Cited by 1,243Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesCosmology and Gravitation Theories

UniverseMachine: The correlation between galaxy growth and dark matter halo assembly from z = 0−10

Open access
Behroozi, Peter, Wechsler, Risa H, Hearin, Andrew P, Conroy, Charlie·2019·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Abstract

We present a method to flexibly and self-consistently determine individual galaxies’ star formation rates (SFRs) from their host haloes’ potential well depths, assembly histories, and redshifts. The method is constrained by galaxies’ observed stellar mass functions, SFRs (specific and cosmic), quenched fractions, ultraviolet (UV) luminosity functions, UV–stellar mass relations, IRX–UV relations, auto- and cross-correlation functions (including quenched and star-forming subsamples), and quenching dependence on environment; each observable is reproduced over the full redshift range available, up to 0 < z < 10. Key findings include the following: galaxy assembly correlates strongly with halo assembly; quenching correlates strongly with halo mass; quenched fractions at fixed halo mass decrease with increasing redshift; massive quenched galaxies reside in higher-mass haloes than star-forming galaxies at fixed galaxy mass; star-forming and quenched galaxies’ star formation histories at fixed mass differ most at z < 0.5; satellites have large scatter in quenching time-scales after infall, and have modestly higher quenched fractions than central galaxies; Planck cosmologies result in up to 0.3 dex lower stellar – halo mass ratios at early times; and, none the less, stellar mass–halo mass ratios rise at z > 5. Also presented are revised stellar mass – halo mass relations for all, quenched, star-forming, central, and satellite galaxies; the dependence of star formation histories on halo mass, stellar mass, and galaxy SSFR; quenched fractions and quenching time-scale distributions for satellites; and predictions for higher-redshift galaxy correlation functions and weak lensing surface densities. The public data release (DR1) includes the massively parallel (>105 cores) implementation (the UniverseMachine), the newly compiled and remeasured observational data, derived galaxy formation constraints, and mock catalogues including lightcones.

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/stz1182

Cites

338 of 338 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The total accreted stellar mass is on the low side of, but consistent with, the predictions for Milky Way-mass galaxies by Behroozi et al. 2019 and Moster et al. 2019, who find 1-5 × 10^9 Msun.

    “(which is on the low side of, but consistent with the predictions for Milky Way-mass galaxies by Behroozi et al. 2019 and Moster et al. 2019, who find 1 5 10 9 M )”

    From Kraken reveals itself – the merger history of the Milky Way reconstructed with the E-MOSAICS simulations (2020) · cites this paper as Behroozi et al. 2019

    Section 4.8 (p. 19) predicts the fraction of stellar mass formed ex situ through mergers as a function of halo mass, and the Figure 27 caption (p. 19) identifies that fraction as merger-accreted mass. Our copy does not give the claimed total of 1–5 × 10^9 solar masses for Milky Way-mass galaxies, so it cannot verify that numerical prediction. (LLM, conf=0.81)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Calzetti D., 2001, New Astronomy Review, 45, 601
  2. Haario H., Saksman E., Tamminen J., 2001, Bernoulli, 7, pp. 223
  3. Kravtsov A. V., Vikhlinin A. A., Meshcheryakov A. V., 2018, Astronomy Letters, 44, 8
  4. Wechsler R. H., Tinker J. L., 2018, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 56, 435

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (US)
  • Argonne National Laboratory (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Behroozi, Peter
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2019-05-02
Volume
488
Issue
3
Pages
3143-3194
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
OpenAlex
W2809045192
Cited by
1,243
References
337
Citations by year
2026: 111 · 2025: 222 · 2024: 207 · 2023: 170 · 2022: 187 · 2021: 145 · 2020: 133 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 2
FWCI
70.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (publishedVersion)
  • UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NAS5-26555)
  • Space Telescope Science Institute (HST-HF2-51353.001-A)
  • National Science Foundation (1066293, PHY11-25915)
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DE-AC02-76SF00515)
  • U.S. Department of Energy (DE-AC02-05CH11231)
  • University of Arizona
  • University of California
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  • Brookhaven National Laboratory
  • Carnegie Mellon University
  • University of Florida
  • Harvard University
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
  • New Mexico State University
  • New York University
  • Ohio State University
  • Pennsylvania State University
  • University of Portsmouth
  • Princeton University
  • University of Tokyo
  • University of Utah
  • Vanderbilt University
  • University of Virginia
  • University of Washington
  • Yale University
  • Science and Technology Facilities Council
  • Australian Respiratory Council
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
Keywords
galaxy growth, star formation rate, galaxy quenching, stellar mass-halo mass relation, galaxy correlation function, stellar mass function, quenched fraction, star formation history, stellar mass surface density, high-redshift galaxy evolution

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