Paper detail

Mergers in Lambda-CDM: Uncertainties in Theoretical Predictions and Interpretations of the Merger Rate

Different methodologies lead to order-of-magnitude variations in predicted galaxy merger rates. We examine and quantify the dominant uncertainties. Different halo merger rates and subhalo 'destruction' rates agree to within a factor ~2 given proper care in definitions. If however (sub)halo masses are not appropriately defined or are under-resolved, the major merger rate can be dramatically suppressed. The dominant differences in galaxy merger rates owe to baryonic physics. Hydrodynamic simulations without feedback and older models that do not agree with the observed galaxy mass function propagate factor ~5 bias in the resulting merger rates. However, if the model matches the galaxy mass function, properties of central galaxies are sufficiently converged to give small differences in merger rates. But variations in baryonic physics of satellites also have dramatic effects. The known problem of satellite 'over-quenching' in most semi-analytic models (SAMs), whereby SAM satellites are too efficiently stripped of gas, could lead to order-of-magnitude under-estimates of merger rates for low-mass, gas-rich galaxies. Fixing the satellite properties to observations tends to predict higher merger rates, but with factor ~2 empirical uncertainties. Choice of mass ratio definition matters: at low masses, most true major mergers (in baryonic/dynamical galaxy mass) will appear to be minor mergers in their stellar or luminosity mass ratio. Observations and models using these criteria may underestimate major merger rates by factors ~5. Orbital parameters and gas fractions also introduce factor ~3 differences in amount of bulge formed by mergers, even for fixed mass ratio encounters.

preprint2010arXivOpen 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.