University of Sussex
Browse
DES Y1 results - K Romer.pdf (3.19 MB)

DES Y1 results: splitting growth and geometry to test ?cDM

Download (3.19 MB)
journal contribution
posted on 2023-06-10, 00:47 authored by J Muir, E Baxter, V Miranda, C Doux, A Ferté, C D Leonard, D Huterer, B Jain, P Lemos, M Raveri, S Nadathur, A Campos, Sunayana Bhargava, Kathy RomerKathy Romer, Reese WilkinsonReese Wilkinson, DES Collaboration, others
We analyze Dark Energy Survey (DES) data to constrain a cosmological model where a subset of parameters - focusing on ?m - are split into versions associated with structure growth (e.g., ?mgrow) and expansion history (e.g., ?mgeo). Once the parameters have been specified for the ?CDM cosmological model, which includes general relativity as a theory of gravity, it uniquely predicts the evolution of both geometry (distances) and the growth of structure over cosmic time. Any inconsistency between measurements of geometry and growth could therefore indicate a breakdown of that model. Our growth-geometry split approach therefore serves both as a (largely) model-independent test for beyond-?CDM physics, and as a means to characterize how DES observables provide cosmological information. We analyze the same multiprobe DES data as [Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 171301 (2019)PRLTAO0031-900710.1103/PhysRevLett.122.171301]: DES Year 1 (Y1) galaxy clustering and weak lensing, which are sensitive to both growth and geometry, as well as Y1 BAO and Y3 supernovae, which probe geometry. We additionally include external geometric information from BOSS DR12 BAO and a compressed Planck 2015 likelihood, and external growth information from BOSS DR12 RSD. We find no significant disagreement with ?mgrow=?mgeo. When DES and external data are analyzed separately, degeneracies with neutrino mass and intrinsic alignments limit our ability to measure ?mgrow, but combining DES with external data allows us to constrain both growth and geometric quantities. We also consider a parametrization where we split both ?m and w, but find that even our most constraining data combination is unable to separately constrain ?mgrow and wgrow. Relative to ?CDM, splitting growth and geometry weakens bounds on s8 but does not alter constraints on h.

History

Publication status

  • Published

File Version

  • Accepted version

Journal

Physical Review D

ISSN

2470-0010

Publisher

American Physical Society

Issue

2

Volume

103

Article number

a023528

Department affiliated with

  • Physics and Astronomy Publications

Full text available

  • Yes

Peer reviewed?

  • Yes

Legacy Posted Date

2021-08-31

First Open Access (FOA) Date

2021-08-31

First Compliant Deposit (FCD) Date

2021-08-27

Usage metrics

    University of Sussex (Publications)

    Categories

    No categories selected

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC