Paper detail

Galaxies in the EAGLE hydrodynamical simulation and in the Durham and Munich semi-analytical models

We compare global predictions from the EAGLE hydrodynamical simulation, and two semi-analytic (SA) models of galaxy formation, L-GALAXIES and GALFORM. All three models include the key physical processes for the formation and evolution of galaxies and their parameters are calibrated against a small number of observables at $z\approx 0$. The two SA models have been applied to merger trees constructed from the EAGLE dark matter only simulation. We find that at $z\leq 2$, both the galaxy stellar mass functions for stellar masses $M_*<10^{10.5} M_{\odot}$ and the median specific star formation rates (sSFRs) in the three models agree to better than $0.4$~dex. The evolution of the sSFR predicted by the three models closely follows the mass assembly history of dark matter haloes. In both EAGLE and L-GALAXIES there are more central passive galaxies with $M_*<10^{9.5} M_{\odot}$ than in L-GALAXIES. This difference is related to galaxies that have entered and then left a larger halo and which are treated as satellites in GALFORM. In the range $0<z<1$, the slope of the evolution of the star formation rate density in EAGLE is a factor of $\approx 1.5$ steeper than for the two SA models. The median sizes for galaxies with $M_*>10^{9.5} M_{\odot}$ differ in some instances by an order of magnitude, while the stellar mass-size relation in EAGLE is a factor of $\approx 2$ tighter than for the two SA models. Our results suggest the need for a revision of how SA models treat the effect of baryonic self-gravity on the underlying dark matter. The treatment of gas flows in the models needs to be revised based on detailed comparison with observations to understand in particular the evolution of the stellar mass-metallicity relation.

preprint2016arXivOpen 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.

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.