4.7 Article

A predicted new population of UV-faint galaxies at z ≳ 4

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 439, Issue 2, Pages 1326-1336

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stu038

Keywords

galaxies: formation; galaxies: high-redshift; cosmology: theory

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship
  2. NSF [AST-0907890]
  3. NASA [NNX08AL43G, NNA09DB30A, HF-51278.01, NAS 5-26555]
  4. Space Telescope Science Institute

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We show that a bursty model of star formation explains several puzzling observations of high-redshift galaxies. We begin by showing that because the observed star formation rate integrated over a Hubble time exceeds the observed stellar mass by an order of magnitude, the specific star formation rate requires a duty-cycle of similar to 10 per cent. We use the specific star formation rate to calibrate a merger-driven model of star formation regulated by supernova feedback, and reproduce the star formation rate density and stellar mass functions of galaxies at 4 less than or similar to z less than or similar to 7. The specific star formation rate is predicted not to evolve rapidly with either mass or redshift at z greater than or similar to 4, consistent with observation. This is in contrast to expectations from hydrodynamical simulations where star formation closely follows accretion rate, and increases strongly towards high redshift. Bursty star formation explains the observation that there is not enough stellar mass at z similar to 2-4 to account for all star formation observed. A duty-cycle of similar to 10 per cent implies that there could be 10 times the number of known high-redshift galaxies at fixed stellar mass that have not yet been detected through UV selection. We therefore predict the possible existence of an undetected population of UV-faint galaxies that accounts for most of the stellar mass density at z similar to 4-8.

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