negative binomial is not universal, but depends on the details of
1340: halos occupied by a given class of galaxies.
1341:
1342: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1343: % Subsection
1344: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1345:
1346: \subsection{Comparison to Density-Dependent Models}
1347:
1348: The assembly bias seen in the \cite{croton_etal:07} semi-analytical
1349: models is strongest for faint red galaxies, implying that low-mass
1350: halos that host red galaxies at their centers almost exclusively
1351: reside near a much larger halo, while in low-density environments the
1352: probability of encountering a red central galaxy is rare. To model
1353: this form of assembly bias in our HOD models, we adopt a
1354: parameterization similar to that for the luminosity-defined samples:
1355: at a density below a threshold $\dc$, the fraction of central galaxies
1356: that are red changes by a factor $\fred$.
1357:
1358: Figure \ref{dd_colors} shows the results for models in which
1359: $\fred=0$, implying that there are no red galaxies below $\dc$. Figure
1360: \ref{dd_colors}a compares the \wp\ data for the red sample to
1361: density-dependent models with $\dc=-0.4$, $-0.2$, and $0.0$. As with
1362: the luminosity-defined samples, the amplitude of the two-halo term in
1363: the HOD models increases as red galaxies are removed from low-density
1364: areas and redistributed in mean- and high-density environments. The
1365: model with $\dc=-0.4$, while in reasonable agreement with the
1366: \wp\ data, is clearly discrepant with the VPF, yielding $\xvpf=93.2$
1367: for 10 data points. Less extreme models, $\fred=1/8$ and $1/4$, still
1368: produce VPF $\xvpf$ values of $60.7$ and $29.4$, respectively, at
1369: $\dc=-0.4$. As $\dc$ increases, the discrepancy with both the VPF and
1370: \wp\ data get substantially larger. \cite{baldry_etal:06} have
1371: investigated the environmental dependence of the halo occupation for
1372: central red galaxies in the \cite{croton_etal:07} model. Although
1373: their definition of environment is based on nearest-neighbor
1374: statistics, they find that the red fraction in the model decreases by
1375: nearly a factor of ten around the mean density. In
1376: \cite{croton_etal:07}, the assembly bias for red $\mrlogh = -19$
1377: galaxies increases the large-scale bias of red central galaxies by a
1378: factor of 2. For the overall population of red galaxies at this
1379: magnitude, the assembly bias is $\sim 1.25$, comparable to the
1380: increase in \wp\ in the $\fred=1/8$, $\dc=-0.2$ model, which yields
1381: $\xvpf=138$. A more direct comparison is required to make precise
1382: statements about the form of the assembly bias in Croton et al, but
1383: the results in Figure \ref{dd_colors} only allow for low levels of
1384: assembly bias for faint color-defined samples.
1385:
1386: \begin{figure*}
1387: \centerline{\epsfxsize=5.5truein\epsffile{dd_colors.eps}}
1388: %\epsscale{1.0}
1389: %\plotone{dd_colors.ps}
1390: %\vspace{-4.5cm}
1391: \caption{ \label{dd_colors} Panel (a): Data and models for \wp\ for
1392: red galaxies in the $-20<\mrlogh<-19$ sample. Points with error bars
1393: are SDSS data. Lines are models in which the central occupation
1394: function is set to zero for halos with local densities below $-0.4$
1395: (black solid line), $-0.2$ (red solid line), and $0.0$ (dashed
1396: line). Panel (b): VPFs predicted by those same models. Points with
1397: error bars are the SDSS data from Figure \ref{color_samples}. In
1398: both panels, the red line is a model with similar assembly bias as
1399: that found in \cite{croton_etal:07} for the same luminosity range. }
1400: \end{figure*}
1401:
1402:
1403: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1404: % 2df Section
1405: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1406:
1407: \section{2dFGRS Results}
1408:
1409: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1410: % SECTION
1411: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1412:
1413: \subsection{2dFGRS \wp\ Data and Modeling}
1414:
1415: The approach we take to apply the HOD to clustering measurements from
1416: the 2dFGRS differs slightly from that used above. 2dFGRS measurements
1417: are made on luminosity bins rather than threshold samples. This
1418: necessitates a modified form of the central occupation function and a
1419: somewhat different approach to model fitting. We use the approach
1420: detailed in \cite{tinker_etal:07} for modeling these data. We use
1421: measurements of \wp\ that have been updated from those presented in
1422: \cite{norberg_etal:01} and \cite{norberg_etal:02} to include the full
1423: data release of the 2dFGRS (\citealt{colless_etal:03}), an increase
1424: from $\sim 160,000$ galaxies to $\sim 221,000$ galaxies. The details
1425: of the clustering measurements will be found in Norberg et al.~(in
1426: preparation). We present here a brief summary of the
1427: calculations. Using the full 2dFGRS survey we create four volume
1428: limited samples, with faint limits from $\mbjlogh = -18.0$ to
1429: $\mbjlogh = -21.0$, each sample 1.0 magnitudes wide. All galaxies
1430: brighter than $\mbj = -21$ are grouped into a single sample. As in
1431: \cite{norberg_etal:01, norberg_etal:02}, a careful account of the
1432: selection function is made and the correlation functions are obtained
1433: using the standard \cite{landy_szalay:93} and \cite{hamilton:93}
1434: estimators, with typically 100 times more randoms than galaxies. The
1435: projected correlation function is estimated by integrating
1436: $\xi(r_p,r_\pi)$ out to $r_{\pi,{\rm max}} = 70$~\hmpc, providing a
1437: stable estimate for \wp\ out to at least $r_p = 40$~\hmpc. Due to the
1438: sensitivity of the results on close pair incompleteness, we only use
1439: data from scales beyond $r_p\gtrsim 150$~\hkpc. The correlation
1440: function is measured in twelve radial bins, spaced evenly by 0.2 in
1441: $\log_{10}r$ beginning at $\log_{10}r = -0.7$. The errors on the
1442: clustering measurements are estimated by a bootstrap resampling
1443: technique on roughly equal sized subregions, of which there are 16 in
1444: total (8 in each 2dFGRS region, covering in each region
1445: approximatively the same survey area; see
1446: \citealt{porciani_norberg:06} for further details). We estimate the
1447: full covariance matrix for each sample using 100 bootstrap
1448: resamplings. The analysis in \cite{tinker_etal:07} was performed on
1449: bins of width 0.5 magnitudes. The bins used here are a full magnitude
1450: wide, so we redo the analysis on these new data.
1451:
1452: In contrast to HOD models of luminosity threshold samples, binned
1453: samples require both a minimum and a maximum mass scale for central
1454: galaxies; as halo mass increases, central galaxies become
1455: brighter. The central occupation function for these samples is denoted
1456: $\nceni$, where $i$ denotes magnitude bin. The sum over all $\nceni$
1457: must be less than or equal to unity. Thus we use a modified form of
1458: equation (\ref{e.ncen_sdss}) that subtracts off brighter galaxies, i.e.,
1459:
1460: \begin{eqnarray}
1461: \label{e.ncen2}
1462: \nceni & = & \frac{1}{2}\left[ 1+\mbox{erf}\left(\frac{\log M - \log \mmini}{\sigmaMi} \right)
1463: \right] - \ncenip, \,\,\, 1\le i\le 3, \nonumber \\
1464: \nceni & = & \frac{1}{2}\left[ 1+\mbox{erf}\left(\frac{\log M - \log \mmini}{\sigmaMi} \right)
1465: \right], \,\,\, i=4,
1466: \end{eqnarray}
1467:
1468: \noindent where $\mmini$ is the cutoff mass scale for central
1469: galaxies, and $\sigmaMi$ controls the width of the cutoff mass
1470: range. In equation (\ref{e.ncen_sdss}), $\mmin$ is defined as the mass
1471: at which $\ncen=0.5$, but in equation (\ref{e.ncen2}) this mass can
1472: differ from $\mmini$. The form we use for the satellite galaxy
1473: occupation function is
1474:
1475: \begin{equation}
1476: \label{e.nsat2}
1477: \nsati = \exp \left(-\frac{\mcuti}{M-\mmini}\right) \left( \frac{M}{\msat^i}\right)^{\asat}.
1478: \end{equation}
1479:
1480: Because information about all the bins is required to calculate
1481: $\navgi$ for any bin $i<4$, the best-fit occupation functions are
1482: determined simultaneously for all four bins. The model has 13 free
1483: parameters, with each $\mmini$ once again constrained by the number
1484: density of galaxies within each bin, calculated from the 2dFGRS
1485: luminosity function (\cite{norberg_lumfunc:02}, updated to include the
1486: results from the full data release). For 48 data points, the best-fit
1487: $\xwp$ is 30.3, yielding a $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom of 0.87. The
1488: parameters of the best-fit model are listed in Table 3. We make our
1489: predictions for the VPF by populating the 400 \hmpc\ box in the same
1490: manner as for the SDSS samples.
1491:
1492:
1493: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1494: % SDSS HOD parameters
1495: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1496:
1497: \begin{deluxetable*}{ccccccc}
1498: \tablecolumns{7}
1499: \tablewidth{32pc}
1500: \tablecaption{Best-fit HOD model parameters for SDSS galaxies}
1501: \tablehead{\colhead{Sample} & \colhead{$\chi^2/\nu$} & \colhead{$\mmin$} & \colhead{$\msat$} & \colhead{$\asat$} &
1502: \colhead{$\mcut$} & \colhead{$\slogm$} }
1503:
1504: \startdata
1505:
1506: -19 & 4.89/7 & $3.76\times 10^{11}$ & $9.23\times 10^{12}$ & 1.11 & $4.23\times 10^{9}$ & 0.158 \\
1507: -20 & 4.77/7 & $2.69\times 10^{12}$ & $2.46\times 10^{13}$ & 1.13 & $2.12\times 10^{10}$ & 0.915 \\
1508: \,-20$^\prime$ & 8.63/7 & $9.37\times 10^{11}$ & $1.39\times 10^{13}$ & 1.01 & $9.54\times 10^{12}$ & 0.084 \\
1509: -21 & 7.48/7 & $4.89\times 10^{12}$ & $1.05\times 10^{14}$ & 1.23 & $3.58\times 10^{12}$ & 0.052 \\
1510: -22 & 0.87/3 & $1.17\times 10^{14}$ & $4.21\times 10^{14}$ & 1.20 & $2.40\times 10^{14}$ & 0.615 \\
1511: %\hline
1512: $[$-$19,$-$20]$ & 11.7/28 & $3.91\times 10^{11}$ & $1.32\times 10^{13}$ & 1.06 & --- & --- \\
1513: \hline
1514: & & $\sigma_b^{\rm cen}$ & $f_b^{\rm cen}$ & $\sigma_b^{\rm sat}$ & $f_b^{\rm sat}$ & \\
1515: $[$-$19,$-$20]$& & 7.97 & 0.68 & 9.46 & 0.33 &
1516:
1517: \enddata
1518:
1519: \tablecomments{\colhead{Sample} } \tablecomments{All masses are in units
1520: of \hmsol. The bottom two rows are parameters for modeling
1521: color-selected samples. See \S 4 for a discussion.}
1522: \end{deluxetable*}
1523:
1524: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1525: % 2dF HOD parameters
1526: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1527:
1528: \begin{deluxetable*}{cccccc}
1529: \tablecolumns{6}
1530: \tablewidth{30pc}
1531: \tablecaption{Best-fit HOD model parameters for 2dFGRS galaxies}
1532: \tablehead{\colhead{Sample} & \colhead{$\chi^2$} & \colhead{$\mmini$} & \colhead{$M_{\rm sat}^i$} &
1533: \colhead{$\mcuti$} & \colhead{$\slogmi$} }
1534:
1535: \startdata
1536:
1537: $[-18.0,-19.0]$ & 5.7 & $2.79\times 10^{11}$ & $9.19\times 10^{12}$ & $5.07\times 10^{11}$ & 0.25 \\
1538: $[-19.0,-20.0]$ & 10.0 & $6.14\times 10^{11}$ & $1.50\times 10^{13}$ & $1.55\times 10^{12}$ & 0.07 \\
1539: $[-20.0,-21.0]$ & 8.8 & $3.15\times 10^{12}$ & $4.23\times 10^{13}$ & $1.35\times 10^{13}$ & 0.23 \\
1540: $<-21.0$ & 5.8 & $5.21\times 10^{13}$ & $3.55\times 10^{14}$ & $1.27\times 10^{14}$ & 0.53
1541:
1542: \enddata \tablecomments{ All masses are in units of \hmsol. All
1543: samples are analyzed simultaneously, so $\chi^2/\nu=30.3/(48-13)=0.87$. }
1544: \end{deluxetable*}
1545:
1546:
1547: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1548: % SUBSECTION
1549: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1550:
1551:
1552: \subsection{VPF Measurements and HOD Predictions}
1553:
1554: Measurements of the VPF for the 2dFGRS have been presented by
1555: \cite{hoyle_vogeley:04}, \cite{croton_etal:04}, and
1556: \cite{patiri_etal:06a}. For the purposes of this study, none of these
1557: measurements is entirely adequate. \cite{hoyle_vogeley:04} use the
1558: $k+e$ correction of \cite{norberg_etal:01} in their analysis, which is
1559: significantly different than the latest $k+e$ correction for 2dFGRS
1560: galaxies presented in \cite{cole_etal:05} used in the
1561: \wp\ measurements described above. This leads to a difference in the
1562: number densities of galaxies between the \wp\ samples and the $\p0$
1563: samples. This difference becomes larger with the mean redshift of the
1564: sample, and the $\mbjh<-21$ sample in \cite{hoyle_vogeley:04} has more
1565: than twice as many galaxies in it as the sample analyzed here. Note
1566: that the effect of this mismatch is quite different from the
1567: difference in number densities in the SDSS samples and the HOD models
1568: in \S 3. That discrepancy is due to the survey selection function, but
1569: \cite{hoyle_vogeley:04} essentially analyze different sets of
1570: galaxies, which have different clustering and void
1571: statistics. Thus one would not expect our HOD predictions to match
1572: their $\p0$ measurements, even if we adjusted our models to match
1573: their $\ngavg$. For the \cite{croton_etal:04} data, the completeness
1574: correction applied to them accrues an unquantified systematic error
1575: that is difficult to model. Their measurements also employ an outdated
1576: $k+e$ correction from \cite{norberg_lumfunc:02}, although the
1577: differences between this correction and the \cite{cole_etal:05}
1578: correction are substantially smaller. \cite{patiri_etal:06a} construct
1579: volume-limited samples within the 2dFGRS with magnitude thresholds of
1580: $\mbjh<-19.32$ and $\mbjh<-20.181$, values that do not correspond to
1581: the unit magnitude bins of our \wp\ measurements. Thus for comparison
1582: with our HOD predictions we repeat the analysis of
1583: \cite{patiri_etal:06a}, making several adjustments to better facilitate
1584: the comparison. We use the \cite{cole_etal:05} $k+e$ correction, and
1585: all galaxies are corrected to $z=0.1$. We construct volume-limited
1586: samples that match our \wp\ samples, and we keep track of the number
1587: density of galaxies at each $r$ in order to repeat the procedure used
1588: above for comparing to SDSS data.
1589:
1590: We create HOD predictions by populating the 400 \hmpc\ simulation with
1591: the best-fit HOD parameters for each magnitude bin and scaling the
1592: number density at each $r$ to the value measured, as with the SDSS
1593: data. Error bars on the data are also obtained from this
1594: simulation. The mean incompleteness of the 2dFGRS is larger than in
1595: the SDSS, and the variation of $\ngbar$ is also larger. We are unable
1596: to use the 1086 \hmpc\ box for modeling the brighter two samples
1597: because the occupation functions extend below the resolution limit of
1598: that simulation. For these reasons, we do not perform a detailed
1599: statistical analysis as with the SDSS samples, but rather compare the
1600: data and models more qualitatively.
1601:
1602: Figure \ref{2df_vpf}a and \ref{2df_vpf}b show the results for the
1603: $-19<\mbjlogh<-18$ and $-20<\mbjlogh-19$ magnitude bins. The best-fit
1604: HOD model accurately predicts the the VPF for these two
1605: samples. Figure \ref{2df_vpf}c shows the results for
1606: $-21<\mbjlogh-20$. The model slightly over-predicts $\p0$ for $r\ge 10$
1607: \hmpc\ in much the same way as the $\mrlogh<-21$ SDSS sample but with
1608: smaller significance (with respect to diagonal error bars only). For
1609: the brightest 2dFGRS galaxies in Figure \ref{2df_vpf}d, our model is a
1610: poor fit to the observed VPF. The voids in the data are clearly much
1611: smaller than those predicted by the HOD. As a rough guide, the
1612: diagonal-only $\chi^2_{\rm diag}=338$ for the best-fit \wp\ model (not
1613: shown in this Figure). These rare galaxies reside in rare, highly
1614: biased halos and the model predictions are more sensitive to the value
1615: of $\slogm$ than for other samples. To explore this effect, we analyze
1616: this sample separately in an MCMC chain. The upper and lower bounds of
1617: the shaded region are models from the chain with the lowest and
1618: highest values, respectively, of $\slogm$ with $\Delta\xwp<1$ with
1619: respect to the best-fit model. The lower bound, with $\slogm=0.9$,
1620: lies closer to the data but is still significantly
1621: discrepant. Although it is possible to construct density dependent
1622: models to match the measured $\p0$, these models will be highly
1623: discrepant with the measurements of \wp\ since they require an
1624: increase in the galaxy formation efficiency in lower density
1625: regions. \cite{berlind_etal:06} investigated the clustering of massive
1626: galaxy groups, demonstrating that at fixed mass, systems with bluer
1627: central galaxies are more strongly clustered than redder central
1628: galaxies. Because 2dFGRS is a blue-selected survey, the effect of
1629: density dependence would make the voids in the brightest 2dFGRS
1630: galaxies larger than in the standard HOD, the opposite of the
1631: discrepancy in Figure \ref{2df_vpf}d.
1632:
1633: The conflict in \ref{2df_vpf}d can be resolved if the brightest 2dFGRS
1634: galaxies are not always in the most massive halos. The solid line in
1635: Figure \ref{2df_vpf}d represents a model for this sample in which the
1636: maximum value of $\ncen$ for this model is 0.5 rather than
1637: unity. Equation (\ref{e.ncen2}) is modified by a simple multiplicative
1638: factor of 0.5, preserving the shape of the cutoff. Physically this
1639: model implies that the relationship between host halo mass and central
1640: galaxy luminosity $L_c$ becomes essentially flat at $M\gtrsim 10^{14}$
1641: \hmsol\ in $b_J$. Setting the maximum value of $\ncen$ to 0.5 reduces
1642: $\mmin$ for this sample in order to match the number density and the
1643: overall bias of the model is reduced. This model is conceptually
1644: similar to one with a very large value of $\slogm$, large enough such
1645: that $\ncen$ never reaches unity at the largest resolved halos. But
1646: due to the functional form of equation (\ref{e.ncen2}) values of
1647: $\slogm$ large enough to resolve the discrepancy with the $\p0$ data
1648: place a non-negligible fraction of the brightest galaxies in $\sim
1649: 10^8$ \hmsol\ halos, which is both physically unreasonable and
1650: significantly lowers the amplitude of \wp. The large-scale amplitude
1651: of the low-$\ncen$ model is also below that of the fiducial model, but
1652: the increase in $\xwp$ is a modest $\sim 2$. The effect on the void
1653: statistics is marked: the low-$\ncen$ model VPF is in good agreement
1654: with the observations. The lower-bound of the shaded region in Figure
1655: \ref{2df_vpf}d (the model with $\slogm=0.9$) yields $\chi^2_{\rm
1656: diag}=91.3$, while the low-$\ncen$ model yields $\chi^2_{\rm
1657: diag}=35.3$. To properly compare these models, larger simulations
1658: with the proper mass resolution are required to estimate the
1659: covariance matrices, but it is clear that the low-$\ncen$ model is an
1660: improvement. The clustering of the galaxies in the next-brightest bin
1661: are unaffected by this change in the HOD; although fainter galaxies
1662: can occupy the highest mass halos, the overall number of these
1663: galaxies is insignificant, and both \wp\ and $\p0$ are unchanged.
1664:
1665: For galaxy groups in the 2dFGRS, \cite{yang_etal:05} find that $L_c$
1666: increases with halo mass as $M^{2/3}$ at low masses, but becomes
1667: shallower for $M>10^{13}$\hmsol, increasing as $M^{1/4}$. At
1668: $M>10^{14}$\hmsol, the mass at which $\ncen$ reaches its maximum, the
1669: scatter in the $L_c-M$ relation becomes large, covering nearly half a
1670: dex in $L_c$. For redder bands like Sloan-$r$, a continual monotonic
1671: relation between $L_c$ and $M$ is well motivated, but just due to the
1672: width of the color-magnitude relation some galaxies from a lower $M_r$
1673: magnitude bin will fall in the brightest $b_J$ bin. As
1674: \cite{cole_etal:06} recently pointed out, the color distributions of the
1675: SDSS and 2dFGRS are substantially different, with the SDSS being
1676: dominated by red galaxies and the 2dFGRS dominated by blue
1677: objects. Convolved with the magnitude errors of the 2dFGRS, which are
1678: larger than those in the SDSS (and will scatter asymmetrically from
1679: lower luminosities to higher luminosities), a complete sample of the
1680: brightest $M_r$ galaxies in one survey may not contain all of the
1681: brightest $b_J$ galaxies in the other.
1682:
1683: \begin{figure*}
1684: \centerline{\epsfxsize=5.5truein\epsffile{2df_vpf.ps}}
1685: %\epsscale{1.0}
1686: %\plotone{2df_vpf.ps}
1687: %\vspace{-4.5cm}
1688: \caption{ \label{2df_vpf} Panels (a)--(c) show a comparison between
1689: 2dFGRS VPF data and HOD model predictions. Points with error bars
1690: observational measurements. Solid lines are the HOD predictions from
1691: the best-fit model, obtained from the 400 \hmpc\ box. In panel (d),
1692: the points show the 2dFGRS data, while the shaded region shows the
1693: range of predictions for models with the highest and lowest values
1694: of $\slogm$ that produce a $\Delta\xwp<1$ with respect to the
1695: best-fit model, which has a value of $\slogm=0.53$. The lower bound
1696: represents a model with $\slogm=0.9$, and the upper bound represents
1697: a model with $\slogm=0.05$. The solid line is a model in which the
1698: maximum value of $\ncen$ is 0.5, as opposed to 1 for the other
1699: models. This low-$\ncen$ model has a value of $\slogm=0.73$.}
1700: \end{figure*}
1701:
1702:
1703: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%0%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1704: % Summary
1705: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1706:
1707: \section{Discussion}
1708:
1709: In this paper we have demonstrated that an environmentally independent
1710: approach to halo occupation can simultaneously model both the
1711: two-point clustering and the void statistics of galaxy samples
1712: selected by both luminosity and color. Because \wp\ and $\p0$ weight
1713: environments differently, with \wp\ determined predominantly by halos
1714: that sit at or above the mean density and $\p0$ determined by halos
1715: that reside in low-density regions, our results show that, to the
1716: limit these statistics can be measured, $\ncen$ is independent of
1717: environment. Although we are not explicitly testing environmental
1718: dependence of satellite galaxy occupation, the results in the paper
1719: offer an implicit test: If the number of satellite galaxies strongly
1720: correlates with halo environment, then the HOD inferred from modeling
1721: \wp\ will be systematically biased and could predict the wrong void
1722: distribution regardless of whether central galaxies exhibit assembly
1723: bias. In Paper I we demonstrated that \wp\ constrains the fraction of
1724: galaxies that are satellites, and thus the complementary fraction that
1725: are central. The central galaxy fraction, in turn, strongly influences
1726: the distribution of void sizes. If the HOD model for \wp\ is
1727: systematically under- or overestimating this quantity, then the
1728: predicted void statistics will not match observations.
1729:
1730: It has been suggested that voids and void galaxies represent a
1731: challenge to the \lcdm\ model (\citealt{peebles:01}). If there exists
1732: substantial mass in underdense regions, the argument goes, then the
1733: observed paucity of low-luminosity galaxies in these regions is
1734: incompatible with the standard hierarchical clustering picture because
1735: low-mass halos in the voids will contain low-luminosity
1736: galaxies. \cite{wechsler_etal:06} propose that the assembly bias of
1737: low mass halos may be related to this so-called `void phenomenon',
1738: because low mass halos in underdense regions form later, and the gas
1739: within them may therefore form stars less efficiently due to an
1740: increased photoionizing background. Our results suggest that there
1741: is no void phenomenon for galaxies as faint as $\sim 0.2L_\star$ (a
1742: halo mass of $\sim 0.02\mstar$, the minimum mass probed in the
1743: \citealt{wechsler_etal:06} results). The observed voids in samples of
1744: low-luminosity galaxies match the voids predicted by the typical halos
1745: those galaxies occupy. The data presented here leave little room for a
1746: shift in galaxy formation efficiency (or a shift in the typical halo
1747: occupied) in low-density regions. These results are in agreement with
1748: the results of semi-analytic models of \cite{mathis_white:02} and
1749: \cite{benson_etal:03}, which find that low luminosity galaxies avoid
1750: the voids defined by the brighter galaxies. As \cite{wechsler_etal:06}
1751: suggest, assembly bias may influence the formation of fainter void
1752: galaxies, but larger observational samples are required to fully
1753: address this problem.
1754:
1755: In the semi-analytic results of \cite{croton_etal:07}, the impact of
1756: the assembly bias on the correlation function ranges from $b_x-1=0.05$
1757: for faint galaxies to $b_x-1=-0.05$ for bright samples. We have shown
1758: that, at least in the class of $(\fmin,\dc)$ models considered here,
1759: assembly bias of this order for central galaxies cannot be reconciled
1760: with the measured void statistics. Density dependent models that
1761: produce acceptable fits to $\p0$ and $\pu$ produce values of
1762: $|b_x-1|\le 0.02$. At some level, assembly bias should be present in
1763: the galaxy population, but we have ruled out a strong dependence of
1764: $\ncen$ on $\delta$ that could bias measurements of halo occupation
1765: parameters or constraints on cosmological parameters obtained through
1766: the application of the HOD. At the level of precision of the current
1767: generation of large-scale redshift surveys, our results suggest that
1768: assembly bias is generally not a concern, though it could still have
1769: some influence on statistical measures not constrained (directly or
1770: indirectly) by our analysis. The assembly bias issue will need to be
1771: revisited for accurate analysis of the next generation of galaxy
1772: redshift surveys, when percent-level effects become significant.
1773:
1774: For luminosity samples, it is perhaps not unexpected that
1775: environmental effects are small. For color-defined samples, on the
1776: other hand, our results are more surprising. Because halo formation
1777: time depends so strongly on local density, with younger low mass halos
1778: living in low density regions, one might naturally expect the stellar
1779: populations within these halos to reflect this trend. This would lead
1780: to an assembly bias such that, at fixed mass, the lower the local
1781: density, the larger the fraction of central galaxies that are blue in
1782: color. This is exactly the type of bias seen in the models of \cite{croton_etal:07}:
1783: low mass halos with red central galaxies form near $z\sim 2$, while
1784: low mass halos with blue central galaxies have formation redshifts of $z
1785: \sim 1.5$ or less. However, in our ``standard'' HOD analysis of
1786: color-defined samples, we assume that the red central galaxy fraction
1787: is independent of environment. Equation (\ref{e.fblue}) implies, when
1788: applied to the samples explored \S 4, that a $\sim 10^{11.5}$
1789: \hmsol\ halo has a $\sim 30\%$ chance of hosting a red central galaxy
1790: regardless of environment or formation time. In \cite{croton_etal:07},
1791: assembly bias results in voids in the red galaxies that are
1792: significantly larger than in the HOD prediction. The results of
1793: Figures \ref{color_samples} and \ref{dd_colors} support a central red
1794: fraction that is environment independent. In contrast to
1795: luminosity-defined samples, the current precision of the SDSS is
1796: sufficient to exclude the level of assembly bias measured in
1797: \cite{croton_etal:07} for color-defined samples, which in their model
1798: is driven primarily by central galaxies.
1799:
1800: Inconsistencies between observed properties of the red galaxy
1801: population and the predictions of \cite{croton_etal:07} have been
1802: reported elsewhere as well. \cite{springel_etal:05} show that the
1803: amplitude of the two-point correlation function of red galaxies in the
1804: Millennium Run semi-analytic galaxy population is much higher than
1805: observations at all scales. \cite{weinmann_etal:06}, using a catalog
1806: of galaxy groups created from the SDSS, demonstrate that the red
1807: galaxy fraction of groups is too high in the \cite{croton_etal:06a}
1808: model. \cite{baldry_etal:06} investigate the red fraction as a
1809: function of local galaxy density in the SDSS, measuring a monotonic
1810: decrease in red fraction with decreasing density. Such a correlation
1811: can naturally result from the dependence of the halo mass function of
1812: local environment without invoking assembly bias
1813: (\citealt{berlind_etal:05}): red galaxies are primarily satellites in
1814: high mass halos (see Figure \ref{color_samples}b), and the frequency
1815: of such halos correlates strongly with local
1816: density. \cite{baldry_etal:06} find that the correlation of red galaxy
1817: fraction with environment is much steeper in the
1818: \cite{croton_etal:06a} model than measured in the SDSS. They show that
1819: this result is primarily due to the correlation between red central
1820: galaxies and environment. Although Baldry \etal\ define density by
1821: local galaxy density in redshift space using a nearest neighbor
1822: criterion, the relation they find in the \cite{croton_etal:06a} model
1823: between the red fraction of central galaxies and density is similar to
1824: the models tested in \S 3.3 with a sharp decrease in red central
1825: fraction by nearly an order of magnitude at densities below the mean.
1826:
1827: These discrepancies between semi-analytic models and observations
1828: discrepancies offer insight into galaxy formation processes. The
1829: aspect of the \cite{croton_etal:06a} model that most directly
1830: influences galaxy color is its treatment of AGN feeding and feedback,
1831: which heats the gas and halts star formation. In the model, this
1832: mechanism is correlated with environment to produce the
1833: color-dependent assembly bias. This work, and the papers listed above,
1834: suggest that a gas-heating mechanism less sensitive to halo
1835: environment will bring the models into better agreement with the
1836: clustering data.
1837:
1838: Regardless of the details of galaxy formation, it is well-established
1839: now that correlations exists between halo properties and environment,
1840: especially for the low-mass halos that contain $\mrlogh \sim -19$
1841: galaxies. \cite{gao_white:06} show that environment correlates with
1842: halo formation time, concentration, and spin for $M<\mstar$. Why then
1843: is the correlation with galaxy properties so weak? To produce the
1844: observed void statistics, the luminosity of a central galaxy must be
1845: largely uncorrelated with halo properties other than mass, in the
1846: sense that the correlation must be significantly smaller than the
1847: scatter in $L_c$ at a given halo formation time or formation
1848: history. Additionally, central galaxy color must also be weakly
1849: correlated with halo formation. The amount of star formation required
1850: to make a red galaxy blue is relatively small, while the amount of
1851: time required for a blue galaxy to passively evolve into a red object
1852: can be $\lesssim 1$ Gyr (see \citealt{faber_etal:05} and references
1853: therein). If the color distribution is determined mainly by the
1854: occurrence of recent star formation, galaxy colors may be a stochastic
1855: process in better agreement with the assumptions of the
1856: HOD. \cite{rojas_etal:04, rojas_etal:05} find that void galaxies have
1857: higher specific star formation rates than galaxies in higher-density
1858: environments. As with the color-density relation
1859: (\cite{berlind_etal:05}), the correlation of star formation rate with
1860: environment may reflect changes in the underlying halo mass function
1861: between low and high densities rather than a correlation with
1862: formation history.
1863:
1864: The nature of voids has been an important question since their
1865: discovery in the first large galaxy redshift survey
1866: (\citealt{gregory_thompson:78, kirshner_etal:81}). Are voids truly
1867: empty of matter or just deficient in galaxies? Is a non-gravitational
1868: process required to explain their observed sizes? These questions have
1869: become better defined through convergence on a standard cosmological
1870: model and better understanding of the relation between galaxies and
1871: dark matter halos. We find that the sizes and emptiness of observed
1872: voids are in excellent agreement with straightforward theoretical
1873: predictions. \\
1874:
1875: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1876: % Acknowledgments
1877: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1878:
1879: \vspace{2cm}
1880:
1881: \noindent The authors wish to thank Darren Croton, Brant Robertson,
1882: Ravi Sheth, Michael Vogeley, Risa Wechsler, Martin White, and Andrew
1883: Zentner for many useful discussions. JLT acknowledges the use of the
1884: computing facilities of the Department of Astronomy at Ohio State
1885: University. JLT also would like to acknowledge the generous
1886: hospitality of the Institute for Computational Cosmology at the
1887: University of Durham, where part of this work was completed. DW
1888: acknowledges the support of NSF grant AST-0407125. Portions of this
1889: work were performed under the auspices of the U.S. Dept. of Energy,
1890: and supported by its contract \#W-7405-ENG-36 to Los Alamos National
1891: Laboratory. Computational resources were provided by the LANL open
1892: supercomputing initiative. CC thanks the Instituto de Astrofisica de
1893: Andalucia (CSIC) for their wonderful espresso bar and financial
1894: support in the Spring of 2006.
1895:
1896: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1897: % Bibliography
1898: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1899:
1900: \bibliography{risa}
1901:
1902:
1903: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1904: % FIGURES FIGURES FIGURES FIGURES FIGURES FIGURES FIGURES FIGURES
1905: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1906:
1907:
1908:
1909:
1910: \end{document}
1911: