Interacting galaxies in the IllustrisTNG simulations - I: Triggered star formation in a cosmological context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We use the IllustrisTNG cosmological hydrodynamical simulations to investigate how the specific star formation rates (sSFRs) of massive galaxies (M* > 1010 M⊙) depend on the distance to their closest companions. We estimate sSFR enhancements by comparing with control samples that are matched in redshift, stellar mass, local density, and isolation, and we restrict our analysis to pairs with stellar mass ratios of 0.1 to 10. At small separations (∼15 kpc), the mean sSFR is enhanced by a factor of 2.0 ± 0.1 in the flagship (110.7 Mpc)3 simulation (TNG100-1). Statistically significant enhancements extend out to 3D separations of 280 kpc in the (302.6 Mpc)3 simulation (TNG300-1). We find similar trends in the EAGLE and Illustris simulations, although their sSFR enhancements are lower than those in TNG100-1 by about a factor of two. Enhancements in IllustrisTNG galaxies are seen throughout the redshift range explored (0 ≤ $z$ < 1), with the strength of the enhancements decreasing with increasing redshift for galaxies with close companions. In order to more closely compare with observational results, we separately consider 2D projected distances between galaxies in IllustrisTNG. We detect significant sSFR enhancements out to projected separations of 260 kpc in TNG300-1, with projection effects diluting the size of the enhancements by about 20 per cent below 50 kpc. We find similar sSFR enhancements in TNG100-1 and Sloan Digital Sky Survey galaxies, with enhancements extending out to projected separations of about 150 kpc for star-forming galaxies at $z$ < 0.2. Finally, by summing over all separations, we estimate that the presence of closest companions boosts the average sSFR of massive galaxies in TNG100-1 by 14.5 per cent.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".