%0 Generic %1 kawinwanichakij2014distribution %A Kawinwanichakij, Lalitwadee %A Papovich, Casey %A Quadri, Ryan F. %A Tran, Kim-Vy H. %A Spitler, Lee R. %A Kacprzak, Glenn G. %A Labbe, Ivo %A Straatman, Caroline M. S. %A Glazebrook, Karl %A Allen, Rebecca %A Cowley, Michael %A Davé, Romeel %A Dekel, Avishai %A Ferguson, Henry C. %A Hartley, W. G %A Koekemoer, Anton M. %A Koo, David C. %A Lu, Yu %A Mehrtens, Nicola %A Nanayakkara, Themiya %A Persson, S. Eric %A Rees, Glen %A Salmon, Brett %A Tilvi, Vithal %A Tomczak, Adam R. %A van Dokkum, Pieter %D 2014 %K halo mass quenching satellites %T The distribution of satellites around massive galaxies at 1<z<3 in ZFOURGE/CANDELS: dependence on star formation activity %U http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.6056 %X We study the statistical distribution of satellites around star-forming and quiescent central galaxies at 1<z<3 using imaging from the FourStar Galaxy Evolution Survey (ZFOURGE) and the Cosmic Assembly Near-IR Deep Extragalactic Legacy Survey (CANDELS). The deep near-IR data select satellites down to $łog(M/M_ødot)>9$ at z<3. The radial satellite distribution around centrals is consistent with a projected NFW profile. Massive quiescent centrals, $łog(M/M_ødot)>10.78$, have $\sim$2 times the number of satellites compared to star-forming centrals with a significance of 2.7$\sigma$ even after accounting for differences in the centrals' stellar-mass distributions. We find no statistical difference in the satellite distributions of intermediate-mass quiescent and star-forming centrals, $10.48<łog(M/M_ødot)<10.78$. Comparing to the Guo2011 semi-analytic model, the excess number of satellites indicates that quiescent centrals have halo masses 0.3 dex larger than star-forming centrals, even when the stellar-mass distributions are fixed. We use a simple toy model that relates halo mass and quenching, which roughly reproduces the observed quenched fractions and the differences in halo mass between star-forming and quenched galaxies only if galaxies have a quenching probability that increases with halo mass from $\sim$0 for $łog(M_h/M_ødot)\sim$11 to $\sim$1 for $łog(M_h/M_ødot)\sim$13.5. A single halo-mass quenching threshold is unable to reproduce the quiescent fraction and satellite distribution of centrals. Therefore, while halo quenching may be an important mechanism, it is unlikely to be the only factor driving quenching. It remains unclear why a high fraction of centrals remain star-forming even in relatively massive halos.

@misc{kawinwanichakij2014distribution, abstract = {We study the statistical distribution of satellites around star-forming and quiescent central galaxies at 1<z<3 using imaging from the FourStar Galaxy Evolution Survey (ZFOURGE) and the Cosmic Assembly Near-IR Deep Extragalactic Legacy Survey (CANDELS). The deep near-IR data select satellites down to $\log(M/M_\odot)>9$ at z<3. The radial satellite distribution around centrals is consistent with a projected NFW profile. Massive quiescent centrals, $\log(M/M_\odot)>10.78$, have $\sim$2 times the number of satellites compared to star-forming centrals with a significance of 2.7$\sigma$ even after accounting for differences in the centrals' stellar-mass distributions. We find no statistical difference in the satellite distributions of intermediate-mass quiescent and star-forming centrals, $10.48<\log(M/M_\odot)<10.78$. Comparing to the Guo2011 semi-analytic model, the excess number of satellites indicates that quiescent centrals have halo masses 0.3 dex larger than star-forming centrals, even when the stellar-mass distributions are fixed. We use a simple toy model that relates halo mass and quenching, which roughly reproduces the observed quenched fractions and the differences in halo mass between star-forming and quenched galaxies only if galaxies have a quenching probability that increases with halo mass from $\sim$0 for $\log(M_h/M_\odot)\sim$11 to $\sim$1 for $\log(M_h/M_\odot)\sim$13.5. A single halo-mass quenching threshold is unable to reproduce the quiescent fraction and satellite distribution of centrals. Therefore, while halo quenching may be an important mechanism, it is unlikely to be the only factor driving quenching. It remains unclear why a high fraction of centrals remain star-forming even in relatively massive halos.}, added-at = {2014-06-25T09:28:46.000+0200}, author = {Kawinwanichakij, Lalitwadee and Papovich, Casey and Quadri, Ryan F. and Tran, Kim-Vy H. and Spitler, Lee R. and Kacprzak, Glenn G. and Labbe, Ivo and Straatman, Caroline M. S. and Glazebrook, Karl and Allen, Rebecca and Cowley, Michael and Davé, Romeel and Dekel, Avishai and Ferguson, Henry C. and Hartley, W. G and Koekemoer, Anton M. and Koo, David C. and Lu, Yu and Mehrtens, Nicola and Nanayakkara, Themiya and Persson, S. Eric and Rees, Glen and Salmon, Brett and Tilvi, Vithal and Tomczak, Adam R. and van Dokkum, Pieter}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2eda0ccbe554e56a01f9ad21a0b2ce181/miki}, description = {[1406.6056] The distribution of satellites around massive galaxies at 1&lt;z&lt;3 in ZFOURGE/CANDELS: dependence on star formation activity}, interhash = {9630ee10dd2d8244c51b08dc7e0d39e7}, intrahash = {eda0ccbe554e56a01f9ad21a0b2ce181}, keywords = {halo mass quenching satellites}, note = {cite arxiv:1406.6056Comment: 19 pages, 17 figures, Resubmitted to ApJ after responding to referee report. Information on ZFOURGE can be found at http://zfourge.tamu.edu}, timestamp = {2014-06-25T09:28:46.000+0200}, title = {The distribution of satellites around massive galaxies at 1<z<3 in ZFOURGE/CANDELS: dependence on star formation activity}, url = {http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.6056}, year = 2014 }