اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدStreams Going Notts: The tidal debris finder comparison project
181
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
While various codes exist to systematically and robustly find haloes and subhaloes in cosmological simulations (Knebe et al., 2011, Onions et al., 2012), this is the first work to introduce and rigorously test codes that find tidal debris (streams and other unbound substructure) in fully cosmological simulations of structure formation. We use one tracking and three non-tracking codes to identify substructure (bound and unbound) in a Milky Way type simulation from the Aquarius suite (Springel et al., 2008) and post-process their output with a common pipeline to determine the properties of these substructures in a uniform way. By using output from a fully cosmological simulation, we also take a step beyond previous studies of tidal debris that have used simple toy models. We find that both tracking and non-tracking codes agree well on the identification of subhaloes and more importantly, the {em unbound tidal features} associated with them. The distributions of basic properties of the total substructure distribution (mass, velocity dispersion, position) are recovered with a scatter of $sim20%$. Using the tracking code as our reference, we show that the non-tracking codes identify complex tidal debris with purities of $sim40%$. Analysing the results of the substructure finders, we find that the general distribution of {em substructures} differ significantly from the distribution of bound {em subhaloes}. Most importantly, both bound and unbound {em substructures} together constitute $sim18%$ of the host halo mass, which is a factor of $sim2$ higher than the fraction in self-bound {em subhaloes}. However, this result is restricted by the remaining challenge to cleanly define when an unbound structure has become part of the host halo. Nevertheless, the more general substructure distribution provides a more complete picture of a halos accretion history.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
With the ever increasing size and complexity of fully self-consistent simulations of galaxy formation within the framework of the cosmic web, the demands upon object finders for these simulations has simultaneously grown. To this extent we initiated
the Halo Finder Comparison Project that gathered together all the experts in the field and has so far led to two comparison papers, one for dark matter field haloes (Knebe et al. 2011), and one for dark matter subhaloes (Onions et al. 2012). However, as state-of-the-art simulation codes are perfectly capable of not only following the formation and evolution of dark matter but also account for baryonic physics (e.g. hydrodynamics, star formation, feedback) object finders should also be capable of taking these additional processes into consideration. Here we report on a comparison of codes as applied to the Constrained Local UniversE Simulation (CLUES) of the formation of the Local Group which incorporates much of the physics relevant for galaxy formation. We compare both the properties of the three main galaxies in the simulation (representing the MW, M31, and M33) as well as their satellite populations for a variety of halo finders ranging from phase-space to velocity-space to spherical overdensity based codes, including also a mere baryonic object finder. We obtain agreement amongst codes comparable to (if not better than) our previous comparisons, at least for the total, dark, and stellar components of the objects. However, the diffuse gas content of the haloes shows great disparity, especially for low-mass satellite galaxies. This is primarily due to differences in the treatment of the thermal energy during the unbinding procedure. We acknowledge that the handling of gas in halo finders is something that needs to be dealt with carefully, and the precise treatment may depend sensitively upon the scientific problem being studied.
[abridged] We present a detailed comparison of fundamental dark matter halo properties retrieved by a substantial number of different halo finders. These codes span a wide range of techniques including friends-of-friends (FOF), spherical-overdensity
(SO) and phase-space based algorithms. We further introduce a robust (and publicly available) suite of test scenarios that allows halo finder developers to compare the performance of their codes against those presented here. This set includes mock haloes containing various levels and distributions of substructure at a range of resolutions as well as a cosmological simulation of the large-scale structure of the universe. All the halo finding codes tested could successfully recover the spatial location of our mock haloes. They further returned lists of particles (potentially) belonging to the object that led to coinciding values for the maximum of the circular velocity profile and the radius where it is reached. All the finders based in configuration space struggled to recover substructure that was located close to the centre of the host halo and the radial dependence of the mass recovered varies from finder to finder. Those finders based in phase space could resolve central substructure although they found difficulties in accurately recovering its properties. Via a resolution study we found that most of the finders could not reliably recover substructure containing fewer than 30-40 particles. However, also here the phase space finders excelled by resolving substructure down to 10-20 particles. By comparing the halo finders using a high resolution cosmological volume we found that they agree remarkably well on fundamental properties of astrophysical significance (e.g. mass, position, velocity, and peak of the rotation curve).
Merging haloes with similar masses (i.e., major mergers) pose significant challenges for halo finders. We compare five halo finding algorithms (AHF, HBT, Rockstar, SubFind, and VELOCIraptor) recovery of halo properties for both isolated and cosmologi
cal major mergers. We find that halo positions and velocities are often robust, but mass biases exist for every technique. The algorithms also show strong disagreement in the prevalence and duration of major mergers, especially at high redshifts (z>1). This raises significant uncertainties for theoretical models that require major mergers for, e.g., galaxy morphology changes, size changes, or black hole growth, as well as for finding Bullet Cluster analogues. All finders not using temporal information also show host halo and subhalo relationship swaps over successive timesteps, requiring careful merger tree construction to avoid problematic mass accretion histories. We suggest that future algorithms should combine phase-space and temporal information to avoid the issues presented.
Despite a history that dates back at least a quarter of a century studies of voids in the large--scale structure of the Universe are bedevilled by a major problem: there exist a large number of quite different void--finding algorithms, a fact that ha
s so far got in the way of groups comparing their results without worrying about whether such a comparison in fact makes sense. Because of the recent increased interest in voids, both in very large galaxy surveys and in detailed simulations of cosmic structure formation, this situation is very unfortunate. We here present the first systematic comparison study of thirteen different void finders constructed using particles, haloes, and semi--analytical model galaxies extracted from a subvolume of the Millennium simulation. The study includes many groups that have studied voids over the past decade. We show their results and discuss their differences and agreements. As it turns out, the basic results of the various methods agree very well with each other in that they all locate a major void near the centre of our volume. Voids have very underdense centres, reaching below 10 percent of the mean cosmic density. In addition, those void finders that allow for void galaxies show that those galaxies follow similar trends. For example, the overdensity of void galaxies brighter than $m_B = -20 $ is found to be smaller than about -0.8 by all our void finding algorithms.
Dwarf galaxies that come too close to larger galaxies suffer tidal disruption; the differential gravitational force between one side of the galaxy and the other serves to rip the stars from the dwarf galaxy so that they instead orbit the larger galax
y. This process produces tidal streams of stars, which can be found in the stellar halo of the Milky Way, as well as in halos of other galaxies. This chapter provides a general introduction to tidal streams, including the mechanism through which the streams are created, the history of how they were discovered, and the observational techniques by which they can be detected. In addition, their use in unraveling galaxy formation history and the distribution of dark matter in galaxies is discussed, as is the interaction between these dwarf galaxy satellites and the disk of the larger galaxy.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
