Category: MaNGA

Posted on

One final look at KUG0859+406 and a new SSP model library

Back in July a paper by Millan-Irigoyen et al. titled “HY-PYPOPSTAR: high wavelength-resolution stellar populations evolutionary synthesis model” was posted to arxiv, and shortly thereafter data in the form of the promised high resolution spectra were made available at https://www.fractal-es.com/PopStar/#ingredients. Unlike MILES and its variations or BC03 this is a purely theoretical library, with the spectra calculated from model atmospheres instead of using empirical spectra of actual stars.

I looked briefly at one other theoretical library some time ago and concluded (IIRC) that the model spectra had much too blue continua at all ages, making it unsuitable for full spectrum fitting. A brief visual inspection of this library (as well as Figure 8 in the paper) indicates that’s not the case here. One thing that may compromise its usefulness is that although there are 106 age bins in the models they are very irregularly spaced and heavily weighted towards younger ages as shown below.

Age rangeNumber of spectra
5 ≤ log T < 64
6 ≤ log T < 734
7 ≤ log T < 835
8 ≤ log T < 99
9 ≤ log T < 1015
log T ≥ 109
Number of SSP model spectra by age range in HR-pypopstar

At least in the wavelength range of SDSS/MaNGA spectra there is little evolution in spectroscopic properties between 105 and 106 years and even though it speeds up afterwards the effective time resolution of SFH models is still lower than the supplied number of time bins for the next two decades.

pypop_young_spec
Sample young population spectra from hrPypopstar

For a preliminary look at the library’s suitability for full spectrum modeling I selected a 42 time bin subset with all 4 available metallicity bins and Kroupa IMF, truncating the wavelength range to 3400-9000 Å, which is just a little larger than the Emiles subset I use. The time bins were chosen by hand — I was trying to get evenly spaced bins in log time but this proved not to be feasible. The authors produced two sets of libraries for each of 4 IMFs: they did an apparently careful job of counting the number of ionizing photons for several species and calculated sets of SSP models with and without emission continuum. For these trial runs I used both sets of libraries, which I’ll compare below. No code modifications were required because they use the same peculiar but computationally convenient flux units for spectra.

I just ran a few models for the central fiber spectrum of KUG 0859+406 (MaNGA plateifu 8440-6104). First, here is the star formation rate history compared to the most recent Emiles run:

sfh_emiles_popstar
Model star formation histories for central fiber of MaNGA plateifu 8440-6104
(T) Emiles
(M) hrPypopstar with emission continuum (
B) hrPypopstar stellar light only

Or, looking at the model mass growth histories:

mgh_emiles_popstar
Model mass growth histories for central fiber of MaNGA plateifu 8440-6104 Red: Emiles Blue: hrpypopstar including emission continuum Green: hrpypostar stellar light only

The starburst occurs later and is somewhat weaker in the pypopstar models. Interestingly all models have a late time revival of star formation after a period of quiescence. To get all the graphs to line up I truncated the pypopstar model star formation histories at 10 Myr. Here are the full histories:

sfh_popstar_popstarst
Model star formation histories for central fiber of MaNGA plateifu 8440-6104 (T) hrPypopstar with emission continuum (B) hrPypopstar stellar light only

Emission continuum is significant mostly at ages < 10Myr and this is reflected in some difference in late time model star formation histories. This has little effect on other modeled quantities.

At a glance fits to the galaxy flux data look very similar. Both sets of models have problems in some wavelength ranges and both have some issues with the [N II]+Hα emission complex, probably because the lines don’t quite have gaussian profiles. In terms of summed log-likelihood the Emiles fit is actually almost a factor of 2 better than pypopstar.

ppfits_compared
Comparison of model fits to data (L) Emiles (R) Hrpypopstar

The pypopstar models have larger optical depths of attenuation and steeper attenuation curves than the Emiles models, demonstrating once again the interplay among attenuation, attenuation relationship, and stellar ages:

tauv_delta_emiles_pypostar
Model distributions of attenuation parameters τV and δ for runs with Emiles library and hrPypopstar on the central fiber of MaNGA plateifu 8440-6104

Some other modeled quantities are very similar, for example the stellar mass density:

sigma_mstar_comp
Comparison of model stellar mass density red: Emiles blue: hrpypopstar with emission continuum

While the modeled specific star formation rate differs by ~0.4 dex thanks to the more recent starburst in the pypopstar models:

ssfr_comp
Comparison of model specific star rate (sSFR) red: Emiles blue: hrpypopstar with emission continuum

I still haven’t decided exactly what to do with these interesting SSP model libraries. I will probably take a more systematic look at extracting a subset of time bins that evolve at a consistent rate by some measure. This will certainly require many fewer than the published 106 bins. What may be more promising is to graft some young age SSPs onto my existing Emiles library. The 4 published metallicity bins are pretty closely matched to the Emiles subset I use, and 4 or 5 SSP’s would fill out the ages up to the youngest (30 Myr) in the BaSTI isochrones. I already use unevolved BC03 models for this purpose. Using the models that include continuum emission would also solve the problem of how to model that in starforming galaxies (but not galaxies with strong AGN emission unfortunately).

Posted on

KUG 0859+406 – unravelling the differences between 2018 and 2021 model runs

I did have my old data and model runs of course, in fact they were spread over several directories on two machines. I’m going to refer to it by this catalog designation, KUG standing for the “Kiso survey of Ultraviolet-excess Galaxies.” It’s also a low power radio source with catalog entries in both FIRST and NVSS, and of course it’s in MaNGA with plateifu ID 8440-6104 (mangaid 01-216976).

In my 2018 model runs, which were interesting enough to write 3 posts about, I found this galaxy had undergone an extraordinarily large burst of star formation that began ~1 Gyr ago with locally as much as 60% of the present day stellar mass born in the burst and something like 40% of the mass over the footprint of the IFU. In this years model runs the peak burst fraction was a considerably more modest ~25% and globally barely amounted to a slight enhancement of star formation. The starburst was also much more localized than in the earlier runs:

burst_strengths_compared
Fractional stellar mass in stars between 0.1 and 1.75 Gyr old in 2018 and 2021 model runs

So what happened? First, here is a comparison of modeled star formation histories for the innermost fiber, which got the largest injection of mass in the starburst.

central_sfh_compared
Model star formation histories for central fiber of MaNGA plateifu 8440-6104, 2018 and 2021 model runs

The obvious remark is the double peaked starburst noted back in 2018 (and discussed at some length) has been replaced with a single narrow peak with a slow ramp up and fast decay. The peak SFR is a little larger than before but the total mass in the burst is lower.

I’ve made several changes in model formulation since 2018, of which the most important in the current context is adopting the more flexible “modified Calzetti” attenuation relation that adds an additional slope parameter to the prescription. In the current year model runs a steeper than Calzetti relation is favored throughout the IFU footprint, particularly in the central region where the starburst was strongest:

map_delta
Map of modified Cal;zetti slope parameter δ — MaNGA plateifu 8440-6104

A smaller optical depth of attenuation is also favored throughout:

tauv_compared
Modeled optical depth of attenuation – 2021 runs vs. 2018 MaNGA plateifu 8440-6104

This has a couple predictable consequences. Steeper attenuation will favor an intrinsically bluer, hence younger population while a lower optical depth requires less light, and hence mass in the stellar population. I can test this directly by returning to a model with Calzetti attenuation, and here is the result for the central fiber (this model run is labeled 2021 (c) in the legend below):

mgh_compared
Mass growth histories – 2021 run 2021 run with Calzetti attenuation 2018 run Central fiber of MaNGA plateifu 8440-6104

So, an eyeball analysis suggests about 3/4 of the difference between the 2018 and 2021 runs is due to the modification to the attenuation relation. The other changes I’ve made to the models are to change the stellar contribution parameters from a non-negative vector to a simplex, and at the same time changing the way I rescale the data. In early runs the SSP model fluxes were scaled to make the maximum stellar contribution ≈ 1, while the current models scale both the galaxy and SSP fluxes to ≈ 1 in the neighborhood of V, making the individual stellar contributions approximately the fraction of light contributed. An additional scale factor parameter in the model is used to adjust the overall fit. Assuming I did this right this should have no effect on a deterministic maximum likelihood solution, but with MCMC who knows?

Although the fit to the data looks about the same between the model with and without the attenuation modification the summed log-likelihood is consistently about 1% higher for the modified Calzetti model with no overlap at all in the distribution of likelihood. This suggests the case for a steeper than Calzetti attenuation is a fairly robust result.

ppfits
“Posterior predictive” fits to galaxy flux data – modified Calzetti attenuation vs. Calzetti – central fiber of MaNGA plateifu 8440-6104

The galaxy flux data also changed a little bit. The early runs were on the DR14 release (version 2_1_2 of the MaNGA DRP) while the recent ones used the DR15 release (ver 2_4_3). Most of the calibration differences resemble random noise, but there is some curvature that systematically affects both the red and blue ends of the spectrum and could cause some change in the temperature distribution of the models:

measured_flux_compared
Difference in measured flux from DR14 to DR15 – central fiber of MaNGA plateifu 8440-6104

While the detailed star formation histories changed, quantities that aren’t too model dependent didn’t very much. One example is shown below. Also, the kinematic maps agree with the earlier ones in detail.

halpha_luminosity_compared
Hα luminosity density – 2021 runs vs. 2018 MaNGA plateifu 8440-6104
velocity_field_8440_6104
Velocity field of MaNGA plateifu 8440-6104 from 2021 model runs. Map interpolated from RSS file spectra.

One input that hasn’t changed are the emiles SSP model spectra, although there have been some procedural changes in how I handle the modeling. Early on I often used a much smaller subset of SSP models with just 27 time bins and 3 metallicities for preliminary modeling, including my first models on the same binning of these data. I also routinely ran 250 warmup iterations with just 250 more per chain. My current standard practice is always to use the largest emiles subset with 216 SSP models in 54 time bins and 4 metallicities, and I generally run 750 post-warmup iterations per chain but still with only 250 warmup iterations. This is generally enough and if adaptation fails it is usually fairly obvious. The small sample size of the earlier runs mostly effects the precision of inferences rather than means.

To conclude for now, my speculation about whether it might be possible to say something about the timing of critical events in a merger from the model star formation history was too optimistic. On a positive note though both sets of model runs retrodict that coalescence occurred at a lookback time around 500Myr ago, which is consistent with the fact that tidal tails and other merger signatures are clearly visible even in SDSS imaging. Both sets of model runs also have that odd uptick in star formation at 30Myr in the central fiber. And while the difference in burst mass contributions is a little disconcerting the current runs are more consistent with the likely gas content of ordinary spiral galaxies.

This example illustrates another well known “degeneracy” among attenuation (and adopted attenuation relation), mass, and stellar age. Whether I’ve broken the degeneracy by adopting the more flexible attenuation prescription described some time ago remains to be validated.