1: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}
2: \usepackage{apjfonts}
3: \usepackage{amsbsy}
4:
5: %\documentstyle[11pt, preprint]{../../aastex52/aastex}
6: %\documentstyle[11pt]{../../aastex52/aastex}
7: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
8:
9: \input{newcommands.tex}
10: \bibliographystyle{apj}
11: \def\siginv{\sigma^{-1}}
12: \def\fsig{f(\sigma)}
13: \def\gsig{g(\sigma)}
14: \def\D{\Delta}
15: \def\rd{R_{\Delta}}
16: \def\xdof{\chi^2/\nu}
17: \def\c{c_{200}}
18: \def\rhobar{\bar{\rho}_m}
19: \def\link{{l}}
20: \def\hgpc{$h^{-1}$Gpc}
21:
22: \begin{document}
23:
24: \title{Toward a halo mass function for precision cosmology:\\
25: the limits of universality}
26:
27: \author{
28: Jeremy Tinker\altaffilmark{1,2},
29: Andrey V. Kravtsov\altaffilmark{1,2,3},
30: Anatoly Klypin\altaffilmark{4},
31: Kevork Abazajian\altaffilmark{5},\\
32: Michael Warren\altaffilmark{6},
33: Gustavo Yepes\altaffilmark{7},
34: Stefan Gottl{\"o}ber\altaffilmark{8},
35: Daniel E. Holz\altaffilmark{6}
36: }
37: \altaffiltext{1}{Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, The University of Chicago, 5640 S. Ellis Ave., Chicago, IL 60637, USA}
38: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy \& Astrophysics, The University of Chicago, 5640 S. Ellis Ave., Chicago, IL 60637, USA}
39: \altaffiltext{3}{Enrico Fermi Institute, The University of Chicago, 5640 S. Ellis Ave., Chicago, IL 60637, USA}
40: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Astronomy, New Mexico State University}
41: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park}
42: \altaffiltext{6}{Theoretical Astrophysics, Los Alamos National Labs}
43: \altaffiltext{7}{Grupo de Astrofísica, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid}
44: \altaffiltext{8}{Astrophysikalisches Institut Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany}
45:
46: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
47: % ABSTRACT ABSTRACT ABSTRACT ABSTRACT ABSTRACT ABSTRACT ABSTRACT
48: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
49:
50: \begin{abstract}
51:
52: We measure the mass function of dark matter halos in a large set of
53: collisionless cosmological simulations of flat $\Lambda$CDM
54: cosmology and investigate its evolution at $z\lesssim 2$. Halos are
55: identified as isolated density peaks, and their masses are measured
56: within a series of radii enclosing specific overdensities. We argue
57: that these spherical overdensity masses are more directly linked to
58: cluster observables than masses measured using the
59: friends-of-friends algorithm (FOF), and are therefore preferable for
60: accurate forecasts of halo abundances. Our simulation set allows us
61: to calibrate the mass function at $z=0$ for virial masses in the
62: range $10^{11}$ \hmsol\ $\le M\le 10^{15}$ \hmsol\, to $\lesssim
63: 5\%$. We derive fitting functions for the halo mass function in this
64: mass range for a wide range of overdensities, both at $z=0$ and
65: earlier epochs. In addition to these formulae, which improve on
66: previous approximations by $10$-$20\%$, our main finding is that the
67: mass function cannot be represented by a universal fitting function
68: at this level of accuracy. The amplitude of the ``universal''
69: function decreases monotonically by $\approx 20-50\%$, depending on
70: the mass definition, from $z=0$ to $2.5$. We also find evidence for
71: redshift evolution in the overall shape of the mass function.
72: \end{abstract}
73:
74: \keywords{cosmology:theory --- dark matter:halos --- methods:numerical
75: --- large scale structure of the universe}
76:
77:
78: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
79: % INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
80: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
81:
82: \section{Introduction}
83:
84: Galaxy clusters are observable out to high redshift ($z\lesssim
85: 1$--$2$), making them a powerful probe of cosmology. The large numbers
86: and high concentration of early type galaxies make clusters bright in
87: optical surveys, and the high intracluster gas temperatures and
88: densities make them detectable in X-ray and through the
89: Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (SZ) effect. The evolution of their abundance and
90: clustering as a function of mass is sensitive to the power spectrum
91: normalization, matter content, and the equation of state of the dark
92: energy and, potentially, its evolution
93: \citep[e.g.,][]{holder_etal01,haiman_etal01,weller_etal02,majumdar_mohr03}.
94: In addition, clusters probe the growth of structure in the Universe,
95: which provides constraints different from and complementary to the
96: geometric constraints by the supernovae type Ia
97: \citep[e.g.,][]{albrecht_etal06}. In particular, the constraints from
98: structure growth may be crucial in distinguishing between the
99: possibilities of the cosmic acceleration driven by dark energy or
100: modification of the magnitude-redshift relation due to the non-GR
101: gravity on the largest scales \citep[e.g.,][]{knox_etal05}.
102:
103: The potential and importance of these constraints have motivated
104: current efforts to construct several large surveys of high-redshift
105: clusters both using the ground-based optical and Sunyaev-Zel'dovich
106: (SZ) surveys and X-ray missions in space. In order to realize the
107: full statistical power of these surveys, we must be able to make
108: accurate predictions for abundance evolution as a function of
109: cosmological parameters.
110:
111: Traditionally, analytic models for halo abundance as a function of
112: mass, have been used for estimating expected evolution
113: \citep{press_schechter:74,bond_etal91,lee_shandarin:98,sheth_tormen:99}. Such
114: models, while convenient to use, require calibration against
115: cosmological simulations. In addition, they do not capture the entire
116: complexity of halo formation and their ultimate accuracy is likely
117: insufficient for precision cosmological constraints. A precision mass function
118: can most directly be achieved through explicit cosmological simulation.
119:
120: The standard for precision determination of the mass function from
121: simulations was set by \cite{jenkins_etal:01} and
122: \citet{evrard_etal:02}, who have presented fitting function for the
123: halo abundance accurate to $\sim 10-20\%$. These studies also showed
124: that this function was universal, in the sense that the same function
125: and parameters could be used to predict halo abundance for different
126: redshifts and cosmologies. \cite{warren_etal:06} have further improved
127: the calibration to $\approx 5\%$ accuracy for a fixed cosmology at $z=0$.
128: Several other studies have tested the universality of the
129: mass function at high redshifts (\citealt{reed_etal:03,
130: reed_etal:07, lukic_etal:07, cohn_white:07}).
131:
132: One caveat to all these studies is that the theoretical counts as a
133: function of mass have to be converted to the counts as a function of
134: the cluster properties observable in a given survey. Our understanding
135: of physics that shapes these properties is, however, not sufficiently
136: complete to make reliable, robust predictions. The widely adopted
137: strategy is therefore to calibrate abundance as a function
138: of total halo mass and calibrate the relation between mass and
139: observable cluster properties either separately or within a survey
140: itself using nuisance parameters
141: \citep[e.g.][]{majumdar_mohr04,lima_hu04,lima_hu05,lima_hu07}.
142: The success of such a strategy, however, depends on how well cluster observables
143: correlate with total cluster mass and whether evolution of this
144: correlation with time is sufficiently simple
145: \citep[e.g.,][]{lima_hu05}.
146:
147: Tight intrinsic correlations between X-ray, SZ, and optical
148: observables and cluster mass are expected theoretically
149: \citep[e.g.,][]{bialek_etal:01,dasilva_etal04,motl_etal05,nagai06,kravtsov_etal06}
150: and were shown to exist observationally
151: \citep[e.g.,][]{mohr_etal:99,lin_etal:04a,vikhlinin_etal06,maughan07,arnaud_etal07,sheldon_etal:07_data,zhang_etal08}
152: in the case when both observables and masses are defined within a
153: certain {\it spherical} radius enclosing a given overdensity. The
154: majority of the mass function calibration studies, however, have
155: calibrated the mass function with halos and masses measured using the
156: friends-of-friends (FOF) percolation algorithm. This algorithm is
157: computationally efficient, straightforward to implement, and is
158: therefore appealing computationally. The relation between the FOF
159: masses and observables is, however, quite uncertain.
160:
161: As we show below (see \S~\ref{sec:fof_vs_so} and Fig.~\ref{fof_SO}),
162: there is large, redshift-dependent, and asymmetric scatter between the
163: FOF mass and mass measured within a spherical overdensity, which
164: implies that there is also large asymmetric scatter between the FOF
165: mass and cluster observables. This does not bode well for
166: self-calibration of such relations. Furthermore, there is no way to
167: measure the equivalent of the FOF mass in observations, which means
168: that any calibration of the FOF mass and observables will have to rely
169: on simulations. An additional issue is that halos identified with
170: an FOF algorithm may not have one-to-one correspondence to the
171: objects identified in observational surveys. For example, the FOF
172: finder is known to join neighboring halos into a single object even
173: if their centers are located outside each others virial radii. Such
174: objects, however, would be identified as separate systems in X-ray and SZ
175: surveys.
176:
177: Although no halo-finding algorithm applied on simulations containing
178: only dark matter may be perfect in identifying all systems that would
179: be identified in a given observational survey, the spherical
180: overdensity (SO) halo finder, which identifies objects as spherical
181: regions enclosing a certain overdensity around density peaks
182: \citep{lacey_cole:94}, has significant benefits over the FOF both
183: theoretically and observationally. Most analytic halo models
184: \citep[see, e.g.,][for review]{cooray_sheth:02} assume that halos are
185: spherical, and the statistics derived are sensitive to the exact halo
186: definition. To be fully self-consistent, the formulae for halo
187: properties, halo abundance, and halo bias, on which the calculations
188: rely, should follow the same definition. The tight correlations
189: between observables and masses defined within spherical apertures
190: means that connecting observed counts to theoretical halo abundances
191: is relatively straightforward and robust. At the same time, the
192: problem of matching halos to observed systems is considerably less
193: acute for halos identified around density peaks, compared to halos
194: identified with the FOF algorithm.
195:
196: Thus there is substantial need for a recalibration of the halo mass
197: function based on the SO algorithm for a range of overdensities probed
198: by observations and frequently used in theoretical calculations ($\sim 200-2000$).
199: Such calibration for the standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmology is the main focus
200: of this paper. Specifically, we focus on accurate calibration of halo abundances for
201: intermediate and high-mass halos ($\sim 10^{11}-10^{15}h^{-1}\,\rm M_{\odot}$) over the
202: range of redshifts ($z\sim 0-2$) most relevant for the current and upcoming
203: large cluster surveys.
204:
205: The paper is organized as follows. In \S\ 2 we describe our
206: simulation set and SO algorithm. In \S\ 3 we present results for the
207: mass function, demonstrating how our results depend on cosmology and
208: redshift. In \S\ 4 we summarize and discuss our results.
209:
210: Throughout this paper {\it we use masses defined within radii enclosing
211: a given overdensity with respect to the mean density of the Universe
212: at the epoch of analysis.}
213:
214:
215: \begin{figure*}
216: \epsscale{1.0}
217: %\plotone{key.ps}
218: \plotone{f1.ps}
219: \vspace{-7.0cm}
220: \caption{ \label{key} A graphical key for the list of simulations in
221: Table 1. The upper panel shows point styles for all the WMAP1 simulations ordered by the
222: box size. Each simulation is represented with a different color,
223: while different point types represent different numerical codes: circles=HOT,
224: squares=ART, triangles=GADGET2. The lower panel plots all
225: WMAP3 simulations, as well as H384$\Omega$, the low-$\om$
226: simulation. See Table 1 for the details of each simulation. }
227: \end{figure*}
228:
229:
230:
231: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
232: % SECTION 2 SECTION 2 SECTION 2 SECTION 2 SECTION 2 SECTION 2 SECTION 2
233: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
234:
235:
236:
237: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
238: % TABLE 1 TABLE 1 TABLE 1
239: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
240:
241: \begin{deluxetable*}{cccclccclc}
242: \tablecolumns{7}
243: \tablewidth{40pc}
244: \tablecaption{Properties of the Simulation Set}
245: \tablehead{\colhead{$L_{\rm box}$ \hmpc} & \colhead{Name} & \colhead{$\epsilon$ \hkpc} & \colhead{$N_p$} &\colhead{$m_p$ \hmsol} & \colhead{$(\om,\Omega_b,\s8,h,n)$} & \colhead{Code} & \colhead{$z_i$} & \colhead{$z_{\rm out}$} & \colhead{$\D_{\rm max}$} }
246:
247: \startdata
248:
249: %1536 & H1536 & 49 & $1024^3$ & $2.81\times 10^{11}$ & $(0.3,0.04,0.9,0.7,1)$ & HOT& ? & 0 & 400 \\
250: %1086 & H1086 & 35 & $1024^3$ &$9.93\times 10^{10}$ & $(0.3,0.04,0.9,0.7,1)$ & HOT& ? & 0 & 400 \\
251: 768 & H768 & 25 & $1024^3$ &$3.51\times 10^{10}$ & $(0.3,0.04,0.9,0.7,1)$ & HOT& 40 & 0 & 800\\
252: 384 & H384 & 14 & $1024^3$ &$4.39\times 10^{9}$ & $(0.3,0.04,0.9,0.7,1)$ & HOT& 48 & 0 & 3200\\
253: 271 & H271 & 10 & $1024^3$ &$1.54\times 10^{9}$ & $(0.3,0.04,0.9,0.7,1)$ & HOT& 51 & 0 & 3200\\
254: 192 & H192 & 4.9 & $1024^3$ &$5.89\times 10^{8}$ & $(0.3,0.04,0.9,0.7,1)$ & HOT& 54 & 0 & 3200\\
255: 96 & H96 & 1.4 & $1024^3$ &$6.86\times 10^{7}$ & $(0.3,0.04,0.9,0.7,1)$ & HOT& 65 & 0 & 3200\\
256: \hline
257: %3000 & HV & 15 & $1024^3$ & $2.25\times 10^{12}$ & $(0.3,0.04,0.9,0.7,1)$ & P3M & 35& 666\\
258: 1280 & L1280 & 120 & $640^3$ &$5.99\times 10^{11}$ & $(0.27,0.04,0.9,0.7,1)$ & GADGET2 & 49 & 0, 0.5, 1.0 & 600\\
259: 500 & L500 & 15 & $1024^3\times$2 & $8.24\times 10^{9}$ & $(0.3,0.045,0.9,0.7,1)$ & GADGET2 & 40& 0, 0.5, 1.25, 2.5 & 3200\\
260: 250 & L250 & 7.6 & $512^3$ & $9.69\times 10^{9}$ & $(0.3,0.04,0.9,0.7,1)$ & ART & 49 & 0, 0.5, 1.25, 2.5 & 3200 \\
261: 120 & L120 & 1.8 & $512^3$ & $1.07\times 10^{9}$ & $(0.3,0.04,0.9,0.7,1)$ & ART & 49 & 0, 0.5, 1.25, 2.5 & 3200 \\
262: 80 & L80 & 1.2 & $512^3$ & $3.18\times 10^{8}$ & $(0.3,0.04,0.9,0.7,1)$ & ART & 49 & 0, 0.5, 1.25, 2.5 & 3200\\
263: \hline
264: %1536 & H1538W & 49 & $1024^3$ & $2.43\times 10^{11}$ & $(0.26,0.044,0.75,0.71,0.94)$ & HOT& ? & 0 & 400 \\
265: 1000 & L1000W & 30 & $1024^3$ & $6.98\times 10^{10}$ & $(0.27,0.044,0.79,0.7,0.95)$ & ART& 60 & 0, 0.5, 1.25, 2.5 & 3200\\
266: 500 & L500Wa & 15 & $512^3\times$2 & $6.20\times 10^{10}$ & $(0.24,0.042,0.75,0.73,0.95)$ & GADGET2& 40 & 0 & 3200\\
267: 500 & L500Wb & 15 & $512^3\times$2 & $6.20\times 10^{10}$ & $(0.24,0.042,0.75,0.73,0.95)$ & GADGET2& 40 & 0 & 3200\\
268: 500 & L500Wc & 15 & $512^3\times$2 & $6.20\times 10^{10}$ & $(0.24,0.042,0.8,0.73,0.95)$ & GADGET2& 40 & 0 & 3200\\
269: 384 & H384W & 14 & $1024^3$ & $3.80\times 10^{9}$ & $(0.26,0.044,0.75,0.71,0.94)$ & HOT& 35 & 0 & 3200 \\
270: 384 & H384$\om$ & 14 & $1024^3$ & $2.92\times 10^{9}$ & $(0.2,0.04,0.9,0.7,1)$& HOT& 42 & 0 & 3200\\
271: 120 & L120W & 0.9 & $1024^3$ & $1.21\times 10^8$ & $(0.27,0.044,0.79,0.7,0.95)$ & ART& 100 & 1.25, 2.5 & 3200\\
272: 80 & L80W & 1.2 & $512^3$ & $2.44\times 10^{8}$ & $(0.23,0.04,0.75,0.73,0.95)$ & ART& 49 & 0, 0.5, 1.25, 2.5 & 3200\\
273:
274: \enddata \tablecomments{ The top set of 5 simulations are from the
275: \cite{warren_etal:06} study. The second list of 5 simulations are of
276: the same WMAP1 cosmology, but with different numerical codes. The
277: third list of 8 simulations are of alternate cosmologies, focusing
278: on the WMAP3 parameter set. The HOT code employs Plummer softening,
279: while GADGET employs spline softening. The force resolution of the
280: ART code is based on the size of the grid cell at the highest level
281: of refinement. $\D_{\rm max}$ is the highest overdensity for which
282: the mass function can measured directly. Above this $\D$, halo mass
283: are inferred from the rescaling procedure in \S 2.3. A graphical key
284: of this table is shown in Figure \ref{key}.}
285: \end{deluxetable*}
286:
287:
288: \section{Methods}
289:
290: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
291: \subsection{Simulation Set}
292: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
293:
294:
295: Table 1 lists our set of simulations. All the simulations are based on
296: variants of the flat, \lcdm\ cosmology. The cosmological parameters
297: for the majority of the simulations reflect the zeitgeist of the
298: first-year WMAP results (\citealt{spergel_etal:03}). We will refer to
299: this cosmology as WMAP1. A smaller number of simulations have
300: cosmological parameters closer to the three-year WMAP constraints
301: (\citealt{spergel_etal:07}), in which both $\om$ and $\s8$ are lower
302: and the initial power spectrum contains significant tilt of
303: $n=0.95$. This subset of simulations are not of the same identical
304: parameter set, but rather represent slight variations around a
305: parameter set we will refer to globally as WMAP3.
306:
307:
308: The largest simulation by volume followed a cubic box of 1280 \hmpc\
309: size. There are fifty realizations of this simulation performed with
310: the GADGET2 code \citep{springel:05}, which have been kindly provided
311: to us by R. Scoccimarro. With the exception of these 1280 \hmpc\
312: boxes, the initial conditions for all simulations were created using
313: the standard first-order Zel'dovich approximation
314: (ZA). \cite{crocce_etal:06} point out possible systematic errors in
315: the resulting mass function if first-order initial conditions are
316: started insufficiently early. Using second order Lagrange perturbation
317: theory (2LPT) to create initial conditions, they identify
318: discrepancies between the halo mass function from their simulations
319: and that of \cite{warren_etal:06} at the highest masses. In
320: \cite{warren_etal:06}, several boxes larger than 768 \hmpc\ were
321: utilized in the analysis that are not listed in Table 1. In tests with
322: our spherical overdensity halo finder, we find a discrepancy between
323: the 2LPT simulations and these simulations. At this point, it is not
324: yet clear whether the discrepancy is due to the effect advocated by
325: \cite{crocce_etal:06} or due to other numerical effects. We explore
326: the issue of initial starting redshift in some detail in the Appendix
327: A. What is clear, however, is that results of these simulations
328: systematically deviate from other higher resolution simulations,
329: especially for larger values of overdensities. We therefore do not
330: include them in our analyses.
331:
332: The first five simulations listed in Table 1 were used
333: in \cite{warren_etal:06} in their analyses. The integrations were performed
334: with the Hashed Oct-Tree (HOT) code of
335: \cite{warren_salmon:93}. Additionally, there are two HOT simulations
336: in the WMAP3 parameter set. These simulations will be referred to in
337: the text by their box size, in \hmpc, prefixed by the letter
338: `H'. Simulations in the WMAP3 set will be appended with the letter
339: 'W'. Due to identical box sizes between parameter sets, H384 will
340: refer to the WMAP1 simulation, H384W will refer to the simulation with
341: WMAP3 parameters, and H384$\Omega$ will refer to the low-$\Omega_m$
342: simulation (which we will include in the WMAP3 simulation subset).
343:
344: There are six simulations using the Adaptive Refinement Technique
345: (ART) of \cite{kravtsov_etal:97}, and four that use GADGET2 in
346: addition to the L1280 realizations. The L80 and L120 ART boxes
347: modeling the WMAP1 cosmology are described in \cite{kravtsov_etal:04}
348: and L250 simulation is described by Tasitsiomi et al.~(2008, in
349: preparation), while the three WMAP3 boxes are presented here. The L500
350: simulations are described in \cite{gottloeber_yepes:07} and
351: \cite{yepes_etal:07}\footnote{see also
352: http://astro.ft.uam.es/marenostrum/universe/index.html}. These
353: simulations contain equal numbers of dark matter and SPH gas particles
354: (without cooling). The ART and GADGET2 simulations will be referred by
355: their box size with prefix `L'. WMAP3 simulations have a `W' as a
356: suffix.
357:
358: Our simulation set comprises three different N-body codes, one based
359: on the popular tree algorithm (HOT), one based on grid codes with
360: small-scale refinement of high-density regions (ART), and one that
361: combines grid and tree algorithms (GADGET2). We present a key in
362: Figure \ref{key} that graphically displays the range of box
363: sizes. Each simulation is represented by a different color, while
364: different point types refer to different simulation codes: circles for
365: HOT, squares for ART, and triangles for GADGET2. These point symbols
366: and colors will be used consistently in the figures below.
367:
368:
369:
370: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
371: \subsection{Halo Identification}
372: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
373:
374: The standard spherical overdensity algorithm is described in detail in
375: \cite{lacey_cole:94}. However, in our approach we have made several
376: important modifications. In \cite{lacey_cole:94} the centers of halos
377: are located on the center of mass of the particles within the
378: sphere. Due to substructure, this center may be displaced from the
379: main peak in the density field. Observational techniques such as X-ray
380: cluster identification locate the center of the halo at the peak of
381: the X-ray flux (and therefore the peak of density of the hot
382: intracluster gas). Optical cluster searches will often locate the
383: cluster center at the location of the brightest member, which is also
384: expected to be located near the peak of X-ray emission (\citealt{lin_etal:04a,
385: koester_etal:07, rykoff_etal:08}). Thus we locate the centers of halos at their
386: density peaks.
387:
388: Our halo finder begins by estimating the local density around each
389: particle within a fixed top-hat aperture with radius approximately
390: three times the force softening of each simulation. Beginning with the
391: highest-density particle, a sphere is grown around the particle until
392: the mean interior density is equal to the input value of $\D$, where
393: $\D$ is the overdensity within a sphere of radius $\rd$ with respect
394: to the mean density of the Universe at the epoch of analysis,
395: $\rhobar(z)\equiv\om(z)\rho_{\rm crit}(z)=\rhobar(0)(1+z)^3$:
396: \begin{equation}
397: \D = \frac{M_{\Delta}}{(4/3)\pi \rd^3 \rhobar}.
398: \end{equation}
399: All values of $\D$ listed in this paper are with respect to $\rhobar(z)$.
400:
401: Since local densities smoothed with a top-hat kernel are somewhat noisy,
402: we refine the location of the peak of the halo density with an
403: iterative procedure. Starting with a radius of $r=\rd/3$, the center
404: of mass of the halo is calculated iteratively until convergence. The
405: value of $r$ is reduced iteratively by 1\% and the new center of mass
406: found, until a final smoothing radius of $\rd/15$, or until only 20
407: particles are found within the smoothing radius. At this small
408: aperture, the center of mass corresponds well to the highest density
409: peak of the halo. This process is computationally efficient and
410: eliminates noise and accounts for the possibility that the chosen
411: initial halo location resides at the center of a large substructure;
412: in the latter case, the halo center will wander toward the larger mass
413: and eventually settle on its center. Once the new halo center is
414: determined, the sphere is regrown and the mass is determined.
415:
416: All particles within $\rd$ are marked as members of a halo and skipped
417: when encountered in the loop over all particle densities. Particles
418: located just outside of a halo can be chosen as candidate
419: centers for other halos, but the iterative halo-centering procedure will wander into
420: the parent halo. Whenever two halos have centers that are within the
421: larger halo's $\rd$, the halo with the largest maximum circular
422: velocity, defined as the maximum of the circular velocity profile,
423: $V_c(r)=[GM(<r)/r]^{1/2}$, is taken to be the parent halo and the
424: other halo is discarded.
425:
426: We allow halos to overlap. As long as the halo center does not reside
427: within $\rd$ of another halo, the algorithm identifies these objects
428: as distinct structures. This is in accord with X-ray or SZ
429: observations which would identify and count such objects as separate
430: systems. The overlapping volume may contain particles. Rather than
431: attempt to determine which halo each particle belongs to, or to divide
432: each particle between the halos, the mass is double-counted. No
433: solution to this problem is ideal, but we find that the total amount
434: of double-counted mass is only $\sim 0.75\%$ of all the mass located
435: within halos, with no dependence on halo mass. This parallels the
436: treatment of close pairs of clusters detected observationally. When
437: two X-ray clusters are found to have overlapping isophotal contours,
438: each system is treated individually and double counting of mass will
439: occur as well.
440:
441: For each value of $\D$, the halo finder is run independently. Halo
442: mass functions are binned in bins of width 0.1 in $\log M$ with no
443: smoothing. Errors on each mass function are obtained by the jackknife
444: method; each simulation is divided into octants and the error on each
445: mass bin is obtained through the variance of the halo number counts as
446: each octant is removed from the full simulation volume
447: (cf. \citealt{zehavi_etal:05}, equation [6]). The jackknife errors
448: provide a robust estimate of both the cosmic variance, which dominates
449: at low masses, and the Poisson noise that dominates at high masses
450: (see \citealt{hu_kravtsov:03} for a the relative contributions of each
451: source of error as a function of halo mass).
452:
453: When fitting the data, we only use data points with error bars less
454: than 25\% to reduce noise in the fitting process. We note that
455: mass bins will be correlated (low-mass bins more so than high mass
456: ones). We do not calculate the full covariance matrix of each mass
457: function, so the $\chi^2$ values obtained from the fitting procedure
458: should be taken as a general guide of goodness of fit, but not as an
459: accurate statistical measure. However, we note that the data from
460: multiple simulations in each mass range will be
461: uncorrelated, and the lack of a covariance matrix should not bias our
462: best-fit values for the mass function.
463:
464:
465:
466: \begin{figure*}
467: \epsscale{1.0}
468: %\plotone{fof_SO.ps}
469: \plotone{f2.ps}
470: %\vspace{-1.5cm}
471: \caption{ \label{fof_SO} Comparison between spherical overdensity
472: masses and friends-of-friends masses for the same sample of objects
473: from H384, L250, and L1000W. Panel (a) compares the masses of
474: $\Delta=200$ halos to FOF halos with $l=0.2$. The symbols represent
475: the median mass ratio, for objects binned by $M_{200}$. The curves
476: show the upper 90\% and lower 10\% bounds of the distribution of
477: mass ratios in each $M_{200}$ bin: solid for H384, dashed for L250,
478: and dotted for L1000W. The asymmetry in the mass ratio distribution
479: reflects the tendency of FOF to link objects together. Panel (b)
480: compares $\Delta=1600$ halos to FOF objects with $l=0.1$. Panel (c)
481: shows the distribution of mass ratios, $r_M = M_{200}/M_{\rm
482: FOF.2}$, for halos $13\le \log\,M_{200}\le 14$ ({\it solid
483: line}). The long tail of the distribution at $r_M<0.5$ indicates
484: SO halos that are linked with other virialized objects in the FOF
485: halo-finding process. The dotted line is the same distribution at
486: $z=1.25$. Panel (d) shows the distribution of $r_M$ for the same
487: mass range, for the $\D=1600$ and and FOF linking length
488: $l=0.1$. Solid and dotted lines are $z=0$ and $z=1.25$,
489: respectively. Both panels (c) and (d) show results for the L250
490: run. }
491: \end{figure*}
492:
493: \begin{figure}
494: \epsscale{1.25}
495: %\plotone{profiles.ps}
496: \plotone{f3.ps}
497: \vspace{-2cm}
498: \caption{ \label{profiles} The halo density profiles are compared to
499: analytic predictions for three different simulations. In each panel,
500: the dotted curve represents the mean interior density given by an
501: NFW profile with $c(M)$ from \citet{dolag_etal:04}. The shaded
502: region is the expected scatter assuming $\sigma_{\log c}=0.12$. The
503: solid curves with errorbars represent the numerical results. The
504: left panel shows results from H384 for all halos $M>10^{14.5}$
505: \hmsol. The center and right panels show results for halos
506: $M>10^{15}$ \hmsol. The center and left panel demonstrate that halo
507: profiles are well resolved in these simulations. The right panel,
508: shows significant deviations from the expected NFW profile
509: at $r<0.1R_{200}$ in the lower-resolution L1280 simulation. }
510: \end{figure}
511:
512:
513: \begin{figure}[t!]
514: \epsscale{1.15}
515: %\plotone{resolution.ps}
516: \plotone{f4.ps}
517: %\vspace{-1.5cm}
518: \caption{ \label{resolution} Test of the resolution of the
519: large-volume simulations, L500, L1000W, and one realization of
520: L1280. In each panel, the mass functions are plotted as residuals
521: with respect to the best-fit $\fsig$ function from Table 2. The
522: symbols represent the mass functions measured directly from the
523: simulations at each $\D$. The curves are mass functions inferred
524: from the $\D=200$ halo catalog of each simulation, where the mass of
525: each $\D=200$ halo is scaled to higher overdensities assuming an
526: analytic NFW halo (including scatter in concentrations at fixed
527: mass). For the two higher resolution simulations, the scaled and
528: true mass function are in agreement. Due to insufficient resolution,
529: the L1280 mass function falls below the scaled mass function at high
530: $\D$. }
531: \end{figure}
532:
533:
534:
535:
536: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
537: \subsection{Comparison of FOF and SO halos}
538: \label{sec:fof_vs_so}
539: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
540:
541: \cite{white:01, white:02} demonstrated that there is scatter between
542: the masses of halos identified with the FOF and SO halo definitions,
543: as well as an offset between the mean halo masses using the canonical
544: values of the linking length $\link=0.2$ in the FOF algorithm and
545: overdensity $\Delta=200$ in the SO approach. Figure \ref{fof_SO}
546: compares the masses of halos identified with these two definitions for
547: three different simulations. Halos in a simulation are first
548: identified with our SO approach, then the FOF finder is subsequently
549: run, beginning at the center of the SO halo. Figure \ref{fof_SO}a
550: compares $\D=200$ to $\link=0.2$. The symbols represent the median
551: mass ratio $r_M = M_{200}/M_{\rm FOF.2}$ as a function of
552: $M_{200}$. The curves represent the upper and lower 90\% bounds on the
553: distribution of mass ratios. Although the median is near unity, the
554: scatter is large and highly asymmetric.
555:
556: The asymmetry in the distribution is due to the FOF algorithm linking
557: two or more distinct objects in close proximity to each other. Because
558: we allow halos to overlap, FOF will treat these halos as a single
559: object. Due to the arbitrary shape of FOF halos, the algorithm also
560: links SO objects that do not overlap. The median mass ratio is also
561: sensitive to the number of particles per halo; FOF halos are known to
562: be biased toward higher masses at low particle number
563: (\citealt{warren_etal:06}). The scatter between mass definitions is
564: not alleviated by making the linking length smaller. This is shown in
565: Figure \ref{fof_SO}b, in which the same results are shown for
566: $\D=1600$ and $\link=0.1$. The median is once again near unity, and
567: the scatter remains identical. We note also that there is an offset in
568: the median between simulations as well; the results from L1000W are
569: $\sim 5\%$ lower than the other simulations at $\link=0.2$ and $\sim
570: 10\%$ lower at $\link=0.1$. This offset is not due to the change in
571: cosmology between the L1000W and the other simulations, therefore it
572: must be a result of the lower mass resolution.
573:
574: We find that the curvature in the median mass ratio is alleviated when
575: adjusting the masses $M_{\rm FOF.2}$ by the Warren et.~al.\
576: correction formula, $(1-N_p^{-0.6})$, where $N_p$ is the number of
577: particles in a halo. However, the curvature is not entirely
578: ameliorated by this formula at $\link=0.1$, demonstrating that the
579: mass errors in FOF halos depend on the linking length. We find that
580: $(1-N_p^{-0.5})$ is sufficient to remove the FOF bias for
581: $\link=0.1$. Figures \ref{fof_SO}c and \ref{fof_SO}d show the
582: distribution of mass ratios for halos between $10^{13}$ and $10^{14}$
583: \hmsol\ for one of the simulations. The solid histograms present
584: results at $z=0$ and the dotted histograms is for $z=1.25$. Both the
585: $z=0$ histograms exhibit a large, constant tail to low ratios. At
586: higher redshift, the asymmetry of $P(r_M)$ becomes even stronger.
587: The correlation between spherically-defined
588: masses and the FOF masses is thus broad and evolves with
589: redshift.
590:
591: This has significant implications for comparisons with observational
592: cluster counts. Given that cluster observables correlate strongly with
593: the spherical overdensity masses, the large scatter between
594: $M_{\Delta}$ and $M_{\rm FOF}$ indicates that the FOF correlation will
595: be weaker. If one is to use a halo mass function calibrated against
596: halos and masses identified with the FOF algorithm, a significant
597: additional effort would be required to calibrate the scatter between
598: FOF masses and observables as a function of redshift, mass, and
599: cosmology. In addition, this calibration will have to rely solely on
600: theoretical modeling, because the mass equivalent to the FOF cannot be
601: directly measured in observations. The use of the halo abundance
602: predictions made with the spherical overdensity algorithm is therefore
603: strongly preferred.
604:
605:
606: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
607: \subsection{Accounting for effects of resolution \label{s.rescale}}
608: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
609:
610: Defining the halo masses within a radius enclosing a given overdensity stipulates that
611: the halo mass is the integrated density profile within a fixed
612: radius. This means that the mass depends on the internal density
613: distribution of the halo, and is thus more susceptible to the
614: effects of resolution. The FOF masses,
615: on the other hand, are measured
616: within a given isodensity surface, and are therefore less
617: sensitive to the internal mass distribution.
618: For example, \cite{lukic_etal:07} demonstrate
619: that a reasonable FOF mass function can be obtained through a
620: low-resolution simulation with as little as 8 timesteps.
621: If the same simulation is performed twice with different resolutions,
622: the same density peak in the lower resolution
623: simulation will have a shallower density profile and will
624: in general have a different measured mass, $M_{\Delta}$. The result is a
625: systematic artificial shift in the estimated halo mass function. This effect will
626: be larger for larger values of $\D$, as smaller radii that enclose
627: larger overdensities are more affected by resolution issues.
628:
629: To measure the SO mass function reliably at high $\D$, we
630: test whether the halo density profiles are properly resolved in each of the
631: analyzed simulations at the overdensity in question. Figure
632: \ref{profiles} illustrates one of the resolution tests that
633: we performed. It compares the halo density profiles from simulations to the expected
634: profiles. For the latter we use the well-tested \cite{nfw:97} profile (hereafter NFW) with
635: the concentration for a given mass measured in high-resolution simulations by
636: \cite{dolag_etal:04}\footnote{$c_{200}(M) = 9.59\times
637: (M/10^{14})^{-0.102}$, normalized to the WMAP1 cosmology. When
638: changing cosmology, we shift the normalization using the fractional
639: change in concentration from the \cite{bullock_etal:01} model at
640: $M=10^{13}$ \hmsol.} and a scatter in concentration of 0.12 in
641: $\log_{10} c$. In this figure we show examples of one HOT simulation
642: (H384), one ART simulation (L1000W), and one GADGET2 simulation
643: (L1280). The HOT and ART simulations have force resolutions of 14 and
644: 30 \hkpc, respectively, which is well within the scale radius of a
645: typical cluster-sized halo. The results for both the mean profile and
646: its scatter are in excellent agreement with the NFW profile. The L1280
647: simulation has a force resolution of 120 \hkpc, and deviations from
648: the expected profile become clear at $r<0.1R_{200}$. These differences
649: will propagate into the estimate of the mass function if they are not
650: taken into account.
651:
652: The results of comparisons similar to those shown in Figure
653: \ref{profiles} clearly identify which radii and which simulations
654: profiles are affected by resolution. These results can then be used to
655: determine the range of overdensities for which masses can be measured
656: reliably in a given simulation. This is illustrated in
657: Figure~\ref{resolution}, which shows the mass functions from three
658: different simulations at four values of $\D$. The mass functions are
659: plotted relative to the best-fit mass functions at each $\D$, which
660: are described in more detail below in \S\ 3. At each overdensity we
661: compare the mass functions measured in simulations to mass functions
662: obtained by taking the individual halos found using the SO halo finder
663: with $\D=200$ and rescaling their masses assuming the NFW profile,
664: taking into account scatter in concentrations (see, e.g.,
665: \citealt{white:01, hu_kravtsov:03}). We use the concentration-mass
666: relation and scatter measured directly from our simulations (Tinker
667: et.~al., in preparation). The figure shows that the measured and
668: re-scaled mass functions are in good agreement for $\D\leq 800$, where
669: the scaled-up mass function is $\sim 5\%$ higher than the true mass
670: function. This error is accrued from the halos located within
671: $R_{200}$, which can become separate halos for higher overdensities
672: and are not accounted for in the rescaling process.
673:
674: At higher overdensities, the agreement is markedly worse, especially
675: for the lower-resolution L1280 boxes. At $\D=1600$, the measured mass
676: function is underestimated by $\sim 10\%$, increasing to $\sim 20\%$
677: at $\D=3200$. Therefore, for this simulation we use the
678: directly-measured mass function only at $\D\le 600$, while at higher
679: $\D$ we calculate the mass function by mass re-scaling using halos
680: identified with an overdensity $\D=600$. A scaling baseline of
681: $\log(\Delta_{\rm high}/\Delta_{\rm low})\le 0.9$ accrues only
682: $\lesssim 2\%$ error in the amplitude of the mass function at these
683: masses. Thus the rescaled halo catalogs are reliable for calibrating
684: the halo mass function at high overdensity. This procedure is used to
685: measure high-$\D$ mass functions for L768 (for $\D>800$) and L1280
686: (for $\D>600$).
687:
688: At $\D=200$ we choose a conservative minimum value of no less than 400 particles
689: per halo. Below this value resolution effects become
690: apparent, and simulations with differing mass resolutions begin to
691: diverge. This is readily seen in the SO mass functions analyzed in
692: \cite{jenkins_etal:01}. At higher $\D$, halos are probed at
693: significantly smaller radii, and the resolution requirements are more
694: stringent. Thus at higher $\D$ we increase the minimum number of
695: particles such that, at $\D=3200$, $N_{\rm min}$ is higher by a factor
696: of 4. Exact values for each overdensity are listed in Table 2.
697:
698:
699: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
700: % MASS FUNCTION RESULTS
701: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
702:
703: \section{Halo Mass Function}
704:
705: \subsection{ Fitting Formula and General Results }
706:
707:
708: \begin{figure}
709: \epsscale{1.2}
710: %\plotone{dndM.ps}
711: \plotone{f5.ps}
712: %\vspace{-1.5cm}
713: \caption{ \label{dndM} The measured mass functions for all WMAP1
714: simulations, plotted as $(M^2/\bar{\rho}_m)\,dn/dM$ against
715: $\log\,M$. The solid curves are the best-fit functions from Table
716: 2. The three sets of points show results for $\D=200$, 800, and 3200
717: (from top to bottom). To provide a rough scaling between $M$ and
718: $\siginv$, the top axis of the plot shows $\siginv$ for this mass
719: range for the WMAP1 cosmology. The slight offset between the L1280
720: results and the solid curves is due to the slightly lower value of
721: $\om=0.27$.}
722: \end{figure}
723:
724: Although the number density of collapsed halos of a given mass depends
725: sensitively on the shape and amplitude of the power spectrum,
726: successful analytical ansatzes predict the halo abundance quite
727: accurately by using a universal function describing the mass fraction
728: of matter in peaks of a given height, $\nu\equiv
729: \delta_c/\sigma(M,z)$, in the linear density field smoothed at some
730: scale $R =(3M/4\pi\bar{\rho}_m)^{1/3}$
731: \citep{press_schechter:74,bond_etal91,sheth_tormen:99}. Here,
732: $\delta_c\approx 1.69$ is a constant corresponding to the critical
733: linear overdensity for collapse and $\sigma(M,z)$ is the rms variance
734: of the linear density field smoothed on scale $R(M)$. The traditional
735: nonlinear mass scale $\mstar$ corresponds to $\sigma = \delta_c$. This
736: fact has motivated the search for accurate universal functions
737: describing simulation results by \cite{jenkins_etal:01},
738: \cite{white:02}, and \cite{warren_etal:06}. Following these studies,
739: we choose the following functional form to describe halo abundance in
740: our simulations:
741: \begin{equation}
742: \label{e.dndsigma}
743: \frac{dn}{dM} = f(\sigma)\,\frac{\bar{\rho}_m}{M}\frac{d\ln \sigma^{-1}}{dM}.
744: \end{equation}
745: Here, the function $f(\sigma)$ is expected to be universal to the
746: changes in redshift and cosmology and is parameterized as
747: \begin{equation}
748: \label{e.fsig}
749: f(\sigma) = A\left[\left(\frac{\sigma}{b}\right)^{-a} + 1\right]e^{-c/\sigma^2}
750: \end{equation}
751: where
752: \begin{equation}
753: \sigma = \int P(k)\hat{W}(kR)k^2dk,
754: \end{equation}
755: and $P(k)$ is the linear matter power spectrum as a function of
756: wavenumber $k$, and $\hat{W}$ is the Fourier transform of the
757: real-space top-hat window function of radius $R$. It is convenient to
758: recall that the matter variance monotonically decreases with
759: increasing smoothing scale, thus higher $M$ corresponds to lower
760: $\sigma$.
761:
762: \begin{figure*}
763: \epsscale{1.2}
764: %\plotone{signature.ps}
765: \plotone{f6.ps}
766: \vspace{-5.5cm}
767: \caption {\label{signature} Panel (a): The measured $\fsig$ from all
768: simulations in Table 1. Results are presented at $z=0$ and for
769: $\D=200$. The solid line is the best fit function of equation
770: (\ref{e.fsig}). The lower window shows the percentage residuals with
771: respect to the fitting function. In the WMAP1 cosmology, the range
772: on the data points on the $x$-axis is roughly $10^{10.5}$ \hmsol\ to
773: $10^{15.5}$ \hmsol. Panel (b): The measured $\fsig$ at $z=1.25$. We
774: restrict results to simulations for which we have previous redshift
775: outputs. In the WMAP1 cosmology, the range of data points on the
776: $x$-axis is $10^{11}$ \hmsol\ to $10^{15}$ \hmsol. The solid line
777: is the same as in panel (a), which was calibrated at $z=0$. The
778: lower window shows that the $z=1.25$ mass function is offset by
779: $\sim 20\%$ with respect to the results at $z=0$.}
780: \end{figure*}
781:
782: The functional form~(\ref{e.fsig}) was used in \cite{warren_etal:06},
783: with minor algebraic difference, and is similar to the forms used by
784: \cite{sheth_tormen:99}\footnote{A convenient property of the Sheth \&
785: Tormen mass function is that one recovers the mean matter density of
786: the universe when integrating over all $\siginv$. Equation
787: (\ref{e.fsig}) does not converge when integrating to $\siginv=0$. In
788: Appendix C we present a modified fitting function that is properly
789: normalized at all $\D$ but still produces accurate results at
790: $z=0$.} and \cite{jenkins_etal:01}. Parameters $A$, $a$, $b$, and
791: $c$ are constants to be calibrated by simulations. The parameter $A$
792: sets the overall amplitude of the mass function, while $a$ and $b$ set
793: the slope and amplitude of the low-mass power law, respectively. The
794: parameter $c$ determines the cutoff scale at which the abundance of
795: halos exponentially decreases.
796:
797: The best fit values of these parameters were determined by fitting
798: eq.~(\ref{e.fsig}) to all the $z=0$ simulations using $\chi^2$
799: minimization and are listed in Table 2 for each value of $\D$. For
800: $\Delta\ge 1600$, we fix the value of $A$ to be 0.26 without any loss
801: of accuracy\footnote{Although a four-parameter function is required to
802: accurately fit the data at low $\D$, at high overdensities the error
803: bars are sufficiently large that a degeneracy between $A$ and $a$
804: emerges, and the data can be fit with only three free parameters,
805: given a reasonable choice for $A$.}. This allows the other parameters
806: to vary monotonically with $\D$, allowing for smooth interpolation
807: between values of $\D$.
808:
809: Figure~\ref{dndM} shows the mass function measured for three values of
810: $\D$ and the corresponding best fit analytic functions. We plot
811: $(M^2/\bar{\rho}_m)\,dn/dM$ rather than $dn/dM$ to reduce the dynamic
812: range of the $y$-axis, as $dn/dM$ values span nearly 14 orders of
813: magnitude. The figure shows that as $\Delta$ increases the halo masses
814: become systematically smaller. Thus from $\Delta=200$ to 3200, the
815: mass scale of the exponential cutoff reduces substantially. The shape
816: of the mass function is also altered; at $\Delta=200$ the logarithmic
817: slope at low masses is $\sim -1.85$, while at $\Delta=3200$ the slope
818: is nearly $-2$. This change in slope is due to two effects. First, the
819: change in halo mass accrued with changing the halo definition $\D$ is
820: not independent of mass. Because halo concentrations depend on mass,
821: $dM_{\D 1}$ does not equal $dM_{\D 2}$ for halos of two different masses.
822:
823: Second, a number of low-mass objects within $R_{200}$ of a larger halo
824: are ``exposed'' as distinct halos when halos are identified with
825: $\D=3200$. Although all halos contain substructure, these ``revealed''
826: subhalos will only impact overall abundance of objects at low mass,
827: $M\lesssim 10^{12}$ \hmsol, because the satellite fraction (the
828: fraction of all halos located within virial radii of larger halos)
829: decreases rapidly from $\approx 20\%$ to zero for $M>10^{12}$ \hmsol\
830: \cite[e.g.][]{kravtsov_etal:04}. This trend can be understood using
831: average properties of subhalos in parent CDM halos. Subhalo
832: populations are approximately self-similar with only a weak trend with
833: mass \citep[e.g.,][]{moore_etal99,gao_etal04}, and the largest subhalo
834: typically has a mass of $\approx 5-10\%$ of the host mass. Thus, at a
835: given mass $M$ only hosts with masses $>10M$ can produce significant
836: number of new halos when halo identification at higher $\D$ is
837: performed. At high masses, the number of such halos decreases
838: exponentially with mass, and therefore the contribution of such
839: ``exposed'' halos becomes small.
840:
841:
842:
843: \begin{figure*}
844: \epsscale{1.0}
845: \vspace{-1.8cm}
846: %\plotone{diff_wmap1.ps}
847: \plotone{f7.ps}
848: %\vspace{-1.5cm}
849: \caption{ \label{diff_wmap1} Residuals of the measured mass functions
850: with respect to the best fit analytic mass functions from Table 2
851: for all WMAP1 simulations at $z=0$. Error bars are shown for the
852: first and last point for each simulation, and only points with less
853: than 10\% error bars are plotted, with the exception of L80, for
854: which 15\% is the maximum. For $\D=200$, the blue curve represents
855: the \cite{jenkins_etal:01} SO180 mass function (scaling up to
856: $\D=200$ yields indistinguishable results). The red dashed curve
857: represents the \cite{sheth_tormen:99} mass function. For $\D=400$, the blue
858: curve represents the \cite{jenkins_etal:01} SO324 (scaled up to
859: $\D=400$). For $\D=1600$ and $\D=800$, the solid curve represents
860: the Jenkins SO(324) mass function scaled up analytically assuming
861: NFW profiles. }
862: \end{figure*}
863:
864:
865:
866: \begin{figure*}
867: \epsscale{1.0}
868: %\plotone{params.ps}
869: \plotone{f8.ps}
870: \vspace{-2.9cm}
871: \caption{ \label{params} The trajectories of the best-fit parameters
872: of $\fsig$ from Table 2. In each panel, the order of the points is
873: from low-$\D$ to high-$\D$ (left to right). Error bars represent
874: 1-$\sigma$ variance of parameters from the MCMC chain. In panel (a),
875: the normalization $A$ is plotted against power-law slope $a$. In
876: panel (b), the power-law amplitude $b$ is plotted against the
877: cutoff scale $c$. The lower panel shows the rms scatter of mass functions
878: from 100 bootstrap samples, creating by sampling the simulation
879: list. Light gray is for $\D=200$, while dark gray is for
880: $\D=1600$. }
881: \end{figure*}
882:
883:
884: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
885: % TABLE 2 TABLE 2 TABLE 2 all z=0 fits
886: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
887:
888: \begin{deluxetable*}{cccccccccc}
889: \tablecolumns{10}
890: \tablewidth{31pc}
891: \tablecaption{Mass Function Parameters for $\fsig$ at $z=0$}
892: \tablehead{\colhead{$\D$} & \colhead{$A$} & \colhead{$a$} & \colhead{$b$} &\colhead {$c$} & \colhead{$\xdof$ (ALL)} & \colhead{$N_{\rm min}$} & \colhead{$\xdof$ (WMAP1)} & \colhead{$\xdof$ (WMAP3)} & \colhead{$\xdof$ (WMAP3-fit)}
893: %\\ \colhead{aaa} & \colhead{aaa} & \colhead & \colhead{aaa} & \colhead{aaa} & \colhead{aaa} & \colhead{aaa} & \colhead{aaa} & \colhead{aaa} & \colhead{aaa}
894: }
895: \startdata
896:
897: 200 & 0.186 & 1.47 & 2.57 & 1.19 & 1.15 & 400 & 1.07 & 1.66 & 1.62\\
898: 300 & 0.200 & 1.52 & 2.25 & 1.27 & 1.17 & 400 & 1.08 & 1.65 & 1.60 \\
899: 400 & 0.212 & 1.56 & 2.05 & 1.34 & 1.05 & 600 & 0.96 & 1.49 & 1.37 \\
900: 600 & 0.218 & 1.61 & 1.87 & 1.45 & 1.06 & 600 & 0.99 & 1.55 & 1.28 \\
901: 800 & 0.248 & 1.87 & 1.59 & 1.58 & 1.10 & 1000 & 1.07 & 1.36 & 1.14\\
902: 1200 & 0.255 & 2.13 & 1.51 & 1.80 & 1.00 & 1000 & 0.97 & 1.22 & 1.16\\
903: 1600 & 0.260 & 2.30 & 1.46 & 1.97 & 1.07 & 1600 & 1.03 & 1.34 & 1.25\\
904: 2400 & 0.260 & 2.53 & 1.44 & 2.24 & 1.11 & 1600 & 1.07 & 1.50 & 1.26\\
905: 3200 & 0.260 & 2.66 & 1.41 & 2.44 & 1.14 & 1600 & 1.09 & 1.61 & 1.33\\
906:
907: \enddata \tablecomments{$N_{\rm min}$ is the minimum number of
908: particles per halo used in the fit. Fits are for simulations at
909: $z=0$. The WMAP1 and WMAP3 $\xdof$ values are with respect to the
910: WMAP1 and WMAP3 simulations, respectively, but using the best-fit
911: parameters. The WMAP3-fit $\xdof$ values are independent fits using
912: only the WMAP3 simulations}
913:
914: \end{deluxetable*}
915:
916: \begin{figure*}
917: \epsscale{1.0}
918: \vspace{-1.8cm}
919: %\plotone{diff_wmap3.ps}
920: \plotone{f9.ps}
921: %\vspace{-1.5cm}
922: \caption{ \label{diff_wmap3} Residuals of the measured mass functions
923: with respect to the best fit analytic mass function from Table 2 for
924: all WMAP3 simulations at $z=0$. Error bars are shown for the first
925: and last point for each simulation, and only points with less than
926: 10\% error bars are plotted, with the exception of L80W, for which
927: 15\% is the maximum. }
928: \end{figure*}
929:
930:
931: Figure \ref{signature}a shows the function $\fsig$ measured for all
932: simulations in Table 1 at $z=0$ with $\D=200$. The solid curve is
933: equation (\ref{e.fsig}) using the best-fit parameters from Table
934: 2. The residuals with respect to this fit demonstrate the high
935: accuracy of our numerical results and the consistency of different
936: codes, mass resolutions, and cosmologies. Figure \ref{signature}b
937: shows $\fsig$ at $z=1.25$ for a subset of simulations for which higher
938: redshift outputs are available. The solid curve represents the results
939: from $z=0$. At this redshift, the results at $\sim 20\%$ below the
940: $z=0$ results, nearly independent of $\siginv$. This demonstrates that
941: the mass function is {\it not} universal in redshift, or for
942: correspondingly large changes in cosmology,\footnote{Note that we can
943: interpret higher redshift outputs of a given simulation as the $z=0$ epoch
944: of a simulation with different cosmological parameters corresponding
945: to $\Omega_m(z)$ and other parameters at the redshift in question.}
946: at this level of accuracy. We address evolution of $\fsig$ with $z$ in
947: \S 3.3 below.
948:
949: \subsection{Results as a function of $\D$}
950:
951: The best-fit parameters of equation (\ref{e.fsig}) resulting from fits to
952: {\it all} simulations for 9 values of
953: overdensity are listed in Table 2. Figure \ref{diff_wmap1} shows the
954: residuals of individual WMAP1 simulations with respect to global
955: fits at different $\D$. We include L1000W in these
956: plots to show consistency between cosmologies at cluster masses. For
957: the fifty realizations of L1280, we plot the mean $\fsig$ and the
958: error in the mean. Each panel shows the fractional residuals of the
959: measured mass functions with respect to the best-fit $\fsig$ for four
960: values of $\D$. To avoid crowding, error bars are plotted for the
961: maximum and minimum mass scale for every simulation; the latter is representative
962: of the cosmic variance given the finite simulation volume, while the former is
963: dominated by Poisson noise. We list formal values of $\xdof$ for our diagonal
964: error bars in Table 2. The values in column 6 are for all $z=0$
965: simulations, while the value in column 8 is the $\xdof$ for the
966: same parameters but with respect to the WMAP1 simulations only. Not
967: surprisingly, the $\xdof$ values reduce slightly when comparing the
968: best-fit $\fsig$ to the WMAP1 simulations only, which comprise
969: a majority of the simulations and therefore drive the fitting
970: results.
971:
972:
973: The solid blue curve in the $\D=200$ panel represents the fitting
974: function of \cite{jenkins_etal:01} calibrated on their set of
975: $\tau$CDM simulations (their equation B3), using $\D=180$ (rescaling
976: this equation to 200 yields nearly indistinguishable results). At
977: $M\gtrsim 10^{12}$ \hmsol, the Jenkins result is $10$--$15\%$ below
978: our results. The \cite{sheth_tormen:99} function is similarly offset from our
979: results. In the $\D=400$ panel, the blue curve shows the Jenkins
980: et.~al. fitting function calibrated to $\D=324$ on their set of \lcdm\
981: simulations (essentially the WMAP1 cosmology). For this comparison the
982: Jenkins formula has been rescaled to $\D=400$ using the same halo
983: rescaling techniques discussed in \S 2.3 and in
984: \cite{hu_kravtsov:03}. The Jenkins SO(324) function (their Equation
985: B4) is in good agreement with our results for $M<10^{13}$ \hmsol, while
986: at higher masses there are variations of $\pm 5$--$10\%$.
987:
988: The solid curves in the $\D=800$ and 1600 panels are the Jenkins
989: SO(324) result scaled up to those overdensities. At $\siginv>1$, the
990: residuals increase, while at lower masses the rescaled $\fsig$
991: underestimates the numerical results by $5-10\%$. Both of these
992: effects are due to subhalos becoming exposed when halos are
993: identified using higher overdensity. If a high-mass halo contains a large
994: subhalo, the rescaling procedure will overestimate the
995: mass of that object at higher $\D$. At low masses, the rescaling
996: procedure does not account for the revealed substructures. The change
997: in mass from $\D=200$ to $\D=1600$ is $\sim 50\%$ at $10^{14}$
998: \hmsol. If subhalos are distributed within parent halos in a similar fashion to
999: the dark matter, then the rescaling procedure should underestimate
1000: the mass function by $\sim 0.5\times 0.2=0.1$ (where 0.2 is the
1001: subhalo fraction for low-mass halos from \citealt{kravtsov_etal:04}).
1002:
1003:
1004: Figure \ref{params} shows that the best fit parameters of $\fsig$ vary with
1005: $\D$ smoothly. This means that interpolating
1006: between these best-fit parameters can be expected to yield accurate mass function parameters at any
1007: desired overdensity. In Appendix B we show examples of the
1008: interpolated mass functions, as well as fitting function for the
1009: $\fsig$ parameters as a function of $\D$. The error bars are
1010: 1$\sigma$ and are obtained by marginalizing over all other parameters. The
1011: errors on the amplitude $A$ are $\sim 3-4\%$, but this parameter is
1012: highly correlated with $b$ and the true scatter about the best-fit
1013: $\fsig$ is $\lesssim 1\%$ at most masses.
1014:
1015: The lower panel in Figure \ref{params} shows the rms scatter in our
1016: constraints on $\fsig$. The scatter was calculated by bootstrap
1017: resampling of the simulation set and repeating the fitting process on
1018: 100 bootstrap samples.\footnote{Because the 50 realizations of L1280
1019: outnumber all the rest of the simulations (which only number 17), we
1020: create bootstrap samples by first sampling from the list of L1280
1021: realizations, then sampling from the rest of the simulation set. This
1022: guarantees a fair sampling of the range of $\siginv$ probed by the
1023: simulations. If we do not do this, many bootstrap samples will only
1024: contain mass function with results above $M\gtrsim 2\times 10^{14}$
1025: \hmsol, which would artificially inflate the size of the low-mass
1026: errors.} The shaded area is the variance of the bootstrap fits. The
1027: light gray region represents results for $\D=200$, while the dark gray
1028: region represents $\D=1600$. Between $\siginv=0.63$ and $\siginv=1.6$
1029: the scatter is less than $1\%$ ($M=10^{11.5}$ \hmsol\ and $10^{15}$
1030: \hmsol\ for the WMAP1 cosmology). Outside this mass range the results
1031: diverge due to lack of coverage by the simulations. Because the WMAP1
1032: simulations dominate by number, these constraints should be formally regarded
1033: as the accuracy of the fit for the WMAP1 cosmology.
1034:
1035: Figure \ref{diff_wmap3} compares the calibrated mass functions from
1036: Table 2 with the measured mass functions from the WMAP3 simulations
1037: (i.e., the last seven entries in Table 1). Column 9 of Table 2
1038: contains values of $\xdof$ for the WMAP3 simulations only. The $\xdof$
1039: are somewhat larger than for the WMAP1 runs at all overdensities, even
1040: though the WMAP3 residuals do not seem to be systematically offset
1041: from the global $\fsig$ fits. We test this statistically by refitting
1042: for the parameters of equation (\ref{e.fsig}) using {\it only} the
1043: WMAP3 simulations. The $\xdof$ values are listed in column 10 of Table
1044: 2. For each $\D$, the $\chi^2$ of the fit is only reduced
1045: marginally. In the mass range covered by our simulations, the
1046: difference between the global $\fsig$ functions and those derived from
1047: the WMAP3 simulations differ by $\lesssim 2\%$, but with a $\sim 4\%$
1048: uncertainty in the normalization of the WMAP3-only fitting function,
1049: derived from the bootstrap method described above. Thus we conclude
1050: that the higher $\chi^2$ values are not due to a systematic change in
1051: $\fsig$ due to variations in cosmology, but rather scatter in the
1052: simulations themselves at the $\sim 5\%$ level, excluding obvious
1053: outliers where Poisson noise dominates.
1054:
1055:
1056: \begin{figure}
1057: \epsscale{1.2}
1058: %\plotone{redshift_200.ps}
1059: \plotone{f10.ps}
1060: %\vspace{-1.5cm}
1061: \caption{ \label{redshift_200} Redshift evolution of the $\D=200$ mass
1062: function. Each panel shows the residuals of the $z=0$ mass function
1063: with respect to the measured mass functions at $z=0$, 0.5, 1.25, and
1064: 2.5. Note that the simulation set used here is a combination of
1065: WMAP1 and WMAP3 boxes. Error bars are shown for the first and last
1066: points for each simulation, and only points with $<10\%$ are shown,
1067: with the exception of the L80 and L80W, for each 15\% is the
1068: limit. The shaded region brackets $10^{13}$ \hmsol\ to $10^{14}$
1069: \hmsol. The solid curves represent the $z=0$ mass function modified
1070: by equations (\ref{e.fsigz_A})---(\ref{e.fsigz_alpha}). }
1071: \end{figure}
1072:
1073: \begin{figure}
1074: \epsscale{1.2}
1075: %\plotone{redshift_1600.ps}
1076: \plotone{f11.ps}
1077: %\vspace{-1.5cm}
1078: \caption{ \label{redshift_1600} Redshift evolution of the $\D=1600$
1079: mass function. Each panel shows the residuals of the $z=0$ mass
1080: function with respect to the measured mass functions at $z=0$, 0.5,
1081: 1.25, and 2.5. Note that the simulation set used here is a
1082: combination of WMAP1 and WMAP3 boxes. Results are plotted down to
1083: halos with 400 particles, as opposed to the limit of 1600 used in
1084: fitting $\fsig$. All points with errors $<15\%$ are plotted. The
1085: shaded region brackets $10^{13}$ \hmsol\ to $10^{14}$ \hmsol. The
1086: solid curves represent the $z=0$ mass function modified by equations
1087: (\ref{e.fsigz_A})---(\ref{e.fsigz_alpha}). }
1088: \end{figure}
1089:
1090: \begin{figure*}
1091: \epsscale{0.85}
1092: %\plotone{fof.ps}
1093: \plotone{f12.ps}
1094: %\vspace{-1.5cm}
1095: \caption{ \label{fof} Evolution of the FOF mass function for linking
1096: lengths of $l=0.2$ (left panels) and $l=0.1$ (right panels). The
1097: simulations used are L500 and L250. The L500 simulation has been
1098: downsampled to 1/8 the original particle number. For $l=0.2$, the
1099: residuals are plotted with respect to the \cite{warren_etal:06}
1100: function. Mass functions are plotted down to 100 particles per halo
1101: but have not been corrected for discreteness effects (i.e., equation
1102: 2 in Warren et.~al.). For $l=0.1$, the residuals are plotted with
1103: respect to the $\D=1600$ mass function from Table 1. Note the larger
1104: range of the $y$-axis at $z=2.5$ for $\link=0.1$. The FOF mass
1105: function evolves less than the SO mass function, but this largely a
1106: numerical effect due to increased linking of distinct halos. }
1107: \end{figure*}
1108:
1109: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1110: \subsection{Redshift Evolution}
1111: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1112:
1113: Figure \ref{redshift_200} shows the evolution of the $\D=200$ mass
1114: function for four different redshifts from $z=0$ to 2.5. Results are
1115: plotted for the subset of simulations for which we have previous
1116: redshift outputs. When modeled as pure amplitude evolution, the mass
1117: function evolves as $(1+z)^{-0.26}$. However, it is also clear that
1118: the shape of $\fsig$ is evolving with redshift such that the
1119: amplitude at $\siginv>1$ decreases at a higher rate. This is more
1120: evident in Figure \ref{redshift_1600}, in which $\fsig$ at $\D=1600$
1121: is shown for the same redshifts. As $\D$ increases, both the evolution
1122: in the amplitude and shape of $\fsig$ become stronger.
1123:
1124: In Figures \ref{redshift_200} and \ref{redshift_1600}, the solid
1125: curves show a model in which the first three parameters of $\fsig$ are
1126: allowed to vary as a power law of $1+z$;
1127:
1128: \begin{equation}
1129: \label{e.fsigz_A}
1130: A(z) = A_0\,\left(1+z\right)^{-0.14},
1131: \end{equation}
1132: \begin{equation}
1133: \label{e.fsigz_a}
1134: a(z) = a_0\,\left(1+z\right)^{-0.06} ,
1135: \end{equation}
1136: \begin{equation}
1137: \label{e.fsigz_b}
1138: b(z) = b_0\,\left(1+z\right)^{-\alpha},
1139: \end{equation}
1140: \begin{equation}
1141: \label{e.fsigz_alpha}
1142: \log \alpha(\D) = -\left(\frac{0.75}{\log(\D/75)}\right)^{1.2},
1143: \end{equation}
1144:
1145: \noindent where subscript `0' indicates the value obtained at $z=0$ in
1146: Table 2. Modulation of $A$ controls the overall amplitude of $\fsig$,
1147: while $a$ controls the tilt, and $b$ sets the mass scale at which the
1148: power law in $\fsig$ becomes significant. Modifying $b$ results in a
1149: shift between the amplitudes at low and high $\siginv$, thus it
1150: encapsulates the changes in $\fsig$ with $\D$ seen in Figures
1151: \ref{redshift_200} and \ref{redshift_1600}. Although the redshift
1152: scaling introduced here matches the results at $z\le 2.5$ accurately,
1153: residuals of $\gtrsim 5\%$ emerge at $z=2.5$. It is possible that the
1154: evolution between $z=1.25$ and 2.5 is slowing down. Because the
1155: numerical results at $z=2.5$ are quite noisy and cover only a small
1156: range in $\siginv$, our results at this value of $z$ and extrapolation
1157: to higher redshifts must be checked with other
1158: simulations. Extrapolating equation
1159: (\ref{e.fsigz_A})-(\ref{e.fsigz_alpha}) to $z=10$ produces an $\fsig$
1160: that is reduced by $\sim 50\%$ with respect to $z=0$. This seems
1161: unlikely given current studies but needs to be checked with a
1162: consistent halo finding algorithm.
1163:
1164: \cite{reed_etal:07} parameterize the redshift-dependent mass function
1165: in terms of both $\sigma$ and the effective spectral index of the
1166: linear power spectrum, $n_{\rm eff}$. These authors use this
1167: parameterization to model the mass function at $z>10$, where
1168: differences in the slope of $n_{\rm eff}$ from $z=0$ are large. This
1169: approach is ill suited for modeling the evolution at $z<3$, where
1170: there is very little change in the effective spectral index.
1171:
1172: It is interesting to note that the evolution in the exponential cutoff
1173: scale is minimal. Any evolution in this mass scale would yield
1174: quantitatively different residuals than those seen in Figure
1175: \ref{redshift_200} and \ref{redshift_1600}. Namely, the residuals would show
1176: pronounced curvature at $\siginv>1$. Our results show that the
1177: dominant effect is a shift in the normalization in the mass function
1178: rather than the cutoff mass scale. Thus our results are not consistent with
1179: $\fsig$ being universal as a function of {\it virial} overdensity
1180: because $\D_{\rm vir}$ evolves with redshift. Nor are our results
1181: consistent with the mass function being universal at a fixed
1182: overdensity with respect to the critical density (rather than defining
1183: $\D$ with respect to the background, as we do here).
1184:
1185:
1186:
1187: The \cite{jenkins_etal:01} study reports no detected evolution of the
1188: FOF or SO mass functions with redshift. More recent results quantify
1189: the evolution of the FOF at high redshift, $z\gtrsim 10$, to be
1190: $5-10\%$ (\citealt{lukic_etal:07, reed_etal:07, cohn_white:07}).
1191: However, friends-of-friends identified halos may have a different
1192: response to changes in the redshift evolution of halo
1193: profiles. Merging rates vary with redshift, and this may be reflected
1194: in the FOF tendency to bridge distinct structures. Figure \ref{fof}
1195: shows the redshift evolution for friends-of-friends selected halos in
1196: the L500 and L250 boxes. The panels in the left column show the
1197: results for halos identified with a linking length of 0.2. Residuals
1198: are calculated with respect to the \cite{warren_etal:06} fitting
1199: formula with their best fit parameters, plotted down to halos
1200: containing 100 particles. The friends-of-friends masses have not been
1201: corrected for any systematic errors (equation [2] in
1202: \citealt{warren_etal:06}), resulting in the slight negative slope to
1203: the residuals at low masses. The mass function shows some redshift
1204: evolution, but only of order $\sim 10\%$ at z=1.25, or roughly half
1205: that in Figure \ref{redshift_200}.
1206:
1207: The right column shows the results for halos identified with a linking
1208: length of $l=0.1$. The smaller linking length identifies halos with
1209: higher overdensities. The residuals are with respect to $\fsig$
1210: for $\D=1600$. For this linking length, the redshift evolution is
1211: stronger than for $\link=0.2$, and the shape of the FOF mass function
1212: changes dramatically. As a whole, these results indicate that the mass function
1213: is also non-universal for FOF halos, with the degree of non-universality
1214: depending on the linking length used.
1215:
1216: These results are in general agreement with those of other recent
1217: studies that considered evolution of the mass function for FOF halos,
1218: although the overall picture of how the mass function evolves with
1219: redshift is not yet clear. The simulation results of
1220: \cite{lukic_etal:07} exhibited $\sim -5\%$ residuals with respect to
1221: the $z=0$ Warren et.~al.\ mass function as $z=5$, but with a monotonic
1222: trend of rising residuals with increasing redshift. The FOF mass
1223: function in the Millennium Simulation, shows roughly $20\%$
1224: evolution from $z=0$ to 10 (\citealt{reed_etal:07}). Finally,
1225: \cite{fakhouri_ma:07} recently showed that the Millennium Simulation
1226: FOF mass function, once corrected for spurious FOF linking between
1227: halos, evolves by $\sim 20\%$ from $z=0$ to 1. This is consistent
1228: with our findings, but note that the volume of the Millennium
1229: simulation and statistics at large masses is substantially worse than
1230: in our set of simulations.
1231:
1232: \begin{figure}
1233: \epsscale{1.2}
1234: %\plotone{mass_range.ps}
1235: \plotone{f13.ps}
1236: %\vspace{-1.5cm}
1237: \caption{ \label{mass_range} Halo mass range corresponding to the
1238: range of $\siginv$ on which $\fsig$ is calibrated. The shaded region
1239: bounded by the solid curves shows how this mass range evolves with
1240: redshift for the WMAP1 cosmology. The dashed curves show the upper
1241: and lower mass limits for the WMAP3 cosmology of the L80W
1242: simulation. The dotted line indicates the maximum redshift output of
1243: our simulation set. }
1244: \end{figure}
1245:
1246:
1247: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1248: % SUMMARY
1249: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1250:
1251: \section{Summary and Discussion}
1252:
1253: We have presented a new fitting function for halo abundances and their
1254: evolution in the $\Lambda$CDM cosmology. The fitting function can be
1255: used to predict halo mass functions for spherical aperture masses
1256: defined with an arbitrary overdensity over a wide range of values.
1257: For the WMAP1 cosmology our results are accurate at the percent level
1258: in the mass range relevant for cluster cosmology. For the WMAP3
1259: cosmology our results are accurate to $\lesssim 5\%$. One of our main
1260: results is that the mass function is non-universal, and varies in a
1261: systematic way with redshift in the interval $z=[0,2.5]$, with the
1262: abundance of halos at a given $\siginv$ monotonically decreasing with
1263: increasing $z$.
1264:
1265: We have parameterized redshift evolution of $\fsig$ as a simple scaling
1266: of the $z=0$ fitting parameters with $(1+z)^{\alpha}$. We note that if this
1267: evolution is driven by changes in $\Omega_m$ with $z$, it may be more
1268: robust to model $f(\sigma,z)$ as a function of the growth rate rather
1269: than $1+z$. Our simulation set does not probe a large enough
1270: cosmological parameter space to detect differences due to different
1271: growth factors. However, this will become important when investigating
1272: how the mass function evolves in dark energy cosmologies, in which the
1273: primary change in structure formation is a different growth function
1274: of perturbations.
1275:
1276: Our finding of evolving, non-universal $\fsig$ is quantitatively
1277: different from the results of previous analyses that use the
1278: friend-of-friends method for halo identification, which generally show
1279: weaker evolution and greater degree of universality of the function
1280: $\fsig$. We argue that the likely explanation for this difference is
1281: greater sensitivity of the SO defined mass to the redshift evolution
1282: of halo concentrations. As discussed previously, SO masses are the
1283: integrated halo profiles within a specified radius and lower halo
1284: concentrations result in lower masses at fixed abundance (or,
1285: conversely, fewer halos at fixed mass). The fact that the high-mass
1286: end of the mass function (where concentrations at $z=0$ are lower and
1287: the mass within $R_{200}/c_{200}$ is a significant fraction of the
1288: total mass) evolves somewhat faster than the low-mass end, argues that
1289: evolution of concentrations plays a significant role in the evolution
1290: of $\fsig$.
1291:
1292: The evolution of halo concentrations is mostly driven by the change in
1293: $\Omega_m$ with redshift. This implies that $\fsig$ in cosmologies
1294: with substantially different matter densities at $z=0$ will be
1295: systematically different from the one we find here (perhaps closer to
1296: our $z>1$ results). There are indications that this is indeed the
1297: case. The H384$\Omega$ simulation, with $\Omega_m=0.2$, is above
1298: $\fsig$ by $\sim 5\%$ at $z=0$. The \cite{jenkins_etal:01} fitting
1299: function for $\D=180$ was calibrated on simulations with $\Omega_m=1$,
1300: producing a fit $\sim 15\%$ below our results at the same
1301: overdensity. The Jenkins SO(180) mass function is close to our
1302: $\D=200$ results at $z=1.25$, where $\om$ is approaching unity.
1303:
1304: The lower evolution of the FOF mass function with redshift can be
1305: understood from Figure \ref{fof_SO}. The distribution of mass ratios
1306: between FOF and SO halos changes between $z=0$ and $z=1.25$. The
1307: median mass ratio, $M_{\rm SO}/M_{\rm FOF}$, decreases while the
1308: scatter increases at higher $z$ due to more linking of {\it distinct}
1309: objects. The number of distinct objects at a fixed $\siginv$
1310: decreases, but the higher incidence of linking offsets this
1311: effect. Thus the weaker evolution of the FOF mass function is due to
1312: this linking of separate collapsed halos and is largely
1313: artificial. The better universality of $\fsig$ may still seem like an
1314: advantage of the FOF mass function. However, as we discussed in this
1315: paper, the large and redshift-dependent scatter between SO and FOF
1316: masses implies similarly large and redshift-dependent scatter between
1317: FOF masses and cluster observables. This makes robust interpretation
1318: of observed cluster counts in terms of the FOF halo counts
1319: problematic.
1320:
1321: Our fitting function is calibrated over the range $0.25 \lesssim
1322: \siginv \lesssim 2.5$, which at $z=0$ spans a range of halo masses
1323: roughly $10^{10.5} \lesssim M \lesssim 10^{15.5}$ \hmsol, depending on
1324: the specific choice of cosmology. In Figure \ref{mass_range} we show
1325: how this mass range evolves with redshift. By $z=3$, the lower mass
1326: limit is $\sim 10^5$ \hmsol. At this redshift, our fitting function is
1327: in agreement with the numerical results of \cite{colin_etal:04}, which
1328: probe the mass range $10^5\le M\le 10^9$ \hmsol. At higher redshifts,
1329: $\siginv$ is a slowly varying function of mass, making the lower mass
1330: limit evolve rapidly. Because our calibration of the redshift
1331: dependence of the mass function parameters extends only to $z=2.5$, we
1332: caution against extrapolation of equations
1333: (\ref{e.fsigz_A})---(\ref{e.fsigz_alpha}) to significantly higher
1334: redshifts. As noted above, $\fsig$ is evolving less rapidly from
1335: $1.25<z<2.5$ than from $0<z<1.25$. Thus using the $z=2.5$ $\fsig$
1336: should yield a mass function with reasonable accuracy at higher $z$,
1337: but must be verified with additional simulations.
1338:
1339: The range of cosmologies probed here is narrow given the volume of
1340: parameter space, but it is wider than the allowed range given recent
1341: results from CMB in combination with other large-scale measures
1342: (\citealt{komatsu_etal:08}). For general use that does not require 5\%
1343: accuracy, extending our results somewhat outside this range will
1344: produce reasonable results. It is unlikely that variations in the
1345: shape and amplitude of the power spectrum will yield significantly
1346: different forms of $\fsig$. As discussed above, however, large
1347: variations in $\om$ at $z=0$ (ie, $\om=0.1$ or $\om=1$), are not
1348: likely to be fit by our $z=0$ mass function within our $5\%$
1349: accuracy. Models with a higher matter density at $z=0$ can be
1350: approximated by using our calibrated $\fsig$ at the redshift for which
1351: $\om(z)$ is equal to the chosen value.
1352:
1353: The next step in the theoretical calibration of the mass function for
1354: precision cosmology should include careful examination of subtle
1355: dependencies of mass function on cosmological parameters (especially
1356: on the dark energy equation of state), effects of neutrinos with
1357: non-zero mass, effects of non-gaussianity
1358: \citep{grossi_etal07,dalal_etal08}, etc. Last, but not least, we need
1359: to understand the effects of baryonic physics on the mass distribution
1360: of halos and related effects on the mass function, which can be quite
1361: significant \citep{rudd_etal08}. The results of \cite{zentner_etal:07}
1362: indicate that the main baryonic effects can be encapsulated in a
1363: simple change of halo concentrations, which would result in a uniform
1364: shift of $M_{\Delta}$ and a uniform correction to $\fsig$. Whether
1365: this is correct at the accuracy level required remains to be
1366: demonstrated with numerical simulations.
1367:
1368: Our study illustrates just how daunting is the task of calibrating the
1369: mass function to the accuracy of $\lesssim 5\%$. Large numbers of
1370: large-volume simulations are required to estimate the abundance of
1371: cluster-sized objects, but high dynamic range is required to properly
1372: resolve their internal mass distribution and subhalos. The numerical
1373: and resolution effects should be carefully controlled, which requires
1374: stringent convergence tests. In addition, the abundance of halos on
1375: the exponential cutoff of the mass function can be influenced by the
1376: choice of method to generate initial conditions and the starting
1377: redshift, as was recently demonstrated by \citet[][see also Appendix
1378: A]{crocce_etal:06}. All this makes exhaustive studies of different
1379: effects and cosmological parameters using brute force calibration of
1380: the kind presented in this paper for the $\Lambda$CDM cosmology
1381: extremely demanding. Clever new ways need to be developed both in the
1382: choice of the parameter space to be investigated \citep{habib_etal07}
1383: and in complementary studies of various effects using smaller,
1384: targeted simulations.
1385:
1386:
1387: \acknowledgements
1388:
1389: \noindent
1390: We thank Roman Scoccimarro for simulations, computer time to analyze
1391: them, and discussions on initial conditions. We thank Rebecca Stanek,
1392: Gus Evrard, Martin White, and Uros Seljak for many helpful
1393: discussions. We thank Alex Vikhlinin, Salman Habib, and David Weinberg
1394: for useful discussions and comments on the manuscript. J.T. was
1395: supported by the Chandra award GO5-6120B and National Science
1396: Foundation (NSF) under grant AST-0239759. A.V.K. is supported by the
1397: NSF under grants No. AST-0239759 and AST-0507666, by NASA through
1398: grant NAG5-13274, and by the Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
1399: at the University of Chicago. Portions of this work were performed
1400: under the auspices of the U.S. Dept. of Energy, and supported by its
1401: contract \#W-7405-ENG-36 to Los Alamos National Laboratory.
1402: Computational resources were provided by the LANL open supercomputing
1403: initiative. S.G. acknowledges support by the German Academic Exchange
1404: Service. Some of the simulations were performed at the Leibniz
1405: Rechenzentrum Munich, partly using German Grid infrastructure provided
1406: by AstroGrid-D. The GADGET SPH simulations have been done in the
1407: MareNostrum supercomputer at BSC-CNS (Spain) and analyzed at NIC
1408: J\"ulich (Germany). G.Y. and S.G. wish to thank A.I. Hispano-Alemanas
1409: and DFG for financial support. G.Y. acknowledges support also from
1410: M.E.C. grants FPA2006-01105 and AYA2006-15492-C03.
1411:
1412: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1413: % Bibliography
1414: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1415:
1416: \break
1417: \bibliography{risa}
1418:
1419: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1420: % FIGURES
1421: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1422:
1423: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1424: % Appendix
1425: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1426:
1427: \begin{figure*}
1428: \epsscale{1.0}
1429: \vspace{-2.0cm}
1430: %\plotone{appendix.ps}
1431: \plotone{f14.ps}
1432: \caption{ \label{appendix} Comparison between the large-box
1433: simulations used in the text and those in \cite{warren_etal:06} and
1434: \cite{evrard_etal:02}. The box sizes and point-types for the three
1435: HOT boxes and the Hubble Volume are shown in the top panel above the
1436: horizontal line. In addition, a version of the L1000W ART box,
1437: started at lower redshift, is also included in the comparison. The
1438: large-box simulations used from Table 1 are also included below the
1439: horizontal line. The bottom panel compares the $\D=200$ mass
1440: functions to the best-fit $\fsig$ at $z=0$. The middle panel shows
1441: the results at $z=1.25$. In the $z=0$ panel, the shaded region
1442: indicates $10^{14}$\hmsol\ $<M< 10^{15}$ \hmsol\ in the WMAP1
1443: cosmology. In the $z=1.25$ panel, the shaded region indicates
1444: $10^{14}$\hmsol\ $<M< 10^{14.5}$ \hmsol.}
1445: \end{figure*}
1446:
1447:
1448: \vspace{2cm}
1449: \appendix
1450: \section{A. Tests of the Initial Conditions}
1451:
1452: In a recent study, \cite{crocce_etal:06} investigated differences
1453: between using the standard first-order Zel'dovich Approximation (ZA)
1454: and second-order Lagrangian perturbation theory (2LPT) for generating
1455: initial conditions of cosmological simulations. ZA assumes that
1456: particle trajectories are straight lines, but for large density
1457: fluctuations trajectories should curve due to tidal effects. Thus, if a
1458: simulation is initialized at the epoch where the overdensity is large
1459: in some regions, the resulting error in particle trajectories will
1460: lead to `transients' in the evolution of perturbations (see also
1461: \citealt{roman:98}), which can persist to $z=0$. This effect is
1462: strongest for the regions containing rarest peaks of largest height
1463: that tend to evolve into the largest galaxy clusters at low redshift.
1464: In their simulation results, Crocce et.~al.\ find a $\sim 10\%$
1465: discrepancy at $M\sim 10^{15}$ \hmsol\ in $z=0$ mass functions
1466: between 2LPT and ZA with starting redshift of $z_i=24$. This
1467: discrepancy is expected to grow more significant at higher redshift at
1468: fixed halo mass. The effect is particularly worrisome for
1469: precision calibration of abundance of the most massive objects at any
1470: redshift (those objects that are currently collapsing or have only
1471: recently collapsed). In this appendix we present tests of the effects
1472: of the initial redshift on the mass function and explain why we have
1473: discarded some of the large-volume simulations from our analysis.
1474:
1475:
1476:
1477: The top panel in Figure~\ref{appendix} shows a graphical key of the
1478: three large-box HOT simulations used in the Warren et.~al.\ fit that
1479: we do not utilize in our mass function fits. These simulations have
1480: starting redshifts of $z_i=34$, 28, and 24 (with $z_i$ decreasing with
1481: increasing box size). In addition, we also have results from the
1482: Hubble Volume (HV) simulation, a $3000$ \hmpc\ simulation
1483: (\citealt{evrard_etal:02}). We use the same SO halo catalog presented
1484: in \cite{evrard_etal:02}, which used a density criterion of 200 times
1485: the critical density rather than the mean. Thus we have scaled the
1486: halo masses from $\D=666$ to $\D=200$, assuming NFW profiles as
1487: detailed in \S 2. Lastly, we have included a re-simulation of the
1488: L1000W ART box which has been initialized at $z_i=35$ rather than
1489: $z_i=60$ using the same set of random phases and ZA at both starting
1490: redshifts.
1491:
1492: The bottom panels of Figure~\ref{appendix} show the residuals of the
1493: simulation mass function from the best fit to our core simulation set
1494: at $z=0$ and $z=1.25$. At $10^{14}$ \hmsol, all simulations are in
1495: excellent agreement. However, at $10^{15}$ \hmsol, the HOT boxes are
1496: $\sim 10-20\%$ below the $\fsig$ obtained from the 2LPT simulations
1497: and ART L1000W run. The mass function of the HV simulation, with
1498: $z_i=35$, is also $\sim 15\%$ below the 2LPT simulations.
1499:
1500: At $z=0$, there is a $\sim 2\%$ difference between low-$z_i$ ART box
1501: and the higher-$z_i$ version used in the fitting. This is smaller than
1502: the difference between mass functions for the \citealt{crocce_etal:06}
1503: simulations with $z_i=24$ and $z_i=49$, which may be due to sample
1504: variance. However, the difference between the two ART boxes increases
1505: at higher redshift. The ART box with $z_i=60$ is in good agreement
1506: with the 2LPT simulations at $z=1.25$, implying that convergence has
1507: been reached at a lower $z_i$ than shown in Crocce et~al. The run with
1508: $z_i=35$, however, is $20-40\%$ lower than the best fit at large
1509: masses.
1510:
1511: It is not yet entirely clear whether the source of the discrepancies
1512: in the mass functions at the highest masses can be attributed solely
1513: to the errors of the ZA-generated initial conditions. The difference
1514: between the large-volume HOT boxes and the 2LPT results are larger
1515: than expected from just the ZA errors. Also, both ART boxes, with
1516: $z_i=35$ and $z_i=60$, are in agreement with the 2LPT simulations at
1517: $z=0$. Other factors, such as resolution effects on the halo density
1518: profiles, may play a dominant role in the discrepancy exhibited by
1519: both the HOT boxes and the HV simulation. Regardless of the source of
1520: the discrepancy, it is clear that the large-volume HOT boxes and HV
1521: simulations are systematically different from other higher-resolution
1522: simulations. We therefore do not include them in our analyses.
1523:
1524: In summary, the simulations which we use to derive our constraints on
1525: the high-mass end of the halo mass function are all robust against
1526: changing initial redshift. The 2LPT simulations have been thoroughly
1527: tested in \citet{crocce_etal:06}. The L1000W and L500 simulations,
1528: utilizing ZA with $z_i\gtrsim 50$, show consistent results with the
1529: 2LPT simulations at multiple redshifts. However, quantifying the
1530: effects of initial conditions, finite simulation volume, and possible
1531: numerical artifacts at the $\lesssim 1\%$ level will require
1532: significant additional work.
1533:
1534:
1535: \section{B. Interpolation of Mass Function Parameters}
1536:
1537:
1538: To facilitate the use of our results in analytic calculations,
1539: we provide fitting functions for the
1540: parameters of $\fsig$ as a function of $\log\D$. The dependence of
1541: each parameter in the mass function is reasonably well described by
1542:
1543: %\renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
1544: \begin{equation}
1545: A = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
1546: 0.1(\log\D) - 0.05 & {\rm if\ \ } \D< 1600 \\
1547: 0.26 & {\rm if\ \ } \D\ge 1600,\\
1548: \end{array}
1549: \right.
1550: \end{equation}
1551:
1552: \begin{equation}
1553: a = 1.43 + (\log\D-2.3)^{1.5},
1554: \end{equation}
1555:
1556: \begin{equation}
1557: b = 1.0 + (\log\D-1.6)^{-1.5},
1558: \end{equation}
1559:
1560: \noindent and
1561:
1562: \begin{equation}
1563: c = 1.2 + (\log\D-2.35)^{1.6}.
1564: \end{equation}
1565:
1566: \noindent All logarithms are base 10. Because the parameters of
1567: $\fsig$ are not completely smooth with $\log\D$, these functions yield
1568: mass functions that are accurate to only $\lesssim 5\%$ for most
1569: values of $\D$, but can degrade to $\lesssim 10\%$ at $\siginv>0.2$
1570: for some overdensities. Figure \ref{appB} demonstrates the accuracy of
1571: the fitting functions with respect to the results from Table 2. For
1572: higher accuracy, we recommend spline interpolation of the parameters
1573: as a function of $\log\D$. Figure \ref{appB} shows the results of the
1574: spline interpolation when obtaining the parameters of $\fsig$. We
1575: provide the second derivatives of the $\fsig$ parameters
1576: for calculation of the spline coefficients (cf., \S 3.3 in
1577: \citealt{press_etal:92}) in Table B3.
1578:
1579: \begin{figure*}
1580: \epsscale{0.9}
1581: %\plotone{appB.ps}
1582: \plotone{f15.ps}
1583: \vspace{-2.0cm}
1584: \caption{ \label{appB} Accuracy of the fitting functions presented in
1585: Appendix B for calculating the parameters of $\fsig$ as a function
1586: of $\D$ ({\it solid lines}). All curves are residuals with respect
1587: to the best-fit results of $\fsig$ from Table 2. For all
1588: overdensities except $\D=600$, the accuracy of $\fsig$ is $\lesssim
1589: 5\%$. The dashed lines show the accuracy of $\fsig$ when using
1590: spline interpolation, which is accurate to $\lesssim 2\%$ for all
1591: $\D$ and $\siginv$. }
1592: \end{figure*}
1593:
1594: \begin{deluxetable*}{rrrrr}
1595: \tablecolumns{5}
1596: \tablewidth{20pc}
1597: \tablecaption{Second derivatives of $f(\sigma)$ parameters}
1598: \tablehead{\colhead{$\D$} & \colhead{$A$} & \colhead{$a$} & \colhead{$b$} & \colhead{$c$} }
1599:
1600: \startdata
1601:
1602: 200 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
1603: 300 & 0.50 & 1.19 & -1.08 & 0.94 \\
1604: 400 & -1.56 & -6.34 & 12.61 & -0.43 \\
1605: 600 & 3.05 & 21.36 & -20.96 & 4.61 \\
1606: 800 & -2.95 & -10.95 & 24.08 & 0.01 \\
1607: 1200 & 1.07 & 2.59 & -6.64 & 1.21 \\
1608: 1600 & -0.71 & -0.85 & 3.84 & 1.43 \\
1609: 2400 & 0.21 & -2.07 & -2.09 & 0.33 \\
1610: 3200 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
1611: \end{deluxetable*}
1612:
1613:
1614: \section{C. An Alternate, Normalized Fitting Function}
1615:
1616: The fitting function given in equation (\ref{e.fsig}) is an excellent
1617: descriptor of the data over the range of our data, but at
1618: $\siginv\lesssim 0.1$, $\fsig$ asymptotes to a constant value. For some
1619: applications, specifically halo model calculations of dark matter
1620: clustering statistics, it is necessary to integrate over all $\siginv$
1621: to account for all the mass in the universe. Integrating
1622: (\ref{e.fsig}) over all $\siginv$ yields infinite mass. In this
1623: appendix we present an alternative fitting function that is normalized
1624: such that
1625:
1626: \begin{equation}
1627: \label{e.norm}
1628: \int \gsig \,d\,\ln \siginv = 1
1629: \end{equation}
1630:
1631: \noindent for all values of $\D$ at $z=0$. We focus on equation
1632: (\ref{e.fsig}) for our main results because the parameters of that
1633: function vary more smoothly and monotonically with $\D$, and
1634: incorporating redshift evolution into that function is more
1635: straightforward and more accurate. Because we can only calibrate our
1636: mass function to $\siginv \gtrsim 0.25$, the behavior of the fitting
1637: function at lower masses is arbitrary. Thus it is not to be expected
1638: that the fitting function in this appendix is more or less accurate
1639: than equation (\ref{e.fsig}) below this calibration limit, merely that
1640: the function is better behaved.
1641:
1642: With these caveats in mind, we find that at $z=0$ a function of the
1643: form
1644:
1645: \begin{equation}
1646: \label{e.fsig_norm}
1647: \gsig = B\left[\left(\frac{\sigma}{e}\right)^{-d} + \sigma^{-f}\right]e^{-g/\sigma^2}
1648: \end{equation}
1649:
1650: \noindent yields nearly identical results to those presented in Figure
1651: \ref{diff_wmap1}. Equation (\ref{e.fsig_norm}) has four free
1652: parameters, with $B$ set by the normalization constraint from
1653: equation (\ref{e.norm}). We follow the same procedure for fitting the
1654: model to the data as in \S 2.4. Best-fit parameters are listed in
1655: Table C4. The $\xdof$ values are similar to the values listed in Table
1656: 2. The asymptotic slope of $\fsig$ in the \cite{sheth_tormen:99}
1657: fitting function is $\sigma^{-0.4}$ at low masses. The values of $f$
1658: in Table C4 vary around this value, with the $\D=200$ $\gsig$ going as
1659: $\sigma^{-0.51}$ and $\D=3200$ going as $\sigma^{-0.33}$.
1660:
1661: Another requirement of the halo model is that dark matter be unbiased
1662: with respect to itself. This requires a recalibration of the
1663: large-scale halo bias function, which we investigate in another paper
1664: (Tinker et al., in preparation).
1665:
1666: \begin{deluxetable*}{ccccccc}
1667: \tablecolumns{7}
1668: \tablewidth{15pc}
1669: \tablecaption{Normalized Mass Function Parameters for $\gsig$ at $z=0$}
1670: \tablehead{\colhead{$\D$} & \colhead{$B$} & \colhead{$d$} & \colhead{$e$} &\colhead {$f$} & \colhead{$g$} & \colhead{$\xdof$} }
1671: \startdata
1672:
1673: 200 & 0.482 & 1.97 & 1.00 & 0.51 & 1.228 & 1.14 \\
1674: 300 & 0.466 & 2.06 & 0.99 & 0.48 & 1.310 & 1.16 \\
1675: 400 & 0.494 & 2.30 & 0.93 & 0.48 & 1.403 & 1.04 \\
1676: 600 & 0.494 & 2.56 & 0.93 & 0.45 & 1.553 & 1.07 \\
1677: 800 & 0.496 & 2.83 & 0.96 & 0.44 & 1.702 & 1.09 \\
1678: 1200 & 0.450 & 2.92 & 1.04 & 0.40 & 1.907 & 1.00 \\
1679: 1600 & 0.466 & 3.29 & 1.07 & 0.40 & 2.138 & 1.07 \\
1680: 2400 & 0.429 & 3.37 & 1.12 & 0.36 & 2.394 & 1.12 \\
1681: 3200 & 0.388 & 3.30 & 1.16 & 0.33 & 2.572 & 1.14 \\
1682:
1683: \enddata
1684: \end{deluxetable*}
1685:
1686:
1687:
1688:
1689:
1690:
1691:
1692:
1693:
1694: \end{document}
1695: