evolution and environment
Post on 23-Jan-2016
45 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
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
Halo-model of un-weighted correlations
Write 1+ξ = DD/RR as sum of two components:
ξ1gal(r) ~ ∫dm n(m) g2(m) ξdm(m|r)/gal2
ξ2gal(r) ≈ [∫dm n(m) g1(m) b(m)/gal]2 ξdm(r) ≈ bgal
2 ξdm(r)
g2(m) is mean number of galaxy pairs in m-halos (= m2 for dark matter)g1(m) is mean number of galaxies in m-halos (= m for dark matter)
Satellite galaxy counts ~ Poisson
• Write g1(m) ≡ ‹g(m)› = 1 + ‹gs(m)›• Think of ‹gs(m)› as mean number of satellite
galaxies per m halo• Minimal model sets number of satellites as
simple as possible ~ Poisson: • So g2(m) ≡ ‹g(g-1)› = ‹gs (1+gs)› = ‹gs› +
‹gs2› = 2‹gs› + ‹gs›2 = (1+‹gs›)2 - 1
• Simulations show this ‘sub-Poisson’ model works well (Kravtsov et al. 2004)
Two approaches …• Halo Occupation Distribution
(Jing et al., Benson et al.; Seljak; Scoccimarro et al.)– Model Ngal(>L|Mhalo) for range of L (Zehavi et al.; Zheng et
al.; Berlind et al.; Kravtsov et al.; Conroy et al.; Porciani, Magliochetti; Collister, Lahav)
– Differentiating gives LF as function of Mhalo
(Tinker et al., Skibba et al.):
• Conditional Luminosity Function (Peacock, Smith): – Model LF as function of Mhalo , and infer HOD (Yang,
Mo, van den Bosch; Cooray)
…both separate centrals/satellites
Luminosity dependent clustering
Zehavi et al. 2005 SDSS
• Deviation from power-law statistically significant• Centre plus Poisson satellite model (two free parameters) provides good description
Why is …• Luminosity dependence of SDSS clustering
well described by halo model with
g1(m|L) ≈ 1 + m/[23 m1(L)]
• g1(m|L) nonzero only if m>m1, where m1(L) adjusted to match decrease of number density with increasing L
• (Assume Poisson distribution, with mean g1, for non-central, ‘satellite’ galaxies)
Halo Substructure
• Halo substructure = galaxies is good model (Klypin et al. 1999; Kravtsov et al. 2005)
• Agrees with semi-analytic models and SPH; gas only cools in deep potential wells (Berlind et al. 2004; Zheng et al. 2005; Croton et al. 2006)
• Setting n(>L) = n(>Vcirc) works well for all clustering analyses to date, including z~3 (Conroy et al. 2006)
Halo substructure = galaxies?
• Nsub(>m|M) = (M/1012 h-1Msun)0.1 (M/m)0.9 /90
– Factor 90 (required to have one subhalo) > 23 (required to have one satellite galaxy), suggests that tidal stripping is factor of ~ 4 in mass
– So M/L for centrals (no stripping) larger than for satellites (lots of stripping) of same L (consistent with
lensing analysis of Limousin et al. 2007)
• Also, if stars closer to halo center, M/L different from Mstellar/L
Ongoing debate over ‘orphan’ galaxies … (e.g. Nagai & Kravtsov 2005)
Predicted correlation between
luminosity and mass
Skibba, Sheth, Connolly, Scranton 2006
<Lcen|M> ~ ln(1 + M/Mcrit)
<Lsat|M> ~ independent of M
Prediction based on halo-model interpretation of clustering in SDSS for galaxy samples with various L cuts (Zehavi et al. 2005)
central
satellitetotal
Skibba & Sheth 2007
Berlind et alYang et alHOD prediction
Assumptions (to test)• Halo profiles depend on mass, not
environment• Galaxy properties, so p(Ngal|L,m), and so
g1(m) and g2(m), depend on halo mass, not environment
• All environmental dependence comes from correlation between halo mass and environment:
n(m|) = [1+b(m)n(m)– Mass function ‘top-heavy’ in dense regions
Halo-model of environmental trend• Three types of pairs: both in same halo, in different
halos but same patch, in different patches
• ξ(r|) = ξ1h(r|) + ξ2h-1p(r|) + ξ2h-2p(r|)
Environments in SDSS
• Least dense regions ~ < −0.8 ~ voids
Aside 1:
Poisson cluster models (thermodynamic, Neg. Binomial) quite accurate,
N.B. Counts are in cells centered on particles
• Environment is number of neighbours within 8Mpc
30% densest
30% least dense
• Assume cosmology → halo profiles, halo abundance, halo clustering
• 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)
If no merging …• G(M) = ∫ dm N(m|M) [gcen(m) + gsat(m)]• Low-z bias = ∫ dM n(M) G(M) B(M)• High-z bias = ∫ dm n(m) g(m) b(m)
– Check that two bias factors evolve as expected from linear theory/continuity equation calculation for large scales
• Get small scales by assuming ‘satellites’ trace halo (NFW) profile
…halo model provides complete analytic description
Hi-z Low-z
Can also …
• Assume mergers are of old centrals (tests assumption that dynamical friction primary mechanism for mergers)
• This predicts fraction of ‘merged satellites’ (e.g. White et al. NDWFS ‘satellite’ merger models)
Conclusions• Mark statistics useful for quantifying trends with
environment • Halo model simple, powerful
– useful for understanding environmental trends (halo mass-based description more efficient than density?)
– allows simple description of evolution in no merger models
– first step to building halo-model of SED says satellites are old and red
• Allows one to use abundance and clustering to constrain models (a la Sheth-Tormen for halo mass function)
top related