1: \documentclass[usenatbib]{mn2e}
2: \usepackage{times}
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \usepackage{amsmath}
5: \bibliographystyle{apj}
6: \title[The hierarchical buildup of stars]{Testing Cold Dark Matter with
7: the hierarchical buildup of stellar light}
8: \author[Balogh et al.]{Michael L. Balogh$^{1}$, Ian G. McCarthy$^{2}$, Richard
9: G. Bower$^{2}$, Vincent R. Eke$^{2}$\\
10: $^{1}$Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada\\
11: $^{2}$Department of Physics, University of Durham, Durham, UK, DH1 3LE\\
12: }
13:
14: \date{\today}
15: \def\etal{{ et al.\thinspace}}
16: \def\gtrsim{\mathrel{\raise0.35ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle >$}\kern-0.6em
17: \lower0.40ex\hbox{{$\scriptstyle \sim$}}}}
18: \def\lesssim{\mathrel{\raise0.35ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle <$}\kern-0.6em
19: \lower0.40ex\hbox{{$\scriptstyle \sim$}}}}
20: \def\Msun{\hbox{$\rm\thinspace M_{\odot}$}}
21: \def\kmsmpc{{\,\rm km\,s^{-1}Mpc^{-1}}}
22: \def\kms{km~s$^{-1}$}
23: \def\r500{$R_{500}$}
24: \def\m500{$M_{500}$}
25: \def\mstar{$M_{\ast,500}$}
26: \def\fstar{$f_{\ast}$}
27: \def\b{d\log{f_\ast}/d\log{M_{500}}}
28: \begin{document}
29: \maketitle
30: \begin{abstract}
31: The hierarchical growth of mass in the Universe is a pillar of all cold
32: dark matter (CDM) models. In this paper we demonstrate that this principle
33: leads to a robust, falsifiable prediction of the stellar content of
34: groups and clusters, that is testable with current observations and
35: is relatively insensitive to the details of baryonic physics or cosmological parameters. Since it is difficult to
36: preferentially remove stars from dark-matter dominated systems, when
37: these systems merge the fraction of total mass in stars can only increase
38: (via star formation) or remain constant, relative to the fraction
39: in the combined systems prior to the merger. Therefore, hierarchical
40: models can put strong constraints on the observed correlation between
41: stellar fraction, \fstar, and total system mass, $M_{500}$. In particular,
42: if this relation is fixed and does not evolve with redshift, CDM models
43: predict $b=\b\gtrsim-0.3$. This constraint can be weakened if the
44: \fstar--\m500\ relation evolves strongly, but this
45: implies more stars must be formed in situ in groups at low redshift.
46: Conservatively requiring that at least half the stars in groups were
47: formed by $z=1$, the constraint from evolution models is $b\gtrsim-0.35$. Since the most massive clusters
48: ($M\sim10^{15}M_\odot$) are observed to have \fstar$\sim 0.01$, this means that groups
49: with $M=5\times10^{13}M_\odot$ must have \fstar$\leq0.03$. Recent
50: observations by \citet{GZZ} indicate a much steeper relation, with
51: \fstar$>0.04$ in groups leading to $b\approx -0.64$. If
52: confirmed, this would rule out hierarchical structure formation
53: models: today's clusters could not have been built from today's groups,
54: or even from the higher-redshift progenitors of those groups. We
55: perform a careful analysis of these and other data to identify the
56: most important systematic uncertainties in their measurements.
57: Although correlated uncertainties on stellar and total masses might
58: explain the steep observed relation, the data are only consistent with
59: theory if the observed group masses are systematically underestimated.
60: \end{abstract}
61: \begin{keywords}
62: galaxies: formation
63: \end{keywords}
64: \section{Introduction}\label{sec-intro}
65: An inescapable prediction of all cold dark matter (CDM) models is that mass
66: in the Universe,
67: in the form of CDM dominated ``haloes'', builds up {\it hierarchically}, with low-mass systems
68: merging to form progressively more massive galaxies and clusters of
69: galaxies \citep[e.g.][]{BBKS,DEFW}. Moreover, the rate of this mass growth is precisely
70: determined for a given set of cosmological parameters \citep[e.g.][]{GW07}. In practice, the complex and non-linear nature of baryonic
71: physics \citep[particularly cooling and heating processes, ][and many others]{WR78,WF91,Cole2000,bower06,Croton05} means that this is
72: a difficult prediction to test through observations of galaxies alone.
73: In fact, observations show that galaxies form in the
74: opposite way, with the most massive systems having their stars in place
75: first \citep[e.g.][]{Cowie+96,Juneau+04,Pozzetti+07}. This is not
76: considered a falsification of the cold dark matter model, because the
77: effect can be qualitatively
78: explained by improving the physical description of baryonic processes
79: in the models \citep[e.g.][]{Croton05,bower06}, in a way that leaves
80: untouched the
81: prediction of hierarchical growth in the dark matter component.
82:
83: However, an interesting and robust test of the theory can be obtained from
84: observations of the stellar fraction of dark-matter dominated
85: structures. Unlike gas, it is very difficult to separate stars from dark matter, since
86: they are both collisionless forms of matter that interact only via
87: gravity. And while new stars can be formed from gas (a process which
88: is very poorly understood) they can only be destroyed through normal
89: stellar evolution processes (which are quite well understood). The
90: latter effect only removes 10-30 per cent of the total stellar mass, with this range
91: reflecting a weak dependence on star formation history and initial mass
92: function \citep[e.g.][]{JCP,BC03}. Therefore, when two similar systems merge, the mass fraction in visible
93: stars must be at least as
94: large as the fraction in the combined system prior to the merger, and
95: the simplest expectation is that \fstar\ will either be constant or
96: increase with total system mass.
97:
98: Stellar fractions are most reliably measured for galaxy clusters,
99: where the total mass in dark matter can be determined in various,
100: independent ways (e.g. gravitational lensing, X-ray gas, or galaxy
101: dynamics). Interestingly, numerous studies have consistently shown
102: that \fstar\ of clusters and groups {\it decreases} with
103: increasing mass
104: \citep[e.g.][]{H+00,MH02,Eke-groups3,G+02,RBGMR,LMS,cnoc2_ir}. The
105: usual explanation is that clusters are built not only from groups, but
106: also from the accretion of low mass galaxies, where
107: \fstar\ must be very low to explain the
108: shallow faint-end slope of the luminosity function \citep[e.g.][]{WF91,MH02}. Another
109: possibility is that low-mass groups form a significant number of
110: stars, but only {\it after} most clusters have been assembled.
111: Either possibility allows theory to accommodate a
112: mildly decreasing \fstar\ on cluster scales; it is our goal in this
113: paper to use conservative constraints on these effects to put a robust limit on just how steep this decrease can be.
114:
115: An important omission in many of the observational studies above, however, has been the contribution
116: from intracluster light (ICL), a low-surface brightness distribution of
117: stars in groups and clusters that is very difficult to measure.
118: Most studies of rich clusters find that the ICL contribution is
119: relatively small, contributing less than 30 per cent to the total
120: stellar light \citep[e.g.][]{Durrell+02,Feld+04,Covone+06,KB07}, with
121: at most a weak dependence on system mass \citep{Zibetti}.
122: Recently, using deep $I-$band observations of 23 nearby systems,
123: \citet{GZZ1} have made careful measurements of the ICL
124: component, and come to the surprising conclusion that both \fstar\ and
125: the relative ICL contribution depends
126: much more strongly on mass than has been found previously, with the ICL
127: actually
128: dominating the total stellar mass in groups
129: \citep[][hereafter GZZ]{GZZ}.
130: This has motivated us to consider whether or not these
131: observations are able to falsify the hierarchical structure growth model.
132:
133: We will begin by reanalyzing the observational data of
134: GZZ,
135: and
136: complementary data from
137: \citet{LM04} in \S~\ref{sec-data}.
138: In \S~\ref{sec-models} we use theoretical predictions for the growth of
139: dark matter structure to put robust, falsifiable limits on the
140: mass-dependence of \fstar. This prediction is
141: then directly confronted
142: with the observational data in
143: \S~\ref{sec-test}, where we also discuss the implications of our findings, and the effect of
144: possible biases and uncertainties in the measurements.
145: Throughout this paper we generally assume a
146: cosmology with $\Omega_m=0.3$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$, and
147: $H_\circ=70$\kms. However we explicitly consider how our results
148: depend on cosmological parameters, in \S~\ref{sec-cosmo}.
149:
150: \section{The stellar fraction in local clusters and groups}\label{sec-data}
151: \subsection{Description of the data}
152: We require an accurate account of the relative stellar
153: content for a fair sample of galaxy clusters and groups.
154: We will take most of our data from two of the best recent surveys, GZZ
155: and \citet{LM04},
156: which are generally complementary in their sources of systematic uncertainty.
157:
158: GZZ
159: have measured the total light in galaxies and
160: intracluster light, for 23 nearby clusters and groups. They use
161: drift-scan observations with careful attention to flat-fielding, and
162: fit a two-component \citet{dV61} profile to the brightest cluster
163: galaxy (BCG). The outer
164: component, with scale lengths of typically a few hundred kpc, is
165: interpreted as the ICL. Stellar masses are obtained from the
166: integrated $I-$band luminosity, assuming a mass-to-light ratio
167: of $M/L_I=3.6$, based on
168: dynamically--determined masses for elliptical galaxies
169: \citep{Capp+06}. These masses include a small (about 30\%)
170: contribution from the dark matter component; thus we adopt a stellar
171: $M/L=2.8$ for our analysis, in good agreement with stellar population
172: models assuming a \citet{Kroupa} initial mass function, as described in
173: \citet{Capp+06}. The exact value used does not impact our
174: conclusions, which are derived from the trend of the stellar
175: fraction with system mass, rather than the normalization.
176:
177: For these 23 clusters, the total $I-$ band light from the BCG and ICL are well
178: characterized, though the relative contribution of each cannot be so
179: robustly determined. The measurement of the total galaxy light
180: is made with a statistical subtraction of the foreground and background population.
181: The main statistical uncertainty in these data arises from the total cluster masses, which are estimated from the line-of-sight velocity
182: dispersion of the galaxies, $\sigma$.
183: The relationship between velocity dispersion and dynamical mass is sensitive
184: to the total potential shape, and velocity anisotropy. GZZ partially
185: alleviate this uncertainty by employing a calibration between $\sigma$ and
186: X-ray derived masses, from an independent cluster sample
187: \citep{Vik+06}. However, this
188: calibration sample is very small (13 clusters), so it is not possible
189: to determine the scatter about the mean relationship. Moreover,
190: the four lowest mass systems in the GZZ sample require extrapolations of
191: this calibrating relationship, and may therefore be the most unreliable.
192:
193: The second sample we consider is that of Lin, Mohr \& Stanford (2004)\nocite{LMS} and
194: \citet[][hereafter LM]{LM04},
195: who analyze $K-$band observations of 93 X-ray selected clusters, using
196: the 2 Micron All Sky Survey \citep[2MASS,][]{2MASS}.
197: This has the
198: advantages that the stellar mass-to-light ratio ($M/L$) is only weakly
199: dependent on star formation history, and
200: that the total system masses can be determined from the X-ray
201: temperatures. To ensure the stellar masses can be fairly compared with
202: those of GZZ, we choose an average $M/L_K=0.9$; this is consistent
203: with the value of $M/L_I=2.8$ adopted for the GZZ data if $I-K=2.0$, a
204: reasonable number for the early-type galaxies expected to dominate
205: these clusters \citep[e.g.][]{P97,Smail01,KL05,Coma_phot}. The $M/L_K$ we adopt
206: is somewhat higher than the average value used by \citet{LMS}
207: but, again, the absolute value is of little consequence for our analysis.
208: We update the total mass estimates in LM using accurate {\it ASCA}
209: temperatures available for 63 of their clusters
210: \citep{Hornerthesis,HMS}. These temperatures are converted into
211: $M_{500}$\footnote{\m500\ is defined as the total mass within a radius
212: \r500, such that the average density within \r500\ is 500 times the
213: critical density at the cluster redshift.} using the relation found by \citet{Vik+06}, where $M_{500}$
214: was determined from {\it Chandra} resolved surface brightness and temperature
215: profiles. This typically results in a $\sim 20$ per cent change to
216: the mass, usually in the sense that our new masses are larger. This
217: corresponds to a $\sim 6$ per cent change to \r500; therefore we must also
218: correct the measurement of total stellar light within this radius.
219: We simply assume the galaxies follow a \citet{NFW} profile,
220: with a scale radius $r_s=R_{500}/3$, and adjust the total stellar
221: light measured by LM accordingly. All of these corrections are small,
222: and do not influence our conclusions at all; however, the more precise
223: temperature measurements will result in a more precise mass estimate
224: which, as we discuss in \S~\ref{sec-correrr}, is relevant to our
225: interpretation of the data.
226:
227: Unfortunately, the infrared data of LM are not deep enough to measure the
228: ICL contribution directly.
229: To make use of these data we
230: need to make an approximate correction for this missing light, and we will use the
231: data of \citet{GZZ1} for this purpose. In Figure~\ref{fig-iclfrac} we
232: show the mass of the ICL, $M_{\rm icl}$, relative to the
233: mass in galaxies (including the BCG), as a function of
234: \m500. There is
235: a correlation (although largely driven by the four poorly calibrated, lowest-mass
236: systems) and we find approximately
237: \begin{equation}
238: \log{\left[\frac{M_{\rm icl}}{M_{\rm gal}+M_{\rm
239: bcg}}\right]}=-0.28\left(\log{M_{500}}-12.5\right),
240: \end{equation}
241: shown as the solid line. That is, for the most massive clusters the
242: ICL contributes another 20\% to the mass observed in galaxies, while for
243: the lowest mass systems the total stellar mass is approximately doubled by
244: including the ICL. We will apply this correction to the data of
245: LM. It should be kept in mind that the ICL and BCG light
246: are not robustly separated by \citet{GZZ1}, and the BCG light in
247: particular is not measured the same way in both studies. Nonetheless, the
248: correction is not likely to be grossly incorrect, and small differences
249: will not change our main conclusions (see further discussion in
250: \S~\ref{sec-obserrs}).
251: \begin{figure}
252: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{Fig1.ps}
253: \caption{For the cluster sample of \citet{GZZ1}, we show the amount of
254: stellar mass in the intracluster light, relative to that in the
255: galaxies (including the BCG), as a function of total mass \m500. The
256: solid line shows the relation we adopt to correct the data of
257: LM for the intracluster light component.
258: \label{fig-iclfrac}}
259: \end{figure}
260:
261: \subsection{Correlated Uncertainties}\label{sec-correrr}
262: An important consideration in this analysis is proper accounting for
263: uncertainties in the measured quantities. In both GZZ and LM, the
264: statistical uncertainty on \mstar\ is small, approximately $10$ per
265: cent. The dominant statistical uncertainty is in \m500,
266: particularly for the GZZ data, where \m500\ is derived from velocity
267: dispersions. While the
268: number of redshifts per cluster in the GZZ sample is generally more than 20, the
269: uncertainties on $\sigma$ are still typically $\sim 10$\%, which
270: translates to a $\sim 30$\% uncertainty on mass, since \m500$\propto\sigma^3$.
271: The LM data generally have smaller
272: statistical uncertainties on the masses, partly due to the fact that
273: the mass dependence on temperature (\m500$\propto T^{1.5}$) is weaker than
274: on $\sigma$.
275:
276: However, the error analysis is more complex than this because \mstar\ is the total stellar mass measured within a
277: radius \r500, which depends on \m500. Therefore, a statistical
278: overestimate of \m500\ will also result in an overestimate of \mstar,
279: by an amount that depends on the radial profile of the stellar mass distribution.
280: For the GZZ sample, we use the published radial profile of the BCG and ICL
281: component from \citet{GZZ1}. For the galaxy component, we only know
282: the total mass within \r500. We will therefore assume the galaxy mass
283: follows a \citet{NFW} profile, with a scale radius $r_s=R_{500}/3$.
284: For each cluster we can then directly calculate
285: $dM_{\ast,500}/dM_{500}$ and therefore the correlated uncertainty on
286: \mstar, $\Delta M_{\ast,500}=\left(dM_{\ast,500}/dM_{500}\right)\Delta{M_{500}}$.
287: For the LM data, we do not know the shape of the stellar mass profiles,
288: so we will simply adopt the average value of $dM_{\ast,500}/dM_{500}$
289: from the GZZ data; in any case the error bars for these data are
290: generally smaller than the data points in our figures, so this is of no
291: consequence.
292:
293: \subsection{The stellar fraction in the most massive clusters}\label{sec-clufstar}
294: The most massive clusters are the systems for which all matter is
295: most reliably accounted for observationally. The hot gas is visible as
296: X-ray emission, with a temperature closely related to the gravitational
297: potential, and the total system mass can be directly measured via
298: weak-lensing; both of these methods yield masses in good agreement with those
299: estimated from galaxy velocity dispersions \citep[e.g.][]{HEHY}. Moreover, the stellar component is
300: dominated by old, passive galaxies at the present day, so k-corrections
301: and stellar $M/L$ ratios are relatively well determined.
302:
303: Considering just the most massive systems in
304: GZZ,
305: those with
306: $M_{500}>3\times10^{14}M_\odot$, there are eight clusters with stellar
307: fractions ranging from \fstar$=0.006$ to 0.02, and a median of 0.011.
308: In this same mass range, LM find that
309: the fraction of mass in {\it galaxies} spans a range of 0.005 to 0.024,
310: with a median of about 0.0095. Including a 20\% correction for
311: intracluster light, appropriate for these systems (see
312: \S~\ref{sec-data}), brings the median stellar fraction to 0.011, in excellent
313: agreement with the result of GZZ.
314:
315: Although these two studies probably provide the most robust
316: measurement of the stellar mass fraction in clusters, the results are
317: consistent with those of many other studies. For example,
318: \citet{Eke-groups2} find a $B-$band mass to light ratio of $\sim 350$
319: for the most massive systems in the 2dFGRS. Assuming a typical (but
320: very model-dependent) stellar $M/L_B=4.5$ \citep{FHP}, this corresponds
321: to a stellar fraction in clusters of 0.013. \citet{G+02} find a
322: higher
323: value of 0.026, assuming the same stellar mass-to-light ratio. Most studies
324: tend to find values between these two; see references within
325: \citet{Eke-groups2} and \citet{G+02} for a good compilation.
326:
327: The evidence is therefore good that the stellar fraction in clusters is
328: about 1\% on average and certainly $<3$\%.
329: We note that this is very similar to the global stellar fraction
330: measured from large redshift surveys. \citet{Eke-groups3} combined the
331: 2dFGRS \citep{2dF_colless} and 2MASS \citep{2MASS} surveys
332: to find an overall stellar fraction of 0.016 \cite[assuming a][initial mass function]{K83}, and this is consistent with
333: recent results from many other studies \citep[e.g.][and references within]{GBCW}.
334: This small number is
335: already known to put strong
336: constraints on the efficiency of galaxy formation when combined with
337: measurements of the hot gas mass \citep[e.g.][]{baryons}. In
338: \S~\ref{sec-models} we will
339: show that the stellar fraction alone, independent of how much hot gas
340: may be present, can be used to test models of hierarchical
341: structure formation.
342:
343: \subsection{Observed Mass-Dependence of \fstar}\label{sec-fstar}
344: We now consider how \fstar\ is observed to depend on system mass. We
345: reproduce the data of LM (including our improved mass estimates
346: and a correction for the ICL contribution) and GZZ\footnote{Note that the four lowest mass systems shown here were
347: excluded from Fig.1 of GZZ,
348: because of uncertainty in the gas
349: mass. However, the gas mass is irrelevant for our purposes, so we
350: include these groups here. Two of the systems, A2405 and APMC020, have
351: two discrete redshift peaks, and A2405 is a clear superposition of two
352: systems.}
353: in Figure~\ref{fig-fstar}.
354: The error bars represent one standard deviation from the published
355: uncertainties on \m500, and we include the correlated uncertainty on
356: \mstar\ as described in \S~\ref{sec-correrr}. However, in this case
357: the direction of the correlated errors is dominated by the fact that
358: \m500\ appears on both axes.
359: \begin{figure}
360: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{Fig2.ps}
361: \caption{The stellar mass fraction \fstar$=M_{\ast,500}/M_{500}$,
362: including intracluster light, is shown as a function of total mass
363: \m500. The LM data (red squares) include a correction for ICL
364: estimated from the GZZ data (circles). The two open circles
365: represent clusters A2405 and APMC020, which are systems strongly
366: affected by line-of-sight structure. The $1\sigma$ error
367: bars are derived from the published uncertainties on \m500, and the
368: tilt reflects the correlated uncertainty in \m500\ and \mstar$/$\m500
369: as described in \S~\ref{sec-correrr}.
370: The horizontal, dotted line shows the global
371: baryon fraction measured by WMAP3 \citep{WMAP3}. The two solid lines
372: show constant slopes of $-0.35$ and $-0.05$, for comparison with our most
373: conservative theoretical lower limit, and the \citet{bower06} model prediction, respectively.
374: \label{fig-fstar}}
375: \end{figure}
376:
377: Both studies
378: find the stellar fraction decreases with
379: increasing cluster mass, in qualitative agreement with other work
380: \citep[e.g.][]{H+00,MH02,Eke-groups3,G+02,RBGMR,cnoc2_ir}. However, it
381: is clear that the slope of the relationship is different, and the two
382: datasets are therefore inconsistent
383: for the low-mass systems, with $M\lesssim2\times 10^{14}M_\odot$.
384: In fact, GZZ
385: find a remarkably strong
386: trend, with a slope $\b=-0.64$, such that the least massive systems in their sample have
387: \fstar$>0.17$, in excess of even the total {\it baryon} fraction of the
388: Universe \citep{WMAP3}. Note that the steep trend is not just driven
389: by the last four points, however, and the discrepancy exists even if
390: we ignore these groups.
391: This is a surprising result and, as we will
392: show in the following section, potentially poses a challenge to
393: hierarchical structure growth models.
394:
395: \section{Cold Dark Matter predictions}\label{sec-models}
396: \subsection{The progenitor \fstar--\m500\ relation}\label{sec-progmodels}
397: The data presented in the previous section suggest that \fstar\ decreases
398: with increasing mass, above $M\gtrsim 5\times 10^{13}M_\odot$. Since
399: CDM theory predicts a robust connection between structures on these
400: scales, we will attempt to secure a prediction for how steep the
401: \fstar--\m500\ relationship can be in this regime.
402:
403: We start by assuming a logarithmic relationship between \fstar\ and \m500,
404: for systems with $M>5\times10^{13}M_\odot$, at the
405: present day. We will then attempt to constrain the slope of this
406: relation, $b=\b$. The model is normalized so that
407: the most massive clusters, with
408: \m500$=10^{15}M_\odot$, have \fstar$=0.01$, as motivated by
409: observations.
410: To be conservative we will assume that haloes with $M<10^{11}M_\odot$,
411: below the resolution limit of our simulations (described in the
412: following subsection), carry no stars, so \fstar$=0$. For intermediate
413: masses, $10^{11}<M/M_\odot<5\times10^{13}$, where observational
414: constraints are most difficult to acquire, we will adopt
415: three ad-hoc models, which span the full range of realistic behaviour:
416: \begin{enumerate}
417: \item{\bf Min:}The stellar fraction is assumed to be constant at a low
418: value of \fstar$=0.01$. This is
419: the most conservative (non-evolving) model, as it will accommodate the steepest slope
420: $b$ while maintaining consistency with a low \fstar\ in massive clusters.
421: \item{\bf Extrap: }The \fstar--\m500\ relation is extrapolated to lower
422: masses with the same slope $b$. However we do not allow it to exceed
423: the universal baryon fraction of 17.5 per cent \citep{WMAP3}.
424: \item{\bf Mirror: }\fstar\ declines with decreasing mass
425: below $10^{13}M_\odot$, with slope $+|b|$, mirroring the trend at
426: higher masses. Note that since this is a logarithmic slope, $f_\ast\geq 0.0$ at
427: all masses above our resolution limit.
428: \end{enumerate}
429: These three models are shown in Figure~\ref{fig-A}, with arbitrary
430: slopes (for illustration purposes only) $b=-0.25$, $b=-0.40$ and $b=-0.75$ for the {\it Min}, {\it Extrap}
431: and {\it Mirror} models, respectively. In all cases $b$ refers to the
432: slope for $M>5\times10^{13}M_\odot$, and in practice this slope is a
433: free parameter that we wish to constrain.
434: \begin{figure}
435: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{Fig3.eps}
436: \caption{Examples of our three assumed models for the dependence of
437: \fstar\ on halo mass at $z=0$. For $M>5\times10^{13}M_\odot$, the {\it Min} model shown
438: here (red, solid line) has a slope of $-0.25$, the {\it Extrap} model (blue,
439: long-dashed line) has a slope
440: of $-0.40$, and the {\it Mirror} model (green, short-dashed line) has a slope
441: of $-0.75$. The horizontal, dotted line shows the universal {\it baryon}
442: fraction from WMAP-3 \citep{WMAP3}.
443: \label{fig-A}}
444: \end{figure}
445:
446: These models characterise the $z=0$ relationship between \fstar\ and
447: mass. This correlation is likely to evolve with
448: redshift, at a rate that depends on the star formation and mass
449: accretion history of haloes at a given mass.
450: We therefore
451: consider a generalized model of \fstar:
452: \begin{equation}\label{eqn-model}
453: \log{f_\ast}=f_\circ\left(1+z\right)^a+b\left(1+z\right)^c\log{M_{500}},
454: \end{equation}
455: where $a$ and $c$ are free parameters that describe the redshift
456: evolution (in normalization and slope, respectively), and $f_\circ$ is the normalization of the models at $z=0$,
457: fixed so that \fstar$=0.013$ at $M_{500}=7\times10^{14}M_\odot$. The present-day
458: slope $b$ is a free parameter for $M>5\times10^{13}M_\odot$; below
459: this mass $b$ behaves as described above for the {\it Min}, {\it Extrap}
460: and {\it Mirror} models.
461:
462:
463: \subsection{The simulations}
464:
465: \begin{figure}
466: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{Fig4.eps}
467: \caption{Two examples of the growth history of massive clusters from our
468: $\Lambda$CDM Pinocchio simulations. Each point (small triangles
469: for one cluster, and small squares for the other) represents a merger
470: event above our mass resolution. The stellar fraction of merging
471: haloes are assumed to follow the {\it Mirror} model relation shown
472: by the dashed line. For reference, the large red, yellow, green and
473: blue points represent the epochs $z=2.0, 1.0, 0.5$ and $0$. At early
474: times the cluster is growing primarily from sub-resolution accretion;
475: because we conservatively assume this accretion carries no stars,
476: \fstar\ slowly decreases. However, most of
477: the mass is accreted at late times, through merging with fragments
478: that have $M\sim 10^{13}M_\odot$. Therefore, after $z\sim 1$ \fstar\
479: quickly increases to $\sim 0.03$, and then remains constant at a value
480: {\it higher} than the dashed line. The cluster that accretes more
481: of its mass from larger progenitors ends up with a lower \fstar, as expected.
482: \label{fig-massspectrum}}
483: \end{figure}
484: We obtain merger trees generated with the {\it Pinocchio} algorithm \citep{pinocchio}
485: to determine the merger history for an ensemble of galaxy
486: clusters. The {\it Pinocchio} code has been shown to provide results in
487: excellent agreement with full N-body simulations (e.g., it reproduces the
488: mass function of simulated dark matter halos to $\approx 10\%$ accuracy).
489: We have verified this agreement, for a $\Lambda$CDM universe, by making an
490: explicit comparison of the predictions of the mean mass growth rate of
491: massive clusters (and the scatter about the mean) with that of clusters
492: of similar mass in the publicly available numerical simulation of \citet{Springel05}.
493: The {\it Pinocchio} code allows us to
494: efficiently change the mass resolution (to test the sensitivity of the
495: results to this quantity), to increase the simulation box size (in order
496: to generate larger samples of the most massive clusters), and to
497: quickly explore
498: other cosmological models. For all the runs presented in this paper, we
499: adopt a fixed particle mass of $\approx 1.35\times10^{10}M_\odot$, which is
500: sufficient to follow the growth of the massive ($> 10^{13} M_\odot$)
501: systems we are interested in. A ``resolved'' halo corresponds to a system
502: with a minimum of 10 bound particles.
503:
504: We can then compute the final
505: stellar fraction of a halo of given mass, based on its merger history,
506: by applying each of the models described in
507: \S~\ref{sec-progmodels} to its progenitors.
508: As an example, in Figure~\ref{fig-massspectrum} we show the evolution of
509: \fstar\ for two massive clusters, using a non-evolving ($a=c=0$) {\it Mirror} model
510: (represented as the dashed line) to assign stellar fractions to each
511: merging fragment. Each point represents a merger above our resolution
512: limit. At early times, \fstar\ actually declines, because
513: most of the mass is being accreted below the resolution
514: limit, where we assume conservatively that \fstar$=0$. It is evident
515: from the distance between adjacent points that most of the mass is
516: accreted at late times, in low-mass haloes of $M\approx 1$--$10\times 10^{13}M_\odot$; hence \fstar\
517: rapidly rises to the corresponding value of $\sim 0.03$, and then
518: remains nearly constant at that level.
519: The second cluster trajectory we show is deliberately chosen because it
520: is built from more massive fragments and, as expected, it ends up with
521: a lower final \fstar. However, even this cluster has a value of
522: \fstar\ that is a factor of two larger than the assumed {\it Mirror}
523: model. Therefore this model is internally {\it inconsistent}: as it is
524: not possible to preferentially remove stars from the final system, we
525: conclude that \fstar\ is too high in the low mass systems (i.e., $b$ is
526: too negative) to be consistent with these being the progenitors of
527: today's clusters. Since we assume \fstar$=0$ below
528: our resolution limit, increasing the resolution
529: (i.e., lowering the mass limit) serves to increase \fstar\ in the final clusters;
530: apart from this, our results are insensitive to changes in resolution.
531:
532: \begin{figure}
533: \leavevmode \epsfxsize=8cm \epsfbox{Fig5.eps}
534: \caption{ {\bf Top: } An example of the predicted \fstar\ for an
535: ensemble of clusters in a $\Lambda$CDM Universe,
536: assuming a non-evolving {\it Min} model with $b=-0.64$ (shown as the
537: red, solid line) for the relationship between
538: \fstar\ and \m500. The most
539: massive clusters end up with \fstar\ that is much too high,
540: indicating an inconsistent model. In contrast, the lower mass
541: clusters lie {\it below} the solid line, because they are built from
542: systems with \fstar$\lesssim0.01$.
543: {\bf Middle: } This shows the fraction of stellar mass that has to be
544: added via in situ star formation to keep haloes on the assumed {\it Min} model (no star
545: formation is invoked if \fstar\ is greater than this). {\bf Bottom:
546: } The average redshift at which stars are added to the halo in situ,
547: as a function of final mass. In this case, we need to
548: add many stars at late times in the lowest mass haloes, to keep
549: \fstar\ as high as $0.05$.
550: \label{fig-exmodel}}
551: \end{figure}
552:
553: \subsection{Example: CDM predictions for a non-evolving, steep
554: \fstar--\m500\ relation ($b=-0.64$)}
555: To demonstrate how our analysis works, we will consider a non-evolving model with
556: $b=-0.64$, which is the observed $z=0$ slope as measured from the GZZ data. To be
557: conservative we will adopt the {\it Min} model prescription for haloes
558: with $M<5\times10^{13}M_\odot$; this gives the best
559: chance of obtaining low \fstar\ in the most massive clusters given a
560: realistic growth history predicted by CDM and a non-evolving
561: \fstar--\m500 relationship. In the following discussion, the {\it
562: model} refers to the assumed \fstar--\m500\ relation that we use to
563: specify the stellar content of the progenitors for a given cluster. The {\it prediction} refers
564: to the \fstar--\m500\ relation that results
565: when a given model is applied to the progenitors of an ensemble of
566: clusters with a CDM--specified merger history. Therefore a
567: self-consistent model in the context of CDM is one for which the
568: predicted relation agrees with the model relation.
569:
570: In the top panel of Figure~\ref{fig-exmodel} we
571: show the prediction of the final \fstar\ resulting from this particular
572: model for an ensemble of clusters. The results are somewhat complex, and we
573: see the final clusters are grouped into about six ``families''. Let's
574: consider first the high mass end, $M\gtrsim5\times10^{14}$, where the
575: final clusters follow a slope of $b=-0.64$, like the assumed progenitor
576: model, but with discrete offsets. The majority of these clusters lie
577: nearly on the model line. These are systems which had only one
578: massive ($M>5\times10^{13}M_\odot$) progenitor, which by construction was
579: assumed to have a stellar fraction given by the solid line. A small
580: contribution to the final mass comes from lower mass systems (with
581: \fstar$=0.01$) which is why the clusters lie slightly below the solid
582: line. The next family of points to the right are those clusters that
583: formed from exactly two massive progenitors; thus they have similar
584: values of \fstar\ compared with the first family, but double the final
585: mass. Similarly, the clusters found farther to the right are made from
586: progressively more progenitors with $M>5\times10^{13}M_\odot$.
587: Now considering the whole cluster population, the dominant family is
588: actually comprised of those clusters with \fstar$<0.01$; these are the systems
589: with zero massive progenitors. They
590: have all been built from low mass haloes, including a significant
591: contribution from sub-resolution haloes for which \fstar$=0$.
592:
593: The predicted \fstar--\m500\ correlation is therefore very different from
594: the assumed model (solid line).
595: Since we predict a substantial number of massive clusters with \fstar\ higher
596: than the solid line, this model is internally inconsistent;
597: there is no plausible way to remove stars from the final system, so we
598: can rule this model out without further
599: consideration.
600:
601: What about the clusters that are predicted to have a {\it lower}
602: \fstar\ than the assumed model? Unfortunately, these do not represent
603: such a clear failure of the model, since one could always assume that
604: systems form enough stars in situ, {\it after} a merger event, to move them up to
605: the appropriate value of \fstar\ for their mass\footnote{Note therefore the
606: subtle distinction, that a non-evolving \fstar--\m500\
607: model is not synonymous with a lack of star formation.}. The middle panel of Figure~\ref{fig-exmodel}
608: shows (for clusters with $M>5\times10^{13}M_\odot$) the additional
609: fraction of stars that must be formed in this way to ensure a
610: consistent model. The discontinuity in the
611: model means that clusters just above this threshold must form most of
612: their stars in situ, since their progenitors all have \fstar$\leq0.01$.
613: Moreover, most of this in situ star formation has to occur at late
614: times, since for most of their existence these systems will have had
615: $M<5\times10^{13}M_\odot$, and they have only recently crossed this threshold.
616: We deal with this in the following way. After each merger event, we
617: add sufficient stars, via in situ star formation, to bring the cluster
618: back up to the model (solid line). No stars are added to (or removed
619: from) systems with larger \fstar\ than the model. We can then track
620: the average redshift at which those additional stars were
621: added, and this is shown in the bottom panel of
622: Figure~\ref{fig-exmodel}. At $M\sim5\times10^{13}M_\odot$, most of the
623: stars must be formed
624: very recently, as argued above. This large amount of recent star
625: formation in groups is not supported by observations, a point on which
626: we will elaborate in \S~\ref{sec-constraints}; so this is another
627: indication that the assumed model is unphysical. For the most massive clusters, we only
628: require that $\sim 10$ per cent of the stars are formed in situ, and
629: this at $z>1$, which is much more reasonable.
630:
631: This fairly complex behaviour nonetheless reflects a consistent trend in most of our
632: models. The hierarchical merging process always tends to produce final
633: systems with \fstar\ that is {\it nearly independent of halo mass}.
634: Thus, for models with a steep $b$, the most massive clusters end up
635: with \fstar\ that is too high (and thus inconsistent), while the least
636: massive end up with \fstar\ that is much too low, and therefore
637: require a lot of recent, in situ star formation. This occurs because the mass
638: accretion histories of clusters over this limited mass range are not
639: very different -- they are built from similar-mass haloes over a similar
640: time -- resulting in a similar final \fstar. Thus we can
641: immediately see from this simple example that CDM will
642: prefer a value of $b$ that is much closer to $0$ than the GZZ
643: observations suggest (for non-evolving models).
644:
645: We have neglected any discussion of the gaseous component of clusters;
646: not only is it dynamically of minor importance, making up $< 20$ per
647: cent of the cluster mass \citep[e.g.][]{Allen+04}, but it is expected that major mergers are
648: most likely to {\it remove} gas from the dark matter
649: \citep[e.g.][]{bullet}, and hence further increase \fstar. However, it
650: is also possible that low-mass clusters and groups are relatively
651: deficient in gas \citep[e.g.][]{ArEv99,Vik+06}, perhaps because it has been
652: preheated \citep[e.g.][]{Babul2,McCarthy-MT}; if this gas is accreted later during
653: the hierarchical growth of structure it could cause \fstar\ to
654: decrease. Specifically, if we take the extreme assumption that systems with
655: $M=10^{13}M_\odot$ have {\it no} associated gas, then this effect alone
656: would lead only to $b\approx -0.04$, assuming that systems with
657: $M=10^{15}M_\odot$ have accreted their full complement of gas.
658:
659: This model also implicitly assumes that the radial distribution of
660: stars traces that of the dark matter and, in particular, is not altered
661: by the merger process. This is a reasonable assumption, as there is no
662: evidence that the stellar fraction is a strong function of radius
663: outside the very centre of clusters, and the stellar light distribution
664: is usually found to be well modelled by a \citet{NFW} profile with a
665: reasonable concentration parameter \citep[e.g.][]{LMS} and comparable to the total
666: mass distribution \citep{CYE,Muzzin07}, even for relatively low mass
667: systems \citep[e.g.][]{Sheldon+07}. Furthermore, while the merging process can
668: greatly distort the relative distribution of gas and dark matter, it is
669: much less likely to separate the stars from the dark
670: matter \citep[e.g.][]{bullet}.
671:
672: \subsection{Constraints}\label{sec-constraints}
673: The previous example demonstrates that there are two aspects of our predictions that we can use to choose
674: acceptable models. If many systems end up with \fstar\ greater than
675: assumed in the model, we can confidently rule it out; there is no reasonable way
676: to reduce the number of stars, so the model is internally
677: inconsistent.
678: However, a model could also be deemed
679: unreasonable if it requires that most of the stars are formed too recently.
680: This second constraint is less robust because we require
681: guidance from observations. However, we will show
682: below that we can afford to be quite conservative.
683:
684: In Figure~\ref{fig-bmax} we show, for a range of evolution parameters
685: $a$ and $c$, the most negative value of $b$ that yields internally consistent clusters, i.e. those for which
686: the predicted \fstar\ on average lies on or below the assumed \fstar--\m500\
687: model. In principle the evolution could be positive, such that \fstar\ at
688: a given mass scale is greater at high redshift than it is today;
689: for example, if efficient star formation on some scale at $z=1$ is
690: followed by a long period of quiescent accretion of lower mass haloes,
691: in which star formation has been inefficient. However, in practice,
692: only negative evolution puts interesting constraints on the slope $b$,
693: so we focus our attention on that regime.
694:
695: For each model, represented by a curved line, the region
696: to the right of the plot is excluded. For non-evolving models,
697: $a=c=0$, all models show $b>-0.33$. This means that, given
698: \fstar$=0.01$ in the most massive clusters, groups with
699: $M\approx5\times10^{13}M_\odot$ must have \fstar$<0.025$. This is
700: considerably shallower than the slope found by GZZ, shown as the
701: vertical, dotted line.
702: \begin{figure}
703: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{Fig6.eps}
704: \caption{The maximum slope $b=\b$ at the present day that results in a
705: consistent model with \fstar$\leq0.01$ in the most massive clusters.
706: The line colours correspond to the different models shown in
707: Figure~\ref{fig-A}, which make different assumptions about the
708: behaviour of \fstar\ for haloes with $M<5\times10^{13}M_\odot$.
709: Dashed lines correspond to evolution in the slope (parameter $a$ in Equation~\ref{eqn-model})
710: while solid lines represent evolution in the normalization (parameter
711: $c$). Parameter space to the right of any curve
712: is excluded, as it would lead to clusters with too many stars today.
713: The vertical, dotted line represents the slope measured from the GZZ data.
714: \label{fig-bmax}}
715: \end{figure}
716:
717: If we allow the $z=0$ relation to evolve strongly, we can weaken our
718: constraints. This is because the groups that
719: merge to form clusters will have done so at a higher redshift than the
720: groups we are looking at today (recall Figure~\ref{fig-massspectrum}).
721: Figure~\ref{fig-bmax} shows that an arbitrarily steep
722: \fstar--\m500\ relation at the present day can be accommodated if it is
723: allowed to evolve strongly enough. However, this success comes at a high
724: price. In hierarchical models, groups with lower mass form at even
725: {\it higher} redshifts than the clusters, so they will have been
726: built from systems with even lower values of \fstar. The natural
727: prediction of these
728: strongly evolving models is therefore that \fstar\ at $z=0$ will be low not
729: just in clusters, but in {\it all} haloes. Thus, in order for our model
730: to be consistent, we require that a great deal of stars form in situ in these
731: lower mass haloes, {\it after} most of the clusters have been assembled,
732: which, for a
733: $\Lambda$CDM Universe, is $z\approx 0.3$ (see Figure~\ref{fig-cosmo}).
734: The more steeply we assume \fstar\ evolves,
735: the more recently those stars must have been created.
736:
737: We quantify this in
738: Figure~\ref{fig-zmed}. For each halo at $z=0$, we assume that any
739: stars that were generated via in situ
740: star formation formed at the
741: first redshift that any merger yields a stellar fraction below the
742: assumed value\footnote{In reality, the stars could form anytime between then and the
743: next merger. This means our results are conservative.}. Stars that were
744: accreted through mergers are conservatively assumed to have formed at $z=2$.
745: We use this to compute, for each halo, the redshift at which half the
746: stars were formed in situ, $z_{\rm SF}$. Figure~\ref{fig-zmed} shows the
747: median $z_{\rm SF}$ for haloes with $5\times10^{13}<M/M_\odot<10^{14}$
748: (i.e. at the low mass end of our models), as a function of the maximum $z=0$
749: slope $b$ allowed by each model, from Figure~\ref{fig-bmax}. Recall
750: that more negative values of $b$ imply steeper evolution. As described
751: above, the success of strongly-evolving models to match the low \fstar\
752: in today's clusters comes at the expense of requiring substantial
753: recent star formation in groups.
754: \begin{figure}
755: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{Fig7.eps}
756: \caption{The median redshift at which stars must have {\it formed} in
757: haloes with $5\times10^{13}<M/M_\odot<10^{14}$, to remain consistent
758: with each model, as a function of the maximum allowable slope $b$ at
759: the present day, from Figure~\ref{fig-bmax}. The line styles
760: correspond to those in Figure~\ref{fig-bmax}. For each model, more
761: negative values of $b$ imply greater evolution in the \fstar--\m500\ relation.
762: The vertical, dotted line represents the slope measured from the GZZ data.
763: \label{fig-zmed}}
764: \end{figure}
765:
766: Although it is clear that galaxy cluster populations are old and
767: passively evolving, with
768: $z_f\gg2$ \citep[e.g.][]{BLE,Roberto99,Roberto07,Finn05,Nelan,LMGS,Muzzin07},
769: there are fewer constraints on lower mass groups. However, globally we
770: know that the total mass in stars has at most doubled since
771: $z=1$ \citep[e.g.][]{Dickinson03,Bell+03,Drory+04,GH05,Pozzetti+07}.
772: Relative to the global population, at $z\lesssim 0.5$ groups are
773: known to be dominated by galaxies with early-morphological types and
774: little or no star formation \citep[e.g.][]{dlR01,Tran,lowlx-spectra,2dfsdss,cnoc2_ir,Weinmann+06,CNOC2_groupsI,JMLF,McGee}; therefore we would
775: expect them to have formed half their stars well before $z=1$.
776: Recently, \citet{Brough+07}
777: have made a detailed analysis of the brightest galaxies (which,
778: together with the ICL, GZZ claim dominate the stellar mass) in three X-ray
779: groups. Two of these have luminosity--weighted ages $>10.5$ Gyr ($1\sigma$) limit,
780: corresponding to a formation redshift of $z_f=2$; the youngest has an age
781: limit of $>6.9$ Gyr, or $z_f=0.75$.
782:
783: We therefore consider that
784: $z_{\rm SF}\gtrsim 1$ (a lookback time of 8 Gyr) is a very reasonable lower limit for the redshift at
785: which groups ($5\times10^{13}<M/M_\odot<10^{14}$) have formed most of their stars. From
786: Figure~\ref{fig-zmed} this implies a lower limit of $b>-0.35$, only
787: slightly steeper than the non-evolving model constraints.
788: To accommodate a slope $b=-0.64$, as observed by GZZ, would require
789: that at least half the stars in groups with
790: $5\times10^{13}<M/M_\odot<10^{14}$ formed since $z=0.35$, which is
791: very unlikely given the above observations.
792:
793: \subsection{Ab-initio models}\label{sec-bower}
794: Instead of assuming a correlation between \fstar\ and \m500, an
795: alternative approach is to investigate more complex, ab-initio models that
796: include prescriptions for star formation and feedback. There are
797: many such models currently available, with generally similar recipes
798: \citep[e.g.][]{DL+05,Croton05,bower06}. Here we consider the
799: publicly available\footnote{http://www.icc.dur.ac.uk/} predictions of the \citet{bower06} model. Figure ~\ref{fig-bower}
800: shows the predicted \fstar\ distribution as a function of halo mass,
801: for all systems in the parent simulation, at redshifts between $z=0$ and $z=2$.
802: For halo mass, we use a friends-of-friends mass with linking length
803: $b=0.2$, which corresponds approximately to $M_{200}$, with a scatter of
804: about 15 per cent. For a typical cluster halo, \m500$\approx 0.65 M_{200}$.
805: There is almost no mass dependence of \fstar\ for
806: $M>10^{13}M_\odot$, and very
807: little evolution in the relation. Above $M=10^{13}M_\odot$, the model
808: at all redshifts satisfies approximately $\b=-0.05$.
809: This prediction
810: for a nearly constant \fstar\ is also in good agreement with
811: cosmological hydrodynamic simulations that include cooling and
812: feedback physics \citep[e.g.][]{Borgani04,Kay+07}, although those
813: simulations tend to predict a higher overall value of \fstar.
814:
815: This prediction for a nearly constant \fstar\ on these scales is not
816: surprising, given that massive groups and clusters are both built from
817: haloes with a similar mass distribution, and over a similar timescale.
818: Although our arguments from the previous section demonstrate that
819: CDM {\it could} support a \fstar-\m500\ relation as steep as $b\approx
820: -0.35$ at
821: the present day, this is only true under the most conservative, and
822: probably unrealistic, assumptions about the value of \fstar\ in haloes with
823: \m500$<5\times10^{13}M_\odot$ and how this evolves with redshift.
824: \begin{figure}
825: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{Fig8.eps}
826: \caption{The predicted stellar fraction as a function of halo mass
827: (approximately $M_{200}$),
828: from the galaxy formation models of \citet{bower06}. The points
829: represent binned averages at different redshifts: blue, green,
830: yellow, and red points correspond to $z= 0$, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0,
831: respectively. The blue shaded region corresponds to the 10th and
832: 90th percentiles of the $z=0$ distribution. The dashed line is an
833: approximate representation of the $z\leq 1.0$ model data for $M_{500}>
834: 10^{13}M_\odot$, and has a slope of $b=-0.05$. The dotted line represents the
835: approximate slope ($b=-0.64$) of the GZZ
836: data, with arbitrary normalization.
837: \label{fig-bower}}
838: \end{figure}
839:
840: \subsection{Other cosmologies}\label{sec-cosmo}
841: We can hope to put constraints on the cold dark matter model in
842: general, regardless of the specific cosmology, since they are all
843: hierarchical in nature. Different cosmological parameters will result
844: in different rates of formation for haloes of a given mass. We showed
845: in \S~\ref{sec-constraints} that one can maintain a
846: low \fstar\ in the most massive clusters today, whatever the local
847: \fstar--\m500\ relation, as long as this relation evolves strongly with
848: redshift. Clearly one could achieve this same result with weaker
849: evolution, in a cosmology where structure forms earlier. This is true
850: of an open Universe, with $\Omega_m<1$ and $\Omega_\Lambda=0$
851: \citep[e.g.][]{vdB02}; alternatively the epoch of structure formation
852: can be pushed to higher redshift if the normalization of the power
853: spectrum, $\sigma_8$, is increased \citep[e.g.][]{LC93}. This is
854: illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig-cosmo}, where we use the \citet{LC93}
855: model to calculate the probability distribution of the formation
856: redshift, defined as the redshift where 75 per cent of the final mass
857: is in place \citep[see details in][]{entropy}. Distributions are shown
858: for haloes with final masses of $10^{13}M_\odot$, $10^{14}M_\odot$,
859: and $10^{15}M_\odot$, for a range of cosmological parameters. As
860: expected, the highest formation redshifts are obtained in a
861: low-$\Omega_m$ or high-$\sigma_8$ Universe.
862:
863: However, in all cases, lower-mass haloes on average form at even {\it
864: higher} redshifts; this of course is the well-known behaviour of cold
865: dark matter models. Therefore, in a low-$\Omega_m$ or high-$\sigma_8$
866: Universe, galaxy groups had most of their mass in place at even higher
867: redshift than the clusters, and \fstar\ today should also be
868: lower, requiring considerable late-epoch star formation in groups to
869: retain consistency with a steep relation $b\ll0$. This trade-off means
870: that our constraint on $b$ is unlikely to be changed in different cosmologies.
871:
872: We have rerun our {\it Pinocchio} simulations, for an
873: Einstein De-Sitter Universe ($\Omega_m=1$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0$, $\sigma_8=0.5$) and an
874: open Universe ($\Omega_m=0.1$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0$, $\sigma_8=0.9$). To be conservative
875: we adopt the {\it Min} model for the \fstar--\m500\ relation at $z=0$,
876: and allow the normalization or slope to evolve rapidly, as $(1+z)^2$.
877: The minimum value of $b$ in this model, that is consistent with
878: \fstar$=0.01$ in the most massive systems and ensures that at least
879: half of the stars formed at $z>1$, is still $b\approx -0.3$ for the EdS model,
880: but could be relaxed to $b\approx -0.4$ for the OCDM cosmology, only slightly
881: steeper than the constraint for our
882: default $\Lambda$CDM case. Thus, our conclusions
883: are nearly independent of cosmological parameters, as expected.
884:
885: \begin{figure}
886: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{Fig9.ps}
887: \caption{The probability distribution of formation redshifts, defined
888: as the redshift where 75 per cent of the mass is assembled, for
889: clusters with virial masses $M=10^{15}M_\odot$ (solid line), $M=10^{14}M_\odot$
890: (dotted line), and $M=10^{13}M_\odot$ (dashed line). The
891: calculations are based
892: on the analytic model of \citet{LC93}. Different panels show the
893: results for different cosmological parameters, as indicated. The
894: highest formation redshifts are achieved in low-$\Omega_m$ or
895: high-$\sigma_8$ models. But in all cases, low-mass haloes form at
896: substantially higher redshift than high-mass haloes. Thus,
897: cosmological parameters have little effect on the generic prediction
898: of hierarchical models, that $b=\b$ as measured at the present day
899: must be flat, $b>-0.35$.
900: \label{fig-cosmo}}
901: \end{figure}
902:
903: \section{Discussion}\label{sec-test}
904: \subsection{Observational Uncertainties}\label{sec-obserrs}
905: As published, the GZZ
906: data show stellar fractions reaching as
907: high as 30\% in the lowest mass systems (which, we note, have poorly
908: calibrated \m500), well above the WMAP
909: constraints on the global baryon fraction \citep{WMAP,WMAP3}. If this
910: is confirmed to be representative of systems in this mass range, it will rule out hierarchical structure formation
911: models. The shallower relation between \fstar\ and \m500\ as found by LM, however,
912: does appear to be consistent with such models. In this section we
913: will look carefully at some of the biases and
914: uncertainties involved in the analysis.
915:
916: One of the most important differences between these two
917: surveys is in the measurement of total mass. GZZ
918: derive masses from the velocity
919: dispersions, which have significant uncertainties themselves, and
920: translate into relative errors three times larger when converted to
921: \m500. Moreover, the strong correlation between errors on \m500\ and
922: \mstar, as discussed in \S~\ref{sec-correrr}, further complicates matters. To
923: illustrate this better we replot the data in Figure~\ref{fig-lstar},
924: this time showing \m500\ as a function of \mstar, so that the tilt in
925: the error bar now reflects the degree of correlation between these two
926: measurements.
927:
928: It is evident that the error bars have the same ``slope'' as the GZZ
929: data itself, suggesting that the steepness of their relation is at
930: least partly due to this correlation.
931: However, this may not be the whole story. Accounting for the
932: correlation on the errors, we can compute how likely it would be to
933: find as many systems with \fstar$>0.05$ as GZZ do (seven), if they all actually had
934: \fstar$=0.02$ (consistent with LM), and random uncertainties on
935: $\sigma$ scatter the observations. This probability is less than 0.1
936: per cent. The uncertainties on \m500\ do not include the scatter in the
937: $\sigma$--\m500\ relation from which it is derived; %this is at least 5
938: however, even increasing the error bars
939: on $\sigma$ by 50 per cent, we find that we would only expect to find
940: seven systems with \fstar$>0.05$ six per cent of the time. It is clear
941: from Figure~\ref{fig-lstar} why this is; the GZZ data lie
942: systematically below those of LM; while any one point may be discrepant
943: by only one or two standard deviations, the difference between the two
944: relations is much more significant. If the source of the discrepancy
945: lies in the total masses, then, it implies that these masses are
946: systematically underestimated for \m500$\lesssim10^{14}$. One possibility
947: is that the velocity dispersions themselves are underestimated;
948: however, this seems unlikely, as several authors have
949: found that $\sigma$ is quite robust for systems with at least
950: 20 members \citep[e.g.][]{ZM98,Borgani+99,HEHY}. The other, more likely
951: explanation is that the adopted calibration between $\sigma$ and \m500\
952: is incorrect at low masses. In particular, the four groups with the
953: lowest $\sigma$ require an extrapolation of this relationship, which
954: may well be unreliable. Ignoring these four
955: clusters, the remaining GZZ data are statistically consistent with a stellar fraction
956: of $0.02$ that is {\it independent} of cluster mass, and an apparently steep
957: slope that is due entirely to the correlated error bars.
958: \begin{figure}
959: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{Fig10.ps}
960: \caption{The total mass within \r500\ is shown as a function of the
961: total stellar mass (including intracluster light) within the same
962: radius, for the LM sample (squares) and the GZZ
963: sample (circles). The two open circles
964: represent clusters A2405 and APMC020, which are systems strongly
965: affected by line-of-sight structure. The dashed lines show lines of constant stellar
966: fraction, as indicated. Error bars reflect the uncertainty on
967: \m500, and the tilt shows how this is correlated with \mstar.
968: \label{fig-lstar}}
969: \end{figure}
970:
971: There are other possible sources of systematic error in the data, but
972: none of them seem likely to account for the discrepancy. The most
973: obvious place to look is the intracluster light, since this was not
974: directly measured by LM. In fact, the claim by
975: GZZ that the ICL fraction is such a strong function of mass is not
976: readily apparent in the recent measurements
977: from \citet{Zibetti}, based on ensemble averages of SDSS clusters.
978: Moreover, numerical simulations generally find that the ICL component
979: should actually be {\it less} important in groups, relative to
980: clusters \citep[e.g.][]{Murante+04,Murante+07}.
981: However, even though GZZ
982: claim the ICL doubles the stellar
983: mass in the smallest observed systems, this is still not enough to
984: account for the discrepancy with LM. In Figure~\ref{fig-lstar_noicl} we replot the data shown
985: in Figure~\ref{fig-lstar}, but excluding the ICL component from both
986: samples. There is still a significant discrepancy between them, and
987: the lowest mass systems in GZZ
988: have stellar fractions $>10$\%. In particular, if the ICL is ignored,
989: then LM observe a nearly constant \fstar\ over all masses, not only
990: consistent with our theoretical bounds but also in good quantitative
991: agreement with ab-initio models \citep[e.g.][]{bower06}. On the other
992: hand, GZZ still predict a strong mass dependence of the fractional galaxy light alone.
993:
994:
995: \begin{figure}
996: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{Fig11.ps}
997: \caption{As Figure~\ref{fig-lstar}, but where we have excluded the ICL
998: contribution to the stellar light, for both surveys.
999: \label{fig-lstar_noicl}}
1000: \end{figure}
1001:
1002: The dominant systematic uncertainty in the stellar mass measurements
1003: are likely in the stellar mass-to-light ratios. The absolute, average, $M/L_I$
1004: adopted is of little consequence, but the relative difference between
1005: $M/L_I$ and $M/L_K$, and any trend in these values with total mass, is
1006: relevant. The relative value of $M/L_I$ and $M/L_K$, and hence the
1007: relative normalization of the data in Figs~\ref{fig-fstar}, \ref{fig-lstar} and
1008: \ref{fig-lstar_noicl}, depends on our assumption that the average
1009: galaxy colour is $I-K=2.0$ in these samples. A bluer population would
1010: act to decrease the GZZ stellar masses, relative to LM, and thus
1011: decrease the systematic offset observed in these figures. However, no
1012: reasonable colour will reconcile the four lowest-mass GZZ groups with
1013: those of LM, and the remainder are already consistent with LM (and a
1014: constant stellar fraction) given the error bars. Of more interest is
1015: the possibility that $M/L$ varies with system mass. If lower-mass
1016: clusters have systematically younger stellar
1017: populations they will have lower average $M/L$, and if unaccounted for
1018: this would lead to an artificially steep slope $b$ (and would
1019: also compromise some of the conclusions in GZZ). However, to explain
1020: the discrepancy with the LM data would require that the low-mass
1021: clusters of GZZ are systematically bluer than those of LM, while the
1022: massive clusters are similar.
1023: It seems unlikely that either of these biasses are important, since
1024: GZZ find that
1025: most of the stars in these low-mass systems are in the ICL and BCG
1026: component, and the BCG at least is not likely to be much younger than in
1027: more massive clusters \citep[e.g.][]{Brough+07}.
1028: Moreover, the average stellar M/L in the $I$
1029: band is unlikely to vary by more than a factor of about two, which
1030: is insufficient to reconcile the steep slope $b$ observed by GZZ with the model
1031: predictions.
1032: Nonetheless, deep infrared images of these
1033: systems would be very useful.
1034:
1035:
1036: Another concern might be the
1037: contribution to the stellar light from faint, unresolved galaxies; however, both
1038: GZZ
1039: and LM assume fairly steep, mass-independent faint end slopes when
1040: extrapolating the galaxy luminosity function ($\alpha=-1.21$ and
1041: $\alpha=-1.1$, respectively), so this cannot contribute to the
1042: difference. Finally, there is a possible selection effect as GZZ select groups to have a
1043: dominant galaxy, and this may bias them toward systems with
1044: particularly high stellar fractions. Observations of a more
1045: representative sample would be valuable, especially if there are
1046: sufficient redshifts to robustly identify cluster members. However, in
1047: the \citet{bower06} models we considered in \S~\ref{sec-bower}, {\it
1048: none} of the systems in the relevant mass range are found to have stellar fractions as high as
1049: even 5\%. If these models provide an accurate picture of the local
1050: Universe in this respect, then no possible selection bias would lead to
1051: the high values of \fstar\ observed by GZZ.
1052:
1053: \subsection{The consequences}
1054: If the strong trend observed by GZZ
1055: is confirmed, and found to
1056: be typical of a mass-limited sample of groups, what are the theoretical
1057: consequences? We have shown that such groups cannot be the progenitors
1058: of today's clusters, even if they have built up their high stellar
1059: fraction quite recently. One possible implication would be that today's
1060: clusters have grown very little in mass since at least $z=1$, while
1061: groups have assembled more recently. This inherently non-hierarchical
1062: model would require a lot of
1063: suppression of power on group scales; qualitatively this is the
1064: behaviour of warm dark matter models, although these generally suppress
1065: structure on much smaller scales \citep[e.g.][]{A-R+01,BOT01}. Another possibility is
1066: that a large fraction of massive dark matter haloes have {\it no} stars
1067: associated with them, or at least not enough to be detectable. There
1068: is some preliminary evidence for such dark clusters \citep{vdL+06,MHBBC}. However,
1069: for
1070: this to be the solution, the most massive clusters would have to have
1071: accreted $\sim 80$\% of their mass from such objects, while groups
1072: still accrete all their mass in haloes with \fstar$>0$. This seems
1073: quite unlikely, but should be testable in forthcoming weak-lensing
1074: surveys.
1075:
1076: On the other hand, if the dynamical masses of the groups in the GZZ sample are
1077: underestimated, this raises another theoretical problem. A
1078: particularly nice result from GZZ is that (ignoring the four lowest
1079: mass clusters) their data give a full account of the baryons: the sum
1080: of the stellar mass and the expected gas mass (unfortunately, not
1081: directly measured) is comparable to the total baryon fraction in the
1082: Universe, and independent of system mass. This is an attractive
1083: explanation for the observation that galaxy groups are deficient in
1084: X-ray gas \citep[e.g.][]{ArEv99,Vik+06}: the missing gas has cooled to
1085: form stars. If GZZ have overestimated \fstar, however, this
1086: explanation will no longer be viable, and the low
1087: gas fractions of groups would likely imply that some powerful form of heating
1088: has expelled a large fraction of the gas beyond \r500. However, this
1089: heating must not be too strong, so that the most massive systems are
1090: still able to retain all their gas. This requires something of a
1091: delicate balance.
1092:
1093: \section{Conclusions}
1094: The stellar fraction \fstar\ as a function of cluster mass \m500\ is an important test
1095: of hierarchical structure formation models. We find that such models
1096: can make a robust, falsifiable prediction that the power-law slope
1097: relating these two quantities is $\b>-0.35$, for systems with
1098: $M_{500}>5\times10^{13}M_\odot$. A steeper slope can only be accommodated
1099: if the \fstar--$M_{500}$ relation evolves strongly, such that
1100: galaxy groups formed most of their stars in situ since $z=1.0$, which is not
1101: supported by observations.
1102: Since the most massive
1103: clusters today (with $M_{500}\sim10^{15}M_\odot$) are robustly measured
1104: to have \fstar$\sim0.01$, hierarchical models
1105: therefore require that galaxy groups (with $M_{500}\sim5\times 10^{13}M_\odot$)
1106: have \fstar$<0.03$. This constraint is a conservative limit;
1107: ab-initio models predict a much flatter relationship with $b>-0.1$ \citep{bower06}.
1108:
1109: Recent observations by \citet{GZZ}
1110: appear to conflict with this prediction. In particular,
1111: their data follow a power-law relation over almost two orders of
1112: magnitude in mass, with $b=-0.64$, and the
1113: lowest-mass systems in their sample have stellar fractions of 30 per cent,
1114: exceeding even the limits on the baryon fraction from WMAP. If
1115: confirmed, these observations definitively rule out hierarchical structure
1116: formation. $K-$band observations from \citet{LM04}, on the other hand,
1117: are just consistent with the model constraints, but may still be inconsistent
1118: with the ab-initio model of \citet{bower06} if the ICL contribution is
1119: as dominant in groups as claimed by \citet{GZZ}. These data do not extend to
1120: such low mass systems, nor are their data deep enough to directly
1121: measure the important ICL contribution. More observations are needed to resolve
1122: the discrepancy between these two studies, and to thereby test the viability of
1123: cold dark matter models. Particularly valuable would be X-ray images
1124: (and temperature maps)
1125: of the \citet{GZZ} sample, to measure the gas content and total mass, and deep $I$ or near-infrared images of the
1126: \citet{LM04} systems to directly measure the ICL component.
1127:
1128: We end by noting however that the four lowest-mass systems in the
1129: Gonzalez et al.
1130: sample have poorly calibrated masses. If we accept that their masses
1131: are underestimated by a factor of ten, then the
1132: remainder of their data are consistent with a universal stellar fraction
1133: of a few percent, and the apparent correlation with system mass is due
1134: to the correlated error bars on dynamical and stellar
1135: masses. Furthermore, removing these four systems greatly reduces the
1136: significance of their claim that the intracluster light fraction is
1137: a strong function of mass and, in this case, the \citet{LM04} data (which have
1138: much smaller error bars) are also consistent with a constant stellar
1139: fraction \fstar$\approx 0.01$.
1140: This
1141: conclusion challenges the claim by GZZ that the stellar component of
1142: galaxy groups is dominated by the BCG and ICL, and that the low gas
1143: fractions in these groups is attributable to an increased stellar fraction.
1144:
1145: \section{Acknowledgments}\label{sec-akn}We thank the referee, Anthony
1146: Gonzalez, for his thorough report, which led to
1147: substantial improvements in this paper.
1148: This research was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering
1149: Research Council of Canada, through a Discovery Grant to M. Balogh. IGM acknowledges support from a NSERC Postdoctoral
1150: Fellowship, and thanks Tom Theuns for his assistance with
1151: the use of the {\it Pinocchio} software. VRE acknowledges support from the Royal Society for a University Research
1152: Fellowship.
1153: \bibliography{ms}
1154: \end{document}
1155: