Cosmological Constraints from Multiple Probes in the Dark Energy Survey

Abbott, T. M. C.; Alarcón, A.; Allam, S.; Andersen, Per H.; Andrade-Oliveira, F.; Annis, J.; Asorey, J.; Ávila, S.; Bacon, David; Banik, Nilanjan; Bassett, Bruce A.; Baxter, Eric J.; Bechtol, K.; Becker, M. R.; Bernstein, G. M.; Bertin, E.; Blazek, Jonathan; Bridle, Sarah; Brooks, D.; Brout, D.; Burke, D. L.; Calcino, Josh; Chavez, Hugo Orlando Camacho; Campos, A.; Rosell, A. Carnero; Carollo, D.; Kind, M. Carrasco; Carretero, J.; Castander, F. J.; Cawthon, R.; Challis, P.; Chan, Kwan Chuen; Chang, C.; Childress, M.; Crocce, M.; Cunha, C. E.; D’Andrea, C. B.; Costa, L. N. da; Davis, C.; Davis, Tamara M.; Vicente, J. De; DePoy, D. L.; DeRose, J.; Desai, S.; Diehl, H. T.; Dietrich, J. P.; Dodelson, Scott; Doel, P.; Drlica-Wagner, A.; Eifler, T. F.; Elvin-Poole, J.; Estrada, J.; Evrard, A. E.; Fernández, E.; Flaugher, B.; Foley, R. J.; Fosalba, P.; Frieman, J.; Galbany, L.; García-Bellido, J.; Gatti, M.; Gaztañaga, E.; Gerdes, D. W.; Giannantonio, T.; Glazebrook, Karl; Goldstein, D.; Gruen, D.; Gruendl, R. A.; Gschwend, J.; Gutiérrez, G.; Hartley, W. G.; Hinton, S. R.; Hollowood, D. L.; Honscheid, K.; Hoormann, J. K.; Hoyle, B.; Huterer, Dragan; Jain, Bhuvnesh; James, D. J.; Jarvis, Mike; Jeltema, T.; Kasai, E.; Kent, S.; Keßler, R.; Kim, A. G.; Kokron, Nickolas; Krause, E.; Krön, Richard G.; Kuêhn, K.; Kuropatkin, N.; Lahav, O.; Lasker, J.; Lemos, Pablo; Lewis, Geraint F.; Li, T. S.; Lidman, C.; Lima, M.; Lin, Huan; Macaulay, E.; MacCrann, N.; Maia, M. A. G.; March, M.; Marriner, J.; Marshall, J. L.; Martini, Paul; McMahon, R. G.; Melchior, P.; Menanteau, F.; Miquel, R.; Mohr, J. J.; Morganson, E.; Muir, J.; Möller, A.; Neilsen, Eric H.; Nichol, R. C.; Nord, B.; Ogando, R. L. C.; Palmese, A.; Pan, Y. C.; Peiris, Hiranya V.; Percival, Will J.; Plazas, A. A.; Porredon, A.; Prat, J.; Romer, A. K.; Roodman, A.; Rosenfeld, R.; Ross, Ashley J.; Rykoff, E. S.; Samuroff, S.; Sánchez, C.; Sánchez, E.; Scarpine, V.; Schindler, R. H.; Schubnell, M.; Scolnic, Dan; Secco, L. F.; Serrano, S.; Sevilla-Noarbe, I.; Sharp, Robert; Sheldon, E.; Smith, M.; Soares-Santos, M.; Sobreira, F.; Sommer, N. E.; Swann, E.; Swanson, M. E. C.; Tarlè, G.; Thomas, Daniel; Thomas, R. C.; Troxel, M. A.; Tucker, B.; Uddin, S. A.; Vielzeuf, P.; Walker, A. R.; Wang, M.; Weaverdyck, N.; Wechsler, Risa H.; Weller, J.; Yanny, B.; Zhang, B.; Zhang, Y.; Zuntz, J.

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.171301

Cited by 114 publications

(105 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unless otherwise noted, we use the same modeling and analysis choices as the DES Year 1 cosmology analyses described in Refs. [30,34,62]. In order to ensure that our results are robust against various modeling choices and priors, we will follow similar blinding and validation procedures to those used in Ref.…”

Section: A Plan Of Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Constraints on cosmological parameters from the first year of DES data (Y1) have been published for the combined analysis of galaxy clustering and weak lensing [3,30], for the baryonic acoustic oscillation (BAO) feature in the galaxy distribution [31], and for galaxy cluster abundance [32]. Additionally, cosmological results have been reported for the first three years (Y3) of supernova data [33], as well as for the combined analysis of Y3 SNe with Y1 galaxy clustering, weak lensing, and BAOs [34]. Analyses of DES Y3 clustering and lensing data are currently underway.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

DES Y1 results: Splitting growth and geometry to test ΛCDM

Muir¹,

Baxter²,

Miranda³

et al. 2021

Phys. Rev. D

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: A Plan Of Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

DES Y1 results: Splitting growth and geometry to test ΛCDM

Muir¹,

Baxter²,

Miranda³

et al. 2021

Phys. Rev. D

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Imposing these additional measurements as a tight prior on the relevant parameters, we find that our synthetic population of BBH mergers can constrain w to 19% and 12% after one and five years of observations. These measurements would be competitive with, but independent from, other constraints on w (e.g., see Abbott et al 2019). Posteriors for w with these informative priors are shown in Figure 4.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

A Future Percent-level Measurement of the Hubble Expansion at Redshift 0.8 with Advanced LIGO

Farr

Fishbach

et al. 2019

ApJL

185

218

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simultaneous measurements of distance and redshift can be used to constrain the expansion history of the universe and associated cosmological parameters. Merging binary black hole (BBH) systems are standard sirens-their gravitational waveform provides direct information about the luminosity distance to the source. There is, however, a perfect degeneracy between the source masses and redshift; some nongravitational information is necessary to break the degeneracy and determine the redshift of the source. Here we suggest that the pair instability supernova (PISN) process, thought to be the source of the observed upper-limit on the black hole (BH) mass in merging BBH systems at ∼ 45 M , imprints a mass scale in the population of BBH mergers and permits a measurement of the redshift-luminosity-distance relation with these sources. We simulate five years of BBH detections in the Advanced LIGO and Virgo detectors with a realistic BBH merger rate, mass distribution with smooth PISN cutoff, and measurement uncertainty. We show that after one year of operation at design sensitivity the BBH population can constrain H(z) to 6.1% at a pivot redshift z 0.8. After five years the constraint improves to 2.9%. If the PISN cutoff is sharp, the uncertainty is smaller by about a factor of two. This measurement relies only on general relativity and the presence of a mass scale that is approximately fixed or calibrated across cosmic time; it is independent of any distance ladder. Observations by future "third-generation" gravitational wave (GW) detectors, which can

show abstract

“…As a side-note, dozens of articles proposing versions of the MOND model (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) are now defunct, having been dis-proven by the simultaneous observations of light and gravity waves from a binary neutron star collision [60][61][62]. Fifth, the concept of dark energy has hatched projects employing dozens of astronomers and several large telescopes [63,64]. Many astronomers are now dedicating time to DES, the Dark Energy Survey, presuming the ΛCDM model correctly describes our Universe [65].…”

Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Tension over the Hubble-Lemaitre Constant

Smith¹,

Öztaş²

2020

Cosmology 2020 - The Current State [Working Title]

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Astronomers continue the search for better a Hubble-Lemaitre constant, H 0 , value and other cosmological parameters describing our expanding Universe. One investigative school uses 'standard candles' to estimate distances correlated with galactic redshifts, which are then used to calculate H 0 and other parameters. These distance values rely on measurements of Cepheid variable stars, supernovae types Ia and II or HII galaxies/giant extra-galactic HII regions (GEHR) or the tip of red giant star branch to establish a distance 'ladder'. We describe some common pitfalls of employing log-transformed HII/GEHR and SNe Ia data rather than actual distances and suggest better analytical methods than those commonly used. We also show that results using HII and GEHR data are more meaningful when low quality data are discarded. We then test six important cosmological models using HII/GEHR data but produce no clear winner. Groups utilising gravitational waves and others measuring signals from the cosmic microwave background are now at odds, 'tension', with those using the SNe Ia and HII data over Hubble-Lemaitre constant values. We suggest a straightforward remedy for this tension.

show abstract

Cosmological Constraints from Multiple Probes in the Dark Energy Survey

Cited by 114 publications

References 53 publications

DES Y1 results: Splitting growth and geometry to test ΛCDM

DES Y1 results: Splitting growth and geometry to test ΛCDM

A Future Percent-level Measurement of the Hubble Expansion at Redshift 0.8 with Advanced LIGO

The Tension over the Hubble-Lemaitre Constant

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About