1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2:
3: \usepackage{natbib} \citestyle{aa}
4: \bibliographystyle{tony-apj}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \title{The DEEP2 Galaxy Redshift Survey: Probing the Evolution of Dark Matter
9: Halos around Isolated Galaxies from $z\sim1$ to $z\sim0$}
10:
11: \author{ Charlie Conroy\altaffilmark{1}, Jeffrey
12: A. Newman\altaffilmark{2}, Marc Davis\altaffilmark{1,3}, Alison
13: L. Coil\altaffilmark{1}, Renbin Yan\altaffilmark{1} Michael
14: C. Cooper\altaffilmark{1} Brian F. Gerke\altaffilmark{3},
15: S.~M. Faber\altaffilmark{4}, David C. Koo\altaffilmark{4} }
16:
17: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy, University of California,
18: Berkeley, CA 94720 -- 3411}
19: \altaffiltext{2}{Hubble Fellow, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
20: 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720}
21: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics, University of California,
22: Berkeley, CA 94720 -- 3411}
23: \altaffiltext{4}{University of California Observatories/Lick
24: Observatory, Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of
25: California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064}
26:
27:
28: \begin{abstract}
29: Using the first 25\% of DEEP2 Redshift Survey data, we probe the
30: line-of-sight velocity dispersion profile for isolated galaxies with
31: absolute B-band magnitude $-22<M_{B}-5\log(h)<-21$ at $z$=0.7-1.0,
32: using satellite galaxies as luminous tracers of the underlying
33: velocity distribution. Measuring the velocity dispersion beyond a
34: galactocentric radius of $\sim200 h^{-1}$kpc (physical) permits us to
35: determine the total mass, including dark matter, around these bright
36: galaxies. Tests with mock catalogs based on N-body simulations
37: indicate that this mass measurement method is robust to selection
38: effects. We find a line-of-sight velocity dispersion ($\sigma_{los}$)
39: of $162^{+44}_{-30}$ km s$^{-1}$ at $\sim110 h^{-1}$ kpc,
40: $136^{+26}_{-20}$ km s$^{-1}$ at $\sim230 h^{-1}$ kpc, and
41: $150^{+55}_{-38}$ km s$^{-1}$ at $\sim320 h^{-1}$ kpc. Assuming an
42: NFW model for the dark matter density profile, this corresponds to a
43: mass within r$_{200}$ of $M_{200}=5.5^{+2.5}_{-2.0}\times10^{12}
44: h^{-1}$M$_{\Sun}$ for our sample of satellite hosts with mean
45: luminosity $\sim2.5L^\ast$. Roughly $\sim60\%$ of these host galaxies
46: have early-type spectra and are red in restframe $(U-B)$ color,
47: consistent with the overall DEEP2 sample in the same luminosity and
48: redshift range. The halo mass determined for DEEP2 host galaxies is
49: consistent with that measured in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey for host
50: galaxies within a similar luminosity range relative to $M^\ast_B$.
51: This comparison is insensitive to the assumed halo mass profile, and
52: implies an increase in the dynamical mass-to-light ratio
53: ($M_{200}/L_B$) of isolated galaxies which host satellites by a factor
54: of $\sim 2.5$ from $z\sim1$ to $z\sim0$. Our results can be used to
55: constrain the halo occupation distribution and the conditional
56: luminosity function used to populate dark matter halos with galaxies.
57: In particular, our results are consistent with scenarios in which
58: galaxies populate dark matter halos similarly from $z\sim 0$ to $z\sim
59: 1$, except for $\sim 1$ magnitude of evolution in the luminosity of
60: all galaxies. With the full DEEP2 sample, it will be possible to
61: extend this analysis to multiple luminosity or color bins.
62:
63:
64: \end{abstract}
65:
66: \keywords{galaxies: evolution --- galaxies: kinematics and dynamics
67: --- galaxies: halos --- dark matter}
68:
69:
70: \section{Introduction}\label{s:intro}
71:
72: It has been firmly established that galaxies and clusters form within
73: halos whose mass is dominated by unseen dark matter. Yet until very
74: recently, the outer regions of halos have been very poorly understood
75: due to a lack of visible tracers of the mass distribution.
76: Galaxy-galaxy lensing is able to probe the halo masses of local
77: galaxies, though with some degree of uncertainty, as this method
78: actually probes all of the mass along the line-of-sight
79: \citep{Guzik02}, and has only recently been applied to isolated
80: galaxies \citep{Hoekstra05}. Recent work \citep{Wilson01, Hoekstra04,
81: Kleinheinrich05} suggests that the virial mass of $\sim L^\ast$
82: galaxies has remained constant from $z\sim0.8$ to $z\sim0.15$. Beyond
83: $z\sim0.5$ the lensing probability rapidly diminishes, making it very
84: difficult to derive masses of isolated galaxies (with masses
85: $\sim10^{12} M_{\sun}$) with this method at higher redshift \citep[see
86: e.g.,][]{Peacock99}.
87:
88: The dynamics of satellite galaxies orbiting larger ``host'' galaxies
89: provide another way to probe the mass distribution at large radii.
90: Early work by \citet{LT87,EGH87,Zar89} utilized samples of tens of
91: satellites as early confirmation that galaxies are embedded in large
92: dark matter halos. More conclusive evidence was compiled by
93: \citet{zar93,zar97} who used the kinematics of a sample of 115
94: satellite galaxies to probe the outer regions of 69 isolated galaxies.
95: By employing satellites as test particles, they built up a velocity
96: profile for a single representative isolated galaxy by stacking
97: measurements of satellites from many different host galaxies.
98:
99: More recently, \citet[hereafter P03]{P03} use $\sim$250,000 SDSS
100: redshifts to probe the halo masses of isolated galaxies; they detect
101: $>$1000 satellites around $\sim$700 host galaxies. With this large
102: data set they are able to discriminate between various halo mass
103: distributions and find evidence for an NFW-like falloff ($\rho \propto
104: r^{-3}$) at large radii. From these accurate line-of-sight velocity
105: dispersion profile measurements, P03 infer the masses enclosed within
106: 1.5 R$_{virial}$ for two sets of isolated galaxies. Host galaxies with
107: $-20.5<M_{B}<-19.5$ are found to have an average halo mass of
108: $M_{virial}\approx1.5\times10^{12} M_{\Sun}$ while hosts with
109: $-21.5<M_{B}<-20.5$ have $M_{virial}\approx6\times10^{12} M_{\Sun}$
110: (for $h=0.7$). Other recent work utilizing satellite dynamics
111: includes \citet{McKay02}, who check SDSS weak-lensing scaling laws;
112: \citet{VDB04b,VDB04a}, who use mock galaxy catalogs and the 2dF survey
113: to constrain the conditional luminosity function and investigate the
114: levels and effects of contamination in dynamical satellite studies;
115: and \citet{brainerd05}, who measure velocity dispersion profiles for
116: subsamples of isolated 2dF galaxies.
117:
118: By extending this type of measurement to high redshift, we can study
119: the evolution of the relationship between galaxies and dark matter
120: halos. There have been few ways to do this until the recent advent of
121: large, high-redshift surveys. The best example to date is
122: \citet{Yan03b}, who use the 2dF and DEEP2 two-point correlation
123: functions \citep[][respectively]{Madg03c, coil04} to constrain the
124: evolution of the halo occupation distribution, a key ingredient of
125: the halo model. Yan et al. produced a set of $z\sim 1$ mock catalogs
126: using N-body simulations and a halo model whose parameters are set by
127: requiring a fit to $\xi(r)$ from 2dF at $z\sim 0$. They find good
128: agreement between the correlation statistics at $z\sim 0.8$ from DEEP2
129: and the prediction from these mock catalogs, which populate galaxies
130: in dark matter halos in the same way (as a function of $L/L^\ast$ and
131: halo mass) at $z\sim 1$ and $z\sim 0$.
132: %that is, the mass function of halos and $L^\ast$ change with time in
133: %these mock catalogs, but all other parameters of the halo model can
134: %remain unchanged, and a match to observations is still obtained .
135: %Hence their results are consistent with no evolution in the way
136: %galaxies occupy their halos from $z\sim0.8$ to $z\sim0$.
137: Hence their results are consistent with a minimal-evolution
138: hypothesis, in which galaxies with a given luminosity compared to
139: $L^\ast$ at $z\sim 1$ live in the same sorts of halos as similar
140: galaxies at $z\sim0$, though the mass function of dark matter halos
141: and $L^\ast$ evolve. Here we address this hypothesis with an
142: independent method.
143:
144:
145: In this paper we constrain the velocity dispersion profile for a
146: typical isolated DEEP2 galaxy at $z\sim0.8$ using methods similar to
147: those of P03. We then deduce a representative halo mass for these
148: galaxies and compare our results to recent local measurements from
149: SDSS to test for evolution in a self-consistent way. We use mock
150: catalogs to test the significance and robustness of these results.
151: The paper proceeds as follows. In $\S$~\ref{s:data} we describe the
152: DEEP2 data set and the properties of satellite galaxies and their
153: hosts. $\S$~\ref{s:meth} outlines our method for reconstructing the
154: mass of isolated galaxies using satellites and in $\S$~\ref{s:res} we
155: present our results and compare with recent local measurements. We
156: test our methods using mock catalogs in $\S$~\ref{s:mocks} and discuss
157: some implications of our results in $\S$~\ref{s:disc}. Throughout the
158: paper we assume a standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with
159: $\Omega_{m}=0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$ and H$_{0}=100h^{-1}$ km
160: s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. Absolute magnitudes quoted have been K-corrected
161: and corrected for reddening by galactic dust, and are in the AB
162: system \citep{willmer05}.
163:
164:
165: \section{Satellite-Host Systems at $z\sim1$}\label{s:data}
166:
167: In this Section we introduce the data used at $z\sim1$, describe the
168: algorithm used to identify bright isolated galaxies and their
169: satellites, and highlight several properties of these host-satellite
170: systems.
171:
172: We use data from the first $\sim25\%$ of the DEEP2 Galaxy Redshift
173: Survey, a three-year project using the DEIMOS spectrograph at the 10-m
174: Keck II telescope to survey galaxies at $z\sim1$. DEEP2 will collect
175: spectra of $\sim$50,000 galaxies from $0.7<z<1.4$ to a limiting
176: magnitude of $R_{AB} = 24.1$ with redshift errors of $\sim$20 km
177: s$^{-1}$. For survey details, see \citet{Davis04}. Photometric data
178: were taken in the $B, R$ and $I$ bands with the CFH12k camera on the
179: 3.6-m Canada-France-Hawaii telescope. We use data taken during the
180: first two seasons of DEEP2 observations, which have yielded
181: $\sim$12,000 secure redshifts over $\sim$0.9 sq. degrees. Our
182: observed R-band limiting magnitude corresponds to a different
183: restframe wavelength with redshift, from $4000\AA$ at $z=0.7$ to
184: $2800\AA$ at $z=1.4$. This results in a different selection function
185: for red and blue galaxies with redshift, such that as we move to
186: fainter magnitudes, red galaxies become undetectable before blue
187: galaxies; this effect increases with increasing redshift
188: \citep[see][for details]{willmer05}. To minimize this effect we
189: consider only bright hosts with $z<1$.
190:
191: We define an isolated galaxy as having no bright neighbors within a
192: given search cylinder. Once isolated galaxies have been identified,
193: we use another search cylinder to identify faint satellite
194: companions. Specifically, a galaxy is isolated if it has no neighbors
195: in the DEEP2 spectroscopic sample within a physical distance projected
196: on the sky $r_{p}<350 h^{-1}$kpc, line-of-sight velocity difference
197: $|\Delta v|<1000$ km s$^{-1}$ and absolute magnitude difference
198: $\Delta M_{B}<1.5$. An isolated galaxy furthermore cannot have any
199: neighbors within $350h^{-1}$kpc$<r_{p}<700h^{-1}$kpc and $|\Delta
200: v|<1000$ km s$^{-1}$ with $\Delta M_{B}<0.75$; we relax our magnitude
201: cut at large $r_{p}$ because galaxies this far apart will be less
202: dynamically associated. Satellites are similarly defined to be
203: galaxies with $r_{p}<350 h^{-1}$ kpc, $|\delta v|<500$ km s$^{-1}$ and
204: $\delta M_{B}>1.5$; i.e. satellites must be more than 1.5 magnitudes
205: fainter than the host galaxy they belong to. These parameters define
206: sample 1 in Table 1 which lists the search parameters used in this
207: analysis along with the number of found satellites and several
208: derived host halo parameters. We consider 7 different search
209: criteria and find that the results presented are quite insensitive to
210: variations in these criteria; for convenience we quote results from
211: sample 1 unless otherwise noted. Our choices of parameters ensure
212: that a satellite can be associated with one and only one host galaxy.
213: We put no restriction on morphological or spectral type, but require
214: the isolated host galaxy to have $-22<M_{B}-5\log(h)<-21$ and
215: $0.7<z<1.0$.
216:
217:
218: \begin{figure}[t!]
219: \plotone{f1.eps}
220: \caption{Characteristics of isolated host galaxies.
221: Upper left: absolute B-band magnitude of hosts.
222: Upper right: redshift distribtion.
223: Lower left: first PCA eigenvalue for host galaxy spectra. The dashed line
224: indicates the division between late types ($\eta>-13$) and early types
225: ($\eta<-13$).
226: Lower right: number of satellite galaxies found per host.}
227: \label{fig:hosts}
228: \end{figure}
229:
230: \begin{figure}[t!]
231: \plotone{f2.eps}
232: \caption{Characteristics of satellite galaxy properties.
233: Upper left: satellite galaxy absolute B-band magnitude.
234: Upper right: $\Delta M_{B}$ between host and satellite.
235: Lower left: satellite galaxy spectra type. The dashed line indicates the
236: division between late and early type spectra.
237: Lower right: projected separation (physical units) on the sky between
238: satellite and host. Slit collisions reduce the number of satellites found
239: with $r_p<50 h^{-1}$ kpc.}
240: \label{fig:sats}
241: \end{figure}
242:
243:
244: For our chosen set of search parameters (Sample 1), we have identified
245: 75 satellites around a total of 61 host galaxies at $0.7<z<1.0$ in the
246: DEEP2 data set. Figures \ref{fig:hosts} and \ref{fig:sats} show
247: relevant characteristics of the satellite and host galaxies including
248: distributions in redshift, spectral-type, absolute magnitude,
249: satellite number per host, satellite distance from host, and $\Delta
250: M_{B}$ between the host and satellite. We determine spectral types
251: using the principal component analysis of \citet{Madg03b} and use
252: their definition of $\eta=-13$ to separate early and late-type
253: galaxies. Galaxy morphology and $(U-B)_0$ color correlate well with
254: this spectral classification of early and late types \citep{Madg03a}).
255: Satellites are found to have $\sim90\%$ late-type spectra, but due to
256: the DEEP2 survey selection effects mentioned above, it is difficult
257: to determine if this is an intrinsic property of satellites around
258: bright isolated galaxies, or due to the $R$-band selection of the
259: survey. As we observe fainter galaxies (e.g. satellites), early-type
260: galaxies become undetectable before late-type galaxies.
261:
262:
263: \begin{figure}
264: \plotone{f3.eps}
265: \caption{Color-Magnitude diagram for all isolated host galaxies from
266: sample 1 (stars) compared to a subsample of the first two seasons of DEEP2
267: data (points). The subsample was constructed to have the same redshift
268: distribution as the host galaxies, thus reducing any potential redshift
269: dependent selection effects. Dashed lines indicate the magnitude range
270: we have used in computing halo masses. We classify galaxies with $(U-B)_0>$1 ``red'' and
271: $(U-B)_0<$1 ``blue''.}
272: \label{fig:cmr}
273: \end{figure}
274:
275: We find that approximately 60\% of host galaxies have early-type
276: spectra. When we select a subsample of the entire available DEEP2
277: data set such that it has the same redshift and absolute magnitude
278: distributions as the host galaxies, we find that both sets of objects
279: have consistent fractions of early-type galaxies: 58\% for isolated
280: hosts and 63\% for the subsample. This result is somewhat surprising;
281: one might have naively suspected that the majority of early-type
282: galaxies with $-22<M_B-5\log(h)<-21$ would reside in dense
283: environments and hence would not be identified as isolated using our
284: search criteria. To test the robustness of this result, we also use
285: $(U-B)_0$ color to test for any differences between isolated galaxies
286: and our reconstructed subsample. Again we find that $\sim55\%$ of
287: isolated host galaxies are red ($(U-B)_0>$1), while $\sim50\%$ of the
288: subsample is red (see Fig. \ref{fig:cmr}). There thus seems to be a
289: significant population of bright, red, early-type isolated galaxies
290: with satellites at $z\sim1$. Our host galaxies have approximately
291: the same relative number of early and late spectral types as in P03's
292: sample; this will allow for robust comparisons between halo masses
293: using SDSS data at $z\sim0$ and DEEP2 data at $z\sim1$.
294:
295: \section{Halo Mass Estimation}\label{s:meth}
296:
297: In this section we describe our method for obtaining dark matter halo masses
298: for isolated galaxies utilizing satellite galaxy kinematics. Our approach is similar
299: to previous work \citep[see e.g.][]{P03, brainerd03}, except for our maximum-likelihood
300: approach to deriving velocity dispersions which is more robust than previous methods when
301: applied to small numbers of host-satellite pairs.
302:
303: Schematically, we derive masses in the following way. First we obtain a sample of
304: isolated galaxies with associated satellites. We then measure
305: the line-of-sight velocity dispersion in several radial bins for a ``typical'' isolated
306: bright galaxy, using satellites as luminous tracers of the velocity
307: field. In our sample, each isolated galaxy has at most three or four
308: satellites, but we can measure dispersions
309: by stacking the satellite-host pairs and thereby treating all satellites as
310: belonging to a single typical host galaxy.
311: In implementing this method we are assuming that similarly bright isolated galaxies reside
312: in similar halos. We create an homogeneous host galaxy sample by
313: searching for satellites around galaxies with $-22<M_{B}-5\log(h)<-21$
314: and $0.7<z<1.0$. As more data becomes available, it will be possible
315: to limit these criteria even further, yielding results for multiple
316: luminosity, redshift, color, and spectral type bins.
317:
318: In order to determine line-of-sight velocity dispersions, we build distributions
319: of the projected velocity difference between satellite and host ($\delta v$)
320: in bins of projected radius from the host galaxy and fit for the
321: dispersion in the distribution. To convert the resulting
322: velocity dispersion measurements into a mass, we make several assumptions,
323: including the shape of the underlying dark matter potential. We now
324: describe this procedure in detail.
325:
326: \subsection{Velocity Dispersion Measurement}
327:
328: The difference between the host and satellite galaxy line-of-sight velocity,
329: $\delta v$, has a distribution that is well fit by
330: a Gaussian of zero mean. In the absence of interlopers (see below), the satellite
331: velocity dispersion, $\sigma_{los}$ can simply be obtained from the width of a
332: Gaussian fit to the velocity distribution. In order to
333: be able to detect variation in the velocity profile with radius, we
334: bin the satellites in projected radius, $r_p$, from the host galaxy. We have chosen
335: bins such that the number of satellites per bin is roughly constant:
336: $30<r_{p}<180 $, $180<r_{p}<280$, and
337: $280<r_{p}<350$, in units of $h^{-1}$ kpc; these choices assure
338: similar errors from bin to bin.
339:
340: An important aspect of this analysis is the careful rejection of
341: ``interlopers''; these are galaxies which meet the criteria for
342: satellite identification, but are in fact not dynamically associated
343: with the host. Interlopers result from peculiar velocities which can,
344: in redshift space, scatter objects into our search cylinder. Recent
345: local studies \citep[e.g. P03,][]{VDB04b} have found that about
346: 20-30\% of putative satellites fall into this category.
347:
348: Since interlopers are not
349: physically associated with the host galaxy, we account for them
350: by assuming that they will have a constant $\delta v$ distribution.
351: Thus, we expect the observed $\delta v$ distribution be a combination of
352: flat (interloper) and Gaussian (true satellite) components. We therefore
353: fit a Gaussian plus constant distribution to the velocity
354: measurements within each $r_{p}$ bin. If we ignore clustering
355: effects, which is reasonable since we are only probing isolated
356: systems, then one would expect the number density of interlopers to
357: simply scale with the search volume. Although the
358: interloper fraction should be roughly constant in $\delta v$, that
359: constant should be different in bins of different radii. This is
360: another important motivation for measuring $\sigma_{los}$ in bins
361: of $r_p$.
362:
363: Unlike previous studies which fit Gaussian profiles
364: to velocity histograms, we determine the dispersion of the velocity
365: distribution using a maximum likelihood Gaussian-plus-constant fit to
366: the unbinned $\delta v$ data. Specifically, our likelihood function:
367: \begin{equation}
368: L(a,\sigma_{los},i) = a + B e^{-\delta v_i^2/(2\sigma_{los}^2)},
369: \end{equation}
370: has two free parameters, a constant component (in satellites per km/s), $a$,
371: and the width of the Gaussian, $\sigma_{los}$. The parameter $B$ is
372: chosen such that the integral of the probability density function of
373: the relative velocity distribution between host and
374: satellite (given $a$ and $\sigma_{los}$) over the allowed velocity
375: range is one, and $\delta v_i$ is the $\delta v$ for the $i$th satellite-host
376: pair. We maximize the summed logarithm of this likelihood function:
377: \begin{equation}
378: S(a,\sigma_{los}) = \sum_i ln(L)
379: \end{equation}
380: over a dense grid in $\sigma_{los}$ and $a$.
381:
382: In Monte Carlo tests, this algorithm
383: agrees with method of fitting Gaussian distributions to velocity
384: histograms for well-sampled data, but is much more robust in the
385: limit of small numbers of satellites. This technique also provides
386: an estimate of the error in the velocity dispersion measurement from
387: the width of the likelihood peak.
388:
389: \subsection{Halo Mass Determination}
390:
391: In order to derive a host halo mass, we fit a theoretical velocity dispersion
392: profile to the measured velocity dispersion points. The theoretical profile is obtained
393: via the following procedure.
394: We start by assuming an NFW \citep{NFW96, NFW97} density distribution
395:
396: \begin{equation}
397: \frac{\rho(r)}{\rho^0_c} = \frac{\delta_c}{(r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2}
398: \end{equation}
399:
400: ($\rho \propto r^{-3}$ for large r) where $\rho^0_c$ is the present critical density,
401: $r_s = r_{200}/c$, and
402: \begin{equation}
403: \delta_c = \frac{200}{3} \frac{c^3}{ln(1+c) - c/(1+c)}
404: \end{equation}
405: where $r_{200}$, defined as the radius
406: where the mean interior density is 200 times the critical density.
407: The concentration, $c$, can be viewed as a free parameter determining the
408: shape of the NFW density profile. In general the concentration is inversely related
409: to the mass of a dark matter halo.
410:
411: The Jeans equation is then used to relate the radial
412: velocity dispersion, $\sigma_r$, to the gravitational potential, $\Phi$,
413:
414: \begin{equation}
415: \frac{1}{\rho}\frac{d}{dr}(\rho\sigma_r^2)+2\beta\frac{\sigma_r^2}{r} = -\frac{d\Phi}{dr}
416: \end{equation}
417:
418: and then we integrate along the line of sight
419:
420: \begin{equation}
421: \sigma_{los}^2(r_p) = \frac{2}{\Sigma_M(r_p)}\int_{r_p}^\infty(1-\beta\frac{r_p^2}{r^2})\frac{\rho\sigma_r^2(r,\beta)r}{\sqrt{r^2-r_p^2}}dr
422: \end{equation}
423:
424: where
425:
426: \begin{equation}
427: \Sigma_M(r_p) = 2\int_{r_p}^\infty\frac{r\rho(r)}{\sqrt{r^2-r_p^2}}dr
428: \end{equation}
429:
430: is the surface mass density (see \citet{LM01} for details of these
431: calculations). In the above, $r$ is the radial distance and $r_p$ is, as usual, the
432: distance projected on the sky. The velocity anisotropy ($\beta \equiv
433: 1-\sigma_{r}^2/\sigma_{\perp}^2$, where $\sigma_{r}$ is the radial
434: velocity dispersion and $\sigma_{\perp}$ is the velocity dispersion
435: perpendicular to the line of sight) must be assumed in the conversion
436: of the NFW density profile to a velocity dispersion profile; we use an
437: Osipkov-Merrit anisotropy, $\beta_{OM} = s^2/(s^2+s_a^2)$, with
438: $s_a=4/3$ and $s=r/r_{200}$. \citet{VDB04b} and \citep{Mamon05} find
439: that the line-of-sight velocity dispersion profile
440: depends only weakly on $\beta$, at the level of
441: a few percent, and hence we do not explore other parameterizations.
442: We further need to assume the concentration; we use $c=10$,
443: which is consistent with our fit to the mock catalog
444: velocity dispersion profiles (see $\S$~\ref{s:mocks}), and is in general in agreement
445: with simulations of $\sim10^{12} M_{\sun}$ halos. In $\S$~\ref{s:res}
446: we show that our results concerning the evolution of the halo mass of isolated galaxies
447: are insensitive to the assumed concentration. With these assumptions we
448: are left with only one free parameter, the normalization of the
449: velocity dispersion profile, which can be characterized by the
450: circular velocity at $r_{200}$, $V_{200}$. We fit for $V_{200}$ via
451: $\chi^2$ minimization using the observed data points. For the same
452: enclosed region, the interior mass ($M_{200}$) can be easily inferred
453: from $V_{200}$ for a given cosmology \citep[see][for
454: details]{NFW96,NFW97}.
455:
456:
457: \section{Results}\label{s:res}
458:
459: Using the maximum likelihood method outlined in $\S$~\ref{s:meth}, we measure a
460: velocity dispersion of $162^{+44}_{-30}$ km s$^{-1}$ for satellites
461: with $30<r_{p}<180 h^{-1}$kpc (median $r_{p}=110 h^{-1}$kpc),
462: $136^{+26}_{-20}$ km s$^{-1}$ for $180<r_{p}<280 h^{-1}$kpc (median
463: $r_{p}=230 h^{-1}$kpc), and $150^{+55}_{-38}$ km s$^{-1}$ for
464: $280<r_{p}<350 h^{-1}$kpc (median $r_{p}=320 h^{-1}$kpc) for isolated
465: galaxies with $-22<M_{B}-5\log(h)<-21$ (see Fig. \ref{fig:vdp_deep}).
466: Errors on the velocity dispersion are derived from the maximum-likelihood fit.
467: These results are robust to changes in the search parameters and
468: radial binning; for the 7 different search criteria listed in Table 1,
469: our line-of-sight velocity dispersion measurements vary within
470: 1$\sigma$ of the dispersions quoted above. From Fig. \ref{fig:vdp_deep} it is clear that the
471: derived dispersion profile is consistent with nearly all popular halo
472: mass density profiles (e.g. isothermal, NFW, Moore \citep{Moore98}),
473: though we use an NFW profile to derive masses. What is important for this
474: analysis is the normalization of the velocity dispersion profile, not
475: the slope, as long as the slope at $V_{200}$ is shallow.
476:
477:
478: \begin{figure}
479: \plotone{f4.eps}
480: \caption{Line-of-sight velocity dispersion profile for a typical
481: isolated bright galaxy in the DEEP2 sample. The line with error bars
482: is the profile derived from the DEEP2 sample; the dotted curve is a
483: best fitting NFW line-of-sight velocity dispersion profile ($c=10$
484: assumed). The line with errors is very stable over a wide range of
485: search parameters and variation in the radial binning. The
486: individual points are the $\Delta v$ and $r_{p}$ of the
487: satellite-host systems. The best fit NFW profile (dashed line)
488: corresponds to a mass of $M_{200}=5.5 \times10^{12} h^{-1}M_{\Sun}$.}
489: \label{fig:vdp_deep}
490: \end{figure}
491:
492: As outlined in $\S$~\ref{s:meth}, we fit velocity dispersion profiles derived
493: from an NFW model to the measured velocity dispersion profile for DEEP2
494: by minimizing $\chi^2$. Our results imply a total mass, $M_{200}$, of
495: $5.5^{+2.5}_{-2.0} \times10^{12} h^{-1}M_{\Sun}$ for a typical isolated
496: galaxy with $-22<M_{B}-5\log(h)<-21$ and at least one satellite.
497: When we vary the search criteria the measured mass varies by
498: $\pm1\times10^{12} h^{-1}M_{\Sun}$, within our 1$\sigma$ errors (see Table 1). As mentioned above,
499: interlopers play a key role in this analysis. From our best fitting Gaussian plus
500: constant fit to the satellite $\delta v$ distribution, we find that the interloper fraction
501: increases with increasing $r_p$, from $\sim7$\% at $r_{p}\sim110 h^{-1}$ kpc to $\sim30$\%
502: at $r_{p}=320 h^{-1}$ kpc. These numbers are in good agreement with previous results from
503: P03 and \citet{VDB04b}.
504:
505: We can compare this derived mass to recent local measurements to measure evolution
506: in the halo mass of isolated galaxies. Unfortunately, we could
507: not implement the exact same search criteria as in P03 as that yields
508: only 30 satellites in the DEEP2 sample, too few to provide robust
509: results. Thus, in order to make a fruitful comparison,
510: we have taken the raw $\Delta v$ and $r_{p}$ measurements of
511: P03 (F. Prada 2004, private communication) and independently
512: determined the underlying halo mass using our own host galaxy
513: magnitude range and search criteria. We note that our methods
514: accurately recover the masses inferred in P03's samples (see $\S$~\ref{s:intro})
515: when using their definitions and absolute magnitude intervals.
516:
517:
518: \begin{figure}
519: \plotone{f5.eps}
520: \caption{As Fig. \ref{fig:vdp_deep}, but for SDSS satellite galaxies
521: from P03 (data provided by F. Prada). The best fitting NFW
522: line-of-sight velocity dispersion profile implies an average halo mass
523: $M_{200}$ of $5.4^{+1.2}_{-1.0}\times10^{12} h^{-1}M_{\Sun}$. The
524: lack of points past $r_p=350 h^{-1}$kpc is a result of the definition
525: of satellites in the P03 dataset.}
526: \label{fig:vdp_sdss}
527: \end{figure}
528:
529: Taking $M^{*}_{B}(z\sim0)-5\log(h)=-19.45\pm 0.07$ \citep[][this value was
530: converted from the $b_j$-band by assuming a median color of $B-V=0.21$]{Norberg02} and
531: $M^{*}_B(z\sim1)-5\log(h)=-20.6\pm 0.1$ \citep{willmer05}, we use 475 host
532: galaxies in the P03 sample with magnitudes $-21<M_{B}-5\log(h)<-20$
533: ensuring that the samples at $z\sim1$ and $z\sim0$ have similar host
534: galaxy magnitude ranges \emph{relative to $M^{*}_B$}. We find
535: isolated galaxies at $z\sim0$ with $-21<M_{B}-5\log(h)<-20$ to have an
536: average halo mass of $5.4^{+1.2}_{-1.0}\times10^{12} h^{-1}M_{\Sun}$
537: when assuming an NFW mass density distribution with $c=10$ (see
538: Fig. \ref{fig:vdp_sdss}).
539:
540: We can cast these results in terms of the dynamical mass to B-band
541: light ratio, $M_{200}/L_B$. Using the mean luminosity of host galaxies
542: at $z\sim 1$ of $M_{B}-5\log(h)=-21.5 \pm 0.1$ ($L_B=5.3\pm0.5\times
543: 10^{10} h^2 L_\Sun$) and at $z\sim 0$ of $M_{B}-5\log(h)=-20.5 \pm 0.1$
544: ($L_B=2.1\pm0.1\times 10^{10} h^2 L_\Sun$), we find that the
545: $B$-band mass-to-light ratio ($M_{200}/L_B$) is
546: increasing from $M_{200}/L_B=104\pm43$ $h M_\Sun / L_{\Sun,B}$ at $z\sim1$ to
547: $M_{200}/L_B=257\pm54$ $h M_\Sun / L_{\Sun,B}$ at $z\sim0$, a factor of 2.5.
548: Total (random and systematic) errors in our absolute magnitude measurements,
549: including uncertainties in K corrections apart from the assumed cosmological
550: parameters, are estimated to be below $0.1$ mag at the redshifts of interest
551: \citep{willmer05}; hence errors in luminosities are negligible compared to the
552: statistical uncertainties in the average $M_{200}/L_B$.
553:
554: \section{Testing the Method}\label{s:mocks}
555:
556: We use mock galaxy catalogs that have been constructed to match the
557: DEEP2 survey in order to test whether
558: we can accurately recover the halo mass of isolated galaxies using
559: satellites. A complete description of the catalogs are given in
560: \citet{Yan04}; we give the relevant details here. N-body simulations
561: of $512^3$ dark matter particles with a particle mass
562: $m_{part}=1.0\times10^{10}$ h$^{-1} M_{\Sun}$ were run in a
563: $\Lambda$CDM Universe using the TreePM code \citep{MWhite02}
564: in a periodic, cubical box of side length $256$ h$^{-1}$ Mpc.
565: Dark matter halos were identified by running a
566: ``friends-of-friends'' halo finder with a minimum size of 8 dark matter
567: particles. Galaxies down to $0.1 L^{*}$ are then assigned to
568: individual dark matter particles via a halo model approach, in which
569: both the number of galaxies within a halo and their luminosity function
570: depends upon halo mass \citep{Yang03}.
571:
572: We investigate the effects of
573: slitmask target selection \citep[see][for details]{Davis04} on the
574: derived velocity profile, thus testing our ability to recover the true
575: halo mass when these observational effects are included. Target
576: selection may result in a galaxy being identified as isolated which is
577: not truly so, since we only have redshifts for approximately one-half
578: of the galaxies meeting the survey selection criteria. Eventually,
579: photometric redshift estimates of galaxies without spectroscopy will
580: allow us to better constrain the number of truly isolated galaxies in
581: our sample. Earlier work (P03) has investigated interloper
582: contamination using simulations of a single $10^{12} M_{\Sun}$ halo;
583: the large cosmological simulations we use also test the effects of
584: higher order clustering on the interloper problem.
585:
586:
587: \begin{figure}
588: \plotone{f6.eps}
589: \caption{The best fit NFW line-of-sight velocity dispersion profile (dotted line) to
590: the derived profile for 480 satellites from mock catalogs (solid with
591: error bars). The mass associated with this NFW profile is
592: $3.8\times10^{12} h^{-1}M_{\Sun}$, which agrees quite well with the
593: true average halo mass of these galaxies, $4.2\times10^{12} h^{-1}M_{\Sun}$.
594: The dashed profile with error bars was derived from the mock catalogs after including
595: target selection effects. The errors increase due to a smaller
596: sample size and contamination from galaxies falsely
597: identified as isolated. The best-fit NFW curve for this sample
598: corresponds to a mass of $3.9\times10^{12} h^{-1}M_{\Sun}$, and again
599: accurately recovers the true halo mass. Note the different y-axis scales
600: between this and Figs. \ref{fig:vdp_deep} and \ref{fig:vdp_sdss}.}
601: \label{fig:vdp_mocks}
602: \end{figure}
603:
604: Fig. \ref{fig:vdp_mocks} compares a line-of-sight velocity dispersion profile derived
605: from an NFW density profile to profiles measured for isolated galaxies
606: in the mock catalogs with the same redshift and magnitude range and
607: search criteria as the data. The mock catalogs employed here have
608: total volume that is comparable to the final DEEP2 sample. The solid line is
609: the profile from the mock catalogs before we include the effects of
610: target selection. The best-fit NFW profile (dotted line) is derived
611: as described in $\S$~\ref{s:meth}. The halo mass associated with this profile
612: ($M_{200}$) is $3.8^{+1.0}_{-0.87} \times10^{12} h^{-1}M_{\Sun}$. We
613: can derive the true halo mass for these host galaxies by using the
614: simulations, since we know the number of dark matter particles in the
615: halo and hence can directly compute $M_{200}$. The true halo mass
616: distribution for isolated galaxies in the mock catalogs conforms to a
617: log-normal distribution with 1$\sigma$ range $3.0\times10^{12}
618: h^{-1}M_{\Sun}$ to $1.0\times10^{13} h^{-1}M_{\Sun}$ with a peak of
619: $4.2\times10^{12} h^{-1}M_{\Sun}$. The velocity profile fit therefore
620: recovers the true \emph{average} mass quite accurately, giving us
621: confidence that the algorithm used to fit the profile robustly
622: recovers the underlying halo mass.
623:
624: The dashed line in Fig. \ref{fig:vdp_mocks} shows the velocity dispersion profile
625: derived from mock catalogs to which the DEEP2 target selection
626: algorithm (which will obtain spectroscopy of only $\sim 65$\% of eligible objects)
627: and $70\%$ redshift completeness have been applied.
628: This profile is noisier both because of mistaken identification of
629: galaxies as isolated (due to their neighbors not being included in the
630: sample) and a 50\% decrease in the number of satellites due to the combined effects
631: of target selection and redshift incompleteness.
632:
633: The mass associated with the best-fit NFW profile is
634: $3.9^{+1.8}_{-1.5} \times 10^{12} h^{-1}M_{\Sun}$. The true masses of
635: the host halos conform to a log-normal distribution with 1$\sigma$
636: range $1.7\times10^{12} h^{-1}M_{\Sun}$ to $5.7\times10^{12}
637: h^{-1}M_{\Sun}$ and peak at $2.6 \times 10^{12} h^{-1}M_{\Sun}$. When
638: we compare the isolated hosts found in the pre-target selection mock
639: catalogs to those found after target selection, we find that
640: $\sim30$\% of hosts in the mock catalogs after target selection are
641: not truly isolated, but only appear isolated because their companions
642: were not targeted for observation. Fortunately, this level of
643: contamination does not seem to limit our ability to accurately recover
644: the underlying halo mass, as to first order it mimics the effects of
645: background interlopers and hence is accounted for by our interloper
646: correction.
647:
648: \section{Discussion}\label{s:disc}
649:
650: We find that isolated galaxies at $z\sim1$ have a similar halo
651: mass as isolated galaxies which are 1 magnitude fainter at $z\sim0$.
652: This implies that there has been little or no evolution in the halo
653: mass of isolated galaxies with magnitudes in the range $\sim
654: M^\ast_B$-0.5 to $\sim M^\ast_B$-1.5 even though $M_{B}^\ast$ has evolved by
655: $\sim1$ magnitude over this redshift range. Our results are thus consistent with isolated
656: galaxies of a fixed luminosity relative to $M^\ast$ populating their dark
657: matter halos in a similar way from $z\sim1$ to $z\sim0$, a result
658: attained with an independent method by \citet{Yan03b}. Phrased
659: differently, we find that the dynamical $B$-band mass-to-light ratio ($M_{200}/L_B$) is
660: increasing from $M_{200}/L_B=104\pm43$ $h M_\Sun / L_{\Sun,B}$ at $z\sim1$ to
661: $M_{200}/L_B=257\pm52$ $h M_\Sun / L_{\Sun,B}$ at $z\sim0$, a factor of 2.5.
662: This increase is attributable solely to the 1
663: magnitude decrease in the typical satellite host galaxy luminosity
664: from $z\sim1$ to $z\sim0$. Assuming that the isolated galaxies found in DEEP2 at
665: $z\sim1$ passively evolve to the SDSS isolated galaxies at $z\sim0$,
666: our results imply that the ratio of baryonic mass to dark halo mass in
667: these galaxies has been constant for the last $\sim$8 billion years.
668:
669: These results are insensitive to the various assumptions used
670: to calculate masses; when we instead assume an isothermal model
671: for the dark matter density distribution, the values of the
672: masses calculated for both the high and low redshift
673: samples change, but the consistency between these two values remains.
674: Specifically, for the isothermal model our isolated galaxy halo mass
675: at $z\sim1$ within $r_{200}$ becomes $1.9\pm0.95\times10^{12}$
676: $h^{-1}M_{\Sun}$ while for isolated galaxies at $z\sim0$
677: the mass within $r_{200}$ changes to $2.0\pm0.56\times10^{12}$
678: $h^{-1}M_{\Sun}$ \citep[see][for the relevant relation between
679: velocity dispersion and mass within $r_{200}$ in an isothermal model]{Bryan98}.
680: The same can be said for our other assumptions, including the
681: anisotropy required in the Jeans equation and the concentration for
682: the NFW profile. The value of the concentration parameter c is
683: actually expected to be lower at high redshift than $z\sim0$
684: \citep{Bullock01}, but this, too, should not have a strong effect.
685: For instance, if $c=5$ at $z\sim1$ instead of 10 \citep[following]
686: [who find that $c\propto(1+z)^{-1}$ for halos of the same mass]{Bullock01},
687: $M_{200}$ increases by $\sim1\times 10^{12}$ $h^{-1}M_{\Sun}$, well
688: within the quoted errors. It is essential for this comparison
689: that masses at low and high redshift be calculated by the
690: same method and with the same assumptions, but the specific
691: assumptions do not affect our overall conclusions.
692:
693: Host-satellite kinematics in the local universe have also been studied
694: in the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey. \citet{brainerd05} measure a
695: velocity dispersion profile for $2L^\ast$ isolated galaxies and find that it
696: falls from $\sim 200$ km s$^{-1}$ at $100 h^{-1}$ kpc to $\sim 160$ km s$^{-1}$
697: at $400 h^{-1}$ kpc, in good agreement with what we measure here for
698: SDSS galaxies of similar luminosity.
699:
700: Importantly, the halo mass derived from the data agrees with the mass
701: derived from the mock catalogs for the same host magnitude range,
702: $-22<M_{B}-5\log(h)<-21$. Requiring such agreement can be used to
703: set constraints on the way in which the number of galaxies in a dark
704: matter halo and their luminosities depend on the underlying halo mass --
705: i.e., the halo occupation distribution and conditional luminosity function, which
706: were used to create these mock catalogs.
707:
708: Comparison to other methods for determining halo masses, such as galaxy-galaxy
709: lensing, is complicated for a number of reasons. First, to date galaxy-galaxy
710: lensing studies have focused on $\sim L^\ast$ galaxies, while here we study
711: a population of galaxies with mean luminosity $\sim 2.5L^\ast$. Second,
712: galaxy-galaxy lensing probes all of the mass along the line-of-sight, not
713: just the mass around an isolated galaxy. Third, we require satellites around
714: isolated galaxies in order to determine the halo mass while galaxy-galaxy lensing
715: can probe galaxies without satellites. Halos with luminous satellites could
716: potentially be systematically more massive than halos without luminous satellites.
717: Yet even with these potentially important differences, the evolutionary trend described
718: in this paper is in good agreement with galaxy-galaxy lensing results which show that the halo
719: mass of isolated $\sim L^\ast$ galaxies is approximately constant from $z\sim0.8$ to
720: $z\sim0.15$ \citep{Wilson01, Hoekstra04, Kleinheinrich05}.
721:
722: As mentioned in $\S$~\ref{s:res}, our results at $z\sim0$ are in good
723: agreement with P03 when we use their definitions of host galaxies and masses.
724: This good agreement is encouraging and implies that our mass reconstruction
725: method is robust, as we do not exactly follow the mass estimation method
726: outlined in P03. Mass estimates at $z\sim0$ for isolated galaxies utilizing
727: satellite kinematics seem to be converging.
728:
729: It is important to keep in mind that, due to the small number of satellites
730: found, this analysis has been applied to a host sample consisting of both
731: early and late type galaxies, and is therefore mixing two different
732: populations of galaxies. We thus stress that these are initial results
733: requiring more data to untangle these sorts of complications.
734:
735: Upon completion of the DEEP2 survey we will have a sample $\sim4\times$
736: larger than what was used for the present analysis, which will decrease
737: our uncertainties on velocity dispersions by a factor of 2. This
738: will result in a similar decrease in errors on our halo mass estimate,
739: allowing for much tighter constraints on both halo mass evolution and the
740: halo model. With the completed survey, we will be able to separate our host
741: galaxies by spectral type, color, or redshift, allowing for more precise
742: comparisons to local samples.
743:
744:
745: \acknowledgments
746: This project was supported in part by the NSF grants AST00-71198 and
747: AST00-71048. The DEIMOS spectrograph was funded by a grant from CARA
748: (Keck Observatory), an NSF Facilities and Infrastructure grant (AST92-2540,
749: the Center for Particle Astrophysics and by gifts from Sun Microsystems and
750: the Quantum Corporation. JN acknowledges support from NASA through Hubble
751: Fellowship grant HST-HF-01165.01-A awarded by the Space Telescope Science
752: Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research
753: in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA, under contract NAS 5-26555. Some of The data
754: presented herein were obtained at the W.M. Keck Observatory, which is operated
755: as a scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology,
756: the University of California and the National Aeronautics and Space
757: Administration. The Observatory was made possible by the generous financial
758: support of the W.M. Keck Foundation. In addition, we wish to acknowledge
759: the significant cultural role that the summit of Mauna Kea plays within
760: the indigenous Hawaiian community; we are fortunate to have the opportunity
761: to conduct observations from this mountain.
762:
763: We would like to thank Francisco Prada for providing us with his
764: satellite galaxy data. C.C. would like to thank Chung-Pei Ma, Martin White,
765: Francisco Prada, and Anatoly Klypin for enlightening conversations and for
766: reading early drafts.
767:
768: %\bibliography{all_refs}
769: \input{ms.bbl}
770:
771: \begin{deluxetable}{rccccccccc}
772: %\tablewidth{100pt}
773: \large
774: \tablecaption{search parameters and derived quantities for 7 samples.
775: $\delta$ refers to satellite selection criteria, while $\Delta$ refers
776: to the parameters for host galaxy isolation.}
777:
778: \tablehead{ \colhead{Sample} & \colhead{$\delta M_{B}$ } &
779: \colhead{$\delta r_p$} & \colhead{$\delta v$} & \colhead{$\Delta
780: M_{B}$} & \colhead{$\Delta r_p$} & \colhead{$\Delta v$} &
781: \colhead{$N$ \tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$V_{200}$
782: \tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{M \tablenotemark{c}}} \startdata 1 &
783: 1.5 & 350 & 500 & 0.75 & 700 & 1000 & 75 & 410$^{+55}_{-60}$ &
784: 5.5$^{+2.5}_{-2.0}$ \\ 2 & 1.0 & 500 & 750 & 0.75 & 1000 & 1000 & 160
785: & 410$^{+55}_{-60}$ & 5.4$^{+2.5}_{-2.0}$ \\ 3 & 1.5 & 500 & 750 & 1.0
786: & 1000 & 1000 & 52 & 405$^{+65}_{-70}$ & 5.3$^{+3.0}_{-2.3}$ \\ 4 &
787: 1.5 & 350 & 700 & 1.0 & 700 & 1000 & 55 & 410$^{+75}_{-75}$ &
788: 5.5$^{+3.6}_{-2.5}$ \\ 5 & 1.0 & 500 & 700 & 1.0 & 1000 & 1000 & 11 &
789: 400$^{+70}_{-70}$ & 5.0$^{+3.1}_{-2.2}$ \\ 6 & 1.5 & 500 & 500 & 1.0 &
790: 1000 & 1000 & 51 & 425$^{+65}_{-70}$ & 6.1$^{+3.3}_{-2.6}$ \\ 7 & 1.5
791: & 350 & 500 & 1.0 & 500 & 1000 & 82 & 425$^{+60}_{-60}$ &
792: 6.1$^{+2.9}_{-2.2}$ \\ \enddata \tablenotetext{a}{Total number of
793: satellites with host magnitude $-22<M_B-5\log(h)<-21$.}
794: \tablenotetext{b}{$V_{200}$ measured in km s$^{-1}$}
795: \tablenotetext{c}{$M_{200} / 10^{12} h^{-1}M_{\Sun}$}
796: \end{deluxetable}
797:
798:
799:
800:
801:
802: \end{document}
803:
804:
805:
806:
807:
808:
809:
810:
811:
812:
813:
814:
815:
816:
817:
818:
819:
820:
821:
822:
823:
824:
825:
826:
827:
828:
829:
830:
831:
832:
833:
834:
835:
836:
837:
838:
839:
840:
841:
842:
843:
844:
845:
846:
847:
848: