SDSSとDEEP2で⾒見見た星形成銀河のアウトフロー
菅原悠⾺馬

東京⼤大学  宇宙線研究所  修⼠士２年年⽣生

⼤大内正⼰己、⼩小野宜昭、播⾦金金優⼀一  (東京⼤大学)
Lihwai Lin (Academia Sinica)
Renbin Yan (Kentacky)Figure 25 shows the relationship between visible matter (mainly stellar) mass and DM mass.
The left panel shows the mass function of cold dark matter halos (upper dashed curve) and the
expected baryonic mass function if all galaxies contained the cosmological baryon fraction of ∼ 1/6.
It is well known that the baryon content of galaxies falls short of the cosmological value atall masses. This is shown more directly at right, where Behroozi, Conroy, & Wechsler (2012)
summarize results from many techniques on the stellar-to-DM mass ratios in galaxies, this time asa function of DM halo mass. At a “sweet-spot” DM mass of ∼ 1 × 1012 M⊙ , M∗ /MDM reaches amaximum of 1/5 of the cosmological value. But the stellar mass fraction is smaller at both lowerand higher DM masses. The sweet-spot DM mass corresponds to M∗ ≈ Mbulge ≃ 3 × 1010 M⊙ .
This is in the middle of the M• – Mbulge correlation in Figure 18. So M• shows a simple, log-linear
correlation with Mbulge but a complicated relation with MDM that has a kink at the center of theM• range. This argues that the more fundamental relation is the one between M• and Mbulge .

Introduction

Feedback: Key mechanism to galactic evolution.
Outflows: One of main sources of feedback

Observation

mass loading factor ηWithout
feedback

2<z<40.01
M * / MDM

log N [Mpc-3 M☉-1]

0.1

Behroozi et al. (2010)
Reddick et al. (2012)
Moster et al. 2010 (AM)
Moster et al. 2013 (AM)Guo et al. 2010 (AM)Wang & Jing 2010 (AM+CC)
Zheng et al. 2007 (HOD)
Yang et al. 2012 (CLF)
Yang et al. 2009 (CL)
Hansen et al. 2009 (CL)
Lin & Mohr 2004 (CL)
Behroozi et al. (2012)

0 < z < 0.5

0.001

0.00011010

halomass(log(M/M☉))
Figure25

zoom-insimulation
1110

12

1310101410

halo circ. velocity (log [km/s])

1510

M DM [MO]•Figure 5. Average mass-loading factor (⌘) from 4.0 > z > 2.0 (black), 2.0 > z > 0.5
massfield(Mh , Right)
as theyare at themass
midpointof the intervalin redshift(left)Kormendy
From Read && (2005), the totalgalaxybaryonicfunction(blackpoints)space (zmed = 3 fo&Trentham
Ho 2013
Muratov+2015
triangles show the halos in the zoom in region of m09, m10, and m11. m12v, m12i, anand Schechter (1976) function fit (Bell et al. 2003:dotted curve) compared to the mass spectrum“main” halos are shown as upper limits (see text). Squares show z2h halos in the high-zof cold DM halos from numerical simulations byWeller et al. (2005) and to that DM mass function
end of the interval, but it survived at least as long as the midpoint of the interval. ForIntroduction
Feedback: Key mechanism to galactic evolution.
Outflows: One of main sources of feedback

PURPOSE:
Confirm redshift evolution of Outflow
between at z ~ 0 and at z ~ 1Result
Outflow Velocity

Mass Loading Factor

2.4

1.0

2.3

z~10.8

2.2

z~1

0.6

2.1

0.4

z~0

2.0

0.2

1.9

Likely Evolution

1.8
0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2log SFR [M¤/yr]

1.4

1.6

0.0
2.0z~0Not Likely Evolution
2.1

2.2

2.3

log Vcirc [km/s]

2.4

Method
1.2

1.2

1.1

1.1

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.80.8Na ID

0.7
−1000

−50000.7500

1000

−1000

−5000500

Blueshift absorption
through outﬂow gas

credit: ARC & SDSS

Credit: ESA/ATG medialab

1000

Data
Data

SDSS DR7

Redshift

0.05 < z < 0.18 (z ~ 0) 1.2 < z < 1.4 (z ~ 1)

Metal LineNa ID
λλ 5891.58, 5897.56

Mg II
λλ 2796.35, 2803.53

Selection

Star-forming Galaxylog(⌃SFR ) > 0.5

non-AGN

Total N26791404

Stacked N

150 [S/N = 300]

500

Na ID

DEEP2Mg IIHe I

5870 5880 5890 5900 5910

2790 2795 2800 2805 2810

Absorption Line Model⌧ ( ) = ⌧0 exp

Outflow: Iwind = I0 (1Ce f ⌧+) Cf e ⌧B) ⌧R )✓2(0)( 0 b/c)2◆

Systemic: SDSS (same as above), DEEP2 (emission)
Continuum: single stellar population synthesis model
Total: Igal = Iwind Isys Icont; Igal = Iwind (Isys + Icont )
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8

Rupke, Veilleux,

0.7& Sanders 2005
−1000

−500

0500

1000rest velocity

Fig. 6.—Possible geometries of absorbers along the line of sight. The possibilities are (1) aAbsorption Line Model
1.2

Outflow
Velocity

1.1

Systemic

1.0
0.9
0.8

Outflow

Continuum

Total

0.7−1000−5000

rest velocity

5001000

Absorption Line Model⌧ ( ) = ⌧0 exp

Outflow: Iwind = I0 (1Ce f ⌧+) Cf e ⌧B) ⌧R )✓2(0)( 0 b/c)2

Systemic: SDSS (same as above), DEEP2 (emission)
Continuum: single stellar population synthesis model
Total: Igal = Iwind Isys Icont; Igal = Iwind (Isys + Icont )Fitting parameters of outflow

1.2

Systemic

1.1
1.0
0.9Outflow

0.8

Total

⌧0 : optical depth
Continuum

0.7−1000

Cf : covering factor−5000500

rest velocity

1000: Doppler widthb ✓0vwind =0syssys◆◆

Best Fit
1.2

log SFR = 0.77

1.11

1. 42

1.1

1.0

0.9

0.8
0.7

SDSS
−1000

−500

0500

1.6

1000 −1000

−500

0500

0.63

1.4

1000 −1000

−500

0500

0.85

1000

1.08

1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4

DEEP2−1000−5000500

1000−1000−5000500

1000−1000−50005001000

Outflow Velocity
log Vout [km/s]

2.4
2.3

DEEP2(z ~ 1)

Muratov+2015

2.2
2.1

2.4

SDSS

2.0

face-on(z ~ 0)

2.3
1.9
1.8

2.2
2.1

(z ~ 0)

SDSS
0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

log SFR [M¤/yr]

1.6

log Vcirc [km/s]

Figure 8. Flux-weighted average 50th (left) and 95th (right) percentile wind vel
colouring convention as Fig. 5. Dotted lines show the fits given in equations (9superlinearly with v c , and are normalized such that typical wind velocities range frvelocities between best-fitting lines for 25th and 75th percentile wind velocities.

Vout  (z~∼1)  faster  than  Vout  (z~∼0)  at  4σ  signiﬁcance6 DISCUSSION
2.0
6.1 Comparison to subgrid prescriptions
Due  to  diﬀerence  of  SF  mode?
We present a brief comparison between our results and the subgrid
1.9
prescriptions that have been employed by several other groups (seeffis2r
ACalculation ー mass
Column Density of X (Na I, Mg II)

NX⌧0 b1.497 ⇥ 10 15 sys f

Column Density of Hydrogen

NH = NX ⇥1VNHRGalaxy⇥ 10 dX +log(X/H)

Outflow Rate

Ṁout ' 22 ⇥ Cf M yr
Mass Loading Factor⌘ = Ṁout /SF R

1NHRv
1020 cm 2 5 kpc 300 km/s

2.4

Mass Loading Factor
2.3
1.0

SDSS

0.6

2.2
DEEP2(z ~ 1)
2.1

0.4

2.0log η

0.8

0.2
0.0
2.0

SDSS

face-on(z ~ 0)
2.1

Muratov+2015

1.9
1.8
2.2

2.3

0.6
log Vcirc [km/s]

2.4

0.8

1.0

1.2 1.4 1.6
log Vcirc [km/s]
Figure 5. Average mass-loading factor (⌘) from 4.0 > z > 2.0 (black), 2.0 >mass (Mh , Right) as they are at the midpoint of the interval in redshift space (zmtriangles show the halos in the zoom in region of m09, m10, and m11. m12v,“main” halos are shown as upper limits (see text). Squares show z2h halos in th
end of the interval, but it survived at least as long as the midpoint of the interredshift evolution term (Equations 4 and 5), and evaluate it at z = 3 (black dot
Mh fit is directly converted from the ⌘ vs vc fit (Equations 6 and 7).

Halo circular velocity: Berhoozi+2013, Mo & White 2002

cal quantities as measured at the midpoint of each interval in red-2.4

Mass Loading Factor
2.3
1.0

0.6

0.4

0.20.02.2
2.1
DEEP2 2.0(z ~ 1)

1.9SDSS101

face-on(z ~ 0)

Hayward & Hopkins 2015102

ηlog η0.8

SDSS

100
10−1
10−2
106

M15, z = 3
M15, z = 1.25
M15, z = 0.25
M15, z = 0.25 upper limits
107

108

109
M⋆ /M⊙

1010

1011

1012

log (M* / M☉)
1.8
10.0 10.2 10.4 10.6 10.8 Figure11.0 5. The mass-loading factor, η, versus stellar mass, M , at z = 0.25(solid black), 1.25 (dashed blue), and 3 (dotted green). The mass-loading
0.6 0.8
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
factor values for the FIRE simulations (Muratov et al. 2015) are indicatedlog (M* / M☉)⋆

by the open symbols; the arrows denote upper limits for massive galaxies at z = 0.25. We have assumed that the order-unity parameter φ/F ′in equation (21) is 0.7, as this yields the best agreement with the simulation results. In massive galaxies, outflows are significantly suppressed alow redshift because their gas fractions decrease below the critical value awhich the outflow fraction decreases exponentially (see Fig. 3). The reason for this cutoff is that the turbulent velocity dispersion, σT , required
to provide vertical pressure support decreases with the gas fraction. WhenσT /vc,gal becomes too low, the amount of mass in sufficiently underdense

Theoretical models, “η goes down due to lack of gas”
No such a steep slope

Summary
PURPOSE: Confirm redshift evolution of Outflow
DATA: SDSS (z~0; NaID) & DEEP2 (z~1; MgII)METHOD: Decompose absorption line into 3 components
Calculate Outflow Rate & Velocity
RESULT: Outflow Velocity
Mass Loading Factor

Likely Evolution
Not likely Evolution

NOTE: Different metal absorptions at each z