The halo mass function through the cosmic ages

By W. Watson, Ilian Iliev, Anson D’Aloisio, A. Knebe, P. Shapiro, G. Sussex, U. Texas, Uam. 2012

211 citations recorded by the source corpus.

In this paper we investigate how the halo mass function evolves with redshift, based on a suite of very large (with N_p = 3072^3 - 6000^3 particles) cosmological N-body simulations. Our halo catalogue data spans a redshift range of z = 0-30, allowing us to probe the mass function from the dark ages to the present. We utilise both the Friends-of-Friends (FOF) and Spherical Overdensity (SO) halofinding methods to directly compare the mass function derived using these commonly used halo definitions. The mass function from SO haloes exhibits a clear evolution with redshift, especially during the recent era of dark energy dominance (z 20, the SO algorithm finds a ~50-80% lower collapsed fraction in high mass haloes than does the FOF algorithm, due in part to the significant over-linking effects known to affect the FOF method.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9298f628a9d3369476a5a541f49245ffa5fdf24a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

In Instrumentation

Citations in the corpus

Baryon impact on the halo mass function: Fitting formulae and implications for cluster cosmology (2015, background): “…functions (e.g. Jenkins et al. 2001; Sheth, Mo & Tormen 2001; White, Hernquist & Springel 2002; Reed et al. 2003; Warren et al. 2006; Lukić et al. 2007; Reed et al. 2007; Tinker et al. 2008; Crocce et al. 2010; Bhattacharya et al. 2011; Courtin et al. 2011; Angulo et al. 2012; Watson et al. 2013).”
Simulating cosmic reionization: how large a volume is large enough? (2013, methodology): “…larger, deeper voids, higher densitypeaks, large-scale bulk motions) and much richer statistics of objects, particularly very rare ones which might not be found at all ina smaller volume (e.g. Watson et al. 2013b), for example luminous high-redshift QSOs as found by e.g. SDSS (Fan & et al. 2001).”
Planck 2013 results. XX. Cosmology from Sunyaev-Zeldovich cluster counts (2013, background): “Mass functions are calibrated against numerical simulations that may still suffer from volume effects for the largest haloes, as shown in the difference between the Tinker et al. (2008) and Watson et al. (2013) mass functions.”
COLOSSUS: A Python Toolkit for Cosmology, Large-scale Structure, and Dark Matter Halos (2017, methodology): “Finally, models for the spherical overdensity (SO) mass function that can rescale between different mass definitions introduce a redshift dependence simply because of the dependence of the overdensity threshold on redshift (e.g., Tinker et al. 2008; Watson et al. 2013; Despali et al. 2016).”
Cosmic Dawn (CoDa): the first radiation-hydrodynamics simulation of reionization and galaxy formation in the Local Universe (2015, methodology): “This is known as the“overlinking problem” (Watson et al. 2013).”
The MassiveBlack-II simulation: The evolution of haloes and galaxies to z ~ 0 (2014, methodology): “The dashed (red), dot–dashed (cyan), triple-dot–dashed (orange) lines are for the MFs from Press & Schechter (1974), Sheth & Tormen (2002) and Watson et al. (2013) The solid (black) line in the bottom panels (FOF MFs) denote the best-fitting MF to the MB and MBII data based on the Tinker et al.…”
Halo and subhalo demographics with Planck cosmological parameters: Bolshoi–Planck and MultiDark–Planck simulations (2016, unknown): “The mass resolution required to do this is <∼ 108h−1M⊙, and the force resolution should be <∼ 1h−1 kpc. High-resolution cosmological dark matter simulations that are particularly useful for studying galaxy hosts include the Millennium simulations (Springel et al. 2005; Boylan-Kolchin et al. 2009; An”
Cosmology with massive neutrinos II: on the universality of the halo mass function and bias (2013, methodology): “y as in standard neutrino-less CDM universes. E.g., only if one uses = cr=˙ ccis the violation of universality of order 10% or smaller at z= 1 (see gure3), compatible with ndings from other groups [11,12,47]. We also reported small deviations from universality with respect to the dierent cosmologie”
Core Cosmology Library: Precision Cosmological Predictions for LSST (2018, result): “This result is consistent with the work of Watson et al. (2013), which also finds a 5% level difference in comparison to the Tinker et al. (2008) fitting function.”
The universality of the virial halo mass function and models for non-universality of other halo definitions (2015, background): “The main purpose of our work is to analyse the impact of the density threshold chosen to identify the haloes on the universality of the mass function: the majority of the identification algorithms use a threshold ∆ of 178 or 200 for all redshifts (e.g. Tinker et al. (2008) and Watson et al. (2013)).”
Mapping stellar content to dark matter haloes using galaxy clustering and galaxy–galaxy lensing in the SDSS DR7 (2015, background): “…the feedback models, see Cui et al. 2012b; Cusworth et al. 2014; Velliscig et al. 2014); and iii) the predictions may be poorly calibrated on the high mass end where the halos are rare (at the 5 per cent level for Mh=1015h−1M at z=0, see Crocce et al. 2010; Watson et al. 2013; Bocquet et al. 2015).”