The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Statistical analysis of galaxy surveys - I. Robust error estimation for two-point clustering statistics
Open accessAbstract
We present a test of different error estimators for 2-point clustering statistics, appropriate for present and future large galaxy redshift surveys. Using an ensemble of very large dark matter LambdaCDM N-body simulations, we compare internal error estimators (jackknife and bootstrap) to external ones (Monte-Carlo realizations). For 3-dimensional clustering statistics, we find that none of the internal error methods investigated are able to reproduce neither accurately nor robustly the errors of external estimators on 1 to 25 Mpc/h scales. The standard bootstrap overestimates the variance of xi(s) by ~40% on all scales probed, but recovers, in a robust fashion, the principal eigenvectors of the underlying covariance matrix. The jackknife returns the correct variance on large scales, but significantly overestimates it on smaller scales. This scale dependence in the jackknife affects the recovered eigenvectors, which tend to disagree on small scales with the external estimates. Our results have important implications for the use of galaxy clustering in placing constraints on cosmological parameters. For example, in a 2-parameter fit to the projected correlation function, we find that the standard bootstrap systematically overestimates the 95% confidence interval, while the jackknife method remains biased, but to a lesser extent. The scatter we find between realizations, for Gaussian statistics, implies that a 2-sigma confidence interval, as inferred from an internal estimator, could correspond in practice to anything from 1-sigma to 3-sigma. Finally, by an oversampling of sub-volumes, it is possible to obtain bootstrap variances and confidence intervals that agree with external error estimates, but it is not clear if this prescription will work for a general case.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
An Introduction to the Bootstrap
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1994) · doi:10.1201/9780429246593 · Cited by 40,500
An Introduction to the Bootstrap
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-4541-9 · Cited by 21,230
Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife
Efron, B. (1979) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1176344552 · Cited by 17,602
Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., & Flannery, B. P. (1994) · Cited by 15,411
The Sloan Digital Sky Survey: Technical Summary
York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., Anderson, S. F., Annis, J., Bahcall, N. A., Bakken, J. A., Barkhouser, R., Bastian, S., Berman, E., et al. (2000) · The Astronomical Journal · doi:10.1086/301513 · Cited by 10,366
Clustering in real space and in redshift space
Kaiser, N. (1987) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/227.1.1 · Cited by 2,750
The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: spectra and redshifts
Colless, M., Dalton, G., Maddox, S., Sutherland, W., Norberg, P., Cole, S., Bland-Hawthorn, J., Bridges, T., Cannon, R., Collins, C., et al. (2001) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04902.x · Cited by 2,367
Self-citationBaryonic Features in the Matter Transfer Function
Eisenstein, D. J., & Hu, W. (1998) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/305424 · Cited by 2,239
An Introduction to the Bootstrap
Grimshaw, S. D., Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1995) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1269918 · Cited by 2,095
Cole, S., Percival, W. J., Peacock, J. A., Norberg, P., Baugh, C. M., Frenk, C. S., Baldry, I., Bland-Hawthorn, J., Bridges, T., Cannon, R., et al. (2005) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09318.x · Cited by 2,094
Self-citation
Cited by
Beutler, F., Blake, C., Colless, M., Jones, D. H., Staveley-Smith, L., Campbell, L., Parker, Q., Saunders, W., & Watson, F. (2011) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19250.x · Cited by 2,590
Heymans, C., Grocutt, E., Heavens, A., Kilbinger, M., Kitching, T. D., Simpson, F., Benjamin, J., Erben, T., Hildebrandt, H., Hoekstra, H., et al. (2013) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stt601 · Cited by 649
Cosmological constraints from noisy convergence maps through deep learning
Fluri, J., Kacprzak, T., Refregier, A., Amara, A., Lucchi, A., & Hofmann, T. (2018) · Physical Review D · doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.123518 · Cited by 83
Metadata
- Authors
- Norberg, P., Baugh, C. M., Gaztañaga, E., & Croton, D. J.
- Venue
- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-06-11
- Volume
- 396
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 19-38
- ISSN
- 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2966
- OpenAlex
- W2053682218
- Cited by
- 391
- References
- 50
- FWCI
- 10.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Statistical analysis of galaxy surveys - I. Robust error estimation for two-point clustering statistics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14389.x
- The paper
- Norberg, P., Baugh, C. M., Gaztañaga, E., & Croton, D. J. (2009). Statistical analysis of galaxy surveys - I. Robust error estimation for two-point clustering statistics. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14389.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.