MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3166030703 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023515

Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear and robustness to modeling uncertainty

2022· article· en· W3166030703 on OpenAlexaff
L. F. Secco, S. Samuroff, E. Krause, Bhuvnesh Jain, J. Blazek, Marco Raveri, A. Campos, A. Amon, Angela Chen, C. Doux, A. Choi, D. Gruen, G. M. Bernstein, C. Chang, Joseph DeRose, J. Myles, A. Ferté, Pablo Lemos, Dragan Huterer, J. Prat, M. A. Troxel, N. MacCrann, Andrew R. Liddle, Tomasz Kacprzak, Xiao Fang, C. Sánchez, Shivam Pandey, Scott Dodelson, P. Chintalapati, Kai Hoffmann, A. Alarcon, O. Alves, F. Andrade-Oliveira, Eric J. Baxter, K. Bechtol, M. R. Becker, A. Brandao-Souza, H. Camacho, A. Carnero Rosell, M. Carrasco Kind, R. Cawthon, J. Cordero, M. Crocce, C. Davis, Eleonora Di Valentino, A. Drlica-Wagner, K. Eckert, T. F. Eifler, M. Elidaiana, F. Elsner, J. Elvin-Poole, S. Everett, P. Fosalba, O. Friedrich, M. Gatti, G. Giannini, R. A. Gruendl, I. Harrison, W. G. Hartley, K. Herner, Hung-Jin Huang, Erica Huff, Mike Jarvis, N Jeffrey, N. Kuropatkin, P.-F. Léget, J. Muir, J. McCullough, A Navarro-Alsina, Y. Omori, Y. Park, A. Porredon, R. P. Rollins, A. Roodman, R. Rosenfeld, Ashley J. Ross, E. S. Rykoff, Javier Sánchez, I. Sevilla-Noarbe, E. S. Sheldon, T. Shin, A. Troja, I. Tutusaus, T N Varga, N. Weaverdyck, Risa H. Wechsler, B. Yanny, B. Yin, Y. Zhang, J. Zuntz, T. M. C. Abbott, M. Aguena, S. Allam, J. Annis, D. Bacon, E. Bertin, S. Bhargava, S. L. Bridle, David H. Brooks, E. Buckley-Geer, D. L. Burke, J. Carretero, M. Costanzi, L. N. da Costa, J. De Vicente, H. T. Diehl, J. P. Dietrich, P. Doel, I. Ferrero, B. Flaugher, J. Frieman, J. García-Bellido, E. Gaztañaga, D. W. Gerdes, T. Giannantonio, J. Gschwend, G. Gutiérrez, S. R. Hinton, K. Honscheid, B. Hoyle, D. J. James, T. Jeltema, K. Kuehn, O. Lahav, M. Lima, H. Lin, M. A. G. Maia, J. L. Marshall, Paul Martini, P. Melchior, F. Menanteau, R. Miquel, J. J. Mohr, R. Morgan, R. L. C. Ogando, A. Palmese, F. Paz-Chinchón, D. Petravick, A. Pieres, M. Rodríguez-Monroy, A. K. Romer, E. Sánchez, V. Scarpine, M. Schubnell, D. Scolnic, S. Serrano, M. Smith, M. Soares-Santos, E. Suchyta, M E C Swanson, G. Tarlé, D. Thomas, C. To

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersSLAC National Accelerator LaboratoryH2020 European Research CouncilArgonne National LaboratoryKavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa BarbaraEuropean Regional Development FundScience and Technology Facilities CouncilUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignLudwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenCentro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y TecnológicasConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadHigh Energy PhysicsDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftGeneralitat de CatalunyaOffice of ScienceUniversity of EdinburghLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryUniversity of PennsylvaniaFinanciadora de Estudos e ProjetosFundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de JaneiroUniversity of SussexEidgenössische Technische Hochschule ZürichUniversity College LondonMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e InovaçãoHigher Education Funding Council for EnglandUniversity of PortsmouthUniversity of ChicagoTexas A and M UniversityUniversity of MichiganOhio State UniversityUniversity of NottinghamStanford UniversityU.S. Department of EnergyUniversity of CambridgeFermilabNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDark energyCosmologyCOSMIC cancer databaseRobustness (evolution)PhysicsPhysical cosmologySurvey researchCosmological modelAstronomyAstrophysicsPsychologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work and its companion paper, Amon et al. [Phys. Rev. D 105, 023514 (2022)], present cosmic shear measurements and cosmological constraints from over 100 million source galaxies in the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Year 3 data. We constrain the lensing amplitude parameter ${S}_{8}\ensuremath{\equiv}{\ensuremath{\sigma}}_{8}\sqrt{{\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Omega}}}_{\mathrm{m}}/0.3}$ at the 3% level in $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Lambda}}\mathrm{CDM}$: ${S}_{8}=0.75{9}_{\ensuremath{-}0.023}^{+0.025}$ (68% CL). Our constraint is at the 2% level when using angular scale cuts that are optimized for the $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Lambda}}\mathrm{CDM}$ analysis: ${S}_{8}=0.77{2}_{\ensuremath{-}0.017}^{+0.018}$ (68% CL). With cosmic shear alone, we find no statistically significant constraint on the dark energy equation-of-state parameter at our present statistical power. We carry out our analysis blind, and compare our measurement with constraints from two other contemporary weak lensing experiments: the Kilo-Degree Survey (KiDS) and Hyper-Suprime Camera Subaru Strategic Program (HSC). We additionally quantify the agreement between our data and external constraints from the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). Our DES Y3 result under the assumption of $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Lambda}}\mathrm{CDM}$ is found to be in statistical agreement with Planck 2018, although favors a lower ${S}_{8}$ than the CMB-inferred value by $2.3\ensuremath{\sigma}$ (a $p$-value of 0.02). This paper explores the robustness of these cosmic shear results to modeling of intrinsic alignments, the matter power spectrum and baryonic physics. We additionally explore the statistical preference of our data for intrinsic alignment models of different complexity. The fiducial cosmic shear model is tested using synthetic data, and we report no biases greater than $0.3\ensuremath{\sigma}$ in the plane of ${S}_{8}\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Omega}}}_{\mathrm{m}}$ caused by uncertainties in the theoretical models.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations379
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207