Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 306

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The massive end of the luminosity and stellar mass functions: dependence on the fit to the light profile

Open access
Bernardi, M., Meert, A., Sheth, R. K., Vikram, V., Huertas-Company, M., Mei, S., Shankar, F.·2013·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Abstract

In addition to the large systematic differences arising from assumptions about the stellar mass-to-light ratio, the massive end of the stellar mass function is rather sensitive to how one fits the light profiles of the most luminous galaxies. We quantify this by comparing the luminosity and stellar mass functions based on the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) cmodel magnitudes, and PyMorph single-Sérsic and Sérsic-exponential fits to the surface brightness profiles of galaxies in the SDSS. The PyMorph fits return more light, so that the predicted masses are larger than when cmodel magnitudes are used. As a result, the total stellar mass density at z ∼ 0.1 is about 1.2 times larger than in our previous analysis of the SDSS. The differences are most pronounced at the massive end, where the measured number density of objects having M* ≥ 6 × 1011 M⊙ is approximately five times larger. Alternatively, at number densities of 10−6 Mpc−3, the limiting stellar mass is two times larger. The differences with respect to fits by other authors, typically based on Petrosian-like magnitudes, are even more dramatic, although some of these differences are due to sky-subtraction problems, and are sometimes masked by large differences in the assumed M*/L (even after scaling to the same initial mass function). Our results impact studies of the growth and assembly of stellar mass in galaxies, and of the relation between stellar and halo mass, so we provide simple analytic fits to these new luminosity and stellar mass functions and quantify how they depend on morphology, as well as the binned counts in electronic format. While these allow one to quantify the differences which arise because of the assumed light profile, and we believe our Sérsic-exponential based results to be the most realistic of the models we have tested, we caution that which profile is the most appropriate at the high-mass end is still debated.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/mnras/stt1607

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 306

Metadata

Authors
Bernardi, M., Meert, A., Sheth, R. K., Vikram, V., Huertas-Company, M., Mei, S., & Shankar, F.
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2013-09-20
Volume
436
Issue
1
Pages
697-704
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
OpenAlex
W2075026317
Cited by
306
References
2
FWCI
16.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The massive end of the luminosity and stellar mass functions: dependence on the fit to the light profile. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/mnras/stt1607
The paper
Bernardi, M., Meert, A., Sheth, R. K., Vikram, V., Huertas-Company, M., Mei, S., & Shankar, F. (2013). The massive end of the luminosity and stellar mass functions: dependence on the fit to the light profile. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt1607

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.