Paper detail

Baryon Cycling in the Low-Redshift Circumgalactic Medium: A Comparison of Simulations to the COS-Halos Survey

We analyze the low-redshift (z~0.2) circumgalactic medium by comparing absorption-line data from the COS-Halos Survey to absorption around a matched galaxy sample from two cosmological hydrodynamic simulations. The models include different prescriptions for galactic outflows, namely hybrid energy/momentum driven wind (ezw), and constant winds (cw). We extract for comparison direct observables including equivalent widths, covering factors, ion ratios, and kinematics. Both wind models are generally in good agreement with these observations for HI and certain low ionization metal lines, but show poorer agreement with higher ionization metal lines including SiIII and OVI that are well-observed by COS-Halos. These discrepancies suggest that both wind models predict too much cool, metal-enriched gas and not enough hot gas, and/or that the metals are not sufficiently well-mixed. This may reflect our model assumption of ejecting outflows as cool and unmixing gas. Our ezw simulation includes a heuristic prescription to quench massive galaxies by super-heating its ISM gas, which we show yields sufficient low ionisation absorption to be broadly consistent with observations, but also substantial OVI absorption that is inconsistent with data, suggesting that gas around quenched galaxies in the real Universe does not cool. At impact parameters of <50 kpc, recycling winds dominate the absorption of low ions and even HI, while OVI almost always arises from metals ejected longer than 1 Gyr ago. The similarity between the wind models is surprising, since we show that they differ substantially in their predicted amount and phase distribution of halo gas. We show that this similarity owes mainly to our comparison here at fixed stellar mass rather than at fixed halo mass in our previous works, which suggests that CGM properties are more closely tied to the stellar mass of galaxies rather than halo mass.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access11 authors1 topic

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.

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 map preview

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.