Paper detail

Statistical Analysis of Galaxy Surveys - I. Robust error estimation for 2-point clustering statistics

We present a test of different error estimators for 2-point clustering statistics, appropriate for present and future large galaxy redshift surveys. Using an ensemble of very large dark matter LambdaCDM N-body simulations, we compare internal error estimators (jackknife and bootstrap) to external ones (Monte-Carlo realizations). For 3-dimensional clustering statistics, we find that none of the internal error methods investigated are able to reproduce neither accurately nor robustly the errors of external estimators on 1 to 25 Mpc/h scales. The standard bootstrap overestimates the variance of xi(s) by ~40% on all scales probed, but recovers, in a robust fashion, the principal eigenvectors of the underlying covariance matrix. The jackknife returns the correct variance on large scales, but significantly overestimates it on smaller scales. This scale dependence in the jackknife affects the recovered eigenvectors, which tend to disagree on small scales with the external estimates. Our results have important implications for the use of galaxy clustering in placing constraints on cosmological parameters. For example, in a 2-parameter fit to the projected correlation function, we find that the standard bootstrap systematically overestimates the 95% confidence interval, while the jackknife method remains biased, but to a lesser extent. The scatter we find between realizations, for Gaussian statistics, implies that a 2-sigma confidence interval, as inferred from an internal estimator, could correspond in practice to anything from 1-sigma to 3-sigma. Finally, by an oversampling of sub-volumes, it is possible to obtain bootstrap variances and confidence intervals that agree with external error estimates, but it is not clear if this prescription will work for a general case.

preprint2008arXivOpen 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.