BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Daniel Cunnama

Daniel Cunnama contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2016arXiv

nIFTY galaxy cluster simulations III: The Similarity & Diversity of Galaxies & Subhaloes

We examine subhaloes and galaxies residing in a simulated LCDM galaxy cluster ($M^{\rm crit}_{200}=1.1\times10^{15}M_\odot/h$) produced by hydrodynamical codes ranging from classic Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH), newer SPH codes, adaptive and moving mesh codes. These codes use subgrid models to capture galaxy formation physics. We compare how well these codes reproduce the same subhaloes/galaxies in gravity only, non-radiative hydrodynamics and full feedback physics runs by looking at the overall subhalo/galaxy distribution and on an individual objects basis. We find the subhalo population is reproduced to within $\lesssim10\%$ for both dark matter only and non-radiative runs, with individual objects showing code-to-code scatter of $\lesssim0.1$ dex, although the gas in non-radiative simulations shows significant scatter. Including feedback physics significantly increases the diversity. Subhalo mass and $V_{max}$ distributions vary by $\approx20\%$. The galaxy populations also show striking code-to-code variations. Although the Tully-Fisher relation is similar in almost all codes, the number of galaxies with $10^{9}M_\odot/h\lesssim M_*\lesssim 10^{12}M_\odot/h$ can differ by a factor of 4. Individual galaxies show code-to-code scatter of $\sim0.5$ dex in stellar mass. Moreover, strong systematic differences exist, with some codes producing galaxies $70\%$ smaller than others. The diversity partially arises from the inclusion/absence of AGN feedback. Our results combined with our companion papers demonstrate that subgrid physics is not just subject to fine-tuning, but the complexity of building galaxies in all environments remains a challenge. We argue even basic galaxy properties, such as the stellar mass to halo mass, should be treated with errors bars of $\sim0.2-0.4$ dex.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

nIFTy Galaxy Cluster simulations IV: Quantifying the Influence of Baryons on Halo Properties

Building on the initial results of the nIFTy simulated galaxy cluster comparison, we compare and contrast the impact of baryonic physics with a single massive galaxy cluster, run with 11 state-of-the-art codes, spanning adaptive mesh, moving mesh, classic and modern SPH approaches. For each code represented we have a dark matter only (DM) and non-radiative (NR) version of the cluster, as well as a full physics (FP) version for a subset of the codes. We compare both radial mass and kinematic profiles, as well as global measures of the cluster (e.g. concentration, spin, shape), in the NR and FP runs with that in the DM runs. Our analysis reveals good consistency (<= 20%) between global properties of the cluster predicted by different codes when integrated quantities are measured within the virial radius R200. However, we see larger differences for quantities within R2500, especially in the FP runs. The radial profiles reveal a diversity, especially in the cluster centre, between the NR runs, which can be understood straightforwardly from the division of codes into classic SPH and non-classic SPH (including the modern SPH, adaptive and moving mesh codes); and between the FP runs, which can also be understood broadly from the division of codes into those that include AGN feedback and those that do not. The variation with respect to the median is much larger in the FP runs with different baryonic physics prescriptions than in the NR runs with different hydrodynamics solvers.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

nIFTy galaxy cluster simulations V: Investigation of the Cluster Infall Region

We examine the properties of the galaxies and dark matter haloes residing in the cluster infall region surrounding the simulated $Λ$CDM galaxy cluster studied by Elahi et al. (2016) at z=0. The $1.1\times10^{15}h^{-1}\text{M}_{\odot}$ galaxy cluster has been simulated with eight different hydrodynamical codes containing a variety of hydrodynamic solvers and subgrid schemes. All models completed a dark-matter only, non-radiative and full-physics run from the same initial conditions. The simulations contain dark matter and gas with mass resolution $m_{\text{DM}}=9.01\times 10^8h^{-1}\text{M}_{\odot}$ and $m_{\text{gas}}=1.9\times 10^8h^{-1}\text{M}_{\odot}$ respectively. We find that the synthetic cluster is surrounded by clear filamentary structures that contain ~60% of haloes in the infall region with mass ~$10^{12.5} - 10^{14} h^{-1}\text{M}_{\odot}$, including 2-3 group-sized haloes ($> 10^{13}h^{-1}\text{M}_{\odot}$). However, we find that only ~10% of objects in the infall region are subhaloes residing in haloes, which may suggest that there is not much ongoing preprocessing occurring in the infall region at z=0. By examining the baryonic content contained within the haloes, we also show that the code-to-code scatter in stellar fraction across all halo masses is typically ~2 orders of magnitude between the two most extreme cases, and this is predominantly due to the differences in subgrid schemes and calibration procedures that each model uses. Models that do not include AGN feedback typically produce too high stellar fractions compared to observations by at least ~1 order of magnitude.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

nIFTy Cosmology: Comparison of Galaxy Formation Models

We present a comparison of 14 galaxy formation models: 12 different semi-analytical models and 2 halo-occupation distribution models for galaxy formation based upon the same cosmological simulation and merger tree information derived from it. The participating codes have proven to be very successful in their own right but they have all been calibrated independently using various observational data sets, stellar models, and merger trees. In this paper we apply them without recalibration and this leads to a wide variety of predictions for the stellar mass function, specific star formation rates, stellar-to- halo mass ratios, and the abundance of orphan galaxies. The scatter is much larger than seen in previous comparison studies primarily because the codes have been used outside of their native environment within which they are well tested and calibrated. The purpose of the `nIFTy comparison of galaxy formation models&#39; is to bring together as many different galaxy formation modellers as possible and to investigate a common approach to model calibration. This paper provides a unified description for all participating models and presents the initial, uncalibrated comparison as a baseline for our future studies where we will develop a common calibration framework and address the extent to which that reduces the scatter in the model predictions seen here.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

nIFTy galaxy cluster simulations II: radiative models

We have simulated the formation of a massive galaxy cluster (M$_{200}^{\rm crit}$ = 1.1$\times$10$^{15}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$) in a $Λ$CDM universe using 10 different codes (RAMSES, 2 incarnations of AREPO and 7 of GADGET), modeling hydrodynamics with full radiative subgrid physics. These codes include Smoothed-Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH), spanning traditional and advanced SPH schemes, adaptive mesh and moving mesh codes. Our goal is to study the consistency between simulated clusters modeled with different radiative physical implementations - such as cooling, star formation and AGN feedback. We compare images of the cluster at $z=0$, global properties such as mass, and radial profiles of various dynamical and thermodynamical quantities. We find that, with respect to non-radiative simulations, dark matter is more centrally concentrated, the extent not simply depending on the presence/absence of AGN feedback. The scatter in global quantities is substantially higher than for non-radiative runs. Intriguingly, adding radiative physics seems to have washed away the marked code-based differences present in the entropy profile seen for non-radiative simulations in Sembolini et al. (2015): radiative physics + classic SPH can produce entropy cores. Furthermore, the inclusion/absence of AGN feedback is not the dividing line -as in the case of describing the stellar content- for whether a code produces an unrealistic temperature inversion and a falling central entropy profile. However, AGN feedback does strongly affect the overall stellar distribution, limiting the effect of overcooling and reducing sensibly the stellar fraction.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access