Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
redshift space distortion analysis from the dr14 eboss
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mar 21, 2024 114 likes •402 views

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space Hctor Gil-Marn (Institute Lagrange de Paris Fellow, LPNHE Sorbonne University) Statistical challenges for large-scale structure in the era of LSST Oxford,

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space

Héctor Gil-Marín (Institute Lagrange de Paris Fellow, LPNHE Sorbonne University) Statistical challenges for large-scale structure in the era of LSST Oxford, 20th April 2018

Based on HGM et al. 2018, arXiv:1801.02689

slide-2
SLIDE 2

BAO & RSD Papers on DR14Q

  • Gil-Marín et al. 18 (RSD in Fourier space)
  • Hou et al. 18 (RSD in config. Space)
  • Zarrouk et al. 18 (RSD in conf. space)
  • Ruggeri et al. 18 (z-weighting RSD in Fourier Space)
  • Zhao et al. 18 (z-weighting RSD in Fourier Space)
  • Ata et al. 18 (BAO isotropic, Fourier & conf. space)
  • Wang et al. 18 (z-weighting BAO in Fourier space)
  • Zhu et al. 18 (z-weighting BAO in conf. space)

RSD - Full Shape BAO

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space Hector Gil-Marin

Dv(zeff) Dv( 0.8<z<2.2 ) fσ8(zeff) H(zeff) DA(zeff) fσ8(0.8<z<2.2) H(0.8<z<2.2) DA(0.8<z<2.2)

This talk

slide-3
SLIDE 3

eBOSS in a nutshell

extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey

  • Part of SDSS-IV collaboration
  • Spectroscopic survey: σz~0.001
  • Apache Point Telescope 2.5m
  • 2014 - 2019 observing LRGs, ELGs, quasars

+ Lya

  • 1000fibres per plate (~7deg2)
  • 1000 EZ & 400 QPM mocks for covariances

DR14 footprint for the quasar sample

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space Hector Gil-Marin

0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 n(z)x105 [hMpc-1]3 redshift

NGC SGC

  • 0.8 < z < 2.2
  • Wide redshift range
  • 148,659 quasars
  • Low density of tracers

2 x 10-5 h/Mpc

  • Low density variation

2112.9 deg2

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space Hector Gil-Marin

Three types of redshift estimates

  • 4
  • 2

2 4 0.02 0.10 0.20 0.30 ∆P(0) / σP

(0)

k [hMpc-1]

  • 4
  • 2

2 4 ∆P(2) / σP

(2)

  • 200

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 kP(l)(k) [Mpc/h]2 fid MgII PCA

The zPL automated classification: Template-based PCA fit to CIV-line The zPCA automated classification: Template-based PCA fit to MgII-line The zMgII automated classification: Location of the MgII-line peak (when present). Standard redshift estimate zfid: Any of the above options depending on the particular

  • bject, which provides the lowest rate of catastrophic failures.
slide-5
SLIDE 5

Success rate after visual inspections NGC SGC

Redshift efficiency pattern

lower at the edges

Potential observational Systematics

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space Hector Gil-Marin

wspec(x foc,yfoc) ∼ 1 P

sucess(x foc,yfoc)

Zarrouk et al. 18

  • Redshift Failures: i) Weight the

nearest neighbour (NN), use in BOSS analysis. ii) Weight all

  • bserved galaxies by their position

in the plate,

  • Collision Pairs: Traditional nearest

neighbour weighting (NN)

Imprint such effects on the mocks and check how these correction schemes perform

Fibres corresponding to edges of the spectrograph

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space Hector Gil-Marin

  • 150
  • 100
  • 50

50 100 150 0.10 0.20 0.30 k∆P(2) k [hMpc-1] 100 200 300 400 500 kP(2)(k) [Mpc/h]2 Quadrupole

True signal (systematic effect not applied)

Potential observational Systematics

Corrected: redshift failures (focal weight) + close pairs (NN) Corrected: redshift failures (NN) + close pairs (NN) Corrected: redshift failures (focal weight) [close pairs not applied]

  • 60
  • 40
  • 20

20 40 60 0.10 0.20 0.30 k∆P(0) k [hMpc-1] 200 400 600 800 1000 kP(0)(k) [Mpc/h]2 Monopole zf wfocwcp wnozwcp raw

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Take highest deviation from obs & mod

+17% +16% +13%

  • Use OuterRim N-body simulation at z=1.43 (Habib et al 2016) with

different HOD prescriptions & w/ or wo/ (Gaussian) redshift smearing.

  • 0.1
  • 0.05

0.05 0.1 EZ mocks QPM mocks OR w/o sm. OR w/ sm. ∆fσ8

  • 0.1
  • 0.05

0.05 0.1 ∆αpara

  • 0.1
  • 0.05

0.05 0.1

  • bservational

modelling ∆αperp Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space Hector Gil-Marin

no satellite fraction 13% satellite fraction 22% satellite fraction

Model: 2-loop RPT + TNS @ z=1.43, 0.02<k[h/Mpc]<0.30

fσ8, αpara, αperp, b1σ8, b2σ8, σfog, Anoise

add in quadrature both ‘obs’ and ‘sys’ errors

Potential modelling Systematics

… but not clear if the overall measurement would be shifted

HOD of quasars

no sys? problems?

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Measurement and best-fitting model on DR14Q

  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1

1 2 3 4 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 ∆P / σP k [hMpc-1]

  • 400
  • 200

200 400 600 800 1000 kP(k) [Mpc/h]2 DR14Q 0.8<z<2.2 Monopole Quadrupole Hexadecapole

χ2=84/(84-7) χ2P0=20/(28-7) χ2P2=30/(28-6) χ2P4=35/(28-4)

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space Hector Gil-Marin

0.02 < k [h/Mpc] < 0.30

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Comparing data with mocks

0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 αpara EZ-Mocks DR14Q w zfid DR14Q w zPCA DR14Q w zMgII 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 0.2 0.4 0.6 αperp fσ8 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 αpara 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 αperp 50 60 70 80 90 100 χ2

0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 σαpara EZ-Mocks DR14Q w zfid DR14Q w zPCA DR14Q w zMgII 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 σαperp σfσ8 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 σαpara

  • Data looks like a typical

realisation wrt the mocks

  • Redshift estimate does not

affect the best-fitting value significantly

  • However, does affect the tails

(errors) of the distribution

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space Hector Gil-Marin

  • Mocks as pipeline validation
  • Potential systematic tests
  • Unfortunately, mocks do not have spectra
slide-10
SLIDE 10

Consistency results on the data

Test the effect of adding/removing the hexadecapole Test the effect of redshift estimates on the cosmological parameters

zPCA larger tails

Hexadecapole helps to break H

  • vs. fσ8 and DA vs H degeneracies

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space Hector Gil-Marin

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Split the 0.8<z<2.2 in 3 overlapping z-bins

  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1

1 2 3 4 0.02 0.10 0.20 0.30 ∆P(l) / σP k [hMpc-1] 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 kP(l)(k) [Mpc/h]2 DR14Q Monopole lowz midz highz

lowz 0.8< z <1.5 midz 1.2< z <1.8 highz 1.5< z <2.2

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space Hector Gil-Marin

  • We individually fit the 3 redshift bins
  • The covariance among parameters is computed through the

EZmocks

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space Hector Gil-Marin

  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1

1 2 3 4 0.02 0.10 0.20 0.30 k [hMpc-1]

  • 400
  • 200

200 400 600 800 DR14Q Quadrupole

  • We individually fit the 3 redshift bins
  • The covariance among parameters is computed through the

EZmocks

Split the 0.8<z<2.2 in 3 overlapping z-bins

lowz 0.8< z <1.5 midz 1.2< z <1.8 highz 1.5< z <2.2

slide-13
SLIDE 13
  • We individually fit the 3 redshift bins
  • The covariance among parameters is computed through the

EZmocks

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space Hector Gil-Marin

  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1

1 2 3 4 0.02 0.10 0.20 0.30 k [hMpc-1]

  • 600
  • 400
  • 200

200 400 DR14Q Hexadecapole

Split the 0.8<z<2.2 in 3 overlapping z-bins

lowz 0.8< z <1.5 midz 1.2< z <1.8 highz 1.5< z <2.2

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space Hector Gil-Marin

Split the 0.8<z<2.2 in 3 overlapping z-bins

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Cosmological Results

0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 0.1 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 DA / DA

Planck

z 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 H / HPlanck 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 fσ8(z)

MGS DR7 SDSS-II BOSS LRGs DR12 SDSS-III BOSS Ly-α DR12 SDSS-III eBOSS DR14Q SDSS-IV

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space Hector Gil-Marin

fσ 8(1.52) = 0.420 ± 0.076 H(1.52) = [162 ±12](r

s fid / r s)

DA(1.52) = 1.85 ± 0.11

[ ]×103(r

s / r s fid)

0.8<z<2.2

fσ 8(1.19) = 0.474 ± 0.099 H(1.19) = [133±11](r

s fid / r s)

DA(1.19) = 1.87 ± 0.15

[ ]×103(r

s / r s fid)

0.8<z<1.5

fσ 8(1.50) = 0.34 ± 0.11 H(1.50) = [134 ±18](r

s fid / r s)

DA(1.50) = 1.84 ± 0.15

[ ]×103(r

s / r s fid)

1.2<z<1.8 1.5<z<2.2

fσ 8(1.83) = 0.50 ± 0.11 H(1.83) = [181± 24](r

s fid / r s)

DA(1.83) = 1.94 ± 0.15

[ ]×103(r

s / r s fid)

2.5

slide-16
SLIDE 16

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 flat ΛCDM GR assumed ΩΛ Ωm BOSS LRGs DR12 Cons. eBOSS DR14Q 1z-bin + BOSS LRGs DR12 Cons. eBOSS DR14Q 3z-bin + BOSS LRGs DR12 Cons. eBOSS DR14Q 3z-bin + BOSS LRGs DR12 Cons. + Planck eBOSS DR14Q 3z-bin + BOSS LRGs-Lya DR12 Cons. + Planck

Test of flatness

Ωk=-0.007 +/-0.030 Ωm=0.3094 +/- 0.0078 ΩΛ=0.697 +/-0.034

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space Hector Gil-Marin

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Consensus with other ‘classical’ analyses

  • Consensus among ‘classical’ analysis
  • All uses 3 first non-null multipoles
  • Only statistical errors included
  • Bias models different
  • Same prediction for cosmological parameters
  • So far, no consensus values (alphabetical paper)

Excellent agreement among cosmological parameters

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space Hector Gil-Marin

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space Hector Gil-Marin Zhao et al. 2018

Ruggeri et al. 2018 arxiv:1801.02891 Zhao et al. 2018 arxiv:1801.03043

Consensus with redshift-weighted analyses

fσ 8(z) fσ 8(z)

[ ]fid

= p0 1+ p1x(z)+ p2x2(z)+... ⎡ ⎣ ⎤ ⎦ Find optimal weights, pi

slide-19
SLIDE 19

DR14Q BAO results

Correlation Function Power Spectrum

Significance of BAO peak

  • Correlation factor ρ=0.97
  • 3σ detection
  • In good agreement with Planck+GR
  • DV(z=1.52)=3843 147 Mpc (3.8%)
  • χ2=6.2/13 for ξ(R) and 27.7/33 for P(k)

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space Hector Gil-Marin

Ata et al. 2017 arXiv:1705.06373

±

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Conclusions

DR14Q data. RSD & iso-BAO analyses completed. Measurements on DA, H and fσ8 at zeff=1.52 for the first time Some remaining systematics on RSD to be corrected. So far sub-dominant wrt the statistics Results in agreement with the forecasted errors by Zhao et al. 2014 Non-consensus results for DR14Q, but different groups present excellent agreement

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space Hector Gil-Marin

  • June ’17: BAO DR14Q
  • January ’18: BAO DR14L
  • January ’18: RSD DR14Q
  • ~July ’18: RSD DR14L
  • ~December ’18: BAO & RSD DR16E
  • ~Fall ’19: Final DR16 BAO-RSD LRG-ELG-quasar+Lya

ELG observations completed LRG & QSO observations completed

Key dates on eBOSS

(February 2018)

(February 2019)

s t a y t u n e d !

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Backup slides

slide-22
SLIDE 22

NGC vs SGC QSO mocks performance

  • 4
  • 2

2 4 0.02 0.10 0.20 0.30 ∆P(0) / σP

(0)

k [hMpc-1]

  • 4
  • 2

2 4 ∆P(2) / σP

(2)

  • 200

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 kP(l)(k) [Mpc/h]2 DR14Q 0.8<z<2.2 P(0) NGC P(0) SGC P(2) NGC P(2) SGC

  • 400
  • 200

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 kP(k) [Mpc/h]2 k [hMpc-1] DR14Q Monopole DR14Q Quadrupole DR14Q Hexadecapole QPM EZ

χ2=65/(84-7) χ2P0=20/(28-7) χ2P2=22/(28-6) χ2P4=25/(28-4) χ2=77/(84-7) χ2P0=26/(28-7) χ2P2=24/(28-6) χ2P4=28/(28-4)

NGC SGC

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space Hector Gil-Marin

slide-23
SLIDE 23

We re-analyze the data using different prescriptions (bin position/size, sample, etc., and study how the cosmological parameters change

0.88 0.92 0.96 1 comb std +1/4 +2/4 +3/4 MgII comb PCA comb NGC SGC logk NGC-logk SGC-logk αiso=1 kmax=0.20hMpc QPM cov EZ cov 400 no wsys no wfocal no wcp wnoz std+P(4) b1σ8 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 fσ8 0.96 1 1.04 1.08 1.12 αiso

Consistency results on the data

  • QPM-choice shifts 0.67σ the

b1σ8 and αiso wrt the ‘std’ case.

  • 14% of the mocks present such

behaviour

  • It is expected that if we look at

several properties, at least one

  • f them deviate ~1σ

?

independent

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space Hector Gil-Marin

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Consistency results on the data

Test the effect of adding/removing the hexadecapole Test the effect of redshift estimates on the cosmological parameters

zPCA larger tails

Hexadecapole helps to break H

  • vs. fσ8 and DA vs H degeneracies

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space Hector Gil-Marin

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Consistency results on the data

Test the effect of adding/removing the hexadecapole Test the effect of redshift estimates on the cosmological parameters

zPCA larger tails

Hexadecapole helps to break H

  • vs. fσ8 and DA vs H degeneracies

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space Hector Gil-Marin

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space Hector Gil-Marin

slide-27
SLIDE 27
  • 1000 mocks used to,
  • 1. Compute the covariance matrix of the data
  • 2. Test the BAO pipeline and compare it to the data
  • Selection function on P(k) extra damping on BAO

Test on Mocks

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space Hector Gil-Marin

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Split the 0.8<z<2.2 in 3 overlapping z-bins

  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1

1 2 3 4 0.02 0.10 0.20 0.30 ∆P(l) / σP k [hMpc-1] 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 kP(l)(k) [Mpc/h]2 DR14Q Monopole lowz midz highz

  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1

1 2 3 4 0.02 0.10 0.20 0.30 k [hMpc-1]

  • 400
  • 200

200 400 600 800 DR14Q Quadrupole

  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1

1 2 3 4 0.02 0.10 0.20 0.30 k [hMpc-1]

  • 600
  • 400
  • 200

200 400 DR14Q Hexadecapole

lowz 0.8<z<1.5 midz 1.2<z<1.8 highz 1.5<z<2.2

  • We individually fit the 3 redshift bins
  • The covariance among parameters is computed through the ez-mocks
  • higher Kaiser boost at high z
  • higher damping at high z
  • Non-understood outliers on midz

χ2=122/(84-7)

(highest mock 107)

χ2MgII=103/(84-7) χ2PCA=107/(84-7)

2σ in NGC 2.6σ in SGC

Redshift-space distortion analysis from the DR14 eBOSS quasar sample in Fourier space Hector Gil-Marin