%0 Generic %1 amon2021energy %A Amon, A. %A Gruen, D. %A Troxel, M. A. %A MacCrann, N. %A Dodelson, S. %A Choi, A. %A Doux, C. %A Secco, L. F. %A Samuroff, S. %A Krause, E. %A Cordero, J. %A Myles, J. %A DeRose, J. %A Wechsler, R. H. %A Gatti, M. %A Navarro-Alsina, A. %A Bernstein, G. M. %A Jain, B. %A Blazek, J. %A Alarcon, A. %A Ferté, A. %A Raveri, M. %A Lemos, P. %A Campos, A. %A Prat, J. %A Sánchez, C. %A Jarvis, M. %A Alves, O. %A Andrade-Oliveira, F. %A Baxter, E. %A Bechtol, K. %A Becker, M. R. %A Bridle, S. L. %A Camacho, H. %A Campos, A. %A Rosell, A. Carnero %A Kind, M. Carrasco %A Cawthon, R. %A Chang, C. %A Chen, R. %A Chintalapati, P. %A Crocce, M. %A Davis, C. %A Diehl, H. T. %A Drlica-Wagner, A. %A Eckert, K. %A Eifler, T. F. %A Elvin-Poole, J. %A Everett, S. %A Fang, X. %A Fosalba, P. %A Friedrich, O. %A Giannini, G. %A Gruendl, R. A. %A Harrison, I. %A Hartley, W. G. %A Herner, K. %A Huang, H. %A Huff, E. M. %A Huterer, D. %A Kuropatkin, N. %A Leget, P. F. %A Liddle, A. R. %A McCullough, J. %A Muir, J. %A Pandey, S. %A Park, Y. %A Porredon, A. %A Refregier, A. %A Rollins, R. P. %A Roodman, A. %A Rosenfeld, R. %A Ross, A. J. %A Rykoff, E. S. %A Sanchez, J. %A Sevilla-Noarbe, I. %A Sheldon, E. %A Shin, T. %A Troja, A. %A Tutusaus, I. %A Varga, T. N. %A Weaverdyck, N. %A Yanny, B. %A Yin, B. %A Zhang, Y. %A Zuntz, J. %A Aguena, M. %A Allam, S. %A Annis, J. %A Bacon, D. %A Bertin, E. %A Bhargava, S. %A Brooks, D. %A Buckley-Geer, E. %A Burke, D. L. %A Carretero, J. %A Costanzi, M. %A da Costa, L. N. %A Pereira, M. E. S. %A De Vicente, J. %A Desai, S. %A Dietrich, J. P. %A Doel, P. %A Ferrero, I. %A Flaugher, B. %A Frieman, J. %A García-Bellido, J. %A Gaztanaga, E. %A Gerdes, D. W. %A Giannantonio, T. %A Gschwend, J. %A Gutierrez, G. %A Hinton, S. R. %A Hollowood, D. L. %A Honscheid, K. %A Hoyle, B. %A James, D. J. %A Kron, R. %A Kuehn, K. %A Lahav, O. %A Lima, M. %A Lin, H. %A Maia, M. A. G. %A Marshall, J. L. %A Martini, P. %A Melchior, P. %A Menanteau, F. %A Miquel, R. %A Mohr, J. J. %A Morgan, R. %A Ogando, R. L. C. %A Palmese, A. %A Paz-Chinchón, F. %A Petravick, D. %A Pieres, A. %A Malagón, A. A. Plazas %A Romer, A. K. %A Sanchez, E. %A Scarpine, V. %A Schubnell, M. %A Serrano, S. %A Smith, M. %A Soares-Santos, M. %A Suchyta, E. %A Tarle, G. %A Thomas, D. %A To, C. %A Weller, J. %D 2021 %K library %T Dark Energy Survey Year 3 Results: Cosmology from Cosmic Shear and Robustness to Data Calibration %U http://arxiv.org/abs/2105.13543 %X This work, together with its companion paper, Secco and Samuroff et al. (2021), presents the Dark Energy Survey Year 3 cosmic shear measurements and cosmological constraints based on an analysis of over 100 million source galaxies. With the data spanning 4143 deg$^2$ on the sky, divided into four redshift bins, we produce the highest significance measurement of cosmic shear to date, with a signal-to-noise of 40. We conduct a blind analysis in the context of the $Łambda$CDM model and find a 3% constraint of the clustering amplitude, $S_8\sigma_8 (Ømega_m/0.3)^0.5 = 0.759^+0.025_-0.023$. A $Łambda$CDM-Optimized analysis, which safely includes smaller scale information, yields a 2% precision measurement of $S_8= 0.772^+0.018_-0.017$ that is consistent with the fiducial case. The two low-redshift measurements are statistically consistent with the Planck Cosmic Microwave Background result, however, both recovered $S_8$ values are lower than the high-redshift prediction by $2.3\sigma$ and $2.1\sigma$ ($p$-values of 0.02 and 0.05), respectively. The measurements are shown to be internally consistent across redshift bins, angular scales and correlation functions. The analysis is demonstrated to be robust to calibration systematics, with the $S_8$ posterior consistent when varying the choice of redshift calibration sample, the modeling of redshift uncertainty and methodology. Similarly, we find that the corrections included to account for the blending of galaxies shifts our best-fit $S_8$ by $0.5\sigma$ without incurring a substantial increase in uncertainty. We examine the limiting factors for the precision of the cosmological constraints and find observational systematics to be subdominant to the modeling of astrophysics. Specifically, we identify the uncertainties in modeling baryonic effects and intrinsic alignments as the limiting systematics.

@misc{amon2021energy, abstract = {This work, together with its companion paper, Secco and Samuroff et al. (2021), presents the Dark Energy Survey Year 3 cosmic shear measurements and cosmological constraints based on an analysis of over 100 million source galaxies. With the data spanning 4143 deg$^2$ on the sky, divided into four redshift bins, we produce the highest significance measurement of cosmic shear to date, with a signal-to-noise of 40. We conduct a blind analysis in the context of the $\Lambda$CDM model and find a 3% constraint of the clustering amplitude, $S_8\equiv \sigma_8 (\Omega_{\rm m}/0.3)^{0.5} = 0.759^{+0.025}_{-0.023}$. A $\Lambda$CDM-Optimized analysis, which safely includes smaller scale information, yields a 2% precision measurement of $S_8= 0.772^{+0.018}_{-0.017}$ that is consistent with the fiducial case. The two low-redshift measurements are statistically consistent with the Planck Cosmic Microwave Background result, however, both recovered $S_8$ values are lower than the high-redshift prediction by $2.3\sigma$ and $2.1\sigma$ ($p$-values of 0.02 and 0.05), respectively. The measurements are shown to be internally consistent across redshift bins, angular scales and correlation functions. The analysis is demonstrated to be robust to calibration systematics, with the $S_8$ posterior consistent when varying the choice of redshift calibration sample, the modeling of redshift uncertainty and methodology. Similarly, we find that the corrections included to account for the blending of galaxies shifts our best-fit $S_8$ by $0.5\sigma$ without incurring a substantial increase in uncertainty. We examine the limiting factors for the precision of the cosmological constraints and find observational systematics to be subdominant to the modeling of astrophysics. Specifically, we identify the uncertainties in modeling baryonic effects and intrinsic alignments as the limiting systematics.}, added-at = {2021-05-31T08:28:16.000+0200}, author = {Amon, A. and Gruen, D. and Troxel, M. A. and MacCrann, N. and Dodelson, S. and Choi, A. and Doux, C. and Secco, L. F. and Samuroff, S. and Krause, E. and Cordero, J. and Myles, J. and DeRose, J. and Wechsler, R. H. and Gatti, M. and Navarro-Alsina, A. and Bernstein, G. M. and Jain, B. and Blazek, J. and Alarcon, A. and Ferté, A. and Raveri, M. and Lemos, P. and Campos, A. and Prat, J. and Sánchez, C. and Jarvis, M. and Alves, O. and Andrade-Oliveira, F. and Baxter, E. and Bechtol, K. and Becker, M. R. and Bridle, S. L. and Camacho, H. and Campos, A. and Rosell, A. Carnero and Kind, M. Carrasco and Cawthon, R. and Chang, C. and Chen, R. and Chintalapati, P. and Crocce, M. and Davis, C. and Diehl, H. T. and Drlica-Wagner, A. and Eckert, K. and Eifler, T. F. and Elvin-Poole, J. and Everett, S. and Fang, X. and Fosalba, P. and Friedrich, O. and Giannini, G. and Gruendl, R. A. and Harrison, I. and Hartley, W. G. and Herner, K. and Huang, H. and Huff, E. M. and Huterer, D. and Kuropatkin, N. and Leget, P. F. and Liddle, A. R. and McCullough, J. and Muir, J. and Pandey, S. and Park, Y. and Porredon, A. and Refregier, A. and Rollins, R. P. and Roodman, A. and Rosenfeld, R. and Ross, A. J. and Rykoff, E. S. and Sanchez, J. and Sevilla-Noarbe, I. and Sheldon, E. and Shin, T. and Troja, A. and Tutusaus, I. and Varga, T. N. and Weaverdyck, N. and Yanny, B. and Yin, B. and Zhang, Y. and Zuntz, J. and Aguena, M. and Allam, S. and Annis, J. and Bacon, D. and Bertin, E. and Bhargava, S. and Brooks, D. and Buckley-Geer, E. and Burke, D. L. and Carretero, J. and Costanzi, M. and da Costa, L. N. and Pereira, M. E. S. and De Vicente, J. and Desai, S. and Dietrich, J. P. and Doel, P. and Ferrero, I. and Flaugher, B. and Frieman, J. and García-Bellido, J. and Gaztanaga, E. and Gerdes, D. W. and Giannantonio, T. and Gschwend, J. and Gutierrez, G. and Hinton, S. R. and Hollowood, D. L. and Honscheid, K. and Hoyle, B. and James, D. J. and Kron, R. and Kuehn, K. and Lahav, O. and Lima, M. and Lin, H. and Maia, M. A. G. and Marshall, J. L. and Martini, P. and Melchior, P. and Menanteau, F. and Miquel, R. and Mohr, J. J. and Morgan, R. and Ogando, R. L. C. and Palmese, A. and Paz-Chinchón, F. and Petravick, D. and Pieres, A. and Malagón, A. A. Plazas and Romer, A. K. and Sanchez, E. and Scarpine, V. and Schubnell, M. and Serrano, S. and Smith, M. and Soares-Santos, M. and Suchyta, E. and Tarle, G. and Thomas, D. and To, C. and Weller, J.}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2b110ab97cad1c07ceedd0989c5669d38/gpkulkarni}, description = {Dark Energy Survey Year 3 Results: Cosmology from Cosmic Shear and Robustness to Data Calibration}, interhash = {aade58310c5a992aaf9dcf797c1ff8d3}, intrahash = {b110ab97cad1c07ceedd0989c5669d38}, keywords = {library}, note = {cite arxiv:2105.13543Comment: 42 pages, 19 figures}, timestamp = {2021-05-31T08:28:16.000+0200}, title = {Dark Energy Survey Year 3 Results: Cosmology from Cosmic Shear and Robustness to Data Calibration}, url = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2105.13543}, year = 2021 }