68% confidence levels on three cosmological parameters from the joint DES Y1 probes and other experiments for w context of this model. These factors degrade of the value w = 1.34+0 . 08 0 . 15 returned by th combination. The addition of BAO, SNe, and Planck the DES+Planck combination yields the red c ure 14, shifting the solution substantially al degeneracy direction, demonstrating (i) the tioned above with the DES+Planck (no lensin and (ii) that these problems are resolved when are introduced that restrict the Hubble param able values. The Bayes factor for combination the low-z suite of DES+BAO+SNe in the w R = 699, substantially more supportive of t of experiments than the case for Planck and D DES+Planck+BAO+SNe solution shows good the ⌦m –w–S 8 subspace and yields our final c dark energy equation of state: w = 1.00+0 . 04 0 . 05 . DES Y1 reduces the width of the allowed 68% percent. The evidence ratio Rw = 0.08 for Planck with no lensing (green), bined (red) in the ⌦m, h plane. in the CMB constrain ⌦mh3 ex- nation of ⌦m breaks the degen- h than inferred from Planck only to test the ⇤CDM prediction fer the issue of parameter de- ions. However, there is one ts combined with DES that is ta do not constrain the Hubble shown in Figure 12, the DES bined with Planck’s measure- n the inference of the Hubble l measurements [119]). Since ed value of h moves up. As atively in Table II, the shift is Table II, this shift in the value FIG. 13. ⇤CDM constraints from all three two within DES and BAO, JLA, and Planck (with lens S8 plane. Combining all of these leads to the tightest on ⇤CDM parameters, shown in Table II. Hig of these: at 68% C.L., the combination of D external data sets yields ⌦m = 0.301+0 . 006 0 . 008 . This value is about 1 lower than the value wi with comparable error bars. The clustering am constrained at the percent level: 8 = 0.801 ± 0.014 S 8 = 0.799+0 . 014 0 . 009 . h = 0.682+0 . 006 0 . 006 (D s in the CMB constrain ⌦mh ex- mination of ⌦m breaks the degen- h than inferred from Planck only is to test the ⇤CDM prediction efer the issue of parameter de- ctions. However, there is one ents combined with DES that is ata do not constrain the Hubble s shown in Figure 12, the DES mbined with Planck’s measure- in the inference of the Hubble cal measurements [119]). Since rred value of h moves up. As itatively in Table II, the shift is Table II, this shift in the value are added in. arameters in ⇤CDM FIG. 13. ⇤CDM constraints from all three tw within DES and BAO, JLA, and Planck (with le S8 plane. Combining all of these leads to the tightes on ⇤CDM parameters, shown in Table II. H of these: at 68% C.L., the combination of external data sets yields ⌦m = 0.301+0 . 006 0 . 008 . This value is about 1 lower than the value w with comparable error bars. The clustering a constrained at the percent level: 8 = 0.801 ± 0.014 S 8 = 0.799+0 . 014 0 . 009 . Note that fortuitously, because ⌦m is so clos ference in the central values of 8 and S 8 is combined result is about 1 lower than the in https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.01530.pdf