Pith. sign in

REVIEW

The Completed SDSS-IV Extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: N-body Mock Challenge for the Quasar Sample

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

arxiv 2007.09003 v2 pith:6H4BR3TS submitted 2020-07-17 astro-ph.CO

The Completed SDSS-IV Extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: N-body Mock Challenge for the Quasar Sample

classification astro-ph.CO
keywords sigmaalphaparallelmocksmodelsmockredshiftspace
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

The growth rate and expansion history of the Universe can be measured from large galaxy redshift surveys using the Alcock-Paczynski effect. We validate the Redshift Space Distortion models used in the final analysis of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (eBOSS) Data Release 16 quasar clustering sample, in configuration and Fourier space, using a series of HOD mock catalogues generated using the OuterRim N-body simulation. We test three models on a series of non-blind mocks, in the OuterRim cosmology, and blind mocks, which have been rescaled to new cosmologies, and investigate the effects of redshift smearing and catastrophic redshifts. We find that for the non-blind mocks, the models are able to recover $f\sigma_8$ to within 3% and $\alpha_\parallel$ and $\alpha_\bot$ to within 1%. The scatter in the measurements is larger for the blind mocks, due to the assumption of an incorrect fiducial cosmology. From this mock challenge, we find that all three models perform well, with similar systematic errors on $f\sigma_8$, $\alpha_\parallel$ and $\alpha_\bot$ at the level of $\sigma_{f\sigma_8}=0.013$, $\sigma_{\alpha_\parallel}=0.012$ and $\sigma_{\alpha_\bot}=0.008$. The systematic error on the combined consensus is $\sigma_{f\sigma_8}=0.011$, $\sigma_{\alpha_\parallel}=0.008$ and $\sigma_{\alpha_\bot}=0.005$, which is used in the final DR16 analysis. For BAO fits in configuration and Fourier space, we take conservative systematic errors of $\sigma_{\alpha_\parallel}=0.010$ and $\sigma_{\alpha_\bot}=0.007$.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.