at small scales where the subhalo contribution dominates.

The combined fit {#combinedfit}
----------------

We now investigate whether we can improve the agreement between the model and the observed projected CFs by performing a combined fit as described above. We obtain the same parameters as those we derived from the fit to the SMF alone. This seems surprising, but on further inspection we find that this is due to $\chi^2(m)$ being a lot more sensitive to changes of the parameters than $\chi^2(w_p)$. This means that if one changes the parameters a little in order to improve the fit to the projected correlation functions, one can get a slightly better agreement between the model and the observed projected CFs only at the cost of a large disagreement between the model and the observed stellar mass functions. In other words: $\chi^2(w_p)$ is much flatter around its minimum than $\chi^2(w_p)$, as shown in Figure \[f:fig3\].

This means that, assuming that both central and satellite galaxies follow the same SHM relation, the model that matches the SMF can reproduce the correct clustering. However, if subhalos have a different SHM ratio there is an infinite number of solutions that match the SMF but produce very different 