Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We derive a simple prescription for including beyond-linear halo bias within the standard, analytical halo-model power spectrum calculation. This results in a corrective term that is added to the usual two-halo term. We measure this correction using data from N-body simulations and demonstrate that it can boost power in the two-halo term by a factor of ∼2 at scales $k\sim 0.7\, h\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$, with the exact magnitude of the boost determined by the specific pair of fields in the two-point function. How this translates to the full power spectrum depends on the relative strength of the one-halo term, which can mask the importance of this correction to a greater or lesser degree, again depending on the fields. Generally, we find that our correction is more important for signals that arise from lower mass haloes. When comparing our calculation to simulated data, we find that the underprediction of power in the transition region between the two- and one-halo terms, which typically plagues halo-model calculations, is almost completely eliminated when including the full non-linear halo bias. We show improved results for the autospectra and cross-spectra of galaxies, haloes, and matter. In the specific case of matter–matter or matter–halo power, we note that a large fraction of the improvement comes from the non-linear biasing between low- and high-mass haloes. We envisage our model being useful in the analytical modelling of cross-correlation signals. Our non-linear bias halo-model code is available at https://github.com/alexander-mead/BNL.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".