CONSTRAINING THE LOW-MASS SLOPE OF THE STAR FORMATION SEQUENCE AT 0.5 < z < 2.5

By K. Whitaker, M. Franx, J. Leja, P. V. van Dokkum, A. Henry, R. Skelton, M. Fumagalli, Ivelina G. Momcheva, G. Brammer, I. Labbé and 2 more. 2014

488 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We constrain the slope of the star formation rate (SFR; log Ψ) to stellar mass (log M⋆) relation down to log (M⋆/M☉) = 8.4 (log (M⋆/M☉) = 9.2) at z = 0.5 (z = 2.5) with a mass-complete sample of 39,106 star-forming galaxies selected from the 3D-HST photometric catalogs, using deep photometry in the CANDELS fields. For the first time, we find that the slope is dependent on stellar mass, such that it is steeper at low masses (log Ψ∝log M⋆) than at high masses (log Ψ∝(0.3–0.6)log M⋆). These steeper low-mass slopes are found for three different star formation indicators: the combination of the ultraviolet (UV) and infrared (IR), calibrated from a stacking analysis of Spitzer/MIPS 24 μm imaging; β-corrected UV SFRs; and Hα SFRs. The normalization of the sequence evolves differently in distinct mass regimes as well: for galaxies less massive than log (M⋆/M☉) < 10 the specific SFR (Ψ/M⋆) is observed to be roughly self-similar with Ψ/M⋆∝(1 + z)1.9, whereas more massive galaxies show a stronger evolution with Ψ/M⋆∝(1 + z)2.2–3.5 for log (M⋆/M☉) = 10.2–11.2. The fact that we find a steep slope of the star formation sequence for the lower mass galaxies will help reconcile theoretical galaxy formation models with the observations.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/86a20f8172df748cb7569ff6357c3d21ec5fa999

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

Citations in the corpus

Deriving Physical Properties from Broadband Photometry with Prospector: Description of the Model and a Demonstration of its Accuracy Using 129 Galaxies in the Local Universe (2016, background): “…Ilbert et al. 2013; Moustakas et al. 2013; Muzzin et al. 2013; Tomczak et al. 2014) and for the SFR– mass relationship (e.g., Brinchmann et al. 2004; Daddi et al. 2007; Noeske et al. 2007; Peng et al. 2010; Karim et al. 2011; Whitaker et al. 2012, 2014; Speagle et al. 2014; Ilbert et al. 2015).”
The SINS/zC-SINF Survey of z ∼ 2 Galaxy Kinematics: SINFONI Adaptive Optics–assisted Data and Kiloparsec-scale Emission-line Properties (2018, methodology): “For this purpose, we used the MS parametrization of Whitaker et al. (2014) and calculated the offsets at the redshift and stellar mass of each individual object.”
COMBINED CO AND DUST SCALING RELATIONS OF DEPLETION TIME AND MOLECULAR GAS FRACTIONS WITH COSMIC TIME, SPECIFIC STAR-FORMATION RATE, AND STELLAR MASS (2014, background): “This relative insensitivity to the main-sequence-prescription is because the values of sSFR(z,M*) in Whitaker et al. (2012, 2014) and Lilly et al. (2013) agree quite well between M*=2 to 10 10 10 M , where most of our SFGs reside.”
The confinement of star-forming galaxies into a main sequence through episodes of gas compaction, depletion and replenishment (2015, background): “Furthermore, the depletion and quenching at late cosmic times (z < 2) and above a critical mass, with no push-back upwards through compaction, explains the downward slope of the MS at the high-mass end (e.g., Elbaz et al. 2007; Whitaker et al. 2014; Schreiber et al. 2015).”
A deep ALMA image of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (2016, background): “6∗ ), the revised steeper polynomial form presented by Whitaker et al. (2014), and the result of the meta analysis undertaken by Speagle et al. (2014) (calculated at z ' 2).”
The COSMOS2015 galaxy stellar mass function . Thirteen billion years of stellar mass assembly in ten snapshots (2017, methodology): “In general, SED fitting stellar masses are less sensitive to this bias when a large number of bands are used (Whitaker et al. 2014), especially when the estimates are derived through a Bayesian approach rather than best-fit templates (Salmon et al. 2015).”
The Herschel view of the dominant mode of galaxy growth from z = 4 to the present day (2014, result): “Our results are also in very good agreement with Whitaker et al. (2014), who used a very similar approach, albeit only using MIPS 24 μm for stacking.”
THE SFR–M* RELATION AND EMPIRICAL STAR FORMATION HISTORIES FROM ZFOURGE AT 0.5 < z < 4 (2015, methodology): “1010.2 M⊙), but that this trend flattens at higher masses (see also Whitaker et al. 2014; Lee et al. 2015; Schreiber et al. 2015; Tasca et al. 2015).”
UniverseMachine: The correlation between galaxy growth and dark matter halo assembly from z = 0−10 (2018, unknown): “…Constraints on Average SSFRs Publication Redshifts Type Area (deg2) Notes Salim et al. (2007) 0-0.2 UV 741 Bauer et al. (2013) 0-0.35 Hα 144 N Whitaker et al. (2014) 0-2.5 UV/IR 0.25 N Zwart et al. (2014) 0-3 Radio 1 IN Karim et al. (2011) 0.2-3 Radio 2 Kajisawa et al. (2010) 0.5-3.5 UV/IR…”
The star formation activity of IllustrisTNG galaxies: main sequence, UVJ diagram, quenched fractions, and systematics (2018, background): “5 represent the MSs of Whitaker et al. (2014) in the redshift range 0.25 < z < 2.25 (dark gray area) and of a compilation of observational works taken by Speagle et al. (2014) (light gray area) in the redshift range 0 6 z 6 2.”
simba: Cosmological simulations with black hole growth and feedback (2019, methodology): “At z = 2.2 (right panel), the Simba main sequence generally tracks the observed one from Whitaker et al. (2014), but is low in amplitude by ≈ ×2.”
Structural and Star-forming Relations since z ∼ 3: Connecting Compact Star-forming and Quiescent Galaxies (2015, methodology): “This classification line is ∼ 2σ below the SFR-MS, which has a typical observational scatter of 0.3 dex (Whitaker et al. 2014; Speagle et al. 2014; Schreiber et al. 2015).”
THE KMOS3D SURVEY: DESIGN, FIRST RESULTS, AND THE EVOLUTION OF GALAXY KINEMATICS FROM 0.7 ⩽ z ⩽ 2.7 (2014, methodology): “…specific SFR defined at 0.5 < z < 2.5 from Whitaker et al. (2014), sSFR(M∗, z) = 10 a(M∗)(1 + z)b(M∗), (5) where we fit to the constants in Table 5 of Whitaker et al. (2014) to describe a and b as a function of stellar mass, such that a(M∗) = −10.73 + 1.26 1 + e(10.49−logM∗)/(−0.25) , b(M∗) =…”
Evolution of Interstellar Medium, Star Formation, and Accretion at High Redshift (2017, methodology): “This MS definition was based on an extensive reanalysis of all previous work; similar MS definitions have been obtained by Béthermin et al. (2012), Whitaker et al. (2014), Schreiber et al. (2015), Lee et al. (2015) and Tomczak et al. (2016).”
AN OBJECTIVE DEFINITION FOR THE MAIN SEQUENCE OF STAR-FORMING GALAXIES (2015, methodology): “…picking blue cloud galaxies (as in P10), or using the BzK two-color selection (Daddi et al. 2004, 2007; Pannella et al. 2009), or the rest-frame UV J selection (Whitaker et al. 2012, 2014; Williams et al. 2009), or setting a minimum threshold for the specific SFR ≡ SFR/M∗ (Karim et al. 2011).”
The HDUV Survey: A Revised Assessment of the Relationship between UV Slope and Dust Attenuation for High-redshift Galaxies (2017, methodology): “…rate and stellar mass (e.g., Noeske et al. 2007; Reddy et al. 2006b; Daddi et al. 2007; Pannella et al. 2009; Wuyts et al. 2011; Reddy et al. 2012b; Whitaker et al. 2014; Schreiber et al. 2015; Shivaei et al. 2015), and between star-formation rate and dust attenuation (e.g., Wang & Heckman 1996;…”
MUFASA: Galaxy Formation Simulations With Meshless Hydrodynamics (2016, methodology): “At z = 2, the agreement gets even worse – the deficit of Mufasa versus the Whitaker et al. (2014) data is now ×3 across most of the mass range.”
ALMA SPECTROSCOPIC SURVEY IN THE HUBBLE ULTRA DEEP FIELD: THE INFRARED EXCESS OF UV-SELECTED z = 2–10 GALAXIES AS A FUNCTION OF UV-CONTINUUM SLOPE AND STELLAR MASS (2016, methodology): “2010; Whitaker et al. 2014; Álvarez-Márquez et al. 2016), these sources are amongst the 6 sources most likely to show dust emission from our entire z = 2-10 LBG selection.”