Paper detail

Galaxies in the central regions of simulated galaxy clusters

In this paper, we assess the impact of numerical resolution and of the implementation of energy input from AGN feedback models on the inner structure of cluster sub-haloes in hydrodynamic simulations. We compare several zoom-in re-simulations of a sub-sample of the cluster-sized haloes studied in Meneghetti et al. (2020), obtained by varying mass resolution, softening length and AGN energy feedback scheme. We study the impact of these different setups on the subhalo abundances, their radial distribution, their density and mass profiles and the relation between the maximum circular velocity, which is a proxy for subhalo compactness. Regardless of the adopted numerical resolution and feedback model, subhaloes with masses Msub < 1e11Msun/h, the most relevant mass-range for galaxy-galaxy strong lensing, have maximum circular velocities ~30% smaller than those measured from strong lensing observations of Bergamini et al. (2019). We also find that simulations with less effective AGN energy feedback produce massive subhaloes (Msub> 1e11 Msun/h ) with higher maximum circular velocity and that their Vmax - Msub relation approaches the observed one. However the stellar-mass number count of these objects exceeds the one found in observations and we find that the compactness of these simulated subhaloes is the result of an extremely over-efficient star formation in their cores, also leading to larger-than-observed subhalo stellar mass. We conclude that simulations are unable to simultaneously reproduce the observed stellar masses and compactness (or maximum circular velocities) of cluster galaxies. Thus, the discrepancy between theory and observations that emerged from the analysis of Meneghetti et al. (2020) persists. It remains an open question as to whether such a discrepancy reflects limitations of the current implementation of galaxy formation models or the LCDM paradigm.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access23 authors2 topics

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.