4.7 Article

Assessing the accuracy of cosmological parameters estimated from velocity - density comparisons via simulations

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 502, Issue 3, Pages 3723-3732

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/staa4039

Keywords

galaxies: kinematics and dynamics; galaxies: statistics; cosmology: large-scale structure of Universe; cosmology: observations

Funding

  1. National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Discovery grant
  2. Spanish MultiDark Consolider Project [CSD2009-00064]
  3. Gauss Centre for Supercomputing e.V.
  4. Partnership for Advanced Supercomputing in Europe (PRACE)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A promising method for measuring the cosmological parameter combination f(8)(sigma) is to compare observed peculiar velocities with predicted velocities using perturbation theory. Despite small systematic biases, the method is accurate and precise, with cosmic variance affecting current measurements due to the volume of redshift data sets.
A promising method for measuring the cosmological parameter combination f(8)(sigma) is to compare observed peculiar velocities with peculiar velocities predicted from a galaxy density field using perturbation theory. We use N-body simulations and semianalytical galaxy formation models to quantify the accuracy and precision of this method. Specifically, we examine a number of technical aspects, including the optimal smoothing length applied to the density field, the use of dark matter haloes or galaxies as tracers of the density field, the effect of noise in the halo mass estimates or in the stellar-to-halo mass relation, and the effect of finite survey volumes. We find that for a Gaussian smoothing of 4 h(-1) Mpc, the method has only small systematic biases at the level of 5 per cent. Cosmic variance affects current measurements at the 5 per cent level due to the volume of current redshift data sets.

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