SubHaloes going Notts: The SubHalo-Finder Comparison Project

TL;DR

This study compares various subhalo finders in cosmological simulations, showing they agree well on substructure detection and properties, with reliable measurements for subhaloes containing over 100 particles, and consistent subhalo count slopes.

Contribution

It provides a comprehensive comparison of different subhalo finders, highlighting their agreement and limitations in identifying and characterizing substructures in dark matter haloes.

Findings

Finders agree well on substructure location and core properties.

Reliable subhalo property recovery for >100 particles.

Consistent subhalo count slope <1 across finders.

Abstract

We present a detailed comparison of the substructure properties of a single Milky Way sized dark matter halo from the Aquarius suite at five different resolutions, as identified by a variety of different (sub-)halo finders for simulations of cosmic structure formation. These finders span a wide range of techniques and methodologies to extract and quantify substructures within a larger non-homogeneous background density (e.g. a host halo). This includes real-space, phase-space, velocity-space and time- space based finders, as well as finders employing a Voronoi tessellation, friends-of-friends techniques, or refined meshes as the starting point for locating substructure.A common post-processing pipeline was used to uniformly analyse the particle lists provided by each finder. We extract quantitative and comparable measures for the subhaloes, primarily focusing on mass and the peak of the rotation curve for this particular study. We find that all of the finders agree extremely well on the presence and location of substructure and even for properties relating to the inner part part of the subhalo (e.g. the maximum value of the rotation curve). For properties that rely on particles near the outer edge of the subhalo the agreement is at around the 20 per cent level. We find that basic properties (mass, maximum circular velocity) of a subhalo can be reliably recovered if the subhalo contains more than 100 particles although its presence can be reliably inferred for a lower particle number limit of 20. We finally note that the logarithmic slope of the subhalo cumulative number count is remarkably consistent and <1 for all the finders that reached high resolution. If correct, this would indicate that the larger and more massive, respectively, substructures are the most dynamically interesting and that higher levels of the (sub-)subhalo hierarchy become progressively less important.