2021
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2110.07539
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

BOSS Correlation Function Analysis from the Effective Field Theory of Large-Scale Structure

Pierre Zhang,
Guido D'Amico,
Leonardo Senatore
et al.

Abstract: After calibrating the predictions of the Effective Field Theory of Large-Scale Structure against several sets of simulations, as well as implementing a new method to assert the scale cut of the theory without the use of any simulation, we analyze the Full Shape of the BOSS Correlation Function. Imposing a prior from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis on the baryon density, we are able to measure all the parameters in ΛCDM + massive neutrinos in normal hierarchy, except for the total neutrino mass, which is just bounded.… Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
16
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 89 publications
3
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This will allow us to reduce our dependence upon external datasets while retaining tight constraints. Recent constraints [20] from the BOSS correlation function, plus a range of external data, give Ω m = 0.306 ± 0.011 and σ 8 = 0.766 ± 0.055; again in good agreement with our results (and also in agreement with Planck). Finally an analysis of BOSS using an N-body based emulator [18] finds Ω m = 0.300 ± 0.011 and σ 8 = 0.742 ± 0.035; very close to our result.…”
Section: Comparisonsupporting
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This will allow us to reduce our dependence upon external datasets while retaining tight constraints. Recent constraints [20] from the BOSS correlation function, plus a range of external data, give Ω m = 0.306 ± 0.011 and σ 8 = 0.766 ± 0.055; again in good agreement with our results (and also in agreement with Planck). Finally an analysis of BOSS using an N-body based emulator [18] finds Ω m = 0.300 ± 0.011 and σ 8 = 0.742 ± 0.035; very close to our result.…”
Section: Comparisonsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…[3] for discussion), while other inferences from the thermal Sunyaev-Zeldovich (tSZ; [4]) power spectrum suggest values in good agreement with CMB [5]. Surveys measuring cosmic shear tend to find lower values than high redshift inferences [6][7][8][9][10][11][12] while studies of velocities of galaxies via redshift-space distortions find "low" [13][14][15][16][17][18], "intermediate" [19,20] and "high" [21] results. Earlier analyses of galaxies, clusters and quasars in combination with Planck lensing [22][23][24] found either consistent [22] or lower [25][26][27][28][29][30] clustering amplitudes than expected from CMB, though with low statistical significance.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…IV these two models to a compilation of Planck TTTEEE and lensing power spectra, BAO data from BOSS and eBOSS (including Ly-α data), uncalibrated luminosity distance to SN1a from the Pantheon catalogue [154], as well as measurements of the monopole and quadrupole of the galaxy power spectrum for three different sky-cut of BOSS-DR12 (see Ref. [139]), namely LOWZ NGC, CMASS NGC and CMASS SGC [136]. We compared the use of either the BAO/f σ 8 from that same release, or the full shape of the galaxy power spectrum.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…LOWZ corresponds to the the BOSS DR12 data including the BAO post-reconstruction for 0.2 < z < 0.43 and has an effective redshift z ef f,LOWZ = 0.32, while CMASS corresponds to the the BOSS DR12 data also including the BAO post-reconstruction for 0.43 < z < 0.7 and has an effective redshift z ef f,CMASS = 0.57 (see Ref. [139]). This data set will be called, in the following, 'EFTofBOSS data'.…”
Section: The Galaxy Power Spectrum From the Eftoflss Formalismmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first approach was to use the CMB lensing power spectrum [22]; since this observable is given by a projection of the matter power spectrum, the BAO oscillations average out such that only equality scale information remains. Later approaches [23,24] improved upon these constraints with novel analyses of the full 3D galaxy power spectrum, building on recent advances in modeling and analyzing the galaxy power spectrum, beyond just its oscillatory component [e.g., [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. Whilst constraints from standard full-shape analyses remain BAOdominated, [24] successfully removed sound horizon information with a suitable choice of priors (omitting the baryonic information usually provided by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) constraints [e.g., 13,28,34,35]); subsequently, [23] proposed and validated a new method to "integrate out" the sound horizon even with BBN priors, resulting in the tightest equality scale H 0 constraints to date.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%