IQ Collaboratory. II. The Quiescent Fraction of Isolated, Low-mass Galaxies across Simulations and Observations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We compare three major large-scale hydrodynamical galaxy simulations (EAGLE, Illustris-TNG, and SIMBA) by forward modeling simulated galaxies into observational space and computing the fraction of isolated and quiescent low-mass galaxies as a function of stellar mass. Using SDSS as our observational template, we create mock surveys and synthetic spectroscopic and photometric observations of each simulation, adding realistic noise and observational limits. All three simulations show a decrease in the number of quiescent, isolated galaxies in the mass range M * = 10 9−10 M ⊙ , in broad agreement with observations. However, even after accounting for observational and selection biases, none of the simulations reproduce the observed absence of quiescent field galaxies below M * = 10 9 M ⊙ . We find that the low-mass quiescent populations selected via synthetic observations have consistent quenching timescales, despite an apparent variation in the late-time star formation histories. The effect of increased numerical resolution is not uniform across simulations and cannot fully mitigate the differences between the simulations and the observations. The framework presented here demonstrates a path toward more robust and accurate comparisons between theoretical simulations and galaxy survey observations, while the quenching threshold serves as a sensitive probe of feedback implementations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".