REVISING THE HALOFIT MODEL FOR THE NONLINEAR MATTER POWER SPECTRUM

By Ryuichi Takahashi, Masanori Sato, T. Nishimichi, A. Taruya, M. Oguri. 2012

781 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Based on a suite of state-of-the-art high-resolution N-body simulations, we revisit the so-called halofit model as an accurate fitting formula for the nonlinear matter power spectrum. While the halofit model has frequently been used as a standard cosmological tool to predict the nonlinear matter power spectrum in a universe dominated by cold dark matter, its precision has been limited by the low resolution of N-body simulations used to determine the fitting parameters, suggesting the necessity of an improved fitting formula at small scales for future cosmological studies. We run high-resolution N-body simulations for 16 cosmological models around the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe best-fit cosmological parameters (one-, three-, five-, and seven-year results), including dark energy models with a constant equation of state. The simulation results are used to re-calibrate the fitting parameters of the halofit model so as to reproduce small-scale power spectra of the N-body simulations, while keeping the precision at large scales. The revised fitting formula provides an accurate prediction of the nonlinear matter power spectrum in a wide range of wavenumbers (k ⩽ 30 h Mpc−1) at redshifts 0 ⩽ z ⩽ 10, with 5% precision for k ⩽ 1 h Mpc−1 at 0 ⩽ z ⩽ 10 and 10% for 1 ⩽ k ⩽ 10 h Mpc−1 at 0 ⩽ z ⩽ 3. We discuss the impact of the improved halofit model on weak-lensing power spectra and correlation functions, and show that the improved model better reproduces ray-tracing simulation results.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d4dad18eef13901b71805dc9a5ba71c71caef2b8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

In Instrumentation

Citations in the corpus

The MICE Grand Challenge lightcone simulation – II. Halo and galaxy catalogues (2013, methodology): “The black dashed line corresponds to the measured DM clustering, which on these scales agrees with perturbation theory predictions (RPT; Crocce & Scoccimarro 2008) and numerical fits (Takahashi et al. 2012; Heitmann et al. 2014) to 2 per cent or better, see Paper I.”
Accurate halo-model matter power spectra with dark energy, massive neutrinos and modified gravitational forces (2016, methodology): “1, we show the power spectrum response as measured in our w(a) simulations and as predicted by the Mead et al. (2015b) halo model and the HALOFIT model of Takahashi et al. (2012) at z = 0 and 1.”
Mapping stellar content to dark matter haloes using galaxy clustering and galaxy–galaxy lensing in the SDSS DR7 (2015, methodology): “To compute the non-linear matter correlation function ξmm, we use the prescription from Takahashi et al. (2012) (an updated version of the halofit prescription from Smith et al. 2003) to generate the non–linear power spectrum for Fourier transforming to ξmm.”
The Subaru FMOS galaxy redshift survey (FastSound). IV. New constraint on gravity theory from redshift space distortions at z ∼ 1.4 (2015, methodology): “We use the improved version of HALOFIT (Smith et al. 2003) developed by Takahashi et al. (2012) to compute the nonlinear matter power spectrumPδδ.”
Constraining early dark energy with large-scale structure (2020, methodology): “[66] R.”
A fresh look at linear cosmological constraints on a decaying Dark Matter component (2016, methodology): “Although this fitting function has been derived in the context of standard ΛCDM cosmology (extended to non-zero neutrino mass [36]), the main impact of the decaying DM on the DM properties should be to slightly modify the (1 + z)3 dilution term, without a priori changing any of its clustering proper”
Cosmic Discordance: Are Planck CMB and CFHTLenS weak lensing measurements out of tune? (2014, methodology): “As a default we use the Halofit formulation as implemented by camb, which is Takahashi et al. (2012) with modified massive neutrino parameters (although we compare this nonlinear correction to others in section 3.2).”
COSMOLIKE - cosmological likelihood analyses for photometric galaxy surveys (2016, methodology): “…= PNL(k, z), which we evaluate using the Eisenstein & Hu (1998) approximation for the transfer function, and the revised Halofit fitting formula of Takahashi et al. (2012) for non-linear evolution of the matter power spectrum or the halo model (Berlind & Weinberg 2002; Seljak 2000; Cooray et al.…”
Nonlinear perturbation theory extension of the Boltzmann code CLASS (2020, methodology): “Additionally, we publicly release custom-built BOSS galaxy power spectrum likelihoods written for the Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampler Montepython [6, 12], 1The commonly used Boltzmann codes do have nonlinear modules featuring fitting formulas like HALOFIT [11].”
The MICE Grand Challenge Lightcone Simulation I: Dark matter clustering (2013, methodology): “For comparison we included linear theory, the Renormalized Perturbation Theory prediction as presented in Crocce & Scoccimarro (2008), and the numerical fits from Heitmann et al. (2013) (i.e., the Coyote Emulator) and Takahashi et al. (2012), which we shall name the revised halofit.”
Testing ΛCDM at the lowest redshifts with SN Ia and galaxy velocities (2016, methodology): “The power spectrum P (k, a) is evaluated using CAMB [60] at the present epoch (a = 1) and assuming nonlinear theory modeled by halofit [61, 62].”
KiDS-450: testing extensions to the standard cosmological model (2016, methodology): “We compare the KiDS constraints in the ∑ mν–S8 plane to the case where the HALOFIT prescription (Bird et al. 2012; Takahashi et al. 2012) is used to model the non-linear matter power spectrum.”