A HIGHLY CONSISTENT FRAMEWORK FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE STAR-FORMING “MAIN SEQUENCE” FROM z ∼ 0–6

By Joshua S. Speagle, C. Steinhardt, P. Capak, J. Silverman. 2014

1,088 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Using a compilation of 25 studies from the literature, we investigate the evolution of the star-forming galaxy (SFG) main sequence (MS) in stellar mass and star formation rate (SFR) out to z ∼ 6. After converting all observations to a common set of calibrations, we find a remarkable consensus among MS observations (∼0.1 dex 1σ interpublication scatter). By fitting for time evolution of the MS in bins of constant mass, we deconvolve the observed scatter about the MS within each observed redshift bin. After accounting for observed scatter between different SFR indicators, we find the width of the MS distribution is ∼0.2 dex and remains constant over cosmic time. Our best fits indicate the slope of the MS is likely time-dependent, with our best-fit log SFR(M*, t) = (0.84 ± 0.02 − 0.026 ± 0.003 × t)log M* − (6.51 ± 0.24 − 0.11 ± 0.03 × t), where t is the age of the universe in Gyr. We use our fits to create empirical evolutionary tracks in order to constrain MS galaxy star formation histories (SFHs), finding that (1) the most accurate representations of MS SFHs are given by delayed-τ models, (2) the decline in fractional stellar mass growth for a “typical” MS galaxy today is approximately linear for most of its lifetime, and (3) scatter about the MS can be generated by galaxies evolving along identical evolutionary tracks assuming an initial 1σ spread in formation times of ∼1.4 Gyr.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f776525505a7e98f387b335239459a0c8428303c

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 Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics

In Instrumentation

Citations in the corpus

Physical Models of Galaxy Formation in a Cosmological Framework (2014, background): “The normalization of the SFMS has declined by a factor of ∼ 20 since z ∼ 2 (Speagle et al. 2014, and references therein), and a fairly tight sequence appears to be in place up to z ∼ 6 (Salmon et al. 2014, Steinhardt et al. 2014).”
Constraining the properties of AGN host galaxies with spectral energy distribution modelling (2015, background): “…mass and star-formation rate (SFR) of star-forming galaxies (e.g. Salim et al. 2007; Noeske et al. 2007b; Elbaz et al. 2007; Rodighiero et al. 2011; Speagle et al. 2014), suggests that the bulk of the stars in the Universe form via secular processes rather than in violent events, such as mergers.”
The Star Formation Main Sequence in the Hubble Space Telescope Frontier Fields (2017, background): “…called Main Sequence (MS hereafter), a subject of study of a large number of papers in the literature (Brinchmann et al. 2004; Noeske et al. 2007; Elbaz et al. 2007; Daddi et al. 2007; Santini et al. 2009; Peng et al. 2010; see Speagle et al. 2014 for a compilation of results and more references).”
A TURNOVER IN THE GALAXY MAIN SEQUENCE OF STAR FORMATION AT M* ∼ 1010 M☉ FOR REDSHIFTS z < 1.3 (2015, background): “While most previous studies found a constant main sequence slope (for a summary see Speagle et al. 2014), some recent studies found a curved relationship might provide a better fit to the data (Karim et al. 2011; Whitaker et al. 2012).”
PHIBSS: Unified Scaling Relations of Gas Depletion Time and Molecular Gas Fractions (2017, neutral): “…2004, Schiminovich et al. 2007, Noeske et al. 2007, Daddi et al. 2007, Franx et al. 2008, Elbaz et al. 2007, 2011, Rodighiero et al. 2010, 2011, Peng et al. 2010, Whitaker et al. 2012, 2014 (hereafter W12 and W14), Renzini & Peng 2015, Speagle et al. 2014 (hereafter S14), Schreiber et al. 2015).”
A deep ALMA image of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (2016, background): “…rest-frame UV luminosity), as expected from the ‘main sequence’ of star-forming galaxies (e.g. Noeske et al. 2007; Daddi et al. 2007; Elbaz et al. 2010; Micha lowski et al. 2012b; Roseboom et al. 2013; Speagle et al. 2014; Koprowski et al. 2014, 2016; Renzini & Peng 2015; Schreiber et al. 2015).”
THE EVOLUTION OF THE GALAXY STELLAR MASS FUNCTION AT z = 4–8: A STEEPENING LOW-MASS-END SLOPE WITH INCREASING REDSHIFT (2015, methodology): “We assumed a lognormal distribution around a linear logM∗–MUV relation with a dispersion of ∼0.3 dex, motivated by the functional form of the observed star-forming main sequence at lower redshifts (Speagle et al. 2014 and references therein).”
simba: Cosmological simulations with black hole growth and feedback (2019, result): “The average slope of sSFR−M∗ for star-forming galaxies over the entire mass range plotted is −0.27, which is in reasonable agreement with observations (e.g. Noeske et al. 2007; Speagle et al. 2014).”
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).”
Constraining the galaxy–halo connection over the last 13.3 Gyr: star formation histories, galaxy mergers and structural properties (2017, methodology): “To do so, we follow Speagle et al. (2014) who used a compilation to study star formation from z ∼ 0 to z ∼ 6 by correcting for different assumptions regarding the IMF, SFR indicators, SPS models, dust extinction, emission lines and cosmology.”
AN OBJECTIVE DEFINITION FOR THE MAIN SEQUENCE OF STAR-FORMING GALAXIES (2015, background): “Yet, slope, shape, dispersion and redshift evolution of the SFR−M∗ correlation can vary quite dramatically from one study to another, with the logarithmic slope of the relation ranging from ∼ 0.4 up to ∼ 1 (see e.g. the compilation in Speagle et al. (2014)).”
ISM MASSES AND THE STAR FORMATION LAW AT Z = 1 TO 6: ALMA OBSERVATIONS OF DUST CONTINUUM IN 145 GALAXIES IN THE COSMOS SURVEY FIELD (2015, background): “In recent years, there have been numerous works specifying the MS evolution (Noeske et al. 2007; Rodighiero et al. 2011; Béthermin et al. 2012; Speagle et al. 2014; Lee et al. 2015; Schreiber et al. 2015).”
(Star)bursts of FIRE: observational signatures of bursty star formation in galaxies (2015, background): “The scatter in the relation is roughly mass-independent, with a value of ' 0.2− 0.4 dex (Behroozi et al. 2013; Speagle et al. 2014), where the exact value depends on e.g. the sample selection method, the SFR indicator(s) used, and the time evolution of the intrinsic relation within the probed…”
A remarkably flat relationship between the average star formation rate and AGN luminosity for distant X-ray AGN. (2015, methodology): “We compare the average SFRs of the AGN to the observed relationship between SFR, redshift, and stellar mass (M∗) of normal star-forming galaxies, which is defined as the ‘main sequence’ of star-forming galaxies (e.g. Noeske et al. 2007; Elbaz et al. 2011; Speagle et al. 2014; Schreiber et al. 2015).”