Paper detail

KiDS-1000 Methodology: Modelling and inference for joint weak gravitational lensing and spectroscopic galaxy clustering analysis

We present the methodology for a joint cosmological analysis of weak gravitational lensing from the fourth data release of the ESO Kilo-Degree Survey (KiDS-1000) and galaxy clustering from the partially overlapping BOSS and 2dFLenS surveys. Cross-correlations between galaxy positions and ellipticities have been incorporated into the analysis, necessitating a hybrid model of non-linear scales that blends perturbative and non-perturbative approaches, and an assessment of contributions by astrophysical effects. All weak lensing signals are measured consistently via Fourier-space statistics that are insensitive to the survey mask and display low levels of mode mixing. The calibration of photometric redshift distributions and multiplicative gravitational shear bias has been updated, and a more complete tally of residual calibration uncertainties is propagated into the likelihood. A dedicated suite of more than 20000 mocks is used to assess the performance of covariance models and to quantify the impact of survey geometry and spatial variations of survey depth on signals and their errors. The sampling distributions for the likelihood and the $χ^2$ goodness-of-fit statistic have been validated, with proposed changes to the number of degrees of freedom. Standard weak lensing point estimates on $S_8=σ_8\,(Ω_{\rm m}/0.3)^{1/2}$ derived from its marginal posterior are easily misinterpreted to be biased low, and an alternative estimator and associated credible interval have been proposed. Known systematic effects pertaining to weak lensing modelling and inference are shown to bias $S_8$ by no more than 0.1 standard deviations, with the caveat that no conclusive validation data exist for models of intrinsic galaxy alignments. Compared to the previous KiDS analyses, $S_8$ constraints are expected to improve by 20% for weak lensing alone and by 29% for the joint analysis. [abridged]

preprint2020arXivOpen 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.