H. Guo
Modelling galaxy clustering: halo occupation distribution versus subhalo matching
Guo, H.; Zheng, Z.; Behroozi, P.S.; Zehavi, I.; Chuang, C.; Comparat, J.; Favole, G.; Gottloeber, S.; Klypin, A.; Prada, F.; Rodríguez-Torres, S.A.; Weinberg, D.H.; Yepes, G.
Authors
Z. Zheng
P.S. Behroozi
Professor Idit Zehavi idit.zehavi@durham.ac.uk
Academic Visitor
C. Chuang
J. Comparat
G. Favole
S. Gottloeber
A. Klypin
F. Prada
S.A. Rodríguez-Torres
D.H. Weinberg
G. Yepes
Abstract
We model the luminosity-dependent projected and redshift-space two-point correlation functions (2PCFs) of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Data Release 7 Main galaxy sample, using the halo occupation distribution (HOD) model and the subhalo abundance matching (SHAM) model and its extension. All the models are built on the same high-resolution N-body simulations. We find that the HOD model generally provides the best performance in reproducing the clustering measurements in both projected and redshift spaces. The SHAM model with the same halo–galaxy relation for central and satellite galaxies (or distinct haloes and subhaloes), when including scatters, has a best-fitting χ2/dof around 2–3. We therefore extend the SHAM model to the subhalo clustering and abundance matching (SCAM) by allowing the central and satellite galaxies to have different galaxy–halo relations. We infer the corresponding halo/subhalo parameters by jointly fitting the galaxy 2PCFs and abundances and consider subhaloes selected based on three properties, the mass Macc at the time of accretion, the maximum circular velocity Vacc at the time of accretion, and the peak maximum circular velocity Vpeak over the history of the subhaloes. The three subhalo models work well for luminous galaxy samples (with luminosity above L*). For low-luminosity samples, the Vacc model stands out in reproducing the data, with the Vpeak model slightly worse, while the Macc model fails to fit the data. We discuss the implications of the modelling results.
Citation
Guo, H., Zheng, Z., Behroozi, P., Zehavi, I., Chuang, C., Comparat, J., …Yepes, G. (2016). Modelling galaxy clustering: halo occupation distribution versus subhalo matching. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 459(3), 3040-3058. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw845
Journal Article Type | Article |
---|---|
Acceptance Date | Apr 11, 2016 |
Online Publication Date | Apr 13, 2016 |
Publication Date | Jul 1, 2016 |
Deposit Date | Sep 7, 2016 |
Publicly Available Date | Sep 7, 2016 |
Journal | Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society |
Print ISSN | 0035-8711 |
Electronic ISSN | 1365-2966 |
Publisher | Royal Astronomical Society |
Peer Reviewed | Peer Reviewed |
Volume | 459 |
Issue | 3 |
Pages | 3040-3058 |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw845 |
Files
Published Journal Article
(2.9 Mb)
PDF
Copyright Statement
This article has been accepted for publication in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society ©: 2016 The Author Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Royal Astronomical Society. All rights reserved.
You might also like
Downloadable Citations
About Durham Research Online (DRO)
Administrator e-mail: dro.admin@durham.ac.uk
This application uses the following open-source libraries:
SheetJS Community Edition
Apache License Version 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/)
PDF.js
Apache License Version 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/)
Font Awesome
SIL OFL 1.1 (http://scripts.sil.org/OFL)
MIT License (http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html)
CC BY 3.0 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
Powered by Worktribe © 2024
Advanced Search