TY - JOUR
T1 - Sussing merger trees
T2 - The merger trees comparison project
AU - Srisawat, Chaichalit
AU - Knebe, Alexander
AU - Pearce, Frazer R.
AU - Schneider, Aurel
AU - Thomas, Peter A.
AU - Behroozi, Peter
AU - Dolag, Klaus
AU - Elahi, Pascal J.
AU - Han, Jiaxin
AU - Helly, John
AU - Jing, Yipeng
AU - Jung, Intae
AU - Lee, Jaehyun
AU - Mao, Yao Yuan
AU - Onions, Julian
AU - Rodriguez-Gomez, Vicente
AU - Tweed, Dylan
AU - Yi, Sukyoung K.
PY - 2013/11
Y1 - 2013/11
N2 - Merger trees follow the growth and merger of dark-matter haloes over cosmic history. As well as giving important insights into the growth of cosmic structure in their own right, they provide an essential backbone to semi-analytic models of galaxy formation. This paper is the first in a series to arise from the Sussing Merger Trees Workshop in which 10 different tree-building algorithms were applied to the same set of halo catalogues and their results compared. Although many of these codes were similar in nature, all algorithms produced distinct results. Our main conclusions are that a useful merger-tree code should possess the following features: (i) the use of particle IDs to match haloes between snapshots; (ii) the ability to skip at least one, and preferably more, snapshots in order to recover subhaloes that are temporarily lost during merging; (iii) the ability to cope with (and ideally smooth out) large, temporary fluctuations in halo mass. Finally, to enable different groups to communicate effectively, we defined a common terminology that we used when discussing merger trees and we encourage others to adopt the same language. We also specified a minimal output format to record the results.
AB - Merger trees follow the growth and merger of dark-matter haloes over cosmic history. As well as giving important insights into the growth of cosmic structure in their own right, they provide an essential backbone to semi-analytic models of galaxy formation. This paper is the first in a series to arise from the Sussing Merger Trees Workshop in which 10 different tree-building algorithms were applied to the same set of halo catalogues and their results compared. Although many of these codes were similar in nature, all algorithms produced distinct results. Our main conclusions are that a useful merger-tree code should possess the following features: (i) the use of particle IDs to match haloes between snapshots; (ii) the ability to skip at least one, and preferably more, snapshots in order to recover subhaloes that are temporarily lost during merging; (iii) the ability to cope with (and ideally smooth out) large, temporary fluctuations in halo mass. Finally, to enable different groups to communicate effectively, we defined a common terminology that we used when discussing merger trees and we encourage others to adopt the same language. We also specified a minimal output format to record the results.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84887040203&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84887040203&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/mnras/stt1545
DO - 10.1093/mnras/stt1545
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84887040203
SN - 0035-8711
VL - 436
SP - 150
EP - 162
JO - Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
JF - Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
IS - 1
ER -