Evolution and environment • The halo model – Environmental effects in the SDSS – Halo mass vs. local density • Mark correlations – SDSS galaxies and their environments – Centre-satellite split and galaxy SEDs • Passive evolution models – Conditional mass function + halo model predicts nonlinear correlation function
Evolution and environment. The halo model Environmental effects in the SDSS Halo mass vs. local density Mark correlations SDSS galaxies and their environments Centre-satellite split and galaxy SEDs Passive evolution models - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Evolution and environment • The halo model
– Environmental effects in the SDSS– Halo mass vs. local density
• Mark correlations– SDSS galaxies and their environments– Centre-satellite split and galaxy SEDs
• Passive evolution models– Conditional mass function + halo model
predicts nonlinear correlation function
Light is a biased tracer
Not all galaxies are fair tracers of dark matterTo use galaxies as probes of underlying dark matter distribution, must understand ‘bias’
How to describe different point processes which are all built from the same underlying distribution?
THE HALO MODEL
Environmental effects• In hierarchical models, close connection
between evolution and environment (dense region ~ dense universe ~ more evolved ~ more massive halos ~ more clustering)
n(m|) = [1+b(m)n(m)
• Observed correlations with environment test hierarchical galaxy formation models
Halo-model of galaxy clustering• Two types of pairs: only difference from dark matter
is that number of pairs in m-halo is not m2
• ξdm(r) = ξ1h(r) + ξ2h(r)
• Spatial distribution within halos is small-scale detail
• Calibrate g(m) by matching ngal and ξgal(r) of full sample
• Make mock catalog assuming same g(m) for all environments
• Measure clustering in sub-samples defined similarly to SDSS
SDSS
Abbas & Sheth 2007
Mr<−19.5
Highest density
Lowest density
Mass function top heavy in dense regions
z-space
z-space
Aside 2: Stochastic Nonlinear Bias
• Environmental dependence of halo mass function provides accurate framework for describing bias (curvature = ‘nonlinear’; scatter = ‘stochastic’)
• G1(M,V) = ∫dm N(m|M,V) g1(m)
• Environment = neighbours within 8 Mpc
• Clustering stronger in dense regions
• Dependence on density NOT monotonic in less dense regions!
• Same seen in mock catalogs
SDSS
Abbas & Sheth 2007
• Galaxy distribution remembers that, in Gaussian random fields, high peaks and low troughs cluster similarly
Predicts unexpectedly(?) strong clustering of void galaxies
• On large scales void halos indeed MORE strongly clustered than – dark matter – semi-analytic
model of 2dFGRS
dark matter
2dFGRS
Void halos
Colberg & Sheth 2007
• Environment = neighbours within 8 Mpc
• Clustering stronger in dense regions
• Dependence on density NOT monotonic in less dense regions!
• Same seen in mock catalogs
SDSS
Choice of scale not important
Mass function ‘top-heavy’ in dense regions Massive halos have smaller radii (halos have same density whatever their mass)
Gaussian initial conditions? Void galaxies, though low mass, should be strongly clustered
Little room for additional (e.g. assembly bias) environmental effects
Gastrophysics determined by formation history of parent halo
Correlations with environment
• Traditional approach requires separation into ‘cluster’ and ‘field’, ‘dense’ and ‘under-dense’ (Berlind et al. 2006; Yang et al. 2006)
• Non-trivial in redshift-space, given that many environmental trends small, so accurate separation required
Marks in the SDSS
• WW/DD as function of pair separation r– Measure number of pairs separated by r,
weighted by some observable (the ‘mark’)– Divide by number of pairs each weighted by
mean value of ‘mark’
• Observed marks (luminosity, color)
• Derived marks (stellar mass, age, SFR)
Luminosity as mark in SDSS
Skibba, Sheth, Connolly, Scranton 2006
Large scale signal consistent with halo bias prediction; no large scale environmental trends
Small scale signal suggests centre special; model with gradual threshold (rather than step) is better
centre not special
centre special
Unweighted signal
Luminosity as mark in
SDSS
Skibba, Sheth, Connolly, Scranton 2006
Close pairs more luminous only in redder bands
Qualitatively consistent with models
Color as mark in SDSS
Skibba, Sheth, Connolly, Scranton 2006
Close pairs are redder than average
Long-tailed distributions show clearer signal?
MOPED Marks in SDSS
• MOPED evidence for ‘downsizing’ (Heavens et al. 2004)
• Dependence on environment?
• Expect because luminous galaxies populate denser regions
Luminous galaxies
Lower luminositygalaxies
Sheth, Jimenez, Panter, Heavens 2006
Sheth, Jimenez, Panter, Heavens 2006
• Radius of circle represents total mass in stars formed, in units of average stellar mass formed at same redshift
• Star formation only in less dense regions at low z?
Sheth, Jimenez, Panter, Heavens 2006
Sheth, Jimenez, Panter, Heavens 2006
Combination of MOPED marks + mark correlations shows
star formation rates in regions that are dense today was above average at hi-z, below average at low-z
Ultimate goal
• Halo model not just of luminosity, but of entire SED
• First step: luminosity and color– Allows model of stellar mass, star
formation history as function of halo mass, and hence environment
• Color-magnitude relation ~ independent of group properties
• Distribution of galaxies in relation does depend on group properties
Blanton, Berlind, Hogg 2006
Assume split between red and blue depends on luminosity (determine directly from data); mass dependence entirely from correlation between luminosity and halo mass
SATELLITES
CENTRALS
CENTRALS
Assume bimodal colors = centre-
satellite
… rather than centre-satellite or centre-satellite
Model with red satellites works quite well; so can model stellar mass.
Yet to include ‘conformity’; blue central = blue satellites (Weinmann et al. 2006 based on
Yang et al. 2005 group catalog)
Passive evolution of the most
massive galaxies?
White et al. 2007
Match number densities of most luminous galaxies at two redshifts (e.g. NDWFS of Brown et al. 2006)