The Mass Function

By M. White. 2002

179 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We present the mass functions for different mass estimators for a range of cosmological models. We pay particular attention to how universal the mass function is, and how it depends on the cosmology, halo identification, and mass estimator chosen. We investigate quantitatively how well we can relate observed masses to theoretical mass functions.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Statistical and Nonlinear Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cdabe03c7871c1f08810990555c76f4fd0f4c8ab

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 Statistical and Nonlinear Physics

Citations in the corpus

Halo mass function and scale-dependent bias from N-body simulations with non-Gaussian initial conditions (2008, background): “N-body simulations have shown that this is approximately true when structure formation is seeded by Gaussian perturbations (Jenkins et al. 2001; Evrard et al. 2002; White 2002; Warren et al. 2006; Tinker et al. 2008).”
THE CLUSTERING OF MASSIVE GALAXIES AT z ∼ 0.5 FROM THE FIRST SEMESTER OF BOSS DATA (2010, methodology): “Briefly, each simulation employs an updated version of the TreePM code described in White (2002) to evolve 15003 equal mass (7.6×1010h−1M⊙) particles in a periodic cube of side length 1500h−1Mpc with a Plummer equivalent smoothing of 36h−1kpc.”
ON THE CLUSTER PHYSICS OF SUNYAEV–ZEL'DOVICH AND X-RAY SURVEYS. I. THE INFLUENCE OF FEEDBACK, NON-THERMAL PRESSURE, AND CLUSTER SHAPES ON Y–M SCALING RELATIONS (2011, background): “…trends over redshift seen in Figures 1 and 10 call for re-examination of the choice for the working definition of radius, which is directly related to the definition of the cluster mass (see White 2002, for a more thorough discussion of cluster mass definitions in dissipationless simulations).”
The halo mass function from the dark ages through the present day (2006, background): “Studies involving a wide range of cosmological parameters (e.g. Jenkins et al. 2001; White 2002) have ruled out a strong dependence of f(σ) on matter or energy density.”
The baryonic assembly of dark matter haloes (2011, background): “White (2002) in fact showed that M180b is a more accurate proxy for the FoF mass than the common virial mass definition of 200 times the critical density.”
Evolution of the mass function of dark matter haloes (2003, background): “…overestimates the number of haloes less than about M∗ (e.g. Efstathiou et al. 1988; Gross et al. 1998; Governato et al. 1999; Jenkins et al. 2001; White 2002) even when merging of dark matter haloes is included in predictions (Bond et al. 1991; Bower 1991; Lacey & Cole 1993; Gardner 2001),…”
Formation of Galaxy Clusters (2012, background): “…of halos canbe parameterized via a universal function of peak heightν (Bhattacharya et al. 2011, Courtin et al. 2011, Crocce et al. 2010, Evrard et al. 2002, Jenkins et al. 2001, Lukić et al. 2007, Reed et al. 2007, Sheth & Tormen 1999, Tinker et al. 2008, Warren et al. 2006, White 2002).”
Red Galaxy Growth and the Halo Occupation Distribution (2008, methodology): “…is effectively governed by gravity alone, so both the mass function and clustering of dark matter halos are predictable, albeit nontrivial, functions of redshift and cosmological parameters (e.g., Press & Schechter 1974; Sheth & Tormen 1999; Jenkins et al. 2001; White 2002; Tinker et al. 2005).”
The mass function and average mass-loss rate of dark matter subhaloes (2004, result): “Since it is still unclear what the proper interpretation of these EPS masses is (see White 2002, for a detailed discussion), this ‘definition’ may introduce an additional uncertainty in the absolute normalization of our results.”
Lyα COOLING EMISSION FROM GALAXY FORMATION (2010, background): “In general, M200c ∼M (≡MFoF ≈ M180b; see §2.2), but since r180b may exceed r200c by as much of 75% on cluster scales (White 2002), M200c can be lower than M by a factor of as much as 5 at z ∼ 0.”
LoCuSS: Subaru Weak Lensing Study of 30 Galaxy Clusters (2009, methodology): “…derived from numerical simulations is well fitted by a simple analytical formula, such as the Press– Schechter function (Press & Schechter 1974; see also White 2002) if halo masses are computed using the spherical tophat average of the mass distribution in each halo region in the simulations.”
The Cosmological simulation code GADGET-2 (2005, background): “Dubinski et al. (2004) and White (2002) approached this problem by choosing a slab decomposition also for the tree algorithm.”
Towards a concordant model of halo occupation statistics (2006, methodology): “…using the form suggested by Sheth et al. (2001), which has been shown to be in excellent agreement with numerical simulations as long as halo masses are defined as the masses inside a sphere with an average overdensity of 180 (Jing 1998; Sheth & Tormen 1999; Jenkins et al. 2001; White 2002).”
Virial Scaling of Massive Dark Matter Halos: Why Clusters Prefer a High Normalization Cosmology (2007, background): “D, 71, 095007 Ettori, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, L13 Ettori, S., Dolag, K., Borgani, S., & Murante, G. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 1021 Evrard, A. E. 1990, ApJ, 363, 349 Evrard, A. E., Metzler, C. A., & Navarro, J. F. 1996, ApJ, 469, 494 Evrard, A. E., Summers, F. J., & Davis, M. 1994, ApJ, 422, 11 Evrard, A. E., e”
nbodykit: An Open-source, Massively Parallel Toolkit for Large-scale Structure (2017, methodology): “We also provide more specialized readers for particle data from the Tree-PM simulations of White (2002) and the legacy binary format of the GADGET simulations (Springel 2005).”
MASS FUNCTION PREDICTIONS BEYOND ΛCDM (2010, methodology): “…simulations to calibrate the halo mass function over an increasingly wider range of masses and redshifts (Jenkins et al. 2001; Evrard et al. 2002; White 2002; Reed et al. 2003; Warren et al. 2006; Heitmann et al. 2006; Reed et al. 2007; Lukić et al. 2007; Tinker et al. 2008; Boylan-Kolchin et…”
New constraints on dark energy from the observed growth of the most X-ray luminous galaxy clusters (2007, background): “…mass–luminosity relation use different definitions of cluster mass requires us to convert masses from one overdensity to another during the analysis (White 2002); details of carrying out this conversion, assuming a spherically symmetric Navarro, Frenk, & White (1997) density profile, are reviewed…”