The massive end of the luminosity and stellar mass functions: Dependence on the fit to the light profile

By Mariangela Bernardi, A. Meert, R. Sheth, Vinu Vikram, Marc Huertas-Company, S. Mei, Francesco Shankar. 2013

242 citations recorded by the source corpus.

In addition to the large systematic differences arising from assumptions about the stellar mass-to-light ratio, the massive end of the stellar mass function is rather sensitive to how one fits the light profiles of the most luminous galaxies. We quantify this by comparing the luminosity and stellar mass functions based on SDSS cmodel magnitudes, and PyMorph single-Sersic and Sersic-Exponential fits to the surface brightness profiles of galaxies in the SDSS. The PyMorph fits return more light, so that the predicted masses are larger than when cmodel magnitudes are used. As a result, the total stellar mass density at z~0.1 is about 1.2x larger than in our previous analysis of the SDSS. The differences are most pronounced at the massive end, where the measured number density of objects having M* > 6 x 10^{11} Msun is ~5x larger. Alternatively, at number densities of 10^{-6} Mpc^{-3}, the limiting stellar mass is 2x larger. The differences with respect to fits by other authors, typically based on Petrosian-like magnitudes, are even more dramatic, although some of these differences are due to sky-subtraction problems, and are sometimes masked by large differences in the assumed $M_*/L$ (even after scaling to the same IMF). Our results impact studies of the growth and assembly of stellar mass in galaxies, and of the relation between stellar and halo mass, so we provide simple analytic fits to these new luminosity and stellar mass functions and quantify how they depend on morphology, as well as the binned counts in electronic format.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Ecology, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/399419f37e27470163790dbab04821f11b009daf

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

In Ecology

In Global and Planetary Change

Citations in the corpus

Simulating galaxy formation with the IllustrisTNG model (2017, background): “…1011 Galaxy Stellar Mass [ M sun ] [ < 2 r stars,1/2 ] 10-3 10-2 ) [ M pc -3 d ex -1 ] Baldry et al. 2008 (SDSS, z~0) Baldry et al. 2012 (GAMA, z<0.05) Bernardi et al. 2013 (SDSS) D Souza et al. 2015 (SDSS, z~0.1) fiducial TNG no wind vel floor min wind vel = 300 km/s min wind vel = 400…”
The galaxy stellar mass function at 3.5 ≤z ≤ 7.5 in the CANDELS/UDS, GOODS-South, and HUDF fields (2015, background): “Many explanations have been proposed, including an underestimate of the mass density in local galaxies (Bernardi et al. 2013), an effect of “outshining” due to recent stellar populations that lead to an underestimate in stellar masses (Maraston et al. 2010; Courteau et al. 2014), the scattering of…”
UniverseMachine: The correlation between galaxy growth and dark matter halo assembly from z = 0−10 (2018, methodology): “If galaxies disrupt outside of this distance, we instead add their stars to the intrahalo light (IHL) of the host halo.”
A catalogue of 2D photometric decompositions in the SDSS-DR7 spectroscopic main galaxy sample: preferred models and systematics (2014, background): “While Bernardi et al. (2013) only explored cases of pure fits (i.e. fitting the entire sample with Ser fits only or fitting the entire sample with Ser-Exp fits only), the large differences in the LF reported there likely persist based on the differences observed here where the ‘best-fitting’…”
Constraining the galaxy–halo connection over the last 13.3 Gyr: star formation histories, galaxy mergers and structural properties (2017, result): “…den Bosch (2009a) z ∼ 0.1 4681 I+SP+C Li & White (2009) z ∼ 0.1 6437 I+P+C Bernardi et al. (2010) z ∼ 0.1 4681 I+SP+C Baldry et al. (2012) 0 < z < 0.06 143 C Bernardi et al. (2013) z ∼ 0.1 4681 I+SP+C Rodriguez-Puebla et al. in prep z ∼ 0.1 7748 S Drory et al. (2009) 0 < z < 1 1.73 SP+C Moustakas…”
Physical Models of Galaxy Formation in a Cosmological Framework (2014, background): “In the z = 0.1 panel, the estimates of Bernardi et al. (2013) are also shown (open gray circles).”
EMERGE – an empirical model for the formation of galaxies since z ∼ 10 (2017, methodology): “G A ] 1 5 M ay end and an exponential cut-off at much smaller masses (Li &White 2009; Bernardi et al. 2013).”
The Horizon-AGN simulation: evolution of galaxy properties over cosmic time (2016, background): “While many observational studies use Petrosian apertures, other variants, such as Kron (e.g. Kron 1980) or modified Sersic (e.g. Bernardi et al. 2013) apertures can also be employed, leading to small shifts in galaxy luminosities (e.g. Graham & Driver 2005).”
Mapping stellar content to dark matter haloes using galaxy clustering and galaxy–galaxy lensing in the SDSS DR7 (2015, background): “The SDSS pipeline returns a fraction of the total light even when the cmodel magnitudes are used (Abazajian et al. 2009), due to a combination of over-subtraction of the sky background and poor model fits to the light profiles (Bernardi et al. 2013).”
A CATALOG OF BULGE, DISK, AND TOTAL STELLAR MASS ESTIMATES FOR THE SLOAN DIGITAL SKY SURVEY (2013, methodology): “This is consistent with the generally higher luminosities measured using Sérsic profiles relative to other parametric or curveof-growth approaches (see, e.g., Bernardi et al. 2012, 2013).”
NIHAO project – I. Reproducing the inefficiency of galaxy formation across cosmic time with a large sample of cosmological hydrodynamical simulations (2015, background): “The Kravtsov relation also differs from the other two at high masses because of how it takes into account intra-cluster light, namely by using the Bernardi et al. (2013) stellar mass function that extends surface brightness profiles to larger radii.”
Colours and luminosities of z = 0.1 galaxies in the eagle simulation (2015, background): “MNRAS 452, 2879–2896 (2015) and, unsurprisingly, the luminosity assigned to them depends on how such light is taken into account (e.g. Bernardi et al. 2013).”
The EAGLE simulations of galaxy formation: calibration of subgrid physics and model variations (2015, methodology): “…Gunn & White 2009; Pforr, Maraston & Tonini 2012, but see Taylor et al. 2011), peculiar velocity corrections for faint galaxies (e.g. Baldry et al. 2012), and the method used to subtract the sky background from bright galaxies (e.g. Bernardi et al. 2013; Kravtsov, Vikhlinin & Meshscheryakov 2014).”
Theoretical Challenges in Galaxy Formation (2016, methodology): “Large surveys made it possible to observe relatively accurate stellar mass functions not only in the local Universe (e.g. Bernardi et al. 2013, Li & White 2009, Pérez-González et al. 2008) but also towards higher redshifts (e.g. Bouwens et al. 2012, Duncan et al. 2014, Moustakas et al. 2013,…”
How to Measure Galaxy Star Formation Histories. II. Nonparametric Models (2018, background): “In practice, 1% accuracy is very difficult to achieve due to systematic effects in measuring galaxy photometry such as background subtraction, light profile modeling, and contamination from nearby objects (e.g., Bernardi et al. 2013; Skelton et al. 2014).”
The EAGLE project: Simulating the evolution and assembly of galaxies and their environments (2014, methodology): “Baldry et al. (2012) integrate single Sérsic fits to the light profiles, which we would expect includes less intracluster light than the Sérsic plus exponential fits of Bernardi et al. (2013) but more than the Petrosian apertures of Li & White (2009).”
First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: the stellar mass content of groups and clusters of galaxies (2017, background): “Properly assigning mass to the central galaxies in large haloes is also critical for meaningfully comparing to observational results for the massive end of the galaxy stellar mass function (Baldry et al. 2012; Bernardi et al. 2013, 2017; D’Souza et al. 2015).”
Introducing the Illustris Project: simulating the coevolution of dark and visible matter in the Universe (2014, methodology): “We stress that it is dangerous to construct and tune galaxy formation models such that they exactly reproduce observations like the GSMF.”
Selection bias in dynamically measured supermassive black hole samples: its consequences and the quest for the most fundamental relation (2016, background): “(ii) A (total) stellar mass Mstar is assigned from the Bernardi et al. (2013) stellar mass function of ellipticals+lenticulars.”