CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 107Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesStellar, planetary, and galactic studies

The Copernicus Complexio: a high-resolution view of the small-scale Universe

Open access
Hellwing, Wojciech A., Frenk, Carlos S., Cautun, Marius, Bose, Sownak, Helly, John, Jenkins, Adrian, Sawala, Till, Cytowski, Maciej·2016·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
DOI 10.1093/mnras/stw214
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We introduce Copernicus Complexio (coco), a high-resolution cosmological N-body simulation of structure formation in the ΛCDM model. coco follows an approximately spherical region of radius ∼17.4 h−1 Mpc embedded in a much larger periodic cube that is followed at lower resolution. The high-resolution volume has a particle mass of 1.135 × 105 h−1 M⊙ (60 times higher than the Millennium-II simulation). coco gives the dark matter halo mass function over eight orders of magnitude in halo mass; it forms ∼60 haloes of galactic size, each resolved with about 10 million particles. We confirm the power-law character of the subhalo mass function, |$\overline{N}(>\mu )\propto \mu ^{-s}$|⁠, down to a reduced subhalo mass Msub/M200 ≡ μ = 10−6, with a best-fitting power-law index, s = 0.94, for hosts of mass 〈M200〉 = 1012 h−1 M⊙. The concentration–mass relation of coco haloes deviates from a single power law for masses M200 < afew × 108 h−1 M⊙, where it flattens, in agreement with results by Sanchez-Conde et al. The host mass invariance of the reduced maximum circular velocity function of subhaloes, ν ≡ Vmax/V200, hinted at in previous simulations, is clearly demonstrated over five orders of magnitude in host mass. Similarly, we find that the average, normalized radial distribution of subhaloes is approximately universal (i.e. independent of subhalo mass), as previously suggested by the Aquarius simulations of individual haloes. Finally, we find that at fixed physical subhalo size, subhaloes in lower mass hosts typically have lower central densities than those in higher mass hosts.

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 · 10.1093/mnras/stw214

Cites

180 of 180 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The high concentration inferred by such studies is in tension with theoretical expectations from cosmological simulations, which predict a mean concentration of ∼9 and a 68 percentile range of ∼[7,12].

    “that is in tension with theoretical expectations based on cosmological simulations, which predict a mean concentration of ∼ 9 and a 68 percentile range of ∼ [7 , 12]”

    From The milky way total mass profile as inferred from Gaia DR2 (2020) · cites this paper as Hellwing et al. 2016

    Section 3.2 reports median halo concentrations from the COCO and COLOR cosmological simulations, and the Figure 5 caption describes their 16th–84th percentile scatter. The passages do not give a mean concentration of ∼9 or a range of ∼[7,12], nor do they establish tension with the high concentration inferred by the citing studies. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The ML concentration is equal to the median concentration of ∼1×10^12 M⊙ haloes.

    “The ML value for the concentration is, in fact, equal to the median concentration of ∼ 1 × 10 12 M ⊙ haloes (e.g. Neto et al. 2007; Hellwing et al. 2016)”

    From The milky way total mass profile as inferred from Gaia DR2 (2020) · cites this paper as Hellwing et al. 2016

    Section 3.2 reports median halo concentration as a function of mass, including around 10^12 h^-1 M⊙. It does not identify a maximum-likelihood (ML) concentration or establish that an ML value equals that median; the paper also expresses the mass in h^-1 M⊙ rather than M⊙. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 181 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Gottloeber S., Yepes G., Wagner C., Sevilla R., 2006, preprint (arXiv:e-prints)
  2. Gottloeber S., Hoffman Y., Yepes G., 2010, preprint (arXiv:e-prints)
  3. Planck Collaboration 2015, preprint (arXiv:e-prints)
  4. Prada F., Klypin A. A., Cuesta A. J., Betancort-Rijo J. E., Primack J., 2012, MNRAS, 423, 3018 Press
  5. Sawala T. et al., 2014, preprint (arXiv:e-prints)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hellwing, W. A., Frenk, C. S., Cautun, M., Bose, S., Helly, J., Jenkins, A., Sawala, T., & Cytowski, M.
Affiliations
  • Durham University (GB)
  • Interdisciplinary Centre for Mathematical and Computational Modelling, University of Warsaw (PL)
ORCID
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2016-02-08
Volume
457
Issue
4
Pages
3492-3509
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
DOI
10.1093/mnras/stw214
OpenAlex
W1780978098
Cited by
107
References
181
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 3
FWCI
8.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Durham University (ST/K00042X/1, ST/K003267/1, ST/H008519/1)
  • Uniwersytet Warszawski
  • Science and Technology Facilities Council (ST/I00162X/1, ST/H008519, ST/K00042X/1, ST/L00075X/1, ST/M007006/1, ST/I001573/1, ST/F001166/1, ST/H008519/1, ST/K003267/1, UMO-2012/07/D/ST9/02785)
  • European Regional Development Fund
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Keywords
dark matter halos, subhalo mass function, halo concentration-mass relation, small-scale structure formation

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