Paper detail

A comparison of the galaxy peculiar velocity field with the PSCz gravity field-- A Bayesian hyper-parameter method

We constructed a Bayesian hyper-parameter statistical method to quantify the difference between predicted velocities derived from the observed galaxy distribution in the \textit{IRAS}-PSC$z$ redshift survey and peculiar velocities measured using different distance indicators. In our analysis we find that the model--data comparison becomes unreliable beyond $70 \hmpc$ because of the inadequate sampling by \textit{IRAS} survey of prominent, distant superclusters, like the Shapley Concentration. On the other hand, the analysis of the velocity residuals show that the PSC$z$ gravity field provides an adequate model to the local, $\le 70 \hmpc$, peculiar velocity field. The hyper-parameter combination of ENEAR, SN, A1SN and SFI++ catalogues in the Bayesian framework constrains the amplitude of the linear flow to be $β=0.53 \pm 0.014$. For an rms density fluctuations in the PSC$z$ galaxy number density $σ_8^{\rm gal}=0.42\pm0.03$, we obtain an estimate of the growth rate of density fluctuations $fσ_{8}(z\sim0) = 0.42 \pm 0.033$, which is in excellent agreement with independent estimates based on different techniques.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.