4.6 Article

The growth of density perturbations in the last ∼10 billion years from tomographic large-scale structure data

Journal

Publisher

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/10/030

Keywords

cosmological parameters from LSS; galaxy clustering; redshift surveys; weak gravitational lensing

Funding

  1. NSF [AST-181497]
  2. European Research Council [693024]
  3. Beecroft Trust
  4. Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities of Spain [PGC2018-095157-B-I00]
  5. Spanish grant - ESF [BES-2016077038]
  6. Science and Technology Facilities Council through an Ernest Rutherford Fellowship [ST/P004474]
  7. John Fell Oxford University Press Research Fund
  8. U.S. Department of Energy
  9. U.S. National Science Foundation
  10. Ministry of Science and Education of Spain
  11. Science and Technology Facilities Council of the United Kingdom
  12. Higher Education Funding Council for England
  13. National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  14. Kavli Institute of Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago
  15. Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics at the Ohio State University
  16. Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy at Texas AM University
  17. Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos
  18. Fundacao Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
  19. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico
  20. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  21. Argonne National Laboratory, the University of California at Santa Cruz
  22. University of Cambridge
  23. Centro de Investigaciones Energeticas, Medioambientales y Tecnologicas-Madrid
  24. University of Chicago
  25. University College London
  26. DES-Brazil Consortium
  27. University of Edinburgh
  28. Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (ETH) Zurich
  29. Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  30. Institut de Ciencies de l'Espai (IEEC/CSIC)
  31. Institut de Fisica d'Altes Energies
  32. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
  33. Ludwig-Maximilians Universitat Munchen
  34. associated Excellence Cluster Universe
  35. University of Nottingham
  36. Ohio State University
  37. OzDES Membership Consortium
  38. University of Pennsylvania
  39. University of Portsmouth
  40. SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
  41. Stanford University
  42. University of Sussex
  43. Texas AM University
  44. ERC
  45. NOVA
  46. NWO-M grants
  47. Target
  48. University of Padova
  49. University Federico II (Naples)
  50. Dark Energy Camera Legacy Survey (DECaLS) [2014B-0404]
  51. Beijing-Arizona Sky Survey (BASS) [2015A-0801]
  52. Mayall z-band Legacy Survey (MzLS) [2016A-0453]
  53. Fundacao Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo
  54. National Astronomical Observatories of China
  55. Chinese Academy of Sciences (the Strategic Priority Research Program The Emergence of Cosmological Structures) [XDB09000000]
  56. Ministry of Finance
  57. External Cooperation Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences [114A11KYSB20160057]
  58. Chinese National Natural Science Foundation [11433005]
  59. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  60. Office of Science, Office of High Energy Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH1123]
  61. National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, a DOE Office of Science User Facility [DE-AC02-05CH1123]
  62. U.S. National Science Foundation, Division of Astronomical Sciences [AST-0950945]
  63. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  64. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science
  65. Center for High Performance Computing at the University of Utah
  66. Brazilian Participation Group
  67. Carnegie Institution for Science
  68. Carnegie Mellon University
  69. Center for Astrophysics | Harvard Smithsonian
  70. Chilean Participation Group
  71. French Participation Group
  72. Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias
  73. Johns Hopkins University
  74. Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe (IPMU)/University of Tokyo
  75. Korean Participation Group
  76. Leibniz Institut fur Astrophysik Potsdam (AIP)
  77. Max-Planck-Institut fur Astronomie (MPIA Heidelberg)
  78. Max-Planck-Institut fur Astrophysik (MPA Garching)
  79. Max-Planck-Institut fur Extraterrestrische Physik (MPE)
  80. New Mexico State University
  81. New York University
  82. University of Notre Dame
  83. Observatario Nacional/MCTI
  84. Pennsylvania State University
  85. Shanghai Astronomical Observatory
  86. United Kingdom Participation Group
  87. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
  88. University of Arizona
  89. University of Colorado Boulder
  90. University of Oxford
  91. University of Utah
  92. University of Virginia
  93. University of Washington
  94. University of Wisconsin
  95. Vanderbilt University
  96. Yale University
  97. Ministerio da Ciencia, Tecnologia e Inovacao
  98. [177.A-3016]
  99. [177.A-3017]
  100. [177.A-3018]
  101. [179.A-2004]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study reconstructs the evolution of matter fluctuations amplitude from redshift 2 to low redshifts using existing large-scale structure data, showing that the current data mainly constrain the fluctuations amplitude in the range of 0.2 < z < 0.7, which is lower than predicted by Planck. However, the data are well-described by the ACDM model despite the tension with Planck, and constraints on the parameter S8 reach almost percent-level errors comparable with CMB measurements, deviating 3.4 Sigma away from the value found by Planck.
In order to investigate the origin of the ongoing tension between the amplitude of matter fluctuations measured by weak lensing experiments at low redshifts and the value inferred from the cosmic microwave background anisotropies, we reconstruct the evolution of this amplitude from z similar to 2 using existing large-scale structure data. To do so, we decouple the linear growth of density inhomogeneities from the background expansion, and constrain its redshift dependence making use of a combination of 6 different data sets, including cos-mic shear, galaxy clustering and CMB lensing. We analyze these data under a consistent harmonic-space angular power spectrum-based pipeline. We show that current data con-strain the amplitude of fluctuations mostly in the range 0.2 < z < 0.7, where it is lower than predicted by Planck. This difference is mostly driven by current cosmic shear data, although the growth histories reconstructed from different data combinations are consistent with each other, and we find no evidence of systematic deviations in any particular experiment. In spite of the tension with Planck, the data are well-described by the ACDM model, albeit with a lower value of S8 -Sigma 8(Qm/0.3)0.5. As part of our analysis, we find constraints on this parameter of S8 = 0.7781 +/- 0.0094 (68% confidence level), reaching almost percent-level errors comparable with CMB measurements, and 3.4 Sigma away from the value found by Planck.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available