4.7 Article

The three-point correlation function of galaxies: comparing halo occupation models with observations

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 353, Issue 1, Pages 287-300

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08141.x

Keywords

methods : statistical; galaxies : haloes; dark matter; large-scale structure of Universe

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present models for the three-point correlation function (3PCF) of both dark matter and galaxies. We show that models based on the halo model can reasonably match the dark-matter 3PCF obtained from high-resolution N-body simulations. On small scales (r less than or similar to 0.5 h(-1) Mpc) the 3PCF is sensitive to details regarding the density distributions of dark-matter haloes. On larger scales (r greater than or similar to 2.0 h(-1) Mpc) the results are very sensitive to the abundance of the few most prominent haloes. Using the conditional luminosity function, we also construct models for the 3PCF of galaxies, which we test against large mock galaxy samples. The bias of the galaxy distribution with respect to the dark matter, and the finite number of galaxies that can be hosted by individual haloes, significantly reduce the normalized three-point correlation function with respect to that of dark matter. Contrary to the 3PCF of the dark matter, the galaxy 3PCF is much less sensitive to details regarding the spatial number density distribution of galaxies in individual haloes or to the abundance of the few most massive systems. Finally, we show that our model based on the conditional luminosity function is in good agreement with results obtained from the 2-degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey. In particular, the model nicely reproduces the observational finding that the 3PCF for early-type galaxies is slightly higher than that of late-type galaxies, and that there is no significant dependence of the 3PCF on galaxy luminosity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available