4.7 Article

The stellar mass function and star formation rate-stellar mass relation of galaxies at z ∼ 4-7

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 448, Issue 4, Pages 3001-3021

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stv160

Keywords

methods: numerical; galaxies: evolution; galaxies: formation; cosmology: theory

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for All-sky Astrophysics (CAASTRO) [CE110001020]
  2. NCI National Facility at the ANU

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We investigate the evolution of the star formation rate-stellar mass relation (SFR-M-star) and galaxy stellar mass function (GSMF) of z similar to 4-7 galaxies, using cosmological simulations run with the smoothed particle hydrodynamics code P-GADGET3(XXL). We explore the effects of different feedback prescriptions (supernova-driven galactic winds and AGN feedback), initial stellar mass functions and metal cooling. We show that our fiducial model, with strong energy-driven winds and early active galactic nuclei (AGN) feedback, is able to reproduce the observed stellar mass function obtained from Lyman-break selected samples of star-forming galaxies at redshift 6 <= z <= 7. At z similar to 4, observed estimates of the GSMF vary according to how the sample was selected. Our simulations are more consistent with recent results from K-selected samples, which provide a better proxy of stellar masses and are more complete at the high-mass end of the distribution. We find that in some cases simulated and observed SFR-M-star relations are in tension, and this can lead to numerical predictions for the GSMF in excess of the GSMF observed. By combining the simulated SFR(M-star) relationship with the observed star formation rate function at a given redshift, we argue that this disagreement may be the result of the uncertainty in the SFR-M-star (LUV-M-star) conversion. Our simulations predict a population of faint galaxies not seen by current observations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available