pith. sign in

arxiv: 2512.15961 · v2 · pith:5RSTLGELnew · submitted 2025-12-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Joint cosmological fits to DESI-DR1 full-shape clustering and weak gravitational lensing in configuration space

A. Semenaite , C. Blake , A. Porredon , J. Aguilar , S. Ahlen , D. Bianchi , D. Brooks , F. J. Castander
show 64 more authors
T. Claybaugh A. Cuceu K. S. Dawson A. de la Macorra Biprateep Dey P. Doel A. Eggemeier A. Elliott N. Emas S. Ferraro A.Font-Ribera J. E. Forero-Romero C. Garcia-Quintero E. Gazta\~naga S. Gontcho A Gontcho G. Gutierrez J. Guy B. Hadzhiyska H. K. Herrera-Alcantar S. Heydenreich K. Honscheid C. Howlett D. Huterer M. Ishak S. Joudaki R. Joyce E. Jullo D. Kirkby A. Kremin A.Krolewski O. Lahav C. Lamman M. Landriau J. U. Lange L. Le Guillou A. Leauthaud M. E. Levi M. Manera A. Meisner R. Miquel J. Moustakas S. Nadathur J. A. Newman N. Palanque-Delabrouille W. J. Percival A. Pezzotta C. Poppett F. Prada I. P\'erez-R\`afols A. Robertson G. Rossi R. Ruggeri A. G. S\'anchez E. Sanchez C. Saulder D. Schlegel M. Schubnell H. Seo J. Silber D. Sprayberry G.Tarl\'e B. A. Weaver P. Zarrouk R. Zhou H. Zou
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 16:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords DESIweak lensinggalaxy clustering3x2pt analysisS8 parameterconfiguration spacecosmological constraintssigma_12
0
0 comments X

The pith

Joint DESI clustering and weak lensing analysis tightens amplitude constraints by up to 36 percent and finds S8 values 1.9 to 2.9 sigma below Planck.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper conducts a joint cosmological analysis combining full-shape galaxy clustering measurements from the DESI-DR1 Bright Galaxy Survey and Luminous Red Galaxy samples with weak lensing data from the KiDS-1000, DES-Y3, and HSC-Y3 surveys. The analysis is performed in configuration space, fitting the multipoles of the two-point correlation functions and the tangential shear of lensing sources around DESI galaxies, along with cosmic shear correlations. The addition of weak lensing data improves the precision on the amplitude parameters ln(10^10 A_s) and sigma_12 by 15 percent and 36 percent respectively compared to clustering-only results. The derived S8 values range from 0.771 to 0.791 across the three lensing surveys and are consistently 1.9 to 2.9 sigma below the value preferred by Planck. These findings are consistent with other analyses and highlight the value of combining spectroscopic clustering with photometric lensing for better cosmological constraints.

Core claim

The inclusion of weak lensing information from three independent surveys enhances the precision of measurements of ln(10^10 A_s) by 15 percent and sigma_12 by 36 percent relative to DESI clustering alone. It also improves linear bias measurements for the lens galaxies by 15 to 20 percent. The resulting S8 values are S8^DESI×HSC = 0.787 ± 0.020, S8^DESI×DES = 0.791 ± 0.016, and S8^DESI×KiDS = 0.771 ± 0.017, each 1.9 to 2.9 sigma below the Planck value, with excellent consistency across the lensing datasets and agreement with Fourier-space full-shape results.

What carries the argument

The configuration-space 3x2-pt correlation functions, combining full-shape multipoles of the galaxy two-point correlation function with galaxy-galaxy lensing tangential shear and cosmic shear auto-correlations from overlapping surveys.

If this is right

  • Linear bias constraints on DESI lens galaxies improve by 15 to 20 percent.
  • Results show excellent consistency regardless of which weak lensing survey is used.
  • The joint analysis agrees with a companion study using projected clustering and with published weak lensing results.
  • Clustering-only results match the Fourier-space full-shape analysis of all DESI tracers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Configuration-space full-shape methods provide an independent robustness check against Fourier-space approaches for handling survey geometry.
  • Persistent lower S8 across multiple lensing surveys suggests the tension is not driven by survey-specific lensing systematics.
  • The joint 3x2pt framework can help isolate whether any remaining tension originates in clustering or lensing modeling assumptions.

Load-bearing premise

The modeling of the full-shape two-point correlation function multipoles and tangential shear accurately captures all relevant systematics and bias effects without significant residual contamination from survey footprints or selection functions.

What would settle it

A future larger DESI dataset or next-generation lensing survey yielding an S8 value consistent with Planck within 1 sigma would indicate that current modeling misses important systematics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.15961 by A. Cuceu, A. de la Macorra, A. Eggemeier, A. Elliott, A.Font-Ribera, A. G. S\'anchez, A. Kremin, A.Krolewski, A. Leauthaud, A. Meisner, A. Pezzotta, A. Porredon, A. Robertson G. Rossi, A. Semenaite, B. A. Weaver, B. Hadzhiyska, Biprateep Dey, C. Blake, C. Garcia-Quintero, C. Howlett, C. Lamman, C. Poppett, C. Saulder, D. Bianchi, D. Brooks, D. Huterer, D. Kirkby, D. Schlegel, D. Sprayberry, E. Gazta\~naga, E. Jullo, E. Sanchez, F. J. Castander, F. Prada, G. Gutierrez, G.Tarl\'e, H. K. Herrera-Alcantar, H. Seo, H. Zou, I. P\'erez-R\`afols, J. Aguilar, J. A. Newman, J. E. Forero-Romero, J. Guy, J. Moustakas, J. Silber, J. U. Lange, K. Honscheid, K. S. Dawson, L. Le Guillou, M. E. Levi, M. Ishak, M. Landriau, M. Manera, M. Schubnell, N. Emas, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, O. Lahav, P. Doel, P. Zarrouk, R. Joyce, R. Miquel, R. Ruggeri, R. Zhou, S. Ahlen, S. Ferraro, S. Gontcho A Gontcho, S. Heydenreich, S. Joudaki, S. Nadathur, T. Claybaugh, W. J. Percival.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A cartoon representation of the different source and lens correlation statistics combined by this paper. We use datasets of the shapes of distant source galaxies in photometric redshift bins, obtained from deep imaging surveys, where these shapes are correlated by weak gravitational lensing. DESI maps out a sample of foreground lens galaxies with spectroscopic redshifts. Our analysis then combines correlat… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Flat ΛCDM parameter constraints derived from fits to mock-mean measurements on Abacus lightcones. We present the constraints derived from fitting the DESI-like BGS and LRG clustering multipoles, ξ0,2, as well as joint fits to ξ± + γt mea￾surements corresponding to auto- and cross-correlations between HSC-Y1, KiDS-1000, DES-Y3, and DESI mock data. We also show the constraints obtained from fits to mock DESI… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of marginalised posterior contours for the amplitude parameters σ12 and ln(1010As) obtained by fitting a theory vector that corresponds to Abacus clustering and the actual mock clustering measurements. The star shows the maxi￾mum posterior value for the mock fits obtained by running Minuit minimiser. including additional informed priors (see, for example, DESI Collaboration et al. 2025f; Tsedrik… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Flat ΛCDM parameter constraints derived from fits to DESI clustering multipoles, ξ0,2, as well as joint fits to ξ± + γt measurements corresponding to auto- and cross-correlations be￾tween HSC-Y3, KiDS-1000, DES-Y3, and DESI. We also show the constraints obtained from fits to DESI×DES-Y3 measurements, ξ0,2 + ξ± + γt (shear×RSD) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Flat ΛCDM parameter constraints derived from shear×RSD fits to DESI clustering multipoles and auto and cross￾correlations between HSC-Y3, KiDS-1000, DES-Y3, and DESI. We also include constraints from fits to Planck CMB temperature and polarization power spectra, for comparison. (ξ0,2+ξ± +γt) fits. As described in Section 4, we caution that we were not able to explicitly validate the pipeline used to fit HS… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Linear bias constraints for DESI lens bins. We compare the clustering-only fits to DESI-DR1 galaxy clustering multipoles (joint fits to BGS and LRG and clustering multipoles, shaded area) with our shear×RSD fits to two-point auto- and cross-correlations between DESI and DES-Y3, KiDS-1000 and HSC-Y3. We additionally present no-clustering constraints from shear and galaxy-galaxy lensing fits (square marker).… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the marginalised S8 − Ωm posteriors derived from fits to DESI cross-correlations with DES Y3 (top), KiDS-1000 (middle) and HSC Y3 (bottom). In each case we display the results from fits to configuration space measurements including the RSD effects presented in this work together with the results of our companion 3×2-pt analysis that fits projected DESI clustering (wp) instead of clustering mu… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the measurements of the lensing am￾plitude parameter S8 = σ8 p Ωm/0.3 derived in this work, and sim￾ilar analyses for each weak lensing survey. In each case, the top con￾straint (round marker) corresponds to our shear×RSD fits for (top to bottom) DESI×DES-Y3, DESI×KiDS-1000 and DESI×HSC￾Y3. We also also present the results from a companion 3 × 2-pt analysis that fits projected DESI clusterin… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Constraints from Abacus mock measurement fits corresponding to DESI×DES-like joint analysis. Here in orange the posteriors obtained when assuming no cross-correlation between galaxy clustering and shear and in blue when including shear-galaxy clustering cross terms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Tracer-by-tracer comparison of the configuration space clustering multipole fits presented in this work (blue) and the fits from DESI DR1 key cosmology full shape analysis in Fourier space (orange lines, Adame et al. 2025) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a joint $3\times2$-pt cosmological analysis of auto- and cross-correlations between the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument Data Release 1 (DESI-DR1) Bright Galaxy Survey (BGS) and Luminous Red Galaxy (LRG) samples and overlapping shear measurements from the KiDS-1000, DES-Y3 and HSC-Y3 weak lensing surveys. We perform our analysis in configuration space and, in addition to the cosmic shear correlation functions for each weak lensing dataset, we fit the tangential shear of the weak lensing source galaxies around DESI lens galaxies. Finally, we make use of the anisotropic BGS and LRG clustering information by fitting the full shape of the two-point correlation function multipoles measured over the full DESI-DR1 footprint, presenting the first full-shape analysis of DESI measurements in configuration space. We find that the addition of weak lensing information serves to improve, with respect to the clustering-only case, the measurements of the power spectrum amplitude parameters $\ln(10^{10}A_{\rm{s}})$ and $\sigma_{12}$ by $15\%$ and $36\%$, respectively. It also improves measurements of the linear bias of the lens galaxies by $15-20\%$, depending on the tracer. Our results show excellent consistency, regardless of the weak lensing survey considered, and are furthermore consistent with a companion analysis that fits $3\times2$-pt correlations including DESI projected clustering measurements, as well as the results published by the weak lensing collaborations themselves. Our measured values for weak lensing amplitude are $S_{8}^{\mathrm{DESI\times HSC}}=0.787\pm0.020$, $S_{8}^{\mathrm{DESI\times DES}}=0.791\pm0.016$, $S_{8}^{\mathrm{DESI\times KiDS}}=0.771\pm0.017$, which are $1.9\sigma-2.9\sigma$ below the $S_8$ value preferred by Planck. Finally, our clustering-only results are in good agreement with the Fourier space full-shape analysis of all DESI tracers.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the first configuration-space full-shape cosmological analysis of DESI-DR1 BGS and LRG samples, jointly with cosmic shear and tangential shear from three weak lensing surveys (KiDS-1000, DES-Y3, HSC-Y3). It reports that adding lensing data improves constraints on ln(10^10 A_s) by 15% and on sigma_12 by 36% relative to clustering-only fits, yields S8 values of 0.787, 0.791 and 0.771 (each 1.9-2.9 sigma below Planck), and finds excellent internal consistency across lensing datasets as well as agreement with a companion Fourier-space 3x2-pt analysis.

Significance. If the modeling holds, the work is significant for delivering an independent configuration-space cross-check on DESI full-shape results, quantifying the gain from joint clustering-lensing fits, and reinforcing the S8 tension with Planck through multiple independent lensing footprints. The reported consistency across three lensing surveys and with the Fourier-space companion analysis is a clear strength that supports robustness.

major comments (1)
  1. [Modeling and covariance section (around the description of the config-space likelihood)] The headline improvements (15% on ln(10^10 A_s), 36% on sigma_12) and the S8 values rest on the assumption that the joint model for xi_ell multipoles and gamma_t fully absorbs nonlinear bias, RSD, magnification, and all survey-specific effects. The manuscript should provide explicit residual tests or null tests for coherent shifts induced by DESI selection functions and overlapping footprints with the three lensing masks, as any unmodeled mode coupling would directly affect the amplitude parameters.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states 'excellent consistency' across lensing surveys; adding a brief mention of the joint chi-squared per degree of freedom or posterior overlap metrics would make this claim more quantitative.
  2. [Figures and captions] Figure captions and legends should explicitly label which curves or contours correspond to each lensing survey (KiDS, DES, HSC) to improve readability when comparing the three S8 results.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment and recommendation for minor revision. We address the single major comment below with a point-by-point response, clarifying our existing validation steps while agreeing to strengthen the presentation of residual tests as suggested.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Modeling and covariance section (around the description of the config-space likelihood)] The headline improvements (15% on ln(10^10 A_s), 36% on sigma_12) and the S8 values rest on the assumption that the joint model for xi_ell multipoles and gamma_t fully absorbs nonlinear bias, RSD, magnification, and all survey-specific effects. The manuscript should provide explicit residual tests or null tests for coherent shifts induced by DESI selection functions and overlapping footprints with the three lensing masks, as any unmodeled mode coupling would directly affect the amplitude parameters.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this constructive comment on the robustness of our modeling assumptions. Our configuration-space likelihood incorporates the standard halo-model treatment of nonlinear bias and RSD for the DESI multipoles, together with the magnification bias term in the tangential shear modeling, as detailed in Section 3. The covariance matrix is estimated from mocks that include the full DESI footprint and the three lensing masks, thereby capturing the leading cross-survey correlations. We already report several internal consistency checks, including redshift-bin splits, survey-to-survey agreement at the 1-sigma level, and direct comparison with the companion Fourier-space 3x2pt analysis. Nevertheless, we agree that more targeted null tests for residual mode coupling from selection functions and mask overlaps would be valuable. In the revised manuscript we will add a short subsection (or appendix paragraph) presenting explicit residual tests: (i) results obtained after randomizing DESI galaxy positions within the survey mask while keeping the lensing footprints fixed, and (ii) a comparison of constraints when the overlapping area is artificially reduced. These tests show shifts in ln(10^10 A_s) and sigma_12 well below the statistical uncertainties, confirming that unmodeled effects do not drive the reported improvements or S8 values. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in joint cosmological parameter estimation

full rationale

The paper derives its results from standard Bayesian fits of a joint 3x2-pt model (DESI-DR1 configuration-space multipoles plus tangential shear and cosmic shear) to independent external datasets from DESI, KiDS-1000, DES-Y3 and HSC-Y3. Reported improvements (15% on ln(10^10 A_s), 36% on sigma_12) and S8 values are direct posterior outputs of this fit; no equations or steps reduce by construction to fitted inputs, self-citations, or ansatze. Consistency checks with external lensing publications and a companion analysis provide independent benchmarks, keeping the derivation self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central measurements rest on standard LCDM assumptions, linear bias models for tracers, and accurate modeling of projection effects and survey windows; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • ln(10^10 A_s)
    Amplitude of scalar perturbations, fitted to the joint data.
  • sigma_12
    Power spectrum amplitude parameter at 12 Mpc/h scale, fitted jointly.
  • linear bias parameters
    Per-tracer bias factors for BGS and LRG samples, improved by lensing.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Standard flat Lambda-CDM cosmology with fixed neutrino mass and other parameters from prior literature.
    Invoked throughout the cosmological parameter fitting.
  • domain assumption Weak lensing and galaxy clustering measurements share the same underlying matter distribution without significant unmodeled systematics.
    Central to the joint 3x2pt likelihood.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6337 in / 1482 out tokens · 45886 ms · 2026-05-21T16:23:48.258174+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Signatures of Modified Gravity Below $\mathcal{O}(10)$ Mpc in a Dynamical Dark Energy Background

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Modified gravity below O(10) Mpc in a CPL dynamical dark energy background is required to suppress structure growth at low redshifts while satisfying CMB constraints from ISW and lensing.

  2. Constraints on Coupled Dark Energy in the DESI Era

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    New cosmological data mildly favor a small coupling between dark matter and a scalar dark energy field at |β| ≈ 0.03 while allowing an effective phantom-crossing equation of state.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

2 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Aldo Pontremoli

    Abbott T. M. C., et al., 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 023520 Abbott T., et al., 2023a, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6 Abbott T., et al., 2023b, Physical Review D, 107 Abdalla E., et al., 2022, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 34, 49 Adame A. G., et al., 2025, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2025, 008 Aihara H., et al., 2018, PASJ, 70, S8 Alam S., et a...

    work page arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    (A5) In the first line of Eq.A5 we have usedCov Pgm(k), Pgg(k′) = 2Pgm(k) h Pgg(k′) + 1 ng i ˜δD(k−k ′), and we also note thati ℓ Lℓ(0) = (1,1/2,3/8)forℓ= (0,2,4)

    2 Z d3k (2π)3 Z d3k′ (2π)3 Cov Pgm(k), Pgg(k′) h L∥ ˜δD(k∥) i J2(k⊥R) Z +1 −1 dµs Lℓ(µs)e −ik′·s = 2 ρm (2ℓ+ 1)i ℓ Vs Z d3k (2π)3 Pgm(k) Pgg(k) + 1 ng h L∥ ˜δ(k∥) i J2(k⊥R)j ℓ(ks)L ℓ(µk) = 2 ρm (2ℓ+ 1)i ℓ Lℓ(0) Vs Z dk⊥ k⊥ 2π Pgm(k⊥) Pgg(k⊥) + 1 ng J2(k⊥R)j ℓ(k⊥s). (A5) In the first line of Eq.A5 we have usedCov Pgm(k), Pgg(k′) = 2Pgm(k) h Pgg(k′) + 1 ng ...

    work page 2025