CFHTLenS: combined probe cosmological model comparison using 2D weak gravitational lensing

By M. Kilbinger, L. Fu, Catherine Heymans, F. Simpson, J. Benjamin, T. Erben, J. Harnois-Déraps, H. Hoekstra, H. Hildebrandt, Thomas D. Kitching and 13 more. 2012

307 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We present cosmological constraints from 2D weak gravitational lensing by the large-scale structure in the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey (CFHTLenS) which spans 154 deg^2 in five optical bands. Using accurate photometric redshifts and measured shapes for 4.2 million galaxies between redshifts of 0.2 and 1.3, we compute the 2D cosmic shear correlation function over angular scales ranging between 0.8 and 350 arcmin. Using non-linear models of the dark-matter power spectrum, we constrain cosmological parameters by exploring the parameter space with Population Monte Carlo sampling. The best constraints from lensing alone are obtained for the small-scale density-fluctuations amplitude σ_8 scaled with the total matter density Ωm. For a flat Λcold dark matter (ΛCDM) model we obtain σ_8(Ω_m/0.27)0.6 = 0.79 ± 0.03. We combine the CFHTLenS data with 7-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP7), baryonic acoustic oscillations (BAO): SDSS-III (BOSS) and a Hubble Space Telescope distance-ladder prior on the Hubble constant to get joint constraints. For a flat ΛCDM model, we find Ω_m = 0.283 ± 0.010 and σ_8 = 0.813 ± 0.014. In the case of a curved wCDM universe, we obtain Ω_m = 0.27 ± 0.03, σ_8 = 0.83 ± 0.04, w0 = −1.10 ± 0.15 and Ω_K = 0.006^(+0.006)_(− 0.004). We calculate the Bayesian evidence to compare flat and curved ΛCDM and dark-energy CDM models. From the combination of all four probes, we find models with curvature to be at moderately disfavoured with respect to the flat case. A simple dark-energy model is indistinguishable from ΛCDM. Our results therefore do not necessitate any deviations from the standard cosmological model.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b9d65eeaf368ea9a1bd5d66a040cdd1f30b18e31

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

Cosmological parameters from the comparison of peculiar velocities with predictions from the 2M++ density field (2014, methodology): “An analysis of second and third-order weak-lensing aperture-mass moments measured by CFHTLenS yields σ8(Ωm/0.27) 0.6 = 0.79 ± 0.03 (Kilbinger et al. 2013).”
Cosmology from cosmic shear power spectra with Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam first-year data (2018, background): “For instance, the Canada-FranceHawaii Telescope Lensing Survey (CFHTLS) survey observed ∼ 107 galaxies over 154 square degrees of the sky (CFHTLenS; Heymans et al. 2012) to conduct tomographic analyses (Hu 1999) of cosmic shear (Heymans et al. 2013; Kilbinger et al. 2013; Kitching et al. 2014).”
Cosmic Discordance: Are Planck CMB and CFHTLenS weak lensing measurements out of tune? (2014, methodology): “Kilbinger et al. (2013) performed a 2d cosmic shear analysis of the CFHTLenS data, producing constraints on the ΛCDM model which they approximated by σ8(Ωm/0.27) 0.59 = 0.787 ± 0.032.”
COSMOLIKE - cosmological likelihood analyses for photometric galaxy surveys (2016, methodology): “It is straightforward to compare/combine individual LSS probes with Supernovae 1a (SN1a) or cosmic microwave background (CMB) measurements when assuming that corresponding information is independent (e.g. Kilbinger et al. 2013; The Dark Energy Survey Collaboration et al. 2015).”
Planck2015 results (2015, unknown): “…seem broadly consistent with Planck and it is only as CFHTLenS probes higher wavenumbers, particular in the 2D and tomographic correlation function analyses (Heymans et al. 2013; Kilbinger et al. 2013; Fu et al. 2014; MacCrann et al. 2015), that apparently strong discrepancies with Planck appear.”
Planck 2013 results. XX. Cosmology from Sunyaev-Zeldovich cluster counts (2013, background): “Cosmic shear (Kilbinger et al. 2013), X-rays (Vikhlinin et al. 2009b), and MaxBCG (Rozo et al. 2010) each have a different slope in Ωm, being 0.6, 0.47, and 0.41, respectively (instead of 0.3), as they are probing different redshift ranges.”
The Intrinsic Alignment of Galaxies and its Impact on Weak Gravitational Lensing in an Era of Precision Cosmology (2014, background): “, 2012), and weak gravitational lensing (Bacon et al., 2000; van Waerbeke et al., 2000; Rhodes et al., 2001; Hoekstra et al., 2002; van Waerbeke et al., 2002; Brown et al., 2003; Jarvis et al., 2003; Massey et al., 2005; Benjamin et al., 2007; Massey et al., 2007; Schrabback et al., 2010; Jee et al.”
An accurate halo model for fitting non-linear cosmological power spectra and baryonic feedback models (2015, methodology): “Current lensing analyses that work at thelevel of shear correlations either employHALOFIT (e.g.,Schrabback et al. 2010; Heymans et al. 2013; Kilbinger et al. 2013), emulator-based strategies (Liu et al. 2015; Petri et al. 2015) or the technique of simulation rescaling (Angulo & White 2010; Angulo &…”
CFHTLenS tomographic weak lensing cosmological parameter constraints: Mitigating the impact of intrinsic galaxy alignments (2013, methodology): “We find excellent agreement between the cosmological results from the different analyses, indicating that ignoring intrinsic alignment contamination in Kilbinger et al. (2013) and Ben- c© 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000 jamin et al. (2013) did not introduce any significant bias in their results.”
Practical Weak-lensing Shear Measurement with Metacalibration (2017, background): “One can study these correlations at any place in the universe, including the locations of galaxies (Mandelbaum et al. 2006), clusters of galaxies (Johnston et al. 2007), voids (Melchior et al. 2014), and even correlations without reference to any particular lensing objects (Kilbinger et al. 2013).”
CFHTLenS revisited: assessing concordance with Planck including astrophysical systematics (2016, methodology): “In a 2D analysis, Kilbinger et al. (2013) showed that the measured uncertainties in these corrections had a negligible impact on the cosmological constraints for CFHTLenS and so we do not consider ‘shear measurement’ systematic uncertainties in our analysis (still true with tomography given…”
Euclid preparation (2021, background): “…Ωm, and the normalisation of the linear matter power spectrum, σ8, have been reported by the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey (CFHTLenS, Kilbinger et al. 2013), the Kilo Degree Survey (KiDS, Hildebrandt et al. 2017), the Dark Energy Survey (DES, Troxel et al. 2018), and the…”