4.7 Article

Large-scale non-Gaussian mass function and halo bias: tests on N-body simulations

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 398, Issue 1, Pages 321-332

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15150.x

Keywords

methods: N-body simulations; methods: statistical; galaxies: clusters: general; galaxies: haloes; cosmology: theory; large-scale structure of Universe

Funding

  1. FP7-PEOPLE-2007-4-3-IRG [202182]
  2. CSIC I3 [200750I034]
  3. Beatriu de Pinos
  4. DFG
  5. ASI [I/016/07/0 'COFIS']
  6. ASI-INAF [I/023/05/0, I/088/06/0]
  7. INFN
  8. ICREA Funding Source: Custom

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The description of the abundance and clustering of haloes for non-Gaussian initial conditions has recently received renewed interest, motivated by the forthcoming large galaxy and cluster surveys, which can potentially yield constraints of the order of unity on the non-Gaussianity parameter f(NL). We present tests on N-body simulations of analytical formulae describing the halo abundance and clustering for non-Gaussian initial conditions. We calibrate the analytic non-Gaussian mass function of Matarrese, Verde & Jimenez and LoVerde et al. and the analytic description of clustering of haloes for non-Gaussian initial conditions on N-body simulations. We find an excellent agreement between the simulations and the analytic predictions if we make the corrections delta(c) -> delta(c)root q and delta(c) -> delta(c)q, where q similar or equal to 0.75, in the density threshold for gravitational collapse and in the non-Gaussian fractional correction to the halo bias, respectively. We discuss the implications of this correction on present and forecasted primordial non-Gaussianity constraints. We confirm that the non-Gaussian halo bias offers a robust and highly competitive test of primordial non-Gaussianity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available