1: % edited by Ying Zu on 12/06/2008
2:
3: % edited by Ying Zu on 06/06/2008
4:
5: % edited by Zheng Zheng on 06/06/2008
6:
7: % edited by Ying Zu on 27/05/2008
8:
9:
10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
11: %% %%
12: %% Environmental Effects On Galaxy Clustering %%
13: %% %%
14: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
15: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{emulateapj}
16: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
17: \usepackage{color}
18: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
19: \shorttitle{Environmental Effects on Galaxy Clustering}
20: \shortauthors{Zu et al.}
21: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%MACRO%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
22: %% User-defined Macros
23: \def\xizr{\xi_{0/R}}
24: \def\xiqp{\xi_2/(\xi_0-\bar{\xi}_0)}
25: \def\xiQp{Q_\xi}
26: \def\rhalf{r_{\xi/2}}
27: \def\hMsun{h^{-1}M_\odot}
28: \def\hMpc{h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}}
29: \def\Mvir{M_{\rm vir}}
30: \def\rvec{{\bf r}}
31: \def\xvec{{\bf x}}
32: \def\la{\langle}
33: \def\ra{\rangle}
34: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
35: %% Comments by authoers
36: \def\zy#1{{\bf [{\textcolor{blue}{ZY: #1}}]}}
37: \def\zz#1{{\bf [{\textcolor{green}{ZZ: #1}}]}}
38:
39: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
40: \begin{document}
41: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%TITLE%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
42: \title{Environmental Effects on Real-Space and Redshift-Space Galaxy Clustering}
43: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%AUTHORS%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
44: \author{
45: Ying Zu\altaffilmark{1,2},
46: Zheng Zheng\altaffilmark{3,4,5},
47: Guangtun Zhu\altaffilmark{1,6},
48: and Y.P. Jing\altaffilmark{1}
49: }
50: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%AFFILIATIONS%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
51:
52: \altaffiltext{1}{Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, Joint Institute for Galaxy and Cosmology
53: (JOINGC) of SHAO and USTC, Nandan Road 80, Shanghai, 200030, China; nye@shao.ac.cn ;
54: ypjing@shao.ac.cn.}
55: \altaffiltext{2}{Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, 19A, Yuquan Road, Beijing, China}
56: \altaffiltext{3}{Institute for Advanced Study, Einstein Drive,
57: Princeton, NJ 08540; zhengz@ias.edu. }
58: \altaffiltext{4}{Hubble Fellow.}
59: \altaffiltext{5}{John Bahcall Fellow.}
60: \altaffiltext{6}{Center
61: for Cosmology and Particle Physics, New York University, New York, NY10003, USA; gz323@nyu.edu.
62: }
63:
64: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
65: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
66: \begin{abstract}
67:
68: Galaxy formation inside dark matter halos, as well as the halo formation itself, can be affected
69: by large-scale environments. Evaluating the imprints of environmental effects on galaxy
70: clustering is crucial for precise cosmological constraints with data from galaxy redshift
71: surveys. We investigate such an environmental impact on both real-space and redshift-space
72: galaxy clustering statistics using a semi-analytic model (SAM) derived from the Millennium
73: Simulation. We compare clustering statistics from original SAM galaxy samples and shuffled ones
74: with environmental influence on galaxy properties eliminated. Among the luminosity-threshold
75: samples examined, the one with the lowest threshold luminosity ($\sim 0.2L_*$) is affected by
76: environmental effects the most, which has a $\sim$10\% decrease in the real-space two-point
77: correlation function~(2PCF) after shuffling. By decomposing the 2PCF into five different
78: components based on the source of pairs, we show that the change in the 2PCF can be explained by
79: the age and richness (galaxy occupation number) dependence of halo clustering. The 2PCFs in
80: redshift space are found to change in a similar manner after shuffling. If the environmental
81: effects are neglected, halo occupation distribution modeling of the real-space and
82: redshift-space clustering may have a less than 6.5\% systematic uncertainty in constraining
83: $\sigma_{8}\Omega_{m}^{0.6}$ from the most affected SAM sample and have substantially smaller
84: uncertainties from the other, more luminous samples. We argue that the effect could be even
85: smaller in reality. In the Appendix, we present a method to decompose the 2PCF, which can be
86: applied to measure the two-point auto-correlation functions of galaxy sub-samples in a
87: volume-limited galaxy sample and their two-point cross-correlation functions in a single run
88: utilizing only one random catalog.
89:
90: \end{abstract}
91:
92: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%KEYWORDS%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
93: \keywords{galaxies: formation --- galaxies: halos --- large-scale structure of universe ---
94: cosmology: theory --- dark matter}
95:
96: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
97: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
98: \section{Introduction}
99:
100: Recently, many authors have identified the environmental impact, which manifests itself as another
101: degree of freedom, on the clustering of halos at fixed mass. \cite{GSW05} found that low mass
102: halos ($M<M_{\ast}$) which formed earlier are more strongly clustered than their younger
103: counterparts; whilst for high mass halos, older halos with $M>10M_{\ast}$ turn out to be less
104: clustered than the younger ones (\citealt{Wechsler06,JSM07,Wetzel07}), where $M_{\ast}$ is the
105: nonlinear mass scale for collapse. This environmental dependence of halo clustering, namely
106: ``assembly bias'' (\citealt{GW07}), contradicts with excursion set theory (EST;
107: \citealt{Bond91,LC93,MW96}) which predicts that an individual halo evolves without awareness of
108: the larger environment except for its own mass when it is {\it observed} \citep{White96}. In this
109: paper, we investigate the effect of the halo assembly bias on modeling the real-space and
110: redshift-space galaxy clustering statistics and discuss the possible consequence on cosmological
111: parameter constraints from these clustering statistics.
112:
113: Several possible explanations are proposed to decode halo assembly bias by either studying
114: detailed halo growth within high-resolution $N$-body simulations or by improving current excursion
115: set theory. \cite{Wang07} showed that the accretion of low mass halos in dense regions is severely
116: truncated due to tidal disruption and preheating by their massive companions, and \cite{JSM07}
117: suggested that the competition for accretion resources also triggers a delayed accretion phase
118: which results in the inverse age-dependence of massive halos, while \citet{Keselman07} argued that
119: highly non-linear effects like tidal stripping may not be the main driver for assembly bias. On
120: the other hand, \cite{Zetner06} implemented a toy model by substituting the sharp-$k$ filter in
121: EST with a localized configuration one, and \cite{Sandvik07} integrated EST with ellipsoidal
122: collapse model and barrier-crossing of pancakes and filaments. Both theoretical trials claimed
123: that the assembly bias for massive halos could be naturally recovered, at least partly offset, by
124: deserting Markovian simplification in EST. Recently, \citet{Dalal08} showed that the assembly bias
125: of rare massive halos is expected from the statistics of peaks in Gaussian random fields, and they
126: argued that the formation of a non-accreting sub-population of low-mass halos is responsible for
127: the assembly bias of low mass halos (also see \citealt{Hahn08}).
128:
129: As the products of gas physics within dark matter halos, galaxies have no reason to be immune from
130: this environmental effect. \cite{Croton07} and \cite{Zhu06} showed that environmental effect is
131: transmitted to the clustering and properties of galaxies in semi-analytic model (SAM) and smoothed
132: particle hydrodynamics~(SPH) simulation, both of which extract halo merging histories directly
133: from simulations rather than Markovian process. Observationally, \cite{YMB06} and \cite{Berlind06}
134: found a residual dependence of galaxy clustering on group properties other than group mass by
135: using group catalog from the Two-Degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey (2dFGRS; \citealt{Colless01})
136: and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; \citealt{York00}), respectively.
137:
138: In modeling the galaxy clustering, the halo occupation distribution~(HOD) or the closely related
139: conditional luminosity function (CLF) is a powerful method to put the observed galaxy clustering
140: in an informative form of describing the relation between galaxies and dark matter halos
141: (\citealt{JMB98,Seljak00,PS00,Scoccimarro01,CS02,BW02,Yang03,Zheng05}). It successfully explains
142: the departure from a power-law in the observed galaxy two-point correlation functions
143: (\citealt{Zehavi05}) and bridges the gap between high-resolution $N$-body simulations of dark
144: matter particles and large scale surveys of galaxies. HOD modeling also enhances the power of
145: galaxy clustering on constraining cosmological parameters by linking galaxies to dark matter halos
146: and using the clustering data on all scales (\citealt{Bosch03,Abazajian05,Zheng07}). However, one
147: key assumption in the current version of the HOD is based on the EST that the formation and the
148: distribution of galaxies within halos are {\it statistically} determined solely by halo mass.
149: Therefore, it is important to quantify the environmental effect on modeling galaxy clustering
150: within the HOD framework in the era of precision cosmology and provide insights to improve the HOD
151: modeling.
152:
153: A natural way to study the environmental effect is to extend the current HOD framework by
154: including a second halo variable other than halo mass and compare the modeling results with
155: previous results. Many candidates of halo variables, such as formation time, concentration,
156: substructure richness, and spin, have been scrutinized but all were proved incapable of capturing
157: environmental effect neatly and completely (\citealt{GW07,Wechsler06}). One of the reasons for
158: this is that halo formation history is subject to incidental merging events and uneven accretion
159: phases, both of which produce a large scatter in the relation between any halo property and the
160: environment (\citealt{Wechsler02,Zhao03}).
161:
162: In the present study, we shuffle a semi-analytic galaxy sample to produce three sets of artificial
163: samples, which either partly or completely lost their environmental features, and investigate the
164: changes in real-space and redshift-space galaxy clustering statistics. The shuffling would enable
165: us to see the consequences of neglecting the environmental dependence in the current version of
166: HOD modeling and give us ideas of the effect on constraining cosmological parameters using these
167: statistics (e.g., \citealt{Tinker06}). The structure of the paper is as follows. In \S~2, we
168: introduce the simulation and the SAM model we use and describe our construction of galaxy samples
169: with different threshold luminosities from the SAM. In \S~3, we present three methods of shuffling
170: the galaxy samples aimed to eliminate the environmental dependence. Then, in \S~4, we analyze in
171: detail the effect of environments on the real-space two-point correlation functions (2PCFs) by
172: comparing the results between samples before and after shuffling. In \S~5, we study the effect of
173: environments on the redshift-space clustering statistics. We conclude in \S~6 with a brief
174: discussion and summary. In the Appendix, we present a method to decompose the 2PCFs into different
175: components based on the properties of galaxy pairs. This method can be generalized to apply to
176: real data to measure the two-point auto-correlation functions of galaxy sub-samples in a
177: volume-limited galaxy sample and their two-point cross-correlation functions in a single run
178: utilizing only one random catalog.
179:
180: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
181: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
182: \section{Simulation Data and Semi-Analytic Model}
183:
184: In this study, we make use of outputs from a galaxy formation model based on the Millennium
185: Simulation. The Millennium Simulation \citep{Springel05} follows the hierarchical growth of dark
186: matter structures from redshift $z=127$ to the present. The simulation adopts a concordance
187: cosmological model with ($\Omega_{m}$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}$, $\Omega_{b}$, $\sigma_{8}$, $h$)=(0.25,
188: 0.75, 0.045, 0.9, 0.73), and employs 2160$^{3}$ particles of mass $8.6\times 10^{8} \hMsun$ in a
189: periodic box with comoving size 500~$\hMpc$ on a side. Friends-Of-Friends (FOF; \citealt{Davis85})
190: halos are identified in the simulation at each of the $64$ snapshots with a linking length 0.2
191: times the mean particle separation. Substructures are then identified by SUBFIND algorithm as
192: locally overdense regions in the background FOF halos \citep{Springel01}. Detailed merger trees of
193: all gravitationally self-bound dark matter clumps constructed from this simulation provide a key
194: ingredient for semi-analytic models of galaxy formation.
195:
196: The galaxy catalog we use is from the semi-analytic model (SAM) of \cite{DB07}, which is an
197: updated version of that of \cite{Croton06} and \cite{DeLucia06}. This model explores a variety of
198: physical processes related to galaxy formation. It can reproduce many observed properties of
199: galaxies in the local universe, including the galaxy luminosity function, the bimodal distribution
200: of colors, the Tully-Fisher relation, the morphology distribution, and the 2PCFs for various type
201: and luminosity selected samples. This particular model is of course not guaranteed to be
202: absolutely right. What is important to our study here is that the environment-dependent
203: ingredients inherent in this model, such as the history of dynamical interactions and mergers of
204: halos, should be well transmitted to and preserved in the resultant galaxy population. We aim to
205: investigate the likely effects of the environmental dependence in this model on galaxy clustering
206: statistics in real space and redshift space and explore the implications for cosmological study
207: with galaxy clustering data.
208:
209: We construct six luminosity-threshold galaxy samples at $z=0$ from the SAM catalog according to
210: the restframe SDSS $r$-band absolute magnitude $M_{r}$ with dust extinction included.
211: Table~\ref{tab:tab1} lists the properties of these samples. Our L207 sample has a number density
212: similar to the observed $L>L_{*}$ sample (see Table~2 of \citealt{Zehavi05}). Since more luminous
213: galaxies tend to reside in more massive halos (e.g., \citealt{Zehavi05}), these six samples can
214: probe different halo mass ranges (from mass below $M_*$ to that above $M_*$). The halo assembly
215: bias has different amplitudes and signs across these mass ranges (e.g., \citealt{GSW05,GW07,
216: Wechsler06,JSM07}), we therefore expect different environmental effects from the six samples.
217:
218: \begin{deluxetable}{cccrr}
219: \tablewidth{0pt}
220: \tablecolumns{5}
221: \tablecaption{\label{tab:tab1}
222: Properties of the Luminosity-threshold Samples
223: }
224: \tablehead{
225: Name & $M_{r}^{\rm max}$ & $\bar{n}$ ($10^{-2}h^3{\rm Mpc}^{-3}$) & N$_{\rm gal}$ & N$_{\rm halo}$
226: }
227: \startdata
228: L190 & -19.0 & 1.835 & 2293947 & 1661007\\
229: L200 & -20.0 & 0.771 & 963452 & 730330\\
230: L207 & -20.7 & 0.293 & 365845 & 289226\\
231: L210 & -21.0 & 0.167 & 209206 & 169864\\
232: L217 & -21.7 & 0.032 & 39402 & 34129\\
233: L220 & -22.0 & 0.013 & 16084 & 14148\\
234: \enddata
235: \end{deluxetable}
236:
237: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
238: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
239: \section{Shuffling Schemes}
240:
241: Our purpose in this paper is to study the impact of environmental dependence on the HOD modeling
242: of real-space and redshift-space clustering statistics. Besides the six galaxy samples from the
243: SAM, for comparison we also need galaxy samples with the environmental dependence eliminated.
244: Following \cite{Croton07}, we construct such control samples from the original SAM catalog by
245: shuffling galaxy contents in halos of similar masses. We produce three sets of control samples
246: based on three shuffling schemes described below.
247:
248: We first group all the FOF dark matter halos at $z=0$ with $\Mvir$ larger than $5.5 \times
249: 10^{10}\hMsun$ in the catalog into different mass bins of width $\Delta\log[\Mvir/(\hMsun)]=0.1$.
250: Then we record the relative positions and velocities of all the satellites to their affiliated
251: central galaxies, whose positions and velocities are set to those of their host halos in the SAM.
252: Finally, we redistribute the galaxies within individual halo mass bins. The three sets of our
253: control samples (hereafter CTL1, CTL2 and CTL3, respectively) differ in the way how galaxies are
254: re-distributed.
255:
256: For CTL1, we follow the scheme of \cite{Croton07} to keep the original configuration of galaxies
257: inside each halo intact and move the galaxy content to its new host as a whole. In this way, the
258: one-halo term contribution to the galaxy clustering statistics is almost unchanged. In order to
259: compensate for the non-zero mass bin effect in the shuffling, we scale the recorded relative
260: position and velocity of each galaxy by $(M_{\rm new}/M_{\rm old})^{1/3}$ in order to redistribute
261: the galaxies in the original halo of mass $M_{\rm old}$ to the new host halo of mass $M_{\rm
262: new}$. This improvement ensures that the position of shuffled galaxy content be regulated by the
263: virial radius of new host halos.
264:
265: For CTL2, we collect the distance $r$ to the halo center and the velocity $v$ relative to the halo
266: center for all the satellite galaxies that belong to halos in the same mass bin. Then a pair of
267: $r$ and $v$ are randomly drawn from the sets and assigned to a galaxy. This galaxy is put into a
268: randomly selected halo in that mass bin with random orientations for both ${\bf r}$ and ${\bf v}$
269: [with the $(M_{\rm new}/M_{\rm old})^{1/3}$ scaling applied]. For central galaxies, they are
270: randomly assigned to halos of the same mass bin. This shuffling procedure assumes a mean radial
271: galaxy number density profile for all halos in the same mass bin and completely eliminates any
272: environmental features in the galaxy distribution inside halos, including the alignment and
273: segregation of satellites, the non-spherical shape of halos, the infall pattern of satellite
274: velocity distribution, and any correlation between central and satellite galaxies (e.g., in
275: luminosity). CTL2 would allow us to infer the largest effect that environment may have on galaxy
276: clustering statistics for the given SAM.
277:
278: In addition to CTL1 and CTL2, we construct another set of samples (CTL3) by isotropizing satellites
279: inside their own halo without shuffling contents between different halos. In this way, the radial
280: distribution of galaxies in each individual halo is conserved, but the statistical angular
281: distribution loses the anisotropy. CTL3 allows us to isolate the effect of assuming spherical
282: symmetry for the satellite distribution in modeling 2PCFs. Although CTL2 also isotropizes the
283: satellite distribution inside halos, it effectively uses a radial distribution averaged over
284: halos of similar masses. Therefore, comparing CTL3 and CTL2 would show the effect of the
285: scatter in the distributions of satellites in halos of similar masses.
286:
287: For each of the CTL1, CTL2, and CTL3 shuffling schemes, we create 10 different galaxy catalogs
288: varying the random seed. We extract the 6 control luminosity-threshold samples from each
289: shuffled catalog in accordance with the above L190, L200, L207, L210, L217 and L220 samples of
290: the SAM. To prevent
291: numerical effects from mixing with the physical effects we are to ascertain, we have performed
292: tests by reducing the size of halo mass bins or leaving several most massive bins unshuffled and
293: find that our choice of the bin size does not introduce noticeable numerical effect.
294:
295: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
296: \begin{figure}
297: \epsscale{1.1} \plotone{f1.eps}
298: \caption{The comparison of 2PCFs between SAM and shuffled samples for three different luminosity
299: thresholds. The lower part of each panel gives the ratio of the 2PCFs of the shuffled and the
300: original SAM samples. Solid lines are the 2PCFs for SAM samples, while dashed, dot-dashed, and
301: dotted lines are those for the CTL1, the CTL2 and the CTL3 shuffled samples, respectively.
302: See the text. The (small) error bars reflect the scatter from the 10 realizations for each
303: shuffled sample. }
304: \label{bias}
305: \end{figure}
306: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
307:
308: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
309: \section{Environmental Effect on Real-Space 2PCFs}
310: \label{sec:realspace}
311:
312: We start from comparing the real-space 2PCFs of the original SAM samples and the shuffled samples.
313: The 2PCFs essentially describe the pair count as a function of pair separation. On small (large)
314: scales, galaxy pairs are dominated by one-halo (two-halo) pairs, i.e., intra-halo (inter-halo) pairs.
315:
316: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
317: \begin{figure}
318: \epsscale{1.2} \plotone{f2.eps}
319: \caption{The ratio of the 2PCF of shuffled sample to that of the SAM sample as a function of
320: magnitude limit of sample, averaged over scales of 5--25$\hMpc$. In the SAM catalog used in
321: this paper, $L_*$ corresponds to $M_r\sim -20.7$. Since the ratio is nearly
322: constant on those scales, we do not show the small error bars.}
323: \label{b2}
324: \end{figure}
325: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
326:
327:
328: Our results on the real-space 2PCFs are shown in Figure~\ref{bias}. On small scales ($\lesssim
329: 2\hMpc$), where the one-halo term dominates, 2PCFs from CTL1, CTL2 and CTL3 behave differently. In
330: CTL1, galaxy contents inside halos as a whole are exchanged among halos of similar mass, so we do
331: not expect any appreciable change in the one-halo regime of the 2PCFs. Thus, the small-scale
332: clustering in CTL1 remains almost the same as that of the original one, as seen in
333: Figure~\ref{bias}. The slight differences seen in the plot are a result of the finite mass bin.
334: CTL3 makes satellite distribution inside halos isotropic, which on average enlarge the separations
335: of intra-halo galaxy pairs. So on small scales, 2PCFs of CTL3 are always smaller than those of SAM
336: with a suppression of around 10\%. In CTL2, not only the angular distribution of satellite
337: galaxies inside halos are isotropized but the radial galaxy number density profile is averaged
338: within the same mass bin, which completely erases the memories of galaxies about their
339: environments. Figure~\ref{bias}$a$ shows that galaxies in CTL2 exhibit a suppression up to
340: $\sim$10\% for L190 samples and the suppression becomes weaker for samples with higher threshold
341: luminosity (e.g., sample L210 in Fig.~\ref{bias}$b$). The 2PCF for the L217 CTL2 sample
342: (Fig.~\ref{bias}$c$) is too noisy to tell the trend, but it is likely to still be a suppression
343: (see below).
344:
345: On large scales, where the two-halo term dominates, 2PCFs from CTL3 stay the same as those from
346: the original SAM samples, since the CTL3 scheme only shuffles galaxies in each halo. It is not
347: surprising that the large-scale 2PCFs of CTL1 and CTL2 are almost identical, given that they both
348: shuffle halos of similar mass. The difference between the 2PCF in the CTL1/CTL2 sample and the
349: original SAM sample shows a steady trend with the threshold luminosity. For the faint sample
350: ($M_r<-19$), the environmental dependence of the galaxy population and the assembly bias lead to a
351: $\sim$10\% suppression in the 2PCF after shuffling (Fig.~\ref{bias}$a$). For the intermediate
352: sample $M_r<-21$, the difference between shuffled and SAM samples is reduced to $\sim$2\%
353: (Fig.~\ref{bias}$b$). For the bright $M_{r}<-21.7$ sample, the 2PCFs of shuffled ones become
354: $\sim$3\% larger than those of the SAM sample (Fig.~\ref{bias}$c$). To see the trend more clearly,
355: we show in Figure~\ref{b2} the ratio $\xi/\xi^{\rm SAM}$ of large-scale 2PCFs of the shuffled
356: (CTL1 or CTL2) and the SAM samples as a function of the magnitude limit. The ratio $\xi/\xi^{\rm
357: SAM}$ is calculated by averaging the measurements for each 10 shuffled sample on scales of
358: $5-25\hMpc$. We note that the trend of the ratio with the threshold luminosity is the same as in
359: Figure~$2$ of \cite{Croton07}, although we use a different indicator for the large scale
360: difference.
361:
362: For a better understanding of the change of clustering strength in the shuffled samples with
363: respect to the original samples, we decompose the galaxy 2PCFs into five components according to
364: the source of galaxy pairs and examine them individually. The five components are denoted as
365: \texttt{1h-cen-sat}, \texttt{1h-sat-sat}, \texttt{2h-cen-cen}, \texttt{2h-cen-sat}, and
366: \texttt{2h-sat-sat}, where \texttt{1h} and \texttt{2h} refer to one-halo and two-halo pairs and
367: \texttt{cen} and \texttt{sat} tell the nature (central or satellite galaxies) of the pair of
368: galaxies. That is, we have central galaxy in a halo paired with satellites in the same halo
369: (\texttt{1h-cen-sat}), satellite galaxy pairs inside halos (\texttt{1h-sat-sat}), central galaxy
370: in one halo paired with central galaxy in a different halo (\texttt{2h-cen-cen}), central galaxy
371: in one halo paired with satellites in a different halo (\texttt{2h-cen-sat}), and satellites in
372: one halo paired with satellites in a different halo (\texttt{2h-sat-sat}). A detailed description
373: on how we separate these components can be found in the Appendix.
374:
375: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
376: \begin{figure*}
377: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f3.eps}
378: \caption{Comparison of 2PCFs between SAM and shuffled $M_r<-19$, -21 and -21.7 samples by
379: decomposing the 2PCF into five separate components. Solid and dotted lines are the overall
380: 2PCF for SAM and shuffled samples, respectively. The shuffled sample in the left (middle,
381: right) column is from the CTL1 (CTL2, CTL3) shuffling scheme (see the text). The five
382: components correspond to contributions from one-halo central-satellite galaxy pairs, one-halo
383: satellite-satellite galaxy pairs, two-halo central-central galaxy pairs, two-halo
384: central-satellite galaxy pairs, and two-halo satellite-satellite galaxy pairs, respectively.
385: See the text and the Appendix for more details.}
386: \label{12h}
387: \end{figure*}
388: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
389:
390: Figure~\ref{12h} shows the five 2PCF components of the original and shuffled samples for L190,
391: L210 and L217 (left, middle and right columns for CTL1, CTL2 and CTL3, respectively). Since the
392: spatial distribution of satellites inside halos is conserved in the CTL1 sample [except for the
393: $(M_{\rm new}/M_{\rm old})^{1/3}$ scaling], there is almost no change in the one-halo components
394: for this sample with respect to the original sample. In the shuffling schemes of CTL2 and CTL3
395: samples, satellites inside halos are angularly redistributed from a non-spherical distribution to
396: an isotropic distribution. The redistribution in either CTL2 or CTL3 does not change the
397: separations of one-halo central-satellite galaxy pairs, so the \texttt{1h-cen-sat} component does
398: not change after shuffling, as seen in Figure~\ref{12h}. However, the isotropization statistically
399: increases the separations of one-halo satellite-satellite pairs and thus dilutes the
400: \texttt{1h-sat-sat} clustering signal. This leads to a suppression of the 2PCF on small scales
401: with respect to the original sample (e.g., $\sim$10\% for L190). CTL2 samples show a smaller
402: suppression in the \texttt{1h-sat-sat} component than CTL3 samples. There may be two reasons for
403: the difference. First, CTL2 effectively uses a mean radial distribution profile of satellites in
404: halos of a given mass, while CTL3 uses the radial distribution in each individual halo. Because of
405: the scatter in the radial profiles at a given halo mass, the distributions of one-halo
406: satellite-satellite pair separations are not identical from the mean and individual profiles.
407: Second, CTL2 ensures that the numbers of satellites inside halos of a given mass follow the
408: Poisson distribution, while CTL3 follows the distribution in the SAM sample, which can be slightly
409: sub-Poisson in the low occupation regime (e.g., \citealt{Zheng05}).
410:
411: For the shuffled samples CTL1, CTL2 and CTL3, all two-halo components (except \texttt{2h-cen-cen})
412: show enhancements on scales less than $1\hMpc$ with respect to the original ones. This is mainly
413: caused by the non-spherical distribution of satellite galaxies inside halos in the SAM sample. The
414: shuffling procedure can cause the satellite populations of two neighboring (non-spherical) halos
415: to become spatially close or even overlapped to some extent. Therefore, in the shuffled samples
416: the probability of finding close inter-halo galaxy pairs that involve satellites increases.
417: However, such small-scale enhancements in the two-halo components only occur on scales that the
418: one-halo term of the 2PCF dominates, thus, they are of no interest in our analysis.
419:
420:
421: On large scales, where the two-halo term regime dominates, the two-halo components for CTL3 do not
422: change since it only shuffles galaxies within halos, while every two-halo component changes its
423: amplitude after shuffling with CTL2 and CTL3. There is no doubt that this should be a
424: manifestation of the environmental dependence of the halo clustering and that of the galaxy
425: content inside halos. Let us first consider the \texttt{2h-cen-cen} component. The effect of
426: shuffling central galaxies is equivalent to that of shuffling halos. If the galaxy sample were a
427: halo-mass-threshold sample, shuffling would not change the large scale clustering of central
428: galaxies as the host halo population remains the same after shuffling. However, the sample we
429: consider is defined by a threshold in luminosity and it is not a halo-mass-threshold sample
430: because of the scatter between halo mass and central galaxy luminosity. At a fixed mass, older
431: halos tend to host more luminous central galaxies, and the mean central galaxy luminosity is an
432: increasing function of halo mass \citep{Zhu06}. We thus expect that, at a given luminosity, a
433: central galaxy can reside in a low mass older halo or in a younger halo of higher mass. That is,
434: for low mass halos, only a fraction of them (some older ones) can host the galaxies in our
435: luminosity-threshold sample. Since the shuffling is among halos of the same mass, some central
436: galaxies of the sample in these low mass older halos are moved to younger halos in the same mass
437: bin after shuffling. For the L190 samples, these low mass halos are in the regime where the
438: clustering of younger halos are weaker, so we see a decrease in the \texttt{2h-cen-cen} component
439: of the 2PCF after shuffling [Fig.~\ref{12h}(1) and Fig.~\ref{12h}(2)]. However, halos at the low
440: mass end in L217 samples are in the regime where the clustering of older halos are weaker, leading
441: to an increase in the \texttt{2h-cen-cen} component after shuffling [Fig.~\ref{12h}(7)
442: Fig.~\ref{12h}(8)]. For the L210 samples, the low mass halos are in the regime where the age
443: dependence of halo clustering almost disappear, and as a consequence, the \texttt{2h-cen-cen}
444: component does not change much after shuffling [Fig.~\ref{12h}(4) and Fig.~\ref{12h}(5)].
445:
446: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
447: \begin{figure}
448: \epsscale{1.} \plotone{f4.eps}
449: \caption{Contributions to the large scale bias factor from different pair components as a
450: function of magnitude limit of galaxy sample. The component contribution $\xi_{gg}^{(i)}$ to
451: the large scale 2PCFs, normalized by the matter 2PCF, includes \texttt{2h-cen-cen} (black),
452: \texttt{2h-cen-sat} (green), and \texttt{2h-sat-sat} (magenta). The blue curve is the overall
453: squared bias factor. Solid and dashed lines are for the original SAM and the CTL shuffled
454: samples, respectively. See the text for more details.}
455: \label{bdec}
456: \end{figure}
457: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
458:
459:
460: Unlike the \texttt{2h-cen-cen} component, for which the effect of shuffling is determined by the
461: halos near the low-mass end for the given sample, the \texttt{2h-cen-sat} and \texttt{2h-sat-sat}
462: components are influenced by all halos above the low-mass end. \cite{Zhu06} find that, in general,
463: at a fixed halo mass, there are fewer satellite galaxies in older halos. Combining this finding
464: with the age dependence of halo clustering (i.e., older halos being more strongly clustered in the
465: mass range appropriate for our sample), one would infer that shuffling would increase the
466: amplitudes of the \texttt{2h-cen-sat} and \texttt{2h-sat-sat} components, since the overall effect
467: of shuffling is to homogenize satellite populations among halos of different ages (i.e., to
468: increases/decrease the number of satellites in older/younger halos). However, this naive
469: expectation is contradictory to what is seen in Figure~\ref{12h}. Then, what is the reason for the
470: suppression in the \texttt{2h-cen-sat} and \texttt{2h-sat-sat} components? The answer lies in the
471: richness dependence of halo clustering. Here, the term ``richness'' refers to
472: subhalo/substructure/satellite abundance in a halo. \citet{GW07} show that, in the mass range
473: relevant here, halos with more substructures are always more strongly clustered. Since
474: substructures are the natural dwellings of satellite galaxies, we expect that, at a fixed mass,
475: halos that have more satellites are more strongly clustered. The effect of shuffling is to move
476: some satellites in strongly clustered halos to weakly clustered halos and thus lower the amplitude
477: of the \texttt{2h-cen-sat} and \texttt{2h-sat-sat} components of the 2PCF.
478:
479: The above explanation of the two-halo term change still leaves with one question. According to the
480: age-dependence of halo clustering (older halos are more strongly clustered) and the
481: anti-correlation between age and subhalo abundance (older halos have fewer subhalos;
482: \citealt{Gao04,Zhu06}), one would expect that halos with fewer satellites are more strongly
483: clustered, in sharp contrast with what is found in simulation (e.g., \citealt{GW07}). The solution
484: to the apparent contradiction lies in the scatter in the anti-correlation between age and richness
485: and the joint dependence of halo clustering on age and richness (Zu et al. in preparation).
486:
487: Figure~\ref{bdec} summarizes the contributions of two-halo components to the large-scale 2PCFs and
488: the changes caused by CTL1/CTL2 shuffling as a function of threshold luminosity. We plot the
489: contributions from different two-halo components to the large-scale bias factor (squared) for both
490: the original SAM samples (solid) and CTL1 samples (dashed). Each component contribution to the
491: square bias factor is computed by averaging the ratio of the corresponding two-halo 2PCF component
492: (\texttt{2h-cen-cen}, \texttt{2h-cen-sat}, or \texttt{2h-sat-sat}) to the matter 2PCF on scales of
493: 5--15$\hMpc$. For galaxy samples with low threshold luminosity, the largest contribution to the
494: large-scale clustering comes from the \texttt{2h-cen-sat} component. The \texttt{2h-cen-cen}
495: component then takes over for samples with threshold luminosity around $L_*$ and becomes more and
496: more dominant towards higher luminosity. This trend can be understood by noticing that the
497: satellite fraction decreases with increasing threshold luminosity (e.g., \citealt{Zheng07b}). The
498: \texttt{2h-sat-sat} component always has the least contribution to the the large-scale clustering.
499:
500: Figure~\ref{bdec} shows that shuffling causes the \texttt{2h-cen-cen} component to be suppressed
501: slightly for samples with low luminosity thresholds and to be enhanced a little bit for samples
502: with high luminosity thresholds, a trend can be explained by the age dependence of halo clustering
503: as discussed above. Here ``low'' and ``high'' are with respect to $L_*$. We note that the change
504: in the \texttt{2h-cen-cen} component decreases again at the very high luminosity end (i.e., the
505: L220 sample), similar to the trend seen in the concentration dependence of massive halo clustering
506: (see e.g., \citealt{JSM07}). The \texttt{2h-cen-sat} component is always suppressed after
507: shuffling, which can be understood by the richness dependence of halo clustering as mentioned
508: above. The change of the overall large-scale bias factor is dominated by that of the
509: \texttt{2h-cen-sat} at low luminosity and very high luminosity. The change of the
510: \texttt{2h-cen-cen} component plays a role in determining that of the overall bias factor for
511: samples with luminosity threshold larger but not much larger than $L_*$, and it nearly compensates
512: the suppression caused by the change of the \texttt{2h-cen-sat} component, leading to little
513: change ($<$2\%) in the overall bias factor (also see Fig.~\ref{b2}).
514:
515: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
516: \section{Environmental Effect on Redshift-Space 2PCFs}
517:
518: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
519: \begin{figure}
520: \epsscale{1.1} \plotone{f5.eps}
521: \caption{Comparison of redshift-space correlation functions between SAM samples and shuffled
522: samples. Panels ($a$), ($b$), ($c$) are for L190, L210, and L217 samples, respectively. In
523: each panel, three quadrants shows the comparison between one shuffled sample and the SAM, with
524: black contours for the original SAM sample, green, red, and blue contours for the CTL1, CTL2,
525: and CTL3 shuffled samples, respectively. Contour levels are set as $2^{n}$, with $n$ from -5
526: to 2. }
527: \label{ctr}
528: \end{figure}
529: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
530:
531: While the 2PCFs in real space are isotropic, the 2PCFs in redshift space are distorted by galaxy
532: peculiar velocities along the line of sight. On small scales, the random virialized motions of
533: galaxies in groups and clusters stretch the redshift distribution of galaxies along the line of
534: sight, producing the so-called ``finger-of-god''~(FOG) effect. On large scales, the coherent flows
535: of galaxies due to gravity squash the line-of-sight distribution of galaxies (i.e., Kaiser effect;
536: \citealt{Kaiser87}).
537:
538: In linear theory, the large scale redshift-space distortion measures a combination of $\Omega_m$
539: and the large scale galaxy bias factor $b_g$, which is $\Omega_m^{0.6}/b_g$. Given the measured
540: amplitude of galaxy 2PCF, a constraint on $\Omega_m^{0.6}/b_g$ is equivalent to that on
541: $\sigma_8\Omega_m^{0.6}$, where $\sigma_8$ is the rms matter fluctuation on scale of 8$\hMpc$. To
542: infer such a constraint on large scales, the small-scale redshift distortion is usually dealt with
543: simple models, such as the exponential model (\citealt{CFW95}). \cite{Tinker06} demonstrates that
544: by taking advantage of the power of HOD to describe clustering in a fully non-linear manner, one
545: can consistently model the small-scale and the large-scale clustering (also see
546: \citealt{Tinker07}). Furthermore, \cite{Tinker06} shows that the degeneracy in $\Omega_m$ and
547: $\sigma_8$ from large scale clustering can be broken by making use of the small- and
548: intermediate-scale clustering in redshift space. The HOD framework used in \cite{Tinker06} assumes
549: no environmental effects on halo clustering and galaxy content inside halos. In
550: \S~\ref{sec:realspace}, we have shown that in the SAM we use, the real-space 2PCFs may suffer a
551: change up to $\sim$10\% because of the environmental effect. It is interesting to perform similar
552: analysis in redshift space and discuss the implications in inferring cosmological parameters from
553: redshift distortions.
554:
555: In Figure~\ref{ctr}, we show the redshift-space 2PCFs $\xi(r_p,r_\pi)$\footnote{We use the same
556: symbol $\xi$ for both the real-space and redshift-space 2PCFs. Whenever it introduces a
557: confusion, we will add a subscript $R$ for real-space quantities.} measured from the SAM, CTL1,
558: CTL2, and CTL3 catalogs for the three luminosity-threshold samples as in Figure~\ref{bias}, where
559: $r_p$ and $r_\pi$ are the perpendicular and line-of-sight distances in redshift space. The overall
560: effect of the shuffling on the redshift-space 2PCFs is similar to that seen in the real-space
561: 2PCFs. On small scales, where the FOG effect dominates, the clustering amplitudes of CTL1 samples
562: (green contours) are almost identical to those of the SAM samples (black contours), since
563: shuffling does not change the one-halo term in CTL1. For CTL2 samples (red contours), the FOG
564: effect is slightly suppressed and the small scale clustering is weaker than that of the SAM for
565: L190, but nearly identical to and stronger than that of the SAM for L210 and L217, respectively.
566: For CTL3 samples (blue contours), although they exhibit large difference in real-space 2PCFs, the
567: FOF effect only changes a little, which indicates that the difference caused by galaxy angular
568: distribution is partly masked by the peculiar velocity field on small scales.
569:
570:
571: On large scales, similar to what is seen in the real-space 2PCFs, at a given large-scales
572: separation $(r_p,r_\pi)$, the redshift-space 2PCF of CTL1 or CTL2 sample has a lower amplitude
573: than that of the SAM sample for L190; it has an almost identical amplitude to that of the L210 SAM
574: sample; it exceeds that of the L217 SAM sample. The 2PCF amplitudes do not change with CTL3
575: samples. As a whole, shuffling introduces changes similar to those in the real-space 2PCFs, and
576: these changes can be understood following interpretations in \S~\ref{sec:realspace}.
577:
578: To further quantify changes in the redshift-space 2PCFs, we calculate a few statistics derived
579: from the multipoles of the real-space and redshift-space 2PCFs, which were originally proposed by
580: \cite{Hamilton92}. These statistics are also the ones used in the study of \cite{Tinker06} and
581: \cite{Tinker07} for HOD modeling the redshift-space distortion.
582:
583: The multipole moments $\xi_l(r)$ are given by the coefficients of the Legendre polynomial
584: expansion of $\xi(r_p,r_{\pi})$.
585: \begin{equation}
586: \label{equ-1}
587: \xi_l(r)=\frac{2l+1}{2}\int_{-1}^{+1}\xi(r_p,r_{\pi})P_l(\mu)d\mu
588: \end{equation}
589: where $r=\sqrt{r^2_p+r^2_{\pi}}$, $\mu=r_{\pi}/r$, and $P_l(\mu)$ is the $l$-th order Legendre
590: polynomial. Based on the multipoles of $\xi(r_p,r_{\pi})$, we calculate two statistics. The first
591: one is the ratio of the monopole $\xi_0(r)$ to the real-space 2PCF $\xi_R(r)$,
592: \begin{equation}
593: \label{equ-2}
594: \xizr(r) \equiv \frac{\xi_0(r)}{\xi_R(r)}.
595: \end{equation}
596: In linear theory, it is a function of $\beta\equiv\Omega_m^{0.6}/b_g$,
597: \begin{equation}
598: \label{eqn:mono_lin}
599: \xizr(r)=1 + \frac{2}{3}\beta + \frac{1}{5}\beta^2.
600: \end{equation}
601: The second quantity $\xiQp(r)$ is related to the quadrupole $\xi_2(r)$,
602: \begin{equation}
603: \label{equ-3}
604: \xiQp(r) \equiv \frac{\xi_2(r)}{\xi_0(r) - \bar{\xi}_0(r)},
605: \end{equation}
606: where $\bar{\xi}_0(r)$ is the volume-averaged monopole,
607: \begin{equation}
608: \label{equ-4}
609: \bar{\xi}_0(r) = \frac{3}{r^3}\int_0^r\xi_0(s) s^2 ds.
610: \end{equation}
611: In linear theory, $\xiQp(r)$ is also a function of $\beta$,
612: \begin{equation}
613: \label{eqn:quad_lin}
614: \xiQp(r)=\frac{\frac{4}{3}\beta + \frac{4}{7}\beta^2}{1+\frac{2}{3}\beta + \frac{1}{5}\beta^2}.
615: \end{equation}
616: \cite{Tinker06} also introduce a quantity $\rhalf$, which is the value of $r_\pi$ at which the
617: redshift-space 2PCF at the given $r_p$ decreases by a factor of 2 with respect to the value
618: of 2PCF at $r_\pi=0$. We also compute this quantity.
619: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
620: \begin{figure*}
621: \epsscale{1.} \plotone{f6.eps}
622: \caption{Comparison of redshift-space clustering statistics between the SAM and shuffled samples
623: for the L190 galaxy sample. Top panels are for $\xizr$, the ratio of the monopole of the
624: redshift-space 2PCF to the real-space 2PCF; middle panels are for $\xiQp$, which is related to
625: the quadrupole of the redshift-space 2PCF; bottom panels are for $\rhalf$, which is the value
626: of $r_\pi$ at which the redshift-space 2PCF at a give $r_p$ decreases by a factor of 2
627: relative to its value at $r_\pi=0$. In each panel, black solid curves stand for the SAM
628: sample, while the green dashed, the red dot-dashed and the blue dotted curves indicate the
629: CTL1, CTL2, and CTL3 shuffled samples, respectively. The horizontal axes are shown in linear
630: (logarithmic) scales in the left (right) panels to highlight the large (small) scale behavior.
631: Error bars are plotted only for the SAM sample to avoid crowding and those for the shuffled
632: ones are comparable. The abnormal error bars around 10 $\hMpc$ in the middle panels of
633: panels~($c$) and~($d$) are because of $\xiQp$ there approaching zero. }
634: \label{mut}
635: \end{figure*}
636: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
637:
638: Figure~\ref{mut} plots $\xizr$ and $\xiQp$ as a function of $r$ and $\rhalf$ as a function of
639: $r_p$ for the L190 sample using both linear and logarithmic axes to highlight large and small
640: scales separately. According to the above results, this sample, among the six luminosity-threshold
641: samples, is expected to show the largest environmental effect (we also check the
642: luminosity-threshold sample with magnitude limit $M_{r}=-18.0$ and find that the large scale
643: suppression is still at the 10\% level as it is in L190).
644:
645: Compared to the SAM sample, the monopole term $\xizr$ in either CTL1 or CTL2 is only $\sim$2\%
646: higher on large scales, where it stays the same in CTL3. On small scales (0.1--1$\hMpc$), the
647: difference is at a level of 5\% in CTL1\&2. Only on extremely small scales ($\lesssim 0.1\hMpc$)
648: does $\xizr$ of the CTL2 sample show a 10\% drop, which is not important since the error bars are
649: large and these scales are likely to be excluded in HOD modeling. In the CTL3 sample, since the
650: suppression of the spherically-averaged redshift-space 2PCFs and that of the real-space 2PCFs
651: cancel with each other on small scales, $\xizr$ stays at the same level as in the SAM sample.
652:
653: For the quadrupole term $\xiQp$, the difference between the results of the original and shuffled
654: samples is well within 5.5\% in CTL1/CTL2 for most scales. Note that the difference extends all
655: the way to the largest scales in CTL3 at a 0.5\% level, which means that the non-linearity still
656: affects clustering behaviors on linear scales in redshift-space. Also note that the large
657: fractional differences around 10$\hMpc$ are simply because $\xiQp$ is crossing zero. The
658: fractional changes in $\xizr$ and $\xiQp$ caused by shuffling are much less than those in the
659: real-space 2PCFs, which are at a level of 10\%. For the quantity $\rhalf$, the global enhancement
660: in CTL3 is caused only by the angular isotropizing of galaxies, which disrupts the original
661: compact configuration of SAM halos. This makes the redshift-space 2PCFs harder to decrease to the
662: half value of $\xi|_{r_\pi=0}$ at a given $r_{p}$, especially at $r_p<0.2\hMpc$, where the
663: enhancement becomes much eminent. In CTL2, $\rhalf$ shows a similar behavior as in CTL3 at small
664: $r_{p}$ for the same reason, then it becomes smaller than that in CTL3 at $r_p>0.2\hMpc$, while
665: $\rhalf$ from the CTL1 shuffled sample is consistent with that from the original sample within the
666: error bars.
667:
668:
669: How would the above changes in the redshift distortion statistics induced by the environmental
670: effect affect the inference of cosmological parameters from HOD modeling? For a complete answer of
671: this question, one needs to perform the analysis presented in \citet{Tinker07} with the 2PCF
672: measurements in the original and shuffled samples and compare the results in the inferred
673: cosmological parameters. However, even without the full analysis, we can still figure out the
674: likely magnitude by using the linear theory results [equations~(\ref{eqn:mono_lin}) and
675: (\ref{eqn:quad_lin})]. For the L190 sample presented in Figure~\ref{mut}, a 2\% increase in the
676: large-scale $\xizr$ only leads to $\sim$6.5\% increase in the inferred $\beta$. For $\xiQp$,
677: shuffling gives rise to a 5.5\% increase on large scales, which also translates to a $\sim$6.5\%
678: increase in $\beta$. For $\rhalf$, it is not straightforward to see the consequence. Based on
679: Figure 16 of \citet{Tinker06}, it is likely that the difference in $\rhalf$ on large scales
680: between the SAM and shuffle samples can at most lead to a $\sim$5\% uncertainty in constraining
681: $\sigma_8$. We note that the effects of the shuffling on both the real-space and redshift-space
682: clustering statistics are likely from the same cause in that the $\sim $12\% decrease in the
683: real-space 2PCF $\xi_{R}(r)$ leads to 6\% decrease in galaxy bias $b_{g}$, which in turn
684: corresponds to a $\sim$6.5\% increase in $\beta$, about the number we infer from redshift-space
685: clustering statistics. Since the shuffling induced changes in the real-space 2PCFs for other
686: brighter samples are smaller, the environmental effect on $\beta$ is expected to be smaller for
687: them. Therefore, in the SAM galaxy catalog we use, neglecting any environmental dependence of halo
688: clustering and galaxy formation is likely to cause a less than 7\% systematic uncertainty in
689: constraining $\sigma_8\Omega_m^{0.6}$.
690:
691:
692: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
693: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
694: \section{Summary and Discussion}
695:
696: In this work, we investigate the effect of environmental dependence of halo clustering and galaxy
697: formation on real-space and redshift-space clustering of galaxies. Our study makes use of the
698: galaxy catalog from the SAM of \cite{DB07}, which is based on the Millennium Simulation
699: \citep{Springel05}. The inherent dependence of galaxy properties on environment in the SAM catalog
700: is eliminated by shuffling galaxies among halos of similar mass.
701:
702: The real-space 2PCFs in the original sample and those in the shuffled samples have a difference at
703: the level of 10\% with some dependencies on scales for samples with low threshold luminosities.
704: The difference becomes much smaller for samples with threshold luminosities approaching or
705: exceeding $L_*$. We decompose the 2PCFs into five components by accounting for the nature of
706: galaxy pairs (e.g., one-halo or two-halo, central galaxies or satellites) and study the effect of
707: environment on each of them. In general, on large scales, the changes in the \texttt{2h-cen-cen}
708: component of the 2PCF caused by shuffling can be well understood by noticing the dependence of
709: halo bias and central galaxy luminosity on halo formation time, while those in the
710: \texttt{2h-cen-sat} and \texttt{2h-sat-sat} components are determined by the richness
711: (substructure) dependence of halo bias. The \texttt{2h-cen-sat} component appears to dominate the
712: change in the overall 2PCF for samples with low or very high threshold luminosity, while the
713: change in the \texttt{2h-cen-cen} component nearly compensates that in the \texttt{2h-cen-sat}
714: component for threshold luminosity $L_*$, where the amplitude of the environment effect is small.
715: These results imply that we could use high-resolution $N$-body simulations to accurately model the
716: 2PCFs by associating satellites to substructures identified in halos and neglecting the
717: environmental dependence of central galaxies at fixed halo mass. On small scales, the assumption
718: of spherical symmetry in galaxy distribution may lead to an uncertainty as large as 10\% in 2PCFs,
719: but this effect could be absorbed into a free parameter describing the halo concentration.
720:
721: The effects of environmental dependence on redshift-space 2PCFs are similar to what are seen in
722: the real-space 2PCFs. On large scales, the effects can be attributed solely to the change in the
723: large scale bias factor. For inferring cosmological parameters ($\sigma_8$ and $\Omega_m$) through
724: HOD modeling of the redshift-space distortion (\citealt{Tinker06,Tinker07}), the systematic effect
725: caused by neglecting the environmental dependence of halo clustering and galaxy formation is
726: likely to be at the level of $<$6.5\% for the worst case (the $M_r<-19.0$ or $L>0.2L_*$ sample)
727: and can be much smaller for brighter samples, especially for samples with threshold luminosities
728: near $L_*$. The underlying assumption of this statement is that the environmental effect on galaxy
729: formation in reality is as large as that seen in the SAM we use in this paper.
730:
731: Our results are based on one particular galaxy formation model, i.e., SAM of \cite{DB07}. Although
732: this model can reproduce many observed properties of galaxies, it is not guaranteed to be
733: absolutely correct. In this model, the environmental effect on the formation and evolution of
734: galaxies is mostly linked to the formation/merger history of dark matter halos. Compared to
735: observations, it overproduces faint red galaxies \citep{Croton06}. Although the model predicts the
736: correct trend of the color dependent galaxy clustering, it predicts too large a difference between
737: the amplitudes of the 2PCFs of blue and red galaxies \citep{Springel05}. By comparing to the
738: galaxies in SDSS groups, \cite{Weinmann06} find that SAM produces too many faint satellites in
739: massive halos and incorrect blue fractions of central and satellites galaxies.
740:
741: The discrepancies between observations and the SAM model suggest that the effect of environment on
742: galaxy formation and evolution may be exaggerated in this particular model. Such discrepancies
743: provide opportunities for enhancing our understanding of galaxy formation and evolution. There are
744: also tests with void statistics \citep{Tinker07b}, environmental dependence of group galaxies
745: \citep{Blanton07}, and marked galaxy correlation function \citep{Skibba06}, which show that the
746: observed properties of galaxies are mainly driven by host halo mass rather than the environment in
747: which halos form. Therefore, in reality, it is quite possible that the environmental effect on
748: modeling galaxy clustering statistics is much smaller than what we obtain in this paper, and that
749: the systematic effect on cosmological parameter constraints from HOD modeling is not larger than a
750: few percent or even better.
751:
752: \acknowledgments
753:
754: We thank Jeremy Tinker for helpful discussions and David Weinberg for useful comments. Y. Z. and
755: Y. P. J. are supported by NSFC (10533030), by the Knowledge Innovation Program of CAS (No.
756: KJCX2-YW-T05), by 973 Program (No.2007CB815402), and by Shanghai Key Projects in Basic research
757: (05XD14019). At an earlier stage of this work, Z. Z. was supported by NASA through Hubble
758: Fellowship grant HF-01181.01-A awarded by the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated
759: by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA, under contract NAS
760: 5-26555. Z. Z. gratefully acknowledges support from the Institute for Advanced Study through a
761: John Bahcall Fellowship. The Millennium Simulation databases used in this paper and the web
762: application providing online access to them were constructed as part of the activities of the
763: German Astrophysical Virtual Observatory.
764:
765:
766: \newpage
767:
768: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
769: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
770: \appendix
771: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
772: \section{Decomposition of the Two-Point Correlation Function}
773:
774: In the HOD framework, the 2PCF $\xi(r)$ is usually decomposed into two components (e.g.,
775: \citealt{Zheng04}),
776: \begin{equation}
777: \label{app0}
778: \xi(r) = [1 + \xi_{\rm 1h}(r)] + \xi_{\rm 2h}(r),
779: \end{equation}
780: where the one-halo term $\xi_{\rm 1h}(r)$ and the two-halo term $\xi_{\rm 2h}(r)$ represent
781: contributions from intra-halo and inter-halo pairs, respectively. To separate such components from
782: measurements in a mock catalog, one only needs to weigh the total correlation function
783: appropriately. That is, $1+\xi(r)$ weighted by the fraction of intra-halo (inter-halo) pairs at a
784: separation $r$ gives $1+\xi_{\rm 1h}(r)$ [$1+\xi_{\rm 2h}(r)$]. However, the way to decompose
785: $\xi(r)$ into more components on the basis of pair counts, like what we do in this paper
786: (central/satellite, one-halo, two-halo pairs), is not immediately clear. In this Appendix, we
787: develop a method for such a decomposition. The method can be generalized to apply to real data:
788: for example, one is able to measure the two-point auto-correlation functions of red and blue
789: galaxies and their two-point cross-correlation functions in a single run with only one random
790: catalog.
791:
792: We first provide a general consideration on the component separation and then describe the
793: decomposition used in this paper in more details.
794:
795: \subsection{General Consideration}
796:
797: \label{a1}
798:
799: Let us start from the definition of the two-point correlation function,
800: \begin{equation}
801: \label{app1}
802: \xi(\rvec)=\la \delta(\xvec)\delta(\xvec+\rvec)\ra,
803: \end{equation}
804: where $\la...\ra$ represents an ensemble average. The overdensity field $\delta$ is defined as
805: \begin{equation}
806: \label{app2}
807: \delta(\xvec)=\frac{n(\xvec)-\bar{n}}{\bar{n}},
808: \end{equation}
809: where $n(\xvec)$ is the galaxy density at $\xvec$ and $\bar{n}$ is the mean. Let us assume that
810: the galaxy sample is composed of several sub-samples, $n(\xvec)=\sum_i n_i(\xvec)$. Now we
811: decompose the overdensity into different components based on sub-samples
812:
813: \begin{equation}
814: \label{app3}
815: \delta=\sum_i \tilde{\delta}_i,
816: \end{equation}
817: where $\tilde{\delta}_i$ is the overdensity contributed by the $i$-th component (sub-sample),
818: \begin{equation}
819: \label{app4}
820: \tilde{\delta}_i=\frac{n_i-\bar{n}_i}{\bar{n}}=\frac{n_i-\bar{n}_i}{\bar{n}_i} \times \frac{\bar{n}_i}{\bar{n}} = \delta_i \frac{\bar{n}_i}{\bar{n}}.
821: \end{equation}
822: Note that in the above equation, $\delta_i$ is the $i$-th component's own overdensity field (i.e.,
823: fractional fluctuation with respect to $\bar{n}_i$ instead of $\bar{n}$).
824:
825: Substituting equations (\ref{app3}) and (\ref{app4}) into (\ref{app1}), we obtain
826: \begin{equation}
827: \label{app5}
828: \xi(\rvec)= \sum_i \la\delta_i(\xvec)\delta_i(\xvec+\rvec)\ra
829: \frac{{\bar{n}_i}^2}{\bar{n}^2}
830: + \sum_{i<j} \la\delta_i(\xvec)\delta_j(\xvec+\rvec)\ra
831: \frac{2\bar{n}_i\bar{n}_j}{\bar{n}^2}.
832: \end{equation}
833: That is, the total correlation function is a weighted sum of the auto- and cross-correlation
834: functions of all components, where the weight is the pair fraction. In terms of measurement
835: from pair counts in a galaxy catalog and an auxiliary random catalog, it converts to
836: \begin{equation}
837: \label{app6}
838: \xi(\rvec) = \sum_{i\leq j} \frac{dd_{ij}(\rvec)-rr_{ij}(\rvec)}{rr_{ij}(\rvec)}
839: f_{ij},
840: \end{equation}
841: where $dd_{ij}$ and $rr_{ij}$ are the $ij$ data-data and random-random pairs. The quantity
842: $f_{ij}$ is the overall $ij$ pair fraction (the ratio of the total number of {\it ij} pairs in the
843: volume to that of all pairs in the volume). Note that, for random pairs, the ratio of the number
844: of random $ij$ pairs to that of all random pairs is independent of separation, i.e.,
845: $f_{ij}=rr_{ij}(\rvec)/RR(\rvec)$, where $RR$ is the number of random pairs for all galaxies.
846: Therefore, we have the contribution from the $ij$ component as
847: \begin{equation}
848: \label{app7}
849: \xi_{ij}(\rvec)=\frac{dd_{ij}(\rvec)-rr_{ij}(\rvec)}{RR(\rvec)},
850: \end{equation}
851: where $rr_{ij}/RR$ is a known quantity given the number density of each component and one only
852: needs to measure $dd_{ij}(\rvec)$ and $RR(\rvec)$.
853:
854: An interesting application of the above results to real data is to measure 2PCFs (either projected
855: ones or redshift-space ones) of sub-samples of galaxies of a volume-limited sample (e.g., a sample
856: of galaxies divided into blue, green, and red galaxy sub-samples). To measure all the two-point
857: auto-correlation functions of galaxies in the sub-samples and their two-point cross-correlation
858: functions, we do not need to construct random catalogs for each sub-sample. We only need one random
859: catalog for the whole sample and measure all the correlation functions in a single run based on
860: equation~(\ref{app7}). The two-point auto-correlation function for all the galaxies in the whole
861: sample, as the weighted sum of the two-point auto- and cross-correlation functions of sub-samples
862: (eq.[\ref{app5}]), is obtained for free. To generalize equation~(\ref{app7}) in the spirit of the
863: widely used Landy-Szalay estimator \citep{Landy93}, one can replace $-rr_{ij}(\rvec)$ with
864: $-2dr_{ij}(\rvec)+rr_{ij}(\rvec)$. To count $dr_{ij}$ data-random pairs, one may randomly tag
865: the points in the random catalog with component indices according to the fraction of the sub-sample
866: galaxy spatial density in the overall sample.
867:
868: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
869: \subsection{Details on the Decomposition of the 2PCF into Central/Satellite and One-halo/Two-halo Terms}
870:
871: Following similar reasoning as in \S~\ref{a1}, now let us tag galaxies with two subscripts and
872: decompose the overdensity field as
873: \begin{equation}
874: \label{app8}
875: \delta=\sum_{i,\alpha} \tilde{\delta}_{i\alpha},
876: \end{equation}
877: where $i$ denotes the ID of the host halo and $\alpha$ is either $c$ (central) or $s$ (satellite).
878: That is, the overdensity is decomposed into contributions from central and satellite galaxies from
879: each halo. The random catalog can be obtained by randomly redistributing all the galaxies in the
880: volume with their tags untouched.
881:
882: In a similar way as before, we can write $\tilde{\delta}_{i\alpha}$ as
883: \begin{equation}
884: \label{app9}
885: \tilde{\delta}_{i\alpha}=\frac{n_{i\alpha}-\bar{n}_{i\alpha}}{\bar{n}_{i\alpha}} \times \frac{\bar{n}_{i\alpha}}{\bar{n}} = \delta_{i\alpha} \frac{\bar{n}_{i\alpha}}{\bar{n}}.
886: \end{equation}
887: It is straightforward to show that $\xi(\rvec)$ can be formally decomposed as
888: \begin{eqnarray}
889: \label{app10}
890: \xi(\rvec)&=& \,\,\,\,\,
891: \sum_i \la \delta_{ic}(\xvec)\delta_{ic}(\xvec+\rvec) \ra
892: \frac{\bar{n}_{ic}^2}{\bar{n}^2} \nonumber \\
893: & & +
894: \sum_i \la \delta_{ic}(\xvec)\delta_{is}(\xvec+\rvec) \ra
895: \frac{2\bar{n}_{ic}\bar{n}_{is}}{\bar{n}^2} \nonumber \\
896: & & +
897: \sum_i \la \delta_{is}(\xvec)\delta_{is}(\xvec+\rvec) \ra
898: \frac{\bar{n}_{is}^2}{\bar{n}^2} \nonumber \\
899: & & +
900: \sum_{i<j} \la \delta_{ic}(\xvec)\delta_{jc}(\xvec+\rvec) \ra
901: \frac{2\bar{n}_{ic}\bar{n}_{jc}}{\bar{n}^2} \nonumber \\
902: & & +
903: \sum_{i \ne j} \la \delta_{ic}(\xvec)\delta_{js}(\xvec+\rvec) \ra
904: \frac{\bar{n}_{ic}\bar{n}_{js}}{\bar{n}^2} \nonumber \\
905: % \sum_{i<j} \la \delta_{ic}(\xvec)\delta_{js}(\xvec+\rvec) \ra
906: % \frac{2\bar{n}_{ic}\bar{n}_{js}}{\bar{n}^2} \nonumber \\
907: & & +
908: \sum_{i<j} \la \delta_{is}(\xvec)\delta_{js}(\xvec+\rvec) \ra
909: \frac{2\bar{n}_{is}\bar{n}_{js}}{\bar{n}^2}.
910: \end{eqnarray}
911:
912: It is easy to identify the six terms in the right hand side as contributions from the one-halo
913: cen-cen (which is a Dirac $\delta_D$ function that we are not interested in), the one-halo
914: cen-sat, the one-halo sat-sat, the two-halo cen-cen, the two-halo cen-sat, and the two-halo
915: sat-sat pairs, respectively (`cen' for central galaxy and `sat' for satellite galaxy).
916:
917: In terms of measurement, each component can be reduced to the $(dd-rr)/RR$ form. As an example,
918: consider the case for the two-halo cen-sat term. Note that $\bar{n}_{ic}=1/V$,
919: $\bar{n}_{is}=N_{is}/V$, and $\bar{n}=N/V$, where $N_{is}$ is the number of satellites in the halo
920: of ID $i$ and $N$ is the total number of all galaxies in the volume $V$. Therefore, the two-halo
921: cen-sat contribution is
922: \begin{equation}
923: \label{app11}
924: \xi_{{\rm 2h},cs}(\rvec)=
925: \sum_{i \ne j} \la \delta_{ic}(\xvec)\delta_{js}(\xvec+\rvec) \ra
926: \frac{\bar{n}_{ic}\bar{n}_{js}}{\bar{n}^2}
927: = \sum_{i \ne j} \frac{dd_{ic,js}(\rvec)-rr_{ic,js}(\rvec)}{rr_{ic,js}(\rvec)}
928: \frac{N_{js}}{N^2},
929: \end{equation}
930: where $dd_{ic,js}$ and $rr_{ic,js}$ are numbers of data-data and random-random pairs between
931: galaxies tagged as $ic$ and $js$. One thing to notice is that $2rr_{ic,js}(\rvec)/N_{js}$ does not
932: depend on $i$ and $j$ --- it equals $rr_{cs^\prime}(\rvec)/N_{{\rm pair},cs^\prime}$, where
933: $rr_{cs^\prime}(\rvec) =\sum_{i \ne j} rr_{ic,js}(\rvec)$ is the count of all the random
934: ``two-halo'' cen-sat pairs with separation around $\rvec$ and $N_{{\rm pair},cs^\prime}$ is the
935: total number of ``two-halo'' cen-sat pairs in the volume ($cs^\prime$ denotes a ``two-halo''
936: pair). Also noting that $N^2/2=N_{{\rm pair},total}$ ($N \gg1$), we then have
937: \begin{equation}
938: \label{app12}
939: \xi_{{\rm 2h},cs}(\rvec)=\frac{dd_{cs^\prime}(\rvec)-rr_{cs^\prime}(\rvec)}{rr_{cs^\prime}(\rvec)/N_{{\rm pair},cs^\prime}}\frac{1}{N_{{\rm pair},total}},
940: \end{equation}
941: where $dd_{cs^\prime}$ and $rr_{cs^\prime}$ are all the data-data and random-random ``two-halo''
942: cen-sat pairs with separation around $\rvec$. We have the following relation between
943: $rr_{cs^\prime}$ and the total number of all random pairs around separation $\rvec$, $RR(\rvec)$,
944: \begin{equation}
945: \frac{rr_{cs^\prime}(\rvec)}{N_{{\rm pair},cs^\prime}}=\frac{RR(\rvec)}{N_{{\rm pair},total}}.
946: \end{equation}
947: Therefore, we end up with
948: \begin{equation}
949: \xi_{{\rm 2h},cs}(\rvec)
950: =\frac{dd_{cs^\prime}(\rvec)-rr_{cs^\prime}(\rvec)}{RR(\rvec)}.
951: \end{equation}
952:
953:
954:
955: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
956: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
957: \begin{thebibliography}{}
958:
959: \bibitem[{{Abazajian} {et~al.}(2005){Abazajian}, {Zheng}, {Zehavi}, {Weinberg},
960: {Frieman}, {Berlind}, {Blanton}, {Bahcall}, {Brinkmann}, {Schneider}, \&
961: {Tegmark}}]{Abazajian05}
962: {Abazajian}, K., {Zheng}, Z., {Zehavi}, I., {Weinberg}, D.~H., {Frieman},
963: J.~A., {Berlind}, A.~A., {Blanton}, M.~R., {Bahcall}, N.~A., {Brinkmann}, J.,
964: {Schneider}, D.~P., \& {Tegmark}, M. 2005, \apj, 625, 613
965:
966: \bibitem[{{Berlind} {et~al.}(2006){Berlind}, {Kazin}, {Blanton}, {Pueblas},
967: {Scoccimarro}, \& {Hogg}}]{Berlind06}
968: {Berlind}, A.~A., {Kazin}, E., {Blanton}, M.~R., {Pueblas}, S., {Scoccimarro},
969: R., \& {Hogg}, D.~W. 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints
970:
971: \bibitem[{{Berlind} \& {Weinberg}(2002)}]{BW02}
972: {Berlind}, A.~A., \& {Weinberg}, D.~H. 2002, \apj, 575, 587
973:
974: \bibitem[{{Blanton} \& {Berlind}(2007)}]{Blanton07}
975: {Blanton}, M.~R., \& {Berlind}, A.~A. 2007, \apj, 664, 791
976:
977: \bibitem[{{Bond} {et~al.}(1991){Bond}, {Cole}, {Efstathiou}, \&
978: {Kaiser}}]{Bond91}
979: {Bond}, J.~R., {Cole}, S., {Efstathiou}, G., \& {Kaiser}, N. 1991, \apj, 379,
980: 440
981:
982: \bibitem[{{Cole} {et~al.}(1995){Cole}, {Fisher}, \& {Weinberg}}]{CFW95}
983: {Cole}, S., {Fisher}, K.~B., \& {Weinberg}, D.~H. 1995, \mnras, 275, 515
984:
985: \bibitem[{{Colless} \& {et al.}(2001)}]{Colless01}
986: {Colless}, M., \& {et al.} 2001, \mnras, 328, 1039
987:
988: \bibitem[{{Cooray} \& {Sheth}(2002)}]{CS02}
989: {Cooray}, A., \& {Sheth}, R. 2002, \physrep, 372, 1
990:
991: \bibitem[{{Croton} {et~al.}(2007){Croton}, {Gao}, \& {White}}]{Croton07}
992: {Croton}, D.~J., {Gao}, L., \& {White}, S.~D.~M. 2007, \mnras, 374, 1303
993:
994: \bibitem[{{Croton} {et~al.}(2006){Croton}, {Springel}, {White}, {De Lucia},
995: {Frenk}, {Gao}, {Jenkins}, {Kauffmann}, {Navarro}, \& {Yoshida}}]{Croton06}
996: {Croton}, D.~J., {Springel}, V., {White}, S.~D.~M., {De Lucia}, G., {Frenk},
997: C.~S., {Gao}, L., {Jenkins}, A., {Kauffmann}, G., {Navarro}, J.~F., \&
998: {Yoshida}, N. 2006, \mnras, 365, 11
999:
1000: \bibitem[{{Dalal} {et~al.}(2008){Dalal}, {White}, {Bond}, \& {Shirokov}}]{Dalal08}
1001: {Dalal}, N., {White}, M., {Bond}, J.~R., \& {Shirokov}, A.,
1002: 2008, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints
1003:
1004: \bibitem[{{Davis} {et~al.}(1985){Davis}, {Efstathiou}, {Frenk}, \&
1005: {White}}]{Davis85}
1006: {Davis}, M., {Efstathiou}, G., {Frenk}, C.~S., \& {White}, S.~D.~M. 1985, \apj,
1007: 292, 371
1008:
1009: \bibitem[{{De Lucia} \& {Blaizot}(2007)}]{DB07}
1010: {De Lucia}, G., \& {Blaizot}, J. 2007, \mnras, 375, 2
1011:
1012: \bibitem[{{De Lucia} {et~al.}(2006){De Lucia}, {Springel}, {White}, {Croton},
1013: \& {Kauffmann}}]{DeLucia06}
1014: {De Lucia}, G., {Springel}, V., {White}, S.~D.~M., {Croton}, D., \&
1015: {Kauffmann}, G. 2006, \mnras, 366, 499
1016:
1017: \bibitem[{{Gao} {et~al.}(2005){Gao}, {Springel}, \& {White}}]{GSW05}
1018: {Gao}, L., {Springel}, V., \& {White}, S.~D.~M. 2005, \mnras, 363, L66
1019:
1020: \bibitem[{{Gao} \& {White}(2007)}]{GW07}
1021: {Gao}, L., \& {White}, S.~D.~M. 2007, \mnras, L19+
1022:
1023: \bibitem[{{Gao} {et~al.}(2004){Gao}, {White}, {Jenkins}, {Stoehr}, \&
1024: {Springel}}]{Gao04}
1025: {Gao}, L., {White}, S.~D.~M., {Jenkins}, A., {Stoehr}, F., \& {Springel}, V.
1026: 2004, \mnras, 355, 819
1027:
1028: \bibitem[Hahn et al.(2008)]{Hahn08}
1029: Hahn, O., Porciani, C., Dekel, A., \& Carollo, C.~M.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints,
1030: 803, arXiv:0803.4211
1031:
1032: \bibitem[{{Hamilton}(1992)}]{Hamilton92}
1033: {Hamilton}, A.~J.~S. 1992, \apjl, 385, L5
1034:
1035: \bibitem[{{Jing} {et~al.}(1998){Jing}, {Mo}, \& {Boerner}}]{JMB98}
1036: {Jing}, Y.~P., {Mo}, H.~J., \& {Boerner}, G. 1998, \apj, 494, 1
1037:
1038: \bibitem[{{Jing} {et~al.}(2007){Jing}, {Suto}, \& {Mo}}]{JSM07}
1039: {Jing}, Y.~P., {Suto}, Y., \& {Mo}, H.~J. 2007, \apj, 657, 664
1040:
1041: \bibitem[{{Kaiser}(1987)}]{Kaiser87}
1042: {Kaiser}, N. 1987, \mnras, 227, 1
1043:
1044: \bibitem[{{Ariel Keselman} \& {Nusser}(2007)}]{Keselman07}
1045: {Ariel Keselman}, J. \& {Nusser}, A. 2007, \mnras, 382, 1853
1046:
1047: \bibitem[{{Lacey} \& {Cole}(1993)}]{LC93}
1048: {Lacey}, C., \& {Cole}, S. 1993, \mnras, 262, 627
1049:
1050: \bibitem[{{Landy} \& {Szalay}(1993)}]{Landy93}
1051: {Landy}, S.~D., \& {Szalay}, A.~S. 1993, \apj, 412, 64
1052:
1053: \bibitem[{{Mo} \& {White}(1996)}]{MW96}
1054: {Mo}, H.~J., \& {White}, S.~D.~M. 1996, \mnras, 282, 347
1055:
1056: \bibitem[{{Peacock} \& {Smith}(2000)}]{PS00}
1057: {Peacock}, J.~A., \& {Smith}, R.~E. 2000, \mnras, 318, 1144
1058:
1059: \bibitem[{{Sandvik} {et~al.}(2007){Sandvik}, {M{\"o}ller}, {Lee}, \&
1060: {White}}]{Sandvik07}
1061: {Sandvik}, H.~B., {M{\"o}ller}, O., {Lee}, J., \& {White}, S.~D.~M. 2007,
1062: \mnras, 377, 234
1063:
1064: \bibitem[{{Scoccimarro} {et~al.}(2001){Scoccimarro}, {Sheth}, {Hui}, \&
1065: {Jain}}]{Scoccimarro01}
1066: {Scoccimarro}, R., {Sheth}, R.~K., {Hui}, L., \& {Jain}, B. 2001, \apj, 546, 20
1067:
1068: \bibitem[{{Seljak}(2000)}]{Seljak00}
1069: {Seljak}, U. 2000, \mnras, 318, 203
1070:
1071: \bibitem[{{Skibba} {et~al.}(2006){Skibba}, {Sheth}, {Connolly}, \&
1072: {Scranton}}]{Skibba06}
1073: {Skibba}, R., {Sheth}, R.~K., {Connolly}, A.~J., \& {Scranton}, R. 2006,
1074: \mnras, 369, 68
1075:
1076: \bibitem[{{Springel}(2005)}]{Springel05}
1077: {Springel}, V. 2005, \mnras, 364, 1105
1078:
1079: \bibitem[{{Springel} {et~al.}(2001){Springel}, {Yoshida}, \&
1080: {White}}]{Springel01}
1081: {Springel}, V., {Yoshida}, N., \& {White}, S.~D.~M. 2001, New Astronomy, 6, 79
1082:
1083: \bibitem[{{Tinker}(2007)}]{Tinker07}
1084: {Tinker}, J.~L. 2007, \mnras, 374, 477
1085:
1086: \bibitem[{{Tinker} {et~al.}(2007){Tinker}, {Conroy}, {Norberg}, {Patiri},
1087: {Weinberg}, \& {Warren}}]{Tinker07b}
1088: {Tinker}, J.~L., {Conroy}, C., {Norberg}, P., {Patiri}, S.~G., {Weinberg},
1089: D.~H., \& {Warren}, M.~S. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 707
1090:
1091: \bibitem[{{Tinker} {et~al.}(2006){Tinker}, {Weinberg}, \& {Zheng}}]{Tinker06}
1092: {Tinker}, J.~L., {Weinberg}, D.~H., \& {Zheng}, Z. 2006, \mnras, 368, 85
1093:
1094: \bibitem[{{van den Bosch} {et~al.}(2003){van den Bosch}, {Mo}, \&
1095: {Yang}}]{Bosch03}
1096: {van den Bosch}, F.~C., {Mo}, H.~J., \& {Yang}, X. 2003, \mnras, 345, 923
1097:
1098: \bibitem[{{Wang} {et~al.}(2007){Wang}, {Mo}, \& {Jing}}]{Wang07}
1099: {Wang}, H.~Y., {Mo}, H.~J., \& {Jing}, Y.~P. 2007, \mnras, 375, 633
1100:
1101: \bibitem[{{Wechsler} {et~al.}(2002){Wechsler}, {Bullock}, {Primack},
1102: {Kravtsov}, \& {Dekel}}]{Wechsler02}
1103: {Wechsler}, R.~H., {Bullock}, J.~S., {Primack}, J.~R., {Kravtsov}, A.~V., \&
1104: {Dekel}, A. 2002, \apj, 568, 52
1105:
1106: \bibitem[{{Wechsler} {et~al.}(2006){Wechsler}, {Zentner}, {Bullock},
1107: {Kravtsov}, \& {Allgood}}]{Wechsler06}
1108: {Wechsler}, R.~H., {Zentner}, A.~R., {Bullock}, J.~S., {Kravtsov}, A.~V., \&
1109: {Allgood}, B. 2006, \apj, 652, 71
1110:
1111: \bibitem[{{Weinmann} {et~al.}(2006){Weinmann}, {van den Bosch}, {Yang}, {Mo},
1112: {Croton}, \& {Moore}}]{Weinmann06}
1113: {Weinmann}, S.~M., {van den Bosch}, F.~C., {Yang}, X., {Mo}, H.~J., {Croton},
1114: D.~J., \& {Moore}, B. 2006, \mnras, 372, 1161
1115:
1116: \bibitem[{{Wetzel} {et~al.}(2007){Wetzel}, {Cohn}, {White}, {Holz}, \&
1117: {Warren}}]{Wetzel07}
1118: {Wetzel}, A.~R., {Cohn}, J.~D., {White}, M., {Holz}, D.~E., \& {Warren}, M.~S.
1119: 2007, \apj, 656, 139
1120:
1121: \bibitem[{{White}(1996)}]{White96}
1122: {White}, S.~D.~M. 1996, in Cosmology and Large Scale Structure, ed.
1123: R.~{Schaeffer}, J.~{Silk}, M.~{Spiro}, \& J.~{Zinn-Justin}, 349--+
1124:
1125: \bibitem[{{Yang} {et~al.}(2003){Yang}, {Mo}, \& {van den Bosch}}]{Yang03}
1126: {Yang}, X., {Mo}, H.~J., \& {van den Bosch}, F.~C. 2003, \mnras, 339, 1057
1127:
1128: \bibitem[{{Yang} {et~al.}(2006){Yang}, {Mo}, \& {van den Bosch}}]{YMB06}
1129: ---. 2006, \apjl, 638, L55
1130:
1131: \bibitem[{{York} \& {et al.}(2000)}]{York00}
1132: {York}, D.~G., \& {et al.} 2000, \aj, 120, 1579
1133:
1134: \bibitem[{{Yoo} \& {et al.}(2006)}]{Yoo06}
1135: {Yoo}, J., \& {et al.} 2006, \apj, 652, 26
1136:
1137: \bibitem[{{Zehavi} {et~al.}(2005){Zehavi}, {Zheng}, {Weinberg}, {Frieman},
1138: {Berlind}, {Blanton}, {Scoccimarro}, {Sheth}, {Strauss}, {Kayo}, {Suto},
1139: {Fukugita}, {Nakamura}, {Bahcall}, {Brinkmann}, {Gunn}, {Hennessy},
1140: {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Knapp}, {Loveday}, {Meiksin}, {Schlegel}, {Schneider},
1141: {Szapudi}, {Tegmark}, {Vogeley}, \& {York}}]{Zehavi05}
1142: {Zehavi}, I., {Zheng}, Z., {Weinberg}, D.~H., {Frieman}, J.~A., {Berlind},
1143: A.~A., {Blanton}, M.~R., {Scoccimarro}, R., {Sheth}, R.~K., {Strauss}, M.~A.,
1144: {Kayo}, I., {Suto}, Y., {Fukugita}, M., {Nakamura}, O., {Bahcall}, N.~A.,
1145: {Brinkmann}, J., {Gunn}, J.~E., {Hennessy}, G.~S., {Ivezi{\'c}}, {\v Z}.,
1146: {Knapp}, G.~R., {Loveday}, J., {Meiksin}, A., {Schlegel}, D.~J., {Schneider},
1147: D.~P., {Szapudi}, I., {Tegmark}, M., {Vogeley}, M.~S., \& {York}, D.~G. 2005,
1148: \apj, 630, 1
1149:
1150: \bibitem[{{Zentner}(2006)}]{Zetner06}
1151: {Zentner}, A.~R. 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints
1152:
1153: \bibitem[{{Zhao} {et~al.}(2003){Zhao}, {Mo}, {Jing}, \& {B{\"o}rner}}]{Zhao03}
1154: {Zhao}, D.~H., {Mo}, H.~J., {Jing}, Y.~P., \& {B{\"o}rner}, G. 2003, \mnras,
1155: 339, 12
1156:
1157: \bibitem[{{Zheng}(2004)}]{Zheng04}
1158: {Zheng}, Z. 2004, \apj, 610, 61
1159:
1160: \bibitem[{{Zheng} {et~al.}(2005){Zheng}, {Berlind}, {Weinberg}, {Benson},
1161: {Baugh}, {Cole}, {Dav{\'e}}, {Frenk}, {Katz}, \& {Lacey}}]{Zheng05}
1162: {Zheng}, Z., {Berlind}, A.~A., {Weinberg}, D.~H., {Benson}, A.~J., {Baugh},
1163: C.~M., {Cole}, S., {Dav{\'e}}, R., {Frenk}, C.~S., {Katz}, N., \& {Lacey},
1164: C.~G. 2005, \apj, 633, 791
1165:
1166: \bibitem[{{Zheng} \& {Weinberg}(2007)}]{Zheng07}
1167: {Zheng}, Z., \& {Weinberg}, D.~H. 2007, \apj, 659, 1
1168:
1169: \bibitem[Zheng et al.(2007)]{Zheng07b}
1170: Zheng, Z., Coil, A.~L., \& Zehavi, I.\ 2007, \apj, 667, 760
1171:
1172: \bibitem[{{Zhu} {et~al.}(2006){Zhu}, {Zheng}, {Lin}, {Jing}, {Kang}, \&
1173: {Gao}}]{Zhu06}
1174: {Zhu}, G., {Zheng}, Z., {Lin}, W.~P., {Jing}, Y.~P., {Kang}, X., \& {Gao}, L.
1175: 2006, \apjl, 639, L5
1176:
1177: \end{thebibliography}
1178: %\clearpage
1179:
1180: \end{document}
1181: