This analysis reveals disparities in galaxy biasing across dark-matter halos, suggesting underlying non-universality.
Constraints on local primordial non-Gaussianity (LPnG) obtained from galaxy power spectra are limited by the perfect degeneracy between the LPnG parameter fNL and the bias parameter b_ϕ which encodes the response of galaxy clustering to a change in the amplitude of primordial curvature fluctuations. For galaxies observed by galaxy surveys, the relation between b_ϕ and the galaxy bias bg is poorly understood and differs significantly from the universal mass function ansatz. In this paper, we investigate this non-universality in the context of dark-matter halos using the Separate Universe framework, focussing on dark-matter halos selected by mass and/or concentration. We show that the Separate Universe framework provides a natural explanation of the observed universality in the bias of dark-matter halos selected purely by their mass, independent of the spherical collapse picture of halo formation. We further propose an explanation for the observed non-universality in halos selected by concentration and corroborate it with N-body simulations in scale-free (EdS) and ΛCDM cosmologies. In particular, we show that the relation between b_ϕ and halo bias bₕ for halos selected by concentration in matter-dominated cosmologies tends towards universality at the highest halo masses due to such halos gravitationally dominating their environment throughout their evolution. We also argue that concentration-selected halos of lower masses exhibit non-universality due to their mass accretion being significantly affected by the gravitational influence of neighbouring, more massive halos. Our results suggest that any non-universality in high redshift (z 3), high-bias objects observed by realistic galaxy surveys is entirely an artifact of the associated selection function.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shiveshwarkar et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: