Paper detail

Gas cooling in semi-analytic models and SPH simulations: are results consistent?

We present a detailed comparison between the galaxy populations within a massive cluster, as predicted by hydrodynamical SPH simulations and by a semi-analytic model (SAM) of galaxy formation. Both models include gas cooling and a simple prescription of star formation, which consists in transforming instantaneously any cold gas available into stars, while neglecting any source of energy feedback. We find that, in general, galaxy populations from SAMs and SPH have similar statistical properties, in agreement with previous studies. However, when comparing galaxies on an object-by-object basis, we find a number of interesting differences: a) the star formation histories of the brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs) from SAM and SPH models differ significantly, with the SPH BCG exhibiting a lower level of star formation activity at low redshift, and a more intense and shorter initial burst of star formation with respect to its SAM counterpart; b) while all stars associated with the BCG were formed in its progenitors in the semi-analytic model used here, this holds true only for half of the final BCG stellar mass in the SPH simulation, the remaining half being contributed by tidal stripping of stars from the diffuse stellar component associated with galaxies accreted on the cluster halo; c) SPH satellites can loose up to 90 per cent of their stellar mass at the time of accretion, due to tidal stripping, a process not included in the semi-analytic model used in this study; d) in the SPH simulation, significant cooling occurs on the most massive satellite galaxies and this lasts for up to 1 Gyr after accretion. This physical process is not included in the semi-analytic model used in our study, as well as in most of the models discussed in the recent literature.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 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.

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 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.