Cited by 492Cosmology and Gravitation TheoriesGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena

Dark energy constraints from cosmic shear power spectra: impact of intrinsic alignments on photometric redshift requirements

Open access
Bridle, Sarah, King, Lindsay·2007·New Journal of Physics

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1088/1367-2630/9/12/444

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bridle, S., & King, L.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Venue
New Journal of Physics
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
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