Papers › Geometry vs growth: Internal consistency of the flat ΛCDM model with KiDS-1000
Geometry vs growth: Internal consistency of the flat ΛCDM model with KiDS-1000
J. Ruiz-Zapatero, Benjamin Stölzner, Benjamin Joachimi, Marika Asgari, Maciej Bilicki, Andrej Dvornik, Benjamin Giblin, Catherine Heymans, Hendrik Hildebrandt, Arun Kannawadi, Konrad Kuijken, TilmanTröster, Jan Luca van den Busch, Angus H. Wright
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
We carry out a multi-probe self-consistency test of the flat ΛCDM model with the aim of exploring potential causes of the reported tensions between high- and low-redshift cosmological observations. We divide the model into two theory regimes determined by the smooth background (geometry) and the evolution of matter density fluctuations (growth), each governed by an independent set of Lambda Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM) cosmological parameters. This extended model is constrained by a combination of weak gravitational lensing measurements from the Kilo-Degree Survey, galaxy clustering signatures extracted from Sloan Digital Sky Survey campaigns and the Six-Degree Field Galaxy Survey, and the angular baryon acoustic scale and the primordial scalar fluctuation power spectrum measured in Planck cosmic microwave background (CMB) data. We find strong consistency between the geometry and growth parameters, and with the posterior of standard ΛCDM analysis. Tension in the amplitude of matter density fluctuations as measured by the parameter S₈ persists at around 3σ, with a 1.5 % constraint of S₈ = 0.776_(-0.008)^(+0.016) for the combined probes. We also observe a less significant preference (at least 2σ) for higher values of the Hubble constant, H₀ = 70.5^(+0.7)_(-1.5) km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹, as well as for lower values of the total matter density parameter Ωₘ = 0.289^(+0.007)_(-0.005) compared to the full Planck analysis. Including the subset of the CMB information in the probe combination enhances these differences rather than alleviate them, which we link to the discrepancy between low and high multipoles in Planck data.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections