Paper detail

How well does the Friends-of-Friends algorithm recover group properties from galaxy catalogs limited in both distance and luminosity?

We test the Friends-of-Friends (FoF) grouping algorithm, which depends on two linking lengths (LLs), plane-of-sky and line-of-sight (LOS), normalized to the mean nearest neighbor separation of field galaxies. We argue, on theoretical grounds, that LLs should be $b_\perp \simeq 0.11$, and $b_\parallel \simeq 1.3$ to recover 95% of all galaxies with projected radii within the virial radius $r_{200}$ and 95% of the galaxies along the LOS. We then predict that 80 to 90% of the galaxies in FoF groups should lie within their parent real-space groups (RSGs), defined within their virial spheres. We test the FoF extraction for 16x16 pairs of LLs, using subsamples of galaxies, doubly complete in distance and luminosity, of a flux-limited mock SDSS galaxy catalog. We find that massive RSGs are more prone to fragmentation, while the fragments typically have low estimated mass, with typically 30% of groups of low and intermediate estimated mass being fragments. Group merging rises drastically with estimated mass. For groups of 3 or more galaxies, galaxy completeness and reliability are both typically better than 80% (after discarding the fragments). Estimated masses of extracted groups are biased low, by up to a factor 4 at low richness, while the inefficiency of mass estimation improves from 0.85 dex to 0.2 dex when moving from low to high multiplicity groups. The optimal LLs depend on the scientific goal for the group catalog. We propose $b_\perp \simeq 0.07$, with $b_\parallel \simeq 1.1$ for studies of environmental effects, $b_\parallel \simeq 2.5$ for cosmographic studies and $b_\parallel \simeq 5$ for followups of individual groups.

preprint2014arXivOpen 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.