Aubert, D., Deparis, N., Ocvirk, P., Shapiro, P. R., Iliev, I. T., Yepes, G., Gottlöber, S., Hoffman, Y., Teyssier, R., 2018, The Astrophysical Journal
, 856, 2 , L22
Published: April 2018
Abstract:
Today’s galaxies experienced cosmic reionization at different times in different locations. For the first time, reionization (50% ionized) redshifts, z R , at the location of their progenitors are derived from new, fully coupled radiation-hydrodynamics simulation of galaxy formation and reionization at z > 6, matched to N-body simulation to z = 0. Constrained initial conditions were chosen to form the well-known structures of the local universe, including the Local Group and Virgo, in a (91 Mpc)3 volume large enough to model both global and local reionization. Reionization simulation CoDa I-AMR, by CPU-GPU code EMMA, used (2048)3 particles and (2048)3 initial cells, adaptively refined, while N-body simulation CoDa I-DM2048, by Gadget2, used (2048)3 particles, to find reionization times for all galaxies at z = 0 with masses M(z = 0) ≥ 108 M ⊙. Galaxies with M(z=0)≳ {10}11 {M}⊙ reionized earlier than the universe as a whole, by up to ∼500 Myr, with significant scatter. For Milky Way-like galaxies, z R ranged from 8 to 15. Galaxies with M(z=0)≲ {10}11 {M}⊙ typically reionized as late or later than globally averaged 50% reionization at < {z}R> =7.8, in neighborhoods where reionization was completed by external radiation. The spread of reionization times within galaxies was sometimes as large as the galaxy-to-galaxy scatter. The Milky Way and M31 reionized earlier than global reionization but later than typical for their mass, neither dominated by external radiation. Their most-massive progenitors at z > 6 had z R =9.8 (MW) and 11 (M31), while their total masses had z R = 8.2 (both).
See more at
NASA ADS
Libeskind, N. I., van de Weygaert, R., Cautun, M., Falck, B., Tempel, E., Abel, T., Alpaslan, M., Aragón-Calvo, M. A., Forero-Romero, J. E., Gonzalez, R., Gottlöber, S., Hahn, O., Hellwing, W. A., Hoffman, Y., Jones, B. J. T., Kitaura, F., Knebe, A., Manti, S., Neyrinck, M., Nuza, S. E., Padilla, N., Platen, E., Ramachandra, N., Robotham, A., Saar, E., Shandarin, S., Steinmetz, M., Stoica, R. S., Sousbie, T., Yepes, G., 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
, 473, 1 , 1195
Published: January 2018
doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1976
Abstract:
The cosmic web is one of the most striking features of the distribution of galaxies and dark matter on the largest scales in the Universe. It is composed of dense regions packed full of galaxies, long filamentary bridges, flattened sheets and vast low-density voids. The study of the cosmic web has focused primarily on the identification of such features, and on understanding the environmental effects on galaxy formation and halo assembly. As such, a variety of different methods have been devised to classify the cosmic web - depending on the data at hand, be it numerical simulations, large sky surveys or other. In this paper, we bring 12 of these methods together and apply them to the same data set in order to understand how they compare. In general, these cosmic-web classifiers have been designed with different cosmological goals in mind, and to study different questions. Therefore, one would not a priori expect agreement between different techniques; however, many of these methods do converge on the identification of specific features. In this paper, we study the agreements and disparities of the different methods. For example, each method finds that knots inhabit higher density regions than filaments, etc. and that voids have the lowest densities. For a given web environment, we find a substantial overlap in the density range assigned by each web classification scheme. We also compare classifications on a halo-by-halo basis; for example, we find that 9 of 12 methods classify around a third of group-mass haloes (i.e. Mhalo ∼ 1013.5 h-1 M⊙) as being in filaments. Lastly, so that any future cosmic-web classification scheme can be compared to the 12 methods used here, we have made all the data used in this paper public.
See more at
NASA ADS