Testing the accuracy of likelihoods for cluster abundance cosmology

• Published in: Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Vol. 520; no. 4; pp. 6223 - 6236
• Main Authors: Payerne, C, Murray, C, Combet, C, Doux, C, Fumagalli, A, Penna-Lima, M
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford University Press 22.02.2023; Oxford University Press (OUP): Policy P - Oxford Open Option A
• Subjects: Astrophysics; Cosmology and Extra-Galactic Astrophysics; Sciences of the Universe; (; methods: statistical; galaxies: clusters: general; cosmological parameters
• ISSN: 0035-8711; 1365-2966
• DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stad489

ABSTRACT The abundance of galaxy clusters is a sensitive probe to the amplitude of matter density fluctuations, the total amount of matter in the Universe as well as its expansion history. Inferring correct values and accurate uncertainties of cosmological parameters requires accurate knowledge of cluster abundance statistics, encoded in the likelihood function. In this paper, we test the accuracy of cluster abundance likelihoods used in the literature, namely the Poisson and Gaussian likelihoods as well as the more complete description of the Gauss–Poisson Compound likelihood. This is repeated for a variety of binning choices and analysis setups. In order to evaluate the accuracy of a given likelihood, this work compares individual posterior covariances to the covariance of estimators over the 1000 simulated dark matter halo catalogues obtained from PINOCCHIO algorithm. We find that for Rubin/LSST and Euclid-like surveys the Gaussian likelihood gives robust constraints over a large range of binning choices. The Poisson likelihood, that does not account for sample covariance, always underestimates the errors on the parameters, even when the sample volume is reduced or only high-mass clusters are considered. We find no benefit in using the more complex Gauss–Poisson Compound likelihood as it gives essentially the same results as the Gaussian likelihood, but at a greater computational cost. Finally, in this ideal setup, we note only a small gain on the parameter error bars when using a large number of bins in the mass–redshift plane.