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.
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.
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.
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.