GALAXY CLUSTERING IN THE NEWFIRM MEDIUM BAND SURVEY: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STELLAR MASS AND DARK MATTER HALO MASS AT 1 < z < 2

By D. Wake, K. Whitaker, I. Labbé, P. V. van Dokkum, M. Franx, R. Quadri, G. Brammer, M. Kriek, B. Lundgren, D. Marchesini and 1 more. 2010

142 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We present an analysis of the clustering of galaxies as a function of their stellar mass at 1 < z < 2 using data from the NEWFIRM Medium Band Survey (NMBS). The precise photometric redshifts and stellar masses that the NMBS produces allow us to define a series of stellar mass limited samples of galaxies more massive than 7 × 109 M☉, 1 × 1010 M☉, and 3 × 1010 M☉ in three redshift intervals centered on z = 1.1, 1.5, and 1.9, respectively. In each redshift interval, we show that there exists a strong dependence of clustering strength on the stellar mass limit of the sample, with more massive galaxies showing a higher clustering amplitude on all scales. We further interpret our clustering measurements in the ΛCDM cosmological context using the halo model of galaxy clustering. We show that the typical halo mass of both central and satellite galaxies increases with stellar mass, whereas the satellite fraction decreases with stellar mass, qualitatively the same as is seen at z < 1. We see little evidence of any redshift dependence in the relationship between stellar mass and halo mass over our narrow redshift range. However, when we compare our measurements with similar ones at z ≃ 0, we see clear evidence for a change in this relation. If we assume a universal baryon fraction, the ratio of stellar mass to halo mass reveals the fraction of baryons that have been converted to stars. We see that the peak in this star formation efficiency for central galaxies shifts to higher halo masses at higher redshift, moving from ≃7 × 1011 h−1 M☉ at z ≃ 0 to ≃3 × 1012 h−1 M☉ at z ≃ 1.5, revealing evidence of “halo downsizing.” Finally, we show that for highly biased galaxy populations at z>1 there may be a discrepancy between the space density and clustering predicted by the halo model and the measured clustering and space density. This could imply that there is a problem with one or more ingredient of the halo model at these redshifts, for instance, the halo bias relation may not yet be precisely calibrated at high halo masses or galaxies may not be distributed within halos following a Navarro–Frenk–White profile.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation, Statistical and Nonlinear Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1601d270a2c170a53aa2fae6e4a08be6415e4805

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

1. L. Hernquist
2. P. Hopkins
3. Volker Springel
4. R. Dav'e
5. R. Somerville
6. T. Naab
7. A. Dekel
8. P. V. van Dokkum

In Instrumentation

1. L. Hernquist
2. P. Hopkins
3. P. V. van Dokkum
4. Volker Springel
5. R. Dav'e
6. R. Somerville
7. A. Dekel
8. T. Naab

In Statistical and Nonlinear Physics

1. F. V. D. Bosch
2. Andrey V. Kravtsov
3. M. Franx
4. P. V. van Dokkum
5. A. Dekel
6. H. Mo
7. I. Labbé
8. Anatoly Klypin

Citations in the corpus

• Physical Models of Galaxy Formation in a Cosmological Framework (2014, background): “However, such models produced overly high stellar fractions, typically >∼ 50% whereas abundance matching constraints suggest a value of ∼ 10 − 20% (Behroozi et al. 2010, Moster et al. 2010b, Wake et al. 2011).”
• Galaxy clustering in the CFHTLS-Wide: the changing relationship between galaxies and haloes since z ~ 1.2 (2011, methodology): “…mass ratio as function of halo mass (Mandelbaum et al. 2006; Zheng et al. 2007; Foucaud et al. 2010; Zehavi et al. 2011; More et al. 2011; Wake et al. 2011; Leauthaud et al. 2012b), and “abundance-matching” techniques based on N-body simulations (Conroy & Wechsler 2009; Moster et al.…”
• Constraining the galaxy–halo connection over the last 13.3 Gyr: star formation histories, galaxy mergers and structural properties (2017, methodology): “Wake et al. (2011) used the halo occupation distribution (HOD) model of galaxy clustering to derive halo masses between z = 1 − 2 from the NEWFIRM Medium Band Survey (NMBS), filled blue circles.”
• 3D-HST: A WIDE-FIELD GRISM SPECTROSCOPIC SURVEY WITH THE HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE (2012, background): “…local environment: the photometric analyses can suffer from type-dependent systematics and even the best photometric redshift measurements still correspond to an uncertainty of ∼60 h−1 Mpc at z = 2, many times the correlation length of M∗ galaxies at this redshift (cf. ∼11 Mpc; Wake et al. 2011).”
• Galaxy formation in WMAP1 and WMAP7 cosmologies (2012, methodology): “Wake et al. (2011) use data from the NEWFIRM Medium Band Survey to study the stellar mass vs. halo mass relation within the same redshift intervals.”
• SHORT-LIVED STAR-FORMING GIANT CLUMPS IN COSMOLOGICAL SIMULATIONS OF z ≈ 2 DISKS (2010, background): “Our simulated halos are presented (symbols) alongside the same quantity as it is estimated from comparisons of galaxy and halo clustering and abundances (Moster et al. 2010; Wake et al. 2011;curves).”
• Ameliorating systematic uncertainties in the angular clustering of galaxies: a study using the SDSS-III (2011, unknown): “…been utilized to explore the formation and evolution of galaxies (see, e.g., Blake et al. 2008; McCracken et al. 2008; Ross et al. 2009, 2010a,b; Wake et al. 2011) and quasars (e.g., Myers et al. 2006) and also to measure cosmological parameters (see, e.g., Blake et al. 2007; Padmanabhan et al.…”
• Galactic star formation and accretion histories from matching galaxies to dark matter haloes (2012, background): “…or type) within main haloes of a given mass is constrained using galaxy abundance and clustering statistics (e.g. Peacock & Smith 2000; White 2001; Berlind & Weinberg 2002; Zehavi et al. 2004; Tinker et al. 2005; Brown et al. 2008; Zehavi et al. 2011; Wake et al. 2011; Leauthaud et al. 2012).”
• First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: matter and galaxy clustering (2017, background): “…by guest on 17 March 2018 et al. 2008), the Palomar Observatory Wide-field Infrared Survey (POWIR Foucaud et al. 2010), VIPERS (Marulli et al. 2013), the NEWFIRM Medium Band Survey (NMBS Wake et al. 2011), GOODS-N (Lin et al. 2012), and zCOSMOS (Meneux et al. 2009).”
• The WIRCam Deep Survey I. Counts, colours, and mass-functions derived from near-infrared imaging in the CFHTLS deep fields (2011, background): “…et al. 2007; Ilbert et al. 2010); investigating the evolutionary history of the most massive galaxies beyondz ∼ 3 (e.g. Fontana et al. 2006) and probing the changing relationship between baryons and dark matter beyond redshift one (e.g. Foucaud et al. 2010; Hartley et al. 2010; Wake et al. 2011).”
• THE PSEUDO-EVOLUTION OF HALO MASS (2012, background): “…the scaling relations between stellar mass and the mass of the halo they inhabit, and how these scaling relations change with time (Conroy et al. 2007; Brown et al. 2008; Behroozi et al. 2010; Moster et al. 2010; Abbas et al. 2010; Wake et al. 2011; Leauthaud et al. 2012; Yang et al. 2012).”
• 3D-HST+CANDELS: THE EVOLUTION OF THE GALAXY SIZE–MASS DISTRIBUTION SINCE z = 3 (2014, unknown): “…mass, based on clustering measurements and abundance matching techniques, provide strong evidence that m g depends on halo mass, similarly so at different redshifts (e.g., Conroy & Wechsler 2009; Moster et al. 2010; Behroozi et al. 2010; Wake et al. 2011; Moster et al. 2013; Behroozi et al. 2013a).”
• Radiative feedback and the low efficiency of galaxy formation in low-mass haloes at high redshift (2013, methodology): “The models of abundance matching, as well as halo occupation distribution modeling (Zheng et al. 2007; Wake et al. 2011) and conditional luminosity function modeling (Yang et al. 2012), agree in a low stellar-to-virial mass ratio, fstars(z = 3) = 0.06% − 0.6% for halos with masses ofMv = 1011 M⊙ at…”
• NEW CONSTRAINTS ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE STELLAR-TO-DARK MATTER CONNECTION: A COMBINED ANALYSIS OF GALAXY–GALAXY LENSING, CLUSTERING, AND STELLAR MASS FUNCTIONS FROM z = 0.2 to z = 1 (2011, unknown): “…mass (e.g., Seljak 2000; Peacock & Smith 2000; Scoccimarro et al. 2001; Berlind & Weinberg 2002; Bullock et al. 2002; Zehavi et al. 2002, 2005, 2011b; Zheng et al. 2005, 2007; Tinker et al. 2007; Skibba & Sheth 2009; Brown et al. 2008; Wake et al. 2011; Foucaud et al. 2010; White et al. 2011).”
• THE NEWFIRM MEDIUM-BAND SURVEY: PHOTOMETRIC CATALOGS, REDSHIFTS, AND THE BIMODAL COLOR DISTRIBUTION OF GALAXIES OUT TO z ∼ 3 (2011, methodology): “We refer the reader to Wake et al. (2011) for a detailed analysis of the relative densities and galaxy clustering in the NMBS fields.”
• A LARGE POPULATION OF MASSIVE COMPACT POST-STARBURST GALAXIES AT z > 1: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SIZE EVOLUTION AND QUENCHING MECHANISM OF QUIESCENT GALAXIES (2011, background): “2%), rest-frame colors and stellar population parameters (Brammer et al. 2009, 2011; van Dokkum et al. 2010; Marchesini et al. 2010; Whitaker et al. 2010, 2011; Kriek et al. 2010, 2011; Wake et al. 2011).”
• SUBMILLIMETER GALAXIES AS PROGENITORS OF COMPACT QUIESCENT GALAXIES (2014, result): “The correlation length of SMGs is similar to that of z ∼ 2 galaxies with M∗ > 5× 1010 M (r0 = 7.66± 0.78), while z∼ 2 galaxies with M∗ > 1011 M cluster more strongly (r0 = 11.49± 1.26 Wake et al. 2011).”