Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 303

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Toy models for galaxy formation versus simulations

Open access
Dekel, A., Zolotov, A., Tweed, D., Cacciato, M., Ceverino, D., Primack, J. R.·2013·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Abstract

We describe simple useful toy models for key processes of galaxy formation in its most active phase, at z > 1, and test the approximate expressions against the typical behaviour in a suite of high-resolution hydro-cosmological simulations of massive galaxies at z=4−1. We address in particular the evolution of (a) the total mass inflow rate from the cosmic web into galactic haloes based on the EPS approximation, (b) the penetration of baryonic streams into the inner galaxy, (c) the disc size, (d) the implied steady-state gas content and star formation rate (SFR) in the galaxy subject to mass conservation and a universal star formation law, (e) the inflow rate within the disc to a central bulge and black hole as derived using energy conservation and self-regulated Q ∼ 1 violent disc instability (VDI) and (f) the implied steady state in the disc and bulge. The toy models provide useful approximations for the behaviour of the simulated galaxies. We find that (a) the inflow rate is proportional to mass and to (1 + z)5/2, (b) the penetration to the inner halo is ∼50 per cent at z=4−2, (c) the disc radius is ∼5 per cent of the virial radius, (d) the galaxies reach a steady state with the SFR following the accretion rate into the galaxy, (e) there is an intense gas inflow through the disc, comparable to the SFR, following the predictions of VDI and (f) the galaxies approach a steady state with the bulge mass comparable to the disc mass, where the draining of gas by SFR, outflows and disc inflows is replenished by fresh accretion. Given the agreement with simulations, these toy models are useful for understanding the complex phenomena in simple terms and for back-of-the-envelope predictions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/mnras/stt1338

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 303

Metadata

Authors
Dekel, A., Zolotov, A., Tweed, D., Cacciato, M., Ceverino, D., & Primack, J. R.
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2013-08-29
Volume
435
Issue
2
Pages
999-1019
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
OpenAlex
W2026067461
Cited by
303
References
4
FWCI
16.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Toy models for galaxy formation versus simulations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/mnras/stt1338
The paper
Dekel, A., Zolotov, A., Tweed, D., Cacciato, M., Ceverino, D., & Primack, J. R. (2013). Toy models for galaxy formation versus simulations. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt1338

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.