Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: redshift calibration of the weak lensing source galaxies

Myles, J.; Alarcón, A.; Amon, A.; Sánchez, C.; Everett, S.; DeRose, Joseph J.; McCullough, J.; Gruen, David; Bernstein, G. M.; Troxel, M. A.; Dodelson, Scott; Campos, A.; MacCrann, N.; Yin, B.; Raveri, Marco; Amara, Adam; Becker, M. R.; Choi, A.; Cordero, J.; Eckert, K.; Gatti, M.; Giannini, G.; Gschwend, J.; Gruendl, R. A.; Harrison, I.; Hartley, W. G.; Huff, Eric; Kuropatkin, N.; Lin, Huan; Masters, D. C.; Miquel, R.; Prat, J.; Roodman, A.; Rykoff, E. S.; Sevilla-Noarbe, I.; Sheldon, E.; Wechsler, Risa H.; Yanny, B.; Abbott, T. M. C.; Aguena, M.; Allam, S.; Annis, J.; Bacon, David; Bertin, E.; Bhargava, S.; Bridle, Sarah; Brooks, D.; Burke, D. L.; Rosell, A. Carnero; Kind, M. Carrasco; Carretero, J.; Castander, F. J.; Conselice, Christopher J.; Costanzi, M.; Crocce, M.; Costa, L. N. da; Pereira, M. E. S.; Desai, S.; Diehl, H. T.; Eifler, T. F.; Elvin-Poole, J.; Evrard, August E.; Ferrero, I.; Ferté, A.; Flaugher, B.; Fosalba, P.; Frieman, Joshua A.; García-Bellido, J.; Gaztañaga, E.; Giannantonio, T.; Hinton, S. R.; Hollowood, D. L.; Honscheid, K.; Hoyle, B.; Huterer, Dragan; James, D. J.; Krause, E.; Kuêhn, K.; Lahav, O.; Lima, M.; Maia, M. A. G.; Marshall, J. L.; Martini, Paul; Melchior, P.; Menanteau, F.; Mohr, J. J.; Morgan, R.; Muir, J.; Ogando, R. L. C.; Palmese, A.; Paz-Chinchón, F.; Plazas, A. A.; Rodríguez-Monroy, M.; Samuroff, S.; Sánchez, E.; Scarpine, V.; Secco, L. F.; Serrano, S.; Smith, M.; Soares-Santos, M.; Suchyta, E.; Swanson, M. E. C.; Tarlè, G.; Thomas, D.; To, C.; Varga, T. N.; Weller, J.; Wester, W.

doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1515

Cited by 120 publications

(151 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

150

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These observations act as an intermediary between redshift sample galaxies and the wide-field photometry over the DES footprint. This framework successfully reduces both the statistical and systematic uncertainty in redshift calibration [81].…”

Section: Redshift Calibrationmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…This section summarizes the strategy and choices made for the calibration of redshift distributions, described fully in [81]. First, it summarizes the primary method employed that relates redshift samples to sets of galaxies distinguishable by their wide-field photometry (Sec.…”

Section: Redshift Calibrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The resulting selection biases have spurred debate on the use of complete photometric redshift or incomplete spectroscopic redshift training samples [58,[75][76][77][78][79][80]. Regardless of the choice taken, consistency of different techniques, and the use of independent information, increase confidence in the calibration (see [81][82][83] for DES Y3).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[67] gives a catalog of 100 million selected galaxies that are validated in Gatti, Sheldon et al [71]. (ii) Redshift calibration methodology is summarized in Myles, Alarcon et al [81]. This framework utilizes external training data from narrow-band photometric and spectroscopic sources and DES deep observations with overlapping near-infrared data, presented in Hartley, Choi et al [106], mapped to the wide field with improved image injection measurements (Everett et al [107]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear and robustness to data calibration

Amon¹,

Gruen²,

Troxel³

et al. 2022

Phys. Rev. D

255

196

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work, together with its companion paper, Secco, Samuroff et al. [Phys. Rev. D 105, 023515 (2022)], present the Dark Energy Survey Year 3 cosmic-shear measurements and cosmological constraints based on an analysis of over 100 million source galaxies. With the data spanning 4143 deg 2 on the sky, divided into four redshift bins, we produce a measurement with a signal-to-noise of 40. We conduct a blind analysis in the context of the Lambda-Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM) model and find a 3% constraint of the clustering amplitude, S 8 ≡ σ 8 ðΩ m =0.3Þ 0.5 ¼ 0.759 þ0.025 −0.023 . A ΛCDM-Optimized analysis, which safely includes smaller scale information, yields a 2% precision measurement of S 8 ¼ 0.772 þ0.018 −0.017 that is consistent with the fiducial case. The two low-redshift measurements are statistically consistent with the Planck Cosmic Microwave Background result, however, both recovered S 8 values are lower than the highredshift prediction by 2.3σ and 2.1σ (p-values of 0.02 and 0.05), respectively. The measurements are shown to be internally consistent across redshift bins, angular scales and correlation functions. The analysis is demonstrated to be robust to calibration systematics, with the S 8 posterior consistent when varying the choice of redshift calibration sample, the modeling of redshift uncertainty and methodology. Similarly, we find that the corrections included to account for the blending of galaxies shifts our best-fit S 8 by 0.5σ without incurring a substantial increase in uncertainty. We examine the limiting factors for the precision of the cosmological constraints and find observational systematics to be subdominant to the modeling of astrophysics. Specifically, we identify the uncertainties in modeling baryonic effects and intrinsic alignments as the limiting systematics.

show abstract

Section: Redshift Calibrationmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Redshift Calibrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear and robustness to data calibration

Amon¹,

Gruen²,

Troxel³

et al. 2022

Phys. Rev. D

255

196

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Photometric redshift estimates available for the DES wide-field (Hoyle et al 2018 ;Myles et al 2021 ) are not precise enough to isolate a sufficiently pure and complete sample of cluster member galaxies across the full range of galaxy populations (e.g. not only the red sequence).…”

Section: Cluster and Field Population Estimatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Synthetic galaxy clusters and observations based on Dark Energy Survey Year 3 Data

Varga¹,

Gruen²,

Seitz³

et al. 2021

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We develop a novel data-driven method for generating synthetic optical observations of galaxy clusters. In cluster weak lensing, the interplay between analysis choices and systematic effects related to source galaxy selection, shape measurement and photometric redshift estimation can be best characterized in end-to-end tests going from mock observations to recovered cluster masses. To create such test scenarios, we measure and model the photometric properties of galaxy clusters and their sky environments from the Dark Energy Survey Year 3 (DES Y3) data in two bins of cluster richness λ ∈ [30; 45), λ ∈ [45; 60) and three bins in cluster redshift (z ∈ [0.3; 0.35), z ∈ [0.45; 0.5) and z ∈ [0.6; 0.65). Using deep-field imaging data we extrapolate galaxy populations beyond the limiting magnitude of DES Y3 and calculate the properties of cluster member galaxies via statistical background subtraction. We construct mock galaxy clusters as random draws from a distribution function, and render mock clusters and line-of-sight catalogs into synthetic images in the same format as actual survey observations. Synthetic galaxy clusters are generated from real observational data, and thus are independent from the assumptions inherent to cosmological simulations. The recipe can be straightforwardly modified to incorporate extra information, and correct for survey incompleteness. New realizations of synthetic clusters can be created at minimal cost, which will allow future analyses to generate the large number of images needed to characterize systematic uncertainties in cluster mass measurements.

show abstract

Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies

Abdalla

Abellán

Aboubrahim

et al. 2022

Journal of High Energy Astrophysics

656

312

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: redshift calibration of the weak lensing source galaxies

Cited by 120 publications

References 71 publications

Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear and robustness to data calibration

Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear and robustness to data calibration

Synthetic galaxy clusters and observations based on Dark Energy Survey Year 3 Data

Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About