Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Modelling galaxy clustering: halo occupation distribution versus subhalo matching

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1508.07012 v2 pith:TW3R7KBL submitted 2015-08-27 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords modelsubhalogalaxyclusteringhalomatchingpeaksham
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

We model the luminosity-dependent projected and redshift-space two-point correlation functions (2PCFs) of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) DR7 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 $\chi^2/\rm{dof}$ 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 $M_{\rm acc}$ at the time of accretion, the maximum circular velocity $V_{\rm acc}$ at the time of accretion, and the peak maximum circular velocity $V_{\rm peak}$ 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 $V_{\rm acc}$ model stands out in reproducing the data, with the $V_{\rm peak}$ model slightly worse, while the $M_{\rm acc}$ model fails to fit the data. We discuss the implications of the modeling results.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools