Paper detail

Cosmology with clustering anisotropies: disentangling dynamic and geometric distortions in galaxy redshift surveys

We investigate the impact of different observational effects affecting a precise and accurate measurement of the growth rate of fluctuations from the anisotropy of clustering in galaxy redshift surveys. We focus on redshift measurement errors, on the reconstruction of the underlying real-space clustering and on the apparent degeneracy existing with the geometrical distortions induced by the cosmology-dependent conversion of redshifts into distances. We use a suite of mock catalogues extracted from large N-body simulations, focusing on the analysis of intermediate, mildly non-linear scales and apply the standard linear dispersion model to fit the anisotropy of the observed correlation function. We verify that redshift errors up to ~0.2% have a negligible impact on the precision with which the specific growth rate beta can be measured. Larger redshift errors introduce a positive systematic error, which can be alleviated by adopting a Gaussian distribution function of pairwise velocities. This is, in any case, smaller than the systematic error of up to 10% due to the limitations of the linear dispersion model, which is studied in a separate paper. We then show that 50% of the statistical error budget on beta depends on the deprojection procedure through which the real-space correlation function is obtained. Finally, we demonstrate that the degeneracy with geometric distortions can in fact be circumvented. This is obtained through a modified version of the Alcock-Paczynski test in redshift-space, which successfully recovers the correct cosmology by searching for the solution that optimizes the description of dynamical redshift distortions. For a flat cosmology, we obtain largely independent, robust constraints on beta and OmegaM. In a volume of 2.4(Gpc/h)^3, the correct OmegaM is obtained with ~12% error and negligible bias, once the real-space correlation function is properly reconstructed.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 authors1 topic

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.