Paper detail

A comparison of $\text{H}_2$ formation models at high redshift

Modelling the molecular gas that is routinely detected through CO observations of high-redshift galaxies constitutes a major challenge for ab initio simulations of galaxy formation. We carry out a suite of cosmological hydrodynamic simulations to compare three approximate methods that have been used in the literature to track the formation and evolution of the simplest and most abundant molecule, H$_2$. Namely, we consider: i) a semi-empirical procedure that associates H$_2$ to dark-matter haloes based on a series of scaling relations inferred from observations, ii) a model that assumes chemical equilibrium between the H$_2$ formation and destruction rates, and iii) a model that fully solves the out-of-equilibrium rate equations and accounts for the unresolved structure of molecular clouds. We study the impact of finite spatial resolution and show that robust H$_2$ masses at redshift $z\approx 4$ can only be obtained for galaxies that are sufficiently metal enriched in which H$_2$ formation is fast. This corresponds to H$_2$ reservoirs with masses $M_{\mathrm{H_2}}\gtrsim 6\times 10^9 \mathrm{M}_\odot$. In this range, equilibrium and non-equilibrium models predict similar molecular masses (but different galaxy morphologies) while the semi-empirical method produces less H$_2$. The star formation rates as well as the stellar and H$_2$ masses of the simulated galaxies are in line with those observed in actual galaxies at similar redshifts that are not massive starbursts. The H$_2$ mass functions extracted from the simulations at $z\approx 4$ agree well with recent observations that only sample the high-mass end. However, our results indicate that most molecular material at high $z$ lies yet undetected in reservoirs with $10^9<M_{\mathrm H_2}<10^{10} \mathrm{M}_\odot$.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.