The Non-Parametric Model for Linking Galaxy Luminosity with Halo/Subhalo Mass: Are First Brightest Galaxies Special?

By A. Vale, Jeremiah P. Ostriker. 2005

222 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We revisit the longstanding question of whether first brightest cluster galaxies are statistically drawn from the same distribution as other cluster galaxies or are "special", using the new non-parametric, empirically based model presented in Vale&Ostriker (2006) for associating galaxy luminosity with halo/subhalo masses. We introduce scatter in galaxy luminosity at fixed halo mass into this model, building a conditional luminosity function (CLF) by considering two possible models: a simple lognormal and a model based on the distribution of concentration in haloes of a given mass. We show that this model naturally allows an identification of halo/subhalo systems with groups and clusters of galaxies, giving rise to a clear central/satellite galaxy distinction. We then use these results to build up the dependence of brightest cluster galaxy (BCG) magnitudes on cluster luminosity, focusing on two statistical indicators, the dispersion in BCG magnitude and the magnitude difference between first and second brightest galaxies. We compare our results with two simple models for BCGs: a statistical hypothesis that the BCGs are drawn from a universal distribution, and a cannibalism scenario merging two galaxies from this distribution. The statistical model is known to fail from work as far back as Tremaine&Richstone (1977). We show that neither the statistical model nor the simplest possibility of cannibalism provide a good match for observations. Our CLF models both give similar results, in good agreement with observations. Specifically, we find between -25 and -25.5 in the K-band, sigma(m_1)~0.25 and between 0.6 and 0.8, for cluster luminosities in the range of 10^12 to 10^13 h^-2 L_sun.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/08b69f28d81bcd87356e629f31050d71a82966e5

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

Citations in the corpus

A 2.5 per cent measurement of the growth rate from small-scale redshift space clustering of SDSS-III CMASS galaxies (2014, methodology): “In the subhalo abundance matching (‘SHAM’) formalism, the maximum circular velocity at accretion is often used (Marinoni & Hudson 2002; Conroy, Wechsler & Kravtsov 2006; Vale & Ostriker 2006).”
Bent by baryons: the low-mass galaxy-halo relation (2014, background): “…to connect galaxies and halos in this scenario, which does not require any detailed knowledge of the complex physics of galaxy formation, is abundance matching (e.g. Frenk et al. 1988; Yang et al. 2003; Kravtsov et al. 2004; Vale & Ostriker 2006; Moster et al. 2010; Guo et al. 2010; Behroozi ?”
The Hierarchical Build-Up of Massive Galaxies and the Intracluster Light since z = 1 (2007, background): “This has been shown to successfully reproduce a wide variety of observations (Colı́n et al. 1999; Kravtsov & Klypin 1999; Neyrinck et al. 2004; Kravtsov et al. 2004; Vale & Ostriker 2004, 2006, 2007; Tasitsiomi et al. 2004; Conroy et al. 2006; Shankar et al. 2006).”
The population of dark matter subhaloes: mass functions and average mass-loss rates (2007, background): “Journal compilation C© 2008 RAS nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /m nras/article-abstract/386/4/2135/1463407 by guest on 13 D ecem ber 2018 Somerville 2002; Kravtsov et al. 2004b; Vale & Ostriker 2006).”
MERGERS IN ΛCDM: UNCERTAINTIES IN THEORETICAL PREDICTIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF THE MERGER RATE (2010, background): “…functions as a function of galaxy mass and redshift, etc.) over a range of redshiftsz= 0−4 are obtained by simply rank-ordering all galaxies and halos+subhalos in a given volume and assigning one to another in a monotonic oneto-one manner (see e.g. Conroy et al. 2006; Vale & Ostriker 2006).”
THE GALAXY CONTENT OF SDSS CLUSTERS AND GROUPS (2007, methodology): “A scaling suggested by Vale & Ostriker (2006) for the LBCG-mass relation is 〈Lc〉 = L0 (M/Mc) a [1 + (M/Mc)bk]1/k , (18) with Mc = 3.7 × 109h−1M⊙, a = 29.78, b = 29.5, and k = 0.0255.”
Towards a concordant model of halo occupation statistics (2006, background): “…that the average mass-to-light ratio of clusters continues to increase with mass (Adami et al. 1998; Bahcall & Comerford 2002; Girardi et al. 2002; Marinoni & Hudson 2002; Lin, Mohr & Stanford 2003, 2004; Ramella et al. 2004; Rines et al. 2004; Vale & Ostriker 2004, 2006; Popesso et al. 2005).”
Galactic accretion and the outer structure of galaxies in the CDM model (2013, background): “…from galaxy abundance matching (like those predicted by semi-analytic models) show an inflection corresponding to a peak in galaxy formation efficiency at Mpeak ≈ M200 ∼ 1012 M (e.g. Eke et al. 2004; Conroy, Wechsler & Kravtsov 2006; Vale & Ostriker 2006; Guo et al. 2010; Moster et al. 2010).”
A halo model of galaxy colours and clustering in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (2008, methodology): “…Zehavi et al. 2005) the ‘conditional luminosity function’ (CLF; Peacock & Smith 2000; Yang et al. 2003; Cooray 2006; van den Bosch et al. 2007a), and the ‘subhalo abundance matching’ (SHAM; Klypin et al. 1999; Kravtsov et al. 2004; Vale & Ostriker 2006; Conroy, Wechsler & Kravtsov 2006) methods.”
Galaxy assembly bias: a significant source of systematic error in the galaxy–halo relationship (2013, methodology): “…that are broadly similar to those observed in large-scale galaxy surveys (e.g. Kravtsov et al. 2004; Vale & Ostriker 2004; Tasitsiomi et al. 2004; Vale & Ostriker 2006; Conroy & Wechsler 2009; Guo et al. 2010; Simha et al. 2010; Neistein et al. 2011; Watson et al. 2012; Rodŕıguez-Puebla et al.…”
Galactic star formation and accretion histories from matching galaxies to dark matter haloes (2012, background): “…by assuming a monotonic relation between stellar mass and halo mass, and matching the cumulative abundance of galaxies to those of haloes and subhaloes (Vale & Ostriker 2004; Conroy et al. 2006; Shankar et al. 2006; Vale & Ostriker 2006; Moster et al. 2010; Guo et al. 2010; Behroozi et al. 2010).”
MERGERS AND BULGE FORMATION IN ΛCDM: WHICH MERGERS MATTER? (2009, background): “…functio s as a function of galaxy mass and redshift, etc.) over a range of redshiftsz= 0− 4 are obtained by simply rank-ordering all galaxies and halos+subhalos in a given volume and assigning one to another in a monotonic one-to-one manner (see e.g. Conroy et al. 2006; Vale & Ostriker 2006).”
The current status of galaxy formation (2012, methodology): “Guo et al. (2010) used this third approach (called subhalo abundance matching or SHAM, and pioneered independently by Vale & Ostriker, 2006 and Conroy et al., 2006), to determine the galaxy formation efficiency mstars/Mhalo as a function of Mhalo, by matching the observed stellar mass function with…”
THE AVERAGE STAR FORMATION HISTORIES OF GALAXIES IN DARK MATTER HALOS FROM z = 0–8 (2012, methodology): “…and variants of the abundance matching technique (e.g., Colín et al. 1999; Kravtsov & Klypin 1999; Neyrinck et al. 2004; Kravtsov et al. 2004; Vale & Ostriker 2004, 2006; Tasitsiomi et al. 2004; Conroy et al. 2006; Shankar et al. 2006; Berrier et al. 2006; Marín et al. 2008; Guo et al. 2010;…”
He ii REIONIZATION AND ITS EFFECT ON THE INTERGALACTIC MEDIUM (2008, background): “…mass to its super-massive black hole mass (Hopkins et al. 2007a,b), and the halo occupation model of Tinker et al. (2005); Conroy et al. (2006); Vale & Ostriker (2006) (for details, see Hopkins et al. (2008a)) to map from halo mass to stellar mass.15 Figure 1 show the luminosity function that…”
GALAXY GROUPS IN THE SDSS DR4. III. THE LUMINOSITY AND STELLAR MASS FUNCTIONS (2008, result): “…the slopes of the Lc - Mh relation (α ∼ 0.25 at the massive end, and α + β >> 1 at the low-mass end), are in good agreement with previous results (e.g., Vale & Ostriker 2004, 2006; Cooray 2005; Yang et al. 2003; Yang et al. 2005c; van den Bosch et al. 2007; Hansen et al. 2007; Zheng et al.…”
Theoretical Challenges in Galaxy Formation (2016, background): “…galaxy mass functions to simulated halo mass functions (Behroozi, Conroy & Wechsler 2010; Behroozi, Wechsler & Conroy 2013; Conroy, Wechsler & Kravtsov 2006; Hearin & Watson 2013; Lu et al. 2015; Moster, Naab & White 2013; Moster et al. 2010; Shankar et al. 2006; Vale & Ostriker 2004, 2006).”
GALAXY CLUSTERING IN THE NEWFIRM MEDIUM BAND SURVEY: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STELLAR MASS AND DARK MATTER HALO MASS AT 1 < z < 2 (2010, methodology): “This peak efficiency has also been seen in several other studies at low redshift using the HOD, the Conditional Luminosity Function, group catalogs, SHAM and weak lensing (Yang et al. 2003; Eke et al. 2005; Tinker et al. 2005; Vale & Ostriker 2006; Mandelbaum et al. 2006; Guo et al. 2010).”