1: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3:
4: \documentclass{emulateapj}
5: \usepackage{apjfonts}
6:
7: %\usepackage{color}
8: %\textcolor{red}{}
9:
10: %% preprint style produces a one-column, single-spaced document.
11: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
12:
13: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
14: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
15:
16:
17: \newcommand{\etal}{et~al.}
18: \newcommand{\MgIIdblt}{{\rm Mg}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}~$\lambda\lambda 2796, 2803$}
19: \newcommand{\CaII}{\hbox{{\rm Ca}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}}}
20: \newcommand{\CIV}{\hbox{{\rm C}\kern 0.1em{\sc iv}}}
21: \newcommand{\CV}{\hbox{{\rm C}\kern 0.1em{\sc v}}}
22: \newcommand{\MgI}{\hbox{{\rm Mg}\kern 0.1em{\sc i}}}
23: \newcommand{\MgII}{\hbox{{\rm Mg}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}}}
24: \newcommand{\kms}{\hbox{km~s$^{-1}$}}
25:
26: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
27: \slugcomment{Accepted to AJ Oct. 29 2007}
28:
29: \shorttitle{\sc {\MgII} Halo Sizes \& Gas Covering Fractions}
30: \shortauthors{\sc Kacprzak {\etal}}
31: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
32: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
33:
34: \begin{document}
35:
36: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
37: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
38: %% you desire.
39:
40: \title{Halo Gas Cross Sections And Covering Fractions of {\MgII}
41: Absorption Selected Galaxies}
42:
43: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
44: %% author and affiliation information.
45: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
46: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
47: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
48: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
49:
50: \author{\sc
51: Glenn G. Kacprzak\altaffilmark{1},
52: Christopher W. Churchill\altaffilmark{1},
53: Charles C. Steidel\altaffilmark{2}, \\
54: and
55: Michael T. Murphy\altaffilmark{3,4}
56: }
57:
58: \altaffiltext{1}{New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003
59: {\tt glennk@nmsu.edu, cwc@nmsu.edu}}
60:
61: \altaffiltext{2}{Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125
62: {\tt ccs@astro.caltech.edu}}
63:
64: \altaffiltext{3}{Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge CB3 0HA, UK}
65:
66: \altaffiltext{4}{Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn,
67: Victoria 3122, Australia {\tt mmurphy@astro.swin.edu.au}}
68: \begin{abstract}
69:
70: We examine halo gas cross sections and covering fractions, $f_c$, of
71: intermediate redshift {\MgII} absorption selected galaxies. We
72: computed statistical absorber halo radii, $R_{\rm x}$, using current
73: values of $dN/dz$ and Schechter luminosity function parameters, and
74: have compared these values to the distribution of impact parameters
75: and luminosities from a sample of 37 galaxies. For equivalent widths
76: $W_r(2796) \geq 0.3$~{\AA}, we find $43 \leq R_{\rm x} \leq 88$~kpc,
77: depending on the lower luminosity cutoff and the slope, $\beta$, of
78: the Holmberg--like luminosity scaling, $R \propto L^{\beta}$. The
79: observed distribution of impact parameters, $D$, are such that several
80: absorbing galaxies lie at $D>R_{\rm x}$ and several non--absorbing
81: galaxies lie at $D < R_{\rm x}$. We deduced $f_c$ must be less than
82: unity and obtain a mean of $\left< f_c \right> \sim 0.5$ for our
83: sample. Moreover, the data suggest halo radii of {\MgII} absorbing
84: galaxies do not follow a luminosity scaling with $\beta$ in the range
85: of $0.2-0.28$, if $f_c= 1$ as previously reported. However, provided
86: $f_c \sim 0.5$, we find that halo radii can remain consistent with a
87: Holmberg--like luminosity relation with $\beta \simeq 0.2$ and $R_{\ast}
88: = R_{\rm x}/\sqrt{f_c} \sim 110$~kpc. No luminosity scaling
89: ($\beta=0$) is also consistent with the observed distribution of
90: impact parameters if $f_c \leq 0.37$. The data support a scenario in
91: which gaseous halos are patchy and likely have non--symmetric
92: geometric distributions about the galaxies. We suggest halo gas
93: distributions may not be govern primarily by galaxy mass/luminosity
94: but also by stochastic processes local to the galaxy.
95:
96:
97: \end{abstract}
98:
99: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
100: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
101: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
102: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
103:
104: %% Authors who wish to have the most important objects in their paper
105: %% linked in the electronic edition to a data center may do so by tagging
106: %% their objects with \objectname{} or \object{}. Each macro takes the
107: %% object name as its required argument. The optional, square-bracket
108: %% argument should be used in cases where the data center identification
109: %% differs from what is to be printed in the paper. The text appearing
110: %% in curly braces is what will appear in print in the published paper.
111: %% If the object name is recognized by the data centers, it will be linked
112: %% in the electronic edition to the object data available at the data centers
113:
114:
115: \keywords{galaxies: halos ---quasars: absorption lines}
116:
117:
118: \section{Introduction}
119:
120: Understanding galaxy formation and evolution is one of the most
121: important topics of modern astronomy. The extended distribution of
122: baryonic gas surrounding galaxies holds great potential for
123: constraining theories of their formation. However, the sizes of
124: gaseous galaxy halos along with the distribution of gas within are not
125: well understood. Numerical models have been able to synthesize the
126: formation and evolution of large scale structures, however, there are
127: unresolved issues regarding the evolution of individual galaxies and
128: halos. The halo baryon--fraction problem \citep[e.g.,][]{mo02} and the
129: rapid cooling of gas \citep[e.g.,][]{white78} result in galaxy halos
130: which have little or no gas soon after they form. These effects are
131: not seen in the observable universe since there is an abundance of
132: galaxies where gas has been detected in halos via quasar absorption
133: lines.
134:
135: From an observational standpoint, quasar absorption lines provides a
136: unique means of probing the extent and abundance of halo gas.
137: Although, quasar absorption line observations to date are sufficient
138: the recognize the aforementioned problems, they are lacking the detail
139: required to statistically constrain the distribution of the baryonic
140: gas in the halos of simulated galaxies. Cross--correlations between
141: absorbers and galaxies hold the promise to yield useful information on
142: cloud sizes and halo gas covering fractions. First steps towards
143: incorporating multi--phase gas in semi--analytical models and
144: numerical simulations suggest that warm gas in halos extends out to
145: galactocentric distances of $\sim 150$~kpc with cloud covering
146: fractions of $\sim 0.25-0.6$ \citep{maller04,kaufmann06}.
147:
148: The association of {\MgIIdblt} doublet absorption in quasar spectra
149: with normal, bright, field galaxies has been firmly established
150: \citep[e.g.,][]{bb91,sdp94,cwc-china}. In an effort to understand
151: halo sizes and gas distributions, \citet[][hereafter S95]{steidel95}
152: searched for foreground galaxies associated with {\MgII} absorption
153: within $\sim10''$ ($\sim65$~kpc for $z=0.5$) of
154: quasars\footnote{Throughout we adopt a $h=0.70$, $\Omega_{\rm M}=0.3$,
155: $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$ cosmology. All quoted physical quantities from
156: previously published works have been converted to this cosmology.}.
157: The sample consisted of 53 absorbing and 14 non--absorbing galaxies
158: with a {\MgII} $\lambda 2796$ equivalent width sensitivity limit of
159: $W_{r}(2796) > 0.3$~{\AA}. S95 directly fitted the data by assuming a
160: Holmberg--like luminosity scaling,
161: \begin{equation}
162: R(L) = R_{\ast} \left( \frac{L}{L^{\ast}} \right) ^{\beta} \quad {\rm kpc},
163: \label{eq:rl}
164: \end{equation}
165: and minimizing the number of non--absorbing and absorbing galaxies
166: above and below the $R(L)$ relation. The best fit obtained clearly
167: showed that absorbing and non--absorbing galaxies could be separated
168: and that the halo radii $R(L_K)$ and $R(L_B)$ scale with luminosity
169: with $\beta = 0.15$ and $\beta = 0.2$, respectively, where an
170: $L_B^{\ast}$ galaxy has a gas halo cross section of $R_{\ast} =
171: 55$~kpc. Furthermore, since almost none of the absorbing galaxies were
172: observed above the $R(L)$ boundary and that almost none of the
173: non--absorbing galaxies were observed below the $R(L)$ boundary, S95
174: inferred that {\it all\/} $L> 0.05L^{\ast}$ galaxies are hosts to
175: {\MgII} absorbing gas halos characterized by a covering fraction of
176: unity and a spherical geometry which truncates at $R(L)$. Examination
177: of this now ``standard model'' has been the subject of several
178: theoretical studies \citep[e.g.,][]{cc96,mo96,lin01}.
179:
180: \citet{gb97} determined a steeper value of $\beta = 0.28$ for the
181: B--band luminosity obtained from a best fit to the upper envelope of
182: the distribution of impact parameters of 26 absorbing galaxies. They
183: found $R_{\ast} = 67$~kpc.
184:
185: Using a reverse approach of establishing foreground galaxy redshifts
186: and then searching for {\MgII} absorption in the spectra of background
187: quasars yields results inconsistent with a covering fraction of
188: unity. For example, \citet{bowen95} identified 17 low--redshift
189: galaxies with background quasar probing an impact parameter range
190: between $3-162$~kpc. Galaxies that were probed at impact parameters
191: greater than 13~kpc had no absorption in the halo ($W_{r}(2796) \geq
192: 0.40-0.9$~{\AA}), however, four of the six galaxies within 13~kpc of
193: the halo produced {\MgII} absorption. For intermediate redshift
194: galaxies, \citet{bechtold92} reported a covering fraction $f_c \simeq
195: 0.25$ for $W_{r}(2796) \geq 0.26$~{\AA} for eight galaxies with $D
196: \leq 85$ kpc. Also, \citet{tripp-china} reported $f_c \sim 0.5$ for
197: $W_{r}(2796) \geq 0.15$~{\AA} for $\sim 20$ galaxies with $D \leq 50$
198: kpc. These results are also consistent with the findings of
199: \citet{cwc-china} who reported very weak {\MgII} absorption,
200: $W_{r}(2796) < 0.3$~{\AA}, well inside the $R(L)$ boundary of bright
201: galaxies; these galaxies would be classified as ``non--absorbers'' in
202: previous surveys. They also report $W_r(2796) > 1$~{\AA} absorption
203: out to $\simeq 2 R(L)$. All these results suggest that there are
204: departures from the standard model, that the covering fraction of
205: {\MgII} absorbing gas is less than unity, and that the halo sizes and
206: the distribution of the gas appear to diverge from the $R(L)$ relation
207: with spherical geometry.
208:
209: Another approach to understanding halo sizes and gas distributions is
210: to determine the statistical properties of {\MgII} absorbing gas and
211: then compute the statistical cross section from the redshift path
212: density, $dN/dz$ \citep[see][]{lanzetta95}. The downfall of this
213: method is that a galaxy luminosity function must be adopted in order
214: to estimate $R_{\ast}$. \citet{nestor05} acquired a sample of over
215: 1300 {\MgII} absorption systems, with $W_{r}(2796) \geq 0.3$~{\AA}
216: from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). Using the $K$--band
217: Holmberg--like luminosity scaling and luminosity function of MUNICS
218: \citep{drory03}, Nestor {\etal} computed $R_{\ast} = 60-100$~kpc for
219: adopted minimum luminosity cutoffs of
220: $L_{min}=0.001-0.25L^{\ast}$. They found no redshift evolution of
221: $R_{\ast}$ over the explored range of $0.3\leq z \leq 1.2$.
222:
223: \citet{zibetti06} studied the statistical photometric properties of
224: $\sim2800$ {\MgII} absorbers in quasar fields imaged with SDSS. Using
225: the method of image stacking, they detected low--level surface
226: brightness (SB) azimuthally about the quasar. The SB profiles follow a
227: decreasing power law with projected distance away from the quasar out
228: to $100-200$~kpc. These results imply that absorption selected
229: galaxies may reside out to projected distances of 200~kpc. However,
230: it is worth noting that the extended light profiles may be an artifact
231: of clustering of galaxies. Cluster companions of the {\MgII} absorbing
232: galaxies could extend the observed light profile over hundreds of
233: stacked images. Thus, one would infer that {\MgII} absorbing galaxies
234: are present at a larger impact parameters than would be found in
235: direct observation of individual galaxies.
236:
237: %In this paper, we demonstrate that $f_c < 1$ and reexamine the
238: %validity of the Holmberg--like luminosity scaling
239: %(Eq.~\ref{eq:rl}). Using high resolution quasar spectra, we explore
240: %{\MgII} absorption strengths to an order of magnitude more sensitive
241: %than previous surveys which allow us to re--identify non--absorbing
242: %galaxies as ``weak'' absorbing galaxies. In \S~\ref{sec:data} we
243: %describe our sample and analysis. In \S~\ref{sec:discussion}, we
244: %present new calculations of the statistical absorber radius using
245: %$dN/dz$. We then compare these values to a sample of known {\MgII}
246: %absorption selected galaxies with measured luminosities and impact
247: %parameters and examine how individual halos behave with respect to the
248: %statistical halo. In \S~\ref{sec:dis}, we discuss the properties and
249: %distribution of gas in halos. Our concluding remarks are in
250: %\S~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
251:
252: Motivated by recent expectations from simulations that halo gas is
253: dynamically complex and sensitive to the physics of galaxy formation,
254: we investigate the standard halo model of {\MgII} absorbers. We also
255: aim to provide updated constraints on $f_c$ and $\beta$ for galaxy
256: formation simulations. In this paper, we demonstrate that $f_c < 1$
257: and question the validity of the Holmberg--like luminosity scaling
258: (Eq.~\ref{eq:rl}). Using high resolution quasar spectra, we explore
259: {\MgII} absorption strengths to an order of magnitude more sensitive
260: than previous surveys which allow us to re--identify non--absorbing
261: galaxies as ``weak'' absorbing galaxies. In \S~\ref{sec:data} we
262: describe our sample and analysis. In \S~\ref{sec:results}, we present
263: new calculations of the statistical absorber radius computed using the
264: statistically measured absorption path density $dN/dz$ and the
265: Schechter luminosity function. We then compare these values to the
266: empirical results of S95 and to a sample of known {\MgII} absorption
267: selected galaxies with measured luminosities and impact parameters. We
268: also examine how individual halos behave with respect to the
269: statistical halo. In \S~\ref{sec:dis}, we discuss the properties and
270: distribution of gas in halos. Our concluding remarks are in
271: \S~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
272:
273:
274: \section{Data and Analysis}
275: \label{sec:data}
276:
277: \begin{figure*}[htb]
278: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.80]{f1.eps}
279: \caption{ (a) $W_r(2796)$ versus $L_B/L_B^{\ast}$. Filled circles have
280: $W_r(2796)\geq 0.3$~{\AA} and the open circles have
281: $W_r(2796)<0.3$~{\AA}. --- (b) The impact parameter, $D$, versus
282: $L_B/L_B^{\ast}$. The dash--dot line is the halo luminosity scaling
283: given by Eq.~\ref{eq:rl} for the results of S95
284: ($R_{\ast}=55$~kpc, $f_c=1$, $\beta = 0.2$). The dash--dash line is the
285: halo luminosity scaling given by Eq.~\ref{eq:rl} for our result
286: ($R_{\ast}=88$~kpc), assuming $f_c=1$, $\beta = 0.2$.}
287: \label{fig:ewd}
288: \end{figure*}
289:
290: We have constructed a sample of 37 galaxies ($0.3<z<1.0$), with
291: spectroscopically confirmed redshifts, selected by the presence of
292: {\MgII} absorption in quasar spectra. The absorption properties were
293: measured from HIRES/Keck \citep{vogt94} and UVES/VLT \citep{dekker00}
294: spectra. The {\MgII} $\lambda 2796$ profiles have been presented in
295: \citet{cwc-china}, where the detection limit is $W_r(2796)\geq
296: 0.02$~{\AA} (5~$\sigma$). Galaxy properties were measured from F702W
297: or F814W WFPC--2/{\it HST} images of the quasar fields. Images of the
298: galaxies, along with further details of the sample selection, data,
299: and data analysis, can be found in \citet{kacprzak07}.
300:
301: Galaxy absolute magnitudes, $M_B$, were determined from the
302: $k$--corrected observed $m_{F702W}$ or $m_{F814W}$ adopted from
303: \citet{kacprzak07}. The $k$--corrections were computed using the
304: formalism of \citet{kim96} based upon the spectral energy distribution
305: (SED) templates of \citet{kinney96}. The adopted SED for each galaxy
306: was based upon its rest--frame $B-K$ color (SDP94). For galaxies with
307: no color information, we adopted a Sb SED which is consistent with
308: average color of {\MgII} absorbing galaxies
309: \citep[SDP94;][]{zibetti06}. Our $k$--corrections are consistent with
310: those from the literature \citep{kim96,fukugita95}. $B$--band
311: luminosities were computed using the DEEP2 optimal $M^{\ast}_B$ of
312: \citet[][Table~2]{faber05} in the redshift bin appropriate for each
313: galaxy. $M^{\ast}_B$ ranges from $-21.07$ ($\left< z \right> =0.3$)
314: to $-21.54$ ($\left< z\right> =1.1$).
315:
316: We compute the halo gas cross section determined from the redshift
317: path density,
318: \begin{equation}
319: \frac{dN}{dz} = \pi R_{\rm x}^2 \cdot \Phi^{\ast}\Gamma(x,y) \cdot
320: \frac{c}{H_0}\frac{(1+z)^2}{\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{\Lambda}}},
321: \label{eq:dndz}
322: \end{equation}
323: where $R_{\rm x}$ is the statistical absorber radius for an $L^{\ast}$
324: galaxy, and $\Phi^{\ast}$ is the number density of $L^{\ast}$
325: galaxies. $R^2_{\rm x}=f_c R^2_{\ast}$, where $R_{\ast}$ is the
326: covering fraction corrected absorbing halo radius. Note here that we
327: make a distinction between $R_{\rm x}$, which is derived from the
328: redshift path density, and $R_{\ast}$, which is a physical cross
329: section of the absorbing gas accounting for the covering fraction.
330: $\Gamma(x,y)$ is the incomplete Gamma function in which $x=2\beta -
331: \alpha +1$, where $\alpha$ is the faint--end slope of the Schechter
332: galaxy luminosity function and $\beta$ parameterizes a Holmberg--like
333: luminosity scaling of Eq.~\ref{eq:rl}. The parameter
334: $y=L_{min}/L^{\ast}$, where $L_{min}$ is the minimum luminosity of
335: galaxies contributing to absorption. The influence of $y$ on the
336: value of $R_{\rm x}$ becomes relatively more important as $\beta
337: \rightarrow 0$.
338:
339: We present our sample in Figure~\ref{fig:ewd}$a$, plotting $W_r(2796)$
340: versus $L_B/L^{\ast}_B$. The solid points have $W_r(2796)\geq
341: 0.3$~{\AA} and the open points are weak systems \citep{weakI}, having
342: $W_r(2796)<0.3$~{\AA}, and would have been classified as
343: non--absorbing galaxies in previous surveys \citep[e.g.,
344: SDP94;][]{gb97}. {\it Since $R_{\rm x}$ is computed using $dN/dz$
345: which is determined for systems with} $W_{r}(2796) \geq 0.3$~{\AA},
346: {\it we must consider these ``weak'' systems as ``non--absorbing''
347: galaxies in order to be consistent with our comparisons for the
348: remainder of this paper}. In Figure~\ref{fig:ewd}$a$ note that both
349: absorbing and non--absorbing galaxies span the same luminosity range.
350:
351:
352: \section{Results}
353: \label{sec:results}
354:
355: Applying Eq.~\ref{eq:dndz}, we computed the statistical absorption
356: radius, $R_{\rm x}$, for $W_r(2796) \geq 0.3$~{\AA} employing the most
357: current Schechter luminosity function parameters and absorber redshift
358: path density. We adopted $dN/dz=0.8$ \citep{nestor05}, $\alpha=1.3$,
359: and $\Phi_{\ast}=3.14\times 10^{-3}$ Gal Mpc$^{-3}$ \citep{faber05}
360: for the $\left< z \right> =0.5$ redshift bin, where the mean redshift
361: of our sample is 0.58. Since the luminosity scaling is not
362: necessarily constrained by our sample, we consider both $\beta=0.2$
363: and $\beta=0$ (i.e., no scaling) for $y=0.05$ and $y=0.01$. We
364: obtained,
365: \begin{equation}
366: R_{\rm x}=\sqrt{f_c}R_{\ast} = \left\{
367: \begin{array}{r@{~, \quad}l}
368: 64\mbox{ kpc} & y=0.05,~\beta=0 \\
369: 43\mbox{ kpc} & y=0.01,~\beta=0 \\
370: 88\mbox{ kpc} & y=0.05,~\beta=0.2 \\
371: 72\mbox{ kpc} & y=0.01,~\beta=0.2~.
372: \end{array}
373: \right.
374: \end{equation}
375:
376: By {\it direct fitting\/} of his sample, S95 empirically deduced
377: $R_{\ast}= 55$~kpc and inferred $f_c=1$, $\beta = 0.2$ and
378: $y=0.05$. Assuming $f_c=1$, $\beta = 0.2$ and $y=0.05$, we computed a
379: statistical covering fraction corrected absorber halo radius of
380: $R_{\ast}= 88$~kpc. The difference between the two values arises from
381: the different methods used to determine $R_{\ast}$; S95 applied a fit
382: to a known sample of {\MgII} absorption selected galaxies, whereas,
383: our values are directly computed from measured absorption and galaxy
384: statistics. Assuming $f_c$ less than unity would increase our computed
385: value of $R_{\ast}$, yielding a value even less consistent with that
386: of S95.
387:
388: In Figure~\ref{fig:ewd}$b$, the projected quasar--galaxy separation,
389: $D$, is plotted versus $L_B/L^{\ast}_B$. The mean impact parameter is
390: $\left<D\right>=53.2$~kpc which is close to the S95 halo size. The
391: dash--dot line is the halo radius, $R(L)$, from Eq.~\ref{eq:rl} using
392: $R_{\ast}=55$~kpc, $f_c=1$, and $\beta = 0.2$ found by S95. Three
393: non--absorbing galaxies reside below the $R(L)$ boundary and five
394: reside above. This is not necessarily inconsistent with S95, who found
395: two of 14 non--absorbing galaxies below the $R(L)$ boundary. However,
396: we find 16 $W_r(2796) \geq 0.3$~{\AA} absorbers that are outside the
397: $R(L)$ boundary by as much as 60~kpc. In the standard halo model,
398: galaxies above the $R(L)$ boundary are expected to not be associated
399: with $W_r(2796) \geq 0.3$~{\AA} absorption. The dash--dash line is
400: the halo radius, $R(L)$, from Eq.~\ref{eq:rl} using the parameters
401: $R_{\rm x}=88$~kpc, $f_c=1$, and $\beta = 0.2$. We find that five of
402: the eight non--absorbing galaxies lie below the $R(L)$ boundary. These
403: five galaxies are expected to be strong absorbing galaxies if they obey
404: the $R(L)$ relation. Also, there are three absorbing galaxies above
405: the $R(L)$ boundary.
406:
407: From Figure~\ref{fig:ewd}$b$ it would appear that the value of $\beta$
408: is not constrained for the B-band luminosities since non--absorbing
409: galaxies are both above and below $R(L)$ for both the
410: $R_{\ast}=55$~kpc deduced by S95 and our computed size of $R_{\rm
411: x}=88$~kpc. Assuming that there is no luminosity scaling, we explore
412: halo cross sections with $\beta=0$. In Figure~\ref{fig:l}$a$, we plot
413: $W_r(2796)$ versus $D$. The vertical line is the statistical absorber
414: radius, $R_{\rm x}=64$~kpc (where $D/R_{\rm x}=1$), for $\beta = 0$
415: and $y=0.05$. The top axis gives $D/R_{\rm x}$. Galaxies to the left
416: of the line are consistent with the computed statistical absorber
417: radius. Galaxies to the right of the line are inconsistent; if the
418: standard halo model applies these particular galaxies must have halos
419: with $f_c<1$. We find five of 29 galaxies at $D>R_{\rm x}$. If we
420: assume $y=0.01$ and $\beta=0$, we obtain $R_{\rm x}=43$~kpc and find
421: 16 galaxies reside at $D>R_{\rm x}$ and that four non--absorbing
422: galaxies are expected to have $W_r(2796) \geq 0.3$~{\AA} absorption.
423: Note that $R_{\rm x}$ is very sensitive to the choice of the
424: luminosity cutoff when $\beta = 0$. Larger $\beta$ suppresses the
425: faint end slope in Eq.~\ref{eq:dndz}, reducing the cross sectional
426: contribution of the lowest luminosity galaxies that dominate by
427: number.
428:
429:
430:
431:
432: \begin{figure*}
433: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.80]{f2.eps}
434: \caption{ (a) $W_r(2796)$ as a function $D$ (bottom axis) and
435: $D/R_{\rm x}$ (top axis). The solid line represents $R_{\rm x}=64$~kpc
436: for $\beta = 0$ and for a luminosity cutoff of 0.05$L_B^{\ast}$. ---
437: (b) $W_r(2796)$ as a function of $D/R(L_B)$. The dashed--dotted line
438: represents $R_{\ast}$=55~kpc and the dash--dash represents $R_{\rm
439: x}=88$~kpc using $\beta = 0.2$ and $y=0.05$.}
440: \label{fig:l}
441: \end{figure*}
442:
443: In Figure~\ref{fig:l}$b$, we plot $W_r(2796)$ versus $D/R(L)$. The
444: dash--dash line is $D/R(L)=1$ for $R_{\rm x}=88$~kpc, $\beta =0.2$ and
445: $y=0.05$. Again, three of 29 galaxies have $D/R(L)>1$ and five
446: non--absorbing galaxies have $D/R(L)<1$. If we assume $y=0.01$ and
447: $\beta=0.2$, we obtain $R_{\rm x}=72$~kpc, which increments the number
448: of galaxies at $D/R(L)>1$ to 7. If we apply $\beta=0.28$ from
449: \citet{gb97}, then $R_{\rm x}$ increases to 100~kpc (for $y=0.05$) and
450: only three absorbing galaxy lie above the $R(L)$ boundary. The dash--dot
451: line is the S95 result where $D/R(L)=1$ for $R_{\ast}=55$~kpc. It is
452: clear that there is a significant fraction of absorbing galaxies that
453: are not well represented by the standard halo model of S95, since it
454: is expected that spherically symmetric gas halos with unity covering
455: fraction would give rise to absorption exclusively at $D/R(L) \leq 1$.
456:
457:
458: \section{Discussion}
459: \label{sec:dis}
460:
461: Our sample of galaxies is not statistically complete, due to the
462: chosen method of searching for galaxies selected by {\MgII} absorption
463: \citep[see][]{cwc-china}. None the less, the data clearly support a
464: covering fraction less than unity, based upon the deduced statistical
465: absorber radius, $R_{\rm x}$, which is computed from the redshift path
466: density of the full population of {\MgII} absorbers.
467:
468: As seen in Figures~\ref{fig:l}$a$ and \ref{fig:l}$b$, a substantial
469: fraction of galaxies are found at impact parameters well beyond the
470: statistical absorber radius. The largest impact parameter in our
471: sample is $D_{\rm max} \simeq 105$~kpc. If we assume that the largest
472: impact parameter is a proxy for the true size of the covering fraction
473: corrected absorbing halo radius such that $R_{\ast}=D_{\rm max}$ then
474: we can compute a luminosity function weighted covering fraction where
475: $f_c =w_L(\beta, y)(105/R_{\rm x})^{-2}$. Assuming a lower galaxy
476: luminosity cutoff of $y=0.05$, we obtain $f_c = 0.37$ for $\beta=0$
477: and $f_c = 0.37$ for $\beta=0.2$. Assuming a lower luminosity cutoff
478: of $y=0.01$, we obtain $f_c = 0.17$ for $\beta=0$ and $f_c = 0.17$ for
479: $\beta=0.2$. These results are summerized in Table~1. Now with
480: $f_c<1$, the presence of eight non--absorbing galaxies within the
481: statistical halo radius, $R(L)$, is consistent with $R_{\ast} \simeq
482: 105$~kpc for $W_r(2796) \geq 0.3$~\AA.
483:
484: \begin{deluxetable*}{ccccccc}[htb]
485: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
486: \tablecolumns{7}
487: \tablewidth{0pt}
488: %\tablewidth{345pt}
489: \tablecaption{{\MgII} Halo Gas Convering Fractions\label{tab:table}}
490:
491: \tablehead{
492: \colhead{ } & &
493: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$y=0.05$} &&
494: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$y=0.01$} \\
495: \cline{3-4} \cline{6-7}
496: & & & && & \\[-1.5ex]
497: \colhead{No.\tablenotemark{ a}} &
498: \colhead{$f_c$} &
499: \colhead{$\beta=0$, $R_{\rm x}=64$~kpc} &
500: \colhead{$\beta=0.2$, $R_{\rm x}=88$~kpc} & &
501: \colhead{$\beta=0$, $R_{\rm x}=43$~kpc} &
502: \colhead{$\beta=0.2$, $R_{\rm x}=72$~kpc}
503: }
504: \startdata
505: 1.&$w_L(\beta, y)(105/R_{\rm x})^{-2}$ & 0.37 & 0.37 && 0.17 & 0.17\\
506: & & && & \\[-2.0ex]
507: 2.&$\left<D/R(L_B)\right>^{-2}$ & 0.52 & 0.79 && 0.58 & 0.63\\
508: & & && & \\[-2.0ex]
509: 3.&$(R_{\rm x}/55)^{-2}$ & 0.74 & 0.40 &&$ \cdots $\tablenotemark{ b} & 0.58\\
510: & & && & \\[-2.0ex]\hline
511: & & && & \\[-1.5ex]
512: & $\left<f_c\right>$ & 0.54 & 0.52 && 0.38 & 0.46\\[-6pt]
513: \enddata
514:
515: \tablenotetext{a}{The different methods for computed the covering
516: fractions: 1) -- The luminosity function weighted $f_c$, assuming
517: $R_{\ast}$ equal to the maximum impact parameter of $D_{\rm
518: max}=105$~kpc. 2) -- The average of the covering fractions for each
519: galaxy was computed for galaxies with impact parameters greater then
520: the statistical halo size. 3) -- The statistical halo size is assumed
521: to be 55~kpc (S95).}
522:
523: \tablenotetext{b}{Our sample of galaxies provide no constraint on the
524: covering fraction for $y=0.01$ and $\beta=0$.}
525: \end{deluxetable*}
526:
527: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
528:
529:
530:
531:
532: Using each galaxy from our sample, a conservative estimate of the
533: covering fraction is the mean of the upper limit on $f_c =
534: (D/R(L))^{-2}$. In a complete sample, each galaxy with $D>R(L)$ makes
535: a fractional contribution to reducing the gas covering fraction.
536: Galaxies with $D \leq R(L)$ provide no constraint. If our sample is
537: representative of a complete sample, we obtain $\left<f_c\right>=0.52$
538: ($y=0.05,\beta=0$), $\left<f_c\right>=0.79$ ($y=0.05,\beta=0.2$),
539: $\left<f_c\right>=0.58$ ($y=0.01, \beta=0$), and
540: $\left<f_c\right>=0.63$ ($y=0.01,\beta=0.2$).
541:
542: If we assume $R_{\ast}=55$~kpc of S95 is the true halo size we can
543: also compute the covering fractions such that $f_c = (R_{\rm
544: x}/R_{\ast})^{-2}$. We obtain $f_c = 0.40$ ($y=0.05,\beta=0.2$), $f_c
545: = 0.58$, ($y=0.01,\beta=0.2$), and $f_c = 0.74$ ($y=0.05,
546: \beta=0$). $R_{\ast}>R_{\rm x}$ for $y=0.01,\beta=0$ yields no
547: constraint on $f_c$. The results of the above computations of the
548: covering fractions are summarized in Table~1.
549:
550: From all the methods of estimating $f_c$, we obtain $\left<f_c\right>
551: \sim 0.5$ with a range of $0.17 \leq f_c \leq 0.80$. This is
552: consistent with $f_c=0.7-0.8$ deduced by \citet{cc96} from Monte Carlo
553: simulations of {\MgII} absorption selected galaxy surveys. Our
554: average $f_c$ is also consistent with the result of
555: \citet{tripp-china}\footnote{\citet{tripp-china} have a $W_r(2796)\sim
556: 0.1$~{\AA} (2$\sigma$) detection limit which translates to a
557: $W_r(2796)\sim 0.25$~{\AA} (5$\sigma$) detection limit as presented
558: here. We have removed all absorbers with $W_r(2796) < 0.25$~{\AA} in
559: order to compare our results at the same detection limit.} who find
560: $f_c \sim 0.55$ and higher than $f_c \sim 0.25$ determined by
561: \citet{bechtold92}. Also, \citet{cwc06} found a galaxy, probed well
562: within the $R(L)$ boundary, that exhibits no {\MgII} absorption to
563: $W_r(2796) \leq 7$~m{\AA}. All these results suggest $f_c<1$ for
564: {\MgII} absorbing gas with $W_r(2796) \geq 0.3$~{\AA}. Thus,
565: non--absorbing galaxies below the predicted halo size are expected.
566:
567: Although the data do not clearly support a halo size--luminosity
568: scaling, if we apply $f_c \sim 0.5$ such that the covering fraction
569: corrected absorbing halo radius is $R_{\ast}=1.41R_{\rm x}$, a
570: Holmberg--like luminosity relationship with $\beta \simeq 0.2$ is not
571: ruled out for both $y=0.05$ and $y=0.01$. We can further constrain
572: $f_c$, $R_{\ast}$, and $\beta$ with a maximum likelihood fit that
573: satisfies the distribution of impact parameters and luminosities of
574: our sample. In this analysis, $R_{\ast}=\sqrt{f_c}R_{\rm x}$ is a
575: function of $\beta$ as constrained by $dN/dz$. First, we assume that
576: all absorbing galaxies must reside below the $R(L)$ boundary. For
577: $y=0.05$, we find an upper limit of $f_c \leq 0.4$ for a range of $
578: 0.02 \leq \beta \leq 0.24$ with $105 \leq R_{\ast} \leq 150$~kpc,
579: respectively. For lower covering fractions, the allowed ranges of
580: $\beta$ and $R_{\ast}$ increase. For $y=0.01$, we find $f_c \leq 0.2$
581: for $ 0.04 \leq \beta \leq 0.66$ with $110 \leq R_{\ast} \leq
582: 290$~kpc, respectively . If we relax the condition such that one to
583: three absorption selected galaxies may reside above the $R(L)$
584: boundary, which could account for errors in the luminosities and/or
585: our finite sample, then the allowed ranges of $f_c$, $R_{\ast}$ and
586: $\beta$ increase. For these cases with $y=0.05$, we find an upper
587: limit of $f_c \leq 0.7$ for $ 0.18 \leq \beta \leq 0.58$ with $80 \leq
588: R_{\ast} \leq 150$~kpc, respectively. Thus, our sample is consistent
589: with a Holmberg--like luminosity relationship in the case $f_c \la
590: 0.5$.
591:
592:
593: A central issue to this discussion is whether there is a fundamental
594: physical difference between the halos of non--absorbing (weak) and
595: absorbing galaxies or whether the difference in $W_r(2796)$ arise
596: only from a chance intersection of the quasar line of sight through a
597: single gas cloud or a gas cloud complex in these halos. Even if weak
598: $W_r(2796) < 0.3$~{\AA} systems are similar to strong systems, and
599: differ only by the number of clouds intersected along the quasar line
600: of sight, our arguments for constraining the halo gas covering
601: fraction for $W_r(2796) \geq 0.3$~{\AA} still hold.
602:
603: Strong absorbers are typically characterized by a dominant and blended
604: subsystem and accompanied by significantly weaker subsystems at
605: relative velocities ranging from $\sim 40$ to $100$~km~s$^{-1}$
606: \citep{cv01}. In fact, there may be different physical processes
607: governing the $W_r(2796)$ distribution of weak absorption associated
608: with strong absorbers and the general population of weak
609: absorbers. \citet{weakI} determined that the number density of the
610: general population of weak systems increase as $W_r(2796)$ decreases
611: down to 0.02~\AA. Whereas, the {\MgII} equivalent width distribution
612: of intermediate-- and high--velocity subsystems in strong absorbers
613: turns over below $W_r(2796)\sim0.08$~{\AA} \citep[][]{cv01,mshar07}.
614: These facts suggest that lines of sight through galaxy halos often
615: probe a dominant, more massive structure surrounded by smaller
616: fragments of gas; a scenario consistent with patchy halos, in which
617: some lines of sight near galaxies would be expected to probe only
618: $W_r(2796)\ga 0.08$~{\AA} weak absorption.
619:
620: There is also the possibility that some of the galaxies in our sample
621: having redshifts consistent with those of the {\MgII} absorbers may
622: not be the primary structure responsible for the absorption. In some
623: cases there could be a faint unidentified galaxy located directly in
624: front of the quasar that cannot be identified even with careful
625: point--spread subtraction of the quasar \citep[see][]{s97}. Thus, our
626: estimated values of $f_c$ and $R_{\ast}$ could be slightly skewed
627: toward smaller and larger values, respectively. It is difficult to
628: quantify this affect since such putative faint galaxies could actually
629: be companions to the galaxies in our sample.
630:
631: \section{Conclusions}
632: \label{sec:conclusion}
633:
634: In conclusion, the gas covering fraction must be less than unity since
635: the observed impact parameter distribution of absorbing galaxies does
636: not fall exclusively within the statistical absorber halo radius in
637: the range of $43 \leq R_{\rm x}\leq 88$~kpc. The fact that some
638: absorbing galaxies are found at $D>R_{\rm x}$ and some non--absorbing
639: galaxies are found at $D<R_{\rm x}$ implies $f_c < 1$ and that the
640: standard halo model cannot describe halos on a case by case
641: basis. This highlights the power of using the statistics of absorption
642: line surveys to constrain the properties of halos in relation to the
643: measured distributions in absorption selected galaxy surveys.
644:
645: By quantifying how individual galaxy halos deviate from a ``standard''
646: halo, we have obtained an average gas covering fraction of $\left< f_c
647: \right> \sim 0.5$. It is possible that $f_c$ exhibits both a radial
648: and an equivalent width dependence, though we cannot address this with
649: our sample. Values of $f_c$ are likely to depend on galaxy star
650: formation rates, and galaxy--galaxy mergers and harassment histories;
651: processes that give rise to patchy and geometrically asymmetric gas
652: distributions. Alternatively, the absorption properties of
653: intermediate redshift halos may be governed by the dark matter over
654: density, $\Delta \rho /\rho$, and redshifts at which the galaxies
655: formed \citep{cwc06}.
656:
657: Our results also show that, if $f_c<1$, the sizes of {\MgII} absorbing
658: halos can still follow a Holmberg--like luminosity relation with
659: $\beta$ in the range of $0.2-0.28$ \citep[S95;][]{gb97}, which
660: corresponds to $R_{\ast}\sim 110$~kpc. If $\beta=0$ is assumed, then
661: $f_c \leq 0.37$ for our sample to be consistent with no luminosity
662: scaling. In semi--analytical models in which {\MgII} absorbing gas is
663: infalling and is pressure confined within the cooling radius of hot
664: halos \citep[e.g.,][]{mo96,burkert00,lin00,maller04}, a Holmberg--like
665: luminosity relation in quasar absorption line systems naturally arises
666: \citep{mo96}. However, these models have great difficulty explaining
667: {\MgII} absorption at impact parameters greater than $\sim 70$~kpc.
668: If on the other hand halo gas spatial distributions are governed by
669: stochastic mechanical processes, as suggested by \citet{kacprzak07},
670: then there is no {\it a priori} reason to expect a clean halo--size
671: luminosity scaling. It is likely that some combination of these
672: scenarios contribute to the statistical values of $f_c$ and
673: $\beta$. Thus, it is reasonable to suggest that {\MgII} halos sizes
674: may not be strictly coupled to the host galaxy luminosity.
675:
676: Further work on the cross--correlations between absorbers and galaxies
677: would provide better estimates of $f_c$ and $\beta$, two quantities
678: that provide direct constraints of galaxy formation simulations. Also
679: needed are additional constrains on the relative kinematics of the
680: absorbing halo gas and galaxies
681: \citep[e.g.,][]{s02,ellison03,kacprzak07b}. What is required is the
682: development of techniques to quantitatively compare observational data
683: with mock quasar absorption line analysis of simulated galaxy halos
684: \citep{cwcaas06}.
685:
686: \acknowledgments Partial support from program \#10644 which was
687: provided by NASA through a grant from the Space Telescope Science
688: Institute. Partial support for G.G.K was also provided by Sigma--Xi
689: Grants in Aid of Research. G.G.K thanks NMSU for funding from the
690: Graduate Student Enhancement Grant. M.T.M thanks PPARC for and
691: Advanced Fellowship. We thank Hsiao-Wen Chen for discussions
692: regarding k-corrections. We also thank the anonymous referee for
693: insightful comments. Some of the data presented herein are based on
694: observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained
695: from the data archive at the Space Telescope Institute. STScI is
696: operated by the association of Universities for Research in Astronomy,
697: Inc. under the NASA contract NAS 5-26555. Some spectroscopic data
698: were obtained at the W.M. Keck Observatory, which is operated as a
699: scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology,
700: the University of California and NASA. The Observatory was made
701: possible by the generous financial support of the W.M. Keck
702: Foundation. Additional spectroscopic data are based on observations
703: made with European Southern Observatory Very Large Telescope at the
704: Paranal Observatories under various programs.
705:
706: %% Included in this acknowledgments section are examples of the
707: %% AASTeX hypertext markup commands. Use \url without the optional [HREF]
708: %% argument when you want to print the url directly in the text. Otherwise,
709: %% use either \url or \anchor, with the HREF as the first argument and the
710: %% text to be printed in the second.
711:
712: %doing the math in section~\ref{bozomath}.
713: %More information on the AASTeX macros package is available \\ at
714: %\url{http://www.aas.org/publications/aastex}.
715: %For technical support, please write to
716: %\email{aastex-help@aas.org}.
717:
718: %% To help institutions obtain information on the effectiveness of their
719: %% telescopes, the AAS Journals has created a group of keywords for telescope
720: %% facilities. A common set of keywords will make these types of searches
721: %% significantly easier and more accurate. In addition, they will also be
722: %% useful in linking papers together which utilize the same telescopes
723: %% within the framework of the National Virtual Observatory.
724: %% See the AASTeX Web site at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX
725: %% for information on obtaining the facility keywords.
726:
727: %% After the acknowledgments section, use the following syntax and the
728: %% \facility{} macro to list the keywords of facilities used in the research
729: %% for the paper. Each keyword will be checked against the master list during
730: %% copy editing. Individual instruments or configurations can be provided
731: %% in parentheses, after the keyword, but they will not be verified.
732:
733: {\it Facilities:} \facility{HST (WFPC--2)}, \facility{Keck I (HIRES)},
734: \facility{VLT (UVES)}.
735:
736: \begin{thebibliography}{}
737:
738: \bibitem[Bergeron \& Boiss\'{e}(1991)]{bb91}
739: Bergeron, J., \& Boiss\'{e}, P. 1991, A\&A, 243, 334
740:
741: \bibitem[Bechtold \& Ellingson(1992)]{bechtold92}
742: Bechtold, J., \& Ellingson, E.\ 1992, \apj, 396, 20
743:
744: \bibitem[Bowen et al.(1995)]{bowen95}
745: Bowen, D.~V., Blades, J.~C., \& Pettini, M.\ 1995, \apj, 448, 634
746:
747: \bibitem[Burkert \& Lin(2000)]{burkert00}
748: Burkert, A., \& Lin, D.~N.~C.\ 2000, \apj, 537, 270
749:
750: \bibitem[Charlton \& Churchill(1996)]{cc96}
751: Charlton, J.~C., \& Churchill, C.~W. 1996, ApJ, 465, 631
752:
753: \bibitem[Churchill {\etal}(2006)]{cwcaas06}
754: Churchill, C.~W., Kacprzak, G., Ceverino, D., Evans, J., \& Widhalm, A.\ 2006, BAAS, 38, 998
755:
756: \bibitem[Churchill, Kacprzak, \& Steidel(2005)]{cwc-china}
757: Churchill, C. W., Kacprzak, G. G., \& Steidel, C. C. 2005, in {\it
758: Probing Galaxies through Quasar Absorption Lines}, IAU 199
759: Proceedings, eds.\ P. R. Williams, C.--G. Shu, \& B. M\'{e}nard
760: (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p.\ 24
761:
762: \bibitem[Churchill {\etal}(2007)]{cwc06}
763: Churchill, C. W., Kacprzak, G. G., Steidel, C. C. \& Evans, J. L. 2007, ApJ, 661, 714
764:
765: \bibitem[Churchill {\etal}(1999)]{weakI}
766: Churchill, C. W., Rigby, J. R., Charlton, J. C., \& Vogt, S. S. 1999, ApJS, 120, 51
767:
768: \bibitem[Churchill \& Vogt(2001)]{cv01}
769: Churchill, C.~W., \& Vogt, S.~S.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 679
770:
771: \bibitem[Dekker {\etal}(2000)]{dekker00}
772: Dekker, H., D'Odorico, S., Kaufer, A. Delabre, B. \& Kotzlowski H. 2000, SPIE, 4008, 534
773:
774: \bibitem[Drory {\etal}(2003)]{drory03}
775: Drory, N., Bender, R., Feulner, G., Hopp, U., Maraston, C., Snigula, J., \& Hill, G.~J.\ 2003,
776: \apj, 595, 698
777:
778: \bibitem[Ellison {\etal}(2003)]{ellison03}
779: Ellison, S.~L., Mall{\'e}n-Ornelas, G., \& Sawicki, M.\ 2003, \apj, 589, 709
780:
781: \bibitem[Faber {\etal}(2007)]{faber05}
782: Faber, S.~M., {\etal} 2007, \apj, 665, 265
783:
784: \bibitem[Fukugita, Shimasaku, \& Ichikawa(1995)]{fukugita95}
785: Fukugita, M., Shimasaku, K., \& Ichikawa, T. 1995, PASP, 107, 945
786:
787: \bibitem[Guillemin \& Bergeron(1997)]{gb97}
788: Guillemin p., \& Bergeron, J. 1997, A\&A, 328, 499
789:
790: \bibitem[Kacprzak {\etal}(2007a)]{kacprzak07}
791: Kacprzak, G. G., Churchill, C. W., Steidel, C. C., Murphy, M. T., \& Evans, J. L. 2007a, ApJ, 662, 909
792:
793: \bibitem[Kacprzak {\etal}(2007b)]{kacprzak07b}
794: Kacprzak, G. G., Churchill, C. W., Steidel, C. C., \& Murphy, M. T. 2007b, in prep
795:
796: \bibitem[Kaufmann {\etal}(2006)]{kaufmann06}
797: Kaufmann, T., Mayer, L., Wadsley, J., Stadel, J., \& Moore, B.\ 2006, \mnras, 370, 1612
798:
799: \bibitem[Kim, Goobar, \& Perlmutter(1996)]{kim96}
800: Kim, A., Goobar, A., \& Perlmutter, S. 1996, PASP, 108, 190
801:
802: \bibitem[Kinney {\etal}(1996)]{kinney96}
803: Kinney, A. L., Calzetti, D., Bohlin, R. C., McQuade, K.,
804: Storchi--Bergmann, T. \& Schmitt, H. R. 1996, ApJ, 467, 38
805:
806: \bibitem[Lanzetta {\etal}(1995)]{lanzetta95}
807: Lanzetta, K.~M., Bowen, D.~V., Tytler, D., \& Webb, J.~K. 1995, ApJ,
808: 442, 538
809:
810: \bibitem[Lin \& Murray(2000)]{lin00}
811: Lin, D.~N.~C., \& Murray, S.~D.\ 2000, \apj, 540, 170
812:
813: \bibitem[Lin \& Zou(2001)]{lin01}
814: Lin, W.-P., \& Zou, Z.-L.\ 2001, ChJAA, 1, 21
815:
816: \bibitem[Maller \& Bullock(2004)]{maller04}
817: Maller, A.~H., \& Bullock, J.~S.\ 2004, \mnras, 355, 694
818:
819: \bibitem[Mo \& Mao(2002)]{mo02}
820: Mo, H.~J., \& Mao, S. 2002, MNRAS, 333, 768
821:
822: \bibitem[Mo \& Miralda-Escude(1996)]{mo96}
823: Mo, H.~J., \& Miralda-Escude, J.\ 1996, \apj, 469, 589
824:
825: \bibitem[Mshar {\etal}(2007)]{mshar07}
826: Mshar, A.~C., Charlton, J.~C., Lynch, R.~S., Churchill, C., \& Kim, T.-S.\ 2007, Astro-ph/0706.0515
827:
828: \bibitem[Nestor {\etal}(2005)]{nestor05}
829: Nestor, D.~B., Turnshek, D.~A., \& Rao, S.~M.\ 2005, ApJ, 628, 637
830:
831: \bibitem[Steidel(1995)]{steidel95}
832: Steidel, C. C. 1995, in QSO Absorption Lines, ed.\ G. Meylan, (Springer--verlag: Berlin
833: Heidelberg), p.\ 139
834:
835: \bibitem[Steidel {\etal}(1997)]{s97}
836: Steidel, C. C., Dickinson, M., Meyer, D. M., Adelberger, K. L., \&
837: Sembach, K. R. 1997, ApJ, 480, 586
838:
839: \bibitem[Steidel, Dickinson, \& Persson(1994)]{sdp94}
840: Steidel, C. C., Dickinson, M., \& Persson, S. E. 1994, ApJ, 437, L75
841:
842: \bibitem[Steidel {\etal}(2002)]{s02}
843: Steidel, C.~C., Kollmeier, J.~A., Shapley, A.~E., Churchill, C.~W., Dickinson, M., \&
844: Pettini, M.\ 2002, \apj, 570, 526
845:
846: \bibitem[Tripp \& Bowen(2005)]{tripp-china}
847: Tripp, T. M., \& Bowen, D. V. 2005, in {\it Probing Galaxies through
848: Quasar Absorption Lines}, IAU 199 Proceedings, eds.\ P. R. Williams,
849: C.--G. Shu, \& B. M\'{e}nard (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press),
850: p.\ 5
851:
852: \bibitem[Vogt {\etal}(1994)]{vogt94}
853: Vogt, S. S., {\etal} 1994, SPIE, 2198, 362
854:
855: \bibitem[White \& Rees(1978)]{white78}
856: White, S.~D.~M., \& Rees, M.~J.\ 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341
857:
858: \bibitem[Zibetti {\etal}(2007)]{zibetti06}
859: Zibetti, S., M{\'e}nard, B., Nestor, D.~B., Quider, A.~M., Rao, S.~M., \& Turnshek,
860: D.~A.\ 2007, \apj, 658, 161
861:
862:
863: \end{thebibliography}
864:
865:
866:
867: \end{document}
868:
869: