First Light And Reionisation Epoch Simulations (FLARES) XX: Comparing semi-analytic models at high-redshift
Fuente:
arXiv
Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Preprint |
| Pubblicazione: |
2025
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866915619282092032 |
|---|---|
| author | Seeyave, Louise T. C. Baugh, Carlton M. Chandro-Gomez, Angel Lagos, Claudia del P. Yates, Robert M. Yung, L. Y. Aaron Somerville, Rachel S. Wilkins, Stephen M. Lovell, Christopher C. Roper, William J. Vijayan, Aswin P. Lacey, Cedric G. Power, Chris Liao, Shihong Maltz, Maxwell G. A. Turner, Jack C. |
| author_facet | Seeyave, Louise T. C. Baugh, Carlton M. Chandro-Gomez, Angel Lagos, Claudia del P. Yates, Robert M. Yung, L. Y. Aaron Somerville, Rachel S. Wilkins, Stephen M. Lovell, Christopher C. Roper, William J. Vijayan, Aswin P. Lacey, Cedric G. Power, Chris Liao, Shihong Maltz, Maxwell G. A. Turner, Jack C. |
| contents | We explore how the choice of galaxy formation model affects the predicted properties of high-redshift galaxies. Using the FLARES zoom resimulation strategy, we compare the EAGLE hydrodynamics model and the GALFORM, L-Galaxies, SC-SAM and SHARK semi-analytic models (SAMs) at $5\leq z \leq 12$. The first part of our analysis examines the stellar mass functions, stellar-to-halo mass relations, star formation rates, and supermassive black hole (SMBH) properties predicted by the different models. Comparisons are made with observations, where relevant. We find general agreement between the range of predicted and observed stellar mass functions. The model predictions differ considerably when it comes to SMBH properties, with GALFORM and SHARK predicting between 1.5-3 dex more massive SMBHs ($M_{\rm BH}>10^6\ {\rm M_\odot}$) than L-Galaxies and SC-SAM, depending on redshift. The second half of our analysis focuses on passive galaxies. We show that in L-Galaxies and SC-SAM, environmental quenching of satellites is the prevalent quenching mechanism, with active galactic nuclei (AGN) feedback having little effect at the redshifts probed. On the other hand, $\sim40\%$ of passive galaxies predicted by GALFORM and SHARK are quenched by AGN feedback at $z=5$. The SAMs are an interesting contrast to the EAGLE model, in which AGN feedback is essential for the formation of passive galaxies, in both satellites and centrals, even at high redshift. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2511_11982 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | First Light And Reionisation Epoch Simulations (FLARES) XX: Comparing semi-analytic models at high-redshift Seeyave, Louise T. C. Baugh, Carlton M. Chandro-Gomez, Angel Lagos, Claudia del P. Yates, Robert M. Yung, L. Y. Aaron Somerville, Rachel S. Wilkins, Stephen M. Lovell, Christopher C. Roper, William J. Vijayan, Aswin P. Lacey, Cedric G. Power, Chris Liao, Shihong Maltz, Maxwell G. A. Turner, Jack C. Astrophysics of Galaxies We explore how the choice of galaxy formation model affects the predicted properties of high-redshift galaxies. Using the FLARES zoom resimulation strategy, we compare the EAGLE hydrodynamics model and the GALFORM, L-Galaxies, SC-SAM and SHARK semi-analytic models (SAMs) at $5\leq z \leq 12$. The first part of our analysis examines the stellar mass functions, stellar-to-halo mass relations, star formation rates, and supermassive black hole (SMBH) properties predicted by the different models. Comparisons are made with observations, where relevant. We find general agreement between the range of predicted and observed stellar mass functions. The model predictions differ considerably when it comes to SMBH properties, with GALFORM and SHARK predicting between 1.5-3 dex more massive SMBHs ($M_{\rm BH}>10^6\ {\rm M_\odot}$) than L-Galaxies and SC-SAM, depending on redshift. The second half of our analysis focuses on passive galaxies. We show that in L-Galaxies and SC-SAM, environmental quenching of satellites is the prevalent quenching mechanism, with active galactic nuclei (AGN) feedback having little effect at the redshifts probed. On the other hand, $\sim40\%$ of passive galaxies predicted by GALFORM and SHARK are quenched by AGN feedback at $z=5$. The SAMs are an interesting contrast to the EAGLE model, in which AGN feedback is essential for the formation of passive galaxies, in both satellites and centrals, even at high redshift. |
| title | First Light And Reionisation Epoch Simulations (FLARES) XX: Comparing semi-analytic models at high-redshift |
| topic | Astrophysics of Galaxies |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.11982 |