1: % mn2esample.tex
2: %
3: \documentclass[usenatbib]{mn2e}
4: %%%%% AUTHORS - PLACE YOUR OWN MACROS HERE %%%%%
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6: \usepackage{lscape}
7: \usepackage{epsfig}
8: %\shorttitle{Morphology of Galactic Satellites}
9: %\shortauthors{Ann, Park \& Choi}
10: \title{Galactic Satellite Systems: Radial
11: Distribution and Environment Dependence of Galaxy Morphology}
12: \author[H. B. Ann, Changbom Park, Yun-Young Choi]
13: {H. B. Ann$^{1}$\thanks{E-mail:hbann@pusan.ac.kr},
14: Changbom Park$^{2}$\thanks{E-mail:cbp@kias.re.kr},
15: Yun-Young Choi$^{3}$\thanks{
16: E-mail:yychoi@kias.re.kr}\\
17: $^{1}$ Division of Science Education, Pusan National
18: University, Busan 609-735, Korea,\\
19: $^{2}$ Korea Institute for Advanced Study,
20: Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 130-722, Korea\\
21: $^{3}$ Astrophysical Research Center for the Structure and
22: Evolution of the Cosmos, Sejong University,
23: Seoul 143-747, Korea}
24: \date{Accepted . Received ; in original form.. }
25: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}}
26: \pubyear{2008}
27:
28: \begin{document}
29:
30: \maketitle
31:
32: \label{firstpage}
33:
34: \begin{abstract}
35: We have studied the radial distribution of the early (E/S0) and late (S/Irr) types of satellites
36: around bright host galaxies.
37: We made a volume-limited sample of 4,986 satellites brighter than
38: $M_r = -18.0$ associated with 2,254 hosts brighter than $M_r =-19.0$
39: from the SDSS DR5 sample. The morphology of satellites is determined by
40: an automated morphology classifier,
41: but the host galaxies are visually classified.
42: We found segregation of satellite morphology as a function of
43: the projected distance from the host galaxy.
44: The amplitude and shape of the early-type satellite fraction profile
45: are found to depend on the host luminosity.
46: This is the morphology-radius/density relation at the galactic scale.
47: There is a strong tendency for morphology conformity
48: between the host galaxy and its satellites.
49: The early-type fraction of satellites hosted by early-type galaxies is
50: systematically larger than that of late-type hosts, and is
51: a strong function of the distance from the host galaxies.
52: Fainter satellites are more vulnerable to the morphology transformation
53: effects of hosts.
54: Dependence of satellite morphology on
55: the large-scale background density was detected.
56: The fraction of early-type satellites increases in high
57: density regions for both early and late-type hosts.
58: It is argued that the conformity in morphology of galactic satellite system
59: is mainly originated by
60: the hydrodynamical and radiative effects of hosts on satellites.
61: \end{abstract}
62: \begin{keywords}
63: galaxies: general -- galaxies: formation -- galaxies: interactions -- methods: observational
64: \end{keywords}
65:
66: \section{Introduction}
67:
68: Morphology reflects the integral property of a galaxy, such as stellar
69: populations, gas content, and dynamical structures. Its origin is one of
70: the central problems in the study of galaxy formation and evolution.
71: If a galaxy remains isolated after its formation,
72: all of its physical properties would be entirely
73: determined by the initial conditions of the proto-galactic cloud
74: and by the subsequent internal evolution.
75: But, it seems unlikely
76: because galaxies are believed to form through a series of minor/major mergers.
77: In fact, the isolated bright galaxies in high density regions
78: are more likely to be recently merged ones and the
79: morphology of galaxies contains imprints of interaction with environment
80: in addition to the formation process (Park, Gott, \& Choi 2008).
81:
82: There is observational evidence that shows an intimate correlation
83: between the morphology of the central galaxy and its neighbors (Wirth 1983;
84: Hickson et al. 1984; Ramella et al. 1987; Osmond \& Ponman 2004;
85: Weinmann et al. 2006; Park et al. 2008).
86: Recent analysis of the morphology of Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS;
87: York et al. 2000) galaxies
88: by Park et al. (2007, 2008) showed that
89: galaxy morphology does depend on the large-scale background density
90: but the role of the nearest neighbor is more decisive.
91: The critical roles of the closest neighbor in determining galaxy morphology
92: appear as the galactic conformity (Weinmann et al. 2006)
93: between a galaxy and its neighbors.
94: Galaxy morphology also depends on luminosity in
95: that galaxy morphology is more likely to be early type for brighter galaxies.
96: Since bright galaxies mainly live in high density regions
97: through the luminosity-density relation, it appears that early types are
98: more prevalent at high densities.
99: %
100:
101: Satellite systems are good places to inspect the environmental dependence
102: of galaxy morphology and to study the galaxy formation process since
103: they are abundant and very localized systems with a size of less
104: than 1 Mpc.
105: Most of the previous studies of satellite galaxies
106: were focused on the radial distribution of satellite galaxies (Sales \& Lambas
107: 2005; van den Bosch et al. 2005; Chen et al. 2006),
108: dark matter halo (McKay et al. 2002; Prada et al. 2003; van den Bosch 2004),
109: and angular distributions (Zaritsky et al. 1997; Sales \& Lambas 2004;
110: Zentner et al. 2005; Yang et al. 2006;
111: Libeskind et al. 2007; Bailin et al. 2007;
112: Kang et al. 2007; Sales et al. 2007).
113: The morphology of satellite galaxies is also an
114: observable parameter that is directly related to
115: formation and evolution of galaxy.
116:
117: The purpose of the present paper is to study the relation between
118: the morphology of satellite galaxies and the local environment
119: such as the host morphology and background density.
120: We used large and homogeneous morphology samples made by both
121: visual and automated classifications.
122: We will see a tight correlation between the
123: host and satellites morphologies.
124: The satellite systems in our study are hosted by the typical bright galaxies,
125: and are not in general large groups or clusters of galaxies.
126: Our host sample is dominated
127: by the $L_*$ galaxies, and their satellites are fainter
128: by about two magnitudes.
129:
130: \section{Data}
131: \subsection{Isolated satellite systems}
132:
133: The basic source of data is the large-scale structure sample (LSS), DR4plus,
134: from the New York University Value-Added Galaxy Catalogue (NYU-VAGC;
135: Blanton et al. 2005) which is a subset of the SDSS Data
136: Release 5 (DR5; Adelman-McCarthy et al. 2007).
137: The primary sample of galaxies used here is a subset of the LSS-DR4plus,
138: which includes Main galaxies (Strauss et al. 2002) with extinction
139: corrected apparent Petrosian $r$-magnitudes in the range
140: $14.5 \leq r_{\rm Pet} < 17.77$ and redshifts in the range
141: $0.001 < z < 0.5$.
142: Our survey region covers 4464 deg$^2$, which
143: is shown in Figure 1 of Park et al. (2007). To this primary sample,
144: we added the galaxies brighter than the bright limit
145: ($r_{\rm Pet}=14.5$) of the sample.
146: Various existing redshift catalogs are searched for the redshifts of
147: the bright galaxies with no spectrum.
148: The catalogs include RC3 (de Vaucouleurs et al. 1991),
149: Catalog of Nearby Galaxies (Tully \& Fisher 1988) and
150: Updated Zwicky catalog
151: \footnote{http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/\~{}huchra/zcat/zcom.htm}
152: (ZCAT 2000 Version). In case of no
153: measured redshift even in these catalogs, we used the redshift taken
154: from NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database\footnote{
155: http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/} (NED) when available.
156: We added 5,503 bright galaxies to the primary sample.
157: %
158: The final data set consists of 370,789 galaxies with known redshift
159: and photometry.
160: Throughout this paper, we use a flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with density
161: parameters $\Omega _m = 0.27$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.73$.
162:
163: To search for isolated satellite systems we take two steps.
164: We first look for isolated galaxies in a volume-limited sample of
165: galaxies brighter than the $r$-band absolute magnitude $M_r = -19.0
166: + 5 {\rm log} h$ (hereafter we are going to drop the term $5 {\rm log} h$) and
167: with redshifts between 0.02 and 0.04724.
168: The lower redshift limit
169: is chosen to make our sample as complete as possible since galaxies with
170: $z < 0.02$ in the SDSS seems to be incomplete even though
171: we supplemented bright galaxies (Park et al. 2007).
172: The comoving space number density of galaxies is approximately constant in
173: the radial direction at $z>0.02$, but drops significantly at $z<0.02$.
174: The upper limit of $z=0.04724$ corresponds to the survey limits of $r=17.77$
175: for a galaxy with $M_r = -18.0$.
176:
177: A target galaxy is isolated if the projected separation to its nearest
178: neighbor galaxy is larger than the virial radii of both galaxies.
179: The neighbors of a target galaxy with $M_r$ are those with absolute
180: magnitude brighter than $M_r +1.0$, and velocity difference less than
181: 1,000 km s$^{-1}$.
182: We have also used the most influential neighbor instead of the nearest one
183: for a comparison in the measurement of the projected separation $r_p$.
184: Our results are basically the same for these two choices.
185: The most influential neighbor is the neighbor which
186: induces the highest local density at the location of the target galaxy.
187: Given $r_p$ between them, we calculate the local
188: mass density due to the neighbor with luminosity $L_n$ by
189: \begin{equation}
190: \rho_{n}= 3\gamma_n L_n /4\pi r_p^3,
191: \end{equation}
192: where we adopt the mass-to-light ratios $\gamma_n=2$ for early types and
193: 1 for late types.
194: This choice is based on the morphology-specific central stellar velocity
195: dispersion and on the pairwise peculiar velocity difference of
196: early and late-type galaxies with their neighbors
197: (see Park et al. 2008 for more details).
198: We define the virial radius of each galaxy as the radius where the mean
199: density within the sphere centered at the galaxy given by equation (1)
200: becomes the virialized
201: density, which is set to $766{\bar\rho}$ (see section 3.1 of Park et al.
202: 2008). The mean mass density is obtained from
203: ${\bar{\rho}}= \sum_{all} \gamma_i L_i/V $ where the summation is over
204: all galaxies in our full volume-limited sample of volume $V$
205: with the absolute magnitude constraint $M_r <-18.0$.
206: An early or late-type galaxy with $M_r=-20$ has virial radius of
207: 300 or 240 $h^{-1}$kpc, respectively.
208: For those with $M_r = -20.5$, the virial radii are 350 and 280
209: $h^{-1}$kpc, respectively.
210:
211: We found 8,883 isolated galaxies in our volume-limited sample. They are
212: physically isolated ones in the sense that they are not hydrodynamically
213: interacting with neighbors. In all previous studies isolation is
214: determined by using a pre-selected fixed radius ignoring the physical
215: size of individual galaxies involved. A blindly large radius of
216: the isolation boundary results in too small sample size, while any
217: fixed value in the right range results in contamination in the sample
218: with interacting galaxies added.
219:
220: Once the bright isolated galaxies are found, we search for satellites
221: associated with them. We limit the satellite candidates only to
222: galaxies with $M_r$ brighter than $-18.0$, a limit one magnitude fainter
223: than that of the host candidates. This choice gives us a uniform and
224: complete selection of satellites for host galaxies also uniformly and
225: completely selected across our sample volume (see Figure 1 below).
226: At each location of the isolated galaxies
227: we search for galaxies with velocity difference less than 500 km s$^{-1}$,
228: absolute magnitude more than one magnitude fainter (but brighter than
229: $-18.0$), and the projected separation less than the smaller of
230: 1 $h^{-1}$Mpc and $r_p$(neighbor)$- r_{vir}$(neighbor), where the letter is
231: the difference between the host-neighbor separation and the neighbor's
232: virial radius.
233: We used the Petrosian $g$-band absolute magnitude for satellite identification
234: because $g$ magnitude is
235: most similar to the $B$ magnitude that is used for some bright galaxies whose
236: SDSS photometry is too poor to be used without correction.
237:
238: \begin{figure}
239: \includegraphics[scale=0.4, bb=20 0 570 650, clip]{fig1.eps}
240: \caption{ Our volume-limited sample of the host galaxies (red points)
241: and satellites (blue). The host distribution shows our sample
242: boundaries in redshift. Some of the satellites lie beyond
243: the redshift boundaries of the volume-limited sample
244: because we allowed 500 km$s^{-1}$ difference in radial velocity
245: between a host and its satellites.}
246: \end{figure}
247:
248: Among the 8,883 isolated galaxies, 2,254 have satellites, and the total
249: number of satellites belonging to these systems is 4,986.
250: Figure 1 shows the distributions of the host galaxies (red points) and
251: satellites (blue). The host distribution shows our sample
252: boundaries in redshift. Some of the satellites lie beyond
253: the redshift boundaries because we allowed 500 km$s^{-1}$ difference
254: in radial velocity in the search for satellites. The median absolute
255: magnitude of the hosts is
256: $M_r = -20.47$, which is very close to that of the $L_*$ SDSS galaxies
257: (Choi et al. 2007). Therefore, the host galaxies of our satellite systems
258: are dominated by normal bright galaxies, and are not in general
259: the central $cD$ galaxies holding the bright galaxies as satellites.
260: The median absolute magnitude of our satellites is $-18.67$.
261: So they are not dwarf galaxies, but subluminous bright galaxies
262: typically 1.8 magnitude fainter than their hosts.
263: Since both our hosts and satellites are selected uniformly in the absolute
264: magnitude space, our study of satellite morphology is unbiased against
265: host and satellite luminosity.
266:
267: \subsection{Morphology}
268:
269: We classify the morphology of host galaxies by the visual inspection
270: because visual classification is accurate for bright galaxies.
271: For visual classification, ellipticals(E) and lenticulars(S0) as well as
272: spiral(S) and irregulars(Irr) are distinguished,
273: but for better statistics we categorized
274: E and S0 galaxies as early types, and S and Irr galaxies
275: as late types in the present analysis.
276: We mainly employed the automated classifier of Park \& Choi (2005)
277: for satellites. This classifier divides galaxies into
278: early and late types based on their location in the three-dimensional
279: parameter space of $u-r$ color, $g-i$ color gradient, and
280: the $i$-band concentration index. The classification boundaries
281: in the parameter space are
282: chosen by using a large training set of galaxies with known morphology.
283: All of the satellites are visually checked.
284: But the visual classification is used only as a complementary one,
285: especially for relatively bright satellites or
286: for those undergoing close interactions or mergers.
287: This is because in most cases ($>$ 90\%) the visual and automated
288: classifications of satellites agree with each other, and because
289: for the very faint galaxies
290: close to the faint limit of the sample, it is not certain whether or not
291: the visual classification is on average any better than the result of the
292: automated classification.
293:
294:
295: \section{PROPERTIES OF SATELLITE SYSTEMS}
296:
297: \subsection{Morphology and radial distribution of satellites}
298:
299: We measured the early-type fraction $f(E_{s})$ and surface number density
300: $\Sigma(E{_s})$ of satellite galaxies
301: as a function of projected distance ($r_{p}$) from the host galaxies.
302: The top panel of Figure 2 shows the early-type fraction of satellites
303: associated with our isolated early-type hosts $f(E_{s}|E_{h})$ (filled circles) and
304: isolated late-type hosts $f(E_{s}|L_{h})$.
305: The innermost bin is $r_{p} < 37.8 h^{-1}$ kpc, which corresponds
306: to the fiber collision radius of $55^{\prime \prime}$ at the outer boundary
307: ($z=0.04724$) of our volume-limited sample.
308: %
309: \begin{figure}
310: \includegraphics[scale=0.55, bb=20 135 570 750, clip]{fig2.eps}
311: \caption{Early-type fraction of satellite
312: galaxies as a function of projected distance from host galaxies.
313: In the top panel satellites are divided into those associated with
314: early-type (filled circles) and late-type (stars) hosts. In the middle
315: and bottom panels satellites are further divided into those having
316: magnitude difference with hosts greater than 1.9 (solid lines) and
317: less than 1.9 but more than 1.0 (dashed lines).
318: }
319: \end{figure}
320: %
321: It can be noted that $f(E_{s}|E_{h})$ is significantly higher
322: than $f(E_{s}|L_{h})$ at least out to about 350 $h^{-1}$kpc,
323: which is roughly the virial radius of the typical early-type host galaxies
324: analyzed in this study.
325: This result means that the morphology of satellites tends to be similar
326: to that of hosts. It demonstrates
327: the morphology-radius relation at the galactic scales.
328: A similar finding was reported by Weinmann et al. (2006) for galaxies
329: in groups and clusters, and by Park et al. (2007, 2008) for galaxy pairs.
330: For late-type hosts, the early-type satellite fraction increases
331: very slowly as satellites approach their hosts.
332: Some of this effect must be due to the morphology-luminosity
333: relation. The early-type hosts are in general brighter than the late-type
334: hosts, and correspondingly the satellites of our early-type hosts
335: are also on average brighter than those of late-type hosts
336: due to our satellite finding process, i.e. more than one magnitude
337: fainter relative to the host.
338: Because of the morphology-luminosity relation, the morphology of
339: early-type hosts' satellites is in general earlier than that of
340: late-type hosts' satellites even if there is no direct physical
341: influence of the host on satellites.
342: We do not think this is the main reason for the host-satellite
343: morphology correlation we found because the satellite morphology is a very
344: strong function of host-satellite separation in early-type host systems
345: and the early-type satellite fractions for early and late-type hosts
346: start to merge at $r_p \sim 1h^{-1}$Mpc.
347:
348: Irrelevance of the morphology-luminosity relation to our findings can be also
349: demonstrated by the early-type satellite fraction plot
350: drawn for hosts with fixed luminosity.
351: The middle and bottom panels of Figure 2 show the early-type satellite fractions
352: for host galaxies brighter than $M_r=-20.5$ and fainter than $-21.0$,
353: respectively. We allowed an overlap in $M_r$ to decrease the statistical
354: fluctuations.
355: We also divided satellites into
356: a subset more than $\Delta M_g=1.9$ magnitude fainter than the host and
357: a subset more than 1.0 but less than 1.9 magnitude fainter.
358: Drawn are the four cases of early-type hosts ($E_h$) and
359: satellites with $\Delta M_g >1.9$
360: (filled circles, solid line), $E_h$ and satellites with $1.0<\Delta M_g<1.9$
361: (open circles, dashed line), $L_h$ and satellites with $\Delta M_g >1.9$
362: (stars, solid line), and $L_h$ and satellites with $1.0<\Delta M_g<1.9$
363: (crosses, dashed line).
364:
365: The satellites with smaller $\Delta M_g$ are on average brighter than those
366: with larger $\Delta M_g$, and are more likely to be early-types in accordance
367: with the morphology-luminosity relation. The mean level of $f(E_s )$ at
368: very large $r_p$ is indeed higher for smaller $\Delta M_g$ satellites in
369: both middle and bottom panels of Figure 2.
370: Once we subtract the dependence of this asymptotic value on host and satellite
371: luminosity from these figures, interesting dependence of $f(E_s )$ on $r_p$ and host
372: morphology becomes evident.
373: The fraction of early-type satellites associated with early-type hosts,
374: $f(E_s | E_h)$, depends on $r_p$ more sensitively for fainter satellites
375: (compare the open and filled circles). This is true for both relatively
376: bright (middle panel) and faint (bottom panel) hosts.
377: It can be also noted from the middle and bottom panels that
378: the outer boundary of the region of early-type host influence is farther
379: for brighter hosts. The net effects of the late-type hosts on satellite
380: morphology seem insignificant.
381:
382: The satellites of early-type hosts are likely to be deprived of their
383: cold gas through the hydrodynamic and radiative interactions with
384: the X-ray emitting hot gas of their host. The satellites of
385: late-type hosts are in principle able to get cold gas from their hosts
386: although the hot gas in the halo of late-type hosts can also remove
387: the cold gas in their satellites.
388: Based on a detailed study of morphology-environment relation of galaxy pairs
389: Park et al. (2008) concluded that the galaxy morphology-local density
390: relation is mainly due to the interaction between nearest neighbor
391: galaxies. When galaxies are closer than their virial radii, they start
392: to interact hydrodynamically and this causes the conformity in morphology
393: of close galaxy pairs.
394: The present results support their scenario, and this seems to be the origin
395: of the morphology conformity in galactic satellite systems.
396:
397: One major difference between our result and that of Park et al. is that
398: the satellite morphology does not tend to be of late type as satellites
399: approach late-type host. The galaxy pairs in Park et al.'s sample
400: are dominated by those with similar luminosity and therefore their
401: interaction can affect physical properties of both galaxies significantly.
402: On the other hand, in the current analysis
403: satellites are typically 1.8 magnitudes fainter than hosts,
404: and the influence is largely lopsided from hosts to satellites.
405: The slight rising tendency of $f(E_{s})$
406: very close to late-type hosts can be because satellites are suffering from cold
407: gas stripping and ionization by the host halo gas, but can not actively
408: catch the cold gas from their hosts as efficiently as companion galaxies
409: having luminosity similar to the hosts.
410:
411: The slopes of the surface density profiles also reflects the physical
412: effects of their host galaxies on satellites.
413: Figure 3 presents the satellite surface number
414: density profiles for early (top panel) and late-type hosts.
415: The ratio of two profiles in each panel gives the morphology
416: fraction in the top panel of Figure 2.
417: %%%
418: \begin{figure}
419: %\center
420: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{fig3.eps}
421: \caption{Surface density distribution of satellite
422: galaxies as a function of projected distance from the host galaxies
423: with $M_r < -19.0$.
424: The surface density profiles of satellites hosted
425: by the early-type galaxies are repeated as thin lines in the bottom panel.
426: }
427: \end{figure}
428: %%%
429: It demonstrates the number density profile of satellites critically
430: depends on both host and satellite morphology.
431: The surface density profiles
432: show why $f(E_{s}|E_{h})$ decreases more rapidly than $f(E_{s}|L_{h})$.
433: It is due to the dramatic drop in the surface density
434: of early-type satellites hosted by early-type hosts $\Sigma(E_{s}|E_{h})$,
435: and to the slower drop of that of late-type satellites hosted
436: by early-type hosts $\Sigma(L_{s}|E_{h})$.
437: This makes late-type satellites dominant in the satellite systems of
438: early-type hosts at $r_{p} > 100\sim 200$ $h^{-1}$ kpc,
439: where the exact location depending on the host luminosity and
440: the host-satellite magnitude difference (see Figure 2).
441: In the systems hosted by late-type galaxies, late-type satellites
442: are dominant at all $r_p$. The shapes of the surface density profiles
443: of both early and late-type satellites,
444: $\Sigma(E_{s}|L_{h})$ and $\Sigma(L_{s}|L_{h})$,
445: are similar to each other, making their ratio roughly constant
446: of $r_p$. At large separations, $r_p > 600 h^{-1}$kpc,
447: the surface densities satellites belonging to
448: early-type (upper panel) and late-type (lower panel) hosts approach
449: roughly the same ratio, resulting in $f(E_s)\approx 0.2$.
450: This seems the field value of galaxy morphology for galaxies
451: having absolute magnitudes similar to those of the satellites in our sample.
452:
453: The morphology fraction shown in Figure 2 is the result of
454: projection of the three dimensional distribution on the sky.
455: In order to get a rough idea on the central morphology fraction
456: we try to deproject the profile as follows.
457: We assume the radial number density of each of early and late-type satellites
458: follows a power-low, $\rho(r)=\rho_o (r/r_{o})^{-\gamma}$.
459: Then the projected density follows the form (Binney \& Tremaine 1987),
460: \begin{equation}
461: \Sigma(r_{p})=\rho_{o}r_{o}^{\gamma} (-{1\over2})!({{\gamma-3}\over{2}})!/
462: r_{p}^{\gamma-1}({{\gamma-2}\over{2}})!.
463: \end{equation}
464: The parameters in the fraction are obtained from a least-square fit to the
465: inner-most three points shown in Figure 3 for each case of host
466: and satellite morphology.
467: Only two parameters are free. We found the slope of the three-dimensional
468: profile is $-1.8\sim-1.9$ at $r<200 h^{-1} kpc$
469: except for the late-type satellite associated with
470: early-type host case, which has about -1.5. The true fraction of early-type
471: satellites very close to early-type hosts is found to reach about
472: 0.71 and 0.78 at $r=30$ and 10$h^{-1}$kpcs, respectively.
473: On the other hand, the fraction for late-type hosts in 3D is nearly
474: the same as that shown in Figure 2 because the slope of radial density
475: profile is almost independent of satellite morphology in this case.
476:
477: \subsection{Background density dependence}
478:
479: As argued in the previous sections, the morphology conformity in galactic
480: satellite systems seems to be due to the local effects
481: of hosts on their satellites. However, the galactic
482: conformity can be affected by the global environment as well as local one.
483: Park et al. (2008) showed that, even though the morphology of galaxies
484: depends mainly on luminosity and the small-scale environment due to the nearest
485: neighbor, it also depends on the large-scale background density.
486: The dependence of galaxy morphology on the large-scale density was found
487: even when both the luminosity of the target galaxy and the environment due to
488: the nearest neighbor were fixed.
489: This was explained by the dependence of the
490: hot halo gas of galaxies on the large-scale density.
491: In this section we look for a similar effect on galactic satellites.
492:
493: We used the galaxy number density estimator defined by
494: 20 nearest $L_*$ galaxies with $-20.0 > M_r > -21.0$
495: drawn from the full volume-limited sample
496: \begin{equation}
497: \rho_{20}/{\bar{\rho}}= \sum_{i=1}^{20} W_i(|{\bf x}_i -
498: {\bf x}|)/{\bar\rho},
499: \end{equation}
500: where $W(r)$ is a spline-kernel weight
501: and $\bar{\rho}$ is the mean number density of the $L_*$ galaxies
502: in the SDSS. This choice is the same as those used by Park et al. (2007).
503: The median value of the effective Gaussian
504: smoothing scale, corresponding to the adaptive spline smoothing,
505: is $4.7 h^{-1}$ Mpc.
506:
507: The top panel of Figure 4 shows the distributions of the large-scale density for
508: early-type (solid line) and late-type (dotted) hosts. It can be seen that their
509: distributions are nearly the same except for the highest densiy bin
510: even though the early-type galaxies are in general
511: preferentially located at higher densities. This may be because the isolation
512: constraint on hosts excluded more early-type galaxies than late-types
513: in high density regions.
514: However, as can be seen in the bottom panel of Figure 4, our isolated host
515: sample still respects the luminosity-density relation.
516:
517: \begin{figure}
518: %\center
519: \includegraphics[scale=0.55, bb=10 135 570 600, clip]{fig4.eps}
520: \caption{Distributions of the large-scale background density
521: at the location of our isolated host galaxies, divided into morphology
522: subsets (upper panel) and luminosity subsets (lower panel).
523: }
524: \end{figure}
525:
526: \begin{figure}
527: %\center
528: \includegraphics[scale=0.55, bb=10 145 570 700, clip]{fig5.eps}
529: \caption{Early-type fractions of satellite galaxies as a function of
530: the projected distance from host galaxies. Top panel is for high density regions
531: and the bottom panel for low density regions, respectively.
532: The luminosity of hosts is fixed to $-20.5>M_{r}>-21.5$.}
533: \end{figure}
534:
535:
536: Figure 5 shows $f(E_{s})$ as
537: a function of the projected separation from the hosts in different
538: large-scale background density regions.
539: We fixed the luminosity of host galaxies to
540: $-20.5>M_{r}>-21.5$ to separate the luminosity effects from the background
541: density effects on galaxy morphology.
542: The large scale environment is divided into high and low
543: density regions with $\rho_{20}/{\bar{\rho}} > 2.2$ and $< 2.2$,
544: respectively, where $\rho_{20}/{\bar{\rho}} = 2.2$ is the median density
545: for our isolated hosts.
546:
547: It can be seen in Figure 5 that $f(E_{s})$ is higher in high density
548: regions for both early and late-type hosts with fixed luminosity.
549: The background density seems to play a definite role in determining the
550: morphology of galactic satellites.
551: The background density can directly affect
552: the satellites, or affect them indirectly through the host whose properties
553: depend statistically on the background density.
554: Park et al. (2008) found that
555: the early-type galaxies in high density regions have higher X-ray
556: luminosity than those in low density regions even when their optical
557: luminosity is the same.
558: This means that the hot halo gas of early-type galaxies is hotter and
559: denser at high densities.
560: Taking into account this finding
561: we interpret the background density dependence of the satellite morphology
562: as due to the hydrodynamic and radiative effects of the hot gas of
563: host galaxies on satellites.
564: This is supported by the fact that, even though $f(E_s)$ is generally
565: higher in high density regions in Figure 5, it is so only when satellites
566: are close to their hosts and $f(E_s)$ at $r_p$ much larger than the host's
567: virial radius is rather independent of the background density.
568: If the background density directly affect the morphology
569: of satellites, the satellite morphology should depend on the background density
570: at all host-satellite separations.
571: It can be also noted that $f(E_{s})$ is higher for early-type hosts
572: than for late-type hosts both in high and low density regions.
573: Therefore, the conformity in morphology at galactic scales prevails
574: in both high and low density environments.
575:
576: The $f(E_{s})$ in high density environment decreases almost linearly
577: with $r_{p}$ while $f(E_{s})$ in low density environment decreases nearly
578: exponentially. It is surprising to see this background density dependence
579: even if we fixed host morphology and luminosity. All $f(E_{s})$ seems to converge at
580: $r_{p}>600$ $h^{-1}$ kpc. This is a scale a little larger than the virial
581: radius of the host galaxies under consideration.
582: The virial radii are about 280 and 350 $h^{-1}$kpc
583: for late and early-type galaxies with $M_r = -20.5$.
584: In the analysis of luminous galaxy pairs the dependence of galaxy morphology
585: on the neighbor's morphology appears at separations of $r_p \la r_{\rm vir}$
586: (Park et al. 2008).
587: This was explained by the hydrodynamic interactions between the pairs
588: within the virialized region.
589:
590: %Now, the dependence extends outside the virialized region.
591: %This can be explained by the radiative effects that can be effective to
592: %tiny satellites located even at $ r_p > r_{\rm vir}$.
593: %But these effects seems negligible at $r_p \ga 3 r_{\rm vir}$.
594: %Disappearance of the effects of background density at
595: %$r_p \ga 3 r_{\rm vir}$ implies two aspects.
596: %One is that the hydrodynamic and radiative effects no longer play
597: %roles and only
598: %gravitational effects remain at this large distance from the host.
599: %The other is that
600:
601: Previous studies showed that the fraction of interlopers could be large
602: at large $r_p$ (Prada et al. 2003) and that the interloper fraction
603: depends on the color of the satellites, with interlopers being
604: rare amongst the red satellites, but making up about half of the blue satellites.
605: If our satellite samples were dominated by interlopers at large $r_p$,
606: the difference in $f(E_s)$ in high and low density regions
607: could be due simply to the interlopers which
608: respect the morphology-density relation. However, Figure 5 shows that
609: $f(E)$ converges to about 0.2 both in high and low density regions
610: and both for early- and late-type host galaxies.
611: Therefore, the satellites at large separations do not show the trends
612: that are expected for the general background galaxies.
613: This indicates our results are not significantly affected by interlopers.
614:
615: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
616:
617: We have found the morphology-radius relation for galactic satellite
618: systems. Early-type satellites are prevalent in the vicinity of early
619: type hosts.
620: The origin of the conformity in morphology is thought to be
621: the hydrodynamic and radiative effects of hosts on satellites
622: in addition to the tidal (gravitational) effects.
623:
624: The satellite morphology is found to depend on the large-scale background density.
625: In high density regions the early-type fraction of satellites decreases
626: relatively slowly beyond the virial radius of the host galaxy.
627: However, in low density regions
628: the fraction of satellites with early morphological type
629: drops sharply at separations of $r_p =50 \sim 200 h^{-1}$kpc
630: for both early and late-type host systems.
631: As we fixed the mass of host galaxies by fixing luminosity and morphology,
632: this difference must be coming from non-gravitational effects.
633: It is argued that the hot halo gas of the host galaxies is responsible
634: for prevalence of early-type satellites in the vicinity of hosts, and that
635: in high density regions the hot halo gas
636: can be more confined by the ambient intergalactic medium and
637: has higher density and temperature, which can better deplete the cold gas
638: in satellites more efficiently.
639:
640: The galactic conformity found from the present sample of satellite systems
641: is not much affected by the detailed selection criteria of the satellites.
642: The magnitude difference between host and satellites is not critical
643: because we obtained similar results for the satellite systems defined by
644: different magnitude differences.
645: Using the most-influential neighbors instead of the nearest neighbors
646: in identification of isolated hosts and satellites also did not make
647: much difference.
648: We also examined whether or not our
649: results are affected by our isolation requirement for host galaxies,
650: and found that all of our results qualitatively remain the same.
651: We made exactly the same analysis for satellites defined for host galaxies
652: which are not constrained to be isolated. In this analysis
653: a galaxy becomes a satellite if it finds a host galaxy within $r_p=800 h^{-1}$kpc
654: that is more than 2 magnitudes brighter and has velocity difference less
655: than 500 km s$^{-1}$. If there is more than one such hosts, the closest
656: one is chosen. Hosts are limited to $M_r <-20.0$, and satellites have
657: $M_r < -18.0$. We found 8,353 satellites in 3,472 systems. We obtain
658: basically the same results for these satellite systems as for the isolated
659: ones but with much higher statistical significances.
660: Therefore, our results are robust against various choices of parameters used
661: to identify hosts and satellites.
662: %Most other studies on galactic satellites (Prada et al. 2003; Chen et al. 2006;
663: %Azzaro et al. 2007) have used satellites only in isolated systems.
664: %The isolation criterion is necessary if one wish to measure the
665: %dynamical mass of the system.
666: %However, this criterion dramatically reduces the number of eligible systems
667: %to only several hundreds for the current SDSS data and makes the samples biased for
668: %those preferentially located in very low density regions.
669: %We did not require the hosts to be isolated in this work
670: %and satellites are assigned to host based on their proximity.
671: %Our sample may not be appropriate for measuring the dynamical mass of
672: %the dark halos, but it should be better applicable to studies like ours
673: %where the short range effects like the tidal force and hydrodynamical
674: %effects of the host play the major role.
675:
676: In the forthcoming paper we will study the shape and internal properties of satellites.
677: Rather than dividing satellites into early and late types, we will adopt a new
678: classification scheme that is more appropriate for the satellite galaxies.
679: We found this is necessary because our satellite galaxies are fainter and
680: located in the special environment given by the hosts compared to the normal
681: bright galaxies for which the usual morphology classification schemes are
682: developed.
683:
684:
685: \section*{Acknowledgments}
686: H.B.A., Y.Y.C. and C.B.P.
687: acknowledge the support of the Korea Science and Engineering
688: Foundation (KOSEF) through the Astrophysical Research Center for the
689: Structure and Evolution of the Cosmos (ARCSEC).
690:
691: Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/.
692:
693: The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, University of Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve University, University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
694:
695: \begin{thebibliography}{}
696:
697: \bibitem[]{402} Adelman-McCarthy, J.~K., et~al. 2007, ApJS, submitted
698: \bibitem[]{403} Azzaro, M., Patiri, S.~ G., Prada, F., \& Zentner, A.~R.
699: 2007, MNRAS, 376, 43
700: %\bibitem[]{405} Agustsson, \& Brainerd, T.~G. 2006, ApJ, 650, 500
701: %\bibitem[]{406} Agustsson, \& Brainerd, T.~G. 2007, astro-ph/07043441
702: \bibitem[]{407} Bailin et al. 2007, astro-ph/07061350
703: \bibitem[],{} Binney, J., \& Tremaine, S. 1987, Galactic Dynamics (Princeton:
704: Princeton University Press), 41
705: \bibitem[]{408} Blanton, M.~R., et~al. 2005, ApJ, 129, 2562 % vagc
706: %\bibitem[]{409} Brainerd, T.~G. 2005, ApJ, 628, 101
707: \bibitem[]{410} Chen, J. et al. 2006, ApJ, 647, 86
708: \bibitem[]{411} Choi, Y.-Y., Park, C., \& Vogeley, M.~S. 2007, ApJ, 658, 884
709: \bibitem[]{412} de Vaucouleurs, G. et al. 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies, Volume 1-3, XII (Springer-Verlag)
710: \bibitem[]{413} Hickson, P., Ninkov, Z., Huchra, J.~ P.,
711: \& Mamon, G.~A. 1984, Clusters and Groups of Galaxies, ed. F. Mardirossian, G. Giuricin, \& M. Mezzetti (Kluwer Academic Publishers), 367
712: \bibitem[]{415} Kang, X. et al. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 1531
713: \bibitem[]{416} Libeskind et al. 2007, MNRAS, 374, 16
714: \bibitem[]{417} McKay, T.~A. et al. 2002, ApJ, 571, 85
715: \bibitem[]{418} Osmond, J.~P.~F., \& Ponman, T.~J. 2004, MNRAS,
716: 350, 1511 %The GEMS project: X-ray analysis and statistical properties of the group sample
717: \bibitem[]{420} Park, C., \& Choi, Y.-Y. 2005, ApJ, 635, L29
718: \bibitem[]{421} Park, C., Choi, Y.-Y., Vogeley, M.~S., Gott, J.~R.,
719: \& Blanton, M.~R. 2007, ApJ, 658, 898
720: \bibitem[]{423} Park, C., Gott, J.~R. \& Choi, Y.-Y. 2008, ApJ, 674, 784
721: \bibitem[]{424} Prada, F. et al. ApJ, 2003, 598, 260
722: \bibitem[]{425} Ramella, M. et al. 1987, A\&A, 188, 1
723: \bibitem[]{426} Sales, L., \& Lambas, D.~G. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 1236
724: \bibitem[]{427} Sales, L., \& Lambas, D.~G. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 1045
725: \bibitem[]{428} Sales, L. et al. 2007, astro-ph/07062009
726: \bibitem[]{429} Strauss, M.~A., et~al. 2002, AJ, 124, 1810
727: \bibitem[]{430} Tully, R.~B. \& Fisher, J.~R. 1988, Catalog of Nearby Galaxies, i
728: by R.~B. Tully, \& J.~R. Fisher, (Cambridge University Press), 224
729: \bibitem[]{432} van den Bosch, F.~C., Yang, X., \& Mo, H.~J., \& Norberg, P.
730: 2005, MNRAS, 356, 1233
731: \bibitem[]{434} van den Bosch, F.~C., Norberg, P., Mo, H.~J., \&
732: Yang, X. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 1302
733: \bibitem[]{436} Weinmann, S.~M., van den Bosch, F.~C., Yang, X.,
734: \& Mo, H.~J. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 2 %Properties of galaxy groups in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey - I. The dependence of colour, star formation and morphology on halo mass
735: \bibitem[]{438} Wirth, A. 1983, ApJ, 274, 541
736: \bibitem[]{439} Yang, X. et al. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 1293
737: \bibitem[]{440} Zaritsky, D., Smith, R., Frenk, C., \& White, S.~D. 1997,
738: ApJ, 478, 39
739: \bibitem[]{442} Zentner, A.~R., Kravtsov, A.~V., Gnedin, O.~Y. \&
740: Klypin, A.~A. ApJ, 629, 219
741: \bibitem[]{444} York, D., et~al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579
742: \end{thebibliography}{}
743:
744: \label{lastpage}
745: \end{document}
746:
747:
748: