Abstract. Future galaxy surveys require one percent precision in the theoretical knowledge of the power spectrum over a large range including very nonlinear scales. While this level of accuracy is easily obtained in the linear regime with perturbation theory, it represents a serious challenge for small scales where numerical simulations are required. In this paper we quantify the precision of present-day N -body methods, identifying main potential error sources from the set-up of initial conditions to the measurement of the final power spectrum. We directly compare three widely used N -body codes, Ramses, Pkdgrav3, and Gadget3 which represent three main discretisation techniques: the particle-mesh method, the tree method, and a hybrid combination of the two. For standard run parameters, the codes agree to within one percent at k ≤ 1 h Mpc −1 and to within three percent at k ≤ 10 h Mpc −1 . We also consider the bispectrum and show that the reduced bispectra agree at the sub-percent level for k ≤ 2 h Mpc −1 . In a second step, we quantify potential errors due to initial conditions, box size, and resolution using an extended suite of simulations performed with our fastest code Pkdgrav3. We demonstrate that the simulation box size should not be smaller than L = 0.5 h −1 Gpc to avoid systematic finite-volume effects (while much larger boxes are required to beat down the statistical sample variance). Furthermore, a maximum particle mass of M p = 10 9 h −1 M is required to conservatively obtain one percent precision of the matter power spectrum. As a consequence, numerical simulations covering large survey volumes of upcoming missions such as DES, LSST, and Euclid will need more than a trillion particles to reproduce clustering properties at the targeted accuracy.arXiv:1503.05920v3 [astro-ph.CO]

We present a detailed comparison of the substructure properties of a single Milky Way sized dark matter halo from the Aquarius suite at five different resolutions, as identified by a variety of different (sub)halo finders for simulations of cosmic structure formation. These finders span a wide range of techniques and methodologies to extract and quantify substructures within a larger non‐homogeneous background density (e.g. a host halo). This includes real‐space‐, phase‐space‐, velocity‐space‐ and time‐space‐based finders, as well as finders employing a Voronoi tessellation, Friends‐of‐Friends techniques or refined meshes as the starting point for locating substructure. A common post‐processing pipeline was used to uniformly analyse the particle lists provided by each finder. We extract quantitative and comparable measures for the subhaloes, primarily focusing on mass and the peak of the rotation curve for this particular study. We find that all of the finders agree extremely well in the presence and location of substructure and even for properties relating to the inner part of the subhalo (e.g. the maximum value of the rotation curve). For properties that rely on particles near the outer edge of the subhalo the agreement is at around the 20 per cent level. We find that the basic properties (mass and maximum circular velocity) of a subhalo can be reliably recovered if the subhalo contains more than 100 particles although its presence can be reliably inferred for a lower particle number limit of 20. We finally note that the logarithmic slope of the subhalo cumulative number count is remarkably consistent and <1 for all the finders that reached high resolution. If correct, this would indicate that the larger and more massive, respectively, substructures are the most dynamically interesting and that higher levels of the (sub)subhalo hierarchy become progressively less important.

The ever increasing size and complexity of data coming from simulations of cosmic structure formation demands equally sophisticated tools for their analysis. During the past decade, the art of object finding in these simulations has hence developed into an important discipline itself. A multitude of codes based upon a huge variety of methods and techniques have been spawned yet the question remained as to whether or not they will provide the same (physical) information about the structures of interest. Here we summarize and extent previous work of the "halo finder comparison project": we investigate in detail the (possible) origin of any deviations across finders. To this extent we decipher and discuss differences in halo finding methods, clearly separating them from the disparity in definitions of halo properties. We observe that different codes not only find different numbers of objects leading to a scatter of up to 20 per cent in the halo mass and V max function, but also that the particulars of those objects that are identified by all finders differ. The strength of the variation, however, depends on the property studied, e.g. the scatter in position, bulk velocity, mass, and the peak value of the rotation curve is practically below a few per cent, whereas derived quantities such as spin and shape show larger deviations. Our study indicates that the prime contribution to differences in halo properties across codes stems from the distinct particle collection methods and -to a minor extent -the particular aspects of how the procedure for removing unbound particles is implemented. We close with a discussion of the relevance and implications of the scatter across different codes for other fields such as semi-analytical galaxy formation models, gravitational lensing, and observables in general.

Merger trees follow the growth and merger of dark-matter haloes over cosmic history. As well as giving important insights into the growth of cosmic structure in their own right, they provide an essential backbone to semi-analytic models of galaxy formation. This paper is the first in a series to arise from the SUSSING MERGER TREES Workshop in which ten different tree-building algorithms were applied to the same set of halo catalogues and their results compared. Although many of these codes were similar in nature, all algorithms produced distinct results. Our main conclusions are that a useful merger-tree code should possess the following features: (i) the use of particle IDs to match haloes between snapshots; (ii) the ability to skip at least one, and preferably more, snapshots in order to recover subhaloes that are temporarily lost during merging; (iii) the ability to cope with (and ideally smooth out) large, temporary flucuations in halo mass. Finally, to enable different groups to communicate effectively, we defined a common terminology that we used when discussing merger trees and we encourage others to adopt the same language. We also specified a minimal output format to record the results.

We present a comparison of 14 galaxy formation models: 12 different semi-analytical models and 2 halo-occupation distribution models for galaxy formation based upon the same cosmological simulation and merger tree information derived from it.The participating codes have proven to be very successful in their own right but they have all been calibrated independently using various observational data sets, stellar models, and merger trees. In this paper we apply them without recalibration and this leads to a wide variety of predictions for the stellar mass function, specific star formation rates, stellar-tohalo mass ratios, and the abundance of orphan galaxies. The scatter is much larger than seen in previous comparison studies primarily because the codes have been used outside of their native environment within which they are well tested and calibrated.The purpose of the 'nIFTy comparison of galaxy formation models' is to bring together as many different galaxy formation modellers as possible and to investigate a common approach to model calibration. This paper provides a unified description for all participating models and presents the initial, uncalibrated comparison as a baseline for our future studies where we will develop a common calibration framework and address the extent to which that reduces the scatter in the model predictions seen here.