Paper detail

Do dark matter halos explain lensing peaks?

We have investigated a recently proposed halo-based model, Camelus, for predicting weak-lensing peak counts, and compared its results over a collection of 162 cosmologies with those from N-body simulations. While counts from both models agree for peaks with $\mathcal{S/N}>1$ (where $\mathcal{S/N}$ is the ratio of the peak height to the r.m.s. shape noise), we find $\approx 50\%$ fewer counts for peaks near $\mathcal{S/N}=0$ and significantly higher counts in the negative $\mathcal{S/N}$ tail. Adding shape noise reduces the differences to within $20\%$ for all cosmologies. We also found larger covariances that are more sensitive to cosmological parameters. As a result, credibility regions in the $\{Ω_m, σ_8\}$ are $\approx 30\%$ larger. Even though the credible contours are commensurate, each model draws its predictive power from different types of peaks. Low peaks, especially those with $2<\mathcal{S/N}<3$, convey important cosmological information in N-body data, as shown in \cite{DietrichHartlap, Kratochvil2010}, but \textsc{Camelus} constrains cosmology almost exclusively from high significance peaks $(\mathcal{S/N}>3)$. Our results confirm the importance of using a cosmology-dependent covariance with at least a 14\% improvement in parameter constraints. We identified the covariance estimation as the main driver behind differences in inference, and suggest possible ways to make Camelus even more useful as a highly accurate peak count emulator.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors1 topic

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.

Institutions

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 map preview

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.