A unified analysis of four cosmic shear surveys
In the past few years, several independent collaborations have presented cosmological constraints from tomographic cosmic shear analyses. These analyses differ in many aspects: the data sets, the shear and photometric redshift estimation algorithms, the theory model assumptions, and the inference pi...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Oxford University Press
2018
|
| _version_ | 1811140321171472384 |
|---|---|
| author | Chang, C Wang, M Dodelson, S Eifler, T Heymans, C Jarvis, M Jee, MJ Joudaki, S Krause, E Malz, A Mandelbaum, R Mohammed, I Schneider, M Simet, M Troxel, MA Zuntz, J LSST Dark Energy Sci Collaboration |
| author_facet | Chang, C Wang, M Dodelson, S Eifler, T Heymans, C Jarvis, M Jee, MJ Joudaki, S Krause, E Malz, A Mandelbaum, R Mohammed, I Schneider, M Simet, M Troxel, MA Zuntz, J LSST Dark Energy Sci Collaboration |
| author_sort | Chang, C |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | In the past few years, several independent collaborations have presented cosmological constraints from tomographic cosmic shear analyses. These analyses differ in many aspects: the data sets, the shear and photometric redshift estimation algorithms, the theory model assumptions, and the inference pipelines. To assess the robustness of the existing cosmic shear results, we present in this paper a unified analysis of four of the recent cosmic shear surveys: the Deep Lens Survey (DLS), the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey (CFHTLenS), the Science Verification data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES-SV), and the 450 deg2 release of the Kilo-Degree Survey (KiDS-450). By using a unified pipeline, we show how the cosmological constraints are sensitive to the various details of the pipeline. We identify several analysis choices that can shift the cosmological constraints by a significant fraction of the uncertainties. For our fiducial analysis choice, considering a Gaussian covariance, conservative scale cuts, assuming no baryonic feedback contamination, identical cosmological parameter priors and intrinsic alignment treatments, we find the constraints (mean, 16 per cent and 84 per cent confidence intervals) on the parameter S8 ≡ σ8(Ωm/0.3)0.5 to be S8=0.942+0.046−0.045 (DLS), 0.657+0.071−0.070 (CFHTLenS), 0.844+0.062−0.061 (DES-SV), and 0.755+0.048−0.049 (KiDS-450). From the goodness-of-fit and the Bayesian evidence ratio, we determine that amongst the four surveys, the two more recent surveys, DES-SV and KiDS-450, have acceptable goodness of fit and are consistent with each other. The combined constraints are S8=0.790+0.042−0.041, which is in good agreement with the first year of DES cosmic shear results and recent CMB constraints from the Planck satellite. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T20:17:48Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:2cbb686b-3b86-4e08-92be-8d5ef14c2dc2 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-09-25T04:20:07Z |
| publishDate | 2018 |
| publisher | Oxford University Press |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:2cbb686b-3b86-4e08-92be-8d5ef14c2dc22024-08-02T09:42:22ZA unified analysis of four cosmic shear surveysJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:2cbb686b-3b86-4e08-92be-8d5ef14c2dc2EnglishSymplectic ElementsOxford University Press2018Chang, CWang, MDodelson, SEifler, THeymans, CJarvis, MJee, MJJoudaki, SKrause, EMalz, AMandelbaum, RMohammed, ISchneider, MSimet, MTroxel, MAZuntz, JLSST Dark Energy Sci CollaborationIn the past few years, several independent collaborations have presented cosmological constraints from tomographic cosmic shear analyses. These analyses differ in many aspects: the data sets, the shear and photometric redshift estimation algorithms, the theory model assumptions, and the inference pipelines. To assess the robustness of the existing cosmic shear results, we present in this paper a unified analysis of four of the recent cosmic shear surveys: the Deep Lens Survey (DLS), the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey (CFHTLenS), the Science Verification data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES-SV), and the 450 deg2 release of the Kilo-Degree Survey (KiDS-450). By using a unified pipeline, we show how the cosmological constraints are sensitive to the various details of the pipeline. We identify several analysis choices that can shift the cosmological constraints by a significant fraction of the uncertainties. For our fiducial analysis choice, considering a Gaussian covariance, conservative scale cuts, assuming no baryonic feedback contamination, identical cosmological parameter priors and intrinsic alignment treatments, we find the constraints (mean, 16 per cent and 84 per cent confidence intervals) on the parameter S8 ≡ σ8(Ωm/0.3)0.5 to be S8=0.942+0.046−0.045 (DLS), 0.657+0.071−0.070 (CFHTLenS), 0.844+0.062−0.061 (DES-SV), and 0.755+0.048−0.049 (KiDS-450). From the goodness-of-fit and the Bayesian evidence ratio, we determine that amongst the four surveys, the two more recent surveys, DES-SV and KiDS-450, have acceptable goodness of fit and are consistent with each other. The combined constraints are S8=0.790+0.042−0.041, which is in good agreement with the first year of DES cosmic shear results and recent CMB constraints from the Planck satellite. |
| spellingShingle | Chang, C Wang, M Dodelson, S Eifler, T Heymans, C Jarvis, M Jee, MJ Joudaki, S Krause, E Malz, A Mandelbaum, R Mohammed, I Schneider, M Simet, M Troxel, MA Zuntz, J LSST Dark Energy Sci Collaboration A unified analysis of four cosmic shear surveys |
| title | A unified analysis of four cosmic shear surveys |
| title_full | A unified analysis of four cosmic shear surveys |
| title_fullStr | A unified analysis of four cosmic shear surveys |
| title_full_unstemmed | A unified analysis of four cosmic shear surveys |
| title_short | A unified analysis of four cosmic shear surveys |
| title_sort | unified analysis of four cosmic shear surveys |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT changc aunifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT wangm aunifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT dodelsons aunifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT eiflert aunifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT heymansc aunifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT jarvism aunifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT jeemj aunifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT joudakis aunifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT krausee aunifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT malza aunifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT mandelbaumr aunifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT mohammedi aunifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT schneiderm aunifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT simetm aunifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT troxelma aunifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT zuntzj aunifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT lsstdarkenergyscicollaboration aunifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT changc unifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT wangm unifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT dodelsons unifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT eiflert unifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT heymansc unifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT jarvism unifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT jeemj unifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT joudakis unifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT krausee unifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT malza unifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT mandelbaumr unifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT mohammedi unifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT schneiderm unifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT simetm unifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT troxelma unifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT zuntzj unifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys AT lsstdarkenergyscicollaboration unifiedanalysisoffourcosmicshearsurveys |