4.7 Article

Tracing the filamentary structure of the galaxy distribution at z ∼ 0.8

期刊

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16707.x

关键词

galaxies: formation; galaxies: high-redshift; large-scale structure of Universe

资金

  1. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  2. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  3. National Science Foundation
  4. U.S. Department of Energy
  5. Japanese Monbukagakusho
  6. Max Planck Society
  7. University of Chicago
  8. Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab)
  9. Institute for Advanced Study
  10. Japan Participation Group
  11. Johns Hopkins University
  12. Korean Scientist Group
  13. Los Alamos National Laboratory
  14. Max Planck Institute for Astronomy
  15. Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics
  16. New Mexico State University
  17. University of Pittsburgh
  18. Princeton University
  19. United States Naval Observatory
  20. University of Washington
  21. NSF [AST-0707266]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We study filamentary structure in the galaxy distribution at z similar to 0.8 using data from the Deep Extragalactic Evolutionary Probe 2 (DEEP2) Redshift Survey and its evolution to z similar to 0.1 using data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). We trace individual filaments for both surveys using the Smoothed Hessian Major Axis Filament Finder, an algorithm which employs the Hessian matrix of the galaxy density field to trace the filamentary structures in the distribution of galaxies. We extract 33 subsamples from the SDSS data with a geometry similar to that of DEEP2. We find that the filament length distribution has not significantly changed since z similar to 0.8, as predicted in a previous study using a Lambda cold dark matter cosmological N-body simulation. However, the filament width distribution, which is sensitive to the non-linear growth of structure, broadens and shifts to smaller widths for smoothing length-scales of 5-10 h-1 Mpc from z similar to 0.8 to 0.1, in accord with N-body simulations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据