2^i$, $z_2 |M_1$, $z_1$), as long as $M_2^i > M_{\rm res}$ and the total mass satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:massconserve}
\sum_{i=1}^N M_2^i < M_1 - \Delta M_{\rm acc}(<M_{\rm res}),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta M_{\rm acc}(<M_{\rm res})
= \int_{0}^{M_{\rm res}}\!\!\!\!dM_2 M_2 \frac{dN}{dM_2}(M_2,z_2|M_1,z_1)\end{aligned}$$ is the expectation value of the total mass of halos smaller than the resolution mass ($M_{\rm res}$) with $dN/dM_2(M_2,z_2|M_1,z_1)$ being the appropriate conditional mass function \[equation (\[eq:eps-num\]) below\]. In other words, we distinguish the discrete merging and the continual accretion at mass $M_{\rm res}$, and do not resolve the halos below $M_{\rm res}$ in our merger trees. Once all relevant progenitor halos are selected, we repeat the above procedure recursively for each progenitor until the maximum redshift ($z_{\rm
  max}$). Unless otherwise stated, we set $z_{\mathrm{min}}=0$ and $z_{\mathrm{max}}=15$ in the present paper. For convenience, we list in table \[tab:parameters\] variables which are extensively discussed in the present paper.

In the original method by Somerville and Kolatt (1999), one stops selecting progenitors when $M_1 - \sum_{i=1}^N M_2^i$ becomes less than $M_{\rm
  res}$, but without imposing the condition $M_2^i>M_{\rm res}$. They carefully tuned the timesteps depending on $M_{1}$ so that the resulting progenitor mass function becomes close to equation (\[eq:eps-num\]) below. Rather, we stop choosing the progenitor when $M_1 - \Delta M_{\rm acc}(<M_{\rm res}) - \sum_{i=1}^N M_2^i$ becomes negative, and the last selected progenitor $M_2^N$ is not
2^i$, $ z_2 |M_1 $, $ z_1 $), as long as $ M_2^i > M_{\rm res}$ and the total mass satisfies $ $ \begin{aligned } 
 \label{eq: massconserve } 
 \sum_{i=1}^N M_2^i < M_1 - \Delta M_{\rm acc}(<M_{\rm res}),\end{aligned}$$ where $ $ \begin{aligned } 
 \Delta M_{\rm acc}(<M_{\rm res }) 
 = \int_{0}^{M_{\rm res}}\!\!\!\!dM_2 M_2 \frac{dN}{dM_2}(M_2,z_2|M_1,z_1)\end{aligned}$$ is the expectation value of the entire bulk of halos smaller than the resolution multitude ($ M_{\rm res}$) with $ dN / dM_2(M_2,z_2|M_1,z_1)$ being the appropriate conditional mass function \[equation   (\[eq: eps - num\ ]) below\ ]. In early words, we distinguish the discrete merging and the continual accretion at mass $ M_{\rm res}$, and do not decide the halos below $ M_{\rm res}$ in our merger tree. Once all relevant progenitor halos are selected, we reprise the above procedure recursively for each progenitor until the maximum redshift ($ z_{\rm 
   max}$). Unless otherwise stated, we sic $ z_{\mathrm{min}}=0 $ and $ z_{\mathrm{max}}=15 $ in the present paper. For convenience, we list in board   \[tab: parameters\ ] variables which are extensively discussed in the present paper. 

 In the original method by Somerville and Kolatt   (1999), one stop selecting progenitors when $ M_1 - \sum_{i=1}^N M_2^i$ becomes less than $ M_{\rm 
   res}$, but without imposing the condition $ M_2^i > M_{\rm res}$. They cautiously tuned the timesteps depending on $ M_{1}$ so that the resulting progenitor mass function becomes cheeseparing to equation (\[eq: eps - num\ ]) below. Rather, we stop choosing the progenitor when $ M_1 - \Delta M_{\rm acc}(<M_{\rm res }) - \sum_{i=1}^N M_2^i$ becomes negative, and the last selected progenitor $ M_2^N$ is not
2^i$, $z_2 |M_1$, $z_1$), as long as $M_2^i > M_{\rm ves}$ and the total mass vatisfjes $$\begiv{aligned}
\label{eq:massconserve}
\snm_{i=1}^N M_2^i < N_1 - \Delta M_{\rm acc}(<M_{\rm rer}),\end{alignvd}$$ where $$\vegii{aligned}
\Delta M_{\rm acc}(<M_{\rm res})
= \ihb_{0}^{M_{\rm xew}}\!\!\!\!dM_2 M_2 \frac{dN}{dM_2}(K_2,z_2|M_1,z_1)\end{alicned}$$ is the ex[eztction value of the total mass of haljs smalkeg than the resjlutpog maas ($M_{\rm res}$) with $dN/dM_2(M_2,z_2|M_1,z_1)$ being the appropgiate conditional mass function \[equation (\[eq:eos-nul\]) below\]. In other wlrds, we disjjngtush the discfete merging and the ckntinual accretion at mass $M_{\rm fes}$, aud do not rgsklgg the halos uelow $I_{\rm res}$ in omg merges trees. Once all releyant 'rogwnitor halos are selerted, we repeat the afove procadbre recursively for eqcy procenidor jbtiu tge mzximum revshift ($z_{\rm
  max}$). Unless otherwise stated, wt sqn $z_{\mathrm{min}}=0$ znd $z_{\mwtrrm{max}}=15$ in the present paper. For convenitnce, se list in table \[tab:paraneters\] variables whicj are extqnsively discussed in the present paper.

In the oricinal oetkid by Wolerville and Kolatt (1999), one stops selecting progegjtprx when $M_1 - \sum_{i=1}^K M_2^i$ becomes less yhwn $I_{\rm
  res}$, but dithouc ijposing the conditlon $M_2^i>M_{\tm res}$. They cartfullu tuned the timesteps depeneing on $M_{1}$ so rhat the resulting progenitor masx funvtion becomes close to zquatikn (\[eq:eps-num\]) below. Raffer, we stop choorinn tve progenitor when $M_1 - \Deltw M_{\rm acc}(<N_{\rm xes}) - \sum_{k=1}^N M_2^o$ becoies negatige, and the last selected proggnitor $M_2^N$ is not
2^i$, $z_2 |M_1$, $z_1$), as long as M_{\rm and the mass satisfies $$\begin{aligned} - M_{\rm acc}(<M_{\rm res}),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \Delta M_{\rm res}) = \int_{0}^{M_{\rm res}}\!\!\!\!dM_2 M_2 \frac{dN}{dM_2}(M_2,z_2|M_1,z_1)\end{aligned}$$ the expectation value of the total mass of halos smaller than the resolution ($M_{\rm res}$) with $dN/dM_2(M_2,z_2|M_1,z_1)$ being the appropriate conditional mass function \[equation (\[eq:eps-num\]) below\]. other we the merging and the continual accretion at mass $M_{\rm res}$, and do not resolve the halos below res}$ in our merger trees. Once all relevant halos are selected, we the above procedure recursively for progenitor the maximum ($z_{\rm Unless stated, we set and $z_{\mathrm{max}}=15$ in the present paper. For convenience, we list in table \[tab:parameters\] variables which are extensively in the In the method Somerville Kolatt (1999), one progenitors when $M_1 - \sum_{i=1}^N M_2^i$ $M_{\rm res}$, but without imposing the condition $M_2^i>M_{\rm They carefully the timesteps depending on $M_{1}$ so the resulting progenitor mass function becomes close to (\[eq:eps-num\]) below. Rather, we stop choosing the progenitor when $M_1 - \Delta M_{\rm acc}(<M_{\rm res}) M_2^i$ becomes negative, and last selected progenitor is
2^i$, $z_2 |M_1$, $z_1$), as long as $M_2^i > M_{\rm res}$ and thE total mass SatisFieS $$\beGiN{aliGned}
\Label{eq:massconSErve}
\Sum_{i=1}^N M_2^i < M_1 - \Delta M_{\rm acc}(<M_{\rm Res}),\enD{aLIgneD}$$ WhEre $$\beGin{aligNEd}
\dELta m_{\rM aCc}(<M_{\Rm REs})
= \Int_{0}^{M_{\rM reS}}\!\!\!\!dM_2 M_2 \fraC{dN}{dM_2}(M_2,z_2|M_1,z_1)\eNd{aLiGned}$$ is the expECtAtion value Of tHe total mass oF haLos smaLlEr tHAn the ResOlutiOn mass ($m_{\Rm res}$) wIth $dN/dM_2(M_2,z_2|m_1,z_1)$ BEing thE ApproprIATe CondItional mass functiON \[eQUation (\[eq:eps-num\]) Below\]. IN oTHeR WOrdS, we DistinguisH tHe disCRete merGInG AND thE Continual accrEtion at mass $m_{\Rm rEs}$, and dO nOt rESolve tHe halOs BEloW $M_{\rm res}$ in ouR merGer trees. ONce all RElevant PRogenitOr haloS arE seLectED, wE rEpeAt THe aBOvE prOCedUre recurSiVeLy for Each PROGEnitOr uNtil The maXimum redshift ($Z_{\rm
  Max}$). UNLesS otheRwise StatEd, We set $Z_{\mathrM{min}}=0$ aNd $Z_{\mathrm{max}}=15$ in the PresEnt paper. FOr cOnVenIeNce, we LIst in tAblE \[taB:parameTers\] varIAblEs WHICh Are extensively discUsSED iN the presEnt papER.

IN tHE originaL mEthOd by sOMerviLle aND KOlatt (1999), one Stops sELeCtIng progEnItors wHeN $M_1 - \sUm_{i=1}^n M_2^i$ beCOmes Less thAn $M_{\rm
  res}$, But wiTHout imposing thE Condition $M_2^i>M_{\rM ReS}$. tHeY CareFulLy tuned the tImesTEps dEpenDInG on $m_{1}$ So thaT the rEsULtINg progenitor mass funCtIon becOmes cLose to equatioN (\[eq:eps-num\]) bELOW. Rather, wE stoP ChOOsing the progenItor wHen $M_1 - \Delta M_{\RM acc}(<M_{\rm rEs}) - \sum_{I=1}^N M_2^i$ becoMes negatiVE, And the laSt sEleCteD prOGEnItor $M_2^N$ is not
2^i$, $z_2 |M_1$, $z_1$),as long as  $M_2 ^i> M _{ \rmres} $ and the tota l  mas s satisfies $$\begin{a ligne d} \lab e l{ eq:ma ssconse r ve } \su m_ {i =1} ^N M_ 2^i <  M_ 1 - \De lta M_{\rm  ac c} (<M_{\rm res } ), \end{align ed} $$ where $$\ beg in{ali gn ed} \Delt a M _{\rm  acc}( < M_{\rm  res})
=\i n t_{0}^ { M_{\rmr e s} }\!\ !\!\!dM_2 M_2 \fr a c{ d N}{dM_2}(M_2,z _2|M_1 ,z _ 1) \ e nd{ ali gned}$$ is  t he ex p ectatio n  v a l u e o f  the total ma ss of halos sma ller t ha n t h e reso lutio nm ass  ($M_{\rm r es}$ ) with $d N/dM_2 ( M_2,z_2 | M_1,z_1 )$ bei ngthe  app r op ri ate  c o ndi t io nal mas s functi on  \ [equa tion ( \ [ eq:e ps- num\ ]) be low\]. In oth erword s , w e dis tingu ishth e dis cretemergi ng  and the contin ualaccretion  at  m ass  $ M_{\r m  res}$ , a nddo notresolve the  h a l o sbelow $M_{\rm res} $i n  o ur merge r tree s .On c e all re le van t pr o g enito r ha l os  are sel ected, we  r epeat t he  above  p roc edu re re c ursi vely f or eachproge n itor until the maximum redsh i ft ( $z _ {\rm 
 max}$). Unl esso ther wise st ate d , weset $ z_ { \m a thrm{min}}=0$ and $ z_ {\math rm{ma x}}=15$ in th e presentp a p er. Forconv e ni e nce, we list i n tab le \[tab:p a rameters \] va riableswhich are e xtensive lydis cus sed i nthe present p a p er.
I n the o rig inal me tho d b y S ome rv ille andKolatt ( 19 99 ),  o nestops selectin gpro ge nit ors w h en $M_ 1 - \ sum_ {i =1 } ^NM_2^i$b ec o m es l es sthan  $M _{ \rm
 res } $,but wit hout impo sin g  the  c on dition$M_2^i>M_{\rm  r es}$. They  c are fullyt u ned thetimesteps depending on$ M_{1}$sothattheresulting  pr ogenit orm ass fu nction  beco me s c l o se to e qu ati on  (\[eq:eps - n um\ ]) be lo w. R ather,we stop choosing t h e p rogenitor whe n $ M_1- \D elt a  M _ {\r ma cc} ( < M_{\rm res}) -\sum_{i=1} ^N M_ 2^i$ becom e s n eg ative,and the  last selecte d progeni tor $M_2^ N$  isn o t
2^i$, $z_2_|M_1$, $z_1$),_as long as $M_2^i_> M_{\rm_res}$_and the_total_mass satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:massconserve}
\sum_{i=1}^N_M_2^i < M_1_- \Delta M_{\rm acc}(<M_{\rm_res}),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_M_{\rm_acc}(<M_{\rm res})
= \int_{0}^{M_{\rm res}}\!\!\!\!dM_2 M_2 \frac{dN}{dM_2}(M_2,z_2|M_1,z_1)\end{aligned}$$ is the expectation value of the total mass_of_halos smaller_than_the_resolution mass ($M_{\rm res}$) with_$dN/dM_2(M_2,z_2|M_1,z_1)$ being the appropriate conditional_mass function_\[equation (\[eq:eps-num\]) below\]. In other words, we distinguish the_discrete_merging and the_continual accretion at mass $M_{\rm res}$, and do not_resolve the halos below $M_{\rm res}$_in our merger_trees._Once_all relevant progenitor halos_are selected, we repeat the above_procedure recursively for each progenitor until_the maximum redshift ($z_{\rm
  max}$). Unless_otherwise stated, we set $z_{\mathrm{min}}=0$ and_$z_{\mathrm{max}}=15$ in the present paper._For convenience,_we list in table \[tab:parameters\] variables_which are extensively_discussed in_the present paper.

In_the original method by Somerville and_Kolatt (1999), one stops_selecting progenitors when $M_1 - \sum_{i=1}^N_M_2^i$_becomes less than_$M_{\rm
__res}$, but_without imposing the_condition_$M_2^i>M_{\rm res}$._They_carefully tuned the timesteps depending on_$M_{1}$_so that the resulting progenitor mass function_becomes close to equation_(\[eq:eps-num\])_below. Rather, we stop_choosing the progenitor when $M_1_- \Delta M_{\rm acc}(<M_{\rm res}) -_\sum_{i=1}^N M_2^i$_becomes negative,_and the last selected progenitor $M_2^N$ is not