data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e8f1c/e8f1c6e4e22083523223411e373ea06223622bdb" alt="The RSD errors for each population at each redshift (like figure 6).
The white background signifies wavenumbers not included in the fits
obtaining the PVD values. z = 1 is shown in the paper. RSD errors
grow with time across all populations. The z = 0 matter RSD errors
are exceptionally large, although the reason is unclear.
The scale-dependent behavior for each plot is similar for each tracer
at each redshift. However, the decline at small scales becomes sharper
at later times. These trends are difficult to attribute to anything
physical without a deeper study, but largely support the conclusion
that models of RSDs that only include the linear Kaiser and FoG terms
are insufficient."
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e8f1c/e8f1c6e4e22083523223411e373ea06223622bdb" alt="The RSD errors for each population at each redshift (like figure 6).
The white background signifies wavenumbers not included in the fits
obtaining the PVD values. z = 1 is shown in the paper. RSD errors
grow with time across all populations. The z = 0 matter RSD errors
are exceptionally large, although the reason is unclear.
The scale-dependent behavior for each plot is similar for each tracer
at each redshift. However, the decline at small scales becomes sharper
at later times. These trends are difficult to attribute to anything
physical without a deeper study, but largely support the conclusion
that models of RSDs that only include the linear Kaiser and FoG terms
are insufficient."
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/351a8/351a8a9f1905a0209454be8320e1a684413ae4f3" alt="Resolution dependence of the correlation coefficients.
They have similar vertical offsets as the biases, arising from
the changing cosmic HI abundance suppressing the overall HI
clustering. Blue galaxies possess somewhat similar trends
with resolution as HI, which mitigates the resolution-dependence
of the HI x Blue correlation coefficient. In any case, this further
demonstrates that large-scale HI distributions are sensitive to
resolution, although generally the scale-dependencies agree across
the different resolutions."
§A: Resolution Dependence of Correlation Coefficients
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fde5f/fde5f9c5eca14556d4a9aec75a5b6c9228cced7f" alt="Same plot as figure 7, with the information reorganized
to facilitate easier comparisons of the same model at different redshifts.
Note the logarithmic y-axes in the top two panels only.
All models perform worse at later redshifts, with the exception of
sB+FoG which actually performs best at z = 0.5. We attribute this trend
to the weaker nonlinearities and baryonic effects at earlier redshifts."
§C: the redshift evolution of HI auto model errors
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/72d12/72d1282d95a724a7ec243803a4bc0cecd0aa65a3" alt="HI-galaxy cross-power spectra errors for all galaxy populations at
various redshifts. Each cross-power follows similar trends to those
outlined in the analysis of HI x Blue in the paper. Across redshifts,
models generally perform better in HI x Blue than with the other populations."
§C: HI-Galaxy Models at all redshifts
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4a471/4a471098234bcafb1db36a3175c2f62f8e19ef57" alt="Similar plot as previous, with information reorganized to facilitate
easier comparisons of different redshifts for each model."
§C: The redshift evolution of HI-Galaxy models
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f295f/f295f0320a0d1ed9202f551c3287153ce576c87c" alt="Like figure 9 from the paper, but including z = 0."
§C: actual vs inferred Omega, all redshifts
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f7b41/f7b4151e603e2026eff6ad6f60012fac424f8b68" alt="Similar plot as previous, with information reorganized to directly
compare different redshifts of the same model and power spectra.
Models not present in both auto and cross-power spectra are removed.
The notation at the top of each column corresponds to the cross-power
model, although we use the equivalent HI auto power model that uses
the same assumptions."
§C: Accuracy of inferred Omega values for each model with redshift
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/090d8/090d8ef03e5958c9dbf660edc7aa3c366d54cc25" alt="Same as figure 16 but for all redshifts. Generally,
the trend is that RSD assumptions like neglecting FoG
or using a single FoG damping term are safer in the
cross-power than the auto power. Implies that the models
perform better for galaxy power spectra than HI, so
cross-powers can mitigate analytical errors with our HI models."
§D: Comparing errors between auto and cross-powers
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/aec45/aec4552c446dcd0e395db4505a694da058d142c0" alt="Ratio of the model over the corresponding large-scale
value. `Bias only` neglects any RSD effects, `FoG` includes
the corresponding FoG term. Demonstrates that the cross-powers
have weaker FoG. The scale-dependence of the galaxy and HI biases
oppose each other such that assuming constant biases in the cross-power
have offsetting errors at z <= 0.5."