1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \input psfig.sty
3: %\documentclass{article}
4: \usepackage{epsf}
5:
6: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
7: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
8: \def\bey{\begin{eqnarray}}
9: \def\eey{\end{eqnarray}}
10: \def\pppm{\rm P^3M}
11: \def\mpc{\,h^{-1}{\rm {Mpc}}}
12: \def\mpci{\,h{\rm {Mpc}}^{-1}}
13: \def\kpc{\,h^{-1}{\rm {kpc}}}
14: \def\kms{\,{\rm {km\, s^{-1}}}}
15: \def\msun{{h^{-1} M_\odot}}
16: \def\br#1{{\mathbf r}_{#1}}
17: \def\bs#1{{\mathbf s}_{#1}}
18: \def\zetarr{\zeta(r_{12},r_{23},r_{31})}
19: \def\zetass{\zeta(s_{12},s_{23},s_{31})}
20: \def\scycl{(s_{12},s_{23},s_{31})}
21: \def\rpcycl{(r_{p12},r_{p23},r_{p31})}
22: \def\rppicycl{(r_{p12},r_{p23},r_{p31},\pi_{12},\pi_{13})}
23: \def\zetazrprp{\zeta_z(r_{p12},r_{p23},r_{p31},\pi_{12},\pi_{13})}
24: \def\zetaru{\zeta(r,u,v)}
25: \def\zetasu{\zeta(s,u,v)}
26: \def\zetazrpu{\zeta_z(r_{p12},u,v,\pi_{12},\pi_{13})}
27: \def\Qru{Q(r,u,v)}
28: \def\Qsu{Q_{red}(s,u,v)}
29: \def\Qzrpu{Q_z(r_{p12},u,v,\pi_{12},\pi_{13})}
30: \def\Qrpu{Q_{proj}(r_{p},u,v)}
31: \def\qtu{q(\theta,u,v)}
32: \def\Pirpu{\Pi(r_p,u,v)}
33: \def\nbar#1{{\bar n}({\mathbf r}_{#1})}
34: \def\nbas#1{{\bar n}({\mathbf s}_{#1})}
35: \def\xiz#1{\xi_z(r_{p#1},\pi_{#1})}
36: \def\xir#1{\xi(r_{#1})}
37: \def\xis#1{\xi(s_{#1})}
38: \def\wrp#1{w(r_{p#1})}
39: \def\mag{M_b - 5 \log_{10} h}
40:
41: \def\gs{\mathrel{\raise1.16pt\hbox{$>$}\kern-7.0pt
42: \lower3.06pt\hbox{{$\scriptstyle \sim$}}}}
43: \def\ls{\mathrel{\raise1.16pt\hbox{$<$}\kern-7.0pt
44: \lower3.06pt\hbox{{$\scriptstyle \sim$}}}}
45: % Symbols that drive mathematicians crazy: "greater than or on the order of"
46: % and its counterpart.
47: % To use, type "\simgt" or "\simlt".
48: \def\gtsima{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}
49: \def\ltsima{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}
50: \def\prosima{$\; \buildrel \propto \over \sim \;$}
51: \def\gsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}}
52: \def\lsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}}
53: \def\simgt{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}}
54: \def\simlt{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}}
55: \def\simpr{\lower.5ex\hbox{\prosima}}
56: \def\la{\lsim}
57: \def\ga{\gsim}
58:
59:
60:
61: \begin{document}
62: \title { The pairwise velocity dispersion of galaxies: luminosity
63: dependence and a new test of galaxy formation models}
64: \author{Y.P. Jing${^{1,2}}$, G. B\"orner${^{2,1}}$}
65: \affil{${^1}$Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, the Partner Group of
66: MPI f\"ur Astrophysik, \\Nandan Road 80, Shanghai 200030, China}
67: \affil {${^2}$Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astrophysik,
68: Karl-Schwarzschild-Strasse 1, \\ 85748 Garching, Germany}
69:
70: \begin{abstract}
71: We present the first determination of the pairwise velocity dispersion
72: (PVD) for galaxies in different luminosity intervals using the final
73: release of the Two-Degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey (2dFGRS). We
74: have discovered quite surprisingly that the relative velocities of the
75: faint galaxies at small separation are very high, around $700 \kms$,
76: reaching similar values as the brightest galaxies. At intermediate
77: luminosities $M^*-1$ ( $M^*$ is the characteristic luminosity of the
78: Schechter function), the relative velocities exhibit a well defined
79: steep minimum near $400 \kms$. This result has been derived using a
80: novel method to determine the real space power spectrum and the PVD
81: from the redshift space power spectrum of the 2dFGRS. Combined with
82: the observed luminosity dependence of clustering, our result implies
83: that quite a fraction of faint galaxies, as well as the brightest
84: ones, are in massive halos of galaxy cluster size, but most of the
85: $M^*$ galaxies are in galactic halos. Our observed result is compared
86: with the current halo model of galaxies of Yang et al. that was
87: obtained by matching the clustering and luminosity functions of the
88: 2dFGRS. With the model parameters they favored most, the halo
89: model seems to be unable to reproduce the luminosity dependence of the
90: PVD because it predicts a monotonically increasing PVD with the
91: luminosity. We discuss a possible solution to this model by raising
92: the faint end slope of the conditional luminosity function in rich
93: clusters. The PVD luminosity dependence may also be an important
94: constraint in general on theories of galaxy formation, such as
95: semi-analytical models and hydro/N-body simulations of galaxy
96: formation.
97:
98:
99:
100: \end{abstract}
101:
102: \keywords {galaxies: clustering - galaxies: distances and redshifts -
103: large-scale structure of Universe - cosmology: theory - dark matter}
104:
105: \section {Introduction}
106:
107: The clustering of galaxies in the Universe is characterized by their
108: spatial positions, and by their peculiar velocities that lead to
109: deviations of their motion from the pure Hubble flow. The big
110: redshift surveys assembled in recent years by the diligent work of
111: many astronomers give angular positions and redshifts for large
112: numbers of galaxies. A rough 3D map can be obtained by placing the
113: galaxies at distances along the line of sight derived via Hubble's law
114: from their redshifts. The peculiar velocity, however, also contributes
115: to the redshift, and this leads to a misplacement of the galaxy away
116: from its true location. The local gravitational field is the cause of
117: the peculiar motion, thus the redshift distortion in the galaxy
118: maps can give information on the underlying matter distribution.
119:
120: The amplitude of the distortions can be estimated from the pair
121: distribution of galaxies. For pairs of galaxies at distances much
122: larger than their separation, one can use a plane-parallel
123: approximation. In the linear approximation (or large separation), the
124: power spectrum of their distribution in redshift space is \citep{k87},
125: \beq
126: P^S({\bf k}) = (1 + \beta \mu^2)^2 P(k) \,.
127: \label{eq1}
128: \eeq Here $\mu$ is the cosine of the angle between the wave vector and
129: the line of sight. The linear redshift distortion parameter $\beta$
130: that is related to the linear growth factor $f(\Omega_0) \simeq
131: \Omega^{0.6}$ ($\Omega_0$ is the matter density) and the linear bias
132: factor $b$ of the galaxies by $\beta = \Omega_0^{0.6}/b$ , can be
133: estimated if $P^S({\bf k})$ can be measured on a sufficiently large
134: scale. $P(k)$ is the power spectrum in real space. The dependence on
135: $b$ expresses the fact that there is a bias in the galaxy
136: distribution, i.e. there are differences between the galaxy and the
137: dark matter distributions. The linear bias relation is just a constant
138: ratio of the galaxy $\xi$ and the dark matter $\xi_{dm}$ two-point
139: correlation functions (2PCF) $ \xi = b^2 \xi_{dm}$. It has been shown
140: that Eq.(\ref{eq1}) is valid only on sufficiently large scales
141: \citep[perhaps $\ga 20 \mpc$ or $k<0.1\mpci$,][]{scocci04}. On smaller
142: scales, the virial motion of galaxies within groups and clusters
143: contributes significantly to the deviation of the redshift distortion
144: from the prediction of Eq.(\ref{eq1}). In fact, on small scales ($\ls
145: 5\mpc$), the virial motion of galaxies dominates the redshift
146: distortion.
147:
148: Thus the redshift distortions on small scales can be used to
149: determine the pairwise peculiar velocity dispersion (PVD) of
150: galaxies. Assuming certain functional forms for the distribution
151: function of the pairwise velocity \citep[say, an exponential
152: form,][]{peebles76} and for the average infall velocity, a model can
153: be constructed for the redshift 2PCF which approximates the real
154: situation well, when the coupling between the peculiar velocity and
155: the spatial density of the galaxies is weak \citep[][hereafter
156: DP83]{fisher94, jfs98, dp83}. A comparison of the model with
157: observations of the redshift 2PCF provides a test for the validity of
158: the assumptions (such as the distribution function of the pairwise
159: velocity) and a determination of the
160: PVD $\sigma_{12}(r)$. DP83 applied this method to the CfA redshift
161: survey, and determined the PVD to be $340\pm 40\kms$ at projected
162: separation $r_p = 1\mpc$. Based on an extensive study of the PVD for
163: all redshift surveys (typically containing 2000 galaxies) available
164: before 1993, \citet{mjb93} showed that the PVD measured is very
165: sensitive to the presence of rich clusters in the survey. Because the
166: CfA survey used by DP83 is too small to fairly represent the
167: population of rich clusters in the Universe, Mo et al. pointed out that
168: the PVD estimate given by DP83 is likely to be significantly biased
169: low based on their analysis of the PVD for different
170: surveys. Subsequent analyses for CfA2 by \citet{marzke95} and for CfA
171: by \citet{sdp97} have confirmed the conclusion of Mo et al..
172:
173: With the Las Campanas redshift survey (LCRS) of galaxies,
174: \citet[][hereafter JMB98]{jmb98} made the first accurate determination
175: of the PVD using the above method. They used mock catalogs generated
176: from N-body simulations of the concordance $\Lambda$ cold dark matter
177: (LCDM) model to correct for the observational effects including the
178: fiber-collisions, and to make a fair estimation of errors for the
179: measured PVD. They demonstrated that the errors of their measured PVD
180: are between 50 and 100 $\kms$, and claimed that the PVD can be
181: accurately measured with the LCRS, in contrast with all previous work
182: based on smaller surveys. The PVD at the projected separation $1\mpc$
183: is $570\pm 80\kms$. This result has been verified by \citet{zehavi02}
184: with the early data release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey(SDSS).
185: For IRAS galaxies, the PVD is lower than that of optical galaxies
186: \citep[]{fisher95,fisher94,mjb93}, and the PVD is very low on small
187: scales \citep[]{jbs02, hamilton02}. These results of IRAS galaxies are
188: also consistent with the SDSS study \citep[]{zehavi02} where it was
189: found that the PVD of the blue (young) galaxies is as low as that of
190: IRAS galaxies. Cosmological hydrodynamic simulations of galaxy
191: formation seem to lead to similar conclusions with regard to the PVD
192: of different galaxy populations
193: \citep[]{pearce01,yoshikawa03,berlind03,wdkh04}.
194:
195: Another way to measure the PVD is to use the redshift space power
196: spectrum. The redshift power spectrum $P^S(k,\mu)$ can be written as
197: \citep{pd94,cfw95}
198: \beq
199: P^S(k.\mu) = P(k)(1+\beta \mu^2)^2 D(k \mu \sigma_{12}(k))\,
200: \label{eq2}
201: \eeq
202: where the first term is the Kaiser linear compression, and the second
203: term $D$ is the damping effect caused by the random motion of the galaxies. For
204: the exponential distribution function of the pairwise velocity, the
205: function $D$ is Lorentz form
206: \beq
207: D(k \mu \sigma_{12}(k)) = \frac{1}{1+ \frac{1}{2}k^2 \mu^2 \sigma_{12}(k)^2}\,.
208: \label{eq3}
209: \eeq
210: \citet{jb01} have studied the redshift power spectrum in typical
211: CDM models for different tracers --the primordial density peaks model,
212: the cluster-underweighted scheme of particles, and pure dark matter,
213: and found that different tracers may have different forms of the
214: damping function. Thus, the damping function can serve as a
215: constraint on galaxy formation models. From the analysis of the LCRS
216: catalog, both \citet{lsb98} and \citet{jb01b} found that the damping
217: function of observed galaxies is very close to
218: Eq.(\ref{eq3}). Adopting Eq.(3) for the damping function,
219: \citet{jb01b} measured the PVD
220: $\sigma_{12}(k)$ for LCRS by setting $\beta=0.45$ and found that the
221: measured PVD is consistent with the PVD that JMB98 reported on the
222: redshift 2PCF measurement. Hawkins et al. (2003) used Eq.(2) and
223: Eq.(3) to model the redshift 2PCF with the Fourier transform, and
224: measured the $\beta$ and $\sigma_{12}$ (assuming
225: $\sigma_{12}(k)=const.$) for the Two-degree Field Galaxy Redshift
226: Survey (2dFGRS) by best fitting the observed 2PCF. The advantage of
227: using the redshift power spectrum to determine the PVD is that it is
228: simple and accurate to model the infall effect.
229:
230: Here we use the data of the final release of the
231: 2dFGRS\footnote{Available at http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/2dFGRS} for
232: such an analysis to study the luminosity dependence of the PVD. The
233: parameter $\beta$ could, however, not be determined independently for
234: each luminosity subsample, since there are still large statistical
235: fluctuations on large scales $ k \sigma \mu \leq 1$. Therefore, we
236: fix $\beta$ at a reasonable value of $ 0.45$. Later we come back and
237: consider the influence of a luminosity dependence \citep[as
238: in][]{norberg02a} of $\beta$. Inspection of
239: Fig.~(\ref{fig:sigmabetalum}) shows that the results are basically
240: unchanged, implying that the results are robust to reasonable changes
241: of the $\beta$ values.
242:
243: The 2dFGRS has already been analysed statistically with respect to the
244: PVD \citep[]{hawkins03} and the determination of $\beta$
245: \citep[]{peacock00,hawkins03}. But here we use a novel method to
246: estimate the PVD. Furthermore, we take advantage of the large number
247: of galaxies in the 2dFGRS to bin the galaxies in different luminosity
248: intervals, and study the luminosity dependence of the PVD. This was
249: not possible up to now, and we shall see that remarkable tests of
250: galaxy formation models become possible with the statistical results
251: presented here. The luminosity dependence of the clustering (the
252: 2PCF) of galaxies in the 2dFGRS has been investigated
253: \citep[]{norberg01, norberg02a, norberg02b} but not of the PVD.
254:
255: It has been demonstrated already in an analysis of the LCRS (JMB98)
256: that the observationally measured 2PCF and the PVD require a scale
257: dependent bias model in order to find acceptable theoretical fits. The
258: so-called cluster-underweighted model that was invented by JMB98 to
259: bring a flat $\Omega = 0.2$ CDM model into agreement with the data has
260: meanwhile been developed into a more sophisticated
261: ``halo-occupation-distribution'' (HOD) model
262: \citep[e.g.][]{sheth01,bw02,kang02}. In particular,
263: \citet[][hereafter Y03]{yang03} introduced the conditional luminosity
264: function $\Phi(L\vert M)$ to characterize the luminosity distribution
265: of galaxies within a halo of mass $M$, and measured the parametrized
266: form of $\Phi(L\vert M)$ by matching the observed luminosity function
267: of galaxies and the luminosity dependence of galaxy clustering in the
268: 2dFGRS. This model has been applied to predict the clustering and
269: velocity statistics of galaxies in the DEEP2 survey \citep{ymw03}. By
270: construction, the model of Y03 is able to reproduce the luminosity
271: function and the two-point correlation function of galaxies. But the
272: PVD, especially its luminosity dependence, can serve as an independent
273: test on the model, as the PVD on small scales is rather sensitive to
274: the HOD. We will show that the model most favored by Y03 is unable
275: to match our measured luminosity dependence of the PVD, indicating
276: that some of the parameterizations adopted by Y03 have to be amended.
277: A comparison with the semi-analytic models for galaxy formation
278: \citep[]{dkcw99, benson00} will be presented in a subsequent
279: investigation.
280:
281:
282: In the following chapters we describe our way of using the redshift
283: power spectrum, the construction of mock catalogs from our
284: simulations, tests of the method, the results, and the comparison with
285: the HOD model of Y03. In the final discussion we summarize
286: our results, and suggest construction principles for better models.
287:
288:
289: \section{Observational sample and random sample}
290: We select data for our analysis from the final release of the 2dFGRS
291: \citep[][hereafter C01]{colless03, colless01}. The survey covers two
292: declination strips, one in the Southern Galactic Pole (SGP) and
293: another in the Northern Galactic Pole(NGP), and 99 random fields in
294: the southern galactic cap. Each redshift determination is assigned a
295: quality class $Q$ in the 5-point system according to the measurement
296: accuracy based on emission and absorption lines. Quality $Q=1$ or 2
297: means a doubtful redshift estimate, $Q=3$ means a probable redshift
298: with the confidence 90 percent, and $Q=4$ or $5$ means a reliable
299: redshift. Quality classes 1 and 2 are considered failures. The
300: redshift sampling completeness $R({\mathbf \theta})$ (${\mathbf
301: \theta}$ is a sky position) that is defined as the fraction of
302: targeted galaxies for which a redshift is measured with $Q\ge 3$, is
303: available for each sky sector (C01). In this paper, only galaxies in
304: the two strips are considered. Further criteria for galaxies to be
305: included in our analysis are that they are within the redshift range
306: of $0.02<z<0.25$, have the redshift measurement quality $Q\ge 3$, and
307: are in the regions with the redshift sampling completeness
308: $R({\mathbf \theta})$ better than 0.1 (where ${\mathbf \theta}$ is a
309: sky position). The redshift range restriction should ensure that the
310: clustering statistics are less affected by the galaxies in the local
311: supercluster, and by the sparse sampling at high redshift. The
312: redshift quality restriction is imposed so that only galaxies with
313: reliable redshift are used in our analysis. An additional reason is
314: that the redshift completeness mask provided by the survey team,
315: which is used in our analysis, is constructed for the redshift
316: catalog of $Q\ge 3$. The last restriction is imposed in order to
317: eliminate galaxies in the fields for which the field redshift
318: completeness $c_{F}$ is less than 70 percent (see C01 about the
319: difference between $R({\mathbf \theta})$ and $c_F$). These fields
320: have not been included in computing the redshift mask map $R({\mathbf
321: \theta})$. As a result, there are a total of 190504 galaxies
322: satisfying our selection criteria, 78190 in the NGP strip and 112314
323: in the SGP strip.
324:
325: In order to study the luminosity dependence of the PVD, we divide the
326: galaxies into 10 subsamples according to their absolute
327: magnitude. The subsamples are successively brightened by 0.5
328: magnitude from the faintest sample $M_b=-17.0+5\log_{10} h$ to
329: $M_b=-21.5+5\log_{10} h$, with successive subsamples overlapping by
330: 0.5 magnitude. Here $h$ is the Hubble constant in units of
331: $100\kms{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. The details of the subsamples studied in
332: this paper are given in Table 1. For computing the absolute
333: magnitude, we have used the k-correction and luminosity evolution
334: model of \citet[][ ${\rm k+e}$ model]{norberg02b}, i.e., the absolute
335: magnitude is in the rest frame $b_j$ band at $z=0$. We assume a
336: cosmological model with the density parameter $\Omega_0=0.3$ and the
337: cosmological constant $\lambda_0=0.7$ throughout this paper.
338:
339: A detailed account of the observational selection effects is released
340: with the catalog by the survey team (C01). The limiting magnitude
341: changes slightly across the survey region due to further magnitude
342: calibrations that were carried out after the target galaxies had been
343: selected for the redshift measurement. This observational effect is
344: documented in the magnitude limit mask $b_J^{\rm lim} (\mathbf \theta)
345: $ (C01). The redshift sampling is far from uniform within the survey
346: region, and this selection effect is given by the redshift
347: completeness mask $R (\mathbf \theta)$. The redshift measurement
348: success rate also depends on the brightness of galaxies, making
349: fainter galaxies more incomplete in the redshift measurement. The $\mu
350: ( \mathbf \theta)$ mask provided by the survey team is aimed to
351: account for the brightness-dependent incompleteness. These effects can
352: be corrected in computing the redshift two-point correlation function
353: through constructing random samples that properly include these
354: selection effects. We generate random samples in the same way as
355: described in \citet[]{jb04}. Each random sample for a northern or
356: southern luminosity subsample contains 100,000 random points.
357:
358:
359: \section{Redshift power spectrum and the pairwise velocity dispersion}
360:
361: We measure the redshift two-point correlation functions $\xi_z({\bf s})$
362: following the method of JMB98.
363:
364: We convert the redshift two-point correlation function
365: to the redshift power spectrum by the Fourier transformation:
366: \beq
367: P^S({\bf k})=\int \xi_z({\bf s}) e^{-i{\bf k}\cdot {\bf s}} d{\bf s}\,.
368: \label{eq31}
369: \eeq
370: In cylindrical polar coordinates ($r_p, \phi, \pi$) with the
371: $\pi$-axis parallel to the line-of-sight, $P^S({\bf k})$ depends on
372: $k_p$, the wavenumber perpendicular to the line-of-sight, and on
373: $k_\pi$, the wavenumber parallel to the line-of-sight. The power spectrum
374: can be written
375: \beq
376: P^S(k_p,k_{\pi})=\int \xiz{} e^{-i[k_p r_p\cos(\phi)+\pi k_\pi]}
377: r_p dr_p d\phi d\pi\,.
378: \label{eq4}
379: \eeq
380: With some elementary mathematical manipulation, we get the following
381: expression:
382: \beq
383: P^S(k_p,k_{\pi})=2\pi \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\pi \int_0^{\infty} r_p dr_p
384: \xiz{} \cos(k_\pi \pi) J_0(k_p r_p)
385: \label{eq5}
386: \eeq
387: where $J_0(k_p r_p)$ is the zeroth-order Bessel function \citep[]{jb01b}.
388:
389: $\xiz{}$ is measured in equal logarithmic bins of
390: $r_p$ and in equal linear bins of $\pi$. The reason why different
391: types of bins are chosen for $r_p$ and $\pi$ is the fact that $\xiz{}$
392: decreases rapidly with $r_p$ but is flat with $\pi$ on small
393: scales. Thus this way of presenting $\xiz{}$ is better than using the
394: $\log$-$\log$ or the linear-linear bins for $r_p$ and $\pi$, and is
395: also suitable for the present work. The peculiar velocity of a few
396: hundred $\kms$ should smoothen out structures on a few $\mpc$ in the
397: radial direction, and the linear bin of $\Delta \pi_{i}=1\mpc$ is
398: suitable for resolving the structures in the radial direction. With
399: logarithmic bins chosen for $r_p$, the $r_p$ dependence is resolved
400: well, because otherwise the small scale clustering on the projected
401: direction cannot be recovered.
402: With this bin method, we obtain the power spectrum:
403: \beq
404: P^S(k_p,k_{\pi})=2\pi \sum_{i,j} \Delta \pi_{i} r_{p,j}^2 \Delta \ln r_{p,j}
405: \xi_z(r_{p,j},\pi_i) \cos(k_\pi \pi_i) J_0(k_p r_{p,j})
406: \label{eq6}
407: \eeq where $\pi_{i}$ runs from $-50$ to $50\mpc$ with $\Delta
408: \pi_{i}=1\mpc$ and $r_{p,j}$ from $0.1$ to $50\mpc$ with $\Delta \ln
409: r_{p,j}=0.23$ (Be careful not to confuse two $\pi$s in
410: Eqs. (\ref{eq5}) and (\ref{eq6}): the first $\pi$ in the
411: right-hand-side has the conventional meaning, i.e. 3.14159..., and the
412: others are for the axis along the line-of-sight.). We make the
413: summation of Eq.(\ref{eq6}) with rectangular boundaries in $\pi$ and
414: $r_p$.
415:
416: The fluctuations of $\xiz{}$ at large separations may bring errors to
417: the determination of the redshift power spectrum. We improve the
418: measurement by down weighting $\xiz{}$ at the larger
419: scales. Specifically, we use a Gaussian window function
420: \beq
421: W_g({\bf s})=\exp (-\frac{1}{2} \frac{s^2}{S^2})
422: \eeq
423: to weight the two-point correlation function with $S=20\mpc$. That
424: is, the measured redshift power spectrum is
425: \beq
426: P^{S,m} (k_p,k_{\pi})=2\pi \sum_{i,j} \Delta \pi_{i} r_{p,j}^2 \Delta
427: \ln r_{p,j}
428: \xi_z(r_{p,j},\pi_i) W_g(r_{p,j},\pi_i) \cos(k_\pi \pi_i) J_0(k_p r_{p,j})\,.
429: \label{psweight}
430: \eeq
431:
432: The weighting reduces the noise in the measurement, but introduces a
433: systematic bias to the redshift power spectrum. This is the reason
434: why we distinguish this measured redshift power spectrum $P^{S,m}
435: (k_p,k_{\pi})$ from the expression $P^{S} (k_p,k_{\pi})$ in
436: Eq.(\ref{eq6}). But they are related by the following equation,
437: \beq
438: P^{S,m} ({\mathbf k})=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^3} \int P^{S} ({\mathbf k}_1)
439: W_g({\mathbf k}-{\mathbf k}_1; S) d {\mathbf k}_1
440: \label{psconv}
441: \eeq
442: and
443: \beq
444: W_g({\mathbf k}; S)=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3/2}S^3} \exp (-\frac{1}{2}S^2k^2)
445: \,.
446: \eeq
447:
448: The weighting may change the redshift power spectrum at $k\ls
449: \pi/S=0.15 \mpci$, making the spectrum more isotropic and biasing the
450: value of $P^S(k_p,k_{\pi})$ generally. This effect can be estimated as
451: follows. We take Eqs.(\ref{eq2}) and (\ref{eq3}) for the redshift
452: power spectrum $P^S({\mathbf k})$. As a typical example, we take
453: $\beta=0.45$, $\sigma_v=500 \kms$, and a linear Cold Dark Matter power
454: spectrum from \citet[]{bardeen86} with the shape parameter
455: $\Gamma=0.2$ for $P^S({\mathbf k})$, and compute $P^{S,m} ({\mathbf
456: k})$ with Eq.(\ref{psconv}). The result is plotted in
457: Fig.~(\ref{fig:smoothing}) which is also compared with $P^{S}
458: ({\mathbf k})$. The weighting makes the redshift power spectrum
459: significantly rounder at $k= 0.1 \mpci$, but the effect becomes
460: negligible for $k \gs 0.2\mpci$. Furthermore, the figure shows that
461: the $P^{S} (k,\mu=0)$ at $\mu=0$ is changed little even at
462: $k=0.1\mpci$, indicating that the real space power spectrum may be
463: measured unbiasedly for $k \ge 0.1\mpci$ (because $P(k)=P^{S} (k,
464: \mu=0)$).
465:
466: A further test of the method is carried out by comparing the redshift
467: power spectrum of a simulated galaxy catalog. The galaxy catalog is
468: generated using the halo model \citep[Y03,][hereafter Y04]{yang04} for a LCDM
469: simulation of boxsize $300\mpc$. The details about the CDM model, the
470: simulation, and the method of generating the galaxies will be given in
471: the next section. For our test, we select galaxies with luminosity in
472: $-19.5\le M_b-\log_{10} h <-18.5$. We computed the redshift two-point
473: correlation function by counting the galaxy pairs, and measure the
474: redshift power spectrum using the procedure outlined above. These
475: spectra are compared with the redshift power spectra measured with the
476: Fourier transformation (FT) of the galaxy density field. This is shown
477: in Fig.~(\ref{fig:simutest}), with the symbols for $P(k,\mu)$ obtained
478: with FT, and the line for those measured through the 2PCF. The power
479: spectra measured with FT are free of the weighting effect
480: [Eq.(\ref{psconv})]. The figure confirms the results of
481: Fig.~(\ref{fig:smoothing}), and indicates that our method can give an
482: unbiased estimate of $P(k,\mu)$ for $k\ge 0.2\mpci$ from which we will
483: measure the velocity dispersion $\sigma_v(k)$ through equation
484: (\ref{eq2}). The real space power spectrum $P(k)$, which is mainly
485: determined from $P^S(k,\mu=0)$, can be determined for $k\ge 0.1\mpci$.
486:
487: \section{Simulation, Halo model, and mock catalogs}
488: We simulate galaxy catalogs using our cosmological N-body simulations.
489: The cosmological model considered is a currently popular flat
490: low-density model with the density parameter $\Omega_0=0.3$ and the
491: cosmological constant $\lambda_0=0.7$ (LCDM). The shape parameter
492: $\Gamma=\Omega_0 h$ and the amplitude $\sigma_8$ of the linear density
493: power spectrum are 0.2 and 0.9 respectively. Two sets of simulations,
494: with boxsizes $L=100\mpc$ and $L=300\mpc$, that were generated with
495: our vectorized-parallel $\pppm$ code \citep[]{js02,jing02}, are used in this
496: paper. Both simulations use $512^3$ particles, so the particle mass
497: $m_p$ is $6.2\times 10^8\msun$ and $1.7\times 10^{10}\msun$
498: respectively in these two cases. We have four independent realizations
499: for each boxsize. Dark matter halos are identified with the
500: friends-of-friends method (FOF) using a linking length $b$ equal to
501: 0.2 times of the mean particle separation. All halos with ten members
502: or more are included for generating the galaxy catalog.
503:
504: We populate the halos with galaxies according to the prescription
505: proposed by Y03. The luminosity function of galaxies in a
506: halo is assumed to be a function of the halo mass $M$, $\Phi(L\vert
507: M)$ that is further parametrized as the Schechter function. The
508: parameters of the Schechter function are functions of $M$, further
509: parametrized through the mass-to-light ratios of halos. There are a
510: total of 8 parameters (without classifying galaxies with spectral
511: types) that are determined by best fitting the observed luminosity
512: function and the luminosity dependent clustering of galaxies in the
513: 2dFGRS. It is shown by Yang et al. that these two observations are
514: well reproduced by their model, but there is some degeneracy in the
515: model parameters. In our work, we adopt model M1 in Y03
516: for the parameters of the halo model, and populate the halos with
517: galaxies (the luminosity, position and velocity) in a similar way as
518: Y04. The code for populating the halos
519: with galaxies was, however, written by us independently. We adopt the
520: ``FOF satellites'' scheme of Y04. We assign the satellite galaxies of
521: a halo the position and velocity of dark matter particles randomly
522: selected from the halo. Instead of locating the central galaxy at the
523: center-of-mass of a halo as in Y04, we locate it at the potential
524: minimum of the halo and assign its velocity with the halo bulk
525: velocity. The mass resolution of the simulations sets a faint limit
526: for which galaxies can be presented. According to Y04,
527: galaxies are complete in the $300\mpc$ simulation for magnitude
528: brighter than $M_b-5\log_{10} h=-18.0$ and in the $100\mpc$ simulation
529: for magnitude brighter than $M_b-5\log_{10} h=-15.0$. In
530: Fig.~(\ref{fig:lf}), we present the luminosity functions of the model
531: galaxies which do agree well with the observation of the 2dFGRS, and
532: also agree with each other between the two sets of simulations.
533:
534: It is straightforward to produce mock catalogs of the 2dFGRS, since we
535: have the information of positions, velocity and luminosity for each
536: galaxy. We first duplicate the simulation volumes periodically along
537: the main axes, and execute the selection effects according to the
538: observational masks. We produce 5 mock galaxy catalogs for each
539: realization of a simulation, so we have a total 40 mock samples. For
540: studying the redshift power spectrum of galaxies fainter than
541: $M_b-5\log_{10} h=-18.0$, we will use the mock samples of the $100\mpc$
542: simulations, otherwise we will use those of the $300\mpc$ simulations.
543:
544: It is important to understand the numerical artifacts of the
545: simulations that may affect the result here. We believe that the force
546: resolution of the simulations that adopt $\pppm$, are sufficient for
547: the current study, since only the global information of halos is
548: needed. The mass resolution has already been discussed above. It can
549: be easily taken into account in our analysis. The boxsize may be the
550: only concern that we need to consider seriously, because the most
551: massive halos may be under-represented for the lack of long-wavelength
552: density fluctuations, and the redshift power spectrum cannot be
553: measured around the fundamental wavelength of the simulation. Since we
554: measure $P(k,\mu)$ for $k\ge 0.1\mpci$, we believe that the boxsize
555: $300\mpc$ is sufficiently large both for studying the large-scale
556: clustering and for fairly sampling the massive clusters. To quantify
557: the possible effect of the 100$\mpc$ boxsize, we measure the redshift
558: power spectrum for the luminosity $-19.0 < M_b-5\log_{10} h<-18.5$ from the
559: mock catalogs. The results of the two sets of mock catalogs are
560: compared in Fig.~(\ref{fig:resolution}), which clearly show that the
561: simulation of 100$\mpc$ box size is sufficiently big in volume for studying the
562: redshift power spectrum for $k > 0.16\mpci$. Also the population of the
563: halos that host the faint galaxies in the simulation of $100\mpc$
564: should not be affected by the limited volume.
565:
566: \section{Results}
567: The statistical quantities are defined in the Fourier space ($\mathbf
568: k$) in the present work, which are often compared those obtained in
569: the coordinate space ($\mathbf r$) in previous work. When doing this
570: comparison, one uncertainty is the scale correspondence between the
571: $\mathbf k$ and $\mathbf r$ spaces. Although the correspondence is
572: $r=2\pi/k$ in mathematics, we think that it is more appropriate to
573: compare the two-point clustering and the PVD with the relation
574: $r\Leftrightarrow 1/k$ based on the following facts. The two-point
575: clustering can be expressed as a sum of two-halo and one-halo
576: contributions \citep[e.g.][]{kang02}. The transition from the two-halo
577: term dominance at large scales to the one-halo term dominance happens
578: at $\sim 0.5\mpci$ in $k$-space or at $r\sim 2\mpc$ in the $r$-space
579: for the concordance LCDM model\citep[e.g.][Y04]{kang02}. When
580: comparing the scale dependence of PVD, \citet{jb01} also argued for $k
581: \Leftrightarrow 1/r$. Therefore, we adopt $r\Leftrightarrow 1/k$ in
582: the current paper when comparing the statistical quantities in the two
583: spaces.
584:
585: \subsection{The luminosity dependence of the PVD}
586: Our main results are shown in Figs.~(\ref{fig:pkmu}) to
587: (\ref{fig:sigmavk1}). In the introduction we have said that it should
588: be possible to derive $\beta$, $\sigma_{12}$, and $P(k)$ from a
589: measurement of the redshift space power spectrum
590: $P^S(k,\mu)$. However, because we measure $P^S(k,\mu)$ only up to the
591: scale $k=0.1\mpci$, there exists a strong degeneracy in determining
592: the parameters $\sigma_{12}$ and $\beta$ \citep{peacock00} from
593: $P^S(k,\mu)$. Moreover, $\sigma_{12}$ could be a function of
594: $k$\citep{jb01}. We therefore fix $\beta= 0.45$ as a reasonable
595: estimate \citep{hawkins03}, and then determine $P(k)$ and
596: $\sigma_{12}$ from the data. There could also be some luminosity
597: dependence in $\beta$, and we investigate this by using the luminosity
598: dependence of the bias parameter $b/b^* = 0.8 + 0.2 (L/L^*)$ given in
599: \citet[]{norberg02a} and $\beta^*=0.45$, where the quantities with
600: superscript $*$ are those at the characteristic luminosity $M^*$. The
601: result is shown in Fig.~(\ref{fig:sigmabetalum}). The PVD for the
602: brightest galaxies is slightly increased compared to the result in
603: Fig,~(\ref{fig:sigmavk1}), and it is slightly decreased for the faint
604: galaxies. The changes are small, therefore it seems justified to use a
605: constant $\beta$. In Figs.~(\ref{fig:sigmavk1}) and
606: (\ref{fig:sigmabetalum}) we have also plotted the PVD values at the
607: number-weighted luminosity value in each bin.
608:
609: In Fig.~(\ref{fig:pkmu}) the basic measurement of the power spectrum
610: in redshift space $P^S(k, \mu)$ is shown. The four panels in this
611: figure correspond to four different luminosity intervals (samples
612: 3,5,7, and 9 of table 1) from faint to bright galaxies. The symbols
613: are the results for the full 2dFGRS, the dotted lines for the south,
614: and the dashed lines for the north sample for each $k$-value. The
615: values of $k$ range from $0.20 \mpci$ at the top to $3.2 \mpci$ at the
616: bottom with an increment of $\Delta \log_{10}k = 0.2$. The south and
617: north samples agree quite well with the full survey indicating that
618: cosmic variance is not a problem. The solid lines are the best
619: fits obtained by applying equation (\ref{eq2}) to the data of the
620: whole survey. The power spectrum for the larger $k$-values decreases
621: quite strongly with $\mu$, more than a factor of $10$ between $\mu =
622: 0$ and $\mu = 1$. There is a small luminosity dependence. $P^S(k,\mu)$
623: increases for the bright samples by a factor $\simeq 2$ for all $k$. A
624: similar dependence on luminosity for the 2PCF was found by
625: \citet[]{norberg02a} (see also the real space spectrum below).
626:
627: In Fig.~(\ref{fig:pkreal}) the real space power spectrum of the 2dFGRS
628: $P(k)$ is displayed for the four different luminosity intervals
629: (symbols). Again we can see that $P(k)$ for brighter samples are
630: higher. The error bars are derived from the mock samples described in
631: the previous section. We prefer this error estimate to the bootstrap
632: method which in general gives $50 \%$ smaller errors. The mock sample
633: errors are just the standard deviations occurring, when the identical
634: analysis is carried out for the 20 mock samples. These error bars
635: adequately include the sample to sample variations (the cosmic
636: variance), and they are not sensitive to the bias model used (JMB98).
637: The figure shows that $P(k)$ is quite reliably determined for $k$
638: between $0.1 \mpci $ and $4 \mpci $. Although $P(k) = P^S(k,\mu =0)$
639: in principle, $P(k,\mu =0)$ fluctuates around the true value of $P(k)$
640: in practice, because in a finite sized survey the number of Fourier
641: modes is always limited. $P(k)$ is better determined, if $P^S(k,\mu)$
642: at different angles is combined with $P(k)$ being treated as a free
643: parameter, as is done here. The spectrum is approximately a power law
644: for the range of $k$ considered here. It decays with $k$ approximately
645: as $ k^{-1.5}$, with the slope of the brightest sample somewhat
646: shallower. The smooth solid lines are the predictions of the halo
647: model of Yang et al. which is implemented as described in section
648: 4. The agreement with the data is satisfactory on large scales where
649: $k<0.5\mpci$, not a surprising fact, since the halo model has been
650: constructed such as to reproduce the luminosity-dependent clustering
651: length of the 2dFGRS (i.e. linear to quasi-linear
652: regimes). Nevertheless, we may note that for samples 5,7, and 9 the
653: halo model gives an indication of a change in slope of $P(k)$ at $ k =
654: 1 \mpci $. This can be understood as the transition between the scales
655: where the pair counts are dominated by galaxy pairs in the same halo
656: to the larger scales, where pairs of galaxies mostly are in separate
657: halos. In the data such a change in slope is much less pronounced,
658: but it is present for the brightest samples \citep[see also
659: Y04,][]{zehavi03}. The discrepancy between the model and the 2dFGRS
660: data at small scales of $k\ga 1\mpci$ is very significant, at $\sim
661: 3\sigma$ level for sample 9, at $\sim 10\sigma$ level for sample 7,
662: and at $\sim 5\sigma$ level for sample 5. We also note that the
663: clustering of the faint sample (sample 3) is higher than the halo
664: model on all scales at $\sim 1.5\sigma$ level.
665:
666: The PVD is measured simultaneously with $P(k)$, and the results are
667: presented in Fig.~(\ref{fig:sigmav}). It seems that for the $k$-values
668: used here, $\sigma_{12}(k)$ is a well-determined quantity. For the
669: faintest sample, the PVD is persistently higher than that of the halo
670: model (at $\sim 2 \sigma$ level), indicating that the faint galaxies
671: in the Universe may reside in more massive halos than the halo model
672: predicts. This can also explain why the $P(k)$ of this sample is
673: systematically higher than the halo model prediction. For sample 5,
674: the difference in the PVD between the 2dFGRS and the halo model is
675: only $50$ to $100\kms$, consistent with the fact that their $P(k)$ are
676: also close, though the agreement is not very good as the discrepancy
677: between the model and the observation is significant at $2\sigma$
678: level. For the bright galaxies (sample 7 and sample 9), the halo model
679: prediction rises quickly with $k$ at $k>1 \mpci$, as the galaxy pairs
680: on these scales are mainly contributed by those from the same massive
681: halos. This behavior was also seen in the power spectrum $P(k)$ at
682: small scale where $P(k)$ rises quickly with $k$. Especially for sample
683: 7, the observed PVD does not rise with $k$ and is only around
684: $500\kms$, which is expected if the galaxies are more distributed
685: among isolated halos with the velocity dispersion of $200\sim 300\kms$
686: (bright spirals). For sample 9, the PVD rises with $k$, but much
687: slower than the halo model around $1\mpci$, which also indicates that
688: the brightest galaxies in the real Universe are distributed more in
689: halos of different mass than the halo model predicts. The difference
690: between the halo model and the observation is significant at $>
691: 3\sigma$ level for the bright samples.
692:
693: The luminosity dependence of the PVD is shown most clearly in
694: Fig.~(\ref{fig:sigmavk1}), where we have plotted $\sigma_{12}$ at $ k=
695: 1 \mpci $ for the 10 overlapping samples listed in table 1. The
696: surprising result is a strong dependence on luminosity with the bright
697: and the faint galaxies reaching high values of $ \simeq 700 \kms$, and
698: with a well defined minimum of $ \simeq 400 \kms$ for the galaxies of
699: sample 8. The bright and the faint galaxies apparently have high
700: random motions, as expected for objects in a massive halo or in a
701: cluster. The $M^*$ like galaxies are rather moderate in their PVD, and
702: probably reside in galaxy size halos. The thick solid line represents
703: the prediction based on the halo model of Y04 (\S 4) that clearly does
704: not match our observation of the PVD.
705:
706: \subsection{Implications for the halo model}
707: The results of Y04 as well as of the current work show that the halo
708: model adopted in this paper can reproduce the luminosity function very
709: well, but cannot match the clustering data of galaxies perfectly. The
710: model can quite successfully account for the luminosity dependence of
711: clustering on large scales (i.e. the luminosity dependence of the
712: clustering length), though it seems to underpredict for the faintest
713: galaxies (Figure 6). Moreover, the clustering at small scales
714: ($r<2\mpc$ or $k>0.5\mpci$) predicted by the model is higher than the
715: 2dFGRS data by a factor of 2 to 3. Also the PVD and the
716: quadrupole-to-monopole ratio of the redshift space correlation
717: function are higher in the model than the 2dFGRS data when the
718: luminosity classification has not been applied. To solve these problems
719: (or part of them), Y04 proposed several possible solutions, that is,
720: to raise the mass-to-light ratio to $1000(M/L)_\odot$ for rich
721: clusters in the B-band, to introduce a strong velocity bias $b_{\rm
722: vel}\equiv \sigma_{\rm gal}/\sigma_{\rm dm}=0.6$ (where $\sigma_{\rm
723: gal}$ and $/\sigma_{\rm dm}$ are the velocity dispersions of galaxies
724: and dark matter in halos), or to lower the clustering amplitude
725: $\sigma_8$ to about $0.7$. As Y04 realized, the first two solutions
726: are not realistic, because the observed mass-to-light ratio is
727: $(450\pm 100)(M/L)_\odot$ \citep{fuku98} and $(363\pm 65)(M/L)_\odot$
728: \citep{cal96} for rich clusters in the B-band, and hydro/N-body
729: simulations show that velocity bias is rather minor for rich galaxy
730: systems \citep[][]{yoshikawa03,berlind03}. Therefore we only consider
731: the last possibility to see if a low $\sigma_8=0.7$ can bring the halo
732: model into agreement with our luminosity-dependent PVD result.
733:
734: In our N-body data library, we have one simulation with $L=100\mpc$
735: and another with $L=300\mpc$ in a $\sigma_8=0.7$ LCDM model. The model
736: and simulation parameters of these two simulations are the same as
737: those of the simulations with the same boxsize $L$ in \S 4, except for
738: that the density parameter $\Omega_0=0.25$ is slightly lower for the
739: new model. Xiaohu Yang has kindly provided us with the parameters of
740: the halo model for this cosmological model. We find that the
741: luminosity function of the 2dFGRS can be reproduced and the clustering
742: is improved on small scales (but still higher for luminosity bins
743: around $M^*$) in this model. Its PVD is shown in Fig.8 as a function
744: of luminosity, which is considerably lower than the data of
745: 2dFGRS. Compared with the low $\sigma_8$ model of Y04, our $\Omega_0$
746: is slightly lower. Since the PVD is approximately proportional to
747: $\sigma_8 \Omega_0^{0.6}$, we can boost the PVD by $(0.30/0.25)^{0.6}$
748: which is also shown in Fig.8. We can see that this PVD after
749: correcting for the $\Omega_0$ difference is still lower than our
750: 2dFGRS data. More interestingly, this low $\sigma_8$ model also predicts
751: a monotonically decreasing PVD with the decrease of the luminosity,
752: implying that simply changing the value of $\sigma_8$ cannot overcome
753: the difficulty of the halo model to explain the bimodal nature of the
754: luminosity dependence of the PVD.
755:
756: It should be possible to use the PVD to constrain the value of
757: $\sigma_8$ if the shape of the PVD is reproduced in the halo
758: model. Y04 argued for $\sigma_8=0.7$ from a comparison with the 2dFGRS
759: PVD without a luminosity classification \citep[][]{hawkins03}
760: \citep[see also][for other independent arguments]{bosch03}, but our
761: comparison of the halo model with our 2dFGRS data seems to favor a
762: higher $\sigma_8$, since the PVD of the this low $\sigma_8$ model is
763: lower than the observed data at all luminosities. Considering that
764: most of the 2dFGRS galaxies are in the luminosity interval
765: $-20.5<\mag<-18.5$, we would require $\sigma_8\approx 0.82$ for
766: the $\Omega_0=0.3$ according to the $\sigma_8\Omega_0^{0.6}$ scaling
767: if we want the halo model to match the observed PVD at
768: $\mag=-19.5$. This value of $\sigma_8$ is in good agreement with the
769: recent determinations based on the WMAP and the SDSS galaxy-galaxy lensing
770: data \citep[][]{spergel03,seljak04a}. Although this is not a rigorous
771: determination for $\sigma_8$ because we have not yet reproduced the
772: shape of the luminosity dependence of PVD, our comparison indicates
773: that the concordance model favored by the WMAP and SDSS data is
774: consistent with our PVD data.
775:
776: The PVD is an indicator of the depth of the local gravitational
777: potential. Therefore we are inevitably led to the interesting
778: conclusion that the bright and the faint galaxies move in the
779: strongest gravitational field. A substantial fraction of them must be
780: in clusters, while most galaxies around magnitude $\mag =
781: -20.5$, the $M^*$ galaxies in the Schechter luminosity function,
782: populate the field. We believe this result, that is, the shape of the
783: PVD luminosity dependence (not its absolute amplitude),
784: constitutes a new challenge to the halo model of Yang et al.. The
785: straightforward implication for the halo model is to increase the
786: faint galaxy population in rich clusters. With the parameters of the
787: Yang et al.'s halo model, the faint end slope $\alpha_{15}$ of their
788: conditional luminosity function in rich clusters is one of the crucial
789: quantities that determine the fraction of the faint galaxies in rich
790: clusters. We expect that decreasing $\alpha_{15}$ (i.e. steeper faint
791: end slope) can increase the fraction of faint galaxies in rich
792: clusters. It is therefore worth investigating if a more negative
793: $\alpha_{15}$ than the value $-1.32$ of the M1 model can save the halo
794: model of Y03.
795:
796: It is important to emphasize that the conditional luminosity function
797: method proposed by Yang et al. is a highly valuable approach to infer
798: the galaxy distribution within dark halos from a wide range of
799: observations. The discrepancy between the M1 model and our PVD
800: luminosity dependence (especially the bimodal shape of the PVD) does
801: not necessarily mean that the halo model approach is wrong or
802: useless. Instead it does mean that the luminosity dependence of the
803: PVD provides an important test for galaxy formation models that is
804: independent of the correlation functions. Because the PVD is more
805: sensitive to the small number of galaxies in rich clusters than the
806: correlation function \citep{mjb93,mjb97}, combining these two types of
807: statistical quantities can put a more stringent constraint on the
808: parametrization of the halo model.
809:
810: The galaxy-galaxy lensing of the SDSS constrains strongly the fraction
811: of faint galaxies in rich clusters \citep{sheldon04,mckay02}. The
812: rapid decrease of the lensing signal with the luminosity of the
813: lensing galaxies indicates that the average matter density around
814: galaxies decreases with the decrease of galaxy luminosity
815: \citep{primack04,seljak04b}. However, the galaxy-galaxy lensing
816: observation may not be inconsistent with our PVD observation that
817: quite a fraction of faint galaxies are in rich clusters. The main
818: reason is that these two quantities as well as the two-point
819: correlation function depend on the halo occupation number of galaxies
820: differently. In other word, the faint population in rich clusters has
821: a different weight on these different quantities. Because of its
822: pair-square weighting nature, the PVD statistic is mostly sensitive to
823: those faint galaxies in rich clusters \citep{mjb97}. Because the mean
824: lensing signal \citep{sheldon04} is galaxy number weighted, the
825: lensing statistic may be much less sensitive to the faint population
826: in rich clusters than the PVD. Figure 6 also shows that the two-point
827: correlation predicted by the current halo model (M1 model) is about 50
828: percent lower than the observed value for faint galaxies, indicating
829: there is room for increasing faint galaxies in rich clusters. It would
830: certainly be very interesting to examine quantitatively if such a halo
831: model can be constructed to consistently interpret all these three
832: quantities. Because these quantities depend on the halo occupation
833: number in different manners, we expect that they will play important
834: but complementary roles in constraining the halo occupation of
835: galaxies.
836:
837:
838: \section{Conclusions}
839:
840: The analysis of the velocity fields of the galaxies in the 2dFGRS
841: (C01) has led to a surprising discovery: The random velocities of the
842: faint galaxies are very high, around $ 700 \kms$, reaching similar
843: values as the bright galaxies. At intermediate luminosities the
844: velocities exhibit a well defined steep minimum near $ 400 \kms$.
845:
846: It seems that the galaxies in different luminosity intervals appear as
847: different populations in their own right, defined by objective
848: statistics. A look at Fig.~(\ref{fig:sigmavk1}) shows convincingly
849: that this is actually the case. For this figure we have sorted the
850: galaxies in 10 luminosity bins, each one magnitude wide, from
851: magnitude $-16.5$ to $ -22$ and plotted the value of $ \sigma_{12}$ at
852: a wave number of $k \simeq 1 \mpci $. Such a finely resolved binning
853: of galaxies in samples of different luminosities is possible for the
854: 2dFGRS redshift survey, because it is big enough to contain
855: sufficiently many galaxies in each luminosity class. In each bin the
856: PVD is a well defined quantity which can be measured reliably ( the
857: very luminous galaxies have large error bars, because their are very
858: few pairs of such objects at those scales).
859:
860: The PVD is an indicator of the depth of the local gravitational
861: potential. Therefore we find the interesting result that the bright
862: and the faint galaxies move in the strongest gravitational field. A
863: substantial fraction of them must be in clusters, while most galaxies
864: around magnitude $\mag = -20.5$, the $M^*$ galaxies in the
865: Schechter luminosity function, populate the field.
866:
867: The bimodal nature of the correlation between PVD and luminosity may
868: be used as a stringent test of galaxy formation models. We have
869: investigated the halo occupation model \citep[Y03][]{} which has been
870: optimally fitted to reproduce the luminosity function, and the
871: two-point correlation function of the 2dFGRS. If we adapt this model
872: to the PVD value of the $M^*$ galaxies, we see that it cannot give the
873: high values found for the fainter galaxies. The PVD values of the
874: model actually run opposite to the data and the model assigns smaller
875: values to the fainter galaxies. This indicates that the assignment of
876: galaxies to the dark matter halos must be done in a more intricate way
877: as up to now. In Table 2 we have listed the PVD values for the
878: different luminosity bins. These must be reproduced by an acceptable
879: model for galaxy formation. The number of faint galaxies in clusters
880: must be increased substantially to at least recover the high PVD found
881: for them. One possible solution for the halo model is to raise the
882: faint end slope of the conditional luminosity function in rich
883: clusters. Also, the low value of $ 400 \kms$ found for the galaxies
884: with magnitude $ -20.5$ must mean that these galaxies reside in dark
885: matter halos of galactic size,
886:
887: Another way, widely used, to connect dark matter to galaxies is the
888: semi-analytic modeling \citep[e.g., ][]{kauffmann99, cole00, benson00,
889: sp99, dkcw99,springel01}, where the dark matter distributions obtained
890: from N-body simulations are supplemented with some of the physical
891: processes important in galaxy formation using semi-analytic
892: techniques. A test of the PVD vs luminosity for this type of models
893: will be the aim of a subsequent paper.
894:
895: We have shown here in addition that our novel method of deriving
896: the real space power spectrum and the PVD from the redshift space
897: power spectrum allows to determine these quantities precisely
898: and reliably from the 2dFGRS. The size of the 2dFGRS permits
899: an investigation of the luminosity dependence of these quantities.
900: New constraints on galaxy formation models can be derived from that.
901: We have shown that the luminosity dependence of the clustering
902: can be reproduced by an adequately chosen halo occupation model.
903: This model fails, however, to reproduce the luminosity dependence of
904: the PVD.
905:
906:
907:
908:
909: \acknowledgments
910:
911: We are grateful to Houjun Mo for a very stimulating and helpful
912: discussion on the halo model, Uros Seljak for his helpful comment on
913: the galaxy-galaxy lensing observation, and Xiaohu Yang for providing
914: the halo model parameters of the low $\sigma_8$ model and for some
915: instructions of implementing the halo model in N-body simulations, and
916: the anonymous referee for helpful comments that improve our
917: presentation. JYP would like to thank the Max-Planck Institute f\"ur
918: Astrophysik for its warm hospitality during the time when this work
919: was completed. GB wants to thank the Shanghai Astronomical
920: Observatory for friendly infrastructure provided during his stay in
921: Shanghai. The work is supported in part by NKBRSF (G19990754), by NSFC
922: (Nos.10125314, 10373012), and by the CAS-MPG exchange program.
923:
924:
925:
926:
927: \begin{thebibliography}{}
928: \bibitem[Bardeen et al.(1986)]{bardeen86} Bardeen J.~M., Bond J.~R., Kaiser N., Szalay A.~S.\ 1986, ApJ, 304, 15
929: \bibitem[Benson et al.(2000)]{benson00} Benson A.~J., Baugh C.~M., Cole S., Frenk C.~S., Lacey C.~G., 2000, MNRAS, 316, 107
930: \bibitem[Berlind \& Weinberg(2002)]{bw02} Berlind, A.~A.~\& Weinberg, D.~H.\ 2002, \apj, 575, 587 %%%
931: \bibitem[Berlind et al.(2003)]{berlind03}Berlind A.A., et. al., 2003, \apj , 593, 1
932: \bibitem[Carlberg et al.(1997)]{cal96} Carlberg R.G., Morris S.L., Yee H.K.C., Ellingson E., 1997, \apj, 479, L19
933: \bibitem[Cole, Fisher, \& Weinberg(1995)]{cfw95} Cole, S., Fisher, K.~B., \& Weinberg, D.~H.\ 1995, \mnras, 275, 515 %%%
934: \bibitem[Cole et al.(2000)]{cole00} Cole, S., Lacey, C.~G., Baugh, C.~M., \& Frenk, C.~S.\ 2000, \mnras, 319, 168
935: \bibitem[Colless et al.(2001)]{colless01} Colless, M.~et al.\ 2001, \mnras, 328, 1039 %%%
936: \bibitem[Colless et al.(2003)]{colless03} Colless, M.~et al.\ 2003, astro-ph/0306581 %%%
937: \bibitem[Davis \& Peebles(1983)] {dp83} Davis M., Peebles P.J.E., 1983, ApJ, 267, 465 %%%
938: \bibitem[Diaferio et al.(1999)]{dkcw99} Diaferio, A., Kauffmann, G., Colberg, J.~M., \& White, S.~D.~M.\ 1999, \mnras, 307, 537
939: \bibitem[Fisher et al.(1994b)]{fisher94} Fisher, K.~B., Davis, M., Strauss, M.~A., Yahil, A., \& Huchra, J.~P.\ 1994b, \mnras, 267, 927
940: \bibitem[Fisher et al.(1994a)]{fisher95} Fisher, K.~B., Davis,
941: M., Strauss, M.~A., Yahil, A., \& Huchra, J.\ 1994a, \mnras, 266, 50
942: \bibitem[Fukugita et al.(1998)] {fuku98}Fukugita M., Hogan C.J., Peebles P.J.E., 1998, \apj, 503, 518
943: \bibitem[Hamilton \& Tegmark(2002)]{hamilton02} Hamilton, A.~J.~S.~\& Tegmark, M.\ 2002, \mnras, 330, 506
944: \bibitem[Hawkins et al.(2003)]{hawkins03}Hawkins et al.\ 2003, MNRAS, 346, 78
945: \bibitem[Jing(2002)]{jing02} Jing, Y.~P.\ 2002, \mnras, 335,
946: L89
947: \bibitem[Jing \& B\"orner(1998)]{jb98} Jing, Y.~P.~\& B\"orner, G.\ 1998, \apj, 503, 37
948: \bibitem[Jing \& B\"orner(2001a)]{jb01} Jing Y.P., B\"orner G., \ 2001, ApJ, 547, 545
949: \bibitem[Jing \& B{\" o}rner(2001b)]{jb01b} Jing, Y.~P.~\& B{\" o}rner, G.\ 2001, \mnras, 325, 1389 %%%
950: \bibitem[Jing \& B{\" o}rner(2004)]{jb04} Jing, Y.~P.~\& B{\" o}rner, G.\ 2004, \apj, 607, 140
951: \bibitem[Jing, B{\" o}rner, \& Suto(2002)]{jbs02} Jing, Y.~P., B{\" o}rner, G., \& Suto, Y.\ 2002, \apj, 564, 15
952: \bibitem[Jing, Mo, \& B\"orner(1998)]{jmb98} Jing, Y.~P., Mo, H.~J., \& B\"orner, G.\ 1998, \apj, 494, 1
953: \bibitem[Jing \& Suto(2002)]{js02} Jing, Y.~P.~\& Suto, Y.\ 2002, \apj, 574, 538
954: \bibitem[Juszkiewicz, Fisher, \&Szapudi (1998)]{jfs98} Juszkiewicz R., Fisher K.B., Szapudi I.\ 1998, ApJ, 504, L1
955: \bibitem[Kaiser(1987)]{k87} Kaiser, N.\ 1987, \mnras, 227, 1
956: \bibitem[Kang et al.(2002)]{kang02} Kang, X., Jing, Y.~P., Mo, H.~J., \& B{\" o}rner, G.\ 2002, \mnras, 336, 892
957: \bibitem[Kauffmann et al.(1999)]{kauffmann99} Kauffmann, G., Colberg, J.~M., Diaferio, A., \& White, S.~D.~M.\ 1999, \mnras, 303, 188
958: \bibitem[Landy, Szalay, \& Broadhurst(1998)]{lsb98} Landy, S.~D., Szalay, A.~S., \& Broadhurst, T.~J.\ 1998, \apjl, 494, L133 %%%
959: \bibitem[Marzke et al.(1995)]{marzke95} Marzke, R.~O., Geller, M.~J., da Costa, L.~N., \& Huchra, J.~P.\ 1995, \aj, 110, 477
960: \bibitem[McKay et al.(2002)]{mckay02}McKay, T. A., et al. 2002, preprint (astro-ph/0108013)
961: \bibitem[Mo, Jing, \& B\"orner(1993)]{mjb93} Mo H.J., Jing Y.P., B\"orner G., \ 1993, MNRAS, 264, 825
962: \bibitem[Mo, Jing, \& Borner(1997)]{mjb97} Mo, H.~J., Jing, Y.~P., \& Borner, G.\ 1997, \mnras, 286, 979
963: \bibitem[Norberg et al.(2001)]{norberg01} Norberg, P.~et al.\ 2001, \mnras, 328, 64 %clustering vs L
964: \bibitem[Norberg et al.(2002a)]{norberg02a} Norberg, P.~et al.\ 2002a, \mnras, 332, 827 %clustering vs L and eta
965: \bibitem[Norberg et al.(2002b)]{norberg02b} Norberg, P.~et al.\ 2002b, \mnras, 336, 907 %LF and SF
966: \bibitem[Peacock \& Dodds(1994)]{pd94} Peacock, J.~A.~\& Dodds, S.~J.\ 1994, \mnras, 267, 1020 %%%
967: \bibitem[Peacock et al.(2001)]{peacock00} Peacock, J.~A., et al.\ 2001, \nat, 410, 169
968: \bibitem[Pearce et al.(2001)]{pearce01} Pearce, F.~R., Jenkins, A., Frenk, C.~S., White, S.~D.~M., Thomas, P.~A., Couchman, H.~M.~P., Peacock, J.~A., \& Efstathiou, G.\ 2001, \mnras, 326, 649
969: \bibitem[Peebles(1976)]{peebles76} Peebles P.J.E., 1976, \apss 45, 3
970: \bibitem[Peebles(1980)]{peebles80} Peebles P.J.E., 1980, The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe, Princeton University Press, Princeton
971: \bibitem[Scoccimarro(2004)]{scocci04} Scoccimarro, R.\ 2004, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, astro-ph/0407214
972: \bibitem[Sheth et al.(2001)]{sheth01} Sheth, R.~K., Hui, L., Diaferio, A., \& Scoccimarro, R.\ 2001, \mnras, 325, 1288
973: \bibitem[Seljak et al.(2004a)]{seljak04a} Seljak, U., et al.\
974: 2004a, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, astro-ph/0407372
975: \bibitem[Seljak et al.(2004b)]{seljak04b} Seljak, U., et al.\
976: 2004b, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, astro-ph/0406594
977: \bibitem[Sheldon et al.(2004)]{sheldon04} Sheldon, E.~S., et al.\
978: 2004, \aj, 127, 2544
979: \bibitem[Somerville, Davis, \& Primack(1997)]{sdp97} Somerville, R.~S., Davis, M., \& Primack, J.~R.\ 1997, \apj, 479, 616
980: \bibitem[Somerville \& Primack(1999)]{sp99} Somerville, R.~S.~\& Primack, J.~R.\ 1999, \mnras, 310, 1087
981: \bibitem[Spergel et al.(2003)]{spergel03}Spergel D.N., et al., 2003, ApJS, 148, 175
982: \bibitem[Springel et al.(2001)]{springel01} Springel V., White S.D.M., Tormen G.,Kauffmann G.,\ 2001, MNRAS, 328, 726
983: \bibitem[Tasitsiomi, et al. (2004)]{primack04} Tasitsiomi, A., Kravtsov, A.~V., Wechsler, R.~H., \& Primack, J.~R.\ 2004, astro-ph/0404168
984: \bibitem[van den Bosch, Mo, \& Yang(2003)]{bosch03} van den Bosch, F.~C., Mo, H.~J., \& Yang, X.\ 2003, \mnras, 345, 923
985: \bibitem[Weinberg et al.(2004)]{wdkh04} Weinberg, D.~H., Dav{\' e}, R., Katz, N., \& Hernquist, L.\ 2004, \apj, 601, 1
986: \bibitem[Yang et al.(2004)]{yang04} Yang, X., Mo, H.~J., Jing, Y.~P., van den Bosch, F.~C., \& Chu, Y.\ 2004, \mnras, 350, 1153
987: \bibitem[Yang, Mo, \& van den Bosch(2003)]{yang03} Yang, X., Mo, H.~J., \& van den Bosch, F.~C.\ 2003, \mnras, 339, 1057
988: \bibitem[Yan, Madgwick, \& White(2003)]{ymw03} Yan, R., Madgwick, D.~S., \& White, M.\ 2003, \apj, 598, 848
989: \bibitem[Yoshikawa, Jing, \& B\"orner(2003)]{yoshikawa03} Yoshikawa K., Jing Y.P., B\"orner G.\ 2003, ApJ, 590, 654
990: \bibitem[Zehavi et al.(2002)]{zehavi02} Zehavi, I.~et al.\ 2002, \apj, 571, 172
991: \bibitem[Zehavi et al.(2003)]{zehavi03} Zehavi, I.~et al.\ 2003, astro-ph/0301280
992:
993: \end{thebibliography}
994:
995:
996:
997:
998:
999: \clearpage
1000:
1001: \begin{table}
1002: \caption{Samples selected according to luminosity}
1003: \begin{center}
1004: \begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
1005: \hline\hline
1006: &&South&North&Total\\
1007: Sample&$M_b-5\log_{10} h$&(no. of galaxies)&(no. of galaxies)&(no. of galaxies)\\
1008: \hline
1009: 1&$-16.5>M_b-5\log_{10} h\ge -17.5$&5218& 3587& 8805\\
1010: 2&$-17.0>M_b-5\log_{10} h\ge -18.0$&9314& 6078& 15392\\
1011: 3&$-17.5>M_b-5\log_{10} h\ge -18.5$&14593& 11097& 25690\\
1012: 4&$-18.0>M_b-5\log_{10} h\ge -19.0$&23703& 18670& 42373\\
1013: 5&$-18.5>M_b-5\log_{10} h\ge -19.5$&34481& 25683& 60164\\
1014: 6&$-19.0>M_b-5\log_{10} h\ge -20.0$&40995& 29241& 70236\\
1015: 7&$-19.5>M_b-5\log_{10} h\ge -20.5$&40182& 27223& 67405\\
1016: 8&$-20.0>M_b-5\log_{10} h\ge -21.0$&30934& 19204& 50138\\
1017: 9&$-20.5>M_b-5\log_{10} h\ge -21.5$&15388& 8848& 24236\\
1018: 10&$-21.0>M_b-5\log_{10} h\ge -22.0$&3739& 2162& 5901 \\
1019:
1020: \hline\hline
1021: \end{tabular}
1022: \end{center}
1023: \end{table}
1024: \begin{table}
1025: \caption{The results of the PVD at $k=1\mpci$ of the luminosity subsamples}
1026: \begin{center}
1027: \begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
1028: \hline\hline
1029: &Median Mag.&$\sigma_v[\beta=0.45]$\tablenotemark{a}&$\sigma_v[\beta(L)]$\tablenotemark{b}\\
1030: Sample&$M_b-5\log_{10} h$&($\kms$)&($\kms$)\\
1031: \hline
1032: 1 & $-17.15$ & $698\pm 103$ & $717 \pm 102$\\
1033: 2 & $-17.62$ & $642\pm 73$ & $659 \pm 72$\\
1034: 3 & $-18.12$ & $723\pm 88$ & $737 \pm 87$\\
1035: 4 & $-18.61$ & $686\pm 42$ & $697 \pm 42$\\
1036: 5 & $-19.06$ & $609\pm 23$ & $616 \pm 23$\\
1037: 6 & $-19.51$ & $498\pm 24$ & $500 \pm 24$\\
1038: 7 & $-19.96$ & $468\pm 21$ & $463 \pm 21$\\
1039: 8 & $-20.39$ & $424\pm 17$ & $412 \pm 17$\\
1040: 9 & $-20.76$ & $599\pm 44$ & $580 \pm 44$\\
1041: 10 & $-21.18$ & $979\pm 303$ & $945 \pm 296$\\
1042:
1043: \hline\hline
1044: \end{tabular}
1045: \end{center}
1046: \small{
1047: \tablenotetext{a}{The PVD determined with $\beta=0.45$.}
1048: \tablenotetext{b}{The PVD determined with the luminosity dependence of $\beta$ taken into account.}}
1049: \end{table}
1050:
1051:
1052: \begin{figure}
1053: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f1.eps}
1054: \caption{Illustration of the smoothing effect on the determination of
1055: the redshift space power spectrum $P(k,\mu)$ when the redshift space
1056: two-point correlation function $\xi(r_p,\pi)$ is weighted by a
1057: Gaussian function of width $R=20 \mpc$. The solid lines, computed with
1058: Eq.(\ref{psconv}), are the $P(k,\mu)$ with the smoothing effect,
1059: compared to the dotted lines for $P(k,\mu)$ without the smoothing
1060: effect. In this plot, we use the linear CDM power spectrum of
1061: $\Gamma=0.2$, $\beta=0.45$ and $\sigma_v=500 \kms$ as input. $k$ is in
1062: units of $\mpci$}
1063: \label{fig:smoothing}\end{figure}
1064:
1065: \begin{figure}
1066: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f2.eps}
1067: \caption{The simulation test of the statistical method used in this
1068: paper that measures $P(k,\mu)$ from $\xi(r_p,\pi)$. The solid lines
1069: are the measurement of $P(k,\mu)$ for a simulation sample of galaxies
1070: with $-19.5< M_b-5\log_{10} h <-18.5$ based on the Gaussian weighted
1071: $\xi(r_p,\pi)$ measurement, compared with the direct measurement of
1072: $P(k,\mu)$ based on the Fourier transformation of the galaxy density
1073: field in redshift space (the symbols). From top to bottom, the
1074: wavelength $k$ is $0.10, 0.16, 0.25, 0.40, 0.63, 1.0, 1.6, 2.5,$ and
1075: $5.0\mpci$ respectively. The galaxies are produced with the halo
1076: model, and the simulations have a boxsize $L=300\mpc$. }
1077: \label{fig:simutest}\end{figure}
1078:
1079: \begin{figure}
1080: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f3.eps}
1081: \caption{The luminosity function of galaxies generated with the halo
1082: model, compared with the observation of 2dFGRS. To the resolution
1083: limit $M_b-5\log_{10} h =-18.5$ for the simulation of $L=300\mpc$ and
1084: $M_b-5\log_{10} h =-16.5$ for the simulation of $L=100\mpc$, the luminosity
1085: functions of the mock galaxies agree well with the observed one, and
1086: agree with each other in the two simulations.}
1087: \label{fig:lf}\end{figure}
1088:
1089: \begin{figure}
1090: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f4.eps}
1091: \caption{The resolution effect on the predicted $P(k,\mu)$ in
1092: simulations of different boxsizes. Galaxies of $-19.5< M_b-5\log_{10} h
1093: <-18.5$ are analyzed. The results based on the 2dFGRS mock samples
1094: generated with $L=100\mpc$ simulations are plotted in symbols and
1095: those with $L=300\mpc$ simulations are plotted in connected
1096: lines. From top to bottom, the wavelength $k$ is $0.10, 0.16, 0.25, 0.40, 0.63, 1.0, 1.6, 2.5$, and $5.0 \mpci$
1097: respectively.}
1098: \label{fig:resolution}\end{figure}
1099:
1100: \begin{figure}
1101: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f5.eps}
1102: \caption{The redshift space power spectrum $P(k,\mu)$ measured in
1103: 2dFGRS. The symbols are for the whole survey, the dotted lines for the
1104: south subsample, and the dashed lines for the north subsample. The
1105: errors are plotted only for the whole survey that is estimated with the
1106: bootstrap method. The smooth solid lines are the best fits of
1107: Eq.(\ref{eq2}) to data of the whole sample. (a) for $-18.5<
1108: M_b-5\log_{10} h <-17.5$; (b) for $-19.5< M_b-5\log_{10} h <-18.5$;
1109: (c) for $-20.5< M_b-5\log_{10} h <-19.5$; (d) for $-21.5<
1110: M_b-5\log_{10} h <-20.5$. In each panel from top to bottom, the
1111: wavelength $k$ is $0.2, 0.32, 0.50, 0.79, 1.26, 2.0$, and $3.2\mpci$
1112: respectively.}
1113: \label{fig:pkmu}\end{figure}
1114:
1115: \begin{figure}
1116: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f6.eps}
1117: \caption{The real space power spectrum $P(k)$ measured in the 2dFGRS
1118: (symbols): a) for $-18.5< M_b-5\log_{10} h <-17.5$, b) for $-19.5<
1119: M_b-5\log h <-18.5$, c) for $-20.5< M_b-5\log_{10} h <-19.5$, and d)
1120: for $-21.5< M_b-5\log_{10} h <-20.5$. The error bars of the observed
1121: results are given by the mock samples, as described in the text. The
1122: smooth lines are the predictions based on the halo model. }
1123: \label{fig:pkreal}\end{figure}
1124:
1125: %\begin{figure}
1126: %\epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f7.eps}
1127: %\caption{The ratio $b^2_{eff}(k)$ of the real space power spectrum of
1128: %galaxies with certain luminosity to that of galaxies with $-19.5<
1129: %M_b-5\log_{10} h <-20.5$, and we call $b_{eff}(k)$ the effective bias. From
1130: %the top to the bottom, galaxies have luminosity in $-17.5< M_b-5\log_{10} h
1131: %<-18.5$, $-18.5< M_b-5\log_{10} h <-19.5$, and $-20.5< M_b-5\log_{10} h <-21.5$
1132: %respectively. The error bars of the observed results are given by the
1133: %mock samples, as described in the text. }
1134: %\label{fig:bsquare}\end{figure}
1135:
1136:
1137: \begin{figure}
1138: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f7.eps}
1139: \caption{The PVD of galaxies measured in the 2dFGRS (symbols),
1140: compared with the predictions based on the halo model (solid
1141: lines). The error bars of the observed results are given by the mock
1142: samples, as described in the text.}
1143: \label{fig:sigmav}\end{figure}
1144:
1145: \begin{figure}
1146: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f8.eps}
1147: \caption{The PVD measured at $k=1\mpci$ in the 2dFGRS (symbols for the
1148: whole sample, dotted line for the south, and dashed line for the
1149: north), compared with the predictions based on the halo model. The
1150: thick solid line is for the nominal model of $\sigma_8=0.9$, the thick
1151: dashed one is for the model of $\sigma_8=0.7$, and the thick dotted
1152: one is for the model of $\sigma_8=0.7$ but with $\Omega_0=0.3$. The
1153: error bars of the observed results are given by the mock samples, as
1154: described in the text.}
1155: \label{fig:sigmavk1}\end{figure}
1156:
1157: \begin{figure}
1158: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f9.eps}
1159: \caption{The PVD measured at $k=1 \mpci$ in the
1160: 2dFGRS. Symbols have the same meaning as in Fig.~(\ref{fig:sigmavk1}).
1161: Here the parameter $\beta$ varies with luminosity as in \citet[]{norberg02a}.
1162: }
1163: \label{fig:sigmabetalum}\end{figure}
1164:
1165: \end{document}
1166:
1167: