4.7 Article

Modelling galaxy clustering: halo occupation distribution versus subhalo matching

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 459, Issue 3, Pages 3040-3058

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stw845

Keywords

galaxies: distances and redshifts; galaxies: haloes; galaxies: statistics; cosmology: observations; cosmology: theory; large-scale structure of Universe

Funding

  1. 973 Programme [2015CB857003]
  2. 100 Talents Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences
  3. NSF [AST-1208891]
  4. NASA [NNX14AC89G]
  5. Giacconi Fellowship
  6. STFC [ST/L00075X/1]
  7. European Research Council through ERC Starting Grant [DEGAS-259586]
  8. CWRU ACES+ ADVANCE Opportunity Grant
  9. Spanish MICINNs Consolider-Ingenio Programme [MultiDark CSD2009-00064]
  10. MINECO Centro de Excelencia Severo Ochoa Programme [SEV-2012-0249]
  11. MINECO [AYA2014-60641-C2-1-P]
  12. MINECO (Spain) [AYA2012-31101, FPA2012-34694]
  13. Center for High Performance Computing at the University of Utah
  14. Spanish MultiDark Consolider Project [CSD2009-00064]
  15. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  16. National Science Foundation
  17. US Department of Energy
  18. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  19. Japanese Monbukagakusho
  20. Max Planck Society
  21. Higher Education Funding Council for England
  22. American Museum of Natural History
  23. Astrophysical Institute Potsdam
  24. University of Basel
  25. University of Cambridge
  26. Case Western Reserve University
  27. University of Chicago
  28. Drexel University
  29. Fermilab
  30. Institute for Advanced Study
  31. Japan Participation Group
  32. Johns Hopkins University
  33. Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics
  34. Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology
  35. Korean Scientist Group
  36. Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST)
  37. Los Alamos National Laboratory
  38. Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA)
  39. Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA)
  40. New Mexico State University
  41. Ohio State University
  42. University of Pittsburgh
  43. University of Portsmouth
  44. Princeton University
  45. United States Naval Observatory
  46. University of Washington
  47. [NSFC-11543003]
  48. STFC [ST/L00075X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  49. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  50. Division Of Astronomical Sciences [1208891] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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 chi(2)/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 M-acc at the time of accretion, the maximum circular velocity V-acc at the time of accretion, and the peak maximum circular velocity V-peak 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 V-acc model stands out in reproducing the data, with the V-peak model slightly worse, while the M-acc model fails to fit the data. We discuss the implications of the modelling results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available