environmental dependence on galactic properties traced by ... · simulations: gadget3-osaka ‣...

Environmental dependence on galactic properties  

traced by Lyα absorptions

Rieko Momose (JSPS/U.Tokyo) ※ Momose et al. 2020a, b

(arXiv:002.07334, 002.07335)

K. Shimasaku (Uinv. Tokyo), K. Nagamine (Osaka Univ.), I. Shimizu (NAOJ), N. Kashikawa (Uinv. Tokyo), K. Nakajima (Uinv. Copenhagen), H. Kusakabe (Uinv. Geneva),

Y. Terao, K. Motohara, M. Ando (Uinv. Tokyo), L. Spitler (Macquarie Univ.)

! [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]?subject=

APEC Seminar in IPMU, March 12, 2020

Galaxy formation in the large-scale structure

Dark Matter density

‣ Galaxy formation occurs within the densest parts of the cosmic web ‣ Large-scale dark matter distribution correlates with that of baryon

Vogelsberger+2014; Schaye +2014


Galaxy formation in the large-scale structure

Dark Matter densityGas density

‣ Galaxy formation occurs within the densest parts of the cosmic web ‣ Large-scale dark matter distribution correlates with that of baryon

Vogelsberger+2014; Schaye +2014

IGMCGM


IGM-galaxy connection probed by cross-correlation analysis

HI cloud

e.g., Bielby+17

- �D 5 C>


150.3150.2150.1150.0RA

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5DEC

－0.25

－0.20

－0.10

－0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

－

－

－

－

0

0

0

0

0

Overdense

Underdense

↑ ↑

Mean density ↓ ↓

IGM-galaxy connection

?✦ What type of galaxies (M＊, SFR) strongly connect to the IGM?

✦ How is the connection vary among different galaxy populations?


‣ Cross-correlation between HI transmission excess δF and galaxies    

- F(z) : Lyα forest transmission - Fcos(z) : Cosmic mean Lyα forest transmission (Faucher-Giguère+08)

Methodology: cross-correlation analysis

✦ IGM Data (Shimizu+19, Nagamine+ in prep) - code: GADGET-3 - volume: 107 (Mpc/h)3

✦ Catalog - About 90,000 star-forming galaxies with M✴ ≧ 109 M◉

HI transmission excess (δF = F(z) / Fcos(z) − 1)Galaxies Random points

Galaxy

IL� CD�D 5 C>< �> 5 �� IL� CD�D 5 C>


Data

Observation Simulation

?M＊, SFR?  

Galaxy populations?M＊, SFR?

IGM CLAMATO 30 x 24 x 438 (cMpc)3Light cone from GADGET3-Osaka

100 x 100 x 438 (cMpc)3 at z~2

Galaxy catalogs

Cont. spec-z (570),  LAEs (19), HAEs (7), O3Es (85),

AGNs (8, 21), SMGs (4)

90,000 star-forming galaxies  with M✴ ≧ 109 M◉

Lee+18 Shimizu+19; Nagamine+ in prep.


Observations: CLAMATO

‣ CLAMATO - COSMOS Lyα Mapping And Tomography Observations - Used 240 galaxies and QSOs as background lights - 30 x 24 x 438 cMpc cube over 2.05 < z < 2.55

Lee+16, 18


Simulations: GADGET3-Osaka

‣ GADGET3-Osaka (Shimizu+19, Nagamine+ in prep) - (100 cMpc)3 cubic - Produce mock Lyα forest data and measure δF at each position

Slide from Prof. Nagamine

IL� CD�D 5 C>< �> 5 �� IL� CD�D 5 C>

Results & Discussions


−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0

0.1

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0

100 101r [Mpc/h]

ξ δF

100 101r [Mpc/h]

100 101 102r [Mpc/h]

ξ δF

M* ≧ 1011 M◉M* ~ 1010 M◉M* ~ 109 M◉

MDH ≧ 1013 M◉MDH ~ 1012 M◉MDH ~ 1011 M◉MDH ~ 1010 M◉

log SFR ≧ 2 M◉/yrlog SFR ~ 1 M◉/yrlog SFR ~ 0 M◉/yrlog SFR ~ −1 M◉/yrlog SFR < −1 M◉/yr

log sSFR ≧ −9 /yrlog sSFR ~ −10 /yrlog sSFR < −10 /yr All galaxies

(a) (b)

(c) (d) (e)

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0

0.1

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0

100 101r [Mpc/h]

ξ δF

100 101r [Mpc/h]

100 101 102r [Mpc/h]

ξ δF

M* ≧ 1011 M◉M* ~ 1010 M◉M* ~ 109 M◉




(a) (b)

(c) (d) (e)

▶◀ IGM regimeCGM

1 10 100

ξ δF

(CC

F of

δF

= F

/〈F z〉

)

Overdense

Underdense↑


r [comoving Mpc]

The CCF of all galaxies in our simulation

Adelberger+03; Bielby+17


M＊, SFR? CCFs of galaxies depending on their M✴, MDH, SFR and sSFR

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0

0.1

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0

100 101r [Mpc/h]

ξ δF

100 101r [Mpc/h]

100 101 102r [Mpc/h]

ξ δF

M* ≧ 1011 M◉M* ~ 1010 M◉M* ~ 109 M◉




(a) (b)

(c) (d) (e)

Stellar Mass Halo Mass

SFR sSFR

1 10 1 10 100

0.1

0.0

−0.1

−0.2

−0.3

−0.4

0.0

−0.1

−0.2

−0.3

−0.4

r [comoving Mpc]

ξ δF

(CC

F of

δF

= F

/〈F z〉−1

)

Overdense

Underdense↑


M＊ ≧ 1011M＊ ~ 1010M＊ < 1010

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0

0.1

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0

100 101r [Mpc/h]

ξ δF

100 101r [Mpc/h]

100 101 102r [Mpc/h]

ξ δF

M* ≧ 1011 M◉M* ~ 1010 M◉M* ~ 109 M◉




(a) (b)

(c) (d) (e)

MDH ≧ 1013MDH ~ 1012MDH ~ 1011MDH < 1011

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0

0.1

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0

100 101r [Mpc/h]

ξ δF

100 101r [Mpc/h]

100 101 102r [Mpc/h]

ξ δF

M* ≧ 1011 M◉M* ~ 1010 M◉M* ~ 109 M◉




(a) (b)

(c) (d) (e)

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0

0.1

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0

100 101r [Mpc/h]

ξ δF

100 101r [Mpc/h]

100 101 102r [Mpc/h]

ξ δFM* ≧ 1011 M◉M* ~ 1010 M◉M* ~ 109 M◉




(a) (b)

(c) (d) (e)

SFR ≧ 100SFR ~ 10SFR ~ 1SFR ~ 0.1SFR < 0.1

sSFR ≧ 10−9sSFR ~ 10−10sSFR < 10−10

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0

0.1

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0

100 101r [Mpc/h]

ξ δF

100 101r [Mpc/h]

100 101 102r [Mpc/h]

ξ δF

M* ≧ 1011 M◉M* ~ 1010 M◉M* ~ 109 M◉




(a) (b)

(c) (d) (e)


Galaxy populations? Preparation for calculations

Smolčić+12; Brisbin+17; Michałowski+17

Hashimoto+13; Nakajima+13; Shibuya+14

Continuum selected galaxies with spec-z

Hα emitter SMG

x Photo-z catalog Laigle+16; Straatman+16

x NB catalog Sobral+13

Lyα emitter

Lilly+07, 09; Trump+09; Balogh+14; Le Fèvre+15; Kriek+15; Nanayakkara+16; Momcheva+16; van der Wel+16; Masters+17; Hasinger+18

AGN[OIII] emitter

x BB catalog Terao+ in prep

‣ LAEs and SMGs measured spec-z by follow-up observations ‣ Cross-match with compiled spec-z catalog and give spec-z measurements


Galaxy populations? CCFs

LAEsHAEsO3EsAGNsSMGsCont. selectedLBGs

100 101 102r [h−1 Mpc]

−0.25

−0.20

−0.15

−0.10

−0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

ξ δF －

(a) Cross-correlation

Myers+07; Weiβ+09; Guaita+11;

Allevato+11, 12, 14; Hickox+12;

Koutoulidis+13; Plionis+18;

Kusakabe+18; Khostovan+19; Suh+19




100 101 102r [h−1 Mpc]

−0.25

−0.20

−0.15

−0.10

−0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

ξ δF －

(a) Cross-correlation D� � � A �, C� � ,C��5F �D � < CD� �C< 5

M DH = 1011 — 1013 M◉








100 101 102r [h−1 Mpc]

−0.25

−0.20

−0.15

−0.10

−0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

ξ δF －

(a) Cross-correlation D� � � A �, C� � ,C��5F �D � < CD� �C< 5

D� � � A �C� 5F �D � < CD�C< 5

M DH = 1011 — 1013 M◉

M DH = 1010 — 1011 M◉






100 101 100r [Mpc/h]

−0.25

−0.20

−0.15

−0.10

−0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

ξ δF

101 100r [Mpc/h]

101 102r [Mpc/h]

L16-AGNs S16-AGNs SMGs

Galaxy populations? AGNs and SMGs

0.1

0.0

−0.1

−0.2

ξ δF

1 10 1 10 1 10 100r [comoving Mpc]

AGNs (Laigle+16) AGNs (Straatman+16) SMGs

A negative bump at r ~ 5–7 Mpc/h

Located several Mpc away from a density peak ➡ Proximity effects


100−0.25

−0.20

−0.15

−0.10

−0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

ξ δF

101r [h−1 Mpc]

IR identifiedX-ray identified

Galaxy populations? AGN types

1 10 100

‣ Different CCF trend depending on AGN types

- IR identified:  positive ξδF (underdense)

- X-ray identified: negative ξδF (overdense)

‣ HI gas density of the proximity of AGNs may be determined by the balance

- IGM photoionization rate - Gas accretion rate

D < < 5D< �&�,5C�5 D<

D < < 5D< � �,5C�5 D


100 101 102r [0pc/h]

−0.25

−0.20

−0.15

−0.10

−0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

ξ F

100 101 102r [0pc/h]

100 101 102r [0pc/h]

Galaxy populations? Line emitters

0.1

0.0

−0.1

−0.2

ξ δF

1 10 1 10 1 10 100r [comoving Mpc]

LAEs HAEs O3Es

: Line emitters : Continuum selected

Stronger signal ➡ Denser IGM

Comparable CCF  ➡ Similar IGM density

A few Mpc offset from a density peak


Galaxy populations? LAEs

Overdense

Underdense

↑ Mean density

↓

LAEs

HAEs

O3Es

L16-AGN

S16-AGN (X-ray identified)

S16-AGN (IR identified)

SMGs

−0.6

−0.2

0.0

0.2

0.6

〈δF〉

‣ Projected  HI density maps

- Collapsing Δz = 2 cMpc around LAEs

- Map size: 30 x 24 cMpc2

‣ LAEs tend to be off-peaks ‣ LAEs may not trace  

the same underlying IGM HI which is traced by other galaxy populations

LAEs

HAEs

O3Es

L16-AGN

S16-AGN (X-ray identified)

S16-AGN (IR identified)

SMGs

−0.6

−0.2

0.0

0.2

0.6

〈δF〉


10 10 10

(b) EWLyα (c)

Continuum selected

EWLyα < 40 ÅEWLyα ≧ 100 Å

10 10 10

(c) fUV

100 fUV ≧ 10‒29 fUV < 10‒29.7

Galaxy populations? LAEs — further investigations

100 101 100

ξ δF

(a) LLyα (b)

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0

0.1

Continuum selectedall LAEsLLyα < 1042.5 erg/sLLyα ≧ 1043 erg/sLLyα—faintLLyα—luminous

EWLyα—smallEWLyα—large

LUV—luminousLUV—faintfUVfUV

‣ LLyα—faint, LUV—luminous, and EWLyα—small subsamples  have higher CCF signal than their opposite subsamples - They tend to be more massive than the opposite

‣ Massive LAEs can reside in high density regions than less massive oneKusakabe+19; Khostovan+19

100 101 100r [h−1 Mpc]

101 100r [h−1 Mpc]

101 102r [h−1 Mpc]

−0.4

(b) (c)


Summary: What can we learn about the IGM-galaxy connection?

✦ What type of galaxies (M＊, SFR) strongly connect to the IGM?

- Galaxies with higher mass (and SFR) tend to reside in higher density regions

✦ How is the connection different among different galaxy populations?

- AGNs and SMGs are in the highest density regions over r > 5 cMpc - HI depletion around several cMpc can be due to the proximity effect

- LAEs are in the highest density regions within r = 5 cMpc - They are not in peaks of the cosmic web, but in a few cMpc off-peaks

- HAEs and O3Es trace the HI density structure well,  though O3Es are in higher density


Hypothesis of the IGM-galaxy connection depending on evolutional stage

－－－－00000

- �

G� �� , �- � C


Fin.

environmental dependence on galactic properties traced by ... · simulations: gadget3-osaka ‣...

Documents