Paper detail

Impact of bias and redshift-space modelling for the halo power spectrum: Testing the effective field theory of large-scale structure

We study the impact of different bias and redshift-space models on the halo power spectrum, quantifying their effect by comparing the fit to a subset of realizations taken from the WizCOLA suite. These provide simulated power spectrum measurements between $k_{\rm min}$ = 0.03 h/Mpc and $k_{\rm max}$ = 0.29 h/Mpc, constructed using the comoving Lagrangian acceleration method. For the bias prescription we include (i) simple linear bias; (ii) the McDonald & Roy model and (iii) its coevolution variant introduced by Saito et al.; and (iv) a very general model including all terms up to one-loop and corrections from advection. For the redshift-space modelling we include the Kaiser formula with exponential damping and the power spectrum provided by (i) tree-level perturbation theory and (ii) the Halofit prescription; (iii) one-loop perturbation theory, also with exponential damping; and (iv) an effective field theory description, also at one-loop, with damping represented by the EFT subtractions. We quantify the improvement from each layer of modelling by measuring the typical improvement in chi-square when fitting to a member of the simulation suite. We attempt to detect overfitting by testing for compatibility between the best-fit power spectrum per realization and the best-fit over the entire WizCOLA suite. For both bias and the redshift-space map we find that increasingly permissive models yield improvements in chi-square but with diminishing returns. The most permissive models show modest evidence for overfitting. Accounting for model complexity using the Bayesian Information Criterion, we argue that standard perturbation theory up to one-loop, or a related model such as that of Taruya, Nishimichi & Saito, coupled to the coevolution bias model, is likely to provide a good compromise for near-future galaxy surveys operating with comparable $k_{\rm max}$.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 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.