Paper detail

Testing spherical evolution for modelling void abundances

We compare analytical predictions of void volume functions to those measured from N-body simulations, detecting voids with the zobov void finder. We push to very small, nonlinear voids, below few Mpc radius, by considering the unsampled DM density field. We also study the case where voids are identified using halos. We develop analytical formula for the void abundance of both the excursion set approach and the peaks formalism. These formula are valid for random walks smoothed with a top-hat filter in real space, with a large class of realistic barrier models. We test the extent to which the spherical evolution approximation, which forms the basis of the analytical predictions, models the highly aspherical voids that occur in the cosmic web, and are found by a watershed-based algorithm such as zobov. We show that the volume function returned by zobov is quite sensitive to the choice of treatment of sub-voids, a fact that has not been appreciated previously. For reasonable choices of sub-void exclusion, we find that the Lagrangian density delta_v of the zobov voids -- which is predicted to be a constant delta_v = -2.7 in the spherical evolution model -- is different from the predicted value, showing substantial scatter and scale dependence. This result applies to voids identified at z=0 with effective radius between 1 and 10 Mpc/h. Our analytical approximations are flexible enough to give a good description of the resulting volume function; however, this happens for choices of parameter values that are different from those suggested by the spherical evolution assumption. We conclude that analytical models for voids must move away from the spherical approximation in order to be applied successfully to observations, and we discuss some possible ways forward.

preprint2015arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.