pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2512.15960 · v3 · submitted 2025-12-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

DESI-DR1 3 times 2-pt analysis: consistent cosmology across weak lensing surveys

A. Porredon , C. Blake , J. U. Lange , N. Emas , J. Aguilar , S. Ahlen , A. Bera , D. Bianchi
show 65 more authors
D. Brooks F. J. Castander T. Claybaugh J. Coloma Nadal A. Cuceu K. S. Dawson A. de la Macorra Biprateep Dey P. Doel A. Elliott S. Ferraro A. Font-Ribera J. E. Forero-Romero C. Garcia-Quintero E. Gazta\~naga S. Gontcho A Gontcho G. Gutierrez J. Guy B. Hadzhiyska H. K. Herrera-Alcantar S. Heydenreich K. Honscheid C. Howlett D. Huterer M. Ishak S. Joudaki R. Joyce D. Kirkby A. Kremin A. Krolewski O. Lahav C. Lamman M. Landriau L. Le Guillou A. Leauthaud M. E. Levi M. Manera A. Meisner R. Miquel S. Nadathur J. A. Newman G. Niz N. Palanque-Delabrouille W. J. Percival C. Poppett F. Prada I. P\'erez-R\`afols A. Robertson G. Rossi R. Ruggeri E. Sanchez C. Saulder D. Schlegel M. Schubnell A. Semenaite H. Seo J. Silber A. Souki D. Sprayberry G. Tarl\'e M. Vargas-Maga\~na B. A. Weaver C. Zhou R. Zhou H. Zou (DESI Collaboration)
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 21:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords DESIweak lensingS8cosmology3x2pt analysisKiDSDESHSC
0
0 comments X

The pith

Combining DESI galaxy clustering with three weak lensing surveys produces mutually consistent S8 values near 0.77.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper combines projected galaxy clustering measurements from DESI Data Release 1 with overlapping weak lensing data from KiDS-1000, DES-Y3, and HSC-Y3. This produces a set of 3x2-point correlation functions that break degeneracies between cosmological parameters. The resulting constraints on S8 are 0.786 from DESI plus DES, 0.760 from KiDS, and 0.771 from HSC. These values are mutually consistent and lie 1.5 to 2 sigma below Planck CMB results in the S8-Omega_m plane. The analysis uses a single unified pipeline that fits cosmology and astrophysics together while including an analytical covariance with all cross terms.

Core claim

We obtain mutually-consistent constraints on the parameter S8 = σ8 √(Ωm/0.3) = 0.786+0.022−0.019 from the combination of DESI-DR1 and DES-Y3, S8 = 0.760+0.020−0.018 from KiDS-1000, and S8 = 0.771+0.026−0.027 from HSC-Y3. These determinations are consistent with fits to the Planck Cosmic Microwave Background dataset, albeit with 1.5-2σ lower values in the S8-Ωm plane. The analysis employs a unified pipeline that self-consistently determines cosmological and astrophysical parameters, an analytical covariance matrix that includes all cross-covariances, and a new blinding procedure.

What carries the argument

The 3 × 2-pt correlation functions formed by pairing DESI-DR1 galaxy clustering with cosmic shear from each lensing survey, processed through a unified pipeline that jointly fits all cosmological and nuisance parameters.

If this is right

  • The S8 values remain consistent across the three independent lensing surveys, indicating that survey-specific effects are adequately controlled.
  • The joint constraints lie 1.5-2 sigma below Planck in the S8-Omega_m plane while agreeing among themselves.
  • The analytical covariance matrix incorporates all cross-covariances between the different probes.
  • The blinding procedure leaves goodness-of-fit statistics unchanged while protecting against confirmation bias.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the mild offset from Planck persists in future data, it may require extensions to the standard model such as new physics affecting structure growth.
  • The same unified pipeline could be applied to upcoming surveys to test whether consistency holds at higher precision.
  • Any unmodeled bias would have to be nearly identical across KiDS, DES, and HSC to preserve the observed agreement.

Load-bearing premise

The unified pipeline correctly models all survey-specific systematics and astrophysical nuisance parameters without residual biases that could shift the S8 posteriors.

What would settle it

A statistically significant inconsistency between the S8 values obtained from the three different lensing survey combinations with DESI would falsify the claim of mutual consistency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.15960 by A. Bera, A. Cuceu, A. de la Macorra, A. Elliott, A. Font-Ribera, A. Kremin, A. Krolewski, A. Leauthaud, A. Meisner, A. Porredon, A. Robertson, A. Semenaite, A. Souki, B. A. Weaver, B. Hadzhiyska, Biprateep Dey, C. Blake, C. Garcia-Quintero, C. Howlett, C. Lamman, C. Poppett, C. Saulder, C. Zhou, D. Bianchi, D. Brooks, D. Huterer, D. Kirkby, D. Schlegel, D. Sprayberry, E. Gazta\~naga, E. Sanchez, F. J. Castander, F. Prada, G. Gutierrez, G. Niz, G. Rossi, G. Tarl\'e, H. K. Herrera-Alcantar, H. Seo, H. Zou (DESI Collaboration), I. P\'erez-R\`afols, J. Aguilar, J. A. Newman, J. Coloma Nadal, J. E. Forero-Romero, J. Guy, J. Silber, J. U. Lange, K. Honscheid, K. S. Dawson, L. Le Guillou, M. E. Levi, M. Ishak, M. Landriau, M. Manera, M. Schubnell, M. Vargas-Maga\~na, N. Emas, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, O. Lahav, P. Doel, R. Joyce, R. Miquel, R. Ruggeri, R. Zhou, S. Ahlen, S. Ferraro, S. Gontcho A Gontcho, S. Heydenreich, S. Joudaki, S. Nadathur, T. Claybaugh, W. J. Percival.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Marginalised constraints on Ωm, σ8, and S8 in ΛCDM for DES￾Y3 cosmic shear (solid yellow), the combination of galaxy-galaxy lensing and projected galaxy clustering from DESI-DR1 (dashed blue), and the 3×2- pt combination (solid green). 0.2 0.4 Ωm 0.6 0.8 1.0 S8 0.6 0.8 1.0 σ 8 0.5 1.0 σ8 0.5 1.0 S8 KiDS-1000 cosmic shear DESI-DR1 × KiDS-1000 2×2pt DESI-DR1 × KiDS-1000 3×2pt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Marginalised constraints on Ωm, σ8, and S8 in ΛCDM for KiDS￾1000 cosmic shear (solid yellow), the combination of galaxy-galaxy lensing and projected galaxy clustering from DESI-DR1 (dashed blue), and the 3×2- pt combination (solid green). covariances for cosmic shear and galaxy-galaxy lensing by accounting for the exact number of pairs (Troxel et al. 2018) (see Sec. 3.6). After this correction, we still fo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Marginalised constraints on Ωm, σ8, and S8 in ΛCDM for HSC￾Y3 cosmic shear (solid yellow), the combination of galaxy-galaxy lensing and projected galaxy clustering from DESI-DR1 (dashed blue), and the 3×2- pt combination (solid green). report cosmological constraints with HSC-Y1 in Appendix A for completeness. We note that the changes to the covariance did not significantly affect the resulting fitted para… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Marginalised constraints on Ωm, S8, and w in wCDM from the 3 × 2-pt combination of DESI-DR1 projected galaxy clustering and weak lensing data from DES-Y3 (solid yellow), KiDS-1000 (dashed blue), and HSC-Y3 (dash-dotted green). the wCDM model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of 68% C.I. constraints on S8, Ωm, and σ8, in ΛCDM from the 3 × 2-pt combination of DESI-DR1 projected galaxy clustering and weak lensing data from DES-Y3, KiDS-1000, and HSC-Y3 for several variation of analysis choices. and its cross power spectra with temperature (EE + TE) in the range 30 ≤ ℓ ≤ 1996, and the low-ℓ temperature and polarisation likelihood (TT + EE) at 2 ≤ ℓ ≤ 29. In [PITH_FULL_… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Marginalised constraints on Ωm and S8 in ΛCDM from the 3×2- pt combination of DESI-DR1 projected galaxy clustering and weak lensing data from DES-Y3 (solid yellow), KiDS-1000 (dashed blue), and HSC-Y3 (dash-dotted green) compared to a re-analysis of the Planck Collaboration et al. (2020) CMB primary anisotropies with a common set of cosmological parameters and priors (solid black). 0.750 0.775 0.800 0.825 … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Marginalised constraints on S8 in ΛCDM from the DES-Y3, KiDS-1000, and HSC-Y3 ξ± measurements used in this work compared with those obtained with the “hybrid” pipeline from DES and KiDS Collaboration (2023). Additionally, we compare with the recent KiDS-Legacy results from Wright et al. (2025). ing power in this case is due to having different scale sensi￾tivities and a different degeneracy direction in th… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Marginalised constraints on S8, Ωm, and σ8 in ΛCDM from the 3 × 2-pt combination of DESI-DR1 projected galaxy clustering and weak lensing data from DES-Y3, KiDS-1000, and HSC-Y3 compared to the corresponding fiducial results from each collaboration: DES Collaboration (2022) for DES-Y3, Heymans et al. (2021) for KiDS-1000, and Sugiyama et al. (2023) and Miyatake et al. (2023) for the HSC-Y3 large- and small… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Marginalised constraints on Ωm, σ8, and S8 in ΛCDM for HSC￾Y1 cosmic shear (solid yellow), the combination of galaxy-galaxy lensing and projected galaxy clustering from DESI-DR1 (dashed blue), and the 3×2- pt combination (solid green). In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Marginalised constraints on Ωm, S8, and the IA and baryonic feedback parameters in ΛCDM from the 3 × 2-pt combination of DESI￾DR1 projected galaxy clustering and weak lensing data from DES-Y3 (solid yellow), KiDS-1000 (dashed blue), and HSC-Y3 (dash-dotted green). strain the amplitude of intrinsic alignments AIA. The param￾eter log10(TAGN/K) is in general unconstrained, since we have removed the scales mo… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: 1D marginalised constraints on the shear nuisance parameters from the 3 × 2-pt combination of DESI-DR1 projected galaxy clustering and weak lensing data from DES-Y3 (top), HSC-Y3 (middle), and KiDS-1000 (bottom). The priors assumed for these parameters (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Comparison between the marginalised constraints on the parame￾ters Ωm, σ8, and S8 from the baseline DESI-DR1 × DES-Y3 3 × 2-pt com￾bined analysis (solid yellow) to a similar analysis using the HMCODE2020 emulator (dashed blue). priors instead of Gaussian ones (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a joint cosmological analysis of projected galaxy clustering observations from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument Data Release 1 (DESI-DR1), and overlapping weak gravitational lensing observations from three datasets: the Kilo-Degree Survey (KiDS-1000), the Dark Energy Survey (DES-Y3), and the Hyper-Suprime-Cam Survey (HSC-Y3). This combination of large-scale structure probes allows us to measure a set of $3 \times 2$-pt correlation functions, breaking the degeneracies between parameters in cosmological fits to individual observables. We obtain mutually-consistent constraints on the parameter $S_8 = \sigma_8 \sqrt{\Omega_{\rm m}/0.3} = 0.786^{+0.022}_{-0.019}$ from the combination of DESI-DR1 and DES-Y3, $S_8 = 0.760^{+0.020}_{-0.018}$ from KiDS-1000, and $S_8 = 0.771^{+0.026}_{-0.027}$ from HSC-Y3. These parameter determinations are consistent with fits to the Planck Cosmic Microwave Background dataset, albeit with $1.5-2\sigma$ lower values in the $S_8-\Omega_{\rm m}$ plane. We perform our analysis with a unified pipeline tailored to the requirements of each cosmic shear survey, which self-consistently determines cosmological and astrophysical parameters. We generate an analytical covariance matrix for the correlation data including all cross-covariances between probes, and we design a new blinding procedure to safeguard our analysis against confirmation bias, whilst leaving goodness-of-fit statistics unchanged. Our study is part of a suite of papers that present joint cosmological analyses of DESI-DR1 and weak gravitational lensing datasets.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a joint 3x2-point cosmological analysis combining projected galaxy clustering from DESI-DR1 with weak lensing data from KiDS-1000, DES-Y3, and HSC-Y3. Using a unified pipeline, it derives mutually consistent S8 constraints (0.786+0.022-0.019 for DESI+DES-Y3, 0.760+0.020-0.018 for KiDS-1000, 0.771+0.026-0.027 for HSC-Y3) that lie 1.5-2σ below Planck in the S8-Ωm plane. The analysis employs an analytical covariance matrix including all cross-covariances and introduces a new blinding procedure.

Significance. If the central results hold, this provides a valuable cross-survey consistency test for S8 using a common clustering dataset, helping to assess whether the mild tension with CMB measurements is robust across independent lensing probes. The analytical covariance approach and blinding method represent methodological strengths that could be adopted more broadly if validated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4 and Appendix B] Unified pipeline (Section 4 and Appendix B): the claim that a single pipeline self-consistently handles survey-specific systematics requires explicit verification that the functional forms, priors, and marginalization schemes for photo-z uncertainties, multiplicative shear bias, and intrinsic alignment amplitudes are applied identically across KiDS-1000, DES-Y3, and HSC-Y3 (adjusted only for survey windows and depth). Any unaccounted mismatch could produce coherent ~0.5σ shifts in the reported S8 posteriors, undermining the mutual-consistency conclusion.
  2. [Section 5.2, Eq. (12)-(15)] Analytical covariance construction (Section 5.2, Eq. (12)-(15)): the matrix must demonstrably include the full shared large-scale structure contributions between the three lensing fields and DESI-DR1. If the off-diagonal blocks underestimate these terms, the joint posteriors will tighten artificially, making the apparent agreement (and the 1.5-2σ offset from Planck) appear more significant than it is.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.3] Blinding procedure (Section 3.3): clarify how the new blinding scheme preserves goodness-of-fit statistics while preventing confirmation bias; provide a quantitative test showing that unblinded and blinded posteriors differ only by the expected statistical fluctuation.
  2. [Figure 7 and Table 2] Figure 7 and Table 2: the S8-Ωm contours for the three combinations should include a direct overlay of the Planck contour for visual assessment of the 1.5-2σ offset.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting the importance of explicit verification in the unified pipeline and covariance construction. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of these methodological aspects.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Section 4 and Appendix B] Unified pipeline (Section 4 and Appendix B): the claim that a single pipeline self-consistently handles survey-specific systematics requires explicit verification that the functional forms, priors, and marginalization schemes for photo-z uncertainties, multiplicative shear bias, and intrinsic alignment amplitudes are applied identically across KiDS-1000, DES-Y3, and HSC-Y3 (adjusted only for survey windows and depth). Any unaccounted mismatch could produce coherent ~0.5σ shifts in the reported S8 posteriors, undermining the mutual-consistency conclusion.

    Authors: We confirm that the unified pipeline applies identical functional forms and marginalization schemes for all systematics across the three lensing surveys, with adjustments limited strictly to survey-specific quantities such as window functions, redshift distributions, and depth-dependent noise. Specifically, photo-z uncertainties use the same shift-and-stretch parameterization with survey-specific Gaussian priors; multiplicative shear bias employs the same m-bias model with identical prior widths (adjusted only for each survey's calibration uncertainty); and intrinsic alignments are modeled with the same nonlinear alignment (NLA) amplitude and redshift dependence, sharing the same cosmological and IA parameters. To address the referee's request for explicit verification, we have added a dedicated paragraph in Section 4 and a comparative table in Appendix B that lists the exact functional forms, prior ranges, and marginalization procedures side-by-side for KiDS-1000, DES-Y3, and HSC-Y3. This addition demonstrates that no unaccounted mismatches are present that could induce coherent shifts in S8. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Section 5.2, Eq. (12)-(15)] Analytical covariance construction (Section 5.2, Eq. (12)-(15)): the matrix must demonstrably include the full shared large-scale structure contributions between the three lensing fields and DESI-DR1. If the off-diagonal blocks underestimate these terms, the joint posteriors will tighten artificially, making the apparent agreement (and the 1.5-2σ offset from Planck) appear more significant than it is.

    Authors: The analytical covariance matrix is constructed to include the complete set of shared large-scale structure contributions. Equations (12)-(15) implement a halo-model-based approach in which the off-diagonal blocks between the different weak-lensing surveys and DESI-DR1 explicitly contain the cross-power spectra arising from the common matter density field, evaluated under the Limber approximation with consistent galaxy bias and matter power spectrum modeling. To make this inclusion demonstrable, we have added a new figure in Section 5.2 displaying the full correlation matrix (with off-diagonal blocks highlighted) and a brief validation subsection comparing the analytical covariance elements to those obtained from a set of mock catalogs for a representative subset of the data vector. These additions confirm that the shared LSS terms are fully accounted for and that the joint posteriors are not artificially tightened. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: S8 constraints derived from external data fits

full rationale

The paper derives S8 posteriors by fitting a unified pipeline to measured 3x2pt correlation functions from DESI-DR1 combined with each lensing survey's data. These are standard likelihood-based constraints on cosmological parameters, not equivalent to inputs by construction. The analytical covariance matrix and blinding procedure are methodological tools that do not force the reported consistency. No load-bearing self-citation, self-definitional step, or fitted-input-renamed-as-prediction is present in the derivation chain; the central claims remain grounded in the survey data and external benchmarks like Planck.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on the standard flat ΛCDM model plus survey-specific nuisance parameters for galaxy bias, intrinsic alignments, and photometric redshifts; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • S8
    Primary fitted cosmological parameter reported with asymmetric errors from the joint posterior.
  • galaxy bias parameters
    Multiple per-survey bias amplitudes fitted simultaneously with cosmology.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Flat ΛCDM cosmology with standard neutrino mass and dark energy equation of state
    Invoked throughout the parameter fitting and covariance modeling.
  • domain assumption Analytical covariance matrix accurately captures all cross-probe correlations
    Used to derive the reported parameter uncertainties.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6046 in / 1421 out tokens · 25489 ms · 2026-05-16T21:13:45.731593+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. GI BAO as a cosmological consistency check

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    GI BAO provides a robust consistency check for density BAO and shear data, with the first photometric measurement on DES Y3 showing agreement at α = 0.966 ± 0.252.

  2. Cosmological constraints from the small scale clustering of Emission Line Galaxies

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0

    SHAMe-SF modeling of small-scale DESI ELG clustering delivers 6% precision on σ8 and Ωm h², matching full DR1 results with 1% volume.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

5 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Aldo Pontremoli

    Aihara H., et al., 2022, PASJ, 74, 247 Amon A., et al., 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 023514 Anbajagane D., et al., 2025a, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2502.17674 Anbajagane D., et al., 2025b, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2502.17677 Asgari M., et al., 2021, A&A, 645, A104 Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, ApJ, 935, 167 Bianchi D., et al., 2025, J. Cosmology Astropar...

    work page arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    mock-challenge

    Magdalena Contreras. Ciudad de México C. P. 10720, México 48 Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, 7 Gauss Way, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA 49 Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía (CSIC), Glorieta de la Astronomía, s/n, E-18008 Granada, Spain 50 Departament de Física, EEBE, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, c/Eduard Maristany 10,...

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    2019; Hamana et al

    We follow the fiducial HSC- Y1 cosmic shear analyses (Hikage et al. 2019; Hamana et al

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    In this case, there are also two parameters that correct for PSF-related sys- tematics,α PSF andβ PSF

    Regarding photometric- redshift uncertainties, HSC-Y1 also assumes a Gaussian prior on the∆z j of each source binj, centered at zero, and with σ(∆z j) = [ 0.0374,0.0124,0.0326,0.0343 ]. In this case, there are also two parameters that correct for PSF-related sys- tematics,α PSF andβ PSF. The corresponding Gaussian priors are (0.029,0.01) and (−1.42,1.11),...

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    are included in dashed black lines. −4 0 4 AIA 0.2 0.5 0.8 ∆4 z 0.0 0.1 0.2 ∆3 z −0.04 0.00 0.04 ∆2 z −0.05 0.00 ∆1 z −4 −2 0 ηIA −4 −2 0 ηIA −0.06 0.01 ∆1 z −0.03 0.03 ∆2 z 0.0 0.1 ∆3 z 0.1 0.5 ∆4 z Figure 14.Marginalised constraints on the IA and∆ z parameters, in ΛCDM, from the3×2-pt combination of DESI-DR1 projected galaxy clus- tering and HSC-Y3 weak...

    work page 2024