The Astrophysical Journal (Jan 2024)

The AGORA High-resolution Galaxy Simulations Comparison Project. IV. Halo and Galaxy Mass Assembly in a Cosmological Zoom-in Simulation at z ≤ 2

  • Santi Roca-Fàbrega,
  • Ji-hoon Kim,
  • Joel R. Primack,
  • Minyong Jung,
  • Anna Genina,
  • Loic Hausammann,
  • Hyeonyong Kim,
  • Alessandro Lupi,
  • Kentaro Nagamine,
  • Johnny W. Powell,
  • Yves Revaz,
  • Ikkoh Shimizu,
  • Clayton Strawn,
  • Héctor Velázquez,
  • Tom Abel,
  • Daniel Ceverino,
  • Bili Dong,
  • Thomas R. Quinn,
  • Eun-jin Shin,
  • Alvaro Segovia-Otero,
  • Oscar Agertz,
  • Kirk S. S. Barrow,
  • Corentin Cadiou,
  • Avishai Dekel,
  • Cameron Hummels,
  • Boon Kiat Oh,
  • Romain Teyssier,
  • The AGORA Collaboration

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad43de
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 968, no. 2
p. 125

Abstract

Read online

In this fourth paper from the AGORA Collaboration, we study the evolution down to redshift z = 2 and below of a set of cosmological zoom-in simulations of a Milky Way mass galaxy by eight of the leading hydrodynamic simulation codes. We also compare this CosmoRun suite of simulations with dark matter-only simulations by the same eight codes. We analyze general properties of the halo and galaxy at z = 4 and 3, and before the last major merger, focusing on the formation of well-defined rotationally supported disks, the mass–metallicity relation, the specific star formation rate, the gas metallicity gradients, and the nonaxisymmetric structures in the stellar disks. Codes generally converge well to the stellar-to-halo mass ratios predicted by semianalytic models at z ∼ 2. We see that almost all the hydro codes develop rotationally supported structures at low redshifts. Most agree within 0.5 dex with the observed mass–metallicity relation at high and intermediate redshifts, and reproduce the gas metallicity gradients obtained from analytical models and low-redshift observations. We confirm that the intercode differences in the halo assembly history reported in the first paper of the collaboration also exist in CosmoRun , making the code-to-code comparison more difficult. We show that such differences are mainly due to variations in code-dependent parameters that control the time stepping strategy of the gravity solver. We find that variations in the early stellar feedback can also result in differences in the timing of the low-redshift mergers. All the simulation data down to z = 2 and the auxiliary data will be made publicly available.

Keywords