Which physical galaxy-formation model best describes the real Universe

Determine which physical model of galaxy formation and the halo–galaxy connection, such as hydrodynamical simulations or semi-analytic models, best describes the real Universe by assessing consistency with observational data and enabling machine learning methods that generalize across simulation frameworks.

Background

The paper compares hydrodynamical simulations and semi-analytic models (SAMs) as physically motivated approaches to model galaxy formation within dark matter halos, noting both methods produce predictions broadly consistent with observations. However, the authors emphasize that machine learning models trained on simulations must be robust across different frameworks because training data may not match the true Universe.

Within this context, the authors explicitly state that it is not yet known which physical model best represents our Universe. This unresolved question motivates the development of field-level inference methods that can generalize across diverse simulation suites and, ultimately, be applied to real observational data.

References

Since we do not yet know which physical model best describes our Universe, it is essential to design methods that exhibit consistent predictive power across different simulation frameworks, and then more importantly, are able to extract cosmological and astrophysical information once applied to real observations.

Galaxy Phase-Space and Field-Level Cosmology: The Strength of Semi-Analytic Models  (2512.10222 - Santi et al., 11 Dec 2025) in Section 1 (Introduction)

These results are consistent with earlier weak lensing plus kSZ constraints, which preferred gas fractions systematically below simulation predictions \citep{Hadzhiyska-2024, Hadzhiyska-2025, Bigwood-2024}, and with the kSZ benchmark established against DESI+ACT data, in which the fiducial feedback calibrations of flamingo, antilles, bahamas, and fable appear disfavored at $>3\sigma$, while stronger-AGN variants of flamingo and bahamas, as well as simba, reproduce the measured signal \citep{Bigwood-2025,McCarthy-2024}. These analyses point to stronger baryonic feedback than the weakest-feedback simulations predict, although how strong it is and whether every probe agrees on a single calibration remain open questions.

BINDing the lightcone: A suite of astrophysical ray-traced weak lensing and SZ maps  (2609.10710 - Lee et al., 9 Sep 2026) in Section 1, Introduction

Expanding BIND to other subgrid parameterizations is an interesting open question, because a compression that survives changes in subgrid prescriptions would be a statement about feedback, whereas in this work we can only make a statement about IllustrisTNG.

BINDing the lightcone: A suite of astrophysical ray-traced weak lensing and SZ maps  (2609.10710 - Lee et al., 9 Sep 2026) in Section 8.2, What the training covers