Evolution of galaxy stellar masses and star formation rates in the eagle simulations

Furlong, Michelle; Bower, Richard G.; Theuns, Tom; Schaye, Joop; Crain, Robert A.; Schaller, Matthieu; Vecchia, Claudio Dalla; Frenk, Carlos S.; McCarthy, Ian G.; Helly, John; Jenkins, Adrian; Rosas-Guevara, Yetli

doi:10.1093/mnras/stv852

Cited by 430 publications

(582 citation statements)

References 78 publications

(143 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

481

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, a more recent study by Chang et al (2015) has suggested that this calibration needs revision (for Mid-IR indicators), bringing the observational data into better agreement with the β 0,burst ≤ β 0,disc models. A similar discrepancy was found in the numerical Eagle simulations (Furlong et al 2015) and other semianalytic models (Henriques et al 2015, see also Guo et al 2016). It is noticeable, however, that these runs -Panel (b) -are generally in less plausible agreement with the mass function data than those in Panel (a).…”

Section: The Star Formation History Of the Universesupporting

confidence: 73%

Constraints on galaxy formation models from the galaxy stellar mass function and its evolution

Rodrigues

Vernon

Bower

2016

Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We explore the parameter space of the semi-analytic galaxy formation model GALFORM, studying the constraints imposed by measurements of the galaxy stellar mass function (GSMF) and its evolution. We use the Bayesian Emulator method to quickly eliminate vast implausible volumes of the parameter space and zoom in on the most interesting regions, allowing us to identify a set of models that match the observational data within model uncertainties. We find that the GSMF strongly constrains parameters related to quiescent star formation in discs, stellar and AGN feedback and threshold for disc instabilities, but weakly restricts other parameters. Constraining the model using local data alone does not usually select models that match the evolution of the GSMF well. Nevertheless, we show that a small subset of models provides acceptable match to GSMF data out to redshift 1.5. We explore the physical significance of the parameters of these models, in particular exploring whether the model provides a better description if the mass loading of the galactic winds generated by starbursts (β 0,burst ) and quiescent disks (β 0,disc ) is different. Performing a principal component analysis of the plausible volume of the parameter space, we write a set of relations between parameters obeyed by plausible models with respect to GSMF evolution. We find that while β 0,disc is strongly constrained by GSMF evolution data, constraints on β 0,burst are weak. Although it is possible to find plausible models for which β 0,burst = β 0,disc , most plausible models have β 0,burst > β 0,disc , implying -for these -larger SN feedback efficiency at higher redshifts.

show abstract

Section: The Star Formation History Of the Universesupporting

confidence: 73%

Constraints on galaxy formation models from the galaxy stellar mass function and its evolution

Rodrigues

Vernon

Bower

2016

Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The subgrid parameters governing energetic feedback mechanisms of the eagle reference model were calibrated to the z = 0 galaxy stellar mass function, galaxy stellar massblack hole mass relation, and galaxy stellar mass -size relations (see Crain et al 2015 for details and motivation). The eagle reference model reproduces many observed galaxy relations that were not part of the calibration set, such as the evolution of the galaxy stellar mass function (Furlong et al 2015b), of galaxy sizes (Furlong et al 2015a), of their optical colours (Trayford et al 2015), and of their atomic (Bahé et al 2016) and molecular gas content (Lagos et al 2015), among others, and thus is an excellent testbed to compare with our observations. We use the public database of eagle described in McAlpine et al (2015).…”

Section: Does the Size Distribution Pose A Problem For Simulations?mentioning

confidence: 58%

Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA): $\mathcal {M_\star }\text{--}R_{\rm e}$ relations ofz= 0 bulges, discs and spheroids

Lange

Moffett

Driver

et al. 2016

Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.

105

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, at z > 0 the normalization is lower than what most observations indicate, a tension that is in common to all large-volume cosmological hydrodynamical simulations (e.g. Furlong et al 2015;Davé et al 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

The size evolution of star-forming and quenched galaxies in the IllustrisTNG simulation

Genel

Nelson

Pillepich

et al. 2017

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

286

240

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analyze scaling relations and evolution histories of galaxy sizes in TNG100, part of the IllustrisTNG simulation suite. Observational qualitative trends of size with stellar mass, starformation rate and redshift are reproduced, and a quantitative comparison of projected r-band sizes at 0 z 2 shows agreement to much better than 0.25 dex. We follow populations of z = 0 galaxies with a range of masses backwards in time along their main progenitor branches, distinguishing between main-sequence and quenched galaxies. Our main findings are as follows. (i) At M * ,z=0 10 9.5 M , the evolution of the median main progenitor differs, with quenched galaxies hardly growing in median size before quenching, whereas main-sequence galaxies grow their median size continuously, thus opening a gap from the progenitors of quenched galaxies. This is partly because the main-sequence high-redshift progenitors of quenched z = 0 galaxies are drawn from the lower end of the size distribution of the overall population of main-sequence high-redshift galaxies. (ii) Quenched galaxies with M * ,z=0 10 9.5 M experience a steep size growth on the size-mass plane after their quenching time, but with the exception of galaxies with M * ,z=010 11 M , the size growth after quenching is small in absolute terms, such that most of the size (and mass) growth of quenched galaxies (and its variation among them) occurs while they are still on the main-sequence. After they become quenched, the size growth rate of quenched galaxies as a function of time, as opposed to versus mass, is similar to that of main-sequence galaxies. Hence, the size gap is retained down to z = 0.

show abstract

Evolution of galaxy stellar masses and star formation rates in the eagle simulations

Cited by 430 publications

References 78 publications

Constraints on galaxy formation models from the galaxy stellar mass function and its evolution

Constraints on galaxy formation models from the galaxy stellar mass function and its evolution

Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA): $\mathcal {M_\star }\text{--}R_{\rm e}$ relations ofz= 0 bulges, discs and spheroids

The size evolution of star-forming and quenched galaxies in the IllustrisTNG simulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About