1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{emulateapj5,apjfonts}
3: \usepackage{graphics}
4: \usepackage{amssymb}
5: \usepackage{onecolfloat}
6: \lefthead{Luki\'c, Reed, Habib, Heitmann}
7: \righthead{The Structure of Halos: Implications for Group and Cluster Cosmology}
8:
9: \begin{document}
10:
11: %=============================================================================
12:
13:
14: \def\head{
15: \vbox to 0pt{\vss
16: \hbox to 0pt{\hskip 440pt\rm LA-UR-07-7956\hss}
17: \vskip 25pt}
18:
19: \title{The Structure of Halos: Implications for Group and Cluster Cosmology}
20: \author{Zarija~Luki\'c\altaffilmark{1,2},
21: Darren~Reed\altaffilmark{3,4},
22: Salman~Habib\altaffilmark{2}, and
23: Katrin~Heitmann\altaffilmark{4}}
24:
25:
26: \affil{$^1$ Dept.\ of Astronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801}
27: \affil{$^2$ T-8, Theoretical Division, Los
28: Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545}
29: \affil{$^3$ T-6, Theoretical Division, Los
30: Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545}
31: \affil{$^4$ ISR-1, ISR Division, Los
32: Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545}
33:
34: \date{today}
35:
36: \begin{abstract}
37: The dark matter halo mass function is a key repository of
38: cosmological information over a wide range of mass scales, from
39: individual galaxies to galaxy clusters. N-body simulations have
40: established that the friends-of-friends (FOF) mass function has a
41: universal form to a surprising level of accuracy ($\lesssim
42: 10\%$). The high-mass tail of the mass function is exponentially
43: sensitive to the amplitude of the initial density perturbations, the
44: mean matter density parameter, $\Omega_{m}$, and to the dark energy
45: controlled late-time evolution of the density field. Observed group
46: and cluster masses, however, are usually stated in terms of a
47: spherical overdensity (SO) mass which does not map simply to the
48: FOF mass. Additionally, the widely used halo models of structure
49: formation -- and halo occupancy distribution descriptions of
50: galaxies within halos -- are often constructed exploiting the
51: universal form of the FOF mass function. This again raises the
52: question of whether FOF halos can be simply related to the notion of
53: a spherical overdensity mass. By employing results from Monte Carlo
54: realizations of ideal Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) halos and N-body
55: simulations, we study the relationship between the two definitions
56: of halo mass. We find that the vast majority of halos ($80-85\%$) in
57: the mass-range $10^{12.5}-10^{15.5}h^{-1}M_\odot$ indeed allow for an
58: accurate mapping between the two definitions ($\sim 5\%$), but only
59: if the halo concentrations are known. Nonisolated halos fall into
60: two broad classes: those with complex substructure that are poor
61: fits to NFW profiles and those ``bridged'' by the (isodensity-based)
62: FOF algorithm. A closer investigation of the bridged halos reveals
63: that the fraction of these halos and their satellite mass
64: distribution is cosmology dependent. We provide a preliminary
65: discussion of the theoretical and observational ramifications of
66: these results.
67: \end{abstract}
68:
69: \keywords{methods: N-body simulations ---
70: cosmology: halo mass function}}
71: %=========================================================================
72:
73: \twocolumn[\head]
74: \section{Introduction}
75:
76: A large number of astronomical and cosmological observations now
77: provide compelling evidence for the existence of dark matter. Although
78: the ultimate nature of the dark matter remains unknown, its large
79: scale dynamics is completely consistent with that of a
80: self-gravitating collisionless fluid. In an expanding universe, the
81: gravitational instability is the driver of the growth of structure in
82: the dark matter, the final distribution arising from the nonlinear
83: amplification of primordial density fluctuations. The existence of
84: localized, highly overdense clumps of dark matter, termed halos, is an
85: essential feature of nonlinear gravitational collapse in cold dark
86: matter models.
87:
88: Dark matter halos occupy a central place in the paradigm of structure
89: formation: Gas condensation, resultant star formation, and eventual
90: galaxy formation occur within halos. The distribution of halo masses
91: -- the halo mass function -- and its time evolution, are sensitive
92: probes of cosmology, particularly so at low redshifts, $z<2$, and high
93: masses. This last feature allows cluster observations to constrain the
94: dark energy content, $\Omega_{\Lambda}$, and the equation of state
95: parameter, $w$~(Holder et al.~2001). In addition, phenomenological
96: modeling of the dark matter in terms of the halo model (reviewed in
97: Cooray \& Sheth~2002) requires knowledge of the halo mass distribution
98: and density profiles, as does the halo occupancy distribution (HOD)
99: approach to modeling galaxy bias.
100:
101: Because accurate theoretical results for the mass function (and other
102: halo properties) do not exist, many numerical studies of halos and
103: their properties, and of the mass function, have been carried out over
104: widely separated mass and redshift ranges. Despite the intuitive
105: simplicity and practical importance of the halo paradigm, halo
106: definitions and characterizations have been somewhat {\em ad hoc},
107: mostly because of the lack of an adequate theoretical framework. For
108: the purposes of this work, there are two crucial results that have
109: been well-established by the numerical studies. The first is that
110: spherically averaged halo profiles are well-described by the
111: two-parameter NFW profile~(Navarro et al.~1996, 1997) (this shape is
112: consistent with observational studies of clusters), and second, that a
113: simple ``universal'' form for the FOF halo mass function (with link
114: length, $b=0.2$) holds for standard cold dark matter
115: cosmologies~(Jenkins et al.~2001). A detailed understanding of both of
116: these numerically established results remains elusive.
117:
118: The universality of the FOF mass function has been recently verified
119: to the level of $\lesssim 10\%$ accuracy for essentially all
120: observationally relevant redshifts ($z \lesssim 10$) by several
121: simulation efforts (e.g., Heitmann et al.~2006, Reed et
122: al.~2003,~2007, Luki\'c et al.~2007). The result is potentially very
123: useful, because at this level of accuracy there is no longer any
124: reason to simulate individual cosmologies, as the universal form
125: already covers the parametric region of interest. There is one serious
126: problem, however: the universal form of the mass function does not
127: hold for the SO mass as defined and used by observers when determining
128: the masses of galaxy groups and clusters~(White~2001,
129: Voit~2005). Unlike the SO criterion, the FOF method (Einasto et
130: al.~1984, Davis et al.~1985) does not determine a
131: (spherically-averaged) overdensity structure, but instead defines an
132: object bound by some isodensity contour (Fig.~\ref{contour}). In
133: principle, isodensity-based methods can be used in observations, but
134: require significantly more work than the SO approach.
135:
136: At this point, one could ask the question whether the SO and FOF
137: masses could be mapped to each other if more information regarding
138: halo properties were avalilable. (Or one could forsake universality
139: and attack the SO mass function problem directly via simulations,
140: e.g., Evrard et al.~2002, Tinker et al.~2008.) The aim here is to
141: proceed along the first path and investigate whether an effective
142: solution to the problem can be found. (For an earlier discussion, see
143: White~2002, who noted that FOF and SO masses are correlated, but with
144: a significant scatter.) We first show that even for perfect NFW halos,
145: there is no simple direct mapping between FOF and SO masses, because
146: of a significant dependence on the halo concentration. The mapping
147: depends as well on the number of particles sampling a given halo,
148: something that needs to be taken into account when interpreting
149: results from simulations. However, we establish the useful result that
150: for NFW halos sampled by a given number of particles, a two-parameter
151: map utilizing concentration and particle number indeed connects the
152: two masses (with a small Gaussian scatter, quantified below in
153: Section~3).
154:
155: The key question is whether these relationships for idealized NFW
156: halos survive when applied to the more realistic case of halos within
157: cosmological N-body simulations. We find that this is indeed the case
158: for halos that can be considered to be relatively isolated (a notion
159: to be made more concrete in Section~3), and not possess significant
160: substructure; i.e., approximately $80-85\%$ of all halos in the
161: mass-range $10^{12.5}-10^{15.5}h^{-1}M_\odot$ explored by the
162: simulations. (This fraction of isolated halos is close to the
163: conclusion of Evrard et al.~2008 who anlayzed results from a large
164: suite of simulations.) For these halos, the two-parameter map derived
165: above succeeds remarkably well in accurately converting the FOF mass
166: function to the corresponding SO mass function, at the $\sim 5\%$
167: level -- the current level of descriptive accuracy as limited by the
168: robustness of halo definitions and numerical results from simulations
169: (Luki\'c et al.~2007, Heitmann et al.~2007).
170: We show that the concentration dependence of
171: the FOF-SO mass relation is significant at the current levels of
172: accuracy for the determination of halo masses. Conversion between FOF
173: and SO masses will incur significant error if halo concentration is
174: not considered. To transform between the FOF and the SO mass
175: function, the scatter in concentration must also be considered. Our
176: work has implications for observationally determined mass functions,
177: and for HOD and other methods of deriving mock galaxy catalogs.
178:
179: An additional point is that, in the N-body simulations, there not only
180: exists a simple relationship between the halo concentration and the
181: SO (or FOF) mass with a (relatively) large scatter, but that the
182: scatter can be very well fit by a Gaussian distribution at a given
183: mass. Using this simple concentration-mass relation and its Gaussian
184: variance, one may go directly from the FOF mass function to the SO
185: mass function or vice-versa. This procedure solves the mass function
186: mapping problem for the subset of isolated halos, which comprise the
187: bulk of the halo population. It does not, however, enable one to
188: transform from the universal FOF mass function to a chosen SO mass
189: function because of the $15-20\%$ fraction of FOF halos with irregular
190: morphologies, most of which are ``bridged'' halos (density peaks
191: connected by high density filaments or ridges). A potential way around
192: this difficulty is to treat explicitly the ``multiplicity'' of
193: apparently discrete SO halos within FOF halos in the transformation
194: between FOF and SO mass functions. This possibility is under
195: investigation.
196:
197: Based on our runs for two cosmologies, we have good evidence that the
198: fraction of bridged halos rises as a function of mass, and that this
199: fraction is also ``universal'', i.e., more or less independent of the
200: cosmology when written in units of $M/M_*$, where $M_*$ is the
201: characteristic halo mass-scale set by matching the {\em rms} linear
202: density fluctuation to the threshold density for collapse. We also
203: find that the fraction of halos with major satellites as a function of
204: the satellite mass fraction (with respect to the main halo) is
205: cosmology dependent. This may pave the way for constraining cosmology
206: from clusters of galaxies in a new way, essentially independent of the
207: sampling volume, and therefore with enhanced immunity against
208: selection effects. At the very least, using the major satellite halo
209: fraction should provide a valuable cross-check for cosmological
210: constraints derived from the mass function in the conventional manner.
211:
212: \section{Mass Definitions}
213:
214:
215: \begin{figure}[t]
216: \hspace{-1.3cm}\includegraphics[width=120mm]{fig0.eps} \caption{Different
217: halo definitions for the same particle distribution in a
218: simulation. The green points show all particles in a sphere
219: centered around the minimum potential FOF particle and with radius
220: 1.1 times the distance to the farthest FOF member ($b=0.2$). The
221: black contours are for the two dimensional density field projected
222: onto the $z-$direction as calculated from all the particles. The
223: blue particles show the actual FOF halo members. The red circle
224: shows the SO halo centered around the same point as the FOF
225: halo. The box spans approximately 3.15$h^{-1}$Mpc in $x$- and
226: $y$-direction, $R_{200}$ is approximately 0.6$h^{-1}$Mpc. The FOF
227: mass of the halo is 6.70$\times 10^{13}h^{-1}$M$_\odot$, the SO
228: mass of the main halo is 4.91$\times 10^{13}h^{-1}$M$_\odot$ and
229: the SO mass of the major subclump on the right (which belongs to
230: the FOF halo) is 8.50$\times 10^{12}h^{-1}$M$_\odot$. The small
231: subclump on the left (which was neither included in the FOF halo
232: nor in the SO halo) is 2.97$\times 10^{12}h^{-1}$M$_\odot$. This
233: plot demonstrates how closely the FOF halo boundary tracks an
234: isodensity contour.}
235: \label{contour}
236: \end{figure}
237:
238: The spherical overdensity and friends-of-friends methods are the two
239: main approaches to defining halos and their associated masses in
240: simulations. SO identifies halos by identifying spherical regions with
241: prescribed spherical overdensities $\Delta$:
242: \begin{equation}
243: M_{\Delta} = \frac{4 \pi}{3}R_{\Delta}^3\, \Delta \rho_c \ ,
244: \end{equation}
245: where $\rho_c$ is the critical density. (Overdensities are sometimes
246: stated with respect to the background density: $\rho_b = \Omega_m
247: \rho_c$, here we restrict ourselves to defining them with respect to
248: $\rho_c$.) An often-used value for the overdensity is $\Delta=200$,
249: roughly the theoretically predicted value given by the spherical
250: collapse model, $18 \pi^2$, for virialized halos in an Einstein-de
251: Sitter universe. For the currently favored $\Lambda$CDM model
252: ($\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.7$, $\Omega_{m} = 0.3$), spherical collapse
253: actually predicts a smaller overdensity at virialization: $\Delta
254: \approx 100$. X-ray observers, on the other hand, prefer higher
255: density contrasts, $\Delta = 500$ or $1000$, because strucutures on
256: those scales are much brighter, and more relaxed compared to the outer
257: regions.
258:
259: \begin{figure*}[t]
260: \includegraphics[width=175mm]{fig1.eps}
261: \caption{Distribution of $b=0.2$ FOF masses for NFW halos with
262: concentrations $c=3$ (left panel), and $c=10$ (right panel),
263: sampled with different particle numbers: 100 (blue), 1000 (green),
264: 10000 (red). The number of Monte Carlo samples are $10^6$, $10^5$,
265: and $10^4$ for $N_{200}=100$, 1000, and 10000, respectively. The
266: solid curves are Gaussian fits. Note that the two panels have
267: different units along both axes.}
268: \label{mockdev}
269: \end{figure*}
270:
271: The main drawback of the SO mass definition is that it is somewhat
272: artificial, enforcing spherical symmetry on all objects, while in
273: reality halos often have an irregular structure (e.g., White~2002).
274: For some applications, such an approach may be well founded
275: (e.g. X-ray cluster analysis for relaxed clusters), but may not be
276: universally applicable. Furthermore, defining an SO mass can be
277: ambiguous, since for two close density peaks, the corresponding SO
278: spheres might overlap, and one has to decide how to distribute
279: particles between them (or assign them to both, breaking mass
280: conservation).
281:
282: The FOF algorithm, on the other hand, is not based on the notion of a
283: certain overdensity structure, but defines instead an object bound by
284: some isodensity contour. The mass of a halo is then simply the sum of
285: all particles inside a given contour. By linking particles which are
286: separated at most by the distance $ll = b n^{-1/3}$ (where $n$ is the
287: number density of particles in the simulation, and $b$ is the
288: so-called ``linking length''), the FOF method, in effect locates an
289: isodensity surface of
290: \begin{equation}
291: \rho_{iso} \approx k b^{-3} \rho_b\ ,
292: \label{eqn:iso}
293: \end{equation}
294: where $k$ is a constant of order 2~\cite[]{FRENK1988}. For $b=0.2$,
295: and the concordance $\Lambda$CDM cosmology, this leads to $\rho_{iso}
296: = 75 \rho_c$. Given their percolation-centric nature FOF halos can
297: have complicated shapes and topologies (Fig.~1).
298:
299: \section{Mass Mapping from Mock Halos}
300:
301: In order to address the relation of FOF and SO masses, we first turn
302: to a controlled test using idealized ``mock'' halos. These are
303: taken to be spherical dark matter halos with the NFW density profile:
304: \begin{equation}
305: \rho(r) = \frac{\rho_s}{r/r_s\left( 1+ r/r_s\right)^2}\ ,
306: \end{equation}
307: where $\rho_s$ and $r_s$ are the core density and scale radius
308: respectively. Instead of $\rho_s$ and $r_s$, it is often convenient
309: to use physically more transparent quantities: the SO mass
310: $M_{\Delta}$ and the concentration $c=r_s/R_{\Delta}$:
311: \begin{equation}
312: \label{rho_s}
313: \rho_s = \frac{\Delta \ \rho_c \ c^3}
314: {3 \ \left [ \ln (1+c) - c/(1+c) \right] }\ ;
315: \end{equation}
316: \begin{equation}
317: \label{r_s}
318: r_s = \frac{1}{c} \left[ \frac{3\ M_{\Delta}}{4\ \pi \ \Delta \ \rho_c}
319: \right]^{1/3}\ .
320: \end{equation}
321: The cumulative mass within a radius $r$ can be calculated as:
322: \begin{eqnarray}
323: M(r) &=& \int_0^r 4 \pi r^2 \frac{\rho_s}{r/r_s\left( 1+
324: r/r_s\right)^2} dr \nonumber \\
325: &=& 4 \pi \rho_s r_s^3 \left [ \ln (1+r/r_s) - (r/r_s)/(1+r/r_s)
326: \right]\ .
327: \label{eqn:cumulative}
328: \end{eqnarray}
329: While it is still unclear whether the very inner parts of the halos
330: ($\sim$ 1\% of $R_{200}$) have density profiles steeper than NFW
331: (e.g., Ghigna et al.~2000, Jing \& Suto~2000, Klypin et al.~2001,
332: Navarro et al.~2004, Reed~et~al.~2005), the inner asymptotic slope is
333: not of concern here, and does not affect our results.
334:
335: We generate mock NFW halos in the following way: first we fix the SO
336: mass ($M_{\Delta} = M_{200}$) of a halo and choose the number of
337: particles which will reside in it ($N_{200}$). We then populate the
338: halo with particles according to the NFW distribution such that we
339: enforce the desired mass to be $M_{200}$ within the radius
340: $R_{200}$. We then extend the NFW distribution further out -- adding
341: particles to a ``halo tail''. The choice of $\Delta=200$ can easily be
342: changed to some other desired value such as $\Delta=500$ or 1000 as
343: more appropriate for cluster studies. In any case, for a given NFW
344: profile choice, all overdensity masses are immediately fixed, so there
345: is no lack of generality in our specific choice (which corresponds to
346: an approximate notion of the ``virial mass'', Navarro et al., 1996,
347: 1997).
348:
349: Having fixed $M_{200}$ for all the mock halos, we now determine the
350: FOF mass for every halo. Because the particles are randomly sampled
351: inside a halo (following the NFW density profile), one cannot expect
352: that for every realization of a mock halo, the FOF finder will return
353: exactly the same mass. Given a large number of mock halos with the
354: same density profile and statistical independence of the realizations,
355: the central limit theorem predicts a Gaussian distribution for the FOF
356: masses. Indeed, just as expected, a normal distribution gives an
357: excellent description for $M_{FOF}/M_{200}$. Thus, one can not only
358: determine to what SO mass a certain $M_{FOF}$ corresponds (on
359: average), but can also quantify the systematic deviation of an FOF
360: halo finder through a standard deviation (Figs.~\ref{mockdev}).
361: The Gaussian spread of FOF masses is centered around
362: a mean value that shifts systematically with the number of sampling
363: particles, $N$, as empirically noted by Warren et al.~(2006)
364: (Fig.~\ref{mockhalos}).
365:
366: \begin{figure}[t]
367: \includegraphics[width=80mm]{conc_errors.ps}
368: \caption{Ratio of the ($b=0.2$) FOF mass to M$_{200}$ for NFW mock
369: halos with different concentrations and particle number, $N$, but
370: the same value of $M_{200}$. Low concentration halos have up to a
371: factor of two higher FOF mass than M$_{200}$. For high
372: concentration halos, the ratio of the two mass definitions is
373: closer to unity, the FOF mass being always higher.}
374: \label{mockhalos}
375: \end{figure}
376:
377: Besides this $N$-dependence, we also wish to examine how
378: $M_{FOF}/M_{\Delta}$ depends on the underlying profile. We have found
379: that this dependence leads to another source of bias for FOF masses
380: relative to SO masses. In Fig.~\ref{mockhalos}, we show average
381: values of $M_{FOF}$ for a range of particle numbers and
382: concentrations. It is clear that one cannot accurately match a given
383: $M_{200}$ to a corresponding $M_{FOF}$ without the concentration being
384: specified. Concentration variation from $c\sim 20$ (typical for
385: galaxies) to $c\sim 5$ (typical for clusters) (Bullock et al. 2001;
386: Eke, Navarro, \& Steinmetz 2001) corresponds to systematic FOF mass
387: shifts of $\sim 30\%$, much larger than can be tolerated by the
388: accuracy to which the FOF mass function can currently be determined
389: numerically ($\sim 5\%$). For any given $N_{200}$, this concentration
390: dependence follows the functional form:
391: \begin{equation}
392: \frac{M_{FOF}}{M_{200}} = \frac{a_1}{c^2} + \frac{a_2}{c} + a_3 \ ,
393: \label{mock_fit}
394: \end{equation}
395: where the coefficients $a_1$, $a_2$, $a_3$, depend on $N_{200}$ only
396: (Table~\ref{coeffs}).
397:
398: \begin{table*}
399: \begin{center}
400: \caption{\label{coeffs} Best Fit Coefficients}
401: \begin{tabular}{c|cccccccc}
402: \tableline\tableline
403: & & & & & $N_{200}$ & & \\
404: \raisebox{1.4ex}[0pt]{Coeff.} & 100 & 600 & $10^3$ & $3 \times 10^3$ &
405: $6 \times 10^3$ & $10^4$ & $10^5$ &
406: $10^6$ \\
407: \hline
408: $a_1$ & -0.3887 & -0.3063 & -0.2790 & -0.2368 & -0.2210
409: & -0.1970 & -0.1642 & -0.1374\\
410: $a_2$ & 1.6195 & 1.4130 & 1.3669 & 1.2849 & 1.2459
411: & 1.2157 & 1.1392 & 1.0900\\
412: $a_3$ & 1.0715 & 1.0313 & 1.0226 & 1.0081 & 1.0008
413: & 0.9960 & 0.9800 & 0.9714\\
414: \tableline\tableline
415:
416: \vspace{-1.5cm}
417:
418: \tablecomments{Best fit coefficients for different $N_{200}$, as obtained
419: from the mock halo analysis. For all values of
420: $N_{200}$, the functional form of the fit is
421: given by Eqn.~(\ref{mock_fit}).}
422: \end{tabular}
423: \end{center}
424: \end{table*}
425:
426: Well-sampled halos, with $N >1000$, are characterized by a small
427: variance in the $M_{FOF}/M_{200}$ ratio, with a maximum value of
428: $\sigma\sim 0.02-0.03$, depending on the concentration. With such a
429: low intrinsic scatter in the mass relationship for a given
430: concentration, the logical next step is to see whether the mean
431: $M_{FOF}(M_{200},c)$ relationship obtained from the mock NFW halos
432: actually applies to individual halos in N-body simulations. Here, it
433: should be noted that actual simulated halos are not expected to be
434: spherical due to the episodic and anisotropic nature of mass
435: accretion, and in fact are much better described as ellipsoids (Kasun
436: \& Evrard~2005, Allgood et al.~2006). Nevertheless, as we are
437: interested in an averaged quantity, the halo mass, an approach based
438: on idealized halos may well provide an adequate description. This
439: expectation turns out to be valid, as shown below.
440:
441: \section{Mass Mapping in N-Body Simulations}
442:
443: In order to investigate the validity of the mock halo mass
444: relationships, we use results from four cosmological simulations for
445: two flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmologies, each simulated with 174 and 512
446: $h^{-1}$Mpc boxes. The pre-WMAP, high-$\sigma_{\rm 8}$ cosmology has
447: the following parameters: matter density, $\Omega_m=0.3$; dark energy
448: density, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$; fluctuation amplitude, $\sigma_{\rm
449: 8}=1.0$; Hubble constant $h=0.7$ (in units of 100 km s$^{-1}$
450: Mpc$^{-1}$); primordial spectral index, $n_s=1$; and the Bardeen et
451: al.~(1986) transfer function with $\gamma=\Omega_m h$. For the WMAP~3
452: compatible cosmology runs, the parameters are: $\Omega_m=0.26$,
453: $\Omega_\Lambda=0.74$, $\sigma_{\rm 8}=0.75$, $h=0.71$, $n_s=0.938$,
454: and a transfer function generated using {\small CMBFAST} (Seljak \&
455: Zaldarriaga~1996). We use the parallel gravity solver {\small
456: GADGET2}~\cite[]{gadget2} to follow the evolution of $512^{3}$ dark
457: matter particles starting from a redshift $z=99$, high enough to satisfy
458: the initial redshift requirements given in Luki\'c et al.~2007. The
459: particle masses are $3.3 \times 10^{9}$ and $8.3 \times10^{10} h^{-1}
460: M_\odot$ for the high-$\sigma_{\rm 8}$ run, and $2.8 \times 10^{9}$
461: and $7.2 \times10^{10} h^{-1} M_\odot$ for the WMAP~3 cosmology.
462: These masses are small enough to comfortably resolve groups and
463: clusters to the level required for this study (see e.g. Power et
464: al.~2003, Reed et al.~2005, Neto et al~2007). The FOF mass functions
465: from these simulations are in very close agreement with the results of
466: Luki\'c et al.~(2007), well within a few percent. By using
467: cosmologies with normalizations that bracket the currently favored
468: cosmology (e.g., Spergel~et al.~2007), we are able to show that our
469: results are applicable to any likely cosmology, once (cosmology
470: dependent) halo concentrations are specified.
471:
472: To carry out a realistic test of the mass relationships, we adopt the
473: following procedure: (i) First run an FOF halo finder on the final
474: particle distribution, and define halo centers by identifying the
475: local potential minima, for all halos with $N>1000$. (ii) Construct
476: individual SO profiles around these minima, thereby determining
477: $M_{200}$. The halo density is computed in 32 logarithmically
478: equidistant bins, and we fit the NFW profile treating both $r_s$ and
479: $\rho_s$ as free parameters. As a consistency check, we use an
480: alternative approach, where $M_{200}$ is measured directly from the
481: mass within a sphere, and NFW is treated as a one-parameter function
482: (by fixing $\rho_s$ such that the enclosed overdensity is
483: $200\rho_c$). No significant differences were found between the two
484: approaches.
485:
486: The $N>1000$ halo particle cut keeps the variance in the mass ratios
487: small (Cf. Figs.~\ref{mockdev}-\ref{mockhalos}) and also allows stable
488: calculations of the individual halo concentrations. [Details of the
489: procedures followed will be given elsewhere (Reed~et al., in
490: preparation).] For each FOF halo we find its center of mass from
491: all the particles linked together by the halo finder. On occasion,
492: the FOF finder connects apparently distinct halos (bridging); these
493: halos may well be in some stage of merging. Since it makes little
494: sense to define an SO profile and an associated concentration for
495: very close halos and those undergoing major mergers, we use the
496: distance between the center of mass and the potential minima to
497: exclude such halos. In Figs.~\ref{halo_centers} and
498: \ref{halo_centers_wmap}, we show the distribution of that distance
499: ($d$) for all halos with $N > 1000$ from both of the simulation
500: boxes. While most of the halos appear to be isolated objects where the
501: difference between the two center definitions is due to substructure,
502: there are outliers at high mass, and even objects where the FOF center
503: of mass is more than $R_{200}$ away from the potential minimum!
504:
505: \begin{figure}[t]
506: \includegraphics[width=80mm]{hist.ps}
507: \caption{Distribution of distances between FOF center of mass, and
508: potential minimum for 512 $h^{-1}$Mpc box (red) and 174 $h^{-1}$Mpc box
509: (blue), scaled by R$_{200}$}
510: \label{halo_centers}
511: \end{figure}
512:
513: \begin{figure}[t]
514: \includegraphics[width=80mm]{hist_wmap.ps}
515: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{halo_centers}, but for the WMAP~3
516: cosmology.}
517: \label{halo_centers_wmap}
518: \end{figure}
519:
520: To proceed further, we first set aside all halos with
521: $d/R_{200}>0.4$. Although this cut is somewhat arbitrary, the results
522: are relatively insensitive to the particular choice, as discussed
523: below. Furthermore, the mock halo analysis on regular NFW halos shows
524: that, even at low concentrations, one expects approximately
525: $M_{FOF}/M_{200}\sim 1.5$ (Cf. Fig.~\ref{mockhalos}). Larger values
526: therefore are a signal of a potential merger, as was verified directly
527: by confirming with the simulation results. In Figs.~\ref{banana} and
528: \ref{banana_wmap}, where we plot both ``isolated'' (blue) and
529: ``bridged'' (red) halos, the strong correlation between our cut, based
530: on the difference between halo mass and potential centers, and the
531: high values of $M_{FOF}/M_{200}$ (with respect to the mock halo
532: expectation) can be easliy verified.
533:
534: Finally, we compare our cutoff with an SO analysis of FOF halos: for
535: each halo we find the minimum potential particle and $R_{200}$ around
536: it, and than move to the next particle in the potential hierarchy
537: which resides outside $R_{200}$ (if inside, we define it as a piece of
538: substructure rather than a `satellite halo' bridged by the FOF
539: procedure), find $R_{200}$ and $M_{200}$ for the second halo, and
540: iterate this procedure until all FOF particles are exhausted. When
541: separate SO halos overlap we assign particles in the overlapping
542: region to all SO halos, keeping the overdensity idea straightforward,
543: but breaking mass conservation. Of course, if one goes down to a few
544: particles, then virtually all FOF halos will be resolved into multiple
545: SO objects. But if the threshold of the satellite mass is raised to
546: 20\% of the main halo mass, most of the FOF halos appear as a single
547: SO halo. The two methods: $d/R_{200}>0.4$, and
548: $M_{satellite}/M_{main} > 0.2$ correlate extremely well, agreeing in
549: 85-90\% of all cases (the agreement is worse for larger masses, and
550: better for smaller halo masses). This gives us additional confidence
551: that our cutoff criterion separates isolated from bridged halos. We
552: will return to an analysis of the excluded halos (by both of the
553: discussed exclusion criteria) in Section~\ref{bridged}.
554:
555: \begin{figure}[t]
556: \includegraphics[width=80mm]{banana.ps}
557: \caption{Scatterplot of the ratio of FOF and SO(200) masses from the
558: simulations as a function of the measured concentration for (i)
559: halos passing the criterion $d/R_{200}<0.4$ (blue), where $d$ is the
560: distance between the center of mass and the potential minima (see
561: discussion in the text), and (ii) halos not passing this criterion
562: (red). The solid line shows the mock halo prediction for halos
563: with particle number, N$_{200}=10^3$, which dominate the sample.}
564: \label{banana}
565: \end{figure}
566:
567: \begin{figure}[t]
568: \includegraphics[width=80mm]{banana_wmap.ps}
569: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{banana}, but for the WMAP 3 cosmology.
570: Note that the x-axis has a different scale.}
571: \label{banana_wmap}
572: \end{figure}
573:
574: The halo exclusion cut eliminates only about 15-20\% of all halos, so
575: it is not very statistically significant, though certainly not
576: negligible. For the retained halos, we now apply the
577: $M_{FOF}(M_{200},c)$ relationship determined by the mock halo results
578: of Fig.~\ref{mockhalos}, as encapsulated in the fits specified in
579: Table~\ref{coeffs}. The results of this halo by halo mass mapping test
580: are shown in Figs.~\ref{halo_halo} and \ref{so_so} for the
581: mass function, where the measured mass functions are displayed in
582: terms of a ratio to a fitting form for the FOF mass function given by
583: Warren~et al.~(2006). (This ratio is taken only for ease of
584: interpretation, as any other mass function fit would have done just as
585: well.) The undernormalization of the FOF mass function relative to
586: the fit is simply due to the exclusion procedure described above. Note
587: that the FOF and SO mass functions, as numerically determined, differ
588: by as much as $20-40\%$ depending on the mass bin. However,
589: application of the mock halo mass relationship to every individual FOF
590: halo {\em correctly reproduces the SO mass function at the $5\%$
591: level}, the current (numerical) limiting accuracy of mass function
592: determination. The success of this simple mapping idea is a testimony
593: to the accuracy of the NFW description for (spherically averaged)
594: realistic halos in simulations, and consistent with the overall
595: conclusion of Evrard et al.~2008, that the vast majority of
596: cluster-scale halos are structurally regular.
597:
598: Using the expression for the cumulative NFW mass
599: [Eqn.~(\ref{eqn:cumulative})], we can find the mass for any desired
600: overdensity $\Delta$ in terms of $M_{200}$; defining $M_c =
601: M_{\Delta}/M_{200}$, we have:
602: \begin{equation}
603: M_c = A(c) \left[ \ln \left( 1 + \sqrt[3]{\frac{200}{\Delta}} M_c c \right)
604: - \frac{\sqrt[3]{\frac{200}{\Delta}} M_c c}
605: {1+\sqrt[3]{\frac{200}{\Delta}} M_c c} \right]\ ,
606: \label{nfw_transform}
607: \end{equation}
608: where $A(c)$ is a prefactor which depends on c only:
609: \begin{equation}
610: A(c) = \frac{1}{\ln (1+c) - c/(1+c)}\ .
611: \end{equation}
612: Employing this approach one can easily move from one SO mass function
613: to another, and in Fig. \ref{so_so} we show that
614: this mass transformation gives accurate results for halos in
615: simulations. Furthermore, this shows that if one is interested in any
616: overdensity other than 200 (as considered in our mock halo analysis),
617: our best fit for $M_{FOF}/M_{200}$ [Eqn.~(\ref{mock_fit}) and Table
618: \ref{coeffs}] can simply be rescaled for any $M_{\Delta}$ using
619: Eqn.~(\ref{nfw_transform}).
620:
621: \begin{figure}[t]
622: \includegraphics[width=80mm]{mf_fof.ps}
623: \caption{Measured mass functions normalized to the Warren~et
624: al.~(2006) fit as an (arbitrary) reference, for High $\sigma_{\rm 8}$
625: (upper panel) and WMAP-3 cosmology (lower panel).
626: Black: FOF halo masses
627: with $b=0.2$ and bridged halos removed as shown in
628: Fig.~\ref{banana}. Red: $M_{200}$ masses measured from the
629: simulation for the same set of halos, and using the same (FOF)
630: halo centers. Blue: The mass function for $M_{200}$ halos using
631: the idealized mock halo prediction (Fig.~\ref{mockhalos} and
632: Table.~\ref{coeffs}), the measured FOF masses for each halo as mapped to
633: the predicted SO mass. The agreement between measured (red) and
634: predicted (blue) mass functions is excellent, better than $5\%$.}
635: \label{halo_halo}
636: \end{figure}
637:
638: %\begin{figure}[t]
639: % \includegraphics[width=80mm]{mf_wmap1.ps}
640: % \caption{Mass function mapping for the WMAP~3 cosmology following
641: % Fig.~\ref{halo_halo}.}
642: %\label{halo_halo_wmap}
643: %\end{figure}
644:
645: \begin{figure}[t]
646: \includegraphics[width=80mm]{mf_so.ps}
647: \caption{Testing the mapping to masses other than $M_{200}$ with
648: mass functions shown as in Fig.~\ref{halo_halo},
649: for High $\sigma_{\rm 8}$
650: (upper panel) and WMAP-3 cosmology (lower panel).
651: Black: $M_{200}$
652: masses measured from the simulation. Red: $M_{100}$ and $M_{500}$
653: masses measured from the simulation using the same halo
654: centers. Blue: Idealized NFW predictions for $M_{100}$ and
655: $M_{500}$ using the measured $M_{200}$ mass for each
656: halo. Measured and predicted quantities (red vs. blue) are again
657: in very good agreement.}
658: \label{so_so}
659: \end{figure}
660:
661: %\begin{figure}[t]
662: % \includegraphics[width=80mm]{mf_wmap2.ps}
663: % \caption{The mapping test of Fig.~\ref{so_so} for the WMAP~3 cosmology.}
664: %\label{so_so_wmap}
665: %\end{figure}
666:
667: The results shown in Figs.~\ref{halo_halo} and \ref{so_so}
668: depend only weakly on the cut imposed by a particular value of
669: $d/R_{200}$. Choosing a value below $d/R_{200}=0.4$ such as 0.3 is
670: more conservative; one loses more halos (another $5\%$), but the mass
671: function mapping results remain excellent. Increasing the cut
672: threshold to 0.5 adds $5\%$ more halos while the mapping accuracy
673: remains more or less the same. Beyond this point the results slowly
674: degrade, as is to be expected.
675:
676: With this important result at the level of individual halos in hand,
677: the global mass function can be realized without knowing individual
678: halo concentrations, and independent of cosmology, provided one has a
679: form for the (mean) concentration-mass relation for SO (or FOF) halos
680: as well as the PDF for the scatter in this relation. The latter
681: cannnot be ignored since the scatter in the concentration-mass
682: relation is known to be significant (Jing~2000, Bullock et al.~2001,
683: Eke et al.~2001, Macci{\`o} et al.~2007, Neto et al.~2007). In the
684: mass regime typical for clusters, i.e., halo masses above $\sim
685: 3\times 10^{14}$ $h^{-1}M_\odot$, the variation in concentration with mass
686: is in fact much smaller than the concentration scatter for halos of
687: similar mass. We have carried out several detailed simulations, aside
688: from the ones mentioned here, to establish the cosmology dependence of
689: the concentration-mass relation, $c(M_{200})$, and its associated
690: scatter, $\sigma_c(M_{200})$ [or $\sigma_c(M_{FOF})$] (Reed~et al., in
691: preparation), which provides all the required information for mapping
692: mass functions. The scatter is very well described by a Gaussian PDF
693: at each mass bin (for both SO and FOF masses) and has little
694: variation over the limited mass range relevant for clusters.
695:
696:
697: \section{The Bridged Halos}
698: \label{bridged}
699:
700: We now turn to understanding the FOF halos that cannot be simply
701: mapped as individual NFW profiles. Broadly speaking, we find that
702: these halos are of two types: (i) Halos with density bridges across
703: major substructures, and (ii) halos with complex substructure
704: (``unrelaxed''). Halos of the first type are the ones largely excluded
705: by our halo mass and potential centers-based cut and correspond mostly
706: to the high mass-ratio region in Figs.~\ref{banana} and
707: \ref{banana_wmap}. While our cut is very efficient in terms of
708: identifying bridged halos, there is a very small contamination
709: fraction due to chance symmetric bridging which does not lead to
710: significant differences between the mass and potential minima. The
711: second type of halos corresponds largely to the low concentration/low
712: mass ratio region. Representative halo types are shown in
713: Fig.~\ref{halo_images}: typical isolated halo (upper panel), bridged
714: halo (middle panel), and complex substructure (lower panel).
715:
716: \begin{figure*}[t!]
717: \includegraphics[width=160mm,height=200mm]{combine.ps}
718: \caption{Top panel: A typical isolated FOF halo (FOF-linked
719: particles shown as white dots) with NFW concentration, $c=9.0$,
720: and $M_{FOF}/M_{200}=1.15$ (profile fit to the right). Green dots
721: are particles within $R_{200}$ of the corresponding SO
722: halo. Middle panel: An example of a bridged halo. The SO halo
723: found at the FOF center has concentration $c=8.1$ (the NFW profile
724: fit is a good fit), however the mass ratio $M_{FOF}/M_{200}=1.8$
725: is high due to the bridged minor halo in the left upper
726: corner. Bottom panel: A halo with major substucture, for which the
727: NFW profile is not a good fit.}
728: \label{halo_images}
729: \end{figure*}
730:
731: It is clear that the idea of a single concentration or a simple mass
732: ratio $M_{FOF}/M_{SO}$ makes little sense for either the bridged
733: halos or the unrelaxed halos. For the unrelaxed halos, absent a
734: sub-halo analysis, it is not even clear what an appropriate $M_{SO}$
735: might be. Nevertheless, our exclusion was designed mostly to eliminate
736: the bridged halos; our results show that the unrelaxed population is
737: apparently subdominant at least in terms of biasing the mass function
738: results. Even so, it is clear that the existence of these types of
739: substructured halos has ramifications for the simple HOD program,
740: although the quantitative impact needs to be studied.
741:
742: The halos that are bridged by the FOF procedure are typically close
743: neighbors, the majority being partners in the hierarchical process of
744: structure formation via halo merging (Busha et al.~2005). Some of
745: these close neighbors might be ``backsplash halos'' that have
746: previously been within $R_{200}$ (see Gill, Knebe, \& Gibson 2005;
747: Ludlow et al. 2008). In both the high-$\sigma_{8}$ and WMAP~3
748: cosmologies, we find that the fraction of bridged halos has a tendency
749: to increase with increase in mass. This is as expected from the
750: hierarchical merging picture since very massive halos are still
751: forming at the current epoch. This effect is clearly shown in
752: Fig.~\ref{train_wreck}. We have checked that the two different-sized
753: boxes (for each cosmology) agree well in the region of overlap,
754: supporting the argument that numerical effects (finite mass and force
755: resolution) are negligible for this consideration. (For the two box
756: sizes, the mass resolution differs by a factor of approximately 25,
757: and the force resolution by a factor of 3.)
758:
759: The overall effect can certainly depend on cosmology: the results from
760: the WMAP~3 simulation are clearly separated from the high $\sigma_{\rm 8}$
761: cosmology (Fig.~\ref{train_wreck}). Since the structures grow
762: differently in the two different cosmologies (due to different
763: $\sigma_{\rm 8}$ and $\Omega_m$), we can try to parametrize our
764: exclusion as a function of $M/M_*$, where $M_*$ is the characteristic
765: collapse mass at the current epoch, defined through:
766: \begin{equation}
767: \sigma[M_*(z)] = 1.686 \ ,
768: \end{equation}
769: where $\sigma$ is the variance of the linear density fluctuation field
770: $P(k)$, smoothed by a top-hat filter $W(k,M)$ on a scale $M$, and
771: normalized to the present epoch $z=0$ by the growth function $d(z)$:
772: \begin{equation}
773: \sigma^2(M,z) =
774: \frac{d^2(z)}{2\pi^2}\int^{\infty}_{0}k^2P(k)W^2(k,M)dk \ .
775: \label{sig}
776: \end{equation}
777:
778: \begin{figure}[t]
779: \includegraphics[width=80mm]{wreck_comb.ps}
780: \caption{Distribution of bridged halos as a function of mass for the
781: high $\sigma_8$ and $WMAP~3$ cosmologies. In both cosmologies, the
782: relative fraction of such halos tends to increase with increasing
783: mass. The shaded regions are Poisson error bars.}
784: \label{train_wreck}
785: \end{figure}
786:
787: \begin{figure}[t]
788: \includegraphics[width=80mm,angle=0]{wreck_comb2.ps}
789: \caption{Possible universality of the bridged halo fraction: The
790: same data as in Fig.~\ref{train_wreck}, but with the mass now
791: scaled by $M_*$.}
792: \label{train_wreck2}
793: \end{figure}
794:
795: As shown in Fig.~\ref{train_wreck2}, with the mass rescaled in terms
796: of $M_*$, the fraction of bridged halos agrees for the two cosmologies
797: and may very well be ``universal''. This intriguing fact indicates,
798: first, that our method of excising bridged halos (the principle, not
799: necessarily the specific choice of $d/R_{200}>0.4$) is physically
800: well-motivated. Second, if the universality is borne out, the bridged
801: halo fraction can be combined with the cosmology independent mock halo
802: analysis, to yield a method for translating the universal FOF mass
803: function to any desired SO mass function. Moreover, these results
804: suggest that the bridged halo fraction can also provide a separate
805: probe of cosmology, being particularly sensitive to the same
806: parameters as the mass function itself (Fig.~\ref{train_wreck}).
807:
808: An additional way to probe the growth of structure in the Universe
809: using clusters, aside from the mass function, would be to measure the
810: fraction of isolated clusters versus those that have (major)
811: satellites. In our simulations, we measure the fraction of multiple SO
812: dark matter halos in the mass range of interest for clusters: $M_{200}
813: \ge 10^{14} M_{\sun}/h$ (see also Evrard et al. 2008). If we plot this
814: fraction as a function of $f$, where $f$ is defined through
815: $M_{satellite} \ge f M_{main}$ we find again that the two cosmologies
816: considered are clearly separated, as shown in
817: Fig.~\ref{satellites}. The advantage of this analysis compared to the
818: mass function method is that it does not require measurements in a
819: controlled volume, and will work for a random sample of observed
820: galaxy clusters. Depending on observational possibilities (McMillan et
821: al.~1989, Mohr et al.~1995, Zabludoff \& Zaritsky~1995, Jones \&
822: Forman~1999, Kolokotronis et al.~2001, Jeltema et al.~2005, Ramella et
823: al.~2007), this might provide a new way of characterizing cosmologies
824: using clusters of galaxies, or at least be a valuable method to
825: cross-check results from mass function constraints.
826:
827: \begin{figure}[t]
828: \includegraphics[width=80mm,angle=0]{satellites.ps}
829: \caption{Fraction of the total number of halos in the mass range
830: relevant to clusters, ($M_{200} \ge 10^{14} M_{\sun}/h$), as a
831: function of the halo satellite mass fraction.}
832: \label{satellites}
833: \end{figure}
834:
835: The halo outliers with values of $M_{FOF}/M_{200}>1.5$ are also a
836: possible source of systematic bias for certain HOD applications. Given
837: some halo mass bin above the fiducial mass cutoff for a given HOD, a
838: bridged halo would be assigned a central galaxy with the same
839: probability as an isolated halo. The probability of a satellite galaxy
840: in a bridged halo [with the main halo having high mass companion(s)]
841: is likely significantly higher than in an isolated halo. Therefore,
842: applying the same HOD to both halo types would downweight the number
843: of satellite galaxies, the precise amount depending on the mass range
844: considered.
845:
846: \section{Conclusions and Discussion}
847:
848: We have presented results from an analysis of idealized NFW halos and
849: N-body simulations with the aim of clarifying the connection between
850: FOF and SO halos, focusing mainly on the issue of halo masses and
851: attempting to account for some of the unavoidable difficulties in
852: simplifying a multi-scale problem in terms of primitive halo
853: concepts. We found that a large fraction of FOF halos in N-body
854: simulations ($80-85\%$) are relatively isolated and well-fitted by NFW
855: profiles. This allows them to have SO counterparts, albeit the mass
856: mapping is a two-parameter function $M_{SO}=M_{SO}(M_{FOF},c)$,
857: inferred from the properties of idealized NFW halos ($c$ is the NFW
858: halo concentration). In principle, this mock halo technique can be
859: trivially extended to $M_{\Delta}$ with $\Delta$ values more directly
860: useful for cluster analyses (e.g., $\Delta=500, 800, 1000$), or indeed
861: to any other useful definition of the observable mass.
862:
863: The rest of the halos, a fraction of $15-20\%$, appear to be
864: dominated mainly by bridged halos. These halos consist of apparently
865: localized structures (visually, or according to the SO halo
866: definition) linked via density ``ridges'' into a common FOF halo, as
867: discussed in Section~4. This degree of bridging is roughly consistent
868: with X-ray observations of clusters, where in approximately $10-20\%$
869: of all cases there is a significant second component roughly within
870: $R_{100}$, corresponding to the scale length of a $b=0.2$ FOF halo
871: (Vikhlinin~2007). We have found that the bridged halo fraction rises
872: as a function of mass, and when rescaled by the collapse mass scale
873: $M_*$, also appears to be universal. We also find that in the cluster
874: mass regime the fraction of halos with major satellites as function of
875: the satellite's mass fraction is cosmology dependent.
876:
877: The bridged FOF halo fraction complicates the procedure for
878: transforming the global mass function. Accurate mapping between the
879: global FOF and SO mass function must take into account SO
880: multiplicity within FOF halos due to the bridging (which should be
881: distinguished from the substructure mass function). Fortunately, if
882: the bridged halo fraction is universal, then this problem can be
883: (approximately) solved by one more iteration of the procedure
884: described here. A simple prescription for handling the bridging
885: problem, for example, may be the simultaneous use of two different
886: linking lengths as a way of identifying substructure in the FOF halo
887: identified with the longer ($b=0.2$) linking length. Then, with mock
888: halo mappings available for the shorter linking length, one would
889: construct a new mass function which should be almost free of bridging
890: artifacts to at least the $5\%$ level. This possibility is currently
891: under investigation.
892:
893: In this work, systematic and statistical uncertainties were held to
894: $\sim5\%$, which represents the current state of the art in
895: determining the halo mass function. The sensitivity of halo masses to
896: simulation parameters such as force and mass resolution has not yet
897: been satisfactorily controlled below this level. While further
898: improvement is not ruled out, the universality of the FOF mass
899: function is not known to be valid at or better than this level either.
900:
901: The finite bridged halo fraction points to the existence of some level
902: of bias when applying simple HOD schemes for the distribution of
903: galaxies in halos, due to the existence of (minor/major) halo
904: substructure. In standard HOD methods, halos are often selected, or
905: assumed to be selected, by the FOF algorithm. However, this standard
906: method then assumes a spherically-symmetric (usually NFW) distribution
907: of satellite galaxies within halos, which is possibly at odds with a
908: significant fraction of real halos (see, e.g., Berlind \& Weinberg
909: 2002; Tinker et al. 2005). The fraction of problematic, irregular
910: morphology FOF halos is mass-dependent, creating thereby a mass
911: dependent source of error. Furthermore, any concentration dependence
912: of the fraction of bridged FOF halos makes it difficult to
913: parameterize halo properties purely as a function of halo mass, which
914: is standard within HOD methods.
915:
916: Despite these difficulties, the availability of sufficiently high
917: resolution simulations should yield a completely satisfactory HOD more
918: or less independent of the particular halo definition used (FOF or
919: SO), provided that a realistic satellite distribution is implemented.
920: The point is that, even with such a simulation, a simplified
921: description of halos such as an NFW profile for populating halos with
922: galaxies, would certainly fail for a not insignificant fraction of
923: halos, and be a cause of systematic errors.
924:
925: As an alternative to mapping SO mass functions beginning with the
926: universal form of the FOF mass function, and utilizing the
927: cosmology-dependent concentration-mass relation and its scatter, one
928: could instead take the more computationally expensive approach of
929: computing SO mass functions from simulations that sample a range of
930: plausible cosmologies (e.g., Tinker et al.~2008). The additional
931: expense of such an approach can be drastically reduced by the use of
932: efficient statistical sampling and interpolation techniques that have
933: been successfully demonstrated for cosmic microwave background
934: temperature anisotropy and for the mass power spectrum (Heitmann et
935: al.~2006b, Habib et al.~2007). This work is currently in progress.
936:
937: We remain agnostic as to the value of particular choices of halo
938: definitions and masses in cosmological applications. For X-ray
939: observations of relaxed clusters, the SO approach appears to be more
940: natural since one fits directly to a spherically averaged profile as
941: is observational practice. High-resolution views of the gas
942: distribution in clusters (e.g., Jeltema et al.~2005) are hardly
943: consistent with spherical symmetry, however, and the physics of the
944: underlying robustness of the mass-observable relations remains to be
945: fully established. Turning to other applications such as optical group
946: and cluster and subcluster member identification, there may be no
947: option but the use of (modified) FOF techniques. Analagous to our
948: bridged FOF halos, Sunyaev-Zel'dovich observations are likely to
949: suffer from bridging of closely-neighboring clusters. Mock catalogs
950: for ongoing and future cluster observations carried out via the
951: Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect have been built using FOF definitions for
952: clusters (albeit with shorter linking lengths than $b=0.2$), as the
953: possible systematics from using spherical halo definitions are not
954: clear (Schulz \& White~2003).
955:
956: \acknowledgements
957:
958: We thank Daniel Eisenstein, Gus Evrard, Savvas Koushiappas, Beth Reid,
959: Paul Ricker, Alexey Vikhlinin, David Weinberg, Martin White, and Ann
960: Zabludoff for useful discussions. The authors acknowledge support from
961: IGPP, LANL, and from the DOE via the LDRD program at LANL. We are
962: particularly grateful for supercomputing support awarded to us under
963: the LANL Institutional Computing Initiative.
964:
965: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
966:
967: \bibitem[Allgood et al.~2006]{Allgood06}
968: Allgood,~B., Flores,~R.A., Primack,~J.R., Kravtsov,~A.V.,
969: Wechsler,~R.H., Faltenbacher,~A., \& Bullock,~J.S. 2006, MNRAS, 367,
970: 1781
971:
972: \bibitem[Bardeen et al.~1986]{BARD1986}
973: Bardeen, J.M., Bond, J.R., Kaiser, N., Szalay, A.S. 1986, ApJ, 305,
974: 15
975:
976: \bibitem[Berlind \& Weinberg 2002]{bw02}
977: Berlind, A.A. \& Weinberg D.H. 2002, 575, 587
978:
979: \bibitem[Bullock et al.~2001]{BULLOCK2001}
980: Bullock, J.S., Kolatt, T.S., Sigad, Y., Somerville, R.S., Kravtsov,
981: A.V., Klypin, A.A., Primack, J.R., Dekel, A. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 559
982:
983: \bibitem[Busha et al.~2005]{busha05}
984: Busha,~M.T., Evrard,~A.E., Adams,~F.C., \& Wechsler,~R.H. 2005,
985: MNRAS, 363, L11
986:
987: \bibitem[Cooray \& Sheth~2002]{cooray02}
988: Cooray,~A. \& Sheth,~R. 2002, Phys. Repts. 372, 1.
989:
990: \bibitem[Davis et al.~1985]{DAVIS1985}
991: Davis, M., Efstathiou, G., Frenk, C.S., White, S.D.M. 1985, ApJ,
992: 292, 371
993:
994: \bibitem[Einasto et al.~1984]{Einasto84}
995: Einasto,~J., Klypin,~A.A., Saar,~E., \& Shandarin,~S.F. 1984,
996: MNRAS, 206, 529
997:
998: \bibitem[Eke et al.~2001]{EKE2001}
999: Eke, V.R., Navarro, J.F., Steinmetz, M. 2001, ApJ, 554, 114
1000:
1001: \bibitem[Evrard et al.~2002]{Evrard2002}
1002: Evrard,~A.E, MacFarland,~T.J., Couchman,~H.M.P., Colberg,~J.M.,
1003: Yoshida,~N., White,~S.D.M., Jenkins,~A., Frenk,~C.S., Pearce,~F.R.,
1004: Peacock,~J.A., \& Thomas,~P.A. 2002, ApJ, 573, 7
1005:
1006: \bibitem[Evrard et al.~2008]{Evrard2008}
1007: Evrard,~A.E, Bialek,~J., Busha,~M., White,~M., Habib,~S.,
1008: Heitmann,~K., Warren,~M., Rasia,~E., Tormen,~G., Moscardini,~L.,
1009: Power,~C., Jenkins,~A.R., Gao,~L., Frenk,~C.S., Springel,~V.,
1010: White,~S.D.M., \& Diemand,~J. 2008, ApJ, 672, 122
1011:
1012: \bibitem[Frenk et al.~1988]{FRENK1988}
1013: Frenk, C. S., White, S.D.M., Davis, M., and Efstathiou, G. 1988,
1014: ApJ, 327, 507
1015:
1016: \bibitem[Ghigna et al. 2000]{Ghigna2000}
1017: Ghigna, S., Moore, B., Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T., \&
1018: Stadel, J. 2000, ApJ, 544, 616
1019:
1020: \bibitem[Gill, Knebe, \& Gibson 2005]{gkg05}
1021: Gill,~S.P.D., Knebe, A., \& Gibson B.K. \ 2005, MNRAS, 256, 1327
1022:
1023: \bibitem[Habib et al.~2007]{Habib07}
1024: Habib,~S., Heitmann,~K., Higdon,~D., Nakhleh,~C., \& Williams,~B. \
1025: 2007, Phys. Rev. D, 76, 083503
1026:
1027: \bibitem[Heitmann et al.~2006a]{Heitmann06}
1028: Heitmann,~K., Luki\'c, Z., Habib, S., \& Ricker,~P.M.\ 2006, ApJL,
1029: 642, 85
1030:
1031: \bibitem[Heitmann et al.~2006b]{Heitmann06b}
1032: Heitmann,~K., Higdon,~D., Nakhleh,~C., \& Habib,~S. \ 2006, ApJ,
1033: 646, L1
1034:
1035: \bibitem[Heitmann et al.\ (2007)]{Heitmann07} Heitmann,~K., Luki\'c,~Z.,
1036: Fasel,~P., Habib,~S., Warren,~M.S., White,~M., Ahrens,~J., Ankeny,~L.,
1037: Armstrong,~R., O'Shea,~B., Ricker,~P.M., Springel,~V., Stadel,~J., and
1038: Trac,~H., 2007, Comp. Sci. Discovery, preprint, arXiv:0706.1270
1039:
1040: \bibitem[Holder et al.~2001]{Holder01}
1041: Holder, G., Haiman, Z., \& Mohr, J. \ 2001, ApJ, 560, L111
1042:
1043: \bibitem[Jeltema et al.~2005]{jeltema05}
1044: Jeltema,~T.E., Canizares,~C.R., \& Bautz,~M.W. 2005, ApJ, 624, 606
1045:
1046: \bibitem[Jenkins et al.~2001]{Jenkins01}
1047: Jenkins,~A., Frenk,~C.S., White,~S.D.M., Colberg,~J.M., Cole,~S.,
1048: Evrard,~A.E., Couchman,~H.M.P., \& Yoshida,~N.\ 2001, MNRAS 321, 372
1049:
1050: \bibitem[Jing~2000]{Jing00}
1051: Jing,~Y.P. 2000, ApJ, 535, 30
1052:
1053: \bibitem[Jing~2000b]{Jing00b}
1054: Jing,~Y.P. \& Suto, Y. 2000, ApJ, 529, L69
1055:
1056: \bibitem[Jones \& Forman~1999]{jones99}
1057: Jones,~C. \& Forman,~W. 1999, ApJ, 511, 65
1058:
1059: \bibitem[Kasun \& Evrard~2005]{kasun05}
1060: Kasun,~S.F. \& Evrard,~A.E. 2005, ApJ, 629, 781
1061:
1062: \bibitem[Klypin~2001]{Klypin2001}
1063: Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A.V., Bullock, J.S., \& Primack, J.R. 2001,
1064: ApJ, 554, 903
1065:
1066: \bibitem[Kolokotronis et al.~2001]{kolokotronis01}
1067: Kolokotronis,~V., Basilakos,~S., Plionis,~M., \&
1068: Georgantopoulos,~I. 2001, MNRAS, 320, 49
1069:
1070: \bibitem[Ludlow et al.~2008]{ludlow08}
1071: Ludlow, A.D., Navarro, J.F., Springel, V., Jenkins, A., Frenk, C.S.,
1072: and Helmi, A.\ arXiv:0801.1127
1073:
1074: \bibitem[Luki\'c et al.~2007]{Lukic07}
1075: Luki\'c, Z., Heitmann,~K., Habib, S., Bashinsky,~S., \&
1076: Ricker,~P.M.\ 2007, ApJ, 671, 1160
1077:
1078: \bibitem[Macci{\`o} et al.~2007]{MACCIO2007}
1079: Macci{\`o}, A.V., Dutton, A.A., van den Bosch, F.C., Moore, B.,
1080: Potter, D., Stadel, J. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 55
1081:
1082: \bibitem[McMillan etal.~1989]{mcmillan89}
1083: McMillan,~S.W., Kowalski,~M.P., \& Ulmer,~M.P. 1989, ApJS, 70, 723
1084:
1085: \bibitem[Mohr et al.~1995]{mohr95} Mohr,~J.J., Evrard,~A.E.,
1086: Fabricant,~D.G., \& Geller,~M.J. 1995, ApJ, 447, 8
1087:
1088: \bibitem[NFW~1996]{NFW1996}
1089: Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S., White,~S.D.M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563
1090:
1091: \bibitem[Navarro et al.~1997]{NFW97}
1092: Navarro,~J.F., Frenk,~C.S., \& White,~S.D.M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493
1093:
1094: \bibitem[Navarro et al.~2004]{Navarro04} Navarro,~J.F., Hayashi,~E.,
1095: Power,~C., Jenkins,~A., Frenk,~C.S., White,~S.D.M., Springel,~V.,
1096: Stadel,~J., \& Quinn,~T.R. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 1039
1097:
1098: \bibitem[Neto et al.~2007]{NETO2007}
1099: Neto, A.F., Gao, L., Bett, P., Cole, S., Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S.,
1100: White, S.D.M., Springel, V., \& Jenkins, A. 2007, arXiv:0706.2919
1101:
1102: \bibitem[Ramella et al.~2007]{Ramella07}
1103: Ramella,~M., Biviano,~A., Pisani,~A., Varela,~J., Bettoni,~D.,
1104: Couch,~W.J., D'Onofrio,~M., Dressler,~A., Fasano,~G., Kjaegaard,~P.,
1105: Moles,~M., Pignatelli,~E., \& Poggianti,~B.M. 2007, A\&A 470, 39
1106:
1107: \bibitem[Reed et al.~2005]{reedprofile}
1108: Reed, D.S., Governato, F., Verde, L., Gardner, J., Quinn, T.,
1109: Merritt, D., Stadel, J., \& Lake, G. 2005, MNRAS, 357, 82
1110:
1111: \bibitem[Reed et al.~2007]{Reed07}
1112: Reed,~D., Bower, R., Frenk, C., Jenkins, A., \& Theuns, T. \ 2007,
1113: MNRAS, 374, 2
1114:
1115: \bibitem[Schulz \& White~2003]{Schulz03}
1116: Schulz,~A.E. \& White,~M. \ 2003,
1117: ApJ, 586, 723
1118:
1119: \bibitem[Seljak \& Zaldarriaga 1996]{Seljak96}
1120: Seljak, U. \& Zaldarriaga, M. 1996, ApJ, 469, 437
1121:
1122: \bibitem[Spergel et al.~2007]{wmap3}
1123: Spergel, D., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 377
1124:
1125: \bibitem[Springel~2005]{gadget2}
1126: Springel, V. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105
1127:
1128: \bibitem[Tinker et al. 2005]{tinker05}
1129: Tinker, J.L., Weinberg, D.H., Zheng, Z., \& Zehavi, I. 2005, ApJ,
1130: 631, 41
1131:
1132: \bibitem[Tinker et al.~2008]{tinker08}
1133: Tinker,~J., Kravtsov,~A.V, Klypin,~A., Abazajian,~K., Warren,~M.,
1134: Yepes,~G., Gottl\"ober,~S., \& Holz,~D.E. arXiv:0803.2706v1
1135:
1136: \bibitem[Vikhlinin~2007]{Vikhlinin07}
1137: Vikhlinin,~A. (private communication)
1138:
1139: \bibitem[Voit~2005]{Voit05}
1140: Voit,~G.M. \ 2005, Rev. Mod. Phys., 77, 207
1141:
1142: \bibitem[Wadsley et al.~2004]{pkdgrav}
1143: Wadsley, J., Stadel, J., \& Quinn, T. 2004, NewA, 9, 137
1144:
1145: \bibitem[Warren et al.~2006]{WARREN2006}
1146: Warren, M.S., Abazajian, K., Holz, D.E., \& Teodoro, L. 2006, ApJ,
1147: 646, 881
1148:
1149: \bibitem[White~2001]{WHITE2001}
1150: White, M. 2001, A\&A, 367, 27
1151:
1152: \bibitem[White~2002]{WHITE2002}
1153: White, M. 2002, ApJS, 143, 241
1154:
1155: \bibitem[Zabludoff \& Zaritsky~1995]{zabludoff95}
1156: Zabludoff,~A.I. \& Zaritsky,~D. 1995, ApJ, 447, L1
1157:
1158:
1159: \end{thebibliography}
1160:
1161: \end{document}
1162: