Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

nIFTy cosmology: The clustering consistency of galaxy formation models

  • Arnau Pujol
  • , Ramin A. Skibba
  • , Enrique Gaztañaga
  • , Andrew Benson
  • , Jeremy Blaizot
  • , Richard Bower
  • , Jorge Carretero
  • , Francisco J. Castander
  • , Andrea Cattaneo
  • , Sofia A. Cora
  • , Darren J. Croton
  • , Weiguang Cui
  • , Daniel Cunnama
  • , Gabriella De Lucia
  • , Julien E. Devriendt
  • , Pascal J. Elahi
  • , Andreea Font
  • , Fabio Fontanot
  • , Juan Garcia-Bellido
  • , Ignacio D. Gargiulo
  • Violeta Gonzalez-Perez, John Helly, Bruno M.B. Henriques, Michaela Hirschmann, Alexander Knebe, Jaehyun Lee, Gary A. Mamon, Pierluigi Monaco, Julian Onions, Nelson D. Padilla, Frazer R. Pearce, Chris Power, Rachel S. Somerville, Chaichalit Srisawat, Peter A. Thomas, Edouard Tollet, Cristian A. Vega-Martínez, Sukyoung K. Yi
  • Campus UAB
  • CEA Saclay
  • Department of Physics
  • University of California, Santa Cruz
  • Carnegie Observatories
  • Université de Lyon
  • Université Lyon 1
  • Ećole Normale Supérieure de Lyon
  • University of Durham
  • Campus UAB
  • CNRS Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
  • Observatorio Astronómico
  • Universidad Nacional de La Plata
  • Swinburne University of Technology
  • Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
  • South African Astronomical Observatory
  • University of the Western Cape
  • INAF - Astronomical Observatory of Trieste
  • University of Oxford
  • The University of Sydney
  • Liverpool John Moores University
  • University of Portsmouth
  • Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik
  • ETH Zurich
  • Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris (UMR 7095: CNRS and UPMC)
  • Yonsei University
  • Università di Trieste
  • University of Nottingham
  • University of Western Australia
  • Rutgers University–New Brunswick
  • University of Sussex

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

32 Scopus citations

Abstract

We present a clustering comparison of 12 galaxy formation models [including semi-analytic models (SAMs) and halo occupation distribution (HOD) models] all run on halo catalogues and merger trees extracted from a single Λ cold dark matter N-body simulation. We compare the results of the measurements of the mean halo occupation numbers, the radial distribution of galaxies in haloes and the two-point correlation functions (2PCF). We also study the implications of the different treatments of orphan (galaxies not assigned to any dark matter subhalo) and non-orphan galaxies in these measurements. Our main result is that the galaxy formation models generally agree in their clustering predictions but they disagree significantly between HOD and SAMs for the orphan satellites. Although there is a very good agreement between the models on the 2PCF of central galaxies, the scatter between the models when orphan satellites are included can be larger than a factor of 2 for scales smaller than 1 h-1 Mpc. We also show that galaxy formation models that do not include orphan satellite galaxies have a significantly lower 2PCF on small scales, consistent with previous studies. Finally, we show that the 2PCF of orphan satellites is remarkably different between SAMs and HOD models. Orphan satellites in SAMs present a higher clustering than in HOD models because they tend to occupy more massive haloes. We conclude that orphan satellites have an important role on galaxy clustering and they are the main cause of the differences in the clustering between HOD models and SAMs.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)749-762
Number of pages14
JournalMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Volume469
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Jul 2017
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Cosmology: theory
  • Galaxies: haloes
  • Methods: numerical

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'nIFTy cosmology: The clustering consistency of galaxy formation models'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this