Paper detail

Renormalisation of linear halo bias in N-body simulations

The interpretation of redshift surveys requires modeling the relationship between large-scale fluctuations in the observed number density of tracers, $δ_\mathrm{h}$, and the underlying matter density, $δ$. Bias models often express $δ_\mathrm{h}$ as a truncated series of integro-differential operators acting on $δ$, each weighted by a bias parameter. Due to the presence of `composite operators' (obtained by multiplying fields evaluated at the same spatial location), the linear bias parameter measured from clustering statistics does not coincide with that appearing in the bias expansion. This issue can be cured by re-writing the expansion in terms of `renormalised' operators. After providing a pedagogical and comprehensive review of bias renormalisation in perturbation theory, we generalize the concept to non-perturbative dynamics and successfully apply it to dark-matter haloes extracted from a large suite of N-body simulations. When comparing numerical and perturbative results, we highlight the effect of the window function employed to smooth the random fields. We then measure the bias parameters as a function of halo mass by fitting a non-perturbative bias model (both before and after applying renormalisation) to the cross spectrum $P_{δ_\mathrm{h}δ}(k)$. Finally, we employ Bayesian model selection to determine the optimal operator set to describe $P_{δ_\mathrm{h}δ}(k)$ for $k<0.2\,h$ Mpc$^{-1}$ at redshift $z=0$. We find that it includes $δ, \nabla^2δ, δ^2$ and the square of the traceless tidal tensor, $s^2$. Considering higher-order terms (in $δ$) leads to overfitting as they cannot be precisely constrained by our data. We also notice that next-to-leading-order perturbative solutions are inaccurate for $k\gtrsim 0.1\,h$ Mpc$^{-1}$.

preprint2019arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 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.