Inference from the small scales of cosmic shear with current and future Dark Energy Survey data

Niall Maccrann; J Aleksic; A Amara; Sarah Bridle; C. Bruderer; C. Chang; Scott Dodelson; T. Eifler; M. E. Huffer; D. Huterer; T. Kacprzak; A Refregier; E {Suchyta}; R H Wechsler; Joseph Zuntz; T. M C Abbott; S {Allam}; J {Annis}; R Armstrong; A Benoit-Levy; D. Brooks; D. L. Burke; A. Carnero Rosell; Carrasco Kind; J {Carretero}; F J {Castander}; M {Crocce}; C E {Cunha}; L N {da Costa}; S Desai; H. T. Diehl; J. Dietrich; P {Doel}; A E {Evrard}; B. Flaugher; P. Fosalba; D W {Gerdes}; D. A. Goldstein; D {Gruen}; Robert A. Gruendl; G. Gutierrez; K. Honscheid; D. J. James; M Jarvis; E {Krause}; K {Kuehn}; N {Kuropatkin}; M {Lima}; J. L. Marshall; P. Melchior; F. Menanteau; R. Miquel; A A {Plazas}; A K Romer; E S Rykoff; E. Sanchez; V {Scarpine}; I {Sevilla-Noarbe}; E. Sheldon; M {Soares-Santos}; M E C {Swanson}; G {Tarle}; D. Thomas; V {Vikram}

doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2849

Inference from the small scales of cosmic shear with current and future Dark Energy Survey data

Niall Maccrann, J Aleksic, A Amara, Sarah Bridle, C. Bruderer, C. Chang, Scott Dodelson, T. Eifler, M. E. Huffer, D. Huterer, T. Kacprzak, A Refregier, E {Suchyta}, R H Wechsler, Joseph Zuntz, T. M C Abbott, S {Allam}, J {Annis}, R Armstrong , A Benoit-LevyD. Brooks, D. L. Burke, A. Carnero Rosell, Carrasco Kind, J {Carretero}, F J {Castander}, M {Crocce}, C E {Cunha}, L N {da Costa}, S Desai, H. T. Diehl, J. Dietrich, P {Doel}, A E {Evrard}, B. Flaugher, P. Fosalba, D W {Gerdes}, D. A. Goldstein, D {Gruen}, Robert A. Gruendl, G. Gutierrez, K. Honscheid, D. J. James, M Jarvis, E {Krause}, K {Kuehn}, N {Kuropatkin}, M {Lima}, J. L. Marshall, P. Melchior, F. Menanteau, R. Miquel, A A {Plazas}, A K Romer, E S Rykoff, E. Sanchez, V {Scarpine}, I {Sevilla-Noarbe}, E. Sheldon, M {Soares-Santos}, M E C {Swanson}, G {Tarle}, D. Thomas, V {Vikram}

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Cosmic shear is sensitive to fluctuations in the cosmological matter density eld, including on small physical scales, where matter clustering is affected by baryonic physics in galaxies and galaxy clusters, such as star formation, supernovae feedback and AGN feedback. While muddying any cosmological information that is contained in small scale cosmic shear measurements, this does mean that cosmic shear has the potential to constrain baryonic physics and galaxy formation. We perform an analysis of the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Science Verication (SV) cosmic shear measurements, now extended to smaller scales, and using the Mead et al. (2015) halo model to account for baryonic feedback.While the SV data has limited statistical power, we demonstrate using a simulated likelihood analysis that the nal DES data will have the statistical power to didifferentiate among baryonic feedback scenarios. We also explore some of the difficulties in interpreting the small scales in cosmic shear measurements, presenting
estimates of the size of several other systematic eects that make inference from small
scales dicult, including uncertainty in the modelling of intrinsic alignment on nonlin-
ear scales, `lensing bias', and shape measurement selection eects. For the latter two,
we make use of novel image simulations. While future cosmic shear datasets have the
statistical power to constrain baryonic feedback scenarios, there are several systematic
eects that require improved treatments, in order to make robust conclusions about
baryonic feedback.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	2567-2583
Number of pages	16
Journal	Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Volume	465
Issue number	3
Early online date	5 Nov 2016
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw2849
Publication status	Published - 1 Mar 2017

Access to Document

10.1093/mnras/stw2849

Cite this

Maccrann, N., Aleksic, J., Amara, A., Bridle, S., Bruderer, C., Chang, C., Dodelson, S., Eifler, T., Huffer, M. E., Huterer, D., Kacprzak, T., Refregier, A., {Suchyta}, E., Wechsler, R. H., Zuntz, J., Abbott, T. M. C., {Allam}, S., {Annis}, J., Armstrong , R., ... {Vikram}, V. (2017). Inference from the small scales of cosmic shear with current and future Dark Energy Survey data. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465(3), 2567-2583. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw2849

@article{e3419fb603944880853f3b8618086386,

title = "Inference from the small scales of cosmic shear with current and future Dark Energy Survey data",

abstract = "Cosmic shear is sensitive to fluctuations in the cosmological matter density eld, including on small physical scales, where matter clustering is affected by baryonic physics in galaxies and galaxy clusters, such as star formation, supernovae feedback and AGN feedback. While muddying any cosmological information that is contained in small scale cosmic shear measurements, this does mean that cosmic shear has the potential to constrain baryonic physics and galaxy formation. We perform an analysis of the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Science Verication (SV) cosmic shear measurements, now extended to smaller scales, and using the Mead et al. (2015) halo model to account for baryonic feedback.While the SV data has limited statistical power, we demonstrate using a simulated likelihood analysis that the nal DES data will have the statistical power to didifferentiate among baryonic feedback scenarios. We also explore some of the difficulties in interpreting the small scales in cosmic shear measurements, presentingestimates of the size of several other systematic eects that make inference from smallscales dicult, including uncertainty in the modelling of intrinsic alignment on nonlin-ear scales, `lensing bias', and shape measurement selection eects. For the latter two,we make use of novel image simulations. While future cosmic shear datasets have thestatistical power to constrain baryonic feedback scenarios, there are several systematiceects that require improved treatments, in order to make robust conclusions aboutbaryonic feedback.",

author = "Niall Maccrann and J Aleksic and A Amara and Sarah Bridle and C. Bruderer and C. Chang and Scott Dodelson and T. Eifler and Huffer, {M. E.} and D. Huterer and T. Kacprzak and A Refregier and E {Suchyta} and Wechsler, {R H} and Joseph Zuntz and Abbott, {T. M C} and S {Allam} and J {Annis} and R Armstrong and A Benoit-Levy and D. Brooks and Burke, {D. L.} and Rosell, {A. Carnero} and Carrasco Kind and J {Carretero} and {Castander}, {F J} and M {Crocce} and {Cunha}, {C E} and {{da Costa}}, {L N} and S Desai and Diehl, {H. T.} and J. Dietrich and P {Doel} and {Evrard}, {A E} and B. Flaugher and P. Fosalba and {Gerdes}, {D W} and Goldstein, {D. A.} and D {Gruen} and Gruendl, {Robert A.} and G. Gutierrez and K. Honscheid and James, {D. J.} and M Jarvis and E {Krause} and K {Kuehn} and N {Kuropatkin} and M {Lima} and Marshall, {J. L.} and P. Melchior and F. Menanteau and R. Miquel and {Plazas}, {A A} and Romer, {A K} and Rykoff, {E S} and E. Sanchez and V {Scarpine} and I {Sevilla-Noarbe} and E. Sheldon and M {Soares-Santos} and {Swanson}, {M E C} and G {Tarle} and D. Thomas and V {Vikram}",

year = "2017",

month = mar,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1093/mnras/stw2849",

language = "English",

volume = "465",

pages = "2567--2583",

journal = "Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society",

issn = "1365-2966",

publisher = "Oxford University Press",

number = "3",

}

Maccrann, N, Aleksic, J, Amara, A, Bridle, S, Bruderer, C, Chang, C, Dodelson, S, Eifler, T, Huffer, ME, Huterer, D, Kacprzak, T, Refregier, A, {Suchyta}, E, Wechsler, RH, Zuntz, J, Abbott, TMC, {Allam}, S, {Annis}, J, Armstrong , R, Benoit-Levy, A, Brooks, D, Burke, DL, Rosell, AC, Kind, C, {Carretero}, J, {Castander}, FJ, {Crocce}, M, {Cunha}, CE, {da Costa}, LN, Desai, S, Diehl, HT, Dietrich, J, {Doel}, P, {Evrard}, AE, Flaugher, B, Fosalba, P, {Gerdes}, DW, Goldstein, DA, {Gruen}, D, Gruendl, RA, Gutierrez, G, Honscheid, K, James, DJ, Jarvis, M, {Krause}, E, {Kuehn}, K, {Kuropatkin}, N, {Lima}, M, Marshall, JL, Melchior, P, Menanteau, F, Miquel, R, {Plazas}, AA, Romer, AK, Rykoff, ES, Sanchez, E, {Scarpine}, V, {Sevilla-Noarbe}, I, Sheldon, E, {Soares-Santos}, M, {Swanson}, MEC, {Tarle}, G, Thomas, D & {Vikram}, V 2017, 'Inference from the small scales of cosmic shear with current and future Dark Energy Survey data', Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. 465, no. 3, pp. 2567-2583. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw2849

TY - JOUR

T1 - Inference from the small scales of cosmic shear with current and future Dark Energy Survey data

AU - Maccrann, Niall

AU - Aleksic, J

AU - Amara, A

AU - Bridle, Sarah

AU - Bruderer, C.

AU - Chang, C.

AU - Dodelson, Scott

AU - Eifler, T.

AU - Huffer, M. E.

AU - Huterer, D.

AU - Kacprzak, T.

AU - Refregier, A

AU - {Suchyta}, E

AU - Wechsler, R H

AU - Zuntz, Joseph

AU - Abbott, T. M C

AU - {Allam}, S

AU - {Annis}, J

AU - Armstrong , R

AU - Benoit-Levy, A

AU - Brooks, D.

AU - Burke, D. L.

AU - Rosell, A. Carnero

AU - Kind, Carrasco

AU - {Carretero}, J

AU - {Castander}, F J

AU - {Crocce}, M

AU - {Cunha}, C E

AU - {da Costa}, L N

AU - Desai, S

AU - Diehl, H. T.

AU - Dietrich, J.

AU - {Doel}, P

AU - {Evrard}, A E

AU - Flaugher, B.

AU - Fosalba, P.

AU - {Gerdes}, D W

AU - Goldstein, D. A.

AU - {Gruen}, D

AU - Gruendl, Robert A.

AU - Gutierrez, G.

AU - Honscheid, K.

AU - James, D. J.

AU - Jarvis, M

AU - {Krause}, E

AU - {Kuehn}, K

AU - {Kuropatkin}, N

AU - {Lima}, M

AU - Marshall, J. L.

AU - Melchior, P.

AU - Menanteau, F.

AU - Miquel, R.

AU - {Plazas}, A A

AU - Romer, A K

AU - Rykoff, E S

AU - Sanchez, E.

AU - {Scarpine}, V

AU - {Sevilla-Noarbe}, I

AU - Sheldon, E.

AU - {Soares-Santos}, M

AU - {Swanson}, M E C

AU - {Tarle}, G

AU - Thomas, D.

AU - {Vikram}, V

PY - 2017/3/1

Y1 - 2017/3/1

N2 - Cosmic shear is sensitive to fluctuations in the cosmological matter density eld, including on small physical scales, where matter clustering is affected by baryonic physics in galaxies and galaxy clusters, such as star formation, supernovae feedback and AGN feedback. While muddying any cosmological information that is contained in small scale cosmic shear measurements, this does mean that cosmic shear has the potential to constrain baryonic physics and galaxy formation. We perform an analysis of the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Science Verication (SV) cosmic shear measurements, now extended to smaller scales, and using the Mead et al. (2015) halo model to account for baryonic feedback.While the SV data has limited statistical power, we demonstrate using a simulated likelihood analysis that the nal DES data will have the statistical power to didifferentiate among baryonic feedback scenarios. We also explore some of the difficulties in interpreting the small scales in cosmic shear measurements, presentingestimates of the size of several other systematic eects that make inference from smallscales dicult, including uncertainty in the modelling of intrinsic alignment on nonlin-ear scales, `lensing bias', and shape measurement selection eects. For the latter two,we make use of novel image simulations. While future cosmic shear datasets have thestatistical power to constrain baryonic feedback scenarios, there are several systematiceects that require improved treatments, in order to make robust conclusions aboutbaryonic feedback.

AB - Cosmic shear is sensitive to fluctuations in the cosmological matter density eld, including on small physical scales, where matter clustering is affected by baryonic physics in galaxies and galaxy clusters, such as star formation, supernovae feedback and AGN feedback. While muddying any cosmological information that is contained in small scale cosmic shear measurements, this does mean that cosmic shear has the potential to constrain baryonic physics and galaxy formation. We perform an analysis of the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Science Verication (SV) cosmic shear measurements, now extended to smaller scales, and using the Mead et al. (2015) halo model to account for baryonic feedback.While the SV data has limited statistical power, we demonstrate using a simulated likelihood analysis that the nal DES data will have the statistical power to didifferentiate among baryonic feedback scenarios. We also explore some of the difficulties in interpreting the small scales in cosmic shear measurements, presentingestimates of the size of several other systematic eects that make inference from smallscales dicult, including uncertainty in the modelling of intrinsic alignment on nonlin-ear scales, `lensing bias', and shape measurement selection eects. For the latter two,we make use of novel image simulations. While future cosmic shear datasets have thestatistical power to constrain baryonic feedback scenarios, there are several systematiceects that require improved treatments, in order to make robust conclusions aboutbaryonic feedback.

U2 - 10.1093/mnras/stw2849

DO - 10.1093/mnras/stw2849

M3 - Article

SN - 1365-2966

VL - 465

SP - 2567

EP - 2583

JO - Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

JF - Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

IS - 3

ER -

Inference from the small scales of cosmic shear with current and future Dark Energy Survey data

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this