1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %
3: % An Analytic Model for the Axis-Ratio Distribution of Dark Matter Halos
4: % from the Primordial Gaussian Density Field
5: %
6: % Jounghun Lee, Yipeng Jing, \& Yasushi Suto
7: %
8: % Time-stamp: <05/04/28 11:31:27 suto>
9: %
10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
11: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
12: %\usepackage{emulateapj}
13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
14: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
15: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
16: \newcommand{\ben}{\begin{eqnarray}}
17: \newcommand{\een}{\end{eqnarray}}
18: \newcommand{\bth}{\vec{\theta}}
19: \newcommand{\hbth}{\hat{\theta}}
20: \newcommand{\bu}{{\bf u}}
21: \def\comment#1{\par\noindent\llap{$\Rightarrow$\enskip}{\bf #1}\par}
22: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
23: %\received{2005 April 28}
24: \begin{document}
25: \title{An Analytic Model for the Axis-Ratio Distribution of
26: Dark Matter Halos from the Primordial Gaussian Density Field}
27: \author{\sc Jounghun Lee\altaffilmark{1,2}, Y.P. Jing\altaffilmark{3}
28: and Yasushi Suto\altaffilmark{4}}
29:
30: \altaffiltext{1}{School of Physics, Korea Institute for Advanced Study,
31: Seoul 207-43, Korea ; jounghun@newton.kias.re.kr}
32:
33: \altaffiltext{2}{Astronomy Program, School of Earth and Environmental
34: Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742 , Korea}
35:
36: \altaffiltext{3}{Shanghai Astronomical Observatory; the Partner Group of MPA,
37: Nandan Road 80, Shanghai 200030, China; ypjing@shao.ac.cn}
38:
39: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Physics, The University of Tokyo,
40: Tokyo 113-0033, Japan ; suto@phys.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp}
41:
42: \begin{abstract}
43: We present an analytic expression for the axis ratio distribution of
44: triaxial dark matter halos driven from physical principles. Adopting the
45: picture of triaxial collapse based on the Zel'dovich approximation,
46: we derive analytically both the minor-to-major and the conditional
47: intermediate-to-major axis ratio distributions, and examine how they
48: depend on the halo mass, redshift, and cosmology. Our analytic model
49: is tested against the simulation data given by Jing \& Suto in 2002, and
50: found to reproduce the conditional intermediate-to-major axis ratio
51: distribution successfully and the minor-to-major axis ratio distribution
52: approximately. However, the trends of our analytic axis-ratio distributions
53: with mass and redshift are opposite to what is found in N-body simulations.
54: This failure of our analytic model puts a limitation on analytic approaches
55: based on the Lagrangian theory to the halo ellipticity.
56: Given the overall agreement with the simulation
57: results, our model provides a new theoretical step toward using the
58: axis-ratio distribution of dark halos as a cosmological probe.
59: We also discuss several possibilities to improve the model.
60: \end{abstract}
61:
62: \keywords{cosmology: theory --- large-scale structure of universe --- galaxies: halos --- dark matter}
63:
64: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
65: \section{INTRODUCTION}
66:
67: While shapes of dark matter halos have been conventionally modeled as
68: spherical \citep{nav-etal97,moo-etal99}, optical, X-ray and lensing
69: observations of galaxy clusters suggest that the shapes of dark halos
70: are far from spherical \citep{wes89,pli-etal91}. Recent high-resolution
71: simulations do indicate that the density profiles of dark halos are
72: better approximated as triaxial \citep{fre-etal88,war-etal92,jin-sut02,
73: suw-etal03,kas-evr04,hop-etal04}.
74:
75: \citet[][JS02 hereafter]{jin-sut02} were able to construct a detailed
76: empirical model for the triaxial halo for the first time. Their fitting
77: model turned out to be quite useful in quantifying the triaxiality
78: effect on many important observables such as the strong lensing arc
79: statistics \citep{ogu-etal03,ogu-kee04,dal-etal04}, the halo
80: mass-temperature relation \citep{yan-etal04}, and the halo figure
81: rotation \citep{bai-ste04}.
82:
83: The most fundamental statistics characterizing the halo triaxiality is
84: the axis-ratio, or equivalently, ellipticity distribution
85: functions. \citet{hop-etal04} have shown from their N-body simulations
86: that the axis-ratio distributions depend on the halo environments in
87: addition to the underlying cosmology. In order to exploit the halo
88: axis-ratio distribution as a cosmological probe, therefore, one needs an
89: analytic model beyond the empirical fitting formulae. This is exactly
90: what we attempt to propose in this paper.
91:
92: In fact, the triaxial shape of a dark halo is a generic prediction of
93: the CDM (Cold Dark Matter) paradigm. \citet{bar-etal86} already derived
94: an analytic expression of the halo axis-ratio distribution {\it
95: assuming} that dark halos form at peaks of the primordial Gaussian
96: density field. They showed theoretically that the CDM dark halos cannot
97: be spherical as pointed out earlier by \citet{dor70}. However, recent
98: numerical results mentioned above have demonstrated that simulated dark
99: halos are even more elliptical than expected in the previous density
100: peak approach. This is why we revisit this problem using different
101: analytical approaches.
102:
103: To construct a new theoretical model for the halo axis-ratio
104: distribution, we adopt the cosmic web picture \citep{bon-etal96} which
105: describes one dimensional filaments in the CDM framework. According to
106: the picture, the distribution and spatial coherence of initial tidal
107: fields induces the filamentary pattern of the large scale
108: structure. Later the filaments bridge between dark matter halos, and the
109: merging of dark halos occur preferentially along the bridging filaments.
110: Thus the resulting halos cannot be spherical but naturally become
111: elongated along the filaments. The halo ellipticities are expected to
112: increase as the hierarchical merging along the filaments proceeds.
113: Therefore, the halo axis-ratio can be inferred statistically by
114: combining an evolution model of non-spherical density perturbations and
115: the primordial filamentarity of the initial density field.
116:
117: In order to examine the validity of our analytical model, we compare the
118: predictions with the simulation results by JS02. For that purpose, we
119: consider two specific sets of cosmological parameters that they
120: adopted. The first model is $\Lambda$CDM model which assumes that
121: $\Omega_{m}=0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, $\sigma_{8}=0.9$, and
122: $\Gamma=0.2$, where $\Omega_{m}$ and $\Omega_\Lambda$ denote the matter
123: density parameter and the dimensionless cosmological constant, and
124: $\sigma_8$ is the amplitude of the mass fluctuation at $8h^{-1}$Mpc.
125: Since JS02 use the CDM transfer function of \citet{bar-etal86}
126: neglecting the baryon contribution, the shape parameter $\Gamma$ simply
127: equals $\Omega_{m}h$. The second model is SCDM model where
128: $\Omega_{m}=1$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0$, $\sigma_{8}=0.55$, and
129: $\Gamma=0.5$. JS02 considered dark halos consisting of more than $10^4$
130: particles. Since a mass of a simulation particle is $2.07\times10^{9}
131: \Omega_m h^{-1} M_\odot$ ($512^3$ particles in $100h^{-1}$Mpc comoving
132: cube), it is convenient to define the dimensionless mass of $M_{4}\equiv
133: M/(2.07\times 10^{13}\Omega_{m}h^{-1}M_{\odot})$.
134:
135: The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes our
136: basic assumptions in the analytic modeling. We lay out mathematical
137: details of derivation of the axis ratio distributions in \S 3, and
138: compare the analytic results with their simulation results in \S 4.
139: Finally \S 5 is devoted to discussion and conclusions.
140:
141:
142: \section{BASIC ASSUMPTIONS}
143:
144: To derive the axis-ratio distribution of dark matter halos, we adopt
145: three major assumptions. First, the trajectory of a dark matter particle
146: in the comoving coordinate is well approximated by the Zel'dovich
147: formula \citep{zel70}. According to the approximation, the key
148: quantities are the three eigenvalues ($\lambda_{1} \ge \lambda_{2} \ge
149: \lambda_{3}$) of the deformation tensor (or the tidal shear tensor),
150: $d_{ij}$, which is defined as the second derivative of the perturbation
151: potential, $\Psi$, at the initial epoch $z_i$:
152: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
153: \begin{equation}
154: d_{ij} \equiv \partial_{i}\partial_{j}\Psi.
155: \end{equation}
156: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
157: The mapping from the Lagrangian to the Eulerian spaces yields an
158: expression of the particle density $\rho$ in the Eulerian space ${\bf x}$
159: at redshift $z$:
160: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
161: \begin{equation}
162: \label{eqn:density}
163: \rho({\bf x},z) = \frac{\bar{\rho}(z)}
164: {[1 - \tilde{D}_{+}(z)\lambda_{1}]
165: [1 - \tilde{D}_{+}(z)\lambda_{2}]
166: [1 - \tilde{D}_{+}(z)\lambda_{3}]} ,
167: \end{equation}
168: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
169: where $\bar{\rho}$ is the background density of the universe, and
170: $\tilde{D}_{+}(z) \equiv D_{+}(z)/D_{+}(z_{i})$ denotes the linear
171: growth rate of density fluctuations up to $z$ but normalized to unity at
172: redshift $z_i$. Note that $\lambda_{1}$, $\lambda_{2}$, and
173: $\lambda_{3}$ in equation (\ref{eqn:density}) represent the eigenvalues
174: of $d_{ij}$ defined at $z_{i}$. In practice, we use the following
175: fitting formula \citep{pea99}:
176: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
177: \begin{equation}
178: \label{eqn:lcdmD}
179: D_{+}(z) = \frac{5}{2}\Omega_{m}[\Omega_{m}(1+z)^{3}+\Omega_{\Lambda}]^{1/2}
180: \int_{z}^{\infty}\frac{1+z^{\prime}}
181: {[\Omega_{m}(1+z^{\prime})^{3} + \Omega_{\Lambda}]^{3/2}}\ dz^{\prime}.
182: \end{equation}
183: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
184: The {\it linear} density contrast, $\delta$, at $z_i$ is simply written
185: as
186: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
187: \begin{equation}
188: \label{eqn:del}
189: \delta({\bf x},z_i) = \lambda_{1} + \lambda_{2} + \lambda_{3} .
190: \end{equation}
191: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
192:
193: Second, we assume that a dark matter halo of mass $M$ forms at redshift
194: $z$ when the corresponding Lagrangian region (at $z_i$) in the linear
195: density field smoothed over $M$ satisfies the following conditions:
196: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
197: \begin{equation}
198: \label{eqn:cons}
199: \delta(z_i) = \delta_{c}(z), \qquad \lambda_{3}(z_i) \ge \lambda_{c}(z),
200: \end{equation}
201: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
202: where $\delta$ and $\lambda_{3}$ are the linear density contrast and the
203: smallest eigenvalue of $d_{ij}$ of the smoothed density field, respectively.
204: Here $\delta_{c}(z)$ and $\lambda_{c}(z)$ are redshift-dependent threshold
205: of $\delta$ and lower limit of $\lambda_{3}$, respectively:
206: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
207: \begin{equation}
208: \label{eqn:limit}
209: \delta_{c}(z) = \delta_{c0}\tilde{D}_{+}(0)/\tilde{D}_{+}(z), \qquad
210: \lambda_{c}(z) = \lambda_{c0}\tilde{D}_{+}(0)/\tilde{D}_{+}(z).
211: \end{equation}
212: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
213: We use the collapse threshold $\delta_{c0}$ computed in the spherical
214: model. For SCDM, it is $\delta_{c} \approx 1.686$. For $\Lambda$CDM,
215: we use the formula given in Appendix B of \citet{kit-sut96},
216: which depends weakly on cosmology.
217:
218:
219: In the spherical approximation, the condition of $\delta(z_i)=
220: \delta_{c}(z)$ is sufficient for the gravitational collapse at $z$. In
221: the non-spherical model based on the Zel'dovich approximation, however,
222: all regions satisfying $\delta = \delta_{c}$ do not necessarily collapse
223: into dark halos, since $\lambda_{3}$ can be negative even when $\delta =
224: \delta_{c}$. This is why we impose the additional condition
225: (\ref{eqn:cons}) in our model based on the Zel'dovich approximation.
226: Nevertheless no reliable modeling is known which determines the value of
227: $\lambda_{c0}$ from physical principles. While the Zel'dovich
228: approximation suggests $\lambda_{c0}=1$, those objects are subject to
229: the first-shell crossing, beyond which the Zel'dovich approximation is
230: not valid at all. Indeed, \citet{lee-sha98} empirically proposed a value
231: of $\lambda_{c0}=0.37$ in their mass function theory. They argue that
232: realistic collapse should proceed along all the three axes almost
233: simultaneously. Thus the collapse along the major axis should be
234: accelerated by the collapse along the other two directions, resulting in
235: a lower value of $\lambda_{c0}$. Throughout this paper, we adopt their
236: value of $\lambda_{c0}=0.37$ unless otherwise stated (see \S 3).
237:
238: Third, the principal axes of the inertia tensor of a dark matter halo are
239: aligned with that of the linear tidal shear tensor of the corresponding
240: Lagrangian region. Approximating that the density profile of a dark matter
241: halo as a triaxial ellipsoid with three distinct axes, $a$, $b$, and $c$ (we
242: define $a \le b \le c$), one can say that the inertia shape tensor
243: of a dark halo has three distinct eigenvalues, $a,b,c$. The three
244: eigenvalues of the halo inertia tensor, $\{a,b,c\}$, are related to the
245: eigenvalues of the tidal shear tensor, $\{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2},
246: \lambda_{3}\}$ as
247: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
248: \begin{equation}
249: \label{eqn:abc}
250: a \propto \sqrt{1 - \tilde{D}_{+}\lambda_{1}}, \qquad
251: b \propto \sqrt{1 - \tilde{D}_{+}\lambda_{2}}, \qquad
252: c \propto \sqrt{1 - \tilde{D}_{+}\lambda_{3}},
253: \end{equation}
254: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
255: It may be interesting to compare our definition of the halo axes
256: (eq.[\ref{eqn:abc}]) with that of the density peak formalism
257: \citep{bar-etal86}. In the density peak formalism, the three eigenvalues
258: of the halo inertia tensor are defined as
259: \begin{equation}
260: \label{eqn:den_abc}
261: a \propto \frac{1}{\sqrt{\zeta_{1}}}, \qquad
262: b \propto \frac{1}{\sqrt{\zeta_{2}}}, \qquad
263: c \propto \frac{1}{\sqrt{\zeta_{3}}},
264: \end{equation}
265: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
266: where $\zeta_{1}$, $\zeta_{2}$, and $\zeta_{3}$ are the three
267: eigenvalues of the second derivative of {\it the linear density field},
268: $\partial_{i}\partial_{j}\delta$. The comparison of two equations
269: (\ref{eqn:abc}) and (\ref{eqn:den_abc}) shows that in the density peak
270: formalism the inertia shape tensor of a dark halo is almost independent
271: of the tidal shear tensor, $d_{ij}$, while in our formalism which
272: basically assumes that the ellipticity of a dark halo is induced by the
273: filamentary cosmic web, it is directly related with $d_{ij}$. In fact,
274: the strong correlation between the halo inertia and the tidal shear
275: tensors was demonstrated by recent N-body simulations
276: \citep{lee-pen00,por-etal02}.
277:
278: The above three assumptions imply that dark matter halos preferentially
279: form at the over-dense nodes of the filamentary web of the initial
280: density field where the principal axes of the inertia and the tidal
281: tensors are aligned with each other. Using these simplified assumptions,
282: we derive analytically the distribution of the axis-ratios of dark halos
283: in the following two sections.
284:
285: \section{THE MINOR-TO-MAJOR AXIS RATIO DISTRIBUTION}
286:
287: We start from the joint probability distribution of the three
288: eigenvalues of the tidal shear tensor in the primordial Gaussian density
289: field \citep{dor70}:
290: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
291: \begin{equation}
292: \label{eqn:joint_lam}
293: p(\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2},\lambda_{3};\sigma_{M}) =
294: \frac{3375}{8\sqrt{5}\pi\sigma^6_{M}}
295: \exp\bigg{(}-\frac{3I_{1}^2}{\sigma^2_{M}}
296: + \frac{15I_{2}}{2\sigma^2_{M}}\bigg{)}(\lambda_{1}-\lambda_{2})
297: (\lambda_{2}-\lambda_{3})(\lambda_{1}-\lambda_{3}) ,
298: \end{equation}
299: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
300: where
301: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
302: \begin{equation}
303: I_{1} \equiv \lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2}+\lambda_{3},
304: \qquad
305: I_{2} \equiv
306: \lambda_{1}\lambda_{2} + \lambda_{2}\lambda_{3} +
307: \lambda_{3}\lambda_{1},
308: \end{equation}
309: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
310: We define $\sigma_{M}$ as the rms fluctuation of the linear density
311: field at $z_i$ smoothed on mass scale $M$:
312: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
313: \begin{equation}
314: \label{eqn:sig}
315: \sigma^{2}_{M}(z_i) = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3}}
316: \int P(k,z_i) W_{TH}^2(kR_M) d^{3} k ,
317: \end{equation}
318: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
319: where $P(k,z_i)$ is the linear power spectrum of the density field, and
320: $W_{TH}(kR_M)$ is the top-hat filter with
321: $R_M \equiv [3M/(4\pi\bar{\rho})]^{1/3}$.
322:
323: We change the variables from $\{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2},\lambda_{3}\}$
324: to $\{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2},\delta\}$ using equation (\ref{eqn:del}),
325: and find the joint probability distribution of
326: $\lambda_{1}$, $\lambda_{2}$, and $\delta$ from equation
327: (\ref{eqn:joint_lam}):
328: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
329: \begin{eqnarray}
330: p(\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2},\delta ; \sigma_{M}) &=&
331: \frac{3375}{8\sqrt{5}\pi\sigma^{6}_{M}}
332: \exp\left[-\frac{3\delta^{2}}{\sigma^{2}_{M}} +
333: \frac{15\delta(\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2})}{2\sigma^{2}_{M}} -
334: \frac{15(\lambda^{2}_{1}+\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}+\lambda^{2}_{2})}
335: {2\sigma^{2}_{M}}\right] \nonumber \\
336: &&\times(2\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2}-\delta)(\lambda_{1}-\lambda_{2})
337: (\lambda_{1}+2\lambda_{2}-\delta).
338: \label{eqn:lam_del}
339: \end{eqnarray}
340: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
341: Applying the Bayes theorem and the Gaussian distribution of the linear
342: density
343: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
344: \begin{equation}
345: p(\delta;\sigma_{M}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_{M}}
346: \exp\left(-\frac{\delta^{2}}{\sigma^{2}_{M}}\right),
347: \end{equation}
348: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
349: the conditional probability distribution of $\lambda_{1}$ and
350: $\lambda_{2}$ at $\delta = \delta_{c}$ is written as
351: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
352: \begin{eqnarray}
353: p(\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2} | \delta = \delta_{c} ; \sigma_{M}) &=&
354: \frac{p(\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2},\delta = \delta_{c} ; \sigma_{M})
355: d\delta}{p(\delta = \delta_{c}; \sigma_{M})d\delta} \nonumber \\
356: &=&\frac{3375\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{10\pi}\sigma^{5}_{M}}
357: \exp\left[-\frac{5\delta^{2}_{c}}{2\sigma^{2}_{M}} +
358: \frac{15\delta_{c}(\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2})}{2\sigma^{2}_{M}} -
359: \frac{15(\lambda^{2}_{1}+\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}+\lambda^{2}_{2})}
360: {2\sigma^{2}_{M}}\right] \nonumber \\
361: &&\times(2\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2}-\delta_{c})(\lambda_{1}-\lambda_{2})
362: (\lambda_{1}+2\lambda_{2}-\delta_{c}).
363: \label{eqn:con_lamdel}
364: \end{eqnarray}
365: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
366:
367: We define two {\it real} variables, $\mu_{1}$ and $\mu_{2}$, as the axis
368: ratios of a triaxial halo:
369: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
370: \begin{equation}
371: \mu_{1} \equiv \frac{b}{c}, \qquad \mu_{2} \equiv \frac{a}{c}
372: \end{equation}
373: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
374: ($\mu_2 \le \mu_1 \le 1$). According to the third assumption in \S 2,
375: $\mu_{1}$ and $\mu_{2}$ are written in terms of $\lambda_{1}$,
376: $\lambda_{2}$, and $\delta$ as
377: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
378: \begin{equation}
379: \label{eqn:mus}
380: \mu_{1} = \sqrt{\frac{1 - \tilde{D}_{+}\lambda_{2}}
381: {1 - \tilde{D}_{+}(\delta_{c}-\lambda_{1}-\lambda_{2})}}, \qquad
382: \mu_{2} = \sqrt{\frac{1 - \tilde{D}_{+}\lambda_{1}}
383: {1 - \tilde{D}_{+}(\delta_{c}-\lambda_{1}-\lambda_{2})}},
384: \end{equation}
385: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
386: with the following constraints:
387: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
388: \begin{equation}
389: \delta_{c}-\lambda_{1}-\lambda_{2} \ge \lambda_{c}(z), \qquad
390: \lambda_{1} \le \frac{1}{\tilde{D}_{+}(z)} .
391: \end{equation}
392: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
393: The first constraint $\lambda_{3} \ge \lambda_{c}(z)$ guarantees the
394: collapse along all three axes, in accordance with the second assumption
395: in $\S 2$. The second constraint $\lambda_{1} \le 1/\tilde{D}_{+}(z)$
396: guarantees that $\mu_{1}$ and $\mu_{2}$ are all real. Note that if
397: $\lambda_{1} \le 1/\tilde{D}_{+}(z)$, then it automatically implies
398: $\lambda_{3} \le \lambda_{2} \le 1/\tilde{D}_{+}(z)$. According to equation
399: (\ref{eqn:con_lamdel}), however, $\lambda_{1}$ has a non-zero
400: probability of $\lambda_{1} > 1/\tilde{D}_{+}(z)$. We simply do not
401: consider the parameter region of $\lambda_{1} \ge 1/\tilde{D}_{+}(z)$ since
402: they correspond to the break-down of the Zel'dovich approximation in the
403: non-linear regime after the first-shell crossing ($\lambda_{1} =
404: 1/\tilde{D}_{+}(z)$).
405:
406: Now, we write the probability density that a dark matter halo of mass $M$
407: formed at redshift $z_{f}$ has a intermediate-to-major axis ratio of $b/c$
408: and the minor-to-major axis ratio of $a/c$ as
409: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
410: \begin{eqnarray}
411: \label{eqn:ratio_dis}
412: p(b/c, a/c ; M, z_{f}) &\equiv&
413: p(\mu_{1},\mu_{2}| \delta = \delta_{c} ; \sigma_{M};z_{f}) \cr
414: &=& A\, p(\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2} | \delta=\delta_c ; \sigma_{M}; z_{f})
415: \Theta\!\left(\frac{1}{\tilde{D}_f}-\lambda_{1}\right) \cr
416: && \times \Theta[\delta_{c}-\lambda_{c}-(\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2})]
417: \left|\frac{(\partial\lambda_{1}\partial\lambda_{2})}
418: {(\partial\mu_{1}\partial\mu_{2})}\right|,
419: \end{eqnarray}
420: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
421: where we solve equation (\ref{eqn:mus}) for
422: $\lambda_{1}$, $\lambda_{2}$ and $\lambda_{3}$ as
423: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
424: \begin{eqnarray}
425: \label{eqn:lamu1}
426: \lambda_{1} &=& \frac{1 + (\tilde{D}_f\delta_{c}- 2)\mu^{2}_{2} +
427: \mu^{2}_{1}}
428: {\tilde{D}_f(\mu^{2}_{1} + \mu^{2}_{2} + 1)},\\
429: \label{eqn:lamu2}
430: \lambda_{2} &=& \frac{1 + (\tilde{D}_f\delta_{c}- 2)\mu^{2}_{1} +
431: \mu^{2}_{2}}{\tilde{D}_f
432: (\mu^{2}_{1} + \mu^{2}_{2} + 1)},\\
433: \label{eqn:lamu3}
434: \lambda_{3} &=& \frac{\tilde{D}_f\delta_{c}- 2 +\mu^{2}_{1} +
435: \mu^{2}_{2}}{\tilde{D}_f
436: (\mu^{2}_{1} + \mu^{2}_{2} + 1)}.
437: \end{eqnarray}
438: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
439: In the above expression, $\delta_{c}$ and $\tilde{D}_f$ depend on
440: the formation redshift, $z_{f}$: $\delta_{c}(z_{f})$ and
441: $\tilde{D}_f = \tilde{D}_{+}(z_{f})$, and $\Theta$ is the Heaviside
442: step function. The normalization constant $A$ satisfies
443: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
444: \begin{equation}
445: A\int p(\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2} | \delta=\delta_c ; \sigma_{M}, z_{f})
446: \Theta\!\left(\frac{1}{\tilde{D}_f}-\lambda_{1}\right)
447: \Theta[\delta_{c}-\lambda_{c}-(\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2})]
448: d\mu_{1}d\mu_{2} = 1.
449: \label{eqn:norm_const}
450: \end{equation}
451: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
452: Finally we denote by $\left|(\partial\lambda_{1}\partial\lambda_{2})/
453: (\partial\mu_{1}\partial\mu_{2})\right|$ the Jacobian of the
454: transformation from $\{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}\}$ to
455: $\{\mu_{1},\mu_{2}\}$, which we find from equations
456: (\ref{eqn:lamu1}) and (\ref{eqn:lamu2}):
457: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
458: \begin{equation}
459: \label{eqn:jac}
460: \left|\frac{(\partial\lambda_{1}\partial\lambda_{2})}
461: {(\partial\mu_{1}\partial\mu_{2})} \right| =
462: \frac{4(\tilde{D}_f\delta_{c} - 3)^2\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}
463: {\tilde{D}_f^2(\mu^{2}_{1}+\mu^{2}_{2}+1)^{3}}.
464: \end{equation}
465: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
466:
467: Integrating equation (\ref{eqn:ratio_dis}) over $b/c$, we find the
468: probability density that a dark halo of mass $M$ formed at redshift
469: $z_{f}$ has a minor-to-major axis ratio of $a/c$:
470: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
471: \begin{eqnarray}
472: \label{eqn:capro}
473: p(a/c ; M, z_{f}) &=& \int_{a/c}^{1} p(b/c, a/c ; M, z_{f}) d(b/c)
474: \cr
475: &=& \int_{\mu_2}^{1}
476: p[\mu_{1},\mu_{2}| \delta = \delta_{c}(z_{f}); \sigma_{M}]d\mu_{1}
477: \cr
478: &=& \int_{\mu_2}^{1}
479: A\ p[\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}|\delta=\delta_c(z_{f});\sigma_{M}]
480: \Theta\!\left(\frac{1}{\tilde{D}_f}-\lambda_{1}\right)
481: \cr
482: && \times \Theta[\delta_{c}-\lambda_{c}-(\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2})]
483: \left|\frac{(\partial\lambda_{1}\partial\lambda_{2})}
484: {(\partial\mu_{1}\partial\mu_{2})} \right|d\mu_{1} .
485: \end{eqnarray}
486: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
487:
488: Equation (\ref{eqn:capro}) is the axis ratio distribution at the
489: formation epoch, $z_{f}$. The axis-ratio distribution at the {\it
490: observation epoch}, $z$, can be readily found as
491: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
492: \begin{equation}
493: \label{eqn:capro_z}
494: p(a/c ; M ; z) = \int_{z}^{\infty}dz_{f}\
495: \frac{\partial p_{f}(z_{f};2M,z)}{\partial z_{f}}\ p(a/c ; 2M ; z_{f}),
496: \end{equation}
497: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
498: where the formation epoch distribution, $\partial p_{f}/\partial z_{f}$,
499: represents the probability that a halo of mass $2M$ that exists at $z$
500: had a mass greater than $M$ for the first time at $z_{f}$.
501: Since the formation epoch distribution in the current non-spherical model
502: is almost impossible to work out analytically, we use the spherical
503: counterpart instead. In practice we use the fitting formula by
504: \citet{kit-sut96} for the analytic expression derived by
505: \citet{lac-col94}.
506:
507: Let us emphasize the difference between equations (\ref{eqn:capro}) and
508: (\ref{eqn:capro_z}): while the former gives the probability density that
509: a dark halo of mass $M$ has a minor-to-major axis ratio $a/c$ at its
510: formation redshift $z_f$, the latter is the counterpart evaluated
511: at the observation redshift $z (<z_f)$. Of course, in numerical
512: simulations and observations, the latter, not the former, is the
513: relevant observable. In what follows, therefore, we mainly consider the
514: latter evaluated at the {\it observation} epoch, $z$.
515:
516: Figure \ref{fig:lamc} plots the $\lambda_{c0}$-dependence of $p(a/c ; M,
517: z)$ in the $\Lambda$CDM model: $\lambda_{c0} = 0$, $0.1$, $0.2$, $0.3$,
518: $0.35$ and $0.4$ (dotted, dashed, long-dashed, solid, dot-dashed, and
519: dot-long-dashed lines, respectively). For this plot, we choose the halo
520: mass $M_{4} = 10$ at $z=0$ for definiteness. The axis-ratio
521: distribution of dark halos shifts toward the high axis-ratio side (more
522: spherical) as $\lambda_{c0}$ increases. This is theoretically
523: understandable since higher values of $\lambda_{c0}$ correspond to those
524: Lagrangian regions whose major axis lengths are closer to the other two
525: (see eq.[\ref{eqn:abc}]). Given such, we adopt $\lambda_{c0}=0.37$ in
526: the analysis below, following \citet{lee-sha98}
527:
528: Figure \ref{fig:redm} shows how $p(a/c;M,z)$ depends on the halo mass
529: and the redshift for the case of $\Lambda$CDM. The upper panel shows
530: the $z$-dependence of $p(a/c ; M, z)$ for a fixed mass scale of
531: $M_{4}=10$ at redshift $z = 0$, $0.5$, $1$, $1.5$ and $2$ (solid,
532: dotted, dashed, long-dashed, and dot-dashed) respectively. While the
533: lower panel plots the mass-dependence of $p(a/c ; M, z)$ at $z=0$ for
534: $M_{4} = 1,5,10,20$ and $30$ (solid, dotted, dashed, long-dashed, and
535: dot-dashed) respectively. As can be seen, the analytic distribution
536: $p(a/c;M,z)$ depends on the halo mass and redshift consistently: the
537: distribution moves toward the high axis-ratio section as the halo mass
538: and the redshift increase.
539:
540: In other words, our analytic model predicts that the more massive a dark
541: halos is, the less elliptical it is, and that a dark halo of given mass
542: is less elliptical at earlier epochs. These two trends are consistent
543: with the theoretical work of \citet{ber94}. By applying the perturbation
544: theory to a primordial Gaussian density field, he proved theoretically
545: that the larger halos formed at higher density peaks are rounder.
546: However, these trends are opposite to what is found through accurate
547: calculations of N-body simulations: It was found in simulations that the
548: more massive halos are more elliptical, and that the halos of given mass
549: observed at earlier epochs are more elliptical
550: \citep{bul02,spr-etal04,jin-sut02,hop-etal04}.
551: This failure of our analytic model implies that the dependences of the
552: axis-ratio distributions on mass and redshift are not fully determined
553: by simply applying the Zel'dovich approximation.
554:
555: Figure \ref{fig:pro_ac} shows our analytic prediction
556: (eq.[\ref{eqn:capro_z}]) at $z = 0$, $0.5$, and $1$ (top, middle, and
557: bottom, respectively) for three mass scales $M_{4}=1,4,10$ (solid,
558: dotted, and dashed, respectively). They should be compared with the
559: numerical results (histograms) from JS02 for the $\Lambda$CDM
560: (left panels) and the SCDM (right panels). Clearly the analytic
561: predictions agree with the numerical results reasonably well; they
562: reproduce well shapes and characteristic behaviors (especially for
563: $\Lambda$CDM) such as the peak positions, the dispersions, and the
564: decrease of the mean axis-ratios with the increase of redshift. On
565: the other hand, we notice that the numerical histograms slightly move
566: toward the low axis ratio section as the halo mass increases, which
567: disagrees with the analytical predictions. We discuss on this
568: disagreement between the analytical and the numerical results in $\S 5$.
569:
570:
571: \section{THE CONDITIONAL INTERMEDIATE-TO-MAJOR AXIS RATIO DISTRIBUTION}
572:
573: The probability density, $p(b/c;M;z)$, that a dark halo of mass $M$ is
574: observed at redshift $z$ to have an intermediate-to-major axis
575: ratio of $b/c$ can be also computed in a similar manner. However, to
576: investigate the overall triaxiality of a dark halo, what is more
577: relevant is the {\it conditional} probability density distribution,
578: $p(b/c|a/c ;M;z)$, that a dark halo of mass $M$ is observed at $z$
579: to have an intermediate-to-major axis ratio $b/c$ provided it has a
580: minor-to-major axis ratio $a/c$. In principle, one can find this
581: conditional probability density from the Bayes theorem:
582: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
583: \begin{equation}
584: \label{eqn:bapro_zf}
585: p(b/c | a/c ; M ; z) = \frac{p(b/c, a/c ; M ; z)d(a/c)}
586: {p(a/c ; M ; z)d(a/c)}.
587: \end{equation}
588: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
589: Although it is possible to derive $p(b/c | a/c ; M ; z)$ analytically as
590: well, it is not easy to construct the statistical sample either from the
591: current simulations or from observations; there would be only a few dark
592: halos of mass $M$ at redshift $z$ with the fixed minor-to-major $a/c$.
593:
594: To overcome the poor number statistics, JS02 combined all the halo mass,
595: i.e., they computed $p(b/c | a/c ; z)$ instead of $p(b/c | a/c ; M ;
596: z)$. For a direct comparison with their result, we compute $p(b/c | a/c
597: ; z)$ according to
598: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
599: \begin{equation}
600: \label{eqn:bapro}
601: p(b/c | a/c ; z) = \int_{S_{M}}dM\int_{z}^{\infty}dz_{f}\ n(2M;z)
602: \frac{\partial p_{f}(z_{f};2M,z)}{\partial z_{f}}\ p(b/c | a/c ; 2M ; z_{f}),
603: \end{equation}
604: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
605: where $p(b/c | a/c ; 2M ; z_{f})$ is given as equation
606: (\ref{eqn:ratio_dis}), $n(M;z)$ represents the number density of dark
607: halos of mass $M$ that exist at $z$, and $S_{M}$ represents the whole
608: mass range to be considered. In practice, we use the fitting formula
609: given by \citet{she-tor99} for $n(M;z)$.
610:
611: Figure \ref{fig:beh} illustrates the redshift-dependence of $p(b/c |
612: a/c; z)$ in the $\Lambda$CDM model at $z=0$, $0.5$, $1$, $1.5$ and $2$
613: (solid, dotted, dashed, long-dashed, and dot-dashed) respectively. The
614: minor-to-major axis ratio is fixed to be $a/c = 0.55$. As one can see,
615: the conditional distribution $p(b/c | a/c; z)$ is insensitive to the
616: redshift, which is also consistent with the finding of JS02.
617:
618: Figure \ref{fig:con_pro} compares the analytic predictions (curves) with
619: the numerical findings (histograms) for $a/c = 0.55$, $0.65$, and $0.75$
620: (top, middle, and bottom, respectively) at $z=0$ in $\Lambda$CDM (left
621: panels) and SCDM (right panels) models. The histograms are computed by
622: averaging over $0.5 \le a/c < 0.6$, $0.6 \le a/c < 0.7$, and $0.7 \le
623: a/c < 0.8$ (top, middle, and bottom, respectively). The agreement
624: between analytic and numerical results is quite satisfactory.
625:
626:
627: \section{DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS}
628:
629: We have derived an analytic expression for the axis-ratio distribution
630: of triaxial dark matter halos for the first time. In constructing the
631: analytic model, we adopted the cosmic web picture in which the
632: ellipticities of dark matter halos are induced by the coherent tidal
633: fields in the initial density fluctuations, and employed the
634: Zel'dovich-type collapse condition as a diagnostics. Our analytic model
635: is successful in reproducing the basic behaviors on a qualitative level
636: found from the previous numerical simulations (JS02). This ensures our
637: basic picture that the origin of the halo triaxiality is the filamentarity
638: of the initial density field. Nevertheless we found a discrepancy with
639: the numerical results on a quantitative level; in particular the predicted
640: dependences of the halo triaxiality on mass and redshift seem inconsistent
641: with the numerical results.
642:
643: In order for the future improvements, let us critically discuss possible
644: caveats in our analytic approaches: First of all, we use a cooked-up
645: collapse condition of $\delta=\delta_{c}$ and $\lambda_{3} \ge\lambda_{c}$.
646: What we really mean to have is a practical and simple collapse condition
647: for the formation of a triaxial dark halo in the nodes of filamentary web
648: of the density field by combining the density peak formalism and the
649: Zel'dovich approximation. This collapse condition is theoretically unjustified.
650:
651: How to identify a triaxial halo and where to locate the corresponding
652: Lagrangian site in the linear density field is a touchy issue in the
653: non-spherical dynamical model. Although \citet{bon-mye96} proposed the peak
654: patch picture as a complete non-spherical model, their formalism is too
655: complicated to follow analytically in practice. Besides, as discussed in
656: \citet{sut02}, there is still no unanimous agreement among theory,
657: observations, and simulations about how to define a gravitationally bound
658: object in practice. The disagreement among the three become more serious
659: when a dark halo is to be described as triaxial.
660: Hence, to find a theoretically justified criterion for the formation of a
661: triaxial dark halo and to derive the axis-ratio distribution more rigorously
662: with the criterion, it will be necessary to address this difficult issue
663: first, which is beyond the scope of this paper.
664:
665: As \citet{ber94} proved theoretically that a rare event in the linear
666: density field is inclined to be quite spherical. In other words, a
667: linear over-dense region of high-mass must be more spherical than a
668: low-mass over-dense region. This is the case that our analytic
669: distribution predicts. The difference in the trends with mass and redshift
670: between our model and the simulation results may be caused by the fact
671: that in reality the shape of a dark halo must be affected by subsequent
672: nonlinear clustering process. We argue here that the nonlinear
673: merging event must play a key role in increasing the halo ellipticity.
674: Many N-body studies demonstrated that the merging event occurs
675: anisotropically along filaments \citep[e.g.,][]{wes-etal91,van-van93,dub98,
676: fal-etal02}. This anisotropic merging event tends to make the shapes of
677: dark halos elongated by aligning their substructures along with the
678: orientation of their major axes \citep[e.g.,][]{kne-etal04}. Moreover,
679: it was also shown that the merging process is more rapid for the case
680: of higher mass halos \citep{zha-etal03}. The tendency of being
681: more spherical in the higher-mass section of the linear density field
682: \citep{ber94} is likely to be compensated by the anisotropic merging
683: effect. Therefore, the overall dependence of the axis-ratio distribution
684: on the halo mass and redshift may be weakened by this compensating effect.
685: Our future work is in the direction of incorporating semi-analytically
686: the anisotropic merging process into our analytic model.
687:
688: In passing, it is interesting to note that the anisotropic merging of
689: dark halos along filaments has an implication about the mass function of
690: dark halos. In the standard mass function theory based on the
691: Press-Schechter theory, the mass function is independent of the
692: power-spectrum. If the merging really occurs in an anisotropic way along
693: filaments, however, the filamentarity in the medium must affect the
694: final mass distribution of dark halos. For example, for the case of a
695: power-law spectrum, the mass function might depend on the power-law
696: index sensitively, since the filamentarity of the density field should
697: depend on the power-law index. We wish to present the effect of
698: anisotropic merging on the mass distribution of dark halos in the near
699: future (Lee \& Jing 2005, in preparation).
700:
701: The discrepancy between our analytic model and the simulation results
702: on the mass and redshift dependences implies that the shapes of dark halos
703: are not fully determined by simply applying the Zel'dovich approximation.
704: Rather, one has to take into account complicated nonlinear gravitational
705: clustering like the anisotropic merging event. Nevertheless,
706: the overall agreement of our analytic model with the simulation results
707: gives us a hope that our analytic model will be useful in quantifying how
708: the initial cosmic web induces the ellipticity of dark matter halos, and
709: provide a first theoretical step toward the goal of using the ellipticity
710: distribution of galaxy clusters as a new cosmological probe
711: (Lee 2005, in preparation).
712:
713:
714: \acknowledgments
715: We thank an anonymous referee for very helpful suggestions.
716: J.L. and Y.P.J. thank Department of Physics at the University of Tokyo
717: for a warm hospitality where this work was initiated. J.L.
718: acknowledges the research grant No. R01-2005-000-10610-0 from the Basic
719: Research Program of the Korea Science and Engineering
720: Foundation. Y.P.J. is partly supported by NKBRSF (G19990754), by NSFC
721: (Nos. 10125314,10373012), and by Shanghai Key Projects in Basic Research
722: (No. 04jc14079). Work by Y.S. was supported in part by Grants-in-Aid
723: for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for Promotion of Science
724: (No.14102004, 16340053).
725:
726:
727: \clearpage
728: \begin{thebibliography}{}
729: \bibitem[Bailin \& Steinmetz(2004)]{bai-ste04}
730: Bailin, J., \& Steinmetz, M. 2004, \apj, 616, 27
731: \bibitem[Bardeen et al.(1986)]{bar-etal86}
732: Bardeen, J. M., Bond, J. R., Kaiser, N., \& Szalay, A. S. 1986, \apj, 304, 15
733: \bibitem[Bernardeau(1994)]{ber94}
734: Bernardeau, F. 1994, \apj, 427, 51
735: \bibitem[Bond \& Myers(1996)]{bon-mye96}
736: Bond, J. R., \& Myers, S. T. 1996, \apj, 103, 63
737: \bibitem[Bond, Kofman, \& Pogosyan(1996)]{bon-etal96}
738: Bond, J., R., Kofman, L., \& Pogosyan, D. 1996, Nature, 380, 603
739: \bibitem[Bullock(2002)]{bul02}
740: Bullock, J. S. 2002, Proceedings of the Yale Cosmology Workshop 2001,
741: ``The Shapes of Galaxies and Their Dark Matter Halos'',
742: (Singapore: World Scientific), p.109
743: \bibitem[Dalal, Holder, \& Hennawi(2004)]{dal-etal04}
744: Dalal, N., Holder, G., \& Hennawi, J. F. 2004, \apj, 609, 50
745: \bibitem[Doroshkevich(1970)]{dor70}
746: Doroshkevich, A.G., 1970, Astrofizika, 3, 175
747: \bibitem[Dubinski(1998)]{dub98}
748: Dubinski, J. 1998, 502, 141
749: \bibitem[Faltenbacher et al.(2002)]{fal-etal02}
750: Faltenbacher, A., Kerscher, M., Gottloeber, S., \& Mueller, M. 2002, \aap,
751: 395, 1
752: \bibitem[Frenk et al.(1988)]{fre-etal88}
753: Frenk, C. S., White, S. D. M., Davis, M., Efstathiou, G. 1988, \apj, 327, 507
754: \bibitem[Hopkins, Bahcall, \& Bode(2004)]{hop-etal04}
755: Hopkins, P. F., Bahcall, N., \& Bode, P. 2004, preprint (atro-ph/0409652)
756: \bibitem[Jing \& Suto(2002)]{jin-sut02}
757: Jing, Y. P. \& Suto, Y. 2002, \apj, 574, 538 (JS02)
758: \bibitem[Kasun \& Evrard(2004)]{kas-evr04}
759: Kasun, S.F., Evrard, A.E. 2004, preprint, astroph/0412161
760: \bibitem[Kitayama \& Suto(1996)]{kit-sut96}
761: Kitayama, T. \& Suto, Y. 1996, \apj, 469, 480
762: \bibitem[Knebe et al.(2004)]{kne-etal04}
763: Knebe, A. et al. 2004, \apj, 603, 7
764: \bibitem[Lacey \& Cole(1994)]{lac-col94}
765: Lacey, C. \& Cole, S. 1994, \mnras, 271, 676
766: \bibitem[Lahav et al.(1991)]{lah-etal91}
767: Lahav, O., Lilje, P. B., Primack, J. R., \& Rees, M. J. 1991,
768: \mnras, 251, 128
769: \bibitem[Lee \& Shandarin(1998)]{lee-sha98}
770: Lee, J. \& Shandarin, S.F. 1998, \apj, 500, 14
771: \bibitem[Lee \& Pen(2000)]{lee-pen00}
772: Lee, J. \& Pen, U. L. 2000, \apj, 532, 5
773: \bibitem[Melott, Chamber, \& Miller(2001)]{mel-etal01}
774: Melott, A. L., Chambers, S. W., \& Miller, C. J. 2001, \apj, 559, L75
775: \bibitem[Moore et al.(1999)]{moo-etal99}
776: Moore, B., Quinn, T., Governato, F., Stadel, J., \& Lake, G. 1999, \mnras,
777: 310, 1147
778: \bibitem[Navaro, Frenk, \& White(1997)]{nav-etal97}
779: Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., \& White, S. D. M. 1996, \apj, 462, 563
780: \bibitem[Oguri, Lee, \& Suto(2003)]{ogu-etal03}
781: Oguri, M., Lee, J., \& Suto, Y. 2003, \apj, 599, 7
782: \bibitem[Oguri \& Keeton(2004)]{ogu-kee04}
783: Oguri, M., \& Keeton, C. R. 2004, \apj, 610, 663
784: \bibitem[Peacock(1999)]{pea99}
785: Peacock, J. A. 1999, Cosmological Physics, (Cambridge :Cambridge Univ. Press)
786: \bibitem[Plionis, Barrow, \& Frenck(1991)]{pli-etal91}
787: Plionis, M., Barrow, J. D., \& Frenk, C. S. 1991, \mnras, 249, 662
788: \bibitem[Porciani, Dekel, \& Hoffman(2002)]{por-etal02}
789: Porciani, C., Dekel, A., \& Hoffman, Y. 2002, \mnras, 332, 325
790: \bibitem[Press \& Schechter(1974)]{pre-sch74}
791: Press, W., \& Schechter, P. 1974, \apj, 187, 425
792: \bibitem[Sheth \& Tormen(1999)]{she-tor99}
793: Sheth, R., \& Tormen, G. 1999, \mnras, 308, 119
794: \bibitem[Springel, White, \& Hernquist(2004)]{spr-etal04}
795: Springel, V.; White, S. D. M.; Hernquist, L. 2004,
796: Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union Symposium 2003,
797: ``The shapes of simulated dark matter halos'',
798: (San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific), p.421
799: \bibitem[Suto(2002)]{sut02}
800: Suto, Y. 2002, AMiBA 2001: High-z Clusters, Missing Baryons, and CMB
801: Polarization", (San Francisco : A. D. P. CONF. SER.), 257, 195
802: \bibitem[Suwa et al.(2003)]{suw-etal03}
803: Suwa, T., Habe, A., Yoshikawa, K., \& Okamoto, T. 2003, \apj, 588, 7
804: \bibitem[van Haarlem \& van de Weygaert(1993)]{van-van93}
805: van Haarlem, M., \& van de Weygaert, R. 1993, \apj, 418, 544
806: \bibitem[Warren et al.(1992)]{war-etal92}
807: Warren, M. S., Quinn, P. J., Salmon, J. K., Zurek, W. H., \apj, 399, 405
808: \bibitem[West(1989)]{wes89}
809: West, M. J. 1989, \apj, 347, 610
810: \bibitem[West, Villumsen, \& Dekel(1991)]{wes-etal91}
811: West, M. J., Villumsen, C., \& Dekel, A. 1991, \apj, 369, 287
812: \bibitem[Yang, Yu, \& Shen(2004)]{yan-etal04}
813: Yang, R., Yu, J., \& Shen, G. P. 2004, Chinese Journal of Astronomy \&
814: Astrophysics, 4, 105
815: \bibitem[Zhao et al.(2003)]{zha-etal03}
816: Zhao, D. H., Jing, Y. P., Mo, H. J.; Borner, G. 2003, \apj, 597, L9
817: \bibitem[Zeldovich(1970)]{zel70}
818: Zel'dovich, Y. B. 1970, A\& A, 5, 84
819: \end{thebibliography}
820:
821: \clearpage
822: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
823: \begin{figure}
824: \begin{center}
825: %\leavevmode\epsfxsize=11.0cm \epsfbox{f1.eps}
826: \plotone{f1.eps} \caption{Probability density distribution of the axis
827: ratio $a/c$ of halos for the five different cases of the short-axis
828: cut-off in the $\Lambda$ CDM model; $\lambda_{c0}=0$, $0.1$, $0.2$,
829: $0.3$, $0.35$ and $0.4$ (dotted, dashed, long-dashed, solid, dot-dashed,
830: and dot-long dashed lines) respectively. Here, the halo mass and redshift
831: are set to be $M_{4} \equiv M/(2.07\times 10^{13}\Omega_{m}h^{-1}M_{\odot})
832: = 10$ and $z=0$, respectively. \label{fig:lamc}}
833: \end{center}
834: \end{figure}
835: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
836:
837: \clearpage
838: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
839: \begin{figure}
840: \begin{center}
841: %\leavevmode\epsfxsize=11.0cm \epsfbox{f2.eps}
842: \plotone{f2.eps}
843: \caption{Behavior of the probability density distributions of the axis ratio
844: $a/c$ of halos with the change of observation epochs $z_{f}$ and the halo mass
845: $M$ in the $\Lambda$ CDM model.
846: {\it Top}: Case in which $z = 0$, $0.5$, $1$, $1.5$ and $2$
847: (solid, dotted, dashed, long-dashed, and dot-dashed, respectively).
848: {\it Bottom}: Case in which $M_{4} = 1$, $5$, $10$, $20$ and $30$
849: (solid, dotted, dashed, long-dashed, and dot-dashed,respectively),
850: where $M_{4} \equiv M/(2.07\times 10^{13}\Omega_{m}h^{-1}M_{\odot})$.
851: \label{fig:redm}}
852: \end{center}
853: \end{figure}
854: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
855:
856: \clearpage
857: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
858: \begin{figure}
859: \begin{center}
860: %\leavevmode\epsfxsize=11.0cm \epsfbox{f3.eps}
861: \plotone{f3.eps}
862: \caption{Probability density distributions of the axis ratio $a/c$ of halos
863: in the $\Lambda$ CDM (left) and SCDM (right) models at three different
864: observation epochs; $z=0$, $0.5$,and $1$ (top, middle, and bottom panels,
865: respectively), with the choice of $\lambda_{c0}=0.37$. In each panel,
866: the histograms represent the numerical results \citep{jin-sut02} for
867: those halos of mass; $1\le M_{4} < 2$, $2\le M_{4} < 6$, and $M_{4} \ge 6$
868: (thin solid, dotted, and dashed lines, respectively.) where
869: $M_{4}\equiv M/(2.07\times 10^{13}\Omega_{m}h^{-1}M_{\odot})$, while
870: the curves represent the analytic results (see eq.[\ref{eqn:capro}])
871: for those halos of mass; $M_{4} = 1$, $M_{4} = 4$, and $M_{4} =10$
872: (thick solid, dotted, and dashed lines), respectively.
873: \label{fig:pro_ac}}
874: \end{center}
875: \end{figure}
876: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
877:
878: \clearpage
879: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
880: \begin{figure}
881: \begin{center}
882: %\leavevmode\epsfxsize=11.0cm \epsfbox{f4.eps}
883: \plotone{f4.eps}
884: \caption{Behavior of the conditional probability density distributions of
885: the axis ratio $b/c$ at $z = 0$, $0.5$, $1$, $1.5$
886: and $2$ (solid, dotted, dashed, long-dashed, and dot-dashed), respectively.
887: \label{fig:beh}}
888: \end{center}
889: \end{figure}
890: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
891:
892: \clearpage
893: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
894: \begin{figure}
895: \begin{center}
896: %\leavevmode\epsfxsize=11.0cm \epsfbox{f5.eps}
897: \plotone{f5.eps}
898: \caption{Conditional probability density distributions of the axis ratio
899: $a/c$ of halos in the $\Lambda$ CDM (left) and SCDM (right) models
900: provided that the minor-to-major axis ratio has a certain value:
901: $a/c = 0.55$, $0.65$ and $a/c = 0.75$ (top, middle, and bottom panels),
902: respectively at $z=0$. In each panel, the histogram and the curve
903: represent the numerical \citep{jin-sut02} and the analytic results,
904: respectively.
905: \label{fig:con_pro}}
906: \end{center}
907: \end{figure}
908: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
909:
910: \end{document}
911: