REVIEW 2 cited by
A comparison of template vs. direct model fitting for redshift-space distortions in BOSS
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
A comparison of template vs. direct model fitting for redshift-space distortions in BOSS
read the original abstract
The growth of large-scale structure, as revealed in the anisotropic of clustering of galaxies in the low redshift Universe, provides a stringent test of our cosmological model. The strongest current constraints come from the BOSS and eBOSS surveys, with uncertainties on the amplitude of clustering of less than 10 per cent. A number of different approaches have been taken to fitting this signal, leading to apparently discrepant conclusions about the amplitude of fluctuations at late times. We compare in some detail two of the leading approaches, one based on a fitting a template cosmology whose amplitude and length scales are allowed to float with one based on a more traditional forward modeling approach, when fitting to the BOSS DR12 data. Holding the input data, scale cuts, window functions and modeling framework fixed we are able to isolate the cause of the differences and discuss the implications for future surveys.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
An analytic approximation to the covariance between pre- and post-reconstruction galaxy two-point statistics
A simple analytic formula built from the Gaussian disconnected covariance and a perturbative pre-post cross-power spectrum reproduces the simulation-estimated cross-covariance well enough for cosmological inference.
-
DESI 2024 V: Full-Shape Galaxy Clustering from Galaxies and Quasars
DESI DR1 full-shape galaxy clustering constrains Omega_m = 0.296 ± 0.010, H0 = 68.63 ± 0.79 km/s/Mpc, and sigma_8 = 0.841 ± 0.034, consistent with LambdaCDM and Planck.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.