Comparing weak lensing peak counts in baryonic correction models to hydrodynamical simulations

TL;DR

This study evaluates the accuracy of baryonic correction models in replicating weak lensing peak counts from hydrodynamical simulations, finding they are suitable for current surveys but need refinement for future large-scale surveys.

Contribution

It provides a detailed comparison of baryonic correction models against hydrodynamical simulations for weak lensing peak counts, highlighting their current limitations and potential for future surveys.

Findings

BCMs are accurate at the percent level for peaks with S/N<4

BCMs are statistically similar to hydrodynamical simulations for current surveys

BCMs underpredict the highest peaks, limiting their use in future large surveys

Abstract

Next-generation weak lensing (WL) surveys, such as by the Vera Rubin Observatory's LSST, the $\textit{Roman}$ Space Telescope, and the $\textit{Euclid}$ space mission, will supply vast amounts of data probing small, highly nonlinear scales. Extracting information from these scales requires higher-order statistics and the controlling of related systematics such as baryonic effects. To account for baryonic effects in cosmological analyses at reduced computational cost, semi-analytic baryonic correction models (BCMs) have been proposed. Here, we study the accuracy of BCMs for WL peak counts, a well studied, simple, and effective higher-order statistic. We compare WL peak counts generated from the full hydrodynamical simulation IllustrisTNG and a baryon-corrected version of the corresponding dark matter-only simulation IllustrisTNG-Dark. We apply galaxy shape noise expected at the depths reached by DES, KiDS, HSC, LSST, $\textit{Roman}$, and $\textit{Euclid}$. We find that peak counts in BCMs are (i) accurate at the percent level for peaks with $\mathrm{S/N}<4$, (ii) statistically indistinguishable from IllustrisTNG in most current and ongoing surveys, but (iii) insufficient for deep future surveys covering the largest solid angles, such as LSST and $\textit{Euclid}$. We find that BCMs match individual peaks accurately, but underpredict the amplitude of the highest peaks. We conclude that existing BCMs are a viable substitute for full hydrodynamical simulations in cosmological parameter estimation from beyond-Gaussian statistics for ongoing and future surveys with modest solid angles. For the largest surveys, BCMs need to be refined to provide a more accurate match, especially to the highest peaks.