Differences In Stellar Metallicity Between Different Simulations

Harry Chittenden
  • 26 Mar '21


I am working with star formation data using TNG100-1 and TNG300-1.
I am aware that there is a discrepancy between stellar-halo mass relations in these simulations and that there is a relatively straightforward correction to the TNG300 masses, explained in Annalisa's paper, appendix A1. I am now working with stellar metallicities, and I am trying to determine whether there is a similar discrepancy between the mass-metallicity relations in the two simulations, and if so, whether I can make a similar correction.
So far, I haven't noticed much difference between the two, but I wanted to be certain of this. Admittedly, I don't have much information on how stellar metallicity measurement is influenced by the mass resolution of the simulation, and would appreciate your insight.



Dylan Nelson
  • 26 Mar '21

Hi Harry,

You can use the Plot Group Catalog tool and set the y-axis to Z_stars, and switch between two simulations with different resolutions, e.g. TNG100-1 and TNG100-2 (equal to TNG300-1).

To me it looks that TNG300-1 will be lower than TNG100-1 (which makes sense, given that stellar masses are also lower). The effect seems to be about ~0.05 dex or so.

  • Page 1 of 1