- 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

Cosmic shear nulling as a geometrical cosmological probe: Methodology and sensitivity to cosmological parameters and systematics

David Touzeau1,*, Francis Bernardeau1,2, Karim Benabed2, and Sandrine Codis3,2

  • *Contact author: david.touzeau@ipht.fr
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 113, 123519 – Published 10 June, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/zcsl-4644

Abstract

Tomographic weak lensing surveys contain intrinsic symmetries that depend solely on the geometric structure of the Universe. These symmetries can be revealed through null tests and verifying their validity provides constraints on cosmological parameters that govern the background evolution—particularly the redshift dependence of the angular diameter distance. This forms the foundation of the tomographic cosmic shear nulling test introduced in this work. We describe how this test can be implemented, what aspects of cosmology it can constrain, and its specific efficiency in doing so. We also assess its sensitivity to astrophysical effects—such as magnification bias and reduced shear corrections—as well as to observational systematics, including errors in the mean redshift of source bins. Our results show that, in a survey configuration comparable to that of Euclid, this null test can yield complementary constraints on key cosmological parameters such as Ωm,w0. However, due to its subdominant constraining power compared to standard 3×2pt analysis and through the identification of a required precision of order 10−3 on the mean redshift of the bins, we conclude that nulling would better be used as a photometric redshift calibration probe or consistency check. In combination with standard weak lensing and galaxy clustering analysis, it would then offer a promising route to better control systematics and improve the precision of future cosmological measurements.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (38)

  1. J. T. A. de Jong, G. A. Verdoes Kleijn, K. H. Kuijken, and E. A. Valentijn (Astro-WISE, KiDS Collaboration), The kilo-degree survey, Exp. Astron. 35, 25 (2013).
  2. M. Asgari et al. (KiDS Collaboration), KiDS-1000 cosmology: Cosmic shear constraints and comparison between two point statistics, Astron. Astrophys. 645, A104 (2021).
  3. T. Abbott et al. (DES Collaboration), The dark energy survey, arXiv:astro-ph/0510346.
  4. T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES Collaboration), Dark energy survey year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing, Phys. Rev. D 105, 023520 (2022).
  5. A. Abate et al. (LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration), Large synoptic survey telescope: Dark energy science collaboration, arXiv:1211.0310.
  6. Y. Mellier et al. (Euclid Collaboration), Euclid. I. Overview of the Euclid mission, Astron. Astrophys. 697, A1 (2025).
  7. W. Hu, Power spectrum tomography with weak lensing, Astrophys. J. Lett. 522, L21 (1999).
  8. F. Bernardeau, T. Nishimichi, and A. Taruya, Cosmic shear full nulling: Sorting out dynamics, geometry and systematics, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 445, 1526 (2014).
  9. D. Huterer and M. J. White, Nulling tomography with weak gravitational lensing, Phys. Rev. D 72, 043002 (2005).
  10. B. Joachimi and P. Schneider, Controlling intrinsic alignments in weak lensing statistics: The nulling and boosting techniques, arXiv:1009.2024.
  11. J. Prat et al. (DES and SPT Collaborations), Cosmological lensing ratios with DES Y1, SPT and Planck, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 487, 1363 (2019).
  12. C. Sánchez et al. (DES Collaboration), Dark energy survey year 3 results: Exploiting small-scale information with lensing shear ratios, Phys. Rev. D 105, 083529 (2022).
  13. P. L. Taylor, F. Bernardeau, and E. Huff, x-cut cosmic shear: Optimally removing sensitivity to baryonic and nonlinear physics with an application to the dark energy survey year 1 shear data, Phys. Rev. D 103, 043531 (2021).
  14. P. L. Taylor et al., Euclid: Forecasts for k-cut 3×2 point statistics, Open J. Astrophys. 4, 6 (2021).
  15. S. Gu, L. van Waerbeke, F. Bernardeau, and R. Dalal, Mitigating nonlinear systematics in weak lensing surveys: The Bernardeau-Nishimichi-Taruya approach, Phys. Rev. D 111, 083530 (2025).
  16. F. Bernardeau, T. Nishimichi, and A. Taruya, Observing baryonic acoustic oscillations in tomographic cosmic shear surveys, arXiv:2004.03201.
  17. H. Fronenberg, A. S. Maniyar, A. R. Pullen, and A. Liu, Constraining cosmology with the CMB×LIM-nulling convergence, Phys. Rev. D 109, 123518 (2024).
  18. A. S. Maniyar, E. Schaan, and A. R. Pullen, New probe of the high-redshift Universe: Nulling CMB lensing with interloper-free line intensity mapping pair lensing, Phys. Rev. D 105, 083509 (2022).
  19. B. Jain and A. Taylor, Cross-correlation tomography: Measuring dark energy evolution with weak lensing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 141302 (2003).
  20. E. Abdalla et al., Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies, J. High Energy Astrophys. 34, 49 (2022).
  21. I. Tutusaus et al. (EUCLID Collaboration), Euclid: The importance of galaxy clustering and weak lensing cross-correlations within the photometric Euclid survey, Astron. Astrophys. 643, A70 (2020).
  22. B. Joachimi and S. L. Bridle, Simultaneous measurement of cosmology and intrinsic alignments using joint cosmic shear and galaxy number density correlations, Astron. Astrophys. 523, A1 (2010).
  23. N. Kaiser, Weak gravitational lensing of distant galaxies, Astrophys. J. 388, 272 (1992).
  24. R. Takahashi, M. Sato, T. Nishimichi, A. Taruya, and M. Oguri, Revising the halofit model for the nonlinear matter power spectrum, Astrophys. J. 761, 152 (2012).
  25. R. E. Smith, J. A. Peacock, A. Jenkins, S. D. M. White, C. S. Frenk, F. R. Pearce, P. A. Thomas, G. Efstathiou, and H. M. P. Couchmann (VIRGO Consortium Collaboration), Stable clustering, the halo model and nonlinear cosmological power spectra, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 341, 1311 (2003).
  26. N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration), Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A1 (2020).
  27. A. Blanchard et al. (Euclid Collaboration), Euclid preparation. VII. Forecast validation for Euclid cosmological probes, Astron. Astrophys. 642, A191 (2020).
  28. A. C. Deshpande et al., Euclid: The reduced shear approximation and magnification bias for Stage IV cosmic shear experiments, Astron. Astrophys. 636, A95 (2020).
  29. F. J. Castander et al. (Euclid Collaboration), Euclid. V. The Flagship galaxy mock catalogue: A comprehensive simulation for the Euclid mission, Astron. Astrophys. 697, A5 (2025).
  30. H. Hildebrandt et al., KiDS-1000 catalogue: Redshift distributions and their calibration, Astron. Astrophys. 647, A124 (2021).
  31. L. Knox, Determination of inflationary observables by cosmic microwave background anisotropy experiments, Phys. Rev. D 52, 4307 (1995).
  32. T. D. Kitching, J. Alsing, A. F. Heavens, R. Jimenez, J. D. McEwen, and L. Verde, The limits of cosmic shear, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 469, 2737 (2017).
  33. M. Kilbinger et al., Precision calculations of the cosmic shear power spectrum projection, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 472, 2126 (2017).
  34. R. Scoccimarro and H. M. P. Couchman, A fitting formula for the nonlinear evolution of the bispectrum, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 325, 1312 (2001).
  35. J. Torrado and A. Lewis, cobaya: Code for Bayesian analysis of hierarchical physical models, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2021) 057.
  36. J. Torrado and A. Lewis, Cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1910.019 (2019).
  37. R. Laureijs et al. (EUCLID Collaboration), Euclid definition study report, arXiv:1110.3193.
  38. D. Touzeau, Accompanying data required for , 10.5281/zenodo.19697500 (2026).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 113, 123519– Published 10 June, 2026
  • Received 7 February 2025
  • Accepted 21 April 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button

© 2026 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation