Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 567

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 101 of the 101 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Dependence of Halo Clustering on Halo Formation History, Concentration, and Occupation

Open access
Wechsler, Risa H., Zentner, Andrew R., Bullock, James S., Kravtsov, Andrey V., Allgood, Brandon·2006·The Astrophysical Journal
DOI 10.1086/507120
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We investigate the dependence of dark matter halo clustering on halo formation time, density profile concentration, and subhalo occupation number, using high-resolution numerical simulations of a ΛCDM cosmology. We confirm results that halo clustering is a function of halo formation time at fixed mass and that this trend depends on halo mass. For the first time, we show unequivocally that halo clustering is a function of halo concentration and show that the dependence of halo bias on concentration, mass, and redshift can be accurately parameterized in a simple way: b ( M , c | z ) = b ( M | z ) b ( c | M / M ⋆ ). Interestingly, the scaling between bias and concentration changes sign with the value of M / M ⋆ : high-concentration (early forming) objects cluster more strongly for M ≲ M ⋆ , while low-concentration (late forming) objects cluster more strongly for rare high-mass halos, M ≳ M ⋆ . We show the first explicit demonstration that host dark halo clustering depends on the halo occupation number (of dark matter subhalos) at fixed mass and discuss implications for halo model calculations of dark matter power spectra and galaxy clustering statistics. The effect of these halo properties on clustering is strongest for early-forming dwarf-mass halos, which are significantly more clustered than typical halos of their mass. Our results suggest that isolated low-mass galaxies (e.g., low surface brightness dwarfs) should have more slowly rising rotation curves than their more clustered counterparts and may have consequences for the dearth of dwarf galaxies in voids. They also imply that self-calibrating richness-selected cluster samples with their clustering properties might overestimate cluster masses and bias cosmological parameter estimation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/507120

Cites

101 of 101 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 567

Metadata

Authors
Wechsler, R. H., Zentner, A. R., Bullock, J. S., Kravtsov, A. V., & Allgood, B.
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal
Publisher
American Astronomical Society
Published
2006-11-20
Volume
652
Issue
1
Pages
71-84
ISSN
  • 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4357
DOI
10.1086/507120
OpenAlex
W2023351067
Cited by
567
References
101
FWCI
22.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.