# Inadequacy of internal covariance estimation for super-sample covariance

## TL;DR

This paper analyzes how internal covariance estimators like jackknife and subsampling underestimate super-sample covariance, leading to biased error estimates in cosmological measurements, especially with small areas or few samples.

## Contribution

It provides an analytical framework to predict biases of internal covariance estimators and highlights their limitations compared to analytical or simulation-based methods.

## Key findings

- Significant biases in auto-redshift covariance estimates, up to 75%.
- Cross-redshift covariance biases can reach 90%.
- Biases increase with smaller survey areas and fewer subsamples.

## Abstract

We give an analytical interpretation of how subsample-based internal covariance estimators lead to biased estimates of the covariance, due to underestimating the super-sample covariance (SSC). This includes the jackknife and bootstrap methods as estimators for the full survey area, and subsampling as an estimator of the covariance of subsamples. The limitations of the jackknife covariance have been previously presented in the literature because it is effectively a rescaling of the covariance of the subsample area. However we point out that subsampling is also biased, but for a different reason: the subsamples are not independent, and the corresponding lack of power results in SSC underprediction. We develop the formalism in the case of cluster counts that allows the bias of each covariance estimator to be exactly predicted. We find significant effects for a small-scale area or when a low number of subsamples is used, with auto-redshift biases ranging from 0.4% to 15% for subsampling and from 5% to 75% for jackknife covariance estimates. The cross-redshift covariance is even more affected; biases range from 8% to 25% for subsampling and from 50% to 90% for jackknife. Owing to the redshift evolution of the probe, the covariances cannot be debiased by a simple rescaling factor, and an exact debiasing has the same requirements as the full SSC prediction. These results thus disfavour the use of internal covariance estimators on data itself or a single simulation, leaving analytical prediction and simulations suites as possible SSC predictors.