Southern Spectroscopic Survey Instrument: Science Case: Dark Energy, Growth, Neutrinos and More

Southern Spectroscopic Survey Instrument: Science Case: Dark Energy, Growth, Neutrinos and more.

Shirley Ho Lawrence Berkeley National Lab/UC Berkeley Carnegie Mellon University

Argonne SSSI meeting, 2016 Number of spectra

DESI Euclid BOSS eBOSS SDSSI/II

WiggleZ 2MRS CFA

Year experiment ﬁnishes Shirley Ho CMB experiment raw sensitivity over the years

Snowmass CF5 Neutrinos Document arxiv:1309.5383

WMAP

Planck

Adv-ACT SPT-3G

CMB-S4

Shirley Ho Number of CCD pixels in telescope over the years

700000000

525000000 WFIRST

LSST

350000000 Gaia

175000000 DECAM

NOAO4k SDSS CFHT 0 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Year of the telescope comissioning Large Scale Structure

• The contents and properties of our Universe affects the phase space distribution of the density ﬁeld.

(x, y, z, vx,vy,vz)=f(w0,wa, ⌦m(z),H(z), m⌫ ,G,...) p w = equation of state of darkX energy ⇢ w(a)=w + w (1 a) time-dependent equation of state 0 a m⌫ is sum of neutrino masses X Eisenstein & Hu 1997; Eisenstein, Seo & White 2007; Kaiser 1987; Peacock 2001 Shirley Ho How sum of neutrino masses affect the density ﬁeld

28 10

10 ) 3

30 10 Density (g/cm

31 10

m⌫ =0eV m⌫ =1eVeV X X Figure Credit: Agarwal & Feldman Shirley Ho What can we do in the 2020s that are still interesting?

• Standard analyses: 2 point correlation functions / clustering / stacking

• Going beyond standard analyses

• Going beyond 3D information that these large scale structure surveys provide.

Shirley Ho Standard Analyses: Sum of neutrino masses affect the clustering of density ﬁeld

2 Clustering of Density Field in Redshift Space Monopole * r

2 The sum of matter density and neutrino density is kept constant. Quadrupole * r

Giusarma, dePutter, Ho et al. 2013 Shirley Ho Standard Analyses: Dark Energy equation of state affects the clustering of density ﬁeld

2 Clustering of Density Field in Redshift Space Monopole * r 2 Quadrupole * r

Shirley Ho Large Scale Structure

• The contents and properties of our Universe affects the phase space distribution of the density ﬁeld.

(x, y, z, vx,vy,vz)=f(w0,wa, ⌦m(z),H(z), m⌫ ,G,...) X • The probe that focuses on (x,y,z) is Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO). • The probe that focuses on (vx, vy, vz) is • Redshift Space Distortions (RSD).

Eisenstein & Hu 1997; Eisenstein, Seo & White 2007; Kaiser 1987; Peacock 2001 Shirley Ho Standard analyses

Correlation Function x s2 in 1D 2 Anderson et al. 2014 Vargas, Ho et al. 2014 • Lots of good science are being done with standard 2 point correlation function/ power- spectrum analyses!

• Baryon Acoustic Oscillations BAO Galaxy Correlations x s Correlations Galaxy

Shirley Ho Baryon Acoustic Oscillations Measurement of Distances at multiple redshifts

• Clustering Analysis of the

BOSS galaxy sample has 2 After Reconstruction produced the world’s best detection of the late-time acoustic peak. • The peak location is measured to • 1.0% in z = 0.57 sample and • 2.1% in z = 0.32 sample • Taking into account of the 150 Mpc anisotropy of the observation, we x s Correlations Galaxy improve our constraints on the distance scale in both transverse and radial direction. • Places strong constraint on Anderson et al. 2014 cosmology Vargas, Ho et al. 2014 Shirley Ho Baryon Acoustic Oscillations Measurement of Distances at multiple redshifts

• Clustering Analysis of the BOSS galaxy sample has produced the world’s best detection of the late-time acoustic peak. • The peak location BOSS is measured to BOSS • 1.0% in z = 0.57 sample and • 2.1% in z = 0.32 sample • Taking into account of the 150 Mpc anisotropy of the observation, we improve our constraints on the distance scale in both transverse and radial direction. • Places strong constraint on Anderson et al. 2014 cosmology Vargas, Ho et al. 2014 Shirley Ho Baryon Acoustic Oscillations Taking into account of anisotropy of our observed quantities

• Clustering Analysis of the BOSS galaxy sample has produced the world’s best detection of the late-time acoustic peak. • The peak location is measured to • 1.0% in z = 0.57 sample and • 2.1% in z = 0.32 sample • Taking into account of the 150 Mpc anisotropy of the observation, we improve our constraints on the distance scale in both transverse and radial direction. • Places strong constraint on Anderson et al. 2014 cosmology Vargas, Ho et al. 2014 Shirley Ho Baryon Acoustic Oscillations Towards cosmological constraints

• Clustering Analysis of the BOSS galaxy sample has produced the world’s best detection of the late-time acoustic peak. • The peak location is measured to • 1.0% in z = 0.57 sample and • 2.1% in z = 0.32 sample • Taking into account of the 150 Mpc anisotropy of the observation, we improve our constraints on the distance scale in both transverse and radial direction. BOSS collaboration 2014 • Places strong constraint on Anderson et al. 2014 cosmological parameters. Vargas, Ho et al. 2014 Shirley Ho Large Scale Structure

• The contents and properties of our Universe affects the phase space distribution of the density ﬁeld.

Eisenstein & Hu 1997; Eisenstein, Seo & White 2007; Kaiser 1987; Peacock 2001 Shirley Ho Large Scale Structure Going from 1D to 2D

Correlation Function x s2 in 1D Correlation Function x s2 in 2D 2 Anderson et al. 2014 Vargas, Ho et al. 2014

BAO

BAO Galaxy Correlations x s Correlations Galaxy

Shirley Ho Large Scale Structure Going from 1D to 2D

Correlation Function x r2 in 1D Correlation Function x r2 in 2D Slosar, Ho, White, Louis 2009 2 Anderson et al. 2014 Vargas, Ho et al. 2014

BAO

BAO Radial distance (Mpc/h) Galaxy Correlations x r Correlations Galaxy

Transverse distance (Mpc/h)

Shirley Ho Redshift Space Distortions in Large Scale Structure

Kaiser 1987; Peacock 2001; Percival & White 2008

We do not measure in physical space, we measure in redshift space. Redshift measures a combination of “Hubble recession” and peculiar velocities.

Correlation Function x r2 in real space Correlation Function x r2 in redshift space

BAO BAO Radial distance (Mpc/h) Radial distance (Mpc/h)

Slosar, Ho, White, Louis 2009

Transverse distance (Mpc/h) Transverse distance (Mpc/h)

Shirley Ho Key Test of Dark Energy vs Modiﬁed Gravity Redshift Space Distortions

• A key test of dark energy vs modiﬁed gravity is the growth of structure. • For a ﬁxed expansion history, GR makes a unique prediction of growth of structure. • f is the logarithmic growth rate of structure.

2 Clustering of Density Field in Redshift Space x r Monopole 2 x r Quadrupole

Shirley Ho Redshift Space Distortions Gravity Models affect Growth Rate

Logarithmic Growth Rate (f) in Einstein’s Theory of Gravity 1

10 Distance (Mpc/h) Scale (k) (h/Mpc)

100

Redshift (z) Alam, Ho et al. 2015 Shirley Ho Redshift Space Distortions Gravity Models affect Growth Rate

Logarithmic Growth Rate (f) in f(R) gravity model 1

10 Distance (Mpc/h) Scale (k) (h/Mpc)

100

Redshift (z) Alam, Ho et al. 2015 Shirley Ho Redshift Space Distortions Gravity Models affect Growth Rate

Logarithmic Growth Rate (f) in Chameleon Gravity model 1

10 Distance (Mpc/h) Scale (k) (h/Mpc)

100

Redshift (z) Alam, Ho et al. 2015 Shirley Ho Redshift Space Distortions Steps towards constraints on Gravity

• Create Clean Samples • Theory model development and testing for systematics. • Combine with multiple surveys to get the best constraint on gravity. • Best constraints on multiple modiﬁed gravity models. • First constraint on general scalar- tensor theory. • Improved DE constraints.

Alam, Ho et al. 2015 Alam, Ho & Silverstri 2015 Shirley Ho Redshift Space Distortions Constraints on Modiﬁed Gravity models

• Create Clean Samples • Theory model development and testing for systematics. 5 • Combine with multiple surveys to *10

get the best constraint on gravity. 0 B • Best constraints on multiple modiﬁed gravity models. • First constraint on general scalar- tensor theory. • B0Improved parameterizes DE deviation constraints. from GR in f(R) gravity. B0 = 0 in GR. Most recent best constraints on f(R) gravity: B0 < 6 X 10-5 (Xu et al. 2015) Our constraint : B0 < 1.3 X 10-5 Alam, Ho et al. 2015 Alam, Ho & Silverstri 2015

Shirley Ho Redshift Space Distortions Constraints on Dark Energy Models

Alam, Ho et al. 2015 Alam, Ho & Silverstri 2015 Shirley Ho What can we do in the 2020s that are still interesting?

• Standard analyses: 2 point correlation functions / clustering / stacking

• Going beyond standard analyses

• Going beyond 3D information that these large scale structure surveys provide.

Shirley Ho What about synergy with strong CMB program in the south ? What if we have both high resolution CMB and LSS in the same area of the sky.

Big Caveats: Advanced apologies to surveys that are not included in the following prediction plots. These following plots are merely used here to showcase the potential of combining Large scale structure and CMB (and CMB lensing), they are not meant to include all relevant surveys.

Shirley Ho Combining CMB X LSS s (c) DarkDark Energy 0.4 CMBXLSS (AdvACT X AdvLSST,AC BOSS)T-ALL AdvACT measurements CMB Lensing X LSST + SZ Clusters w/ LSST ksZ X BOSS 0.0

1contours

LSST -0.4 BOSS -1.0 -0.5 Credit: AdvACT Collaboration Shirley Ho 64 Combining CMB X LSS Neutrinos

Figure 20. Shown are the current constraints and forecast sensitivity ofCMB cosmology S-4 science to the neutrino book mass in relation toShirley the neutrino Ho mass hierarchy. In the case of an “inverted ordering,” with an example case marked as a diamond in the upper curve, the CMB-S4 (with DESI BAO prior) cosmological constraints would have a very high-signiﬁcance detection, with 1 error shown as a blue band. In the case of a normal neutrino mass ordering with an example case marked as diamond on the lower curve, CMB-S4 would detect the lowest m⌫ at & 3. Also shown is the sensitivity from the long baseline neutrino experiment (DUNE) as the pink shaded band, which should be sensitive to the neutrino hierarchy. Figure adapted from the Snowmass CF5P Neutrino planning document.

3.4.4 Sterile Neutrinos

Mechanisms of introducing neutrino mass often include sterile neutrinos, with both Majorana and Dirac terms potentially contributing (e.g., Ref. [346]):

= m (¯⌫ ⌫ +¯⌫ ⌫ ) (3.36) LD D L R R L 1 1 1 1 = m (¯⌫ ⌫c +¯⌫c ⌫ ) m (¯⌫ ⌫c +¯⌫c ⌫ )= m (¯⌫ ⌫ ) m (¯⌫ ⌫ ) , (3.37) LM 2 T L L L L 2 S R R R R 2 T a a 2 S s s c c where ⌫a ⌫L +(⌫L) and ⌫S ⌫R +(⌫R) are active and sterile Majorana two component spinors, ⌘ ⌘ 0 respectively. The mass mT can be generated by a Higgs triplet, i.e., mT = yT T , or from a higher- dimensional operator involving two Higgs doublets with coecients C/ . For dimensionh i 5 operators, this becomes the Type-I seesaw mechanism, where both Majorana and DiracM terms are present and m m . S D A number of recent neutrino oscillation experiments have reported anomalies that are possible indications of four or more neutrino mass eigenstates. The first set of anomalies arose in short baseline oscillation experiments. First, the Liquid Scintillator Neutrino Detector (LSND) experiment observed electron antineutrinos in a pure muon antineutrino beam [347]. The MiniBooNE Experiment also observed an excess of electron neutrinos and antineutrinos in their muon neutrino beam [348]. Two-neutrino oscillation interpretations 2 2 2 3 of these results indicate mass splittings of m 1 eV and mixing angles of sin 2✓ 3 10 [348]. Another anomaly arose from re-evaluations of reactor⇡ antineutrino fluxes that indicate⇡ an increased⇥ flux of antineutrinos and a lower neutron lifetime. This commensurately increased the predicted antineutrino events from nuclear reactors by 6%, causing previous agreement of reactor antineutrino experiments to have

CMB-S4 Science Book Combining CMB X LSS

(b) NeutrinosNeutrinos

CMBXLSS (AdvACT X AdvLSST,AC BOSS)T-ALL AdvACT measurements CMB Clusters + HSC ksZ X BOSS N

1contours Planck forecast

normal hierarchy

Σm⌫ [eV] Credit: AdvACT Collaboration Shirley Ho 13 4.5 Detection Scenarios for LabsNeutrinos and Cosmology 91

3.3 Planck-2015 + BAO CMB-S4 3.2 CMB-S4 + DESI

3.1

3.0 e N 2.9

2.8

2.7

2.6 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 Shirley Ho m (eV) CMB S-4 science book

Figure 31. Forecasts in the 2d parameter space (Ne↵ ) and ( m⌫ ).Theseconstraintsassumefsky =0.4 and 1 µK-arcmin noise. A prior of ⌧ =0.06 0.P01 was also assumed. ± P

way. This situation would be unusual in that the limits on m⌫ would suggest deviations from the Standard thermal history without any other hints. Presumably this scenario would be scrutinized heavily to check that the amplitude of the power spectrum isP normalized correctly. Finally, one might also allow for a delicate cancelation between the dilution of the neutrinos and the additional dark energy to be consistent with Ne↵ = 0.

CMB-S4 Science Book Don’t forget about CMB lensing

Predicted signal and noise with AdvACT (stage 3 CMB) auto-power

stage 3 CMB lensing -> 100 sigma CMB S-4 -> 1000 sigmas, will be as good as the correlation function in LSS Figure Credit: Blake Sherwin

` Shirley Ho What about synergy with strong CMB program in the south ?

1.0 cross-correlations LSST x AdvACT(CMB Lensing) HSC x AdvACT (CMB Lensing) 0.9 / d log a (z)

D prediction from CDM with AdvACT CMB spectra 0.8 1, 2, and 3 contours f = d log D function: modifed

h 0.7 gravity wt rate: o w0 = − 1.5 h gr

0.6 wt o w = − 0.5 0 gr

0.5 0.1 0.5 0.9 1.3 redshift Credit: AdvACT Collaboration Shirley Ho Figure 3: AdvACT will measure the growth rate of the density field through cluster counts, the growth rate of the velocity field through kSZ, the growth rate of the gravitational potential through lensing, and the geometry of the universe through the Alcock-Paczynski e↵ect. Left. Anticipated measurements of the linear growth function, D(z), from lensing measurements, and from cluster counts calibrated by optical lensing. Center. Measurements of the growth rate of structure, based on kSZ data. Right. Measurements of the Alcock-Pacyznski e↵ect, the ratio of the angular diameter distance dA to the radial distance, z/H, through a combination of kSZ data and spectroscopic redshift surveys. In the context of the ⇤CDM model, parameters determined from AdvACT+Planck data will lead to the curves and error bands shown. Any discrepancy between these shaded bands (background model) and the data points (growth) would reveal either time- dependent dark energy and/or the breakdown of GR. Examples of models with w = 1 and an extension to GR[10] are shown. AdvACT is the instrument that can best complement the LSST,6 HSC, PFS, DES, DESI and SDSS-III ground-based measurements of dark energy with its lensing, kSZ and cluster measurements. The figure shows only a subset of the cross-correlations possible between these data sets and AdvACT,

thermal SZ (tSZ) signatures. To ﬁrst order, the tSZ e↵ect depends on mass and not redshift, making the half-sky AdvACT catalog an excellent complement to the full-sky eROSITA X-ray survey, SDSS-III, DES, and LSST. AdvACT’s clusters impact dark energy science in two ways:

1. First, Takada and Spergel[118] showed that measuring cluster number counts (for M> 2 1014M ) and the weak lensing spectrum in the same area will double the signal-to- ⇥ noise in LSST’s lensing power spectrum. 2. Second, the AdvACT clusters trace f(z) directly, given redshift and mass estimates from optical surveys such as SDSS-III, HSC, DES and LSST. LSST weak lensing measurements[72] will provide 10% mass measurements for each of the AdvACT clusters, so that AdvACT will achieve a 0.1% measurement of 8, the matter fluctuation amplitude. (Using instead 2 the 1400 deg HSC[83] mass calibration gives 8 to better than 0.5%.) AdvACT will also probe dark energy through measurement of the kSZ e↵ect with a technique • pioneered by the ACT team[51]. By comparing the galaxy momentum field traced by kSZ to the density field, including the e↵ects of redshift space distortions, the combination of AdvACT and spectroscopic surveys will make determinations of the growth rate of structure and of the Alcock-Paczynski e↵ect that are not limited by cosmic variance.

5 What about synergy with strong CMB program in the south ?

1.0 cross-correlations Don’t forget that actually LSST x AdvACT(CMB Lensing) lensing window is maximum HSC x AdvACT (CMB Lensing) around z=2. 0.9 A survey that can optimally / d log a (z)

D prediction from CDM utilize the synergies with with AdvACT CMB spectra CMB lensing would be very 0.8 1, 2, and 3 contours interesting. f = d log D function: modifed

h 0.7 gravity wt rate: o w0 = − 1.5 h gr

0.6 wt o w = − 0.5 0 gr

5 What about synergy with strong CMB program in the south ?

1.0 cross-correlations Don’t forget that actually LSST x AdvACT(CMB Lensing) lensing window is maximum HSC x AdvACT (CMB Lensing) around z=2. 0.9 A survey that can optimally / d log a (z)

D prediction from CDM utilize the synergies with with AdvACT CMB spectra CMB lensing would be very 0.8 1, 2, and 3 contours interesting. f = d log D function: modifed

h 0.7 gravity wt rate: o w0 = − 1.5 h gr

0.6 wt o w = − 0.5 0 gr Can we push to even higher redshift? 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.9 1.3 redshift Credit: AdvACT Collaboration Shirley Ho Figure 3: AdvACT will measure the growth rate of the density field through cluster counts, the growth rate of the velocity field through kSZ, the growth rate of the gravitational potential through lensing, and the geometry of the universe through the Alcock-Paczynski e↵ect. Left. Anticipated measurements of the linear growth function, D(z), from lensing measurements, and from cluster counts calibrated by optical lensing. Center. Measurements of the growth rate of structure, based on kSZ data. Right. Measurements of the Alcock-Pacyznski e↵ect, the ratio of the angular diameter distance dA to the radial distance, z/H, through a combination of kSZ data and spectroscopic redshift surveys. In the context of the ⇤CDM model, parameters determined from AdvACT+Planck data will lead to the curves and error bands shown. Any discrepancy between these shaded bands (background model) and the data points (growth) would reveal either time- dependent dark energy and/or the breakdown of GR. Examples of models with w = 1 and an extension to GR[10] are shown. AdvACT is the instrument that can best complement the LSST,6 HSC, PFS, DES, DESI and SDSS-III ground-based measurements of dark energy with its lensing, kSZ and cluster measurements. The figure shows only a subset of the cross-correlations possible between these data sets and AdvACT,

5 What about synergy with strong CMB program in the south ?

1.0 cross-correlations Don’t forget that actually LSST x AdvACT(CMB Lensing) lensing window is maximum HSC x AdvACT (CMB Lensing) around z=2. 0.9 A survey that can optimally / d log a (z)

D prediction from CDM utilize the synergies with with AdvACT CMB spectra CMB lensing would be very 0.8 1, 2, and 3 contours interesting. f = d log D function: Domodi wefed need only imaging?

h 0.7 gravity wt rate: o w0 = − 1.5 h gr

0.6 wt o w = − 0.5 0 gr

5 What about synergy with strong CMB program in the south ? 1.0 cross-correlations BOSS x AdvACT (kSZ) PFS x AdvACT (kSZ) DESI x AdvACT (kSZ) 0.9

/ d log a modifed (z) gravity 0.8 w0 = −1.5

w0 = − 0.5 f = d log D

0.7 history:

n rate: h

wt 0.6

o prediction from CDM

with AdvACT CMB spectra expansio gr 1, 2, and 3 contours 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.9 1.3 redshift Credit: AdvACT Collaboration Figure 3: AdvACTShirley will Ho measure the growth rate of the density field through cluster counts, the growth rate of the velocity field through kSZ, the growth rate of the gravitational potential through lensing, and the geometry of the universe through the Alcock-Paczynski e↵ect. Left. Anticipated measurements of the linear growth function, D(z), from lensing measurements, and from cluster counts calibrated by optical lensing. Center. Measurements of the growth rate of structure, based on kSZ data. Right. Measurements of the Alcock-Pacyznski e↵ect, the ratio of the angular diameter distance dA to the radial distance, z/H, through a combination of kSZ data and spectroscopic redshift surveys. In the context of the ⇤CDM model, parameters determined from AdvACT+Planck data will lead to the curves and error bands shown. Any discrepancy between these shaded bands (background model) and the data points (growth) would reveal either time- dependent dark energy and/or the breakdown of GR. Examples of models with w = 1 and an extension to GR[10] are shown. AdvACT is the instrument that can best complement the LSST,6 HSC, PFS, DES, DESI and SDSS-III ground-based measurements of dark energy with its lensing, kSZ and cluster measurements. The figure shows only a subset of the cross-correlations possible between these data sets and AdvACT, thermal SZ (tSZ) signatures. To first order, the tSZ e↵ect depends on mass and not redshift, making the half-sky AdvACT catalog an excellent complement to the full-sky eROSITA X-ray survey, SDSS-III, DES, and LSST. AdvACT’s clusters impact dark energy science in two ways:

5 What about synergy with strong CMB program in the south ?

1.0 cross-correlations BOSS x AdvACT (kSZ) PFS x AdvACT (kSZ) DESI x AdvACT (kSZ)

/ z 0.9

(z) prediction from CDM A with AdvACT CMB spectra d 1, 2, and 3 contours (z)

H 0.8 w0 = − 0.5

w0 = − 1.5

history: 0.7 n modifed gravity 0.6 (type Baker, Ferreira,

expansio and Skordis 2013)

0.5 0.1 0.5 0.9 1.3 redshift Credit: AdvACT Collaboration Figure 3: AdvACT will measure the growth rateShirley of the Ho density field through cluster counts, the growth rate of the velocity field through kSZ, the growth rate of the gravitational potential through lensing, and the geometry of the universe through the Alcock-Paczynski e↵ect. Left. Anticipated measurements of the linear growth function, D(z), from lensing measurements, and from cluster counts calibrated by optical lensing. Center. Measurements of the growth rate of structure, based on kSZ data. Right. Measurements of the Alcock-Pacyznski e↵ect, the ratio of the angular diameter distance dA to the radial distance, z/H, through a combination of kSZ data and spectroscopic redshift surveys. In the context of the ⇤CDM model, parameters determined from AdvACT+Planck data will lead to the curves and error bands shown. Any discrepancy between these shaded bands (background model) and the data points (growth) would reveal either time- dependent dark energy and/or the breakdown of GR. Examples of models with w = 1 and an extension to GR[10] are shown. AdvACT is the instrument that can best complement the LSST,6 HSC, PFS, DES, DESI and SDSS-III ground-based measurements of dark energy with its lensing, kSZ and cluster measurements. The figure shows only a subset of the cross-correlations possible between these data sets and AdvACT, thermal SZ (tSZ) signatures. To first order, the tSZ e↵ect depends on mass and not redshift, making the half-sky AdvACT catalog an excellent complement to the full-sky eROSITA X-ray survey, SDSS-III, DES, and LSST. AdvACT’s clusters impact dark energy science in two ways:

5 Figure 4.Confidencecontours(1-and2-σ colored ellipses) placed on all pairs of parameters derived from our Fisher matrix analysis, assuming RN =10whichroughlyprovidestheforecastsofAdvancedACTPolfor 2 arcmin aperture. Constraints from the galaxy+kSZ (red regions) and galaxy-only (green regions) information are shown. The galaxy power spectrum does not depend on the effective optical depth τT (bottom panels). The galaxy+kSZ information improves the galaxy-only constraints for the growth rate f(z), the expansion rate H(z), and the effective optical depth τT.

Shirley ThisHo is consistent with the Planck result [41] that presentsSugiyama, the roughly Okumura 2.2σ detection & using Spergel the 2016 pairwise momentum estimator for 8 arcmin aperture. This consistency check will validate our noise model (Eq. (4.9)) and the forecasts of parameter constraints in the future surveys (Advanced ACTPol and CMB-S4) discussed in the next subsection.

6.3 Fisher analysis The Fisher matrix formalism is a standard tool for forecasting constraints on parameters of interest around a ﬁducial cosmology. For the mean of a typical vector of measured quantities, X(θ), that is predictable given parameters θ, and covariance C, the Fisher matrix is:

T ∂X −1 ∂X Fij = C , (6.4) ∂θi ∂θj where we assumed that the covariance matrix C is independent of the parameters, because the parameter dependence of C becomes a sub-dominant part of the likelihood function once the parameters are sufficiently precisely determined [96, 97]. The indices i and j run over parameters of interest. In the limit of Gaussian likelihood surface, the Cramer-Rao inequality shows that the Fisher matrix provides the minimum standard deviation on parameters, marginalized over all the other parameters: −1 1/2 ∆θi F ii . For simplicity, we assume the same fiducial cosmology as that of the simulations (see Sec.≥ 5), and only allow the following five parameters to vary: θ = D ,H,f,b,τ .Thedatasetcon- ! " A T sists of X = P ,P ,P ,P ,P .TheP and{P are the multi-pole} moment of kSZ { ℓ=0 ℓ=2 ℓ=4 kSZ,ℓ=1 kSZ,ℓ=3} ℓ kSZ,ℓ

–15– EG: Largest Scale Probe of Gravity with LSS and CMB experiments

CMB X DESI Galaxies G E CMB X DESI Quasars

Redshift (z) G E

Redshift (z) Shirley Ho Pullen, Alam & Ho 2015 Clusters

Dusty Star Forming Galaxies SZ Clusters Figure 5: AdvACT will provide a 4 3 transformative window on cosmic struc- lensed DSFGs 12x10 50,000 clusters 3x10 10,000 total ture formation. Left: Estimated DSFG >90% pure (2600 z > 5) 4 3 M counts. Right: Estimated cluster 8x10 2x10 un-lensed DSFGs log >20,000 clusters counts (for S/N 6 [80, 81]). Because 3900 total >99% pure /d 4 of its overlap with HSC, DESI, PFS, 3 (900 z > 5) N d

4x10 DES, ALMA and LSST, the cluster cat- 1x10 alog will provide a crucial sample for 0 studying cluster evolution. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1014 1015 M 500c [M ] redshifts for all the SZ clusters? counts (with mass calibrations from DES, HSC and LSST) and from cluster velocities (via kSZ through cross-correlations with BOSS, DESI and PFS),Credit: reducing AdvACT Collaboration the 1 error to 0.02 eV. Thus ⇠ AdvACT willShirley be able Ho to make a definitive detection of m⌫ even if it is the smallest value consistent with neutrino oscillation data ( 0.05 eV) [1]. Without AdvACT, no existing or planned project ⇠ P has the resolution, sky coverage and frequency span to clean polarized CMB maps well enough to distinguish the normal and inverted neutrino mass hierarchies. AdvACT’s 7.10 resolution at 28 GHz is crucial. Even in the cleanest regions of the sky, the polarized signal due to m⌫ =0.05 eV is smaller than (comparable to) the Galactic synchrotron at 90 (150) GHz (Fig. 2). P AdvACT will also be able to measure the total energy density in relativistic species, often expressed in terms of Ne↵ ,thee↵ective number of neutrino species. AdvACT will achieve a factor of eight improvement over the current published Planck limits and thus provide novel constraints on any new light species. For example, cosmic axions, a natural product of decay of moduli in string models and a potential source of the Coma soft X-ray excess, would contribute 0.3–0.5 to Neff [24, 25, 26], a value consistent with current measurements, but easily testable by AdvACT with its ability to measure N with an uncertainty of 0.045. e↵ ± 2.5 How do galaxies form and evolve? The dusty star-forming galaxies (DSFGs) known as “proto-spheroidal galaxies” are thought to be the progenitors of elliptical galaxies and bulges. Dust absorbs the bulk of the ultraviolet radiation from their prodigious bursts of star formation and reradiates it in the sub-millimeter. Due to a negative K-correction and large lensing optical depth[85], sub-millimeter surveys such as Herschel[84], SPT[122, 123], and ACT[77] are particularly well-suited for finding large numbers of lensed DSFGs. Because gravitational lensing magnifies features in these DSFGs, they are excellent laboratories for detailed studies of high redshift galaxies (e.g., [19]). Also, the strong lensing can be used to study the dark matter substructure of the lenses with CO tomography [42, 58]. Extrapolations from models based on the SPT [122] and ACT[77] source counts[70, 14] suggest that AdvACT will find > 14,000 sources, > 70% of which will be lensed high-z DSFGs [70, 65]. The ⇠ ⇠ lensed DSFG population will be ideal for ALMA-based studies of the progenitors of modern day elliptical galaxies, and of their relation to their dark matter environments. Since AdvACT com- pletely overlaps both the LSST survey region and ALMA’s observable sky, many of its sources will have counterparts (and/or lenses) in LSST, DES or HSC, enabling characterization in the optical and near-IR as well as in the five AdvACT bands. Thus, AdvACT will provide the astronomical community with a rich list of lensed sources for ALMA studies of star formation in galaxies from a broad range of redshifts across half the sky, significantly enriching the ALMA’s ability to study high-z galaxies[124]), as well as the substructure of lenses. 2.6 What are the connections between dark and luminous matter? With its sensitive measurements of CMB lensing and large mass-limited catalog of clusters in combination with optical data from overlapping surveys, AdvACT will use a suite of techniques to

7 Science cases to pursue in SSSI

• Expansion and Growth of the Universe via

• BAO, RSD, LSS X CMB lensing

• Testing Gravity via

• RSD, LSS X CMB Lensing, EG, LSS X CMB/KSZ, Clusters

• Weighing Neutrinos via

• LSS P(k), LSS X CMB lensing, Clusters, LSS X CMB/KSZ

• Cool Astrophysics and many others…

Shirley Ho The End

Shirley Ho Backup slides start here.

Shirley Ho EG: Largest Scale Probe of Gravity with WFIRST and CMB experiments G E

Redshift (z) Shirley Ho Cosmic Web reconstructed from SDSS

Chen, Ho, Freeman et al. 2015 Declination (DEC)

Shirley Ho Right Ascension (RA) What do we learn that we didn’t know already?

• Effects of ﬁlaments on galaxy masses

• Constraining ‘intrinsic alignment’ model of galaxies

• Filaments as a tracer of large scale structure

• Finding missing baryons with ﬁlaments

• Filaments help ﬁnd dimmer galaxies

• Filaments can probe models of gravity

Shirley Ho Effects of ﬁlaments on the stellar mass of the galaxies

With the current standard scenario, we only need to know 1) the halo mass 2) the environmental density and 3) possibly the evolution of the parent halos to understand the basic properties of galaxies.

A good question to ask would be: Does ﬁlaments around the affect the galaxies? Or is it just the environment that matters?

Shirley Ho Effects of ﬁlaments on the stellar mass of the galaxies

BOSS CMASSCMASS galaxies 0.05 e c i l S 3.6σ 2.9σ 4.4 3.8σ 6.7 5.5σ σ σ ● ● 7.4σ −● − − 8.4 ● ● σ − −● −● − ● − ● − 11.1σ − −● −● −● − ● ● − − − − − −● − ● − ● − −● − − −● − − − − 5.8 ● − ● σ − ● − ● − − − 0.00 − − − − ● − − ● ● − ● − − − − − −● ● − − − −● Mass 0.05 − All Near to filaments Away from filaments

0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 Environmental Density (Mpc−2) Chen, Ho, Mandelbaum et al. 2015

Shirley Ho Effects of ﬁlaments on the stellar mass of the galaxies

BOSS CMASSCMASS galaxies 0.05 e c i l S 3.6σ 2.9σ 4.4 3.8σ 6.7 5.5σ σ σ ● ● 7.4σ −● − − 8.4 ● ● σ − −● −● − Yes! Filaments affect ● − ● − 11.1σ − −● −● −● − ● ● − − − − − −● − ● − ● − −● − − −● − − − − 5.8 ● − ● σ − ● − ● − − − 0.00 − − − − ● − − the galaxies in a way ● ● − ● − − − − − −● ● − − − −● that is independent from the Mass environmental density 0.05 − All Near to filaments Away from filaments

0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 Environmental Density (Mpc−2) Chen, Ho, Mandelbaum et al. 2015

Shirley Ho Constraining “intrinsic alignment model” of galaxies What is intrinsic alignment?

In weak gravitational lensing, one of the most challenging astrophysical systematic is called “intrinsic alignment”, which basically means galaxies are “intrinsically” aligned with each other due to interactions with the larger scale tidal ﬁelds.

Shirley Ho Constraining “intrinsic alignment model” of galaxies What is intrinsic alignment?

If this systematic is left alone, this can signiﬁcantly affect the ﬁnal estimate of how much dark matter there is (and many other cosmological parameters). Ex. Understanding the IA model increase our S/N on dark energy equation of state by factor of 2; -> Equivalent by increasing the sky area by factor of 4 ! (Bridle & King 2007)

Shirley Ho Constraining “intrinsic alignment model” of galaxies Using ﬁlaments to trace tidal ﬁelds and thus shapes of galaxies Excess to random

More aligned ->

Chen, Ho, Tennetti et al. 2015 Using MassiveBalck II simulations, we study the Relationship between major axes of galaxies and the direction of filaments! Constraining “intrinsic alignment model” of galaxies Using filaments to trace tidal fields and thus shapes of galaxies Excess to random

More aligned ->

Dot product between ﬁlament direction and galaxy major axes

Shirley Ho Preliminary results by Chen, Ho, Mandelbaum et al. We find filaments in SDSS data and found significant alignments between the filament direction and the galaxy major axes SDSS-LOWZ dataset

no alignment Dot product between ﬁlament direction and galaxy major axes

Shirley Ho Preliminary results by Chen, Ho, Mandelbaum et al. Alignment strength vs brightness of galaxies.

SDSS-LOWZ dataset

Shirley Ho Preliminary results by Chen, Ho, Mandelbaum et al. Filaments tracing LSS: therefore we expect ﬁlaments to lens !

Shirley Ho Preliminary results: Siyu He, Yen-Chi Chen, Shadab Alam & S.H. Filaments tracing LSS: therefore we expect ﬁlaments to lens !

First ﬁlament X CMB lensing signal

Shirley Ho Preliminary results: Siyu He, Yen-Chi Chen, Shadab Alam & S.H. Filaments tracing LSS: therefore we expect ﬁlaments to lens !

First ﬁlament X CMB lensing signal Covariances between ﬁlaments X CMB Lensing and galaxies X CMB lensing

Shirley Ho Preliminary results: Siyu He, Yen-Chi Chen, Shadab Alam & S.H. Finding missing baryons with ﬁlaments

Missing Baryons are the expected amount of baryons that are not yet accounted for by looking at the “bright” stuff

Peebles & Fukugita (2004)

Shirley Ho Preliminary results: Anthony Pullen, Siyu He, Yen-Chi Chen & S.H. Finding missing baryons with ﬁlaments

First ﬁlament X SZ signal with ﬁlaments at z=0.5-0.55 6

Shirley Ho Preliminary results: Anthony Pullen, Siyu He, Yen-Chi Chen & S.H. Looking forward: Sloan Digital Sky Survey IV Looking forward

Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) (2016-) Each source has over 3000 data points ! Looking forward

Euclid (ESA led space based mission) 2018- Imaging: Visible : 30 gal/sq-arcmin 14000 square degrees -> 1.5 billion galaxies Spectroscopy: 10 million galaxies, with spectroscopy (think X1000)

Aims: Mapping the Geometry of the Dark Universe via Weak Lensing, Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, Redshift Space Distortions Looking forward

WFIRST-AFTA Looking forward

WFIRST-AFTA