Paper detail

The relation between star formation rate and stellar mass of galaxies at z $\sim$ 1-4

The relation between the Star Formation Rate (SFR) and stellar mass (${\rm M}_{\star}$) of galaxies represents a fundamental constraint on galaxy formation and has been studied extensively both in observations and cosmological simulations. However, the observed amplitude has not been successfully reproduced in simulations, indicating either that the halo accretion history and baryonic physics are poorly modeled or that observations contain biases. We examine the evolution of the SFR$-{\rm M}_{\star}$ relation of $z\sim1-4 $ galaxies and display the inconsistency between observed relations that are obtained using different techniques. We employ cosmological hydrodynamic simulations and compare these with a range of observed SFR$-{\rm M}_{\star}$ relations. We find that numerical results are consistent with observations that use Spectral Energy Distribution (SED) techniques to estimate star formation rates and dust corrections. On the contrary, simulations are not able to reproduce results that were obtained by combining only UV and IR luminosities. These imply SFRs at a fixed stellar mass that are larger almost by a factor of 5 than those of SED measurements for $z \sim1.5-4$. Furthermore, we find remarkable agreement between the numerical results from various authors who have employed different cosmological codes and run simulations with different resolutions. This is interesting for two reasons. A) simulations can produce realistic populations of galaxies within representative cosmological volumes even at relatively modest resolutions. B) It is likely that current numerical codes that rely on similar subgrid multiphase Inter-Stellar Medium (ISM) models and are tuned to reproduce statistical properties of galaxies, produce similar results for the SFR$-{\rm M}_{\star}$ relation by construction, regardless of resolution, box size and, to some extent, the adopted feedback prescriptions.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 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.