4.7 Article

GRAVITATIONALLY CONSISTENT HALO CATALOGS AND MERGER TREES FOR PRECISION COSMOLOGY

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 763, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/18

关键词

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

资金

  1. NASA HST Theory grant [HST-AR-12159.01-A]
  2. National Science Foundation [NSF AST-0908883]
  3. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-76SF00515]
  4. SLAC computational team
  5. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  6. Division Of Astronomical Sciences [1010033] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  7. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  8. Division Of Astronomical Sciences [1009908, 0908883] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a new algorithm for generating merger trees and halo catalogs which explicitly ensures consistency of halo properties (mass, position, and velocity) across time steps. Our algorithm has demonstrated the ability to improve both the completeness (through detecting and inserting otherwise missing halos) and purity (through detecting and removing spurious objects) of both merger trees and halo catalogs. In addition, our method is able to robustly measure the self-consistency of halo finders; it is the first to directly measure the uncertainties in halo positions, halo velocities, and the halo mass function for a given halo finder based on consistency between snapshots in cosmological simulations. We use this algorithm to generate merger trees for two large simulations (Bolshoi and Consuelo) and evaluate two halo finders (ROCKSTAR and BDM). We find that both the ROCKSTAR and BDM halo finders track halos extremely well; in both, the number of halos which do not have physically consistent progenitors is at the 1%-2% level across all halo masses. Our code is publicly available at http://code.google.com/p/consistent-trees. Our trees and catalogs are publicly available at http://hipacc.ucsc.edu/Bolshoi/.

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