Predictive GCE in the era of large surveys: challenges and - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
predictive gce in the era of large surveys challenges and
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Predictive GCE in the era of large surveys: challenges and - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sep 27, 2022 337 likes •690 views

Predictive GCE in the era of large surveys: challenges and opportunities Brian OShea, MSU with Benoit Ct, Anna Frebel, and many others! Image c/o LSST What ingredients are needed for GCE in the era of many and diverse large,

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Predictive GCE in the era of large surveys: challenges and

  • pportunities

Brian O’Shea, MSU with Benoit Côté, Anna Frebel, and many others!

Image c/o LSST

slide-2
SLIDE 2

What ingredients are needed for GCE…

  • in the era of many and diverse large, accurate, and

precise astronomical surveys?

  • that appropriately takes into account the impact of

cosmological structure formation?

  • to pose questions where we can be confident in the

robustness of our answers?

slide-3
SLIDE 3

A simple GCE model

Star formation rate Galactic outflow Galactic inflow

˙ MZ(t) = Y ˙ M∗(t)

Metal production (see, e.g., Côté et al. 2016 and many others)

slide-4
SLIDE 4

A deeper dive into the ingredients

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Nuclear physics

Uncertainties: reaction rates and cross sections

Image c/o Michigan State University

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Star formation

Eagle Nebula (M16/NGC6611), image c/o ESO

Uncertainties: shape of IMF and its dependence on formation environment; stellar multiplicity; orbital properties

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Stellar evolution

Images c/o NASA

Uncertainties: mass range for Type II supernovae and remnants; Type Ia progenitor(s); compact object merger rates and properties

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Galaxy properties

M82 (image c/o NASA)

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Movie c/o Brendan Griffen, MIT (Caterpillar Project: Griffen+ 2016, ApJ, 818:10; Griffen+ 2018, MNRAS, 2018, 474:443)

Uncertainties: the mass and formation history of the Milky Way and its satellites

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Movie c/o Brendan Griffen, MIT (Caterpillar Project: Griffen+ 2016, ApJ, 818:10; Griffen+ 2018, MNRAS, 2018, 474:443)

Uncertainties: the mass and formation history of the Milky Way and its satellites

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Movie: Corlies, Peeples, O’Shea, Tumlinson (2018) ~150 kpc (0.3 Rvir)

Uncertainties: the behavior of gas as it flows into and out

  • f galaxies; mixing of metals into ISM, CGM, IGM
slide-12
SLIDE 12

Côté et al. 2018 (ApJ, 859:67)

A more realistic galaxy model

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Propagation of uncertainty

Côté et al. 2016 (ApJ, 824:82)

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Côté et al. 2016 (ApJ, 824:82) Lower bound of IMF

Uncertainty in a one-zone MW model

Upper bound of IMF IMF slope Type Ia delay time distn. Type Ia normalization MW z=0 stellar mass

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Varying NIa only

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Varying ! only

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Varying everything simultaneously!

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Varying everything simultaneously!

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Uncertainties in galaxy model parameterizations

3 Inflow/outflow models fit to Sculptor; Côté et al. 2017 (ApJ, 835:128)

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Uncertainties in galaxy model parameterizations

3 Inflow/outflow models fit to Sculptor; Côté et al. 2017 (ApJ, 835:128)

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Uncertainty in MW formation history

Côté, O’Shea, Frebel, et al. 2018 (in prep.)

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Uncertainty in MW formation history

slide-23
SLIDE 23

How do we deal with these uncertainties?

Use physics-rich galaxy formation simulations to calibrate models! Côté et al. 2018 (ApJ, 859:67)

slide-24
SLIDE 24
slide-25
SLIDE 25
slide-26
SLIDE 26
slide-27
SLIDE 27
slide-28
SLIDE 28

Comparing to observations

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Gaussian process emulators

Gómez et al. 2012 (ApJ, 760:112)

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Gómez et al. 2012 (ApJ, 760:112)

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Parameter sensitivity analysis

Gómez et al. 2014 (ApJ, 787:20)

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Overall goal: robust, quantitative predictions* from

models compared to observed chemical abundances in stars, using r-process enrichment at low metallicity as an example application!

*with estimates of true uncertainty from models and observations

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Where do things stand?

  • Existing theoretical tools: SYGMA, OMEGA+, GAMMA,

Gaussian Process emulator, MCMC.

  • Existing observational databases: JINABase, Stellab
  • Theory needs: metal mixing model, disk model, dark

matter particle tagging.

  • Observational needs: additional datasets!

Expect entire pipeline by this time next year!

slide-34
SLIDE 34

To summarize:

  • 1. Making quantitative, believable predictions taking

advantage of modern observational surveys requires a sophisticated GCE framework

  • 2. Hydrodynamic simulations can inform GCE models

in a variety of useful ways (and make prettier pictures)

  • 3. The future of the JINA-CEE GCE pipeline is bright!