This content will become publicly available on February 1, 2023

Cosmological constraints from the tomographic cross-correlation of DESI Luminous Red Galaxies and Planck CMB lensing
Abstract We use luminous red galaxies selected from the imaging surveys that are being used for targeting by the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) in combination with CMB lensing maps from the Planck collaboration to probe the amplitude of large-scale structure over 0.4 ≤  z  ≤ 1. Our galaxy sample, with an angular number density of approximately 500 deg -2 over 18,000 sq.deg., is divided into 4 tomographic bins by photometric redshift and the redshift distributions are calibrated using spectroscopy from DESI. We fit the galaxy autospectra and galaxy-convergence cross-spectra using models based on cosmological perturbation theory, restricting to large scales that are expected to be well described by such models. Within the context of ΛCDM, combining all 4 samples and using priors on the background cosmology from supernova and baryon acoustic oscillation measurements, we find S 8  = σ 8 (Ω m /0.3) 0.5  = 0.73 ± 0.03. This result is lower than the prediction of the ΛCDM model conditioned on the Planck data. Our data prefer a slower growth of structure at low redshift than the model predictions, though at only modest significance.
Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Award ID(s):
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10322138
Journal Name:
Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics
Volume:
2022
Issue:
02
ISSN:
1475-7516
We measure the small-scale clustering of the Data Release 16 extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey Luminous Red Galaxy sample, corrected for fibre-collisions using Pairwise Inverse Probability weights, which give unbiased clustering measurements on all scales. We fit to the monopole and quadrupole moments and to the projected correlation function over the separation range $7-60\, h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$ with a model based on the aemulus cosmological emulator to measure the growth rate of cosmic structure, parametrized by fσ8. We obtain a measurement of fσ8(z = 0.737) = 0.408 ± 0.038, which is 1.4σ lower than the value expected from 2018 Planck data for a flat ΛCDM model, and is more consistent with recent weak-lensing measurements. The level of precision achieved is 1.7 times better than more standard measurements made using only the large-scale modes of the same sample. We also fit to the data using the full range of scales $0.1\text{--}60\, h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$ modelled by the aemulus cosmological emulator and find a 4.5σ tension in the amplitude of the halo velocity field with the Planck + ΛCDM model, driven by a mismatch on the non-linear scales. This may not be cosmological in origin, and could be due to a breakdown in the Halo Occupation Distribution model used inmore »
4. ABSTRACT Cross-correlations between the lensing of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and other tracers of large-scale structure provide a unique way to reconstruct the growth of dark matter, break degeneracies between cosmology and galaxy physics, and test theories of modified gravity. We detect a cross-correlation between Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI)-like luminous red galaxies (LRGs) selected from DECam Legacy Survey imaging and CMB lensing maps reconstructed with the Planck satellite at a significance of S/N = 27.2 over scales ℓmin = 30, ℓmax = 1000. To correct for magnification bias, we determine the slope of the LRG cumulative magnitude function at the faint limit as s = 0.999 ± 0.015, and find corresponding corrections of the order of a few per cent for $C^{\kappa g}_{\ell }, C^{gg}_{\ell }$ across the scales of interest. We fit the large-scale galaxy bias at the effective redshift of the cross-correlation zeff ≈ 0.68 using two different bias evolution agnostic models: a HaloFit times linear bias model where the bias evolution is folded into the clustering-based estimation of the redshift kernel, and a Lagrangian perturbation theory model of the clustering evaluated at zeff. We also determine the error on the bias from uncertainty in the redshift distribution; within this error, the two methodsmore »