evolution and environment
DESCRIPTION
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 PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
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
![Page 2: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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’
![Page 3: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
How to describe different point processes which are all built from the same underlying distribution?
THE HALO MODEL
![Page 4: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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
![Page 5: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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
![Page 6: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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)
![Page 7: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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)
![Page 8: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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
![Page 9: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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
![Page 10: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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)
![Page 11: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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)
![Page 12: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
![Page 13: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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
![Page 14: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Ongoing debate over ‘orphan’ galaxies … (e.g. Nagai & Kravtsov 2005)
![Page 15: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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
![Page 16: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Skibba & Sheth 2007
Berlind et alYang et alHOD prediction
![Page 17: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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
![Page 18: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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|)
![Page 19: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Environments in SDSS
• Least dense regions ~ < −0.8 ~ voids
![Page 20: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Aside 1:
Poisson cluster models (thermodynamic, Neg. Binomial) quite accurate,
N.B. Counts are in cells centered on particles
![Page 21: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
• Environment is number of neighbours within 8Mpc
30% densest
30% least dense
![Page 22: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
• 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
![Page 23: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Highest density
Lowest density
Mass function top heavy in dense regions
z-space
z-space
![Page 24: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
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)
![Page 25: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
• 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
![Page 26: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
• Galaxy distribution remembers that, in Gaussian random fields, high peaks and low troughs cluster similarly
![Page 27: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
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
![Page 28: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
• 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
![Page 29: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Gastrophysics determined by formation history of parent halo
![Page 30: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
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
![Page 31: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
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)
![Page 32: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
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
![Page 33: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Luminosity as mark in
SDSS
Skibba, Sheth, Connolly, Scranton 2006
Close pairs more luminous only in redder bands
Qualitatively consistent with models
![Page 34: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Color as mark in SDSS
Skibba, Sheth, Connolly, Scranton 2006
Close pairs are redder than average
Long-tailed distributions show clearer signal?
![Page 35: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
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
![Page 36: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Sheth, Jimenez, Panter, Heavens 2006
![Page 37: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
• 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
![Page 38: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Sheth, Jimenez, Panter, Heavens 2006
![Page 39: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
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
![Page 40: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
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
![Page 41: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
• Color-magnitude relation ~ independent of group properties
• Distribution of galaxies in relation does depend on group properties
Blanton, Berlind, Hogg 2006
![Page 42: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Assume split between red and blue depends on luminosity (determine directly from data); mass dependence entirely from correlation between luminosity and halo mass
![Page 43: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
SATELLITES
CENTRALS
CENTRALS
Assume bimodal colors = centre-
satellite
… rather than centre-satellite or centre-satellite
![Page 44: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
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)
![Page 45: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
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)
![Page 46: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
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
![Page 47: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Hi-z Low-z
![Page 48: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
![Page 49: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
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)
![Page 50: Evolution and environment](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5681519d550346895dbfd023/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
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)