Julian Onions

Subhaloes going Notts: the subhalo-finder comparison project

We present a detailed comparison of the substructure properties of a single Milky Way sized dark matter halo from the Aquarius suite at five different resolutions, as identified by a variety of different (sub)halo finders for simulations of cosmic structure formation. These finders span a wide range of techniques and methodologies to extract and quantify substructures within a larger non-homogeneous background density (e.g. a host halo). This includes real-space-, phase-space-, velocity-space- and time-space-based finders, as well as finders employing a Voronoi tessellation, Friends-of-Friends techniques or refined meshes as the starting point for locating substructure. A common post-processing pipeline was used to uniformly analyse the particle lists provided by each finder. We extract quantitative and comparable measures for the subhaloes, primarily focusing on mass and the peak of the rotation curve for this particular study. We find that all of the finders agree extremely well in the presence and location of substructure and even for properties relating to the inner part of the subhalo (e.g. the maximum value of the rotation curve). For properties that rely on particles near the outer edge of the subhalo the agreement is at around the 20 per cent level. We find that the basic properties (mass and maximum circular velocity) of a subhalo can be reliably recovered if the subhalo contains more than 100 particles although its presence can be reliably inferred for a lower particle number limit of 20. We finally note that the logarithmic slope of the subhalo cumulative number count is remarkably consistent and <1 for all the finders that reached high resolution. If correct, this would indicate that the larger and more massive, respectively, substructures are the most dynamically interesting and that higher levels of the (sub)subhalo hierarchy become progressively less important.

Sussing merger trees: the Merger Trees Comparison Project

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.

Matter power spectrum and the challenge of percent accuracy

Future galaxy surveys require one percent precision in the theoretical knowledge of the power spectrum over a large range including very nonlinear scales. While this level of accuracy is easily obtained in the linear regime with perturbation theory, it represents a serious challenge for small scales where numerical simulations are required. In this paper we quantify the precision of present-day

Subhaloes gone Notts: spin across subhaloes and finders

N

SUSSING MERGER TREES: the influence of the halo finder

-body methods, identifying main potential error sources from the set-up of initial conditions to the measurement of the final power spectrum. We directly compare three widely used

Galaxies going MAD: the Galaxy-Finder Comparison Project

N

Streams going Notts: the tidal debris finder comparison project

-body codes, Ramses, Pkdgrav3, and Gadget3 which represent three main discretisation techniques: the particle-mesh method, the tree method, and a hybrid combination of the two. For standard run parameters, the codes agree to within one percent at

Subhaloes gone Notts: the clustering properties of subhaloes

k\leq1

Sussing merger trees: the impact of halo merger trees on galaxy properties in a semi-analytic model

h\,\rm Mpc^{-1}