Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 258

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

CFHTLenS revisited: assessing concordance with Planck including astrophysical systematics

Open access
Joudaki, Shahab, Blake, Chris, Heymans, Catherine, Choi, Ami, Harnois-Deraps, Joachim, Hildebrandt, Hendrik, Joachimi, Benjamin, Johnson, Andrew, Mead, Alexander, Parkinson, David, Viola, Massimo, van Waerbeke, Ludovic·2017·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Abstract

We investigate the impact of astrophysical systematics on cosmic shear cosmological parameter constraints from the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey (CFHTLenS) and the concordance with cosmic microwave background measurements by Planck. We present updated CFHTLenS cosmic shear tomography measurements extended to degree scales using a covariance calibrated by a new suite of N-body simulations. We analyse these measurements with a new model fitting pipeline, accounting for key systematic uncertainties arising from intrinsic galaxy alignments, baryonic effects in the non-linear matter power spectrum, and photometric redshift uncertainties. We examine the impact of the systematic degrees of freedom on the cosmological parameter constraints, both independently and jointly. When the systematic uncertainties are considered independently, the intrinsic alignment amplitude is the only degree of freedom that is substantially preferred by the data. When the systematic uncertainties are considered jointly, there is no consistently strong preference in favour of the more complex models. We quantify the level of concordance between the CFHTLenS and Planck data sets by employing two distinct data concordance tests, grounded in Bayesian evidence and information theory. We find that the two data concordance tests largely agree with one another and that the level of concordance between the CFHTLenS and Planck data sets is sensitive to the exact details of the systematic uncertainties included in our analysis, ranging from decisive discordance to substantial concordance as the treatment of the systematic uncertainties becomes more conservative. The least conservative scenario is the one most favoured by the cosmic shear data, but it is also the one that shows the greatest degree of discordance with Planck. The data and analysis code are publicly available at https://github.com/sjoudaki/cfhtlens_revisited.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/mnras/stw2665

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 258

Metadata

Authors
Joudaki, S., Blake, C., Heymans, C., Choi, A., Harnois-Deraps, J., Hildebrandt, H., Joachimi, B., Johnson, A., Mead, A., Parkinson, D., Viola, M., & van Waerbeke, L.
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2016-10-17
Volume
465
Issue
2
Pages
2033-2052
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
OpenAlex
W2288829652
Cited by
258
References
8
FWCI
19.69
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: CFHTLenS revisited: assessing concordance with Planck including astrophysical systematics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/mnras/stw2665
The paper
Joudaki, S., Blake, C., Heymans, C., Choi, A., Harnois-Deraps, J., Hildebrandt, H., Joachimi, B., Johnson, A., Mead, A., Parkinson, D., Viola, M., & van Waerbeke, L. (2017). CFHTLenS revisited: assessing concordance with Planck including astrophysical systematics. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw2665

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.