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 in the presence and location of substructure and even for properties relating to the inner 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 the basic properties (mass and 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.

The ever increasing size and complexity of data coming from simulations of cosmic structure formation demands equally sophisticated tools for their analysis. During the past decade, the art of object finding in these simulations has hence developed into an important discipline itself. A multitude of codes based upon a huge variety of methods and techniques have been spawned yet the question remained as to whether or not they will provide the same (physical) information about the structures of interest. Here we summarize and extent previous work of the "halo finder comparison project": we investigate in detail the (possible) origin of any deviations across finders. To this extent we decipher and discuss differences in halo finding methods, clearly separating them from the disparity in definitions of halo properties. We observe that different codes not only find different numbers of objects leading to a scatter of up to 20 per cent in the halo mass and V max function, but also that the particulars of those objects that are identified by all finders differ. The strength of the variation, however, depends on the property studied, e.g. the scatter in position, bulk velocity, mass, and the peak value of the rotation curve is practically below a few per cent, whereas derived quantities such as spin and shape show larger deviations. Our study indicates that the prime contribution to differences in halo properties across codes stems from the distinct particle collection methods and -to a minor extent -the particular aspects of how the procedure for removing unbound particles is implemented. We close with a discussion of the relevance and implications of the scatter across different codes for other fields such as semi-analytical galaxy formation models, gravitational lensing, and observables in general.

In this paper we analyse the alignment of galaxy groups with the surrounding large scale structure traced by spectroscopic galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7. We characterize these alignments by means of an extension of the classical two‐point cross‐correlation function, developed by Paz et al. We find a strong alignment signal between the projected major axis of group shapes and the surrounding galaxy distribution up to scales of 30 Mpc h−1. This observed anisotropy signal becomes larger as the galaxy group mass increases, in excellent agreement with the corresponding predicted alignment obtained from mock catalogues and ΛCDM cosmological simulations. These measurements provide new direct evidence of the adequacy of the gravitational instability picture to describe the large‐scale structure formation of our Universe.