Researcher profile

Jack Elvin-Poole

Jack Elvin-Poole contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Cosmological Constraints from Cluster Abundances and Weak Lensing

We perform a joint analysis of the counts and weak lensing signal of redMaPPer clusters selected from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Year 1 dataset. Our analysis uses the same shear and source photometric redshifts estimates as were used in the DES combined probes analysis. Our analysis results in surprisingly low values for $S_8 =σ_8(Ω_{\rm m}/0.3)^{0.5}= 0.65\pm 0.04$, driven by a low matter density parameter, $Ω_{\rm m}=0.179^{+0.031}_{-0.038}$, with $σ_8-Ω_{\rm m}$ posteriors in $2.4σ$ tension with the DES Y1 3x2pt results, and in $5.6σ$ with the Planck CMB analysis. These results include the impact of post-unblinding changes to the analysis, which did not improve the level of consistency with other data sets compared to the results obtained at the unblinding. The fact that multiple cosmological probes (supernovae, baryon acoustic oscillations, cosmic shear, galaxy clustering and CMB anisotropies), and other galaxy cluster analyses all favor significantly higher matter densities suggests the presence of systematic errors in the data or an incomplete modeling of the relevant physics. Cross checks with X-ray and microwave data, as well as independent constraints on the observable--mass relation from SZ selected clusters, suggest that the discrepancy resides in our modeling of the weak lensing signal rather than the cluster abundance. Repeating our analysis using a higher richness threshold ($λ\ge 30$) significantly reduces the tension with other probes, and points to one or more richness-dependent effects not captured by our model.

preprint2020arXiv

Direct comparison of sterile neutrino constraints from cosmological data, $ν_{e}$ disappearance data and $ν_μ\rightarrowν_{e}$ appearance data in a $3+1$ model

We present a quantitative, direct comparison of constraints on sterile neutrinos derived from neutrino oscillation experiments and from Planck data, interpreted assuming standard cosmological evolution. We extend a $1+1$ model, which is used to compare exclusions contours at the 95% CL derived from Planck data to those from $ν_{e}$-disappearance measurements, to a $3+1$ model. This allows us to compare the Planck constraints with those obtained through $ν_μ\rightarrowν_{e}$ appearance searches, which are sensitive to more than one active-sterile mixing angle. We find that the cosmological data fully exclude the allowed regions published by the LSND, MiniBooNE and Neutrino-4 collaborations, and those from the gallium and rector anomalies, at the 95% CL. Compared to the exclusion regions from the Daya Bay $ν_{e}$-disappearance search, the Planck data are more strongly excluding above $|Δm^{2}_{41}|\approx 0.1\, \mathrm{eV}^{2}$ and $m_\mathrm{eff}^\mathrm{sterile}\approx 0.2\, \mathrm{eV}$, with the Daya Bay exclusion being stronger below these values. Compared to the combined Daya Bay/Bugey/MINOS exclusion region on $ν_μ\rightarrowν_{e}$ appearance, the Planck data is more strongly excluding above $Δm^{2}_{41}\approx 5\times 10^{-2}\,\mathrm{eV}^{2}$, with the exclusion strengths of the Planck data and the Daya Bay/Bugey/MINOS combination becoming comparable below this value.