research29 min studyLesson 877 in Physics

Galaxy bias and redshift-space distortions

Derive a linear anisotropic clustering prediction and expose its bias, velocity, amplitude, and survey-window assumptions.

On this page

What you’ll understand

  • Calculate linear Kaiser power for different wavevector directions.
  • Separate density bias, growth rate, and matter amplitude.
  • Identify nonlinear and survey effects omitted from a plane-parallel prediction.

A galaxy redshift contains both background expansion and line-of-sight peculiar motion. Converting it into a radial coordinate therefore distorts the apparent clustering pattern. Those distortions carry information about structure growth, but only through a model connecting galaxies, matter, and velocities. We will derive the simplest linear plane-parallel prediction, compare transverse and radial modes, and identify its degeneracies. The exercise also explains why counting ever more galaxies in the same footprint does not eliminate uncertainty from the finite realization of large-scale structure.

Galaxies trace matter with an effective response

Define matter contrast as density minus its mean divided by that mean. On sufficiently large scales, a deterministic linear bias model sets galaxy contrast equal to b times matter contrast. This is an effective approximation for a selected tracer population, not a fundamental law identifying galaxies with all mass. Bias can depend on redshift, scale, and sample selection, and stochastic contributions need not follow exactly the simplest Poisson prescription.

Observed redshift coordinates differ from real comoving coordinates by peculiar velocity divided by a H along the line of sight. Number conservation contributes a Jacobian between those coordinates. Linear continuity connects coherent velocity divergence to density growth, producing an angular dependence in Fourier space. The familiar compact formula assumes a common line of sight, small perturbations, an appropriate growing mode, and negligible velocity bias. It cannot be applied unchanged inside a virialized galaxy cluster.

s=x+v∥aHn^,δgs(k)=(b+fμk2)δm(k),Pgs(k,μk)=(b+fμk2)2Pm(k)+Pϵ(k,μk)\boldsymbol s=\boldsymbol x+\frac{v_\parallel}{aH}\widehat{\boldsymbol n},\qquad \delta_g^s(\boldsymbol k)=(b+f\mu_k^2)\delta_m(\boldsymbol k),\qquad P_g^s(k,\mu_k)=(b+f\mu_k^2)^2P_m(k)+P_\epsilon(k,\mu_k)
Coordinates are comoving, v parallel is physical peculiar velocity, mu k is the wavevector cosine to the line of sight, and f is the logarithmic linear growth rate. P epsilon represents stochastic contributions; all power spectra here have comoving-volume units.↔ Scroll wide equations horizontally.

Anisotropy measures combinations rather than isolated parameters

A transverse mode has wavevector perpendicular to the line of sight, so the coherent velocity contribution vanishes in this approximation. A radial mode receives the full growth term. Their ratio depends on beta, the growth rate divided by bias, rather than on the matter normalization separately. Angular multipoles summarize this anisotropy; integrating the squared angular factor produces the monopole coefficients below. The angle in this formula is a Fourier-mode direction, not the angular separation of a galaxy pair.

The overall amplitude mixes bias and the matter fluctuation normalization at the bin’s redshift. Redshift-space analyses therefore often constrain f(z)σ8(z)f(z)\sigma_8(z) and b(z)σ8(z)b(z)\sigma_8(z). Here σ8(z)\sigma_8(z) is the linear matter root-mean-square contrast at redshift z in spheres of radius eight inverse-h megaparsecs; h is H zero divided by one hundred km per second per megaparsec. For scale-independent growth, σ8(z)=[D(z)/D(0)]σ8,0\sigma_8(z)=[D(z)/D(0)]\sigma_{8,0}, with σ8,0\sigma_{8,0} the present-day value. Converting a fitted bin amplitude to that value requires an assumed growth history and power-spectrum shape.

f≡dln⁡Ddln⁡a,β≡fb,P0(k)=(b2+23bf+15f2)Pm(k)(Pϵ=0)f\equiv\frac{d\ln D}{d\ln a},\qquad \beta\equiv\frac fb,\qquad P_0(k)=\left(b^2+\frac23bf+\frac15f^2\right)P_m(k)\quad(P_\epsilon=0)
D is a scale-independent linear growing-mode amplitude in this approximation. P zero is the angular average, one half the integral over mu k from minus one to one. More general gravity or species effects may require scale-dependent growth.↔ Scroll wide equations horizontally.

The window and nonlinear velocities matter

Random virial velocities smear radial positions on small scales and generate fingers of God, which differ from the coherent linear compression. Nonlinear bias, velocity dispersion, wide-angle geometry, and relativistic projection corrections require additional modeling in their relevant regimes. A wrong fiducial distance-redshift relation also creates anisotropy through the Alcock–Paczynski effect. Separating geometric anisotropy from velocities is part of the inference, rather than something guaranteed by measuring an anisotropic correlation function.

A finite survey multiplies the density field by its angular and radial window, convolving Fourier modes and correlating estimated powers. The measured mean density imposes an integral constraint, while incompleteness and redshift failures alter the effective selection. Random catalogs and forward-convolved models address these effects. More tracer density reduces shot noise, but the number of accessible large-scale modes is limited by volume and geometry. Multiple tracers can exploit shared modes under controlled bias and noise assumptions, without creating an unlimited number of independent universes.

Compare transverse and radial Fourier modes

Use the noiseless linear model with b = 2, f = 1, and P m = 1000 Mpc cubed at one wave number. Compute transverse and radial redshift-space power, their ratio, beta, and the monopole.

  1. For a transverse mode μk=0\mu_k=0, so Pgs=22(1000)=4000 Mpc3P_g^s=2^2(1000)=4000\,\mathrm{Mpc^3}. For a radial mode μk=1\mu_k=1, it is (2+1)2(1000)=9000 Mpc3(2+1)^2(1000)=9000\,\mathrm{Mpc^3}.

  2. The radial-to-transverse ratio is 9000/4000=9/4=(1+β)29000/4000=9/4=(1+\beta)^2, with β=f/b=1/2\beta=f/b=1/2. This ratio alone does not fix the matter normalization.

  3. The angular average is [4+4/3+1/5](1000)=(83/15)(1000)≃5533 Mpc3[4+4/3+1/5](1000)=(83/15)(1000)\simeq5533\,\mathrm{Mpc^3}. Averaging powers gives a different result from squaring an averaged contrast factor.

The result

The transverse/radial powers are 4000/9000 Mpc³, their ratio is 9/4, beta is one half, and the monopole is about 5533 Mpc³.

Explore the model

Interactive lab

Interactive lab · vectors

Project a velocity onto a line of sight

Treat the x axis as a chosen line of sight. Reset, set Angle = 0° and Magnitude = 2, and predict x projection 2. For a fresh comparison Reset, set Angle = 60° and Magnitude = 2, and predict x projection 1. Check the numerical projection readout.

Project a velocity onto a line of sightPlayback traces a fixed vector and its projections. Angle and magnitude set the geometry; the moving marker does not change them. Current readings: x component: 1.393; y component: 0.975; Magnitude: 1.7. All parameters are adjustable with the labeled controls below.−7.46−3.7303.737.46−3.5−1.7501.753.5xyvvₓ = 1.39
Vectorx / y projectionsTrace marker
x component
1.393
y component
0.975
Magnitude
1.7
t = 0 s

Playback traces a fixed vector and its projections. Angle and magnitude set the geometry; the moving marker does not change them. Parameter changes pause playback and recompute the model at the current elapsed time. Reset restores both parameters and returns time to zero. Playback starts paused. Adjust either parameter, then choose Play or Step.

Look forThe vector demonstrates one line-of-sight projection. It has no density field, velocity-divergence relation, Fourier power, selection function, or expansion history, and cannot infer a cosmological growth rate.

Check your understanding

In the noiseless linear model, what does the radial-to-transverse power ratio determine at one wave number?

Try it yourself

A different synthetic tracer has b = 1 and f = 0.5, with P m = 100 Mpc cubed and no stochastic power. Find transverse and radial powers and their ratio. Does the same anisotropy ratio as the worked example imply the same f?

Take a moment to make a prediction or work it out on paper. Open a hint when you need one.

Give me a hint

Keep the contrast amplification and its square distinct. Compare the bias and growth separately after calculating beta.

Compare with the solution

The transverse power is 12(100)=100 Mpc31^2(100)=100\,\mathrm{Mpc^3} and the radial power is 1.52(100)=225 Mpc31.5^2(100)=225\,\mathrm{Mpc^3}. Their ratio is again 9/4 because beta is again one half. The growth rates differ: 0.5 here versus 1 before. Matching this ratio therefore does not independently establish the same growth or matter amplitude.

Take it with you

  • Coherent peculiar velocities produce a calculable linear anisotropy.
  • Bias, growth, and matter normalization enter observable combinations.
  • Survey windows, nonlinear velocities, and geometric distortions limit the compact Kaiser formula.

Read further

Original sources and deeper explanations to follow at your own pace.

Optional progress, saved in this browser when available. Revisit any lesson at any time.

Lesson not marked complete.