1: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib,usegraphicx]{mn2e}
2: \usepackage{epsf}
3: \title[Quantifying the Cosmic Web]
4: {Quantifying the Cosmic Web I: The large-scale halo
5: ellipticity-ellipticity and ellipticity-direction correlations}
6: \author[J. Lee, V. Springel, U.L. Pen and G. Lemson]
7: {Jounghun Lee$^{1}$\thanks{E-mail:jounghun@astro.snu.ac.kr},
8: Volker Springel$^{2}$, Ue-Li Pen$^{3}$, and Gerard Lemson$^{4,5}$\\
9: $^{1}$Department of Physics and Astronomy, FPRD, Seoul National
10: University, Seoul 151-747, Korea \\
11: $^{2}$Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics,
12: Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 1, D-85741 Garching, Germany\\
13: $^{3}$Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, Toronto, ON
14: M5S, Canada\\
15: $^{4}$Astronomisches Rechen-Institut, Zentrum fur Astronomie der Universitat
16: Heidelberg, Moenchhofstr. 12-14, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany\\
17: $^{5}$Max-Planck Institut fur extraterrestrische Physik, Giessenbach
18: Str., 85748 Garching, Germany}
19: \begin{document}
20: \date{Accepted 2007 ???. Received 2007 ???; in original form 2007 September 10}
21: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2007}
22: \maketitle
23: \label{firstpage}
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26: The formation of dark matter halos tends to occur anisotropically along
27: the filaments of the Cosmic Web, which induces both
28: ellipticity-ellipticity (EE) correlations between the shapes of halos,
29: as well as ellipticity-direction (ED) cross-correlations between halo
30: shapes and the directions to neighboring halos. We analyze the
31: halo catalogue and the semi-analytic galaxy catalogue of the recent
32: Millennium Run Simulation to measure the EE and ED correlations numerically
33: at four different redshifts ($z=0$, $0.5$, $1$ and $2$). For the EE
34: correlations, we find that (i) the major-axis correlation is strongest
35: while the intermediate-axis correlation is weakest; (ii) the signal is
36: significant at distances out to $10\,h^{-1}$Mpc; (iii) the signal
37: decreases as $z$ decreases; (iv) and its behavior depends strongly on
38: the halo mass scale, with larger masses showing stronger correlations
39: at large distances. For the ED correlations, we find that
40: (i) the correlations are much stronger than the EE correlations,
41: and are significant even out to distances of $50\,h^{-1}$Mpc;
42: (ii) the signal also decreases as $z$ decreases; (iii) and
43: it increases with halo mass at all distances. We also provide
44: empirical fitting functions for the EE and ED correlations.
45: The EE correlations are found to scale linearly with the linear density
46: correlation function, $\xi(r)$. While the ED cross-correlation is
47: found to scale as $\xi^{1/2}(r)$ at large distances beyond $10\,h^{-1}$Mpc.
48: The best-fit values of the fitting parameters for the EE and the ED
49: correlations are all determined through $\chi^{2}$-statistics. Our results
50: may be useful for quantifying the filamentary distribution of dark
51: matter halos over a wide range of scales.
52: \end{abstract}
53:
54: \begin{keywords}
55: methods:statistical -- cosmology:theory -- galaxies:clustering --
56: galaxies:halos -- large-scale structure of Universe
57: \end{keywords}
58:
59: \section{Introduction}
60:
61: One of the most striking features of the Universe is that the observed
62: distribution of galaxies on large scales shows a web-like
63: filamentary pattern, which is often called the "Cosmic Web". Recent
64: large N-body simulations of the cold dark matter cosmology demonstrated
65: vividly the geometric richness of the filamentary web that spatially
66: connects the dark matter halos, and which directly relates to the
67: structure seen in the galaxy distribution. One of the most fundamental
68: tasks in cosmology is thus to establish a physical model for the
69: filamentary cosmic web and to quantitatively explain its global properties.
70:
71: The existence of the filamentary web was originally predicted by the
72: top-down scenario of the hot dark matter (HDM) model \citep{zel70}. If
73: cosmic structures form through top-down fragmentation, then one- and
74: two-dimensional collapse of matter would naturally lead to the formation
75: of sheet-like and filamentary structures on large scales. Therefore, it
76: was regarded first as a mystery why and how the filamentary web came
77: into being also in a cold dark matter (CDM) dominated universe.
78:
79: A breakthrough was made by \citet{bon-etal96} who developed a cosmic
80: web theory that can explain the presence of a filamentary web
81: in the CDM cosmogony. This theory explains that the filamentary web
82: can occur naturally in the CDM dominated universe due to the coherent
83: nature of the primordial tidal field. The filamentary web is in fact a
84: manifestation of the primordial tidal field sharpened by nonlinear
85: effects. The cosmic web theory has provided a standard framework
86: within which the formation of cosmic large-scale structure can be
87: qualitatively understood. Yet, it is still quite difficult to
88: describe the cosmic web quantitatively both in theoretical and in
89: observational terms. Theoretically, the inherent anisotropic nature
90: and geometrical complexity of the cosmic web makes it complicated to
91: fully characterize its statistical properties. Observationally, it is
92: hard to trace the filamentary structures from observational data,
93: since there is no well-established way to identify them.
94:
95: In spite of these difficulties, various methodologies and algorithms
96: have already been suggested to quantify the filamentary structures:
97: Higher-order N-point statistics has been used to describe the
98: anisotropic matter distribution in a cosmic web
99: \citep{cro-etal04,kul-etal07}; the percolation statistics was used to
100: characterize the filamentary shapes of the large-scale structures
101: \citep{sah-etal97,sha-yes98}; the skeleton formalism has been developed
102: to extract the filamentary structures from a three dimensional density
103: field \citep[e.g.,][and references therein]{sou-etal07}; the
104: Minimal-Spanning-Three algorithm has been introduced to find the basic
105: structural elements of the cosmic web \citep{col07}.
106:
107: Although the above methods are quite useful for determining the
108: overall filamentary structure of the cosmic web, these approaches are
109: largely phenomenological without accounting for the physical mechanism
110: for the formation of the cosmic web. According to the theory proposed by
111: \citet{bon-etal96}, the filamentary web originated from the large-scale
112: coherence of the primordial tidal field and its sharpening by nonlinear
113: effects during structure growth. Part of this nonlinear sharpening
114: effect arises from the gravitationally driven merging of halos and the
115: infall of matter, which preferentially occurs along the most prominent
116: filaments. This increases the anisotropy in the halo clustering and thus
117: sharpens the filamentary web.
118:
119: To describe the cosmic web quantitatively in terms of its
120: underlying physical principles it will be necessary to account for the
121: effects of the tidal field and the anisotropic merging along filaments.
122: The tidal field causes intrinsic alignments of the principal axes of the
123: dark halos in the cosmic web
124: \citep{cro-met00,hea-etal00,cat-etal01,jin02,hui-zha02,lee-pen07},
125: while anisotropic merging induces elongation of the major axes of the
126: halos along prominent filaments \citep{wes89,wes-etal91}. As a result,
127: there exist spatial correlations between the halo ellipticities (EE
128: correlations), and cross-correlations between the halo ellipticities and
129: the large-scale density field (ED cross-correlations). Hence, one can
130: view the observed filamentary web as a large-scale manifestation of the
131: EE and ED correlations, which are in turn induced by the effects of the
132: tidal field and the anisotropic merging.
133:
134: The goal of this paper is to quantify the filamentarity and the typical
135: scales of the cosmic web in terms of the EE and ED correlations. This is
136: also highly important for assessing to what degree these correlations
137: can systematically bias weak gravitational lensing mass reconstructions
138: and cosmological parameter estimates based on cosmic shear measurements.
139: In fact, the ED cross-correlations have become a hot issue in the weak
140: lensing community, since it has been realized that they could mimic weak
141: lensing signals at a significant level
142: \citep{hir-sel04,man-etal06,hir-etal07}.
143:
144: Several authors have already studied numerically the EE and ED
145: correlations. \citet{hop-etal05} examined the evolution of cluster
146: alignments by using a large-scale N-body simulation.
147: \citet{alt-etal06} have shown from high-resolution N-body data that
148: the alignments of clusters are strongly related to the existence of
149: the connecting filaments. \citet{hey-etal06} explored the possible
150: correlations between the weak lensing shear and the orientation of
151: foreground galaxies by analyzing N-body simulation. Here in our work,
152: we measure both the EE and ED correlations at large distances by
153: using the Millennium dataset and describe quantitatively their
154: scalings with distance, mass, as well as redshift.
155:
156: The organization of this paper is as follows. In Section~2, we describe the
157: N-body dataset we use and explain how we measure halo ellipticities from
158: the N-body simulation and its associated galaxy catalogue. In Sections~3
159: and 4, we report numerical detections of the EE correlations and the ED
160: cross-correlations, and examine how the signals depend on distance scale,
161: redshift and halo mass. We also provide useful fitting formula for them.
162: Finally, in Section~5, we summarize the results and discuss the implications
163: of our work.
164:
165: \section{Simulation data and methodology}
166:
167: Our analysis is based on the halo catalog and the semi-analytic galaxy
168: catalog from the recent high-resolution
169: {\em Millennium Simulation}\footnote{The Millennium Simulation data are
170: available at http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/millennium},
171: which followed $10^{10}$ dark matter particles in a $\Lambda$CDM concordance
172: cosmology \citep{spr-etal05}. The size of the periodic simulation box
173: is $500\, h^{-1}$Mpc and each dark matter particle in the simulation has
174: a mass of $8.6\times 10^{8}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$. The basic cosmological
175: parameters of the simulation were chosen as $\Omega_{m}=0.25$ (the mass
176: density); $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.75$ (the vacuum energy density); $h=0.73$
177: (the dimensionless Hubble constant); $\sigma_{8}=0.9$ (the linear power
178: spectrum amplitude); and $n_{s}=1$ (the slope of the primordial power
179: spectrum).
180:
181: As part of the analysis of the Millennium run, halos of dark matter
182: particles were first identified with the standard friends-of-friends
183: (FOF) algorithm, and then decomposed into gravitationally bound subhalos
184: using the {\small SUBFIND} algorithm \citep{spr-etal01}. Based on
185: detailed merger trees constructed for the subhalos, the halos were then
186: populated with luminous galaxy models using semi-analytic simulations
187: of the galaxy formation process \citep{cro-etal06}.
188:
189: We here use the spatial distribution of subhalos and galaxies to
190: characterize the shape of FOF halos, in analogy to the procedure applied
191: to observational galaxy surveys \citep[e.g.,][]{mei-etal07}.
192: For each FOF halo, we locate the satellite galaxies belonging to it.
193: Then, we measure their tensor $(I_{ij})$ of second order mass moments as
194: \begin{equation}
195: I_{ij} = \sum_{\alpha}m_{\alpha}\,x_{\alpha,i}\,x_{\alpha,j},
196: \label{eqn:iner}
197: \end{equation}
198: where $m_{\alpha}$ is the luminosity (or, equivalently the stellar mass)
199: of the $\alpha$-th galaxy and $\vec{x}_{\alpha}$ is the position of the
200: $\alpha$-th galaxy measured from the center of the mass of the satellite
201: galaxies. We restrict our analysis to FOF halos massive enough to contain
202: more than five substructures. By diagonalizing $I_{ij}$, we determine
203: the three principal axes (major, intermediate, and minor axes) of
204: $I_{ij}$. This allows us to measure the correlations between the three
205: axes of the FOF halos as a function of separation. The results of our
206: measurements are presented in detail in Section~3.
207:
208: Before turning to our results, it is worth to discuss how our
209: methodology relates to other, previously applied methods to characterize
210: the shape of halos. Note that we here do not use all dark matter
211: particles of a FOF halo to measure $I_{ij}$. Instead, we only use the
212: satellite galaxies (or substructures) as tracers of the shape. In
213: general, measuring the shape of a halo is a somewhat ambiguous issue,
214: where a number of different strategies have been applied in the
215: literature, but no generally accepted standard procedure exists
216: \citep[see e.g. the discussion in][]{springel04,allgood06}.
217: Part of the ambiguity in measuring halo shape stems from the fact that
218: one cannot delineate the outer boundary of a halo in a clear-cut way.
219: If all particles belonging to a FOF halo are used to measure $I_{ij}$,
220: then the ellipticity of a halo may be overestimated because of the large
221: weight of the most distant points on the major axis, while in contrast,
222: if only those particles within a certain spherical radius are used to
223: measure $I_{ij}$, then the ellipticity of the halo is likely
224: underestimated.
225:
226: We use satellite galaxies (or substructures) to measure $I_{ij}$,
227: because this approach mimics observationally accessible procedures. We
228: expect that this definition should give halo shapes similar to those
229: measured with all dark matter particles, as substructure and galaxy
230: density are tracers of the dark matter distribution
231: \citep[e.g.,][]{agu-bra06}. We will explicitly test this below. Note
232: that we focus on quantifying the filamentary web induced by the
233: anisotropic {\em orientations} of the halo ellipticities; we are not
234: really interested in the {\em magnitude} of the shape distortion
235: itself. This means that we are less sensitive to the details of
236: measuring halo shape compared with attempts to quantify the axis ratio
237: of the halo shape.
238:
239: To examine to what extent different measuring methods yield different
240: halo ellipticities, we carry out a simple test: Using a total of $227$
241: FOF halos from the `milli'-Millennium simulation, which is smaller test
242: run of the main Millennium simulation with a box size of
243: $62.5\,h^{-1}$Mpc \citep{spr-etal05}, we measured the halo shapes with
244: three different methods: (A) using galaxies weighted by luminosity; (B)
245: using dark matter substructures weighted by mass; and (C) using all dark
246: matter particles. Then, we calculate the distribution of the angles
247: $\theta$ between the principal axes of the halo shapes determined by
248: these three methods. Figure~\ref{fig:dis} compares methods A and C
249: (top), and methods B and C (bottom), in both cases plotting the
250: histogram of the angles between the halos' major, intermediate, and
251: minor axes (left, middle, and right panels, respectively). As can be
252: seen, there is a strong peak at $\theta = 0$, demonstrating that the
253: halo principal axes obtained by the three different methods A, B and C
254: are strongly correlated with one another. This correlation is
255: particularly robust for the major axis, which defines the primary
256: orientation of the predominantly prolate halos.
257:
258: \begin{figure}
259: \begin{center}
260: \label{fig:par}
261: \includegraphics[width=0.95\hsize]{fig1.eps}
262: \end{center}
263: \caption{Distributions of the angles between the major, intermediate,
264: and minor axes of the halos (left, middle, and right, respectively) from
265: the milli-Millennium simulation, as determined by three different
266: methods A, B, and C, which are based on the satellite galaxies,
267: subhalos, and all particles belonging to the halos, respectively. The
268: top-panels show the results from a comparison between the methods A and
269: C, while the bottom panels give a comparison between the methods B and
270: C.}
271: \label{fig:dis}
272: \end{figure}
273:
274: \section{The Halo Ellipticity-Ellipticity Correlation}
275:
276: \subsection{Definition}
277:
278: We define the EE correlation function, $\eta(r)$, as
279: \begin{equation}
280: \label{eqn:1st}
281: \eta(r)\equiv\langle\vert\hat{\bf e}_({\bf x})\cdot
282: \hat{\bf e}_({\bf x}+{\bf r})\vert^{2}\rangle -\frac{1}{3}
283: \end{equation}
284: where $\hat{\bf e}\equiv (\hat{e}_{i})$ represents the normalized
285: eigenvector of a halo with unit magnitude. In eq.(\ref{eqn:1st})
286: the constant $1/3$ is subtracted since the first average term will
287: yield $1/3$ in case that there is no EE correlation. Now that the
288: three eigenvectors of each halo in the Millennium catalogs are all
289: determined by the method described in Section~2, one can measure the
290: EE correlations of the major ($\eta_{\rm I}$), intermediate
291: ($\eta_{\rm II}$) and minor ($\eta_{\rm III}$) principal axes separately
292: as a function of the comoving distance $r$.
293:
294: Basically, for each halo pair at a given redshift, we measure the separation
295: distance $r$ between the halo centers and calculate the squares of the dot
296: products of the normalized eigenvectors of two halos. Then, we bin the
297: radial distance $r$ and calculate the mean values of
298: $\vert\hat{\bf e}_({\bf x})\cdot\hat{\bf e}_({\bf x}+{\bf
299: r})\vert^{2}$ averaged over those halo pairs whose separation
300: distances belong to a given bin, subtracting $1/3$ from it.
301: We perform this procedure at $z=2,1,0.5$ and $0$.
302:
303: \subsection{Evolution with redshift}
304:
305: \begin{figure}
306: \begin{center}
307: \includegraphics[width=0.95\hsize]{fig2.eps}
308: \end{center}
309: \caption{EE correlations of the halo major, intermediate, and minor axes
310: (solid, dashed, and long dashed lines) at four different redshifts:
311: $z=0$, $0.5$, $1$, and $2$ (top-left, top-right, bottom-left, and
312: bottom-right panel, respectively).
313: \label{fig:three}}
314: \end{figure}
315: Figure~\ref{fig:three} plots the numerical results on the EE correlations
316: measured at $z=0$, $0.5$, $1$ and $2$ in the top-left, top-right, bottom-left
317: and bottom-right panels, respectively. In each panel, the solid, dashed and
318: long dashed lines represent $\eta_{\rm I}(r)$, $\eta_{\rm II}(r)$ and
319: $\eta_{\rm III}(r)$, respectively. The dotted line corresponds to the case
320: of no correlation. As can be seen, the major-axis correlations are strongest
321: and the intermediate-axis correlations are almost zero at all redshifts.
322:
323: \begin{figure}
324: \begin{center}
325: \includegraphics[width=0.95\hsize]{fig3.eps}
326: \end{center}
327: \caption{The EE correlations of the halo major axes at $z=0$, $0.5$,
328: $1$ and $2$. The errors, $\sigma_{\eta}$, represent the standard deviation
329: between $8$ realizations that are obtained from the subdivision of the
330: simulation box. The errors do not include the correlations between radial
331: bins. In each panel the solid line represents the fitting model
332: (eq.\ref{eqn:cor}) proportional to the linear density correlation function,
333: $\xi(r)$. In the bottom-right panel, the dashed line represents another
334: fitting model proportional to $\xi^{2}(r)$.
335: \label{fig:corz}}
336: \end{figure}
337: To see the behaviors of the EE correlations at large distances, we plot
338: $\eta_{\rm I}(r)$ and $\eta_{\rm III}(r)$ as solid dots with errors
339: $\sigma_{\eta}$ in the logarithmic scale in Figs~\ref{fig:corz} and
340: \ref{fig:corz3}, respectively. In each panel the solid line represents the
341: fitting model (see Section~3.4). For the estimation of $\sigma_{\eta}$,
342: we divide the simulation volume into eight subvolumes each of which has a
343: linear size of $250h^{-1}$Mpc and measure the EE correlations in each
344: subvolume separately. The errors, $\sigma_{\eta}$, are calculated as the
345: standard deviation between realizations. This estimation of errors accounts
346: for both the cosmic variance and the Poisson noise. It is also found that
347: there exist non-negligible correlations between radial bins at distance
348: larger than $5\,h^{-1}$Mpc (see Section~3.4).
349:
350: As can be seen, the EE correlations are strongest at $z=2$, and exist
351: out to distances of $10h^{-1}$Mpc. As $z$ decreases, the correlations
352: tend to decrease monotonically at all distance scales, indicating that
353: the directions of the halo major and the minor axes tend to become randomized
354: as $z$ decreases. This result is consistent with the previous results
355: obtained by \citet{hop-etal05}. The numerical results on the EE correlations
356: measured at $z=0$ are listed in Table \ref{tab:EE_z0}.
357: \begin{figure}
358: \begin{center}
359: \includegraphics[width=0.95\hsize]{fig4.eps}
360: \end{center}
361: \caption{Same as Fig. \ref{fig:corz} but for the case of the halo minor
362: axes. \label{fig:corz3}}
363: \end{figure}
364: \begin{table}
365: \centering
366: \caption{Numerical results on the EE correlations of the halo major
367: ($\eta_{\rm I}$) and the minor axes ($\eta_{\rm III}$) in logarithmic
368: scale measured at $z=0$.
369: \label{tab:EE_z0}}
370: \begin{tabular}{@{}ccc@{}}
371: \hline
372: $\log [r/(h^{-1}{\rm Mpc})]$ & $\eta_{\rm I}(r)\times 10^{2}$ &
373: $\eta_{\rm III}(r)\times 10^{2}$\\
374: \hline
375: $0.15$ & $1.00\pm 0.69$ & $1.04\pm 0.97$\\
376: $0.45$ & $0.94\pm 0.22$ & $0.89\pm 0.38$\\
377: $0.75$ & $0.58\pm 0.12$ & $0.44\pm 0.12$\\
378: $1.05$ & $0.22\pm 0.08$ & $0.10\pm 0.06$\\
379: $1.35$ & $0.09\pm 0.03$ & $0.03\pm 0.02$\\
380: $1.65$ & $0.02\pm 0.02$ & $0.01\pm 0.02$\\
381: \hline
382: \end{tabular}
383: \end{table}
384:
385: \subsection{Variation with mass}
386:
387: \begin{figure}
388: \begin{center}
389: \includegraphics[width=0.95\hsize]{fig5.eps}
390: \end{center}
391: \caption{The EE correlations of the halo major axes measured from the
392: low-mass ($M<M_{c}$) and the high-mass ($M>M_{c}$) bins at $z=0$ in the
393: top and bottom panel, respectively. The mass threshold $M_{c}=1416$ is in
394: unit of $10^{10}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$.\label{fig:corm}}
395: \end{figure}
396: To study how the EE correlations scale with halo mass, we measure
397: $\eta_{\rm I}(r)$ from two different mass bins with the mass threshold
398: $M_{c}=1.42\times 10^{13}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$ at $z=0$. Table \ref{tab:EE_m}
399: lists the numerical results and Figure~\ref{fig:corm} plots $\eta_{\rm I}(r)$
400: at $z=0$ measured from the low-mass ($M<M_{c}$) and the high-mass bin
401: ($M>M_{c}$) as solid dots in the top and the bottom panel, respectively.
402: As can be seen, the EE correlations of the high-mass halos are stronger
403: at all distances than that of the low-mass halos, which implies that
404: the EE correlations increase as the halo mass increases. This finding
405: is also consistent with the previous results obtained for the cluster
406: alignments by \citet{hop-etal05}.
407:
408: \begin{table}
409: \centering
410: \caption{The EE correlations of the major axes of the low-mass and
411: the high-mass halos.
412: \label{tab:EE_m}}
413: \begin{tabular}{@{}ccc@{}}
414: \hline
415: $\log [r/(h^{-1}{\rm Mpc})]$ & $\eta_{\rm I}(r)\times 10^{2}$ &
416: $\eta_{\rm I}(r)\times 10^{2}$ \\
417: &low-mass&high-mass \\
418: \hline
419: $0.15$ & $0.78\pm 0.95$ & $6.28\pm 2.98$ \\
420: $0.45$ & $0.74\pm 0.44$ & $1.93\pm 0.79$ \\
421: $0.75$ & $0.38\pm 0.25$ & $1.80\pm 0.68$ \\
422: $1.05$ & $0.14\pm 0.15$ & $0.74\pm 0.42$ \\
423: $1.35$ & $0.05\pm 0.05$ & $0.27\pm 0.26$ \\
424: $1.65$ & $0.01\pm 0.03$ & $0.09\pm 0.07$ \\
425: \hline
426: \end{tabular}
427: \end{table}
428: We have also measured the EE cross-correlations, $\eta_{C}(r)$, between
429: the low-mass and the high-mass halos. Basically, we select halo pairs each
430: of which consists of one halo from the low-mass bin and one halo from
431: the high-mass bin, and then measure the EE correlations of these halo pairs.
432: Figure~\ref{fig:corc} plots $\eta_{C}(r)$ at $z=0$ as solid dots.
433: \begin{figure}
434: \begin{center}
435: \includegraphics[width=0.95\hsize]{fig6.eps}
436: \end{center}
437: \caption{The EE cross-correlations of the major axes between the high and
438: the low mass halos at $z=0$.\label{fig:corc} }
439: \end{figure}
440: As can be seen, there exist significant cross-correlations between the
441: two mass bins. Note that the EE cross-correlation is in fact stronger
442: than the EE auto-correlation of the low-mass halos ($M<M_{c}$) but
443: weaker than the EE auto-correlation of the high-mass halos ($M>M_{c}$).
444: This result suggests that the anisotropic merging and infall along filaments
445: tend to increase not only the EE correlations on the same mass scale but
446: also the EE cross-correlations between different mass scales.
447:
448: \subsection{Fitting formula}
449:
450: According to the first order linear model, the EE correlations are induced by
451: the spatial correlations of the primordial tidal field and can be approximated
452: in the linear regime by a quadratic scaling of the linear correlation function
453: as $\eta(r)\propto \xi^{2}(r)$ \citep{cat-etal01,lee-pen01,hir-sel04}.
454: Since $\xi^{2}(r)$ decreases rapidly with separation distance $r$, the linear
455: model predicts that the EE correlations exist only between close pairs with
456: $r$ less than a few Mpc. In other words, the large scale EE correlations
457: cannot be described by the linear model.
458:
459: \citet{hui-zha02} pointed out that the growth of the non-Gaussianity in the
460: density field should cause the EE correlations to scale linearly with $\xi(r)$.
461: It indicates that the non-Gaussianity tends to increase the large-scale EE
462: correlations. Although \citet{hir-sel04} discussed that the assumption of
463: $\eta(r)\propto\xi(r)$ is valid only in the linear regime, we use here the
464: following fitting formula for $\eta(r)$:
465: \begin{equation}
466: \label{eqn:cor}
467: \eta(r) \approx a\tilde{\xi}_{A}(r).
468: \end{equation}
469: Here $a$ is a fitting parameter, representing the amplitude of the EE
470: correlation, whose value is to be determined empirically. Since $\eta(r)$ is
471: always positive and does not exceed $2/3$, the correlation parameter $a$ is
472: expected to be in the range of $[0,\,2/3]$.
473:
474: In eq.~(\ref{eqn:cor}), $\tilde{\xi}(r)_{A}$ is the {\it rescaled}
475: two-point correlation function of the linear density field, defined as
476: \begin{equation}
477: \label{eqn:xi}
478: \tilde{\xi}_{A}(r) \equiv
479: \frac{\int P(k)[(\sin kr)/kr]W^{2}(k;M)\,{\rm d}^{3}k}
480: {\int P(k)W^{2}(k;M)\,{\rm d}^{3}k},
481: \end{equation}
482: which satisfies $\tilde{\xi}_{A}(0)=1$. Here, $P(k)$ is the linear power
483: spectrum, and $W(k;M)$ is the top-hat spherical filter corresponding to the
484: mass scale $M$. We have employed the approximate formula given by
485: \citet{bar-etal86} for the $\Lambda$CDM power spectrum, using the same values
486: of the cosmological parameters that were used for the Millennium Run
487: simulation. For the shape factor $\Gamma$ of the power spectrum
488: parameterization, we adopted $\Gamma =\Omega_{m}h$. For the smoothing mass
489: scale $M$ in eq.~(\ref{eqn:xi}), we use the mean mass averaged over the
490: selected FOF halos.
491:
492: We fit the numerical results obtained in Section~3.2 to eq.~(\ref{eqn:cor})
493: by adjusting the parameter, $a$ with the help of the maximum likelihood method
494: \citep{bar91}. Basically, it amounts to finding the minimum of the $\chi^{2}$
495: function defined as
496: \begin{equation}
497: \label{eqn:chi2}
498: \chi^{2} = [\eta_{i}-\eta(r_{i};a)]C^{-1}_{ij}
499: [\eta_{j} - \eta(r_{j};a)]
500: \end{equation}
501: where $\eta_{i}$ is the numerical data point at the $i$-th radial bin, $r_i$,
502: $\eta(r_{i};a)$ represents the fitting model (eq.~\ref{eqn:cor}) calculated
503: at $r_i$, and $(C^{-1}_{ij})$ is the inverse of the covariance matrix,
504: $(C_{ij})$, whose component is calculated as the ensemble average over the
505: 8 realizations
506: \citep{bar91}:
507: \begin{equation}
508: \label{eqn:cov_eta}
509: C_{ij} = \langle(\eta_{i}-\eta_{0i})(\eta_{j}-\eta_{0j})\rangle,
510: \end{equation}
511: where $\eta_{0i}$ represents the mean $\eta_{i}$ obtained from the whole
512: simulation box. It is worth mentioning here that the $\chi^{2}$ function
513: is expressed in terms of the inverse covariance matrix, $(C_{ij})$, given
514: that there exist non-negligible correlations between radial bins
515: at distance scales larger than $5\,h^{-1}$Mpc.
516: In our case the number of realizations is larger than that of radial bins,
517: the $\chi^{2}$ function defined in terms of the inverse covariance matrix
518: should be useful to find the best-fit value of $a$ \citep{har-etal07}.
519:
520: The uncertainty in the measurement of $a$ is calculated as the curvature of
521: the $\chi^{2}$ function at the minimum \citep{bev-rob96}:
522: \begin{equation}
523: \sigma^{2}_{a} = \left(\frac{\partial^{2}\chi^{2}}{\partial a^{2}}\right)^{-1},
524: \end{equation}
525: The fitting results are summarized in Table \ref{tab:corz_fit} which lists the
526: mean mass $\bar{M}$ in unit of $10^{10}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$, the number of halos
527: $N_{h}$, and the best-fit values of $a$ at four different redshifts.
528: \begin{table}
529: \centering
530: \caption{Redshift ($z$), halo mean mass ($\bar{M}$) in unit of
531: $10^{10}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$, number of halos ($N_{h}$), and the best-fit
532: values of $a$ for the EE correlations of the halo major axes.
533: \label{tab:corz_fit}}
534: \begin{tabular}{@{}ccccc@{}}
535: \hline
536: z & $\bar{M}$ & $N_{h}$ & $a\times 10^{2}$ & \\
537: & [$10^{10}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$] & & & \\
538: \hline
539: 0 & $1638.15$ & $121773$ & $1.12\pm 0.06$ & \\
540: 0.5 & $1118.82$ & $131505$ & $2.45\pm 0.11$ & \\
541: 1 & $810.92$ & $125363$ & $2.64\pm 0.23$ & \\
542: 2 & $448.33$ & $73514$ & $3.01\pm 0.39$ & \\
543: \hline
544: \end{tabular}
545: \end{table}
546: Note that the value of $a$ deviates from zero at all redshifts and decreases
547: monotonically as $z$ decreases. These results quantify well how strong the EE
548: correlations are and how they evolve with redshifts. The fitting models with
549: these best-fit-values of $a$ are plotted as solid line in Fig.~\ref{fig:corz}.
550: As can be seen, the fitting models are in good agreement with the numerical
551: results (solid dots) at all redshifts. For comparison, we also try to fit
552: the numerical results of the EE correlations of the halo major axes at $z=0$
553: to the linear model proportional to $\xi^{2}(r)$. The linear model with the
554: best-fit amplitude is shown as dashed line in the bottom-right panel of
555: Fig.\ref{fig:corz}. As can be seen, the linear model drops with $r$ too
556: rapidly to fit the large-scale EE correlations.
557:
558: We also fit the EE correlations of the halo minor axes measured at four
559: redshifts and the EE correlations of the major axes measured from two
560: different mass bins at $z=0$ to eq.~(\ref{eqn:cor}) and plot the results
561: as solid lines in Figs.~\ref{fig:corz3} and \ref{fig:corm}.
562: \begin{table}
563: \centering
564: \caption{Mass bin, halo mean mass ($\bar{M}$) in unit of
565: $10^{10}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$, and the best-fit values of $a$ for the EE
566: correlations of the halo major axes.\label{tab:corm_fit}}
567: \begin{tabular}{@{}ccc@{}}
568: \hline
569: bin&$\bar{M}$ & $a\times 10^{2}$ \\
570: & [$10^{10}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$] & \\
571: \hline
572: low-mass & $545.7$ & $0.86\pm 0.32$ \\
573: high-mass & $4915.6$ & $2.75\pm 0.39$ \\
574: \hline
575: \end{tabular}
576: \end{table}
577: The EE cross-correlation of the halo major axes between different mass
578: bins at $z=0$ is similarly modeled as:
579: \begin{equation}
580: \label{eqn:ccor}
581: \eta_{C}(r) \approx a_{c}\tilde{\xi}_{C}(r).
582: \end{equation}
583: Here $a_{c}$ is a fitting parameter and $\tilde{\xi}_{C}(r)$ is defined as
584: \begin{equation}
585: \label{eqn:cxi}
586: \tilde{\xi}_{C}(r) \equiv
587: \frac{\int P(k)[\sin kr/kr]W(k;M_{1})W(k;M_{2})\,{\rm d}^{3}k}
588: {\int P(k)W(k;M_{1})W(k;M_{2})\,{\rm d}^{3}k}.
589: \end{equation}
590: where $M_{1}$ and $M_{2}$ represent the mean mass averaged over the low-mass
591: and the high-mass bin, respectively. The best-fit value of $a_{c}$ is
592: determined similarly by minimizing the $\chi^{2}$ function.
593: The fitting result for the EE cross-correlation is plotted as solid line in
594: Fig.~\ref{fig:corc}. As can be seen, the agreements between the numerical
595: results and the fitting models are quite good for all cases.
596:
597: \section{The Ellipticity-Direction Cross Correlations of Halos}
598:
599: \subsection{Definition}
600:
601: As mentioned in Section~1, another important correlation function for
602: quantifying the cosmic web is the ED cross-correlation between the
603: halo ellipticities and the large-scale density field. If the halo
604: ellipticities are induced by the anisotropic infall and merging along
605: the local filaments, then the orientations of the halo major axes must
606: be preferentially aligned with the directions to the neighboring
607: halos. This effect can be measured in terms of the ED cross-correlations
608: between the halo orientations and the location of halo neighbors.
609: We employ the following definition of the ED cross-correlations as
610: \begin{equation}
611: \label{eqn:3rd}
612: \omega(r) \equiv \langle\vert\hat{\bf e}({\bf x})\cdot
613: \hat{\bf r}({\bf x})\vert^{2}\rangle - \frac{1}{3},
614: \end{equation}
615: where $\hat{\bf r}\equiv {\bf r}/r$ is a unit vector in the direction to
616: a neighboring halo at separation distance of $r$.
617:
618: From the halo catalogs of the Millennium Run simulation at $z=0,0.5,1$
619: and $2$, we have measured the ED cross-correlations of the halo major
620: ($\omega_{\rm I}$), intermediate ($\omega_{\rm II}$) and minor
621: axes ($\omega_{\rm III}$) as a function of the comoving distance
622: $r$ between the halo centers. Basically, for each halo in the
623: Millennium data at a given redshift, we find the direction to its
624: neighbor halo and measure the separation distance $r$, and
625: calculate the squares of the dot products of the normalized
626: eigenvector with the unit vector in the direction to the neighbor
627: halo. And then, we bin the radial distance $r$ and calculate the mean
628: values of $\vert\hat{\bf e}({\bf x})\cdot\hat{\bf r}({\bf x})\vert^{2}$
629: averaged over those halos whose distances to the neighbor halos belong
630: to a given bin, subtracting $1/3$ from it. We perform this procedure at
631: $z=2,1,0.5$ and $0$.
632:
633: \subsection{Evolution with redshift}
634:
635: Figure \ref{fig:dirz} plots $\omega_{\rm I}$ at redshifts $z=0$,
636: $0.5$, $1$ and $2$ in the top-right, top-left, bottom-right and
637: bottom-left panel, respectively. The errors represent the standard
638: deviation between $8$ realizations. Since we are mainly interested
639: in the cross-correlations between the halo principal axes and the
640: large scale density field, we focus on separation scales greater than
641: $1h^{-1}$Mpc. As can be seen, the ED cross-correlations of the halo
642: major axes also decrease as $z$ decreases at all distance scales.
643: Note also that the ED cross-correlations are much stronger than the EE
644: correlations shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:corz}. The ED signal is statistically
645: significant even at distances out to $50\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}$.
646: \begin{figure}
647: \begin{center}
648: \includegraphics[width=0.95\hsize]{fig7.eps}
649: \end{center}
650: \caption{The ED correlations of the halo major axes (solid dots) at
651: $z=0$, $0.5$, $1$ and $2$. The errors represent the standard deviation
652: between realizations but do not include non-negligible correlations between
653: radial bins. In each panel the solid line represents the best-fit model
654: with two parameters (eq.~\ref{eqn:dir}). In the bottom-right panel
655: the dotted and dashed line correspond to the best-fit results based on the
656: model with one parameter proportional to $\xi$ and $\xi^{1/2}$, respectively.
657: \label{fig:dirz}}
658: \end{figure}
659:
660: The ED cross-correlations of the intermediate and minor axes of halos,
661: $\omega_{\rm II}$ and $\omega_{\rm III}$, are plotted in Figs.~\ref{fig:dirz2}
662: and \ref{fig:dirz3}, respectively. As expected, the intermediate and minor
663: axes are {\it anti-correlated} with the directions to neighboring halos, and
664: the degree of the anti-correlation is stronger for the minor axes. In fact,
665: the ED anti-correlations of the halo minor axes are almost as strong as the
666: ED correlations of the halo major axes. These results demonstrate clearly
667: that the halo major axes preferentially point in the directions where the
668: local density stays high, hence this gives a quantitative measure for the
669: filamentary distribution of the halos in the cosmic web.
670: The numerical results on $\omega_{\rm I}$, $\omega_{\rm II}$ and
671: $\omega_{\rm III}$ measured at z=0 are summarized in Table \ref{tab:ED_z0}.
672: \begin{figure}
673: \begin{center}
674: \includegraphics[width=0.95\hsize]{fig8.eps}
675: \end{center}
676: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:dirz} but for the case of the halo
677: intermediate axes.\label{fig:dirz2}}
678: \end{figure}
679: \begin{figure}
680: \begin{center}
681: \includegraphics[width=0.95\hsize]{fig9.eps}
682: \end{center}
683: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:dirz} but for the case of the halo minor
684: axes.\label{fig:dirz3}}
685: \end{figure}
686:
687: \begin{table}
688: \centering
689: \caption{Numerical results for the ED cross-correlations of the halo
690: major ($\omega_{\rm I}$), intermediate ($\omega_{\rm II}$), and minor
691: ($\omega_{\rm III}$) axes in logarithmic scale measured at $z=0$.
692: \label{tab:ED_z0}}
693: \begin{tabular}{@{}cccc@{}}
694: \hline
695: $\log [r/(h^{-1}{\rm Mpc})]$ & $\omega_{\rm I}(r)\times 10^{2}$ &
696: $-\omega_{\rm II}(r)\times 10^{2}$ & $-\omega_{\rm III}(r)\times 10^{2}$\\
697: \hline
698: $0.375$ & $6.85\pm 0.35$ & $1.19\pm 0.42$ & $5.67\pm 0.40$\\
699: $0.625$ & $5.37\pm 0.26$ & $1.04\pm 0.16$ & $4.33\pm 0.22$\\
700: $0.875$ & $3.42\pm 0.17$ & $0.73\pm 0.12$ & $2.68\pm 0.12$\\
701: $1.125$ & $1.80\pm 0.11$ & $0.36\pm 0.08$ & $1.43\pm 0.07$\\
702: $1.375$ & $0.88\pm 0.05$ & $0.20\pm 0.03$ & $0.68\pm 0.06$\\
703: $1.625$ & $0.37\pm 0.04$ & $0.11\pm 0.03$ & $0.26\pm 0.04$\\
704: \hline
705: \end{tabular}
706: \end{table}
707:
708: \subsection{Variation with mass}
709:
710: To explore how the ED correlation changes with halo mass, we
711: measure the ED correlation of the halo major axes at two
712: different mass bins with the mass threshold $M_{c}=1.42\times
713: 10^{13}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$ at $z=0$. . When finding the neighbors,
714: we consider all halos, no matter what mass the neighbor halos have.
715: Figure \ref{fig:dirm} plots the ED correlations of the halo major axes
716: at two different mass bins at $z=0$. As can be seen, the ED
717: correlations increase as the halo mass increases, just like the
718: EE correlations, which suggests that the anisotropic merging
719: contributes significantly to the ED correlations.
720: \begin{figure}
721: \begin{center}
722: \includegraphics[width=0.95\hsize]{fig10.eps}
723: \end{center}
724: \caption{The ED cross-correlations of the halo major axes measured from the
725: low-mass ($M<M_{c}$) and the high-mass ($M>M_{c}$) bins at $z=0$ in the top
726: and the bottom panel, respectively. The mass threshold $M_{c}=1416$ is
727: in unit of $10^{10}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$.
728: \label{fig:dirm}.}
729: \end{figure}
730:
731: \subsection{Fitting formula}
732:
733: Given the observed fact that the EE correlations scale linearly with
734: the linear density two-point correlation function (Section~3.4), we
735: have also tried in vain to model the ED correlations as a linear
736: scaling of the density correlation function. But, it has turned out
737: that this simple model fails in providing good fits to the large-scale
738: ED cross correlations (see Fig.~\ref{fig:dirz}). To improve the fitting
739: result, we need a model which decreases with $r$ more slowly than $\xi(r)$.
740: We suggest the following empirical formula:
741: \begin{equation}
742: \label{eqn:dir}
743: \omega(r)\approx b_{1}\tilde{\xi}_{A}(r) + b_{2}\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}_{A}(r)
744: \end{equation}
745: where the two parameters $b_{1}$ and $b_{2}$ lie in the range of
746: $[-1/3,\,2/3]$. The second term proportional to $\xi^{1/2}$ is included to
747: fit the large-scale ED correlations. For the halo major-axis, both of
748: $b_{1}$ and $b_{2}$ will have positive values, while for the halo minor and
749: intermediate axes, they will be negative. We also expect that $b_{1}$ and
750: $b_{2}$ will have larger values than $a$, since the ED cross-correlation is
751: a more direct measure of the filamentary distribution of dark matter halos.
752:
753: We fit the numerical results on the ED correlations obtained in
754: Sections~4.2-4.3 to eq.~(\ref{eqn:dir}) and determine the best-fit
755: values of $b_{1}$ and $b_{2}$ by minimizing the $\chi^{2}$ function:
756: \begin{equation}
757: \chi^{2} = [\omega_{i}-\omega(r_{i};b_{1},b_{2})]C^{-1}_{ij}
758: [\omega_{j}-\omega(r_{j};b_{1},b_{2})],
759: \end{equation}
760: where $\omega_{i}$ is the numerical data point at the $i$-th distance bin,
761: $r_i$, and $\omega(r_{i};b_{1},b_{2})$ is the fitting model at $r_{i}$.
762: The covariance matrix, $(C_{ij})$, is calculated as
763: \begin{equation}
764: \label{eqn:cov_ome}
765: C_{ij} = \langle(\omega_{i}-\omega_{0i})(\omega_{j}-\omega_{0j})\rangle,
766: \end{equation}
767: where $\omega_{0i}$ is the mean $\omega_{i}$ obtained from the whole
768: simulation box. To calculate errors in the measurement of $b_{1}$ and
769: $b_{2}$, we first construct a $2\times 2$ curvature matrix defined as
770: \begin{equation}
771: {\cal F}_{ij} =
772: \left(\frac{\partial^{2}\chi^{2}}{\partial b_{i}\partial b_{j}}\right),
773: \end{equation}
774: with $i,j=\{1,2\}$. The errors are calculated as the diagonal components of
775: the inverse curvature matrix \citep{dod03}:
776: \begin{equation}
777: \sigma^{2}_{b_1} = \left({\cal F}^{-1}\right)_{11}, \qquad
778: \sigma^{2}_{b_2} = \left({\cal F}^{-1}\right)_{22}.
779: \end{equation}
780:
781: Table \ref{tab:dirz} lists the best-fit values of $b_1$ and $b_2$
782: for the ED correlations of the halo major axes measured at
783: $z=0,0.5,1$ and $2$. The best-fit value of the parameter $b_2$ is
784: larger than that of $b_1$ at every redshift, indicating that the second
785: term in eq.~(\ref{eqn:dir}) dominates. The values of the two
786: parameters decrease monotonically as $z$ decreases, just like the EE
787: correlations. Our results provide a quantitative description of the
788: evolution of the ED correlations and its scaling with distance.
789:
790: The fitting results on the ED correlations of $\omega_{\rm I}$,
791: $\omega_{\rm II}$ and $\omega_{\rm III}$ at $z=0$ with the best-fit values
792: of $b_1$ and $b_2$ are plotted as solid lines in Figs.~\ref{fig:dirz},
793: \ref{fig:dirz2}, and \ref{fig:dirz3}, respectively. As can be seen, the
794: agreements between the fitting models and the numerical results are quite
795: good at all redshifts. For comparison, we also fit the numerical results of
796: the ED correlations of the halo major axes at $z=0$ to two different models
797: proportional to $\xi$ and $\xi^{1/2}$, which are plotted in the bottom right
798: panel as dotted and dashed line, respectively. As can be seen, the model
799: proportional to $\xi$ decreases with $r$ too rapidly to fit the numerical
800: results. Meanwhile the $\xi^{1/2}$ decreases slowly with $r$ but it alone
801: still does not agree with the numerical results as well as
802: eq.~(\ref{eqn:dir}).
803:
804: \begin{table}
805: \centering
806: \caption{The best-fit values of the two correlation parameters for the
807: ED correlations of the halo major axes at four different redshifts.
808: \label{tab:dirz}}
809: \begin{tabular}{@{}cccc@{}}
810: \hline
811: z & $b_{1}\times 10^{2}$ & $b_{2}\times 10^{2}$ & \\ \hline
812: 0 & $3.06\pm 0.20$ & $4.61\pm 0.11$ & \\
813: 0.5 & $4.54\pm 0.21$ & $5.55\pm 0.12$ & \\
814: 1 & $5.73\pm 0.23$ & $7.25\pm 0.10$ & \\
815: 2 & $7.57\pm 0.32$ & $11.64\pm 0.16$ & \\
816: \hline
817: \end{tabular}
818: \end{table}
819:
820: Figure \ref{fig:dirm} plots the fitting results on the ED correlations of
821: the major axes of the low-mass and high-mass halos at $z=0$ in the top and
822: bottom panel, respectively. Table \ref{tab:dirm} lists the best-fit values
823: of $b_{1}$ and $b_{2}$ for the two cases. The values of $b_{1}$ and $b_{2}$
824: are higher for the high-mass halos than for the low-mass halos.
825: Note that although the fitting models work fairly well, they seem to deviate
826: from the numerical results by more than $3\sigma_{\omega}$ around
827: $30\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}$. We think that it reflects the failure of the
828: assumption that the ED correlations can be described in terms of
829: the linear density correlation function.
830: \begin{table}
831: \centering
832: \caption{The best-fit parameters of the ED cross-correlations
833: measured from two different mass bins at $z=0$.\label{tab:dirm}}
834: \begin{tabular}{@{}cccc@{}}
835: \hline
836: mass bin & $\bar{M}$ & $b_{1}\times 10^{2}$ & $b_{2}\times 10^{2}$ \\
837: & [$10^{10}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$] & & \\ \hline
838: low-mass & $545.7$ & $1.39\pm 0.36$ & $4.02\pm 0.14$ \\
839: high-mass & $4914.35$ & $4.94\pm 0.29$ & $4.39\pm 0.16$ \\
840: \hline
841: \end{tabular}
842: %\end{minipage}
843: \end{table}
844:
845: \section{Summary and Discussion}
846:
847: In this work, by analyzing the halo data and the semi-analytic galaxy
848: catalog from the Millennium simulations at $z=0$, $1$, $0.5$ and $2$,
849: we have measured the ellipticity-ellipticity (EE) correlations.
850: The correlations are close to $0.01$ at a distance of $1\,h^{-1}\,{\rm
851: Mpc}$ and remain significant at distances out to $10\,h^{-1}\,{\rm
852: Mpc}$. The EE correlations are found to be strongest for the case of
853: the halo major axes, and weakest for the case of the intermediate axes.
854:
855: We have found that the EE correlations of all three axes decrease as
856: $z$ decreases. This might be due to the growth of secondary filaments
857: at low redshifts and the beginning `freeze-out' of structure growth in
858: $\Lambda$CDM, which plays a role in randomizing the halo ellipticities.
859: It has been also found that the EE correlation function exhibits a
860: strong dependence on halo mass. It increases as the mass scale
861: increases, which might be due to the dominant filamentary merging of
862: halos on large scales. We have also calculated EE cross-correlations
863: between halos belonging to different mass bins. Our results have shown
864: that the EE cross-correlations between neighboring mass bins exist at a
865: statistically significant level as well.
866:
867: We have modeled the EE correlation function as a linear scaling of the
868: linear density two-point correlation function $\xi(r)$, which is characterized
869: by one fitting parameter, $a$. The value of $a$ represents the
870: amplitude of the EE correlations, quantifying its scaling with mass
871: and redshift. The fitting model with the best-fit value of $a$ has
872: been shown to agree with the numerical results quite well at all
873: redshifts and all mass bins.
874:
875: We have also measured the cross-correlations between the halo
876: principal axes and the directions to neighboring halos (ED) by using
877: the same numerical data, and found that the ED cross-correlations are
878: much stronger than the EE correlations, at all distances.
879: Remarkably, they are detected even at distances out to $50\,h^{-1}{\rm
880: Mpc}$ at a statistically significant level. Just like the EE
881: correlations, the ED cross-correlations are found to decrease as $z$
882: decreases and increase as the halo mass $M$ increases, suggesting a
883: dominant role of anisotropic merging and infall of matter in
884: establishing these correlations. The intermediate and the minor axes of the
885: halos have turned out to be anti-correlated with the directions to the
886: neighboring halos, which is consistent with alignments of the halos
887: shapes with the orientations of the local filament.
888:
889: The ED cross-correlations are, however, found to be poorly fitted by a
890: linear scaling of $\xi(r)$. The ED cross-correlations
891: decrease with distance much less rapidly than $\xi(r)$. To account for
892: the slow decrease of ED cross-correlations with distance, we include
893: an additional term proportional to $\xi^{1/2}(r)$ in the fitting model
894: which is then characterized by two fitting parameters $b_!$ and $b_2$.
895: Thetwo parameters represent the amplitudes of the two terms of the ED
896: cross-correlations proportional to $\xi(r)$ and $\xi^{1/2}(r)$,
897: respectively. This fitting formula has been shown to agree with the
898: numerical results quite well at all redshifts and at all mass bins.
899:
900: Nonetheless, it is worth mentioning here that our fitting formula for
901: the ED cross-correlations is not a physical model. It is purely
902: empirical, obtained through comparison with the numerical results. It
903: has yet to be understood why the ED cross-correlations scale as
904: described by our fitting formula. At any rate, we believe that our
905: fitting formula may be useful in the future when the ED
906: cross-correlations can be modeled by a fundamental theory.
907:
908: The EE correlations and the ED cross-correlations that we have
909: measured here provide a useful tool to statistically characterize the
910: anisotropy and the relevant scales of the cosmic web. It will be
911: interesting to compare the results we obtained here for the
912: $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with observational data from large galaxy
913: redshift surveys. The comparison of our numerical results with
914: observational data, however, will require a modelling of the redshift
915: space distortions as well as of two dimensional projection effects,
916: given that in real observations what can be usually measured is the
917: two dimensional projected major axes of the galaxies in redshift
918: space. In future work, we plan to model these two effects on the EE
919: and ED correlations and compare the numerical results with real
920: observational data.
921:
922: Another important application of our results lies in studies of weak
923: gravitational lensing. The issue of a potential cross-correlation
924: between galaxy ellipticities and the weak gravitational lensing shear
925: (GI cross-correlations) was first raised by \citet{hir-sel04}. They
926: claimed that if such GI cross-correlations exist, then they would affect
927: the weak lensing signal as another systematic contaminant whose effect
928: is hard to control. The GI cross-correlations are expected to occur
929: primarily due to the ED cross-correlations: If the intrinsic
930: ellipticities of the galaxies are cross-correlated with the surrounding
931: large-scale density field, then it will in turn lead to a cross-correlation
932: between the gravitational lensing shear and the galaxy ellipticities.
933: Recent observations indeed have reported detections of the GI
934: correlation signals in low-redshift galaxy surveys
935: \citep{man-etal06,hir-etal07}. To assess a possible systematic
936: contamination of weak lensing due to the GI cross-correlations,
937: it will be important first to examine the relation between the
938: observed GI cross-correlations and the ED cross-correlations of the
939: cosmic web. This work will require incorporating a model for how the
940: galaxy shapes are aligned relative to the dark matter
941: \citep{hey-etal06}. Our future work is in this direction.
942:
943: \section*{Acknowledgments}
944:
945: The Millennium Simulation analyzed in this paper was carried out by the
946: Virgo Supercomputing Consortium at the Computing Center of the
947: Max-Planck Society in Garching, Germany. The simulation databases
948: and the web application providing online access to them were
949: constructed as part of the activities of the German Astrophysical
950: Virtual Observatory.G.L. works for the German Astrophysical Virtual
951: Observatory (GAVO),which is supported by a grant from the German
952: Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under contract 05 AC6VHA.
953:
954: We thank an anonymous referee for his/her constructive report which
955: helped us improve significantly the original manuscript. We also thank
956: S.D.M.~White for stimulating discussion and useful suggestions.
957: J.L. is very grateful to the warm hospitality of the Max Planck Institute for
958: Astrophysics (MPA) in Garching where this work was initiated and performed.
959: J.L. acknowledges financial support from Korea Science and Engineering
960: Foundation (KOSEF) grant funded by the Korean Government (MOST,
961: NO. R01-2007-000-10246-0).
962:
963: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
964: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Agustsson \& Brainerd}{2006}]{agu-bra06}
965: Agustsson I., Brainerd T. G., 2006, ApJ, 644, L25
966: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Allgood et al.}{2006}]{allgood06}
967: Allgood B., et al., 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1781
968: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Altay et al.}{2006}]{alt-etal06}
969: Altay G., Colberg J. M., Croft R. A. C., 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1422
970: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bardeen et al.}{1986}]{bar-etal86}
971: Bardeen J. M., Bond J. R., Kaiser N., Szalay, A. S., 1986, ApJ, 304, 15
972: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Barlow}{1991}]{bar91}
973: Barlow R. J., 1986, Statistics (London : John Wiley \& Sons)
974: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bevington \& Robinson}{1996}]{bev-rob96}
975: Bevington P. R., Robinson D. K., 1996, Data Reduction and Error
976: Analysis for the Physical Sciences (Boston : McGraw-Hill)
977: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bond et al.}{1996}]{bon-etal96}
978: Bond J., R., Kofman L., Pogosyan D., 1996, Nature, 380, 603
979: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Catelan et al.}{2001}]{cat-etal01}
980: Catelan P., Kamionkowski M., Blandford R. D., 2001, MNRAS, 320, L7
981: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Colberg}{2007}]{col07}
982: Colberg J. M., 2007, MNRAS, 375, 337
983: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Crittenden et al.}{2001}]{cri-etal01}
984: Crittenden R. G., Natarajan P., Pen U. L, Theuns T., 2001, ApJ, 559, 552
985: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Crittenden et al.}{2002}]{cri-etal02}
986: Crittenden R. G., Natarajan P., Pen, U. L., Theuns, T., 2002, ApJ, 568, 20
987: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Croft \& Metzler}{2000}]{cro-met00}
988: Croft R. A. C., Metzler C. A., 2000, ApJ, 545, 561
989: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Croton et al.}{2004}]{cro-etal04}
990: Croton D. J., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 1232
991: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Croton et al.}{2006}]{cro-etal06}
992: Croton D. J., Springel V., White S. D. M., De-Lucia G., Frenk C. S.,
993: Gao L., Jenkins A., Kauffmann G., Navarro J. F., Yoshida N., 2006, MNRAS,
994: 365, 11
995: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dodelson}{2003}]{dod03}
996: Dodelson S., Modern Cosmology (San Diego : Academic Press)
997: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hartlap et al.}{2007}]{har-etal07}
998: Hartlap J., Simon P., Schneider P. 2007, A\&A, 464, 399
999: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Heavens et al.}{2000}]{hea-etal00}
1000: Heavens A., Refregier A., Heymans C. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 649
1001: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Heymans et al.}{2006}]{hey-etal06}
1002: Heymans C., White M., Heavens A., Vale C., Van Waerbeke L., 2000,
1003: MNRAS, 371, 750
1004: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hirata \& Seljak}{2004}]{hir-sel04}
1005: Hirata, C. M., Seljak U., 2004, PRD, 70, 063526
1006: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hirata et al.}{2004}]{hir-etal04}
1007: Hirata C. M. et al., 2004, MNRAS, 353, 529
1008: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hirata et al.}{2007}]{hir-etal07}
1009: Hirata C. M. et al., 2007, MNRAS, 381, 1197
1010: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hopkins et al.}{2005}]{hop-etal05}
1011: Hopkins P. F., Bahcall N. A., Bode P., 2005, ApJ, 618, 1
1012: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hui \& Zhang}{2002}]{hui-zha02}
1013: Hui L., Zhang Z., 2002, preprint [astro-ph/0205512]
1014: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Jing}{2002}]{jin02}
1015: Jing Y., 2002, MNRAS, 335, L89
1016: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kulkarni et al.}{2007}]{kul-etal07}
1017: Kulkarni G. V., Nichol R. C., Sheth R. K., Seo H. J., Eisenstein D. J.,
1018: Gray A. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 1196
1019: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lee et al.}{2005}]{lee-etal05}
1020: Lee J., Kang X., Jing Y., 2005, ApJ, 629, L5
1021: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lee \& Pen}{2000}]{lee-pen00}
1022: Lee J. Pen U. L., 2000, ApJ, 532, L5
1023: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lee \& Pen}{2001}]{lee-pen01}
1024: Lee J., Pen U. L., 2001, ApJ, 555, 106
1025: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lee \& Pen}{2002}]{lee-pen02}
1026: Lee J., Pen U. L., 2002, ApJ, 567, 111
1027: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lee \& Pen}{2007}]{lee-pen07}
1028: Lee J., Pen U. L., 2007, ApJ, 670, L1
1029: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Mandelbaum et al.}{2006}]{man-etal06}
1030: Mandelbaum R., Hirata C. M., Ishak M., Seljak U., Brinkmann J.,
1031: 2006, MNRAS, 367, 611
1032: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Mei et al.}{2007}]{mei-etal07}
1033: Mei S., et al., 2007, ApJ, 655, 144
1034: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Mo et al.}{1998}]{mo-etal98}
1035: Mo H. J., Mao S., White S. D. M., 1998, MNRAS, 295, 319
1036: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Navarro et. al.}{2004}]{nav-etal04}
1037: Navarro J. F., Abadi M.G., Steinmetz M., 2004, ApJ, 613, L41
1038: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Patiri et al.}{2006}]{pat-etal06}
1039: Patiri S. G., Cuesta A. J. Prada, F., Betancort-Rijo, J., Klypin A.,
1040: 2006, ApJ, 652, 75
1041: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Pen et al.}{2000}]{pen-etal00}
1042: Pen U. L., Lee J., Seljak U., 2000, 543, L107
1043: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Shandarin \& Yess}{1998}]{sha-yes98}
1044: Shandarin S. F., Yess C., 1998, ApJ, 505, 12
1045: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sahni et al.}{1997}]{sah-etal97}
1046: Sahni V., Sathyaprakash B. S., Shandarin S. F., 1997, ApJ, 476, L1
1047: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sousbie et al.}{2007}]{sou-etal07}
1048: Sousbie T., Pichon C., Colombi S., Novikov D., Pogosyan D., 2007,
1049: MNRAS, 657, 30
1050: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Springel et al.}{2001}]{spr-etal01}
1051: Springel V. et al., 2001, MNRAS, 328, 726
1052: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Springel et al.}{2004}]{springel04}
1053: Springel V., White S.D.M., Hernquist L., 2004, IAU Symposium 220,
1054: Eds. S.D. Ryder et al., San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the
1055: Pacific, p. 421
1056: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Springel et al.}{2005}]{spr-etal05}
1057: Springel V. et al., 2005, Nature , 435, 629
1058: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{West}{1989}]{wes89}
1059: West M. J., 1989, ApJ, 347, 610
1060: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{West et al.}{1991}]{wes-etal91}
1061: West M. J., Willumsen C., Dekel A., 1991, ApJ, 369, 287
1062: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{White}{1984}]{whi84}
1063: White S. D. M., 1984, ApJ, 286, 38
1064: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zel'dovich}{1970}]{zel70}
1065: Zel'dovich Y. B. 1970, A\& A, 5, 84
1066: \end{thebibliography}
1067:
1068: \bsp
1069:
1070: \label{lastpage}
1071:
1072: \end{document}
1073: