1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \newcounter{address}
4: \newcommand{\latin}[1]{{#1}}
5: \newcommand{\unit}[1]{\mathrm{#1}}
6: \newcommand{\ie}{\latin{i.e.}}
7: \newcommand{\eg}{\latin{e.g.}}
8: \newcommand{\bandz}[1]{{}^{0.3}{#1}}
9: \newcommand{\mean}[1]{\left<{#1}\right>}
10: \newcommand{\di}{\mathrm{d}}
11: \newcommand{\ggz}{\bandz{g}}
12: \newcommand{\rrz}{\bandz{r}}
13: \newcommand{\iiz}{\bandz{i}}
14: \newcommand{\wwsi}{w_{si}}
15: \newcommand{\rrp}{r_\mathrm{p}}
16: \newcommand{\rrf}{r_\mathrm{close}}
17: \newcommand{\ttmerge}{t_{\mathrm{merge},i}}
18: \newcommand{\ttorbit}{t_\mathrm{orbit}}
19: \newcommand{\ttdyn}{t_{\mathrm{dyn},i}}
20: \newcommand{\nns}{n_s}
21: \newcommand{\nni}{n_i}
22: \newcommand{\NNi}{N_i}
23: \newcommand{\MMg}{{}[M_{\ggz}-5\,\log_{10}h]}
24: \newcommand{\MMi}{{}[M_{\iiz}-5\,\log_{10}h]}
25: \newcommand{\set}[1]{\mathbb{#1}}
26: \newcommand{\setDDs}{\set{D}_s}
27: \newcommand{\setDDi}{\set{D}_i}
28: \newcommand{\setRRs}{\set{R}_s}
29: \newcommand{\setRRi}{\set{R}_i}
30: \newcommand{\DDs}{D_s}
31: \newcommand{\DDi}{D_i}
32: \newcommand{\RRs}{R_s}
33: \newcommand{\RRi}{R_i}
34: \newcommand{\xisi}{\xi_{si}}
35: \newcommand{\Lstar}{L^{\ast}}
36: \newcommand{\Mpc}{\unit{Mpc}}
37: \newcommand{\kpc}{\unit{kpc}}
38: \newcommand{\Gyr}{\unit{Gyr}}
39: \newcommand{\km}{\unit{km}}
40: \newcommand{\s}{\unit{s}}
41: \renewcommand{\arcsec}{\unit{arcsec}}
42: \newcommand{\percent}{\unit{percent}}
43: \renewcommand{\mag}{\unit{mag}}
44: \newcommand{\hMpc}{h^{-1}\,\Mpc}
45: \newcommand{\hkpc}{h^{-1}\,\kpc}
46: \newcommand{\hMsun}{h^{-1}\,M_{\odot}}
47:
48: \begin{document}
49:
50: \title{The growth of luminous red galaxies by merging}
51: \author{
52: Morad~Masjedi\altaffilmark{\ref{NYU}},
53: David~W.~Hogg\altaffilmark{\ref{NYU},\ref{email}},
54: Michael~R.~Blanton\altaffilmark{\ref{NYU}}
55: }
56:
57: \setcounter{address}{1}
58: \altaffiltext{\theaddress}{\stepcounter{address}\label{NYU} Center for
59: Cosmology and Particle Physics, Department of Physics, New York
60: University, 4 Washington Pl, New York, NY 10003}
61: \altaffiltext{\theaddress}{\stepcounter{address}\label{email} To whom
62: correspondence should be addressed: \texttt{david.hogg@nyu.edu}}
63:
64: \begin{abstract}
65: We study the role of major and minor mergers in the mass growth of
66: luminous red galaxies. We present small-scale ($0.01<r<8\,\hMpc$)
67: projected cross-correlation functions of $23043$ luminous early-type
68: galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Luminous Red Galaxy
69: (LRG) sample ($0.16<z<0.30$, $\MMi\approx -22.75\,\mag$) with all
70: their companions in the SDSS imaging sample, split into color and
71: luminosity subsamples with $\MMi<-18\,\mag$. We de-project the
72: two-dimensional functions to obtain three-dimensional real-space
73: LRG--galaxy cross-correlation functions for each companion
74: subsample. We find that the cross-correlation functions are not purely
75: power-law and that there is a clear ``one-halo'' to ``two-halo''
76: transition near $1\,\hMpc$. We convert these results into close pair
77: statistics and estimate the LRG accretion rate from each companion
78: galaxy subsample using timescales from dynamical friction arguments
79: for each subsample of the companions. We find that the accretion onto
80: LRGs is dominated by dry mergers of galaxies more luminous than
81: $\Lstar$. We integrate the luminosity accretion rate from mergers
82: over all companion galaxy subsamples and find that LRGs are growing by
83: $[1.7\pm 0.1]$ percent per $\Gyr$, on average, from merger activity at
84: redshift $z\sim 0.25$. This rate is almost certainly an over-estimate
85: because we have assumed that all close pairs are merging as quickly as
86: dynamical friction allows; nonetheless it is on the low side of the
87: panoply of measurements in the literature, and lower than any rate
88: predicted from theory.
89: \end{abstract}
90:
91: \keywords{galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD ---
92: galaxies: evolution ---
93: galaxies: interactions ---
94: large-scale structure of universe ---
95: methods: statistical}
96:
97: \section{Introduction}
98:
99: In the current paradigm for galaxy formation, the massive dark-matter
100: halos in which galaxies reside have assembled throughout cosmic time
101: by accretion and merging of smaller parts. There remains, however,
102: substantial uncertainty about the formation and evolution of the
103: galaxies in those halos, and the evolution of the stars and gas that
104: compose them. A particularly important galaxy subpopulation in this
105: research context is the luminous end of the red sequence of galaxies
106: --- consisting of concentrated, smooth, and typically elliptical
107: galaxies that preferentially live in the densest regions of the
108: Universe \citep{sandage72a, schneider83a, roberts94a, postman95a,
109: blanton03d}. Such galaxies account for a large fraction of the total
110: stellar mass in the Universe \citep{hogg02a, rudnick06a, brown07a},
111: and thus understanding their formation is critical to understanding
112: galaxy formation in general. This red sequence is clearly separated
113: from the blue sequence of galaxies, which are typically lower in mass,
114: more star-forming, gas-rich, morphologically ``spiral,'' and
115: preferentially populate isolated regions \citep{strateva01a,
116: blanton03d, baldry04a, balogh04b}.
117:
118: With uniform spectra, deep absorption lines, highly clustered
119: distribution (``bias'' around 2), and high luminosities (absolute
120: magnitudes around $-23\,\mag$), the Luminous Red Galaxies (LRGs) are
121: excellent tracers of the density field on large scales
122: \citep{eisenstein01a}. For this reason, surveys of LRGs were the first
123: to conclusively demonstrate the homogeneity of the Universe at low
124: redshifts \citep{hogg05a} and to detect the baryon acoustic
125: oscillation feature in the correlation function
126: \citep{eisenstein05a}. Their continuing importance to understanding
127: fundamental cosmology underlines the need to better understand their
128: nature.
129:
130: Because luminous red galaxies are typically supported by velocity
131: dispersion and not orderly rotation, it has been hypothesized that
132: they form from mergers of two or more smaller galaxies
133: \citep{toomre77a}. Such mergers have been shown in numerical
134: simulations to produce disordered and velocity dispersion supported
135: systems not unlike observed ellipticals \citep{negroponte83a,
136: barnes96a, naab03a, cox06b}. In addition to such ``major'' mergers,
137: LRGs could in principle grow over time from an accumulation of smaller
138: mergers. If at least one of the merging galaxies is gas-rich, it often
139: shows a large star-formation rate \citep{barton00a, lambas03a,
140: nikolic04a, smith07a}, and indeed a significant fraction of the total
141: star-formation in the Universe may occur in such events. However,
142: there is also a population of mergers of two red galaxies, in which no
143: star-formation occurs, an event usually referred to as a ``dry
144: merger'' \citep{bell06b, vandokkum05a}.
145:
146: A growing consensus of groups studying the high redshift Universe find
147: that the luminous red galaxies appear to grow in stellar mass over
148: time \citep{bell04a, willmer05a, blanton06a, wake06a, brown07a,
149: faber07a}. This growth can occur in several ways. First, in principle
150: they may have ongoing star-formation. This is very unlikely, since
151: the red galaxies show little signs of such star-formation. Second,
152: luminous blue galaxies may transform to red galaxies. This is also
153: unlikely at the very luminous end, since the number density of
154: luminous blue galaxies is far lower than that of red galaxies, even at
155: high redshift. Third, and most likely, the luminous red galaxies may
156: grow through either major or minor mergers.
157:
158: If the change in the galaxy population over time is to be explained at
159: least partly by mergers, we must be able to find these mergers before
160: or as they occur in appropriate numbers. ``Instantaneous'' studies of
161: the merger rate are complementary to, and must be consistent with, the
162: global studies in the change of the galaxy population. To evaluate
163: whether mergers can explain these changes, the work presented here is
164: designed to measure the accretion or merger rate of companion galaxies
165: into LRGs at redshift $z\sim 0.25$.
166:
167: It is also the case that in the CDM paradigm for structure formation,
168: galaxies reside in mass concentrations that are built from merging and
169: accretion of smaller concentrations over cosmic time. It is
170: unavoidable that this merging in the dark sector is associated, at
171: some level, with merging of observable galaxies (\eg,
172: \citealt{murali02a, maller06a, conroy07a}).
173:
174: There are many galaxy--galaxy merger rate estimates in the literature,
175: which involve identifying a class of pre-merger close pairs
176: \citep{carlberg94a, patton97a, vandokkum99a, carlberg00a, patton00a,
177: lin04a, masjedi06a, bell06a, depropris07a}, a class of post-merger
178: galaxies based on star-formation indicators \citep{quintero04a}, or a
179: class of currently merging sources based on disturbed or merging
180: morphologies \citep{abraham96, conselice03a, vandokkum05a, lotz06a,
181: depropris07a}. In each case, the estimate of the merger rate proceeds
182: by estimating the abundance of the class, some time interval over
183: which they remain identifiably part of that class. The measurements
184: of the LRG accretion rate presented here also follow this methodology.
185: However, our measurements are more reliable than most previous
186: measurements for a number of reasons. The first is that the LRGs form
187: a very uniform, very massive population, as described above, and
188: therefore dynamical times and dynamical-friction times relevant to
189: close pairs are straightforward to estimate. The second is that we
190: make maximal assumptions so as to put a strict \emph{upper limit} on
191: the accretion rate. This is interesting, because the upper limit we
192: determine is on the low side of existing predictions and measurements.
193: The third is that we use a technique for measuring the mean number of
194: close pairs in real space, with no contamination by projected pairs,
195: so our pre-merger candidate list is clean of such interlopers (in a
196: statistical sense).
197:
198: Our technique for measuring the close pairs builds on previous work
199: \citep{masjedi06a} in which we showed that we could measure projected
200: correlation functions on extremely small scales ($\kpc$ to $\Mpc$
201: scales) without the need for complete spectroscopic samples. We used
202: this method to overcome the fiber-collision incompleteness of the LRG
203: sample in the SDSS. In addition, we showed that the clustering signal
204: so measured can be deprojected and integrated to deduce close pair
205: statistics and therefore a rate of merger events among the galaxies in
206: the sample. We found that LRG--LRG mergers are extremely rare events
207: and do not play a significant role in the growth of these galaxies, at
208: least at low redshifts.
209:
210: In this paper we expand this technique to measure not only the
211: auto-correlation function of a set of galaxies, but the
212: cross-correlation function of two different galaxy sets, only one of
213: which requires spectroscopic information. We choose LRGs as our
214: primary spectroscopic sample and we cross-correlate them with distinct
215: subsamples of companion galaxies over a range of luminosities and
216: colors. We convert these results into an accretion rate of
217: luminosity---within each subsample---into LRGs. We can estimate a
218: total accretion rate by this method with unprecedented precision.
219:
220: Throughout this paper, all distances are comoving, calculated for a
221: cosmological world model with
222: $(\Omega_\mathrm{m},\Omega_\Lambda)=(0.3,0.7)$ and Hubble constant
223: parameterized by $H_0\equiv 100\,h\,\km\,\s^{-1}\,\Mpc^{-1}$. All
224: magnitudes are AB.
225:
226: \section{Data}
227:
228: The SDSS \citep{stoughton02a,abazajian03a,abazajian04a} has performed
229: an imaging and spectroscopic survey of $\sim 10^4$ square degrees
230: \citep{fukugita96a, gunn98a, gunn05a}. Automated, real-time monitoring
231: \citep{hogg01a}, image processing \citep{lupton01a, stoughton02a,
232: pier03a}, photometric calibration \citep{smith02a, ivezic04a,
233: tucker06a, padmanabhan07a}, galaxy target selection for spectroscopy
234: \citep{strauss02a, eisenstein01a}, design of spectroscopic plates
235: \citep{blanton03a}, and spectroscopic reductions have produced
236: enormous, very uniform samples. Of the various SDSS subsamples, the
237: one that uniformly maps the largest volume is the LRG sample
238: \citep{eisenstein01a}.
239:
240: \subsection{Spectroscopic subsample}
241:
242: The spectroscopic LRG sample is constructed from color-magnitude cuts
243: in $g$, $r$, and $i$ bands to select galaxies that are likely to be
244: luminous early-type galaxies at redshifts between 0.15 and 0.5. The
245: selection is highly efficient and the redshift success rate is
246: excellent. The sample is constructed to be close to volume-limited up
247: to $z=0.36$, with a dropoff in density toward $z=0.5$. Because the
248: LRG sample is so uniform, and because it occupies such a large volume,
249: we have used it to demonstrate the homogeneity of the Universe
250: \citep{hogg05a}, to locate the baryon acoustic feature at low redshift
251: \citep{eisenstein05b}, and to measure clustering at intermediate and
252: small scales \citep{zehavi05a, masjedi06a}.
253:
254: This study uses a spectroscopic sample drawn from NYU LSS {\tt
255: sample14} \citep{blanton05a}. This covers 3,836 square degrees and
256: contains 55,000 LRGs with redshifts $0.16<z<0.47$. The subsample of
257: LRGs used in this paper has luminosity and redshift ranges of
258: $-23.2<\MMg <-21.2\,\mag$ and $0.16<z<0.30$. We
259: restrict our sample to $z<0.30$ to allow measurement of
260: cross-correlations between LRGs and much less luminous companions.
261: The LRG absolute magnitudes include Galactic extinction corrections
262: \citep{schlegel98a}, $K$ corrections \citep{blanton06b} and passive
263: evolution corrections (the latter were applied only for the purposes
264: of selecting a sample that does not substantially change with
265: redshift). These cuts left $23043$ LRGs in our spectroscopic
266: subsample.
267:
268: In the SDSS, spectroscopic targets were assigned to spectroscopic
269: fiber plug plates with a tiling algorithm that ensures nearly complete
270: samples \citep{blanton03a}. The angular completeness is characterized
271: for each unique region of overlapping spectroscopic plates
272: (``sector'') on the sky. An operational constraint of SDSS
273: spectrographs, however, is that the physical size of the fiber
274: coupling forces the angular separation of targets on any individual
275: spectroscopic plate to be larger than $55\,\arcsec$. This ``fiber
276: collision'' constraint is partly reduced by having roughly
277: $40\,\percent$ of the sky covered by overlapping plates, but it still
278: results in $\sim 7\,\percent$ of targeted galaxies not having measured
279: redshifts. Because this project involves cross-correlating
280: spetroscopic and imaging objects, this fiber collision limit only
281: comes into our analysis in our weighting scheme to account for
282: incompleteness; it does not affect our pair counts directly.
283:
284: For each galaxy $j$ in the spectroscopic subsample we compute a weight
285: $p_j$ that accounts statistically for the spectroscopic incompleteness
286: coming from fiber collisions. We calculate this weight by running a
287: two-dimensional friends-of-friends grouping algorithm on the SDSS
288: target parent sample in {\tt sample14}, with a $55\,\arcsec$ linking
289: length. This procedure emulates the SDSS tiling algorithm
290: \citep{blanton03a}. Within each ``collision group'' made by the
291: friends-of-friends algorithm, we find the number of objects with
292: measured spectroscopic redshifts and divide by the total number. The
293: inverse of this ratio is a weight $p_j$ assigned to each spectroscopic
294: LRG to account for survey incompleteness.
295:
296: We have created large catalogs of randomly distributed points based on
297: the SDSS subsample angular and radial (redshift distribution)
298: models. These catalogs match the redshift distribution of the LRGs and
299: are isotropic within the survey region. These catalogs allow us to
300: check the survey completeness of any given volume and provide a
301: homogeneous baseline (expected numbers) for the tests that follow.
302:
303: For each random point $j$ we compute a weight $f_j$ that accounts for
304: the incompleteness of the spectroscopic survey in that point's region
305: of the sky \emph{not} due to fiber collision but due to all the other
306: selection effects in the survey. The {\tt sample14} package provides
307: the angular geometry of the spectroscopic survey expressed in terms of
308: spherical polygons. The geometry is complicated: the spectroscopic
309: plates are circular and overlap, while the imaging is in long strips
310: on the sky, and there are overlap regions for some plates that have
311: not yet been observed. The resulting spherical polygons track all
312: these effects and characterize the geometry in terms of ``sectors'',
313: each being a unique region of overlapping spectroscopic plates. In
314: each sector, we count the number of possible targets (LRG, Main, and
315: Quasar), excluding those missed because of fiber collisions, and the
316: number of these whose redshifts were determined. We weight the points
317: in the random catalog matched to the spectroscopic LRGs by the inverse
318: of the ratio of these numbers ($f_j$). In truth, the priority of all
319: targets are not equal, such that LRGs always ``lose'' to quasar
320: candidates, but the LRG priority is equal to that of the dominant MAIN
321: targets. Only about $12$ percent of the fibers are assigned to
322: quasars, hence quasar-LRG collisions are rare and this priority bias
323: is small.
324:
325: We are required to treat the fiber collision incompleteness $p_j$ and
326: overall incompleteness $f_j$ factors separately, because the former is
327: strongly correlated with LRG environment, and there can be physical
328: differences between LRGs in high and low density environments.
329:
330: \subsection{Imaging subsamples}
331:
332: For our imaging data we use the full imaging sample of the SDSS
333: imaging catalog in the {\tt DR4plus} footprint, which completely
334: covers {\tt sample14} and is equivalent to the SDSS Data Release
335: 5. After correcting for Galactic extinction, we applied an $i$-band
336: apparent magnitude cut of $m_i<21\,\mag$. This cut guarantees
337: completeness in the redshift range $z<0.30$, $K$-corrected absolute
338: magnitude range $\MMi <-18\,\mag$. The $\ggz$, $\rrz$, and $\iiz$
339: bandpasses are the SDSS $g$, $r$, and $i$ bandpasses shifted blueward
340: by a factor of 1.3 so that $K$ corrections for galaxies at $z=0.3$
341: become trivial \citep[\eg,][]{hogg02c, blanton03d}. We applied an
342: additional surface-brightness cut of $\mu<28\,\mag$ in
343: $1\,\arcsec^{2}$ in $g$, $r$ and $i$. The surface-brightness cut is
344: far below the SDSS detection limit; it cleans the data of the obvious
345: mis-measurements of the Petrosian aperture and other extended-source
346: data artifacts.
347:
348: We cannot $K$-correct individual galaxies in the imaging subsample once
349: and for all, because we do not have spectroscopic redshifts for them,
350: but each time we consider a \emph{pair} of galaxies, one from the
351: spectroscopic subsample and one from the imaging subsample, we
352: fictitiously assign the spectroscopic redshift to the imaging
353: galaxy. This allows us to calculate for each imaging galaxy in each
354: spectroscopic--imaging pair a ``temporary'' K-corrected $\iiz$-band
355: absolute magnitude and $[\ggz-\rrz]$ color for the purposes of
356: that pair. We discard these values and compute new ones when the
357: imaging galaxy is used in another pair with another spectroscopic
358: galaxy.
359:
360: We calculated the $K$-corrections using the code {\tt kcorrect}
361: \citep{blanton06b}. This code is accurate but too slow to calculate the
362: $K$-corrections individually for the number of pairs ($\sim 10^9$)
363: found in the cross-correlations. To save time, we computed the
364: K-correction on a grid of colors in advance. We took galaxies from the
365: SDSS Main Sample as representative of all galaxy types. We computed
366: their K-corrections on a grid of redshifts between 0.16 and 0.30 (the
367: redshift limits of our spectroscopic subsample). We saved the mean
368: $K$-correction in a grid of observed $[g-r]$ color, $[r-i]$ color, and
369: redshift. Thereafter we interpolated this cube when calculating the
370: $K$-correction for an galaxy in any imaging subsample. This speeds up the
371: $K$-correction procedure immensely and only introduces percent-level
372: errors in the results.
373:
374: We have created large catalogs of randomly distributed points, with
375: the angular distribution of the imaging data subsamples.
376:
377: \section{Method and results}
378:
379: As we describe in this section, we cross-correlate galaxies in a
380: spectroscopic subsample $s$ (of LRGs in this case) with galaxies in an
381: imaging subsample $i$ to obtain the real-space, projected
382: cross-correlation function $\wwsi(\rrp)$ as a function of tangential
383: projected separation $\rrp$. We de-project this projected
384: cross-correlation function to obtain the true, three-dimensional,
385: real-space cross-correlation function $\xisi(r)$ as a function of
386: real-space separation $r$. We use this three-dimensional
387: cross-correlation function and dynamical arguments to place limits on
388: the accretion rate of objects from subsample $i$ into objects from
389: subsample $s$, and therefore the mass growth rate of LRGs.
390:
391: \subsection{Projected cross-correlation function}
392:
393: In analogy to the definition of auto-correlation function, the
394: three-dimensional real-space cross-correlation function $\xisi(r)$ of
395: two subsamples of galaxies $s$ and $i$, is defined as the excess
396: probability of finding a galaxy from subsample $s$ at a distance $r$
397: from a galaxy from the subsample $i$, relative to the ``null'' Poisson
398: prediction. If we take two small comoving volumes $\di V_s$ and $\di
399: V_i$, in which we look for galaxies from subsamples $s$ and $i$
400: respectively, separated by a distance $r$, the expected number of
401: pairs $\di N_{si}$ with one galaxy coming from subsample $s$ and the
402: other from subsample $i$ is:
403: \begin{equation}\label{eq:xis1s2}
404: \di N_{si}=\nns\,\nni\,\left[1+\xisi(r)\right]\,\di V_s\,\di V_i \quad ,
405: \end{equation}
406: where $\nns$ and $\nni$ are the three-dimensional comoving number
407: densities of subsamples $s$ and $i$ respectively.
408:
409: The projected two-dimensional cross-correlation function $\wwsi(\rrp)$
410: is related to the three-dimensional real-space correlation function
411: $\xisi(r)$ by a projection over the component $\pi$ of the separation
412: along the line of sight
413: \begin{equation}\label{eq:wp}
414: \wwsi(\rrp)=\int\di\pi\,\xisi\left(\sqrt{\rrp^2+\pi^2}\right) \quad .
415: \end{equation}
416: The two-dimensional function $\wwsi(\rrp)$ has dimensions of length.
417: Because in practice the correlation function $\xisi(r)$ is very large
418: at small scales, the integral is dominated by scales $\pi<\rrp$.
419: Observationally, $\wwsi(\rrp)$ is much more accessible than
420: $\xisi(r)$, because the radial component of the separation is never
421: well measured (and not measured at all in the work presented here).
422:
423: Following the approach we have used previously \citep{masjedi06a}, we
424: measure $\wwsi(\rrp)$ schematically as a difference of two ratios:
425: \begin{equation}
426: \nni\,\wwsi(\rrp)=\frac{\DDs\DDi}{\DDs\RRi}-\frac{\RRs\DDi}{\RRs\RRi} \quad ,
427: \label{eq:estimator}
428: \end{equation}
429: where $\nni$ is the average comoving three-dimensional volume density
430: of the imaging subsample, the symbols $\DDs$ and $\DDi$ represent the
431: spectroscopic and imaging data subsamples, and $\RRs$ and $\RRi$
432: represent the random catalogs matched to the spectroscopic and imaging
433: subsamples respectively. The product of a volume density and a
434: length, $\nni\,\wwsi(\rrp)$ has dimensions of inverse (comoving) area.
435: In a rough sense, the first term on the right-hand side of equation
436: (\ref{eq:estimator}) measures the abundance of pairs, and the second
437: term subtracts the mean background level. The procedure described
438: here has been tested with simulations and shown to deliver an unbiased
439: measure of the correlation function \citep{masjedi06a}.
440:
441: The main difference between equation~(\ref{eq:estimator}) and our
442: previous work \citep{masjedi06a} is that the number density $\nni$
443: that enters on the left-hand side is the number density of the imaging
444: subsample, which we cannot determine explicitly within this data set
445: since, by construction, the imaging subsample has no (or few)
446: spectroscopic redshifts. We can only measure robustly the product
447: $\nni\,\wwsi(\rrp)$. Fortunately, for the purposes of estimating the
448: merger rate, we need only this product, and not either quantity
449: separately.
450:
451: The right-hand side of Equation (\ref{eq:estimator}) includes a
452: spectroscopic--imaging pair-count factor $\DDs\DDi$:
453: \begin{equation}
454: \DDs\DDi=\frac{\displaystyle\sum_{j \in \setDDs\setDDi}p_j}%
455: {\displaystyle\sum_{k \in \setDDs}p_k} \quad ,
456: \label{eq:dsdi}
457: \end{equation}
458: where the top sum is over pairs $j$ with one member taken from
459: the spectroscopic subsample and one from the imaging subsample in some
460: bin of transverse radii $\rrp$, the bottom sum is over galaxies $k$
461: from the spectroscopic subsample, and $p_j$ is the weight given to the
462: spectroscopic galaxy in pair $j$ that accounts for fiber-collision
463: incompleteness as described above. Being a sum of dimensionless
464: weights, this factor $\DDs\DDi$ is dimensionless.
465:
466: There is a spectroscopic--random pair-count factor $\DDs\RRi$:
467: \begin{equation}\label{eq:secterm}
468: \DDs\RRi=\frac{\displaystyle\sum_{j \in \setDDs\setRRi}p_j}%
469: {\displaystyle\sum_{k \in \setDDs}p_k
470: \,\left[\frac{\di \Omega}{\di A}\right]_k\,\frac{\di N}{\di \Omega}} \quad ,
471: \end{equation}
472: where the top sum is over pairs $j$ with one member taken from the
473: spectroscopic subsample and one taken from the random catalog matched
474: to the imaging subsample, the bottom sum is over galaxies $k$ in the
475: spectroscopic subsample, $\left[\frac{\di \Omega}{\di A}\right]_k$ is
476: the inverse square of the comoving distance to the spectroscopic
477: galaxy $k$, and $\frac{\di N}{\di \Omega}$ is the number density of
478: the random imaging catalog per solid angle. The product of these two
479: derivatives gives the average number of random imaging objects per
480: unit comoving area around each spectroscopic galaxy, so this factor
481: $\DDs\RRi$ has dimensions of comoving area.
482:
483: There is a random--imaging pair-count factor $\RRs\DDi$:
484: \begin{equation}
485: \RRs\DDi=\frac{\displaystyle\sum_{j \in \setRRs\setDDi}f_j}%
486: {\displaystyle\sum_{k \in \setRRs}f_k} \quad ,
487: \end{equation}
488: where the top sum is over pairs $j$ with one member taken from the
489: random catalog matched to the spectroscopic subsample and one taken
490: from the imaging subsample, the bottom sum is over points in the
491: random catalog matched to the spectroscopic subsample, and $f_j$ is
492: the weight given to the random point in pair $j$ that accounts for the
493: incompleteness of the spectroscopic survey in that point's region of
494: the sky \emph{not} due to fiber collisions, as described above. This
495: factor $\RRs\DDi$ is dimensionless.
496:
497: There is a random--random pair-count term $\RRs\RRi$:
498: \begin{equation}
499: \RRs\RRi=\frac{\displaystyle\sum_{j \in \setRRs\setRRi}f_j}%
500: {\displaystyle\sum_{k \in \setRRs}f_k
501: \,\left[\frac{\di \Omega}{\di A}\right]_k \frac{\di N}{\di \Omega}} \quad ,
502: \label{eq:rsri}
503: \end{equation}
504: similar to the above but for pairs $j$ with one member taken from the
505: random catalog matched to the spectroscopic subsample and one taken
506: from the random catalog matched to the imaging subsample. This factor
507: $\RRs\RRi$ has dimensions of comoving area.
508:
509: In measuring the four factors on the right-hand side of
510: Equation~(\ref{eq:estimator}), we have used $2$ imaging-galaxy color
511: bins separating the blue and red imaging galaxies in $[\ggz-\rrz]$
512: color, $20$ imaging-galaxy luminosity bins, which we choose to cover
513: the range $-24<\MMi <-18\,\mag$ but have roughly the same number of
514: imaging galaxies in each, and 15 bins in projected transverse
515: separation $\rrp$ between the LRG and the accompanying galaxy,
516: covering the range of $0.01<\rrp<8\,\hMpc$ with logarithmic spacing.
517:
518: In practice, to compute the factors, we bin all the
519: specroscopic--imaging pairs according to the imaging galaxy color, the
520: imaging galaxy luminosity, and the comoving projected separation
521: $\rrp$ of the pair. As described above, the $K$ corrections and
522: separations are computed for each pair using the redshift of the
523: spectroscopic galaxy. We perform the sums given in
524: Equations~(\ref{eq:dsdi}) through (\ref{eq:rsri}) in each bin
525: separately and thereby construct the $\wwsi$ estimator given in
526: Equation~(\ref{eq:estimator}).
527:
528: Figures~\ref{fig:wpred} and \ref{fig:wpblue} show the measurements of
529: $\nni\,\wwsi(\rrp)$ for red and blue companion galaxies respectively.
530: We have combined the 20 luminosity bins into 5 to simplify the
531: figures. The error bars are estimated using jackknife resampling
532: covariance matrix with 100 subsamples made contiguous and compact on
533: the sky (based on SDSS ``targetting chunks'') to be as conservative as
534: possible with regards to correlated calibration and selection
535: errors. Note that the error bars for each subsample are smallest on
536: $\kpc$ scales and become larger for both the smaller and larger
537: scales. On smaller scales this is due to shot noise; the smaller the
538: separations the fewer the pair counts. On scales larger than a few
539: $\hkpc$, the errors grow both due to cosmic variance and the fact that
540: our method becomes more and more vulnerable to interlopers on larger
541: scales where the clustering power is weaker and background subtraction
542: is more noisy. These effects generate high correlations among the
543: errors of different bins, and explains the smoothness of the curves in
544: Figures~\ref{fig:wpred} and \ref{fig:wpblue} despite the large
545: uncertainties in each bin.
546:
547: \subsection{Three-dimensional statistics}
548:
549: Under the assumption of spherical symmetry, the two-dimensional,
550: projected cross-correlation function $\wwsi(\rrp)$ can be
551: ``deprojected'' into the three-dimensional, real-space correlation
552: function $\xisi(r)$:
553: \begin{equation}
554: \nni\,\xisi(r) = -\frac{1}{\pi}
555: \,\int^{\infty}_r\frac{\di\rrp}{\sqrt{\rrp^2-r^2}}
556: \,\frac{\di\left[\nni\,\wwsi(\rrp)\right]}{\di\rrp}
557: \quad ,
558: \end{equation}
559: where we have kept this deprojection in terms of the measureable
560: product $\nni\,\wwsi(\rrp)$.
561:
562: The correlation function can be converted to pair counts; similarly
563: the cross-correlation function can be converted into the mean number
564: $\NNi$ of galaxies from a specific imaging subsample $i$ within a given
565: small three-dimensional separation $\rrf$ of a member of the
566: spectroscopic subsample $s$:
567: \begin{equation}
568: \NNi = 4\,\pi\,\nni\,\int_0^{\rrf}r^2\,\di r\,\left[1+\xisi(r)\right]
569: \approx 4\,\pi\,\int_0^{\rrf}r^2\,\di r\,\left[\nni\,\xisi(r)\right] \quad ,
570: \end{equation}
571: where we have used the fact that at small scales $\xisi\gg 1$ and the
572: term in brackets in the approximate expression is the quantity we can
573: de-project from the two-dimensional projected cross-correlation
574: function $\nni\,\wwsi(\rrp)$. So we can measure the close pair
575: fraction for every subsample for which we can measure the
576: cross-correlation function.
577:
578: \subsection{Merger rate}
579:
580: Conversion of a pair fraction measurement into a merger rate requires
581: a time-scale $\ttmerge$ over which the mean galaxy from imaging
582: subsample $i$ within separation $\rrf$ will merge with the mean LRG
583: from subsample $s$. The merger rate estimate $\Gamma_i$ of galaxies
584: from sample $i$ into galaxies from sample $s$ per galaxy (from $s$)
585: per unit time is
586: \begin{equation}
587: \Gamma_i = \frac{\NNi}{\ttmerge} \quad ,
588: \end{equation}
589: and the mean fractional rate of growth of luminosity of a galaxies
590: from subsample $s$ from accretion of galaxies from subsample $i$ is
591: \begin{equation}
592: \frac{1}{\mean{L_s}}\,\left[\frac{\di L_s}{\di t}\right]_i
593: = \frac{\NNi\,\mean{L_i}}{\ttmerge\,\mean{L_s}}
594: \quad ,
595: \end{equation}
596: where $\mean{L_s}$ is the mean luminosity of galaxies from subsample
597: $s$ and $\mean{L_i}$ is the mean luminosity of galaxies from subsample
598: $i$.
599:
600: The shortest conceivable merger time $\ttmerge$ estimate (which
601: produces the largest conceivable estimate of the merger rate) is the
602: orbital time $\ttorbit$. A more realistic estimate is a time $\ttdyn$
603: based on dynamical friction. But in principal all of these times can
604: be underestimates (and hence any merger rate based on close pairs can
605: be an overestimate) because there is undoubtedly a large number of
606: close pairs that will not merge on any short timescale. In what
607: follows, we present the orbital time $\ttorbit$ and dynamical friction
608: time $\ttdyn$ as two options, but then interpret our merger rate
609: estimates as upper limits.
610:
611: All of these merger rate estimates depend, in principle, on the radius
612: $\rrf$ inside of which we have counted close companions. However,
613: over the range of interest in Figures~\ref{fig:wpred} and
614: \ref{fig:wpblue}, $\wwsi(\rrp)$ scales (something) like $\rrp$,
615: $\xisi(r)$ scales (something) like $r^2$ and $\NNi$ scales (something)
616: like $\rrf$. Similarly, both time-scales (orbital and
617: dynamical-friction) scale like $\rrf$. For this reason, the inferred
618: merger and accretion rates (which are based on ratios of $\NNi$ with
619: the timescales) do \emph{not} depend strongly on the choice of $\rrf$.
620:
621: The average orbital velocity for a companion around a more massive
622: galaxy with velocity dispersion $\sigma_v$ is roughly $1.5$ times the
623: velocity dispersion, so
624: \begin{equation}
625: \ttorbit \approx \frac{2\,\pi\,\rrf}{1.5\,\sigma_v} \quad .
626: \end{equation}
627: This is the shortest conceivable mean merger time (we have included
628: the factor of 1.5 to be conservative). The fractional luminosity
629: accretion rate estimate for this assumed time-scale is shown with
630: dashed lines in Figure~\ref{fig:masspec} as a function of the
631: luminosity of imaging subsample $i$ for red and blue imaging galaxies.
632: The per-subsample merger rates have been divided by the
633: absolute-magnitude bin width so that the total fractional accretion
634: rate is the area under (integral of) the curves.
635:
636: The Chandrasekhar approximation to dynamical friction is longer than
637: the dynamical time by a factor roughly equal to the ratio of the mass
638: of the heavier galaxy to the lighter one. This approximation may
639: actually be an underestimate of the total merger time found in
640: explicit $N$-body simulations \citep{boylankolchin07a}, which
641: serves to strengthen the interpretation of our merger rate estimate as
642: an upper limit. For our case, the approximation becomes
643: \begin{equation}
644: \ttdyn= \ttorbit\,\frac{\mean{m_s}}{\mean{m_i}} \quad ,
645: \end{equation}
646: where $\mean{m_s}$ and $\mean{m_i}$ are the averages of the masses of
647: the spectroscopic and imaging subsamples respectively, and we have
648: assumed $\mean{m_s}>\mean{m_i}$. Keeping things observational, we do
649: not try to measure masses for galaxies in this work. Instead, we make
650: the naive assumption that a galaxy's mass is directly proportional to
651: its $\iiz$-band luminosity and therefore we use the ratio of the
652: luminosities instead of the masses. The $\iiz$-band luminosity is
653: very close to the rest frame $r$-band luminosity. This assumption
654: works fairly well for the mass ratios of red imaging galaxies to the
655: spectroscopic galaxies (which are LRGs) but tends to over estimate the
656: masses of the blue companions. This bias leads to an underestimation
657: of merger time-scales and hence an overestimation of the fractional
658: accretion rate for blue companions.
659:
660: The solid lines in Figure~\ref{fig:masspec} show the calculated
661: fractional luminosity growth of the LRGs assuming the dynamical
662: friction time-scale $\ttdyn$ for the mergers. The per-subsample
663: merger rates have been divided by the absolute-magnitude bin width so
664: that the total fractional accretion rate is the area under (integral
665: of) the curves. If the results in Figure~\ref{fig:masspec} are
666: naively interpreted as fractional \emph{mass} accretion rates (they
667: are fractional luminosity rates), the blue galaxies are doubly
668: overestimated, because both the merger rate (inverse timescale) and
669: the delivered mass have been over-estimated.
670:
671: Under the orbital time-scale assumption, the growth curve in
672: Figure~\ref{fig:masspec} peaks near the magnitude of $\Lstar$
673: galaxies. This represents fact that most of the light in the Universe,
674: even near LRGs, is in $\Lstar$ galaxies. Under the dynamical
675: friction assumption, the curves shift to more luminous, more massive,
676: galaxies; lighter galaxies linger around the LRG for a longer time.
677:
678: The maximal fractional luminosity accretion rate (the sum of the
679: integrals under the dashed curves in Figure~\ref{fig:masspec}) is
680: $[5.6\pm 0.2]\,\percent\,\Gyr^{-1}$, but this rate is unrealistically
681: high; certainly pairs with large mass differences do not merge in an
682: orbital time! The dynamical-friction rate is $[1.7\pm
683: 0.1]\,\percent\,\Gyr^{-1}$, and is also probably an overestimate
684: because at least some physical pairs are not on the path to rapid
685: merging.
686:
687: Table~\ref{tab:data1} gives the derived fractional luminosity growth
688: from every imaging subsample for both the orbital time-scale
689: assumption and the dynamical friction time-scale assumption as a
690: function of the luminosity and color of the subsamples.
691:
692: \section{Discussion}
693:
694: We have combined Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) spectroscopic data on
695: $23043$ luminous red galaxies (LRGs) with SDSS imaging data on
696: enormous subsamples of fainter galaxies to measure cross-correlations.
697: We have measured the projected two-dimensional cross-correlation
698: functions $\wwsi(\rrp)$ on very small scales ($0.01<\rrp<8\,\hMpc$)
699: between spectroscopic LRGs (``$s$'') with luminosities $\MMi\approx
700: -22.75\,\mag$ and many subsamples of imaging galaxies (``$i$'') with
701: luminosities $\MMi <-18\,\mag$. The imaging limit
702: is $50$ times or $4.25\,\mag$ fainter than the mean LRG; the samples
703: of companion galaxies cover a broad range in color and magnitude. In
704: addition, the large volume of the SDSS LRG sample allows us to cut the
705: companion galaxies into many distinct subsamples with different
706: luminosities and colors but nonetheless measure the clustering as a
707: function of these properties with high signal-to-noise. The principal
708: limitation arises from the lack of spectroscopic information on the
709: companion galaxies; this makes it impossible to precisely measure the
710: real-space number densities for the companion subsamples. We cannot
711: disentangle the clustering power from the number density; we only
712: measure the product $\nni\,\wwsi(\rrp)$ but not either $\nni$ or
713: $\,\wwsi(\rrp)$ separately.
714:
715: Figures~\ref{fig:wpred} and \ref{fig:wpblue} show the results of these
716: measurements of $\nni\,\wwsi(\rrp)$ for red and blue galaxies
717: respectively. In both figures several characteristic transition scales
718: are visible. The sharp break at at $\rrp\approx 2\,\hMpc$ and the
719: less-sharp transition at $\rrp\approx 0.3\,\hMpc$ in the curves can be
720: explained in the context of the ``halo occupation'' picture of galaxy
721: clustering \citep{peacock00a, scoccimarro01a, berlind02a}. If
722: galaxies are residing within dark matter halos then the clustering of
723: the galaxies on scales larger than halos is determined by the
724: clustering of the dark matter halos that host them, plus statistics of
725: the occupation of halos by galaxies. In this picture, the first
726: transition at $\rrp\approx 2\,\hMpc$ locates the size of the largest
727: halos that host LRGs---the largest halos in the Universe. At larger
728: separations, at $\rrp> 2\,\hMpc$, this is the regime in which all
729: LRG--galaxy pairs come from two separate halos (the ``two-halo''
730: regime). Inside this scale, at $0.3<\rrp<2\,\hMpc$, the galaxy--LRG
731: pairs are a mix of pairs, in some of which the companion galaxy
732: belongs to the same halo as the LRG and in some of which the galaxy
733: belongs to a separate halo. This ``mixed'' regime comes from the fact
734: that LRGs reside in a range of halo sizes. The inner limit of this
735: regime is at $\rrp\approx 0.3\,\hMpc$, depending on the luminosity of
736: the imaging galaxy subsample $i$ in question. This inner scale is
737: close to the virial size of the smallest halo that can host an LRG
738: (plus the virial size of the smallest halo that can host a companion
739: galaxy from the imaging subsample $i$). At smaller scales, at $\rrp<
740: 0.3\,\hMpc$, all the galaxies belong to the same halo as the LRG halo
741: (the ``one-halo'' regime). Here the clustering represents the mean
742: radial profile of the halos mixed with details of galaxy evolution.
743: Figure~\ref{fig:wpred} shows an increase in the clustering of blue
744: galaxies at $\rrp\approx 50\,\hkpc$ toward the central regions of the
745: halo. This could be caused by a boost of star formation in these
746: galaxies, which makes them more luminous and places them in higher
747: luminosity bins in our calculation.
748:
749: Finally, both Figures show a sharp drop in the clustering power on
750: scales $\rrp<30\,\hkpc$. This could be due to failure of the object
751: detection software of the SDSS \citep[\eg,][]{masjedi06a}, or it could
752: be a real effect from disintegration of galaxies by dynamical friction
753: or other tidal stripping expected in some galaxy evolution models.
754:
755: We integrate the de-projected, three-dimensional cross-correlation
756: functions $\nni\,\xisi(r)$ for each imaging subsample $i$ on very
757: small scales to calculate the average number of galaxies that are in
758: dynamical pairs with each LRG. We use two different time-scales for
759: merger events to calculate merger rates. The first is the orbital
760: time $\ttorbit$, equivalent to assuming that all galaxies merge in one
761: orbit. This is the shortest time imaginable to merge, so it provides a
762: strict upper limit on the merger rate. The second time-scale is the
763: dynamical friction time-scale $\ttdyn$ for which we approximate the
764: merger time with a linear function of the mass ratio
765: $\mean{m_s}/\mean{m_i}$ of the mean galaxies from the two samples.
766: This is equivalent to assuming that equal-mass (LRG--LRG) mergers take
767: the one-orbit time, but pairs of galaxies with more different masses
768: take longer times to merge.
769:
770: We use the two time-scales to calculate both a strict upper limit to
771: the merger rate and a more realistic rate, although even the dynamical
772: friction time-scale calculation involves assuming that essentially all
773: close pairs merge. For both time-scales we have measured the fraction
774: of LRG luminosity that is added to the LRG through mergers of galaxies
775: from each imaging subsample $i$ per $\Gyr$. The fractional luminosity
776: growth for LRGs through mergers as a function of the color and
777: magnitude of the merging companions is shown in
778: Figure~\ref{fig:masspec}.
779:
780: Most of the luminosity brought into LRGs by merging is brought by red
781: companions or ``dry mergers,'' and most of it is brought by galaxies
782: near (or above) $\Lstar$. The contribution to growth decreases with
783: decreasing luminosity at the faint end; the curves essentially to zero
784: by $\MMi =-18\,\mag$. Calculation of the total amount of luminosity
785: brought in by merger activities does not require consideration of
786: fainter companion galaxies.
787:
788: Integration of Figure~\ref{fig:masspec} over companion absolute
789: magnitude yields the total fractional amount of LRG luminosity growth
790: from mergers. Under the maximal one-orbit merger time assumption, we
791: find that the total fractional growth rate is strictly smaller than
792: $[5.6\pm 0.2]\,\percent\,\Gyr^{-1}$. Under the more realistic
793: dynamical friction assumption, we find that the total fractional
794: growth rate is $[1.7\pm 0.1]\,\percent\,\Gyr^{-1}$ where only about
795: one-tenth of that is through ``wet mergers'' (blue companions) and the
796: rest is through dry mergers (red companions).
797:
798: Our results are \emph{not} consistent, at face value, with most
799: morphological measurements of the merger rate---measures that involve
800: identification of merging galaxies by their appearances---most of
801: which find rates on the order of ten~percent per Gyr or of order unity
802: over a Hubble time (\eg, \citealt{abraham96, conselice03a,
803: vandokkum05a, lotz06a}; though see also \citealt{depropris07a}). Our
804: method for inferring the merger rate suffers---as all these other
805: investigators' methods do---from uncertainties in merger timescales.
806: However, we avoid all issues related to morphological selection of
807: merging systems or merger remnants, which tend to introduce
808: subjectivity, and we avoid uncertainties related to line-of-sight
809: projections because we work with the true three-space correlation
810: function. Our method is therefore much more precise than other
811: methods. Furthermore, because merging cannot happen on timescales
812: shorter than a dynamical time, our upper limit is extremely robust
813: (and not made uncertain by projection effects).
814:
815: Our merger rate estimate can be reconciled with other estimates if we
816: assume that either \textsl{(1)}~the merger rate is an extremely strong
817: function of the primary galaxy mass (since we only investigate the
818: rate for the most massive galaxies in the Universe), or
819: \textsl{(2)}~merging produces observable distortions to galaxy
820: morphologies (\eg, tidal tails) that last for many dynamical times, or
821: \textsl{(3)}~significant morphological signs of merging can be raised
822: by very frequent, very minor mergers, which don't contribute much to
823: the build-up of mass. Our results are more consistent with measures
824: of the merger rate based on counts of close pairs \citep{carlberg94a,
825: patton97a, vandokkum99a, carlberg00a, patton00a, lin04a, masjedi06a,
826: bell06a}, but even there, our results are on the low side.
827:
828: Our results are also lower than any accretion or merger predicted in
829: theories of galaxy formation in a cosmological context
830: \citep{murali02a, maller06a, conroy07a}, but we caution that no
831: predictions have been made for exactly what we have observed, and that
832: galaxy--galaxy merging occurs at length and dynamical scales where
833: cosmological simulations are not completely reliable.
834:
835: There are three respects in which the luminosity growth shown in the
836: solid lines in Figure~\ref{fig:masspec}---the more ``realistic''
837: estimates---are nonetheless over-estimates or upper limits on the true
838: fractional mass growth for LRGs. First, we are assuming that the vast
839: majority of pairs do merge as quickly as dynamical friction allows.
840: This is not true for close pairs in high velocity-dispersion
841: environments. In addition, even when the pairs are bound the
842: Chandrasekhar formula may be an overestimate \citep{boylankolchin07a}.
843: Second, the blue galaxies have both their masses over-estimated and
844: their dynamical friction times under-estimated with a constant
845: mass-to-light ratio assumption, so the blue galaxies do not contribute
846: as much mass as Figure~\ref{fig:masspec} implies. Third, we are
847: assuming that all the stars in the companion galaxies will end up in
848: the central LRGs. Recent work has suggested that this is not the case
849: and in fact up to $50$ percent of the stars in the companions could be
850: stripped off the companion before the merger is complete and
851: contribute to the intra-cluster light instead of the luminosity of the
852: LRG \citep{lin04a}. This suggests that even our dynamical friction
853: assumption could still be an upper limit on the growth of the LRGs.
854:
855: These results are consistent with recent results on the evolution of
856: the luminosity function of the red galaxies since redshift $z\sim 1$,
857: which find modest evolution \citep{bell04a, blanton06a, wake06a,
858: faber07a, brown07a}. If we take our results at face value and assume
859: that the growth happens at a non-evolving rate, we expect the LRGs to
860: grow by about $\approx 10$ percent between redshift $z=1$ and $z=0.1$
861: (a period of $\approx 6\,\Gyr$).
862:
863: \acknowledgments It is a pleasure to thank Eric Bell, Andreas Berlind,
864: Daniel Eisenstein, and Ari Maller for valuable input. Some of this
865: research was performed while DWH was generously hosted by Hans-Walter
866: Rix and the Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astronomie. This research was
867: partially supported by the National Aeronautics and Space
868: Administration (NASA; grant NAG5-11669) and the National Science
869: Foundation (NSF; grant AST-0428465). This research made use of the
870: NASA Astrophysics Data System. It also made use of the ``idlutils''
871: codebase maintained by David Schlegel, Wayne Landsman, Doug
872: Finkbeiner, and others.
873:
874: This research made use of public SDSS data. Funding for the SDSS and
875: SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the
876: Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation, the
877: U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space
878: Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society,
879: and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web
880: Site is http://www.sdss.org/.
881:
882: The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the
883: Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the
884: American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam,
885: University of Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve
886: University, University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the
887: Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns
888: Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the
889: Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean
890: Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Los Alamos National
891: Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy, the
892: Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics, New Mexico State University,
893: Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, University of
894: Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory,
895: and the University of Washington.
896:
897: \begin{thebibliography}{71}
898: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
899:
900: \bibitem[{Abazajian {et~al.}(2003)}]{abazajian03a}
901: Abazajian, K. {et~al.} 2003, \aj, 126, 2081
902:
903: \bibitem[{{Abazajian} {et~al.}(2004)}]{abazajian04a}
904: {Abazajian}, K. {et~al.} 2004, \aj, 128, 502
905:
906: \bibitem[{{Abraham} {et~al.}(1996){Abraham}, {Tanvir}, {Santiago}, {Ellis},
907: {Glazebrook}, \& {van den Bergh}}]{abraham96}
908: {Abraham}, R.~G., {Tanvir}, N.~R., {Santiago}, B.~X., {Ellis}, R.~S.,
909: {Glazebrook}, K., \& {van den Bergh}, S. 1996, \mnras, 279, L47
910:
911: \bibitem[{{Baldry} {et~al.}(2004){Baldry}, {Glazebrook}, {Brinkmann}, {Ivezi{\'
912: c}}, {Lupton}, {Nichol}, \& {Szalay}}]{baldry04a}
913: {Baldry}, I.~K., {Glazebrook}, K., {Brinkmann}, J., {Ivezi{\' c}}, {\v Z}.,
914: {Lupton}, R.~H., {Nichol}, R.~C., \& {Szalay}, A.~S. 2004, \apj, 600, 681
915:
916: \bibitem[{{Balogh} {et~al.}(2004){Balogh}, {Baldry}, {Nichol}, {Miller},
917: {Bower}, \& {Glazebrook}}]{balogh04b}
918: {Balogh}, M.~L., {Baldry}, I.~K., {Nichol}, R., {Miller}, C., {Bower}, R., \&
919: {Glazebrook}, K. 2004, \apjl, 615, L101
920:
921: \bibitem[{{Barnes} \& {Hernquist}(1996)}]{barnes96a}
922: {Barnes}, J.~E. \& {Hernquist}, L. 1996, \apj, 471, 115
923:
924: \bibitem[{{Barton} {et~al.}(2000){Barton}, {Geller}, \& {Kenyon}}]{barton00a}
925: {Barton}, E.~J., {Geller}, M.~J., \& {Kenyon}, S.~J. 2000, \apj, 530, 660
926:
927: \bibitem[{{Bell} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{a}}){Bell}, {Phleps}, {Somerville},
928: {Wolf}, {Borch}, \& {Meisenheimer}}]{bell06a}
929: {Bell}, E.~F., {Phleps}, S., {Somerville}, R.~S., {Wolf}, C., {Borch}, A., \&
930: {Meisenheimer}, K. 2006{\natexlab{a}}, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints
931:
932: \bibitem[{{Bell} {et~al.}(2004){Bell}, {Wolf}, {Meisenheimer}, {Rix}, {Borch},
933: {Dye}, {Kleinheinrich}, {Wisotzki}, \& {McIntosh}}]{bell04a}
934: {Bell}, E.~F., {Wolf}, C., {Meisenheimer}, K., {Rix}, H.-W., {Borch}, A.,
935: {Dye}, S., {Kleinheinrich}, M., {Wisotzki}, L., \& {McIntosh}, D.~H. 2004,
936: \apj, 608, 752
937:
938: \bibitem[{{Bell} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{b}})}]{bell06b}
939: {Bell}, E.~F. {et~al.} 2006{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 640, 241
940:
941: \bibitem[{{Berlind} \& {Weinberg}(2002)}]{berlind02a}
942: {Berlind}, A.~A. \& {Weinberg}, D.~H. 2002, \apj, 575, 587
943:
944: \bibitem[{{Blanton}(2006)}]{blanton06a}
945: {Blanton}, M.~R. 2006, \apj, 648, 268
946:
947: \bibitem[{{Blanton} {et~al.}(2003{\natexlab{a}}){Blanton}, {Lin}, {Lupton},
948: {Maley}, {Young}, {Zehavi}, \& {Loveday}}]{blanton03a}
949: {Blanton}, M.~R., {Lin}, H., {Lupton}, R.~H., {Maley}, F.~M., {Young}, N.,
950: {Zehavi}, I., \& {Loveday}, J. 2003{\natexlab{a}}, \aj, 125, 2276
951:
952: \bibitem[{{Blanton} \& {Roweis}(2007)}]{blanton06b}
953: {Blanton}, M.~R. \& {Roweis}, S. 2007, \aj, 133, 734
954:
955: \bibitem[{{Blanton} {et~al.}(2003{\natexlab{b}})}]{blanton03d}
956: {Blanton}, M.~R. {et~al.} 2003{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 594, 186
957:
958: \bibitem[{{Blanton} {et~al.}(2005)}]{blanton05a}
959: {Blanton}, M.~R. {et~al.} 2005, \aj, 129, 2562
960:
961: \bibitem[{{Boylan-Kolchin} {et~al.}(2007){Boylan-Kolchin}, {Ma}, \&
962: {Quataert}}]{boylankolchin07a}
963: {Boylan-Kolchin}, M., {Ma}, C.-P., \& {Quataert}, E. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 707
964:
965: \bibitem[{{Brown} {et~al.}(2007){Brown}, {Dey}, {Jannuzi}, {Brand}, {Benson},
966: {Brodwin}, {Croton}, \& {Eisenhardt}}]{brown07a}
967: {Brown}, M.~J.~I., {Dey}, A., {Jannuzi}, B.~T., {Brand}, K., {Benson}, A.~J.,
968: {Brodwin}, M., {Croton}, D.~J., \& {Eisenhardt}, P.~R. 2007, \apj, 654, 858
969:
970: \bibitem[{{Carlberg} {et~al.}(1994){Carlberg}, {Pritchet}, \&
971: {Infante}}]{carlberg94a}
972: {Carlberg}, R.~G., {Pritchet}, C.~J., \& {Infante}, L. 1994, \apj, 435, 540
973:
974: \bibitem[{Carlberg {et~al.}(2000)}]{carlberg00a}
975: Carlberg, R.~G. {et~al.} 2000, \apj, 532, L1
976:
977: \bibitem[{{Conroy} {et~al.}(2007){Conroy}, {Ho}, \& {White}}]{conroy07a}
978: {Conroy}, C., {Ho}, S., \& {White}, M. 2007, \mnras, 379, 1491
979:
980: \bibitem[{{Conselice} {et~al.}(2003){Conselice}, {Bershady}, {Dickinson}, \&
981: {Papovich}}]{conselice03a}
982: {Conselice}, C.~J., {Bershady}, M.~A., {Dickinson}, M., \& {Papovich}, C. 2003,
983: \aj, 126, 1183
984:
985: \bibitem[{{Cox} {et~al.}(2006){Cox}, {Dutta}, {Di Matteo}, {Hernquist},
986: {Hopkins}, {Robertson}, \& {Springel}}]{cox06b}
987: {Cox}, T.~J., {Dutta}, S.~N., {Di Matteo}, T., {Hernquist}, L., {Hopkins},
988: P.~F., {Robertson}, B., \& {Springel}, V. 2006, \apj, 650, 791
989:
990: \bibitem[{{De Propris} {et~al.}(2007){De Propris}, {Conselice}, {Driver},
991: {Liske}, {Patton}, {Graham}, \& {Allen}}]{depropris07a}
992: {De Propris}, R., {Conselice}, C.~J., {Driver}, S.~P., {Liske}, J., {Patton},
993: D., {Graham}, A., \& {Allen}, P. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 0705.2528
994:
995: \bibitem[{{Eisenstein} {et~al.}(2005){Eisenstein}, {Blanton}, {Zehavi},
996: {Bahcall}, {Brinkmann}, {Loveday}, {Meiksin}, \& {Schneider}}]{eisenstein05a}
997: {Eisenstein}, D.~J., {Blanton}, M., {Zehavi}, I., {Bahcall}, N., {Brinkmann},
998: J., {Loveday}, J., {Meiksin}, A., \& {Schneider}, D. 2005, \apj, 619, 178
999:
1000: \bibitem[{Eisenstein {et~al.}(2001)}]{eisenstein01a}
1001: Eisenstein, D.~J. {et~al.} 2001, \aj, 122, 2267
1002:
1003: \bibitem[{Eisenstein {et~al.}(2005)}]{eisenstein05b}
1004: Eisenstein, D.~J. {et~al.} 2005, \apj, 633, 560
1005:
1006: \bibitem[{{Faber} {et~al.}(2007)}]{faber07a}
1007: {Faber}, S.~M. {et~al.} 2007, \apj, 665, 265
1008:
1009: \bibitem[{Fukugita {et~al.}(1996)Fukugita, Ichikawa, Gunn, Doi, Shimasaku, \&
1010: Schneider}]{fukugita96a}
1011: Fukugita, M., Ichikawa, T., Gunn, J.~E., Doi, M., Shimasaku, K., \& Schneider,
1012: D.~P. 1996, \aj, 111, 1748
1013:
1014: \bibitem[{Gunn {et~al.}(1998)Gunn, Carr, Rockosi, Sekiguchi,
1015: {et~al.}}]{gunn98a}
1016: Gunn, J.~E., Carr, M.~A., Rockosi, C.~M., Sekiguchi, M., {et~al.} 1998, \aj,
1017: 116, 3040
1018:
1019: \bibitem[{{Gunn} {et~al.}(2006)}]{gunn05a}
1020: {Gunn}, J.~E. {et~al.} 2006, \aj, 131, 2332
1021:
1022: \bibitem[{Hogg {et~al.}(2002{\natexlab{a}})Hogg, Baldry, Blanton, \&
1023: Eisenstein}]{hogg02c}
1024: Hogg, D.~W., Baldry, I.~K., Blanton, M.~R., \& Eisenstein, D.~J.
1025: 2002{\natexlab{a}}, astro-ph/0210394
1026:
1027: \bibitem[{{Hogg} {et~al.}(2005){Hogg}, {Eisenstein}, {Blanton}, {Bahcall},
1028: {Brinkmann}, {Gunn}, \& {Schneider}}]{hogg05a}
1029: {Hogg}, D.~W., {Eisenstein}, D.~J., {Blanton}, M.~R., {Bahcall}, N.~A.,
1030: {Brinkmann}, J., {Gunn}, J.~E., \& {Schneider}, D.~P. 2005, \apj, 624, 54
1031:
1032: \bibitem[{{Hogg} {et~al.}(2001){Hogg}, {Finkbeiner}, {Schlegel}, \&
1033: {Gunn}}]{hogg01a}
1034: {Hogg}, D.~W., {Finkbeiner}, D.~P., {Schlegel}, D.~J., \& {Gunn}, J.~E. 2001,
1035: \aj, 122, 2129
1036:
1037: \bibitem[{Hogg {et~al.}(2002{\natexlab{b}})}]{hogg02a}
1038: Hogg, D.~W. {et~al.} 2002{\natexlab{b}}, \aj, 124, 646
1039:
1040: \bibitem[{{Ivezi{\'c}} {et~al.}(2004)}]{ivezic04a}
1041: {Ivezi{\'c}}, {\v Z}. {et~al.} 2004, Astronomische Nachrichten, 325, 583
1042:
1043: \bibitem[{{Lambas} {et~al.}(2003){Lambas}, {Tissera}, {Alonso}, \&
1044: {Coldwell}}]{lambas03a}
1045: {Lambas}, D.~G., {Tissera}, P.~B., {Alonso}, M.~S., \& {Coldwell}, G. 2003,
1046: \mnras, 346, 1189
1047:
1048: \bibitem[{{Lin} {et~al.}(2004)}]{lin04a}
1049: {Lin}, L. {et~al.} 2004, \apjl, 617, L9
1050:
1051: \bibitem[{{Lotz} {et~al.}(2006){Lotz}, {Madau}, {Giavalisco}, {Primack}, \&
1052: {Ferguson}}]{lotz06a}
1053: {Lotz}, J.~M., {Madau}, P., {Giavalisco}, M., {Primack}, J., \& {Ferguson},
1054: H.~C. 2006, \apj, 636, 592
1055:
1056: \bibitem[{Lupton {et~al.}(2001)Lupton, Gunn, {Ivezi{\'c}}, Knapp, Kent, \&
1057: Yasuda}]{lupton01a}
1058: Lupton, R.~H., Gunn, J.~E., {Ivezi{\'c}}, Z., Knapp, G.~R., Kent, S., \&
1059: Yasuda, N. 2001, in ASP Conf.\ Ser.\ 238:\ Astronomical Data Analysis
1060: Software and Systems X, Vol.~10, 269
1061:
1062: \bibitem[{{Maller} {et~al.}(2006){Maller}, {Katz}, {Kere{\v s}}, {Dav{\'e}}, \&
1063: {Weinberg}}]{maller06a}
1064: {Maller}, A.~H., {Katz}, N., {Kere{\v s}}, D., {Dav{\'e}}, R., \& {Weinberg},
1065: D.~H. 2006, \apj, 647, 763
1066:
1067: \bibitem[{Masjedi {et~al.}(2006)}]{masjedi06a}
1068: Masjedi, M. {et~al.} 2006, \apj, 644, 54
1069:
1070: \bibitem[{{Murali} {et~al.}(2002){Murali}, {Katz}, {Hernquist}, {Weinberg}, \&
1071: {Dav{\' e}}}]{murali02a}
1072: {Murali}, C., {Katz}, N., {Hernquist}, L., {Weinberg}, D.~H., \& {Dav{\' e}},
1073: R. 2002, \apj, 571, 1
1074:
1075: \bibitem[{{Naab} \& {Burkert}(2003)}]{naab03a}
1076: {Naab}, T. \& {Burkert}, A. 2003, \apj, 597, 893
1077:
1078: \bibitem[{{Negroponte} \& {White}(1983)}]{negroponte83a}
1079: {Negroponte}, J. \& {White}, S.~D.~M. 1983, \mnras, 205, 1009
1080:
1081: \bibitem[{{Nikolic} {et~al.}(2004){Nikolic}, {Cullen}, \&
1082: {Alexander}}]{nikolic04a}
1083: {Nikolic}, B., {Cullen}, H., \& {Alexander}, P. 2004, \mnras, 355, 874
1084:
1085: \bibitem[{{Padmanabhan} {et~al.}(2007)}]{padmanabhan07a}
1086: {Padmanabhan}, N. {et~al.} 2007, ArXiv, astro-ph/0703454
1087:
1088: \bibitem[{{Patton} {et~al.}(2000){Patton}, {Carlberg}, {Marzke}, {Pritchet},
1089: {da Costa}, \& {Pellegrini}}]{patton00a}
1090: {Patton}, D.~R., {Carlberg}, R.~G., {Marzke}, R.~O., {Pritchet}, C.~J., {da
1091: Costa}, L.~N., \& {Pellegrini}, P.~S. 2000, \apj, 536, 153
1092:
1093: \bibitem[{{Patton} {et~al.}(1997){Patton}, {Pritchet}, {Yee}, {Ellingson}, \&
1094: {Carlberg}}]{patton97a}
1095: {Patton}, D.~R., {Pritchet}, C.~J., {Yee}, H.~K.~C., {Ellingson}, E., \&
1096: {Carlberg}, R.~G. 1997, \apj, 475, 29
1097:
1098: \bibitem[{{Peacock} \& {Smith}(2000)}]{peacock00a}
1099: {Peacock}, J.~A. \& {Smith}, R.~E. 2000, \mnras, 318, 1144
1100:
1101: \bibitem[{Pier {et~al.}(2003)Pier, Munn, Hindsley, Hennessy, Kent, Lupton, \&
1102: {Ivezi{\' c}}}]{pier03a}
1103: Pier, J.~R., Munn, J.~A., Hindsley, R.~B., Hennessy, G.~S., Kent, S.~M.,
1104: Lupton, R.~H., \& {Ivezi{\' c}}, {\v Z}. 2003, \aj, 125, 1559
1105:
1106: \bibitem[{{Postman} \& {Lauer}(1995)}]{postman95a}
1107: {Postman}, M. \& {Lauer}, T.~R. 1995, \apj, 440, 28
1108:
1109: \bibitem[{Quintero {et~al.}(2004)}]{quintero04a}
1110: Quintero, A.~D. {et~al.} 2004, \apj, 602, 190
1111:
1112: \bibitem[{Roberts \& Haynes(1994)}]{roberts94a}
1113: Roberts, M.~S. \& Haynes, M.~P. 1994, \araa, 32, 115
1114:
1115: \bibitem[{{Rudnick} {et~al.}(2006){Rudnick}, {Labb{\'e}}, {F{\"o}rster
1116: Schreiber}, {Wuyts}, {Franx}, {Finlator}, {Kriek}, {Moorwood}, {Rix},
1117: {R{\"o}ttgering}, {Trujillo}, {van der Wel}, {van der Werf}, \& {van
1118: Dokkum}}]{rudnick06a}
1119: {Rudnick}, G., {Labb{\'e}}, I., {F{\"o}rster Schreiber}, N.~M., {Wuyts}, S.,
1120: {Franx}, M., {Finlator}, K., {Kriek}, M., {Moorwood}, A., {Rix}, H.-W.,
1121: {R{\"o}ttgering}, H., {Trujillo}, I., {van der Wel}, A., {van der Werf}, P.,
1122: \& {van Dokkum}, P.~G. 2006, \apj, 650, 624
1123:
1124: \bibitem[{{Sandage}(1972)}]{sandage72a}
1125: {Sandage}, A. 1972, \apj, 178, 1
1126:
1127: \bibitem[{Schlegel {et~al.}(1998)Schlegel, Finkbeiner, \& Davis}]{schlegel98a}
1128: Schlegel, D.~J., Finkbeiner, D.~P., \& Davis, M. 1998, \apj, 500, 525
1129:
1130: \bibitem[{{Schneider} {et~al.}(1983){Schneider}, {Gunn}, \&
1131: {Hoessel}}]{schneider83a}
1132: {Schneider}, D.~P., {Gunn}, J.~E., \& {Hoessel}, J.~G. 1983, \apj, 264, 337
1133:
1134: \bibitem[{{Scoccimarro} {et~al.}(2001){Scoccimarro}, {Sheth}, {Hui}, \&
1135: {Jain}}]{scoccimarro01a}
1136: {Scoccimarro}, R., {Sheth}, R.~K., {Hui}, L., \& {Jain}, B. 2001, \apj, 546, 20
1137:
1138: \bibitem[{{Smith} {et~al.}(2007){Smith}, {Struck}, {Hancock}, {Appleton},
1139: {Charmandaris}, \& {Reach}}]{smith07a}
1140: {Smith}, B.~J., {Struck}, C., {Hancock}, M., {Appleton}, P.~N., {Charmandaris},
1141: V., \& {Reach}, W.~T. 2007, \aj, 133, 791
1142:
1143: \bibitem[{Smith {et~al.}(2002)Smith, Tucker, {et~al.}}]{smith02a}
1144: Smith, J.~A., Tucker, D.~L., {et~al.} 2002, \aj, 123, 2121
1145:
1146: \bibitem[{Stoughton {et~al.}(2002)}]{stoughton02a}
1147: Stoughton, C. {et~al.} 2002, \aj, 123, 485
1148:
1149: \bibitem[{{Strateva} {et~al.}(2001)}]{strateva01a}
1150: {Strateva}, I. {et~al.} 2001, \aj, 122, 1861
1151:
1152: \bibitem[{Strauss {et~al.}(2002)}]{strauss02a}
1153: Strauss, M.~A. {et~al.} 2002, \aj, 124, 1810
1154:
1155: \bibitem[{{Toomre}(1977)}]{toomre77a}
1156: {Toomre}, A. 1977, in Evolution of Galaxies and Stellar Populations, 401--+
1157:
1158: \bibitem[{{Tucker} {et~al.}(2006)}]{tucker06a}
1159: {Tucker}, D.~L. {et~al.} 2006, Astronomische Nachrichten, 327, 821
1160:
1161: \bibitem[{{van~Dokkum}(2005)}]{vandokkum05a}
1162: {van~Dokkum}, P.~G. 2005, \aj, 130, 2647
1163:
1164: \bibitem[{{van~Dokkum} {et~al.}(1999){van~Dokkum}, {Franx}, {Fabricant},
1165: {Kelson}, \& {Illingworth}}]{vandokkum99a}
1166: {van~Dokkum}, P.~G., {Franx}, M., {Fabricant}, D., {Kelson}, D.~D., \&
1167: {Illingworth}, G.~D. 1999, \apjl, 520, L95
1168:
1169: \bibitem[{{Wake} {et~al.}(2006)}]{wake06a}
1170: {Wake}, D.~A. {et~al.} 2006, \mnras, 372, 537
1171:
1172: \bibitem[{Willmer {et~al.}(2005)}]{willmer05a}
1173: Willmer, C.~N.~A. {et~al.} 2005, \apj, submitted, (astro-ph/0506041)
1174:
1175: \bibitem[{{Zehavi} {et~al.}(2005){Zehavi}, {Eisenstein}, {Nichol}, {Blanton},
1176: {Hogg}, {Brinkmann}, {Loveday}, {Meiksin}, {Schneider}, \&
1177: {Tegmark}}]{zehavi05a}
1178: {Zehavi}, I., {Eisenstein}, D.~J., {Nichol}, R.~C., {Blanton}, M.~R., {Hogg},
1179: D.~W., {Brinkmann}, J., {Loveday}, J., {Meiksin}, A., {Schneider}, D.~P., \&
1180: {Tegmark}, M. 2005, \apj, 621, 22
1181:
1182: \end{thebibliography}
1183:
1184: \clearpage
1185: \begin{table}
1186: \begin{center}
1187: {Fractional luminosity growth of LRGs from mergers}
1188: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
1189: \hline \hline
1190: $\MMi$ & Red max & Blue max & Red DF & Blue DF \\
1191: {}[$\mag$] & [$10^{-3}\,\Gyr^{-1}$] & [$10^{-3}\,\Gyr^{-1}$]
1192: & [$10^{-4}\,\Gyr^{-1}$] & [$10^{-4}\,\Gyr^{-1}$] \\
1193: \hline
1194: $-24.00$ to $-23.22 $ & $ 0.59\pm0.31 $ & $ 0.35\pm0.52 $ & $ 1.72\pm0.89 $ & $ 1.01\pm1.52$\\
1195: $-23.22$ to $-22.53 $ & $ 1.49\pm0.36 $ & $ 0.02\pm0.33 $ & $ 8.53\pm2.08 $ & $ 0.12\pm1.88$\\
1196: $-22.53$ to $-21.92 $ & $ 4.22\pm0.38 $ & $ 0.05\pm0.23 $ & $ 40.6\pm3.65 $ & $ 0.53\pm2.20$\\
1197: $-21.92$ to $-21.39 $ & $ 6.34\pm0.32 $ & $ 0.88\pm0.21 $ & $ 36.1\pm1.80 $ & $ 5.01\pm1.19$\\
1198: $-21.39$ to $-20.92 $ & $ 7.01\pm0.28 $ & $ 0.94\pm0.14 $ & $ 25.2\pm1.01 $ & $ 3.39\pm0.51$\\
1199: $-20.92$ to $-20.51 $ & $ 6.46\pm0.20 $ & $ 1.27\pm0.12 $ & $ 15.5\pm0.47 $ & $ 3.05\pm0.30$\\
1200: $-20.51$ to $-20.15 $ & $ 5.90\pm0.17 $ & $ 1.16\pm0.10 $ & $ 9.91\pm0.28 $ & $ 1.94\pm0.17$\\
1201: $-20.15$ to $-19.83 $ & $ 4.43\pm0.12 $ & $ 1.12\pm0.09 $ & $ 5.45\pm0.14 $ & $ 1.38\pm0.11$\\
1202: $-19.83$ to $-19.55 $ & $ 2.96\pm0.08 $ & $ 1.17\pm0.07 $ & $ 2.76\pm0.08 $ & $ 1.09\pm0.07$\\
1203: $-19.55$ to $-19.30 $ & $ 2.10\pm0.07 $ & $ 0.92\pm0.06 $ & $ 1.54\pm0.05 $ & $ 0.68\pm0.05$\\
1204: $-19.30$ to $-19.09 $ & $ 1.36\pm0.06 $ & $ 0.86\pm0.05 $ & $ 0.81\pm0.03 $ & $ 0.51\pm0.03$\\
1205: $-19.09$ to $-18.89 $ & $ 0.85\pm0.04 $ & $ 0.66\pm0.04 $ & $ 0.42\pm0.02 $ & $ 0.32\pm0.02$\\
1206: $-18.89$ to $-18.73 $ & $ 0.54\pm0.03 $ & $ 0.42\pm0.03 $ & $ 0.22\pm0.01 $ & $ 0.17\pm0.01$\\
1207: $-18.73$ to $-18.58 $ & $ 0.36\pm0.02 $ & $ 0.31\pm0.03 $ & $ 0.13\pm0.01 $ & $ 0.11\pm0.01$\\
1208: $-18.58$ to $-18.45 $ & $ 0.21\pm0.02 $ & $ 0.21\pm0.02 $ & $ .066\pm.005 $ & $ .068\pm.006$\\
1209: $-18.45$ to $-18.34 $ & $ 0.13\pm0.01 $ & $ 0.15\pm0.02 $ & $ .037\pm.004 $ & $ .042\pm.006$\\
1210: $-18.34$ to $-18.23 $ & $ 0.08\pm0.01 $ & $ 0.09\pm0.01 $ & $ .020\pm.003 $ & $ .023\pm.003$\\
1211: $-18.23$ to $-18.15 $ & $ .058\pm.008 $ & $ .073\pm.012 $ & $ .014\pm.002 $ & $ .017\pm.003$\\
1212: $-18.15$ to $-18.07 $ & $ .025\pm.006 $ & $ .056\pm.008 $ & $ .005\pm.001 $ & $ .012\pm.002$\\
1213: $-18.07$ to $-18.00 $ & $ .023\pm.005 $ & $ .041\pm.009 $ & $ .005\pm.001 $ & $ .008\pm.002$\\
1214: \hline
1215: \end{tabular}
1216: \caption[Measurements of the fractional growth of the LRGs over a
1217: $\Gyr$ through merger events.]{\label{tab:data1} Measurements of the
1218: fractional growth of spectroscopic LRGs over a $\Gyr$ through merger
1219: events with different imaging subsamples of companion galaxies with
1220: different magnitude ranges and colors. The second and third (``max'')
1221: columns present the measurements under the maximal assumption that all
1222: pairs merge in an orbital time. The fourth and fifth (``DF'') columns
1223: present the measurements under the more realistic dynamical-friction
1224: assumption. Note that the ``max'' and ``DF'' columns are given in
1225: units that differ by a factor of 10.}
1226: \end{center}
1227: \end{table}
1228:
1229: \clearpage
1230: \begin{figure}
1231: \begin{center}
1232: \includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{f1.eps}
1233: \caption{Projected two-dimensional cross-correlation functions
1234: $\nni\,\wwsi(\rrp)$ of spectroscopic LRGs $s$ with \emph{red}
1235: companion imaging galaxy subsamples $i$ with different luminosity
1236: ranges, weighted by the number density of each imaging subsample,
1237: $\nni$, and scaled by $\rrp$ for better illustration. The
1238: spectroscopic LRG subsample $s$ has absolute magnitudes $-23.2<\MMg
1239: <-21.2\,\mag$ and has been trimmed to redshifts $0.16<z<0.30$. The
1240: uncertainties are estimated by jackknife, with jackknife trials
1241: dropping contiguous sky regions (see text).}
1242: \label{fig:wpred}
1243: \end{center}
1244: \end{figure}
1245:
1246: \clearpage
1247: \begin{figure}
1248: \begin{center}
1249: \includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{f2.eps}
1250: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{fig:wpred} but for \emph{blue} companion
1251: imaging galaxy subsaples $i$.}
1252: \label{fig:wpblue}
1253: \end{center}
1254: \end{figure}
1255:
1256: \clearpage
1257: \begin{figure}
1258: \begin{center}
1259: \includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{f3.eps}
1260: \caption{The mean fractional luminosity growth of LRGs per $\Gyr$ per
1261: unit absolute magnitude of the companion, derived from the data in
1262: Table~\ref{tab:data1}. The dashed thick red and thin blue lines show
1263: this quantity for the red and blue companions respectively, made under
1264: the maximal assumption that all companion galaxies merge into the LRG
1265: in one orbital time. The solid thick red and thin blue lines show the
1266: same thing but made under the more realistic assumption that companion
1267: galaxies merge in a time governed by dynamical friction. The total
1268: fractional growth rate is the integral (area) under the curves. The
1269: green hatched region shows the result of our previous work
1270: \citep{masjedi06a}.}
1271: \label{fig:masspec}
1272: \end{center}
1273: \end{figure}
1274:
1275: \end{document}
1276: