Extracting cosmology from high resolution CMB data *focused on ACT and SO
Jo Dunkley, Princeton University May 23, 2018 Jo Dunkley Cosmic Microwave Background
T=2.7K ∆T/T ~0.00001
Also polarization: Rep.Two-point statistics: Prog. Phys. 81 (2018) 044901 Report on Progress
TxT TxE
BxB
ExE
Staggs, JD, Page 2018 review Figure 3. Example of recent CMB power spectra from [50–54]. Left. TT (top) and EE (bottom) data and power spectra plotted with logarithmic y axes. The TT and EE oscillations are out of phase by ∼π/2 as expected for acoustic oscillations (see section 1.4) since TT and EE trace density and velocity, respectively. The TT spectrum at low ℓ, corresponding to superhorizon scales at decoupling (see section 2.1), has post-decoupling contributions from gravitational redshifting of the photons as they pass through evolving potential wells, known as the integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect [55, 56]. The EE spectrum peaks at higher ℓ than TT both because it lacks the ISW effect, and because the acoustic oscillation velocity gradients sourcing the polarization grow with k and thus with ℓ. The spectra are suppressed at large ℓ due to photon diffusion from smaller regions of space, also called Silk damping [57], and to geometric effects from compressing the 3d structure to 2d spectra. Right. TE with linear y axis. Since the ISW effect does not change the polarization, the negative peak at ℓ = 150 in TE confrmed that some of the largest scale features in the CMB are primordial, and not just late-time effects [58–60]. Right. BB detections plotted with a linear y axis, along with theoretical expectations for gravitational lensing for comparison (see sections 2.4 and 2.1). Rotational invariance allows averaging over the azimuthal We use a shorthand notation so that XY refers to TT XY depend ence to generate the angular power spectrum Cℓ : Cℓ . Section 1.4 defnes the polarization spectra EE and BB. m=ℓ Figure 3 shows recent TT, EE and BB data. T TT 1 2 δT(nˆ)= aℓmYℓm(nˆ); Cℓ = aℓm . 2 ℓ + 1 | | 1.2. Foregrounds ℓ m= ℓ m ! !− ! (1) The CMB anisotropies are seen through foreground light For a Gaussian random feld, the amplitude of each complex emitted from the Galaxy and from extragalactic radio and coeffcient a is drawn from a Gaussian distribution with ℓm dusty sources. The Galactic signals dominate at large scales, zero mean, and the phase is drawn from a fat distribution 2 0.4 dropping approximately as ℓ C ℓ− for dust and synchro- between 0 and 2π. Thus, the modes are completely uncor- ℓ ∝ tron [61], while for angular scales ! 10′ (ℓ ! 1000) the extra- related: aℓma∗ =(δℓℓ δmm ) Cℓ. Then, Cℓ carries all the ℓ′m′ ′ ′ galactic emission is increasingly important. In intensity the information⟨ about⟩ the feld. CMB exceeds the Galactic foreground emission over much Cross-spectra are also possible. For example, TE is con- of the sky, at the foreground minimum of 30 200 GHz. In structed from the expansion coeffcients for the T and E maps, – polarization the E-mode CMB signal dominates only at high T E TE 1 T E a and a , as C = a (a )∗ . Section 2.4 ℓm ℓm ℓ 2 ℓ+1 m | ℓm ℓm | latitudes, and the CMB B-mode is everywhere smaller than describes how subsequent gravitational lensing of the CMB ! foregrounds at degree scales [63, 64]. introduces mode correlations, and defnes the lensing power The Galactic component is dominated by four emission φφ spectrum, Cℓ . mechanisms: synchrotron radiation from electrons spiraling in
5 Rep. Prog. Phys. 81 (2018) 044901 Report on Progress
Rep. Prog. Phys. 81 (2018) 044901 Report on Progress T(n) = T(nT+(nd))==TT((nn++d∇)φ=)T(n + ∇φ)
Planck Collab 2015
Lensing of the CMB (four-point statistic)
Staggs, JD, Page 2018 review Figure 13. On the top is a full-sky map of the Wiener-fltered lensing potential, φ, from Planck [226]. The map traces the projected mass density in the universe. Note that the largest size in the map is set by the WienerFigure fltering. 13. Bottom On the left .top The is lensing a full-sky power map spectrum of the data Wiener- fltered lensing potential, φ, from Planck [226]. The map traces the projected mass from Planck [226], ACT [227], SPT [225, 228], Bicep2/Keck [229], and Polarbeardensity [230 in ].the Bottom universe. right. TheNote lensing that thepower largest spectrum size’s in the map is set by the Wiener fltering. Bottom left. The lensing power spectrum data dependence on different cosmological parameters. See text for more information. Reproduced with permission from Alex Van Engelen. from Planck [226], ACT [227], SPT [225, 228], Bicep2/Keck [229], and Polarbear [230]. Bottom right. The lensing power spectrum’s on the matter spectrum and its evolution under gravitational that correlatesdependence the phases on different and alters cosmological the distribution parameters. away from See text for more information. Reproduced with permission from Alex Van Engelen. collapse in the expanding universe, the CMB lensing is a being purely Gaussian. The difference between a map with powerful new cosmological observable. Because the CMB is lensingon and the one matter without spectrum has an rms and of roughly its evolution 20 µK. under gravitational that correlates the phases and alters the distribution away from a diffuse source and each defection is small, the interpreta- Thecollapse distortion inis quanti the f expandinged as follows. universe, The temperature the CMB feld lensing is a being purely Gaussian. The difference between a map with tion of its lensed image is subtle. We describe it quantitatively T observedpowerful on the celestialnew cosmological sphere today in observable. a direction nˆ is Because related the CMB is lensing and one without has an rms of roughly 20 µK. below. The effect was predicted by Blanchard and Schneider to the aprimordial diffuse distributionsource and T byeach T(nˆ )=defTection(nˆ + d (isnˆ)) small,, where the interpreta- The distortion is quantifed as follows. The temperature feld in 1987 [216] and frst observed directly in a CMB map in d! is calledtion theof itsde flensedection f imageeld. Similarly, is subtle. the Weobserved describe polari it- quantitatively T observed on the celestial sphere today in a direction nˆ is related 2011 by Das et al [217] but was also seen though cross cor- zation is remapped as [Q iU](!nˆ)=[Q iU](nˆ + d(nˆ)). below. The effect was± predicted ±by Blanchard and Schneider to the primordial distribution T by T(nˆ)=T(nˆ + d(nˆ)), where relation [218, 219] and the smearing of the power spectrum The defection feld can be written as the gradient of the lens- in 1987 [216] and frst observed directly in a CMB map in ! is called the defection feld. Similarly, the observed polari- before that [220, 221]. Reviews of CMB lensing include ing potential φ: d = φ. ! Maps! of φ show the location of d ∇ [222–224]. mass 2011 concentrations. by Das et The al convergence, [217] but wasκ = alsod /seen2, meas though- cross cor- zation is remapped as [Q iU](!nˆ)=[Q iU](nˆ + d(nˆ)). ∇ · ± ± On its way to us, a typical CMB photon experiences about ures therelation change [ 218 in surface, 219] brightnessand the smearing due to lensing. of the The power spectrum The defection feld can be written as the gradient of the lens- ffty defections, primarily from mass concentrations in the angularbefore power that spectra [220 of , the 221 three]. Reviews quantities are of relatedCMB as lensing include ing potential φ: d = φ. ! Maps! of φ show the location of range z 0.5–4. The net defection is roughly 3′ and is coher- [L(L +[2221)]2C224φφ/4].= L(L + 1)Cdd/4 = Cκκ. Note that we ∇ ent over ∼several degrees, corresponding to the angular extents – mass concentrations. The convergence, κ = d/2, meas- use L = Onℓ itsℓ′ way rather to than us, ℓa totypical highlight CMB that photon these spec experiences- about ∇ · of typical lenses, which are those at the peak of the matter tra probe | the− coherence| size of the lensing, rather than the ures the change in surface brightness due to lensing. The power spectrum, with size ∼300 Mpc. Thus, measuring lens- smallerf ftyscales, def ℓections, and ℓ′, that primarily the lensing from correlates. mass (See concentrations also in the angular power spectra of the three quantities are related as ing from a map of the CMB requires arcminute resolution sectionsrange 2.1.2 z and0.5 4.5–).4. FigureThe net 13 de showsfection a map is roughly tracing the 3 ′ and is coher- [L(L + 1)]2Cφφ/4 = L(L + 1)Cdd/4 = Cκκ. Note that we over degree angular scales. The lensing weakly magnifes ∼ distributionent over of dark several matter degrees, (or φ) derived corresponding from Planck to thelens -angular extents use L = ℓ ℓ′ rather than ℓ to highlight that these spec- (enlarges) some CMB spatial features while demagnifying ing measurements;of typical lenses, see also which [225]. Figureare those 13 also at showsthe peak the of the matter tra probe | the− coherence| size of the lensing, rather than the others. The net effect is to take a Gaussian random feld with Planck lensing power spectrum, augmented with results from power spectrum, with size Mpc. Thus, measuring lens- random phases, the unlensed CMB, and distort it in a manner ACT, SPT, Planck and Polarbear. See∼300 also [225]. smaller scales, ℓ and ℓ′, that the lensing correlates. (See also ing from a map of the CMB requires arcminute resolution sections 2.1.2 and 4.5). Figure 13 shows a map tracing the
18 over degree angular scales. The lensing weakly magnifes distribution of dark matter (or φ) derived from Planck lens- (enlarges) some CMB spatial features while demagnifying ing measurements; see also [225]. Figure 13 also shows the others. The net effect is to take a Gaussian random feld with Planck lensing power spectrum, augmented with results from random phases, the unlensed CMB, and distort it in a manner ACT, SPT, Planck and Polarbear. See also [225].
18 Current state-of-the-art = Planck Next: go further with ground-based data My current focus: data from Chile Atacama Cosmology Telescope PI: Suzanne Staggs
NSF-funded. 5200m, 1.4’ resolution, 6m telescope
ACT The$Atacama$Cosmology$Telescope:$ Results$and$Future$Prospects9
2007-10: ACT ‘MBAC’ 2013-15: ACT ‘ACTPol’ 2016-19: ACT ’AdvACT’
Full data: about three times lower noise than Planck Cerro Toco, Northern Chile Intensity and polarizationHigh and dry: 5200m, 0.49mm PWV 6m off-axis Gregorian primary 1’ resolution
Currently ACTPol: 148 GHz (plus 90 GHz to come)
Blake&D.&Sherwin&(Miller&Fellow,&UC&Berkeley)& &ACT&collaboration&[+POLARBEAR&collaboration]& ACT sky coverage 2014-15
ACT Footprint
Fig by Sigurd Naess - S15 -
BOSS-N BOSS-N
D56
D8 ACT sky coverage 2016-17, planned 2018-19
ACT Footprint
- S16 -
AdvACT
Map by Sigurd Næss Movie by Sigurd Naess, Planck+ACT ACT+Planck Stokes U, preliminary
Planck Stokes U Simons Observatory No room for more detectors in ACT! To lower noise by another 2-3, need new telescope. Also! To measure large-scale B-modes, need dedicated small aperture cameras Site design (preliminary) Simons Array
ACT Road to ALMA/San Pedro SRSM
Large Aperture Telescope Class
Control Room, lab, workshop, storage in winterized shelters: large and easy to be installed and moved Simons Observatory
3 or 4 SAC North Paolo Calisse Five-year survey planned 2021-26, six frequencies 30-270 GHz The Simons Observatory is funded by a generous grant from the Simons Foundation and the Heising-Simons Foundation
Josquin Errard (APC) for the Simons Observatory Collaboration, 53rd Rencontres de Moriond, 2018 2 The Simons Observatory collaboration United States • Arizona State University Canada • Carnegie Mellon University • CITA/Toronto • Center for Computational Astrophysics • 10 Countries • Dunlap Institute/Toronto • Cornell University • McGill University • Florida State • 40+ Institutions • Simon Fraser University • Haverford College • 160+ Researchers • University of British Columbia • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Chile • NASA/GSFC • Pontificia Universidad Catolica • NIST • University of Chile • Princeton University Europe • Rutgers University • • Stanford University/SLAC APC – France • Cambridge University • Stony Brook • Cardiff University • University of California - Berkeley • Imperial College • University of California – San Diego • Manchester University • • University of Michigan Oxford University • SISSA – Italy • University of Pennsylvania • University of Sussex • University of Pittsburgh • University of Southern California South Africa • West Chester University • Kwazulu-Natal, SA • Yale University Australia Japan • Melbourne • KEK • IPMU Middle East • Tohoku • Tel Aviv • Tokyo 14 Josquin Errard (APC) for the Simons Observatory Collaboration, 53rd Rencontres de Moriond, 2018 5 The Simons Observatory instruments and technology The Simons Observatory instruments and technology large aperture telescope small aperture telescopes large aperture telescope small aperture telescopes 20m 40,000 detectors 40,000 detectors 20m 15m 15m
6 m crossed Dragone fed by up to 613, m crossed38 cm optics Dragone tubes fed. by Three 42 cm diameter refractors, baseline=7up to 13, tubes 38 cm for opticsSO, with tubes . baselineThree 42 dichroic cm diameter pixels: refractors, baselinebaseline=7 pixels: tubes for SO, with 30/40baseline | 90/150 dichroic | 90/150 pixels: | 220/270 GHz • Onebaseline tube: 30/40 pixels: GHz 30/40 | 90/150 | 90/150 | 220/270 GHz • Four• Onetubes: tube: 90/150 30/40 GHz GHz • Two• tubes:Four tubes: 220/270 90/150 GHz GHz • Two tubes: 220/270 GHz
Josquin Errard (APC) for the Simons Observatory Collaboration, 53rd Rencontres de Moriond, 2018 20 Expected pre-systematics white noise levels for large telescope: Josquin Errard (APC) for the Simons Observatory Collaboration, 53rd Rencontres de Moriond, 2018 20 4.5 (6) uK-amin goal (baseline) 90+150 GHz, fsky=0.4 The Simons Observatory instruments and technology
largeThe aperture Simons telescope Observatory sciencesmall goals aperture and probes telescopes relativistic neutrino primordial galaxy species mass 20m dark energy fluctuations reionization evolution damping tail lensing tSZ, lensing large scale B-modes ➔ Neff (TE, TT, EE) sources potential tSZ, kSZ ➔ tensor-to-scalar ratio (BB) ➔ σ8 at z=2-3 ➔ width of (TT+EB), tSZ ➔ non-thermal pressure ➔ primordial power at small (tSZ+kSZ) (lensing, tSZ) reionization (kSZ) ➔ Σmν ➔ scales (TE, TT, EE) ➔ feedback efficiency growth of ➔ mean free path structure (kSZ) primordial non-Gaussianity of photons (kSZ) (tSZ+kSZ) 15m
6 m crossed Dragone fed by
credits: ESO credits: up to 13, 38 cm optics tubes. Three 42 cm diameter refractors, baseline=7 tubes for SO, with baseline dichroic pixels: redshift+1 baseline pixels: 30/40 | 90/150 | 90/150 | 220/270 GHz •Sub-degree scale statistics from ACT and SO: One tube: 30/40 GHz • Four tubes: 90/150 GHz •lensed TT/TE/EE/BB, lensing øø, bispectrum, thermal and kinetic Sunyaev-Zel’dovichTwo tubes: 220/270 GHz
16 Josquin Errard (APC) for the Simons Observatory Collaboration, 53rd Rencontres de Moriond, 2018 20
Josquin Errard (APC) for the Simons Observatory Collaboration, 53rd Rencontres de Moriond, 2018 17 Primary CMB in high-resolution (temp x polarization)Small-Scale TE
KiDS extended cosmologies 9 Fig by Simone Aiola
(64, 76) Is ‘LCDM’ a complete description of Universe after first fraction of second? • Flat geometry with cosmological constant, physics follows GR.
• Contents are baryons, cold dark matter, neutrinos, photons. 2013-14 • Initial fluctuations were Gaussian and almost-scale-invariant. KiDS extended cosmologies 9
!9 Hubble constant! Effective number of relativistic species Primordial scalar power at small scales Also: dark matter interactions, helium… KiDS extended cosmologies 5
Figure 7. Hubble constant constraints at 68% CL in our fiducial and extended cosmologies, for PlanckJoudaki et al 2016 in red (Ade et al. 2016a) as compared to the direct and Hubble constant. We impose the conservative priormeasurement0.013 of< Riess et al. (2016) in purple. We do not show the corresponding constraints for KiDS, as it is unable to measure the Hubble constant. Our ⌦ h2 < 0.033 ⇤CDM constraint on the Hubble constant (h =0.679 0.010) differs marginally from that in Ade et al. (2016a, h =0.673 0.010) due to different priors, b on the baryon density (motivated by the BBN con- ± ± straints in Burles, Nollett & Turner 2001; Olive &in Particle particular ourData fiducial model fixes the neutrinos to be massless. Group 2014; Cyburt et al. 2016) and 0.4 2 ˆ D1 D2 2 D1 2 D2 DIC e↵ (✓)+2pD. (1) T (S8)= S S / S + S , (2) ⌘ 8 8 8 8 r Here, the first term consists of the best-fit effective 2 (✓ˆ)= ⇣ ⌘ ⇣ ⌘ e↵ where the datasets D1 and D 2 refer to KiDS and Planck, respec- 2ln max, where max is the maximum likelihood of the data tively, the vertical bars extract the absolute value of the encased L L ˆ given the model, and ✓ is the vector of varied parameters at the terms, the horizontal bars again denote the mean over the posterior maximum likelihood point. The second term is the ‘Bayesian com- distribution, and refers to the symmetric 68% confidence interval 2 2 plexity,’ pD = (✓) (✓ˆ), where the bar denotes the mean e↵ e↵ about the mean. over the posterior distribution. Thus, the DIC is composed of the Moreover, to better capture the overall level of concordance sum of the goodness of fit of a given model and its Bayesian com- or discordance between the two datasets, we calculate a diagnostic plexity, which is a measure of the effective number of parameters, grounded in the DIC (Joudaki et al. 2016): and acts to penalize more complex models. For reference, a differ- 2 (D1,D2) exp (D1,D2)/2 , (3) ence in e↵ of 10 between two models corresponds to a probability I ⌘ { G } ratio of 1 in 148, and we therefore take a positive difference in DIC such that of 10 to correspond to strong preference in favor of the reference (D1,D2) = DIC(D1 D2) DIC(D1) DIC(D2), (4) model (⇤CDM), while an equally negative DIC difference corre- G [ sponds to strong preference in favor of the extended model. We where DIC(D1 D2) is obtained from the combined analysis of [ take DIC = 5 to constitute moderate preference in favor of the the datasets. Thus, log is positive when two datasets are in con- I model with the lower DIC estimate, while differences close to zero cordance, and negative when the datasets are discordant, with val- do not particularly favor one model over the other. ues following Jeffreys’ scale (Jeffreys 1961, Kass & Raftery 1995), c 2016 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000 Lensing of the primary CMB 6 Particularly interesting when x with LSST Mishra-Sharma, Alonso, JD 2018 CMB S4 S4 + DESI LSST: 9 redshift LSST Shear bins of blue galaxies x 9 bins LSST Clust of lensed galaxies. LSST Shear+Clust Practice with KiDS, S4 + LSST HSC, DES! 0 50 100 150 Similar conclusions m [meV] for SO noise levels Fig by Siddharth Mishra-Sharma Neutrino mass FIG. 3.And: fnl and sigma8 through CMBxLSSTLeft: Forecast error on ⌃ (ask Marcel Schmittfull!) m⌫ achievable with CMB S4 (orange), LSST shear (dotted blue), LSST clustering (red) and all together (green), in the presence of an uncertain dark energy equation of state. Center, right: Forecast error on w0 and wa with di↵erent combinations of probes, revealing the degeneracies with ⌃m⌫ in each case. The corresponding forecast values are given in Tab. II. Setup 2: Planck + LSST-shear • Setup 3: Planck + LSST-clustering • Setup 4: Planck + LSST-clustering + LSST-shear • Setup 5: Planck + S4 + LSST-shear + LSST- • clustering We also consider in this section the impact of including a cosmic variance (CV)-limited measurement of the opti- cal depth to reionization ⌧, and describe the e↵ect of in- cluding BAO measurements from DESI as an additional tracer of late-time clustering. FIG. 4. Achievable constraints on ⌃m (blue), w (bur- A. Forecasts with LSST and CMB-S4 ⌫ 0 gundy), wa (green) and ⌦k (yellow) as a function of the CMB noise level in intensity NT . Forecasts are shown as a ratio to Figure 3 shows forecast constraints for the error on the constraints achievable for a 1µK arcmin experiment. Al- ⌃m⌫ , the dark energy parameters w0, wa and the cosmo- though w0, wa and ⌦k do not degrade significantly with NT , logical curvature ⌦k obtainable with shear and clustering the uncertainty on the sum of neutrino masses could improve by 40% from a Stage-3 experiment ( 10µK arcmin) to S4. measurements from LSST and CMB-S4. These results ⇠ ⇠ are shown in Tab. II. In all these cases Planck is included as described in Sec III. Individually, CMB S4, LSST clus- tering and LSST shear can achieve forecast constraints of eter needed to fully describe the Friedmann-Robertson- 106, 91 and 99 meV respectively, strongly degraded with Walker metric. It is therefore interesting to investigate respect to the case where the flat ⇤CDM fixed-w model the possible degeneracy on ⌃m⌫ from freeing ⌦k while is assumed (70, 69 and 40 meV respectively). In combi- fixing (w0,wa). This case is shown in the last row of Ta- nation, however, the three probes are able to achieve an ble II: ⌦k is significantly less degenerate with ⌃m⌫ , and error of (m⌫ ) = 27 meV. This would be an almost 4 therefore the uncertainty on the latter parameter remains measurement of the minimal mass in the inverted hier- unchanged after freeing up the former. archy, and 2 for the normal hierarchy. By combining The improvement on (⌃m⌫ ) from the combination of these datasets,⇡ the degradation is only 20% with re- CMB and LSS probes is a result of the high sensitivity spect to the fixed-⇤CDM case. ⇠ of future CMB data. Experiments including Advanced It is worth pointing out that, while a free equation of ACTPol and the Simons Observatory will measure the state w = 1 represents a more complex extension of the CMB lensing over large sky areas to higher noise levels standard6 ⇤ CDM model, in which the accelerated expan- than S4, so we explore how the forecast constraint on neu- sion is driven by something other than a simple cosmolog- trino masses depends on the CMB noise level, keeping the ical constant, the spatial curvature ⌦k is a core param- sky area fixed to 40%. Figure 4 shows the relative degra- Advanced ACT cluster search Preliminary! 90 + 150 GHz multi-frequency matched lter, one season of AdvACT data + all other ACT/ACTPol data (more arrays + bands added with each season) Black = area used for a preliminary cluster search, overlaid on Planck 353 GHz map; Blue = DES; Green = SDSS – we have not done optical follow-up outside of SDSS + DES (public DR1) regions yet Ultimate goal: cosmology with > 10,000 clusters (needs 1% mass Thermal and kinematic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effectscalibration) Preliminary; M. Hilton for ACT Snapshot from current preliminary ACT maps: crosses are detected galaxy clusters tSZ Goal: to do cosmology with N(m,z) Neutrino mass, dark energy at z=2-3 Also: kinetic SZ goal: measure growth with DESI. Talk to Victoria Calafut! And combine kSZ and tSZ to learn about feedback WL Mass Calibration of ACTPol Clusters with HSC 11 4Calibrate tSZ masses with LSST (practice on HSC, KiDS, DES) Miyatake, Battaglia, Hilton et al. ACTPol Cluster Mass Calibration with KiDS Naomi Robertson, University of Oxford HSC Cristóbal Sifón (Princeton), MattMiyatake et al 2018 (ACT+HSC collaborations) Hilton (KwaZulu-Natal) and Jo Dunkley (Princeton) M_SZ/M_lensing = 0.74 +- 0.13 Fig. 2.— ACTPol SZ-selectedFig. clusters 7.— inLeft: the HSCSingle XMM mass-bin field. The fit colored on the points stacked show the lensing eight ACTPol measurement. clusters withRight: the redshiftStacked model fit on the stacked lensing measurement. The filled circles show data points used for the NFW fit, while both2 the filled and open circles are used for the Dark Emulator and Baryonic The locations of galaxy clusters trace information. the The gray points are HSC source galaxies used for our lensing analysis, which covers 29.5deg .Notethatholesinthesource galaxy distribution are due toSimulations the bright star models. mask. position of peaks in the large scale matter 148 GHz. Only ACT-CL J0229.6-0337 has a significantly e =(a2 b2)/(a2 + b2), where a and b are the major distribution. As a result, cluster propertiesKiDS large o↵set between these cluster centers. We will look and minor axes, respectively (Bernstein & Jarvis 2002). — such as their number density, masses,into how the o↵set a↵ects our lensing signal in Appendix The galaxy shapes were calibratedTABLE against 2 image simula- Parameter constraints from the Single Mass-bin fit and Stacked Model method fit to the stacked lensing data. baryon content and evolution — containB.3. tions generated with GalSim (Rowe et al. 2015), an open information about the growth of structure in source software package, which yields correction factors 2.3. HSC Source Galaxies for the shear measurements. These factors are the mul- the Universe. In particular the amplitude of Parameter NFW Dark Emulator Baryonic Simulation HSC is the wide-field prime focus camera on the Sub- tiplicative bias m and additive bias (c1,c2), which are matter fluctuations, matter density, and the Single Mass-bin aru Telescope (Miyazaki et al. 2018a; Komiyama et al. defined as gi,obs =(1+m)gi,true + ci,where(g1,g2)is 14 +0.82 +0.72 +0.86 dark energy equation of state parameter2018) located at the summit of Mauna Kea. The combi- defined inM termsWL [10 of shearM ]4, g =(.a26 b0)./71(a + b),4. and22 must0.64 3.67 0.58 2 be applied to the shear measurements. +0 .86 Note that the can investigated using clusters. nation of the wide field-of-view (1.77 deg ), superb image c500c 2.08 0.71 N/A N/A 240 180 120 quality (seeing routinely less than 0.600), and large aper- multiplicative 2/dof bias is shared between 1.3/4 the two ellipticity 2.5/8 3.4/8 components (for details, see Mandelbaum et al. 2017). Cosmology from clusters has been shownture of the primary mirror (8.2 m) makes HSC one ofStacked the Model best instruments for conducting weak-lensingPRELIMINARY cosmology. For each galaxy, the shape catalog provides an estimate to be limited by the uncertainty in mass— M [1014M ]4.02+0.65 3.89+0.61 3.55+0.63 Under the Subaru Strategic Survey Program (SSP; Ai- of the intrinsicWL shape noise, erms, an0.61 estimate of mea-0.57 0.48 observable scaling relations. Observables h i +0 .13 +0 .13 +0 .16 hara et al. 2018a), HSC started a galaxy imaging survey surement1 noise,b e, and inverse0.71 weights w from0.74 combin- 0.80 0.12 0.12 0.12 which correlate with mass can be usedin to 2014 that aims to cover 1,400 deg2 of the sky down ing erms and2/dof e. The measurement 1.6 /53 noise isGo see Naomi statistically.0 /83.1 /8 infer cluster masses, but theseto i = 26 after its 5 years of operation. The first-year estimated from the shape measurements performed on relationships need to be calibrated galaxy for shape catalog (Mandelbaum et al. 2018) was pro- simulated images, and the intrinsic shapes are derived by subtracting the measurement noise from theRobertson’s poster to ellipticity clusters to be used as an accurateduced using the data takenple as:from March 2014 through and show the best fit profiles in Figure 7. Similar to April 2016 with about 90 nights in total. The first- dispersion measured from the real data. Note that we use cosmological tool. a catalog made with the “Sirius” star mask,the single-mass-binsee stacked lensing which actu- fit, we restrict the fitting range of year data consists of six distinct fields (HECTOMAP, 2 1 1 1 cr (allyz) includes brightdn galaxies and thus anthe extended NFW region fit to 0.3 h Mpc 50 0 100 101 R(Mpc) Cosmo 21 - Valencia May 2018 [1] Hilton et al. 2017 [2] Hildebrandt et al. 2017 Combination of statistics for high-resolution CMB data lensed TT/TE/EE/BB CMB-phi x CMB-phi CMB-phi x LSST-galaxies x LSST-shear CMB-phi x DESI-galaxies tSZ cluster counts, calibrated with LSST shear tSZ cluster counts, calibrated with CMB-phi tSZ power spectrum and pdf, from y-maps kSZ x DESI-galaxies kSZ in TT power spectrum kSZ and tSZ in clusters +… They are all correlated. Not yet done covariant likelihood! How will we compute the covariance matrix? Will we ‘just’ use conventional summary statistics and likelihood, or be more inventive? Reminder: ACT covering 40% of sky until 2019+, then five-year SO survey from 2021