Paper detail

Validating the methodology for constraining the linear growth rate from clustering anisotropies

Redshift-space clustering distortions provide one of the most powerful probes to test the gravity theory on the largest cosmological scales. We perform a systematic validation study of the state-of-the-art statistical methods currently used to constrain the linear growth rate from redshift-space distortions in the galaxy two-point correlation function. The numerical pipelines are tested on mock halo catalogues extracted from large N-body simulations of the standard cosmological framework. We consider both the monopole and quadrupole multipole moments of the redshift-space two-point correlation function, as well as the radial and transverse clustering wedges, in the comoving scale range $10<r[$\Mpch$]<55$. Moreover, we investigate the impact of redshift measurement errors on the growth rate and linear bias measurements due to the assumptions in the redshift-space distortion model. Considering both the dispersion model and two widely-used models based on perturbation theory, we find that the linear growth rate is underestimated by about $5-10\%$ at $z<1$, while limiting the analysis at larger scales, $r>30$ \Mpch, the discrepancy is reduced below $5\%$. At higher redshifts, we find instead an overall good agreement between measurements and model predictions. Though this accuracy is good enough for clustering analyses in current redshift surveys, the models have to be further improved not to introduce significant systematics in RSD constraints from next generation galaxy surveys. The effect of redshift errors is degenerate with the one of small-scale random motions, and can be marginalised over in the statistical analysis, not introducing any statistically significant bias in the linear growth constraints, especially at $z\geq1$.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.