Mass to Luminosity ratios of Galaxy Groups

Timothy Green, Queens' college.

October 13, 2008

Abstract
The diering results for the minima in MG
LG vs Luminosity found in the two papers G. Mountrichas 2007
[7] and V. Eke 2004 [4] are investigated by means of examining the dark matter environment of the groups in
the simulation data used to generate the 2PIGG mock catalogues. Although the V. Eke mock mass estimation
results broadly agree with the discovered group masses, the results still disagree with the halo simulation,
raising questions about the degree to which, for the purposes of comparison, the haloes found in the simulation
accurately represent the groups formed. Questions are also raised about the proportionality of  to M
1 The problem
The two papers investigated, V. Eke et al (2007) [4]
and G. Mountrichas & Shanks (2007) [7], both at-
tempt to predict the mass to light ratio of various
classes of galaxy groups. V. Eke discoveres a mini-
mum in the MLGG vs L plot, and G. Mountrichas discov-
G
LG .
As the simulation box was smaller than the observed
distance of the 2dFGRS survey (point 3.(ii) in V.
Eke 2004 [3]), the simulation box was repeated in a
cylic fashion a number of times. The observer then
viewed the original galaxies out along the direction
of observation, applying appropriate cuts and dis-
tortions for viewing to produce mock catalogues for
2dF North Galactic Plane (NGP) and South Galactic
ers a similar minimum in  vs L. The minimum found Plane (SGP). This was done for both z = 0:127 and
in V. Eke is at LG  1010 M , however the minimum z = 0. As well as typical observations, the catalogues
found in G. Mountrichas is found at LG  1011 M .
The essential problem investigated is how this dier-
ences comes about, and whether the two papers are
actually discussing the same quantity.
1.1 The simulation
As part of the two papers investigated, a number of
mock catalogues were made. These catalogues were
processed to match the characteristics of the 2dF
Galaxy Redshift Survey (2dFGRS) survey.
The simulation used for producing mock 2dFGRS cat-
alogues was performed using CDM cosmology with
m = 0:3 and
 = 0:7 within a 141.3 MPch 1 cyclic
boundary condition box [6]. Spawning 224 particles,
include the original galaxy that the observed galaxy
derives from.
The 2PIGG (2dFGRS Percolation-Inferred Galaxy
Group) group then found groups within the real and
mock catalogues as described in V. Eke [3]. A cylin-
drical linking volume with the major axis aligned
along the line of sight was used in spherical redshift
space was used to link together nearby galaxies into
groups. A cylindrical linking volume rather than a
spherical one was used to account for redshift dis-
tortion from the perculiar velocity spread of galaxies
within groups.
1.2 Masses in V. Eke (2007)
each with mass of 1:4  1010 M , the simulation was The paper attempts to calculate the mass to lumi-
advanced to a redshift of z = 0:127 (approx 1:6  109 nosity ratios of galaxy groups found by the 2PIGG
years ago) and z = 0. Haloes of dark matter were team from both the real observations and mock sim-
then found by using a friends of friends algorithm to ulations. Galaxy group masses were estimated by the
group together dark matter particles [3]. virial theorem [5]:
Galaxies were then 'painted' on top of the haloes using
a semi-analytic method described in Cole 2000 [2] to 2T +
 = 0
produce the original galaxies. An observer was then
placed into the simulation box at a random transla-
tion and rotation by generating three random orthog- Where T is the mean total energy of the system, and
onal basis vectors and random translations in each
 is the number of bodies in the system times the
direction. mean total potential energy of the system. By calcu-

1
1.4 Questions
lating the velocity dispersion () of the galaxies within
the group - estimated from the spread of deviations
of redshift from the central galaxy of the group, and
the root mean squared spatial distribution of galaxies
(eective 'radius' scale of the group), we can calculate
the mass M of the group ([4] eqn 2.1):
2
mass in the universe, L the auto-correlation func-
tion of luminosity to luminosity in the universe. It is
assumed that these are simply proportional to each
other by the factor b (the linear bias) on all scales.
m represents the mean mass density, l represents
the mean density of luminosity, and g represents the
mean density of galaxies. We can show that  is re-
2
lated to the mass to light ratio of a group.
M = AG r
MG m
A value of A = 5:0 is given, with a suggested error LG
 L
(5)
on the order of 'a few tens of percent', the most sig-
nicant error in the virial method. The method for m g
 g L
(6)
calculation luminosity for each group is as described
in section 2.1 of V. Eke 2004 [4]. Given this data, G m g
the paper nds that there is a possible minimum in 
0:6 g L (7)
the MLGG versus group membership at NG  20 and
in group luminosity at LG  1010 M . This indicates
a 'peak' eciency of converting mass to luminosity.
The minimum more or less matches for both real and MG
LG

0G:6 m (8)
mock observations. Model results were also gener- L
ated, using the haloes used to generate the galaxies G M g

0:6 L (9)
to estimate the group masses. g

1.3 Masses in G. Mountrichas (2007)

This demonstrates that MLGG /  , and so that the
minima of the two papers are comparable. Taking
the assumptions, then we nd that the minimum in
This paper attempts to calculate the group mass to the G. Mountrichas MLGG vs LG plot is approximately
luminosity ratios by a statistical test. It uses only the an order of magnitude higher in luminosity than in
centres and luminosities of the 2PIGG groups. The V. Eke. If any of the assumptions fail, there might be
cross-correlation function is then calculated for group another eect that is shifting the minimum in  .
centres to galaxies for galaxy bins by membership and
luminosity. The correlation function in this case is ef-
fectively a measure of the excess probability of nding 1.4 Questions
a galaxy at a certain displacement from a group centre
compared to a uniform distribution of galaxies.
A number of questions arise from the two papers.
The redshift space correlation function is distorted by Firstly, do the assumptions that MLGG /  hold in the
the velocity dispersion of galaxies within the groups Mountrichas paper? Does the virial mass re ect the
and by infall of other galaxies outside the group to- same mass that the in fall gravitational eect might,
wards the group. By tting a model for these distor- i.e. could the infall method be measuring mass on a
tions, we can attempt to estimate  rather than MLGG , larger scale than the virial method? Also, is the halo
which is dened as, for MG and LG being the group model an appropriate point of comparison?
mass and group luminosity, and Mg and Lg being the
galaxy luminosity.
2 Methods
b2G = gg (1) 2.1 Mass estimation
mm

0:6
G  (2)
bG First, we can consider what the appropriate integra-
m g tion radius is for a galaxy group. Although the G.
 g m
(3) Mountrichas method doesn't take galaxy radius into
m G m account, the V. Eke virial method considers mass in-
g

0:6 g (4) ternal to a group. To get an idea of group size, we can
look at gure 1, showing the root mean squared dis-
tance of member galaxies to the centre of their group
Where M is the auto-correlation function of mass to (r ) and the distance to the nearest galaxy group.

Tim Green 2 October 13, 2008

2.2 Recovering transformations 3

100 10
Groups Groups

Groups RMS radius / MPc/h

Nearest neighbour / MPc/h

10

0.1

0.01

0.1 0.001
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Group membership Group membership

Figure 1: On the left the distance in MPc h 1 to the nearest other galaxy group versus the number of members
in the group, and on the right the root mean squared radius of the galaxy group versus the membership

As the dark matter data is only available for the sim- summed over a particular set of centres; while for an-
ulations, we will only be able to compare the results other it was tried to a constant multiple of r to cap-
of the mock catalogues. Since the two papers show ture the characteristic radius of a galaxy group. You
large internal agreement between mock and real ob- can observe the cross-correlation functions shown in
servations, this shouldn't be an issue. At the time of
writing, the only appropriate dark matter data avail-
able was for the z = 0:127 simulation, not the z = 0
simulation used in the two papers - though the dier-
ence between the two should hopefully just be small
statistical variation. Using this dark matter parti-
cle data, we can then just count the number of dark
matter particles around each group centre out to a
gure 2 the sort of scale that r is over. Performing
the counting requires that we are able to take the
2PIGG mock groups and transform them back into
the coordinate system used for the dark matter parti-
cles. From now on, the mass estimated by this method
is termed the 'integrated mass', while the mass esti-
mated by the code in V. Eke 2004 is termed the 'virial'
mass.
predened radius minus the expected number of mass
particles assuming uniform uncorrelated distribution.
This is eectively integrating the correlation function 2.2 Recovering transformations
multiplied by density:
The simulation data available included the dark mat-
(r ) 1 ter particle positions; the dark matter haloes; the
= GM
 (r)
GR(r)
(10) galaxies seeded on top of the dark matter, in simula-
GR(r) (r) = GM (r) GR(r) (11) tion coordinates; and the galaxies observed in obser-
vation coordinates to match 2dFGRS, with a record
(12) of which original galaxy the observed galaxy is from.
Where GM (r) is the actual number of mass particles Unfortunately the observer position and rotation were
at radius r from a galaxy group centre, and GR(r) = not kept from an intermediate stage in the production
4r2 m is the expected number of random particles of the catalogue. In order to discover the dark matter
at radius r. As GR(r) (r) is the excess mass at a environment around each galaxy group, this will need
particular radius r, we can simply integrate this to to be determined.
get the full mass excess of a galaxy group:
Since each galaxy had a record of which original
galaxy they belonged to, it is possible to produce a set
Z =r of child galaxies for each original galaxy. Given the
MG = GR() ()d (13) cyclic coordinate system of the observations, it is ex-
Z =0 pected that each child galaxies for a particular original
=r galaxy will be separated from one another by an inte-
MG =  ()42 m d (14) gral vector with orthogonal bases along the axes of the
=0
Z =r
4 r3  dark matter cube. This artifact will be preserved after
MG = GM ()d (15) the rotation and transformations are applied. Thus,
=0 3 m
plotting the separation of each child galaxy from the
other child galaxy in its original galaxy set we nd a
For one set of results this was calculated to a xed pattern of basis vectors - indicating the orientation of
radius r, as the correlation function is considered the simulation basis with respect to the observation

Tim Green 3 October 13, 2008


basis. This can be roughly measured o the plot to
give a rough rotation matrix.
This rough matrix, however, could have its axes inter-
changed or inverted with respect to the true matrix
used. Discovering this relation was a case of generat-
ing the galaxy catalogue in wrapped simulation coor-
dinates (i.e. all points are roughly rotated into place
and then wrapped to 0:::141:3 MPc h 1 plus an oset
to the cube's unwrapped position. The axes can then
be swizzled and inverted as needed until a consistant
match between the catalogue galaxies and their orig-
inal galaxy is found.
The transpose of this rough rotation matrix can then
be compared to the matrices generated by the original
catalogue generating code to discover the original seed
used, and thus the precise rotation and translation. A
seed range of s = 0 ! 109 can then be scanned for
matching rotations, along with their translations.
Taking the group catalogue in observation spherical
redshift coordinates and transforming into cosmolog-
ical cartesian coordinates, we can then apply the ma-
trix and translation to give the catalogue in simulation
coordinates. Perculiar velocity redshift distortion ef-
fects wont be present in the group positions as the
group centres will average out between the galaxies
that are redshifted and those that are blueshifted. If
galaxies are transformed similarly, it may be neces-
sary to correct for perculiar velocity distortions using
the recorded velocities of the original galaxies.
It is also worth noting that as a result of original
galaxies spawning multiple child galaxies the statis-
4
tion with dierent distances scales and methods for a
given amount of computing time.
Fully balanced KD-trees were generated for the dark
matter particles, galaxies and galaxy groups in order
to facilitate any needed calculations. In order to take
the cyclic coordinate system of the simulation into
account, the spherical counting volume was tested at
26 locations:
0 1
p~x [141:3]
p~0 = @ p~y [141:3] A
p~z [141:3]
If the sphere centred at these locations would also
intersect the simulation cube (a rapid box-sphere in-
tersection test will determine this [1]), it will be tested
in addition to the default position p~. So taking each
galaxy group centres in simulation coodinates, a num-
ber of wrapped points were generated, and then from
each one the number of dark matter particles within
the spherical volume were counted. Taking this count
the mean background count was subtracted to give the
corrected integrated mass. This mass was then binned
by the group's luminosity and the group's member-
ship, in addition to binning the number of galaxies
within rg of the group centre in catalogue space and
the luminosity as calculated in V. Eke 2004.
3 Results
tical signicance of a given group in its environment
may be reduced - as it is might be a copy of another
galaxy group, but with a slightly dierent number of In recovering the transformation, after a fair amount
galaxies due to observation limits and random selec- of processing, a single accurate rotation was discov-
tion when generating the catalogue. ered. To three signicant gures, the rotation matrix
and associated translation:
2.3 KD-trees
0 1
In order to count the number of points within a cer- 0:979 0:172 0:107
tain distance of a galaxy group centre, for calculat- R = @ 0:120 6:66  10 02 0:990 A
ing the correlation function or the integrated corre- 0:163 0:983 8:50  10 02
lation function, you would naively have to compare
every galaxy group centre (n  104 points) to ev-
ery dark matter particle (m = 224 points) to nd if 0 1
it is within the appropriate radius. This would re- 102:0
sult in a number of total comparisons on the order ~t = @ 68:8 A
of O(nm) / 1:7  1011 . Using a KD-tree this time 25:8
can be signicantly reduced. KD-trees are a form
of data structure that allows rapid spatial lookups
of points, allowing you to discover the nearest neigh-
bouring point or number of points within a certain
radius in O(log m) time. This gives the total number
of comparison required as O(n log m) / 2:4  105 -
Taking this transformation and generating the appro-
priate catalogues, the data could then be processed to
examine the nature of the group masses. A number of
plots of the data generated using the above methods
a signicant reducation, allowing more experimenta- are shown over the next few pages.

Tim Green 4 October 13, 2008

 5

250
1
2-3
4
5-8
9-17
200 18-29
30-44
45+

150
xi(r)

100

50

0
0.1 1 10
r / Mpc/h

200
1
2-3
180 4
5-8
160 9-17
18-29
30-44
140 45+

120

100
xi(r)

80

60

40

20

-20
0.1 1 10
r / Mpc/h

10
1
2-3
9 4
5-8
9-17
8 18-29
30-44
7 45+

6
xi(r)

0
0.1 1 10
r / Mpc/h

Figure 2: The correlation functions using group centres, against dark matter particles, galaxy centres, and other
group centres respectively

Tim Green 5 October 13, 2008

 6

Mean integrated mass for varying group radius

1e+15
r = 0.1 MPc/h
r = 0.5 MPc/h
r = 1.0 MPc/h
r = 2.0 MPc/h
r = 5.0 MPc/h
1e+14 r = 10.0 MPc/h

1e+13
Mass / M

1e+12

1e+11

1e+10
1 10 100 1000
Group membership

Mean integrated mass for varying group radius

1e+15
r = sigma_r
r = 2 sigma_r
r = 4 sigma_r

1e+14
Mass / M

1e+13

1e+12

1e+11
1 10 100 1000
Group membership

Figure 3: Mean of membership bins of excess mass in groups out to a xed radius, rg = k (upper), and to a
multiple of r , rg = kr (lower)

Tim Green 6 October 13, 2008

 7

Mean integrated mass for varying group radius

1e+14
r = 0.1 MPc
r = 0.5 MPc
r = 1.0 MPc
r = 2.0 MPc
r = 5.0 MPc
r = 10.0 MPc
1e+13
Mass / M

1e+12

1e+11

1e+10
1e+08 1e+09 1e+10 1e+11 1e+12
Luminosity

Mean integrated mass for varying group radius

1e+13
r = sigma_r
r = 2sigma_r
r = 4sigma_r

1e+12
Mass / M

1e+11

1e+10

1e+09
1e+08 1e+09 1e+10 1e+11 1e+12
Luminosity

Figure 4: Mean of luminosity bins of excess mass in groups out to a xed radius (upper), rg = k, and to a
multiple of r , rg = kr (lower)

Tim Green 7 October 13, 2008

 8

Mass vs. Luminosity for r_g = 4 sigma_r

1e+16
Groups
Power law fit
f2(x)
1e+15

1e+14

1e+13
Group mass

1e+12

1e+11

1e+10

1e+09

1e+08
1e+08 1e+09 1e+10 1e+11 1e+12 1e+13 1e+14
Group luminosity

Mass vs. Luminosity for r_g = 10 Mpc

1e+16
Groups
Power law fit
f1(x)

1e+15

1e+14
Group mass

1e+13

1e+12

1e+11

1e+10
1e+08 1e+09 1e+10 1e+11 1e+12 1e+13 1e+14
Group luminosity

Mass vs. Luminosity for virial mass

1e+19
Groups
Power law fit
f3(x)
1e+18

1e+17

1e+16
Group mass

1e+15

1e+14

1e+13

1e+12

1e+11
1e+08 1e+09 1e+10 1e+11 1e+12 1e+13 1e+14
Group luminosity

Figure 5: Scatterplots of mass to luminosity for mass estimted using four times the root-mean squared radius
as the group radius, a xed integration out to 10 MPch 1 and the virially estimated mass respectively

Tim Green 8 October 13, 2008

 9

17 800
700
16 600
500
400
Virial mass

15 300
200
100
14
0

13

12

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Integrated mass

17 700
600
16 500
400
300
Virial mass

15
200
100
14
0

13

12

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Integrated mass

Figure 6: Scatter plots of virial estimated masses versus integrated estimated masses. Upper plot shows density
of points with contours, lower plot shows a bivariate log normal distribution density tted - both showing
bivariate major axis

Tim Green 9 October 13, 2008

 10

17 200
150
16 100
50
0
Virial mass

15
-50
-100
14
-150

13

12

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Integrated mass

Figure 7: Residuals from gure 6

1e+019
Groups
x
x**2 / 1.08056e+016
1e+018

1e+017

1e+016
Virial mass

1e+015

1e+014

1e+013

1e+012

1e+011
1e+011 1e+012 1e+013 1e+014 1e+015 1e+016 1e+017 1e+018 1e+019
Integrated mass

Figure 8: Plot of proposed corrected integrated mass versus virially estimated mass. Lines show a line of direct
proportionality, and a x2 tted line corresponding to a line of direct proportionality without the transformation

Tim Green 10 October 13, 2008

 11

Mass/Lum vs. Lum for r_g = 4 sigma_r (transformed masss)

1e+007
Groups

1e+006
Mass/Luminosity

100000

10000

1000

100
1e+008 1e+009 1e+010 1e+011 1e+012 1e+013 1e+014
Luminosity / Lsol

Figure 9: Plot of the mass to light ratios as found using the mass particle counting method out to rg = 4r
with the transformation applied to the mass given the correlation to the virial mass. Shown is the scatter of
the individual groups, and the mean mass to light ratio of each luminosity bin

Tim Green 11 October 13, 2008

 12

Mass to light ratio for r_g = 4 sigma_r

100000
Groups
Mean
10000

1000

100
Mass to light ratio

10

0.1

0.01

0.001
1e+008 1e+009 1e+010 1e+011 1e+012 1e+013 1e+014
Group luminosity

Mass to light ratio for virial mass

1e+007
Groups
Mean

1e+006

100000
Mass to light ratio

10000

1000

100

10

1
1e+008 1e+009 1e+010 1e+011 1e+012 1e+013 1e+014
Group luminosity
Figure 10: Plot of the mass to light ratios as found using the mass particle counting method out to rg = 4r
and using the virial method. Shown is the scatter of the individual groups, and the mean mass to luminosity
ratio of each luminosity bin. Bars show the population variance

Tim Green 12 October 13, 2008

 13

Galaxy count within 10.0 Mpc/h versus estimated luminosity

1e+014
Groups

1e+013

1e+012
Luminosity

1e+011

1e+010

1e+009

1e+008
1 10 100 1000
Galaxies

Galaxy count within 4 sigma_r versus estimated luminosity

1e+014
Groups

1e+013

1e+012
Luminosity

1e+011

1e+010

1e+009

1e+008
1 10 100 1000
Galaxies
Figure 11: Plot of galaxies found within the counting volume versus the 2PIGG estimated group luminosities

Tim Green 13 October 13, 2008

 14

Comparison of the three estimates of M/L vs. Luminosity

V. Eke model
V. Eke mock
Integrated 4rms mean
G. Mountrichas mock
M/L ratio (scaled units)

1e+009 1e+010 1e+011 1e+012

Luminosity / Lsol

Figure 12: A comparison of the MLGG vs. Luminosity curves estimated in V. Eke (in which the model is generated
from the simulation haloes, and the mock is from the mock 2PIGG catalogues), G. Mountrichas and this report.
The vertical axis is arbitrary for the purposes of comparing the values.

Tim Green 14 October 13, 2008

 15

4 Discussion data is actually better described untransformed, pos-

sibly indicating that the bivariate log normal model
of deviations was insucient to describe the relation-
In gure 2 you can see the cross-correlation  (r) of ship of the virial mass and the integrated estimation.
the group centres and dark matter particles, group Using the tranformed masses in plotting MLGG vs lu-
centres and galaxies, and the autocorrelation of group
centres, split by group membership. You can see how
the larger a group, the greater excess there is, and
how they all have a roughly similar shape.
Figure 3 shows the mean (stacked) excess mass for
galaxy groups binned by membership over a number
minosity in gure 9 gives a strong downwards trend
completely unlike the ratios in 10, bearing no similar-
ity to the virial mass to light ratio estimation. Fur-
ther use of the data in calculating ratios is with the
untransformed masses.
In order to test the assumed proportionality in the
of scales - proportional to r and to a xed radius. derivation of MLGG /  , in gure 11 the group lu-
The excess mass found is largely proportional to the minosity as calculated from the 2PIGG groups has
cube of the radius. Going out to a multiple of r gives been plotted against the number of galaxies found in
roughly a 30 times increase in mass over the mem- the same counting volume as the dark matter par-
bership bins. Going to a xed radius gives roughly ticles. The plot for the count of galaxies within
a magnitude increase in mass over the membership rg = 4r of the group centre shows a rough upwards
bins. Similarly, gure 4 shows the mean excess mass trend though with large variation. However, in the
for galaxy groups binned by luminosity over a num- plot for rg = 10MPc h 1 there is a strong down-
ber of scales. Again, the scales show a roughly sim- wards trend, indicating an inverse proportionality be-
ilar trend to a factor of proportion. There is also a tween the 2PIGG luminosity and the integral of Gg
larger change in mean mass from low luminosity to to a xed radius. This might be explained as bright
high luminosity groups - roughly a 300 times increase groups tending to be more tightly packed with other
in mass for scales of multiples of r but only a magni- galaxy groups, thus the 2PIGG group luminosity is
tude change for xed radius. This indicates that the only counting luminosity from the member galaxies
estimated mass is largely proportional over small to while Gg is looking at the entire environment of the
large scales. supercluster - so this could indicate an issue with the
assumptions of MLGG /  , in that the galaxy-group
Figure 5 shows the mass to luminosity scatterplots of cross correlation function doesn't necessarily trans-
all groups using the two methods, and the two ways late into the description of the luminosity of a single
of setting the group radius. The xed radius method 2PIGG group. This will need closer examination to
eectively demonstrates no variation in mass for vary-
ing luminosity, while the root mean squared estima-
tion of radius appears to be correlated similarly to
virial mass.
conrm as it may be a product of the processing.
A principal question is whether the predicted masses
using the virial mock estimate and halo model and
integrated estimated give similar estimations of the
In gure 6 the masses for r = 4r have been plot- MG
LG ratio or if they show some sort of dierence. If
ted against the virially estimated masses. A clear they are similar, the virial mass is consistent with
bivariate log normal distribution correlation can be the dark matter environment surrounding and so the
observed. The covariance matrix  is simulation haloes are a reasonable model to use for
generating the galaxies. If the integrated mass diers
  from the halo mass model but agrees with the virial
 = 01::397
07 0:397
0:738
estimates, this may indicate a deciency in the use of
haloes. Figure 10 shows the ratios plotted for inte-
grated masses (upper) and virial masses (lower), the
The principal axis of the distribution as found by nd- vertical axes are a scale factor of about 100 out. Both
ing the eigenvectors of  is seem to be consistent with a minimum in MLGG at about
LG = 2:5  1010 L , similar to what was reported in
V. Eke 2004. The main cause of this minimum ap-
logMvirial = 0:492logMinteg + 9:13 pears to be the presence of a population of low mass
p groups with median luminosity.
Mvirial  109:1  M integ
Comparing all the mass to luminosity versus luminos-
The overlaid density plots show the measured density ity plots in gure 12, it is possible to see the variation
and expected density from the bivariate log normal in predictions. The model in V. Eke was generated us-
model. Figure 7 shows the residual of the the den- ing the haloes found in the simulation which were then
sity minus the expected density. However, gure 8 used to generate the galaxies. The virially estimated
shows the integrated mass using the correction for- masses from the V. Eke mock data seems to give a
mula, along with a line of direct proportionality and minimum consistent with the masses predicted in this
a ax2 line best t. This seems to indicate that the

Tim Green 15 October 13, 2008

 16

paper, though the shape appears to be signicantly 6 Acknowledgements

dierent with the lack of a similar half-magnitude rise
in MLGG as seen in the V. Eke mock results - it seems
that the integrated method underestimates the mass I would like to thank my project supervisor Professor
for higher luminosity groups compared to the virial Tom Shanks, along with Vince Eke, Georgios Moun-
method, though the plot calculated in this paper for trichas, Carlton Baugh, the 2PIGG team and every-
the virial masses seems to have a lack of a similar rise one involved with the 2dFGRS survey.
- possibly due to dierent collation or selection. The
halo model seems to deviate signicantly from the in-
tegrated masses and the virial estimate, suggesting 7 Appendix
that it might not be a statistical abberation.

Code is available on request or at

http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/tfgg2/code/ as there
is too much to include here. Source code includes
code for KD-trees (shared/kdtree.h), counting and
binning in C++ (mass lum/mass lum.cpp) and the
brute forcing of the random number generator seeds
to recover the transformation (random test.f90).
5 Conclusions

References
The correlation in gure 6 indicates that although
there are statistical variations, the two methods of in-
tegrating the mass particles and virial estimation are
partially in agreement. The large spreads might be
explained by uncorrelated errors in both of the meth-
ods - such as shot noise for counting mass particles,
and errors in the calculation of the virial mass - partic-
ually the quoted error in A. However, the integrated
masses actually seem to correspond better in the mass
to light ratios when not transformed - indicating that
the distribution is more complex.
The plots of mass to luminosity versus luminosity
seem to indicate that given the data the integrated
masses are largely consistant with the virial mock es-
timates given in V. Eke 2004. However, the integrated
mass estimates using the simulation data do not agree
with the estimates using the haloes from the same
[1] J Arvo. A simple method for box-sphere inter-
, pages 335{339. Aacdemic Press,
section testing
Boston, MA, 1990.
[2] Shaun Cole, Cedric Lacey, Carlton Baugh,
and Carlos Frenk. Hierarchical galaxy
formation. astro-ph/0007281, July 2000.
Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 319 (2000) 168.
[3] V. R Eke, C. M Baugh, S. Cole, C. S Frenk,
P. Norberg, J. A Peacock, I. K Baldry, J. Bland-
Hawthorn, T. Bridges, R. Cannon, M. Colless,
C. Collins, W. Couch, G. Dalton, R. De Propris,
S. P Driver, G. Efstathiou, R. S Ellis, K. Glaze-
brook, C. Jackson, O. Lahav, I. Lewis, S. Lums-
den, S. Maddox, D. Madgwick, B. A Peterson,
W. Sutherland, and K. Taylor. Galaxy groups
simulations, though they are closer than the estimates in the 2dfgrs: the group-nding algorithm and
using  . This suggests that the 2PIGG groups may the 2pigg catalogue. astro-ph/0402567, February
not have much to do with the haloes. In addition, the 2004. Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 348 (2004) 866.
accuracy of using  to represent MLGG is questionable,
especially for groups with few galaxies around them, [4] V. R Eke, C. S Frenk, C. M Baugh, S. Cole,
giving a large spread as seen in gure 11.
Further investigation could be done in examining the
relationship of the 2PIGG groups to the haloes used to
generate the member galaxies. The mass values could
also be compared to values found using gravitational
lensing, and to further analysis of other surveys and
associated mock catalogues.
During this investigation a mistake was also found
in the fortran code used in G. Mountrichas where
an integral had been calculated incorrectly. The re-
analysis of the data hasn't been completed, but pre-
liminary results indicate that it doesn't aect the fun-
damental conclusion of the paper.
Tim Green
P. Norberg, J. A Peacock, I. K Baldry, J. Bland-
Hawthorn, T. Bridges, R. Cannon, M. Colless,
C. Collins, W. Couch, G. Dalton, R. De Pro-
pris, S. P Driver, G. Efstathiou, R. S Ellis,
K. Glazebrook, C. Jackson, O. Lahav, I. Lewis,
S. Lumsden, S. Maddox, D. Madgwick, B. A Pe-
terson, W. Sutherland, and K. Taylor. Galaxy
groups in the 2dfgrs: the luminous content of
the groups. astro-ph/0402566, February 2004.
Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 355 (2004) 769.
[5] II George W. Collins. The Virial Theorem in Stel-
lar Astrophysics. Pachart Press, 1978.
[6] A Jenkins, C. S Frenk, F. R Pearce, P. A Thomas,
J. M Colberg, S. D. M White, H. M. P Couchman,
16 October 13, 2008
References 17

J. A Peacock, G. Efstathiou, and A. H Nelson.

Evolution of structure in cold dark matter uni-
verses. astro-ph/9709010, September 1997. As-
trophys.J. 499 (1998) 20.
[7] Georgios Mountrichas and Tom Shanks. Cluster-
ing of 2pigg galaxy groups with 2dfgrs galaxies.
0712.3255, December 2007.

Tim Green 17 October 13, 2008