The combination of galaxy-galaxy weak lensing and galaxy clustering is a powerful probe of the cosmological model, and exploration of how to best model and extract this information from the signals is essential. We present the measurement of the galaxy-galaxy weak lensing signals using the SDSS DR11 spectroscopic galaxies as lens galaxies, and the HSC Y3 shear catalog as source galaxies, binned into four tomographic bins by their photometric redshift. The SDSS DR11 galaxies, with a redshift range <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <a:mn>0.15</a:mn> <a:mo><</a:mo> <a:mi>z</a:mi> <a:mo><</a:mo> <a:mn>0.7</a:mn> </a:math> , are binned into three redshift bins, each as a probe for measuring the projected correlation function, <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <c:msub> <c:mi>w</c:mi> <c:mi>p</c:mi> </c:msub> <c:mo stretchy="false">(</c:mo> <c:msub> <c:mi>R</c:mi> <c:mi>p</c:mi> </c:msub> <c:mo stretchy="false">)</c:mo> </c:math> . We measure the galaxy-galaxy lensing signal <g:math xmlns:g="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <g:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</g:mi> <g:mi mathvariant="normal">Σ</g:mi> <g:mo stretchy="false">(</g:mo> <g:msub> <g:mi>R</g:mi> <g:mi>p</g:mi> </g:msub> <g:mo stretchy="false">)</g:mo> </g:math> in 12 lens-source bin pairs and show that there is no evidence for significant systematic biases in the measurement with null testing. We combine our <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <m:msub> <m:mi>w</m:mi> <m:mi>p</m:mi> </m:msub> <m:mo stretchy="false">(</m:mo> <m:msub> <m:mi>R</m:mi> <m:mi>p</m:mi> </m:msub> <m:mo stretchy="false">)</m:mo> </m:math> and <q:math xmlns:q="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <q:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</q:mi> <q:mi mathvariant="normal">Σ</q:mi> <q:mo stretchy="false">(</q:mo> <q:msub> <q:mi>R</q:mi> <q:mi>p</q:mi> </q:msub> <q:mo stretchy="false">)</q:mo> </q:math> ( <w:math xmlns:w="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <w:mn>2</w:mn> <w:mo>×</w:mo> <w:mn>2</w:mn> <w:mi>pt</w:mi> </w:math> ) data vectors and perform likelihood inference with a flat <y:math xmlns:y="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <y:mi mathvariant="normal">Λ</y:mi> <y:mi>CDM</y:mi> </y:math> model. For <bb:math xmlns:bb="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <bb:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</bb:mi> <bb:mi mathvariant="normal">Σ</bb:mi> <bb:mo stretchy="false">(</bb:mo> <bb:msub> <bb:mi>R</bb:mi> <bb:mi>p</bb:mi> </bb:msub> <bb:mo stretchy="false">)</bb:mo> </bb:math> , we extend the lower limit of the scale cut compared to previous HSC Y3 analyses to <hb:math xmlns:hb="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <hb:mrow> <hb:mn>2</hb:mn> <hb:msup> <hb:mrow> <hb:mi>h</hb:mi> </hb:mrow> <hb:mrow> <hb:mo>−</hb:mo> <hb:mn>1</hb:mn> </hb:mrow> </hb:msup> <hb:mtext> </hb:mtext> <hb:mtext> </hb:mtext> <hb:mi>Mpc</hb:mi> </hb:mrow> </hb:math> by including a point-mass correction term in addition to the minimal bias model. We present various tests to validate our model and provide extended consistency tests. In the <jb:math xmlns:jb="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <jb:mi mathvariant="normal">Λ</jb:mi> <jb:mi>CDM</jb:mi> </jb:math> context, our fiducial model yields <mb:math xmlns:mb="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <mb:msub> <mb:mi>S</mb:mi> <mb:mn>8</mb:mn> </mb:msub> <mb:mo>=</mb:mo> <mb:mn>0.80</mb:mn> <mb:msubsup> <mb:mn>4</mb:mn> <mb:mrow> <mb:mo>−</mb:mo> <mb:mn>0.051</mb:mn> </mb:mrow> <mb:mrow> <mb:mo>+</mb:mo> <mb:mn>0.051</mb:mn> </mb:mrow> </mb:msubsup> </mb:math> . The <ob:math xmlns:ob="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <ob:mn>2</ob:mn> <ob:mo>×</ob:mo> <ob:mn>2</ob:mn> <ob:mi>pt</ob:mi> </ob:math> data vector provides redshift parameter constraints for the third and fourth redshift bins <qb:math xmlns:qb="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <qb:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</qb:mi> <qb:msub> <qb:mi>z</qb:mi> <qb:mn>3</qb:mn> </qb:msub> <qb:mo>=</qb:mo> <qb:mo>−</qb:mo> <qb:mn>0.07</qb:mn> <qb:msubsup> <qb:mn>9</qb:mn> <qb:mrow> <qb:mo>−</qb:mo> <qb:mn>0.084</qb:mn> </qb:mrow> <qb:mrow> <qb:mo>+</qb:mo> <qb:mn>0.074</qb:mn> </qb:mrow> </qb:msubsup> </qb:math> , and <tb:math xmlns:tb="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <tb:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</tb:mi> <tb:msub> <tb:mi>z</tb:mi> <tb:mn>4</tb:mn> </tb:msub> <tb:mo>=</tb:mo> <tb:mo>−</tb:mo> <tb:mn>0.20</tb:mn> <tb:msubsup> <tb:mn>3</tb:mn> <tb:mrow> <tb:mo>−</tb:mo> <tb:mn>0.206</tb:mn> </tb:mrow> <tb:mrow> <tb:mo>+</tb:mo> <tb:mn>0.167</tb:mn> </tb:mrow> </tb:msubsup> </tb:math> , which is consistent with results from the previous tomographic cosmic shear studies, and serves as the foundation for a future <wb:math xmlns:wb="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <wb:mn>3</wb:mn> <wb:mo>×</wb:mo> <wb:mn>2</wb:mn> <wb:mi>pt</wb:mi> </wb:math> analysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: