The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Probing gravity with a joint analysis of galaxy and CMB lensing and SDSS spectroscopy
Open accessAbstract
We present measurements of $E_G$, a probe of gravity from large-scale structure, using BOSS LOWZ and CMASS spectroscopic samples, with lensing measurements from SDSS (galaxy lensing) and Planck (CMB lensing). Using SDSS lensing and the BOSS LOWZ sample, we measure $\langle{E_G}\rangle=0.40^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ (stat), $\pm 0.026$ (systematic), consistent with the predicted value from the Planck $Λ$CDM model, $E_G=0.46$. Using CMB lensing, we measure $\langle{E_G}\rangle=0.46^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$ (stat) for LOWZ (statistically consistent with galaxy lensing and Planck predictions) and $\langle{E_G}\rangle=0.39^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ (stat) for the CMASS sample, consistent with the Planck prediction of $E_G=0.40$ given the higher redshift of the sample. We also study the redshift evolution of $E_G$ by splitting the LOWZ sample into two samples based on redshift, with results being consistent with model predictions. We estimate systematic uncertainties on the above $\langle{E_G}\rangle$ numbers to be $\sim 6$% (when using galaxy-galaxy lensing) or $\sim 3$% (when using CMB lensing), subdominant to the quoted statistical errors. These systematic error budgets are dominated by observational systematics in galaxy-galaxy lensing and by theoretical modeling uncertainties, respectively. We do not estimate observational systematics in galaxy-CMB lensing cross correlations.
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.
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?
Singh et al. (2018) found nonlinear corrections and systematic effects can introduce errors -2% so below statistical errors, while shear calibration and photometric uncertainties add another error for SDSS galaxy lensing.
“They found that nonlinear corrections and systematic effects can introduce errors –2% so below the statistical errors while shear calibration and photometric uncertainties add another error for the SDSS galaxy lensing.”
From Testing general relativity in cosmology (2019) · cites this paper as Singh 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.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- Alam S., et al., 2016a, preprint, ( arXiv:1607.03155 ) · arXiv
- Beutler F., et al., 2016, preprint, ( arXiv:1607.03150 ) · arXiv
- DES Collaboration et al., 2017, preprint, ( arXiv:1708.01530 ) · arXiv
- Grieb J. N., et al., 2016, preprint, ( arXiv:1607.03143 ) · arXiv
- Hildebrandt H., et al., 2016, preprint, arXiv:1606.05338 · arXiv
- Jain B., Khoury J., 2010, Annals of Physics, 325, 1479
- Kilbinger M., 2015, Reports on Progress in Physics, 78, 086901 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/78/8/086901 · DOI · Paper page
- Mandelbaum R., 2017, preprint, ( arXiv:1710.03235 ) · arXiv
- Mandelbaum R., et al., 2017, preprint, ( arXiv:1710.00885 ) · arXiv
- M´ enard B., Scranton R., Schmidt S., Morrison C., Jeong D., Budavari T., Rahman M., 2013, preprint, ( arXiv:1303.4722 ) · arXiv
- Planck Collaboration et al., 2015a, preprint, ( arXiv:1502.01589 ) · arXiv
- Planck Collaboration et al., 2015b, preprint, ( arXiv:1502.01591 ) · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Testing general relativity in cosmology
Ishak, M. (2019) · Living Reviews in Relativity · doi:10.1007/s41114-018-0017-4 · Cited by 449
Metadata
- Authors
- Singh, S., Alam, S., Mandelbaum, R., Seljak, U., Rodriguez-Torres, S., & Ho, S.
- Affiliations
- Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US)
- Royal Observatory (GB)
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Singh, Sukhdeep
- Mandelbaum, Rachel
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2018
- Volume
- 482
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 785-806
- ISSN
- 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1803.08915
- OpenAlex
- W2790569821
- Cited by
- 48
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 3.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (acceptedVersion)
- OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Department of Energy and Climate Change (DE-SC0010118)
- European Research Council (670193)
- H2020 European Research Council (670193)
- 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 › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
- Keywords
- structure growth, galaxy lensing, CMB lensing, CMASS, SDSS, Planck, systematic uncertainties, large-scale structure
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