1: \documentclass[]{emulateapj}

2: \usepackage{apjfonts}

3: \bibliographystyle{apj}

4: 

5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6: %~ <~

7: 

8: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

9: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

10: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

11: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

12: 

13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

14: % Units

15: 

16: \newcommand{\hvol}{h^{3}{\mathrm{Mpc}}^{-3}}

17: \newcommand{\vol}{{\mathrm{Mpc}}^{-3}}

18: \newcommand{\hmpc}{h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}}

19: \newcommand{\hkpc}{h^{-1}\mathrm{kpc}}

20: \newcommand{\hpc}{h^{-1}\mathrm{pc}}

21: \newcommand{\hMsun}{\ h^{-1}\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}

22: \newcommand{\hhMsun}{\ h^{-2}\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}

23: \newcommand{\hMpc}{\ h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}}

24: \newcommand{\Msun}{M_{\odot}}

25: \newcommand{\kms}{{\,{\mathrm{km}}\,{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}}}

26: \newcommand{\kpc}{{\,{\mathrm{kpc}}}}

27: \newcommand{\Gyr}{{\,{\mathrm{Gyr}}}}

28: 

29: \newcommand{\rhomean}{\rho_{\mathrm{M}}}

30: 

31: \newcommand{\mpt}{m_{\mathrm{p}}}

32: \newcommand{\rfind}{r_{\mathrm{f}}}

33: 

34: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

35: 

36: \newcommand{\Mvir}{M_{\mathrm{vir}}}

37: \newcommand{\Rvir}{R_{\mathrm{vir}}}

38: \newcommand{\Dvir}{\Delta_{\mathrm{vir}}}

39: \newcommand{\Vmax}{V_{\mathrm{max}}}

40: \newcommand{\Vhost}{V_{\mathrm{host}}}

41: \newcommand{\Vsat}{V_{\mathrm{sat}}}

42: 

43: \newcommand{\Nsat}{N_{\mathrm{sat}}}

44: \newcommand{\Ngal}{N_{\mathrm{gal}}}

45: 

46: \def\etal{{et al.~}}

47: \def\Mo{{\rm M_\odot}}

48: \def\Mpc{\ {\rm Mpc}}

49: \def\kpc{\ {\rm kpc}}

50: \def\pc{\ {\rm pc}}

51: \def\kms{{\ }{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}

52: \def\LCDM{$\Lambda$CDM}

53: 

54: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

55: 

56: \newcommand{\ac}{\ifmmode{a_{\rm c}}\else$a_{\rm c}$\fi}

57: \newcommand{\zobs}{\ifmmode{z_{\rm o}}\else$z_{\rm o}$\fi}

58: \newcommand{\aobs}{\ifmmode{a_{\rm o}}\else$a_{\rm o}$\fi}

59: \newcommand{\Mobs}{\ifmmode{M_{\rm o}}\else$M_{\rm o}$\fi}

60: 

61: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

62: 

63: \bibliographystyle{apj}

64: 

65: \slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ, 22 May 2008}

66: \shortauthors{CONROY AND WECHSLER}

67: \shorttitle{CONNECTING GALAXIES, HALOS, AND STAR FORMATION RATES}

68: \begin{document}

69: 

70: 

71: %----------------------------------------------------------------

72: \title{ Connecting Galaxies, Halos, and Star Formation Rates across

73:   Cosmic Time }

74: %----------------------------------------------------------------

75: \author{Charlie Conroy$^{1}$ \& Risa H. Wechsler$^{2}$}

76: \affil{$^{1}$Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton

77:   University, Princeton, NJ 08544 \\ $^{2}$Kavli Institute for

78:   Particle Astrophysics \& Cosmology, Physics Department, and Stanford

79:   Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305}

80: 

81: \slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ, 22 May 2008}

82: 

83: \begin{abstract}

84: 

85:   A simple, observationally-motivated model is presented for

86:   understanding how halo masses, galaxy stellar masses, and star

87:   formation rates are related, and how these relations evolve with

88:   time.  The relation between halo mass and galaxy stellar mass is

89:   determined by matching the observed spatial abundance of galaxies to

90:   the expected spatial abundance of halos at multiple epochs ---

91:   i.e. more massive galaxies are assigned to more massive halos at

92:   each epoch.  This ``abundance matching'' technique has been shown

93:   previously to reproduce the observed luminosity- and

94:   scale-dependence of galaxy clustering over a range of epochs.  Halos

95:   at different epochs are connected by halo mass accretion histories

96:   estimated from $N$-body simulations.  The halo--galaxy connection at

97:   fixed epochs in conjunction with the connection between halos across

98:   time provides a {\it connection between observed galaxies across

99:     time}.  With approximations for the impact of merging and

100:   accretion on the growth of galaxies, one can then directly infer the

101:   star formation histories of galaxies as a function of stellar and

102:   {\it halo} mass.  This model is tuned to match both the observed

103:   evolution of the stellar mass function and the normalization of the

104:   observed star formation rate -- stellar mass relation to $z\sim1$.

105:   The data demands, for example, that the star formation rate density

106:   is dominated by galaxies with $M_{\rm star}\approx

107:   10^{10.0-10.5}\Msun$ from $0<z<1$, and that such galaxies over these

108:   epochs reside in halos with $M_{\rm vir}\approx10^{11.5-12.5}\Msun$.

109:   The star formation rate -- halo mass relation is approximately

110:   Gaussian over the range $0<z<1$ with a mildly evolving mean and

111:   normalization.  This model is then used to shed light on a number of

112:   issues, including 1) a clarification of ``downsizing'', 2) the lack

113:   of a sharp characteristic halo mass at which star formation is

114:   truncated, and 3) the dominance of star formation over merging to

115:   the stellar build-up of galaxies with $M_{\rm star}\lesssim

116:   10^{11}\Msun$ at $z<1$.

117: 

118: \end{abstract}

119: 

120: \keywords{ cosmology: theory --- dark matter --- galaxies: halos ---

121:   galaxies: formation --- large-scale structure of universe}

122: 

123: %---------------------------------------------------

124: \section{Introduction}

125: \label{section:intro}

126: 

127: A fundamental goal of galaxy formation studies is to understand what

128: processes govern the stellar content and star formation histories of

129: galaxies.  A key piece of this puzzle is relating the stellar masses

130: and star formation rates of galaxies to the masses and formation

131: histories of their associated dark matter halos.  Ideally, one would

132: like to make this connection by understanding the physical mechanisms

133: responsible for it from first principles.  However, even the best

134: current physically-motivated models of galaxy formation rely on

135: significant approximations of unresolved physics.  These approaches,

136: based either on semi-analytic modeling \citep[e.g.][]{White91,

137:   Somerville99, Cole00, Hatton03, Springel01, Croton06, Bower06}, or

138: on hydrodynamical simulations \citep[e.g.][]{Cen92, Katz96,

139:   Springel03, Keres05} still have trouble reproducing many basic

140: observational results and suffer from serious uncertainties in the

141: physical ingredients of the models.  Although substantial progress has

142: been made in these modeling efforts in recent years, star formation

143: histories in these models and simulations are still sensitive to the

144: interactions between a number of relatively unconstrained physical

145: processes.

146: 

147: Recent observations have begun to measure the galaxy stellar mass

148: function \citep{Fontana04, Drory04, Bundy05, Borch06, Fontana06,

149:   Cimatti06, Andreon06} and the star formation rate \citep{Noeske07a,

150:   ZhengBell07} at high redshift, which complements more precise

151: measurements locally \citep[e.g.][]{Cole01, Bell03, Brinchmann04,

152:   Panter07, Salim07, Schiminovich07}.  At the same time, the evolution

153: of dark matter halos, including their abundance

154: \citep[e.g.][]{Warren06, Reed07}, substructures \citep{Kravtsov04,

155:   Gao04b, Reed05}, and merger and accretion histories

156: \citep[e.g.][]{Wechsler02}, are becoming ever better understood in the

157: context of the $\Lambda$CDM paradigm using numerical simulations.

158: 

159: Several methods have recently been developed that take advantage of

160: these advances to connect the observed galaxy population with dark

161: matter halos using more empirical methods.  The most popular of these,

162: known as halo occupation models, typically constrain the statistics of

163: how galaxies populate their host halos using galaxy clustering

164: statistics and space densities \citep[e.g.][]{Scoccimarro01,

165:   Berlind02, Bullock02, Zehavi04}.  An emerging alternative is to connect

166: galaxies to the underlying dark matter structure directly, under the

167: assumption that the stellar masses or luminosities of the galaxies are

168: tightly connected to the masses or circular velocities of dark matter

169: halos.  Throughout, this latter approach will be referred to as

170: halo ``abundance matching'' because galaxies of a given stellar

171: mass are matched to halos ({\em including subhalos}, which are halos that

172: orbit within larger halos) of the same number density or abundance.

173: This approach matches the observed stellar mass function by

174: construction, but has no other observational inputs.  Such an approach

175: provides an excellent match to a number of galaxy clustering

176: statistics at multiple epochs \citep{Kravtsov04, Tasitsiomi04, Vale04,

177:   Conroy06a, Berrier06, Vale06, Marin08}.

178: 

179: The idea of abundance matching galaxies with dark matter halos is not

180: new, and it has been applied to associate a variety of objects with

181: halos since the development of the CDM paradigm \citep[e.g.][]{Mo96c,

182:   Mo96b, Steidel98, Wechsler98}.  However, its successful

183: implementation as a predictive tool requires a full accounting of the

184: halo population, including the substructures that host galaxies, as

185: well as a full accounting of the evolution of the abundance of

186: galaxies as a function of their properties.  These elements have only

187: been in place quite recently.

188: 

189: Halo occupation models as well as abundance matching models have been

190: used primarily to understand the connection between galaxies and halos

191: at a fixed epoch, but recent work has begun to use these models to

192: investigate the evolutionary history of galaxies, by combining

193: information about the galaxy--halo connection at given epochs with

194: theoretical input on the evolution of dark matter halos

195: \citep{MWhite07, Conroy07b, Zheng07, Conroy08a}.  In this paper we

196: take the basic idea of abundance matching further, and use it to

197: understand the evolution of the stellar content of galaxies.  We use a

198: simple, analytic representation of this framework, which connects dark

199: matter halos to galaxies by matching their abundances, to understand

200: the build-up of stellar mass and the implied star formation rate of

201: galaxies as a function of mass.  We focus primarily on redshifts less

202: than one, where the observational results are most reliable, but we

203: expect the approach can be applied more widely and to earlier epochs

204: as observational results improve.

205: 

206: A complementary approach has recently been presented by

207: \cite{Drory08}.  While we use the measured galaxy stellar mass

208: function to connect galaxies to dark matter halos and infer the stellar mass

209: buildup and star formation rates of galaxies, they used the measured

210: star formation rates as a function of stellar mass, along with the

211: time derivative of the galaxy stellar mass function, to infer the

212: galaxy merger rate. 

213: 

214: The elements of our model are described in detail in

215: $\S$\ref{sec:themodel}; $\S$\ref{sec:imp} presents our primary

216: results, including comparisons to observations.  We discuss some of

217: the implications of our model in $\S$\ref{sec:imp} and summarize in

218: $\S$\ref{sec:disc}.  Throughout a flat, $\Lambda$CDM cosmology is

219: assumed with the following parameters:

220: $(\Omega_m,\Omega_\Lambda,\sigma_8) = (0.24,0.76,0.76)$, and $h=0.7$

221: where $h$ is the Hubble parameter in units of $100$ km s$^{-1}$

222: Mpc$^{-1}$.  These cosmological parameters are consistent with the 3rd

223: year {\it WMAP} estimates \citep{Spergel07}.  A \citet{Chabrier03}

224: initial mass function (IMF) is adopted throughout.

225: 

226: \section{The Model}

227: \label{sec:themodel}

228: 

229: This section describes the details of our model.  We start with a

230: brief overview, and then move to a discussion of the halo mass

231: function and galaxy stellar mass functions in $\S$\ref{sec:hmf} and

232: \ref{sec:gsmf}.  The method used to assign galaxies to halos is

233: outlined in $\S$\ref{sec:am}, followed by a description of the

234: approach used to connect galaxies and halos across epochs in

235: $\S$\ref{sec:mah}.  Introducing a simple estimate for the effect of

236: galaxy mergers and accretion in $\S$\ref{sec:merge} then allows us to

237: compute star-formation histories of galaxies, as discussed in

238: $\S$\ref{sec:sfr}.

239: 

240: \subsection{Overview}

241: \label{sec:over}

242: 

243: The model described in detail in the following sections is an

244: extension of previous modeling efforts that have been shown to

245: successfully reproduce an array of data from $z\sim5$ to the

246: present\citep{Kravtsov04, Tasitsiomi04, Vale04, Conroy06a, Berrier06,

247:   Vale06, Marin08}.  The first step in our approach is to match the

248: observed abundances of galaxies as a function of stellar mass with the

249: expected abundance of dark matter halos. This step effectively assigns

250: the most massive galaxies to the most massive halos monotonically and

251: with no scatter.  Since we include dark matter subhalos, which are

252: halos orbiting within larger halos, we automatically include galaxies

253: that would be observationally classified as satellites, although they

254: are sub-dominant by number ($\sim10-30$\% of the galaxies are

255: satellites at any epoch).  Thanks to parameterizations of both the

256: evolution of the observed galaxy stellar mass function and of the

257: theoretical halo mass function, this connection between galaxies and

258: dark matter halos can be determined continuously from $z\sim2$ to

259: $z\sim0$.

260: 

261: The novel feature of our approach, compared to previous work, is the

262: use of average dark matter mass accretion histories to connect the

263: relations between halos and galaxies across time.  $N$-body

264: simulations suggest that the average dark matter halo growth is a

265: simple function of its mass \citep{Wechsler02}; thus, a halo at any

266: given epoch can be connected to its typical descendants at later

267: epochs.  With the connection between galaxies and halos determined at

268: each epoch, the connection between halos across time implies an

269: \emph{average connection between galaxies across time}.  At this stage

270: the model produces the average stellar mass growth of galaxies as a

271: function of both galaxy and halo mass.  Since we use

272: observationally-derived galaxy stellar mass functions as input, the

273: connection is effectively one between observed galaxies at different

274: epochs.

275: 

276: The final step is to differentiate these average stellar mass growth

277: curves to infer the average mass-growth rates of galaxies.  The

278: complication here is separating the growth due to star formation from

279: that due to merging/accretion of other stellar systems.  We introduce

280: simple estimates of the contribution due to merging that should

281: bracket the possible effects of merging.  This model then allows us to

282: determine the average star formation rates of galaxies as a function

283: of their {\em halo mass} and redshift, which provides a key constraint

284: on galaxy formation models.  The following sections describe this

285: framework in further detail.

286: 

287: \subsection{The halo mass function}

288: \label{sec:hmf}

289: 

290: We use the cosmology- and redshift-dependent halo mass function given

291: by \citet{Warren06} and transform their masses to $\Mvir$ using an NFW

292: \citep{NFW97} density profile with the concentration--mass relation

293: from \cite{Bullock01}, assuming the updated model parameters given by

294: \cite{Wechsler06}.  Our definition of the virial radius corresponds to

295: region with density contrast $\Delta_{\rm{vir}} = 18\pi^2+82x-39x^2$

296: with respect to the mean matter density, where $x\equiv \Omega(z)-1$

297: \citep{Bryan98}.  At $z=0$, $\Delta_{\rm{vir}} = 337$, and at high

298: redshift $\Delta_{\rm{vir}}$ asymptotes to $180$.

299: 

300: The halo mass function provided by \citet{Warren06} only considers

301: distinct halos, not the substructure within these distinct halos.

302: Substructure as defined herein consists of halos whose centers are

303: within the virial radii of larger halos, denoted subhalos.  Distinct halos, in contrast, are those halos whose

304: centers are not within any larger halos.

305: 

306: We assume that the subhalo fraction is described by

307: \noindent

308: \be

309: f_{\rm sub}\equiv \frac{n_{\rm sub}}{n_{\rm tot}} = 0.2

310: -\frac{0.1}{3}\,z,

311: \ee

312: \noindent

313: independent of distinct halo mass, which provides a reasonable fit to

314: data from simulations (see e.g., Fig. 1 of \citealt{Conroy06a} we

315: don't include the moderate decrease of $f_{\rm sub}$ with increasing

316: mass indicated by simulation data, but this would have a small effect

317: on our results).  Note that the subhalo fraction is defined with

318: respect to the mass of the subhalos at the epoch of their accretion.

319: This mass, rather than the present subhalo mass, has been shown to

320: better correlate with observed galaxy properties \citep{Conroy06a,

321:   Berrier06}.  We thus derive an approximate halo mass function that

322: includes both distinct halos and subhalos using this fraction.  The

323: results presented below are fairly insensitive to this fraction

324: because it is small; we include it for completeness.  Throughout, we

325: refer to both distinct halos and subhalos as halos.

326: 

327: 

328: 

329: \begin{figure}[t]

330: \plotone{f1.eps}

331: \vspace{0.5cm}

332: \caption{Evolution of the galaxy stellar mass function from $z\sim2$

333:   to $z\sim0$.  Our fiducial model for the evolution of the mass

334:   function (\emph{lines}) is compared to the following observational

335:   results from the literature: \citet[][SDSS; {\it circles}]{Bell03},

336:   \citet[][SDSS; {\it diamonds}]{Panter07} \citet[][FDF]{Drory05},

337:   \citet[][COMBO-17]{Borch06}, \citet[][{\it

338:     Spitzer}]{Perez-Gonzalez08}, and \citet[][MUSIC]{Fontana06}.  The

339:   disagreement between model and data at $z=2$ is discussed in

340:   $\S$\ref{sec:highz}.}

341: \label{fig:gsmf}

342: \vspace{0.5cm}

343: \end{figure}

344: 

345: 

346: \subsection{The galaxy stellar mass function}

347: \label{sec:gsmf}

348: 

349: At each redshift, the number density $\phi(M,z)$ of galaxies with

350: stellar mass $M_*$ is assumed to be described by a Schechter function,

351: \be \phi(M,z) = \phi^*(z) \bigg(\frac{M}{M^*(z)}\bigg)^{\alpha^*}

352: \exp\bigg(-\frac{M}{M^*(z)}\bigg), \ee

353: \noindent

354: where the free parameters $\phi^*(z)$, $\alpha^*(z)$ and $M^*(z)$ are,

355: in principle, functions of redshift.  We take the evolution of $M^*(z)$ 

356: to be:

357: \noindent

358: \be

359: {\rm log}[M^*(z)/\Msun] = 10.95 + 0.17 \, z -0.07 \,\, z^2,

360: \label{sche_mstar}

361: \ee

362: \noindent

363: which is similar to the form advocated by \citet{Fontana06}.  Note

364: that the evolution in $M^*$ implied from the above formula is mild at

365: $z<2$.  Since the constraints on $\alpha^*$ are weak at higher

366: redshift, we assume for simplicity that it does not evolve:

367: \noindent

368: \be

369: \alpha^* = -1.25,

370: \label{sche_alpha}

371: \ee

372: \noindent

373: which is consistent within the errors with available data to $z\sim2$

374: \citep{Fontana06}.

375: 

376: The evolution of $\phi^*(z)$ raises a subtle but important issue.

377: Various authors have measured $\phi^*$ in redshift bins to

378: $z\sim2$ and then proceeded to fit the observed $\phi^*(z)$ to a

379: function of the form $\phi^*(z)\propto (1+z)^{-\beta}$.  However, it

380: is clear that, modulo small evolution in $M^*$ and $\alpha^*$ (and

381: corrections due to stellar mass loss; cf. $\S$\ref{sec:sfr}), the

382: time-derivative of $\phi^*(z)$ is simply the cosmic star formation

383: rate (SFR) density.  The functional form above, for typical adopted

384: values of $\beta=1-3$, results in an {\it increasing} SFR density at

385: late times.  This is not observed \citep[e.g.][]{Hopkins04}.

386: 

387: In order to alleviate this tension, we have chosen to constrain the

388: evolution in $\phi^*(z)$ by requiring both that it reproduce the

389: observed evolution in the stellar mass function and that its

390: derivative match the normalization of the observed star formation rate

391: -- stellar mass relation to $z\sim1$.  After some experimentation with

392: different functional forms, we adopt the following evolution of

393: $\phi^*$:

394: \noindent

395: \be

396: \phi^*(z)=  2\times 10^{-3}\, e^{-0.5z^{2.5}} \,\,\vol.

397: \label{sche_phi}

398: \ee

399: \noindent

400: Note that our parameterization is by no means unique.  We have simply

401: attempted to match the observed cosmic star formation rate density

402: implied by our model and the observed stellar mass functions by

403: adjusting the form of $\phi^*(z)$.  This functional form is similar to

404: that given in \citet{Wilkins08} who proposed $\phi^*(z) = 2.5\times

405: 10^{-3}\, e^{-0.68z^{1.2}} \,\,\vol$ as the best-fit to a variety of

406: stellar mass function data.

407: 

408: The zero-points of the Schechter parameters approximately reproduce

409: the local set of parameters determined by a variety of authors

410: \citep{Cole01, Bell03, Wang06, Panter07}.  Figure \ref{fig:gsmf}

411: compares the evolution of the galaxy stellar mass function in our

412: model to various observational estimates. Our adopted Schechter

413: parameters somewhat overpredict the abundance of low-mass galaxies at

414: $z=0.5$ and underpredict the abundances of all galaxies at $z=2$.  The

415: latter disagreement is discussed in $\S$\ref{sec:highz}.

416: 

417: There is a second, perhaps more serious, tension created by comparison

418: of the evolution of the stellar mass function and the global SFR

419: density.  At $z\gtrsim1$ the integral of the star formation rate

420: density does not equal the stellar mass density \citep{Nagamine06,

421:   Hopkins06b, Perez-Gonzalez08, Wilkins08}.  This tension can largely

422: be removed if the IMF evolves with redshift \citep{Dave08, Wilkins08}

423: because the SFR probes the high-mass end of the IMF while the bulk of

424: the stellar mass is contained in low-mass stars.  An evolving IMF at

425: $z\gtrsim1$ is also suggested by recent work on the evolution of the

426: mass-to-light ratio of elliptical galaxies \citep{vanDokkum08} and the

427: abundance patterns of metal-poor stars \citep{Lucatello05,

428:   Tumlinson07a, Tumlinson07b}.  Whether this is the ultimate solution,

429: or whether the solution lies in a more mundane systematic error in one

430: of the measured quantities is not currently clear.  Because of this

431: tension at high redshift, we focus our analysis below $z\sim1$, where

432: the cosmic SFR density and stellar mass density are consistent with

433: each other assuming a non-evolving IMF.

434: 

435: \subsection{Abundance matching: from halos to galaxies}

436: \label{sec:am}

437: 

438: We assume that every galaxy resides in a dark matter halo and that

439: there is a tight connection between the stellar mass of a galaxy and

440: the mass of its associated dark matter halo.  In the limit of zero

441: scatter between galaxy and halo mass, halos of a given mass can be

442: connected to galaxies of a given stellar mass by matching their

443: abundances directly:

444: \noindent

445: \be

446: \label{eqn:v2l}

447: n_g(>{M_{{\rm star},i}}) = n_h(>{M_{{\rm vir},i}}),

448: \ee

449: \noindent

450: where $n_g$ and $n_h$ are the galaxy and halo mass functions,

451: respectively (note that the halo mass function here includes both

452: distinct halos and subhalos).  In effect, this prescription assigns

453: the most massive galaxies to the most massive halos monotonically.

454: Although the assumption of zero scatter is idealized, several recent

455: works indicate that this scatter is small, with $\sim 0.15$ dex of

456: scatter in galaxy luminosity at fixed mass \citep{Zheng07, vdB07,

457:   Hansen07, Wechsler08}.  As shown in \citet{Tasitsiomi04}, scatter

458: only effects the halo-stellar mass relation at the high mass end, and

459: is in the sense that, at fixed galaxy mass, the mean halo mass

460: decreases with increasing scatter.

461: 

462: Since more massive halos are more strongly clustered at all epochs,

463: this mapping implies that more massive/more luminous galaxies will

464: also be more strongly clustered than less massive/less luminous ones,

465: in qualitative agreement with a variety of clustering measurements

466: \citep[e.g.][]{Zehavi05, Coil06b, Li06, Meneux08}.  This simple

467: approach is surprisingly successful at quantitatively matching an

468: array of observations at multiple epochs and scales including

469: mass-to-light ratios, clustering measurements, and close pair counts

470: \citep{Kravtsov04, Tasitsiomi04, Vale04, Vale06, Berrier06, Conroy06a,

471:   Marin08}, confirming that it can be used with confidence herein.

472: 

473: \subsection{Mass accretion histories: from halo growth to galaxy growth}

474: \label{sec:mah}

475: 

476: Analysis of cosmological $N$-body simulations has shown that halo mass

477: growth can be described by a simple functional form

478: \citep{Wechsler02}:

479: \noindent

480: \be 

481: M_{\rm vir}(a) = \Mobs {\rm exp} \left[-2\ac \left(\frac{\aobs}{a}-1\right)\right],

482: \label{eq:fit2}

483: \ee

484: \noindent

485: where $a=(1+z)^{-1}$, $\Mobs$ is the mass of the halo at the redshift

486: of observation $a_{\rm o}$, and $a_c$ is the average formation scale

487: factor of the halo, the single free parameter in the functional form

488: defined above.  Following \citet{Wechsler02}, we adopt the following

489: parameterization of $a_c$, which provides a good fit to $N$-body

490: simulations:

491: \noindent

492: \be

493: a_c(M_{\rm vir}) = \frac{4.1}{c(M_{\rm vir})(1+z)}.

494: \ee

495: \noindent

496: where $c(M_{\rm vir})$ is the halo concentration$-$ halo mass relation

497: at $z=0$.  We use the model given by \cite{Bullock01} and the updated

498: parameters provided in \cite{Wechsler06} for $c(M_{\rm vir})$.

499: 

500: In the previous section we showed how to construct $M_{\rm

501:   star}-M_{\rm vir}$ relations as a function of redshift.  The

502: relation between a halo of mass $M_{\rm vir}$ at one epoch and its

503: mass at some latter epoch is known via Equation \ref{eq:fit2}.  This

504: relation between halos across time allows us to connect the $M_{\rm

505:   star}-M_{\rm vir}$ relations across time and hence allows us to

506: determine the stellar growth of galaxies.

507: 

508: For example, we can start with a halo mass $M_{\rm vir}$ at some early

509: epoch.  The $M_{\rm star}-M_{\rm vir}$ relation at that epoch then

510: determines the stellar content of the halo.  We can then evolve this

511: halo to a later epoch via Equation \ref{eq:fit2}.  With the $M_{\rm

512:   star}-M_{\rm vir}$ relation at this later epoch we can then read off

513: the stellar content of the halo at this later epoch.  Continuing this

514: process allows us to build up the full stellar mass growth of the

515: galaxy sitting at the center of this evolving halo.  This process can

516: be repeated for all halos of all masses, allowing one to determine the

517: stellar mass growth of galaxies as a function of dark matter halo

518: mass.

519: 

520: Equation \ref{eq:fit2} does not apply to subhalos and yet we have

521: included subhalos in our analysis up to this point. There are at least

522: two reasons why this issue will not significantly impact our results.

523: First, at any given epoch the majority of subhalos were only recently

524: accreted \citep{Gao04b, Zentner05}, and thus Equation \ref{eq:fit2}

525: should provide a reasonable approximation to the mass growth history

526: of subhalos over most of their evolution.  Second, as mentioned above,

527: subhalos constitute a small fraction of the total halo population

528: ($\sim10-30$\% at any epoch) and thus this approximate treatment

529: should have a small effect on our conclusions.

530: 

531: 

532: \subsection{The impact of merging on galactic growth}

533: \label{sec:merge}

534: 

535: Galaxies can grow in stellar mass by either star formation or by the

536: cannibalism of smaller galaxies \citep[e.g.][]{Ostriker77}.  Both

537: processes can in general contribute to the average stellar mass growth

538: of galaxies.  We are interested primarily in the inferred star

539: formation rates as a function of redshift, stellar mass, and halo

540: mass, and we thus seek a simple way of accounting for the impact of

541: galaxy merging on the stellar mass growth of galaxies.  In what

542: follows we present an estimate for the accretion rate of smaller

543: galaxies onto the halos of larger galaxies.  We then consider two

544: assumptions for the fates of these accreted systems that will bracket

545: the range of possibilities.  In the first, we allow all of the

546: stellar material accreted onto the halo to rapidly merge with the

547: central galaxy, thereby increasing the mass of the central galaxy.

548: The other possibility we consider is that the accreted material

549: remains within the host halo of the central galaxy but does not add to

550: its measured luminosity.  In other words, the accreted material either

551: remains as bound satellite galaxies or ends up as diffuse stellar

552: material not detected in standard survey photometry.  In this latter

553: scenario stellar mass growth is thus determined entirely by star

554: formation. These two scenarios are referred to as the ``merger'' and

555: ``no-merger'' scenarios below.  We now describe the merger scenario in

556: more detail.

557: 

558: Halos grow via the accretion of smaller halos.  The mass spectrum of

559: accreted halos is approximately self-similar in $m'=m/M_z$ where $m$

560: and $M_z$ are the mass of the accreted halo and mass of the parent

561: halo at redshift $z$ \citep{Lacey93, Stewart08}.  The spectrum can be

562: approximated as:

563: \noindent

564: \be\label{eqn:dfdlnm}

565: \frac{{\rm d}f}{{\rm dln }m'} = \frac{\sqrt{m'}}{2.6}{\rm exp}\bigg[-\bigg(\frac{m'}{0.7}\bigg)^6\bigg],

566: \ee

567: \noindent

568: where $f$ is the fraction of mass accreted in clumps of mass $m'$.

569: The exponential cut-off is steep because $m'>1$ is not allowed by

570: definition.  Equation \ref{eqn:dfdlnm} is a fit to the simulation

571: results of \citet{Stewart08}.  This function does not integrate to

572: unity, indicating that a significant fraction, $\sim30-50$\%, of the

573: parent mass is accreted in a diffuse component of dark matter

574: \citep{Stewart08}.  Whether or not this component is truly diffuse or

575: is in clumps of very small mass \citep[e.g.][]{Madau08} is immaterial

576: for our purposes, because in either case this component will not bring

577: in additional stars.

578: 

579: With the mass accretion spectrum in hand, the halo growth rate,

580: $\dot{m}_{\rm halo}$, can be converted into a stellar growth rate due

581: to mergers, $\dot{m}_{\rm stars}$, via:

582: \noindent

583: \be\label{eqn:merger}

584: \dot{m}_{\rm stars} = \dot{m}_{\rm halo} \int \frac{{\rm d}f}{{\rm dln }m'}\frac{M_{\rm star}}{M_{\rm vir}}(M_{\rm vir},z) {\rm d ln}m',

585: \ee

586: \noindent

587: where $\frac{M_{\rm star}}{M_{\rm vir}}(M_{\rm vir},z)$ is the

588: redshift- and halo mass-dependent stellar-to-halo mass ratio

589: determined in $\S$\ref{sec:am}.  Equation \ref{eqn:merger} can be

590: thought of as a convolution of the halo mass accretion spectrum with

591: the relations between halo mass and stellar mass determined in

592: previous sections.  In other words, Equation \ref{eqn:dfdlnm} tells us

593: the types of halos that are accreted, and $\S$\ref{sec:am} tells us

594: the stellar content of these accreted halos. 

595: 

596: In the following sections we will present results for both the merger

597: and no-merger scenarios --- two scenarios that bracket reality.  We

598: remind the reader that while we discuss these scenarios separately, in

599: reality there is clear evidence that both cases occur.  In particular,

600: there exists direct observational evidence for galaxy mergers, and the

601: existence of gravitationally bound groups and clusters of galaxies

602: implies that not all galaxies merge when their halos merge.  Thus,

603: when in later sections we discuss a preference for one scenario over

604: another, we do not mean to suggest that the other scenario never

605: occurs but rather that it is of sub-dominant importance when

606: attempting to describe the statistical properties of galaxies.

607: 

608: In $\S$\ref{s:whysfr} we discuss how our results bear on the relative

609: importance of merging and star formation on the stellar growth of

610: galaxies.

611: 

612: \subsection{From galactic growth to star-formation rates}

613: \label{sec:sfr}

614: 

615: 

616: With an estimate for the amount of stellar mass growth that is due to

617: merging/accretion, the SFR of an average galaxy can then be estimated

618: straightforwardly via a derivative of the portion of stellar mass

619: growth attributed to star formation.  The relation between mass growth

620: and star formation is complicated by mass loss due to dying stars.  We

621: take into account this effect with the following formula:

622: \noindent

623: \be

624: f_{\rm loss}(t) = 5\times 10^{-2}\, {\rm ln}\bigg(\frac{t+3\times 10^5}{3\times 10^5}\bigg),

625: \ee

626: \noindent

627: where $t$ is in years and $f_{\rm loss}(t)$ is the fraction of mass

628: lost by time $t$ for a co-eval set of stars.  This formula is a fit to

629: the mass loss of simple stellar populations with a \citet{Chabrier03}

630: IMF \citep{Renzini93, Bruzual03}.  Note that only $\sim60$\% of the

631: stellar mass formed in a burst of star formation remains after several

632: gigayears, and that the stellar mass remaining includes stellar

633: remnants.  With the full stellar mass growth curve one can then

634: iteratively solve for the star formation rate required to generate

635: such growth given the above mass-loss rate formula.

636: 

637: As mentioned in $\S$\ref{sec:gsmf}, the form we have chosen for the

638: redshift evolution of the stellar mass function is not unique.  Yet it

639: is clearly the rate of evolution of the mass function that determines

640: the resulting star formation rates of galaxies in our model.  We

641: re-emphasize that this form was chosen to best match the observed

642: cosmic star formation rate density.  Our goal is not to find a unique

643: form for the evolution of the mass function but rather to present a

644: consistent framework in which to interpret a vast array of

645: observational data, and to link that data to the underlying dark

646: matter skeleton.

647: 

648: 

649: \section{Model Implications}

650: \label{sec:imp}

651: 

652: The previous section presented a method for connecting the stellar

653: masses and star formation rates of galaxies to dark matter halos over

654: a range of epochs.  This section explores these relations and compares

655: to observations where possible.

656: 

657: \subsection{Halo-galaxy connections}

658: 

659: Implementing the abundance matching technique discussed in

660: $\S$\ref{sec:am} at various epochs yields the relations between halo

661: and galaxy mass shown in the top panel of Figure \ref{fig:theplot}.

662: The generic shape of the relation is governed simply by the

663: Schechter-like functions of both the galaxy stellar MF and the halo

664: MF.  The redshift outputs are spaced equally in $(1+z)^{-1}$.  One

665: novel conclusion drawn from this figure is that, since $z\sim2$, the

666: stellar mass of galaxies residing in halos of mass $\sim10^{12.5}

667: \Msun$ stays roughly constant, at $\sim 10^{11} \Msun$.  Over the

668: redshift range considered, above this mass scale, halo growth

669: out-paces stellar mass growth, while below this scale, galaxy growth

670: is more vigorous than halo growth.

671: 

672: The relation shown in Figure \ref{fig:theplot} applies to central

673: galaxies and to satellites where the halo mass refers to the mass at

674: the time of accretion onto their host \citep[see, e.g.][ for a

675: discussion]{Conroy06a}.  Including a modest level of scatter between

676: stellar and halo mass (as discussed in $\S$\ref{sec:am}) does not

677: substantially impact the mean relation shown in this plot.  As a

678: comparative reference, we show the location of the Milky Way in this

679: figure, as determined from the halo mass estimates of

680: \citet{Klypin02}.  The Milky Way falls directly on our mean relation.

681: 

682: The shape and mild evolution of the $M_{\rm star}-M_{\rm vir}$

683: relation shown in Figure \ref{fig:theplot} provides a clear

684: interpretation of the observed relation between stellar and halo mass

685: from $z\sim1$ to $z\sim0$ reported in \citet{Conroy07a}.  These

686: authors used the dynamics of satellite galaxies orbiting around

687: brighter host galaxies to constrain halo masses, and found that in

688: bins of galaxy stellar mass, halo mass evolves little or not at all

689: since $z\sim1$ below $M_{\rm star}<10^{11} M_\Sun$ but increases by a

690: factor of several above this stellar mass.  This qualitative trend is

691: evident in Figure \ref{fig:theplot}, and can be attributed to the fact

692: that above $M_{\rm star}\sim10^{11} M_\Sun$ the relation shallows,

693: implying that a small shift in the relation over time produces a large

694: change in the halo mass of a given galaxy mass over time.  

695: 

696: Using a similar approach to our abundance matching technique,

697: \citet{Shankar06} find comparable results on the evolution of the

698: $M_{\rm star}-M_{\rm vir}$ relation since $z\sim1$.  Moreover, group

699: catalogs constructed from large observational surveys have begun to

700: probe the $M_{\rm star}-M_{\rm vir}$ relation at $z\sim0$

701: \citep{Berlind06, Yang07}.  Results from the catalogs are in good

702: agreement with what we find at $z\sim0$.

703: 

704: \begin{figure}[!t]

705: \plotone{f2.eps}

706: \vspace{0.5cm}

707: \caption{{\em Top Panel:} The relation between galaxy stellar mass and

708:   halo mass from $z=2$ to $z=0$, using the abundance matching model.

709:   {\em Bottom Panel:} Fraction of available baryons that have turned

710:   into stars (integrated star formation efficiency) as a function of

711:   the halo mass and redshift, where $f_b$ is the universal baryon

712:   fraction.  The star marks the location of the Milky Way at $z=0$.

713:   The thick black line represents the relation at $z=1$.  The

714:   relations at $z>1$ ({\it dashed lines}) should be treated with

715:   caution; see $\S$\ref{sec:highz} for details.}

716: \label{fig:theplot}

717: \vspace{0.5cm}

718: \end{figure}

719: 

720: \begin{figure}[!t]

721: \plotone{f3.eps}

722: \vspace{0.5cm}

723: \caption{{\em Top Panel:} The redshift-dependent relation between

724:   galaxy stellar mass and the mass of the halo to which it will belong

725:   at $z=0$.  By focusing on a fixed $z=0$ halo mass, one can read up

726:   in the plot from $z=2$ to $z=0$ to infer the stellar mass growth of

727:   an average galaxy that, by $z=0$, resides in that halo.  {\em Bottom

728:     Panel:} Fraction of available baryons that have turned into stars

729:   as a function of the $z=0$ halo mass.  The thick black line

730:   represents the relation at $z=1$.  The relations at $z>1$ ({\it

731:     dashed lines}) should be treated with caution; see

732:   $\S$\ref{sec:highz} for details.}

733: \label{fig:theplot_ev}

734: \vspace{0.5cm}

735: \end{figure}

736: 

737: We define the integrated efficiency of star formation as $\eta\equiv

738: M_{\rm{star}}/M_{\rm{vir}}/f_b$, where $f_b=0.17$ is the universal

739: baryon fraction \citep{Spergel07}.  This efficiency quantifies the

740: fraction of available baryons that have been converted into stars, and

741: peaks where integrated star formation is most efficient.  Abundance

742: matching readily predicts $\eta(M_{\rm vir})$ and is shown as a

743: function of redshift in the bottom panel of Figure \ref{fig:theplot}.

744: The first thing to note is that this result implies that the overall

745: efficiency of converting baryons into stars is quite low, never

746: reaching more than $\sim 20\%$ of the potentially available

747: baryons. Although perhaps somewhat surprising, note also that the

748: global stellar mass density is $\sim $4--8 times less than the global

749: baryon density.  This low efficiency is also in good agreement with

750: current estimates for the total and stellar mass of the Milky Way

751: \citep{Klypin02}, with estimates of halo masses from weak lensing

752: measurements combined with stellar mass estimates

753: \citep{Mandelbaum06}, with halo occupation models both at $z\sim0$ and

754: $z\sim1$ \citep{Zheng07}, and with estimates from the accounting of

755: baryons in various states \citep[e.g.][]{Fukugita98, Bell03b,

756:   Baldry08}.

757: 

758: Note that this quantity is {\it not} the instantaneous star formation

759: efficiency because $\eta$ herein is defined with respect to the stars

760: that still exist in the galaxy.  For the IMF we adopt, approximately

761: 40\% of the stellar mass that forms is rapidly lost as massive stars

762: die.  One may convert $\eta$ into the fraction of baryons that have

763: ever spent time in a star by dividing the numbers we quote by 0.6.

764: Thus, for example, the peak shown in the bottom panel of Figure

765: \ref{fig:theplot} would be $\sim 30\%$ if one were interested in the

766: instantaneous star formation efficiency.

767: 

768: Two important trends are apparent.  First, the location of the peak

769: decreases to lower halo masses with time.  The latter trend is a

770: manifestation of at least one meaning of ``downsizing''

771: \citep{Cowie96}, and is a natural implication of the fact that the

772: characteristic stellar mass evolves more slowly than the

773: characteristic halo mass (see $\S$\ref{s:down} for a discussion of

774: downsizing).  Second, the amplitude of the peak star-formation

775: efficiency increases with decreasing redshift, although the magnitude

776: of this trend is somewhat uncertain.  This is due to the rather

777: uncertain evolution of $\phi^*$, which directly affects the evolution

778: of the peak of $\eta(M_{\rm vir})$; varying the evolution in $\phi^*$

779: over a reasonable range changes the amount of evolution in the peak by

780: less than a factor of two.  More accurate observational constraints on

781: $\phi^*(z)$ are required to more robustly pin down the evolution in

782: $\eta(M_{\rm vir})$.  However, the trend that the peak shifts to lower

783: masses with time is robust to uncertainties in $\phi^*(z)$.  The mass

784: at which baryons are most efficiently converted into stars shifts by

785: about a factor of $\sim20$ from $z=2$ to $z=0$, from $M_{\rm{vir}}

786: \sim 10^{13}\,\Msun$ to $M_{\rm{vir}} \sim 10^{11.7} \,\Msun$.

787: 

788: These trends, including the factor of $\sim2$ increase in peak

789: efficiency from $z\sim1$ to $z\sim0$, and the mild decrease in halo

790: mass at which the peak occurs, agree well with halo occupation

791: modeling of galaxies at these epochs \citep{Zheng07}.

792: 

793: As discussed in $\S$\ref{sec:mah}, we know from $N$-body simulations

794: the full mass growth histories of dark matter halos statistically for

795: a given cosmology. These accretion histories allow us to evolve a halo

796: of mass $M_{\rm vir}(z)$ at redshift $z$ forward in time to the mass

797: such a halo will have by $z=0$, $M_{\rm vir}(z=0)$.  We can couple

798: these halo accretion histories to the $M_{\rm star}-M_{\rm vir}$

799: relations discussed above to determine the relation between a halo's

800: mass at $z=0$ and the stellar mass content of that halo as a function

801: of redshift.

802: 

803: The resulting relations are shown in the top panel of Figure

804: \ref{fig:theplot_ev}.  The $z=0$ halo mass can be thought of as a

805: unique tag for each (average) galaxy.  A vertical slice through Figure

806: \ref{fig:theplot_ev} thus traces out the trajectory of an average

807: galaxy at different redshifts.  From this plot one can thus read off

808: \emph{directly} the average stellar mass build-up of galaxies as a

809: function of their $z=0$ halo mass.  These relations are uniquely

810: determined by the relations between galaxies and halos at fixed epochs

811: in conjunction with the evolution of halos demanded by our fiducial

812: cosmology.

813: 

814: \begin{figure}[!t]

815: \plotone{f4.eps}

816: \vspace{0.5cm}

817: \caption{Fraction of mass assembled as a function of redshift.  Each

818:   panel compares the fraction of a galaxy's stellar mass that is

819:   assembled ({\it solid and dotted lines}) to the fraction of the

820:   galaxy's parent halo mass that is assembled ({\it dashed lines}).

821:   The stellar growth curves are dotted at $z>1$ to indicate that this

822:   regime should be treated with caution; see $\S$\ref{sec:highz} for

823:   details. The four panels display the assembly history for a range of

824:   galaxies with $z=0$ stellar and halo masses shown in the legend, in

825:   units of ${\rm log}(\Msun)$.  It is clear that, at lower mass, a

826:   larger fraction of the halo is in place at early times compared to

827:   higher mass.  The opposite trend is true for stellar masses.}

828: \label{fig:star_growth}

829: \vspace{0.5cm}

830: \end{figure}

831: 

832: A clear and robust inference from this figure is that the stellar mass

833: of galaxies residing in $z=0$ halos of mass $\gtrsim10^{14} \Msun$ was

834: mostly assembled by $z\sim2$.  This agrees qualitatively with the

835: modest evolution in the massive end of the observed galaxy stellar

836: mass function since $z\sim2$ \citep[e.g.][]{Fontana04, Drory04,

837:   Bundy05, Borch06, Fontana06, Cimatti06, Andreon06, Brown07, Brown08,

838:   Perez-Gonzalez08, Cool08}.  Note however that the input to our model

839: is the observed galaxy stellar mass function, so for example if

840: observations do not account for the low surface brightness

841: intracluster light associated with central galaxies in massive halos

842: \citep[e.g.][]{Gonzalez05, Zibetti05, Krick07}, then our model will

843: also fail to incorporate this component. The diffuse light could

844: contain as much mass as the central galaxy, and should thus be taken

845: into account when modeling massive galaxies \citep[see discussion

846: in][]{Monaco06, Conroy07b, Conroy07c, Purcell07}.  Here however our

847: focus is on stellar growth and star formation in more modestly-sized

848: halos.

849: 

850: The bottom panel of Figure \ref{fig:theplot_ev} shows the integrated

851: star formation efficiency of galaxies at various epochs as a function

852: of their $z=0$ halo mass.  For halo masses less than

853: $\sim10^{12}\,\Msun$ the integrated efficiency is a monotonically

854: increasing function of time.  At higher masses the efficiency rises,

855: peaks, and then falls with increasing time, and at masses greater than

856: $\sim10^{14}\,\Msun$ the integrated efficiency is a continually

857: decreasing function of time since $z=2$.

858: 

859: 

860: \begin{figure}[!t]

861: \plotone{f5.eps}

862: \vspace{0.5cm}

863: \caption{Average formation times for galaxies ({\it solid line and

864:     shaded region}) and halos ({\it dashed and dotted lines}) as a

865:   function of $z=0$ galaxy and halo mass.  Lines and shaded region

866:   indicate the redshift at which 25\%, 50\%, and 75\% of the final

867:   mass was assembled, as labeled in the figure.  For example, a galaxy

868:   with stellar mass $10^{10} \Msun$ at $z=0$ assembled 50\% of its

869:   final mass by $z\approx0.5$.  Such a galaxy resides in a halo of

870:   mass $10^{11.6}\Msun$, which was half assembled by $z\approx1.0$.

871:   At $M_{\rm star}\lesssim10^{10.7}\Msun$ halos are assembled before

872:   galaxies while at higher masses the opposite is true, in agreement

873:   with the trends seen in Figure \ref{fig:star_growth}.}

874: \label{fig:zhalf}

875: \vspace{0.5cm}

876: \end{figure}

877: 

878: \subsubsection{Galaxy growth versus halo growth}

879: 

880: A perhaps more revealing illustration of the results in Figure

881: \ref{fig:theplot_ev} are shown in Figure \ref{fig:star_growth}.  There

882: the stellar mass growth of a galaxy is compared to the growth of its

883: parent dark matter halo for four representative $z=0$ stellar masses.

884: For stellar masses $\lesssim10^{10.7}\Msun$ (corresponding to $M_{\rm

885:   vir}\lesssim10^{12.3}\Msun$), fractional halo growth since $z=2$ is

886: much more mild than stellar growth.  This low-mass regime can thus be

887: thought of as `internally-dominated', where growth is not controlled by

888: extra-halo processes.  Stellar growth in this regime is thus driven by

889: gas physics related to cooling, star formation, and feedback.

890: 

891: The situation is qualitatively different at higher masses.  At stellar

892: masses $\gtrsim10^{11}\Msun$ (corresponding to $M_{\rm

893:   vir}\gtrsim10^{13}\Msun$), fractional halo growth is much stronger

894: than stellar growth at $z<2$.  This is not surprising in light of the

895: fact that the massive end of the stellar mass function appears to be

896: approximately in place since $z\sim1$ \citep{Fontana04, Drory04,

897:   Bundy05, Borch06, Fontana06, Cimatti06, Wake06, Brown07, Cool08}.

898: This high-mass regime is thus `externally-dominated', in contrast to

899: lower-mass systems.  High-mass systems are primarily accreting copious

900: amounts of dark matter, some fraction of which will bring in bound

901: stellar systems (e.g. satellite galaxies).  The system --- defined

902: loosely as the region within the halo virial radius --- is thus

903: growing in a larger sense, while the galaxy at the center of the halo

904: is not.  This figure does not include the potentially massive

905: component of stellar light associated with a diffuse background, known

906: as the intracluster light.  For a discussion of the importance of this

907: component see \citet{Conroy07b} and references therein.

908: 

909: The average formation times for galaxies and halos is shown in Figure

910: \ref{fig:zhalf}.  Here we plot the redshift at which 25\%, 50\%, and

911: 75\% of the final mass was assembled, for both the stars accreted onto

912: the galaxy and for the dark matter mass accreted onto the halo.  Since

913: we are investigating only average properties, recall that in our model

914: each galaxy mass is assigned a unique halo mass, and thus each average

915: galaxy has a unique halo mass and stellar mass, and unique formation

916: times for both of those components.  It is clear that the stellar mass

917: in lower mass systems formed later than in high mass systems, while

918: the dark matter halos display the opposite trend.  Although this

919: general trend has now been evident from a range of data, this figure

920: ties together the available information on galaxy and halo growth.

921: 

922: Notice that the results presented thus far do not require making any

923: assumption for {\it how} the galaxy mass is built up (i.e. whether by

924: star-formation or merging).  These results only require knowledge of

925: the redshift-dependent galaxy-halo connections in conjunction with how

926: average halos grow with time.  We now turn to the more challenging

927: task of constraining the possible modes of galaxy growth.

928: 

929: 

930: \begin{figure}[!t]

931: \plotone{f6.eps}

932: \vspace{0.5cm}

933: \caption{ {\em Top Panel:} Average specific star formation rate

934:   history as a function of redshift, for galaxies with $z=0$ stellar

935:   masses given in the legend (in units of ${\rm log}(\Msun)$).  The

936:   dotted line indicates a slope of unity.  {\em Bottom Panel:} Star

937:   formation rate history as a function of redshift for the same model

938:   galaxies.  The solid and dashed lines represent our model for two

939:   prescriptions to relate stellar growth to star formation. The solid

940:   lines are for the no-merger model while the dashed lines are for the

941:   merger model (see $\S$\ref{sec:merge} for details).  Observed star

942:   formation histories from \citet{Panter07} for galaxies of the same

943:   $z=0$ stellar masses as the model predictions are included for

944:   comparison.  For reasons discussed in the text, the model is likely

945:   not reliable at $z>1$.  Note that results for both the model and

946:   data are {\it average} relations.}

947: \label{fig:sfr_z}

948: \vspace{0.5cm}

949: \end{figure}

950: 

951: \subsection{The star formation history of galaxies}

952: \label{sec:sfhg}

953: 

954: The star formation rate (SFR) and specific star formation rate (SSFR

955: $\equiv$ SFR/$M_{\rm star}$) for average galaxy trajectories are shown

956: in Figure \ref{fig:sfr_z} as a function of redshift for several

957: representative $z=0$ stellar masses.  The SSFR is approximately

958: self-similar in galaxy mass for $z<1$ and scales with redshift as

959: ${\rm log(SSFR)}\propto z$.  Lower mass galaxies have higher specific

960: star formation rates at all times.  In this and subsequent figures we

961: include two different treatments for the importance of merging on

962: stellar mass growth.  The solid lines represent the assumption that

963: all stellar mass growth is due to star formation in situ, while the

964: dashed lines represent the prescription, described in

965: $\S$\ref{sec:merge}, that includes mergers and accretion.

966: 

967: The SSFR for the most massive galaxies ($M_{\rm star}\gtrsim 10^{11}

968: \, \Msun$) is the least constrained in our model because the massive

969: end of the stellar mass function evolves little at $z<2$, and so the

970: SFR is a derivative of a nearly constant function.  This can be seen

971: in the top panel of Figure \ref{fig:theplot_ev}, where it is clear

972: that small uncertainties/changes in the stellar mass or halo mass

973: scale can cause relatively large uncertainties in the star formation

974: rates.  When discussing star-formation rates we restrict ourselves to

975: stellar masses less than $\sim10^{11}\,\Msun$ where the conversion

976: between stellar mass growth and SFR is most reliable.

977: 

978: The bottom panel of Figure \ref{fig:sfr_z} shows the average SFR of

979: galaxies as a function of $z=0$ stellar mass.  The results in this

980: figure are not directly accessible to observations at high redshift

981: because the observations do not tell us the connection between

982: galaxies at different epochs.  Without this information, following the

983: SFH of a particular galaxy across time is not possible with

984: observations of the distant past.  However, such information is at

985: least in principle attainable from consideration of the stellar

986: populations of galaxies in the local universe.  Attempts at inferring

987: the SFH of galaxies in this way have concluded that the SFR peaked

988: earlier for more massive galaxies, and for galaxies less massive than

989: $\sim10^{10}\Msun$ the data are consistent with a constant SFH, at

990: least since $z\sim1$ \citep{Lee07a, vanZee01, Heavens04, Panter07}.

991: The model results presented in Figure \ref{fig:sfr_z} is compared to

992: the results from \citet{Panter07} who have used the stellar

993: populations of local galaxies to constrain their mass-dependent star

994: formation histories.  Our model reproduces the general trends well,

995: though there is a $\sim0.1-0.2$ dex offset between the model and data.

996: 

997: Furthermore, the trends in Figure \ref{fig:sfr_z} shed light on the

998: phenomenon known as `downsizing' \citep[e.g.][]{Cowie96, Brinchmann00,

999:   Juneau05} whereby more massive systems formed the bulk of their

1000: stars at earlier epochs compared to less massive systems.  While it is

1001: clear that star formation has peaked earlier in more massive systems,

1002: it is also apparent from the figure that at any epoch, more massive

1003: galaxies have higher star formation rates and smaller specific star

1004: formation rates than less massive galaxies.  We discuss this issue

1005: further in \S \ref{s:down}.

1006: 

1007: \subsection{SFR dependence on galaxy and halo mass}

1008: \label{sec:sfrmass}

1009: 

1010: 

1011: \begin{figure}[!t]

1012: \plotone{f7.eps}

1013: \vspace{0.5cm}

1014: \caption{SSFR ({\it top panel}) and SFR ({\it bottom panel}) as a

1015:   function of galaxy stellar mass at various epochs.  Note that the

1016:   two panels display equivalent information.  Observational results

1017:   from \citet{Noeske07a} are included and labeled N07, as are $z\sim0$

1018:   data from \citet{Salim07} and data from \citet{ZhengBell07}, labeled

1019:   Z07.  Error bars denote $1\sigma$ scatter, not the error on the

1020:   mean, and are included for only one set of data for clarity. The

1021:   solid and dashed lines represent the no-merger and merger models,

1022:   respectively (see $\S$\ref{sec:merge} for details).  The no-merger

1023:   model is clearly a better match to the data at all epochs.  Note

1024:   that the model describes {\it average} relations of SFR with mass.}

1025: \label{fig:sfr_mass}

1026: \vspace{0.5cm}

1027: \end{figure}

1028: 

1029: \begin{figure}[!t]

1030: \plotone{f8.eps}

1031: \vspace{0.5cm}

1032: \caption{SSFR ({\it top panel}) and SFR ({\it bottom panel}) as a

1033:   function of halo mass at various epochs.  As in previous figures,

1034:   the solid and dashed lines represent the no-merger and merger

1035:   models, respectively (see $\S$\ref{sec:merge} for details).  These

1036:   two assumptions only impact the derived SFR at high masses,

1037:   and the data favor the no-merger model (see Figure

1038:   \ref{fig:sfr_mass}).  In the top panel the dotted line indicates a

1039:   slope of $-0.5$.  Note that the model describes {\it average}

1040:   relations of SFR with mass.}

1041: \label{fig:sfr_hmass}

1042: \vspace{0.5cm}

1043: \end{figure}

1044: 

1045: \begin{figure*}[!t]

1046: \center

1047: \includegraphics[angle=90, width=0.7\textwidth]{f9.ps}

1048: \vspace{0.5cm}

1049: \caption{SFR as a function of halo mass at various epochs for our

1050:   preferred, no-merger model ({\it solid lines}).  In this figure we

1051:   include Gaussian fits to the SFR($M_{\rm vir}$) relations ({\it

1052:     dashed lines}).  The inset shows the best-fit normalization,

1053:   SFR$_0$, and mean, $M_0$, as a function of redshift ({\it solid

1054:     lines}), along with linear fits ({\it dashed lines}) to these

1055:   relations, which are barely distinguishable from the relations

1056:   themselves.  The dispersion is a weak function of redshift and is

1057:   thus only included in the three larger panels for clarity--- the

1058: %  average dispersion between $0.1<z<1.0$ is $\sigma=0.75$.  Note that at

1059: average dispersion between $0.1<z<1.0$ is $\sigma=0.72$.  Note that at

1060:   higher redshift the turn-over at high masses is not resolved and the

1061:   fits there should thus be treated with caution.}

1062: \label{fig:sfrfits}

1063: \vspace{0.5cm}

1064: \end{figure*}

1065: 

1066: 

1067: Our model allows us to calculate the SSFR and SFR of galaxies as

1068: functions of stellar mass and redshift; these are shown in Figure

1069: \ref{fig:sfr_mass}.  As above, the figure includes two different

1070: prescriptions for relating stellar growth to star formation.  One

1071: possibility is that all stellar growth is due to star formation ({\it

1072:   solid lines}) while the other allows for some fraction of stellar

1073: growth to be attributed to merging ({\it dashed lines}; see

1074: $\S$\ref{sec:merge}).

1075: 

1076: The model is compared to a variety of data from the literature over

1077: the redshift interval $0<z<1$.  In all cases the data are meant to

1078: represent {\it average} star formation rates as a function of stellar

1079: mass (i.e. the average star formation rate of {\it all} --- both red

1080: and blue --- galaxies at a given stellar mass).  The

1081: completeness-corrected average SFR$-M{\rm star}$ relation from

1082: \citet{Noeske07a} was constructed based on the completeness

1083: corrections of \citet[][K. Noeske private communication]{Lin08} in

1084: order to account for red galaxies with no detectable levels of star

1085: formation.  The results from \citet{ZhengBell07} were derived from stacked

1086: data and can thus be interpreted as average relations.  Finally, the

1087: results from \citet{Salim07} were determined from data with sufficient

1088: sensitivity to detect extremely low levels of star formation and can

1089: thus also be interpreted as an average relation over all galaxies at a

1090: given stellar mass.

1091: 

1092: It is clear from Figure \ref{fig:sfr_mass} that the assumption that

1093: all stellar growth is due to star formation (i.e. the no-merger

1094: scenario; {\it solid lines}) provides a much better match to the data at

1095: stellar masses $\gtrsim10^{10}\Msun$.  For this reason we adopt this

1096: assumption as the fiducial model.  At lower masses the no-merger and

1097: merger scenarios yield the same predictions for the star formation

1098: rates (i.e., even with maximal merging, incoming satellite galaxies do

1099: not contribute any appreciable stellar mass) The importance of star

1100: formation over merging in galactic growth is discussed further in

1101: $\S$\ref{s:whysfr}.

1102: 

1103: 

1104: \begin{figure}[!t]

1105: \plotone{f10.eps}

1106: \vspace{0.5cm}

1107: \caption{{\it Top Panel:} SFR density as a function of stellar mass

1108:   and redshift.  {\it Bottom Panel:} SFR density as a function of halo

1109:   mass and redshift.  These plots illustrate the contribution to the

1110:   global SFR density for galaxies of a given stellar mass ({\it top

1111:     panel}) and for galaxies residing in a given halo mass ({\it

1112:     bottom panel}).  As in previous figures, we include SFR estimates

1113:   for both the assumption that the stellar growth is entirely due to

1114:   star formation ({\it solid lines}), and a simple prescription to

1115:   account for the amount of stellar growth due to mergers and

1116:   accretion ({\it dashed lines}, see $\S$\ref{sec:merge}).  This

1117:   figure demonstrates that the bulk of star formation at $z\leq1$

1118:   occurs in relatively massive galaxies and in halos of mass

1119:   $10^{11.5-12.5}\Msun$. }

1120: \label{fig:rhosfr_zm}

1121: \vspace{0.5cm}

1122: \end{figure}

1123: 

1124: 

1125: \begin{figure}[!t]

1126: \plotone{f11.eps}

1127: \vspace{0.5cm}

1128: \caption{\emph{Top Panel}: Cosmic SFR density as a function of

1129:   redshift.  Our model predictions both for the no-merger (\emph{solid

1130:     line}) and merger (\emph{dashed line}) models are compared to the

1131:   data compilation of \citet[][\emph{circles}]{Hopkins04}.

1132:   \emph{Bottom Panel}: Cosmic stellar mass density as a function of

1133:   redshift (\emph{solid line}) compared to the data compilation of

1134:   \citet[][\emph{circles}]{Wilkins08}.}

1135: \label{fig:rhosfr}

1136: \vspace{0.5cm}

1137: \end{figure}

1138: 

1139: It is instructive to understand which aspects of the model are driving

1140: agreement with the data.  The normalization of the model predictions

1141: depend on the evolution of $\phi^\ast$, the redshift-dependent

1142: normalization of the stellar mass function, while the shapes depends

1143: on $\alpha^\ast$ and $M^\ast$, although the latter two dependencies

1144: are much weaker than the first.  Recall that we have tuned the

1145: evolution of $\phi^\ast$ to reproduce the normalization of the

1146: SFR$-M_{\rm star}$ relations, but not the shape of these relations.

1147: The shape is thus a robust prediction of our approach, while the

1148: normalization agrees with the data by construction.

1149: 

1150: Figures \ref{fig:sfr_z} and \ref{fig:sfr_mass} can be thought of as

1151: consistency checks between the model and data, since many of the

1152: implications that can be drawn from these figures are readily

1153: available from the data themselves.  In contrast, Figure

1154: \ref{fig:sfr_hmass} contains a variety of novel results.  This figure

1155: shows the model predictions for the SFR and SSFR in galaxies {\em as a

1156:   function of their host dark matter halo masses.}

1157: 

1158: An interesting consequence of Figure \ref{fig:sfr_hmass} is that the

1159: halo mass at which the most vigorous star formation occurs is not a

1160: strong function of redshift.  In addition, the peak in SFR occurs over

1161: a large range of halo masses, rather than at one well-defined scale.

1162: Moreover, the SSFR$-M_{\rm vir}$ relation appears to be almost

1163: scale-free up to $M_{\rm vir}\sim10^{13}\Msun$ for our favored model,

1164: with the normalization steadily decreasing with time and a

1165: non-evolving slope.  Over the range $10^{11.0}\lesssim M_{\rm

1166:   vir}\lesssim10^{13.0} \Msun$, the redshift- and mass-dependent

1167: relation can be approximated by:

1168: \noindent

1169: \be 

1170: {\rm SSFR}\approx 10^{4.9+0.9z}\, M_{\rm vir}^{-0.5} \,\,\,{\rm Gyr}^{-1}.

1171: \ee

1172: 

1173: The relation between SFR and halo mass shown in Figure

1174: \ref{fig:sfr_hmass} can be thought of as the most fundamental of the

1175: relations discussed in this work, as this redshift-dependent relation

1176: gives rise to all other relations.  This relation thus provides a

1177: direct link between observations and models in the sense that any

1178: model which reproduces the trends in Figure \ref{fig:sfr_hmass} will

1179: automatically match the variety of observational results discussed

1180: herein.  This connection between SFR and halo mass, determined

1181: entirely from observations with our simple approach, can thus be of

1182: general use to the modeling community in constraining models of

1183: cooling, feedback, and star formation in galaxies.

1184: 

1185: Figure \ref{fig:sfrfits} shows the SFR$-M_{\rm vir}$ relations again,

1186: now with Gaussian fits (note that the $y$-axis is shown here in linear

1187: units).  It is clear that the relations are well-characterized as

1188: Gaussian except perhaps at the highest masses at low redshift (where

1189: our model is least well-constrained) and at high masses at high

1190: redshift where the turn-over is not resolved.  The fits in these

1191: regimes should thus be treated with caution.

1192: 

1193: The Gaussian fits are characterized by three parameters: the peak,

1194: SFR$_0$, mean, $M_0$, and dispersion, $\sigma$.  The first two

1195: parameters are shown as a function of redshift in the inset panels of

1196: Figure \ref{fig:sfrfits}.  These parameters are very well approximated

1197: with the following linear relations:

1198: \noindent

1199: \bea

1200: {\rm log(SFR_0)} = 0.47 + 1.1\, z \\

1201: {\rm log}(M_0) = 12.3 + 0.81\, z.

1202: \eea

1203: \noindent

1204: These fits are included in the inset panels.  The dispersion is a much

1205: weaker function of redshift than either the normalization or the mean.

1206: The dispersion ranges from 0.64 at $z=0.1$ to 0.89 at $z=1.0$ with a

1207: mean value of 0.72 over the whole interval $0.1<z<1.0$.  It is

1208: important to recognize that, while the general functional form and

1209: redshift-dependent trends are robust predictions of our model, the

1210: precise values are subject to uncertainty because the observations

1211: themselves, to which the model is tied, still have substantial

1212: uncertainties.

1213: 

1214: In all of these figures it is important to keep in mind that we are

1215: presenting {\it average} relations between various quantities.  At

1216: first glance Figure \ref{fig:sfr_hmass} might suggest that there

1217: would be no red galaxies (where star-formation has ceased) at

1218: $z\sim1$.  There can of course be such galaxies, as there can also be

1219: galaxies with SFR in excess of the average relation presented in

1220: Figure \ref{fig:sfr_hmass}.

1221: 

1222: It is worth mentioning here why the approach taken in this paper is

1223: particularly useful.  The current generation of hydrodynamic

1224: simulations and semi-analytic models are not capable of reproducing

1225: the redshift-dependent trends shown in Figure \ref{fig:sfr_mass}

1226: \citep{Dave08}.  The cause of this discrepancy is not currently

1227: understood, although \citet{Dave08} speculates that an evolving IMF

1228: can alleviate the tension.  Regardless, it is clear that until this

1229: tension is resolved, using either hydrodynamic simulations or

1230: semi-analytic models to interpret the observations and connect them to

1231: the formation and evolution of halos requires caution.  Our approach

1232: matches the observations by construction and it can thus be used with

1233: more confidence for interpreting the data.  Its main limitation, and

1234: the main advantage of the simulations, is that our model makes no

1235: reference to the underlying physical processes governing these

1236: relations.  However, the connection between observables and halo mass

1237: derived from our approach should be very helpful in informing these

1238: more physical models.

1239: 

1240: \subsection{Global properties}

1241: \label{s:glob}

1242: 

1243: Figure \ref{fig:rhosfr_zm} plots the SFR density as a function of

1244: stellar mass at $z=0.1, 0.5,$ and $1.0$.  This quantity is the SFR

1245: density contributed by galaxies with mass $M_{\rm star}$ and is

1246: produced by multiplying the SFR$-M_{\rm star}$ relation by the galaxy

1247: stellar mass function, $\Phi(M_{\rm star})$.  This quantity is thus

1248: well-constrained by the observational data.  In the figure, this

1249: quantity is plotted both as a function of the stellar and dark matter

1250: halo mass.

1251: 

1252: In the top panel, the peak for our favored model ({\it solid lines})

1253: is $\sim0.5$ dex lower than the characteristic mass of the stellar

1254: mass function, $M^\ast$, at all epochs, indicating that the bulk of

1255: the SFR density is contributed by galaxies a factor of $\sim3$ in mass

1256: below $M^\ast$.  In other words, the characteristic galactic mass in

1257: which stars form since $z\lesssim1$ is a factor of $\sim3$ lower than

1258: the characteristic galactic mass dominating the mass density.

1259: 

1260: This peak in the SFR density does not change appreciably from $z\sim0$

1261: to $z\sim1$.  The bulk of star formation at $z\lesssim 1$ never occurs

1262: in small systems, rather it is always dominated by relatively massive,

1263: $M_{\rm star}\sim10^{10.0-10.5}\Msun$ galaxies.  Similarly, the peak

1264: as a function of $M_{\rm vir}$ ({\it bottom panel}) decreases only

1265: slightly, by at most $\sim0.5$ dex from $z=1$ to $z=0$.  These results

1266: imply that a typical star in the Universe forms in galaxies of similar

1267: mass, both in terms of stars and dark matter, from $z\sim1$ to

1268: $z\sim0$.  The principle difference with redshift is that the

1269: distribution of masses increases with time, so that stars are more

1270: likely to form in a variety of systems at later epochs.

1271: 

1272: Finally, Figure \ref{fig:rhosfr} compares our model predictions for

1273: the evolution of the cosmic SFR density and stellar mass density to

1274: data compilations provided by \citet{Hopkins04} and \citet{Wilkins08},

1275: respectively.  The top panel includes the model prediction for the SFR

1276: under the two different assumptions discussed in $\S$\ref{sec:merge}.

1277: The agreement between model and data at $z<1$ in this figure is

1278: largely by construction, as mentioned in $\S$\ref{sec:gsmf}, but is

1279: included here for completeness.  The discrepancy between model and

1280: data at $z>1$, which is more apparent in Figure \ref{fig:gsmf} but is

1281: also seen here, is discussed in the next section.

1282: 

1283: \subsection{The model at $z>1$}

1284: \label{sec:highz}

1285: 

1286: In this section we have focused largely on redshifts less than one.

1287: At higher redshifts the model fails to match the observed cosmic SFR

1288: stellar mass density evolution at $z>1$ as shown in Figure

1289: \ref{fig:rhosfr}, and, relatedly, the normalization of the stellar

1290: mass function at $z=2$, shown in Figure \ref{fig:gsmf}.  This

1291: disagreement arises due to a more generic discrepancy between observed

1292: SFR indicators and stellar mass estimates, as discussed in

1293: $\S$\ref{sec:gsmf}.  As discussed in that section, one possible

1294: explanation is that the IMF evolves with redshift

1295: \citep[e.g.][]{Wilkins08}, although we emphasize that this possibility

1296: is controversial.  Nonetheless, the generic inconsistency between {\it

1297:   observations} implies that our model cannot be robustly applied to

1298: $z>1$.

1299: 

1300: Moreover, it is plausible that our assumption of a tight correlation

1301: between stellar mass and halo mass breaks down at higher redshift

1302: \citep[cf. discussion in][]{Conroy08a}.  This tight correlation is

1303: strongly supported at $0<z<1$ by the observed stellar mass-dependent

1304: autocorrelation function of galaxies, in the sense that more massive

1305: galaxies are more strongly clustered \citep{Li06, Meneux08}.  This

1306: observational result can be most easily explained if more massive

1307: galaxies reside in more massive halos because halo clustering strength

1308: is a monotonically increasing function of halo mass

1309: \citep[e.g.][]{Zehavi05, Conroy06a}.

1310: 

1311: This observational trend has not been unambiguously confirmed at $z>2$

1312: \citep{Adelberger05}, except perhaps at the very highest masses

1313: \citep{Quadri07}.  It is clear however that there is strong {\it

1314:   restframe UV luminosity}-dependent clustering at these early epochs

1315: \citep{Adelberger05, Lee06, Ouchi05}.  By analogy with stellar masses

1316: at low redshift, this trend can be understood if UV luminosity, and

1317: hence the star formation rate, is strongly and monotonically

1318: correlated with dark matter halo mass.  If this is the correct

1319: interpretation, then our model must be modified at these early epochs

1320: \citep[see e.g.][]{Conroy08a}.

1321: 

1322: \subsection{Dependence on cosmological parameters}

1323: \label{s:cosmo}

1324: 

1325: The halo mass functions and halo mass accretion histories in this

1326: model are dependent on cosmological parameters.  Because it affects

1327: the shape and normalization of the mass function, the normalization of

1328: the power spectrum can have a large affect on our results. The

1329: analytic framework for these halo properties described in

1330: $\S$\ref{sec:hmf} allows us to straightforwardly explore the effect of

1331: cosmological parameters on our results.  Here we just consider the

1332: effect of the normalization of the power spectrum as specified by the

1333: rms fluctuations measured in $8\Mpc h^{-1}$ spheres, $\sigma_8$.

1334: 

1335: We find that the impact of $\sigma_8$ on our results is imperceptible

1336: for $z=0$ halo masses less than $\sim10^{14}\Msun$.  This is due to

1337: the fact that the dependence of the halo mass function on $\sigma_8$

1338: is much stronger at the massive end.  When considering a change from

1339: our fiducial model with $\sigma_8=0.76$ to a model with

1340: $\sigma_8=0.90$, even at $M_{\rm vir}=10^{14}\Msun$ the difference in

1341: halo abundance is $<0.3$ dex, and at $M_{\rm vir}=10^{13}\Msun$ it is

1342: $<0.1$ dex.  The accretion histories are also a function of

1343: $\sigma_8$, but again the effect is only manifest at high halo masses.

1344: Since the bulk of our results focus on halo masses

1345: $\lesssim10^{14}\Msun$, we conclude that the uncertainty in $\sigma_8$

1346: does not impact our conclusions.

1347: 

1348: \section{Discussion}

1349: 

1350: \subsection{Downsizing: what, when, and where}

1351: \label{s:down}

1352: 

1353: The phenomenon known as ``downsizing'', coined by \citet{Cowie96}, has

1354: received much attention recently, and, perhaps confusingly, has been

1355: attributed to a number of related but nevertheless different

1356: phenomena.  In its most general sense the term highlights a shift in a

1357: {\it preferred mass scale} of a phenomenon related to stellar growth

1358: or star formation.  With an observationally-constrained model for the

1359: redshift-dependent connections between star formation, stellar mass,

1360: and halo mass, we are in a position to clarify and outline the

1361: relations between the various meanings of downsizing.  For clarity, we

1362: focus discussion on galaxies with $M_{\rm star}<10^{11}\Msun$ and

1363: $z<1$, where our results are most reliable \citep[see e.g.][for a

1364: theoretical discussion of downsizing for higher mass

1365: systems]{Cattaneo08}.

1366: 

1367: Originally, downsizing described the observation that the maximum

1368: $K$-band luminosity of galaxies above a SSFR threshold decreases with

1369: time \citep{Cowie96}.  In this definition, the SSFR threshold is

1370: independent of redshift.  In Figure \ref{fig:sfr_mass} we can see that

1371: a line of constant SSFR will indeed include more massive galaxies at

1372: earlier epochs, consistent with this notion.  However, inspection of

1373: the full relations in this figure shows that this notion of downsizing

1374: is driven by the global phenomenon that all galaxies have lower star

1375: formation rates at later times.  In fact, these relations do not

1376: appear to show any preferred scale with stellar mass (except possibly

1377: at very high stellar masses), but rather they shift self-similarly in

1378: time as noted by \citet{Noeske07a, Noeske07b}.

1379: 

1380: Figures \ref{fig:sfr_hmass} and \ref{fig:sfrfits} display another type

1381: of downsizing in the sense that the dark matter halo mass at which

1382: star formation is most intense shifts to lower masses at later times.

1383: This trend is apparent in both our favored model where stellar growth

1384: is entirely due to star formation ({\it solid lines}) and in the model

1385: that includes stellar growth due to mergers ({\it dashed lines}),

1386: suggesting that this form of downsizing is a generic feature of dark

1387: matter halos.  Indeed, \citet{Neistein06} has argued that downsizing

1388: arises naturally from the accretion histories of the dark matter halos

1389: themselves.  While this is an intriguing possibility, the uncertain

1390: relation between halos and galaxies (connected in their terms by the

1391: competition between gas heating and cooling), makes their conclusions

1392: difficult to interpret at face value.

1393: 

1394: Downsizing has also been attributed to the observation that more

1395: massive galaxies seem to have formed the bulk of their stars earlier.

1396: This type of downsizing has been referred to as ``archaeological

1397: downsizing'' because it is observed in the fossil record of the

1398: spectra of $z\approx0$ galaxies.  It has been most convincingly

1399: demonstrated in local elliptical galaxies where one finds that more

1400: massive galaxies formed the bulk of their stars earlier and over

1401: shorter timescales than less massive galaxies \citep{Thomas05}.

1402: 

1403: This form of downsizing can be seen clearly in Figure

1404: \ref{fig:star_growth}, which shows that the most massive galaxies

1405: formed the bulk of their stars earlier than less massive galaxies.

1406: From Figure \ref{fig:sfr_z} it is also clear that the peak of the SFR

1407: occurs at earlier times for more massive systems.  Note however that

1408: in the top panel of Figure \ref{fig:sfr_z} there is no clear scale in

1409: the SSFR except perhaps for the most massive galaxies, and thus there is

1410: little evidence for any type of downsizing in this relation.

1411: 

1412: A final meaning of downsizing concerns the sites where the bulk of

1413: stars are being formed at any epoch.  This form of downsizing implies

1414: that stars are being formed in preferentially smaller systems at later

1415: times.  In Figure \ref{fig:rhosfr_zm} it is clear however that the

1416: typical masses hosting the bulk of star formation has not changed

1417: appreciably since $z\sim1$.  There is thus no evidence for this form

1418: of downsizing given the available data.

1419: 

1420: It is understandable, in light of the preceding discussion, that the

1421: term downsizing has been used to describe so many related but

1422: different phenomena, and that some authors find no evidence for a

1423: downsizing phenomenon.  As we have seen in the various relations

1424: between SFR, SSFR, stellar mass, halo mass, and redshift, some show a

1425: shift in preferred scales with time, and some do not.  Downsizing, of

1426: whatever type, thus manifests itself only in certain relations, and

1427: not in others.

1428: 

1429: \subsection{A characteristic halo mass?}

1430: \label{s:cmass}

1431: 

1432: Recently several theoretical studies have raised the possibility of a

1433: characteristic halo mass below which star formation occurs, and above

1434: which star formation is truncated \citep{Keres05, Dekel06, Birnboim07,

1435:   Cattaneo07}.  In this section we focus on the observational evidence

1436: for or against a {\it sharp or narrow range in halo masses} over which

1437: galaxy properties, such as star formation rates, change dramatically.

1438: 

1439: This characteristic mass scale, which is thought to be $M_{\rm

1440:   vir}\sim10^{12}\Msun$ at $z\sim0$, may be related to the observed

1441: stellar mass scale at which many properties of galaxies qualitatively

1442: change \citep[e.g.][]{Kauffmann03b}.  The fundamental gas dynamical

1443: effect occurring in halos above this characteristic scale is thought

1444: to be the formation of a stable shock through which infalling gas must

1445: cross, thereby raising the temperature of this newly accreted gas to

1446: the virial temperature of the halo \citep{Keres05}.  Accreted gas that

1447: is shock-heated is known as `hot-mode' accretion, while gas that is

1448: not shock-heated is referred to as `cold-mode' accretion.

1449: 

1450: There are a number of outstanding issues related to any possible sharp

1451: transition in e.g. galaxy colors or star formation rates occurring at

1452: a characteristic halo mass.  First, the transition from cold to

1453: hot-mode accretion does not appear to be particularly sharp in

1454: hydrodynamic simulations \citep{Keres05}.  There is clearly a

1455: transition region, but it is broad, spanning the mass range

1456: $\sim10^{11-12}\Msun$.  Moreover, the establishment of a hot

1457: atmosphere does not guarantee that star formation will cease because

1458: such gas will still radiate and can thus cool (although hot, low

1459: density gas is more susceptible to further heating processes than

1460: cool, dense gas).  Indeed, the cooling time of the intracluster medium

1461: at the centers of massive clusters is in many cases $<10^9$ Gyr

1462: \citep{Sanderson06}.  One thus must propose additional mechanisms that

1463: are capable of supplying sufficient energy to keep the hot atmosphere

1464: from cooling and hence forming stars.  Possible mechanisms include

1465: feedback from active galactic nuclei \citep[e.g.][]{Croton06,

1466:   Cattaneo08}, heating by dynamical friction \citep{Miller86,

1467:   Khochfar08}, thermal conduction \citep{Zakamska03}, virialization

1468: heating \citep{Wang08}, heating by ram-pressure drag \citep{Dekel08},

1469: and supernovae heating.  The relevance of these or other mechanisms to

1470: the shut-down of star formation is currently a subject of active

1471: debate \citep[see][for a recent evaluation]{Conroy08b}.

1472: 

1473: Our results on the relation between star formation rates and halo

1474: masses can shed light on this issue.  In particular, our model

1475: provides a bridge between the observations and the underlying dark

1476: matter structure.  At stellar masses $\lesssim10^{11}\Msun$, where our

1477: results are most reliable, we find no significant evidence for a {\it

1478:   sharp} characteristic halo mass at which star formation rates

1479: dramatically change, when considering average relations between star

1480: formation, stellar and halo mass.  This statement is based on the

1481: following inferences.

1482: 

1483: The scale at which galaxy properties such as color and morphology

1484: appear to change qualitatively is at $M_{\rm star}\sim10^{10.3}\Msun$

1485: \citep{Kauffmann03b}.  Our abundance matching results shown in Figure

1486: \ref{fig:theplot} demonstrate that this stellar mass corresponds to a

1487: halo mass of $\sim10^{12}\Msun$ at $z\sim0$, in qualitative agreement

1488: with the characteristic halo mass scale mentioned above

1489: \citep{Dekel06}.

1490: 

1491: In Figure \ref{fig:sfr_hmass}, however, for our favored model (the no

1492: merging model) there is no abrupt change in the average star formation

1493: rate as a function of halo mass for $M_{\rm vir}\lesssim10^{13}\Msun$,

1494: at either $z\sim0$ or at higher redshifts.  Instead, over this range

1495: the SFR$-M_{\rm vir}$ relation is approximately Gaussian with a broad

1496: peak at $M_{\rm vir}\lesssim10^{12.5}\Msun$ at $z\sim0$.  We reiterate

1497: that the $z\sim0$ SFR$-M_{\rm vir}$ relation is determined by 1) the

1498: $z\sim0$ SFR$-M_{\rm star}$ relation, where the model and data agree

1499: well, and 2) our connection between stellar and halo mass at $z\sim0$.

1500: This latter connection is known to reproduce the observed clustering

1501: properties of galaxies \citep{Conroy06a, Zheng07} and also agrees with

1502: weak lensing measurements of halo masses as a function of stellar mass

1503: \citep{Mandelbaum06}.  At higher redshifts the peak shifts to higher

1504: halo masses, and the gradual roll-over at the high-mass end seen in

1505: the $z\sim0$ average SFR$-M_{\rm vir}$ relation disappears.  The data

1506: is thus consistent with there being no drop in star formation

1507: whatsoever above a given halo mass scale at higher redshifts, at least

1508: for halos with mass $M_{\rm vir}\lesssim10^{13}\Msun$, where we focus

1509: our results.  In this figure the merger model does indeed produce a

1510: sharp break in the SFR$-M_{\rm vir}$ relation, but recall that this

1511: model fails to reproduce the observed SFR$-M_{\rm star}$ relation

1512: shown in Figure \ref{fig:sfr_mass}.

1513: 

1514: It is important to stress that these conclusions at $z\sim0$ rest on

1515: the reliability of the observed $z\sim0$ average SFR$-M_{\rm star}$

1516: relation, as reported by \citet{Salim07} \citep[see

1517: also][]{Schiminovich07}.  These authors caution that the star

1518: formation rates inferred for massive galaxies, $M_{\rm

1519:   star}\gtrsim10^{11.5}\Msun$, may in some cases be upper limits

1520: because low levels of $UV$ flux may arise from old stellar populations

1521: \citep[e.g.][]{Rich05} that are not typically included in modeling of

1522: star formation rates.  Interpreting low levels of $UV$ flux has

1523: historically been challenging for this reason.  Similar issues arise

1524: at higher redshifts.  Note however that we do not rely on these

1525: massive galaxies for our conclusions because they reside in very

1526: massive, $M_{\rm vir}>10^{14}\Msun$, halos.

1527: 

1528: Moreover, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:sfr_hmass}, there is clearly no

1529: scale in the specific star formation rate as a function of halo mass

1530: --- it is approximately a power law that scales as SSFR$\propto M_{\rm

1531:   vir}^{-0.5}$ over at least two orders of magnitude in halo mass.

1532: Again, these statements apply to halos with mass $M_{\rm

1533:   vir}\lesssim10^{13}\Msun$.  At higher masses our model is not

1534: well-calibrated.

1535: 

1536: In sum, while a well-defined characteristic halo mass, above which

1537: star formation is truncated, may be an appealing mechanism for

1538: generating red sequence galaxies \citep{Cattaneo08}, there is no clear

1539: indication from our data-driven model that this scale is particularly

1540: sharp.  It is clear that observed galaxy properties change

1541: qualitatively around a stellar mass scale of $M_{\rm

1542:   star}\sim10^{10.3}\Msun$, corresponding in our model to a halo mass

1543: of $\sim10^{12}\Msun$.  We simply emphasize that the data favors a

1544: rather gradual shift in galaxy properties across this halo mass scale.

1545: 

1546: 

1547: \subsection{The relative importance of star formation and merging to

1548:   galactic growth}

1549: \label{s:whysfr}

1550: 

1551: In order to translate our model predictions for stellar mass growth

1552: into predictions for star formation rates, we have to make assumptions

1553: for the fraction of mass growth attributed to mergers, as described in

1554: $\S$\ref{sec:merge}.  One approach is to assume that all stellar

1555: material accreted onto the halo remains in the halo as satellite

1556: galaxies or is stripped and remains in the stellar halo.  This is the

1557: no-merger model described above.  In this model all stellar growth is

1558: due to star formation. The second approach is to assume that all of

1559: the accreted material immediately falls onto the central galaxy and

1560: hence contributes to its stellar growth.  These two approaches should

1561: bracket the range of possibilities, as in reality some accreted

1562: material will lose energy and merge with the central galaxy, while

1563: other material will remain as bound satellites, or will merge with the

1564: central galaxy yet be dispersed outside the photometric radius.

1565: 

1566: For galaxies with stellar mass $\lesssim10^{10}\Msun$, these two

1567: treatments for the importance of merging on stellar growth lead to

1568: indistinguishable predictions for the resulting star formation rates

1569: (see e.g. Figure \ref{fig:sfr_mass}).  Thus, we can state with

1570: confidence that galaxies below this mass range grow almost entirely by

1571: star formation, at least since $z<1$ where we focus our analysis.

1572: This result can be understood as follows.  Halos grow via the

1573: accretion of smaller halos.  By inspection of the lower panel of

1574: Figure \ref{fig:theplot}, it is clear that for halos with mass

1575: $\lesssim10^{11.5}\Msun$, corresponding to stellar masses

1576: $\lesssim10^{10}\Msun$, the fraction of available baryons that have

1577: been converted into stars drops precipitously.  In other words, for

1578: these low mass halos, the even smaller mass halos that are

1579: contributing to halo growth are almost entirely devoid of stars.

1580: Furthermore, low mass halos have largely completed their growth by

1581: $z\sim1$, as discussed in $\S$\ref{sec:mah}, and thus any resulting

1582: stellar growth since $z\sim1$ must come from within the halo, i.e. via

1583: star formation.  These points were also discussed in \citet{Purcell07}

1584: and are qualitatively consistent with current semi-analytic models

1585: \citep{Guo08}.  They robustly follow from the integrated star

1586: formation efficiencies shown in Figure \ref{fig:theplot}.

1587: 

1588: At larger stellar masses the two treatments yield different

1589: predictions for the star formation rates of galaxies.  The results

1590: presented in $\S$\ref{sec:sfrmass} show that the data on the

1591: SFR$-M_{\rm star}$ relation match the approach that attributes all

1592: stellar growth to star formation, at least for stellar masses

1593: $\lesssim10^{11}\Msun$ and $z<1$, where we focus our analysis.

1594: Consideration of the mass range $10^{11}\lesssim M_{\rm

1595:   star}\lesssim10^{11.5}\Msun$, where our results are somewhat less

1596: certain (for the reasons discussed in $\S$\ref{sec:sfhg}), provides

1597: further evidence in favor of this `no-merger' scenario, i.e., that

1598: incoming halo mergers do not contribute substantially to the growth of

1599: the central galaxy.  It thus appears that over this entire stellar

1600: mass and redshift range, stellar mass growth in galaxies is dominated

1601: by star formation.  These conclusions are largely consistent with

1602: results from cosmological hydrodynamic simulations and may help

1603: explain the dominance of disk galaxies at these stellar masses, if

1604: disks are a signpost of a relatively quiescent history

1605: \citep{Maller06}.

1606: 

1607: At first glance this may seem surprising because at these higher

1608: masses one expects accretion of halos massive enough to host large

1609: galaxies.  The accretion of such objects is, as mentioned above, a

1610: generic prediction of $N$-body simulations coupled to our connection

1611: between galaxies and halos.  Of course, the accretion of stellar

1612: material onto the halo need not necessarily lead to growth of the

1613: galaxy residing at the center of the halo because the accreted

1614: material may either remain in orbit within the halo or may be tidally

1615: disrupted before it can spiral into the center.  In the latter case,

1616: the material will contribute to the observed diffuse intracluster

1617: light that is ubiquitous in large dark matter halos \citep{Gonzalez05,

1618:   Zibetti05}.  Indeed, our results indicate that some combination of

1619: these two scenarios is precisely what is happening (see also

1620: discussion in \citealt{Conroy07b}).  Evidence for the former scenario,

1621: whereby accreted material remains as bound satellites, is corroborated

1622: by the observed increase since $z\sim1$ in the fraction of galaxies at

1623: a given halo mass that are satellites \citep{Zheng07}.

1624: 

1625: In sum, our results suggest that stellar growth since $z\sim1$ is

1626: dominated by star formation, as opposed to mergers, for stellar masses

1627: $\lesssim10^{11}\Msun$.  This conclusion echoes the conclusions of

1628: \citet{Bell07} who used the observed, redshift-dependent, star

1629: formation rate --- stellar mass relations to `predict' the evolution

1630: of the stellar mass function since $z=1$.  These authors then compared

1631: this predicted evolution to the actual evolution of the mass function

1632: in order to conclude that mergers had a minor effect on the growth of

1633: intermediate and low mass galaxies.

1634: 

1635: 

1636: \section{Summary}

1637: \label{sec:disc}

1638: 

1639: This paper presents a model for the evolution of galaxies that is

1640: based on the observationally-motivated assumption of a tight

1641: correlation between galaxy stellar mass and dark matter halo mass.

1642: This assumption is used to populate halos with galaxies from $z=2$ to

1643: $z=0$ using theoretical halo mass functions and

1644: observationally-constrained galaxy stellar mass functions.  Halos (and

1645: the galaxies within them) are evolved forward in time using estimates

1646: for halo growth calibrated against $N$-body simulations.  This then

1647: provides the average stellar mass growth of galaxies as a function of

1648: $z=0$ stellar and halo mass.  At $M_{\rm star}\lesssim10^{10}\Msun$

1649: the model robustly predicts that the vast majority of stellar growth

1650: is due to in situ star formation since small halos do not accrete

1651: significant amounts of stellar material.  At higher masses, where the

1652: {\em halo} merger rate is higher, mergers and accretion could in

1653: principle contribute to stellar growth.  However, the model agrees

1654: with an array of data when all stellar growth at these higher masses

1655: is attributed to star formation (rather than a substantial fraction

1656: being due to mergers) for galaxies with $M_{\rm

1657:   star}\lesssim10^{11}\Msun$ at $z<1$.  We do not use our model to

1658: address the growth history of more massive galaxies because various

1659: aspects of the model become uncertain in this regime.

1660: 

1661: With the assumption of a one-to-one correlation between stellar and

1662: halo mass, the only freedom within our framework is the particular

1663: form adopted for the redshift-dependent stellar mass function.  We

1664: have adopted a form that provides the best fit to a variety of data

1665: including the observed stellar mass function at $0<z<1$, the cosmic

1666: SFR and stellar mass density, and the SFR$-M_{\rm star}$ relation over

1667: the range $0<z<1$.  This model can thus be thought of, in part, as a

1668: self-consistent synthesis of the available data relating galaxy SFRs

1669: and stellar masses across time; it allows us to connect galaxy

1670: populations at a given epoch with those at another epoch.  The model

1671: also effectively connects the observations to the underlying dark

1672: matter structure, thereby providing a bridge between observational

1673: results and theoretical work aimed at understanding such observations.

1674: 

1675: The principle new result that can be obtained from this framework is a

1676: directly-constrained form of the star formation rate in galaxies as a

1677: function of halo mass.  Our approach provides a direct link between

1678: observations and these models in the sense that any model which

1679: reproduces this constrained relation for SFR$(M_{\rm vir},z)$ will

1680: automatically match the wide variety of observational results

1681: discussed herein, over the last half of the Universe's age.  This

1682: result can thus help to distinguish between the processes responsible

1683: for triggering and halting star formation, and can be directly

1684: employed in constraining models and simulations of the physics of

1685: galaxy formation.

1686: 

1687: The success of this simple model at describing an array of data over

1688: the stellar mass range $10^9\lesssim M_{\rm star}\lesssim 10^{11}

1689: \Msun$ and redshift range $0<z<1$ indicates that the relation between

1690: galaxies and halos is surprisingly simple, smooth, and monotonic over

1691: these ranges.  The most significant short-coming of this model is its

1692: inability (in its present form) to predict distributions of

1693: properties, rather than averages, as a function of stellar and halo

1694: mass.  Such information is clearly needed to understand the color

1695: bi-modality seen in the color-magnitude diagram, as well as the

1696: detailed properties of satellite galaxies, and we will address this in

1697: future work.

1698: 

1699: This model relies on observational inputs that are rather uncertain,

1700: such as the evolution of the stellar mass function and the IMF, and

1701: the quantitative predictions of this model are thus necessarily

1702: uncertain.  Despite these unavoidable uncertainties, the general

1703: trends predicted by this model, such as the dependence of the SFR of

1704: galaxies on galaxy and halo mass, are robust and highlight the

1705: underlying connections both between the panoply of observations at

1706: high and low redshift, and between the observations as a whole and the

1707: underlying dark matter distribution.

1708: 

1709: 

1710: 

1711: \acknowledgments 

1712: 

1713: We thank Andrew Hopkins, Kai Noeske, Ben Panter, Pablo

1714: P\'erez-Gonz\'alez, Samir Salim, and Stephen Wilkins for providing

1715: their data in electronic format and substantial help in its

1716: interpretation, Kyle Stewart for providing his simulation results, and

1717: Jeremy Tinker for generously providing his mass function and cosmology

1718: code.  We thank Marcelo Alvarez, Peter Behroozi, Niv Drory, Sandy

1719: Faber, Andrew Hopkins, Andrey Kravtsov, Kai Noeske, and Aristotle

1720: Socrates for helpful conversations, and Brian Gerke, Ari Maller, Samir

1721: Salim, and David Schiminovich for helpful comments on an earlier

1722: draft.  RHW thanks the San Francisco skyline for inspiration; CC

1723: thanks Princeton for being monotonic.  RHW was supported in part by

1724: the U.S. Department of Energy under contract number DE-AC02-76SF00515

1725: and by a Terman Fellowship at Stanford University.  We thank the Aspen

1726: Center for Physics (partially funded by NSF-0602228) for hosting us

1727: while much of this work was completed.  Last, but certainly not least,

1728: we thank the referee, Eric Bell, for a careful and constructive

1729: referee's report.

1730: 

1731: %\bibliography{../master_refs.bib}

1732: \input{ms.bbl}

1733: 

1734: \end{document}

1735: