All Figures

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{h4738f7.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 1: Equation of state for the RP and SUGRA quintessence models studied in this work.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{h4738f7a.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 2: Hubble expansion rate for the RP and SUGRA quintessence models studied in this work, represented by a solid and dashed line, respectively.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=16.7cm]{h4738fc.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 3: One individual cluster is shown at different redshifts (z=2 to z=0 in steps of 0.5 from bottom to top) in different cosmologies (columns as labelled) all normalised to $\sigma _8=0.9$ today. The panels illustrate that the clusters in different cosmological models arose from the same initial conditions and thus appear morphologically similar, but subtle differences are visible in detail.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{h4738f6.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 4: Halo-mass histograms in the $\Lambda$ CDM model for four of the eight equidistant redshift bins between redshifts zero and three introduced in Sect. 4 below. The distributions in the missing bins fall in between those in the adjacent bins and are left out for clarity. As halos merge and new halos form, the histograms shift towards higher masses.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{h4738f3a.eps}\hspace*{2mm} \includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{h4738f4a.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 5: Concentrations of halos formed in the $\Lambda$ CDM model binned by redshift before ( left panel) and after ( right panel) determining halo-prescription parameters. While the ENS algorithm fits the measured halo concentrations very well, concentrations according to the Navarro et al. and Bullock et al. algorithms deviate significantly. Changing the algorithm parameters yields very good agreement also for the Bullock et al. algorithm, while the Navarro et al. algorithm has too shallow redshift evolution. The right panel also shows the good quality of the simple polynomial fit. The error bars indicate the approximate 1- $\sigma$ range of halo concentrations within the redshift bins. Concentrations are defined relative to the radius r₂₀₀ of spheres around halo centres containing 200 times the mean background density.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{h4738f1a.eps}\hspace*{3mm} \includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{h4738f1b.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 6: $\chi ^2$ contours in the space of parameters contained in the halo-concentration prescriptions by Navarro et al. ( left panel) and Bullock et al. ( right panel). Both contour plots show extended valleys in the $\chi ^2$ surface with very flat bottoms. The dotted curves indicate approximate relations for the directions of these valleys.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{h4738f2.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 7: Cuts through the $\chi ^2$ contours at constant mass fraction for three different halo-concentration prescriptions.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{h4738f4b.eps}\hspace*{3mm} \includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{h4738f4d.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 8: Examples for the agreement between numerically simulated and analytically expected halo concentrations for two dark-energy models, Ratra-Peebles ( left panel) and SUGRA ( right panel). The agreement is very good, except for the Navarro et al. prescription whose redshift evolution is too shallow.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{h4738f5.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 9: Normalised halo-concentration distributions across all cosmological models for three halo-concentration algorithms. The curves are very close to log-normal distributions whose standard deviations are almost independent of the cosmological model.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{h4738f8.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 10: Linear density perturbation growth dynamics in the different cosmologies considered.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{h4738f7.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 1: Equation of state for the RP and SUGRA quintessence models studied in this work.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{h4738f7a.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 2: Hubble expansion rate for the RP and SUGRA quintessence models studied in this work, represented by a solid and dashed line, respectively.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{h4738f6.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 4: Halo-mass histograms in the $\Lambda$ CDM model for four of the eight equidistant redshift bins between redshifts zero and three introduced in Sect. 4 below. The distributions in the missing bins fall in between those in the adjacent bins and are left out for clarity. As halos merge and new halos form, the histograms shift towards higher masses.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{h4738f1a.eps}\hspace*{3mm} \includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{h4738f1b.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 6: $\chi ^2$ contours in the space of parameters contained in the halo-concentration prescriptions by Navarro et al. ( left panel) and Bullock et al. ( right panel). Both contour plots show extended valleys in the $\chi ^2$ surface with very flat bottoms. The dotted curves indicate approximate relations for the directions of these valleys.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{h4738f2.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 7: Cuts through the $\chi ^2$ contours at constant mass fraction for three different halo-concentration prescriptions.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{h4738f4b.eps}\hspace*{3mm} \includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{h4738f4d.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 8: Examples for the agreement between numerically simulated and analytically expected halo concentrations for two dark-energy models, Ratra-Peebles ( left panel) and SUGRA ( right panel). The agreement is very good, except for the Navarro et al. prescription whose redshift evolution is too shallow.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{h4738f5.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 9: Normalised halo-concentration distributions across all cosmological models for three halo-concentration algorithms. The curves are very close to log-normal distributions whose standard deviations are almost independent of the cosmological model.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{h4738f8.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 10: Linear density perturbation growth dynamics in the different cosmologies considered.
Open with DEXTER