1: %\documentclass[preprint,12pt]{aastex}
2: \documentclass{emulateapj}
3:
4: \newcommand{\kms}{\, {\rm km\, s}$^{-1}$}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7: \title{Correlations between \ion{O}{6} Absorbers and Galaxies at Low Redshift}
8:
9: \author{
10: Rajib Ganguly\altaffilmark{1},
11: Renyue Cen\altaffilmark{2},
12: Taotao Fang\altaffilmark{3} and
13: Kenneth Sembach\altaffilmark{4}}
14:
15: \begin{abstract}
16:
17: We investigate the relationship between galaxies and metal-line
18: absorption systems in a large-scale cosmological simulation with
19: galaxy formation. Our detailed treatment of metal enrichment and
20: non-equilibrium calculation of oxygen species allow us, for the
21: first time, to carry out quantitative calculations of the
22: cross-correlations between galaxies and \ion{O}{6} absorbers. We
23: find the following: (1) The cross-correlation strength depends
24: weakly on the absorption strength but strongly on the luminosity of
25: the galaxy. (2) The correlation distance increases monotonically
26: with luminosity from $\sim 0.5-1h^{-1}$Mpc for $0.1L_*$ galaxies to
27: $\sim 3-5h^{-1}$Mpc for $L_*$ galaxies. (3) The correlation distance
28: has a complicated dependence on absorber strength, with a
29: luminosity-dependent peak. (4) Only 15\% of \ion{O}{6} absorbers lie
30: near $\ge L_\mathrm{z,*}$\ galaxies. The remaining 85\%, then, must
31: arise ``near'' lower-luminosity galaxies, though, the positions of
32: those galaxies is not well-correlated with the absorbers. This may
33: point to pollution of intergalactic gas predominantly by smaller
34: galaxies. (5) There is a subtle trend that for $\gtrsim
35: 0.5L_\mathrm{z,*}$ galaxies, there is a positive correlation between
36: absorber strength and galaxy luminosity in the sense that stronger
37: absorbers have a slightly higher probability of finding such a large
38: galaxy at a given projection distance. For less luminous galaxies,
39: there seems to be a negative correlation between luminosity and
40: absorber strength.
41: \end{abstract}
42:
43: \keywords{stars: abundances --- supernovae: general --- galaxies:
44: formation --- cosmology: theory}
45:
46: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, University of
47: Wyoming, 1000 E. University Ave., Laramie, WY 82071, email:
48: ganguly@uwyo.edu}
49:
50: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton
51: University, Peyton Hall, Ivy Lane, Princeton, NJ 08544, email:
52: cen@astro.princeton.edu}
53:
54: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, University of
55: California, 4129 Frederick Reines Hall, Irvine, CA 92697, email:
56: fangt@uci.edu}
57:
58: \altaffiltext{4}{The Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San
59: Martin Drive, Baltimore, MD 21218, email: sembach@stsci.edu}
60:
61:
62: \section{Introduction}
63:
64: Cosmological hydrodynamic simulations have shown that most of the
65: so-called missing baryons \citep*{fhp98} may be in a filamentary
66: network of Warm-Hot Intergalactic Medium \citep[WHIM;][]{co99,d01}.
67: Visual inspection of simulations suggests that the WHIM is spatially
68: correlated with galaxies. This is consistent with the observed
69: large-scale structure of galaxies, as well as the physical
70: expectation that both galaxies and intergalactic medium (IGM) are
71: subject to the dominant gravitational force of dark matter which
72: tends to lead to such large-scale structures \citep{z70}.
73:
74: Moreover, the WHIM may provide a primary conduit for matter and
75: energy exchanges between galaxies and the IGM. Thus, a detailed
76: understanding of the WHIM may shed useful light on galaxy formation
77: \citep*[e.g., ][]{cno05}. The \ion{O}{6} $\lambda \lambda$1032, 1038
78: absorption line doublet in the spectra of low-redshift QSOs provides
79: a valuable probe of the WHIM \citep*[e.g.,][]{l07,sd07,t08}. In this
80: {\it Letter} we use cosmological hydrodynamic simulations to make
81: predictions of the correlations between \ion{O}{6} absorbers and
82: galaxies, which may be used for detailed comparisons with upcoming
83: {\it Hubble Space Telescope Cosmic Origins Spectrograph}
84: observations.
85:
86: \section{Simulation and Construction of Absorber and Galaxy
87: Catalogs}
88:
89: We use the simulation from \citet{co06} and \citet{cf06},
90: %which includes feedback from galactic stellar winds and follows the
91: %non-equilibrium ionization in a self-consistent manner,
92: to make predictions of the relationship between \ion{O}{6} WHIM
93: absorption and the presence of galaxies. This cold dark matter
94: simulation assumes: $\Omega_M = 0.31$, $\Omega_b = 0.048$,
95: $\Omega_\Lambda=0.69$, $\sigma_8 = 0.89$, $H_0 = 100 h=69$\kms
96: Mpc$^{-1}$, $n_s = 0.97$, co-moving box size $85 h^{-1}$\,Mpc and
97: $1024^3$\ cells. %The cell size is 83~h$^{-1}$\,kpc.
98: The simulation follows star formation using a physically-motivated
99: prescription and includes feedback processes from star formation to
100: the IGM in the form of UV radiation and galactic superwinds carrying
101: energy and metal-enriched gas \citep{co06}. In star-formation sites,
102: ``star particles'' are produced at each time step, which typically
103: have a mass of $10^6$\,M$_\odot$. Galaxies are identified post facto
104: using the HOP grouping scheme \citep[][see Nagamine et~al. 2001 for
105: details]{Eisenstein98} on these particles. This grouping scheme
106: provides a catalog of galaxies containing 3D positions, peculiar
107: velocities, stellar masses and ages. The catalog consists of 33,887
108: galaxies. Stellar population synthesis models from \citet{bc03} are
109: used to compute luminosities in all SDSS bands. For the purposes of
110: this paper, we focus on the Sloan z-band, which is centered at
111: 9100\,\AA, and has a width of 1200\,\AA\ \citep{sdss}. For galaxies,
112: the flux in this band is most tightly correlated (of all the Sloan
113: bands) with the total stellar mass \citep[e.g.,][]{kauffmann03}. We
114: find that the luminosities of field galaxies in this simulation
115: follow a Schechter function down to $\sim10^{-3.5} L_\mathrm{z,*}$\
116: ($L_\mathrm{z,*} = 3 \times 10^{11}\,L_\odot$, Ganguly et al. 2008,
117: in preparation).
118:
119: We extract a {$100 \times 100$} grid of sight-lines uniformly
120: separated by $850 h^{-1}$\,kpc. For each sight-line, a synthetic
121: spectrum of \ion{O}{6} $\lambda$1032 absorption is generated, taking
122: into account effects due to peculiar velocities and thermal
123: broadening. For each sight-line, we decompose the spectrum into
124: individual Gaussian-broadened components with an algorithm similar
125: to {\sc autovp} \citep{autovp}. Finally, we associate grouped
126: components into systems; this is important since, physically, it
127: does not serve our purpose to treat individual components separately
128: when comparing to the locations of galaxies. [A single physical
129: system like a galactic disk/halo is often composed of multiple
130: components. This is a result of complicated velocity structures and
131: the clumpiness of gas. Historically, older surveys did not have the
132: spectral dispersion needed to resolve individual components.
133: Therefore, it is desirable to re-group these components back to
134: physically independent systems.] We accomplish this by computing the
135: one-dimensional two-point correlation function of components and
136: identify a characteristic velocity scale. We find that, on small
137: scales, absorption-line components are correlated out to a velocity
138: separation of $\sim\!\!\pm300$\,\kms, which we adopt as the
139: characteristic velocity interval to identify systems. For each
140: system, we record the integrated flux-weighted centroid redshift,
141: \ion{O}{6} column density, and $\lambda$1032 rest-frame equivalent
142: width. A total of $\sim$180,000 components were found to be grouped
143: into $\sim$21,000 systems with $W_\lambda(\lambda1032) \ge 1$\,m\AA.
144:
145:
146: \begin{figure}[t]
147: \epsscale{1.2}
148: \plotone{f1.eps} \caption{We show the cumulative
149: fraction of \ion{O}{6} absorbers that have galaxy at least as
150: luminous as $L_\mathrm{z}/L_\mathrm{z,*}$\ within a cylindrical
151: volume centered on the absorber. We show results for cylinders of
152: two different radii, and a velocity depth of 2000\kms. In the top
153: panel, we show different cuts in the integrated \ion{O}{6} column
154: density. In the bottom panel, we show cuts in $\lambda$1032
155: equivalent width. In each panel, a horizontal line is drawn where
156: 50\% of the absorbers are accounted for. A vertical line is drawn
157: where each of the curves crosses this fiducial. Black dashed lines
158: show the results for uncorrelated absorber and galaxy positions.}
159: \label{fig:1}
160: \end{figure}
161:
162: \section{Analysis \&\ Results}
163:
164: We consider the probability that an \ion{O}{6} absorber of a given
165: equivalent width or column density lies within some distance of a
166: galaxy with a certain luminosity. We take three approaches to
167: address this question, but we must first tackle the problem of
168: assigning galaxies to \ion{O}{6} absorbers. Due to peculiar velocity
169: effects, the exact 3D separation between an \ion{O}{6} absorber and
170: a galaxy cannot be precisely known, although the projected distance
171: in the sky plane can be directly measured. Thus, we simply limit
172: absorber-galaxy associations to within the physically motivated
173: line-of-sight separation of $1000$\kms, corresponding approximately
174: to the velocity dispersion of clusters of galaxies.
175:
176: Approach \#1: For each absorber, we find the most luminous galaxy
177: within a projected distance of 1h$^{-1}$\,Mpc or 3h$^{-1}$\,Mpc (and
178: within the aforementioned velocity separation). Figure~\ref{fig:1}
179: shows the cumulative fraction of \ion{O}{6} absorbers that have a
180: galaxy of luminosity $>L_\mathrm{z}$ within this cylindrical
181: volume. We show this distribution for \ion{O}{6} absorbers of
182: different integrated column density cuts (upper panel) or
183: $\lambda$1032 equivalent width cuts (lower panel). For comparison, we
184: also do the same exercise for a sample of galaxies placed randomly in
185: the box, but with the same luminosity function and the same total
186: number of galaxies.
187:
188: \begin{figure}[t]
189: \epsscale{1.2}
190: \plotone{f2.eps} \caption{We show the cumulative
191: fraction of \ion{O}{6} absorbers as a function of projected distance
192: to the closest galaxy with luminosity $\ge L_\mathrm{z}$. The
193: absolute velocity separation is required to be $|\Delta v| \le
194: 1000$\kms. We show different cuts in \ion{O}{6} column density (top
195: panel) and $\lambda$1032 equivalent width (bottom panel). In both
196: panels, four families of curves are shown corresponding to different
197: luminosity cuts: $L_\mathrm{z}/L_\mathrm{z,*} \ge 0.03, 0.1, 0.3$\
198: and 1. Black lines show the results for uncorrelated absorber and
199: galaxy positions. Note that vertical cuts at $D_\mathrm{min}=1,
200: 3$h$^{-1}$\,Mpc plotted against luminosity reproduce
201: Figure~\ref{fig:1}.} \label{fig:2}
202: \end{figure}
203:
204: Approach \#2: We relax the projected distance requirement,
205: and find the closest galaxy with luminosity $\ge f L_\mathrm{z,*}$\
206: (with four different $f=0.03,0.1,0.3,1$). Figure~\ref{fig:2} shows
207: the cumulative fraction of \ion{O}{6} absorbers as a function of
208: projected distance. As with Figure~\ref{fig:1}, we show different
209: column density (upper panel) and equivalent width cuts (lower
210: panel). In addition, we show the different cuts in galaxy
211: luminosity, and we repeat the exercise with a sample of randomly
212: placed galaxies. Note that Figures~\ref{fig:1} and \ref{fig:2} are
213: complementary. A vertical cut in Figure~\ref{fig:2} at
214: 1h$^{-1}$\,Mpc or 3h$^{-1}$\,Mpc, with the cumulative fraction of
215: absorbers plotted against luminosity reproduces Figure~\ref{fig:1}.
216:
217: Approach \#3; For each absorber, we determine the number of galaxies
218: that lie within the 3h$^{-1}$\,Mpc radius, 2000\,\kms\ deep
219: cylindrical volume. In Table~\ref{tab:ngal}, we list the fraction of
220: these absorbers that have more than n galaxies ($n=0,1,...$) in that
221: volume. We do this for two subsamples of absorbers, those with
222: $\lambda1032$\ equivalent width larger than 30\,m\AA\ (typical
223: detection limit for HST/STIS and FUSE spectra) and 10\,m\AA
224: (expected limit for HST/COS observations). In addition to the
225: equivalent width cuts in the absorber sample, we also make
226: luminosity cuts in the galaxy sample. Current catalogs are typically
227: able to reach galaxy luminosities of 0.1$L_*$\ for statistically
228: interesting volumes \citep[e.g.,][]{s06}.
229:
230: \input{tab1.tex}
231: \input{tab2.tex}
232:
233: Taking Figures~\ref{fig:1} and \ref{fig:2} together, we first
234: address the question of which galaxies, and on what scales, are
235: correlated (if any) with \ion{O}{6} WHIM absorption. In
236: Figure~\ref{fig:1}, at luminosities fainter than $0.3-0.5
237: L_\mathrm{z,*}$, the curves lie below the equivalent curves for
238: randomly-placed galaxies. That is, finding a lower luminosity galaxy
239: near an \ion{O}{6} absorber is less probable than if galaxies were
240: uncorrelated with the \ion{O}{6} absorbers for $D=1-3h^{-1}$Mpc.
241: This merely implies that the correlation distance, defined to be the
242: distance within which there is positive enhancement of pairs compared
243: to random distributions, is smaller than $1h^{-1}$Mpc for these low
244: luminosity galaxies, consistent with results summarized in Table 2
245: (see below). At higher luminosities, the curves are above the random
246: galaxies. This implies that galaxies with $\gtrsim0.3
247: L_\mathrm{z,*}$\ are correlated with \ion{O}{6} WHIM absorption with
248: the correlation distance larger than $3h^{-1}$Mpc, again consistent
249: with results summarized in Table 2. This same
250: information may be seen, in a different way, in Figure~\ref{fig:2},
251: as the families of curves for fainter galaxies lie below equivalent
252: ones for random galaxies, but the converse is true for higher
253: luminosity galaxies. A perhaps somewhat counter-intuitive result in
254: Figure 1 is that an absorber is more likely to find a faint galaxy
255: within the $D=1h^{-1}$Mpc cylinder, if the galaxies were randomly
256: distributed, and $\sim 30\%$ of absorbers do not find any galaxy to
257: the faintest limit simulated. This is due to the fact that the
258: galaxies themselves are more strongly clustered than absorbers among
259: themselves or between galaxies and absorbers. Therefore, absorbers
260: will have a lower probability of finding neighboring galaxies than
261: when the latter are randomly distributed, beyond the
262: cross-correlation distance.
263:
264: An interesting feature immediately visible from Figures~\ref{fig:1}
265: and \ref{fig:2} is that the association between galaxies and
266: \ion{O}{6} absorbers depends weakly on either the \ion{O}{6} column
267: density or $\lambda$1032 equivalent width. This suggests that, while
268: overall galaxies and \ion{O}{6} absorbers are correlated on small
269: scales, the physical properties of \ion{O}{6} absorbers (e.g.,
270: strength, kinematics, number of components) themselves do not
271: display any tight correspondence with nearby galaxies. It seems that
272: the strengths of \ion{O}{6} absorbers do not provide useful
273: indicators for the properties of nearby galaxies. Physically, it
274: suggests that \ion{O}{6} absorbers may arise in the vicinities of
275: galaxies in a wide variety of ways through complex feedback and
276: thermodynamic processes. Complex interactions involving
277: gravity-induced shocks, feedback and photoionization appear to have
278: erased or smoothed out any potential trend with respect to
279: \ion{O}{6} column density or equivalent width. This finding is in
280: accord with observations \citep[e.g.,][]{p06}.
281:
282: From Figure~\ref{fig:2}, it appears that the distance out to which
283: \ion{O}{6} absorbers are correlated with galaxies is a function of
284: both galaxy luminosity and absorber strength (even though the mere
285: presence of a galaxy is not tightly correlated with absorber
286: strength as from Figure~\ref{fig:1}). Comparison of the black curves
287: in Figure~\ref{fig:2}, showing the results of uncorrelated absorber
288: and galaxy positions, with the equivalent families of the curves for
289: the simulated galaxies and absorbers shows that there is typically a
290: distance beyond which it is more probable to find an uncorrelated
291: galaxy. This distance changes depending on the galaxy luminosity and
292: the absorption strength. In the extreme case, there is no distance
293: at which the strongest absorbers are correlated with the least
294: luminous galaxies. In Table~\ref{tab:distlum}, we list the
295: correlation distances as a function of galaxy luminosity and
296: absorption strength. We note two interesting features from the
297: table: (1) For a given equivalent width limit, the correlation
298: distance is a monotonic function of the limiting luminosity. (2)
299: However, for a given limiting luminosity, the correlation distance
300: is not a monotonic function of equivalent width limit. This may also
301: point toward the eclectic nature of the absorbers as mentioned
302: above.
303:
304: It is interesting, however, to consider the number of galaxies that
305: may be responsible for producing \ion{O}{6} absorption. While the
306: intragroup/intracluster medium (ICM) is typically too hot
307: ($T\sim10^6$\,K) for \ion{O}{6} to survive in appreciable
308: quantities, the interfaces between warm, denser, photoionized clouds
309: of temperature $T\sim 10^4$\,K and the ICM are potential locations
310: for \ion{O}{6} production. Examples of such interfaces include the
311: boundaries between Milky Way high-velocity clouds and the hot
312: Galactic corona \citep[e.g.,][]{fox05,sem03}. From
313: Table~\ref{tab:ngal}, we find that 85\%\ of \ion{O}{6}, regardless
314: of absorption equivalent width, do not lie near $L_\mathrm{z,*}$\
315: galaxies. Furthermore, the remaining 15\%\ have at most 3 nearby
316: $L_\mathrm{z,*}$, comparable the Local Group. This is not surprising
317: given that $L_\mathrm{z,*}$\ are not common. However, 99\%\ of
318: absorbers do lie near galaxies of lower luminosity, even if the
319: presence of those galaxies is not correlated over what is expected
320: from randomly placed galaxies.
321:
322: Figure~\ref{fig:2} shows that $\le$20\% of \ion{O}{6} absorbers
323: should find an $L_\mathrm{z,*}$ galaxy within a projected distance
324: of $5 \mathrm{h}^{-1}$\,Mpc. Of course, one would not likely
325: associate \ion{O}{6} absorbers with $L_\mathrm{z,*}$ galaxies at
326: such large projected separations, since, for example, one would have
327: already found a nearby $\ge 0.03L_\mathrm{z,*}$ galaxy within
328: 1h$^{-1}$\,Mpc, or $\ge 0.1L_\mathrm{z,*}$\ galaxy at closer
329: distance with comparable probability. In any case, it seems unlikely
330: that $L_\mathrm{z,*}$ galaxies at such remote distances are
331: responsible for creating the \ion{O}{6} absorbers. The rapid rise of
332: probability in Figure~\ref{fig:2} from $D_\mathrm{min}=0$ to
333: $D_\mathrm{min}\sim 1 \mathrm{h}^{-1}$\,Mpc from galaxies $\ge
334: 0.03-0.1L_\mathrm{z,*}$ may reflect a ubiquitous physical connection
335: between \ion{O}{6} absorbers and these relatively small galaxies,
336: perhaps a result of galactic superwinds being able to transport
337: metals to a distance of $\le 1 \mathrm{h}^{-1}$\,Mpc from these
338: galaxies. This, however, does not necessarily exclude larger
339: galaxies from being able to do the same. The slower rise of
340: probability in Figure~\ref{fig:2} from $D_\mathrm{min}=0$ to
341: $D_\mathrm{min}\sim 5 \mathrm{h}^{-1}$\,Mpc for galaxies $\ge
342: 0.3-1L_\mathrm{z,*}$ may be a result of the intrinsic correlation of
343: large galaxies and small galaxies on these scales. These more
344: detailed issues will be examined subsequently elsewhere. Our results
345: appear to be in broad agreement with observations
346: \citep[e.g.,][]{s06,s07,t06}.
347:
348: We take a more detailed look at the dependencies of probability on
349: the \ion{O}{6} column density or equivalent width. Closer
350: examination of the curves in Figure~\ref{fig:1} (lower-right corner
351: of both panels) and in Figure~\ref{fig:2} (solid curves, lower-left
352: corner of lower panel) reveals that the probability of finding a
353: $\sim L_\mathrm{z,*}$ galaxy is higher for \ion{O}{6} absorbers with
354: a higher column density equivalent width. In particular,
355: $N$(\ion{O}{6})$\ge 10^{14}$\,cm$^{-2}$\ or $W_\lambda\ge 100$\,
356: m\AA\ absorbers deviate noticeably from the weaker absorbers. This
357: is a reversal of the trends from other parts of those figures. For
358: smaller galaxies, e.g., $\ge 0.3L_\mathrm{z,*}$ galaxies (the set of
359: dotted curves in the lower panel of Figure~\ref{fig:2}), the trend
360: is considerably weaker although still visible. For still smaller
361: galaxies, the trend is reversed, with weaker absorbers having a
362: higher probability than stronger ones. These results seem to suggest
363: that these very strong \ion{O}{6} absorbers tend to be produced in
364: richer, high density environments where the probability of finding
365: massive galaxies is enhanced (we will examine this physical link
366: elsewhere). The fact that weaker \ion{O}{6} absorbers have a higher
367: probability of finding a galaxy than stronger absorbers, for
368: galaxies less luminous than $\sim 0.2-0.3L_\mathrm{z,*}$\
369: (Figure~\ref{fig:1}), once again suggests that these relatively
370: weaker \ion{O}{6} absorbers ($W_\lambda\le 50$\,m\AA) are probably
371: produced by galaxies of $\sim 0.1L_\mathrm{z,*}$, not by more
372: luminous galaxies. This is consistent with the trend in
373: Figure~\ref{fig:2} above.
374:
375: \section{Conclusions}
376:
377: We investigate the relationship between galaxies and metal-line
378: absorption systems in a large-scale cosmological simulation with
379: galaxy formation included. Our detailed treatment of metal
380: enrichment and non-equilibrium calculation of oxygen species allow
381: us, for the first time, to carry out quantitative calculations of
382: the cross-correlations between galaxies and \ion{O}{6} absorbers. We
383: examine the the cross-correlations between \ion{O}{6} absorbers and
384: galaxies as a function of projection distance, with the
385: line-of-sight velocity separation between an absorber and a galaxy
386: constrained to within $\pm 1000$km/s. Here are some major findings:
387: (1) The cross-correlation strength depends only weakly on the
388: strength of the absorber but strongly on the luminosity of the
389: galaxy. This result suggests that \ion{O}{6} absorbers are produced
390: ubiquitously and their physical/thermal properties and history vary
391: widely, presumably due to the combined effects of gravitational
392: shocks, feedback, photo-ionization and cooling processes. (2) The
393: correlation length, however, does depend on both the galaxy
394: luminosity and on the absorber strength from $\sim 0.5-1h^{-1}$Mpc
395: for $0.1L_*$ galaxies to $\sim 3-5h^{-1}$Mpc for $L_*$ galaxies.
396: While the dependence on luminosity is monotonic, the dependence on
397: limiting equivalent width appears to peak at some
398: luminosity-dependent value and then falls. (3) Only 15\%\ of
399: \ion{O}{6} absorbers lie near $\ge L_\mathrm{z,*}$\ galaxies. Thus
400: the remaining 85\%\ must be produced by gas ejected from fainter
401: galaxies. The positions of lower-luminosity galaxies is not well
402: correlated with absorbers (i.e. in comparison with randomly-placed
403: galaxies). This may point toward pollution of intracluster gas by
404: many galaxies, rather than a single high-luminosity galaxy. (4) For
405: $\gtrsim 0.5L_\mathrm{z,*}$\ galaxies, there is a positive
406: correlation between absorber strength and galaxy luminosity
407: (stronger absorbers have a slightly higher probability if finding
408: such a large galaxy at a given projection distance). The reverse
409: seems true for less luminous galaxies. On average, these results
410: indicate that very strong \ion{O}{6} absorbers tend to be produced
411: in richer, high density environments where it is more likely to find
412: massive galaxies.
413:
414: The spatial resolution of our simulation is $\sim 80h^{-1}$kpc.
415: While this is adequate for resolving large galaxies, it becomes
416: marginal for galaxies in halos of total mass less than $\sim 10^{11}
417: M_\odot$. Therefore, some of the smaller galaxies of luminosities
418: $0.01-0.03L_\mathrm{z,*}$ may be significantly affected and their
419: abundances underestimated. In addition, \ion{O}{6} systems that
420: would have been produced from these under-resolved galaxies may be
421: absent. As a result, one should treat the cross-correlation strength
422: between \ion{O}{6} absorbers and the low-luminosity galaxies as a
423: lower bound. But we hope that the preliminary results presented here
424: will provide a useful framework for comparison with upcoming imaging
425: campaigns of galaxies in the field of quasars and spectroscopic
426: observations with the {\it Cosmic Origins Spectrograph}.
427:
428: \acknowledgements{We thank Ken Nagamine for providing simulated
429: galaxy catalogs, and the referee for thoughtful comments. We
430: gratefully acknowledge financial support by grants AST-0507521 and
431: NNG05GK10G. This work was partially supported by the National Center
432: for Supercomputing Applications under MCA04N012. }
433:
434: \begin{thebibliography}{}
435:
436: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bruzual} \& {Charlot}}{{Bruzual} \& {Charlot}}{2003}]{bc03}
437: Bruzual, G., \& Charlot, S.\ 2003, \mnras, 344, 1000
438:
439: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Cen} \& {Fang}}{{Cen} \& {Fang}}{2006}]{cf06}
440: {Cen}, R., \& {Fang}, T. 2006, ApJ, 650, 573
441:
442: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Cen} \& {Ostriker}}{{Cen} \& {Ostriker}}{1999}]{co99}
443: {Cen}, R., \& {Ostriker}, J.~P. 1999, \apj, 514, 1
444:
445: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Cen}, {Nagamine}, \& {Ostriker}}{Cen et al.}{2005}]{cno05}
446: Cen, R., Nagamine, K., \& Ostriker, J.~P.\ 2005, \apj, 635, 86
447:
448: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Cen} \& {Ostriker}}{{Cen} \& {Ostriker}}{2006}]{co06}
449: {Cen}, R., \& {Ostriker}, J.P. 2006, ApJ, 650, 560
450:
451: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Dav\'e} et al.}{{Dav\'e} et al.}{1997}]{autovp}
452: Dav\'e, R., Hernquist, L., Weinberg, D.~H., \& Katz, N.\ 1997, \apj,
453: 477, 21
454:
455: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Dav\'e} et~al.}{{Dav\'e} et~al.}{2001}]{d01}
456: %Dav\'e, R., Cen, R., Ostriker, J.P., Bryan, G.L., Hernquist, L.,
457: %Katz, N., Weinberg, D.H., Norman, M.L., \& O'Shea, B. 2001, ApJ,
458: %552, 473
459: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Dav\'e} et~al.}{{Dav\'e} et~al.}{2001}]{d01}
460: Dav\'e, R., et~al. 2001, ApJ, 552, 473
461:
462: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Eisenstein} \& {Hut}}{{Eisenstein} \& {Hut}}{1998}]{Eisenstein98}
463: Eisenstein, D. J.~and~Hut, P. 1998, \apj, 498, 137
464:
465: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Fox} et al.}{{Fox} et al.}{2005}]{fox05}
466: Fox, A.~J., Wakker, B.~P., Savage, B.~D., Tripp, T.~M., Sembach,
467: K.~R., \& Bland-Hawthorn, J.\ 2005, \apj, 630, 332
468:
469: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Fukugita} et al.}{{Fukugita} et al.}{1996}]{sdss}
470: Fukugita, M., Ichikawa, T., Gunn, J.~E., Doi, M., Shimasaku, K., \&
471: Schneider, D.~P.\ 1996, \aj, 111, 1748
472:
473: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Fukugita}, {Hogan}, \& {Peebles}}{{Fukugita} et~al.}{1998}]{fhp98}
474: Fukugita, M., Hogan, C.J., \& Peebles, P.J.E. 1998, ApJ, 503, 518
475:
476: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kauffmann} et al.}{{Kauffmann} et al.}{2003}]{kauffmann03}
477: Kauffmann, G., et al.\ 2003, \mnras, 341, 33
478:
479: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Lehner} et al.}{{Lehner} et al.}{2007}]{l07}
480: Lehner, N., Savage, B.~D., Richter, P., Sembach, K.~R., Tripp,
481: T.~M., \& Wakker, B.~P.\ 2007, \apj, 658, 680
482:
483: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Prochaska} et~al.}{{Prochaska} et~al.}{2004}]{p04}
484: Prochaska, J.X., Chen, H.-W., Howk, J.C., Weiner, B.J., \& Mulchaey, J.S. 2004, ApJ, 647, 718
485:
486: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Prochaska} et~al.}{{Prochaska} et~al.}{2006}]{p06}
487: Prochaska, J.X., Weiner, B.J., Chen, H.-W., \& Mulchaey, J.S. 2006, ApJ, 643, 680
488:
489: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Sembach} et al.}{{Sembach} et al.}{2003}]{sem03}
490: Sembach, K.~R., et al.\ 2003, \apjs, 146, 165
491:
492: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Shull} \& {Danforth}}{{Shull} \&
493: {Danforth}}{2007}]{sd07} Shull, J. M., \& Danforth, C. W. 2007,
494: \apj, in press (arXiv:0709.4030v1)
495:
496: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Stocke} et~al.}{{Stocke} et~al.}{2006}]{s06}
497: Stocke, J.T., Penton, S.V., Danforth, C.W., Shull, J.M., Tumlinson, J., \& McLin, K.M. 2006, ApJ, 641, 217
498:
499: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Stocke} et~al.}{{Stocke} et~al.}{2007}]{s07}
500: Stocke, J.T., Danforth, C.W., Shull, J.M., \& Penton, S.V. 2007, arXiv:0708.4362
501: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Tripp} et~al.}{{Tripp} et~al.}{2006}]{t06}
502: Tripp, T.M., Aracil, B., Bowen, D.V., \& Jenkins, E.B. 2006, ApJ, 643, L77
503:
504: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Tripp} et~al.}{{Tripp}
505: et~al.}{2008}]{t08} Tripp, T. M., Sembach, K. R., Bowen, D. V.,
506: Savage, B. D., Jenkins, E. B., Lehner, N., \& Richter, P. 2008,
507: \apj, in press (arXiv:0706.1214v1)
508:
509: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zel'dovich}{Zel'dovich}{1970}]{z70}
510: Zel'dovich, Y.B. 1970, A\&A, 5, 84
511:
512: \end{thebibliography}
513:
514:
515: \end{document}
516: