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

Kokron, N.

Normalized to: Kokron, N.

12 article(s) in total. 305 co-authors, from 1 to 13 common article(s). Median position in authors list is 22,0.

[1]  oai:arXiv.org:1909.05271  [pdf] - 2097199
The Cosmological Analysis of the SDSS/BOSS data from the Effective Field Theory of Large-Scale Structure
Comments: 78 pages, 27 figures
Submitted: 2019-09-11
The Effective Field Theory of Large-Scale Structure (EFTofLSS) is a formalism that allows us to predict the clustering of Cosmological Large-Scale Structure in the mildly non-linear regime in an accurate and reliable way. After validating our technique against several sets of numerical simulations, we perform the analysis for the cosmological parameters of the DR12 BOSS data. We assume $\Lambda$CDM, a fixed value of the baryon/dark-matter ratio, $\Omega_b/\Omega_c$, and of the tilt of the primordial power spectrum, $n_s$, and no significant input from numerical simulations. By using the one-loop power spectrum multipoles, we measure the primordial amplitude of the power spectrum, $A_s$, the abundance of matter, $\Omega_m$, and the Hubble parameter, $H_0$, to about $13\%$, $3.2\%$ and $3.2\%$ respectively, obtaining $\ln(10^{10}As)=2.72\pm 0.13$, $\Omega_m=0.309\pm 0.010$, $H_0=68.5\pm 2.2$ km/(s Mpc) at 68\% confidence level. If we then add a CMB prior on the sound horizon, the error bar on $H_0$ is reduced to $1.6\%$. These results are a substantial qualitative and quantitative improvement with respect to former analyses, and suggest that the EFTofLSS is a powerful instrument to extract cosmological information from Large-Scale Structure.
[2]  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.
[3]  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 ...
[4]  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
[5]  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.
[6]  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.
[7]  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.
[8]  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.
[9]  oai:arXiv.org:1712.06232  [pdf] - 1723432
Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: galaxy mock catalogues for BAO
Comments: 18 pages, 15 figures, 1 table, published in MNRAS
Submitted: 2017-12-17, last modified: 2018-07-27
Mock catalogues are a crucial tool in the analysis of galaxy surveys data, both for the accurate computation of covariance matrices, and for the optimisation of analysis methodology and validation of data sets. In this paper, we present a set of 1800 galaxy mock catalogues designed to match the Dark Energy Survey Year-1 BAO sample (Crocce et al. 2017) in abundance, observational volume, redshift distribution and uncertainty, and redshift dependent clustering. The simulated samples were built upon HALOGEN (Avila et al. 2015) halo catalogues, based on a $2LPT$ density field with an exponential bias. For each of them, a lightcone is constructed by the superposition of snapshots in the redshift range $0.45<z<1.4$. Uncertainties introduced by so-called photometric redshifts estimators were modelled with a \textit{double-skewed-Gaussian} curve fitted to the data. We also introduce a hybrid HOD-HAM model with two free parameters that are adjusted to achieve a galaxy bias evolution $b(z_{\rm ph})$ that matches the data at the 1-$\sigma$ level in the range $0.6<z_{\rm ph}<1.0$. We further analyse the galaxy mock catalogues and compare their clustering to the data using the angular correlation function $ w(\theta)$, the comoving transverse separation clustering $\xi_{\mu<0.8}(s_{\perp})$ and the angular power spectrum $C_\ell$.
[10]  oai:arXiv.org:1807.10163  [pdf] - 1897837
Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Measurement of the Galaxy Angular Power Spectrum
Comments: 13 pages, 14 figures
Submitted: 2018-07-26
We use data from the first-year (Y1) observations of the DES collaboration to measure the galaxy angular power spectrum (APS), and search for its BAO feature using a template-fitting method. We test our methodology in a sample of 1800 DES Y1-like mock catalogs. The APS is measured with the pseudo-$C_\ell$ method, using pixelized maps constructed from the mock catalogs and the DES mask. The covariance matrix of the $C_\ell$'s in these tests are also obtained from the mock catalogs. We use templates to model the measured spectra and estimate template parameters firstly from the $C_\ell$'s of the mocks using two different methods, a maximum likelihood estimator and a MCMC, finding consistent results with a good reduced $\chi^2$. Robustness tests are performed to estimate the impact of different choices of settings used in our analysis. After these tests on mocks, we apply our method to a galaxy sample constructed from DES Y1 data specifically for LSS studies. This catalog comprises galaxies within an effective area of 1318 deg$^2$ and $0.6<z<1.0$. We fit the observed spectra with our optimized templates, considering models with and without BAO features. We find that the DES Y1 data favors a model with BAO at the $2.6\,\sigma$ C.L. with a best-fit shift parameter of $\alpha=1.023\pm 0.047$. However, the goodness-of-fit is somewhat poor, with $\chi^2/$(dof) = 1.49. We identify a possible cause of this issue and show that using a theoretical covariance matrix obtained from $C_\ell$'s that are better adjusted to data results in an improved value of $\chi^2/$(dof) = 1.36 which is similar to the value obtained with the real-space analysis. Our results correspond to a distance measurement of $D_A(z_{\rm eff} = 0.81)/r_d = 10.65 \pm 0.49$, consistent with the main DES BAO findings. This is a companion paper to the main DES BAO article showing the details of the harmonic space analysis.
[11]  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.
[12]  oai:arXiv.org:1706.09359  [pdf] - 1585253
Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Multi-Probe Methodology and Simulated Likelihood Analyses
Comments:
Submitted: 2017-06-28
We present the methodology for and detail the implementation of the Dark Energy Survey (DES) 3x2pt DES Year 1 (Y1) analysis, which combines configuration-space two-point statistics from three different cosmological probes: cosmic shear, galaxy-galaxy lensing, and galaxy clustering, using data from the first year of DES observations. We have developed two independent modeling pipelines and describe the code validation process. We derive expressions for analytical real-space multi-probe covariances, and describe their validation with numerical simulations. We stress-test the inference pipelines in simulated likelihood analyses that vary 6-7 cosmology parameters plus 20 nuisance parameters and precisely resemble the analysis to be presented in the DES 3x2pt analysis paper, using a variety of simulated input data vectors with varying assumptions. We find that any disagreement between pipelines leads to changes in assigned likelihood $\Delta \chi^2 \le 0.045$ with respect to the statistical error of the DES Y1 data vector. We also find that angular binning and survey mask do not impact our analytic covariance at a significant level. We determine lower bounds on scales used for analysis of galaxy clustering (8 Mpc$~h^{-1}$) and galaxy-galaxy lensing (12 Mpc$~h^{-1}$) such that the impact of modeling uncertainties in the non-linear regime is well below statistical errors, and show that our analysis choices are robust against a variety of systematics. These tests demonstrate that we have a robust analysis pipeline that yields unbiased cosmological parameter inferences for the flagship 3x2pt DES Y1 analysis. We emphasize that the level of independent code development and subsequent code comparison as demonstrated in this paper is necessary to produce credible constraints from increasingly complex multi-probe analyses of current data.