Glimpse into the pion gravitational form factor

Joint analysis of Dark Energy Survey Year 3 data and CMB lensing from SPT and Planck . III. Combined cosmological constraints

“…The constraints from 3 × 2 pt are in acceptable agreement with the CMB lensing crosscorrelations, justifying the joint analysis of 5 × 2 pt. hδ g κ CMB i þ hγ t κ CMB i is acceptable, as described in [12]. While the cross-correlations prefer somewhat lower Ω m and higher σ 8 , they are statistically consistent with 3 × 2 pt.…”

“…To reduce sensitivity of our analysis to small-scale effects in hδ g γ t i, we therefore adopt the point mass marginalization approach of [46], which involves modifying the covariance matrix of hδ g γ t i. We measure the two-point angular correlation functions of the data using the fast tree-based algorithm TREECORR [47] as described in [12,[48][49][50][51]. The shear measurements define a spin-2 field on the sky, and there are several ways of decomposing this field for the purposes of measuring two-point functions.…”

“…This tension could result from physics beyond the standard cosmological constant and cold dark matter model (ΛCDM), or it could result from systematic biases in the analyses. By cross-correlating galaxy surveys with CMB lensing, we obtain an independent handle on the late-time large scale structure measurements that can be used to investigate the origins of this possible tension [10][11][12][13]. Recent analyses have also suggested the possibility of systematic biases in galaxy survey measurements [14].…”

“…This analysis is similar to that presented in[12], but differs in that we have allowed cosmological parameters to vary, and have included the hγγi and hγ t κ CMB i measurements (in effect letting the data constrain the cosmological model).…”

Empirical Determination of the Pion Mass Distribution

“…On the other hand, analyses based on momentum-independent quark+antiquark interactions produce smaller values: 𝑟 𝜃 2 𝜋 /𝑟𝜋 = 0.71 [80] and 𝑟 𝜃 2 𝜋 /𝑟𝜋 = 0.53. [81] Here, for reasons explained elsewhere, [82] the mutual inconsistency is attributable to the different treatments of the momentum-independent interaction used in those studies. Moreover, Ref.…”