Paper detail

Large scale bias and the inaccuracy of the peak-background split

The peak-background split argument is commonly used to relate the abundance of dark matter halos to their spatial clustering. Testing this argument requires an accurate determination of the halo mass function. We present a Maximum Likelihood method for fitting parametric functional forms to halo abundances which differs from previous work because it does not require binned counts. Our conclusions do not depend on whether we use our method or more conventional ones. In addition, halo abundances depend on how halos are defined. Our conclusions do not depend on the choice of link length associated with the friends-of-friends halo-finder, nor do they change if we identify halos using a spherical overdensity algorithm instead. The large scale halo bias measured from the matter-halo cross spectrum b_x and the halo autocorrelation function b_xi (on scales k~0.03h/Mpc and r ~50 Mpc/h) can differ by as much as 5% for halos that are significantly more massive than the characteristic mass M*. At these large masses, the peak background split estimate of the linear bias factor b1 is 3-5% smaller than b_xi, which is 5% smaller than b_x. We discuss the origin of these discrepancies: deterministic nonlinear local bias, with parameters determined by the peak-background split argument, is unable to account for the discrepancies we see. A simple linear but nonlocal bias model, motivated by peaks theory, may also be difficult to reconcile with our measurements. More work on such nonlocal bias models may be needed to understand the nature of halo bias at this level of precision.

preprint2009arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 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.