4.7 Article

CFHTLenS: the relation between galaxy dark matter haloes and baryons from weak gravitational lensing

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stt2013

关键词

gravitational lensing: weak; galaxies: haloes; cosmology: observations; dark matter

资金

  1. Canadian Space Agency
  2. NSERC
  3. European Commission [MRTN-CT-2006-036133]
  4. European DUEL Research-Training Network [MRTN-CT-2006-036133]
  5. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO)
  6. Beecroft Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology
  7. Marie Curie IRG grant [230924]
  8. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) [639.042.814]
  9. European Research Council under the EC FP7 [279396, 240185]
  10. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [ER 327/3-1]
  11. Transregional Collaborative Research Centre TR 33 - 'The Dark Universe'
  12. Marie Curie IOF [252760]
  13. CITA National Fellowship
  14. DFG [Hi 1495/2-1]
  15. Royal Society University
  16. CNRS/INSU (Institut National des Sciences de l'Univers)
  17. Programme National Galaxies et Cosmologie (PNCG)
  18. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  19. Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIfAR, Cosmology and Gravity program)
  20. NSFC [11103012, 10878003, 12ZZ134]
  21. SMCE [10CG46]
  22. STCSM [11290706600]
  23. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) through VIDI [639.042.814]
  24. European Research Council [24067]
  25. NSF [AST-0444059-001]
  26. SAO [GO0-11147A]
  27. NWO
  28. [12PJ1406700]
  29. STFC [ST/K000977/1, ST/H002456/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  30. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/H002456/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a study of the relation between dark matter halo mass and the baryonic content of their host galaxies, quantified through galaxy luminosity and stellar mass. Our investigation uses 154 deg(2) of Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey (CFHTLenS) lensing and photometric data, obtained from the CFHT Legacy Survey. To interpret the weak lensing signal around our galaxies, we employ a galaxy-galaxy lensing halo model which allows us to constrain the halo mass and the satellite fraction. Our analysis is limited to lenses at redshifts between 0.2 and 0.4, split into a red and a blue sample. We express the relationship between dark matter halo mass and baryonic observable as a power law with pivot points of 10(11) h(70)(-2) L-(c) and 2 x 10(11) h(70)(-2) M-circle dot for luminosity and stellar mass, respectively. For the luminosity-halo mass relation, we find a slope of 1.32 +/- 0.06 and a normalization of 1.19(-0.07)(+0.06) x 10(13) h(70)(-1) M-circle dot for red galaxies, while for blue galaxies the best-fitting slope is 1.09(-0.13)(+0.20) and the normalization is 0.18(-0.05)(+0.04) x 10(13) h(70)(-1) M-circle dot. Similarly, we find a best-fitting slope of 1.36(-0.07)(+0.06) and a normalization of 1.43(-0.08)(+0.11) x 10(13) h(70)(-1) M-circle dot for the stellar mass-halo mass relation of red galaxies, while for blue galaxies the corresponding values are 0.98(-0.07)(+0.08) and 0.84(-0.16)(+0.20) x 10(13) h(70)(-1) M-circle dot All numbers convey the 68 per cent confidence limit. For red lenses, the fraction which are satellites inside a larger halo tends to decrease with luminosity and stellar mass, with the sample being nearly all satellites for a stellar mass of 2 x 10(9) h(70)(-2) M-circle dot. The satellite fractions are generally close to zero for blue lenses, irrespective of luminosity or stellar mass. This, together with the shallower relation between halo mass and baryonic tracer, is a direct confirmation from galaxy-galaxy lensing that blue galaxies reside in less clustered environments than red galaxies. We also find that the halo model, while matching the lensing signal around red lenses well, is prone to overpredicting the large-scale signal for faint and less massive blue lenses. This could be a further indication that these galaxies tend to be more isolated than assumed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据