We present a direct comparison between the observed star formation rate functions (SFRFs) and the state-of-the-art predictions of semi-analytic models (SAMs) of galaxy formation and evolution. We use the PACS Evolutionary Probe Survey and Herschel Multi-tiered Extragalactic Survey data sets in the COSMOS and GOODS-South fields, combined with broad-band photometry from UV to sub-mm, to obtain total (IR+UV) instantaneous star formation rates (SFRs) for individual Herschel galaxies up to z ˜ 4, subtracted of possible active galactic nucleus (AGN) contamination. The comparison with model predictions shows that SAMs broadly reproduce the observed SFRFs up to z ˜ 2, when the observational errors on the SFR are taken into account. However, all the models seem to underpredict the bright end of the SFRF at z ≳ 2. The cause of this underprediction could lie in an improper modelling of several model ingredients, like too strong (AGN or stellar) feedback in the brighter objects or too low fallback of gas, caused by weak feedback and outflows at earlier epochs.

Star formation in Herschel's Monsters versus semi-analytic models

CALURA, FRANCESCO;POZZI, FRANCESCA;FONTANOT, FABIO;MENCI, NICOLA;MONACO, Pierluigi;
2015-01-01

Abstract

We present a direct comparison between the observed star formation rate functions (SFRFs) and the state-of-the-art predictions of semi-analytic models (SAMs) of galaxy formation and evolution. We use the PACS Evolutionary Probe Survey and Herschel Multi-tiered Extragalactic Survey data sets in the COSMOS and GOODS-South fields, combined with broad-band photometry from UV to sub-mm, to obtain total (IR+UV) instantaneous star formation rates (SFRs) for individual Herschel galaxies up to z ˜ 4, subtracted of possible active galactic nucleus (AGN) contamination. The comparison with model predictions shows that SAMs broadly reproduce the observed SFRFs up to z ˜ 2, when the observational errors on the SFR are taken into account. However, all the models seem to underpredict the bright end of the SFRF at z ≳ 2. The cause of this underprediction could lie in an improper modelling of several model ingredients, like too strong (AGN or stellar) feedback in the brighter objects or too low fallback of gas, caused by weak feedback and outflows at earlier epochs.
2015
Pubblicato
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/451/4/3419/1112163
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
gruppioni.2015.MNRAS.451.3419.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: This article has been accepted for publication in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society ©: 2015 The Author(s) Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Royal Astronomical Society. All rights reserved.
Tipologia: Documento in Versione Editoriale
Licenza: Digital Rights Management non definito
Dimensione 347.97 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
347.97 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11368/2868046
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 67
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 65
social impact