Paper detail

The Evolution of the Stellar Mass Function of Galaxies from z=4.0 and the First Comprehensive Analysis of its Uncertainties: Evidence for Mass-dependent Evolution

[Abridged] We present the evolution of the stellar mass function (SMF) of galaxies from z=4.0 to z=1.3 measured from a sample constructed from the deep NIR MUSYC, the FIRES, and the GOODS-CDFS surveys, all having very high-quality optical to mid-infrared data. This sample, unique in that it combines data from surveys with a large range of depths and areas in a self-consistent way, allowed us to 1) minimize the uncertainty due to cosmic variance and empirically quantify its contribution to the total error budget; 2) simultaneously probe the high-mass end and the low-mass end (down to ~0.05 times the characteristic stellar mass) of the SMF with good statistics; and 3) empirically derive the redshift-dependent completeness limits in stellar mass. We provide, for the first time, a comprehensive analysis of random and systematic uncertainties affecting the derived SMFs. We find that the mass density evolves by a factor of ~17(+7,-10) since z=4.0, mostly driven by a change in the normalization Phi*. If only random errors are taken into account, we find evidence for mass-dependent evolution, with the low-mass end evolving more rapidly than the high-mass end. However, we show that this result is no longer robust when systematic uncertainties due to the SED-modeling assumptions are taken into account. Taking our results at face value, we find that they are in conflict with semi-analytic models of galaxy formation. The models predict SMFs that are in general too steep, with too many low-mass galaxies and too few high-mass galaxies. The discrepancy at the high-mass end is susceptible to uncertainties in the models and the data, but the discrepancy at the low-mass end may be more difficult to explain.

preprint2009arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 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.