Streams Going Notts: The tidal debris finder comparison project

TL;DR

This study compares different algorithms for identifying tidal debris in cosmological simulations, revealing that unbound structures constitute a significant portion of halo mass and are crucial for understanding halo assembly.

Contribution

First comprehensive comparison of tidal debris finders in fully cosmological simulations, highlighting their agreement and differences in identifying unbound structures.

Findings

Unbound tidal features agree well across different codes.

Unbound substructures make up about 18% of the host halo mass.

Non-tracking codes identify complex tidal debris with ~40% purity.

Abstract

While various codes exist to systematically and robustly find haloes and subhaloes in cosmological simulations (Knebe et al., 2011, Onions et al., 2012), this is the first work to introduce and rigorously test codes that find tidal debris (streams and other unbound substructure) in fully cosmological simulations of structure formation. We use one tracking and three non-tracking codes to identify substructure (bound and unbound) in a Milky Way type simulation from the Aquarius suite (Springel et al., 2008) and post-process their output with a common pipeline to determine the properties of these substructures in a uniform way. By using output from a fully cosmological simulation, we also take a step beyond previous studies of tidal debris that have used simple toy models. We find that both tracking and non-tracking codes agree well on the identification of subhaloes and more importantly, the {\em unbound tidal features} associated with them. The distributions of basic properties of the total substructure distribution (mass, velocity dispersion, position) are recovered with a scatter of $\sim20%$. Using the tracking code as our reference, we show that the non-tracking codes identify complex tidal debris with purities of $\sim40%$. Analysing the results of the substructure finders, we find that the general distribution of {\em substructures} differ significantly from the distribution of bound {\em subhaloes}. Most importantly, both bound and unbound {\em substructures} together constitute $\sim18%$ of the host halo mass, which is a factor of $\sim2$ higher than the fraction in self-bound {\em subhaloes}. However, this result is restricted by the remaining challenge to cleanly define when an unbound structure has become part of the host halo. Nevertheless, the more general substructure distribution provides a more complete picture of a halo's accretion history.