pith. sign in

arxiv: 2105.13549 · v3 · pith:YEYBQ5UDnew · submitted 2021-05-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Dark Energy Survey Year 3 Results: Cosmological Constraints from Galaxy Clustering and Weak Lensing

DES Collaboration: T. M. C. Abbott , M. Aguena , A. Alarcon , S. Allam , O. Alves , A. Amon , F. Andrade-Oliveira , J. Annis
show 162 more authors
S. Avila D. Bacon E. Baxter K. Bechtol M. R. Becker G. M. Bernstein S. Bhargava S. Birrer J. Blazek A. Brandao-Souza S. L. Bridle D. Brooks E. Buckley-Geer D. L. Burke H. Camacho A. Campos A. Carnero Rosell M. Carrasco Kind J. Carretero F. J. Castander R. Cawthon C. Chang A. Chen R. Chen A. Choi C. Conselice J. Cordero M. Costanzi M. Crocce L. N. da Costa M. E. da Silva Pereira C. Davis T. M. Davis J. De Vicente J. DeRose S. Desai E. Di Valentino H. T. Diehl J. P. Dietrich S. Dodelson P. Doel C. Doux A. Drlica-Wagner K. Eckert T. F. Eifler F. Elsner J. Elvin-Poole S. Everett A. E. Evrard X. Fang A. Farahi E. Fernandez I. Ferrero A. Fert\'e P. Fosalba O. Friedrich J. Frieman J. Garc\'ia-Bellido M. Gatti E. Gaztanaga D. W. Gerdes T. Giannantonio G. Giannini D. Gruen R. A. Gruendl J. Gschwend G. Gutierrez I. Harrison W. G. Hartley K. Herner S. R. Hinton D. L. Hollowood K. Honscheid B. Hoyle E. M. Huff D. Huterer B. Jain D. J. James M. Jarvis N. Jeffrey T. Jeltema A. Kovacs E. Krause R. Kron K. Kuehn N. Kuropatkin O. Lahav P.-F. Leget P. Lemos A. R. Liddle C. Lidman M. Lima H. Lin N. MacCrann M. A. G. Maia J. L. Marshall P. Martini J. McCullough P. Melchior J. Mena-Fern\'andez F. Menanteau R. Miquel J. J. Mohr R. Morgan J. Muir J. Myles S. Nadathur A. Navarro-Alsina R. C. Nichol R. L. C. Ogando Y. Omori A. Palmese S. Pandey Y. Park F. Paz-Chinch\'on D. Petravick A. Pieres A. A. Plazas Malag\'on A. Porredon J. Prat M. Raveri M. Rodriguez-Monroy R. P. Rollins A. K. Romer A. Roodman R. Rosenfeld A. J. Ross E. S. Rykoff S. Samuroff C. S\'anchez E. Sanchez J. Sanchez D. Sanchez Cid V. Scarpine M. Schubnell D. Scolnic L. F. Secco S. Serrano I. Sevilla-Noarbe E. Sheldon T. Shin M. Smith M. Soares-Santos E. Suchyta M. E. C. Swanson M. Tabbutt G. Tarle D. Thomas C. To A. Troja M. A. Troxel D. L. Tucker I. Tutusaus T. N. Varga A. R. Walker N. Weaverdyck R. Wechsler J. Weller B. Yanny B. Yin Y. Zhang J. Zuntz
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 09:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords cosmological constraintsweak lensinggalaxy clusteringdark energy surveyS8 parameterlarge-scale structureΛCDM modelcosmic shear
0
0 comments X p. Extension
pith:YEYBQ5UD Add to your LaTeX paper What is a Pith Number? 
\usepackage{pith}
\pithnumber{YEYBQ5UD}

Prints a linked pith:YEYBQ5UD badge after your title and writes the identifier into PDF metadata. Compiles on arXiv with no extra files. Learn more

The pith

DES Year 3 analysis of galaxy clustering and weak lensing yields S8=0.776 and Ωm=0.339 in flat ΛCDM, consistent with Planck 2018 CMB predictions.

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

The paper presents cosmological constraints from the first large-scale structure results of the Dark Energy Survey covering 5000 square degrees. It combines three two-point functions—cosmic shear from 100 million source galaxies, galaxy clustering, and the cross-correlation of shear with lens positions—into a joint 3x2pt analysis. The resulting parameters in flat ΛCDM are S8=0.776 with 1.7 percent uncertainty and Ωm=0.339 with 9 percent uncertainty. These values agree with the Planck 2018 cosmic microwave background prediction at a probability-to-exceed between 0.13 and 0.48. The work also reports results in a wCDM model and in combinations with baryon acoustic oscillations, redshift-space distortions, supernovae, and Planck lensing.

Core claim

The combination of the three two-point correlation functions yields S8=0.776^{+0.017}_{-0.017} and Ωm=0.339^{+0.032}_{-0.031} in ΛCDM, consistent with the Planck 2018 CMB prediction (p=0.13 to 0.48). In wCDM the dark-energy equation-of-state parameter is w=-0.98^{+0.32}_{-0.20}. When the DES 3x2pt data are combined with baryon acoustic oscillation, redshift-space distortion, and type Ia supernova measurements, and then with Planck CMB lensing, the joint constraints tighten to S8=0.812^{+0.008}_{-0.008} and Ωm=0.306^{+0.004}_{-0.005} in ΛCDM.

What carries the argument

The joint 3x2pt analysis of cosmic shear, galaxy clustering, and galaxy-galaxy lensing measured across 5000 square degrees of DES Year 3 imaging data.

If this is right

  • The three individual two-point functions produce mutually consistent cosmological constraints.
  • In the wCDM model the equation-of-state parameter w is consistent with -1 within the reported errors.
  • Adding baryon acoustic oscillations, redshift-space distortions, and supernovae leaves the DES parameters essentially unchanged.
  • Full combination with Planck CMB lensing tightens S8 to 0.812 and Ωm to 0.306 while bounding the sum of neutrino masses below 0.13 eV.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The reported agreement implies that any tension between early- and late-universe probes is not yet detectable at the precision of this 5000 deg² dataset.
  • Similar 3x2pt pipelines applied to future wide-field surveys could isolate whether the current central value of S8 is stable under increased sky coverage and depth.
  • The modest shift in central Ωm when external probes are added suggests that the DES data alone still allow a higher matter density than the CMB-only value.
  • Independent verification of the photometric redshift and intrinsic alignment models on the same data would directly test the dominant source of modeling uncertainty.
  • keywords

Load-bearing premise

The modeling of systematic effects including galaxy bias, intrinsic alignments, and photometric redshift uncertainties is accurate enough that residual biases do not shift the central cosmological parameters outside the reported uncertainties.

What would settle it

A re-analysis of the same DES Year 3 data with independent systematic models that shifts the central S8 value by more than 0.03 while keeping the error bar comparable would falsify the reported consistency.

read the original abstract

We present the first cosmology results from large-scale structure in the Dark Energy Survey (DES) spanning 5000 deg$^2$. We perform an analysis combining three two-point correlation functions (3$\times$2pt): (i) cosmic shear using 100 million source galaxies, (ii) galaxy clustering, and (iii) the cross-correlation of source galaxy shear with lens galaxy positions. The analysis was designed to mitigate confirmation or observer bias; we describe specific changes made to the lens galaxy sample following unblinding of the results. We model the data within the flat $\Lambda$CDM and $w$CDM cosmological models. We find consistent cosmological results between the three two-point correlation functions; their combination yields clustering amplitude $S_8=0.776^{+0.017}_{-0.017}$ and matter density $\Omega_{\mathrm{m}} = 0.339^{+0.032}_{-0.031}$ in $\Lambda$CDM, mean with 68% confidence limits; $S_8=0.775^{+0.026}_{-0.024}$, $\Omega_{\mathrm{m}} = 0.352^{+0.035}_{-0.041}$, and dark energy equation-of-state parameter $w=-0.98^{+0.32}_{-0.20}$ in $w$CDM. This combination of DES data is consistent with the prediction of the model favored by the Planck 2018 cosmic microwave background (CMB) primary anisotropy data, which is quantified with a probability-to-exceed $p=0.13$ to $0.48$. When combining DES 3$\times$2pt data with available baryon acoustic oscillation, redshift-space distortion, and type Ia supernovae data, we find $p=0.34$. Combining all of these data sets with Planck CMB lensing yields joint parameter constraints of $S_8 = 0.812^{+0.008}_{-0.008}$, $\Omega_{\mathrm{m}} = 0.306^{+0.004}_{-0.005}$, $h=0.680^{+0.004}_{-0.003}$, and $\sum m_{\nu}<0.13 \;\mathrm{eV\; (95\% \;CL)}$ in $\Lambda$CDM; $S_8 = 0.812^{+0.008}_{-0.008}$, $\Omega_{\mathrm{m}} = 0.302^{+0.006}_{-0.006}$, $h=0.687^{+0.006}_{-0.007}$, and $w=-1.031^{+0.030}_{-0.027}$ in $w$CDM. (abridged)

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the first cosmology results from the Dark Energy Survey Year 3 data over 5000 deg² using a 3×2pt analysis that combines cosmic shear from 100 million source galaxies, galaxy clustering, and galaxy-galaxy lensing. Within flat ΛCDM the combined constraints are S₈ = 0.776^{+0.017}_{-0.017} and Ω_m = 0.339^{+0.032}_{-0.031}; in wCDM the values are S₈ = 0.775^{+0.026}_{-0.024}, Ω_m = 0.352^{+0.035}_{-0.041}, and w = -0.98^{+0.32}_{-0.20}. The results are internally consistent across the three probes, consistent with Planck 2018 CMB predictions (p = 0.13–0.48), and when combined with BAO, RSD, SNIa and Planck lensing yield tighter joint constraints including ∑m_ν < 0.13 eV (95% CL).

Significance. If the central results hold, this constitutes one of the highest-precision large-scale-structure determinations of S₈ and Ω_m from a single photometric survey. The explicit description of blinding procedures and the reported consistency among the three two-point functions are strengths that reduce observer bias and support the reliability of the error budget. The joint constraints with external datasets provide competitive limits on neutrino mass and dark-energy equation-of-state parameters.

major comments (1)
  1. [Modeling sections describing IA, photo-z, and galaxy-bias nuisance parameters] The reported S₈ and Ω_m values and the claimed consistency with Planck (p = 0.13–0.48) rest on the assumption that residual biases after modeling galaxy bias, intrinsic alignments, and photometric-redshift uncertainties remain smaller than the quoted statistical errors of ~0.017 on S₈. The three probes have different sensitivities to these systematics; an incomplete IA model (e.g., linear or NLA without sufficient redshift dependence) or underestimated photo-z tails could coherently shift the inferred amplitude while preserving internal consistency. The manuscript should provide explicit quantitative tests (e.g., simulated residual-bias runs or marginalization over extended IA/photo-z nuisance parameters) demonstrating that such shifts are sub-dominant to the reported uncertainties.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that specific changes were made to the lens galaxy sample following unblinding; a brief summary of those changes would help readers assess the impact of the blinding procedure.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive evaluation of the significance of the DES Y3 3×2pt results and for the constructive major comment on the modeling of systematics. We address the point in detail below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate additional explicit tests as requested.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Modeling sections describing IA, photo-z, and galaxy-bias nuisance parameters] The reported S₈ and Ω_m values and the claimed consistency with Planck (p = 0.13–0.48) rest on the assumption that residual biases after modeling galaxy bias, intrinsic alignments, and photometric-redshift uncertainties remain smaller than the quoted statistical errors of ~0.017 on S₈. The three probes have different sensitivities to these systematics; an incomplete IA model (e.g., linear or NLA without sufficient redshift dependence) or underestimated photo-z tails could coherently shift the inferred amplitude while preserving internal consistency. The manuscript should provide explicit quantitative tests (e.g., simulated residual-bias runs or marginalization over extended IA/photo-z nuisance parameters) demonstrating that such shifts are sub-dominant to the reported uncertainties.

    Authors: We agree that demonstrating the sub-dominance of residual biases is essential for the robustness of the reported S₈ and Ω_m constraints and the consistency with Planck. Our baseline analysis uses the nonlinear alignment (NLA) model for intrinsic alignments with free amplitude and redshift-evolution parameters, marginalizes over photo-z shift and stretch nuisance parameters calibrated from both data and simulations (including allowance for tail biases), and adopts a linear galaxy bias model together with conservative scale cuts to suppress nonlinear bias contributions. The reported internal consistency among cosmic shear, galaxy clustering, and galaxy-galaxy lensing already provides a valuable cross-check, given the differing sensitivities of the three probes to these systematics. To supply the explicit quantitative tests requested, we will add to the revised manuscript (i) results from marginalization over extended nuisance spaces that include quadratic bias terms and the tidal alignment and tidal torquing (TATT) IA model, and (ii) simulated residual-bias injection runs that quantify the maximum coherent shift in S₈. These additional tests confirm that any residual bias remains well below the quoted statistical uncertainty of 0.017, thereby preserving the internal consistency and the p-value range for agreement with Planck. The relevant modeling and validation sections will be updated accordingly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in DES Y3 3x2pt cosmological constraints

full rationale

The reported S8 and Ωm values are obtained by fitting a forward model (including galaxy bias, intrinsic alignments, and photo-z uncertainties) to the measured 3x2pt correlation functions from DES data. This is a standard likelihood-based inference against external benchmarks, with the Planck comparison performed post-hoc as an independent consistency check rather than an input to the fit. No derivation step reduces the output parameters to the input data by construction, self-definition, or self-citation load-bearing; the central results remain falsifiable against the observed correlations and external datasets.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on standard cosmological modeling assumptions and multiple nuisance parameters for systematics that are fitted to the data; these are not enumerated in the abstract but are implicit in any 3x2pt cosmological analysis.

free parameters (2)
  • galaxy bias parameters
    Several parameters describing how lens galaxies trace the underlying matter density field, fitted jointly with cosmology.
  • intrinsic alignment amplitude and redshift dependence
    Parameters modeling the alignment of galaxy shapes with local tidal fields, required to avoid bias in cosmic shear.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Flat ΛCDM or wCDM background cosmology
    The analysis is performed within these two models; deviations from flatness or time-varying w are not explored in the quoted results.
  • domain assumption Photometric redshift distributions and shear calibration are known to sufficient precision
    These enter the modeling of the observed correlation functions and are treated as calibrated inputs.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6991 in / 1461 out tokens · 47732 ms · 2026-05-19T09:30:39.645579+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 20 Pith papers

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

  1. Late-time reconstruction of non-minimally coupled gravity with a smoothness prior

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Non-parametric reconstruction of non-minimally coupled gravity with a smoothness prior on CMB, DESI BAO, supernovae, and DES data yields a 2.8σ hint for coupling and a preference for phantom divide crossing stabilized...

  2. GI BAO as a cosmological consistency check

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    GI BAO provides a robust consistency check for density BAO and shear data, with the first photometric measurement on DES Y3 showing agreement at α = 0.966 ± 0.252.

  3. Constraining interacting dark energy models with black hole superradiance

    astro-ph.CO 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Black hole superradiance constrains the coupling strength in interacting dark energy-dark matter models through modifications to the effective mass of ultralight bosons in two scenarios.

  4. DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints

    astro-ph.CO 2025-03 accept novelty 7.0

    DESI DR2 BAO data exhibits 2.3 sigma tension with CMB in Lambda-CDM but prefers evolving dark energy (w0 > -1, wa < 0) at 3.1 sigma with CMB and 2.8-4.2 sigma when including supernovae.

  5. DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations

    astro-ph.CO 2024-04 accept novelty 7.0

    First-year DESI BAO data are consistent with flat LambdaCDM and, when combined with CMB, show a 2.5-3.9 sigma preference for evolving dark energy (w0 > -1, wa < 0) that strengthens with certain supernova datasets.

  6. Analytical solution of traversable wormholes in the presence of positive cosmological constant

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    An analytical traversable wormhole solution with positive cosmological constant is obtained via gravitational decoupling on the Ellis-Bronnikov metric, featuring a cosmological throat, verified flare-out conditions, n...

  7. Nonlinear Matter Power Spectrum from relativistic $N$-body Simulations: $\Lambda_{\rm s}$CDM versus $\Lambda$CDM

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Relativistic N-body simulations of Lambda_s CDM produce a redshift-dependent crest in the matter power spectrum ratio, peaking at 20-25% near the transition and leaving a 15-20% uplift at z=0 on group scales.

  8. Modeling nonlinear scales for dynamical dark energy cosmologies with COLA

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    COLA-based hybrid emulator reproduces nonlinear power spectrum boosts in w0wa models to <2% error vs EuclidEmulator2 and produces <0.3σ shifts in LSST-like cosmic shear parameter constraints.

  9. DESI 2024 VII: Cosmological Constraints from the Full-Shape Modeling of Clustering Measurements

    astro-ph.CO 2024-11 accept novelty 6.0

    DESI DR1 full-shape clustering yields Ω_m = 0.2962 ± 0.0095 and σ_8 = 0.842 ± 0.034 in flat ΛCDM, tightening to H_0 = 68.40 ± 0.27 km/s/Mpc with CMB and DESY3, while favoring w_0 > -1, w_a < 0 and limiting neutrino ma...

  10. The Magnetic Origin of Primordial Black Holes: Ultralight PBHs and Secondary GWs

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Inflationary magnetic fields induce curvature perturbations that form ultralight PBHs, generating a stochastic GW background with model-specific features.

  11. $4\times3$ Point Correlation Functions in Galaxy Surveys: Impact of Baryonic Feedback

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Baryonic feedback affects galaxy-galaxy, galaxy-shear, and shear-shear three-point correlation functions more strongly than two-point functions on small scales, reaching up to 90 percent suppression depending on redsh...

  12. Revisiting the Matter Creation Process: Observational Constraints on Gravitationally Induced Dark Energy and the Hubble Tension

    astro-ph.CO 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0

    Gravitationally induced particle creation models fit cosmological data as well as ΛCDM and reduce the Hubble tension from 4.3σ to 2.4–3σ.

  13. How Complex is Dark Energy? A Bayesian Analysis of CPL Extensions with Recent DESI BAO Measurements

    astro-ph.CO 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Bayesian evidence from DESI BAO plus CMB and SN data favors the standard CPL evolving dark energy model over both simpler constant-w and more complex higher-order extensions.

  14. Revisiting the Hubble tension problem in the framework of holographic dark energy

    astro-ph.CO 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    HDE models with future event horizon IR cutoff partially ease the Hubble tension while Hubble-scale cutoffs do not, consistent across six models and multiple BAO/SN/CMB combinations.

  15. Interacting bosonic dark energy and fermionic dark matter in Einstein scalar Gauss-Bonnet gravity

    astro-ph.CO 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Models of interacting bosonic dark energy and fermionic dark matter in Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity with exponential and power-law potentials are dynamically analyzed and constrained by observational data, sho...

  16. Revisiting $\Lambda$CDM extensions in light of re-analyzed CMB data

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Re-analysis with PR4 Planck likelihoods reduces lensing anomaly significance and curvature preference in Lambda CDM extensions while indicating a preference for evolving dark energy consistent with DESI.

  17. Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements

    astro-ph.CO 2025-03 conditional novelty 4.0

    Extended analysis of DESI DR2 data confirms robust evidence for dynamical dark energy with phantom crossing preference, stable under parametric and non-parametric modeling.

  18. Comparative Study of Early-Universe Epochs in an $f(R,L_m)$ Gravity Model with Effective Curvature--Matter Interaction and $\Lambda$CDM Cosmology

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    In an f(R, L_m) gravity model constrained by distance modulus data via chi-squared and MCMC, the authors report earlier nonlinear structure formation and higher matter-radiation equality redshift than Lambda CDM, with...

  19. The Quintom theory of dark energy after DESI DR2

    astro-ph.CO 2025-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    This review traces the history of dynamical dark energy, presents the no-go theorem against single-field crossing of w = -1, and surveys viable Quintom constructions including multi-field models and modified gravity i...

  20. The Hubble Tension and Early Dark Energy

    astro-ph.CO 2022-11 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    The Hubble tension between local and early-universe expansion-rate measurements may be resolved by early dark energy that speeds up expansion before recombination while satisfying existing constraints.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

250 extracted references · 250 canonical work pages · cited by 20 Pith papers · 121 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    with tip of the red giant branch distance ladder; h = 0.674+0.041 −0.032 with strong lensing when combining the TD- COSMO+SLACS data set [97]). The Hubble tension may indicate new physics and it is crucial to improve measure- ments, revisit assumptions [e.g., 97, 98], check for consis- tencies among different measurements, and invest in novel, independent...

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    A. G. Riess et al., Astrophys. J. 116, 1009 (1998), arXiv:astro- ph/9805201

    work page arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae

    S. Perlmutter et al. (Supernova Cosmology Project), Astro- phys. J. 517, 565 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812133

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  4. [4]

    The Supernova Legacy Survey: Measurement of Omega_M, Omega_Lambda and w from the First Year Data Set

    P. Astier et al. (SNLS), Astron. Astrophys. 447, 31 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0510447

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  5. [5]

    W. M. Wood-Vasey et al. (ESSENCE), Astrophys. J. 666, 694 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0701041

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  6. [6]

    The Hubble Space Telescope Cluster Supernova Survey: V. Improving the Dark Energy Constraints Above z>1 and Building an Early-Type-Hosted Supernova Sample

    N. Suzuki et al., Astrophys. J. 746, 85 (2012), arXiv:1105.3470 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    The Supernova Legacy Survey 3-year sample: Type Ia Supernovae photometric distances and cosmological constraints

    J. Guy et al. (SNLS), Astron. Astrophys. 523, A7 (2010), arXiv:1010.4743 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    Supernova Constraints and Systematic Uncertainties from the First 3 Years of the Supernova Legacy Survey

    A. Conley et al. (SNLS), Astrophys. J. Suppl. 192, 1 (2011), arXiv:1104.1443 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  9. [9]

    Improved cosmological constraints from a joint analysis of the SDSS-II and SNLS supernova samples

    M. Betoule et al. (SDSS), Astron. Astrophys.568, A22 (2014), arXiv:1401.4064 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  10. [10]

    Cosmological Constraints from Measurements of Type Ia Supernovae discovered during the first 1.5 years of the Pan-STARRS1 Survey

    A. Rest et al., Astrophys. J. 795, 44 (2014), arXiv:1310.3828 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  11. [11]

    D. M. Scolnic et al., Astrophys. J. 859, 101 (2018), arXiv:1710.00845 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [13]

    Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Parameter Results

    G. Hinshaw et al. (WMAP), Astrophys. J. Suppl. 208, 19 (2013), arXiv:1212.5226 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  13. [14]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [15]

    Aiola et al

    S. Aiola et al. (ACT), JCAP12, 047 (2020), arXiv:2007.07288 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  15. [16]

    The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: Power-spectrum analysis of the final dataset and cosmological implications

    S. Cole et al. (2dFGRS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.362, 505 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0501174 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  16. [17]

    Cosmological Constraints from the SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies

    M. Tegmark et al. (SDSS), Phys. Rev. D 74, 123507 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0608632 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  17. [18]

    The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: Joint measurements of the expansion and growth history at z < 1

    C. Blake et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 425, 405 (2012), arXiv:1204.3674 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  18. [19]

    Cosmological implications of baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) measurements

    E. Aubourg et al., Phys. Rev. D 92, 123516 (2015), arXiv:1411.1074 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  19. [20]

    The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample

    S. Alam et al. (BOSS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.470, 2617 (2017), arXiv:1607.03155 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [21]

    Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Galaxy clustering for combined probes

    J. Elvin-Poole et al. (DES), Phys. Rev. D 98, 042006 (2018), arXiv:1708.01536 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [22]

    The Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological Implications from two Decades of Spectroscopic Surveys at the Apache Point observatory

    S. Alam et al. (eBOSS), (2020), arXiv:2007.08991 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  22. [23]

    Weak lensing for precision cosmology

    R. Mandelbaum, Ann. Rev. of Astr. & Astroph. 56, 393 (2018), arXiv:1710.03235 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  23. [24]

    Evidence for the accelerated expansion of the Universe from weak lensing tomography with COSMOS

    T. Schrabback et al., Astron. Astrophys. 516, A63 (2010), arXiv:0911.0053 [astro-ph.CO]. 30

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  24. [25]

    CFHTLenS tomographic weak lensing cosmological parameter constraints: Mitigating the impact of intrinsic galaxy alignments

    C. Heymans et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 432, 2433 (2013), arXiv:1303.1808 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  25. [26]

    M. J. Jee, J. A. Tyson, S. Hilbert, M. D. Schneider, S. Schmidt, and D. Wittman, Astrophys. J. 824, 77 (2016), arXiv:1510.03962 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  26. [27]

    M. A. Troxel et al. (DES), Phys. Rev. D 98, 043528 (2018), arXiv:1708.01538 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [28]

    Cosmology from cosmic shear power spectra with Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam first-year data

    C. Hikage et al. (HSC), Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap. 71, 43 (2019), arXiv:1809.09148 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  28. [29]

    Heymans et al

    C. Heymans et al. (KiDS), Astron. Astrophys. 646, A140 (2021), arXiv:2007.15632 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  29. [30]

    Einstein, Sitzungsber

    A. Einstein, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.) 1917, 142 (1917)

    work page 1917

  30. [31]

    Dark Energy and the Accelerating Universe

    J. Frieman, M. Turner, and D. Huterer, Ann. Rev. Astron. As- trophys. 46, 385 (2008), arXiv:0803.0982 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  31. [32]

    D. H. Weinberg, M. J. Mortonson, D. J. Eisenstein, C. Hi- rata, A. G. Riess, and E. Rozo, Phys. Rept. 530, 87 (2013), arXiv:1201.2434 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  32. [33]

    The Dark Energy Camera

    B. Flaugher et al. (DES), Astron. J. 150, 150 (2015), arXiv:1504.02900 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  33. [34]

    DES Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 98, 043526 (2018), arXiv:1708.01530 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  34. [35]

    DES Collaboration, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 460, 1270 (2016), arXiv:1601.00329 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  35. [36]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S4, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx066

    H. Aihara et al. (HSC), Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap. 70, S4 (2018), arXiv:1704.05858 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  36. [37]

    Hamana et al

    T. Hamana et al. (HSC), Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap.72, 16 (2020), arXiv:1906.06041 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  37. [38]

    Gravitational Lensing Analysis of the Kilo Degree Survey

    K. Kuijken et al. (KiDS), Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.454, 3500 (2015), arXiv:1507.00738 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  38. [39]

    K. S. Dawson et al. (eBOSS), Astrophys. J. 151, 44 (2016), arXiv:1508.04473 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  39. [40]

    P. J. E. Peebles and M. G. Hauser, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 28, 19 (1974)

    work page 1974

  40. [41]

    E. J. Groth and P. J. E. Peebles, Astrophys. J. 217, 385 (1977)

    work page 1977

  41. [42]

    G. R. Blumenthal, S. M. Faber, J. R. Primack, and M. J. Rees, Nature 311, 517 (1984)

    work page 1984

  42. [43]

    S. J. Maddox, G. Efstathiou, W. J. Sutherland, and J. Loveday, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 243, 692 (1990)

    work page 1990

  43. [44]

    C. M. Baugh, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 280, 267 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9512011 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  44. [45]

    S. J. Maddox, G. Efstathiou, and W. J. Sutherland, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 283, 1227 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9601103 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  45. [46]

    D. J. Eisenstein and M. Zaldarriaga, Astrophys. J. 546, 2 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/9912149 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  46. [47]

    C. A. Collins, R. C. Nichol, and S. L. Lumsden, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 254, 295 (1992)

    work page 1992

  47. [48]

    Comparison of the Large Scale Clustering in the APM and the EDSGC Galaxy Surveys

    I. Szapudi and E. Gaztanaga, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.300, 493 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9712256 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  48. [49]

    The Angular Power Spectrum of EDSGC Galaxies

    D. Huterer, L. Knox, and R. C. Nichol, Astrophys. J. 555, 547 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0011069 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  49. [50]

    The PSCz Catalogue

    W. Saunders et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 317, 55 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0001117 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  50. [51]

    A. J. S. Hamilton and M. Tegmark, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 330, 506 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0008392 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  51. [52]

    W. J. Percival et al. (2dFGRS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 327, 1297 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0105252

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  52. [53]

    The Clustering of Luminous Red Galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Imaging Data

    N. Padmanabhan et al. (SDSS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 378, 852 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0605302

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  53. [54]

    The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations in the Data Release 10 and 11 galaxy samples

    L. Anderson et al. (BOSS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 441, 24 (2014), arXiv:1312.4877 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  54. [55]

    Clustering of Sloan Digital Sky Survey III Photometric Luminous Galaxies: The Measurement, Systematics and Cosmological Implications

    S. Ho et al., Astrophys. J. 761, 14 (2012), arXiv:1201.2137 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  55. [56]

    Cosmological parameters from the comparison of peculiar velocities with predictions from the 2M++ density field

    J. Carrick, S. J. Turnbull, G. Lavaux, and M. J. Hudson, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 450, 317 (2015), arXiv:1504.04627 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  56. [57]

    Testing $\Lambda$CDM at the lowest redshifts with SN Ia and galaxy velocities

    D. Huterer, D. Shafer, D. Scolnic, and F. Schmidt, JCAP 05, 015 (2017), arXiv:1611.09862 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  57. [58]

    Integrated approach to cosmology: Combining CMB, large-scale structure and weak lensing

    A. Nicola, A. Refregier, and A. Amara, Phys. Rev. D 94, 083517 (2016), arXiv:1607.01014 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  58. [59]

    Improving constraints on the growth rate of structure by modelling the density-velocity cross-correlation in the 6dF Galaxy Survey

    C. Adams and C. Blake, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.471, 839 (2017), arXiv:1706.05205 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  59. [60]

    KiDS+GAMA: Cosmology constraints from a joint analysis of cosmic shear, galaxy-galaxy lensing and angular clustering

    E. van Uitert et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 476, 4662 (2018), arXiv:1706.05004 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  60. [61]

    KiDS-450: The tomographic weak lensing power spectrum and constraints on cosmological parameters

    F. Kohlinger et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 471, 4412 (2017), arXiv:1706.02892 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  61. [62]

    Loureiro et al., Mon

    A. Loureiro et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 485, 326 (2019), arXiv:1809.07204 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  62. [63]

    M. M. Ivanov, M. Simonovi´c, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D 101, 083504 (2020), arXiv:1912.08208 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  63. [64]

    Vagnozzi, E

    S. Vagnozzi, E. Di Valentino, S. Gariazzo, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena, and J. Silk, (2020), arXiv:2010.02230 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  64. [65]

    Andrade-Oliveira et al

    F. Andrade-Oliveira et al. (DES), (2021), arXiv:2103.14190 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  65. [66]

    Hadzhiyska, C

    B. Hadzhiyska, C. García-García, D. Alonso, A. Nicola, and A. Slosar, (2021), arXiv:2103.09820 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  66. [67]

    Kaiser, Astrophys

    N. Kaiser, Astrophys. J. 284, L9 (1984)

    work page 1984

  67. [68]

    Large-Scale Galaxy Bias

    V . Desjacques, D. Jeong, and F. Schmidt, Phys. Rept. 733, 1 (2018), arXiv:1611.09787 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  68. [69]

    D. J. Bacon, A. R. Refregier, and R. S. Ellis, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 318, 625 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0003008 [astro- ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  69. [70]

    Large-Scale Cosmic Shear Measurements

    N. Kaiser, G. Wilson, and G. A. Luppino, (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0003338 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  70. [71]

    Detection of correlated galaxy ellipticities on CFHT data: first evidence for gravitational lensing by large-scale structures

    L. van Waerbeke et al., Astron. Astrophys. 358, 30 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0002500 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  71. [72]

    D. M. Wittman, J. A. Tyson, D. Kirkman, I. Dell’Antonio, and G. Bernstein, Nature405, 143 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0003014 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  72. [73]

    Dark Energy Constraints from the CTIO Lensing Survey

    M. Jarvis, B. Jain, G. Bernstein, and D. Dolney, Astrophys. J. 644, 71 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0502243 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  73. [74]

    COSMOS: 3D weak lensing and the growth of structure

    R. Massey et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. 172, 239 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0701480 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  74. [75]

    H. Lin, S. Dodelson, H.-J. Seo, M. Soares-Santos, J. Annis, J. Hao, D. Johnston, J. M. Kubo, R. R. R. Reis, and M. Simet (SDSS), Astrophys. J.761, 15 (2012), arXiv:1111.6622 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  75. [76]

    E. M. Huff, T. Eifler, C. M. Hirata, R. Mandelbaum, D. Schlegel, and U. Seljak, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 440, 1322 (2014), arXiv:1112.3143 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  76. [77]

    CFHTLenS: Combined probe cosmological model comparison using 2D weak gravitational lensing

    M. Kilbinger et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 430, 2200 (2013), arXiv:1212.3338 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  77. [78]

    KiDS-450: Cosmological parameter constraints from tomographic weak gravitational lensing

    H. Hildebrandt et al. (KiDS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 465, 1454 (2017), arXiv:1606.05338 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  78. [79]

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

    S. Joudaki et al. (KiDS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 474, 4894 (2018), arXiv:1707.06627 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  79. [80]

    T. G. Brainerd, R. D. Blandford, and I. Smail, Astrophys. J. 466, 623 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9503073 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  80. [81]

    Weak Lensing with SDSS Commissioning Data: The Galaxy-Mass Correlation Function To 1/h Mpc

    P. Fischer et al. (SDSS), Astron. J. 120, 1198 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9912119 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

Showing first 80 references.