Dark Energy Survey Year 1 results: Cosmological constraints from cosmic shear

Troxel, M. A.; MacCrann, N.; Zuntz, J.; Eifler, T. F.; Krause, E.; Dodelson, Scott; Gruen, D.; Blazek, Jonathan; Friedrich, Oliver; Samuroff, S.; Prat, J.; Secco, L. F.; Davis, C.; Ferté, A.; DeRose, J.; Alarcón, A.; Amara, Adam; Baxter, Eric J.; Becker, M. R.; Bernstein, G. M.; Bridle, Sarah; Cawthon, R.; Chang, C.; Choi, A.; Vicente, J. De; Drlica-Wagner, A.; Elvin-Poole, J.; Frieman, J.; Gatti, M.; Hartley, W. G.; Honscheid, K.; Hoyle, B.; Huff, Eric; Huterer, Dragan; Jain, Bhuvnesh; Jarvis, Mike; Kacprzak, T.; Kirk, D.; Kokron, Nickolas; Krawiec, C.; Lahav, O.; Liddle, Andrew R.; Peacock, J. A.; Rau, Markus; Réfrégier, Alexandre; Rollins, R. P.; Rozo, Eduardo; Rykoff, E. S.; Sánchez, C.; Sevilla-Noarbe, I.; Sheldon, E.; Stebbins, Albert; Varga, T. N.; Vielzeuf, P.; Wang, M.; Wechsler, Risa H.; Yanny, B.; Abbott, T. M. C.; Abdalla, F. B.; Allam, S.; Annis, J.; Bechtol, K.; Benoit-Lévy, A.; Bertin, E.; Brooks, D.; Buckley-Geer, E.; Burke, D. L.; Rosell, A. Carnero; Kind, M. Carrasco; Carretero, J.; Castander, F. J.; Crocce, M.; Cunha, C. E.; D’Andrea, C. B.; Costa, L. N. da; DePoy, D. L.; Desai, S.; Diehl, H. T.; Dietrich, J. P.; Doel, P.; Fernández, E.; Flaugher, B.; Fosalba, P.; García-Bellido, J.; Gaztañaga, E.; Gerdes, D. W.; Giannantonio, T.; Goldstein, D.; Gruendl, R. A.; Gschwend, J.; Gutiérrez, G.; James, D. J.; Jeltema, T.; Johnson, M. W. G.; Johnson, Michael D.; Kent, S.; Kuêhn, K.; Kuhlmann, S. E.; Kuropatkin, N.; Li, T. S.; Lima, M.; Lin, Huan; Maia, M. A. G.; March, M.; Marshall, J. L.; Martini, Paul; Melchior, P.; Menanteau, F.; Miquel, R.; Mohr, J. J.; Neilsen, Eric H.; Nichol, R. C.; Nord, B.; Petravick, D.; Plazas, A. A.; Romer, A. K.; Roodman, A.; Šako, M.; Sánchez, E.; Scarpine, V.; Schindler, R. H.; Schubnell, M.; Smith, M.; Smith, R. C.; Soares-Santos, M.; Sobreira, F.; Suchyta, E.; Swanson, M. E. C.; Tarlè, G.; Thomas, Daniel; Tucker, D. L.; Vikram, V.; Walker, A. R.; Weller, J.; Zhang, Y.

doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.043528

Cited by 584 publications

(616 citation statements)

References 140 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

564

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is worthy to mention that the lower bounds obtained for the value constrained for the constant β with the use of observational data are in good agreement with the upper bound obtained for the parameter state of dynamical DE models in Ref. [33], where ω de,0 = −0.95 +0.33 −0.39 .…”

Section: Final Remarkssupporting

confidence: 87%

Challenging matter creation models in the phantom divide

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We perform a study both statistical and theoretical for cosmological models of matter creation and their ability to describe effective phantom models of dark energy. Such models are beyond the ΛCDM model since the resulting cosmic expansion is not adiabatic. In fact, we show that this approach exhibits transient phantom/quintessence scenarios at present time and tends to the standard cosmological model at some stage of the cosmic evolution. We discuss some generalities of the thermodynamics properties for this type of cosmological model; we emphasize on the behavior of the temperature associated to dark matter, which keeps positive along cosmic evolution together with the entropy. The enrichment of this type of model by means of the incorporation of cosmological constant and dissipative effects in the fluid description to explore their cosmological consequences in the expansion of the universe is considered. Finally, a generalization for the matter production rate as an inhomogeneous expression of the Hubble parameter and its derivatives is discussed; as in all the cases examined, such election leads to an effective phantom/quintessence behavior.

show abstract

Section: Final Remarkssupporting

confidence: 87%

Challenging matter creation models in the phantom divide

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The COSEBI-based redshift-recalibrated analyses for DES-Y1 4 , KV450, and their joint constraint are taken from Asgari et al [55]. 4 Instead of using the DES-Y1 redshift distributions [56], these new analyses use photometric redshifts from COSMOS-2015 [55,57,58]. Note also that we are considering a flat ΛCDM model in agreement with the cited analyses.…”

Section: Mild Tension Between Planck and Lyman-α Datamentioning

confidence: 93%

Hints, neutrino bounds, and WDM constraints from SDSS DR14 Lyman-α and Planck full-survey data

Palanque-Delabrouille

Yèche

Schöneberg

et al. 2020

J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.

238

221

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Lyman-α forest 1D flux power spectrum is a powerful probe of several cosmological parameters. Assuming a ΛCDM cosmology including massive neutrinos, we find that the latest SDSS DR14 BOSS and eBOSS Lyman-α forest data is in very good agreement with current weak lensing constraints on (Ω m , σ 8 ) and has the same small level of tension with Planck. We did not identify a systematic effect in the data analysis that could explain this

show abstract

“…To validate the perturbative formalism based on a fitting formula for the matter bispectrum, we also compute the reduced shear correction using a forward model approach assuming the lognormal field approximation (Hilbert et al 2011;Mancini et al 2018;Xavier et al 2016). This approximation was recently used to generate a covariance matrix in the Dark Energy Survey Year 1 analysis (Troxel et al 2018). Using the pipeline recently presented in Taylor (Górski et al 1999;Górski et al 2005) -HEALpy) we compute the reduced shear correction by averaging over 100 forward realizations.…”

Section: Model Parameter Fiducial Valuementioning

confidence: 99%

Euclid: The reduced shear approximation and magnification bias for Stage IV cosmic shear experiments

Deshpande

Kitching

Cardone

et al. 2020

A&A

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context. Stage IV weak lensing experiments will offer more than an order of magnitude leap in precision. We must therefore ensure that our analyses remain accurate in this new era. Accordingly, previously ignored systematic effects must be addressed. Aims. In this work, we evaluate the impact of the reduced shear approximation and magnification bias, on the information obtained from the angular power spectrum. To first-order, the statistics of reduced shear, a combination of shear and convergence, are taken to be equal to those of shear. However, this approximation can induce a bias in the cosmological parameters that can no longer be neglected. A separate bias arises from the statistics of shear being altered by the preferential selection of galaxies and the dilution of their surface densities, in high-magnification regions.Methods. The corrections for these systematic effects take similar forms, allowing them to be treated together. We calculate the impact of neglecting these effects on the cosmological parameters that would be determined from Euclid, using cosmic shear tomography. We also demonstrate how the reduced shear correction can be calculated using a lognormal field forward modelling approach. Results. These effects cause significant biases in Ω m , n s , σ 8 , Ω DE , w 0 , and w a of −0.51σ, −0.36σ, 0.37σ, 1.36σ, −0.66σ, and 1.21σ, respectively. We then show that these lensing biases interact with another systematic: the intrinsic alignment of galaxies. Accordingly, we develop the formalism for an intrinsic alignment-enhanced lensing bias correction. Applying this to Euclid, we find that the additional terms introduced by this correction are sub-dominant.

show abstract

Dark Energy Survey Year 1 results: Cosmological constraints from cosmic shear

Cited by 584 publications

References 140 publications

Challenging matter creation models in the phantom divide

Challenging matter creation models in the phantom divide

Hints, neutrino bounds, and WDM constraints from SDSS DR14 Lyman-α and Planck full-survey data

Euclid: The reduced shear approximation and magnification bias for Stage IV cosmic shear experiments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About