close this message
arXiv smileybones

arXiv Is Hiring a DevOps Engineer

Work on one of the world's most important websites and make an impact on open science.

View Jobs
Skip to main content
Cornell University

arXiv Is Hiring a DevOps Engineer

View Jobs
We gratefully acknowledge support from the Simons Foundation, member institutions, and all contributors. Donate
arxiv logo > astro-ph > arXiv:2010.10533

Help | Advanced Search

arXiv logo
Cornell University Logo

quick links

  • Login
  • Help Pages
  • About

Astrophysics > Astrophysics of Galaxies

arXiv:2010.10533 (astro-ph)
[Submitted on 20 Oct 2020 (v1), last revised 20 Apr 2021 (this version, v2)]

Title:The sensitivity of stellar feedback to IMF averaging versus IMF sampling in galaxy formation simulations

Authors:Matthew C. Smith
View a PDF of the paper titled The sensitivity of stellar feedback to IMF averaging versus IMF sampling in galaxy formation simulations, by Matthew C. Smith
View PDF
Abstract:Galaxy formation simulations frequently use Initial Mass Function (IMF) averaged feedback prescriptions, where star particles are assumed to represent single stellar populations that fully sample the IMF. This approximation breaks down at high mass resolution, where stochastic variations in stellar populations become important. We discuss various schemes to populate star particles with stellar masses explicitly sampled from the IMF. We use Monte Carlo numerical experiments to examine the ability of the schemes to reproduce an input IMF in an unbiased manner while conserving mass. We present our preferred scheme which can easily be added to pre-existing star formation prescriptions. We then carry out a series of high resolution isolated simulations of dwarf galaxies with supernovae, photoionization and photoelectric heating to compare the differences between using IMF averaged feedback and explicitly sampling the IMF. We find that if supernovae are the only form of feedback, triggering individual supernovae from IMF averaged rates gives identical results to IMF sampling. However, we find that photoionization is more effective at regulating star formation when IMF averaged rates are used, creating more, smaller H II regions than the rare, bright sources produced by IMF sampling. We note that the increased efficiency of the IMF averaged feedback versus IMF sampling is not necessarily a general trend and may be reversed depending on feedback channel, resolution and other details. However, IMF sampling is always the more physically motivated approach. We conservatively suggest that it should be used for star particles less massive than $\sim500\,\mathrm{M_\odot}$.
Comments: 23 pages, 14 figures, published MNRAS. Minor alterations to reflect published version
Subjects: Astrophysics of Galaxies (astro-ph.GA)
Cite as: arXiv:2010.10533 [astro-ph.GA]
  (or arXiv:2010.10533v2 [astro-ph.GA] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2010.10533
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
Journal reference: MNRAS, 502, 5417 (2021)
Related DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab291
DOI(s) linking to related resources

Submission history

From: Matthew Smith [view email]
[v1] Tue, 20 Oct 2020 18:00:02 UTC (6,658 KB)
[v2] Tue, 20 Apr 2021 20:31:02 UTC (6,857 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled The sensitivity of stellar feedback to IMF averaging versus IMF sampling in galaxy formation simulations, by Matthew C. Smith
  • View PDF
  • TeX Source
  • Other Formats
view license
Current browse context:
astro-ph.GA
< prev   |   next >
new | recent | 2020-10
Change to browse by:
astro-ph

References & Citations

  • NASA ADS
  • Google Scholar
  • Semantic Scholar
a export BibTeX citation Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

×
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy logo Reddit logo

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
Papers with Code (What is Papers with Code?)
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Recommenders and Search Tools

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
IArxiv Recommender (What is IArxiv?)
  • Author
  • Venue
  • Institution
  • Topic

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
  • About
  • Help
  • contact arXivClick here to contact arXiv Contact
  • subscribe to arXiv mailingsClick here to subscribe Subscribe
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Web Accessibility Assistance
  • arXiv Operational Status
    Get status notifications via email or slack