Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Auriga Galaxy Simulations

Updated 26 November 2025
  • Auriga simulations are high-resolution cosmological MHD simulations that model galaxy evolution including dark matter, gas, stars, and magnetic fields.
  • They employ the AREPO moving-mesh code with advanced subgrid physics to mimic star formation, feedback, and galaxy dynamics with precise resolution.
  • The suite offers insights into secular evolution, bar formation, CGM diversity, and subhalo suppression, providing robust benchmarks for theoretical models.

Auriga simulations are a comprehensive suite of cosmological magneto-hydrodynamical (MHD) zoom-in simulations of galaxies spanning dwarf to Milky Way mass scales. They utilize the moving-mesh code AREPO and embed a modern galaxy formation physics model within the Λ\LambdaCDM framework. Their primary goal is to track the coupled evolution of dark matter, gas, stars, black holes, and magnetic fields, providing a predictive platform for galaxy dynamics, structure, and scaling relations across cosmic time.

1. Numerical Framework and Physical Ingredients

The Auriga simulations employ AREPO, which solves the Euler equations for MHD on a moving unstructured Voronoi mesh and includes key subgrid physics:

  • Cosmology: Planck2013 parameters (Ωm=0.307\Omega_m=0.307, ΩΛ=0.693\Omega_\Lambda=0.693, Ωb=0.048\Omega_b=0.048, h=0.6777h=0.6777, σ8=0.829\sigma_8=0.829).
  • Resolution: Milky Way-mass halos use mDM≃3 ⁣× ⁣105 M⊙m_{\rm DM} \simeq 3\!\times\!10^5\,M_\odot, mbary≃5 ⁣× ⁣104 M⊙m_{\rm bary} \simeq 5\!\times\!10^4\,M_\odot, and softening lengths ϵ∗=369\epsilon_* = 369 pc (physical; gas adaptive from ≈500\approx500 pc to 1.85 kpc).
  • Hydro and Gravity: Gravity via TreePM; ideal MHD with divergence cleaning; cooling and heating (primordial + metal lines, UVB); two-phase pressurized ISM (Ωm=0.307\Omega_m=0.3070 cmΩm=0.307\Omega_m=0.3071, Springel & Hernquist 2003); stochastic star formation and stellar feedback (winds with mass loading Ωm=0.307\Omega_m=0.3072).
  • Stellar/AGN Feedback: SN II/Ia/AGB metal enrichment, black hole seeding and Bondi accretion, dual-mode AGN feedback (thermal quasar, kinetic radio).
  • Magnetic Fields: Seeded at high-Ωm=0.307\Omega_m=0.3073; evolved self-consistently through ideal MHD.

The augmented suite now comprises 66 high-resolution runs: 40 MW-mass and 26 dwarf-mass halos (Grand et al., 2024). Data products include raw snapshots, group catalogs, merger trees, accreted/in-situ star tags, mock Gaia and PAndAS catalogs, and high-level analysis libraries.

2. Secular and Bar-Driven Evolution

Auriga galaxies spontaneously develop robust bars, pseudobulges, and realistic disc breaks (Blázquez-Calero et al., 2019, Fragkoudi et al., 2024). Bar identification employs Fourier decomposition of disc surface density (global Ωm=0.307\Omega_m=0.3074), with bar half-length from the drop in Ωm=0.307\Omega_m=0.3075. Photometric decompositions model bulges (Sérsic Ωm=0.307\Omega_m=0.3076, always classified as pseudobulges), discs (exponential), and bars (modified Ferrer profile).

Key bar properties:

  • Lengths Ωm=0.307\Omega_m=0.3077 kpc (median Ωm=0.307\Omega_m=0.3078 kpc); strengths Ωm=0.307\Omega_m=0.3079.
  • Boxy/peanut bulges identified in ΩΛ=0.693\Omega_\Lambda=0.6930 of bars (ΩΛ=0.693\Omega_\Lambda=0.6931 kpc, ΩΛ=0.693\Omega_\Lambda=0.6932 kpc).
  • Barred galaxies are more baryon-dominated (ΩΛ=0.693\Omega_\Lambda=0.6933 within ΩΛ=0.693\Omega_\Lambda=0.6934 kpc), assemble stellar mass earlier, and show lower Toomre ΩΛ=0.693\Omega_\Lambda=0.6935 at bar formation (ΩΛ=0.693\Omega_\Lambda=0.6936 versus ΩΛ=0.693\Omega_\Lambda=0.6937 for unbarred) (Fragkoudi et al., 2024).
  • The barred fraction decreases with redshift, plateauing near ΩΛ=0.693\Omega_\Lambda=0.6938 at ΩΛ=0.693\Omega_\Lambda=0.6939; bar lengths grow post-formation except for those formed via high-Ωb=0.048\Omega_b=0.0480 mergers.

Bar-driven secular evolution builds pseudobulges and disc breaks in full agreement with observed scaling distributions.

3. Gas and Stellar Disc Morphology and Kinematics

Star-forming and HI gas discs are resolved with high fidelity (Marinacci et al., 2016, Grand et al., 2024):

  • HI disc radii Ωb=0.048\Omega_b=0.0481 kpc (median Ωb=0.048\Omega_b=0.0482 kpc), systematically larger and more gas-rich than nearby observed discs (mass-diameter relation Ωb=0.048\Omega_b=0.0483, Ωb=0.048\Omega_b=0.0484).
  • HI thickness (Ωb=0.048\Omega_b=0.0485) correlates with SFR: Ωb=0.048\Omega_b=0.0486, with Ωb=0.048\Omega_b=0.0487–Ωb=0.048\Omega_b=0.0488, Ωb=0.048\Omega_b=0.0489–h=0.6777h=0.67770.
  • From h=0.6777h=0.67771, discs build h=0.6777h=0.67772 from turbulent (h=0.6777h=0.67773) to settled (h=0.6777h=0.67774 at h=0.6777h=0.67775), tracking observed trends from Hh=0.6777h=0.67776 kinematics.

Stellar migration, including both churning and blurring, mixes stars in the outer cold disc; the mean migration is h=0.6777h=0.67777–h=0.6777h=0.67778 kpc, with diffusion-like age and radius dependence. Bars increase migration and flatten metallicity gradients for older populations (Okalidis et al., 2022).

4. Bulge, Thick Disk, and Halo Formation Pathways

Bulges in Auriga are predominantly pseudobulges, shaped by bar-driven secular inflows and in-situ star formation (Gargiulo et al., 2019). Their Sérsic indices (h=0.6777h=0.67779–σ8=0.829\sigma_8=0.8290), B/T ratios, and rapid rotation place them above the classical bulge locus; accreted fractions in bulges are typically low (σ8=0.829\sigma_8=0.8291 for σ8=0.829\sigma_8=0.8292, σ8=0.829\sigma_8=0.8293 for σ8=0.829\sigma_8=0.8294).

Thick disks form early (mean ages σ8=0.829\sigma_8=0.8295–σ8=0.829\sigma_8=0.8296 Gyr), are σ8=0.829\sigma_8=0.8297 Gyr older and σ8=0.829\sigma_8=0.8298 dex more metal poor than the thin disk, and are enhanced in σ8=0.829\sigma_8=0.8299 by mDM≃3 ⁣× ⁣105 M⊙m_{\rm DM} \simeq 3\!\times\!10^5\,M_\odot0 dex (Pinna et al., 2023). Growth follows three channels: in-situ star formation from a turbulent epoch, dynamical heating, and accretion of ex-situ stars (mDM≃3 ⁣× ⁣105 M⊙m_{\rm DM} \simeq 3\!\times\!10^5\,M_\odot1), with mergers playing a key role. Chemical bimodality in mDM≃3 ⁣× ⁣105 M⊙m_{\rm DM} \simeq 3\!\times\!10^5\,M_\odot2–mDM≃3 ⁣× ⁣105 M⊙m_{\rm DM} \simeq 3\!\times\!10^5\,M_\odot3 robustly separates geometric thick and thin components in mock IFS projections, supporting future spectroscopic diagnostics (Pinna et al., 2024).

Stellar halos exhibit mass, shape, metallicity, and gradient diversity set by stochastic accretion histories (Monachesi et al., 2018). Halo masses span mDM≃3 ⁣× ⁣105 M⊙m_{\rm DM} \simeq 3\!\times\!10^5\,M_\odot4–mDM≃3 ⁣× ⁣105 M⊙m_{\rm DM} \simeq 3\!\times\!10^5\,M_\odot5 MmDM≃3 ⁣× ⁣105 M⊙m_{\rm DM} \simeq 3\!\times\!10^5\,M_\odot6, with median metallicities mDM≃3 ⁣× ⁣105 M⊙m_{\rm DM} \simeq 3\!\times\!10^5\,M_\odot7 to mDM≃3 ⁣× ⁣105 M⊙m_{\rm DM} \simeq 3\!\times\!10^5\,M_\odot8 dex at 30 kpc, matching empirical mass–metallicity relations. Inner halo shapes are oblate, becoming prolate at large radii.

5. Dwarfs, Substructure, and Environmental Effects

Auriga reproduces field and satellite ultra-diffuse galaxies (UDGs) as high-spin tail and tidal transformation products, respectively (Liao et al., 2019). Field UDGs correlate linearly between size and halo spin parameter (mDM≃3 ⁣× ⁣105 M⊙m_{\rm DM} \simeq 3\!\times\!10^5\,M_\odot9), inhabit dwarf-mass halos (mbary≃5 ⁣× ⁣104 M⊙m_{\rm bary} \simeq 5\!\times\!10^4\,M_\odot0 Mmbary≃5 ⁣× ⁣104 M⊙m_{\rm bary} \simeq 5\!\times\!10^4\,M_\odot1), and show no evidence for a failed mbary≃5 ⁣× ⁣104 M⊙m_{\rm bary} \simeq 5\!\times\!10^4\,M_\odot2 origin.

Baryonic physics dramatically suppresses subhalo abundance near galaxy centers: mbary≃5 ⁣× ⁣104 M⊙m_{\rm bary} \simeq 5\!\times\!10^4\,M_\odot3 at 0.1 mbary≃5 ⁣× ⁣104 M⊙m_{\rm bary} \simeq 5\!\times\!10^4\,M_\odot4 (80% subhalo destruction in Auriga) versus mbary≃5 ⁣× ⁣104 M⊙m_{\rm bary} \simeq 5\!\times\!10^4\,M_\odot5 (50%) in APOSTLE, scaling directly with central galaxy mass (Richings et al., 2018). Velocity distributions of surviving subhalos peak higher and are narrower in Hydro runs due to steeper potential wells.

CGM diversity at mbary≃5 ⁣× ⁣104 M⊙m_{\rm bary} \simeq 5\!\times\!10^4\,M_\odot6 is extreme: column densities span mbary≃5 ⁣× ⁣104 M⊙m_{\rm bary} \simeq 5\!\times\!10^4\,M_\odot7–mbary≃5 ⁣× ⁣104 M⊙m_{\rm bary} \simeq 5\!\times\!10^4\,M_\odot8 dex, covering fractions range mbary≃5 ⁣× ⁣104 M⊙m_{\rm bary} \simeq 5\!\times\!10^4\,M_\odot9–ϵ∗=369\epsilon_* = 3690; covering fraction of H I, C IV, and Si II increases with disc fraction and anticorrelates with AGN luminosity, while parent-element covering fractions correlate with stellar mass. Neither recent SFR nor long-term mergers regulate CGM properties in the absence of major recent mergers (Hani et al., 2019).

6. Dark Matter Halo Shape, Morphology, and Global Robustness

Baryons render Auriga dark matter halos round at all radii: ϵ∗=369\epsilon_* = 3691 at ϵ∗=369\epsilon_* = 3692 kpc versus ϵ∗=369\epsilon_* = 3693 in DM-only simulations (Prada et al., 2019). Triaxiality reverses from prolate (DMO) to mildly oblate with baryon inclusion. Halo–disc alignment is strong (median disc-to-minor axis misalignment ϵ∗=369\epsilon_* = 3694), but inner-to-outer orientation twisting occurs in ϵ∗=369\epsilon_* = 369520% of cases—correlating with bulge age.

Intrinsic stochasticity of Auriga simulations at fixed resolution results in ϵ∗=369\epsilon_* = 3696 scatter in most global properties, ϵ∗=369\epsilon_* = 3697 in local metrics, and factor of ϵ∗=369\epsilon_* = 3698 in current SFR; morphology (bar presence, spiral arm pattern) and satellite disruption times are most variable (Pakmor et al., 17 Jul 2025). Resolution changes introduce systematic offsets—stellar mass, SFR, bulge/disc mass, scale radii—well beyond stochastic variability, necessitating careful ensemble averaging and recalibration for cross-resolution comparisons.

7. Data Products and Mock Surveys

Aurigaa provides mock Gaia DR2 catalogs replicating selection, astrometric/photometric errors, phase-space and stellar parameters. Stellar disc flaring and halo spin can be correctly recovered using Gaia’s observables. These catalogues enable the validation of analysis pipelines and the benchmarking of substructure and dynamical studies (Grand et al., 2018).

Summary Table: Select Auriga Simulation Properties (MW-mass runs)

Property Value/Range Reference
DM particle mass ϵ∗=369\epsilon_* = 3699 (Grand et al., 2024)
Baryonic mass resolution ≈500\approx5000 (Grand et al., 2024)
HI disc radii (z=0) ≈500\approx5001–≈500\approx5002 kpc (median ≈500\approx5003 kpc) (Marinacci et al., 2016)
SFR at z=0 ≈500\approx5004–≈500\approx5005 (Grand et al., 2024)
Bar strength (A2), z=0 ≈500\approx5006–≈500\approx5007 (Blázquez-Calero et al., 2019)
Pseudobulge Sérsic index ≈500\approx5008–≈500\approx5009 (<2 for all MW analogues) (Gargiulo et al., 2019)
CGM covering fraction (HI, C IV) Ωm=0.307\Omega_m=0.30700–Ωm=0.307\Omega_m=0.30701 (Hani et al., 2019)
Subhalo suppression Ωm=0.307\Omega_m=0.30702 Ωm=0.307\Omega_m=0.30703 (Ωm=0.307\Omega_m=0.30704 destroyed) (Richings et al., 2018)
Halo roundness (c/a, b/a, MHD) Ωm=0.307\Omega_m=0.30705, Ωm=0.307\Omega_m=0.30706 at Ωm=0.307\Omega_m=0.30707 kpc (Prada et al., 2019)
Thick disk accreted fraction mean Ωm=0.307\Omega_m=0.30708, up to Ωm=0.307\Omega_m=0.30709 (Pinna et al., 2023)

Concluding Remarks

Auriga delivers a validated, high-resolution, MHD-enabled, cosmologically consistent suite of galaxy formation simulations, supporting detailed studies of secular evolution, baryonic/AGN feedback, gas dynamics, substructure suppression, stellar migration, bulge and thick disk assembly, CGM diversity, halo morphology, and providing a rich public data resource for observational and theoretical benchmarking. All major scaling relations, morphological features, and kinematic properties in MW-mass regimes are quantitatively consistent with contemporary observations, while systematics of model robustness and resolution dependence are now fully characterized (Pakmor et al., 17 Jul 2025).

Topic to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this topic yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this topic yet.

Follow Topic

Get notified by email when new papers are published related to Auriga Simulations.