Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 000, 000–000 (0000)
Printed 1 February 2008
(MN LATEX style file v1.4)
Hierarchical Galaxy Formation
Shaun Cole1,4, Cedric G. Lacey1,2,3,5, Carlton M. Baugh1,6 and Carlos S. Frenk1,7
1 Department
of Physics, University of Durham, Science Laboratories, South Rd, Durham DH1 3LE.
Astrophysics Center, Juliane Maries Vej 30, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
3 SISSA, via Beirut 2-4, 34014 Trieste, Italy
4 Shaun.Cole@durham.ac.uk
5 lacey@sissa.it
6 C.M.Baugh@durham.ac.uk
7 C.S.Frenk@durham.ac.uk
arXiv:astro-ph/0007281v1 19 Jul 2000
2 Theoretical
1 February 2008
ABSTRACT
We describe the GALFORM semi-analytic model for calculating the formation and
evolution of galaxies in hierarchical clustering cosmologies. It improves upon, and extends, the earlier scheme developed by Cole et al. (1994). The model employs a new
Monte-Carlo algorithm to follow the merging evolution of dark matter halos with arbitrary mass resolution. It incorporates realistic descriptions of the density profiles of
dark matter halos and the gas they contain; it follows the chemical evolution of gas and
stars, and the associated production of dust; and it includes a detailed calculation of
the sizes of disks and spheroids. Wherever possible, our prescriptions for modelling individual physical processes are based on results of numerical simulations. They require
a number of adjustable parameters which we fix by reference to a small subset of local
galaxy data. This results in a fully specified model of galaxy formation which can be
tested against other data. We apply our methods to the ΛCDM cosmology (Ω0 = 0.3,
Λ0 = 0.7), and find good agreement with a wide range of properties of the local galaxy
population: the B-band and K-band luminosity functions, the distribution of colours
for the population as a whole, the ratio of ellipticals to spirals, the distribution of
disk sizes, and the current cold gas content of disks. In spite of the overall success of
the model, some interesting discrepancies remain: the colour-magnitude relation for
ellipticals in clusters is significantly flatter than observed at bright magnitudes (although the scatter is about right), and the model predicts galaxy circular velocities, at
a given luminosity, that are about 30% larger than is observed. It is unclear whether
these discrepancies represent fundamental shortcomings of the model or whether they
result from the various approximations and uncertainties inherent in the technique.
Our more detailed methods do not change our earlier conclusion that just over half
the stars in the universe are expected to have formed since z <
∼ 1.5.
Key words: galaxies: formation
1
INTRODUCTION
The past few years have been a remarkably rich period in
observational studies of galaxy formation. Major advances
have resulted from observations at many wavelengths, from
the far ultraviolet to the sub-millimeter. Breakthroughs include the discovery and measurement of the clustering of
“Lyman-break” galaxies, a population of luminous, starforming galaxies at redshifts z ∼ 3 − 4 (Steidel et al. 1996;
Adelberger et al. 1998); estimates of the history of star formation and the attendant production of metals, from z ∼ 5
to the present (Madau et al. 1996,1998); measurements of
the galaxy luminosity function at z ∼ 0.5 − 1 (Lilly et al.
c 0000 RAS
1996; Ellis et al. 1996) and z ∼ 3−4 (Steidel et al. 1999); the
discovery of a population of bright sub-millimeter sources,
some of which, at least, appear to be dusty, star-forming
galaxies at z >
∼ 2 (Ivison et al. 1998). All of these and many
other observations are beginning to sketch out an empirical
picture of galaxy evolution.
On their own, the data provide only a partial description of specific stages of galaxy evolution. To develop a physical understanding of the processes at work, and to relate
observations to cosmological theory, requires detailed modelling that exploits our current understanding of astrophysical processes in their cosmological context. The theoretical
2
S. Cole et al.
infrastructure required for this programme has been in place
for over a decade (e.g. Blumenthal et al. 1984; Davis et al.
1985). In its standard form, it assumes that galaxies grew
out of primordial Gaussian density fluctuations generated
during inflation and amplified by gravitational instability
acting on cold dark matter, the dominant mass component
of the Universe. Gas is initially mixed in with the dark matter, and when dark matter halos collapse, the visible component of galaxies accumulates as stars condense out of gas
that has cooled onto a disk.
To construct a theory of galaxy formation that can be
tested against observations requires combining the theory
of the evolution of cosmological density perturbations with
a description of various astrophysical processes such as the
cooling of gas in halos, the formation of stars, the feedback
effects on interstellar gas of energy released by young stars,
the production of heavy elements, the evolution of stellar
populations, the effects of dust, and the merging of galaxies.
The most appropriate methodology is to carry out ab initio
calculations that follow directly the development of primordial density fluctuations into luminous galaxies. Within the
standard cosmological model, the initial conditions are very
well defined. They are specified by the power spectrum of
primordial density perturbations, whose shape is fixed by
the cosmological parameters: the mean mass density, Ω0 , the
mean baryon density, Ωb , the cosmological constant, Λ0 , and
the Hubble constant, H0 (which, throughout this paper, we
express as H0 = 100h kms−1 Mpc−1 .)
The subsequent evolution of the dark matter and
baryons is best calculated by Monte Carlo simulation. Two
different approaches have been developed for this purpose.
In the first, direct simulations, the gravitational and hydrodynamical equations in the expanding universe are solved
explicitly, using one or more of a variety of numerical techniques that have been specifically developed for this purpose
over the past twenty years (e.g. Katz et al. 1992; Evrard et
al. 1994; Frenk et al. 1996, 1999; Katz et al. 1996; Navarro
& Steinmetz 1997; Pearce et al. 1999; Thacker et al. 2000;
Blanton et al. 2000). In the second approach, now commonly known as “semi-analytic modelling of galaxy formation” (White & Rees 1978; White & Frenk 1991; Kauffmann
et al. 1993; Cole et al. 1994), the evolution of the baryonic
component is calculated using simple analytic models, while
the evolution of the dark matter is calculated either directly,
using N-body methods, or using a Monte-Carlo technique
that follows the formation of dark matter halos by hierarchical merging. It is this second approach that we discuss in
this paper.
The two modelling techniques have complementary
strengths. The major advantage of direct simulations is that
the dynamics of the cooling gas are calculated in full generality, without the need for simplifying assumptions. The main
disadvantage is that even with the best codes and fastest
computers available today, the attainable resolution is still
some orders of magnitude below that required to resolve
the formation and internal structure of individual galaxies
in cosmological volumes. In addition, a phenomenological
model, similar to that employed in semi-analytic modelling,
is required to include star formation and feedback processes
in the simulation. These processes are, in fact, much more
difficult to treat and much more uncertain than the dynamics of the diffuse gas.
Semi-analytic modelling does not suffer from resolution limitations, particularly when Monte-Carlo methods are
used to generate the halo merger histories. In this case, the
resolution can be made arbitrarily high at a relatively small
computational cost. The major disadvantage is the need for
simplifying assumptions in the calculation of gas properties,
such as spherical symmetry or a particular flow structure.
It is encouraging that detailed comparisons between direct
and semi-analytic simulations show good agreement (Pearce
et al. 1999, Benson et al. 2000c). An important advantage
of semi-analytic modelling is its flexibility. This allows the
effects of varying assumptions or parameter choices to be
readily investigated and makes it possible to calculate a wide
range of observable galaxy properties, such as luminosities
in any waveband, sizes, mass-to-light ratios, bulge-to-disk
ratios, circular velocities, etc.
Semi-analytic modelling has its roots in the work of
White & Rees (1978), Cole (1991), Lacey & Silk (1991), and
White & Frenk (1991) who laid out the overall philosophy
and basic methodology of this approach. Throughout most
of the 1990s, this technique was developed and promoted
primarily by two collaborations, one currently based at Munich (e.g. Kauffmann et al. 1993,1994 Kauffmann 1995a,b,
Kauffmann, Nusser & Steinmetz 1997, Mo, Mao & White
1998a,b,1999, Kauffmann et al. 1999a ), and the other at
Durham (e.g. Cole et al. 1994, Heyl et al. 1995, Baugh et
al. 1996a,b, 1998, Benson et al. 2000a; see also Lacey et al.
1993). In the past two years, several other groups have begun
to apply this technique to study various aspects of galaxy
formation (e.g. Avila-Reese & Firmani 1998, Guiderdoni et
al. 1998, Wu, Fabian & Nulsen 1998, van Kampen, Jimenez
& Peacock 1999, Somerville & Primack 1999). This body
of work has demonstrated the usefulness of semi-analytic
modelling as a means for fleshing out the observable consequences of current cosmological theories and for the interpretation of observational data, particularly at high redshift.
A growing body of galaxy properties has been analysed
using semi-analytic methods. Examples of noteworthy successes include the ability to reproduce the local field galaxy
luminosity function, the slope and scatter of the Tully-Fisher
relation for spiral galaxies, and the counts and redshift distributions of faint galaxies (e.g. see Kauffmann et al. 1993;
Cole et al. 1994; Kauffmann et al. 1994). Nevertheless, some
important properties have remained obstinately difficult to
reproduce, most notably the colour-magnitude relation for
cluster ellipticals (but see Kauffmann & Charlot 1998a) and
a simultaneous fit to the local luminosity function and the
zero-point of the Tully-Fisher relation (e.g. Heyl et al. 1995).
A wide variety of physical processes are involved in the
formation of galaxies. Some of them, like star formation, are
very poorly understood. Modelling galaxy formation therefore inevitably requires making approximations and adopting simplified descriptions of some of these processes. Most
often, an incomplete understanding of a physical ingredient is subsumed within a simple scaling law that contains
free parameters. A remarkable facet of modern semi-analytic
modelling is that a realistic picture of galaxy evolution can
be formulated with a relatively small number of such parameters, typically four or five in the simplest versions. A
strategy that has proved useful is to fix the values of these
parameters by trying to match a subset of local data (for
example, the luminosity functions in two passbands or the
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
Galaxy Formation
3
COSMOLOGICAL MODEL
Ω 0, Λ 0, σ8, h, P(k)
DARK MATTER HALOS
δ
STRUCTURE
δ 3.2
GALAXY MERGERS
SPHEROID FORMATION
δ 4.3
δ
δ
δ 4.1
δ
STAR FORMATION
& FEEDBACK
δ 4.2
SPHEROID SIZES
δ 4.4.2
δ
GAS COOLING
DISK FORMATION
δ
DISK SIZES
δ 4.4.1
δ 3.1
MERGER TREES
BURSTS
δ 4.3.2
δ
δ
CHEMICAL EVOLUTION
δ 4.2.1
δ
STELLAR POPULATIONS
δ 5.1
δ
DUST EXTINCTION
δ 5.3
δ
OBSERVABLE GALAXY
PROPERTIES
Figure 1. A schematic showing how different physical processes are combined to make predictions for the observable properties of
galaxies, starting from initial conditions specified by the cosmology. The numbers in each box indicate the subsection of the paper in
which our method for modelling that process is described.
Tully-Fisher relation). This leads to a completely specified
model that has predictive power and may be used to calculate theoretical expectations for other local properties or for
properties at high redshift. This approach has met with considerable success. For example, Cole et al. (1994) predicted
that most of the stars in the universe formed at relatively
low redshift (z <
∼ 1 for an Ω0 = 1 standard CDM cosmology); Kauffmann (1996) predicted a sharply declining numc 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
ber of bright elliptical galaxies at high redshift; and Baugh
et al. (1998) and Governato et al. (1998) predicted strong
clustering for Lyman-break galaxies at redshift z ≃ 3.
In this paper we present a new semi-analytic model
which builds upon the scheme described by Cole et al. (1994)
which we used for a number of applications (Heyl et al. 1995,
Baugh et al. 1996ab). Our new model differs from the earlier
one primarily in its greater scope and richness, but also in
4
S. Cole et al.
SEMI-ANALYTIC GALAXY
FORMATION MODEL
ADJUST PARAMETERS TO
SIZES
MIX δ 7.4
δ 7.3
δ
GAS
FRACTIONS
δ 7.5
LUMINOSITY
FUNCTION
δ 7.1
TULLY-FISHER
δ 7.2
δ
δ
METALLICITIES
δ 7.6
δ
δ
CLUSTERING
MASS-TO-LIGHT
δ 7.7
COLOUR-MORPHOLOGY
δ 8.2
STAR FORMATION
HISTORY δ 8.4
δ
δ
COLOURS
δ 7.8, 8.1
Benson etal 2000a,b
ELLIPTICAL
COLOUR-MAGNITUDE
δ 8.3
δ
δ
RATIOS
Baugh etal 1999
δ
FURTHER PROPERTIES
MORPHOLOGICAL
δ
PRIMARY CONSTRAINTS
MATCH LOCAL DATA
Figure 2. A schematic showing the observable galaxy properties predicted by the model. The numbers in each box indicate the subsection
of the paper in which the comparison of model predictions with observations of that property are described. The predictions for galaxy
clustering are described in separate papers, as indicated in the box.
the manner in which certain key physical properties are calculated. These improvements are called for both by recent
theoretical developments and, most importantly, by the increase in the quantity and quality of observational data. The
main additions to our new code are the inclusion of chemical
enrichment and dust processes, prescriptions for calculating
the sizes of disks and spheroids, the use of more realistic density profiles for dark matter halos and gas, and the ability to
follow the mergers of halos with fine mass and time resolution. It should be noted that despite all these improvements,
when one adopts the same cosmological parameters and also
the same galaxy formation parameters (e.g. for stellar feedback), then the main predictions of the model, including the
galaxy luminosity function, Tully-Fisher relation and overall
star formation history, are practically identical to those in
Cole et al. (1994). The one exception is the inclusion of dust
extinction which makes the galaxy colours somewhat redder
than in the Cole et al. (1994) models. Thus, the changes
to the model may be viewed as refinements that allow more
properties of the galaxy population, such as galaxy sizes and
metallicities, to be calculated.
The main aim of this paper is to lay out the methods
that we use in our new semi-analytic model and to compare
results with a restricted set of observational data. This is
a long paper containing a mixture of technical descriptions
and results of more general interest. In the following, brief
section, we present an overview, together with schematics
illustrating how different parts of the model fit together.
Non-specialist readers may wish to skip the more detailed
passages of the paper on a first reading and we recommend
how this might done in Section 2.
2
OVERVIEW
Our galaxy formation model is a synthesis of many techniques, each of which has been developed to treat particular
aspects of the complex process of galaxy formation. Its backbone is a Monte Carlo method for generating “merger trees”
to describe the hierarchical growth of dark matter halos. The
full range of properties and processes that we model within
this framework are:
(i) The gravitationally-driven formation and merging of
dark matter halos.
(ii) The density and angular momentum profiles of dark
matter and shock heated gas within dense non-linear halos.
(iii) The radiative cooling of gas and its collapse to form
centrifugally supported disks.
(iv) The scalelengths of disks based on angular momentum conservation and including the effect of the adiabatic
contraction of the surrounding halo during the formation of
the disk.
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
Galaxy Formation
(v) Star formation in disks.
(vi) Feedback, i.e. the regulation of the star formation
rate resulting from the injection of supernova (SN) energy
into the interstellar medium (ISM).
(vii) Chemical enrichment of the ISM and hot halo gas
and its influence on both the gas cooling rates and the properties of the stellar populations that are formed.
(viii) The frequency of galaxy mergers resulting from dynamical friction operating on galaxies as they orbit within
common dark matter halos.
(ix) The formation of galactic spheroids, accompanied by
bursts of star formation, during violent galaxy-galaxy mergers, and estimates of their effective radii.
(x) Spectrophotometric evolution of the stellar populations.
(xi) The effect of dust extinction on galaxy luminosities
and colours, and its dependence on galaxy inclination.
(xii) The generation of emission lines from interstellar gas
ionized by young stars.
Our treatment of each of these processes is described in the
following sections. The model is summarized schematically
in Fig. 1, which also shows in which subsection of the paper
each of the processes is described.
The scheme we present is largely modular, and within
each module one has the choice of selecting various options
as well as certain parameter values. The options (for example, including or ignoring the baryonic mass of the galaxy
when computing its rotation curve) are not degrees of freedom within the model. Instead they allow us to vary the
complexity of the description in order to gain physical understanding. By switching processes on and off and changing
certain assumptions we are able to determine which physical processes are directly responsible for a particular galaxy
property.
The observable galaxy properties predicted by the
model are shown schematically in Fig. 2. This figure separates the predicted quantities into two categories. Some
aspects of the observational quantities in the first category
are used as primary constraints on the model parameters.
The boxes in the figure also indicate in which subsection of
the paper the observational comparison for that quantity is
presented, or in the case of galaxy clustering, the related papers in which they are presented. Predictions for the redshift
evolution of galaxy properties will be presented in future papers.
The layout of the paper is as follows: Section 3 presents
techniques for generating merger trees to describe the gravitational growth of dark matter halos and models for their
internal structure. Section 4 describes how we calculate disk
and spheroid formation, including star formation, feedback
and chemical evolution, and the scalelengths of galactic disks
and bulges. Section 5 presents our methods for calculating the luminosities of stellar populations, and the effects
of dust extinction. These three sections may be skipped on
a first reading, simply noting the definition of the parameters that describe our star formation and feedback model,
equations (4.4), (4.5), (4.14), and (4.15). An overview of
the model and the strategy we adopt to constrain parameters and to obtain a well-specified, predictive model are presented in Section 6, which should be of general interest. This
procedure is implemented in Section 7, where we illustrate
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
5
the effects of varying each model parameter. The general
reader may simply wish to study the figures in this section
and read the summary in subsection 7.9. In Section 8 we test
our fully specified model against further properties of the
observed galaxy population. Again, the general reader may
wish to study only the figures in this section. Finally, in Section 9 we restate the general philosophy of our approach and
discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the specific model
that we have presented. This, and the final section presenting a summary of our results, are both of general interest.
3
FORMATION OF DARK MATTER HALOS
Galaxies are assumed to form inside dark matter halos, and
their subsequent evolution is controlled by the merging histories of the halos containing them. It is therefore essential to have an accurate description of how dark halos form
and evolve through hierarchical merging, and of the internal
structure of these halos. These are both described in this
section.
3.1
Dark Matter Halo Merger Trees
We use a new Monte-Carlo algorithm to generate merger
trees that describe the formation paths of randomly selected
dark matter halos. It is an improvement over the “block
model” that we used previously (Cole et al. 1994; Heyl et
al. 1995; Baugh et al. 1996a,b). The new algorithm is directly
based on the analytic expression for halo merger rates derived by Lacey & Cole (1993). At each branch in the tree,
a halo splits into two progenitors, but unlike in the “block
model”, the mass ratio of the progenitors can take any value.
Below, we briefly describe this new algorithm, and the way
in which a population of merger trees is set up to provide a
framework for modelling the processes of galaxy formation.
It is possible to generate merger trees directly by following the evolution of dark matter halos in collisionless cosmological N-body simulations (e.g. Roukema 1997; Kauffmann et al. 1999a; van Kampen et al. 1999). Combining
semi-analytic modelling and N-body simulations certainly
provides a very powerful technique to investigate small
scale galaxy clustering (e.g. Kauffmann, Nusser & Steinmetz 1997, Governato et al. 1998, Kauffmann et al. 1999a,b,
Benson et al. 2000a,b). However, extracting merger trees directlty from N-body simulations carries the high price of a
limited dynamic range in mass and much greater computational complexity. Also, for many applications this appears
to be unnecessary, as the properties of halo merger trees
are uncorrelated with environment (Lemson & Kauffmann
1999), and the Monte Carlo merger trees agree well, statistically, with those extracted from N-body simulations (Kauffmann & White 1993; Lacey & Cole 1994; Somerville et al.
2000; Lacey & Cole in preparation).
3.1.1
A New Algorithm
Our starting point for generating a merger tree to describe
the history of mergers experienced by an individual dark
matter halo is equation (2.15) of Lacey & Cole (1993):
1 (δc1 − δc2 )
f12 (M1 , M2 )dM1 = √
2π (σ12 − σ22 )3/2
6
S. Cole et al.
× exp −
(δc1 − δc2 )2
2(σ12 − σ22 )
dσ12
dM1 . (3.1)
dM1
This equation, derived from the extension of the Press &
Schechter (1974) theory proposed by Bond et al. (1991) and
Bower (1991), gives the fraction of mass, f12 (M1 , M2 )dM1 ,
in halos of mass M2 , at time t2 , which at an earlier time, t1 ,
was in halos of mass in the range M1 to M1 + dM1 . Here,
the quantities σ1 and σ2 are the linear theory rms density
fluctuations in spheres of mass M1 and M2 . The δc1 and
δc2 are the critical thresholds on the linear overdensity for
collapse at times t1 and t2 respectively. (Specifically, σ(M )
and δc (t) are the values extrapolated to z = 0 according
to linear theory.) For a critical density (Ω = 1) universe,
we adopt δc = 1.686(1 + z), while for low Ω0 , open and
flat, universes we adopt the appropriate expressions in the
appendices of Lacey & Cole (1993) and Eke, Cole & Frenk
(1996) respectively.
Equation (3.1) can be used to estimate the recent
merger histories of a set of halos which at time t2 have mass
M2 . Taking the limit of equation (3.1) as t1 → t2 , we obtain an expression for the average mass fraction of a halo
of mass M2 which was in halos of mass M1 at the slightly
earlier time t1 ,
df12
dt1
dδc1 dσ12
1
1
dM1 dt1 . (3.2)
dM1 dt1 = √
2
2 3/2 dt dM
1
1
t1 =t2
2π (σ1 − σ2 )
Thus, the mean number of objects of mass M1 that a halo
of mass M2 “fragments into” when one takes a step dt1 back
in time is given by
df12 M2
dN
=
dt1
dM1
dt1 M1
(M1 < M2 ).
(3.3)
This expression gives the average number of progenitors as
a function of the fragment mass, M1 . It is this simple expression that our algorithm uses to build a binary merger
tree.
The quantities that must be specified in order to define
the merger tree are the density fluctuation power spectrum,
which gives the function σ(M ), and the cosmological parameters, Ω0 and Λ0 , which enter through the dependence
of δc (t) on the cosmological model. There is also one numerical parameter involved, the mass resolution, Mres . Having
specified these parameters one can compute the two quantities,
P =
Z
M2 /2
Mres
dN
dM1 ,
dM1
(3.4)
which is the mean number of fragments with masses, M1 , in
the range Mres < M1 < M2 /2, and
F =
Z
0
Mres
dN M1
dM1 ,
dM1 M2
(3.5)
which is the fraction of mass in fragments with mass below the resolution limit. Note that both these quantities are
proportional to the timestep dt1 , through the dependence in
equation (3.3).
Once these quantities have been defined, the algorithm
to generate the merger trees is simple. First, choose a
timestep, dt1 , such that P ≪ 1, to ensure that multiple
fragmentation is unlikely. Next, generate a random number,
R, drawn uniformly from the interval 0 to 1. If R > P , then
the main halo does not fragment at this timestep. However,
the original mass is reduced to account for mass accreted in
the form of halos with masses below the resolution limit, to
produce a new halo of mass M2 (1 − F ). If, however, R < P ,
then a random value of M1 in the range Mres < M1 < M2 /2
is generated, consistent with the distribution given by equation (3.3), to produce two new halos with masses M1 and
M2 (1 − F ) − M1 . The same operation is repeated on each
fragment at successive timesteps going back in time, and
thus a merger tree is built up.
The main advantage of this new algorithm over the
“block model” that we used previously (Cole et al. 1994;
Heyl et al. 1995; Baugh et al. 1996ab), and which has been
used recently by Wu et al. (1998,2000), is that there is no
quantization of the progenitor halo masses. The algorithm
also enables the merger process to be followed with high
time resolution, as timesteps are not imposed on the tree
but rather are controlled directly by the frequency of mergers. It is similar in spirit to the method used by Kauffmann
et al. (1993), but has several advantages, including smaller
timesteps and not having to store large tables of progenitor
distributions. Somerville & Kolatt (1999) investigated a similar algorithm also based on equation (3.1), which they referred to as binary mergers without accretion. They rejected
that algorithm as it over-predicted the number of massive
halos at high redshift, and instead opted for a more elaborate
algorithm which they compared with N-body simulations in
Somerville et al. (2000). Our algorithm, which we first used
in Baugh et al. (1998), differs from the one they rejected
in two important respects. First, we explicitly account for
accretion of objects below the mass resolution using the expression (3.5). Second, we make the rather subtle choice of
selecting the first progenitor mass, M1 , only in the range
Mres < M1 < M/2 of the distribution defined by (3.3). We
have found, that together, these choices produce an algorithm that successfully produces distributions of progenitors
which, on average, agree quite accurately with the analytic
expressions given by the extended Press-Schechter theory.
Moreover, statistics that are not predicted by the extended
Press-Schechter theory, such as the frequency distribution of
progenitors of a given mass (the extended Press-Schechter
theory only predicts the mean of the distribution), we find to
be in excellent agreement with the same statistics extracted
from N-body simulations. This detailed investigation of the
behaviour of the algorithm will be presented in a future paper (Lacey & Cole in preparation).
3.1.2
Utilizing the Merger Trees
Although the merger trees described above have very high
time resolution, the nature of the galaxy formation rules that
we implement below require placing the merger tree onto a
predefined grid of timesteps. The original binary merger tree
is used to find which halos exist at each timestep and to identify which of them merge together between timesteps. As a
consequence, mergers that are actually rapid, consecutive
binary mergers in the original tree will appear as simultaneous, multiple mergers in the discretized tree. The loss of
information involved is not significant since, in reality, mergers are not instantaneous events and our discrete timesteps
are typically much smaller than the dynamical timescales
of the merging halos. Each merger tree thus starts from a
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
Galaxy Formation
single halo of a specified mass M at z = zhalo , where zhalo is
the redshift for which we want to calculate the galaxy properties. It extends up to some earlier redshift zstart > zhalo ,
where the tree has split into many branches. The generation
of the halo merger tree proceeds backwards in time, starting
from the trunk at z = zhalo , but the calculation of galaxy formation and evolution through successive halo mergers proceeds forwards in time, moving down from the top of the
tree. The appropriate grid of Nsteps timesteps, the starting
redshift zstart and also the mass resolution, Mres , depend
on the problem of interest. The timesteps can, for example,
be chosen to be uniform either in time or in the logarithm
of the cosmological expansion factor. For the models presented here, we typically set Mres = 5 × 109 h−1 M⊙ and use
100 timesteps logarithmically spaced in expansion factor between z = 0 and 7. In our models, stellar feedback prevents
significant amounts of star formation occurring in halos of
very low circular velocity and so provided Mres is sufficiently
low, the model results are not affected by its value.
The second way in which we manipulate the merger
trees before applying our galaxy formation rules is by chopping each tree into branches that define the formation time
and lifetime of each halo. So far we have done this using
a simple algorithm. We start, at the first timestep, at the
top of the tree (corresponding to the lowest mass halos in
the merging hierarchy), and define each halo present as a
new halo that formed at that timestep. We then follow each
of these halos through their subsequent mergers until they
have become part of a halo with mass greater than fform
times the original mass. We normally set fform = 2. This
point defines the end of the original halo’s lifetime. Consistent with this definition, the point at which a new halo
life begins is defined by the point when mergers produce
a halo whose mass exceeds fform times the formation mass
of its largest progenitor. When applying the galaxy formation rules detailed in the following sections, we always treat
the halos as if they retained, throughout their lifetime, the
mass and other properties, (mean density, angular momentum, etc.) with which they formed. The mass accreted prior
to the final merger, which can, in extreme cases, be as large
as fform −1 times the original halo mass, is effectively treated
as if it were all accreted at the end of the halo’s lifetime. We
have chosen fform = 2 for consistency with our earlier work
(Cole et al. 1994) in which a factor of two was built into the
“block model” that we used to generate merger trees. With
this choice the two models produce near identical results
when the content and parameters of the galaxy formation
model are the same. In Table 3 of Section 7.1, we include
one variant model with fform = 1.5 which demonstrates that
the model is not very sensitive to the choice of this parameter. This is natural as most halos end their lives when they
are accreted onto much more massive halos and thus their
lifetimes are robust to the choice of fform .
In order to investigate the statistical properties of
galaxy populations, we generate a set of merger trees starting from a grid of parent halo masses specified at some redshift, zhalo . For each given halo mass, we generate many
realizations of the merger tree. The resulting model galaxies
can then be sampled, taking account of the abundance of
the parent halos at z = zhalo , to construct galaxy catalogues
with any desired selection criteria such as an absolute or
apparent magnitude limit. Alternatively, properties such as
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
7
the galaxy luminosity function or number counts can be estimated directly by a weighted sum over the model galaxies.
We have used the Press-Schechter mass function to estimate
the halo abundance, but it is well known that this formula
overestimates the abundance of M⋆ objects somewhat (e.g.
Efstathiou et al. 1988; Lacey & Cole 1994). Recently, Sheth,
Mo & Tormen (2000) and Jenkins et al. (2000) have presented fitting formulae that match the results of N-body
simulations to high accuracy. In future it will be preferable
to use these formulae, but here we simply note that adopting the Jenkins et al. (2000) mass function would make little
difference to our model predictions.
3.2
Halo Properties
In order to calculate the properties of the galaxies that form
within the dark matter halos produced by the merger tree,
we need a model for the internal structure of the halos. This
must specify the halo rotation velocity required to calculate
the angular momentum of the gas that cools to form disks,
and the halo density profile required to calculate the sizes
and rotation speeds of the galaxies.
The properties of dark matter halos formed in cosmological, collisionless, N-body simulations have been extensively
studied (e.g. Frenk et al. 1985, 1988; Barnes & Efstathiou
1987; Warren et al. 1992; Cole & Lacey 1996; Navarro, Frenk
& White 1995a, 1996, 1997; Moore et al. 1999b, Jing 2000).
The models detailed below are designed to be consistent
with the results from these simulations.
3.2.1
Spin Distribution
Dark matter halos gain angular momentum from tidal
torques operating during their formation. The magnitude
of this angular momentum is conventionally quantified by
the dimensionless spin parameter
λH =
JH |EH |1/2
5/2
GMH
,
(3.6)
where MH , JH and EH are the total mass, angular momentum and energy of the halo. The distributions of λH found
in various N-body studies (Barnes & Efstathiou 1987; Efstathiou et al. 1988; Warren et al. 1992; Cole & Lacey 1996;
Lemson & Kauffmann 1999) agree very well with one another. They depend only very weakly on halo mass and on
the form of the initial spectrum of density fluctuations.
A good fit to the results of Cole & Lacey (1996) is provided by the log-normal distribution,
P (λH )dλH = √
(ln λ − ln λmed )2
1
exp −
2σλ2
2πσλ
dλH
, (3.7)
λH
with λmed = 0.039 and σλ = 0.53. This fit was obtained
specifically for halos with M⋆ < MH < 2M⋆ in the case
of an n = −2 power spectrum, which is the most relevant
for CDM models on galaxy scales, but we stress that the
fit parameters depend only very weakly on mass and on
the slope of the power spectrum. For example, this fit also
reproduces quite accurately the distribution plotted in Fig.4
of Lemson & Kauffmann (1999), which is for galactic mass
halos in a τ CDM simulation. We use this distribution to
assign, at random, a value of λH to each newly formed halo.
8
S. Cole et al.
Note that we do not take account of a possible correlation
between the angular momenta of merging halos. It would
be necessary to do this if one wanted to follow the angular
momenta of galaxy merger products, but we currently do
not attempt this.
aNFW , reduced by a factor of 2/3. Such a change has only a
relatively small effect on the galaxy properties that we examine below. The largest changes are to the disk scalelengths,
which decrease by 10%, and to the disk circular velocities,
which increase by 7.5%.
3.2.2
3.2.3
Halo density Profile
Our standard choice is to model the dark matter density
profile using the NFW model (Navarro et al. 1995a):
ρ(r) =
1
∆vir ρcrit
f (aNFW ) r/rvir (r/rvir + aNFW )2
(r ≤ rvir ), (3.8)
with f (aNFW ) = ln(1 + 1/aNFW ) − 1/(1 + aNFW ), truncated
at the virial radius, rvir . We define the virial radius as the radius at which the mean interior density equals ∆vir times the
critical density, ρcrit = 3H 2 /(8πG). Here the virial overdensity, ∆vir , is defined by the spherical collapse model which
yields ∆vir = 178 for Ω0 = 1. Expressions for ∆vir in low
Ω0 , open and flat, universes can be found in the appendices
of Lacey & Cole (1993) and Eke et al. (1996) respectively.
Confirmation that this definition of the virial radius is physically sensible is provided by Fig.13 of Cole & Lacey (1996)
and Fig.10 of Eke, Navarro & Frenk (1998). These show
that on average the transition between dynamical equilibrium and the surrounding infall occurs close to this radius.
The NFW profile has one free parameter, aNFW , which is a
scalelength measured in units of the virial radius. Allowing
this one parameter (equivalent to the inverse of the concentration in the terminology of Navarro et al. ) to vary, the
density profile accurately fits the profiles of isolated halos
grown in cosmological N-body simulations for a wide range
of masses and initial conditions (Navarro et al. 1996,1997),
including simulations that contain adiabatic gas as well as
collisionless dark matter (Eke et al. 1998; Frenk et al. 1999).
Furthermore, there is a correlation between the best fit value
of aNFW and halo mass. This can be understood in terms of
how the typical formation time of a halo depends on mass
(Cole & Lacey 1996). A simple analytic model for this relation has been presented in the appendix of Navarro et al.
(1997), and it is this that we use to set the values of aNFW for
our halos. Jing (2000) and Bullock et al. (1999) have found
that there is considerable scatter about the mean correlation, which is presumably related to the differing dynamical
states and formation histories of the halos. We do not take
this into account, but we note that simply including this
scatter by randomly perturbing the aNFW values has little
effect of the resulting distributions of galaxy properties. For
instance, the distribution of galaxy sizes is already broad as
a result of its dependence on the very broad distribution of
halo angular momenta.
Subsequently to the Navarro et al. (1997) paper, there
has been some debate as to the accuracy with which the
NFW profile fits the very central regions of dark matter halos simulated at very high resolution (Moore et al. 1998;
Kravtsov et al. 1998). When a concensus is reached it may
be possible to improve this aspect of our modelling by adopting a slightly modified density profile. We note that the most
recent simulations by Moore et al. (1999a) yield density profiles which are slightly more centrally concentrated than the
Navarro et al. (1997) result. To an accuracy of 20% they
can be fitted by NFW profiles, but with the scalelengths,
Halo Rotation Velocity
To compute the angular momentum of that fraction of the
halo gas that cools and is involved in forming a galaxy, we
need a model of the rotational structure of the halo. We assume that the mean rotational velocity, Vrot , of concentric
shells of material is constant with radius and always aligned
in the same direction. This simple description is broadly consistent with the behaviour seen in the simulations of Warren et al. (1992) and Cole & Lacey (1996). The appropriate
value of Vrot can be related to the halo spin parameter, λH ,
by evaluating, for the adopted halo model, the quantities
defining JH and EH in equation (3.6). This calculation is
described in Appendix A. We obtain
Vrot = A(aNFW )λH VH ,
(3.9)
1/2
where VH ≡ (GM/rvir )
is the circular velocity of the halo
at the virial radius. The dimensionless coefficient A(aNFW ) is
a weak function of aNFW , varying from A ≈ 3.9 for aNFW =
0.01 to A ≈ 4.5 for aNFW = 0.3.
Our code allows us to explore the effects of using alternative dark matter density profiles. In particular, we have
included the case of a singular isothermal density profile,
ρ(r) ∝ r −2 , and a non-singular isothermal
√ density profile,
ρ(r) ∝ 1/((r/rvir )2 + a2 ). We find A = 8 2/π ≈ 3.6 for the
singular isothermal sphere (see Appendix A). The value of A
decreases very slowly as a core radius is introduced, falling
to A ≈ 3.4 for a = 0.3.
Our model of the distribution of hot gas in the halo is
described in Section 4.1.1. As the hot gas is less centrally
concentrated than the dark matter, if we were to assume
they had identical rotation velocities this would result in the
gas having a slightly higher mean specific angular momentum than the dark matter. We therefore take the rotation
velocity of the gas to also be constant with radius, but with
gas
a value Vrot
such the gas and dark matter have the same
mean specific angular momentum within the virial radius.
This simple model seems to be in reasonable accord with
the properties of clusters in the high-resolution, gas-dynamic
simulations of Eke et al. (1998, Eke private communication).
4
FORMATION OF DISKS AND SPHEROIDS
In this section we describe how disks and spheroids form,
how we model star formation, feedback and chemical evolution, and how we calculate galaxy sizes.
4.1
Disk Formation
We assume that disks form by cooling of gas initially in
the halo. Tidal torques impart angular momentum to all
material in the halo, including the gas, so that gas which
has cooled and lost its pressure support will naturally settle
into a disk. Below, we detail how we compute the mass of
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
Galaxy Formation
the forming disk based on the radiative cooling rate of the
halo gas, and how we compute its angular momentum.
4.1.1
Hot Gas Distribution
Diffuse gas which is not part of galaxies is assumed to be
shock-heated during halo collapse and merging events. We
will refer to this halo gas as “hot”, to distinguish it from
the gas in galaxies, which we call “cold”. To calculate how
much of this hot gas cools to form a disk, we need to know its
initial temperature and density profile. In contrast to most
previous work, we will not assume that the hot gas has the
same density profile as the dark matter.
High-resolution hydrodynamical simulations of the formation of galaxy clusters (Navarro et al. 1995a; Eke, Navarro
& Frenk 1998, Frenk et al. 1999) show that, in the absence
of radiative cooling, the resulting dark matter distribution is
well-modelled by an NFW profile, but that the shock-heated
gas is less centrally concentrated. The gas distribution is
well fit by the β-model (Cavaliere & Fusco-Femiano 1976),
2
ρgas (r) ∝ (r 2 + rcore
)−3βfit /2 , traditionally used to model
the hot X-ray emitting gas in galaxy clusters. The simulations of Eke et al. (1998), which span a narrow range of halo
mass in an Ω0 = 0.3, Λ0 = 0.7 cosmology, indicate that
the typical cluster gas profile is accurately described by a
β-model with βfit ≈ 2/3 and rcore /rNFW ≈ 1/3. Here, rNFW
is the NFW scalelength, equal to aNFW rvir , and so for these
clusters rcore /rvir ≈ 1/20. A similar result was found for
clusters in an Ω0 = 1 cosmology by Navarro et al. (1995a).
In both cases, the simulations produce cluster gas temperature profiles that vary slowly with radius, consistent with
hydrostatic equilibrium. The mean temperature of the gas
is close to the virial temperature, defined by
1 µmH 2
VH ,
(4.1)
2 k
where mH is the mass of the hydrogen atom and µ the mean
molecular mass.
Motivated by these simulation results, we assume that
any diffuse gas present in the progenitors of a forming halo
is shock-heated during the halo formation process and then
settles into a spherical distribution with density profile,
Tvir =
2
ρgas (r) ∝ 1/(r 2 + rcore
).
(4.2)
For simplicity, we assume the gas temperature to be constant and equal to the virial temperature, Tvir . The effect
this assumption has on the cooling radii and masses, computed below, is generally very small, as the cooling time of
the gas depends more strongly on density than temperature
and the density gradient is typically much larger than the
temperature gradient. Guided also by the numerical simulations, we assume that, for the first generation of halos,
rcore = rNFW /3. However, this result is for simulations which
do not include radiative cooling, and we expect this relationship to be modified for halos formed from progenitors in
which gas has already been removed by cooling. The gas that
is able to cool most efficiently in any halo is the densest gas
with the lowest entropy. Thus, the remaining gas involved in
the formation of a new halo will have a higher minimum entropy than if cooling had not occured. The analytic work of
Evrard & Henry (1991), Kay & Bower (1999) and Wu et al.
(2000) suggests that increasing the minimum entropy of the
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
9
halo gas has the effect of increasing its core radius. Further
out, where cooling has had little effect, the gas properties
will be less affected and, in particular, the pressure at the
virial radius, which is ultimately maintained by shocks from
infalling material, will remain unchanged.
As a qualitative description of the behaviour described
above we have constructed the following simple model.
When a new halo is formed in a merger, if the hot gas fraction in the halo is less than the global value of Ωb /Ω0 (indicating that some gas has already cooled), we increase the
gas core radius, rcore , until we recover the same density at
the virial radius that we would have obtained had no gas
cooled. In principle, this ceases to be possible once the gas
fraction is so low that even if it were placed in the halo
at constant density, this density would be below the target
value. To deal with this contingency, we set an upper limit of
rcore = 10rvir , but in practice this extreme is rarely reached.
The result of this procedure, when applied to the models
discussed in Section 7, is that at high redshift the core radii
start with values close to rcore = rNFW /3, which for isolated bright galaxies, groups and clusters are approximately
20,30,50h−1 kpc respectively. As gas cools and galaxy formation proceeds, the core radii grow until, at the present
day, the corresponding median core radii for newly formed
halos are 85, 125 and 175h−1 kpc. The distributions of core
radii typically span a factor of two in scale.
As alternatives to this standard description, our code
also allows us to keep the core radius fixed, either as a fixed
fraction of the virial radius or of the NFW scalelength, or
even simply to assume that the gas traces the dark matter
density profile. These options allow us to gauge directly the
effects of our model assumptions.
4.1.2
Cooling
Assuming that the shock-heated halo gas is in collisional
ionization equilibrium, the cooling time, defined as the ratio
of the thermal energy density to the cooling rate per unit
volume, ρ2gas Λ(Tgas , Zgas ), is
τcool (r) =
3 1
kTgas
.
2 µmH ρgas (r)Λ(Tgas , Zgas )
(4.3)
Here ρgas (r) is the density of the gas at radius r, Tgas is
the temperature and Zgas the metallicity. We use the cooling function Λ(Tgas , Zgas ) tabulated by Sutherland & Dopita
(1993). We estimate the amount of gas that has cooled by
time t after the halo has formed by defining a cooling radius, rcool (t), at which τcool = t. Note that for the purpose
of computing this cooling radius, the gas density profile is
kept fixed throughout the halo lifetime.
The gas that cools is assumed to be accreted onto a
disk at the centre of the halo. We estimate the time taken
for this material to be accreted onto the disk as the freefall time in the halo with the assumed density profile. Conversely, we can define a free-fall radius rff (t) beyond which,
at time t, material has not yet had sufficient time to fall
into the central disk. Thus, to compute the mass that cools
and is added to the disk in one timestep, ∆t, we compute
rmin (t) = min[rcool , rff ] at the begining and the end of the
timestep, and set Ṁcool ∆t equal to the mass of hot gas originally in the spherical shell defined by the two values of rmin .
For one timestep, this defines the cooling rate, Ṁcool , that
10
S. Cole et al.
enters into the differential equations (4.6) to (4.11) of Section 4.2 describing the star formation, chemical enrichment
and feedback.
4.1.3
Angular momentum
We assume that when the halo gas cools and collapses down
to a disk, it conserves its angular momentum. Thus, the
specific angular momentum of the material added to the
disk by cooling since the formation of the halo is equal to
that of the gas originally within rmin = min[rcool , rff ] . As
described in Section 3.2.3 we take the rotation velocity of the
gas
hot halo gas, Vrot
, to be constant with radius, which implies
that the specific angular momentum increases linearly with
radius in the halo.
The assumption of angular momentum conservation
during the collapse is not a trivial one. In fact, numerical
hydrodynamical simulations of galaxy formation including
radiative cooling have, up to now, found that the cold gas
loses most of its angular momentum (e.g. White & Navarro
1993, Navarro, Frenk & White 1995b, Navarro & Steinmetz
1999). However, these simulations have either not included
star formation and feedback, or only included it in a very
simple way which may not be accurate. In the absence of
stellar feedback the gas distribution in a forming galactic
halo is very clumpy. These clumps are efficient at losing
angular momentum to the dark matter halo via dynamical friction. It is precisely this process that we model, in
Section 4.3.1, to follow the merging of galaxies. However, if
feedback keeps the gas that is not in galaxies diffuse, then
the loss of angular momentum will be much reduced. This
has been investigated by Weil, Eke, & Efstathiou (1998),
Sommer-Larsen, Gelato & Vedel (1999) and Eke, Efstathiou
& Wright (1999) who found that delaying the cooling of
the gas considerably reduces the loss of angular momentum.
We also note that strong angular momentum loss results in
galaxy disk sizes much smaller than observed. In contrast, as
we show later, our assumption of angular momentum conservation leads to disk sizes very similar to observed values.
In the following section we will introduce a model of
stellar feedback whereby gas can be ejected from the disk.
When this occurs, we assume that the specific angular momentum of the remaining material is unaffected. In Section
4.4 we give details of how we relate the size of the disk to
its mass and angular momentum.
4.2
Star Formation in Disks
We now turn to the important process of star formation
within disks. Star formation not only converts cold gas into
luminous stars, but it also affects the physical state of the
surrounding gas, as SNe and young stars inject energy and
metals back into the ISM. The energy that is released can
be sufficient to drive gas and metals out of the galactic disk
in the form of a hot wind. The removal of material from
the disk acts as a feedback process which regulates the star
formation rate. Also, the injected metals enrich both the
cold star-forming gas and the surrounding diffuse hot halo
gas. Enrichment of the halo gas decreases the cooling time
defined in (4.3), allowing more gas to cool at late times,
while stellar enrichment affects the colour and luminosity of
the stellar populations. Early semi-analytic models were unable to include these effects accurately, as stellar population
synthesis models with a wide range of metallicities were not
available. Now that such models are widely available, simple
chemical enrichment models have been included in several
semi-analytic models, e.g. Kauffmann (1996), Kauffmann &
Charlot(1998a), Guiderdoni et al. (1998), and Somerville &
Primack (1999).
4.2.1
Chemical Enrichment and Feedback
Our basic model of star formation assumes that stars are
formed in the disk at a rate directly proportional to the
mass of cold gas. Thus, the instantaneous star formation
rate, ψ, is given by
ψ = Mcold /τ⋆ ,
(4.4)
where the star formation timescale is τ⋆ . To model the feedback effects of energy input from young stars and SNe into
the gas, we assume that cold gas is reheated and ejected
from the disk at a rate
Ṁeject = βψ.
(4.5)
In general, both τ⋆ and β are functions of the properties of
the surrounding galaxy and halo. We will return later (Section 4.2.2) to the way in which we model these dependencies.
The processes of gas cooling from the reservoir of hot
halo gas and accreting onto the disk, star formation from
the cold gas, and the reheating and ejection of gas all occur
simultaneously. For each halo, we estimate the rate at which
gas cools and is accreted by the central galaxy by computing the cooling radius, as described in Section 4.1.2, at each
discrete timestep at which the halo merger tree is stored.
Within one of these discrete steps we approximate the cooling rate as a constant, Ṁcool , and use a simple instantaneous
recycling approximation to model star formation, feedback
and chemical enrichment (Tinsley 1980). Note that for satellite galaxies Ṁcool = 0, as their hot gas is assumed to be
stripped. Fig. 3 depicts the various channels by which mass
and metals are transferred between the three phases. Note
that we always compute Ṁcool from the initial density profile of the hot gas and so we are implicitly assuming that gas
reheated by SNe plays no role until it is incorporated into a
new halo as a result of a merger. Under the instantaneous
recycling approximation, the rate of flow down each channel is simply proportional to the instantaneous star formation rate, ψ, or the cooling rate, Ṁcool . The labels in Fig. 3
give the rates in terms of these quantities. The solid lines
refer to total rates and the dashed lines to the metal component. Note that we have allowed for the possibility that
some fraction of the metals produced by stars may be directly transferred to the hot halo gas, but we have neglected
the corresponding transfer of mass. This is a good approximation, since the directly ejected material would be very
metal rich and the mass transferred by this route will always be small compared to that transferred by reheating of
the cold gas by SN feedback.
In Fig. 3 and below, p denotes the yield (the fraction
of mass converted into stars that is returned to the ISM in
the form of metals), R the fraction of mass recycled by stars
(winds and SNe), e the fraction of newly produced metals
ejected directly from the stellar disk to the hot gas phase,
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
Galaxy Formation
11
Figure 3. A schematic diagram showing the transfer of mass and metals between stars and the hot and cold gas phases during a single
timestep. The solid lines indicate the routes and rates by which mass is transferred between the three reservoirs, while the dashed lines
refer only to the exchange of metals. The instantaneous rate of star formation is ψ and the cooling rate is Ṁcool . The metallicities of
the cold gas, stars and hot halo gas are Zcold , Z∗ and Zhot respectively. The yield of the assumed IMF is p and the parameters β and e
describe the effect of SN feedback and the direct ejection of SN metals into the hot halo gas.
Zcold the metallicity of the cold gas, and β the efficiency of
stellar feedback. Each of the arrows in Fig. 3 gives rise to
a term in the following differential equations that describe
the evolution of the mass and metal content of the three
reservoirs:
the galaxy. The evolution of the stellar metallicity differs
from the closed-box model because it is affected by both the
ejection of reheated gas and the accretion of cold gas and
associated metals.
Ṁ⋆
=
4.2.2
Ṁhot
=
Ṁcold
=
Ṁ⋆Z
=
Z
Ṁhot
=
Z
Ṁcold
(1 − R)ψ
(4.6)
Ṁcool − (1 − R + β)ψ
(4.8)
−Ṁcool + βψ
(1 − R)Zcold ψ
(4.7)
(4.9)
(4.10)
=
−Ṁcool Zhot + (pe + βZcold )ψ
Ṁcool Zhot
+
(p(1 − e) − (1 + β − R)Zcold )ψ,
(4.11)
In our previous work (e.g. Cole et al. 1994), we specified the
star formation timescale and feedback efficiency in terms of
the circular velocity of the halo in which each galaxy formed,
VH . T he relations we adopted were
′
τ⋆ = τ⋆0′ (VH /300 km s−1 )α⋆
Z
Z
where Zcold = Mcold
/Mcold and Zhot = Mhot
/Mhot . The
values of R and p in these equations are related to the IMF,
as discussed in Section 5.2.
We assume that over one timestep the cooling rate,
Ṁcool , and the metallicity of the hot gas, Zhot , can be taken
to be constant. This set of first-order, coupled differential
equations can be straightforwardly solved to give the change
in mass and metal content of cold gas, hot gas and stars since
the start of the timestep (Appendix B). The model is quite
flexible: its behaviour is determined by specifying how the
functions τ⋆ , β and e depend on the properties of the galaxy
and its surrounding halo. We note that compared to the
simple, “closed-box” chemical enrichment model, the yield
is modified by the metal ejection and feedback to produce
an effective yield peff = (1 − e)p/(1 − R + β) (equation B9),
which is therefore a function of the potential-well depth of
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
Star Formation Law and Feedback Parameterization
(4.12)
and
′
′
β = (VH /Vhot
)−αhot .
τ⋆0′ ,
(4.13)
we treated as a free parameter, while the
The parameter
′
other three parameters, α′⋆ , Vhot
and α′hot , we constrained
by comparing our models to the numerical simulations of
galaxy formation of Navarro & White (1993). These simulations had only one free parameter, the fraction of SN energy
injected as kinetic energy into the interstellar medium. In
order to suppress the formation of low luminosity galaxies,
and thus produce a galaxy luminosity function with a reasonably shallow faint end slope, as observed, we adopted
a fiducial model with very strong feedback for low circular
velocity halos, which we obtained by setting the parameter
′
values α′⋆ = −1.5, Vhot
= 140 km s−1 and α′hot = 5.5.
The more detailed modelling that we now perform of the
structure of our model galaxies allows us to specify the star
12
S. Cole et al.
formation timescale and feedback efficiency more naturally
in terms of the properties of the galaxy disk, namely its circular velocity, Vdisk , and dynamical time τdisk ≡ rdisk /Vdisk .
Vdisk and rdisk are both taken at the disk half-mass radius.
The relations that we adopt are
−1 α⋆
τ⋆ = ǫ−1
)
⋆ τdisk (Vdisk /200 km s
(4.14)
and
β = (Vdisk /Vhot )−αhot ,
(4.15)
where ǫ⋆ , α⋆ and αhot are dimensionless parameters, and the
parameter, Vhot , has the dimensions of velocity. If α⋆ = 0,
then our star formation law, (4.14), simply gives a star formation timescale proportional to the galaxy dynamical time,
broadly consistent with the observational data compiled by
Kennicutt (1998). The inclusion of the velocity dependent
term allows us to explore models that have a similar dependence on velocity as our previous, quite successful, model
which had α′⋆ = −1.5 in (4.12). It should be noted that
because the cold gas reservoir is depleted both by the formation of stars and by reheating due to SN feedback, the
timescale on which the reservoir is depleted (in the absence of any further gas cooling) is shorter than τ⋆ . In Appendix B, where the analytic solutions of (4.6) to (4.11) are
discussed, it is shown that this timescale, which in turn determines the effective star formation timescale, is given by
τeff = τ⋆ /(1 − R + β). The feedback equation is the same
as we used previously, but now expressed in terms of the
galaxy circular velocity rather than the halo circular velocity. This is physically more realistic as it is the depth of the
potential at the point where the stars are forming which is
most relevant. To constrain these four parameters we now
prefer to take a more empirical approach and use a wider
range of observational data, rather than to fix the parameters to emulate one particular set of numerical simulations
of galaxy formation, as we did before.
4.3
Spheroid Formation
In our model, the primary route by which bright elliptical
galaxies and the bulge components of spiral galaxies form
is through galaxy mergers. When dark matter halos merge,
we assume that the most massive galaxy automatically becomes the central galaxy in the new halo, while all the other
galaxies become satellite galaxies orbiting within the dark
matter halo. The orbits of these satellite galaxies will gradually decay as energy and angular momentum are lost via
dynamical friction to the halo material. Thus, eventually, the
satellite galaxies spiral in and merge with the central galaxy.
We now describe how we estimate the times at which such
galaxy-galaxy mergers occur and what they produce.
4.3.1
Dynamical Friction
When a new halo forms, we assume that each satellite galaxy
enters the halo on a random orbit. The most massive preexisting galaxy on the other hand is assumed to become
the central galaxy in the new halo, where it will act as the
focus for any gas that may cool within the new halo. The
time for a satellite’s orbit to decay due to the effects of
dynamical friction depends on the initial energy and angular
momentum of the orbit. Lacey & Cole (1993) estimated the
time for an orbit to decay in an isothermal halo, based on the
standard Chandrasekhar formula for the dynamical friction.
Their formula (B4) can be written in the form,
τmrg = fdf Θorbit τdyn
0.3722
MH
.
ln(ΛCoulomb ) Msat
(4.16)
Here, MH is the mass of the halo in which the satellite orbits,
and we take Msat to be the mass of the satellite galaxy
including the mass of the dark matter halo in which it
formed (Navarro et al. 1995a). Note that we deliberately
count the mass of the satellite’s halo in the definition of
both Msat and MH . The Coulomb logarithm, we take to be
ln(ΛCoulomb ) = ln(MH /Msat ). The dynamical time of the
new halo is τdyn ≡ πrvir /VH , defined equivalently as either
the half period of a circular orbit at the virial radius, or as
(Gρvir )−1/2 , where ρvir is the mean density within the virial
radius, or, for an isothermal sphere, as the full orbital period
of a circular orbit at the half-mass radius.
The dependence of this merger timescale, τmrg , on the
orbital parameters is contained in the factor Θorbit , defined
as,
Θorbit = [J/Jc (E)]0.78 [rc (E)/rvir ]2 ,
(4.17)
where E and J are the initial energy and angular momentum
of the satellite’s orbit, and rc (E) and Jc (E) are the radius
and angular momentum of a circular orbit with the same
energy as that of the satellite. The power-law dependence
on the circularity, J/Jc (E), is an accurate fit to the result
of numerical integration of the orbit-averaged equations describing the effect of dynamical fiction in the range 0.01 <
J/Jc (E) < 1 (Lacey & Cole 1993). The distribution of initial orbital parameters of infalling satellites in cosmological
N-body simulations has been studied by Tormen (1997). We
find from his results that the distribution of Θorbit is well
modelled by a log normal with hlog10 Θorbit i = −0.14 and
dispersion h(log10 Θorbit − hlog10 Θorbit i)2 i1/2 = 0.26.
The merger timescale computed in this manner is based
on several approximations, e.g. treating the satellite as a
point mass with mass equal to the sum of the galaxy mass
plus that of its original dark matter halo. We therefore allow
ourselves some freedom by inserting the dimensionless parameter fdf , which is greater than unity if the infalling satellite’s halo is efficiently stripped off early on. We note that
recent analytical and numerical investigations by van den
Bosch et al. (1999) and Colpi, Mayer & Governato (1999)
suggest a weaker dependence of the merger timescale on the
orbital circularity, with the exponent 0.78 in equation (4.17)
being replaced by a value of 0.4 or 0.5, but these results were
also derived using a somewhat different halo density profile
from the singular isothermal sphere assumed by Lacey &
Cole (1993). In this work we have retained the model defined
by equations (4.16) and (4.17), but we note that it may soon
be possible to have a fully specified and calibrated model for
dynamical friction-driven mergers.
The procedure for determining the fate of satellite
galaxies within dark matter halos is straightforward. When a
new halo forms, each of the satellite galaxies that it contains
is assigned a random value of Θorbit according to the lognormal distribution described above. Then, for each satellite, we compute τmrg from equation (4.16). The satellite is
assumed to merge with the central galaxy after this time inc 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
Galaxy Formation
terval has elapsed, provided this occurs during the lifetime
of the halo, i.e. before the halo has merged to become part
of a much larger system. Satellites that do not merge are assigned a new random value of Θorbit when the halo in which
they reside is incorporated into a new, more massive halo.
4.3.2
a) If the mass ratio of merging galaxies, defined in terms
of stars and cold gas only, is Msat /Mcen ≥ fellip , then the
merger is said to be “violent” or “major”, and a single bulge
or elliptical galaxy is produced. Any gas present in the disks
of the merging galaxies is converted into stars in a burst.
We use the standard star formation and feedback rules, but
now based on the circular velocity and dynamical time of the
spheroid that is formed rather than the disk, and with a very
much shorter timescale, similar to the dynamical timescale
of the spheroid.
b) Alternatively, if Msat /Mcen < fellip , then the merger is
classed as “minor”, and, unless explicity stated otherwise,
the stars of the accreted satellite are added to the bulge of
the central galaxy, while any accreted gas is added to the
main gas disk without changing the disk’s specific angular
momentum.
The merger simulations mentioned above have not been run
for a wide enough range of initial conditions to determine
fellip exactly, but suggest a value in the range 0.3 <
∼
∼ fellip <
1. The way in which we calculate the size of the spheroid
which forms from a merger is described in Section 4.4.2. In
the case of minor mergers, we also have the option of adding
the accreted stars to the disk of the central galaxy. If we do
this, we assume that the specific angular momentum of the
disk is unchanged by the accretion.
4.3.3
in the context of the hierarchical formation of galaxies by
Mo, Mao & White (1998a). Our disk model is similar to
theirs, except that we explicitly follow the formation and
structure of a bulge component and, more importantly, we
follow the complete merging history of both the bulge and
the disk. The stability criterion considered by Mo, Mao &
White (1998a) is based on the quantity:
Galaxy Mergers and Bursts
Our method for modelling galaxy mergers produces, at each
timestep, a list of satellite galaxies which merge with the
central galaxy in each halo. If our grid of timesteps were
sufficiently fine, then these lists would always contain just
one or zero satellite galaxies, but in practice there is often
one large satellite and several smaller satellites merging with
the central galaxy at a single timestep. We deal with this by
ranking the merging satellites by mass and then, starting
with the most massive one, merge them sequentially with
the central galaxy.
The outcome of each merger depends on the ratio of
the mass of the merging satellite, Msat , to that of the central galaxy, Mcen , and has been studied recently by Walker,
Mihos & Hernquist (1996) and Barnes (1998), using numerical simulations. As a simplified description of the outcome of
these mergers, we adopt the prescription used in Kauffmann
et al. (1993) and Baugh et al. (1996a):
Disk Instabilities
An issue we have not yet addressed is whether the disks
in our model galaxies are dynamically stable. In particular,
strongly self-gravitating disks are likely to be unstable to the
formation of a bar (e.g. Binney & Tremaine 1987, §6; Efstathiou, Lake & Negroponte 1982; Christodoulou, Shlosman
& Tohline 1995; Sellwood 1999; Syer, Mao & Mo 1999). Recently, the incidence of unstable disks has been considered
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
13
ǫm ≡
Vmax
.
(GMdisk /rdisk )1/2
(4.18)
According to Efstathiou, Lake & Negroponte (1982), for
disks to be stable requires ǫm >
∼ 1.1. In the original formulation, Vmax was the rotation velocity at the maximum
of the rotation curve, but in our models we use instead the
circular velocity at the disk half-mass radius.
We have an option in our code to include the effect
of such disk instabilities on galaxy evolution. In that case,
we check the criterion (4.18) for each galaxy disk at each
timestep. If at any point a disk is unstable according to
this condition, we assume that the instability results in the
stellar disk evolving into a bar and then into a spheroid
(Combes et al. 1990; Combes 1999). We also assume that
bar instability causes any gas present in the disk to undergo
a burst of star formation subject to our standard feedback
prescription.
We do not include the effects of disk instabilities in our
reference model. We briefly present the effect it has on the
distribution of disk scalelengths and the morphological mix
of galaxies in Sections 7.3 and 7.4, but we postpone to a future paper a more detailed exploration of their consequences.
4.4
Galaxy Sizes
The two basic principles upon which we base our estimates
of galaxy sizes are:
i) the size of a disk is determined by centrifugal equilibrium and conservation of angular momentum
and
ii) the size of a stellar spheroidal remnant produced by
mergers or disk instability is determined by virial equilibrium and energy conservation.
The application of these simple principles is complicated by
the gravitational interaction of the galaxy disk, spheroid and
surrounding dark matter halo. Because of this, to determine
either the disk or bulge radius, we must solve for the simultaneous dynamical equilibrium of all three components. We
use the following approach:
a) The disk is assumed to have an exponential surface density profile, with half-mass radius rdisk .
b) The spheroid is assumed to follow an r 1/4 law in projection, with half-mass radius (in 3D) rbulge .
c) The dark halo has a specified initial density profile
(NFW in the standard case), but this is spherically deformed
in response to the gravity of the disk and spheroid.
d) The mass distribution in the halo and the lengthscales
of the disk and bulge are assumed to adjust adiabatically
in response to each other: for the disk, we assume that the
total angular momentum is conserved; for the halo, we assume that rVc (r) is conserved for each spherical shell; for
the spheroid, we assume that rVc (r) is conserved at rbulge .
14
S. Cole et al.
The task is then to solve for rdisk , rbulge and the deformed
halo profile in dynamical equilibrium, subject to these constraints. The method is described in detail in Appendix C.
This adiabatic invariance method for calculating the response of a halo or spheroid to the disk was originally developed and applied by Barnes & White (1984), Blumenthal et
al. (1986) and Ryden & Gunn (1987).
merger and the total stellar mass of galaxy 2 for a minor
merger. The masses M1 and M2 include contributions from
the respective dark matter halos, which are taken to be twice
the halo mass within the half-mass radii r1 or r2 .
The form factor, c, and the constant, forbit , are related
to the gravitational self-binding energy of each galaxy,
GM 2
r
and their mutual orbital energy,
Ebind = −c
4.4.1
Disk Sizes
As already stated, the size of a disk is basically determined by the angular momentum of the halo gas which
cools to form it. Many previous papers have used a version of the following argument: if the dark halo and the
gas it contains are modelled as a singular isothermal sphere
(ρ ∝ r −2 ), then, from the results of Section 3.2.3 and Appendix A, the mean specific angular momentum
of the gas
√
gas
which cools is jcool = π8 rcool Vrot
= 2λH rcool VH . On the
other hand, if the self-gravity of the disk is also neglected,
it rotates at constant circular velocity VH , and so has mean
specific angular momentum jdisk = 2hD VH , for an exponential disk with scalelength hD . Equating jcool and jdisk
gives rdisk = 1.68hD = 1.19λH rcool . This simple relation
was originally derived by Fall (1983). It was used to calculate disk sizes in galaxy formation models (with a fixed λH )
by Lacey et al. (1993), Kauffmann & Charlot (1994), Kauffmann (1996) and Somerville & Primack (1999). In this paper, we improve on this simple calculation by including (a)
non-isothermal halo profiles for the dark matter and gas;
(b) an initial distribution of λH ; (c) disk self-gravity and (d)
gravity of the halo and spheroid, and their contraction in
response to the disk. Most of these improvements were also
included in the work on disk sizes by Mo, Mao & White
(1998a), using similar techniques to those used here. However, their work did not include a physical model for galaxy
formation, so that they were forced to treat the disk-to-halo
mass ratio, the disk-to-halo angular momentum ratio, and
the disk M/L ratio as free parameters. If for a given halo we
adopt the same disk angular momentum and mass, then our
model produces disk scalesizes that agree very accurately
with the Mo, Mao & White model.
4.4.2
forbit GM1 M2
2
r1 + r2
Spheroids can form either in major mergers (when any preexisting disks are destroyed) or in minor mergers (when the
disk of the larger galaxy survives). To estimate the size of
the spheroid formed, we assume that the merging components spiral together under the action of dynamical friction
until their separation equals the sum of their half-mass radii.
At this point, we assume that the systems merge together,
and we use energy conservation and the virial theorem to
compute the size of the remnant. These considerations lead
to:
(4.19)
which relates the half-mass radius of the remnant, rnew , to
the masses, M1 and M2 , and half-mass radii, r1 and r2 , of
the merging components. Defining M1 ≥ M2 , M1 is the total
galaxy mass for a major merger and the bulge mass for a
minor merger, while M2 is the total galaxy mass for a major
(4.21)
at the point at which the merger occurs. The value of c
depends weakly on the density profile of the galaxy; c = 0.49
for an exponential disk and c = 0.45 for an r 1/4 -law spheroid.
For simplicity, we adopt c = 0.5. For the orbital energy, we
adopt forbit = 1.0, which corresponds to the orbital energy
of two point masses in a circular orbit with separation r1 +
r2 . These assumptions lead to the result that, for a merger
of two identical, equal mass galaxies, the half-mass radius
of the remnant increases by a factor rnew /r1 = 4/3, which
agrees reasonably well with the factor of 1.42 found in the
simulated galaxy mergers of Barnes (1992).
Having solved equation (4.19) for rbulge = rnew , we then
adiabatically adjust the spheroid, disk (if any) and halo to
find the new dynamical equilibrium, as described in Appendix C. Typically, this leads to little change in rbulge ,
showing that our treatment of the dark matter during the
merger is approximately self-consistent.
4.4.3
Sizes of Spheroids formed by Disk Instabilities
As mentioned in the previous section, our code has an option
to form spheroids through bar instabilities in disks. In this
case, we compute the size of the resulting spheroid using
virial equilibrium and energy conservation in much the same
way as for the spheroids produced by mergers. If the mass
of the unstable disk is Mdisk , the mass of any pre-existing
central stellar bulge is Mbulge , and their respective half-mass
radii are rdisk and rbulge , then we calculate the final bulge
half-mass radius, rnew , from the relation
cB (Mdisk + Mbulge )2
rnew
Sizes of Spheroids Formed by Mergers
(M1 + M2 )2
M2
M2
forbit M1 M2
= 1 + 2 +
,
rnew
r1
r2
c r1 + r2
Eorbit = −
(4.20)
=
+
2
2
cB Mbulge
cD Mdisk
+
rbulge
rdisk
Mbulge Mdisk
fint
.
rbulge + rdisk
(4.22)
Here we adopt cD = 0.49 and cB = 0.45, the form factors
appropriate for an exponential disk and r 1/4 -law spheroid
respectively (see (4.20)). The last term represents the gravitational interaction energy of the disk and bulge which is
reasonably well approximated for a range of rbulge /rdisk by
this form with fint = 2.0. After we have calculated the new
spheroid radius rnew from equation (4.22), we adiabatically
adjust the spheroid and halo to a new dynamical equilibrium, as for the case of a spheroid formed by a merger.
5
GALAXY LUMINOSITIES AND SPECTRA
The aspects of the model described so far enable us to follow the star formation history, chemical enrichment and size
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
Galaxy Formation
5.1
15
Stellar Population Synthesis
The technique of stellar population synthesis, pioneered by
Tinsley (1972; 1980) and developed by Guiderdoni & RoccaVolmerange (1987), Bruzual & Charlot (1993), Bressan,
Chiosi & Fagotto (1994) and others, enables the observable
properties of a stellar population to be computed given an
assumption about the stellar Initial Mass Function (IMF)
and the star formation history. The latest models of Bruzual
& Charlot (2000, in preparation) provide the spectral energy distribution (SED), lλ (t, Z), of a single population of
stars formed at the same time with the same metallicity,
as a function of both age, t, and metallicity, Z. These can
be convolved with the star formation history of a galaxy to
yield its SED:
Lλ (t) =
Z
0
Figure 4. The evolution of the B-band luminosity and the B–V
and V –K colours for a single age stellar population. The solid
lines show results for a stellar population with a Salpeter IMF for
three different metallicities. The middle curves are for solar metallicity, Z = 0.02, and the lower and upper curves for Z = 0.008
and 0.05 respectively. The absolute magnitudes are normalized to
1M⊙ of stars. The corresponding dashed curves show results assuming the Kennicutt IMF. In this case, the luminosities in each
band have been reduced by a factor of 1.69 to make the solar
metallicity curves for the two IMFs cross at an age of t = 15Gyr.
evolution of each galaxy. In order to convert this information
into observable properties, we must model the spectrophotometric properties of the stars that are formed, and the
effects of dust and ionized gas within each galaxy on the
emerging integrated galaxy spectrum. The models we adopt
for each of these processes are outlined below.
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
t
lλ (t − t′ , Z(t′ )) ψ(t′ ) dt′ ,
(5.1)
where Z(t′ ) is the metallicity of the stars forming at time t′ ,
and ψ(t′ ) is the star formation rate at that time. In the case
of a galaxy which formed by merging, we also sum the contributions to Lλ from the different progenitor galaxies, each
with their own star formation and chemical enrichment history. In performing the convolution integral, we interpolate
the grid of SEDs, lλ (t, Z), provided by Bruzual & Charlot, to
intermediate ages and metallicities using linear interpolation
in t and log Z. Broad-band colours can then be extracted by
integrating over these spectra weighted by the appropriate
filter response function.
In our models, we always assume that the IMF is universal in time and space. Observationally, the IMF is best
constrained in the solar neighbourhood. However, even here
there is significant uncertainty arising mainly from ambiguity in the past star formation history. Because of this,
we consider two possible choices of IMF, the form proposed by Salpeter (1955) and the form proposed by Kennicutt (1983), both of which produce reasonable agreement
with the solar neighbourhood data. The Salpeter IMF has
dN/d ln m ∝ m−x with x = 1.35, while the Kennicutt IMF
has x = 0.4 for m < M⊙ and x = 1.5 for m > M⊙ . In both
cases, visible stars have 0.1M⊙ < m < 125M⊙ . The Salpeter
IMF has been widely used in modelling galaxy evolution because of its simplicity and the fact that it fits the observational data on high mass stars fairly well. However, there
is now considerable observational evidence, as reviewed by
Scalo (1986, 1998), that the IMF slope at low masses is flatter than the Salpeter form. The “best” IMF proposed by
Scalo (1998), which supersedes that of Scalo (1986), is actually quite close to that of Kennicutt (1983). We therefore
adopt the Kennicutt IMF as our standard choice.
We also include in our assumed IMF brown dwarfs (m <
0.1M⊙ ), which contribute mass but no light to the stellar
population. The fraction of brown dwarfs is specified by the
parameter Υ, defined as
Υ=
(mass in visible stars + brown dwarfs)
(mass in visible stars)
(5.2)
at the time a stellar population forms, i.e. before taking
account of the fraction R of the mass that is returned to
the ISM by recycling. Thus, by definition, Υ ≥ 1. The effect
of including brown dwarfs is to reduce all stellar population
luminosities by a factor 1/Υ. We will see in Section 7.7 that
16
S. Cole et al.
observational estimates of the mass-to-light ratios of stellar
populations constrain viable models to have modest values
of Υ in the range 1 < Υ <
∼ 2.
The way in which the predicted luminosity and colour of
a stellar population depend on age, metallicity and choice of
IMF is illustrated in Fig. 4. A number of properties which affect the behaviour of our galaxy formation models are worth
noting. The overall stellar mass-to-light ratio depends significantly on the choice of IMF. This dependence has been
explicitly scaled out of the curves shown in Fig. 4 by reducing all the luminosities in the Kennicutt IMF case by a
factor of Υ = 1.69, so as to force the solar metallicity curves
for the two IMFs to agree at t = 15Gyr. The slope of the
absolute magnitude versus time curve has some dependence
on the choice of IMF. For example, as the age is reduced
from 15Gyr to around 3Gyr, the stellar population with the
Kennicutt IMF brightens more rapidly than that with the
Salpeter IMF. The difference is even larger for an IMF such
as the Miller-Scalo IMF (Miller & Scalo 1979) which contains a greater fraction of stars of a few solar masses. In
spite of the dependence of luminosity on the IMF, the B–V
and V –K colours, both as a function of age and metallicity,
are quite insensitive to the choice of IMF. The colours do
depend strongly on metallicity, with increasing amounts of
metals producing redder stellar populations. A young stellar population is very blue but rapidly reddens during its
first 5Gyr. At later times the dependence of colour on age
is much weaker.
There are many approximations and assumptions involved in constructing stellar population synthesis models
such as those of Bruzual & Charlot. Because of this, the accuracy of the model predictions is difficult to quantify. This
issue has been addressed by Charlot, Worthey & Bressan
(1996) by comparing model predictions from different codes
and for varying sets of assumptions. Their results indicate
that for the same choices of IMF and star formation history,
the resulting broad-band colours can differ by a few tenths of
a magnitude, and this could give rise to 20-30% uncertainties in either the inferred age or metallicity. While efforts
have been made, and continue to be made, to improve these
models, it should be noted that the uncertainties in the population synthesis model are sufficiently small that, for our
purposes, the dominant source of uncertainty in modelling
galaxy formation is, instead, the choice of IMF and its associated yield.
5.2
Yield and Recycled Fraction
There are two further quantities related to the IMF that
significantly affect galaxy formation. These are the recycled fraction, R, and the yield, p. They appeared in equations (4.6) to (4.11) for the evolution of gas and star masses
and metallicities. The material which goes to form massive
stars is mostly released back into the ISM via stellar winds
and SN explosions. The returned gas is an important source
of fuel for forming further generations of stars. SN explosions also enrich the ISM with metals giving rise to subsequent generations of redder, more metal rich stars. The
recycled fraction and the yield are defined so that for each
mass, ∆M , formed in new stars (including brown dwarfs),
a mass R∆M is returned to the ISM, and a mass p∆M of
newly synthesized metals is released. These quantities are
given respectively by integrating the total ejected mass and
the ejected mass in newly synthesized metals over the IMF.
We recall that in a closed-box model of chemical evolution,
the mean metallicity of the stars asymptotes to a value of
p/(1 − R) as the gas is exhausted (e.g. Tinsley 1980).
The values of R and p for any specific IMF can be
estimated from stellar evolution theory and models of supernova explosions. We have used two different compilations of stellar evolution calculations to set these parameters: (i) Renzini & Voli’s (1981) for intermediate mass stars
(1 < m <
∼ 8M⊙ ), and Woosley & Weaver’s (1995) for massive stars (m >
∼ 8M⊙ ) which produce Type II supernovae;
and (ii) results from Marigo et al. (1996) for intermediate
mass stars and from Portinari et al. (1998) for massive stars.
The more recent calculations in (ii) include the effects of convective overshooting and quiescent mass loss. However, they
rely on the supernova calculations of Woosley & Weaver.
The contribution of SNII to the yield is sensitive to the assumed explosion energy (Woosley & Weaver’s cases A,B,C);
we give below the corresponding range in p for case (i),
but Portinari et al. only calculated results for Woosley &
Weaver’s case A (case C would give larger yields). Type I
supernovae make only a small contribution to the net production of heavy elements, and are not included here. The
results for solar metallicity are as follows: for the Kennicutt
IMF, case (i) gives R1 = 0.42, p1 = 0.013 − 0.023, and case
(ii) gives R1 = 0.44, p1 = 0.022; for the Salpeter IMF, case
(i) gives R1 = 0.28, p1 = 0.010 − 0.020, and case (ii) gives
R1 = 0.30, p1 = 0.018. These values assume that Υ = 1.
If Υ > 1, the appropriate values become p = p1 /Υ and
R = R1 /Υ. As may be seen from these values, for a given
IMF, the recycled fraction, R, is fairly accurately known,
but the theoretically predicted yield, p, is uncertain by at
least a factor of 2. In our modelling, we have chosen to set
R according to the above estimates. However, as the yield
is more uncertain, we use these estimates only as a guide
for what is reasonable and instead rely on observed galaxy
metallicities to constrain the value of p.
5.3
Extinction by Dust
Absorption of starlight by dust has a significant effect on
the optical luminosities and colours of galaxies, and a large
effect on the far-UV luminosities which are used as the main
tracer of star formation rates at high redshift. We model the
effects of dust in a physically self-consistent way, using the
models of Ferrara et al. (1999). Ferrara et al. have calculated
radiative transfer of starlight through dust, including both
absorption and scattering by dust grains, for a realistic 3D
distribution of stars and dust, giving the net attenuation of
the galaxy luminosity as a function of wavelength and inclination angle. In their model, stars are distributed in both
a bulge and a disk, and dust is distributed smoothly in a
disk. The bulge follows a Jaffe (1983) distribution (which is
very similar to an r 1/4 -law) with projected half-light radius,
re . The stars and dust in the disk both have radially and
vertically exponential distributions. The dust is assumed to
have the same radial scalelength, hR , as the stars, but its
scaleheight, hz , is in general different. The total dust content is parameterized by the central V -band optical depth,
τV 0 , defined as the extinction optical depth looking vertically through the whole disk at r = 0. The dust properties
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
Galaxy Formation
are chosen to match observations of the extinction law and
albedo of dust in either the Milky Way (MW) or Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC).
Ferrara et al. tabulate separately the attenuations of
disk and bulge light, as functions of wavelength, λ, inclination, i, central optical depth, τV 0 , ratio of bulge-todisk scalelengths, re /hR , and ratio of dust-to-stellar vertical scaleheights, hz,dust /hz,stars . We choose a fixed value for
hz,dust /hz,stars , and calculate τV 0 and re /hR for each galaxy
directly from the output of our model. We assign our galaxies random inclination angles, and then calculate the attenuation factors for the disk and bulge luminosities at the
wavelengths of each of the filters (e.g. B, K) we are using
by interpolating in the tables.
We calculate τV 0 for our model galaxies by assuming
that it scales as the dust mass per unit area which, in turn,
is assumed to scale with the total mass of metals per unit
area in the cold gas:
τV 0 ∝
Mdust
Mcold Zcold
∝
.
2
2
rdisk
rdisk
(5.3)
The metallicity Zcold is obtained from our chemical evolution
calculation. We normalize equation (5.3) by assuming that
gas with solar metallicity, Z = 0.02, has the local ISM dustto-gas ratio. Savage & Mathis (1979) find AV /N H = 3.3 ×
10−22 mag cm2 for the local ratio of V -band extinction, AV ,
to hydrogen column density NH . This then implies
τV 0 = 0.043
Mcold /(2πh2R )
M⊙ pc−2
Zcold
0.02
(5.4)
Our standard choice is to use an MW extinction curve
and to assume hz,dust /hz,stars = 1. We have investigated
variations in hz,dust /hz,stars over the range 0.4 to 2.5, and
find that most results are very insensitive to this. Most results also do not change significantly if an SMC rather than
an MW extinction curve is used. The SMC and MW extinction curves differ significantly only in the far-UV, but even
here, the effects on our results are fairly small, as the net
attenuation of galaxy light calculated using these radiative
transfer models has a much weaker (“greyer”) dependence
on wavelength than in a simple foreground screen model.
Our model for dust absorption thus has essentially no significant free parameters. Results are sensitive mostly to the
value of τV 0 , which is calculated directly from our other
model quantities.
Our modelling of dust extinction is a major improvement over what has been done previously in semi-analytic
models, both in terms of including a realistic 3D distribution
for the stars and dust, and in terms of calculating the dust
optical depth in a physically self-consistent way. The first
semi-analytic models to include dust were those of Lacey et
al. (1993), using the dust and stellar population model of
Guiderdoni & Rocca-Volmerange (1987), and Guiderdoni et
al. (1998). They modelled the star and dust distributions
as a uniform 1D slab, but calculated the dust content selfconsistently from a closed-box chemical evolution model.
Kauffmann et al. (1999a) and Somerville & Primack (1999)
also use the 1D slab model, but instead of predicting the
slab optical depth, they use a power-law relation between
dust optical depth and galaxy luminosity that is estimated
from observations of z = 0 galaxies.
The main deficiencies of our current dust model are that
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
it does not allow for clumping of the dust and stars or deal
well with bursts, and that it only calculates absorption by
dust, but not the spectrum of dust emission. However, Silva
et al. (1998) have developed a more sophisticated dust model
which includes both clumped and smooth components of the
dust, deals accurately with bursts and is able to predict not
only the extinction of starlight, but also the spectrum of the
energy re-radiated by the dust in the far infra-red and submm. Granato et al. (2000) combine this dust model with
our galaxy formation model to predict galaxy luminosity
functions in the far infra-red and sub-mm and Lacey et al.
(2000a) investigate the high redshift behaviour and predict
number counts and integrated radiation backgrounds.
5.4
Emission line Modelling
We model the emission lines from photo-ionized gas in our
galaxies by calculating the luminosity in Lyman continuum
photons from the stellar population using the Bruzual &
Charlot models, and combining this with HII region models
to calculate line luminosities and equivalent widths. We have
calculated results for important lines used as star formation
indicators, such as Hα and OII. This is described in detail
in a separate paper (Lacey et al. 2000b).
6
.
17
6.1
METHODOLGY
Model Parameters
The complete hierarchical model of galaxy formation described in the previous section contains a significant number
of parameters. However, relatively few should be considered
as free parameters. These fall into three distinct categories:
numerical parameters, parameters of the cosmological model
and, finally, parameters related directly to our modelling of
the physics of galaxy formation.
The parameters that fall in the first set include the mass
resolution, Mres , the number of timesteps in the merger tree,
Nsteps and the starting redshift, zstart . These do not represent freedoms of the model, and we must simply choose
values such that the quantities of interest have converged
and are insensitive to further improvements. Also, there are
options such as adopting singular isothermal spheres to describe the dark matter and gas density profiles, or varying
the distribution of halo spin parameters, which are not to
be viewed as viable alternatives. Instead, we have included
them simply in order to be able to vary our assumptions so
as to gain insight into why the model behaves in a particular
way. In these examples, any viable model should employ the
options that are consistent with results of the high-resolution
simulations that we are trying to emulate.
The second set are parameters that specify the background cosmological model. These include the density parameter, Ω0 ; the cosmological constant, Λ0 ; the Hubble constant, h; the baryon density, Ωb ; and the shape and amplitude of the linear theory mass power spectrum, P (k). In
principle, each of these can be determined from observations
that do not depend on galaxy properties. For example, most
of these cosmological parameters are likely to be determined
accurately from microwave background anisotropy measurements to be carried out by the MAP and Planck satellite
18
S. Cole et al.
missions (e.g. Bond, Efstathiou & Tegmark 1997). Alternatively, the power spectrum amplitude, σ8 , may be fixed
by reference to the abundance of galaxy clusters, while the
baryon density may be constrained by models of primordial
nucleosynthesis and the observed abundance of the light elements, like deuterium, at low and high redshift. Our general
approach is to set these parameters according to such external constraints. However, some properties of the galaxy
formation models are particularly sensitive to the baryon
density, Ωb , and to the normalization, σ8 . For this reason, we
sometimes allow some variation of these parameters around
the values otherwise indicated by the external observational
constraints.
The final set of parameters are those with which we directly characterize our physical model of galaxy formation.
Firstly, there is the IMF and its associated yield of metals,
p, and the fraction, R, of stellar mass that is liberated in
stellar winds and SNe. In principle, p and R are fixed by
the choice of IMF, but, in practice, although R is quite well
constrained, p is quite uncertain. Secondly, we have the parameters, ǫ⋆ , α⋆ , Vhot and αhot in the star formation and
feedback laws. Then, there is the parameter, e, the fraction of the metals produced in SNe which escape directly to
the hot diffuse halo gas. Also, we require the vertical scaleheight of dust relative to that of the disk stars (although
our results are very insensitive to this parameter). Finally,
there are the parameters fdf and fellip , which modulate the
frequency of galaxy-galaxy mergers and determine when a
merger results in the formation of a spheroid. Although the
number of model parameters is not small, we shall see that
the resulting freedoms of the model are still quite limited
and that only a small subset of observed properties of low
redshift galaxies are needed to constrain a model fully.
6.2
Model Output
The output of our code is a list of the galaxies that form in
each simulated halo at one or more redshifts. For each galaxy
the output lists: a flag which indicates whether the galaxy
is the central galaxy of the halo in which it is contained or
a satellite galaxy; the mass of cold gas in the disk; the mass
of stars in the disk and bulge; the luminosities in any chosen
band of the stars in the disk and bulge; selected emission line
luminosities and equivalent widths; the half-mass radius of
the disk and bulge individually and combined; the circular
velocities at the half-mass radii of the disk and bulge; the
metallicity of the cold gas and also, if the galaxy is a central
galaxy, the metallicity of its hot gas halo; the metallicities
and age of the bulge and disk stars weighted by mass or
by luminosity in any selected band; the instantaneous star
formation rate in the disk; the mass and circular velocity at
the virial radius of both the halo in which the galaxy was
last a central galaxy and the halo in which it is contained
at the chosen output redshift. The effect of dust within each
galaxy on the luminosities and line strengths is computed
in an additional step by assuming an inclination angle for
each galaxy. Also, since we know the disk and bulge sizes, we
can compute surface brightness distributions and isophotal
magnitudes for each individual galaxy, assuming exponential profiles for disks and r 1/4 profiles for spheroids. Since we
also know the number density of each of the halos we have
simulated, it is straightforward to estimate galaxy luminos-
ity functions and galaxy number counts (both using either
total or isophotal magnitudes) or to sample our output to
build up either volume-limited or magnitude-limited galaxy
catalogues from which to draw galaxy samples for comparison with observational datasets. In this work we have used
the halo abundance given by the Press-Schechter formalism, but it is now possible to adopt improved analytic estimates (Sheth, Mo & Tormen 2000) which accurately match
the abundance of halos found in large N-body simulations
(Jenkins et al. 2000). We have checked that switching to
these more accurate formulae changes the model results far
less than varying some of the galaxy formation parameters.
Once we have calculated a model, we have the ability
to select from the output any particular galaxy and recompute its formation history, this time choosing to output its
properties more frequently and to record its star formation
and merger history. In this way we can generate the complete formation history of selected galaxies and, for each,
construct their own individual merger trees. Examples of
galaxy merger trees constructed in this way have been presented in Figure 9 of Baugh et al. (1998).
6.3
Strategy
Our adopted methodology is to select a cosmological model
based on constraints from large-scale structure and then
vary the galaxy formation parameters in order to match
as best as possible a selection of low-redshift observational
data. Since galaxy formation is undoubtedly a complex process, the simple model we have constructed cannot aspire
to be a complete and full description. Thus, it is inevitable
that in some cases our models will only produce a moderate
level of agreement with certain observational data.
In the following section, we illustrate this process of
defining the parameters of the galaxy formation model for
one particular cosmology. We use this example to illustrate
the way in which we apply the observational constraints and
to show how the model predictions depend on each of the
model parameters.
7
OBSERVATIONAL CONSTRAINTS ON THE
MODEL AND EFFECTS OF VARYING THE
PARAMETERS
In the following sub-sections, we compare models constructed within a particular cosmology with a variety of
statistics estimated from the observed properties of the local
galaxy population. For each statistic, we illustrate how the
predictions of the galaxy formation model depend on the parameters, and present one model, our reference model, which
is the best compromise when measured against a full range
of observational data. The observational constraints used to
fix each of the main parameters of our reference model are
as follows:
• αhot : faint end of luminosity function and Tully-Fisher
relation
• Vhot : faint end of luminosity function and sizes of low
luminosity spirals
• ǫ⋆ : gas fraction for L⋆ spirals
• α⋆ : variation of gas fraction with luminosity
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
Galaxy Formation
•
•
•
•
fellip : morphological mix for L⋆ galaxies
IMF: observations of solar neighbourhood
Υ: L⋆ in luminosity function
p: metallicity of L⋆ ellipticals
The chosen parameters values of our reference model are
listed in Table 1.
We emphasize that not all of the observational data presented in this section are used to fix model parameters - some
of the data provide tests of the model, and are shown in this
section to illustrate the effects of varying the parameters.
The cosmology that we have chosen in order to illustrate
how observational data may be used to constrain the galaxy
formation parameters is a flat, low-density cold dark matter
model with a cosmological constant. The parameters that
we adopt for this ΛCDM model are Ω0 = 0.3 and Λ0 = 0.7.
Such a model is currently favoured by quite a range of observational evidence. For reasonable values of the Hubble
constant (h ∼ 0.7), the shape of the mass power spectrum
is in good agreement with estimates from large-scale galaxy
clustering (e.g. Maddox et al. 1990). The value of Ω0 is consistent with the high baryon fraction in clusters (White et
al. 1993; White & Fabian 1995; Mohr & Evrard 1997) and
with the mild evolution in the abundance of X-ray clusters
(Eke et al. 1998). The joint values of Ω0 and Λ0 are in accord with estimates from high redshift SNe (Perlmutter et
al. 1998; Riess et al. 1998; Garnavich et al. 1998), while
Ω0 + Λ0 = 1 is in agreement with the detection of the first
CMB Doppler peak (de Bernardis et al. 2000; Lange et al.
2000; Hannay et al. 2000; Balbi et al. 2000). For this model,
the normalization of the mass power spectrum, σ8 , derived
from the number density of X-ray emitting galaxy clusters
is consistent with that from the amplitude of CMB fluctuations (e.g. Cole et al. 1997), and both are consistent with
the power spectrum of the mass at z = 2.5, inferred by Croft
et al. (1999) and Weinberg et al. (1999) from analysis of the
Lyman-α forest.
The galaxy formation model as a whole is a complex
system, with the result that the dependence of a particular
statistic on a given parameter can be complicated. Thus,
when one parameter is varied, the behaviour of the model
certainly depends on the other constraints that have been
applied. This fact, combined with the number of parameters, makes it unfeasible to present the full range of possible
model behaviour. One should therefore be careful not to
over-interpret the trends discussed below: since the effects
of varying one parameter can depend on the values of the
others, it is dangerous to assume that these trends can be
used to assess the result of varying more than one parameter
at a time.
As well as varying the parameters that regulate the
physics of galaxy formation, we allow some variation of
the parameters, σ8 , h and Ωb , that define the cosmological
model. However, these are only allowed to vary within the
ranges permitted for consistency with estimates of the abundance of rich galaxy clusters, Hubble’s constant, and primordial nucleosynthesis. Whenever we vary any of these parameters, we consistently adjust the power spectrum shape
parameter, Γ, according to the fitting formula for CDM proposed by Sugiyama (1995):
Γ = Ω0 h exp −
Ωb √
( 2h + Ω0 ) .
Ω0
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
(7.1)
19
The estimated values and 1-σ errors that we adopt for these
quantities are σ8 = 0.93±0.07 (Eke et al. 1996), h = 0.7±0.1
(Freedman et al. 1998; Madore et al. 1998), and Ωb h2 =
0.0125±0.0025 (Walker et al. 1991). We note that somewhat
higher values of Ωb h2 are favoured by recent estimates of
the D/H ratio from QSO absorption line systems (Schramm
& Turner 1998; Burles & Tytler 1998), and by models of
the mean optical depth of the Lyman-α forest (Rauch et al.
1997; Weinberg et al. 1997). We discuss the consequences of
increasing our adopted value of Ωb in Section 9.
In a similar fashion, many of the parameters that describe the physics of galaxy formation can only plausibly
be varied by modest amounts. Consider, for example, the
threshold, fellip , above which galaxy mergers are termed violent and assumed to result in the formation of an elliptical
galaxy. By definition, fellip ≤ 1, and based on simulations
of galaxy mergers, a reasonable lower limit is fellip >
∼ 0.3
(Walker et al. 1996; Barnes 1998). Other parameters that are
similarly constrained to lie within relatively narrow ranges
are fdf and, to a lesser extent, p. The merger timescale coefficient, fdf , should be close to unity if an infalling galaxy
retains its dark matter halo throughout most of the time
when dynamical friction is removing angular momentum and
energy from its orbit. It could be larger than unity if the
dark matter halo is efficiently stripped off at early times,
but cannot plausibly be significantly smaller than unity. As
described in Section 5.1, the choice of IMF quite accurately
determines the recycled fraction, R, and also sets some constraint on the yield, p.
7.1
Galaxy Luminosity Functions
The single most important constraint on our galaxy formation models is the local galaxy luminosity function. This is
one of the most fundamental properties of the galaxy population and it is also one of the best measured, at least over
a restricted range of luminosities. Matching the galaxy luminosity function is a prerequisite for any realistic model of
galaxy formation, because the detectability of galaxies depends directly on their luminosity. Thus, a model that fails
to match the bright end of the luminosity function can lead
to misleading conclusions when tested, for example, against
samples selected by apparent magnitude.
Fig. 5 shows estimates of the local galaxy luminosity
function in the blue optical bJ -band and in the near infrared
K-band. The bJ -band data are taken from the APM-Stromlo
galaxy redshift survey (Loveday et al. 1992), the ESO slice
project (Zucca et al. 1997), the DUKST survey (Ratcliffe et
al. 1998) and from preliminary results from the 2dF galaxy
redshift survey (Maddox et al. 1998). The K-band data are
from Mobasher et al. (1993), Glazebroook et al. (1995) and
Gardner et al. (1997). In both bands, there is reasonably
good agreement among the various estimates at the bright
end. At the faint end, however, there is considerable dispersion among the results from different surveys. In the bJ -band
these differences are large compared to the statistical errors.
We must, therefore, conclude that either the galaxy luminosity function differs in the different volumes surveyed, or that
systematic differences in the selection characteristics of the
surveys give rise to these differences.
The solid and dashed model curves shown in Fig. 5 correspond to the reference model, both with and without the
20
S. Cole et al.
Table 1. The values of the model parameters for the reference model.
Ω0
Λ0
Ωb
h
Γ
σ8
ǫ⋆
α⋆
Vhot
0.3
0.7
0.02
0.7
0.19
0.93
0.005
-1.5
200.0
αhot
2.0
e
0.0
fellip
fdf
IMF
p
R
Υ
0.3
1.0
Kennicutt
0.02
0.31
1.38
Figure 5. Comparison of the bJ and K-band galaxy luminosity functions in the ΛCDM reference model with a compilation of observational data. The solid line is the model including the effects of dust, with Υ chosen so as to obtain agreement with the observed
luminosity functions at MbJ − 5 log h = −19.8. The dashed lines show the corresponding luminosity functions before the effects of dust
extinction are included. The dotted line on the left hand panel shows how the luminosity function is modified if the isophotal magnitude
within an isophote of 25 mag/arcsec2 is used instead of the true total magnitude. See §7.3 for details.
inclusion of dust. In the model with dust, the vertical scaleheight of the dust distribution was taken to be the same as
that of the disk stars, but varying this assumption makes
very little difference to the luminosity functions. The model
without dust produces a reasonable K-band luminosity function, but it gives rise to galaxies which are systematically too
bright in bJ . By contrast, the model with dust is a good fit to
the bright end of both the bJ and K-band luminosity functions. We shall see below that the differential effect of dust,
which generates greater extinction at shorter wavelengths, is
important in providing a good match to the observed B–K
colour distributions. It also results in a model that comes
significantly closer than our previous models to matching
simultaneously the zero-point of the observed I-band TullyFisher relation and the bright end of the bJ -band luminosity
function, thus largely overcoming an important shortcoming
of our earlier models (Cole et al. 1994). The importance of
the role of dust in achieving this simultaneous match has
also been noted by Kauffmann et al. (1999a) and Somerville
& Primack (1999). The prescription for the dust distribution assumed in Fig. 5 will be retained in all the following
comparisons.
Many of the model parameters have a direct effect on
the galaxy luminosity function. Typically, varying any one
of them on its own causes only a minor change in the shape
of the luminosity function, but can cause a significant overall shift (either left or right) in the luminosity scale. Our
normalization strategy separates out these two effects by
adjusting the parameter Υ so as to keep the amplitude of
all the luminosity functions fixed at MbJ = −19.8 + 5 log h.
Recall that Υ−1 is the initial stellar mass fraction in luminous stars (equation 5.2), and that the remaining fraction
is assumed to be made up of non-luminous brown dwarfs.
Physically, one ought to vary the net recycled fraction R
when adjusting Υ, so as to keep the value R1 = ΥR constant
for the luminous stars alone (§ 5.2). The reference model has
Υ and R chosen consistently to give R1 = ΥR = 0.42 for
the Kennicutt IMF, as found in Section 5.2. To achieve this
requires some iteration as the value of Υ is determined after
the model has been run by matching a point in the B-band
luminosity function. For this reason, when showing the effects of varying parameters we choose to keep R constant
rather than R1 .
The effect of parameter changes on the position of the
luminosity function is summarized in Table 2. Here, we give
the values of Υ required to shift each luminosity function
into coincidence with the Zucca et al. (1997) luminosity
function at MbJ = −19.8 + 5 log h. We will see in Section 7.7
that in models which have realistic stellar mass-to-light ratios, Υ ∼ 1.3−2 for the Kennicutt IMF. In a few cases, however, this normalization procedure requires Υ < 1, which
is unphysical. (It corresponds approximately to removing
from the IMF all of the brown dwarfs and some of the low
mass visible stars, by increasing the lower mass limit above
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
Galaxy Formation
Figure 6. The effect on the bJ -band luminosity function of varying the star formation and feedback parameters, αhot and Vhot ,
and the assumed halo DM and hot gas density profiles. In all
cases, the value of Υ has been fixed by requiring the model luminosity functions to agree with the observations at MbJ − 5 log h =
−19.8. a) Shows how increasing αhot suppresses the formation
of low-luminosity galaxies and so controls the faint-end slope
of the luminosity function. The dotted curve is for αhot = 1,
solid for αhot = 2, and dashed for αhot = 5.5. b) Demonstrates
how increasing Vhot lowers the faint end of the luminosity function. Results are shown for Vhot = 100 km s−1 (dotted curve),
Vhot = 200 km s−1 (solid curve), and Vhot = 300 km s−1 (dashed
curve). c) Shows how the bright end of luminosity function depends on the model adopted for the density profile of the hot gas.
The solid curve is our reference model which has an NFW profile
for the DM and the “β-model” for the gas, with a core radius that
depends on the fraction of gas that has previously cooled (see Section 4.1.1). The dotted and long-dashed curves also assume NFW
profiles for the DM, but assume a fixed core radius “β-model”
(dotted) or an NFW profile for the gas (long-dashed). The shortdashed line is for a singular isothermal sphere (ρ ∝ r −2 ) model
for both gas and DM.
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
21
0.1M⊙ .) Nevertheless, we present these models because they
help to clarify some of the trends that occur when a single
parameter is varied. For the derived normalization of Υ, the
table gives other properties of the galaxy population. Several of the entries in this table are discussed further in the
relevant sections below.
Two parameters that strongly affect the shape of the
galaxy luminosity function are Vhot and αhot , the quantities
that define our model of stellar feedback (equation 4.15).
As can be seen in Fig. 6a, the faint-end slope of the luminosity function is very sensitive to αhot , with large values
producing a shallower slope. Similarly, as Fig. 6b shows, increasing Vhot also reduces the number of faint galaxies. Both
these dependencies are easily understood: stronger stellar
feedback makes it increasingly more difficult for luminous
stars to form in low-mass halos. To match the very shallow
faint-end slope seen in the data of Loveday et al. (1992) or
Ratcliffe et al. (1998), requires a high value of αhot , such
as that adopted by Cole et al. (1994), who compared their
models against the first of these surveys. Such a value, however, would lead to a disagreement with the data of Zucca
et al. (1997). The differing observational estimates of the
luminosity function indicate that the faint-end slope is not
as robustly determined as one might wish, perhaps because
it depends on the details of the survey selection criteria. We
therefore do not use it as a model constraint. Instead, we will
see in Section 7.2 that extreme values of αhot are disfavoured
on other grounds and this leads us to favour models whose
luminosity functions have quite steep faint end slopes.
The bright end of the luminosity function is sensitive
to the density profile assumed for the halo gas, because this
controls how much of the gas can cool. This effect is not
important in low-mass halos, in which the gas temperature
Tvir is low enough that most of the gas can cool anyway, but
it becomes important in large groups and clusters, in which
only the dense central regions have time to cool. Fig. 6c compares the effects of using different gas profiles. Our reference
model (shown by the solid line) assumes an NFW dark halo
and a β-model for the gas (equation 4.2), with a core radius
that starts at rcore = rNFW /3 and grows depending on how
much gas has already cooled in progenitor halos. The model
luminosity function and other properties are not sensitive to
the precise value of this initial core radius. For example, if
instead, we set rcore = rNFW /6 as the initial value, then the
change in the luminosity function is almost too small to be
visible and the other properties listed in Table 2 also only
vary slightly. In principle, constraints can be placed on the
initial gas density profile from the observed X-ray emission
profiles of groups and clusters, but in practice this requires
complex modelling to take account of the emission associated with the central cooling flow.
Our model fits the observed bright end of the luminosity function well. It is compared in the figure to a model in
which the gas core radius is kept fixed at rcore = rNFW /3
(dotted curve), another in which both gas and dark matter
have the same NFW profile (long-dashed curve), and finally
to a model in which both gas and dark matter have singular isothermal sphere profiles (short-dashed curve), as has
been assumed in most previous work. The latter three models produce many more high luminosity L >
∼ L⋆ galaxies
than is observed. This difference in the assumed halo gas
profiles explains most of the differences in the shape of the
22
S. Cole et al.
Table 2. The variation of the average colour, the mass-to-light ratio of the stellar populations and the zero-point of the Tully-Fisher
relation with model parameters. In all cases, Υ is adjusted so as to match the observed bJ -band luminosity function at MbJ = −19.8 +
5 log h. The first column lists the parameter that has been varied relative to the reference ΛCDM model. The second column gives the
required value of Υ. The third lists the median B–K colour for galaxies in the range −24.5 < MK − 5 log h < −23.5. The following
four columns list the median B- and I-band stellar mass-to-light ratios, in units of hM⊙ /L⊙ , for disk and elliptical galaxies with
−20 < MB − 5 log h < −19.0. These are compared with observed values in Section 7.7. The last two columns show the offset in
magnitudes from the observed I-band Tully-Fisher relation at Vdisk = 160 km s−1 , and the median ratio of the circular velocity of the
disk to that at the virial radius of the halo in which it formed for galaxies with −20 < MI − 5 log h < −18.
Modified Parameter
Reference Model
No Dust
αhot = 1
αhot = 5.5
Vhot = 100 km s−1
Vhot = 300 km s−1
α⋆ = 0.0
α⋆ = −2.5
Ωb = 0.01
Ωb = 0.04
h = 0.6
h = 0.8
ǫ⋆ = 0.01
ǫ⋆ = 0.0033
p = 0.0075
p = 0.03
R = 0.19
R = 0.49
σ8 = 0.86
σ8 = 1.0
IMF: Salpeter, R = 0.28
fform = 1.5
fdf = 0.5
fdf = 2.0
fellip = 0.5
rcore = rNFW /6
Fixed gas core radius
NFW gas traces DM
SIS gas traces DM
Unstable disks
Accretion by disk
Υ
B–K
Disk: M/LB
Disk: M/LI
Elliptical: M/LB
Elliptical: M/LI
∆MI
Vdisk /Vhalo
1.38
2.30
1.39
1.1
1.32
1.15
1.28
1.31
0.45
3.07
0.95
1.77
1.70
1.13
1.66
1.17
1.31
1.41
1.43
1.48
0.79
1.27
1.34
1.16
1.38
1.40
1.23
1.23
1.08
1.50
1.40
3.86
3.60
3.81
4.01
4.11
3.56
3.96
3.81
3.62
4.11
3.87
3.86
3.85
3.90
3.28
4.16
3.80
3.97
3.82
3.90
3.85
3.82
3.89
3.80
3.90
3.85
3.97
4.04
4.24
3.91
3.89
2.0
2.1
2.1
1.4
2.5
1.2
2.0
1.7
0.5
7.3
1.7
2.1
2.1
1.8
1.6
2.1
2.1
1.7
2.0
2.2
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.5
2.1
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.4
2.1
2.3
1.8
2.4
1.8
1.2
2.0
1.2
1.7
1.5
0.5
4.7
1.5
1.9
1.9
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.9
1.4
1.7
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.4
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.9
1.9
5.4
8.7
4.8
4.3
6.3
2.5
5.4
5.0
1.0
13.9
4.8
5.4
7.4
4.5
3.9
5.7
5.9
3.7
4.2
6.1
5.5
5.1
4.4
4.8
5.8
5.4
2.9
3.1
3.4
4.7
5.5
2.9
4.9
2.8
2.3
3.1
1.8
2.8
2.8
0.7
6.9
2.6
3.0
3.9
2.5
2.7
2.8
3.2
2.0
2.5
3.3
3.0
2.8
2.5
2.6
3.1
3.0
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.8
3.0
0.98
1.48
1.13
1.02
1.73
0.75
0.83
1.09
0.23
2.12
0.92
1.19
1.12
1.03
1.01
0.92
1.07
0.85
1.03
1.20
1.00
0.93
1.03
0.84
0.99
1.05
0.87
0.92
0.95
1.11
1.12
1.35
1.41
1.50
1.02
1.71
1.20
1.27
1.41
1.13
1.96
1.34
1.38
1.30
1.40
1.36
1.34
1.38
1.31
1.34
1.38
1.35
1.42
1.36
1.34
1.35
1.35
1.34
1.34
1.41
1.28
1.38
bright end of the luminosity function between our reference
model and the models of Kauffmann et al. (1993,1999a) and
Somerville (1997), although the procedure in these papers
of using the Tully-Fisher relation rather than the luminosity
function as the primary observational constraint also has an
effect. These authors all invoke an artificial cut-off on the
circular velocity of halos in which gas is allowed to cool to
form visible stars, in order to ameliorate their problems in
fitting the luminosity function. We believe that our standard
model for cooling is the most physically reasonable in this
regard, for the reasons given in Section 4.1.1. More recently,
Somerville & Primack (1999) have presented models with no
artificial cooling cut-off which nevertheless produce a good
match to the bright-end of the B-band luminosity function.
In this case, this improvement is achieved partly as a result
of the empirical dust model they have adopted, which has
an extinction that increases with increasing galaxy luminosity. However, as dust has less effect in the K-band, they find
that for some of their models, the shape of the bright-end
of the K-band luminosity function remains a poor match to
observations.
As was shown in Cole et al. (1994), the shape of the
luminosity function is also influenced by the efficiency of
galaxy mergers, which is controlled by fdf . However, we now
impose the constraint fdf >
∼ 1, a limit suggested by numerical simulations (Navarro et al. 1995a), which also leads to
an acceptable morphological mix in the model. With this
bound, the residual variation in the shape of the luminosity
function with fdf is small compared to its dependence on
the feedback parameters Vhot and αhot and on the halo gas
profile. Our treatment of feedback is, in fact, the main factor responsible for the overall shape of the model luminosity
function at L <
∼ L⋆ , and our assumptions about cooling are
the main determinant of the shape at L >
∼ L⋆ .
7.2
The Tully-Fisher Relation
In Fig. 7, we compare our predicted I-band Tully-Fisher
(TF) relation with the observed relation defined by the complete diameter-limited subset of spiral galaxies selected by
de Jong & Lacey (2000) from the catalogue of Mathewson
et al. (1992). The observed circular velocity plotted here is
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
Galaxy Formation
23
the maximum, Vmax , of the measured rotation curve. The
observed I-band magnitudes have been corrected to faceon values. For the model, we use the dust-extincted I-band
magnitude for galaxies seen face-on and the circular velocity, Vdisk , evaluated at the half-mass radius of the disk. Vdisk
includes the self-gravity of the disk, and is evaluated in the
disk mid-plane, as discussed in Appendix C. The peak of
the rotation curve may occur at a radius other than the
half-mass radius, in which case the quantity, Vdisk , that we
plot may be systematically low compared to the measured
Vmax . However, we expect the difference to be small since
our model galaxies typically have reasonably flat rotation
curves, as indicated by the values of Vdisk /Vhalo listed in
Table 2, which are close to unity.
The upper-panel in Fig. 7a shows how the model TF
relation depends on the sample selection criteria. In all
cases, we have selected disk-dominated galaxies with dustextincted I-band bulge-to-total light ratios in the range 0.02
to 0.24, to match approximately the range of galaxy types,
Sb-Sd, selected in the Mathewson et al. (1992) catalogue.
This makes use of the approximate conversion between Hubble T-type, (T = 3–7 for Sb-Sd) and bulge-to-disk ratio,
described in Baugh et al. (1996b) and based on the data
of Simien & de Vaucoleurs (1986). The model TF relation
for this complete galaxy sample is shown by the dashed
line in Fig. 7a. The slope of the predicted TF relation is
close to that of the data, and this remains true for the
sub-samples discussed below. It has an offset of 1.2 magnitudes relative to the zero-point of the observed relation
and a spread between the 10 and 90 percentiles of the distribution at Vc = 160 km s−1 of 1.7 magnitudes. This spread
is significantly larger than that for the observational sample,
which is 1.1 magnitudes.
Figure 7. The dependence of the model I-band Tully-Fisher relation on a) the sample selection criteria, b) the feedback parameter, αhot , and c) the baryon density, Ωb . In each case, the
model curves trace the median magnitude as a function of circular velocity, and the errorbars show the 10 and 90 percentiles
of the distribution. The magnitudes are face-on values, including the effects of dust. The points show the observed distribution
for a subsample of Sb-Sd galaxies selected by de Jong & Lacey
(2000) from the Mathewson, Ford & Buchhorn(1992) catalogue
and, again, all magnitudes have been corrected to face-on values.
All the curves in the top panel are for the reference model, but for
different galaxy selection criteria. The dotted line is for all spiral
galaxies which are the central galaxies in their halos, the dashed
line for all spiral galaxies (both central and satellite), and the
solid line for all star-forming spiral galaxies with gas fractions of
10% or greater (this final selection is retained in b & c). The thick
solid line shows, for central galaxies, the result of using the circular velocity at the virial radius of the halo in which the galaxy
formed, rather than the disk circular velocity. In b), the solid line
refers to the reference model (which has αhot = 2), while the
dashed line is for αhot = 1 and the dotted line for αhot = 5.5. In
c), the solid line refers, again, to the reference model (which has
Ωb = 0.02), while the dashed line is for Ωb = 0.01 and the dotted
line for Ωb = 0.04.
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
In Cole et al. (1994) the TF relation was plotted for
galaxies at the centres of halos only. Here the result of selecting only central galaxies is shown by the dotted line.
The exclusion of satellite galaxies removes some galaxies
which have exhausted their reservoirs of cold gas and so
have faded as their stellar populations have aged. This has
the effect of producing a somewhat tighter TF correlation,
with a spread of only 1.2 magnitude, and of reducing the offset in the zero point to 1.0 magnitudes (at Vc = 160 km s−1 ).
A more realistic selection is to consider only disk galaxies
with a significant cold gas fraction, which we take to be
Mgas /(Mgas + Mstars ) > 10%. This is reasonable, as without
ongoing star formation, disk galaxies will not have prominent, recognizable spiral arm features. In addition, interstellar gas is required for the measurement of the rotation
velocity in TF datasets, either to produce the emission lines
from which optical rotation curves are measured, or to produce the HI emission used in HI rotation measurements. The
TF relation for this subsample of star-forming spiral galaxies is shown by the solid curve in Fig. 7a, and is repeated as
the solid curve in the lower two panels. It has a spread of
0.98 magnitudes, which is slightly smaller than the observed
spread of 1.1 magnitudes. The offset in the zero point of the
relation is 0.98 magnitudes, which is equivalent to a factor
of approximately 1.3 in circular velocity. Since the effective
mass-to-light ratio in our models is normalized (through Υ)
by reference to the bright end of the bJ -band luminosity
function, we find that both the zero-point and the scatter
24
S. Cole et al.
in the model Tully-Fisher relation are insensitive to most
changes in the galaxy formation model parameters.
The parameters that do have an effect are αhot and
Ωb . This is illustrated by the curves in Fig. 7b and 7c respectively. Increasing the feedback parameter, αhot , makes
it increasingly difficult to form stars in low-circular velocity
galaxies. Consequently, the luminosity of low-Vdisk galaxies
is reduced, and the model Tully-Fisher relation bends away
from the observed correlation at faint magnitudes. A value of
αhot ≈ 2 is required to produce a correlation that runs parallel to the observed relation over the full range of magnitudes
probed by the data. The effect of increasing Ωb (Fig. 7c) is
to cause the model Tully-Fisher relation to bend away from
the observations at bright magnitudes. The reason for this is
that, in order to maintain a match to the bright end of the
bJ -band luminosity function, larger Ωb requires a larger Υ
and thus larger mass-to-light ratios for all the galaxies. The
self-gravity of bright spiral disks then plays a larger role in
determining the galaxy’s rotation curve. This is quantified
by the ratio, Vdisk /Vhalo , listed in Table 2, which increases
substantially as Ωb is increased. It is this effect that leads
us to favour a relatively low value of Ωb as compared to the
currently most favoured numbers derived from primordial
nucleosynthesis considerations. Note that a very low value,
Ωb = 0.01, results in a good match to the zero-point of
the Tully-Fisher relation. However, this apparent success is
at the cost of an unphysical value, Υ = 0.49, required to
make galaxies bright enough to match the bJ -band luminosity function.
The failure of our model to produce a Tully-Fisher relation with a zero-point that matches the observations well
is reminiscent of a similar shortcoming in the earlier Ω = 1
CDM model of Cole et al. (1994) and also, but to a lesser extent, the low-Ω0 CDM models of Heyl et al. (1995). However,
this discrepancy hides a significant improvement in our new
models. In our previous work we did not attempt to model
the internal mass distribution within a galaxy, and simply
took the circular velocity of the galaxy to be that at the
virial radius in the halo in which it formed. If we followed this
same procedure now, and plotted Vhalo rather than Vdisk as a
function of I-band magnitude, we would find a near-perfect
match to the observed Tully-Fisher relation, as indicated by
the heavy solid line in Fig. 7a. The reason for this difference
in the Vhalo –MI relation between our old and new models is
largely the inclusion of dust in the new models, which helps
in two different ways to simultaneously match the bJ -band
luminosity function and the I-band Tully-Fisher relation.
Firstly, dust makes galaxies dimmer in bJ , allowing a better
match to the observed luminosity function with a smaller
value of Υ, but it also makes them redder in bJ –I. The net
effect is that the I-band luminosities used in the TF relation
are increased. Secondly, dust affects the calculation of the
luminosity function and the Tully-Fisher relation in different ways, because observational estimates of the luminosity
function use magnitudes uncorrected for dust, whereas observational estimates of the Tully-Fisher relation partially
correct for the effects of dust through the correction to faceon magnitudes. Some of these effects are also discussed by
Somerville & Primack (1999). Increasing the amount of dust
beyond that present in our reference model by, for instance,
increasing the assumed yield, can further improve the Tully-
Fisher zero-point. However, this is achieved at the expense
of making the galaxy population too red.
7.3
Disk Sizes
In our model, the sizes of galaxy disks are fundamentally
determined by the angular momentum gained by the protodisk material through the action of tidal torques, which are
most effective when halos are turning around and collapsing, prior to becoming virialized. The distribution of halo
spin parameters is well understood, and is reasonably accurately modelled by the distribution (equation 3.7) that
we have adopted. The main sources of uncertainty are the
distribution of angular momentum within a halo, which determines the angular momentum of that fraction of the gas
that cools to form a disk, and whether the gas conserves its
angular momentum during the collapse. The assumptions
that we have discussed in Sections 3.2.3 & 4.1.3 are reasonable, but are not directly supported by simulations (see
the discussion in Section 4.1.3) and warrant further investigation. Apart from this, the largest remaining influence
on the distribution of galaxy disk sizes is the strength of
stellar feedback. If feedback is weak, stars form efficiently
in small, dense halos at high redshift, while if feedback is
strong, star formation is suppressed until larger halos form
at lower redshift. Thus, increasing the value of Vhot results
in galaxies having larger disk scalelengths at a given luminosity. This dependence is shown explicitly in Fig. 8, and
is weak for L >
∼ L⋆ , but is significant at lower luminosities.
A value of Vhot = 200 km s−1 produces a model for which
the position of the peak in the disk scalelength distribution
of spiral galaxies at different luminosities is close to what
is found observationally by de Jong & Lacey (2000). Moreover, the predicted width of the distribution is quite similar
to that observed, although somewhat broader. Our model
does not predict a large population of bright galaxies with
either extremely large or small scalelengths.
The long-dashed line in Fig. 8 shows how the size distribution of disks in the reference model could be modified
by the effects of disk instability. In this variant, we have
checked the disk stability criterion, equation (4.18), at each
timestep and have taken the material from unstable disks
with ǫm < 1 and added it to the spheroid or bulge component. Like Mo, Mao & White (1998a), we find that this
depletes the small disk scalelength side of the distribution
and produces a slightly better match to the observed distribution for L ∼ L⋆ disks.
It is interesting to examine the effects of surface brightness selection on estimates of the galaxy luminosity function. For galaxies in the reference model, we computed the
difference between the total magnitude and the magnitude
within an isophote of 25 mag/arcsec2 in bJ , for a galaxy
seen face-on, assuming that the dust attenuation factors are
constant with radius for the bulge and disk components. We
then assumed that this aperture correction is independent
of the actual inclination angle of the galaxy, and estimated
the resulting galaxy luminosity function. Because of these
approximations, and because in real galaxy surveys some
attempt is made to extrapolate to total magnitudes, the resulting model luminosity function cannot be quantitatively
compared to observations. Nevertheless, the difference between this estimate, shown by the dotted curve in Fig. 5,
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
Galaxy Formation
25
Figure 8. A comparison of predicted spiral galaxy disk sizes with observations. The two panels show the distribution of disk exponential
scalelengths hD (number density as a function of scalelength and absolute magnitude) in luminosity bins on either side of L⋆ . The points
with error bars and the triangles are, respectively, observational data and 95% confidence upper limits for Sb–Sd galaxies from the work
of de Jong & Lacey (2000), allowing for the dependence of the observational selection function on galaxy size and luminosity. The lines
are the model results for varying Vhot , for galaxies with (B/T )I < 0.24. The dotted, solid and short-dashed curves are for Vhot = 100, 200
and 300 km s−1 respectively. The long-dashed curve is for a variant of the reference model in which unstable disks have been converted
to bulges, as described in the text.
and that based on the true total magnitudes gives an indication of the sort of systematic errors that could be present
in real surveys. The main effect of using isophotal magnitudes is to produce a small faintward shift at the bright end
of the luminosity function, and a larger change in the faintend slope. The dependence on the surface brightness limit
suggests that the faint-end slope derived from surveys selected from photographic plates could be artificially shallow
(see also McGaugh 1996).
7.4
Morphology
In our model, bright elliptical galaxies form predominantly
through galaxy mergers. When two galaxies of comparable
mass coalesce (M2 > fellip M1 , where M1 > M2 ), a violent
merger is assumed to occur, leaving an elliptical galaxy as
the remnant. Spheroids can also be built-up by the repeated
accretion of smaller, gas-poor galaxies, because accreted
stars are assumed to add to the bulge component of the accreting galaxy. Thus, the parameters fdf and fellip , which determine, respectively, the frequency of galaxy-galaxy mergers and the threshold above which a merger is deemed to
be violent, are the primary parameters that influence the
production of elliptical galaxies. The morphological mix depends also on the strength of stellar feedback. If feedback is
weak, massive disks form at high redshift and have a long
interval of time during which they can merge to form ellipticals. Conversely, if feedback is strong, the formation
of massive stellar disks is delayed, they experience fewer
mergers and fewer ellipticals are produced. We can therefore constrain these parameters by comparing the relative
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
Table 3. The morphological mix of galaxies brighter than MB −
5 log h < −19.5, for various values of the merger parameters fdf
and fellip and the feedback parameter Vhot . Also listed are two
variants, which are described in the text. In the first,† unstable
disks are transformed to spheroids and in the second,‡ accreted
stars are added to the disk rather than the bulge.
fellip
fdf
Vhot /km s−1
S : S0 : E
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
† 0.3
‡ 0.3
1
1
0.5
2.0
1
1
1
200
200
200
200
100
200
200
61:08:31
70:07:23
53:09:38
79:06:15
38:05:57
46:09:45
66:08:26
abundances of galaxies of different morphological types in
the model with observations.
Our models do not strictly predict galaxy morphology,
but rather the relative masses and luminosities of the bulge
and disk components. The bulge-to-disk luminosity ratio is
known to correlate with morphology, albeit with quite a
large scatter, and so we simply take cuts in this ratio in
order to define morphological classes. Ellipticals are defined
as galaxies for which the bulge contributes more than 60%
of the B-band light, spirals as those whose bulge contributes
less than 40% of the B-band light, and S0s as galaxies in
the intermediate range. The B-band magnitudes used here
include dust extinction for galaxies with random inclination
angles.
Table 3 gives the predicted morphological mix of galax-
26
S. Cole et al.
ies at the present day that results from these definitions, for
various values of the parameters fdf , fellip and Vhot . These
ratios apply to a volume-limited sample of galaxies with absolute magnitude brighter than MB = −19.5 + 5 log h, but
the mix is very similar if one instead constructs an apparent
magnitude-limited catalogue. For comparison, the morphological mix in the APM Bright Galaxy Catalogue (which is
apparent magnitude limited) is S + Irr : S0 : E = 67 : 20 : 13
(Loveday 1996, table 10), when one groups together spirals
and irregulars, and assumes that the 90% of the galaxies
in this survey that were classified are representative. This
agrees well with the estimate S + Irr : S0 + E = 66 : 34 for
galaxies brighter than MB = −19.0 + 5 log h in the SSRS2
redshift survey (Table 2 of Marzke et al. 1998). Comparing
the model results with the observational values indicates
that the morphological mix depends somewhat on the values of Vhot , fellip and fdf . Reasonable agreement with the observed mix can be obtained for a range of values of these parameters, indicated by the examples given in the first three
rows of Table 3. For the reference model (cf. Table 1), the
values of fellip and fdf are approximately the lowest that
would seem reasonable, given the physical processes that
these parameters are trying to describe. Considering the
crude manner in which we have defined morphologies the
agreement between model and data is satisfactory, and it
does not seem warranted to fine-tune these parameter values any further.
The morphological mix may also be influenced by the
disk instability discussed in Section 4.3.3. The penultimate
row in Table 3 gives the mix found for the model with disk
instability whose disk scalelength distribution was discussed
in Section 7.3. Here, it has been assumed that gas and stars
in unstable disks are transferred to the bulge component,
with the gas being consumed in a burst. We see that this
significantly reduces the spiral fraction and boosts the elliptical fraction, though the majority of ellipticals are still
formed by mergers. In fact, the effect on the morphological
mix is quite a strong function of luminosity. Brighter than
MB = −20.5 + 5 log h disk instability has very little effect,
but it becomes increasingly important in low luminosity systems. We plan to discuss the effects of disk instability in
detail in a subsequent paper.
One further assumption of our reference model is that
stars that are accreted in minor mergers are added to the
bulge of the resulting galaxies (see Secion 4.3.2). The last
row in Table 3 shows how the morphological mix is modified
if instead these accreted stars are added to the galaxy disks.
Such a change only causes a modest increase in the spiral
fraction. Also, we can see in Table 2 that this model (labelled
“Accretion by disk”) differs little from the reference model.
7.5
Cold gas in Spiral Galaxies
In our model, there are two parameters, ǫ⋆ and α⋆ , which
determine the star formation timescale in galaxy disks (see
equation 4.14). The first, ǫ⋆ , determines the star formation
timescale for spiral galaxies with circular velocities comparable to those of L⋆ galaxies, while the second, α⋆ , determines
how this timescale varies with circular velocity. The luminosity function (after rescaling by Υ) is fairly insensitive to
ǫ⋆ and α⋆ , but they do strongly affect the cold gas content
of galaxies.
Figure 9. The cold gas content of spiral and irregular galaxies as a function of luminosity. In each panel, the filled squares
and associated errorbars show observational estimates of the median, 10 and 90 percentile points respectively of the distribution
of MHy /LB for Sa to Im galaxies. Here, MHy = MHI + MH2 is
the mass of cold hydrogen which includes gas both in atomic and
molecular forms. We have made these estimates using a combination of data from Huchtmeier & Richter (1988) and Sage (1993),
as described in the text. The model results are shown by the
open circles and their errorbars. For these, we select galaxies of
comparable morphological type by requiring the B-band bulge-tototal luminosity ratios to be less than 0.4 . We express the model
cold gas mass, Mcold , in the observational units, h−2 M⊙ , and
set MHy = 0.7Mcold to take account of the mass fraction of He.
The upper panel shows the model with α⋆ = 0. The middle panel
shows the reference model, which has α⋆ = −1.5. The lower panel
shows two models (the errorbars have been removed for clarity),
each with α⋆ = −1.5, but with the parameter ǫ⋆ , which controls
the star formation timescale, varied up and down from the value
in the reference model.
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
Galaxy Formation
27
Fig. 9 shows how the amount of cold gas present in spiral and irregular galaxies depends on galaxy luminosity. The
observational data are taken from Sage (1993) and Huchtmeier & Richter (1988). The Sage (1993) data come from
a complete sample of Sa-Sd galaxies with measurements of
atomic HI and molecular H2 , whereas the Huchtmeier &
Richter (1988) data come from a complete sample of SaIm galaxies, but with only HI measurements. Brighter than
MB − 5logh < −16, Sa-Sd galaxies dominate over Sdm-Im,
and so we simply plot the Sage (1993) data. Fainter than
MB − 5logh > −16, the mass fraction of molecular hydrogen
appears to be small (MH2 /MHI <
∼ 0.2), and so here we neglect the molecular H2 contribution and simply plot the data
of Huchtmeier & Richter (1988). In each case, the luminosity
is corrected to face-on.
The model plotted in Fig. 9a has α⋆ = 0, corresponding to the standard Kennicutt law in which the star formation timescale is proportional to the disk dynamical time.
In this case, the faint galaxies in the model typically contain less cold gas than is observed. In fact, the trend of
Mgas /LB with LB is in the opposite sense to that observed.
The reference model plotted in Fig. 9b, has α⋆ = −1.5,
implying longer star formation timescales for low circular
velocity galaxies compared to α⋆ = 0. This has a beneficial
effect, and produces a correlation in Mgas /LB vs. LB which
is much closer to the data. Fig. 9c shows the effect of varying ǫ⋆ , and demonstrates how the observed gas fraction in
bright spirals constrains this model parameter.
7.6
Galaxy Metallicities
Our model predictions for galaxy metallicities all scale linearly with the yield p, aside from the effects of metallicity
on the cooling of halo gas. We fix the value of p in our reference model by requiring a good match to the mean stellar
metallicity in L⋆ ellipticals.
In Fig. 10, we show what the reference model predicts
for the metallicity-luminosity relation for spiral and elliptical
galaxies, compared to observational data. Fig. 10a shows the
gas metallicity vs. luminosity for spirals. The model points
are derived from the metallicity of the cold, star-forming
gas. The observational data in this case, from Zaritsky et al.
(1994), are based on HII region gas metallicities measured
at r = 0.4R25 in each galaxy (where R25 is the isophotal
radius at a B-band surface brightness of 25 mag/arcsec2 ),
rather than being averages over the whole galaxy. Fig. 10b
shows the stellar metallicity vs. luminosity for ellipticals.
The model points are obtained from mass-weighted mean
stellar metallicities, but using V-band luminosity-weighted
stellar metallicities would give nearly identical results. The
observational data for the ellipticals are based on a compilation of estimates from line-strengths, which Zaritsky et al.
have tried to put on a common metallicity scale. For both
the spirals and ellipticals, we have converted the Zaritsky et
al. observational data from relative to absolute metallicities
assuming a solar metallicity Z⊙ = 0.02.
For both the spirals and ellipticals, our models predict a
metallicity-luminosity relation which is in the same sense as
the observed one, but is not as steep. The origin of this correlation lies in our model of stellar feedback. Our treatment of
chemical evolution differs from the traditional “closed-box”
model because gas reheated by SNe is allowed to escape from
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
Figure 10. The dependence of metallicity on luminosity in our
reference model, compared with observational data. In each panel,
the lines show the median metallicity in the model and the error
bars indicate the 10 and 90 percentiles of the distribution. The
observational data, taken from the compilation by Zaritsky et
al. (1994), are indicated by filled squares, where again the error
bars show the 10 and 90 percentiles. The upper panel compares
the metallicity of the cold star-forming gas in disk-dominated
galaxies which in our model are galaxies selected to have B-band
bulge-to-total ratios of less than 0.4, with observational data for
spiral and irregular galaxies. The lower panel compares the stellar
metallicity for bulge-dominated galaxies (B-band bulge-to-total
ratios greater than 0.6) with observations for elliptical galaxies.
the galaxy while cooling gas can flow into it. Consequently,
the appropriate expression for the effective yield becomes
peff = (1 − e)p/(1 − R + β) (equation B9), which depends on
the strength of feedback via the quantity β given in equation (4.15). Since β is smaller for larger, more massive galaxies with deeper potential wells, their effective yield is large
and this naturally results in more metal rich stellar populations in more luminous galaxies. We could obtain a steeper
metallicity-luminosity relation, in better agreement with the
observed one, by assuming stronger feedback, but this would
have deleterious effects on our fits to other properties. This
issue is discussed further in Section 8.3 in connection with
the colour-magnitude relation.
28
7.7
S. Cole et al.
Mass-to-Light Ratios
While the luminosities of galaxies are easily measured, the
masses of the stellar populations they contain are less accurately determined, mainly because of the difficulties in
separating the contributions to the mass from stars and
dark matter in dynamical measurements. The mass-to-light
ratios, M/L, for stellar populations in galaxies are correspondingly somewhat uncertain. For this reason, we do not
use them as primary constraints in determining the model
parameters. Nonetheless, they provide useful a consistency
check, and can be used to exclude, for example, models
which have very large brown dwarf fractions (i.e. large Υ),
which might otherwise be viable.
Table 2 lists the mass-to-light ratios of the stellar populations of both spiral and elliptical galaxies for each of our
models. These mass-to-light ratios, which include the contribution of brown dwarfs, depend on the age and metallicity
of the stellar populations, and also on the value of the parameter Υ which has been fixed by reference to the bJ -band
luminosity function, as described in Section 7.1. Mass-tolight ratios are observed to depend on galaxy luminosity,
so to make a fair comparison, we compare M/L values for
observed and model galaxies at the same luminosity. The
model M/L values given in the table are median values for
−20 < MB − 5 log h < 19. For each of the observational estimates described below, we have estimated the trend of M/L
with luminosity from the values given for the individual
galaxies in the paper concerned, and used this to estimate
the average M/L for the galaxies at MB − 5 log h ≈ −19.5.
For spiral galaxies, the observed values are dust-corrected
to face-on values, and so the model M/L values are also
calculated from face-on luminosities including the effects of
dust.
For spiral galaxies, most estimates of M/L are based
on fitting models to measured rotation curves. Buchhorn
(1992) finds M/L = 3.4hM⊙ /L⊙ in the I-band, and Broeils
(1992) 4.9hM⊙ /L⊙ in the B-band. These values are consistent with the mean colour, B–I ≈ 1.8, found for spirals
by de Jong ( 1996). Note, however, that these numbers are
based on maximum disk fits to the observed rotation curves,
and since a fraction of the rotation velocity may be produced by dark matter, they should be viewed as upper limits to the stellar mass-to-light ratios. (For L⋆ spiral galaxies
in our reference model the mean contribution to the mass
within the disk half-mass radius by non-baryonic dark matter is 62%.) Comparing with the model values, we see that
only the model with the high value of the baryon density
(Ωb = 0.04) comes close to violating these constraints. An
alternative method for measuring the M/L of disks, which
avoids contamination by dark matter, is to combine measurements of the vertical scaleheights and velocity dispersions of galaxy disks. Using this method, Bottema (1997)
finds an average M/L = 2.4hM⊙ /L⊙ in the B-band, which
is about a factor of two lower than the maximum disk value.
The median M/L of our reference model and most of the
variants are only slightly below this estimate, and so are
quite compatible with observations.
The comparison for elliptical galaxies is similar. In the
B-band, Mobasher et al. (1999) and van der Marel (1991)
find M/L = 9.6hM⊙ /L⊙ and 8hM⊙ /L⊙ respectively, using
stellar velocity dispersion measurements. Again, these values
should be viewed as upper limits on the stellar mass-to-light
ratios, as they include the effect of any dark matter within
the effective radii of the galaxies. With the exception of the
high baryon density model, all the models listed in Table 2
are consistent with these data.
7.8
Average Colours
Table 2 also lists the median B–K colours of galaxies with
−24.5 < MK − 5 log h < −23.5 for various parameter values. The observed median colour for this luminosity range,
calculated from the data of Gardner et al. (1996,1997) that
are presented in Section 8.1, is B–K = 3.8. The largest
effects on the model colours result from varying the yield
p, Ωb , ǫ⋆ and Vhot . A higher yield leads both to intrinsically redder stellar populations and to greater amounts of
dust, which redden the observed galaxy colours still further.
Increasing Ωb increases the gas density in halos, and thus
shortens the cooling time. This then results in a greater fraction of the gas cooling and forming stars at high redshift,
producing an older, redder stellar population. Decreasing
Vhot reduces the strength of feedback, allowing more stars
to form in low-mass halos at high redshift, leading, again, to
older, redder stellar populations by the present. Somewhat
surprisingly, increasing the star formation efficiency, ǫ⋆ , (cf.
equation 4.14) has little effect on the present star formation
rate and galaxy colours. This happens because the shorter
star formation timescale allows more star formation to occur
at high redshift, and this leads to a reduction in the amount
of cold star-forming gas at low redshift which compensates
for the shortened star formation timescale.
The colours also depend on the choice of IMF. However,
changing from the Kennicutt to the Salpeter form makes
very little difference to the B–K colours, which become bluer
by just 0.015 magnitudes. This is to be expected, as Fig. 4
demonstrates that the differences in the spectral properties
of the stellar populations for these two IMFs are small. The
metallicities of the stellar populations and the dust content of the galaxies are very similar in the two cases, as the
adopted values of the yield are identical and of the recycled
fraction almost identical.
7.9
Summary of Parameter Constraints
In this section we have demonstrated how the predictions
of local galaxy properties depend on each of the model parameters. We now summarise the reasons for adopting the
specific parameter values that define our standard or reference ΛCDM model.
The cosmological parameters, Ω0 = 0.3 and Λ0 = 0.7,
were chosen without reference to galaxy properties, and simply define the background cosmology in which we sought a
viable model of galaxy formation. The Hubble parameter,
h = 0.7, was chosen to be in reasonable accord with recent
estimates. The baryon density, Ωb , was chosen as a compromise between constraints from primordial nucleosynthesis
and the need to prevent the disks of bright galaxies becoming strongly self-gravitating and so distorting the bright end
of the Tully-Fisher relation. This choice also prevents galaxies becoming too luminous, or equivalently, their M/L ratios
becoming too large once Υ has been adjusted. The shape,
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
Galaxy Formation
Γ, of the mass fluctuation power spectrum was chosen to
be consistent with the above choices of Ω0 , Ωb and h (cf.
eqn 7.1). The resulting value, Γ = 0.19, is in accord with
the shape of the power spectrum inferred from studies of
large-scale galaxy clustering. The amplitude, σ8 , was chosen for consistency with the observed abundance of galaxy
clusters (Eke et al. 1996). For our chosen cosmology, this
is consistent with the value of σ8 preferred by the COBE
measurements of microwave background anisotropies.
The stellar population parameters, we have essentially
chosen to be consistent with models constructed to account
for solar neighbourhood data. In particular, we have adopted
the Kennicutt IMF. The fraction of gas recycled via stellar
winds and SNe, we have taken to be R = 0.42/Υ = 0.31,
consistent with what is expected for this IMF. (Recall that
Υ is defined as the total mass in stars, including brown
dwarfs, divided by the mass in luminous stars. The value
Υ = 1.38 was chosen by fitting the position of the bright
end of the bJ -band luminosity function.) We have adopted a
yield, p = 0.02, which results in roughly the observed metallicity for galaxies similar to the Milky Way and for L⋆ ellipticals. This may be seen in Fig. 10, where we also examine the
model prediction for the dependence of metallicity on galaxy
luminosity. Our adopted yield implies p1 ≡ pΥ = 0.028,
which is also roughly consistent with theoretical estimates
for our assumed IMF. The yield also determines the metallicity and dust content of the cold gas disk. Our adopted value
gives rise to an amount of reddening which is approximately
that required to bring the model into good agreement with
the observed galaxy B–K colour distribution. Varying the
IMF between the Kennicutt, Salpeter or Miller-Scalo forms
has only a small effect on the galaxy colours and mass-tolight ratios at z = 0, and so the IMF is therefore not well
constrained by the data we have examined so far. However,
the small differences in these IMFs can have a significant
effect on model predictions at high redshift.
The dynamical friction parameter, fdf , we simply set to
its natural value, fdf = 1.
The parameter fellip , which sets the threshold for violent galaxy mergers which produce ellipticals and bulges (cf.
Section 4.3.2), was chosen so as to reproduce an acceptable
mix of morphological types.
Finally, the model requires parameters for the star formation and feedback laws (cf § 4.2). The feedback parameters, Vhot and αhot , we have constrained by the shape of the
bJ -band luminosity function, the slope of the Tully-Fisher
relation, and the distribution of spiral disk scalelengths. A
low value of αhot is required to avoid curvature in the TullyFisher relation, while a large value helps to reduce the faint
end slope of the galaxy luminosity function. Our adopted
compromise, αhot = 2, results in a straight Tully-Fisher relation and a luminosity function with a faint end slope in good
agreement with the ESP survey. This is steeper than in several other surveys, including those by Loveday et al. (1992)
and Ratcliffe et al. (1998), but we have demonstrated that
the slope is sensitive to surface brightness selection limits.
The value of Vhot influences both the faint end of the luminosity function and the sizes of galaxies. Our adopted value
of Vhot = 200 km s−1 appears to be a good compromise. The
parameter, e, which allows metals produced in SNe to escape directly to the surrounding hot halo gas rather than
first being mixed with the cold gas in the galaxy disk, we
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
29
have simply set to zero. Regarding the star formation law
(equations 4.4 and 4.14), the overall scaling of the timescale,
set by the efficiency ǫ⋆ , is constrained primarily by the cold
gas masses in L⋆ spirals. The dependence of this timescale on
galaxy circular velocity is determined by α⋆ . We adopted the
value α⋆ = −1.5 in order to improve the correspondence between model and observed cold gas masses in low-luminosity
disk galaxies.
8
FURTHER PROPERTIES OF THE
REFERENCE MODEL
In this section we compare further properties of our reference model with observational data that have not been used
to set the model parameters. We defer comparisons with observations at high and moderate redshift to future papers.
8.1
Colour Distributions
We have already considered the average B–K colours of
L ∼ L⋆ galaxies in Section 7.8. In our reference model, the
mean galaxy B–K colour is quite strongly constrained by
virtue of the requirement that the model give a reasonable
fit to the bright end of both the bJ and K-band luminosity functions. Nevertheless, it is still interesting to look at
the full distribution of predicted colours, and to compare
them to other observational data. In Fig. 11, the reference
model is compared to the distributions of B–K and B–V
colours in the K-selected redshift survey of Gardner et al.
(1996,1997). This contains more than 500 galaxies, covers
10 square degrees and was imaged in the B, V, I and K
bands. The redshift and colour information allow accurate
k-corrections to be derived by matching each galaxy’s observed colours with one of a set of template spectra. Thus,
the histograms in Fig. 11 show rest-frame colours. If the
more uncertain correction for evolution is also applied, then
the observed distributions typically shift redwards by 0.15
magnitudes. The model with dust matches both the median
colours and the widths of the colour distributions quite well.
If the effects of dust are not taken into account, then the resulting model median colours are too blue by approximately
0.3 magnitudes in B–K and approximately 0.1 magnitudes
in B–V . Thus, we see again how modelling the effects of
dust is an important factor in producing acceptable galaxy
colours.
8.2
The Colour-Morphology Relation
Fig. 12 shows the predicted correlation of galaxy B–V
colour, for face-on inclination, with bulge-to-disk ratio. A
strong correlation is predicted, with bulge-dominated galaxies typically being much redder than disk-dominated galaxies. However, galaxies which have experienced a major
merger and the associated burst of star formation within
the last 1.0 Gyr have large bulge-to-disk ratios, but are
much bluer than bulge-dominated galaxies that have not had
a recent major merger. Observationally, “normal” galaxies
show a similar trend in colour to the model galaxies which
have not had recent bursts, as is illustrated by the observational data of Buta et al. (1994) which are also plotted,
with the solid line showing the mean galaxy colour and the
30
S. Cole et al.
Figure 11. A comparison of galaxy colours in the reference model with observations. The upper two panels compare rest-frame B–K
colour distributions in volume-limited samples for two different ranges of absolute K-band magnitude. The lower two panels compare the
rest-frame B–V colour distributions for the same two ranges of absolute K-band magnitude. In each case, the histograms with errorbars
show the observational distributions, derived from the K-band redshift survey of Gardner et al. (1996,1997) using the 1/Vmax method.
These data have been k-corrected by matching each galaxy’s observed colours with one of a set of template spectra. If the more uncertain
correction for evolution is also applied, then the observed distributions typically shift redwards by 0.15 magnitudes. The dotted lines show
the colour distribution of the reference model without including the effects of dust and the solid lines show the distributions including
the effects of dust.
dotted lines showing the dispersion. Note that Buta et al.
have removed from their sample some galaxies viewed as
outliers or having strong emission lines. To plot these data
on Fig. 12, we have converted the Hubble T-type given in
Table 6 of Buta et al. to bulge-to-total ratio, using the fit
given in equation (5) of Simien & de Vaucouleurs (1986).
This fit represents an extrapolation from T = −3 (which
corresponds to B/T ≈ 0.6) to T = −5 (which corresponds
to B/T ≈ 1.0). Given the considerable scatter that exists
between bulge-to-total ratio and T-type (e.g. see Figure 1.
of Baugh et al. 1996b), the level of agreement between the
predictions of the model and the data is encouraging. It will
be interesting to perform more quantitative comparisons of
this prediction with observations when a suitable data set
exists in which bulge-to-disk decompositions have been done
for a complete survey.
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
Galaxy Formation
Figure 12. Average galaxy B–V colour as a function of bulgeto-disk ratio, compared to observations. The open squares and
error bars show the model mean B–V colour and rms dispersion
as a function of B-band bulge-to-total ratio for galaxies brighter
than MV − 5 log h = −20.5. Face-on colours are plotted, including
the effects of extinction. The solid square shows the mean colour
of model galaxies which have experienced a merger and the associated burst of star formation in the last 1 Gyr. The solid and
dotted lines show the observed mean and rms dispersion of the
colour from the data of Buta et al. (1994). Hubble T-type has
been converted to bulge-to-total ratio using the data of Simien &
de Vaucouleurs (1986), as described in Baugh et al. (1996b).
Figure 13. The colour-magnitude relation for cluster elliptical
galaxies in the reference model, compared to observations. The
points give the predicted distribution of V-K colour versus V-band
magnitude for elliptical galaxies in clusters with circular velocity
greater than 1000km s−1 . The heavy line and error bars indicate
the median and the 20 and 80 percentiles of this distribution.
The observed correlation and scatter, from Bower, Lucey & Ellis
(1992), are indicated by the dotted line and associated error bars.
to a flattening in the predicted colour-magnitude relation
for bright ellipticals. Our models are capable of producing a
significant gradient in this diagram if we assume very strong
feedback and a large yield p, just as Kauffmann & Charlot
(1998a) did, but this is then at the expense of other successes of the model. In particular, strong feedback gives rise
to excessively large disk scalelengths. This is clearly an issue
that deserves further investigation.
8.4
8.3
The Elliptical Colour-Magnitude Relation
A second correlation that we have examined is the colourmagnitude relation of elliptical galaxies. This is closely
related to the metallicity-luminosity relation for elliptical
galaxies, already discussed in Section 7.6. Fig. 13 compares the distribution that we predict for cluster ellipticals
with that determined observationally for the Coma cluster
(Bower, Lucey & Ellis 1992). The model predicts quite a
small spread in the colours of bright ellipticals, consistent
with the observed scatter, but it does not reproduce the
strength of the observed correlation of colour with luminosity. This is the same problem that we found when we made
this comparison in Baugh et al. (1996b), even though our
new model includes chemical enrichment, which the earlier
model did not.
In Kauffmann et al. (1993), Baugh et al. (1996b) and
Kauffmann (1996), it was argued that the inclusion of chemical enrichment (which was neglected in the early models)
might give rise to the desired correlation. This was explicitly demonstrated for certain models by Kauffmann & Charlot (1998a). In our present models, chemical enrichment
does appear to have the desired effect at low luminosities,
where the models produce a similar gradient in the colourmagnitude relation to the one observed. However, the correlation between metallicity and luminosity flattens at the
brightest magnitudes (see Figure 10b), and this gives rise
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
31
The cosmic star formation history
It is interesting to examine how the improvements in our
modelling techniques affect our predictions for the global
history of star formation, first presented in Cole et al. (1994).
Fig. 14 shows the redshift evolution of the mass fractions of
baryons in the forms of hot gas, cold gas and stars, and the
mean metallicities of each of these components. Consistent
with our feedback model, we have assumed that baryons contained in halos with mass below our resolution limit are in
the hot, diffuse phase. We remind the reader that by “hot”
gas we simply mean diffuse gas in halos, whatever its physical temperature, and by “cold” gas we mean all the gas that
has cooled and collapsed into galaxies. The mass of stars
increases steadily towards the present, with just over half of
the present stellar mass having been formed since redshift
z < 1.5. This is similar to our earlier results in Cole et al.
(1994) and Baugh et al. (1998), despite the various changes
in model parameters that we discuss below. The evolution
of the cold gas mass shows a broad peak between redshifts
1 < z < 2. The fall-off at high redshift reflects the efficiency
of stellar feedback, which keeps gas in low mass halos in the
hot phase. At low redshift, the cold gas fraction begins to
decline as cooling becomes increasingly less efficient in the
large mass, high virial temperature groups and clusters that
form at late times, while, at the same time, the reservoirs of
cold gas are depleted by ongoing star formation. The mean
metallicity of the hot gas grows at a rate which mirrors the
32
S. Cole et al.
Figure 15. The luminous star formation rate (i.e. excluding
brown dwarfs) per unit comoving volume as a function of redshift.
The solid line shows the total star formation rate per unit volume
in the reference model. The dashed line shows the contribution
from quiescent star formation in galactic disks. The dotted line
shows the contribution from bursts of star formation that occur
during major mergers. The dot-dashed line is the star formation
history in model G of Baugh et al. (1998) (for the same cosmological parameters as in our reference model). In the current reference
model, the star formation rate per unit volume is higher at high
redshift than in the old model, because of the weaker feedback in
low mass halos and the shorter star formation timescale at high
redshift that are assumed in the new model.
Figure 14. Evolution of baryonic mass fractions and average
metallicities. The upper panel shows the fraction of baryons in
stars, cold gas and hot gas as a function of redshift, and the
lower panel shows their corresponding mean metallicities. The
solid lines are for stars, the dashed lines for cold gas and the
dotted lines for hot gas.
growth in total stellar mass. In contrast, the mean metallicity of the stars and cold gas reaches 1/3 of its present value
even at very high redshift, and then increases only gradually
between redshift z = 6 and z = 0.
Fig. 15 shows the star formation history in differential
form. The solid line is the average formation rate of luminous
stars per unit comoving volume (i.e. the total star formation
rate divided by Υ). The dashed and dotted lines show separately the contributions to the total rate from quiescent star
formation in disks and from bursts of star formation induced
by galaxy mergers. Approximately 10% of the stars formed
at any redshift are formed in bursts.
The dot-dashed line in Fig. 15 shows our earlier result,
presented as model G of Baugh et al. (1998). Model G had
very similar cosmological parameters to the present reference model, but was calculated with a slightly earlier version of our code. The differences between the two results
are easy to understand and provide a nice illustration of
how various aspects of our galaxy formation modelling are
closely interconnected. The main difference between the two
model predictions is the lower star formation rate at high
redshift obtained in model G compared to the present model.
This difference mainly reflects the different values of the
feedback parameters that we adopted in the two models.
In our older model we set these parameters by the requirement that the faint-end of the present-day galaxy luminosity
function reproduce as closely as possible that measured by
Loveday et al. (1992). This led us in Baugh et al. (and in
Cole et al. 1994) to assume very strong feedback. Here, we
have argued that the uncertainty in the faint end of the
luminosity function as indicated by the wide range of observational esimates, including the very steep slope found
by Zucca et al. (1997), suggests that this is not a robust
constraint. We have instead adopted a weaker feedback that
avoids introducing curvature in the faint end of the TullyFisher relation. Thus, in our models, the behaviour of the
star formation rate at high redshift is intimately tied in with
our assumptions about the strength of stellar feedback and
the faint-end of the present-day galaxy luminosity function.
A second difference between the present model and that of
Baugh et al. (1998) is the assumed dependence of the star
formation timescale on galaxy properties. We now incorporate a scaling with the galaxy dynamical time, which results
in all star formation timescales at high redshift being smaller
than in the older model. We must emphasize, however, that
in spite of the uncertainties in the predicted star formation
rate at high redshift, our prediction of a late epoch for the
majority of star formation is robust (cf. Figure 21 of Cole et
al. 1994 and Figure 14 of Baugh et al. 1998). This is because
in all the versions of our model, only a small fraction of stars
form at z > 3, and it remains the case that we expect half
the stars in the universe to have formed at redshift z <
∼ 1.5.
9
DISCUSSION
In this paper, we have presented a new semi-analytic model
of galaxy formation, based upon the one developed by Cole
et al. (1994). Our new model contains a number of additions
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
Galaxy Formation
and improvements. For example, we have designed and implemented a new algorithm to generate halo merger trees
with arbitrary mass resolution, and we have extended our
modelling to include realistic descriptions of the density profiles of dark matter halos and their gas content, as well as calculations of chemical evolution, dust extinction, and galaxy
sizes. We applied this model to a specific cosmology, the
ΛCDM model, which has Ω0 = 0.3, Λ0 = 0.7 and a primordial power spectrum whose amplitude is consistent with
both the local abundance of galaxy clusters and with the
COBE anisotropies in the microwave background radiation.
We then compared the results with a range of observational
data for the local galaxy population.
In principle, a model like ours can predict virtually any
simple property of the galaxy population over a large range
of redshift. However, not all predictions are equally reliable.
For a given cosmological model (e.g. ΛCDM), the evolution of the population of dark matter halos is known with
high accuracy and can be calculated without any free parameters. The initial internal structure of these halos is also
completely specified if one adopts the results of recent highresolution N-body simulations (Navarro et al. 1997). The
process of gas cooling is more uncertain but can be calculated also without free parameters (other than the value of
the gas metallicity), using a model based on simple assumptions about the geometry and initial configuration of the gas.
We assume an initial spherically symmetric distribution of
gas at the virial temperature of the halo in which it is contained, and a gas density profile given by the “β-model”.
In practice, the dynamics of the cooling gas are likely to
be subtantially more complex than this simple model implies. Nevertheless, as Benson et al. (2000c) have shown, the
simple model does predict global fractions of hot and cold
gas, and their distribution in halos of different mass, that
are broadly in agreement with the results of gasdynamics
simulations.
The formation of stars from the gas that has cooled
and the associated feedback processes are the most uncertain components of the model. As in Cole et al. (1994), we
have represented them using simple scaling laws, but we
have adopted a more flexible treatment than we had done
previously. In addition to specifying the IMF and the associated fraction of brown dwarfs, our model of star formation
and feedback requires four free parameters. Our treatment
of feedback is simplified and neglects potentially important
sources of energy such as active galactic nuclei and quasars.
It also neglects the dynamical response of the hot halo gas
to the heating generated by the injection of feedback energy. In principle, this energy can modify the structure of
the gaseous halo and hence its cooling rate. Thus, the detailed treatment of feedback impacts on all aspects of the
galaxy formation model. For example, as we discussed in
Section 7, our model only works well if we assume a value
of the mean cosmic baryon density, Ωb , which is lower than
recent determinations based on the deuterium abundance
at high redshift by Schramm & Turner (1998) and Burles &
Tytler (1998), although it is consistent with older determinations by Walker et al. (1991) and Copi et al. (1995). A
larger value of Ωb causes too much gas to cool, leading to a
poor match to the Tully-Fisher relation and to unacceptably
large mass-to-light ratios. A successful model with larger values of Ωb , however, is likely to be possible if feedback raises
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
33
the entropy of the hot halo gas, thereby strongly suppressing cooling, as argued recently by Bower et al. (2000) in the
context of X-ray clusters.
Intimately linked to the processes of star formation and
feedback is the chemical evolution of the gas. Although the
basic principles of chemical enrichment are well-understood,
important aspects, such as the mixing of metals in the interstellar medium, remain uncertain. Our model of chemical
evolution requires specifying 3 parameters, two of which,
however, (the yield and the fraction of stellar mass ejected
by stellar winds and SNe) are determined by the choice of
IMF. The remaining parameter is related to the mixing of
metals. Once the metallicity of the gas is obtained, the spectrophotometric properties of the stars are calculated using
a population synthesis model which has no free parameters.
These five ingredients: gravitational evolution of halos,
gas cooling, star formation and feedback, chemical evolution, and stellar population synthesis make up the core of
our model of galaxy formation. To predict observable quantities, however, still requires a model for dust extinction. We
assume that the mass of dust that forms is proportional to
the mass in metals, and derive the extinction in any passband using a simple model for the distribution of dust in the
disk. Our dust model has one free parameter (the ratio of
the scaleheights of dust and stars), but our results are insensitive to its value. The core galaxy formation model can now
be used to predict a wide range of visible galaxy properties
including basic quantities such as the luminosity function in
different passbands or the distribution of colours, as well as
their evolution with redshift.
To go beyond estimates of luminosity requires the addition of more physical ingredients into the model. As the
model becomes increasingly complex, it encompasses a fuller
range of galaxy properties and this, inevitably, requires a
growing number of physical assumptions and additional parameters. For example, it is possible to distinguish between
disk and spheroidal stellar configurations by introducing
simple but plausible assumptions. Here we have assumed
that cooling gas settles into a centrifugally supported disk,
that the distribution of halo and gas angular momentum
has a particular form (consistent with results of N-body
simulations), and that major mergers or disk instabilities
produce spheroidal stellar systems. Our model requires one
further free parameter to define what a major merger is.
With these assumptions, the scalelengths of disks can be
computed without further free parameters, as can the sizes
of spheroids, assuming that energy is conserved in mergers.
In summary, a model of galaxy formation consists of
a mixture of assumptions about the physical processes at
work, together with adjustable parameters that reflect our
lack of knowledge about certain complex astrophysical processes such as star formation. It is important to recognize
that these parameters are not statistical variables describing
a particular dataset (e.g. the faint-end slope of the luminosity function), but genuine physical quantities that describe
a model for a specific physical process (e.g. the conversion of
cold gas into stars). In many instances, the parameters can
vary only over a relatively narrow range of physically sensible values. In our model, just as in models by other groups,
we strive to make the simplest possible assumptions at every
stage and to introduce the minimum number of adjustable
parameters, the majority of which, in fact, are required to
34
S. Cole et al.
describe the poorly understood processes of star formation,
feedback and the mixing of metals. Given the current theoretical and observational understanding of these processes, it
is not possible to build a realistic model of galaxy formation
which has substantially fewer parameters than ours.
Although the number of parameters is small, in any
case, compared to the vast array of properties that the model
can predict, it is important to adopt a well-defined, a priori
methodology for fixing their values and for testing the validity of physical assumptions. In our case, this strategy is
straightforward: we fix the values of all the parameters by
attempting to match a small subset of the local galaxy data
which we regard as the most fundamental. In order of the
weight we give them, these are: the luminosity functions in
the B- and K-bands; the relative fractions of ellipticals, S0s,
and spirals; the slope of the Tully-Fisher relation at faint
magnitudes; gas fractions in disks as a function of B-band
luminosity; the distribution of disk sizes; and the metallicity
of L⋆ ellipticals. Once the model parameters have been set
by these comparisons, we test our model predictions against
a wide range of other data, without any further adjustments.
The galaxy formation model presented here differs in
several significant respects from that of Cole et al. (1994).
That model was based on a cruder method for generating
halo merger trees, but that alone makes little difference to
the resulting galaxy properties. Similarly, the extensions we
have included which allow us to predict more galaxy properties, such as sizes and mean metallicities, make little difference to the properties that we were able previously to predict. There are three differences which do lead to significant
changes in our results. Firstly, the adoption of a cosmological model with a low value of Ω0 reduces the number of
galaxy-sized halos, and this helps to reduce the offset in the
Tully-Fisher relation for models normalized to the B-band
luminosity function (see Heyl et al. 1995). Secondly, the inclusion of dust in the calculation of luminosities and colours
makes a typical galaxy colour slightly redder and this helps
to match the B and K-band luminosity functions simultaneously. Furthermore, since the luminosities that enter into
the I-band Tully-Fisher relation are partially corrected for
the effects of extinction, the inclusion of dust also helps reduce the offset between model and data seen in Cole et al.
(1994). Thirdly, we have adopted a weaker feedback law for
low circular velocity galaxies, since some recent determinations of the galaxy luminosity function indicate that the very
flat faint-end which we strived hard to match in Cole et al.
(1994) is not a robust observational constraint and may be
affected by survey selection criteria. This, in turn, implies a
higher star formation rate at redshifts z >
∼ 3.
Although in this paper we have focussed on the ΛCDM
model, we have also investigated models with other values
of the cosmological parameters. For reasons of space, we
do not present our results in any detail here, but confine
ourselves instead to a few general remarks, applicable to
cluster-normalized models. A standard CDM model (SCDM,
Ω0 = 1) still fails to match the Tully-Fisher relation (even
using halo circular velocities) and the luminosity function
simultaneously. An Ω0 = 1 model with the same power
spectrum shape as ΛCDM (the τ CDM model of Jenkins et
al. 1998) shares this problem and, in addition, the smaller
amount of small-scale power compared to SCDM results in
a later epoch for the onset of galaxy formation and, thus, in
both a lower star formation rate density and a lower abundance of Lyman-break galaxies at high redshift. (This problem does not afflict the ΛCDM model because the effect due
to the shape of the power spectrum is compensated for by
the difference in the linear growth rate and the higher initial
amplitude required by the cluster normalization.)
There are now in the literature a number of semianalytic galaxy formation models of varying sophistication,
based on similar principles to ours (e.g. Avila-Rees & Firmani 1998, Guiderdoni et al. 1998, Roukema 1998, Wu et al.
1998, Kauffmann et al. 1999a, Somerville & Primack 1999).
It is beyond the scope of this paper to carry out a detailed
comparison of all these models, but we refer the reader to
the recent paper by Somerville & Primack (1999) which has
compared some of the different approaches, including those
of the Durham, Munich, and Santa-Cruz groups. For the
most part, results from different models tend to agree well
when similar assumptions are made. In practice, however,
it is not uncommon for different groups to make somewhat
different assumptions and, most importantly, to include different physical effects in their models. This naturally leads to
different results. An example of the former are the different
strategies for constraining the star formation and feedback
laws adopted by Kauffmann et al. (1999a) and ourselves.
We give most weight to the local B-band luminosity function and do not make any further adjustments when calculating the zero-point of Tully-Fisher relation. By contrast,
Kauffmann et al. (1999a) give most weight to the zero-point
of the Tully-Fisher relation. Since the models do not match
both these observables perfectly, there is a difference in the
luminosity normalization of the two models that propagates
to other observables. An example of different physical processes is the treatment of the structure and angular momentum transport of gas cooling onto galaxies adopted by Wu et
al. (1998). Their model leads to a completely different mechanism for making ellipticals and spirals to the one operating
in our own model or in that of Kauffmann et al. (1999a).
10
CONCLUSIONS
We have presented a new semi-analytic model of galaxy formation which contains several novel features. It employs a
state-of-the art Monte-Carlo algorithm for calculating the
merging evolution of dark matter halos and it incorporates,
for the first time, detailed prescriptions for calculating the
sizes of disks and spheroids. We used this model to calculate
observable properties of galaxies in the ΛCDM cosmology
(Ω0 = 0.3, Λ0 = 0.7, h = 0.7, and σ8 = 0.93) and focussed
primarily on galaxy properties at the current epoch, with
the following main conclusions:
1. A pleasing agreement can now be obtained between the
model and observed galaxy luminosity functions in the Bband and the K-band, over at least 8 magnitudes. This is
a non-trivial success. In the B-band, the model was tuned
to fit the ESP luminosity function of Zucca et al. (1997),
which has a steep faint-end. Unfortunately, there is still a
large uncertainty in the observational estimate of the number of galaxies fainter than L⋆ . This is disappointing because the faint-end slope of the luminosity function is extremely sensitive to feedback processes which are therefore
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
Galaxy Formation
only crudely constrained. A flatter faint-end, like that measured, for example, by Loveday et al. (1992) in the StromloAPM survey, could be obtained by increasing the strength
of feedback. Our inability to constrain the feedback model
better has a knock-on effect on our ability to predict the
cosmic star formation rate at high redshift since this too is
strongly influenced by feedback. Dust extinction has a relatively modest effect, dimming the bright end of the B-band
luminosity function by about 0.5 mag. We showed that surface brightness effects can be important for faint galaxies,
and this could help explain some of the discordant estimates
of the faint end of the luminosity function.
2. Our model reproduces both the observed mean galaxy
colours and the spread in colour over a large range of galaxy
luminosity. The stellar mass-to-light ratios of both stellar
disks and ellipticals match the observational values well. Inclusion of reddening is important for this comparison, which
does not involve adjusting any model parameters. The mean
and scatter in the colours of galaxies of different morphological types, as measured by blue bulge-to-total light ratio, are
also reproduced well.
3. The current cold gas content of galaxies of different luminosity is related to the efficiency of past and current star
formation. Our adopted star formation model (which is consistent with the observations analysed by Kennicutt 1998)
leads to excellent agreement with the observed ratio of cold
gas mass to blue luminosity over 7 magnitudes.
4. The predicted distribution of disk sizes is sensitive to
the strength of feedback. Our model agrees well with the
data, particularly for bright galaxies.
5. The more realistic treatment of various properties and
processes (e.g. dark halo and gas density profiles, dust, etc)
leads to a better match to the I-band Tully-Fisher relation
than was possible with our earlier, simpler model. If, as in
most previous work of this kind, the circular velocity of a
galaxy is identified with the circular velocity at the virial
radius of the halo in which it formed, then our model gives
an excellent fit to the zero-point, slope and scatter of the
Tully-Fisher relation. However, in the model, the rotation
velocities of galaxy disks at their half-mass radii are typically 30% higher than the circular velocities of the halos
at the virial radius. This results in an offset of +30% in the
velocity zero-point of the Tully-Fisher relation when the calculated disk velocities are used. It remains unclear whether
this disagreement reflects a fundamental shortcoming of the
cold dark matter theory or whether it is simply a reflection of various physical uncertainties in the calculation. For
example, the derived disk rotation velocity depends on the
assumptions of angular momentum conservation and adiabatic invariance during the collapse and formation of a galactic disk. If the collapse were, in fact, clumpy, then angular
momentum would be transferred from the disk to the halo
(Frenk et al. 1985, Navarro & White 1994, Navarro & Steinmetz 1997). In this case our calculation may have overestimated the amount by which the inner part of the halo contracts. This would help reduce the Tully-Fisher offset, but at
the same time the loss of angular momentum from the disk
would make the disks physically smaller and could act in
the opposite direction, compressing the halo more strongly.
These issues are worthy of further investigation, but they are
best addressed using numerical simulations (see e.g. Navarro
& Steinmetz 1999).
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
35
6. Our model calculates chemical evolution, taking into account the effects of gas loss due to winds and gas accretion
due to cooling in a self-consistent way. The model predicts
a trend of increasing metallicity with luminosity, similar to
that observed, for star-forming gas in disk-dominated galaxies and for stars in bulge-dominated galaxies. However, the
colour-magnitude relation for ellipticals in clusters is significantly flatter than observed at bright magnitudes, although
the scatter is about right. Kauffmann & Charlot (1998a)
have shown that a steeper slope for the colour-magnitude
relation can be obtained by simultaneously increasing the
strength of the feedback and the value of the yield. However, in our ΛCDM model, a much stronger feedback than
we have assumed would result in disk sizes that are much too
large (because the accretion of gas onto galaxies is delayed),
and would degrade the fit to the Tully-Fisher relation. We
intend to carry out a more thorough investigation of this
conflict in a later paper.
7. Our more sophisticated modelling techniques do not
change our earlier conclusion (Cole et al. 1994, Baugh et
al. 1998) that half of the stars in the universe formed since
z <
∼ 1.5. However, the relaxation of the requirement for
strong feedback (arising from the fact that we now fit the
steep faint-end slope of the ESP luminosity function rather
than the flat slope of the Stromlo-APM survey) allows a
somewhat higher star formation rate at z >
∼ 3 than we had
predicted previously. The fraction of baryons in cold gas has
a broad peak at 1 < z < 2. The evolution of the mean metallicity of the hot gas mirrors the growth of stellar mass but,
as noted also by Kauffmann (1996), the mean metallicity of
the stars and cold gas builds up very rapidly: it is already
about one third of the present value at z = 5.
In summary, the model we have presented is broadly
successful in matching a large range of galaxy properties.
There remain, however, some interesting discrepancies, for
example, the Tully-Fisher relation and the colour-magnitude
relation for cluster ellipticals. Although the discrepancies are
relatively small, further work is required to assess whether
they point to incorrect assumptions or to the neglect of important physical processes in our modelling procedure.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
SMC acknowledges the support of a PPARC Advanced Fellowship and CSF a PPARC Senior Fellowship and a Leverhulme Research Fellowship. CGL acknowledges the support
of the Danish National Research Foundation through its establishment of the Theoretical Astrophysics Center, and a
PPARC Visiting Fellowship. This work was partially supported by the PPARC rolling grant for extragalactic astronomy and cosmology at Durham, and by the EC TMR
Network on “Galaxy Formation and Evolution”. We thank
Stephane Charlot for providing us with his stellar population synthesis models, and Andrea Ferrara and Simone
Bianchi for providing us with their dust models in advance
of publication. We thank Jon Gardner for providing us with
his redshift survey data, and Bepi Tormen for providing us
with his data on the orbits of satellite halos in simulations.
Finally, we thank Simon White for many useful discussions,
and he, Eric Bell, Fabio Governato and David Weinberg for
their detailed comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
36
S. Cole et al.
REFERENCES
Adelberger, K.L., Steidel, C.C., Giavalisco, M., Dickinson, M.,
Pettini, M., Kellogg, M., 1998, ApJ, 505, 1
Avila-Reese, V., Firmani, C., 1998, ApJ, 505, 37
Balbi, E., et al. , 2000, ApJL, submitted. (astro-ph/0005124)
Barnes, J. 1992, Ap.J. 393, 484
Barnes, J.E., Efstathiou, G., 1987, ApJ, 319, 575
Barnes, J.E., White, S.D.M., 1984, MNRAS 211,753
Barnes, J.E., 1998, in Galaxies: Interactions and Induced Star
Formation, Saas-Fee Advanced Course 26. Lecture Notes
1996. Swiss Society for Astrophysics and Astronomy, XIV,
Edited by R. C. Kennicutt, Jr. F. Schweizer, J. E. Barnes,
D. Friedli, L. Martinet, and D. Pfenniger. Springer-Verlag
Berlin/Heidelberg, p.275,
Baugh, C.M., Cole, S., Frenk, C.S., 1996a, MNRAS, 282, L27
Baugh, C.M., Cole, S., Frenk, C.S., 1996b, MNRAS, 283, 1361
Baugh, C.M., Cole, S., Frenk, C.S., Lacey, C.G., 1998, ApJ, 498,
504
Baugh, C.M., Benson, A.J., Cole, S., Frenk, C.S., Lacey, C.G.,
1999, MNRAS, 305, L21
Benson, A.J., Cole, S., Frenk, C.S., Baugh, C.M., Lacey, C.G.,
2000a, MNRAS, 311, 793
Benson, A.J., Baugh, C.M., Cole, S., Frenk, C.S., Lacey, C.G.,
2000b, MNRAS, in press. (astro-ph/9910488)
Benson, A.J., Pearce, F.R., Frenk, C.S., Baugh, C.M. Jenkins, A.,
2000c, MNRAS, submitted (astro-ph/9912220).
de Bernardis,P., et al. 2000, Nature, 404, 955
Binney, J., Tremaine, S., 1987, “Galactic Dynamics”, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey
Blanton, M., Cen, R., Ostriker, J.P., Strauss, M.A., Tegmark M.,
2000, ApJ, 531, 1
Blumenthal, G., Faber, S., Primack, J., Rees, M., 1984, Nature,
311, 517
Blumenthal, G., Faber, S., Flores, R., Primack, J., 1986, ApJ,
301, 27
Bond, J.R., Cole, S., Efstathiou, G., Kaiser, N., 1991, ApJ, 379,
440
Bond, J.R., Efstathiou, G., Tegmark, M., 1997, MNRAS 291, 33
van den Bosch, F., Lewis, G.F., Lake, G., Stadel, J., 1999, ApJ
515, 50
Bottema, R., 1997, A&A, 328, 517
Bower, R.J., 1991, MNRAS, 248, 332
Bower, R.G., Lucey, J.R., Ellis, R.S., 1992, MNRAS, 254, 601
Bower, R.G., Benson, A.J., Baugh, C.M., Cole, S., Frenk, C.S.,
Lacey, C.G., 2000, MNRAS, submitted. (astro-ph/0006109)
Bressan, A., Chiosi, C., Fagotto, F., 1994, ApJS, 94, 63
Broeils, A.H., 1992, PhD thesis, Groningen
Bruzual, A.G., Charlot, S., 2000, in preparation.
Bruzual, A.G., Charlot, S., 1993, ApJ, 405, 538
Buchhorn, M., 1992, PhD thesis, ANU
Bullock, J.S., Kolatt T.S., Sigad Y., Somerville, R.S., Kravtsov
A.V., Klypin A.A., Primack, J.R., Dekel, A., 1999, MNRAS,
submitted (astro-ph/9908159)
Burles S., Tytler, D., 1998, Sp. Sc. Rev., 84, 65
Buta, R., Mitra S., de Vaucouleurs G., Corwin H.G., 1994, AJ,
107, 118
Cavaliere, A., Fusco-Femiano R., 1976, A&A, 94, 137
Charlot, S., Worthey, G., Bressan, A., 1996, ApJ, 57, 625
Christodoulou, D.M., Shlosman, I., Tohline, J.E., 1995, ApJ, 443,
563
Cole, S., 1991, ApJ, 367, 45
Cole, S., Aragón-Salamanca, A., Frenk, C.S., Navarro, J.F., Zepf,
S.E., 1994, MNRAS, 271, 781
Cole, S., Lacey, C.G., 1996, MNRAS, 281, 716
Cole, S., Weinberg D.H., Frenk C.S., Ratra B., 1997, MNRAS,
289, 37
Colpi, M., Mayer, L., Governato, F., 1999, ApJ, 525, 720
Combes, F., Debbusch, F., Friedli, D., Pfenniger, 1990, A&A, 233,
82
Combes, F., 1999, in proceedings of Rencontres de Moriond,
“Building Galaxies: from the Primordial Universe to the
Present”, ed F. Hammer, T. X. Thuan, V. Cayatte, B. Guiderdoni and J. Tran Thanh Van (astro-ph/9904031)
Copi, C. J., Schramm, D. N. & Turner, M. S., 1995, ApJL, 455,
L95
Croft, R.A.C, Weinberg, D.H., Pettini, M., Hernquist, L., Katz,
N., 1999, ApJ, 520, 1
Davis, M., Efstathiou, G., Frenk, C.S., White, S.D.M., 1985, ApJ.,
292, 371
Efstathiou, G., Lake, G., Negroponte, J., 1982, MNRAS, 199,
1069
Efstathiou, G., Frenk C.S., White S.D.M., Davis M., 1988, MNRAS, 235, 715
Eke, V. R., Cole, S., Frenk, C.S., 1996, MNRAS, 282, 263
Eke, V.R., Cole, S., Frenk, C.S. & Henry, J.P., 1998, MNRAS,
298, 1145
Eke, V.R., Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S., 1998, ApJ, 503, 569
Eke, V. R., Efstathiou, G.P., Wright, L, 1999, MNRAS, submitted (astro-ph/9908294)
Ellis, R.S., Colless, M., Broadhurst, T., Heyl, J., Glazebrook, K.,
1996, MNRAS, 285, 613
Evrard, A.E. Henry, P., 1991, ApJ, 383, 95
Evrard, A.E. Summers, F., Davis, M., 1994, ApJ, 422, 11
Fall, S.M., 1983, in “Internal kinematics and dynamics of galaxies”; Proceedings of the IAU Symposium 100, Besancon,
France, Dordrecht, D. Reidel, p391
Ferrara, A., Bianchi, S., Cimatti, A., Giovanardi C., 1999, ApJS,
123, 423
Freedman, W.L., Mould, J.R., Kennicutt, R.C., Madore, B.F.,
1998, IAU Symposium 183, “Cosmological Parameters and
the evolution of the universe” (astro-ph/9801080)
Frenk, C.S., White, S.D.M., Efstathiou, G., Davis, M., 1985, Nature, 317, 595
Frenk, C.S., White, S.D.M., Davis, M., Efstathiou, G., 1988, ApJ,
327, 507
Frenk, C.S., Evrard, A.E., White, S.D.M., Summers, F.J., 1996,
ApJ., 472, 460
Frenk, C.S., et al. 1999, ApJ, 525, 554.
Gardner, J.P., Sharples, R.M., Carrasco, B.E., Frenk, C.S., 1996,
MNRAS, 282, 1P
Gardner, J.P., Sharples, R.M., Frenk, C.S., Carrasco, B.E., 1997,
ApJL, 480, L99
Garnavich, P.M. et al. 1998, ApJ, 509, 74
Glazebrook, K., Peacock, J.A., Miller, L., Collins, C.A., 1995,
MNRAS, 275, 169
Governato, F., Baugh, C.M., Frenk, C.S., Cole, S., Lacey, C.G.,
Quinn, T., Stadel, J., 1998, Nature, 392, 359
Governato, F., Babul, A., Quinn, T., Tozzi, P., Baugh, C. M.,
Katz, N., Lake, G., 1999, MNRAS, 307, 949
Granato, G.L., Lacey, C.G., Silva, L. Bressan, A., Baugh, C.M.,
Cole, S., Frenk, C.S., 2000, ApJ., in press (astro-ph/0001308)
Guiderdoni, B., Rocca-Volmerange, B., 1987, A&A, 186, 1
Guiderdoni, B., Hivon, E. Bouchet, F.R., Maffei, B., 1998, MNRAS, 295, 877
Hannay et al. , 2000, ApJL, submitted. (astro-ph/0005123)
Heyl, J.S., Cole, S., Frenk, C.S., Navarro, J.F., 1995, MNRAS,
274, 755
Huchtmeier, W.K., Richter, O.-G., 1988, A&A, 203, 237
Ivison, R.J., Smail, I., Le Borgne, J.-F., Blain, A.W., Kneib, J.-P.,
Bezecourt, J., Kerr, T.H., Davies, J.K., 1998, MNRAS, 298,
583
Jaffe, W., 1983, MNRAS, 202, 995
Jenkins, A., Frenk, C.S., Pearce, F.R., Thomas, P., Colberg, J.M.,
White, S.D.M., Couchman H,.M.P., Peacock J.A., Efsathiou,
G.P, Nelson A.H., 1998, ApJ, 499, 20
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
Galaxy Formation
Jenkins, A., Frenk, C.S., White, S.D.M., Colberg, J.M., Cole, S.,
Evrard, A.E., Yoshida, N., 2000, MNRAS, submitted (astroph/0005260)
Jing, Y.P., 2000, ApJ., 535, 30.
de Jong, R.S., Lacey, C.G., 2000, ApJ, submitted.
de Jong, R.S., 1996, A&A, 313, 377
van Kampen E., Jimenez, J., Peacock, J.A., 1999, MNRAS, 310,
43
Katz, N., Hernquist, L., Weinberg D.H., 1992, ApJL, 399, L109
Katz, N., Weinberg D.H., Hernquist, L., 1996, ApJS, 105, 19
Kauffmann, G., White, S.D.M., 1993, MNRAS, 261, 921
Kauffmann, G., White, S.D.M., Guiderdoni, B., 1993, MNRAS
264,201
Kauffmann, G., 1995a, MNRAS, 274, 153
Kauffmann, G., 1995b, MNRAS, 274, 161
Kauffmann, G., Guiderdoni, B., White, S.D.M., 1994, MNRAS,
267, 981
Kauffmann, G., Charlot, S., 1994, ApJL, 430, L97
Kauffmann, G., 1996, MNRAS 281, 475
Kauffmann, G., Nusser, A., Steinmetz, M., 1997, MNRAS 286,
795
Kauffmann, G., Charlot, S., 1998a, MNRAS, 294, 705
Kauffmann, G., Charlot, S., 1998b, MNRAS, 297, 23
Kauffmann, G., Colberg, J.M., Diaferio, A., White, S.D.M.,
1999a, MNRAS, 303, 188
Kauffmann, G., Colberg, J.M., Diaferio, A. White, S.D.M., 1999b,
MNRAS, 307, 529
Kay, S.T., Bower, R.G., 1999, MNRAS, 308, 664
Kennicutt, R.C., 1983, ApJ., 272, 54
Kennicutt, R.C., 1998, ApJ, 498, 541
Kravtsov, A.V., Klypin, A.A., Bullock, J.S., Primack, J.R., 1998,
ApJ, 502, 48
Lacey, C.G., Silk, J., 1991, ApJ, 381, 14
Lacey, C.G., Guiderdoni, B., Rocca-Volmerange, B., Silk, J., 1993,
ApJ, 402, 15
Lacey, C.G., Cole, S., 1993, MNRAS, 262, 627
Lacey, C.G., Cole, S., 1994, MNRAS, 271, 676
Lacey, C.G., Granato, G.L., Silva, L. Bressan, A., Baugh, C.M.,
Cole, S., Frenk, C.S., 2000a, in preparation
Lacey, C.G., Poggianti, B.M., Baugh, C.M., Cole, S., Frenk, C.S.,
2000b, in preparation.
Lange, A. E., et al. , 2000 (astro-ph/0005004)
Lemson, G., Kauffmann, G., 1999, MNRAS, 302, 111
Lilly, S.J., Le Fevre, O., Hammer, F. Crampton, D., 1996, ApJ,
460, 1
Loveday, J., Peterson, B. A., Efstathiou, G., Maddox, S.J., 1992,
ApJ, 90,338
Loveday, J., 1996 MNRAS, 278, 1025
Madau, P., 1995, ApJ, 441, 18
Madau, P., Ferguson, H.C., Dickinson, M, Giavalisco, M., Steidel,
C.C., Fruchter, A., 1996, MNRAS, 283, 1388
Madau, P., Pozzetti, L., Dickinson, M, 1998, ApJ, 498,106
Maddox, S.J., Efstathiou, G.P., Sutherland, W., Loveday, J. 1990,
MNRAS, 242, 43P
Maddox S.J., et al. 1998, in Large Scale Structure: Tracks and
Traces. Proceedings of the 12th Potsdam Cosmology Workshop, held in Potsdam, September 15th to 19th, 1997. Eds. V.
Mueller, S. Gottloeber, J.P. Muecket, J. Wambsganss World
Scientific, p. 91-96 (astro-ph/9711015)
Madore, D.F. et al. 1998, Nature, 395, 47
McGaugh, S.S., 1996, MNRAS, 280, 337
van der Marel., R.P., MNRAS, 253, 710
Marigo, P., Bressan, A.G., Chiosi, C., 1996, A&A, 315, 545
Marzke, R.O., da Costa, L.N., Pellegrini, P.S., Willmer, C.N.A,
Geller, M.J., 1998, ApJ., 503, 617
Mathewson, D.S., Ford, V.L., Buchhorn, M. 1992, ApJS, 81, 413
Miller, G.E., Scalo, J.M., 1979, ApJS, 41, 513
Mo, H.J., Mao, S., White, S.D.M., 1998a, MNRAS, 295, 319
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
37
Mo, H.J., Mao, S., White, S.D.M., 1998b, MNRAS, 297, 71
Mo, H.J., Mao, S., White, S.D.M., 1999, MNRAS, 304, 175
Mobasher, B., Sharples, R.M., Ellis, R.S., 1993, MNRAS, 263,
560
Mobasher, B., Guzman, R., Aragon-Salamanca, A., Zepf, S., 1999,
MNRAS, 304, 225
Mohr, J.J., Evrard, A.E., 1997, ApJ, 491, 38
Moore, B., Governato, F., Quinn, T., Stadel, J., Lake, G., 1998,
ApJL, 499, L5
Moore, B., Quinn, T., Governato, F., Stadel, J., Lake, G., 1999a,
MNRAS, 310, 1147
Moore, B., Ghigna, S., Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T., Stadel,
J., Tozzi, P., 1999b, ApJL, 524, 19
Navarro, J.F., White, S.D.M., 1993, MNRAS, 265, 271
Navarro, J.F., White, S.D.M., 1994, MNRAS, 267, 401
Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S., White, S.D.M., 1995a, MNRAS, 275,
720
Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S., White, S.D.M., 1995b, MNRAS, 275
56
Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S., White, S.D.M., 1996, ApJ., 462, 563
Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S., White, S.D.M., 1997, ApJ, 490, 493
Navarro, J.F., Steinmetz, M., 1997, ApJ, 478, 13
Navarro, J.F., Steinmetz, M., 1999, ApJ, 513, 555
Navarro, J.F., Steinmetz, M., 2000, ApJ, 528, 607
Pearce, F.R., Jenkins, A., Frenk, C.S., Colberg, J.M., White,
S.D.M., Thomas, P.A., Couchman, H.M.P, Peacock, J.A., Efstathiou, G., 1999, ApJL, 521, 99
Perlmutter, S. et al. 1998, Nature, 391, 51
Portinari, L., Chiosi, C., Bressan, A., 1998, A&A, 334, 50
Press, W.H., Schechter, P., 1974, ApJ, 187, 425
Ratcliffe, A., Shanks, T., Parker, Q.A., Fong, R., 1998, MNRAS,
294, 147
Rauch, M., Miralda-Escudé, J., Sargent, W. L. W., Barlow, T. A.,
Weinberg, D. H., Hernquist, L., Katz, N., Cen, R., & Ostriker,
J. P., 1997, ApJ, 489, 7
Renzini, A., Voli, M., 1981, A&A, 94, 175
Riess, A.G., et al. , 1998 AJ, 116, 1009
Roukema, B.F., Peterson, B.A. Quinn, P.J., Rocca-Volmerange,
B., 1997, MNRAS, 292, 835
Roukema, B.F., 1998, in Wide Field Surveys in Cosmology, ed.
S. Colombi, Y. Mellier, B. Raban, p416
Ryden, B.S., Gunn, J.E., 1987, ApJ, 318, 15
Sage, L.J., 1993, A&A, 272, 123
Salpeter, E.E., 1955, ApJ, 121, 61
Savage, B.D., Mathis, J.S., 1979, ARA&A, 17, 73
Sellwood, J.A. in Astrophysical Discs - An EC Summer School,
Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Conference series Vol 160,
Edited by J. A. Sellwood and Jeremy Goodman, 1999, p. 327.
Scalo, J.M., 1986, Fundam. Cosmic Phys., 11, 1
Scalo, J., in “The Stellar Initial Mass Function”, ASP conference
Series Vol 142, eds. G. Gilmore & D. Howell, p.201. (ASP:
San Francisco)
Schramm, D.N., Turner, M.S., 1998, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 303
Sheth, R.K., Mo, H.J., Tormen, G., 2000, MNRAS, submitted. (astro-ph/9907024)
Silva, L., Granato, G.L., Bressan, A., Danese, L., 1998, ApJ, 509,
103
Simien, F., de Vaucouleurs, G., 1986, ApJ, 302, 564
Somerville, R.S., 1997, Ph.D. thesis, University of California,
Santa Cruz
Somerville, R.S., Primack, J.R., 1999, MNRAS, 310, 1087
Somerville, R.S., Kolatt, T.S., 1999, MNRAS, 305, 1
Somerville, R.S., Lemson, G., Kolatt, T.S., Dekel, A., 2000, MNRAS, submitted (astro-ph/9807277)
Sommer-Larsen, J., Gelato, S., & Vedel, H., 1999, ApJ 519, 501
Steidel, C.C., Giavalisco, M., Pettini, M., Dickinson, M., Adelberger, K.L., 1996, ApJ, 462, 17
38
S. Cole et al.
Steidel, C.C., Adelberger, K.L., Giavalisco, M., Dickinson, M.,
Pettini, M., 1999, ApJ, 519, 1
Sugiyama, N, 1995, ApJS, 100, 281
Sutherland, R., Dopita, M., 1993, ApJS, 88, 253
Syer, D., Mao, S., Mo, H.J., 1999, MNRAS, 305, 357
Thacker, R.J. Tittley, E.R., Pearce, F.R., Couchman, H.M.P.,
Thomas, P.A. 2000, MNRAS submitted (astro-ph/9809221)
Tinsley B.M., 1972, A&A, 20, 383
Tinsley B.M., 1980, Fundam. Cosmic Phys., 5,287
Tormen, G., 1997, MNRAS, 290, 411
Walker, T.P., Steigman, G., Kang H., Schramm, D.M., Olive,
K.A., 1991, ApJ, 376, 51
Walker, I., Mihos, J.C., Hernquist, L., 1996, ApJ, 460, 121
Warren, M.S., Quinn, P.J., Salmon, J.K., Zurek, W.H., 1992, ApJ,
399, 405
Weil, M.L., Eke, V. R., Efstathiou, G.P., 1998, MNRAS, 300, 773
Weinberg, D.H., Miralda-Escudé, J., Hernquist, L., & Katz, N.,
1997, ApJ, 490, 564
Weinberg, D.H., Croft, R.A.C., Hernquist, L., Katz N., Pettini,
M., 1999, ApJ, 522, 563
White, S.D.M., Rees, M.J., 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341
White, S.D.M., Frenk, C.S., 1991, ApJ, 379, 25
White, S.D.M., Evrard, A.E., Navarro, J.F. & Frenk, C.S., 1993,
Nature, 366, 429
White, S.D.M, Navarro, J.F., 1993, MNRAS, 265, 271
White, D.A., Fabian, A.C., 1995, MNRAS, 273, 72
Woosley, S.E., Weaver, T.A., 1995, ApJS, 101, 181
Wu, K.K.S., Fabian, A.C., Nulsen, P.E.J., 1998, MNRAS, 301,
L20
Wu, K.K.S., Fabian, A.C., Nulsen, P.E.J., 2000, MNRAS, submitted (astro-ph/9907112)
Zaritsky, D., Kennicutt, R.C., Huchra, J.P., 1994, ApJ, 420, 87
Zucca, E., et al. 1997, A&A, 326, 477
that r 3 ρ(r)σ 2 (r) vanishes as r → 0 we obtain,
TH (rvir )
h
=
3
2π rvir
ρ(rvir) σ 2 (rvir )
+
Z
rvir
i
GM (r ′ ) ρ(r ′ ) r ′ dr ′ .
0
For our standard case of halos with the NFW density
profile, equation (3.8), we simply integrate the Jeans equation out to r = ∞ to derive σ(r), assuming that the NFW
profile and hydrostatic equilibrium apply at all radii (Cole
& Lacey (1996), equation (2.14)). This is an approximation,
since in principle we should not expect the NFW halo model
to be valid beyond the virial radius, where material is still
infalling. However, the velocity dispersion within the halo
derived in this way using the NFW model has been found
to be in good agreement with numerical simulations (e.g.
figures 4, 5 and 6 of Cole & Lacey 1996). Note also that
truncating the NFW profile at the virial radius implies that
2TH (rvir ) + WH (rvir ) 6= 0. If the integrals in equations (A2)
and (A4) were extended to r = ∞ then the NFW halo model
would exactly satisfy the virial theorem, but for the truncated model 2T (rvir )/|W (rvir )| is slightly greater than unity
and varies slowly with the NFW scalelength, aNFW . This
behaviour was also found for the N-body halos in Cole &
Lacey (1996) and our definitions are fully consistent with
the way in which they defined the spin parameter λH .
Inserting the above definitions of JH (rvir ) and EH (rvir )
into equation (3.6) for λH defines the coefficient A(aNFW ) in
the relation
Vrot = A(aNFW )λH VH ,
APPENDIX A: HALO ROTATION VELOCITY
In this appendix we relate the halo rotation velocity, Vrot ,
(assumed constant) to its spin parameter λH .
The total angular momentum of the halo is given by
JH (rvir ) =
rvir
Z
0
π
Vrot r ′ ρ(r ′ ) 4πr ′2 dr ′ .
4
(A1)
The total energy of the halo within the virial radius is the
sum, EH = WH + TH , of the potential and kinetic energies.
The self-binding energy of the material within the virial radius, rvir , is
WH (rvir )
rvir
1
2
Z
=
−
1
2G
=
G
−
2
=
φ(r ′ ) ρ(r ′ ) 4πr ′2 dr ′
0
∞
Z
|∇φ(r ′ )|2 r ′2 dr ′
Z0 rvir
0
M (r ′ )2 ′ M 2 (rvir )
, (A2)
dr +
r ′2
rvir
where φ(r) is the gravitational potential. Assuming hydrostatic equilibrium with an isotropic velocity dispersion σ(r),
the corresponding kinetic energy of material inside the virial
radius can be expressed as
TH (rvir ) =
Z
0
rvir
3 2 ′
σ (r ) ρ(r ′ ) 4πr ′2 dr ′ .
2
(A3)
With the same assumptions, the velocity dispersion obeys
the Jeans equation d(ρσ 2 )/dr = −ρ GM (r)/r 2 . Provided
(A4)
(A5)
where VH ≡ (GM/rvir )1/2 is the circular velocity of the halo
at the virial radius. For the limited range 0.03 < aNFW < 0.4
5/4
the result is well fit by A(aNFW ) ≈ 4.1 + 1.8 aNFW .
For the non-standard case of an isothermal density profile for the halo (with or without a core radius), we follow a
slightly different approach. If, as above, the kinetic energy,
TH (rvir ), is calculated by integrating the Jeans equation to
derive σ(r), then 2TH (rvir )/|WH (rvir )| is found to be considerably greater than unity. The discrepancy is large because
we have extrapolated the halo density profile beyond the
virial radius with a model whose mass does not rapidly converge. Thus, for these profiles, we prefer to define the coefficient, A, in equation (A5) by evaluating the binding energy,
expression (A2), with the appropriate density profile but
then assuming the virial theorem, 2TH (rvir )/|WH (rvir )| = 1,
to estimate the kinetic energy and hence the total energy
EH (rvir ). This is then identical to the assumption made in
Mo et al. (1998a) to define the energy and spin parameter.
In the range 0.01 < a < 0.4 the resulting dependence is well
fit by A ≈ 3.66 − 0.83 a.
APPENDIX B: STAR FORMATION
The set of coupled differential equations,(4.6-4.11), describing an episode of star formation has the following analytic
solutions. The mass of gas that has cooled and been accreted
in a time t since the start of the timestep is
∆Macc = Ṁcool t.
(B1)
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
Galaxy Formation
The increase in the mass of long lived stars
1−R
[1 − exp(−t/τeff )]
1−R+β
1−R
[1 − t/τeff − exp(−t/τeff )]
−Ṁcool τeff
1−R+β
0
∆M⋆ = Mcold
(B2)
where τeff = τ⋆ /(1 − R + β) . In terms of these quantities
the changes in the masses of cold and hot gas are
∆Mcold = ∆Macc −
and
(B3)
r0 Vc0 (r0 ) = rVc (r)
β
∆M⋆ .
1−R
(B4)
where Vc (r) is the total circular velocity at radius r, r0 is
the radius of a shell before condensation of the galaxy, and
r is the final radius of the same shell after condensation of
the galaxy. The initial and final halo masses interior to the
shell are related by
The corresponding changes in the masses of metals are
Z
∆Mhot
=
Z
−∆Macc
where
(1 − e)p
1−R+β
∆M⋆ −
∆M⋆Z (B5)
1−R
1−R
β
ep
∆M⋆ +
∆M⋆Z ,
+
1−R
1−R
(B6)
Z
∆Macc
= Ṁcool Zhot t
(B7)
and
∆M⋆Z =
1−R
Z0
Mcold
[1 − exp(−t/τeff )]
1−R+β
−Ṁcool τeff [2−t/τeff −(2+t/τeff ) exp(−t/τeff )]
i
(B8)
For the case where there is no supply of cooling gas,
Ṁcool = 0, the above equations show that when t ≫ τeff ,
the mean metallicity of the stars that have formed is
(1 − e)p
.
1−R+β
(B9)
Thus our model of star formation and feedback produces an
effective yield peff = (1 − e)p/(1 − R + β) which, through β,
and possibly also e, is a function of the potential well depth
of the galaxy disk or bulge in which the star formation is
occuring.
APPENDIX C: ADIABATIC CONTRACTION
OF HALO, DISK AND SPHEROID
This appendix describes how we use the adiabatic contraction model to calculate the dynamical equilibrium of the
disk, bulge and halo. The outputs from the calculation are
the disk and bulge radii and the halo density profile after
deformation by the gravity of the disk and spheroid.
C1
Adiabatic Contraction of Halo
To model the effect on the halo density profile of a galaxy
condensing at its centre, we start by assuming that baryons
and dark matter have the same initial density distribution,
with total mass profile, MH0 (r0 ) (e.g. given by the NFW profile). A fraction 1 − fH of the total mass condenses to form a
galaxy at the centre of the halo, leaving a fraction fH of the
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
MH (r) = fH MH0 (r0 ),
(C1)
(C2)
where MH (r) is the final mass halo profile. For the purpose
of computing the circular velocity of the halo (averaged over
spherical shells), we treat the mass distribution (including
the disk) as spherical. This should be a better approximation
for estimating the gravitational influence of the disk on the
halo, than using the circular velocity due to the disk in the
disk plane, which is somewhat larger. Thus,
Vc2 (r) = G [MH (r) + MD (r) + MB (r)] /r,
−Ṁcool τeff Zhot [1 − t/τeff − exp(−t/τeff )]
h
(1 − e)p
0
+
Mcold
[1 − (1 + t/τeff ) exp(−t/τeff )]
1−R+β
0
Z⋆ = Zcold
+
mass still in the halo component. This fraction includes any
baryons that have not yet cooled and also satellite galaxies. For simplicity, any baryons left in the hot component
are assumed to be distributed like the dark matter. We now
assume that in response to the gravity of the disk and the
bulge, each shell of halo matter adjusts its radius to conserve its pseudo specific angular momentum rVc (r), i.e. that
rVc (r) is an adiabatic invariant. Thus,
1−R+β
∆M⋆
1−R
∆Mhot = −∆Macc +
Z
Z
∆Mcold
= ∆Macc
+
39
(C3)
where MD (r) and MB (r) are the disk and bulge masses interior to radius r. For consistency, the total masses should
be related by MH0 = fH MH0 + MD + MB , so that the outer
radius of the halo is unchanged. Combining (C1), (C2) and
(C3) we have,
r0 MH0 (r0 ) = r [fH MH0 (r0 ) + MD (r) + MB (r)] ,
(C4)
which relates the final radius of any halo shell to its initial radius, once the galaxy disk and bulge profiles, MD (r)
and MB (r), are known. The accuracy of this approach has
recently been tested in Navarro & Steinmetz (2000).
C2
Dynamical Equilibrium of Disk and Bulge
Application of the galaxy rules described in Section 4.1 give
the total mass, MD , and specific angular momentum, jD ,
of a galaxy disk, but, in order to use (C4), we require the
complete mass profile, MD (r). To obtain this we make the
following simplifying assumptions. First, we assume that all
disks are well-described by an exponential surface density
profile,
ΣD (r) =
MD
exp(−r/hD ),
2πh2D
(C5)
for which
MD (r) = MD [1 − (1 + r/hD ) exp(−r/hD )] .
(C6)
The half-mass radius, rD , is related to the scalelength, hD ,
by rD = 1.68hD . We also assume that the specific angular
momentum of the disk is given by
jD = kD rD VcD (rD ),
(C7)
where VcD (rD ) is the circular velocity in the disk plane at the
disk half-mass radius and kD is a constant. We adopt kD =
1.19 as is appropriate for a flat rotation curve. The value of
40
S. Cole et al.
kD is only weakly dependent on the assumed rotation curve.
For example, if VcD (r) is taken to be the circular velocity
of a self-gravitating exponential disk (Binney & Tremaine
1987 eq. 2-169), then kD = 1.09, while if VcD (r) ∝ 1/r 1/2 ,
then kD = 1.03.
The radius of the disk is then related to its angular
momentum by
2
jD
=
2
2 2
rD VcD
(rD )
kD
1
kh MD + MB (rD ) , (C8)
2
where rD0 is the initial radius of the shell whose final radius is rD . The factor kh arises from the disk geometry; if
the disk contribution to VcD (r) is computed in the spherical
approximation, kh = 1, but here instead we calculate the
circular velocity in the midplane of the exponential disk, using equation (2-169) from Binney & Tremaine (1987), giving
kh = 1.25.
The disk half-mass radius, rD , must satisfy this equation
and also equation (C4) evaluated at rD , i.e.
=
h
i
2
kD
GrD fH MH0 (rD0 ) +
rD0 MH0 (rD0 )
C3
Adiabatic Adjustment following Mergers or
Disk Instabilities
When a spheroid is formed by a galaxy merger, we first
calculate the radius of the new spheroid rnew from (4.19).
We then compute jB = rB Vc (rB ), with rB = rnew and
Vc2 (rB ) = G(M1 + M2 )/2rnew . Then, using this value of
jB , we calculate the value of rB given by the adiabatic contraction model for the disk-bulge-halo equilibrium, and take
this be the true value of rB . If a spheroid is formed via disk
instability, we follow the same procedure, starting from rnew
given by equation (4.22), and assuming that the dark matter mass involved in the initial calculation of Vc2 (rB ) is twice
that within the initial half-mass radius of the galaxy.
=
h
rD fH MH0 (rD0 ) +
1
MD + MB (rD ) . (C9)
2
i
Using (C8), this can be written as
rD0 MH0 (rD0 ) =
2
jD
1
− (kh − 1)rD MD .
2
kD
G
2
(C10)
To derive the size of the spheroidal component of a
galaxy, we assume that the projected density profile is well
described by the de Vaucouleurs r 1/4 -law (e.g. Binney &
Tremaine 1987, (§1-13)). The effective radius, re , of the r 1/4 law (the radius that contains half the mass in projection) is
related to the half-mass radius, rB , by rB = 1.35re . We define a pseudo-specific angular momentum for the spheroid:
jB = rB Vc (rB ),
(C11)
where Vc (r) is the circular velocity at r. This pseudo-specific
angular momentum, jB , is assumed to be conserved, except
during galaxy mergers, when its value is determined by the
properties of the merger remnant (see Section 4.4.2).
This model leads to the following two equations for the
bulge radius, in analogy to equations (C8) and (C10) for the
disk radius,
2
jB
=
2
rB
Vc2 (rB )
=
GrB fH MH0 (rB0 ) + MD (rB ) +
h
1
MB
2
i
(C12)
and
2
jB
.
(C13)
G
Comparing this last equation to the analogous equation for
the disk, (C10), we see that the 2nd term on the RHS has
vanished. This results from assuming that the mean effect of
the disk on a spherical shell of the spheroid can be estimated
by spherically averaging the disk.
To compute the disk and bulge radii we must solve equations (C8), (C10), (C12) and (C13) given the disk and bulge
masses, MD and MB , the initial halo profile, MH0 (r0 ), and
specific angular momenta, jD and jB . The two pairs of equations are coupled, but with care they can be solved with a
simple iterative scheme.
rB0 MH0 (rB0 ) =
c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000