Paper detail

The Aquila comparison Project: The Effects of Feedback and Numerical Methods on Simulations of Galaxy Formation

We compare the results of thirteen cosmological gasdynamical codes used to simulate the formation of a galaxy in the LCDM structure formation paradigm. The various runs differ in their hydrodynamical treatment (SPH, moving-mesh and AMR) but share the same initial conditions and adopt their latest published model of cooling, star formation and feedback. Despite the common halo assembly history, we find large code-to-code variations in the stellar mass, size, morphology and gas content of the galaxy at z=0, due mainly to the different implementations of feedback. Compared with observation, most codes tend to produce an overly massive galaxy, smaller and less gas-rich than typical spirals, with a massive bulge and a declining rotation curve. A stellar disk is discernible in most simulations, though its prominence varies widely from code to code. There is a well-defined trend between the effects of feedback and the severity of the disagreement with observation. Models that are more effective at limiting the baryonic mass of the galaxy come closer to matching observed galaxy scaling laws, but often to the detriment of the disk component. Our conclusions hold at two different numerical resolutions. Some differences can also be traced to the numerical techniques: more gas seems able to cool and become available for star formation in grid-based codes than in SPH. However, this effect is small compared to the variations induced by different feedback prescriptions. We conclude that state-of-the-art simulations cannot yet uniquely predict the properties of the baryonic component of a galaxy, even when the assembly history of its host halo is fully specified. Developing feedback algorithms that can effectively regulate the mass of a galaxy without hindering the formation of high-angular momentum stellar disks remains a challenge.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access23 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.

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.