Search for: All records

We present the pipeline for the cosmic shear analysis of the Dark Energy Camera All Data Everywhere (DECADE) weak lensing dataset: a catalog consisting of 107 million galaxies observed by the Dark Energy Camera (DECam) in the northern Galactic cap. The catalog derives from a large number of disparate observing programs and is therefore more inhomogeneous across the sky compared to existing lensing surveys. First, we use simulated data-vectors to show the sensitivity of our constraints to different analysis choices in our inference pipeline, including sensitivity to residual systematics. Next we use simulations to validate our covariance modeling for inhomogeneous datasets. Finally, we show that our choices in the end-to-end cosmic shear pipeline are robust against inhomogeneities in the survey, by extracting relative shifts in the cosmology constraints across different subsets of the footprint/catalog and showing they are all consistent within $1\sigma$to $2\sigma$. This is done for forty-six subsets of the data and is carried out in a fully consistent manner: for each subset of the data, we re-derive the photometric redshift estimates, shear calibrations, survey transfer functions, the data vector, measurement covariance, and finally, the cosmological constraints. Our results show that existing analysis methods for weak lensing cosmology can be fairly resilient towards inhomogeneous datasets. This also motivates exploring a wider range of image data for pursuing such cosmological constraints. 

We present cosmological constraints from the Dark Energy Camera All Data Everywhere (DECADE) cosmic shear analysis. This work uses shape measurements for 107 million galaxies measured through Dark Energy Camera (DECam) imaging of $5,412$deg ${}^2$of sky that is outside the Dark Energy Survey (DES) footprint. We derive constraints on the cosmological parameters $S_8={0.791}_{-0.032}^{+0.027}$and for the $\Lambda$CDM model, which are consistent with those from other weak lensing surveys and from the cosmic microwave background. We combine our results with cosmic shear results from DES Y3 at the likelihood level, since the two datasets span independent areas on the sky. The combined measurements, which cover $\approx 10,000$deg ${}^2$, prefer $S_8=0.791\pm 0.023$and under the $\Lambda$CDM model. These results are the culmination of a series of rigorous studies that characterize and validate the DECADE dataset and the associated analysis methodologies (Anbajagane et. al 2025a,b,c). Overall, the DECADE project demonstrates that the cosmic shear analysis methods employed in Stage-III weak lensing surveys can provide robust cosmological constraints for fairly inhomogeneous datasets. This opens the possibility of using data that have been previously categorized as ``unusable’’ for cosmic shear analyses, thereby increasing the statistical power of upcoming weak lensing surveys. 

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 The fiducial cosmological analyses of imaging surveys like DES typically probe the Universe at redshifts z < 1. We present the selection and characterization of high-redshift galaxy samples using DES Year 3 data, and the analysis of their galaxy clustering measurements. In particular, we use galaxies that are fainter than those used in the previous DES Year 3 analyses and a Bayesian redshift scheme to define three tomographic bins with mean redshifts around z ∼ 0.9, 1.2, and 1.5, which extend the redshift coverage of the fiducial DES Year 3 analysis. These samples contain a total of about 9 million galaxies, and their galaxy density is more than 2 times higher than those in the DES Year 3 fiducial case. We characterize the redshift uncertainties of the samples, including the usage of various spectroscopic and high-quality redshift samples, and we develop a machine-learning method to correct for correlations between galaxy density and survey observing conditions. The analysis of galaxy clustering measurements, with a total signal to noise S/N ∼ 70 after scale cuts, yields robust cosmological constraints on a combination of the fraction of matter in the Universe Ωm and the Hubble parameter h, $$\Omega _m h = 0.195^{+0.023}_{-0.018}$$, and 2–3  per cent measurements of the amplitude of the galaxy clustering signals, probing galaxy bias and the amplitude of matter fluctuations, bσ8. A companion paper (in preparation) will present the cross-correlations of these high-z samples with cosmic microwave background lensing from Planck and South Pole Telescope, and the cosmological analysis of those measurements in combination with the galaxy clustering presented in this work. 

We measure the impact of source galaxy clustering on higher order summary statistics of weak gravitational lensing data. By comparing simulated data with galaxies that either trace or do not trace the underlying density field, we show that this effect can exceed measurement uncertainties for common higher order statistics for certain analysis choices. We evaluate the impact on different weak lensing observables, finding that third moments and wavelet phase harmonics are more affected than peak count statistics. Using Dark Energy Survey (DES) Year 3 (Y3) data, we construct null tests for the source-clustering-free case, finding a p-value of p = 4 × 10−3 (2.6σ) using third-order map moments and p = 3 × 10−11 (6.5σ) using wavelet phase harmonics. The impact of source clustering on cosmological inference can be either included in the model or minimized through ad hoc procedures (e.g. scale cuts). We verify that the procedures adopted in existing DES Y3 cosmological analyses were sufficient to render this effect negligible. Failing to account for source clustering can significantly impact cosmological inference from higher order gravitational lensing statistics, e.g. higher order N-point functions, wavelet-moment observables, and deep learning or field-level summary statistics of weak lensing maps. 

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 present an alternative calibration of the MagLim lens sample redshift distributions from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) first 3 yr of data (Y3). The new calibration is based on a combination of a self-organizing-map-based scheme and clustering redshifts to estimate redshift distributions and inherent uncertainties, which is expected to be more accurate than the original DES Y3 redshift calibration of the lens sample. We describe in detail the methodology, and validate it on simulations and discuss the main effects dominating our error budget. The new calibration is in fair agreement with the fiducial DES Y3 n(z) calibration, with only mild differences (<3σ) in the means and widths of the distributions. We study the impact of this new calibration on cosmological constraints, analysing DES Y3 galaxy clustering and galaxy–galaxy lensing measurements, assuming a Lambda cold dark matter cosmology. We obtain Ωm = 0.30 ± 0.04, σ8 = 0.81 ± 0.07, and S8 = 0.81 ± 0.04, which implies a ∼0.4σ shift in the Ω − S8 plane compared to the fiducial DES Y3 results, highlighting the importance of the redshift calibration of the lens sample in multiprobe cosmological analyses. 

ABSTRACT Recent cosmological analyses with large-scale structure and weak lensing measurements, usually referred to as 3 × 2pt, had to discard a lot of signal to noise from small scales due to our inability to accurately model non-linearities and baryonic effects. Galaxy–galaxy lensing, or the position–shear correlation between lens and source galaxies, is one of the three two-point correlation functions that are included in such analyses, usually estimated with the mean tangential shear. However, tangential shear measurements at a given angular scale θ or physical scale R carry information from all scales below that, forcing the scale cuts applied in real data to be significantly larger than the scale at which theoretical uncertainties become problematic. Recently, there have been a few independent efforts that aim to mitigate the non-locality of the galaxy–galaxy lensing signal. Here, we perform a comparison of the different methods, including the Y-transformation, the point-mass marginalization methodology, and the annular differential surface density statistic. We do the comparison at the cosmological constraints level in a combined galaxy clustering and galaxy–galaxy lensing analysis. We find that all the estimators yield equivalent cosmological results assuming a simulated Rubin Observatory Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) Year 1 like set-up and also when applied to DES Y3 data. With the LSST Y1 set-up, we find that the mitigation schemes yield ∼1.3 times more constraining S8 results than applying larger scale cuts without using any mitigation scheme.