NEW CONSTRAINTS ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE STELLAR-TO-DARK MATTER CONNECTION: A COMBINED ANALYSIS OF GALAXY–GALAXY LENSING, CLUSTERING, AND STELLAR MASS FUNCTIONS FROM z = 0.2 to z = 1

By A. Leauthaud, J. Tinker, K. Bundy, P. Behroozi, Richard J. Massey, Jason D. Rhodes, M. George, Jean-Paul Kneib, A. Benson, Risa Wechsler and 13 more. 2011

409 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Using data from the COSMOS survey, we perform the first joint analysis of galaxy–galaxy weak lensing, galaxy spatial clustering, and galaxy number densities. Carefully accounting for sample variance and for scatter between stellar and halo mass, we model all three observables simultaneously using a novel and self-consistent theoretical framework. Our results provide strong constraints on the shape and redshift evolution of the stellar-to-halo mass relation (SHMR) from z = 0.2 to z = 1. At low stellar mass, we find that halo mass scales as Mh∝M0.46* and that this scaling does not evolve significantly with redshift from z = 0.2 to z = 1. The slope of the SHMR rises sharply at M* > 5 × 1010 M☉ and as a consequence, the stellar mass of a central galaxy becomes a poor tracer of its parent halo mass. We show that the dark-to-stellar ratio, Mh/M*, varies from low to high masses, reaching a minimum of Mh/M* ∼ 27 at M* = 4.5 × 1010 M☉ and Mh = 1.2 × 1012 M☉. This minimum is important for models of galaxy formation because it marks the mass at which the accumulated stellar growth of the central galaxy has been the most efficient. We describe the SHMR at this minimum in terms of the “pivot stellar mass,” Mpiv*, the “pivot halo mass,” Mpivh, and the “pivot ratio,” (Mh/M*)piv. Thanks to a homogeneous analysis of a single data set spanning a large redshift range, we report the first detection of mass downsizing trends for both Mpivh and Mpiv*. The pivot stellar mass decreases from Mpiv* = 5.75 ± 0.13 × 1010 M☉ at z = 0.88 to Mpiv* = 3.55 ± 0.17 × 1010 M☉ at z = 0.37. Intriguingly, however, the corresponding evolution of Mpivh leaves the pivot ratio constant with redshift at (Mh/M*)piv ∼ 27. We use simple arguments to show how this result raises the possibility that star formation quenching may ultimately depend on Mh/M* and not simply on Mh, as is commonly assumed. We show that simple models with such a dependence naturally lead to downsizing in the sites of star formation. Finally, we discuss the implications of our results in the context of popular quenching models, including disk instabilities and active galactic nucleus feedback.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f655ad5dd93adb5b26033c4c1f0e48b4ac69f536

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 Electrical and Electronic Engineering

In Instrumentation

Citations in the corpus

EVOLUTION OF THE GALAXY–DARK MATTER CONNECTION AND THE ASSEMBLY OF GALAXIES IN DARK MATTER HALOS (2011, background): “…the results obtained from SMF1 (red dot-dashed lines) and SMF2 (red solid lines) at each redshift in the same panel, together with a noevolution model (cyan dashed line) and two models from the literature (Moster et al. 2010, blue dotted lines, and Leauthaud et al. 2012, green long-dashed lines).”
Observational probes of cosmic acceleration (2012, methodology): “To gain some cosmological power beyond the weakly non-linear regime, one can construct full galaxy HOD models and marginalize over their parameters, using both GGL and galaxy clustering as constraints (Yoo et al., 2006; Leauthaud et al., 2011, 2012).”
Extragalactic science, cosmology, and Galactic archaeology with the Subaru Prime Focus Spectrograph (2012, methodology): “We will model the galaxy clustering results, the stellar mass function measurements, and the galaxygalaxy lensing results in the framework of a halo occupation distribution model (see e.g., Leauthaud et al. 2012).”
Constraining the galaxy–halo connection over the last 13.3 Gyr: star formation histories, galaxy mergers and structural properties (2017, methodology): “Additionally, we compared the SHMR at z ∼ 0.6 and at z ∼ 0.9 from Leauthaud et al. (2012) who combined stacked galaxy-galaxy weak lensing data and galaxy clustering at various mass thresholds from the COSMOS data.”
THE UNIVERSAL RELATION OF GALACTIC CHEMICAL EVOLUTION: THE ORIGIN OF THE MASS–METALLICITY RELATION (2014, methodology): “The slope of the relation between stellar mass and halo mass does not evolve significantly out to z ∼ 1.6 (Leauthaud et al. 2012; Behroozi et al. 2013).”
The AIMSS Project I: bridging the star cluster, galaxy divide (2014, background): “…expected for group centrals in haloes near or just above the fieldto-group transition at halo mass ∼1.3 × 1012 M¯ where galaxy formation efficiency peaks (Leauthaud et al. 2012), but well below the group-to-cluster transition at halo mass ∼3 × 1013 M¯ where cluster quenching processes take over…”
A TURNOVER IN THE GALAXY MAIN SEQUENCE OF STAR FORMATION AT M* ∼ 1010 M☉ FOR REDSHIFTS z < 1.3 (2015, background): “46∗ ; Leauthaud et al. 2012) and the dark matter halo growth rates from N -body simulations (Ṁhalo ∝ (Mhalo)1.1; Wechsler et al. 2002; McBride et al. 2009; Fakhouri & Ma 2010) suggest a main sequence relationship of SFR ∝ M1.”
CFHTLenS: the relation between galaxy dark matter haloes and baryons from weak gravitational lensing (2013, methodology): “To minimise any dilution of our lensing signal due to photometric redshift uncertainties, we use an approach similar to that of Leauthaud et al. (2012) and use only sources for which the redshift 95% confidence limit does not overlap with the lens redshift.”
THE AVERAGE STAR FORMATION HISTORIES OF GALAXIES IN DARK MATTER HALOS FROM z = 0–8 (2012, background): “…has gone into determining the relation between halo mass and stellar mass as a function of redshift (e.g., Moster et al. 2013; Yang et al. 2012; Leauthaud et al. 2012; Behroozi et al. 2010; Moster et al. 2010; Guo et al. 2010; Conroy & Wechsler 2009; Wang & Jing 2010; Zheng et al. 2007b;…”
Cosmological parameter constraints from galaxy-galaxy lensing and galaxy clustering with the SDSS DR7 (2012, methodology): “…distribution (HOD) modeling have also been considered (Yoo et al. 2006; Cacciato et al. 2009; Leauthaud et al. 2011; Cacciato et al. 2012a; Leauthaud et al. 2012; Tinker et al. 2012; van den Bosch et al. 2012) as ways to combine the galaxy-galaxy lensing and clustering observations to…”
Lensing is Low: Cosmology, Galaxy Formation, or New Physics? (2016, methodology): “The primary difference with respect to Leauthaud et al. (2012) is that here we stack the g-g lensing signal in comoving instead of physical coordinates.”
First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: the stellar mass content of groups and clusters of galaxies (2017, methodology): “Combined with the results of N-body simulations, several observational estimates of the scatter have been made (More et al. 2011; Leauthaud et al. 2012; Reddick et al. 2013; Zu & Mandelbaum 2016; Tinker et al. 2017).”
A DIRECT MEASUREMENT OF THE BARYONIC MASS FUNCTION OF GALAXIES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE GALACTIC BARYON FRACTION (2012, background): “…find good agreement with previous estimates from abundance matching obtained in the same manner (Moster et al. 2010: cyan dashed line; Behroozi et al. 2010: blue dotted-dashed line; Evoli et al. 2011: green solid line; Leauthaud et al. 2012: red solid line; Baldry et al. 20088: purple dotted line).”
A CATALOG OF GLOBULAR CLUSTER SYSTEMS: WHAT DETERMINES THE SIZE OF A GALAXY'S GLOBULAR CLUSTER POPULATION? (2013, methodology): “One such conversion between M⋆ and Mhalo is given by Behroozi et al. (2010) and Leauthaud et al. (2012), derived from a combination of methods for measuring Mhalo and M⋆ over a wide range of luminosity regimes (see Eq.”
AN INTENSELY STAR-FORMING GALAXY AT z ∼ 7 WITH LOW DUST AND METAL CONTENT REVEALED BY DEEP ALMA AND HST OBSERVATIONS (2013, neutral): “0.05, Leauthaud et al. (2012)), we expect a halo mass ofMDH & 3−6×10 11M⊙.”
ON THE LACK OF EVOLUTION IN GALAXY STAR FORMATION EFFICIENCY (2012, background): “…(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 the actual physics…”
Galaxy assembly bias: a significant source of systematic error in the galaxy–halo relationship (2013, methodology): “…et al. (2009), Abbas et al. (2010), Ross et al. (2010), Watson et al. (2010), Matsuoka et al. (2011), Miyaji et al. (2011), Leauthaud et al. (2011), Leauthaud et al. (2012), Tinker et al. (2012), Geach et al. (2012), Kayo & Oguri (2012), van den Bosch et al. (2013), Tinker et al. (2013), Parejko…”
Introducing the Illustris Project: the evolution of galaxy populations across cosmic time (2014, background): “…tension between the Kravtsov et al. (2014) abundance matching results and their direct measurements [but note that the halo occupation modelling of Leauthaud et al. (2012b) agrees well with the direct measurements], so larger samples and a more detailed comparison are required to make definite…”
Galaxy Masses: A Review (2013, methodology): “Leauthaud et al. (2012) also study the stellar mass fraction as a function of mass finding a minimum at a halo mass of ∼ 1.2× 1012M .”
Dependence of galaxy quenching on halo mass and distance from its centre (2012, background): “This is consistent with findings of Leauthaud et al. (2012), and with halo growth around central galaxies which grow very little in M∗.”