Paper detail

A direct and robust method to observationally constrain the halo mass function via the submillimeter magnification bias: Proof of concept

Aims. The main purpose of this work is to provide a method to derive tabulated observational constraints on the halo mass function (HMF) by studying the magnification bias effect on high-redshift submillimeter galaxies. Under the assumption of universality, we parametrize the HMF according to two traditional models, namely the Sheth and Tormen (ST) and Tinker fits and assess their performance in explaining the measured data within the Λ cold dark matter (ΛCDM) model. We also study the potential influence of the halo occupation distribution (HOD) parameters in this analysis and discuss two important aspects regarding the HMF parametrization. Methods. We measure the cross-correlation function between a foreground sample of GAMA galaxies with redshifts in the range $0.2<z<0.8$ and a background sample of H-ATLAS galaxies with redshifts in the range $1.2<z<4.0$ and carry out an MCMC algorithm to check this observable against its mathematical prediction within the halo model formalism. Results. If all HMF parameters are assumed to be positive, the ST fit only seems to fully explain the measurements by forcing the mean number of satellite galaxies in a halo to increase substantially from its prior mean value. The Tinker fit, on the other hand, provides a robust description of the data without relevant changes in the HOD parameters, but with some dependence on the prior range of two of its parameters. When the normalization condition for the HMF is dropped and we allow negative values of the $p_1$ parameter in the ST fit, all the involved parameters are better determined, unlike the previous models, thus deriving the most general HMF constraints. While all cases are in agreement with the traditional fits within the uncertainties, the last one hints at a slightly higher number of halos at intermediate and high masses, raising the important point of the allowed parameter range.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.