Dark-energy constraints and correlations with systematics from CFHTLS weak lensing, SNLS supernovae Ia and WMAP5
Kilbinger, M., Benabed, K., Guy, J., Astier, P., Tereno, I., Fu, L., Wraith, D., Coupon, J., Mellier, Y., Balland, C., Bouchet, F.R., Hamana, T., Hardin, D., McCracken, H.J., Pain, R., Regnault, N., Schultheis, M., & Yahagi, H. (2009) Dark-energy constraints and correlations with systematics from CFHTLS weak lensing, SNLS supernovae Ia and WMAP5. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 497(3), pp. 677-688.
We combine measurements of weak gravitational lensing from the CFHTLS-Wide survey, supernovae Ia from CFHT SNLS and CMB anisotropies from WMAP5 to obtain joint constraints on cosmological parameters, in particular, the dark-energy equation-of-state parameter w. We assess the influence of systematics in the data on the results and look for possible correlations with cosmological parameters.
We implemented an MCMC algorithm to sample the parameter space of a flat CDM model with a dark-energy component of constant w. Systematics in the data are parametrised and included in the analysis. We determine the influence of photometric calibration of SNIa data on cosmological results by calculating the response of the distance modulus to photometric zero-point variations. The weak lensing data set is tested for anomalous field-to-field variations and a systematic shape measurement bias for high-redshift galaxies.
Ignoring photometric uncertainties for SNLS biases cosmological parameters by at most 20% of the statistical errors, using supernovae alone; the parameter uncertainties are underestimated by 10%. The weak-lensing field-to-field variance between 1 deg2-MegaCam pointings is 5-15% higher than predicted from N-body simulations. We find no bias in the lensing signal at high redshift, within the framework of a simple model, and marginalising over cosmological parameters. Assuming a systematic underestimation of the lensing signal, the normalisation increases by up to 8%. Combining all three probes we obtain -0.10 < 1 + w < 0.06 at 68% confidence ( -0.18 < 1 + w < 0.12 at 95%), including systematic errors. Our results are therefore consistent with the cosmological constant . Systematics in the data increase the error bars by up to 35%; the best-fit values change by less than 0.15.
Impact and interest:
Citation counts are sourced monthly from and citation databases.
These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.
Citations counts from theindexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.
|Item Type:||Journal Article|
|Divisions:||Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Faculty of Health
Current > Institutes > Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation
Current > Schools > School of Public Health & Social Work
|Deposited On:||03 Feb 2016 03:21|
|Last Modified:||05 Feb 2016 02:48|
Repository Staff Only: item control page