Dark energy constraints from cosmic shear power spectra: impact of intrinsic alignments on photometric redshift requirements
Open accessAbstract
Cosmic shear constrains cosmology by exploiting the apparent alignments of pairs of galaxies due to gravitational lensing by intervening mass clumps. However, galaxies may become (intrinsically) aligned with each other, and with nearby mass clumps, during their formation. This effect needs to be disentangled from the cosmic shear signal to place constraints on cosmology. We use the linear intrinsic alignment model as a base and compare it to an alternative model and data. If intrinsic alignments are ignored then the dark energy equation of state is biased by ∼50%. We examine how the number of tomographic redshift bins affects uncertainties on cosmological parameters and find that when intrinsic alignments are included two or more times as many bins are required to obtain 80% of the available information. We investigate how the degradation in the dark energy figure of merit depends on the photometric redshift scatter. Previous studies have shown that lensing does not place stringent requirements on the photometric redshift uncertainty, so long as the uncertainty is well known. However, if intrinsic alignments are included the requirements become a factor of three tighter. These results are quite insensitive to the fraction of catastrophic outliers, assuming that this fraction is well known. We show the effect of uncertainties in photometric redshift bias and scatter. Finally, we quantify how priors on the intrinsic alignment model would improve dark energy constraints.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Bridle and King (2007) found a 50% bias due to intrinsic alignments on determining the dark energy equation of state from weak lensing.
“Bridle and King (2007) found a 50% bias due to IA on determining the dark energy equation of state from weak lensing.”
From Testing general relativity in cosmology (2019) · cites this paper as Bridle and King (2007)
Cites
Exploring the Expansion History of the Universe
Linder, E. V. (2003) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.90.091301 · Cited by 2,526 · see citing works
Systematic errors in future weak-lensing surveys: requirements and prospects for self-calibration
Huterer, D., Takada, M., Bernstein, G., & Jain, B. (2006) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09782.x · Cited by 409 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Heymans, C., Tröster, T., Asgari, M., Blake, C., Hildebrandt, H., Joachimi, B., Kuijken, K., Lin, C.-A., Sánchez, A. G., van den Busch, J. L., et al. (2021) · Astronomy & Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039063 · Cited by 772 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Testing general relativity in cosmology
Ishak, M. (2019) · Living Reviews in Relativity · doi:10.1007/s41114-018-0017-4 · Cited by 449 · see citing works
Joudaki, S., Blake, C., Johnson, A., Amon, A., Asgari, M., Choi, A., Erben, T., Glazebrook, K., Harnois-Déraps, J., Heymans, C., et al. (2018) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2820 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
Cosmological constraints with deep learning from KiDS-450 weak lensing maps
Fluri, J., Kacprzak, T., Lucchi, A., Refregier, A., Amara, A., Hofmann, T., & Schneider, A. (2019) · Physical Review D · doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.063514 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
Dossett, J. N., Ishak, M., Parkinson, D., & Davis, T. M. (2015) · Physical Review D · doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.023003 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Abdalla, E., Abellán, G. F., Aboubrahim, A., Agnello, A., Akarsu, Ö., Akrami, Y., Alestas, G., Aloni, D., Amendola, L., Anchordoqui, L. A., et al. (2022) · Journal of High Energy Astrophysics · doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bridle, S., & King, L.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- ORCID
- Bridle, Sarah
- Venue
- New Journal of Physics
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 2007-12-17
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 444-444
- ISSN
- 1367-2630 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2022146136
- Cited by
- 492
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 9.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- New Journal of Physics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (acceptedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Dark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
- Keywords
- cosmic shear, dark energy equation of state, intrinsic alignment, photometric redshift bias, cosmic shear power spectrum, gravitational lensing, galaxy alignment, cosmological parameter constraints
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