4.7 Article

Using large scale structure to measure fNL, gNL and τNL

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
Volume 91, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.043506

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NASA ATP Grant [NNX12AG72G]
  2. NSF [AST1311756]
  3. NSERC
  4. Government of Canada through Industry Canada
  5. Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Research and Innovation
  6. NASA [NNX12AG72G, 76736] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Primordial non-Gaussianity of local type is known to produce a scale-dependent contribution to the galaxy bias. Several classes of multifield inflationary models predict non-Gaussian bias which is stochastic, in the sense that dark matter and halos do not trace each other perfectly on large scales. In this work, we forecast the ability of next-generation large-scale structure surveys to constrain common types of primordial non-Gaussianity like f(NL), g(NL) and tau(NL) using halo bias, including stochastic contributions. We provide fitting functions for statistical errors on these parameters which can be used for rapid forecasting or survey optimization. A next-generation survey with volume V = 25h(-3) Gpc(3), median redshift z = 0.7 and mean bias b(g) = 2.5 can achieve sigma(f(NL)) = 6, sigma(g(NL)) = 10(5) and sigma(tau(NL)) = 10(3) if no mass information is available. If halo masses are available, we show that optimally weighting the halo field in order to reduce sample variance can achieve sigma(f(NL)) = 1.5, sigma(g(NL)) = 10(4) and sigma(tau(NL)) = 100 if halos Lwith mass down to M-min = 10(11)h(-1)M circle dot are resolved, outperforming Planck by a factor of 4 on f(NL) and nearly an order of magnitude on g(NL) and tau(NL). Finally, we study the effect of photometric redshift errors and discuss degeneracies between different non-Gaussian parameters, as well as the impact of marginalizing Gaussian bias and shot noise.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available