We present a model for the halo–mass correlation function that explicitly incorporates halo exclusion and allows for a redefinition of the halo boundary in a flexible way. We assume that haloes trace mass in a way that can be described using a single scale-independent bias parameter. However, our model exhibits scale-dependent biasing due to the impact of halo-exclusion, the use of a ‘soft’ (i.e. not infinitely sharp) halo boundary, and differences in the one halo term contributions to ξhm and ξmm. These features naturally lead us to a redefinition of the halo boundary that lies at the ‘by eye’ transition radius from the one-halo to the two-halo term in the halo–mass correlation function. When adopting our proposed definition, our model succeeds in describing the halo–mass correlation function with ≈ 2\ per\ cent residuals over the radial range 0.1 h−1 Mpc < r < 80 h−1 Mpc, and for halo masses in the range 1013 h−1 M⊙ < M < 1015 h−1 M⊙. Our proposed halo boundary is related to the splashback radius by a roughly constant multiplicative factor. Taking the 87 percentile as reference we find rt/Rsp ≈ 1.3. Surprisingly, our proposed definition results in halo abundances that are well described by the Press–Schechter mass function with δsc = 1.449 ± 0.004. The clustering bias parameter is offset from the standard background-split prediction by ≈ 10\ per\ cent\!-\!15\ per\ cent. This level of agreement is comparable to that achieved with more standard halo definitions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
García et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: