4.7 Article

Sussing Merger Trees: The Merger Trees Comparison Project

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 436, Issue 1, Pages 150-162

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stt1545

Keywords

methods: numerical; galaxies: evolution; galaxies: haloes; dark matter

Funding

  1. European Commission through the Marie Curie Initial Training Network CosmoComp [PITN-GA-2009-238356]
  2. HST Theory Grant, NASA through Space Telescope Science Institute
  3. NASA [NAS5-26555]
  4. DFG Cluster of Excellence 'Origin and Structure of the Universe'
  5. SSimPL programme
  6. Sydney Institute for Astronomy (SIfA)
  7. STFC
  8. NSFC [11121062 11033006]
  9. CAS/SAFEA International Partnership Program for Creative Research Teams [KJCX2-YW-T23]
  10. Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion (MICINN) in Spain
  11. ASTROMADRID network [AYA 2009-13875-C03-02, CSD2009-00064, CAM S2009/ESP-1496]
  12. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (MINECO) [AYA2012-31101]
  13. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONACyT)
  14. Fundacion Mexico en Harvard
  15. Development and Promotion of Science and Technology Talents Project (DPST), Thailand
  16. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/I000976/1]
  17. National Research Foundation of Korea [20090078756, 2010-0027910]
  18. Korea Research Council of Fundamental Science and Technology [FY 2012]
  19. KISTI [KSC-2012-C2-11, KSC-2012-C3-10]
  20. Weiland Family Stanford Graduate Fellowship
  21. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/I000976/1, ST/I001212/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  22. STFC [ST/I001212/1, ST/I000976/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Merger trees follow the growth and merger of dark-matter haloes over cosmic history. As well as giving important insights into the growth of cosmic structure in their own right, they provide an essential backbone to semi-analytic models of galaxy formation. This paper is the first in a series to arise from the Sussing Merger Trees Workshop in which 10 different tree-building algorithms were applied to the same set of halo catalogues and their results compared. Although many of these codes were similar in nature, all algorithms produced distinct results. Our main conclusions are that a useful merger-tree code should possess the following features: (i) the use of particle IDs to match haloes between snapshots; (ii) the ability to skip at least one, and preferably more, snapshots in order to recover subhaloes that are temporarily lost during merging; (iii) the ability to cope with (and ideally smooth out) large, temporary fluctuations in halo mass. Finally, to enable different groups to communicate effectively, we defined a common terminology that we used when discussing merger trees and we encourage others to adopt the same language. We also specified a minimal output format to record the results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available