Paper detail

CFHTLenS: Galaxy bias as function of scale, stellar mass, and colour. Conflicts with predictions by semi-analytic models

Galaxy models predict a tight relation between the clustering of galaxies and dark matter on cosmological scales, but predictions differ notably in the details. We used this opportunity and tested two semi-analytic models by the Munich and Durham groups with data from the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey (CFHTLenS). For the test we measured the scale-dependent galaxy bias factor $b(k)$ and correlation factor $r(k)$ from linear to non-linear scales of $k\approx10\,h\,\rm Mpc^{-1}$ at two redshifts $\bar{z}=0.35,0.51$ for galaxies with stellar mass between $5\times10^9$ and $3\times10^{11}\,h_{\rm 70}^{-2}\,{\rm M}_\odot$. Our improved gravitational lensing technique accounts for the intrinsic alignment of sources and the magnification of lens galaxies for better constraints for the galaxy-matter correlation $r(k)$. Galaxy bias in CFHTLenS increases with $k$ and stellar mass, it is colour-dependent, revealing the individual footprints of galaxy types. Despite a reasonable model agreement for the relative change with both scale and galaxy properties, there is a clear conflict for $b(k)$ with no model preference: the model galaxies are too weakly clustered. This may flag a model problem at $z\gtrsim0.3$ for all stellar masses. As in the models, however, there is a high correlation $r(k)$ between matter and galaxy density on all scales, and galaxy bias is typically consistent with a deterministic bias on linear scales. Only our blue and low-mass galaxies of about $7\times10^9\,h_{\rm 70}^{-2}\,{\rm M}_\odot$ at $\bar{z}=0.51$ show, contrary to the models, a weak tendency towards a stochastic bias on linear scales where $r_{\rm ls}=0.75\pm0.14\,{\rm(stat.)}\pm0.06\,{\rm(sys.)}$. This result is of interest for cosmological probes, such as $E_{\rm G}$, that rely on a deterministic galaxy bias.

preprint2020arXivOpen 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.