Search for: All records

Cosmic shear, galaxy clustering, and the abundance of massive halos each probe the large-scale structure of the Universe in complementary ways. We present cosmological constraints from the joint analysis of the three probes, building on the latest analyses of the lensing-informed abundance of clusters identified by the South Pole Telescope (SPT) and of the auto- and cross-correlation of galaxy position and weak lensing measurements ( $3\times 2\mathrm{pt}$) in the Dark Energy Survey (DES). We consider the cosmological correlation between the different tracers and we account for the systematic uncertainties that are shared between the large-scale lensing correlation functions and the small-scale lensing-based cluster mass calibration. Marginalized over the remaining $\mathrm{\Lambda }$cold dark matter ( $\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{CDM}$) parameters (including the sum of neutrino masses) and 52 astrophysical modeling parameters, we measure ${\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\mathrm{m}}=0.300\pm 0.017$and ${\sigma }_8=0.797\pm 0.026$. Compared to constraints from primary cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies, our constraints are only 15% wider with a probability to exceed of 0.22 ( $1.2\sigma$) for the two-parameter difference. We further obtain $S_8\equiv {\sigma }_8({\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\mathrm{m}}/0.3{)}^{0.5}=0.796\pm 0.013$which is lower than the measurement at the $1.6\sigma$level. The combined SPT cluster, DES $3\times 2\mathrm{pt}$, and datasets mildly prefer a nonzero positive neutrino mass, with a 95% upper limit $\sum m_{\nu }<0.25\mathrm{eV}$on the sum of neutrino masses. Assuming a $w\mathrm{CDM}$model, we constrain the dark energy equation of state parameter $w=-1.15_{-0.17}^{+0.23}$and when combining with primary CMB anisotropies, we recover $w=-1.20_{-0.09}^{+0.15}$, a $1.7\sigma$difference with a cosmological constant. The precision of our results highlights the benefits of multiwavelength multiprobe cosmology and our analysis paves the way for upcoming joint analyses of next-generation datasets. Published by the American Physical Society2025 

ABSTRACT We study the effect of magnification in the Dark Energy Survey Year 3 analysis of galaxy clustering and galaxy–galaxy lensing, using two different lens samples: a sample of luminous red galaxies, redMaGiC, and a sample with a redshift-dependent magnitude limit, MagLim. We account for the effect of magnification on both the flux and size selection of galaxies, accounting for systematic effects using the Balrog image simulations. We estimate the impact of magnification on the galaxy clustering and galaxy–galaxy lensing cosmology analysis, finding it to be a significant systematic for the MagLim sample. We show cosmological constraints from the galaxy clustering autocorrelation and galaxy–galaxy lensing signal with different magnifications priors, finding broad consistency in cosmological parameters in ΛCDM and wCDM. However, when magnification bias amplitude is allowed to be free, we find the two-point correlation functions prefer a different amplitude to the fiducial input derived from the image simulations. We validate the magnification analysis by comparing the cross-clustering between lens bins with the prediction from the baseline analysis, which uses only the autocorrelation of the lens bins, indicating that systematics other than magnification may be the cause of the discrepancy. We show that adding the cross-clustering between lens redshift bins to the fit significantly improves the constraints on lens magnification parameters and allows uninformative priors to be used on magnification coefficients, without any loss of constraining power or prior volume concerns. 

ABSTRACT We use the small scales of the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Year-3 cosmic shear measurements, which are excluded from the DES Year-3 cosmological analysis, to constrain the baryonic feedback. To model the baryonic feedback, we adopt a baryonic correction model and use the numerical package baccoemu to accelerate the evaluation of the baryonic non-linear matter power spectrum. We design our analysis pipeline to focus on the constraints of the baryonic suppression effects, utilizing the implication given by a principal component analysis on the Fisher forecasts. Our constraint on the baryonic effects can then be used to better model and ameliorate the effects of baryons in producing cosmological constraints from the next-generation large-scale structure surveys. We detect the baryonic suppression on the cosmic shear measurements with a ∼2σ significance. The characteristic halo mass for which half of the gas is ejected by baryonic feedback is constrained to be $$M_c \gt 10^{13.2} \, h^{-1} \, \mathrm{M}_{\odot }$$ (95 per cent C.L.). The best-fitting baryonic suppression is $$\sim 5{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$$ at $$k=1.0 \, {\rm Mpc}\ h^{-1}$$ and $$\sim 15{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$$ at $$k=5.0 \, {\rm Mpc} \ h^{-1}$$. Our findings are robust with respect to the assumptions about the cosmological parameters, specifics of the baryonic model, and intrinsic alignments. 

ABSTRACT We present cosmological constraints from the analysis of angular power spectra of cosmic shear maps based on data from the first three years of observations by the Dark Energy Survey (DES Y3). Our measurements are based on the pseudo-Cℓ method and complement the analysis of the two-point correlation functions in real space, as the two estimators are known to compress and select Gaussian information in different ways, due to scale cuts. They may also be differently affected by systematic effects and theoretical uncertainties, making this analysis an important cross-check. Using the same fiducial Lambda cold dark matter model as in the DES Y3 real-space analysis, we find $${S_8 \equiv \sigma _8 \sqrt{\Omega _{\rm m}/0.3} = 0.793^{+0.038}_{-0.025}}$$, which further improves to S8 = 0.784 ± 0.026 when including shear ratios. This result is within expected statistical fluctuations from the real-space constraint, and in agreement with DES Y3 analyses of non-Gaussian statistics, but favours a slightly higher value of S8, which reduces the tension with the Planck 2018 constraints from 2.3σ in the real space analysis to 1.5σ here. We explore less conservative intrinsic alignments models than the one adopted in our fiducial analysis, finding no clear preference for a more complex model. We also include small scales, using an increased Fourier mode cut-off up to $$k_{\rm max}={5}\, {h}\, {\rm Mpc}^{-1}$$, which allows to constrain baryonic feedback while leaving cosmological constraints essentially unchanged. Finally, we present an approximate reconstruction of the linear matter power spectrum at present time, found to be about 20 per cent lower than predicted by Planck 2018, as reflected by the lower S8 value. 

ABSTRACT We constrain the matter density Ωm and the amplitude of density fluctuations σ8 within the ΛCDM cosmological model with shear peak statistics and angular convergence power spectra using mass maps constructed from the first three years of data of the Dark Energy Survey (DES Y3). We use tomographic shear peak statistics, including cross-peaks: peak counts calculated on maps created by taking a harmonic space product of the convergence of two tomographic redshift bins. Our analysis follows a forward-modelling scheme to create a likelihood of these statistics using N-body simulations, using a Gaussian process emulator. We take into account the uncertainty from the remaining, largely unconstrained ΛCDM parameters (Ωb, ns, and h). We include the following lensing systematics: multiplicative shear bias, photometric redshift uncertainty, and galaxy intrinsic alignment. Stringent scale cuts are applied to avoid biases from unmodelled baryonic physics. We find that the additional non-Gaussian information leads to a tightening of the constraints on the structure growth parameter yielding $$S_8~\equiv ~\sigma _8\sqrt{\Omega _{\mathrm{m}}/0.3}~=~0.797_{-0.013}^{+0.015}$$ (68 per cent confidence limits), with a precision of 1.8 per cent, an improvement of 38 per cent compared to the angular power spectra only case. The results obtained with the angular power spectra and peak counts are found to be in agreement with each other and no significant difference in S8 is recorded. We find a mild tension of $$1.5 \, \sigma$$ between our study and the results from Planck 2018, with our analysis yielding a lower S8. Furthermore, we observe that the combination of angular power spectra and tomographic peak counts breaks the degeneracy between galaxy intrinsic alignment AIA and S8, improving cosmological constraints. We run a suite of tests concluding that our results are robust and consistent with the results from other studies using DES Y3 data. 

ABSTRACT We describe and test the fiducial covariance matrix model for the combined two-point function analysis of the Dark Energy Survey Year 3 (DES-Y3) data set. Using a variety of new ansatzes for covariance modelling and testing, we validate the assumptions and approximations of this model. These include the assumption of Gaussian likelihood, the trispectrum contribution to the covariance, the impact of evaluating the model at a wrong set of parameters, the impact of masking and survey geometry, deviations from Poissonian shot noise, galaxy weighting schemes, and other sub-dominant effects. We find that our covariance model is robust and that its approximations have little impact on goodness of fit and parameter estimation. The largest impact on best-fitting figure-of-merit arises from the so-called fsky approximation for dealing with finite survey area, which on average increases the χ2 between maximum posterior model and measurement by $$3.7{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$$ (Δχ2 ≈ 18.9). Standard methods to go beyond this approximation fail for DES-Y3, but we derive an approximate scheme to deal with these features. For parameter estimation, our ignorance of the exact parameters at which to evaluate our covariance model causes the dominant effect. We find that it increases the scatter of maximum posterior values for Ωm and σ8 by about $$3{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$$ and for the dark energy equation-of-state parameter by about $$5{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$$.