4.7 Article

Perturbation theory for modeling galaxy bias: Validation with simulations of the Dark Energy Survey

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 102, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.123522

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-SC0007901, DE-SC0020247]
  2. U.S. Department of Energy
  3. U.S. National Science Foundation
  4. Ministry of Science and Education of Spain
  5. Science and Technology Facilities Council of the United Kingdom
  6. Higher Education Funding Council for England
  7. National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  8. Kavli Institute of Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago
  9. Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics at the Ohio State University
  10. Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy at Texas AM University
  11. Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos
  12. Fundacao Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
  13. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico
  14. Ministerio da Ciencia, Tecnologia e Inovacao
  15. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  16. Argonne National Laboratory
  17. University of California at Santa Cruz
  18. University of Cambridge, Centro de Investigaciones Energeticas, Medioambientales y Tecnologicas-Madrid
  19. University of Chicago
  20. University College London
  21. DES-Brazil Consortium
  22. University of Edinburgh
  23. Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (ETH) Zurich
  24. Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
  25. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  26. Institut de Ciencies de l'Espai (IEEC/CSIC)
  27. Institut de Fisica d'Altes Energies
  28. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
  29. Ludwig-Maximilians Universitat Munchen
  30. associated Excellence Cluster Universe
  31. University of Michigan
  32. National Optical Astronomy Observatory
  33. University of Nottingham
  34. Ohio State University
  35. University of Pennsylvania
  36. University of Portsmouth
  37. SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
  38. Stanford University
  39. University of Sussex
  40. Texas AM University
  41. OzDES Membership Consortium
  42. National Science Foundation [AST-1138766, AST-1536171]
  43. MINECO [AYA2015-71825, ESP2015-66861, FPA2015-68048, SEV-2016-0588, SEV-2016-0597, MDM-2015-0509]
  44. ERDF funds from the European Union
  45. CERCA program of the Generalitat de Catalunya
  46. European Research Council under the European Union ERC [240672, 291329, 306478]
  47. Brazilian Instituto Nacional de Ciencia e Tecnologia (INCT) e-Universe (CNPq) [465376/2014-2]
  48. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of High Energy Physics [DE-AC02-07CH11359]
  49. STFC [ST/R000433/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We describe perturbation theory (PT) models of galaxy bias for applications to photometric galaxy surveys. We model the galaxy-galaxy and galaxy-matter correlation functions in configuration space and validate against measurements from mock catalogs designed for the Dark Energy Survey (DES). We find that an effective PT model with five galaxy bias parameters provides a good description of the 3D correlation functions above scales of 4 Mpc/h and z < 1. Our tests show that at the projected precision of the DES Year 3 analysis, two of the nonlinear bias parameters can be fixed to their coevolution values, and a third (the k(2) term for higher derivative bias) set to zero. The agreement is typically at the 2% level over scales of interest, which is the statistical uncertainty of our simulation measurements. To achieve this level of agreement, our fiducial model requires using the full nonlinear matter power spectrum (rather than the one-loop PT one). We also measure the relationship between the nonlinear and linear bias parameters and compare them to their expected coevolution values. We use these tests to motivate the galaxy bias model and scale cuts for the cosmological analysis of the Dark Energy Survey; our conclusions are generally applicable to all photometric surveys.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据