Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

American Astronomical Society, Astrophysical Journal, 1(928), p. 28, 2022

DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4cb4

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

The Observed Evolution of the Stellar Mass–Halo Mass Relation for Brightest Central Galaxies

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Red circle
Preprint: archiving forbidden
Red circle
Postprint: archiving forbidden
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Abstract We quantify evolution in the cluster-scale stellar mass–halo mass (SMHM) relation’s parameters using 2323 clusters and brightest central galaxies (BCGs) over the redshift range 0.03 ≤ z ≤ 0.60. The precision on the inferred SMHM parameters is improved by including the magnitude gap (m gap) between the BCG and fourth-brightest cluster member (M14) as a third parameter in the SMHM relation. At fixed halo mass, accounting for m gap, through a stretch parameter, reduces the SMHM relation’s intrinsic scatter. To explore this redshift range, we use clusters, BCGs, and cluster members identified using the Sloan Digital Sky Survey C4 and redMaPPer cluster catalogs and the Dark Energy Survey redMaPPer catalog. Through this joint analysis, we detect no systematic differences in BCG stellar mass, m gap, and cluster mass (inferred from richness) between the data sets. We utilize the Pareto function to quantify each parameter’s evolution. We confirm prior findings of negative evolution in the SMHM relation’s slope (3.5σ), and detect negative evolution in the stretch parameter (4.0σ) and positive evolution in the offset parameter (5.8σ). This observed evolution, combined with the absence of BCG growth, when stellar mass is measured within 50 kpc, suggests that this evolution results from changes in the cluster’s m gap. For this to occur, late-term growth must be in the intracluster light surrounding the BCG. We also compare the observed results to IllustrisTNG 300-1 cosmological hydrodynamic simulations and find modest qualitative agreement. However, the simulations lack the evolutionary features detected in the real data.