Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
  • Featured in Physics
  • Editors' Suggestion

Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing

T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES Collaboration)
Phys. Rev. D 105, 023520 – Published 13 January 2022
Physics logo See synopsis: Dark Energy Survey Hits a Triple

Abstract

We present the first cosmology results from large-scale structure using the full 5000deg2 of imaging data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Data Release 1. We perform an analysis of large-scale structure combining three two-point correlation functions (3×2pt): (i) cosmic shear using 100 million source galaxies, (ii) galaxy clustering, and (iii) the cross-correlation of source galaxy shear with lens galaxy positions, galaxy–galaxy lensing. To achieve the cosmological precision enabled by these measurements has required updates to nearly every part of the analysis from DES Year 1, including the use of two independent galaxy clustering samples, modeling advances, and several novel improvements in the calibration of gravitational shear and photometric redshift inference. The analysis was performed under strict conditions to mitigate confirmation or observer bias; we describe specific changes made to the lens galaxy sample following unblinding of the results and tests of the robustness of our results to this decision. We model the data within the flat ΛCDM and wCDM cosmological models, marginalizing over 25 nuisance parameters. We find consistent cosmological results between the three two-point correlation functions; their combination yields clustering amplitude S8=0.7760.017+0.017 and matter density Ωm=0.3390.031+0.032 in ΛCDM, mean with 68% confidence limits; S8=0.7750.024+0.026, Ωm=0.3520.041+0.035, and dark energy equation-of-state parameter w=0.980.20+0.32 in wCDM. These constraints correspond to an improvement in signal-to-noise of the DES Year 3 3×2pt data relative to DES Year 1 by a factor of 2.1, about 20% more than expected from the increase in observing area alone. This combination of DES data is consistent with the prediction of the model favored by the Planck 2018 cosmic microwave background (CMB) primary anisotropy data, which is quantified with a probability-to-exceed p=0.13–0.48. We find better agreement between DES 3×2pt and Planck than in DES Y1, despite the significantly improved precision of both. When combining DES 3×2pt data with available baryon acoustic oscillation, redshift-space distortion, and type Ia supernovae data, we find p=0.34. Combining all of these datasets with Planck CMB lensing yields joint parameter constraints of S8=0.8120.008+0.008, Ωm=0.3060.005+0.004, h=0.6800.003+0.004, and mν<0.13eV (95% C.L.) in ΛCDM; S8=0.8120.008+0.008, Ωm=0.3020.006+0.006, h=0.6870.007+0.006, and w=1.0310.027+0.030 in wCDM.

  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
21 More
  • Received 1 June 2021
  • Accepted 22 October 2021

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023520

© 2022 American Physical Society

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Gravitation, Cosmology & Astrophysics

synopsis

Key Image

Dark Energy Survey Hits a Triple

Published 13 January 2022

A large galaxy survey releases its three-year observations, providing key cosmological-parameter measurements that have double the precision of those previously released.

See more in Physics

Authors & Affiliations

Click to Expand

Article Text (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand

References (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand
Issue

Vol. 105, Iss. 2 — 15 January 2022

Reuse & Permissions
Access Options
Author publication services for translation and copyediting assistance advertisement

Authorization Required


×

Images

  • Figure 1
    Figure 1

    The source (top), MagLim lens (middle), and redMaGiC lens (bottom) redshift distributions. The histograms are normalized to integrate to the total weighted galaxy density (arcmin2) in each tomographic bin. The equivalent 1σ uncertainties on the redshift distributions are indicated by the shaded regions. The distributions have been corrected by nonzero mean and width offsets derived in the relevant photo-z uncertainty models. We adopt MagLim as our fiducial lens sample in this work, and use only redshift bins 1–4.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 2
    Figure 2

    The measured w(θ) correlation functions for each tomographic bin i of the MagLim lens galaxies (indicated by the i, i label in each panel). The best-fit ΛCDM model from the fiducial 3×2pt analysis is plotted as the solid line in the top part of each panel, while the bottom part of each panel shows the fractional difference between the measurements and the model prediction, (wobswth)/σw (with y-axis range ±5σ). In both the top and bottom part of each panel, 1σ error bars are shown. Small angular scales where the linear galaxy bias assumption breaks down are not used in the cosmological analysis; these scales are indicated by grey shading. Bins 5 and 6 are not used in the final analysis.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 3
    Figure 3

    The measured γt(θ) correlation functions for each tomographic bin combination using the MagLim sample. In each panel, the label i, j refers to MagLim lens tomographic bin i and the source bin j The best-fit ΛCDM model from the fiducial 3×2pt analysis is plotted as the solid line in the top part of each panel, with dotted curves indicating a negative model fit. The bottom part of each panel shows the fractional difference between the measurements and the model prediction, (γtobsγtth)/σγt (with y-axis range ±5σ). In both the top and bottom part of each panel, 1σ error bars are included. Small angular scales where the linear galaxy bias assumption breaks down are not used in the cosmological analysis; these scales are indicated by grey shading. Bins 5 and 6 are not used in the final analysis.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 4
    Figure 4

    The measured small-scale shear ratio values for each tomographic bin combination using the MagLim sample, with 1σ error bars indicated. The x-axis identifies the two source bins that make up the measured ratio. The best-fit cosmological model from the fiducial 3×2pt analysis is overplotted as the solid line for each set of lens-bin shear ratios.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 5
    Figure 5

    The measured ξ±(θ) correlation functions for each tomographic bin combination, with labels as described in Fig. 3. The best-fit ΛCDM model from the fiducial 3×2pt analysis is plotted as the solid line in the top part of each panel, while the bottom part of each panel shows the fractional difference between the measurements and the model prediction, (ξ±obsξ±th)/σξ± (with y-axis range ±5σ). In both the top and bottom part of each panel, 1σ error bars are included. The shaded regions (both light and dark) indicate scales not used in the fiducial analysis, primarily due to uncertainties in the impact of baryonic effects. The lighter shaded regions indicate scales that are used in an ΛCDM-optimized analysis, which meets our criterion for scale cuts described in Sec. 4 in ΛCDM only.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 6
    Figure 6

    Marginalized constraints on the three parameters σ8, S8=σ8Ωm/0.3, and Ωm in the ΛCDM model from cosmic shear (ξ±, blue), galaxy clustering and galaxy–galaxy lensing (γt+w(θ), orange) and their combination (3×2pt, solid black). We also show a ΛCDM-optimized 3×2pt analysis that is valid for ΛCDM using smaller angular scales in cosmic shear (dashed black). The marginalized contours in this and further figures below show the 68% and 95% confidence levels. The top and side panels show 1D marginalized constraints with the 68% confidence region indicated.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 7
    Figure 7

    Summary of marginalized constraints (mean and 68% C.L.) and maximum posterior values (crosses) on S8, Ωm, and σ8 in ΛCDM. “Ext. Low-z” data consists of external SNe Ia, BAO, and RSD, while “All Ext.” data consists of external SNe Ia, BAO, RSD, and Planck CMB with lensing. The top section shows constraints using only DES data, the middle section only external data, and the bottom section combinations of DES and external data.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 8
    Figure 8

    Constraints on the galaxy bias (bg) and effective intrinsic alignment (IA) amplitude from tidal alignment (a1) and tidal torquing (a2) are shown per redshift bin. Constraints using both lens samples (MagLim and redMaGiC) are shown. The galaxy bias is expected to be different for both lens samples, but the IA amplitude constraints, which are a property of the source galaxy sample, are consistent. We do not necessarily expect a1 and a2 to be consistent with one another. We sample over a power-law evolution of the IA amplitude, so the redshift evolution is forced to be smooth in ai.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 9
    Figure 9

    Marginalized constraints on the two parameters Ωm and w in the wCDM model from DES Y3 3×2pt. A dotted line indicates w=1 as given by the cosmological constant.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 10
    Figure 10

    Summary of marginalized constraints (mean and 68% C.L.) and maximum posterior values (crosses) on S8, Ωm, and w in wCDM. Ext. Low-z data consists of external SNe Ia, BAO, and RSD, while All Ext. data consists of external SNe Ia, BAO, RSD, and Planck CMB with lensing. The top section shows constraints using only DES data, the middle section only external data, and the bottom section combinations of DES and external data.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 11
    Figure 11

    A comparison of the marginalized ΛCDM constraints of the two lens samples. Dashed contours show the cosmic shear (blue), galaxy–galaxy lensing and clustering (orange), and 3×2pt (black) constraints based on the redMaGiC lens sample. The 3×2pt redMaGiC constraints marginalizing over a free Xlens parameter are also shown (dotted black), and the 3×2pt MagLim constraints (solid black). The inferred cosmological parameters from 3×2pt are consistent in all three cases.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 12
    Figure 12

    A comparison of the marginalized wCDM constraints of the two lens samples. Dashed black contours show the 3×2pt constraints based on the redMaGiC lens sample. The 3×2pt redMaGiC constraints marginalizing over a free Xlens parameter (dotted black) and the 3×2pt MagLim constraints (solid black) are also shown. The inferred cosmological parameters from 3×2pt are generally consistent, but in particular the redMaGiC results are sensitive to the impact of Xlens in wCDM, showing substantial shifts in the inferred parameter values.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 13
    Figure 13

    A comparison of the marginalized constraints on parameters in the ΛCDM model from a variety of DES probes: large-scale structure and weak lensing (3×2pt; Y3—black solid, Y1 reanalyzed—black dashed), type Ia supernovae (purple), galaxy cluster number counts and masses (orange and green), and BAO. The combination of DES Y3 3×2pt, SNe Ia, and BAO is shown in blue. Going from Y1 to Y3, we find approximately a factor of two improvement in the 3×2pt constraint in ΩmS8 plane.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 14
    Figure 14

    A comparison of marginalized constraints from three similarly constraining sets of cosmological probes in ΛCDM. Combined external BAO, RSD, and SNe Ia data (Ext. Low-z) are shown in orange, the combination of DES galaxy clustering and weak lensing data (3×2pt) is shown in black, and Planck CMB (no lensing) data is shown in green. The three share a common parameter space in the ΩmS8 plane at their 68% C.L. bounds. The combination of Ext. Low-z data with DES 3×2pt is shown in purple and this combined additionally with Planck CMB (w/lensing) is shown in blue.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 15
    Figure 15

    A comparison of marginalized parameter constraints from three similarly constraining sets of cosmological probes in wCDM. Combined external BAO, RSD, and SNe Ia data (Ext. Low-z) are shown in orange, the combination of DES galaxy clustering and weak lensing data (3×2pt) is shown in black, and Planck CMB (no lensing) data is shown in green. The combination of Ext. Low-z data with DES 3×2pt is shown in purple and this combined additionally with Planck CMB (w/lensing) is shown in blue.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 16
    Figure 16

    A comparison of the marginalized parameter constraints in the ΛCDM model from the Dark Energy Survey with predictions from Planck CMB data (no lensing; green). We show the fiducial 3×2pt (solid black) and the combined Y3 3×2pt and Planck (orange) results.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 17
    Figure 17

    A comparison of the marginalized parameter constraints in the wCDM model from the Dark Energy Survey with predictions from Planck CMB data (no lensing; green). We show the fiducial 3×2pt (solid black) and the combined Y3 3×2pt and Planck (orange) results.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 18
    Figure 18

    A comparison of weak lensing constraints on the ΛCDM model. Weak lensing of the CMB is shown in green, weak lensing of galaxies in DES is shown in blue, and the combined DES 3×2pt data is shown in black.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 19
    Figure 19

    The DES ΛCDM-optimized 3×2pt and cosmic shear, HSC and KiDS cosmic shear, and KiDS lensing+BOSS+2dFLenS spectroscopic 3×2pt data results are over-plotted for the ΛCDM model. Unlike other comparisons in this work, these external survey data have not been reanalyzed within a consistent model and prior space. Thus, no direct or rigorous comparison can be made about data consistency.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 20
    Figure 20

    Marginalized constraints on h and Ωm in the ΛCDM model are compared to the SH0ES local determination of h. Planck CMB data and the combination of BAO and BBN data provide comparable uncertainties on h compared to the local constraint. Adding DES 3×2pt to BAO and BBN improves the constraint on h slightly due to 3×2pt providing additional information on Ωm, while the combination of DES 3×2pt and all nonlocal external data provide a constraint on h that is a factor of 3–4 more powerful than the local determination.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 21
    Figure 21

    Marginalized constraints on the sum of neutrino masses in the ΛCDM model. We show the DES fiducial 3×2pt constraints (black), DES 3×2pt combined with external BAO, RSD, and SNe Ia (orange), Planck CMB constraints (green), and DES 3×2pt combined with all of these external datasets. The upper panel shows the one-dimensional marginalized posteriors for mν, with shaded 95% confidence regions. The lower panel shows 68 and 95% C.L. for Ωm and mν.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 22
    Figure 22

    The measured w(θ) correlation functions for each tomographic bin combination used in the redMaGiC analysis, which is indicated by the i, j label in each set of panels. The best-fit ΛCDM model from the analysis using redMaGiC is plotted as the solid line in the top part of each panel, while the bottom parts of each panel shows the fractional difference between the measurements and the model prediction, (wobswth)/σw (with y-axis range ±5σ). The best-fit model with fixed Xlens is shown in black, while the best-fit model marginalizing over Xlens is shown in blue. Both the top and bottom part of each panel includes 1σ error bars. Small angular scales where the linear galaxy bias assumption breaking down are not used in the cosmological analysis; these scales are indicated by grey shading.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 23
    Figure 23

    The measured γt(θ) correlation functions for each tomographic bin combination using the redMaGiC sample, with labels as described in Fig. 3. The best-fit ΛCDM model from the analysis with fixed Xlens is plotted as the solid line in the top part of each panel, with dotted curves indicating a negative model fit. The best-fit model marginalizing over Xlens is shown in blue. The bottom part of each panel shows the fractional differences between the measurements and the model prediction, (γtobsγtth)/σγt (with y-axis range ±5σ). In both panels, 1σ error bars are included. Angular scales not used in the cosmological analysis are indicated by grey shading, which are excluded on small scales where the linear galaxy bias assumption breaks down.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 24
    Figure 24

    A test of the convergence of the theoretical 3×2pt covariance, showing marginalized parameter constraints using two iterations of the covariance that use the best-fit cosmological parameters from the previous analysis.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 25
    Figure 25

    A test of the impact of alternative redshift analysis choices on the inferred cosmology from 3×2pt. We compare the fiducial 3×2pt analysis (black) to an analysis where we marginalize over the ensemble of n(z) realizations directly via Hyperrank instead of their effective mean redshifts (blue) and to an analysis where we remove the shear-ratio data (orange).

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 26
    Figure 26

    A test of the impact of alternative analysis choices on the inferred cosmology from 3×2pt. We compare the fiducial 3×2pt analysis (black) to an analysis where we marginalize over a nonlinear bias model using smaller scales in γt and w(θ) in blue, an analysis that marginalizes over free lens magnification bias parameters in orange, and an analysis that uses the NLA IA model in green.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 27
    Figure 27

    The validation of the model and inference pipeline on the buzzard simulation suite, where the true cosmology is indicated by the cross. An analysis of a synthetic data vector (black) at the true buzzard cosmology based on the true redshift distributions with fixed shear and photo-z parameters is compared to a full analysis of the mean data vector of 18 simulation realizations (blue) including all nuisance parameters and n(z) distributions inferred in the same way we do using the real survey data.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 28
    Figure 28

    A comparison of the fiducial 3×2pt analysis (black solid) with one that fixes the neutrino mass density to fixed is minimum value (black dashed). We make a similar comparison for the Planck CMB data (green solid and dashed).

    Reuse & Permissions
×

Sign up to receive regular email alerts from Physical Review D

Log In

Cancel
×

Search


Article Lookup

Paste a citation or DOI

Enter a citation
×