Cosmological constraints with weak lensing peak counts and second-order statistics in a large-field survey

TL;DR

This study evaluates the effectiveness of weak lensing peak counts and second-order statistics in constraining cosmological parameters using simulated large-field survey data, highlighting their comparable power and potential for combined analysis.

Contribution

It demonstrates the application of the Camelus model to large surveys for cosmological parameter estimation and compares peak counts with two-point correlation functions.

Findings

Peak statistics provide tight but biased constraints that require calibration.

Peak counts and 2PCF have comparable constraining power.

Combining both probes can improve cosmological constraints.

Abstract

Peak statistics in weak lensing maps access the non-Gaussian information contained in the large-scale distribution of matter in the Universe. They are therefore a promising complement to two-point and higher-order statistics to constrain our cosmological models. To prepare for the high-precision data of next-generation surveys, we assess the constraining power of peak counts in a simulated Euclid-like survey on the cosmological parameters $\Omega_\mathrm{m}$, $\sigma_8$, and $w_0^\mathrm{de}$. In particular, we study how the Camelus model--a fast stochastic algorithm for predicting peaks--can be applied to such large surveys. We measure the peak count abundance in a mock shear catalogue of ~5,000 sq. deg. using a multiscale mass map filtering technique. We then constrain the parameters of the mock survey using Camelus combined with approximate Bayesian computation (ABC). We find that peak statistics yield a tight but significantly biased constraint in the $\sigma_8$-$\Omega_\mathrm{m}$ plane, indicating the need to better understand and control the model's systematics. We calibrate the model to remove the bias and compare results to those from the two-point correlation functions (2PCF) measured on the same field. In this case, we find the derived parameter $\Sigma_8=\sigma_8(\Omega_\mathrm{m}/0.27)^\alpha=0.76_{-0.03}^{+0.02}$ with $\alpha=0.65$ for peaks, while for 2PCF the value is $\Sigma_8=0.76_{-0.01}^{+0.02}$ with $\alpha=0.70$. We therefore see comparable constraining power between the two probes, and the offset of their $\sigma_8$-$\Omega_\mathrm{m}$ degeneracy directions suggests that a combined analysis would yield tighter constraints than either measure alone. As expected, $w_0^\mathrm{de}$ cannot be well constrained without a tomographic analysis, but its degeneracy directions with the other two varied parameters are still clear for both peaks and 2PCF. (abridged)