sort results by

Use logical operators AND, OR, NOT and round brackets to construct complex queries. Whitespace-separated words are treated as ANDed.

Show articles per page in mode

Elvin-Poole, Jack

Normalized to: Elvin-Poole, J.

22 article(s) in total. 346 co-authors, from 1 to 19 common article(s). Median position in authors list is 10,0.

[1]  oai:arXiv.org:2002.07762  [pdf] - 2128200
Direct comparison of sterile neutrino constraints from cosmological data, $\nu_{e}$ disappearance data and $\nu_{\mu}\rightarrow\nu_{e}$ appearance data in a $3+1$ model
Comments: 9 pages, 4 figures, accepted by Eur. Phys. J. C
Submitted: 2020-02-18, last modified: 2020-07-04
We present a quantitative, direct comparison of constraints on sterile neutrinos derived from neutrino oscillation experiments and from Planck data, interpreted assuming standard cosmological evolution. We extend a $1+1$ model, which is used to compare exclusions contours at the 95% CL derived from Planck data to those from $\nu_{e}$-disappearance measurements, to a $3+1$ model. This allows us to compare the Planck constraints with those obtained through $\nu_{\mu}\rightarrow\nu_{e}$ appearance searches, which are sensitive to more than one active-sterile mixing angle. We find that the cosmological data fully exclude the allowed regions published by the LSND, MiniBooNE and Neutrino-4 collaborations, and those from the gallium and rector anomalies, at the 95% CL. Compared to the exclusion regions from the Daya Bay $\nu_{e}$-disappearance search, the Planck data are more strongly excluding above $|\Delta m^{2}_{41}|\approx 0.1\, \mathrm{eV}^{2}$ and $m_\mathrm{eff}^\mathrm{sterile}\approx 0.2\, \mathrm{eV}$, with the Daya Bay exclusion being stronger below these values. Compared to the combined Daya Bay/Bugey/MINOS exclusion region on $\nu_{\mu}\rightarrow\nu_{e}$ appearance, the Planck data is more strongly excluding above $\Delta m^{2}_{41}\approx 5\times 10^{-2}\,\mathrm{eV}^{2}$, with the exclusion strengths of the Planck data and the Daya Bay/Bugey/MINOS combination becoming comparable below this value.
[2]  oai:arXiv.org:2002.11124  [pdf] - 2055421
Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Cosmological Constraints from Cluster Abundances and Weak Lensing
DES Collaboration; Abbott, Tim; Aguena, Michel; Alarcon, Alex; Allam, Sahar; Allen, Steve; Annis, James; Avila, Santiago; Bacon, David; Bermeo, Alberto; Bernstein, Gary; Bertin, Emmanuel; Bhargava, Sunayana; Bocquet, Sebastian; Brooks, David; Brout, Dillon; Buckley-Geer, Elizabeth; Burke, David; Rosell, Aurelio Carnero; Kind, Matias Carrasco; Carretero, Jorge; Castander, Francisco Javier; Cawthon, Ross; Chang, Chihway; Chen, Xinyi; Choi, Ami; Costanzi, Matteo; Crocce, Martin; da Costa, Luiz; Davis, Tamara; De Vicente, Juan; DeRose, Joseph; Desai, Shantanu; Diehl, H. Thomas; Dietrich, Jörg; Dodelson, Scott; Doel, Peter; Drlica-Wagner, Alex; Eckert, Kathleen; Eifler, Tim; Elvin-Poole, Jack; Estrada, Juan; Everett, Spencer; Evrard, August; Farahi, Arya; Ferrero, Ismael; Flaugher, Brenna; Fosalba, Pablo; Frieman, Josh; Garcia-Bellido, Juan; Gatti, Marco; Gaztanaga, Enrique; Gerdes, David; Giannantonio, Tommaso; Giles, Paul; Grandis, Sebastian; Gruen, Daniel; Gruendl, Robert; Gschwend, Julia; Gutierrez, Gaston; Hartley, Will; Hinton, Samuel; Hollowood, Devon L.; Honscheid, Klaus; Hoyle, Ben; Huterer, Dragan; James, David; Jarvis, Mike; Jeltema, Tesla; Johnson, Margaret; Kent, Stephen; Krause, Elisabeth; Kron, Richard; Kuehn, Kyler; Kuropatkin, Nikolay; Lahav, Ofer; Li, Ting; Lidman, Christopher; Lima, Marcos; Lin, Huan; MacCrann, Niall; Maia, Marcio; Mantz, Adam; Marshall, Jennifer; Martini, Paul; Mayers, Julian; Melchior, Peter; Mena, Juan; Menanteau, Felipe; Miquel, Ramon; Mohr, Joe; Nichol, Robert; Nord, Brian; Ogando, Ricardo; Palmese, Antonella; Paz-Chinchon, Francisco; Malagón, Andrés Plazas; Prat, Judit; Rau, Markus Michael; Romer, Kathy; Roodman, Aaron; Rooney, Philip; Rozo, Eduardo; Rykoff, Eli; Sako, Masao; Samuroff, Simon; Sanchez, Carles; Saro, Alexandro; Scarpine, Vic; Schubnell, Michael; Scolnic, Daniel; Serrano, Santiago; Sevilla, Ignacio; Sheldon, Erin; Smith, J. Allyn; Suchyta, Eric; Swanson, Molly; Tarle, Gregory; Thomas, Daniel; To, Chun-Hao; Troxel, Michael A.; Tucker, Douglas; Varga, Tamas Norbert; von der Linden, Anja; Walker, Alistair; Wechsler, Risa; Weller, Jochen; Wilkinson, Reese; Wu, Hao-Yi; Yanny, Brian; Zhang, Zhuowen; Zuntz, Joe
Comments: 35 pages, 20 figures, submitted to Physical Review D
Submitted: 2020-02-25
We perform a joint analysis of the counts and weak lensing signal of redMaPPer clusters selected from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Year 1 dataset. Our analysis uses the same shear and source photometric redshifts estimates as were used in the DES combined probes analysis. Our analysis results in surprisingly low values for $S_8 =\sigma_8(\Omega_{\rm m}/0.3)^{0.5}= 0.65\pm 0.04$, driven by a low matter density parameter, $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.179^{+0.031}_{-0.038}$, with $\sigma_8-\Omega_{\rm m}$ posteriors in $2.4\sigma$ tension with the DES Y1 3x2pt results, and in $5.6\sigma$ with the Planck CMB analysis. These results include the impact of post-unblinding changes to the analysis, which did not improve the level of consistency with other data sets compared to the results obtained at the unblinding. The fact that multiple cosmological probes (supernovae, baryon acoustic oscillations, cosmic shear, galaxy clustering and CMB anisotropies), and other galaxy cluster analyses all favor significantly higher matter densities suggests the presence of systematic errors in the data or an incomplete modeling of the relevant physics. Cross checks with X-ray and microwave data, as well as independent constraints on the observable--mass relation from SZ selected clusters, suggest that the discrepancy resides in our modeling of the weak lensing signal rather than the cluster abundance. Repeating our analysis using a higher richness threshold ($\lambda \ge 30$) significantly reduces the tension with other probes, and points to one or more richness-dependent effects not captured by our model.
[3]  oai:arXiv.org:1810.02499  [pdf] - 1995367
Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Constraints on Extended Cosmological Models from Galaxy Clustering and Weak Lensing
DES Collaboration; Abbott, T. M. C.; Abdalla, F. B.; Avila, S.; Banerji, M.; Baxter, E.; Bechtol, K.; Becker, M. R.; Bertin, E.; Blazek, J.; Bridle, S. L.; Brooks, D.; Brout, D.; Burke, D. L.; Campos, A.; Rosell, A. Carnero; Kind, M. Carrasco; Carretero, J.; Castander, F. J.; Cawthon, R.; Chang, C.; Chen, A.; Crocce, M.; Cunha, C. E.; da Costa, L. N.; Davis, C.; De Vicente, J.; DeRose, J.; Desai, S.; Di Valentino, E.; Diehl, H. T.; Dietrich, J. P.; Dodelson, S.; Doel, P.; Drlica-Wagner, A.; Eifler, T. F.; Elvin-Poole, J.; Evrard, A. E.; Fernandez, E.; Ferté, A.; Flaugher, B.; Fosalba, P.; Frieman, J.; García-Bellido, J.; Gaztanaga, E.; Gerdes, D. W.; Giannantonio, T.; Gruen, D.; Gruendl, R. A.; Gschwend, J.; Gutierrez, G.; Hartley, W. G.; Hollowood, D. L.; Honscheid, K.; Hoyle, B.; Huterer, D.; Jain, B.; Jeltema, T.; Johnson, M. W. G.; Johnson, M. D.; Kim, A. G.; Krause, E.; Kuehn, K.; Kuropatkin, N.; Lahav, O.; Lee, S.; Lemos, P.; Leonard, C. D.; Li, T. S.; Liddle, A. R.; Lima, M.; Lin, H.; Maia, M. A. G.; Marshall, J. L.; Martini, P.; Menanteau, F.; Miller, C. J.; Miquel, R.; Miranda, V.; Mohr, J. J.; Muir, J.; Nichol, R. C.; Nord, B.; Ogando, R. L. C.; Plazas, A. A.; Raveri, M.; Rollins, R. P.; Romer, A. K.; Roodman, A.; Rosenfeld, R.; Samuroff, S.; Sanchez, E.; Scarpine, V.; Schindler, R.; Schubnell, M.; Scolnic, D.; Secco, L. F.; Serrano, S.; Sevilla-Noarbe, I.; Smith, M.; Soares-Santos, M.; Sobreira, F.; Suchyta, E.; Swanson, M. E. C.; Tarle, G.; Thomas, D.; Troxel, M. A.; Vikram, V.; Walker, A. R.; Weaverdyck, N.; Wechsler, R. H.; Weller, J.; Yanny, B.; Zhang, Y.; Zuntz, J.
Comments: 22 pages, 7 figures, matches the published version
Submitted: 2018-10-04, last modified: 2019-11-08
We present constraints on extensions of the minimal cosmological models dominated by dark matter and dark energy, $\Lambda$CDM and $w$CDM, by using a combined analysis of galaxy clustering and weak gravitational lensing from the first-year data of the Dark Energy Survey (DES Y1) in combination with external data. We consider four extensions of the minimal dark energy-dominated scenarios: 1) nonzero curvature $\Omega_k$, 2) number of relativistic species $N_{\rm eff}$ different from the standard value of 3.046, 3) time-varying equation-of-state of dark energy described by the parameters $w_0$ and $w_a$ (alternatively quoted by the values at the pivot redshift, $w_p$, and $w_a$), and 4) modified gravity described by the parameters $\mu_0$ and $\Sigma_0$ that modify the metric potentials. We also consider external information from Planck CMB measurements; BAO measurements from SDSS, 6dF, and BOSS; RSD measurements from BOSS; and SNIa information from the Pantheon compilation. Constraints on curvature and the number of relativistic species are dominated by the external data; when these are combined with DES Y1, we find $\Omega_k=0.0020^{+0.0037}_{-0.0032}$ at the 68% confidence level, and $N_{\rm eff}<3.28\, (3.55)$ at 68% (95%) confidence. For the time-varying equation-of-state, we find the pivot value $(w_p, w_a)=(-0.91^{+0.19}_{-0.23}, -0.57^{+0.93}_{-1.11})$ at pivot redshift $z_p=0.27$ from DES alone, and $(w_p, w_a)=(-1.01^{+0.04}_{-0.04}, -0.28^{+0.37}_{-0.48})$ at $z_p=0.20$ from DES Y1 combined with external data; in either case we find no evidence for the temporal variation of the equation of state. For modified gravity, we find the present-day value of the relevant parameters to be $\Sigma_0= 0.43^{+0.28}_{-0.29}$ from DES Y1 alone, and $(\Sigma_0, \mu_0)=(0.06^{+0.08}_{-0.07}, -0.11^{+0.42}_{-0.46})$ from DES Y1 combined with external data, consistent with predictions from GR.
[4]  oai:arXiv.org:1906.01136  [pdf] - 1966790
Producing a BOSS-CMASS sample with DES imaging
Comments: 22 pages, 17 figures
Submitted: 2019-06-03
We present a sample of galaxies with the Dark Energy Survey (DES) photometry that replicates the properties of the BOSS CMASS sample. The CMASS galaxy sample has been well characterized by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) collaboration and was used to obtain the most powerful redshift-space galaxy clustering measurements to date. A joint analysis of redshift-space distortions (such as those probed by CMASS from SDSS) and a galaxy-galaxy lensing measurement for an equivalent sample from DES can provide powerful cosmological constraints. Unfortunately, the DES and SDSS-BOSS footprints have only minimal overlap, primarily on the celestial equator near the SDSS Stripe 82 region. Using this overlap, we build a robust Bayesian model to select CMASS-like galaxies in the remainder of the DES footprint. The newly defined DES-CMASS (DMASS) sample consists of 117,293 effective galaxies covering $1,244 {\rm deg}^2$. Through various validation tests, we show that the DMASS sample selected by this model matches well with the BOSS CMASS sample, specifically in the South Galactic cap (SGC) region that includes Stripe 82. Combining measurements of the angular correlation function and the clustering-z distribution of DMASS, we constrain the difference in mean galaxy bias and mean redshift between the BOSS CMASS and DMASS samples to be $\Delta b = 0.010^{+0.045}_{-0.052}$ and $\Delta z = \left( 3.46^{+5.48}_{-5.55} \right) \times 10^{-3}$ for the SGC portion of CMASS, and $\Delta b = 0.044^{+0.044}_{-0.043} $ and $\Delta z= ( 3.51^{+4.93}_{-5.91}) \times 10^{-3}$ for the full CMASS sample. These values indicate that the mean bias of galaxies and mean redshift in the DMASS sample is consistent with both CMASS samples within $1\sigma$.
[5]  oai:arXiv.org:1811.02375  [pdf] - 1877871
Cosmological Constraints from Multiple Probes in the Dark Energy Survey
DES Collaboration; Abbott, T. M. C.; Alarcon, A.; Allam, S.; Andersen, P.; Andrade-Oliveira, F.; Annis, J.; Asorey, J.; Avelino, A.; Avila, S.; Bacon, D.; Banik, N.; Bassett, B. A.; Baxter, E.; Bechtol, K.; Becker, M. R.; Bernstein, G. M.; Bertin, E.; Blazek, J.; Bridle, S. L.; Brooks, D.; Brout, D.; Burke, D. L.; Calcino, J.; Camacho, H.; Campos, A.; Rosell, A. Carnero; Carollo, D.; Kind, M. Carrasco; Carretero, J.; Castander, F. J.; Cawthon, R.; Challis, P.; Chan, K. C.; Chang, C.; Childress, M.; Clocchiatti, A.; Crocce, M.; Cunha, C. E.; D'Andrea, C. B.; da Costa, L. N.; Davis, C.; Davis, T. M.; De Vicente, J.; DePoy, D. L.; DeRose, J.; Desai, S.; Diehl, H. T.; Dietrich, J. P.; Dodelson, S.; Doel, P.; Drlica-Wagner, A.; Eifler, T. F.; Elvin-Poole, J.; Estrada, J.; Evrard, A. E.; Fernandez, E.; Filippenko, A. V.; Flaugher, B.; Foley, R. J.; Fosalba, P.; Frieman, J.; Galbany, L.; García-Bellido, J.; Gatti, M.; Gaztanaga, E.; Gerdes, D. W.; Giannantonio, T.; Glazebrook, K.; Goldstein, D. A.; Gruen, D.; Gruendl, R. A.; Gschwend, J.; Gutierrez, G.; Hartley, W. G.; Hinton, S. R.; Hollowood, D. L.; Honscheid, K.; Hoormann, J. K.; Hoyle, B.; Huterer, D.; Jain, B.; James, D. J.; Jarvis, M.; Jeltema, T.; Kasai, E.; Kent, S.; Kessler, R.; Kim, A. G.; Kirshner, R. P.; Kokron, N.; Krause, E.; Kron, R.; Kuehn, K.; Kuropatkin, N.; Lahav, O.; Lasker, J.; Lemos, P.; Lewis, G. F.; Li, T. S.; Lidman, C.; Lima, M.; Lin, H.; Macaulay, E.; MacCrann, N.; Maia, M. A. G.; Mandel, K. S.; March, M.; Marriner, J.; Marshall, J. L.; Martini, P.; McMahon, R. G.; Melchior, P.; Menanteau, F.; Miquel, R.; Mohr, J. J.; Morganson, E.; Muir, J.; Möller, A.; Neilsen, E.; Nichol, R. C.; Nord, B.; Ogando, R. L. C.; Palmese, A.; Pan, Y. -C.; Peiris, H. V.; Percival, W. J.; Plazas, A. A.; Porredon, A.; Prat, J.; Romer, A. K.; Roodman, A.; Rosenfeld, R.; Ross, A. J.; Rykoff, E. S.; Samuroff, S.; Sánchez, C.; Sanchez, E.; Scarpine, V.; Schindler, R.; Schubnell, M.; Scolnic, D.; Secco, L. F.; Serrano, S.; Sevilla-Noarbe, I.; Sharp, R.; Sheldon, E.; Smith, M.; Soares-Santos, M.; Sobreira, F.; Sommer, N. E.; Swann, E.; Swanson, M. E. C.; Tarle, G.; Thomas, D.; Thomas, R. C.; Troxel, M. A.; Tucker, B. E.; Uddin, S. A.; Vielzeuf, P.; Walker, A. R.; Wang, M.; Weaverdyck, N.; Wechsler, R. H.; Weller, J.; Yanny, B.; Zhang, B.; Zhang, Y.; Zuntz, J.
Comments: 8 pages, 2 figures; v3 matches version accepted by PRL
Submitted: 2018-11-06, last modified: 2019-05-06
The combination of multiple observational probes has long been advocated as a powerful technique to constrain cosmological parameters, in particular dark energy. The Dark Energy Survey has measured 207 spectroscopically--confirmed Type Ia supernova lightcurves; the baryon acoustic oscillation feature; weak gravitational lensing; and galaxy clustering. Here we present combined results from these probes, deriving constraints on the equation of state, $w$, of dark energy and its energy density in the Universe. Independently of other experiments, such as those that measure the cosmic microwave background, the probes from this single photometric survey rule out a Universe with no dark energy, finding $w=-0.80^{+0.09}_{-0.11}$. The geometry is shown to be consistent with a spatially flat Universe, and we obtain a constraint on the baryon density of $\Omega_b=0.069^{+0.009}_{-0.012}$ that is independent of early Universe measurements. These results demonstrate the potential power of large multi-probe photometric surveys and pave the way for order of magnitude advances in our constraints on properties of dark energy and cosmology over the next decade.
[6]  oai:arXiv.org:1708.01530  [pdf] - 1840662
Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Cosmological Constraints from Galaxy Clustering and Weak Lensing
DES Collaboration; Abbott, T. M. C.; Abdalla, F. B.; Alarcon, A.; Aleksić, J.; Allam, S.; Allen, S.; Amara, A.; Annis, J.; Asorey, J.; Avila, S.; Bacon, D.; Balbinot, E.; Banerji, M.; Banik, N.; Barkhouse, W.; Baumer, M.; Baxter, E.; Bechtol, K.; Becker, M. R.; Benoit-Lévy, A.; Benson, B. A.; Bernstein, G. M.; Bertin, E.; Blazek, J.; Bridle, S. L.; Brooks, D.; Brout, D.; Buckley-Geer, E.; Burke, D. L.; Busha, M. T.; Capozzi, D.; Rosell, A. Carnero; Kind, M. Carrasco; Carretero, J.; Castander, F. J.; Cawthon, R.; Chang, C.; Chen, N.; Childress, M.; Choi, A.; Conselice, C.; Crittenden, R.; Crocce, M.; Cunha, C. E.; D'Andrea, C. B.; da Costa, L. N.; Das, R.; Davis, T. M.; Davis, C.; De Vicente, J.; DePoy, D. L.; DeRose, J.; Desai, S.; Diehl, H. T.; Dietrich, J. P.; Dodelson, S.; Doel, P.; Drlica-Wagner, A.; Eifler, T. F.; Elliott, A. E.; Elsner, F.; Elvin-Poole, J.; Estrada, J.; Evrard, A. E.; Fang, Y.; Fernandez, E.; Ferté, A.; Finley, D. A.; Flaugher, B.; Fosalba, P.; Friedrich, O.; Frieman, J.; García-Bellido, J.; Garcia-Fernandez, M.; Gatti, M.; Gaztanaga, E.; Gerdes, D. W.; Giannantonio, T.; Gill, M. S. S.; Glazebrook, K.; Goldstein, D. A.; Gruen, D.; Gruendl, R. A.; Gschwend, J.; Gutierrez, G.; Hamilton, S.; Hartley, W. G.; Hinton, S. R.; Honscheid, K.; Hoyle, B.; Huterer, D.; Jain, B.; James, D. J.; Jarvis, M.; Jeltema, T.; Johnson, M. D.; Johnson, M. W. G.; Kacprzak, T.; Kent, S.; Kim, A. G.; King, A.; Kirk, D.; Kokron, N.; Kovacs, A.; Krause, E.; Krawiec, C.; Kremin, A.; Kuehn, K.; Kuhlmann, S.; Kuropatkin, N.; Lacasa, F.; Lahav, O.; Li, T. S.; Liddle, A. R.; Lidman, C.; Lima, M.; Lin, H.; MacCrann, N.; Maia, M. A. G.; Makler, M.; Manera, M.; March, M.; Marshall, J. L.; Martini, P.; McMahon, R. G.; Melchior, P.; Menanteau, F.; Miquel, R.; Miranda, V.; Mudd, D.; Muir, J.; Möller, A.; Neilsen, E.; Nichol, R. C.; Nord, B.; Nugent, P.; Ogando, R. L. C.; Palmese, A.; Peacock, J.; Peiris, H. V.; Peoples, J.; Percival, W. J.; Petravick, D.; Plazas, A. A.; Porredon, A.; Prat, J.; Pujol, A.; Rau, M. M.; Refregier, A.; Ricker, P. M.; Roe, N.; Rollins, R. P.; Romer, A. K.; Roodman, A.; Rosenfeld, R.; Ross, A. J.; Rozo, E.; Rykoff, E. S.; Sako, M.; Salvador, A. I.; Samuroff, S.; Sánchez, C.; Sanchez, E.; Santiago, B.; Scarpine, V.; Schindler, R.; Scolnic, D.; Secco, L. F.; Serrano, S.; Sevilla-Noarbe, I.; Sheldon, E.; Smith, R. C.; Smith, M.; Smith, J.; Soares-Santos, M.; Sobreira, F.; Suchyta, E.; Tarle, G.; Thomas, D.; Troxel, M. A.; Tucker, D. L.; Tucker, B. E.; Uddin, S. A.; Varga, T. N.; Vielzeuf, P.; Vikram, V.; Vivas, A. K.; Walker, A. R.; Wang, M.; Wechsler, R. H.; Weller, J.; Wester, W.; Wolf, R. C.; Yanny, B.; Yuan, F.; Zenteno, A.; Zhang, B.; Zhang, Y.; Zuntz, J.
Comments: Matches published version. Results essentially unchanged, except updated covariance matrix leads to improved chi^2 (colored text removed)
Submitted: 2017-08-04, last modified: 2019-03-01
We present cosmological results from a combined analysis of galaxy clustering and weak gravitational lensing, using 1321 deg$^2$ of $griz$ imaging data from the first year of the Dark Energy Survey (DES Y1). We combine three two-point functions: (i) the cosmic shear correlation function of 26 million source galaxies in four redshift bins, (ii) the galaxy angular autocorrelation function of 650,000 luminous red galaxies in five redshift bins, and (iii) the galaxy-shear cross-correlation of luminous red galaxy positions and source galaxy shears. To demonstrate the robustness of these results, we use independent pairs of galaxy shape, photometric redshift estimation and validation, and likelihood analysis pipelines. To prevent confirmation bias, the bulk of the analysis was carried out while blind to the true results; we describe an extensive suite of systematics checks performed and passed during this blinded phase. The data are modeled in flat $\Lambda$CDM and $w$CDM cosmologies, marginalizing over 20 nuisance parameters, varying 6 (for $\Lambda$CDM) or 7 (for $w$CDM) cosmological parameters including the neutrino mass density and including the 457 $\times$ 457 element analytic covariance matrix. We find consistent cosmological results from these three two-point functions, and from their combination obtain $S_8 \equiv \sigma_8 (\Omega_m/0.3)^{0.5} = 0.783^{+0.021}_{-0.025}$ and $\Omega_m = 0.264^{+0.032}_{-0.019}$ for $\Lambda$CDM for $w$CDM, we find $S_8 = 0.794^{+0.029}_{-0.027}$, $\Omega_m = 0.279^{+0.043}_{-0.022}$, and $w=-0.80^{+0.20}_{-0.22}$ at 68% CL. The precision of these DES Y1 results rivals that from the Planck cosmic microwave background measurements, allowing a comparison of structure in the very early and late Universe on equal terms. Although the DES Y1 best-fit values for $S_8$ and $\Omega_m$ are lower than the central values from Planck ...
[7]  oai:arXiv.org:1811.07812  [pdf] - 1830517
More out of less: an excess integrated Sachs-Wolfe signal from supervoids mapped out by the Dark Energy Survey
Comments: 13 pages, 5 figures, accepted MNRAS (minor revision)
Submitted: 2018-11-19, last modified: 2019-01-29
The largest structures in the cosmic web probe the dynamical nature of dark energy through their integrated Sachs-Wolfe imprints. In the strength of the signal, typical cosmic voids have shown good consistency with expectation $A_{\rm ISW}=\Delta T^{\rm data} / \Delta T^{\rm theory}=1$, given the substantial cosmic variance. Discordantly, large-scale hills in the gravitational potential, or supervoids, have shown excess signals. In this study, we mapped out 87 new supervoids in the total 5000 deg$^2$ footprint of the Dark Energy Survey at $0.2<z<0.9$ to probe these anomalous claims. We found an excess imprinted profile with $ A_{\rm ISW}\approx4.1\pm2.0$ amplitude. The combination with independent BOSS data reveals an ISW imprint of supervoids at the $3.3\sigma$ significance level with an enhanced $A_{\rm ISW}\approx5.2\pm1.6$ amplitude. The tension with $\Lambda$CDM predictions is equivalent to $2.6\sigma$ and remains unexplained.
[8]  oai:arXiv.org:1712.06211  [pdf] - 1798221
Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Galaxy Sample for BAO Measurement
Comments: 15 pages, 12 figures. Added discussion on photo-z validation and other tests added based on referee's comments. Matches published version in MNRAS
Submitted: 2017-12-17, last modified: 2018-12-14
We define and characterise a sample of 1.3 million galaxies extracted from the first year of Dark Energy Survey data, optimised to measure Baryon Acoustic Oscillations in the presence of significant redshift uncertainties. The sample is dominated by luminous red galaxies located at redshifts $z \gtrsim 0.6$. We define the exact selection using color and magnitude cuts that balance the need of high number densities and small photometric redshift uncertainties, using the corresponding forecasted BAO distance error as a figure-of-merit in the process. The typical photo-$z$ uncertainty varies from $2.3\%$ to $3.6\%$ (in units of 1+$z$) from $z=0.6$ to $1$, with number densities from $200$ to $130$ galaxies per deg$^2$ in tomographic bins of width $\Delta z = 0.1$. Next we summarise the validation of the photometric redshift estimation. We characterise and mitigate observational systematics including stellar contamination, and show that the clustering on large scales is robust in front of those contaminants. We show that the clustering signal in the auto-correlations and cross-correlations is generally consistent with theoretical models, which serves as an additional test of the redshift distributions.
[9]  oai:arXiv.org:1712.06209  [pdf] - 1794662
Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Measurement of the Baryon Acoustic Oscillation scale in the distribution of galaxies to redshift 1
The Dark Energy Survey Collaboration; Abbott, T. M. C.; Abdalla, F. B.; Alarcon, A.; Allam, S.; Andrade-Oliveira, F.; Annis, J.; Avila, S.; Banerji, M.; Banik, N.; Bechtol, K.; Bernstein, G. M.; Bernstein, R. A.; Bertin, E.; Brooks, D.; Buckley-Geer, E.; Burke, D. L.; Camacho, H.; Rosell, A. Carnero; Kind, M. Carrasco; Carretero, J.; Castander, F. J.; Cawthon, R.; Chan, K. C.; Crocce, M.; Cunha, C. E.; D'Andrea, C. B.; da Costa, L. N.; Davis, C.; De Vicente, J.; DePoy, D. L.; Desai, S.; Diehl, H. T.; Doel, P.; Drlica-Wagner, A.; Eifler, T. F.; Elvin-Poole, J.; Estrada, J.; Evrard, A. E.; Flaugher, B.; Fosalba, P.; Frieman, J.; Garcia-Bellido, J.; Gaztanaga, E.; Gerdes, D. W.; Giannantonio, T.; Gruen, D.; Gruendl, R. A.; Gschwend, J.; Gutierrez, G.; Hartley, W. G.; Hollowood, D.; Honscheid, K.; Hoyle, B.; Jain, B.; James, D. J.; Jeltema, T.; Johnson, M. D.; Kent, S.; Kokron, N.; Krause, E.; Kuehn, K.; Kuhlmann, S.; Kuropatkin, N.; Lacasa, F.; Lahav, O.; Lima, M.; Lin, H.; Maia, M. A. G.; Manera, M.; Marriner, J.; Marshall, J. L.; Martini, P.; Melchior, P.; Menanteau, F.; Miller, C. J.; Miquel, R.; Mohr, J. J.; Neilsen, E.; Percival, W. J.; Plazas, A. A.; Porredon, A.; Romer, A. K.; Roodman, A.; Rosenfeld, R.; Ross, A. J.; Rozo, E.; Rykoff, E. S.; Sako, M.; Sanchez, E.; Santiago, B.; Scarpine, V.; Schindler, R.; Schubnell, M.; Serrano, S.; Sevilla-Noarbe, I.; Sheldon, E.; Smith, R. C.; Smith, M.; Sobreira, F.; Suchyta, E.; Swanson, M. E. C.; Tarle, G.; Thomas, D.; Troxel, M. A.; Tucker, D. L.; Vikram, V.; Walker, A. R.; Wechsler, R. H.; Weller, J.; Yanny, B.; Zhang, Y.
Comments: accepted by MNRAS; main results unchanged, some restructuring, clarifications, and robustness tests added based on referee's comments; all data products are publicly available here: https://des.ncsa.illinois.edu/releases/y1a1/bao
Submitted: 2017-12-17, last modified: 2018-12-09
We present angular diameter distance measurements obtained by locating the BAO scale in the distribution of galaxies selected from the first year of Dark Energy Survey data. We consider a sample of over 1.3 million galaxies distributed over a footprint of 1318 deg$^2$ with $0.6 < z_{\rm photo} < 1$ and a typical redshift uncertainty of $0.03(1+z)$. This sample was selected, as fully described in a companion paper, using a color/magnitude selection that optimizes trade-offs between number density and redshift uncertainty. We investigate the BAO signal in the projected clustering using three conventions, the angular separation, the co-moving transverse separation, and spherical harmonics. Further, we compare results obtained from template based and machine learning photometric redshift determinations. We use 1800 simulations that approximate our sample in order to produce covariance matrices and allow us to validate our distance scale measurement methodology. We measure the angular diameter distance, $D_A$, at the effective redshift of our sample divided by the true physical scale of the BAO feature, $r_{\rm d}$. We obtain close to a 4 per cent distance measurement of $D_A(z_{\rm eff}=0.81)/r_{\rm d} = 10.75\pm 0.43 $. These results are consistent with the flat $\Lambda$CDM concordance cosmological model supported by numerous other recent experimental results. All data products are publicly available here: https://des.ncsa.illinois.edu/releases/y1a1/bao
[10]  oai:arXiv.org:1803.09795  [pdf] - 1785791
DES Y1 Results: Validating cosmological parameter estimation using simulated Dark Energy Surveys
Comments: 22 pages, 13 figures, accepted for publication in MNRAS
Submitted: 2018-03-26, last modified: 2018-11-14
We use mock galaxy survey simulations designed to resemble the Dark Energy Survey Year 1 (DES Y1) data to validate and inform cosmological parameter estimation. When similar analysis tools are applied to both simulations and real survey data, they provide powerful validation tests of the DES Y1 cosmological analyses presented in companion papers. We use two suites of galaxy simulations produced using different methods, which therefore provide independent tests of our cosmological parameter inference. The cosmological analysis we aim to validate is presented in DES Collaboration et al. (2017) and uses angular two-point correlation functions of galaxy number counts and weak lensing shear, as well as their cross-correlation, in multiple redshift bins. While our constraints depend on the specific set of simulated realisations available, for both suites of simulations we find that the input cosmology is consistent with the combined constraints from multiple simulated DES Y1 realizations in the $\Omega_m-\sigma_8$ plane. For one of the suites, we are able to show with high confidence that any biases in the inferred $S_8=\sigma_8(\Omega_m/0.3)^{0.5}$ and $\Omega_m$ are smaller than the DES Y1 $1-\sigma$ uncertainties. For the other suite, for which we have fewer realizations, we are unable to be this conclusive; we infer a roughly 70% probability that systematic biases in the recovered $\Omega_m$ and $S_8$ are sub-dominant to the DES Y1 uncertainty. As cosmological analyses of this kind become increasingly more precise, validation of parameter inference using survey simulations will be essential to demonstrate robustness.
[11]  oai:arXiv.org:1810.02322  [pdf] - 1924924
Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Joint Analysis of Galaxy Clustering, Galaxy Lensing, and CMB Lensing Two-point Functions
Abbott, T. M. C.; Abdalla, F. B.; Alarcon, A.; Allam, S.; Annis, J.; Avila, S.; Aylor, K.; Banerji, M.; Banik, N.; Baxter, E. J.; Bechtol, K.; Becker, M. R.; Benson, B. A.; Bernstein, G. M.; Bertin, E.; Bianchini, F.; Blazek, J.; Bleem, L.; Bleem, L. E.; Bridle, S. L.; Brooks, D.; Buckley-Geer, E.; Burke, D. L.; Carlstrom, J. E.; Rosell, A. Carnero; Kind, M. Carrasco; Carretero, J.; Castander, F. J.; Cawthon, R.; Chang, C.; Chang, C. L.; Cho, H-M.; Choi, A.; Chown, R.; Crawford, T. M.; Crites, A. T.; Crocce, M.; Cunha, C. E.; D'Andrea, C. B.; da Costa, L. N.; Davis, C.; de Haan, T.; DeRose, J.; Desai, S.; De Vicente, J.; Diehl, H. T.; Dietrich, J. P.; Dobbs, M. A.; Dodelson, S.; Doel, P.; Drlica-Wagner, A.; Eifler, T. F.; Elvin-Poole, J.; Everett, W. B.; Flaugher, B.; Fosalba, P.; Friedrich, O.; Frieman, J.; García-Bellido, J.; Gatti, M.; Gaztanaga, E.; George, E. M.; Gerdes, D. W.; Giannantonio, T.; Gruen, D.; Gruendl, R. A.; Gschwend, J.; Gutierrez, G.; Halverson, N. W.; Harrington, N. L.; Hartley, W. G.; Holder, G. P.; Hollowood, D. L.; Holzapfel, W. L.; Honscheid, K.; Hou, Z.; Hoyle, B.; Hrubes, J. D.; Huterer, D.; Jain, B.; James, D. J.; Jarvis, M.; Jeltema, T.; Johnson, M. W. G.; Johnson, M. D.; Kent, S.; Kirk, D.; Knox, L.; Kokron, N.; Krause, E.; Kuehn, K.; Lahav, O.; Lee, A. T.; Leitch, E. M.; Li, T. S.; Lima, M.; Lin, H.; Luong-Van, D.; MacCrann, N.; Maia, M. A. G.; Manzotti, A.; Marrone, D. P.; Marshall, J. L.; Martini, P.; McMahon, J. J.; Menanteau, F.; Meyer, S. S.; Miquel, R.; Mocanu, L. M.; Mohr, J. J.; Muir, J.; Natoli, T.; Nicola, A.; Nord, B.; Omori, Y.; Padin, S.; Pandey, S.; Plazas, A. A.; Porredon, A.; Prat, J.; Pryke, C.; Rau, M. M.; Reichardt, C. L.; Rollins, R. P.; Romer, A. K.; Roodman, A.; Ross, A. J.; Rozo, E.; Ruhl, J. E.; Rykoff, E. S.; Samuroff, S.; Sánchez, C.; Sanchez, E.; Sayre, J. T.; Scarpine, V.; Schaffer, K. K.; Secco, L. F.; Serrano, S.; Sevilla-Noarbe, I.; Sheldon, E.; Shirokoff, E.; Simard, G.; Smith, M.; Soares-Santos, M.; Sobreira, F.; Staniszewski, Z.; Stark, A. A.; Story, K. T.; Suchyta, E.; Swanson, M. E. C.; Tarle, G.; Thomas, D.; Troxel, M. A.; Tucker, D. L.; Vanderlinde, K.; Vieira, J. D.; Vielzeuf, P.; Vikram, V.; Walker, A. R.; Wechsler, R. H.; Weller, J.; Williamson, R.; Wu, W. L. K.; Yanny, B.; Zahn, O.; Zhang, Y.; Zuntz, J.
Comments: 20 pages, 7 figures
Submitted: 2018-10-04
We perform a joint analysis of the auto and cross-correlations between three cosmic fields: the galaxy density field, the galaxy weak lensing shear field, and the cosmic microwave background (CMB) weak lensing convergence field. These three fields are measured using roughly 1300 sq. deg. of overlapping optical imaging data from first year observations of the Dark Energy Survey and millimeter-wave observations of the CMB from both the South Pole Telescope Sunyaev-Zel'dovich survey and Planck. We present cosmological constraints from the joint analysis of the two-point correlation functions between galaxy density and galaxy shear with CMB lensing. We test for consistency between these measurements and the DES-only two-point function measurements, finding no evidence for inconsistency in the context of flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmological models. Performing a joint analysis of five of the possible correlation functions between these fields (excluding only the CMB lensing autospectrum) yields $S_{8}\equiv \sigma_8\sqrt{\Omega_{\rm m}/0.3} = 0.782^{+0.019}_{-0.025}$ and $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.260^{+0.029}_{-0.019}$. We test for consistency between these five correlation function measurements and the Planck-only measurement of the CMB lensing autospectrum, again finding no evidence for inconsistency in the context of flat $\Lambda$CDM models. Combining constraints from all six two-point functions yields $S_{8}=0.776^{+0.014}_{-0.021}$ and $\Omega_{\rm m}= 0.271^{+0.022}_{-0.016}$. These results provide a powerful test and confirmation of the results from the first year DES joint-probes analysis.
[12]  oai:arXiv.org:1810.02342  [pdf] - 1929685
Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: tomographic cross-correlations between DES galaxies and CMB lensing from SPT+Planck
Omori, Y.; Giannantonio, T.; Porredon, A.; Baxter, E.; Chang, C.; Crocce, M.; Fosalba, P.; Alarcon, A.; Banik, N.; Blazek, J.; Bleem, L. E.; Bridle, S. L.; Cawthon, R.; Choi, A.; Chown, R.; Crawford, T.; Dodelson, S.; Drlica-Wagner, A.; Eifler, T. F.; Elvin-Poole, J.; Friedrich, O.; Gruen, D.; Holder, G. P.; Huterer, D.; Jain, B.; Jarvis, M.; Kirk, D.; Kokron, N.; Krause, E.; MacCrann, N.; Muir, J.; Prat, J.; Reichardt, C. L.; Ross, A. J.; Rozo, E.; Rykoff, E. S.; Sánchez, C.; Secco, L. F.; Simard, G.; Wechsler, R. H.; Zuntz, J.; Abbott, T. M. C.; Abdalla, F. B.; Allam, S.; Avila, S.; Aylor, K.; Benson, B. A.; Bernstein, G. M.; Bertin, E.; Bianchini, F.; Brooks, D.; Buckley-Geer, E.; Burke, D. L.; Carlstrom, J. E.; Rosell, A. Carnero; Kind, M. Carrasco; Carretero, J.; Castander, F. J.; Chang, C. L.; Cho, H-M.; Crites, A. T.; Cunha, C. E.; da Costa, L. N.; de Haan, T.; Davis, C.; De Vicente, J.; Desai, S.; Diehl, H. T.; Dietrich, J. P.; Dobbs, M. A.; Everett, W. B.; Doel, P.; Estrada, J.; Flaugher, B.; Frieman, J.; García-Bellido, J.; Gaztanaga, E.; Gerdes, D. W.; George, E. M.; Gruendl, R. A.; Gschwend, J.; Gutierrez, G.; Halverson, N. W.; Harrington, N. L.; Hartley, W. G.; Hollowood, D. L.; Holzapfel, W. L.; Honscheid, K.; Hou, Z.; Hoyle, B.; Hrubes, J. D.; James, D. J.; Jeltema, T.; Kuehn, K.; Kuropatkin, N.; Lee, A. T.; Leitch, E. M.; Lima, M.; Luong-Van, D.; Manzotti, A.; Marrone, D. P.; Marshall, J. L.; McMahon, J. J.; Melchior, P.; Menanteau, F.; Meyer, S. S.; Miller, C. J.; Miquel, R.; Mocanu, L. M.; Mohr, J. J.; Natoli, T.; Padin, S.; Plazas, A. A.; Pryke, C.; Romer, A. K.; Roodman, A.; Ruhl, J. E.; Sanchez, E.; Scarpine, V.; Schaffer, K. K.; Schubnell, M.; Serrano, S.; Sevilla-Noarbe, I.; Shirokoff, E.; Smith, M.; Soares-Santos, M.; Sobreira, F.; Staniszewski, Z.; Stark, A. A.; Story, K. T.; Suchyta, E.; Swanson, M. E. C.; Tarle, G.; Thomas, D.; Troxel, M. A.; Vanderlinde, K.; Vieira, J. D.; Walker, A. R.; Wu, W. L. K.; Zahn, O.
Comments: 17 pages, 7 figures
Submitted: 2018-10-04
We measure the cross-correlation between redMaGiC galaxies selected from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Year-1 data and gravitational lensing of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) reconstructed from South Pole Telescope (SPT) and Planck data over 1289 sq. deg. When combining measurements across multiple galaxy redshift bins spanning the redshift range of $0.15<z<0.90$, we reject the hypothesis of no correlation at 19.9$\sigma$ significance. When removing small-scale data points where thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich signal and nonlinear galaxy bias could potentially bias our results, the detection significance is reduced to 9.9$\sigma$. We perform a joint analysis of galaxy-CMB lensing cross-correlations and galaxy clustering to constrain cosmology, finding $\Omega_{\rm m} = 0.276^{+0.029}_{-0.030}$ and $S_{8}=\sigma_{8}\sqrt{\mathstrut \Omega_{\rm m}/0.3} = 0.800^{+0.090}_{-0.094}$. We also perform two alternate analyses aimed at constraining only the growth rate of cosmic structure as a function of redshift, finding consistency with predictions from the concordance $\Lambda$CDM model. The measurements presented here are part of a joint cosmological analysis that combines galaxy clustering, galaxy lensing and CMB lensing using data from DES, SPT and Planck.
[13]  oai:arXiv.org:1712.07298  [pdf] - 1760974
Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Calibration of redMaGiC Redshift Distributions in DES and SDSS from Cross-Correlations
Comments: 18 pages, 12 figures. Minor changes to text to match version accepted by MNRAS
Submitted: 2017-12-19, last modified: 2018-10-03
We present calibrations of the redshift distributions of redMaGiC galaxies in the Dark Energy Survey Year 1 (DES Y1) and Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) DR8 data. These results determine the priors of the redshift distribution of redMaGiC galaxies, which were used for galaxy clustering measurements and as lenses for galaxy-galaxy lensing measurements in DES Y1 cosmological analyses. We empirically determine the bias in redMaGiC photometric redshift estimates using angular cross-correlations with Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS) galaxies. For DES, we calibrate a single parameter redshift bias in three photometric redshift bins: $z \in[0.15,0.3]$, [0.3,0.45], and [0.45,0.6]. Our best fit results in each bin give photometric redshift biases of $|\Delta z|<0.01$. To further test the redMaGiC algorithm, we apply our calibration procedure to SDSS redMaGiC galaxies, where the statistical precision of the cross-correlation measurement is much higher due to a greater overlap with BOSS galaxies. For SDSS, we also find best fit results of $|\Delta z|<0.01$. We compare our results to other analyses of redMaGiC photometric redshifts.
[14]  oai:arXiv.org:1708.01537  [pdf] - 1743609
Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Galaxy-Galaxy Lensing
Prat, J.; Sánchez, C.; Fang, Y.; Gruen, D.; Elvin-Poole, J.; Kokron, N.; Secco, L. F.; Jain, B.; Miquel, R.; MacCrann, N.; Troxel, M. A.; Alarcon, A.; Bacon, D.; Bernstein, G. M.; Blazek, J.; Cawthon, R.; Chang, C.; Crocce, M.; Davis, C.; De Vicente, J.; Dietrich, J. P.; Drlica-Wagner, A.; Friedrich, O.; Gatti, M.; Hartley, W. G.; Hoyle, B.; Huff, E. M.; Jarvis, M.; Rau, M. M.; Rollins, R. P.; Ross, A. J.; Rozo, E.; Rykoff, E. S.; Samuroff, S.; Sheldon, E.; Varga, T. N.; Vielzeuf, P.; Zuntz, J.; 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.; Cunha, C. E.; D'Andrea, C. B.; da Costa, L. N.; Desai, S.; Diehl, H. T.; Dodelson, S.; Eifler, T. F.; Fernandez, E.; Flaugher, B.; Fosalba, P.; Frieman, J.; García-Bellido, J.; Gaztanaga, E.; Gerdes, D. W.; Giannantonio, T.; Goldstein, D. A.; Gruendl, R. A.; Gschwend, J.; Gutierrez, G.; Honscheid, K.; James, D. J.; Jeltema, T.; Johnson, M. W. G.; Johnson, M. D.; Kirk, D.; Krause, E.; Kuehn, K.; Kuhlmann, S.; Lahav, O.; Li, T. S.; Lima, M.; Maia, M. A. G.; March, M.; Marshall, J. L.; Martini, P.; Melchior, P.; Menanteau, F.; Mohr, J. J.; Nichol, R. C.; Nord, B.; Plazas, A. A.; Romer, A. K.; Roodman, A.; Sako, M.; Sanchez, E.; Scarpine, V.; Schindler, R.; Schubnell, M.; Sevilla-Noarbe, I.; Smith, M.; Smith, R. C.; Soares-Santos, M.; Sobreira, F.; Suchyta, E.; Swanson, M. E. C.; Tarle, G.; Thomas, D.; Tucker, D. L.; Vikram, V.; Walker, A. R.; Wechsler, R. H.; Yanny, B.; Zhang, Y.
Comments: 26 pages, 19 figures. Matches the version accepted by PRD
Submitted: 2017-08-04, last modified: 2018-09-04
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 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 galaxy-matter 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.
[15]  oai:arXiv.org:1708.01536  [pdf] - 1747811
Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Galaxy clustering for combined probes
Elvin-Poole, J.; Crocce, M.; Ross, A. J.; Giannantonio, T.; Rozo, E.; Rykoff, E. S.; Avila, S.; Banik, N.; Blazek, J.; Bridle, S. L.; Cawthon, R.; Drlica-Wagner, A.; Friedrich, O.; Kokron, N.; Krause, E.; MacCrann, N.; Prat, J.; Sanchez, C.; Secco, L. F.; Sevilla-Noarbe, I.; Troxel, M. A.; Abbott, T. M. C.; Abdalla, F. B.; Allam, S.; Annis, J.; Asorey, J.; Bechtol, K.; Becker, M. R.; Benoit-Levy, A.; Bernstein, G. M.; Bertin, E.; Brooks, D.; Buckley-Geer, E.; Burke, D. L.; Rosell, A. Carnero; Carollo, D.; Kind, M. Carrasco; Carretero, J.; Castander, F. J.; Cunha, C. E.; DAndrea, C. B.; da Costa, L. N.; Davis, T. M.; Davis, C.; Desai, S.; Diehl, H. T.; Dietrich, J. P.; Dodelson, S.; Doel, P.; Eifler, T. F.; Evrard, A. E.; Fernandez, E.; Flaugher, B.; Fosalba, P.; Frieman, J.; Garcia-Bellido, J.; Gaztanaga, E.; Gerdes, D. W.; Glazebrook, K.; Gruen, D.; Gruendl, R. A.; Gschwend, J.; Gutierrez, G.; Hartley, W. G.; Hinton, S. R.; Honscheid, K.; Hoormann, J. K.; Jain, B.; James, D. J.; Jarvis, M.; Jeltema, T.; Johnson, M. W. G.; Johnson, M. D.; King, A.; Kuehn, K.; Kuhlmann, S.; Kuropatkin, N.; Lahav, O.; Lewis, G.; Li, T. S.; Lidman, C.; Lima, M.; Lin, H.; Macaulay, E.; March, M.; Marshall, J. L.; Martini, P.; Melchior, P.; Menanteau, F.; Miquel, R.; Mohr, J. J.; Moller, A.; Nichol, R. C.; Nord, B.; ONeill, C. R.; Percival, W. J.; Petravick, D.; Plazas, A. A.; Romer, A. K.; Sako, M.; Sanchez, E.; Scarpine, V.; Schindler, R.; Schubnell, M.; Sheldon, E.; Smith, M.; Smith, R. C.; Soares-Santos, M.; Sobreira, F.; Sommer, N. E.; Suchyta, E.; Swanson, M. E. C.; Tarle, G.; Thomas, D.; Tucker, B. E.; Tucker, D. L.; Uddin, S. A.; Vikram, V.; Walker, A. R.; Wechsler, R. H.; Weller, J.; Wester, W.; Wolf, R. C.; Yuan, F.; Zhang, B.; Zuntz, J.
Comments: 20 pages, 13 figures. Version accepted by PRD, minor changes to text, covariance matrix updated, conclusions unchanged
Submitted: 2017-08-04, last modified: 2018-08-28
We measure the clustering of DES Year 1 galaxies that are intended to be combined with weak lensing samples in order to produce precise cosmological constraints from the joint analysis of large-scale structure and lensing correlations. Two-point correlation functions are measured for a sample of $6.6 \times 10^{5}$ luminous red galaxies selected using the \textsc{redMaGiC} algorithm over an area of $1321$ square degrees, in the redshift range $0.15 < z < 0.9$, split into five tomographic redshift bins. The sample has a mean redshift uncertainty of $\sigma_{z}/(1+z) = 0.017$. We quantify and correct spurious correlations induced by spatially variable survey properties, testing their impact on the clustering measurements and covariance. We demonstrate the sample's robustness by testing for stellar contamination, for potential biases that could arise from the systematic correction, and for the consistency between the two-point auto- and cross-correlation functions. We show that the corrections we apply have a significant impact on the resultant measurement of cosmological parameters, but that the results are robust against arbitrary choices in the correction method. We find the linear galaxy bias in each redshift bin in a fiducial cosmology to be $b(z$=$0.24)=1.40 \pm 0.08$, $b(z$=$0.38)=1.61 \pm 0.05$, $b(z$=$0.53)=1.60 \pm 0.04$ for galaxies with luminosities $L/L_*>$$0.5$, $b(z$=$0.68)=1.93 \pm 0.05$ for $L/L_*>$$1$ and $b(z$=$0.83)=1.99 \pm 0.07$ for $L/L_*$$>1.5$, broadly consistent with expectations for the redshift and luminosity dependence of the bias of red galaxies. We show these measurements to be consistent with the linear bias obtained from tangential shear measurements.
[16]  oai:arXiv.org:1801.04390  [pdf] - 1735289
BAO from angular clustering: optimization and mitigation of theoretical systematics
Comments: 23 pages, 23 figs, match to the published version
Submitted: 2018-01-13, last modified: 2018-08-20
We study the methodology and potential theoretical systematics of measuring Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) using the angular correlation functions in tomographic bins. We calibrate and optimize the pipeline for the Dark Energy Survey Year 1 dataset using 1800 mocks. We compare the BAO fitting results obtained with three estimators: the Maximum Likelihood Estimator (MLE), Profile Likelihood, and Markov Chain Monte Carlo. The fit results from the MLE are the least biased and their derived 1-$\sigma$ error bar are closest to the Gaussian distribution value after removing the extreme mocks with non-detected BAO signal. We show that incorrect assumptions in constructing the template, such as mismatches from the cosmology of the mocks or the underlying photo-$z$ errors, can lead to BAO angular shifts. We find that MLE is the method that best traces this systematic biases, allowing to recover the true angular distance values. In a real survey analysis, it may happen that the final data sample properties are slightly different from those of the mock catalog. We show that the effect on the mock covariance due to the sample differences can be corrected with the help of the Gaussian covariance matrix or more effectively using the eigenmode expansion of the mock covariance. In the eigenmode expansion, the eigenmodes are provided by some proxy covariance matrix. The eigenmode expansion is significantly less susceptible to statistical fluctuations relative to the direct measurements of the covariance matrix because of the number of free parameters is substantially reduced
[17]  oai:arXiv.org:1710.05045  [pdf] - 1722433
Density split statistics: Cosmological constraints from counts and lensing in cells in DES Y1 and SDSS data
Comments: 33 pages, 22 figures; matches published version
Submitted: 2017-10-13, last modified: 2018-07-24
We derive cosmological constraints from the probability distribution function (PDF) of evolved large-scale matter density fluctuations. We do this by splitting lines of sight by density based on their count of tracer galaxies, and by measuring both gravitational shear around and counts-in-cells in overdense and underdense lines of sight, in Dark Energy Survey (DES) First Year and Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) data. Our analysis uses a perturbation theory model (see companion paper Friedrich at al.) and is validated using N-body simulation realizations and log-normal mocks. It allows us to constrain cosmology, bias and stochasticity of galaxies w.r.t. matter density and, in addition, the skewness of the matter density field. From a Bayesian model comparison, we find that the data weakly prefer a connection of galaxies and matter that is stochastic beyond Poisson fluctuations on <=20 arcmin angular smoothing scale. The two stochasticity models we fit yield DES constraints on the matter density $\Omega_m=0.26^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$ and $\Omega_m=0.28^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ that are consistent with each other. These values also agree with the DES analysis of galaxy and shear two-point functions (3x2pt) that only uses second moments of the PDF. Constraints on $\sigma_8$ are model dependent ($\sigma_8=0.97^{+0.07}_{-0.06}$ and $0.80^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$ for the two stochasticity models), but consistent with each other and with the 3x2pt results if stochasticity is at the low end of the posterior range. As an additional test of gravity, counts and lensing in cells allow to compare the skewness $S_3$ of the matter density PDF to its LCDM prediction. We find no evidence of excess skewness in any model or data set, with better than 25 per cent relative precision in the skewness estimate from DES alone.
[18]  oai:arXiv.org:1708.01538  [pdf] - 1747812
Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Cosmological Constraints from Cosmic Shear
Troxel, M. A.; MacCrann, N.; Zuntz, J.; Eifler, T. F.; Krause, E.; Dodelson, S.; Gruen, D.; Blazek, J.; Friedrich, O.; Samuroff, S.; Prat, J.; Secco, L. F.; Davis, C.; Ferté, A.; DeRose, J.; Alarcon, A.; Amara, A.; Baxter, E.; Becker, M. R.; Bernstein, G. M.; Bridle, S. L.; Cawthon, R.; Chang, C.; Choi, A.; De Vicente, J.; Drlica-Wagner, A.; Elvin-Poole, J.; Frieman, J.; Gatti, M.; Hartley, W. G.; Honscheid, K.; Hoyle, B.; Huff, E. M.; Huterer, D.; Jain, B.; Jarvis, M.; Kacprzak, T.; Kirk, D.; Kokron, N.; Krawiec, C.; Lahav, O.; Liddle, A. R.; Peacock, J.; Rau, M. M.; Refregier, A.; Rollins, R. P.; Rozo, E.; Rykoff, E. S.; Sánchez, C.; Sevilla-Noarbe, I.; Sheldon, E.; Stebbins, A.; Varga, T. N.; Vielzeuf, P.; Wang, M.; Wechsler, R. 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.; da Costa, L. N.; DePoy, D. L.; Desai, S.; Diehl, H. T.; Dietrich, J. P.; Doel, P.; Fernandez, E.; Flaugher, B.; Fosalba, P.; García-Bellido, J.; Gaztanaga, E.; Gerdes, D. W.; Giannantonio, T.; Goldstein, D. A.; Gruendl, R. A.; Gschwend, J.; Gutierrez, G.; James, D. J.; Jeltema, T.; Johnson, M. W. G.; Johnson, M. D.; Kent, S.; Kuehn, K.; Kuhlmann, S.; Kuropatkin, N.; Li, T. S.; Lima, M.; Lin, H.; Maia, M. A. G.; March, M.; Marshall, J. L.; Martini, P.; Melchior, P.; Menanteau, F.; Miquel, R.; Mohr, J. J.; Neilsen, E.; Nichol, R. C.; Nord, B.; Petravick, D.; Plazas, A. A.; Romer, A. K.; Roodman, A.; Sako, M.; Sanchez, E.; Scarpine, V.; Schindler, R.; Schubnell, M.; Smith, M.; Smith, R. C.; Soares-Santos, M.; Sobreira, F.; Suchyta, E.; Swanson, M. E. C.; Tarle, G.; Thomas, D.; Tucker, D. L.; Vikram, V.; Walker, A. R.; Weller, J.; Zhang, Y.
Comments: 32 pages, 19 figures; matches PRD referee response version
Submitted: 2017-08-04, last modified: 2018-04-30
We use 26 million galaxies from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Year 1 shape catalogs over 1321 deg$^2$ of the sky to produce the most significant measurement of cosmic shear in a galaxy survey to date. We constrain cosmological parameters in both the flat $\Lambda$CDM and $w$CDM models, while also varying the neutrino mass density. These results are shown to be robust using two independent shape catalogs, two independent \photoz\ calibration methods, and two independent analysis pipelines in a blind analysis. We find a 3.5\% fractional uncertainty on $\sigma_8(\Omega_m/0.3)^{0.5} = 0.782^{+0.027}_{-0.027}$ at 68\% CL, which is a factor of 2.5 improvement over the fractional constraining power of our DES Science Verification results. In $w$CDM, we find a 4.8\% fractional uncertainty on $\sigma_8(\Omega_m/0.3)^{0.5} = 0.777^{+0.036}_{-0.038}$ and a dark energy equation-of-state $w=-0.95^{+0.33}_{-0.39}$. We find results that are consistent with previous cosmic shear constraints in $\sigma_8$ -- $\Omega_m$, and see no evidence for disagreement of our weak lensing data with data from the CMB. Finally, we find no evidence preferring a $w$CDM model allowing $w\ne -1$. We expect further significant improvements with subsequent years of DES data, which will more than triple the sky coverage of our shape catalogs and double the effective integrated exposure time per galaxy.
[19]  oai:arXiv.org:1708.01535  [pdf] - 1637501
Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Curved-Sky Weak Lensing Mass Map
Chang, C.; Pujol, A.; Mawdsley, B.; Bacon, D.; Elvin-Poole, J.; Melchior, P.; Kovács, A.; Jain, B.; Leistedt, B.; Giannantonio, T.; Alarcon, A.; Baxter, E.; Bechtol, K.; Becker, M. R.; Benoit-Lévy, A.; Bernstein, G. M.; Bonnett, C.; Busha, M. T.; Rosell, A. Carnero; Castander, F. J.; Cawthon, R.; da Costa, L. N.; Davis, C.; De Vicente, J.; DeRose, J.; Drlica-Wagner, A.; Fosalba, P.; Gatti, M.; Gaztanaga, E.; Gruen, D.; Gschwend, J.; Hartley, W. G.; Hoyle, B.; Huff, E. M.; Jarvis, M.; Jeffrey, N.; Kacprzak, T.; Lin, H.; MacCrann, N.; Maia, M. A. G.; Ogando, R. L. C.; Prat, J.; Rau, M. M.; Rollins, R. P.; Roodman, A.; Rozo, E.; Rykoff, E. S.; Samuroff, S.; Sánchez, C.; Sevilla-Noarbe, I.; Sheldon, E.; Troxel, M. A.; Varga, T. N.; Vielzeuf, P.; Vikram, V.; Wechsler, R. H.; Zuntz, J.; Abbott, T. M. C.; Abdalla, F. B.; Allam, S.; Annis, J.; Bertin, E.; Brooks, D.; Buckley-Geer, E.; Burke, D. L.; Kind, M. Carrasco; Carretero, J.; Crocce, M.; Cunha, C. E.; D'Andrea, C. B.; Desai, S.; Diehl, H. T.; Dietrich, J. P.; Doel, P.; Estrada, J.; Neto, A. Fausti; Fernandez, E.; Flaugher, B.; Frieman, J.; García-Bellido, J.; Gruendl, R. A.; Gutierrez, G.; Honscheid, K.; James, D. J.; Jeltema, T.; Johnson, M. W. G.; Johnson, M. D.; Kent, S.; Kirk, D.; Krause, E.; Kuehn, K.; Kuhlmann, S.; Lahav, O.; Li, T. S.; Lima, M.; March, M.; Martini, P.; Menanteau, F.; Miquel, R.; Mohr, J. J.; Neilsen, E.; Nichol, R. C.; Petravick, D.; Plazas, A. A.; Romer, A. K.; Sako, M.; Sanchez, E.; Scarpine, V.; Schubnell, M.; Smith, M.; Smith, R. C.; Soares-Santos, M.; Sobreira, F.; Suchyta, E.; Tarle, G.; Thomas, D.; Tucker, D. L.; Walker, A. R.; Wester, W.; Zhang, Y.
Comments: 25 pages, 19 figures, 1 table; revision with changes implemented according to journal referee
Submitted: 2017-08-04, last modified: 2017-12-19
We construct the largest curved-sky galaxy weak lensing mass map to date from the DES first-year (DES Y1) data. The map, about 10 times larger than previous work, is constructed over a contiguous $\approx1,500 $deg$^2$, covering a comoving volume of $\approx10 $Gpc$^3$. The effects of masking, sampling, and noise are tested using simulations. We generate weak lensing maps from two DES Y1 shear catalogs, Metacalibration and Im3shape, with sources at redshift $0.2<z<1.3,$ and in each of four bins in this range. In the highest signal-to-noise map, the ratio between the mean signal-to-noise in the E-mode and the B-mode map is $\sim$1.5 ($\sim$2) when smoothed with a Gaussian filter of $\sigma_{G}=30$ (80) arcminutes. The second and third moments of the convergence $\kappa$ in the maps are in agreement with simulations. We also find no significant correlation of $\kappa$ with maps of potential systematic contaminants. Finally, we demonstrate two applications of the mass maps: (1) cross-correlation with different foreground tracers of mass and (2) exploration of the largest peaks and voids in the maps.
[20]  oai:arXiv.org:1705.05442  [pdf] - 1583447
Optimized Clustering Estimators for BAO Measurements Accounting for Significant Redshift Uncertainty
Comments: Matches version accepted by MNRAS, should be clearer
Submitted: 2017-05-15, last modified: 2017-11-20
We determine an optimized clustering statistic to be used for galaxy samples with significant redshift uncertainty, such as those that rely on photometric redshifts. To do so, we study the baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) information content as a function of the orientation of galaxy clustering modes with respect to their angle to the line-of-sight (LOS). The clustering along the LOS, as observed in a redshift-space with significant redshift uncertainty, has contributions from clustering modes with a range of orientations with respect to the true LOS. For redshift uncertainty $\sigma_z \geq 0.02(1+z)$ we find that while the BAO information is confined to transverse clustering modes in the true space, it is spread nearly evenly in the observed space. Thus, measuring clustering in terms of the projected separation (regardless of the LOS) is an efficient and nearly lossless compression of the signal for $\sigma_z \geq 0.02(1+z)$. For reduced redshift uncertainty, a more careful consideration is required. We then use more than 1700 realizations (combining two separate sets) of galaxy simulations mimicking the Dark Energy Survey Year 1 sample to validate our analytic results and optimized analysis procedure. We find that using the correlation function binned in projected separation, we can achieve uncertainties that are within 10 per cent of those predicted by Fisher matrix forecasts. We predict that DES Y1 should achieve a 5 per cent distance measurement using our optimized methods. We expect the results presented here to be important for any future BAO measurements made using photometric redshift data.
[21]  oai:arXiv.org:1710.02517  [pdf] - 1589408
Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Cross-Correlation Redshifts in the DES -- Calibration of the Weak Lensing Source Redshift Distributions
Comments: 13 pages, 7 figures. Submitting to MNRAS. Feedback welcome!
Submitted: 2017-10-06
We present the calibration of the Dark Energy Survey Year 1 (DES Y1) weak lensing source galaxy redshift distributions from clustering measurements. By cross-correlating the positions of source galaxies with luminous red galaxies selected by the redMaGiC algorithm we measure the redshift distributions of the source galaxies as placed into different tomographic bins. These measurements constrain any such shifts to an accuracy of $\sim0.02$ and can be computed even when the clustering measurements do not span the full redshift range. The highest-redshift source bin is not constrained by the clustering measurements because of the minimal redshift overlap with the redMaGiC galaxies. We compare our constraints with those obtained from $\texttt{COSMOS}$ 30-band photometry and find that our two very different methods produce consistent constraints.
[22]  oai:arXiv.org:1607.00032  [pdf] - 1528091
A Combined View of Sterile-Neutrino Constraints from CMB and Neutrino Oscillation Measurements
Comments: 6 pages, 3 figures, Version accepted by Physics Letters B, minor changes to text, results unchanged
Submitted: 2016-06-30, last modified: 2016-11-25
We perform a comparative analysis of constraints on sterile neutrinos from the Planck experiment and from current and future neutrino oscillation experiments (MINOS, IceCube, SBN). For the first time, we express the Planck constraints on $N_{\rm eff}$ and $m_{\rm eff}^{\rm sterile}$ from the Cosmic Microwave Background in the parameter space used by oscillation experiments using both mass-squared differences and mixing angles. In a model with a single sterile neutrino species and using standard assumptions, we find that the Planck data and the oscillation experiments measuring muon-neutrino disappearance have similar sensitivity.