The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The shear power spectrum from the COMBO-17 survey
Open accessAbstract
We perform a cosmic shear analysis of the COMBO-17 survey -- a unique dataset with shear quality R-band imaging and accurate photometric redshift estimates (dz=0.05) for ~90% of galaxies to R=24.0. We undertake a full maximum likelihood analysis to measure the weak lensing power spectra, Cl^kk, Cl^bb & Cl^kb from l=400 to l=10^4. We find a strong measurement of the convergence power over five fields. The b-field has a much lower significance, indicating our data is free of major systematics, while the cross-correlation of k & b is consistent with zero. We have also calculated the shear correlation functions and variance over a range of scales between 0.5 and 20 arcmin. In addition, we have used our results to measure cosmological parameters, constraining the normalisation of the matter power spectrum to be sigma_8=(0.72 \pm 0.09)(Omega_m/0.3)^-0.49, where the errors quoted are 1-sigma due to the intrinsic dispersion in galaxy ellipticities, cosmic and sampling variance. We have significantly reduced the usual additional uncertainty in the median redshift (z_m) of the survey by estimating z_m directly from the data. To demonstrate the power of accurate redshift information, we have also measured parameters from a shear analysis of only those galaxies with accurate redshifts. In this case, we have eliminated the uncertainty in the redshift distribution of sources and we show that the uncertainty in the resulting parameter constraints are reduced by more than a factor of 2 compared to the typical uncertainties found in cosmic shear surveys to date. Finally, we combine our parameter measurements with constraints from the 2dFGRS and from the CMB. With these additional constraints, we measure sigma_8=0.73 +0.05/-0.03 and Omega_m=0.27 +/- 0.02.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Intrinsic alignment-lensing interference as a contaminant of cosmic shear
Hirata, C. M., & Seljak, U. (2004) · Physical Review D · doi:10.1103/physrevd.70.063526 · Cited by 586
Cosmology with cosmic shear observations: a review
Kilbinger, M. (2015) · Reports on Progress in Physics · doi:10.1088/0034-4885/78/8/086901 · Cited by 604
The Shear Testing Programme – I. Weak lensing analysis of simulated ground-based observations
Heymans, C., Van Waerbeke, L., Bacon, D., Berge, J., Bernstein, G., Bertin, E., Bridle, S., Brown, M. L., Clowe, D., Dahle, H., et al. (2006) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10198.x · Cited by 508
Self-citationDark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear and robustness to data calibration
Amon, A., Gruen, D., Troxel, M. A., MacCrann, N., Dodelson, S., Choi, A., Doux, C., Secco, L. F., Samuroff, S., Krause, E., et al. (2022) · Physical Review D · doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023514 · Cited by 437
Self-citationHalo Substructure and the Power Spectrum
Zentner, A. R., & Bullock, J. S. (2003) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/378797 · Cited by 429
Metadata
- Authors
- Brown, M. L., Taylor, A. N., Bacon, D. J., Gray, M. E., Dye, S., Meisenheimer, K., & Wolf, C.
- Venue
- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2003-05
- Volume
- 341
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 100-118
- ISSN
- 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2966
- OpenAlex
- W2108334203
- Cited by
- 180
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The shear power spectrum from the COMBO-17 survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06237.x
- The paper
- Brown, M. L., Taylor, A. N., Bacon, D. J., Gray, M. E., Dye, S., Meisenheimer, K., & Wolf, C. (2003). The shear power spectrum from the COMBO-17 survey. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06237.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.