Paper detail

How to Optimally Constrain Galaxy Assembly Bias: Supplement Projected Correlation Functions with Count-in-cells Statistics

Most models for the connection between galaxies and their haloes ignore the possibility that galaxy properties may be correlated with halo properties other than mass, a phenomenon known as galaxy assembly bias. Yet, it is known that such correlations can lead to systematic errors in the interpretation of survey data. At present, the degree to which galaxy assembly bias may be present in the real Universe, and the best strategies for constraining it remain uncertain. We study the ability of several observables to constrain galaxy assembly bias from redshift survey data using the decorated halo occupation distribution (dHOD), an empirical model of the galaxy--halo connection that incorporates assembly bias. We cover an expansive set of observables, including the projected two-point correlation function $w_{\mathrm{p}}(r_{\mathrm{p}})$, the galaxy--galaxy lensing signal $ΔΣ(r_{\mathrm{p}})$, the void probability function $\mathrm{VPF}(r)$, the distributions of counts-in-cylinders $P(N_{\mathrm{CIC}})$, and counts-in-annuli $P(N_{\mathrm{CIA}})$, and the distribution of the ratio of counts in cylinders of different sizes $P(N_2/N_5)$. We find that despite the frequent use of the combination $w_{\mathrm{p}}(r_{\mathrm{p}})+ΔΣ(r_{\mathrm{p}})$ in interpreting galaxy data, the count statistics, $P(N_{\mathrm{CIC}})$ and $P(N_{\mathrm{CIA}})$, are generally more efficient in constraining galaxy assembly bias when combined with $w_{\mathrm{p}}(r_{\mathrm{p}})$. Constraints based upon $w_{\mathrm{p}}(r_{\mathrm{p}})$ and $ΔΣ(r_{\mathrm{p}})$ share common degeneracy directions in the parameter space, while combinations of $w_{\mathrm{p}}(r_{\mathrm{p}})$ with the count statistics are more complementary. Therefore, we strongly suggest that count statistics should be used to complement the canonical observables in future studies of the galaxy--halo connection.

preprint2019arXivOpen 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.

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.