Search NASASearch

subject

gravitational lensing: weak

gravitational lensing: weak: explore 2 source-linked works published from 2024 to 2026, with original documents and citations.

This collection is a preview while coverage and quality are evaluated.

Search within this collection

Coverage and selection

Includes records with this source-supplied label or an explicit phrase match in their metadata. Matches indicate a mention, not proof that a paper uses a method or tests a material. Source versions are consolidated by DOI.

Sources: osti. Collection updated 2026-09-15. Counts describe this index, not the complete source archives.

Dark Energy Survey Year 6 results: Redshift calibration of the MagLim++ lens sample

In this work, we derive and calibrate the redshift distribution of the MagLim++ lens galaxy sample used in the Dark Energy Survey Year 6 (DES Y6) 3 x 2pt cosmology analysis. The 3 x 2pt analysis combines galaxy clustering from the lens galaxy sample and weak gravitational lensing. The redshift distributions are inferred using the SOMPZ method - a Self-Organizing Map framework that combines deep-field multi-band photometry, wide-field data, and a synthetic source injection ( B alrog) catalog. Key improvements over the DES Year 3 (Y3) calibration include a noise-weighted SOM metric, an expanded Balrog catalogue, and an improved scheme for propagating systematic uncertainties, which allows us to generate O(10 8 ) redshift realizations that collectively span the dominant sources of uncertainty. These realizations are then combined with independent clustering-redshift measurements via importance sampling. The resulting calibration achieves typical uncertainties on the mean redshift of 1-2%, corresponding to a 20-30% average reduction relative to DES Y3. We compress the n(z) uncertainties into a small number of orthogonal modes for use in cosmological inference. Marginalizing over these modes leads to only a minor degradation in cosmological constraints. Here, this analysis establishes the MagLim++ sample as a robust lens sample for precision cosmology with DES Y6 and provides a scalable framework for future surveys.

dark energy

Dark energy survey year 3 results: likelihood-free, simulation-based w CDM inference with neural compression of weak-lensing map statistics

We present simulation-based cosmological wcold dark matter (wCDM) inference using dark energy survey year 3 weak-lensing maps, via neural data compression of weak-lensing map summary statistics: power spectra, peak counts, and direct map-level compression/inference with convolutional neural networks (CNN). Using simulation-based inference, also known as likelihood-free or implicit inference, we use forward-modelled mock data to estimate posterior probability distributions of unknown parameters. This approach allows all statistical assumptions and uncertainties to be propagated through the forward-modelled mock data; these include sky masks, non-Gaussian shape noise, shape measurement bias, source galaxy clustering, photometric redshift uncertainty, intrinsic galaxy alignments, non-Gaussian density fields, neutrinos, and non-linear summary statistics. We include a series of tests to validate our inference results. This paper also describes the Gower Street simulation suite: 791 full-sky pkdgrav3 dark matter simulations, with cosmological model parameters sampled with a mixed active-learning strategy, from which we construct over 3000 mock dark energy survey lensing data sets. For wCDM inference, for which we allow –1 < w < –$\frac{1}{3}$⁠, our most constraining result uses power spectra combined with map-level (CNN) inference. Using gravitational lensing data only, this map-level combination gives Ω m = 0.283$^{+0.020}_{–0.027}$⁠, S 8 = 0.804$^{+0.025}_{–0.017⁠}$, and w < –0.80 (with a 68 per cent credible interval); compared to the power spectrum inference, this is more than a factor of two improvement in dark energy parameter (Ω⁠ DE , w⁠) precision.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS
Compare source metadata on this page

These are bibliographic comparisons, not experimental rankings. Follow the original document for methods and conditions.