REVIEW 4 cited by
The Impact of the Fiducial Cosmology Assumption on BAO Cosmological Parameter Inference
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
abstract
Standard analysis pipelines for measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) in galaxy surveys make use of a fiducial cosmological model to guide the data compression required to transform from observed redshifts and angles to the measured angular and radial BAO peak positions. In order to remove any dependence on the fiducial cosmology from the results, all models compared to the data should mimic the compression and its dependence on the fiducial model. In practice, approximations are made when testing models: (1) There is assumed to be no residual dependence on the fiducial cosmology after reconstruction, (2) differences in the distance--redshift relationship are assumed to match a linear scaling, and (3) differences in clustering between true and fiducial models are assumed to be removed by the free parameters used to null the non-BAO signal. We test these approximations using the current standard measurement procedure with a set of halo catalogs from the {\sc Aemulus} suite of $N$-body simulations, which span a range of $w\mathrm{CDM}$ cosmological models. We focus on reconstruction of the primordial BAO and locating the BAO. For the range of $w\mathrm{CDM}$ cosmologies covered by the {\sc Aemulus} suite, we find no evidence for systematic errors in the measured BAO shift parameters $\alpha_{\parallel}$ and $\alpha_{\bot}$ to $< 0.1\%$. However, the measured errors $\sigma_{\alpha_{\parallel}}$ and $\sigma_{\alpha_{\bot}}$ show a notable absolute increase by up to $+0.001$ and $+0.002$ respectively in the case that the fiducial cosmology does not match the truth. These effects on the inferred BAO scale will be important given the precision of measurements expected from future surveys including DESI, Euclid, and WFIRST.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
The BAO scale -- how standard is the standard ruler?
The BAO sound-horizon scale extracted from simulated galaxy clustering differs from the standard integral definition enough to bias DESI Year-5-level cosmological constraints on Ω_m and N_eff unless corrected.
-
BAO miscalibration cannot rescue late-time solutions to the Hubble tension
Even after rescaling BAO data to prefer H0≈73 km/s/Mpc, none of six tested late-time dark-energy models can resolve the Hubble tension once unanchored SNeIa and CMB geometry are included.
-
Fiducial-Cosmology-dependent systematics for the DESI 2024 Full-Shape Analysis
Changing the assumed fiducial cosmology in DESI DR1 full-shape mock analyses shifts inferred parameters by at most 0.22 sigma in full-modeling and 0.45 sigma in ShapeFit, both within the survey's statistical uncertainty.
-
Comparison of $R_h=ct$ and $\Lambda$CDM using DESI DR1 measurements
Using DESI DR1 distance measurements, flat LambdaCDM is decisively preferred over R_h=ct, driven almost entirely by the Lyman-alpha data point at redshift 2.33.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.