1: %\documentstyle[here,epsfig]{mn2e}
2: %%\documentstyle[here,epsfig,referee]{mn2e}
3: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib]{mn2e}
4: \usepackage{graphics}
5: \usepackage{psfig}
6: %\usepackage{amssymb}
7: %\usepackage{natbib}
8: %\usepackage{times}
9: %\usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
10:
11: \def\simlt{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\sim$}}\raise 2.0pt\hbox{$<$}}}
12: \def\simgt{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\sim$}} \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$>$}}}
13: \def\di{\mbox{d}}
14: \def\Msun{M_{\odot}}
15: \def\HI{\hbox{H$\scriptstyle\rm I\ $}}
16: \def\gtsima{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}
17: \def\ltsima{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}
18: \def\gtrsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}}
19: \def\lesssim{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}}
20: \def\url#1{{\ttfamily\def\/{/\diskretionary{}{}{}}#1}}
21:
22:
23: \newcommand{\q}{\begin{equation}}
24: \newcommand{\qa}{\begin{eqnarray}}
25: \newcommand{\qs}{\begin{eqnarray*}}
26: \newcommand{\nq}{\end{equation}}
27: \newcommand{\nqa}{\end{eqnarray}}
28: \newcommand{\nqs}{\end{eqnarray*}}
29: \newcommand{\ud}{\mathrm{d}}
30:
31: \begin{document}
32:
33:
34:
35: \title[Merger and Ring Galaxy Formation Rates]{Merger and Ring Galaxy Formation Rates at z$\le$2}
36: %\title[Merger and Ring galaxy formation Rates in $\Lambda$CDM models]{Merger and Ring galaxy formation Rates at z$\le$2}
37: \author[E. D'Onghia, M. Mapelli \& B. Moore]
38: {Elena~ D'Onghia$^{1}$\thanks{Marie Curie Fellow; Email: elena@physik.unizh.ch}, Michela Mapelli$^{1}$ \& Ben Moore$^{1}$
39: \\
40: $^1$ Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Z\"urich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057,
41: Z\"urich, Switzerland\\
42: }
43:
44: \date{submitted to MNRAS}
45: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}}\pubyear{200?}
46: \maketitle \vspace {7cm }
47:
48: \label{firstpage}
49:
50: \begin{abstract}
51: We compare the observed merger rate of galaxies over cosmic time and the frequency of collisional ring galaxies (CRGs), with analytic models and halo merger and collision rates from a large cosmological simulation. In the Lambda cold dark matter model (LCDM) model we find that the cosmic {\it merger fraction} does not evolve strongly between 0.2$\le$z$\le$2, implying that the observed decrease of the cosmic star formation rate since z$\sim 1$ might not be tied to a disappearing population of major mergers.
52: Haloes hosting massive galaxies undergo on average $\sim 2$ mergers from z$\le 2$ up to present day, reflecting the late assembly time for the massive systems and the related downsizing problem. The cosmic {\it merger rate} declines with redshift: at the present time it is a factor of 10 lower than
53: at z$\sim 2$, in reasonable agreement with the current available data.
54: The rate of CRG formation derived from the interactions between halo progenitors up to $z=2$ is found to be a good tracer of the cosmic merger rate.
55: In the LCDM model the rate of CRGs as well as the merger rate do not scale as $(1+z)^m$, as suggested by previous models. Our predictions of cosmic merger and CRG rates may be applied to forthcoming surveys such as GOODS and zCOSMOS.
56:
57: \end{abstract}
58: \begin{keywords}
59:
60: galaxies: interactions - galaxies: peculiar - methods: {\it N}-body simulations - cosmology: theory
61: \end{keywords}
62:
63: \section{Introduction}
64: In a hierarchical Universe, galaxy mergers are thought to play an important role during structure formation, particularly at higher redshifts.
65: Mergers may be also relevant to the growth of massive early-type galaxies (e.g. Toomre 1977; Barnes \& Hernquist 1996, Naab et al. 2006, Cox et al. 2006). Simulations of mergers involving gas-rich discs suggest that major mergers can trigger violent starbursts and transform discs into spheroidals.
66: However the role of mergers in the galaxy assembly and star formation processes is still unclear.
67: The observed correlation between galaxy morphology and color indicates that the star formation history of a galaxy
68: is closely tied to its morphology evolution.
69: However, it has been recently recognized that there may be different timescales for the formation of stars in massive spheroidals.
70: Thus, tracking the galaxy merger rate as a function of redshift can constrain the contribution of mergers to the formation of stars in spheroids.
71:
72: Despite their importance, it has proved challenging to measure the rate of galaxy mergers and its evolution with cosmic time.
73: Many theoretical and observational attempts have attempted to reconstruct the history of the galaxy interaction rate (Toomre 1977; Zepf \& Koo 1989; Carlberg 1990a, 1990b; Carlberg, Pritchet \&{} Infante 1994; Burkey et al. 1994; Yee \& Ellington 1995; Neuschaefer et al. 1995; Woods, Fahlman, \&{} Richer 1995; Patton et al. 1997; Le F\`evre et al. 2000; Conselice, Bershady \& Jangren 2000a; Conselice, Bershady \& Gallagher 2000b; Bershady, Jangren \& Conselice 2000; Conselice 2003; Conselice et al. 2003, 2004; Cassata et al. 2005; Conselice 2006; Bridge et al. 2007; Jogee et al. 2007; 2008;
74: see Conselice 2007 for a short review).
75:
76: Various models (Toomre 1977; Carlberg 1990a, 1990b) suggest that the galaxy merger rate per unit volume $\dot{n}$ increases with the redshift $z$ as:
77: \begin{equation}\label{eq:eq1}
78: \dot{n}\propto{}(1+z)^m,
79: \end{equation}
80: The theoretical approach proposed by Carlberg (1990a, 1990b), based on the Press$-$Schechter formalism (Press \& Schechter 1974), predicts that the value of the coefficient $m$ depends on the present-day matter density parameter $\Omega{}_{\rm M}$:
81: % as:
82: %($\Omega{}_M=0.24$, according to WMAP3 data; Spergel et al. 2007)
83: \begin{equation}\label{eq:eq2}
84: %m=4.51\times{}\Omega{}_M^{0.42}\,{}M_{12}^{-0.04}\,{}\left(\frac{-n}{1.5}\right)^{0.81}\,{}\left(\frac{v_m}{280\textrm{ km s}^{-1}}\right)^{-0.1}
85: m\sim{}4.51\times{}\Omega{}_M^{0.42}.
86: \end{equation}
87:
88: A number of studies have used a sample of haloes or subhaloes using N-body simulations
89: to estimate merger rates as a function of redshift.
90: Governato et al. (1999) studied major mergers of galaxy-sized haloes in open CDM universe.
91: Gottloeber et al. (2001) studied the environmental dependence of major merger
92: rates as a function of redshift in the concordance CDM models.
93: More recently, the Millennium simulation (Springel 2005) has been used to construct merger trees and to quantify the
94: merger rates of haloes (Fakhouri \& Ma 2008). The authors find that the average merger rate per halo depends
95: weakly on the halo mass and that
96: the halo merger rate evolves with $z$ as
97: $(1+z)^{m}$ with $m$ in the range 2 to 2.3. Guo \& White (2008) found similar results using the Millennium simulation galaxy catalog: the halo merger rates depend
98: on redshift and only weakly on the halo mass. Murali et al. (2002) studied the relative contributions
99: of merging and smooth accretion to the rate at which large galaxies gain mass using cosmological cubes simulated with N-body
100: and SPH techniques. Maller et al. (2006) estimated the merger rates of galaxies identified within subhaloes
101: using cosmological hydrodynamic simulations.
102: Additional studies used semi-analytic models to infer the merger fraction of haloes (e.g. Khochfar \& Burkert 2001;
103: Benson et al. 2005). Most of the models predict that the major merger rate of galaxy-sized dark matter haloes rises
104: rapidly with redshift.
105:
106: The number of close pairs is often used as an observational tracer of the galaxy merger rate. However
107: observational studies suggest of the number of close companions evolve less, over the cosmic time, than
108: inferred from theoretical studies of dark halo merging.
109: Barrier et al. (2006) estimated the major merger rates of subhaloes using analytical models plus numerical N-body
110: simulations and studied the connection of the merger rates to the observed number of close pairs.
111: The authors use the halo-occupation-distribution (HOD) modelling of galaxy clustering
112: to explain the little evolution in redshift of the observed close-pair count. They find that the discrepancy is due to
113: the additional processes occurring during merger of subhaloes in a common parent halo, which may be
114: ignored in the halo merger rates.
115:
116:
117: Due to the difficulty of directly observing the merger features, measurement of the redshift evolution of the fraction of galaxy pairs has traditionally been taken, which can be parametrized as $\propto{}(1+z)^k$. Most studies (Zepf \& Koo 1989; Carlberg et al. 1994; Burkey et al. 1994; Yee \& Ellington 1995; Woods et al. 1995; Patton et al. 1997; Kampczyk 2007) derive a value of $k{}\sim{}2-4$, while Neuschaefer et al. (1995) find $k\sim{}0$, due to a different estimate of the non-physical galaxy pairs. The main difficulty of this method is that the conversion from $k$ to $m$ is unclear. It is also
118: difficult to disentangle projection pairs from
119: true physical pairs when using photometric redshifts alone. Additionally,
120: not all galaxies in a physical pair will merge, as the galaxies
121: may be unbound.
122:
123: From an observational point of view, it is difficult to estimate whether $\dot{n}$ depends on the
124: redshift and to determine the correct value of $m$. A direct measurement of merger features in distant galaxies is difficult, as tidal tails and distortions generally have low surface brightness (see Mihos 1995; Hibbard \& Vacca 1997).
125:
126:
127: A powerful method for measuring the galaxy merger rate is to count the incidence of strongly disturbed galaxies (with strong asymmetries, double nuclei or prominent
128: tidal tails), the so-called CAS method (Conselice 2003). There
129: are several methods to quantify the frequency of strongly distorted
130: galaxies: visual classification, quantitative measures of asymmetries
131: such as the CAS system (Conselice 2003) and the Gini-M20 system (Lotz et
132: al 2006).
133:
134: All asymmetries suffer from surface brightness (SB) dimming, but the
135: outer low SB features suffer more strongly from it. CAS misses the
136: latter features, but visual classification captures many of these.
137: Simulations (Conselice 2006)
138: as well as empirical studies (Jogee et al. 2007, 2008) show that visual
139: classifications capture a larger fraction of strongly distorted galaxies
140: than the CAS merger criteria, as the eye is sensitive to asymmetries
141: over a larger dynamic range.
142:
143:
144: The CAS method, applied to the {\it Hubble Deep Field} ({\it HDF}),
145: provides an estimate of $m$ ranging from 4 to 6 (Conselice et al. 2003; but $m\sim{}2-4$ in the re-analysis of these data by Conselice 2006). Based on the results of the CAS analysis, Conselice (2006) suggests that equation (\ref{eq:eq1}) is inaccurate for some galaxy types (especially for small galaxies) and for high redshifts ($z\gtrsim{}1-2$).
146: The CAS method provides a more straight-forward estimate of merger rate than the incidence of close pairs of galaxies. However,
147: positioning a galaxy in the CAS plane is sometimes problematic. Furthermore, the connection between high asymmetry/lumpiness's and merger history
148: implies a number of assumptions.
149:
150: For these reasons, Lavery et al. (2004; hereafter L04) proposed to use ring galaxies as a more direct tracer of galaxy mergers.
151: In fact, a high fraction of ring galaxies [$\approx{}60$ per cent, Few \& Madore (1986)],
152: called 'P-type ring galaxies', are thought to have collisional origin. Recent $N$-body simulations (Mapelli et al. 2008a, 2008b, and references therein) show that the ring phase is quite short-lived: it lasts only for $\lesssim{}500$ Myr after the galaxy collision. Moreover, ring galaxies are easier to identify than other interaction signatures (e.g. tidal tails; see Mihos 1995; Hibbard \& Vacca 1997).
153: Thus, the number of collisional ring galaxies (hereafter CRGs) may be a straight-forward tracer of the galaxy interaction rate.
154:
155:
156: Unfortunately, most ring galaxies with measured distances are relatively nearby [$z\lesssim{}0.1$; see e.g. the sample of 68 ring galaxies in Few \& Madore (1986)].
157:
158: L04 analyze 162 Wide Field Photo Camera 2 (WFPC2) fields, obtained from the {\it Hubble Space Telescope} ({\it HST}) Archives, in order to identify distant CRGs. They find 25 CRGs in their images. From this sample, L04 derive a value of the merger rate $m\sim{}5$. However, their estimate is affected by large uncertainties, as they have redshift measurements only for 6 of their 25 CRGs. For the remaining 19 galaxies, they derive an 'estimated redshift', by assuming that CRGs have similar visual magnitude.
159: %Although only a few of them have measured redshift,
160: Recently, Elmegreen \& Elmegreen (2006, hereafter E06) analyzed other 24 CRGs in the GEMS and GOODS fields.
161: For these galaxies redshift measurements are available.
162: %Thus, not only the merger rate, but also the ring galaxy formation rate is still uncertain, due to the lack of data and of redshift measurements.
163:
164: In this paper we present an attempt to derive the merger and the CRG formation rate from cosmological simulations.
165:
166: The simulations can estimate the rate of minor and major mergers in progenitors of the present-day galaxy haloes and
167: establish whether the merger rates and CRG formation rates are related. We calculate the evolution of the merger and CRG formation rate up to redshift 2.
168: We use a cosmological cube a factor of three larger and higher numerical resolution than adopted in the SPH simulations of Maller et al. (2006) and
169: our numerical resolution is higher of almost a factor of ten than the Millennium run used in Fakhouri \& Ma 2008).
170: Finally this study compares results from numerical simulations with the available data and gives predictions for future observations.
171: In Section~2 we present details of the numerical simulation and analysis procedure.
172: Section~3 discusses our main results,
173: while Section~4 summarizes our
174: conclusions and implications.
175:
176:
177: \section{Numerical Methods}
178: \subsection{Simulations}
179: We analyze a cosmological $N$-body simulation of the Lambda cold dark matter (LCDM) cosmogony, with cosmological parameters chosen to match the 3-yr Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP3)
180: constraints (Spergel et al. 2007). These are characterized by the
181: present-day matter density parameter, $\Omega_{\rm {M}}=0.238$, a cosmological
182: constant contribution, $\Omega_{\Lambda}$=0.762, and a Hubble
183: parameter $h=0.73$ ($H_0=100\, h$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$). The mass
184: perturbation spectrum has a spectral index of $n=0.951$, and is
185: normalized by the linear rms fluctuation on $8$ Mpc/$h$ radius
186: spheres, $\sigma_8=0.75$.
187:
188: We follow the evolution of $600^3$ particles of mass $m_{\rm{dm}}=
189: 8.67 \times 10^{7} \, h^{-1} \,M_{\odot}$ in a box of 90 Mpc (or 65.7 Mpc/h)
190: (comoving) on a side, by using the $N$-body code PKDGRAV
191: (Stadel 2001). Gravitational interactions between pairs of particles
192: are softened with a fixed comoving softening
193: length of 1.16 kpc.
194:
195: \subsection{Halo Identification at z=0}
196: Non-linear structures at $z=0$ are identified using the classic
197: friends-of-friends (FOF) algorithm with a linking length equal to
198: $0.2$ times the mean comoving interparticle separation. For each FOF halo we
199: identify the most bound particle and adopt its position as the halo
200: centre. Using this centre, we compute the `virial radius' of each
201: halo, $r_{\rm vir}$, defined as the radius of a sphere of overdensity
202: $\Delta(z=0)=94$ (relative to the critical density for
203: closure)\footnote{The virial overdensity in a flat universe may be
204: computed using the fitting formula proposed by Bryan \& Norman (1998):
205: $\Delta (z)= 18 \pi^2 + 82\, f(z)-39\, f(z)^2$; with
206: $f(z)=\frac{\Omega_0(1+z)^3}{\Omega_0(1+z)^3+\Omega_{\Lambda}}-1$}. Quantities
207: measured within $r_{\rm vir}$ will be referred to as `virial', for
208: short. We select for our analysis all haloes with masses in the range
209: $M_{\rm vir}=5 \times 10^{12}$ to $10^{14} \, h^{-1}$ M$_{\odot}$. The resulting haloes
210: have $N_{\rm vir}$ between $56,000$ and $1,100,000$
211: particles within the virial radius.
212: %The mass resolution and the number of particles in haloes considered in the sample at present day
213: % guarantees that we do not miss any relevant major merger event and
214: % interaction of haloes progenitors back in time.
215:
216: \subsection{Merger tree Construction}
217: For each of the haloes in our $z=0$ sample we have constructed
218: a merger tree over the period $0<z<2$, based on FOF haloes. We use the FOF merger tree
219: to define and quantify the accretion and merger rates of haloes. Other authors have previously
220: used this technique or used substructure directly. We prefer to avoid the use of substructure
221: since at a fixed mass resolution, smaller haloes are less resolved and have less substructure
222: than larger haloes due to the classic overmerging problem (Moore et al 1996).
223:
224: We consider a FOF halo identified at $z>0$ to be 'progenitors' of a $z=0$ system if at least 50 per cent
225: of its particles are found within the latter.
226: Using this definition we can identify, at all times, the list
227: of progenitors of a given $z=0$ halo and track their properties
228: through time.
229: In the tree to identify halo
230: mergers, we denote a halo as a major merger remnant if at some time during
231: $0<$z$<2$ its major progenitor was classified as a single group in one output but two separate
232: groups with a mass ratio $\le 4 : 1$ in the preceding output (see D'Onghia \& Burkert 2004).
233: As already noted in previous works (e.g. Gottloeber et al. 2001, Berrier et al. 2006, Fakhouri \& Ma
234: 2008), the merger tree can result in fragmentation events, in which particles
235: of a progenitor halo end up in two distinct halo descendants.
236: This spurious fragmentation is an artifact of the FOF halo identification scheme. During
237: the initial merge phase the halo finder associates
238: and dissociates particles inside and outside the bound region.
239: We noted that the fragmentation event of a halo progenitor lasts for
240: less than 0.5 Gyr. After this time usually the progenitor merges again.
241: If this fragmentation is not properly treated, the risk is to count twice the same merger event for
242: the current halo. We avoid this risk by assuming that the merger happens the first time
243: the progenitor halo is considered part of the descendant. Our method to handle fragmentation events
244: is similar to the `stitching' method assumed from Fakhouri \& Ma (2008).
245: Each FOF halo at $z>0$ in the tree catalog is assigned a mass
246: counting the number of particles associated with the FOF group, rather
247: than a mass defined with the overdensity criterion.
248: Halo progenitors of interest contain at least $250$ particles.
249:
250: An additional problem with the merger tree is that the mass of a descendant halo
251: is not exactly the sum of all the progenitors, but it may count inside the halo a diffuse
252: mass component which is not resolved in subhaloes due to limited numerical resolution.
253: The diffuse mass component may dominate the merger events at high redshift,
254: when it is more difficult to resolve progenitors, owed the limited numerical resolution.
255: However our current numerical
256: resolution is almost a factor of ten higher than the Millennium run used from Fakhouri \& Ma (2008)
257: and of the SPH simulation of Maller et al. (2006)
258: and allows us to resolve progenitors and relative mergers and
259: guarantees that we do not miss any relevant major merger event and
260: interaction of haloes progenitors back in time.
261:
262:
263: Previous studies built the halo merger trees by connecting subhaloes instead of FOF haloes across the snapshot outputs
264: (Gottloeber et al. 2001, Maller et al. 2006, Berrier et al. 2006).
265: In these papers the procedure to define descendants and progenitors
266: is similar to that one assumed for FOF trees: a subhalo at a given redshift is assumed to be descendant
267: of a progenitor subhalo defined at higher redshift if it contains a fixed percentage
268: of particles. In particular Berrier at al. (2006) uses a hybrid N-body simulation plus analytic substructure model to predict
269: the number of pairs, which is the quantity often used to infer the observed galaxy merger rate. Since
270: the observed number of close companions rises with redshift slower than the halo major merger rates predicted from
271: previous simulations, they assume a halo-occupation model, in order
272: to match the observed number of close companions inferred
273: from current data.
274: Indeed, our algorithm is based on a FOF halo tree and does not include subhaloes. However, a merger tree
275: constructed on subhaloes inside a parent halo is mainly required to analyze galaxy-cluster sized haloes
276: and massive galaxy-group sized haloes. The cosmological cube considered here contains only one cluster-sized halo.
277: The galaxy-sized haloes and galaxy-group sized haloes
278: defined in our sample are located in low density environments and are compared to
279: galaxies which are not located in clusters, but mostly in the field.
280:
281:
282: It worth noting that when merger trees are based on subhaloes it is
283: difficult to estimate the mass of a subhalo located within a larger halo.
284: Tidal stripping occurring when a subhalo enters into larger halo can reduce significantly the mass
285: of the subhalo before it approaches the pericentric distance, with implications for the inferred
286: mass ratio of the merging events.
287: %Previous work tries to avoid the problem of mass determination by not only assigning a mass to the subhalo but also estimating its maximum circular velocity: $v_{\rm{circ}}= [\rm{GM(<R)/R}]^{1/2}$ which is not affected from tidal stripping. However,
288: Since our merger trees are based on FOF haloes and do not consider subhaloes, our analysis does not suffer of this problem.
289:
290:
291: %The assembly history of each halo may be studied using halo catalogues
292: %analogous to the one just described, but constructed at various times
293: %during the evolution of the system. For the purposes of our analysis,
294: %we concentrate on the period $0<z<2$. Haloes identified at $z>0$
295: %are said to be 'progenitors' of a $z=0$ system if at least 50 per cent
296: %of its particles are found within the virial radius of the
297: %latter. Using this definition we can identify, at all times, the list
298: %of progenitors of a given $z=0$ halo and track their properties
299: %through time. Progenitors of interest contain at least $250$ particles.
300: %To identify mergers, we denote a halo as a major merger remnant if at some time during
301: %$0<$z$<2$ its major progenitor was classified as a single group in one output but two separate
302: %groups with a mass ratio $\le 4 : 1$ in the preceding output (see D'Onghia \& Burkert 2004).
303:
304:
305: \subsection{Ring Galaxy Formation Criteria}
306:
307: Since our simulations are based on dark matter only, we cannot directly trace the formation of CRGs.
308: However, we can estimate the rate of CRG formation from our models adopting the following criteria.
309: At each redshift we select a sample of progenitor haloes in the range of mass of a few $10^{11}\,{}M_{\odot}$
310: to $5\times{}10^{12}\,{}M_{\odot}$ (corresponding to the typical masses of observed CRGs) and we consider the encounters between
311: them.
312: %The two most massive progenitors at a given redshift are likely to merge in CDM models by construction of the merger tree.
313: We consider a list of 8 progenitors ordered by decreasing mass and
314: we examine the collisions between the most massive and the second most massive progenitor
315: and all the possible
316: combinations amongst progenitors along the list.
317: %These are the cases where the flyby may likely occur.
318:
319: We assume that a CRG is formed whenever two haloes undergo an encounter in which:
320: \begin{itemize}
321: \item[ i)] the mass ratio between the bullet (hereafter 'intruder' halo)
322: and the most massive progenitor (hereafter 'target' halo) is $\ge 1:10$;
323:
324: \item[ ii)] the pericentric distance $p$ is less than $\sim{}$15 per cent of the expected disc radius of the target galaxy (i.e. $ p \le 4$ kpc, Lynds \& Toomre 1976).
325: \end{itemize}
326: The first constraint comes both from observations of nearby CRGs whose intruder is known, and from numerical simulations showing that the ring
327: is hard to form when the mass ratio between the intruder
328: and the target galaxy is $\le 1:10$
329: (Hernquist \& Weil 1993; Mihos \& Hernquist 1994; Horellou \& Combes 2001; Mapelli et al. 2008a, 2008b).
330:
331: The second condition assumes results from numerical simulations showing that circular rings
332: form only when the impact parameter is small.
333: The larger the impact parameters, the more asymmetric is the resulting ring
334: (Hernquist \& Weil 1993; Mihos \& Hernquist 1994; Horellou \& Combes 2001; Mapelli et al. 2008a, 2008b).
335:
336:
337:
338: Finally, we do not put any limitation on the inclination angle $\theta{}$ (between the disc axis of the target and the velocity of the intruder). Lynds \& Toomre (1976) indicated that relatively symmetric ring galaxies can form at least for $\theta{}\le{}45^\circ{}$. Recent simulations (Ghosh \& Mapelli 2008) show that regular (although warped) rings form also for $\theta{}>60^\circ{}$. So, we can reasonably assume that ring galaxies can form also for high values of $\theta{}$. Thus, our estimate of the CRG formation rate represents an upper limit and should be rescaled by an unknown factor $1-\cos(\theta{})\ge{} 0.5$.
339:
340:
341: \section{Results}
342:
343: \subsection{Merger Fraction Evolution up to Redshift 2}
344:
345: To predict the merger fraction as a function of redshift using observations of galaxy pairs is a difficult task, due to the complexity of establishing the time
346: over which the merger occurred. Estimates of merger fractions using galaxy pairs come from
347: Patton et al. (2000, 2002), Le F\`evre et al. (2000) and Lin et al. (2004) for $z<1$. However,
348: owing to projection effects, some pairs might not be a physically bound system and merging may last for a long time or may never occur.
349:
350: On the other hand,
351: in simulations we assume that a merger occurs when the smaller halo enters into the virial radius of the host halo,
352: whereas the distance between the observed pairs is generally smaller than the virial radius of the progenitor.
353: In fact, the baryonic component of the two galaxies is within $\approx{}20$ per cent of the virial radius.
354:
355: A comparison of the merger rates extracted from the simulations for dark haloes
356: to galaxy merger rates has some limitations. A direct comparison implies a conversion between halo mass
357: and galaxy mass/light. Many models usually adopted to this conversion,
358: e.g., see van den Bosch et al. (2007) and reference therein, have
359: a strong dependence upon halo (or galaxy) mass. These models imply
360: that a merger between a dark matter halo and another halo
361: of one-tenth its mass may not be equivalent to a merger between a
362: galaxy and another one of one-tenth its mass.
363: Over the mass range $10^{11}M_\odot$ to $10^{12}M_\odot$, the variation
364: in M/L ratio with halo mass is approximately a constant in the HOD models, so
365: this approximation is good. For larger mass haloes we should compress our merger
366: mass scale by ~30\%, but this depepence is model based and would introduce an error
367: smaller than the observations currently suffer from. Ideally we would
368: use hydrodynamical simulations that accurately resolve the star-formation and
369: luminosity evolution of galaxies. This is a few years away before becoming
370: achievable computationally.
371:
372: %However these dependences based
373: %on models
374: %are challenged from the barionic Tully-Fisher relation observed in
375: %galaxies with circular velocity 30$\le \rm{V_c} \le 300$ km s$^{-1}$ (McGaugh et al. 2000).}
376:
377:
378: The timescale over which the merger between a pair
379: of galaxies is deemed visible is estimated as a fraction of the crossing time $t_{\rm{cr}}$ of the infalling halo into the host halo.
380: The crossing time for realization of 1:1 merger simulations is $\approx 1$ Gyr.
381: Simulations of 1:1-1:2-1:3 mergers show
382: that the timescale over which merger features are visible is $\approx 0.5$ Gyr for systems with different orbital inclinations (Conselice 2006).
383:
384: We therefore define the halo merger fraction $f_{\rm{merg}}$ as
385: \begin{equation}
386: f_{\rm{merg}}(t,M)=\frac{N_{\rm{merg}}}{N_{\rm{tot}}}\frac{t_{\rm{cr}}}{\Delta t},
387: \end{equation}
388: where $N_{\rm{tot}}$ and $N_{\rm{merg}}$ are the total number of haloes and the number of haloes undergoing a (minor or major) merger at
389: a given time interval $\Delta{}t$ and for a given mass $M$, respectively. $t_{\rm cr}/\Delta{}t$ is the fraction of the time interval over which the merger signature is visible.
390: In the time interval between z=0 and z=0.3 the time is longer than the merger time so we did not account for the time delay $t_{\rm cr}/\Delta{}t$.
391:
392:
393: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLE 1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
394: \begin{table*}
395: %\begin{center}
396: \caption{\hspace{3cm} Minor and Major Mergers.}
397: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
398: \hline
399: \vspace{0.1cm}
400: $z$ & Mergers$^{\rm a}$ & Major Mergers$^{\rm a}$ & Mergers$^{\rm b}$ & Major Mergers$^{\rm b}$ & N$_{\rm{tot}}$ Haloes \\
401: & & & [M$\sim 10^{12}\,{}M_{\odot}$] & [M$\sim 10^{12}\,{}M_{\odot}$]
402: & \\
403: \hline
404: 0.0 & 571 & 11 & $-$ & $-$ & - \\
405: 0.1 & 837 & 19 & 3 & 3 & 756 \\
406: 0.3 & 649 & 30 & 11 & 7 & 1565 \\
407: 0.5 & 655 & 17 & 30 & 8 & 2232 \\
408: 0.7 & 706 & 43 & 65 & 26 & 2844 \\
409: 0.9 & 496 & 4 & 74 & 3 & 3436 \\
410: 1.1 & 424 & 21 & 91 & 12 & 3852 \\
411: 1.3 & 326 & 6 & 87 & 2 & 4240 \\
412: 1.4 & 254 & 10 & 91 & 8 & 4493 \\
413: 1.6 & 267 & 15 & 88 & 7 & 4669 \\
414: 1.7 & 302 & 14 & 82 & 7 & 4813 \\
415: 1.9 & 210 & 14 & 69 & 6 & 5020 \\
416: \hline
417: \end{tabular}
418: %\end{center}
419: \begin{flushleft}
420: {\footnotesize $^{\rm a}$ Total Mergers(minor+major) and major mergers from simulations for haloes at present day in the range of mass between $5\times{}10^{12}$ and 10$^{14}\,{}M_{\odot}$.\\
421: \footnotesize $^{\rm b}$ Total Mergers(minor+major) and major mergers from simulations for progenitors with fixed mass between $9\times{}10^{11}$ and $3\times{}10^{12}\,{}M_{\odot}$ at any redshift.
422: }
423: \end{flushleft}
424: \label{tab_1}
425: \end{table*}
426: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
427:
428:
429: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%FIGURE 1%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
430: \begin{figure}
431: \center{{
432: \psfig{figure=frac.ps,height=8cm}
433: %\includegraphics[width=80mm]{frac.ps}
434: }}
435: \caption{\label{fig:frac}Total merger fraction (solid line) and major merger fraction (dotted line) of dark haloes with mass between $5\times{}10^{12}$ and $10^{14}\,{} M_{\odot}$ at present day,
436: as a function of redshift, derived from cosmological simulations.
437: The long-dashed line shows the major merger fraction of Milky-Way sized haloes at any time.
438: Symbols represent empirical results on the merger fraction or fraction of
439: strongly distorted galaxies identified via different methods, ranging from
440: visual classification to automated methods: Jogee et al. (2007, 2008,
441: filled circles), Le F\`evre (2000, filled squares), Conselice (2003,
442: open squares) and Lotz et al. (2006, stars). Note that a stellar mass cut off was applied in Jogee data points ($M_\ast{}>2.5\times{}10^{10}M_\odot{}$)
443: and in Conselice 2007 ($M_\ast{}>1\times{}10^{10}M_\odot{}$).
444: }
445: \end{figure}
446: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
447:
448: Table~1 lists the number of major and minor mergers and the total number of haloes derived in simulations.
449: In Figure \ref{fig:frac} major merger fractions (the dotted line) and total (i.e. minor+major) merger fractions (solid line) derived from simulations
450: are plotted as a function of redshift when assuming $t_{\rm cr}=$ 1 Gyr. Our models predict a merger fraction
451: that does not evolve significantly with redshift between 0.2$\le$z$\le$2. This implies that the observed decrease
452: of the cosmic star formation rate since z$\sim$1 (e.g. Lilly et al. 1996; Madau et al. 1996)
453: is not tied to a disappearing population of major mergers, and seems to be in agreement with recent
454: new results by Jogee et al. (2007; 2008) for $z\sim{}0.2-0.8$, and by Wolf et al. (2005) and Bell et al. (2005) at $z\sim{}0.7$.
455: Table~1 also lists the number of total mergers (minor+major) and major mergers for Milky Way sized progenitors
456: identified at any time, with typical mass of $\sim 10^{12}\,{}M_{\odot}$.
457:
458:
459: In Figure \ref{fig:frac} we compare the predictions of our models with data of the merger fraction,
460: or fraction of strongly distorted galaxies, identified via different methods
461: and based on different surveys : Jogee et al. (2007, 2008, filled circles),
462: Le F\`evre (2000, filled squares), Conselice (2003, open squares) and Lotz et
463: al (2006, stars). The results of Jogee et al. (2007, 2008) refer to the
464: the fraction of strongly distorted interacting/merging massive (with stellar mass $M_\ast{}> 2.5\times{}10^{10}\,{}M_\odot{}$)
465: galaxies over $z\sim{}0.24$ to 0.80, identified from the GEMS survey (Rix et al. 2004)
466: using both the CAS system and an independent visual classification system,
467: specifically designed to separate interacting galaxies with externally-triggered
468: asymmetries from non-interacting galaxies with small-scale internally-triggered
469: asymmetries.
470:
471: The presence of wiggles in the theoretical estimates is due to the uncertainty of using the merger tree
472: to identifying mergers between progenitors at each time. The major merger fraction of Milky-Way sized haloes identified at any time is displayed with the long dashed line.
473: We note that the predicted fraction of major mergers and minor mergers is almost constant from z=2 up to present day for Milky-Way sized haloes identified at any redshift
474: and for all the haloes of our sample, regardless the mass.
475: Furthermore, the agreement between merger fractions predicted from cosmological simulations (based on the halo merger history) and
476: the observed merger fractions based on galaxy CAS morphologies is encouraging for the LCDM model.
477:
478:
479:
480:
481: \subsection{Merger Rates}
482: The merger fraction is related to the merger rate per unit volume $\it{R}$, defined within a time interval and mass range, by the following expression.
483:
484: \begin{equation}
485: \it{R} (t,\rm{M})=f_{\rm{merg}}\,{}\tau_m^{-1}\,{}n_m,
486: \end{equation}
487:
488: where $\tau_m$ is the timescale for a merger to occur and is defined as $\approx t_{cr}$
489: and $n_m$ is the physical
490: density of the haloes undergoing a merger (minor or major) within a given mass range and at a given time.
491: The physical density of merging haloes is derived by dividing the total number of haloes which are merging
492: $N_{\rm{merg}}$, listed in Table~1,
493: by the physical volume occupied by all the considered haloes.
494:
495: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%FIGURE 2%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
496: \begin{figure}
497: \center{{
498: \psfig{figure=rate3.ps,height=8cm}
499: %\includegraphics[width=80mm]{rate3.ps}
500: }}
501: \caption{\label{fig:ratejog}
502: Total merger rate (major+minor) (solid line) and major merger rate only (dotted line) of dark matter haloes,
503: per unit volume (comoving), as a function of redshift, derived from cosmological simulations.
504: The rate per unit volume of Milky Way sized haloes identified at any time is plotted for comparison (long-dashed line, blue on the web).
505: Filled circles: rate of mergers and interactions, with mass ratios in the
506: range 1:1 to 1:10 , derived by Jogee et al. (2007, 2008) from the
507: GEMS data. Open squares: merger rate from the HDF
508: from Conselice (2003).}
509:
510: \end{figure}
511: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
512:
513: Figure~\ref{fig:ratejog} plots the major merger rate (dotted line) and the total merger rate
514: (minor+major) (solid line) per unit volume, as a function of redshift, as derived from cosmological simulations.
515: For comparison, Figure~\ref{fig:ratejog} also shows the merger rate inferred from the GEMS sample (Jogee, private communication;
516: marked with filled circles) and the analysis of Conselice et al. (2007) based on the {\it Hubble Ultra Deep Field} ({\it HUDF}, open squares).
517: For completeness, the plot displays the major merger rate per unit volume inferred in cosmological models for progenitors in the
518: range of mass of the Milky way ($\sim 10^{12}\,{} M_{\odot}$), identified at any redshift (long-dashed line).
519: A large fraction of the progenitors are in this range of mass at higher redshift, explaining why these systems show a similar trend in the merger rate as the major
520: mergers of all the haloes. The merger rate of Milky Way sized haloes (long-dashed line) decouples from the total major merger rate (dotted line) only at $z\lesssim{}0.5$, where the former drops, while the latter decreases more gently.
521: This is due to the fact that mergers occurring at late time mainly involve the assembly of larger mass systems.
522:
523:
524: Note that the decrease of the volume-averaged merger rate at late times is a result of the decrease
525: of the progenitor number density at lower redshift.
526: Our predictions are in good agreement with the observations, despite the large uncertainties
527: in the available data. It worth noting that our estimates based on dark matter haloes are in agreement with the estimates inferred from Maller et al. (2006) who used
528: N-body simulations plus hydrodynamics with a merger tree based on subhaloes to better trace the close pairs of galaxies.
529: It is encouraging to note that estimates based on dark haloes and SPH simulations do agree without invoking any additional treatments of baryons in galaxies
530: with the halo-occupation models and semi-analytic models.
531:
532: Summing over all mergers for massive haloes ($>5\times{}10^{12}\,{}M_{\odot}$),
533: we find that the average number of mergers a halo experienced since $z\sim 2$ is $N_m \sim 2$ in agreement with
534: estimates of Conselice et al. (2007).
535:
536:
537:
538:
539: \subsection{Ring Galaxy Formation Rate}
540:
541:
542: First we check the correspondence between the CRG formation rate and the halo merger rate within our cosmological simulation. For CRGs we consider only halo progenitors with mass between a few $10^{11}$ and $5\times{}10^{12}$ $M_{\odot}$ at any time, which correspond to the observed masses of ring galaxies. Figure~\ref{fig:fig4} shows the CRG formation rate (lightly hatched histogram, red on the web), compared with the total (minor+major) merger rate of all the haloes with present day masses between $5\times{}10^{12}$ $M_{\odot}$ and $10^{14}\,{}M_{\odot}$ (open histogram, blue on the web).
543: Both the CRG formation rate and the merger rate increase at lower redshifts.
544: The null hypothesis probability that ring galaxies and mergers are drawn from the same
545: distribution from redshift 0.2 up to z=2 is $\sim{}0.11$, corresponding to a non-reduced $\chi{}^2=17.1$ (for 11 data points, 0 parameters,
546: and assuming Poissonian errors).
547: Thus, we conclude that the CRG formation rate can be considered a tracer of the merger rate.
548: Since our results rely upon the distribution
549: of merging orbits we checked the consistency with previous works.
550: We computed the fraction of merging progenitors with different pericentric distances
551: using the sample we adopted for the CRG calculations. By tracking
552: accretion events we predict the pericentric distance of the merging haloes. This distribution
553: does not disagree with that shown in Khochfar \& Burkert (2006) and
554: is similar to that found in simulations that resolve substructures in CDM haloes (e.g. Ghigna et al 1998).
555:
556: Finally, we remark that our simulations follow the merger history and dynamics of dark haloes and
557: neglect processes involving the baryonic physics. In particular, the formation of galaxy discs,
558: which is crucial for the formation of CRGs, cannot be modeled here. Also the time evolution for
559: the late and early type number fraction is not accounted.
560:
561: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE 3 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
562: \begin{figure}
563: \center{{
564: \psfig{figure=fig3.eps,height=8cm}
565: %\includegraphics[width=80mm]{fig3.eps}
566: }}
567: \caption{\label{fig:fig4} CRG formation rate (i.e. the number of newly formed CRGs in the entire simulation per redshift interval, lightly hatched histogram, red on the web)
568: as a function of redshift, compared with
569: the merger rate obtained considering all the haloes in the range of mass between $5\times{}10^{12}$ $M_{\odot}$ and $10^{14}$ $M_{\odot}$ at $z=0$ (open histogram, blue on the web; see Table~1 and Fig.~2).
570: The histograms are normalized to total number of CRGs and mergers, respectively.
571: }
572: \end{figure}
573: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
574:
575: \subsection{Comparison with Observations}
576:
577: The available data of moderately high redshift CRGs consist of a sample of 25 ring galaxies ($0.2\le{}z\le{}1$), observed with {\it HST} (LO4), and a more recent sample of 24 ring galaxies ($0.07\le{}z\le{}1.5$) found in the GEMS and GOODS fields (E06).
578: Table~2 reports the number of CRGs observed in these two samples, as well as the number derived from our simulations.
579:
580: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLE 2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
581: \begin{table}
582: \begin{center}
583: \caption{Number of simulated and observed CRGs.}
584: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
585: \hline
586: \vspace{0.1cm}
587: $z$ & simulated CRGs$^{\rm a}$ & L04$^{\rm b}$ & E06\\
588: \hline
589: 0.1 & 11 & $-$ & 1 \\
590: 0.3 & 8 & 2 & 2 \\
591: 0.5 & 2 & 7 & 4 \\
592: 0.7 & 9 & 11 & 4 \\
593: 0.9 & 4 & 5 & 8 \\
594: 1.1 & 7 & $-$ & 4 \\
595: 1.3 & 5 & $-$ & $-$ \\
596: 1.4 & 4 & $-$ & 1 \\
597: 1.6 & 2 & $-$ & $-$ \\
598: 1.7 & 3 & $-$ & $-$ \\
599: 1.9 & 2 & $-$ & $-$ \\
600: \hline
601: \end{tabular}
602: \end{center}
603: \begin{flushleft}
604: {\footnotesize $^{\rm a}$ CRGs from our simulation (considering haloes with mass between $\sim{}10^{11}$ and $5\times{}10^{12}\,{}M_\odot{}$). The total number of CRGs in the simulation,
605: from $z=0.1$ to $z=2$ (from $z=0.2$ to $z=1$) is 57 (23). \\
606: \footnotesize $^{\rm b}$ The redshift is observed for 8 galaxies in the L04 sample (see the Text for details). An estimated redshift
607: (L04) has been used for the 17 CRGs without redshift measurement. Note that the area of the survey is different from the one of
608: our simulation (see text for details).
609: }
610: \end{flushleft}
611: \label{tab_1}
612: \end{table}
613: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
614:
615:
616: Unfortunately, a direct redshift estimate has been provided only for 8 of the CRGs of the L04
617: sample\footnote{Redshift estimates are provided for 6 of the 25 galaxies of the LO4 sample,
618: in particular the estimates reported in Table 1 of LO4 refer to CRGs identified with number 2; 3; 5; 7; 10; 20.
619: Two more galaxies of that sample (CRGs labeled as 9 and 12) are members of galaxy clusters CL~0303+1706
620: ($z=0.6564$) and CL~1601+4253 ($z=0.5382$), respectively (see e.g. Dressler \& Gunn (1992) for the redshift determination).}.
621: LO4 proposed to estimate the redshift of CRGs by adopting a 'standard' absolute $V$ magnitude for CRGs (Appleton \& Marston 1997).
622: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE 4 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
623: \begin{figure}
624: \center{{
625: \psfig{figure=fig4.eps,height=8cm}
626: %\includegraphics[width=80mm]{fig4.eps}
627: }}
628: \caption{\label{fig:fig5}
629: CRG formation rate per unit volume (comoving). Open triangles (case L04old, green in the online version): the sample of 25 observed CRGs in
630: L04 with $z_{est}$ (the same as in figure~4 of L04). Filled squares (case L04$z_{obs}$, blue in the online version): the 8 observed CRGs with $z_{obs}$
631: (CRG number 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 20 of L04). Filled triangles (case L04new, black in the online version): the 8 observed CRGs with $z_{obs}$ and the remaining 17 observed CRGs
632: with $z_{est}$.
633: Open circles (magenta in the online version): CRG rate per unit volume derived from the E06 data.
634: Long dashed line (red in the online version): simulated CRGs.
635: }
636: \end{figure}
637: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
638:
639:
640: Note that only the estimated redshifts ($z_{est}$) are shown in
641: figure~4 of L04, even for those CRGs that have an observed redshift ($z_{obs}$).
642: Also, the difference between $z_{est}$ and $z_{obs}$ is $\gtrsim{}$10 per cent, i.e. half of the bin width, for 4 of the 8 CRGs
643: with known redshift. Yet, for 3 of these 4 galaxies the observed redshift $z_{obs}$ is significantly smaller than
644: the estimated value $z_{est}$ .
645:
646: This discrepancy has important consequences in the estimate of the CRG formation rate. In Figure ~\ref{fig:fig5}
647: the CRG formation rate per unit volume\footnote{The total solid angle of the observations in L04 and in E06 was $\sim{}7.31\times{}10^{-5}$ sr and $\sim{}4.87\times{}10^{-5}$ sr, respectively, independent of redshift.} of the CRG sample observed by LO4 is shown as a function of redshift. For the open triangles (hereafter case 'L04old') of Figure~\ref{fig:fig5}, we assumed the estimated redshift $z_{est}$
648: reported in LO4 for all the 25 CRGs (including the 8 CRGs with measured redshift $z_{obs}$). Note that the case L04old is the same as figure~4 of L04.
649: The formation rate of the 8 CRGs with observed redshift $z_{obs}$ is represented by the filled squares of Figure~\ref{fig:fig5} (hereafter 'L04$z_{obs}$').
650: Note that the ring galaxy formation rate of the sample of LO4 peaks at $z=0.7$ when $z_{est}$ is assumed (L04old),
651: whereas the peak shifts to $z=0.5$ when $z_{obs}$ is assumed instead (L04$z_{obs}$).
652:
653:
654: For completeness, we plot the rate of formation of 25 CRGs of LO4 when $z_{obs}$ is assumed for 8 galaxies which have
655: an observed redshift
656: and $z_{est}$ assumed for the remaining 17 CRGs (filled triangles, hereafter 'L04new').
657: The distribution peaks at $z\sim{}0.7$.
658: The open circles in Figure~(\ref{fig:fig5}) represent the CRG formation rate derived using the data reported by E06.
659: In this case all the redshifts are measured (either with spectroscopy or photometry).
660:
661:
662: We additionally plot in Figure~\ref{fig:fig5} the CRG formation rate per unit volume
663: derived from cosmological simulations, as a function of redshift
664: (dashed line). Note that the CRG formation rate is derived from Table~2 and is the same as shown in Figure ~\ref{fig:fig4}, but with a different normalization. The simulated CRG formation rate per unit volume approximately matches the data points in the redshift range $0.2\le z \le 0.8$.
665:
666: We also note that in our simulations the CRG formation rate per unit volume substantially increases with redshift. As already noted for the merger rate,
667: this is mainly due to a substantial increase of the number density of progenitors present in merger tree at higher redshift.
668:
669: At $z\sim{}1.1-1.5$ our simulated CRG formation rate is a factor of $\sim{}6-22$ higher than the one derived from E06 data. This might be due to several
670: factors. First, we assume that all progenitors with mass $10^{11}-5\times{}10^{12}\,{}M_\odot{}$ and experiencing interactions with small impact parameter are disc galaxies, but the morphology of the progenitor cannot be inferred from our dark matter only simulations.
671: Second, the E06 sample might be considered incomplete at $z > 1.1$.
672:
673: Thus, new redshift measurements of moderately high-redshift CRGs will be extremely useful. The future survey
674: zCOSMOS (Lilly et al. 2007)
675: will acquire spectra and redshifts of approximately 10,000 galaxies ($0<$ z $< 3$) in the COSMOS survey field
676: and will derive
677: for 10,000 galaxies between $0<$z$<1$ the mass, the morphology and the size. This will provide an excellent sample to compare with the rate of CRGs predicted from our models.
678:
679:
680: \subsection{Evolution of the Number of CRGs with Redshift}
681:
682: Various theoretical models suggest that the galaxy merger rate
683: per unit volume scales with the redshift as $\dot{n}\propto{}(1+z)^m$.
684: The exact value of $m$ depends on the details of the adopted formalism, as well as
685: on the cosmological parameters. Approaches based on the Press-Schechter formalism (Carlberg 1990a, 1990b)
686: predict $m\sim{}2.5$, assuming $\Omega{}_{\rm M}=0.238$ from the WMAP3 constraints.
687:
688: We showed in Figure~\ref{fig:fig4} that the CRG formation rate the is a good tracer of the merger rate. Hence,
689: one might assume that also the CRG rate scales with $(1+z)^m$ (LO4). Thus, we derive the value of $m$ from the
690: simulated CRGs. In particular,
691: the expected number of CRGs ($N_{\rm CRG}(z_1,\,{}z_2)$), which form between $z_1$ and $z_2$, in a given volume, under the assumption that the density of CRGs scales as in
692: equation~\ref{eq:eq1},
693: may be expressed by the following formula (see section 3.2 of L04).
694:
695:
696: \begin{equation}\label{eq:lavery}
697: \begin{array}{l}
698: N_{\rm CRG}(z_1,\,{}z_2)=n_{CRG,0}\,{}\left(\frac{c}{H_0}\right)^3\,{}\times{} \\
699: \hspace{2cm}\int_{z_1}^{z_2}(1+z)^m\,{}
700: \left[\int_0^z\frac{d\tilde{z}}{{\mathcal E}(\tilde{z})}\right]^2\,{}\frac{dz}{{\mathcal E}(z)}\,{}\Delta{}\Omega{}(z),\\
701: \end{array}
702: \end{equation}
703:
704: where $c$ is the light speed,
705: $n_{CRG,0}\sim{}5.4\times{}10^{-6}\,{}h^3\textrm{ Mpc}^{-3}$
706: is the current density of CRGs (Few \& Madore 1986),
707: ${\mathcal E}(z)=[(1+z)^3\Omega{}_M+\Omega{}_\Lambda{}]^{1/2}$
708: and $\Delta{}\Omega{}(z)$ is the considered solid angle at a given redshift $z$.
709:
710:
711: In the simulations $\Delta{}\Omega{}(z)$ is the total solid angle, at a given $z$, occupied by our
712: halo sample.
713: $\Delta{}\Omega{}(z)$ has been calculated as the sum of the physical sizes of each halo in the simulation divided by the comoving distance at a given $z$, i.e.
714:
715: \begin{equation}\label{eq:angle}
716: \Delta{}\Omega{}(z)\simeq{}8.6\times{}10^{-4}\,{}{\rm sr}\,{}\left(\frac{a}{0.769}\right)^{2}\,{}\left(\frac{\int_0^z\frac{dz}{{\mathcal E}(z)}}{0.283}\right)^{-2},
717: \end{equation}
718: where $a$ is the cosmological factor of expansion.
719: The equation~(\ref{eq:angle}) is normalized to $z=0.3$.
720:
721: Solving equation~(\ref{eq:lavery}) for the values of $\Delta{}\Omega{}(z)$ derived in equation~(\ref{eq:angle}) gives the expected number of CRGs which form in our simulations between $z_1$ and $z_2$, provided that the CRG density scales with $(1+z)^m$.
722:
723: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLE 3 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
724: \begin{table}
725: \begin{center}
726: \caption{Number of expected CRGs in our simulation, as a function of $m$, in the redshift range $z_1,\,{}z_2=(0.2,\,{}1.0)$ (central column) and $z_1,\,{}z_2=(0.2,\,{}2.0)$ (right column).}
727: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
728: \hline
729: \vspace{0.1cm}
730: $m$ & $N_{\rm CRG}$ & $N_{\rm CRG}$\\
731: & ($z_1=0.2,\,{}z_2=1.0$) & ($z_1=0.2,\,{}z_2=2.0$)\\
732: \hline
733: 1 & 6.7 & 10.0\\
734: 2 & 10.4 & 18.5\\
735: 3 & 16.5 & 36.4\\
736: 4 & 26.7 & 76.5\\
737: 5 & 44.0 & 170.1\\
738: 6 & 73.8 & 397.1\\
739: \hline
740: \end{tabular}
741: \end{center}
742: %\begin{flushleft}
743: %\end{flushleft}
744: %\label{tab_1}
745: \end{table}
746: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
747: We calculated equation~(\ref{eq:lavery}) for different values of
748: $m$ and for $(z_1,\,{}z_2)=0.2,\,{}1.0$ and $(z_1,\,{}z_2)=0.2,\,{}2.0$. Results are reported in Table~3.
749: Our cosmological simulations show that 23 CRG
750: form between $z_1=0.2$ and $z_2=1.0$, leading to the value of $m\sim{}3.7$, which is lower than the one
751: obtained by L04 ($m\sim{}5$).
752: However, if we consider the simulated CRGs forming up to $z_2=2$, $m$
753: is slightly lower: 46 CRGs are expected to form if $m\sim{}3.3$.
754:
755:
756: If we adopt the model by Carlberg (1990a, 1990b),
757: a value of $m=3-4$ is in disagreement with the cosmological parameters measured by WMAP3.
758: In fact, equation~(\ref{eq:eq2}) implies $\Omega{}_{\rm M}\sim{}0.38-0.76$ for $m=3-4$, at odds with the estimate
759: of WMAP3.
760:
761: {\it Viceversa} if $\Omega{}_{\rm M}=0.238$ is assumed, in agreement
762: with WMAP3 data, a value of $m\sim{}2.5$ is derived from equation~(\ref{eq:eq2}). For $m\sim{}2.5$ the predicted number
763: of newly formed CRGs in simulations up to $z \sim 1$ is $\approx 13$ (see Table 3),
764: too low with respect to the observations of LO4.
765:
766: Furthermore, in the bottom panel of Figure~\ref{fig:fig6} we plot the evolution in redshift of the number of CRGs obtained in cosmological simulations
767: (hatched histogram) compared with the number of CRGs predicted from equation~(\ref{eq:lavery}) (open histogram with dashed line).
768: We note the different evolution of the two distributions with redshift: the former decreases, the latter increases with redshift.
769: The null hypothesis probability that the
770: two histograms are drawn from the same distribution is 0.19, corresponding to a non-reduced $\chi{}^2=12.4$.
771: (with 10 data points, 1 parameter, and assuming Poissonian errors).
772:
773:
774: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE 5 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
775: \begin{figure}
776: \center{{
777: \psfig{figure=fig5.eps,height=8cm}
778: %\includegraphics[width=80mm]{fig5.eps}
779: }}
780: \caption{\label{fig:fig6}
781: {\it Bottom panel:} number of newly formed CRGs as a function of redshift. Hatched histogram (red in the online version): simulated CRGs. Open histogram with dashed line: model expressed by equation~(\ref{eq:lavery}) for $m=3.3$ (see the Text and L04). Open histogram with dotted line (blue on the web): model expressed by equation~(\ref{eq:cons}) for $\gamma{}=50$, $m=2.4$ and $\beta{}=-2$ [see the Text and Conselice (2006)]. Open histogram with dot-dashed line (green on the web): flat distribution.
782: {\it Top panel:} total merger rate (hatched histogram, red on the web). Open histogram with dashed line: equation~(\ref{eq:lavery}) for $m=3.3$. Open histogram with dotted line (blue on the web): equation~(\ref{eq:cons}) for $\gamma{}=5000$, $m=2.4$ and $\beta{}=-2$.
783: }
784: \end{figure}
785: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
786:
787: We also compare the number of CRGs obtained in our cosmological simulations with the
788: fitting function
789: proposed by Conselice (2006)
790: [see equation (5) of Conselice (2006)]. The fitting formula by Conselice (2006), adapted for our simulated CRGs, can be written as
791:
792: \begin{equation}\label{eq:cons}
793: N_{\rm CRG}(z)=\gamma{}\,{}(1+z)^m\,{}\exp{[\beta{}(1+z)]},
794: \end{equation}
795: where $\gamma{}$=50, $m$=2.4 and $\beta{}$=-2.0 best fit the simulated CRG distribution (between $z=0.2$ and $z=2.0$), reported in Figure ~\ref{fig:fig6}.
796:
797: In this case, the non-reduced $\chi{}^2$ is 7.5, leading to a null hypothesis probability equal to 0.38
798: (considering 10 data points, 3 parameters, and assuming Poissonian errors).
799:
800: However, the simulated CRG rate can be fit also by a flat distribution with $N_{\rm CRG}=5.0$ (non-reduced $\chi{}^2= 12.4$ and null hypothesis probability equal to 0.19, for 10 data points, 1 parameter and Poissonian errors).
801:
802:
803: In Section 3.3 we stressed that the CRG formation rate is a good tracer of the merger rate. For comparison, the top panel of Figure~\ref{fig:fig6} shows the evolution with redshift of the total merger rate (i.e. the merger rate of haloes with mass between $5\times{}10^{12}$ and $10^{14}\,{}M_\odot{}$ at $z=0$).
804:
805: In this Figure, the total merger rate is compared with the Carlberg model (dashed line) and with Conselice's formula (dotted line).
806: Even in this case, the Carlberg model ($m=3.3$) does not match results from simulations, as it predicts an increase of the number of mergers with redshift.
807: Instead, Conselice's formula is in better agreement with the simulated merger rate.
808: In particular, the best-matching parameters for equation~(\ref{eq:cons}) are $\gamma{}$=5000, $m$=2.4 and $\beta{}$=-2.0. Then, Conselice's formula reproduces the evolution of the CRG formation rate as well as of the total merger rate.
809:
810:
811: \section{Summary}
812: We have used cosmological numerical simulations to study the rate of mergers of haloes with mass $> 5\times{}10^{12}\,{}M_{\odot}$
813: and the CRG formation rate. The large volume combined with the selection criterion used to identify halo progenitors
814: allows us to quantify the cosmic merger fraction, the merger rate and the CRG formation rate among haloes. We have made comparisons between these and theoretical models and the latest available observational data.
815:
816: Our main conclusions may be summarized as follows.
817: \begin{itemize}
818:
819: \item The merger fraction of progenitors of the present day galaxies does not evolve strongly with the redshift between 0.2$\le$z$\le$2.
820: Predictions of the merger fraction and merger rates are in fair agreement with the current observational data, within the great
821: uncertainties. This implies that the observed decrease
822: of the cosmic star formation rate since z$\sim$1 is not tied to a disappearing population of major mergers, at least according
823: to our models. We calculate that the number of mergers a progenitor of a halo with mass $> 5 \times{} 10^{12}\,{}M_{\odot}$ will undergo
824: from z$= 2$ to z$= 0.2$ is $N_m \sim 2$. We find that there are still major mergers occurring at redshift lower than z$\sim$ 1, mainly due to the late assembly of large mass systems.
825:
826: \item The formation rate of CRGs is a good tracer of the merger rate.
827:
828:
829: \item Assuming that the galaxy interaction rate per unit volume is proportional to $(1+z)^m$, as suggested by previous models,
830: we derive $m=3-4$ from
831: our numerical simulations of the concordance cosmological model. However, the CRG formation rate as well as the global (major+minor) merger rate are best-matched by the formula $N_{\rm merger}=\gamma{}\,{}(1+z)^m\,{}\exp{[\beta{}(1+z)]}$ (Conselice 2006).
832:
833: \item The CRG formation rate inferred by simulations is in marginal agreement with the observed CRGs between $0.2\le$z$\le 1$.
834: However, new redshift measurements
835: are required to have a good statistical sample of CRGs. Future surveys like zCOSMOS will be able to provide insights on the incidence of
836: galaxy mergers and CRGs rates, and will be extremely useful to test the rates predicted in the hierarchical universe.
837: \end{itemize}
838:
839:
840:
841: \section*{Acknowledgments}
842: We would like to thank suggestions from the anonymous referee which have improved
843: this work. We are grateful to Shardha Jogee for kindly providing the GEMS data shown in Figure 1
844: and Figure 2 before publication and for a careful reading of the paper.
845: The numerical simulations were performed on zbox2 at University
846: of Zurich. We thank Jonathan Coles, Peter Englmaier, Joachim Stadel and Doug Potter for technical support,
847: and we acknowledge Emanuele Ripamonti and George Lake for useful discussions.
848: ED is supported by a EU Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship
849: under contract MEIF-041569. MM acknowledges support from the Swiss
850: National Science Foundation, project number 200020-117969/1
851: (Computational Cosmology \&{} Astrophysics).
852:
853:
854: \begin{thebibliography}{}
855: %\bibitem{}Agol E., Kamionkowski M., 2002, MNRAS, 334, 553
856: \bibitem{}Appleton P. N., Marston A. P., 1997, AJ, 113, 201
857: %\bibitem{}Appleton P. N., Struck-Marcell C., 1987a, ApJ, 312, 566
858: %\bibitem{}Appleton P. N., Struck-Marcell C., 1987b, ApJ, 318, 103
859: %\bibitem{}Appleton P. N., Struck-Marcell C., 1996, {\it Fundamentals of Cosmic Physics}, 16, 111
860: %\bibitem{}Arp H. C., Madore B. F., 1987, {\it A catalogue of southern peculiar galaxies and associations}, Cambridge University Press
861: \bibitem{}Bell, E. et al. 2005, ApJ, 625, 23
862: \bibitem{}Bershady M. A., Jangren A., Conselice C. J., 2000, AJ, 119, 2645
863: \bibitem{}Barnes J.E.; Hernquist L. 1996, ApJ, 471, 115
864: \bibitem{}Benson A.J., Kamionkowski M., Hassani S.H. 2005, MNRAS, 357, 847
865: \bibitem{}Berrier J.C., Bullock J.S., Barton E.J., Guenther H.D., Zentner A.R., Wechsler R.H. 2006, ApJ, 652, 56
866: %\bibitem{}Beskin G. M., Karpov S. V., 2005, A\&{}A, 440, 223
867: %\bibitem{}Blecha L., Ivanova N., Kalogera V., Belczynski K., Fregeau J., Rasio F., 2006, ApJ, 642, 427
868: %\bibitem{}Bothun G. D., Impey C. D., Malin D. F., Mould J. R., 1987, AJ, 94, 23
869: %\bibitem{}Bothun G., Impey C., McGaugh S., 1997, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 109, 745
870: %\bibitem{}Bothun G. D., Schombert J. M., Impey C. D., Schneider S. E., 1990, ApJ, 360, 427
871: \bibitem{}Bridge C. R., et al., 2007, ApJ, 659, 931
872: \bibitem{}Bryan G. L., Norman M. L., 1998, ApJ, 495, 80
873: \bibitem{}Burkey J. M., Keel W. C., Windhorst R. A., Franklin B. E., 1994, ApJ, 429, L13
874: \bibitem{}Carlberg R. G., 1990a, ApJ, 350, 505
875: \bibitem{}Carlberg R. G., 1990b, ApJ, 359, L1
876: \bibitem{}Carlberg R. G., Pritchet C. J., Infante L., 1994, ApJ, 435, 540
877: \bibitem{}Cassata P., et al., 2005, MNRAS, 357, 903
878: %\bibitem{}Chabrier G., 2001, ApJ, 554, 1274
879: %\bibitem{}Colbert E. J. M., Miller M. C., 2005, Invited review talk at the Tenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity, Rio de Janeiro, July 20-26, 2003. Proceedings edited by M. Novello, S. Perez-Bergliaffa and R. Ruffini, World Scientific, Singapore, 2005
880: \bibitem{}Conselice C. J., Bershady M. A., Jangren A., 2000a, ApJ, 529, 886 \bibitem{}Conselice C. J., Bershady M. A., Gallagher J. S. III, 2000b, A\&{}A, 354L, 21
881: \bibitem{}Conselice C. J., 2003, ApJS, 147, 1
882: \bibitem{}Conselice C. J., Bershady M. A., Dickinson M., Papovich C., 2003, AJ, 126, 1183
883: \bibitem{}Conselice C. J., et al., 2004, ApJ, 600, L139
884: \bibitem{}Conselice C. J., 2006, ApJ, 638, 686
885: %\bibitem{}Conselice C. J., 2007, to appear in 'Pathways through an eclectic Universe', Knapen J. H., Mahoney T. J., Vazdekis A. eds., ASP Conf. Ser., 2007
886: \bibitem{}Conselice C. J., Rajgor S., Myers R. 2007, MNRAS, submitted, ArXiv:0711.2333
887: \bibitem{}Cox, T.J., Jonsson, P., Primack J.R., \& Somerville, R. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1013
888: %\bibitem{}De Lucia G., Springel V., White S.D.M., Croton D., Kauffmann G. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 499
889: %\bibitem{}de Vaucouleurs G., 1959, {\it Handbuch der Physik}, 53, 275
890: %\bibitem{}Diemand J., Madau P., Moore B., 2005, MNRAS, 364, 367 (DMM)
891: \bibitem{}D'Onghia E., Burkert A., 2004, ApJ, 612L, 13
892: \bibitem{}Dressler A., Gunn J. E., 1992, ApJS, 78, 1
893: \bibitem{}Elmegreen D. M., Elmegreen B. G., 2006, ApJ, 651, 676
894: \bibitem{}Fakhouri, O. \& Ma, S-P. 2008, MNRAS in press, ArXiv:0710.4567
895: \bibitem{}Few J. M. A., Madore B. F., 1986, MNRAS, 222, 673
896: \bibitem{}Ghigna S., Moore B., Governato F., Lake G., Quinn T., Stadel J. 1998, MNRAS, 300, 146
897: \bibitem{}Ghosh K. K., Mapelli M., 2008, MNRAS Letters, in press
898: \bibitem{}Gottloeber S., Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A.V. 2001, ApJ, 546, 223
899: \bibitem{}Governato F., Gardner J.P., Stadel, J., Quinn, T., Lake, G. 1999, AJ, 117, 1651
900: \bibitem{} Guo Q. \& White S.D.M. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 2
901: %\bibitem{}Gill S. P. D., Knebe A., Gibson B. K., 2004a, MNRAS, 351, 399
902: %\bibitem{}Gill S. P. D., Knebe A., Gibson B. K., Dopita M. A., 2004b, MNRAS, 351, 410
903:
904: %%\bibitem{}Few J. M. A., Arp H. C., Madore B. F., 1982, MNRAS, 199, 633
905: %\bibitem{}Fosbury R. A. E., Hawarden T. G., 1977, MNRAS, 178, 473
906: %\bibitem{}Gao Y., Wang Q. D., Appleton P. N., Lucas R. A., 2003, ApJ, 596L, 171
907: %\bibitem{}Gil de Paz, A. et al., 2007, ApJS, accepted for publication, arXiv:astro-ph/0606440v1
908: %\bibitem{}Gilardi L., Bressan A., Bertelli G., Chiosi C., 2000, A\&{}AS, 141, 371
909: %\bibitem{}Grimm H., Gilfanov M., Sunyaev R., 2003, MNRAS, 339, 793
910: %\bibitem{}Griv E., 2005, Ap\&{}SS, 299, 371
911: %\bibitem{}Gvaramadze V. V., Gualandris A., Portegies Zwart S., 2007, MNRAS, submitted, arXiv:astro-ph/0702735v1
912: %\bibitem{}Heger A., Woosley S. E., 2002, ApJ, 567, 532
913: %\bibitem{}Hernquist L., 1993, ApJS, 86, 389
914: \bibitem{}Hernquist L., Weil M. L., 1993, MNRAS, 261, 804
915: \bibitem{}Hibbard J. E., Vacca W. D., 1997, AJ, 114, 1741
916: \bibitem{}Higdon J. L., 1995, ApJ, 455, 524
917: \bibitem{}Higdon J. L., 1996, ApJ, 467, 241
918: \bibitem{}Higdon J. L., Wallin J. F., 1997, ApJ, 474, 686
919: %\bibitem{}Hoffman Y., Silk J., Wyse R. F. G., 1992, ApJ, 388L, 13
920: \bibitem{}Horellou C., Combes F., 2001, Ap\&{}SS, 276, 1141
921: \bibitem{}Jogee, S. et al. 2008, in Proceedings of
922: ``Formation and Evolution of Galaxy Disks", organized
923: by the Vatican Observatory in Rome, 1-5 October 2007, arXiv:0802.3901
924: \bibitem{}Jogee, S. et al. 2008, ApJ, in preparation
925: \bibitem{}Kampczyk, P. et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 329
926: \bibitem{}Khochfar S., Burkert A. 2001, ApJ, 561, 517
927: \bibitem{}Khochfar S., Burkert A. 2006, A\&A, 445, 403
928: %\bibitem{}Impey C., Bothun G., 1989, ApJ, 341, 89
929: %%\bibitem{}Jeske, N. A., 1986, PhDT, 1J
930: %\bibitem{}Kaaret P., Ward M. J., Zezas A., 2004, MNRAS, 351L, 83
931: %\bibitem{}Katz N., 1992, ApJ, 391, 502
932: %\bibitem{}King A. R., Davies M. B., Ward M. J., Fabbiano G., Elvis M., 2001, ApJL, 552, 109
933: %\bibitem{}King A. R., 2003, to appear in 'Compact Stellar X-Ray Sources', eds. W.H.G. Lewin and M. van der Klis, Cambridge University Press, astro-ph/0301118
934: %\bibitem{}Kuranov A. G., Popov S. B., Postnov K. A., Volonteri M., Perna R., 2007, MNRAS, in press, arXiv:astro-ph/0702525v1
935: \bibitem{}Lavery R. J., Remijan A., Charmandaris V., Hayes R. D., Ring A. A., 2004, ApJ, 612, 679 (L04)
936: \bibitem{}Le F\`evre O. et al., 2000, MNRAS, 311, 565
937: \bibitem{}Lilly, S.J., Le F\`evre, O., Hammer, F., Crampton, D. 1996, ApJ, 460, L1
938: \bibitem{}Lilly, S.J. et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 70
939: \bibitem{}Lin L. et al., 2004, ApJ, 617L, 9
940: \bibitem{}Lotz, J.M., Madau, P., Giavalisco, M., Primack, J., Ferguson, H.C. 2006, ApJ, 636, 592
941: \bibitem{}Lynds R., Toomre A., 1976, ApJ, 209, 382
942: \bibitem{}Madau P., Ferguson H. C., Dickinson M. E., Giavalisco M., Steidel C. C., Fruchter A., 1996, MNRAS, 283, 1388
943: \bibitem{}Maller A.H., Katz N., Keres D., Dav\'e R., Weinberg D.H. 2006, ApJ, 647, 763
944: \bibitem{}Murali C., Katz N., Hernquist L., Weinberg D.H., Dav\' R. 2002, ApJ, 571, 1
945: %\bibitem{}Mapelli M., Ferrara A., Rea N., 2006, MNRAS, 368, 1340
946: %\bibitem{}Mapelli M., 2007, MNRAS, 376, 1317
947: %\bibitem{}Mapelli M., Colpi M., Possenti A., Sigurdsson S., 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1315
948: \bibitem{}Mapelli M., Moore B., Giordano L., Mayer L., Colpi M., Ripamonti E., Callegari S., 2008a, MNRAS, 383, 230
949: \bibitem{}Mapelli M., Moore B., Ripamonti E., Mayer L., Colpi M., Giordano L., 2008b, MNRAS, 383, 1223
950: %\bibitem{}McGaugh S.S., Schombert J.M., Bothun G.D., de Blok W.J.G. 2000, ApJ, 533, L99
951: %\bibitem{}Marcum P. M., Appleton P. N., Higdon J. L., 1992, ApJ, 399, 57
952: %\bibitem{}Marston A. P., Appleton P. N., 1995, AJ, 109, 1002
953: %\bibitem{}Mayer L., Wadsley J., 2004, MNRAS, 347, 277
954: %\bibitem{}Mayya Y. D., Bizyaev D., Romano R., Garcia-Barreto J. A., Vorobyov E. I., 2005, ApJ, 620L, 35
955: %%%\bibitem{}McGaugh S. S., Bothun G. D., 1994, AJ, 107, 530
956: \bibitem{}Mihos J. C., Hernquist L., 1994, ApJ, 437, 611
957: \bibitem{}Mihos J. C., 1995, ApJ, 438, L75
958: %\bibitem{}Moore B., Lake G., Katz N., 1998, ApJ, 495, 139
959: %\bibitem{}Moore B., Diemand, J., Stadel, J. 2004, IAU Colloquium 195: "Outskirts of galaxy clusters: intense life in the suburbs", p.513, ArXiv:0406615
960: \bibitem{}Naab, T. \& Burkert, A. 2003, ApJ, 555, L91
961: %\bibitem{}Mii H., Totani T., 2005, ApJ, 628, 873
962: %\bibitem{}Miller J. M., Fabian A. C., Miller M. C., 2004, ApJL, 614, 117
963: %\bibitem{}Mo H. J., Mao S., White S. D. M., 1998, MNRAS, 295, 319
964: \bibitem{}Moore B., Katz N., Lake G., 1996, ApJ, 457, 455
965: %\bibitem{}Moore B., Quinn T., Governato F., Stadel J., Lake G., 1999, MNRAS, 310, 1147
966: %\bibitem{}Moore L., Parker Q. A., 2007,accepted for publication in Publ.Astron.Soc.Pac., 23, 165, astro-ph/0702551
967: %\bibitem{}Narayan R., Mahadevan R., Quataert E., 1998, in Abramowicz M. A., Bj\"ornsson G., Pringle J. E., eds, Theory of Black Hole Accretion Discs, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, p. 148
968: %\bibitem{}Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1996, ApJ, 462, 563 (NFW)
969: \bibitem{}Neuschaefer L. W., Ratnatunga K. U., Griffiths R. E., Casertano S., Im M., 1995, ApJ, 453, 559
970: %\bibitem{}Noguchi M., 2001, MNRAS, 328, 353
971: %\bibitem{}Pakull M. W., Mirioni L., 2003, Winds, Bubbles, and Explosions: a conference to honor John Dyson, P\'atzcuaro, Michoac\'an, M\'exico, September 9-13 (Eds. S. J. Arthur \& W. J. Henney), Revista Mexicana de Astronom\'\i{}a y Astrof\'\i{}sica (Serie de Conferencias), 15, 197
972: %\bibitem{}Patruno A., Colpi M., Faulkner A., Possenti A., 2005, MNRAS, 364, 344
973: \bibitem{}Patton D. R., Pritchet C. J., Yee H. K. C., Ellingson E., Carlberg R. G., 1997, ApJ, 475, 29
974: \bibitem{}Patton D. R., Carlberg R. G., Marzke, R.O., Pritchet, C.J., da Costa, L.N., \& Pellegrini, P.S. 2000, ApJ, 536, 153
975: \bibitem{}Patton D. R., et al. 2002, ApJ, 565, 208
976: %\bibitem{}Pickering T. E., Impey C. D., van Gorkom J. H., Bothun G. D., 1997, AJ, 114, 1858
977: %\bibitem{}Portegies Zwart S. F., Dewi J., Maccarone T. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 413
978: %\bibitem{}Portegies Zwart S. F., McMillan S. L. W., 2002, ApJ, 576, 899
979: \bibitem{}Press W. H., Schechter P., 1974, ApJ, 187, 425
980: %\bibitem{}Salpeter E. E., 1955, ApJ, 121, 161
981: %\bibitem{}Sanders D. B., Scoville N. Z., Solomon P. M., 1985, ApJ, 289, 373
982: %\bibitem{}Shakura N. I., Sunyaev R. A., 1973, A\&{}A, 24, 337
983: %\bibitem{}Sigurdsson S., Phynney E. S., 1993, ApJ, 415, 631
984: \bibitem{}Rix, H-W. et al. 2004, ApJS, 152, 163
985: \bibitem{}Spergel D. N., et al., 2007, ApJS, 170, 377
986: %\bibitem{}Sprayberry D., Impey C. D., Bothun G. D., Irwin M. J., 1995, AJ, 109, 558
987: \bibitem{}Springel V. et al., 2005, Nature, 435, 629
988: \bibitem{}Stadel J. G., 2001, Thesis (PhD), UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, Source DAI-B 62/08, p. 3657, 141 pages.
989: %\bibitem{}Struck C., 1997, ApJS, 113, 269
990: %%\bibitem{}Taylor, K.; Atherton, P. D., 1984
991: %\bibitem{}Theys J. C., Spiegel E. A., 1976, ApJ, 208, 650
992: \bibitem{}Toomre L., 1977, in Evolution of Galaxies and Stellar Population, Tinsley B. M., Larson R. B. eds., 401
993: %\bibitem{}van der Marel R. P., 2004, Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, from the Carnegie Observatories Centennial Symposia. Published by Cambridge University Press, as part of the Carnegie Observatories Astrophysics Series. Edited by L. C. Ho, 37
994: %\bibitem{}Vorobyov E. I., Bizyaev D., 2003, A\&{}A, 400, 81
995: %\bibitem{}Wadsley J. W., Stadel J., Quinn T., 2004, New Astronomy, 9, 137
996: %\bibitem{}Winter L. M., Mushotzky R. F., Reynolds C. S., 2006, ApJ, 649, 730
997: \bibitem{} van den Bosch, F.C. et al. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 841
998: \bibitem{} Wolf, C. wt al. 2005, ApJ, 730, 771
999: \bibitem{}Woods D., Fahlman G. G., Richer H. B., 1995, ApJ, 454, 32
1000: %\bibitem{}Wolter A., Trinchieri G., 2004, A\&{}A, 426, 787
1001: %\bibitem{}Wolter A., Trinchieri G., Colpi M., 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1627
1002: \bibitem{}Yee H. K. C., Ellingson E., 1995, ApJ, 445, 37
1003: \bibitem{}Zepf S. E., Koo D. C., 1989, ApJ, 337, 34
1004: \end{thebibliography}{}
1005:
1006: %\begin{appendix}
1007: %\section{The formation of spokes}
1008: \end{document}
1009: %\onecolumn
1010: %\appendix
1011:
1012: