星系和质量组装（GAMA）：星系群中没有恒星质量分离，以及来自GALFORM和EAGLE模拟的一致预测
Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA): The absence of stellar mass segregation in galaxy groups and consistent predictions from GALFORM and EAGLE simulations
摘要：
我们调查有争议的问题的存在，或缺乏卫星的质量分离星系群使用星系和质量大会（GAMA）调查，半解析和鹰宇宙学流体动力学模拟星系群目录。我们选择具有晕质量$12 \leqslant \log(M_{\text{halo}}/h^{-1}M_\odot) <14.5$和红移$z \leqslant 0.32$的群，并探测恒星质量的径向分布到群维里半径的两倍。所有的样本都是精心构造的，在每个红移范围内的恒星质量是完整的，并努力规范化所有数据的分析。我们的研究表明，在绝对梯度为$\lesssim0.08$ dex的星系群环境中，质量分离可以忽略不计，而且也没有任何红移演化。此外，我们发现，我们的结果至少对GAMA数据是强大的不同的晕质量和集团中心的估计。此外，EAGLE的数据使我们能够探测更微弱的光度（$r$ -带星等为22），以及调查的三维空间分布与固有的晕属性，超出了目前的观测数据可以提供。在这两种情况下，我们发现，较暗的EAGLE数据显示在$z \leqslant 0.22$非常温和的空间质量分离，这是再次不明显，在较高的红移。有趣的是，我们的结果与斯隆数字巡天的一些早期发现形成了对比。我们调查了分歧的来源，并认为组查找算法之间的细微差异可能是根本原因。
英文摘要：
We investigate the contentious issue of the presence, or lack thereof, of satellites mass segregation in galaxy groups using the Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA) survey, the GALFORM semi-analytic and the EAGLE cosmological hydrodynamical simulation catalogues of galaxy groups. We select groups with halo mass $12 \leqslant \log(M_{\text{halo}}/h^{-1}M_\odot) <14.5$ and redshift $z \leqslant 0.32$ and probe the radial distribution of stellar mass out to twice the group virial radius. All the samples are carefully constructed to be complete in stellar mass at each redshift range and efforts are made to regularise the analysis for all the data. Our study shows negligible mass segregation in galaxy group environments with absolute gradients of $\lesssim0.08$ dex and also shows a lack of any redshift evolution. Moreover, we find that our results at least for the GAMA data are robust to different halo mass and group centre estimates. Furthermore, the EAGLE data allows us to probe much fainter luminosities ($r$-band magnitude of 22) as well as investigate the three-dimensional spatial distribution with intrinsic halo properties, beyond what the current observational data can offer. In both cases we find that the fainter EAGLE data show a very mild spatial mass segregation at $z \leqslant 0.22$, which is again not apparent at higher redshift. Interestingly, our results are in contrast to some earlier findings using the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. We investigate the source of the disagreement and suggest that subtle differences between the group finding algorithms could be the root cause.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
