2020/07/31 by A. G. Smith, Alex Smith, Etienne Burtin +23 · 60 citations
Physics and Astronomy · #Astronomy #Astronomy and Astrophysical Research #Astrophysics #Baryon #Baryon acoustic oscillations #Cosmology #Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena #Galaxy #Gamma-ray bursts and supernovae #Physics #Quasar #Redshift #Redshift survey #Redshift-space distortions #Sigma #astro-ph.CO
paper · pdf · doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2825
published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 499(1), 269-291 (Oxford University Press) · 25 pages, 17 figures, 8 tables, updated to match the version accepted for publication in MNRAS. A summary of all SDSS BAO and RSD measurements with accompanying legacy figures can be found here: https://sdss.org/science/final-bao-and-rsd-measurements/. The full cosmological interpretation of these measurements can be found here: https://sdss.org/science/cosmology-results-from-eboss/
openalex created_date 2020/07/23 · openalex publication_date 2020/09/15 · arxiv created 2020/12/04 · arxiv updated 2020/12/07 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/06
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 halo occupation distribution 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 fσ8 to within 3 per cent and α∥ and α⊥ to within 1 per cent. 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 fσ8, α∥, and α⊥ at the level of σ fσ 8=0.013, σ α _∥ =0.012, and σ α _\bot =0.008. The systematic error on the combined consensus is σ fσ 8=0.011, σ α _∥ =0.008, and σ α _\bot =0.005, which is used in the final DR16 analysis. For baryon acoustic oscillation fits in configuration and Fourier space, we take conservative systematic errors of σ α _∥ =0.010 and σ α _\bot =0.007.