uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The Gaia-ESO Survey: matching chemodynamical simulations to observations of the Milky Way
Univ Cent Lancashire, Jeremiah Horrocks Inst, Preston PR1 2HE, Lancs, England.;Univ Hull, EA Milne Ctr Astrophys, Kingston Upon Hull HU6 7RX, N Humberside, England.;St Marys Univ, Inst Computat Astrophys, Dept Phys & Astron, Halifax, NS BH3 3C3, Canada.;Joint Inst Nucl Astrophys, Ctr Evolut Elements, E Lansing, MI USA..
Univ Hull, EA Milne Ctr Astrophys, Kingston Upon Hull HU6 7RX, N Humberside, England.;Joint Inst Nucl Astrophys, Ctr Evolut Elements, E Lansing, MI USA.;Univ Exeter, Dept Phys & Astron, Exeter EX4 4QL, Devon, England..
Max Planck Inst Astron, Konigstuhl 17, D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany..
Univ Hull, EA Milne Ctr Astrophys, Kingston Upon Hull HU6 7RX, N Humberside, England.;Joint Inst Nucl Astrophys, Ctr Evolut Elements, E Lansing, MI USA..
Show others and affiliations
2018 (English)In: Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, ISSN 0035-8711, E-ISSN 1365-2966, Vol. 473, no 1, p. 185-197Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The typical methodology for comparing simulated galaxies with observational surveys is usually to apply a spatial selection to the simulation to mimic the region of interest covered by a comparable observational survey sample. In this work, we compare this approach with a more sophisticated post-processing in which the observational uncertainties and selection effects (photometric, surface gravity and effective temperature) are taken into account. We compare a 'solar neighbourhood analogue' region in a model Milky Way-like galaxy simulated with RAMSES-CH with fourth release Gaia-ESO survey data. We find that a simple spatial cut alone is insufficient and that the observational uncertainties must be accounted for in the comparison. This is particularly true when the scale of uncertainty is large compared to the dynamic range of the data, e.g. in our comparison, the [Mg/Fe] distribution is affected much more than the more accurately determined [Fe/H] distribution. Despite clear differences in the underlying distributions of elemental abundances between simulation and observation, incorporating scatter to our simulation results to mimic observational uncertainty produces reasonable agreement. The quite complete nature of the Gaia-ESO survey means that the selection function has minimal impact on the distribution of observed age and metal abundances but this would become increasingly more important for surveys with narrower selection functions.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
OXFORD UNIV PRESS , 2018. Vol. 473, no 1, p. 185-197
Keywords [en]
methods: numerical, Galaxy: abundances, galaxies: evolution, galaxies: formation
National Category
Astronomy, Astrophysics and Cosmology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-342649DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stx2316ISI: 000415653600016OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-342649DiVA, id: diva2:1186309
Available from: 2018-02-28 Created: 2018-02-28 Last updated: 2018-02-28Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Korn, Andreas

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Korn, Andreas
By organisation
Department of Physics and Astronomy
In the same journal
Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Astronomy, Astrophysics and Cosmology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 2 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf