The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Halo model at its best: constraints on conditional luminosity functions from measured galaxy statistics
Open accessAbstract
Using the conditional luminosity function (CLF; the luminosity distribution of galaxies in a dark matter halo) as the fundamental building block, we present an empirical model for the galaxy distribution. The model predictions are compared with the published luminosity function (LF) and clustering statistics from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) at low redshifts, galaxy correlation functions from the Classifying Objects by Medium-Band Observations 17 (COMBO-17) survey at a redshift of 0.6, the Deep Extragalactic Evolutionary Probe 2 (DEEP2) survey at a redshift of unity, the Great Observatories Deep Origins Survey (GOODS) at a redshift around 3 and the Subaru/XMM-Newton Deep Field data at a redshift of 4. The comparison with statistical measurements allows us to constrain certain parameters related to analytical descriptions on the relation between a dark matter halo and its central galaxy luminosity, its satellite galaxy luminosity, and the fraction of early- and late-type galaxies of that halo. With the SDSS r-band LF at Mr < −17, the lognormal scatter in the central galaxy luminosity at a given halo mass in the central galaxy—halo mass, Lc(M), relation is constrained to be 0.17+0.02−0.01, with 1σ errors here and below. For the same galaxy sample, we find no evidence for a low-mass cut-off in the appearance of a single central galaxy in dark matter haloes, with the 68 per cent confidence level upper limit on the minimum mass of dark matter haloes to host a central galaxy, with luminosity Mr < −17, is 2 × 1010h−1M⊙. If the total luminosity of a dark matter halo varies with halo mass as Lc(M) (M/Msat)βs when M > Msat, using SDSS data, we find that Msat= (1.2+2.9−1.1) × 1013 h−1 M⊙ and power-law slope βs= 0.56+0.19−0.17 for galaxies with Mr < −17 at z < 0.1. At z∼ 0.6, the COMBO-17 data allows these parameters for MB < −18 galaxies to be constrained as (3.3+4.9−3.0) × 1013h−1M⊙ and (0.62+0.33−0.27), respectively. At z∼ 4, Subaru measurements constrain these parameters for MB < −18.5 galaxies as (4.12+5.90−4.08) × 1012h−1M⊙ and (0.55+0.32−0.35), respectively. The redshift evolution associated with these parameters can be described as a combination of the evolution associated with the halo mass function and the luminosity—halo mass relation. The single parameter well constrained by clustering measurements is the average of the total satellite galaxy luminosity corresponding to the dark matter halo distribution probed by the galaxy sample. For SDSS, 〈Lsat〉= (2.1+0.8−0.4) × 1010h−2L⊙, while for GOODS at z∼ 3, 〈Lsat〉 < 2 × 1011h−2L⊙. For SDSS, the fraction of galaxies that appear as satellites is 0.13+0.03−0.03, 0.11+0.05−0.02, 0.11+0.12−0.03 and 0.12+0.33−0.05 for galaxies with luminosities in the r′ band from −22 to −21, −21 to −20, −20 to −19 and −19 to −18, respectively. In addition to constraints on central and satellite CLFs, we also determine model parameters of the analytical relations that describe the fraction of early- and late-type galaxies in dark matter haloes. We use our CLFs to establish the probability distribution of halo mass in which galaxies of a given luminosity could be found either at halo centres or as satellites. Finally, to help establish further properties of the galaxy distribution, we propose the measurement of cross-clustering between galaxies divided into two distinctly different luminosity bins. Our analysis shows how CLFs provide a stronger foundation to built-up analytical models of the galaxy distribution when compared with models based on the halo occupation number alone.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Galaxy Groups in the SDSS DR4. I. The Catalog and Basic Properties
Yang, X., Mo, H. J., van den Bosch, F. C., Pasquali, A., Li, C., & Barden, M. (2007) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/522027 · Cited by 985
Dusty star-forming galaxies at high redshift
Casey, C. M., Narayanan, D., & Cooray, A. (2014) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2014.02.009 · Cited by 800
Self-citationMandelbaum, R., Seljak, U., Kauffmann, G., Hirata, C. M., & Brinkmann, J. (2006) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10156.x · Cited by 728
Hopkins, P. F., Cox, T. J., Kereš, D., & Hernquist, L. (2008) · The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · doi:10.1086/524363 · Cited by 408
Galaxy and Mass Assembly (GAMA): the GAMA galaxy group catalogue (G3Cv1)
Robotham, A. S. G., Norberg, P., Driver, S. P., Baldry, I. K., Bamford, S. P., Hopkins, A. M., Liske, J., Loveday, J., Merson, A., Peacock, J. A., et al. (2011) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19217.x · Cited by 379
Metadata
- Authors
- Cooray, A.
- Venue
- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-01-21
- Volume
- 365
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 842-866
- ISSN
- 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2966
- OpenAlex
- W2007345018
- Cited by
- 165
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.59
- 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: Halo model at its best: constraints on conditional luminosity functions from measured galaxy statistics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09747.x
- The paper
- Cooray, A. (2006). Halo model at its best: constraints on conditional luminosity functions from measured galaxy statistics. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09747.x
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.