- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Combining weak lensing tomography with halo clustering to probe dark energy

Charles Shapiro1,2 and Scott Dodelson2,3,4

  • 1Department of Physics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637-1433, USA
  • 2Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637-1433, USA
  • 3Center for Particle Astrophysics, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510-0500, USA
  • 4Department of Astronomy & Astrophysics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637-1433, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. D 76, 083515 – Published 18 October, 2007

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.083515

Abstract

Two methods of constraining the properties of dark energy are weak lensing tomography and cluster counting. Uncertainties in mass calibration of clusters can be reduced by using the properties of halo clustering (the clustering of clusters). However, within a single survey, weak lensing and halo clustering probe the same density fluctuations. We explore the question of whether this information can be used twice—once in weak lensing and then again in halo clustering to calibrate cluster masses—or whether the combined dark energy constraints are weaker than the sum of the individual constraints. For a survey like the Dark Energy Survey (DES), we find that the cosmic shearing of source galaxies at high redshifts is indeed highly correlated with halo clustering at lower redshifts. Surprisingly, this correlation does not degrade cosmological constraints for a DES-like survey, and in fact, constraints are marginally improved since the correlations themselves act as additional observables. This considerably simplifies the analysis for a DES-like survey: when weak lensing and halo clustering are treated as independent experiments, the combined dark energy constraints (cluster counts included) are accurate if not slightly conservative. Our findings mirror those of Takada and Bridle, who investigated correlations between the cosmic shear and cluster counts.

View figure in article

Article Text

References (23)

  1. W. Hu and M. Tegmark, Astrophys. J. 514, L65 (1999).
  2. D. Huterer, Phys. Rev. D 65, 063001 (2002).
  3. W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D 66, 083515 (2002).
  4. K. N. Abazajian and S. Dodelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 041301 (2003).
  5. A. Refregier, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 41, 645 (2003).
  6. M. Ishak, C. M. Hirata, P. McDonald, and U. Seljak, Phys. Rev. D 69, 083514 (2004).
  7. L.-M. Wang and P. J. Steinhardt, Astrophys. J. 508, 483 (1998).
  8. Z. Haiman, J. J. Mohr, and G. P. Holder, Astrophys. J. 553, 545 (2001).
  9. G. Holder, Z. Haiman, and J. Mohr, Astrophys. J. 560, L111 (2001).
  10. W. Hu and A. V. Kravtsov, Astrophys. J. 584, 702 (2003).
  11. S. Majumdar and J. J. Mohr, Astrophys. J. 585, 603 (2003).
  12. M. Lima and W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D 70, 043504 (2004).
  13. W.-J. Fang and Z. Haiman, Phys. Rev. D 75, 043010 (2007).
  14. M. Takada and S. Bridle, arXiv:0705.0163.
  15. M. Takada and B. Jain, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 348, 897 (2004).
  16. A. Jenkins et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 321, 372 (2001).
  17. R. K. Sheth and G. Tormen, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 308, 119 (1999).
  18. D. J. Eisenstein and W. Hu, Astrophys. J. 511, 5 (1999).
  19. R. E. Smith et al. (The Virgo Consortium), Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 341, 1311 (2003).
  20. H. Hoekstra, M. Franx, and K. Kuijken, arXiv:astro-ph/9910487.
  21. D. H. Rudd, A. R. Zentner, and A. V. Kravtsov, arXiv:astro-ph/0703741.
  22. A. Albrecht et al., arXiv:astro-ph/0609591.
  23. H. Zhan and L. Knox, arXiv:astro-ph/0611159.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 76, 083515– Published 18 October, 2007
  • Received 19 June 2007

© 2007 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation