Linking halo mass to galaxy luminosity

By A. Vale, Jeremiah P. Ostriker. 2004

497 citations recorded by the source corpus.

In this paper we present a new, essentially empirical, model for the relation between the mass of a dark matter halo/subhalo and the luminosity of a galaxy hosted in it. To estimate this, we replace the assumption of linearity between light and mass fluctuations with the assumption of monotonicity between galaxy light and halo or subhalo mass. We are enabled to proceed with this less restrictive ansatz by the availability of new, very high-resolution dark matter simulations and more detailed and comprehensive global galactic luminosity functions. We find that the relation between halo/subhalo mass and hosted galaxy luminosity is fairly well fitted by a double power law. The relation between halo mass and group luminosity has a shallower slope for an intermediate-mass region and is fairly well fitted by a two-branch function, with both branches double power laws. Both relations asymptote to L∝M4 at low M, while at high mass the former follows L∝M0.28 and the latter L∝M0.9. In addition to the mass–luminosity relation, we also derive results for the occupation number, luminosity function of cluster galaxies, group luminosity function and multiplicity function. Then, using a prescription for the mass function of haloes in under/overdense regions and some further assumptions on the form of the mass density distribution function, we further derive results for biasing between mass and light and mass and galaxy number, the light distribution function and the void probability distribution. Our results for the most part seem to match well with observations and previous expectations. We feel this is a potentially powerful way of modelling the relation between halo mass and galaxy luminosity, because the main inputs are readily testable against dark matter simulation results and galaxy surveys, and the outputs are free from the uncertainties of physically modelling galaxy formation.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/404d345581f0165498a6c3d52e1ae4a41422ff71

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 Instrumentation

In Statistical and Nonlinear Physics

Citations in the corpus

Cosmic ray driven outflows in global galaxy disc models (2013, background): “…with their required dark matter haloes find that typically only 20 per cent of the baryons are accounted for in L∗ galaxies, with the fraction decreasing for both larger and smaller systems (Vale & Ostriker 2004; Conroy, Wechsler & Kravtsov 2006; Behroozi, Conroy & Wechsler 2010; Guo et al. 2010).”
REPRODUCING THE STELLAR MASS/HALO MASS RELATION IN SIMULATED ΛCDM GALAXIES: THEORY VERSUS OBSERVATIONAL ESTIMATES (2012, methodology): “Recently, Moster et al. (2012, hereafter M12) and other groups (Vale & Ostriker 2004; Conroy et al. 2006; Mandelbaum et al. 2006; More et al. 2009; Guo et al. 2010; Trujillo-Gomez et al. 2011; Behroozi et al. 2012) used the Abundance Matching Technique (AMT) and its variations (Yang et al. 2012) to…”
The SAGA Survey. I. Satellite Galaxy Populations around Eight Milky Way Analogs (2017, methodology): “We first assume a dark matter halo mass of the Milky Way and then use the abundance matching technique (see e.g., Kravtsov et al. 2004; Vale & Ostriker 2004, 2006; Conroy et al. 2006; Behroozi et al. 2010) to obtain the corresponding K-band luminosity range.”
Theoretical Models of the Halo Occupation Distribution: Separating Central and Satellite Galaxies (2004, methodology): “…their results, we find a shallower low mass slope (αs ∼ −1.5), probably because of the difference between dark matter and baryonic mass. Figure 1 of Vale & Ostriker (2004) shows the overall mass functions of (satellite) subhalos and parent halos, which conveys similar information to the lower…”
GAS REGULATION OF GALAXIES: THE EVOLUTION OF THE COSMIC SPECIFIC STAR FORMATION RATE, THE METALLICITY–MASS–STAR-FORMATION RATE RELATION, AND THE STELLAR CONTENT OF HALOS (2013, background): “This implies a strong dependence of the stellar mass on the halo mass (Vale & Ostriker, 2004), extending all the way up to the galaxy masses around M*, the characteristic knee in the Schechter function, at which point the relation turns over and mstar/mhalo decreases.”
A DIRECT MEASUREMENT OF THE BARYONIC MASS FUNCTION OF GALAXIES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE GALACTIC BARYON FRACTION (2012, methodology): “The fundamental assumption of the abundance matching method (Marinoni & Hudson 2002; Vale & Ostriker 2004; also see Behroozi et al. 2010 for a review) is thatMb is a monotonically increasing function of Mh.”
The upper bound on the lowest mass halo (2016, methodology): “Applied to galaxies, this concept manifests as the technique known as abundance matching (Vale & Ostriker 2004).”
There's no place like home? Statistics of Milky Way-mass dark matter haloes (2009, background): “This “abundance matching” assumption (Vale & Ostriker 2004) can reproduce observed galaxy clustering and its evolution with redshift (Conroy et al. 2006; Brown et al. 2008; Conroy & Wechsler 2009; Wetzel & White 2010; Guo et al. 2010).”
The EAGLE project: Simulating the evolution and assembly of galaxies and their environments (2014, background): “…basic form abundance matching relates central galaxies to haloes by matching the observed GSMF to the halo mass function predicted from a collisionless simulation, assuming that the stellar masses of galaxies increase monotonically with the masses of their host haloes (e.g. Vale & Ostriker 2004).”
Constraining the galaxy–halo connection over the last 13.3 Gyr: star formation histories, galaxy mergers and structural properties (2017, methodology): “…GSMF to the cumulative halo mass function in order to obtain a correlation between galaxy stellar mass and (sub)halo mass (Kravtsov et al. 2004; Vale & Ostriker 2004; Conroy, Wechsler & Kravtsov 2006; Shankar et al. 2006; Behroozi, Conroy & Wechsler 2010; Moster et al. 2010; Guo et al. 2010;…”
Galaxy UV-luminosity function and reionization constraints on axion dark matter (2014, methodology): “We use the abundance-matching technique (Kravtsov et al. 2004; Vale & Ostriker 2004) to connect the aMDM halo mass functions discussed in Section 3 to highredshift rest-frame UV luminosity functions determined from deep imaging in optical to near-IR bandpasses of Hubble Space telescope Legacy…”
GALAXY GROUPS IN THE SDSS DR4. III. THE LUMINOSITY AND STELLAR MASS FUNCTIONS (2008, background): “…L ± dL/2 that reside in a halo of mass Mh, has also been investigated extensively (Yang, Mo & van den Bosch 2003; van den Bosch, Yang & Mo 2003; Vale & Ostriker 2004, 2008; Cooray 2006; van den Bosch et al. 2007) and has been applied to various redshift surveys, such as the 2-degree Field…”
THE SIZE–VIRIAL RADIUS RELATION OF GALAXIES (2012, background): “…clustering of galaxies of different luminosities and at different redshifts (Kravtsov et al. 2004; Tasitsiomi et al. 2004; Conroy et al. 2006; Reddick et al. 2012) and other statistics (Vale & Ostriker 2004, 2006; Behroozi et al. 2010, 2012; Guo et al. 2010; Moster et al. 2012; Hearin et al. 2012).”
Modelling galaxy clustering in a high-resolution simulation of structure formation (2006, methodology): “Caution must be exercised, however, when only using subhaloes as tracers of galaxies in high resolution simulations, as has been recently done by Vale & Ostriker (2004, 2005); Conroy et al. (2005).”
Too big to fail in the Local Group (2014, methodology): “…by the success of the abundance-matching (AM) technique, which accurately reproduces clustering statistics and luminosity functions for M > 108 M galaxies (Kravtsov et al. 2004; Vale & Ostriker 2004; Conroy, Wechsler & Kravtsov 2006; Behroozi, Wechsler & Conroy 2013c; Moster, Naab & White 2013).”
The mass function and average mass-loss rate of dark matter subhaloes (2004, background): “To quantify this further we fitted the average subhalo mass functions with a Schechter function of the form dn d ln ψ = γ β (1 − α) ( ψ β )−α exp ( −ψ β ) (10) (cf. Vale & Ostriker 2004).”
On the galaxy stellar mass function, the mass-metallicity relation, and the implied baryonic mass function (2008, methodology): “In detail, this is described by Shankar et al. (2006), and earlier using galaxy luminosity by Marinoni & Hudson (2002) and Vale & Ostriker (2004).”
The MICE Grand Challenge lightcone simulation – II. Halo and galaxy catalogues (2013, methodology): “We have used a new hybrid technique that combines halo occupation distribution (HOD; e.g. Jing, Mo & Boerner 1998; Scoccimarro et al. 2001; Berlind & Weinberg 2002) and halo abundance matching (HAM; e.g. Tasitsiomi et al. 2004; Vale & Ostriker 2004; Conroy, Wechsler & Kravtsov 2006) prescriptions.”