2000/11/27 by M. White, Martin White · 6 citations
Physics and Astronomy · #Astronomy and Astrophysical Research #Cosmology and Gravitation Theories #Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena #astro-ph
paper · pdf · doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20000357
published as Astron.Astrophys.367:27,2001 · 6 pages,to appear in A&A
arxiv created 2000/11/27 · openalex publication_date 2001/02/01 · arxiv updated 2009/12/01 · openalex created_date 2016/06/24 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/01
We discuss the different definitions of the mass of a halo in common use and how one may convert between them. Using N-body simulations we show that mass estimates based on spherical averages are much more tightly correlated with each other than with masses based on the number of particles in a halo. The mass functions pertaining to some different mass definitions are estimated and compared to the "universal form"of Jenkins et al. ([CITE]). Using a different simulation pipeline and a different cosmological model we show that the mass function is well fit by the Jenkins et al. ([CITE]) fitting function, strengthening the claim to universality made by those authors. We show that care must be taken to match the definitions of mass when using large N-body simulations to bootstrap scaling relations from smaller hydrodynamical runs to avoid observationally significant bias in the predictions for abundances of objects.