Paper detail

Comparing galaxy formation in the L-GALAXIES semi-analytical model and the IllustrisTNG simulations

We perform a comparison, object-by-object and statistically, between the Munich semi-analytical model, L-Galaxies, and the IllustrisTNG hydrodynamical simulations. By running L-Galaxies on the IllustrisTNG dark matter-only merger trees, we identify the same galaxies in the two models. This allows us to compare the stellar mass, star formation rate and gas content of galaxies, as well as the baryonic content of subhaloes and haloes in the two models. We find that both the stellar mass functions and the stellar masses of individual galaxies agree to better than $\sim0.2\,$dex. On the other hand, specific star formation rates and gas contents can differ more substantially. At $z=0$ the transition between low-mass star-forming galaxies and high-mass, quenched galaxies occurs at a stellar mass scale $\sim0.5\,$dex lower in IllustrisTNG than in L-Galaxies. IllustrisTNG also produces substantially more quenched galaxies at higher redshifts. Both models predict a halo baryon fraction close to the cosmic value for clusters, but IllustrisTNG predicts lower baryon fractions in group environments. These differences are due primarily to differences in modelling feedback from stars and supermassive black holes. The gas content and star formation rates of galaxies in and around clusters and groups differ substantially, with IllustrisTNG satellites less star-forming and less gas-rich. We show that environmental processes such as ram-pressure stripping are stronger and operate to larger distances and for a broader host mass range in IllustrisTNG. We suggest that the treatment of galaxy evolution in the semi-analytic model needs to be improved by prescriptions which capture local environmental effects more accurately.

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.