Cited by 291Cosmology and Gravitation TheoriesGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena

KiDS-450 + 2dFLenS: Cosmological parameter constraints from weak gravitational lensing tomography and overlapping redshift-space galaxy clustering

Open access
Joudaki, Shahab, Blake, Chris, Johnson, Andrew, Amon, Alexandra, Asgari, Marika, Choi, Ami, Erben, Thomas, Glazebrook, Karl +14 more·2018·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Abstract

We perform a combined analysis of cosmic shear tomography, galaxy-galaxy lensing tomography, and redshift-space multipole power spectra (monopole and quadrupole) using 450 deg 2 of imaging data by the Kilo Degree Survey (KiDS-450) overlapping with two spectroscopic surveys: the 2-degree Field Lensing Survey (2dFLenS) and the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS).We restrict the galaxy-galaxy lensing and multipole power spectrum measurements to the overlapping regions with KiDS, and self-consistently compute the full covariance between the different observables using a large suite of N-body simulations.We methodically analyse different combinations of the observables, finding that the galaxy-galaxy lensing measurements are particularly useful in improving the constraint on the intrinsic alignment amplitude, while the multipole power spectra are useful in tightening the constraints along the lensing degeneracy direction.The fully combined constraint on S 8 ≡ σ 8 √ m /0.3 = 0.742 ± 0.035, which is an improvement by 20 per cent compared to KiDS alone, corresponds to a 2.6σ discordance with Planck, and is not significantly affected by fitting to a more conservative set of scales.Given the tightening of the parameter space, we are unable to resolve the discordance with an extended cosmology that is simultaneously favoured in a model selection sense, including the sum of neutrino masses, curvature, evolving dark energy and modified gravity.The complementarity of our observables allows for constraints on modified gravity degrees of freedom that are not simultaneously bounded with either probe alone, and up to a factor of three improvement in the S 8 constraint in the extended cosmology compared to KiDS alone.

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/stx2820

Cites

142 of 142 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Joudaki et al. (2018) found that tightening constraints made the tension between large-scale constraints and Planck at the 2.6 sigma level.

    “However, this tightening of constraints also made the tension between large-scale constraints and Planck at the 2.6 level.”

    From Testing general relativity in cosmology (2019) · cites this paper as Joudaki et al. (2018)

    Section 5.5 (page unavailable) reports that combining probes nearly halved the uncertainty in the large-scale constraint, but gives its discordance with Planck as 3.0σ, not 2.6σ. The 2.6σ value appears for the fiducial analysis in Table 5 and Section 6.1.2 (pages unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • For the WL RSD combined analysis, Joudaki et al. (2018) find Sigma_2 and mu_2 values, while for KiDS only in Joudaki et al. (2017) Sigma_2 is constrained and mu_2 is unconstrained within its prior range; these and all other constraints on the six other modified gravity parameters are consistent with the GR values of unity.

    “For this WL RSD combined analysis, they find and , while for KiDS only in Joudaki et al. (2017) and unconstrained within its prior range. These and all other constraints on the six other modified gravity parameters are all consistent with the GR values of unity.”

    From Testing general relativity in cosmology (2019) · cites this paper as Joudaki et al. (2018)

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Joudaki et al. (2018) found that models with MG parameters could resolve the discordance in the linear/large-scale case but are not favored by model selection, and the same result stands for extended models with massive neutrinos, curvature or evolving dark energy.

    “They found that models with MG parameters could resolve the discordance in the linear/large-scale case, but are not favored by model selection. The same result stands for extended models with massive neutrinos, curvature or evolving dark energy.”

    From Testing general relativity in cosmology (2019) · cites this paper as Joudaki et al. (2018)

    Sections 6.5.4 and 6.5.7 report that the large-scale modified-gravity analysis is concordant with Planck but not favored by model selection; the concordance is largely due to diminished constraining power. The Conclusions (§7) say that none of the extended models are both favored and able to resolve the discordance. They do not establish that the neutrino-mass, curvature, and evolving-dark-energy models share the large-scale modified-gravity result of resolving it. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Joint analysis of shear-shear, galaxy-shear, and galaxy-galaxy correlation functions has become standard in analyses of precursor data sets.

    “The joint analysis of shear -shear, galaxy -shear, and galaxy -galaxy correlation functions has become standard in analyses of precursor data sets ( e.g., DES Collaboration et al. 2018; Joudaki et al. 2018 ) .”

    From LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products (2019) · cites this paper as Joudaki et al. 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Amon A. et al., 2017, MNRAS, e-prints (ArXiv:1707.04105) · arXiv
  2. Jeffreys H., 1961, Theory of Probability, 3rd edn, Oxford Classics series (reprinted 1998). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
  3. Mueller E.-M., Percival W., Linder E., Alam S., Zhao G.-B., Sánchez A. G., Beutler F., 2016, MNRAS, e-prints (ArXiv:1612.00812) · arXiv
  4. van Uitert E. et al., 2017, MNRAS, e-prints (ArXiv:1706.05004) · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Joudaki, S., Blake, C., Johnson, A., Amon, A., Asgari, M., Choi, A., Erben, T., Glazebrook, K., Harnois-Déraps, J., Heymans, C., Hildebrandt, H., Hoekstra, H., Klaes, D., Kuijken, K., Lidman, C., Mead, A., Miller, L., Parkinson, D., Poole, G. B., Schneider, P., Viola, M., & Wolf, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • ARC Centre of Excellence for All-sky Astrophysics (AU)
  • Royal Observatory (GB)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • University of Bonn (DE)
  • Swinburne University of Technology (AU)
  • Leiden University (NL)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • Australian National University (AU)
Corresponding author
Joudaki, Shahab
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2017-10-31
Volume
474
Issue
4
Pages
4894-4924
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
OpenAlex
W2737954132
Cited by
291
References
142
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3
FWCI
22.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (acceptedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
  • Liverpool John Moores University (submittedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • European Commission (656869)
  • Science and Technology Facilities Council (ST/H002456/1, ST/N000919/1)
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
cosmological parameter constraints, cosmic shear tomography, KiDS-450, BOSS, S8 tension, Planck tension, modified gravity, dark energy, neutrino mass, cosmic curvature, covariance matrix, N-body simulations

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