Paper detail

Submillimetre galaxies in cosmological hydrodynamical simulations -- an opportunity for constraining feedback models

Submillimetre galaxies (SMGs) have long posed a challenge for theorists, and self-consistently reproducing the properties of the SMG population in a large-volume cosmological hydrodynamical simulation has not yet been achieved. We use a scaling relation derived from previous simulations plus radiative transfer calculations to predict the submm flux densities of simulated SMGs drawn from cosmological simulations from the Illustris and IllustrisTNG projects based on the simulated galaxies' star formation rates (SFRs) and dust masses and compare the predicted number counts with observations. We find that the predicted SMG number counts based on IllustrisTNG are significantly less than observed (more than 1 dex at $S_{850} \gtrsim 4$ mJy). The simulation from the original Illustris project yields more SMGs than IllustrisTNG: the predicted counts are consistent with those observed at both $S_{850} \lesssim 5$ mJy and $S_{850} \gtrsim 9$ mJy and only a factor of $\sim 2$ lower than observed at intermediate flux densities. The redshift distribution of SMGs with $S_{850} > 3$ mJy in IllustrisTNG is consistent with the observed distribution, whereas the Illustris redshift distribution peaks at significantly lower redshift (1.5 vs. 2.8). We demonstrate that IllustrisTNG hosts fewer SMGs than Illustris because in the former, high-mass ($M_{\star} \sim 10^{11} \, \text{M}_{\odot}$) $z \sim 2-3$ galaxies have lower dust masses and SFRs than in Illustris owing to differences in the sub-grid models for stellar or/and active galactic nucleus (AGN) feedback between the two simulations (we unfortunately cannot isolate the specific cause(s) post hoc). Our results demonstrate that because our method enables predicting SMG number counts in post-processing with a negligible computational expense, SMGs can provide useful constraints for tuning sub-grid models in future large-volume cosmological simulations.

preprint2021arXivOpen 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.