Paper detail

Cosmological Constraints from DES Y1 Cluster Abundances and SPT Multi-wavelength data

We perform a joint analysis of the counts of redMaPPer clusters selected from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Y1 data and multi-wavelength follow-up data collected within the 2500 deg$^2$ South Pole Telescope (SPT) SZ survey. The SPT follow-up data, calibrating the richness--mass relation of the optically selected redMaPPer catalog, enable the cosmological exploitation of the DES cluster abundance data. To explore possible systematics related to the modeling of projection effects, we consider two calibrations of the observational scatter on richness estimates: a simple Gaussian model which account only for the background contamination (BKG), and a model which further includes contamination and incompleteness due to projection effects (PRJ). Assuming either a $Λ$CDM+$\sum m_ν$ or $w$CDM+$\sum m_ν$ cosmology, and for both scatter models, we derive cosmological constraints consistent with multiple cosmological probes of the low and high redshift Universe, and in particular with the SPT cluster abundance data. This result demonstrates that the DES Y1 and SPT cluster counts provide consistent cosmological constraints, if the same mass calibration data set is adopted. It thus supports the conclusion of the DES Y1 cluster cosmology analysis which interprets the tension observed with other cosmological probes in terms of systematics affecting the stacked weak lensing analysis of optically--selected low--richness clusters. Finally, we analyse the first combined optically-SZ selected cluster catalogue obtained by including the SPT sample above the maximum redshift probed by the DES Y1 redMaPPer sample. Besides providing a mild improvement of the cosmological constraints, this data combination serves as a stricter test of our scatter models: the PRJ model, providing scaling relations consistent between the two abundance and multi-wavelength follow-up data, is favored over the BKG model.

preprint2022arXivOpen 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.