4.7 Article

Normalization of the matter power spectrum via higher order angular correlations of luminous red galaxies

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 682, 期 2, 页码 737-744

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/589636

关键词

cosmology : observations; large-scale structure of universe

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a novel technique with which to measure sigma(8). It relies on measuring the dependence of the second-order bias of a density field on sigma(8), using two separate techniques. Each technique employs area-averaged angular correlation functions ((omega) over bar (N)), one relying on the shape of (omega) over bar (2), the other relying on the amplitude of s(3) (s(3) = (omega) over bar (3)/(omega) over bar (2). We confirm the validity of this method by testing it on a mock catalog drawn from Millennium Simulation data and finding a value of sigma(8) - sigma(true)(8) = -0.002 +/- 0.062. We create a catalog of photometrically selected LRGs from SDSS DR5 and separate it into three distinct data sets by photometric redshift, with median redshifts of 0.47, 0.53, and 0.61. Measurements of c(2) and sigma(8) are made for each data set, with the assumption of a flat geometry and WMAP3 best-fit priors on Omega(m), h, and Gamma. We find, with increasing redshift, that c(2) = 0.09 +/- 0.04, 0.09 +/- 0.05, and 0.09 +/- 0.03, and sigma(8) = 0.78 +/- 0.08, 0.80 +/- 0.09, and 0.80 +/- 0.09. We combine these three consistent sigma(8) measurements to produce sigma(8) = 0.79 +/- 0.05. Allowing the parameters Omega(m), h, and Gamma to vary within their WMAP3 1 sigma error, we find that the best-fit value of sigma(8) does not change by more than 8%, and we are thus confident that our measurement is accurate to within 10%. We anticipate that future surveys, such as Pan-STARRS, DES, and LSST, will be able to employ this method in order to measure sigma(8) to great precision, and this will serve as an important check, complementarily, on the values determined via more established methods.

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