Search

We investigate the accuracy of weak lensing simulations by comparing the results of five independently developed lensing simulation codes run on the same input N -body simulation. Our comparison focuses on the lensing convergence maps produced by the codes, and in particular on the corresponding PDFs, power spectra, and peak counts. We find that the convergence power spectra of the lensing codes agree to |$\lesssim 2{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$| out to scales ℓ ≈ 4000. For lensing peak counts, the agreement is better than |$5{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$| for peaks with signal-to-noise ≲ 6. We also discuss the systematic errors due to the Born approximation, line-of-sight discretization, particle noise, and smoothing. The lensing codes tested deal in markedly different ways with these effects, but they none-the-less display a satisfactory level of agreement. Our results thus suggest that systematic errors due to the operation of existing lensing codes should be small. Moreover their impact on the convergence power spectra for a lensing simulation can be predicted given its numerical details, which may then serve as a validation test. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We determine the concentration-mass relation of 19 X-ray selected galaxy clusters from the Cluster Lensing and Supernova Survey with Hubble survey in theories of gravity that directly modify the lensing potential. We model the clusters as Navarro-Frenk-White haloes and fit their lensing signal, in the Cubic Galileon and Nonlocal gravity models, to the lensing convergence profiles of the clusters. We discuss a number of important issues that need to be taken into account, associated with the use of non-parametric and parametric lensing methods, as well as assumptions about the background cosmology. Our results show that the concentration and mass estimates in the modified gravity models are, within the error bars, the same as in Î cold dark matter. This result demonstrates that, for the Nonlocal model, the modifications to gravity are too weak at the cluster redshifts, and for the Galileon model, the screening mechanism is very efficient inside the cluster radius. However, at distances ~(2-20) Mpc h-1 from the cluster centre, we find that the surrounding force profiles are enhanced by ~20-40 per cent in the Cubic Galileon model. This has an impact on dynamical mass estimates, which means that tests of gravity based on comparisons between lensing and dynamical masses can also be applied to the Cubic Galileon model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We present high signal-to-noise galaxy-galaxy lensing measurements of the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey constant mass (CMASS) sample using 250 deg² of weak-lensing data from Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey and Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Stripe 82 Survey. We compare this signal with predictions from mock catalogues trained to match observables including the stellar mass function and the projected and two-dimensional clustering of CMASS. We show that the clustering of CMASS, together with standard models of the galaxy-halo connection, robustly predicts a lensing signal that is 20-40 per cent larger than observed. Detailed tests show that our results are robust to a variety of systematic effects. Lowering the value of S8 = σ8 √Ωm/0.3 compared to Planck Collaboration XIII reconciles the lensing with clustering. However, given the scale of our measurement (r < 10 h-1 Mpc), other effects may also be at play and need to be taken into consideration. We explore the impact of baryon physics, assembly bias, massive neutrinos and modifications to general relativity on ΔΣ and show that several of these effects may be non-negligible given the precision of our measurement. Disentangling cosmological effects from the details of the galaxy-halo connection, the effect of baryons, and massive neutrinos, is the next challenge facing joint lensing and clustering analyses. This is especially true in the context of large galaxy samples from Baryon Acoustic Oscillation surveys with precise measurements but complex selection functions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]