AI summary · arXiv: 2202.05277v2 · astro-ph.GA

The impact of galaxy selection on the splashback boundaries of galaxy clusters

Stephanie O'Neil (MIT), Josh Borrow (MIT), Mark Vogelsberger (MIT), Benedikt Diemer (UMD)

Original paper · DOI Submitted to arXiv on 10 Feb. 2022 18 pages, 18 figures, submitted to MNRAS License: NONEXCLUSIVE-DISTRIB 1.0

The essentials

  • O'Neil et al. investigate the impact of galaxy selection on splashback boundaries of galaxy clusters using the IllustrisTNG simulation.
  • Splashback radius ($R_{\rm sp}$) is measured by analyzing subhalo population density in stacked clusters within specific mass ranges.
  • Various selection criteria are applied, including cuts in subhalo mass, galaxy stellar mass, absolute magnitude, and specific star formation rate.
  • Galaxies with higher masses and luminosities tend to trace smaller splashback radii compared to dark matter radius.
  • Quenched galaxies can be used to reliably reconstruct the dark matter splashback radius.
  • Discrepancies between observational predictions of $R_{\rm sp}$ are attributed to variations in selection functions employed by different studies.
  • Changes in $R_{\rm sp}$ measured through number counts cannot solely be attributed to a change in galaxy abundance inside and outside of the cluster.
  • The study emphasizes the complex nature of splashback boundaries and highlights the importance of considering multiple factors when studying them.

Key points written by AI: they may contain errors, check them against the paper.

AI-generated keywords: Splashback boundaries

Read further

  • Comprehensive Summary
  • Layman's Summary
  • Blog article
  • Original abstract
In their study, O'Neil et al. investigate the impact of galaxy selection on the splashback boundaries of galaxy clusters using the IllustrisTNG cosmological galaxy formation simulation. The splashback radius ($R_{\rm sp}$) is measured by analyzing the number density of the subhalo population in stacked clusters within specific mass ranges. The authors focus on clusters with halo masses ranging from $10^{13} \leq M_{\rm 200, mean} / {\rm M}_\odot \leq 10^{15}$ and apply various selection criteria including cuts in subhalo mass, galaxy stellar mass, $i$-band absolute magnitude, and specific star formation rate. By examining these different criteria, they aim to understand how the measured splashback radius changes relative to the intrinsic dark matter radius. The results show that galaxies with higher masses and luminosities tend to trace smaller splashback radii compared to the dark matter radius. This suggests that changes in the galaxy population play a role in determining the observed trends. Interestingly, the study also reveals that quenched galaxies can be used to reliably reconstruct the dark matter splashback radius. Furthermore, O'Neil et al. address discrepancies between observational predictions of $R_{\rm sp}$ based on galaxy number counts and dark matter measurements. They attribute these differences to variations in selection functions employed by different studies, such as those using optically- or SZ-selected clusters. By considering these selection effects, they are able to reconcile conflicting predictions. The authors demonstrate that changes in $R_{\rm sp}$ measured through number counts cannot be solely attributed to a simple change in galaxy abundance inside and outside of the cluster. This finding highlights the complex nature of splashback boundaries and emphasizes the importance of considering multiple factors when studying them. Overall, this study provides valuable insights into how galaxy selection affects our understanding of splashback boundaries in galaxy clusters. The findings contribute to ongoing efforts to improve our knowledge of the relationship between galaxies and dark matter structures in the universe.

Was this synthesis useful?

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

Figures and plots

Ask about a figure by number or use its question button to request visual analysis. Up to two figures and four image panels per question. Values read from plots are approximate; check the original data.

AI assistant instructions?

Tools for this paper

Explain it differently 3 free rewrites left today
Save to a collection Group papers in collections to compare them, chat with them and export them. Create a free account Log in

Advanced tools Premium

For researchers who follow a field closely: citation alerts, journal-club slides, version comparison and Zotero export. Discover Premium

Zotero
Citation alerts
Journal club Slides to present it
For journalists Press kit and hype check

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.