1995
DOI: 10.1086/176364
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Confluent System Formalism. I. The Mass Function of Objects in the Peak Model

Abstract: This is the rst paper of a series of two devoted to develop a practical method to describe the growth history of bound virialized objects in the gravitational instability scenario without resorting to N-body simulations. Here we present the basic tool of this method, \the con uent system formalism", which allows us to follow the ltering evolution of peaks in a random Gaussian eld of density uctuations. This is applied to derive the theoretical mass function of objects within the peak model framework. Along the… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
49
0

Year Published

1997
1997
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(49 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
49
0
Order By: Relevance
“…So, such analytical extensions of pinocchio would not be as powerful as the full analysis. Besides, analytical formalisms based on peaks (Manrique & Salvador Solé 1995; Hanami 1999) are manageable only when linear theory is used. We therefore regard methods like pinocchio , which are based on an actual realization of the linear density field, as a good compromise between performing a simulation and getting only statistical information from a PS‐like approximation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…So, such analytical extensions of pinocchio would not be as powerful as the full analysis. Besides, analytical formalisms based on peaks (Manrique & Salvador Solé 1995; Hanami 1999) are manageable only when linear theory is used. We therefore regard methods like pinocchio , which are based on an actual realization of the linear density field, as a good compromise between performing a simulation and getting only statistical information from a PS‐like approximation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Extensions of the PS approach to the non‐linear regime were attempted by many authors (Cavaliere, Colafrancesco & Menci 1992; Monaco 1995, 1997a,b; Cavaliere, Menci & Tozzi 1996; Audit, Teyssier & Alimi 1997; Lee & Shandarin 1998; Sheth & Tormen 1999, 2002; Sheth, Mo & Tormen 2001). Alternative approaches assumed objects to form at the peaks of the linear density field (Peacock & Heavens 1985; Bardeen et al 1986; Manrique & Salvador‐Solé 1995; Bond & Myers 1996a,b; Hanami 2001), or applied the Zel'dovich approximation to smoothed initial conditions (truncated Zel'dovich approximation –Coles, Melott & Shandarin 1993; Borgani, Coles & Moscardini 1994), or used the second‐order LPT solution for the density field (Scoccimarro & Sheth 2002), or joined linear theory predictions with Monte Carlo methods such as the block model (Cole & Kaiser 1988) and merging cell model (Rodrigues & Thomas 1996; Nagashima & Gouda 1998; Lanzoni, Mamon & Guiderdoni 2000).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To further improve the agreement with the simulated mass function, one shall ensure that a peak of height sc on a smoothing scale R S is not embedded in a region of height sc on any larger smoothing scale. Carefully accounting for clouds in clouds in the peak formalism is a nontrivial problem even though, in a first approximation, we may simply enforce that the height of the peak be less than sc on scale R S þ dR S [132,133]. Figure 1 of [80] demonstrates that this substantially improves the agreement with the measured halo abundances at * 3 but underestimates the counts at & 2.…”
Section: E Scale Dependence Across the Acoustic Peakmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the complicated non-Gaussian character of the F process can considerably complicate the calculations with respect to the linear theory case. In particular, an analytical approach based on the peaks of the F process (such as the confluent formalism of Manrique & Salvador-Solé (1995)) is essentially hopeless: an analytical description of the peaks of a random field can be obtained only for Gaussian or closely related fields (see Adler 1981), or for asymptotically high peaks (Catelan, Lucchin & Matarrese 1988). On the other hand, the simpler excursion set approach requires knowledge of only the 1-point PDF of the F process, which has been obtained above.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Then, since the normalization of the MF is fixed by the excursion sets approach, a procedure like that proposed by Appel & Jones (1990) and by Manrique & Salvador-Solé (1995; could be used to fragment the collapsed medium. This would be an interesting fusion of the excursion set and peak approaches, but, given the complexity of the F process, it would be best addressed though the Monte Carlo simulations of the kind presented in §3.3.2.…”
Section: From Resolution To Massmentioning
confidence: 99%