1: % MNSAMPLE.TEX
2: %
3: % A sample plain TeX single/two column Monthly Notices article.
4: %
5: % v1.5 --- released 25th August 1994 (M. Reed)
6: % v1.4 --- released 22nd February 1994
7: % v1.3 --- released 8th December 1992
8: %
9: % Copyright Cambridge University Press
10:
11: %\documentstyle{aastex}
12: %\documentclass[a4,11pt,preprint,amsmath]{aastex}
13: %\documentclass[preprint,11pt,amsmath]{aastex}
14: %\documentclass[onecolumn,11pt]{emulateapj}
15: \documentclass[11pt]{emulateapj}
16: %\documentclass[preprint,12pt]{aastex}
17: \usepackage{lscape}
18: \usepackage{graphics}
19: %\usepackage{rotating}
20: \newcommand{\myemail}{kjhan@kias.re.kr}
21: \newcommand{\kms}{km\ s$^{-1}$}
22: \newcommand{\Msun}{$M_{\sun}$}
23: \newcommand{\Ha}{H$\alpha$\ }
24: \newcommand{\gm}{\mathfrak{m}}
25: \newcommand{\gM}{\mathfrak{M}}
26: \newcommand{\bm}{beam$^{-1}$}
27: \newcommand{\yr}{yr$^{-1}$}
28: \newcommand{\ecs}{ergs\ cm$^{-2}$\ s$^{-1}$}
29: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.}
30: \newcommand{\gapprox}{$_>\atop{^\sim}$}
31: \newenvironment{inlinefigure}{
32: \def\@captype{figure}
33: \noindent\begin{minipage}{0.999\linewidth}\begin{center}}
34: {\end{center}\end{minipage}\smallskip}
35: \input epsf
36: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
37: \newcommand{\LCDM}{{$\Lambda$CDM }}
38: \def\be{\begin{equation}}\def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}\def\beaa{\begin{eqnarray*}}
39: \def\ee{\end{equation}} \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}} \def\eeaa{\end{eqnarray*}}
40: \def\MPC{\rm{Mpc}}
41: \def\LCDMl{\rm{$\Lambda$CDM-l}}
42: \def\LCDMs{\rm{$\Lambda$CDM-s}}
43: \slugcomment{\today: Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
44:
45: \shorttitle{Galaxy Formation Model}
46: \shortauthors{Kim, Choi, and Park}
47:
48:
49: \begin{document}
50: \title{A Subhalo-Galaxy Correspondence Model of Galaxy Formation}
51: %\author[Kim \& Park]{Juhan Kim\thanks{E-mail: kjhan@kao.re.kr}
52: %and Changbom Park \thanks{E-mail: cbp@astro.snu.ac.kr} \\
53: %School of Earth Environmental Sciences, Seoul National University,
54: %Seoul, Korea}
55: \author{Juhan Kim\altaffilmark{1,2}, Changbom Park\altaffilmark{1,3}, and Yun-Young Choi\altaffilmark{1,4}}
56: %\affil{School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Astronomy Program,\\
57: %Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, KOREA}
58:
59: \altaffiltext{1}{Korea Institute for Advanced Study, Hoegiro 87,
60: Dongdaemun-Gu, Seoul, 130-722, Korea}
61: \altaffiltext{2}{kjhan@kias.re.kr}
62: \altaffiltext{3}{cbp@kias.re.kr}
63: \altaffiltext{4}{yychoi@kias.re.kr}
64:
65:
66: % \acceptedline is to be defined at the Journals office and not
67: % by an author.
68:
69: %\date{Accepted ???? December ??. Received 2002 December 14;
70: % in original form 2002 October 11}
71: %\maketitle
72: %\label{firstpage}
73: \begin{abstract}
74: We propose a model of allocating galaxies in cosmological N-body simulations.
75: We identify each subhalo with a galaxy, and assign luminosity and morphological type
76: assuming that the galaxy luminosity is a monotonic function of its host subhalo mass.
77: The morphology assignment is made by using
78: two simple relations between subhalo mass and galaxy luminosity of different types.
79: One is using a constant ratio in luminosity of early (E/SO)
80: and late (S/Irr) type galaxies at a fixed subhalo mass.
81: And the other assumes that galaxies of different morphological types but having an equal luminosity
82: have a constant ratio in their subhalo masses.
83: We made a series of comparisons of the properties of these simulated galaxies
84: with those of the SDSS galaxies.
85: The resulting simulated galaxy sample is found to successfully reproduce
86: the observed local number density distribution except for in high density regions.
87: The luminosity function is studied as a function of local density. It was found that
88: the observed luminosity functions in different local density environments are
89: overall well-reproduced by the simulated galaxies. Discrepancy is found at the bright
90: end of the luminosity function of early types in the underdense regions and at
91: the faint end of both morphological types in very high density regions.
92: A significant fraction of the observed early type galaxies in voids seems to have
93: undergone a relatively recent star formation and became brighter.
94: The lack of faint simulated galaxies in dense regions may be due to the strong
95: tidal force of the central halo which destroys less massive satellite subhalos around
96: in the simulation.
97: The mass-to-light ratio is found to depend on the local density in the way
98: similar to that observed in the SDSS sample.
99: %We also found that the velocity dispersion of the
100: %simulated early type galaxies at brighter luminosity increases with the local density and
101: %this environmental dependence is consistent with the observations.
102: We have found an impressive agreement between out simulated galaxies and the SDSS galaxies
103: in the dependence of the central velocity dispersion on the local density and luminosity.
104: \end{abstract}
105:
106: \keywords{ Cosmology: simulation: halo-galaxy: luminosity function: Numerical}
107:
108: \section{Introduction}
109: The current galaxy formation paradigm can be characterized by
110: ``hierarchical clustering''. This means that massive dark matter halos
111: form by merging less massive halos and/or by accreting ambient matter,
112: and also that a dark matter halo governs the evolution of the galaxy residing inside.
113: Most galaxies are believed to be hosted by the
114: dark matter halos becuase the halos can provide a deep potential well
115: for baryonic matter to condense and cool down. This leads to triggering
116: of the star formation;
117: gas sufficiently accumulated in the halo potential center
118: begins to experience many hydrodynamic processes,
119: such as radiative cooling, star-formation, supernova explosion, and chemical enrichments.
120: All of these processes play an important role in making the visible galaxies in the end.
121: Because galaxies as a building block of the large scale structures
122: consequently follows the evolution of their host halos over the cosmic history,
123: understanding gravitational evolution of dark halos is
124: very important for the study of galaxy formation and evolution.
125:
126: Over the past few decades, cosmological simulations have been proved
127: useful for the study of structure formation.
128: Simulations have boosted up many investigations of the nonlinear structure
129: evolutions and their results have been extensively compared to the observations
130: in various aspects of interest.
131: Many studies have reported successful recovery of observational
132: features of the galaxy
133: distribution like the two-point correlations of galaxies
134: \citep{conroy06,kravtsov04,berlind02}, topology \citep{park05a,park05b,gott06},
135: and the environmental dependence of spin distributions \citep{cervantes-sodi07}.
136:
137:
138: Detailed modeling of galaxy evolution and understanding of the galaxy properties
139: have been possible with the recent advent of the huge redshift surveys
140: such as Sloan Digital Sky Survey\footnote{http://www.sdss.org} (SDSS) and
141: 2dFGRS\footnote{http://www.aao.gov.au/2df/}. These larger surveys provide
142: a rich information on the formation and evolution of galaxy.
143: To meet a requirement to establish a relation
144: between simulated structures and observed galaxies
145: many techniques have been introduced.
146: The semi-analytic model(SAM) of galaxy formation
147: \citep{cole94,kauffmann97,baugh06}
148: is based on the hierarchical clustering of halos
149: whose merging history trees are built by generating a set of
150: Gaussian random numbers.
151: The mass growth history of halos on various mass scales can be
152: generated and traced by this method.
153: Numerous SAM parameters
154: are implemented in the merging history to reflect the hydrodynamical processes
155: of heating, cooling, star formation, and
156: aging the stellar populations.
157: Their parameter values are fine tunned for the best description
158: of collective properties of observed galaxies.
159: But as the number of observational contraints increases, the number of parameters
160: increases and the SAM becomes much complicated.
161:
162: Hydrosimulations employ direct formulations of the hydrodynamic processes (\citealt{weinberg06}).
163: Two types of hydro simulations are now widely adopted;
164: the Lagrangian \citep{monaghan92,hernquist89} and Eulerian methods
165: (\citealt{tasker06,harten97}, and for comparative study,
166: see \citealt{heitmann05,thacker00}).
167: They set gas particles or gas grids in the system of interest.
168: Then, gas dynamics are taken into account by calculating the hydrodynamic interactions
169: between neighbor particles or by solving differential hydro equations between
170: adjacent grids.
171: This method has several weak points;
172: it suffers from the lack of resolutions in space and mass
173: as the N-body simulations.
174: And in most cases, the star formation and supernova
175: explosions are far beyond the simulation resolution.
176: Some processes such as radiative transfer, star formation,
177: supernovae feedback, and initial stellar mass function,
178: are not thoroughly understood and
179: are difficult to parameterize in a well established way.
180:
181: One of the offsprings of the SAM is
182: the Halo Occupation Distribution (HOD; \citealt{zheng05,seljak00,berlind02})
183: model. It relates the Friend-of-Friend (FoF) halo mass to the number of
184: contained subhalos
185: (or galaxies) using a conditional probability, $P(N|M)$, where $M$ is the FoF halo mass
186: and $N$ is the number of subhalos inside the FoF halo.
187: This probability function is obtained from numerical simulations
188: \citep{kravtsov04,berlind02,jing98} or
189: from observations \citep{zehavi04,abazajian05,zheng07} fitting
190: the model to the observed two-point correlation functions.
191:
192: Another variant of the SAM is a one that adopts the one-to-one monotonic
193: correspondence between the galaxy luminosity and subhalo mass
194: \citep{marinoni02,vale04,vale06,shankar06}.
195: This method is often called the ``correspondence model''. It is simpler
196: than other methods because it requires only two prerequisites;
197: the luminosity function of galaxies and mass function of subhalos.
198: Its key assumption that a more massive subhalo hosts a brighter galaxy,
199: is consistent with the hierarchical clustering picture.
200: As the halo mass grows, its luminosity is expected to grow in general
201: because merging of halos may be followed by the merging of galaxies.
202: By matching these two functions, the subhalo mass is mapped to galaxy luminosity.
203:
204: However, sometimes
205: a galaxy may survive the merger event because baryonic component of a galaxy
206: is usually more concentrated and is more tightly bound than its dark counterpart.
207: These ``orphan'' galaxies \citep{gao04} which have no separate corresponding halos
208: could exist in the cluster regions.
209: Also halos of mass below a certain characteristic scale
210: are unable to provide baryonic matter with gravitational attraction
211: strong enough to resist against supernova explosions which can tear up
212: the small-mass system. Even though such cases are many,
213: it is sound to expect that the galaxy census is
214: closely related to the population of subhalos because most of the observed galaxies
215: are field galaxies who have their own dark halos.
216: It is worth investigating the hypothesis of the subhalo-to-galaxy correspondence
217: model of galaxy formation.
218:
219: In this paper, we apply the subhalo-galaxy correspondence model to a large
220: N-body simulation and compare the statistical properties of simulated galaxies
221: with those of galaxies observed by the SDSS.
222: We organize this paper as follows.
223: In section 2 we describe our simulation and the subhalo finding method.
224: In section 3, we implement the subhalo-galaxy correspondence
225: model and show how to assign morphological types to mock galaxies.
226: In section 4, the local density is introduced to quantify local environments
227: and the local density distributions of mock and SDSS galaxies are investigated.
228: We also compare the luminosity distribution of
229: simulated galaxies with those of the SDSS galaxies in section 5.
230: The environmental dependence of central velocity distributions are studied
231: for the mock and SDSS galaxies in section 6.
232: And discussions and conclusions follow in section 7.
233:
234: \section{Simulation and Halo Finding}
235: \label{simfinding}
236: We have carried out a cosmological N-body simulation of the universe with
237: the WMAP 3-year cosmological parameters. We ran $1024^3$ cold dark matter particles
238: using an improved version of the GOTPM code \citep{dubinski04}.
239: The code adopts a dynamical domain decomposition for the Particle-Mesh part
240: with a variable width of the z-directional domain slabs.
241: It also uses more compact and efficient oct-sibling tree walks
242: reducing the computational cost for the short-range force update
243: which consumes about 90 \% of total run time.
244: As a results, this new version outperforms the previous version by about factor three
245: in speed.
246: The simulation was run on a beowulf-type system installed
247: at Korea Institute for Advanced Study.
248: The linux cluster consists of 256 AMD cores and 1 tera-byte main memory.
249:
250: The simulation and cosmological parameters adopted in this study are lists in
251: Table \ref{sim}.
252: The number of time steps in the simulations are empirically pre-determined
253: to satisfy the requirement that
254: the maximum displacement of particles in a step should be less than the
255: force resolutions which is $0.1$ times the mean interparticle separation ($d_{\rm mean}$).
256: The starting epochs of simulations are chosen to constrain that
257: any particle should not overshoot neighbors
258: when the Zel'dovich displacement is made.
259:
260: Subhalos are identified by the PSB method \citep{kim06}. The method applies
261: the FoF algorithm to identify dark matter particle groups
262: adopting the standard linking length, $l_{\rm link} = 0.2 d_{\rm mean}$.
263: Then it divides each FoF halo into subhalos.
264: This two-stage halo finding is in common with other methods \citep{springel01,shaw06}.
265: In the second stage we build a particle density field by a coordinate-free method
266: as usually adopted in the smoothed particle hydrodynamics \citep{monaghan92}.
267: This adaptive kernel implementation is intended to resolve tight clusterings of particles.
268: Then, we search for 26 nearest neighbors at each particle.
269: To construct isodensity contour we move along the neighbor positions
270: in a similar way used in the origingal PSB method (for details see \citealt{kim06}).
271: Self-bound and tidally stable subhalos are identified by measuring the tidal radius
272: of the subhalos and total energies of their member particles;
273: member candidates are selected if their distances to the center of a subhalo
274: are less than tidal radius of the subhalo.
275: Among these particles, gravitationally unbound particles are discarded.
276: The resulting subhalos are used to allocate galaxies.
277: We call the most massive subhalo a central halo
278: and other subhalos satellite halos in the FoF group.
279: Also, the group of particles found by the FoF method are named the FoF group or FoF halo.
280:
281:
282: \begin{deluxetable*}{c|ccccccccccccc}
283: %\rotate
284: \tablecaption{Simulation parameters}
285: \tablewidth{0pt}
286: \tablehead{
287: \colhead{name}
288: &\colhead{$N_p$}
289: &\colhead{$N_m$}
290: &\colhead{$L_{box}$\tablenotemark{a}}
291: &\colhead{$N_{step}$}
292: &\colhead{$z_{i}$}
293: &\colhead{$h$}
294: &\colhead{$\Omega_m$}
295: &\colhead{$\Omega_b$}
296: &\colhead{$\Omega_\Lambda$}
297: &\colhead{$n_s$\tablenotemark{b}}
298: &\colhead{$b$}
299: &\colhead{$m_p$\tablenotemark{c}}
300: &\colhead{$\epsilon$\tablenotemark{d}}
301: }
302: \startdata
303: H2 & $1024^3$ &$1024^3$&256 & 3800 &95 & 0.732 & 0.238 &0.042&0.762&0.958&1.314&$1.0\times 10^{9}$ &$25h^{-1}{\rm kpc}$
304: \enddata
305: \tablenotetext{a}{in $h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$}
306: \tablenotetext{b}{spectral power index}
307: \tablenotetext{c}{particle mass in $h^{-1}{\rm M_\odot}$}
308: \tablenotetext{d}{force resolution}
309: \label{sim}
310: \end{deluxetable*}
311:
312:
313:
314:
315: \section{The Subhalo-Galaxy Correspondece Model}
316: \label{model}
317: We use the monotonic one-to-one correspondence model between galaxies and subhalos;
318: there is one and only one galaxy in each subhalo and a more massive subhalo hosts
319: a more luminous galaxy. We apply this model to assign galaxies within our simulation box.
320:
321: The one-to-one correspondence model is formalized in the following way.
322: We first measure the mass function $\Phi (M_h)$ of PSB subhalos.
323: We then take the observed luminosity functions of the early (E/S0) and late (S/Irr) type
324: galaxies. The relation between the halo mass and the corresponding absolute magnitude
325: limits is given by the following integral equation.
326: \begin{eqnarray}
327: \nonumber
328: \int_{M_h}^\infty \Phi(M^\prime) dM^\prime &=&
329: \int_{-\infty}^{\mathcal{M}_E(M_h)} \phi_E(\mathcal{M^\prime}) d\mathcal{M^\prime}\\
330: &+& \int_{-\infty}^{\mathcal{M}_L(M_h)}
331: \phi_L(\mathcal{M^\prime}) d\mathcal{M^\prime}
332: ,
333: \label{m2b}
334: \end{eqnarray}
335: where $\Phi$ is the subhalo mass function
336: and $\phi_E$ and $\phi_L$ are the luminosity functions of early
337: and late type galaxies.
338: In this equation we separate the full luminosity function of subhalos into
339: those of early and late types to take into account the difference in mass
340: of the halos associated with galaxies of different morphological type.
341:
342: Two models are proposed to utilize the simple mass and luminosity scaling ratios
343: between different morphological types at the fixed luminosity and at the fixed mass,
344: respectively. The first model uses
345: \begin{equation}
346: L_L(M_h) = L_E(\kappa M_h),
347: \label{fm}
348: \end{equation}
349: where $M_h$ is the subhalo mass, and
350: $L_L$ and $L_E$ are the luminosities of late and early types, respectively.
351: The equation means that at an equal luminosity the early type galaxy is $\kappa$ times
352: more massive than the late type galaxy.
353: This model is based on the findings of Park et al. (2007a)
354: who have assured that the early type galaxies brighter than $M_r =-19.5$
355: have about $\sqrt{2}$ times higher central velocity dispersion and pairwise
356: peculiar velocity difference compared to the late
357: types of the same brightness. This implies $\kappa\approx 2$
358: if $(M_h/L)_E = \kappa(M_h/L)_L$.
359: Another convencing observational evidence for $\kappa=2$ can be also
360: found in \citet{mandelbaum06} who obtained the same result for halos of mass greater than $10^{11}
361: h^{-1}{\rm M_\odot}$ from the analysis of the galaxy-galaxy weak lensing of the SDSS sample.
362: Equation (\ref{fm}) then makes equation (\ref{m2b}) a one-to-one relation between halo mass and
363: galaxy luminosity. From now on, we name it $\kappa$ model.
364: The second model uses a constant factor for the luminosity rather than the mass.
365: This relation can be formulated as
366: \begin{equation}
367: L_L(M_h) = \beta L_E(M_h),
368: \label{lle}
369: \end{equation}
370: which says that late type galaxies are brighter than early type galaxies
371: of the same mass by a factor of $\beta$. Now we call it the $\beta$ model.
372:
373: For the galaxy luminosity distribution, we use the Schechter function
374: \begin{eqnarray}
375: \nonumber
376: \phi(\mathcal{M}) &=& \left(0.4 \ln{10} \right)\phi^\star 10^{-0.4(\mathcal{M}-\mathcal{M^\star})
377: (\alpha+1)} \\
378: &&\exp\left[-10^{-0.4(\mathcal{M}-\mathcal{M^\star})}\right],
379: \end{eqnarray}
380: where we adopt the type-specific Schechter function parameters
381: $\mathcal{M}_E^\star-5\log_{10} h =-20.23$,
382: $\phi_E^\star = 7.11 \times 10^{-3}h^3{\rm Mpc}^{-3} $,
383: and $\alpha_E=-0.53$ for early type galaxies
384: and
385: $\mathcal{M}_L^\star-5\log_{10} h =-20.12$,
386: $\phi_L^\star = 12.27 \times 10^{-3}h^3{\rm Mpc}^{-3} $,
387: and $\alpha_L=-0.90$ for late types in the $r$ band, which are given in Table 2
388: of Choi et al. (2007) for the SDSS galaxies brighter than $\mathcal{M}_r =-19.0$
389: (Hereafter, we will drop the term $5 {\rm log}_{10} h$ in the absolute magnitude
390: and the magnitudes are all $r$--band magnitude.)
391: These parameter values are quite different from those given by \citet{blanton01}
392: and Blanton et al. (2003) mostly because we are using the type-specific functions.
393: Reducing the effects of the internal extinction by Choi et al. also
394: makes a significant difference in the $\alpha$ parameter compared to Blanton et al.'s results.
395: Difference also comes from the data size (Dr4plus versus $\sim$DR1), adopted cosmology
396: ($\Omega_m=0.27, \Omega_\Lambda=0.73$ versus $\Omega_m=0.3, \Omega_\Lambda=0.7$), and
397: sample definition (volume-limited versus apparent magnitude-limited).
398:
399: The $\beta$ model can be easily solved by using the relation,
400: $\mathcal{M}_L(M_h) = \mathcal{M}_E(M_h)-2.5\log_{10}{\beta}$ in equation (\ref{m2b}),
401: but the $\kappa$ model is a bit tricky to solve and needs a few assumptions.
402: The $\kappa$ model can be solved by a chain of equations whose
403: $n$--th term is,
404: \begin{eqnarray}
405: \nonumber
406: \int_{M_h/\kappa}^{M_h} \Phi(M) dM &=& \int_{\mathcal{M}_{n-2}}^{\mathcal{M}_{n-1}}
407: \phi_L(\mathcal{M})d\mathcal{M}\\
408: &+& \int_{\mathcal{M}_{n-1}}^{\mathcal{M}_{n}} \phi_E(\mathcal{M})d\mathcal{M},
409: \label{eqkappa}
410: \end{eqnarray}
411: where $\mathcal{M}_{n-2} \le \mathcal{M}_{n-1}\le\mathcal{M}_{n}$ and
412: \begin{eqnarray}
413: M_h(\mathcal{M}_{L,n-2}) &=& M_h(\mathcal{M}_{E,n-1}) \equiv m\\
414: M_h(\mathcal{M}_{L,n-1}) &=& M_h(\mathcal{M}_{E,n}) = m/\kappa,
415: \end{eqnarray}
416: for $\kappa >1$.
417: Here $M_h(\mathcal{M}_L)$ and $M_h(\mathcal{M}_E)$
418: denote the halo masses of late type and early type galaxies of
419: absolute magnitude $\mathcal{M}$, respectively.
420: If $M_h$, $\mathcal{M}_{n-2}$, and $\mathcal{M}_{n-1}$ are given,
421: then $\mathcal{M}_{n}$ can be derived.
422: Figure \ref{kappa} depicts the relations among the three magnitudes described above.
423: The solid and dashed curves show the luminosity functions of early
424: and late types, respectively.
425: And the dotted line connects the same mass of the two morphological types.
426: The shaded areas denoted by $A_n$ and $B_n$ are the integrated number densities
427: of galaxies of magnitude between $\mathcal{M}_{n-2}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{n-1}$
428: for the late type and between $\mathcal{M}_{n-1}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{n}$
429: for the early type, respectively.
430: Therefore, the sum of the two shaded areas should be equal to the integrals of
431: the subhalo mass function (the left-hand side of Eq. \ref{eqkappa}).
432: \begin{figure}
433: \plotone{f1.eps}
434: \caption{
435: Illustration to derive the $M_h$--$\mathcal{M}_r$ relation for the $\kappa$.
436: The solid and dashed curves are the luminosity functions of early and late type galaxies,
437: respectively. And the dotted line connects the same mass of the two types.
438: The shaded areas tagged by $A_n$ and $B_n$ are the numbers
439: of galaxies in the magnitude intervals between $\mathcal{M}_{n-2}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{n-1}$
440: for the late type and between $\mathcal{M}_{n-1}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{n}$
441: for the early type, respectively.
442: }
443: \label{kappa}
444: \end{figure}
445: By making a stride to the next mass scale which is smaller by $1/\kappa$ times,
446: we can get a chain of equations and derive the scaling
447: relation between the mass and the luminosity.
448: To solve this chain of equations
449: we set initial conditions under the plausible assumption
450: that the late-type contributions to the number density at the high-mass (or
451: bright) end
452: are negligible compared to those of early types (or $0\simeq A_1,A_2 \ll B_1,B_2$).
453: This setting is quite fair from the fact that early type galaxies dominate
454: the bright end population of galaxies.
455: Then, we are able to solve the series of equation (\ref{eqkappa})
456: from the initial conditions where
457: only the early-type contribution to number density is dominant.
458:
459: %For the initial mass, we set $M_i = 5\times 10^{16} h^{-1}{\rm M_\odot}$.
460: %But we only get a series of masses which are sparsely spaced by $1/\kappa$ times.
461: %Therefore, we fill this mass striding gap by restarting the measurement
462: %shifting the initial mass from $M_i$
463: %to $M_i/\kappa$ with 20 equal spacings.
464: %We have checked the robustness of this approach by changing $M_i$
465: %from $M_i = 5\times 10^{16} h^{-1}{\rm M_\odot}$ to
466: %$M_i = 1\times 10^{15} h^{-1}{\rm M_\odot}$ and found no obvious deviation
467: %between different starting points.
468:
469: Now we investigate the early type fractions as a function of the host subhalo mass.
470: The probability of a galaxy of mass $M_h$ to be early type is given by
471: \begin{equation}
472: f_E(M_h) = {\phi_E (\mathcal{M}_E|M_h)\over \phi_E{(\mathcal{M}_E|M_h)}
473: +\phi_L{(\mathcal{M}_L|M_h)}},
474: \end{equation}
475: where the denominator is the luminosity function of all galaxies of mass $M_h$
476: and the numerator is the luminosity function of early types of mass $M_h$.
477: Figure \ref{fe} shows the results for the $\kappa$ and $\beta$ models.
478: Using $f_E$ we are able to randomly assign morphological type to each mock galaxy
479: in accordance with its halo mass.
480: For a larger value of $\beta$,
481: the early type galaxy tends to dominate the population down to lower mass scales ($M_c$)
482: and below $M_c$ $f_E$ drops more rapidly.
483: But for the $\kappa$ model, those changes in $f_E$ are not so much steep.
484: Also, in this plot, we note that
485: a more dramatic change of the $f_E$ in the $\beta$ model
486: than the $\kappa$ model.
487: \begin{figure}
488: \plotone{f2.eps}
489: \caption{
490: Early type fractions as a function of host subhalo mass.
491: Each curve shows the fractional distributions of early type galaxies
492: for $\beta=1$,
493: 1.5, 2, and 3 ({\it lower panel}) and for $\kappa=1$,
494: 1.5, 2, and 3 ({\it upper panel}) models. The model parameter values are attached to the curves.
495: }
496: \label{fe}
497: \end{figure}
498:
499: Figure \ref{m2m} shows the relation between the subhalo mass $M_h$ and absolute magnitude
500: $\mathcal{M}$ of early ({\it solid lines}) and late ({\it dashed lines}) type galaxies derived
501: from equation (\ref{m2b})
502: and the luminosity functions of the SDSS galaxies
503: in the $\kappa$ ({\it upper}) and $\beta$ ({\it lower panels}) models.
504: Only shown are the cases of $\beta=2$ (thick lines) and 1.5 (thin lines) and
505: $\kappa=2$ (thick lines) and 3 (thin lines).
506: For a comparison,
507: the characteristic minimum mass of the central subhalos at each absolute magnitude
508: limit estimated by Zheng et al. (2007) based on the HOD model is given as filled circles.
509: They obtained the magnitude-to-mass relation of
510: the central subhalo but ignored the morphological types of galaxies.
511: The HOD model is quite consistent with our $M_h$--$\mathcal{M}$ relation for the
512: early type galaxies with $\beta= 2$, and $\kappa= 2$ and 3.
513: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
514: \begin{figure}
515: \plotone{f3.eps}
516: \caption
517: {
518: Scaling relation between halo mass and galaxy magnitude in the $\kappa$ ({\it upper panel})
519: and $\beta$ ({\it lower panel}) models.
520: In the lower panel, {\it solid} lines shows the dependence of the modeled early type magnitude on
521: the host subhalo mass for $\beta=2$ ({\it thick}) and for $\beta=1.5$ ({\it thin}).
522: And in the upper panel, we show the mass-to-magnitude relations for $\kappa=2$ ({\it thick})
523: and $\kappa=3$ ({\it thin}) models.
524: {\it Dashed} curves show the relations of late type galaxies.
525: Filled circles are the best-fitting results
526: of the SDSS observations to the HOD model in \citet{zheng07}.
527: And the errorbar is the width of the cut-off profile of the step-like function
528: in the HOD model (for details, please see their paper).
529: }
530: \label{m2m}
531: \end{figure}
532: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
533:
534: In the lower panel of Figure \ref{ml} shows the mass versus luminosity relation (solid line)
535: for the early type galaxies. Here we adopt $\mathcal{M}_{\odot}=4.64-5\log_{10} h$ \citep{blanton07}
536: to transform the magnitude to luminosity in the $r$--band filter.
537: It can be noted that galaxy luminosity drops steeply at the low mass end and
538: rises in a power law at the high mass end.
539: Taking into account these features, we propose a function
540: \begin{equation}
541: L({M}) = {{M}^\star\over \Psi_{ml}} \left({{M}^\star\over {M}}\right)^{\gamma-1}
542: e^{-\left({{M}^\star\over M\phantom{\star}}\right)},
543: \label{analml}
544: \end{equation}
545: as a fitting function for the halo mass versus early-type galaxy luminosity relation.
546: We apply the $\chi$--square fitting to the relation and
547: obtain the best-fit parameter values of $\Psi_{ml} =38.3 h M_\odot /L_\odot$,
548: $M^\star=2.04\times 10^{11}h^{-1}{\rm M_\odot}$, and $\gamma=0.644$ for the early type
549: in the $\beta=2$ model.
550: In the $\kappa=2$ model, $\Psi_{ml} =39.8(20.3) h M_\odot /L_\odot$,
551: $M^\star=4.83(1.52)\times 10^{11}h^{-1}{\rm M_\odot}$,
552: and $\gamma=0.667(0.719)$ for early (late) type.
553: Only the fitting result for the early type in the $\beta=2$ model is shown by a short-dashed line.
554: %===Be aware that this fitting function of the mass-to-light ratio
555: %is only valid in the mass range from ??? $6\times 10^{10}h^{-1}{\rm M_\odot}$
556: %to $3\times 10^{15}h^{-1}{\rm M_\odot}$
557: %and that there is a subtle overestimation beyond $M_h \sim 10^{14}h^{-1}{\rm M_\odot}$.
558: %======(THIS CONSIDERS ONLY the mass function. luminosity function also gives limits.)
559: \begin{figure}
560: \plotone{f4.eps}
561: \caption
562: {
563: The scaling relation between the halo mass and the galaxy luminosity
564: ({\it lower panel}) or mass-to-light ratio ({\it upper panel}) in the $\beta=2$
565: and $\kappa=2$ model.
566: In the lower panel, the {\it solid} line shows the derived luminosity of
567: early type mock galaxies as a function of the subhalo mass and the {\it short dashed}
568: line is the best-fitting curve for it.
569: Also the early ({\it long dashed}) and late ({\it dotted}) luminosity distributions
570: are shown for the $\kappa=2$ model.
571: In the upper panel, the mass-to-light ratio of the mock galaxies is shown
572: by the line of the same type as shown in the lower panel.
573: But we do not plot the fitting result in upper panel.
574: }
575: \label{ml}
576: \end{figure}
577: The top panel shows the mass-to-light ratios of the early (solid curve) types
578: in the $\beta=2$ model. The long-dashed and dotted curves show those ratios of early
579: and late type galaxies in the $\kappa=2$ model.
580: In the $\beta=2$ model,
581: there is a upturn of the mass-to-light ratio of early types
582: around $M_u=3\times 10^{11}h^{-1}{\rm M_\odot}$
583: (for those measured in other bands, see \citealt{bosch03,yang03,eke06}),
584: which means the star formation in galaxies is strongest at the mass scale.
585: A fitting formula for the mass-to-light ratio is derived from equation (\ref{analupsilon}),
586: \begin{equation}
587: \Upsilon \equiv M/L = \Psi_{ml} \left({M\over M^\star}\right)^{\gamma}
588: e^{\left({M^\star\over M\phantom{\star}}\right)}.
589: \label{analupsilon}
590: \end{equation}
591: Using this equation,
592: the mass scale corresponding to the minimum mass-to-light ratio can be related
593: to the shape parameters as $M_{u}=M^\star/\gamma$ and the minimum mass-to-light ratio is
594: $\Upsilon_{u}(E) = \Psi_{ml} ({e/\gamma})^{\gamma}\simeq 100$ for early type galaxies
595: and $\Upsilon_{u}(L) \simeq 50$ for late types in the $\beta=2$ model.
596:
597: According to our result the mass-to-light ratio of the brightest galaxies reaches much
598: higher than $10^3$.
599: But this value is too high compared to those reported in literature.
600: For example, \citet{mandelbaum06} noted that a mass-to-light of early types reaches $M_h/L_r=674$
601: for their brightest samples ($-22.5 \le \mathcal{M} \le -22$ in Tab. 4 of their paper)
602: of the SDSS lensing galaxies.
603: The discrepancy may be explained by the fact that they are typically the brightest cluster galaxies.
604: In our PSB halo identification method all mass not assigned to satellite galaxies is
605: assigned to the central subhalo after the boundness check,
606: which makes the central subhalo as massive as the whole
607: cluster and their mass-to-light ratio very large
608: ({\it cf.} Fig. 10 in \citealt{vale06} and Fig. 4 in \citealt{tinker05}).
609: %Then, the mass-to-light ratio becomes more reasonable if the total light of
610: %the cluster is used.
611: Then, the group or cluster mass-to-light ratio is the one to be compared
612: at the very high mass scales.
613:
614: %In Figure 4 we show several observational quantities of
615: %groups/clusters obtained from the subhalo sample of our N-body simulation.
616: %We select groups having at least 10 member galaxies of absolute
617: %magnitude brighter than $-19$.
618: %The early type galaxy fraction, shown in the upper left panel, is more or less
619: %constant of the group mass.
620: %However, the early type fraction increases with the group mass in the observation.
621: %This inconsistency is related to the
622: %dynamical history of subhalos in groups and clusters which make galaxies ``orphans''
623: %by the tidal disruption, dynamical friction, ram pressure stripping, and so on.
624: %In the lower-left panel, dots are the $M/L$ of these groups and the line with filled circles
625: %shows the meadian.
626: %The $M/L$ of the groups increases monotonically with mass until
627: %$M_{\rm FoF}=3\times10^{14} h^{-1}{\rm M_\odot}$, and then the slope seems to decrease
628: %beyond the mass scale.
629: %The lower right panel of Figure 4 shows the relation between the luminosity of the brightest
630: %galaxy and the sum of all luminosities of member galaxies brighter than
631: %$\mathcal{M}_r = -19$ in each group.
632: %The monotonic increase of the average magnitude of the brightest cluster galaxy with
633: %the host cluster luminosity is consistent with the results
634: %calculated in the lognormal and concentration models proposed
635: %by \citet{vale07} (see Fig. [7] in their paper).
636: %
637: %In the {\it upper-right} panel, we show the difference in absolute magnitude
638: %$\Delta_{12}\equiv | \mathcal{M}_r(1)-\mathcal{M}_r(2)|$
639: %between the first and second brightest galaxies
640: %as a function of cluster luminosity.
641: %The average value of $\Delta_{12}$ decreases as the cluster luminosity increases.
642: %A less massive cluster tends to have only one dominant galaxy
643: %and a more massive cluster tends to have a second brightest galaxy
644: %comparable to the brightest one.
645: %
646: %\begin{figure}
647: %\plotone{sum.eps}
648: %\caption
649: %{
650: %Scatter plots of group $M/L$ ({\it lower-left}),
651: %the fraction of early type galaxies ({\it upper-left}) against
652: %cluster mass,
653: %the magnitude of brightest galaxies ({\it lower-right}),
654: %and the magnitude gap between the first and second brightest
655: %galaxies ({\it upper-right panel}) against the total cluster luminosity
656: %in the H2 sample.
657: %Only groups with minimum 10 member galaxies brighter than $\mathcal{M}_r=-19$
658: %are plotted with dots.
659: %The group luminosity is merely a sum of contributions of member galaxies
660: %satisfying the magnitude
661: %criterion while the group mass is the mass of the FoF halo.
662: %Filled circles with errorbars are the meadian distribution of mock surveys with 1--$\sigma$
663: %scatterings.
664: %}
665: %\label{mlratio}
666: %\end{figure}
667:
668:
669: \section{Environmental Effects on the Galaxy Distribution}
670: \label{environ}
671: \subsection{Definition of the Local Density}
672: For a comparative study of the environmental effects on the spatial and luminosity
673: distributions of observed and simulated galaxies,
674: a quantitative measure of the local environment is needed.
675: To minimize the parameterizations and maximize the spatial resolution
676: we use the spline kernel to obtain the smooth galaxy number density field.
677: It is given by
678: \begin{displaymath}
679: W(q) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
680: \left(1-{3\over2} q^2 +{3\over4} q^3\right)/(\pi h_s^3) &\textrm{for }0<q\le1,\\
681: \left(2-q\right)^3/(4\pi h_s^3) &\textrm{for } 1<q\le2,\\
682: 0 &\textrm{otherwise},
683: \end{array}\right.
684: \end{displaymath}
685: where $q\equiv r/h_s$.
686: The kernel is centrally weighted more than the Gaussian,
687: and has only one parameter, $h_s$.
688: It is smooth to the second order and has a finite tail out to $2h_s$.
689: Throughout this paper we set $h_s=d_{20}/2$, where $d_{20}$ is the distance to the
690: twentieth nearest neighbor galaxy.
691: Due to these features and to the adaptive nature of $h_s$
692: the resulting galaxy density map better represent the observed distribution of galaxies
693: than the Gaussian, particularly in voids and clustered regions.
694: To compare the observed and mock galaxy samples,
695: it is necessary to make the number density of the density tracers the same.
696: We use galaxies brighter than $\mathcal{M} = -20$ as the galaxy density tracers.
697: This selection differs slightly from that adopted by \citet{park07a}
698: who chose $-21<\mathcal{M}<-20$. We removed the bright cut to better resolve the centers of
699: clusters where galaxies brighter than $L_\star$ are concentrated.
700:
701: \subsection{Number Density Distributions}
702: The local density at galaxy positions is measured in our SDSS volume-limited
703: samples. The density estimate is corrected for the boundary effects when the kernel sphere
704: of radius $d_{20}$ overlaps with the survey boundary.
705: The late type galaxies having axis ratio $b/a <0.6$ are removed from the sample
706: to reduce the effects of internal absorption on luminosity.
707: After this exclusion, we give the weight of 1/0.505 to late type galaxies
708: to correct the galaxy number density for the missing inclined ones, where
709: $0.505$ is the fraction of late types with $b/a>0.6$ in a sample
710: containing galaxies down to $\mathcal{M}=-17.5$ (the CM sample of Choi et al. 2007).
711:
712: The correction for boundary effect is unnecessary for mock galaxies
713: since their distribution is periodic in all directions.
714: The redshift distortions effects caused by the peculiar velocities are mimicked
715: by shifting the mock galaxies along the $x$ axis using $x^\prime=x + v_x/H_0$,
716: where $v_x$ is the $x$-component of peculiar velocity and $H_0$
717: is the hubble constant.
718:
719: Figure \ref{densim}
720: shows the distribution of local density ({\it open circles})
721: at the location of galaxies in two volume-limited SDSS samples with absolute magnitude
722: limits of $-20.0$ (D5) and $-18.5$ (D2) for the $\beta=2$ model.
723: Also plotted are the local density distributions of simulated galaxies selected by
724: the same magnitude-limit criteria.
725: It can be noted that the local density distributions of the SDSS galaxies and
726: the corresponding mock galaxies match closely to each other at all densities
727: except for at high densities.
728: Also those distributions for the $\kappa=2$ model are shown in Figure \ref{kdensim} with the
729: same criteria.
730:
731: \begin{figure}
732: \plotone{f5.eps}
733: \caption{
734: Distributions of local overdensities for the sample of mock ({\it filled circles})
735: and SDSS galaxies ({\it open circles})
736: in the magnitude ranges
737: of $\mathcal{M} <-20$ ({\it upper}) and $\mathcal{M}< -18.5$ ({\it lower} panels)
738: in the $\beta=2$ model.
739: The dashed line shows the log-normal fit to observations.
740: }
741: \label{densim}
742: \end{figure}
743: \begin{figure}
744: \plotone{f6.eps}
745: \caption{
746: Similar to Fig. \ref{densim} but for the $\kappa=2$ model.
747: }
748: \label{kdensim}
749: \end{figure}
750:
751:
752: \citet{ostriker03} employed a log normal function to fit
753: the one-point distribution of dark matter density and luminosity density
754: in their hydro-simulation.
755: A spherical top-hat filter of constant radius is adopted in their study.
756: They found a good agreement between the simulated density distributions
757: and the log normal distribution
758: while the distribution of luminosity density shows a poor fit.
759: We check how well the galaxy density distribution, instead of dark matter or luminosity,
760: is described by the non-normalized log normal function
761: \begin{equation}
762: \Xi(\Delta)\equiv{dN(\Delta)\over d\log_{10}\Delta}
763: ={A\over\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma} e^{-\left(\ln \Delta-\mu\right)^2/2\sigma^2},
764: \end{equation}
765: where $\Delta \equiv \rho/\bar{\rho}$ and $A$ is the amplitude of the distribution.
766: The mean number density of galaxies is $n= A \log_{10}e$.
767: The best-fitting results are shown with dashed lines in each panel of Figure \ref{densim}
768: and the fitting parameter values for various magnitude-limit ($\mathcal{M}_{{\rm lim}}$)
769: samples are listed in Table \ref{locdenfit}.
770: As can be noted, brighter galaxies tend to be located at higher local densities.
771: Also the local density distribution becomes broader for brighter subsamples if
772: viewed in the linear scale of overdensity
773: or has nearly a constant width ($\left<\sigma\right> \simeq 1.29$)
774: in log-scale.
775:
776: \begin{deluxetable}{lc|ccc}
777: \tablecaption{The log normal function parameters of the local density distributions of the SDSS
778: galaxies}
779: \tablewidth{0pt}
780: \tablehead{
781: {$\mathcal{M}_{{\rm min}}$}
782: &{sample}
783: &{$A (h^{-1}{\rm Mpc})^{-3}$}
784: &{$\mu$}
785: &{$\sigma$} }
786: \startdata
787: %$-18$&D1 &$5.75\times10^{-2}$ &0.717&1.23\\
788: $-18.5$&D2 &$4.53\times10^{-2}$ &0.662&1.27\\
789: %$-19$&D3 &$3.47\times10^{-2}$ &0.738&1.29\\
790: %$-19.5$&D4 &$2.71\times 10^{-2}$ &0.901&1.28\\
791: $-20$&D5 &$1.47\times 10^{-2}$ &0.949&1.34\\
792: $-20.5$&D5 &$7.44\times 10^{-3}$ &1.11&1.30\\
793: $-21$&D5 &$2.76\times 10^{-3}$ &1.23&1.26
794: \enddata
795: \label{locdenfit}
796: \end{deluxetable}
797:
798: Figure \ref{dentype} and \ref{kdentype} shows the distribution of local density at locations
799: of early (circles) and late (stars) type galaxies in the $\beta=2$ and $\kappa=2$ models, respectively.
800: Open symbols are for the SDSS samples and the rest are for the simulated galaxies.
801: The local density distributions of the simulated early and late type galaxies are
802: very well matched with observations at low and intermediate densities
803: ($\rho/\bar{\rho}<10$) even though there is only one input parameter in our model.
804: Late type galaxies dominate these regions.
805: From these figures, it appears that the galaxy morphology depends
806: only on the halo mass and does not directly depend on environment.
807: But the number density analysis
808: alone is not so sufficient to draw any definite conclusion of the environmental effect.
809: We will further investigate this effect by comparing the luminosity functions
810: of the SDSS with those of the mock galaxies in various environments in the next section.
811: %This imply that in low and intermediate
812: %density regions the galaxy morphology is mainly determined by a probability which depends only
813: %on the halo mass and does not directly depend on environment. However, there could be
814: %other morphology-determining factors that are not sensitive to environment.
815: %For example, it has been shown by \citep{avila-reese05} that the subhalo spin
816: %in voids and field regions is nearly the same. Observationally, the spin of the
817: %early types is much lower than that of late types on average \citep{hernandez07}.
818: In the high density regions our model gives too few galaxies, which is probably
819: due to the insufficient resolution of the simulation to maintain small subhalos
820: within clusters and to the lack of gas physics.
821:
822: \begin{figure}
823: \plotone{f7.eps}
824: \caption{
825: Local overdensity distributions for the two morphological types in the $\beta=2$ model.
826: The distributions of local overdensity of mock and SDSS galaxies (D5 and D2) are shown
827: for two magnitude-limit samples $\mathcal{M} <-20$ ({\it upper})
828: and $\mathcal{M} <-18.5$ ({\it lower panels}).
829: {\it Open cirlces} and {\it open stars} mark the distributions of overdensity
830: of the early type and late type SDSS galaxies.
831: And {\it filled circles} and {\it skeletal stars} are those of mock galaxies
832: for the corresponding types.
833: We tag each panel with the magnitude criteria of the sample in the upper-left corner.
834: }
835: \label{dentype}
836: \end{figure}
837: \begin{figure}
838: \plotone{f8.eps}
839: \caption{
840: Same as Fig. \ref{dentype} but for the $\kappa=2$ model.
841: }
842: \label{kdentype}
843: \end{figure}
844:
845:
846:
847: \section{Luminosity Function}
848: \label{lum}
849: There have been several works reporting the environmental dependence
850: of the galaxy luminosity function
851: (Park et al. 1994 and 2007a in observations and \citealt{mo04} in the HOD model).
852: It was found that the characteristic galaxy luminosity ($L_\star$)
853: is an increasing function of the local density,
854: and the faint-end slope ($\alpha$) of the luminosity function
855: is insensitive to the local density.
856: However, Park et al. (2007a) used
857: a spline kernel weighting to estimate local densities, and
858: \citet{mo04} (also \citealt{cooray05}) use a spherical top-hat filter
859: of a constant radius.
860: For a quantitative comparison between observations and models
861: the same density estimation scheme is required.
862:
863: In the previous section, we studied the one-point distribution of the local density
864: at galaxy locations for each morphology sample of galaxies brighter than a certain
865: absolute magnitude limit. In this section, we investigate the distribution of
866: the absolute magnitude of early and late type galaxies located in different local
867: density environment. This gives us environment and morphology-specific luminosity
868: function of galaxies. In our galaxy morphology assignment scheme we only use the
869: observed total luminosity function and the parameter $\beta$ (or $\kappa$),
870: the ratio of luminosity (or mass) of the early and late types at a fixed mass
871: (or luminosity).
872: It will be interesting to see
873: how accurately our model reproduces the observed luminosity functions at different
874: local densities and for different morphological types.
875: For this comparison we use the luminosity functions measured from the D3 sample of
876: Park et al. (2007a) because this absolute magnitude-limited sample covers both
877: bright and faint magnitudes well, relative to other volume-limited samples.
878: The fitting of the measured luminosity functions to the Schechter formula is
879: carried out by using the MINUIT
880: \footnote{http://wwwasdoc.web.cern.ch/wwwasdoc/minuit/minmain.html}
881: packages which employ the maximum likelihood method.
882:
883: Figure \ref{complf} and \ref{kcomplf} show the comparison of the luminosity functions
884: in four different local density regions
885: in the $\beta=2$ and $\kappa=2$ models.
886: The resulting environment and morphology-specific luminosity function
887: reproduces the observations surprisingly well. However, there are notable disagreements
888: for two cases. At very high densities ($\rho/\bar{\rho}>10$) the abundance of faint
889: early type galaxies are significantly low in the simulation. This is again probably due
890: to the lack of small subhalos that were destroyed in high density environment.
891: Another problem is seen at low densities ($\rho/\bar{\rho}<1$), where the early type
892: galaxies are too few in the bright end of luminosity function.
893: It seems that the morphology transformatin to bright early types in underdense regions
894: through close interactions and mergers is more efficient in the nature than
895: in our model (\citealt{park08} for observational evidence).
896: In the high density regions, the $\kappa=2$ model describes the number
897: distribution of faint late type galaxies better than the $\beta=2$ model
898: while this $\kappa$ model shows a slight overestimation in the population of
899: faint late types in the mean
900: fields ($0.4<\log(\rho/\bar{\rho})<1$) compared to the observation.
901:
902: \begin{figure}
903: \plotone{f9.eps}
904: \caption{
905: Luminosity functions of mock ({\it curves}) and SDSS ({\it symbols}) galaxies in the $\beta=2$ model.
906: Each line shows the luminosity functions of the mock galaxies;
907: {\it solid lines} for total,
908: {\it dotted lines} for early type galaxies, and
909: {\it dashed lines} for late type galaxies.
910: For comparison,
911: we show the luminosity densities of the SDSS subsamples divided by the same density cuts.
912: The sample selection criteria are based on
913: the log scale of local density and are written in the lower-right corner of each panel.
914: }
915: \label{complf}
916: \end{figure}
917:
918: \begin{figure}
919: \plotone{f10.eps}
920: \caption{
921: Similar to Fig. \ref{complf} but for the $\kappa=2$ model.
922: }
923: \label{kcomplf}
924: \end{figure}
925:
926:
927: Figure \ref{mstaralpha} and \ref{kmstaralpha}
928: compare the parameter of the Schechter function best fit
929: to the SDSS data (open symbols) and simulated galaxy samples (filled symbols) as a function
930: of local density in the $\beta=2$ and $\kappa=2$ models.
931: The dependence of both $\mathcal{M}_{r*}$ and $\alpha$ on
932: local density is qualitatively well-reproduced by the simulation.
933: However, the characteristic magnitude $\mathcal{M}_{*}$ of the early types is
934: significantly fainter at $\rho/\bar{\rho}<2$ in the simulation. This is due to paucity
935: of bright early type galaxies in low density regions, which is mentioned above.
936: The parameter $\alpha$ of the simulation is quite different from the observation
937: at $\rho/\bar{\rho}>2$ for early type galaxies. This is again due to the flat faint end
938: slope of the luminosity function of the simulated early type galaxies.
939:
940: \begin{figure}
941: \plotone{f11.eps}
942: \caption{
943: Dependence of the Schechter parameter values,
944: $\mathcal{M}^\star$ ({\it top}) and $\alpha$
945: ({\it bottom} panel), on the local density
946: for the SDSS D3 ({\it open} symbols) and Mock ({\it filled} symbols) samples
947: in the $\beta=2$ model.
948: {\it Circles} mark the fitting values of full galaxy samples and {\it boxes}
949: are for the early type samples.
950: {\it Open} stars and {\it filled} hexagons are for the late types of
951: the SDSS and mock samples, respectively.
952: In this plot we add the error bars only to the SDSS fitting values
953: and connect only the mock results with solid lines for clarity.
954: }
955: \label{mstaralpha}
956: \end{figure}
957: \begin{figure}
958: \plotone{f12.eps}
959: \caption{
960: Similar to Fig. \ref{mstaralpha} but for $\kappa=2$ model
961: }
962: \label{kmstaralpha}
963: \end{figure}
964:
965:
966: \section{Central velocity dispersion}
967: Figure \ref{sigv2den} shows the central velocity dispersion
968: of early type galaxies in the D3 sample.
969: The gray symbols with connecting lines are the relations between $\sigma_v$
970: and the local density for early type galaxies in four subsamples
971: with absolute magnitude limits of
972: $-19.0 > \mathcal{M}>-19.3$ (bottom curve).
973: $-19.3 > \mathcal{M}>-20.1$,
974: $-20.1 > \mathcal{M}>-20.5$, and
975: $\mathcal{M}<-20.5$ (top curve with filled circles).
976: The curves delineate the median value of $\sigma_v$ in each local density bin,
977: which monotonically increases as luminosity increases.
978: We also plot the scaled one-dimensional velocity dispersion of the early type mock galaxies
979: with black symbols.
980: Because the observed velocity dispersion is obtained by sampling the inner part ($\le 1''.5$)
981: of the galaxy,
982: we have to apply a scaling factor to the mock galaxy velocity dispersions.
983: Because it is irrelevant in this paper to derive the exact value of the scaling factor
984: and apply it to the related analysis,
985: we make a rough estimation of the relation between $\sigma_{los}$ and $V_v$,
986: where $\sigma_{los}$ is the line-of-sight aperture velocity dispersion and
987: $V_v$ is the virial velocity.
988: According to \citet{lokas01}, the resulting scaling ratio of the velocity dispersions,
989: $f_c(\equiv \sigma_{los}/V_v)$, is
990: \begin{equation}
991: 0.5\lesssim f_c \lesssim 3
992: \label{fc}
993: \end{equation}
994: for the acceptable ranges of the velocity anisotropy
995: and the concentration parameter in $0<(r_a/R_v)<1$,
996: where $r_a$ is the comoving aperture radius.
997: Here we assume that $V_v = \sigma_v$, where $\sigma_v$ is the three-dimensional
998: velocity dispersion and $V_v \equiv \sqrt{2GM_v/R_v}$.
999: In the range of $f_c$ written in equation (\ref{fc}),
1000: we simply set
1001: $f_c=0.8$ ($\mathcal{M}<-20.5$),
1002: $f_c=1$ ($-20.5 < \mathcal{M}<-20.1$),
1003: $f_c=1.1$ ($-20.1 < \mathcal{M}<-19.3$), and
1004: $f_c=1.2$ ($-19.3 < \mathcal{M}<-19.0$) to match for the mean amplitudes
1005: of velocity dispersions for each mock and SDSS sample pair.
1006: At a fixed luminosity the velocity dispersion of the early type mock galaxies
1007: increases as the local density increases for bright galaxies
1008: and the slopes are decreasing for the faint sample.
1009: It is reassuring that this trend is exactly the kind of phenomenon
1010: found in the observation ({\it gray symbols}).
1011: While the switch of the slope in the faintest SDSS samples is not clearly observed
1012: in the mock sample (it shows a nearly flat slope on the local environments),
1013: the change of the slope is similar to each other.
1014: Both observation and our model show that the mass-to-light ratio of
1015: the early type galaxies is a function of environment, and that this dependence
1016: in turn is a function of luminosity.
1017: The mass-to-light ratio of the early types decreases as the local density increases
1018: for galaxies brighter than about $\mathcal{M}_*$, but increases for those
1019: fainter than about $\mathcal{M}_*+1$.
1020: \begin{figure}
1021: \plotone{f13.eps}
1022: \caption{
1023: Median distribution of central velocity dispersions of SDSS (gray symbols) galaxies
1024: and scaled one-dimensional velocity dispersions of Mock (black symbols) galaxies
1025: of early types in the four magnitude-limit samples divided by four magnitude cuts.
1026: The magnitude ranges of the subsamples are
1027: $\mathcal{M} < -20.5$,
1028: $-20.5<\mathcal{M} < -20.1$,
1029: $-20.1<\mathcal{M} < -19.3$, and
1030: $-19.3<\mathcal{M} < -19$
1031: from top to bottom lines, respectively.
1032: }
1033: \label{sigv2den}
1034: \end{figure}
1035:
1036:
1037: \section{Summary \& Conclusion}
1038: \label{summary}
1039: We have proposed a model to assign galaxy luminosity and morphology to the dark subhalos
1040: directly identified in cosmological N-body simulations.
1041: It is assumed that the galaxy luminosity is a monotonic function of its host halo mass.
1042: In the $\kappa$ model we assume
1043: that the halo masses of early and late type galaxies of equal luminosity have a constant ratio.
1044: Another alternative model is the $\beta$ model which assumes the constant
1045: luminosity ratio between equal-mass galaxies of different types.
1046: This model has been proposed by
1047: \citet{marinoni02} who found that
1048: the observed $B$--band luminosity function of galaxies can be reproduced from the
1049: PS function assuming double power-law mass-to-light ratios and
1050: derived halo occupation numbers.
1051: It has been expanded by \citet{vale04,vale06} who adopted
1052: the satellite halo mass functions and directly link subhalos to the observed galaxies.
1053: In this paper, we have introduced the ratio of luminosity of the early
1054: and late morphological type galaxies at a given halo mass, and derived
1055: type-specific mass-to-light ratios as a function of subhalo mass.
1056: They are used to assign luminosity and morphology to subhalos.
1057: The mass-to-light ratio of the early type galaxies derived in this way has
1058: a minimum value of $\Upsilon_u\simeq100$ at the scale of
1059: $M_u\simeq3\times10^{11}h^{-1}{\rm M_\odot}$ in the $\beta=2$ model.
1060: The mass-to-light ratio starts to exponentionaly increase below $M_u$
1061: and increases in a power law above $M_u$.
1062:
1063: We use the large-scale background galaxy number density as an environmental parameter.
1064: The smooth galaxy density field is obtained by
1065: using the adaptive spline kernel which enabled us to resolve crowded regions well.
1066: The local density distribution of the SDSS galaxies is well described by
1067: the log normal function.
1068: The obtained log normal parameter values
1069: indicate that brighter galaxies tend to locate in dense regions.
1070: %And distribution dispersions for various density-constrained subsamples
1071: %(**CANNOT UNDERSTAND THIS SENTENCE**)
1072: %seem to be constant in the log scale of $(\rho/\bar{\rho})$,
1073: %which can not be found by the \citet{vale07} because they use an equal-size
1074: %tophat filter.
1075: The local density distribution of the simulated galaxies is quite similar to that of
1076: the SDSS galaixes in voids and moderate-density regions for both morphological
1077: types.
1078: The underestimation of galaxy population in clusters
1079: is thought to be due to the evaporation of subhalos
1080: by the dynamical friction and tidal stripping.
1081: This can also explain the discrepance in the luminosity function of the
1082: early type galaxies in high density regions.
1083:
1084: Recently, \citet{gott06} measured the genus statistic from a large sample of
1085: the SDSS galaxies and compared it
1086: with those of mock galaxies created by the three distinctive methods
1087: such as the semi-analytic galaxy formation model
1088: applied to the Millennium run \citep{springel05}, a hydrodynamic simulation,
1089: and the subhalo-galaxy correspondence model adopted in this paper.
1090: It was found that the observed topology of large scale structure was best
1091: reproduced by the subhalo-galaxy correspondence model even though
1092: other models were also consistent with the observation.
1093: However, the observed topology was marginally inconsistent with all simulations
1094: in the sense that it showed a strong meatball topology at the significance level
1095: of $2.5 \sigma$ at the scale studied. The prominence of the isolated high density
1096: regions in the observation seems to be due to the Sloan Great Wall which was
1097: a dominant structure in the sample analyzed.
1098:
1099: We have found an impressive agreement between our simulated galaxies and the
1100: SDSS galaxies in the dependence of the central velocity dispersion on the local
1101: density and luminosity. The early type galaxies tend to have higher $\sigma_v$
1102: or higher mass in high density regions at a given luminosity when they are
1103: brighter than about $\mathcal{M}_*$. In other words, these bright galaxies
1104: tend to become relatively fainter in high density regions at a given halo mass.
1105: %However, the early types more than 1 magnitude fainter than $\mathcal{M}_*$
1106: %tend to become brighter in high density regions at a given halo mass.
1107: This interesting dependence of the mass-to-light ratio on environment
1108: was successfully reproduced by our subhalo-galaxy correspondence model
1109: of galaxy formation. A more detailed study of this phenomenon will be
1110: presented in a forthcoming paper.
1111:
1112:
1113: \acknowledgments
1114: CBP acknowledges the support of the Korea Science and Engineering
1115: Foundation (KOSEF) through the Astrophysical Research Center for the
1116: Structure and Evolution of the Cosmos (ARCSEC).
1117: Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan
1118: Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science
1119: Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and
1120: Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck
1121: Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England.
1122: The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/.
1123:
1124: The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the
1125: Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the
1126: American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam,
1127: University of Basel, Cambridge University, Case Western Reserve University,
1128: University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the Institute for
1129: Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University,
1130: the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute for
1131: Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean Scientist Group, the
1132: Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos National Laboratory,
1133: the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute
1134: for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, Ohio State University,
1135: University of Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University,
1136: the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
1137:
1138: The authors would like to acknowledge the use of
1139: the linux cluster, QUEST, at the Korea Institute for Advanced Study (KIAS).
1140: Its huge computing power is indispensible for the study, and we thank
1141: the system managers for their efforts in providing a stable and comfortable
1142: computation resources during the simulation and subsequent analysis.
1143:
1144:
1145: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1146: \itemindent -5mm
1147: \bibitem[Abazajian et al.(2005)]{abazajian05}
1148: Abazajian, K., Zheng, Z., Zehavi, I., Weinberg, D.H., Frieman, J.A.,
1149: Berlind, A.A., Blanton, M.R., Bahcall, N.A., Brinkmann, J.,
1150: Schneider, D.P., \& Tegmark, M. 2005, ApJ, 625, 613
1151: %\bibitem[Avila-Reese et al.(2005)]{avila-reese05}
1152: % Avila-Reese, V., Colin, P., Gottloeber, S., Firmani, C., \& Maulbetsch, C. 2005, ApJ, 634, 51
1153: \bibitem[Baugh(2006)]{baugh06}
1154: Baugh, C.M. 2006, Report on Progress in Physics, 69, 3101
1155: \bibitem[Berlind \& Weinberg(2002)]{berlind02}
1156: Berlind, A.A. \& Weinberg, D.H. 2002, ApJ, 575, 587
1157:
1158: %\bibitem[Bett et al.(2006)]{bett06}
1159: % Bett, P., Eke, V., Frenk, C.S., Jenkins, A., \& Helly, J. 2006,
1160: % astro-ph/0608607
1161: \bibitem[Blanton et al.(2001)]{blanton01}
1162: Blanton et al. 2001, AJ, 121, 2358
1163: \bibitem[Blanton \& Roweis(2006)]{blanton07}
1164: Blanton, M.R. \& Roweis, S. 2007, ApJ, 133, 754
1165: %\bibitem[Bullock et al.(2001)]{bullock01}
1166: % Bullock, J.S., Dekel, A., Kolatt, T.S., Kravtsov, A., Klypin, A.A.,
1167: % Porciani, C., Primack, J.R. 2001, ApJ, 555 240
1168: \bibitem[van den Bosch et al.(2003)]{bosch03}
1169: van den Bosch, F.C., Yang, X., \& Mo, H.J. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 771
1170: %\bibitem[van den Bosch et al.(2007)]{bosch07}
1171: % van den Bosch, F.C., Yang, X., Mo, H.J., Weinmann, S.M., Maccio, A.V.,
1172: % More, S., Cacciato, M., Skibba, R., \& Kang, X. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 841
1173: %\bibitem[Chandrasekhar \& Elbert(1972)]{chandrasekhar72}
1174: % Chandrasekhar, S. \& Elbert, D.D. 1972, MNRAS, 155, 435
1175: \bibitem[Cervantes-sodi et al.(2007)]{cervantes-sodi07}
1176: Cervantes-Sodi, B., Hernandez, X., Park, C., \& Kim, J. 2007, arXiv/0712.0843
1177: \bibitem[Cole et al.(1994)]{cole94}
1178: Cole, S., Aragon-Salamanca, A., Frenk, C.S., Navarro, \& Zepf, S.E. 1994,
1179: MNRAS, 271, 781
1180: \bibitem[Conroy et al.(2006)]{conroy06}
1181: Conroy, C.C., Wechsler, R.H., \& Kravtsov, A.V. 2006, ApJ, 647, 201
1182: \bibitem[Cooray(2005)]{cooray05}
1183: Cooray, A. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 337
1184: \bibitem[Dubinski et al.(2004)]{dubinski04}
1185: Dubinski, J., Kim, J., Park, C., \& Humble, R. 2003, New Astronomy, 9, 111
1186: \bibitem[Eke et al.(2006)]{eke06}
1187: Eke, V.R., Baugh, C.M., Cole, S., Frenk, C.S., \& Navarro, J.F. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1147
1188: \bibitem[Evans \& Wilkinson(2000)]{evans00}
1189: Evans, N.W. \& Wilkinson, M.I. 2000, MNRAS, 316, 929
1190: \bibitem[Gao et al.(2004)]{gao04}
1191: Gao, L., De Lucia, G., White, S.D.M., \& Jenkins, A. 2004, MNRAS, 352, L1
1192: \bibitem[Gott et al.(2006)]{gott06}
1193: Gott, J.R., Hambrick, D.C., Vogeley, M.S., Kim, J., Park, C., Choi, Y.-Y., Cen, R., Ostriker, J.P.,
1194: \& Nagamine, K. 2006, ApJ, in press
1195: \bibitem[Harten, A.(1997)]{harten97}
1196: Harten, A. 1997, Journal of Computational Physics, 135, 260
1197: \bibitem[Hernandez et al.(2007)]{hernandez07}
1198: Hernandez, X., Park, C., Cervantes-Sodi, B., \& Choi, Y.-Y. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 163
1199: % Hahn, O., Porciani, C., Carollo, C.M., \& Dekel, A. 2007, MNRAS, accepted for publication
1200: \bibitem[Hernquist \& Katz(1989)]{hernquist89}
1201: Hernquist, L. \& Katz, N. 1989, ApJS, 70, 419
1202: %\bibitem[Hetznecker \& Burkert(2006)]{hetznecker06}
1203: % Hetznecker, H. \& Burkert, A. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1905
1204: \bibitem[Jing et al.(1998)]{jing98}
1205: Jing, Y.P., Mo, H.J., \& B\"orner, G. 1998, ApJ, 494, 1
1206: \bibitem[Kauffmann et al.(1997)]{kauffmann97}
1207: Kauffmann, G., Nusser, A., \& Steinmetz, M. 1997, MNRAS, 286, 795
1208: \bibitem[Kim \& Park(2006)]{kim06}
1209: Kim, J. \& Park, C. 2006, ApJ, 639, 600
1210: \bibitem[Kravtsov et al.(2004)]{kravtsov04}
1211: Kravtsov, A.V., Berlind, A.A., Wechsler, R.H., Klypin, A.A.,
1212: Gottl\"ober, S., Allgood, B., \& Primack, J.R. 2004, ApJ, 609, 35
1213: \bibitem[Lokas \& Mamon(2001)]{lokas01}
1214: Lokas, E.L. \& Mamon, G.A. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 155
1215: %\bibitem[Maccio et al.(2006)]{maccio06}
1216: % Maccio, A.V., Dutton, A.A., van den Bosch, F.C., Moore, B.,
1217: % Potter, D., \& Stadel, J. 2006, astro-ph/0608157
1218: \bibitem[Mandelbaum et al.(2006)]{mandelbaum06}
1219: Madelbaum, R., Seljak, U., Kauffmann, G., Hirata, C.M., \& Brinkmann, J. 2006,
1220: MNRAS, 368, 715
1221: \bibitem[Marinoni \& Hudson(2002)]{marinoni02}
1222: Marinoni, C. \& Hudson, M. 2002, ApJ, 569, 101
1223: %\bibitem[Miller et al.(1989)]{miller89}
1224: % Miller, R.H., Vandervoort, P.O., Welty, D.E., \& Smith, B.F. 1989, apJ, 342, 105
1225: %\bibitem[Mo et al.(1998)]{mo98}
1226: % Mo, H.J., Mao, S., \& White, S.D.M. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 319
1227: \bibitem[Mo et al.(2004)]{mo04}
1228: Mo, H.J., Yang, X., van den Bosch, F.C., \& Jing, Y.P. 2004,
1229: MNRAS, 349, 205
1230: \bibitem[Monaghan(1992)]{monaghan92}
1231: Monaghan, J.J. 1992, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 30, 543
1232: \bibitem[Heitmann et al.(2005)]{heitmann05}
1233: Heitmann, K., Ricker, P.M., Warren, M.S., \& Habib, S. 2006
1234: ApJS, 160, 28
1235: \bibitem[Ostriker et al.(2003)]{ostriker03}
1236: Ostriker, J.P., Nagamine, K., Cen, R., \& Fukugita, M. 2003, ApJ, 597, 1
1237: \bibitem[Park et al.(2005a)]{park05a}
1238: Park, C., Kim, J., \& Gott, J.R. 2005, ApJ, 633, 1
1239: \bibitem[Park et al.(2005b)]{park05b}
1240: Park, C., Choi, Y.-Y., Vogeley, M.S., Gott, J.R., Kim, J., Hikage, C.,
1241: Matsubara, T., Park, M.-G., Suto, Y., \& Weinberg, D.H. 2005, 633, 11
1242: \bibitem[Park et al.(2007a)]{park07a}
1243: Park, C., Choi, Y.-Y., Vogeley, M., Gott, J.R., \& Blanton, M.R. 2007, ApJ, 658, 898
1244: \bibitem[Park et al.(2008)]{park08}
1245: Park, C., Gott, J.R., \& Choi, Y.-Y. 2008, ApJ, in press
1246: %\bibitem[Park et al.(2007b)]{park07b}
1247: % Park, C., Gott III, J.R., \& Choi, Y.-Y. 2007, astro-ph/0608.4118
1248: %\bibitem[Peebles(1969)]{peebles69}
1249: % Peebles, P.J.E. 1969, ApJ, 155, 393
1250: \bibitem[Sakamoto et al.(2003)]{sakamoto03}
1251: Sakamoto, T., Chiba, M., \& Beers, T.C. 2003, A\&A, 397, 899
1252: %\bibitem[Sandage, A.(2005)]{sandage05}
1253: % Sandage, A. 2005, ARAA, 43, 581
1254: \bibitem[Seljak (2000)]{seljak00}
1255: Seljak, U. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 203
1256: \bibitem[Shankar et al.(2006)]{shankar06}
1257: Shankar, F., Lapi, A., Salucci, P., Zotti, G.De, \& Danese, L. 2006, ApJ,
1258: 643, 14
1259: \bibitem[Shaw et al.(2006)]{shaw06}
1260: Shaw, L.D., Weller, J., Ostriker, J.P., \& Bode, P. 2006, ApJ, 646, 815
1261: \bibitem[Sheth \& Tormen(1999)]{sheth99}
1262: Sheth, R.K. \& Tormen, G. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 119
1263: \bibitem[Sheth et al.(2001)]{sheth01}
1264: Sheth, R.K., Mo, H.J., \& Tormen, G. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 1
1265: \bibitem[Springel et al.(2001)]{springel01}
1266: Springel, V., White, S.D.M., Tormen, G., \& Kauffmann, G. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 2001
1267: \bibitem[Springel et al.(2005)]{springel05}
1268: Springel, V. et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 629
1269: \bibitem[Tasker \& Bryan(2006)]{tasker06}
1270: Tasker, E.J. \& Bryan, G.L. 2006, ApJ, 641, 878
1271: \bibitem[Thacker et al.(2000)]{thacker00}
1272: Thacker, R.J., Tittley, E.R., Pearce, F.R., \& Couchman, H.M.P. 2000, MNRAS,
1273: 319, 619
1274: \bibitem[Tinker et al.(2005)]{tinker05}
1275: Tinker, J.L., Weinberg, D.H., Zheng, Z., \& Zehavi, I. 2005, ApJ, 631, 41
1276: %\bibitem[Tinker et al.(2006)]{tinker06}
1277: % Tinker, J.L., Weinberg, D.H., \& Warren, M.S. 2006, ApJ, 647, 737
1278: \bibitem[Vale \& Ostriker(2004)]{vale04}
1279: Vale, A. \& Ostriker, J.P. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 189
1280: \bibitem[Vale \& Ostriker(2006)]{vale06}
1281: Vale, A. \& Ostriker, J.P. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1173
1282: \bibitem[Vale \& Ostriker(2007)]{vale07}
1283: Vale, A. \& Ostriker, J.P. 2007, astro-ph/0701096
1284: %\bibitem[Vitvitska et al.(2002)]{vitvitska02}
1285: % Vitvitska, M., Klypin, A.A., Kravtsov, A.V., Wechsler, R.A.,
1286: % Primack, J.R., \& Bullock, J.S. 2002, ApJ, 581, 809
1287: \bibitem[Weinberg et al.(2006)]{weinberg06}
1288: Weinberg, D.H., Colombi, S., Dave, R., \& katz, N. 2006, astro-ph/0604393
1289: \bibitem[Weller et al.(2005)]{weller05}
1290: Weller, J., Ostriker, J.P., Bode, P., \& Shaw, L. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 823
1291: \bibitem[Zehavi et al.(2004)]{zehavi04}
1292: Zehavi, I., et al. for the SDSS Collaboration 2004, ApJ, 608, 16
1293: %\bibitem[Zehavi et al.(2005)]{zehavi05}
1294: % Zehavi et al. for the SDSS Collaboration 2005, ApJ, 630, 1
1295: \bibitem[Zentner et al.(2005)]{zentner05}
1296: Zentner, A.R., Berlind, A.A., Bullock, J.S., Kravtsov, A.V., \& Wechler, R.H. 2005,
1297: ApJ, 624, 505
1298: \bibitem[Zheng et al.(2005)]{zheng05}
1299: Zheng, Z., Berlind, A.A., Weinberg, D.H., Benson, A.J.,
1300: Baugh, C.M., Cole, S.C.,
1301: Dave, R., Frenk, C.S., Katz, N., \& Lacey, C.G. 2005, ApJ, 633, 809
1302: \bibitem[Zheng et al.(2007)]{zheng07}
1303: Zheng, Z., Coil, A.L., \& Zehavi, I. 2007, astro-ph/0703457
1304: \bibitem[Yang et al.(2003)]{yang03}
1305: Yang, X., Mo, H.J., \& van den Bosch, F.C. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 1080
1306:
1307:
1308: \end{thebibliography}
1309: \end{document}
1310: