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; C^ot´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 <Mstar/M < 10 . Again, they came to In addition to the slope of the SMHM relation and quite different conclusions about the value of α, 3.1 in the occupation fraction of low mass halos, there is also Brook et al.(2014) and 1.9 in Garrison-Kimmel et al. uncertainty in the (intrinsic) scatter in the SMHM re- (2014b).1 lation. The scatter at the high mass end of the SMHM Similarly, both Jethwa, Erkal & Belokurov(2018) relation is consistently measured to be relatively small, and Nadler et al.(2020) examine the SMHM using ∼0.2 dex (Behroozi, Wechsler & Conroy 2013; Reddick Local Group data, specifically using Milky Way satel- et al. 2013; Matthee et al. 2017; Kravtsov, Vikhlinin & lites. However, unlike Brook et al.(2014) and Garrison- Meshcheryakov 2018), though see Taylor et al.(2020). Kimmel et al.(2014b), they do not require that every However, the scatter at the low mass end may be much dark matter halo contains a galaxy. Jethwa, Erkal & larger. Observations indicate that dwarf galaxies over Belokurov(2018) explore a range of assumptions, from a range of stellar masses may all occupy dark matter the standard abundance matching, to models that allow halos with a narrow range of masses (e.g., see Figure 1 unoccupied halos and varying forms of the stellar mass of Klypin et al. 2015; Ferrero et al. 2012; Strigari et al. function. Nadler et al.(2020) use a more constrained 2008). Fitts et al.(2017) simulated 15 galaxies all with 10 model, building on earlier work to determine which sub- roughly the same halo mass at z = 0 (≈ 10 M ), halos are likely to contain luminous satellites, and the yet the stellar content varied by two orders of magni- 5−7 known selection function of current surveys to determine tude (10 M ). The star formation history at dwarf which satellites should be detected. Both Jethwa, Erkal galaxy scales is likely to depend on the mass accretion & Belokurov(2018) and Nadler et al.(2020) found that history of the halo (Brooks & Zolotov 2014; Weisz et al. 8 most halos must be occupied down to Mpeak ∼ 10 M . 2015; Sawala et al. 2016). Rey et al.(2019) showed that It is common in abundance matching to assume that all the stellar content of a single dark matter halo (with halos continue to host galaxies. the same final halo mass at z = 0) could vary based on 8 The idea that all halos down to Mpeak ∼ 10 M are its growth rate. If the halo grew rapidly and was more occupied is contrary to traditional wisdom, which holds massive at early times, it contained a higher stellar mass that reionization may stifle star formation entirely in at z = 0, by as much as an order of magnitude. The re- such low mass halos (e.g., Gnedin 2000; Governato et al. sults for the single halo in Rey et al.(2019) represent a 2007; Okamoto, Gao & Theuns 2008; Brooks et al. 2013). lower limit on how much scatter in stellar mass might Simulators generally find that reionization causes low be expected at a fixed halo mass. mass halos to be entirely devoid of stars, or contain so Garrison-Kimmel et al.(2017) explored the implica- few as to be beyond detection (e.g., O'Shea et al. 2015; tions of scatter within Mstar at a given Mhalo using Lo- 5 Ocvirk et al. 2016, 2020; Wheeler et al. 2019; Katz et al. cal Group data down to Mstar ∼ 10 M . They demon- 2020). However, the mass scale at which this occurs strated that there is a degeneracy between the slope and remains an open question. Sawala et al.(2016) used the scatter of the SMHM relation when using the SMHM simulations representative of the Local Group to show relation to derive the stellar mass function. Small halos that the fraction of halos which are not populated (not are more likely to scatter to large stellar masses due to luminous) increases drastically for z = 0 halo masses less the rapidly rising mass function in a ΛCDM cosmology.