Paper detail

Close Galaxy Pairs at z = 3: A Challenge to UV Luminosity Abundance Matching

We use a sample of z~3 Lyman Break Galaxies (LBGs) to examine close pair clustering statistics in comparison to LCDM-based models of structure formation. Samples are selected by matching the LBG number density and by matching the observed LBG 3-D correlation function of LBGs over the two-halo term region. We show that UV-luminosity abundance matching cannot reproduce the observed data, but if subhalos are chosen to reproduce the observed clustering of LBGs we are able to reproduce the observed LBG pair fraction, (Nc), defined as the average number of companions per galaxy. This model suggests an over abundance of LBGs by a factor of ~5 over those observed, suggesting that only 1 in 5 halos above a fixed mass hosts a galaxy with LBG-like UV luminosity detectable via LBG selection techniques. We find a total observable close pair fraction of 23 \pm 0.6% (17.7 \pm 0.5%) using a prototypical cylinder radius in our overdense fiducial model and 8.3 \pm 0.5% (5.6 \pm 0.2%) in an abundance matched model (impurity corrected). For the matched spectroscopic slit analysis, we find Ncs = 5.1\pm0.2% (1.68\pm0.02%), the average number of companions observed serendipitously in our for fiducial slits (abundance matched), whereas the observed fraction of serendipitous spectroscopic close pairs is 4.7\pm1.5 per cent using the full LBG sample and 7.1\pm2.3% for a subsample with higher signal-to-noise ratio. We show that the standard method of halo assignment fails to reproduce the break in the LBG close pair behavior at small scale. To reconcile these discrepancies we suggest that a plausible fraction of LBGs in close pairs with lower mass than our sample experience interaction-induced enhanced star formation that boosts their luminosity sufficiently to be detected in observational sample but are not included in the abundance matched simulation sample.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 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.

Institutions

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.