IllustrisTNG in the HSC-SSP: No Shortage of Thin Disk Galaxies in TNG50
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We perform a thorough analysis of the projected shapes of nearby galaxies in both observations and cosmological simulations. We implement a forward-modeling approach to overcome the limitations in previous studies, which hinder accurate comparisons between observations and simulations. We measure axis ratios of z = 0 (snapshot 99) TNG50 galaxies from their synthetic Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program (HSC-SSP) images and compare them with those obtained from real HSC-SSP images of a matched galaxy sample. Remarkably, the comparison shows excellent agreement between the observations and the TNG50 simulation, challenging previous claims that ΛCDM models underproduced the abundance of thin galaxies. Specifically, for galaxies with stellar masses 10 ≤ log ( M ⋆ / M ☉ ) ≤ 11.5 , we find ≲0.1σ tensions between the observations and the simulation, a stark contrast to the previously reported ≳10σ tensions. We reveal that low-mass galaxies ( M ⋆ ≲ 10 9.5 M ☉ ) in TNG50 are thicker than their observed counterparts in HSC-SSP and attribute this to the spurious dynamical heating effects that artificially puff up galaxies. We also find that, despite the overall broad agreement, TNG50 galaxies are more concentrated than the HSC-SSP ones at the low- and high-mass end of the stellar mass range of 9.0 ≤ log ( M ⋆ / M ☉ ) ≤ 11.2 and are less concentrated at intermediate stellar masses. But we argue that the higher concentrations of the low-mass TNG50 galaxies are not likely the cause of their thicker/rounder appearances. Our study underscores the critical importance of conducting mock observations of simulations and applying consistent measurement methodologies to facilitate proper comparison with observations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".