Paper detail

Counts-in-Cylinders in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey with Comparisons to N-body Simulations

Environmental statistics provide a necessary means of comparing the properties of galaxies in different environments and a vital test of models of galaxy formation within the prevailing, hierarchical cosmological model. We explore counts-in-cylinders, a common statistic defined as the number of companions of a particular galaxy found within a given projected radius and redshift interval. Galaxy distributions with the same two-point correlation functions do not necessarily have the same companion count distributions. We use this statistic to examine the environments of galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, Data Release 4. We also make preliminary comparisons to four models for the spatial distributions of galaxies, based on N-body simulations, and data from SDSS DR4 to study the utility of the counts-in-cylinders statistic. There is a very large scatter between the number of companions a galaxy has and the mass of its parent dark matter halo and the halo occupation, limiting the utility of this statistic for certain kinds of environmental studies. We also show that prevalent, empirical models of galaxy clustering that match observed two- and three-point clustering statistics well fail to reproduce some aspects of the observed distribution of counts-in-cylinders on 1, 3 and 6-Mpc/h scales. All models that we explore underpredict the fraction of galaxies with few or no companions in 3 and 6-Mpc/h cylinders. Roughly 7% of galaxies in the real universe are significantly more isolated within a 6 Mpc/h cylinder than the galaxies in any of the models we use. Simple, phenomenological models that map galaxies to dark matter halos fail to reproduce high-order clustering statistics in low-density environments.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.