The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Galaxy assembly bias: a significant source of systematic error in the galaxy–halo relationship
Open accessAbstract
Methods that exploit galaxy clustering to constrain the galaxy–halo relationship, such as the halo occupation distribution (HOD) and conditional luminosity function (CLF), assume halo mass alone suffices to determine a halo's galaxy content. Yet, halo clustering strength depends upon properties other than mass, such as formation time, an effect known as assembly bias. If galaxy characteristics are correlated with these auxiliary halo properties, the basic assumption of standard HOD/CLF methods is violated. We estimate the potential for assembly bias to induce systematic errors in inferred halo occupation statistics. We construct realistic mock galaxy catalogues that exhibit assembly bias as well as companion mock catalogues with identical HODs, but with assembly bias removed. We fit HODs to the galaxy clustering in each catalogue. In the absence of assembly bias, the inferred HODs describe the true HODs well, validating the methodology. However, in all cases with assembly bias, the inferred HODs exhibit significant systematic errors. We conclude that the galaxy–halo relationship inferred from galaxy clustering is subject to significant systematic errors induced by assembly bias. Efforts to model and/or constrain assembly bias should be priorities as assembly bias is a threatening source of systematic error in galaxy evolution and precision cosmology studies.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A Universal Density Profile from Hierarchical Clustering
Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. (1997) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/304888 · Cited by 9,917
Core condensation in heavy halos: a two-stage theory for galaxy formation and clustering
White, S. D. M., & Rees, M. J. (1978) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/183.3.341 · Cited by 3,919
Cited by
Desjacques, V., Jeong, D., & Schmidt, F. (2018) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.12.002 · Cited by 817
Metadata
- Authors
- Zentner, A. R., Hearin, A. P., & van den Bosch, F. C.
- Venue
- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2014-08-06
- Volume
- 443
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 3044-3067
- ISSN
- 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2966
- OpenAlex
- W2089729354
- Cited by
- 204
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 11.09
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Galaxy assembly bias: a significant source of systematic error in the galaxy–halo relationship. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/mnras/stu1383
- The paper
- Zentner, A. R., Hearin, A. P., & van den Bosch, F. C. (2014). Galaxy assembly bias: a significant source of systematic error in the galaxy–halo relationship. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu1383
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.