Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 391

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 access
Norberg, P., Baugh, C. M., Gaztañaga, E., Croton, D. J.·2009·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14389.x

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 50 references

Cited by

See all 391

Metadata

Authors
Norberg, P., Baugh, C. M., Gaztañaga, E., & Croton, D. J.
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
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.