1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint2]{emulateapj}
3:
4: \newcommand{\rmg}{{\cal R}_{{\rm mg}}}
5: \newcommand{\rmgv}{{\cal R}_{{\rm mg}_{V}}}
6: \newcommand{\msun}{M_{\odot}}
7: \newcommand{\lsun}{L_{\odot}}
8:
9: \slugcomment{Accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal}
10: %\usepackage{amsfonts}
11:
12: \shorttitle{The Luminosity Dependence of the Galaxy Merger Rate}
13: \shortauthors{D. R. Patton \& J. E. Atfield}
14:
15: \begin{document}
16:
17: \title{The Luminosity Dependence of the Galaxy Merger Rate}
18:
19: \author{D. R. Patton\altaffilmark{1} and J. E. Atfield\altaffilmark{1}
20: }
21:
22: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, Trent University,
23: 1600 West Bank Drive, Peterborough, ON, K9J 7B8, Canada;
24: dpatton@trentu.ca, julianatfield@trentu.ca}
25:
26: \begin{abstract}
27:
28: We measure the number of companions per galaxy ($N_c$) as a function of
29: $r$-band absolute magnitude for both the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
30: and the \citet{croton06}
31: semi-analytic catalog applied to the Millennium Run simulation.
32: For close pairs with projected separations of 5-20 $h^{-1}$ kpc,
33: velocity differences less than 500 km s$^{-1}$, and luminosity ratios between
34: 1:2 and 2:1, we find good agreement between the observations and
35: simulations, with $N_c$ consistently
36: close to 0.02 over the range $-22 < M_r < -18$. For larger pair separations,
37: $N_c(M_r)$ instead becomes increasingly steep towards the faint end,
38: implying that luminosity-dependent clustering plays an important role
39: on small scales.
40: Using the simulations to assess and correct for projection effects,
41: we infer that
42: the {\em real-space} $N_c(M_r)$ for close pairs peaks at about $M^*$, and
43: declines by at least a factor of two as $M_r$ becomes fainter.
44: Conversely,
45: by measuring the number density of close companions, we estimate that
46: at least $90\%$ of all major mergers occur between galaxies which are
47: fainter than $L^*$. Finally, measurements of the luminosity
48: density of close companions indicate that $L^*$ galaxies likely dominate in
49: terms of the overall importance of major mergers in the evolution of
50: galaxy populations at low redshift.
51:
52: \end{abstract}
53:
54: \keywords{galaxies: evolution, galaxies: interactions,
55: surveys, galaxies: statistics}
56:
57:
58: \section{Introduction}\label{intro}
59:
60: Galaxy mergers can produce dramatic changes in the morphological, nuclear
61: and star forming properties of galaxies over relatively short timespans.
62: As a result, mergers have been invoked to explain a number of
63: aspects of galaxy evolution.
64: In recent years, large redshift surveys have paved the way for
65: systematic observational studies of
66: candidate mergers, while theoretical modelling of structure formation
67: has produced key advances in our understanding of the role of
68: merging in a cosmological context.
69: In general, these efforts have focussed on two key aspects of merging:
70: (1) the effects of merging on the constituent galaxies, and
71: (2) the frequency with which merging occurs,
72: as described by the merger rate and related quantities.
73:
74: An increasingly popular method of identifying candidate merging systems
75: is the use of close galaxy pairs, which are the precursors to mergers.
76: With careful choices of close pair criteria, and correction for
77: projection effects (ie., contamination by non-merging pairs),
78: the frequency of close pairs should correlate with the merger rate.
79: Recent studies using cosmological simulations support this idea,
80: demonstrating that most close pairs merge on relatively short
81: timescales \citep{kitzbichler08}. In addition,
82: the properties of paired galaxies can provide insight into the
83: nature of merging galaxies both before and during the encounter.
84: Galaxies in close pairs have higher asymmetries than galaxies in wider
85: separation pairs or the field \citep{hernandez05,patton05,depropris07},
86: confirming that interactions and mergers are prevalent in these systems.
87: Star formation is enhanced in close pairs at low redshift
88: \citep{2dfpairs,2dfpairsb,nikolic04,patton05,alonso06,geller06,barton07,owers07,smith07,woods07,ellison08,li08},
89: implying that star formation has been triggered by
90: mergers or interactions. Differences in metallicities between paired
91: and field galaxies are consistent with a scenario in which
92: interactions funnel gas to the central regions of galaxies involved
93: in these close encounters \citep{kewley06,ellison08}.
94: Most ultraluminous infrared galaxies (ULIRGs) originate from major mergers of
95: gas rich galaxies \citep{dasyra06a,dasyra06b}, while approximately
96: half of the luminous infrared galaxies (LIRGs) at low redshift
97: appear to be undergoing interactions or mergers \citep{wang06}.
98:
99: Using close galaxy pairs and/or galaxy asymmetries as indicators of
100: imminent or recent mergers, the merger rate and its evolution has now
101: been measured using a number of large redshift surveys
102: \citep{carlberg00,lefevre00,cnoc2mr,conselice03,bundy04,lin04,bell06a,kartaltepe07,kampczyk07,conselice08,hsieh08,lin08,lotz08,rawat08,ryan08}.
103: Evolution estimates range from roughly
104: $(1+z)^{0.5}$ to $(1+z)^3$, implying widely differing scenarios at
105: $z \sim 1$ and above. At least some of these discrepancies result from
106: the use of different pair criteria.
107: For example, simulations and semi-analytical models of galaxy formation
108: indicate that the merger rate and its evolution depends on factors
109: such as galaxy mass, pair mass ratio and environment
110: \citep{khochfar01,berrier06,maller06,cox08,guo08,kitzbichler08}.
111:
112: In order to better understand the role of merging, and to reconcile
113: merger rate measurements from disparate samples, we need to
114: assess how the frequency and nature of merging
115: depends on factors such as
116: environment,
117: mass ratio (ie., major versus minor mergers),
118: properties of the progenitor galaxies
119: (e.g., dry mergers versus gas-rich mergers),
120: and the mass (or luminosity) of the merging galaxies or merger remnants
121: (e.g., formation of massive galaxies versus $L^*$ galaxies).
122: Significant observational progress has been made in all of these areas
123: in recent years.
124: Galaxy groups appear to be an ideal environment for mergers
125: \citep{goto05,brough06,miles06,robotham06,zandivarez06,coziol07,nolan07},
126: though the infall regions of
127: clusters \citep{vandokkum99,tran05,moss06} and the low density
128: field \citep{barton07} are important too.
129: Induced star formation appears to be strongest in major mergers, or
130: in the lower luminosity (or mass) members of minor mergers
131: \citep{woods06,woods07,ellison08}.
132: Dry mergers have been invoked to explain the assembly of massive
133: elliptical galaxies since $z \sim 1$ \citep{vandokkum05,bell06b,naab06},
134: though this process likely cannot explain all recently formed
135: early type galaxies \citep{cox06,brown07,bundy07,scarlata07}.
136:
137: In this paper, we investigate the luminosity dependence of the
138: merger rate at low redshift, using close galaxy pairs
139: in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey \citep{york00}, and in
140: the \citet{croton06} semi-analytic galaxy catalogs derived from the
141: Millennium Run simulation \citep{springel05}.
142: Both of these samples are large enough that, in addition to being
143: able to measure close pair statistics as a function of absolute magnitude,
144: we also have the luxury of being
145: very selective in how we choose our close pairs. In particular,
146: we require all of our pairs to have spectroscopic redshifts for both members,
147: projected separations less than 20 $h^{-1}$ kpc, and relative velocities
148: less than 500 km s$^{-1}$. In addition, we require our companion
149: sample to be volume
150: limited for all luminosity ratios between 1:2 and 2:1, thereby providing
151: a cleaner match to the major merger candidates we seek to identify.
152: Moreover, our measurements are carried out in the $r$-band, yielding
153: absolute magnitudes that are a better proxy for stellar mass than
154: those at shorter wavelengths. This is beneficial for close pair studies,
155: since merger-induced star formation is likely to affect the luminosities
156: of galaxies in pairs more than normal (isolated) galaxies.
157:
158: We begin by describing the creation of our
159: SDSS spectroscopic and photometric samples in \S~\ref{data}.
160: Section \ref{ncsdss} outlines the calculation of the number of
161: close companions per galaxy ($N_c$) for SDSS,
162: including corrections for spectroscopic incompleteness.
163: We make a direct comparison
164: with the Millennium Run simulation in \S~\ref{ncmill}, and
165: derive real space pair statistics for both SDSS and Millennium
166: in \S~\ref{realspace}. With additional assumptions, we then
167: relate these close pair statistics to the merger
168: rate in \S~\ref{mrate}.
169: We summarize our
170: conclusions in \S~\ref{conclusions}.
171: Throughout this study, we adopt cosmological parameters of
172: $\Omega_m = 0.3$, $\Omega_\Lambda = 0.7$, and
173: $H_0 = 100~h$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. For brevity,
174: we express all absolute magnitudes as $M_r$ instead of $M_r - 5 \log (h)$.
175:
176: \section{Data} \label{data}
177: The fifth data release (DR5) of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (hereafter SDSS)
178: consists of $ugriz$ imaging spanning over 8000 deg$^2$, along with
179: spectra of about one million galaxies, quasars, and stars within a
180: 5713 deg$^2$ subset of the imaging area \citep{DR5}. In this study,
181: we use the main galaxy sample, as described by \citet{strauss02}.
182: Unlike the luminous red galaxy sample of \citet{eisenstein01},
183: this sample is designed to be independent of galaxy luminosity and
184: Hubble type, and therefore probes a representative sample of galaxies,
185: including both gas-rich and gas-poor (``dry'') merger candidates.
186:
187: Our goal is to carry out a census of galaxies with close physical companions.
188: We restrict our observational sample to close galaxy pairs for which redshifts
189: are available for both galaxies. This reduces contamination due to
190: non-merging systems, and allows one to measure rest-frame properties
191: of the pairs and their member galaxies. However, the SDSS is not a complete
192: spectroscopic sample, and in fact the minimum fiber separation of
193: $55\arcsec$ biases the sample against the close pairs we are interested in.
194: Fortunately, it is possible to measure and correct for spectroscopic
195: incompleteness by using the photometry of all galaxies, regardless of
196: whether or not spectra were obtained. To this end, we now describe the
197: creation of both spectroscopic and photometric catalogs of galaxies
198: drawn from the main galaxy sample.
199:
200: \subsection{Spectroscopic Catalog}
201:
202: The SDSS main galaxy sample consists of galaxies
203: with $r$-band Petrosian magnitudes of
204: $m_r \leq 17.77$ \citep{strauss02}, after correction for
205: Galactic extinction. However, regions covered by the first
206: data release of the survey had limiting apparent magnitudes ranging from
207: 17.5 to 17.77 \citep{abazajian03}. In addition, the sample becomes
208: incomplete at the bright end, where automated deblending of large galaxies
209: becomes unreliable \citep{strauss02}, and introduces
210: concerns about single galaxies mistakenly being classified as close pairs.
211: To ensure a complete and reliable sample,
212: we therefore begin by restricting our catalogs to the range
213: $14.5 \leq m_r \leq 17.5$. We also ensure that every galaxy has a
214: measured spectroscopic redshift; moreover, we require the SDSS
215: ``zConf'' parameter to be at least 0.7, thereby ensuring that
216: the confidence in each redshift measurement is at least 70\% (in most
217: cases, it is much higher).
218: Using these criteria, we create a preliminary spectroscopic sample by
219: querying the SDSS
220: online database\footnote{http://casjobs.sdss.org/CasJobs/}.
221:
222: For every galaxy in the spectroscopic sample, we measure
223: the $r$-band absolute magnitude at redshift $z$, as given by
224: \begin{equation} \label{eqnmr}
225: M_r = m_r - 5 \log d_L(z) - 25 - k_r - E(z),
226: \end{equation}
227: where $m_r$ is the extinction-corrected Petrosian $r$-band magnitude,
228: $d_L$ is the luminosity distance, and
229: $k_r$ and $E(z)$ are the $k$-corrections and passive stellar evolution
230: corrections, respectively. We measure $k$-corrections using the
231: SDSS $ugriz$ photometry, employing
232: the kcorrect software (version v1\_1\_4) of \citet{blanton07}.
233: Following \citet{cnoc2mr}, we parameterize the evolution correction as
234: $E(z) = -Qz$, where $Q$ is determined from measurements
235: of the galaxy luminosity function (LF) and
236: $z$ is the redshift \citep{cnoc2lf}.
237: We adopt $Q = 1.8$ as an average of
238: the SDSS $^{0.1}r$ and $^{0.1}g$ $Q$ measurements
239: of \citet{blanton03a}, since rest-frame $r$ lies between these two passbands
240: (this agrees well with the evolutionary correction of \citet{tegmark04}).
241: Given the relatively low redshift of our sample, however,
242: this evolution correction is small, and removing it entirely (ie., $Q = 0$)
243: does not significantly change any of the conclusions in this paper.
244:
245: \subsection{Photometric Catalog}
246:
247:
248: In order to measure and correct for incompleteness in our spectroscopic
249: catalog, we also create a photometric catalog, in which galaxies satisfy
250: the same flux limits as the spectroscopic catalog, but are not required
251: to have a measured redshift.
252: The sky area covered by DR5 imaging
253: is about 40\% larger than the area with spectroscopic coverage \citep{DR5};
254: to match the footprints of our spectroscopic and photometric catalogs,
255: we therefore also require every galaxy in both samples to have at least
256: one galaxy with a spectrum within 12 arcminutes of its position
257: (excluding itself).
258:
259: \subsection{Spectroscopic Incompleteness}\label{wz}
260:
261: By comparing our resulting photometric and spectroscopic catalogs,
262: we find that the average spectroscopic completeness is 88\%. While
263: spectroscopic target selection was designed to provide uniform
264: coverage \citep{blanton03b},
265: the completeness does vary considerably from one part of the sky
266: to another, with the completeness in some regions falling well below
267: the mean, while in other regions (particularly those covered by more than one
268: SDSS plate), the completeness is considerably higher.
269: \citet{cnoc2mr} demonstrated that the observed number of companions per
270: galaxy scales with the spectroscopic completeness. While this
271: bias can be corrected for, one can also minimize its
272: impact by excluding regions with low spectroscopic completeness.
273: Such an exclusion will also remove galaxies which lie close enough to the
274: survey boundaries that close companions will be missed.
275: With this in mind, and with a desire to measure and correct for the
276: remaining spectroscopic incompleteness, we compute a measure of
277: local spectroscopic completeness for every galaxy in our spectroscopic
278: and photometric catalogs.
279: We consider an area around each galaxy within an outer radius
280: of one degree, and an inner radius of $55\arcsec$ (the latter corresponds
281: to the minimum fiber separation).
282: After counting the number of enclosed
283: galaxies in the spectroscopic and photometric samples, we take the
284: ratio of these two numbers, denoting this quantity $f_s$.
285: We then require every galaxy in our catalogs to have $f_s > 0.75$.
286: This restriction excludes 4.7\% of the galaxies in the spectroscopic catalog.
287: The main conclusions of this paper are unchanged if we instead use
288: $f_s > 0.7$ or $f_s > 0.8$ (excluding 2.5\% and 9.5\% of the
289: spectroscopic catalog respectively).
290:
291: \section{SDSS Close Pair Statistics}\label{ncsdss}
292:
293: \subsection{Methodology}\label{methodology}
294:
295: We now proceed to identify close galaxy pairs from our spectroscopic
296: sample. We measure three key quantities for each galaxy pair:
297: projected physical separation $r_p$, rest-frame relative velocity
298: $\Delta v$, and absolute magnitude difference $\Delta M_r$.
299: Following \citet{ssrs2mr,cnoc2mr}, we define a ``close pair'' to
300: have $5 < r_p < 20~h^{-1}$ kpc and $\Delta v < 500$ km s$^{-1}$.
301: On order half
302: of the pairs satisfying these criteria are known to exhibit
303: morphological signs of interactions, based on visual classification
304: \citep{ssrs2mr} and quantitative measures of
305: asymmetry \citep{patton05,depropris07}.
306: In addition, in order to focus on major merger
307: candidates, we require that $|\Delta M_r| \leq 0.753$, ensuring
308: a pair luminosity ratio between 1:2 and 2:1. This criterion is preferable
309: to the more common approach of selecting both host and companion galaxies from
310: the same fixed range in absolute magnitude
311: (e.g., \citet{ssrs2mr,cnoc2mr,lin04,depropris05}), since that approach
312: includes a wider range in luminosity ratios, and becomes increasingly
313: incomplete at luminosity ratios significantly different from 1:1.
314:
315: \subsection{Choosing Potential Host and Companion Galaxies}
316: \label{hostcomp}
317:
318: Figure~\ref{absmag} contains a plot of absolute magnitude
319: versus redshift for 10,000 galaxies selected at random
320: from our spectroscopic sample of about 337,000 galaxies.
321: We begin our sample selection by
322: measuring the bright and faint limits
323: in absolute magnitude as a function
324: of redshift within which galaxies of all spectral types will have
325: $14.5 \leq m_r \leq 17.5$. These are shown by the upper and lower
326: dashed (black) curves in Figure~\ref{absmag}, and are computed using
327: estimates of the minimum and maximum k-corrections respectively.
328: We denote all galaxies lying within these limits as
329: {\it potential companion galaxies}.
330:
331: Within this sample, we then identify the subset of galaxies
332: for which all companions (with $|\Delta M_r| \leq 0.753$) are detectable.
333: These galaxies, which we refer to as {\it potential host galaxies},
334: are contained within the two solid (red) curves
335: in Figure~\ref{absmag}. Aside from spectroscopic incompleteness
336: (which we correct for statistically), this provides a sample of host
337: galaxies for which we can carry out a volume limited search for companions.
338: It follows that our sample will contain close pairs in which either one or
339: both galaxies fall into the sample of potential hosts.
340:
341: We wish to compute pair statistics as a function of $M_r$, over as
342: large a range as feasible. However, in order to ensure completeness,
343: we must impose some restrictions on the range of host galaxy luminosities.
344: At the bright end, Figure~\ref{absmag} indicates that our sample contains
345: relatively few galaxies close to $M_r \sim -23$.
346: Given the need to detect companions which are
347: 0.753 magnitudes brighter than any potential host galaxy, we therefore
348: impose a minimum $M_r = -22$.
349: At the faint end, the key issue is to decide on a reasonable minimum
350: redshift to use, as this will dictate a maximum allowable absolute
351: magnitude. Galaxies at the lowest redshifts have the least certain
352: absolute magnitudes, due to the increased influence of peculiar velocities
353: on the observed redshift. In addition, such nearby galaxies are typically
354: the most challenging to obtain accurate photometry for, since the
355: SDSS deblending algorithm tends to break down more often for
356: galaxies with large apparent sizes. With these considerations in mind,
357: we impose a conservative maximum $M_r$ of $-18$ on our sample of
358: potential host galaxies, corresponding to a minimum redshift of 0.015.
359: Companions are permitted to lie at slightly lower redshifts due to the
360: allowed velocity difference of 500 km s$^{-1}$.
361:
362: With these criteria, we find a total of 477 host galaxies which have
363: at least one close companion.
364: In order to ensure that the SDSS
365: pipeline has been successful in detecting real galaxy pairs, we
366: visually inspect the SDSS images of every detected host galaxy.
367: The contamination was
368: found to be very small, with only 0.8\% of the host galaxies being
369: spurious. The affected systems consist of
370: one edge-on disk, and one ring galaxy: in both cases, the SDSS pipeline
371: mistakenly detected two galaxies. We therefore remove these galaxies
372: from our sample, leaving 473 host galaxies in the
373: range $-22 < M_r < -18$. The basic properties of these galaxies are
374: listed in Table~\ref{tabhost} (this table contains a subset of the
375: table, which is to be published in its entirety in the electronic
376: version of the journal).
377:
378: A significant fraction
379: of these galaxies exhibit morphological signs of interactions, though
380: we defer a more rigorous structural analysis to a future paper.
381: We note that this sample is more than twice as
382: large as the Millennium Galaxy Catalogue sample of \citet{depropris05},
383: despite our more rigid requirement that the sample
384: be volume-limited for close companions which are
385: major merger candidates ($|\Delta M_r < 0.753|$).
386:
387: \subsection{Small Scale Spectroscopic Incompleteness}\label{wtheta}
388:
389: In Section~\ref{wz}, we described our algorithm for measuring the local
390: spectroscopic completeness for every galaxy. This provides a measure of
391: completeness on scales of on order half a degree. However,
392: constraints on fiber placement require angular separations of
393: at least $55\arcsec$ between any two targets assigned to the same plate
394: \citep{strauss02}.
395: As a result, spectroscopic completeness
396: drops sharply at smaller angular pair separations. At a redshift of 0.1,
397: $55\arcsec$ corresponds to a projected separation of 71 $h^{-1}$kpc,
398: meaning that
399: most of the close pairs of interest in this study ($r_p < 20~h^{-1}$ kpc)
400: are found at these small angular separations.
401: Fortunately, most plates contain regions of overlap with adjacent plates,
402: and some regions are observed using two or more plates.
403: As a result, the spectroscopic
404: sample contains enough close angular pairs that we are able to model the
405: incompleteness and correct for it,
406: following the method of \citet{cnoc2mr}.
407:
408: First, we measure the ratio of spectroscopic to
409: photometric pairs ($N_{zz}/N_{pp}$)
410: as a function of angular separation $\theta$,
411: as shown in the upper panel of Figure~\ref{figsmallang}.
412: For a fair sample, in which spectroscopic completeness is independent of
413: pair separation, one would expect to find $N_{zz}/N_{pp} \sim f_s^2$,
414: where $f_s$ is the overall spectroscopic completeness of the survey.
415: Instead, we see a sharp drop in $N_{zz}/N_{pp}$ below
416: $55\arcsec$, as expected. We model this incompleteness by fitting a
417: function $g(\theta)$ to these data. We then multiply each
418: spectroscopic pair by a weight $w_{\theta} = f_s^2/g(\theta)$. The resulting
419: corrected values of $N_{zz}/N_{pp}$ are plotted in the lower panel
420: of Figure~\ref{figsmallang}. It is clear that this weighting scheme
421: is successful in removing the angular dependence of the small scale
422: spectroscopic incompleteness, with the corrected
423: $N_{zz}/N_{pp} \approx f_s^2$ at all
424: relevant angular separations, to within the reported errors.
425: Therefore, by applying $w_{\theta}$ weights to each detected pair,
426: we can remove this very significant bias from our measurements.
427:
428: \subsection{$N_c(M_r)$ for SDSS Pairs} \label{ncmrsdss}
429: We now have a catalog of host galaxies for which we can measure close
430: pair statistics, using statistical weights to correct for spectroscopic
431: incompleteness. Weights are combined using the approach outlined by
432: \citet{cnoc2mr}. First, the
433: number of companions for galaxy $i$, summed over all companions $j$,
434: is given by
435: \begin{equation} \label{eqnnci}
436: N_{c_i} = \sum_j f^{-1}_{s_j} w_{\theta_{ij}}.
437: \end{equation}
438: The statistical weights in this equation are used to
439: correct the observed number of companions to the number that would have
440: been observed in a complete redshift survey.
441: The mean number of companions per galaxy, weighted by spectroscopic
442: completeness, is then given by
443: \begin{equation} \label{eqnnc}
444: N_c = \frac{\sum_i f_{s_i} N_{c_i}}{\sum_i f_{s_i}}.
445: \end{equation}
446: This weighting scheme places greater importance on galaxies in
447: regions of higher
448: spectroscopic completeness, thereby minimizing statistical uncertainties.
449:
450: The resulting measurements of $N_c(M_r)$, calculated using
451: equations~\ref{eqnnci} and \ref{eqnnc},
452: are indicated by the solid (blue) curve in Figure~\ref{figncsdss}.
453: In addition, to facilitate future comparisons with other surveys,
454: we provide these results in the first row of Table~\ref{tabsdssnc}.
455: We find that
456: $N_c(M_r)$ is approximately constant
457: over the given range in absolute magnitude, with a mean of
458: $N_c = 0.021 \pm 0.001$.
459: Given that few galaxies have more than one close companion, this implies
460: that $\sim$ 2\% of galaxies with $-22 < M_r < -18$ have a
461: close companion, independent of $M_r$.
462:
463: Overall, our mean value of $N_c$ agrees quite well with related measurements
464: in the literature. For example, using identical $r_p$ and $\Delta v$
465: criteria, but no limits on luminosity ratio, \citet{ssrs2mr} find
466: $N_c(-21 \leq M_B \leq -18) = 0.0226 \pm 0.0052$ at $z = 0.015$,
467: while \citet{depropris05} find $N_c=0.0357 \pm 0.0027$ at $z = 0.116$.
468: Given our additional requirement that companions be within a factor of two
469: in luminosity of their host galaxy, both results are broadly consistent with
470: the somewhat lower $N_c$ that we find.
471: Our mean $N_c$ appears to be several times larger than the
472: SDSS pair fraction of \citet{kartaltepe07}. However,
473: their close pair criteria are substantially different
474: from ours; in
475: particular, they require $M_V > -20$ for both members, they do not
476: require spectroscopic redshifts for both members of their pairs, and
477: their sample is derived from the \citet{allam04} sample of merging pairs,
478: which have a number of additional criteria imposed (including isolation).
479: A meaningful comparison with \citet{kartaltepe07} is therefore not feasible.
480:
481: The flat shape of $N_c(M_r)$ that we find is a surprising result.
482: Based on the LF alone, one would expect to find
483: more companions (of comparable luminosity)
484: close to intrinsically faint galaxies, since dwarf galaxies
485: are much more numerous than giants. In other words, $N_c$ should
486: be proportional to the number density of galaxies \citep{berrier06}.
487: However, the number of companions
488: per galaxy is sensitive to both number density {\it and} clustering strength
489: \citep{ssrs2mr,berrier06}.
490: Clustering strength is known to increase with luminosity
491: \citep{norberg01,norberg02,zehavi02,li06}.
492: This provides a competing effect, which must be
493: comparable in size to the density effect if it is to explain the
494: flat $N_c(M_r)$ that we find. However, at separations of 100 $h^{-1}$ kpc,
495: the correlation function measurements of \citet{li06} indicate that
496: the clustering
497: strength of SDSS galaxies is roughly independent of absolute magnitude
498: for $M_r \gtrsim -21$, and is approximately twice as high in the
499: range $-22 < M_r < -21$. In order to explain the roughly flat $N_c(M_r)$
500: we detect over the range $-22 < M_r < -18$, the luminosity dependence of
501: clustering must be considerably stronger on the smaller scales relevant
502: for our close pairs ($\sim$ 10 $h^{-1}$ kpc).
503: However, we must also rule out any potential luminosity-dependent
504: biases in our sample, which could in principle contribute.
505:
506: It is possible to break the degeneracy between density and clustering
507: effects by considering wider separation
508: pairs, since clustering strength diminishes with pair separation.
509: We therefore compute $N_c(M_r)$ as a function of pair separation out to
510: 100 $h^{-1}$ kpc (see Figure~\ref{figncsdss} and Table~\ref{tabsdssnc}).
511: As expected, $N_c(M_r)$ steepens towards the faint end as pair separation
512: increases.
513: This implies that $N_c(M_r)$ scales
514: with number density on large scales, but flattens out on small scales as
515: a result of the added effects of luminosity-dependent clustering.
516: We conclude that the roughly flat $N_c(M_r)$ that we observe for close
517: pairs is seen only on the small scales relevant for galaxy interactions and
518: mergers, and is unlikely to be due to any overall luminosity-dependent
519: bias within our sample.
520:
521: \section{Millennium Close Pair Statistics}\label{ncmill}
522:
523: Given the somewhat surprising trends seen in our SDSS pair statistics,
524: and to facilitate comparison with theoretical models of galaxy formation
525: and evolution, we now apply our techniques to a sample
526: drawn from the semi-analytic galaxy catalogs of \citet{croton06}, which
527: were created using the output of the Millennium Run simulation
528: \citep{springel05}.
529: These catalogs have been shown to reproduce
530: the overall properties of galaxies in the local universe, including
531: the luminosity function, the two point correlation function, and the pairwise
532: velocity dispersion \citep{croton06,li07}.
533: The simulations provide the additional benefit
534: of three dimensional positions and velocities, which we will use to
535: assess and remove projection effects. While the reader is referred to
536: \citet{croton06} and references therein for a detailed description of these
537: catalogs, we note that merging is treated by following dark matter subhalos
538: down to a mass limit of $1.7 \times 10^{10} h^{-1} \msun$, and then using
539: the dynamical friction formula of \citet{binney87} to estimate the
540: remaining time until a merger takes place.
541:
542: For this analysis, we use the \citet{croton06} $ugriz$ catalog, which is
543: complete for galaxies more luminous than $M_r = -16.6$.
544: The stated resolution is 5 $h^{-1}$kpc, which conveniently coincides
545: with our minimum pair separation criterion. We confirm, however, that
546: the two-point galaxy correlation function has the expected power law
547: form to below this level, so there should not be any unexpected effects
548: near the resolution limit.
549:
550:
551: \subsection{Mock Redshift Catalogs}\label{mock}
552:
553: The \citet{croton06} catalogs contains three dimensional positions and
554: velocities for approximately 9 million galaxies at redshift zero,
555: within a cube which is 500 $h^{-1}$~Mpc on a side.
556: In order to make a direct comparison between Millennium and SDSS,
557: it is necessary to transform this real-space catalog into a mock redshift
558: catalog. To this end, we begin by
559: placing the observer at the origin of the Millennium cube,
560: and then computing the corresponding right ascension, declination,
561: redshift, and apparent magnitude of each galaxy in the sample. In order to
562: match our observed SDSS sample, we then apply the same flux limits
563: ($14.5 < m_r < 17.5$). In addition, we impose a minimum redshift of
564: 0.022, to ensure that we sample only galaxies which are more luminous than
565: $M_r = -16.6$ (the completeness limit of the Croton catalog).
566: Finally, we impose a maximum redshift of 0.17, which ensures that we
567: do not probe distances greater than 500 $h^{-1}$~Mpc (the size of the
568: simulation cube).
569: The resulting catalog contains roughly 300,000
570: galaxies, or about one thirtieth of the full \citet{croton06} sample.
571:
572: There are two disadvantages to this simple approach. First, the vast majority
573: of the galaxies in the simulation are discarded as a result of the
574: imposed flux limits, despite the fact that they are sufficiently
575: luminous to be of interest. Secondly, in order to assess projection effects,
576: it would be useful to view galaxy associations from a variety of vantage
577: points.
578:
579: Fortunately, the periodic boundary conditions imposed on the
580: simulations provide a way forward. Following part of the
581: ``random tiling'' technique outlined by \citet{blaizot05},
582: we generate a suite of mock redshift catalogs.
583: Specifically, for each mock catalog, we begin by applying to the Millennium
584: cube a
585: translation in each of the three spatial directions,
586: with the size of each translation being a random fraction of the box size
587: (500 $h^{-1}$~Mpc). For any resulting coordinate value greater than
588: the box size, we subtract the box size, thereby ``wrapping around''
589: the cube. Finally, we rotate the cube around each of the three spatial
590: axes by a random (integer) multiple of $\pi/2$.
591: Using this approach, we create a suite of 30 mock redshift catalogs,
592: sampling a total of about 9 million galaxies (comparable to the number
593: of galaxies in the original data cube).
594:
595:
596: \subsection{Redshift-space Pair Statistics}\label{ncmrmill}
597:
598: We then proceed to compute
599: pair statistics on all of the mock redshift catalogs, selecting
600: host and companion galaxies in the same manner outlined
601: in Sections~\ref{methodology} and \ref{hostcomp}.
602: One key difference in
603: technique must be noted, however: given that the Millennium data
604: is a redshift zero realization, we compute co-moving rather than
605: physical projected separations in order to
606: recover the correct $z=0$ physical separations.
607:
608: Our results are presented in Figure~\ref{figncmill} and in the first two
609: columns of
610: Table~\ref{tabmill}. Overall, the trends
611: seen are broadly similar to those for SDSS shown in Figure~\ref{figncsdss}.
612: The distribution is again relatively flat for the smallest separation
613: pairs, and increases towards the faint end as pair separation increases.
614: This implies that the projected
615: two point correlation becomes steeper on small scales
616: as luminosity increases, which is consistent with the increase in
617: steepness with stellar mass found for
618: Millennium galaxies by \citet{kitzbichler08}.
619: For close pairs ($5 < r_p < 20~h^{-1}$ kpc),
620: $N_c(M_r)$ peaks at a value of about 0.02
621: at $M_r \sim -20.75$. Given that $M^*$ is approximately $-20.6$ in the
622: $r$ filter \citep{blanton03a},
623: this implies that $M^*$ galaxies are the most likely
624: to have close companions. For close pairs over the range $-22 < M_r < -18$,
625: the mean $N_c$ is $0.0183 \pm 0.0001$,
626: which is about 15\% smaller than we found for SDSS.
627: The most significant
628: difference between SDSS and Millennium is seen for the larger separation
629: pairs, in that the Millennium $N_c(M_r)$ is considerably steeper.
630: We discuss a possible explanation for this in Section~\ref{ncv}.
631: However, given that we are primarily interested in the smallest separation
632: pairs, the general agreement seen between SDSS and Millennium in this regime
633: justifies further comparison between these samples.
634:
635: \subsection{Projection Effects}\label{f3d}
636:
637: One of the most challenging aspects of close pair studies is the
638: contamination of pair samples due to projection effects.
639: For any observed galaxy pair, even when spectroscopic
640: redshifts are available for
641: both galaxies, one cannot be certain that the galaxies are close
642: enough to merge. In addition, without measurements of transverse velocities,
643: it is also possible that the relative velocities of the member galaxies
644: are too high for coalescence to occur. For pairs with
645: $5 < r_p < 20~h^{-1}$ kpc and $\Delta v < 500$ km s$^{-1}$,
646: \citet{ssrs2mr} estimated this contamination to be on the order of 50\%.
647: One must apply such a statistical correction for projection effects in order
648: to relate measured pair statistics to their real-space (three-dimensional)
649: equivalents.
650:
651: The three dimensional information available in the \citet{croton06}
652: catalogs enables us to instead measure the level of contamination directly.
653: For every pair of galaxies that we observe in our mock redshift catalogs,
654: we can measure the three dimensional physical separation, along with
655: the three dimensional relative velocity. If these quantities are
656: less than $20~h^{-1}$ kpc and 500 km s$^{-1}$ respectively, it is likely
657: that a merger is imminent \citep{ssrs2mr}.
658: In addition, every pair satisfying these
659: three dimensional criteria will also satisfy the redshift space
660: criteria (i.e., in terms of $r_p$ and $\Delta v$) when viewed from
661: {\it any} vantage point.
662:
663: For our Millennium mock catalogs, we measure the fraction of close
664: companions which satisfy the three dimensional criteria; following
665: \citet{ssrs2mr}, we refer to this fraction as $f_{3D}$.
666: Over the range $-22 < M_r < -18$, we find an overall $f_{3D}$ of
667: $47.4\% \pm 0.3\%$. This compares well with the rough estimate of
668: $f_{3D} \sim 50\%$ of \citet{ssrs2mr}, although
669: their estimate applies to different absolute
670: magnitude criteria ($-21 < M_B < -18$ for both hosts and companions).
671:
672: In addition to measuring the overall $f_{3D}$, it is also useful to
673: probe the dependence of this quantity on absolute magnitude. If
674: it varies significantly with $M_r$, this will have implications for
675: any merger rate estimates we wish to glean from our $N_c(M_r)$ measurements.
676: The results are given in Figure~\ref{figf3d}, and in the third column
677: of Table~\ref{tabmill}.
678: Interestingly, $f_{3D}$ is seen to vary by a factor of about three
679: over the range in $M_r$ probed, decreasing from $\sim 56\%$
680: at $M_r \lesssim M^*$ to about 17\% at $M_r \sim -18$.
681: This implies that most of the lowest luminosity close pairs in our Millennium
682: mock catalogs are not candidates for imminent mergers,
683: while at least half of the close
684: pairs with $M_r \lesssim M^*$ are likely to undergo imminent mergers.
685:
686: \section{Close Pair Statistics in Real Space}\label{realspace}
687:
688: \subsection{Millennium}\label{nctruemill}
689: In the preceding section, we reported our measurement of $f_{3D}(M_r)$ from
690: the Millennium simulation. Multiplying this function by the
691: redshift space close pair statistics reported in \S~\ref{ncmrmill}, we arrive
692: at {\it real space} pair statistics, in which projection effects
693: have been removed. In Figure~\ref{fignc20}, we present these results
694: for the Millennium simulation, along with the redshift-space results
695: given earlier. We also provide tabulated values in column 4 of
696: Table~\ref{tabmill}.
697: In real space, we find that $N_c(M_r)$ peaks at $M_r \sim M^*$,
698: at a value of $\sim$~0.011, rather than $\sim$~0.02 in redshift space.
699: Also, rather than being relatively flat (as it is in redshift space),
700: we now see a strong decline towards fainter luminosities, as
701: a result of the associated decline in $f_{3D}$. The real space
702: $N_c$ drops to about 0.002 at the faintest luminosities probed, which is
703: much lower than in redshift space. These results imply that
704: $L^*$ galaxies are much more likely to have close companions than
705: $0.1L^*$ galaxies. This striking difference is not apparent in
706: redshift space, due to the presence of projection effects.
707: We also see a hint that the real space $N_c$ declines at
708: the bright end ($M_r \sim -23$), though this is seen only in the
709: most luminous bin in the simulations.
710:
711: \subsection{SDSS}
712:
713: The strong contribution from projection effects seen in the
714: Millennium simulation has important implications for the SDSS redshift space
715: pair statistics presented in \S~\ref{ncmrsdss}. In particular, the
716: relatively flat $N_c(M_r)$ observed for SDSS close pairs almost certainly
717: does not hold true in real space. Without three dimensional positions
718: and velocities for SDSS galaxies, we are unable to directly remove
719: projection effects. However,
720: given the general agreement between
721: the SDSS and Millennium redshift space pair statistics (see \S~\ref{ncmrmill}),
722: it seems reasonable to apply our knowledge of Millennium projection effects
723: to our SDSS pair statistics. Multiplying the
724: SDSS redshift space $N_c(M_r)$
725: by the Millennium $f_{3D}(M_r)$
726: yields our
727: best estimate of SDSS close pair statistics in real space.
728: These results are given in Figure~\ref{fignc20}, as well as in
729: Table~\ref{tabsdss}. We find that the SDSS real space $N_c(M_r)$
730: is approximately 0.011 for $-22 < M_r < -20$, and then drops to
731: about 0.0055 for $-20 < M_r < -18$.
732: Given the larger error bars in our SDSS measurements,
733: we cannot state with any certainty where the real-space $N_c(M_r)$
734: peaks; however, our results are consistent with a peak at $M_r < -20$,
735: as seen in the Millennium simulations (\S~\ref{nctruemill}).
736:
737: \subsection{Comparison with Other Studies}\label{nccompare}
738:
739: Most observed samples of close pairs have been too small to permit anything
740: meaningful to be learned about the luminosity (or mass) dependence of
741: close pair statistics.
742: The most notable exception is
743: \citet{xu04}, who measure the pair fraction as a function of
744: $K_s$-band absolute magnitude for galaxies in the 2MASS survey.
745: While they generally probe higher luminosities ($-24.5 < M_K < -22.5$)
746: than we do, their two faintest bins (centered on $M_k = -22$) correspond
747: roughly to our brightest SDSS bin ($M_r = -21.5$); in this regime, they find
748: a pair fraction of about $0.011 \pm 0.005$, which is consistent
749: (within 1$\sigma$) of our $N_c \sim 0.019 \pm 0.002$ (Table~\ref{tabsdss}),
750: despite some differences between their pair criteria and ours.
751: However, \citet{xu04} find that the pair fraction increases towards
752: higher luminosities (albeit with large error bars), whereas we see
753: a hinted of a decrease with luminosity in this regime with Millennium.
754: On the other hand, our observed trend is consistent with the
755: semi-analytic results
756: of \citet{khochfar01}, who find that the $z=0$ merger fraction decreases
757: as mass increases, over a range in masses which corresponds to
758: $M_r \lesssim M^*$.
759:
760: We also compare our
761: results with those of \citet{berrier06}, who measure $N_c$
762: using a combination of N-body simulations and semi-analytic models.
763: They find that $N_c$ increases steadily as the cumulative co-moving
764: number density increases. This is equivalent to an increase in $N_c$
765: towards fainter limiting $M_r$,
766: over a range corresponding to $M_r \gtrsim M_r^*$
767: (using the SDSS LF measurements of \citet{blanton03a}). We instead see a
768: steady decrease in $N_c$ towards fainter $M_r$ over this range.
769: However, \citet{berrier06}
770: include all companions brighter than the given number density
771: (or equivalently, $M_r$). With this approach, the cumulative number of
772: close companions for a given galaxy can only go up as $M_r$
773: becomes fainter. It is therefore not surprising that their
774: measurements of $N_c$ rise towards fainter $M_r$. Given that
775: we require companions to be within a factor of two in luminosity
776: of their host galaxy, there is no reason to expect agreement between
777: our measurements of $N_c$ and those of \citet{berrier06}. We note, however,
778: that our definition of $N_c$ is likely to be a better tracer of
779: the {\it major} merger rate.
780:
781: \section{From Close Pair Statistics to the Merger Rate}\label{mrate}
782:
783: \subsection{The Number Density of Close Companions}\label{ncv}
784:
785: We have measured the number of companions per galaxy ($N_c$), which
786: tells us which galaxies are most likely to have close companions.
787: The real-space distributions seen in Figure~\ref{fignc20} indicate
788: that low luminosity galaxies are the least likely to have close
789: companions, and presumably the least likely to undergo
790: imminent mergers. However, low luminosity galaxies are much more
791: common than luminous galaxies, and therefore it is still possible
792: that most major mergers may occur between low luminosity galaxies.
793:
794: We investigate this question by measuring the number of close companions
795: per unit co-moving volume, hereafter $n_c$. In order to compute
796: this quantity, we multiply the number of close companions per
797: galaxy ($N_c(M_r)$ by the co-moving number density of galaxies ($n(M_r)$).
798: For SDSS, we estimate $n(M_r)$ using the LF measurements
799: of \citet{blanton03a}, converting from the $^{0.1}r$ filter to the $r$ filter
800: using their recommended $M_r = M_{0.1_r} - 0.16$. For Millennium,
801: we measure the galaxy number density directly from the \citet{croton06}
802: galaxy catalog. Like \citet{li07}, we find that the \citet{blanton03a}
803: LF matches the \citet{croton06} catalog quite well overall,
804: though the simulations overpredict the number of galaxies at fainter
805: luminosities (the excess is $\sim 50\%$ at $M_r = -18$). We note that
806: this excess helps to explain why $N_c(M_r)$ for wide separation
807: pairs is steeper for Millennium than for SDSS (see \S~\ref{ncmrmill}).
808:
809: The resulting measurements of $n_c(M_r)$
810: are given in Figure~\ref{fignc} and in Tables~\ref{tabsdss}
811: and \ref{tabmill}. Excellent agreement is seen between
812: SDSS and Millennium. When summed over the range $-22 < M_r < -18$,
813: the SDSS $n_c = (2.10 \pm 0.13) \times 10^{-4} h^3 {\rm Mpc}^{-3}$, which is
814: consistent (within one sigma) with the Millennium
815: $n_c = (1.98 \pm 0.02) \times 10^{-4} h^3 {\rm Mpc}^{-3}$.
816: In addition, the shapes of the distributions are very similar,
817: with $n_c \sim 6 \times 10^{-5} h^3 {\rm Mpc}^{-3} {\rm mag}^{-1}$
818: for $M_r > -21$, and a sharp drop in $n_c$ at higher luminosities.
819: For $M_r > -21$, it therefore appears that the decrease in the
820: real-space $N_c(M_r)$ towards fainter absolute magnitudes is balanced by
821: a corresponding increase in host galaxy number density. On the other hand,
822: the relative scarcity of luminous host galaxies leads to the rapid decline in
823: $n_c$ towards bright absolute magnitudes. From Figure~\ref{fignc},
824: we conclude that at least 90$\%$ of all
825: major mergers occur between galaxies which are fainter than $M_r = -21$.
826: We note that, while there are no other directly comparable measurements
827: in the literature, the shape of our observed $n_c(M_r)$ is qualitatively
828: similar to the shape of the merging galaxy mass functions of
829: \citet{bundy05} and \citet{hopkins06}.
830:
831: \subsection{The Galaxy Merger Rate}
832:
833: We have reported estimates of the number of companions per galaxy ($N_c$)
834: and per unit volume ($n_c$). With additional assumptions, both
835: can be converted to merger rates. Following the formalism
836: of \citet{ssrs2mr}, we will refer to these as the galaxy merger rate
837: (hereafter $\rmg$) and the volume merger rate ($\rmgv$) respectively.
838: Assuming that two real-space close companions (ie., one galaxy pair)
839: lead to one merger,
840: and that the average timescale for such mergers is $T_{\rm mg}$,
841: it follows that
842: $\rmg = 0.5N_c/T_{\rm mg}$ and $\rmgv = 0.5n_c/T_{\rm mg}$,
843: where both $N_c$ and $n_c$
844: refer to real-space measurements (Figures~\ref{fignc20} and \ref{fignc}).
845:
846: To proceed further requires an estimate of $T_{\rm mg}$.
847: We begin by taking the simplest approach, which is to assume that
848: $T_{\rm mg}$ is equal to the dynamical friction timescale of
849: a typical pair in the sample (after projection effects have been removed).
850: We adopt the estimate of 0.5 Gyr given by \citet{ssrs2mr}, since
851: our pairs are chosen with similar criteria. This timescale estimate is
852: comparable to or somewhat larger than several more recent
853: estimates given in the literature \citep{vandokkum05,bell06a,depropris07}.
854: While the merger timescale may depend on mass (and hence
855: absolute magnitude), N-body simulations appear to indicate that
856: mass ratio is the most significant factor \citep{jiang08}, and this
857: should be independent of $M_r$ for the pair criteria we employ.
858:
859: The resulting merger rates are plotted using the right hand
860: axes in Figures~\ref{fignc20} and \ref{fignc}. The galaxy merger
861: rate is found to peak at about 0.01 mergers per galaxy per Gyr,
862: while the volume merger rate plateaus at about
863: $6 \times 10^{-5} h^3 {\rm Mpc}^{-3} {\rm Gyr}^{-1} {\rm mag}^{-1}$.
864: As the conversion
865: from pair statistics ($N_c$ and $n_c$) to merger rates ($\rmg$ and $\rmgv$)
866: is independent
867: of $M_r$, the trends with $M_r$ described in Sections~\ref{realspace} and
868: \ref{ncv} apply here as well. We again conclude that while galaxies
869: brighter than $L^*$ have the highest likelihood of being involved in
870: major mergers, most major mergers take place between
871: galaxies fainter than $L^*$.
872:
873: How do these merger rate estimates compare with others in the literature?
874: \citet{depropris07} estimated the merger rate using two methods:
875: close galaxy pairs
876: (where both galaxies were required to have $-21 < M_B < -18$)
877: and high asymmetries
878: (as an indicator of ongoing mergers). They found a merger fraction
879: close to $2\%$ for both methods, which corresponds to
880: $\rmg \sim 0.02~{\rm Gyr}^{-1}$ using our $T_{\rm mg} = 0.5$ Gyr.
881: This is approximately twice as high as our result.
882: \citet{depropris07} also
883: report a volume merger rate of
884: $(5.2 \pm 1.0) \times 10^{-4} h^3 {\rm Mpc}^{-3} {\rm Gyr}^{-1}$,
885: whereas we find
886: $\rmgv = (1.4 \pm 0.1) \times 10^{-4} h^3 {\rm Mpc}^{-3} {\rm Gyr}^{-1}$ when
887: summing over a comparable range in absolute magnitude ($-22 < M_r < -19$).
888: After recomputing their result with our $T_{\rm mg} = 0.5$ Gyr (instead of
889: their 0.3 Gyr), we again find that their merger rate is roughly double ours.
890: The most likely explanation for this difference is that both the pairs
891: and asymmetry methods of \citet{depropris07} include both major and
892: minor mergers, whereas our measurements apply to major merger candidates
893: only.
894:
895: \citet{maller06} measure the galaxy merger rate as a function of mass,
896: mass ratio, and redshift, using a smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH)
897: cosmological simulation. For mergers above a 1:2 mass ratio (comparable to
898: our 1:2 luminosity ratio), they find the galaxy merger rate at $z=0.3$
899: to be $\rmg = 0.054$ Gyr$^{-1}$ for high mass galaxies. This range
900: in mass corresponds approximately to $-18.8 < M_r < -17.7$ (derived from
901: Table 1 of Maller et al. (2006)\nocite{maller06}).
902: While they do not report precise values of $\rmg$ at lower redshifts,
903: they do find that $\rmg$ declines quickly towards $z=0$, yielding
904: $\rmg \lesssim 0.02$ Gyr$^{-1}$ at $z < 0.1$.
905: This value is consistent with the
906: $\rmg \sim 0.005$ Gyr$^{-1}$ we find at $z \sim 0.03$ over this
907: range in $M_r$, particularly given that no error bars on the \citet{maller06}
908: estimate are available.
909: Interestingly, they find that the merger rate is lower
910: for lower mass galaxies, in agreement with the trends we find
911: in Figure~\ref{fignc20} (particularly for Millennium).
912: \citet{maller06} also measure a volume merger rate of about
913: $1 \times 10^{-4} h^3 {\rm Mpc}^{-3} {\rm Gyr}^{-1}$ (with large error bars)
914: for high mass galaxies at $z=0.1$; this is consistent with the
915: $\rmgv \sim 6 \times 10^{-5} h^3 {\rm Mpc}^{-3} {\rm Gyr}^{-1}$
916: we find in Figure~\ref{fignc}. In general, \citet{maller06} find that
917: $\rmgv$ declines towards lower masses (though this effect is significant
918: only at $z \gtrsim 0.4$), implying that one might expect to see $\rmgv$
919: decline at fainter absolute magnitudes than probed by our SDSS and
920: Millennium catalogs.
921:
922: \citet{masjedi06} measured the volume merger rate for pairs of luminous
923: red galaxies (LRG's) in the SDSS, and found
924: $\rmgv \lesssim 0.6 \times 10^{4} {\rm Gyr}^{-1} {\rm Gpc}^{-3}$.
925: Both members of their LRG's pairs
926: were required to have absolute magnitudes of $-23.2 < M_g < -21.2$,
927: which is different in nature
928: from our major merger requirement of $|\Delta M_r| < 0.753$.
929: While our SDSS pairs are less luminous than the \citet{masjedi06} LRG's,
930: our Millennium volume merger rate estimates in Figure~\ref{fignc}
931: yield a similar result
932: ($\rmgv \lesssim 1 \times 10^{4}~{\rm Gyr}^{-1} h^3 {\rm Mpc}^{-3}$)
933: in the LRG luminosity range.
934: Finally, we note that while \citet{masjedi08} probe the luminosity dependence
935: of close companions of LRG's in the SDSS, their (LRG) host
936: galaxies are more luminous than the host galaxies we probe here, and
937: most of their close companions are not luminous enough to qualify as
938: major merger candidates; therefore, there is essentially no overlap between our
939: studies. However, their Figure 3 is consistent with a major merger rate of
940: $\rmg \sim 0.001 {\rm Gyr}^{-1}$ for typical LRG's,
941: which is in qualitative agreement with
942: the hinted drop of $N_c(M_r)$ towards high luminosities which we describe
943: in \S~\ref{nccompare}.
944:
945: We caution the reader that our estimates of the merger rate
946: depend on two quantities: the close pair statistics we have {\em measured}
947: ($N_c$ or $n_c$), and the merger timescale ($T_{\rm mg}$) that we have
948: estimated. The latter is considerably less certain, and different choices
949: of the merger timescale and its dependence on mass (or luminosity) may
950: significantly change our estimated merger rates.
951: The most useful
952: check on our results comes from \citet{kitzbichler08}, who use the Millennium
953: simulation to devise fitting formulas for estimating the merger timescale for
954: pairs within a given projected physical separation (hereafter $T_{\rm merge}$).
955: While none of
956: their fitting formulas are directly applicable to our sample, the closest
957: match comes from using their equation 9 with $r_p < 30~h^{-1}$ kpc,
958: $v_p < 300$ km s$^{-1}$, and $z=0$.
959: We approximate the limiting stellar mass as the
960: median \citet{croton06} stellar mass of galaxies corresponding to the
961: faintest allowable companions for a given host galaxy. We note also that
962: the \citet{kitzbichler08} fitting formulas apply to pairs in which
963: galaxy stellar masses differ by at most a factor of 4, whereas our sample
964: consists of pairs in which galaxy luminosities differ by a most a factor of 2.
965:
966: These choices yield $T_{\rm merge}$ estimates which increase monotonically
967: from about 1 Gyr at $M_r \sim -23$ to 4.1 Gyr at $M_r \sim -17.5$ (the range
968: covered by our Millennium sample). At face value, these results may
969: appear to be
970: at odds with the fixed merging timescale of 0.5 Gyr that we adopted earlier
971: in this section.
972: However, there is an important difference: the \citet{kitzbichler08}
973: timescale is relevant for {\it projected} pairs, while our timescale is
974: for real space pairs. To make a direct comparison, our timescale of 0.5 Gyr
975: needs to be divided by $f_{\rm 3D}(M_r)$; this leads to values of $T_{\rm merge}$
976: ranging from 0.8 Gyr to 3.2 Gyr over the same range in $M_r$,
977: which compare quite favorably with the
978: preceding calculations.
979: Therefore, despite significant mismatches between
980: our sample and the \citet{kitzbichler08} fitting formula criteria,
981: both approaches lead to a similar luminosity dependence
982: of the merging
983: timescales for projected pairs, and the overall timescales are
984: comparable. Moreover, our estimates of $f_{\rm 3D}(M_r)$
985: (see Figure~\ref{figf3d}) provide additional insight into the
986: nature of the increase in $T_{\rm merge}$ with decreasing luminosity;
987: namely, that this trend may be a consequence of most lower luminosity pairs
988: having separations which are too large for merging to take place,
989: rather than such systems simply undergoing a slower merging process.
990: Nevertheless, it is clear that more work is needed in order to
991: more accurately model the merging timescales of observed pair samples.
992:
993: \subsection{The Remnant Fraction}
994:
995: Given the above measurements of the merger rate, it is in principle
996: possible to assess the merging history of low redshift galaxies.
997: Following \citet{ssrs2mr}, we estimate the
998: fraction of galaxies which have undergone major mergers since $z = 1$.
999: This quantity, which is referred to as the remnant
1000: fraction ($f_{\rm rem}$), is given by
1001: \begin{equation} \label{eqnfrem}
1002: f_{\rm rem}(M_r) = 1 - \prod_{j=1}^N{1- N_c(M_r,z_j) \over 1 - 0.5 N_c(M_r,z_j)},
1003: \end{equation}
1004: where $N_c(M_r)$ is measured in real space (e.g., \S~\ref{realspace}),
1005: $z_j$ corresponds to a lookback time of $jT_{\rm mg}$, and $N$ refers to
1006: the number of merger timescales over the range $0 < z < 1$
1007: ($N=15$ for our chosen cosmology).
1008: In principle, one needs to measure $N_c(M_r)$ at $0 < z < 1$ in order
1009: to accurately compute $f_{\rm rem}(M_r)$.
1010: As we have only our low redshift ($z < 0.1$) measurements of $N_c(M_r)$ to
1011: work with, we make the simplifying assumption that $N_c(M_r)$ does
1012: not evolve with redshift. If instead $N_c(M_r)$ rises with redshift,
1013: as indicated by numerous studies (see \S~\ref{intro}),
1014: the resulting remnant fractions will be higher \citep{cnoc2mr}.
1015: And of course, if the shape of $N_c(M_r)$ evolves strongly,
1016: the shape of our estimated $f_{\rm rem}(M_r)$ will also be in error.
1017:
1018: Nevertheless, we present our no-evolution
1019: estimate of the luminosity dependent remnant
1020: fraction in Figure~\ref{figfrem} and in Tables~\ref{tabsdss} and \ref{tabmill}.
1021: The SDSS remnant fraction
1022: peaks at 9\% for $M_r = -20.5$ (roughly $M^*$), and decreases to
1023: 4\% over the range $-20 < M_r < -18$. Similar trends are seen for
1024: Millennium, although the Millennium
1025: remnant fraction drops to $\sim 2\%$ at $M_r = -18$.
1026:
1027: \subsection{The Luminosity Density of Close Companions}\label{lcv}
1028:
1029: We demonstrated in Section~\ref{ncv} that our observed $n_c(M_r)$ implies that
1030: most major mergers occur between galaxies which are fainter than $L^*$.
1031: Of course, a major merger between two intrinsically faint galaxies
1032: affects much less stellar mass than a major merger of two luminous galaxies.
1033: Therefore, in terms of the overall luminosity density of stellar mass that
1034: is participating in mergers,
1035: the number density of close companions does not tell the full story.
1036: To address this question, we instead measure the luminosity
1037: of close companions
1038: per unit co-moving volume (hereafter $l_c(M_r)$), using luminosity
1039: as a proxy for stellar mass.
1040: We compute $l_c(M_r)$ as follows:
1041: \begin{equation}
1042: l_c(M_r) = L_c(M_r) f_{\rm 3d}(M_r) n(M_r),
1043: \end{equation}
1044: where $L_c(M_r)$ is the
1045: luminosity in close companions per galaxy \citep{ssrs2mr} as measured in
1046: redshift space, $f_{3d}(M_r)$ is as described in \S~\ref{f3d},
1047: and $n(M_r)$ is the co-moving number density of galaxies (see \S~\ref{ncv}).
1048: When calculating luminosities, we use $M_r(\odot) = 4.64$ \citep{yasuda01}.
1049:
1050: The resulting measurements for both SDSS and Millennium are given in
1051: Figure~\ref{figlc} and in Tables~\ref{tabsdss} and \ref{tabmill}.
1052: Excellent agreement is again seen between SDSS and Millennium.
1053: Both surveys exhibit a clear peak in $l_c(M_r)$ at (or very close to)
1054: $M^*$, with a peak value of
1055: $l_c \sim 8 \times 10^5 \lsun h^5 {\rm Mpc}^{-3} {\rm mag}^{-1}$.
1056: The sharp decline towards the bright end is due to the lower
1057: number density of luminous host galaxies, while the decline towards the
1058: faint end is driven by the lower numbers and luminosities of companion galaxies.
1059: This distribution clearly implies that galaxies which have luminosities
1060: close to $L^*$ are the most relevant in terms of the overall involvement
1061: of stellar mass in major mergers.
1062:
1063: \section{Conclusions}\label{conclusions}
1064:
1065: We have measured the number of close companions per galaxy ($N_c$)
1066: as a function of absolute magnitude for both the SDSS and
1067: the Millennium simulation. For SDSS, we construct
1068: samples of host and companion galaxies, and correct for
1069: spectroscopic incompleteness. For Millennium, we create a suite of
1070: mock redshift catalogs, averaging over different views of the
1071: \citet{croton06} cube.
1072: Using close pair criteria designed to identify imminent major
1073: mergers ($5 < r_p < 20~h^{-1}$ kpc, $\Delta v < 500$ km s$^{-1}$, and
1074: $|\Delta M_r| < 0.753$),
1075: we find general agreement between the observations and simulations.
1076: In redshift space, $N_c \sim 0.02$ over the range $-22 < M_r < -18$.
1077: The flatness of this distribution indicates that $N_c(M_r)$ does not
1078: simply trace the number density of galaxies; instead, small scale
1079: luminosity-dependent clustering appears to counteract this effect.
1080:
1081: Using three dimensional positions and velocities available from
1082: the Millennium simulations, we measure the degree to which the
1083: detected galaxy pairs are contaminated by projection effects, and find that
1084: the contamination is a strong function of absolute magnitude,
1085: rising from $45\%$ at $M_r \lesssim M^*$ to $\sim 83\%$ at $M_r = -18$.
1086: We remove this contamination from both Millennium and SDSS pair statistics,
1087: yielding $N_c(M_r)$ measurements in real space. These measurements
1088: indicate that
1089: galaxies with $M_r \lesssim M^*$ are the most likely to be undergoing
1090: major mergers at low redshift.
1091: However, by computing
1092: the number density of close companions ($n_c(M_r)$) in real space,
1093: we conclude that
1094: at least 90$\%$ of all major mergers occur between galaxies which
1095: are {\it fainter} than $M^*$.
1096: With additional assumptions, we also
1097: estimate the galaxy and volume merger rates, which trace the real-space
1098: $N_c(M_r)$ and $n_c(M_r)$ respectively. We estimate that
1099: at least 8$\%$ of $L^*$ galaxies are likely to have undergone
1100: a major merger since $z=1$, while this remnant fraction appears to
1101: be $\sim 4$ times smaller for 0.1 $L^*$ galaxies. Finally, our
1102: measurements of the luminosity density of close companions indicate
1103: a clear peak at $M^*$, implying that $L^*$ galaxies
1104: dominate in terms of the overall amount of stellar mass involved
1105: in major mergers at low redshift.
1106:
1107: Together, these results indicate that the low redshift merger rate depends
1108: strongly on luminosity (and presumably mass).
1109: This has a number of important implications.
1110: For example, one would not expect the merger rates of massive galaxies
1111: (e.g., Masjedi et al. (2006)\nocite{masjedi06}) to agree with those
1112: of $L^*$ galaxies (e.g., De Propris et al. 2007\nocite{depropris07}).
1113: Also, the increase in projection effects for fainter galaxies indicates
1114: that samples of luminous galaxy pairs are more likely to provide
1115: bona fide merger candidates than samples of lower luminosity pairs.
1116: This is relevant if one wishes to assess the impact of merging on the
1117: constituent galaxies (e.g., enhanced star formation or disturbed
1118: morphologies).
1119: We also conclude that at low redshift, recent merging history is
1120: likely to be most important for galaxies which are relatively luminous.
1121: Finally, given the clear peak in $l_c(M_r)$, it appears that
1122: galaxies which are much more or much less luminous than $L^*$ are unlikely
1123: to play an important role in the overall evolution of galaxies
1124: via major mergers.
1125:
1126: \acknowledgments
1127:
1128: We thank the anonymous referee for a thoughtful and constructive report,
1129: which led to significant enhancements of this paper.
1130: We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Natural Sciences
1131: and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada,
1132: through a Discovery Grant to D. R. P. and
1133: a USRA to J. E. A.
1134:
1135: % SDSS credit from sdss.org (Dec. 2006)
1136: 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/.
1137:
1138: 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.
1139:
1140: % Millennium credit from given website (Dec. 2006)
1141: The Millennium Run simulation used in this paper was carried out by the Virgo Supercomputing Consortium at the Computing Centre of the Max-Planck Society in Garching. The semi-analytic galaxy catalogue is publicly available at
1142: http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de\\/galform/agnpaper.
1143:
1144: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1145: \bibitem[Abazajian et al.(2003)]{abazajian03} Abazajian, K., et
1146: al.\ 2003, \aj, 126, 2081
1147: \bibitem[Adelman-McCarthy et al.(2007)]{DR5}
1148: Adelman-McCarthy, J.~K., et al.\ 2007, \apjs, 172, 634
1149: \bibitem[Allam et al.(2004)]{allam04} Allam, S.~S., Tucker,
1150: D.~L., Smith, J.~A., Lee, B.~C., Annis, J., Lin, H., Karachentsev, I.~D.,
1151: \& Laubscher, B.~E.\ 2004, \aj, 127, 1883
1152: \bibitem[Alonso et al.(2004)]{2dfpairsb}
1153: Alonso, M.~S., Tissera, P.~B., Coldwell, G., \& Lambas, D.~G.\ 2004,
1154: \mnras, 352, 1081
1155: \bibitem[Barton et al.(2007)]{barton07} Barton, E.~J., Arnold,
1156: J.~A., Zentner, A.~R., Bullock, J.~S.,
1157: \& Wechsler, R.~H.\ 2007, \apj, 671, 1538
1158: \bibitem[Bell et al.(2006a)]{bell06a} Bell, E.~F., Phleps, S.,
1159: Somerville, R.~S., Wolf, C., Borch, A., \& Meisenheimer, K.\ 2006a, \apj,
1160: 652, 270
1161: \bibitem[Bell et al.(2006b)]{bell06b} Bell, E.~F., et al.\ 2006b,
1162: \apj, 640, 241
1163: \bibitem[Berrier et al.(2006)]{berrier06} Berrier, J.~C.,
1164: Bullock, J.~S., Barton, E.~J., Guenther, H.~D., Zentner, A.~R., \&
1165: Wechsler, R.~H.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 56
1166: \bibitem[Binney and Tremaine(1987)]{binney87} Binney, J., and Tremaine, S. 1987,
1167: in Galactic Dynamics (Princeton: Princeton University Press)
1168: \bibitem[Blaizot et al.(2005)]{blaizot05} Blaizot, J., Wadadekar,
1169: Y., Guiderdoni, B., Colombi, S.~T., Bertin, E., Bouchet, F.~R., Devriendt,
1170: J.~E.~G., \& Hatton, S.\ 2005, \mnras, 360, 159
1171: \bibitem[Blanton et al.(2003a)]{blanton03a} Blanton, M.~R., et al.\
1172: 2003a, \apj, 592, 819
1173: \bibitem[Blanton et al.(2003b)]{blanton03b} Blanton, M.~R., Lin,
1174: H., Lupton, R.~H., Maley, F.~M., Young, N., Zehavi, I., \& Loveday, J.\
1175: 2003b, \aj, 125, 2276
1176: \bibitem[Blanton \& Roweis(2007)]{blanton07} Blanton, M.~R., \&
1177: Roweis, S.\ 2007, \aj, 133, 734
1178: \bibitem[Brough et al.(2006)]{brough06} Brough, S., Forbes,
1179: D.~A., Kilborn, V.~A., \& Couch, W.\ 2006, \mnras, 370, 1223
1180: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2007)]{brown07} Brown, M.~J.~I., Dey, A.,
1181: Jannuzi, B.~T., Brand, K., Benson, A.~J., Brodwin, M., Croton, D.~J., \&
1182: Eisenhardt, P.~R.\ 2007, \apj, 654, 858
1183: \bibitem[Bundy et al.(2004)]{bundy04} Bundy, K., Fukugita, M.,
1184: Ellis, R.~S., Kodama, T., \& Conselice, C.~J.\ 2004, \apjl, 601, L123
1185: \bibitem[Bundy et al.(2005)]{bundy05} Bundy, K., Ellis, R.~S.,
1186: \& Conselice, C.~J.\ 2005, \apj, 625, 621
1187: \bibitem[Bundy et al.(2007)]{bundy07} Bundy, K., Treu, T., \&
1188: Ellis, R.~S.\ 2007, \apjl, 665, L5
1189: \bibitem[Carlberg et al.(2000)]{carlberg00} Carlberg, R.~G., et
1190: al.\ 2000, \apjl, 532, L1
1191: \bibitem[Conselice et al.(2003)]{conselice03} Conselice, C.~J.,
1192: Bershady, M.~A., Dickinson, M., \& Papovich, C.\ 2003, \aj, 126, 1183
1193: \bibitem[Conselice et al.(2008)]{conselice08} Conselice, C.~J.,
1194: Rajgor, S., \& Myers, R.\ 2008, \mnras, 386, 909
1195: \bibitem[Cox et al.(2006)]{cox06} Cox, T.~J., Jonsson, P.,
1196: Primack, J.~R., \& Somerville, R.~S.\ 2006, \mnras, 373, 1013
1197: \bibitem[Cox et al.(2008)]{cox08} Cox, T.~J., Jonsson, P.,
1198: Somerville, R.~S., Primack, J.~R., \& Dekel, A.\ 2008, \mnras, 384, 386
1199: \bibitem[Coziol \& Plauchu-Frayn(2007)]{coziol07} Coziol, R., \&
1200: Plauchu-Frayn, I.\ 2007, \aj, 133, 2630
1201: \bibitem[Croton et al.(2006)]{croton06} Croton, D.~J., et al.\
1202: 2006, \mnras, 365, 11
1203: \bibitem[Dasyra et al.(2006a)]{dasyra06a} Dasyra, K.~M., et al.\
1204: 2006a, \apj, 638, 745
1205: \bibitem[Dasyra et al.(2006b)]{dasyra06b} Dasyra, K.~M., et al.\
1206: 2006b, \apj, 651, 835
1207: \bibitem[De Propris et al.(2005)]{depropris05} De Propris, R.,
1208: Liske, J., Driver, S.~P., Allen, P.~D., \& Cross, N.~J.~G.\ 2005, \aj, 130,
1209: 1516
1210: \bibitem[De Propris et al.(2007)]{depropris07} De Propris, R.,
1211: Conselice, C.~J., Liske, J., Driver, S.~P., Patton, D.~R., Graham, A.~W.,
1212: \& Allen, P.~D.\ 2007, \apj, 666, 212
1213: \bibitem[Eisenstein et al.(2001)]{eisenstein01} Eisenstein, D.~J.,
1214: et al.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 2267
1215: \bibitem[Ellison et al.(2008)]{ellison08} Ellison, S.~L., Patton,
1216: D.~R., Simard, L., \& McConnachie, A.~W.\ 2008, \aj, 135, 1877
1217: \bibitem[Geller et al.(2006)]{geller06} Geller, M.~J., Kenyon,
1218: S.~J., Barton, E.~J., Jarrett, T.~H., \& Kewley, L.~J.\ 2006, \aj, 132,
1219: 2243
1220: \bibitem[Goto(2005)]{goto05} Goto, T.\ 2005, \mnras, 357, 937
1221: \bibitem[Guo \& White(2008)]{guo08} Guo, Q., \& White, S.~D.~M.\ 2008,
1222: \mnras, 384, 2
1223: \bibitem[Hern{\'a}ndez-Toledo et al.(2005)]{hernandez05}
1224: Hern{\'a}ndez-Toledo, H.~M., Avila-Reese, V., Conselice, C.~J., \& Puerari,
1225: I.\ 2005, \aj, 129, 682
1226: \bibitem[Hopkins et al.(2006)]{hopkins06} Hopkins, P.~F.,
1227: Somerville, R.~S., Hernquist, L., Cox, T.~J., Robertson, B., \& Li, Y.\
1228: 2006, \apj, 652, 864
1229: \bibitem[Hsieh et al.(2008)]{hsieh08} Hsieh, B.~C., Yee,
1230: H.~K.~C., Lin, H., Gladders, M.~D.,
1231: \& Gilbank, D.~G.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 804, arXiv:0804.1604
1232: \bibitem[Jiang et al.(2008)]{jiang08} Jiang, C.~Y., Jing,
1233: Y.~P., Faltenbacher, A., Lin, W.~P., \& Li, C.\ 2008, \apj, 675, 1095
1234: \bibitem[Kampczyk et al.(2007)]{kampczyk07} Kampczyk, P., et al.\
1235: 2007, \apjs, 172, 329
1236: \bibitem[Kartaltepe et al.(2007)]{kartaltepe07} Kartaltepe, J.~S.,
1237: et al.\ 2007, \apjs, 172, 320
1238: \bibitem[Kewley et al.(2006)]{kewley06} Kewley, L.~J., Geller,
1239: M.~J., \& Barton, E.~J.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 2004
1240: \bibitem[Khochfar \& Burkert(2001)]{khochfar01} Khochfar, S., \&
1241: Burkert, A.\ 2001, \apj, 561, 517
1242: \bibitem[Kitzbichler \& White(2008)]{kitzbichler08} Kitzbichler, M.~G.,
1243: \& White, S.~D.~M.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 804, arXiv:0804.1965
1244: \bibitem[Lambas et al.(2003)]{2dfpairs}
1245: Lambas, D.~G., Tissera, P.~B., Alonso, M.~S., \& Coldwell, G.\ 2003,
1246: \mnras, 346, 1189
1247: \bibitem[Le F{\`e}vre et al.(2000)]{lefevre00} Le F{\`e}vre, O.,
1248: et al.\ 2000, \mnras, 311, 565
1249: \bibitem[Li et al.(2006)]{li06} Li, C., Kauffmann, G., Jing,
1250: Y.~P., White, S.~D.~M., B{\"o}rner, G., \& Cheng, F.~Z.\ 2006, \mnras, 368,
1251: 21
1252: \bibitem[Li et al.(2007)]{li07} Li, C., Jing, Y.~P.,
1253: Kauffmann, G., B{\"o}rner, G., Kang, X., \& Wang, L.\ 2007, \mnras, 376,
1254: 984
1255: \bibitem[Li et al.(2008)]{li08} Li, C., Kauffmann, G.,
1256: Heckman, T.~M., Jing, Y.~P., \& White, S.~D.~M.\ 2008, \mnras, 385, 1903
1257: \bibitem[Lin et al.(1999)]{cnoc2lf} Lin, H., Yee, H.~K.~C.,
1258: Carlberg, R.~G., Morris, S.~L., Sawicki, M., Patton, D.~R., Wirth, G., \&
1259: Shepherd, C.~W.\ 1999, \apj, 518, 533
1260: \bibitem[Lin et al.(2004)]{lin04} Lin, L., et al.\ 2004,
1261: \apjl, 617, L9
1262: \bibitem[Lin et al.(2008)]{lin08} Lin, L., et al.\ 2008,
1263: ArXiv e-prints, 802, arXiv:0802.3004
1264: \bibitem[Lotz et al.(2008)]{lotz08} Lotz, J.~M., et al.\ 2008,
1265: \apj, 672, 177
1266: \bibitem[Maller et al.(2006)]{maller06} Maller, A.~H., Katz, N.,
1267: Kere{\v s}, D., Dav{\'e}, R., \& Weinberg, D.~H.\ 2006, \apj, 647, 763
1268: \bibitem[Masjedi et al.(2006)]{masjedi06} Masjedi, M., et al.\
1269: 2006, \apj, 644, 54
1270: \bibitem[Masjedi et al.(2008)]{masjedi08} Masjedi, M., Hogg,
1271: D.~W., \& Blanton, M.~R.\ 2008, \apj, 679, 260
1272: \bibitem[Miles et al.(2006)]{miles06} Miles, T.~A.,
1273: Raychaudhury, S., \& Russell, P.~A.\ 2006, \mnras, 373, 1461
1274: \bibitem[Moss(2006)]{moss06} Moss, C.\ 2006, \mnras, 373, 167
1275: \bibitem[Naab et al.(2006)]{naab06} Naab, T., Khochfar, S., \&
1276: Burkert, A.\ 2006, \apjl, 636, L81
1277: \bibitem[Nikolic et al.(2004)]{nikolic04} Nikolic, B., Cullen,
1278: H., \& Alexander, P.\ 2004, \mnras, 355, 874
1279: \bibitem[Nolan et al.(2007)]{nolan07} Nolan, L.~A.,
1280: Raychaudhury, S., \& Kab{\'a}n, A.\ 2007, \mnras, 375, 381
1281: \bibitem[Norberg et al.(2001)]{norberg01} Norberg, P., et al.\
1282: 2001, \mnras, 328, 64
1283: \bibitem[Norberg et al.(2002)]{norberg02} Norberg, P., et al.\
1284: 2002, \mnras, 332, 827
1285: \bibitem[Owers et al.(2007)]{owers07} Owers, M.~S., Blake, C.,
1286: Couch, W.~J., Pracy, M.~B., \& Bekki, K.\ 2007, \mnras, 833
1287: \bibitem[Patton et al.(2000)]{ssrs2mr} Patton, D. R., Carlberg, R. G.,
1288: Marzke, R. O., Pritchet, C. J.,
1289: da Costa, L. N. \& Pellegrini, P. S. 2000, \apj, 536, 153
1290: \bibitem[Patton et al.(2002)]{cnoc2mr} Patton, D.~R., et al.\
1291: 2002, \apj, 565, 208
1292: \bibitem[Patton et al.(2005)]{patton05} Patton, D.~R., Grant,
1293: J.~K., Simard, L., Pritchet, C.~J., Carlberg, R.~G., \& Borne, K.~D.\ 2005,
1294: \aj, 130, 2043
1295: \bibitem[Rawat et al.(2008)]{rawat08} Rawat, A., Hammer, F.,
1296: Kembhavi, A.~K., \& Flores, H.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 804, arXiv:0804.0078
1297: \bibitem[Robotham et al.(2006)]{robotham06} Robotham, A., Wallace,
1298: C., Phillipps, S., \& De Propris, R.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 1077 \bibitem[Ryan et al.(2008)]{ryan08} Ryan, R.~E., Jr., Cohen,
1299: S.~H., Windhorst, R.~A., \& Silk, J.\ 2008, \apj, 678, 751
1300: \bibitem[Scarlata et al.(2007)]{scarlata07} Scarlata, C., et al.\
1301: 2007, \apjs, 172, 494
1302: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2007)]{smith07} Smith, B.~J., Struck, C.,
1303: Hancock, M., Appleton, P.~N., Charmandaris, V., \& Reach, W.~T.\ 2007, \aj,
1304: 133, 791
1305: \bibitem[Sol Alonso et al.(2006)]{alonso06} Sol Alonso, M.,
1306: Lambas, D.~G., Tissera, P., \& Coldwell, G.\ 2006, \mnras, 367, 1029
1307: \bibitem[Springel et al.(2005)]{springel05} Springel, V., et al.\
1308: 2005, \nat, 435, 629
1309: \bibitem[Strauss et al.(2002)]{strauss02} Strauss, M.~A., et al.\
1310: 2002, \aj, 124, 1810
1311: \bibitem[Tegmark et al.(2004)]{tegmark04} Tegmark, M., et al.\
1312: 2004, \apj, 606, 702
1313: \bibitem[Tran et al.(2005)]{tran05} Tran, K.-V.~H., van
1314: Dokkum, P., Franx, M., Illingworth, G.~D., Kelson, D.~D., \& Schreiber,
1315: N.~M.~F.\ 2005, \apjl, 627, L25
1316: \bibitem[van Dokkum et al.(1999)]{vandokkum99} van Dokkum, P.~G.,
1317: Franx, M., Fabricant, D., Kelson, D.~D., \& Illingworth, G.~D.\ 1999,
1318: \apjl, 520, L95
1319: \bibitem[van Dokkum(2005)]{vandokkum05} van Dokkum, P.~G.\ 2005,
1320: \aj, 130, 2647
1321: \bibitem[Wang et al.(2006)]{wang06} Wang, J.~L., Xia, X.~Y.,
1322: Mao, S., Cao, C., Wu, H., \& Deng, Z.~G.\ 2006, \apj, 649, 722
1323: \bibitem[Woods et al.(2006)]{woods06} Woods, D.~F., Geller,
1324: M.~J., \& Barton, E.~J.\ 2006, \aj, 132, 197
1325: \bibitem[Woods \& Geller(2007)]{woods07} Woods, D.~F., \&
1326: Geller, M.~J.\ 2007, \aj, 134, 527
1327: \bibitem[Xu et al.(2004)]{xu04} Xu, C.~K., Sun, Y.~C., \&
1328: He, X.~T.\ 2004, \apjl, 603, L73
1329: \bibitem[Yasuda et al.(2001)]{yasuda01} Yasuda, N., et al.\
1330: 2001, \aj, 122, 1104
1331: \bibitem[York et al.(2000)]{york00} York, D.~G., et al.\ 2000,
1332: \aj, 120, 1579
1333: \bibitem[Zandivarez et al.(2006)]{zandivarez06} Zandivarez, A.,
1334: Mart{\'{\i}}nez, H.~J., \& Merch{\'a}n, M.~E.\ 2006, \apj, 650, 137
1335: \bibitem[Zehavi et al.(2002)]{zehavi02} Zehavi, I., et al.\
1336: 2002, \apj, 571, 172
1337: \end{thebibliography}
1338:
1339:
1340: \clearpage
1341:
1342:
1343: \input{stub.tab1}
1344:
1345: \input{tab2}
1346:
1347: \input{tab3}
1348:
1349: \input{tab4}
1350:
1351:
1352: \clearpage
1353:
1354: \begin{figure}
1355: \plotone{f1.eps}
1356: \caption{Absolute magnitude is plotted versus redshift for 10,000 galaxies
1357: selected at random from our SDSS spectroscopic catalog of about 337,000
1358: galaxies.
1359: The dashed (black) lines enclose all potential companion galaxies; galaxies
1360: within this region have $14.5 < m_r < 17.5$.
1361: The solid (red) lines enclose all potential host galaxies; galaxies within
1362: this region differ by at least 0.753 magnitudes from the dashed lines.
1363: For these potential host galaxies, all companions within a luminosity ratio of
1364: 1:2 are therefore detectable.
1365: \label{absmag}}
1366: \end{figure}
1367:
1368: \begin{figure}
1369: \plotone{f2.eps}
1370: \caption{The ratio of spectroscopic to photometric pairs ($N_{zz}/N_{pp}$)
1371: is plotted versus angular separation ($\theta$), with error bars
1372: computed using the Jackknife technique. (a) The upper panel
1373: shows the data before corrective weights have been applied, and a substantial
1374: deficit of spectroscopic pairs is seen at small separations ($\theta <
1375: 55\arcsec$). At larger separations, $N_{zz}/N_{pp}$ converges to the
1376: square of the overall spectroscopic completeness of the sample
1377: ($f_s^2 \sim 0.78$), as indicated by the dashed line. The solid lines
1378: show our model fit to the data, which is used to correct for the small scale
1379: spectroscopic incompleteness. (b) The lower panel shows the data
1380: after these weights have been applied. The corrected data points provide
1381: an excellent fit to the overall spectroscopic completeness (solid line),
1382: confirming that the small scale incompleteness has been successfully removed.
1383: \label{figsmallang}}
1384: \end{figure}
1385:
1386: \begin{figure}
1387: \plotone{f3.eps}
1388: \caption{$N_c$ is plotted versus absolute magnitude for SDSS, for pairs
1389: in five ranges of projected separation.
1390: Over the range $-22 < M_r < -18$, the
1391: mean $N_c$ for close pairs (5-20~$h^{-1}$ kpc) is $0.021 \pm 0.001$.
1392: The $N_c$ distribution is approximately
1393: flat for the smallest separation pairs, and becomes
1394: steeper as pair separation increases.
1395: \label{figncsdss}}
1396: \end{figure}
1397:
1398: \begin{figure}
1399: \plotone{f4.eps}
1400: \caption{$N_c$ is plotted versus absolute magnitude for the Millennium
1401: simulation, for pairs in five ranges of projected separation.
1402: As with SDSS, the $N_c$ distribution is found to be approximately flat for the
1403: smallest pair separations.
1404: Over the range $-22 < M_r < -18$, the
1405: mean $N_c$ for close pairs is $0.0183 \pm 0.0001$,
1406: which is about 15\% lower than found for SDSS.
1407: The Millennium $N_c$ distribution steepens towards the faint end
1408: as pair separation increases. This is similar to what was seen for SDSS,
1409: but is considerably steeper.
1410: \label{figncmill}}
1411: \end{figure}
1412:
1413: \begin{figure}
1414: \plotone{f5.eps}
1415: \caption{Using the Millennium simulation,
1416: the fraction of companions which are close in three dimensions
1417: ($f_{3d}$)
1418: is plotted versus absolute magnitude for close pairs ($5-20~ h^{-1}$ kpc).
1419: Projection effects are seen to increase towards fainter absolute magnitudes.
1420: \label{figf3d}}
1421: \end{figure}
1422:
1423: \begin{figure}
1424: \plotone{f6.eps}
1425: \caption{$N_c(M_r)$ is plotted
1426: in both redshift space and real space, for close pairs ($5-20~ h^{-1}$ kpc).
1427: For both SDSS and Millennium, conversion from redshift space to real space
1428: pair statistics (ie., the removal of projection effects) was carried out
1429: by multiplying $N_c(M_r)$ by the Millennium $f_{3D}(M_r)$.
1430: The right hand axis displays the corresponding
1431: scale for the galaxy merger rate ($\rmg$), and is relevant only for
1432: measurements in real space.
1433: \label{fignc20}}
1434: \end{figure}
1435:
1436: \begin{figure}
1437: \plotone{f7.eps}
1438: \caption{The number of close companions per unit co-moving volume ($n_c$)
1439: is plotted versus $M_r$ for SDSS and for Millennium.
1440: In both cases, $n_c$ is computed by multiplying the real-space $N_c$
1441: by the number density of galaxies.
1442: Excellent agreement is
1443: seen between the two samples. We conclude that most mergers occur between
1444: galaxies with $M_r > -21$. The right hand axis displays the
1445: corresponding volume merger rate.
1446: \label{fignc}}
1447: \end{figure}
1448:
1449: \begin{figure}
1450: \plotone{f8.eps}
1451: \caption{The remnant fraction $f_{\rm rem}$, expressed as a percentage,
1452: is plotted versus $M_r$ for SDSS and for Millennium.
1453: In both cases, the error bars are computed using only the uncertainties
1454: in $N_c$. Given the assumptions that go into the calculation of $f_{\rm rem}$,
1455: the true uncertainties are likely to be considerably larger.
1456: \label{figfrem}}
1457: \end{figure}
1458:
1459: \begin{figure}
1460: \plotone{f9.eps}
1461: \caption{The luminosity in close companions per unit co-moving volume ($l_c$)
1462: is plotted versus $M_r$ for SDSS and for Millennium.
1463: Excellent agreement is seen between the two samples.
1464: $l_c(M_r)$ exhibits a clear peak at or very close to $M^*$.
1465: The decline towards brighter absolute magnitudes results primarily from the
1466: low number density of such systems, whereas the decline at the faint end
1467: results from the decreasing luminosity of companions.
1468: In terms of stellar mass (as inferred from galaxy luminosities),
1469: this implies that $L^*$ is the most relevant regime for major mergers.
1470: \label{figlc}}
1471: \end{figure}
1472:
1473: \end{document}
1474:
1475: