4.7 Article

Bias loop corrections to the galaxy bispectrum

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 99, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.123514

关键词

-

资金

  1. UK Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) [ST/M503836/1]
  2. European Research Council [ERC-StG-716532-PUNCA]
  3. STFC [ST/P000525/1]
  4. STFC [ST/P000525/1, ST/M503836/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The combination of the power spectrum and bispectrum is a powerful way of breaking degeneracies between galaxy bias and cosmological parameters, enabling us to maximize the constraining power from galaxy surveys. Recent cosmological constraints treat the power spectrum and bispectrum on an uneven footing: they include one-loop bias corrections for the power spectrum but not the bispectrum. To bridge this gap, we develop the galaxy bias description up to fourth order in perturbation theory, conveniently expressed through a basis of Galilean invariants that clearly split contributions that are local and nonlocal in the second derivatives of the linear gravitational potential. In addition, we consider relevant contributions from short-range nonlocality (higher-derivative terms), stress-tensor corrections, and stochasticity. To sidestep the usual renormalization of bias parameters that complicates predictions beyond leading order, we recast the bias expansion in terms of multipoint propagators, which take a simple form in our split basis with loop corrections depending only on bias parameters corresponding to nonlocal operators. We show how to take advantage of Galilean invariance to compute the time evolution of bias and present results for the fourth-order parameters for the first time. We also discuss the possibilities of reducing the bias parameter space by using the evolution of bias and exploiting degeneracies between various bias contributions in the large-scale limit. Our baseline model allows us to verify these simplifications for any application to large-scale structure data sets.

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