A Unified Analysis of Four Cosmic Shear Surveys
Abstract
In the past few years, several independent collaborations have presented cosmological constraints from tomographic cosmic shear analyses. These analyses differ in many aspects: the datasets, the shear and photometric redshift estimation algorithms, the theory model assumptions, and the inference pipelines. To assess the robustness of the existing cosmic shear results, we present in this paper a unified analysis of four of the recent cosmic shear surveys: the Deep Lens Survey (DLS), the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey (CFHTLenS), the Science Verification data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES-SV), and the 450 deg release of the Kilo-Degree Survey (KiDS-450). By using a unified pipeline, we show how the cosmological constraints are sensitive to the various details of the pipeline. We identify several analysis choices that can shift the cosmological constraints by a significant fraction of the uncertainties. For our fiducial analysis choice, considering a Gaussian covariance, conservative scale cuts, assuming no baryonic feedback contamination, identical cosmological parameter priors and intrinsic alignment treatments, we find the constraints (mean, 16% and 84% confidence intervals) on the parameter to be (DLS), (CFHTLenS), (DES-SV) and (KiDS-450). From the goodness-of-fit and the Bayesian evidence ratio, we determine that amongst the four surveys, the two more recent surveys, DES-SV and KiDS-450, have acceptable goodness-of-fit and are consistent with each other. The combined constraints are , which is in good agreement with the first year of DES cosmic shear results and recent CMB constraints from the Planck satellite.
Keywords
Cite
@article{arxiv.1808.07335,
title = {A Unified Analysis of Four Cosmic Shear Surveys},
author = {Chihway Chang and Michael Wang and Scott Dodelson and Tim Eifler and Catherine Heymans and Michael Jarvis and M. James Jee and Shahab Joudaki and Elisabeth Krause and Alex Malz and Rachel Mandelbaum and Irshad Mohammed and Michael Schneider and Melanie Simet and Michael Troxel and Joe Zuntz},
journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.07335},
year = {2018}
}
Comments
22 pages, 15 figures, 7 tables; submitted to MNRAS