_version_ 1848796499220103168
author Knebe, Alexander
Pearce, Frazer R.
Thomas, Peter A.
Benson, Andrew
Blaizot, Jeremy
Bower, Richard
Carretero, Jorge
Castander, Francisco J.
Cattaneo, Andrea
Cora, Sofia A.
Croton, Darren J.
Cui, Weiguang
Cunnama, Daniel
De Lucia, Gabriella
Devriendt, Julien E.
Elahi, Pascal Jahan
Font, Andreea
Fontanot, Fabio
Garcia-Bellido, Juan
Gargiulo, Ignacio D.
Gonzalez-Perez, Violeta
Helly, John
Henriques, Bruno
Hirschmann, Michaela
Lee, Jaehyun
Mamon, Gary A.
Monaco, Pierluigi
Onions, Julian
Padilla, Nelson D.
Power, Chris
Pujol, Arnau
Skibba, R.A.
Somerville, Rachel S.
Srisawat, Chaichalit
Vega-Martínez, Cristian A.
Yi, Sukyoung K.
author_facet Knebe, Alexander
Pearce, Frazer R.
Thomas, Peter A.
Benson, Andrew
Blaizot, Jeremy
Bower, Richard
Carretero, Jorge
Castander, Francisco J.
Cattaneo, Andrea
Cora, Sofia A.
Croton, Darren J.
Cui, Weiguang
Cunnama, Daniel
De Lucia, Gabriella
Devriendt, Julien E.
Elahi, Pascal Jahan
Font, Andreea
Fontanot, Fabio
Garcia-Bellido, Juan
Gargiulo, Ignacio D.
Gonzalez-Perez, Violeta
Helly, John
Henriques, Bruno
Hirschmann, Michaela
Lee, Jaehyun
Mamon, Gary A.
Monaco, Pierluigi
Onions, Julian
Padilla, Nelson D.
Power, Chris
Pujol, Arnau
Skibba, R.A.
Somerville, Rachel S.
Srisawat, Chaichalit
Vega-Martínez, Cristian A.
Yi, Sukyoung K.
author_sort Knebe, Alexander
building Nottingham Research Data Repository
collection Online Access
description 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.
first_indexed 2025-11-14T19:48:57Z
format Article
id nottingham-42493
institution University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus
institution_category Local University
last_indexed 2025-11-14T19:48:57Z
publishDate 2015
publisher Oxford University Press
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling nottingham-424932020-05-04T17:09:36Z https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/42493/ nIFTy cosmology: comparison of galaxy formation models Knebe, Alexander Pearce, Frazer R. Thomas, Peter A. Benson, Andrew Blaizot, Jeremy Bower, Richard Carretero, Jorge Castander, Francisco J. Cattaneo, Andrea Cora, Sofia A. Croton, Darren J. Cui, Weiguang Cunnama, Daniel De Lucia, Gabriella Devriendt, Julien E. Elahi, Pascal Jahan Font, Andreea Fontanot, Fabio Garcia-Bellido, Juan Gargiulo, Ignacio D. Gonzalez-Perez, Violeta Helly, John Henriques, Bruno Hirschmann, Michaela Lee, Jaehyun Mamon, Gary A. Monaco, Pierluigi Onions, Julian Padilla, Nelson D. Power, Chris Pujol, Arnau Skibba, R.A. Somerville, Rachel S. Srisawat, Chaichalit Vega-Martínez, Cristian A. Yi, Sukyoung K. 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. Oxford University Press 2015-06-30 Article PeerReviewed Knebe, Alexander, Pearce, Frazer R., Thomas, Peter A., Benson, Andrew, Blaizot, Jeremy, Bower, Richard, Carretero, Jorge, Castander, Francisco J., Cattaneo, Andrea, Cora, Sofia A., Croton, Darren J., Cui, Weiguang, Cunnama, Daniel, De Lucia, Gabriella, Devriendt, Julien E., Elahi, Pascal Jahan, Font, Andreea, Fontanot, Fabio, Garcia-Bellido, Juan, Gargiulo, Ignacio D., Gonzalez-Perez, Violeta, Helly, John, Henriques, Bruno, Hirschmann, Michaela, Lee, Jaehyun, Mamon, Gary A., Monaco, Pierluigi, Onions, Julian, Padilla, Nelson D., Power, Chris, Pujol, Arnau, Skibba, R.A., Somerville, Rachel S., Srisawat, Chaichalit, Vega-Martínez, Cristian A. and Yi, Sukyoung K. (2015) nIFTy cosmology: comparison of galaxy formation models. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 451 (4). pp. 4029-4059. ISSN 1365-2966 methods: analytical – methods: numerical – galaxies: evolution – galaxies: haloes – cosmology: theory – dark matter https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/mnras/stv1149 doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1149 doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1149
spellingShingle methods: analytical – methods: numerical – galaxies: evolution – galaxies: haloes – cosmology: theory – dark matter
Knebe, Alexander
Pearce, Frazer R.
Thomas, Peter A.
Benson, Andrew
Blaizot, Jeremy
Bower, Richard
Carretero, Jorge
Castander, Francisco J.
Cattaneo, Andrea
Cora, Sofia A.
Croton, Darren J.
Cui, Weiguang
Cunnama, Daniel
De Lucia, Gabriella
Devriendt, Julien E.
Elahi, Pascal Jahan
Font, Andreea
Fontanot, Fabio
Garcia-Bellido, Juan
Gargiulo, Ignacio D.
Gonzalez-Perez, Violeta
Helly, John
Henriques, Bruno
Hirschmann, Michaela
Lee, Jaehyun
Mamon, Gary A.
Monaco, Pierluigi
Onions, Julian
Padilla, Nelson D.
Power, Chris
Pujol, Arnau
Skibba, R.A.
Somerville, Rachel S.
Srisawat, Chaichalit
Vega-Martínez, Cristian A.
Yi, Sukyoung K.
nIFTy cosmology: comparison of galaxy formation models
title nIFTy cosmology: comparison of galaxy formation models
title_full nIFTy cosmology: comparison of galaxy formation models
title_fullStr nIFTy cosmology: comparison of galaxy formation models
title_full_unstemmed nIFTy cosmology: comparison of galaxy formation models
title_short nIFTy cosmology: comparison of galaxy formation models
title_sort nifty cosmology: comparison of galaxy formation models
topic methods: analytical – methods: numerical – galaxies: evolution – galaxies: haloes – cosmology: theory – dark matter
url https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/42493/
https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/42493/
https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/42493/