Cosmological constraints from the 100-deg2 weak-lensing survey

By J. Benjamin, Catherine Heymans, E. Semboloni, L. van Waerbeke, H. Hoekstra, T. Erben, M. Gladders, M. Hetterscheidt, Y. Mellier, H. Yee. 2007

177 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We present a cosmic shear analysis of the 100-deg 2 weak-lensing survey, combining data from the CFHTLS-Wide, RCS, VIRMOS-DESCART and GaBoDS surveys. Spanning ∼100 deg 2 , with a median source redshift ∼0.78, this combined survey allows us to place tight joint constraints on the matter density parameter Ω m , and the amplitude of the matter power spectrum σ 8 , finding σ 8 (Ω m /0.24) 0.59 = 0.84 ±0.05. Tables of the measured shear correlation function and the calculated covariance matrix for each survey are included as supplementary material to the online version of this article. The accuracy of our results is a marked improvement on previous work owing to three important differences in our analysis; we correctly account for sample variance errors by including a non-Gaussian contribution estimated from numerical simulations; we correct the measured shear for a calibration bias as estimated from simulated data; we model the redshift distribution, n(z), of each survey from the largest deep photometric redshift catalogue currently available from the CFHTLS-Deep. This catalogue is randomly sampled to reproduce the magnitude distribution of each survey with the resulting survey-dependent n(z) parametrized using two different models. While our results are consistent for the n(z) models tested, we find that our cosmological parameter constraints depend weakly (at the 5 per cent level) on the inclusion or exclusion of galaxies with low-confidence photometric redshift estimates (z > 1.5). These high-redshift galaxies are relatively few in number but contribute a significant weak-lensing signal. It will therefore be important for future weak-lensing surveys to obtain near-infrared data to reliably determine the number of high-redshift galaxies in cosmic shear analyses.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/00168e5a6785e7d1eff6452992b77c12b2d1d286

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

In Instrumentation

Citations in the corpus

Strong-lensing optical depths in a ΛCDM universe – II. The influence of the stellar mass in galaxies (2007, background): “Surveys measuring the weak lensing effects of the matter distribution as a whole (e.g. Semboloni et al. 2006; Hoekstra et al. 2006; Simon et al. 2007; Massey et al. 2007a; Benjamin et al. 2007; Fu et al. 2008) are particularly promising for further constraining the parameters of the ΛCDM model.”
Evidence for non-hydrostatic gas from the cluster X-ray to lensing mass ratio (2007, background): “The mean redshift derived by Ilbert et al. (2006) is higher (also see Benjamin et al. 2007) resulting in a ∼ 10% reduction in the 1 For a cluster at redshift z, the overdensity radius r∆ is the radius within which the mean matter density is ∆ times the critical density of the universe at redshift z.”
Gravitational lensing (2010, methodology): “Constraints on two cosmological parameters, the normalization parameter σ8 and the matter-density parameter m0, obtained from cosmic shear correlation functions in two different surveys of gravitational lensing (left panel: from [37], Benjamin J et al 2007 Mon.”
KiDS-450: cosmological parameter constraints from tomographic weak gravitational lensing (2016, unknown): “Benjamin et al. (2007) detected significant B modes and proposed to increase the uncertainty on the E-mode measurement by adding the measured B modes in quadrature.”
Weak Gravitational Lensing (2012, background): “It has been used in many recent weak lensing analyses to constrain cosmological parameters (see for example [7, 32, 24]).”
The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: Direct constraints on blue galaxy intrinsic alignments at intermediate redshifts (2009, methodology): “For this purpose, a Fisher matrix is calculated using a single survey redshift bin (no tomography) with the redshift distribution given in Benjamin et al. (2007) for the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey (CFHTLS)3.”
CFHTLenS: combined probe cosmological model comparison using 2D weak gravitational lensing (2012, methodology): “…analyses of the CFHTLS used the first data release (T0001) with 4 deg2 of the Deep survey (Semboloni et al. 2005) and 22 deg2 of the Wide part of the survey (Hoekstra et al. 2006), followed by the third data release (T0003) comprising 55 deg2 (Benjamin et al. 2007; Fu et al. 2008, hereafter F08).”
CFHTLenS tomographic weak lensing cosmological parameter constraints: Mitigating the impact of intrinsic galaxy alignments (2013, methodology): “Kirk et al. (2010) present the first example of such a joint analysis, combining two-dimensional weak lensing data from the 100 square degree lensing survey (Benjamin et al. 2007) and SDSS shear-shape clustering data (Mandelbaum et al. 2006).”
Constraints on intrinsic alignment contamination of weak lensing surveys using the MegaZ-LRG sample (2010, methodology): “We employ an overall redshift distribution according to Smail et al. (1994), ptot(z) ∝ ( z zSmail )αSmail exp − ( z zSmail )βSmail , (24) with parametersαSmail = 0.836, βSmail = 3.425, andzSmail = 1.171 yielding a median redshift of 0.78 (Benjamin et al. 2007).”
New constraints on dark energy from the observed growth of the most X-ray luminous galaxy clusters (2007, background): “These constraints are in good agreement with recent, independent results from the CMB (Spergel et al. 2007) and cosmic shear, as measured in the 100 Square Degree Survey (Benjamin et al. 2007) (Figure 8) and CFHTLS Wide field (Fu et al. 2008).”
Systematic bias in cosmic shear: extending the Fisher matrix (2007, methodology): “Benjamin et al. (2007) have performed a joint analysis of the latest cosmic shear surveys together covering about 100 deg2 with a median redshift of 0.78 and roughly 10 galaxies per arcmin2 on average.”
Cosmology with the shear-peak statistics (2009, methodology): “Surveys using this method have led to increasingly tight constraints in the m–σ 8 plane (e.g. Hoekstra et al. 2006; Jarvis et al. 2006; Semboloni et al. 2006; Benjamin et al. 2007; Hetterscheidt et al. 2007; Fu et al. 2008).”