I am looking at the subhalos in snapshot 99 in TNG300-1. In the documentation, it states that SubhaloFlag is 1 for all central subhalos. But I found that the central subhalo with halo_ID = 6756 with subhalo ID = 1293848 has subhalo flag of 0. I was wondering if I am missing something.
Dylan Nelson
18 Aug
If you follow this subhalo back in time (using the merger tree), perhaps it was a satellite at some point?
If a satellite becomes a z=0 central, e.g. due to the "subhalo switching" problem, I think this could occur.
Eddie Aljamal
18 Aug
This is indeed the case for this subhalo. It makes sense that this could occur, I was just checking with you. Thank you so much Dylan.
Just a followup question Dylan if that is okay. I am considering 8403 halos in TNG300-1, particularly the stellar mass of the BCG within 100kpc (defined as the total bound stellar mass of the central halo out to 100kpc). There are 14 halos with centrals that have a SubhaloParent != 0. Would it make sense to include these BCG stellar masses in an analysis of the scaling relation?
Dylan Nelson
19 Aug
Have you looked at (stellar) images of these halos? It might help clear up what is going on.
Hello,
I am looking at the subhalos in snapshot 99 in TNG300-1. In the documentation, it states that SubhaloFlag is 1 for all central subhalos. But I found that the central subhalo with halo_ID = 6756 with subhalo ID = 1293848 has subhalo flag of 0. I was wondering if I am missing something.
If you follow this subhalo back in time (using the merger tree), perhaps it was a satellite at some point?
If a satellite becomes a z=0 central, e.g. due to the "subhalo switching" problem, I think this could occur.
This is indeed the case for this subhalo. It makes sense that this could occur, I was just checking with you. Thank you so much Dylan.
Just a followup question Dylan if that is okay. I am considering 8403 halos in TNG300-1, particularly the stellar mass of the BCG within 100kpc (defined as the total bound stellar mass of the central halo out to 100kpc). There are 14 halos with centrals that have a SubhaloParent != 0. Would it make sense to include these BCG stellar masses in an analysis of the scaling relation?
Have you looked at (stellar) images of these halos? It might help clear up what is going on.