EVOLUTION OF THE GALAXY–DARK MATTER CONNECTION AND THE ASSEMBLY OF GALAXIES IN DARK MATTER HALOS

By Xiaohu Yang, H. Mo, F. V. D. Bosch, Youcai Zhang, Jiaxin Han. 2011

222 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We present a new model to describe the galaxy–dark matter connection across cosmic time, which unlike the popular subhalo abundance-matching technique is self-consistent in that it takes account of the facts that (1) subhalos are accreted at different times and (2) the properties of satellite galaxies may evolve after accretion. Using observations of galaxy stellar mass functions (SMFs) out to z ∼ 4, the conditional SMF at z ∼ 0.1 obtained from Sloan Digital Sky Survey galaxy group catalogs, and the two-point correlation function (2PCF) of galaxies at z ∼ 0.1 as a function of stellar mass, we constrain the relation between galaxies and dark matter halos over the entire cosmic history from z ∼ 4 to the present. This relation is then used to predict the median assembly histories of different stellar mass components within dark matter halos (central galaxies, satellite galaxies, and halo stars). We also make predictions for the 2PCFs of high-z galaxies as function of stellar mass. Our main findings are the following: (1) Our model reasonably fits all data within the observational uncertainties, indicating that the ΛCDM concordance cosmology is consistent with a wide variety of data regarding the galaxy population across cosmic time. (2) At low-z, the stellar mass of central galaxies increases with halo mass as M0.3 and M≳ 4.0 at the massive and low-mass ends, respectively. The ratio M*, c/M reveals a maximum of ∼0.03 at a halo mass M ∼ 1011.8 h−1 M☉, much lower than the universal baryon fraction (∼0.17). At higher redshifts the maximum in M*, c/M remains close to ∼0.03, but shifts to higher halo mass. (3) The inferred timescale for the disruption of satellite galaxies is about the same as the dynamical friction timescale of their subhalos. (4) The stellar mass assembly history of central galaxies is completely decoupled from the assembly history of its host halo; the ratio M*, c/M initially increases rapidly with time until the halo mass reaches ∼1012 h−1 M☉, at which point M*, c/M ∼ 0.03. Once M ≳ 1012 h−1 M☉, there is little growth in M*, c, causing the ratio M*, c/M to decline. In Milky Way (MW)-sized halos more than half of the central stellar mass is assembled at z ≲ 0.5. (5) In low-mass halos, the accretion of satellite galaxies contributes little to the formation of their central galaxies, indicating that most of their stars must have formed in situ. In massive halos more than half of the stellar mass of the central galaxy has to be formed in situ, and the accretion of satellites can only become significant at z ≲ 2. (6) The total mass in halo stars is more than twice that of the central galaxy in massive halos, but less than 10% of M*, c in MW-sized halos. (7) The 2PCFs of galaxies on small scales hold important information regarding the evolution of satellite galaxies, which at high-z is predicted to be much steeper than at low-z, especially for more massive galaxies. We discuss various implications of our findings regarding the formation and evolution of galaxies in a ΛCDM cosmology.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7050754817fe575893e12a7b3c009fe5f04b1226

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. R. Somerville
5. L. Hernquist
6. A. Dekel
7. Volker Springel
8. F. V. D. Bosch

In Instrumentation

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

Citations in the corpus

• Dependence of galaxy quenching on halo mass and distance from its centre (2012, methodology): “Indeed, at low masses, M∗ < 10 11M⊙ and Mh < 10 12M⊙, halo mass and stellar mass are expected to grow in concert, while at larger masses the stellar mass tends to a constant as the halo mass keeps growing (e.g., Cooray & Milosavljević 2005; Yang et al. 2012).”
• 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).”
• Stellar Mass—Halo Mass Relation and Star Formation Efficiency in High-Mass Halos (2014, background): “Remarkably, this peak mass is almost independent of redshift (Yang et al. 2012; Behroozi et al. 2013a).”
• Cosmological Constraints from a Combination of Galaxy Clustering and Lensing -- III. Application to SDSS Data (2012, methodology): “Once completed, we will use those data together with our own measurements of the clustering and luminosity (or stellar mass) functions (see Yang et al. 2012), to construct a full covariance matrix for our data set using jackknife or bootstrap estimates.”
• THE CONNECTION BETWEEN GALAXIES AND DARK MATTER STRUCTURES IN THE LOCAL UNIVERSE (2012, methodology): “Because they use a different stellar mass function and cosmological model, the results are slightly tricky to compare, but we note that overall their central galaxies are brighter with respect to satellites than both our model and the model of Yang et al. (2012).”
• EMERGE – an empirical model for the formation of galaxies since z ∼ 10 (2017, methodology): “Stellar masses in Li et al. (2006) and Guo et al. (2011) are computed following Kauffmann et al. (2003), while Yang et al. (2012) follow Bell et al. (2003).”
• THE ASSEMBLY OF MILKY-WAY-LIKE GALAXIES SINCE z ∼ 2.5 (2013, result): “2) is broadly consistentwith results from other methods (e.g., Yang et al. 2012; Behroozi, 6 Wechsler, & Conroy 2012).”
• The GALEX Arecibo SDSS Survey - VIII. Final data release. The effect of group environment on the gas content of massive galaxies (2013, methodology): “We characterized the environment of GASS galaxies by their dark matter halo mass, obtained from the SDSS group catalog of Yang et al. (2007, updated to SDSS DR7) using the abundance matching technique.”
• The dark side of galaxy colour (2013, background): “The halo massdependence of the stellar mass to halo mass ratio of galaxies shows a peak at Mchar ∼ 10 12h−1M⊙ that rapidly falls off as halo mass increases (Yang et al. 2012, 2013; Watson & Conroy 2013; Behroozi et al. 2012; Moster et al. 2013).”
• Galaxy evolution in groups and clusters: satellite star formation histories and quenching time-scales in a hierarchical Universe (2012, background): “…Mmax for both satellite and central subhalos, may not be fully accurate in assigning stellar mass to both satellite and central subhalos simultaneously, because there is some freedom in allowing satellites to follow a different relation (Neistein et al. 2011; Yang et al. 2012; Moster et al. 2013).”
• A LINK BETWEEN STAR FORMATION QUENCHING AND INNER STELLAR MASS DENSITY IN SLOAN DIGITAL SKY SURVEY CENTRAL GALAXIES (2013, methodology): “We additionally obtain the group membership (central or satellite) of the galaxies using the catalog of Yang et al. (2012).”
• How do minor mergers promote inside-out growth of ellipticals, transforming the size, density profile and dark matter fraction? (2012, unknown): “…De Lucia et al. 2006; Ciotti et al. 2007; Naab et al. 2007; Guo & White 2008; Naab et al. 2009; Yang et al. 2011; Lackner & Ostriker 2010; Oser et al. 2010; Guo et al. 2011; Feldmann et al. 2011; Oser et al. 2012; Yang et al. 2012; Gabor & Davé 2012; Moster et al. 2012; Lackner et al. 2012)).”
• 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): “The halo masses we use in this paper come from the group catalogue of Yang et al. (2007, 2012).”
• THE SPACE MOTION OF LEO I: THE MASS OF THE MILKY WAY'S DARK MATTER HALO (2012, background): “…and the most massive subhalos for some suitable definition of mass, most often the maximum mass or circular velocity that the subhalo has ever had (e.g., Kravtsov et al. 2004; Conroy et al. 2006; Guo et al. 2010; Yang et al. 2012; Reddick et al. 2012; Behroozi et al. 2012; Moster et al. 2013).”
• Radiative feedback and the low efficiency of galaxy formation in low-mass haloes at high redshift (2013, background): “…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 z = 3.”
• ON THE LACK OF EVOLUTION IN GALAXY STAR FORMATION EFFICIENCY (2012, background): “…— halo mass ratio (i.e., the integrated formation efficiency) does show somewhat similar features (Conroy & Wechsler 2009; Behroozi et al. 2010, 2012; Yang et al. 2012; Leauthaud et al. 2012; Moster et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2012); however, the integrated efficiency is several steps removed from…”