Paper detail

Halo Counts-in-cells for Cosmological Models with Different Dark Energy

We examine the counts-in-cells probability distribution functions that describe dark matter halos in the Dark Energy Universe Simulations (DEUS). We describe the measurements between redshifts $z=0$ to $z=4$ on both linear and non-linear scales. The best-fits of the gravitational quasi-equilibrium distribution (GQED), the negative binomial distribution (NBD), the Poisson-Lognormal distribution (PLN), and the Poisson-Lognormal distribution with a bias parameter (PLNB) are compared to simulations. The fits agree reasonably consistently over a range of redshifts and scales. To distinguish quintessence (RPCDM) and phantom ($w$CDM) dark energy from $Λ$ dark energy, we present a new method that compares the model parameters of the counts-in-cells probability distribution functions. We find that the mean and variance of the halo counts-in-cells on $2-25h^{-1}$Mpc scales between redshifts $0.65<z<4$ show significant percentage differences for different dark energy cosmologies. On $15-25h^{-1}$Mpc scales, the $g$ parameter in NBD, $ω$ parameter in PLN, $b$ and $C_b$ parameters in PLNB show larger percentage differences for different dark energy cosmologies than on smaller scales. On $2-6h^{-1}$Mpc scales, kurtosis and the $b$ parameter in the GQED show larger percentage differences for different dark energy cosmologies than on larger scales. For cosmologies explored in the DEUS simulations, the percentage differences between these statistics for the RPCDM and $w$CDM dark energy cosmologies relative to $Λ$CDM generally increases with redshift from a few percent to significantly larger percentages at $z=4$. Applying our method to simulations and galaxy surveys can provide a useful way to distinguish among dark energy models and cosmologies in general.

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.