Galaxies in their simulations are identified as clumps of cold and dense gas particles which satisfy the
Jeans condition and have the SPH density more than 100 times the mean baryon density at each redshift.
Dark halos are identified with a standard friend-of-friend algorithm; the linking length is 0.164
times the mean separation of dark matter particles, for instance, at
. In addition, they
identify the surviving high-density substructures in dark halos, DM cores (see [103
] for further
details).
Figure 9
illustrates the distribution of dark matter particles, gas particles, dark halos, and galaxies at
where galaxies are more strongly clustered than dark halos. Figure 10
depicts a close-up snapshot
of the most massive cluster at
with a mass
. The circles in the lower panels
indicate the positions of galaxies identified in our simulation.
Figure 11
shows the joint distribution of
and
with the mass density field
at
redshift
,
, and
smoothed over
. The conditional mean relation
computed directly from the simulation is plotted in solid lines, while dashed lines indicate
theoretical predictions of halo biasing by Taruya and Suto [87
]. For a given smoothing scale,
the simulated halos exhibit positive biasing for relatively small
in agreement with the
predictions. On the other hand, they tend to be underpopulated for large
, or anti-biased. This is
mainly due to the exclusion effect of dark halos due to their finite volume size which is not
taken into account in the theoretical model. Since our simulated galaxies have smaller spatial
extent than the halos, the exclusion effect is not so serious. This is clearly illustrated in the
lower panels in Figure 11
, and indeed they show much better agreement with the theoretical
model.
We turn next to a more conventional biasing parameter defined through the two-point statistics:
where Figure 12
shows two-point correlation functions of dark matter, galaxies, dark halos, and DM cores
(upper and middle panels), and the profiles of biasing parameters
for those objects (lower panels) at
,
, and
. In the lower panels, we also plot the parameter
, which are defined in
terms of the one-point statistics (variance), for comparison on smoothing scales
,
, and
at
for each kind of objects by different
symbols. In the upper panels, we show the correlation functions of DM cores identified with two
different maximum linking lengths,
and
. Correlation functions of DM
cores identified with
are similar to those of galaxies. On the other hand, those
identified with
exhibit much weaker correlation, and are rather similar to those
of dark halos. This is due to the fact that the present algorithm of group identification with
larger
tends to pick up lower mass halos which are poorly resolved in our numerical
resolution.
The correlation functions of galaxies are almost unchanged with redshift, and the correlation functions
of dark halos only slightly evolve between
and
. By contrast, the amplitude of the dark
matter correlation functions evolve rapidly by a factor of
from
to
. The
biasing parameter
is larger at a higher redshift, for example,
at
.
The biasing parameter
for dark halos is systematically lower than that of galaxies and
DM cores again due to the volume exclusion effect. At
, galaxies and DM cores are
slightly anti-biased relative to dark matter at
. In lower panels, we also plot the
one-point biasing parameter
at
for comparison. In general we find
that
is very close to
at
, but systematically lower than
at higher
redshifts.
For each galaxy identified at
, we define its formation redshift
by the epoch when half of its
cooled gas particles satisfy our criteria of galaxy formation. Roughly speaking,
corresponds to the
median formation redshift of stars in the present-day galaxies. We divide all simulated galaxies at
into two populations (the young population with
and the old population with
) so as to approximate the observed number ratio of
for late-type and early-type
galaxies.
The difference of the clustering amplitude can be also quantified by their two-point correlation functions
at
as plotted in Figure 13
. The old population indeed clusters more strongly than the mass, and
the young population is anti-biased. The relative bias between the two populations
ranges 1.5 and 2 for
, where
and
are the two-point correlation
functions of the young and old populations.
| http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2004-8 |
© Max Planck Society and the author(s)
Problems/comments to |