Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 756

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The merger rate of galaxies in the Illustris simulation: a comparison with observations and semi-empirical models

Open access
Rodriguez-Gomez, Vicente, Genel, Shy, Vogelsberger, Mark, Sijacki, Debora, Pillepich, Annalisa, Sales, Laura V., Torrey, Paul, Snyder, Greg, Nelson, Dylan, Springel, Volker, Ma, Chung-Pei, Hernquist, Lars·2015·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Abstract

We have constructed merger trees for galaxies in the Illustris simulation by directly tracking the baryonic content of subhaloes. These merger trees are used to calculate the galaxy–galaxy merger rate as a function of descendant stellar mass, progenitor stellar mass ratio, and redshift. We demonstrate that the most appropriate definition for the mass ratio of a galaxy–galaxy merger consists in taking both progenitor masses at the time when the secondary progenitor reaches its maximum stellar mass. Additionally, we avoid effects from ‘orphaned’ galaxies by allowing some objects to ‘skip’ a snapshot when finding a descendant, and by only considering mergers which show a well-defined ‘infall’ moment. Adopting these definitions, we obtain well-converged predictions for the galaxy–galaxy merger rate with the following main features, which are qualitatively similar to the halo–halo merger rate except for the last one: a strong correlation with redshift that evolves as ∼(1 + z)2.4–2.8, a power law with respect to mass ratio, and an increasing dependence on descendant stellar mass, which steepens significantly for descendant stellar masses greater than ∼2 × 1011 M⊙. These trends are consistent with observational constraints for medium-sized galaxies (M* ≳ 1010 M⊙), but in tension with some recent observations of the close pair fraction for massive galaxies (M* ≳ 1011 M⊙), which report a nearly constant or decreasing evolution with redshift. Finally, we provide a fitting function for the galaxy–galaxy merger rate which is accurate over a wide range of stellar masses, progenitor mass ratios, and redshifts.

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/stv264

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 756

Metadata

Authors
Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Genel, S., Vogelsberger, M., Sijacki, D., Pillepich, A., Sales, L. V., Torrey, P., Snyder, G., Nelson, D., Springel, V., Ma, C.-P., & Hernquist, L.
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2015-03-14
Volume
449
Issue
1
Pages
49-64
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
OpenAlex
W2024897607
Cited by
756
References
1
FWCI
26.43
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: The merger rate of galaxies in the Illustris simulation: a comparison with observations and semi-empirical models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/mnras/stv264
The paper
Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Genel, S., Vogelsberger, M., Sijacki, D., Pillepich, A., Sales, L. V., Torrey, P., Snyder, G., Nelson, D., Springel, V., Ma, C.-P., & Hernquist, L. (2015). The merger rate of galaxies in the Illustris simulation: a comparison with observations and semi-empirical models. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv264

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.