1: \documentclass[usenatbib]{mn2e}

2: \usepackage{amsmath}

3: %\usepackage{apjfonts}

4: \usepackage{graphicx}

5: \usepackage{natbib}

6: \include{aas_journals}

7: \usepackage{epstopdf}

8: \usepackage{color}

9: 

10: 

11: \title[effects of correlation on halo formation]{

12: Effects of correlation between merging steps on the global halo 

13: formation}

14: 

15: \begin{document}

16: \author[Pan et al.]{

17: Jun Pan$^{1}$\thanks{jpan@pmo.ac.cn}, 

18: Yougang Wang$^{2}$, 

19: Xuelei Chen$^{2}$,

20: and Lu\'{i}s Teodoro$^{3}$\\

21: $^1$ The Purple Mountain Observatory, 2 West Beijing Road,

22: Nanjing 210008, China\\

23: $^2$ National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences,

24: Beijing 100012, China\\

25: $^3$ Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, 

26: Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK

27: }

28: \maketitle

29: 

30: \begin{abstract}

31: The excursion set theory of halo formation is modified by 

32: adopting the fractional Brownian motion, 

33: to account for possible correlation between merging steps. 

34: We worked out analytically the conditional 

35: mass function, halo merging rate and formation time distribution 

36: in the spherical collapse model. We also developed an approximation 

37: for the ellipsoidal collapse model and applied it to the calculation of 

38: the conditional mass function and the halo formation time distribution.

39: For models in which the steps are positively 

40: correlated, the halo merger rate is enhanced when the accreted 

41: mass is less than $\sim 25M^*$, while for the negatively correlated 

42: case this rate is reduced. Compared with the

43: standard model in which the steps are uncorrelated,

44: the models with positively correlated steps produce more 

45: aged population in small mass halos and more younger population 

46: in large mass halos, while for the models with negatively correlated steps

47: the opposite is true. An examination of simulation results shows that 

48: a weakly positive correlation between successive merging steps

49: appears to fit best. We have also found a systematic

50: effect in the measured mass function due to the finite volume of simulations.

51: In future work, this will be included in the halo model to 

52: accurately predict the three

53: point correlation function estimated from simulations.

54: 

55: \end{abstract}

56: 

57: \begin{keywords}

58:   cosmology: theory -- large scale structure of the Universe -- 

59: galaxies : halos  --  methods : analytical

60: \end{keywords}

61: 

62: %=========================================================================

63: \section{introduction}

64: 

65: The excursion set theory provides a simple and intuitive model for 

66: cosmic structure formation. In this theory, as one varies the smoothing

67: scale $R$, the linear density fluctuation $\delta_R$ obtained with 

68: smoothing window $W(R)$ forms a one dimensional random walk. 

69: It is deemed that the non-linear halo formation and evolution 

70: history can be treated with the corresponding excursion set theory: 

71: a halo is formed when a pre-set barrier $\delta_c(z)$ is exceeded by 

72: a tracjectory of the random walk. 

73: 

74: It is convinient to take the variance of the random density field 

75: $S(R)=\sigma^2(R)$ as the pseudo-time variable. 

76: Properties of the random walk rely on the window function 

77: used and the nature of 

78: the primordial fluctuation. For Gaussian fluctuations

79: and using the sharp k-space filter, the random walk produced by 

80: smoothing is a normal Brownian motion 

81: (hereafter NBM), i.e. there is no correlation between steps.

82: The density of trajectories $Q(S,\delta)$ passing through $(S,\delta)$

83: then satisfies a diffusion equation 

84: \begin{equation}

85: \frac{\partial Q}{\partial S}=\frac{1}{2} \frac{\partial^2 Q}{\partial \delta^2}

86: \end{equation}

87: From $Q(S,\delta)$ one could derive the halo mass function and merger

88: rates, etc. \citep{BondEtal1991,LaceyCole1993}.

89: 

90: 

91: However, although the N-body simulation results generally agree with

92: the predictions of the excursion set theory, there are significant 

93: deviations in the details. The discrepancy is particularly severe in 

94: the description of small mass halos. This discrepancy

95: can be partly overcomed by replacing the spherical collapse 

96: model with ellisoidal collapse model, i.e. by

97: introducing a moving barrier instead of a fixed barrier imposed on

98: the random walk  \citep[e.g.][]{ShethTormen2002}.

99: This practical approach provides a reasonably good fitting formula 

100: for halo mass function \citep{WarrenEtal2006}, but its prediction 

101: on the formation time distribution of low- and intemediate-mass

102:  halo remains unsatisfactory \citep{GiocoliEtal2007}.

103: One suspects that if correlations between steps of the

104: random walk is introduced, the excursion set theory might be improved.

105: Indeed, if the smoothing window function is not a sharp k-space 

106: filter but a Gaussian filter or a real space tophat filter, the excursion 

107: steps would be correlated. 

108: 

109: 

110: In a previous work by the leading author, 

111: the fractional Brownian motion (FBM), the simplest random walk with

112: steps correlated in long range, was introduced to generalize 

113: the excursion set theory. The correlation between steps of the 

114: random walk was shown to be capable of modifying the final halo 

115: mass function in a non-trivial way \citep{Pan2007}.

116: The model presented there was incomplete though, as the solution 

117: for ellipsoidal collapses and the treatment of halo merging history were 

118: not discussed. These are the topics of the present report.

119: 

120: This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we fit the FBM into

121: the excursion set theory to account for the possible correlated halo formation

122: process. Then in section 3  the diffusion equation of FBM is solved in 

123: the spherical collapse model, and we calculate the conditional mass function, 

124: halo merger rate and the halo formation time distribution with the 

125: modified theory. Treatment to 

126: the ellipsoidal collapse is given

127: in section 4, together with a comparison between theoretical predictions

128: and measurements with simulations. The final section contains

129: our conclusions and discussion. We adopt the flat $\Lambda$CDM model with 

130: the following set of cosmological parameter values: $\Omega_m=0.3$, 

131: $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$, $h=0.7$ and $\sigma_8=0.9$.

132: 

133: \section{Modeling correlated merging steps}

134: \subsection{The diffusion equation}

135: 

136: 

137: To work out the halo conditional mass function, the central

138: element is the diffusion equation which governs the behavior of 

139: the random walk. Such diffusion equation in turn depends on 

140: the understanding of the random walk with which the physical 

141: problem is concerned with. The conditional mass function is 

142: in fact a two-barriers crossing problem of a random walk, which means

143: the key object we shall check is the scaling relation between 

144: $\delta(S_1)-\delta(S_0)$ and $S_1-S_0$.

145: 

146: 

147: The FBM is a random process $X(t)$ on

148: some probability space such that: 

149: \begin{enumerate}

150: \item $X(t)$ is continuous and $X(0)\equiv 0$; 

151: \item for any $t\ge 0$ and $\tau> 0$, the increment $X(t+\tau)-X(t)$ follows 

152: a normal distribution with mean

153: zero and variance $\tau^{2\alpha}$, so that

154: \begin{equation}

155: P\left( X(t+\tau)-X(t)\le x \right)=\frac{\tau^{-\alpha}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}

156: \int_{-\infty}^{x} e^{-u^2/2\tau^{2\alpha} }du \ .

157: \end{equation}

158: \end{enumerate}

159: The parameter $\alpha$ is the Hurst exponent, if $\alpha=1/2$, it is reduced to 

160: the normal Brownian motion \citep[c.f.][]{Feder1988}.

161: It is also easy to see that the following is satisfied by the FBM:

162: \begin{equation}

163: \begin{aligned}

164: \langle \left[ X(t+\tau)-X(t) \right]^2 \rangle &=\tau^{2\alpha}\\

165: \langle X(t) \left[X(t+\tau)-X(t)\right] \rangle &=\frac{ (

166: t+\tau)^{2\alpha}-t^{2\alpha}-\tau^{2\alpha}}{2} ,

167: \end{aligned}

168: \label{eq:cov}

169: \end{equation}

170: With this definition of FBM, the trajectory density

171: $Q_\alpha(X, t)$ at time $t$ in interval $(X, X+dX)$ 

172: follows the diffusion equation \citep[c.f.][]{Lutz2001},

173: \begin{equation}

174: \frac{\partial Q_\alpha}{\partial t}=

175: {\mathcal D}\frac{\partial^2Q_\alpha}{{\partial X}^2}\ ,\  

176: {\mathcal D}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\langle X(t)^2\rangle=\alpha t^{2\alpha-1}.

177: \label{eq:diff}

178: \end{equation}

179: 

180: Why invoke FBM? 

181: The trajectory of $\delta(S)$ is 

182: characterized by properties of the increments 

183: $\delta(S_1)-\delta(S_0)$ between any pairs of $(S_0, S_1>S_0)$.

184: If the smoothing window function corresponding to halo definition is not 

185: a sharp k-space filter but e.g. a Gaussian or top-hat, it is 

186: easy to check that $\langle [\delta(S_1)-\delta(S_0)]^2 \rangle$ is 

187: not $ S_1-S_0$ but proportional to $(S_1-S_0)^\alpha$ with a constant 

188: $\alpha$ in broad scale range. 

189: The scaling relation is the flagging attribute of the FBM\footnote{There 

190: are many anomalous random walks such as the fractal time 

191: process \citep{Lutz2001} which have the same scaling feature and 

192: are classified as sub-diffusion. The FBM is the simplest one of them.}, 

193: so it is reasonable to install the FBM into the excursion set theory 

194: as the simplest approach to analytically inspect halo 

195: models constructed with random walks with correlated steps.

196: 

197: On the other hand, we know in practice that the boundary, and

198: subsequently the mass of a halo identified in a simulation is 

199: rather arbitrary, e.g. the mass picked up is often defined 

200: by a halo's virial radius while the mass outside is simply 

201: not counted. The $S$ from the virial mass $M$ is very 

202: likely not the real place where the particular random walk corresponding 

203: to the halo hit the barrier. 

204: In fact \citet{CuestaEtal2007} argued that if one replaces the

205: virial mass with the static mass, the mass function agrees with the 

206: Press-Schechter formula remarkably well, rather than the Sheth-Tormen 

207: one, and the ratio of the virial mass to 

208: the static mass depends on redshift and halo mass. 

209: 

210: While the true scale can be smaller or larger than the $S$ inferred 

211: from $R(M)$, one can always parametrize the true scale with  $S(R)$ so that 

212: $\langle \delta^2 \rangle = S^{2\alpha}$. Taking the approximation that 

213: $\alpha$ is a constant not too far away from $1/2$, we can 

214: comfortably assume the

215: applicability of the FBM.

216: 

217: For an FBM with $\langle \delta^2 \rangle = S^{2\alpha}$, by Eq.~(\ref{eq:cov}) 

218: ,  the variance of the increments at two points 

219: $(S_0, S_1>S_0>0)$ satisfies

220: \begin{equation}

221: \begin{aligned}

222: \langle \left[ \delta(S_1)-\delta(S_0)\right]^2\rangle = & (S_1-S_0)^{2\alpha} \ ,\\

223: & {\rm with} \ \alpha \in (0, 1)\ , \ S_1>S_0>0\ ,

224: \end{aligned}

225: \end{equation}

226: so that a new trajectory is formed by 

227: $\widetilde{\delta}(\Delta S)=\delta(S_1)-\delta(S_0)$

228: along $\Delta S=S_1-S_0$, given any source 

229: point $(S_0, \omega_0=\delta_0(S_0))$.

230: Apparently the new random walk also

231: complies with the definition of FBM, its diffusion 

232: equation being

233: \begin{equation}

234: \frac{\partial Q_\alpha}{\partial \Delta S}=

235: {\mathcal D}_{\Delta S} \frac{\partial^2 Q_\alpha}{ {\partial \widetilde{\delta}}^2}\ , \quad

236: {\mathcal D}_{\Delta S}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d\langle {\widetilde{\delta}}^2\rangle}{d\Delta S}

237: =\alpha \Delta S^{2\alpha-1}\ .

238: \label{eq:dfFBM}

239: \end{equation}

240: It is this diffusion equation that ought to be solved to figure out the

241: conditional mass function, which can be further transformed to the familiar 

242: diffusion equation of normal Brownian motion

243: \begin{equation}

244: \frac{\partial Q_\alpha }{ \partial \widetilde{S} }= \frac{1}{2} 

245: \frac{\partial^2 Q_\alpha }{{\partial \widetilde{\delta}}^2}

246: \label{eq:dfNBM}

247: \end{equation}

248: by the substitution $\widetilde{S}=\Delta S^{2\alpha}$.

249: 

250: %-----------------------------------

251: \subsection{The correlation}

252: Imagine a halo is formed by the collapsing condition $\delta(S_1)=\omega_1$

253: at $S_1=\sigma^2(M_1)$ with $M_1$ being the halo mass. After some time the halo

254: merges into a bigger halo with mass $M_0>M_1$ at $S_0=\sigma^2(M_0)<S_1$ 

255: by another collapsing condition $\delta(S_0)=\omega_0 < w_1$.  The following 

256: question needs to be addressed:

257: how the formation event by $\omega_0$ at $S_0$ is correlated with

258: the past merging process of $\omega_1-\omega_0$ within $S_1-S_0$?

259: 

260: If this process is approximated by the FBM, the correlation function 

261: can be easily calculated with Eq.~(\ref{eq:cov}). We have

262: \begin{equation}

263: \begin{aligned}

264: \xi_{0,0\rightarrow 1}&=\langle (\omega_0-0)(\omega_1-\omega_0) \rangle\\ &

265: =\frac{S_1^{2\alpha}}{2}

266: \left[ 1-\left( \frac{S_0}{S_1} \right)^{2\alpha}-\left( 1-\frac{S_0}{S_1}\right)^{2\alpha}

267: \right] \ .

268: \end{aligned}

269: \end{equation}

270: 

271: \begin{figure}

272: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{corr_steps.eps}}

273: \caption{Correlation functions between successive halo merging steps 

274: (Eq.\ref{eq:corr}).}

275: \label{fig:corr}

276: \end{figure}

277: 

278: It is more instructive to capture the correlation between two successive merging steps:

279: $\omega_2-\omega_1$ within $S_2-S_1$, and $\omega_1-\omega_0$ 

280: within $S_1-S_0$ ($S_2>S_1>S_0$, $\omega_2>\omega_1>\omega_0$).

281: The correlation function is similarly

282: \begin{equation}

283: \begin{aligned}

284: \xi_{0\rightarrow1, 1\rightarrow 2}& =  \langle (\omega_2-\omega_1)(\omega_1-\omega_0)

285: \rangle = \frac{(S_2-S_0)^{2\alpha}}{2} \\ 

286: \times & \left[ 1- 

287: \left( \frac{S_1-S_0}{S_2-S_0}\right)^{2\alpha} -

288: \left(1-\frac{S_1-S_0}{S_2-S_0}\right)^{2\alpha}\right]\ ,

289: \end{aligned}

290: \label{eq:corr}

291: \end{equation}

292: which is positive when $\alpha>1/2$ and negative if $\alpha<1/2$. 

293: Apparently, $\alpha=1/2$ causes null correlation (Fig.~\ref{fig:corr}). 

294: Thus a unified paradigm is 

295: given by a single parameter controlled process: 

296: an anti-persistent FBM predicts that a merging step is anti-correlated 

297: with its immediate early occurrence of merging, and persistent FBM models 

298: positive correlation.

299: 

300: 

301: 

302: %=============================================================================

303: \section{Spherical collapse}

304: 

305: %----------------------------------------------------

306: \subsection{Conditional mass function}

307: It is quite straightforward to solve the diffusion equation

308: in spherical collapse model, we can actually copy 

309: the solution in the literatures 

310: \citep[e.g.][]{BondEtal1991, LaceyCole1993}. 

311: Spherical collapse is equivalent to employ the boundary condition that 

312: there is a fixed absorbing barrier of height 

313: $\widetilde{\delta}_c=\omega_1-\omega_0 > 0$ to the reformed random walk

314: described by Eq.~(\ref{eq:dfNBM}).

315: The number of trajectories of the reformed walk within 

316: $(\widetilde{\delta}, \widetilde{\delta}+d\widetilde{\delta})$ at 

317: $\widetilde{S}$ is

318: \begin{equation}

319: Q_\alpha d\widetilde{\delta}=

320: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \widetilde{S}}} \left[ e^{-\widetilde{\delta}^2/2\widetilde{S}}-

321: e^{-(\widetilde{\delta}-2\widetilde{\delta}_c)^2/2\widetilde{S}} \right] 

322: d\widetilde{\delta}\ ,

323: \end{equation}

324: and the number of trajectories absorbed by barrier within 

325: $(\widetilde{S}, \widetilde{S}+d\widetilde{S})$ is given by

326: \begin{equation}

327: \begin{aligned}

328: f(\widetilde{S}, \widetilde{\delta}_c)d\widetilde{S}= &- d\widetilde{S} 

329: \frac{\partial}{\partial \widetilde{S} } 

330: \int_{-\infty}^{\widetilde{\delta}_c} Q_\alpha d \widetilde{\delta}  \\

331: = &\frac{\widetilde{\delta}_c}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \widetilde{S}^{-3/2} \exp\left( 

332: \frac{-\widetilde{\delta}_c^2}{2\widetilde{S}} \right) d\widetilde{S}\ ,

333: \end{aligned}

334: \end{equation}

335: which directly yields the universal conditional halo mass function

336: \begin{equation}

337: \begin{aligned}

338: f(S_1 & -S_0 ,  \omega_1-\omega_0)dS_1=f(S_1, \omega_1| S_0, \omega_0)dS_1 \\

339: = &\frac{2\alpha}{\sqrt{2\pi}} 

340: \frac{\omega_1-\omega_0}{(S_1-S_0)^{\alpha+1}}

341: \exp\left( -\frac{(\omega_1-\omega_0)^2}{2(S_1-S_0)^{2\alpha}} \right)

342: dS_1\ .

343: \end{aligned}

344: \label{eq:sccmf}

345: \end{equation}

346: If $\alpha=1/2$ we recover the Eq.~(2.15) in \citet{LaceyCole1993}.

347: 

348: The conditional mass function is in fact 

349: more fundamental than the mass function,

350: since the mass function can be recovered from the conditional mass function

351: by setting the limit $S_0\rightarrow 0, \omega_0 \rightarrow 0$ \citep{Pan2007},

352: \begin{equation}

353: f(S, \delta_c)dS=\frac{2\alpha}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \frac{\delta_c}{S^{\alpha+1}}

354: \exp\left( {-\frac{\delta_c^2}{2 S^{2\alpha}} } \right)dS\ .

355: \label{eq:scmf}

356: \end{equation}

357: 

358: Thus, prompted by the relation between mass function and conditional 

359: mass function, we recognize that there is  a systematical effect due

360: to the finite volume of simulations. This can lead to an 

361: underestimate of the halo mass function in the large mass regime 

362: (more details are discussed in Appendix A).

363: Recall that the halo model tends to over-estimate the amplitude 

364: of the three point correlation function of dark matter, which can 

365: be corrected (at least partly) by 

366: applying certain arbitrary high mass cut-off to the halo mass 

367: function \citep{WangEtal2004, FosalbaPanSzapudi2005}.

368: To predict the three point correlation function of

369: a simulation, a better approach would be to use the halo mass function

370: of Eq.~(\ref{eq:simmf}) to include the finite volume effects.

371: 

372: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

373: \subsection{Merger rate}

374: 

375: \begin{figure*}

376: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{mr.eps}\includegraphics{ar.eps}}

377: \caption{Halo merger rate (left panel) and accretion rate (right panel) computed

378: with Eq.~(\ref{eq:mr}). The accretion rate is simply

379: $\Delta M/M_1 \times d^2p/d\ln\Delta M/d\ln t$. Hereafter 

380: $M^*=10^{13} M_{\sun}$.}

381: \label{fig:mr}

382: \end{figure*}

383: 

384: Now we will

385: consider the merger rate function in line with \citet{LaceyCole1993}.

386: For a trajectory which has experienced a first up-crossing 

387: over $\omega_1$ at $S_1$, the conditional probability of having  

388: a first up-crossing over $\omega_2 (\omega_2 < \omega_1)$ at $S_2 (S_2 < S_1)$ 

389: in the interval $dS_2$ is given by the Bayes formula,

390: \begin{equation}

391: \begin{aligned}

392: f(S_2, \omega_2|& S_1,\omega_1)dS_2=\frac{f(S_1, \omega_1|S_2, \omega_2)dS_1 f(S_2, \omega_2)dS_2}

393: {f(S_1, \omega_1)dS_1} \\

394: = &\frac{2\alpha}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\frac{\omega_2(\omega_1-\omega_2)}{\omega_1}\left[ 

395: \frac{S_1}{S_2(S_1-S_2)} \right]^{\alpha+1} \\

396: \times & \exp \left[ - \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{(\omega_1-\omega_2)^2}{(S_1-S_2)^{2\alpha}} +

397: \frac{\omega_2^2}{ S_2^{2\alpha}}

398: -\frac{\omega_1^2}{S_1^{2\alpha}}\right)\right] \ ,\\

399: (\omega_1>\omega_2\ , & \ S_1>S_2)\ .

400: \end{aligned}

401: \end{equation}

402: This function is interpreted as the probability that a halo of mass

403: $M_1$ at time $t$ will merge to build a halo of mass between $M_2$ and

404: $M_2+dM_2$ at time $t_2>t_1$. The mean transition rate is obtained from it

405: by setting $t_2\rightarrow t_1$ (equivalently $\omega_2\rightarrow \omega_1=\omega$),

406: \begin{equation}

407: \begin{aligned}

408: \frac{d^2 p(S_1\rightarrow S_2|\omega)}{dS_2 d\omega} & dS_2 d\omega=

409: \frac{2\alpha}{\sqrt{2\pi}} 

410: \left[ \frac{S_1}{S_2(S_1-S_2)} \right]^{\alpha+1} \\

411: \times & \exp\left[ -\frac{\omega^2}{2} 

412: \frac{S_1^{2\alpha} - S_2^{2\alpha}}{S_1^{2\alpha}S_2^{2\alpha}} \right]

413: dS_2 d\omega \ .

414: \end{aligned}

415: \end{equation}

416: Therefore the merger rate, i.e. the probability that a halo

417: of mass $M_1$ accretes a clump of mass $\Delta M=M_2-M_1$ within 

418: time $d\ln t$ (corresponding to $d\omega$), is

419: \begin{equation}

420: \begin{aligned}

421: d^2p&( M_1\rightarrow M_2|t)/d\ln \Delta M d\ln t \\

422: &= 2 \sigma(M_2) \Delta M \left| \frac{d\sigma_2}{dM_2} \right| 

423: \left| \frac{d\omega}{d\ln t} \right| 

424: \frac{d^2p(S_1\rightarrow S_2|\omega)}{dS_2d\omega}\\

425: &=2\alpha\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\frac{\Delta M}{M_2}

426: \left| \frac{d\ln\delta_c}{d\ln t} \right| 

427: \left| \frac{d\ln \sigma_2}{d\ln M_2}  \right| 

428: \frac{\delta_c(t)}{\sigma_2^{2\alpha}} \\

429: &\times \left( \frac{\sigma_1^2}{\sigma_1^2-\sigma_2^2} \right)^{\alpha+1}

430: \exp\left[ -\frac{\delta_c^2}{2} 

431: \left( \frac{1}{\sigma_2^{2\alpha}}- \frac{1}{\sigma_1^{2\alpha}} \right)

432: \right] \ .

433: \end{aligned}

434: \label{eq:mr}

435: \end{equation}

436: 

437: In Figure~\ref{fig:mr} the halo merger rates of different masses as predicted by

438: Eq.~(\ref{eq:mr}) are plotted for comparison. Three models are presented: 

439: an anti-persistent FBM of $\alpha=0.4$, the standard normal Brownian motion

440: of $\alpha=0.5$ and a persistent FBM of $\alpha=0.6$. 

441: 

442: For halo progenitors of the typical mass scale $M_1=M^*$, the merger rate and 

443: halo accretion rate increases with increasing $\alpha$ at small $\Delta M/M_1$,

444: but at very large mass ratios ($\Delta M/M_1>25$) the case is reversed. 

445: 

446: This is also true for more massive progenitor masses ($M_1=10M^*$), but here

447: the transition point in the mass ratio is smaller: $\Delta M/M_1 =3$. 

448: 

449: For the less massive progenitors, $M_1=0.1 M^*$, the transition point is very 

450: high, that in the whole plotted range (up to $\Delta M/M_1=100$), the models 

451: with greater Hurst exponent always have greater merger and accretion rate.

452: 

453: %---------------------------------------------------------

454: \subsection{Halo formation time distribution}

455: 

456: \begin{figure*}

457: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{

458: \includegraphics{halo_cft.eps}

459: \includegraphics{halo_ft.eps}}

460: \caption{Halo formation time distributions for halos at $z=0$

461: with mass of $0.1$, 1 and $10M^{\star}$, which are predicted by the modified

462: excursion set theory of different $\alpha$ assuming spherical collapse. The 

463: left panel is the cumulative distribution.} 

464: \label{fig:ft}

465: \end{figure*}

466: 

467: The formation time (redshift) of a halo is the time (redshift) when its major

468: progenitor contains half of the halo mass. According to 

469: the counter argument of LC93, the cumulative distribution of halo formation

470: time, i. e. the probability that a halo of mass $M_0$ at redshift

471: $z_0$ is formed at redshift larger than $z_f$, can be acquired

472: by

473: \begin{equation}

474: P(>z_f)=\int_{S_0}^{S_h}\frac{M_0}{M(S_1)}

475: f\left(S_1,\delta_c(z_f)|S_0,\delta_c(z_0)\right)d S_1

476: \end{equation}

477: where $S_0=S(M_0)$ and $S_h=S(M_0/2)$. The halo formation time

478: distribution is simply given by the differentiation 

479: $-dP(z_f)/dz_f$.

480: 

481: Figure~\ref{fig:ft} shows the predictions of the halo formation

482: redshift distribution for difference masses. 

483: In general smaller halos have more extended formation time distribution 

484: than that of larger halos, %this is 

485: in agreement with the results of 

486: \citet{LinEtal2003}. For $\alpha>1/2$, the halo

487: formation redshift distribution is more concentrated than the

488: $\alpha=1/2$ case, and for $\alpha<1/2$ the halo formation

489: redshift distribution is more extended. This seems to be in

490: accordance with our finding that the merger rate is greater for

491: larger $\alpha$. 

492: 

493: As can be seen, the detailed

494: effects of incorporating correlation between merging steps are

495: intricate, varying with the halo mass. Impact on the halo formation time

496: distribution is small for those halos with masses around $M^*$, 

497: and it becomes apparent only when halo 

498: mass deviates significantly from $M^*$.  The impact is 

499: also different for halos with 

500: small masses and large masses. Compared with the results given by

501: the standard excursion set theory ($\alpha=1/2$), 

502: \begin{enumerate}

503: \item $M \ll M^*$: 

504: negative correlation ($\alpha<1/2$) shifts the halo formation time distribution 

505: curve to the side of smaller $z_f$, which means that the younger halos are more 

506: abundant and the older ones are less abundant; whilst for

507: positive correlation ($\alpha>1/2$) the older ones are more abundant;

508: \item $M > M^*$: the impact of the correlation is opposite to the case of small

509: halo mass, negative correlation ($\alpha<1/2$) boosts more halos 

510: to form at an earlier time while positive correlation ($\alpha>1/2$)

511: induces more halos to form at an later time.

512: \end{enumerate}

513: 

514: %==================================================================

515: \section{Ellipsoidal collapse}

516: 

517: \subsection{Moving barriers}

518: The spherical collapse model is perhaps accurate at high redshift e.g. 

519: the re-ionization era. However,  as shown by simulations, at low

520: redshift the collapse of a clump of mass is ellipsoidal.

521: For the excursion set theory, the general collapse condition for 

522: halo formation is not a constant $\delta_c$ any more, but a

523: moving barrier ${\mathcal B}(S)$.

524: 

525: Imposing a moving barrier on the random walk of 

526: $(\widetilde{\delta},\Delta S)$ described by Eq.~(\ref{eq:dfFBM})

527: is equivalent to the case of placing a constant barrier boundary condition to

528: the diffusion equation with an extra drifting term \citep{Zentner2007}. In

529: our case of FBM, the Fokker-Planck equation turns out to be

530: \begin{equation}

531: \frac{\partial Q_\alpha}{\partial \Delta S}=

532: \alpha {\Delta S}^{2\alpha-1} \frac{\partial^2 Q_\alpha}{ \partial \widetilde{\delta}^2}

533: +\frac{\partial \Delta{\mathcal B}}{\partial \Delta S}

534: \frac{\partial Q_\alpha}{\partial \widetilde{\delta}}

535: \label{eq:dfECFBM}

536: \end{equation}

537: where $\Delta {\mathcal B}={\mathcal B}(S_1)-{\mathcal B}(S_0)$. Unfortunately

538: this equation can be solved analytically only for a few very 

539: special cases (see Appendix B).

540: 

541: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

542: \subsection{Conditional mass function: the Sheth-Tormen approximation}

543: 

544: \begin{figure*}

545: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{ec_cmf.eps}}

546: \caption{Conditional mass functions of progenitor halos at redshift 

547: $z_1=$0.5, 1, 2, 4 (identical for each row) for three different halo masses

548: $M_0$ (each column has the same mass). Histograms are the results

549: from the Millennium Simulation given by 

550: \citet{ColeEtal2008}, while lines are predictions by Eq.~(\ref{eq:ecCMF})

551: of three different values of $\alpha$ as indicated.} 

552: \label{fig:ecCMF}

553: \end{figure*}

554: 

555: Although we do not have analytical solution of Eq.~(\ref{eq:dfECFBM}),

556: it could be solved with the numerical method of \citet{ZhangHui2006}. However,

557: this is inconvenient for general explorations. Here

558: we borrow the pragmatic approach of \citet{ShethTormen2002},

559: the conditional mass function is then approximated by

560: \begin{equation}

561: \begin{aligned}

562: f(S_1-S_0)dS_1& =dS_1 \frac{2\alpha}{\sqrt{2\pi}}

563: \frac{\left|T(S_1, z_1|S_0,z_0)\right|}{(S_1-S_0)^{\alpha+1}}\\

564: \times & 

565: \exp\left\{ - \frac{\left[ {\mathcal B}(S_1, z_1)-{\mathcal B}(S_0,z_0) \right]^2}

566: {2 (S_1-S_0)^{2\alpha}} \right\}\ ,

567: \end{aligned}

568: \label{eq:ecCMF}

569: \end{equation}

570: in which

571: \begin{equation}

572: T(S_1|S_0)=\sum_{n=0}^5 \frac{(S_0-S_1)^n}{n!}

573: \frac{\partial^n \left[{\mathcal B}(S_1)-{\mathcal B}(S_0) \right]}{{\partial S_1}^n}

574: \label{eq:ecT}

575: \end{equation}

576: and 

577: \begin{equation}

578: {\mathcal B}(S, z)=\sqrt{q} \delta_c(z) \left[ 1+ b \left( \frac{S}{q \delta_c^2(z)}

579: \right)^\gamma \right]

580: \end{equation}

581: with $q=0.707$, $b=0.485$ and $\gamma=0.615$ 

582: \citep{ShethMoTormen2001, ShethTormen2002}.

583: 

584: Inspired by the results given in Appendix B, 

585: it is probably more appropriate to use

586: \begin{equation}

587: T=\sum_n \frac{ (-\widetilde{S})^n}{n!} 

588: \frac{\partial^n \Delta {\mathcal B}}{{\partial \widetilde{S}}^n}

589: \end{equation}

590: with $\widetilde{S}=(S_1-S_0)^{2\alpha}$ in Eq.~\ref{eq:ecCMF}. 

591: Testing the two approximation methods numerically, we found that

592: the actual difference between the two is in fact very small. 

593: So we opted to use the numerically simpler

594: Eq.~(\ref{eq:ecT}).

595: 

596: In figure~\ref{fig:ecCMF} we compare our prediction on 

597: the conditional mass function with that measured from the

598: Millennium Simulation \citep{ColeEtal2008} \footnote{The data is publicly

599: available at {\em http://star-www.dur.ac.uk/$\sim$cole/merger\_trees}} at

600: $z_0=0, z_1=0.5, 1, 2, 4$, for halos of masses $M_0$=0.1, 3.16, 100$M^*$. 

601: It is indeed very interesting to notice that the performance of

602: the original Sheth-Tormen approach (Eq.~\ref{eq:ecCMF} of $\alpha=1/2$) is

603: fairly good though not as remarkable as the fitting function

604: of \citet{ColeEtal2008}. It is surprising that

605: \citet{ColeEtal2008} extrapolated the Sheth-Tormen mass function for 

606: the conditional mass function in ellipsodal collapse model, in spite of

607: the one actually proposed in \citet{ShethTormen2002}.

608: 

609: From Figure~\ref{fig:ecCMF} we can see that the effects of correlation

610: between merging steps gradually decrease with time, with halo formation 

611: becoming sensitive to the correlation at high redshift. 

612: Except in cases of high

613: redshifts and of extremely high halo mass, it appears that

614: positive correlation ($\alpha>1/2$) is preferred by the simulation 

615: in $\Lambda$CDM universe. Nevertheless, one must be cautious to

616: this result, as the measurement presented is rather

617: crude and lacks error bars.  Its accuracy is not sufficient to justify with 

618: confidence whether the correlation between merging steps is positive, 

619: negative or zero.

620: 

621: %------------------------------------------------------------

622: \subsection{Halo formation time distribution}

623: \begin{figure*}

624: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{

625: \includegraphics{echalo_cft.eps}

626: \includegraphics{echalo_ft.eps}}

627: \caption{Halo formation time distributions for halos of masses 

628: 0.1, 1 and 10$M^{\star}$ at $z=0$, which are predicted by the modified

629: excursion set theory of different $\alpha$ in ellipsoidal collapse model. 

630: The left panel is the cumulative distribution.} 

631: \label{fig:ecft}

632: \end{figure*}

633: 

634: The halo formation time distribution is recalculated with the modified

635: excursion set theory in ellipsoidal collapse model and the results 

636: displayed in Figure~\ref{fig:ecft}. Although the halo formation time distributions

637: are modulated significantly by the non-constant barrier, 

638: its dependence on $\alpha$ does not change, and demonstrates similar trends as

639: the spherical models predicts:

640: positive correlation results in more old small mass halos and more young

641: large mass halos, while the effects of the 

642: negative correlation are to

643: the contrary.

644: 

645: \citet{GiocoliEtal2007} calculated the cumulative distribution of halo formations

646: time and compared with GIF2 simulation. They found that the median formation

647: redshift of halos of mass less than $M^*$ extracted from the simulation

648: is larger than that predicted by the Sheth-Tormen formula, even after some

649: numerical improvement. Combined with our  discovery of effects of correlation, 

650: it seems that the discrepancy can be explained by the existence

651: of a positive correlation between adjacent merging steps.

652: 

653: 

654: %================================================================

655: \section{Conclusions and discussion}

656: In this work the FBM is formally incorporated in the excursion 

657: set theory, to account for possible correlations between merging steps 

658: of halo formation. Such modification

659: is minimal but provides a unified theoretical frame to investigate the

660: effects of correlation. More specifically, the correlation depends on the

661: Hurst exponent $\alpha$, for $\alpha<1/2$, the correlation

662: between adjacent merging steps is negative, for $\alpha>1/2$ the 

663: correlation is positive, while $\alpha=1/2$ is reduced to the standard case

664: of null correlation.

665: 

666: We calculated the conditional mass functions in models 

667: of the spherical collapse and the ellipsoidal collapse. Different

668: collapsing conditions do not change the relative effects of

669: correlations. It is revealed that for a typical progenitor of $M^*$, 

670: a positive correlation will boost 

671: the merger rate  when the mass to accrete is less than 

672: $\sim 25M^*$, and negative correlation will significantly reduce

673: such a rate.

674: Accordingly we find that compared with the

675: standard excursion set theory without correlation,

676: positive correlation increases the aged population for small mass halos

677: but produces more young members for large mass halos; while the negative

678: correlation projects opposite effects to the halo formation. The same trend is 

679: also seen for other progenitor masses, although the transition mass ratio

680: is greater for small progenitor masses and smaller for greater progenitor 

681: masses.

682: 

683: 

684: The results of the modified excursion set theory in ellipsoidal

685: collapse model are checked with those measurements from simulations of

686: \citet{GiocoliEtal2007} and \citet{ColeEtal2008}. The comparison

687: indicates that there is a sign of weak positive 

688: correlation, although not yet of significant confidence, as it is 

689: limited by the accuracy and dynamic ranges of their analysis. 

690: The conclusion appears to be in conflict with the claim of 

691: \citet{Pan2007}, but note that in that work 

692: the mass function was calculated with the spherical 

693: collapse model, which is not valid at most redshifts of concern.

694: Besides, the main purpose of \citet{Pan2007} is to show that 

695: the effect of correlation is not trivial.

696: 

697: The accuracy of the Sheth-Tormen approximation to the ellipsoidal

698: collapse in the modified (FBM) excursion set theory has not been 

699: checked against rigorous numerical solutions. However,  

700: since the actual correlation is weak, 

701: i.e. $\alpha$ only deviates from $1/2$ slightly, the

702: approximation suffices for general qualitative discussion. 

703: Calibration and subsequent improvement of the approximation

704: with numerical computation is of course needed

705: for more precise analytical modeling and implementation

706: in semi-analytical models of galaxy formation.

707: 

708: In this paper we explored the effects of correlations between 

709: mergers on the global halo formation process.  It is of 

710: interests to actually check if such a correlation will 

711: lead to the assembly bias discovered by \citet{GaoEtal2005}, and whether it

712: can explain the dependence of halo formation on the large scale environment.

713: 

714: A by product of our work is the discovery of a systematic effect

715: in the mass function due to the finite volume of simulation. It explains

716: why applying a high mass cut-off to the mass function can improve

717: the halo model prediction on three point correlation function. A better

718: approach in the halo model calculation of three point function 

719: is to shift the theoretical mass function

720: according to the formulae given in Appendix A, this may lead to better

721: agreement between simulation and analytical results.

722: 

723: 

724: 

725: %================================================================

726: \section*{Acknowledgment}

727: The authors acknowledge stimulating discussions with

728: Pengjie Zhang, Jun Zhang, Weipeng Lin and Longlong Feng.

729: JP is supported by the China Ministry of Science \& Technology 

730: through 973 grant of No. 2007CB815402 and the NSFC through

731: grants of Nos. 10643002, 10633040. YGW and XLC

732: are supported by NSFC via grants 1052314, 10533010, the CAS

733: under grant KJCX3-SYW-N2, and the Ministry of

734: Science \& Technology via 973 grant of 2007CB815401.

735: LT acknowledges the financial support of the Leverhulme Trust (UK).

736: 

737: 

738: 

739: 

740: %================================================================

741: %%\bibliography{cc}

742: %%\bibliographystyle{mn2e}

743: \input ms.bbl

744: %================================================================

745: %=======================================================================

746: 

747: \appendix

748: \section{Finite volume effects in small-box simulations}

749: 

750: N-body simulations are always performed in cubic boxes of finite size 

751: $L_{sim}$. By definition, the density contrast of whole the simulation box is 

752: zero, but the variance is not. Henceforth the measured mass function 

753: of simulation is 

754: conditional, determined by $f(S_1=S, \omega_1=\delta_c| S_0(L_{sim})\neq 0, \omega_0=0)$. 

755: From Eq.~(\ref{eq:sccmf}) the explicit halo mass function of a simulation is then

756: \begin{equation}

757: \begin{aligned}

758: f(\sigma, L_{sim})& d\ln \sigma = \frac{4\alpha}{\sqrt{2\pi}} 

759: \frac{\delta_c}{(\sigma^2-\sigma_0^2)^\alpha}

760: \frac{\sigma^2}{\sigma^2-\sigma_0^2} \\

761: & \times \exp\left[ -\frac{\delta_c^2}{2(\sigma^2-\sigma_0^2)^{2\alpha}}\right] 

762: d\ln \sigma\ ,

763: \end{aligned}

764: \label{eq:simmf}

765: \end{equation}

766: where $$S=\sigma^2=(2\pi)^{-3}\int_{2\pi/L_{sim}}^\infty P(k)\widetilde{W}4\pi k^2dk,$$ and 

767: $$S_0=\sigma_0^2(L_{sim})=(2\pi)^{-3}\int_{2\pi/L_{sim}}^\infty P(k)

768: \widetilde{W}(k, L_{sim})4\pi k^2dk.$$ 

769: The infrared cutoff in the integration for $\sigma^2$ accounts for the 

770: deficiency of large scale power in finite box, which has already 

771: been identified as a systematic effect \citep[e.g.][]{ReedEtal2007}. 

772: 

773: \begin{figure}

774: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{finiteV.eps}}

775: \caption{Deviation of mass functions in finite-sized simulations 

776: (Eq.~\ref{eq:simmf}) to Eq.~(\ref{eq:scmf}). For the fiducial  

777: model $\alpha=0.436$. 

778: $L_{sim}$ is the size of the cubic box for simulation. $\sigma_0$ is 

779: calculated with infrared cutoff in integration (see text), and a 

780: spherical top-hat window function in real space of radius 

781: $L_{sim}/(4\pi/3)^{1/3}$. Deviation is negligible in 

782: regime $-\ln \sigma <0.2$.}

783: \label{fig:simmf}

784: \end{figure}

785: 

786: The difference between Eq.~(\ref{eq:simmf}) and Eq.~(\ref{eq:scmf}) is shown in 

787: Fig.~\ref{fig:simmf} for different box sizes. The fiducial model has 

788: $\alpha=0.436$, by which the spherical model provides good approximation to 

789: the mass function of simulations in high mass region \citep{Pan2007}. We 

790: can see that the finite volume effect becomes apparent only when 

791: $-\ln \sigma >0.2$, i.e. in high mass regime, and the resulting

792:  fractional error 

793: quickly drops down to $<10\%$ for simulations of $L_{sim}>100h^{-1}$Mpc.

794: 

795: Nowadays it is a very common practice to use 

796: simulations with boxes as small as $< 50h^{-1}$Mpc to 

797: extend the dynamic range. The finite volume 

798: effect demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:simmf} has to be taken into account 

799: for precision measurement. The necessary

800: correction is actually very simple: the true measured mass 

801: function $f(S)dS$ can be recovered 

802: by shifting the raw mass function $f(S|S_0)dS$ along $S$ by $S_0$. Note 

803: that there is a cosmic variance for $S_0$, for each individual 

804: realization of simulation one may need to calculate the individual 

805: $S_0$ from the realization \citep{ReedEtal2007, LukicEtal2007}.

806: 

807: %---------------------------------------------------------------

808: \section{{\em pseudo-linear} barrier: 

809: ${\mathcal B}=\delta_c+\beta S^{2\alpha}$}

810: Starting with Eq.~(\ref{eq:dfECFBM}), let $S_0=0$ and $S_1=S>0$, 

811: a variable substitution $\widetilde{S}=S^{2\alpha}$ yields

812: \begin{equation}

813: \frac{\partial Q_\alpha}{\partial \widetilde{S}}=

814: \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2 Q_\alpha}{ \partial \widetilde{\delta}^2}

815: +\frac{1}{2\alpha S^{2\alpha-1}}\frac{\partial {\mathcal B}}{\partial S}

816: \frac{\partial Q_\alpha}{\partial \widetilde{\delta}}

817: \end{equation}

818: If the barrier is ${\mathcal B}=\delta_c+\beta S^{2\alpha}$, the above 

819: nonlinear Fokker-Planck equation is further simplified to

820: \begin{equation}

821: \frac{\partial Q_\alpha}{\partial \widetilde{S}}=

822: \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2 Q_\alpha}{ \partial \widetilde{\delta}^2}

823: +\beta \frac{\partial Q_\alpha}{\partial \widetilde{\delta}}\ ,

824: \end{equation}

825: which is the well known problem of a linear

826: barrier upon the normal Brownian motion \citep{Sheth1998, Zentner2007}.

827: 

828: The probability of a trajectory that has the first barrier passage 

829: within $(\widetilde{S}, \widetilde{S}+d\widetilde{S})$ in the solution

830: is given by

831: \begin{equation}

832: f(\widetilde{S})d\widetilde{S}=\frac{\delta_c}{\sqrt{2\pi} {\widetilde{S}}^{3/2}}

833: \exp\left[ - \frac{(\beta \widetilde{S}+\delta_c)^2}{2 \widetilde{S}} \right]

834: d\widetilde{S}\ ,

835: \end{equation}

836: from which the universal mass function is easily obtained

837: \begin{equation}

838: f(\sigma)d\ln \sigma=\frac{4\alpha}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\frac{\delta_c}{\sigma^{2\alpha}}

839: \exp\left[ - \frac{(\delta_c+\beta \sigma^{4\alpha})^2}{2\sigma^{4\alpha}}\right]

840: d\ln \sigma\ .

841: \label{eq:linBmf}

842: \end{equation}

843: 

844: However, there is no analogous analytical expression for the 

845: conditional mass function under this type of barrier, as the

846: barrier does not have the symmetry that a true linear barrier possesses: 

847: for any pair of points at $S_0$ and $S_1>S_0$

848: \begin{equation}

849: {\mathcal B}_1-{\mathcal B}_0=\beta (S_1^{2\alpha}-S_0^{2\alpha})\neq 

850: \beta(S_1-S_0)^{2\alpha}\ .

851: \end{equation}

852: This is why we call it {\em pseudo-linear}.

853: 

854: \end{document}

855: