Abstract
The field of galaxy formation and evolution synthesizes the physics of baryons and dark matter to describe the origin of systems such as the Milky Way and the enormous diversity of the galaxy population. The broad variation in possible formation histories and the wide range of cosmic environments make large statistical samples of galaxies essential for identifying the important physical mechanisms that govern their formation. Starting in the early 2020s, the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) will provide an unmatched dataset for galaxy evolution studies by observing the entire southern sky in ultraviolet, optical and near-infrared wavelengths, producing multi-epoch digital images over a 10-year nominal mission that when summed will provide the deepest, wide-angle view of our Universe ever assembled. Here, we discuss the importance of LSST for deepening our understanding of galaxy formation and evolution over cosmic time. We present some outstanding problems in the field that LSST will address, and we present a roadmap of some preparatory research efforts required to make effective use of the LSST dataset for galaxy formation science.
Key points
-
The Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) will provide a new window into galaxy formation and evolution by imaging the entire southern sky with unprecedented sensitivity.
-
By probing the rarest cosmic environments, LSST can reveal the extreme conditions under which the most luminous galaxies and the most massive supermassive black holes are formed.
-
The gravitational lensing signals measured by LSST will enable astronomers to understand the mapping between observed galaxy properties and the dark matter halos that serve as the sites of galaxy formation.
-
LSST will unveil the low-surface-brightness features around galaxies that encode the hierarchical nature of cosmological structure formation.
-
A broad effort to address technical challenges for LSST, including deblending and machine learning, must commence now and requires heightened investment in the wide community of scientists who motivated the development of LSST.
-
Coordinating existing ancillary data and new observational programmes in support of LSST will enable astronomers to make full use of the power of LSST, but these efforts need sufficient advance planning and community funding.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$99.00 per year
only $8.25 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ivezić, Ž. et al. LSST: from science drivers to reference design and anticipated data products. Astrophys. J. 829, 111 (2019). Overview of the design specifications and the science requirements of LSST.
LSST Science Collaboration et al. LSST Science Book, version 2.0. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/0912.0201 (2009). Extensive collection of community-driven science cases motivating the construction of LSST.
Robertson, B. E. et al. Large synoptic survey telescope galaxies science roadmap. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.01617 (2017). Detailed list of preparatory research activities and deliverables for the LSST Galaxies Science Collaboration.
Angel, R., Lesser, M., Sarlot, R. & Dunham, E. in Imaging the Universe in Three Dimensions (eds. van Breugel, W. & Bland-Hawthorn, J.) 81 (Conference Series no. 195, Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 2000).
Tyson, A. & Angel, R. in The New Era of Wide Field Astronomy (eds Clowes, R., Adamson, A. & Bromage, G.) 347 (Conference Series no. 232, Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 2001).
Zhan, H. & Tyson, J. A. Cosmology with the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope: an overview. Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 066901 (2018).
The LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration et al. The LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration (DESC) science requirements document. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.01669 (2018). Detailed list of preparatory research activities and deliverables for the LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration.
Reuter, M. A., Cook, K. H., Delgado, F., Petry, C. E. & Ridgway, S. T. Simulating the LSST OCS for conducting survey simulations using the LSST scheduler. In Proc. SPIE 9911: Modeling, Systems Engineering, and Project Management for Astronomy VI, https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2232680 (SPIE, 2016).
Jones, R. L. et al. The LSST metrics analysis framework (MAF). In Proc. SPIE 9149: Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems V, 91490B, https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2056835 (SPIE, 2014).
Yoachim, P. et al. An optical to IR sky brightness model for the LSST. In Proc. SPIE 9910: Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems VI, 99101A, https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2232947 (SPIE, 2016).
Awan, H. et al. Testing LSST dither strategies for survey uniformity and large-scale structure systematics. Astrophys. J. 829, 50 (2016).
LSST Science Collaboration et al. Science-driven optimization of the LSST observing strategy. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.04058 (2017).
Xin, B. et al. Monitoring LSST system performance during construction. In SPIE 10705: Modeling, Systems Engineering, and Project Management for Astronomy VIII, 107050P, https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2313880 (SPIE, 2018).
Jurić, M. et al. The LSST data management system. In Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXV (eds Lorente, N. P. F., Shortridge, K. & Wayth, R.) 279 (Conference Series no. 512, Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 2017).
Graham, M. L. et al. Photometric redshifts with the LSST: evaluating survey observing strategies. Astron. J. 155, 1 (2018).
Malz, A. I. et al. Approximating photo-z PDFs for large surveys. Astron. J. 156, 35 (2018).
Brough, S., Akhlaghi, M., Bian, F., Glazebrook, K. & Kuehn, K. LSST and Australia. In Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXV (eds Lorente, N. P. F., Shortridge, K. & Wayth, R.) 667 (Conference Series no. 512, Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 2017).
Najita, J. et al. Maximizing science in the era of LSST: a community-based study of needed US capabilities. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.01661 (2016).
Somerville, R. S. & Davé, R. Physical models of galaxy formation in a cosmological framework. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 53, 51–113 (2015).
Faber, S. M. & Jackson, R. E. Velocity dispersions and mass-to-light ratios for elliptical galaxies. Astrophys. J. 204, 668–683 (1976).
Tully, R. B. & Fisher, J. R. A new method of determining distances to galaxies. Astron. Astrophys. 54, 661–673 (1977).
Djorgovski, S. & Davis, M. Fundamental properties of elliptical galaxies. Astrophys. J. 313, 59–68 (1987).
Dressler, A. et al. Spectroscopy and photometry of elliptical galaxies. I: A new distance estimator. Astrophys. J. 313, 42–58 (1987).
Roberts, M. S. & Haynes, M. P. Physical parameters along the Hubble sequence. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 32, 115–152 (1994).
Kennicutt, R. C. Jr. The global Schmidt law in star-forming galaxies. Astrophys. J. 498, 541–552 (1998).
Gebhardt, K. et al. A relationship between nuclear black hole mass and galaxy velocity dispersion. Astrophys. J. Lett. 539, L13–L16 (2000).
Ferrarese, L. & Merritt, D. A fundamental relation between supermassive black holes and their host galaxies. Astrophys. J. Lett. 539, L9–L12 (2000).
Bell, E. F. & de Jong, R. S. Stellar mass-to-light ratios and the Tully–Fisher relation. Astrophys. J. 550, 212–229 (2001).
Tremonti, C. A. et al. The origin of the mass–metallicity relation: insights from 53,000 star-forming galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Astrophys. J. 613, 898–913 (2004).
Noeske, K. G. et al. Star formation in AEGIS field galaxies since z = 1.1: the dominance of gradually declining star formation, and the main sequence of star-forming galaxies. Astrophys. J. Lett. 660, L43–L46 (2007).
Whitaker, K. E., van Dokkum, P. G., Brammer, G. & Franx, M. The star formation mass sequence out to z = 2.5. Whitaker2012a 754, L29 (2012).
Salmon, B. et al. The relation between star formation rate and stellar mass for galaxies at 3.5 ≤ z ≤ 6.5 in CANDELS. Astrophys. J. 799, 183 (2015).
Cooper, M. C. et al. The DEEP2 galaxy redshift survey: the relationship between galaxy properties and environment at z ~ 1. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 370, 198–212 (2006).
Daddi, E. et al. Multiwavelength study of massive galaxies at z ~ 2. I. Star formation and galaxy growth. Astrophys. J. 670, 156–172 (2007).
Elbaz, D. et al. The reversal of the star formation–density relation in the distant Universe. Astron. Astrophys. 468, 33–48 (2007).
Cooper, M. C. et al. The DEEP2 galaxy redshift survey: the role of galaxy environment in the cosmic star formation history. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 383, 1058–1078 (2008).
Cooper, M. C., Tremonti, C. A., Newman, J. A. & Zabludoff, A. I. The role of environment in the mass–metallicity relation. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 390, 245–256 (2008).
Peng, Y.-j et al. Mass and environment as drivers of galaxy evolution in SDSS and zCOSMOS and the origin of the Schechter function. Astrophys. J. 721, 193–221 (2010).
Davé, R., Oppenheimer, B. D. & Finlator, K. Galaxy evolution in cosmological simulations with outflows — I. Stellar masses and star formation rates. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 415, 11–31 (2011).
Davé, R., Finlator, K. & Oppenheimer, B. D. Galaxy evolution in cosmological simulations with outflows — II. Metallicities and gas fractions. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 416, 1354–1376 (2011).
Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H. & Conroy, C. The average star formation histories of galaxies in dark matter halos from z = 0–8. Astrophys. J. 770, 57 (2013).
Lilly, S. J., Carollo, C. M., Pipino, A., Renzini, A. & Peng, Y. Gas regulation of galaxies: the evolution of the cosmic specific star formation rate, the metallicity–mass–star-formation rate relation, and the stellar content of halos. Astrophys. J. 772, 119 (2013).
Brough, S. et al. The SAMI galaxy survey: mass as the driver of the kinematic morphology–density relation in clusters. Astrophys. J. 844, 59 (2017).
Martin, G. et al. The limited role of galaxy mergers in driving stellar mass growth over cosmic time. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 472, L50–L54 (2017).
Weigel, A. K. et al. Galaxy zoo: major galaxy mergers are not a significant quenching pathway. Astrophys. J. 845, 145 (2017).
Martin, G., Kaviraj, S., Devriendt, J. E. G., Dubois, Y. & Pichon, C. The role of mergers in driving morphological transformation over cosmic time. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 480, 2266–2283 (2018).
Wang, L. et al. Galaxy and Mass Assembly (GAMA): the environmental dependence of the galaxy main sequence. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.08456 (2018).
Vale, A. & Ostriker, J. P. Linking halo mass to galaxy luminosity. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 353, 189–200 (2004).
Kravtsov, A. V. et al. The dark side of the halo occupation distribution. Astrophys. J. 609, 35–49 (2004).
Moster, B. P., Naab, T. & White, S. D. M. Galactic star formation and accretion histories from matching galaxies to dark matter haloes. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 428, 3121–3138 (2013).
Kravtsov, A. V., Vikhlinin, A. A. & Meshcheryakov, A. V. Stellar mass–halo mass relation and star formation efficiency in high-mass halos. Astron. Lett. 44, 8–34 (2018).
Conselice, C. J., Twite, J. W., Palamara, D. P. & Hartley, W. The halo masses of galaxies to z ~ 3: a hybrid observational and theoretical approach. Astrophys. J. 863, 42 (2018).
Moster, B. P., Naab, T. & White, S. D. M. EMERGE — an empirical model for the formation of galaxies since z ~ 10. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 477, 1822–1852 (2018).
Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R., Hearin, A. & Conroy, C. UniverseMachine: the correlation between galaxy growth and dark matter halo assembly from z = 0–10. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.07893 (2018).
Wechsler, R. H. & Tinker, J. L. The connection between galaxies and their dark matter halos. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.03097 (2018). Review of the physics driving the relationship between galaxies, their observable properties and their host dark matter halos.
Beckwith, S. V. W. et al. The Hubble Ultra Deep Field. Astron. J. 132, 1729–1755 (2006).
Ellis, R. S. et al. The abundance of star-forming galaxies in the redshift range 8.5–12: new results from the 2012 Hubble Ultra Deep Field campaign. Astrophys. J. Lett. 763, L7 (2013).
Koekemoer, A. M. et al. The 2012 Hubble Ultra Deep Field (UDF12): observational overview. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 209, 3 (2013).
Illingworth, G. D. et al. The HST eXtreme Deep Field (XDF): combining all ACS and WFC3/IR data on the HUDF region into the deepest field ever. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 209, 6 (2013).
Scoville, N. et al. The Cosmic Evolution Survey (COSMOS): overview. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 172, 1–8 (2007).
Laigle, C. et al. The COSMOS2015 catalog: exploring the 1 < z < 6 Universe with half a million galaxies. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 224, 24 (2016).
Grogin, N. A. et al. CANDELS: the Cosmic Assembly Near-infrared Deep Extragalactic Legacy Survey. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 197, 35 (2011).
Koekemoer, A. M. et al. CANDELS: the Cosmic Assembly Near-infrared Deep Extragalactic Legacy Survey — the Hubble Space Telescope observations, imaging data products, and mosaics. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 197, 36 (2011).
Lotz, J. M. et al. The Frontier Fields: survey design and initial results. Astrophys. J. 837, 97 (2017).
Madau, P. & Dickinson, M. Cosmic star-formation history. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 52, 415–486 (2014).
Robertson, B. E., Ellis, R. S., Furlanetto, S. R. & Dunlop, J. S. Cosmic reionization and early star-forming galaxies: a joint analysis of new constraints from Planck and the Hubble Space Telescope. Astrophys. J. Lett. 802, L19 (2015).
Planck Collaboration et al. Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016).
Planck Collaboration et al. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06209 (2018).
Kartaltepe, J. S. et al. CANDELS visual classifications: scheme, data release, and first results. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 221, 11 (2015).
Shibuya, T., Ouchi, M. & Harikane, Y. Morphologies of ~190,000 galaxies at z = 0–10 revealed with HST legacy data. I. Size evolution. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 219, 15 (2015).
Oldham, L. J., Houghton, R. C. W. & Davies, R. L. The most massive galaxies in clusters are already fully grown at z ~ 0.5. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 465, 2101–2119 (2017).
Leauthaud, A. et al. New constraints on the evolution of the stellar-to-dark matter connection: a combined analysis of galaxy–galaxy lensing, clustering, and stellar mass functions from z = 0.2 to z = 1. Astrophys. J. 744, 159 (2012).
Alam, S. et al. The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 470, 2617–2652 (2017).
Fan, X. et al. Constraining the evolution of the ionizing background and the epoch of reionization with z ~ 6 quasars. II. A sample of 19 quasars. Astron. J. 132, 117–136 (2006).
Bañados, E. et al. An 800-million-solar-mass black hole in a significantly neutral Universe at a redshift of 7.5. Nature 553, 473–476 (2018).
Mandelbaum, R., Seljak, U., Kauffmann, G., Hirata, C. M. & Brinkmann, J. Galaxy halo masses and satellite fractions from galaxy-galaxy lensing in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey: stellar mass, luminosity, morphology and environment dependencies. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 368, 715–731 (2006).
Heymans, C. et al. CFHTLenS: the Canada–France–Hawaii telescope lensing survey. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 427, 146–166 (2012).
van Uitert, E. et al. The stellar-to-halo mass relation of GAMA galaxies from 100 deg2 of KiDS weak lensing data. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 459, 3251–3270 (2016).
Mandelbaum, R. et al. The first-year shear catalog of the Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru strategic program survey. Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn. 70, S25 (2018).
Hoekstra, H., Hsieh, B. C., Yee, H. K. C., Lin, H. & Gladders, M. D. Virial masses and the baryon fraction in galaxies. Astrophys. J. 635, 73–85 (2005).
Heymans, C. et al. A weak lensing estimate from GEMS of the virial to stellar mass ratio in massive galaxies to z ~ 0.8. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 371, L60–L64 (2006).
Han, J. et al. Galaxy and Mass Assembly (GAMA): the halo mass of galaxy groups from maximum-likelihood weak lensing. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 446, (1356–1379 (2015).
Vogelsberger, M. et al. Properties of galaxies reproduced by a hydrodynamic simulation. Nature 509, 177–182 (2014).
Vogelsberger, M. et al. Introducing the Illustris project: simulating the coevolution of dark and visible matter in the Universe. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 444, 1518–1547 (2014).
Dubois, Y. et al. Dancing in the dark: galactic properties trace spin swings along the cosmic web. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 444, 1453–1468 (2014).
Schaye, J. et al. The EAGLE project: simulating the evolution and assembly of galaxies and their environments. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 446, 521–554 (2015).
Crain, R. A. et al. The EAGLE simulations of galaxy formation: calibration of subgrid physics and model variations. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 450, 1937–1961 (2015).
Feng, Y. et al. The BlueTides simulation: first galaxies and reionization. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 455, 2778–2791 (2016).
Kaviraj, S. et al. The Horizon-AGN simulation: evolution of galaxy properties over cosmic time. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 467, 4739–4752 (2017).
Di Matteo, T., Croft, R. A. C., Feng, Y., Waters, D. & Wilkins, S. The origin of the most massive black holes at high-z: BlueTides and the next quasar frontier. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 467, 4243–4251 (2017).
Springel, V. et al. First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: matter and galaxy clustering. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 475, 676–698 (2018).
Benson, A. J. GALACTICUS: a semi-analytic model of galaxy formation. New Astron. 17, 175–197 (2012).
Lacey, C. G. et al. A unified multiwavelength model of galaxy formation. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 462, 3854–3911 (2016).
Lagos, Cd. P. et al. Shark: introducing an open source, free, and flexible semi-analytic model of galaxy formation. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 481, 3573–3603 (2018).
Rowe, B. T. P. et al. GALSIM: the modular galaxy image simulation toolkit. Astron. Comput. 10, 121–150 (2015).
Tinker, J. et al. Toward a halo mass function for precision cosmology: the limits of universality. Astrophys. J. 688, 709–728 (2008).
Tinker, J. L. et al. The large-scale bias of dark matter halos: numerical calibration and model tests. Astrophys. J. 724, 878–886 (2010).
Garrison, L. H. et al. The Abacus cosmos: a suite of cosmological N-body simulations. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 236, 43 (2018).
Heitmann, K., White, M., Wagner, C., Habib, S. & Higdon, D. The Coyote Universe. I. Precision determination of the nonlinear matter power spectrum. Astrophys. J. 715, 104–121 (2010).
Heitmann, K., Lawrence, E., Kwan, J., Habib, S. & Higdon, D. The Coyote Universe extended: precision emulation of the matter power spectrum. Astrophys. J. 780, 111 (2014).
Heitmann, K. et al. The Mira–Titan Universe: precision predictions for dark energy surveys. Astrophys. J. 820, 108 (2016).
Habib, S. et al. HACC: simulating sky surveys on state-of-the-art supercomputing architectures. New Astron. 42, 49–65 (2016).
Schneider, E. E. & Robertson, B. E. CHOLLA: a new massively parallel hydrodynamics code for astrophysical simulation. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 217, 24 (2015).
Schneider, E. E. & Robertson, B. E. Hydrodynamical coupling of mass and momentum in multiphase galactic winds. Astrophys. J. 834, 144 (2017).
Magorrian, J. et al. The demography of massive dark objects in galaxy centers. Astron. J. 115, 2285–2305 (1998).
Tremaine, S. et al. The slope of the black hole mass versus velocity dispersion correlation. Astrophys. J. 574, 740–753 (2002).
Häring, N. & Rix, H.-W. On the black hole mass–bulge mass relation. Astrophys. J. 604, L89–L92 (2004).
Fan, X. et al. A survey of z > 5.8 quasars in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. I. Discovery of three new quasars and the spatial density of luminous quasars at z ~ 6. Astron. J. 122, 2833–2849 (2001).
Becker, R. H. et al. Evidence for reionization at z ~ 6: detection of a gunn-peterson trough in a z = 6.28 quasar. Astron. J. 122, 2850–2857 (2001).
Fan, X. et al. A survey of z > 5.7 quasars in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. II. Discovery of three additional quasars at z > 6. Astron. J. 125, 1649–1659 (2003).
Mortlock, D. J. et al. A luminous quasar at a redshift of z = 7.085. Nature 474, 616–619 (2011).
Efstathiou, G. & Rees, M. J. High-redshift quasars in the Cold Dark Matter cosmogony. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 230, 5P–11P (1988).
Robertson, B., Li, Y., Cox, T. J., Hernquist, L. & Hopkins, P. F. Photometric properties of the most massive high-redshift galaxies. Astrophys. J. 667, 60–78 (2007).
Richards, G. T. et al. Spectral energy distributions and multiwavelength selection of type 1 quasars. Astrophys. J. 166, 470–497 (2006).
Matthews, T. A. & Sandage, A. R. Optical identification of 3C 48, 3C 196, and 3C 286 with stellar objects. Astrophys. J. 138, 30 (1963).
Ulrich, M.-H., Maraschi, L. & Urry, C. M. Variability of active galactic nuclei. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 35, 445–502 (1997).
Vanden Berk, D. E. et al. The ensemble photometric variability of 25,000 quasars in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Astrophys. J. 601, 692–714 (2004).
Sesar, B. et al. Exploring the variable sky with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Astron. J. 134, 2236–2251 (2007).
Kelly, B. C., Bechtold, J. & Siemiginowska, A. Are the variations in quasar optical flux driven by thermal fluctuations? Astrophys. J. 698, 895–910 (2009).
MacLeod, C. L. et al. Modeling the time variability of SDSS stripe 82 quasars as a damped random walk. Astrophys. J. 721, 1014–1033 (2010).
Kozłowski, S. et al. Quantifying quasar variability as part of a general approach to classifying continuously varying sources. Astrophys. J. 708, 927–945 (2010).
MacLeod, C. L. et al. Quasar selection based on photometric variability. Astrophys. J. 728, 26 (2011).
Baldassare, V. F., Geha, M. & Greene, J. Identifying AGNs in low-mass galaxies via long-term optical variability. Astrophys. J. 868, 152 (2018).
Greene, J. E., Ho, L. C. & Barth, A. J. Black holes in pseudobulges and spheroidals: a change in the black hole–bulge scaling relations at low mass. Astrophys. J. 688, 159–179 (2008).
Reines, A. E. & Volonteri, M. Relations between central black hole mass and total galaxy stellar mass in the local Universe. Astrophys. J. 813, 82 (2015).
Baldassare, V. F., Reines, A. E., Gallo, E. & Greene, J. E. X-ray and ultraviolet properties of AGNs in nearby dwarf galaxies. Astrophys. J. 836, 20 (2017).
Press, W. H. & Schechter, P. Formation of galaxies and clusters of galaxies by self-similar gravitational condensation. Astrophys. J. 187, 425–438 (1974).
Sheth, R. K., Mo, H. J. & Tormen, G. Ellipsoidal collapse and an improved model for the number and spatial distribution of dark matter haloes. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 323, 1–12 (2001).
Moore, B. et al. Dark matter substructure within galactic halos. Astrophys. J. Lett. 524, L19–L22 (1999).
Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A. V., Valenzuela, O. & Prada, F. Where are the missing galactic satellites? Astrophys. J. 522, 82–92 (1999).
Montes, M. & Trujillo, I. Intracluster light at the frontier — II. The Frontier Fields clusters. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 474, 917–932 (2018).
Rudick, C. S., Mihos, J. C. & McBride, C. K. The quantity of intracluster light: comparing theoretical and observational measurement techniques using simulated clusters. Astrophys. J. 732, 48 (2011).
McConnachie, A. W. The observed properties of dwarf galaxies in and around the Local Group. Astron. J. 144, 4 (2012).
Willman, B. et al. A new Milky Way dwarf galaxy in Ursa Major. Astrophys. J. Lett. 626, L85–L88 (2005).
Belokurov, V. et al. A faint new Milky Way satellite in Bootes. Astrophys. J. Lett. 647, L111–L114 (2006).
Belokurov, V. et al. Cats and dogs, hair and a hero: a quintet of new Milky Way companions. Astrophys. J. 654, 897–906 (2007).
Bechtol, K. et al. Eight new Milky Way companions discovered in first-year Dark Energy Survey data. Astrophys. J. 807, 50 (2015).
Drlica-Wagner, A. et al. Eight ultra-faint galaxy candidates discovered in year two of the Dark Energy Survey. Astrophys. J. 813, 109 (2015).
van der Burg, R. F. J. et al. The abundance of ultra-diffuse galaxies from groups to clusters. UDGs are relatively more common in more massive haloes. Astron. Astrophys. 607, A79 (2017).
Greco, J. P. et al. Illuminating low surface brightness galaxies with the Hyper Suprime-Cam survey. Astrophys. J. 857, 104 (2018).
Abraham, R. G. & van Dokkum, P. G. Ultra-low surface brightness imaging with the Dragonfly telephoto array. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 126, 55 (2014).
Tollerud, E. J., Bullock, J. S., Strigari, L. E. & Willman, B. Hundreds of Milky Way satellites? Luminosity bias in the satellite luminosity function. Astrophys. J. 688, 277–289 (2008).
Belokurov, V. et al. The field of streams: Sagittarius and its siblings. Astrophys. J. Lett. 642, L137–L140 (2006).
Bullock, J. S. & Johnston, K. V. Tracing galaxy formation with stellar halos. I. Methods. Astrophys. J. 635, 931–949 (2005).
Johnston, K. V. et al. Tracing galaxy formation with stellar halos. II. Relating substructure in phase and abundance space to accretion histories. Astrophys. J. 689, 936–957 (2008).
Bell, E. F. et al. The accretion origin of the Milky Way’s stellar halo. Astrophys. J. 680, 295–311 (2008).
Kaviraj, S. Peculiar early-type galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey stripe 82. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 406, 382–394 (2010).
Kaviraj, S. The importance of minor-merger-driven star formation and black hole growth in disc galaxies. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 440, 2944–2952 (2014).
Duc, P.-A. et al. The ATLAS3D project — IX. The merger origin of a fast- and a slow-rotating early-type galaxy revealed with deep optical imaging: first results. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 417, 863–881 (2011).
Trujillo, I. & Fliri, J. Beyond 31 mag arcsec−2: the frontier of low surface brightness imaging with the largest optical telescopes. Astrophys. J. 823, 123 (2016).
Borlaff, A. et al. The missing light of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.00002 (2018).
Ji, I., Hasan, I., Schmidt, S. J. & Tyson, J. A. Estimating sky level. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacif. 130, 084504 (2018).
Bradshaw, A. K., Lage, C. & Tyson, J. A. Characterization of LSST CCDs using realistic images, before first light. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.00534 (2018).
Gressler, W. et al. LSST telescope and site status. In Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes V. Proc. SPIE 9145, https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2056711 (SPIE, 2014).
Bosch, J. et al. The Hyper Suprime-Cam software pipeline. Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn 70, S5 (2018).
Ivezić, Ž. et al. SDSS data management and photometric quality assessment. Astron. Nachr. 325, 583–589 (2004).
Dawson, W. A., Schneider, M. D., Tyson, J. A. & Jee, M. J. The ellipticity distribution of ambiguously blended objects. Astrophys. J. 816, 11 (2016).
Merlin, E. et al. T-PHOT: a new code for PSF-matched, prior-based, multiwavelength extragalactic deconfusion photometry. Astron. Astrophys. 582, A15 (2015).
Merlin, E. et al. T-PHOT version 2.0: improved algorithms for background subtraction, local convolution, kernel registration, and new options. Astron. Astrophys. 595, A97 (2016).
Joseph, R., Courbin, F. & Starck, J.-L. Multi-band morpho-spectral component analysis deblending tool (MuSCADeT): deblending colourful objects. Astron. Astrophys. 589, A2 (2016).
Melchior, P. et al. SCARLET: source separation in multi-band images by constrained matrix factorization. Astron. Comput. 24, 129–142 (2018).
Robotham, A. S. G. et al. ProFound: source extraction and application to modern survey data. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 476, 3137–3159 (2018).
Sersic, J. L. Atlas de Galaxias Australes (European Southern Observatory, 1968).
Lintott, C. J. et al. Galaxy Zoo: morphologies derived from visual inspection of galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 389, 1179–1189 (2008).
Lintott, C. et al. Galaxy Zoo 1: data release of morphological classifications for nearly 900 000 galaxies. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 410, 166–178 (2011).
Willett, K. W. et al. Galaxy Zoo 2: detailed morphological classifications for 304 122 galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 435, 2835–2860 (2013).
Bamford, S. P. et al. Galaxy Zoo: the dependence of morphology and colour on environment. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 393, 1324–1352 (2009).
York, D. G. et al. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey: technical summary. Astron. J. 120, 1579–1587 (2000).
Simmons, B. D. et al. Galaxy Zoo: quantitative visual morphological classifications for 48 000 galaxies from CANDELS. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 464, 4420–4447 (2017).
Ball, N. M. et al. Galaxy types in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey using supervised artificial neural networks. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 348, 1038–1046 (2004).
Hocking, A., Geach, J. E., Sun, Y. & Davey, N. An automatic taxonomy of galaxy morphology using unsupervised machine learning. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 473, 1108–1129 (2018).
Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I. & Hinton, G. E. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25 (eds Pereira, F.et al.) 1097–1105 (Curran, 2012).
Dieleman, S., Willett, K. W. & Dambre, J. Rotation-invariant convolutional neural networks for galaxy morphology prediction. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 450, 1441–1459 (2015). An early application of deep learning techniques to the automated morphological classification of galaxies.
Dai, J.-M. & Tong, J. Galaxy morphology classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.10406 (2018).
Tuccillo, D. et al. Deep learning for galaxy surface brightness profile fitting. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 475, 894–909 (2018).
Domnguez Sánchez, H. et al. Knowledge transfer of deep learning for galaxy morphology from one survey to another. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.00807 (2018).
Beck, M. R. et al. Integrating human and machine intelligence in galaxy morphology classification tasks. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 476, 5516–5534 (2018).
Masters, D. et al. Mapping the galaxy color–redshift relation: optimal photometric redshift calibration strategies for cosmology surveys. Astrophys. J. 813, 53 (2015).
Bilicki, M. et al. Photometric redshifts for the Kilo-Degree Survey. Machine-learning analysis with artificial neural networks. Astron. Astrophys. 616, A69 (2018).
Pasquet, J., Bertin, E., Treyer, M., Arnouts, S. & Fouchez, D. Photometric redshifts from SDSS images using a convolutional neural network. Astron. Astrophys. 621, A26 (2019).
Driver, S. P. et al. Galaxy and Mass Assembly (GAMA): survey diagnostics and core data release. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 413, 971–995 (2011).
Davies, L. J. M. et al. Deep Extragalactic Visible Legacy Survey (DEVILS): motivation, design, and target catalogue. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 480, 768–799 (2018).
Dark Energy Survey Collaboration et al. The Dark Energy Survey: more than dark energy — an overview. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 460, 1270–1299 (2016).
Abbott, T. M. C. et al. The Dark Energy Survey data release 1. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.03181 (2018).
Hildebrandt, H. et al. KiDS-450: cosmological parameter constraints from tomographic weak gravitational lensing. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 465, 1454–1498 (2017).
Aihara, H. et al. The Hyper Suprime-Cam SSP survey: overview and survey design. Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn 70, S4 (2018).
Aihara, H. et al. First data release of the Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru strategic program. Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn 70, S8 (2018).
McMahon, R. G. et al. First scientific results from the VISTA Hemisphere Survey (VHS). Messenger 154, 35–37 (2013).
Abolfathi, B. et al. The fourteenth data release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey: first spectroscopic data from the extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey and from the second phase of the Apache Point Observatory galactic evolution experiment. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 235, 42 (2018).
Takada, M. et al. Extragalactic science, cosmology, and galactic archaeology with the Subaru Prime Focus Spectrograph. Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn 66, R1 (2014).
de Jong, R. S. et al. 4MOST: the 4-metre multi-object spectroscopic telescope project at preliminary design review. In Proc. SPIE 9908: Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, 99081 O (SPIE, 2016).
DESI Collaboration et al. The DESI experiment Part I: science, targeting, and survey design. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.00036 (2016).
DESI Collaboration et al. The DESI experiment Part II: instrument design. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.00037 (2016).
Dey, A. et al. Overview of the DESI Legacy Imaging Surveys. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.08657 (2018).
Carilli, C. L. & Rawlings, S. Motivation, key science projects, standards and assumptions. New Astron. Rev. 48, 979–984 (2004).
Johnston, S. et al. Science with ASKAP. The Australian Square-Kilometre-Array Pathfinder. Exp. Astron. 22, 151–273 (2008).
Jonas, J. L. MeerKAT — The South African array with composite dishes and wide-band single pixel feeds. Proc. IEEE 97, 1522–1530 (2009).
Bacon, D. et al. Synergy between the Large Synoptic Survey telescope and the Square Kilometre Array. In Proc. Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array. PoS(AASKA14), https://doi.org/10.22323/1.215.0145 (2015).
Merloni, A. et al. eROSITA science book: mapping the structure of the energetic Universe. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3114 (2012).
Jain, B. et al. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts: optimizing the joint science return from LSST, Euclid and WFIRST. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.07897 (2015).
Laureijs, R. et al. Euclid definition study report. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3193 (2011).
Rhodes, J. et al. Scientific synergy between LSST and Euclid. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 233, 21 (2017).
Spergel, D. et al. Wide-field InfraRed survey telescope-astrophysics focused telescope assets WFIRST-AFTA 2015 report. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.03757 (2015).
Jones, R. L. et al. The Large Synoptic Survey Telescope as a near-Earth object discovery machine. Icarus 303, 181–202 (2018).
Banerji, M. et al. Combining Dark Energy Survey science verification data with near-infrared data from the ESO VISTA Hemisphere Survey. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 446, 2523–2539 (2015).
Hilbert, B. et al. Powerful activity in the bright ages. I. A visible/IR survey of high redshift 3C radio galaxies and quasars. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 225, 12 (2016).
Acknowledgements
B.E.R. acknowledges a Maureen and John Hendricks Visiting Professorship at the Institute for Advanced Study, NASA contract NNG16PJ25C, and NSF award 1828315. S.K. acknowledges support from STFC through grant ST/N002512/1 and a Senior Research Fellowship at Worcester College Oxford. S.J.S. acknowledges support from DOE grant DE-SC0009999 and NSF/AURA grant N56981C.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
B.E.R. wrote the text and created the figures. M.B., S.B., R.L.D., H.C.F., R.H., S.K., J.A.N., S.J.S., J.A.T. and R.H.W. contributed to the text. All authors reviewed the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s noteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Glossary
- Deblending
-
The analysis procedure by which the light from overlapping stars and galaxies in crowded astronomical images is assigned to distinct objects.
- Airmass
-
A measure of the path length through the Earth’s atmosphere, increasing from zenith to the horizon.
- Dithering strategies
-
The distribution on the sky of individual images taken by a camera, where shifts of the camera position are taken to cover more area, to improve the image quality by better sampling the light distribution of astronomical objects, and to account for the layout and possible defects of detectors in the camera.
- Pointings
-
Single locations on the sky where a telescope has been aimed.
- ugrizy photometric bands
-
The camera filters used by LSST to capture certain wavelengths of light, from the ultraviolet (u), to the optical (g, r and i) to the near-infrared (z and y).
- Ancillary dataset
-
A collection of observations that augment or support an astronomical experiment, but were not taken by the same observatory (for instance, radio or X-ray observations provide ancillary datasets for optical observations).
- Peak rarity
-
A measure of the local overdensity of matter, equivalent to the number of standard deviations above the mean density a region would lie in the initial, nearly Gaussian matter density field generated by the end of inflation.
- Galactic cirrus background
-
A source of noise in the form of sky brightness from low density gas and dust in the Milky Way, spread over large angular scales on the sky.
- Slitless near-infrared spectroscopy
-
A method for measuring the spectra of light from astronomical objects in a telescope’s field of view by dispersing incoming light to a camera without using a mask with small slits.
- R + I + Z visual filter
-
The camera filters used by Euclid to capture certain wavelengths of optical light.
- H4RG infrared detectors
-
Special pixelated sensors used in astronomical cameras that have high quantum efficiency for light redder than wavelengths of 1 μm.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Robertson, B.E., Banerji, M., Brough, S. et al. Galaxy formation and evolution science in the era of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope. Nat Rev Phys 1, 450–462 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-019-0067-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-019-0067-x
This article is cited by
-
An integrated imaging sensor for aberration-corrected 3D photography
Nature (2022)
-
N-body simulation of galaxy merger containing dark matter using GADGET-2
Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy (2022)
-
Enabling real-time multi-messenger astrophysics discoveries with deep learning
Nature Reviews Physics (2019)