KiDS+VIKING-450 and DES-Y1 combined: Cosmology with cosmic shear

By S. Joudaki, H. Hildebrandt, D. Traykova, N. E. Chisari, Catherine Heymans, A. Kannawadi, K. Kuijken, A. Wright, M. Asgari, T. Erben and 5 more. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 2019

158 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We present a combined tomographic weak gravitational lensing analysis of the Kilo Degree Survey (KV450) and the Dark Energy Survey (DES-Y1). We homogenize the analysis of these two public cosmic shear datasets by adopting consistent priors and modeling of nonlinear scales, and determine new redshift distributions for DES-Y1 based on deep public spectroscopic surveys. Adopting these revised redshifts results in a 0.8σ reduction in the DES-inferred value for S8, which decreases to a 0.5σ reduction when including a systematic redshift calibration error model from mock DES data based on the MICE2 simulation. The combined KV450+DES-Y1 constraint on S8 = 0.762−0.024+0.025 is in tension with the Planck 2018 constraint from the cosmic microwave background at the level of 2.5σ. This result highlights the importance of developing methods to provide accurate redshift calibration for current and future weak-lensing surveys.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bdd1d012806013dec1014ab87024aa9d5fe6a404

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

Citations in the corpus

Effective field theory of dark energy: A review (2019, background): “ independent measurements all consistently detected a lower growth rate of matter density perturbations than predicted by the CDM model. This is at variance with results extrapolated from CMB studies [14, 13, 15, 16, 186, 187, 17]. Scalar-tensor theories are not expected to produce lower growth rela”
Euclid preparation (2021, background): “Finally, we note that our various selections on σzp prevent us from directly comparing the recovered redshift distributions with those published in Wright et al. (2019) and Joudaki et al. (2020).”