Paper detail

Generating Merger Trees for Dark Matter Haloes: A Comparison of Methods

Halo merger trees describe the hierarchical mass assembly of dark matter haloes, and are the backbone for modeling galaxy formation and evolution. Merger trees constructed using Monte Carlo algorithms based on the extended Press-Schechter (EPS) formalism are complementary to those extracted from N-body simulations, and have the advantage that they are not trammeled by limited numerical resolution and uncertainties in identifying (sub)haloes and linking them between snapshots. This paper compares multiple EPS-based merger tree algorithms to simulation results using four diagnostics: progenitor mass function (PMF), mass assembly history (MAH), merger rate per descendant halo, and the unevolved subhalo mass function (USMF). In general, algorithms based on spherical collapse yield major-merger rates that are too high by a factor of two, resulting in MAHs that are systematically offset. Assuming ellipsoidal collapse solves most of these issues, but the particular algorithm investigated here that incorporates ellipsoidal collapse dramatically overpredicts the minor-merger rate for massive haloes. The only algorithm in our comparison that yields MAHs, merger rates, and USMFs in good agreement with simulations, is that by Parkinson et al. (2008). However, this is not a true EPS-based algorithm as it draws its progenitor masses from a PMF calibrated against simulations, rather than `predicted' by EPS. Finally we emphasize that the benchmarks used to test the EPS algorithms are obtained from simulations and are hampered by significant uncertainties themselves. In particular, MAHs and halo merger rates obtained from simulations by different authors reveal discrepancies that easily exceed 50 percent, even when based on the same simulation. Given this status quo, merger trees constructed using the Parkinson et al. algorithm are as accurate as those extracted from N-body simulations.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 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.