1: \documentclass[usenatbib]{mn2e}
2: \bibliographystyle{mn2e}
3: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,graphicx,multirow,aas_macros}
4:
5: %% START DOCUMENT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6: \begin{document}
7: \title{Simulating Subhalos at High Redshift: Merger Rates, Counts, and Types}
8: \author[Wetzel, Cohn \& White]{Andrew R. Wetzel${}^{1}$, J.D. Cohn${}^{2}$,
9: Martin White${}^{1,3}$\\
10: $^{1}$Department of Astronomy, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720,
11: USA\\
12: $^{2}$Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720,
13: USA\\
14: $^{3}$Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
15: }
16:
17: \date{October 2008}
18:
19: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2008}
20:
21: \maketitle
22:
23: \label{firstpage}
24:
25: %% ABSTRACT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
26: \begin{abstract}
27: Galaxies are believed to be in one-to-one correspondence with simulated dark
28: matter subhalos.
29: We use high-resolution N-body simulations of cosmological volumes to calculate
30: the statistical properties of subhalo (galaxy) major mergers at high redshift
31: ($z=0.6-5$).
32: We measure the evolution of the galaxy merger rate, finding that it is much
33: shallower than the merger rate of dark matter host halos at $z>2.5$, but
34: roughly parallels that of halos at $z<1.6$.
35: We also track the detailed merger histories of individual galaxies and measure
36: the likelihood of multiple mergers per halo or subhalo.
37: We examine satellite merger statistics in detail: $15\%-35\%$ of all recently
38: merged galaxies are satellites and satellites are twice as likely as centrals
39: to have had a recent major merger.
40: Finally, we show how the differing evolution of the merger rates of halos and
41: galaxies leads to the evolution of the average satellite occupation per halo,
42: noting that for a fixed halo mass, the satellite halo occupation peaks at
43: $z \sim 2.5$.
44: \end{abstract}
45:
46: \begin{keywords}
47: cosmology:theory -- methods:N-body simulations -- galaxies:halos --
48: galaxies: interactions
49: \end{keywords}
50:
51:
52: %% INTRODUCTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
53: \section{Introduction}
54:
55: Mergers are key in the hierarchical growth of structure, and major galaxy
56: mergers (referred to as mergers henceforth) are thought to play a crucial role
57: in galaxy evolution.
58: Specifically, they are expected to trigger quasar activity
59: \citep[e.g.,][]{Car90}, starbursts \citep[e.g.,][]{BarHer91,Nog91}, and
60: morphological changes \citep[e.g.,][]{TooToo72}, and they are thought to be
61: related to Lyman Break Galaxies (LBGs), submillimeter galaxies (SMGs), and
62: ultra-luminous infrared galaxies (ULIRGs)
63: \citep[see reviews by][respectively]{Gia02,Bla02,SanMir96}.
64: Observational samples of such objects at $z \gtrsim 1$ are now becoming large
65: enough to allow for statistical analyses of their counts \citep[e.g.,][]{Ste03,
66: Ouc04,Cop06,Yos06,Gaw07,Gen08,McL08,PatAtf08,Tac08,YamYagGot08}.
67:
68: Understanding galaxy mergers and their connection to these observables requires
69: comparison with theoretical predictions.
70: In simulations, galaxies are identified with subhalos, the substructures of
71: dark matter halos \citep[e.g.][]{Ghi98,Moo99,KlyGotKra99,Ghi00}.\footnote{
72: A subhalo can comprise an entire halo if there are no other subhalos within
73: the halo, see \S\ref{sec:numerical}.}
74: Simulations are now becoming sufficiently high in resolution and large in
75: volume to provide statistically significant samples \citep[e.g.][]{DeL04,Die04,
76: GaoWhiJen04,Ree05}.
77: This high mass and force resolution is necessary to track bound subhalos
78: throughout their orbit in the host halo and avoid artificial numerical
79: disruption.
80: This is particularly important for tracking the orbits of galaxies, which are
81: expected to reside in the dense inner core of subhalos and to be more stable
82: to mass stripping than dark matter because of dissipative gas dynamics.
83: The correspondence of galaxies with subhalos has been successful in reproducing
84: galaxy counts and clustering in a wide array of measurements
85: \citep[e.g.,][]{Spr01,Spr05,ZenBerBul05,Bow06,ConWecKra06,ValOst06,WanKauDeL06}.
86: Henceforth, we will use the term galaxy and subhalo interchangeably.
87:
88: A subhalo forms when two halos collide and a remnant of the smaller halo
89: persists within the larger final halo.
90: Thus, subhalo merger rates are sometimes inferred from halo merger
91: rates\footnote{
92: Halo merger counts and rates have been studied in a vast literature, both
93: estimated analytically \citep[e.g.,][]{KauWhi93,LacCol93,PerMil99,BenKamHas05,
94: ZhaFakMa08} and measured in simulations \citep[e.g.,][]{LacCol94,Tor98,Som00,
95: CohBagWhi01,GotKlyKra01,CohWhi05,Li07,CohWhi08,FakMa08,SteBulWec08}.}
96: or subhalo distributions, using a dynamical friction model to estimate the
97: infall time of satellite galaxies to their halo's central galaxy \citep[several
98: of these methods are compared in][]{HopHerCox08}.
99: However, a detailed understanding of galaxy mergers requires a sufficiently
100: high-resolution simulation that can track the evolution and coalescence of
101: subhalos directly.
102:
103: Here we use high resolution dark matter simulations to examine subhalo merger
104: rates, counts, and types, their mass and redshift dependence, and their
105: relation to their host halos.
106: Under the assumption that galaxies populate the centres of dark matter subhalo
107: potential wells, our subhalos are expected to harbor massive galaxies
108: ($L \gtrsim L_*$).
109: Although our subhalo mass assignment is motivated by semi-analytic arguments,
110: our results are independent of any specific semi-analytic modeling prescription.
111:
112: Previous work on subhalo mergers includes both dark matter only simulations
113: \citep{Kol00,Spr01,DeL04,TayBab05,BerBulBar06,WanKau08,Mat08} and hydrodynamic
114: simulations \citep{Mur02,TorMosYos04,Mal06,ThaScaCou06,Sim08}.
115: Many of these earlier studies concern subhalo mergers within a single object
116: (such as the Milky Way or a galaxy cluster), others use lower resolution.
117: We look at relatively large simulation volumes (100 and 250 $h^{-1}$~Mpc boxes)
118: with high spatial and temporal resolution.
119: In addition, many previous works focus on subhalo mass loss and survival rate,
120: while our main interest here is the population of resulting merged subhalos
121: itself \citep[most similar to the works of][]{Mal06,GuoWhi08,Sim08,Ang08}.
122: We characterize subhalo merger properties in detail, including satellite
123: mergers, at high redshift ($z=0.6-5$), during the peak of merger activity.
124: We also investigate the satellite halo occupation (number of satellites per
125: halo), and its evolution as shaped by the relative merger rates of subhalos and
126: halos.
127: The satellite halo occupation is a key element in the halo model \citep{Sel00,
128: PeaSmi00,BerWei02,CooShe02}, a framework which describes large-scale structure
129: in terms of host dark matter halos.
130:
131: In \S\ref{sec:numerical} we describe the simulations, our definitions of halos
132: and subhalos, their infall mass, and the evolution of the satellite fraction.
133: In \S\ref{sec:rates} we define our merger criteria and examine subhalo merger
134: rates and their relation to halo merger rates.
135: In \S\ref{sec:types} we explore the relative contributions of satellites and
136: centrals to the merger population, both in terms of parents and merged children.
137: \S\ref{sec:counts} gives the distribution of the number of mergers within a
138: given look-back time and the fraction of halos that host subhalo mergers.
139: In \S\ref{sec:hodevol} we show how the difference in halo and subhalo merger
140: rates contributes to the evolution of the satellite halo occupation.
141: We summarize and discuss in \S\ref{sec:discussion}.
142: The Appendices compare subhalo infall mass to infall maximum circular velocity
143: and its evolution with redshift, and give our satellite subhalo mass function.
144: The halo occupation and clustering of high redshift galaxy mergers is treated
145: in \citet{WetCohWhi09b}.
146:
147:
148: %% NUMERICAL %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
149: \section{Numerical Techniques} \label{sec:numerical}
150:
151: \subsection{Simulations}
152:
153: We use two dark matter only N-body simulations of $800^3$ and $1024^3$
154: particles in a periodic cube with side lengths $100 h^{-1}$~Mpc and
155: $250 h^{-1}$~Mpc, respectively.
156: For our $\Lambda$CDM cosmology ($\Omega_m=0.25$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.75$,
157: $h=0.72$, $n=0.97$ and $\sigma_8=0.8$), in agreement with a wide array of
158: observations \citep{COBE,Teg06,ACBAR,WMAP5}, this results in particle masses of
159: $1.4 \times 10^8 h^{-1}M_\odot$ ($1.1 \times 10^9 h^{-1}M_\odot$) and a Plummer
160: equivalent smoothing of $4 h^{-1}$~kpc ($9 h^{-1}$~kpc) for the smaller
161: (larger) simulation.
162: The initial conditions were generated at $z=200$ using the Zel'dovich
163: approximation applied to a regular Cartesian grid of particles and then evolved
164: using the {\sl TreePM\/} code described in \citet{TreePM} \citep[for a
165: comparison with other codes see][]{Hei07,Evr08}.
166: Outputs were spaced every $50$~Myr ($\sim 100$~Myr) for the smaller (larger)
167: simulation, from $z \sim 5$ to $2.5$.
168: Additional outputs from the smaller simulation were retained at lower redshift,
169: spaced every $\sim 200$~Myr down to $z=0.6$, below which we no longer fairly
170: sample a cosmological volume.
171: For mergers, we restrict these later outputs to $z<1.6$ based on convergence
172: tests of the merger rates (we lack sufficient output time resolution in the
173: intervening redshifts to properly catch all mergers; see end of
174: \S\ref{sec:mergecrit} for more).
175: Our redshift range of $z=0.6-5$ allows us to examine subhalos across $7$~Gyr of
176: evolution.
177:
178: To find the subhalos from the phase space data we first generate a catalog of
179: halos using the Friends-of-Friends (FoF) algorithm \citep{DEFW} with a linking
180: length of $b = 0.168$ times the mean inter-particle spacing.
181: This partitions the particles into equivalence classes by linking together all
182: particles separated by less than $b$, with a density of roughly
183: $\rho>3/(2\pi b^3) \simeq 100$ times the background density.
184: The longer linking length of $b=0.2$ is often used.
185: However, this linking length is more susceptible to joining together distinct,
186: unbound structures and assigning a halo that transiently passes by another as
187: a subhalo.
188: Thus, we use a more conservative linking length, which for a given halo at our
189: mass and redshift regime yields a $\sim 15\%$ lower mass than $b=0.2$.\footnote{
190: Many Millennium subhalo studies use Spherical Overdensity (SO) halos based on
191: an FoF(0.2) catalogue, in part to take out the extra structure joined by the
192: larger linking length.
193: \citet{Net07} compares the FoF(0.2) halo centres and those for the SO halos
194: used to define the corresponding subhalo populations.
195: More generally, \citet{Whi01} compares different mass definitions in detail,
196: and \citet{CohWhi08} discusses the relation of FoF(0.2), FoF(0.168), SO(180)
197: and Sheth-Tormen \citep[][based on $b=0.2$]{SheTor99b} masses at high redshift.}
198: We keep all FoF groups with more than $32$ particles, and we refer to these
199: groups as ``(host) halos''.
200: Halo masses quoted below are these FoF masses.
201:
202: When two halos merge, the smaller halo can retain its identity as a ``subhalo''
203: inside the larger host halo.
204: We identify subhalos (and sometimes subhalos within subhalos) using a new
205: implementation of the {\sl Subfind\/} algorithm \citep{Spr01}.
206: We take subhalos to be gravitationally self-bound aggregations of particles
207: bounded by a density saddle point.
208: After experimentation with different techniques we find this method gives a
209: good match to what would be selected ``by eye'' as subhalos.
210: We use a spline kernel with $16$ neighbours to estimate the density and keep
211: all subhalos with more than $20$ particles.
212: The subhalo that contains the most mass in the halo is defined as the
213: central subhalo, all other subhalos in the same halo are satellites.\footnote{
214: In most cases, the central subhalo in {\sl Subfind\/} is built around the most
215: bound and most dense particle in the group.
216: However, this is not always the case.}
217: The central subhalo is also assigned all matter within the halo not assigned
218: to the satellite subhalos.
219: The position of a subhalo is given by the location of its most bound particle,
220: and the centre of a host halo is defined by the centre of its central subhalo.
221: For each subhalo we store a number of additional properties including the
222: bound mass, velocity dispersion, peak circular velocity, total potential
223: energy, and velocity.
224:
225: \begin{figure}
226: \begin{center}
227: \resizebox{3in}{!}{\includegraphics{f1a.eps}}
228: \resizebox{3in}{!}{\includegraphics{f1b.eps}}
229: \end{center}
230: \vspace{-0.1in}
231: \caption{
232: % iout = 30, igrp = 478068
233: \textbf{Top}: Projected image of a halo of mass
234: $2.2 \times 10^{12} h^{-1}M_\odot$ at $z=2.6$ which hosts $12$ satellite
235: subhalos.
236: Particles assigned to the central subhalo are red, while those assigned to
237: satellite subhalos are blue.
238: Dot-dashed circle shows the halo's virial radius ($r_{200c}$), derived from its
239: mass assuming a spherical NFW density profile, while the solid circles
240: highlight the satellite subhalos and scale in radius with their mass.
241: The central subhalo has bound mass of $1.8 \times 10^{12} h^{-1}M_\odot$, so
242: nearly $20\%$ of the halo's mass lies in satellite subhalos.
243: \textbf{Bottom}: Tracking histories of massive satellite subhalos in the
244: above halo.
245: Large dots show the positions of satellite subhalo centres at $z=2.6$ for
246: subhalos that had a mass $>10^{11} h^{-1}M_\odot$ when they fell into the halo.
247: Small dots show their positions (relative to that of the halo centre) at
248: each output (spaced $50$~Myr) back $800$~Myr.
249: Thin blue curves show subhalo trajectories when they are satellites while thick
250: red curves show when they are centrals (before falling into the halo).
251: Dotted lines indicate when the parent-child assignment has skipped an output
252: (during a fly-by near another subhalo).
253: } \label{fig:halopicture}
254: \end{figure}
255:
256: Figure~\ref{fig:halopicture} (top) shows the projected image of a sample halo
257: of mass $2.2 \times 10^{12} h^{-1}M_\odot$, which hosts $12$ satellite subhalos,
258: at $z=2.6$ in the $100 h^{-1}$~Mpc simulation.
259: (At this redshift in our simulations there are approximately $200$ halos per
260: ($100 h^{-1}$~Mpc)$^3$ above this mass.)
261: Halos at this mass and redshift regime are dynamically active and often highly
262: aspherical, with mean axial ratio (ratio of smallest-to-largest semi-major
263: axes) of $\sim 0.5$, and recently merged halos have even more discrepant axial
264: ratios \citep{All06}.
265: Figure~\ref{fig:halopicture} also shows how a halo's densest region (figure
266: centre), centre of mass, and substructure distribution can all be offset from
267: one another.
268: Because of these asymmetries, satellite subhalos sometimes extend well beyond
269: $r_{200c}$, which we will call the halo virial radius.\footnote{
270: The halo virial radius, $r_{200c}$, i.e. the radius within which the average
271: density is $200\times$ the critical density, is calculated from the FoF
272: ($b=0.168$) mass by first converting to $M_{200c}$ assuming a spherical NFW
273: \citep{NFW96} density profile, and then taking
274: $M_{200c} = 200 \frac{4\pi}{3} \rho_c r^3_{200c}$.}
275:
276: \subsection{Subhalo Tracking}
277:
278: We identify, for each subhalo, a unique ``child'' at a later time, using
279: subhalo tracking similar to \citet{Spr05}, \citet{Fal05}, \citet{All05} and
280: \citet{Har06}.
281: We detail our method to illustrate the subtleties which arise and to allow
282: comparison with other work.
283:
284: We track histories over four consecutive simulation outputs at a time because
285: nearby subhalos can be difficult to distinguish and can ``disappear'' for a
286: few outputs until their orbits separate them again.
287: For each subhalo with mass $M_1$ at scale factor $a_1$, its child subhalo at a
288: later time (scale factor $a_2$ and mass $M_2$) is that which maximizes
289: \begin{equation}
290: \alpha = f\left(M_1,M_2\right)
291: \ln^{-1}\left(\frac{a_2}{a_1}\right)
292: \sum_{i\in 2} \phi_{1i}^2
293: \end{equation}
294: where
295: \begin{equation}
296: f\left(M_1,M_2\right) =
297: \begin{cases}
298: 1 - \frac{\left|M_1-M_2\right|}{M_1+M_2} & M_1 < M_2 \\
299: 1 & M_1 \geq M_2
300: \end{cases}
301: \end{equation}
302: and where $\phi_{1i}$ is the potential of particle $i$ computed using all of
303: the particles in subhalo 1, and the sum is over those of the $20$ most bound
304: particles in the progenitor that also lie in the candidate child.
305: We track using only the $20$ most bound particles since our ultimate interest
306: is in galaxies, which we expect to reside in the highly bound, central region
307: of the subhalo ($20$ is the minimum particle count for our subhalos).
308: We do not use all the progenitor particles because summing over all of the
309: particles in the progenitor that also lie in the child candidate leads to
310: instances of parent-child assignment in which the child subhalo does not
311: contain the most bound particles of its parent.
312: Finally, we weight against large mass gains with a mass weighting factor so
313: that smaller subhalos passing through larger ones and emerging later on the
314: other side are correctly assigned as fly-by's and not mergers.
315: We find $\sim 95\%$ of subhalos have a child in the next time step, with
316: $\sim 4\%$ percent skipping one or more output times and $\sim 1\%$ having no
317: identifiable child.
318:
319: Figure~\ref{fig:halopicture} (bottom) shows the tracking histories of the most
320: massive subhalos within the halo shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:halopicture} (top), for
321: subhalos that had a mass $>10^{11} h^{-1}M_\odot$ when they fell into the halo.
322: The upper-most subhalo was a separate halo
323: ($M=1.3 \times 10^{12} h^{-1}M_\odot$) hosting its own massive satellite subhalo.
324: It then fell into the main halo and then both (now satellite) subhalos merged
325: with each other.
326: The right-most subhalo is an example of two separate halos falling into the
327: main halo, becoming satellites, and subsequently merging with each other.
328: Finally, the track through the centre shows a single subhalo falling towards
329: the central subhalo.
330: Instead of merging with the central, it passes through as a fly-by.
331:
332: All of these tracks show instances where the parent-child assignment algorithm
333: has skipped an output (dotted lines) as one subhalo passes through another and
334: re-emerges on the other side.
335: Note also that, while the dot-dashed circle shows the halo virial radius,
336: $r_{200c}$ (at the last output), based on its mass assuming a spherical NFW
337: density profile, the locations of the transitions of central subhalos to
338: satellites during infall show that the spherical virial radius is only a rough
339: approximation.
340:
341: \begin{figure}
342: \begin{center}
343: \resizebox{3in}{!}{\includegraphics{f2.eps}}
344: \end{center}
345: \vspace{-0.1in}
346: \caption{
347: % iout = 28, igrp = 432087
348: \textbf{Top}: Evolution of mass (solid curve) and circular velocity (dashed
349: curve) as a function of time since infall for a satellite that fell into a halo
350: of mass $8 \times 10^{12} h^{-1}M_\odot$ at $z=3.7$.
351: \textbf{Bottom}: Radial distance of satellite from centre of host halo.
352: Mass and circular velocity exhibit correlations with radial distance,
353: such as mass gain as the satellite recedes from the centre of its host halo.
354: This satellite experienced no major merger activity throughout its history.
355: } \label{fig:satevol}
356: \end{figure}
357:
358: As a halo falls into a larger host halo and becomes a satellite subhalo, mass
359: loss from tidal stripping can be extreme ($90\%$ or more) as the satellite
360: subhalo orbits towards the centre of its host halo.
361: Figure~\ref{fig:satevol} shows the evolution from infall of a long-lived
362: satellite with infall mass $M_{\rm inf} = 6 \times 10^{11} h^{-1}M_\odot$ and
363: maximum circular velocity at infall of $V_{\rm c,inf} = 258$~km/s.
364: Mass and maximum circular velocity ($V_{\rm c,max}^3$) are stripped by
365: $\sim 90\%$ by the time the satellite first reaches pericentre.
366: After pericentric passage, a satellite can also gain mass and circular velocity
367: as it moves away from the dense centre of its host halo.
368: This is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:satevol} where mass and circular velocity
369: strongly correlate with radial distance throughout the orbit.
370: This is partially an effect of our subhalo finder: the density contrast of a
371: subhalo, which defines its physical extent and hence its mass, drops as it moves
372: to a region of higher background density.\footnote{
373: A fly-by, i.e. when a subhalo passes through and is temporarily
374: indistinguishable from a larger subhalo, is an extreme case of this.}
375: However, this is also driven by a physical effect: as a satellite approaches
376: the dense centre of its host halo, it will be compressed by tidal shocks in
377: response to the rapidly increasing potential
378: \citep[see Fig.~12 of][]{DieKuhMad07,GneOst97,DekDevHet03}.
379:
380: Since a central subhalo is defined as the most massive subhalo, a satellite
381: subhalo can become a central (and vice versa), which we refer to as a
382: ``switch''.\footnote{
383: In more detail, a switch occurs when the density peak of a satellite (above the
384: background) contains more mass than is within the central subhalo's radius at
385: the position of the satellite}.
386: We find that $\sim 4\%$ of all centrals at any output become satellites within
387: the same halo in the next output, and of these a third immediately return to
388: being centrals in the following output.
389: Switches are twice as common during a merger event, either when two satellites
390: merge, or when a satellite merges with the central, forming a less dense object
391: and allowing another satellite to bind more mass to itself.
392: When a satellite switches to a central and back to a satellite, the original
393: satellite can be mistakenly assigned as a direct parent of the final satellite
394: (and thus the central is assigned no parent) since our child assignment weights
395: against large mass gains (which occurs when a satellite becomes a central).
396: We fix these distinct cases by hand.
397:
398: These switches highlight the fact that the distinction between a central and
399: satellite subhalo is often not clear-cut: at this redshift and mass regime
400: massive halos undergo rapid merger activity and thus often are highly disturbed
401: and aspherical, with no well-defined single peak that represents the center of
402: the halo profile.
403:
404: \subsection{Subhalo Mass Assignment}
405:
406: Since we use subhalos as proxies for galaxies, we track subhalo mass that
407: is expected to correlate with galaxy stellar mass.
408: Galaxies form at halo centres as baryons cool and adiabatically contract
409: toward the minimum of the halo's potential well, which leads to a correlation
410: between halo mass and galaxy stellar mass \citep{WhiRee78,Blu86,Dub94,
411: MoMaoWhi98}.
412: When a halo falls into a larger halo and becomes a satellite subhalo, its
413: outskirts are severely stripped as discussed above, but its galaxy's stellar
414: mass would be little influenced as the galactic radius is typically
415: $\sim 10\%$ that of the subhalo radius.
416: This motivates assigning to subhalos their mass at infall, $M_{\rm inf}$,
417: which is expected to correlate with galactic stellar mass throughout the
418: subhalo's lifetime.
419: The subhalo infall mass function has been successful at reproducing the
420: observed galaxy luminosity function and clustering at low redshifts
421: \citep{ValOst06,WanKauDeL06,YanMovdB08}.
422: Maximum circular velocity at infall, $V_{\rm c,inf}$, has also been successfully
423: matched to some observations \citep{ConWecKra06,BerBulBar06}.
424: In Appendix A we show the relation between $M_{\rm inf}$ and $V_{\rm c,inf}$ and
425: its redshift evolution.
426:
427: Our prescription for assigning $M_{\rm inf}$ to subhalos is as follows.
428: When a halo falls into another and its central subhalo becomes a satellite
429: subhalo, the satellite is assigned $M_{\rm inf}$ as the subhalo mass of its
430: (central) parent.\footnote{
431: There is some dependence on output time spacing in this definition: since a
432: central subhalo typically continues to gain mass before it falls into a
433: larger halo, shorter time steps (which catch it closer to infall) lead to
434: a higher subsequent satellite $M_{\rm inf}$.
435: Doubling the output spacing leads to satellites with $\sim10\%$ lower infall
436: mass.}
437: If a satellite merges with another satellite, the resultant child subhalo is
438: assigned the sum of its parents' $M_{\rm inf}$.
439: Since the central subhalo contains the densest region of a halo, inter-halo gas
440: is expected to accrete onto it, so we define $M_{\rm inf}$ for a central subhalo
441: as its current self-bound subhalo mass, which is typically $\sim 90\%$ of its
442: host halo's mass.\footnote{
443: Though because of finite resolution, we find a weak systematic drop in
444: $M_{\rm cen}/M_{\rm halo}$ with halo mass, varying from $93\%$ to $87\%$
445: for $10^{11}$ to $10^{14} h^{-1}M_{\odot}$ in the higher resolution simulation.}
446: However, since a central subhalo can switch to being a satellite, while a
447: satellite switches to being a central (all within a single host halo), we
448: require an additional rule because using the above simple assignment of
449: $M_{\rm inf}$ to centrals would lead to a central and satellite in a halo each
450: having the halo's current bound mass.
451: Thus, we assign a central to have $M_{\rm inf}$ as its current self-bound
452: subhalo mass only if it was the central in the same halo in the previous output.
453: Thus, if a satellite switches to a central and remains the central for multiple
454: outputs, it has robustly established itself as the central subhalo, so it is
455: assigned its current self-bound mass.
456: However, if a central was a satellite (or a central in another smaller halo)
457: in the previous output, it is assigned the sum of its parents' $M_{\rm inf}$,
458: with the additional requirement that its $M_{\rm inf}$ cannot exceed its
459: current self-bound mass.
460:
461: A small fraction ($\sim 4\%$) of satellites composed of at least $50$
462: particles are not easily identifiable with any progenitor subhalos and thus
463: cannot be tracked to infall.
464: On inspection, we find that these ``orphaned'' satellites are loosely
465: self-bound portions of a central subhalo, remnants from a collision between a
466: satellite and its central subhalo that soon re-merge with the central.
467: Given their origins and fates, these orphans are not expected to host galaxies
468: and are ignored.
469:
470: Although we track subhalos down to $20$ particles, we impose a much larger
471: minimum infall mass to our sample to avoid selecting subhalos that artificially
472: dissolve and merge with the central too early.
473: This requires sufficient resolution of the radial density profile of a
474: satellite subhalo at infall: if the satellite's core is smaller than a few
475: times the force softening length, its profile will be artificially shallow and
476: it will be stripped and disrupted prematurely (see Appendices for details).
477: For calibration, we use the regime of overlap in mass between our two
478: simulations of different mass resolution, requiring consistent subhalo mass
479: functions, halo occupation distributions, and merger statistics for a minimum
480: infall mass.
481: For example, going too low in mass for the larger simulation resulted in more
482: mergers and fewer satellites than for the same mass range in the smaller
483: simulation.
484: In the larger simulation, our consistency requirements led us to impose
485: $M_{\rm inf} > 10^{12} h^{-1}M_\odot$.
486: For a fixed number of particles per subhalo, this scales down to
487: $M_{\rm inf} > 10^{11} h^{-1}M_\odot$ in the smaller, higher resolution
488: simulation.
489: Note that halos of mass $10^{11}~(10^{12}) h^{-1}M_\odot$ cross below $M_*$, the
490: characteristic mass of collapse, at $z=1.5~(z=0.8)$, so we probe massive
491: subhalos across most of our redshift range.
492:
493: At $z=2.6$, there are $\sim 16000$ subhalos with
494: $M_{\rm inf} > 10^{11} h^{-1}M_\odot$ in our $100 h^{-1}$~Mpc simulation and
495: $9400$ subhalos with $M_{\rm inf} > 10^{12} h^{-1}M_\odot$ in our
496: $250 h^{-1}$~Mpc simulation.
497: At $z=1$, there are $\sim 29400$ ($2500$) subhalos with
498: $M_{\rm inf} > 10^{11}~(10^{12}) h^{-1}M_\odot$ in our $100 h^{-1}$~Mpc simulation.
499:
500: \subsection{A Note on Stellar Mass and Gas Content of Subhalo Galaxies}
501:
502: A galaxy's stellar mass is expected to be a non-linear, redshift-dependent
503: function of its subhalo mass.
504: An approximate relation based on abundance matching is given in
505: \citet{ConWec08}.
506: At $z=1$, they find that subhalos of infall mass
507: $10^{11}~(10^{12}) h^{-1}M_\odot$ host galaxies of stellar mass
508: $\sim 10^{9}~(10^{10.5}) M_\odot$.
509: At $z=2.5$, subhalos at the above masses are expected to host lower mass
510: galaxies, though quantitative relations at this redshift are less certain, and
511: our subhalo and halo finders differ in detail from theirs.
512: Our sample of $M_{\rm inf} > 10^{12} h^{-1}M_\odot$ subhalos approximately
513: corresponds to $L \gtrsim L_*$ galaxies at the redshifts we examine.
514:
515: Although our simulations do not track the baryonic content of subhalos, most
516: massive galaxies are gas-rich at high redshift.
517: That is, at $z \approx 1$, $70\%$ to $90\%$ of $L \sim L_*$ galaxies are
518: observed to be blue \citep{Coo07,Ger07}, possessing enough gas to be actively
519: star forming.
520: The fraction of gas-rich galaxies at higher redshift is more poorly constrained
521: but is thought to be higher \citep{HopCoxKer08}.
522: Thus, we anticipate that most, if not all, mergers we track have the capacity
523: to drive galaxy activity such as starbursts and quasars.
524:
525: \subsection{Satellite Fraction} \label{sec:satfrac}
526:
527: \begin{figure}
528: \begin{center}
529: \resizebox{3in}{!}{\includegraphics{f3.eps}}
530: \end{center}
531: \vspace{-0.1in}
532: \caption{
533: Evolution of the fraction of all subhalos that are satellites for
534: $M_{\rm inf} = 10^{11}-10^{12} h^{-1}M_\odot$ (triangles) and
535: $M_{\rm inf} = 10^{12}-10^{13} h^{-1}M_\odot$ (squares).
536: Dashed lines show fits to Eq.~\ref{eq:satfracA}.
537: Dotted line shows fit to Eq.~\ref{eq:satfracB} (that of \citet{ConWec08}).
538: } \label{fig:satfrac}
539: \end{figure}
540:
541: To frame our ensuing discussion of mergers, and the relative importance of
542: satellite and central subhalos, Fig.~\ref{fig:satfrac} shows the evolution of
543: the satellite fraction, $n_{\rm satellite}/n_{\rm subhalo}$, for subhalos of a
544: fixed mass\footnote{
545: We show the satellite fraction for two mass bins, but since the mass function
546: falls exponentially at these masses and redshifts, almost all objects are
547: at the low end of the mass bin.
548: Using instead a minimum mass cut changes our results by only a few percent.},
549: which grows monotonically with time from $z=5-0.6$, as
550: \begin{equation} \label{eq:satfracA}
551: \frac{n_{\rm satellite}}{n_{\rm subhalo}} = C-e^{-\frac{\beta}{1+z}}
552: \end{equation}
553: with $\beta = 9.7$ valid across all subhalo masses and $C = 0.26~(0.24)$ for
554: lower (higher) mass.
555: The satellite fraction decreases with increasing subhalo mass since more
556: massive subhalos are more likely to be centrals, and for a fixed subhalo mass
557: the satellite fraction increases with time as the number of high mass halos
558: hosting massive satellites increases.
559: The increase in the satellite fraction is slowed at late times because the
560: number of massive satellites in halos of a fixed mass decreases with time as
561: the satellites coalesce with the central subhalo (see \S\ref{sec:hodevol}).
562:
563: Note that Eq.~\ref{eq:satfracA} predicts a much higher satellite fraction than
564: that of \citet{ConWec08}, who found
565: \begin{equation} \label{eq:satfracB}
566: \frac{n_{\rm satellite}}{n_{\rm subhalo}} = 0.2-\frac{0.1}{3}z .
567: \end{equation}
568: It is unlikely that the difference is driven by numerical effects, since both
569: their and our simulations are of similar mass resolution and volume, and both
570: analyses are based on similar subhalo infall mass cuts (we see similar satellite
571: fractions selecting instead on fixed $V_{\rm c,inf}$).
572: One likely factor is that, as noted above, our smaller output spacing yields
573: higher infall mass for satellite subhalos, since we catch halos closer to
574: infall when their mass is higher.
575: In addition, they use a different halo and subhalo finding algorithm
576: \citep{KlyGotKra99,KraBerWec04}, and their higher $\sigma_8$ ($0.9$ rather
577: than our $0.8$) would give a lower merger rate and thus fewer satellites (one
578: expects satellite survival timescales not to change).
579: If normalized to the same satellite fraction at a given epoch, the redshift
580: evolution of Eqs.~\ref{eq:satfracA} and \ref{eq:satfracB} are in rough
581: agreement.
582:
583:
584: %% MERGER RATES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
585: \section{Merger Criteria and Rates} \label{sec:rates}
586:
587: \subsection{Merger Criteria}
588: \label{sec:mergecrit}
589:
590: For two parents with $M_{\rm inf,2} \leq M_{\rm inf,1}$ sharing the same child
591: subhalo at the next output they appear, a child is flagged as a (major) merger
592: if $\frac{M_{\rm inf,2}}{M_{\rm inf,1}} > \frac{1}{3}$.
593: If a child has more than two parents, we count multiple mergers if any other
594: parents also exceed the above mass ratio with respect to the most massive
595: parent.
596:
597: Our mass ratio represents a trade-off between strong mergers (to maximize
598: signal) and frequent merging (for statistical power).
599: Galaxy mergers with stellar mass ratios closer than 3:1 are expected to drive
600: interesting activity, e.g. quasars and starbursts, as mentioned above.\footnote{
601: Since galaxy stellar mass is a non-linear function of subhalo mass, a subhalo
602: mass ratio of 3:1 may correspond to a galaxy merger of a more or less
603: discrepant mass ratio.
604: However, since the $M_{\rm stellar}-M_{\rm subhalo}$ relation is expected to
605: peak for $M_{\rm subhalo} \sim 10^{12} h^{-1}M_\odot$ \citep{ConWec08}, we do
606: not expect this effect to strongly bias our results.}
607:
608: For generality, the distribution of merger (infall) mass ratios, $R$:1, for
609: both halos and subhalos in the mass and redshift regimes we consider can be
610: approximated by
611: \begin{equation} \label{eq:mergeratio}
612: f(R) \propto R^{-1.1}
613: \end{equation}
614: in reasonable agreement with the $R^{-1.2}$ distribution of galaxy mass ratios
615: at $z<0.5$ found in hydrodynamic simulations by \citet{Mal06}.\footnote{
616: The distribution of merger mass ratios also agrees well with the fit for halos
617: at $z=0$ provided by \citet{WetSchHol08}.}
618: Thus, the counts/rates of mergers with (infall) mass ratio closer than $R$:1 can
619: be approximately scaled from our results through the relation
620: \begin{equation}
621: N(<R) = 8.6 \, (R^{0.1}-1)N(<3) .
622: \end{equation}
623:
624: Sometimes merger criteria are based on instantaneous subhalo mass gain
625: \citet[e.g.,][]{ThaScaCou06}.
626: However, as exemplified in Fig.~\ref{fig:satevol}, subhalos can gain
627: significant mass without coalescence.
628: We find that most cases of significant subhalo mass gain are not a two-body
629: coalescence, and so we do not use this to select mergers (see
630: \citet{WetCohWhi09b} for more detail, also related results in \citet{Mau07}).
631:
632: Sufficient output time resolution is necessary to properly resolve the merger
633: population.
634: Unless otherwise stated, we use the shortest simulation output spacing to
635: define the subhalo merger time interval, corresponding to $50$~Myr
636: ($\sim 100$~Myr) for $M_{\rm inf} > 10^{11}~(10^{12}) h^{-1}M_\odot$
637: at $z>2.5$, and $\sim 200$~Myr for all masses at $z<1.6$.
638: By tracking parent/child subhalo assignments across multiple output spacings,
639: we found that longer output time spacings result in a lower subhalo merger
640: rate, arising from a combination of effects.
641: As stated above, shorter time steps catch halos closer to their infall,
642: resulting in satellites with higher $M_{\rm inf}$, and hence more major
643: satellite-central mergers.
644: In addition, satellite-satellite mergers can be missed if their child merges
645: into the central subhalo before the next time step.
646: However, smaller output spacings are also more susceptible to switches, which
647: can yield satellites with higher mass.
648:
649: For halos, very short time steps can artificially enhance the merger rate,
650: catching transient behavior as halos intersect, pass through each other, and
651: re-merge.
652: While we use FoF(0.168) instead of FoF(0.2) halos to help minimize artificial
653: bridging effects, for a $50$~Myr time spacing halo re-mergers still constitute
654: a significant fraction of halo mergers.
655: Thus we calculate all our halo mergers using $>100$~Myr output spacings, for
656: which halo re-mergers constitute only a few percent of all mergers.
657:
658: Given our simulation volumes we are unable to probe statistically significant
659: subhalo merger counts in halos more massive than
660: $4\times 10^{13} h^{-1}M_\odot$ at $z>2.5$ and $M \sim 10^{14} h^{-1}M_\odot$
661: at $z<1.6$.
662: However, the majority of recently merged subhalos are centrals (discussed
663: below), and selecting on higher mass host halos for a fixed subhalo mass
664: restricts increasingly to recently merged satellites (of which there are
665: comparatively fewer).
666: Furthermore, nearly all subhalo mergers at a given mass occur in halos at most
667: $5-10\times$ times more massive.
668:
669: \subsection{Fits to Simulation}
670:
671: \begin{figure*}
672: \begin{center}
673: \resizebox{3in}{!}{\includegraphics{f4a.eps}}
674: \resizebox{3in}{!}{\includegraphics{f4b.eps}}
675: \end{center}
676: \vspace{-0.1in}
677: \caption{
678: \textbf{Left}: Merger rate per object of subhalos (solid points) and halos
679: (open points) as a function of the scale factor, for
680: $M_{\rm inf} = 10^{11}-10^{12} h^{-1}M_\odot$ (triangles) and
681: $M_{\rm inf} = 10^{12}-10^{13} h^{-1}M_\odot$ (squares) at $z=5-2.5$.
682: Solid (dashed) curves show fits of subhalo (halo) merger rates to
683: Eq.~\ref{eq:mergerate}, with fit parameters given in Table~\ref{tab:mergefits}.
684: \textbf{Right}: Same, but at $z=1.6-0.6$.
685: Also shown at left is the fit to the halo merger rate for halos with a central
686: subhalo of $M_{\rm inf} = 10^{11}-10^{12} h^{-1}M_\odot$ (dotted).
687: } \label{fig:mergerates}
688: \end{figure*}
689:
690: \begin{table*}
691: \begin{center}
692: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|}
693: \hline \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Redshift} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$z=5-2.5$} &
694: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$z=1.6-0.6$} \\
695: \hline \multicolumn{2}{|l|}{Mass [$h^{-1}M_\odot$]} & $10^{11}-10^{12}$ &
696: $10^{12}-10^{13}$ & $10^{11}-10^{12}$ & $10^{12}-10^{13}$ \\
697: \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Halos} & A & 0.029 & 0.032 & 0.034 & 0.034 \\
698: & $\alpha$ & 2.3 & 2.3 & 2.0 & 2.2 \\
699: \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Subhalos} & A & 0.093 & 0.065 & 0.016 & 0.016 \\
700: & $\alpha$ & 1.1 & 1.1 & 2.1 & 2.6 \\
701: \hline
702: \end{tabular}
703: \end{center}
704: \caption{
705: The amplitude, $A$, and power law index, $\alpha$, for halo and subhalo merger
706: rates fit to Eq.~\ref{eq:mergerate}.
707: } \label{tab:mergefits}
708: \end{table*}
709:
710: Figure~\ref{fig:mergerates} shows the evolution of the merger rate per
711: object---defined as the number of mergers per time per object---for both
712: subhalos and halos of the same (infall) mass.\footnote{
713: Merger fraction errors are calculated using binomial statistics.
714: Given $M$ mergers out of $N$ objects, the mostly likely fraction is $f = M/N$
715: with variance $\sigma_f^2 = \frac{M(N-M)+1+N}{(N+2)^2(N+3)}$.}
716: We fit the merger rate per object as
717: \begin{equation} \label{eq:mergerate}
718: \frac{n_{\rm merge}}{n_{\rm obj} dt} = A(1+z)^{\alpha}
719: \end{equation}
720: where $n_{\rm merge}$ is the number of (sub)halos whose parents match our mass
721: ratio selection, $n_{\rm obj}$ is the total number of (sub)halos within the
722: same mass range at the same output, and $dt$ it the time interval between
723: consecutive outputs.
724: The best-fit values in each redshift regime are shown in
725: Table~\ref{tab:mergefits}.
726: Note that the merger rate we examine is the number of mergers per time
727: \textit{per object}, different from another common definition, the number of
728: mergers per time \textit{per volume}.\footnote{
729: The former is simply the latter divided by the number density of objects of the
730: same mass, but the merger rate per volume has qualitatively different behaviour
731: because the (comoving) number density of objects at a fixed mass increases with
732: time in a redshift-dependent manner.
733: Specifically, at high redshift where the mass function rapidly increases, the
734: merger rate per volume for both halos and subhalos \textit{increases} with
735: time, reaching a peak at $z \sim 2.5$.
736: Below this redshift, it decreases with time in a power law manner as in
737: Fig.~\ref{fig:mergerates}, though with a shallower slope of
738: $\alpha \approx 1.5$.}
739:
740: The relation of subhalo mergers to halo mergers is nontrivial.
741: Although subhalo mergers are the eventual result of halo mergers, the former
742: are governed by dynamics within a halo and the latter by large-scale
743: gravitational fields.
744: For halos, both the slope and the amplitude of the merger rate exhibit little
745: dependence on mass or redshift.
746: Similarly, e.g. \citet{FakMa08} found $\alpha = 2-2.3$ for all halo masses at
747: $z<6$, and weak halo mass dependence of the amplitude.
748: In contrast, the subhalo merger rate amplitude has strong dependence on mass
749: and its slope depends strongly on redshift.
750: Relative to the halo merger rate, the subhalo merger rate is lower in amplitude
751: than that of halos of the same (infall) mass, and, most notably at $z>2.5$, the
752: rate of subhalo mergers falls off significantly more slowly that that of halos.
753: This is consistent with earlier work: \citet{DeL04} found a higher merger
754: fraction for halos than subhalos, and \citet{GuoWhi08} found strong mass
755: dependence of the galaxy merger rate amplitude and that the slope becomes much
756: shallower at $z>2$ \citep[see also][]{Mat08}.
757: (Note that as our halos are FoF(0.168) halos and so our merger rates can differ
758: from those for FoF(0.2) halos; merging occurs sooner for a finder with a larger
759: linking length.)
760:
761: We now focus on the relation between halo and subhalo merger rates to
762: understand these trends with time.
763:
764: \subsection{Subhalo vs. Halo Merger Rates}
765:
766: A simple analytic argument based on dynamical infall time, i.e., subhalo
767: mergers are simply a delayed version halo mergers, leads one to expect that
768: subhalo merger rates simply track those of halos: they have the same time
769: evolution, with the subhalo merger rate having a higher amplitude.
770: In this argument, when two halos merge, the new satellite galaxy collides with
771: the other central galaxy within a dynamical friction timescale, approximated by
772: \begin{equation} \label{eq:dynfric}
773: t_{\rm merge} \approx C_o\frac{M_{\rm halo}/M_{\rm sat}}{\ln(1+M_{\rm halo}/M_{\rm sat})}t_{\rm dyn}
774: \end{equation}
775: where $t_{\rm dyn} = 0.1 t_{\rm Hubble}$, $t_{\rm Hubble} = \frac{1}{H(z)}$, and
776: $C_o \approx 1$ accounts for the ensemble averaged satellite orbital parameters
777: \citep{ConHoWhi07,BinTre,BoyMaQua08,Jia08}.
778: Thus, for a fixed mass ratio, letting
779: $m_o = M_{\rm halo}/M_{\rm sat}/\ln(1+M_{\rm halo}/M_{\rm sat})$,
780: \begin{equation}
781: t_{\rm sat,merge} \approx 0.1 \, C_o m_o t_{\rm Hubble} \approx 0.1 \, C_o m_o t .
782: \end{equation}
783:
784: The evolution of the halo merger rate per object during matter-domination
785: (valid at the high redshifts we examine), where $a \propto t^{2/3}$, is
786: approximately
787: \begin{equation}
788: \frac{n_{\rm merge}}{n_{\rm halo} dt} = A(1+z)^{\alpha} = \left(\frac{t}{t_*}\right)^{-\frac{2}{3}\alpha} ,
789: \end{equation}
790: with $t_*$ some proportionality constant.
791: Assuming all halo mergers lead to satellite-central subhalo mergers on a
792: dynamical friction timescale, the subhalo merger rate per object would evolve
793: with time as
794: \begin{align}
795: \frac{n_{\rm merge}}{n_{\rm subhalo}dt} &= \left(\frac{t-t_{\rm sat,merge}}{t_*}\right)^{-\frac{2}{3}\alpha} \\
796: &= {(1-0.1 \, C_om_o)^{-\frac{2}{3} \alpha}}\left(\frac{t}{t_*}\right)^{-\frac{2}{3} \alpha}
797: \end{align}
798: and so the subhalo merger rate would simply track that of halos of the same
799: mass, but with higher amplitude.
800:
801: \subsection{Resolving the Discrepancy}
802:
803: As Fig.~\ref{fig:mergerates} shows, however, this tracking does not occur,
804: particularly at high redshift where the slope of the subhalo merger rates is
805: much shallower than that of halos.
806: One reason for this is that we compute the merger rate per object, in which we
807: divide by the number of objects at the given mass, $n_{\rm obj}(m)$.
808: Since halo masses are added instantaneously during halo mergers, a recently
809: merged halo will instantly jump to a higher mass regime (with smaller
810: $n_{\rm obj}$ in Eq.~\ref{eq:mergerate}).
811: In contrast, the central subhalo of the resultant halo will remain at a smaller
812: mass for some time until its mass grows from stripping of the new satellite
813: subhalo (i.e., recently merged halos have lower than average
814: $M_{\rm inf,cen}/M_{\rm halo}$), so the central's $n_{\rm obj}$ is higher.
815:
816: In Fig.~\ref{fig:mergerates} (left) the dotted black curve fits the halo merger
817: rate for halos selected with the same mass cut on their central subhalo infall
818: mass.
819: The amplitude is significantly smaller, and the slope is also shallower
820: ($\alpha = 1.6$) than for halos selected on full halo mass, showing that the
821: above effect is stronger at earlier times.
822: By the argument above, the ratio of amplitudes of the merger rate per object of
823: halos to subhalos is $n_{\rm halo}/n_{\rm cen}$.
824: A fixed (sub)halo mass cut probes lower $M/M_*(t)$ at later times, and the mass
825: function drops exponentially with increasing $M/M_*(t)$ at these masses.
826: Thus, a fixed $M_{\rm inf,cen}/M_{\rm halo}$ after a halo merger means
827: $n_{\rm halo}/n_{\rm cen}$ becomes closer to unity at later times, leading to
828: the shallower slope.
829:
830: The measured subhalo mergers have an even lower amplitude and shallower slope
831: than the dotted line in Fig.~\ref{fig:mergerates}, driven by two additional
832: effects.
833: First, a halo major merger might not lead to a subhalo major merger since the
834: satellite-central merger mass ratio can be smaller than the mass ratios of
835: their source halos.
836: This is because $M_{\rm inf}$ naturally grows for a central but only grows for
837: a satellite if it has a merger before coalescing with the central
838: \citep[see][for a detailed analysis of this effect in terms of assigning
839: baryons to subhalos]{WanKau08}.
840: Since halos grow in mass more quickly at higher redshift, this effect is
841: stronger at earlier times, further flattening the subhalo merger rate slope.
842: Second, there is a significant contribution of recently merged satellites to
843: the merger population.
844: We find that satellites are twice as likely to have had a recent merger as
845: centrals of the same mass, regardless of mass cut and redshift (see
846: \S\ref{sec:types} for more detail).
847: This enhances the merger rate, with a stronger enhancement at later times
848: since the satellite fraction grows with time as in Fig.~\ref{fig:satfrac}.
849:
850: At lower redshift, Fig.~\ref{fig:mergerates} (right) shows that the amplitude
851: of the subhalo merger rate remains lower than that of halos, but the slopes
852: become similar, indicating the effects examined above become less
853: time-dependent.
854: Since the masses we probe are crossing $M_*(t)$ as these redshifts, the reduced
855: amplitude from subhalo vs. halo mass cut becomes less sensitive to time.
856: Similarly, our mass range crossing $M_*(t)$ means that halo mass growth slows,
857: so the fraction of halo major mergers that leads to subhalo major mergers
858: remains roughly constant with time.
859: Finally, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:satfrac}, the satellite fraction growth
860: asymptotes at lower redshift, which means that the enhancement from recently
861: merged satellites remains roughly constant.
862:
863:
864: %% MERGER TYPES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
865: \section{Satellite vs. Central Mergers} \label{sec:types}
866:
867: \begin{figure*}
868: \begin{center}
869: \resizebox{3in}{!}{\includegraphics{f5a.eps}}
870: \resizebox{3in}{!}{\includegraphics{f5b.eps}}
871: \end{center}
872: \vspace{-0.1in}
873: \caption{
874: Satellite merger fraction at $z=5-2.5$ (left) and $z=1.6-0.6$ (right) for
875: $M_{\rm inf} = 10^{11}-10^{12} h^{-1}M_\odot$ (triangles) and
876: $M_{\rm inf} = 10^{11}-10^{12} h^{-1}M_\odot$ (squares).
877: Closed point/solid lines indicate the fraction of all subhalo mergers that
878: result in a satellite, while open points/dashed lines indicated the fraction of
879: all subhalo mergers that arise from satellite-satellite parents.
880: } \label{fig:satmergefrac}
881: \end{figure*}
882:
883: The stereotypical galaxy merger is a satellite coalescing with the central in
884: its halo and producing a central merger remnant.
885: These mergers do dominate the merger population, both in parent types
886: (central-satellite) and child type (central).
887: However, while satellites form the minority of the subhalo population at all
888: epochs (see Fig.~\ref{fig:satfrac}), satellites are twice as likely to have had
889: a recent merger as centrals of the same mass, regardless of mass and redshift.
890:
891: Since the identities of satellite vs. central subhalos at this mass and
892: redshift regime are not clear-cut (from switches), we characterize mergers both
893: in terms of their parent types (central/satellite) and resulting child types.
894: For mergers resulting in centrals, this ambiguity is not important:
895: $97\%$ arise from satellite-central parents, while the other $3\%$ arise from
896: satellite-satellite parents during switches.\footnote{
897: A few percent arise from central-central parents, when the central regions of
898: two halos coalesce so quickly that they are not seen as satellite-central
899: subhalos given finite time resolution.
900: We include these as satellite-central parents.}
901:
902: Recently merged satellites are a more varied population.
903: Figure~\ref{fig:satmergefrac} shows the contributions of satellite mergers to
904: the overall merger populations as a function of the scale factor.\footnote{
905: Satellite merger fractions are boxcar-averaged across three consecutive outputs
906: to reduce noise from small number statistics.}
907: The fraction of all subhalo mergers that result in a satellite is $\sim 30\%$
908: for $M_{\rm inf}=10^{11}-10^{12} h^{-1}M_\odot$, with little dependence on
909: redshift.
910: For $M_{\rm inf}=10^{12}-10^{13} h^{-1}M_\odot$ it is $15-20\%$ at $z \sim 2.5$
911: and rises to $\sim 35\%$ at $z<1.6$.
912: Thus, at lower redshift ($z<1.6$) where the satellite fraction asymptotes to
913: $\sim 25\%$, the fraction of mergers that result in a satellite roughly
914: reflects the satellite fraction as a whole.
915:
916: Of these recently merged satellites, $20\%-35\%$ come from satellite-satellite
917: parents within a single halo, while $\sim 7\%$ arise when a central-satellite
918: merger occurs in a halo as it falls into a larger halo, becoming a satellite.
919: The rest arise from switches, i.e. a satellite merges with a central, and the
920: resulting subhalo no longer is the most massive subhalo, thus becoming a
921: satellite.
922: These switches occur primarily in halos only a few times more massive than the
923: satellite, typically for satellites in close proximity to their central.
924: At higher halo masses, recently merged satellites are dominated by
925: satellite-satellite parents.
926: These satellite-satellite mergers preferentially occur in the outer regions of
927: a halo and are comparatively less common in the central regions.
928: We examine in more detail the environmental dependence of subhalo mergers in
929: \citet{WetCohWhi09b}.
930:
931: Considering instead only parent types, Fig.~\ref{fig:satmergefrac} shows that
932: $5-10\%$ of all mergers come from satellite-satellite parents at $z \sim 2.5$,
933: a fraction which increases to $10-15\%$ at $z=1.6$ and remains flat thereafter.
934: Approximately $80\%$ of all satellite-satellite mergers lead to a satellite
935: child, while the rest lead to a central during a switch.
936:
937:
938: %% MERGER COUNTS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
939: \section{Galaxy and Halo Merger Counts} \label{sec:counts}
940:
941: \subsection{Counts of Recent Mergers}
942:
943: \begin{figure}
944: \begin{center}
945: \resizebox{3in}{!}{\includegraphics{f6a.eps}}
946: \resizebox{3in}{!}{\includegraphics{f6b.eps}}
947: \end{center}
948: \vspace{-0.1in}
949: \caption{
950: \textbf{Top}: Fraction of subhalos at $z=2.6$ that have had a given number of
951: mergers in the last $1$~Gyr, for
952: $M_{\rm inf} = 10^{11}-10^{12} h^{-1}M_\odot$ (thin lines) and
953: $M_{\rm inf} = 10^{12}-10^{13} h^{-1}M_\odot$ (thick lines).
954: Dashed lines show the same, but for host halos.
955: $30\%$ of subhalos have had at least one merger (independent of mass), while
956: for halos this fraction is $50\%$ (lower mass) and $57\%$ (higher mass).
957: Inset shows detail for $>2$ mergers.
958: \textbf{Bottom}: Same, but at $z=1$.
959: $8\%$ of subhalos have had at least one merger (independent of mass),
960: while for halos this fraction is $11\%$ (lower mass) and $17\%$ (higher mass).
961: High mass subhalos show a much larger fraction of multiple mergers.
962: Inset shows detail for $>1$ merger.
963: } \label{fig:nmerge}
964: \end{figure}
965:
966: The distribution of the number of mergers per object within a fixed time
967: interval gives the fraction of objects at a given epoch that might exhibit
968: merger-related activity or morphological disturbance.\footnote{
969: This differs from the merger rates of \S\ref{sec:rates}, since we are tracking
970: the histories of individual objects selected at a given redshift.}
971: Multiple mergers as well might contribute to specific properties, e.g., the
972: formation and mass growth of elliptical galaxies \citep[e.g.,][]{BoyMaQua05,
973: Rob06,NaaKhoBur06,ConHoWhi07}.
974:
975: Figure~\ref{fig:nmerge} shows the fraction of subhalos at $z=2.6$ and $z=1$
976: with a given number of mergers in the last $1$~Gyr.
977: At $z=2.6$, $30\%$ of subhalos have suffered at least one major merger.
978: Interestingly, this fraction is nearly constant across the mass regimes we
979: probe.
980: In contrast, the fraction of halos with at least one major merger within
981: $1$~Gyr is about twice as large, with stronger mass dependence: higher mass
982: halos experience more mergers.
983: At high redshift, halos are also significantly more likely to have undergone
984: multiple mergers than subhalos, which builds up the satellite population.
985:
986: At $z=1$, recent mergers of subhalos and halos become less common, with only
987: $8\%$ of subhalos having suffered at least one major merger in the last $1$~Gyr.
988: Objects which have had 1 or 2 mergers are still more common for halos than
989: subhalos, though high mass subhalos exhibit a much higher fraction of 3 or more
990: mergers than halos of the same (infall) mass.
991: (Subhalos that have undergone 1 merger can be either satellites or centrals,
992: those that have undergone 2 or more mergers are almost entirely centrals.)
993: The build-up of the satellite population at higher redshift has allowed massive
994: centrals to experience multiple mergers at lower redshift.
995: This effect is stronger for more massive subhalos since they are more likely
996: to be centrals, and they reside in higher mass halos with more massive
997: satellites.
998:
999: \subsection{Fraction ``On''}
1000:
1001: \begin{figure*}
1002: \begin{center}
1003: \resizebox{3in}{!}{\includegraphics{f7a.eps}}
1004: \resizebox{3in}{!}{\includegraphics{f7b.eps}}
1005: \end{center}
1006: \vspace{-0.1in}
1007: \caption{
1008: \textbf{Left}: Fraction of halos that host a subhalo-subhalo merger within the
1009: last $200$~Myr (closed points/solid lines) at $z=5-2.5$ for
1010: $M_{\rm inf} = 10^{11}-10^{12} h^{-1}M_\odot$ (triangles) and
1011: $M_{\rm inf} = 10^{12}-10^{13} h^{-1}M_\odot$ (squares).
1012: Open points/dashed lines show the fraction of halos of the same mass that have
1013: suffered a major halo-halo merger in the same time interval.
1014: \textbf{Right}: Same, but at $z=1.6-0.6$.
1015: } \label{fig:fon}
1016: \end{figure*}
1017:
1018: The fraction of halos that host recent mergers, $f_{\rm on}$, is of particular
1019: interest for quasar or starburst evolution models, and quasar/starburst
1020: feedback effects such as heating of the Intracluster Medium (ICM).
1021: We select mergers up to $200$~Myr after coalescence, motivated by the expected
1022: time interval during which quasars or starbursts remain observable
1023: \citep[e.g.,][]{HopHerCox05}.
1024: This time interval is only illustrative, though, as one expects relevant
1025: lifetimes to depend strongly upon galaxy mass and merger ratio.
1026: Observables might depend upon dynamical time as well, although many quasar
1027: triggering effects might be related to microphysics--small scale interactions
1028: close to the merger--that do not evolve with time.\footnote{
1029: If we scale our $f_{\rm on}$ time interval by the dynamical time, the slope of
1030: $f_{\rm on}$ becomes slightly shallower, but the qualitative results do not
1031: change.}
1032:
1033: Figure~\ref{fig:fon} shows the evolution of $f_{\rm on}$ for halos hosting
1034: subhalo mergers within the last $200$~Myr.
1035: The same quantity is shown for halos with recent mergers themselves.
1036: At high redshift, $f_{\rm on}$ for halo mergers shows a steep decline from the
1037: decreasing halo merger rate.
1038: However, $f_{\rm on}$ for subhalo-subhalo mergers is flat from $z=2.5-5$,
1039: because the subhalo merger rate per object decreases while the number of
1040: massive satellites in a given mass halo rises, causing the number of massive
1041: subhalo mergers within the halo to remain constant.
1042: At low redshift, where the satellite population grows more slowly, the
1043: evolution of this fraction for subhalo mergers more closely parallels that of
1044: halo mergers.
1045:
1046: %%% EVOLUTION OF HALO OCCUPATION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1047: \section{Evolution of the Satellite Halo Occupation} \label{sec:hodevol}
1048:
1049: The redshift evolution of the satellite galaxy populations of dark matter halos
1050: is shaped by halo vs. galaxy mergers: halo mergers create satellites while
1051: galaxy mergers remove them.\footnote{
1052: Though if one applies a mass threshold to a population, this is not strictly
1053: true since mergers also scatter lower mass objects into the population.}
1054: If the infall rate of satellites onto a halo is different than the satellite
1055: destruction rate, the satellite halo occupation will evolve with time.
1056:
1057: As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mergerates}, at $z>2.5$, the merger rate of subhalos
1058: is significantly lower and shallower in slope than that of halos, implying that
1059: subhalos are being created faster than they are destroyed (at a rate decreasing
1060: with time).
1061: Conversely, at $z<1.6$ the merger rates of halos and subhalos exhibit
1062: approximately the same redshift dependence, and their amplitudes are similar
1063: (also recall from \S\ref{sec:rates} that not all halo major merger lead to
1064: subhalo major mergers).
1065: Thus, for halos of a fixed mass, we expect a rapid rise in the satellite halo
1066: occupation prior to $z \sim 2$ and a levelling-off with more gradual evolution
1067: at lower redshift.
1068:
1069: \subsection{Satellite Halo Occupation in Simulation}
1070:
1071: \begin{figure}
1072: \begin{center}
1073: \resizebox{3in}{!}{\includegraphics{f8.eps}}
1074: \end{center}
1075: \vspace{-0.1in}
1076: \caption{
1077: Evolution of the average number of satellite subhalos per halo for satellites
1078: with $M_{\rm inf} > 10^{11} h^{-1}M_\odot$ and several halo mass bins.
1079: Satellite counts are normalized to those at $z=0.6$ (the last output) and
1080: boxcar averaged across 3 outputs to reduce the small number statistics noise at
1081: early times.
1082: The dotted black line shows fit of Eq.~\ref{eq:hodevolfinal} for 3:1 mass ratio
1083: mergers using halo merger rate parameters from Table~\ref{tab:mergefits}.
1084: All halos masses have a peak in satellite occupation at $z\sim2.5$, and similar
1085: trends persist for higher mass satellites.
1086: Less massive halos exhibit stronger evolution with redshift, leading to a more
1087: prominent peak.
1088: } \label{fig:hodevol}
1089: \end{figure}
1090:
1091: The above trends are seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:hodevol}, which shows the evolution
1092: of the satellite occupation per halo, for satellites with
1093: $M_{\rm inf} > 10^{11} h^{-1}M_\odot$ in the $100 h^{-1}$~Mpc simulation.
1094: Satellite occupation counts are normalized using the last output at $z=0.6$.
1095: More massive satellites ($M_{\rm inf} > 10^{12} h^{-1}M_\odot$) have similar
1096: evolution, with a peak in the satellite halo occupation at $z \approx 2.5$.
1097: For a fixed satellite infall mass, less massive halos exhibit stronger
1098: satellite occupation evolution with redshift, leading to a more prominent peak.
1099:
1100: \subsection{Analytic Estimate of Satellite Halo Occupation}
1101:
1102: The rate of change of the satellite subhalo population per halo, for a fixed
1103: satellite $M_{\rm inf}$, is given by the rate at which satellites fall into a
1104: halo (the halo merger rate) minus the rate at which satellites coalesce with
1105: the central subhalo
1106: \begin{equation} \label{eq:hodevol1}
1107: \frac{dN_{\rm sat}}{dt} = \frac{dN_{\rm halo,merge}}{dt}-\frac{dN_{\rm sat-cen,merge}}{dt} .
1108: \end{equation}
1109:
1110: The halo merger rate at all epochs is given by (\S\ref{sec:rates})
1111: \begin{equation} \label{eq:hodevol2}
1112: \frac{dN_{\rm halo,merge}}{dt} = A(1+z)^{\alpha} = Aa^{-\alpha}
1113: \end{equation}
1114: The timescale for the satellite to coalesce with its central subhalo after
1115: infall is given to good approximation by
1116: \begin{equation}
1117: t_{\rm sat-cen,merge} \approx \frac{C_o}{10}\frac{M_{\rm halo}/M_{\rm sat}}{\ln(1+M_{\rm halo}/M_{\rm sat})}t_{\rm Hubble} .
1118: \end{equation}
1119: where $C_o$ is a constant of order unity that accounts for the ensemble
1120: averaged satellite orbital parameters, and we leave it as our sole free
1121: parameter.
1122: The rate of satellite destruction/coalescence is thus
1123: \begin{equation} \label{eq:hodevol3}
1124: \frac{dN_{\rm sat-cen,merge}}{dt} = \frac{10}{C_o}\frac{\ln(1+M_{\rm halo}/M_{\rm sat})}{M_{\rm halo}/M_{\rm sat}}H(z) .
1125: \end{equation}
1126: Combining Eqs.~\ref{eq:hodevol2} and \ref{eq:hodevol3} into
1127: Eq.~\ref{eq:hodevol1} one gets
1128: \begin{equation} \label{eq:hodevol4}
1129: \frac{dN_{\rm sat}}{dt} = Aa^{-\alpha} - \frac{10}{C_o}\frac{\ln(1+M_{\rm halo}/M_{\rm sat})}{M_{\rm halo}/M_{\rm sat}}H(z) .
1130: \end{equation}
1131:
1132: At high redshift, $H(z) \approx H_o(\Omega_{\rm m,o}a^{-3})^\frac{1}{2}$,
1133: where $H_o \simeq 0.1 h$~Gyr$^{-1}$, which implies
1134: \begin{equation} \label{eq:hodevolapprox}
1135: \frac{dN_{\rm sat}}{dt} \approx Aa^{-\alpha} - \frac{1}{C_o}\frac{\ln(1+M_{\rm halo}/M_{\rm sat})}{M_{\rm halo}/M_{\rm sat}}\Omega_{\rm m,o}^\frac{1}{2}a^{-\frac{3}{2}} .
1136: \end{equation}
1137: Across all mass and redshift regimes, the power law index for halo mergers is
1138: $\alpha = 2-2.3$ (\S\ref{sec:rates}), and we find no additional dependence on
1139: merger mass ratio, suggesting a universal power law index.\footnote{
1140: Though merger rates for more discrepant mass ratios have higher amplitudes, as
1141: given by Eq.~\ref{eq:mergeratio}.}
1142: Thus, the creation and destruction terms in Eq.~\ref{eq:hodevolapprox} have
1143: differing dependencies on the scale factor, which implies they become equal at
1144: some redshift, where the satellite occupation per halo reaches a maximum.
1145:
1146: Using the exact evolution of the Hubble parameter (in our cosmology) of
1147: $H(z) = H_o(\Omega_{\rm m,o}a^{-3}+\Omega_\Lambda)^{1/2}$ in
1148: Eq.~\ref{eq:hodevol4}, and integrating over $a$, the full evolution of the
1149: satellite occupation per halo is
1150: \begin{align}
1151: N_{\rm sat}(a) & =\frac{A}{H_o}\int da \frac{a^{-(\alpha+1)}}{H(z)} \notag \\
1152: & -\frac{10}{C_o}\frac{M_{\rm sat}}{M_{\rm halo}}\ln\left(1+\frac{M_{\rm halo}}{M_{\rm sat}}\right)\ln(a)+K
1153: \label{eq:hodevolfinal}
1154: \end{align}
1155: where the constant $K$ accounts for initial/final conditions.
1156: Figure~\ref{fig:hodevol} shows the resultant $N_{\rm sat}(a)$, normalized to
1157: the satellite occupation per halo at final output, using typical values for the
1158: halo merger rate from Table~\ref{tab:mergefits} ($A=0.032$ and $\alpha = 2.3$).
1159: These values correspond to 3:1 mass ratio mergers, for satellites with
1160: $M_{\rm inf} = 10^{11} h^{-1}M_\odot$ this gives
1161: $M_{\rm halo} = 3\times10^{11} h^{-1}M_\odot$.
1162: While the fit of this model to the simulation results is not exact, it nicely
1163: reproduces the general trends, especially given the simplicity of the model,
1164: which ignores halo/central mass growth, satellite-satellite mergers, and
1165: switches.
1166: For instance, it correctly produces a lower peak in satellite occupation for
1167: halos with satellites of more discrepant mass ratios (more massive halos for a
1168: fixed satellite mass, or less massive satellites for a fixed halo mass),
1169: relative to the amplitude at low redshift.
1170: This is because the decreased infall times for smaller satellite-halo mass
1171: ratios cause a more dramatic fall (after the peak) in the satellite population
1172: for lower mass halos.
1173:
1174: Agreement of this model with our simulations also requires $C_o \approx 2$,
1175: which can be compared with other work.
1176: \citet{ZenBerBul05} and \citet{Jia08} find that the ensemble averaged
1177: satellite orbital circularity distribution is given by
1178: $\langle \epsilon \rangle = 0.5 \pm 0.2$, with no strong dependence on redshift
1179: or satellite-halo mass ratio.
1180: When applied to detailed dynamical friction timescale fits from simulation,
1181: this yields $C_o \approx 0.6$ \citep{BoyMaQua08} and
1182: $C_o \approx 1.4$ \citep{Jia08}.\footnote{
1183: The $C_o$ values of these two fits agree only in extreme cases, i.e. maximally
1184: circular orbits for \citet{BoyMaQua08} or maximally eccentric orbits for
1185: \citep{Jia08}.}
1186: Taken at face value, our even higher value of $C_o$ means that our satellites
1187: are taking longer to merge, suggesting that the discrepancy does not arise from
1188: artificial over-merging in our simulations.
1189: However, exact comparisons are difficult given the simple nature of our analytic
1190: model, and because both of these groups use different halo and subhalo finding
1191: algorithms.
1192: \citet{Jia08}, who used a simulation of roughly similar volume and mass
1193: resolution to ours, also incorporated hydrodynamics, which is likely to shorten
1194: the merger timescale since it introduces further dissipational effects to the
1195: subhalo orbits and reduces mass loss.
1196: Compared with \citet{BoyMaQua08}, who performed much higher resolution
1197: simulations of isolated halo mergers, it is possible that our satellite
1198: subhalos experience more severe mass stripping upon infall, decreasing their
1199: mass and thus extending their subsequent infall time (see Eq.~\ref{eq:dynfric}).
1200: A more detailed investigation of satellite infall timescales in a cosmological
1201: setting is needed, studies now in progress are targeting in particular the role
1202: of hydrodynamic effects \citep{Dol08,Sar08,Sim08}.
1203:
1204: \subsection{Comparison to Other Work on Satellite Occupation Evolution}
1205:
1206: Figure~\ref{fig:hodevol} shows a peak in the number of satellites per halo at
1207: $z \sim 2.5$.
1208: Fundamentally, the reason for this peak is that we select subhalos of
1209: \textit{fixed} minimum \textit{infall} mass in halos of \textit{fixed} mass
1210: across time.
1211: If instead we examine the satellite occupation for halos above a minimum mass
1212: cut, the growth of massive halos (hosting more satellites) at late time would
1213: overwhelm the drop in the satellite population at a fixed halo mass, so the
1214: satellite halo occupation would grow monotonically and appear much like the
1215: satellite fraction in Fig.~\ref{fig:satfrac}, which ignores halo mass.\footnote{
1216: Though the satellite halo occupation would have a higher amplitude since it
1217: measures $n_{\rm sat}/n_{\rm central}$ while the satellite fraction measures
1218: $n_{\rm sat}/n_{\rm subhalo} = n_{\rm sat}/(n_{\rm central}+n_{\rm sat})$.}
1219:
1220: These results agree with the interpretation that more massive halos have later
1221: formation times and longer satellite infall times, and thus host more
1222: substructure at a given epoch \citep{vdBTorGio05,ZenBerBul05}.
1223: Similarly, for a fixed satellite infall mass, the satellite halo occupation
1224: evolves more rapidly for less massive halos, as \citet{ZenBerBul05} and
1225: \citet{DieKuhMad07} found, though their results were based upon subhalo
1226: instantaneous mass and maximum circular velocity (we compare these to
1227: $M_{\rm inf}$ in the Appendices).
1228:
1229: However, the peak in satellite halo occupation in Fig.~\ref{fig:hodevol} does
1230: not appear in Halo Occupation Distribution (HOD) evolution studies by
1231: \citet{ZenBerBul05} because they use a fixed cut on instantaneous maximum
1232: circular velocity across time.
1233: As shown in Appendix A, fixed $V_{\rm c,max}$ probes lower mass at higher
1234: redshift, and this evolution in satellite mass overwhelms the satellite
1235: evolution of Fig.~\ref{fig:hodevol}, leading to a monotonic rise in the
1236: satellite halo occupation with redshift.
1237: Similarly, \citet{ConWecKra06} noted that the HOD shoulder (the halo mass where
1238: a halo hosts only a central galaxy) becomes shorter at higher redshift as an
1239: increasing fraction of low-mass halos host more than one galaxy, finding a
1240: monotonically increasing satellite population with redshift.
1241: However, they compare fixed satellite number density (not mass) across
1242: redshift, which corresponds to a lower subhalo mass at higher redshift.
1243: Again, this overwhelms the evolution of Fig.~\ref{fig:hodevol}, leading to a
1244: monotonic rise in the satellite population per halo with redshift.
1245:
1246: In their semi-analytic model matched to simulation, \citet{vdBTorGio05} find
1247: that the average subhalo mass fraction of a halo always decreases with time,
1248: and they claim that, as a result, the timescale for subhalo mass loss
1249: (approximately the dynamical/infall time) is always smaller than the timescale
1250: of halo mass accretion (mergers).
1251: This implies that the satellite infall rate is always higher than the halo
1252: merger rate, and so the satellite HOD always decreases with time.
1253: However, this result refers to the total subhalo instantaneous mass per halo,
1254: not galaxy counts based on infall mass.
1255: If instead we examine the evolution of the satellite occupation per halo as in
1256: Fig.~\ref{fig:hodevol} selecting the satellites based on \textit{instantaneous}
1257: subhalo mass instead of infall mass, we find a monotonic increase in the
1258: satellite occupation with no peak, in agreement with other authors above.
1259:
1260: These examples all illustrate how the evolution of the HOD is dependent both
1261: on satellite mass assignment and selection of fixed mass vs. circular velocity
1262: vs. number density across time.
1263:
1264:
1265: %% DISCUSSION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1266: \section{Summary and Discussion} \label{sec:discussion}
1267:
1268: Using high-resolution dark matter simulations in cosmological volumes, we have
1269: measured the rates, counts, and types of subhalo (galaxy) major mergers at
1270: redshift $z=0.6-5$, describing their populations in terms of
1271: centrals/satellites and contrasting their merger properties with those of
1272: halos of the same (infall) mass.
1273: We assign subhalos their mass at infall (with the capacity for mass growth
1274: during satellite mergers), motivated by an expected correlation with galaxy
1275: stellar mass, but include no further semi-analytic galaxy modelling.
1276: We select mergers requiring 3:1 or closer infall mass ratios, motivated by the
1277: expectation that these can trigger activity such as quasars, starbursts, and
1278: related objects such as Lyman break galaxies, submillimeter galaxies, and
1279: ULIRGs.
1280: We highlight our main results as follows:
1281:
1282: \begin{itemize}
1283: \item The merger rate per object of subhalos is always lower than that of halos
1284: of the same (infall) mass.
1285: Galaxies exhibit stronger mass dependence on the amplitude of their merger
1286: rate than halos, with more massive galaxies undergoing more mergers.
1287: While the slope of the halo merger rate per object is essentially redshift
1288: independent, the slope of the galaxy merger rate is much shallower than that of
1289: halos at $z>2.5$ and parallels that of halos at $z<1.6$.
1290: \item These differences in halos and subhalo merger rates arise because (1)
1291: halo mergers add mass to halos instantly, while central subhalo mass grows more
1292: gradually after a halo merger; (2) halo major mergers do not necessarily lead
1293: to subhalo major mergers, since central subhalos experience mass growth while a
1294: satellite subhalo's infall mass typically remains constant as it orbits; and
1295: (3) the satellite subhalo fraction grows with time, and satellites are twice as
1296: likely to be recent mergers as centrals of the same infall mass.
1297: \item $15\%-35\%$ of all recently merged subhalos are satellites, though a
1298: significant fraction of these arise from satellite-central parents during
1299: switches.
1300: $5\%-15\%$ of galaxy mergers arise from satellite-satellite parents, with a
1301: higher fraction at lower redshift.
1302: \item At $z=2.6$~($z=1$), $30\%$~($8\%$) of galaxies have experience at least
1303: one major merger in the last $1$~Gyr, regardless of mass.
1304: Halos are more likely to have experience multiple mergers in their recent
1305: history.
1306: \item The likelihood of a halo to host a recently merged galaxy, $f_{\rm on}$,
1307: does not evolve with time at $z>2.5$ and falls with time at $z<1.6$.
1308: \item Comparing galaxy and halo merger rates allows one to understand the
1309: evolution of the satellite halo occupation, and we approximated this behaviour
1310: analytically including fits to our simulations.
1311: Selecting subhalos on fixed infall mass, the satellite halo occupation for
1312: halos of a fixed mass increases with time at high redshift, peaks at
1313: $z\sim2.5$, and falls with time after that.
1314: This implies similar evolution for the satellite galaxy component of the Halo
1315: Occupation Distribution.
1316: \end{itemize}
1317:
1318: Our results, based entirely on the dynamics of dark matter, represent an
1319: important but preliminary step towards quantifying the nature of galaxy mergers
1320: in hierarchical structure formation.
1321: To compare to many observables we would need to include baryonic effects, and
1322: indeed such effects can provide corrections to the merger rates themselves
1323: \citep{Dol08,Jia08,Sar08}.
1324: The merger rates here also do not include whether the subhalos are gas-rich
1325: (required for some observables) or not, though at the high redshifts we
1326: examine, we expect almost all galaxies to be gas-rich.
1327: While satellites can be stripped of much of their gas before merging with their
1328: central \citep[e.g.,][]{Dol08,Sar08}, we have considered primarily massive
1329: satellites (relative to their host halos), which have short infall times and
1330: thus experience less gas stripping.
1331:
1332: Timescales between observables and our measured merger event also play a role.
1333: In simulations, a quasar can appear up to $\sim 1$~Gyr after galaxy
1334: coalescence, though starbursts may occur more quickly
1335: \citep[e.g.,][]{HopHerCox05,SprDiMHer05b,Cox08}.
1336: However, morphological disturbance is clearest during first passage and final
1337: coalescence \citep{LotJonCox08}.
1338: The time scales for each signature to commence and/or persist also have a large
1339: scatter, ranging from $0.2$ to $1.2$~Gyr after the merger.
1340: Finally, specific observations will also have specific selection functions.
1341: The quantitative measurements provided here provide starting points for these
1342: analyses in addition to helping to understand the properties of galaxies and
1343: their mergers in general.
1344:
1345: Unfortunately, our predictions are not easily compared to observations which
1346: estimate merger rates at $z \lesssim 1$ using close galaxy pairs or disturbed
1347: morphologies \citep[most recently,][]{Bel06,Kam07,Kar07,Lin08,LotDavFab08,McI08,
1348: PatAtf08} since they have found that the close pair fraction evolves as
1349: $(1+z)^\alpha$ with a diverse range of exponents from $\alpha=0$ to $4$.
1350: Furthermore, translating these observations into galaxy or halo merger rates
1351: requires including more physical effects, e.g. time dependent galaxy
1352: coalescence timescales \citep{KitWhi08,Mat08} or inclusion of changes in
1353: numbers of host halos with redshift \citep{BerBulBar06}.
1354:
1355: While we were preparing this work for preparation, \citet{Sim08} appeared which
1356: considers detailed merger properties of satellite subhalos in a hydrodynamic
1357: simulation, and \citet{Ang08} appeared which considers satellite mergers in the
1358: Millennium simulation.
1359: After this paper was submitted, \citet{SteBulBar08} appeared, which also
1360: considers merger rates as a function of mass, redshift, and mass ratio.
1361:
1362:
1363: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1364:
1365: We thank E. Scannapieco and K. Stewart for useful conversations and thank CCAPP
1366: at the Ohio State University for hospitality and hosting a meeting which
1367: started this project.
1368: We also thank the referee for several useful suggestions.
1369: A.W. gratefully acknowledges the support of an NSF Graduate Fellowship, J.D.C.
1370: support from NSF-AST-0810820 and DOE, and M.W. support from NASA and the DOE.
1371: The simulations were analyzed at the National Energy Research Scientific
1372: Computing Center.
1373:
1374: %% APPENDIX %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1375: \appendix
1376: \section{Subhalo Mass and Circular Velocity}
1377:
1378: Here we further elaborate on the details of subhalos in our simulations,
1379: including their radial density and circular velocity profiles and the relation
1380: between mass and maximal circular velocity, including its evolution with time.
1381:
1382: \begin{figure*}
1383: \begin{center}
1384: \resizebox{3in}{!}{\includegraphics{f9a.eps}}
1385: \resizebox{3in}{!}{\includegraphics{f9b.eps}}
1386: \end{center}
1387: \vspace{-0.1in}
1388: \caption{
1389: \textbf{Left}: Radial density profiles (top) and circular velocity profiles
1390: (bottom) of all matter around 8 satellite (dotted) and 8 central (dashed)
1391: subhalos with $V_{\rm c,max} \simeq 250$~km/s at $z=2.6$.
1392: \textbf{Right}: Same, but only for matter assigned to the subhalos.
1393: } \label{fig:densityvcprofile}
1394: \end{figure*}
1395:
1396: Figure~\ref{fig:densityvcprofile} shows the radial density and circular
1397: velocity profiles for 8 satellite and 8 central subhalos with
1398: $V_{\rm c,max} \simeq 250$~km/s ($M \sim 10^{12} h^{-1}M_\odot$) at $z=2.6$ in
1399: the $100 h^{-1}$~Mpc simulation.
1400: Circular velocity is defined as $V_c \equiv \sqrt{GM(<r)/r}$, and since
1401: subhalos follow NFW density profiles, with a break in the power-law density
1402: profile at the scale radius, $r_s$, they have a maximum value in their circular
1403: velocity profiles, $V_{\rm c,max}$, at $r_{\rm max} = 2.2r_s$.
1404: The left panels show the radial profiles of all matter surrounding the
1405: subhalos, while the right panels show only that of matter assigned to the
1406: subhalos.
1407: Satellites and centrals have similar profiles at small radii, though the right
1408: top panel shows that satellites exhibit signs of tidal truncation at
1409: $\sim 50 h^{-1}$~kpc.
1410: This is also visible in the circular velocity profile in the bottom left panel,
1411: where $V_c$ for satellites rises sharply, exhibiting a transition to their host
1412: halos.
1413: For the centrals, the rise in $V_c$ beyond $\sim 1 h^{-1}$~Mpc arises from
1414: neighbouring structures.
1415:
1416: \begin{figure}
1417: \begin{center}
1418: \resizebox{3in}{!}{\includegraphics{f10.eps}}
1419: \end{center}
1420: \vspace{-0.1in}
1421: \caption{
1422: Relation between subhalo infall maximum circular velocity, $V_{\rm c,inf}$, and
1423: subhalo infall mass, $M_{\rm inf}$, at $z=2.6$.
1424: Black points show a $25\%$ sub-sample of all subhalos as a measure of scatter,
1425: the solid red line shows the least squares fit to Eq.~\ref{eq:vcm}, and the
1426: dashed red lines show the $1\sigma$ scatter, for subhalos with
1427: $M_{\rm inf} > 10^{11} h^{-1}M_\odot$.
1428: } \label{fig:vcinfminf}
1429: \end{figure}
1430:
1431: \begin{figure}
1432: \begin{center}
1433: \resizebox{3in}{!}{\includegraphics{f11.eps}}
1434: \end{center}
1435: \vspace{-0.1in}
1436: \caption{
1437: Evolution of the ratio of subhalo infall maximum circular velocity to infall
1438: mass, $B(z) = V_{\rm c,inf}^3/M_{\rm inf}$ (solid), and $1\sigma$ scatter (dashed)
1439: for subhalos with $M_{\rm inf} > 10^{11} h^{-1}M_\odot$.
1440: Dotted line shows fit to $B(z)$ of Eq.~\ref{eq:vcmevol}.
1441: } \label{fig:vcinfminfevol}
1442: \end{figure}
1443:
1444: Figure~\ref{fig:vcinfminf} shows the relation between subhalo infall mass,
1445: $M_{\rm inf}$, and infall maximum circular velocity, $V_{\rm c,inf}$, for
1446: subhalos at $z=2.6$.
1447: We fit this relation to
1448: \begin{equation} \label{eq:vcm}
1449: V_{\rm c,inf}^{\gamma} = B(z) M_{\rm inf}
1450: \end{equation}
1451: for all subhalos above $10^{11} h^{-1}M_\odot$, finding ${\gamma} = 3$ holds to
1452: good approximation at all redshifts we examine, in agreement with the virial
1453: relation $V_{\rm c,max}^2 \propto M/R \propto M/M^{1/3} \propto M^{2/3}$.
1454: The outliers with large $M_{\rm inf}$ relative to $V_{\rm c,inf}$ are
1455: satellites that experienced a major merger; under our prescription, a satellite
1456: child's $M_{\rm inf}$ is the sum of its parents' $M_{\rm inf}$, but a
1457: child's $V_{\rm c,inf}$ is that of its highest $V_{\rm c,inf}$ parent.
1458:
1459: Fixing ${\gamma} = 3$, Fig.~\ref{fig:vcinfminfevol} shows the evolution of the
1460: amplitude $B(z) \equiv V_{\rm c,inf}^3/M_{\rm inf}$.
1461: A subhalo of a given mass has a higher maximum circular velocity at higher
1462: redshift, reflective of the increased density of the universe when the subhalo
1463: formed.
1464: As a subhalo subsequently accretes mass, its $V_{\rm c.max}^3$ grows more slowly
1465: than it mass (in cases of slow mass growth, we find $V_{\rm c.max}^3$ can remain
1466: constant).
1467: This is in agreement with \citet{DieKuhMad07}, who found that halos undergoing
1468: mild mass growth (no major mergers) had less than $10\%$ change in
1469: $V_{\rm c,max}$ and $r_{\rm max}$.
1470: We find that the evolution of $B(z)$ (within the redshifts we probe) can be
1471: well-approximated by
1472: \begin{equation} \label{eq:vcmevol}
1473: B(z) = 6.56\times10^{-6} e^{0.36z} (\mbox{km/s})^3 h M_\odot^{-1} .
1474: \end{equation}
1475: Thus, $M_{\rm inf} = 10^{11}~(10^{12}) h^{-1}M_\odot$ subhalos correspond to
1476: $V_{\rm c,inf} \simeq 120~(250)$~km/s at $z=2.6$ and
1477: $V_{\rm c,inf} \simeq 100~(200)$~km/s at $z=1$.
1478: Conversely, for fixed $V_{\rm c,inf}$, a subhalo is about half as massive at
1479: $z=2.6$ than at $z=1$.
1480:
1481: Since we fit relations of satellite subhalo properties at infall, our results
1482: above are applicable equally to satellite and central subhalos.
1483: In addition, our results change by only a few percent if we instead consider
1484: host halos.
1485:
1486: %% SATELLITE POPULATION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1487: \section{Satellite Subhalo Mass Function} \label{sec:satmassfunction}
1488:
1489: \begin{figure}
1490: \begin{center}
1491: \resizebox{3in}{!}{\includegraphics{f12.eps}}
1492: \end{center}
1493: \vspace{-0.1in}
1494: \caption{
1495: Satellite subhalo (scaled) mass function, for various host halo mass bins, at
1496: $z=1$.
1497: Thick curves show satellite mass selected on $M_{\rm inf}$, while thin curves
1498: show satellite mass selected on instantaneous bound mass.
1499: While the instantaneous bound mass function exhibits no dependence on halo
1500: mass, the infall mass function has a higher amplitude for more massive halos.
1501: An appreciable number of satellites exists at
1502: $M_{\rm sat,inf}/M_{\rm halo} \approx 1$ because of switches.
1503: Below the rollover at high satellite mass, both mass functions scale as
1504: $\frac{dN_{\rm sat}}{d\ln(M_{\rm sat}/M_{\rm halo})} \propto M_{\rm sat}^{-0.9}$
1505: in agreement with instantaneous satellite subhalo bound mass functions found by
1506: numerous authors (see text).
1507: } \label{fig:satmassfunction}
1508: \end{figure}
1509:
1510: Figure~\ref{fig:satmassfunction} shows the satellite subhalo (scaled) mass
1511: function vs. the ratio of satellite mass to halo mass, for various host halo
1512: mass bins at $z=1$.
1513: Thick curves show satellite masses selected on $M_{\rm inf}$, while thin curves
1514: show satellite masses selected on instantaneous bound mass.
1515: The rollover in the $M_{\rm inf}$ curves at low satellite mass indicates where
1516: satellites become numerically disrupted by resolution effects.
1517: Numerical disruption occurs at higher satellite $M_{\rm inf}$ for more massive
1518: halos, indicating that satellites of a fixed $M_{\rm inf}$ experience more
1519: pronounced tidal stripping in higher mass halos, where dynamical friction
1520: timescales and central densities are higher.
1521: The rollover in the highest halo mass bin occurs at
1522: $M_{\rm sat,inf} \approx 10^{11} h^{-1}M_\odot$, which sets our minimum subhalo
1523: mass for robust tracking.
1524:
1525: We find that the scaled instantaneous bound mass function exhibits little-to-no
1526: systematic dependence on halo mass, in agreement with \citet{Ang08}.\footnote{
1527: We thank the referee for suggesting we show this quantity.}
1528: This is in contrast to the scaled infall mass function, which shows more
1529: satellites at a given mass ratio for more massive halos.
1530: This difference is driven by subhalo mass stripping.
1531: Averaged over the entire satellite population at this redshift, the satellite
1532: instantaneous bound mass is $\sim 30\%$ that of $M_{\rm inf}$, as can be seen by
1533: the x-axis offset of the solid and dashed curves.
1534: However, satellites exhibit less average mass loss in low-mass halos than
1535: high-mass halos, the instantaneous to infall mass ratios being $40\%$ and
1536: $25\%$, respectively.
1537: This is considerably higher than the $5\%-10\%$ at $z=1$ found in the
1538: semi-analytic model of \citet{vdBTorGio05}.
1539: Additionally \citet{vdBTorGio05} and \citet{GioTorvdB08} found the opposite
1540: trend with halo mass, i.e., that the average mass loss of satellites is higher
1541: for lower mass halos.
1542: They find that this arises because lower mass halos form (and accrete their
1543: subhalos) earlier, when the dynamical/stripping timescale is shorter.
1544: Thus, the satellites of lower mass halo are stripped both more rapidly and over
1545: a longer time period \citep[see also][]{ZenBerBul05}.
1546: Finally, \citet{GioTorvdB08} find that the scaled mass functions of subhalos at
1547: infall does not depend on halo mass, in seeming contrast with
1548: Fig.~\ref{fig:satmassfunction}.
1549:
1550: These discrepancies likely arises because we examine the masses of extant
1551: subhalos in our simulation, while \citet{vdBTorGio05} and \citet{GioTorvdB08}
1552: track subhalo mass loss much longer than our simulation does.
1553: Their semi-analytical model of subhalo mass loss has no prescription for
1554: central-satellite mergers, which preferentially serve to reduce highly stripped
1555: satellites from our sample.\footnote{
1556: See \citet{TayBab05} and \citet{ZenBerBul05} for detailed comparisons of
1557: simulated subhalos with analytic models.}
1558: Since satellites of a given infall mass to halo mass ratio have lower mass in
1559: lower mass halos, they are closer to our minimum subhalo finding mass threshold.
1560: Thus, a fixed amount of stripping will cause lower mass halos to have a reduced
1561: population of satellites of a given infall mass to halo mass ratio.
1562: It is unclear at what level of subhalo mass stripping we should expect the
1563: galaxies they host to become disrupted as well.
1564:
1565: Various studies using high resolution simulations have explored in detail the
1566: slope of the subhalo mass function \citep{DeL04,GaoDelWhi04,DieKuhMad07,
1567: MadDieKuh08,Ang08}, finding that the (instantaneous) mass function of subhalos
1568: goes as $N_{\rm sat}(>M_{\rm sat}) \propto (M_{\rm halo}/M_{\rm sat})^{\alpha}$,
1569: with $\alpha = 0.9-1$.\footnote{
1570: $N_{\rm sat}(>M_{\rm sat})$ has the same power law dependence on subhalo mass
1571: as $\frac{dN_{\rm sat}}{d\ln(M_{\rm sat}/M_{\rm halo}))}$.}
1572: We note, though, that these fits are based on cuts on instantaneous subhalo
1573: mass or circular velocity, not those at infall.
1574: However, we find that, between the rollover in $M_{\rm inf}$ at low and high
1575: satellite mass, the slopes of the mass functions selected on infall and
1576: instantaneous bound mass are the same within error, and $\alpha = 0.9$ fits our
1577: mass function selected on either mass.
1578: The similarity of the two slopes also implies that the mass loss rate of
1579: satellites does not depend strongly on satellite mass, in agreement with
1580: \citet{GioTorvdB08}.
1581:
1582:
1583: %% BIBLIOGRAPHY %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1584: \bibliography{ms.bbl}
1585:
1586: \label{lastpage}
1587:
1588: \end{document}
1589:
1590: