such as BoxA or isolated halo models such as Aquarius-A to E studied by @onions_2013, large substructures are generally absent. In the next section we will demonstrate that subhalo spins increase with subhalo mass while halo spins do not have a significant mass dependence.

As an aside, it should be noted that while our fits do not match those given by @bullock_2001, @bett_2007 and @onions_2013 exactly they are within the range of results covered by these works. In practice, previous work does not arrive at an agreement on the exact value of [haloes]{}’ spin. Most of these studies fix $\lambda_0'$ in the range $0.031-0.045$, with $\sigma$ between $0.48-0.64$ [see section 4.1 and Fig.7 in @shaw_2006]. In @bett_2007, they found median values of $\lambda_{med}=0.0367-0.0429$ for the entire population of haloes, depending on the definition of halo, and $\lambda_{med}=0.043$ for the catalogue of haloes they refined. Different sets of simulations and halo selection criteria may result in this variation of the recovered spin parameter. As [Subsection \[Ssec:Test\]]{} demonstrated, such factors as mass resolution and gravitational softening influence the spin. On the other hand, the discrepancy between the spin of [haloes]{} and sub[haloes]{}within our simulations is much larger than the bias among simulations. 