Normalized to: Porredon, A.
[1]
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.
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.
[2]
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.
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 ...
[3]
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.
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
[4]
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.
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.
[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.
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:1706.09359 [pdf] - 1585253
Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Multi-Probe Methodology and Simulated
Likelihood Analyses
Krause, E.;
Eifler, T. F.;
Zuntz, J.;
Friedrich, O.;
Troxel, M. A.;
Dodelson, S.;
Blazek, J.;
Secco, L. F.;
MacCrann, N.;
Baxter, E.;
Chang, C.;
Chen, N.;
Crocce, M.;
DeRose, J.;
Ferte, A.;
Kokron, N.;
Lacasa, F.;
Miranda, V.;
Omori, Y.;
Porredon, A.;
Rosenfeld, R.;
Samuroff, S.;
Wang, M.;
Wechsler, R. H.;
Abbott, T. M. C.;
Abdalla, F. B.;
Allam, S.;
Annis, J.;
Bechtol, K.;
Benoit-Levy, A.;
Bernstein, G. M.;
Brooks, D.;
Burke, D. L.;
Capozzi, D.;
Kind, M. Carrasco;
Carretero, J.;
D'Andrea, C. B.;
da Costa, L. N.;
Davis, C.;
DePoy, D. L.;
Desai, S.;
Diehl, H. T.;
Dietrich, J. P.;
Evrard, A. E.;
Flaugher, B.;
Fosalba, P.;
Frieman, J.;
Garcia-Bellido, J.;
Gaztanaga, E.;
Giannantonio, T.;
Gruen, D.;
Gruendl, R. A.;
Gschwend, J.;
Gutierrez, G.;
Honscheid, K.;
James, D. J.;
Jeltema, T.;
Kuehn, K.;
Kuhlmann, S.;
Lahav, O.;
Lima, M.;
Maia, M. A. G.;
March, M.;
Marshall, J. L.;
Martini, P.;
Menanteau, F.;
Miquel, R.;
Nichol, R. C.;
Plazas, A. A.;
Romer, A. K.;
Rykoff, E. S.;
Sanchez, E.;
Scarpine, V.;
Schindler, R.;
Schubnell, M.;
Sevilla-Noarbe, I.;
Smith, M.;
Soares-Santos, M.;
Sobreira, F.;
Suchyta, E.;
Swanson, M. E. C.;
Tarle, G.;
Tucker, D. L.;
Vikram, V.;
Walker, A. R.;
Weller, J.
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.