I am pulling a few quantities from TNG100-1 successfully. However, it seems that most of the SFR are zero. That is a problem common to both centrals and satellites. Given that there are some papers that discuss TNG outputs for quenched and star forming galaxies (e.g. Genel+18), I did not expect that. Is that normal or am I doing anything wrong? Below is the code snippet I use to pull the data from the database.
For example for TNG100-1 at z=0 there are 3423724 central subhalos, and 3377737 of them have SubhaloSFRinRad == 0, this is correct.
Note that, by number, most halos/subhalos are very small objects near the resolution limit, and not of interest. The very small subhalos will also, naturally, be 'dark' (non-baryonic).
If you restrict e.g. to M>1e9 (typical resolution cut) or M>1e8 (aggressive resolution cut), you should find the majority have SFR>0.
For instance, TNG100-1 at z=0 there are 20144 subhalos with M*>1e9 Msun (using SubhaloMassInRadType), and 5173 of them have SFR == 0.
thanks for your swift reply! Yes I can see where the problem was now. However I'm still wondering why 1/4 of galaxies with M*>1e9 Msun should have SFR=0 in the first place. Is zero a particular value that is assigned in the simulation when something specific happens (i.e. is put in place of a NaN)? Thanks!
Dylan Nelson
10 Jan '19
Hi Lorenzo,
There are many reasons why a galaxy could have zero SFR. For example, it might have absolutely no gas, having been entirely stripped (as a satellite).
I would suggest also you read the recent Donnari et al. paper, particularly Section 2 and Figure 8 (and related discussion), which talks a bit about zero SFRs and many other important issues related to simulated SFRs -- for TNG, all the same details applying also to Illustris.
Hi everyone,
I am pulling a few quantities from TNG100-1 successfully. However, it seems that most of the SFR are zero. That is a problem common to both centrals and satellites. Given that there are some papers that discuss TNG outputs for quenched and star forming galaxies (e.g. Genel+18), I did not expect that. Is that normal or am I doing anything wrong? Below is the code snippet I use to pull the data from the database.
Thank you very much for your help!
Kind regards,
Lorenzo Zanisi
basePath = "/home/tnguser/sims.TNG/TNG100-1/output"
for i in [99, 67, 50, 40, 33, 29, 25]:
Hi Lorenzo,
For example for TNG100-1 at z=0 there are 3423724 central subhalos, and 3377737 of them have SubhaloSFRinRad == 0, this is correct.
Note that, by number, most halos/subhalos are very small objects near the resolution limit, and not of interest. The very small subhalos will also, naturally, be 'dark' (non-baryonic).
If you restrict e.g. to M>1e9 (typical resolution cut) or M>1e8 (aggressive resolution cut), you should find the majority have SFR>0.
For instance, TNG100-1 at z=0 there are 20144 subhalos with M*>1e9 Msun (using SubhaloMassInRadType), and 5173 of them have SFR == 0.
Dylan
Hi Dylan
thanks for your swift reply! Yes I can see where the problem was now. However I'm still wondering why 1/4 of galaxies with M*>1e9 Msun should have SFR=0 in the first place. Is zero a particular value that is assigned in the simulation when something specific happens (i.e. is put in place of a NaN)? Thanks!
Hi Lorenzo,
There are many reasons why a galaxy could have zero SFR. For example, it might have absolutely no gas, having been entirely stripped (as a satellite).
I would suggest also you read the recent Donnari et al. paper, particularly Section 2 and Figure 8 (and related discussion), which talks a bit about zero SFRs and many other important issues related to simulated SFRs -- for TNG, all the same details applying also to Illustris.