[AGORA-mailing-list] [AGORA] Beta release of Paper VI: "CGM" (for submission to ApJ)

[Clayton Strawn]

Dear AGORA Colleagues,

Thank you very much as always for your participation in AGORA. I am Clayton
Strawn, a graduate student working with Joel Primack at UCSC, and I am
writing this email on behalf of myself, Santi, Joel, Ji-hoon, and all other
co-authors of AGORA Paper VI: "CGM."

--
[1] Recent AGORA Efforts

As you are well aware, in the past 2 years the Collaboration has been
working hard to analyze the cosmological zoom-in simulations of a MW-mass
galaxy introduced in AGORA Paper III (“CosmoRun”; Roca-Fabrega et al.
2021).  Since Paper III, we have been working on mainly three fronts:
- Paper IV (“CosmoRun2”): continue our comparison of CosmoRun at z~2 and
below, while introducing AREPO to AGORA
- Paper V (“Satellites”): compare the satellite galaxy/halo populations at
z~2, using 7 CosmoRuns and 7 counterpart DMO runs
- Paper VI (“CGM”): compare the circumgalactic medium at z~1 and z~3 among
the simulations and with observations

[2] AGORA Paper “CGM” Beta Release

● We are pleased to announce that Paper VI “CGM” is ready for submission to
the ApJ.  The draft was signed off by all the co-authors and the AGORA
Steering Committee. The main result of this work is that there is
substantial difference between the codes in the CGM, mostly due to
different generation and dispersion of metals from different feedback
recipes, but with some effects of grid vs particle codes and other
particularities as well. Regardless, we find that most codes have fairly
low detected column densities in common ions, and most interestingly
(figure 13) that different ions do not follow similar dynamical rules --
low ion column densities are mostly determined by the ion fraction along
the line of sight, and fairly insensitive to metallicity of the individual
code (which varies a lot), while high ions are mostly determined by the
metallicity and all fall in roughly the same area in ion fraction. This
result was made much more clear by the carefully calibrated process used in
AGORA, as having vastly different galaxies or parameters would have
obscured this result, as we talk about in the end of Section 3.4.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14s8ZdVMLXSYKz3A5JA_aR2Con6-b6sth/view?usp=drive_link

● During the “beta release”, we would be happy to hear your last-minute
comments and feedback by July 26 (Wed), although major changes to the
manuscript may not be desired at this point, as the draft has been
circulating among increasingly larger audiences for months.  Please feel
free to email any of your thoughts directly to Clayton, Santi, or Ji-hoon.
We plan to submit the paper to the ApJ right afterwards.  We thank you in
advance for your valuable insights.

[3] Timeline for Papers IV to VI

● The Paper VI co-authors have agreed to first submit the paper to ApJ
after the beta release, but *not* to the arXiv yet.  While Paper VI moves
through the referee process, Paper IV will be wrapped up by Santi
Roca-Fabrega et al and submitted to ApJ *and* arXiv, at which point Paper
VI will also be posted on the arXiv, alongside Paper V (Satellites), which
is also already submitted and will hopefully be accepted during this time.

● You are welcomed to contribute to any other ongoing projects in AGORA (
https://sites.google.com/site/projectagoraworkspace/collaborative-documents/progress-report-25).
Please feel free to talk to Ji-hoon if you’d like to do so.

--
Thank you again for your help and interest in AGORA!

Sincerely,
Clayton, Santi, Joel, and Ji-hoon on behalf of the co-authors of AGORA
Paper VI

-- 
Physics Department UC Santa Cruz
1156 HIGH STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA 95064
916-749-2940
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucsc.edu/pipermail/santacruzgalaxy-list/attachments/20230712/5e67645d/attachment.html