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

Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing

T. M. C. Abbott et al. (Dark Energy Survey Collaboration)
Phys. Rev. D 98, 043526 – Published 27 August 2018
Physics logo See Viewpoint: Weak Lensing Becomes a High-Precision Survey Science

Abstract

We present cosmological results from a combined analysis of galaxy clustering and weak gravitational lensing, using 1321deg2 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 ΛCDM and wCDM cosmologies, marginalizing over 20 nuisance parameters, varying 6 (for ΛCDM) or 7 (for wCDM) cosmological parameters including the neutrino mass density and including the 457×457 element analytic covariance matrix. We find consistent cosmological results from these three two-point functions and from their combination obtain S8σ8(Ωm/0.3)0.5=0.7730.020+0.026 and Ωm=0.2670.017+0.030 for ΛCDM; for wCDM, we find S8=0.7820.024+0.036, Ωm=0.2840.030+0.033, and w=0.820.20+0.21 at 68% C.L. The precision of these DES Y1 constraints 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 S8 and Ωm are lower than the central values from Planck for both ΛCDM and wCDM, the Bayes factor indicates that the DES Y1 and Planck data sets are consistent with each other in the context of ΛCDM. Combining DES Y1 with Planck, baryonic acoustic oscillation measurements from SDSS, 6dF, and BOSS and type Ia supernovae from the Joint Lightcurve Analysis data set, we derive very tight constraints on cosmological parameters: S8=0.802±0.012 and Ωm=0.298±0.007 in ΛCDM and w=1.000.04+0.05 in wCDM. Upcoming Dark Energy Survey analyses will provide more stringent tests of the ΛCDM model and extensions such as a time-varying equation of state of dark energy or modified gravity.

  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
15 More
  • Received 10 August 2017

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.043526

© 2018 American Physical Society

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Gravitation, Cosmology & Astrophysics

Viewpoint

Key Image

Weak Lensing Becomes a High-Precision Survey Science

Published 27 August 2018

Analyzing its first year of data, the Dark Energy Survey has demonstrated that weak lensing can probe cosmological parameters with a precision comparable to cosmic microwave background observations.

See more in Physics

Authors & Affiliations

Click to Expand

Article Text (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand

References (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand
Issue

Vol. 98, Iss. 4 — 15 August 2018

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

    Estimated redshift distributions of the lens and source galaxies used in the Y1 analysis. The shaded vertical regions define the bins: galaxies are placed in the bin spanning their mean photo-z estimate. We show both the redshift distributions of galaxies in each bin (colored lines) and their overall redshift distributions (black lines). Note that source galaxies were chosen via two different pipelines im3shape and metacalibration, so their redshift distributions and total numbers differ (solid vs dashed lines).

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Top panels: scaled angular correlation function, θw(θ), of redMaGiC galaxies in the five redshift bins in the top panel of Fig. 1, from lowest (left) to highest redshift (right) [94]. The solid lines are predictions from the ΛCDM model that provides the best fit to the combined three two-point functions presented in this paper. Bottom panels: scaled galaxy-galaxy lensing signal, θγt (galaxy-shear correlation), measured in DES Y1 in four source redshift bins induced by lens galaxies in five redMaGiC bins [93]. Columns represent different lens redshift bins, while rows represent different source redshift bins, so, e.g., the bin labeled 12 is the signal from the galaxies in the second source bin lensed by those in the first lens bin. The solid curves are again our best-fit ΛCDM prediction. In all panels, shaded areas display the angular scales that have been excluded from our cosmological analysis (see Sec. 4).

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 3
    Figure 3

    The cosmic shear correlation functions ξ+ (top panel) and ξ (bottom panel) in DES Y1 in four source redshift bins, including cross-correlations, measured from the metacalibration shear pipeline (see Ref. [92] for the corresponding plot with im3shape); pairs of numbers in the upper left of each panel indicate the redshift bins. The solid lines show predictions from our best-fit ΛCDM model from the analysis of all three two-point functions, and the shaded areas display the angular scales that are not used in our cosmological analysis (see Sec. 4).

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 4
    Figure 4

    Histogram of the differences between the best-fit ΛCDM model predictions and the 457 data points shown in Figs. 2 and 3, in units of the standard deviation of the individual data points. Although the covariance matrix is not diagonal, and thus the diagonal error bars do not tell the whole story, it is clear that there are no large outliers that drive the fits.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 5
    Figure 5

    ΛCDM constraints from DES Y1 on Ωm,σ8, and S8 from cosmic shear (green), redMaGiC galaxy clustering plus galaxy-galaxy lensing (red), and their combination (blue). Here, and in all such 2D plots below, the two sets of contours depict the 68% and 95% confidence levels.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 6
    Figure 6

    68% confidence levels for ΛCDM on S8 and Ωm from DES Y1 (different subsets considered in the top group, black), DES Y1 with all three probes combined with other experiments (middle group, green);, and results from previous experiments (bottom group, purple). Note that neutrino mass has been varied, so, e.g., results shown for KiDS-450 were obtained by reanalyzing their data with the neutrino mass left free. The table includes only data sets that are publicly available so that we could reanalyze those using the same assumptions (e.g., free neutrino mass) that are used in our analysis of DES Y1 data.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 7
    Figure 7

    The bias of the redMaGiC galaxy samples in the five lens bins from three separate DES Y1 analyses. The two labeled “fixed cosmology” use the galaxy angular correlation function w(θ) and galaxy-galaxy lensing γt, respectively, with cosmological parameters fixed at best-fit values from the 3×2 analysis, as described in Refs. [93, 94]. The results labeled “DES Y1—all” vary all 26 parameters while fitting to all three two-point functions.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 8
    Figure 8

    Constraints on the three cosmological parameters σ8, Ωm, and w in wCDM from DES Y1 after marginalizing over four other cosmological parameters and 10 (cosmic shear only) or 20 (other sets of probes) nuisance parameters. The constraints from cosmic shear only (green), w(θ)+γt(θ) (red), and all three two-point functions (blue) are shown. Here and below, outlying panels show the marginalized 1D posteriors and the corresponding 68% confidence regions.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 9
    Figure 9

    68% confidence levels on three cosmological parameters from the joint DES Y1 probes and other experiments for wCDM.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 10
    Figure 10

    ΛCDM constraints from the three combined probes in DES Y1 (blue), Planck with no lensing (green), and their combination (red). The agreement between DES and Planck can be quantified via the Bayes factor, which indicates that in the full, multidimensional parameter space the two data sets are consistent (see the text).

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 11
    Figure 11

    ΛCDM constraints from high redshift (Planck, without lensing) and multiple low redshift experiments (DES Y1+BAO+JLA); see the text for references.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 12
    Figure 12

    ΛCDM constraints from Planck with no lensing (green), DES Y1 (blue) and the two combined (red) in the Ωm,h plane. The positions of the acoustic peaks in the CMB constrain Ωmh3 extremely well, and the DES determination of Ωm breaks the degeneracy, leading to a larger value of h than inferred from Planck only (see Table 2).

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 13
    Figure 13

    ΛCDM constraints from all three two-point functions within DES and BAO, JLA, and Planck (with lensing) in the ΩmS8 plane.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 14
    Figure 14

    wCDM constraints from the three combined probes in DES Y1 and Planck with no lensing in the ΩmwS8h subspace. Note the strong degeneracy between h and w from Planck data.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 15
    Figure 15

    ΛCDM constraints on the sum of the neutrino masses from DES and other experiments. The lower power observed in DES can be accommodated either by lowering Ω or σ8 or by increasing the sum of the neutrino masses.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 16
    Figure 16

    ΛCDM constraints on Ωm and σ8 from Planck without lensing and all three probes in DES. In contrast to all other plots in this paper, the dark contours here show the results when the sum of the neutrino masses was held fixed at its minimum allowed value of 0.06 eV.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 17
    Figure 17

    Blinded constraints on Ωm and S8 from all three two-point functions in DES Y1 using two separate analysis pipelines on the data. Both contours are shifted by the means of the posteriors obtained from CosmoSIS, so that the CosmoLike contours could in principle be centered away from the origin. This figure was made prior to unblinding, thus without the update to the covariance described in Appendix pp3.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 18
    Figure 18

    Blinded constraints from DES Y1 on Ωm and S8 from all three combined probes, using the two independent shape pipelines metacalibration and im3shape.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 19
    Figure 19

    The posteriors from cosmic shear, from w(θ)+γt(θ), and for all three probes using the metacalibration pipeline for all 20 nuisance parameters used in the ΛCDM analysis. The priors are also shown. There are no priors for the bias and intrinsic-alignment parameters, and the biases and the lens shifts are not constrained by ξ±. Therefore, the bottom panels have only two curves: posteriors from w(θ)+γt(θ) and from all three probes. Similarly, there are only three curves for the two intrinsic alignment parameters.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 20
    Figure 20

    Constraints on Ωm and S8 when using the shifted BPZ redshift distributions as the default for nsi(z), compared with those obtained when using the COSMOS redshift distribution, which have different shape, as seen in Fig. 4 of Ref. [88].

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 21
    Figure 21

    Constraints on Ωm and S8 using the fiducial covariance matrix and using the covariance based on the cosmological model centered on the means of the posteriors (“Bestfit”) obtained after unblinding. The two agree very well, indicating little dependence on the fiducial model assumed for the covariance.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 22
    Figure 22

    Constraints from all three probes using all four source bins (“Fiducial”) and with the fourth source bin removed.

    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
×