Galaxy–galaxy lensing in the Dark Energy Survey Science Verification data

Clampitt, Joseph; Sánchez, C.; Kwan, Juliana; Krause, E.; MacCrann, N.; Park, Y.; Troxel, M. A.; Jain, Bhuvnesh; Rozo, Eduardo; Rykoff, E. S.; Wechsler, Risa H.; Blazek, Jonathan; Bonnett, C.; Crocce, M.; Fang, Yuedong; Gaztañaga, E.; Gruen, David; Jarvis, Mike; Miquel, R.; Prat, J.; Ross, Ashley J.; Sheldon, E.; Zuntz, J.; Abbott, T. M. C.; Abdalla, F. B.; Armstrong, R.; Becker, M. R.; Benoit-Lévy, A.; Bernstein, G. M.; Bertin, E.; Brooks, D.; Burke, D. L.; Rosell, A. Carnero; Kind, M. Carrasco; Cunha, C. E.; D’Andrea, C. B.; Costa, L. N. da; Desai, S.; Diehl, H. T.; Dietrich, J. P.; Doel, P.; Estrada, J.; Evrard, A. E.; Neto, A. Fausti; Flaugher, B.; Fosalba, P.; Frieman, Joshua A.; Gruendl, R. A.; Honscheid, K.; James, D. J.; Kuêhn, K.; Kuropatkin, N.; Lahav, O.; Lima, M.; March, M.; Marshall, J. L.; Martini, Paul; Melchior, P.; Mohr, J. J.; Nichol, R. C.; Nord, B.; Plazas, A. A.; Romer, A. K.; Sánchez, E.; Scarpine, V.; Schubnell, M.; Sevilla-Noarbe, I.; Smith, R. C.; Soares-Santos, M.; Sobreira, F.; Suchyta, E.; Swanson, M. E. C.; Tarlè, G.; Thomas, Daniel; Vikram, V.; Walker, A. R.

doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2988

Cited by 50 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The detailed tests presented here will serve as a foundation for future work relying on galaxy-galaxy lensing measurements, such as halo occupation distribution (HOD) analyses [26,27]. The galaxy-galaxy lensing studies with the DES science verification (SV) data serve as precursors to this paper [9,[28][29][30].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: Galaxy-galaxy lensing

Prat¹,

Sánchez²,

Fang³

et al. 2018

Phys. Rev. D

Self Cite

105

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present galaxy-galaxy lensing measurements from 1321 sq. deg. of the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Year 1 (Y1) data. The lens sample consists of a selection of 660,000 red galaxies with high-precision photometric redshifts, known as redMaGiC, split into five tomographic bins in the redshift range 0.15 < z < 0.9. We use two different source samples, obtained from the METACALIBRATION (26 million galaxies) and IM3SHAPE (18 million galaxies) shear estimation codes, which are split into four photometric redshift bins in the range 0.2 < z < 1.3. We perform extensive testing of potential systematic effects that can bias the galaxy-galaxy lensing signal, including those from shear estimation, photometric redshifts, and * Corresponding author. jprat@ifae.es † Corresponding author. csanchez@ifae.es J. PRAT et al. PHYS. REV. D 98, 042005 (2018) 042005-2 observational properties. Covariances are obtained from jackknife subsamples of the data and validated with a suite of log-normal simulations. We use the shear-ratio geometric test to obtain independent constraints on the mean of the source redshift distributions, providing validation of those obtained from other photo-z studies with the same data. We find consistency between the galaxy bias estimates obtained from our galaxy-galaxy lensing measurements and from galaxy clustering, therefore showing the galaxymatter cross-correlation coefficient r to be consistent with one, measured over the scales used for the cosmological analysis. The results in this work present one of the three two-point correlation functions, along with galaxy clustering and cosmic shear, used in the DES cosmological analysis of Y1 data, and hence the methodology and the systematics tests presented here provide a critical input for that study as well as for future cosmological analyses in DES and other photometric galaxy surveys.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: Galaxy-galaxy lensing

Prat¹,

Sánchez²,

Fang³

et al. 2018

Phys. Rev. D

Self Cite

105

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The field of GGL has been growing rapidly since then thanks to larger surveys and more accurate shear measurements (see e.g. Mandelbaum et al 2006;van Uitert et al 2011;Leauthaud et al 2012;Velander et al 2014;Viola et al 2015;van Uitert et al 2016;Clampitt et al 2017). In essence, GGL measures the average projected matter density around lens galaxies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Confronting semi-analytic galaxy models with galaxy-matter correlations observed by CFHTLenS

Saghiha

Simon

Schneider

et al. 2017

A&A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Testing predictions of semi-analytic models of galaxy evolution against observations help to understand the complex processes that shape galaxies. We compare predictions from the Garching and Durham models implemented on the Millennium Run with observations of galaxy-galaxy lensing (GGL) and galaxy-galaxy-galaxy lensing (G3L) for various galaxy samples with stellar masses in the range 0.5 ≤ M * /10 10 M ⊙ < 32 and photometric redshift range 0.2 ≤ z < 0.6 in the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey (CFHTLenS). We find that the predicted GGL and G3L signals are in qualitative agreement with CFHTLenS data. Quantitatively, the models succeed in reproducing the observed signals in the highest stellar mass bin (16 ≤ M * /10 10 M ⊙ < 32) but show different degrees of tension for the other stellar mass samples. The Durham models are strongly excluded at the 95% confidence level by the observations as they largely over-predict the amplitudes of the GGL and G3L signals, probably because they predict too many satellite galaxies in massive halos.

show abstract

“…However, with the stacking of a large number of lenses, a signal can be extracted and it can tell us how matter is distributed around such objects. In this paper, we will focus on the lensing of background (source) galaxies by foreground (lens) galaxies, or galaxy-galaxy lensing (GGL; Brainerd, Blandford & Smail 1996;Hudson et al 1998;Guzik & Seljak 2002;Hoekstra, Yee & Gladders 2004;Mandelbaum et al 2006;Clampitt et al 2017). For some recent works on testing cosmological models with cluster or void lensing, see Cai, Padilla & Li (2015), Cautun et al (2017), and Barreira et al (2015aBarreira et al ( ,b, 2017.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Galaxy–galaxy weak gravitational lensing in f(R) gravity

Shirasaki

2017

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present an analysis of galaxy-galaxy weak gravitational lensing (GGL) in chameleon f (R) gravity -a leading candidate of non-standard gravity models. For the analysis we have created mock galaxy catalogues based on dark matter haloes from two sets of numerical simulations, using a halo occupation distribution (HOD) prescription which allows a redshift dependence of galaxy number density. To make a fairer comparison between the f (R) and ΛCDM models, their HOD parameters are tuned so that the galaxy two-point correlation functions in real space (and therefore the projected two-point correlation functions) match. While the f (R) model predicts an enhancement of the convergence power spectrum by up to ∼ 30% compared to the standard ΛCDM model with the same parameters, the maximum enhancement of GGL is only half as large and less than 5% on separations above ∼ 1-2h −1 Mpc, because the latter is a cross correlation of shear (or matter, which is more strongly affected by modified gravity) and galaxy (which is weakly affected given the good match between galaxy auto correlations in the two models) fields. We also study the possibility of reconstructing the matter power spectrum by combination of GGL and galaxy clustering in f (R) gravity. We find that the galaxy-matter cross correlation coefficient remains at unity down to ∼ 2-3h −1 Mpc at relevant redshifts even in f (R) gravity, indicating joint analysis of GGL and galaxy clustering can be a powerful probe of matter density fluctuations in chameleon gravity. The scale dependence of the model differences in their predictions of GGL can potentially allow to break the degeneracy between f (R) gravity and other cosmological parameters such as Ω m and σ 8 .

show abstract

Galaxy–galaxy lensing in the Dark Energy Survey Science Verification data

Cited by 50 publications

References 81 publications

Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: Galaxy-galaxy lensing

Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: Galaxy-galaxy lensing

Confronting semi-analytic galaxy models with galaxy-matter correlations observed by CFHTLenS

Galaxy–galaxy weak gravitational lensing in f(R) gravity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About