ABSTRACT The halo model provides a powerful framework for interpreting galaxy clustering by linking the spatial distribution of dark matter haloes to the underlying matter distribution. A key assumption within the halo bias approximation of the halo model is that, on sufficiently large scales, the halo bias between two halo populations is a separable function of the mass of each population. In this work, we test the validity of this approximation on quasi-linear scales using both simulations and observational data across a broad range of halo masses and redshifts. In particular, we define a separability function based on halo or galaxy cross-correlations to quantify deviations from halo-bias separability, and measure it from N-body simulations. We find significant departures from separability on quasi-linear scales (1\!-\!5\, Mpc) at high redshifts (z 3), leading to a suppression in the scale-dependent halo bias and hence in halo cross-correlations by up to a factor of 2 – or even higher. In contrast, deviations at low redshifts remain modest. Additionally, using high-redshift (z 3. 6) galaxy samples, we detect deviations from bias separability that closely align with simulation predictions. The breakdown of the separable bias approximation on quasi-linear scales at high redshifts underscores the importance to account for non-separability in models of the galaxy–halo connection in this regime. Furthermore, these results highlight the potential of high-redshift galaxy cross-correlations as a probe for improving the galaxy–halo connection from upcoming large-scale surveys.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Emy Mons
V Maranchery
M S Suryan Sivadas
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Sapienza University of Rome
University of Rome Tor Vergata
Agenzia Spaziale Italiana
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Mons et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69a760fcc6e9836116a2e761 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stag234
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: