Paper detail

Quantifying the accuracy of the Alcock-Paczynski scaling of baryon acoustic oscillation measurements

We investigate - in a generic setting - the regime of applicability of the Alcock-Paczynski (AP) scaling conventionally applied to test different cosmological models, given a fiducial measurement of the baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) characteristic scale in the galaxy 2-point correlation function. We quantify the error in conventional AP scaling methods, for which our ignorance about the true cosmology is parameterised in terms of two constant AP scaling parameters. We propose a new, and as it turns out, improved version of the constant AP scaling, also consisting of two scaling parameters. The two constant AP scaling methods are almost indistinguishable when the fiducial model used in data reduction and the "true" underlying cosmology are not differing substantially in terms of metric gradients, but are otherwise expected to differ. Our new methods can be applied to existing analyses through a reinterpretation of the results of the conventional AP scaling. This reinterpretation might be important in model universes where curvature gradients above the scale of galaxies are significant. We test our theoretical findings on $Λ$CDM mock catalogues. The conventional constant AP scaling methods are surprisingly successful for pairs of large-scale metrics, but eventually break down when toy models allowing for large metric gradients are tested. The new constant AP scaling methods proposed in this paper are efficient for all test models examined. We find systematic errors of ~1% in the recovery of the BAO scale when the true model is distant from the fiducial, which cannot be attributed to any constant AP approximation. The level of systematic uncertainty is robust to the exact fitting method employed. This indicates that caution must be taken with the error budget when extrapolating the BAO acoustic scale measurements obtained in the standard literature.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

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.