Draft version January 18, 2021 Typeset using LATEX twocolumn style in AASTeX63

Quantifying scatter in galaxy formation at the lowest masses

Ferah Munshi,1, 2, 3 Alyson M. Brooks,2 Elaad Applebaum,2 Charlotte R. Christensen,4 Jordan P. Sligh,1 and T. Quinn5

1Homer L. Dodge Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of Oklahoma, 440 W. Brooks St., Norman, OK 73019, USA 2Department of Physics & Astronomy, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 136 Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA 3Department of Physics and Astronomy, Vanderbilt University, PMB 401807, Nashville, TN 37206 4Department of Physics & Astronomy, Grinnell College Grinnell, IA 50112 5Astronomy Department, University of Washington, Box 351580, Seattle, WA, 98195-1580

Abstract We predict the stellar mass – halo mass (SMHM) relationship for dwarf galaxies, using simulated 11 galaxies with peak halo masses of Mpeak = 10 M down into the ultra-faint dwarf range to Mpeak = 7 8 10 M . Our simulated dwarfs have stellar masses of Mstar = 790 M to 8.2×10 M , with correspond- 10 ing V -band magnitudes from −2 to −18.5. For Mpeak > 10 M , the simulated SMHM relationship agrees with literature determinations, including exhibiting a small scatter of 0.3 dex. However, the scatter in the SMHM relation increases for lower-mass halos. We first present results for well-resolved halos that contain a simulated stellar population, but recognize that whether a halo hosts a galaxy is inherently mass resolution dependent. We thus adopt a probabilistic model to populate “dark” halos below our resolution limit to predict an “intrinsic” slope and scatter for the SMHM relation. We fit 8 linearly growing log-normal scatter in stellar mass, which grows to more than 1 dex at Mpeak = 10 M . At the faintest end of the SMHM relation probed by our simulations, a galaxy cannot be assigned a unique halo mass based solely on its luminosity. Instead, we provide a formula to stochastically populate low-mass halos following our results. Finally, we show that our growing log-normal scatter steepens the faint-end slope of the predicted stellar mass function. 11 1. INTRODUCTION halo mass (SMHM) relation for halos of masses & 10 In the Λ Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM) paradigm of cos- M . Additionally, for halos of roughly Milky Way mass mological structure formation, dwarf galaxies are pre- and greater, abundance matching also reproduces clus- dicted to be the smallest, most abundant, yet least lu- tering statistics (e.g., Conroy & Wechsler 2009; Wechsler minous galaxies in the Universe. Attempts to link dwarf & Tinker 2018). galaxies to their parent dark matter halos via abundance However, derivations of the SMHM relation at lower matching have led to discrepancies between theory and masses have yielded discrepancies (e.g., Moster, Naab & observations (e.g., Ferrero et al. 2012; Garrison-Kimmel White 2013; Behroozi, Wechsler & Conroy 2013; Brook et al. 2014a; Papastergis et al. 2015; Brook & Di Cintio et al. 2014; Garrison-Kimmel et al. 2014b; Read et al. 2015). Abundance matching matches a stellar mass or 2017; Jethwa, Erkal & Belokurov 2018). If the SMHM α luminosity at a given abundance to dark matter halos relation has the form Mstar ∝ Mhalo, the range of de- with the same abundance, derived from a dark matter- rived α varies from 1.4 to 3.1 for galaxies smaller than arXiv:2101.05822v1 [astro-ph.GA] 14 Jan 2021 11.5 only simulation. A monotonic relationship is generally Mhalo < 10 M . However, Moster, Naab & White assumed (Guo et al. 2010; Behroozi, Wechsler & Conroy (2013) and Behroozi, Wechsler & Conroy(2013) did not 2013; Moster, Naab & White 2013). Critically, abun- have data in order to derive the SMHM relation below 7 dance matching also assumes that every dark matter stellar masses of a few ×10 M . While their results halo is occupied by a galaxy. Abundance matching stud- are unconstrained at lower masses, the slopes at their ies generally yield fair agreement for the stellar mass-to- lowest measured mass were quite different, α = 1.4 (Behroozi, Wechsler & Conroy 2013) versus α = 2.4 (Moster, Naab & White 2013). Read et al.(2017) find 7 Corresponding author: Ferah Munshi a fairly shallow relation between 10 < Mstar/M < [email protected] 109, with α ≈ 1.2, for field dwarfs in SDSS. They also 2 Munshi et al. derive the halo masses of isolated, local dwarfs via ro- efficiency at these mass scales. Fitts et al.(2018) find 9 tation curve fitting (Read et al. 2016) and find that a similar drop in galaxy formation below Mhalo = 10 the SMHM relation for the individual galaxies is well M . Ocvirk et al.(2020) also find a drop below this halo described by their derived SMHM relation from abun- mass, though at z = 6. However, other simulators have dance matching, including when extrapolated to lower found that galaxies populate lower mass halos, closer to 8 stellar masses. They attribute this match to the fact Mhalo ∼ 10 M (Wheeler et al. 2019; Revaz & Jablonka that they use an isolated galaxy sample, arguing that in- 2018; Katz et al. 2020). Simulations of the low mass cluding galaxies processed in a group environment leads halos at high z have shown that stars can form in even to a steeper SMHM relation. Brook et al.(2014) and lower mass halos at z > 6 (e.g., Wise et al. 2012; Cˆot´e Garrison-Kimmel et al.(2014b), on the other hand, used et al. 2018; Latif & Khochfar 2019; Skinner & Wise 2020; Local Group galaxy data to determine the SMHM rela- Nakatani, Fialkov & Yoshida 2020). 6 8 tion at 10

2017). On the other hand, Nadler et al.(2020) find (UFD) galaxy range for the first time at the low mass that the scatter must be small in order to not overpop- end. We examine both field dwarfs and their satellites, ulate the observed satellite luminosity function (LF) of and satellites around Milky Way-mass galaxies. How- the Milky Way. The inherent steepness of the LF at ever, we make a radical departure from earlier works dwarf scales also has implications for how reionization that assumed that their simulated “dark” halos were proceeded. In order for galaxies to reionize the Universe, those impacted by reionization. Many simulators treat the UVLF likely has to maintain a steep slope down to these dark halos as a prediction of the simulation. In- UV magnitudes as faint as about −10 (e.g., Kuhlen & stead, we assume that our dark halos are impacted by Faucher-Gigu`ere 2012; Robertson et al. 2013; Weisz & our resolution limit, and explore the instrinsic slope and Boylan-Kolchin 2017). Measurements of lensed dwarfs scatter of the SMHM relation including these unresolved at 1 < z < 3 show no break in the UVLF down to a galaxies. UV magnitude of roughly −14 (Alavi et al. 2016). Re- We present our new suites of high resolution simula- sults from lower resolution simulations using the code tions in Section2. In Section3 we show that the scatter adopted in this work show that a LF with no break in the SMHM relation grows as halo mass decreases. We down to −15 can reionize the Universe at a rate consis- quantify the slope and scatter of the SMHM relation, tent with observations (Anderson et al. 2017). In this first for only the galaxies that are well-resolved in our work we quantify the slope and scatter of the SMHM simulation, and then extrapolated to include unresolved relation inherent in our simulations down to the ultra- galaxies. We demonstrate the impact of our predicted faint dwarf range, and explore the impact on the slope scatter on the resulting stellar mass function that can of the stellar mass function. be tested by, e.g., the Vera Rubin Observatory’s Legacy A number of simulators have used baryonic simula- Survey of Space & Time (LSST). In Section4 we dis- tions to show that they match the derived SMHM re- cuss other factors that we have not necessarily explored 10 lation at halo masses above 10 M (e.g., Brook et al. in this paper but may also impact the resulting SMHM 2012; Aumer et al. 2013; Hopkins et al. 2014; Munshi relation. We summarize our results in Section5. et al. 2013), but only a few have examined the SMHM of simulated dwarf galaxies below this mass (Munshi et al. 2. SIMULATIONS 2013; Shen et al. 2014; O˜norbe et al. 2015; Sawala et al. For the first time, we present the full sample of 211 2015). Most works do not examine a large enough sam- dwarf galaxies including both the “Marvel-ous Dwarfs” ple of dwarfs to be able to define a SMHM relation, but zoom simulations, along with the “DC Justice League” can instead only compare to extrapolated abundance Milky Way-mass zoom simulations. The “Marvel-ous matching results. Sawala et al.(2015) studied a larger Dwarfs” (hereafter Marvel) are slightly different than population of dwarfs, tracing halos down to ∼ 108 M . traditional zoom simulations, which generally select one They showed that an abundance matching that used halo of interest and place the highest resolution particles only populated halos leads to placing higher stellar mass on that halo out to a few virial radii. For the Marvel galaxies into halos than traditional abundance matching runs, we instead selected regions of the Universe that (see also Jethwa, Erkal & Belokurov 2018). Considering contain dozens of dwarf galaxies and ran the entire re- only occupied halos and the fact that baryons alter the gion as a zoom-in simulation, with the goal of generating halo mass function (Sawala et al. 2013; Munshi et al. one of the largest samples of simulated dwarf galaxies at 2013; Benson 2020) leads to a SMHM relation that indi- incredibly high resolution. We ran four such simulations cates the typical halo mass at a given stellar mass, unlike (named CptMarvel, Elektra, Rogue, and Storm) within traditional abundance matching that indicates the typi- a WMAP3 cosmology (Spergel et al. 2007), each con- cal stellar mass at a given halo mass. Thus, taking into taining a dozen to a few dozen dwarfs. The most mas- account baryonic effects leads to a SMHM relation that sive galaxies in the Marvel runs are ∼LMC-mass (∼1011 is much shallower at the low mass end than found by M in halo mass), but the high resolution of the simula- traditional abundance matching. tions (60 pc force resolution, gas, initial star, and dark In this paper we address the question: how do galaxies matter masses of 1410 M , 420 M , and 6650 M , re- populate low mass dark matter halos? We do this using spectively) allows galaxies as low as M ∼3000 M a suite of zoomed-in simulations that contain over 200 star (UFDs) to be resolved. A total of 68 Marvel dwarfs are dwarfs, the Marvel-ous Dwarfs and Justice League sim- used in this work, 11 of which are satellites (within the ulations. These simulations were purposely designed to virial radius) of dwarf galaxies. yield a large sample of dwarf galaxies, from LMC-mass The regions selected for the Marvel runs are roughly at the most massive end, down into the ultra-faint dwarf 1.5 to 7 Mpc away from a Milky Way-mass galaxy and 4 Munshi et al. can be considered representative of the Local Volume. tice the requirement that H2 be present restricts stars To complement these regions, we also use four zoom to forming only in gas that reaches a density threshold −3 simulations of Milky Way-mass galaxies and their sur- n > 100 mH cm . The probability, p, of spawning rounding environments (out to ∼1 Mpc), the DC Justice a star particle in a time ∆t is a function of the local League simulations (named after the first four women dynamical time tform: who have served on the US Supreme Court; Sandra, mgas  −c∗X ∆t/t  Ruth, Sonia, and Elena). Two of the DC Justice League p = 1 − e 0 H2 form (1) mstar simulations (Ruth and Sonia) are run at “Near Mint” where m is the mass of the gas particle and m is (NM) resolution, which is slightly lower resolution than gas star the initial mass of the potential star particle. A star for- the Marvel dwarfs (170 pc force resolution, initial gas, mation efficiency parameter, c∗ = 0.1, multiplied by the initial star, and dark matter masses of 2.7×104 M , 8000 0 fraction of non-ionized hydrogen in H , X , gives the M , and 4.2×104 M , respectively) within a Planck cos- 2 H2 correct normalization of the Kennicutt-Schmidt relation mology (Planck Collaboration et al. 2016). However, (Christensen et al. 2014). we include dwarfs from the “Mint” resolution DC Jus- We adopt the “blastwave” supernova feedback ap- tice League (Sandra and Elena) presented in Applebaum proach (Stinson et al. 2006), in which mass, thermal et al.(2021) which have a resolution within a factor of energy, and metals are deposited into nearby gas when two of Marvel (87 pc force resolution and gas, dark, and massive stars evolve into supernovae. The thermal en- initial star particle masses of 3310, 17900, and 994 M , ergy deposited amongst those nearby gas neighbors is respectively). This combined “Mint” and “Near-Mint” 1.5×1051 ergs per supernova event. Subsequently, gas set of 4 simulations yields 143 dwarfs: 64 field dwarfs cooling is turned off until the end of the momentum- (47 of which are backsplash dwarfs of the Milky Way- conserving phase of the supernova blastwave. The cou- mass hosts as defined in Applebaum et al. 2021) and 79 pling of the supernova thermal energy into the interstel- satellites.2 lar medium, combined with the turning off of cooling Both suites of simulations were run with the N-Body in the affected gas particles, is designed to mimic the + SPH code ChaNGa (Menon et al. 2015). ChaNGa effect of energy deposited in the local ISM by all pro- adopts the hydrodynamic modules of Gasoline2 (Wad- cesses related to young stars, including UV radiation sley, Stadel & Quinn 2004; Wadsley, Keller & Quinn from massive stars (see Wise et al. 2012; Agertz et al. 2017) but uses a faster gravity solver, as well as the 2013). charm++ (Kal´e& Krishnan 1993) runtime system for It is the recent success of simulations in matching dynamic load balancing and communication. This al- dwarf galaxy properties (e.g., Governato et al. 2010; lows ChaNGa to scale up to thousands of cores. It is the Brooks & Zolotov 2014; Shen et al. 2014) that allow excellent scalability of ChaNGa that allowed the Mar- us to undertake this work. At the dwarf galaxy scale, vel simulation suite and the “Mint” DC Justice League the different slopes between the observed galaxy stellar simulations to be run. mass function and the ΛCDM predicted halo mass func- Both sets of simulations utilize the gas cooling and tion require that galaxies at halo masses below 1011 M star formation scheme introduced in Christensen et al. have gas cooling and star formation efficiencies much (2012). Metal line cooling and the diffusion of metals lower than those of Milky-Way sized galaxies. While is included (Shen, Wadsley & Stinson 2010), and the this trend was historically difficult to produce in cos- non-equilibrium formation and destruction of molecular mological simulations, recent high resolution cosmolog- hydrogen, H , is followed. We apply a uniform, time- 2 ical simulations that resolve scales on the order of gi- dependent UV field from Haardt & Madau(2012) in ant molecular clouds can include more realistic models order to model photoionization and heating, and the for star formation and feedback, resulting in simulations Lyman-Werner radiation from young stars is tracked. that can successfully reproduce the observed trends in Star formation is restricted to occur only in the presence star formation efficiency (Hopkins et al. 2014; Aumer of H . 2 et al. 2013; Brook et al. 2012; Munshi et al. 2013; Stinson Star formation occurs stochastically when gas parti- et al. 2013; Simpson et al. 2013; Governato et al. 2015; cles become cold (T < 1000 K) and dense (n > 0.1 m H Wheeler et al. 2015; Christensen et al. 2016; Fitts et al. cm−3). Although the density threshold is low, in prac- 2017). The success of models in reproducing reliable and accurate dwarf galaxies lies in the ability to be able to re- 2 Due to different criteria for inclusion and different halo defi- solve the impact of baryonic processes on the interstellar nitions, our sample, while overlapping with Applebaum et al. medium and star formation (Munshi et al. 2014; Chris- (2021), includes fewer galaxies from Sandra and Elena. tensen et al. 2014). When this happens, the simula- Scatter in SMHM 5 tions also simultaneously reproduce additional observed the fainter galaxies, we adopt the simulation stellar mass trends in dwarf galaxies, such as cored dark matter den- because the stellar mass of observed UFDs is generally sity profiles (Governato et al. 2012; Pontzen & Gover- based on resolved star counts rather than photomet- nato 2014; Di Cintio et al. 2014; Maxwell, Wadsley & ric color. Circles represent central (isolated) galaxies, Couchman 2015; O˜norbe et al. 2015; Read, Agertz & squares represent backsplash galaxies, and stars indi- Collins 2016; Dutton et al. 2019) and bulgeless disks cate galaxies that are satellites at z = 0. Smaller data (Brook et al. 2011; Brooks & Christensen 2016). points are galaxies from the two Near Mint DC Jus- In the following sections we show that the stochas- tice League simulations, while the larger data points are ticity of star formation and mass loss of satellites af- from the high resolution Marvel simulations and two ter infall add to the scatter in the relationship between Mint DC Justice League simulations. It can be seen stellar mass and halo mass. We do so with simulations that the brightest galaxies in this sample are roughly 11 that, a priori, require no further tuning to successfully LMC-mass (Mhalo ∼ 10 M ; Kallivayalil et al. 2013; match observed properties, including published mass- Besla 2015; Pe˜narrubiaet al. 2016; Dooley et al. 2017), 5 metallicity relationships (Brooks et al. 2007; Christensen while the faintest galaxies are UFDs (e.g., Mstar < 10 et al. 2018), cold gas fractions (Munshi et al. 2013; M , V & −8; Simon 2019). Brooks et al. 2017), dark matter profile shapes (Gov- The scatter is greatest if using z = 0 halo masses (left ernato et al. 2012), and a host of observed scaling rela- panel), due to the inclusion of satellite galaxies (shown tions for Local Group dwarfs (Applebaum et al. 2021). by stars) that can be stripped of their dark matter after A future work (Munshi et al., in prep.) will present the infall to their parent halo. In some cases subhalos lose Marvel dwarf properties in full detail. more than an order of magnitude in halo mass after in- Individual halos are identified using Amiga’s Halo fall. Stellar masses are more robust, and only those halos Finder3 (AHF, Gill, Knebe & Gibson 2004; Knollmann with significant halo stripping have lost about a factor of & Knebe 2009). Throughout this work, the virial radius two in stellar mass. This is consistent with earlier find- of a halo is defined to be the radius for which the aver- ings that ∼90% of the dark matter mass can be stripped age halo density is 200 times the critical density of the before stars are stripped (Pe˜narrubia,McConnachie & Universe at a given redshift, 200 ρcrit(z). For subha- Navarro 2008; Libeskind et al. 2011; Mu˜noz,Majewski los, AHF identifies the virial radius as the point where & Johnston 2008; Chang, Macci`o& Kang 2013; Brooks the lowest density is reached before the density profile & Zolotov 2014). Considering the peak halo mass (right increases again due to the contribution from the parent panel) for the galaxies reduces the scatter, though the halo. For all halos in this work, we trace back the main lowest mass halos still host almost 2 orders of magnitude progenitor to find the peak halo mass that the halo at- in stellar mass. The peak halo mass is typically used in tained, defined as Mpeak. At each snapshot, the main all previous derivations of SMHM relations, including progenitor is defined to be the halo in the previous step those shown in Figure1. that contains the majority of the particles in the current The galaxies in Figure1 were all chosen to have re- halo. solved star formation histories, which we define to be star formation timescales that span more than 100 Myr. This choice ensures that, despite multiple supernovae 3. RESULTS having occurred, the star formation in these galaxies is In Figure1, we show the stellar mass of the simulated robust to the feedback. This choice will exclude galaxies galaxies as a function of z = 0 halo mass (left panel) from our simulated sample that undergo a single burst and as a function of peak halo mass (right panel). Data of fast star formation and then quench, but it is not points for the simulated galaxies are colored based on clear if such an event is reliable since it is sensitive to 4 the galaxy V -band magnitude at z = 0. The stellar the resolution of the star particles and the feedback pre- masses for dwarfs brighter than a V -band magnitude of scription. In practice, our choice of resolved star for- −8 are calculated using each simulated galaxy’s photo- mation histories leads to a lower limit of 14 star parti- metric color, as described in Munshi et al.(2013). For cles in the Marvel and Mint DC Justice League galax- ies, and 3 star particles in the Near Mint DC Justice 3 AHF is available for download at http://popia.ft.uam.es/ League simulations. Despite the potentially low number AHF/Download.html. of particles in some Near Mint Justice League galaxies, 4 The V -band magnitude is calculated in pynbody (Pontzen et al. the SMHM relation of the faintest DC Justice League 2013), which utilizes the Padova simple stellar population galaxies blends smoothly into the relation of the higher models (Marigo et al. 2008; Girardi et al. 2010) found at 4 http://stev.oapd.inaf.it/cgi-bin/cmd. resolution dwarfs (3 stars is ∼1.5×10 M ), indicating 6 Munshi et al.

Figure 1. Stellar Mass versus Halo Mass. Simulated galaxies are color-coded by their V -band magnitude at z = 0. Left: Stellar masses at z = 0 of the galaxies in the Marvel and Justice League simulations versus their z = 0 halo mass. Right: Stellar masses at z = 0 versus their peak halo mass. In both panels we display results derived in previous works (Read et al. 2017; Jethwa, Erkal & Belokurov 2018; Nadler et al. 2020). The top red contours correspond to P (Mvir|Mstar) and the bottom red contours correspond to P (Mstar|Mvir) from Jethwa, Erkal & Belokurov(2018). The stellar masses of classical dwarfs (with MV brighter than -8) are calculated based on photometric colors (see Munshi et al. 2013), while fainter dwarfs use stellar masses directly from the simulations to mimic resolved star counts in UFDs. Galaxies represented by circles are isolated galaxies at z = 0, while galaxies represented by stars are satellites, and squares are backsplash galaxies of the Milky Way-mass halos. Small points are galaxies from the Near Mint DC Justice League simulations, and larger points are from the Marvel suite and Mint DC Justice League runs. While the scatter is decreased by considering Mpeak, the scatter in the relation increases with decreasing halo mass. that there are no obvious resolution effects impacting At a given halo mass, the scatter in stellar mass is of 10 the SMHM results shown here. We examine the effect order 0.3 dex for halos more massive than ∼ 10 M . of resolution more carefully in AppendixA. The scatter in stellar mass increases to 1.2 dex at the At the faintest end of the SMHM relation presented smallest halo masses for these well-resolved halos. With in Figure1, a galaxy cannot be assigned a unique halo this scatter, there is no longer a single stellar to halo mass based solely on its luminosity. As stellar masses mass relationship for the faintest dwarf galaxies. decline, the range of halo masses that host a given galaxy Garrison-Kimmel et al.(2017) demonstrated the im- increases. Likewise, as halo masses decline, the scatter pact of scatter in the SMHM relation on the resulting in the stellar masses of the simulated galaxies increases. stellar mass function. They explored both a model in which the scatter is constant as a function of halo mass, 3.1. Quantifying the Scatter and a model in which the scatter increases as halo mass In this section we quantify the scatter in our SMHM declines. Clearly, our results favor a model in which relation. We use the Mpeak results for halo masses, as the scatter increases toward low halo masses. Garrison- is commonly adopted for abundance matching or halo Kimmel et al.(2017) quantify the increasing scatter as occupation studies. We use the results from these fits to follows: make predictions presented later in the paper. σ = σ0 + γ(log10Mhalo − log10M1) (2) 3.1.1. Well-resolved Halos where σ is the scatter, γ is the rate as which the scatter Figure1 shows that the scatter in the SMHM relation grows, and M1 is a characteristic mass above which the increases with decreasing halo mass. To quantify the scatter remains constant, at a value σ0. We fit our rela- scatter, we assume that stellar masses can be described tionship with a broken power law which breaks at M1 = 10 by log-normal scatter about a mean SMHM relation. 10 M . Our high mass slope is 1.9 above the knee, and Scatter in SMHM 7 the low mass slope is 2.0 below the knee. Above M1, we below our stellar mass resolution. In doing so, we are assume a constant scatter of σ0 = 0.3 dex, consistent able to avoid making assumptions about the halo oc- with scatter studies at higher masses (Behroozi, Wech- cupation fraction as a function of mass, which in sim- sler & Conroy 2013), though at the highest masses, the ulations is a function of underlying physics as well as scatter may actually be much smaller (Bradshaw et al. resolution. We discuss this further below. 2020). Using Eqn.2 with the well-resolved simulated For the SMHM relation below log(Mpeak) = 10, we galaxies yields γ = −0.43. find our parameters θ (i.e., the slope α and scatter The knee in our SMHM at M1 corresponds visibly to growth rate γ) with the following procedure. We divide a knee in our resolved halos (see also Figures2 and5). the SMHM space into Nk = Ni × Nj bins, with bins Our knee corresponds to a halo mass above which all i ∈ {1, ..., Ni} in log(Mpeak) and bins j ∈ {1, ..., Nj} in halos in our simulations host a galaxy, but not below. log(Mstar). We count the number of galaxies in each bin We discuss the origin of the knee further in Section 4.2. k = (i, j). The likelihood of finding the set of simulated Using only the halos that are well-resolved from a sim- galaxies, n, given our SMHM model parameters, θ, is ulation is inherently resolution-dependent. We address Nk this in the section below. However, the results of us- Y P (n|θ) = P (nk|λk), (3) ing only the well-resolved halos confirm that the scatter k=1 is in fact growing, and can be described by log-normal growing scatter. where nk is the number of simulated galaxies in bin k, and λk is the mean number of galaxies in bin k predicted by the model at a given θ. The likelihood assumes that 3.1.2. All Halos nk is complete in the stellar mass range of the bin, with Next we extend the discussion to include dark halos: no systematic undercounts due to resolution issues. The because of limited resolution, some or all of our dark counts in each bin can be modeled by a Poisson distri- halos may in fact host a galaxy with a stellar mass be- bution, so that low our mass resolution. As such, we seek to estimate nk −λk λk e the underlying SMHM relation in a way that is fully P (nk|λk) = . (4) independent of our resolution. To address this, we take nk! the limiting assumption that our unresolved halos would Let ξ(m|Θ) give the mean log stellar mass at a given be populated if we were not limited by our mass reso- log halo mass, m. Since the range of possible stellar lution and model (subgrid) assumptions. This limiting masses are normally distributed about ξ(m), the prob- assumption is supported by earlier work (Jethwa, Erkal ability that a halo with mass m, in bin i, will host a & Belokurov 2018; Nadler et al. 2020) that shows that galaxy in stellar mass bin j (with bin upper and lower 8 all surviving halos down to Mpeak = 3×10 M , must be limits of u and `, respectively), will be occupied in order to match the completeness-corrected Z ` abundance of Milky Way satellites. Assuming fully pop- p(j|m, θ) = N (ξ(m), σ) = F (`) − F (u), (5) ulated halos steepens the best-fit SMHM relation at low u masses (below the knee, where halos start to become un- where F (x) is the cumulative density function of the occupied) due to the inclusion of less massive galaxies normal distribution with mean µ and standard deviation at a given halo mass. σ, As in the previous section, we model the SMHM as 1  x − µ a broken power law. For log(M ) ≥ 10, for which F (x|µ, σ) = 1 + erf √ . (6) peak 2 σ 2 all halos in our simulations host galaxies (see Figure4), The expected number of galaxies in bin k = (i, j) ac- we fit one slope. For log(Mpeak) < 10, we fit another 5 slope, with growing scatter according to equation (2). cording to our model is therefore We enforce continuity at the break in both the mean λk = ni p(j), (7) stellar mass, and the scatter, so that we apply equation (2) with log M1 = 10, σ0 = 0.3. where ni is the total number of halos in log(Mpeak) bin We fit the SMHM relation in a manner that does i, including dark and occupied halos. not assign individual (unresolved) stellar masses to dark halos. Rather, we assume that stellar masses are log- 5 Formally, we would have to calculate p(j) separately for every m normally distributed along the entire relation, including in bin i. In practice, it is sufficient to calculate it once for each for halos that form no stars in our simulations. “Dark” bin, using the mean m of the bin. Our results are insensitive to halos are treated as populated galaxies that are merely bin size, indicating this approximation is robust. 8 Munshi et al.

9 values were fixed as boundary conditions). The best-fit relation is shown in Figure2. As expected, this rela- 8 tion is steeper than just fitting to occupied halos, which

] bias the underlying relation to higher, resolved masses. 7

M Readers may further explore how resolution and scatter [

r can bias the inferred slope of the SMHM in an interac- a t 6 7 s tive applet , which allows users to adjust parameters of M

a basic SMHM toy model.

g 5 o l 3.1.3. Comparison to Previous Work 4 Our fit to all halos has growing log-normal scatter to- ward lower halo masses, and reaches σ > 1.0 dex at 3 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 log(Mpeak) = 8. We are not aware of any other simula- log Mpeak [M ] tions that have allowed scatter to be quantified in the SMHM relation at these low masses, but we can compare Figure 2. Stellar mass versus halo mass with fitted relation. our results to simulations of isolated dwarfs at varying We show the z = 0 stellar masses and peak halo masses of all masses. The large scatter in our simulations encom- simulated galaxies (including galaxies that did not meet the passes the range seen by Rey et al.(2019), who found “well-resolved” criteria for Figure1). The solid line shows the best-fit mean relation following the fitting procedure that that a single ultra-faint dwarf galaxy could vary by an 9 accounts for the presence of “dark” halos; see Section 3.1.2 order of magnitude in stellar mass at Mpeak = 1.5 × 10 for details. The solid band shows the best-fit log-normal M . Likewise, the simulated dwarf galaxies of Revaz & scatter in stellar mass (NB: the band does not represent un- Jablonka(2018) and the NIHAO galaxies in Buck et al. certainty in the best-fit SMHM relation). The best-fit re- (2019) show a comparable amount of scatter in Mstar at lation is a broken power law separated at log(M ) = 10. 9 peak a z = 0 halo mass of 10 M as in our Figure1. Our The high-mass end is described by a slope α = 1.9 and con- galaxies extend to slightly lower stellar masses than Re- stant scatter σ = 0.3 dex, and the low-mass end by α = 2.81 vaz & Jablonka(2018) as might be expected due to our and σ given by equation (2) with γ = −0.39, σ0 = 0.3, and higher stellar mass resolution. The spread in Buck et al. log M1 = 10. Accounting for dark halos steepens the under- lying SMHM relation. (2019) is comparable to our Figure1, despite their lower resolution, because they plot galaxies with as few as one To summarize, our likelihood is given by equations (3) star particle, while our Figure1 shows only well-resolved and (4), with the model galaxy counts given by equa- galaxies. tion (7). We fit to galaxy counts6 in the range 7.5 ≤ On the other hand, Fitts et al.(2017) simulated 15 10 log(M ) ≤ 11 and 5 ≤ log(M ) ≤ 9. We find field dwarfs with halo masses ∼ 10 M and a range of peak star 5−7 the best-fitting parameters using the affine-invariant halo concentrations, and found a range of Mstar = 10 Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampler emcee M , as well as one dark halo. This appears inconsistent (Foreman-Mackey et al. 2013), assuming flat priors in with our fixed scatter of 0.3 dex at a similar halo mass. the region 0 < α < 5 and −2 < γ < 0. We run 104 The FIRE scheme used by Fitts et al.(2017) is stronger steps using 32 walkers, and discard a burn-in period of and burstier in dwarf galaxies than in the Marvel and 500 steps, or ∼15 times the autocorrelation length. Justice League simulations (Iyer et al. 2020), resulting Using the above procedure, the best-fit SMHM below in a steeper SMHM relation in FIRE than presented +0.12 here, as was also noted by Revaz & Jablonka(2018). log(Mpeak) = 10 has a slope α = 2.81−0.11, with a grow- ing scatter given by equation (2), with γ = −0.39+0.05, The distribution of stellar masses in Fitts et al.(2017) −0.06 is also not well described by a log-normal distribution, log M1 = 10, and σ0 = 0.3 dex (recall, the latter two but rather with a distribution that peaks at higher Mstar and has a tail to low Mstar. This again may be due to the 6 We found that binning above log(Mstar) = 5 led to converged stronger feedback in FIRE, but may also be influenced results, while including fainter galaxies in the fit led to a steeper by their chosen range of halo concentration. slope (we also found varying the lower bounds on log(Mpeak) had little effect). We interpret this to mean that we have resolved By matching Local Group galaxies to the ELVIS cat- all galaxies above log(Mstar) = 5, and below this there is an alog (Garrison-Kimmel et al. 2014a), Garrison-Kimmel extended (i.e., non-step function) transition until we no longer et al.(2014b) found that a large log-normal scatter resolve any galaxies. While our model accounts for unresolved galaxies, it does so by assuming that the bin counts are complete in our fit region. 7 Available at https://github.com/emapple/smhm-toy-model. Scatter in SMHM 9 of 2 dex, constant across Mpeak, alleviated abundance et al. 2015; Drlica-Wagner et al. 2015); with large scat- matching discepancies. If there is no scatter in the ter, low-mass halos host satellite galaxies that scatter SMHM relation, then the number of predicted Lo- to observable luminosities too often, and they were un- cal Group and Local Field galaxies in the range 5 < able to reproduce the satellite LF of the Milky Way. log(Mstar/M ) < 6 is larger than currently observed. The Milky Way may (Carlsten et al. 2020; Mao et al. Increasing the scatter to 2 dex while steepening the 2020) or may not (Wang et al. 2021) have a typical satel- SMHM relation reduces the predicted number, because lite LF for a galaxy of its luminosity, but the four Jus- the halo mass function is steep in CDM, causing more tice League simulations used here have been shown to low mass halos to scatter up than high mass halos to match the range of satellite LFs of observed Milky Way- scatter down. Therefore, a given stellar mass is hosted mass galaxies (Akins et al. 2020; Applebaum et al. 2021). by lower mass halos than might otherwise be expected. Nadler et al.(2020) derived their constraints using only Likewise, (Jethwa, Erkal & Belokurov 2018) find that two Milky Way realizations, which could impact their scatter in the SMHM relation leads to the inference of scatter results. A full accounting of this discrepancy a shallow SMHM relation if we measure halo mass at a requires further exploration. given stellar mass, P (Mvir|Mstar). They find that scat- ter can help to explain the fact that faint field dwarfs 3.2. Scatter and the Stellar Mass Function (Ural et al. 2015; Read et al. 2016) are sitting in lower In this subsection, we use our predicted slopes and mass halos than might otherwise be expected. scatter in the SMHM relation in order to calculate a pre- At face value, our results appear to be in tension with dicted stellar mass function (SMF). To do this, we draw Nadler et al.(2020), who found that the scatter in stellar 1000 random halos with 107.8 ≤ M ≤ 1011.5 from mass (or luminosity, which is the quantity they used peak the ELVIS catalogs (Garrison-Kimmel et al. 2014b), and instead) must be small, σ < 0.2 dex, at all halo masses. populate them with stellar masses according to our pre- There are a couple of differences in our analysis that can dicted SMHM slopes and scatter. The resulting SMFs bring our results closer together, though not necessarily are shown in Figure3 for three cases: (i) no scatter in the reconcile the difference. First, they anchor their growing SMHM relation (“No Scatter”), (ii) constant log-normal scatter model at a larger M value of 1011 M , while we 1 scatter of 0.6 dex in M at a given M (“Constant anchor at a lower mass of 1010 M . If we consider that star peak Scatter”), and (iii) adopting our results for growing scat- γ is the rate of change of scatter, including the higher ter from Section 3.1.2 (“Growing Scatter”). For the mass halos where scatter is essentially constant should Growing Scatter case, recall that we adopt a slope of the decrease γ as the scatter does not grow between 1011 SMHM α = 1.9 for halos from 10 < log(M ) < 11.5. M to 1010 M . Fitting all of our resolved halos with a peak We adopt a steeper slope of α = 2.8 at lower halo masses, single slope and growing scatter model anchored at 1011 utilizing the slope derived from probabilistically popu- M (instead of growing scatter only below the knee, lating halos below our resolution limit. The scatter is anchored at 1010 M ), our value for γ decreases from constant at 0.3 dex above M = 1010 M , and linearly -0.39 to to -0.21. 1 grows below this halo mass, i.e., γ = −0.38. We gen- Also, Nadler et al.(2020) examine scatter in luminos- erate each SMF 1000 times, and show in the solid lines ity as a function of v , while we are tracing based on peak the median relation with the inner 68% range indicated M . Previous works have shown that M correlates peak star by the dashed lines. We have scaled each SMF so that more strongly with v , due to the effects of halo as- peak they have 12 galaxies above 107 M , consistent with the sembly bias (e.g., Chaves-Montero et al. 2016; Reddick number within 1 Mpc of the Milky Way. et al. 2013). This correlation should lead to smaller Garrison-Kimmel et al.(2017) demonstrated that scatter in the M - v relation than in the SMHM star peak large scatter in the SMHM relation impacts the observed relation. We have verified that our scatter is reduced SMF. Due to the rapidly rising halo mass function, there when using v , e.g., decreasing our scatter above the peak are more small halos available to scatter to larger stel- knee from 0.3 dex to 0.17 dex. However, our scatter still lar masses than large halos to scatter to lower stellar increases below the knee, blowing up to over 1 dex at masses, an effect that is increasingly noticeable as scat- the lowest v values we trace, as with M . Thus, peak peak ter increases. The change from the No Scatter case to while the change in variables can explain some difference the Constant Scatter case amounts to a uniform shift up- in the results, it does not explain it all. wards in the number of galaxies of a given stellar mass Finally, Nadler et al.(2020) found that the scatter in log space in the SMF. This shift upwards disappears must be small to reproduce the observed LFs of Pan- after we rescale the SMF to N = 12 for M > 107 M , STARRS1 and the Dark Energy Survey (DES, Bechtol star which is why the No Scatter and Constant Scatter mean 10 Munshi et al.

300

200

100 r a t s

M 50 > N

20 No Scatter Constant Scatter Growing Scatter 10 104 105 106 107 Mstar [M ] Figure 3. The effect of SMHM scatter on the predicted stellar mass function. Constant Scatter is very similar to No Scatter, both in slope and normalization. Growing Scatter, however, steepens the SMF. We generate each SMF 1000 times, and show in the solid lines the median relation and in the dashed lines the inner 68% range. We have additionally scaled each SMF so that 7 they have 12 galaxies above 10 M , consistent with the number within 1 Mpc of the Milky Way. The shaded region represents the approximate discovery space of UFD galaxies.

SMF lie on top of each other in Figure3 (note that this 4. DISCUSSION will occur no matter the magnitude of the scatter chosen In this section we discuss various factors that might for the Constant Scatter case). If scatter is not constant, influence our predicted SMHM relation. however, and grows with decreasing halo mass, then the shift in the SMF is not uniform. Hence, the Growing 4.1. Occupation Fraction Scatter SMF steepens in Figure3. The occupation fraction in the real Universe— i.e., the Our scatter grows in such a way that it only reaches fraction of halos at a given mass that host a galaxy—is relatively large scatter (> 1 dex) at very low halo masses dependent on many physical processes (discussed fur- that host primarily UFD galaxies. This is where the ther below), including the physics of star formation, scatter begins to have a noticeable impact on the stellar gas cooling, self-shielding, and the strength and timing mass function, compared to the Constant Scatter and of reionization. Quantifying this “intrinsic” occupation No Scatter cases. The mass range where there is great- fraction in a cosmological simulation would require the est difference between SMFs corresponds to luminosities ability to resolve large numbers of both the smallest ha- where current observations are incomplete, but are be- los that can host galaxies as well as the smallest stellar ing or will be probed by surveys like DES, HSC-SSP, or mass that can constitute a galaxy, which is still observa- with the Vera Rubin Observatory(Tollerud et al. 2008; tionally unconstrained. Given that galaxies have been Walsh, Willman & Jerjen 2009). In Figure3, we shade observed with masses as low as ∼102 M (e.g. Drlica- the mass region of the new dwarf satellites that have Wagner et al. 2015; Homma et al. 2018; Longeard et al. been found in the first two years of the DES (Bechtol 2018), cosmological simulations to date do not have the et al. 2015; Drlica-Wagner et al. 2015). Tollerud et al. ability to reliably resolve the intrinsic occupation frac- (2008) estimates that such faint dwarf galaxies should tion. Rather, whether a halo is “occupied” or “dark” in be observed out to ∼1 Mpc by the Vera Rubin Obser- the simulations is subject to resolution. vatory’s LSST after the full co-added data are collected. We show this simplistically in Figure4 by choosing Thus, the slope of the SMF, when complete, can pos- various threshold stellar masses below which all dark sibly constrain the magnitude of scatter in the SMHM, matter halos are devoid of stars (i.e., don’t host a and possibly the smallest halo which hosts a galaxy. galaxy). This, in effect, is varying the mass resolution Scatter in SMHM 11

1.0 Assume "dark" below: dotted line in Figure4. While our higher resolution sim- log Mstar = 4 0.8 ulations have z = 0 star particle masses as low as 174 log Mstar = 5 log M = 6 M , the occupation fraction inferred from the simula- 0.6 star c c log Mstar = 7 tions drops to zero at substantially higher M than o peak f 0.4 1 star particle Nadler+ 2020 Nadler et al. This is because we start to be unable to 0.2 resolve galaxies that have low stellar mass that would reside in halos with M < 109 M . This motivates 0.0 peak 7 8 9 10 11 the approach we have taken in this work, in which we do log Mpeak [M ] not impose an occupation fraction a priori, nor do we impose the occupation fraction explicitly defined by our Figure 4. The dependence of occupation fraction on simu- simulations, as we know this to be resolution dependent. lation resolution. As simulations have finite mass resolution, Instead, we assume that stellar masses are log-normally the minimum mass of an occupied halo is inherently tied to resolution. We demonstrate that the simulated occupation distributed along the entire SMHM relationship, as our fraction changes significantly when the minimum resolvable resolved halos show a log-normal growing scatter. In do- stellar mass (and in effect, the mass resolution) is varied. ing so, we treat dark halos as populated, but populated Both the peak halo mass where galaxies go “dark” and how below our resolution limit. This approach then allows us sharply the curve declines to zero are affected. The sharpness to make predictions for the SMF to highlight the effect of the decline increases as resolution decreases as a result of scatter in the SMHM relation, removing the effect of of the decreasing scatter in the SMHM relation at higher a resolution-dependent occupation fraction. masses. In the dotted line we show the occupation frac- tion that we would infer from the simulations if we assumed We note that this approach of treating the occupation that halos that host at least 1 star particle contain galaxies. fraction as resolution dependent is very different to what For comparison, we show the occupation fraction inferred has been assumed in the past. It has long been thought by Nadler et al.(2020), which is constrained by Milky Way that reionization should remove baryons from low mass observations. halos, leaving a population of low mass halos that are completely “dark” and without a galaxy. Early works for galaxies in our simulations. We also indicate (black suggested that the halo mass cutoff for galaxy formation dashed line) the occupation fraction we would infer from was fairly massive (e.g., Benson et al. 2002; Somerville our simulations if we did not recognize that it is reso- et al. 2004). The idea that reionization should imprint lution dependent, assuming all halos with at least one itself at a halo mass that is somewhere on the order of 8 8 10 star particle host a galaxy. As we increase the threshold 10 to 10 M has persisted, leaving simulators (e.g., stellar mass, not only does the halo mass where galax- Sawala et al. 2015) to treat their halo occupation frac- ies go “dark” increase, the sharpness of the simulated tions as predictions rather than recognizing the resolu- occupation fraction becomes closer to a step function. tion dependence inherent in the results. It is only the re- The sharper decline comes from the smaller scatter in cent reconciliation of observed UFD galaxy counts with the SMHM relation at higher stellar masses. halo counts that have forced a re-examination of this as- Both Jethwa, Erkal & Belokurov(2018) and Nadler sumption (see also Kim, Peter & Hargis 2018; Newton et al.(2020), using observations combined with a model et al. 2018; Read & Erkal 2019). for the galaxy-halo connection, find that essentially However, if some halos with peak mass greater than 8 8 all halos with peak mass above ∼3 × 10 M need 10 M are truly dark, then this will have a strong im- to host a galaxy in order to be consistent with the pact on the resulting SMF. For example, Munshi et al. completeness-corrected observations of dwarf galaxies. (2019) showed that the star formation prescription we Jethwa et al. followed galaxies down to MV = −1.5, use in this work, in which H2 must be present for stars while Nadler et al. modeled galaxies as faint as MV = 0 to form, inhibits the formation of UFD galaxies in halos (Mstar ∼ 100 M ). Our simulations are unable to re- with log Mhalo > 8.5. They also showed that a dif- solve galaxies this faint. The inferred occupation frac- ferent star formation prescription, which required high tion derived by Nadler et al.(2020) is shown by the blue densities and low temperatures but not necessarily the presence of H2, allowed galaxies to form in halos at least an order of magnitude lower in mass. It is not clear that 8 We use all halos with one star particle despite the two different resolutions used in this work. The lower resolutions simulations either of these models is truly reflective of star formation will reach zero occupation at a slightly higher Mpeak than the in UFDs, but the result demonstrates that there may be higher resolution simulations, but the number of halos in that an influence beyond reonization that impacts the halo mass range is so large that it has little impact on f . occ occupation distribution. A comparison of our Figure3 12 Munshi et al. with Figure 6 of Munshi et al.(2019) shows that occu- a Milky Way-mass galaxy, meaning that, in a more re- pation fraction can have a much stronger impact on the alistic reionization scenario, they are in a lower den- resulting SMF than the large scatter in the low mass sity region that may not ionize as early as the higher SMHM relation we have found in this work. density regions surrounding the Justice League Milky Ways. The fact that our full sample blurs out the knee in 4.2. Reionization the SMHM relation more than near individual massive galaxies (compare Figure1 to AppendixA) likely points Our SMHM relation has a bend at ∼ 1010 M be- to environmental dependence on reionization at a fixed low which the slope of the SMHM steepens. This is halo mass even with our spatially uniform UV back- true independent of cosmology or resolution, as can be ground. However, a more realistic reionization model seen in AppendixA, where the knee is readily apparent. may allow some of our dark halos in our lower density This knee is also reflected in the full sample in Figure regions to form stars. Benitez-Llambay & Frenk(2020) 1, though the large number of dwarf galaxies and large explicitly look at the effect of reionization on the z = 0 scatter at low masses make it less obvious visually. This occupation fraction, and find that it varies with how knee in the relationship, dividing the SMHM into two early or late reionization begins. Understanding the im- slopes, is an expected result of reionization. There will pact of reionization will require further simulations and be some halo mass (the knee) below which star forma- study, but will be essential to explore the uncertain- tion is suppressed, either due to gas loss, gas suppres- ties that will impact the interpretation of LSST obser- sion, and/or gas ionization. Gnedin(2012) finds that vations. the contribution of ionized gas becomes significant in −1 10 galaxies with vmax ∼ 40 − 50 km s . Our knee at 10 −1 M corresponds to vmax ∼ 40 km s . The onset of reionization more strongly impacts the earlier forming 4.3. Star Formation and Feedback Model (i.e., lower mass) halos (Bose, Deason & Frenk 2018; As discussed in Section 4.1, Munshi et al.(2019) Bose et al. 2020; Benitez-Llambay & Frenk 2020). The finds that there is a significant reduction in overall ef- impact of reionization at a given halo mass may depend ficiency of star formation in simulated UFD galaxies on local density and timing of the onset of reionization when adopting a non-equilibrium H2-based star forma- (discussed below), but it follows that there should be tion prescription relative to a prescription that adopts two different slopes in the SMHM relation, with a knee a temperature-density threshold. The reduction in star below which reionization is suppressing star formation formation in the H2 model is due the long formation in halos (see also Garrison-Kimmel et al. 2019). times of H2 at low metallicities in low mass halos. This As discussed in Munshi et al.(2019), many of the low yields a significant difference in the number of predicted mass halos in our H2 star formation model are not able galaxies at low masses and results in a different pre- to form stars before reionization prevents them from do- dicted SMF between the two star formation recipes. In ing so. This implies that our results are sensitive to this paper, we adopt the same H2 based star formation our selected reionization model. We have adopted the model as in Munshi et al.(2019) across all 8 volumes, same model in all simulation volumes, following Haardt and use our large sample of dwarf galaxies to test the & Madau(2012). However, Haardt & Madau(2012) effect of the slope and scatter of the SMHM on the pre- has been shown to heat the IGM earlier (z ∼ 15) than dicted SMF. Figure3 shows that there is no appreciable it should (O˜norbe et al. 2015), potentially making the change in the faint-end slope of the SMF or number of impact of reionization particularly strong on our results. predicted UFDs when considering No Scatter versus the Arguably the more important limitation of our reion- Constant Scatter case. However, in the Growing Scat- ization model is the fact that it is uniform throughout ter case, the SMF is steepened towards lower masses. A the simulation volume. This is common for cosmologi- comparison with Figure 6 of Munshi et al.(2019) shows cal galaxy simulations, as the radiative transfer required that the occupation fraction imposed by star formation to explicitly follow patchy reionization is computation- prescription can have a much larger effect on the num- ally expensive. Simulations that self-consistently model ber of predicted UFDs: the large scatter in the SMHM reionization find that the baryon fraction of low mass relation derived in this paper impacts the number of halos is highly dependent on the timing of reionization UFDs by ∼25%. The star formation prescription con- due to local densities, with suppression due to reion- tributes a comparable change if the slope of the SMHM ization occurring earlier in higher density environments relation is unchanged. If the star formation prescription (Wu et al. 2019; Katz et al. 2020; Ocvirk et al. 2020). also changes the slope of the SMHM relation, then the The Marvelous Dwarfs are ∼ 1.5 − 7 Mpc away from number of UFDs can be a factor of 2-3 different. Scatter in SMHM 13

Alternatively, Byrne et al.(2019) demonstrate that ty- In summary, how galaxies populate dark matter ha- ing star formation to shielded gas rather than the pres- los in simulations is not only resolution dependent, but ence of H2 allows stars to form in lower density gas. This also tied to both star formation model and reionization. may change the resulting SMHM in the regime where Since our choice of star formation model and our reion- dwarf galaxies do not self-regulate. Latif & Khochfar ization model can affect the slope and scatter of halos we (2019) find H2 self-shielding is critical: in addition to predict, we are unable to say that the number of UFDs the delay in star formation, the collapse and evolution predicted in this paper is exactly what LSST should ex- of halos is tied to the strength of the UV background. pect to find. However we can constrain the effect of Furthermore, our H2 model does not let stars form (at scatter in the SMHM relation on predictions compared 8 our current resolution) in halos below 10 M at z = 6. to a no scatter case as long as our underlying models Skinner & Wise(2020) and Latif & Khochfar(2019) and assumptions remain constant. show halos below this mass should be forming Pop III stars, which are not included in our model. Both em- 5. SUMMARY phasize the balance between UV flux and self-shielding In this paper, we use a large sample of extremely high that sets the halo mass that can form stars, and thus resolution simulated dwarf galaxies (LMC-mass to ultra- the z = 0 occupation fraction. These results emphasize faint dwarfs) in a range of environments in order to pre- that the number of newly discovered UFDs by LSST will dict the SMHM relation at low halo masses. This is the place constraints on both the process of star formation first prediction of the SMHM relation for dwarf galaxies and the UV background at high redshift. this low in mass at z = 0, and the first time that the scat- In addition to star formation recipe, feedback strength ter at the low mass end has been robustly quantified. In and implementation varies between simulations. Galaxy doing so, we demonstrate that (1) derived SMHM rela- stellar masses are sensitive to specific feedback imple- tions cannot be simply extrapolated from higher masses mentations. For example, Agertz et al.(2020) find to lower masses, and thus (2) the halo mass of a faint that varying feedback models changes the stellar mass dwarf galaxy cannot be inferred a priori. of their test halo by over 1 dex, but still within the Our SMHM relation is best fit by including a break in scatter of our SMHM relation. In simulations run with the slope of the SMHM relation. This break corresponds ChaNGa and Gasoline, superbubble feedback (Keller to a visible knee in the relation, above which all halos et al. 2014) leads to a factor of ∼2 reduction in stellar are occupied by simulated galaxies, and below which we mass in Milky Way-like halos (Keller, Wadsley & Couch- start encountering dark halos. This knee is the natural man 2015). Mina et al.(2020) simulate dwarf galaxies consequence of reionization. The details of the reion- using superbubble feedback, and they find that it has ization model will matter for the exact location of the a varying effect on the SMHM relation. A larger sam- knee. In this work, in which we adopt a uniform UV ple is needed to assess any potential systematic effect background based on Haardt & Madau(2012), we find of superbubble feedback on dwarf stellar masses. Spe- a break at a halo mass of 1010 M . The slope above cific results may also be sensitive to feedback details like the knee is α = 2.0, and below the knee it steepens to the inclusion of radiative feedback: For example, Smith α = 2.8. et al.(2020) shows that ionizing radiation reduces super- The scatter in stellar mass at a given (peak) halo mass nova clustering, leading to suppressed supernova-driven is constant above the knee at 0.3 dex. Below the knee, outflows, while Smith, Sijacki & Shen(2019) stress that some halos may truly be dark due to reionization, but it the strength of supernova feedback in dwarfs may also is also likely that these low mass halos can host galaxies be highly dependent on ISM turbulence, runaway mas- that are below our mass resolution limit. Assuming that sive stars, and early stellar feedback. To constrain these all halos are occupied, and that the log-normal scatter varying physical processes, it may be that a more de- that grows linearly about our best fit slope of α = 2.8 tailed accounting of the observed stellar mass fraction below the knee, the rate of increase in scatter is quanti- as a function of halo mass (e.g., Read & Erkal 2019; fied by γ, where γ = −0.38 (see Eqn.2). Romeo, Agertz & Renaud 2020) is required. When using z = 0 halo masses, the scatter in the rela- Finally, coupled with non-supernova feedback, the tion is much larger, due to the inclusion of satellite and effects of IMF sampling on star formation are more backsplash galaxies in the SMHM relation. The satel- difficult to predict (Smith 2020). Applebaum et al. lites of both our dwarf and Milky Way galaxies as well as (2020) shows that implementing a stochastically popu- backsplash galaxies can lose substantial mass after infall, lated IMF in ChaNGa can systematically lower stellar including satellites that lose an order of magnitude or masses in UFDs. more in halo mass. The results presented above instead 14 Munshi et al. use peak halo mass, similar to earlier abundance match- tween stellar mass and halo mass that is adopted in ing studies, which significantly tightens the SMHM re- abundance matching breaks down at low masses. Reion- lation. ization should impose a break in the relation at low Our best fit SMHM relation slopes and scatters can be masses. At the faintest end of the SMHM probed by used to stochastically populate theoretical models at low our simulations, a galaxy cannot be assigned a unique masses instead of relying on abundance matching. We halo mass based solely on its stellar mass or luminosity. demonstrate this by populating a halo mass function and The lack of a monotonic relation between stellar mass showing the predicted SMF (see Figure3), and exploring and halo mass has implications for interpreting observa- the effect of scatter on the SMF. The resulting SMF tions of dwarf galaxies. is essentially unchanged when considering the Constant ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Scatter and No Scatter cases, due to the fact that the FDM acknowledges support from the Vanderbilt Ini- SMF is normalized to have 12 galaxies above Mstar = tiative for Data-Intensive Astrophysics (VIDA) through 7 10 M within 1 Mpc, comparable to the Local Group. a VIDA Postdoctoral Fellowship, and from the Univer- On the other hand, the faint-end slope of the SMF is sity of Oklahoma. FDM also acknowledges that Okla- steepened in the case of Growing Scatter. More UFD homa’s land is the traditional territory of the Osage, galaxies are predicted if there is Growing Scatter in the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chikasaw and Patowatomi Peoples SMHM relation. The luminosity/mass range where this who have lived here since time immemorial. FDM and can be tested is currently being probed by surveys like AMB acknowledge support from HST AR-13925 pro- DES, which discovered 16 new UFDs in its first two vided by NASA through a grant from the Space Tele- years (Bechtol et al. 2015; Drlica-Wagner et al. 2015), scope Science Institute, which is operated by the Asso- and the HSC-SSP, which has discovered three dwarfs ciation of Universities for Research in Astronomy, In- (Homma et al. 2016, 2018, 2019). Additional dwarfs corporated, under NASA contract NAS5-26555. FDM should be discovered by the Rubin Observatory’s LSST and JPS acknowledge support from NSF grant PHY- when it comes online, allowing the SMF in this range to 2013909. AMB acknowledges support from HST AR- be probed observationally. 14281. EA and AMB acknowledge support from NSF This work is part of a series that has explored uncer- grant AST-1813871. EA acknowledges support from tainties in modeling UFD galaxies. Applebaum et al. the National Science Foundation (NSF) Blue Waters (2020) showed that adopting a stochastic IMF can al- Graduate Fellowship. CRC acknowledges support from ter the stellar masses of UFD galaxies. Munshi et al. the NSF under CAREER grant No. AST-1848107. (2019) showed that two commonly adopted simulation Resources supporting this work were provided by the star formation prescriptions can yield different low mass NASA High-End Computing (HEC) Program through SMHM relations and occupation fractions. In this work the NASA Advanced Supercomputing (NAS) Division we have discussed the role of occupation fraction, reion- at Ames Research Center. This research also made ization model, and star formation model on our resulting use of the NSF supported Frontera project operated by SMHM relation. Because of these uncertainties, we are the Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC) at The unable to say that our predicted SMF is what LSST University of Texas at Austin. This research was sup- is going to find. However, by systematically exploring ported in part by the National Science Foundation under these effects we can quantify the uncertainties in the pre- Grant No. NSF PHY-1748958. dicted SMF given known unknowns, and begin to search The authors thank Yao-Yuan Mao, Ethan Nadler, for ways to break degeneracies. Martin Rey and Priya Natarajan for assistance and help- Despite the caveats, the large intrinsic scatter in our ful comments which improved this manuscript. simulated SMHM demonstrates that the commonly- adopted assumption of a monotonic relationship be-

APPENDIX

A. THE EFFECT OF COSMOLOGY AND RESOLUTION ON SCATTER As mentioned in Section2, the Marvel dwarfs are run within a WMAP Year 3 cosmology (Spergel et al. 2007) while the Justice League simulations are run with a Planck cosmology (Planck Collaboration et al. 2016). In the top panel of Figure5 we examine the effect of different cosmologies on the resulting SMHM relation. The top panel of Figure5 compares the z = 1.4 results for Sandra’s (one of the Justice League Milky Ways) SMHM in both WMAP3 cosmology Scatter in SMHM 15

Figure 5. SMHM relationship for various versions of Sandra. Top Panel: We compare z = 1.4 results from both the WMAP3 cosmology and the Planck cosmology at NM resolution to show convergence between different cosmologies. Bottom Panel: We show z = 0 results using a Planck cosmology between both the NM run and Mint run. Both resolutions converge to a similar SMHM. Both panels use simulation stellar masses, rather than photometric. 16 Munshi et al.

(red points) and in Planck cosmology (blue points), at the same NM resolution. We find that the SMHM relation is consistent across cosmologies. To quantify, we fit a single slope and scatter across the entire range of masses. For reference, if we fit a single slope and scatter for our full sample instead of the two component fit as in Section 3.1.2, the slope is α = 2.0 with a scatter of γ = −0.21. The slope and scatter of the z = 1.4 SMHM relations with WMAP3 and Planck cosmomolgies are consistent with each other and with the well-resolved sample presented in Figure1 to within one sigma (α = 1.97/γ = −0.2 and α = 2.0/γ = −0.2, respectively). In the bottom panel of Figure5 we compare the z = 0 NM and Mint Sandra simulations in a Planck cosmology to test the effect of resolution. The stellar masses converge between the two simulations (see also Applebaum et al. 2021), although with the increased Mint resolution we resolve more UFDs. Here too we find similar slopes and scatters between the two resolutions, within one sigma of each other (α = 2.02/γ = −0.2 and α = 2.05/γ = −0.2 for NM and Mint, respectively). Since the cosmological comparison is at a higher redshift and both comparisons (resolution and cosmology) only include one simulation, we compare slope and scatter in the above substantially simplified form.

REFERENCES

Agertz O., Kravtsov A. V., Leitner S. N., Gnedin N. Y., Brooks A. M., Governato F., Booth C. M., Willman B., 2013, ApJ, 770, 25 Gardner J. P., Wadsley J., Stinson G., Quinn T., 2007, Agertz O. et al., 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1656 ApJL, 655, L17 Akins H. B., Christensen C. R., Brooks A. M., Munshi F., Brooks A. M., Kuhlen M., Zolotov A., Hooper D., 2013, Applebaum E., Angelhardt A., Chamberland L., 2020, ApJ, 765, 22 arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2008.02805 Brooks A. M., Papastergis E., Christensen C. R., Governato Alavi A. et al., 2016, ApJ, 832, 56 F., Stilp A., Quinn T. R., Wadsley J., 2017, ApJ, 850, 97 Anderson L., Governato F., Karcher M., Quinn T., Wadsley Brooks A. M., Zolotov A., 2014, ApJ, 786, 87 J., 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4077 Buck T., Macci`oA. V., Dutton A. A., Obreja A., Frings J., Applebaum E., Brooks A. M., Christensen C. R., Munshi 2019, MNRAS, 483, 1314 F., Quinn T. R., Shen S., Tremmel M., 2021, ApJ, 906, 96 Byrne L., Christensen C., Tsekitsidis M., Brooks A., Quinn Applebaum E., Brooks A. M., Quinn T. R., Christensen T., 2019, ApJ, 871, 213 C. R., 2020, MNRAS, 492, 8 Carlsten S. G., Greene J. E., Peter A. H. G., Beaton R. L., Aumer M., White S. D. M., Naab T., Scannapieco C., 2013, Greco J. P., 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2006.02443 MNRAS, 434, 3142 Chang J., Macci`oA. V., Kang X., 2013, MNRAS, 431, 3533 Bechtol K. et al., 2015, ApJ, 807, 50 Chaves-Montero J., Angulo R. E., Schaye J., Schaller M., Behroozi P. S., Wechsler R. H., Conroy C., 2013, ApJ, 770, Crain R. A., Furlong M., Theuns T., 2016, MNRAS, 460, 57 3100 Benitez-Llambay A., Frenk C., 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4887 Christensen C., Quinn T., Governato F., Stilp A., Shen S., Benson A. J., 2020, MNRAS, 493, 1268 Wadsley J., 2012, MNRAS, 425, 3058 Benson A. J., Frenk C. S., Lacey C. G., Baugh C. M., Cole S., 2002, MNRAS, 333, 177 Christensen C. R., Dav´eR., Brooks A., Quinn T., Shen S., Besla G., 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1511.03346 2018, ApJ, 867, 142 Bose S., Deason A. J., Belokurov V., Frenk C. S., 2020, Christensen C. R., Dav´eR., Governato F., Pontzen A., MNRAS, 495, 743 Brooks A., Munshi F., Quinn T., Wadsley J., 2016, ApJ, Bose S., Deason A. J., Frenk C. S., 2018, ApJ, 863, 123 824, 57 Bradshaw C., Leauthaud A., Hearin A., Huang S., Behroozi Christensen C. R., Governato F., Quinn T., Brooks A. M., P., 2020, MNRAS, 493, 337 Shen S., McCleary J., Fisher D. B., Wadsley J., 2014, Brook C. B., Di Cintio A., 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3920 MNRAS, 440, 2843 Brook C. B., Di Cintio A., Knebe A., Gottl¨ober S., Hoffman Conroy C., Wechsler R. H., 2009, ApJ, 696, 620 Y., Yepes G., Garrison-Kimmel S., 2014, ApJL, 784, L14 Cˆot´eB., Silvia D. W., O’Shea B. W., Smith B., Wise J. H., Brook C. B. et al., 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1051 2018, ApJ, 859, 67 Brook C. B., Stinson G., Gibson B. K., Wadsley J., Quinn Di Cintio A., Brook C. B., Macci`oA. V., Stinson G. S., T., 2012, MNRAS, 424, 1275 Knebe A., Dutton A. A., Wadsley J., 2014, MNRAS, 437, Brooks A., Christensen C., 2016, Galactic Bulges, 418, 317 415 Scatter in SMHM 17

Dooley G. A., Peter A. H. G., Carlin J. L., Frebel A., Kim S. Y., Peter A. H. G., Hargis J. R., 2018, PhRvL, 121, Bechtol K., Willman B., 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1060 211302 Drlica-Wagner A. et al., 2015, ApJ, 813, 109 Klypin A., Karachentsev I., Makarov D., Nasonova O., Dutton A. A., Macci`oA. V., Buck T., Dixon K. L., Blank 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1798 M., Obreja A., 2019, MNRAS, 486, 655 Knollmann S. R., Knebe A., 2009, ApJS, 182, 608 Ferrero I., Abadi M. G., Navarro J. F., Sales L. V., Kravtsov A. V., Vikhlinin A. A., Meshcheryakov A. V., Gurovich S., 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2817 2018, Astronomy Letters, 44, 8 Fitts A. et al., 2018, MNRAS, 479, 319 Kuhlen M., Faucher-Gigu`ereC.-A., 2012, MNRAS, 423, 862 Fitts A. et al., 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3547 Latif M. A., Khochfar S., 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2706 Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., Libeskind N. I., Knebe A., Hoffman Y., Gottl¨ober S., Yepes 2013, PASP, 125, 306 G., 2011, MNRAS, 418, 336 Garrison-Kimmel S., Boylan-Kolchin M., Bullock J. S., Longeard N. et al., 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2609 Kirby E. N., 2014a, MNRAS, 444, 222 Mao Y.-Y., Geha M., Wechsler R. H., Weiner B., Tollerud Garrison-Kimmel S., Boylan-Kolchin M., Bullock J. S., Lee E. J., Nadler E. O., Kallivayalil N., 2020, arXiv e-prints, K., 2014b, MNRAS, 438, 2578 arXiv:2008.12783 Garrison-Kimmel S., Bullock J. S., Boylan-Kolchin M., Marigo P., Girardi L., Bressan A., Groenewegen M. A. T., Bardwell E., 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3108 Silva L., Granato G. L., 2008, A&A, 482, 883 Garrison-Kimmel S. et al., 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1380 Matthee J., Schaye J., Crain R. A., Schaller M., Bower R., Gill S. P. D., Knebe A., Gibson B. K., 2004, MNRAS, 351, Theuns T., 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2381 399 Maxwell A. J., Wadsley J., Couchman H. M. P., 2015, ApJ, Girardi L. et al., 2010, ApJ, 724, 1030 806, 229 Gnedin N. Y., 2000, ApJ, 535, 530 Menon H., Wesolowski L., Zheng G., Jetley P., Kale L., Gnedin N. Y., 2012, ApJ, 754, 113 Quinn T., Governato F., 2015, Computational Governato F. et al., 2010, Nature, 463, 203 Astrophysics and Cosmology, 2, 1 Governato F. et al., 2015, MNRAS, 448, 792 Mina M., Shen S., Keller B. W., Mayer L., Madau P., Governato F., Willman B., Mayer L., Brooks A., Stinson Wadsley J., 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2009.06646 G., Valenzuela O., Wadsley J., Quinn T., 2007, MNRAS, Moster B. P., Naab T., White S. D. M., 2013, MNRAS, 374, 1479 428, 3121 Governato F. et al., 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1231 Mu˜nozR. R., Majewski S. R., Johnston K. V., 2008, ApJ, Guo Q., White S., Li C., Boylan-Kolchin M., 2010, 679, 346 MNRAS, 404, 1111 Munshi F., Brooks A. M., Christensen C., Applebaum E., Haardt F., Madau P., 2012, ApJ, 746, 125 Holley-Bockelmann K., Quinn T. R., Wadsley J., 2019, Homma D. et al., 2019, PASJ, 71, 94 ApJ, 874, 40 Homma D. et al., 2016, ApJ, 832, 21 Munshi F., Christensen C., Quinn T. R., Governato F., Homma D. et al., 2018, PASJ, 70, S18 Hopkins P. F., KereˇsD., O˜norbe J., Faucher-Gigu`ereC.-A., Wadsley J., Loebman S., Shen S., 2014, ApJL, 781, L14 Quataert E., Murray N., Bullock J. S., 2014, MNRAS, Munshi F. et al., 2013, ApJ, 766, 56 445, 581 Nadler E. O. et al., 2020, ApJ, 893, 48 Iyer K. G. et al., 2020, MNRAS, 498, 430 Nakatani R., Fialkov A., Yoshida N., 2020, arXiv e-prints, Jethwa P., Erkal D., Belokurov V., 2018, MNRAS, 473, arXiv:2007.08149 2060 Newton O., Cautun M., Jenkins A., Frenk C. S., Helly Kal´eL., Krishnan S., 1993, in Proceedings of OOPSLA’93, J. C., 2018, MNRAS, 479, 2853 Paepcke A., ed., ACM Press, pp. 91–108 O˜norbe J., Boylan-Kolchin M., Bullock J. S., Hopkins Kallivayalil N., van der Marel R. P., Besla G., Anderson J., P. F., KereˇsD., Faucher-Gigu`ereC.-A., Quataert E., Alcock C., 2013, ApJ, 764, 161 Murray N., 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2092 Katz H. et al., 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2200 Ocvirk P. et al., 2020, MNRAS, 496, 4087 Keller B. W., Wadsley J., Benincasa S. M., Couchman Ocvirk P. et al., 2016, MNRAS, 463, 1462 H. M. P., 2014, MNRAS, 442, 3013 Okamoto T., Gao L., Theuns T., 2008, MNRAS, 390, 920 Keller B. W., Wadsley J., Couchman H. M. P., 2015, O’Shea B. W., Wise J. H., Xu H., Norman M. L., 2015, MNRAS, 453, 3499 ApJL, 807, L12 18 Munshi et al.

Papastergis E., Giovanelli R., Haynes M. P., Shankar F., Smith M. C., 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2010.10533 2015, A&A, 574, A113 Smith M. C., Bryan G. L., Somerville R. S., Hu C.-Y., Pe˜narrubia J., G´omezF. A., Besla G., Erkal D., Ma Y.-Z., Teyssier R., Burkhart B., Hernquist L., 2020, arXiv 2016, MNRAS, 456, L54 e-prints, arXiv:2009.11309 Pe˜narrubia J., McConnachie A. W., Navarro J. F., 2008, Smith M. C., Sijacki D., Shen S., 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3317 ApJ, 672, 904 Somerville R. S., Lee K., Ferguson H. C., Gardner J. P., Planck Collaboration et al., 2016, A&A, 594, A13 Moustakas L. A., Giavalisco M., 2004, ApJL, 600, L171 Pontzen A., Governato F., 2014, Nature, 506, 171 Spergel D. N. et al., 2007, ApJS, 170, 377 Pontzen A., Roˇskar R., Stinson G., Woods R., 2013, Stinson G., Seth A., Katz N., Wadsley J., Governato F., Quinn T., 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1074 pynbody: N-Body/SPH analysis for python. Astrophysics Stinson G. S., Brook C., Macci`oA. V., Wadsley J., Quinn Source Code Library T. R., Couchman H. M. P., 2013, MNRAS, 428, 129 Read J. I., Agertz O., Collins M. L. M., 2016, MNRAS, Strigari L. E., Bullock J. S., Kaplinghat M., Simon J. D., 459, 2573 Geha M., Willman B., Walker M. G., 2008, Nature, 454, Read J. I., Erkal D., 2019, MNRAS, 487, 5799 1096 Read J. I., Iorio G., Agertz O., Fraternali F., 2016, Taylor E. N. et al., 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2006.10040 MNRAS, 462, 3628 Tollerud E. J., Bullock J. S., Strigari L. E., Willman B., Read J. I., Iorio G., Agertz O., Fraternali F., 2017, 2008, ApJ, 688, 277 MNRAS, 467, 2019 Ural U., Wilkinson M. I., Read J. I., Walker M. G., 2015, Reddick R. M., Wechsler R. H., Tinker J. L., Behroozi Nature Communications, 6, 7599 P. S., 2013, ApJ, 771, 30 Wadsley J. W., Keller B. W., Quinn T. R., 2017, MNRAS, Revaz Y., Jablonka P., 2018, A&A, 616, A96 471, 2357 Rey M. P., Pontzen A., Agertz O., Orkney M. D. A., Read Wadsley J. W., Stadel J., Quinn T., 2004, New Astronomy, J. I., Saintonge A., Pedersen C., 2019, ApJL, 886, L3 9, 137 Robertson B. E. et al., 2013, ApJ, 768, 71 Walsh S. M., Willman B., Jerjen H., 2009, AJ, 137, 450 Romeo A. B., Agertz O., Renaud F., 2020, MNRAS, 499, Wang W. et al., 2021, MNRAS, 500, 3776 5656 Wechsler R. H., Tinker J. L., 2018, ARA&A, 56, 435 Sawala T., Frenk C. S., Crain R. A., Jenkins A., Schaye J., Weisz D. R., Boylan-Kolchin M., 2017, MNRAS, 469, L83 Theuns T., Zavala J., 2013, MNRAS, 431, 1366 Weisz D. R., Dolphin A. E., Skillman E. D., Holtzman J., Sawala T. et al., 2015, MNRAS, 448, 2941 Gilbert K. M., Dalcanton J. J., Williams B. F., 2015, Sawala T. et al., 2016, MNRAS, 456, 85 ApJ, 804, 136 Shen S., Madau P., Conroy C., Governato F., Mayer L., Wheeler C. et al., 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4447 2014, ApJ, 792, 99 Wheeler C., O˜norbe J., Bullock J. S., Boylan-Kolchin M., Shen S., Wadsley J., Stinson G., 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1581 Elbert O. D., Garrison-Kimmel S., Hopkins P. F., Kereˇs Simon J. D., 2019, ARA&A, 57, 375 D., 2015, MNRAS, 453, 1305 Simpson C. M., Bryan G. L., Johnston K. V., Smith B. D., Wise J. H., Abel T., Turk M. J., Norman M. L., Smith B. D., 2012, MNRAS, 427, 311 Mac Low M.-M., Sharma S., Tumlinson J., 2013, Wu X., Kannan R., Marinacci F., Vogelsberger M., MNRAS, 432, 1989 Hernquist L., 2019, MNRAS, 488, 419 Skinner D., Wise J. H., 2020, MNRAS, 492, 4386