DES Y1 results: Splitting growth and geometry to test $\Lambda$CDM

TL;DR

This paper tests the consistency of the $ m extLambda$CDM model by splitting parameters related to structure growth and expansion history using DES Year 1 data, finding no significant discrepancies.

Contribution

It introduces a novel growth-geometry split approach to test for deviations from $ m extLambda$CDM using multiple cosmological probes and external data.

Findings

No significant disagreement between growth and geometry parameters.

Combining DES with external data constrains both growth and geometric quantities.

Splitting parameters weakens constraints on $\sigma_8$ but not on $h$.

Abstract

We analyze Dark Energy Survey (DES) data to constrain a cosmological model where a subset of parameters -- focusing on $\Omega_m$ -- are split into versions associated with structure growth (e.g. $\Omega_m^{\rm grow}$) and expansion history (e.g. $\Omega_m^{\rm geo}$). Once the parameters have been specified for the $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model, which includes general relativity as a theory of gravity, it uniquely predicts the evolution of both geometry (distances) and the growth of structure over cosmic time. Any inconsistency between measurements of geometry and growth could therefore indicate a breakdown of that model. Our growth-geometry split approach therefore serves as both a (largely) model-independent test for beyond-$\Lambda$CDM physics, and as a means to characterize how DES observables provide cosmological information. We analyze the same multi-probe DES data as arXiv:1811.02375 : DES Year 1 (Y1) galaxy clustering and weak lensing, which are sensitive to both growth and geometry, as well as Y1 BAO and Y3 supernovae, which probe geometry. We additionally include external geometric information from BOSS DR12 BAO and a compressed Planck 2015 likelihood, and external growth information from BOSS DR12 RSD. We find no significant disagreement with $\Omega_m^{\rm grow}=\Omega_m^{\rm geo}$. When DES and external data are analyzed separately, degeneracies with neutrino mass and intrinsic alignments limit our ability to measure $\Omega_m^{\rm grow}$, but combining DES with external data allows us to constrain both growth and geometric quantities. We also consider a parameterization where we split both $\Omega_m$ and $w$, but find that even our most constraining data combination is unable to separately constrain $\Omega_m^{\rm grow}$ and $w^{\rm grow}$. Relative to $\Lambda$CDM, splitting growth and geometry weakens bounds on $\sigma_8$ but does not alter constraints on $h$.