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

Joint analysis of Dark Energy Survey Year 3 data and CMB lensing from SPT and Planck. III. Combined cosmological constraints

T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES and SPT Collaborations)
Phys. Rev. D 107, 023531 – Published 31 January 2023
Physics logo See synopsis: Cosmological Parameters Improved by Combining Data

Abstract

We present cosmological constraints from the analysis of two-point correlation functions between galaxy positions and galaxy lensing measured in Dark Energy Survey (DES) Year 3 data and measurements of cosmic microwave background (CMB) lensing from the South Pole Telescope (SPT) and Planck. When jointly analyzing the DES-only two-point functions and the DES cross-correlations with SPT+Planck CMB lensing, we find Ωm=0.344±0.030 and S8σ8(Ωm/0.3)0.5=0.773±0.016, assuming ΛCDM. When additionally combining with measurements of the CMB lensing autospectrum, we find Ωm=0.3060.021+0.018 and S8=0.792±0.012. The high signal-to-noise of the CMB lensing cross-correlations enables several powerful consistency tests of these results, including comparisons with constraints derived from cross-correlations only, and comparisons designed to test the robustness of the galaxy lensing and clustering measurements from DES. Applying these tests to our measurements, we find no evidence of significant biases in the baseline cosmological constraints from the DES-only analyses or from the joint analyses with CMB lensing cross-correlations. However, the CMB lensing cross-correlations suggest possible problems with the correlation function measurements using alternative lens galaxy samples, in particular the redmagic galaxies and high-redshift maglim galaxies, consistent with the findings of previous studies. We use the CMB lensing cross-correlations to identify directions for further investigating these problems.

  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
8 More
  • Received 27 June 2022
  • Accepted 15 November 2022

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.023531

© 2023 American Physical Society

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Gravitation, Cosmology & Astrophysics

synopsis

Key Image

Cosmological Parameters Improved by Combining Data

Published 31 January 2023

Using cross-correlation measurements and an updated cosmic-microwave-background lensing map, researchers determine cosmological parameters with greater precision.

See more in Physics

Authors & Affiliations

Click to Expand

See Also

Article Text (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand

References (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand
Issue

Vol. 107, Iss. 2 — 15 January 2023

Reuse & Permissions
Access Options
CHORUS

Article Available via CHORUS

Download Accepted Manuscript
Author publication services for translation and copyediting assistance advertisement

Authorization Required


×

Images

  • Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Redshift distributions of the galaxy samples considered in this work. The maglim (top panel) and redmagic (second from top) lens galaxy samples are used to measure the galaxy overdensity, while the metacalibration (third from top) source galaxy samples are used to measure weak lensing. Our main cosmological results use only the first four bins of the maglim sample (solid lines). We perform tests with alternate samples (dashed lines) for exploratory and diagnostic purposes. In the bottom panel we show the lensing kernels [Eq. (3)] corresponding to the source galaxies (blue). The gray band in every panel represents the CMB lensing kernel [Eq. (4)].

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 2
    Figure 2

    ΛCDM constraints from the DES Y3 3×2pt measurements (red), cross-correlations between DES Y3 galaxies and shears with SPT+Planck CMB lensing (gray), and from the joint analysis of all five two-point functions (teal). The constraints from 3×2pt are in acceptable agreement with the CMB lensing cross-correlations, justifying the joint analysis of 5×2pt.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 3
    Figure 3

    ΛCDM constraints from our 5×2pt analysis (teal) are compared to those from the Planck CMB lensing autospectrum measurements (gray). The two are in acceptable agreement, justifying the joint analysis of 6×2pt (orange), which yields significantly tighter constraints due to degeneracy breaking. Also shown are parameter constraints from Planck measurements of primary CMB fluctuations (TT+TE+EE+lowE, dark red).

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 4
    Figure 4

    Constraints on wCDM from different combinations of two-point functions. The 5×2pt constraints (teal) on this model are essentially identical to those of 3×2pt (red). Adding the CMB lensing autospectrum information in the joint 6×2pt analysis (orange) significantly improves the parameter constraints on wCDM.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 5
    Figure 5

    Comparison of constraints on ΛCDM from 3×2pt (red) with the constraints from the other probes of 6×2pt, i.e., δgκCMB+γtκCMB+κCMBκCMB (gray). The joint analysis of both (6×2pt) is shown in orange. The two subsets of the full 6×2pt analysis are in reasonable agreement. The 6×2pt analysis prefers higher S8 than either of the two subsets.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 6
    Figure 6

    Comparison of constraints on ΛCDM resulting from 5×2pt (teal) to those that result from only cross-correlations between δg, γ and κCMB (gray). Cross-correlations are expected to be robust to additive systematics that impact only a single field. While some constraining power is lost by removing the autocorrelations, the resulting constraints on S8 are consistent with those of the baseline analysis, providing a powerful robustness test.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 7
    Figure 7

    Comparison of baseline 5×2pt constraints on ΛCDM (teal) to constraints from various combinations of probes that only involve gravitational lensing. The lensing-only constraints are consistent with our baseline result, suggesting that any systematics which might be impacting the galaxy overdensity measurements are not dramatically biasing our cosmological constraints.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 8
    Figure 8

    Comparison of baseline 5×2pt constraints on ΛCDM (teal) to constraints from those combinations of probes that do not rely on galaxy lensing (gray and purple). For reference, we also show the lensing-only constraints—excluding the κCMBκCMB, which is sensitive to higher redshifts—with the orange curve.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 9
    Figure 9

    Left: constraints on S8 and the shear calibration parameters, mi, from 3×2pt and 5×2pt using different priors on mi. With the nominal tight priors on these parameters, 3×2pt (red dashed) and 5×2pt (teal dashed) yield comparable cosmological constraints. However, when the priors on mi are substantially weakened, the constraints from 5×2pt (teal solid) become significantly tighter than those from 3×2pt (red solid). Similarly, the 5×2pt analysis obtains tighter constraints on the mi parameters themselves. Right: same as left panel, but showing constraints on S8 and Ωm. Using the broad mi priors significantly weakens the cosmological constraints from 3×2pt, but has less of an impact on 5×2pt.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 10
    Figure 10

    Posteriors on the linear bias parameters for the maglim galaxies resulting from different combinations of probes. The parameter bi represents the linear bias for the ith redshift bin. For the two highest redshift bins (excluded in the baseline cosmology analysis), galaxy clustering (δgδg) and galaxy-galaxy lensing (δgγt) prefer somewhat different values of the bias, with δgκCMB more in line with the values preferred by clustering.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 11
    Figure 11

    Same as Fig. 10, but for redmagic galaxies. The bias values preferred by δgκCMB are in good agreement with those preferred by δgγt, but show a preference for lower bias values than δgδg across all redshifts.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 12
    Figure 12

    Cosmological constraints on wCDM from the 3×2pt data vector measured with the maglim (red) and redmagic (gray) lens galaxy samples. The constraints from redmagic prefer surprisingly less negative w, as discussed in [4]. However, when the redmagic clustering measurements (δgδg) are replaced by δgκCMB+γtκCMB to form a combination of four two-point functions (orange), the constraints agree better with those of maglim.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 13
    Figure 13

    Comparison of the cosmological constraints resulting from different combinations of two-point functions involving DES measurements of galaxy positions and lensing, and SPT+Planck measurements of CMB lensing. The gray band illustrates the constraints from 5×2pt, which constitutes one of our main results; this combination of two-point functions is sensitive to structure at z1 (unlike 6×2pt, which is additionally sensitive to higher redshift structure). We also show (bottom row) constraints from Planck-only measurements of the primary CMB fluctuations. In all cases, the error bars represent 68% credible intervals determined from the marginalized posteriors on the parameters shown.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 14
    Figure 14

    Parameter constraints obtained when using a nonlinear galaxy bias model to analyze the 5×2pt data vector (gray) compared to our baseline 5×2pt analysis (teal), which adopts a linear bias model. The nonlinear bias analysis can be used to fit smaller scales of measured correlation functions resulting in improved constraints.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 15
    Figure 15

    Parameter constraints obtained when using alternative prescriptions for modeling photometric redshift biases and intrinsic alignments. The teal curves show our baseline results, while the gray dashed curves show results assuming the hyperrank method for calibrating the source galaxy redshift distributions, and the gray solid curves show results assuming the NLA intrinsic alignment model (rather than the baseline TATT model). In both cases, there are minimal shifts relative to our baseline results.

    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
×