Evidence for TP-AGB Stars in High-Redshift Galaxies, and Their Effect on Deriving Stellar Population Parameters

By C. Maraston, E. Daddi, A. Renzini, A. Cimatti, Mark Dickinson, C. Papovich, A. Pasquali, N. Pirzkal. 2006

315 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We explore the effects of using different stellar population models on estimates of star formation histories, ages, and masses of high-redshift galaxies by fitting the SEDs with models by Maraston (hereafter M05) and by Bruzual & Charlot (hereafter BC03). We focus on the thermally pulsing asymptotic giant branch (TP-AGB) phase of stellar evolution, whose treatment is a source of major discrepancy. In this respect, BC03 models are representative of other models whose treatment of the TP-AGB phase is similar. Moreover, M05 and BC03 models adopt stellar tracks with different assumptions on convective overshooting. For our experiment we use a sample of high-z (1.4 ≲ z ≲ 2.7) galaxies, for which rest-frame UV spectroscopy and spectroscopic redshifts are available, along with Spitzer IRAC and MIPS photometry from GOODS. The mid-UV spectra of these galaxies exhibit features typical of A- or F-type stars, indicative of ages in the range ~0.2-2 Gyr, when the contribution of TP-AGB stars is expected to be maximum. We find that the TP-AGB phase plays a key role in the interpretation of the Spitzer data, where the rest-frame near-IR is sampled. Generally, M05 models give better fits than BC03 models and indicate systematically lower ages and lower masses (by ~60%, on average). Photometric redshifts derived using M05 models are also in better agreement with the spectroscopic ones, especially when the rest-frame near-IR fluxes from Spitzer IRAC are included in the fit. We argue that the different results are primarily a consequence of the different treatment of the TP-AGB phase, although other differences in the input stellar evolution also contribute. This work provides a first direct evidence for a strong contribution by TP-AGB stars to the SED of galaxies in the high-redshift universe (z ~ 2).

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/77db2034671103dc2c065da347be95e7c522142d

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. L. Hernquist
3. C. Conroy
4. R. Somerville
5. R. Dav'e
6. P. V. van Dokkum
7. A. Dekel
8. D. M. Alexander

In Instrumentation

1. P. Hopkins
2. L. Hernquist
3. C. Conroy
4. P. V. van Dokkum
5. R. Dav'e
6. M. Cappellari
7. R. Somerville
8. M. Franx

Citations in the corpus

• Tracking the impact of environment on the galaxy stellar mass function up to z ~ 1 in the 10 k zCOSMOS sample (2009, methodology): “Summing up the eff cts of both overshooting and TP-AGB, the M05 models are brighter and redder than the BC03 models for ages between∼ 0.2 and ∼ 2 Gyr (Maraston et al. 2006).”
• A Cosmological Framework for the Co-Evolution of Quasars, Supermassive Black Holes, and Elliptical Galaxies. II. Formation of Red Ellipticals (2007, background): “Although there are a number of observational biases or issues regarding stellar population synthesismodels used to estimate stellarmasses (Maraston et al. 2006) that could explain this, it might also, if real, highlight relatively unexplored channels of massive galaxy buildup.”
• THE GEMINI CLUSTER ASTROPHYSICS SPECTROSCOPIC SURVEY (GCLASS): THE ROLE OF ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-REGULATION IN GALAXY EVOLUTION AT z ∼ 1 (2011, background): “Given the other systematic uncertainties involved in stellar mass modeling (e.g., Maraston et al. 2006; Muzzin et al. 2009a; Conroy et al. 2009), and that our primary use of the stellar masses is to rank-order galaxies in increasing mass, this should not affect our analysis.”
• THE SINS SURVEY: MODELING THE DYNAMICS OF z ∼ 2 GALAXIES AND THE HIGH-z TULLY–FISHER RELATION (2009, methodology): “For example, Maraston et al. (2006) suggests that the Bruzual & Charlot (2003) stellar population synthesis models used here may overestimate the stellar masses up to a factor of ∼ 2 when the bulk of the population in the age range between ∼ 0.5 and ∼ 2 Gyr.”
• Size Evolution of the Most Massive Galaxies at 1.7 < z < 3 from GOODS NICMOS Survey Imaging (2008, methodology): “…L. et al., 2004, ApJ, 600, 580 Khochfar S. & Silk J. 2006, ApJ, 648, L21 Kroupa P., 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231 Longhetti M. et al., 2007, MNRAS, 374, 614 Maraston et al., 2006 ApJ, 652, 85 Marleau F. R., Simard L., 1998, ApJ, 507, 585 McIntosh D. et al., 2005, ApJ, 632, 191 Magee D. K., Bouwens R.…”
• The many manifestations of downsizing: hierarchical galaxy formation models confront observations (2009, background): “Additional sources of uncertainty may come from the physical ingredients in the adopted stellar population models, for example to the treatment of particular stages of stellar evolution, such as TP-AGB stars (Maraston et al. 2006; Tonini et al. 2009).”
• Discriminating Between the Physical Processes that Drive Spheroid Size Evolution (2009, methodology): “It requires invoking something more than just the known differences between, for example, the Maraston et al. (2006) and Bruzual & Charlot (2003) stellar population models – applied to the observed z = 2 systems with the best present data, these give only a factor of ∼1.4 difference in stellar mass…”
• SURVEYING THE AGENTS OF GALAXY EVOLUTION IN THE TIDALLY STRIPPED, LOW METALLICITY SMALL MAGELLANIC CLOUD (SAGE-SMC). II. COOL EVOLVED STARS (2011, background): “Maraston et al. (2006) and Henriques et al. (2010) find that thermally-pulsing AGB stars are important contributors to the SED of galaxies at redshift z ∼ 2 − 3, particularly at rest-frame near-IR wavelengths.”
• MERGERS IN ΛCDM: UNCERTAINTIES IN THEORETICAL PREDICTIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF THE MERGER RATE (2010, background): “…corrections from extended intra-group light and/or uncertainties in their photometrically inferred stellar masse and photometric redshifts (Maraston 2005; Maraston et al. 2006), and there may be evolution in the stellar initial mass function (Hopkins & Beacom 2006; van Dokkum 2008; Davé 2008).”
• THE CHARACTERISTIC STAR FORMATION HISTORIES OF GALAXIES AT REDSHIFTS z ∼ 2–7 (2012, background): “…ages and stellar masses include uncertainties in the IMF, differences between stellar population synthesis models (e.g., Bruzual & Charlot 2003; Maraston et al. 2006; CB11), and the degree to which simple star formation histories can capture the complexity of the “real” star formation history…”
• Star formation rates and masses of z∼ 2 galaxies from multicolour photometry (2010, methodology): “This is different from the approach adopted by Maraston et al. (2006) in fitting the near-passive galaxies at z ∼ < 2, for which we considered four metallicities and several possible reddening laws.”
• Submillimeter Galaxies at z ~ 2: Evidence for Major Mergers and Constraints on Lifetimes, IMF, and CO-H2 Conversion Factor (2008, result): “The new models are now in good agreement with those of Maraston et al. (2006).”
• Multiwavelength Study of Massive Galaxies at z~2. I. Star Formation and Galaxy Growth (2007, methodology): “Maraston et al. (2006) have shown that for passive galaxies, where the overall SED is dominated by 0.5Y1 Gyr old stars, the use of the Maraston (2005) model libraries results in masses that are smaller by 0.2Y0.”
• GALAXY ZOO: THE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT CO-EVOLUTION OF SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES AND THEIR EARLY- AND LATE-TYPE HOST GALAXIES (2010, methodology): “…120, 1579 APPENDIX RELIABILITY OF STELLAR MASS MEASUREMENTS OF AGN HOST GALAXIES The reliability of galaxy parameters determined from spectral energy distribution fitting techniques is limited by uncertainties in the input models and parameters (e.g., Maraston et al. 2006; Conroy et al. 2009a,b).”
• CARS: the CFHTLS-Archive-Research Survey - II. Weighing dark matter halos of Lyman-break galaxies at z = 3–5 (2009, methodology): “In order to study the effect of the choice of the template set we re-run the simulations with the templates from Maraston et al. (2006) (see also Maraston 2005) as a basis.1 In general, the results are very similar to the ones with the template set from Bruzual & Charlot (1993).”
• The VIMOS VLT deep survey: the assembly history of the stellar mass in galaxies: from the young to the old universe (2007, unknown): “These differences are smaller than that found by Maraston et al. (2006), ∼–0.2, in their SED fitting (from B up to Spitzer IRAC and MIPS bands) of a few high redshift passive galaxies with typical ages in the range 0.5–2.0 Gyr, selected in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF).”
• THE ACS NEARBY GALAXY SURVEY TREASURY. IX. CONSTRAINING ASYMPTOTIC GIANT BRANCH EVOLUTION WITH OLD METAL-POOR GALAXIES (2010, background): “…sizeable contribution to the integrated light and chemical yields of stellar populations, which are essential for the understanding of galaxy evolution and the interpretation of the light from distant galaxies (e.g. Maraston et al. 2006; Eminian et al. 2008; Conroy et al. 2009; Conroy & Gunn 2010).”
• Stellar masses of SDSS-III/BOSS galaxies at z ∼ 0.5 and constraints to galaxy formation models (2012, methodology): “Finally,the mass is calculated with a routine developed in Daddi et al. (2005)and Maraston et al. (2006), and extended for this project for prope ly handling large databases.”