Published in

Oxford University Press (OUP), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 4(451), p. 4029-4059

DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stv1149

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

nIFTy Cosmology: Comparison of Galaxy Formation Models

Journal article published in 2015 by Alexander Knebe, Frazer R. Pearce, Peter A. Thomas, Andrew Benson, Jeremy Blaizot, Richard Bower, Jorge Carretero, Francisco J. Castander, Andrea Cattaneo, Sofia A. Cora, Darren J. Croton, Weiguang Cui ORCID, Daniel Cunnama, Gabriella De Lucia, Julien E. Devriendt and other authors.
This paper is available in a repository.
This paper is available in a repository.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Upload
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Upload
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Upload
Policy details
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

We present a comparison of 14 galaxy formation models: 12 different semi-analytical models and 2 halo-occupation distribution models for galaxy formation based upon the same cosmological simulation and merger tree information derived from it. The participating codes have proven to be very successful in their own right but they have all been calibrated independently using various observational data sets, stellar models, and merger trees. In this paper we apply them without recalibration and this leads to a wide variety of predictions for the stellar mass function, specific star formation rates, stellar-to- halo mass ratios, and the abundance of orphan galaxies. The scatter is much larger than seen in previous comparison studies primarily because the codes have been used outside of their native environment within which they are well tested and calibrated. The purpose of the `nIFTy comparison of galaxy formation models' is to bring together as many different galaxy formation modellers as possible and to investigate a common approach to model calibration. This paper provides a unified description for all participating models and presents the initial, uncalibrated comparison as a baseline for our future studies where we will develop a common calibration framework and address the extent to which that reduces the scatter in the model predictions seen here. ; Comment: 35 pages, 20 figures, accepted for publication in MNRAS