Why Do Semianalytic Models Predict Higher Scatter in the Stellar Mass–Halo Mass Relation Than Cosmological Hydrodynamic Simulations?
Semianalytic models (SAMs) systematically predict higher-stellar mass scatter at a given halo mass than hydrodynamical simulations and most empirical models. Our goal is to investigate the physical origin of this scatter by exploring modifications to the physics in the SAM Dark Sage . We design two...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
IOP Publishing
2024-01-01
|
| Series: | The Astrophysical Journal |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b0f |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1846162205820583936 |
|---|---|
| author | Antonio J. Porras-Valverde John C. Forbes Rachel S. Somerville Adam R. H. Stevens Kelly Holley-Bockelmann Andreas A. Berlind Shy Genel |
| author_facet | Antonio J. Porras-Valverde John C. Forbes Rachel S. Somerville Adam R. H. Stevens Kelly Holley-Bockelmann Andreas A. Berlind Shy Genel |
| author_sort | Antonio J. Porras-Valverde |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Semianalytic models (SAMs) systematically predict higher-stellar mass scatter at a given halo mass than hydrodynamical simulations and most empirical models. Our goal is to investigate the physical origin of this scatter by exploring modifications to the physics in the SAM Dark Sage . We design two black hole formation models that approximate results from the IllustrisTNG 300-1 hydrodynamical simulation. In the first model, we assign a fixed black hole mass of 10 ^6 M _⊙ to every halo that reaches 10 ^10.5 M _⊙ . In the second model, we disregard any black hole growth as implemented in the standard Dark Sage model. Instead, we force all black hole masses to follow the median z = 0 black hole mass–halo mass relation in IllustrisTNG 300-1 with an imposed fixed scatter. We find that each model on its own does not significantly reduce the scatter in stellar mass. To explore the effects of active galactic nucleus (AGN) feedback in addition to black hole seeding, we replace the native Dark Sage AGN feedback model with a simple model where we turn off cooling for galaxies with black hole masses above 10 ^8 M _⊙ . With the additional modification in AGN feedback, we find that the supermassive black hole seeding and fixed conditional distribution models create a significant reduction in the scatter in stellar mass at halo masses between 10 ^11–14 M _⊙ . These results suggest that AGN feedback in SAMs acts in a qualitatively different way than feedback implemented in cosmological simulations. Either or both may require substantial modification to match the empirically inferred scatter in the stellar mass–halo mass relation. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-7833ee7206924f04b98f0dcd4f29c71e |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1538-4357 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-01-01 |
| publisher | IOP Publishing |
| record_format | Article |
| series | The Astrophysical Journal |
| spelling | doaj-art-7833ee7206924f04b98f0dcd4f29c71e2024-11-20T16:27:03ZengIOP PublishingThe Astrophysical Journal1538-43572024-01-01976114810.3847/1538-4357/ad7b0fWhy Do Semianalytic Models Predict Higher Scatter in the Stellar Mass–Halo Mass Relation Than Cosmological Hydrodynamic Simulations?Antonio J. Porras-Valverde0https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1996-0445John C. Forbes1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1975-4449Rachel S. Somerville2https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6748-6821Adam R. H. Stevens3https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1908-2168Kelly Holley-Bockelmann4https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2227-1322Andreas A. Berlind5https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1814-2002Shy Genel6https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3185-1540Department of Astronomy, Yale University , P.O. Box 208101, New Haven, CT 06520, USA ; antonio.porras@yale.edu; Department of Physics and Astronomy, Vanderbilt University , 6301 Stevenson Science Center, Nashville, TN 37212, USACenter for Computational Astrophysics, Flatiron Institute , 162 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10010, USA; School of Physical and Chemical Sciences–Te Kura Matū, University of Canterbury , Christchurch 8140, New ZealandCenter for Computational Astrophysics, Flatiron Institute , 162 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10010, USAInternational Centre for Radio Astronomy Research, The University of Western Australia , 7 Fairway, Crawley, WA 6009, AustraliaDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, Vanderbilt University , 6301 Stevenson Science Center, Nashville, TN 37212, USA; Department of Life and Physical Sciences, Fisk University , 1000 17th Avenue N., Nashville, TN 37208, USADepartment of Physics and Astronomy, Vanderbilt University , 6301 Stevenson Science Center, Nashville, TN 37212, USACenter for Computational Astrophysics, Flatiron Institute , 162 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10010, USASemianalytic models (SAMs) systematically predict higher-stellar mass scatter at a given halo mass than hydrodynamical simulations and most empirical models. Our goal is to investigate the physical origin of this scatter by exploring modifications to the physics in the SAM Dark Sage . We design two black hole formation models that approximate results from the IllustrisTNG 300-1 hydrodynamical simulation. In the first model, we assign a fixed black hole mass of 10 ^6 M _⊙ to every halo that reaches 10 ^10.5 M _⊙ . In the second model, we disregard any black hole growth as implemented in the standard Dark Sage model. Instead, we force all black hole masses to follow the median z = 0 black hole mass–halo mass relation in IllustrisTNG 300-1 with an imposed fixed scatter. We find that each model on its own does not significantly reduce the scatter in stellar mass. To explore the effects of active galactic nucleus (AGN) feedback in addition to black hole seeding, we replace the native Dark Sage AGN feedback model with a simple model where we turn off cooling for galaxies with black hole masses above 10 ^8 M _⊙ . With the additional modification in AGN feedback, we find that the supermassive black hole seeding and fixed conditional distribution models create a significant reduction in the scatter in stellar mass at halo masses between 10 ^11–14 M _⊙ . These results suggest that AGN feedback in SAMs acts in a qualitatively different way than feedback implemented in cosmological simulations. Either or both may require substantial modification to match the empirically inferred scatter in the stellar mass–halo mass relation.https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b0fGalaxy formationGalaxy evolutionAstronomical simulationsHydrodynamical simulations |
| spellingShingle | Antonio J. Porras-Valverde John C. Forbes Rachel S. Somerville Adam R. H. Stevens Kelly Holley-Bockelmann Andreas A. Berlind Shy Genel Why Do Semianalytic Models Predict Higher Scatter in the Stellar Mass–Halo Mass Relation Than Cosmological Hydrodynamic Simulations? The Astrophysical Journal Galaxy formation Galaxy evolution Astronomical simulations Hydrodynamical simulations |
| title | Why Do Semianalytic Models Predict Higher Scatter in the Stellar Mass–Halo Mass Relation Than Cosmological Hydrodynamic Simulations? |
| title_full | Why Do Semianalytic Models Predict Higher Scatter in the Stellar Mass–Halo Mass Relation Than Cosmological Hydrodynamic Simulations? |
| title_fullStr | Why Do Semianalytic Models Predict Higher Scatter in the Stellar Mass–Halo Mass Relation Than Cosmological Hydrodynamic Simulations? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Why Do Semianalytic Models Predict Higher Scatter in the Stellar Mass–Halo Mass Relation Than Cosmological Hydrodynamic Simulations? |
| title_short | Why Do Semianalytic Models Predict Higher Scatter in the Stellar Mass–Halo Mass Relation Than Cosmological Hydrodynamic Simulations? |
| title_sort | why do semianalytic models predict higher scatter in the stellar mass halo mass relation than cosmological hydrodynamic simulations |
| topic | Galaxy formation Galaxy evolution Astronomical simulations Hydrodynamical simulations |
| url | https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b0f |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT antoniojporrasvalverde whydosemianalyticmodelspredicthigherscatterinthestellarmasshalomassrelationthancosmologicalhydrodynamicsimulations AT johncforbes whydosemianalyticmodelspredicthigherscatterinthestellarmasshalomassrelationthancosmologicalhydrodynamicsimulations AT rachelssomerville whydosemianalyticmodelspredicthigherscatterinthestellarmasshalomassrelationthancosmologicalhydrodynamicsimulations AT adamrhstevens whydosemianalyticmodelspredicthigherscatterinthestellarmasshalomassrelationthancosmologicalhydrodynamicsimulations AT kellyholleybockelmann whydosemianalyticmodelspredicthigherscatterinthestellarmasshalomassrelationthancosmologicalhydrodynamicsimulations AT andreasaberlind whydosemianalyticmodelspredicthigherscatterinthestellarmasshalomassrelationthancosmologicalhydrodynamicsimulations AT shygenel whydosemianalyticmodelspredicthigherscatterinthestellarmasshalomassrelationthancosmologicalhydrodynamicsimulations |