Paper detail

CFHTLenS revisited: assessing concordance with Planck including astrophysical systematics

We investigate the impact of astrophysical systematics on cosmic shear cosmological parameter constraints from the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey (CFHTLenS), and the concordance with cosmic microwave background measurements by Planck. We present updated CFHTLenS cosmic shear tomography measurements extended to degree scales using a covariance calibrated by a new suite of N-body simulations. We analyze these measurements with a new model fitting pipeline, accounting for key systematic uncertainties arising from intrinsic galaxy alignments, baryonic effects in the nonlinear matter power spectrum, and photometric redshift uncertainties. We examine the impact of the systematic degrees of freedom on the cosmological parameter constraints, both independently and jointly. When the systematic uncertainties are considered independently, the intrinsic alignment amplitude is the only degree of freedom that is substantially preferred by the data. When the systematic uncertainties are considered jointly, there is no consistently strong preference in favor of the more complex models. We quantify the level of concordance between the CFHTLenS and Planck datasets by employing two distinct data concordance tests, grounded in Bayesian evidence and information theory. We find that the two data concordance tests largely agree with one another, and that the level of concordance between the CFHTLenS and Planck datasets is sensitive to the exact details of the systematic uncertainties included in our analysis, ranging from decisive discordance to substantial concordance as the treatment of the systematic uncertainties becomes more conservative. The least conservative scenario is the one most favored by the cosmic shear data, but it is also the one that shows the greatest degree of discordance with Planck. The data and analysis code are public at https://github.com/sjoudaki/cfhtlens_revisited

preprint2016arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.