Paper detail

Galaxy formation in semi-analytic models and cosmological hydrodynamic zoom simulations

We present a detailed comparison between numerical cosmological hydrodynamic zoom simulations and semi-analytic models (SAMs) run within merger trees extracted from the simulations. The high-resolution simulations represent 48 individual halos with virial masses in the range 2.4*10^11M_sun < M_Halo < 3.3*10^13M_sun. They include radiative H & He cooling, photo-ionization, star formation and thermal SN feedback. We compare with different SAM versions including only this complement of physical processes, and also ones including supernova driven winds, metal cooling, and feedback from AGN. Our analysis is focused on the cosmic evolution of the baryon content in galaxies and its division into various components (stars, cold gas, and hot gas). Both the SAMs and simulations are compared with observational relations between halo mass and stellar mass, and between stellar mass and star formation rate, at low and high redshift. The simulations turn out to have much higher star formation efficiencies (by about a factor of ten) than the SAMs. Therefore the cold gas is consumed much more rapidly in the simulations and stars form much earlier. Also, simulations show a transition between stellar mass growth that is dominated by in situ formation of stars to growth that is predominantly through accretion of stars formed in external galaxies. In SAMs, stellar growth is always dominated by in situ star formation. In addition, SAMs overpredict the overall gas accretion rates relative to the simulations, and overestimate the fraction of &#34;hot&#34; relative to &#34;cold&#34; accretion. We discuss the reasons for these discrepancies, and identify several physical processes that are missing in our SAM. We also highlight physical processes that are neglected in the simulations studied here, but which appear to be crucial in order to understand the properties of real galaxies.

preprint2011arXivOpen 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.