1: % !iTeXMac(typeset): simpdftex latex --keep-psfile ${iTMInput}

2: % !iTeXMac(compile): "./local Command"

3: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

4: \documentclass{emulateapj}

5: \usepackage{apjfonts}

6: \bibliographystyle{apj}

7: 

8: %\newcommand{\scaleup}{}

9: %\newcommand{\plotter}{\includegraphics[scale=0.70]}

10: %\newcommand{\plotterr}{\includegraphics[scale=0.50]}

11: %\newcommand{\breaker}{\clearpage}

12: %\newcommand{\appendixcolumns}{}

13: \newcommand{\scaleup}{\epsscale{1.1}}

14: \newcommand{\plotter}{\plotone}

15: \newcommand{\plotterr}{\plotone}

16: \newcommand{\breaker}{}

17: \newcommand{\appendixcolumns}{\twocolumngrid}

18: 

19: \newcommand{\tableset}{deluxetable}

20: \newcommand{\tableclear}{\clearpage}

21: \newcommand{\Mdot}{\dot{M}}

22: \newcommand{\mdot}{\dot{m}}

23: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.}

24: \newcommand{\mbh}{M_{\rm BH}}

25: \newcommand{\tH}{t_{\rm H}}

26: \newcommand{\mstar}{M_{\ast}}

27: \newcommand{\mhalo}{M_{\rm halo}}

28: \newcommand{\mgal}{M_{\rm gal}}

29: \newcommand{\msun}{M_{\sun}}

30: \newcommand{\lstar}{L_{\ast}}

31: \newcommand{\phistar}{\phi_{\ast}}

32: \newcommand{\pstar}{\phistar}

33: \newcommand{\reducedchi}{\chi^{2}/\nu}

34: \newcommand{\qeos}{q_{\rm eos}}

35: \newcommand{\fgas}{f_{\rm gas}}

36: \newcommand{\mdyn}{M_{\rm dyn}}

37: \newcommand{\re}{R_{\rm e}}

38: \newcommand{\fsb}{f_{\rm sb}}

39: \newcommand{\paperone}{Paper \textrm{I}}

40: \newcommand{\papertwo}{Paper \textrm{II}}

41: \newcommand{\paperthree}{Paper \textrm{III}}

42: \newcommand{\paperfour}{Paper \textrm{IV}}

43: 

44: \shorttitle{Evolution in Spheroid Scalings}

45: \shortauthors{Hopkins \etal}

46: \slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ, June 14, 2008}

47: \begin{document}

48: 

49: \title{Dissipation and Extra Light in Galactic Nuclei: \textrm{IV}.\ 

50: Evolution in the Scaling Relations of Spheroids}

51: \author{Philip F. Hopkins\altaffilmark{1}, 

52: Lars Hernquist\altaffilmark{1},

53: Thomas J. Cox\altaffilmark{1,2}, 

54: Dusan Keres\altaffilmark{1}, 

55: \&\ Stijn Wuyts\altaffilmark{1,2} 

56: }

57: \altaffiltext{1}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 

58: 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}

59: \altaffiltext{2}{W.~M.\ Keck Postdoctoral Fellow at the 

60: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics}

61: 

62: 

63: \begin{abstract}

64: 

65: We develop a model for the physical origin and redshift 

66: evolution of spheroid scaling relations. 

67: We consider spheroid sizes, velocity dispersions, dynamical masses, 

68: profile shapes (Sersic indices), stellar and supermassive 

69: black hole masses, and their related scalings. 

70: Our approach combines advantages of prior observational 

71: constraints in halo occupation models and libraries of 

72: high-resolution hydrodynamic simulations of galaxy mergers. 

73: This allows us to separate 

74: the relative roles of dissipation, dry mergers, formation time, 

75: and evolution in progenitor properties, and identify their impact on 

76: observed scalings at each redshift. 

77: We show that, at all redshifts, 

78: dissipation is the most important factor determining spheroid sizes 

79: and fundamental plane scalings, and can account (at $z=0$) for the observed 

80: fundamental plane tilt and differences between observed disk and 

81: spheroid scaling relations. Because disks (spheroid progenitors) 

82: at high redshift have characteristically larger gas fractions, this predicts 

83: more dissipation in mergers, yielding systematically more compact, 

84: smaller spheroids. In detail, this gives rise to a mass-dependent evolution 

85: in the sizes of spheroids of a given mass, that agrees well with observations. 

86: This relates to a subtle weakening of the tilt of the early-type fundamental 

87: plane with redshift, 

88: important for a number of studies that assume a non-evolving 

89: stellar mass fundamental plane. 

90: This also predicts evolution in the black hole-host mass relations, 

91: towards more massive black holes at higher redshifts. 

92: Dry mergers are also significant, but only for 

93: large systems which form early -- they 

94: originate as compact systems, but undergo a number of dry mergers 

95: (consistent with observations) such that they have sizes at any later 

96: observed redshift similar to systems of the same mass formed more recently. 

97: Most of the observed, compact high-redshift ellipticals will become the 

98: cores of present BCGs, and we show how their sizes, velocity dispersions, 

99: and black hole masses

100: evolve to become consistent with observations. We also predict 

101: what fraction might survive intact from early formation, 

102: and identify their characteristic $z=0$ properties. 

103: We make predictions for residual correlations as well: e.g.\ the 

104: correlation of size and fundamental plane residuals with formation time 

105: of a given elliptical, that can be used as additional tests of these models. 

106: 

107: \end{abstract}

108: 

109: \keywords{galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD --- galaxies: evolution --- 

110: galaxies: formation --- galaxies: nuclei --- galaxies: structure --- 

111: cosmology: theory}

112: 

113: 

114: 

115: \section{Introduction}

116: \label{sec:intro}

117: 

118: Understanding the scaling relations between the photometric and

119: kinematic properties of galaxy spheroids -- their masses, sizes,

120: velocity dispersions, and luminosities -- is fundamental to explaining

121: their origin. Any model which attempts to account for these

122: correlations must, of course, also determine how they evolve as a

123: function of redshift. In a $\Lambda$CDM universe, objects grow

124: hierarchically, implying that ellipticals do not comprise a monolithic

125: population formed at an early epoch, but have evolved and grown by

126: mergers from $z\gtrsim6$ to $z=0$.

127: 

128: Observations are beginning to probe

129: the populations of spheroids at these epochs, and reveal that there is

130: indeed evolution in such scaling relations \citep[see

131: e.g.][]{trujillo:size.evolution,mcintosh:size.evolution,

132: zirm:drg.sizes,vandokkum:z2.sizes}, generally in the sense of massive

133: ellipticals being more compact at high redshifts.  Some of these

134: systems, in fact, appear sufficiently compact \citep[see

135: e.g.][]{zirm:drg.sizes,vandokkum:z2.sizes} that there may be no

136: similar $z=0$ analogs whatsoever, leading to considerable debate 

137: regarding the fate of such objects.  Ultimately, the causes of such

138: evolution and its implication for e.g.\ the fundamental plane of

139: ellipticals at those redshifts (and today) are not well understood.

140: 

141: Moreover, observations now demonstrate that essentially all massive

142: spheroids host a supermassive black hole at their centers

143: \citep{KormendyRichstone95}. The mass of this black hole is tightly

144: correlated with a variety of structural parameters: the mass

145: \citep{magorrian}, velocity dispersion \citep{FM00,Gebhardt00}, and

146: concentration/Sersic index \citep{graham:concentration,graham:sersic}.

147: 

148: Recently, \citet{hopkins:bhfp.obs} and \citet{aller:mbh.esph}

149: demonstrated that these correlations could be understood in terms of a

150: ``fundamental plane''-like relation, essentially one where 

151: black hole (BH) mass

152: tracks the binding energy of the stellar

153: bulge. \citet{hopkins:bhfp.theory} showed that this is the natural

154: expectation of theories where some form of feedback from accretion

155: leads to self-regulated growth of the BH.  This has important

156: consequences for e.g.\ quasar lightcurves \citep{hopkins:faint.slope}

157: and lifetimes \citep{hopkins:lifetimes.letter}, as well as for the

158: effects of ``feedback'' on the host galaxy, possibly necessary for

159: ``quenching'' of star formation to create red elliptical galaxies at

160: $z=0$

161: \citep{croton:sam,hopkins:red.galaxies,hopkins:clustering,hopkins:groups.ell}.

162: 

163: Observations suggest that there may be evolution in the black hole

164: host-galaxy scalings \citep[e.g.][]{peng:magorrian.evolution}, but the

165: details remain ambiguous \citep[see

166: e.g.][]{woo06:lowz.msigma.evolution,

167: salviander:msigma.evolution,lauer:mbh.bias}.  As pointed out in

168: \citet{hopkins:bhfp.theory}, at least some such evolution should be a

169: natural consequence of evolution in host spheroid scaling relations,

170: provided that there is some fundamental quantity or property

171: traced by black hole mass. Again, if true, this is of basic

172: importance for models of black hole growth, AGN and quasar activity,

173: star formation, and galaxy formation and evolution.

174: 

175: A number of important questions therefore arise: If indeed the

176: observations are correct, why are these high-redshift spheroids

177: different from their analogs at $z=0$?  What can this tell us about

178: the process of spheroid formation? Can we use them to constrain and

179: test models for spheroid formation, quenching, and black hole growth?

180: Are such objects typical, or are they the result of complex selection

181: effects? What happens to them by $z=0$? Can we find the remnants or

182: left-overs of the population today?  Are evolution in spheroid

183: structural properties related to evolution in their hosted black

184: holes? And how is this connected to the cosmological process of quasar

185: fueling and black hole growth?

186: 

187: In a series of papers, \citet{hopkins:cusps.mergers,hopkins:cusps.ell,

188: hopkins:cores,hopkins:cusps.fp} (hereafter \paperone-\paperfour), 

189: we combined libraries of hydrodynamic simulations of galaxy merger remnants 

190: and observations of nearby ellipticals spanning the largest available dynamic 

191: range in e.g.\ spatial scale, surface brightness, and galaxy properties, 

192: and developed a methodology by which we could empirically separate 

193: spheroids into their two dominant physical components. First, a dissipationless 

194: component -- i.e.\ an ``envelope,'' formed from the violent relaxation/scattering 

195: of stars that are 

196: already present in merging stellar disks that contribute to the final 

197: remnant. Because disks are very extended, with low phase-space density 

198: (and collisionless processes in a merger cannot raise this phase-space density), 

199: these stars will necessarily dominate the profile at large radii, hence 

200: the envelope, with a low central density. 

201: 

202: Second, a dissipational component -- i.e.\ a dense central relic of

203: starbursts from gas that has been brought into the remnant, lost its

204: angular momentum, and turned into stars in a compact central starburst

205: similar to those observed in e.g.\ local ULIRGs (although these would

206: represent the most extreme cases).  Because gas can radiate, it can

207: collapse to very high densities, and will dominate the profile within

208: radii $\sim0.5-1\,$kpc, accounting for the high central densities in

209: ellipticals. The gas will probably reflect that initially brought in

210: from merging disks, but could in principle also stem from new cooling or

211: stellar mass loss in the elliptical \citep[see

212: e.g.][]{ciottiostriker:recycling}.  In subsequent mergers the two

213: components will act dissipationlessly (they are just stars and dark

214: matter), but the segregation between the two is sufficient that they

215: remain distinct even after multiple major dissipationless or ``dry''

216: re-mergers: i.e.\ one can still, in principle, distinguish the dense

217: central stellar component that is the remnant of the combined

218: dissipational starburst(s) from the less dense outer envelope that is

219: the remnant of low-density disk stars.

220: 

221: In \paperone\ we developed a methodology to empirically separate these components 

222: in observed systems with data of sufficient quality, and tested this on 

223: observed samples of nearby merger remnants from \citet{rj:profiles}. 

224: Using e.g.\ comparison with stellar populations, colors, and other properties 

225: as well as direct comparison of simulations with observed surface brightness profiles, 

226: galaxy shapes, and kinematics, we confirmed that this could reliably extract 

227: the dissipational component of the galaxy \citep[see also][and references therein]{jk:profiles}. 

228: In \papertwo\ we extended this to 

229: observed ellipticals with central ``cusps'' and in \paperthree\ to those with central 

230: ``cores'' (believed to have undergone subsequent dry mergers, but as we argue, 

231: still retaining evidence for the initial dissipational/dissipationless stellar 

232: components), from \citet{jk:profiles} and \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles}. 

233: In \paperfour, we used these results to argue that the relative 

234: mass fraction in the dissipational component -- i.e.\ the total mass fraction of 

235: the elliptical built up dissipationally, as opposed to brought in as stars in 

236: stellar disks, was the most important parameter determining the sizes 

237: and densities of ellipticals at $z=0$. We showed that this fraction depends 

238: systematically on mass: low mass ellipticals experienced more dissipation 

239: than high-mass ones (presumably reflecting the well-established 

240: observational fact that low-mass disks are more gas-rich than 

241: higher-mass disks). We then empirically 

242: demonstrated that this systematic dependence is 

243: both necessary and sufficient to explain e.g.\ the difference between  

244: the size-mass relation of ellipticals and that of their (ultimate) progenitor disks, 

245: and to explain the observed ``tilt'' in the fundamental plane relation of spheroids. 

246: 

247: There are, however, limitations in our ability to theoretically model these 

248: processes using idealized simulations and to understand them 

249: observing only $z=0$ ellipticals. Many galaxies are expected to have had complex 

250: merger histories (perhaps forming early in a rapid series of multiple, highly dissipational 

251: mergers, rather than a single disk-disk merger at late times), 

252: which might, in principle, ``smear our'' or bias some of these comparisons or 

253: systematically alter some predictions 

254: \citep[see e.g.][]{kobayashi:pseudo.monolithic,naab:etg.formation}. 

255: Moreover, the gas content in pre-merger disks (and possibly 

256: in ellipticals themselves) is both expected and observed 

257: \citep[e.g.][]{erb:lbg.gasmasses} to evolve strongly as a function of redshift. 

258: The disks building up ellipticals at $z\gtrsim2$ are much more gas 

259: rich, so their remnant ellipticals at these times would necessarily be more dissipational, 

260: and as such might have different structural properties and obey different 

261: scaling relations from their $z=0$ counterparts. 

262: It is therefore of particular interest to combine our empirical understanding of the 

263: role of dissipation from local samples, and our inferences from idealized simulations, 

264: with fully cosmological models that can account for the evolution in elliptical progenitors 

265: and merger histories with redshift. 

266: 

267: Some initial attempts at studying these correlations have been 

268: made using cosmological simulations \citep{naab:etg.formation,dimatteo:cosmo.bhs,

269: sijacki:radio,croft:cosmo.morph.density}.

270: It is, unfortunately, prohibitively expensive to simultaneously resolve the 

271: $\sim100\,$pc 

272: scales necessary to meaningfully predict e.g.\ spheroid scaling 

273: lengths, black hole masses, and central velocity dispersions 

274: in a fully cosmological simulation which would also contain a volume 

275: capable of modeling a large number of galaxies up to masses 

276: $\sim10^{12}\,\msun$. Moreover, disk formation remains an 

277: unsolved problem in such simulations, with the uncertain physics of 

278: e.g.\ star formation and feedback probably important to form disks with 

279: the appropriate scale lengths, thicknesses, and bulge-to-disk ratios 

280: for their masses \citep{robertson:cosmological.disk.formation,

281: donghia:disk.ang.mom.loss,governato:disk.formation,ceverino:cosmo.sne.fb,

282: zavala:cosmo.disk.vs.fb}. 

283: If initial disks do not have the appropriate observed 

284: structural properties, then even a perfect model for spheroid formation will 

285: have severe systematic inaccuracies. 

286: 

287: In order to get around some of these limitations, alternative attempts 

288: have been made to instead predict scaling resolutions 

289: from semi-analytic models of galaxy formation \citep{khochfar:size.evolution.model,

290: almeida:durham.ell.scalings}. 

291: Although they could not calibrate the details of their predictions with 

292: numerical simulations, 

293: \citet{khochfar:size.evolution.model} used this to illustrate, with very simple 

294: assumptions, that increasing dissipational fractions in ellipticals at 

295: higher redshift leads to the expectation that spheroids should be more 

296: compact. \citet{almeida:durham.ell.scalings} explicitly ignored dissipation, 

297: and as a result found that none of the models they considered could 

298: reproduce the observed $z=0$ fundamental plane correlations of 

299: spheroids (nor their redshift evolution). 

300: 

301: Such models, however, potentially suffer from the same problems

302: regarding the nature of disks (the ``initial conditions''):

303: uncertainties related to modeling spheroid formation are difficult to

304: disentangle from prescriptions for e.g.\ cooling, disk growth, star

305: formation, and feedback.  Moreover, while a few properties can easily

306: be estimated (in a mean sense) from {\em a priori} analytic arguments,

307: many important properties and physical factors affecting spheroid

308: evolution -- the role of dissipation in changing the shape and

309: velocity structure of a spheroid, the detailed density profiles

310: (especially at small radii and in extended envelopes) of ellipticals,

311: and the dark matter to stellar or baryonic mass ratios within various

312: radii in the galaxy -- require detailed, high-resolution numerical

313: simulations to robustly model.

314: 

315: One way of circumventing the problems in these cosmological models is

316: to adopt a halo occupation distribution (HOD) approach, in which

317: (beginning from a halo+subhalo distribution determined in numerical

318: simulations) halos are populated with galaxies according to empirical

319: constraints on their clustering properties. The success of such models

320: at reproducing the observed distributions at a variety of redshifts,

321: as a function of various galaxy properties, has now been demonstrated

322: \citep[see e.g.][]{conroy:monotonic.hod}.  This allows us to begin

323: with the empirical knowledge of where galaxies lie, and what their gas

324: properties are, without reference to some (potentially incomplete)

325: {\em a priori} model of e.g.\ star formation and feedback (which we

326: are not, in any case, interested in testing here). Using this approach

327: to identify and follow galaxies and their subsequent mergers, we can

328: then reference each merger to an idealized hydrodynamic simulation

329: with similar properties (e.g.\ initial morphologies, gas fractions,

330: sizes, masses, etc.), and use this to predict what the properties of

331: the remnant should be. Constructing a sample of such remnant spheroids

332: at any given redshift is straightforward, and allows us to compare

333: with observed scaling relations in a direct manner.

334: 

335: In this paper, we adopt this method to combine the advantages of 

336: high-resolution simulations, semi-analytic models, and observational 

337: constraints on spheroid progenitors in order to develop 

338: robust predictions for the evolution of spheroid structure and 

339: the correlation between black hole mass and host properties. 

340: We study how e.g.\ the evolution in disk gas fractions, structural properties, 

341: and the interplay between gas-rich and gas-poor mergers 

342: and multiple mergers in a hierarchical cosmology relate to  

343: observed correlations from $z=0-4$.

344: 

345: In \S~\ref{sec:model}, we describe our methodology, including our

346: cosmological models of merger histories

347: (\S~\ref{sec:model:cosmology}), empirical models for progenitor disks

348: (\S~\ref{sec:model:hod}), and library of simulations which we use to

349: determine remnant properties (\S~\ref{sec:model:sims}). In

350: \S~\ref{sec:z0}, we consider and compare observations to the

351: resulting predicted scalings of spheroids at $z=0$, and specifically

352: highlight the effects of dissipation (\S~\ref{sec:z0:diss}) and dry

353: mergers (\S~\ref{sec:z0:dry}).  In

354: \S~\ref{sec:evol} we make a number of predictions and comparisons to

355: observations regarding how these correlations evolve with redshift,

356: and again illustrate the effects of dissipation

357: (\S~\ref{sec:evol:diss}) and dry mergers (\S~\ref{sec:evol:dry}).  In

358: \S~\ref{sec:track} we follow the history of individual systems forming

359: at different redshifts to compare them at later redshifts, and discuss

360: the fates of early-forming galaxies which (initially) reflect these

361: evolved correlations. Finally, in \S~\ref{sec:track}, we summarize our

362: results and outline future observational tests.

363: 

364: Throughout, we adopt a WMAP5 

365: $(\Omega_{\rm M},\,\Omega_{\Lambda},\,h,\,\sigma_{8},\,n_{s})

366: =(0.274,\,0.726,\,0.705,\,0.812,\,0.960)$ cosmology 

367: \citep{komatsu:wmap5}, and normalize all observations and models 

368: shown to these parameters. Although the exact choice of 

369: cosmology may systematically 

370: shift the associated halo masses (and high-redshift evolution) 

371: at a given galaxy mass (primarily scaling with $\sigma_{8}$), 

372: our comparisons (in terms of stellar mass) are for the most part unchanged (many of these 

373: differences are implicitly normalized out in the halo occupation approach). 

374: Repeating our calculations for 

375: a ``concordance'' $(0.3,\,0.7,\,0.7,\,0.9,\,1.0)$ cosmology or 

376: the WMAP1 $(0.27,\,0.73,\,0.71,\,0.84,\,0.96)$ and WMAP 3

377: $(0.268,\,0.732,\,0.704,\,0.776,\,0.947)$ 

378: results of \citet{spergel:wmap1} and \citet{spergel:wmap3}

379: has little effect on our conclusions. 

380: We also adopt a \citet{salpeter64} stellar initial mass function (IMF), and convert all stellar masses 

381: and mass-to-light ratios accordingly. Again, the choice of the IMF systematically 

382: shifts the normalization of stellar masses herein, but does not substantially change 

383: our comparisons. 

384: All magnitudes are in the Vega system, unless otherwise specified. 

385: 

386: 

387: \breaker

388: \section{The Simulations and Cosmological Model}

389: \label{sec:model}

390: 

391: 

392: \subsection{Overview}

393: \label{sec:model:sims:summary}

394: 

395: The model we will adopt consists of the following steps, summarized here 

396: and described in detail below: 

397: \begin{itemize}

398: \item We construct the halo+subhalo mass function, and populate this with galaxies 

399: of various masses according to a standard halo occupation model approach. We 

400: allow this population to vary within the range allowed by observational constraints, 

401: but find this to be a small source of uncertainty. 

402: \item We assign un-merged galaxies a scale length and gas fraction 

403: appropriate for their stellar mass and redshift according to observational 

404: constraints (with appropriate scatter). 

405: We also systematically vary assignments to span the range allowed by 

406: observational constraints, and find this is the dominant source of uncertainty in 

407: our predictions. 

408: \item We evolve this model forward in time (following the dark matter) and identify 

409: mergers. After a merger, the properties of the remnant galaxy are calculated 

410: as a function of the progenitor properties, according to the results from 

411: hydrodynamic simulations. 

412: \item At some later time, we construct a mock catalogue (uniformly sampling the 

413: mock population in stellar mass) and compare the predictions with 

414: observed galaxy properties. 

415: \end{itemize}

416: 

417: The exact implementation 

418: of the halo occupation model and merger 

419: rate calculations are outlined in the Appendix, for readers 

420: interested in reproducing the model calculations. Here we outline the 

421: relevant physics and model approach, and highlight the calibrations from 

422: simulations used to predict the properties of merger remnants, as 

423: well as the important sources of 

424: uncertainty for those predictions. 

425: 

426: 

427: 

428: \subsection{Cosmological Model}

429: \label{sec:model:cosmology}

430: 

431: We wish to track merger histories in a cosmologically motivated

432: manner, in order to follow the growth of spheroids.  As discussed in

433: \S~\ref{sec:intro}, it remains prohibitive to simulate the relevant

434: hydrodynamic processes (with the necessary $\lesssim100\,$pc

435: resolution) in full cosmological simulations (where, in order to probe

436: the massive galaxies of interest here, we would require $\sim{\rm

437: Gpc^{3}}$ box sizes).  In principle, we could begin with a full

438: semi-analytic model: attempt to describe, in an {\em a priori} manner,

439: the entire process of cooling, disk growth, star formation, and

440: feedback.  This has been done by

441: \citet{khochfar:size.evolution.model}, for example, as well as

442: \citet{almeida:durham.ell.scalings}, and we compare with their results

443: below. We have also experimented with this methodology applied to the

444: approach of \citet{somerville:new.sam}, and find qualitatively similar

445: results.

446: 

447: However, a full semi-analytic model necessitates an attempt to predict

448: e.g.\ the star formation histories, gas fractions, disk galaxy

449: populations, and clustering of galaxies in an {\em a priori} manner.

450: Although these are certainly worthy of investigation, they are not the

451: quantities we are interested in here -- therefore attempting to model

452: e.g.\ disk formation, star formation, and stellar winds in this manner

453: will introduce additional uncertainties and dependences. 

454: 

455: For example,

456: \citet{khochfar:size.evolution.model} find that their most massive

457: galaxies are predicted to evolve very rapidly. However, their analysis

458: results in more rapid gas fraction evolution than observed, a problem

459: common to semi-analytic models without strong feedback \citep[see

460: e.g.][]{somerville:sam}.  In fact, over the redshift range $z\sim0-2$,

461: progenitor disk galaxy properties (at least the broad properties of

462: greatest interest to us here, namely their sizes (or the Tully-Fisher

463: relation) and gas fractions) are reasonably well constrained

464: empirically, but theory has had mixed success at best in reproducing

465: them from a fully {\em a priori} framework. If current {\em a priori}

466: models are incorrectly describing the cooling of gas and disk

467: formation (in particular the formation of massive galaxies), then the

468: predicted properties of ellipticals formed in mergers of those

469: progenitors are suspect.

470: 

471: We therefore adopt a halo occupation approach -- essentially beginning

472: with the observational constraints on e.g.\ disk gas fractions and the

473: Tully-Fisher relation, and predicting the properties of spheroids from

474: these empirically constrained progenitors. For our purposes, we are

475: not concerned with why a given disk population is e.g.\ gas-rich or

476: gas-poor, or has a particular effective radius -- we need those

477: numbers to compute the properties of the remnant of a major merger of

478: such disks.  This allows us to be as conservative as possible, and to

479: identify the robust prediction for spheroid scaling laws without

480: reference to uncertainties in e.g.\ disk formation models.  We can

481: (and do) include the uncertainties in the observational constraints in

482: our modeling, but we find that these are unimportant.

483: 

484: The details of our scheme are described in \citet{hopkins:groups.qso}

485: and \citet{hopkins:groups.ell}, but we briefly review them here. For

486: a particular cosmology, we identify the halo and subhalo populations,

487: and associate each main halo and subhalo with a galaxy in a Monte Carlo

488: fashion. Specifically: at a given redshift, we calculate the halo

489: mass function $n(\mhalo)$ for our adopted cosmology following

490: \citet{shethtormen}. For each halo, we calculate the (weakly mass and

491: redshift dependent) subhalo mass function (or distribution of

492: subhalos, $P[N_{\rm subhalo}\, | \, M_{\rm subhalo},\ \mhalo]$)

493: following \citet{zentner:substructure.sam.hod} and

494: \citet{kravtsov:subhalo.mfs}. Alternatively, we have adopted it

495: directly from \citet{gao:subhalo.mf,nurmi:subhalo.mf} or calculated it

496: following \citet{vandenbosch:subhalo.mf,valeostriker:monotonic.hod},

497: and obtain similar results: the uncertainties at this stage are

498: negligible. Note that the subhalo masses are defined as the masses

499: upon accretion by the parent halo, which makes them a good proxy for

500: the hosted galaxy mass \citep{conroy:monotonic.hod} and removes the

501: uncertainties owing to tidal stripping.

502: 

503: We then populate the 

504: central galaxies in each halo and subhalo 

505: according to an empirical halo occupation model. 

506: These empirical models determine both the mean stellar mass and dispersion in stellar masses of 

507: galaxies hosted by a given halo/subhalo mass $P(\mgal\,|\,M_{\rm subhalo})$, 

508: from fitting the observed galaxy correlation functions as a function of e.g.\ scale and 

509: stellar mass or luminosity at a given redshift. 

510: Other properties, such as e.g.\ the sizes and gas fractions of galaxies, are determined 

511: as a function of their stellar mass (and, according to our adopted model, merger 

512: history) as described in \S~\ref{sec:model:hod}-\ref{sec:model:sims:wet} below. 

513: 

514: Although such models are constrained, by definition, to reproduce the mean 

515: properties of the halos occupied by galaxies of a given mass/luminosity, there 

516: are known degeneracies between parameterizations that give rise to 

517: some (usually small) differences between models. 

518: We therefore

519: repeat all our calculations for our ``default'' model 

520: \citep[for which we follow the empirical constraints in][]{conroy:monotonic.hod} 

521: \citep[see also][]{valeostriker:monotonic.hod} and 

522: an alternate halo occupation model 

523: \citep{yang:clf} \citep[see also][]{yan:clf.evolution,zheng:hod}, which 

524: bracket the range of a number of calculations 

525: \citep[e.g.,][]{cooray:highz,cooray:hod.clf,zheng:hod,vandenbosch:concordance.hod,

526: brown:hod.evol} 

527: and direct observations of groups \citep{wang:sdss.hod}. 

528: 

529: We have also compared a variety of prescriptions for the 

530: redshift evolution of various components in the halo occupation model: 

531: we have adopted that directly fitted by the authors above at various redshifts, 

532: we have considered a complete re-derivation 

533: of the HOD models of \citet{conroy:monotonic.hod} and 

534: \citet{valeostriker:monotonic.hod} 

535: at different redshifts from each of the the observed mass functions of 

536: \citet{fontana:highz.mfs,bundy:mfs,borch:mfs,blanton:lfs} \citep[see][]{hopkins:groups.qso}, 

537: and have also found similar results assuming 

538: no evolution in $P(\mgal\,|\,M_{\rm subhalo})$ (for star forming galaxies). 

539: Indeed, a number of recent 

540: studies suggest that there is very little evolution in halo occupation 

541: parameters (in terms of mass, or relative to $L_{\ast}$) with 

542: redshift \citep{yan:clf.evolution,cooray:highz,

543: conroy:monotonic.hod,brown:hod.evol}, or equivalently that the masses of galaxies hosted in a 

544: halo of a given mass are primarily a function of that halo mass, not 

545: of redshift \citep{heymans:mhalo-mgal.evol,

546: conroy:mhalo-mgal.evol}. This appears to be especially true for 

547: star-forming galaxies \citep{conroy:mhalo-mgal.evol}, unsurprising 

548: given that quenching is not strongly operating in those systems to change 

549: their mass-to-light ratios, but it also appears to be true for 

550: red galaxies at least at moderate redshifts \citep{brown:hod.evol}.

551: 

552: Consequently, 

553: the differences between any of these choices are 

554: small (at least at $z\lesssim3$), and negligible compared to 

555: the uncertainties in our predictions from e.g.\ the uncertainties in disk 

556: sizes and gas fractions as a function of their stellar mass and redshift. 

557: Systems which have not undergone a major merger in the model are assumed 

558: to be disk-dominated, and we can populate them either according to a 

559: halo occupation model that treats all galaxies in an identical fashion, or as 

560: blue/star forming galaxies in a model where the constraints are derived 

561: for blue and red galaxies separately (we find it makes little or no difference). 

562: 

563: Finally, having populated a given halo and its subhalos 

564: with galaxies, we follow the evolution of those halos forward and identify 

565: major mergers\footnote{In a major merger, tidal forces are

566: sufficiently strong to drive nuclear inflows of gas and build

567: realistic spheroids.  The precise meaning of major merger in this

568: context is blurred by a degeneracy between the progenitor mass ratio

569: and the orbit

570: \citep{hernquist.89,hernquist.mihos:minor.mergers,bournaud:minor.mergers},

571: but both numerical \citep{younger:minor.mergers} 

572: and observational

573: \citep{dasyra:mass.ratio.conditions,woods:tidal.triggering} studies

574: indicate that massive inflows of gas and morphological transformation

575: are typical for mass ratios only below $\sim 3:1$.  This is ultimately

576: related to the non-linear scaling of the disk response to a merger

577: of a given mass ratio \citep{hopkins:disk.heating}.

578: Unless otherwise

579: noted, we generally take the term ``mergers'' to refer to major

580: mergers.}. The details of the treatment of subhalo-subhalo and subhalo-halo 

581: mergers are described in \citet{hopkins:groups.qso} and \citet{hopkins:groups.ell}, 

582: but in short the halo merger timescale is straightforward and well defined. When 

583: two subhalos are fully merged, we can either assume the galaxies have merged, 

584: or allow for some additional merger timescale within the merged halo. 

585: We have experimented with a variety of models for this, including e.g.\ the 

586: dynamical friction timescale and alternative timescales calibrated from 

587: simulations or calculated based on 

588: group capture or collisional cross section estimates and angular 

589: momentum (orbital cross section) capture estimates. But because these 

590: merger times within a halo are always much less than the Hubble time 

591: at the relevant redshifts, and we are interested only

592: in statistical properties across populations evolving over a Hubble time, 

593: it makes no difference to our calculations what choice we adopt. 

594: 

595: When galaxies merge, we estimate the properties of the remnant 

596: based on those of the progenitor galaxies, according to our 

597: numerical simulations, as described in \S~\ref{sec:model:sims}. 

598: This approach yields reasonable agreement with global quantities such as the 

599: spheroid mass function, the mass density of ellipticals as a function of 

600: mass, and the fraction of early-type galaxies as a function of mass 

601: \citep{hopkins:groups.ell}. 

602: Again, despite the assumptions involved thus far, we 

603: stress that the detailed choice of halo occupation model 

604: yields negligible differences in progenitor galaxy properties and in our predictions 

605: at all the masses and redshifts of interest, where the clustering and abundances 

606: of massive galaxies are reasonably well-constrained.

607: 

608: 

609: \subsection{Progenitors: Laying Galaxies Down}

610: \label{sec:model:hod}

611: 

612: Given a host halo mass and disk stellar mass, both determined 

613: from the halo occupation model, the two important parameters we must

614: assign to each disk are a size (effective radius $R_{e}$) and gas

615: fraction ($f_{\rm gas}\equiv M_{\rm gas}/(M_{\ast}+M_{\rm

616: gas})$).\footnote{Note that together the disk size, baryonic and halo

617: mass define another parameter of interest, the disk circular velocity

618: or maximum velocity; but this does not explicitly enter into the way

619: in which we calculate the properties of the remnant.}  This is where

620: the dominant uncertainties in our modeling arise -- we will show that

621: e.g.\ the gas fraction in pre-merger disks is an important parameter

622: determining the characteristics of the remnant, so we can only predict

623: those properties to within the uncertainties in disk gas fractions at

624: the appropriate redshifts.

625: 

626: To minimize the uncertainties in modeling this, 

627: we therefore begin with an empirical estimate of the gas fraction distribution in 

628: spiral galaxies as a function of mass and redshift. At $z=0$, there is 

629: no significant 

630: uncertainty; various measurements 

631: \citep[e.g.][]{kennicutt98,belldejong:disk.sfh,kannappan:gfs,mcgaugh.tf.old,

632: mcgaugh:tf} and indirect constraints 

633: from star formation and the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation \citep{bell:baryonic.mf,

634: noeske:sfh,calura:sdss.gas.fracs} give 

635: consistent estimates of the median gas fraction in spirals as a function of their 

636: stellar mass, and the scatter at each mass. We obtain identical results if we 

637: use any of these constraints (or the data points themselves), but 

638: note for convenience that all of these observations can be well-fitted by the trend 

639: \begin{equation}

640: \langle\fgas(z=0)\rangle \approx \frac{1}{1+(M_{\ast}/10^{9.15} M_{\sun})^{0.4}}

641: \label{eqn:fgas.z0}

642: \end{equation}

643: with a constant $\sim0.2-0.25$\,dex scatter at each mass. 

644: 

645: Similar, albeit less robust, estimates exist at 

646: $z=1$ and $z=2$ \citep[see e.g.][respectively]{shapley:z1.abundances,erb:lbg.gasmasses}. 

647: We therefore adopt a simple functional form that interpolates between these 

648: measurements. Motivated by the power-law form of the observed Kennicutt-Schmidt 

649: star formation relation ($\dot{M}_{\ast}\propto \Sigma_{\rm gas}^{1.4}$), 

650: we adopt the following interpolation formula: 

651: \begin{equation}

652: \langle\fgas(z)\rangle = \fgas(z=0)\,{\Bigl [}1+\tau_{\rm LB}(z)\,{(1-\fgas(z=0)^{\beta})} {\Bigr]}^{-2/3}

653: \label{eqn:fgas.z}

654: \end{equation}

655: where $\beta \approx 3/2$ and $\tau_{\rm LB}(z)$ is the fractional 

656: lookback time to redshift $z$. 

657: This can be derived, for example, by assuming a simple model where the star formation 

658: rate scales according to the observed relation, the disk scale length varies as a 

659: power of the baryonic mass, and the net mass accretion rate (inflows minus 

660: outflows) is also a power-law 

661: function of the mass of the system; given the requirement that the system begin 

662: at an initial time $t=0$ with $f_{\rm gas}=1$ and have the observed $f_{\rm gas}$ at 

663: $z=0$. 

664: 

665: In any case, the values above provide a good fit to the observations at $z=0-2$ 

666: \citep{belldejong:disk.sfh,shapley:z1.abundances,erb:lbg.gasmasses} 

667: and a reasonable approximation to results of cosmological simulations 

668: \citep{keres:hot.halos,keres:prep} and semi-analytic models \citep{somerville:new.sam}, 

669: and interpolate smoothly between $z=0$ and 

670: high redshift. Lowering $\beta$ systematically weakens the 

671: implied redshift evolution in $f_{\rm gas}$ -- in order to represent the uncertainty in the 

672: observations, we consider a range $\beta\sim0.5-2.0$ (bracketing the observational 

673: errors). Similar prescriptions for $f_{\rm gas}$ evolution can be obtained from 

674: various toy model star formation histories including e.g.\ commonly adopted 

675: exponential $\tau$-models \citep[see e.g.][]{belldejong:disk.sfh,noeske:sfh} 

676: and integration of specific tau models enforcing proportionality between inflow, 

677: star formation, and outflow rates \citep{erb:outflow.inflow.masses}; these 

678: are all discussed in more detail in \citet{hopkins:bhfp.theory,hopkins:groups.qso}, 

679: but they generally yield similar results and lie within the uncertainties we consider 

680: (differences being much less than the typical observed scatter in $f_{\rm gas}$ 

681: at each mass and redshift). 

682: 

683: 

684: The other important property 

685: we must estimate for progenitor disks is their effective radius. 

686: At $z=0$, this is well-measured for all disk masses of interest. We 

687: employ the fits from \citet{shen:size.mass} to late-type galaxy sizes 

688: as a function of stellar mass (from $\lesssim10^{9}\,\msun$ to 

689: $\gtrsim10^{12}\,\msun$), and the scatter in those sizes. 

690: Adopting different local estimates or even completely ignoring this 

691: scatter makes little difference. Observations are somewhat more 

692: ambiguous regarding the redshift evolution of sizes, but fortunately 

693: the observational constraints \citep[e.g.][]{trujillo:size.evolution,barden:disk.size.evol,

694: ravindranath:disk.size.evol,rix:gems.gal.evol,ferguson:disk.size.evol,

695: akiyama:lbg.weak.size.evol} and state-of-the-art models 

696: \citep{somerville:disk.size.evol} suggest that any evolution is relatively weak. 

697: This is also reflected in e.g.\ the baryonic Tully-Fisher 

698: relation, which appears to evolve negligibly from 

699: $z=0-2$ \citep{conselice:tf.evolution,flores:tf.evolution,

700: kassin:tf.evolution,vandokkum:tf.evolution}. 

701: 

702: We therefore consider two extremes. In the first case, 

703: disk sizes and the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation are completely 

704: fixed with redshift, according to their $z=0$ values. In the second, 

705: disk sizes evolve according to observational estimates 

706: from the various measurements above. A simple power law

707: \begin{equation}

708: R_{e,\rm disk}[\mstar\, | z] = (1+z)^{-\beta_{d}}\, R_{e,\rm disk}[\mstar\, | z=0] 

709: \label{eqn:rdisk.evol}

710: \end{equation}

711: where $\beta_{d}\approx0.4$ provides a good fit to the observations and 

712: is consistent with all of the measurements, spanning the

713: redshift range $z=0-3$. We adopt this estimate, but obtain a similar 

714: result if we use the more detailed cosmologically motivated model 

715: in \citet{somerville:disk.size.evol}, which allows disks to form conserving 

716: specific angular momentum from halo gas \citep[see][]{momauwhite:disks}, 

717: yielding (approximately) $R_{d}\propto R_{\rm vir}/c$, where 

718: $c\propto1/(1+z)$ is the halo concentration -- although $R_{\rm vir}$ is smaller 

719: for halos of a given mass at high redshift, they are less concentrated, yielding 

720: a weak size evolution similar to that observed 

721: \citep{bullock:concentrations,

722: wechsler:concentration,neto:concentrations,comerford:obs.concentrations,

723: buote:obs.concentrations}. 

724: 

725: Together this gives us an estimate of our input disk parameters, and we allow for 

726: the described range in both the estimated gas fraction and disk size evolution. 

727: At low redshift, this introduces little uncertainty (most spheroids at $z=0$ 

728: have assembled relatively recently, so their structural properties reflect those of 

729: low-redshift disk progenitors, where the uncertainties are minimal and the relevant 

730: sizes, etc.\ can be directly measured from observations). However, these uncertainties 

731: begin to grow rapidly at $z\gtrsim 2-3$, where 

732: there are no more direct observational constraints. 

733: Moreover, at these redshifts, it is not clear that ``un-merged'' galaxies will 

734: necessarily be disks analogous to those well-understood at $z<2$ 

735: \citep[see e.g.\ the clumpy morphologies and increased dispersions 

736: observed in][]{reddy:z2.lbg.spitzer,flores:tf.evolution,

737: bournaud:chain.gal.model}, although higher-resolution observations suggest that 

738: at least a significant fraction of this population does exhibit 

739: regular rotation and smoother morphologies (albeit most likely still  

740: puffier and more dispersion-supported than low-redshift disks) in the rest-frame 

741: optical \citep{puech:highz.vsigma.disks,akiyama:lbg.weak.size.evol,

742: genzel:highz.rapid.secular,shapiro:highz.kinematics}. 

743: 

744: In either case, the uncertainties as this limit is approached 

745: can be considered part of the uncertainty in e.g.\ progenitor sizes and 

746: structural properties, as observational estimates of this quantity often 

747: do not make strict morphological cuts at these redshifts but rather 

748: assign gas-rich star-forming systems to a single category 

749: (and this is how such uncertainties would enter into our 

750: model). In this aspect, the uncertainties from assigning them implicit ``disk'' properties 

751: may actually be less than one might expect, because at the point where 

752: a galaxy is very gas-rich (increasingly 

753: common at these high redshifts), it does not matter what initial configuration this 

754: gas is in (whether e.g.\ clumpy, filamentary, or infalling in direct collapse), as 

755: it is dissipational and in any case will (in mergers) lose angular momentum 

756: and form a dense central starburst. 

757: In any case, these uncertainties lead us to limit our predictions to $z<4$. 

758: Fortunately, because at any lower redshift most spheroids have assembled 

759: relatively recently, with decreasing mass fractions contributed by 

760: galaxies assembled at very early times, the uncertainties associated with 

761: the lack of constraints at these high redshifts rapidly become 

762: less important to our predictions. 

763: 

764: 

765: \subsection{The Simulations}

766: \label{sec:model:sims}

767: 

768: 

769: In order to determine the effects that a given merger will have on galaxy properties, we 

770: require some estimates of how e.g.\ the gas content of initial galaxies (and other properties) 

771: translates into properties of the remnant. 

772: We derive these prescriptions from a large library of hydrodynamic 

773: simulations of galaxy encounters and mergers, described in detail 

774: in \citet{robertson:fp,cox:kinematics,younger:minor.mergers} and \paperone. 

775: These amount to several hundred unique simulations, spanning a wide 

776: range in progenitor galaxy masses, gas fractions, orbital parameters, 

777: progenitor structural properties (sizes, concentrations, bulge-to-disk ratios), 

778: and redshift. 

779: 

780: Most of the simulations are major (mass ratios 

781: $\sim1:3$-$1:1$), binary encounters between 

782: stellar disks (which provide an idealized scenario useful for calibrating 

783: how details of the remnant depend on specific progenitor properties), 

784: but they include a series of minor mergers (from mass ratios $\sim1:20$ to 

785: $\sim1:3$), as well as spheroid-spheroid ``re-mergers'' or ``dry mergers'' (i.e.\ mergers of the 

786: elliptical remnants of previous merger simulations), 

787: mixed-morphology (spiral-elliptical) mergers \citep[see also][for a 

788: detailed study of these mergers]{burkert:mixed.morph.boxiness,

789: johansson:mixed.morph.mbh.sims}, multiple 

790: mergers, and rapid series of hierarchical mergers. 

791: Our adopted prescriptions are robust to these choices. 

792: The simulations usually include accretion and feedback from supermassive 

793: black holes, as well as feedback from supernovae and stellar winds. 

794: However, we have performed parameter studies in these 

795: feedback prescriptions, and find that the 

796: structural properties of interest here are relatively insensitive to 

797: these effects \citep{cox:winds,hopkins:bhfp.theory,hopkins:cusps.mergers}.

798: 

799: The predicted simulation scalings are discussed in detail 

800: in \paperone-\paperthree, where we 

801: take advantage of high-resolution observations of local merger remnants 

802: \citep[from][]{rj:profiles} as well as both nuclear cusp and core ellipticals 

803: \citep[from][]{lauer:bimodal.profiles,jk:profiles} to test them observationally. 

804: We find good agreement between the predicted and observed scalings 

805: with e.g.\ stellar mass and gas content (of the progenitor galaxies) 

806: at the time of the merger. If, as is commonly believed, core ellipticals 

807: are the product of spheroid-spheroid re-mergers, then 

808: our comparisons in \paperthree\ also confirm the scalings 

809: derived from simulated re-mergers. 

810: 

811: 

812: \subsubsection{Mergers without Gas}

813: \label{sec:model:sims:dry}

814: 

815: 

816: In mergers, the stars and dark matter form a collisionless system, and hence

817: gas free (dissipationless or dry) mergers 

818: are particularly easy to handle. Furthermore, direct comparison 

819: with our simulations suggests that, to the desired accuracy, 

820: it is a good approximation to treat the dissipational and dissipationless 

821: components of a merger separately, allowing us to apply simple rules to the 

822: {\em stellar} remnant 

823: in mergers of both gas-rich disks and gas-poor spheroids. 

824: 

825: It is well established in numerical simulations that, to lowest order, the 

826: effect of any merger of dissipationless components 

827: is to ``puff them up'' by a uniform factor, 

828: while roughly conserving profile shape \citep[at least for 

829: certain ``equilibrium'' profile shapes such as 

830: the \citet{nfw:profile}, \citet{hernquist:profile}, or \citet{devaucouleurs} profiles; 

831: see e.g.][]{barnes:disk.disk.mergers,boylankolchin:mergers.fp,boylankolchin:dry.mergers,

832: hopkins:cores}. 

833: The conservation of both energy and phase space 

834: density means that, modulo a small normalization offset owing to possibly 

835: different profile shapes 

836: the remnant of e.g.\ two initial stellar disk or spheroid mergers will have a similar final 

837: effective radius.

838: 

839: In detail, if we temporarily ignore the 

840: halos of the galaxies (a good approximation in most simulations, since 

841: the specific binding energy of the galaxy baryonic mass is much larger than 

842: that of the halo) and consider isotropic systems, we obtain for the parabolic merger 

843: of systems of mass $M_{1}$ and $M_{2}=f\,M_{1}$ ($f\le1$) the energy conservation equation 

844: \begin{equation}

845: E_{f} = k_{f}\,(M_{1}+M_{2})\,\sigma_{f}^{2} = E_{i} = k_{1}\,M_{1}\,\sigma_{1}^{2} + 

846: k_{2}\,M_{2}\,\sigma_{2}^{2}

847: \label{eqn:egy}

848: \end{equation}

849: where $k$ is a constant that depends weakly on profile shape \citep[for greater 

850: detail, see][]{ciotti:dry.vs.wet.mergers}. If profile 

851: shape is roughly preserved and $R\propto M/\sigma^{2}$, 

852: then we expect 

853: \begin{equation}

854: R_{f} = R_{1}\,\frac{(1+f)^{2}}{(1+f^{2}\,\frac{R_{1}}{R_{2}})}.

855: \label{eqn:re.dry}

856: \end{equation}

857: A merger of two perfectly identical spheroids 

858: will double $R_{e}$ and conserve $\sigma$. 

859: It is straightforward to solve the appropriate energy conservation equation 

860: numerically, allowing for arbitrary profile shapes and 

861: for halo components (assuming the halo profile follows 

862: \citet{nfw:profile} or \citet{hernquist:profile} profiles), but in practice we find that 

863: these subtleties make no almost no difference compared to

864: using Equation~(\ref{eqn:re.dry}). 

865: 

866: In a merger of two stellar disks, violent relaxation will transform the 

867: stellar distribution from initially exponential disks into 

868: \citet{devaucouleurs}-like profiles, more generally \citet{sersic:profile} profiles (of the form 

869: $I_{e}\propto \exp{[-(r/r_{0})^{1/n_{s}}]}$ with $n_{s}\sim2.5-3.5$ 

870: after a single major disk-disk merger

871: \citep[see \paperone-\papertwo\ and][]{naab:profiles}, 

872: while the halo profile shape is approximately 

873: preserved \citep[\paperfour,][]{boylankolchin:mergers.fp}. These trends in simulations can both 

874: be roughly explained by

875: allowing the merger to scatter stars and dark matter 

876: (in addition to uniformly puffing up the 

877: profile) in their final three-dimensional radii by some lognormal broadening 

878: factor $\sigma_{r}\sim0.3-0.4\,$dex (in a $1:1$ merger). In other words, 

879: while the median final (post-merger) effective radius of stars at some initial radius $r_{i}$ 

880: is given by the uniform puffing up or stretching of 

881: the profile in Equation~(\ref{eqn:re.dry}), 

882: there is a lognormal scatter with dispersion $\sigma_{r}$ in the final radii of stars 

883: from that initial radius. 

884: Over the relevant dynamic range for 

885: most practical observational purposes (from $\sim 0.01\,R_{e}$ to $\gtrsim10\,R_{e}$, 

886: or as much as 15 magnitudes in surface brightness), 

887: this will effectively transform an initial exponential profile into an 

888: $n_{s}\approx3$ ($\sigma_{r}=0.3$) or $n_{s}=4$ ($\sigma_{r}=0.4$) 

889: profile. 

890: 

891: Subsequent spheroid-spheroid or spheroid-disk mergers continue to scatter stars out 

892: to larger radii, building an extended envelope of material, 

893: and raising the best-fit Sersic index of the dissipationless component of the remnant. 

894: We study this in \paperthree, and find to a good approximation that a re-merger of 

895: mass ratio $f\leq1$ will raise the $n_{s}$ of the dissipationless component 

896: by $\Delta n_{s}\sim f$, or equivalently ``broaden'' the three-dimensional stellar 

897: distribution by a lognormal factor $\sim 0.3\,f$ (the prescription we adopt). At 

898: $z=0$ we can then determine an ``observed'' Sersic index by projecting this mock 

899: profile (with that of the dissipational component) and fitting to the system. 

900: If we consider the Sersic indices directly fitted to our simulations -- 

901: i.e.\ draw a Sersic index for a disk-disk merger remnant randomly from 

902: that fitted to our simulated mergers of the same mass ratio, and so on -- we 

903: obtain similar predictions. 

904: 

905: Finally, having the profile of the dissipationless stellar and halo components, we 

906: can calculate the velocity dispersion $\sigma$ of stars within some radius 

907: (here we take the mass-weighted velocity dispersion of stars within 

908: $R_{e}$, and assume isotropic orbits, although this is not a dominant 

909: uncertainty in our predictions). 

910: We can instead (without any reference to the isotropy assumption) 

911: assume that the dynamical mass estimator, $\sigma^{2}\,R_{e}$, 

912: is a good tracer of the true enclosed total mass within the stellar effective 

913: radius $R_{e}$ (modulo a normalization constant that is the same for 

914: most ellipticals) -- a fact seen in our simulations (\paperfour) and 

915: observations \citep{cappellari:fp,bolton:fp,bolton:fp.update} -- 

916: and use the known total mass ($M(<R_{e})$) to predict $\sigma$. 

917: The results are similar. 

918: 

919: We note that halos are tracked with stars in these processes, 

920: but between mergers, the halos still grow. We assume at all times 

921: that the dark matter halo follows a \citet{hernquist:profile} profile (essentially 

922: identical to an \citet{nfw:profile} profile at the radii that matter for the 

923: baryonic galaxy, but with finite mass and analytically tractable properties, a 

924: more useful approximation since we are considering halos as if in isolation), with a 

925: concentration from the mean concentration-halo mass-redshift 

926: relation in simulations and observations (see \S~\ref{sec:model:hod}

927: and \citet{springel:models}). 

928: We then calculate the halo contribution to quantities such as e.g.\ the 

929: dynamical mass within $R_{e}$ and $\sigma$ based on this profile. 

930: However, we could also assume the dark matter within the stellar effective 

931: radius ``freezes out'' with each major merger (new dark matter within $R_{e}$ 

932: only being what is brought in by subsequent mergers, within the $R_{e}$ of 

933: those galaxies at the time of their first merger) -- it makes relatively 

934: little difference, since the mass densities in the cores of halos do not 

935: strongly evolve with redshift \citep{bullock:concentrations}. 

936: 

937: 

938: \subsubsection{Mergers with Gas}

939: \label{sec:model:sims:wet}

940: 

941: 

942: In a gas-rich merger, the gas loses angular momentum and, being dissipative, 

943: radiates its energy and collapses to the center of the galaxy. The collapse will, 

944: in general, continue until the gas becomes self-gravitating, at which point it 

945: rapidly turns into stars as it further contracts \citep[for details, see][]{hopkins:disk.survival}. 

946: The remnant will 

947: exhibit a ``dissipational component'' -- the dense central stellar concentration 

948: which is the relic of these dissipational merger-induced starbursts. 

949: 

950: \citet{covington:diss.size.expectation} consider the dissipation of energy in 

951: mergers and use it to estimate the effect this will have on the size of the merger 

952: remnant \citep[see also][]{ciotti:dry.vs.wet.mergers}, 

953: which we test in \papertwo\ and \paperthree\ and show is a good approximation to 

954: our simulations and observed systems, and can be reduced 

955: to the approximation

956: \begin{equation}

957: %R_{e}({\rm net}) = \frac{R_{e}({\rm dissipationless})}{1+(f_{\rm gas}/0.1)^{0.8}}, 

958: %R_{e}({\rm net}) \approx \frac{R_{e}({\rm dissipationless})}{[1+(f_{\rm gas}/0.2)^{1.2}]^{0.8}}, 

959: R_{e} \approx \frac{R_{e}({\rm dissipationless})}{1+(f_{\rm gas}/f_{0})}, 

960: \label{eqn:re.wet}

961: \end{equation}

962: where $f_{0}\approx0.25-0.30$, $R_{e}({\rm dissipationless})$ is the effective 

963: stellar radius of the final merger remnant if it were entirely dissipationless, and 

964: $f_{\rm dissipational}$ is the baryonic 

965: mass fraction from the starburst. For most major mergers, 

966: gas in the disks at the time of the 

967: merger will rapidly lose energy, and star formation is very efficient, 

968: so $f_{\rm dissipational}$ reflects the gas fractions of the progenitor 

969: disks immediately before the merger $f_{\rm dissipational}({\rm merger})= 

970: f_{\rm gas} = M_{\rm gas}({\rm disks})/M_{\ast}({\rm remnant})$ 

971: (gas blown out by feedback from black holes and stellar winds, even with extreme 

972: feedback prescriptions, makes little difference here: it predominantly effects $f_{\rm gas}$ 

973: of the pre-merger disks over much longer timescales, rather than the consumption 

974: in mergers). We show in \citet{hopkins:disk.survival} that this is not strictly true in 

975: extremely gas-rich mergers ($f_{\rm gas} > 0.5$), where torques are inefficient at 

976: driving dissipation, and ellipticals may not be formed from even major mergers: these 

977: extreme cases however are seen only at the lowest observed masses, and do not affect 

978: most of our predictions (though we note where this may be important). 

979: 

980: Given the typical exponential-like ($n_{s}\sim1-2$) character of these dissipational components 

981: when they first form (owing to their formation from infalling gas), we can invert this to 

982: infer what the effective radius of the dissipational component 

983: specifically must be (given that effective radius and profile, we 

984: can then construct a mock profile of the entire galaxy). 

985: Based on our study of re-merger simulations in \paperthree, we find that 

986: the two components (those which were originally dissipational at their formation, and 

987: those which were not -- i.e. which originally came from stellar disks) tend to 

988: be separately conserved even after several dry or gas-poor spheroid-spheroid re-mergers. 

989: In a series of mergers, then, it is a good approximation to treat the two separately: 

990: dissipationless components grow and add as described above. Dissipational components 

991: form with a mass given by the gas content of merging disks with sizes appropriate for the 

992: above relation, and then evolve either by gas poor (spheroid-spheroid) merging 

993: (where they will add with 

994: other stellar dissipational components formed in earlier mergers, following the rules 

995: for dissipationless merging above since both components are stellar), or 

996: by more gas-rich (spheroid-disk) merging (in which case new dissipational mass 

997: is added given the prescriptions above). 

998: 

999: Dissipation will also fuel growth of the 

1000: central supermassive black hole. Based on our theoretical modeling of 

1001: self-regulated black hole growth in simulations \citep{dimatteo:msigma,

1002: hopkins:faint.slope,hopkins:seyferts,hopkins:bhfp.theory} 

1003: and that of others 

1004: \citep[e.g.][]{silkrees:msigma,murray:momentum.winds, ciottiostriker:recycling}, essentially 

1005: any model where the black hole regulates its growth by halting accretion (allowing 

1006: some fraction of the energy or momentum of accretion to couple to the surrounding 

1007: media) will give rise to a fundamental correlation 

1008: between black hole mass and spheroid binding energy \citep{hopkins:bhfp.theory}, 

1009: more specifically with the binding energy of the gas in the central regions whose 

1010: inflow must be suppressed to regulate black hole growth. 

1011: 

1012: There is direct evidence for this in the observations as well, with \citet{hopkins:bhfp.obs} 

1013: finding a $\sim3\,\sigma$ preference in the data for a correlation of the 

1014: form $M_{\rm BH}\sim \mstar^{0.5-0.7}\,\sigma^{1.5-2.0}$, similar 

1015: to and consistent with the ``fundamental'' correlation being one with bulge 

1016: binding energy, which is roughly traced by $E_{b}\sim\mstar\,\sigma^{2}$ 

1017: \citep[$M_{\rm BH}\propto E_{b}^{0.71}$, see also][]{aller:mbh.esph}. 

1018: Indirectly, this can then 

1019: explain e.g.\ the observed $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ \citep{FM00,Gebhardt00} and 

1020: $M_{\rm BH}-\mstar$ \citep{magorrian} correlations. 

1021: 

1022: Motivated by our simulations and these observational results, we model black 

1023: hole growth as follows: in each merger, we allow the black hole to grow by an 

1024: amount proportional to the binding energy of 

1025: the new dissipational components of the merger (i.e.\ the starburst gas), in addition 

1026: to summing the masses of the two progenitor black holes \citep[we do not model 

1027: any gravitational kicks that might expel black holes, but theoretical estimates suggest 

1028: that by $z=0$ in the massive galaxies we are interested in here, such effects 

1029: are small if they are present at all;][]{volonteri:xray.counts,volonteri:recoils}. 

1030: We include an intrinsic scatter $\sim0.2\,$dex, again motivated by simulations 

1031: (although there will be some scatter in the resulting correlations regardless, 

1032: reflecting different gas content and potential depth at the time of merger, with 

1033: subsequent evolution to $z=0$). 

1034: The exact proportionality constant 

1035: is a reflection of the physics of feedback efficiencies and 

1036: coupling, but we adopt a constant calibrated in simulations to 

1037: match the normalization of the observed $z=0$ $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation 

1038:  \citep[][]{dimatteo:msigma,hopkins:lifetimes.methods,hopkins:bhfp.theory}. 

1039: Any other results (e.g.\ the slope 

1040: of these correlations, residual correlations or correlations with other 

1041: structural parameters, and/or redshift evolution in the correlations) 

1042: are genuine predictions of the model, not this calibration. 

1043: 

1044: 

1045: 

1046: \breaker

1047: \section{Predicted Scaling Laws at $z=0$}

1048: \label{sec:z0}

1049: 

1050: \begin{figure}

1051:     \centering

1052:     %\scaleup

1053:     %\plotone{MC_fp_proj.ps}

1054:     \plotone{f1.ps}

1055:     \caption{Predicted spheroid scaling laws at $z=0$. {\em Top:} Effective 

1056:     radius as a function of stellar mass. {\em Left:} Our simulated systems are shown 

1057:     (equal numbers of systems per logarithmic interval in mass are simulated and 

1058:     plotted, to represent the full dynamic range), 

1059:     with color encoding the redshift of their last gas-rich merger 

1060:     (from black for $z=0$ to red for $z\gtrsim3$); solid 

1061:     lines show the median trends for systems with 

1062:     this redshift: $z=0-1$ (black), $1-2$ (blue), $2-3$ (orange), and $>3$ (red). 

1063:     {\em Right:} Solid (dashed) line shows the median ($\pm1\sigma$) trend 

1064:     from the simulations. 

1065:     Observed systems 

1066:     from the samples of \citet[][red stars]{jk:profiles} and 

1067:     \citet[][purple circles]{lauer:bimodal.profiles} are shown for comparison ({\em right}). 

1068:     This notation is used throughout. 

1069:     {\em Bottom:} Projected central velocity dispersion as a function of 

1070:     stellar mass.

1071:     \label{fig:fp.proj}}

1072: \end{figure}

1073: 

1074: \begin{figure}

1075:     \centering

1076:     %\scaleup

1077:     %\plotone{MC_fp.ps}

1078:     \plotone{f2.ps}

1079:     \caption{The fundamental plane. {\em Top:} Dynamical mass as a function of 

1080:     stellar mass (style as in Fig. \ref{fig:fp.proj}). {\em Bottom:} Effective radius as a 

1081:     function of $\sigma$ and $\mu$ (here converted to stellar surface density $\Sigma$). 

1082:     Dotted red line shows the virial relation (no tilt in the fundamental plane). 

1083:     \label{fig:fp}}

1084: \end{figure}

1085: 

1086: Figures~\ref{fig:fp.proj} \&\ \ref{fig:fp} plot the fundamental plane correlations of 

1087: ellipticals at $z=0$, produced by this simple model. Here 

1088: (and in subsequent figures) we draw systems randomly 

1089: from the halo occupation distribution with the restriction that we draw equal numbers 

1090: of simulated systems per logarithmic interval in halo mass (in order to represent 

1091: the full dynamic range of interest in the plots). This differs slightly from selecting 

1092: e.g.\ a volume-limited sample, which would be dominated by low-mass systems 

1093: (less useful for studying the distribution in a parameter at a given mass, 

1094: which is our intention here). 

1095: 

1096: We compare 

1097: with a large sample of observed ellipticals: specifically the combination of 

1098: the \citet{jk:profiles} compilation of Virgo ellipticals 

1099: and the bright elliptical sample of \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles} (which 

1100: extends this dynamic range at the cost of slightly higher uncertainties in the data), 

1101: with nuclear {\em HST} observations and ground-based data at large radii 

1102: (allowing accurate surface brightness profile measurements from 

1103: $\sim 50$\,pc to $\sim50$\,kpc)\footnote{The profiles cover sufficient dynamic 

1104: range that effective radii can be determined directly from the integrated surface 

1105: brightness profiles; adopting those from fitted profiles changes the results 

1106: by a negligible amount. Velocity dispersions are compiled by the authors, 

1107: Sersic indices are fitted in \papertwo, and stellar masses are determined from 

1108: the integrated photometry using the color-dependent mass-to-light ratios 

1109: from \citet{bell:mfs}. We have compared the results given 

1110: different observed profiles for the same objects 

1111: and different stellar mass estimators, and find that (in a statistical sense) they 

1112: are unchanged.}. 

1113: The correlations traced by these samples throughout this paper are 

1114: statistically indistinguishable from the best-fit correlations (over the range observed) 

1115: determined from volume-limited samples of (primarily field) early-type galaxies in 

1116: the SDSS, in e.g.\ \citet{shen:size.mass,bernardi:fp,bernardi:bcg.scalings,

1117: gallazzi06:ages,vonderlinden:bcg.scaling.relations}. There may be a slight (not highly 

1118: significant) offset between the data-sets, in the sense that the 

1119: objects in the Virgo sample may have slightly larger $R_{e}$ and smaller $\sigma$ 

1120: than the \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles} sample 

1121: at fixed mass; if real, this may relate to the former being a cluster sample, 

1122: or to the likely inclusion of a non-negligible S0 population in the latter. 

1123: But in any case, the possible offset between the two is smaller than the uncertainties 

1124: in our modeling (in terms of normalizing e.g.\ absolute sizes of systems, requiring 

1125: accurate priors on their progenitor disk and halo sizes), and within the 

1126: predicted and observed scatter, and so reasonably brackets the range of 

1127: different observations.  (For more details of the observational samples 

1128: and their analysis, we refer to those papers and \papertwo.)

1129: 

1130: The correlations are accurately reproduced at $z=0$. Specifically, 

1131: the size-mass relation has a steep logarithmic slope $R_{e}\sim \mstar^{0.6}$, compared 

1132: to $R_{e}\sim \mstar^{0.3}$ for the progenitor disks -- the sense of this is specifically 

1133: that low-mass ellipticals are more compact, relative to their progenitor disks. The 

1134: velocity dispersion-mass (Faber-Jackson) relation is also reproduced, although 

1135: this correlation is less dramatically different from that obeyed by disks (the 

1136: baryonic Tully-Fisher relation). The resulting fundamental plane, expressed 

1137: as either $\mdyn(\mstar)$ or $R_{e}(\sigma,\ \mstar)$, is also reproduced; i.e.\ the 

1138: predicted ratios of enclosed dark matter to stellar mass within the stellar 

1139: $R_{e}$ agree with observations as a function of mass (note that with the adopted 

1140: definition of $\mdyn\propto\sigma^{2}\,R_{e}$, $\mdyn$ can be less 

1141: than $M_{\ast}$). Specifically, 

1142: the tilt of the fundamental plane is reproduced -- rather than $\mdyn\propto\mstar$, 

1143: the expectation if systems were perfectly homologous, we predict 

1144: $\mdyn\propto\mstar^{1+\alpha}$ (where $\alpha\approx0.2$ is the FP tilt), 

1145: namely that lower-mass systems (as a consequence of their being more compact) 

1146: are more baryon-dominated within their stellar effective radii. 

1147: (The nature of the FP scalings are discussed in much greater detail in 

1148: \paperfour; however, we outline the dominant physical effects in 

1149: \S~\ref{sec:z0:diss} \&\ \ref{sec:z0:dry} below.)

1150: 

1151: We plot the simulated systems, with colors denoting the redshift of their 

1152: last gas-rich merger -- i.e.\ approximately the time at which they should 

1153: have stopped forming stars. It is clear that, at fixed stellar mass (or 

1154: velocity dispersion, given that it more tightly correlates 

1155: with stellar mass than e.g.\ effective radius), systems with larger radii (or larger $\mdyn/\mstar$) 

1156: tend to be older -- they are often systems that merged at early times and 

1157: have grown dissipationlessly since then. 

1158: This appears to be borne out in recent observational estimates based on stellar population 

1159: constraints in local ellipticals \citep{gallazzi06:ages,graves:prep}. 

1160: (We discuss this further below.)

1161: 

1162: 

1163: \begin{figure}

1164:     \centering

1165:     %\scaleup

1166:     %\plotone{MC_ns.ps}

1167:     \plotone{f3.ps}

1168:     \caption{Correlation between stellar mass and estimated best-fit galaxy 

1169:     Sersic index $n_{s}$ (style as in Figure~\ref{fig:fp.proj}). 

1170:     {\em Top:} Sersic indices obtained fitting the entire galaxy profile 

1171:     to a single Sersic law (over typical observed dynamic range). 

1172:     {\em Bottom:} Sersic indices of just the dissipationless (outer, violently relaxed) 

1173:     component (not including the dissipational central starburst). Observational 

1174:     estimates are from the two-component modeling in \papertwo\ and \paperthree. 

1175:     Owing to the 

1176:     cosmological dependence of merger history on mass, there is an effective correlation 

1177:     between stellar mass and $n_{s}$. This is most directly reflected in the 

1178:     outer, dissipationless component. Fitting the systems to a single Sersic index 

1179:     represents a more complex combination of merger history and the amount of 

1180:     dissipation (both effects can mimic one another). 

1181:     %{\bf use a different label for $n_{s}$(outer)? ???}

1182:     \label{fig:ns}}

1183: \end{figure}

1184: 

1185: Figure~\ref{fig:ns} plots the 

1186: Sersic index of the galaxy light profiles predicted at $z=0$. We stress that these are 

1187: rough estimates at best -- individual galaxy profiles show a degree of diversity 

1188: representative of many details in their formation and merger history that only 

1189: high-resolution numerical simulations can capture. We therefore refer to 

1190: \papertwo\ and \paperthree\ for a more detailed study and comparison 

1191: of Sersic indices in simulated and observed systems; however, comparison of 

1192: our estimates with numerical simulations suggests that the adopted prescriptions 

1193: capture at least the median behavior in simulations. 

1194: 

1195: First, we  

1196: consider the Sersic index fitted to the {\em entire} galaxy profile -- this is of course a 

1197: useful observational parameter, but it reflects a mix of different {\em physical} 

1198: components of the galaxy. In order to transform a galaxy from an exponential 

1199: disk profile (a Sersic index $n_{s}=1$) to a typical massive elliptical with a high Sersic 

1200: index $\gtrsim4$, both dissipation and violent relaxation are necessary. Violent 

1201: relaxation will scatter stars at large radii, building up an extended envelope 

1202: (characteristic of high-$n_{s}$ systems), but high-$n_{s}$ profiles rise steeply 

1203: at small radii, so dissipation is needed to build up a dense central stellar concentration. 

1204: The effects of repeated mergers on the profile at large radii are relatively straightforward, 

1205: and (more or less) monotonically increase $n_{s}$, but the 

1206: consequences of dissipation are more complex (related not just to the dissipational 

1207: mass fraction but to the relative concentration of the dissipative component and 

1208: its profile shape) and non-monotonic. 

1209: 

1210: We construct the best-fit Sersic index 

1211: fitting a dynamic range comparable to the observations plotted (representative of 

1212: local galaxies for which the highest-quality data is available), 

1213: from $\sim50\,$pc to $\sim 30$\,kpc. Because the galaxy profiles are 

1214: multi-component, the resulting $n_{s}$ reflects a complex combination of 

1215: the observed dynamic range, the relative mass, size, and slope of the dissipational 

1216: component, and the merger history. 

1217: Together, these effects yield an apparent 

1218: steep dependence of Sersic index on mass, in agreement 

1219: with the observations, but with large scatter (whereas if the profiles were entirely 

1220: dissipationless, the lack of dense stellar concentrations at small radii would restrict them 

1221: to smaller Sersic indices and lead to a weaker dependence of $n_{s}$ on 

1222: merger history and mass). 

1223: Most of the strength of the dependence 

1224: here is ultimately a coincidence reflecting particular combinations of parameters 

1225: moving into or out of the dynamic range for which the fits are sensitive.

1226: 

1227: If we consider 

1228: the Sersic indices of just the dissipationless component (i.e.\ the sum of the 

1229: stellar components of pre-merger disks that were violently relaxed in the 

1230: initial gas-rich mergers that formed each spheroid progenitor), 

1231: the dependence on mass is weaker, but it more directly reflects the merger 

1232: history of the systems (and depends much less on e.g.\ the dynamic 

1233: range of the fit). 

1234: We compare this with multi-component decompositions of the same observed 

1235: systems, based on a more detailed, 

1236: physically motivated approach to studying galaxy profiles which 

1237: we discuss in detail in \paperone-\paperthree, where we demonstrate that 

1238: the ``dissipationless'' component of observed ellipticals can, in fact, be recovered. 

1239: By definition in our simple model, the dependence we predict now is 

1240: entirely driven by the mean dependence of merger history on mass -- systems 

1241: which have experienced more mergers (and more violent mergers) will have had 

1242: more stars scattered to large radii in those mergers, raising the $n_{s}$ of the 

1243: outer component.  

1244: At low masses, 

1245: most systems formed in $\sim1$ major merger at relatively low redshifts 

1246: $z<1-2$, so a typical $n_{s}\sim2-3$ is obtained. At high masses, systems often have their 

1247: first merger at very high redshifts, involving a large degree of dissipation, forming a 

1248: dense core, and then experience a number of dry mergers, building up a more 

1249: extended dissipationless outer component and envelope and raising $n_{s}$. 

1250: 

1251: The apparent trends of Sersic index with mass are 

1252: much stronger if dwarf spheroidals are included, as 

1253: in many observational samples \citep[e.g.][]{graham:sersic,ferrarese:profiles}. These 

1254: systems have most likely not experienced any significant mergers -- as a structural 

1255: family, they are clearly related to disks, not ellipticals, and their Sersic indices 

1256: (typical $n_{s}\sim1$) demonstrate this; that they dominate at low masses reflects e.g.\ the 

1257: dominance of disks and ellipticals, and is again driven by the cosmological 

1258: dependence of merger history on mass. 

1259: 

1260: \begin{figure}

1261:     \centering

1262:     %\scaleup

1263:     %\plotone{MC_bh_corr.ps}

1264:     \plotone{f4.ps}

1265:     \caption{Correlation between black hole mass and host spheroid properties 

1266:     (effective radius, velocity dispersion, stellar mass, and the observable proxy for 

1267:     bulge binding energy, $\mstar\,\sigma^{2}$, effectively the same as the ``black hole 

1268:     fundamental plane'' observed). Style as in Figure~\ref{fig:fp.proj}. 

1269:     Magenta stars show observed systems with direct black hole mass measurements, 

1270:     compiled in \citet{hopkins:bhfp.obs} \citep[see][]{magorrian,merrittferrarese:msigma,

1271:     tremaine:msigma,marconihunt,haringrix}. 

1272:     A simple prescription for black how growth based 

1273:     on dissipational binding energy reproduces the $z=0$ correlations. 

1274:     \label{fig:mbh}}

1275: \end{figure}

1276: 

1277: Figure~\ref{fig:mbh} compares the predicted and observed correlations between 

1278: nuclear black hole mass and host bulge/spheroid properties (effective radius, 

1279: velocity dispersion, stellar mass, and binding energy). Recall, motivated 

1280: by observational and theoretical expectations of a black hole ``fundamental plane'' 

1281: \citep{hopkins:bhfp.obs,hopkins:bhfp.theory} the fundamental ``assumed'' 

1282: correlation here is between black hole mass and binding energy of the 

1283: dissipational component of the bulge, determined at the time of that dissipation 

1284: (time of gas-rich merger). Despite the complex interplay between this and the 

1285: total bulge mass and size, dry mergers, and evolution in halo bulge properties, 

1286: the $z=0$ correlations 

1287: \citep[including the residual correlations observed in][]{hopkins:bhfp.obs}) 

1288: are accurately reproduced. The curvature seen in the $M_{\rm BH}-R_{e}$ 

1289: and $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relations reflects a combination of the curvature 

1290: seen in the correlations between these properties and stellar mass, and 

1291: the increasing importance of dry mergers at higher masses. 

1292: 

1293: \begin{figure}

1294:     \centering

1295:     %\scaleup

1296:     %\plotone{MC_mbh_ns.ps}

1297:     \plotone{f5.ps}

1298:     \caption{Correlation between black hole mass and estimated best-fit galaxy 

1299:     Sersic index $n_{s}$ (style as in Figure~\ref{fig:fp.proj}). 

1300:     Magenta stars show observed systems as in Figure~\ref{fig:mbh}. 

1301:     Owing to the correlation between $\mbh$ and $\mstar$, 

1302:     there is a correlation between $\mbh$ and $n_{s}$, but the 

1303:     scatter is significant at large $M_{\rm BH}$ (where there is an

1304:     extended tail towards very high $n_{s}$, sensitive to the dynamic range fitted). 

1305:     \label{fig:mbh.ns}}

1306: \end{figure}

1307: 

1308: We also consider the correlation between black hole mass and Sersic index in 

1309: Figure~\ref{fig:mbh.ns}, comparing to the data compiled in 

1310: \citet{hopkins:bhfp.obs} \citep[an update of the fits in][]{graham:concentration,

1311: graham:sersic}. Owing to the 

1312: dependence of $n_{s}$ on stellar mass, there is an indirect correlation 

1313: between $M_{\rm BH}$ and $n_{s}$, consistent with that claimed

1314: in \citet{graham:sersic}. Those authors note that the correlation is not well-fitted 

1315: by a single power-law; here we see such curvature. The reason is that 

1316: most objects at $\mstar\lesssim10^{10}\,\msun$ have similar 

1317: merger histories, there is little dependence of $n_{s}$ on $\mstar$ 

1318: or $\mbh$ in this mass range, then a steep dependence, then 

1319: again a relatively flat dependence at high $M_{\rm BH}$. 

1320: The same caveats regarding these Sersic indices apply as in 

1321: Figure~\ref{fig:ns}. In this model, the correlation between Sersic index 

1322: and black hole mass may appear reasonably tight over a narrow 

1323: range, but this is accidental, and there is no 

1324: additional information on the black hole mass 

1325: derived from the single Sersic index fits. 

1326: 

1327: 

1328: \subsection{The Effects of Dissipation}

1329: \label{sec:z0:diss}

1330: 

1331: \subsubsection{What Drives the Amount of Dissipation?}

1332: \label{sec:z0:diss:driver}

1333: 

1334: \begin{figure}

1335:     \centering

1336:     %\scaleup

1337:     %\plotone{MC_fdiss.ps}

1338:     \plotone{f6.ps}

1339:     \caption{Mass fraction formed dissipationally (integrated mass fraction of the 

1340:     $z=0$ elliptical formed from gas in progenitor disks at the time of 

1341:     gas-rich mergers, in dissipational starbursts) as a function of stellar mass 

1342:     (style as in Figure~\ref{fig:fp.proj}). 

1343:     We compare ({\em top right}) with empirical estimates of 

1344:     this quantity in observed ellipticals from the study of a large sample of observed 

1345:     elliptical surface brightness 

1346:     profiles and dissipation in \papertwo\ and \paperthree. 

1347:     We also compare ({\em bottom}) with observed disk galaxy gas fractions as a function of 

1348:     stellar mass, at $z=0$ \citep[][blue diamonds, 

1349:     squares respectively]{kannappan:gfs,mcgaugh:tf}, 

1350:     $z=1$ \citep[][green squares]{shapley:z1.abundances}, 

1351:     and $z=2$ \citep[][red circles]{erb:lbg.gasmasses}. 

1352:     The dissipational fractions at $z=0$ agree well with those observed, and

1353:     reflect the gas fractions of their progenitor disks over the redshift range $z\sim0-2$ 

1354:     where most systems had their last merger(s). 

1355:     \label{fig:diss}}

1356: \end{figure}

1357: 

1358: Dissipation is one of the most important factors 

1359: controlling the properties of remnant ellipticals. 

1360: We demonstrate this robustly with detailed observations and simulations in 

1361: \papertwo\ and \paperthree. Here, we discuss how its effects are manifest in a 

1362: cosmologically representative population, including systems which have experienced 

1363: a number of dry mergers. 

1364: Figure~\ref{fig:diss} shows the integrated fraction of our $z=0$ ellipticals which formed 

1365: in dissipative starbursts (from gas in disks at the time of each merger), as opposed to 

1366: dissipationlessly scattered stellar disks. Recall, dissipation allows gas to collapse to 

1367: small scales, building up a dense central component in the stellar mass distribution and 

1368: changing the phase-space distribution of the remnant. 

1369: We compare with the observationally estimated 

1370: dissipational fractions in local ellipticals, determined in \papertwo\ and 

1371: \paperthree. The agreement is good at each mass - in other words, the 

1372: amount of dissipation observed in ellipticals can be explained by our 

1373: simple model.

1374: 

1375: What drives the trend of dissipation with mass? We find that it reflects the typical 

1376: gas fractions of disks as a function of mass. 

1377: That trend (in disks) may, of course, be a complex 

1378: consequence of poorly understood processes such as star formation, cold 

1379: gas accretion, and stellar feedback; but for our purposes here we are not interested 

1380: in how this property arises in disks (simply what the observed properties of disks are, 

1381: which are captured by construction in our halo occupation approach). 

1382: 

1383: Figure~\ref{fig:diss} 

1384: compares these integrated dissipational fractions with observationally estimated 

1385: gas fractions of disks (as a function of stellar mass) 

1386: at $z=0$ \citep[see e.g.][]{belldejong:disk.sfh,

1387: kannappan:gfs,mcgaugh:tf}, $z=1$ \citep{shapley:z1.abundances}, 

1388: and $z=2$ \citep{erb:lbg.gasmasses}. 

1389: There is a systematic evolution in gas fractions with redshift, as expected, but 

1390: the gas content of observed disks from $z\sim0-2$ appears to bracket the 

1391: range in both our predicted dissipational fractions and the observed dissipational 

1392: fractions of ellipticals. 

1393: 

1394: At the lowest masses, where the 

1395: predicted dissipational fractions and observed disk gas fractions approach unity, 

1396: the observationally inferred dissipational fractions are somewhat lower, appearing 

1397: to reach a maximum near $\sim0.4$. This most likely relates to the fact that extremely 

1398: gas-rich mergers will not efficiently dissipate angular momentum and will leave 

1399: disk-dominated, rather than elliptical remnants \citep[for details, see][]{hopkins:disk.survival}. 

1400: These subtleties, not included in our model here, are important for the evolution of 

1401: bulge-to-disk ratios in low-mass galaxies, but do not significantly affect our predictions over 

1402: most of the mass range of interest ($M_{\ast}\gtrsim10^{10}\,M_{\sun}$, where 

1403: $f_{\rm gas}\lesssim0.5$). 

1404: 

1405: At fixed mass, systems with earlier formation times tend to have 

1406: slightly lower dissipational 

1407: fractions; we emphasize that this is true when the systems are observed 

1408: at $z=0$. At their time of formation, early-forming systems may have had 

1409: very large dissipational fractions, reflecting the characteristically higher 

1410: gas fractions of disk progenitors at these redshifts (we show this in 

1411: greater detail in \S~\ref{sec:track} below). However, these systems will 

1412: also be in the most biased environments, and so (in a $\Lambda$CDM 

1413: context) undergo relatively more growth at later times, assembling 

1414: much of their $z=0$ mass via mergers with less gas content (systems 

1415: that have largely gas-exhausted and/or quenched) and correspondingly 

1416: lower dissipational fractions. 

1417: 

1418: \begin{figure}

1419:     \centering

1420:     %\scaleup

1421:     %\plotone{MC_strongz_n_mgr.ps}

1422:     \plotter{f7.ps}

1423:     \caption{{\em Top:} Fraction of ellipticals at a given stellar mass that have 

1424:     had $N$ major mergers from $z=0-6$. {\em Bottom:} Median (solid) 

1425:     and $\pm1\sigma$ (dashed) range of redshifts of the last major merger 

1426:     for ellipticals of a given stellar mass 

1427:     (not the last gas-rich merger; where the number of mergers 

1428:     $N\gtrsim2$, this last merger is often dry). Most of the mass in ellipticals (at least at 

1429:     $L\lesssim$ a few $\lstar$)

1430:     is assembled by a relatively small number of mergers at relatively low redshifts 

1431:     $z\sim0-2$. As a result, dissipational fractions roughly reflect those of disks in 

1432:     this redshift interval. 

1433:     \label{fig:diss.reasons}}

1434: \end{figure}

1435: 

1436: This simple correspondence is expected, because most of the mass in ellipticals is 

1437: assembled in a relatively small number of major mergers, at relatively low redshifts 

1438: corresponding to this observed range ($z\sim0-2$). Figure~\ref{fig:diss.reasons} 

1439: shows the typical number of mergers of ellipticals as a function of stellar mass, 

1440: as well as the typical redshifts of the most recent major merger. 

1441: The predicted trend is similar to our estimate in \citet{hopkins:groups.ell} as well 

1442: as other cosmological models \citep[see e.g.][]{delucia:sam}; most ellipticals 

1443: at $\lesssim L_{\ast}$ have had just one major merger, with even massive 

1444: ellipticals at $\sim$a few $L_{\ast}$ still having only a small number of such mergers. 

1445: 

1446: In \citet{hopkins:groups.ell} we show that the fraction of systems with e.g.\ 

1447: only one major merger in their history versus multiple major mergers, or 

1448: for which the last major merger was gas-rich, agrees well with the observed 

1449: trend in the fraction of ellipticals with central cusps (power-law nuclear slopes), 

1450: rapid rotation, or disky isophotal shapes as opposed to central cores, slow rotation, 

1451: or boxy isophotal shapes \citep[indicators of wet versus dry mergers, discussed 

1452: in detail in e.g.\ \papertwo\ and][]{faber:ell.centers,naab:gas,cox:kinematics}. 

1453: The most recent major mergers, where the final stellar mass 

1454: (at least $\sim1/2$ of it) is assembled, occurs at relatively low redshifts, with a 

1455: median $z\sim1$ and spanning the range $z\sim0-2$. Of course, the most massive BCGs 

1456: form a tail in this distribution with much more complex histories, and for massive galaxies 

1457: undergoing $\gtrsim1-2$ major mergers, the most recent mergers are dry, 

1458: but in any case the broad point remains: most of the $z=0$ mass in ellipticals is assembled 

1459: in a relatively small number of major mergers at $z\lesssim2$, and therefore 

1460: their dissipational fractions reflect those of disks over the same interval. 

1461: 

1462: This general conclusion (that major mergers with mass ratios 

1463: $\lesssim$1:3, as opposed to more 

1464: numerous minor mergers, dominate the 

1465: mass assembly in mergers once gas is exhausted and 

1466: star formation ``quenched'') 

1467: is supported by calculations from 

1468: other halo occupation models \citep{zheng:hod.evolution} 

1469: and cosmological simulations \citep{maller:sph.merger.rates}. 

1470: However, these calculations, as well as 

1471: clustering estimates \citep{masjedi:cross.correlations} and 

1472: hydrodynamic simulations \citep{naab:etg.formation} 

1473: suggest that as galaxies approach the most massive $M_{\ast}\gtrsim 10^{12}\,M_{\sun}$ 

1474: BCG mass regimes, growth by a large series of minor mergers becomes more 

1475: important than growth by major mergers. 

1476: 

1477: Roughly speaking, these 

1478: calculations suggest that, since most of the mass is in $\sim L_{\ast}$ systems, 

1479: mergers with such systems dominate mass growth: so when galaxies 

1480: are at masses $\lesssim$ a few $L_{\ast}$, their growth is dominated 

1481: by major mergers, and at higher masses, their growth is dominated by 

1482: progressively more minor mergers. 

1483: Our predictions in this limit should 

1484: therefore be treated with some degree of caution, in contrast with 

1485: the bulk of the spheroid population at $\lesssim L_{\ast}$ 

1486: \citep[typically observed in field or low-density environments, 

1487: where the expectation for growth by a small number of major 

1488: mergers since $z\sim2-4$ is reasonable; see][]{blanton:env,wang:sdss.hod,

1489: masjedi:merger.rates}. On the other hand, it is still unclear whether 

1490: such minor mergers actually contribute significantly to mass growth 

1491: even in the high-mass regime, or whether 

1492: satellites are disrupted in this regime or kicked into orbits where the 

1493: merger time is longer than the Hubble time \citep[see e.g.][]{hashimoto03:varying.culomb.log.in.dynfric,

1494: tormen:cluster.subhalos,benson:heating.model,zheng:hod.evolution,

1495: kazantzidis:mw.merger.hist.sim,brown:hod.evol}.

1496: 

1497: We, in any case, have experimented with extending our modeling to include 

1498: minor mergers, and find that this yields qualitatively similar 

1499: conclusions (with moderate quantitative but no qualitative differences 

1500: in the predicted 

1501: properties of the most massive galaxies, and no significant differences otherwise). 

1502: However, our predictions (and those of 

1503: other halo-occupation based approaches) are less certain for 

1504: minor mergers owing to ambiguities in e.g.\ 

1505: satellite disruption and weaker constraints on the satellite mass function at small 

1506: mass ratios. 

1507: 

1508: 

1509: \subsubsection{What Effects Does this Dissipation Have?}

1510: \label{sec:z0:diss:effects}

1511: 

1512: 

1513: How does this amount of dissipation change the properties of the $z=0$ ellipticals? 

1514: We consider this question in detail in idealized simulations and observed ellipticals 

1515: in \paperfour: in short, increasing the amount of dissipation yields remnants 

1516: with more of their stellar mass in a compact central starburst remnant. This yields a 

1517: stellar remnant with a smaller effective radius $R_{e}$, and therefore overall a more 

1518: baryon-dominated object (lower $M_{\rm dyn}/M_{\ast}$). We demonstrate that these 

1519: general conclusions remain both qualitatively and quantitatively valid in a more general 

1520: scenario here. In order to compare the effects with and without dissipation, we 

1521: re-run our model, but without including the effects of dissipation: this effectively amounts to 

1522: treating gas identically to stars in mergers, or equivalently treating initial disks as if 

1523: they are all gas-free. 

1524: 

1525: \begin{figure}

1526:     \centering

1527:     %\scaleup

1528:     %\plotone{MC_nodiss_fp_proj.ps}

1529:     \plotone{f8.ps}

1530:     \caption{Same predicted spheroid scaling laws at $z=0$ as Figure~\ref{fig:fp.proj}, 

1531:     but in a model with no dissipation (gas is treated the same as stars in mergers). 

1532:     Without dissipation, the correlations are similar to those observed for disks, 

1533:     with a too-shallow size-mass relation ($R_{e}\propto\mstar^{0.3}$). 

1534:     Low-mass systems require dissipation to be as compact as observed -- other effects 

1535:     (redshift evolution in disk sizes and dry mergers) are insufficient to reproduce this 

1536:     effect, and (even tuned) cannot simultaneously reproduce the slope {\em and} 

1537:     normalization of the size-mass relation. 

1538:     \label{fig:fp.proj.nodiss}}

1539: \end{figure}

1540: 

1541: \begin{figure}

1542:     \centering

1543:     %\scaleup

1544:     %\plotone{MC_nodiss_fp.ps}

1545:     \plotone{f9.ps}

1546:     \caption{The fundamental plane, as Figure~\ref{fig:fp}, with no dissipation. 

1547:     Without dissipation, there is no tilt (the low-mass ellipticals here 

1548:     have too-large an $M_{\rm dyn}/M_{\ast}$, related to their too-large sizes 

1549:     in Figure~\ref{fig:fp.proj.nodiss}).

1550:     Fitting $\mdyn\propto\mstar^{1+\alpha}$, we obtain $\alpha \sim -0.1$ to $0$, 

1551:     similar to disks, as opposed to $\alpha=0.2$ observed. In this projection, 

1552:     dry mergers and redshift evolution in disk/halo sizes cannot give significant 

1553:     tilt.  The pile-up in the lower-left panel is related to an effective upper limit 

1554:     in the phase space density of disks/halos without dissipation. 

1555:     \label{fig:fp.nodiss}}

1556: \end{figure}

1557: 

1558: 

1559: Figures~\ref{fig:fp.proj.nodiss} \&\ \ref{fig:fp.nodiss} 

1560: plot the fundamental plane correlations of 

1561: ellipticals at $z=0$, yielded from this alternative model. 

1562: Low-mass ellipticals, without dissipation, now have sizes similar to those of their 

1563: progenitor disks, and much larger than the sizes observed. 

1564: The slope of the size-mass relation, $R_{e}\propto\mstar^{0.3}$, reflects that in 

1565: progenitor disks and halos, and disagrees dramatically with 

1566: the observed slope for ellipticals $R_{e}\propto\mstar^{0.6}$. As we show in 

1567: \papertwo, the trend of increasing dissipation at low masses, 

1568: owing to increasing gas fractions in lower-mass disks, drives smaller mass 

1569: ellipticals to relatively lower masses, steepening the size-mass relation 

1570: and giving rise to the trend in Figure~\ref{fig:fp.proj}. Other trends, 

1571: such as e.g.\ the 

1572: relation of dry mergers to mass, are insufficient to explain the observed 

1573: size-mass relation (this is expected: dissipationless and dry mergers 

1574: can only lower the density of objects; they can increase radii at large mass but 

1575: cannot make low-mass ellipticals smaller or more dense as needed). 

1576: Invoking evolution in disk sizes and high-redshift mergers can make 

1577: ellipticals more compact overall, but affects the size-mass slope in the {\em opposite} 

1578: sense required (since the highest-mass ellipticals will have their first mergers 

1579: at the earliest times, they would be the most compact relative to disks today; 

1580: the opposite is observed). 

1581: 

1582: This difference in our predicted size-mass relation is 

1583: also reflected in the velocity dispersion-mass 

1584: and fundamental plane relations, albeit more weakly, since the effective 

1585: radius of the stars enters only indirectly: much of $\sigma$ is set by the potential 

1586: of the halo, which is not altered much by dissipation. Nevertheless, the 

1587: Faber-Jackson relation disagrees with that observed (again, in the sense 

1588: that ellipticals are not dense enough), and the fundamental plane tilt is 

1589: erased (we obtain $\mdyn\propto\mstar^{0.9-1.0}$, essentially identical to 

1590: that observed in disks). 

1591: 

1592: These discrepancies are also apparent from the 

1593: predictions in \citet{almeida:durham.ell.scalings}, 

1594: who use the semi-analytic models from both \citet{baugh:sam} and \citet{bower:sam} 

1595: to predict galaxy properties in a similar manner as we have done, 

1596: but treating gas identically to stars 

1597: (in fact, their prescriptions for galaxy sizes and dark matter scalings 

1598: are almost identical to ours in this ``no dissipation'' case). As a direct result, at $z=0$, 

1599: their predicted size-mass relation is much too flat ($R_{e}\propto\mstar^{0.3}$)

1600: relative to that observed for 

1601: spheroids, and the predicted fundamental plane has no tilt (in 

1602: fact it is slightly tilted in the incorrect 

1603: sense $M_{\rm dyn}\propto\mstar^{0.8-0.9}$). 

1604: They consider the differences between the two semi-analytic models, 

1605: as well as the inclusion or removal of adiabatic contraction in the 

1606: galaxy halos, supernova and AGN 

1607: feedback, self gravity in the baryons, and systematically higher or lower-energy orbits, 

1608: and find that none of these significantly change the predicted fundamental 

1609: plane scalings. In short, at $z=0$, dissipation (making galaxy stellar 

1610: mass distributions more compact) is much more important and more significant to 

1611: the fundamental plane correlations than any 

1612: differences between various models for galaxy formation and evolution -- 

1613: only dissipation works as a viable explanation of the observed scalings. 

1614: 

1615: 

1616: 

1617: \begin{figure}

1618:     \centering

1619:     %\scaleup

1620:     %\plotone{MC_nodiss_ns.ps}

1621:     \plotone{f10.ps}

1622:     \caption{Correlation between stellar mass and estimated best-fit galaxy 

1623:     Sersic index $n_{s}$, as Figure~\ref{fig:ns}, with no dissipation. 

1624:     Without 

1625:     dissipation, Sersic indices remain too low at all masses (central densities 

1626:     cannot rise to the values observed) -- the Sersic indices fitted to the whole galaxy 

1627:     are the same as those of just the dissipationless outer component ({\em bottom}); 

1628:     i.e.\ they can match the outer regions of elliptical profiles but fail to match the 

1629:     central surface brightness of ellipticals (not dense enough at the center). 

1630:     \label{fig:ns.nodiss}}

1631: \end{figure}

1632: 

1633: The Sersic profiles in the absence of dissipation will be those of the 

1634: outer/dissipationless components, already shown in Figure~\ref{fig:ns} 

1635: (in this case, both the Sersic index of the entire profile and the Sersic index 

1636: of just the dissipationless component will be the same, and be 

1637: identical to that of just the dissipationless component in our full model). We 

1638: directly compare this with the observed Sersic indices in Figure~\ref{fig:ns.nodiss}. 

1639: Although this matches the outer profiles of observed systems, it clearly is 

1640: not the same as the Sersic indices obtained fitting the observed galaxies to a 

1641: single Sersic law over the entire dynamic range -- the high Sersic values (for 

1642: the entire profile) $n_{s}\sim5-10$ observed can only be reproduced with 

1643: some dissipation to make a dense central concentration of light (matching 

1644: the steep rise at small radii of large-$n_{s}$ Sersic profiles). 

1645: This ultimately points to the same issue as the size-mass relations: dissipation 

1646: is needed to raise the central stellar densities in order to match observed 

1647: correlations. 

1648: 

1649: Without dissipation, there is of course no way to grow the central 

1650: black hole; there is no correlation between black hole mass and host galaxy 

1651: properties for us to predict. We could in principle assume that black hole 

1652: mass is dissipationlessly conserved in mergers, but initially set by disk masses -- 

1653: however, this would predict that it is disk, not bulge properties that set the 

1654: black hole mass, in direct contradiction with observations. We could 

1655: assume that $\mbh$ strictly traces the stellar mass or velocity dispersion 

1656: in the bulge (or in the dissipationless component of the bulge), 

1657: but as demonstrated in \citet{hopkins:bhfp.obs}, this fails to explain 

1658: residual correlations between black hole mass and bulge binding energy 

1659: at fixed $\mstar$ or $\sigma$. 

1660: 

1661: 

1662: %\begin{figure}

1663: %    \centering

1664: %    %\scaleup

1665: %    \plotone{MC_nodiss_ns.ps}

1666: %    \caption{Correlation between stellar or black hole mass and estimated best-fit galaxy 

1667: %    Sersic index $n_{s}$, as Figure~\ref{fig:ns}, with no dissipation. Without 

1668: %    dissipation, Sersic indices remain too low at all masses (central densities 

1669: %    cannot rise to the values observed). 

1670: %    \label{fig:ns.nodiss}}

1671: %\end{figure}

1672: %Figure~\ref{fig:ns.nodiss} shows the Sersic indices 

1673: 

1674: 

1675: \subsection{The Effects of Dry Mergers} 

1676: \label{sec:z0:dry}

1677: 

1678: Having analyzed the effects of dissipation, we now turn to the effects of dissipationless 

1679: or dry mergers. Since essentially all disk-dominated galaxies 

1680: do, in fact, have significant gas fractions, 

1681: this in practice refers to subsequent spheroid-spheroid re-mergers. What effect do 

1682: such mergers have on the $z=0$ scaling relations of ellipticals? 

1683: In order to study this, we re-run our model, including dissipation  

1684: but excluding such dry mergers 

1685: (we have also considered allowing them to occur in the sense that they 

1686: add stellar mass, but not allowing them to alter the structural properties of the 

1687: galaxy; the results are similar). 

1688: 

1689: 

1690: \begin{figure}

1691:     \centering

1692:     %\scaleup

1693:     %\plotone{MC_nodry_fp_proj.ps}

1694:     \plotone{f11.ps}

1695:     \caption{Same predicted spheroid scaling laws at $z=0$ as Figure~\ref{fig:fp.proj}, 

1696:     but in a model with no dry mergers (structural change in 

1697:     spheroid-spheroid mergers is suppressed). 

1698:     Dry mergers do not affect the predictions 

1699:     at low mass, but at high mass ($\mstar\gg 10^{11}\,\msun$), 

1700:     a lack of dry mergers means that ellipticals are not as large as observed.

1701:     The sense of residual correlations at high mass is now reversed -- the oldest systems 

1702:     at fixed mass or $\sigma$ are now the smallest, in contrast to observations 

1703:     \citep{gallazzi06:ages,graves:prep}

1704:     \label{fig:fp.proj.nodry}}

1705: \end{figure}

1706: 

1707: \begin{figure}

1708:     \centering

1709:     %\scaleup

1710:     %\plotone{MC_nodry_fp.ps}

1711:     \plotone{f12.ps}

1712:     \caption{Fundamental plane, as Figure~\ref{fig:fp}, with no dry mergers. 

1713:    The difference is minimal (although there is slightly less tilt), 

1714:    since dry mergers tend to move systems 

1715:    parallel to the FP. 

1716:     \label{fig:fp.nodry}}

1717: \end{figure}

1718: 

1719: 

1720: Figures~\ref{fig:fp.proj.nodry} \&\ \ref{fig:fp.nodry} plot the fundamental plane correlations of 

1721: ellipticals at $z=0$ from this alternative model. At intermediate and low 

1722: masses, the number of mergers in our full model is small (see Figure~\ref{fig:diss.reasons}), 

1723: and dissipation is dominant, so the correlations predicted here are essentially 

1724: identical to those in Figures~\ref{fig:fp.proj} \&\ \ref{fig:fp}. At high masses or 

1725: luminosities ($\gtrsim$a few $\lstar$), however, there is an appreciable effect 

1726: on the projections of the FP. The highest mass systems have their first mergers at early times, 

1727: when their progenitors are more gas-rich, and are therefore compact when first formed. 

1728: Without dry mergers to puff them up at later times, they do not have effective radii 

1729: as large as observed. The difference in the scaling laws over the dynamic range observed 

1730: in Figure~\ref{fig:fp.proj.nodry} is subtle, becoming dramatic only at the highest masses. 

1731: 

1732: There is, however, a significant effect in the residual correlations with e.g.\ size and 

1733: merger history at fixed stellar mass or velocity dispersion. Without dry mergers, 

1734: then (because of the same effect), the oldest systems at fixed mass would be the 

1735: smallest. This is the opposite of observed trends 

1736: \citep{gallazzi06:ages,graves:prep}: older BCGs 

1737: are extremely clustered, and so (unless CDM models are seriously incorrect) 

1738: had their first mergers at early times, where spheroids are observed to be 

1739: compact (see \S~\ref{sec:evol}). The observations that e.g.\ older 

1740: BCGs tend to be the most extended systems 

1741: \citep{vonderlinden:bcg.scaling.relations,

1742: bernardi:bcg.scalings}

1743: therefore demands some dry mergers 

1744: in their history \citep{hausman:mergers,hernquist:phasespace}.

1745: However, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:diss.reasons}, the number of 

1746: such dry mergers (especially at $z\lesssim1-2$) is still relatively small, so 

1747: this is consistent with the $\sim1$ major dry merger since $z\sim1$ which direct observations 

1748: of dry merging pairs \citep{vandokkum:dry.mergers,bell:dry.mergers,lin:mergers.by.type} 

1749: and constraints from mass function evolution 

1750: \citep{bundy:mfs,borch:mfs,perezgonzalez:mf.compilation,

1751: brown:mf.evolution,hopkins:transition.mass,zheng:hod.evolution} suggest. 

1752: 

1753: The fundamental plane itself is less affected by dry mergers. This is not surprising; 

1754: numerical simulations demonstrate that both major and 

1755: minor dry mergers tend to move systems parallel to the fundamental plane 

1756: \citep[see \paperfour\ and][]{boylankolchin:mergers.fp,robertson:fp}. Where an individual 

1757: galaxy ends up on the FP is therefore affected by its dry merger history, but 

1758: the FP itself is not very much altered. There is a very weak effect because of the 

1759: evolution in the FP discussed in \S~\ref{sec:evol}, but it is much less apparent 

1760: here than in e.g.\ the size-mass relation. 

1761: 

1762: \begin{figure}

1763:     \centering

1764:     %\scaleup

1765:     %\plotone{MC_nodry_ns.ps}

1766:     \plotone{f13.ps}

1767:     \caption{Correlation between stellar mass and estimated best-fit galaxy 

1768:     Sersic index $n_{s}$, as Figure~\ref{fig:ns}, with no dry mergers. Without 

1769:     dry mergers, Sersic indices

1770:     remain flat at the values characteristic of gas-rich merger 

1771:     remnants. The large Sersic indices at high masses (reflecting the extended envelopes 

1772:     of the most massive ellipticals) are not reproduced.

1773:     \label{fig:ns.nodry}}

1774: \end{figure}

1775: 

1776: Figure~\ref{fig:ns.nodry} shows the Sersic indices as a function of mass 

1777: in the absence of dry mergers. Without repeated dry mergers to scatter 

1778: stars at large radii and build up a more extended envelope, the profile 

1779: of the outer/dissipationless component is self-similar at all masses (failing 

1780: to reproduce the weak, but significant dependence observed). Fitting the 

1781: entire profile to a single Sersic index, the effects of dissipation still 

1782: contribute to a dependence of this index on mass (again emphasizing that 

1783: with such a single-component fit, the Sersic index does not robustly track merger 

1784: history as it does in a two-component decomposition). 

1785: Both the effects of dry mergers and dissipation (in particular 

1786: combinations) are needed to reproduce the observed trends. 

1787: 

1788: 

1789: \begin{figure}

1790:     \centering

1791:     %\scaleup

1792:     %\plotone{MC_nodry_bh_corr.ps}

1793:     \plotone{f14.ps}

1794:     \caption{Correlation between black hole mass and host spheroid properties, 

1795:     as Figure~\ref{fig:mbh}, with no dry mergers. There is fairly little effect here -- 

1796:     dry mergers conserve both spheroid binding energy and total black hole mass, 

1797:     so move systems parallel on the black hole fundamental plane correlations. 

1798:     The (weak) change along projected correlations (e.g.\  

1799:     $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$) reflects the small structural changes of the 

1800:     remnants in Figure~\ref{fig:fp.proj.nodry}.

1801:     \label{fig:mbh.nodry}}

1802: \end{figure}

1803: 

1804: Figure~\ref{fig:mbh.nodry} shows the correlations between 

1805: BH mass and host properties in this model. The 

1806: effects here are quite weak. 

1807: Since stellar mass and black hole mass are conserved in dry mergers 

1808: (and the projected correlation is roughly $M_{\rm BH}\propto\mstar$) there 

1809: is almost no change in that correlation with or without dry mergers. 

1810: Total spheroid binding energy is also conserved (which leads to 

1811: velocity dispersion being nearly constant) in dry mergers, but the 

1812: correlation here is not linear (although it is the more fundamental correlation 

1813: in our models). If we assume the ``initial'' correlation is the 

1814: power-law $M_{\rm BH}\propto E_{\rm bul}^{0.7}$ (or $M_{\rm BH}\propto \sigma^{4}$ 

1815: for the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation), then (assuming $\mstar\propto\sigma^{4}$,

1816: which gives  

1817: $E_{\rm bul}\propto \mstar^{3/2}$) after a merger of mass ratio 

1818: $f$ ($f\le1$) two systems initially on the correlation will move a 

1819: factor $(1+f)/(1+f^{3/2})^{0.71}$ off the correlation (likewise for 

1820: the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation. 

1821: This amounts to a $\sim20\%$ ($\sim0.1$\,dex) effect in major mergers -- 

1822: so we expect (given the $\sim0.3$\,dex intrinsic scatter in the correlations) 

1823: it will only be noticeable at the most massive end where systems 

1824: have undergone a large number of dry mergers. 

1825: We do see this, but over the dynamic range of the present data, 

1826: there is little distinction that can be clearly drawn -- the scatter 

1827: in various properties (and the fact that e.g.\ neither $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ 

1828: nor $M_{\rm BH}-\mstar$ is the most fundamental correlation in this model) 

1829: mostly washes it out. 

1830: In terms of the correlations with effective radius $R_{e}$, 

1831: there are more noticeable changes, directly reflecting 

1832: the different size-mass relation in Figure~\ref{fig:fp.proj.nodry}. 

1833: 

1834: 

1835: \breaker

1836: \section{Evolution of Scaling Laws as a Function of Redshift}

1837: \label{sec:evol}

1838: 

1839: We have shown how dissipation and dry mergers alter the correlations of 

1840: ellipticals at $z=0$. Of course, gas fractions of their progenitors evolve with 

1841: redshift, and dry mergers preferentially occur at low redshift. In addition, other 

1842: properties of the progenitors, such as disk and halo sizes, will evolve. 

1843: We therefore expect there could be evolution in these scaling laws, and 

1844: make predictions for this here. We adopt our standard model, but construct 

1845: samples as they would be observed at a given non-zero redshift. 

1846: 

1847: \subsection{Predicted Evolution In Our Standard Model}

1848: \label{sec:evol:pred}

1849: 

1850: \subsubsection{Spheroid Sizes}

1851: \label{sec:evol:sizes}

1852: 

1853: \begin{figure}

1854:     \centering

1855:     %\scaleup

1856:     %\plotone{r_z_mbins.ps}

1857:     \plotone{f15.ps}

1858:     \caption{Predicted evolution in spheroid sizes with redshift. We show the 

1859:     predicted median size of spheroids at a given stellar mass, relative to the 

1860:     median size of objects of that mass at $z=0$. Shaded range is the uncertainty owing 

1861:     to both cosmology and how rapidly progenitor (disk and halo) properties evolve. 

1862:     Solid lines are simple power-law fits (Equation~\ref{eqn:re.z}). 

1863:     Dashed line shows the power-law fit corrected (approximately) to the $R_{e}$ 

1864:     that would be measured in optical/UV bands (as opposed to the half-mass radius: 

1865:     stellar population effects tend to make very young ellipticals with 

1866:     recent central starbursts more concentrated 

1867:     in short-wavelength light). 

1868:     Dotted line is 

1869:     the prediction from the semi-analytic model of \citet{khochfar:size.evolution.model}. 

1870:     Observational estimates for galaxies in the appropriate stellar mass intervals 

1871:     are shown from 

1872:     \citet[][circles]{mcintosh:size.evolution}, \citet[][stars]{trujillo:size.evolution}, 

1873:     \citet[][square]{zirm:drg.sizes}, and \citet[][diamond]{vandokkum:z2.sizes}. 

1874:     Progenitors are more gas-rich 

1875:     at high-$z$, yielding mergers with more dissipation and therefore smaller remnants. 

1876:     At high masses, low-$z$ disks are gas poor (and dry mergers have been more important), 

1877:     so the relative difference is larger; at low masses, there is little room for gas fractions

1878:     to increase, hence weak evolution. 

1879:     \label{fig:reff.z}}

1880: \end{figure}

1881: 

1882: Figure~\ref{fig:reff.z} shows how the median effective radii of spheroids 

1883: at fixed stellar mass are predicted to evolve with redshift. We vary the assumptions 

1884: described in \S~\ref{sec:model}, most importantly (other uncertainties being 

1885: relatively negligible at the redshifts of interest here) whether (and how strongly, 

1886: within the observational limits) disk sizes gas fractions evolve with redshift, 

1887: and show the resulting allowed range. We compare with observations of 

1888: the spheroid size-mass relation from \citet{trujillo:size.evolution}, 

1889: \citet{mcintosh:size.evolution}, \citet{vandokkum:z2.sizes}

1890: and \citet{zirm:drg.sizes} \citep[see also][]{franx:size.evol,damjanov:red.nuggets}. 

1891: Although the observational 

1892: constraints are weak, they agree with our predictions at redshifts 

1893: $z\sim0-3$. 

1894: 

1895: Evolution in galaxy gas fraction, which directly translates to evolution in the amount 

1896: of dissipation in mergers, drives this behavior.

1897: This is expected -- in \S~\ref{sec:z0:diss}, 

1898: and in greater detail in \papertwo, we show that the degree of 

1899: dissipation is the dominant factor determining the stellar effective radius. 

1900: Disk gas fractions are larger at high redshift, so in mergers, a larger mass fraction will 

1901: be formed in a compact dissipational starburst, yielding a smaller stellar remnant. 

1902: Dry mergers have also had less time to act and puff up remnants at high redshift. 

1903: If disks are more compact at high redshift, this drives further evolution; however, 

1904: observational constraints suggest that this is relatively weak 

1905: (see \S~\ref{sec:model:hod}), and so it is less 

1906: important than the evolution in gas fractions. 

1907: 

1908: This also predicts that the relative size evolution 

1909: should be stronger in high-mass systems. 

1910: Fitting these predictions to simple scaling laws of the form 

1911: \begin{equation}

1912: \langle R_{e}(M_{\ast}\,|\,z) \rangle = (1+z)^{-\beta}\,\langle R_{e}(M_{\ast}\,|\,z=0) \rangle

1913: \label{eqn:re.z}

1914: \end{equation}

1915: we obtain $\beta=(0.0-0.2,\,0.24,\,0.48,\,0.64)$ ($\pm0.05$ or so for each) for 

1916: $M_{\ast}\sim(10^{9},\,10^{10},\,10^{11}\,10^{12})\,\msun$ 

1917: (roughly $\beta\approx {\rm MAX}[0.23\,\log{(M_{\ast}/10^{9}\,\msun),\ 0.2]}$). 

1918: % fit to exp(-z^beta) -> 0.00, 0.11, 0.23, 0.31 %

1919: Low mass disks are still gas-rich at $z=0$ (and have generally 

1920: not experienced many dry mergers), so there is limited room for 

1921: evolution (the evolution we do predict is almost entirely driven by 

1922: whatever evolution in progenitor disk sizes is assumed, hence the 

1923: quoted range $0.0-0.2$ in the lowest-mass bin). 

1924: At high mass, however, dry mergers have been increasing spheroid sizes 

1925: for a significant redshift interval. Furthermore, disks at high mass at low redshift 

1926: are relatively gas-poor; by $z\sim3$, they have doubled or tripled their gas 

1927: fractions \citep{erb:lbg.gasmasses}. The relative size 

1928: difference is therefore much more pronounced. 

1929: 

1930: These predictions are similar to those made by \citet{khochfar:size.evolution.model}, 

1931: who adopted a full semi-analytic model to estimate the history of disk galaxies, 

1932: accretion, and star formation, and then 

1933: modeled disk sizes by assuming effective radius is proportional to 

1934: the mass fraction in the dissipationless (non-starburst) component: 

1935: $R_{e}(M_{\ast},\,z)=R_{e}(M_{\ast},\,0)\,\times\,(f_{\rm dissipationless}[z]/f_{\rm dissipationless}[0])$. 

1936: For comparison, we show their predictions in Figure~\ref{fig:reff.z}. 

1937: At intermediate and low masses, they are similar to ours. 

1938: This is because their simple model captures the key qualitative aspect which drives 

1939: our predicted evolution, namely the evolution in disk gas fractions with redshift, 

1940: making high-redshift ellipticals more dissipational than their low-redshift counterparts. 

1941: Ultimately, their determination of the size evolution with dissipational fraction is 

1942: not a bad approximation over intermediate gas fractions (to the accuracy here). 

1943: However, there is a significant difference in the predictions at the highest masses -- 

1944: \citet{khochfar:size.evolution.model} predicted much stronger evolution than we do. This is 

1945: the regime where our attempts to improve on their estimates are of particular importance. 

1946: 

1947: First, their predictions are tied to some assumptions and modeling of disk galaxies 

1948: in their semi-analytic model; this is precisely why we have tried to be as empirical 

1949: as possible in constructing our progenitor galaxies. They 

1950: note that their strong evolution in this mass bin is the 

1951: result of a high-redshift overcooling problem in 

1952: describing massive galaxies in their 

1953: semi-analytic model (a well-known difficulty without strong feedback). 

1954: As a consequence, their disk gas fraction evolution to $z\sim2$ is much steeper than observed -- 

1955: i.e.\ ``progenitor'' disks at these masses and redshifts are demonstrably too gas-rich and 

1956: in halos of too low a mass. \citet{erb:lbg.gasmasses} see typical gas 

1957: fractions for $M_{\ast}\gtrsim10^{11}\,\msun$ 

1958: galaxies at $z\sim2$ of $\sim20\%$ (whereas \citet{khochfar:size.evolution.model} 

1959: predict $\sim70-80\%$) 

1960:  -- even if the ellipticals observed at $z=2$ formed from 

1961: higher-redshift mergers with gas fractions say, double this value, this predicts 

1962: factor $\lesssim2$ size evolution at $z=2$, similar to our estimates. By using a halo 

1963: occupation approach, we avoid this problem. 

1964: 

1965: Second, 

1966: our size estimates are calibrated directly to numerical simulations: we track the 

1967: evolution of multiple galaxy components in merger simulations and use 

1968: this to design our prescriptions. Of particular importance, we include the effects of 

1969: dry mergers appropriately and extrapolate our prescriptions to arbitrary dissipational 

1970: fractions: at high $f_{\rm dissipational}$, the simple size estimator from 

1971: \citet{khochfar:size.evolution.model} clearly must break down, as galaxies will still have 

1972: finite sizes. This direct calibration with simulations 

1973: avoids ambiguity in e.g.\ degeneracies between 

1974: cosmological effects and assumptions about how spheroid sizes scale, and 

1975: allows for more robust predictions. 

1976: 

1977: Nevertheless the reason for our predicted evolution, and its sense, 

1978: is essentially the same as that identified in \citet{khochfar:size.evolution.model}. 

1979: Ellipticals at 

1980: high redshift have, on average, formed a larger fraction of their mass in dissipational 

1981: starbursts (owing to their progenitors being, on average, more gas-rich) 

1982: at these redshifts. Dissipation allows this component to be significantly more compact 

1983: than the dissipationlessly violently relaxed stars from the progenitor disks, 

1984: giving rise to a more compact remnant. 

1985: 

1986: 

1987: At the highest masses ($\gg 10^{11}\,\msun$), the evolution we predict is somewhat weaker 

1988: than that observationally inferred by 

1989: \citet{zirm:drg.sizes,vandokkum:z2.sizes,franx:size.evol}. However, as demonstrated in \paperone, 

1990: this can be explained by 

1991: an additional bias -- if systems at high $z$ are very young 

1992: (ages $\lesssim0.5-1\,$Gyr) 

1993: remnants of 

1994: gas-rich mergers \citep[as we predict precisely these systems are, 

1995: and as observations of their stellar populations suggest, see][]{kriek:drg.seds} and observed in 

1996: even rest-frame optical wavelengths (let along rest-frame UV), 

1997: the gradients in $M_{\ast}/L$ introduce a bias towards smaller $R_{e}$ 

1998: \citep[there may also be some related, but weak, biases in these stellar population parameters 

1999: and stellar masses, see e.g.][]{wuyts:irac.drg.colors}. 

2000: The younger stellar population from the starburst -- i.e.\ the dissipational 

2001: component -- is significantly brighter in $B$-band at ages $\lesssim1\,$Gyr, 

2002: so this dominates the fit, yielding a smaller $R_{e}$ (equivalent 

2003: to artificially further increasing the dissipational mass fraction -- this is why 

2004: it actually looks as if the \citet{khochfar:size.evolution.model} prediction provides an 

2005: acceptable match to these objects). 

2006: 

2007: In line with this expectation, the sizes 

2008: we obtain if we ignore the dissipationless components of our predicted 

2009: $z>2-3$ systems are consistent with the observations 

2010: from \citet{zirm:drg.sizes,vandokkum:z2.sizes,franx:size.evol,damjanov:red.nuggets}. 

2011: Essentially, this effect can yield a bias of an additional factor $\sim2$ 

2012: (see Figure~20 in \paperone) for gas-rich systems. 

2013: It will not be a problem at lower redshifts, both because systems are older 

2014: (the effect is negligible at starburst ages $>1\,$Gyr, or even earlier, as 

2015: induced metallicity gradients from the starburst can partially cancel it out), 

2016: and because gas fractions are lower (we expect significant bias only

2017: for $f_{\rm dissipational} \gtrsim 0.3-0.4$). Furthermore, there is no bias {\em within} 

2018: the starburst light (there is not a strong gradient within the starburst itself), 

2019: so for low-mass systems (which are largely dissipational at every redshift), 

2020: there is no significant effect. It is precisely for 

2021: large mass systems at high redshift 

2022: that we expect this to be an important concern, and measurements that could 

2023: ultimately estimate e.g.\ color gradients and stellar population gradients in 

2024: these systems will be necessary for more detailed constraints.

2025: 

2026: 

2027: \subsubsection{Velocity Dispersions}

2028: \label{sec:evol:sigma}

2029: 

2030: \begin{figure}

2031:     \centering

2032:     %\scaleup

2033:     %\plotone{s_z_mbins.ps}

2034:     \plotone{f16.ps}

2035:     \caption{Predicted evolution in spheroid velocity dispersions with redshift 

2036:     (style as Figure~\ref{fig:reff.z}). Despite significant evolution in $R_{e}$ at 

2037:     fixed mass, the role of dark matter halos (which evolve more weakly) in setting 

2038:     $\sigma$ yields much less evolution in $\sigma$ for the same systems. 

2039:     Lines are the simple prediction given the fitted scaling of 

2040:     $R_{e}$ with $z$ (Figure~\ref{fig:reff.z}) and Equation~(\ref{eqn:sigma.z}).

2041:     \label{fig:sigma.z}}

2042: \end{figure}

2043: 

2044: Figure~\ref{fig:sigma.z} shows the corresponding evolution in velocity 

2045: dispersion with redshift. The evolution is much weaker than might be 

2046: intuitively expected: if $\sigma^{2}\sim G\,M/R_{e}$, then the factor 

2047: $\sim3$ evolution in size in massive systems in Figure~\ref{fig:reff.z} would 

2048: translate to factor $\sim\sqrt{3}$ evolution in $\sigma$. Instead, we predict 

2049: such systems have roughly the same or at most a factor $\sim1.3$ larger 

2050: $\sigma$. This is because, at $z=0$, dark matter plays an important role 

2051: in setting the velocity dispersion -- the potential at $r=0$ has a contribution 

2052: $\sim G\, \mhalo/R_{\rm halo}$ (here $R_{\rm halo}$ is the effective radius of 

2053: the halo, {\em not} the virial radius; $R_{\rm halo}\sim R_{\rm vir}/c$, where $c$ 

2054: is the halo concentration), which is comparable to or larger than 

2055: $\sim G\,\mstar/R_{e}$ 

2056: in most systems (although $R_{\rm halo}\gg R_{e}$, 

2057: $M_{\rm halo}\gg \mstar$ by about the same factor). This is especially true 

2058: for the high-mass ellipticals (for which the evolution in $R_{e}$ is strongest) 

2059: which, at $z=0$, are the most dark-matter dominated 

2060: within their stellar $R_{e}$.

2061: At a given halo mass, $R_{\rm halo}$ evolves weakly -- the evolution in halo 

2062: concentrations 

2063: almost completely offsets the evolution in virial radii \citep[this reflects 

2064: the fact seen in most simulations that massive halos build inside out -- the 

2065: central potential is set first and then the outer halo builds up; 

2066: see][]{bullock:concentrations, wechsler:concentration}, 

2067: so assuming the ratio $\mstar/\mhalo$ does not 

2068: evolve much with redshift (as inferred in most observations and 

2069: halo occupation models; see \S~\ref{sec:model:cosmology}), then the contribution of the halo to 

2070: $\sigma$ ($\sigma_{\rm halo}$) evolves weakly at fixed $\mstar$. If anything, it 

2071: can decrease -- if the baryonic component is more compact at high-$z$, 

2072: then the enclosed dark matter mass in the stellar $R_{e}$ is smaller. 

2073: 

2074: Roughly, then, if we consider the observed velocity dispersion to reflect a 

2075: galaxy potential and halo potential which add linearly, we obtain 

2076: $\sigma^{2}\propto (\mstar/R_{e} + \mhalo/R_{\rm halo})$. If we consider 

2077: systems of fixed $\mstar$, and $\mhalo(\mstar)$ and $R_{\rm halo}(\mhalo)$ 

2078: evolve weakly, then we obtain 

2079: \begin{equation}

2080: \frac{\langle\sigma(z\, |\,\mstar)\rangle}{\langle\sigma(0\, |\,\mstar)\rangle}

2081: =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\gamma}}

2082: \,\sqrt{\gamma + \frac{\langle R_{e}(0) \rangle}{\langle R_{e}(z) \rangle}}, 

2083: \label{eqn:sigma.z}

2084: \end{equation}

2085: where $\gamma\equiv (\mhalo/R_{\rm halo})/(\mstar/R_{e})\sim 1-2$ is the 

2086: relative fraction of the central potential contributed by the dark matter at $z=0$. 

2087: For the values of $\gamma$ we estimate ($\sim1$ at $\mstar\sim10^{11}\,\msun$ 

2088: and $\sim2$ at $\mstar\sim10^{12}\,\msun$), this simple expectation fits 

2089: the observed trends well. 

2090: 

2091: 

2092: \subsubsection{The Fundamental Plane}

2093: \label{sec:evol:fp}

2094: 

2095: \begin{figure}

2096:     \centering

2097:     %\scaleup

2098:     %\plotone{md_ms_z_mbins.ps}

2099:     \plotone{f17.ps}

2100:     \caption{Predicted evolution in the ratio of dynamical mass estimator 

2101:     $\mdyn=k\,\sigma^{2}\,R_{e}/G$ to stellar mass $\mstar$ with redshift 

2102:     (as Figure~\ref{fig:reff.z}). 

2103:     Comparing Figures~\ref{fig:reff.z} \&\ \ref{fig:sigma.z}, the evolution is 

2104:     primarily driven by evolving $R_{e}$ -- more dissipational, compact 

2105:     stellar remnants are increasingly baryon-dominated inside their 

2106:     stellar $R_{e}$. Again, low-mass systems are already highly dissipational 

2107:     and baryon-dominated inside $R_{e}$ at $z=0$, so there is little room 

2108:     for evolution. 

2109:     \label{fig:mdyn.z}}

2110: \end{figure}

2111: 

2112: Combining these trends, we anticipate the evolution in $\mdyn/\mstar$ shown 

2113: in Figure~\ref{fig:mdyn.z}. Since $\mdyn\equiv k\,\sigma^{2}\,R_{e}/G$, 

2114: the stronger evolution in $R_{e}$ largely drives the evolution in $\mdyn$. 

2115: We emphasize that this reflects a real difference in the enclosed matter 

2116: within the stellar $R_{e}$ (as we have defined it, there are no significant structural or 

2117: kinematic non-homology effects). The decrease in $\mdyn$ at fixed $\mstar$ in 

2118: the highest-mass systems is a consequence of the fact that at low-$z$, they have 

2119: small dissipational content and have larger stellar $R_{e}$, so have larger 

2120: dark matter masses enclosed in $R_{e}$ (and thus higher enclosed mass in $R_{e}$). 

2121: At high-$z$, their progenitors are gas-rich, so they are formed in highly dissipational 

2122: mergers and have compact stellar distributions, which enclose less dark matter 

2123: in the stellar $R_{e}$. 

2124: 

2125: \begin{figure}

2126:     \centering

2127:     %\scaleup

2128:     %\plotone{fp_z.ps}

2129:     \plotter{f18.ps}

2130:     \caption{Best-fit fundamental plane ($\mdyn\propto\mstar^{1+\alpha}$, where 

2131:     $\alpha$ is the FP tilt) as a function of redshift. 

2132:     The evolution in Figure~\ref{fig:mdyn.z} 

2133:     is reflected here: at high-$z$, even large-mass disks are gas-rich so high-mass 

2134:     systems experience significant dissipation, bringing their stellar $R_{e}$ in and 

2135:     making the remnant more baryon-dominated within $R_{e}$ (lowering the 

2136:     dark matter fraction and therefore $\mdyn$ within $R_{e}$, at fixed $\mstar$). 

2137:     The tilt therefore weakens slightly with redshift (there is 

2138:     less difference in the degree 

2139:     of dissipation -- the driver of tilt -- at high-$z$). Solid and dashed lines 

2140:     allow (do not allow) for progenitor disk size and stronger (weaker) 

2141:     disk gas fraction evolution, bracketing the range allowed by observations 

2142:     (representing the uncertainty in our predictions). 

2143:     \label{fig:fp.z}}

2144: \end{figure}

2145: 

2146: Figure~\ref{fig:fp.z} shows the implications of this evolution for the FP 

2147: as a function of redshift. 

2148: At low redshift, the observed tilt ($\alpha\approx0.2$) is recovered. At high redshift, 

2149: however, all progenitors are gas-rich, 

2150: so there is not much difference in the dissipational content at low and high masses -- meaning 

2151: their compactness (relative to e.g.\ their dark matter halos or progenitor disks) is no longer a 

2152: strong function of mass. The high-mass systems, being nearly as dissipational as low-mass 

2153: systems, are similarly baryon-dominated in their stellar $R_{e}$, and there is 

2154: less tilt. 

2155: 

2156: At the level predicted here, it may be difficult to observe the predicted FP evolution. 

2157: Robust velocity dispersions and effective radii in the same rest-frame band (avoiding a 

2158: bias towards smaller $R_{e}$ as observations probe closer to the rest-frame UV) may be 

2159: obtainable in large samples at $z\lesssim1$, but the predicted evolution in that interval 

2160: is weak -- within the systematic uncertainties at $z\sim0$. 

2161: 

2162: This is consistent with observational 

2163: constraints in this redshift interval from 

2164: weak lensing \citep{heymans:mhalo-mgal.evol} 

2165: and optical studies \citep[][]{alighieri:fp.evolution,

2166: treu:fp.evolution,vanderwel:fp.evolution,vandokkum:fp.evol,brown:hod.evol}. These observations do see 

2167: evolution in optical bands, (in the opposite sense to that predicted here, namely an increasing 

2168: apparent tilt), but find that this owes to stellar population effects 

2169: \citep{alighieri:fp.evolution} -- the evolution observed in terms of $\mdyn$ and $\mstar$ is 

2170: either negligible or slightly negative (as predicted here). 

2171: Any model where the stellar populations of 

2172: lower-mass ellipticals are systematically younger 

2173: (as is predicted here; see \citet{hopkins:groups.ell} for details) will predict the 

2174: observed trend in optical bands: if, say, a 

2175: low-mass system at $z=0$ has a stellar population age of $\sim7\,$Gyr whereas a 

2176: high-mass system has an age of $\sim12\,$Gyr, as observed 

2177: \citep[see e.g.][]{trager:ages,nelan05:ages,thomas05:ages,gallazzi06:ages}, 

2178: then inverting passive evolution to $z=0.7$, the low-mass (younger) system would have 

2179: a lower $M_{\ast}/L_{B}$ by a factor $\gtrsim10$, whereas the high-mass system 

2180: would have increased $M_{\ast}/L_{B}$ by a factor of just $\approx2$. It is therefore 

2181: challenging to observe the weak evolution here ($\sim0.1$\,dex), given expected 

2182: stellar population effects of magnitude $\sim0.5-1$\,dex. 

2183: 

2184: However, this degree of evolution is important for a number of subtle effects: 

2185: for example, \citet{vandokkum:imf.evol} uses the evolution of the optical FP with redshift to 

2186: infer evolution in elliptical mass-to-light ratios (under the assumption that 

2187: the physical -- i.e.\ stellar mass -- FP is invariant). This is broadly fine, as the optical 

2188: $M/L$ for any reasonable stellar population age evolves much more rapidly than 

2189: the physical FP evolution in Figure~\ref{fig:fp.z}. But the authors then compare this 

2190: change in $M/L$ with time to the mean colors of ellipticals as a function of time, 

2191: and argue that the relation between the two suggests evolution in the stellar 

2192: initial mass function. 

2193: At this level (as the authors acknowledge), the comparison is sensitive to 

2194: evolution in the physical (stellar mass) FP at the $\sim0.1\,$dex level -- if massive galaxies 

2195: at $z\sim1$ have lower $M_{\rm dyn}/M_{\ast}$ by $\sim0.1\,$\,dex (similar to what we 

2196: predict in Figure~\ref{fig:mdyn.z}) this will bias the inferred $M/L$ ratios 

2197: (under the assumption of no physical FP evolution), but not, obviously the galaxy colors, 

2198: by an amount comparable to the significance of the effect seen (in other words, allowing 

2199: for this evolution, the evidence for any evolution in the stellar IMF may be less strong). 

2200: 

2201: At this level of detail, physical evolution in the FP 

2202: in the manner predicted here may change this comparison, and should be 

2203: considered in future, more detailed comparisons with observations. However, 

2204: the effects here may not be important so long as the observed sample is 

2205: appropriately selected: \citet{vandokkum:imf.evol} focus on satellites in rich 

2206: clusters, which are not likely to undergo significant subsequent merging 

2207: (especially as compared to the central galaxies modeled here, particularly those 

2208: in moderately dense field and group environments that contribute 

2209: much of the ``lever arm'' to the FP tilt evolution predicted). This emphasizes the 

2210: importance of appropriate sample selection when comparing these quantities, 

2211: and the need for further study to determine exactly how our predictions 

2212: generalize to populations with more complex or distinct histories (such as 

2213: satellites) and therefore pertain to the observations. 

2214: 

2215: 

2216: \subsubsection{Black Hole Masses}

2217: \label{sec:evol:bh}

2218: 

2219: \begin{figure}

2220:     \centering

2221:     %\scaleup

2222:     %\plotone{mbh_ms_z_mbins.ps}

2223:     \plotone{f19.ps}

2224:     \caption{Predicted evolution in $\mbh$ at fixed stellar mass with redshift 

2225:     (style as Figure~\ref{fig:reff.z}). Red circles with arrows show the upper limits 

2226:     from observed evolution in spheroid mass 

2227:     density in \citet{hopkins:old.age} \citep[see also][]{merloni:magorrian.evolution}, 

2228:     applicable to $\sim M_{\ast}$ 

2229:     galaxies. Blue squares show the observational estimates of evolution for 

2230:     massive black holes and galaxies from \citet{peng:magorrian.evolution}. More dissipation 

2231:     at high redshifts means more work for the black hole to do before its 

2232:     growth self-regulates, giving rise to larger $M_{\rm BH}$ (for fixed 

2233:     feedback efficiency); however, the net effect is relatively weak. 

2234:     Selection effects \citep{lauer:mbh.bias} may explain 

2235:     the small difference between $M_{\rm BH}/M_{\ast}$ observed and predicted. 

2236:     The trend is mass-dependent in the same manner 

2237:     as Figure~\ref{fig:reff.z}. 

2238:     \label{fig:mbh.ms.z}}

2239: \end{figure}

2240: 

2241: \begin{figure}

2242:     \centering

2243:     %\scaleup

2244:     %\plotone{mbh_sig_z_mbins.ps}

2245:     \plotone{f20.ps}

2246:     \caption{Predicted evolution in $\mbh$ at fixed velocity dispersion 

2247:     $\sigma$ with redshift (style as Figure~\ref{fig:reff.z}). 

2248:     The complex interplay between evolution in $M_{\rm BH}$, $R_{e}$, 

2249:     and $\sigma$ yields weak trends here that are not necessarily 

2250:     monotonic. In general the predicted $M_{\rm BH}/\sigma$ evolution is 

2251:     weaker than (or inverse to) that in $M_{\rm BH}/ M_{\ast}$, 

2252:     but at $z\sim2-3$ massive black holes may be overmassive 

2253:     relative to $\sigma$ by a factor $\lesssim2-3$ (owing to the evolution 

2254:     in $M_{\rm BH}/ M_{\ast}$ and weak evolution in $\sigma/M_{\ast}$). 

2255:     \label{fig:mbh.sigma.z}}

2256: \end{figure}

2257: 

2258: Figure~\ref{fig:mbh.ms.z} \&\ \ref{fig:mbh.sigma.z} show the evolution in 

2259: BH masses at fixed stellar mass and velocity dispersion, respectively. 

2260: Because systems are more dissipational at high redshifts, the binding energy of 

2261: the baryonic material which must be supported or expelled to halt accretion is 

2262: higher (at fixed stellar mass). As a consequence, the typical BH masses 

2263: are larger. We discuss this evolution, its physical causes, and consequences, 

2264: in greater detail in \citet{hopkins:bhfp.theory}. Here, we note that the same conclusions 

2265: hold, adopting a more complex cosmological model than was considered in that 

2266: paper.

2267: 

2268: The evolution is similar to that suggested by a number of recent observations 

2269: \citep[e.g.][]{shields06:msigma.evolution,

2270: walter04:z6.msigma.evolution,peng:magorrian.evolution,woo06:lowz.msigma.evolution,

2271: salviander:msigma.evolution} 

2272: and indirect estimations \citep{hopkins:old.age,merloni:magorrian.evolution,

2273: adelbergersteidel:magorrian.evolution,

2274: wyithe:magorrian.clustering,hopkins:clustering,lidz:clustering}

2275: but we emphasize that it is not strong (it is in fact on the 

2276: lower $\sim1\sigma$ end of the estimated evolution) -- typical BHs are 

2277: a factor $\lesssim2$ larger at $z\sim2-3$. Larger differences from the 

2278: local relations (in particular in very luminous quasar populations) may 

2279: result from selection biases \citep{lauer:mbh.bias}, where the most 

2280: luminous quasars (most massive BHs) are likely to represent the upper 

2281: end of the scatter in the BH-host correlations. The combination of such a 

2282: selection effect with our predicted evolution is a very good match to the 

2283: evolution in \citet{peng:magorrian.evolution}. 

2284: 

2285: We also compare with the constraints 

2286: in \citet{hopkins:old.age}, derived from observations of the evolution in the 

2287: spheroid mass density with redshift (since the black hole mass density cannot, in 

2288: any reasonable model, decrease, the maximum evolution in the 

2289: typical ratio $\mbh/\mstar$ is limited by the fact that the resulting black hole 

2290: mass density, predicted from the observed spheroid mass functions, must 

2291: not be higher than that observed at $z=0$). This constraint 

2292: is most directly applicable to $\sim L_{\ast}$ galaxies, since this is where most of the 

2293: mass density of the universe resides. These constraints limit evolution to a 

2294: factor $\lesssim 2$ at $z=2$, consistent with our predictions. Comparing 

2295: to similar estimates from \citet{merloni:magorrian.evolution}, who adopt a similar approach 

2296: but model the evolution in the black hole mass density from quasar luminosity functions, 

2297: yields a similar constraint and expectation of 

2298: weak evolution, $M_{\rm BH}/M_{\ast}\sim(1+z)^{0.4-0.6}$, 

2299: consistent with our predictions. 

2300: 

2301: The evolution in $M_{\rm BH}/\sigma$ is somewhat more complex, reflecting the 

2302: full interplay between evolution in $M_{\rm BH}$ with spheroid binding energy 

2303: and evolution in $\sigma$ with redshift (discussed above). Because 

2304: deeper potentials will, in general, be reflected in higher $\sigma$ values, 

2305: we expect weaker (or even inverse) evolution here, relative to $M_{\rm BH}/M_{\ast}$ 

2306: (where $M_{\ast}$ was not a measure of the central potential depth, so 

2307: deeper potentials at fixed $M_{\ast}$ translated to higher $M_{\rm BH}$). 

2308: However, because $\sigma$ reflects a combination of the halo and galaxy over a 

2309: significant dynamic range, the results are non-trivial and can be non-monotonic in 

2310: redshift. For example, in our most massive bin, the predicted evolution in 

2311: black hole masses is sufficiently strong (and evolution in $\sigma$ relatively weak 

2312: as a reflection of the tradeoff between dark matter and baryonic potential) 

2313: that evolution to larger $\mbh/\sigma$ (albeit at the factor $\lesssim2-3$ level) 

2314: may be expected, consistent with recent observations 

2315: \citep{shields06:msigma.evolution,salviander:msigma.evolution}, although 

2316: again selection effects are probably important and may explain 

2317: cases where the inferred evolution appears to be much larger. 

2318: 

2319: 

2320: 

2321: \subsection{Effects of Dissipation}

2322: \label{sec:evol:diss}

2323: 

2324: \begin{figure}

2325:     \centering

2326:     %\scaleup

2327:     %\plotone{r_z_mbins_nodiss.ps}

2328:     \plotone{f21.ps}

2329:     \caption{Predicted evolution in spheroid sizes with redshift, as 

2330:     Figure~\ref{fig:reff.z}, but in a model with no dissipation (gas is treated 

2331:     the same as stars in mergers). Even allowing for evolution in disk 

2332:     sizes with redshift, there is essentially no evolution predicted in 

2333:     spheroid sizes without dissipation 

2334:     (other effects can make the evolution in spheroid sizes 

2335:     {\em weaker} than that in disk sizes, which is already observed to be weak). 

2336:     \label{fig:reff.z.nodiss}}

2337: \end{figure}

2338: 

2339: We have argued that these effects are largely driven by varying degrees of dissipation 

2340: as a function of redshift. We briefly illustrate this here by repeating our predictions 

2341: for the size evolution of ellipticals (which, as we showed in \S~\ref{sec:evol}, is the 

2342: most pronounced evolution) in the version of our model where we ignore 

2343: dissipation or treat gas identically to stars (as in \S~\ref{sec:z0:diss:effects}). 

2344: Figure~\ref{fig:reff.z.nodiss} shows the results. Without 

2345: evolution in gas fractions driving evolution in 

2346: the degree of dissipation, only the (weaker) evolution in progenitor disk sizes 

2347: has a noticeable effect, and the evolution is substantially suppressed. 

2348: In fact, the predicted evolution can, in this case, be even weaker than 

2349: that in the progenitor disks, because ellipticals with a given final mass 

2350: tend to undergo their mergers over a similar redshift range -- so their final sizes 

2351: will reflect whatever the sizes of disks were at that time, whether or not 

2352: those disk sizes evolved later.

2353: 

2354: 

2355: \begin{figure}

2356:     \centering

2357:     %\scaleup

2358:     %\plotone{mbh_ms_z_mbins_nodiss.ps}

2359:     \plotone{f22.ps}

2360:     \caption{Predicted evolution in $\mbh$ at fixed stellar mass with redshift, 

2361:     as Figure~\ref{fig:mbh.ms.z}, but in a model with no dissipation. 

2362:     The predicted evolution for massive black holes is almost entirely 

2363:     a consequence of dissipation. 

2364:     \label{fig:mbh.ms.z.nodiss}}

2365: \end{figure}

2366: 

2367: A similar 

2368: (relative) effect is seen for the evolution in $\mdyn$ and the FP, as well as 

2369: BH masses. We show the evolution in black hole mass at fixed stellar mass 

2370: predicted without dissipation in Figure~\ref{fig:mbh.ms.z.nodiss}. As expected 

2371: based on the evolution in $R_{e}$, the evolution here is essentially 

2372: eliminated without dissipation. 

2373: 

2374: 

2375: \subsection{Effects of Dry Mergers} 

2376: \label{sec:evol:dry}

2377: 

2378: \begin{figure}

2379:     \centering

2380:     %\scaleup

2381:     %\plotone{r_z_mbins_nodry.ps}

2382:     \plotone{f23.ps}

2383:     \caption{Predicted evolution in spheroid sizes with redshift, as 

2384:     Figure~\ref{fig:reff.z}, but in a model with no dry mergers (structural change in 

2385:     spheroid-spheroid mergers is suppressed). The predicted evolution is 

2386:     essentially identical at $M_{\ast}\lesssim10^{11}\,\msun$, but weaker 

2387:     for very massive systems, which can no longer be puffed up at 

2388:     low redshift to match observations. 

2389:     \label{fig:reff.z.nodry}}

2390: \end{figure}

2391: 

2392: At the high-mass end, there is also some evolution 

2393: because systems merging early will have dry mergers puff up their sizes at 

2394: later times. Figure~\ref{fig:reff.z.nodry} shows the evolution in the size-mass relation, with 

2395: dry mergers suppressed (as in \S~\ref{sec:z0:dry}). The difference here is 

2396: real, but small. Dry mergers -- while important for the size 

2397: evolution of individual objects -- 

2398: do not have a dramatic effect on the overall evolution 

2399: of the size-mass relation. If the ``pre dry-merger'' 

2400: size-mass relation is a power-law, $R_{e}\propto\mstar^{\alpha}$, then 

2401: by the energy conservation argument in Equation~(\ref{eqn:egy}), a merger with 

2402: mass ratio $f$ ($f\le1$) of two systems initially on this 

2403: correlation will have a final effective radius a factor $(1+f)^{2}/(1+f^{2-\alpha})$ 

2404: larger than the 

2405: primary. Relative to the size-mass relation, the system has moved above 

2406: the relation by a factor $(1+f)^{2-\alpha}/(1+f^{2-\alpha})$. 

2407: 

2408: For observed values of $\alpha$ in disks or ellipticals ($\sim0.3$ and $\sim0.6$, respectively)

2409: this amounts to only $\sim0.1$\,dex evolution per 

2410: major ($f\gtrsim1/3$) merger, compared to e.g.\ $\sim0.3$ dex scatter in the correlation. 

2411: This is why, in Figure~\ref{fig:fp.proj.nodry}, the absence 

2412: of dry mergers makes a difference only 

2413: at the highest end of the mass function, where the number of major dry mergers 

2414: might be large. Most of the population did not experience substantial dry merging, and 

2415: what did, experienced it mainly at late times. As a result, the inferred redshift evolution 

2416: without dry mergers is largely the same, with only an offset in the rate of size evolution 

2417: at $z\lesssim1-2$ for the most massive systems (leading to an offset in the 

2418: relative size prediction at $z\sim3$). 

2419: 

2420: It should be emphasized that the difference seen at the highest masses and redshifts 

2421: in Figure~\ref{fig:reff.z.nodry} pertains by definition to those ellipticals which are 

2422: {\em already} that massive at those redshifts -- i.e.\ systems which have formed and 

2423: assembled $\sim10^{12}\,\msun$ by $z\gtrsim2-3$. These systems obviously 

2424: live in the most dense environments, and are very rare -- their evolution is strong 

2425: because they are expected to undergo a large number of dry mergers, as well 

2426: as mergers with later-forming gas-poor disks and spheroids and minor 

2427: mergers (see \S~\ref{sec:track} 

2428: below) that will build up an extended envelope and rapidly increase their sizes. 

2429: The typical system with the same mass observed at lower redshifts 

2430: was not fully assembled at these early times, but forms in less 

2431: overdense regions and (although star formation in progenitors may have ceased 

2432: at early times) assembled more recently, in a smaller number of dry mergers. 

2433: So the evolution seen should not be taken to imply a large number of dry mergers 

2434: for the average massive galaxy, but rather to imply a large number  of 

2435: subsequent mergers (``large'' being $\sim$ a few; again see \S~\ref{sec:track} 

2436: for discussion of how this 

2437: can efficiently increase the spheroid size) for, in particular, galaxies 

2438: in extreme environments that are already massive at early times. 

2439: 

2440: 

2441: \breaker

2442: \section{Evolution of Individual Systems: What Happens to the Systems 

2443: Formed at High Redshift?}

2444: \label{sec:track}

2445: 

2446: We have predicted that high-$z$ massive ellipticals should be substantially more compact 

2447: than low-$z$ ellipticals of the same mass, in apparent agreement with 

2448: observations. If this is true, then what happens to these early-forming, compact ellipticals 

2449: as they evolve to $z=0$? 

2450: 

2451: \begin{figure*}

2452:     \centering

2453:     %\scaleup

2454:     %\plotone{mc_demo_hist.ps}

2455:     \plotone{f24.ps}

2456:     \caption{Median size ({\em left}), velocity dispersion ({\em middle}), and 

2457:     instantaneous stellar mass ({\em right})

2458:     as a function of redshift, for various galaxies 

2459:     that have similar $z=0$ stellar mass (labeled). 

2460:     These median tracks 

2461:     are shown for systems that have their first major merger (that first form a 

2462:     spheroid) within narrow intervals in $z$ (shown where each line begins: e.g.\ the line 

2463:     beginning at $z\sim3.5$ shows the median track of all systems which have their first 

2464:     major merger at $z=3.5\pm0.25$ and will have the same labeled stellar mass 

2465:     at $z=0$). Different colors show different variations in our model, and reflect the 

2466:     uncertainties in redshift evolution (as the shaded range in Figure~\ref{fig:reff.z}). 

2467:     Systems which form early are relatively compact, but grow in mass owing to 

2468:     subsequent mergers with gas-poor disks and other spheroids. 

2469:     \label{fig:tracks}}

2470: \end{figure*}

2471: 

2472: 

2473: \begin{figure}

2474:     \centering

2475:     \scaleup

2476:     %\plotone{mc_demo_sizemassplane.ps}

2477:     \plotterr{f25.ps}

2478:     \caption{Tracks followed by early-forming systems from 

2479:     Figure~\ref{fig:tracks} in the size-stellar mass plane. 

2480:     {\em Top:}

2481:     Symbol shape denotes the $z=0$ stellar mass (labeled), 

2482:     and color denotes redshift (from black at $z=0$ to red at $z=4$, as labeled). 

2483:     Points show the median tracks as in Figure~\ref{fig:tracks} for systems which 

2484:     first formed at a given redshift (the beginning of each plotted track). 

2485:     Lines show the $z=0$ size mass relation (solid), with slope 

2486:     $R_{e}\propto M_{\ast}^{0.6}$, and the same divided by a factor of 2 (dashed) 

2487:     and 4 (dotted). 

2488:     {\em Bottom:} Vectors illustrate motion in the plane owing to different 

2489:     types of mergers, for a system that will have a mass $M_{\ast}\sim10^{12}\,\msun$ 

2490:     at $z=0$ but first forms as a compact $M_{\ast}\sim10^{11}\,\msun$ 

2491:     spheroid ($\sim1/4$ the size of a typical similar-mass system at $z=0$) 

2492:     at $z\sim3-4$ in a gas-rich merger. 

2493:     As most systems are still gas-rich at these times, the next merger ($z\sim3-4$) 

2494:     may be similarly gas-rich, moving the system along the 

2495:     $R_{e}\propto M_{\ast}^{0.6}$ slope (maintaining the relative 

2496:     compact-ness; {\em red}). In biased regions, nearby systems 

2497:     are also rapidly transformed into ellipticals (which, having their initial mergers 

2498:     at early times from gas-rich disks, are also compact). A 1:1 merger with 

2499:     an identical elliptical will double $M_{\ast}$ and $R_{e}$

2500:     ($R_{e}\propto M_{\ast}^{1.0}$; {\em green}). At later times, systems 

2501:     merging will be newly accreted (into the halo), 

2502:     evolved (relatively gas-poor) disks, or ellipticals made 

2503:     at later times from such evolved disks (which, being formed in more 

2504:     gas-poor mergers, will be less compact). Such a dry/mixed merger 

2505:     (with a less compact system) moves the system up more rapidly than 

2506:     dry mergers with identical systems ($R_{e}\propto M_{\ast}^{1.4-1.8}$; {\em blue}). 

2507:     \label{fig:tracks.sizemass}}

2508: \end{figure}

2509: 

2510: We are now interested in the evolution of individual systems, from their formation redshift 

2511: to $z=0$, rather than the evolution of the population at the same mass (recall, 

2512: the systems with $\mstar\sim10^{11}\,\msun$ at $z\sim2-3$ are {\em not}, generally, 

2513: the same galaxies that have $\mstar\sim10^{11}\,\msun$ at $z=0$). 

2514: Figure~\ref{fig:tracks} shows such a case study, in fact a set of them, tracking the 

2515: median (averaged over many Monte Carlo realizations) evolution in sizes of 

2516: individual systems that are formed at a given redshift and will have a 

2517: specific stellar mass at $z=0$. 

2518: For two $z=0$ stellar masses where evolution is significant, we 

2519: show the evolution in effective radii, velocity dispersions, and stellar masses. 

2520: Figure~\ref{fig:tracks.sizemass} shows the same, but projects a 

2521: few of the representative median 

2522: tracks (for early-forming systems) 

2523: into the size-stellar mass plane, to show how the systems move as a 

2524: function of time and merger history

2525: in this space relative to e.g.\ the observed $z=0$ correlation. 

2526: 

2527: 

2528: The systems which have their first major merger at some early time are indeed much 

2529: more compact than their $z=0$ descendents. Partly, this is because they begin life 

2530: as lower-mass systems, but even for their (instantaneous) 

2531: stellar mass they are more compact than $z=0$ objects of that mass, 

2532: reflecting the higher degree of dissipation (the evolution in Figure~\ref{fig:reff.z}). 

2533: However, by $z=0$, systems of the same stellar mass from different formation 

2534: epochs all have effective radii within a narrow range (a factor of $\sim2$). 

2535: The systems which form late ($z\lesssim1$) 

2536: evolve weakly -- they rarely experience any dry mergers, so their $z=0$ sizes 

2537: largely reflect their sizes at formation. However, the systems which form 

2538: early ($z\gtrsim3$) evolve strongly -- they experience a number of 

2539: both mergers with lower-redshift, larger and much less gas-rich disks, 

2540: as well as other spheroids (true spheroid-spheroid dry mergers).  

2541: Such mergers increase the sizes of the ellipticals both in absolute 

2542: terms and in relative terms (moving them above the size-mass relation 

2543: representative of the time when they formed). Although the 

2544: number of major mergers for most systems is relatively small, 

2545: it is a function of their formation time. The systems which first merge at 

2546: earliest times do so because they live in highly biased environments -- they 

2547: are precisely those expected to undergo the most dry merging. 

2548: As a result, the effects of evolving dissipational content and the effects of 

2549: dry mergers appear to conspire such that, despite a significant evolution in the 

2550: size-mass relation with redshift, by $z=0$ ellipticals formed 

2551: at early times will have broadly similar sizes to those forming around $z\sim0$. 

2552: 

2553: If we examine Figures~\ref{fig:tracks}-\ref{fig:tracks.sizemass}, we can plot out the likely 

2554: course of evolution for the compact, massive passive galaxies seen at 

2555: $z\sim3$ in \citet{kriek:drg.seds,

2556: zirm:drg.sizes,labbe05:drgs,wuyts:irac.drg.colors,

2557: daddi05:drgs,vandokkum:z2.sizes,franx:size.evol,damjanov:red.nuggets}. 

2558: At the redshifts observed, these are systems which have formed 

2559: recently (systems which form earlier will be even more rare) in a 

2560: gas-rich merger \citep[in agreement with their young observed ages, 

2561: relative to $z=0$ spheroids of the same mass;][]{kriek:drg.seds}, 

2562: very high gas fractions $\gtrsim30-40\%$ characteristic of 

2563: disks at these and higher redshifts. 

2564: The large dissipational fraction 

2565: yields a massive galaxy ($M_{\ast}\gtrsim10^{11}\,\msun$) 

2566: with a very small effective radius $\sim1$\,kpc. As discussed in \S~\ref{sec:evol} 

2567: above, however, the velocity dispersion is not 

2568: extremely large (if we took $\sigma(z)=\sigma(\mstar,0)\times\,R_{e}(0)/R_{e}(z)$, 

2569: we would estimate $\sigma\sim600-800\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$; 

2570: however, the predicted velocity dispersion is in fact $\sim250-300\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$). 

2571: Because the system is so much more compact, the dark matter fraction within 

2572: $R_{e}$ is much smaller than in a typical $z=0$ spheroid of the same mass, 

2573: so its contribution to the velocity dispersion is much smaller. 

2574: 

2575: The system, 

2576: having formed in a high density environment \citep[consistent with 

2577: their observed clustering and number densities; e.g.][]{quadri:highz.color.density,

2578: vandokkum06:drgs}, 

2579: will undergo a 

2580: significant number of mergers between this time and $z\sim1-2$, where 

2581: the merger rate begins to level off. These mergers are with a mix of 

2582: disks and ellipticals. At times shortly after formation, successive mergers 

2583: may be with other gas-rich disks, yielding similar amounts of 

2584: dissipation and keeping the system relatively compact. 

2585: This is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:tracks.sizemass} as a 

2586: ``similar gas-rich merger''; which will move the system parallel to 

2587: the size-mass relation ($R_{e}\propto M_{\ast}^{0.6}$). 

2588: Soon, nearby systems will (given the biased environment) be 

2589: largely elliptical -- but they may be similar, compact ellipticals. 

2590: Spheroid-spheroid dry mergers will puff up the system, 

2591: moving it up somewhat relative to the initial size-mass relation at 

2592: formation. This is shown as a ``dry merger with similar 

2593: (compact) elliptical'' in Figure~\ref{fig:tracks.sizemass} -- 

2594: here merging two identical (equally compact) ellipticals doubles 

2595: both $R_{e}$ and $M_{\ast}$ (see \S~\ref{sec:model:sims:dry}), 

2596: moving the system ``up'' relative to the size-mass 

2597: relation along the steeper axis $R_{e}\propto M_{\ast}^{1.0}$. 

2598: 

2599: As time goes by (in a hierarchical scenario), 

2600: the galaxies merging will have formed in a more extended 

2601: physical region over longer periods of time (being recently accreted into 

2602: the parent halo); merging disks at later times will be progressively 

2603: more gas-poor (characteristic of low-$z$ disks, which have consumed their 

2604: gas in star formation), and thus contribute dissipationless stars with 

2605: very large effective radii, building up the stellar component 

2606: (an extended, violently relaxed envelope) at large radii. Likewise, pure 

2607: spheroid-spheroid mergers will include spheroids that formed 

2608: later from such less gas-rich disks (and are therefore less compact), 

2609: and these will serve to puff up the system even more efficiently 

2610: and build up an envelope consistent with that typically observed in 

2611: BCGs at $z=0$ (the expected location of such systems at $z=0$, 

2612: based on their clustering properties and inferred halo masses). 

2613: This is denoted in Figure~\ref{fig:tracks.sizemass} by the label 

2614: ``dry/mixed mergers with gas-poor disks/later-forming (less compact) 

2615: ellipticals,'' and allows the system to move more rapidly 

2616: ``up'' in size relative to the size-mass relation (along an 

2617: axis $R_{e}\propto M_{\ast}^{1.4-1.8}$, depending on the details of the 

2618: type of mergers involved). This enables systems that form compact 

2619: for their mass to migrate to the $z=0$ size-mass relation in a 

2620: relatively small number of mergers 

2621: (in the illustrative example in Figure~\ref{fig:tracks.sizemass}, the 

2622: system moves from being $1/4$ the size of a $z=0$ analogue to 

2623: lying on the local relation in just two equal-mass 

2624: dry mergers, one with a similarly compact elliptical, one 

2625: with a later-forming, less compact elliptical; the latter merger 

2626: builds a more extended envelope and therefore moves the 

2627: system more rapidly towards agreement with the $z=0$ relation). 

2628: 

2629: At sufficiently large masses (especially for galaxies at the center of 

2630: massive clusters), minor mergers will increasingly dominate the 

2631: growth of the galaxy \citep[see e.g.][]{maller:sph.merger.rates,zheng:hod.evolution,

2632: masjedi:cross.correlations}; these will have similar effects to those described 

2633: here, and may even further increase the size at $z=0$ (especially if small 

2634: merging systems are disrupted as they merge; in this case they will 

2635: not contribute much to the central structure of the galaxy, but will increasingly 

2636: build up an extended envelope at large radii). More detailed modeling of the structure 

2637: of e.g.\ BCGs and the most massive ($M_{\ast}\gtrsim10^{12}\,M_{\sun}$) 

2638: galaxies should account for both major and minor mergers in dense environments. 

2639: 

2640: The effective radius therefore rapidly grows, and by $z=0$ the system 

2641: lies on (or even somewhat above) the median size-mass relation for 

2642: systems of the same $z=0$ stellar mass. The velocity dispersion grows 

2643: slightly as mass is accumulated, but since most of this mass is contributed 

2644: from dissipationless components to the extended envelope (recall, 

2645: a merger of two identical spheroids will leave $\sigma$ unchanged), it 

2646: does not contribute much, and the $z=0$ galaxy has a peak 

2647: (central) velocity dispersion $\approx400\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$, large but only 

2648: $30\%$ larger than its initial central velocity dispersion and 

2649: completely consistent with those observed in the most massive galaxies 

2650: today \citep{bernardi:most.massive}. 

2651: In detail, in fact, the predicted descendants of 

2652: early compact systems here have similar abundances, 

2653: velocity dispersions, and remarkably similar predicted locations in e.g.\ the 

2654: $z=0$ size-mass, fundamental plane, and Faber-Jackson relations 

2655: to the sample in \citet{bernardi:most.massive}, suggesting that 

2656: many of those systems may be the products of this process. 

2657: For the most part, then, these extreme systems 

2658: are completely consistent in all the properties we can predict here 

2659: (effective radius, mass, velocity dispersion, black hole mass, and 

2660: profile shape/Sersic index) with their constituting the central $\sim10-30\%$ of 

2661: the mass in a significant fraction of the brightest group or cluster galaxies

2662: today. 

2663: 

2664: 

2665: 

2666: \begin{figure}

2667:     \centering

2668:     %\scaleup

2669:     %\plotone{MC_z_last.ps}

2670:     \plotone{f26.ps}

2671:     \caption{Fraction of $z=0$ spheroids of a given stellar mass which had their 

2672:     last major merger (gas rich or gas poor) above a given redshift. 

2673:     A few percent of massive systems today are expected to have survived 

2674:     from a much earlier formation time $z\sim2-3$ without any subsequent 

2675:     mergers modifying their structure -- i.e.\ be remnants of the era where 

2676:     scaling relations were different. These ellipticals would generally be compact 

2677:     for their mass, with old ages, and strongly clustered. 

2678:     \label{fig:surviving.frac}}

2679: \end{figure}

2680: 

2681: 

2682: This can explain why such objects are not ubiquitous in the

2683: local Universe. However, we could still 

2684: ask what fraction of such systems might be expected to survive to $z=0$, 

2685: without disappearing into a larger $z=0$ galaxy. In 

2686: short, should any of this massive and compact population exist at $z=0$, which 

2687: might represent the direct remnants of high-redshift, compact ellipticals? 

2688: 

2689: Figure~\ref{fig:surviving.frac} shows the fraction (at a given $z=0$ stellar mass) of objects 

2690: which had their last major merger of any kind (which will largely 

2691: set their observed size) at (or above) a given redshift. At 

2692: masses corresponding to those observed in high-redshift compact galaxy populations 

2693: ($\sim10^{11}\,\msun$), the fraction of the population today which has survived 

2694: relatively intact since $z\gtrsim2$ is expected to be small, $\sim1-10\%$. 

2695: This translates to a $z=0$ space density of such systems 

2696: $\sim10^{-4}\,{\rm Mpc^{-3}}$: not large, but not completely negligible. 

2697: This is an upper limit to the number density of such systems: if they have experienced a 

2698: sufficiently large number of minor mergers, they may be significantly altered 

2699: by $z=0$ (although many of the same reasons that allow some systems to avoid 

2700: major mergers will allow them to avoid a large number of minor mergers). 

2701: At any redshift, however, there is a scatter in elliptical sizes owing to a scatter in 

2702: e.g.\ the dissipational fractions at the time of their formation (reflecting scatter 

2703: in disk gas fractions). Since disk gas fractions have significant (factor $\sim1.5-2$) 

2704: scatter, that is actually expected to dominate the scatter in e.g.\ the size-mass relation 

2705: at $z=0$ (rather than scatter in the formation times of ellipticals). That is 

2706: to say, there could be a similar fraction of

2707: ellipticals that are {\it too compact} present at $z=0$ 

2708: which formed recently (not at $z>2$), from the most anomalously gas-rich disks 

2709: at lower redshifts (say the $\sim2\,\sigma$ outliers 

2710: in the disk gas fraction-mass relations). This probably will not explain systems 

2711: as small as $\sim1\,$kpc at these stellar masses, but it illustrates that some additional 

2712: indicator is needed to distinguish those possibilities. If stellar population ages could 

2713: be measured, this is straightforward: the system which formed at low redshift will have 

2714: significant recent star formation (in fact, quite a lot, since we are interested in 

2715: compact systems with large dissipational fractions). So it should be possible, in principle, 

2716: to identify the descendents of the early-forming ellipticals. 

2717: 

2718: One important caveat to this discussion is that we have focused here on the 

2719: role of major mergers with mass ratios below 1:3. 

2720: Our calculation and other halo occupation models \citep{zheng:hod.evolution}, 

2721: clustering measurements \citep{masjedi:cross.correlations}, 

2722: and cosmological simulations \citep{maller:sph.merger.rates} 

2723: suggest that as galaxies approach the extreme $M_{\ast}\gg 10^{12}\,M_{\sun}$ 

2724: BCG populations, growth by a large series of minor mergers becomes 

2725: progressively more 

2726: important than growth by major mergers. Our predictions in this limit should 

2727: therefore be treated with some degree of caution, 

2728: in contrast with the bulk of the elliptical population at masses 

2729: $\lesssim$ a few $L_{\ast}$, the vast majority of which still live in less

2730: extreme environments \citep[e.g.][]{blanton:env,wang:sdss.hod,

2731: masjedi:merger.rates} and are expected to 

2732: have experienced a small number ($\sim$ a couple) of major re-mergers 

2733: since redshifts $z\sim2-4$. Our modeling can, in principle, be extended to 

2734: include minor mergers, and doing so we find qualitatively similar conclusions 

2735: (because merger histories are roughly self-similar, the relative growth 

2736: and courses of evolution seen in Figure~\ref{fig:tracks} are conserved). 

2737: However, as demonstrated in \citet{hopkins:groups.ell}, our predictions 

2738: (and those of other halo occupation-based approaches) become considerably 

2739: less robust in the regime of minor mergers (mass ratios $\sim$1:10 or so), 

2740: owing to greater uncertainty in the satellite mass function at these 

2741: mass ratios and weaker observational constraints on the halo occupation of 

2742: small galaxies. 

2743: 

2744: In any case, because early-forming, compact systems were massive and experienced 

2745: mergers at such early times, many will represent the primary galaxies 

2746: in the highest density peaks, being BCGs today. Indeed, this is true for most of 

2747: the massive high-$z$ spheroid population. However, in order to 

2748: {\em survive} to $z=0$ from this population, mergers must be avoided (by our 

2749: definition) -- something very hard for BCGs. We would still expect to find 

2750: such objects around high-density peaks (there is no getting around 

2751: the fact that they will only form so early and so massive in high-density peaks), 

2752: but those that survive, in many cases, would be expected to do so 

2753: precisely because they were {\em not} the central galaxy or BCG. (In detail, they 

2754: probably were the central galaxy or BCG at their time of formation, but 

2755: were displaced from this position in subsequent halo-halo mergers, 

2756: becoming a satellite in a still larger system, suppressing their merger history). 

2757: 

2758: There may be some interesting candidates for such objects 

2759: among the so-called ``compact elliptical'' family. For example 

2760: (although we intend this only as an illustrative case), NGC 4486B is a 

2761: satellite of NGC 4486 in Virgo. It has a stellar mass $\gtrsim10^{10}\,\msun$ 

2762: (\papertwo) and 

2763: velocity dispersion $\sigma=200\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$, but an effective 

2764: radius of only $200$\,pc \citep[see e.g.][]{jk:profiles}. This is somewhat smaller than 

2765: the $\sim10^{11}\,\msun$ which we just described, but the scenario 

2766: can be generalized to masses about this low. 

2767: The stellar population age is quite old, $10.5$\,Gyr 

2768: \citep[perhaps even up to $\sim13$\,Gyr, 

2769: depending on the indicator used;][]{caldwell:ssps}, implying a time of 

2770: last significant star formation $z\gtrsim2$. 

2771: This is further supported by a corresponding $\alpha$-enrichment and metallicities. 

2772: The system has high rotation and ellipticity suggestive of a very gas-rich formation 

2773: \citep{bender:88.shapes,bender:ell.kinematics}. 

2774: The estimated dynamical friction time is sufficiently long that the system could have become 

2775: a satellite in the Virgo progenitor as early as $z\sim2$ and still not merged with the 

2776: central galaxy. All of these lines of evidence suggest it may have 

2777: survived from an early formation 

2778: time as a very compact system. Unfortunately, except for the direct stellar population 

2779: age measurements, these arguments are mostly circumstantial, and those 

2780: stellar population estimates are still quite uncertain. Better determinations of the 

2781: star formation history in this object would be an important test of this hypothesis. 

2782: 

2783: \breaker

2784: \section{Conclusions}

2785: \label{sec:discuss}

2786: 

2787: We have combined the results from a large library of numerical simulations with 

2788: simple, observationally constrained models for the halo occupation 

2789: (and corresponding merger history) of galaxies in order to predict 

2790: how spheroid scaling laws evolve. We demonstrate that, despite 

2791: a variety of progenitor properties, complex merger histories, and evolution in 

2792: e.g.\ progenitor sizes and gas content with redshift, the most important 

2793: property driving the structural scaling relations of spheroids at each redshift 

2794: (and, in particular, making these scaling relations {\em different} from those 

2795: obeyed by disk galaxies) is the amount of dissipation involved in the 

2796: formation of the spheroid. At the highest masses, dry mergers at relatively 

2797: late times are also important, but are few, consistent with 

2798: observational constraints. Together, these predict a significant mass-dependent 

2799: evolution in spheroid scaling laws, which has important consequences 

2800: for the fundamental plane, spheroid densities, and the formation histories of 

2801: massive galaxies. 

2802: 

2803: At $z=0$, a simple model accounting for the effects of dissipation in mergers 

2804: is able to explain the size-mass, velocity dispersion-mass, and fundamental 

2805: plane (dynamical-stellar mass) correlations, the 

2806: relation between galaxy profile shape (Sersic index) and mass, 

2807: the correlation between black hole mass and various host properties 

2808: (bulge binding energy, mass, velocity dispersion, and profile shape), 

2809: the relative mass fractions in compact dissipational components in ellipticals, 

2810: and the abundance of cuspy/disky/rapidly rotating versus cored/boxy/slowly 

2811: rotating ellipticals \citep[see][]{hopkins:groups.ell}. 

2812: Dissipation in the initial disk-disk mergers that form the spheroid 

2813: progenitors is the most important parameter controlling these relations. 

2814: 

2815: In particular, at high masses, where disks are gas-poor, the sizes, densities, 

2816: and dynamical mass to stellar mass ratios of ellipticals reflect those of their 

2817: progenitor disks. At lower masses, where disks are gas-rich, mergers involve a 

2818: significant amount of new star formation in dissipational nuclear starbursts triggered 

2819: by loss of energy and angular momentum in the gas in the merger, building up a 

2820: compact central stellar distribution (the ``dissipational'' component) 

2821: that yields a smaller, more dense remnant. This mass-dependence in the 

2822: dissipational content of progenitor disks makes the size-mass relation of ellipticals 

2823: steeper than that of disks and gives the observed tilt in the fundamental plane 

2824: (essentially the statement that low-mass disks, being more dominated by this 

2825: nuclear dissipational component, have higher baryon-to-dark matter fractions within 

2826: their {\em stellar} effective radii). Black holes are formed with a mass that, in a simple 

2827: feedback-regulated model, corresponds to the binding energy of the 

2828: dissipational component of bulge at the time of this dissipation, which the black hole 

2829: must work against in order to self-regulate its growth. This matches the 

2830: detailed observations of a black hole fundamental plane in \citet{hopkins:bhfp.obs} 

2831: and gives rise to the secondary (indirect) correlations between black hole 

2832: mass and spheroid velocity dispersion, mass, size, and Sersic index (all of which 

2833: agree with those observed). 

2834: 

2835: To lowest order, the dissipational fractions that give rise to these trends at 

2836: $z=0$ reflect the observed gas fractions of disk galaxies at 

2837: moderate redshifts $z\sim0-2$. This is because most ellipticals are formed in a 

2838: relatively small number of major mergers at low redshifts in this range. 

2839: It is only when one considers the most massive populations of e.g.\ BCGs and 

2840: massive cored, boxy, slowly rotating ellipticals that dry mergers become important. 

2841: Their effect is to puff up these systems, producing extended envelopes and 

2842: raising their outer Sersic indices. This is sufficient to explain the observed weak dependence 

2843: of outer Sersic index on mass in elliptical galaxies, following the 

2844: detailed multi-component decompositions of observed systems 

2845: in \papertwo\ and \paperthree. When systems are fitted to a single 

2846: Sersic index, the result is a steeper dependence that reflects a complex 

2847: combination of e.g.\ the outer Sersic index (primarily driven by merger history), 

2848: the mass fraction in a dissipational component (yielding rising densities 

2849: at small radius), the shape of the two components where they are comparable, 

2850: and the dynamic range of the fit (since real ellipticals are not perfect Sersic profiles, 

2851: there is some dependence, and in particular when fitting the entire profile to a single 

2852: Sersic law, the dependence can be significant). 

2853: 

2854: The detailed interplay of dissipation and dry mergers also gives rise to 

2855: important residual trends that can be used as tests of these models. For example, 

2856: at a given stellar mass, the oldest systems will have the largest effective 

2857: radii and dynamical masses. This is driven by two effects: first, disks which have 

2858: high star formation efficiencies (earlier star formation times) 

2859: will be more gas-poor at the time of their mergers -- i.e.\ will have less mass in a 

2860: dissipational component. Second, systems which may be gas-rich but form very 

2861: early (i.e.\ have a high redshift of their last gas-rich merger) tend to do so because 

2862: they are in dense environments, and will therefore experience subsequent 

2863: mergers with both more gas-poor disks and other spheroids, increasing their 

2864: size and dynamical-to-stellar mass ratios. 

2865: 

2866: At higher redshifts, disk gas fractions are expected and observed to be 

2867: systematically larger. As a result, spheroids observed at these redshifts 

2868: are expected to have formed in more gas-rich mergers and 

2869: to have a larger mass fraction in their dissipational component, making 

2870: them more compact. 

2871: We predict that elliptical sizes evolve in a mass-dependent fashion: 

2872: since low-mass disks are still quite gas-rich at $z=0$, 

2873: there is little room for them to become more so at high redshift, so 

2874: they cannot evolve much. High mass disks, on the other hand, could in principle 

2875: be much more gas rich than their observed $z=0$ $\lesssim10\%$ values. 

2876: As well, at high masses, dry mergers become important in the 

2877: predicted size evolution. Consequently, the highest mass ellipticals 

2878: are expected to evolve to become a factor $\sim2-3$ smaller at $z\gtrsim2$. 

2879: In terms of the mean effective radius of spheroids of a given 

2880: stellar mass, relative to that at $z=0$, we find evolution of the form 

2881: $(1+z)^{-\beta}$ where $\beta\approx0.23\,\log{(M_{\ast}/10^{9}\,\msun)}$ 

2882: (of course enforcing $\beta>0$ or whatever minimum evolution is set 

2883: by observed evolution in progenitor disk sizes at these masses). 

2884: 

2885: This is consistent with 

2886: observations from e.g.\ \citet{trujillo:size.evolution,

2887: mcintosh:size.evolution,zirm:drg.sizes,vandokkum:z2.sizes}, 

2888: although we highlight important biases arising from 

2889: stellar population gradients which are relevant when attempting to estimate 

2890: the sizes of the most massive galaxies at $z\gtrsim2$. 

2891: We demonstrate that this size evolution owes almost entirely to 

2892: the change in dissipation with redshift, although dry mergers 

2893: are of some importance for the most massive systems. Whether 

2894: we explicitly include it or not, the evolution cannot be explained 

2895: by simple scaling of disk sizes with redshift \citep[which, in any case, is 

2896: observed to be weak; see e.g.][and references therein]{somerville:disk.size.evol}. 

2897: 

2898: This evolution has important implications for the other fundamental plane correlations. 

2899: Because the fundamental plane tilt (at $z=0$) arises owing to systematically 

2900: higher dissipational fractions in low-mass systems (making them more 

2901: compact and yielding lower dark matter fractions within the stellar $R_{e}$), 

2902: at high redshift (where even high-mass systems must be highly dissipational, 

2903: since disk gas fractions are much higher) we expect the tilt to be weaker. 

2904: Note that we refer here to the {\em stellar mass} fundamental plane, 

2905: i.e.\ $M_{\rm dyn}$ versus $\mstar$ -- there will of course be stellar population 

2906: effects introducing normalization and tilt changes in various observed bands. 

2907: The predicted change is within the $z=0$ uncertainties at $z\le1$, but by $z\gtrsim3$, 

2908: the tilt is predicted to largely disappear. This is important both as a test of these 

2909: models, but also as a caution to observational attempts to use the fundamental plane 

2910: as a detailed stellar population probe. It is certainly much less significant than the 

2911: expected evolution in mass-to-light ratios in optical bands, but could be important 

2912: for detailed stellar population probes such as that in \citet{vandokkum:imf.evol}

2913: which assume a fixed stellar mass fundamental plane (although selection of 

2914: e.g.\ satellite galaxies in clusters, which are less likely to undergo significant future 

2915: merging relative to central galaxies in the field or groups, may be sufficient to mitigate 

2916: these evolutionary effects). 

2917: % and compare different 

2918: % stellar population indicators and mass-to-light ratios (basically this physical evolution could 

2919: % be mistaken for an ``excess'' or ``deficit'' of $\sim0.1$\,dex in stellar population 

2920: % mass-to-light ratio evolution). 

2921: 

2922: We argue that velocity dispersions will 

2923: change weakly with redshift, despite the evolution in 

2924: effective radii, because systems with higher dissipational fractions (smaller $R_{e}$) 

2925: are more baryon-dominated in their stellar effective radii (i.e.\ the velocity dispersion 

2926: includes a weaker contribution from the halo). This is important, because velocity dispersion 

2927: is in general preserved or increases in subsequent re-mergers. If high-redshift 

2928: massive galaxies had extreme velocity dispersions $\gtrsim600\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$ 

2929: (corresponding to the simple assumption that $\sigma$ is inversely 

2930: proportional to just the stellar effective radius), then the appropriate number of 

2931: systems with equal or higher velocity dispersions would have to exist at $z=0$ 

2932: \citep[and they do not, even in survey volumes of the SDSS;][]{bernardi:most.massive}. 

2933: However, accounting for the interplay between 

2934: dark matter and baryonic mass, our predicted evolution in velocity dispersions is 

2935: completely consistent with observational constraints. 

2936: 

2937: Furthermore, because of the increasing dissipational components and 

2938: deepening potential wells at high redshift, we expect that, in any feedback-regulated 

2939: model of black hole growth, black holes must become at least somewhat more 

2940: massive (relative to their host spheroid stellar mass) at high redshift. We predict a 

2941: similar mass-dependent evolution in $M_{\rm BH}/M_{\ast}$, with little or 

2942: no significant evolution at $M_{\ast}\lesssim10^{10}\,\msun$ (corresponding to 

2943: black holes with masses $\lesssim10^{7}\,\msun$), and factor 

2944: $\sim2$ increase to $z\sim2-3$ in the masses of the black holes in the most massive 

2945: systems ($M_{\ast}\gg10^{11}\,\msun$, corresponding to $\mbh\gtrsim10^{9}\,\msun$). 

2946: Likewise, we predict the evolution in black hole mass relative to host velocity dispersion, 

2947: which exhibits a more complex behavior. 

2948: The physical details of driving these trends are discussed in more detail in 

2949: \citet{hopkins:bhfp.theory}, but here we embed those models in a more fully 

2950: cosmological context. The evolution predicted is consistent with recent 

2951: observations \citep{peng:magorrian.evolution} 

2952: and with indirect constraints based on the relative 

2953: evolution of black hole mass density and spheroid mass density \citep{hopkins:old.age,

2954: merloni:magorrian.evolution}, however it is still relatively weak. 

2955: Selection effects \citep{lauer:mbh.bias} 

2956: would be expected to explain the difference between some observational 

2957: estimates that infer very strong \citep[e.g.][]{walter04:z6.msigma.evolution} or rapid 

2958: low-redshift \citep{woo06:lowz.msigma.evolution} evolution 

2959: and our predictions. 

2960: 

2961: We outline the history of these massive systems which are different 

2962: when first formed at high redshift (where they are very dissipational) and 

2963: observed at low redshift. Most of these compact, early forming ellipticals will 

2964: undergo a significant number of dry mergers, or mergers with lower-redshift, 

2965: more gas-depleted and larger disks, which will serve to puff up the remnant, building 

2966: up some stellar mass and an extended stellar envelope (although changing 

2967: the central velocity dispersion by a relatively small amount). This raises 

2968: their effective radii more rapidly than their stellar mass, in the sense of 

2969: moving them up in the size-mass relation. Interestingly, the evolution in disk 

2970: gas fractions and the effects of such dry mergers almost exactly offset one another 

2971: in massive systems. In other words, a $\sim10^{12}\,\msun$ galaxy which 

2972: first formed from a merger at $z=3$ (which had a high gas content, leading to a very 

2973: compact $\gtrsim10^{11}\,\msun$ initial galaxy with $R_{e}\sim1$\,kpc) 

2974: will have almost the same size at $z=0$ as a 

2975: galaxy of the same observed stellar mass which formed at much later time, 

2976: say $z=1$, from a less dissipational merger (because disk gas fractions have 

2977: decreased in that time interval). The system which formed earlier was initially more 

2978: compact, but experienced more mergers in the intervening time, so for a given 

2979: stellar mass, the scatter in $R_{e}$ is not large. Likewise, velocities dispersions 

2980: and other fundamental plane properties have small scatter at a given stellar mass 

2981: at any observed redshift because of this cancellation effect. 

2982: 

2983: This is not to say that most systems will undergo many dry mergers -- the overall 

2984: density of dry mergers predicted here is low, consistent with observational 

2985: constraints from e.g.\ \citet{bell:dry.mergers,vandokkum:dry.mergers,lin:mergers.by.type}, 

2986: and as we noted above most 

2987: (especially $\lesssim L_{\ast}$) ellipticals today formed in a few 

2988: (or just one) gas-rich mergers at relatively low redshifts. However, the systems 

2989: which form earliest do so because they live in the most dense environments, 

2990: which evolve the most rapidly, and are expected to undergo the most subsequent 

2991: merging activity. We predict, as a result, 

2992: that most of these compact systems observed at high redshifts 

2993: will end up constituting some of the central dense stellar mass in 

2994: observed brightest cluster or group galaxies at $z=0$; this is consistent with 

2995: the observed sizes \citep{vonderlinden:bcg.scaling.relations}, 

2996: surface brightness profile shapes (extended envelopes 

2997: build up through their subsequent dry merging) \citep[see e.g.\ 

2998: \paperthree\ and][]{gallagherostriker72,

2999: naab:dry.mergers}, 

3000: and masses and velocity dispersions \citep{bernardi:bcg.scalings} of these $z=0$ systems, 

3001: and also expected given the clustering properties of high redshift massive 

3002: systems \citep{quadri:highz.color.density}. 

3003: 

3004: We estimate what 

3005: fraction, as a function of stellar mass, of 

3006: the massive galaxy population today may have survived from these early times un-remerged 

3007: and thus reflect the smaller sizes and higher dissipational content characteristic of 

3008: systems formed at that time, finding that e.g.\ $\sim1-5\%$ of $z=0$ 

3009: $\sim10^{11}\,\msun$ systems may have survived since $z\sim2$. This is small, 

3010: but not negligible, and by identifying compact ellipticals with old stellar population 

3011: ages, it should be possible to locate the surviving remnants of this population. 

3012: We predict that these will be massive, compact (with other indicators of gas-rich 

3013: origin and high inferred dissipational fractions from their stellar profiles), 

3014: with old stellar population ages. Because they still generally would initially form in 

3015: high-density environments, but have avoided merging since then, we 

3016: would roughly expect them to be in dense environments (rich groups and 

3017: clusters) today, but {\em not} to be the central galaxy (again, most early-forming 

3018: systems will be the central galaxy -- but if they are all the way until $z=0$, 

3019: it is unlikely that they will have avoided further mergers, and thus would

3020: not be 

3021: un-remerged). There may be some observed candidate members of this 

3022: population in the so-called ``compact elliptical'' class, galaxies similar to 

3023: NGC 4486B in Virgo which appears to satisfy these criteria. Further observations 

3024: to test this hypothesis could prove extremely valuable as nearby probes of 

3025: high-redshift galaxy evolution.

3026: 

3027: Future work should extend these models to include the (at present 

3028: more uncertain) role of particularly minor mergers 

3029: (where e.g.\ satellite disruption may be important to explain the extended halos in 

3030: massive BCGs) and other sources of dissipation, such as stellar mass 

3031: loss \citep[see e.g.][]{ciottiostriker:recycling}. However, 

3032: we show that other effects, e.g.\ evolution in the sizes of disk galaxies, 

3033: dry mergers alone, and evolution in galaxy host halo properties, are insufficient to  

3034: explain effects like those predicted here, in particular to account for 

3035: e.g.\ the tilt of the fundamental plane, the relative sizes of ellipticals (versus those of 

3036: disks) as a function of mass, the scaling of elliptical galaxy profile shapes with mass, 

3037: and the redshift evolution in the fundamental plane 

3038: correlations. Therefore, these predictions are important tests of any model 

3039: in which dissipational star formation is a significant influence on galaxy formation. 

3040: 

3041: Because dissipation is necessary in a basic sense to reconcile the 

3042: densities of ellipticals and spirals, this represents an important test of 

3043: the merger hypothesis itself, as well as a test of our understanding of galaxy merger 

3044: histories and the evolution in different galaxy components with redshift. 

3045: In addition, we provide a unified 

3046: theoretical lens through which to interpret a number of 

3047: observations of spheroid and black hole-host 

3048: scalings at both $z=0$ and high redshift, in which spheroids are fundamentally 

3049: multi-component objects (with dissipational components originally formed 

3050: in central starbursts triggered in the initial gas-rich interactions that formed 

3051: the system, and dissipationless components representing the scattered, 

3052: violently relaxed stars from the pre-initial merger stellar disks). 

3053: As multi-component objects, it is primarily the relative mass fraction in the 

3054: dissipational component, reflecting the gas content of spheroid progenitors, 

3055: that drives their structural properties and the evolution of those structural 

3056: properties with redshift. 

3057: 

3058: 

3059: \acknowledgments We thank Tod Lauer, John Kormendy, Sadegh Khochfar, 

3060: Marijn Franx, Ivo Labbe, Norm Murray, Chien Peng, 

3061: and Barry Rothberg for helpful discussions and contributed data sets 

3062: used in this paper. This work

3063: was supported in part by NSF grants ACI 96-19019, AST 00-71019, AST

3064: 02-06299, and AST 03-07690, and NASA ATP grants NAG5-12140,

3065: NAG5-13292, and NAG5-13381. Support for 

3066: TJC and SW was provided by the W.~M.\ Keck 

3067: Foundation.

3068: 

3069: \bibliography{/Users/phopkins/Documents/lars_galaxies/papers/ms}

3070: 

3071: 

3072: %\clearpage

3073: 

3074: 

3075: \begin{appendix}

3076: %\appendixcolumns

3077: 

3078: \section{Implementation of the Halo Occupation Model}

3079: \label{sec:appendix}

3080: 

3081: Here, we present a condensed outline of the simplest implementation of the model 

3082: used to make the predictions in this paper. As described in the text 

3083: (\S~\ref{sec:model}), we have experimented with a wide variety of 

3084: modifications to the model elements and methodology -- but our intention here 

3085: is to summarize

3086: the basic framework upon which these modifications represent increasing 

3087: layers of complexity. We therefore leave the 

3088: description of these experiments to \S~\ref{sec:model} and 

3089: \citet{hopkins:groups.qso}. 

3090: 

3091: As outlined in \S~\ref{sec:model:sims:summary}, our methodology consists of a 

3092: few key steps: 

3093: 

3094: We construct a Monte Carlo sample of halos at some observed redshift 

3095: $z_{\rm obs}$, sampling according to the halo mass function at that 

3096: redshift \citep[constructed in standard fashion for the adopted cosmology 

3097: following][]{shethtormen}. 

3098: 

3099: For each halo, we determine a mock growth history, i.e.\ 

3100: $M_{\rm halo}(z)$ for all $z>z_{\rm obs}$ up to some 

3101: initial (maximum) redshift $z_{\rm init}$. There are several 

3102: ways to do this: using the extended Press-Schechter formalism, 

3103: adopting fits to individual halo growth histories in simulations 

3104: \citep[taken from e.g.][]{delucia:ell.formation,

3105: stewart:mw.minor.accretion} or directly tracking the main-branch 

3106: progenitor halo mass of each $z=0$ halo in the simulations, 

3107: integrating over analytic fits to mean merger histories from 

3108: initial seed populations \citep{fakhouri:halo.merger.rates}, or adopting the mean 

3109: $M_{\rm halo}(z | M_{\rm halo}[z=z_{\rm obs}])$ for a given $z=z_{\rm obs}$ 

3110: population of halos 

3111: fitted in e.g.\ \citet{wechsler:concentration,wechsler:assembly.bias,

3112: neistein:natural.downsizing}. 

3113: Because we are considering the population in a 

3114: {\em statistical} fashion, it makes no difference which of these 

3115: approaches we adopt so long as they yield a similar 

3116: median (and the scatter in galaxy properties in a given halo is, 

3117: in any case, larger than the scatter at different times between 

3118: these methodologies). The simplest approach, then, is to 

3119: consider each halo in the Monte Carlo sample to have a mass 

3120: at each $z>z_{\rm obs}$ given by the mean growth 

3121: history \citep[adopting the analytic fits in][in 

3122: their Equation~11 and Appendices]{neistein:natural.downsizing}.  

3123: 

3124: Now we have an average $M_{\rm halo}(z)$ for each halo in 

3125: our representative Monte Carlo sample. 

3126: We then begin at some initial redshift $z_{\rm initial}$ 

3127: and evolve the system forward in timesteps of 

3128: some $\Delta z$.\footnote{Here, we choose $z_{\rm initial}=6$ and 

3129: $\Delta z=0.01$, but in general we find that 

3130: our results converge with respect to $\Delta z$ for values 

3131: $\Delta z \lesssim 0.1$, and the predictions at any given 

3132: $z_{\rm obs}$ converge rapidly once $z_{\rm initial}$ 

3133: is larger by some difference $z_{\rm initial}-z_{\rm obs}\gtrsim 1-2$. 

3134: The reasons for this are discussed in the text (\S~\ref{sec:model:hod}) and below.}

3135: We ignore halos until they reach a mass (our effective resolution limit, 

3136: corresponding to resolution limits in many of the simulations

3137: on which the HOD calculations are based) of 

3138: $M_{\rm halo}=10^{10}\,\msun$. This corresponds, given a typical HOD, to 

3139: an extremely small stellar mass $M_{\ast}\lesssim10^{7}\,\msun$, so 

3140: is irrelevant for the final mass of all the galaxies considered here, and 

3141: is a source of little uncertainty. 

3142: 

3143: At each timestep, all galaxies that have not yet experienced a major merger 

3144: above the resolution limit are initialized according to the halo occupation 

3145: model (specifically, we 

3146: initialize the galaxy stellar mass $M_{\ast}(M_{\rm halo})$ and 

3147: then determine $R_{e}(M_{\ast})$ and $f_{\rm gas}(M_{\ast})$). 

3148: As described in the text, we have experimented with a variety of 

3149: observational constraints regarding the implementation of the HOD 

3150: \citep[see][for a more detailed comparison]{hopkins:groups.qso}. It is possible, 

3151: for example, to use the quoted fits from \citet{conroy:monotonic.hod} 

3152: at each of several redshifts, and linearly interpolate between each redshift 

3153: where the HOD was fitted to apply it to our model. 

3154: It is also possible to use the methodology in that 

3155: paper and in \citet{valeostriker:monotonic.hod} -- monotonically ranking galaxies 

3156: in stellar mass and halos in either mass or circular velocity, and assigning 

3157: them to one another in one-to-one correlation -- together with 

3158: an analytic redshift-dependent fit to the galaxy stellar mass function 

3159: (extending to high redshift), such as that in \citet{fontana:highz.mfs}, to 

3160: obtain the HOD at each redshift. In practice, all of these applications yield 

3161: similar results -- these observational comparisons and other 

3162: direct measurements \citep[see e.g.][]{yan:clf.evolution,cooray:highz,

3163: conroy:monotonic.hod,heymans:mhalo-mgal.evol,

3164: conroy:mhalo-mgal.evol,brown:hod.evol} 

3165: imply that the evolution in $M_{\ast}(M_{\rm halo})$ with 

3166: redshift is weak (and only significant at the highest masses, 

3167: where number densities drop sufficiently rapidly at high redshift 

3168: as to make them a negligible contribution to the lower-redshift population). 

3169: For this reason, we obtain nearly identical results using the simplest possible 

3170: prescription: assuming $M_{\ast}(M_{\rm halo})$ is redshift-independent 

3171: and applying the observed $z=0$ relation, assigning each halo 

3172: galaxy a stellar mass in Monte Carlo fashion

3173: \citep[compare the redshift-dependent fits in][who reach a similar conclusion]{conroy:hod.vs.z}. Specifically, we consider the fits from \citet{wang:sdss.hod}, for central galaxies

3174: \begin{equation}

3175: M_{\ast} =  M_{1}\,{\Bigl [}(M_{\rm halo}/M_{0})^{-\alpha} + (M_{\rm halo}/M_{0})^{-\beta} {\Bigr ]}^{-1}

3176: \label{eqn:hod.fit}

3177: \end{equation}

3178: with $(M_{0},\,M_{1},\,\alpha,\,\beta)=(3.16\times10^{11}\,h^{-1}\,\msun,\,

3179: 4.48\times10^{10}\,\msun,\,0.39,\,1.96)$ and a 

3180: lognormal scatter with $\sigma=0.148$\,dex dispersion at each $M_{\rm halo}$

3181: \footnote{The ``turnover'' in $M_{\ast}(M_{\rm halo})$ in Equation~(\ref{eqn:hod.fit}) mainly 

3182: corresponds to quenched, spheroid galaxies, and so one could argue 

3183: should not be applied to a sample of strictly un-merged galaxies. 

3184: We have experimented with not including this turnover, i.e.\

3185: adopting the low-mass slope of the HOD with $M_{\ast}\propto M_{\rm halo}^{1.96}$, 

3186: with a maximum at a stellar mass equal to the halo mass times the 

3187: universal baryon fraction. Because very few systems survive to such large 

3188: masses without merging, however, this makes no difference to our predictions.}.

3189: 

3190: We then assign each disk an effective 

3191: radius $R_{e}(M_{\ast}\,|\,z)$ 

3192: according to the methodology in \S~\ref{sec:model:hod}, where 

3193: $R_{e}(M_{\ast}\,|\,z=0)\approx3.4\,(M_{\rm disk}/10^{10}\,\msun)^{0.3}$\,kpc 

3194: from \citet{shen:size.mass} (converted 

3195: to our adopted cosmology and stellar IMF) 

3196: and $R_{e}(M_{\ast}\,|\,z)=(1+z)^{-\beta_{d}}\,R_{e}(M_{\ast}\,|\,z=0)$ 

3197: as per Equation~(\ref{eqn:rdisk.evol}) (and we consider 

3198: both $\beta_{d}=0$ -- no evolution -- and $\beta_{d}=0.4$ -- the 

3199: evolution suggested by observations -- showing the 

3200: difference between the two in the range of uncertainties in 

3201: our model). The gas fractions are assigned in similar fashion, 

3202: with the $z=0$ observed relation in Equation~(\ref{eqn:fgas.z0}) and 

3203: appropriate redshift evolution in Equation~(\ref{eqn:fgas.z}) (where 

3204: we again consider a range to allow for observational uncertainties 

3205: as described in the text, specifically $\beta=0.5-2.0$ in 

3206: Equation~\ref{eqn:fgas.z}). 

3207: 

3208: These assignments are re-initialized at each redshift, if 

3209: the halo remains un-merged. For this reason (and because at 

3210: any redshift, most galaxies of a given mass have assembled 

3211: in the last redshift interval $\Delta z\sim1-2$), the large uncertainties 

3212: at high redshift are quickly suppressed at any lower redshift. 

3213: For example, even though the uncertainty in $R_{e}$ of a typical 

3214: disk at high redshift (e.g.\ $z=4$) is large (say, $0.5\,$dex), and this 

3215: will enter as such in the uncertainty in predicted size of an 

3216: elliptical forming at this redshift (although the uncertainty is 

3217: somewhat suppressed since the system is likely to be gas-rich; see 

3218: the discussion in \S~\ref{sec:model}), by $z=0$, 

3219: the original uncertainty will be suppressed by a typical 

3220: factor $\sim16-32$ (depending on how much the galaxy has grown 

3221: by low-redshift mergers), introducing only $\sim 0.02-0.03$\,dex 

3222: uncertainty in the low-redshift prediction (in other words, at lower 

3223: redshifts, the uncertainties are dominated by the uncertainties in 

3224: the HOD around those redshifts, rather than by the propagation of 

3225: uncertainties from higher redshifts). 

3226: 

3227: The critical step at each redshift is then determining whether or 

3228: not the galaxy experiences a merger. 

3229: Because we are interested in galaxy-galaxy mergers, 

3230: rather than e.g.\ a subhalo merging into the parent halo 

3231: (and the two can be very different, as many subhalos, especially 

3232: those which are small relative to the parent halo, 

3233: may not merge for a Hubble time), we do not wish to 

3234: adopt an extended Press-Schechter or 

3235: simulation-based merger tree, but opt for a more sophisticated 

3236: approach. At each timestep, we consider the halo to have a subhalo 

3237: population according to that fitted in simulations 

3238: \citep{kravtsov:subhalo.mfs} 

3239: \citep[alternatively, following the fits in][who adopt a semi-analytic 

3240: methodology but reach similar conclusions]{vandenbosch:subhalo.mf} 

3241: -- this subhalo mass function is, in units of 

3242: $M_{\rm subhalo}/M_{\rm halo}$, only weakly halo mass 

3243: or redshift-dependent, and it makes no difference whether 

3244: we adopt the fits from different authors 

3245: \citep[we have also compared the subhalo mass functions in][and reach similar 

3246: conclusions]{springel:cluster.subhalos,

3247: tormen:cluster.subhalos,delucia:subhalos,gao:subhalo.mf,

3248: zentner:substructure.sam.hod,nurmi:subhalo.mf}. 

3249: We then calculate the time for each such subhalo and 

3250: its contained galaxy to merge with the central galaxy, according 

3251: to one of several methodologies: either assuming a simple 

3252: dynamical friction timescale, employing a more sophisticated 

3253: timescale based on the cross section for resonant galaxy-galaxy 

3254: interaction and orbital capture, or a 

3255: timescale calculated based on a similar calculation in 

3256: angular momentum space; the probability of a merger with 

3257: each subsystem is then taken as the ratio of the timestep 

3258: to the merger timescale. We compare these methodologies 

3259: in detail in \citet{hopkins:groups.qso} and \citet{hopkins:groups.ell} 

3260: and discuss the details of the derivation for each. For our purposes 

3261: here, as demonstrated in those papers, they give similar results, 

3262: and we note that the results are also similar to what is commonly 

3263: adopted in many semi-analytic models based on N-body simulations, 

3264: which follow subhalos until they can no longer be resolved and then 

3265: approximate the remaining merger timescale with a dynamical 

3266: friction timescale estimate. 

3267: 

3268: In \citet{hopkins:groups.qso} we show the detailed PDFs for 

3269: the merger rate as a function of halo mass, galaxy mass, 

3270: and redshift (see specifically Figures~2-4 therein), 

3271: that arise from various combinations of these 

3272: assumptions. We show there that 

3273: the different approaches agree reasonably well, and agree 

3274: with independent estimates such as sufficiently high resolution 

3275: N-body experiments \citep[e.g.][]{maller:sph.merger.rates} 

3276: and semi-analytic models with similar merger timescale 

3277: calibrations from numerical tests \citep{somerville:new.sam}. 

3278: For our purposes here, the important thing is that

3279: \citet{hopkins:groups.qso} show that the model predictions 

3280: agree well with the observed mass function of 

3281: galaxy mergers at all redshifts observed; as well as

3282: the observed galaxy merger rate as a function of 

3283: environmental density, halo mass (estimated from 

3284: clustering or group dynamics), and redshift; 

3285: and the clustering (both large-scale and small-scale) 

3286: and therefore halo occupation of mergers and 

3287: recent merger remnants (see their Figures~6-12). 

3288: This gives us some confidence that the calculation yields a 

3289: reasonable approximation to the merger rate. 

3290: For the details and summary of the adopted calculation, 

3291: we refer to \S~2.1 of \citet{hopkins:groups.qso}. 

3292: For our fiducial model in this paper, we employ their ``default'' 

3293: model: we construct the subhalo mass function for each halo 

3294: adopting the analytic fits in \citet{kravtsov:subhalo.mfs}. 

3295: We populate each subhalo as if it were a random member of 

3296: our halo population (of the same mass) -- specifically, we 

3297: draw a random halo of the same mass from our Monte Carlo 

3298: sample and assign the subhalo the same properties\footnote{

3299: So long as the Monte Carlo sample is sufficiently large, 

3300: this is identical to tracing the growth and merger history of the 

3301: subhalo itself. As discussed in the text, we have explicitly chosen 

3302: to ignore effects unique to satellites such as ram-pressure 

3303: stripping. Although these are important for low-mass satellites 

3304: which are long-lived in e.g.\ massive groups and clusters, 

3305: they do not generally apply to the cases of interest: namely major 

3306: mergers, for which the merger times are short (too short for 

3307: long-timescale effects such as stripping and harassment) and the halos are of comparable 

3308: mass (making e.g.\ ram-pressure relatively unimportant). Moreover, 

3309: for the typical $\lesssim$ a few $L_{\ast}$ galaxies of interest here, 

3310: the ``subhalo'' phase is very short in major mergers -- it represents a brief 

3311: intermediate merging stage between field or small/loose group galaxies 

3312: on their way to merging. For more massive cluster systems, however, the 

3313: caveat should apply, along with the others discussed in \S~\ref{sec:track}.}. 

3314: We then estimate the merger timescale using the ``group capture'' 

3315: gravitational cross-section timescales, specifically using 

3316: the fitting formulae from \citet{krivitsky.kontorovich} calibrated to a 

3317: large set of numerical simulations of different encounters in group environments 

3318: \citep[see also][]{white:cross.section,makino:merger.cross.sections,mamon:groups.review}. 

3319: This ratio of the timestep to this timescale gives the probability of each merger, 

3320: and we determine whether each occurs in Monte Carlo fashion. 

3321: 

3322: When a merger occurs above the cutoff mass ratio threshold (a ``major'' merger), 

3323: the properties of the remnant are determined as a function of the 

3324: properties of both progenitors, as described in \S~\ref{sec:model:sims}. 

3325: The final stellar mass is the sum of the two progenitor baryonic masses; 

3326: the two constituent components, the dissipational and dissipationless 

3327: stellar mass, of the remnant are the sum of the dissipational and 

3328: dissipationless masses of the progenitors. For un-merged 

3329: progenitors, the dissipational and dissipationless mass are the 

3330: pre-merger gas and stellar mass, respectively. The effective radii of the 

3331: remnants are calculated as described in the text, for the dissipationless 

3332: component as a function of the mass ratio and scale radii of the progenitors 

3333: (Equation~\ref{eqn:re.dry}),

3334: and then with the appropriate correction applied for the dissipational 

3335: mass fraction (Equation~\ref{eqn:re.wet}). Other properties follow 

3336: as described in \S~\ref{sec:model:sims}. Properties such as the dark matter 

3337: fraction within a given radius (for dynamical masses, etc) are calculated 

3338: assuming a \citet{hernquist:profile} profile for the dark matter halo, with a 

3339: redshift-dependent concentration from \citet{bullock:concentrations}, and 

3340: projecting the profile along with that of the galaxy. 

3341: 

3342: The stellar mass and stellar mass profile of major merger remnants 

3343: are taken to be those calculated at the previous merger, although the 

3344: halo grows continuously with time. In other words, major merger 

3345: remnants are effectively ``quenched'' in some sense (although new gas can and 

3346: does come into the galaxy through subsequent mergers with 

3347: gas-rich galaxies) -- we ignore details of the re-growth of disks around 

3348: early-forming ellipticals through direct cosmological accretion of cold gas. 

3349: Although this may be important for especially the most high-redshift 

3350: systems, a proper treatment requires a much more complete cosmological 

3351: model (ideally highly resolved cosmological simulations that can form 

3352: proper low-redshift disks, still a major theoretical challenge). Moreover, 

3353: it has been argued that feedback from quasar and starburst activity in 

3354: major mergers may actually be an important physical agent of 

3355: ``quenching,'' \citep{scannapieco:sam,granato:sam,monaco:feedback,

3356: hopkins:red.galaxies,hopkins:transition.mass,hopkins:clustering,naab:dry.mergers,

3357: bundy:agn.lf.to.mf.evol}, 

3358: in which case this is a more accurate assumption than allowing for 

3359: new cooling. 

3360: 

3361: In any event, we show in \citet{hopkins:groups.ell} that 

3362: such a prescription, with a major merger 

3363: mass ratio threshold set to the value used in this paper (1:3), 

3364: yields very good agreement with the observed mass function and mass density of 

3365: quenched galaxies as a function of redshift, as well as 

3366: quenched central galaxy fraction as a bivariate function of 

3367: stellar and halo mass, the clustering of red 

3368: galaxies as a function of mass and redshift, the distribution of stellar 

3369: population ages (and implicitly, ``quenching times'') as a function of 

3370: elliptical stellar mass, and the distribution of elliptical structural properties 

3371: related to cooling. This argues that the current prescription is at least a 

3372: good approximation to the actual cooling histories of the galaxies 

3373: of interest here. We have also experimented with alternative 

3374: prescriptions such as those found in semi-analytic models 

3375: \citep[with halo cooling suppressed by low-level AGN feedback, or 

3376: truncated above a certain halo or stellar mass threshold, 

3377: see e.g.][]{croton:sam,bower:sam,cattaneo:sam,delucia:sam,somerville:new.sam}, and find 

3378: similar results \citep[this is because, it turns out, the halo mass threshold 

3379: for the transition to ``hot mode'' accretion and effective quenching in these 

3380: models, and empirically constrained stellar/halo mass ranges for 

3381: quenching, correspond quite closely with the regime where most galaxies 

3382: experience their first major merger; see e.g.][]{cattaneo:sam}. 

3383: 

3384: This process is repeated until the desired $z_{\rm obs}$ is reached. 

3385: We then discard the systems that remain un-merged (as these will not, 

3386: predominantly, be elliptical galaxies) and construct the mock observed 

3387: sample of interest from our Monte Carlo population.

3388: 

3389: \end{appendix}

3390: 

3391: 

3392: \end{document}

3393: 

3394: 

3395: