Paper detail

On the inconsistency between the estimates of cosmic star formation rate and stellar mass density of high redshift galaxies

There are mainly two different approaches to measure the cosmic star formation history: direct star formation rate density (SFRD) and stellar mass density rhostar as functions of redshift. Compilations of current observations seem to show a disparity in the two quantities, in the sense that the integral of SFRD is higher than the observed rhostar (after considering gas recycling). Using cosmological smoothed particle hydrodynamics simulations based on the concordance Lambda cold dark matter model, we show that the two quantities become more consistent with each other when we consider the observed galaxy mass limit. The comparison between simulations and (dust corrected) observed cosmic SFRD shows a good agreement, while the observed rhostar is significantly lower than the simulation results. This can be reconciled if the current high-$z$ galaxy surveys are missing faint low-mass galaxies due to their flux limit. Our simulated GSMFs have steep low-mass end slopes of alpha < -2 at z>3, and when these numerous low-mass galaxies are included, the total rhostar matches with the integral of SFRD.

preprint2011arXivOpen 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.