2021
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stab696
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The tidal evolution of dark matter substructure – II. The impact of artificial disruption on subhalo mass functions and radial profiles

Abstract: Several recent studies have indicated that artificial subhalo disruption (the spontaneous, non-physical disintegration of a subhalo) remains prevalent in state-of-the-art dark matter-only cosmological simulations. In order to quantify the impact of disruption on the inferred subhalo demographics, we augment the semi-analytical SatGen dynamical subhalo evolution model with an improved treatment of tidal stripping that is calibrated using the DASH database of idealized high-resolution simulations of subhalo evol… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
72
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 58 publications
(76 citation statements)
references
References 124 publications
4
72
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Budzynski et al (2012) also showed that models based on cosmological N-body simulations that included modelling of 'orphan' galaxies to account for the loss of subhaloes in simulated catalogues due to resolution, also generally produced galaxy number density profiles close to those of matter or even steeper. Recently, Green, van den Bosch & Jiang (2021) presented a systematic study and calibration of the resolution and 'artificial disruption' effects on the number density profile of subhaloes in cosmological simulations. They showed that if resolution effects are corrected for, the subhalo number density profile is close to that of the matter distribution, while if a modest contribution of artificial disruption is additionally accounted for, the predicted number density profile is even mildly steeper than the matter density profile (see e.g.…”
Section: Comparison With N-body and Hydrodynamical Simulationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Budzynski et al (2012) also showed that models based on cosmological N-body simulations that included modelling of 'orphan' galaxies to account for the loss of subhaloes in simulated catalogues due to resolution, also generally produced galaxy number density profiles close to those of matter or even steeper. Recently, Green, van den Bosch & Jiang (2021) presented a systematic study and calibration of the resolution and 'artificial disruption' effects on the number density profile of subhaloes in cosmological simulations. They showed that if resolution effects are corrected for, the subhalo number density profile is close to that of the matter distribution, while if a modest contribution of artificial disruption is additionally accounted for, the predicted number density profile is even mildly steeper than the matter density profile (see e.g.…”
Section: Comparison With N-body and Hydrodynamical Simulationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recent studies have questioned the effectiveness of tidal disruption, with some arguing that it is not needed to solve the 'missing satellites' problem (Kim, Peter & Hargis 2018;Fielder et al 2019) and that too effective tidal disruption may in fact invert the problem (Kelley et al 2019). Other, idealized dark matter-only N-body simulations claim that satellites orbiting in close proximity to the central galaxy experience some degree of 'artificial tidal disruption' (van den Bosch & Ogiya 2018; Errani & Peñarrubia 2020;Errani & Navarro 2021;Green, van den Bosch & Jiang 2021), with effects worsening for faint galaxies typically represented by a fewer number of particles relative to bright galaxies.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The expected subhalo mass function is largely uncertain, due to tidal effects, baryonic feedback, and DM physics. In addition, the radial dependence and expected profiles of the subhalos can also heavily depend on these factors and vary from the assumptions made in this paper (see, e.g., [43][44][45]). Future work could look into the constraints on the mass function, as well as consider other radial dependencies and mass profiles.…”
Section: B Discussion and Future Workmentioning
confidence: 95%