Paper detail

A Comparison of Galaxy Group Luminosity Functions from Semi-Analytic Models

Semi-analytic models (SAMs) are currently one of the primary tools with which to model statistically significant ensembles of galaxies. The underlying physical prescriptions inherent to each SAM are, in many cases, different from one another. Several SAMs have been applied to the dark matter merger trees extracted from the Millennium Run, including those associated with the well-known Munich and Durham lineages. We compare the predicted luminosity distributions of galaxy groups using four publicly available SAMs (De Lucia et al. 2006; Bower et al. 2006; Bertone et al. 2007; Font et al. 2008), in order to explore a galactic environment in which the models have not been explored to the same degree as they have in the field or in rich clusters. We identify a characteristic "wiggle" in the group galaxy luminosity function generated using the De Lucia et al. (2006) SAM, that is not present in the Durham-based models, consistent to some degree with observations. However, a comparison between conditional luminosity functions of groups between the models and observations of Yang et al. (2007) suggest that neither model is a particularly good match. The luminosity function wiggle is interpreted as the result of the two-mode AGN feedback implementation used in the Munich models, which itself results in flattened magnitude gap distribution. An associated analysis of the magnitude gap distribution between first- and second-ranked group galaxies shows that while the Durham models yield distributions with approximately equal luminosity first- and second-ranked galaxies, in agreement with observations, the De Lucia et al. models favours the scenario in which the second-ranked galaxy is approximately one magnitude fainter than the primary,especially when the dynamic range of the mock data is limited to 3 magnitudes.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access8 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.