GALAXY GROUPS IN THE SDSS DR4. III. THE LUMINOSITY AND STELLAR MASS FUNCTIONS

By Xiaohu Yang, H. Mo, F. V. D. Bosch. 2008

221 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Using a large galaxy group catalog constructed from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 4 (SDSS DR4) with an adaptive halo-based group finder, we investigate the luminosity and stellar mass functions for different populations of galaxies (central versus satellite, red versus blue, and galaxies in groups of different masses) and for groups themselves. The conditional stellar mass function (CSMF), which describes the stellar distribution of galaxies in halos of a given mass for central and satellite galaxies can be well modeled with a log-normal distribution and a modified Schechter form, respectively. On average, there are about three times as many central galaxies as satellites. Among the satellite population, there are in general more red galaxies than blue ones. For the central population, the luminosity function is dominated by red galaxies at the massive end, and by blue galaxies at the low-mass end. At the very low mass end (M* ≲ 109 h−2 M☉), however, there is a marked increase in the number of red centrals. We speculate that these galaxies are located close to large halos so that their star formation is truncated by the large-scale environments. The stellar mass function of galaxy groups is well described by a double power law, with a characteristic stellar mass at ∼4 × 1010 h−2 M☉. Finally, we use the observed stellar mass function of central galaxies to constrain the stellar mass–halo mass relation for low-mass halos, and obtain M*,c ∝ M4.9h for Mh ≪ 1011 h−1 M☉.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1f7888531c967aa65b7c02d8b32b833f931ff9d0

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. P. Hopkins
2. C. Conroy
3. R. Dav'e
4. L. Hernquist
5. R. Somerville
6. A. Dekel
7. Volker Springel
8. P. V. van Dokkum

In Instrumentation

1. C. Conroy
2. P. Hopkins
3. R. Dav'e
4. A. Dekel
5. L. Hernquist
6. P. V. van Dokkum
7. R. Somerville
8. F. V. D. Bosch

Citations in the corpus

• Galaxy Masses: A Review (2013, methodology): “…Trujillo-Gomez et al. 2011; Papastergis et al. 2011, 2012), constraints on halo masses by statistical techniques such as those involving satellite kinematics (More et al. 2011a; Wojtak & Mamon 2013), group catalogs (Yang et al. 2009), and abundance matching (Behroozi et al. 2013), to name a few.”
• EVOLUTION OF THE GALAXY–DARK MATTER CONNECTION AND THE ASSEMBLY OF GALAXIES IN DARK MATTER HALOS (2011, methodology): “The stellar mass to halo mass ratio has a minimum for halos of ∼ 1012 h−1M⊙, and increases rapidly towards both lower and higher halo masses (Yang et al. 2003, 2005b, 2008, 2009b; van den Bosch et al. 2003a; Tinker et al. 2005; Leauthaud et al. 2012), suggesting that galaxy formation is most…”
• Bulge mass is king: the dominant role of the bulge in determining the fraction of passive galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (2014, methodology): “Throughout this paper we use two complementary measures of environment: First, we use the Yang et al. (2007, 2009) SDSS group catalogue to classify whether a given galaxy is central to, or a satellite of, its host dark matter halo.”
• The current status of galaxy formation (2012, result): “…a fairly narrow stellar versus halo mass relation for the dominant (“central”) galaxies in halos and a gap between their stellar masses and those of the satellites, in very good agreement with the relations obtained by Yang et al. (2009) from the SDSS using conditional stellar mass functions (Fig.”
• Dependence of galaxy quenching on halo mass and distance from its centre (2012, result): “(b) For central galaxies at z ∼ 0, M∗ correlates with Mh below about Mh ∼ few × 10 12M⊙ above which M∗ only weakly depends on Mh, consistent with the findings of Yang et al. (2009) (Fig.”
• THE EVOLVING RELATIONS BETWEEN SIZE, MASS, SURFACE DENSITY, AND STAR FORMATION IN 3 × 104 GALAXIES SINCE z = 2 (2009, methodology): “…of this figure thus shows the number density evolution of quiescent galaxies with log(M⋆/M⊙) > 10.8; this was calculated atz> 0.5 with galaxy counts in three redshift bins from the UDS, and atz∼ 0 by integrating the SDSS Value Added Galaxy Catalog mass function tabulated by Yang et al. (2009).”
• THE CONNECTION BETWEEN GALAXIES AND DARK MATTER STRUCTURES IN THE LOCAL UNIVERSE (2012, methodology): “Therefore, it is like y that the sharp cutoff imposed on the satellite galaxies in the CSMF fits of Yang et al. (2009) is not purely physical, but convolved with the group finding.”
• THE COS-HALOS SURVEY: PHYSICAL CONDITIONS AND BARYONIC MASS IN THE LOW-REDSHIFT CIRCUMGALACTIC MEDIUM (2014, background): “Traditionally, baryon counting in this regime has focused on a galaxy’s stars, cold ISM, and its hot X-ray halo gas (Bell et al. 2003; Klypin et al. 2011; Baldry et al. 2008; Yang et al. 2009; McGaugh et al. 2010; Anderson & Bregman 2010; Papastergis et al. 2012; Gupta et al. 2012).”
• THE AVERAGE STAR FORMATION HISTORIES OF GALAXIES IN DARK MATTER HALOS FROM z = 0–8 (2012, background): “Comparisons to other data sets atz ≤ 1.0 (Moster et al. 2010; Guo et al. 2010; Wang & Jing 2010; Zheng et al. 2007a; Yang et al. 2009a; Hansen et al. 2009; Lin & Mohr 2004) are discussed extensively in Behroozi et al. (2010), so we do not repeat that discussion here.”
• Mapping stellar content to dark matter haloes using galaxy clustering and galaxy–galaxy lensing in the SDSS DR7 (2015, background): “…how much stellar mass is stored within the central galaxies of the dark matter halos (De Lucia & Blaizot 2007; von der Linden et al. 2007), and how is the rest distributed among the satellite galaxies within their larger host halos (Hansen et al. 2009; Yang et al. 2009; Leauthaud et al. 2012a)?”
• A DIRECT MEASUREMENT OF THE BARYONIC MASS FUNCTION OF GALAXIES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE GALACTIC BARYON FRACTION (2012, methodology): “…over the mass range M∗ ≈ 10 7 − 1012 M⊙, using statistical samples of tens of thousands of galaxies and a variety of stellar mass estimation techniques (Cole et al. 2001, Bell et al. 2003, Panter et al. 2007, Baldry et al. 2008, Li & White 2009, Yang et al. 2009, Baldry et al. 2012, to name a few).”
• Measures of Galaxy Environment I - What is "Environment"? (2011, unknown): “2 and is compared to both the observed SDSS luminosity function (Yang et al. 2009) and a popular semi-analytic galaxy formation model (De Lucia & Blaizot 2007).”
• MASS AND ENVIRONMENT AS DRIVERS OF GALAXY EVOLUTION. II. THE QUENCHING OF SATELLITE GALAXIES AS THE ORIGIN OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS (2011, background): “…recent observational analyses have therefore distinguished between satellites and centrals (e.g. Weinmann et al. 2006 & 2009; von der Linden et al. 2007; van den Bosch et al. 2008a & 2008b; Yang et al. 2009a & 2009b; Pasquali et al. 2009 & 2010; Skibba 2009; Hansen et al. 2009; Kimm et al. 2009).”
• A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF UNCERTAINTIES AFFECTING THE STELLAR MASS–HALO MASS RELATION FOR 0 < z < 4 (2010, methodology): “In order to explore this issue, we tried a general double power–law functional form forMh(M∗) which parameterized a superset of the fits used in Moster et al. (2009) and Yang et al. (2009a) (in particular, the same form as in Equation C2 in Appendix C).”
• Dark halo response and the stellar initial mass function in early-type and late-type galaxies (2010, background): “…from satellite kinematics (Conroy et al. 2007; More et al. 2011), weak lensing (Mandelbaum et al. 2006; Schulz et al. 2010), group catalogs (Yang et al. 2009) and halo abundance matching (Moster et al. 2010; Guo et al. 2010; Behroozi et al. 2010), finding generally good agreement between…”