1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %
3: % The alignment between the host and the nearest neighbor Groups
4: % Yougang Wang, Changbom Park, Xiaohu Yang, Yun-Young Choi, Xuelei Chen
5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}
7: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
8: \usepackage{amsfonts}
9:
10: \newcommand{\etal}{{et al.~}}
11: \newcommand{\msunh}{\>h^{-1}\rm M_\odot}
12: \newcommand{\Msun}{\>{\rm M_\odot}}
13: \newcommand{\Lsunhh}{\,h^{-2}\rm L_\odot}
14: \newcommand{\Lsun}{\>{\rm L_{\odot}}}
15: \newcommand{\lta}{\la}
16: \newcommand{\mpch}{\>h^{-1}{\rm {Mpc}}}
17: \newcommand{\kms}{\>{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}
18: \newcommand{\kpc}{\>{\rm kpc}}
19: \newcommand{\calC}{{\cal C}}
20: \newcommand{\rmag}{\>^{0.1}{\rm M}_r-5\log h}
21:
22: \shorttitle{Alignment of groups}
23:
24: \shortauthors{Wang et al.}
25:
26:
27: \begin{document}
28:
29: \title{Alignments of Group Galaxies with Neighboring Groups}
30: \author{Yougang Wang\altaffilmark{1}, Changbom Park\altaffilmark{2}, Xiaohu
31: Yang\altaffilmark{3}, Yun-Young Choi\altaffilmark{4}, Xuelei
32: Chen\altaffilmark{1}}
33:
34: \altaffiltext{1}{National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of
35: Sciences, Beijing 100012, China; E-mail: wangyg@bao.ac.cn}
36: %
37: \altaffiltext{2}{Korea Institute for Advanced Study, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul
38: 130-722, Korea; cbp@kias.re.kr}
39: %
40: \altaffiltext{3}{Key Laboratory for Research in Galaxies and Cosmology,
41: Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, the Partner Group of MPA, Nandan Road 80,
42: Shanghai 200030, China}
43: %
44: \altaffiltext{4}{Astrophysical Research Center for the Structure and Evolution
45: of the Cosmos, Sejong University, Seoul 143-747, Korea}
46:
47: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
48:
49: \begin{abstract} Using a sample of galaxy groups found in the Sloan Digital
50: Sky Survey Data Release 4, we measure the following four types of alignment
51: signals: (1) the alignment between the distributions of the satellites of
52: each group relative to the direction of the nearest neighbor group (NNG);
53: (2) the alignment between the major axis direction of the central galaxy of
54: the host group (HG) and the direction of the NNG; (3) the alignment between
55: the major axes of the central galaxies of the HG and the NNG; and (4) the
56: alignment between the major axes of the satellites of the HG and the
57: direction of the NNG. We find strong signal of alignment between the
58: satellite distribution and the orientation of central galaxy relative to the
59: direction of the NNG, even when the NNG is located beyond $3r_{\rm vir}$ of
60: the host group. The major axis of the central galaxy of the HG is aligned
61: with the direction of the NNG. The alignment signals are more prominent for
62: groups that are more massive and with early type central galaxies. We also
63: find that there is a preference for the two major axis of the central
64: galaxies of the HG and NNG to be parallel for the system with both early
65: central galaxies, however not for the systems with both late type central
66: galaxies. For the orientation of satellite galaxies, we do not find any
67: significant alignment signals relative to the direction of the NNG. From
68: these four types of alignment measurements, we conclude that the large scale
69: environment traced by the nearby group affects primarily the shape of the
70: host dark matter halo, and hence also affects the distribution of satellite
71: galaxies and the orientation of central galaxies. In addition, the NNG
72: directly affects the distribution of the satellite galaxies by inducing
73: asymmetric alignment signals. And NNG at very small separation may also
74: contribute a second order impacts on the orientation of the central galaxy
75: in the HG.
76: \end{abstract}
77:
78: \keywords{methods: statistical-galaxies: haloes-galaxies: structure-dark
79: matter-large scale structure of universe}
80:
81: %111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
82: \section{Introduction}
83:
84: The distribution of satellites in the groups of galaxies holds
85: important clues to the assembly history of dark matter halos.
86: Since satellite galaxies are typically distributed over the entire
87: dark matter halo, they are a useful tracer of the dark matter
88: distribution on the scale of the group. In particular, their
89: position provides information on the shape of the dark matter
90: halo (Carter \& Metcalfe 1980; Plionis, Barrow \& Frenk 1991; Fasano
91: et al. 1993; Basilakos, Plionis \& Maddox 2000; Orlov, Petrova \&
92: Martynova 2001; Plionis et al. 2004, 2006; Bailin \& Steinmetz
93: 2005; Wang et al. 2008, hereafter W08), and their kinematics
94: could be used to estimate the mass of the haloes (e.g., Zaritsky et
95: al. 1993, 1997; McKay et al. 2002; Brainerd \& Specian 2003;
96: Katgert, Biviano \& Mazure 2004; van den Bosch et al. 2004; More
97: et al. 2009a, 2009b).
98:
99:
100: One way to characterize quantitatively the distribution of satellite galaxies
101: is to measure the alignment between their spatial distribution and the
102: orientation of their central galaxies. Extensive studies with high-resolution
103: simulations have shown that sub-haloes tend to align with the major axis of
104: their host halos (Knebe et al. 2004, 2008a, 2008b; Libeskind et al. 2005,
105: 2007; Wang et al. 2005; Zentner et al. 2005; Kang et al. 2007). The
106: observational search for a possible alignment between the central galaxy and
107: satellites has a long and serpentine history. The first study of such an
108: alignment was performed by Holmberg (1969), who found that satellites are
109: preferentially located along the minor axes of isolated disc
110: galaxies. Holmberg's study was restricted to projected satellite-central
111: distances of $r_p \lta 50 \kpc$. Subsequent studies, however, were unable to
112: confirm this so-called ``Holmberg effect'' (Hawley \& Peebles 1975; Sharp, Lin
113: \& White 1979; MacGillivray et al. 1982). Zaritsky et al. (1997) studied the
114: distribution of satellites around spiral hosts and were also unable to detect
115: any significant alignment for $r_p \lta 200 \kpc$, but they found a preferred
116: minor-axis alignment for $300 \kpc \lta r_p \lta 500 \kpc$. The satellites of
117: our Milk Way galaxy and the nearby M31 galaxy lie in planes which are highly
118: inclined with respect to their discs. This were noted by Lynden-Bell (1976,
119: 1982), Majewski (1994), Hartwick (1996, 2000) and Kroupa, Theis \& Boily
120: (2005) for the Milky Way, by Koch \& Grebel (2006) and McConnachie \& Irwin
121: (2006) for M31, and by Metz, Kroupa \& Jerjen (2007) for both galaxies.
122:
123: With large redshift surveys, such as the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey (2dFGRS;
124: Colless et al. 2001) and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; York et
125: al. 2000), much larger samples of galaxy groups can be used to investigate
126: this alignment problem. Sales \& Lambas (2004; 2009) used a set of 1498 host
127: galaxies with 3079 satellites from the 2dFGRS, and found a large-scale
128: alignment of the satellites along the host major axes for $300 \kpc \lta r_p
129: \lta 500 \kpc$. Brainerd (2005) studied a sample of isolated SDSS galaxies,
130: and found that the distribution of satellite galaxies is strongly aligned with
131: the major axis of the disc host galaxy. Yang et al. (2006, hereafter Y06),
132: using a galaxy group catalogue similar to the one used here, but based on the
133: SDSS Data Release 2 (DR2), studied the alignment signal as a function of the
134: color of the central and satellite galaxies. They found that the alignment
135: strength is strongest between red centrals and red satellites, while the
136: satellite distribution in systems with a blue central galaxy is consistent
137: with being isotropic. Y06 also found that the alignment strength is stronger
138: in more massive haloes and at smaller projected radii from the central
139: galaxy. These results have subsequently been confirmed by several independent
140: studies (Donoso, O'Mill \& Lambas 2006; Azzaro et al. 2007; Agustsson \&
141: Brainerd 2006, 2007; W08; Steffen \& Valenzuela 2008; Bailin et al. 2008).
142: These studies have focused on whether the satellites are distributed along the
143: major axis or minor axis of the central galaxy.
144:
145:
146: Besides the alignment between the distribution of satellite galaxies and the
147: orientation of their central galaxy, other forms of alignment have also been
148: studied. These include the alignment between neighboring clusters (Binggeli
149: 1982; West 1989; Plionis 1994), between brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs) and
150: their parent clusters (Carter \& Metcalfe 1980; Binggeli 1982; Struble 1990),
151: between the orientation of satellite galaxies and the orientation of the
152: cluster (Dekel 1985; Plionis et al. 2003), and between the orientation of
153: satellite galaxies and the orientation of the BCG (Struble 1990). Using the
154: same group catalogue as the one used here, Faltenbacher et al. (2007) examined
155: three different types of intrinsic galaxy alignment within groups: halo
156: alignment between the orientation of the brightest group galaxies (BGG) and
157: the distribution of its satellite galaxies, radial alignment between the
158: orientation of a satellite galaxy and the direction toward its BGG, and direct
159: alignment between the orientation of the BGG and that of its satellites. They
160: found that the orientations of red satellites are preferentially aligned
161: radially in the direction of the BGG. In addition, they found a weak but
162: significant indication that the orientations of satellite galaxies are
163: directly aligned with that of their BGG on scales $r<0.1R_{\mathrm
164: vir}$. Based on a cosmological $N$-body simulation, Faltenbacher et al. (2008)
165: analyzed the spatial and kinematic alignments of satellite halos within 5
166: times the virial radius of group-sized host halos. They found that the tidal
167: forces on the large scales can gives rise to a halo alignment out to at least
168: $5R_\mathrm{vir}$. This means that the alignment signal is strongly dependent
169: on the large-scale environment. It is also found that the orientations of dark
170: matter halos can be related to their surrounding structures, such as filaments
171: and large-scale walls (e.g., Faltenbacher et al. 2002; Einasto et al. 2003;
172: Avila-Reese et al. 2005; Hopkins, Bahcall \& Bode 2005; Kasun \& Evard 2005;
173: Basilakos et al. 2006; Altay et al. 2006; Aragon-Calvo et al. 2006; Maulbetsch
174: et al. 2007; Ragone-Figueroa \& Plionis 2007; Hahn et al. 2007a, 2007b). Paz,
175: Stasyszyn \& Padilla (2008) used numerical simulations and the real data from
176: the SDSS Data Release 6 (DR6) to study the alignments between the angular
177: momentum of individual objects and the large-scale structure. They found that
178: the angular momentum of dark matter haloes are preferentially oriented in the
179: direction perpendicular to the distribution of matter, and more massive haloes
180: show a higher degree of alignment. Okumura, Jing \& Li (2009) investigated the
181: correlation between the orientation of giant elliptical galaxies, they
182: measured the intrinsic ellipticity correlation function of 83773 SDSS luminous
183: red galaxies (LRGs) and found that there is a positive alignment between pairs
184: of the LRGs up to $~30h^{-1}$Mpc scales. Recently, Faltenbacher et al. (2009)
185: used the SDSS DR6 and the Millennium simulation to determinate the alignment
186: between galaxies and large-scale structure, and found that there is
187: significant alignment between the major axes of red galaxies with the
188: surrounding large-scale structure.
189:
190: %In this paper, we aim to study the effects of the large scale environment on
191: %the various properties of the central and satellite galaxies, i.e., on the
192: %distribution of satellite galaxies and the shapes of the central and satellite
193: %galaxies. In our approach, the large scale environment is characterized by the
194: %nearest neighbor groups (hereafter NNG).
195:
196: In this paper, we aim to study the impacts of the nearest neighbor
197: groups (hereafter NNGs) and possibly the large scale environments
198: beyond the NNGs (e.g., NNG has a higher probability to be
199: distributed along the direction of the filament) on the various
200: properties of the central and satellite galaxies, i.e., on the
201: distribution of satellite galaxies and the shapes of the central
202: and satellite galaxies. Throughout this paper, unless stated
203: otherwise, when we refer to the impacts of the NNG, possible
204: impacts from the large scale environments are not excluded. For
205: our purposes, the following alignment signals are measured: (1)
206: the alignment between the distributions of the satellites relative
207: to the direction of the NNG; (2) the alignment between the major
208: axis of the central galaxy of the host group (HG) and the direction
209: of the NNG; (3) the alignment between the two major axes of the
210: central galaxies of the HG and the NNG; and (4) the alignment
211: between the major axes of the satellites of the HG and the
212: direction of the NNG. Here the alignment signals (2), (3) and (4)
213: are measured to probe the impact of the NNG on the shapes of the
214: central and satellite galaxies, respectively.
215:
216: This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we describe the
217: observational data used for this study. Section 3 presents the method to
218: quantify the alignment signal. Section 4 shows the results of various kinds of
219: alignment signals we measured, and their dependence on the morphology of the
220: central galaxies of the HG and the NNG. Section 5 summarize our results and
221: discuss various related issues.
222:
223:
224:
225: \section{Observational Data Set}
226: \subsection{Groups: central and satellite galaxies}
227:
228: The analysis presented in this paper is based on the SDSS DR4 galaxy group
229: catalogue of Yang \etal (2007)\footnote{In this paper, we refer to systems of
230: galaxies as groups regardless of their richness, including isolated galaxies
231: (i.e., systems with a single member) and rich clusters of galaxies.}. This
232: group catalogue is constructed by applying the halo-based group finder of Yang
233: \etal (2005) to the New York University Value-Added Galaxy Catalogue
234: (NYU-VAGC; see Blanton \etal 2005), which is based on the SDSS DR4
235: (Adelman-McCarthy \etal 2006). From this catalogue Yang \etal selected all
236: galaxies in the Main Galaxy Sample with redshifts in the range $0.01 \leq z
237: \leq 0.20$ and with a redshift completeness greater than 0.7. This sample of
238: galaxies is further divided into three group samples: sample I, which only
239: uses the $362,356$ galaxies with measured redshifts from the SDSS; sample II,
240: which also includes $7091$ galaxies with SDSS photometry but with redshifts
241: taken from alternative surveys; and sample III, which includes an additional
242: $38,672$ galaxies which do not have measured redshifts due to fiber-collision,
243: but were assigned the redshift of nearest neighbors (cf. Zehavi \etal 2002).
244: The present analysis is based on the sample II, which consists of $369,447$
245: galaxies distributed over 301,237 groups with a sky coverage of $~4514\, {\rm
246: deg^2}$. Details of the group finder and the general properties of the
247: groups can be found in Yang et al. (2007).
248:
249: The halo mass of each group is estimated using the ranking of the group's
250: characteristic stellar mass, $M_{\rm stellar}$, defined as the total stellar
251: masses of all group members with absolute magnitude ${^{0.1}}M_r-5\log
252: h\leq-19.5$. More details of the mass estimations can be found in Yang et al.
253: (2007). For those groups with all members that have absolute magnitudes
254: ${^{0.1}}M_r-5\log h > -19.5$, which are not assigned halo masses in the group
255: catalogue, we use the mean stellar-to-halo mass relation obtained in Yang et
256: al. (2009) to assign their halo masses. In this study, only groups with halo
257: masses $M\geq 10^{11.5} \msunh$ are selected. Note also that in these group
258: catalogues the survey edge effects have been taken into account (Yang et al.
259: 2007). We use only those groups with $f_{\rm edge} \geq 0.6$, where $1-f_{\rm
260: edge}$ is the fraction of galaxies in a group that are missed due to the
261: survey edges.
262:
263:
264: Applying all the above mentioned selection criteria (magnitude, mass and
265: $f_{\rm edge}$), we have a total of 27,173 central galaxies and 64,366
266: satellite galaxies. Here the central galaxy is defined to be the most massive
267: (in terms of stellar mass) galaxy in each group and other galaxies are
268: satellites. These galaxies are used to detect the first kind of alignment
269: signals where position angles of galaxies are not required.
270:
271: However, in order to study other three kinds of alignment
272: signals, the position angles of the galaxies are required. For
273: these studies, we keep only those galaxies with $\emph{b/a}<0.75$
274: whose isophotal position alngles are well defined. Here $a$ and
275: $b$ are the isophotal semi-major and minor axis lengths,
276: respectively. Thus within our final sample with 27,173 central
277: and 64,366 satellite galaxies, 13,890 central and 44,219 satellite
278: galaxies have well measured position angles.
279:
280:
281: Finally, note that the selected galaxy groups contain some interlopers,
282: i.e. false members assigned to a group. If the distribution of these
283: interlopers is uncorrelated (or anti-correlated) with that of the true members
284: of the group, our results on the first kind of alignment would be negatively
285: biased. According to Yang et al. (2007; 2005) the average fraction of
286: interlopers in the group is less than 20\%. We have tested the effects of such
287: interlopers by assuming that the distribution of the interlopers is
288: uncorrelated with the shape of the group and is spherical, and found that the
289: presence of the interlopers can decrease the first type of the alignment
290: signal by $\sim 10\%$.
291:
292:
293: \subsection{Galaxies: early and late types, position angles}
294:
295: In our study we follow the prescription of Park \& Choi (2005) to divide our
296: sample into the early (ellipticals and lenticulars ) and the late (spirals and
297: irregulars) morphological types. This division is based on their location in
298: the $u - r$ versus $g - i $ color gradient space, and also in the $i$-band
299: concentration index space. The early type galaxies are classified as those
300: lying above the boundary lines passing through the points (3.5, -0.15), (2.6,
301: -0.15), and (1.0, 0.3) in the $u-r$ versus $\Delta(g - i)$ space. They are
302: also required to have the (inverse) concentration index $c\equiv
303: R_{50}/R_{90}<0.43$, where $R_{50}$ and $R_{90}$ are the radii from the center
304: of galaxy containing $50\%$ and $90\%$ of the Petrosian flux. The rest of the
305: galaxies are classified as late-type galaxies. The completeness and
306: reliability of this classification scheme reaches 90\%. For more details of
307: the morphology classification, we refer the reader to Park \& Choi (2005). In
308: this paper, we adopt the $r$ band isophotal position angle for each galaxy,
309: which is given in the SDSS-DR4 (Adelman-McCarthy et al. 2006). We have checked
310: the distributions of these position angles and found them to be isotropic.
311:
312:
313: \subsection{The nearest neighbor group}
314:
315: A very important step in our investigation is to find the nearest neighbor
316: group, so that we can define/estimate the direction of the tidal force. Here
317: we combine the pairwise velocity differences and the projected distances
318: between the central galaxies of the HG and its neighboring groups in selecting
319: the nearest neighbor. Note that the {\it pairwise velocity differences} here
320: refers to the line-of-sight velocity difference between the two central
321: galaxies of the groups. For a given host group, its NNG is found in the
322: following way.
323:
324:
325:
326: We first inspect the distribution of the pairwise velocity difference between
327: central galaxies of the HG and the neighboring groups to set up the velocity
328: difference criteria (e.g., Park \& Choi 2009). Figure~\ref{fig:v_d} shows the
329: distribution of the velocity difference $\Delta v$ for the early (filled dot)
330: and late (open circle) type centrals. These profiles are obtained by measuring
331: the velocity difference $\Delta v$ distribution of all central galaxy pairs
332: with the projected distance $r_p$ between 0.4 and $1 \mpch$. Note that these
333: profiles are contributed by two components: (1) the randomly distributed,
334: un-correlated pairs (constant component); and (2) the correlated pairs (e.g.,
335: by neighbor groups; enhanced component). Since the impact of pairwise {\it
336: peculiar} velocity of galaxies is to broaden the distribution of the
337: correlated pairs, we may use the measured profile to probe the {\it up-limit}
338: of the pairwise peculiar velocity assuming that the correlated pairs in real
339: space have a very compact distribution.
340:
341: \begin{figure}[tbp]
342: %\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{figure1.ps}}
343: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figure1.ps}
344: \caption{Probability distribution of the velocity difference $\Delta v$
345: between early (filled dot) or late (open circle) type centrals and other
346: central galaxies at projected separation $r_p=0.4\sim1 \mpch$. The solid
347: line is the best fit curve for the early (E/S0) morphological type centrals,
348: while the dashed one is for the late (S/Irr) type centrals.}
349: \label{fig:v_d}
350: \end{figure}
351:
352:
353: According to the measured $\Delta v$ distribution shown in Figure
354: \ref{fig:v_d}, we fit to the data using an exponential function plus a
355: constant:
356: %
357: \begin{equation}
358: f(\Delta v) = f_1 {\rm exp}(-\Delta v/\sigma_{\Delta v})+f_2,
359: \end{equation}
360: %
361: where $f_1, f_2$ and $\sigma_{\Delta v}$ are fitting parameters. The best fit
362: characteristic ({\it up-limit}) velocity differences $\sigma_{\Delta v}$ are
363: 342 and 243 km/s for early and late type centrals, respectively, and the
364: fitting curves are shown as the solid (early type) and dashed (late type)
365: lines in Figure~\ref{fig:v_d}.
366:
367:
368:
369:
370: We use the following criteria to select the NNG: (1) for a
371: given central galaxy of a HG, if the central galaxy of the
372: neighbor group has velocity difference less than 800 (for early
373: type central) or 600 (for late-type central) km/s (about 2.4
374: times the characteristic velocity difference) and projected
375: separation $r_p < 3\mpch$, the neighbor with the smallest $r_p$ is
376: set as the NNG; (2) if there is no central galaxy within the
377: velocity difference or $r_p$ limit, the neighbor with the smallest
378: three dimensional separation $s$ is set to as the NNG, since this
379: group has a higher probability of being the true NNG in real space
380: than the other ones with smaller $r_p$ but beyond the velocity
381: difference limit. These velocity values (800 km/s and 600 km/s,
382: roughly 2.4 times the characteristic velocity difference) are
383: chosen as a reasonable compromise between obtaining a large
384: sample and reducing the fraction of interlopers in the sample.
385: Since the line-of-sight pairwise peculiar velocity of galaxies is
386: typically 300 km/s (see Figure~\ref{fig:v_d}), it is very unlikely
387: for redshift distortion to make real space close pairs to be
388: separated in redshift space with velocity difference much larger
389: than 300 km/s, so the three dimensional distance in redshift
390: space between the two central galaxies can be used as the distance
391: indicator. On the other hand, the central galaxy pairs with velocity
392: difference less than 800 km/s (early types) or 600 km/s (late types)
393: and $r_p$ less than $3\mpch $ are modeled using the projected
394: separation $r_p$ as the distance indicator. However, we have checked
395: varying these velocity differences (800 km/s for early type and
396: 600 for late-type) and found that our results are not sensitive
397: to the exact values used. Finally, note that one can also
398: define the NNG according to the projected separation relative to
399: the size of the host group (e.g., its virial radius). However, we
400: have made tests and again found that using such an alternative
401: definition of the NNG will not have any significant impact on our
402: results.
403:
404:
405: \section{Quantifying the alignment}
406: %
407: \begin{figure*}
408: \begin{center}
409: \includegraphics[scale=0.72,angle=270] {figure2.ps}\caption{Illustration of
410: the first three alignment angles $\theta_1$, $\theta_2$ (left panel) and
411: $\theta_3$ (right panel).} \label{fig:ang}
412: \end{center}
413: \end{figure*}
414: %
415:
416: To study the impacts of the NNG on the various properties of the central and
417: satellite galaxies, we first measure the different alignment signals as we
418: listed in Section 1. The alignments of objects are obtained by computing the
419: distribution functions of the alignment angles (e.g., Brainerd 2005),
420: $P(\theta_i) (i=1,2,3,4)$, where $\theta_i$ is the angle between the two
421: directions.
422:
423: The angle $\theta_1$ is the projected angle between the line
424: connecting the central galaxy to the satellite galaxy and the
425: line connecting the central galaxy to the NNG (See the left
426: panel of Figure \ref{fig:ang}). The angle $\theta_1$ is
427: constrained in the range $0^{\degr} \leq \theta_1 \leq
428: 180^{\degr}$, where $\theta_1 < 90^{\degr} (>90^{\degr})$ implies a
429: satellite is at the near (far) side of the HG with respect to the
430: NNG. We also define an angle
431: \begin{equation}
432: \tilde{\theta_1} \equiv \left\{
433: \begin{array}{ll}
434: \theta_1, & \theta_1 < 90^{\degr}\\
435: 180^{\degr} - \theta_1, & \theta_1 >90^{\degr}
436: \end{array}\right.
437: \end{equation}
438: The range of $\tilde{\theta_1}$ is $0^{\degr} \leq \tilde{\theta_1}
439: \leq 90^{\degr} $, which is more useful when making average.
440:
441: The angle $\theta_2$ is the angle between the major axis of the
442: central galaxy of the HG and the direction of the NNG (See the
443: left panel of Figure \ref{fig:ang}), which is constrained to be
444: in the range $0^{\degr} \leq \theta_2 \leq90^{\degr}$. $\theta_2
445: = 0^{\degr} (90^{\degr})$ suggests that the major (minor) axis of
446: the central galaxy of the HG is perfectly aligned with the
447: direction of the NNG.
448:
449: The angle $\theta_3$ is the angle between the two major axes of
450: the central galaxies of the HG and the NNG. As shown in
451: Figure~\ref{fp_sep}, the angular separations between HG and NNG
452: on the celestial sphere can reach up to $2^{\degr}$ for some
453: pairs, so for the sake of accuracy, we have included the curvature
454: effect in the determination of $\theta_3$ by parallel transport the
455: angles along great circles on the celestial sphere. The
456: procedure is illustrated in the right panel of
457: Figure~\ref{fig:ang}, and explained in more details in the
458: Appendix. Note however that neglecting this effect does not have
459: any significant impact on our results. The angle $\theta_3$ is
460: also constrained in the range $0^{\degr} \leq \theta_3 \leq
461: 90^{\degr}$.
462:
463: \begin{figure}[htb]
464: % \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{figure3.ps}}
465: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figure3.ps}
466: \caption{The distribution of angular separations between HGs and NNGs for our
467: sample. } \label{fp_sep}
468: \end{figure}
469:
470:
471:
472: The angle $\theta_4$ is similar to $\theta_2$ but defined for the major axes
473: of the satellite galaxies, i.e., the angle between the major axis of the
474: satellite galaxy of the HG and the direction of the NNG.
475:
476:
477: In the following we will take $\theta_1$ as an example to explain the process
478: of measuring the alignment signals, the measurement of
479: $\theta_2,\theta_3,\theta_4$ are similar.
480:
481: For a given set of the HG-NNG pairs, we first count the number of
482: satellite-central-NNG pairs, $N(\theta_1)$, that have the angle $\theta_1$
483: between the central-satellite direction and the direction of the NNG in a
484: number of $\theta_1$ bins. Next, we construct 100 random samples in which we
485: randomize the positions of all NNGs, and compute $\langle N_R(\theta_1)
486: \rangle$, the average number of satellite-central-NNG pairs for the randomly
487: located NNGs as a function of $\theta_1$. The random samples constructed this
488: way suffer exactly the same selection effects as the real sample, so any
489: significant difference between $N(\theta_1)$ and $N_R(\theta_1)$ reflects a
490: genuine alignment between the distribution of the satellite galaxies in the HG
491: and the direction of the NNG.
492:
493: Following Y06 and W08, we quantify the alignment signal by using the
494: distribution of normalized pair counts:
495: %
496: \begin{equation}\label{eq:fpairs}
497: f_{\rm pairs}(\theta_1)=\frac{N(\theta_1)}{\langle N_R(\theta_1)\rangle}.
498: \end{equation}
499: %
500: In the absence of any alignment, $f_{\rm pairs}(\theta_1)=1$, while $f_{\rm
501: pairs}(\theta_1) > 1$ near $\theta = 0$ or 180 degree implies a satellite
502: distribution preferentially aligned along the direction of the NNG.
503:
504: We may quantify the fluctuation using $\sigma_{\rm R}(\theta_1)
505: / \langle N_{\rm R}(\theta_1) \rangle$, where $\sigma_{\rm R}$ is
506: the standard deviation of $N_{\rm R}(\theta)$, which could be
507: estimated from the 100 random samples. In addition to this
508: normalized pair count, we also compute the average angle $\langle
509: \theta_1 \rangle$. In the absence of any alignment
510: $\langle\tilde{\theta_1} \rangle = 45^{\degr}$. If one finds
511: $\langle \tilde{\theta_1} \rangle <45^{\degr}$ ($\langle
512: \tilde{\theta_1} \rangle > 45^{\degr}$), it means that the
513: satellites are parallel (perpendicular) to the line connecting the
514: host-neighbor pairs.
515:
516:
517:
518: \section{Results}
519:
520: \subsection{Satellite galaxy distribution relative to the direction of the
521: NNG}\label{sec:theta1}
522:
523: As have been found in recent papers, the satellite galaxies are distributed
524: preferentially along the major axis of the central galaxies, especially those
525: with red central galaxies (e.g., Brainerd 2005; Agustsson \& Brainerd 2006;
526: Y06; Azzaro et al. 2007; Kang et al. 2007; W08). This shows that the
527: distribution of the satellite galaxies is not completely random, but is
528: correlated with the shapes of the central galaxies. In this subsection we
529: check whether similar correlations exist beyond the single dark matter halo of
530: the group. In order to describe the deviation of the alignment signal from
531: the null, a $\chi^2$ test is applied here
532: %
533: \begin{equation}\label{eq:chi2}
534: \chi^2=\sum_{i=1}^{N_\mathrm{bin}}\frac{(f_\mathrm{pairs}-1.0)^2}{\sigma_\mathrm
535: {R}^2}
536: \end{equation}
537: %
538: where $N_\mathrm{bin}$ denotes the bin number of the angular distribution.
539:
540:
541: \begin{figure}[htb]
542: % \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{figure4.ps}}
543: \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{figure4.ps}
544: \caption{The normalized probability distribution for $\theta_1$, the angle
545: between the directions of the satellite galaxies in the HG and the NNG. The
546: left panel shows results for the whole sample (filled circle) and the
547: subsample with projected distance smaller than $3 r_{vir}$ of the host group
548: (open circle). The right panel shows results for the subsamples where the
549: mass of the HG are larger (filled diamond) and smaller (open diamond) than
550: that of the NNG. The open symbols are shifted slightly along the horizontal
551: axis for clarity.}
552: \label{fp_ns1}
553: \end{figure}
554:
555:
556:
557: The filled circles in the left-hand panel of Figure~\ref{fp_ns1}
558: shows the distribution of $f(\theta_1)$ for all satellite-NNG
559: pairs in our SDSS group catalogue. One can see that $f_{\rm
560: pairs}(\theta_1)>1$ at small (near $0\degr$) and large $\theta_1$
561: (near $180\degr$) values, while it is less than 1 at middle values
562: (near $90\degr$). From the figure, we see clearly that the
563: distribution of HG satellites are not completely uniform or
564: isotropic, there is a small (in absolute strength) but highly
565: significant preference for the direction along the line connecting
566: HG and NNG. The deviation from uniform distribution has
567: $\chi^2=97.39$, corresponding to $\rm{CL}>99.99\%$ for 8 degree
568: of freedom (hereafter dof) . The average value of $
569: \tilde{\theta_1}$ is $\langle \tilde{\theta_1}\rangle =
570: 43.8^{\degr}\pm0.1^{\degr}$, which again shows that the distribution
571: of satellites of HG are not isotropic or uniform, but slightly
572: prefers the direction of the NNG. The effect is small but highly
573: significant ($\sim10\sigma$). For comparison, the open circle in
574: the left panel of Figure~\ref{fp_ns1} shows $f_{\rm pairs}
575: (\theta_1)$ for the host-neighbor pairs with the projected
576: distance smaller than 3 times of the virial radius of the HG.
577: There is no significant difference between the filled circle and
578: open circle lines, the confidence of this difference is below
579: $0.5\sigma$ level. {\it In other words, not only the NNGs but also
580: the large
581: scale environments, e.g. the filaments, represented by the NNGs that affect
582: (or at least play an important role in) the distribution of the satellites
583: (and the mass distribution within the host halo).} Otherwise we would
584: expect distance dependent signals.
585:
586:
587:
588: Note that in the above discussion, the NNG can be either more
589: massive or less massive than the HG, it may be interesting to
590: investigate these two cases separately. For this purpose, in the
591: right-hand panel of Figure~\ref{fp_ns1} we show the resulting
592: $\theta_1$ distributions for HG-NNG systems with the mass of HG
593: larger (filled diamond) and smaller (open diamond) than that of the
594: NNG. In the rest part of the paper, unless stated otherwise, we
595: use filled circle symbol to represent the sample which is not
596: constrained by the distance limit while the open circles to
597: represent the results with the projected distance smaller than 3
598: times the virial radius of the HG; the filled diamond (open
599: diamond) symbol represents the results for subsamples where the
600: mass of the HG are larger (smaller) than that of the NNG. The
601: stronger alignment signals shown in the right-hand panel in
602: Figure~\ref{fp_ns1} for satellite galaxies in more massive HGs may
603: caused by the fact that their distributions are flatter than those
604: in smaller HGs (e.g., Jing \& Suto 2002; Yang et al. 2006).
605:
606:
607:
608: \begin{figure}[tb]
609: % \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{figure5.ps}}
610: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figure5.ps}
611: \caption{Similar to Fig.~\ref{fp_ns1}, but here for different HG-NNG
612: systems. Left panels: results for HG-NNG systems where the mass of the HG is
613: larger than that of the NNG. Right panels: results for HG-NNG systems where
614: the mass of the HG is smaller than that of the NNG. The asterisk, triangle
615: and square symbols represent the mass of the NNG in the range $M_n \in
616: [11.5,12.5]$, $[12.5,13.5]$ and $[13.5,14.5]$,
617: respectively. } \label{fp_mass_alig1}
618: \end{figure}
619:
620: We can further check this by measuring the alignment signals
621: for HG-NNG systems that are divided into subsamples of different
622: masses. In the left panel of Figure~\ref{fp_mass_alig1}, we show
623: the alignment signal of $f_{\rm pairs}(\theta_1)$ for the submaples
624: with mass of the HG that are larger than that of the NNG, while in
625: the right panel of the Figure~\ref{fp_mass_alig1}, we show the
626: results of the subsamples with the mass of the HG smaller than
627: that of the NNG. In each panel, the asterisk, triangle and
628: square symbols represent the mass of the NNG in the range $M_n
629: \equiv \log_{10} (h M/\Msun) \in [11.5,12.5]$, $[12.5,13.5]$ and
630: $[13.5,14.5]$, respectively. We found some interesting trends
631: here. According to the left panel of
632: Figure~\ref{fp_mass_alig1}, for the most massive groups ($M_n
633: >13.5$), the alignment signal (i.e. deviation of $f_{\rm
634: pairs}(\theta_1)$ from 1) is strongest ($5\sigma$), perhaps
635: indicating the very strong attraction by the NNG and the flatter
636: distribution of satellite galaxies within the HG. For system with
637: less massive HG and NNGs ($M_n \in [12.5,13.5]$), the signal is
638: weaker(deviation from null signal hypothesis by $3\sigma$),
639: However, for the smallest groups discussed here ($M_n \in
640: [11.5,12.5]$), the alignment signal is again rather strong
641: (deviation from null signal hypothesis by 5$\sigma$). This is also
642: evident from the value of $\chi^2$, 58.22, 32.31, 40.60,
643: corresponding to the mass of the NNG in the range $M_n \in
644: [13.5,14.5]$, [12.5,13.5] and [11.5,12.5], respectively.
645: Interestingly, for those systems with NNG heavier than HG and NNG
646: in the range $M_n\in [11.5,12.5]$ (bottom right panel), there are
647: slightly more satellite galaxies distributed near the NNG (with
648: $\theta_1 < 90\degr$) than HG (the confidence level is $1.5\sigma$),
649: which may indicate that the NNG near a small HG may attract its
650: satellite galaxies and affect their distribution.
651:
652: \begin{figure}[tb]
653: % \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{figure6.ps}}
654: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figure6.ps}
655: \caption{Same as
656: Fig.~\ref{fp_ns1}, but for different subsamples, divided by the type of
657: the central galaxies of the HG or NNG.} \label{fp_ns2}
658: \end{figure}
659:
660:
661: \begin{figure}[tb]
662: % \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{figure7.ps}}
663: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figure7.ps}
664: \caption{Same as
665: Fig.~\ref{fp_ns2}, except that here we split the sample according to the
666: morphological types of both the central galaxies of the HG and
667: NNG. } \label{fp_ns3}
668: \end{figure}
669:
670:
671: In order to study how this alignment depends on the morphological types of the
672: central galaxies of the HG and the NNG, following Y06 and W08, we divide our
673: sample of host and neighbor groups into different morphology subsamples.
674: Figure~\ref{fp_ns2} shows the alignment signals $f_{\rm pairs}(\theta_1)$ for
675: HG with early (lower-left panel) and late-type (lower-right panel) central
676: galaxy, and NNG with early (upper-left panel) and late-type (upper-right
677: panel) central galaxy, respectively.
678:
679: The alignment signal does seem to depend on the morphological type of the
680: central galaxy slightly: the groups with early type central galaxies or with
681: the NNGs having an early central galaxy show slightly stronger alignment than
682: those with late-type centrals ($1.0\sigma$ for the early centrals of HG than
683: late centrals of HG, $1.7\sigma$ for the early centrals of NNG than late
684: centrals of NNG). In Figure~\ref{fp_ns3}, we show the alignment, $f_{\rm
685: pairs}(\theta_1)$, for four combinations of the HG and NNG with central
686: galaxies of different morphological types. As one can see, pairs with the
687: late-type HG and late-type NNG show the smallest strength of the alignment
688: signal.
689:
690: The HG satellite distribution is also slightly asymmetric with
691: respect to the near side or far side from the NNG. There is a
692: small but significant preference for the satellite galaxies in a
693: group with a late type central galaxy to be distributed near the
694: side of the NNG, with either an early or a late type central
695: galaxy. This asymmetry is significant by $\sim 2\sigma$ for both
696: the whole sample and and for the case where the NNG with
697: projected separation is smaller than 3 times of the virial radius.
698: For the samples with the early-type HG and late-type NNG,
699: however, the trend is opposite: the satellite galaxies are
700: preferentially distributed on the far side from the NNG, again
701: this effect is small but significant ($2.4\sigma$ for all samples,
702: $2.7\sigma$ for the close pairs). The reason of this is not
703: completely clear, but it may be due to (i) the groups with late
704: type central galaxy is more probably located in the outskirts of a
705: high density region with groups having preferentially early type
706: central galaxies; (ii) probably smaller than groups with early type
707: central galaxies, thus have smaller impact on its NNG. Before we
708: proceed, it is quite interesting to check whether or not the weak
709: asymmetry is induced by those groups near the survey edges. As we
710: have tested using only groups with $f_{\rm edge}>0.9$ by performing
711: exactly the same analysis, the weak asymmetry is almost the same.
712: Moreover, one would only expect that the groups near the edge may
713: slightly induce the weak asymmetry in the direction of the {\it
714: near} side of the NNG, however not in the {\it far} side of the
715: NNG, as shown in the lower-right panel of Figure~\ref{fp_ns3}.
716: Therefore, we believe that our results (e.g., the weak asymmetry)
717: are robust against the impact of groups near the survey edges.
718:
719:
720:
721: \begin{figure}[tbp]
722: % \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{figure10.ps}}
723: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figure8.ps}
724: \caption{The average value of $\theta_1$ as a function of the projected
725: distance between the HG and the NNG. Left: as a function of $r_{vir, n}$;
726: Right: as a function of $r_{vir, h}$.} \label{fp_r1}
727: \end{figure}
728:
729:
730: To what extent does the large scale environment as represented by the NNG
731: affect the distribution of the satellite galaxies in the HG? To study this
732: problem, we divided the total sample into subsamples according to the
733: projected distance between the HG and the NNG. Figure~\ref{fp_r1} shows the
734: dependence of the average value $\theta_1$ on the projected distance between
735: the HG and the NNG. Here we take both the virial radius of the NNG, $r_{\rm
736: vir, n}$(left panel), and the HG, $r_{\rm vir, h}$ (right panel), as the
737: unit. There is no significant difference between the results in the left and
738: right panels. The value of $\langle \theta_1 \rangle$ depends weakly on the
739: distance between the HG and NNG. The alignment between the distribution of
740: satellite galaxies and the direction of the NNG is significant (greater than
741: $1\sigma$) up to separations as large as about 12$r_{\rm vir, n}$(or $r_{\rm
742: vir,h}$), which is also evident from the fact that $\langle \tilde{\theta_1}
743: \rangle = 43.1\degr \pm 0.5\degr$ (or $43.6\degr \pm 0.6\degr$ )
744: for the systems with separation of the HG and the NNG being
745: 12$r_{\rm vir, n}$ (or $r_{\rm vir, h}$). From these alignment
746: signals for $\theta_1$ at so large separations, we conclude that the
747: distributions of the satellite galaxies in HGs are (also) affected
748: by the large scale environments.
749:
750:
751: \subsection{The position angle of the central galaxy}
752:
753: \subsubsection{relative to the direction of the NNG}
754:
755:
756: Both Y06 and W08 found that there is a preference for the satellites to be
757: distributed along the major axis of their central galaxy, and in the previous
758: section, we found a prominent alignment signal between the orientation of the
759: satellite system of the HG and the direction of the NNG. Therefore, we expect
760: there is also an alignment between the major axis of the central galaxy of the
761: HG and the direction of the NNG.
762:
763:
764:
765: \begin{figure}[tbp]
766: %\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{figure11.ps}}
767: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figure9.ps}
768: \caption{The normalized probability distribution, $f_{\rm pairs}(\theta_2)$,
769: of the angle $\theta_2$ between the major axes of the central galaxy of the
770: HG and the direction of the NNG. In the left panel, results are measured for
771: all samples (filled circle) and the subsamples with the projected distance
772: smaller than 3 times the virial radius of the host group (open circle). In
773: the right panel, we show results for subsamples where the mass of the HG are
774: larger (smaller) than that of the NNG with filled diamond (open diamond)
775: symbol. Formal rejection confidence levels from the $\chi^2$ test are shown
776: in each panel. The open circles and open diamonds have been shifted slightly
777: along the horizontal axis for clarity.} \label{fp_chn1}
778: \end{figure}
779:
780:
781: Indeed, as shown in the left panel of Figure~\ref{fp_chn1}, there
782: is a strong signal of alignment between these two directions:
783: the major axis of the central galaxy of the HG is preferentially
784: aligned with the direction of the NNG. The alignment signal is
785: even stronger for the pairs with smaller projected separations
786: as shown by the open circle symbols of
787: Figure~\ref{fp_chn1}. This result suggests that the major axis of
788: the central galaxy of the HG tends to be aligned with the
789: direction of the NNG (or possibly the large scale structure
790: beyond).
791:
792:
793: The orientation of the central galaxy of HG is possibly affected by
794: (1)the potential of the HG; (2)NNG and (3) the large scale
795: environment. To understand the relative influence of these factors,
796: we checked separately the signals for all pairs of NNG and the close
797: pairs ($\le 3r_{vir}$), and find the following average values:
798: $\langle \theta_2 \rangle = 43.9\degr \pm 0.2\degr$ ($\langle
799: \theta_2 \rangle = 42.7\degr \pm 0.4\degr$ for the close pairs),
800: which depend quite significantly on the pair separations. Thus it
801: is unlikely for the large scale environment to be main factor in
802: determining the orientation of the central galaxy, otherwise one
803: would expect $\theta_2$ to be insensitive to the distance. On the
804: other hand, in W08 it was found that the orientation of the central
805: galaxy is also aligned with the potential of the HG (provided that
806: the satellite distributions trace the mass distribution of the
807: halo reasonably well). Therefore, we conclude both the
808: the satellite distribution (or the mass
809: distribution) in the HG and the NNG at small separation can
810: affect the orientation of the central galaxy. However, from the
811: alignment signal measured for $\theta_1$, we find that the
812: distribution of the satellite is affected by both the NNG and the
813: large scale of environment (see the last part of section 4.1), so
814: there may be indirect correlation between the orientation of the
815: central galaxy and the large scale environment.
816:
817: In the right-hand panel of Figure~\ref{fp_chn1} we show the
818: resulting $\theta_2$ distributions for HG-NNG systems with the mass
819: of HG larger (filled diamond) and smaller (open diamond) than that
820: of the NNG. The position angle of the central galaxy in more
821: massive host group is slightly more aligned (by $1.4\sigma$) which
822: is very likely caused by its flatter distribution of the satellite
823: galaxies.
824:
825:
826: \begin{figure}[tbp]
827: %\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{figure12.ps}}
828: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figure10.ps}
829: \caption{Similar to Fig.~\ref{fp_chn1}, but here for different HG-NNG
830: systems. Left panels: results for HG-NNG systems where the mass of the HG is
831: larger than that of the NNG. Right panels: results for HG-NNG systems where
832: the mass of the HG is smaller than that of the NNG. In each panel, the
833: asterisk, triangle and square points represent the mass of the NNG in the
834: range $M_n \in [11.5,12.5]$, $[12.5,13.5]$ and $[13.5,14.5]$,
835: respectively. }
836: \label{fp_mass_alig2}
837: \end{figure}
838:
839: %To check on what mass scale such an alignment signal reaches its
840: %maximum, we divide our sample into subsamples of three mass bins as
841: %in Section \ref{sec:theta1}. As shown in Figure~\ref{fp_mass_alig2},
842: %the alignment signal in the systems with the more massive HG is
843: %slightly stronger than that in the system with the lower mass of the
844: %HG for the sample with the small mass of the NNG. \textbf{The
845: %significance is about $2.0\sigma$($0.6\sigma$),
846: %$3.5\sigma$($0.0\sigma$) and $3.3\sigma$ ($4.0\sigma$) for the
847: %systems where the mass of the HG is larger (smaller) than that of
848: %the NNG and the mass of the NNG is in the range $M_n \in
849: %[11.5,12.5]$, $[12.5,13.5]$ and $[13.5,14.5]$, respectively. For the
850: %systems with the mass of the NNG between $10^{11.5}$ and
851: %$10^{12.5}\msunh$ (and HG is even less massive), the strength of the
852: %alignment signal is no longer significant relative to the null
853: %hypothesis $\langle \theta_2 \rangle = 45^{\degr}$ at $1\sigma$
854: %level for our sample.}
855:
856: To examine the dependence of the alignment signal on the group
857: mass, we divide our sample into three subsamples according to the
858: NNG mass as in Section \ref{sec:theta1}. Figure~\ref{fp_mass_alig2}
859: shows the distribution of $\theta_2$ for systems with the NNG
860: mass in the range $M_n \in[13.5,14.5]$, $[12.5,13.5]$, and
861: $[11.5,12.5]$ from the top to the bottom panel. The panels on the
862: left are for the systems having a HG more massive than its NNG,
863: and those on the right are for the opposite cases.
864: Figure~\ref{fp_mass_alig2} clearly shows that the alignment
865: signal is stronger for more massive systems. The statistical
866: significance of the alignment is $3.3\sigma, 3.5\sigma$, and
867: $2.0\sigma$ from top to bottom in the left column. It is
868: $4.0\sigma, 0.0\sigma$, and $0.6\sigma$ in the same order in the
869: right column. The top panels tell that the groups in a pair are
870: aligned with each other when the NNG mass exceeds
871: $10^{13.5}\msunh$ regardless of the HG mass. Such alignment can
872: occur by the strong tidal force of the NNG on the central galaxy
873: of the HG. This signal due to NNGs disappears when the NNG mass is
874: less than $10^{13.5}\msunh$ as can be seen in the middle right and
875: bottom right panels. Instead, the alignment signal is seen when the
876: HG mass is higher than the NNG mass, which means that the NNG is
877: now aligned, regardless of its mass, along the major axis of the
878: central galaxy of the HG.
879:
880: In Figure~\ref{fp_chn2}, we examine how $f_{\rm
881: pairs}(\theta_2)$ depends on the morphological type of the central
882: galaxies. Note that the early types are mainly ellipticals, and
883: the elongation of an early-type galaxy can be due to external
884: gravitational effects or internal kinematics, both of which are
885: closely correlated with the distribution of the satellite galaxies
886: and the NNGs. On the other hand, the late types are dominantly disk
887: galaxies and the position angle of a disk galaxy is determined
888: by the direction of its spin axis. Therefore, for HG central
889: galaxies with different morphological types, the alignment with
890: respect to the NNG could have different physical origins. In the
891: bottom two panels of Fig.~\ref{fp_chn2}, we show the alignment
892: signals $f(\theta_2)$ for HGs with early-type centrals. The left
893: panel is for the HGs whose NNG has an early-type central while the
894: right is for those whose NNG contains a late-type central. The HGs
895: having an early-type central show quite a strong alignment signal,
896: particularly when the central galaxy of the NNG is also an early
897: type (a $7\sigma$ effect for a sample of all such pairs and
898: $6\sigma$ for close pairs). If the central galaxy of the NNG is a
899: late type one, the alignment signal weakens considerably, the
900: deviation from the case of no alignment is only $1.6\sigma$ and
901: $2.7\sigma$ for all pairs and close pairs, respectively (see the
902: lower-right panel of Figure~\ref{fp_chn2}).
903:
904:
905:
906:
907:
908: % For the HGs having a late-type central
909: %galaxy we detect no statistically significant alignment signal
910: %regardless of the morphology of the central galaxy of their NNG.
911:
912:
913:
914:
915:
916: \begin{figure}[tb]
917: %\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{figure13.ps}}
918: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figure11.ps}
919: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fp_chn1}, but for different subsamples of central
920: galaxies of the host and neighbor groups. } \label{fp_chn2}
921: \end{figure}
922:
923:
924: %In Figure~\ref{fp_chn2}, we examine how $f_{\rm pairs}(\theta_2)$
925: %depends on the morphological types of the central galaxies. Note
926: %that the position angles of the early types which are dominantly
927: %ellipticals can represent quite well the orientation of the stellar
928: %distribution of the central galaxies, while the position angles of
929: %the late types which are dominantly spirals are sensitive to the
930: %inclination of the galaxies, \textbf{thus the primary signification
931: %of the alignment signal for the early and late type galaxies is
932: %different.} In the bottom two panels of Fig.~\ref{fp_chn2}, we show
933: %the alignment signals $f(\theta_2)$ for the early type central
934: %galaxy of the HG (Lower Left: NNG with early type central; Lower
935: %Right: NNG with late type central). There is a quite strong
936: %alignment signal between the position angle of the early type
937: %central galaxy in the HG with the direction of the NNG, especially
938: %if the central galaxy of the NNG is also an early type one
939: %($7\sigma$ for all sample and $6\sigma$ for close pairs). If the
940: %central galaxy of the NNG is a late type one, the alignment signal
941: %weakens considerably, the deviation from the case of no alignment is
942: %only $1.6\sigma$ ($2.7\sigma$).
943:
944:
945: \begin{figure}[tbp]
946: % \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{figure14.ps}}
947: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figure12.ps}
948: \caption{The average value of $\theta_2$ as a function of the projected
949: distance between the HG and the NNG. Left: as a function of $r_{vir, n}$;
950: Right: as a function of $r_{vir, h}$. } \label{fp_r2}
951: \end{figure}
952:
953: In the case where the central galaxy of the NNG is a late type one,
954: the major axis of the galaxy is not so well correlated with its
955: stellar distribution, but more with the inclination of the disk. On
956: the other hand, the minor axis is quite well correlated with the
957: disk spin axis. Thus $\theta_2=0$ means that the spin axis is
958: perpendicular to the direction of the NNG, while
959: $\theta_2=90^{\degr}$ means that the spin axis tends to be aligned
960: with the direction of the NNG. In the upper panels of
961: Figure~\ref{fp_chn2}, we show the distribution $f(\theta_2)$ for the
962: late type central galaxies (Upper Left: NNG with early type central;
963: Upper Right: NNG with late type central). However, we do not find
964: significant alignment signal between the major axis of the central
965: late type galaxy and the direction of the NNGs. As we have also
966: measured the average alignment angle $\langle \theta_2 \rangle$
967: as a function of distance between the HG and NNG as shown in
968: Fig.~\ref{fp_r2}, $\langle \theta_2 \rangle$ increases slowly and
969: approaches the null position of $45\degr$ as the distance
970: increases. The results shown in Fig.~\ref{fp_r2} indicate that
971: only NNGs at separation $\la 5r_{vir}$ may have possible
972: impacts onto the orientations of the central galaxies in the HGs.
973:
974:
975:
976: \subsubsection{relative to the orientation of the central galaxy of the NNG}
977:
978:
979: \begin{figure}[tb]
980: %\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{figure15.ps}}
981: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figure13.ps}
982: \caption{The normalized probability distribution, $f_{\rm pairs}(\theta_3)$,
983: of the angle $\theta_3$ between the two major axes of the central galaxies
984: of the HG and the NNG. Upper panels: the central galaxies of the HG and NNG
985: are both late types. Lower panels: the central galaxies of the HG and NNG
986: are both early types. In the two left panels we show results for the whole
987: sample (filled circle) and the subsample with the projected distance smaller
988: than 3 times the virial radius of the host group (open circle). In the two
989: right panels, we show the results for subsamples where the mass of the HG
990: are large (smaller) than that of the NNG with filled diamond (open diamond)
991: symbol.} \label{fp_nh1}
992: \end{figure}
993:
994:
995:
996: In Figure~\ref{fp_nh1}, we present the distribution of the angle
997: $\theta_3$ between the major axes of the central galaxy of the HG
998: and the central galaxy of the NNG. In the lower panels we use
999: only the HG and NNG whose central galaxies are both early types.
1000: One can see that the major axes of the central galaxies of the HG
1001: and the NNG tend to be parallel, though the signal is weak. We also
1002: checked the case of alignment between all types of central
1003: galaxies, and find there is no prominent signal, as shown by the
1004: fact $\langle \theta_3 \rangle = 44.6\degr \pm 0.3\degr$
1005: (deviates from the null case by only $1.3\sigma $). However,
1006: the $\theta_3$ alignment signal for the case of the HG more massive
1007: than the NNG is stronger than the opposite case by $1.8\sigma$ (see
1008: the lower-right panel). Combined with our probe of the alignment
1009: signals for $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$, we find that the large
1010: scale environments tend to impact the distribution of satellite
1011: galaxies (and the mass distribution) in the HGs, while the
1012: distribution of satellite galaxies and possibly NNGs at small
1013: separations may impact the orientations of the (early-type)
1014: central galaxies in the HGs. Thus the alignment signals shown in
1015: $\theta_3$ for early type galaxies are expected.
1016:
1017:
1018: The upper panels of Figure~\ref{fp_nh1} shows the distributions of $\theta_3$
1019: when the morphological types of the central galaxies of the HG and NNG are
1020: both late types. The spin axis of the two galaxies are parallel for
1021: $\theta_3=0\degr$ and perpendicular if $\theta_3 =90\degr$. We find large
1022: fluctuations in the distribution, and there is no significant alignment signal
1023: between the spin axes of the late-type central galaxies, regardless whether
1024: the HG is more massive or less than the NNG.
1025:
1026:
1027:
1028:
1029:
1030: \subsection{The position angle of the satellite galaxy relative to the
1031: direction of the NNG}
1032:
1033:
1034: Many studies have attempted to detect the alignment signal
1035: between the orientations of central galaxies and satellite
1036: galaxies in the clusters of galaxies (e.g., Plionis et al. 2003;
1037: Strazzullo et al. 2005; Torlina, De Propris \& West 2007), most
1038: of them found only null or weak signal. Using a sample of 4289
1039: host-satellites pairs from the SDSS DR4, Agustsson \& Brainerd
1040: (2006) found a weak signal of the alignment. Adopting the same
1041: group catalogue as that used here, Faltenbacher et al. (2007)
1042: searched for the alignment between the orientations of the BGG and
1043: the satellites. They considered the total sample and submaples with
1044: different color of the satellite galaxy, and found a small but
1045: definite alignment signal between the major axes of the central
1046: and the satellite galaxies of the host group, especially at
1047: small scales $r_p<0.1r_{\rm vir,h}$, where one expects a strong
1048: tidal force at such small separation.
1049:
1050:
1051: \begin{figure}[tb]
1052: % \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{figure16.ps}}
1053: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figure14.ps}
1054: \caption{The normalized probability distribution, $f_{\rm pairs}(\theta_4)$,
1055: of the angle $\theta_4$ between the orientations of the satellite galaxy in
1056: HG and the direction linking the host and NNG. In the left panel, results
1057: are measured for the whole sample (solid line) and the subsample with the
1058: distance limit, 3 times the virial radius of the host group (dotted
1059: line). In the right panel, we show results for the subsamples where the mass
1060: of the HG are large (smaller) than that of the NNG with dashed (dot-dashed)
1061: line.} \label{fp_sat1}
1062: \end{figure}
1063:
1064: \begin{figure}[htb]
1065: % \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{figure17.ps}}
1066: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figure15.ps}
1067: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fp_sat1}, but for subsamples of different
1068: morphological types of central galaxies of the host and neighbor
1069: groups. } \label{fp_sat2}
1070: \end{figure}
1071:
1072:
1073: As we have already noticed, the NNG and the large scale environment can affect
1074: the distribution of satellite galaxies in the HG. Here, we check if the NNG
1075: (and the large scale environment) can also impact the orientation of the
1076: satellite galaxies. The method to obtain the alignment angle $\theta_4$ is
1077: similar to that for the angle $\theta_3$, the only difference is that here we
1078: use the major axes of the satellites to substitute the major axis of the
1079: central galaxy of the HG. Fig.~\ref{fp_sat1} shows the alignment between the
1080: major axes of the satellites in the HGs and the direction linking the host and
1081: NNGs. There is apparently no alignment between the major axes of the satellite
1082: and the direction linking the host and the NNG. Fig~\ref{fp_sat2} displays
1083: the dependence on the $f_{\rm pairs}(\theta_4)$ on the morphological type of
1084: the central galaxies of the HGs and NNGs. Again we do not find statistically
1085: significant alignment signal for the morphology subsamples. Moreover, we also
1086: checked the distribution $f_{\rm pairs}(\theta_4)$ separately for the early
1087: and late type satellite galaxies, but there is no significant alignment signal
1088: either.
1089:
1090:
1091: \section{Summary and discussion}
1092:
1093: In the cold dark matter scenario, small dark matter halos form first and grow
1094: subsequently to larger structures via accretion and merger processes. The
1095: accretion of material might preferentially occur along the filamentary
1096: structure (West 1994), which leads to correlations between the internal
1097: structures of the neighboring groups. Binggeli (1982) pioneered the studies
1098: of the alignment between neighboring clusters of galaxies, and found that the
1099: host clusters tend to be aligned with their nearest neighbors. The subsequent
1100: studies confirmed this tendency, although conflicting results appeared
1101: occasionally in the literature (West 1989; Plionis 1994). In this paper, we
1102: used the host-neighboring group systems extracted from the SDSS DR4 group
1103: catalogue (Yang et al. 2007) to probe the impact of the large scale
1104: environment (as represented by the nearest neighboring group) on the
1105: distribution of the satellite galaxies and on the orientation of the central
1106: and satellite galaxies. For this purpose, four types of alignment signals are
1107: measured and the main results are summarized as follows.
1108:
1109: \begin{enumerate}
1110: \item There is a strong alignment signal between the distribution of the
1111: satellites relative to the direction of the NNG. This signal is rather
1112: insensitive to the separation between the HG and NNG, and extends to
1113: separation beyond $12r_{vir}$ of the HG. For the system with both early
1114: central galaxies of the HG and NNG, the alignment signal is the strongest,
1115: for the system with both late central galaxies, the signal is weaker but
1116: still quite significant.
1117:
1118:
1119: \item The satellite galaxies in the HG have a weak preference to be
1120: distributed at the near side of the NNG with an early type central galaxy,
1121: and at the far side of the NNG with a late type central galaxy.
1122:
1123: \item The major axis of the central galaxy of the HG is aligned with the
1124: direction of the NNG, especially in the massive HGs. This effect is
1125: stronger for the systems when the central galaxies of HG and NNG are both
1126: early types. And we find this alignment signal only exists between HG and
1127: NNG pairs at separation $\la 5r_{vir}$ of the HG.
1128:
1129: \item The distribution of the satellite galaxies and the orientation of the
1130: central galaxy of the HG show stronger alignment signals with the NNG in
1131: systems with more massive HGs and NNGs.
1132:
1133: \item There is a preference for the two major axes of the central galaxies of
1134: the HG and NNG to be parallel for the system with the both early central
1135: galaxies, while there is no evident correlation between the two major axes
1136: of the central galaxies for the systems with both late type cental galaxies.
1137:
1138: \item Although the distribution of the satellites of the HG is correlated with
1139: the direction of the NNG, their orientations (position angles) are not
1140: correlated with the direction of the NNG.
1141: \end{enumerate}
1142:
1143:
1144: According to our various alignment measurements, we find that the distribution
1145: of satellite galaxies and the orientation of the central galaxy both show
1146: strong alignment signals with respect to the direction of the NNG ($\theta_1$
1147: and $\theta_2$). Such alignment signals are stronger in massive halos where
1148: central galaxies are early type ones. Because of these two kinds of
1149: alignments, the alignment between the orientations of the cetral galaxies of
1150: the HG and the NNG ($\theta_3$) is naturally expected. For the orientations
1151: of satellite galaxies, however, we do not find significant alignment signal
1152: relative to the direction of NNG ($\theta_4$), while Faltenbacher et al.
1153: (2007) have found prominent alignment signals between the orientations of the
1154: central and satellite galaxies at very small separation. This may indicate
1155: that the orientations of satellite galaxies are only strongly affected by the
1156: tidal force of the central galaxy and the host halo, but not significantly by
1157: the NNG or the large scale environment.
1158:
1159: Possible explanations for the strong alignment signals in the first and second
1160: types of the alignments are: (i) the NNG affects the shape of the host halo,
1161: while the distribution of satellite galaxies and the shape of the central
1162: galaxy are mainly affected by the host halo; (ii) the large scale environment
1163: directly affects the distribution of satellite galaxies and the shape of the
1164: central galaxy. Judging from the first alignment signal, it seems likely that
1165: the impact of large scale environment is mainly on the shape of the host halo
1166: instead of directly on the distribution of the satellite galaxies, because
1167: otherwise we should expect to find a strong dependence on the distance to the
1168: NNG, rather than a mass dependence of the HG and NNG. The fact that stronger
1169: alignment signals is found for the subsamples with more massive HGs and NNGs
1170: is likely correlated with the fact that the more massive halos have larger
1171: triaxialities (e.g, Jing \& Suto 2002; Wang \& Fan 2004; W08).
1172:
1173: \begin{figure}[tbp]
1174: % \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{figure18.ps}}
1175: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figure16.ps}
1176: \caption{The normalized probability distribution, $f_{\rm pairs}(\theta_1)$,
1177: of the angle $\theta_1$ for the systems with early-type host and early-type
1178: neighbor. The asterisk and triangle symbols represent the results for the
1179: submaples with $0^{\degr}<\theta_2 < 45^{\degr}$ and $45^{\degr}<\theta_2
1180: <90^{\degr}$, respectively. The triangle symbols have been shifted slightly
1181: along the horizontal axis for clarity. } \label{fp_alig1}
1182: \end{figure}
1183:
1184:
1185: In order to check whether the shape of the central galaxy
1186: is mainly determined/affected by its own host halo, or by the NNG
1187: at small separation, we carried out an additional test. In
1188: Fig.~\ref{fp_alig1}, we show the alignment signal $f_{\rm
1189: pairs}(\theta_1)$ for the systems with the early-type host and
1190: early-type neighbor, where the asterisk and triangle symbols show
1191: the results for the system with $0^{\degr}<\theta_2 < 45^{\degr}$
1192: and $45^{\degr}<\theta_2 <90^{\degr}$, respectively. When
1193: $45^{\degr}<\theta_2 <90^{\degr}$, the major axis of the central
1194: galaxy of the HG is rather perpendicular to the direction of the
1195: NNG. If the shape of central galaxy is not much affected by the
1196: host halo, but only affected by the NNG, we would expect that the
1197: alignment signals of the two subsamples are similar. The results,
1198: however, show that the alignment signals are opposite for the two
1199: different subsamples (the difference level is $7.5\sigma$). On the
1200: other hand, the signals are precisely what one would expect if the
1201: mass and light are reasonably well-aligned (i.e., the image of
1202: early type central galaxy and the surrounding mass of the HG) and
1203: the satellites in the HG trace the surrounding mass. That is, one
1204: would get a peak at $\theta_1 = 90^{\degr}$ if $45^{\degr} <
1205: \theta_2 < 90^{\degr}$ and a valley at $\theta_1 = 90^{\degr}$ if
1206: $0^{\degr} < \theta_2 < 45^{\degr}$. Hence, the shape and
1207: orientation of the central galaxy is more likely to be
1208: determined by its own host halo. While the different
1209: separation dependencies of $\langle \theta_2 \rangle$
1210: shown in Figure~\ref{fp_r2} and $\langle \theta_1 \rangle$ shown
1211: in Figure~\ref{fp_r1} indicate that NNG at small separation may
1212: also play, however, only a secondary impact on the orientation
1213: of the central galaxy of the HG at particular conditions, e.g,
1214: interaction with the host halo (e.g., Lin et al. 2003; Ludlow et al.
1215: 2009). This conclusion is also strengthened by the recent
1216: measurements which show that the orientations of the central
1217: galaxies are preferentially aligned with the distribution of
1218: satellite galaxies (e.g. Y06 and references therein).
1219:
1220: Finally, we draw our conclusion that the large scale environment traced by the
1221: NNG have impacts on the shape (orientation) of the host halo. On the other
1222: hand, the distribution of the satellite galaxies, the shapes of the central
1223: galaxies, and the shape of the satellite galaxies at small radii, however, are
1224: mainly affected by their own host halos. Apart from these, the NNG also have
1225: direct impacts on the distribution of satellite galaxies, which produce an
1226: asymmetric alignment signal with respective to the near or far away sides of
1227: the NNG. And NNG at small separations may also have small secondary impact on
1228: the orientation of the central galaxy of the HG.
1229:
1230:
1231:
1232:
1233:
1234:
1235:
1236: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1237: % Ackowledgements
1238: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1239:
1240: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1241:
1242: We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed
1243: comments and suggestions. This work has started during YGW's
1244: visit to KIAS, and he would like to express his gratitude for
1245: KIAS. CBP and YYC acknowledge the support of the Korea Science
1246: and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) through the Astrophysical
1247: Research Center for the Structure and Evolution of the Cosmos
1248: (ARCSEC). XY acknowledges the support by the Shanghai Pujiang
1249: Program (No. 07pj14102), 973 Program (No. 2007CB815402), the CAS
1250: Knowledge Innovation Program (Grant No. KJCX2-YW-T05) and
1251: grants from NSFC (Nos. 10533030, 10673023, 10821302). YGW and
1252: XLC acknowledges the support of the 973 program (No.2007CB815401),
1253: the CAS Knowledge Innovation Program (Grant No.
1254: KJCX3-SYW-N2), and the NSFC grant 10503010. YGW is also supported by
1255: the Young Researcher Grant of National Astronomical Observatories,
1256: Chinese Academy of Sciences. XLC is also supported by the NSFC
1257: Distinguished Young Scholar Grant No.10525314.
1258:
1259:
1260: Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan
1261: Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation,
1262: the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space
1263: Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the
1264: Higher Education Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web Site is
1265: http://www.sdss.org/.
1266:
1267: The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the
1268: Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the American
1269: Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, University of
1270: Basel, Cambridge University, Case Western Reserve University, University of
1271: Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the
1272: Japan Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for
1273: Nuclear Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and
1274: Cosmology, the Korean Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences
1275: (LAMOST), Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for
1276: Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico
1277: State University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, University
1278: of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory, and
1279: the University of Washington.
1280:
1281:
1282: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1283: \bibitem[]{}Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., et al. 2006, \apjs, 162, 38
1284: \bibitem[]{}Agustsson, I., \& Brainerd, T. G. 2006, \apj, 644, L25
1285: \bibitem[]{}Agustsson, I., \& Brainerd, T. G. 2007, preprint (arXiv:0704.3441)
1286: \bibitem[]{}Altay, G., Colberg, J. M., \& Croft, R. A. C. 2006, \mnras, 370, 1422
1287: \bibitem[]{}Aragon-Calvo, M., van de Weygaert, R., \& van der Hulst, T. 2006, Proc.
1288: Bernard¡¯s Cosmic Stories: From Primordial Fluctuations to the Birth
1289: of Stars and Galaxies, Meeting Abstracts. Uimp, Valencia, Spain, p. 85.1
1290: \bibitem[]{}Avila-Reese, V., {et al.} 2005, \apj, 634, 51
1291: \bibitem[]{}Azzaro, M., Patiri, S. G., Prada, F., \& Zentner, A. R.
1292: 2007, \mnras, 376, L43
1293: \bibitem[]{}Bailin, J., \& Steinmetz, M. 2005, \apj, 627, 647
1294: \bibitem[]{}Bailin, J., Power, C., Norberg, P., Zaritsky, D., \& Gibson, B. K.
1295: 2008, \mnras, 390, 1133
1296: \bibitem[]{}Basilakos, S., Plionis, M., \& Maddox, S. J. 2000, \mnras, 316, 779
1297: \bibitem[]{}Basilakos, S., Plionis, M., Yepes, G., Gottl$\rm\ddot{o}$ber, S., \& Turchaninov, V.
1298: 2006, \mnras, 365, 539
1299: \bibitem[]{}Binggeli, B. 1982, \aap, 107, 338
1300: \bibitem[]{}Blanton, M. R., et al. 2005, \aj, 129, 2562
1301: \bibitem[]{}Brainerd, T. G. 2005, \apj, 628, L101
1302: \bibitem[]{}Brainerd, T. G., \& Specian, M. A. 2003, \apj, 593, L7
1303: \bibitem[]{}Carter, D., \& Metcalfe, N. 1980, \mnras, 191, 325
1304: %\bibitem[]{}Ciotti, L., \& Dutta, S. N. 1994, \mnras, 270, 390
1305: \bibitem[]{}Colless, M., et al. (The 2dFGRS Team), 2001, \mnras, 328, 1039
1306: \bibitem[]{}Dekel, A. 1985, \apj, 298, 461
1307: \bibitem[]{}Donoso, E., O'Mill, A., \& Lambas, D. G. 2006, \mnras, 369, 479
1308: \bibitem[]{}Einasto, M., Einasto, J., M$\rm\ddot{u}$ller, V., Hein$\rm\ddot{a}$m$\rm\ddot{a}$ki, P., \&
1309: Tucker, D. L. 2003, \aap, 401, 851
1310: \bibitem[]{}Faltenbacher, A., Gottl$ \rm\ddot{o}$ber, S., Kerscher, M., \&
1311: M$\rm\ddot{u}$ller, V. 2002, \aap, 395, 1
1312: \bibitem[]{}Faltenbacher, A., Li, C., Mao, S., van der Bosch, F. C., Yang, X.,
1313: Jing, Y. P., Pasquali, A., \& Mo, H. J. 2007, \apj, 662, L71
1314: \bibitem[]{}Faltenbacher, A., Jing, Y. P., Li, C., Mao, S., Mo, H. J., Pasquali, A., \& van den Bosch, F. C.
1315: 2008, \apj, 675, 146
1316: \bibitem[]{}Faltenbacher, A., Li, C., White, S. D. M., Jing, Y. P., Mao, S., \& Wang, J.
1317: 2009, RAA, 9, 41
1318: \bibitem[]{}Fasano, G., Pisani, A., Vio, R., \& Girardi, M. 1993, \apj, 416, 546
1319: %\bibitem[]{}Fleck, J. -J., \& Kuhn, J. R. 2003, \apj, 592, 147
1320: \bibitem[]{}Hahn, O., Porciani, C., Carollo, C. M., \& Dekel, A. 2007a, \mnras, 375, 489
1321: \bibitem[]{}Hahn, O., Carollo, C. M., Porciani, C., \& Dekel, A. 2007b, \mnras, 381, 41
1322: \bibitem[]{}Hartwick, F. D. A. 1996, in Morrison H., Sarajedini A., eds, ASP
1323: Conf. Ser. Vol. 92, Formation of the Galactic Halo . . . Inside and
1324: Out. Astron. Soc. Pac., San Franciso, p. 444
1325: \bibitem[]{}Hartwick, F. D. A. 2000, \aj, 119, 2248
1326: \bibitem[]{}Hawley, D. L., \& Peebles, P. J. E. 1975, \aj, 80, 477
1327: \bibitem[]{}Holmberg, E. 1969, Ark. Astron., 5, 305
1328: \bibitem[]{}Hopkins, P. F., Bahcall, N. A., \& Bode, P. 2005, \apj, 618, 1
1329: \bibitem[]{}Jing, Y. P., \& Suto, Y. 2002, \apj, 574, 538
1330: \bibitem[]{}Kang, X., van den Bosch, F. C., Yang, X., Mao, S., Mo, H. J., Li, C., \& Jing, Y.
1331: P. 2007, \mnras, 378, 1531
1332: \bibitem[]{}Katgert, P., Biviano, A., \& Mazure, A. 2004, \apj, 600, 657
1333: \bibitem[]{}Kasun, S. F., \& Evrard, A. E. 2005, \apj, 629, 781
1334: \bibitem[]{}Knebe, A., Gill, S. P. D., Gibson, B. K., Lewis, G. F., Ibata, R. A.,
1335: \& Dopita, M. A. 2004, \apj, 603, 7
1336: \bibitem[]{}Knebe, A., Draganova, N., Power, C., Yepes, G., Hoffman, Y., Gottl$\ddot{o}$ber, S., \& Gibson, B. K.
1337: 2008a, \mnras, 386, L52
1338: \bibitem[]{}Knebe, A., Yahagi, H., Kase, H., Lewis, G., \& Gibson, B. K.
1339: 2008b, \mnras, 388, L34
1340: \bibitem[]{}Koch, A., \& Grebel, E. K. 2006, \aj, 131, 1405
1341: \bibitem[]{}Kroupa, P., Theis, C., \& Boily, C. M. 2005, \aap, 431, 517
1342: \bibitem[]{}Libeskind, N. I., Frenk, C. S., Cole, S., Helly, J. C., Jenkins, A.,
1343: Navarro, J. F., \& Power, C. 2005, \mnras , 363, 146
1344: \bibitem[]{}Libeskind, N. I., Cole, S., Frenk, C. S., Okamoto, T., \& Jenkins,
1345: A. 2007, \mnras, 374, 16
1346: \bibitem[]{}Lin, W. P., Jing, Y. P., \& Lin, L. 2003, \mnras, 344, 1327
1347: \bibitem[]{}Ludlow, A. D., Navarro, J. F., Springel, V., Jenkins,
1348: A., Frenk, C. S., \& Helmi, A. 2009, ApJ, 692, 931L
1349: \bibitem[]{}Lynden-Bell, D. 1976, \mnras, 174, 695
1350: \bibitem[]{}Lynden-Bell, D. 1982, Observatory, 102, 202
1351: \bibitem[]{}MacGillivray, H. T., Dodd, R. J., McNally, B. V., \& Corwin H. G.
1352: Jr. 1982, \mnras, 198, 605
1353: \bibitem[]{}Majewski, S. R. 1994, \apj, 431, L17
1354: \bibitem[]{}Maulbetsch, C., Avila-Reese, V., Colin, P., Gottl$\rm\ddot{o}$ber, S.,
1355: Khalatyan, A., \& Steinmetz, M. 2007, \apj, 654, 53
1356: \bibitem[]{}McConnachie, A. W., \& Irwin, M. J. 2006, \mnras, 365, 902
1357: \bibitem[]{}McKay, T., et al. 2002, \apj, 571, L85
1358: \bibitem[]{}Metz, M., Kroupa, P., \& Jerjen, H. 2007, \mnras, 374, 1125
1359: \bibitem[]{}More, S., van den Bosch, F. C., \& Cacciato, M. 2009a,
1360: \mnras, 392, 917
1361: \bibitem[]{}More, S., van den Bosch, F. C., Cacciato, M., Mo, H. J., Yang, X., \& Li,
1362: R. 2009b, \mnras, 392, 801
1363: \bibitem[]{}Okumura, T., Jing, Y. P., \& Li, C. 2009, \apj, 694, 214
1364: \bibitem[]{}Orlov, V. V., Petrova, A. V., \& Tarantaev, V. G. 2001, \mnras, 325, 133
1365: \bibitem[]{}Park, C., \& Choi, Y. -Y. 2005, \apj, 635, L29
1366: \bibitem[]{}Park, C., \& Choi, Y. -Y. 2009, \apj, 691, 1828
1367: \bibitem[]{}Paz, D. J., Stasyszyn, F., \& Padilla, N. D. 2008,
1368: \mnras, 389, 1127
1369: \bibitem[]{}Plionis, M. 1994, \apjs, 95, 401
1370: \bibitem[]{}Plionis, M., Barrow, J. D., \& Frenk, C. S. 1991, \mnras, 249, 662
1371: \bibitem[]{}Plionis, M., Basilakos, S., \& Tovmassian, H. M. 2004, \mnras, 352, 1323
1372: \bibitem[]{}Plionis, M., Benoist, C., Maurogordato, S., Ferrari, C., \& Basilakos, S. 2003,
1373: \apj, 594, 144
1374: \bibitem[]{}Plionis, M., Basilakos, S., \& Ragone-Figueroa, C. 2006, \apj, 650, 770
1375: \bibitem[]{}Ragone-Figueroa, C., \& Plionis, M. 2007, \mnras, 377, 1785
1376: \bibitem[]{}Sales, L., \& Lambas, D. G. 2004, \mnras, 348, 1236
1377: \bibitem[]{}Sales, L., \& Lambas, D. G. 2009, \mnras, 395, 1184
1378: \bibitem[]{}Sharp, N. A., Lin, D. N. C., \& White, S. D. M. 1979, \mnras, 187, 287
1379: \bibitem[]{}Steffen, J. H., \& Valenzuela, O. 2008, \mnras, 387, 1199
1380: \bibitem[]{}Strazzullo, V., Paolillo, M., Longo, G., Puddu, E., Djorgovski, S. G., De Carvalho, R. R.,
1381: \& Gal, R. R. 2005, \mnras, 359, 191
1382: \bibitem[]{}Struble, M. F. 1990, \aj, 99, 743
1383: \bibitem[]{}Torlina, L., De Propris, R., \& West, M. J. 2007, \apj,
1384: 660, L97
1385: %\bibitem[]{}Usami, M., \& Fujimoto, M. 1997, \apj, 487, 489
1386: \bibitem[]{}van den Bosch, F. C., Norberg, P., Mo, H. J., \& Yang,
1387: X. 2004, \mnras, 352, 1302
1388: \bibitem[]{}Wang, H. Y., Jing, Y. P., Mao, S., \& Kang, X. 2005,
1389: \mnras, 364, 424
1390: \bibitem[]{}Wang, Y. -G., \& Fan, Z. -H. 2004, \apj, 617, 847
1391: \bibitem[]{}Wang, Y., Yang, X., Mo, H. J., Li, C., van den Bosch, F. C., Fan, Z., \& Chen,
1392: X. 2008, \mnras, 385, 1511 (W08)
1393: \bibitem[]{}West, M. J. 1989, \apj, 344, 535
1394: \bibitem[]{}West, M. J. 1994, \mnras, 268, 79
1395: \bibitem[]{}Yang, X., Mo, H. J., van den Bosch, F. C., \& Jing, Y. P. 2005, \mnras,
1396: 356, 1293
1397: \bibitem[]{}Yang, X., van der Bosch, F. C., Mo, H. J., Mao, S., Kang, X., Weinmann, S. M.,
1398: Guo, Y., \& Jing, Y. P. 2006, \mnras, 369, 1293 (Y06)
1399:
1400: \bibitem[]{}Yang, X., Mo, H. J., van den Bosch, F. C., Pasquali, A., Li, C., \&
1401: Barden, M. 2007, \apj, 671, 153
1402: \bibitem[]{}Yang, X., Mo, H. J., \& van den Bosch, F. C. 2009, \apj, 695, 900
1403: \bibitem[]{}York, D. G., et al. 2000, \aj, 120, 1579
1404: \bibitem[]{}Zaritsky, D., Smith, R., Frenk, C. S., \& White, S. D. M. 1993, \apj, 405, 464
1405: \bibitem[]{}Zaritsky, D., Smith, R., Frenk, C. S., \& White, S. D. M. 1997, \apj, 478, 39
1406: \bibitem[]{}Zehavi, I., et al. 2002, \apj, 571, 172
1407: \bibitem[]{}Zentner, A. R., Kravtsov, A. V., Gnedin, O. Y., \& Klypin, A. A. 2005,
1408: \apj, 629, 219
1409:
1410: \end{thebibliography}
1411:
1412: \appendix
1413: %\section{Appendix}
1414:
1415: In this appendix, we explain how to measure the angle between the
1416: orientation of the central galaxy of the host group and NN, taking
1417: into account the effect of curvature of the sky. We take one
1418: pair of the host $(\alpha_h, \delta_h,\Phi_h)$ and neighbor
1419: $(\alpha_n, \delta_n,\Phi_n)$ as an example, where $\alpha_{h}$,
1420: $\delta_h$ and $\Phi_h$ are the right ascension, declination,
1421: and the position angle of the host centrals respectively, and
1422: $\alpha_{n}$, $\delta_n$ and $\delta_n$ are the corresponding
1423: parameters of the NN. Here we assume that $\alpha_n>\alpha_h$
1424: $\delta_h>0$, and $\delta_n>0$ (See the right panel of
1425: Figure~\ref{fig:ang} ). Extending the major axis of the central
1426: galaxy of the NN, it will cross the longitude of the host at the
1427: point B. Now in the spherical triangle $\bigtriangleup ABC$, we
1428: have two angles $\angle BAC$ and $\angle ACB$ and one side
1429: $\widehat{AC}$. Therefore, we can get the angle $\angle CBA$
1430: by solving the spherical triangle $\bigtriangleup ABC$. It is
1431: clear that the angle between the orientation of the central galaxy
1432: of the host group and NN can be written as $\Phi_h -
1433: (180^{\degr} - \angle CBA)$, which is equivalent to the angle
1434: $\theta_3 = \theta_{3a} - \theta_{3b}$ (see the right panel of
1435: Figure~\ref{fig:ang}). Position angles of the major axes are with
1436: respect to the east direction.
1437:
1438:
1439: \end{document}
1440: